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.

To answer the OP, no. Bolters are supposed to be the basic anti-infantry weapons of the marines, so they should stay basic and anti-infantry.

The only possible concession is to perhaps add something to help them against 2 wound models, EG nat 6's to wound causing 2 damage, though this has the risk of causing bolter-spam lists.

Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines

But then they'd be ultra powerful against anyone else. And the whole point of AoC is to make power armour based armies sturdier against all kinds of weapons.

If anything now that SM have AoC they could give up doctrines entirely.

 Blackie wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines

But then they'd be ultra powerful against anyone else. And the whole point of AoC is to make power armour based armies sturdier against all kinds of weapons.

If anything now that SM have AoC they could give up doctrines entirely.

There's other factions?

Missile Launchers have needed a buff for ages.

The concept of "its flexible" is reasonable - but not when you should basically never fire frag ever.

 some bloke wrote:
To answer the OP, no. Bolters are supposed to be the basic anti-infantry weapons of the marines, so they should stay basic and anti-infantry.

The only possible concession is to perhaps add something to help them against 2 wound models, EG nat 6's to wound causing 2 damage, though this has the risk of causing bolter-spam lists.

They're probably in the bottom quarter of "basic anti-infantry weapons" on base profile now though, that's why it's being questioned. Should a fleshborer, pulse rifle, hell even the shoota, basically be better on base profile than the basic bolter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines

But then they'd be ultra powerful against anyone else. And the whole point of AoC is to make power armour based armies sturdier against all kinds of weapons.

If anything now that SM have AoC they could give up doctrines entirely.

If they gave up doctrines it's a flat nerf all round, AoC basically counters doctrines, but against every other faction in the game it still has relevance and AoC doesn't do enough to warrant giving up the doctrines imo.

Plus there are more marines who use bolters and don't have doctrines, then marines who have them. The argument that bolters are okey, because of that set of rules, would only be true sometimes.

How do people actually feel about D2 boltguns?

IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
How do people actually feel about D2 boltguns?

IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.

I'm ok with it, even with a small points bump attached. It would actually reduce efficiency against the chaff/light infantry due to fewer marines on the table but make them feel more impactful against the elite infantry/other marines they're meant to be the surgical strike against.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
How do people actually feel about D2 boltguns?

How do people actually feel about 35+pt Marines?


In all seriousness, I do think this is something of an issue with GW wanting to have its cake and eat it. On the one hand, it wants Marines to be super-duper-soldiers, comparable to Tyranid Warriors. On the other, it doesn't want them to actually pay Tyranid Warrior prices.

I think if you were willing to move basic Marines to the 30-40pt range, you could do a lot more in terms of giving them strong standard weapons, in addition to their extra wound.

Of course, this then creates a different problem in that players want even the basic Marine to be super-elite, yet that makes it increasingly hard to distinguish the actual elites. Think for a moment about all the different levels of Marine - you've got Scouts, Tactical Marines (elite), you've got Grey Knights (The elite of the elite), you've got Vanguard Veterans (The elite of the elite of the elite), you've got Terminators (The elite of the elite of the elite of the elite), you've got Custodian Guard (elite, elite, elite, elite, elite!).

Point being, one of them has to be at the bottom and the higher you start them the harder it becomes to distinguish the other thousand or so ranks of Marine without getting into ridiculous levels.


It's like if you wanted an army with the same variation as the Imperial Guard, but every unit has to be a tank. And because they're all tanks, they all need to be awesome (obviously, because tanks are awesome). However, this leads to obvious issues wherein you either use the Leman Russ as a benchmark in its current position (as one of the stronger units in the book), and thus have to have some tiny, Dalek-sized tanks with the equivalent of Flakk armour and Lasguns to fill in for Infantry Squads. Or else you have Leman Russ tanks filling the roll of Infantry Squads, in which case your actual Leman Russ equivalents would be in the region of Reaver Titans.

 vipoid wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
How do people actually feel about D2 boltguns?

How do people actually feel about 35+pt Marines?


In all seriousness, I do think this is something of an issue with GW wanting to have its cake and eat it. On the one hand, it wants Marines to be super-duper-soldiers, comparable to Tyranid Warriors. On the other, it doesn't want them to actually pay Tyranid Warrior prices.

I think if you were willing to move basic Marines to the 30-40pt range, you could do a lot more in terms of giving them strong standard weapons, in addition to their extra wound.

Of course, this then creates a different problem in that players want even the basic Marine to be super-elite, yet that makes it increasingly hard to distinguish the actual elites. Think for a moment about all the different levels of Marine - you've got Scouts, Tactical Marines (elite), you've got Grey Knights (The elite of the elite), you've got Vanguard Veterans (The elite of the elite of the elite), you've got Terminators (The elite of the elite of the elite of the elite), you've got Custodian Guard (elite, elite, elite, elite, elite!).

Point being, one of them has to be at the bottom and the higher you start them the harder it becomes to distinguish the other thousand or so ranks of Marine without getting into ridiculous levels.


It's like if you wanted an army with the same variation as the Imperial Guard, but every unit has to be a tank. And because they're all tanks, they all need to be awesome (obviously, because tanks are awesome). However, this leads to obvious issues wherein you either use the Leman Russ as a benchmark in its current position (as one of the stronger units in the book), and thus have to have some tiny, Dalek-sized tanks with the equivalent of Flakk armour and Lasguns to fill in for Infantry Squads. Or else you have Leman Russ tanks filling the roll of Infantry Squads, in which case your actual Leman Russ equivalents would be in the region of Reaver Titans.

We just need to expand the scope of the stats ranges, refine the breakpoints and yes, a 30-odd point marine facing off against multiple cultists or whatever is fine by me, shrink army sizes back down a little across the board, everyone wins.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines

What? Armor of Contempt doesn't affect bolters right now

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
How do people actually feel about D2 boltguns?

IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.

I don't like the idea of Damage 2 bolters. It has a knock on effect to mid-Toughness units throughout the rest of 40k. Very honestly, as a player whose #1 army is CSM closely followed by #2 being Primaris, I am extremely happy where space marines are right now.

I think space marines (all to most factions of them) are in a pretty good spot in 9th. The offensive ability is a tad be low if a player doesn't make use of both ranged and melee, but if applied properly, marine offensive is good enough (which is exactly where I want marines). Marine durability is in a fantastic place. It largely provides the durability to leverage ranged and melee, and more importantly to me; it provides a cushion for new players to make mistakes and recover from them more readily.

At casual level, marines easily make it to Turn 5 or the end of the game before either side is tabled. The low offense and high defense beefs up the importance of maneuver with marines to make use of everything they have and not just rely on shooting, melee or durably. It takes a combination of all 3 dependent of type of subfaction, marine, unit and opponent. Which I believe grading on 9th rules complicatedness, marines still are pretty simple even if they have several bespoke rules now. Because marines are rather durable (especially in marine on marine games) it is important to get them in position quickly, but carefully, as they can be tough (but far from impossible) to shift.

I even think Armor of Contempt was (probably accidental) an excellent addition to the meta. As AP -1/-2 really were some of the most efficient weapons. And if it weren't for marines being so common, likely still would be. However, since marines are so popular players have to rework their armies to account for marines (who likely could still beat, but at a lower overall score) forcing a wider range of coverage.

In short, while I haven't playing 40k for all that long, marines have never felt better to play that right now for me.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
How do people actually feel about D2 boltguns?

IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.

'some other multi-wound targets' being all tanks and monsters

The defensive buff/offensive buff cycle is already terrible. (2w-> better guns-> armor of contempt). Don't add another step to the black spiral dance.

 vipoid wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
How do people actually feel about D2 boltguns?

How do people actually feel about 35+pt Marines?

In all seriousness, I do think this is something of an issue with GW wanting to have its cake and eat it. On the one hand, it wants Marines to be super-duper-soldiers, comparable to Tyranid Warriors. On the other, it doesn't want them to actually pay Tyranid Warrior prices.

I think if you were willing to move basic Marines to the 30-40pt range, you could do a lot more in terms of giving them strong standard weapons, in addition to their extra wound.

Of course, this then creates a different problem in that players want even the basic Marine to be super-elite, yet that makes it increasingly hard to distinguish the actual elites.

The cynic in me suspects that the main reason GW wants cheaper Marines because that means more plastic sold.

As for unit diversity, I get what you mean, but at the end of the day I think there's enough wiggle room (and there are different mechanisms GW could use to increase the wiggle room, like using the current wound chart for hit and armour save rolls).

And Custodes are evidence that GW isn't averse to 50pt-per-model troops (IMO a Sagittarium Guard's stats are actually closer than something like an Intercessor's to what a lore-acurate Marine's should look like, ignoring things like disintegrator beams and 4++ invulns).

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines

What? Armor of Contempt doesn't affect bolters right now

I think he means AP2 with Tac Doctrine. Might be tongue-in-cheek.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:In short, while I haven't playing 40k for all that long, marines have never felt better to play that right now for me.

I get where you're coming from, but I feel like that's a very tabletop-centric perspective. You mentioned Marines being low-offence, especially against other Marines... to me that seems to run contrary to the lore (especially the bloodshed of the Horus Heresy). Marines are supposed to be offensively-powerful (and boltguns are supposed to be one of the most feared small arms in the galaxy). The primary weakness of a Marine army should be its low numbers and poor tabletop coverage IMO, not low offence.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
How do people actually feel about D2 boltguns?

IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.

'some other multi-wound targets' being all tanks and monsters

Ya, but less points-efficient vs other targets (assuming a proportionate points increase).

Voss wrote:
The defensive buff/offensive buff cycle is already terrible. (2w-> better guns-> armor of contempt). Don't add another step to the black spiral dance.

Only because GW keep getting things wrong. A buff to the bolter would be more justifiable than many of the buffs received by other small arms, e.g. the fleshborer, or HotE (even if AM did need a boost of some kind).

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines

What? Armor of Contempt doesn't affect bolters right now

I think he means AP2 with Tac Doctrine. Might be tongue-in-cheek.

oh, can you tell i don't play loyalists

Dudeface wrote:

They're probably in the bottom quarter of "basic anti-infantry weapons" on base profile now though, that's why it's being questioned. Should a fleshborer, pulse rifle, hell even the shoota, basically be better on base profile than the basic bolter?

Pulse rifles should, because Tau actually do science. For shootas, part of their downside is that the low Ork BS is also representative of their weapons technology - so you could describe a shoota as more powerful or more rapid firing than a boltgun but less accurate. Agree on Fleshborers though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
How do people actually feel about D2 boltguns?

IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.

Terrible idea. Would make marines' basic weapons too powerful.

Imo fleshborer being s4 ap 0 but +1 to wound (bug bullets) makes sense. Maybe something like poison, but we gotta power creep somehow.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Imo fleshborer being s4 ap 0 but +1 to wound (bug bullets) makes sense. Maybe something like poison, but we gotta power creep somehow.

Yeah I was thinking that for Gauss weapons too, just give them a permanent +1 to wound.

+1 to wound is a little boring for gauss, I think hammer of the emperor would be really nice for them honestly, the ap on them works really well.

Dudeface wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
To answer the OP, no. Bolters are supposed to be the basic anti-infantry weapons of the marines, so they should stay basic and anti-infantry.

The only possible concession is to perhaps add something to help them against 2 wound models, EG nat 6's to wound causing 2 damage, though this has the risk of causing bolter-spam lists.

They're probably in the bottom quarter of "basic anti-infantry weapons" on base profile now though, that's why it's being questioned. Should a fleshborer, pulse rifle, hell even the shoota, basically be better on base profile than the basic bolter?

A Pulse Rifle should 100% be better than a Bolter. Absolutely. How can you even ask that question?

A Fleshborer should about a short range Bolter. A Shuriken Catapult should be a sidegrade to a Bolter, roughly equivalent.

Shuriken catapults have always been supposed to be better than bolters, i think they’re in a good place now.

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines

Likely a joke, but its a bit funny that I said this would happen and here it is

Dudeface wrote:

They're probably in the bottom quarter of "basic anti-infantry weapons" on base profile now though, that's why it's being questioned. Should a fleshborer, pulse rifle, hell even the shoota, basically be better on base profile than the basic bolter?

Re-enter the Dudeface with a ridiculous comparison. "Shootas are better than Bolters!" i mean yeah...if you ignore all the rules both factions which carry those weapons get....and if you ignore Ballistic skill. But hey, let build some more strawman arguments to push a narrative that bolters need more firepower.

Shootas are kind of just better than bolters, as are basically all the weapons orks use, they’re just limited by the aim and the squishness of the bearer.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:In short, while I haven't playing 40k for all that long, marines have never felt better to play that right now for me.

I get where you're coming from, but I feel like that's a very tabletop-centric perspective. You mentioned Marines being low-offence, especially against other Marines... to me that seems to run contrary to the lore (especially the bloodshed of the Horus Heresy). Marines are supposed to be offensively-powerful (and boltguns are supposed to be one of the most feared small arms in the galaxy). The primary weakness of a Marine army should be its low numbers and poor tabletop coverage IMO, not low offence.

It certainly is a very tabletop-centric perspective. The first thing to remember is 40k lore pretty much has every faction upsell itself in the lore. Space marines being the worst of this. The next thing to remember is this isn't an TTRPG and, contrary to some people's opinion, space marines aren't the Player Character faction with most, if not all, other factions being NPCs. The game should be fair to all factions. So space marines simply can't be good at everything. And space marines aren't the big dogs (as if they ever were) of the setting. The more space marines are pushed up, the more specialty marines (like Grey Knights) and factions like Custodes have to uplifted to compensate. Even something like Necron Immortals should probably better than the standard Tactical/Intercessor to both give 'crons that old 'better than you' feel and have a wider separation between Immortals (hype-elite) and Warriors (horde) in army construction.

As much as I don't want it to matter, the fact that space marines are so popular really does mean some concessions have to be made for gameplay. Having marines something like 6 times more expensive than a guardsman is probably just too much. It could create game inflation (which I believe is largely the players and not GW who drive this), as 2000pt games feel like 750pt games for marines. Who would be far more susceptible to dice swings then and/or no apparent game state change. Being that marines are a large chunk of the player base, this could easily mean games bloating up 3000-4000pts so marine players can bring, 'everything they need.' Which hurts the horde armies the most as they have to fill their armies with even more stuff.

So concession have to be made for gameplay. Because if we try to get marine bolters as killy as you think. Then all the Necron weapons probably need to be updated, then the Tau and Eldar. And so on and so on. And we are right back where we started, but with bigger numbers and more rules bloat.

For me, I don't want the fluff to be detached from the game, but I certainly don't want the fluff in the driver's seat either. I want all factions to have a fair shake at things, and nearly as importantly, force players to work for their wins. That's one of the big reasons I like space marines right now. I have to know how to position, maneuver and a commit my Chaos/Primaris marines at just the right moment to make the best use of their shooting and their melee to have the amount of offensive power to accomplish my in-game goals.

It's why, for as bloaty as Shock/Hateful Assault is, I like it far better than a simple +1 Attack. Because it is rare in my experience that marines finish enemy targets in melee. So there is a real judgement call to whether I commit my marines somewhere they may get bogged down as melee power is reduced after the first onslaught. And on the other side, do I charge into quagmired marines re-vitalizing their melee power. Granted, it is often not much of a choice, but enough of one to keep a bloaty rule like Shock/Hateful Assault around to me.

And why, in general, I hate strike first/last rules (beyond being confusing) and a lot of stratagems. It is easily gained power. I worked really hard to plan and position my units to get that charge just to have the benefit 'turned off' seemingly at a whim. And I want in game power to come from tough choices and not easy play. Marines are always going to be kinda easy to play, so anytime there is a little nuance in the play style, it is greatly appreciated by me. For I am, and likely always will be a space marine player at heart.

Dudeface wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
To answer the OP, no. Bolters are supposed to be the basic anti-infantry weapons of the marines, so they should stay basic and anti-infantry.

The only possible concession is to perhaps add something to help them against 2 wound models, EG nat 6's to wound causing 2 damage, though this has the risk of causing bolter-spam lists.

They're probably in the bottom quarter of "basic anti-infantry weapons" on base profile now though, that's why it's being questioned. Should a fleshborer, pulse rifle, hell even the shoota, basically be better on base profile than the basic bolter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Blackie wrote:

 Eonfuzz wrote:
Because Armor of Contempt I think it's only fair that Bolters get an extra AP so that they're still effective against other marines

But then they'd be ultra powerful against anyone else. And the whole point of AoC is to make power armour based armies sturdier against all kinds of weapons.

If anything now that SM have AoC they could give up doctrines entirely.

If they gave up doctrines it's a flat nerf all round, AoC basically counters doctrines, but against every other faction in the game it still has relevance and AoC doesn't do enough to warrant giving up the doctrines imo.

Base profile of the weapon is half the story. Space marines shoot better than all of the things wielding those weapons - bolters are worth more in the hands of a marine.

The problem is we have these two conflicting things:

1: Marines are worth a dozen guardsmen, their guns shoot explosive rounds which can bring down tyranid monsters and light vehicles, and their armour shields them from all but the most dangerous firepower.
2: Players want to have more than 10 models on the field when playing marines.

fluff marines will never match the game because marines are meant to be better. Bolters should be more powerful for fluff reasons, but for balance I can't see improving AP, damage, range, or shots to be anything but bad for the balance of the game, because there are so many of them in a marine army. Changing other weapons which appear less frequently is another matter, because they aren't the basic weapon.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Shootas are kind of just better than bolters, as are basically all the weapons orks use, they’re just limited by the aim and the squishness of the bearer.

Correct, which is the point Dude likes to ignore as often as possible. You kind of have to factor in how good a weapon is in the hands of the bearer not just in a vacuum. Otherwise you are just building strawmen arguments.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Imo fleshborer being s4 ap 0 but +1 to wound (bug bullets) makes sense. Maybe something like poison, but we gotta power creep somehow.

You said that as if the devourer, which historically was better than the bolter, wasn't nerfed into the ground while termagants were inflated in price

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

The cynic in me suspects that the main reason GW wants cheaper Marines because that means more plastic sold.

Right... which is why space marines have largely gone up in points in 8th and 9th (with a few backsteps and half-steps).

Voss wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:
How do people actually feel about D2 boltguns?

IIRC the only pushback to that idea seemed to be about (a) the efficiency increase vs MEQ and some other multi-wound targets, or (b) bolters not deserving any buffs at all.

'some other multi-wound targets' being all tanks and monsters

Ya, but less points-efficient vs other targets (assuming a proportionate points increase).

Is anyone in fact assuming that? Or are they just decreeing they need to be better because reasons?

Voss wrote:
The defensive buff/offensive buff cycle is already terrible. (2w-> better guns-> armor of contempt). Don't add another step to the black spiral dance.

Only because GW keep getting things wrong. A buff to the bolter would be more justifiable than many of the buffs received by other small arms, e.g. the fleshborer, or HotE (even if AM did need a boost of some kind).

No, it wouldn't be more justifiable. It would be a part of 'getting things wrong.'
If you think they keep doing wrong, having faith that they'd do this right is... weird.

SemperMortis wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Shootas are kind of just better than bolters, as are basically all the weapons orks use, they’re just limited by the aim and the squishness of the bearer.

Correct, which is the point Dude likes to ignore as often as possible. You kind of have to factor in how good a weapon is in the hands of the bearer not just in a vacuum. Otherwise you are just building strawmen arguments.

The bit you choose to ignore semper:

Guard sergeant - bs 4+ 1 shot at 24" 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1

Sister of battle - bs 3+ 1 shot at 24" 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1

Heretic astartes - bs 3+ 2 shots at 24" if stationary, 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1

Tactical marine -bs 3+ 2 shots at 24" if stationary, 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- (unless its turn 2-3) d1

All the same weapon.

Edit: in hindsight I can see how you might feel this backs your angle up, but my point is the *gun* isn't good enough to function beyond the bearer. You constantly just point at the marine version and go "look it's good enough" but then marines don't use it and everyone else who can doesn't have multiple layers of supplementary buffs.

Why is it acceptable that a tactical marine randomly fires and extra shot with a point of ap than a sister does? Is a bolter mysteriously deadly enough in the hands of a model with the exact same ranged offensive stats without those rules?

The point is marines don't even use a bolter most of the time, they use auto bolters or bolt rifles. It simply isn't a good weapon even firing twice if stationary with ap-1 for 2 turns. Take those 2 rules off (which aren't part of the bolter anyway) and it sucks.

Regards the pulse rifle above as well, they used to have 6" more range, +1 strength and importantly ap5 same as the bolter. They now have 12" more range, +1 strength and ap-1 where as the bolter innately has 0.

It should be better agreed, but not by the margin it is.