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.

 Asmodai wrote:
I'll go against the grain a bit. The number of weapon profiles doesn't bother me.

In a game, I only care about the datasheets I have printed out for my army. The fact there's 12 Bolter profiles doesn't matter since my unit only has one, and right there for reference.

See if GW made and kept in print and supply - data cards that had all the info for a unit on them that you'd need. Or at LEAST had a single page in the codex for each model.

Then it wouldn't matter how many profiles they had, each unit could be different. The referencing and finding of the info would be quick.



This is a big part of the issue with modern GW publications. It's not the volume of information its the way its laid out and accessed.
It's the same as how building armies has become more and more complicated even though in reality we aren't actually doing anything really new with them. Units have had optional upgrades and squad size and psy powers for utterly ages.


Again there's two sides to this - the first is how much information there is total and the other is how you access it. Poor access to information results in a bigger push to simplify and standardise all the information so that you can just memorise it; whilst easier access to information makes referencing during the game quicker, easier and makes the variety of options less of a problem.

Fine for you, but how much time should you spend telling your oponent about all your weapon choices prior to a game. Go through each datasheet in turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai wrote:
I'll go against the grain a bit. The number of weapon profiles doesn't bother me.

In a game, I only care about the datasheets I have printed out for my army. The fact there's 12 Bolter profiles doesn't matter since my unit only has one, and right there for reference.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Fine for you, but how much time should you spend telling your oponent about all your weapon choices prior to a game. Go through each datasheet in turn?

The most common way I see 40K played nowadays is that each player knows only their own codex/list and just rolls with it as statlines/stratagems/abilities are 'revealed', which strikes me as frankly kind of absurd.

Going through each datasheet like you say is completely reasonable in a game where you only have a 5-10 units and there isn't a ton of content to know beyond those datasheets, but it's definitely not a viable approach for what 40K is right now.

Also, if there are 12 different bolter profiles but only two are worth taking, then the rest is just bloat. It'd be easier to track and you'd have more actual choices if they were consolidated into fewer, but more differentiated, and better balanced options. Overlapping profiles are always difficult to cost appropriately.

I disagree with the notion that all troops should have identical guns. There's nothing wrong with Lasguns/autoguns being weaker than a bolter, or a Tau's Pulse Rifle being stronger and longer ranged than my Ork Boy's shoota. Rather I believe there needs to be more meaningful differences in how they are used/employed. There is no need to have a dozen different variations on a Space Marine's bolter but an Guardman's Lasgun should not be identical to my Ork's shoota, or my buddy's Necron Warrior's Gauss Flayer.

I view the huge variation in weaponry as a feature not a bug of Warhammer. Should we have some standardization? Absolutely, there's no need to have Snagga Klaws be separate from Power Klaws, or have 3 variations of Bolt Carbine, save that level of granularity for Dark Heresy, but making a distinction between a Bolter and a Pulse Rifle is in line with the scale that most games of 40k operate at, where yes that Fire Warrior has some serious range and punch, but is not as numerous as the guard, as tough as Marine or as punchy as an Ork.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Fine for you, but how much time should you spend telling your oponent about all your weapon choices prior to a game. Go through each datasheet in turn?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Asmodai wrote:
I'll go against the grain a bit. The number of weapon profiles doesn't bother me.

In a game, I only care about the datasheets I have printed out for my army. The fact there's 12 Bolter profiles doesn't matter since my unit only has one, and right there for reference.

Yep. Only takes a few seconds - e.g. "The Intercesssors have the Assault version of their Bolters and a grenade launcher, the Heavy Intercessors have the heavy version and the Captain has a Powerfist and Plasma Pistol".

After a few games, I know the loadouts of most of the units my opponents' play in our Crusade league anyway.

There may be a vast number of rules and profiles, but only a small subset of them are engaged in any game.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Because it's fun I'll repost the weapons reference from the 4th ed Marine codex. #ILoveYou4thEd



To be totally fair, not every weapon is on that list. The Cyclone Missile Launcher and the Hurricane Bolter are missing. That might be it, though. . .

Nice strawman. What is (conveniently) not pictured is grabbing huge, heavy rulebook and flipping for 15 minutes trying to find what all the obscure nonsense in profile means. Especially in cases where uNiVeRsAL SR was only found on one gun in the whole army (and there were close to 100+ of them making search extra tedious when only like 5-6 had any right being there) and both players struggled to remember what it did (made extra hard because the uNiVeRsAL SRs changed every edition often making balanced units OP or garbage, see Rage changing from unit being easy to kite unruly mob to suddenly becoming relentless murdermachines robotically repeating every order). Yeeeah, having 15 impossible to remember uNiVeRsAL SRs in charging section alone giving various buffs/debuffs to stats (that could be replaced with just +1/+2 to attacks/charge range/strength/hit/wound rolls right there in unit profile saving sanity and time of everyone involved) was sooo much better than spending 0.1 seconds glancing at gun profile

And it gets even dumber than that, see when two of USRs clashed thanks to one-size-fits-none mentality. Quick, anyone remembers how gets hot interacts with blast rule, one forcing you to hit to roll, other banning you from rolling to hit at all? GW needed three FAQs to fix the uNiVeRsAL gak into not crashing the game right there - and that's with just two words, now add rending, pistol, or sniper to the mix and the game breaks right then and there (and no, this is not a joke/imaginary example, you could add rending/sniper/blast to unit weapon in various ways, with some weapons like plasma cannon being broken right from the start).

I really like how HH 2.0 starkly reminded people how idiotic, time consuming, slow and stupid the uNiVeRsAL SRs system was (and that's with just two books and only SM really in the game) with people often spending close to hour hunting that one obscure uNiVeRsAL SR (again, not imaginary example, HQ section alone has two praetors who have uNiVeRsAL rule only found on one unit in the game that should have been just written in unit profile like in modern, sane systems but is instead found explained in really obscure, unintuitive place) - yet people still put rose glasses on and cling to this gak abandoned (for a reason) by virtually every good current game, be it wargame, tabletop game, or card game.

And that's with just one rule in profile, some HH weapons have 6-8 USRs in profile, good luck remembering what they all do, how do they interact, in what order you should apply them, before you realize half of them can be replaced by a number in statline (I especially like the ink wasting ""rule"" that modifies damage from 1 to 2-6 instead of just being right there in frakking profile!) and stop pointlessly wasting everyone's time with crap rule design from the 80s that wasn't really good even then. Gee, when I look at it, it's almost as if having 100+ uNiVeRsAL SRs that constantly waste time, make rules extremely hard to learn/follow, and crash the game is the real bloat, not having 3 interesting guns that make unit roles varied and fitting far more army concepts, go figure...

 catbarf wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Fine for you, but how much time should you spend telling your oponent about all your weapon choices prior to a game. Go through each datasheet in turn?

The most common way I see 40K played nowadays is that each player knows only their own codex/list and just rolls with it as statlines/stratagems/abilities are 'revealed', which strikes me as frankly kind of absurd.

Going through each datasheet like you say is completely reasonable in a game where you only have a 5-10 units and there isn't a ton of content to know beyond those datasheets, but it's definitely not a viable approach for what 40K is right now.

Also, if there are 12 different bolter profiles but only two are worth taking, then the rest is just bloat. It'd be easier to track and you'd have more actual choices if they were consolidated into fewer, but more differentiated, and better balanced options. Overlapping profiles are always difficult to cost appropriately.

every single game where my opponent starts to list what each of his squads has, my eyes glaze over and i mentally check out.

when i tell them what my units are, i go with the broad strokes : "these are anti tank shooting" "these are anti chaff shooting" "these are chaff"

keep it simple, no pointi ntelling your opponent that the "master crafted oculus marksmen bolt las fusil" has an extra point of strength over the "bolt carbine anihilation cannon" or whatever


Automatically Appended Next Post:

panzerfront14 wrote:
I disagree with the notion that all troops should have identical guns. There's nothing wrong with Lasguns/autoguns being weaker than a bolter, or a Tau's Pulse Rifle being stronger and longer ranged than my Ork Boy's shoota. Rather I believe there needs to be more meaningful differences in how they are used/employed. There is no need to have a dozen different variations on a Space Marine's bolter but an Guardman's Lasgun should not be identical to my Ork's shoota, or my buddy's Necron Warrior's Gauss Flayer.

I view the huge variation in weaponry as a feature not a bug of Warhammer. Should we have some standardization? Absolutely, there's no need to have Snagga Klaws be separate from Power Klaws, or have 3 variations of Bolt Carbine, save that level of granularity for Dark Heresy, but making a distinction between a Bolter and a Pulse Rifle is in line with the scale that most games of 40k operate at, where yes that Fire Warrior has some serious range and punch, but is not as numerous as the guard, as tough as Marine or as punchy as an Ork.

pretty sure the idea is to have standardisation within armies themselves, not necessarily cross-army (whydo lasguns and autoguns exist if theyre basically the same stat, why do storm bolters and combi bolters exist if theyre litterally the same stat, why do coruscating flames have 3 different strength, etc.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

Nice strawman. What is (conveniently) not pictured is grabbing huge, heavy rulebook and flipping for 15 minutes trying to find what all the obscure nonsense in profile means. Especially in cases where uNiVeRsAL SR was only found on one gun in the whole army (and there were close to 100+ of them making search extra tedious when only like 5-6 had any right being there)

stopped reading your rant here, why is the poor execution of USR in that edition a hit against having smaller weapon lists?

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
I think Grav Pistols/Guns have a reason to exist outside of Plasma Pistols/Guns. They just sorta suck right now.

Heavy disagree. Grav Weapons are silly and really don't need to exist as a separate thing. What's wrong with just using them as different looking Plasma Guns and Cannons?

They just need an appropriate niche to work, but having a 4th "special" category doesn't break the bank in itself. They really had more of their own niche back in 6-7th, when they rolled the opponent's armor to-wound. If Plasma didn't have the Overcharge option that was introduced in 8th, Grav at 2D would be a more compelling place.

The niche completely removed Plasma as a consideration for Loyalist Scum though. We can make the excuse of "but what about low armor units" if it weren't for the fact the Guns weren't getting 3 shots for the regular gun and 5 for the cannon. You simply ignored Salvo rules LOL

If you want a niche for the gun it would HAVE to be an Assault 2 weapon. That gives it a reason to be taken over Plasma in cases you like to advance and shoot. Cannon.....I have nothing.

Yeah it was Salvo, but unlike Plasma, because of the wounding mechanics it meant it was a worse weapon than Plasma against lighter troops, which was at least an interesting distinction vs. Plasma, which retained it's lethality across the spectrum. Making it Assault with a reduced range would be fine. The Grav Cannon is very distinctive already, the only issue with it is that it might be to good. It's major weakness is that it is only D1 against units with less than a 3+ save, which actually makes it less ideal against certain units, like Tyranid Warriors, Spawn, Daemons, DE flyers and stuff like that. Which, tbf, can be a pretty hefty downside depending on your opponents.

Anyways, I think there's an opportunity there for the "lesser" Grav weapons, though it's not a hill I'd choose to die on.

The wounding mechanic does not matter when you're spitting out three shots. 1-2 shots of Plasma wounding infantry on a 2+ isn't exactly a trade off when you get 3 shots wounding on a 5+.

Plus the one time you want Bolters is on those Bikes and Centurions. If it somehow went to wounding on a 6+, it didn't really matter if you're spitting out 6 TL shots guaranteeing you don't miss. Couple in Gets Hot and there was no reason to consider Plasma for any Loyalist Marine army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Because it's fun I'll repost the weapons reference from the 4th ed Marine codex. #ILoveYou4thEd



To be totally fair, not every weapon is on that list. The Cyclone Missile Launcher and the Hurricane Bolter are missing. That might be it, though. . .

Nice strawman. What is (conveniently) not pictured is grabbing huge, heavy rulebook and flipping for 15 minutes trying to find what all the obscure nonsense in profile means.

There's literally two for Pinning and Gets Hot LMAO


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh sorry I forgot Sniper and Rending. Sooooooo many rules!

Tyel wrote:
Maybe its just me, but I just see the gun as a second-stat line. So the fact a given Primaris unit has "Bolter version XXIV" doesn't really bother me. You just learn it as part of the unit.

I mean would it make things dramatically better if say Infiltrator Marksman Bolt Carbines were swapped for basic bolters, and Infiltrators just got "when this unit shoots, 6s to hit auto-wound" as a special rule? Ditto for say Incusors and their special guns ignoring cover?

This. I suppose you could make all the light primaris guns just bolt carbines and move the accompanying special rule to the unit stat block, but the ability to see what weapon does at a glance is wonderful and if anything, units wasting paper for stuff that can be just included in gun profile would be real bloat.

Karol wrote:
So something like a reaver will have the same fire power as a terminator who costs double the points? And the gap between something like GK strikes/interceptors and terminators would become even bigger.

Congratulations, you just discovered why they gun system in old editions was crap. And it was even worse than that, GK paladins costing 4x the cost of tactical marine (or 3x the GK striker) had effectively the same firepower making them garbage and impossible to balance

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Fine for you, but how much time should you spend telling your oponent about all your weapon choices prior to a game. Go through each datasheet in turn?

The thing is, as things stand right now, you don't need to. The opponent can just glance at your gun list and go 'oh, these phobos marines ignore cover saves, got it'. Simple, quick and easy. That's why the whole clown show about tOo MaNy gUnZ is so comically stupid, GW went with modern design that gives units various, interesting roles instead of old bolter, bolter, or bolter gak that didn't fit 90% of the chapters in game and it's somehow a bad thing

But I agree, there are too many guns in the game. You could replace all the bolters, bolt guns, storm bolters, combi bolters, twin bolters, dual bolters, hurricane bolters and the rest of pointless and useless squatmarine gak with just bolter(1), bolter(2), and bolter(6). There, 20 guns gone with the rules being losslessly exactly the same as before. Funny how dudes whining about actually interesting, varied primaris guns never mention that one. Maybe because it shows creative sterility, lack of choice, and intellectual bankruptcy of old rules system plain as day?

Aecus Decimus wrote:
But why do they need a special rule to represent their gun? Why can't they just be tactical marines with the Infiltrate USR? Or why do they even need to exist when we already had scouts? Why can't they just be an alternative aesthetic choice for a tactical squad?

Seeing you have very short memory and don't remember why this was the case in 3-7 editions and how despised it was - because bolter, bolter, or bolter no-choice in tactical squad meant it didn't fit 90% of the armies in game and completely and utterly ruined any pretense to having your dude army. You run BT/SW and want melee army? Congrats, tacticals are utterly useless and the army is trash (then GW "fixed" it giving both bespoke troop units actually fitting the chapters (while leaving the players of all the other 300+ melee favoring chapters in the dust) in what is totally less rules bloat that Intercessors having close/mid/long range loadout choice - that was sarcasm in case anyone was too stupid to get it).

You run Raven Guard and want long range sniping/infiltrating army? Congrats, tacticals are crap in this role and don't fit what you intended at all. You want Star Phantoms or Iron Hands with their massive firepower doctrine? Congrats, tacticals are shyte in that concept too. You want (insert 5876734 fluffy examples) - congrats, you can't do that, enjoy your bolter, bolter, or bolter boring bland gak that ruined your vision. Such variety, much wov. Meanwhile, primaris players laugh at you because they actually do have units fitting these concepts and don't need to imagine boring, bland flavorless garbage exactly the same as the player opposite you who is supposedly running completely different chapter using vastly different tactics is somehow "fluffy/interesting/flavorful/etc".

You want to run scout company because you play Raptors and love the special, elite forces? In old system, you could play 4+ skill, 4+ save scout mooks that were in every way worse than veteran guardsmen, making them trash fit for your vision. Except you couldn't because there were no scout HQs, sike. You had all of 1 unit choice. In new, primaris have whole phobos array of choices for players who want 10th company, sneaky chapters, reasonable marines, special forces, and all the other themes people love - and that's why "they can't just be an alternative aesthetic for a tactical squad". Because we had this once and it sucked. People were buying extremely expensive Badab War books for just a tiny change to the way SM forces were built, that offered 1/1000 of the choices primaris provide for free.

And that's why the whole premise of the tOo MaNy gUnZ thing is utterly idiotic and I wish people whining about it got their wish - in the games they play. They would soon learn (or not, seeing all the past editions clearly telling them how wrong they are go unheeded) how dumb said wish was. Without ruining the game for the people who actually like fluff, themes, and having interesting rules allowing real choices.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Nice strawman. What is (conveniently) not pictured is grabbing huge, heavy rulebook and flipping for 15 minutes trying to find what all the obscure nonsense in profile means. Especially in cases where uNiVeRsAL SR was only found on one gun in the whole army (and there were close to 100+ of them making search extra tedious when only like 5-6 had any right being there)

stopped reading your rant here, why is the poor execution of USR in that edition a hit against having smaller weapon lists?

4th edition (which is the edition from which the chart referenced by Insectum7 originates from) had a total of 10 weapon USRs, specifically: Blast, Gets Hot, Twin-Linked, Melta, Template, Barrage, Pinning, Sniper, Lance, and Rending. A further 22 "unit" USRs are compiled elsewhere in the BRB (Infiltrate, Fearless, etc), for a total of 32. Irbis seems to be confusing 4th edition with 7th edition.

What was one of the ones in 7th that literally never came up? Was it Missile Lock or some gak like that?

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Nice strawman. What is (conveniently) not pictured is grabbing huge, heavy rulebook and flipping for 15 minutes trying to find what all the obscure nonsense in profile means. Especially in cases where uNiVeRsAL SR was only found on one gun in the whole army (and there were close to 100+ of them making search extra tedious when only like 5-6 had any right being there)

stopped reading your rant here, why is the poor execution of USR in that edition a hit against having smaller weapon lists?

4th edition (which is the edition from which the chart referenced by Insectum7 originates from) had a total of 10 weapon USRs, specifically: Blast, Gets Hot, Twin-Linked, Melta, Template, Barrage, Pinning, Sniper, Lance, and Rending. A further 22 "unit" USRs are compiled elsewhere in the BRB (Infiltrate, Fearless, etc), for a total of 32. Irbis seems to be confusing 4th edition with 7th edition.

I had a written up a post that said exactly what you did here, and now I don't have to post it


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
What was one of the ones in 7th that literally never came up? Was it Missile Lock or some gak like that?

My favorites were the USRs that were just combinations of other USRs.

Glad to help you out, Insectum7.

 Irbis wrote:
That's why the whole clown show about tOo MaNy gUnZ is so comically stupid . . .
. . .
But I agree, there are too many guns in the game. . .

Never change Irbis. Never change.

 Irbis wrote:
Seeing you have very short memory and don't remember why this was the case in 3-7 editions and how despised it was

I remember how despised it was by entitled marine players who were outraged that GW wouldn't pander to their every whim and give a set of rules for every possible army list they could ever want to use, including anti-fluffy and one-dimensional spam lists that turned "favors melee" into "exclusively uses melee units" and "emphasizes heavy weapons" into "I demand the ability to take nothing but devastator squads". I remember lots of complaints over the outrage that someone's pet 234092345349056th founding chapter's second company didn't get their own special snowflake rules and were just generic space marines.

But mostly I remember it working just fine for all of the non-marine players who understood that it's ok if they don't have a separate codex for each minor sub-faction.

And that's why the whole premise of the tOo MaNy gUnZ thing is utterly idiotic and I wish people whining about it got their wish - in the games they play.

Guess what: every non-marine player already has that wish. I'm sorry that you think marines are the only faction that matters and don't even know how the rules for NPC factions work.

It's impressive how seamlessly Irbis can go from complaining that USRs are out-of-date and poor design as evidenced by their unpopularity among modern rulesets, to praising the current ridiculously excessive bloat of weapon statlines as also practiced by... pretty much no modern ruleset.

I also like the complaint that Tactical Marines were boring because you couldn't flanderize them (as if every single model in a stealth army needs to have a 'stealth rifle' for them to be thematic) and they all had the same weapons, but Primaris is great because they have maybe two options and the entire squad needs to be equipped identically. We're just ignoring options like special/heavy weapons, chapter tactics, literally everything besides what the statline on a basic rifle is and saying they're identical because Iron Hands don't get a Gunline Bolter.

It's funny, because I don't see this complaint at all in Heresy. Tacticals have even fewer options than they do in 40K, but what makes different legions' Tacticals play differently isn't that they get slightly different guns, it's that they get different legion bonuses, and more importantly are part of armies that are likely composed completely differently and play completely differently. It's okay if Night Lords Tacticals and Imperial Fists Tacticals aren't that different in raw stats; how each army uses Tacticals makes the armies different at the macro level, and then the legion bonuses add a little bit of chrome at the micro level.

Or, put more bluntly, go play some historicals. The good ones all use generic weapon profiles and still make different nations play differently. If a game only distinguishes between WW2 Germans and Americans by having minutely different stats on their weapons, that's a red flag, not a model to emulate.

Whatever. Another Irbis post, another collection of bad takes presented with apoplectic rage- over toy soldier games. Go to therapy.

 Irbis wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Maybe its just me, but I just see the gun as a second-stat line. So the fact a given Primaris unit has "Bolter version XXIV" doesn't really bother me. You just learn it as part of the unit.

I mean would it make things dramatically better if say Infiltrator Marksman Bolt Carbines were swapped for basic bolters, and Infiltrators just got "when this unit shoots, 6s to hit auto-wound" as a special rule? Ditto for say Incusors and their special guns ignoring cover?

This. I suppose you could make all the light primaris guns just bolt carbines and move the accompanying special rule to the unit stat block, but the ability to see what weapon does at a glance is wonderful and if anything, units wasting paper for stuff that can be just included in gun profile would be real bloat.

There is some merit to this, but GW has botched it badly. I say that because GW created the Bolt Carbine, but has added variants that barely resemble the base weapon:

Bolt Carbine: Assault 2, 24", S4, AP 0, D 1

Instigator bolt carbine: Assault 1, 24", S4, AP -1, D 2, Ignore LOS

Marksman Bolt Carbine: Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4 AP 0, D1, MW on unmodified Hit Roll of 6

Master-crafted instigator bolt carbine: Assault 1, 24", S4, AP -2, D 3, Ignore LOS

Master-crafted occulus bolt carbine: Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4, AP 0, D 2, Ignore Cover

Occulus bolt carbine: Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4, AP 0, D 1, Ignore Cover

What madness is this? Only 2 weapons on the list of Bolt Carbines have only 2 differences between them and the base Carbine. Those are a special ability... and a change from Assault 2 to Rapid Fire 1

Wait! Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4, AP 0, D 1 is a Bolter

Yeah the Tacticool Marines were handled terribly. There's no reason for Incursors and Infiltrators to be separate things.

 alextroy wrote:

 Irbis wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Maybe its just me, but I just see the gun as a second-stat line. So the fact a given Primaris unit has "Bolter version XXIV" doesn't really bother me. You just learn it as part of the unit.

I mean would it make things dramatically better if say Infiltrator Marksman Bolt Carbines were swapped for basic bolters, and Infiltrators just got "when this unit shoots, 6s to hit auto-wound" as a special rule? Ditto for say Incusors and their special guns ignoring cover?

This. I suppose you could make all the light primaris guns just bolt carbines and move the accompanying special rule to the unit stat block, but the ability to see what weapon does at a glance is wonderful and if anything, units wasting paper for stuff that can be just included in gun profile would be real bloat.

There is some merit to this, but GW has botched it badly. I say that because GW created the Bolt Carbine, but has added variants that barely resemble the base weapon:

Bolt Carbine: Assault 2, 24", S4, AP 0, D 1

Instigator bolt carbine: Assault 1, 24", S4, AP -1, D 2, Ignore LOS

Marksman Bolt Carbine: Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4 AP 0, D1, MW on unmodified Hit Roll of 6

Master-crafted instigator bolt carbine: Assault 1, 24", S4, AP -2, D 3, Ignore LOS

Master-crafted occulus bolt carbine: Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4, AP 0, D 2, Ignore Cover

Occulus bolt carbine: Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4, AP 0, D 1, Ignore Cover

What madness is this? Only 2 weapons on the list of Bolt Carbines have only 2 differences between them and the base Carbine. Those are a special ability... and a change from Assault 2 to Rapid Fire 1

Wait! Rapid Fire 1, 24", S4, AP 0, D 1 is a Bolter

If you think this is crazy.....
Do NOT look at the weapons/shields/standards in Age of Sigmar.
EVERY one of them is a named version & EVERY version does something slightly different. Even within the same army.
It's like the copywriters went mad.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Take for example upgrade pistols for SM characters. Would it not be better to have a choice of say 3 profiles covering the major uses, then attach whatever names to them? Would fit better with the 'free upgrade' approach. Or is the shaving of 1 point, or choice of which sword to use something that you play the game for?

Well with the "free upgrade" approach we don't have to worry about shaving the 1 point - I like the different stat profiles though. I'm not sure the current stat profiles are GOOD, but I like the idea that you can lean into this threat band on your shooting, and that threat band on your melee, plus have a couple-few squads that reverse it or do something different. Of course I also like Kitchen Sink Lists that contain one of everything.

As far as Primaris Troops we can ask how many of their weapons should be turned basic. Do you think that:
*Intercessor bolt rifles should be turned into bolters? Yes.
*Intercessor stalker bolt rifles should be turned into bolters? No.
*Intercessor stalker bolt rifles should be turned into bolt rifles? No.
*Intercessor auto bolt rifle should be turned into bolters? No.
*Intercessor auto bolt rifle should be turned into bolt rifles? No.
*Incursor occulus bolt carbine should be turned into bolters? Yes.
*Incursor occulus bolt carbine should be turned into bolt rifles? No.
*Infiltrator marksman bolt carbine should be turned into bolters? Yes.
*Infiltrator marksman bolt carbine should be turned into bolt rifles? No.

Basically I'd keep auto bolt rifles and stalker bolt rifles because the models look different and there is a fluff reason for it. I think damage 2 on stalker bolt rifles might be a bit much, they could just be a long-barreled bolter (+6" range), then lower auto bolt rifles back down to Assault 2. The occulus bolt carbine ability can just become an additional incursor ability, who cares if their grenades and pistols ignore cover too?

 catbarf wrote:
Also, if there are 12 different bolter profiles but only two are worth taking, then the rest is just bloat. It'd be easier to track and you'd have more actual choices if they were consolidated into fewer, but more differentiated, and better balanced options. Overlapping profiles are always difficult to cost appropriately.

So differentiated weapons are easier to cost? Would you say it'd be easier to align the costs of +1S AP-3 D1 against +2S AP-4 D2 or against +0S AP-3 D1 +1 Atk? Trick question they all cost the same because GW are lazy hacks which makes your otherwise good point invalid. A huge scythe should not have the same profile as a one-handed axe. If I am going with the axe it is because I don't plan for my Lord/Overlord to kick butt in melee for the list, I just want a points cut to reward me for not being greedy and taking the scythe anyways just because it is strictly better at no cost.

 vict0988 wrote:

Basically I'd keep auto bolt rifles and stalker bolt rifles because the models look different and there is a fluff reason for it. I think damage 2 on stalker bolt rifles might be a bit much, they could just be a long-barreled bolter (+6" range), then lower auto bolt rifles back down to Assault 2.

Your suggestion is how nobody goes back to using the other Bolt Rifle variants.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Basically I'd keep auto bolt rifles and stalker bolt rifles because the models look different and there is a fluff reason for it. I think damage 2 on stalker bolt rifles might be a bit much, they could just be a long-barreled bolter (+6" range), then lower auto bolt rifles back down to Assault 2.

Your suggestion is how nobody goes back to using the other Bolt Rifle variants.

Please explain.

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Basically I'd keep auto bolt rifles and stalker bolt rifles because the models look different and there is a fluff reason for it. I think damage 2 on stalker bolt rifles might be a bit much, they could just be a long-barreled bolter (+6" range), then lower auto bolt rifles back down to Assault 2.

Your suggestion is how nobody goes back to using the other Bolt Rifle variants.

Please explain.

Because nobody is going to use Assault 2 24" S4 -0 D1 or 36" Heavy 1 S4 -2 D2 vs Rapid Fire 1 (with Bolter Discipline) 30" S4 -1 D1 The math doesn't work out. Even the Fragstorm vs Stormbolter is pretty iffy.

Radical thought- maybe boltguns should be changed to bolt carbines and the latter unified to a single profile? Godwyn-pattern boltguns and bolt carbines have a very similar design anyway.

Then boltgun can be a catch-all term to describe bolt rifles and bolt carbines, but not the name of a specific profile.

 Insectum7 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
What was one of the ones in 7th that literally never came up? Was it Missile Lock or some gak like that?

My favorites were the USRs that were just combinations of other USRs.

Technically we still have that. Marines have "angels of death" if you recall, which is a rule that says you get the "And they shall know no fear", "Bolter Discipline, "Shock Assault" and "Combat Doctrines" rules.

 vict0988 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Basically I'd keep auto bolt rifles and stalker bolt rifles because the models look different and there is a fluff reason for it. I think damage 2 on stalker bolt rifles might be a bit much, they could just be a long-barreled bolter (+6" range), then lower auto bolt rifles back down to Assault 2.

Your suggestion is how nobody goes back to using the other Bolt Rifle variants.

Please explain.

Did you already forget SM 8.1? Intercessors were always taken with the stock Bolt Rifle.

While the Bolt Rifle NOW has less damage output in specific matches, it also is the variant that loses less amount of damage output when going against a non-preferred target. It's one of the few occasions GW "rules writers" did something right.

In fact the only issue I have is the range of the weapons. If I were to combine Intercessors and Tacticals, I'd take 6" off each gun.

My post very specifically said that I would get rid of the regular bolt rifle. I don't see any fluff that suggests that bolt rifles should be superior to bolters, the bolt rifle model doesn't scream higher range or armour penetration and finally there is no gameplay reason to give them a better profile. Maybe you could argue it is needed to make up for the lack of a special/heavy weapon, I kind of just want Intercessors to have Primaris heavy weapons be able to join them like Deathwatch to make Space Marines feel like Space Marines again.

At best you could compare Assault 2 to R24" AP-1 bolters since I think I might have supported that in a previous thread, but then that'd be a R24" AP-1 bolter without bolter discipline as I have said previously that is something I would get rid of.

Let's compare the current options, S is the same, so the question is AP, Range and shots fired. I think bolter discipline and range cancels out with the ability to advance and shoot, it might not for everyone but considering the types of tables you're supposed to play on in 9th edition I think that's a fair trade. Then the question is how often is 1AP superior to 50% more shots? Against a 2+ Sv. That's it, don't even get me started on 200% more shots. So we're talking maybe 5% of the units in the game being more susceptible to bolt rifles, 1% during the Tactical Doctrine.

If you're taking bolt rifles currently you are making a mistake right? Auto bolt rifles being a niche option for chapters that need to advance more often would be fair, auto bolt rifles simply dealing more damage at shorter range isn't good design in my opinion, it also happens to not cost any points right now which seems clearly unbalanced. I might be biased because I am hoping GW stops stat creep and this has been a part of it.

I also happened to take the auto bolt rifles in 8th, but that was before Arks Detachments or Assault Intercessors.

 catbarf wrote:
It's impressive how seamlessly Irbis can go from complaining that USRs are out-of-date and poor design as evidenced by their unpopularity among modern rulesets, to praising the current ridiculously excessive bloat of weapon statlines as also practiced by... pretty much no modern ruleset.

Or, put more bluntly, go play some historicals. The good ones all use generic weapon profiles and still make different nations play differently. If a game only distinguishes between WW2 Germans and Americans by having minutely different stats on their weapons, that's a red flag, not a model to emulate.

100% this.

In GW's currently best game MESBG everything from hobbits to Uruk-Hai use the same weapons and armour. Even the mighty superhumans of Numenor that existed 3000 years before Saruman and Isengard turned to evil use the same rules for swords, shields, bows, horses and armour as the latter Uruk-Hai.

Besides the like 1 special weapon per faction, Narsil for Elendil, Anduril for Aragorn, Orcrist for Thorin/Legolas all models use the same simple list of weapons and equipment:
Handweapons (like Axes, Swords, Picks, Clubs etc that have a special rule that adds about a 15% bonus in the right situation over another version so you can if you want play all the weapons as not having special rules and it will have minimal impact on a game)
Two handed versions of the above weapons that just add a +1 to wound modifier but also adds a -1 to duel modifier and prevents using shield.
Hand-and-a-half versions of weapons can switch between one hand or 2h at will.
Spears that have no special rules and just lets the back rank models support with 1 attack.
Pike's are like spears but you can support in 2 ranks but cant use shields or ranged weapons without a penalty and you risk getting trapped from being in a too tight formation.
Lances give +1 to wound on mount when charging.
Warspear is a Lance while mounted and Spear when on foot
Monsters/creatures without above weapons just uses claws which have no special rules at all.

Like 95% of all models or more use those above weapon profiles for melee. Elves get an extra modifier on theirs that help them win fights. Some special weapons (Elendil's or Durin's weapons for example) can ignore the 2h penalty. Harad/Serpent Horde have poisoned weapons so can reroll 1s to wound.

Shooting weapons have a similar list as above. Shooting range for all the different bows and crossbows is 18"-24" and Strength value only varies from S2 to S4. Throwing weapons is S3 and 6" or 8" in range and those 2 categories combined is 99% of all shooting in the game. Bows can move up to 1/2 movement and shoot but suffers a hit penalty if not standing still. Crossbows can't move and shoot at all. Throwing weapons can be used after moving full or when charging. That was ranged summed up.

Armour gives +1 defense. Shield gives +1 defense and a shielding action. Heavy Armour gives +2 defense and besides dwarves that have slightly different equipment those 3 defensive options are used by 99% of models (including some dwarves). Glorfindel have a heavy armour with a worthless bonus against monsters and Frodo/Bilbo have the mithril coat that gives them +3 defense. Corsair crossbows have a special shield as well but that is pretty much it.

The 3 most expensive and most powerful models in the game is Smaug (700pts), Sauron (400pts) and the Balrog (350pts) and the common game size is 450-800 or so points. So these guys are way more powerful compared to the average than even a Primarch in 40k.
The main evil Sauron himself have some really impressive equipment. His armour is just a Heavy Armour and his melee weapon is just a normal mace. "Heavy armour, mace and The One Ring. " That is his literal wargear list copier from the rule book.
The Balrog, Durin's Bane, also have a pretty amazing equipment list: "Giant flaming sword and a fiery lash." Sounds impressive right? That "Giant Flaming Sword" is so impressive and special that it has 0 special rules and is played just as a normal sword. The fiery lash is special though and can drag enemies.
But what about the most expensive model in the game that is too expensive to even play at the most prestigious mesbg event of the year (ArdaCon is 650pts), he must have some amazing equipment right? "Razor-sharp teeth and massive talons" is all that Smaug has for weapons and they have 0 special rules and just there to inform he isn't unarmed (-1 to duel and -1 to wound).

There isn't a good reason when it comes to game mechanics to have so bloated weapon profiles as 40k. Last time I played 40k about a month ago I went 2-1-2 and I didn't even bother having my opponents tell me their weapon stats since it had been 1,5 years since I last played 40k and there was no way I would know how to counter any of it with no prep time. I just had to trust they weren't playing anything wrong or trying to deceive me because in 2,5h there is no reasonable way I would have time to double check it all and play the game without running out of time. Me playing Blood Angels/Marines with a 2y old codex at least the opponents knew what my models did. I could go back and play 4th or 5th ed 40k or 6-7th WFB after not having played those games for close to 15 years and still be confident an opponent wouldn't be able to trick me intentionally or not with wrong weapon rules since there were just so few of them. Would barely need to have a run down before the game what they have in their army to understand it.

 vict0988 wrote:
My post very specifically said that I would get rid of the regular bolt rifle. I don't see any fluff that suggests that bolt rifles should be superior to bolters,

It's there, I'm simply talking from a mindset of consolidating the Intercessor and Tactical profiles