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.
2022/03/15 08:43:56
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Dudeface wrote: So as a wonderful exercise, a 9th ed tervigon behind 30 gaunts, 10 chaos marines with bolters rapidfiring. The marines kill 6-7 gaunts, tervigon (who can't be targeted due to the gaunts) regens 2d6 gaunts a turn. Maths says the bolter isn't even capable of killing supported gaunts any more.
Well that's 340ish points of Nids, vs 120ish Points of CSM. Very little looks good up against a 3:1 ratio and character support.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2022/03/15 08:56:23
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
stonehorse wrote: Upping Fleshborers to strength 5, while Bolters remain at strength 4 just highlights how the game is in a very unhealthy condition.
Said it years ago on this forum, and I'll say it again: the game needs to adopt a firepower system for small arms like that used in Epic 40,000/Epic Armageddon. Until then this is the sort of mess we will continue to see.
Oh god yes, I would love that.
2022/03/15 10:30:57
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
If you say so, Battlescribe puts it at 340, but I'm waiting for the next codex to buy. 425 makes the points imbalance even further out.
Whilst true, my point was bolters aren't putting big enough dents in chaff. They're 120 points now but come the new codex they'll likely be what, 180? If you're stacking buffs ontop of the marine, that isn't the bolter being good, that's the thing carrying it. Bolters suck ass and a tactical marine needs 2 buff hq's, a chapter tactic and doctrines to make it semi-relevant.
2022/03/15 10:31:23
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
stonehorse wrote: Upping Fleshborers to strength 5, while Bolters remain at strength 4 just highlights how the game is in a very unhealthy condition.
Said it years ago on this forum, and I'll say it again: the game needs to adopt a firepower system for small arms like that used in Epic 40,000/Epic Armageddon. Until then this is the sort of mess we will continue to see.
Oh god yes, I would love that.
For those that missed out on it in Epic, could someone explain pls?
2022/03/15 10:53:52
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
In Epic Armageddon, weapons have two firepower values, one for anti-personnel (AP) and one for anti-tank (AT), expressed in a target value.
EG...
Heavy Bolter is AP5+
Twin Heavy Bolter is AP4+
Lascannon is AT5+
Missile Launcher is AP5+/AT6+
It massively simplifies stats and rolling. Rolling dice is wasting time, I want to know what I've done and get back to playing the game.
This system is very common in historicals as well - where it works very well because there is a sharp difference between 'tank' and 'unarmoured human' and pretty much nothing that blurs that line.
It works fine for 40k as well, although you get edge cases like Monstrous Creatures (clearly a fleshy monster, but big enough to be a tank) and Terminators (just a small foot slogger, but described as being better armoured than many tanks).
As such, for 40k, I think DUST1947's system might work a little better.
It's a similar thing, although rather than just having two values for AP/AT, it essentially has a small table.
In lieu of explaining the charge, a picture can be worth a thousand words.
Spoiler:
You see this Pz.IV K is a tank (top right) with armour 4 (also top right) and 6 health (bottom left).
If it were to shoot at itself, the laserkanone would roll 9 dice dealing 1 damage each and none of the machine guns would do anything.
You can see machine guys get a lot of dice against light armour, but they drop off quickly.
AT guns typically get very few dice, but high damage, and maintain that right across the armour spectrum.
Weird weapons like that laser gun are kinda in the middle.
PS. In Dust all dice hit on a 4+ and then you get 4+ armour saves, special rules might push those to 3/5+ sometimes.
The core principle I like about it is adds a very organic shift from light infantry to heavy infantry, to light vehicles to heavy vehicles.
The Epic AP/AT system has a very hard 'jump' between 'infantry' and 'vehicles' which is difficult in 40k as there's a lot of stuff in the 'middle ground'. The 7th ed vehicle system had this same problem - que debates on Walker vs Monstrous Creature.
Yet, unlike current 40k, vehicles don't feel 'spongey' or like 'fat infantry' at all.
You can tweak the exact implementation of it. Instead of telling you number of dice/damage, the chart could perhaps tell you dice target/damage, or number/target/damage, or any combination therefore.
Only problem is it's a chart which is a bit impractical to memorise across all your army. I personally don't think that's much of a problem though.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/03/15 10:57:26
2022/03/15 11:49:48
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Dudeface wrote: In the current game, yes bog standard bolters absolutely need to do more. The fleshborer has historically had parity as a half range assault 1 bolter (back before bolter discipline). Bolters are arguably less effective than they were back then due to the AP change, but fire twice at max range if stationary *by a marine*. Fleshborer got +1s, AP-1 and 6" increases. Tau pulse rifles got some increases as well after historically being kept constant. Shuriken catapults got ap and range increases. The humble bolter is now hilariously outgunned by it's peers.
Again, for starters, Orkz already had their new standard weapon upgraded for 9th. We went from Assault 2 18' range to Dakka 3(2). Which means our guns got noticeably worse at long range and marginally better at half range...but since our half range is 9'....its rare that they ever get used this way.
Next. What happened to orkz which I have a sinking feeling is going to happen to nids? GW crushed hordes. If GW does this again to Nids it just means they are trying to remove a play style out of the game because too many people were complaining that there top tier meta lists were being beaten on a regular basis by a skew horde list and therefore instead of adjusting their lists to be more TAC they want them removed from the game. Why does that matter? Because I think GW might have learned from how much they screwed over Ork infantry/troops and are now buffing Nid troops to take the blow better by buffing their primary mission of fire support so that smaller units aren't as useless as say a unit of 30 Shoota boyz would be.
And if you really feel like your bolters aren't good enough, maybe you should address the fact that your basic infantry doubled their standard durability by 100% for almost no points increase.
We're on what 9th Edition? 1st Edition doesn't really count - it was wildly different - so we've got 8 editions of "life" in the game. A bolter was -1 longer than it wasn't. It probably will be again. Especially if they squat the firstborns and only non-marines have one. Whats the difference between 5 Tacs with a flamer and 5 Intercessors with an auxiliary grenade launcher? pretty much AP-1, 5 attacks you never want to need, and 10-20 points. Look at the current codex and the weapons that are AP0 (with no special like the Thunderfire Canon or the Eliminator Hyperfrag rounds) - how many of them CAN'T go on a firstborn? The Assault Bolter variants (Mastercrafted/Heavy/Hellstorm Auto Bolt Rifles and Dakka Aggressors that might as well be a special with 10ish shots per model? Maybe I'm wrong and this isn't to make Primaris more attractive. They do occasionally like to mess with things. I can remember when Plasma was -2, then AP2, now to -3 and -4.
9th Edition, Bolters are AP-1 only in tac doctrine. 8th edition, same thing. 4th-7th bolters were AP5 And no, AP5 is nowhere near similar to AP-1. Talk about a dumb mechanic they put into the game! My Orkz never got an armor save in their games unless they were in CC, it was literally just pickup your models when they were wounded. And in those editions cover worked way better for lesser armored targets. Put a unit of 30 boyz into a barricade, suddenly they gained 4+ armor saves where as the Marines doing exactly the same thing would still be using their 3+ armor save unless targeted by a AP3 weapon in which case they would use the cover save.
Spoletta wrote: It should be noted that while AP is definitely more common than how it was at the start of 8th, a lot of armor saves were actually increased too.
Stormshields provide +1. Kabalites and guardians have 4+. Leman russes have 2+. Tyranid beasts have 2+, and so on.
The only problem in all this is that the power armored marines have been left behind, especially their vehicles.
IMO in the new dex they should lose shock assault while gaining a +1 A (to reduce the number of rules), then add "Black Carapace: Increase the armor save of units with this rule by 1 against attacks of S7 or lower".
Now they are fine, and you justified why marines have 2+ and sisters don't. (Obviously apply to all marine variants, yes stinky and spiky ones too. Maybe not dusty).
A lot of armor hasn't been increased at all. PA Marines have not been left behind in the slightest. This all goes back to the problem of Marines being the most prevalent defensive statline in the game. Marines of all flavors, Grey Knights and a few other units are all T4 3+ armor 2 wounds. You also have similar profiles from Custodes and Sisters of Battle. Chaos Marines are the exact same (except for the 2nd wound ) as are all the other flavors of Chaos. So what you end up with is a very popular/prolific defensive profile which the game then molds around as far as list building. Marines have literally never been as durable as they are right now, it just doesn't feel like it because the game has gone berserk in damage output and specifically in weapons/profiles that directly feth up Marines.
Case and Point. In 4th edition it took 9 Bolter shots to kill 1 Marine. in 9th it now takes 18. Marines went up 3ppm or 20% and gained 100% durability vs Small arms. Orkz in the same time frame went from 3 shots to kill 1 Ork to 5.4 shots to kill 1 Ork, but went from 6ppm to 9ppm or 50% increase in price for a less than 100% durability increase. So the problem isn't durability overall its that nobody is using those weapons anymore to kill Marines. Why take a humble bolter when I can instead take a Plasma Talon or any of the other hundreds of weapons that are almost purpose built to feth up Space Marine armor? And of course, the added bonus is that those same anti-Marine weapons can in a pinch function as anti light to medium vehicle weapons. The durability suggestion you made for black carapace is just ridiculous. That would mean that Terminators effectively have a 1+ armor save and Marines 2+ against most weapons in the game.
Breton wrote: I kind of snicker every time I see someone talking about AP-1 being an upgrade for bolters even though that's what they've been for a long long time. I think they only went to 0 when Primaris got an AP-1 Bolt Rifle. It's not an upgrade, it's a reversion.
1) Which abilities don't stack? I thought it was Doctrines that didn't stack unless specifically allowed?
2) Shock Assault (and Hateful Assault) may change to a straight +1A on the stat line given the rest of the power creep, but I think it stays 1st round only.
except as shown above...they weren't AP-1 and AP5 was nothing like AP-1.
Also, gonna piss off more Marine players. 4th - 7th edition (longer actually but I can't find my older codex) Marines were 1 attack each. 2 if they took a bolt pistol and Chainsword and 3 attacks if they charged that turn. Ork Boyz were 2 attacks base, 3 if they were choppa boyz, 4 if they charged.
Now, Marines are functionally 2 attacks base in combat thanks to shock assault which gives them +1 attack in the 1st round of combat. Ork boyz are now 2 attacks base and 3 for choppa. To get them to 4 where they used to be you have to use a once per game buff and only if you take the right character. OR you can take a weirdboy and give him a sub-optimal power which has a significantly less chance of working than in previous editions.
So why should Marines go to Base 2 attacks while my CC oriented infantry have fewer attacks than they used to?
I mean christ, in just this thread you have people calling for Marines to have 2+ armor, AP-1 bolters and now twice as many base attacks. You guys have already gained twice as many wounds, twice as many ranged shots and a plethora of special rules which enhance Marine power immensely compared to what it was in previous editions and you still want to massively increase their stats lol.
The new nid dex is fairly friendly to hordes, but not as a whole theme of the army. One or two big units of critters work well among their bigger pals.
It is maybe possible to do a termagant spam list with 3 tervigons.
In any case all the cost of small bugs was increased.
Termagants are 7 points and hormagaunts are 8. This is before wargear, which can take an hormagaunt to 11 (but is actually decent now).
2022/03/15 12:35:36
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Dudeface wrote: In the current game, yes bog standard bolters absolutely need to do more. The fleshborer has historically had parity as a half range assault 1 bolter (back before bolter discipline). Bolters are arguably less effective than they were back then due to the AP change, but fire twice at max range if stationary *by a marine*. Fleshborer got +1s, AP-1 and 6" increases. Tau pulse rifles got some increases as well after historically being kept constant. Shuriken catapults got ap and range increases. The humble bolter is now hilariously outgunned by it's peers.
Again, for starters, Orkz already had their new standard weapon upgraded for 9th. We went from Assault 2 18' range to Dakka 3(2). Which means our guns got noticeably worse at long range and marginally better at half range...but since our half range is 9'....its rare that they ever get used this way.
Next. What happened to orkz which I have a sinking feeling is going to happen to nids? GW crushed hordes. If GW does this again to Nids it just means they are trying to remove a play style out of the game because too many people were complaining that there top tier meta lists were being beaten on a regular basis by a skew horde list and therefore instead of adjusting their lists to be more TAC they want them removed from the game. Why does that matter? Because I think GW might have learned from how much they screwed over Ork infantry/troops and are now buffing Nid troops to take the blow better by buffing their primary mission of fire support so that smaller units aren't as useless as say a unit of 30 Shoota boyz would be.
And if you really feel like your bolters aren't good enough, maybe you should address the fact that your basic infantry doubled their standard durability by 100% for almost no points increase.
We're on what 9th Edition? 1st Edition doesn't really count - it was wildly different - so we've got 8 editions of "life" in the game. A bolter was -1 longer than it wasn't. It probably will be again. Especially if they squat the firstborns and only non-marines have one. Whats the difference between 5 Tacs with a flamer and 5 Intercessors with an auxiliary grenade launcher? pretty much AP-1, 5 attacks you never want to need, and 10-20 points. Look at the current codex and the weapons that are AP0 (with no special like the Thunderfire Canon or the Eliminator Hyperfrag rounds) - how many of them CAN'T go on a firstborn? The Assault Bolter variants (Mastercrafted/Heavy/Hellstorm Auto Bolt Rifles and Dakka Aggressors that might as well be a special with 10ish shots per model? Maybe I'm wrong and this isn't to make Primaris more attractive. They do occasionally like to mess with things. I can remember when Plasma was -2, then AP2, now to -3 and -4.
9th Edition, Bolters are AP-1 only in tac doctrine. 8th edition, same thing. 4th-7th bolters were AP5 And no, AP5 is nowhere near similar to AP-1. Talk about a dumb mechanic they put into the game! My Orkz never got an armor save in their games unless they were in CC, it was literally just pickup your models when they were wounded. And in those editions cover worked way better for lesser armored targets. Put a unit of 30 boyz into a barricade, suddenly they gained 4+ armor saves where as the Marines doing exactly the same thing would still be using their 3+ armor save unless targeted by a AP3 weapon in which case they would use the cover save.
Spoletta wrote: It should be noted that while AP is definitely more common than how it was at the start of 8th, a lot of armor saves were actually increased too.
Stormshields provide +1. Kabalites and guardians have 4+. Leman russes have 2+. Tyranid beasts have 2+, and so on.
The only problem in all this is that the power armored marines have been left behind, especially their vehicles.
IMO in the new dex they should lose shock assault while gaining a +1 A (to reduce the number of rules), then add "Black Carapace: Increase the armor save of units with this rule by 1 against attacks of S7 or lower".
Now they are fine, and you justified why marines have 2+ and sisters don't. (Obviously apply to all marine variants, yes stinky and spiky ones too. Maybe not dusty).
A lot of armor hasn't been increased at all. PA Marines have not been left behind in the slightest. This all goes back to the problem of Marines being the most prevalent defensive statline in the game. Marines of all flavors, Grey Knights and a few other units are all T4 3+ armor 2 wounds. You also have similar profiles from Custodes and Sisters of Battle. Chaos Marines are the exact same (except for the 2nd wound ) as are all the other flavors of Chaos. So what you end up with is a very popular/prolific defensive profile which the game then molds around as far as list building. Marines have literally never been as durable as they are right now, it just doesn't feel like it because the game has gone berserk in damage output and specifically in weapons/profiles that directly feth up Marines.
Case and Point. In 4th edition it took 9 Bolter shots to kill 1 Marine. in 9th it now takes 18. Marines went up 3ppm or 20% and gained 100% durability vs Small arms. Orkz in the same time frame went from 3 shots to kill 1 Ork to 5.4 shots to kill 1 Ork, but went from 6ppm to 9ppm or 50% increase in price for a less than 100% durability increase. So the problem isn't durability overall its that nobody is using those weapons anymore to kill Marines. Why take a humble bolter when I can instead take a Plasma Talon or any of the other hundreds of weapons that are almost purpose built to feth up Space Marine armor? And of course, the added bonus is that those same anti-Marine weapons can in a pinch function as anti light to medium vehicle weapons. The durability suggestion you made for black carapace is just ridiculous. That would mean that Terminators effectively have a 1+ armor save and Marines 2+ against most weapons in the game.
Breton wrote: I kind of snicker every time I see someone talking about AP-1 being an upgrade for bolters even though that's what they've been for a long long time. I think they only went to 0 when Primaris got an AP-1 Bolt Rifle. It's not an upgrade, it's a reversion.
1) Which abilities don't stack? I thought it was Doctrines that didn't stack unless specifically allowed?
2) Shock Assault (and Hateful Assault) may change to a straight +1A on the stat line given the rest of the power creep, but I think it stays 1st round only.
except as shown above...they weren't AP-1 and AP5 was nothing like AP-1.
Also, gonna piss off more Marine players. 4th - 7th edition (longer actually but I can't find my older codex) Marines were 1 attack each. 2 if they took a bolt pistol and Chainsword and 3 attacks if they charged that turn. Ork Boyz were 2 attacks base, 3 if they were choppa boyz, 4 if they charged.
Now, Marines are functionally 2 attacks base in combat thanks to shock assault which gives them +1 attack in the 1st round of combat. Ork boyz are now 2 attacks base and 3 for choppa. To get them to 4 where they used to be you have to use a once per game buff and only if you take the right character. OR you can take a weirdboy and give him a sub-optimal power which has a significantly less chance of working than in previous editions.
So why should Marines go to Base 2 attacks while my CC oriented infantry have fewer attacks than they used to?
I mean christ, in just this thread you have people calling for Marines to have 2+ armor, AP-1 bolters and now twice as many base attacks. You guys have already gained twice as many wounds, twice as many ranged shots and a plethora of special rules which enhance Marine power immensely compared to what it was in previous editions and you still want to massively increase their stats lol.
I play spiky Marines so don't have the 2nd wound yet, but otherwise I don't really disagree. Would be happy for shootas to be assault again, would be happy for boyz to get an extra attack base (although I'm happy for 2A base Marines with no shock assault).
What I'd address (again) is you make comments about people wanting to buff a marine. A marine isn't a bolter. Bolters are also in guard and sisters, who don't have shock assault, doctrines, t4, 2w etc. Again, make the bolter worthwhile so Marines don't need layers upon layers of gak heaped on them to appear offensively threatening. I do agree that their increased durability is OK if they hadn't cranked damage output to 11 almost across the board.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/15 12:36:30
2022/03/15 12:46:40
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
I like Shootas not being Assault.
Orks were never the army to be charging around blasting, they were the guys firing loads and loads of bullets.
Shootas being Assault weapons is a hold-over from when Assault let you shoot and charge, but now that's standard.
Let Eldar have Assault basic weapons.
What the game needs is a "Basic" weapon type, with no special abilities.
2022/03/15 13:00:29
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Breton wrote: I kind of snicker every time I see someone talking about AP-1 being an upgrade for bolters even though that's what they've been for a long long time. I think they only went to 0 when Primaris got an AP-1 Bolt Rifle. It's not an upgrade, it's a reversion.
1) Which abilities don't stack? I thought it was Doctrines that didn't stack unless specifically allowed?
2) Shock Assault (and Hateful Assault) may change to a straight +1A on the stat line given the rest of the power creep, but I think it stays 1st round only.
except as shown above...they weren't AP-1 and AP5 was nothing like AP-1.
Yes, the bottom tier AP for basic weapons that had AP is AP-1, except for a couple editions when it was AP5. Not alike whatsoever. Even though that was the AP they put on the basic guns they wanted to have AP and worked their way up/down from opposite ends of the spectrum.
Also, gonna piss off more Marine players. 4th - 7th edition (longer actually but I can't find my older codex) Marines were 1 attack each. 2 if they took a bolt pistol and Chainsword and 3 attacks if they charged that turn. Ork Boyz were 2 attacks base, 3 if they were choppa boyz, 4 if they charged.
I doubt it. When one telegraphs more interest in trolling other factions instead of balance like this its more saddening than maddening.
Now, Marines are functionally 2 attacks base in combat thanks to shock assault which gives them +1 attack in the 1st round of combat. Ork boyz are now 2 attacks base and 3 for choppa. To get them to 4 where they used to be you have to use a once per game buff and only if you take the right character. OR you can take a weirdboy and give him a sub-optimal power which has a significantly less chance of working than in previous editions.
So why should Marines go to Base 2 attacks while my CC oriented infantry have fewer attacks than they used to?
Functionally 2 Attacks base (quietly so nobody can hear: In the first round only if certain admittedly easy conditions are met, 1 attack base otherwise but nobody pay attention to that.). Let's also gloss over Shock/Hateful Assault was a band aid when GW figured out they totally hosed Close Combat in 8th by getting rid of almost all the bonus attack options - two CCW, charging, etc. This is also why Chainswords, and Choppas got +1A with this weapon. (and kinda sorta Scything Talons) - well the simple answer to your question - why should Marines go to two attacks base? Because they're twice as much as your Boys and thus have to have SOMEWHAT double the output per point. You get an average of what 80? More? Less? Bodies to launch your offense from. Marines will get 30-50. This is why Terminators have Storm bolters and Bikes have Twin Linked Bolters too. They're twice as much so need double the opportunity output. See Also: Outriders and Devastating Charge.
I mean christ, in just this thread you have people calling for Marines to have 2+ armor, AP-1 bolters and now twice as many base attacks.
Yes, lets lump all those disparate suggestions into one long list to make it look like everyone is calling for all of that at once.
You guys
Yes. You guys. As you quote the part where I said seeing Shock/Hateful Assault go to base was unlikely.
have already gained twice as many wounds, twice as many ranged shots
Say what? Bolters are RapidFire 2 now?
and a plethora of special rules which enhance Marine power immensely compared to what it was in previous editions and you still want to massively increase their stats lol.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2022/03/15 14:21:37
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
I get why the Fleshborer changes have some folks up in arms, but there's a lot of wild and wacky mathhammer out there making the situation look more dire than it is (sorry Dudeface and kaied). Yes, it's a bit of a paradigm shift in Gants (i.e. higher points and higher quality shooting), and I get why that chafes some folks, but that happens with every new book. If Marines weren't going to get a new codex later this year (probably before some other hapless army), I'd be more concerned about the Fleshborer creep, but as it is, I don't think it's a huge deal.
That said, I wholeheartedly agree with the general sentiment that all this power creep (in particular in the form of AP) is really fething up this edition hard. I love Nids, I'm so happy that they have a bunch of strong datasheets in this book. But I think with strats and army-wide rules, they are going to be far too good.
2022/03/15 14:25:12
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
honestly i think bolters with current doctrines are fine, you can't make them ap-1 as then its a few turns of ap-2 bolters. I think ultimately a lot of the increase in small arms buffs are a response to the marine doctrines to make other armies catch up.
a Gaunt with a str 5 ap-1 D1 gun is still hitting at worse BS than a space marine from a T3 platform with a tshirt save. to get in range of most armies they are putting themselves in a reasonable charge range which is also a place they do not want to be.
10000 points 7000 6000 5000 5000 2000
2022/03/15 14:35:59
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
except as shown above...they weren't AP-1 and AP5 was nothing like AP-1.
Yes, the bottom tier AP for basic weapons that had AP is AP-1, except for a couple editions when it was AP5. Not alike whatsoever. Even though that was the AP they put on the basic guns they wanted to have AP and worked their way up/down from opposite ends of the spectrum.
"Couple Editions". Yeah I found an old 3rd edition Codex. Space Marine bolter was AP5. So 3rd-7th it was AP5. GW released Rogue Trader in 1987. They released 3rd edition in 1998 and 8th edition in 2017. So the Game has been around for 35ish years, and really 1st and 2nd were nothing at all like anything todays game is played. AP was things like APD6+D4+4 so realistically the game as we know it started in 3rd but lets just give you Rogue Trader and 2nd Edition. That means that for 19 of the years the game has existed bolters were AP5 not AP-1. If you are fair about it, bolters have only been AP-1 since 8th which means for 5ish years and going even further than that, they were only AP-1 in 8th and 9th when in tactical doctrine.
SemperMortis wrote: Also, gonna piss off more Marine players. 4th - 7th edition (longer actually but I can't find my older codex) Marines were 1 attack each. 2 if they took a bolt pistol and Chainsword and 3 attacks if they charged that turn. Ork Boyz were 2 attacks base, 3 if they were choppa boyz, 4 if they charged.
I doubt it. When one telegraphs more interest in trolling other factions instead of balance like this its more saddening than maddening
I'm telegraphing interest in trolling by pointing out how the recommendations being made here are silly and adamantly wishing for more buffs to be added to a faction or unit which has received massive buffs over the space of the last 5-6 years is a bit ridiculous and won't help the game because yet again, Marines are the army that all else is judged off of.
Now, Marines are functionally 2 attacks base in combat thanks to shock assault which gives them +1 attack in the 1st round of combat. Ork boyz are now 2 attacks base and 3 for choppa. To get them to 4 where they used to be you have to use a once per game buff and only if you take the right character. OR you can take a weirdboy and give him a sub-optimal power which has a significantly less chance of working than in previous editions.
So why should Marines go to Base 2 attacks while my CC oriented infantry have fewer attacks than they used to?
Functionally 2 Attacks base (quietly so nobody can hear: In the first round only if certain admittedly easy conditions are met, 1 attack base otherwise but nobody pay attention to that.).
umm.... what? I said and I quote "gives them +1 attack in the 1st round of combat" Literally word for word what I just said, and your response is a snarky comment like this? There are no "only if certain admittedly easy conditions are met" its 1st round of combat if they charge, are charged or heroically intervene. That is like 95% of all combats, or are you just upset that if I pile into a Marine unit they only get 1 free attack each as opposed to 2?
Breton wrote: Let's also gloss over Shock/Hateful Assault was a band aid when GW figured out they totally hosed Close Combat in 8th by getting rid of almost all the bonus attack options - two CCW, charging, etc. This is also why Chainswords, and Choppas got +1A with this weapon. (and kinda sorta Scything Talons) -
And so was +1 to attack for Ork mobz if they were over 20. Something they got rid of in this new edition which means you got to keep your band aid while ours was removed entirely granted ours was worse across the board anyway. Maybe this would be a good argument for why Orkz need to be Base 3 attacks and your Marines can be Base 2
Breton wrote: well the simple answer to your question - why should Marines go to two attacks base? Because they're twice as much as your Boys and thus have to have SOMEWHAT double the output per point. You get an average of what 80? More? Less? Bodies to launch your offense from. Marines will get 30-50. This is why Terminators have Storm bolters and Bikes have Twin Linked Bolters too. They're twice as much so need double the opportunity output. See Also: Outriders and Devastating Charge.
This was a bad argument 2 editions ago, and its a bad argument now. A Marine is 3+ armor compared to Ork 6+. A Marine has 2 wounds to an orkz 1. So opportunity cost seems to ignore Durability.
against an opponent with WS4, S4 AP-1. To kill 10 Marines it takes 160 attacks. To kill 20 boyz with those same attacks takes 120 attacks. Against ranged Firepower, to kill a Marine with bolters it takes 18 shots, to kill 2 Orkz it takes 10.8. Standard Marine is armed with a bolter, a fair comparison would be against a shoota boy. in CC 10 Marines with 2 attacks each do 20 attacks, 13.3 hits, 4.4 wounds and 3.7 dead Ork boyz. 20 Ork shoota boyz do 40 attacks, 26.6 hits, 13.3 wounds and 4.4 wounds for 2.2 dead Marines. So Marines lose 40pts of Marines Orkz lose 33.3pts Orkz win. But what about at Range? Say 24 inches? Marines get 20 shots, 13.3 hits, 4.4 wounds for 3.7 dead Boyz, Orkz get....0 Marines win. What about at 18? Marines get 3.7 dead Orkz get 40 shots, 13.3 hits, 6.6 wounds and 2.3dmg for 1 Dead Marine. Orkz lose 33pts, Marines lose 20 Marines win. I can keep going. The point is that your bad math doesn't factor in durability at all, which Marines with 3+ armor saves and 2 wounds have in spades over orkz nor does it factor in the ranged component that this entire thread is asking for. Those Marines are doing significantly more dmg from range than almost all other CC troop units, so why should they be just as good at CC?
SemperMortis wrote: I mean christ, in just this thread you have people calling for Marines to have 2+ armor, AP-1 bolters and now twice as many base attacks.
Yes, lets lump all those disparate suggestions into one long list to make it look like everyone is calling for all of that at once.
I did, right there, you quoted me. Except I didn't make it into one long list and make it look like everyone was calling for all of that at once. That is you trying to infer something that isn't there.
Breton wrote: Say what? Bolters are RapidFire 2 now?
7th edition rapid fire was 1 shot at 24 or 2 shots at 12. Now its 2 shots at 24 if you stand still. Hence twice as many shots...except on vehicles which get twice as many shots regardsless
SemperMortis wrote: and a plethora of special rules which enhance Marine power immensely compared to what it was in previous editions and you still want to massively increase their stats
lol.
So you didn't get bolter discipline, shock assault, Chapter tactics, Doctrines, super doctrines and a bunch of other stuff i'm likely forgetting? Oh, more core units than any other faction in the game?
SemperMortis wrote: umm.... what? I said and I quote "gives them +1 attack in the 1st round of combat" Literally word for word what I just said, and your response is a snarky comment like this?
There are no "only if certain admittedly easy conditions are met" its 1st round of combat if they charge, are charged or heroically intervene. That is like 95% of all combats, or are you just upset that if I pile into a Marine unit they only get 1 free attack each as opposed to 2?
"There are no easily met conditions." Proceeds to list the easily met conditions.
Breton wrote: well the simple answer to your question - why should Marines go to two attacks base? Because they're twice as much as your Boys and thus have to have SOMEWHAT double the output per point. You get an average of what 80? More? Less? Bodies to launch your offense from. Marines will get 30-50. This is why Terminators have Storm bolters and Bikes have Twin Linked Bolters too. They're twice as much so need double the opportunity output. See Also: Outriders and Devastating Charge.
This was a bad argument 2 editions ago, and its a bad argument now. A Marine is 3+ armor compared to Ork 6+. A Marine has 2 wounds to an orkz 1. So opportunity cost seems to ignore Durability.
Arguments you can't deal with are bad arguments? A LandSpeeder Tornado has 6 wounds and 9 shots while for 50% more the Hailstrike has two more wounds and significantly more shots. I'm certainly not dishonest enough to claim all those extra points are tied up in 2 wounds, but also in the shots. Ergo Part of the points cost is durability, and part of it is offense. But sure, call it a "bad argument" to point out double the price should have roughly double the offense and double the durability.
I mean christ, in just this thread you have people calling for Marines to have 2+ armor, AP-1 bolters and now twice as many base attacks.
Yes, lets lump all those disparate suggestions into one long list to make it look like everyone is calling for all of that at once.
I did, right there, you quoted me. Except I didn't make it into one long list and make it look like everyone was calling for all of that at once. That is you trying to infer something that isn't there.
The list right there says otherwise.
Breton wrote: Say what? Bolters are RapidFire 2 now?
7th edition rapid fire was 1 shot at 24 or 2 shots at 12. Now its 2 shots at 24 if you stand still. Hence twice as many shots...except on vehicles which get twice as many shots regardsless
Interesting. Two doubled is... two. This New Math is really getting out of hand.
SemperMortis wrote: and a plethora of special rules which enhance Marine power immensely compared to what it was in previous editions and you still want to massively increase their stats
lol.
So you didn't get bolter discipline, shock assault, Chapter tactics, Doctrines, super doctrines and a bunch of other stuff i'm likely forgetting? Oh, more core units than any other faction in the game?
So you're saying Shock Assault - as already established was a bandaid to replace +1A while charging or 2 Weapons etc AND that quiet part ONLY on the first round - is immensely enhanced compared to getting +1A all the time? Marines already had Doctrines. 2 doubled is 2. LOL
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2022/03/15 15:11:34
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
And yes, Shock Assault is there to replace the +1 attack for charging-but why should Marines and Marines alone get that? (Okay, Ogryns and a few other units also get it. But Marines are the only ones to get it Faction-wide.)
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/03/15 15:12:42
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
And yes, Shock Assault is there to replace the +1 attack for charging-but why should Marines and Marines alone get that? (Okay, Ogryns and a few other units also get it. But Marines are the only ones to get it Faction-wide.)
Which sisters are firing their bolters twice at 24"?
2022/03/15 15:16:36
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
G00fySmiley wrote: honestly i think bolters with current doctrines are fine, you can't make them ap-1 as then its a few turns of ap-2 bolters. I think ultimately a lot of the increase in small arms buffs are a response to the marine doctrines to make other armies catch up.
a Gaunt with a str 5 ap-1 D1 gun is still hitting at worse BS than a space marine from a T3 platform with a tshirt save. to get in range of most armies they are putting themselves in a reasonable charge range which is also a place they do not want to be.
I think bolters go back to AP-1 the minute Marines can't take them. They may go there sooner. I think they went to 0 to push people out of Firstborn, if they're chucking that idea they'll go back sooner. And we already have a couple turns of -2 "bolters" on the Primaris. Putting them on Tacs isn't going to matter much. Balance wise. Of course if they do that and/or the +1A baseline to Firstborn:
If they do OR the other one won't be far behind - it'll be too hard to try and shave the 1 point balance between a Tac and an Intercessor.
then Tacs and Intercessors will be the same price and it comes down to a few Strats, which transport (which would also go away in a hurry), and a special/heavy vs Auxiliary Grenade Launcher.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2022/03/15 15:16:56
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
And yes, Shock Assault is there to replace the +1 attack for charging-but why should Marines and Marines alone get that? (Okay, Ogryns and a few other units also get it. But Marines are the only ones to get it Faction-wide.)
2 shots at 12" is not twice as many as 2 shots at 24".
And
Because GW is bad at this? I mean they had to bandaid the thing twice. And its still not right.
My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings.
2022/03/15 15:33:47
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
And yes, Shock Assault is there to replace the +1 attack for charging-but why should Marines and Marines alone get that? (Okay, Ogryns and a few other units also get it. But Marines are the only ones to get it Faction-wide.)
Which sisters are firing their bolters twice at 24"?
when people refer to bolters, they obiously refer to the most popular faction to wield them (marines and CSM)
2022/03/15 15:37:17
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
And yes, Shock Assault is there to replace the +1 attack for charging-but why should Marines and Marines alone get that? (Okay, Ogryns and a few other units also get it. But Marines are the only ones to get it Faction-wide.)
Which sisters are firing their bolters twice at 24"?
when people refer to bolters, they obiously refer to the most popular faction to wield them (marines and CSM)
The topic is "Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?" - yes. I don't care what is carrying it the bolter is crap in the current game/state. Imagine if marine didn't need bolter discipline, doctrines and chapter traits all stacking to make it worth firing their default weapon.
2022/03/15 15:48:41
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
So you're saying a unit with 3+ Armor and T4, with 30" of range, does less damage than a unit with 5+ Armor and T3 with only 18"? Clearly something must be broken.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/03/15 15:57:57
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/03/15 15:55:56
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
JNAProductions wrote: So you're saying a unit with 3+ Armor and T4, with 30" of range, does less damage than a unit with 6+ Armor and T3 with only 18"?
Clearly something must be broken.
Not too relevant but they're 5+ save now.
2022/03/15 15:58:22
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
JNAProductions wrote: So you're saying a unit with 3+ Armor and T4, with 30" of range, does less damage than a unit with 6+ Armor and T3 with only 18"?
Clearly something must be broken.
Not too relevant but they're 5+ save now.
Ah, okay.
Edited the former post.
But yeah, Gants aren't nearly as durable as Intercessors.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/03/15 16:04:11
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
JNAProductions wrote: So you're saying a unit with 3+ Armor and T4, with 30" of range, does less damage than a unit with 6+ Armor and T3 with only 18"?
Clearly something must be broken.
Not too relevant but they're 5+ save now.
Ah, okay.
Edited the former post.
But yeah, Gants aren't nearly as durable as Intercessors.
) as are all the other flavors of Chaos. So what you end up with is a very popular/prolific defensive profile which the game then molds around as far as list building. Marines have literally never been as durable as they are right now, it just doesn't feel like it because the game has gone berserk in damage output and specifically in weapons/profiles that directly feth up Marines.
7000 
granted ours was worse across the board anyway. Maybe this would be a good argument for why Orkz need to be Base 3 attacks and your Marines can be Base 2 
