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.

Shred is too much of a buff for such a cheap weapon. Bolters basically cost 1 pts more than lazguns.

If you want shred (that's gona make bolters better than s5 against infantry), make them cost at least 4-5 ppm and not 1. This way, the price will get more or less reasonable for the killing power they provide.

I don't mind bolters getting better. It just needs to cost appropriately.

People whine so much about massed s6.
s4 shred shot has 3/4 chance to wound t4 - that's just 10% worse than s6. And 12.5% better than s5. And it's becoming even stronger vs t3 than s6.
And bolters are WAY more common than s6 stuff.

"And bolters are WAY more common than s6 stuff."

Tell that to my Eldar opponents.

Martel732 wrote:
"And bolters are WAY more common than s6 stuff."

Tell that to my Eldar opponents.

Eldar is one army yet bolter-wielders are 6 (7 if AM are included) so yes, bolters are more common.

SGTPozy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"And bolters are WAY more common than s6 stuff."

Tell that to my Eldar opponents.

Eldar is one army yet bolter-wielders are 6 (7 if AM are included) so yes, bolters are more common.

Did you include inquisition with dirt cheap bolter henchmen?

 koooaei wrote:

SGTPozy wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
"And bolters are WAY more common than s6 stuff."

Tell that to my Eldar opponents.

Eldar is one army yet bolter-wielders are 6 (7 if AM are included) so yes, bolters are more common.

Did you include inquisition with dirt cheap bolter henchmen?

Damn, okay so there are 7 or 8 which makes Martel's point even more invalid.

I also think Shred is simply too much for Bolters.

For the record, I think the way Gauss and Shuriken weapons work is totally stupid. I'm in favor of making those less obnoxious more than I am buffing the most ubiquitous weapon for the most ubiquitous army.

Bolters are just fine, until you start introducing mass T6 or better units. Which are just everywhere these days. The fact marines can't really bring enough firepower other than their stock weaponry is the killer.

 SRSFACE wrote:

For the record, I think the way Gauss and Shuriken weapons work is totally stupid.

Do you mean what they do to other units or how they work re dice rolls and tables? I think it's really nice that they roll to hit just like normal shooting, roll to wound just like normal shooting, and roll to save. I think it's apparent from the way that GW designed these rules that they are not keen on wide-scale rules that make the players do extra stuff. For instance, you wouldn't see an army-wide rule that says roll to hit, then sixes to hit get +x str and reroll saves, because then you need to have a separate round of rolling to wound for those special hits. You want the same set of rolls as any other weapon.

Rules like rad and taser are also good examples of things that don't require separate, segregated dice rolls. They just increase the number of dice when you do the normal roll to wound or save.

This is also why I'm never going to use shred as an army-wide rule in my house. It's not something I would feel very smart for doing. It's different for things like Flayed Ones or lightning claws, partly because those are minority units, and also largely because they are in close combat. In shooting, there is a much higher proportion of casualties coming from things like battle cannons, so it's way less relevant to have shred on s4. It's pretty much terrible. You also have people suggesting bladestorm being replaced by shred, so it just seems like something people say for anything.

I think he's complaining about the precedent for small arm ++, but then not equally distributing the power from this concept.

I erred a while back, when I suggested Shred replace Blade storm. I was trying to tone down the hate, but hadn't really thought it through.

On Shurikats, Shred instead of Bladestorm would be bonkers-broken. That was made very obvious very quickly.

But Shurikats are supposed to hit harder than Bolters, as they are better tech but shorter range. Both by fluff and for balance, they should be the stronger gun.

So, if a gun that clearly should be stronger would be bonkers-broken with Shred, how could it be conceivably fair on Bolters?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Counter-thought: what would you think of Snapshots being -2 BS?

A bigger overall change to the game, sure. But it would make Storm Bolters - and Boltguns - have a lot more tactical importance. Without completely wrecking all other armies. Orkz and Nids would cry, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, about that LVO list. It wasn't the standard CentStar. Was more of a few threats, backed up by some LC devs, and more importantly, a gak-ton of boltguns. Look at how it did things. It was the boltguns instead of a real CentStar + the other usual contenders that differentiated that list from all the real CentStar lists.

In other words, Bolter weapons was a big part of what got #2 at LVO.

Bharring wrote:
I erred a while back, when I suggested Shred replace Blade storm. I was trying to tone down the hate, but hadn't really thought it through.

On Shurikats, Shred instead of Bladestorm would be bonkers-broken. That was made very obvious very quickly.

But Shurikats are supposed to hit harder than Bolters, as they are better tech but shorter range. Both by fluff and for balance, they should be the stronger gun.

So, if a gun that clearly should be stronger would be bonkers-broken with Shred, how could it be conceivably fair on Bolters?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Counter-thought: what would you think of Snapshots being -2 BS?

A bigger overall change to the game, sure. But it would make Storm Bolters - and Boltguns - have a lot more tactical importance. Without completely wrecking all other armies. Orkz and Nids would cry, though.

Weapons don't excell at what they aren't designed to do. Shurikens are light projectiles with high velocity and low recoil - hence short range high volume of fire and good penetration (ap2) and assault. Bolts are low velocity large projectiles with high rate of fire and high recoil with an explosive payload. This should give them a profile that has intermediate range, low pentration, and high destructive power (due to high recoil rapid fire should reduce overall effectiveness accuracy (decreased range when rapid fired). 24" is intermediate, Ap5 is low penetration, STR4 fits a large low velocity shot and the weapon is rapid fire...the only thing that's not represented is the explosive round - it needs to be represented somehow. Shred makes the most sense to represent this maybe a dumbed down version of shred would be more appropriate - for example.

Explosive - failed wounds with a weapon with this rule may reroll failed to wound rolls. Rerolls recieve a -1 modifer for every toughness over the strength of the weapon to a minimum of 6+. So bolters would be 5+ reroll 6+ vs t5 targets and 6+ reroll 6+ vs t6-7.

This rule would also be added to heavy bolters as well. Allowing these weapons to excell at infantry killing without become too godly against MC. Or against t5 and t6 targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
I erred a while back, when I suggested Shred replace Blade storm. I was trying to tone down the hate, but hadn't really thought it through.

On Shurikats, Shred instead of Bladestorm would be bonkers-broken. That was made very obvious very quickly.

But Shurikats are supposed to hit harder than Bolters, as they are better tech but shorter range. Both by fluff and for balance, they should be the stronger gun.

So, if a gun that clearly should be stronger would be bonkers-broken with Shred, how could it be conceivably fair on Bolters?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Counter-thought: what would you think of Snapshots being -2 BS?

A bigger overall change to the game, sure. But it would make Storm Bolters - and Boltguns - have a lot more tactical importance. Without completely wrecking all other armies. Orkz and Nids would cry, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, about that LVO list. It wasn't the standard CentStar. Was more of a few threats, backed up by some LC devs, and more importantly, a gak-ton of boltguns. Look at how it did things. It was the boltguns instead of a real CentStar + the other usual contenders that differentiated that list from all the real CentStar lists.

In other words, Bolter weapons was a big part of what got #2 at LVO.

It's chapter tactics and drop pods that do this man. Bolters are just bonus.

Having actually played with both Shred bolters (well, dual shred bolt pistols on jump infantry) and Rending bolters, I can safely say that of the two, Rending is less powerful against infantry, and both are actually fairly insane.

You don't know fear until a unit of seraphim has deep struck behind your cover and unloaded on your infantry squad.