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.

There's a lot of people on here calling for changes to things like bolters and heavy bolters but how would GW even go about changing the rules for them? They're in 3/4 of the codices and the rulebook.

I guess at the rate the codices are being updated these days its possible but it would be really hard and awkward for a long time with some armies having the new rules and others not.

Any thoughts on this?

Off the top of my head:

+1 S - The easy option, PsyBolts in the prior GK codex were key in making shooty marines more effective. Likewise, people wanted to play heavy bolter razorbacks.

"Bolt"- A new special rule, mini rending. To wound roles of 6 are AP 2 or 3 and armor penetration roles of 6 are resolved at +1, +d2 or +2 Strength.

Either would make them better against heavy infantry and a threat against light armor - what you really want out of a gun that shoots exploding bolts.

No i don't mean which rules would they change i mean how would they physically go about rewriting it in every codex that uses them

GW could just acutally use an FAQ/Errata to fix broken rules, fix stats or cost for underpowered/overpowered units, and change units to match.

It would actually be quite simple for them to change the stats for Scouts, or add attacks for Dreads, or change Heavy Bolters, etc. GW just refuses to care enough to balance their monstrosity and have no care to inequity.

Taffy17 wrote:
No i don't mean which rules would they change i mean how would they physically go about rewriting it in every codex that uses them

Oh? An Errata to the BRB would do it:

The following weapons in all codices now have the "Bolt" special rule:

Bolt Pistol
Boltgun
Combi-Weapon
Storm Bolter
Heavy Bolter

Combi-weapons firing their special weapon, or bolt weapons firing special ammunition with its own profile, do not benefit from the "Bolt" rule.

Just add Shred to them. FFG's 40k RPG line gave both Bolters and Chainswords the rule Tearing, which allow you to roll one extra damage dice and discard the smaller one.

They could change them by dialing everything back.

Taffy17 wrote:
No i don't mean which rules would they change i mean how would they physically go about rewriting it in every codex that uses them

given that every codex that uses them simply refers you to the BRB line for bolt weaponry that's dead easy. they'd just have to FAQ the core rules

GW has changed bolters numerous times, mainly by changing the rules for Rapid Fire weapons.

Pseudo rending like shuriken weapons.

Shred would be best as it would make them on par with other basic guns and unique (as Str 5 is Tau and rending is Eldar).

Implement the changes in 8th Edition

 wuestenfux wrote:
Pseudo rending like shuriken weapons.

I actually disagree with this bolt weapons have never struck me as exceptionally armor peircing.

Shred given how the weapon is described seems to make more sense.


course if we just wanna buff Marines in general and specificly tatical squads here's an idea.

Tatical Command: While the squad sergent is in the squad, the squad may choose to split fire.


this'd make heavy weapons in tatical squads a reasonably useful thing.

But not that useful as they are just imperial heavies on non-relentless platforms. If marines have access to the scatter laser, I'd agree more. But all of their heavies save grav cannon are very sup par.

Martel732 wrote:
But not that useful as they are just imperial heavies on non-relentless platforms. If marines have access to the scatter laser, I'd agree more. But all of their heavies save grav cannon are very sup par.

yeah I'll give you that, and tac marines work best when mobile.

A rule to represent the exploding part of the bolt, if it hits its going to explode, and if its penetrated its going to explode several inches deep in your vital organs shreading anything close to site of impacts.

That's a serious injury, your not going to shrug that off unless your a spacemarine or big Beastie.

I agree with the consensus that shred would be excellent.

Slap it on chain weapons as well.

Shred on boltguns is probably not a consensus. It usually gets dropped fairly quickly when it comes up in Proposed Rules.

I would definitely be a bit more impressed with marines on the table if they had shred shooting and maybe rending melee with chainswords. That would make them feel a bit more elite and threatening.

Shred is probably too powerful imo - I'd go with a simple 'Bolt weapons re-roll To Wound rolls of 1'. Can give it to Chain weapons as well.

You have to be very careful with mucking around with bolters, now that there are new formations that make tacticals a lot more attractive. Add a lot of proposed buffs (even +1S) to a Gladius company, and suddenly, tactical marines look damn scary.

 Talys wrote:
You have to be very careful with mucking around with bolters, now that there are new formations that make tacticals a lot more attractive. Add a lot of proposed buffs (even +1S) to a Gladius company, and suddenly, tactical marines look damn scary.

To the lower tier things maybe. But a lot of top table tourney units still wouldn't care. After running a battle company through a big tourney, I'd say shred on all the bolt shells would've been marginally helpful, but not game changing. Wounding isn't actually that much of an issue. It's fortune'd jetbikes and "armor + RP + reroll RP" necrons mitigating your damage output to a tiny fraction of what it was.

I think straight up shred would be healthy for bolters. Marines don't have enough bodies, or enough actual shots for it to really break things.
For example, with shred, a full 10 man tac unit rapid firing would only drop two necron warriors from a decurion, and still only stick 1 wound on a harvest wraith. Not exactly the most damage ever.

My feeling people still buy space marines no matter whether they are good or not. If they did change bolters, probably the eighth or ninth edition rule book. FAQ? That doesn't sell anything.

 GoonBandito wrote:
Shred is probably too powerful imo - I'd go with a simple 'Bolt weapons re-roll To Wound rolls of 1'. Can give it to Chain weapons as well.

I think that of all the armies that have special rules on their main gun, Eldar, Necrons, Skitarii, Dark Eldar, none of them normally do re-rolls. The closest you can come are spinefists, and strictly speaking they're an upgrade. I think the thread is "what would GW do," and I think it is pretty clear they won't put re-rolls stock on an army-wide weapon unless you make the choice to take those chapter tactics.

So how would GW change bolters? I think it wouldn't be shred.

Personally I am happier that way. Gauss, Bladestorm, Poison all change what the unit can do. With shred you shoot at the same things you were shooting before.

pelicaniforce wrote:
Well it's still very discouraging that these posts are all so oblivious to the topic, which how would it be possible for GW to make a change take effect all at once across all of these books. It could be about lascannons, chain swords, or any other imperial weapon too.

My feeling is they wouldn't, since people still buy space marines no matter whether they are good or not. If they did, probably the eighth or ninth edition rule book.

 GoonBandito wrote:
Shred is probably too powerful imo - I'd go with a simple 'Bolt weapons re-roll To Wound rolls of 1'. Can give it to Chain weapons as well.

I think that of all the armies that have special rules on their main gun, Eldar, Necrons, Skitarii, Dark Eldar, none of them normally do re-rolls. The closest you can come are spinefists, and strictly speaking they're an upgrade. I think the thread is "what would GW do," and I think it is pretty clear they won't put re-rolls stock on an army-wide weapon unless you make the choice to take those chapter tactics.

So how would GW change bolters? I think it wouldn't be shred.

Personally I am happier that way. Gauss, Bladestorm, Poison all change what the unit can do. With shred you shoot at the same things you were shooting before.

... Except that has been answered, previously in the thread. Three or four times.

Shred would be good. I don't get why SM aren't relentless, given the background. I don't think it would be too gamebreaking either but YMMV

it'd be an FAQ/ Errata to either the BRB or a general document applying to the various marine dexs.

But they really do not need anything.

To wound rolls of 6 on Boltguns CombiBoltguns, Heavy Boltguns and Bolt Pistols are resolved at Double strength and have the Instant Death USR.

Now on lucky 6s, your trained warriors who can shoot the nuts off a squirrel at 100 paces, have access to critical hits. It's not stupid over powered, the stats stay the same, but 6s actually make this whole, you know, luck based game, worth rolling dice for.

 GoliothOnline wrote:
To wound rolls of 6 on Boltguns CombiBoltguns, Heavy Boltguns and Bolt Pistols are resolved at Double strength and have the Instant Death USR.

Now on lucky 6s, your trained warriors who can shoot the nuts off a squirrel at 100 paces, have access to critical hits. It's not stupid over powered, the stats stay the same, but 6s actually make this whole, you know, luck based game, worth rolling dice for.

Yaaaaaaaay.

Eat it, FNP armies. But ID against a wraith lord? Maybe double strength by itself would be fine.

A bolt pistol with a 1/6 chance of instant killing a giant multi wound monstreous creature.

[sarcastic]That sounds like a wonderful solution![/sarcastic]

 Silverthorne wrote:

I don't get why SM aren't relentless, given the background. I don't think it would be too gamebreaking either but YMMV

Not too game breaking no. You still have the same single melta shot with each unit, or maybe a melta shot and a lascannon shot.

Shred would be good.

Would GW do it? I don't think they would do re-rolls. I don't see how it would be good either.

Why do bolters need changed? I feel like I am missing something. Basically there are bolters that are the mainstay of the imperium then all the xenos are different as they have different weapons otherwise we would all just be playing marines with different models. Also consider:

A base bolter is 24" rapid fire, meanwhile the equivalent shuriken catapult is 12", same number of shots at this range and gains bladestorm.

A heavy bolter is 36" 3 shots while the equivalent shuriken cannon is only 24" but gains a strength and bladestorm while losing an AP.

Basically bolters trade longer range for less hitting power when compared to shuriken weapons. This also doesn't even compare the models using each, in general the bolter unit is considerably more survivable, let alone the other rules the models have. Other weapons, namely guass weapons, are generally straight up better then the equivalent bolter/anything, but they come with costs theoretically built into the model and its rules. For instance boltguns vs guass flayers, guass flayers are simply better, but warriors can't take heavy/special weapons and are only allowed in units of 10, their transports are expensive, etc etc. There are built in rules

It also would be so silly if, for instance, bolters gained shred then your Ultramarine Battle Company literally rerolls to hit/wound almost the entire game with bolt weapons.

It seems like bolters are fine and are just the MEQ of the 40K weapon world. Any change to them, namely a buff, would break the internet as all other weapons would need changed as well and then the outcry of why are these xenos weapons getting buffed would collapse 40K society.

Might be fun to make them Salvo 2/3 (I love Salvo) but anything other than that (and maybe that) I would view as excessive.