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.

My Idea is for Boltguns and bolt pistols to have a special rule where wound rolls of 6+ have AP -1.
This would make standard Boltguns and Bolt Pistols more special without making them to close to heavy bolt pistols.

Would this give them the right statline for the lore or would this be too good compared to the lore?

Edit: Changed question to be about the lore.

You'll probably find a lot of relevant thoughts here:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/802596.page

Personally, I'm getting a little tired of rules that make you split up the dice pool, but this probably wouldn't break anything that isn't already broken.

Would this give them the right statline or...?

I guess my questions are these:
1.) What problem are you trying to solve.
2.) What are your criteria for the "right" statline? Bolters are probably fine as they are. They'd probably be fine if they all fused with the primaris gun and got a flat -1 AP (especially if you got rid of doctrines). They'd probably be fine under your proposal too. "Balance" is more of a nebulous range of factors rather than a perfect value. Your proposal would probably be reasonably balanced, but I'm not sure how it would significantly improve the game either.

Bolt weapons fire exploding bullets in the lore and so the rules should represent this in my opinion. This is about bringing the game into more parity with the lore. Making them stronger would just be a bonus for us marine and sisters players.

Trickster2927 wrote:
Bolt weapons fire exploding bullets in the lore and so the rules should represent this in my opinion. This is about bringing the game into more parity with the lore. Making them stronger would just be a bonus for us marine and sisters players.

Okay. So it sounds like your priority is making bolt weapons feel more lore-appropriate. Some thoughts:

* S4, though not too flashy by today's standards, already marks a bolter as being more lethal than "standard" imperial weapons like lasguns and autoguns. I take it this doesn't do it for you?

* Having a slightly better chance of bypassing enemy armor makes bolt weapons slightly more killy, but it doesn't really make them "feel" different. It doesn't tell me a story. So if your goal is to make the weapon "feel" more fluff appropriate, I'm not sure this is the way to do it. Compare this to another suggestion I've seen floated in this forum before: having to-wound rolls of 6 increase the Damage characteristic of bolt weapons by 1. Balance considerations aside, you can see how that extra wound tells the story of the explosive round detonating to create larger, harder-to-ignore injuries. That grotesque you shot doesn't just have a few stubber rounds in his shoulder; his shoulder is gone, the arm dangling from some barely-connected gore.

* How would you feel about just making AP0 bolt weapons AP-1 and getting rid of doctrines? This was pitched in another thread not too long ago, and I feel like it does a good job of buffing bolt weapons without going over the top while simultaneously reducing the amount of rules bloat.

How many shots do you think you'd need to have that rule have an impact?

Wyldhunt wrote:
* How would you feel about just making AP0 bolt weapons AP-1 and getting rid of doctrines? This was pitched in another thread not too long ago, and I feel like it does a good job of buffing bolt weapons without going over the top while simultaneously reducing the amount of rules bloat.

Why? Combat Doctrines aren’t exactly turning heads. Especially the Tactical one. Nearly every player will move to Assault Doctrine as soon as it becomes available. Making bolters AP-1 and having a single turn of AP-2 isn’t going to break the meta, hell even if it makes Tactical Doctrine viable for turn 3 as well it won’t break the meta.

We already have AP-2 bolters with SM, which can even go to AP-3. They’re called Sternguard, and they’re terrible. Hell, even Tyrannic War Veterans which are 17 points per model (so cheaper than Tacticals) have the Sternguard datasheet and are also terrible.

Jarms48 wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
* How would you feel about just making AP0 bolt weapons AP-1 and getting rid of doctrines? This was pitched in another thread not too long ago, and I feel like it does a good job of buffing bolt weapons without going over the top while simultaneously reducing the amount of rules bloat.

Why? Combat Doctrines aren’t exactly turning heads.

For a few reasons that are, admittedly, tangential to the OP's goals. Trying to keep the explanation brief:

* AP-2 and better on standard bolters might not be broken, but they do make rubric marines feel a bit awkward.
* Doctrines (outside of super doctrines) don't really tell much of a story or add interesting choices to the game. Plus, they feel like a leftover power up from an edition when GW was trying to bribe marines to not play soup that someone forgot to delete when 9th's core rules came around to discourage soup.
* Deleting doctrines would reduce the number of things we have to remember/track without really removing many interesting decisions or detracting from the flavor of the army.
* If we accept the premise that bolters ought to be buffed in some way, making AP0 bolt weapons AP-1 accomplishes this without the minor added slowdown that comes with the OP's suggestion.

tldr; I don't think doctrines are OP; I just think that they're clunky, don't add a lot to the game, and arguably detract from the uniqueness of things like special ammo and inferno bolts. Making AP0 bolt weapons AP-1 is a variation on the OP's suggestion that doesn't split up dice pools but also doesn't stacks with the boost from doctrines, thus keeping the power boost that comes with this change limited.

I'm generally opposed to buffing things in 40k as it currently stands, just because twenty years of all buffs and no nerfs has blown everything so absurdly out of proportion.

you really cant make them much better because it ruins the game balance so much. if you made space marines as good as they are in the fluff, 5 marines would just mow down a hundred orks a turn.

Wyldhunt wrote:

* AP-2 and better on standard bolters might not be broken, but they do make rubric marines feel a bit awkward.

I disagree, there’s a massive difference between having AP-2 throughout the whole game and having AP-2 for a single turn, two max. The latter often being skipped.

Not really. Bolters really shine in turn 2 and maybe 3. Before that they might not be in range of the appropriate targets and after that bolters platforms and/or their targets might be in combat or dead or the game has already been resolved.

That's why I truly believe that SM bolters are already AP-1 or AP-2 if they're the primaris version, in practise.

Again, let me point out the uselessness of 17 point Tyrannic War Veterans. Sternguard statline, cheaper than Tacticals, has AP-2 bolters which go to AP-3 in Doctrines.

An 18 point Tactical marine with an AP-1 bolter which can sometimes go to AP-2 will still be bad, because a better option already exists and is already useless.

Here’s another issue for marines. You can’t make them cheaper either. We’ve already seen 15 point Tactical’s in the previous BT codex. Exactly same statline as regular ones. Also bad. So should Tacticals and all their equivalents go down to 14 points per model if they don’t get AP-1 bolters?

@Jarms48:
To clarify, I don't think anyone (even me) is worried that AP-1 bolters that retain access to doctrines would be overpowered. You can probably make basic bolt weapons AP0, -1, or -1 with the occassional extra -1 from doctrines all without breaking the game.

It's just that spending half the game with AP-2 bolters feels a little "tacky" (for lack of a better word). It makes rubric marines feel less special and tells the story that bolt rounds are roughly as good at penetrating armor as a krak missile. Which in turn kind of pulls back the curtain and makes AP-2 bolters feel like a clunky gamey attempt to power marines up at the cost of immersion.

Plus, I maintain that doctrines aren't a great mechanic and that we could probably remove them or replace them with something more elegant and fluffy.

So if your main goal is to power up tactical marines, I'm not necessarily against that. I just think there's room to clean up some meh mechanics in the marine book; especially if we want to talk about adding in additional special rules or buffs.

If marines are 14 points and boyz are 9 I’m going to riot.

Tacs are fine as they are at 18ppm. They just suffer too much internal competition. That can be resolved by allowing troops to field a unique role in the army, same thing I said for orks boyz. And probably my moving some primaris troops into other sections, since they're actually specialists. Heavy intercessors are basically flash gitz aka heavy support choice for orks, infiltrators are kommandos aka elite choice, etc...

I regularly play 18ppm blood claws and 19ppm grey hunters (paying the extra 1 point for the chainsword) and I never had the feeling that they're trash. Definitely not among the best infantries in the game, but I don't think they actually need a buff.

Same for sisters, they're outclassed by their specialists but it doesn't mean that the basic bolter sister is bad and needs to be cheaper or buffed. For its points cost it's not a bad troops choice, even if in tournaments we basically see just 5 girls in an entire 2000 points army.

warpedpig wrote:
you really cant make them much better because it ruins the game balance so much. if you made space marines as good as they are in the fluff, 5 marines would just mow down a hundred orks a turn.

Depends what lore you base yourself from. If you go from the Helsreach book, thirty Orks are enough to overwhelm 5-6 Space Marines. And not just random scrubs either, it's the main character and his retinue, that bit of story is told from Grimaldus's perspective, no less.

 Bobthehero wrote:

warpedpig wrote:
you really cant make them much better because it ruins the game balance so much. if you made space marines as good as they are in the fluff, 5 marines would just mow down a hundred orks a turn.

Depends what lore you base yourself from. If you go from the Helsreach book, thirty Orks are enough to overwhelm 5-6 Space Marines. And not just random scrubs either, it's the main character and his retinue, that bit of story is told from Grimaldus's perspective, no less.

I think 30 skarboyz or nobs should pose a threat to such a low density of marines. Plus cant always be bolter porn, marines lose a lot in the background aswell as it should be. Not grimdark if the main characters dont get punched down to remind them to fight harder next time.

Onto the topic - ap 1 native bolters and you're done. The issue is in the fluff bolters are these immense awe inspiring gold standard of imperium standard issue infantry weaponry.

In the gameplay they're arguably more common to face than las guns and so need to be a bit... bland by design.

Skarboyz can go toe to toe with a marine, nobz can face off against multiple at once. The tabletop does not do em justice.

Pretty sure they were Boys, they went down pretty quick to the platoon of Miltiamen lead by one Stormtrooper shortly after

The Space Marines are toned down too much in the tabletop game. If they are represented accurately, you would field like 20 dudes in a 1500 pts game, and that is not selling.

I want other factions to mass cheaper troops to accurately represent this, such as Necron Warriors should be BS/WS 3 (since they are civilians forced into combat) and Orks going back to T4.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Trickster2927 wrote:
Bolt weapons fire exploding bullets in the lore and so the rules should represent this in my opinion. This is about bringing the game into more parity with the lore. Making them stronger would just be a bonus for us marine and sisters players.

Okay. So it sounds like your priority is making bolt weapons feel more lore-appropriate. Some thoughts:

* S4, though not too flashy by today's standards, already marks a bolter as being more lethal than "standard" imperial weapons like lasguns and autoguns. I take it this doesn't do it for you?

* Having a slightly better chance of bypassing enemy armor makes bolt weapons slightly more killy, but it doesn't really make them "feel" different. It doesn't tell me a story. So if your goal is to make the weapon "feel" more fluff appropriate, I'm not sure this is the way to do it. Compare this to another suggestion I've seen floated in this forum before: having to-wound rolls of 6 increase the Damage characteristic of bolt weapons by 1. Balance considerations aside, you can see how that extra wound tells the story of the explosive round detonating to create larger, harder-to-ignore injuries. That grotesque you shot doesn't just have a few stubber rounds in his shoulder; his shoulder is gone, the arm dangling from some barely-connected gore.

* How would you feel about just making AP0 bolt weapons AP-1 and getting rid of doctrines? This was pitched in another thread not too long ago, and I feel like it does a good job of buffing bolt weapons without going over the top while simultaneously reducing the amount of rules bloat.

The lore aspect is also a big motivator for me, and I've long-thought that bolt weapons currently get a raw deal. They're supposed to be terrifying weapons – the mightiest small arms in the Imperium – tended to dotingly by master artificers and techpriests, revered as holy emblems, yada yada.

I think bolt weapons need a boost in power (and cost). While +1 AP would be a good start, I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1. Although I could see an argument for +1 Strength instead for bolt weapons given that they essentially fire high-velocity mini-rockets, I like the idea of representing a bolt's internal explosion as extra damage instead of just raw power – first you get the impact from a high-velocity/calibre round, then upon penetration its delayed explosion pulverises internal organs, ruptures vessels, causes systemic hydrostatic shock, etc. D3 damage would be clunkier than just +1 damage, but would give bolt weapons a bit more utility and dynamicism against MEQ or Gravis/Custodian units... which is exactly what occurred during the Horus Heresy, so fluff points there. It would also set bolt weapons aside from other basic infantry weapon statlines. A decent chance of additional mortal wounds could achieve something similar in a way that involves less die rolling, and which would synergise well conceptually... but which would be a bit less fun/unique and would mean that you couldn't potentially one-shot a 3-wound model.

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:


I think bolt weapons need a boost in power (and cost). While +1 AP would be a good start, I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1.

Ok, then increase the points cost of bolter/heavy bolter platforms by 50 to 100% then. Would you like 30+ppm tacs or 18+ppm battle sisters?

Only buff I think would be nice on bolters is that they ignore AoC. So in mirror matches their AP-1 still works.

 Blackie wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:


I think bolt weapons need a boost in power (and cost). While +1 AP would be a good start, I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1.

Ok, then increase the points cost of bolter/heavy bolter platforms by 50 to 100% then. Would you like 30+ppm tacs or 18+ppm battle sisters?

Only buff I think would be nice on bolters is that they ignore AoC. So in mirror matches their AP-1 still works.

Bolters don't have AP-1. But I do agree that the above proposal is a bit....ridiculous.

With armour of contempt, I'd rather wait and see rather than continue commenting on making bolters AP-1 now.

Even making them AP-1 still makes them useless in mirror matches with armour of contempt factions, unless in tactical doctrine.

Intercessor bolters have AP-1. And SM bolters are AP-1 for the 2 turns that matter.

Heavy bolter is also flat AP-1 and AP-2 in turn 1 for SM.

I already think that any AP on regular bolters is already too much. Getting rid of doctrines, removing AP on intercessors WITHOUT any buffs to bolters is the way to go IMHO. Power armour dudes already got their massive bonus due to AoC, they don't need to boost their damage potential too.

Bolters are fine as they are, they actually might even be in the need of some nerf.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:
With armour of contempt, I'd rather wait and see rather than continue commenting on making bolters AP-1 now.

Even making them AP-1 still makes them useless in mirror matches with armour of contempt factions, unless in tactical doctrine.

Yeah and if AoC is a problem, let bolters ignore AoC rather than buffing their AP, let alone their D characteristic.

 Blackie wrote:

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:


I think bolt weapons need a boost in power (and cost). While +1 AP would be a good start, I also think they should come with +1 Strength, +1/D3 Damage, or a chance of extra mortal wounds.

My actual preference for a standard boltgun statline would be S4, AP1, Damage D3. Heavy bolters could easily go from Damage 2 to Damage D3 without it causing too much of a ruckus, or even Damage D3+1.

Ok, then increase the points cost of bolter/heavy bolter platforms by 50 to 100% then. Would you like 30+ppm tacs or 18+ppm battle sisters?

Only buff I think would be nice on bolters is that they ignore AoC. So in mirror matches their AP-1 still works.

Yep, I think they should be more valuable in general. Ideally that would include an improvement to the Astartes statline in tandem with a bolter update.

And as stated above, they don't get any AP at the moment (not that it would matter in mirror matches due to AoC).

 Blackie wrote:
Intercessor bolters have AP-1. And SM bolters are AP-1 for the 2 turns that matter.

Heavy bolter is also flat AP-1 and AP-2 in turn 1 for SM.

I already think that any AP on regular bolters is already too much. Getting rid of doctrines, removing AP on intercessors WITHOUT any buffs to bolters is the way to go IMHO. Power armour dudes already got their massive bonus due to AoC, they don't need to boost their damage potential too.

Bolters are fine as they are, they actually might even be in the need of some nerf.

This might be the case from a gameplay perspective (not necessarily agreeing that it is), but from a lore perspective it just doesn't make sense.

 Blackie wrote:
Intercessor bolters have AP-1. And SM bolters are AP-1 for the 2 turns that matter.

Heavy bolter is also flat AP-1 and AP-2 in turn 1 for SM.

I already think that any AP on regular bolters is already too much. Getting rid of doctrines, removing AP on intercessors WITHOUT any buffs to bolters is the way to go IMHO. Power armour dudes already got their massive bonus due to AoC, they don't need to boost their damage potential too.

Bolters are fine as they are, they actually might even be in the need of some nerf.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jarms48 wrote:
With armour of contempt, I'd rather wait and see rather than continue commenting on making bolters AP-1 now.

Even making them AP-1 still makes them useless in mirror matches with armour of contempt factions, unless in tactical doctrine.

Yeah and if AoC is a problem, let bolters ignore AoC rather than buffing their AP, let alone their D characteristic.

I agree with most of your former statement, except for the idea of actually nerfing bolters (What? S4 AP0 D1 is too good now?).

But I completely disagree with the latter: allowing bolt weapons to ignore AoC would be a flat buff for Loyalist Scum vs all CSM. Remember, CSM bolters are AP0.

For nerfing bolters I meant removing doctrines without replacing them with other buffs.

And my idea to ignore AoC would be valid for all armies that carry bolters of course. Although without doctrines and AP-1 it's just heavy bolters that would actually ignore AoC.

 Blackie wrote:
For nerfing bolters I meant removing doctrines without replacing them with other buffs.

And my idea to ignore AoC would be valid for all armies that carry bolters of course. Although without doctrines and AP-1 it's just heavy bolters that would actually ignore AoC.

Ok, that makes more sense, especially if the additional AP is removed from Intercessors, as you also suggested. But I see no reason why bolters specifically should ignore AoC. Bolters are not especially good at penetrating power armour, or vehicles that are armoured with the same materials as power armour. In fact, in the fluff I've read, they're actually pretty bad at it.

There's no reason of course. It's just that SM players would soon start complaining that their boltgun weapons are too inefficient against armies that benefit from AoC, which are a lot considering how popular the power/termy armour dudes are. So instead of making their weapons even more ridiculosly powerful against all the other factions they could "fix" it by letting ignore AoC bonuses.

But of course the best scenario would be to make all bolters S4 AP0 with no exceptions, and no mechanics to improve them for free.