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.
2022/05/10 17:58:45
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Free? I showed how I paid for it or did you not read the post?
Even then, a triple boltgun Tactical Marine wasn't worth 20 points to me, but I do skew a little more toward melee.
1 point to triple your ranged firepower…
I’m not even gonna bother running the math. That’s bonkers.
First, its +2 points to triple ranged damage only. Tacticals are 18 points a model. Looks like I was ninjaed a couple times since I took a bit to write this post.
But is it even good? Probably, but let's run the numbers.
Spoiler:
No one gave me a better estimate than 75% RF with Bolter Discipline and 50% without, so I am using those numbers.
I am also going to ignore Stratagems, even though it looks like Fire Warriors have one to automatically get Rapid Fire and an additional AP-1 for 1 CP, another for effectively Hammer of the Emperor (hits of 6 auto-wound) also for 1 CP, and a third for 1 CP to treat their rifles as pistols. If you are at greater than normal RF range, Relentless Fusillade is half the cost of Intercessors Rapid Fire strat, and also allows you to effectively shoot twice, but better since it also gives -1 AP.
I am also going to normalize for 100 points worth of each of the models. ie Pulse Rifle Fire Warriors are 80 points for 10, so 12.5 at 100 points, My Mythical RF 3 Boltgun Tactical Marines are 100 points for 5, and Regular Boltgun Tactical Marines are 90 points for 5. And because I mentioned it earlier, the 3-man Bike Squad with 3 twin boltguns, 2 Flamers and a Combi-Flamer for 110 points.
Targets are 100 points of Intercessors (10W T4 3+ w/AoC), Fire Warriors (12.5W T3 4+), and the Bike Squad (8.18W T5 3+/AoC).
Pulse Carbine into Fire Warriors: 10 shots adjusted to 100 points (100/80) = 12.5 shots at 50% Rapid Fire = 18.75 shots, 4+ BS = 9.375 hits, wound on 3+ = 6.25 wounds, save on 5+ = 4.16 damage, 8 points a wound = 33.33 points of damage (note: S5 is wasted here into T3)
Pulse Carbine into Intercessors: 12.5 shots at 50% Rapid Fire = 18.75 shots, 4+ BS = 9.375 hits, wound on 3+ = 6.25 wounds, save on 3+ = 2.08 damage, 10 points a wound = 20.8 points of damage Pulse Carbine into Bike Squad: same as Intercessor until ... wound on 4+ = 4.687 wounds, save on 3+ = 1.56 damage, 12.2 points a wound = 19.07 points of damage
Regular Boltgun into Fire Warriors: 5 shots adjusted to 100 points (100/90) = 5.55 shots at 75% Rapid Fire = 9.72 shots, 3+ BS = 6.418 hits, wound on 3+ = 4.32 wounds, save on 4+ = 2.16 damage, 8 points a wound = 17.28 points of damage Regular Boltgun into Intercessors: 5 shots adjusted to 100 points (100/90) = 5.55 shots at 75% Rapid Fire = 9.72 shots, 3+ BS = 6.418 hits, wound on 4+ = 3.21 wounds, save on 3+ = 1.07 damage, 10 points a wound = 10.7 points of damage Regular Boltgun into Bike Squad: same as Intercessor until ... wound on 5+ = 2.14 wounds, save on 3+ = 0.713 damage, 12.22 points a wound = 8.7 points of damage
Mythical Boltgun into Fire Warriors: 15 shots adjusted into 100 points (100/100) = 15 shots at 75% Rapid Fire = 26.25 shots, 3+ BS = 17.5 hits, wound on 3+ = 11.66 wounds, save on 4+ = 5.83 damage, 8 points a wound = 46.66 points of damage
Mythical Boltgun into Intercessors: 15 shots adjusted into 100 points (100/100) = 15 shots at 75% Rapid Fire = 26.25 shots, 3+ BS = 17.5 hits, wound on 4+ = 8.75 wounds, save on 3+ = 2.91 damage, 10 points a wound = 29.1 points of damage
Mythical Boltgun into Bike Squad: same as Intercessor until ... wound on 5+ = 5.83 wounds, save on 3+ = 1.94 damage, 12.2 points a wound = 23.76 points of damage
(Rapid Fire baked into initial numbers, since they always get Bolter Disciple)
Bike Squad into Fire Warriors: 14 Boltgun shots (2@4+ BS) and 10.5 average Flamer autohits adjusted into 100 points (100/110) = 12.72 shots (1.8@BS4+)/9.54 Flamer, 3&4+ BS and Auto hits = 7.27 + 0.91 + 9.54 =17.72 hits, wound on 3+ = 11.81 wounds, save on 4+ = 5.9 damage, 8 points a wound = 47.25 points of damage
Bike Squad into Intercessors: 14 Boltgun shots (2@4+ BS) and 10.5 average Flamer autohits adjusted into 100 points (100/110) = 12.72 shots (1.8@BS4+)/9.54 Flamer, 3&4+ BS and Auto hits = 7.27 + 0.91 + 9.54 =17.72 hits, wound on 4+ =8.86 wounds, save on 3+ = 2.95 damage, 10 points a wound = 29.5 points of damage
Bike Squad into Bike Squad = same as Intercessor until ... wound on 5+ = 5.9 wounds, save on 3+ = 1.9 damage, 12.2 points a wound = 24.06 points of damage
Balance-wise, 20 pt Mythical Tacticals only need a Storm Bolter (ie, double boltgun) to be about the same shooting as Fire Warriors per point. Essentially, Normal Tacticals are half the shooting per point as Fire Warriors but are only 50-70% more durable per point even after AoC (if they were balanced, they should have 100% more durability). But even with triple boltguns, they are worse than a Bike Squad for shooting... and no one bothers to take a Bike Squad for shooting. Bike Squad has a slight edge in durability per point and that is after spending an additional 20 points on guns and are much faster.
TLDR: So yes, double boltguns for +2 points is about the same efficiency as Fire Warrior shooting, so triple boltguns for +2 points are better than Fire Warriors' shooting. But even then, that barely gets them to the shooting efficiency of a Fast Attack choice that people aren't taking anyway. SM Troops aren't for damage, even if you double/triple their damage.
Now look at the Grey Knight's Strike Squad (also a Troop) for another 2 points/model over my Mythical Tacticals (so +4 points over normal Tacticals). They get a Storm Bolter (instead of a triple boltgun), but also a Master-Crafted Power Sword (worth at least 8 points itself, compare to Bladeguard), an additional attack (plus baked in "shock assault" for another additional attack). So, roughly the same shooting as Fire Warriors, but about 7.5-10x the melee capacity as a Tactical Squad (granted, they aren't known for melee). If you compare the melee of Strike Squad to Assault Intercessors (with Shock Assault), they are +3 points for 4x the melee damage (both attacking Intercessors). Plus the shooting efficiency of Fire Warriors. So double the shooting and quadruple the melee(or more) for +3-4 points compared to triple shooting for +2. Which is more balanced? Where is the comparison between Strike Squad and Strike Team(Fire Warriors)?
2022/05/10 18:11:18
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
JNAProductions wrote: Marines, that are more durable than and have much better close combat than Fire Warriors, shouldn't be shooting as well as they are.
They can if its pointed appropriately. Although yes the firewarriors should have the edge I agree, even if through weight of numbers.
2022/05/10 19:00:53
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Any player after 1993 doesn't care about lore. All they know is bolter porn, screw orks, buff marines, eat hot pretzels, and stratagems.
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
2022/05/10 19:09:15
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
JNAProductions wrote: Marines, that are more durable than and have much better close combat than Fire Warriors, shouldn't be shooting as well as they are.
That's my point.
They are 50% more durable (against D1 shots anyway), but half the shooting. Neither one wants to be in melee, but regular Boltgun shooting is so bad that their melee is almost the same. So sure, if you want your shooty troops to spend half of their damage budget on melee... that just makes their role confused?
If you were given the option double your ranged shooting at the cost of not being able to melee at all, would you take it on a unit whose primary role is shooting? That's how budgets work.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/10 19:12:52
2022/05/10 19:13:02
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
waefre_1 wrote: Post-1993 player who doesn't care about bolter porn here, can I still get the pretzels or is it a package deal?
Sadly, it is a package deal. But, for you, my friend, 50% off.
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
2022/05/10 19:15:47
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
JNAProductions wrote: Marines, that are more durable than and have much better close combat than Fire Warriors, shouldn't be shooting as well as they are.
That's my point.
They are 50% more durable, but half the shooting. Neither one wants to be in melee, but regular Boltgun shooting is so bad that their melee is almost the same. So sure, if you want your shooty troops to spend half of their damage budget on melee... that just makes their role confused?
If you were given the option double your ranged shooting at the cost of not being able to melee at all, would you take it on a unit whose primary role is shooting? That's how budgets work.
50% more durable?
They have a better save (and Armor of Contempt), better Toughness, and twice as many wounds.
Assuming no cover...
It takes 66.67 S4 AP0 D1 hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines.
It takes 37.5 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
With cover...
It takes 133.33 of the same to kill 100 points of Tacs.
It takes 56.25 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/05/10 19:17:54
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
TheBestBucketHead wrote: Any player after 1993 doesn't care about lore. All they know is bolter porn, screw orks, buff marines, eat hot pretzels, and stratagems.
That's a hard sell. Someone born in 1993 could have played 40k for a good decade, quit in 7th and never encountered stratagems.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/10 19:25:18
Efficiency is the highest virtue.
2022/05/10 19:58:35
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
It was a copypasta I changed for 40k, don't think too hard about it. Just thought it would be funny.
‘What Lorgar’s fanatics have not seen is that these gods are nothing compared to the power and the majesty of the Machine-God. Already, members of our growing cult are using the grace of the Omnissiah – the true Omnissiah, not Terra’s false prophet – to harness the might of the warp. Geller fields, warp missiles, void shields, all these things you are familiar with. But their underlying principles can be turned to so much more. Through novel exploitations of these technologies we will gain mastery first over the energies of the empyrean, then over the lesser entities, until finally the very gods themselves will bend the knee and recognise the supremacy of the Machine-God"
- Heretek Ardim Protos in Titandeath by Guy Haley
2022/05/10 20:01:13
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
I think 1993 is a bit early, but maybe that was when marines became T4? 2nd edition did well with their balance, imo. Marines cost 30 but a whole bunch of other "staple" units could compete very favorably with them. Aspect Warriors, minor Daemons such as Bloodletters and Plaguebearers hovered around similar costs. Necron Warriors were 50ish ppm and very nasty.
I'd say up through 4th was pretty solid, game wise. Marines still ran sorta middle-of-the-pack.
I think Black Library was already pumping out bolter porn by then though. The original Ian Watson Space Marine remains my favorite 40k novel.
JNAProductions wrote: 50% more durable?
They have a better save (and Armor of Contempt), better Toughness, and twice as many wounds.
Assuming no cover...
It takes 66.67 S4 AP0 D1 hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines.
It takes 37.5 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
With cover...
It takes 133.33 of the same to kill 100 points of Tacs.
It takes 56.25 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
Now do Grav-gun.
No cover, 12.5 Grav-gun hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines, 16.6 with cover.
No cover, 18.75 Grav-gun hits to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors, 22.5 with cover.
Tactical Marines are 50-35% less durable than Fire Warriors against Grav. Shouldn't that be taken into account when evaluating relative durability?
I think I took my 50-70% durability/point number from the first math post and short-circuited it to 50% in my brain by the second post anyway. So my bad there.
So 37.5 hits to kill 100 points of Fire warriors, so that would be 56.25 Boltgun shots, or 32.14 Tactical Marines using my 75% Bolter Disciple. Or 578 points of Tactical Squad to kill 100 points of Strike Team.
It'll take 50 Pulse Rifle hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marine, so 100 shots, or 66.6 Fire Warriors using my 50% Rapid Fire. Or 533 points of Fire Warriors to kill 100 points of Tactical Squad.
It still looks like Strike Team net out more efficient than Tactical Squad by 8.5% taking both durability and offense into account by shooting each other.
2022/05/10 20:47:19
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
JNAProductions wrote: 50% more durable?
They have a better save (and Armor of Contempt), better Toughness, and twice as many wounds.
Assuming no cover...
It takes 66.67 S4 AP0 D1 hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines.
It takes 37.5 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
With cover...
It takes 133.33 of the same to kill 100 points of Tacs.
It takes 56.25 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
Now do Grav-gun.
No cover, 12.5 Grav-gun hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines, 16.6 with cover.
No cover, 18.75 Grav-gun hits to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors, 22.5 with cover.
Tactical Marines are 50-35% less durable than Fire Warriors against Grav. Shouldn't that be taken into account when evaluating relative durability?
Yes it should, buuut small arms (and 1Damage CC attacks) abound in 40k, being the most common weapons/attacks brought by nearly all infantry in the game. Imo this makes weapons such as Grav not "weigh" as much in the evaluation.
TheBestBucketHead wrote:It was a copypasta I changed for 40k, don't think too hard about it. Just thought it would be funny.
If it makes you feel any better, I recognized it.
Kaied wrote:
JNAProductions wrote: 50% more durable?
They have a better save (and Armor of Contempt), better Toughness, and twice as many wounds.
Assuming no cover...
It takes 66.67 S4 AP0 D1 hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines.
It takes 37.5 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
With cover...
It takes 133.33 of the same to kill 100 points of Tacs.
It takes 56.25 of the same to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors.
Now do Grav-gun.
No cover, 12.5 Grav-gun hits to kill 100 points of Tactical Marines, 16.6 with cover.
No cover, 18.75 Grav-gun hits to kill 100 points of Fire Warriors, 22.5 with cover.
Tactical Marines are 50-35% less durable than Fire Warriors against Grav. Shouldn't that be taken into account when evaluating relative durability?
If your basic infantry are ~100% more durable against ubiquitous S4 fire but their basic infantry are ~50% more durable against a highly specialized anti-heavy-infantry special weapon, you're coming out ahead by a wide margin.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:It certainly is a very tabletop-centric perspective.
Which is fine, to each their own, but you are ignoring something that many people believe should be a significant input into games set in the 40k universe.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: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.
Not sure I suggested they should be?... And I feel like you're jumping to unfair conclusions here.
Keen to hear your take on Custodes btw.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: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.
Framing current Marine stats as a 'concession for the sake of gameplay' is one thing. That's a different argument to 'Marine stats are lore- accurate as they are', or 'Marine players just want their units to be OP', which I believe many others are implying.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: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.
A killy as I think? You mean the stats I posted? Why would they invalidate/outdate Tau and Eldar weapons?
(Gauss weapons need some love too though, I'm down for that.)
Voss wrote:Right... which is why space marines have largely gone up in points in 8th and 9th (with a few backsteps and half-steps).
Intercessors (the new plastic they're trying to flog) are among the most points-efficient troops in the game.
Voss wrote:Is anyone in fact assuming that? Or are they just decreeing they need to be better because reasons?
Plenty of people have been discussing associated points costs/increases in this thread (and others). And "reasons" is one elegant way to ignore several dozen pages of discussion.
Voss wrote: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.
No harm in discussing potential improvements. If they got everything wrong then none of us would be here having this lovely, passionate discussion.
Bobthehero wrote:As for Marine lore itself, it's wildly inconsistent, I have read books where five Marines (a named Reclusiarch and his retinue) get overwhelmed by 30 or so Orks, and need militiamen (and a Stormtrooper) to rescue them. Or another where a squad of ten Kasrkins defeat two Traitor Marines at the cost of 3 men.
In not sure anyone is saying that things like that shouldn't be possible though? I certainly don't think 5 boltguns should be able to chew through 30 Orks per turn.
And yeah... Kasrkin are badarse. I don't think Marines should be able to ignore 10 Stormtroopers either if that's what you're implying.
Don't Astartes get bigger bolters? IIRC Astartes bolters have recoil that would break an unagmented human, and Sororitas are not augmented.
They are bigger and a better design than Sororitas and especially IG bolt weapons, so yeah.
Having "Astartes/Legion boltgun" being a bit better than an IG boltgun would be fine.
Careful with this kind of talk... it'll get you in trouble.
Seconding the Astartes/Militarum split.
SemperMortis wrote: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.
You have to realise that one could say the same about your argument?
The bearer matters, sure. But that's not the weapon... that's the bearer. One weapon can have multiple bearers. A boltgun can be welded at BS2+ or BS4+. It can get Tactical Doctrine... or it can't. It can be rapid fired at 24"... or it can't. The wielding model determines that. Not the weapon profile.
Orks have terrible BS, sure, but their "weapon" (i.e. the statline of the wargear they carry, independent of bearer) definitely isn't terrible. Shootas shouldn't be the best small arm in the galaxy (R18", Assault 4, S4 I think you suggested previously?...) just because Orks can't hit jack with them. Complain about Ork BS if their output upsets you, or their points costs, sure... but it isn't the weapon that's bad.
SemperMortis wrote:
Guard sergeant - bs 4+ 1 shot at 24" 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1
That is an upgrade for the Sgt, hes nominally equipped with a laspistol and chainsword. So you used to be paying a point for this. Which, surprising basically nobody, until it became free, nobody did this since it was just a waste of a point.
Definitely not useless. AM sergeants can't equip a lasgun for some reason, so a 1pt boltgun is the only way to give your sergeant a 24" rapid fire weapon that can contribute at ranges over 12" (+1S relative to a lasgun, but can't FRFSRF).
SemperMortis wrote:
Dudeface wrote: Sister of battle - bs 3+ 1 shot at 24" 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1
Which is why sisters use their required troop slots to equip special weapons and use them as ablative wounds.
But that's not a case for maintaining the status quo. If anything, it supports the notion that the status quo should change.
pelicaniforce wrote:It's rare for them to say 'marine bolt rounds are always bigger than guard pintle mount ones.' They're also phoning it in if they do. It's an idea for mush brained casual players like "marines are big because they're big because they're big because they're big, and their real rules are the sagitarum guard"
...
The rounds and power on guard and marine boltguns are equivalent to each other, the thing that changes is the task.
You know, being condescending doesn't make you right. Plenty of quotes posted earlier in the thread support a discrepancy between regular and Astartes-sized bolters (if not bolt rounds specifically). Both Lexicanum and the 40k Wiki concur on that, particularly when it comes to the size and recoil of Astartes-sized boltguns, and draw from official sources.
(And yup, mush-brain here who thinks Sag Guard statlines are more lore-accurate representations in a lot of ways. Hurr durr. )
catbarf wrote:From a gameplay perspective I would be interested to hear from bolters-need-buffs proponents what Marines should be good and bad at for the points. Because the power fantasy of Marines being highly lethal, highly durable, and also lightning-fast can not hold up in a balanced game; at a macro level you don't get to be good at everything. It's historically been that Marines are pretty middle of the road in terms of mobility, but had higher durability at the cost of raw firepower. Give Marines an offensive boost and hike their base cost, and then the complaint will be that they're too fragile for the points.
Keen to hear your take on Custodes too. Not trying to play gotcha... just genuinely curious to know how you feel about their playstyle.
"Authoritarian dogmata are the means by which one breeds a submissive slave, not a thinking, fighting soldier of humanity."
- Field-Major Decker, 14th Desert Rifles
2022/05/14 12:22:05
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
I'll keep my replies simple and brief. If missed something, it's because I missed something. Not because I am trying to evade anything.
I currently think that space marines are in a pretty good spot as a compromise to their fluff and gameplay. Ultimately, I think lore is in service of gameplay, and I would rather have a good game than a lore accurate one. And this is coming from someone who has consumed a lot of lore (sans Black Library books) and tends to name all of their marines and come up with full histories of my armies/warbands.
I don't have much to say on Custodes. I think they should be better than space marines, simple as. However, in game design, there's a practical upper limit to how an elite an 'army' can become where their rules can become binary good/bad, lack interesting decisions, lose more by just bad luck and/or are such extreme skew as to nearly always create a negative play experience. Even though, I am well on my way to creating a Chaos Knights army, I don't think the inclusion of knights as an independent faction was a good thing for the game. I believe that 28mm and up scale games should focus on infantry and having a faction that has no infantry isn't the best for the health of said game.
Aware of it or not, most players do want, in my experience, their favorite faction to be a little OP. Not by a lot, just enough to give them an edge. However, I am talking about the fact that space marines armies are/can-be so common that if space marines are even just perceived to have a power edge, whole gaming groups can become more than 3/4s marine players. Conversely, space marines tend to be the default template opponent player when someone builds their list (outside a clearly known bigger meta threat). What this means is both space marines have to be more carefully balanced than most factions since so many players have them. While at the same time, space marines are likely to always be on the lower side of win % as players naturally list tailor at least a little to counter them.
What I want for space marines is for them to be a good beginner player army while still allowing for more seasoned players to have some mileage in mastering out to field them. I think now is just about as good of a place as marines have ever been to accomplish this. A beginning player can rely on marine durability to carry them through a couple mistakes. While a seasoned player has to read the game state to effectively make use of all the weapons (meaning both shooting and melee, even basic melee of S: U, AP 0/-1 D: 1) at space marines disposal. Which, done right, should make a seasoned marine player feel like there is a trade-off of Bolter Discipline/Malicious Volleys for damage now (or to hold ground) compared to delayed close combat damage later at least equal or more than RF at 24" range.
I only say as killy as you think in regards that you think bolters should be more than they are now. I assume that you don't want bolters to stay the same or become weaker. I am very happy where bolters are now. Even an infinitesimal buff would me them more killy, no? That's all I mean.
As for other weapons, I believe that Tau pulse weapons are better than marine bolters or bolters in general, if there is any difference at all. The same goes with Necron Gauss weapons and so on and so on. The better the bolter becomes, the less all other weapons become comparatively. Maybe that isn't enough to main their lore integrity. So they get buffed up to feel like they should. Soon or later, the game is back to being far too lethal, just with bigger numbers except perhaps units with lasguns/autoguns being even more pathetic.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/14 13:05:41
2022/05/14 14:03:26
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: @I_am_a_Spoon
As for other weapons, I believe that Tau pulse weapons are better than marine bolters or bolters in general, if there is any difference at all. The same goes with Necron Gauss weapons and so on and so on. The better the bolter becomes, the less all other weapons become comparatively. Maybe that isn't enough to main their lore integrity. So they get buffed up to feel like they should. Soon or later, the game is back to being far too lethal, just with bigger numbers except perhaps units with lasguns/autoguns being even more pathetic.
This is already where it's at:
Bolter: rapid fire 24" s4 ap- d1
Pulse rifle: rapid fire 36" s5 ap-1 d1
I'm under no illusions if the bolter profile hadn't been set week 1 of the edition it'd be more like the bolt rifle at this point. Likewise gauss blasters (immortals gun?) Would likely be d2 and the immortal 2w if they were released now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/14 14:04:15
2022/05/14 14:27:02
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Maybe guass weapons should have some sort of buff mechanic. on a +6 to hit the gun auto wounds. 1D, -1Sv.
If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain.
2022/05/14 14:33:30
Subject: Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Ultimately, I think lore is in service of gameplay, and I would rather have a good game than a lore accurate one.
I get what you're saying, and agree. I just don't think the two need to be mutually exclusive, which seems to be the implication of many posts in this thread.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I don't have much to say on Custodes. I think they should be better than space marines, simple as.
I don't think anyone is suggesting that Marines should be better individually than Custodes though... which makes it a bit confusing when people decry Marine buffs on gameplay grounds while ignoring the existence of Custodes.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:However, in game design, there's a practical upper limit to how an elite an 'army' can become where their rules can become binary good/bad, lack interesting decisions, lose more by just bad luck and/or are such extreme skew as to nearly always create a negative play experience.
Can you elaborate on what you mean here? How are these things apparent in the case of your Chaos Knights for example, or Custodes?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:Aware of it or not, most players do want, in my experience, their favorite faction to be a little OP. Not by a lot, just enough to give them an edge.
Maybe, maybe not. I definitely think it's unfair to dismiss proponents of a stronger bolter as biased/exploitative, or feeling that way because 'they have protagonist syndrome and perceive all other factions as NPCs'.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:What I want for space marines is for them to be a good beginner player army while still allowing for more seasoned players to have some mileage in mastering out to field them. I think now is just about as good of a place as marines have ever been to accomplish this. A beginning player can rely on marine durability to carry them through a couple mistakes. While a seasoned player has to read the game state to effectively make use of all the weapons (meaning both shooting and melee, even basic melee of S: U, AP 0/-1 D: 1) at space marines disposal. Which, done right, should make a seasoned marine player feel like there is a trade-off of Bolter Discipline/Malicious Volleys for damage now (or to hold ground) compared to delayed close combat damage later at least equal or more than RF at 24" range.
I personally wish GW would start spruiking other factions as beginner ones; like you said, there are far too many Marine players already. But I get why their traits make them attractive in that role. (Plus them being GW's posterboys.)
As for the latter stuff, are you saying that any bolter buffs would make Marines too weighted towards shooting overall, and that would be a bad thing?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:I only say as killy as you think in regards that you think bolters should be more than they are now.
Yeah, but 'killy' enough to necessitate buffs to Eldar/Tau/Necron weapons? Why would that be the case?
Besides, half the point is to improve bolters relative to other factions' small arms (not necessarily to make them better in an absolute sense though, especially not better than gauss or pulse weapons).
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:The better the bolter becomes, the less all other weapons become comparatively. Maybe that isn't enough to main their lore integrity. So they get buffed up to feel like they should.
I disagree that a better bolter makes other weapons worse (by comparison maybe but not in an absolute sense, especially not with points adjustments). And improving bolters would mean bringing them more in line with the lore, not going against it. Gauss weapons are another example of this, they should be more powerful too. Others, not necessarily. If they're in a logical place lore-wise, then why buff them if not for gameplay/commercial reasons?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/14 14:37:02
"Authoritarian dogmata are the means by which one breeds a submissive slave, not a thinking, fighting soldier of humanity."
- Field-Major Decker, 14th Desert Rifles
2022/05/14 14:36:23
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:The better the bolter becomes, the less all other weapons become comparatively. Maybe that isn't enough to main their lore integrity. So they get buffed up to feel like they should.
I disagree that a better bolter makes other weapons worse (by comparison maybe but not in an absolute sense, especially not with points adjustments). And improving bolters would mean bringing them more in line with the lore, not going against it. Gauss weapons are another example of this, they should be more powerful too. Others, not necessarily. If they're in a logical place lore-wise, then why buff them if not for gameplay/commercial reasons?
A Pulse Rifle is superior to a Bolter, lore and tabletop.
If Bolters go to D2, for instance, Pulse Rifles would need to be at least D2 as well.
Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne!
2022/05/14 14:49:42
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:The better the bolter becomes, the less all other weapons become comparatively. Maybe that isn't enough to main their lore integrity. So they get buffed up to feel like they should.
I disagree that a better bolter makes other weapons worse (by comparison maybe but not in an absolute sense, especially not with points adjustments). And improving bolters would mean bringing them more in line with the lore, not going against it. Gauss weapons are another example of this, they should be more powerful too. Others, not necessarily. If they're in a logical place lore-wise, then why buff them if not for gameplay/commercial reasons?
A Pulse Rifle is superior to a Bolter, lore and tabletop.
If Bolters go to D2, for instance, Pulse Rifles would need to be at least D2 as well.
Lore wise they're controlled plasma bursts, plasma is represented by higher strength and AP, so a 36" s5 ap-2 d1 gun is plenty good enough.
Even then s5 ap-1 d1 at 36" is hardly worse than 24" s4 ap- d2, merely different.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/14 14:49:58
2022/05/14 14:51:55
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:The better the bolter becomes, the less all other weapons become comparatively. Maybe that isn't enough to main their lore integrity. So they get buffed up to feel like they should.
I disagree that a better bolter makes other weapons worse (by comparison maybe but not in an absolute sense, especially not with points adjustments). And improving bolters would mean bringing them more in line with the lore, not going against it. Gauss weapons are another example of this, they should be more powerful too. Others, not necessarily. If they're in a logical place lore-wise, then why buff them if not for gameplay/commercial reasons?
A Pulse Rifle is superior to a Bolter, lore and tabletop.
If Bolters go to D2, for instance, Pulse Rifles would need to be at least D2 as well.
Pulse rifles have a more powerful initial impact, sure, but they don't explode after penetrating to generate an internal shockwave that pulverises (or even dismembers) the target from within. IMO D2 is worth considering as one way to empower bolters without taking away from the S5 advantage pulse weapons have.
Although as I've said elsewhere, it could be nice to revisit pulse weapons too (funny that people were getting annoyed at me in that thread for suggesting pulse weapons become more powerful ).
EDIT: Ninja'd
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/05/14 18:24:47
"Authoritarian dogmata are the means by which one breeds a submissive slave, not a thinking, fighting soldier of humanity."
- Field-Major Decker, 14th Desert Rifles
2022/05/14 15:06:53
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
This is already where it's at:
Bolter: rapid fire 24" s4 ap- d1
Pulse rifle: rapid fire 36" s5 ap-1 d1
I'm under no illusions if the bolter profile hadn't been set week 1 of the edition it'd be more like the bolt rifle at this point. Likewise gauss blasters (immortals gun?) Would likely be d2 and the immortal 2w if they were released now.
I was just using Tau and Necrons as an example of factions with more powerful small arms than the bolter. It also applies to Eldar and arguably to Orks. Additionally, there is an upper limit of what a standard issue small arm should do. I think 9th has hit that limit already, if not exceeded it. Especially when adding the less tangible synergies (like strats, aura buffs and subfaction traits) the game has.
I'm still in progress with building a Necron army, so I am only partly familiar with them.
I'm not sure about that with Necron Immortals' Gauss Blasters. They are already: 30" S: 5 AP -2. Mephrit Dynasty, they can increase that to 33" and AP -3 within 17.5". With 6s adding addition hits or auto-wounding for 1CP. And another -1 AP and ignore Cover at half range in conjunction with Vengeful Stars protocol. So as unlikely as it is, a Gauss Blaster could be 2 shots, auto wounds on 6s, S: 5 AP -4 (ignore Cover) D: 1 at 17.5" for 17 points in the Troop slot.
Adding D2 with that sounds pretty close to an all-purpose MEQ to anti-tank weapon to me. Which is something to avoid, especially with a Troops option and one of their basic weapon choices.
Immortals going to 2 Wounds is part way between a buff and a side grade (but more of a minor buff), but all clunky given how Reanimation Protocols work. I'd much rather them have something a little simpler like a 5+ Invulnerable (even if it is handed out like candy these days). That way it doesn't complicate Reanimation, nor wound tracking in conjunction with Reanimation (that wound marker is has a chance of getting buried/mislabeled in a squad at bots get back up).
I'm all for Necrons getting a tad more expensive that 17ppm to create some more separation between them and Warriors. I feel like more offensive power isn't the way to go about it outside a bespoke rules effect, as both of their weapons seem decent to me. I'd much rather they get abilities that help them live up to their namesake. Be it an Invul, default fall back and shoot, or whatever. Though I am a little iffy about a 2nd wound since as mentioned above, and the fact the more 2W Troops there are, the more everyone is going to be armed to deal with 2W models.
However, this is a thread on Bolters, and not just marine bolters. I happen to only speak about marine bolters, as they are the ones I am most familiar with. I would be happy to participate in a Necron thread, though; my input would probably be limited as I don't have much practical experience with them yet.
2022/05/14 16:52:11
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I was just using Tau and Necrons as an example of factions with more powerful small arms than the bolter. It also applies to Eldar and arguably to Orks.
I was onboard until the second sentence.
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: Additionally, there is an upper limit of what a standard issue small arm should do. I think 9th has hit that limit already, if not exceeded it. Especially when adding the less tangible synergies (like strats, aura buffs and subfaction traits) the game has.
Just curious, but why? What limit? If anything, with the new wound table removing the cap of 10 on unit/weapon values, surely there's less of an upper limit than ever?
Agree that all the meta rules and abilities are an unnecessary complication.
"Authoritarian dogmata are the means by which one breeds a submissive slave, not a thinking, fighting soldier of humanity."
- Field-Major Decker, 14th Desert Rifles
2022/05/14 19:25:01
Subject: Re:Do bolters need buffs across most platforms?
Saturmorn Carvilli wrote: I was just using Tau and Necrons as an example of factions with more powerful small arms than the bolter. It also applies to Eldar and arguably to Orks.
I was onboard until the second sentence.
The Shuriken Catapult has seen a tremendous degradation over the years. It started its life as a better Storm Bolter. There are some nuances to the relationship through that time relating to unit capability, but where we've ended up after 20 years is a definitely less-than-ideally-capable Catapult.
The Shoota is a funny weapon. Orks used to be armed with Bolters before 3rd ed. The idea of a Shoota being a very aggressively and wildly fired bolter sorta gets us what we have.
catbarf wrote:From a gameplay perspective I would be interested to hear from bolters-need-buffs proponents what Marines should be good and bad at for the points. Because the power fantasy of Marines being highly lethal, highly durable, and also lightning-fast can not hold up in a balanced game; at a macro level you don't get to be good at everything. It's historically been that Marines are pretty middle of the road in terms of mobility, but had higher durability at the cost of raw firepower. Give Marines an offensive boost and hike their base cost, and then the complaint will be that they're too fragile for the points.
Keen to hear your take on Custodes too. Not trying to play gotcha... just genuinely curious to know how you feel about their playstyle.
Part of the problem is that 40K's design space is fairly limited, so Custodes are pretty much more Marine-y Marines. Army-wide heroic intervention is good, but I like the idea that they're constantly wargaming and have a contingency for every threat, and they could lean into that further than the current ka'tah system. Something more along the lines of picking a stance for each unit per turn, for example. They also strike me more as 'stoic guardians' than the lightning-strike ethos of Marines, so shouldn't be reliant on abilities like Shock Assault for peak effectiveness. Layer those on top of models that are individually superior to Marines, but otherwise have a similar balance of offense/defense/mobility for the points, and you'd get an army that plays pretty differently and has the capability to punch above its weight if used well.
As with Marines, the problem with a jack-of-all-trades approach is that at a macro level they need to out-shoot the melee specialists and out-melee the ranged specialists. This is where I think expectations derived from fluff are an issue; nothing you read in Marine/Custodes fiction primes you to think 'I shouldn't get into melee with Slugga Boyz because point-for-point they'll tear me apart'. There's a disconnect between the power-fantasy themes of the novels and the needs of a balanced tabletop wargame.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/05/16 00:50:38
Only the bad novels. The good ones have the Marines play to their relative strengths.
E.g in Devastation of Baal, the BA and friends are forced to fight a very defensive style of warfare because getting out into their usual melee frenzy will get them all killed because Marines do not out-melee a Tyranid swarm.
)
