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.

Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

Marine mirror match could be be a bit of a pillow fisted affair, assuming no buffs, a ten man tac squad shooting another marine squad in cover does 2.2 wounds. So two ten man's rapid firing into each other will get to roughly half strength by the end of a five round game.

^Never bring Tacs without a Heavy or Special or Combi or All of the above. Grav Cannon does 2.2 by itself.

I think your math is off on bolters though, I get 1.1 against Meq in cover

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Never bring Tacs without a Heavy or Special or Combi or All of the above. Grav Cannon does 2.2 by itself.

I think your math is off on bolters though, I get 1.1 against Meq in cover

20 shots
40/3 hits
20/3 wounds
20/18 or 10/9 wounds

Math is on Insectum's side. Kingheff, did you forget to include the cover bonus? That would double the damage to 2.2, as you said.

Oops, yeah, only gave them a 3+.
So are tacs with special weapons the go to troops choice for marines now?
Basically anything without strong ap is fairly useless now, so bolters, flamers etc out and plasma, meltas etc are in? Could end up being a decent buff to hordes, ironically.

The thing is, Bolters/Flamers didn't get worse from AoC, everything else did. I'd say plain boltguns are a better choice now than pre-dataslate.

Pre-dataslate, going from AP0 to AP-1 against a Marine was worth 50% damage (fail save on 2 numbers to fail save on 3). So against other Marines Boltgun kinda-but-not-really got a 50% damage boost... because everything else got worse by 1 AP.

I've been using a single Boltgun shot from a Marine (S4 AP0 D1 3+BS, no doctrines/tactics/etc) as a benchmark, and a Flamer is worth 5.25 shots on average, pre and post-Dataslate since they get d6 autohits and are the same stats as Boltgun. A (single shot of) Grav-gun was worth 6.66 shots pre-DS and is now 5.33 post. For comparison, non-Overcharged Plasma was worth 3.33 pre, now 2.66 post. Overcharged Plasma was 8.33 pre and now 6.66 post.

That said, a Grav-cannon has 4 shots of Grav, so is worth 21.33 boltgun shots all by itself... more than a 5-man squad of Auto Intercessors at 15 shots.

 kingheff wrote:
Oops, yeah, only gave them a 3+.
So are tacs with special weapons the go to troops choice for marines now?
Basically anything without strong ap is fairly useless now, so bolters, flamers etc out and plasma, meltas etc are in? Could end up being a decent buff to hordes, ironically.

Intercessors still have the Rapid Fire and Transhuman Physiology strats. Auto Bolt Rifles still generate considerable weight of fire. Regular Bolt Rifles are going to have AP -1 for some of the most critical times (Turn 2,3) of the game. Assault Intercessors are mostly weight of melee attacks and might be around on Turn 3 or later to make use of Assault Doctrine. Infiltrators and Incursors are taken not for their base shooting, but the extras they have. Finally, Heavy Intercessors are less there for offense and more there for defense (which Armor of Contempt is going to very much add to), though; S5 weapons do seem to do okay despite so few shots being made.

I think the Heavy weapon option variants of Primaris Troops (Stalker and Executor) may have taken a step back. However, my experience with them is they are usually kinda swingy and easy for an opponent to take a some spring out of their step (making them move, giving them bad targets most of the game especially Turn 1, etc.).

More importantly, while I think space marines will be back as something for a tournament player to consider, I don't think this buff is going to see them commonly taking top spots. Nor any of the other factions that gained it. More of all of them jumping up a tier. Which could include major wins. So even space marine players should probably still consider the factions that are still doing really well more than worry their Troop choice isn't going to handle other space marine players. I think there are far better non-Troop options to tackle mirror or other Armor of Contempt factions.

I have always considered Tactical Marines as a viable choice among space marine Troop options, depending on what the player wants out of their army. Running Tacticals just means the player has to be more specific in what they want them to do compared to many of the Primaris options. I'm sure someone will figure out a 'best', but overall; I think space marine Troop options are doing pretty good. Much better than a lot of other factions' Troop options, at any rate.

I'm not sure everything else getting worse improves bolters though, aside from the fact that they're free so you're not spending points to achieve not much.
But maybe this is gw's sneaky way to make imperial fists great again since ignoring cover is arguably very valuable in games against power armour.

SemperMortis wrote:
Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

The lore aspect is a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal (I guess, given current rules, the Horus Heresy was just one big paintball fight? ). Bolters are supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium, tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think (here me out) that bolt weapons need a significant boost in power, cost and general uniqueness, especially when compared to all the other basic infantry arms out there. While +1 AP would be a good start (and makes sense lore-wise), I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage 2 or D3. Personally, it makes more sense to represent a bolt's internal explosion as extra Damage rather than extra Strength (or by adding more MWs to the game) – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round (similar to a modern light cannon shell), then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. This would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or tougher units.. which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. Extra Damage would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines without infringing on pulse weapons or similar, and would give them a bit more oomph against the big, scary monsters they're often deployed against in the lore. D3 damage could also achieve that in a way that's both more dynamic and clunky. Heavy bolters could potentially get +1 Damage as well (making them premier anti-Gravis/Custodes weapons), but IMO that's not necessary.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

The lore aspect is a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal (I guess, given current rules, the Horus Heresy was just one big paintball fight? ). Bolters are supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium, tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think (here me out) that bolt weapons need a significant boost in power, cost and general uniqueness, especially when compared to all the other basic infantry arms out there. While +1 AP would be a good start (and makes sense lore-wise), I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1. Although I could see an argument for +1 Strength instead for bolt weapons given that they essentially fire high-velocity mini-rockets, I like the idea of representing a bolt's internal explosion as extra damage instead of just raw power – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round, then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. D3 damage would be clunkier than just +1 damage, but would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or Gravis/Custodian units... which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. It would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines, and give them a bit extra oomph against the scary bigger monsters they're often deployed against. A decent chance of additional mortal wounds could achieve something similar in a way that involves less die rolling, and which would synergise well conceptually... but which would be a bit less fun/unique/dynamic.

The thing is, almost all weapons used in 40k are some pretty horrifically powerful tools of destruction. A bolter indeed causes a mess, but gauss flayers literally break down people to their atoms and are known to carve even through tanks. Shuriken catapults fire streams of monomolecular disks that cut through everything. Plasma carbines fire plasma, Tyranids have all kinds of fun beasties they launch, splinter rifles use horrible poisons and cause truly tremendous pain, and so on. And even lasguns are quite powerful compared to today's weapons. Just boosting bolters means that other weapons need significant boosts at the same time.

And, of course, space marines would have to become a good bit more expensive, which would lead to all sorts of fun as well.

 Dolnikan wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

The lore aspect is a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal (I guess, given current rules, the Horus Heresy was just one big paintball fight? ). Bolters are supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium, tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think (here me out) that bolt weapons need a significant boost in power, cost and general uniqueness, especially when compared to all the other basic infantry arms out there. While +1 AP would be a good start (and makes sense lore-wise), I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1. Although I could see an argument for +1 Strength instead for bolt weapons given that they essentially fire high-velocity mini-rockets, I like the idea of representing a bolt's internal explosion as extra damage instead of just raw power – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round, then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. D3 damage would be clunkier than just +1 damage, but would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or Gravis/Custodian units... which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. It would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines, and give them a bit extra oomph against the scary bigger monsters they're often deployed against. A decent chance of additional mortal wounds could achieve something similar in a way that involves less die rolling, and which would synergise well conceptually... but which would be a bit less fun/unique/dynamic.

The thing is, almost all weapons used in 40k are some pretty horrifically powerful tools of destruction. A bolter indeed causes a mess, but gauss flayers literally break down people to their atoms and are known to carve even through tanks. Shuriken catapults fire streams of monomolecular disks that cut through everything. Plasma carbines fire plasma, Tyranids have all kinds of fun beasties they launch, splinter rifles use horrible poisons and cause truly tremendous pain, and so on. And even lasguns are quite powerful compared to today's weapons. Just boosting bolters means that other weapons need significant boosts at the same time.

And, of course, space marines would have to become a good bit more expensive, which would lead to all sorts of fun as well.

I agree with everything you've just said, but not necessarily that it's a problem... weapons should be represented characterfully on the tabletop, and Marines should be more potent/expensive IMO.

Bring on pulse weapons that are essentially light plasma guns. Bring on low-strength, armour-piercing shuriken weapons. Bring on living ammunition that can re-roll wounds, or splinter weapons that debuff Ld.

Not to devalue lasguns; sometimes I wonder if las weapons should come with traits like accuracy buffs (no recoil/bullet lag), or even be penalised for shooting through smoke.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

The lore aspect is a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal (I guess, given current rules, the Horus Heresy was just one big paintball fight? ). Bolters are supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium, tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think (here me out) that bolt weapons need a significant boost in power, cost and general uniqueness, especially when compared to all the other basic infantry arms out there. While +1 AP would be a good start (and makes sense lore-wise), I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1. Although I could see an argument for +1 Strength instead for bolt weapons given that they essentially fire high-velocity mini-rockets, I like the idea of representing a bolt's internal explosion as extra damage instead of just raw power – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round, then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. D3 damage would be clunkier than just +1 damage, but would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or Gravis/Custodian units... which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. It would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines, and give them a bit extra oomph against the scary bigger monsters they're often deployed against. A decent chance of additional mortal wounds could achieve something similar in a way that involves less die rolling, and which would synergise well conceptually... but which would be a bit less fun/unique/dynamic.

Making a standard troop weapon have a random damage amount would be imo one of the worst things for the game. imagine the tedium rolling it out vs an army with army wide feel no pain. Also a bolter being able to put 3 damage on a vehicle or monstrous creature is a pass for me, though I think monstrous creatures and vehicles should minus 1 from damage profiles to a minimum of 1.

I also don't think you can give bolters AP unless you change the doctrines. sorry but turns of ap-2 bolters as a main gun is really too powerful for the current points, there is a world where it works but you would need each bolter marine to go up a few points per model. space marines in my opinion with the new armor of contempt in their profile have some of the best troops and other unit profiles in the game for the points.

 G00fySmiley wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

The lore aspect is a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal (I guess, given current rules, the Horus Heresy was just one big paintball fight? ). Bolters are supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium, tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think (here me out) that bolt weapons need a significant boost in power, cost and general uniqueness, especially when compared to all the other basic infantry arms out there. While +1 AP would be a good start (and makes sense lore-wise), I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1. Although I could see an argument for +1 Strength instead for bolt weapons given that they essentially fire high-velocity mini-rockets, I like the idea of representing a bolt's internal explosion as extra damage instead of just raw power – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round, then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. D3 damage would be clunkier than just +1 damage, but would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or Gravis/Custodian units... which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. It would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines, and give them a bit extra oomph against the scary bigger monsters they're often deployed against. A decent chance of additional mortal wounds could achieve something similar in a way that involves less die rolling, and which would synergise well conceptually... but which would be a bit less fun/unique/dynamic.

Making a standard troop weapon have a random damage amount would be imo one of the worst things for the game. imagine the tedium rolling it out vs an army with army wide feel no pain. Also a bolter being able to put 3 damage on a vehicle or monstrous creature is a pass for me, though I think monstrous creatures and vehicles should minus 1 from damage profiles to a minimum of 1.

I also don't think you can give bolters AP unless you change the doctrines. sorry but turns of ap-2 bolters as a main gun is really too powerful for the current points, there is a world where it works but you would need each bolter marine to go up a few points per model. space marines in my opinion with the new armor of contempt in their profile have some of the best troops and other unit profiles in the game for the points.

Then just making them flat D2 then. Or rolling two wound die for every hit. Or finding a sensible way for them to deal additional mortal wounds.

I personally think it's a bit stupid for doctrines to affect AP at all... IMO, when thinking about the core weapon stats, external factors like doctrines should work around them and not vice versa. And to me, given the lore around bolters (and other weapon statlines), AP1 seems more than appropriate.

If a nercon gauss flayer and gauss reaper are both damage 1 (both of which literally turn the matter hit into atoms) are still damge 1 i don't think bolters get to have a fluff reason to break into D2 for thier mainline guns.

rolling 2 wound dice per hit also adds tedium to rolls, and hell no to a standard infantry dealing mortal wounds that would either break the game or make a marine need to cost 50 points per model

I get that people like the idea of rokkit bullets but compared to the tech behind most factions guns (outside orks which are just big slug throwers for main guns) the imperial bolter is really not that special, its the marine wielding it for accuracy that makes it devastating.

I can see giving it a strength increase as its a large caliber projectile, assumign doctrines not affecting ap even ap-1 (now conveniently ignored by half the armies)

With the new armor of of contempt rules, it will be really hard to buff the standard bolter, it really is a major buff (altho to durability) to space-marine armies.

Ialso really feel like games-workshop wants to bring back the MEQ meta that we were used to seeing (that being the expectation to face a MEQ list atleast 50% of the time you typically play 40k).this would make the suggested -1ap bolter pretty useless anyways.

An ap buff to bolters would be useless against other marines, which is somewhat lore compliant.

Also keep in mind that marines just got buffed, so asking for another buff is too much at this time.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

 Dolnikan wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
Oh buddy, just wait until the first Marine on Marine battle takes place and both sides complain about how little their bolters do

The lore aspect is a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal (I guess, given current rules, the Horus Heresy was just one big paintball fight? ). Bolters are supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium, tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think (here me out) that bolt weapons need a significant boost in power, cost and general uniqueness, especially when compared to all the other basic infantry arms out there. While +1 AP would be a good start (and makes sense lore-wise), I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1. Although I could see an argument for +1 Strength instead for bolt weapons given that they essentially fire high-velocity mini-rockets, I like the idea of representing a bolt's internal explosion as extra damage instead of just raw power – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round, then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. D3 damage would be clunkier than just +1 damage, but would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or Gravis/Custodian units... which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. It would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines, and give them a bit extra oomph against the scary bigger monsters they're often deployed against. A decent chance of additional mortal wounds could achieve something similar in a way that involves less die rolling, and which would synergise well conceptually... but which would be a bit less fun/unique/dynamic.

The thing is, almost all weapons used in 40k are some pretty horrifically powerful tools of destruction. A bolter indeed causes a mess, but gauss flayers literally break down people to their atoms and are known to carve even through tanks. Shuriken catapults fire streams of monomolecular disks that cut through everything. Plasma carbines fire plasma, Tyranids have all kinds of fun beasties they launch, splinter rifles use horrible poisons and cause truly tremendous pain, and so on. And even lasguns are quite powerful compared to today's weapons. Just boosting bolters means that other weapons need significant boosts at the same time.

And, of course, space marines would have to become a good bit more expensive, which would lead to all sorts of fun as well.

I agree with everything you've just said, but not necessarily that it's a problem... weapons should be represented characterfully on the tabletop, and Marines should be more potent/expensive IMO.

Bring on pulse weapons that are essentially light plasma guns. Bring on low-strength, armour-piercing shuriken weapons. Bring on living ammunition that can re-roll wounds, or splinter weapons that debuff Ld.

Not to devalue lasguns; sometimes I wonder if las weapons should come with traits like accuracy buffs (no recoil/bullet lag), or even be penalised for shooting through smoke.

The issue is the scale of the game, mostly. If there were 30 models on the larger side, I'd fully agree with giving every basic weapon so many characteristics. I'd love a skirmish game with varied weapons and lore accurate stat lines. Kill Team doesn't do this for me.

G00fySmiley wrote:If a nercon gauss flayer and gauss reaper are both damage 1 (both of which literally turn the matter hit into atoms) are still damge 1 i don't think bolters get to have a fluff reason to break into D2 for thier mainline guns.

I agree, but they should be buffed too (in different lore-accurate ways... Gauss weapons strip matter, they don't provide the instantaneous lethality of something like an exploding shell).

E.g. Gauss weapons never needing more than a 4+ to wound regardless of target toughness. They should also get better AP than a bolter.

G00fySmiley wrote:I get that people like the idea of rokkit bullets but compared to the tech behind most factions guns (outside orks which are just big slug throwers for main guns) the imperial bolter is really not that special, its the marine wielding it for accuracy that makes it devastating.

I can see giving it a strength increase as its a large caliber projectile, assumign doctrines not affecting ap even ap-1 (now conveniently ignored by half the armies)

Compared to other basic infantry weapons, it really does pack a lot of raw killing power. It's not just the "rokkit bullets" that hit you like a modern light cannon round, it's the fact that they penetrate and then explode internally as well. Comparable weapons today would rank far higher than a bolter's current statline IMO... 20mm rounds for example have a similar diameter to a bolter shell, and often contain explosives, but are powerful enough that they generally aren't even used against infantry targets.

bat702 wrote:With the new armor of of contempt rules, it will be really hard to buff the standard bolter, it really is a major buff (altho to durability) to space-marine armies.

Just_Breathe wrote:An ap buff to bolters would be useless against other marines, which is somewhat lore compliant.

Also keep in mind that marines just got buffed, so asking for another buff is too much at this time.

As mentioned elsewhere, I really think special rules should be considered around core weapon stats, not vice versa. Statlines should come first. All else should be supplementary.

If marine bolters get an ap buff to match the lore (which barely touches the tabletop) then you have to make some changes to other guys stuff. Ork guns would be spitting out at least 4 shots at s4/5.

We really need to remember that, at this scale, abstractions for weapons are very important. The Bolt weapons and Gauss weapons being similar is fine, because 50 Necron Warriors vs 40 Space Marines with substantial differences in weapons doesn't need to be modeled as much as 6 Necrons vs 5 Space Marines or 20 Guardsmen. I'd love a game that has these differences, but at such a large scale, the differences don't matter as much for basic weapons, and it's more important to model how they'd actually fight with large scale technology and army forces.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If marine bolters get an ap buff to match the lore (which barely touches the tabletop) then you have to make some changes to other guys stuff. Ork guns would be spitting out at least 4 shots at s4/5.

I personally like the idea of Ork shootas being something like Assault 4, S3. They seem like they should have the same power as something like a high-calibre autogun or lasgun, but be able to saturate a target with massed dakka... even indiscriminately, on the move. A big shoota would then ideally be something like Assault 6, S4.

Maybe Ork weapons like shootas could even have "User" or "User-1" values in place of a flat Strength value... the bigger the Ork, the higher they are in the pecking order and the bigger the gun they get.

 TheBestBucketHead wrote:
We really need to remember that, at this scale, abstractions for weapons are very important. The Bolt weapons and Gauss weapons being similar is fine, because 50 Necron Warriors vs 40 Space Marines with substantial differences in weapons doesn't need to be modeled as much as 6 Necrons vs 5 Space Marines or 20 Guardsmen. I'd love a game that has these differences, but at such a large scale, the differences don't matter as much for basic weapons, and it's more important to model how they'd actually fight with large scale technology and army forces.

I get what you're saying, but to people like me the weapon statlines do matter beyond the simple arithmetic they represent... especially if they can be made more characterful without slowing the game.

Ork weapons are much stronger than a lasgun, reducing them to autogun tier is just muhreening about it. A shoota is just as strong as a bolter, there’s recorded books of shoota rounds being fed into bolters in an emergency, and bolt shells often find themselves worked into the mechanism of shootas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The ideal shoota profile in this day and age is something like assault 4 18” range, no ap because they’re infantry made snub nose bullets.

 Just_Breathe wrote:
An ap buff to bolters would be useless against other marines, which is somewhat lore compliant.

Also keep in mind that marines just got buffed, so asking for another buff is too much at this time.

Honestly I don't think mirror matches should be considered outside how even Chapter Traits feel.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ork weapons are much stronger than a lasgun, reducing them to autogun tier is just muhreening about it. A shoota is just as strong as a bolter, there’s recorded books of shoota rounds being fed into bolters in an emergency, and bolt shells often find themselves worked into the mechanism of shootas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The ideal shoota profile in this day and age is something like assault 4 18” range, no ap because they’re infantry made snub nose bullets.

Lasguns are more powerful than people think... they do damage comparable to something like a 12.7mm HMG or anti-material sniper round today.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ork weapons are much stronger than a lasgun, reducing them to autogun tier is just muhreening about it. A shoota is just as strong as a bolter, there’s recorded books of shoota rounds being fed into bolters in an emergency, and bolt shells often find themselves worked into the mechanism of shootas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The ideal shoota profile in this day and age is something like assault 4 18” range, no ap because they’re infantry made snub nose bullets.

Lasguns are more powerful than people think... they do damage comparable to something like a 12.7mm HMG or anti-material sniper round today.

Yes, and a grot blaster is loaded with bullets just as strong, that typically do squat to an ork. The entire point of 40k is it being huge scale, lasguns are strong, but orkzes is stronga .
I will acknowledge that lasguns are better in a lot of aspects though, recharging with a campfire and little/no recoil depending on the author.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Side tangent, ever notice how much guard books under power orks?, they go from shrugging off five bolt shells to dying in two center of mass lasgun shots. It’s strange .

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:


Side tangent, ever notice how much guard books under power orks?, they go from shrugging off five bolt shells to dying in two center of mass lasgun shots. It’s strange .

its almost as if the books were in-world propaganda that always makes the "good guys" look strong

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Ork weapons are much stronger than a lasgun, reducing them to autogun tier is just muhreening about it. A shoota is just as strong as a bolter, there’s recorded books of shoota rounds being fed into bolters in an emergency, and bolt shells often find themselves worked into the mechanism of shootas.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The ideal shoota profile in this day and age is something like assault 4 18” range, no ap because they’re infantry made snub nose bullets.

Lasguns are more powerful than people think... they do damage comparable to something like a 12.7mm HMG or anti-material sniper round today.

Yes, and a grot blaster is loaded with bullets just as strong, that typically do squat to an ork. The entire point of 40k is it being huge scale, lasguns are strong, but orkzes is stronga .

Ya, which is where their T5 comes in. Any tougher and they'd be wounding Orks on the same roll as Titans.

Also calling bollocks on grot blastas being lasgun-powered. Maybe on the tabletop, but lore-wise I doubt they pack the same punch (unless they were looted laspistols).

Grot blasters are (at least in newer 40k stuff) one/two shot pistol/shotgun things that just unleash a pretty huge blast but are violently unstable. To orks small caliber stuff you can trust grots with is the same strength as las fire.
I’m not saying grot blasters are better, they’re total crap in every other aspect. They’re just the same strength about. (On average, you can’t really put too many strict labels on ork tek to be fair.)

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Grot blasters are (at least in newer 40k stuff) one/two shot pistol/shotgun things that just unleash a pretty huge blast but are violently unstable. To orks small caliber stuff you can trust grots with is the same strength as las fire.
I’m not saying grot blasters are better, they’re total crap in every other aspect. They’re just the same strength about. (On average, you can’t really put too many strict labels on ork tek to be fair.)

I think it's a total mish-mash, probably... a combo of S3, S2 and even S1 weapons that are left around in discard piles. For every grot with a hard-won hand cannon you've probably got another with the 40k (or at least, Ork) equivalent of an airsoft pistol.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Grot blasters are (at least in newer 40k stuff) one/two shot pistol/shotgun things that just unleash a pretty huge blast but are violently unstable. To orks small caliber stuff you can trust grots with is the same strength as las fire.
I’m not saying grot blasters are better, they’re total crap in every other aspect. They’re just the same strength about. (On average, you can’t really put too many strict labels on ork tek to be fair.)

I think it's a total mish-mash, probably... a combo of S3, S2 and even S1 weapons that are left around in discard piles. For every grot with a hard-won hand cannon you've probably got another with the 40k (or at least, Ork) equivalent of an airsoft pistol.

Grots aren't idiots. They aren't geniuses either, but they're smart enough to bring their best guns to a fight.

Notably, said best gun is still S3 AP0 D1 with a crappy range, but it's their best.