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.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Breton wrote:
I guess I have a question: What makes you all think the various different bolters have a different ammo? Maybe when the S changes its different but most of these variants probably use the same ammunition.

I mean you can, and some people specifically do get a Lever Action rifle in the same caliber as their revolver. You know like bolt pistols and bolters?

The different performance characteristics indicate different ammo types. Yes, barrel length will change performance, but the big jump is between pistol and rifle. Whether a weapon is lever action or select-fire doesn't change that.

My point was that cartridges are shared across multiple platforms - a .44 magnum revolver and a .44 magnum lever action use the same rounds. Some firearms can use multiple cartridges - There's a revolver that can fire .45 Long Colt, .454 Casull, and .410 Shotshells. A rifle shooting .460 S&W will shoot flatter and further than the revolver, plus it will be more accurate (with iron sights) because the distance between the front and rear post is further apart without going too far. As far as I know, no fluff has told us that a Bolter Carbine, boltstorm gauntlet, etc doesn't use a bolter shell. We're making assumptions that could also be explained by barrel length or other features.

Breton wrote:
My point was that cartridges are shared across multiple platforms - a .44 magnum revolver and a .44 magnum lever action use the same rounds. Some firearms can use multiple cartridges - There's a revolver that can fire .45 Long Colt, .454 Casull, and .410 Shotshells. A rifle shooting .460 S&W will shoot flatter and further than the revolver, plus it will be more accurate (with iron sights) because the distance between the front and rear post is further apart without going too far. As far as I know, no fluff has told us that a Bolter Carbine, boltstorm gauntlet, etc doesn't use a bolter shell. We're making assumptions that could also be explained by barrel length or other features.

A small difference in barrel length between a rifle and a carbine does not justify a stat change in a game where a basic human's bare fists are S3 AP0 D1, a human with a sword or axe is S3 AP0 D1, and a genetically engineered super-soldier in powered armor that massively enhances his strength is only S4 AP0 D1.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
theyre physically different but they all are roughly the same in function and capability. Being a D6 based game you need pretty large variations between things to justify a differing stat…after all a marine is S4 while a guardsman is S3, despite the vast difference in strength.

A pistol grip vs straight stock, or an extra 2-6 inches of barrel length makes no practical difference in a lasgun.

A Kantrael-pattern lasgun is a full-auto laser machine gun with upwards of a hundred shots in a magazine that saturates targets like a recoilless take on a modern assault rifle. A Lucius-pattern lasgun is a slow-firing semi-only cannon with less than a dozen shots per magazine but blows holes in things. They get the same stats.

Meanwhile changing the barrel length on a bolter, deciding whether or not to add a scope, and/or fitting a drum magazine instead of a standard stick mag warrants 3,427 individual variant profiles.

I don't have a problem with saying a lasgun is a lasgun because infantry small arms are functionally equivalent when you're managing a company of troops. I have a problem with GW deciding some animals are more equal than others and writing literally pages of distinct statlines for functionally-equivalent weapons, to the detriment of the game. Save the Oculus Instigation Redeemer Boltgun Of Sundering (+4) crap for a skirmish game or RPG.

 Conscript #760714 wrote:

Breton wrote:
My point was that cartridges are shared across multiple platforms - a .44 magnum revolver and a .44 magnum lever action use the same rounds. Some firearms can use multiple cartridges - There's a revolver that can fire .45 Long Colt, .454 Casull, and .410 Shotshells. A rifle shooting .460 S&W will shoot flatter and further than the revolver, plus it will be more accurate (with iron sights) because the distance between the front and rear post is further apart without going too far. As far as I know, no fluff has told us that a Bolter Carbine, boltstorm gauntlet, etc doesn't use a bolter shell. We're making assumptions that could also be explained by barrel length or other features.

A small difference in barrel length between a rifle and a carbine does not justify a stat change in a game where a basic human's bare fists are S3 AP0 D1, a human with a sword or axe is S3 AP0 D1, and a genetically engineered super-soldier in powered armor that massively enhances his strength is only S4 AP0 D1.

Considering most often the difference is between Rapid Fire/Assault or 24" range vs 30" range I suppose I'd say the 460 Revolver/Rifle bear that out. I'd guess S and/or (part of) D are the size of the round, range is the barrel length, (part of) D and AP are probably the firing type (Heavy is more controlled than Rapid Fire is more controlled than Assault etc, and its all a bit abtract of course.

Not replying to any particular message but I have skimmed the entire thread, just thought I would give my 2 cents.

It would probably be better for the book keeping side of the game (as far as purely weapons profiles are concerned) if some weapons were condensed into a "basic" profile, and then certain units gain different rules for them thanks to bits of wargear.

So a bolt rifle could be a bolter, but intercessors have a special rule that gives their bolters +6" range and a point of AP. And so on and so forth. This obviously means that datasheets get busier with special rules, but tidies up the wargear section.

From an Ork perspective, here's a load of weapons that could be condensed into a basic profile rather than having a 2 or more almost identical weapons;

Twin Big Shootas - 2x Big Shootas
Kopta Rokkits - 2x Rokkit Launchas
Rokkit Kannon - 3x Rokkit Launchas
Power Snappa - Power Klaw
Snagga Klaw - Power Klaw
Burna Bottles - Stikkbombs
Wing Missiles - Rokkit Launcha
Kan Klaw - Dread Klaw
Kustom Mega Zappa - Kustom Mega Kannon

Then you chuck a line on each datasheet that needs it, like the Morkanaut gets d6+3 shots with its KMK rather than D6, Defftrike gets a slugga in addition to the Klaw, etc.

That's 9 entries removed from the Ork Weapons List, and all at the expense on a handful of lines of text on certain datasheets.

Not sure if that would work across the board for all armies, but you could certainly bin off a few denominations of bolter.

Breton wrote:
Considering most often the difference is between Rapid Fire/Assault or 24" range vs 30" range I suppose I'd say the 460 Revolver/Rifle bear that out. I'd guess S and/or (part of) D are the size of the round, range is the barrel length, (part of) D and AP are probably the firing type (Heavy is more controlled than Rapid Fire is more controlled than Assault etc, and its all a bit abtract of course.

The difference isn't between a rifle and a pistol, though - it's between different lengths of rifle where the ballistic performance changes would be marginal at best.

A better comparison is the M4, M16 and the SAW, all of which use the same cartridge and range and rate of fire are what sets them apart.

The various sub-variants are like the FAMAS, SA-80 and weapons chambered in 5.56 but with different ergonomics. In a game setting, they're pretty much the same - some even use the same magazines. Not enough to justify separate entries unless cost is part of the game (like in an RPG).

 Afrodactyl wrote:


Not sure if that would work across the board for all armies, but you could certainly bin off a few denominations of bolter.

It works for orks, because all their builds are based around spaming stuff. 9 buggies, 100 boys, full slots filled grot weapon platforms etc. The shota on a single ork doesn't matter, because he has low chance to hit with it. Now of course if a basic shota was turned in 2 shot str 5 2D weapon of doom it would have huge impact on orc list building, and we would see hordes of orks in ork lists. For marines that run a very tight game with what they can actualy fit in to an army, the quality of weapons matters a lot. And of course a marine player would rather have a bolt weapon, that fits his army and it something else then a bullet sponge. Most of the time bolte weapons are only important to top marine armies. Assault bolters in early 9th WS lists, a chapter specific stratagem which makes an option no one else uses good for that specific army.

But in the end the biggest hurdles to the simplification, is the fact that models for those weapons exist, in every marine box GW produced since 8th ed start. Plus if someone has problem with the fact that all marine weapons exist in an assault, rapid fire and heavy mode, consistent over multiple weapon times like bolt weapons, plasma weapons etc then I really worry how those people remember the rules for other factions. Playing against something like an Inari soup or Mechanicus, must be a horrible expiriance, even if one of those armies is really good and the other one is the opposit of that.

I am pretty sure GW have not treated the weapon stats as reflective of the weapon alone for some time, particularly for guns unique to a specific unit. They roll abilities of the user into the weapon.

I think the best example is the GSC Kellermorph, which uses a trio of beat-up stub pistols with a statline better than a revered Astartes bolt pistol lovingly maintained for centuries. Clearly the pistol statline is supposed to represent the abilities of the Kellermorph to place unerringly accurate shots into weak points- the weapon is damage 2 because it always hits the visor slit or something.

I don't like this, I think such abilities should be reflected in the statline and special rules of the unit and not leaked out into weapon profiles. However, that is how GW is frequently doing it. So rather than the sneaky Phobos Marine having a bolt carbine and also getting a special rule to ignore cover on shooting attacks, they get a special ignores cover bolt carbine.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Not replying to any particular message but I have skimmed the entire thread, just thought I would give my 2 cents.

It would probably be better for the book keeping side of the game (as far as purely weapons profiles are concerned) if some weapons were condensed into a "basic" profile, and then certain units gain different rules for them thanks to bits of wargear.

So a bolt rifle could be a bolter, but intercessors have a special rule that gives their bolters +6" range and a point of AP. And so on and so forth. This obviously means that datasheets get busier with special rules, but tidies up the wargear section.

From an Ork perspective, here's a load of weapons that could be condensed into a basic profile rather than having a 2 or more almost identical weapons;

Twin Big Shootas - 2x Big Shootas
Kopta Rokkits - 2x Rokkit Launchas
Rokkit Kannon - 3x Rokkit Launchas
Power Snappa - Power Klaw
Snagga Klaw - Power Klaw
Burna Bottles - Stikkbombs
Wing Missiles - Rokkit Launcha
Kan Klaw - Dread Klaw
Kustom Mega Zappa - Kustom Mega Kannon

Then you chuck a line on each datasheet that needs it, like the Morkanaut gets d6+3 shots with its KMK rather than D6, Defftrike gets a slugga in addition to the Klaw, etc.

That's 9 entries removed from the Ork Weapons List, and all at the expense on a handful of lines of text on certain datasheets.

Not sure if that would work across the board for all armies, but you could certainly bin off a few denominations of bolter.

While I agree in principle that 40K needs less weapons, I don't agree with extensive weapon upgrades via special rules. The datasheets become a different sort of mess if you are constantly changing the rules for Bolter.

This is why GW has been slowly changing weapons in codexes from Bolter or Battlecannon to some bespoke version of said weapon. That way, they can change the bespoke weapon in codex A without changing it in Codex B.

That being said, I still want to see consistency. If a Bolt Carbine is 24" Assault 2 S4 AP 0 D 1, then every weapon calling itself a Bolt Carbine better be really close to that with minor changes.

Side Note: It is rather funny that the Bolt Carbine statline is the old Storm Bolter statline.

As almost everyone has already mentioned: GW really need to reduce the bloat (mostly in the marine codex). There's no need for 100 different bolters. Intercessors should just get one weapon option (a boltgun - yes, the same one tacticals have).

However, to the original topic of this thread: GW should absolutely not simplify the weapon categories. Instead, make the various weapon types meaningful again. Heavy: move OR shoot. Assault: move and shoot. Rapid fire: double shots at half range, but no assaulting after.
More limitations make for more choices during the game - and thus make the game more interesting.

 AtoMaki wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
autoguns have always been an option(until now) for infantry squads and they had the same exact profiles as lasguns

They haven't. IIRC, Infantry Squads didn't have an autogun option even in the Rogue Trader days when they could take conversion beamers and other crazy stuff. You are probably confusing them with the Renegades & Heretics version.

I’ll double check, but i know for a fact last edition veterans could take autoguns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
theyre physically different but they all are roughly the same in function and capability. Being a D6 based game you need pretty large variations between things to justify a differing stat…after all a marine is S4 while a guardsman is S3, despite the vast difference in strength.

A pistol grip vs straight stock, or an extra 2-6 inches of barrel length makes no practical difference in a lasgun.

A Kantrael-pattern lasgun is a full-auto laser machine gun with upwards of a hundred shots in a magazine that saturates targets like a recoilless take on a modern assault rifle. A Lucius-pattern lasgun is a slow-firing semi-only cannon with less than a dozen shots per magazine but blows holes in things. They get the same stats.

Meanwhile changing the barrel length on a bolter, deciding whether or not to add a scope, and/or fitting a drum magazine instead of a standard stick mag warrants 3,427 individual variant profiles.

I don't have a problem with saying a lasgun is a lasgun because infantry small arms are functionally equivalent when you're managing a company of troops. I have a problem with GW deciding some animals are more equal than others and writing literally pages of distinct statlines for functionally-equivalent weapons, to the detriment of the game. Save the Oculus Instigation Redeemer Boltgun Of Sundering (+4) crap for a skirmish game or RPG.

and your assuming I’m defending these endless bolt rifle stats? No. I’m literally pointing that minor differences shouldn’t justify stat differences.

As I posted previously I’d rather have force swords/axes/staves should all be the same stat profiles
Same with power swords/axes/staves/knives/etc

 alextroy wrote:
While I agree in principle that 40K needs less weapons, I don't agree with extensive weapon upgrades via special rules. The datasheets become a different sort of mess if you are constantly changing the rules for Bolter.

As I said, it tidies up the wargear section of the book but makes the datasheet messier.

Without being a bit bland and saying "everyone gets the same weapons and no rules to differentiate these different units otherwise" there's not a great deal of options for having a concise, tidy wargear section and a concise, tidy datasheet.

All them rules gotta go somewhere I guess.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
autoguns have always been an option(until now) for infantry squads and they had the same exact profiles as lasguns

They haven't. IIRC, Infantry Squads didn't have an autogun option even in the Rogue Trader days when they could take conversion beamers and other crazy stuff. You are probably confusing them with the Renegades & Heretics version.

I’ll double check, but i know for a fact last edition veterans could take autoguns.

Veterans could take autoguns in 8th, it was by far the weirdest thing in that codex. I presume the intention was to use GSC neophytes as the base for the conversion. Very out of character for modern GW, shame they backtracked on it by removing veterans entirely. Veterans could not take autoguns for the preceding four editions or three codices. You have to go back to the first Imperial Guard codex of 3rd edition to find veterans who could take autoguns. It was dropped by the second codex of 3rd edition.

Infantry squads have never had the option.

 Haighus wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
autoguns have always been an option(until now) for infantry squads and they had the same exact profiles as lasguns

They haven't. IIRC, Infantry Squads didn't have an autogun option even in the Rogue Trader days when they could take conversion beamers and other crazy stuff. You are probably confusing them with the Renegades & Heretics version.

I’ll double check, but i know for a fact last edition veterans could take autoguns.

Veterans could take autoguns in 8th, it was by far the weirdest thing in that codex. I presume the intention was to use GSC neophytes as the base for the conversion. Very out of character for modern GW, shame they backtracked on it by removing veterans entirely. Veterans could not take autoguns for the preceding four editions or three codices. You have to go back to the first Imperial Guard codex of 3rd edition to find veterans who could take autoguns. It was dropped by the second codex of 3rd edition.

Infantry squads have never had the option.

that’s where most of my memories of the game are from so probably where I got it from.

When it comes to 40k the more simplification the better. It's just rule bloat upon rule bloat at this point.

Every codex could easily be reduced to 12 ish gun options, and 4 to 9 melee weapons, without losing anything of note.

The key factor here is complexity vs depth. 40k had complexity coming out of every pore in the form of hundreds of data sheets and weapons, all in the hopes that no one notices the lack of depth. When it comes to actual gameplay 40k is about as deep as a puddle; ye average board game has more nuanced and skill / decision based gameplay than 40k.

More mechanical variety in the game overall is good. The game mechanics cull that occured with creating 8th edition really messed up the purpose of a lot of weapon entries.

Fewer profiles would be beneficial, especially for the space marine line with it's bloated amount of bolter versions.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Every codex could easily be reduced to 12 ish gun options, and 4 to 9 melee weapons, without losing anything of note.

The key factor here is complexity vs depth. 40k had complexity coming out of every pore in the form of hundreds of data sheets and weapons, all in the hopes that no one notices the lack of depth. When it comes to actual gameplay 40k is about as deep as a puddle; ye average board game has more nuanced and skill / decision based gameplay than 40k.

Technically 40k is complicated but not complex...
Actually complex (or deep) games tend to limit complication, as it is very heard to do in a balanced way in a complex system. A lot of complex wargames will standardise weapons massively as it often isn't that important (which isn't what joe public think or indeed most 40k gamers).

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Technically 40k is complicated but not complex...
Actually complex (or deep) games tend to limit complication, as it is very heard to do in a balanced way in a complex system. A lot of complex wargames will standardise weapons massively as it often isn't that important (which isn't what joe public think or indeed most 40k gamers).

"Do you know what those are?"

"Those are rifles."

"How many types are there?"

"Just one, they're all bolt-action."

"That's not true. That's a Mauser. That one's an Enfield. That's a Mosin, over there is an Arisaka and that is a Carcano. This one here is an American rifle using a Mauser action. That's a Spanish Mauser using an older action and a diffferent caliber."

"But they all work basically the same, right? I mean at the platoon/company level, it's all about the same."

"If you ask a commander, yes. If you ask a collector, no."

"So who are we making these rules for, people who want to be collectors, or commanders?"

"Collectors. Each one has to be somehow different in the rules, but functionally be the same. Only way those nuts can be satisfied."

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

The_Real_Chris wrote:
Technically 40k is complicated but not complex...
Actually complex (or deep) games tend to limit complication, as it is very heard to do in a balanced way in a complex system. A lot of complex wargames will standardise weapons massively as it often isn't that important (which isn't what joe public think or indeed most 40k gamers).

"Do you know what those are?"

"Those are rifles."

"How many types are there?"

"Just one, they're all bolt-action."

"That's not true. That's a Mauser. That one's an Enfield. That's a Mosin, over there is an Arisaka and that is a Carcano. This one here is an American rifle using a Mauser action. That's a Spanish Mauser using an older action and a diffferent caliber."

"But they all work basically the same, right? I mean at the platoon/company level, it's all about the same."

"If you ask a commander, yes. If you ask a collector, no."

"So who are we making these rules for, people who want to be collectors, or commanders?"

"Collectors. Each one has to be somehow different in the rules, but functionally be the same. Only way those nuts can be satisfied."

Exalted.

"So what's the difference between the Russian infantry and the Germans?"

"Well, the Russians have Mosins, and the Germans have Mausers."

"What about their squad organization? Tactical-level leadership? Operational flexibility? Morale?"

"Nope, just Mosins versus Mausers. The Mosins have slightly higher velocity and the Mausers are quicker to cycle and reload."

"Okay, well let's simplify that to just 'bolt-action rifles', and then we can instead come up with rules for..."

"You're ruining the game! You're making those two completely different units identical! What's the point of making a WW2 game if you're not going to respect the lore?"

 catbarf wrote:
Exalted.

"So what's the difference between the Russian infantry and the Germans?"

"Well, the Russians have Mosins, and the Germans have Mausers."

"What about their squad organization? Tactical-level leadership? Operational flexibility? Morale?"

"Nope, just Mosins versus Mausers. The Mosins have slightly higher velocity and the Mausers are quicker to cycle and reload."

"Okay, well let's simplify that to just 'bolt-action rifles', and then we can instead come up with rules for..."

"You're ruining the game! You're making those two completely different units identical! What's the point of making a WW2 game if you're not going to respect the lore?"

It's mutual. LOL.