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.

SemperMortis wrote:


If you really want to the game to match the fluff...well you are going to have a bad time. In the fluff a single spacewolf can run rampant through a mob of hundreds of boyz.

On that, you also have examples of 5-6 Space Marines (the protagonist, no less!) getting overhwelmed by 30 or so Orks in Helsreach, so suddenly, 300 pts Marines don't make as much sense.

To be fair semper I think both shootas and bolters are in the same boat of a neglected weapon profile. You're right some people sometimes can't work out what is a buff to some other factions or a nerf as they aren't familiar or have subconscious bias.

Fun little counterpoint though, the suggested changes from spoon would increase their bolters efficiency against orks by 0% whereas it would buff shootas into orks and also the ability to advance and shoot isn't something minor if they got some melee teeth back, although assault 4 s4 would be better obviously and feel more of an appropriate comparison.

Dudeface wrote:
To be fair semper I think both shootas and bolters are in the same boat of a neglected weapon profile. You're right some people sometimes can't work out what is a buff to some other factions or a nerf as they aren't familiar or have subconscious bias.

Fun little counterpoint though, the suggested changes from spoon would increase their bolters efficiency against orks by 0% whereas it would buff shootas into orks and also the ability to advance and shoot isn't something minor if they got some melee teeth back, although assault 4 s4 would be better obviously and feel more of an appropriate comparison.

AP-1 negates their armor.
Damage d3 makes it better against FNP.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
To be fair semper I think both shootas and bolters are in the same boat of a neglected weapon profile. You're right some people sometimes can't work out what is a buff to some other factions or a nerf as they aren't familiar or have subconscious bias.

Fun little counterpoint though, the suggested changes from spoon would increase their bolters efficiency against orks by 0% whereas it would buff shootas into orks and also the ability to advance and shoot isn't something minor if they got some melee teeth back, although assault 4 s4 would be better obviously and feel more of an appropriate comparison.

AP-1 negates their armor.
Damage d3 makes it better against FNP.

I seem to recall the context being in addition to the removal of doctrines and consolidation of bolter profiles so would cone out as a wash on the ap-1, the fnp comment is a fair point, didn't occur to me as it's not often considered for lists right now but if I'm wrong then my apologies.

SemperMortis wrote:
Now, you could absolutely adjust points to match this mindset, but the argument as presented in these two similar posts is that basic Marine Weaponry (bolters) should get AP-1 AND go from 1D to D3D. While at the same time, the lackluster (useless) Shoota should go from Dakka 3(2) to Assault 4 but lose strength. And the as crappy Big Shoota should go from Dakka 5(3) to Assault 6 but again, lose strength.

So against a Marine, the bolter just went from 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds and 0.22dmg to 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds and 0.66dmg or 3x the dmg output vs a T4 3+ model.
The shoota just went from 3 shots, 1 hit, 0.5 wounds and 0.16 dmg to 4 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.44 wounds and 0.14dmg

Impressive how often these mindsets appear where people want to buff their own weapons...in this example to 3x the power, while literally decreasing or giving a side grade buff to everyone else.

Nah, I get where you're coming from. It's a valid point. IMO I've been pretty blatant about wanting a stronger boltgun; the current bolter profiles seem very lacklustre and indistinct, especially for weaponry with such interesting mechanisms and ballistics. In my defence, I've also been arguing for things like better AP on pulse weapons in other threads (which didn't win any friends there either ).

And yes, it's true that the change I suggested would make bolters more effective against multi-Wound models. Although in your comparison you chose to calculate 3 shots on the current Dakka 3(2) shoota, which doesn't always get 3 shots... unlike an Assault 4 one would always get 4, and be able to advance as well. That seems a bit disingenuous to me.

Where I mainly disagree is your notion that we shouldn't be able to suggest changes that benefit some factions more so than others. GW themselves do this all the time.

Making the bolter or shoota or pulse rifle better isn't actually the point (in my mind anyway). The point is representing weapons in the tabletop in ways that are lore-accurate and characterful. I'd much prefer a game in which models and their capabilities were represented authentically, and the points reflected that... rather than vice versa.

Also I primarily play AM. If you ever see me suggesting Damage 2/D3 lasguns, then you can slap me down.

 Bobthehero wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


If you really want to the game to match the fluff...well you are going to have a bad time. In the fluff a single spacewolf can run rampant through a mob of hundreds of boyz.

On that, you also have examples of 5-6 Space Marines (the protagonist, no less!) getting overhwelmed by 30 or so Orks in Helsreach, so suddenly, 300 pts Marines don't make as much sense.

The big reason "game should match the fluff!" is a bad argument is that the fluff is propaganda written to sell models. In Space Marine books the Space Marines are the greatest thing in the world and can take on armies all by themselves. In Ork books the Orks are the greatest thing in the world and can take on armies all by themselves. None of it is in any way consistent with itself, and if you picked one version of anything as the definitive one all you'd end up doing is picking one protagonist faction to make a "Movie Marines"-style list for.

Hey, in my example, it's actually from a Marine centric book, but Helsreach is very well written in that regards that Marines aren't written up as boringly overpowered.

JNAProductions wrote:Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

Ya, but -1 AP would take down their save to a 4+, so more damage gets through that way. Although to be fair, the comparison doesn't take AP-boosting doctrines into account (which I think are bollocks in their current state and should go).

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

JNAProductions wrote:Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

Ya, but -1 AP would take down their save to a 4+, so more damage gets through that way. Although to be fair, the comparison doesn't take AP-boosting doctrines into account (which I think are bollocks in their current state and should go).

Armor of Contempt.

AP-1 is the same as AP0 going into Marines, excepting Bladeguard Veterans and other 3+ armor models with a Shield of some sort.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

D3D or D3 damage averages 2 dmg. AP-1 reduces the save by 25% So 2 current bolter shots = 1.33 hits 0.66 wounds and 0.22 dmg 2 S4 AP-1 D3 dmg shots = 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds 0.33 unsaved wounds which average 2dmg so 0.66 dmg.

Going from 0.22 to 0.66 is 3x the dmg output, in other words a 300% increase in dmg, specifically against Multi-wound targets.

There is also the further issue that bolter equipped units have access to heavier weapons to improve their damage output.

From purely gameplay perspective, a tactical with a bolter isn't supposed to be killy and if you want a killy tactical you get him a plasma rifle or a lascannon.

SemperMortis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

D3D or D3 damage averages 2 dmg. AP-1 reduces the save by 25% So 2 current bolter shots = 1.33 hits 0.66 wounds and 0.22 dmg 2 S4 AP-1 D3 dmg shots = 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds 0.33 unsaved wounds which average 2dmg so 0.66 dmg.

Going from 0.22 to 0.66 is 3x the dmg output, in other words a 300% increase in dmg, specifically against Multi-wound targets.

You don't always roll a 2 or 3 on a d3. Your damage is capped at 2, so you take the average damage, which is 1.67 or 5/3.
And Armor Of Contempt means that, against MEQ, AP-1 is the same as AP0 in most circumstances.

 Tyran wrote:
There is also the further issue that bolter equipped units have access to heavier weapons to improve their damage output.

From purely gameplay perspective, a tactical with a bolter isn't supposed to be killy and if you want a killy tactical you get him a plasma rifle or a lascannon.

Primaris don't have access to heavy weapons. And for GK taking heavy weapons to replace the stormbolters is an actual downgrade, specially for the power armoured troops which in order to do so, lose the nemzis force weapons which they pay for anyway.

It’s almost like the entire gimmick of Primaris not having integrated special weapons to make you buy more units of dedicated specialists makes the player suffer as a whole.

JNAProductions wrote:Damage d3 makes it better against FNP.

I'll admit I don't get this one. FNP is rolled against every point of damage taken?...

JNAProductions wrote:Armour of Contempt.

AP-1 is the same as AP0 going into Marines, excepting Bladeguard Veterans and other 3+ armor models with a Shield of some sort.

That's right.

Tyran wrote:From purely gameplay perspective, a tactical with a bolter isn't supposed to be killy and if you want a killy tactical you get him a plasma rifle or a lascannon.

Well they're supposed to be killy relative to some things. And there are examples of bolter-specific army rules/strategems that capitalise on bolter lethality. I know you're talking specifically about gameplay, but in terms of lore a boltgun-armed Astartes is supposed to be very, very killy.

Also assuming what you've said is true... why can't that change (even a little)?

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

JNAProductions wrote:Damage d3 makes it better against FNP.

I'll admit I don't get this one. FNP is rolled against every point of damage taken?...

Yes-if you take 1 damage on a FNP 6+ Wound 1 model, you roll one die. On a 6, that wound is ignored.
If you take 2 damage instead, you roll two dice. For each 6, one point of damage is ignored, so you'd need two 6s (about a 3% chance) to save the model.
3 damage, need three 6s (or less than half a percent chance).
So on and so forth.

 JNAProductions wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

D3D or D3 damage averages 2 dmg. AP-1 reduces the save by 25% So 2 current bolter shots = 1.33 hits 0.66 wounds and 0.22 dmg 2 S4 AP-1 D3 dmg shots = 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds 0.33 unsaved wounds which average 2dmg so 0.66 dmg.

Going from 0.22 to 0.66 is 3x the dmg output, in other words a 300% increase in dmg, specifically against Multi-wound targets.

You don't always roll a 2 or 3 on a d3. Your damage is capped at 2, so you take the average damage, which is 1.67 or 5/3.
And Armor Of Contempt means that, against MEQ, AP-1 is the same as AP0 in most circumstances.

Keep in mind, in my scenario I didn't mention it was against Marines. I used T4 3+ as a baseline, and I also mentioned "multi-wound targets". But either way its a semantic argument. Spoon was quick to significantly increase the dmg output of his chosen faction while handing out a "buff" to another faction he doesn't play that was actually a nerf.

That mindset is in my opinion rife throughout the 40k rules writing team. I just can't figure out how someone who understands orkz would write the new "Dakka" rules, getting rid of DDD and come to the conclusion that it was a buff. Going from Assault 2 with exploding 6s generating new shots to Dakka 3(2) with the 3 being at half range on an 18' range gun but taking away assault so it can't advance and shoot... I just really really want someone in GW to hire a couple solid ork players to help write rules or at least playtest so they stop using this broken mindset of whats good for Marines has to be good for everyone else.

SemperMortis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Semper, quick note-I think Spoon meant Damage d3, not Damage 3.

Even if it was Damage 3, it could only double damage against ordinary MEQ-they're only 2 wounds apiece. At d3, damage increases by a factor of 1.67.

D3D or D3 damage averages 2 dmg. AP-1 reduces the save by 25% So 2 current bolter shots = 1.33 hits 0.66 wounds and 0.22 dmg 2 S4 AP-1 D3 dmg shots = 1.33 hits, 0.66 wounds 0.33 unsaved wounds which average 2dmg so 0.66 dmg.

Going from 0.22 to 0.66 is 3x the dmg output, in other words a 300% increase in dmg, specifically against Multi-wound targets.

You don't always roll a 2 or 3 on a d3. Your damage is capped at 2, so you take the average damage, which is 1.67 or 5/3.
And Armor Of Contempt means that, against MEQ, AP-1 is the same as AP0 in most circumstances.

Keep in mind, in my scenario I didn't mention it was against Marines. I used T4 3+ as a baseline, and I also mentioned "multi-wound targets". But either way its a semantic argument. Spoon was quick to significantly increase the dmg output of his chosen faction while handing out a "buff" to another faction he doesn't play that was actually a nerf.

That mindset is in my opinion rife throughout the 40k rules writing team. I just can't figure out how someone who understands orkz would write the new "Dakka" rules, getting rid of DDD and come to the conclusion that it was a buff. Going from Assault 2 with exploding 6s generating new shots to Dakka 3(2) with the 3 being at half range on an 18' range gun but taking away assault so it can't advance and shoot... I just really really want someone in GW to hire a couple solid ork players to help write rules or at least playtest so they stop using this broken mindset of whats good for Marines has to be good for everyone else.

But the thread is about if the bolter needs a buff, not another avenue to complain about shoota boyz. Yes they suck, you've shown it multiple times, but this isn't the place.

JNAProductions wrote:Yes-if you take 1 damage on a FNP 6+ Wound 1 model, you roll one die. On a 6, that wound is ignored.
If you take 2 damage instead, you roll two dice. For each 6, one point of damage is ignored, so you'd need two 6s (about a 3% chance) to save the model.
3 damage, need three 6s (or less than half a percent chance).
So on and so forth.

I see what you meant now, thanks.

SemperMortis wrote:Keep in mind, in my scenario I didn't mention it was against Marines. I used T4 3+ as a baseline, and I also mentioned "multi-wound targets". But either way its a semantic argument. Spoon was quick to significantly increase the dmg output of his chosen faction while handing out a "buff" to another faction he doesn't play that was actually a nerf.

First of all, I really don't think the shoota suggestion was a nerf. You used the maximum number of shots in your comparison (50% more damage than Dakka 3/2 would have done at beyond half range) while conveniently ignoring that Assault 4 would mean 4 shots regardless of range and the ability to fire after advancing... and after all that, 0.02 less damage to MEQ? Sorry, but your response just seems outright melodramatic (and misrepresentative). Btw, against GEQ (my actual chosen faction, for the record) the revised shoota would be equal or better at every range.

And yep, my suggested boltgun profile constitutes a significant improvement over current boltguns (against multi-Wound models anyway). That was the whole point. I'm not sure why you think I'm being blind or duplicitous here.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

JNAProductions wrote:Yes-if you take 1 damage on a FNP 6+ Wound 1 model, you roll one die. On a 6, that wound is ignored.
If you take 2 damage instead, you roll two dice. For each 6, one point of damage is ignored, so you'd need two 6s (about a 3% chance) to save the model.
3 damage, need three 6s (or less than half a percent chance).
So on and so forth.

I see what you meant now, thanks.

SemperMortis wrote:Keep in mind, in my scenario I didn't mention it was against Marines. I used T4 3+ as a baseline, and I also mentioned "multi-wound targets". But either way its a semantic argument. Spoon was quick to significantly increase the dmg output of his chosen faction while handing out a "buff" to another faction he doesn't play that was actually a nerf.

First of all, I really don't think the shoota suggestion was a nerf. You used the maximum number of shots in your comparison (50% more damage than Dakka 3/2 would have done at beyond half range) while conveniently ignoring that Assault 4 would mean 4 shots regardless of range and the ability to fire after advancing... and after all that, 0.02 less damage to MEQ? Sorry, but your response just seems outright melodramatic (and misrepresentative). Btw, against GEQ (my actual chosen faction, for the record) the revised shoota would be equal or better at every range.

And yep, my suggested boltgun profile constitutes a significant improvement over current boltguns (against multi-Wound models anyway). That was the whole point. I'm not sure why you think I'm being blind or duplicitous here.

Against the following profiles, here's how the math shakes out.
MEQ are assumed to have Armor of Contempt, but the T7 and T8 profiles are NOT.



Notice how the Shoota got buffed moderately against GEQ and MEQ at full range. If you got Dakka Range (which you can get from Deepstrike if you're Bad Moons) you're actually LOSING damage.
The only place you do better consistently is against T8 targets, since the reduced Strength is irrelevant. But so is the damage dealt-it would take over 1,000 shots at BS 5+ S3 or S4 AP0 D1 to kill a Knight.

But the Bolter? It's just better.
Against GEQ? Little bit better.
MEQ? Miles better.
Anything bigger? Triple the damage, generally.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:Keep in mind, in my scenario I didn't mention it was against Marines. I used T4 3+ as a baseline, and I also mentioned "multi-wound targets". But either way its a semantic argument. Spoon was quick to significantly increase the dmg output of his chosen faction while handing out a "buff" to another faction he doesn't play that was actually a nerf.

First of all, I really don't think the shoota suggestion was a nerf. You used the maximum number of shots in your comparison (50% more damage than Dakka 3/2 would have done at beyond half range) while conveniently ignoring that Assault 4 would mean 4 shots regardless of range and the ability to fire after advancing... and after all that, 0.02 less damage to MEQ? Sorry, but your response just seems outright melodramatic (and misrepresentative). Btw, against GEQ (my actual chosen faction, for the record) the revised shoota would be equal or better at every range.

Welcome to discussing anything on here with Semper around - at some point it's going to get twisted into a "how Orks have been done dirty", with examples that don't necessarily correspond to what is being discussed...

That's it. I'm sick of all this "bolter with AP-1" bs that's going on in 40k right now. Gauss flayers deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine gauss flayer on a tomb world for 100 energy (that's about 1,21 gigawatts) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even pierce ferrocrete bunkers with my gauss flayer.

Necron Crypteks spend years working on a single gauss flayer and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest firearms known to the galaxy.

Gauss flayers are thrice as long as Space Marine bolters and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a bolter can penetrate, a gauss flayer can penetrate better. I'm pretty sure a gauss flayer could easily bisect a knight-class titan with a simple volley.

Ever wonder why Tyranids never bother conquering Tomb Worlds? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Necron Warriors and their gauss flayers of destruction. Even in the devastation of Baal, Tyranid Warriors targeted the Necron Warriors with the gauss flayers first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Gauss flayers are simply the best firearm that the galaxy has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the 40k system. Here is the stat block I propose for gauss flayers:

RF1 24" S4 AP-2 D1 An unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically wounds the target.

 vict0988 wrote:
That's it. I'm sick of all this "bolter with AP-1" bs that's going on in 40k right now. Gauss flayers deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine gauss flayer on a tomb world for 100 energy (that's about 1,21 gigawatts) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even pierce ferrocrete bunkers with my gauss flayer.

Necron Crypteks spend years working on a single gauss flayer and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest firearms known to the galaxy.

Gauss flayers are thrice as long as Space Marine bolters and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a bolter can penetrate, a gauss flayer can penetrate better. I'm pretty sure a gauss flayer could easily bisect a knight-class titan with a simple volley.

Ever wonder why Tyranids never bother conquering Tomb Worlds? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Necron Warriors and their gauss flayers of destruction. Even in the devastation of Baal, Tyranid Warriors targeted the Necron Warriors with the gauss flayers first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Gauss flayers are simply the best firearm that the galaxy has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the 40k system. Here is the stat block I propose for gauss flayers:

RF1 24" S4 AP-2 D1 An unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically wounds the target.

I like that you go through all the reasons it should be strong, and then suggest something that still isn't that strong lmao. Maybe instead of automatically wounds, just does a flat 1 MW and ends the process there.

Considering the power creep trajectory we are on since marines 2.0 with a brief respite in early 9th only to got drukhari into custodes and Tau and now Harlequins and soonish Tyranids, i wouldn't be surprised if the gauss gimmick comes back with a mortal wound shenanigan.

First of all, I think some people are forgetting which thread we're in. Yes, the bolter would be better. That's the point. And in a way which seems characteristic and reasonable to me (pending points adjustments ofc).

Also, some interesting maths (correct me if I'm wrong):

Current boltgun:
0.59 wounds vs GEQ.
0.37 wounds vs Boyz. 0.31 wounds with 6+ FNP.
0.22 wounds vs MEQ.
0.11 wounds vs TEQ.
0.15 wounds vs T7 3+.
0.07 wounds vs T8 3+.

Current boltgun with +1 AP doctrine:
0.74 wounds vs GEQ.
0.44 wounds vs Boyz, 0.37 wounds with 6+ FNP.
0.22 wounds vs MEQ, 0.33 wounds without AoC.
0.11 wounds vs TEQ, 0.22 wounds without AoC.
0.22 wounds vs T7 3+.
0.11 wounds vs T8 3+.

New boltgun (S4 AP1 Damage D3):
0.74 wounds vs GEQ (same as above).
0.44 wounds vs Boyz (same as above). 0.43 wounds with 6+ FNP (16% higher than above).
0.37 wounds vs MEQ, 0.55 wounds without AoC (67% higher than above). This becomes 100% higher than above if Damage is 2 rather than D3 (all other comparisons remain identical).
0.22 wounds vs TEQ, 0.44 wounds without AoC (100% higher than above).
0.44 wounds vs T7 3+ (100% higher than above).
0.22 wounds vs T8 3+ (100% higher than above).

So not quite the buff that people are making it out to be (still a big buff).

And anyone claiming the new shoota (or big shoota) would constitute a nerf overall is wrong, or at least seriously cherrypicking, because:

Current shoota (18"):
0.3 wounds vs GEQ.
0.11 wounds vs MEQ.
0.06 wounds vs TEQ.
0.07 wounds vs T7 3+.
0.04 wounds vs T8 3+.

Current shoota (9"):
0.44 wounds vs GEQ.
0.16 wounds vs MEQ.
0.08 wounds vs TEQ.
0.11 wounds vs T7 3+.
0.06 wounds vs T8 3+.

New shoota:
0.44 wounds vs GEQ (50% higher than current shoota at 18", equal at 9").
0.15 wounds vs MEQ (33% higher than current shoota at 18", 11% lower at 9").
0.07 wounds vs TEQ (33% higher than current shoota at 18", 11% lower at 9").
0.07 wounds vs T7 3+ (equal to current shoota at 18", 33% lower at 9").
0.07 wounds vs T8 3+ (100% higher than current shoota at 18", 33% higher at 9").

If we average out the current shoota's 9" and 18" profiles:
0.37 wounds vs GEQ (the new shoota is 20% better).
0.14 wounds vs MEQ (the new shoota is 7% better).
0.07 wounds vs TEQ (the new shoota is 7% better).
0.09 wounds vs T7 3+ (the new shoota is 20% worse).
0.05 wounds vs T8 3+ (the new shoota is 60% better).

Plus it could fire after advancing...

And if anybody is curious about the big shoota change I suggested, vs the avg of the current big shoota's 18" and 36" profiles:
50% better vs GEQ than the current big shoota.
12.5% better vs MEQ than the current big shoota.
12.5% better vs TEQ than the current big shoota.
50% better vs T7 3+ than the current big shoota.
25% worse vs T8 3+than the current big shoota.

And that could fire after advancing as well.

These weapons would also be better in a way that seems characteristic and reasonable to me.

As a CSM and Ork player i am just going to say it:

stop it with suggestions to increase Bolters (and all types of marines) power for that matter, the game adapts to them permanently due to the (C)SM baseline population being the most common and played factions by miles, every change to them WILL have consequences for other factions and actively further facilitates the armsrace / powercreep that right now and since late 5th made this game often horrific to play with certain factions.

Its the same issue as to why now suddendly every stupid baseline infantry weapon has some form of AP, including Marines, especially other marines, because GW couldn't let good enough be good (and needed to sell you your army again this time with more specialists and no options) and HAD to throw out marines 2.0 sorry, primaris, and look where that got us.
And when primaris didn't cut it anymore, well, throw out marine 2.0 and their doctrines and supplements out and the reaction to that was more powercreep and more and more and more.

IF you really want to "Fix" the bloody boltgun then its time to scale far back, drop 2w marines of anykind, drop AP-1 boltrifles (indeed just throw out all the primaris boltweapons period) and by extentsion do the same for all the other factions. It would've been good enough for marines with the new AP system, because it would've disolved the AP3 or better or bust syndrome that pre8th 40k had.

and as an aside, giving ork shootas assault back is not a buff, it's what it always has been and should've been.

I honestly just think always autowounding on 6s not being a thing would make bolters actually feel powerful. Lasguns doing nothing against T7+ but bolters still being able to wound, etc.

 vict0988 wrote:
That's it. I'm sick of all this "bolter with AP-1" bs that's going on in 40k right now. Gauss flayers deserve much better than that. Much, much better than that.

I should know what I'm talking about. I myself commissioned a genuine gauss flayer on a tomb world for 100 energy (that's about 1,21 gigawatts) and have been practicing with it for almost 2 years now. I can even pierce ferrocrete bunkers with my gauss flayer.

Necron Crypteks spend years working on a single gauss flayer and fold it up to a million times to produce the finest firearms known to the galaxy.

Gauss flayers are thrice as long as Space Marine bolters and thrice as hard for that matter too. Anything a bolter can penetrate, a gauss flayer can penetrate better. I'm pretty sure a gauss flayer could easily bisect a knight-class titan with a simple volley.

Ever wonder why Tyranids never bother conquering Tomb Worlds? That's right, they were too scared to fight the disciplined Necron Warriors and their gauss flayers of destruction. Even in the devastation of Baal, Tyranid Warriors targeted the Necron Warriors with the gauss flayers first because their killing power was feared and respected.

So what am I saying? Gauss flayers are simply the best firearm that the galaxy has ever seen, and thus, require better stats in the 40k system. Here is the stat block I propose for gauss flayers:

RF1 24" S4 AP-2 D1 An unmodified hit roll of 6 automatically wounds the target.

Now, that's a meme I haven't heard in a long time. A long time...

Bolters are fine. We don't need the basic infantry weapon on the most common faction in the game to do that much heavy lifting.

Fix lascannons. Plasma should do MW instead of slay user. Bespoke vehicle weapons should be better or the vehicles cheaper.

Boom. Done.

Great. There is one slight problem with this. All the marine units that are build around bolters, who have no special weapons. Marines that don't get plasma or get a limited number of vehicles accesible to them. On top of that, if basic weapons can't be powerful for troop options, then why are ad mecha, tau or eldar ones just that?