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.

So I've been giving this some more thought, and I think I've finally come up with the perfect special rule:

That gets my seal of approval
/end

I like the idea of a rule giving all ADEPTUS ASTARTES either -1AP or a Shuriken style rending rule with a "bolt weapon".

Bolters should re roll wound rolls of one.
That way, space marines armies can finally match eldat shuriken weapons, caude if shuriken weapons havr special rules, bolters shiuld too.
It also wont affect them too much because of leiutenants and other ways to reroll wounds.
Its just a way to make marines more competertive AND realistic without character support.

Whatever people come up with, i can almost guarantee itll be better than what GW can come up with... i swear, its as if Games Workshop traded competency and creativity for reliability, responsiveness and simplicity

The most problematic of the bolt weapon family is boltguns. Bring back salvo weapon type and make boltguns salvo 1/2 24" and leave it S4AP0. Leave the double tap to storm bolters since you rarely move tac squad so you can double tap anyways... This way Tac squads can properly "hold objectives"

They tried making Shuriken the same as Bolter, minus the profile differences. For over half of 6E, Shuriken was S4AP5 no special rules. And no Shuriken weapon was worth taking.

Without a difference in rules, Shuriken Catapaults were simply worse Boltguns. Even in the Index, Guardians were considered bad even by Tac Marine standards. And the Codex didn't change them.

You're still talking about the Shuriken Catapult as the equivalent to the Bolter.

For the last time, you need to compare the Avenger one to the Bolter.

So you say, but how does that work out?

Should the Dire Avenger really be just a Marine with worse everything but gun?

Dire Avengers have better guns, but half the survivability, worse at CC, and no ability to take specials/heavies.

How would it be fair for the Marine to also have better stock weapons? They're only 1ppm more expensive.

Bolt weapons: On a 6 to wound deal 2 dmg.

That would make them twice as good against vehicles, where they often only wound on 6's anyway.

Bharring wrote:
So you say, but how does that work out?

Should the Dire Avenger really be just a Marine with worse everything but gun?

Dire Avengers have better guns, but half the survivability, worse at CC, and no ability to take specials/heavies.

How would it be fair for the Marine to also have better stock weapons? They're only 1ppm more expensive.

Um I say that because the stats and roles for the units that carry them aren't equal at all.

Dire Avengers are more a Marine battle role, and Guardians are more a Scout battle role in terms of price and similar equipment options.
Bolter is to the Avenger Shuriken Catapult, and the Shotgun is to the Shuriken Catapult.

This. Is. Not. Difficult.

Then are you going to be paying the 20ppm or so the Tac Marine would need to pay per model to balance out having the Avenger Shuriken Catapault, if you want to bump the Boltgun to that level?

Dire Avengers play the same role as combi/plas Tac squads, for about the same firepower and survivability per point. As is, currently.

How would it be remotely balanced to buff Tac Marines firepower to that of things with half their durability for about the same points?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Let me put it another way.

The WaveSerpent and the LandRaider are both heavy transports with heavy weapons. But the Serpent shouldn't get the firepower of the Land Raider. Might be the same role, but the LandRaider is much heavier.

The BL WaveSerpent and LC Razorback both are the same slot. The Razorback has better firepower. Just because they're the same slot doesn't mean the WaveSerpent's guns should be upgraded to LCs for no points change.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So you say, but how does that work out?

Should the Dire Avenger really be just a Marine with worse everything but gun?

Dire Avengers have better guns, but half the survivability, worse at CC, and no ability to take specials/heavies.

How would it be fair for the Marine to also have better stock weapons? They're only 1ppm more expensive.

Um I say that because the stats and roles for the units that carry them aren't equal at all.

Dire Avengers are more a Marine battle role, and Guardians are more a Scout battle role in terms of price and similar equipment options.
Bolter is to the Avenger Shuriken Catapult, and the Shotgun is to the Shuriken Catapult.

This. Is. Not. Difficult.

Eh. I think we should all pause and acknowledge a certain amount of "apples vs oranges" here. The units involved are different enough from one another to make direct comparisons a little bit sketchy. Plus, we've trod and retrod this ground plenty of times in different threads.

Scouts with snipers are pretty comparable to rangers.
Scouts with bolters are probably closer to dire avengers based on their armor saves and effective range. It's also worth pointing out that not being able to infiltrate (without a stratagem) makes short-ranged scouts much more viable than short-ranged guardians.
Tactical marines are probably closer to dire avengers than our other troops and have better survivability (higher toughness matters against small arms, and a 2+ save in cover isn't shabby), but have to buy special weapons to perform as well as avengers against hardier targets.
Tactical marines combat squadded with a single heavy weapon are kind of comparable to guardians with a platform. Both usually want to sit on an objective and see if their big gun gets lucky.

I posted a special rule a while back called mass reactive warhead. On a roll of 6 it does 2 wounds. Then a wall of tactical marines would have a better chance of bringing down most things.

Should a wall of Tacticals be a good choice for bringing the big stuff down? Isn't that what Melta should be for?

(Not that Melta is necessarily effective enough in Tac Marines hands, just that that should be the right tool for that job)

warpedpig wrote:
I posted a special rule a while back called mass reactive warhead. On a roll of 6 it does 2 wounds. Then a wall of tactical marines would have a better chance of bringing down most things.

The issue is more with multiple W1 models, not 2+W ones, though.

I can't speak for how they can currently select, but what about a 5 man having Up To 2 Special and 1 Heavy, and a 10 man having twice that?

Then again, others are saying the concept of 10 man squads - independent of Marine viability - is also its own issue.

M.

You might get a legion of greybeards who don't like changing one of the defining pieces of Codex Astartes.

It wouldn't invalidate any current configuration. But most Marines players would need to restructure their armies (many would need to repaint, some might even need to remodel).

On a competitive level, that might be one of the more balanced changes, though. You can have more dakka, and of the type you want. But you have to pay for it.

Some of the finer points would warrant some attention (Flamers still crap, spammed Plasma might be too good).

If you change the Tactical basic loadout it is like changing Chapter size. Like it or not, it has been part of background fluff since at least 2nd ed, and IMHO we shouldn't change background fluff because of the current meta.

I guess that makes me a greybeard.

I think that Bolt weapons doing +1dmg on a 6 is thematic of what they are; 0.75cal grenades that penetrate and then explode.

For anti horde work; maybe Whirlswinds need an adjustment.

 Infantryman wrote:

warpedpig wrote:
I posted a special rule a while back called mass reactive warhead. On a roll of 6 it does 2 wounds. Then a wall of tactical marines would have a better chance of bringing down most things.

The issue is more with multiple W1 models, not 2+W ones, though.

I can't speak for how they can currently select, but what about a 5 man having Up To 2 Special and 1 Heavy, and a 10 man having twice that?

Then again, others are saying the concept of 10 man squads - independent of Marine viability - is also its own issue.

M.

Tactical Marine loadout fixes are in another thread. The best one I saw was you get two weapons at a total of 6 dudes, and 3 at 10. It's great because every other variation had been a number divisible by 5.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

warpedpig wrote:
I posted a special rule a while back called mass reactive warhead. On a roll of 6 it does 2 wounds. Then a wall of tactical marines would have a better chance of bringing down most things.

Makes 2 wound models less good and really isn't a core fix to the Bolt round that makes sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tygre wrote:
If you change the Tactical basic loadout it is like changing Chapter size. Like it or not, it has been part of background fluff since at least 2nd ed, and IMHO we shouldn't change background fluff because of the current meta.

I guess that makes me a greybeard.

I think that Bolt weapons doing +1dmg on a 6 is thematic of what they are; 0.75cal grenades that penetrate and then explode.

For anti horde work; maybe Whirlswinds need an adjustment.

You mean the part of the fluff nobody used? With 10 man squads?

You really think there's anything of value lost there?

This thread seems to keep going around and around in circles, and the suggestion that I see the most is that Bolters should get 2 damage on 6's to-Wound; while I get the rationale for this, it doesn't really solve any of the basic problems that mostly bolter armed units have. It also puts the bolter in a weird space where it would consistently do better damage against things it should struggle to wound (you're wounding on 6's against vehicles etc. anyway), so it's actually pretty strange mechanically.

Thinking about it some more I think my preferred solution might be a rule as follows:

On 6's to-Hit, inflicts two hits instead of one.

It's similar to but not quite the same as double damage; since it inflicts an extra hit it has far more potential against weaker, easy to wound hordes, and while you can inflict more damage against multi-wound targets, it's less likely against vehicles etc. (as you still need to roll to-Wound for the extra hits).

In terms of impact, this basically gives you an extra 1/6th hits; so for your average 10-man tactical squad (pistol + CCW sergeant, special, heavy + 7 bolters) it's nearly equivalent to having an extra 1-2 bolter equipped models (since the bonus hits are automatic). The effect is even more pronounced for models with storm bolters, like terminator squads, or a four heavy bolters devastator squad.

In fluff terms it represents the same thing; explosive bolts catching a target with additional damage either due to a better initial hit, flying shrapnel etc., but is more versatile than double damage mechanically. Massed bolters would hurt hordes a lot more, and rules to bolster shooting will amplify it (i.e- re-rolling 1's to hit means more chances at rolling a 6).

I don't think there's anything that would become too OP with this change, indeed most of the units this would improve are under-powered at the moment anyway.

 Haravikk wrote:
This thread seems to keep going around and around in circles, and the suggestion that I see the most is that Bolters should get 2 damage on 6's to-Wound; while I get the rationale for this, it doesn't really solve any of the basic problems that mostly bolter armed units have. It also puts the bolter in a weird space where it would consistently do better damage against things it should struggle to wound (you're wounding on 6's against vehicles etc. anyway), so it's actually pretty strange mechanically.

Thinking about it some more I think my preferred solution might be a rule as follows:

On 6's to-Hit, inflicts two hits instead of one.

It's similar to but not quite the same as double damage; since it inflicts an extra hit it has far more potential against weaker, easy to wound hordes, and while you can inflict more damage against multi-wound targets, it's less likely against vehicles etc. (as you still need to roll to-Wound for the extra hits).

In terms of impact, this basically gives you an extra 1/6th hits; so for your average 10-man tactical squad (pistol + CCW sergeant, special, heavy + 7 bolters) it's nearly equivalent to having an extra 1-2 bolter equipped models (since the bonus hits are automatic). The effect is even more pronounced for models with storm bolters, like terminator squads, or a four heavy bolters devastator squad.

In fluff terms it represents the same thing; explosive bolts catching a target with additional damage either due to a better initial hit, flying shrapnel etc., but is more versatile than double damage mechanically. Massed bolters would hurt hordes a lot more, and rules to bolster shooting will amplify it (i.e- re-rolling 1's to hit means more chances at rolling a 6).

I don't think there's anything that would become too OP with this change, indeed most of the units this would improve are under-powered at the moment anyway.

This is the best take. It has no special rolls, it works on w1 units, it doesn't distort value against vehicles.

 Haravikk wrote:

Spoiler:

This thread seems to keep going around and around in circles, and the suggestion that I see the most is that Bolters should get 2 damage on 6's to-Wound; while I get the rationale for this, it doesn't really solve any of the basic problems that mostly bolter armed units have. It also puts the bolter in a weird space where it would consistently do better damage against things it should struggle to wound (you're wounding on 6's against vehicles etc. anyway), so it's actually pretty strange mechanically.

Thinking about it some more I think my preferred solution might be a rule as follows:

On 6's to-Hit, inflicts two hits instead of one.

It's similar to but not quite the same as double damage; since it inflicts an extra hit it has far more potential against weaker, easy to wound hordes, and while you can inflict more damage against multi-wound targets, it's less likely against vehicles etc. (as you still need to roll to-Wound for the extra hits).

In terms of impact, this basically gives you an extra 1/6th hits; so for your average 10-man tactical squad (pistol + CCW sergeant, special, heavy + 7 bolters) it's nearly equivalent to having an extra 1-2 bolter equipped models (since the bonus hits are automatic). The effect is even more pronounced for models with storm bolters, like terminator squads, or a four heavy bolters devastator squad.

In fluff terms it represents the same thing; explosive bolts catching a target with additional damage either due to a better initial hit, flying shrapnel etc., but is more versatile than double damage mechanically. Massed bolters would hurt hordes a lot more, and rules to bolster shooting will amplify it (i.e- re-rolling 1's to hit means more chances at rolling a 6).

I don't think there's anything that would become too OP with this change, indeed most of the units this would improve are under-powered at the moment anyway.

That really does seem to be the best "fix" I have seen so far. Since it is simple, and provides a bit more crowd control for Marines.

 Infantryman wrote:

warpedpig wrote:
I posted a special rule a while back called mass reactive warhead. On a roll of 6 it does 2 wounds. Then a wall of tactical marines would have a better chance of bringing down most things.

The issue is more with multiple W1 models, not 2+W ones, though.

I can't speak for how they can currently select, but what about a 5 man having Up To 2 Special and 1 Heavy, and a 10 man having twice that?

Then again, others are saying the concept of 10 man squads - independent of Marine viability - is also its own issue.

M.

So fixing bolters happen by...Removing bolters from squads basically completely. 5 man squad with combi-weapon, 2 special, heavy and whopping ONE bolter!

Don't know you but for me removing weapon basically out of equation is rather funny way of fixing it.

tneva82 wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

warpedpig wrote:
I posted a special rule a while back called mass reactive warhead. On a roll of 6 it does 2 wounds. Then a wall of tactical marines would have a better chance of bringing down most things.

The issue is more with multiple W1 models, not 2+W ones, though.

I can't speak for how they can currently select, but what about a 5 man having Up To 2 Special and 1 Heavy, and a 10 man having twice that?

Then again, others are saying the concept of 10 man squads - independent of Marine viability - is also its own issue.

M.

So fixing bolters happen by...Removing bolters from squads basically completely. 5 man squad with combi-weapon, 2 special, heavy and whopping ONE bolter!

Don't know you but for me removing weapon basically out of equation is rather funny way of fixing it.

Yeah, that post was meant for the 10-man-squad thread. There was some overlap and I had them both up at the same time, so you can see how I got things crossed up.

M.

 Haravikk wrote:
On 6's to-Hit, inflicts two hits instead of one.

I like it!
Simple and elegant, it does what it's supposed to, without going overboard and affecting things it shouldn't.

As a bonus, you don't need to do any extra rolls, just add more dice when you roll to wound.

You could just go with an updated version of 2nd editions rapid fire and say stationary marines armed with boltguns may fire an extra shot at each range bracket, so 2 at 24" and 3 at 12"

ItsPug wrote:
You could just go with an updated version of 2nd editions rapid fire and say stationary marines armed with boltguns may fire an extra shot at each range bracket, so 2 at 24" and 3 at 12"

That is interesting too. Would you make any similar changes to the Bolt Pistol, Storm Bolter and Heavy Bolter? And would Hurricane Bolters on vehicles be affected by this?

ItsPug wrote:
You could just go with an updated version of 2nd editions rapid fire and say stationary marines armed with boltguns may fire an extra shot at each range bracket, so 2 at 24" and 3 at 12"

I think Salvo 1/3 24" would work better.

 skchsan wrote:

ItsPug wrote:
You could just go with an updated version of 2nd editions rapid fire and say stationary marines armed with boltguns may fire an extra shot at each range bracket, so 2 at 24" and 3 at 12"

I think Salvo 1/3 24" would work better.

I'd rather see salvo 2/3 24". That at least fits his idea.

I prefer the idea of just marines having 6s to hit generate an additional hit. That way it will upgrade the boltgun and whatever weapons they take


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In my opinion i dont think sisters or other models using bolt weapons are as bad off as marines, at least point wise