Were Bolters ever Good?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**koooaei**

nedTCM wrote:
Its only awful because you have convinced yourself

bingo

Anywayz, if the thread goes on, i want upgraded shootas too.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Ashiraya wrote:
KingmanHighborn wrote:
Avenger is not BASIC gun.

Then neither is the shoota (instead blasta). Dire Avengers is the closest thing to tacticals Eldar have, which admittedly is not superclose anyway.

Except the shoota is a basic gun. It's available to Ork basic infantry at no points cost.
Avengers are not basic infantry. They are like immortals; they are a step up from troops, but a step below elites.

**Reinokarite**

Shootas are not free, lol. Sluggas are free.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Reinokarite wrote:
Shootas are not free, lol. Sluggas are free.

Ah, I must have been thinking of the old dex then. Still getting a hang of the new dex.
The shoota is still more of a basic weapon than the avenger catapult though.

**Xenomancers**

Blacksails wrote:
Yeah.

Okay, so Space Marines are supposed to be awesome, right? I can get behind that. We have these genetically enhanced, superhuman badasses that only live so they can die in the Emperor's service. It takes decades to train one, and their standard equipment is verging on relic territory.

Cool, grimdark, makes as much sense as anything else in the setting so far. I'm tracking.

Right, so we take these guys, who are all tactical and strategic genuineses down to Battle Brother Moon-moon, who no one likes, and then we send them on special missions in support of larger operations. They're like special forces' badass, better looking older brother, riding a dope ass hog with the hottest girl in town on the back.

Alright, I'm still on board with this.

Oh, but we're also going to send a full company to singlehandedly reclaim a world from some untold millions, nay, billions of Orks.

Because that really makes sense.

I mean, its not like there's some other military organization that excels in mass battle, open warfare, and retaking entire planets, if not systems. Its not like there's some miliatry branch that has a source of much cheaper, still effective, and much more plentiful source of dakka.

Nah, let's just put the marines there instead, because not only are they super badass elite mega soldiers that perform flawless surgical operations, they're also capable of planet wide warfare in the open against numbers far exceeding their own. Because they're totally capable of replenishing themselves as readily as say, I dunno, the Imperial Guard. No, its totally cool if marines start getting portrayed as masters of everything, who are totally invincible, and can fight off Imperial Navy battlefleets, and combined forces of the inquisition, and staving off planets of Orks, and daemons, or hive fleets.

There couldn't possibly be another faction that could be used to throw into the meat grinder. Let's use our super expensive, mega badass marines to hold a fort against the endless tides of enemies of the Imperium.

And that's not even getting into the ridiculousness of most of the big chapters and their absurd fluff inconsistencies or general stupidity.

What a confused mess.

Have I told you how I really feel about marines?

You have told us exactly how you feel. You don't think Marines are special (they are) and you think they are taking your precious IG limelight. Marines are actually limited in scale because it was proven by Horas that space marine legions were too powerful - for the safety of mankind they are limited to small numbers and it has proven countless times that even small numbers of space marines are able to cleanse entire armies. It's pretty hard to translate this awesomeness onto the tabletop because quite frankly - marines don't lose - unless it's to chaos and then the Grey Knights arrive and banish the daemons and purge the whole planet. It's nothing to be butt hurt about. Your argument about efficiency doesn't make sense. If you've got an army that can win a battle with 50 men and relic equipment and is completely self-reliant not requiring resupply or imperial fleets to drive off an enemy why would you send 5 million men to the slaughter to get the same results. Unrealistic? Yes. Thats how the fluff goes though.

**Alcibiades**

It's pretty hard to translate this awesomeness onto the tabletop because it's ridiculous and hence cannot be simulated.

**Nocturus**

If you tried to translate the fluff marines onto the tabletop they would be unbeatable. That would not make for a fun game.

Noc

**The Wise Dane**

It's also important to take into account that, no matter hwat you feel about it, the Imperium are the main protagonists, and the Space Marines the avatars of everything the Imperium is. Therefor, many stories are told so the main characters (Marines) have succes through trail and error, alongside the ever-present protagonist's fate of "I might fail and flail all the way through, but I'll go through in the end".

So when Marines take out a planet of Orks, it's to show what their shtick is: Humanity feth Yeah in small, power armoured cans of Screw You, Xeno!. When Longstrike can destroy entire battle lines of Leman Russes, it's to show his "I'm a prime Imperium Vehicle hunter" schtick. It's not representing them in their true, honest light. It's just an awesome moment for that particular faction.

Anyway, it has nothing to do with the game itself - The game is largely simulationistic in nature, trying to square off these awesome characters and factions against each other, without scewering the favour in either direction. It's ain't how most fluff works, but it's fair to all parts indvolved.

**vipoid**

Xenomancers wrote:

You have told us exactly how you feel. You don't think Marines are special (they are) and you think they are taking your precious IG limelight.

Hello Marine Fanboy #4561, nice to meet you.

Xenomancers wrote:
Marines are actually limited in scale because it was proven by Horas that space marine legions were too powerful - for the safety of mankind they are limited to small numbers

That seems like dubious logic, to me.

Xenomancers wrote:
it has proven countless times that even small numbers of space marines are able to cleanse entire armies.

Which is really easy when all you have to do to "prove" this is write "Space Marines are awsome and killed everyone!". I imagine if actual tactics were involved, it might be a bit trickier for them to do all the crap they supposedly do.

And, if they *can* somehow do all that crap, then it seems limiting their numbers is a bit redundant. Apparently they already have the numbers to just win everything ever anyway.

Xenomancers wrote:
It's pretty hard to translate this awesomeness onto the tabletop because quite frankly - marines don't lose

So, they're an army of Mary Sues? Outstanding.

Can't imagine why that doesn't translate well to a game.

Xenomancers wrote:
It's nothing to be butt hurt about.

Says the person posting just because he's been butt hurt.

Xenomancers wrote:
It's nothing to be butt hurt about. Your argument about efficiency doesn't make sense. If you've got an army that can win a battle with 50 men and relic equipment and is completely self-reliant not requiring resupply

A few things:

- Perhaps not everyone is just willing to accept that SMs can win any battle with just 50 men. Especially when those battles are over large areas, where SMs can't hold any ground.

- Why don't they require re-supply? I'm not an expert on marine fluff, but do bolters not require ammunition? Or, can marines just poop out bullets on demand?

Xenomancers wrote:
or imperial fleets to drive off an enemy

Wait... they don't require fleets now either? How do they win space battles then? How do they stop enemies from getting air-superiority? Or, can bolters take out space ships when fired from the surface of a planet?

Xenomancers wrote:
why would you send 5 million men to the slaughter to get the same results.

Because, even assuming marines can do any of that nonsense, you might actually want to hold the planet afterwards? How are 50 marines going to accomplish that.

Xenomancers wrote:
Unrealistic? Yes. Thats how the fluff goes though.

Which, I believe, was his entire point. You can't just handwave that degree of ridiculousness.

**Sidstyler**

vipoid wrote:
Or, can bolters take out space ships when fired from the surface of a planet?

They might as well. We have people arguing in this thread that the boltgun is supposed to put out so many shots as to clear entire hordes of enemies, while also packing the punch to be used as an effective anti-tank weapon. Might as well just go full slow and make it a reliable AA or orbital defense weapon, too.

**Blacksails**

Xenomancers wrote:

You have told us exactly how you feel. You don't think Marines are special (they are) and you think they are taking your precious IG limelight. Marines are actually limited in scale because it was proven by Horas that space marine legions were too powerful - for the safety of mankind they are limited to small numbers and it has proven countless times that even small numbers of space marines are able to cleanse entire armies. It's pretty hard to translate this awesomeness onto the tabletop because quite frankly - marines don't lose - unless it's to chaos and then the Grey Knights arrive and banish the daemons and purge the whole planet. It's nothing to be butt hurt about. Your argument about efficiency doesn't make sense. If you've got an army that can win a battle with 50 men and relic equipment and is completely self-reliant not requiring resupply or imperial fleets to drive off an enemy why would you send 5 million men to the slaughter to get the same results. Unrealistic? Yes. Thats how the fluff goes though.

Yeah, vipoid covered this pretty well too.

If that's what you got from my post, I suggest you re-read it. Maybe chuckle once or twice. You do understand that Space Marines are not super serious business, right?

Anyways, you've illustrated exactly what's wrong with the fluff with your post, which I guess only goes to support what I said.

Carry on with your head canon that marines are the end all be all and that it makes perfect sense for them to be everywhere and do everything.

And apparently I'm the butt hurt one. Mhmm. I'm not saying you didn't understand what I wrote...but I'm saying you didn't understand what I wrote.

**Xenomancers**

Blacksails wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

You have told us exactly how you feel. You don't think Marines are special (they are) and you think they are taking your precious IG limelight. Marines are actually limited in scale because it was proven by Horas that space marine legions were too powerful - for the safety of mankind they are limited to small numbers and it has proven countless times that even small numbers of space marines are able to cleanse entire armies. It's pretty hard to translate this awesomeness onto the tabletop because quite frankly - marines don't lose - unless it's to chaos and then the Grey Knights arrive and banish the daemons and purge the whole planet. It's nothing to be butt hurt about. Your argument about efficiency doesn't make sense. If you've got an army that can win a battle with 50 men and relic equipment and is completely self-reliant not requiring resupply or imperial fleets to drive off an enemy why would you send 5 million men to the slaughter to get the same results. Unrealistic? Yes. Thats how the fluff goes though.

Yeah, vipoid covered this pretty well too.

If that's what you got from my post, I suggest you re-read it. Maybe chuckle once or twice. You do understand that Space Marines are not super serious business, right?

Anyways, you've illustrated exactly what's wrong with the fluff with your post, which I guess only goes to support what I said.

Carry on with your head canon that marines are the end all be all and that it makes perfect sense for them to be everywhere and do everything.

And apparently I'm the butt hurt one. Mhmm. I'm not saying you didn't understand what I wrote...but I'm saying you didn't understand what I wrote.

Theres nothing wrong with the fluff. This is a fantasy land. There is nothing in the writing to suggest that marines should not be killy. On the table top they are far from killy. They are plenty tough i suppose - but that doesn't matter when everything out damages you and you still cost more points. Something is wrong when scouts are a better option than Tacticals. I blame the bolter 50% and terrible cover rules for the other 50%.

**Blacksails**

Xenomancers wrote:

Theres nothing wrong with the fluff.

You'll find that people will disagree with that statement. Things like Murderface McMurderMurder aren't something I'd call 'right'.

This is a fantasy land.

That's not a valid excuse for terrible writing.

There is nothing in the writing to suggest that marines should not be killy.

And nowhere have made that claim. Quite the opposite if you've been reading what I wrote.

On the table top they are far from killy. They are plenty tough i suppose - but that doesn't matter when everything out damages you and you still cost more points. Something is wrong when scouts are a better option than Tacticals. I blame the bolter 50% and terrible cover rules for the other 50%.

Which is an entirely separate issue from the fluff.

**Alcibiades**

They cannot be as killy on the TT as in the BL fluff because the BL fluff does not make sense. It is impossible to translate "50 guys win a battle" into TT because it is impossible in reality, and the TT attempts, however hamfistedly, to simulate reality.

If you gave every marine 10s across the board in their statline with a 2+ inv save and made their boltguns into rapid-fire demolisher cannons, 50 of them could not win a battle.

**Xenomancers**

vipoid wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

You have told us exactly how you feel. You don't think Marines are special (they are) and you think they are taking your precious IG limelight.

Hello Marine Fanboy #4561, nice to meet you.

Xenomancers wrote:
Marines are actually limited in scale because it was proven by Horas that space marine legions were too powerful - for the safety of mankind they are limited to small numbers

That seems like dubious logic, to me.

Xenomancers wrote:
it has proven countless times that even small numbers of space marines are able to cleanse entire armies.

Which is really easy when all you have to do to "prove" this is write "Space Marines are awsome and killed everyone!". I imagine if actual tactics were involved, it might be a bit trickier for them to do all the crap they supposedly do.

And, if they *can* somehow do all that crap, then it seems limiting their numbers is a bit redundant. Apparently they already have the numbers to just win everything ever anyway.

Xenomancers wrote:
It's pretty hard to translate this awesomeness onto the tabletop because quite frankly - marines don't lose

So, they're an army of Mary Sues? Outstanding.

Can't imagine why that doesn't translate well to a game.

Xenomancers wrote:
It's nothing to be butt hurt about.

Says the person posting just because he's been butt hurt.

Xenomancers wrote:
It's nothing to be butt hurt about. Your argument about efficiency doesn't make sense. If you've got an army that can win a battle with 50 men and relic equipment and is completely self-reliant not requiring resupply

A few things:

- Perhaps not everyone is just willing to accept that SMs can win any battle with just 50 men. Especially when those battles are over large areas, where SMs can't hold any ground.

- Why don't they require re-supply? I'm not an expert on marine fluff, but do bolters not require ammunition? Or, can marines just poop out bullets on demand?

Xenomancers wrote:
or imperial fleets to drive off an enemy

Wait... they don't require fleets now either? How do they win space battles then? How do they stop enemies from getting air-superiority? Or, can bolters take out space ships when fired from the surface of a planet?

Xenomancers wrote:
why would you send 5 million men to the slaughter to get the same results.

Because, even assuming marines can do any of that nonsense, you might actually want to hold the planet afterwards? How are 50 marines going to accomplish that.

Xenomancers wrote:
Unrealistic? Yes. Thats how the fluff goes though.

Which, I believe, was his entire point. You can't just handwave that degree of ridiculousness.

Typically marines do not require their fleets. A thunder-hawk can usually get the job done. Hold the planet? Thats what the IG are for. IG are comparable to the national guard. Marines are like Navy seals.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Alcibiades wrote:
They cannot be as killy on the TT as in the BL fluff because the BL fluff does not make sense. It is impossible to translate "50 guys win a battle" into TT because it is impossible in reality, and the TT attempts, however hamfistedly, to simulate reality.

If you gave every marine 10s across the board in their statline with a 2+ inv save and made their boltguns into rapid-fire demolisher cannons, 50 of them could not win a battle.

How about give them a rending bolter and we will see what happens.

**CthuluIsSpy**

Eldar already have that gimmick. Stop taking people's gimmicks.

If they are to have a gimmick, give them something unique. Like, forcing successful saves of a 6 to reroll.

**Blacksails**

Xenomancers wrote:

Typically marines do not require their fleets. A thunder-hawk can usually get the job done.

Erm, how are the marines going from planet to planet, without requiring their fleet?

Hold the planet? Thats what the IG are for. IG are comparable to the national guard. Marines are like Navy seals.

Its not like that was the point I was making, which you were refuting, but now seem to have just re-stated what I said earlier.

**Deadnight**

Xenomancers wrote:

Typically marines do not require their fleets. A thunder-hawk can usually get the job done. Hold the planet? Thats what the IG are for. IG are comparable to the national guard. Marines are like Navy seals.
.

Yes, and with all two of their thunder hawks, right?

If they don't require their fleets, then how do they get to the planet? How do they secure the necessary 'high ground' ie orbital supremacy that would be necessary prior to insertion of assets without the fleet?

And regarding that comment about the national guard,I assume you've heard of Cadia, and Krieg, right?

**Ashiraya**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ashiraya wrote:
KingmanHighborn wrote:
Avenger is not BASIC gun.

Then neither is the bolter. Dire Avengers is the closest thing to tacticals Eldar have, which admittedly is not superclose anyway.

What? The bolter is the basic SM gun, just as the lasgun is the basic IG gun, and the pulse rifle or carbine is the basic tau gun.

And the Avenger is the basic Eldar gun.

If you are going to use the weaker Guardian weapons as basic weapons, then you should use gretchin Blastas as Ork basic weapons as well.

**rigeld2**

Xenomancers wrote:
Alcibiades wrote:
They cannot be as killy on the TT as in the BL fluff because the BL fluff does not make sense. It is impossible to translate "50 guys win a battle" into TT because it is impossible in reality, and the TT attempts, however hamfistedly, to simulate reality.

If you gave every marine 10s across the board in their statline with a 2+ inv save and made their boltguns into rapid-fire demolisher cannons, 50 of them could not win a battle.

How about give them a rending bolter and we will see what happens.

How about not because Eldar pseudo-rending is annoying/bad enough?

**Vaktathi**

Ashiraya wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ashiraya wrote:
KingmanHighborn wrote:
Avenger is not BASIC gun.

Then neither is the bolter. Dire Avengers is the closest thing to tacticals Eldar have, which admittedly is not superclose anyway.

What? The bolter is the basic SM gun, just as the lasgun is the basic IG gun, and the pulse rifle or carbine is the basic tau gun.

And the Avenger is the basic Eldar gun.

If you are going to use the weaker Guardian weapons as basic weapons, then you should use gretchin Blastas as Ork basic weapons as well.

The Avenger shuriken catapult is a unique weapon available to that one unit. The Guardian shuriken catapult is in fact their "basic" gun, and is found as a secondary weapon on multiple other units. The comparison to grots is inappropriate, grots are a unit herded into battle by Ork overseers and are not in any way considered the standard soldier of an Ork force but are in fact a cheap disposable unit. Guardians are the standard widespread soldiers of the Eldar, Dire Avengers are something akin to the Eldar's equivalent of the Stormtoopers/Scions (which are troops in two different army lists despite their "elite" status).

**Tiger9gamer**

wow lots of angry players on this page. yeeeeesh.

there are things that can make the boltgun a bit better, like the Banner of Devastation from the DA or even the Sentinels of terra chapter tactics. both of those adds buffs and limitations for the way the weapons change.

I think that's the way to go for making them a bit better. FW has both the Raptor tactic rules where they turn into heavy 1 rending bolters when they stand still and aim.

There is a bunch of HH legion things that make bolters fairly good while providing some limits on how it's used also (think fury of the legion)

**Ashiraya**

Vaktathi wrote:
Ashiraya wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Ashiraya wrote:
KingmanHighborn wrote:
Avenger is not BASIC gun.

Then neither is the bolter. Dire Avengers is the closest thing to tacticals Eldar have, which admittedly is not superclose anyway.

What? The bolter is the basic SM gun, just as the lasgun is the basic IG gun, and the pulse rifle or carbine is the basic tau gun.

And the Avenger is the basic Eldar gun.

If you are going to use the weaker Guardian weapons as basic weapons, then you should use gretchin Blastas as Ork basic weapons as well.
The Avenger shuriken catapult is a unique weapon available to that one unit. The Guardian shuriken catapult is in fact their "basic" gun, and is found as a secondary weapon on multiple other units. The comparison to grots is inappropriate, grots are a unit herded into battle by Ork overseers and are not in any way considered the standard soldier of an Ork force but are in fact a cheap disposable unit. Guardians are the standard widespread soldiers of the Eldar, Dire Avengers are something akin to the Eldar's equivalent of the Stormtoopers/Scions (which are troops in two different army lists despite their "elite" status).

Far from it. Eldar Aspect Warriors are the Eldar's main soldier force, and the DAs are the most numerous of those. Guardians are militia.

Eldar have no true equivalent to Scions since their army hierarchy is different. I feel that if we should compare basic units, we should at least compare standing armies, not militia raised on an as-needed basis.

**Vaktathi**

Aspect Warriors are by no means necessarily the primary soldiery of the craftworlds, the Eldar codex flatly states that amongst many the Guardians are by far the most common Eldar troops.

They may be "militia" in the sense that they're raised from citizen levies, but they're by far the largest source of Troops the Eldar have, and provide the Eldar with many of their weapons systems and crew all of their vehicles in addition to serving as infantry. They're going to be present in every single Eldar army, even if only as vehicle crew.

**Martel732**

The debate is meaningless because Eldar don't have to use a single regular catapult in any list they ever build. They might as well not exist.

**Vaktathi**

Most don't run anything but minimum sized squads of dire avengers either, who just sit in their wave serpents

**Ashiraya**

Vaktathi wrote:
Aspect Warriors are by no means necessarily the primary soldiery of the craftworlds, the Eldar codex flatly states that amongst many the Guardians are by far the most common Eldar troops.

They may be "militia" in the sense that they're raised from citizen levies, but they're by far the largest source of Troops the Eldar have, and provide the Eldar with many of their weapons systems and crew all of their vehicles in addition to serving as infantry. They're going to be present in every single Eldar army, even if only as vehicle crew.

Rippers are also generally more numerous than Termagants, but I don't see you propagating Ripper teeth and claws as the Tyranid basic weapon.

**Vaktathi**

Ashiraya wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Aspect Warriors are by no means necessarily the primary soldiery of the craftworlds, the Eldar codex flatly states that amongst many the Guardians are by far the most common Eldar troops.

They may be "militia" in the sense that they're raised from citizen levies, but they're by far the largest source of Troops the Eldar have, and provide the Eldar with many of their weapons systems and crew all of their vehicles in addition to serving as infantry. They're going to be present in every single Eldar army, even if only as vehicle crew.

Rippers are also generally more numerous than Termagants, but I don't see you propagating Ripper teeth and claws as the Tyranid basic weapon.

And that's what we call a false equivalency. Nobody is going to consider the relationship between Rippers and Gaunts or Warriors the same as the relationship between Guardians and Dire Avengers.

**Martel732**

Vaktathi wrote:
Most don't run anything but minimum sized squads of dire avengers either, who just sit in their wave serpents

Why would they do anything else? Doing that gives a player like me zero targets for bolters.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:
Ashiraya wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Aspect Warriors are by no means necessarily the primary soldiery of the craftworlds, the Eldar codex flatly states that amongst many the Guardians are by far the most common Eldar troops.

They may be "militia" in the sense that they're raised from citizen levies, but they're by far the largest source of Troops the Eldar have, and provide the Eldar with many of their weapons systems and crew all of their vehicles in addition to serving as infantry. They're going to be present in every single Eldar army, even if only as vehicle crew.

Rippers are also generally more numerous than Termagants, but I don't see you propagating Ripper teeth and claws as the Tyranid basic weapon.
And that's what we call a false equivalency. Nobody is going to consider the relationship between Rippers and Gaunts or Warriors the same as the relationship between Guardians and Dire Avengers.

As I said, it doesn't matter because there are no restrictions on having 100% special snowflake catapults in a list and 0% "regular" catapults. The "regular" ones might as well not exist.

**Vaktathi**

Martel732 wrote:
Vaktathi wrote:
Most don't run anything but minimum sized squads of dire avengers either, who just sit in their wave serpents

Why would they do anything else? Doing that gives a player like me zero targets for bolters.

The point was that there wasn't much use of Shuriken catapults in general on infantry, Avenger or otherwise, if we're really getting down to it.

Likewise, your tac marines aren't likely taking a face full of bladestorm shots from full squads of dire avengers or guardians either.

As I said, it doesn't matter because there are no restrictions on having 100% special snowflake catapults in a list and 0% "regular" catapults. The "regular" ones might as well not exist.

They're still on Bikes, and secondary weapons on every Eldar tank.