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.

The assault cannon crutch looks like its getting the nerf hammer, too.

This thread is hilarious. It makes it sound like marine players are the true "hard times" martyrs of 40k. It must be so difficult to play.

On topic. Im of the opinion bolt weapons and marines as a whole (not counting rowboat/stormraven/razor as we all.know the score with that) are fine. If I support any change to space marines, it would be that tacs have objective secured+1 in that they always beat other objective secured units, and maybe a fury of the legion esque rule too. Other than that. I also think if you want an army to have all the best options or the same stuff as everyone else, maybe play a different game for a bit.

Bobug wrote:
This thread is hilarious. It makes it sound like marine players are the true "hard times" martyrs of 40k. It must be so difficult to play.

Not really. Its mostly a lamentation that your basic marine with a bolter has always been too expensive. Marines as a faction have always done ok, but they're dragging around the Troop tax. They have to pay a lot of points to bring special weapons that actually get work done by taking along a lot of bolter derps.

It's why the term Troop tax even exists. In order to take the cool stuff, you had to take bolter marines who were only really good for sitting on objectives. Primaris Marines don't have as much of this issue.

Bharring wrote:
What basic weapons do you think are acceptable for killing hordes?

Pulse weaponry isn't any better at killing T3 than T4
Gauss weaponry is better at killing elitest saves
Shuriken weaponry is better at killing elistest saves
Splinter weaponry is better at killing high-T models - even worse than Bolters vs GEQ.

Lasguns are the only other small arms option that isn't skewed to killing Elites over GEQ.

1. The Pulse Rifle has an easier Rapid Fire range to get, and the max range means most hordes have to get closer to get any objective they might be holding. It's not a better horde killer, but just a strictly better weapon.
2. That depends on the weapon. Blasters are S5 AP-2, whereas the Flayer is on a cheaper model and is S4 AP-1. That cheaper body is better for killing hordes, but ask any of us Necron players how that works out. Hint: it doesn't.
3. That's only partly true until the units are in cover. Then the Shuriken weapon is still ignoring their saves. However, being better at elite killing is depending on the price of the elite.
4. I don't see anyone being able to defend Splinter Rifles on this so I won't bother.

So really we are just pointing out there's either a pricing issue on hordes, or that the Bolter isn't any good at it. Especially when you consider all the fancy rules most of those weapons get (granted though, Assault as a profile means less than it used to).
So we either throw the Bolter a bone, or make all those weapons worse at their jobs. I think the answer is obvious.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
And Scouts can choose either the Boltgun or the Shotgun (or Sniper Rifles).

Guardians, unlike Scouts and Tac Marines, really can't endure being within 12" of the enemy. I'd rather have the Shuriken Catapault on my Tacs and Scouts, and the Boltgun on my Guardians - because they could do a midfield job so much better with that, but my Scouts and Marines want to get close.

Scouts make better foils for Guardians than Tac Marines, and Tac Marines make better foils for DAs.

The comparison is best with a Plas/CombiPlas Tac squad vs DAs, because they're both volume of fire with an anti-Elite bent. At a per-point level, that's 5 Tacs vs 7 DAs. About the same firepower. About the same survivability. They actually compare, math-wise, quite well. DAs are now a little ahead (if they cost 13 ppm or had to pay for the Exarch, I think it'd be even), as long as you don't look at CC options.

You kinda missed the point there. Nobody is taking Scouts with Bolters. They're always either Shotguns, CCW, or Sniper. You only choose Bolter if you're being a fluffbunny.

Hence why the comparison of the Shuriken Catapult being a more equal weapon to the Bolter is a garbage comparison. It doesn't come on a unit with a familiar role, and doesn't even have near close the same profile. Dire Avengers are more equated to Tactical Marines, so the base weapon is more comparable just like with Flayers, Blasters, Shootas, Galvanic Rifles, etc. Guardians and Storm Guardians and Rangers are more equated with Scouts, so there's the comparison of Shotguns, CCW, and Sniper Rifle vs the Shuriken Catapult and those same things.

IMO, you have to put this issue on a different perspective - weapon strength for the most part, is supposed to be about how well it can hurt tougher targets, not how well it deals with hordes.

None of the basic weapons at S3~5 wounds on 2+ except for few rare T2 (is there any?).

S3 guns need to roll 5+ for T4 and above with roll of 6+ for T6 and above
S4 guns need to roll 5+ for T5 and above with roll of 6+ for T8 and above
S5 guns need to roll 5+ for T6 and above with roll of 6+ for T10 and above

T5's can be found mostly on heavier infantries. T6-7 comprise of light vehicles and flyers.

Here we see that while S5 weapons are better than S4 for heavy infantries, the potential wound output evens out at T6-7 at both strengths. S5 weapons can effectively wound almost everything in the game, while S4 weapons can effectively wound anything short of LR equivalents.

Gretchen are T2. As far as I know no Orks are using them though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Bobug wrote:
This thread is hilarious. It makes it sound like marine players are the true "hard times" martyrs of 40k. It must be so difficult to play.

Not really. Its mostly a lamentation that your basic marine with a bolter has always been too expensive. Marines as a faction have always done ok, but they're dragging around the Troop tax. They have to pay a lot of points to bring special weapons that actually get work done by taking along a lot of bolter derps.

It's why the term Troop tax even exists. In order to take the cool stuff, you had to take bolter marines who were only really good for sitting on objectives. Primaris Marines don't have as much of this issue.

And if the rumor is true that Intercessors are going down in price, the Tactical Marine unit entry has no excuse existing.

It probably also doesn't help that any strength wounds any toughness on 6s now.

It was better back when certain weapons were useless vs certain toughnesses/armor values so you could have a low strength weapon with an absurdly high rate of fire. You couldn't kill a LRBT with massed lasgun fire, but you could mow down gaunts. But now the weapon would be equally good at killing both. High enough RoF to just force enough 6s to wound through, while still shredding infantry.

Maybe we need a new special rule for weapons that says "This weapon cannot wound TX or above".

Something like

Low Impact X: Weapons with this special rule are specially designed for volume of fire, but lack penetration power. This special rule will always have a number as part of it's name. Weapons with this special rule automatically fail to wound targets with a toughness value equal or greater than the numerical portion of this rule. EG: A weapon with Low Impact 6 would automatically fail to wound vs targets with Toughness 6 or higher.

So then you could have things like

Lasgun: Range 24 Str3 AP- Rapid fire 1, Low Impact 6

Bolter: Range 24 Str4 AP- Rapid fire 1, Low Impact 8

You could have weapons like this,

Punisher Gatling Cannon: Range 48 Str5, AP - Heavy 20, Low Impact 6

Very very high rate of fire, but it can't abuse the system to be oddly effective vs high toughness targets.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It probably also doesn't help that any strength wounds any toughness on 6s now.

It was better back when certain weapons were useless vs certain toughnesses/armor values so you could have a low strength weapon with an absurdly high rate of fire. You couldn't kill a LRBT with massed lasgun fire, but you could mow down gaunts. But now the weapon would be equally good at killing both. High enough RoF to just force enough 6s to wound through, while still shredding infantry.

Maybe we need a new special rule for weapons that says "This weapon cannot wound TX or above".

Something like

Low Impact X: Weapons with this special rule are specially designed for volume of fire, but lack penetration power. This special rule will always have a number as part of it's name. Weapons with this special rule automatically fail to wound targets with a toughness value equal or greater than the numerical portion of this rule. EG: A weapon with Low Impact 6 would automatically fail to wound vs targets with Toughness 6 or higher.

So then you could have things like

Lasgun: Range 24 Str3 AP- Rapid fire 1, Low Impact 6

Bolter: Range 24 Str4 AP- Rapid fire 1, Low Impact 8

You could have weapons like this,

Punisher Gatling Cannon: Range 48 Str5, AP - Heavy 20, Low Impact 6

Very very high rate of fire, but it can't abuse the system to be oddly effective vs high toughness targets.

My only issue is how that scales. Anything should be able to hurt anything in large enough numbers. Doesn't it seem bizarre that you could shoot literally 100 Bolters into the front armor of a Rhino and it doesn't even do diddly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also an issue the old AP system used to have.

Many of those others can only compete because of those 'fancy rules' they get. Guardians used to be S4 no special rules. They were an absolutely garbage unit. Fire Warriors at S4 would be a joke, even if the rest of the army were decent.

Blasters aren't really in the same category as Boltguns, they're more like Primaris basic weapons. If you want to factor those weapons in, you'll need to start paying even more points for the weapons.

If the Bolt Gun were as good as the ASC, Guass Blaster, or Pulse Rifle - or even just the Splinter Rifle - the units that take Boltguns would be OP.

The current contention is that marines are UP, partially because of bolters. Maybe Chapter Approved helps with this. 18 pt intercessors are a good step.

Bharring wrote:
Many of those others can only compete because of those 'fancy rules' they get. Guardians used to be S4 no special rules. They were an absolutely garbage unit. Fire Warriors at S4 would be a joke, even if the rest of the army were decent.

Blasters aren't really in the same category as Boltguns, they're more like Primaris basic weapons. If you want to factor those weapons in, you'll need to start paying even more points for the weapons.

If the Bolt Gun were as good as the ASC, Guass Blaster, or Pulse Rifle - or even just the Splinter Rifle - the units that take Boltguns would be OP.

Immortals are not close to comparable to Primaris. If anything, they're now the bigger troop equivalent to Tactical Marines and Dire Avengers and Warriors are the cheaper shield as a troop choice (though nobody uses them).

Guardians are also still a joke. So I'm not sure what you're point is besides they need a boost too?

I really don't know what lopsided logic you're using to get to that conclusion. I posted the math just earlier showing that even with the Plasma Gun and Combi-Plasma that Tactical Marines were still a joke to Dire Avengers. I showed you the real melee math of your 10 Avengers vs 5 Tactical Marines (where you forgot that neat Overwatch mechanic).
I really don't know what else you want. You might not be happy with the other basic weapons, but at least they fulfill a function so you don't hate yourself for taking them. You don't try and do that with Bolters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The current contention is that marines are UP, partially because of bolters. Maybe Chapter Approved helps with this. 18 pt intercessors are a good step.

Which I honestly unnecessary. If that's the case I have to go buy more of those sexy Mk3 Boarding Shield Marines from FW...

Intercessors are overcosted at 20 pts because of multi-wound weapons alone, and the low shot count. I know some posters like them, but they are useless in my meta, and I suspect many tournament metas.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
It probably also doesn't help that any strength wounds any toughness on 6s now.

It was better back when certain weapons were useless vs certain toughnesses/armor values so you could have a low strength weapon with an absurdly high rate of fire. You couldn't kill a LRBT with massed lasgun fire, but you could mow down gaunts. But now the weapon would be equally good at killing both. High enough RoF to just force enough 6s to wound through, while still shredding infantry.

Maybe we need a new special rule for weapons that says "This weapon cannot wound TX or above".

Something like

Low Impact X: Weapons with this special rule are specially designed for volume of fire, but lack penetration power. This special rule will always have a number as part of it's name. Weapons with this special rule automatically fail to wound targets with a toughness value equal or greater than the numerical portion of this rule. EG: A weapon with Low Impact 6 would automatically fail to wound vs targets with Toughness 6 or higher.

So then you could have things like

Lasgun: Range 24 Str3 AP- Rapid fire 1, Low Impact 6

Bolter: Range 24 Str4 AP- Rapid fire 1, Low Impact 8

You could have weapons like this,

Punisher Gatling Cannon: Range 48 Str5, AP - Heavy 20, Low Impact 6

Very very high rate of fire, but it can't abuse the system to be oddly effective vs high toughness targets.

My only issue is how that scales. Anything should be able to hurt anything in large enough numbers. Doesn't it seem bizarre that you could shoot literally 100 Bolters into the front armor of a Rhino and it doesn't even do diddly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It's also an issue the old AP system used to have.

OK, I'll give you an m16 and let you fire as many shots into an Abrams front as you'd like. Try to do any real damage within a reasonable amount of time. Maybe within a week you'll have scoured the paint off it.

It's absolutely not bizzare that 100 bolter shots into a Rhino's front did nothing. Maybe, theoretically they could eventually erode their way through the armor, but not in any timeframe relevant to a battle.

I believe someone once did a test, and it took around 16,000 .22 caliber bullets to punch through an inch of steel. Not military steel, just regular steel.

Admittedly, bolters are a damn sight more powerful than .22, but at the same time, Rhino armor should be a damn sight better than ordinary 21st century steel.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I believe someone once did a test, and it took around 16,000 .22 caliber bullets to punch through an inch of steel. Not military steel, just regular steel.

Admittedly, bolters are a damn sight more powerful than .22, but at the same time, Rhino armor should be a damn sight better than ordinary 21st century steel.

Not necessarily; it's the retro-future. But I get your point.

I'm not seeing your math. Where did you post it?

If DAs and Marines are supposed to be the same tier (I'd agree) at about the same PPM (again, agree), then they should be about equally good. If Marines are much more durable, much more versatile, have a lot more options, and are much better in CC, why is it bad for the DA gun to be better?

As for the numbers:
Marines kill 1x(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) guys per attack -> 2 per 9
DAs kill 1x(2/3)(1/3)(1/3) guys per attack -> 2 per 27

You can add Overwatch, which means that DAs kill (2)(1/3)(1/2)(1/3) + (2)(1/3)(1/6)(5/6), or about 2 dead Tacs from a 10-man overwatch.

Assuming SM charge without shooting first, and without using cover or LOS (why not at least shoot? You'll do more to the DAs than thier overwatch would then do to you!) the DAs win. That's very contrived. If Tacs shoot first, they kill:

5x(2)(2/3)(2/3)(1/2) -> 2 or 3 dead DAs, who are now not shooting back at you. Shoot first, and now 4 Tacs get into CC. COuld go either way.

Anyways, with what I was talking about, 5 Tacs vs 10 DAs:
5 Tacs kill 1 DA, 10 DAs kill half a Tac
4.5 Tacs kill nearly 1 DA, 9 DAs kill nearly half a Tac...

And so forth. Really close, but Tacs win on average. Takes too long to do in one game.

So the '5 Tacs vs 10 DAs in CC' is accurate, unless you're giving DAs overwatch while not getting shot at. Which seems BS.

PG vs ShuriKats vs Tac Termies?
Tacs:
Plas -> 4x(2/3)(2/3)(2/3) -> 32/27
BG -> 6x(2/3)(1/2)(1/6) -> 2/6

DAs:
Rends -> 7x2x(2/3)(1/6)(2/3) -> 28/27
Non-rends -> 7x2x(2/3)(1/3)(1/6) -> 14/27

So Marines kill 1.5 Termies. DAs kill 1.5 Termies.. Looks close to me.

Marines are likely not living long enough against any Eldar army to charge. These vacuum experiments are about as good as it gets for marines. Once you start putting them in context of an army, they get worse really fast because now they are being bombarded by wyverns or dark reapers or something.

... Which kill DAs faster than Marines.

So how is it a problem that the DA has a better gun than the Tac Marine? Do you really think the Tac Marine should have the better weapon?

No, but then they should be cheaper than they currently are, because they can't a) survive the fire and b) can't silence the fire. I'm paying 13 points for what the guard basically get for 4 pts. There are no good targets for marines, and paying to equip them to do a job makes them far too expensive per wound, imo.

Did anyone at GW say why the Bolter lost any AP? When I last played they were S4 AP5 and that was all well and good for everyone, I think. Is it just because of the way vehicles do their profiles, now?

(OT: For Marines, is their issue being low in absolute number on the table or low in survivability for their cost?)

M.

 Infantryman wrote:
Did anyone at GW say why the Bolter lost any AP? When I last played they were S4 AP5 and that was all well and good for everyone, I think. Is it just because of the way vehicles do their profiles, now?

(OT: For Marines, is their issue being low in absolute number on the table or low in survivability for their cost?)

M.

It's because of the way a straight translation from 7th to 8th works. AP5, 6, and - are all AP-0 now, AP4 is AP-1, AP3 is AP-2, etc.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:
Did anyone at GW say why the Bolter lost any AP? When I last played they were S4 AP5 and that was all well and good for everyone, I think. Is it just because of the way vehicles do their profiles, now?

(OT: For Marines, is their issue being low in absolute number on the table or low in survivability for their cost?)

M.

It's because of the way a straight translation from 7th to 8th works. AP5, 6, and - are all AP-0 now, AP4 is AP-1, AP3 is AP-2, etc.

Ah, I see. I did not play 7e, but I take it to be a recent change, then. I suppose teething pains are to be expected, but it still feels kind of strange. Then again, Gameplay and Story Separation.

M.

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's because of the way a straight translation from 7th to 8th works. AP5, 6, and - are all AP-0 now, AP4 is AP-1, AP3 is AP-2, etc.

Would have been nice if they took into account the old AP mechanic of 'ignoring' armor and translated it as such:

AP6 -> AP-0
AP5 -> AP-1
AP4 -> AP-2
AP3 -> AP-3
AP2 -> AP-4
AP1 -> AP-5

Where the old AP1 weapons will cause a 2+ saves to become irrelevant, thus 'ignoring armor' like what meltas used to do. I get why GW chose to go with the route of "anything can hurt anything" approach, and I like it, but a lot was lost in that translation. There were no reasons to weaken the big guns when all the targets worth taking the big guns for were buffed.

If boltgun and heavy bolter were translated from S4AP5/S5AP4, into S4AP-1/S5AP-2, there would be ever so slightly less reason for a thread like this.

If the math didn't post Bharring I'll have to post it again as I was on my phone. Gimme a couple of hours.

I already did upthread.

Bharring wrote:
I already did upthread.

I had differing results which is why somethings gone amiss.

I feel like at this point they need to just make transports cheaper so marines can survive that initial blow instead of making marines cheaper in my opinion.
and maybe, MAYBE give marines a 6++ and or give all marines a rule similar to scions trait where they can take an additional shot on a 6, or generate another hit outright. i can handle the no ap but there need to be more to a marine than a 3+ and BS3

What about 2d6 pick best for "Marine Armor" saves?

The problem with 40k's whole base of mechanics is that resolution is very course; there isn't much room to bump something up a level without completely changing its apparent nature.

M.

 skchsan wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:
It's because of the way a straight translation from 7th to 8th works. AP5, 6, and - are all AP-0 now, AP4 is AP-1, AP3 is AP-2, etc.

Would have been nice if they took into account the old AP mechanic of 'ignoring' armor and translated it as such:

AP6 -> AP-0
AP5 -> AP-1
AP4 -> AP-2
AP3 -> AP-3
AP2 -> AP-4
AP1 -> AP-5

Where the old AP1 weapons will cause a 2+ saves to become irrelevant, thus 'ignoring armor' like what meltas used to do. I get why GW chose to go with the route of "anything can hurt anything" approach, and I like it, but a lot was lost in that translation. There were no reasons to weaken the big guns when all the targets worth taking the big guns for were buffed.

If boltgun and heavy bolter were translated from S4AP5/S5AP4, into S4AP-1/S5AP-2, there would be ever so slightly less reason for a thread like this.

Yeah, but this way "Sv 5+" and "Sv 6+" aren't wasted ink the way they were in 3rd-7th.

 Infantryman wrote:
What about 2d6 pick best for "Marine Armor" saves?

The problem with 40k's whole base of mechanics is that resolution is very course; there isn't much room to bump something up a level without completely changing its apparent nature.

M.

Would be great but that would slow things down. What about just removing 1 ap from an attack, so ap -3 would be treated as -2 and then give marines cause they have 2 hearts lol

But its kinda getting away from the gun. which id say is fine and that its the "platform" that is the problem