Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?

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.

**Hellebore**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Hellebore wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
What you're describing is ludonarrative dissonance. And no, the number of people playing a faction isn't a factor to how elite something feels, it's the rules that do that.

No, it's also the ubiquity on the table and therefore the default optimised force being deliberately anti marine. It's a probability game - you are so much more likely to fight a space marine army that it's safe bet to optimise your force against them. Which then undermines how elite they are because then they will drop quickly. What your argument amounts to is 'marines need to be elite as default, but even when facing elite destroying enemies, they should still be mostly elite' which is not a balanced force at all.

Perhaps the classic example of this was back in 3rd when eldar had Heavy 3 starcannons. Starcannon spam was the default list because it took out marines effectively and you were almost always going to face them. Had it been guard in ubiquity, then they'd be carrying shuriken cannons which would have been relatively useless against marines.

If guard were the most ubiquitous force, the a marine army equipped with nothing but heavy bolters and other lighter Anti Infantry weapons would be effective. But as soon as it was turned on other marines, suddenly that effectiveness bottoms out.

Then of course there's the fact that it's often marines VERSUS marines that is the common battle and marine players want their army to be survivably elite AND destructively elite, which is a zero sum game when fighting other marines. Either you both destroy each other, or you do bugger all to each other.

But either way, their eliteness is going to suffer.

Now you're describing people's list design and not game design itself.

You've invented an arbitrary distinction. The list building is part of the game design - otherwise they wouldn't have rules for how you build your army and you could just take 10 avatars of khaine.

The game design includes the list design and the balance mechanics are built around how players can build armies. If not, then there would be no way to playtest rules because there'd be no method of quantifying how people play.

**ClockworkZion**

Game design, such as game balance takes different considerations in balancing than list building. One is a pursuit of making all options feel equally useful and balanced against each other and the various things they can be used against. The other is how you engage with the systems designed in the game.

It's not arbitrary to say that they're not identical things even if game design feeds into how people build lists.

**bat702**

I havent been paying as much attention to 9th, but it seems like marines are less played now than they were in previous editions of the game, now in tournament lists you have way more T3 stuff like dark eldar, ad-mech, harlequins, etc.

But in most list buildings previously, you could expect up to 50% or more of your opponents to be either marines or chaos-marines; this, lead to almost every list created to be built around the fact that marines were going to be an extremely common thing to be fighting in your meta.This could obviously change if your group you play with does not typically bring marines or chaos-marines.

**Saturmorn Carvilli**

Hellebore wrote:

Spoiler:

No, it's also the ubiquity on the table and therefore the default optimised force being deliberately anti marine. It's a probability game - you are so much more likely to fight a space marine army that it's safe bet to optimise your force against them. Which then undermines how elite they are because then they will drop quickly. What your argument amounts to is 'marines need to be elite as default, but even when facing elite destroying enemies, they should still be mostly elite' which is not a balanced force at all.

Perhaps the classic example of this was back in 3rd when eldar had Heavy 3 starcannons. Starcannon spam was the default list because it took out marines effectively and you were almost always going to face them. Had it been guard in ubiquity, then they'd be carrying shuriken cannons which would have been relatively useless against marines.

If guard were the most ubiquitous force, the a marine army equipped with nothing but heavy bolters and other lighter Anti Infantry weapons would be effective. But as soon as it was turned on other marines, suddenly that effectiveness bottoms out.

Then of course there's the fact that it's often marines VERSUS marines that is the common battle and marine players want their army to be survivably elite AND destructively elite, which is a zero sum game when fighting other marines. Either you both destroy each other, or you do bugger all to each other.

But either way, their eliteness is going to suffer.

**G00fySmiley**

Karol wrote:
People don't build their armies around, can this beat marines, because most of the time marines aren't the army to be beat, if you want to do good. This does have the effect that games played outside of tournaments, become less fun for marine players. Because unless they play a close copy of tournament lists, they often are not having a good time vs basic weapons of other armies. And ad mecha or eldar players don't have to meta in to killing marines, even if his list is a casual one, it will happen by itself just by virtue of him taking stuff to take out tanks, monsters or stuff like custodes etc.

I would point out this is seemingly mostly only true for the tournament scene (in my experience). I play 1-3 games a week and in my area (Tallahassee FL) and the towns i have lived in in the past (Chicago suburbs, Orlando, Long Beach) marines are always the most played faction. I am generally one of the few or at times only xenos player/s (mostly orks and eldar for me), there is always a mix of some chaos marines, but you if I kept track probably 7/10 casual pickup games I find are vs normal or spikey marines. Anecdotal I know, but outside tournament prep groups is anybody actually seeing less than a 50% marine player base?

Also on marines in the other comment not usually being the strongest I agree there, they rarely are the top dog, but they are also rarely in the bad category. If they drop below the bottom 50% of codexes GW actually responds and gives them a bone making them back to mid to upper mid tier. That part only applies to codex marines though and not chaos or specialty factions books liek dark angels, space wolves, gray knights etc which are swingier on more or less powerful than vanilla marines. .

**Insectum7**

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

What is MEQ in current day?

A loyalist space marine army can go heavy Gravis with T5 and 3 wounds. Chaos Space Marines are 1 wounds less than loyalists. And Death Guard and Thousand Sons have their own durability quirks. None of which are tearing up the meta at the moment.

You're telling me that somehow people are crafting their list to take on: (T4, Sv 3+, 2W) (T4 Sv 3, 1W) (T5 Sv 3+, 3W) (T4, v 3+(2+ vs 1D weap), T4, Sv 3+, 2W (-1 D) to tackle marines all at the same time?

MEQ is T4 3+ 2W, because loyalists are the most popular army in 40K. And the ubiquity of the 3+ save in Marine armies still makes the save modifier highly valuable in weapon selection. If you can punch through power armor, then regardless of Strength and Damage, you can kill marines be they the T4, T5, 1-3W varieties.

If the armor and toughness of Marines makes them "elite", then the same weapons that people take to kill marines will kill most everything else in the game as well, because everything else is "lesser" than the elite marines. The only things safe become things with invuln saves.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
. . . To the point I absolutely regret marines, save CSM, having 2 (+1) wounds.

Correct. Moving Marines to 2W means that in order to adequately rebalance factions/units that are supposed to be decent at killing marines means a further propagation of damage increases. Which in turn just makes the game more lethal for everyone else, and then forces these new -1 Damage mechanics for things not to get entirely out of hand.

**VladimirHerzog**

bat702 wrote:
I havent been paying as much attention to 9th, but it seems like marines are less played now than they were in previous editions of the game, now in tournament lists you have way more T3 stuff like dark eldar, ad-mech, harlequins, etc.

But in most list buildings previously, you could expect up to 50% or more of your opponents to be either marines or chaos-marines; this, lead to almost every list created to be built around the fact that marines were going to be an extremely common thing to be fighting in your meta.This could obviously change if your group you play with does not typically bring marines or chaos-marines.

This is the edition of up-trading.

Drukhari, sisters, Harlequins are all about killing more than their points on a objective to take it from the opponent.

This is why T3 super killy stuff is being played so much, because of how squishy they are, they cost peanuts.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

What is MEQ in current day?

T4, W2, 3+

all the other stuff is just buffs on the basic MEQ profile

**ClockworkZion**

Arguably, charging more for the privilege of D2 actually benefits 1W models because the increased cost of said weapons to tailor against MEQ other 2W models means the extra damage is wasted and comes with a premium that makes the model carrying it less efficient vs 1W models for it's points.

Which could be an interesting design mechanic if GW bothered to actually make the 2D weapons cost more or upped the base cost of the models carrying them.

**VladimirHerzog**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Arguably, charging more for the privilege of D2 actually benefits 1W models because the increased cost of said weapons to tailor against MEQ other 2W models means the extra damage is wasted and comes with a premium that makes the model carrying it less efficient vs 1W models for it's points.

Which could be an interesting design mechanic if GW bothered to actually make the 2D weapons cost more or upped the base cost of the models carrying them.

Is this preconception that D2 weapons are so prevalent even based on real life? Most lists i bring or play against still have plenty of D1 weapon and losing my CSM to these while they would live if GW would just put out a FAQ for them is getting old.

**ClockworkZion**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Arguably, charging more for the privilege of D2 actually benefits 1W models because the increased cost of said weapons to tailor against MEQ other 2W models means the extra damage is wasted and comes with a premium that makes the model carrying it less efficient vs 1W models for it's points.

Which could be an interesting design mechanic if GW bothered to actually make the 2D weapons cost more or upped the base cost of the models carrying them.

Is this preconception that D2 weapons are so prevalent even based on real life? Most lists i bring or play against still have plenty of D1 weapon and losing my CSM to these while they would live if GW would just put out a FAQ for them is getting old.

CSM need FAR more than a FAQ with +1W to be fixed and pretending like that's the only pressing concern for that book is laughable.

**VladimirHerzog**

ClockworkZion wrote:
VladimirHerzog wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
Arguably, charging more for the privilege of D2 actually benefits 1W models because the increased cost of said weapons to tailor against MEQ other 2W models means the extra damage is wasted and comes with a premium that makes the model carrying it less efficient vs 1W models for it's points.

Which could be an interesting design mechanic if GW bothered to actually make the 2D weapons cost more or upped the base cost of the models carrying them.

Is this preconception that D2 weapons are so prevalent even based on real life? Most lists i bring or play against still have plenty of D1 weapon and losing my CSM to these while they would live if GW would just put out a FAQ for them is getting old.

CSM need FAR more than a FAQ with +1W to be fixed and pretending like that's the only pressing concern for that book is laughable.

Its not the most pressing concern, its just the most simple stopgap GW couldve done to keep us in the game.
getting rid of our wombocombo nature and how slaanesh is the only real playable alignment is ridiculous is much harder than saying "CSM cost Xpts more and gain 1 wound"

Its a simple, quick fix that still hasnt been done after ~two years of the edition

**ClockworkZion**

See the thing is I don't think it works as a stop gap without other changes. Like dropping max squad sizes so we don't have 20 2w Berserker squads alpha striking armies.

Or squads of 20 2w Noise Marines.

Yes, Crusaders can go up to 20 models, but most of the unit is on a 4+ save, not a 3+ forcing more fragility into the unit than we'd see with CSM.

Plus now you're looking at having an update in an FAQ when people can't even be bothered to check them at any other time meaning that a good chunk of the community wouldn't even know about the change.

**VladimirHerzog**

ClockworkZion wrote:
See the thing is I don't think it works as a stop gap without other changes. Like dropping max squad sizes so we don't have 20 2w Berserker squads alpha striking armies.

Or squads of 20 2w Noise Marines.

Yes, Crusaders can go up to 20 models, but most of the unit is on a 4+ save, not a 3+ forcing more fragility into the unit than we'd see with CSM.

Plus now you're looking at having an update in an FAQ when people can't even be bothered to check them at any other time meaning that a good chunk of the community wouldn't even know about the change.

Why is having 20 marines in a squad problematic really? Theyre legionnaires ffs.
And even if GW thinks this is too much, drop the squad size to 10 max, its not rocket science.

oh and "lets not FAQ because people don't look at FAQs" is a pretty gak take. Even the most casual players i know of are aware that CSM will eventually have 2W and are eagerly waiting for the FAQ to drop

**ClockworkZion**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
See the thing is I don't think it works as a stop gap without other changes. Like dropping max squad sizes so we don't have 20 2w Berserker squads alpha striking armies.

Or squads of 20 2w Noise Marines.

Yes, Crusaders can go up to 20 models, but most of the unit is on a 4+ save, not a 3+ forcing more fragility into the unit than we'd see with CSM.

Plus now you're looking at having an update in an FAQ when people can't even be bothered to check them at any other time meaning that a good chunk of the community wouldn't even know about the change.

Why is having 20 marines in a squad problematic really? Theyre legionnaires ffs.
And even if GW thinks this is too much, drop the squad size to 10 max, its not rocket science.

oh and "lets not FAQ because people don't look at FAQs" is a pretty gak take. Even the most casual players i know of are aware that CSM will eventually have 2W and are eagerly waiting for the FAQ to drop

40 wounds on a 3+ save would be problematic, yes. And that's my point, it's not just "give them +1w" it's "rework the codex to better work with an additional wound without breaking the game with jank".

And you assume far too much about the community and the prevelance of checking FAQs.

**Kaied**

ClockworkZion wrote:
See the thing is I don't think it works as a stop gap without other changes. Like dropping max squad sizes so we don't have 20 2w Berserker squads alpha striking armies.

Or squads of 20 2w Noise Marines.

Yes, Crusaders can go up to 20 models, but most of the unit is on a 4+ save, not a 3+ forcing more fragility into the unit than we'd see with CSM.

Plus now you're looking at having an update in an FAQ when people can't even be bothered to check them at any other time meaning that a good chunk of the community wouldn't even know about the change.

Has it been a problem that Space Wolves can take a 16-man squad of Blood Claws... ever? One of which can be a Terminator with a Storm Shield. Or is it the 4 extra bodies that are the issue?

**ClockworkZion**

Kaied wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
See the thing is I don't think it works as a stop gap without other changes. Like dropping max squad sizes so we don't have 20 2w Berserker squads alpha striking armies.

Or squads of 20 2w Noise Marines.

Yes, Crusaders can go up to 20 models, but most of the unit is on a 4+ save, not a 3+ forcing more fragility into the unit than we'd see with CSM.

Plus now you're looking at having an update in an FAQ when people can't even be bothered to check them at any other time meaning that a good chunk of the community wouldn't even know about the change.
Has it been a problem that Space Wolves can take a 16-man squad of Blood Claws... ever? One of which can be a Terminator with a Storm Shield. Or is it the 4 extra bodies that are the issue?

Can Blood Claws fight three times in a turn?

**Tyel**

You can run 20 possessed now if you want to?

I think CSM need more help than just extra wounds - but not convinced 20 T4 3+ save 2 wound models is really a concern.

I think the point was more that you don't see many bogstandard T4 3+ 2 wound models in armies. CSM infamously do not run CSM and have not for ages - and its unlikely they would today if you could take them for say 17-18 points but with 2 wounds. Marine armies often have say 1 squad of Intercessors (or Infiltrators etc) and that's about it. Everyone else is clutched a storm shield. Or has a gravis statline. Plague Marines and Rubrics are obviously a bit different.

Its a similar argument really about bolt guns. No one takes them if they can help it. Not Marines, Not CSM, not Sisters, not DG. Unfortunately no one will take them "unless they become good" and since being good is a relative thing, making them "good enough to be taken" drives codex creep.

**ClockworkZion**

The issue with the bolter is really a problem that crosses faction lines: the standard small arms of an army is never going to be the best choice for dealing with specific threats and buffing can break game balance. GW wants people taking cool and exciting weapons so they can't make the core weapons in an army too good or no one will use them. Making them too bad though just causes other issues. See the discussion about Guard and their lasgun problems for instance.

Maybe the intent of the basic small arms should be for cherry tapping, not primary damage dealing in any situation, but even then I'm not sure that's the right answer.

**EviscerationPlague**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Kaied wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
See the thing is I don't think it works as a stop gap without other changes. Like dropping max squad sizes so we don't have 20 2w Berserker squads alpha striking armies.

Or squads of 20 2w Noise Marines.

Yes, Crusaders can go up to 20 models, but most of the unit is on a 4+ save, not a 3+ forcing more fragility into the unit than we'd see with CSM.

Plus now you're looking at having an update in an FAQ when people can't even be bothered to check them at any other time meaning that a good chunk of the community wouldn't even know about the change.
Has it been a problem that Space Wolves can take a 16-man squad of Blood Claws... ever? One of which can be a Terminator with a Storm Shield. Or is it the 4 extra bodies that are the issue?

Can Blood Claws fight three times in a turn?

Can most units survive one round with either unit charging to begin with?

**VladimirHerzog**

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Can most units survive one round with either unit charging to begin with?

exactly, if you're so scared of 20-man berzerkers it means theyre walking up the field : so slow as feth.

10 berzerkers already will mulch through anything they touch anyway, the triple fighting is overkill.

**Insectum7**

Just poking in to say I'm not on board with CSM squads being limited to 10 models.

**ClockworkZion**

I think people need to understand that even if they don't personally think it's a problem doesn't mean something can't be a problem. Changes aren't made in a vacuum and it's clear that GW isn't as slapdash as people want to say they are about these things.

Not going to say GW is perfect mind you, but consideration and playtesting needs to go into retuning the CSM book for the change.

**VladimirHerzog**

ClockworkZion wrote:
I think people need to understand that even if they don't personally think it's a problem doesn't mean something can't be a problem. Changes aren't made in a vacuum and it's clear that GW isn't as slapdash as people want to say they are about these things.

Not going to say GW is perfect mind you, but consideration and playtesting needs to go into retuning the CSM book for the change.

I think people need to understand that even if they personally think it's a problem doesn't mean something is a problem.

"MEQ are so bad now, they die to everything, i'd rather have 1w and be cheap than 2w"
"Nooooo, don't let CSM keep 20-man with 2 wounds!! theyll be unkillable!!!"

**Gadzilla666**

ClockworkZion wrote:
I think people need to understand that even if they don't personally think it's a problem doesn't mean something can't be a problem. Changes aren't made in a vacuum and it's clear that GW isn't as slapdash as people want to say they are about these things.

Not going to say GW is perfect mind you, but consideration and playtesting needs to go into retuning the CSM book for the change.

Well, considering how long it's taking to get the codex out, they must be doing a LOT of "consideration" and "playtesting".

**ClockworkZion**

VladimirHerzog wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
I think people need to understand that even if they don't personally think it's a problem doesn't mean something can't be a problem. Changes aren't made in a vacuum and it's clear that GW isn't as slapdash as people want to say they are about these things.

Not going to say GW is perfect mind you, but consideration and playtesting needs to go into retuning the CSM book for the change.

I think people need to understand that even if they personally think it's a problem doesn't mean something is a problem.

"MEQ are so bad now, they die to everything, i'd rather have 1w and be cheap than 2w"
"Nooooo, don't let CSM keep 20-man with 2 wounds!! theyll be unkillable!!!"

I did not say they'd be "unkillable". I said they'd be a problem balance-wise. Big difference. And I didn't argue for CSM to remain 1W, I argued it shouldn't be done haphazardly.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
ClockworkZion wrote:
I think people need to understand that even if they don't personally think it's a problem doesn't mean something can't be a problem. Changes aren't made in a vacuum and it's clear that GW isn't as slapdash as people want to say they are about these things.

Not going to say GW is perfect mind you, but consideration and playtesting needs to go into retuning the CSM book for the change.

Well, considering how long it's taking to get the codex out, they must be doing a LOT of "consideration" and "playtesting".

Considering Covid delayed a LOT of stuff and they're still having shipping issues (why else would we get preview articles on Craftworlds for a month straight?) I suspect that planned releases keep getting shuffled around and if CSM are seeing any kind of major release that it got delayed and shuffled behind much smaller releases that are easier to get into place.

**EviscerationPlague**

Insectum7 wrote:
Just poking in to say I'm not on board with CSM squads being limited to 10 models.

Does it really even matter?

**VladimirHerzog**

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Just poking in to say I'm not on board with CSM squads being limited to 10 models.

Does it really even matter?

in-game, not really since no one will run them as 20 competitively.
to be fluff accurate tho? It totally does since thats one of the main difference between legions and chapters

**vipoid**

ClockworkZion wrote:
Arguably, charging more for the privilege of D2 actually benefits 1W models because the increased cost of said weapons to tailor against MEQ other 2W models means the extra damage is wasted and comes with a premium that makes the model carrying it less efficient vs 1W models for it's points.

Which could be an interesting design mechanic if GW bothered to actually make the 2D weapons cost more or upped the base cost of the models carrying them.

I was about to reply but then realised you'd said what I was going to say already.

Yeah, A lot of D2 weapons could give W1 infantry something of a niche . . . except that GW just made a load of weapons D2 without any increase in their cost.

**ClockworkZion**

So if this is true, GW didn't like the 40 wound blob possibility either:

Gadzilla666 wrote:
Okayyy....New rumours from B&C courtesy of Clockworkchris (and at least one of these is going to make some people angry):

Squad sizes:

Legionaires: 5-10

Terminators: 5-10

Havocs: 5

Obliterators: 1-3

Chosen: 5-10

**tneva82**

ClockworkZion wrote:
I think people need to understand that even if they don't personally think it's a problem doesn't mean something can't be a problem. Changes aren't made in a vacuum and it's clear that GW isn't as slapdash as people want to say they are about these things.

Not going to say GW is perfect mind you, but consideration and playtesting needs to go into retuning the CSM book for the change.

Ah yes. Unit of 20 easily killable models is a problem.

It might be problem if W2 meant same as it was in 8e but with the d2 spam it only matters vs mortal wounds. Guns will scythe through and seeing you pay more per model you get shot off easier than before...

Nobody would take 20 blobs if they didn't want to lose games with 1W. Even less with 2W seeing all you do is lose more points for same effort.