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.

Sisters are downright terrifying, imo. Marines pay the marine tax and then get armed with boltguns.

Martel732 wrote:
Sisters are downright terrifying, imo. Marines pay the marine tax and then get armed with boltguns.

All that said, the hits to Flamers and Melta Guns made them much less terrifying.

If you say so. Melta is better in terms of range, imo.

Been a part of discussion since page 1, but I am getting kind of lost - exactly what is it about S4 AP0 D1 Rapid Fire that's so detestable?

S4 can potentially, reliably wound anything in the T3~T7 range. Is the problem simply because other factions have higher S basic weapons?

The gun is lackluster given the costs to field them at 13ppm. They are effective on a sister, but not a marine. The effectiveness of marines against t5+ is actually very low given the small body count of marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The real fix for bolters is cheaper marines. Because they aren't effective at 13ppm.

Martel732 wrote:
The gun is lackluster given the costs to field them at 13ppm. They are effective on a sister, but not a marine. The effectiveness of marines against t5+ is actually very low given the small body count of marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The real fix for bolters is cheaper marines. Because they aren't effective at 13ppm.

So its not the gun, but the platform?

That's my current line of thinking. Marines pay for marginally useful cc stats and end up woefully outgunned.

 skchsan wrote:
Been a part of discussion since page 1, but I am getting kind of lost - exactly what is it about S4 AP0 D1 Rapid Fire that's so detestable?

S4 can potentially, reliably wound anything in the T3~T7 range. Is the problem simply because other factions have higher S basic weapons?

For me, it's just that there's a whiplash between it ignoring Flak Armor of yester-year and coming to today, where it is completely stopped by flak armor. I think a .75 cal explosive bolt should be some bit more punchy.

Do Marines get ammo types anymore? I haven't gotten any of their Codices yet. Maybe that would make it more attractive - add some AP shells, extra hit on 6 shells, etc. for Marines - as mentioned, the biggest real issue is that the bolter is coupled with expensive Marines...and they don't do great on expensive Marines. Marines aren't very killy with their bolters.

As a Guardsman, I'm fine with paying 1 point to give my 4-point Sergeants a bolter - in my case, it lets my squad hit a little harder and a little further than it otherwise would.

Not so attractive at a 13 or 15 point Marine.

M.

Different ammo types only exist with Deathwatch.

Maybe they should have made a distinction between Boltguns and Astartes Boltguns. In the RPG's there is a difference between a human sized boltgun and a space marine sized boltgun. The Space Marine version has the Tearing quality, which was roll twice for damage and pick the highest.

There is a difference between Primaris Bolt Rifles and Space Marine Bolters. Why not a difference between a human and a space marine bolter to make up the point difference?

Something like,

Bolter: Attack 1 Range 24 Str4 Pen- Rapid Fire

Bolt Pistol: Attack 1 Range 12 Str4 Pen - Pistol

Astartes Bolter: Attack 1 Range 24 Str4 Pen -1, Rapid Fire

Astartes Bolt Pistol: Attack 1 Range 12 Str4 Pen -1 Pistol

Bolt Rifle: Attack 1 Range 30: Str4 Pen -1, Rapid Fire

So the Astartes Bolter would gain penetration over a human bolter. And the bolt rifle would gain pen and range.

That's kinda what the Primaris are going for but I don't want to step on their toes.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Maybe they should have made a distinction between Boltguns and Astartes Boltguns. In the RPG's there is a difference between a human sized boltgun and a space marine sized boltgun. The Space Marine version has the Tearing quality, which was roll twice for damage and pick the highest.

There is a difference between Primaris Bolt Rifles and Space Marine Bolters. Why not a difference between a human and a space marine bolter to make up the point difference?

Something like,

Bolter: Attack 1 Range 24 Str4 Pen- Rapid Fire

Bolt Pistol: Attack 1 Range 12 Str4 Pen - Pistol

Astartes Bolter: Attack 1 Range 24 Str4 Pen -1, Rapid Fire

Astartes Bolt Pistol: Attack 1 Range 12 Str4 Pen -1 Pistol

Bolt Rifle: Attack 1 Range 30: Str4 Pen -1, Rapid Fire

So the Astartes Bolter would gain penetration over a human bolter. And the bolt rifle would gain pen and range.

I'm generally fine with this. One of the reasons I chose the Phobos pattern Bolter for my army's Sergeants is because they're lower caliber than the more famous Godwyn pattern :p

M.

Also, that's basically Gauss.

The fundamental disagreement comes with someone who takes the position that the CC stats are more than marginally useful. Given how many games I'm getting shot off the table while doing inconsequential damage in return, I think the CC stats can be largely ignored when pricing the models. How much more effective is a marine than a sister in 8th? I would argue they aren't at all.

On the flipside, I'm not sure how fair it is to buff Tac shooting to about the same range as units that cost the same but have half the durability. AP-1 is a fairly big buff.

Bharring wrote:
On the flipside, I'm not sure how fair it is to buff Tac shooting to about the same range as units that cost the same but have half the durability. AP-1 is a fairly big buff.

No, leave marines the same. Just make them cheaper to make up for how ineffective they are in general. There is no real mathematical space to buff the bolter in 8th.

Also, those units usually have much more than half the durability. How much better is a marine at soaking up overcharge plasma than a dire avenger? Only fractionally. Now realize these weapons get spammed and the fabled marine durability fades away.

Bharring wrote:
Also, that's basically Gauss.

Which is my ultimate problem with just bumping the AP on them as well.

They probably just should have done AP correctly.

AP 5 = -1
AP 4 = -2
AP 3 = -3
AP 2 = -4
AP 1 = -5

If they had done this, they wouldn't have had to reduce the cost of models so much to make up for lack of effectiveness.

Instead, AP5 basically does nothing this edition so they were forced to reduce the points of models to compensate.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
They probably just should have done AP correctly.

AP 5 = -1
AP 4 = -2
AP 3 = -3
AP 2 = -4
AP 1 = -5

If they had done this, they wouldn't have had to reduce the cost of models so much to make up for lack of effectiveness.

Instead, AP5 basically does nothing this edition so they were forced to reduce the points of models to compensate.

Can you be specific on what went down? To my knowledge everythig went up in cost with new wound count balance and raised the standard pts from 1850 to 2000

points per model went down almost universally. Great for GW since they sell more models, bad for us who have to buy more models.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
points per model went down almost universally. Great for GW since they sell more models, bad for us who have to buy more models.

Of what? Only thing that went down were conscripts and grot and the likes? Rhino went up by ~25 pts, razorbacks by 30, droppods 50, etc

Bikes went up 10, attack bike 30, landspeeders 70, broadsides currently unusable, crisis suits too expensive,

In a nutshell hordes got hordier and elites stayed elite but more expensive

Loyalist Tac Marines went down from 14 ppm to 13 ppm.

Back on topic, if they had used a more negative AP chart, that would have hurt Tacs more than most other troops. Because AP-1 does a *lot* more to a 3+/2+ in cover save than a 5+/4+ in cover save.

Could you imagine the rage if things like LasBlasters were reducing Marine saves to a 4+? Tacs would be much, much worse off.

Tacs just need to be cheaper. That's all.

And/or the stuff that kills them needs to cost more.

GW tried basically all the regular requests for Tacs:
-2W
-All-specials in squads
-Ap-1 guns
-D:2 guns
And called them Primaris.

Which are far too expensive. The marine curse. Maybe they'll play better after CA. But for now, primaris is a joke.

Well Its now a 5 point difference between a tactical and an interseccor thanks to CA
Which I mean it kinda puts you in a position to take them over tacticals


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Since they dropped interseccors 2 points, I was expecting the same treatment to Tacticals but noop

Marines are mis-equipped.

The boltgun in its current form is a "quantity over quality" weapon, only good when used in numbers. The issue is that it is equipped on guys that are supposed to be "quality over quantity" troops. This situation is never going to be righted unless the gun becomes a more quality weapon, or the unit becomes a more quantity unit.

A possible solution would be to give "Astartes boltguns" the ability to "stand and shoot: If this model did not move in its previous movement phase, the boltgun becomes rapid fire 2." It would let them emulate having the weight of fire that the gun needs to be relevant, without making marines a horde unit.

I would personally like to see all marines gain an extra attack in melee so that they can go from awful to mediocre on that front. Currently their heightened WS and S stats are being made almost wholly irrelevant by the fact that they throw a single ap0 punch.

 niv-mizzet wrote:
Marines are mis-equipped.

The boltgun in its current form is a "quantity over quality" weapon, only good when used in numbers. The issue is that it is equipped on guys that are supposed to be "quality over quantity" troops. This situation is never going to be righted unless the gun becomes a more quality weapon, or the unit becomes a more quantity unit.

A possible solution would be to give "Astartes boltguns" the ability to "stand and shoot: If this model did not move in its previous movement phase, the boltgun becomes rapid fire 2." It would let them emulate having the weight of fire that the gun needs to be relevant, without making marines a horde unit.

I would personally like to see all marines gain an extra attack in melee so that they can go from awful to mediocre on that front. Currently their heightened WS and S stats are being made almost wholly irrelevant by the fact that they throw a single ap0 punch.

Yeah, this is one of the basic problems with marines. They're a low-numbers 'elite' army with high-numbers 'quantity of attack' weapons in most cases. The useful exceptions being units with actual high numbers weapons (like asscan razors). I don't like the idea of having different versions of bolt weapons, i don't like that primaris marines have a 'bolt rifle' instead of a 'bolt gun' (that one bothers me on a number of different levels - a rifle is a gun, a pistol is a gun, gah i'll stop myself here before i start a trump-styled rant). And yeah, one of my proposed fixes was to give tactical squads chainswords so they get that +1 attack in melee. But that was another thread.

Looking at just bolt guns (ergh) in isolation, i could get behind your idea. It would help in their anti-infantry ability, which is what marine infantry is sorely lacking. While they're decent at providing hits with what they have, their overall damage potential/ceiling is ridiculously low compared to most other units.

If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.

I think that's pretty fair. The fact that bolters are questionably worse than ork shootas is kind of odd. They need some kind of "bite" to them.