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.

Ideally, GW would run their own tournaments and collect data from that.

Then again, I believe that's called "playtesting", something GW doesn't do much of or do what little they do do well.

Now that is something i agree on.

Personally i think a balance torwards a middle point would be a good way, not just looking at the obvious outliers, but my 2cents

Not Online!!! wrote:

Ideally, GW would run their own tournaments and collect data from that.

Then again, I believe that's called "playtesting", something GW doesn't do much of or do what little they do do well.

Now that is something i agree on.

Personally i think a balance torwards a middle point would be a good way, not just looking at the obvious outliers, but my 2cents

No arguments there. The top end is a little too lethal for my tastes at the moment.

I'd aim towards high-middle, for where I want the game to be balanced to.

Volume of fire and the wounding system are imo one of the issues atm.
That and certain Cp soup interactions which incentivise certain list builds.

It also does not help that knights literally lead to a surge in At weaponry to the point where your regular tanks won't survive long and become a pts grave.

 Brutallica wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Or how about every sm model doesnt need special rules to be better and longer lasting then every other model in every other army.

A lr has a high t and a great save. Its already tougher then just about any orher vehicle out there. Especially ones with a transport capacity.

Sm dont need special rules to boost all their guns and all their toughness. They need appropriately costed equipment and models with options to deal with the.meta.

The horde issue isnt a sm issue. Its a core game issue. You dont fix it by adjusting sm. Same for the land raider. Its correctly durable.. The weapon spread is off. For everyone. Sm worst of all because they never stop getting new toys.

This is one of the issues i have with your logic, you want to balance around tournaments and metas... Thats wrong, it often tells which faction is stronger, but it dosent speak much of the lackluster units or anything else execpt whats REALLY good or even broken.

We dont need to balance to meta, we need to balance according to what the units actually manage DO on the table in apple to apple comparisom with other units in same category/points etc.

For all i care the tournament scene can burn in hell, Razorwing flok spam was just a really bad omen to the coming balance, then we had Imperial smoothie soup, and double tapping Leman Russ tanks so on and so forth while GW runs behind trying to constantly ajust and downtone tournament tricks while the endless cacophony of whine booms in the background from super-salted tournament idiots that found a cool way to break the game. End of the day all this bullcrap changed almost nothing in the casual hobby rooms across the world. Waste. of. time. Atleast according to me.

You are confused.

1) I don't play tournaments. gak, I barely play in stores. I play VERY casually.

2) But I also have a degree in game design and study game designs as a passion/hobby. I am not basing what I am saying off tournaments. I am basing what I am saying off looking at the game as a whole and unit by unit comparisons.


My arguments is SM don't need special snow flake treatment for the game. Unit by unit comparison they are more durable then the vast majority of all the other stock infantry.

The LR is by and large one of the most durable vehicles.

Tac marines could be a point or 2 cheaper. They don't need special snow flake rules for how their armor works different from everyone elses armor.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Or how about every sm model doesnt need special rules to be better and longer lasting then every other model in every other army.

A lr has a high t and a great save. Its already tougher then just about any orher vehicle out there. Especially ones with a transport capacity.

Sm dont need special rules to boost all their guns and all their toughness. They need appropriately costed equipment and models with options to deal with the.meta.

The horde issue isnt a sm issue. Its a core game issue. You dont fix it by adjusting sm. Same for the land raider. Its correctly durable.. The weapon spread is off. For everyone. Sm worst of all because they never stop getting new toys.

This is one of the issues i have with your logic, you want to balance around tournaments and metas... Thats wrong, it often tells which faction is stronger, but it dosent speak much of the lackluster units or anything else execpt whats REALLY good or even broken.

We dont need to balance to meta, we need to balance according to what the units actually manage DO on the table in apple to apple comparisom with other units in same category/points etc.

For all i care the tournament scene can burn in hell, Razorwing flok spam was just a really bad omen to the coming balance, then we had Imperial smoothie soup, and double tapping Leman Russ tanks so on and so forth while GW runs behind trying to constantly ajust and downtone tournament tricks while the endless cacophony of whine booms in the background from super-salted tournament idiots that found a cool way to break the game. End of the day all this bullcrap changed almost nothing in the casual hobby rooms across the world. Waste. of. time. Atleast according to me.

You are confused.

1) I don't play tournaments. gak, I barely play in stores. I play VERY casually.

2) But I also have a degree in game design and study game designs as a passion/hobby. I am not basing what I am saying off tournaments. I am basing what I am saying off looking at the game as a whole and unit by unit comparisons.


My arguments is SM don't need special snow flake treatment for the game. Unit by unit comparison they are more durable then the vast majority of all the other stock infantry.

The LR is by and large one of the most durable vehicles.

Tac marines could be a point or 2 cheaper. They don't need special snow flake rules for how their armor works different from everyone elses armor.

Okay, you mentioned meta, thats what competitive lists is about. Hence why you think im confused.

ALOT of various units needs the snowflake treatment, just look at the orks, doing great in tournaments. But its far from in a good spot or a complete product. If you "recklessly" field your army by the rule of cool, you are more than likely to get tabled from here to tuesday.

Land Raider durable as in tougher than a Rhino? Heck yes! Does its durability soak enought firepower to free you up on the table? Not really, not by my experience and seems most ofther Land Raider owners is in the same camp. And if the lunchbox does go down in flames, you have alot more eggs in the basket in terms of rolling alot of 1's for your cargo. Land Raiders is just single case out of many were it could need a helping hand, and i absolutely agree that it does.

LR is not durable on a per point basis. Neither are marines, esp once you equip them.

 Brutallica wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Or how about every sm model doesnt need special rules to be better and longer lasting then every other model in every other army.

A lr has a high t and a great save. Its already tougher then just about any orher vehicle out there. Especially ones with a transport capacity.

Sm dont need special rules to boost all their guns and all their toughness. They need appropriately costed equipment and models with options to deal with the.meta.

The horde issue isnt a sm issue. Its a core game issue. You dont fix it by adjusting sm. Same for the land raider. Its correctly durable.. The weapon spread is off. For everyone. Sm worst of all because they never stop getting new toys.

This is one of the issues i have with your logic, you want to balance around tournaments and metas... Thats wrong, it often tells which faction is stronger, but it dosent speak much of the lackluster units or anything else execpt whats REALLY good or even broken.

We dont need to balance to meta, we need to balance according to what the units actually manage DO on the table in apple to apple comparisom with other units in same category/points etc.

For all i care the tournament scene can burn in hell, Razorwing flok spam was just a really bad omen to the coming balance, then we had Imperial smoothie soup, and double tapping Leman Russ tanks so on and so forth while GW runs behind trying to constantly ajust and downtone tournament tricks while the endless cacophony of whine booms in the background from super-salted tournament idiots that found a cool way to break the game. End of the day all this bullcrap changed almost nothing in the casual hobby rooms across the world. Waste. of. time. Atleast according to me.

You are confused.

1) I don't play tournaments. gak, I barely play in stores. I play VERY casually.

2) But I also have a degree in game design and study game designs as a passion/hobby. I am not basing what I am saying off tournaments. I am basing what I am saying off looking at the game as a whole and unit by unit comparisons.


My arguments is SM don't need special snow flake treatment for the game. Unit by unit comparison they are more durable then the vast majority of all the other stock infantry.

The LR is by and large one of the most durable vehicles.

Tac marines could be a point or 2 cheaper. They don't need special snow flake rules for how their armor works different from everyone elses armor.

Okay, you mentioned meta, thats what competitive lists is about. Hence why you think im confused.

ALOT of various units needs the snowflake treatment, just look at the orks, doing great in tournaments. But its far from in a good spot or a complete product. If you "recklessly" field your army by the rule of cool, you are more than likely to get tabled from here to tuesday.

Land Raider durable as in tougher than a Rhino? Heck yes! Does its durability soak enought firepower to free you up on the table? Not really, not by my experience and seems most ofther Land Raider owners is in the same camp. And if the lunchbox does go down in flames, you have alot more eggs in the basket in terms of rolling alot of 1's for your cargo. Land Raiders is just single case out of many were it could need a helping hand, and i absolutely agree that it does.

There are a lot of metas. local meta. Personal meta. over all meta. Like it or not tournaments show exploitative holes in the games structure that anyone could figure out. It doesn't give the complete picture but it does give a good picture of one facet of the games balance. When I say SM need the tools to deal with the meta what I mean is every army needs viable tools to be functional in ANY of the metas.

Tyranids are more or less the poster child for great internal and external balance atm. Very few if any dud units and lots of tools to support a large variety of play styles against a large variety of play styles. If your personal meta changes the nids don't need an update in their rules to stay viable.

Again, nothing in 8th is soaking a insane amount of fire power. Deal with it. Everything dies in 8th. Everything dies quickly in 8th. If you bring 1 of a big obvious target for the enemy to focus on then the enemy will focus on it and it won't last.

"Again, nothing in 8th is soaking a insane amount of fire power. "

Except for the things that are. Like IKs. Plaguebearers. Even guardsmen.

Guardsmen are not soaking an insane amount of fire power. The models drop like flies. Nurgle and Knights SHOUD be tougher then SM and a Landraider. And a Knight isn't lasting all game if the opponent focuses it down.

Martel732 wrote:
"Again, nothing in 8th is soaking a insane amount of fire power. "

Except for the things that are. Like IKs. Plaguebearers. Even guardsmen.

Nurglings last longer than any kind of Marines in a point to point basis. Lol.

And have no gun and are not putting out a fraction of the killing potential.

You can't measure points vs toughness as the only criteria.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

Spoiler:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
Or how about every sm model doesnt need special rules to be better and longer lasting then every other model in every other army.

A lr has a high t and a great save. Its already tougher then just about any orher vehicle out there. Especially ones with a transport capacity.

Sm dont need special rules to boost all their guns and all their toughness. They need appropriately costed equipment and models with options to deal with the.meta.

The horde issue isnt a sm issue. Its a core game issue. You dont fix it by adjusting sm. Same for the land raider. Its correctly durable.. The weapon spread is off. For everyone. Sm worst of all because they never stop getting new toys.

This is one of the issues i have with your logic, you want to balance around tournaments and metas... Thats wrong, it often tells which faction is stronger, but it dosent speak much of the lackluster units or anything else execpt whats REALLY good or even broken.

We dont need to balance to meta, we need to balance according to what the units actually manage DO on the table in apple to apple comparisom with other units in same category/points etc.

For all i care the tournament scene can burn in hell, Razorwing flok spam was just a really bad omen to the coming balance, then we had Imperial smoothie soup, and double tapping Leman Russ tanks so on and so forth while GW runs behind trying to constantly ajust and downtone tournament tricks while the endless cacophony of whine booms in the background from super-salted tournament idiots that found a cool way to break the game. End of the day all this bullcrap changed almost nothing in the casual hobby rooms across the world. Waste. of. time. Atleast according to me.

You are confused.

1) I don't play tournaments. gak, I barely play in stores. I play VERY casually.

2) But I also have a degree in game design and study game designs as a passion/hobby. I am not basing what I am saying off tournaments. I am basing what I am saying off looking at the game as a whole and unit by unit comparisons.


My arguments is SM don't need special snow flake treatment for the game. Unit by unit comparison they are more durable then the vast majority of all the other stock infantry.

The LR is by and large one of the most durable vehicles.

Tac marines could be a point or 2 cheaper. They don't need special snow flake rules for how their armor works different from everyone elses armor.

Okay, you mentioned meta, thats what competitive lists is about. Hence why you think im confused.

ALOT of various units needs the snowflake treatment, just look at the orks, doing great in tournaments. But its far from in a good spot or a complete product. If you "recklessly" field your army by the rule of cool, you are more than likely to get tabled from here to tuesday.

Land Raider durable as in tougher than a Rhino? Heck yes! Does its durability soak enought firepower to free you up on the table? Not really, not by my experience and seems most ofther Land Raider owners is in the same camp. And if the lunchbox does go down in flames, you have alot more eggs in the basket in terms of rolling alot of 1's for your cargo. Land Raiders is just single case out of many were it could need a helping hand, and i absolutely agree that it does.

There are a lot of metas. local meta. Personal meta. over all meta. Like it or not tournaments show exploitative holes in the games structure that anyone could figure out. It doesn't give the complete picture but it does give a good picture of one facet of the games balance. When I say SM need the tools to deal with the meta what I mean is every army needs viable tools to be functional in ANY of the metas.

Tyranids are more or less the poster child for great internal and external balance atm. Very few if any dud units and lots of tools to support a large variety of play styles against a large variety of play styles. If your personal meta changes the nids don't need an update in their rules to stay viable.

Again, nothing in 8th is soaking a insane amount of fire power. Deal with it. Everything dies in 8th. Everything dies quickly in 8th. If you bring 1 of a big obvious target for the enemy to focus on then the enemy will focus on it and it won't last.

Yeah yeah yeah, keep on right-figting and then talk about tournaments again.

Like it or not, Tournaments dosent tell you everything about balance. And needs viable tools you say, funny... Cause Land Raiders aint one of them.
Honestly, i dont understand what your purpose is in this forum section, the idea is to throw some ideas around for PROPOSED rules/house rules (because we simply wont just DEAL with it as put it). Sounds to me you are just here to "MAKE SURE SPEEZH MARINES DONT GET SNOWFLAKE TREATMENT, BECAUSE I HAVE A DEGREE IN GAME DESIGN".


Nothing is soaking insane amounts of damage? There isnt? Eeeh... Okay.

 Lance845 wrote:
And have no gun and are not putting out a fraction of the killing potential.

You can't measure points vs toughness as the only criteria.

Yeah, they have no guns. But they can deploy just 9" away from you, move 4" and charge into you first turn. And your precious guns are silenced the entire game by this little guys.

Sure, you could screen against them making their turn 1 charge not possible against your Big guns / important melee units, but their durability will make sure the majority of the swarm will survive long enough to charge in and silence you.

Meanwhile, the major weapons of Marine i.e. Bolter is such a poor weapon, and seldom have great influence unless filled in mass numbers, under which condition the overcosted feature in Marine comes inflicts huge negative impact.

 Brutallica wrote:


Yeah yeah yeah, keep on right-figting and then talk about tournaments again.

It's a data point. Not the only data point. Not the most important data point. Just a data point. Ignoring a data point because you don't like it is a dumb ass way to analyze something.

Like it or not, Tournaments dosent tell you everything about balance.

I never said it did. In fact, in the quote you are responding to I said it was only one facet.

And needs viable tools you say, funny... Cause Land Raiders aint one of them.
Honestly, i dont understand what your purpose is in this forum section, the idea is to throw some ideas around for PROPOSED rules/house rules. Sounds to me you are just here to "MAKE SURE SPEEZH MARINES DONT GET SNOWFLAKE TREATMENT, BECAUSE I HAVE A DEGREE IN GAME DESIGN".


Nothing is soaking insane amounts of damage? There isnt? Eeeh... Okay.

Oh I am sorry, did you think the proposed rules forum was a place where you suggest whatever dumbass rules you want and get no criticism? This is the place where you and everyone else can suggest whatever you want. But that doesn't mean everyone else has to pat you on the ass and tell you good job. If you don't like criticism don't be on the internet.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Brutallica wrote:


Yeah yeah yeah, keep on right-figting and then talk about tournaments again.

It's a data point. Not the only data point. Not the most important data point. Just a data point. Ignoring a data point because you don't like it is a dumb ass way to analyze something.

Like it or not, Tournaments dosent tell you everything about balance.

I never said it did. In fact, in the quote you are responding to I said it was only one facet.

And needs viable tools you say, funny... Cause Land Raiders aint one of them.
Honestly, i dont understand what your purpose is in this forum section, the idea is to throw some ideas around for PROPOSED rules/house rules. Sounds to me you are just here to "MAKE SURE SPEEZH MARINES DONT GET SNOWFLAKE TREATMENT, BECAUSE I HAVE A DEGREE IN GAME DESIGN".


Nothing is soaking insane amounts of damage? There isnt? Eeeh... Okay.

Oh I am sorry, did you think the proposed rules forum was a place where you suggest whatever dumbass rules you want and get no criticism? This is the place where you and everyone else can suggest whatever you want. But that doesn't mean everyone else has to pat you on the ass and tell you good job. If you don't like criticism don't be on the internet.

Im not gonna refer to your backpeddling statements, waste of time. However the last part i will. You may not like the the proposal, thats fine. But just moaning and complaining about an idea however is the essence of most of your points made in this thread... Useless at best. You think 8th hits the sweet spot for Land Raiders, go to general section and get your pat on the ass.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
And have no gun and are not putting out a fraction of the killing potential.

You can't measure points vs toughness as the only criteria.

Yeah, they have no guns. But they can deploy just 9" away from you, move 4" and charge into you first turn. And your precious guns are silenced the entire game by this little guys.

Sure, you could screen against them making their turn 1 charge not possible against your Big guns / important melee units, but their durability will make sure the majority of the swarm will survive long enough to charge in and silence you.

Meanwhile, the major weapons of Marine i.e. Bolter is such a poor weapon, and seldom have great influence unless filled in mass numbers, under which condition the overcosted feature in Marine comes inflicts huge negative impact.

They're S2/T2 with a 5++ and a 5+++ against D1 only. Sure, they eat Smites like a champ (4.5 Points Per Wound and a 5+ FNP against them is great!), but considering it only takes only a little under 11 S4 D1 hits to kill a base...

So yeah. Durable is not something they are. A min squad of Marines can and will win combat against them.

Don't believe me? Turn 1, Nurglings charge them. They take an average of a little over half a wound from overwatch.
They then flail madly, with a whopping 12 attacks! Of which 6 hit, and 1.17 wound (they do reroll 1s to wound, at least), leaving us with a little over a third of a dead Marine.
Marines swing back, 6 attacks, 4 hits, 3.33 wounds, 2.22 past the save and 1.48 past the FNP. With overwatch, that's half a dead base.
Marine turn! 5 Bolt Pistol shots, 3.33 hit, 2.78 wound, and 1.23 past the save and FNP. Then, they swing first, for another 1.48 wounds. That's a dead base.
The remaining Nurglings swing, for 8 shots, 4 hits, .78 wound, and .26 failed saves. They have failed to kill a Marine on average.
But, when they swing again on their next turn, they will kill one! Huzzah!
Marines swing back, 5 attacks now, 3.33 hit, 2.78 wound, 1.23 wounds dealt.
Marine turn again, Pistol time, 4 shots, 2.67 hit, 2.22 wound, .99 wounds dealt. Swinging in combat does 5 attacks again, for 1.23. Two bases dead.
Since the Marines have lost one in five models and the Nurglings have lost two in three... Safe to say Marines will win, on average.

And that's with Nurglings getting Turn One. If the Marines get turn one, the Nurglings eat 8 S4 Shots (for half a base dead, on average) and one Krak Grenade (for about three fourths of a wound) before they get to jack diddly.

So useful? Hell yeah, I love Nurglings! They're good! But not because they're durable. They lose, under optimal circumstances for them, against a naked minimal Tac Squad.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
And have no gun and are not putting out a fraction of the killing potential.

You can't measure points vs toughness as the only criteria.

Yeah, they have no guns. But they can deploy just 9" away from you, move 4" and charge into you first turn. And your precious guns are silenced the entire game by this little guys.

Sure, you could screen against them making their turn 1 charge not possible against your Big guns / important melee units, but their durability will make sure the majority of the swarm will survive long enough to charge in and silence you.

Meanwhile, the major weapons of Marine i.e. Bolter is such a poor weapon, and seldom have great influence unless filled in mass numbers, under which condition the overcosted feature in Marine comes inflicts huge negative impact.

They have a use. Thats good. Durability without a use would make them worthless. And as you pointed out they have counters.

You can argue that the bolter sucks all day. Compare it to every other stock weapon on base infantry.

The best guns are the necron gauss and the tau pulse rifle. 1 has rapid fire and AP and the other has str 5 rapid fire and a good range. Neither one is a massive game changer in the game that has great influence. And both of those units have no option to switch their guns for anything else to deal with anything but infantry while tac marines do. Are tac marines options overcosted? Yes. I can agree to that. But again, look at the unit by comparison to the other units. The marines stock bolter is mostly appropriate for a stock infantry model. The unit itself needs something to keep better pace with the rof they need. Something like the rule they have in 30k where they can shoot twice or some gak.

But the fact that they can't keep pace with their amount of shots (which I have argued) is not a reason to give them bonus rules for their durability. Besides it being a dumb ass thing to do it also doesn't fix their base problem.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brutallica wrote:

Im not gonna refer to your backpeddling statements, waste of time. However the last part i will. You may not like the the proposal, thats fine. But just moaning and complaining about an idea however is the essence of most of your points made in this thread... Useless at best. You think 8th hits the sweet spot for Land Raiders, go to general section and get your pat on the ass.

I will respond to you again when you have anything to say of value. Enjoy your tantrum.

I've had a thought for this, which would work with the flavour GW wants their game to be.

Give space marines a rule which means that stratagems cost 1 less CP to use on them

Then add some stratagems which work well on marines, and can also be used on scouts, cultists etc, but will cost extra CP.

Essentially, a unit of marines will more easily perform a stratagem than a squad of scouts, due to their superior training.
Would this make marines more worthwhile with their existing stratagems?

 some bloke wrote:
I've had a thought for this, which would work with the flavour GW wants their game to be.

Give space marines a rule which means that stratagems cost 1 less CP to use on them

Then add some stratagems which work well on marines, and can also be used on scouts, cultists etc, but will cost extra CP.

Essentially, a unit of marines will more easily perform a stratagem than a squad of scouts, due to their superior training.
Would this make marines more worthwhile with their existing stratagems?

Really that could be a cool rule. Except - there are practically no stratagems to use on marines lol.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I've had a thought for this, which would work with the flavour GW wants their game to be.

Give space marines a rule which means that stratagems cost 1 less CP to use on them

Then add some stratagems which work well on marines, and can also be used on scouts, cultists etc, but will cost extra CP.

Essentially, a unit of marines will more easily perform a stratagem than a squad of scouts, due to their superior training.
Would this make marines more worthwhile with their existing stratagems?

Really that could be a cool rule. Except - there are practically no stratagems to use on marines lol.

Flakk Missile and Hellfire Shell comes to mind.

 skchsan wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
I've had a thought for this, which would work with the flavour GW wants their game to be.

Give space marines a rule which means that stratagems cost 1 less CP to use on them

Then add some stratagems which work well on marines, and can also be used on scouts, cultists etc, but will cost extra CP.

Essentially, a unit of marines will more easily perform a stratagem than a squad of scouts, due to their superior training.
Would this make marines more worthwhile with their existing stratagems?

Really that could be a cool rule. Except - there are practically no stratagems to use on marines lol.

Flakk Missile and Hellfire Shell comes to mind.

And Devastators use them better because of Cherubs and Signums. Reliability and getting twice the mortal wounds > free attempt

 Lance845 wrote:
The best guns are the necron gauss and the tau pulse rifle. 1 has rapid fire and AP and the other has str 5 rapid fire and a good range. Neither one is a massive game changer in the game that has great influence. And both of those units have no option to switch their guns for anything else to deal with anything but infantry while tac marines do. Are tac marines options overcosted? Yes. I can agree to that. But again, look at the unit by comparison to the other units. The marines stock bolter is mostly appropriate for a stock infantry model. The unit itself needs something to keep better pace with the rof they need. Something like the rule they have in 30k where they can shoot twice or some gak.

The issue is that boltgun comes out on top compared to lasgun only against T6 or higher. As you've stated, the true "TAC-ness" of marines come from the fact they can be equipped with one or two weapons to tailor the unit for a task. However, again as you've mentioned and agreed upon, the opportunity cost for task assignment comes at a hefty cost which often is unjustifiable.

A true TAC weapon needs to be at least S5 in the current system where such weapon can deal wound to any targets at rolls of 5 or more. A TAC weapon should not be relying on 6's to wound under any circumstances as it would be no stronger than the weakest weapon in the game.

Otherwise, the Wound system has to be readjusted to +/- system (i.e. T is 1/2/3 greater than S & vice versa). The current twice more/less system diminishes the value of certain S values.

Other armies base infantry guns are str 3. Not just the lasgun.

Tyranid fleshborers are str 3 ap nothing assault 1. Termagants pay 4 points (doubling their cost) to get devourers that are assault 3 ap nothing str 4. On a bs 4+ platform.


The bolt gun is not a tac weapon intended to wound vehicles and knights and infantry alike. Its an infantry weapon like everyone elses. It has a ok range. Good (but not the best) str (but a critical str jump. Str 3 weapons wound half the infantry on 4+ and the other half at 5+. Str 4 weapons wound that first group at 3+ and the second at 4+). And typical ap for a stock infantry weapon while coming on a platform with one of the best infantry saves, the higher end of infantry toughness, and the best stock infantry ballistic skill.

Then include the beta bolter rules.

Wtf is the complaint with the bolt gun?

It costs at least 11 pts to put one on the table. That's the complaint. Sisters are better than any marine model because they spam bolters cheaper and have the same armor.

 Lance845 wrote:
Other armies base infantry guns are str 3. Not just the lasgun.

Tyranid fleshborers are str 3 ap nothing assault 1. Termagants pay 4 points (doubling their cost) to get devourers that are assault 3 ap nothing str 4. On a bs 4+ platform.

The bolt gun is not a tac weapon intended to wound vehicles and knights and infantry alike. Its an infantry weapon like everyone elses. It has a ok range. Good (but not the best) str (but a critical str jump. Str 3 weapons wound half the infantry on 4+ and the other half at 5+. Str 4 weapons wound that first group at 3+ and the second at 4+). And typical ap for a stock infantry weapon while coming on a platform with one of the best infantry saves, the higher end of infantry toughness, and the best stock infantry ballistic skill.

Then include the beta bolter rules.

Wtf is the complaint with the bolt gun?

1. Base platform that boltguns come on are supposedly designed as a TAC unit. They are also priced on average 2.5 times more than units that come with base S3 weapons. The issue is that Tac marines don't fulfill TAC role no matter how they're equipped nor they perform at 3x margin.

2. Boltguns are not anti infantry weapons (at least, not anymore). They simply fail to do any meaningful damage at anything other than infantries. All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Current anti-infantry weapons are high ROF S6 weapons like assault cannon, whose role got demoted from light vehicle popper to T3 killers.

3. Everything that boltguns used to do meaningful damage to had their durability increased in their AP/Sv translation. Boltgun on the other hand lost it's offensive capabilities when AP5 got translated into AP0. Everything that died reliably to boltguns double-dipped on the 8th edition benefits package. Botlguns and Tacs lost their jobs and their social securities.

1) no they are not. The tactical marine is not a take all comers unit. They are a flexible unit. They can SUPPORT the army in a number of ways based on how they are equiped. But they cannot, on their own, deal with everything all the time.

3x the cost is not based purely on the strength of their weapons. Again, they hit more reliably and take more hits to bring down. I agree they need some kind of offensive boost. But its not to the effect that tac marines are all you need to handle everything. That will never and should never be the case.

2) my tyrnaid warriors use deathspitters. They pay 5points for them and they are assault 3 str 5 ap 1 guns. Thats how i handle infantry. You dont need str 6. You dont need ap. You do need reliable hits and more of them. Bolt guns are rapid fire. That gives them 2 shots at cost 0. Beta bolter rules give them even more.

Mass las guns are super good anti infantry. Not because of str or ap but number of shots.

3) what happened before doesnt matter. 8th is a new game. Stop comparing apples to oranges and wishing they had some citrus. If you want it to act like 7th go play 7th. Its still there.

Guardsmen now get 5+ vs boltguns that previously ignored their armor, Marines get 5+ vs a vast array of weapons that ignored their armor as well, why is it only a problem when Guardsmen are involved?

 Bobthehero wrote:
Guardsmen now get 5+ vs boltguns that previously ignored their armor, Marines get 5+ vs a vast array of weapons that ignored their armor as well, why is it only a problem when Guardsmen are involved?

Because Guard are supposed to be NPCs. Remember?

That would be preferable to the current state of affairs.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Guardsmen now get 5+ vs boltguns that previously ignored their armor, Marines get 5+ vs a vast array of weapons that ignored their armor as well, why is it only a problem when Guardsmen are involved?

Because of the durability for the cost being too high because of the new AP system? Did you literally just miss that part on purpose?