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.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
To buff bolters can’t you just go crimson fists, +1 to hit against vehicles and non tiny squads, plus exploding sixes on bolt weapons.

Except sisters and chaos can't be Crimson Fists.

No, but they can be whatever holy order just really likes shooting crap. Gw has full ability to make subfaction traits good and encourage specific builds but they just don’t. What I meant here was that factions tend to have buffs. Plus don’t sisters have special bolter boost strats?

No idea, but it shouldn't tale a faction specific limited resource to make a bolter worth it. That is the point, you're advocating laying rules salad onto of the models to make the bolter half decent, rather than making the bolter good and stripping layers off the models.

No, I think you've got it backwards. Why should the most ubiquitous, easily spammable, baseline gun in the game be "good"? It should be "average". I get it, the game is FUBAR right now, but we don't solve this FUBAR situation by going back to the 8e Marines 2.0 meta.

I agree it should be average, it is below average, it is propped up by orders/chapter traits, strats, auras, psychic powers , warlord traits etc. The gun is below average, in fact it's only taken by armies who have no choice, I.e. sisters. I'm not talking about auto bolters, bolt rifles. Bolters. The ones you find on sister squads, tactical Marines, chaos marines.

You want the game to stop being FUBAR, remove the layer upon layer of stacks rules something has and get back to barebones. You'll soon notice a bolter firing 1 s4 ap- d1 shot at 24" is vastly worse than the new shuriken catapults, fleshborers, pulse rifles etc.

this just shows that the Primaris 1upmanship wasn't beneficial at all.

Wouldn't be surprised if GW bypassed that for CSM though with something like cursed ammo / boltgun.

Dudeface wrote:

You want the game to stop being FUBAR, remove the layer upon layer of stacks rules something has and get back to barebones. You'll soon notice a bolter firing 1 s4 ap- d1 shot at 24" is vastly worse than the new shuriken catapults, fleshborers, pulse rifles etc.

Really? That 24'' range is "vastly worse" than things with 18'' range when you're 24'' away?

...I get it, that's not a big enough deal to make bolters feel alright compared to those other weapons. But man, let's go back to Insectum's wonderful work from probably a year or so now where he showed how Marines have crept way forward when compared to offense and defense of Xenos units. The Shuricat was garbage in 8th and 9th, has been crept on for probably 20 years now. The Fleshborer was basically never good and Fleshborer Gants have not been anything other than wound counters. Maybe GW twisted the knob a little too far in one direction (though I don't know that we have enough evidence to believe that at this stage), but those weapons needed improvements, end of story (and same with pulse rifles too!)

Somebody already said it in this thread. If you want a grimdark world where there is only war and humanity is doomed (i.e. the plot of the fething setting), you need a world where Xenos and Xenos weapons are scary.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Breton wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

But if the conclusion you got was "Gants are obviously superior to Intercessors" your conclusion is.

No the conclusion I got was wondering what the durability of Gants mattered in a discussion of bolters, with mathhammering them being shot at Intercessors not Gants, nor why even that would matter if they were all shooting at Gants.

Because a unit is more than just shooting.

What conclusion do you think should be drawn from the data presented?

Conclusion A) We're not comparing units, we're comparing the bolter.
Conclusion B) The drop in AP never made sense from a balance standpoint. For the people focusing on the SM only aspect - The minor PPM difference between Intercessor and Tactical vs 1A, 6" of range and AP-1 is going to keep Tacs on the shelf while any concerns of AP-2 basic weapons runs strait into the Bolt Rifle that already does such.. For the Sisters/Guard/etc players they're just screwed until/unless the AP is restored.

Dudeface wrote:


I agree it should be average, it is below average, it is propped up by orders/chapter traits, strats, auras, psychic powers , warlord traits etc. The gun is below average, in fact it's only taken by armies who have no choice, I.e. sisters. I'm not talking about auto bolters, bolt rifles. Bolters. The ones you find on sister squads, tactical Marines, chaos marines.

You want the game to stop being FUBAR, remove the layer upon layer of stacks rules something has and get back to barebones. You'll soon notice a bolter firing 1 s4 ap- d1 shot at 24" is vastly worse than the new shuriken catapults, fleshborers, pulse rifles etc.

It's not below average. Shootas, splinter rifles and lasguns aren't better, I think they're all worse. Lots of basic stuff also have pistols which are worse than bolters. And all bolter platforms with a 9th edition codex have tools to be on par with the troops which have native AP-1 and/or S5 or are cheap enough (sisters) they are already on par pointswise. So basically only Deathguard have really crappy bolters, aka below average basic weapons. Some armies, like marines, don't use many bolter dudes only because they have the luxury to have tons of options, including troops with the stats of elites. I'd argue that their problem is not having basic dudes with average weapons, but basic dudes with too high stats and too good weapons that are in competition with the most average guys.

Generic Chaos dudes are still 8th, so they don't count as we don't know how they'll be upgraded.

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
But man, let's go back to Insectum's wonderful work from probably a year or so now where he showed how Marines have crept way forward when compared to offense and defense of Xenos units. The Shuricat was garbage in 8th and 9th, has been crept on for probably 20 years now. The Fleshborer was basically never good and Fleshborer Gants have not been anything other than wound counters.

Not to steal Insectum's thunder, but yeah let's hop in our time machine and go back twenty years to 3rd Ed and look just at the guns.

Bolter: Stationary, you get two S4 AP5 shots at 12" or one S4 AP5 shot at 24". Moving, you only get one shot at 12". You cannot shoot and charge.
Shuriken Catapult: Two S4 AP5 shots at 12".
Fleshborer: One S4 AP5 shot at 12".

All the same S4 AP5 profile, just different ranges and number of shots. Even the Fleshborer- a bolt pistol analogue- rivaled the firepower of a bolter on the move and you could still shoot and charge with it. The Shuriken Catapult had double the firepower of a bolter on the move and could shoot and charge. Shooting an enemy, then charging the survivors to finish them off was an effective tactic that Marines simply could not do.

The downside to these weapons was that they did not have the option to stay still and fire at longer range, and with Marines ignoring the armor of Guardians or Termagants altogether they really could stay still and gun you down before you could get into range.

The advantages of the Assault weapon type then got systematically eroded for twenty years, to the point where having two shots at 12" was a joke because the only advantage it had over the 24" Rapid Fire was the ability to Advance and fire at -1.

So where are we right now?

Bolter: Two S4 shots at 12" or one shot at 24".
Shuriken Catapult: Two S4 AP-1 shots at 18", bonus AP on 6s, and you can Advance and shoot at a penalty.
Fleshborer: One S5 AP-1 shot at 18" and you can Advance and shoot at a penalty.

All three guns have more reach than in 3rd- the Catapult and Fleshborer due to range increase, but the Bolter being able to move and still fire at full effectiveness. That also means that if a Catapult or Fleshborer gets in range, a bolter-armed model can move forwards to get in rapid fire range. The Fleshborer is more than half a Catapult now, but the platform that carries it has also gotten relatively more expensive, so it's not quite a cannon fodder unit anymore.

Give regular bolters the same AP-1 that Bolt Rifles have and then bolters and Catapults are pretty much on par again, with Fleshborers still coming in behind against anything T7 or less. Plus with Bolter Discipline and Doctrines, Marines still have access to force-multipliers on bolters that let them punch above the other two.

Really, I think the issue is that players have become accustomed to things like Catapults being lasgun analogues, rather than bolter analogues. Back in the day, the advantage of Marines over Eldar wasn't superior firepower, it was superior durability with comparable firepower.

 catbarf wrote:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
But man, let's go back to Insectum's wonderful work from probably a year or so now where he showed how Marines have crept way forward when compared to offense and defense of Xenos units. The Shuricat was garbage in 8th and 9th, has been crept on for probably 20 years now. The Fleshborer was basically never good and Fleshborer Gants have not been anything other than wound counters.

Not to steal Insectum's thunder, but yeah let's hop in our time machine and go back twenty years to 3rd Ed and look just at the guns.

Bolter: Stationary, you get two S4 AP5 shots at 12" or one S4 AP5 shot at 24". Moving, you only get one shot at 12". You cannot shoot and charge.
Shuriken Catapult: Two S4 AP5 shots at 12".
Fleshborer: One S4 AP5 shot at 12".

All the same S4 AP5 profile, just different ranges and number of shots. Even the Fleshborer- a bolt pistol analogue- rivaled the firepower of a bolter on the move and you could still shoot and charge with it. The Shuriken Catapult had double the firepower of a bolter on the move and could shoot and charge. Shooting an enemy, then charging the survivors to finish them off was an effective tactic that Marines simply could not do.

The downside to these weapons was that they did not have the option to stay still and fire at longer range, and with Marines ignoring the armor of Guardians or Termagants altogether they really could stay still and gun you down before you could get into range.

The advantages of the Assault weapon type then got systematically eroded for twenty years, to the point where having two shots at 12" was a joke because the only advantage it had over the 24" Rapid Fire was the ability to Advance and fire at -1.

So where are we right now?

Bolter: Two S4 shots at 12" or one shot at 24".
Shuriken Catapult: Two S4 AP-1 shots at 18", bonus AP on 6s, and you can Advance and shoot at a penalty.
Fleshborer: One S5 AP-1 shot at 18" and you can Advance and shoot at a penalty.

All three guns have more reach than in 3rd- the Catapult and Fleshborer due to range increase, but the Bolter being able to move and still fire at full effectiveness. That also means that if a Catapult or Fleshborer gets in range, a bolter-armed model can move forwards to get in rapid fire range. The Fleshborer is more than half a Catapult now, but the platform that carries it has also gotten relatively more expensive, so it's not quite a cannon fodder unit anymore.

Give regular bolters the same AP-1 that Bolt Rifles have and then bolters and Catapults are pretty much on par again, with Fleshborers still coming in behind against anything T7 or less. Plus with Bolter Discipline and Doctrines, Marines still have access to force-multipliers on bolters that let them punch above the other two.

Really, I think the issue is that players have become accustomed to things like Catapults being lasgun analogues, rather than bolter analogues. Back in the day, the advantage of Marines over Eldar wasn't superior firepower, it was superior durability with comparable firepower.

Wonderful post and sums it up perfectly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I agree it should be average, it is below average, it is propped up by orders/chapter traits, strats, auras, psychic powers , warlord traits etc. The gun is below average, in fact it's only taken by armies who have no choice, I.e. sisters. I'm not talking about auto bolters, bolt rifles. Bolters. The ones you find on sister squads, tactical Marines, chaos marines.

You want the game to stop being FUBAR, remove the layer upon layer of stacks rules something has and get back to barebones. You'll soon notice a bolter firing 1 s4 ap- d1 shot at 24" is vastly worse than the new shuriken catapults, fleshborers, pulse rifles etc.

It's not below average. Shootas, splinter rifles and lasguns aren't better, I think they're all worse. Lots of basic stuff also have pistols which are worse than bolters. And all bolter platforms with a 9th edition codex have tools to be on par with the troops which have native AP-1 and/or S5 or are cheap enough (sisters) they are already on par pointswise. So basically only Deathguard have really crappy bolters, aka below average basic weapons. Some armies, like marines, don't use many bolter dudes only because they have the luxury to have tons of options, including troops with the stats of elites. I'd argue that their problem is not having basic dudes with average weapons, but basic dudes with too high stats and too good weapons that are in competition with the most average guys.

Generic Chaos dudes are still 8th, so they don't count as we don't know how they'll be upgraded.

Stop and think about that.

It's not below average. --- Some armies, like marines, don't use many bolter dudes

Bolt rifles are better bolters and more preferable. Because the bolter is at best, worse than a bolt rifle.

What do you propose they do to fix the output of plague marines then given you can't alter their gun without impacting 5+ other armies.

Bolters aren't really a problem. It's the things carrying them.

Dudeface wrote:
Bolt rifles are better bolters and more preferable. Because the bolter is at best, worse than a bolt rifle.

What do you propose they do to fix the output of plague marines then given you can't alter their gun without impacting 5+ other armies.

And really that's the reason I see giving bolters AP-1 as a no-brainer. Most armies are Marines and most Marine armies are Primaris; they already have AP-1 on their default weapons.

Are we headed for a game state where pretty much anything that isn't a lasgun has AP-1 or better? Trick question, we're already there. Might as well let the Firstborn and Sisters players catch up. And ultimately it's okay if a bolt rifle is just a bolter with 6" extra range.

 catbarf wrote:

Spoiler:

 Gene St. Ealer wrote:
But man, let's go back to Insectum's wonderful work from probably a year or so now where he showed how Marines have crept way forward when compared to offense and defense of Xenos units. The Shuricat was garbage in 8th and 9th, has been crept on for probably 20 years now. The Fleshborer was basically never good and Fleshborer Gants have not been anything other than wound counters.

Not to steal Insectum's thunder, but yeah let's hop in our time machine and go back twenty years to 3rd Ed and look just at the guns.

Bolter: Stationary, you get two S4 AP5 shots at 12" or one S4 AP5 shot at 24". Moving, you only get one shot at 12". You cannot shoot and charge.
Shuriken Catapult: Two S4 AP5 shots at 12".
Fleshborer: One S4 AP5 shot at 12".

All the same S4 AP5 profile, just different ranges and number of shots. Even the Fleshborer- a bolt pistol analogue- rivaled the firepower of a bolter on the move and you could still shoot and charge with it. The Shuriken Catapult had double the firepower of a bolter on the move and could shoot and charge. Shooting an enemy, then charging the survivors to finish them off was an effective tactic that Marines simply could not do.

The downside to these weapons was that they did not have the option to stay still and fire at longer range, and with Marines ignoring the armor of Guardians or Termagants altogether they really could stay still and gun you down before you could get into range.

The advantages of the Assault weapon type then got systematically eroded for twenty years, to the point where having two shots at 12" was a joke because the only advantage it had over the 24" Rapid Fire was the ability to Advance and fire at -1.

So where are we right now?

Bolter: Two S4 shots at 12" or one shot at 24".
Shuriken Catapult: Two S4 AP-1 shots at 18", bonus AP on 6s, and you can Advance and shoot at a penalty.
Fleshborer: One S5 AP-1 shot at 18" and you can Advance and shoot at a penalty.

All three guns have more reach than in 3rd- the Catapult and Fleshborer due to range increase, but the Bolter being able to move and still fire at full effectiveness. That also means that if a Catapult or Fleshborer gets in range, a bolter-armed model can move forwards to get in rapid fire range. The Fleshborer is more than half a Catapult now, but the platform that carries it has also gotten relatively more expensive, so it's not quite a cannon fodder unit anymore.

Give regular bolters the same AP-1 that Bolt Rifles have and then bolters and Catapults are pretty much on par again, with Fleshborers still coming in behind against anything T7 or less. Plus with Bolter Discipline and Doctrines, Marines still have access to force-multipliers on bolters that let them punch above the other two.

Really, I think the issue is that players have become accustomed to things like Catapults being lasgun analogues, rather than bolter analogues. Back in the day, the advantage of Marines over Eldar wasn't superior firepower, it was superior durability with comparable firepower.

I approve this message. Also I'm kinda flattered that anyone remembers something I might have posted a year ago.

Tbh though, I kinda prefer the 2nd ed Catapult, which was actually better than a Storm Bolter. But Guardians only has BS 3 (4+) back then too.

 catbarf wrote:


Are we headed for a game state where pretty much anything that isn't a lasgun has AP-1 or better? Trick question, we're already there. Might as well let the Firstborn and Sisters players catch up. And ultimately it's okay if a bolt rifle is just a bolter with 6" extra range.

Honestly its ok if they're just the same weapon.
Along with almost all the others from the list o' doom.

I don't particularly think any basic weapons need to be 30" with the table size the designers assume, but that ship sailed.

I play mostly space marines armies but even I think just giving the bolter -1 AP is not what the game needs.

Again, the humble bolter isn't so much a problem as the things that carry it. In the case of Space Marines, they're just a bit overpriced compared to all the newer codex troops/infantry, and vehicles with bolters are flaming dumpster fires.

We already get doctrines to address this.

I think we'd be complaining a lot less about bolters if Tac marines were a point cheaper and their heavy weapon options were better/cheaper (see: lascannons below), Plasmaceptors weren't as likely to delete equal points of themseves as the enemy just by firing, Hellblasters weren't grossly overpriced, Lascannons did 3+ d3 or 2d3 damage, etc etc.

Imagine if tac marines could take a lascannon that did reasonable damage and could ride in a rhino or razorback that wasn't total garbage.

Boltguns aren't meant to pull much weight aside from killing chaff, but the rest of the armies that use them aren't pulling their weight enough to compensate.

Quasistellar wrote:
I play mostly space marines armies but even I think just giving the bolter -1 AP is not what the game needs.

Again, the humble bolter isn't so much a problem as the things that carry it. In the case of Space Marines, they're just a bit overpriced compared to all the newer codex troops/infantry, and vehicles with bolters are flaming dumpster fires.

We already get doctrines to address this.

I think we'd be complaining a lot less about bolters if Tac marines were a point cheaper and their heavy weapon options were better/cheaper (see: lascannons below), Plasmaceptors weren't as likely to delete equal points of themseves as the enemy just by firing, Hellblasters weren't grossly overpriced, Lascannons did 3+ d3 or 2d3 damage, etc etc.

Imagine if tac marines could take a lascannon that did reasonable damage and could ride in a rhino or razorback that wasn't total garbage.

Boltguns aren't meant to pull much weight aside from killing chaff, but the rest of the armies that use them aren't pulling their weight enough to compensate.

The idea that Tacs are bad is crazy to me. Because of their Heavy/Special they can do so much more damage than Intercessors. The disregard for Tacs seems like a sort of collective insanity.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
I play mostly space marines armies but even I think just giving the bolter -1 AP is not what the game needs.

Again, the humble bolter isn't so much a problem as the things that carry it. In the case of Space Marines, they're just a bit overpriced compared to all the newer codex troops/infantry, and vehicles with bolters are flaming dumpster fires.

We already get doctrines to address this.

I think we'd be complaining a lot less about bolters if Tac marines were a point cheaper and their heavy weapon options were better/cheaper (see: lascannons below), Plasmaceptors weren't as likely to delete equal points of themseves as the enemy just by firing, Hellblasters weren't grossly overpriced, Lascannons did 3+ d3 or 2d3 damage, etc etc.

Imagine if tac marines could take a lascannon that did reasonable damage and could ride in a rhino or razorback that wasn't total garbage.

Boltguns aren't meant to pull much weight aside from killing chaff, but the rest of the armies that use them aren't pulling their weight enough to compensate.

The idea that Tacs are bad is crazy to me. Because of their Heavy/Special they can do so much more damage than Intercessors. The disregard for Tacs seems like a sort of collective insanity.

I think that you're taking the bolter dudes to clear infantry, when they get 6" less range and a point of AP less but make up 7/10 of the unit it's a hard sell when they're not that much cheaper, just take the better intercessors and then a devastator squad if you needs the heavies is where we're at.

Dudeface wrote:


I think that you're taking the bolter dudes to clear infantry, when they get 6" less range and a point of AP less but make up 7/10 of the unit it's a hard sell when they're not that much cheaper, just take the better intercessors and then a devastator squad if you needs the heavies is where we're at.

Run the math, 5 Intercessors vs. 5 Tacs with a Grav Cannon against a variety of targets. The Tacs come out ahead, while costing the same. Not only that, but because their damage output is more concentrated in the Heavy, their damage output degrades slower as they take casualties.

Putting Bolters at AP-1 puts Intercessors completely out of a job. (Fine by me!)

 catbarf wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Bolt rifles are better bolters and more preferable. Because the bolter is at best, worse than a bolt rifle.

What do you propose they do to fix the output of plague marines then given you can't alter their gun without impacting 5+ other armies.

And really that's the reason I see giving bolters AP-1 as a no-brainer. Most armies are Marines and most Marine armies are Primaris; they already have AP-1 on their default weapons.

Are we headed for a game state where pretty much anything that isn't a lasgun has AP-1 or better? Trick question, we're already there. Might as well let the Firstborn and Sisters players catch up. And ultimately it's okay if a bolt rifle is just a bolter with 6" extra range.

And i'll bet you dollars to donuts that shortly after that kind of a buff happens the players will be demanding something new be added to Bolt Rifles to make them more different(better) than just a 2pt cheaper Tac Marine with a Bolter.

I do agree with you that a lot of guns have become AP-1 but the game is already deadly enough, we need a toning down rather than an increase in dmg output. And I would really like to see more balance across the board in terms of dmg output by units/weapons. GW hamfisting "Dakka" weapons onto us has shown me though that this isn't likely to ever happen. The guys writing the rules really don't have a clue what they are doing. Hell, they made "Trukk" Boyz illegal not once, but twice this edition alone. And both times it was by accident because they didn't know what they were doing.

Tacs aren't *too* bad. Maybe 1 point overcosted IMO.

They just ride in crap vehicles, lascannons are trash, etc.

The original question was posed: "do bolters need buffs across most platforms?"

My short answer is: "no, but most platforms that take bolters need buffs, or other platforms/factions need nerfs".

Rhinos and razorbacks in particular being good would go a LONG way toward making tac marines better. Other factions are getting transports that fly, have more wounds, more durability, and more weapons for like 10-15 points more than a Rhino.

Or just compare a Razorback to a Raider, Devilfish, Falcon, or Wave Serpent. I mean holy cow these transports aren't even in the same league as a Razorback yet they cost between 10-15 points LESS (devilfish/raider) and 30 points more (wave serpent/falcon).

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I think that you're taking the bolter dudes to clear infantry, when they get 6" less range and a point of AP less but make up 7/10 of the unit it's a hard sell when they're not that much cheaper, just take the better intercessors and then a devastator squad if you needs the heavies is where we're at.

Run the math, 5 Intercessors vs. 5 Tacs with a Grav Cannon against a variety of targets. The Tacs come out ahead, while costing the same. Not only that, but because their damage output is more concentrated in the Heavy, their damage output degrades slower as they take casualties.

Putting Bolters at AP-1 puts Intercessors completely out of a job. (Fine by me!)

Honestly you just proved why Tactical Marines don't have a job. They're anemic outside the Grav Cannon, which means you should load up on Grav Cannons with Sternguard and Devastators. That's just the shooting too. Even with Shock Assault, Tactical Marines are anemic on the melee side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also that shows why Assault Intercessors are liked the most.

 Blackie wrote:

Bolters mostly (only?) matter in turns 2 and 3. In turn 1 they might be out of range, or at least out of rapid fire range. After turn 3 the appropriate targets might be locked in combat or dead. Most marine armies are shooty oriented and the few melee units have access to get the assault doctrine bonus even when the bolter doctrine is still in play. Space Wolves have a stratagem to do that for example. Others might strike with high enough AP to not need the bonus.

I think bolters should be AP0 with no doctrines, while primaris should be AP-1. I'd accept all bolters AP-1 assuming their platforms get a price hike and intercessors don't get flat AP-2 but still keep some kind of niche compared to regular bolter dudes to be justified.

Bolters are good for playing the mid-board, which can be as soon as turn 1 for the player going 2nd. Then they should matter in later turns but because of the lack of AP (and the additional attack), the chainsword becomes the weapon of choice.

I agree with you that bolters should get AP-1 by default, for Sisters, Chaos and SMs. Then Intercessors should get some bonus to compensate, like exploding 6s or something. That would boost the output nicely, give a reason to take firstborn, but still make intercessors slightly better.
intercessor Bolt Rifle vs. intercessor No Mods mean: 1.7 μ=2.0 σ=1.2
intercessor Bolt Rifle vs. intercessor sixesToHitExplode mean: 2.1 μ=2.0 σ=1.3

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I think that you're taking the bolter dudes to clear infantry, when they get 6" less range and a point of AP less but make up 7/10 of the unit it's a hard sell when they're not that much cheaper, just take the better intercessors and then a devastator squad if you needs the heavies is where we're at.

Run the math, 5 Intercessors vs. 5 Tacs with a Grav Cannon against a variety of targets. The Tacs come out ahead, while costing the same. Not only that, but because their damage output is more concentrated in the Heavy, their damage output degrades slower as they take casualties.

Putting Bolters at AP-1 puts Intercessors completely out of a job. (Fine by me!)

Honestly you just proved why Tactical Marines don't have a job. They're anemic outside the Grav Cannon, which means you should load up on Grav Cannons with Sternguard and Devastators. That's just the shooting too. Even with Shock Assault, Tactical Marines are anemic on the melee side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also that shows why Assault Intercessors are liked the most.

Incorrect. Tacs are the mandatory troops/obsec choice that can take Gravs and Meltas in addition to the Devs you already bought because Devs are awesome but you can only take 3 of them.

If we’re looking to buff bolters, buff shootas. They’re the real bolt weapon that’s suffering hard. 18” 3 shots s4 ap -1 would maybe start to make em good, especially because unlike other bolter factions you can barely buff through commanders, psychic, army core rules, or commanders.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Honestly you just proved why Tactical Marines don't have a job. They're anemic outside the Grav Cannon, which means you should load up on Grav Cannons with Sternguard and Devastators. That's just the shooting too. Even with Shock Assault, Tactical Marines are anemic on the melee side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also that shows why Assault Intercessors are liked the most.

They are a bog standard Marine. They aren't elites, they aren't heavy support and they aren't Fast attack. You are comparing them to specialists and wondering why they aren't as good at that specialists specialty lol seems kind of silly.



Going back to the general topic though. If a bolter goes to AP-1 base than everyone else needs a similar buff to compensate, a lot of factions already have this because their weapons were doing even less than bolters previously.

Pre-9th edition Codex. A unit of Intercessors with Bolt rifles were beating Tau Firewarriors point for Point in a ranged duel. They were also drawing even with Ork Choppa boyz in CC point for point. So this just exacerbates the problem that Marine troops are competing and in some cases beating specialist troops from other factions and its a bit ridiculous. And yet again i'll point out that people have been independently of this topic calling for Marines to get more durable, deadlier in CC or increase ranged firepower. Think about what I just said, you have people arguing that Marines need to be even more durable, they literally doubled their durability and people still want more. So go ahead and give bog standard Marines -1AP and then other factions will argue they need an increase as well to compensate for the difference and shortly thereafter you will have this same argument about why Marines need 3 shots each instead of 2, or that Bolters need to go to S5 etc. etc. etc.

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Honestly you just proved why Tactical Marines don't have a job. They're anemic outside the Grav Cannon, which means you should load up on Grav Cannons with Sternguard and Devastators. That's just the shooting too. Even with Shock Assault, Tactical Marines are anemic on the melee side.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also that shows why Assault Intercessors are liked the most.

They are a bog standard Marine. They aren't elites, they aren't heavy support and they aren't Fast attack. You are comparing them to specialists and wondering why they aren't as good at that specialists specialty lol seems kind of silly.



Going back to the general topic though. If a bolter goes to AP-1 base than everyone else needs a similar buff to compensate, a lot of factions already have this because their weapons were doing even less than bolters previously.

Pre-9th edition Codex. A unit of Intercessors with Bolt rifles were beating Tau Firewarriors point for Point in a ranged duel. They were also drawing even with Ork Choppa boyz in CC point for point. So this just exacerbates the problem that Marine troops are competing and in some cases beating specialist troops from other factions and its a bit ridiculous. And yet again i'll point out that people have been independently of this topic calling for Marines to get more durable, deadlier in CC or increase ranged firepower. Think about what I just said, you have people arguing that Marines need to be even more durable, they literally doubled their durability and people still want more. So go ahead and give bog standard Marines -1AP and then other factions will argue they need an increase as well to compensate for the difference and shortly thereafter you will have this same argument about why Marines need 3 shots each instead of 2, or that Bolters need to go to S5 etc. etc. etc.

The problem with the increased durability on the marine was that it was very short lived. If they hadn't just slapped d2+ on everything and immediately invalidated the increased durability then they'd be in a decent place where you pay for the durability with reduced output (in an ideal world where 6 special rules don't make them fire iWins). Sort of like where plague marines are at in ranged output, which ironically are the "bad bolters" as noted in here.

SemperMortis wrote:
Going back to the general topic though. If a bolter goes to AP-1 base than everyone else needs a similar buff to compensate, a lot of factions already have this because their weapons were doing even less than bolters previously.

Pre-9th edition Codex. A unit of Intercessors with Bolt rifles were beating Tau Firewarriors point for Point in a ranged duel. They were also drawing even with Ork Choppa boyz in CC point for point. So this just exacerbates the problem that Marine troops are competing and in some cases beating specialist troops from other factions and its a bit ridiculous. And yet again i'll point out that people have been independently of this topic calling for Marines to get more durable, deadlier in CC or increase ranged firepower. Think about what I just said, you have people arguing that Marines need to be even more durable, they literally doubled their durability and people still want more. So go ahead and give bog standard Marines -1AP and then other factions will argue they need an increase as well to compensate for the difference and shortly thereafter you will have this same argument about why Marines need 3 shots each instead of 2, or that Bolters need to go to S5 etc. etc. etc.

Most Marine armies at this point are Primaris and they already have AP-1.

There is no reason why legacy Firstborn armies getting AP-1 would mean anyone else needs to be buffed to compensate.

Don't buff bolters, nerf other small arms.

The first pip of AP is the most impactful.

Make Armor Great Again

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Dudeface wrote:


I think that you're taking the bolter dudes to clear infantry, when they get 6" less range and a point of AP less but make up 7/10 of the unit it's a hard sell when they're not that much cheaper, just take the better intercessors and then a devastator squad if you needs the heavies is where we're at.

Run the math, 5 Intercessors vs. 5 Tacs with a Grav Cannon against a variety of targets. The Tacs come out ahead, while costing the same. Not only that, but because their damage output is more concentrated in the Heavy, their damage output degrades slower as they take casualties.

Putting Bolters at AP-1 puts Intercessors completely out of a job. (Fine by me!)

Honestly you just proved why Tactical Marines don't have a job. They're anemic outside the Grav Cannon, which means you should load up on Grav Cannons with Sternguard and Devastators. That's just the shooting too. Even with Shock Assault, Tactical Marines are anemic on the melee side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also that shows why Assault Intercessors are liked the most.

Incorrect. Tacs are the mandatory troops/obsec choice that can take Gravs and Meltas in addition to the Devs you already bought because Devs are awesome but you can only take 3 of them.

Objective Secured is only valuable if the army has a rule granting it to basically everything. Otherwise you don't need it to hold an objective from a dead opponent.

In the current environment, I could see standard bolt rounds becoming S5. Due to the way the SvsT rules work, they've been expanding T5. S5 has no effect on T3, but improves against T5.

So I could see it like this:

bolts are S5
Advanced bolts are AP-1
heavy bolts are S6

 Hellebore wrote:
In the current environment, I could see standard bolt rounds becoming S5. Due to the way the SvsT rules work, they've been expanding T5. S5 has no effect on T3, but improves against T5.

So I could see it like this:

bolts are S5
Advanced bolts are AP-1
heavy bolts are S6

And Pulse rifles become S6? Pulse Rifles have always had Range and Str over Boltguns.

Boltguns have since at least 2nd edition wounded marines on a 4+. Why do we have to change it to a 3+? Is it because Marines have W2 now?

Please let the power creep end. Maybe reduce Marines to W1. Their special organs are why they are T4 instead of the normal human T3. If Marines have to stay at W2 (and pray to all the gods that CSM match them) and Bolt weapons have to improve; maybe on a 6+ to wound Bolt weapons cause an additional point of damage.

Tygre wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
In the current environment, I could see standard bolt rounds becoming S5. Due to the way the SvsT rules work, they've been expanding T5. S5 has no effect on T3, but improves against T5.

So I could see it like this:

bolts are S5
Advanced bolts are AP-1
heavy bolts are S6

And Pulse rifles become S6? Pulse Rifles have always had Range and Str over Boltguns.

Boltguns have since at least 2nd edition wounded marines on a 4+. Why do we have to change it to a 3+? Is it because Marines have W2 now?

Please let the power creep end. Maybe reduce Marines to W1. Their special organs are why they are T4 instead of the normal human T3. If Marines have to stay at W2 (and pray to all the gods that CSM match them) and Bolt weapons have to improve; maybe on a 6+ to wound Bolt weapons cause an additional point of damage.

I said 'in the current environment'. I find arguments like 'stop the power creep' pretty irrelevant because they're arguing from a position that doesn't exist - power creep has happened and you need to work within that paradigm. No amount of 'but I don't wanna' changes that.

The current paradigm uses a SvsT matrix that fundamentally changes the relationship between numbers and as such arguments about old editions have no relevance.

"But bolters always wounded marines on 4+" - well heavy bolters used to wound T3 on 2+ and now they currently don't. Fleshborerers used to wound marines on a 4+ but GW had no problem changing that.


So, IN THE CURRENT PARADIGM, (not in a hypothetical fantasy land where GW DIDN'T make fleshborers S5), I think that the bolter's mechanical position in the game would be around S5.

Buffing just the boltgun is probably not a good idea; however, once you buff the boltgun then probably other buffs would probably be needed around the primaris section of bolters. It just seems silly if you read the lore on space-marines do believe that rapid fire 1 str 4 ap-0 boltguns are substantial to the fluff.

That being said it was pretty obvious to me games-workshop had a plan to sell as many primaris models as possible; thus doing so, had every intention to poop on the standard tactical marine.