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.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'd much rather see other things get toned down rather than buffing bolters further. Nobody wins the power creep war.

I mean we just had confirmation that Fleshborers went to S5 AP-1. There's clearly no toning down at this point.

The fact that GW isn't interested in backing off on the power creep doesn't mean that the answer to "should X get power creeped?" shouldn't be "no".

(Alternate phrasing with fewer double negatives: It doesn't become a good idea just because GW's doing it.)

Arn't bolt rounds pretty much a solid fuel rocket propelled at an enemy? The difference between a Boltgun and Bolt rifle is just longer barrel etc? Because they are both rocket propelled the extra barrel length should do nothing for penetrating power. Maybe accuracy, but lets say range...

The only difference between a Boltgun and a Bolt rifle should be one 24" and the other 30" (both -1AP).

Because some are going up, nah I think they stay the same (though I think boltgun should be: 24" -1Ap and Bolt rifle: 30" -1Ap, so increase boltgun). If they release a new Marine codex, I think other things will change to make them "keep up".

Spoletta wrote:
Making bolters Str 5 would imho be a good thing.

Bad thing for Death Guard. Death Guard is a trash tier army as it is. Str 5 bolters and more AP would just cement the fact that Death Guard needs to be squatted at this point.

Bolters do not need a strength buff. Nor do they need an AP buff. As I mentioned the only thing that would be a change worth putting on them is bumping them to D2 (and maybe only against non-vehicle models) to make them proper anti-MEQ weapons since Marines but honestly that could be pushing it when you consoder that Sisters of both flavors also get them and can be run in higher numbers than Astartes.

I stand by the only change we need to see isn't one where the bolter is buffed buy where all small arms are taken down a pip of AP to balance the game's leathality curve better.

They don't need one but will get it.
Also half expect "boltgun" to cease being a thing. So you don't have to balance across multiple factions.

Because if say CSM are to be 18~ points, they can't easily have a gun Kroot get at 6 or Sisters get at 11. Or you have to buff their toughness so all these cheap 8-9 point shooting units don't just gun them down.

Honestly I feel that if CSM are ever going to as popular as they once were, the humble bolter is going to need a buff, since they dont have a primaris option, but knowing GW they will likely buff some primaris bolter guns as well

Hecaton wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

I'm still waiting for Orkz to receive their 8th edition version of buffs to small arms that Marines got let alone their 9th edition one which is apparently even more bonkers than 8th. Marines got functionally twice as many shots and situational -1AP on their bolters. Ork shoota's....they lost DDD but gained a 3rd shot if they somehow get within 9' of their opponent. I mean...they didn't even have the decency to hand us 6 more inches of range to at least make it feasible that occasionally you might get a shoota into dakka range. and lets not even talk about losing assault.

But if Orks were good it might compromise the Astartes power fantasy, and we can't have that.

No, Hecaton, you're missing something obvious here - if Orks were good, then Semper would have nothing to whinge about over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and therefore their head would explode.

By keeping Orks bad, they're keeping Semper alive!

I'm sure I'll get jumped on for saying this, but 90% of the current mess with regard to power creep can be tied directly to Marines getting an extra wound. That one act completely changed the dynamics of ostensibly anti-infantry weapons and led to drastic increases in the number of D2 weapons and also in AP, rate of fire etc., even for basic weapons.

It was an unparalleled mistake and one GW is unlikely to rectify even in 10th.

 vipoid wrote:
I'm sure I'll get jumped on for saying this, but 90% of the current mess with regard to power creep can be tied directly to Marines getting an extra wound. That one act completely changed the dynamics of ostensibly anti-infantry weapons and led to drastic increases in the number of D2 weapons and also in AP, rate of fire etc., even for basic weapons.

It was an unparalleled mistake and one GW is unlikely to rectify even in 10th.

I agree, I think it was that the designers wanted SM more survivable but not to give so much, so they gave all Marines 1 extra wound, but thought we should give some weapons damage 2 now to compensate, and were not aware of the ramifications so it escalated (more damage weapons, reduce damage abilities, now ignore invulnerables etc is a rolling ball of what next).

I think all boltguns should go to -1Ap. Have to change some SM strats and give SM Hq's more attacks and wounds (is what is gunna happen with SM version 2.0)

 vipoid wrote:
I'm sure I'll get jumped on for saying this, but 90% of the current mess with regard to power creep can be tied directly to Marines getting an extra wound. That one act completely changed the dynamics of ostensibly anti-infantry weapons and led to drastic increases in the number of D2 weapons and also in AP, rate of fire etc., even for basic weapons.

It was an unparalleled mistake and one GW is unlikely to rectify even in 10th.

It was the lack of pre-planning and not having a design document. They made the change without consideration for the unintended consequences and had to ramp everything else up to compensate and didn't have any consideration for how those changes would butterfly propagate when not facing marines (or even when facing marines in a lot of ways)

You're absolutely right, and you can see it in stages, where dark eldar got heavy splinter bolters and dark lance improvements, but got nothing for splinter rifles, and by the time the changes hit craftworlds and tyranids, shuriken catapults got some semblance over their former (1e/2e) glory back and basic fleshborers are now the assault bolters (from the primaris jump guys) spread out across 3 models.

 vipoid wrote:
I'm sure I'll get jumped on for saying this, but 90% of the current mess with regard to power creep can be tied directly to Marines getting an extra wound. That one act completely changed the dynamics of ostensibly anti-infantry weapons and led to drastic increases in the number of D2 weapons and also in AP, rate of fire etc., even for basic weapons.

It was an unparalleled mistake and one GW is unlikely to rectify even in 10th.

Yup.

I feel like the extra wound on Marines *feels* right but the team not sitting down and thinking of the knock on effects when they made the change seems like it's par for the course. It feels like they're designing books in a vacuum with no thoughts (beyond any feedback from the playtesters they decide to listen to) on how the game will affect the rest of the game.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like the extra wound on Marines *feels* right but the team not sitting down and thinking of the knock on effects when they made the change seems like it's par for the course. It feels like they're designing books in a vacuum with no thoughts (beyond any feedback from the playtesters they decide to listen to) on how the game will affect the rest of the game.

Even then the answer wasn't hand damage out like candy, just point adjust the marines if they become too tough.

They didn't go far enough.

They had to make them 2W and 2+. with termies 1+. Then this new level of weapons would be good, because honestly it is better than the previous ones, where everything was compressed in the same profiles.

Problem is that the rest of the field would be utterly useless against them until a few dexes were out.

Spoletta wrote:
They didn't go far enough.

They had to make them 2W and 2+. with termies 1+. Then this new level of weapons would be good, because honestly it is better than the previous ones, where everything was compressed in the same profiles.

Problem is that the rest of the field would be utterly useless against them until a few dexes were out.

1+, or 2+ with a +1?

2+ and decrease incoming AP by 1 I guess.

Necron guns should be better than bolters, but that is a different topic.

There are a lot of bolt weapons at this point, and the bolter is good when it is in the relevant doctrine. Increasing the bolter statline further could become OP, and honestly will hurt marine players as power armor will become less viable.

There is obviously weapon stat creep at this point, and GW will address it for Marines because of the forthcoming second marine dex that everyone knows will happen, and if bolters are improved marine players will actually dislike it because their number one enemy will likely be other armies with bolters.

blaktoof wrote:
Necron guns should be better than bolters, but that is a different topic.

There are a lot of bolt weapons at this point, and the bolter is good when it is in the relevant doctrine. Increasing the bolter statline further could become OP, and honestly will hurt marine players as power armor will become less viable.

There is obviously weapon stat creep at this point, and GW will address it for Marines because of the forthcoming second marine dex that everyone knows will happen, and if bolters are improved marine players will actually dislike it because their number one enemy will likely be other armies with bolters.

I mean the Gauss Flayer is definitely better than the standard Bolter, but as someone that likes Immortals more, I'm fine with that being the standard gun to compare with.

I actively like when basic datums, like small arms, are roughly comparable across armies.
It makes it a lot easier to understand.
40k has, what, a dozen distinct factions at this point before you account for niche stuff?
If every little thing is wildly different between every one of those it's too much to understand.
It's good if I can look at a Necron Warrior and know what their capabilities are because it's similar to my stuff.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I actively like when basic datums, like small arms, are roughly comparable across armies.
It makes it a lot easier to understand.
40k has, what, a dozen distinct factions at this point before you account for niche stuff?
If every little thing is wildly different between every one of those it's too much to understand.
It's good if I can look at a Necron Warrior and know what their capabilities are because it's similar to my stuff.

When the capabilities of a unit are so heavily tied to subfactions, stratagems, and other factors not on the datasheet, knowing the statline doesn't get you very far. We're way too deep into the weeds for whether basic small arms align to matter.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I actively like when basic datums, like small arms, are roughly comparable across armies.
It makes it a lot easier to understand.
40k has, what, a dozen distinct factions at this point before you account for niche stuff?
If every little thing is wildly different between every one of those it's too much to understand.
It's good if I can look at a Necron Warrior and know what their capabilities are because it's similar to my stuff.

And then get confused when the Necron player has 50% more Warriors compared to Intercessors.

 Dysartes wrote:

No, Hecaton, you're missing something obvious here - if Orks were good, then Semper would have nothing to whinge about over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and therefore their head would explode.

By keeping Orks bad, they're keeping Semper alive!

Let me know when another faction, which isn't running away with it on the tournament scene, forces GW to release an emergency FAQ/Nerf so that top players don't have to worry about having to face counter meta lists

After a few games I think I'd rather have everything get the crud nerfed out of it. 9th edition is just so crazy deadly already.

Kaied wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
S5 AP-1 fleshborers still don't have the range and ability to fire twice that the bolters do, so I woukdn't say they're "better" necessarily, but there's an unprecedented encroachment there.

A little Mathhammer and S4 AP0 D1 is exactly half the damage as S5 AP-1 D1 against T4 3+ save and assuming the same BS. So yeah, Fleshborer doesn't have the option to Rapid Fire... but it effectively always is compared to a Boltgun. Looks like it's an Assault Weapon too, so the shorter range is mitigated by 'can be fired while advancing'.

Anyway, I think the better comparison is the Astartes Shotgun, it's just that Boltgun is more iconic. S4 AP0 D1 Assault 2 18" vs S5 AP-1 D1 Assault 1 18". Fleshborer will do more damage against harder than Marine targets (T4 3+) and Shotgun will do more against weaker than Marine.

Comparison to the bolter is proper.

While your bit about Rapid Fire is correct, it's not quite... accurate. Bolter Discipline means that marines will be doubling-up their shots far more often than not, to the point where having double the range is an extremely important factor. This also doesn't account for bolters having bonus AP from Doctrines, and you bizarrely choose to throw in a bit about "assuming the same BS" when Termagants have always had lower BS than marines...

So while your comparison is technically correct, it's incredibly dishonest. And that's before you even really get into the weeds on platform durability, in which Bolters suddenly fair significantly better (respectively) when firing at Termagants than when firing at Marines. So the conclusions reached via this mathhammer are deeply flawed, and should be ignored by anyone not looking to push an inaccurate agenda.

Spoletta wrote:
Making bolters Str 5 would imho be a good thing.
It would put them around equal with Admech and Necron guns, worse than pulse rifles and better than fleshborers.

I know that Necron and Admech guns used to be better versions of bolters, but it is also an evergreen meme than GW has never portrayed the bolter correctly.

The Necron Gauss Flayer is just S4... the S5 comes at loss of range

Surprised no one has claimed the Bolter should also magically gain a number of shots because the Devourer is going to Assault 5.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'd much rather see other things get toned down rather than buffing bolters further. Nobody wins the power creep war.

I mean we just had confirmation that Fleshborers went to S5 AP-1. There's clearly no toning down at this point.

Wyldhunt is still right through: A creep war has no winners (unless you're Zerg), and the game would be better served if everything was brought down, rather than constant one-upping and readjusting.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'd much rather see other things get toned down rather than buffing bolters further. Nobody wins the power creep war.

I mean we just had confirmation that Fleshborers went to S5 AP-1. There's clearly no toning down at this point.

AnomanderRake wrote:The fact that GW isn't interested in backing off on the power creep doesn't mean that the answer to "should X get power creeped?" shouldn't be "no".

(Alternate phrasing with fewer double negatives: It doesn't become a good idea just because GW's doing it.)

Obviously the books that are being printed are already a done deal, but that doesn't mean I can't hope for a lethality reduction in the future. Maybe that means waiting for an edition change or whatever, but trying to fix power creep with more power creep just leads to 7th edition hyper lethality where every unit on the table is deleting entire units units every time they shoot. Been there. Done that. Didn't care for it.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
I feel like the extra wound on Marines *feels* right but the team not sitting down and thinking of the knock on effects when they made the change seems like it's par for the course. It feels like they're designing books in a vacuum with no thoughts (beyond any feedback from the playtesters they decide to listen to) on how the game will affect the rest of the game.

Well, we've only had an edition and a half or so since they did it. GW is like a very large very tight rubber band when it comes to changes. They snap back and forth over the "good" fix several times before they settle on the good one.