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.

I must say I do like the old differences between autogun, lasgun and bolter. I guess the modern equivalent is
Autogun, range 36", rapid fire 1, str 3, ap 0
Lasgun, range 24", rapid fire 1, str 3, ap -1
Bolt gun, range 24", rapid fire 1, str 4, ap -1

Not sure if it makes the autogun too good though...

It's like you saw how good Infantry were on offense and you thought to yourself, "How can I make them even better at shooting?"

Boltgun should be AP-1, (Cause thats what it should have been from the start, just like marines should be 2W, 2A )

The other distinction isn't needed, lasguns for all intents and purposes should be the same as autoguns.

When those were the stats of Imperial weapons, Xenos weapons stats were similarly better. Would you also revert those weapons, too?

The_Real_Chris wrote:
I must say I do like the old differences between autogun, lasgun and bolter. I guess the modern equivalent is
Autogun, range 36", rapid fire 1, str 3, ap 0
Lasgun, range 24", rapid fire 1, str 3, ap -1
Bolt gun, range 24", rapid fire 1, str 4, ap -1

Not sure if it makes the autogun too good though...

This you getting in your posr CA2018 Guard need buffed demand so people object less when you claim they need to be buffed after becoming 5ppm?

Lasguns are weirdly good at killing elite models as it is. Giving them better AP seems like it would be abusable.

Those values are pretty much what they were in 2nd. Except for the 36" range autoguns.

While you’re making ranges longer, everything should have an extra 6” of range. And a range band so shooting is actually weaker mid range than it is now.

That sounds a bit like kill team. Maybe we can split the difference and keep things the same range with no modifiers.


-1 ap las is too good for the points

-1 ap bolters are simultaneously too bad and too good.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Boltgun should be AP-1, (Cause thats what it should have been from the start, just like marines should be 2W, 2A )

I just hate how impotent that is.

pelicaniforce wrote:
While you’re making ranges longer, everything should have an extra 6” of range. And a range band so shooting is actually weaker mid range than it is now.

That sounds a bit like kill team. Maybe we can split the difference and keep things the same range with no modifiers.


-1 ap las is too good for the points

-1 ap bolters are simultaneously too bad and too good.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Boltgun should be AP-1, (Cause thats what it should have been from the start, just like marines should be 2W, 2A )

I just hate how impotent that is.

? What do you mean. Marines should have had primaris stats, and obviously primaris cost (When they are costed correctly). I ain't advocating for primaris statline at norrmal marine point costs.

The problem of the boltgun isnt it's AP.

Rather that the Rate of fire is not equal to the rate of fire that other things get when accounting for points.

a 5PPM Guardsmen has a str 3 gun, while a 13PPM astartes with a boltgun has str 4. This isn't bad when you see this in it's base form of only 1v1.

But when you add the standard numbers of the units then you start to see the difference.

Those same 5PPM guardsmen, are only 50 points for a unit of 10, while the astartes is 130.

Multiply that over an army and suddenly you see that the ratio of Lasguns to boltguns are almost 3 to 1. That is insane to think about as you are essentially getting 3 times the fire rate out of the same points as a gun with +1 str difference.

A +1 str difference is not worth getting 1/3 the amount of guns.

Even if you changed all their guns to storm bolters, which is double the fire rate of the boltgun you only get 6.5 points per boltgun, which still makes the ratio of lasguns vs storm bolters a 2 to 1. It's still not really much of a difference


This is also not putting in the fact that the firepower of the guardsmen is spread out over massive numbers. Astartes only have 10 guys per squad, so losing even one guy is devastating compared to loosing one in a guardsmen squad.

In a game where firepower is king, having massive numbers is a massive strategic advantage

mchammadad wrote:
The problem of the boltgun isnt it's AP.

Rather that the Rate of fire is not equal to the rate of fire that other things get when accounting for points.

a 5PPM Guardsmen has a str 3 gun, while a 13PPM astartes with a boltgun has str 4. This isn't bad when you see this in it's base form of only 1v1.

But when you add the standard numbers of the units then you start to see the difference.

Those same 5PPM guardsmen, are only 50 points for a unit of 10, while the astartes is 130.

Multiply that over an army and suddenly you see that the ratio of Lasguns to boltguns are almost 3 to 1. That is insane to think about as you are essentially getting 3 times the fire rate out of the same points as a gun with +1 str difference.

A +1 str difference is not worth getting 1/3 the amount of guns.

Even if you changed all their guns to storm bolters, which is double the fire rate of the boltgun you only get 6.5 points per boltgun, which still makes the ratio of lasguns vs storm bolters a 2 to 1. It's still not really much of a difference


This is also not putting in the fact that the firepower of the guardsmen is spread out over massive numbers. Astartes only have 10 guys per squad, so losing even one guy is devastating compared to loosing one in a guardsmen squad.

In a game where firepower is king, having massive numbers is a massive strategic advantage

Your right, but its what they should be. Volume of fire being the catch all for things is an entire nother problem that shouldn't be fixed directly on the marine stat line.

Guardsmen are a better unit than tacticals.

Keeping in mind that, vs each other, a lasgun hits 3/4 as often as a Bolter, wounds 3/4 as often, and is lethal 1/2 as often, a lasgun is 9/32 as effective. Roughly 28%, factoring a combination of offence and defensive ability.

Comparing 4 pts to 13, that would be 30%. In a vacuum, the two models are accurately costed. However, the increased board control that Guardsmen possess, increased access to upgrades (even if those upgrades are less valuable to them), and more efficient CP generation make the guardsmen more valuable.

Additionally, powerful weaponry is as lethal (or nearly so) to Marines as it is to Guardsmen, which makes powerful weaponry more cost effective vs Marines AND other high value targets. This skews the meta to desire powerful weaponry... which is inefficient at killing Guardsmen.

As such, GEQ need to be more expensive to increase the efficiency of powerful weaponry against them, while MEQ need to be less expensive to reduce the efficiency of powerful weaponry against them.

As I’ve stated repeatedly in other threads, MEQ are fine as they are. They just need to have points reductions to make them viable on a battlefield full of Plasmaguns, Battle Cannons, and similar weaponry. I’ve also pointed out, that the only way to make an efficient horde control weapon is high volume, S4, with a +1 to save weapon. A MEQ with +1 to their save survives 200% as often, while a GEQ with +1 save survives 133% as often.

And a Daemon survives 100% as often, unless it affects invulns.

Or a Termi survives 100% as often, unless it allows for autopassing.

 greatbigtree wrote:
,a lasgun hits 3/4 as often as a Bolter, wounds 3/4 as often, and is lethal 1/2 as often

And what exactly is "lethal 1/2 as often"?

Dandelion wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
,a lasgun hits 3/4 as often as a Bolter, wounds 3/4 as often, and is lethal 1/2 as often

And what exactly is "lethal 1/2 as often"?

3+ save vs. 5+ save.

1/3 chance of killing versus 2/3.

Sir Heckington wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Boltgun should be AP-1, (Cause thats what it should have been from the start, just like marines should be 2W, 2A )

I just hate how impotent that is.

? What do you mean. Marines should have had primaris stats, and obviously primaris cost (When they are costed correctly). I ain't advocating for primaris statline at norrmal marine point costs.

that stat line is so lopsidedly pointless. There have been two really good posts about it being ineffective in game. It’s also bad from a background or fluff-marine perspective. The output from an individual marine with that profile is pathetic, it’s not at all matches to this hyperbolic idea of super marines. One of the reasons marines are so tough is they can kill everything in front of them before it hurts them, but that stat line doesn’t.

Then nobody has mentioned so far, because this is a weapon thread not an overall marine stat thread, that marines come in units with upgrade weapons. thats assuming you want to roughly keep traditional marines just with primaries stats. You should, they’ve always had heavy and specials, that’s what most people have built, and it’s what militaries usually do. The smallest unit usually has a main squad weapon it uses to hose down whatever its main target is, and the rest of the unit is there to protect that gun from being flanked from the directions it’s not pointing in. You’ve implied your raise the points on a marine with those stats, but that just makes the actual purpose of the unit, the upgrade gun, even less effective compared to the number of units in the army.

But let’s go back to how lopsided the individual marine is. It’s pathetic, it cants fight its way out of a wet paper guard platoon. Even at 13 points per model a -1 ap bolter isn’t good.

Of course, ap -1 bolters essentially mean you’ve given marines a 4+ standard save in 45% of games.

But the real reason it isn’t good is that it’s a Potemkin buff, a red herring. It doesn’t do much against monsters, it doesn’t do much against hordes, and it also doesn’t make the unit more effective because the unit is in a large portion built around a special weapon that is at best just the same as before if the per model points don’t go up.

Sir Heckington wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
The problem of the boltgun isnt it's AP.

Rather that the Rate of fire is not equal to the rate of fire that other things get when accounting for points.

a 5PPM Guardsmen has a str 3 gun, while a 13PPM astartes with a boltgun has str 4. This isn't bad when you see this in it's base form of only 1v1.

But when you add the standard numbers of the units then you start to see the difference.

Those same 5PPM guardsmen, are only 50 points for a unit of 10, while the astartes is 130.

Multiply that over an army and suddenly you see that the ratio of Lasguns to boltguns are almost 3 to 1. That is insane to think about as you are essentially getting 3 times the fire rate out of the same points as a gun with +1 str difference.

A +1 str difference is not worth getting 1/3 the amount of guns.

Even if you changed all their guns to storm bolters, which is double the fire rate of the boltgun you only get 6.5 points per boltgun, which still makes the ratio of lasguns vs storm bolters a 2 to 1. It's still not really much of a difference


This is also not putting in the fact that the firepower of the guardsmen is spread out over massive numbers. Astartes only have 10 guys per squad, so losing even one guy is devastating compared to loosing one in a guardsmen squad.

In a game where firepower is king, having massive numbers is a massive strategic advantage

Your right, but its what they should be. Volume of fire being the catch all for things is an entire nother problem that shouldn't be fixed directly on the marine stat line.

And i totally will admit that this is the guardsmen's niche thing. Numbers for guard is one of their basic fundamental things that define them as an army.

The only problem i see is that smaller, more "elite" style armies are being swept away because of the sheer scale of what is happening in this edition.

This edition was one where a few vital things happened:

Anyone can wound anything

Everything has wounds now

Rapid fire can actually be modified (i.e Rapid fire 1,2,ect.)

Command points

These things people would agree define a lot of key changes in 8th edition compared to others. And one of the points (Rapid fire) actually causes problems.

This single change fundamentally made the bread and butter gun of most armies dish out more firepower, without any additional cost tacked on for ability that provide this while costing extra for units that have to purchase it as an upgrade.

Let me explain:

A storm bolter cost an extra 2 points over a boltgun, yet the fire rate is doubled. A lasgun can be modified to do double it's output at no extra cost to the unit. Instead an additional unit (Commander) is needed to access this.

The difference between the two is that one is attached to the cost of the unit, making it more expensive. While the other one relies on another unit entirely, something that doesn't add any more cost to the unit in question.

Now some people would say "But your paying for a commander to use the ability" And you'll be right. But from a tactical and logistic point of view, you are actually diluting the extra cost by investing in something that is independent of the unit you initially brought. So if you loss the unit (The guardsmen squad) that extra cost is still not lost because it applied no extra cost to the unit for the upgrade. But with a tactical squad, each model in the unit makes you lose those extra 2 points every time someone bites it.

This leads to scenario's where a 50 point unit, or two units of 50. Take out 130 points of Space marines and would probably lose maybe 20-30 points of guardsmen. Yet those guardsmen still have the firepower of a squad that is double is points. All because an ability provided by a small investment in an independent unit gives them the benefit

mchammadad wrote:
This edition was one where a few vital things happened:

Anyone can wound anything

Everything has wounds now

Rapid fire can actually be modified (i.e Rapid fire 1,2,ect.)

Command points

You missed two of the most important ones:

1) AP is a save modifier instead of a binary value, and a lot of weapons lost AP. The guardsman with a 5+ save used to have effectively no save against everything but other guardsmen, now that 5+ save is relevant. That's a significant increase in durability for horde units without a matching increase in points. Meanwhile elite infantry still have no (or a 6+ at best) save against anti-elite infantry, but gained nothing against the small arms fire that was allowing them a full save in previous editions.

2) Template weapons are gone. In past editions taking a giant horde of infantry meant being extremely vulnerable to template weapons. Unless you spaced everything out at maximum coherency (often difficult and costly) those hordes could be removed by the handful. A single Basilisk would be hitting 5-10+ models, wounding on a 2+, and removing them with no save. Now that Basilisk is firing ~4.5 shots and hitting on a 4+, killing ~2 horde models per turn. The anti-horde counter no longer exists.

Looking at the firepower of horde units is missing the point. That firepower existed in previous editions, and offensively nothing meaningful has changed. FRFSRF still existed, wounding anything is of marginal value when it's so ineffective that you're almost always better off shooting at the things you could already wound in previous editions, etc. The core of the issue is that hordes no longer have the "remove models by the handful" disadvantage to balance their offense.

The above really drives to the hard of many of the horde balancing issues in 8th.

But to get back to ahy does a bolter suck, actually it's not the bolter that sucks is the chump carrying it.

If a bolter truly sucked why are SoB working for so long on Index rules?

Would Infantry squads suck if you gave them bolters?

The weapon isn't the issue its the platform you bring it on being overpriced that makes them feel bad.

No, the bolter also sucks. The problem is that STR 4 is a modest increase over STR 3, while having AP 0 instead of old-style AP 5 takes away its former advantage as a horde-removal weapon. Yes, infantry squads would love it if they got bolters for free, but they wouldn't pay very much for them.

If bolters had ap -2 specifically against 5+ armor I think the game wouldn’t change very much at all.



It’s true the armor modifiers have lots of problems and it prevents people from house ruling the Good Rule:

 Haravikk wrote:

shyzo wrote:
If you could change 5 things in the core rules, what would those be?

Hmm, tough to decide what my top 5 would be, but here's a few:

1. Armour Saves are only negated if AP is less than the armour value, if AP is equal it's a -2 penalty to the save, and if the AP is one worse (higher) then it's a -1. This means that AP4 weapons reduce marines to 4+, while AP3 reduces them to 5+, and AP2 or better punches straight through. It makes weapons with an AP value that's close a bit more useful, particularly AP4 weapons which are currently pretty underwhelming thanks to the large amounts of 3+ armour out there.

pelicaniforce wrote:
If bolters had ap -2 specifically against 5+ armor I think the game wouldn’t change very much at all.



It’s true the armor modifiers have lots of problems and it prevents people from house ruling the Good Rule:

 Haravikk wrote:

shyzo wrote:
If you could change 5 things in the core rules, what would those be?

Hmm, tough to decide what my top 5 would be, but here's a few:

1. Armour Saves are only negated if AP is less than the armour value, if AP is equal it's a -2 penalty to the save, and if the AP is one worse (higher) then it's a -1. This means that AP4 weapons reduce marines to 4+, while AP3 reduces them to 5+, and AP2 or better punches straight through. It makes weapons with an AP value that's close a bit more useful, particularly AP4 weapons which are currently pretty underwhelming thanks to the large amounts of 3+ armour out there.

Tygre wrote:
Those values are pretty much what they were in 2nd. Except for the 36" range autoguns.

I thought that was the 2nd ed stats? maybe I am confusing myself with rogue trader stats...

I was away from 40k for a fair old while

But I do remember autoguns being no save mod and lasguns -1 because they were, well, ray guns...

Sir Heckington wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
If bolters had ap -2 specifically against 5+ armor I think the game wouldn’t change very much at all.



It’s true the armor modifiers have lots of problems and it prevents people from house ruling the Good Rule:

 Haravikk wrote:

shyzo wrote:
If you could change 5 things in the core rules, what would those be?

Hmm, tough to decide what my top 5 would be, but here's a few:

1. Armour Saves are only negated if AP is less than the armour value, if AP is equal it's a -2 penalty to the save, and if the AP is one worse (higher) then it's a -1. This means that AP4 weapons reduce marines to 4+, while AP3 reduces them to 5+, and AP2 or better punches straight through. It makes weapons with an AP value that's close a bit more useful, particularly AP4 weapons which are currently pretty underwhelming thanks to the large amounts of 3+ armour out there.

This is nice.

So against guardsmen:

Bolters would go from -0 ap to -2 ap
Heavy bolters would go from -1 ap to -2 ap
Stalker Boltguns would stay the same
Plasma would stay the same

Against Tau:
Bolters would become Ap-1
Heavy bolters would go from -1 ap to -2 ap
Stalker Boltrifles would go to -3 AP
Plasma guns would stay the same

Against Marines:
Bolters would stay the same
Heavy Bolters would stay the same.
Stalker Boltrifles would stay the same
Plasma Guns would go to -4 AP


I like it. I really like it actually. It would make terminators SV2 really meaningful, while still not being completely invincible to everything that's not AP2.

That's a terrible idea for the AP system. It's way too close to the all-or-nothing we had before, which everyone agrees was a bad idea.

This is why I'd love to see most AP-1/AP-2 weapons go down a point of AP. Low-AP high-ROF is just too good.

If decent-ROF AP were a lot more expensive, Tac Marines would be a lot more durable. GW made stronger anti-horde weapons AP-1, as if that makes it a better weapon for tearing Flak Armor or Tshirt saves. It has a *much* larger impact on Power Armor than Flak Armor.

Bharring wrote:
This is why I'd love to see most AP-1/AP-2 weapons go down a point of AP. Low-AP high-ROF is just too good.

If decent-ROF AP were a lot more expensive, Tac Marines would be a lot more durable. GW made stronger anti-horde weapons AP-1, as if that makes it a better weapon for tearing Flak Armor or Tshirt saves. It has a *much* larger impact on Power Armor than Flak Armor.

The durability of Marines isn't the issue right now. They actually GAINED durability in most instances.

The strict issue offensive power. They're priced like they're next to a reroll and you pay a premium to even use your HQ dudes to get a reroll.

More durability means more firepower over time.

Further, if most of the AP-1/-2 weapons went down in AP, Bolters are suddenly a little better by comparision, but importantly the one special/heavy and maybe a Combi have more impact.

Bharring wrote:
This is why I'd love to see most AP-1/AP-2 weapons go down a point of AP. Low-AP high-ROF is just too good.

If decent-ROF AP were a lot more expensive, Tac Marines would be a lot more durable. GW made stronger anti-horde weapons AP-1, as if that makes it a better weapon for tearing Flak Armor or Tshirt saves. It has a *much* larger impact on Power Armor than Flak Armor.

But that doesn't fix marine offense. Marines are a double-edged sword of suck. You don't even have to shoot them, because they can't hurt you anyway.

I think GW intentionally made 8th very lethal. They're not doubling back on that. Cheaper marines is the only way to simultaneously fix both problems.

Marines can hurt plenty of things if they're ignored. Just not enough to be worth their points.

Most of the units I play would hate to be within 12" of a Marine squad that hasn't been at least trimmed a bit.

Bharring wrote:
More durability means more firepower over time.

Further, if most of the AP-1/-2 weapons went down in AP, Bolters are suddenly a little better by comparision, but importantly the one special/heavy and maybe a Combi have more impact.

How durable does that mean though? This is a game that lasts 6 turns.

Consider the pricing of Plague Marines to the regular Marine. For a pittance they gain +1T and a FNP. They're durable as hell for the price compared to regular Marines.

You ask yourself why people aren't running them and I can easily point out that issue. People want to spend points on screening units and killing units. They don't fulfill those roles. Fixing them is easy: give all their weapons the Plague Weapon rule and give them Vet stats (because they ARE Vets of the long war after all).