In 8th is a Bolter the wrong baseline for weaponry?

[Deathwalker]

A split off from the marine baseline stat comparison.

 

Do people feel that a:

24" range

Rapid fire 1

S 4

AP 0

Weapon should be the baseline for ranged attacks in 8th?

The reason I broke that down into line by line is that those are the "stat equivalents" to a troopers statline and messing with any off them alters the performance of the weapon in question (obviously).

Now, Str, being the main crossover with effectiveness, that's where you need to look hardest, then AP, then probably range, then type respectively (though, I am open to switching those two around as type adds to volume of attacks and range can be dealt with in the move phase)

 

So, is this the right baseline, or should some other weapon be the baseline, such as las/auto rifles?

Should some weapons have AP in the + range?

Should some weapons that have AP NOT have AP?

Given that S & T have no hard cap of 10 anymore what should happen to the S/T interactions of ranged weapons? Should it be opened up?

 

Thoughts people (and Xeno's filth)

[Ishagu]

I don't see the point in this discussion. The basic bolter is an adequate anti light-infantry weapon in the game and that's it.

[Deathwalker]

K-bye??

[Iron Father Ferrum]

If you accept the other thread's assertion that there are actually two baseline troops - the base human and the elite Space Marine - then it also stands to reason that there are two baselines for small arms. Given the fluff on the bolter and the fact that there is only a single point of differentiation between it and the lasgun, I feel like the bolter is indeed missing something. I'd like to see it, and by extension all bolt weapons, pick up an extra point of AP to represent the penetrating power of the weapon class and to stretch the gap between it and the lasgun a bit.

[Syrakul]

While I agree bolters should have AP -1 for its properties in the fluff, having the ‘main gun’ in the game have AP disparages the idea of armor in general. When its constantly being negated by a point.

 

Not that there cannot be ‘stronger’ weapons with AP0 like multilasers or whatnot.

 

As for giving them a buff, too late for 8th but if wound rolls of 6 did damage 2 or something to demonstrate the round exploding inside the target, but then would require application on all bolt weapons, which would push some up the power scale

[Commander Dawnstar]

Put simply: No, I don't think that the Bolter is the wrong weapon to serve as the baseline for infantry weaponry in 8th Edition.

 

The Bolter should represent the baseline for infantry weaponry in 40k because it and its kin are the most prevalent infantry weapons in 40k by an absolute country mile. All of the Space Marine factions, including the traitor marines, make use of Bolters of some flavour, the Bolter is the standard weapon of the Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence, and bolt weapons are available in some capacity to representatives of both the Astra Militarum and Inquisition. Pushing the Bolter to be something above the baseline potentially creates all manner of problems because it isn't just a small family of weapons in the hands of handful of infantry units belonging to a single faction. You suddenly have to deal with all manner of weirdness like how to approach Storm Bolters and Heavy Bolters, Primaris bolt weapons, Deathwatch Special Ammo, Inferno Bolts and the difficulties of balancing a weapon which can find its way into the hands of infantry at a wide range of price points ... and that's before you start thinking about whether all other factions' infantry and/or weapons need adjusting to help those armies at least be somewhat competitive with all those benefiting from these changes.

 

The Bolter having its current statline definitely falls short of the fantasy, especially now it's no longer AP5, but I'm not really sure how you would go about reinventing the Bolter without it having a massive ripple effect on the system. You could certainly look to position something else as the baseline if you looked to radically redefine the Space Marine and made them a far more elite army with their own unique Astartes Bolters (although you'd still have to resolve the issues with all those variants) but with the Bolter and its kin in the hands of so many armies and units I feel like it needs to be positioned as the thing everything else is compared to and makes slight variations on rather than something exceptional. Giving the Bolter an improved Strength or AP is not only buffing a huge swathe of units, it's also making life more difficult for Space Marines and other elite infantry unless you throw buffs their way to temper the power of your improved Bolters.

[Deathwalker]

If you accept the other thread's assertion that there are actually two baseline troops - the base human and the elite Space Marine - then it also stands to reason that there are two baselines for small arms. Given the fluff on the bolter and the fact that there is only a single point of differentiation between it and the lasgun, I feel like the bolter is indeed missing something. I'd like to see it, and by extension all bolt weapons, pick up an extra point of AP to represent the penetrating power of the weapon class and to stretch the gap between it and the lasgun a bit.

I don't think that is the assertion of the other thread. In fact, the main argument of the thread is that SM should not be used as the baseline at all. Additionally, I'm not talking about "small arms" but the raw stats of the weapon. Small arms is a non issue right now because there is nothing that defines "small arms" If you added a category beyond assault and rapid fire but before heavy, then sure, you could go "Assault and Rapid fire weapons" are considered small arms and you would have a niche for "standard weapons" that would work for that, getting extra AP, but loosing the movement factor to a degree to compensate. 

[Finkmilkana]

Giving a Bolter ap-1 in my opinion would only serve to increase the problems. The difference in killing power of ap-1 (over ap-) is greatest if firing against 2+ and 3+ saves (increasing damage by 100% or 50%), the saves Bolters are supposed to not be that great against. Against guardmen equivalent targets (I.e. the targets bolters are supposed to be absolutely deadly against) on the other hand it doesn’t do nearly as much, increasing damage only by 25%. This is a general problem with the linear scaling of ap and is very visible in Primaris Intercessors, making them only be good somewhat point efficient when firing at MEQ.

 

A probably better (though messy from a streamlining perspective) solution could be something like giving all bolters a rule like “Reroll failed to wound rolls for units with a majority Save characteristic of 4+ or worse”.

[Deathwalker]

Put simply: No, I don't think that the Bolter is the wrong weapon to serve as the baseline for infantry weaponry in 8th Edition.

 

The Bolter should represent the baseline for infantry weaponry in 40k because it and its kin are the most prevalent infantry weapons in 40k by an absolute country mile. All of the Space Marine factions, including the traitor marines, make use of Bolters of some flavour, the Bolter is the standard weapon of the Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence, and bolt weapons are available in some capacity to representatives of both the Astra Militarum and Inquisition. Pushing the Bolter to be something above the baseline potentially creates all manner of problems because it isn't just a small family of weapons in the hands of handful of infantry units belonging to a single faction. You suddenly have to deal with all manner of weirdness like how to approach Storm Bolters and Heavy Bolters, Primaris bolt weapons, Deathwatch Special Ammo, Inferno Bolts and the difficulties of balancing a weapon which can find its way into the hands of infantry at a wide range of price points ... and that's before you start thinking about whether all other factions' infantry and/or weapons need adjusting to help those armies at least be somewhat competitive with all those benefiting from these changes.

 

The Bolter having its current statline definitely falls short of the fantasy, especially now it's no longer AP5, but I'm not really sure how you would go about reinventing the Bolter without it having a massive ripple effect on the system. You could certainly look to position something else as the baseline if you looked to radically redefine the Space Marine and made them a far more elite army with their own unique Astartes Bolters (although you'd still have to resolve the issues with all those variants) but with the Bolter and its kin in the hands of so many armies and units I feel like it needs to be positioned as the thing everything else is compared to and makes slight variations on rather than something exceptional. Giving the Bolter an improved Strength or AP is not only buffing a huge swathe of units, it's also making life more difficult for Space Marines and other elite infantry unless you throw buffs their way to temper the power of your improved Bolters.

Is the bolter the standard? or is it a S4 weapon that is standard?

The actual bolter profile is only used by marines, sisters and some other selected imperial models

S4 however is used by MOST of the races, but with different range, class, and AP.

Should that be the case?

[MARK0SIAN]

The bolter suffered enormously in 8th with the change to its AP. Now that Orks and Guard get a save against it means its less effective than it used to be and feels really underwhelming. It feels wrong on an instinctive level that something gets the same save against a bolter as they do against a laspistol.

 

As some others have mentioned, it is the ubiquitous nature of the boltgun that makes it the de-facto baseline weapon because so many factions use it. This what also makes adjusting it really difficult. What we are really seeing is one of the major downsides to a scaling AP system as opposed to the binary result in 7th, namely it is very hard to make some weapons good against their intended targets without also making them really good against other things that, realistically, they shouldn’t be able to harm.

 

Personally, I would say the bolter shouldn’t be the baseline but it’s too late to change that and so we must look for other solutions to the poor performance of the boltgun.

[Volt]

Bolters lore wise are ineffective against power armor. In the current system giving them AP -1 would simply be too potent against power armor troops, and thus their current state makes the most sense possible within the current insanity. At most I would suggest buffing its strength over an AP increase.

[Doghouse]

I think flashlights should give the target a +1 save. :D 

[Kite Senet]

Bolters lore wise are ineffective against power armor. In the current system giving them AP -1 would simply be too potent against power armor troops, and thus their current state makes the most sense possible within the current insanity. At most I would suggest buffing its strength over an AP increase.

Since when is the bolter ineffective against power armor? The boltgun is a weapon specifically designed to fire explosive ammunition which penetrates heavy armor, and then detonates inside the target. And furthermore, I recall instances of even bolt pistols puncturing power armor in the Ahriman trilogy. I mean, it's no AP-4, but it's enough to punch through armor occasionally at least, and AP-1 still leaves the marine with a 4+ save. 50/50 doesn't feel that far off to me.

 

I'm sure you could find points where writers have depicted boltguns as ineffective against power armor, but considering it contradicts the lore regarding the actual design and purpose of the weapon, I hardly see much reason to depict bolters that way in-game for lore reasons.

 

Now, Terminator armor on the other hand should be essentially invulnerable to bolter fire. And just about anything short of anti-tank weaponry, for that matter. The resultant lore contradiction there would be much more serious.

 

But, *eh*, I'm ambivalent either way. Lore dictates to me that bolters should have some anti-armor aspect to them, but I also really like AP-2 on my Rubrics' inferno bolts and I'd prefer that to remain special for absolutely selfish reasons.

[taikishi]

Put simply: No, I don't think that the Bolter is the wrong weapon to serve as the baseline for infantry weaponry in 8th Edition.

 

The Bolter should represent the baseline for infantry weaponry in 40k because it and its kin are the most prevalent infantry weapons in 40k by an absolute country mile. All of the Space Marine factions, including the traitor marines, make use of Bolters of some flavour, the Bolter is the standard weapon of the Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence, and bolt weapons are available in some capacity to representatives of both the Astra Militarum and Inquisition. Pushing the Bolter to be something above the baseline potentially creates all manner of problems because it isn't just a small family of weapons in the hands of handful of infantry units belonging to a single faction. You suddenly have to deal with all manner of weirdness like how to approach Storm Bolters and Heavy Bolters, Primaris bolt weapons, Deathwatch Special Ammo, Inferno Bolts and the difficulties of balancing a weapon which can find its way into the hands of infantry at a wide range of price points ... and that's before you start thinking about whether all other factions' infantry and/or weapons need adjusting to help those armies at least be somewhat competitive with all those benefiting from these changes.

 

The Bolter having its current statline definitely falls short of the fantasy, especially now it's no longer AP5, but I'm not really sure how you would go about reinventing the Bolter without it having a massive ripple effect on the system. You could certainly look to position something else as the baseline if you looked to radically redefine the Space Marine and made them a far more elite army with their own unique Astartes Bolters (although you'd still have to resolve the issues with all those variants) but with the Bolter and its kin in the hands of so many armies and units I feel like it needs to be positioned as the thing everything else is compared to and makes slight variations on rather than something exceptional. Giving the Bolter an improved Strength or AP is not only buffing a huge swathe of units, it's also making life more difficult for Space Marines and other elite infantry unless you throw buffs their way to temper the power of your improved Bolters.

 

I mean, 2E bolters had -1 to saves so I don't think the ripple effect would be that drastic. As did the Lasgun, actually.

 

Lasgun: +1 to hit within 12", S3, -1 Save

Autogun: +1 to hit within 12", S3, no modifier

Bolter: +1 to hit within 12", S4, -1 Save

Shuriken Catapult: +1 to hit within 12", S4, -2 Save

Fleshborer: +1 to hit within 8", S4, no modifier

 

Orks were armed with bolt pistols (+2 to hit within 8", -1 save) and could replace them with bolters.

[Chaplain Killmer]

But is the change really that much of a difference. I mean when I played vs the guards, gants and genestealers most of the time they had some kind of cover save. Means yeah I would have defeated the armor with the bolter but they still had 4+ or 5+ cover saves depending on the edition we were playing. It became the standard when the wall of matyrs came out.

 

Vs Marines it's the same as before.

 

But on the on the other side aren't we wounding MC's and even landraiders now on a 5+ ok they still have a save but hey thats something, too. 

[taikishi]

Land Raiders, Exorcists and Leman Russes are being wounded on 6s.

 

To be honest, I'm surprised some units (including some of the tougher vehicles) don't have a 1+ save to illustrate a virtual immunity to small arms fire. They'd still fail on a 2 but it also means you'd need at least a -2 to make their save budge to a 3+. That would also mitigate bolters and (potentially) lasguns having a -1 save modifier, but at that point you are redesigning the game.

[MARK0SIAN]

But is the change really that much of a difference. I mean when I played vs the guards, gants and genestealers most of the time they had some kind of cover save. Means yeah I would have defeated the armor with the bolter but they still had 4+ or 5+ cover saves depending on the edition we were playing. It became the standard when the wall of matyrs came out.

 

Vs Marines it's the same as before.

 

But on the on the other side aren't we wounding MC's and even landraiders now on a 5+ ok they still have a save but hey thats something, too.

That’s essentially the problem I was talking about though, because everything can wound everything it’s now very difficult to make certain weapons effective against their intended targets without making them overly effective against everything.

 

In 7th for example you could’ve made a gun Very effective against marines but if it had a low strength it couldn’t also threaten vehicles. Now it’s hard to make a weapon strip away infantry armour saves because it then strips away vehicle armour saves too.

[Volt]

 

Bolters lore wise are ineffective against power armor. In the current system giving them AP -1 would simply be too potent against power armor troops, and thus their current state makes the most sense possible within the current insanity. At most I would suggest buffing its strength over an AP increase.

Since when is the bolter ineffective against power armor? The boltgun is a weapon specifically designed to fire explosive ammunition which penetrates heavy armor, and then detonates inside the target. And furthermore, I recall instances of even bolt pistols puncturing power armor in the Ahriman trilogy. I mean, it's no AP-4, but it's enough to punch through armor occasionally at least, and AP-1 still leaves the marine with a 4+ save. 50/50 doesn't feel that far off to me.

 

I'm sure you could find points where writers have depicted boltguns as ineffective against power armor, but considering it contradicts the lore regarding the actual design and purpose of the weapon, I hardly see much reason to depict bolters that way in-game for lore reasons.

 

Now, Terminator armor on the other hand should be essentially invulnerable to bolter fire. And just about anything short of anti-tank weaponry, for that matter. The resultant lore contradiction there would be much more serious.

 

But, *eh*, I'm ambivalent either way. Lore dictates to me that bolters should have some anti-armor aspect to them, but I also really like AP-2 on my Rubrics' inferno bolts and I'd prefer that to remain special for absolutely selfish reasons.

 

Authors are forgetful at times and occasionally full idiots when it comes to actually remembering important 40k details. Bolters were never invented or used to deal with hard targets like Marines, they were meant to deal with "tough" targets like Orks. It's after the Heresy and having to constantly deal with enemy marines that led to the development of Vengeance Rounds, bolts specifically made to penetrate power armor. Any author who has power armor be easily penned by a standard boltgun needs to be smacked with a codex, just as any author who has a marine bleed to death ought to be smacked. The only bolters that should have AP are those loaded with special issue ammunition, or heavy bolters due to the significant increase in caliber and power. Otherwise Bolters are perfectly alright in the current system with no AP, as they are properly represented with higher strength allowing them to wound targets with high toughness. 

[MARK0SIAN]

 

 

 

Bolters lore wise are ineffective against power armor. In the current system giving them AP -1 would simply be too potent against power armor troops, and thus their current state makes the most sense possible within the current insanity. At most I would suggest buffing its strength over an AP increase.

Since when is the bolter ineffective against power armor? The boltgun is a weapon specifically designed to fire explosive ammunition which penetrates heavy armor, and then detonates inside the target. And furthermore, I recall instances of even bolt pistols puncturing power armor in the Ahriman trilogy. I mean, it's no AP-4, but it's enough to punch through armor occasionally at least, and AP-1 still leaves the marine with a 4+ save. 50/50 doesn't feel that far off to me.

 

I'm sure you could find points where writers have depicted boltguns as ineffective against power armor, but considering it contradicts the lore regarding the actual design and purpose of the weapon, I hardly see much reason to depict bolters that way in-game for lore reasons.

 

Now, Terminator armor on the other hand should be essentially invulnerable to bolter fire. And just about anything short of anti-tank weaponry, for that matter. The resultant lore contradiction there would be much more serious.

 

But, *eh*, I'm ambivalent either way. Lore dictates to me that bolters should have some anti-armor aspect to them, but I also really like AP-2 on my Rubrics' inferno bolts and I'd prefer that to remain special for absolutely selfish reasons.

Authors are forgetful at times and occasionally full idiots when it comes to actually remembering important 40k details. Bolters were never invented or used to deal with hard targets like Marines, they were meant to deal with "tough" targets like Orks. It's after the Heresy and having to constantly deal with enemy marines that led to the development of Vengeance Rounds, bolts specifically made to penetrate power armor. Any author who has power armor be easily penned by a standard boltgun needs to be smacked with a codex, just as any author who has a marine bleed to death ought to be smacked. The only bolters that should have AP are those loaded with special issue ammunition, or heavy bolters due to the significant increase in caliber and power. Otherwise Bolters are perfectly alright in the current system with no AP, as they are properly represented with higher strength allowing them to wound targets with high toughness.

I wouldn’t say they were properly represented though, their strength is only higher than a lasgun fo example. It’s not high. They were indeed designed with tough targets like Orks in mind but then having only a 50% chance to wound the kind of target they were designed to counter is not a particularly good representation of them. And that target then still gets a save against the wound.

 

Now personally, I would argue for bolters being S5 but still 0AP. They should be wounding most infantry on a 3 but then the different types of infantry can use their armour save to represent how well they can endure those shots.

 

The problem with my solution though is exactly what I said earlier, it would make them too good against vehicles so I don’t really know what the answer is to making them less rubbish, however having the iconic weapon of Warhammer 40K feeling like a wet sponge is quite sad.

[Volt]

 

 

 

Bolters lore wise are ineffective against power armor. In the current system giving them AP -1 would simply be too potent against power armor troops, and thus their current state makes the most sense possible within the current insanity. At most I would suggest buffing its strength over an AP increase.

Since when is the bolter ineffective against power armor? The boltgun is a weapon specifically designed to fire explosive ammunition which penetrates heavy armor, and then detonates inside the target. And furthermore, I recall instances of even bolt pistols puncturing power armor in the Ahriman trilogy. I mean, it's no AP-4, but it's enough to punch through armor occasionally at least, and AP-1 still leaves the marine with a 4+ save. 50/50 doesn't feel that far off to me.

 

I'm sure you could find points where writers have depicted boltguns as ineffective against power armor, but considering it contradicts the lore regarding the actual design and purpose of the weapon, I hardly see much reason to depict bolters that way in-game for lore reasons.

 

Now, Terminator armor on the other hand should be essentially invulnerable to bolter fire. And just about anything short of anti-tank weaponry, for that matter. The resultant lore contradiction there would be much more serious.

 

But, *eh*, I'm ambivalent either way. Lore dictates to me that bolters should have some anti-armor aspect to them, but I also really like AP-2 on my Rubrics' inferno bolts and I'd prefer that to remain special for absolutely selfish reasons.

Authors are forgetful at times and occasionally full idiots when it comes to actually remembering important 40k details. Bolters were never invented or used to deal with hard targets like Marines, they were meant to deal with "tough" targets like Orks. It's after the Heresy and having to constantly deal with enemy marines that led to the development of Vengeance Rounds, bolts specifically made to penetrate power armor. Any author who has power armor be easily penned by a standard boltgun needs to be smacked with a codex, just as any author who has a marine bleed to death ought to be smacked. The only bolters that should have AP are those loaded with special issue ammunition, or heavy bolters due to the significant increase in caliber and power. Otherwise Bolters are perfectly alright in the current system with no AP, as they are properly represented with higher strength allowing them to wound targets with high toughness.

I wouldn’t say they were properly represented though, their strength is only higher than a lasgun fo example. It’s not high. They were indeed designed with tough targets like Orks in mind but then having only a 50% chance to wound the kind of target they were designed to counter is not a particularly good representation of them. And that target then still gets a save against the wound.

 

Now personally, I would argue for bolters being S5 but still 0AP. They should be wounding most infantry on a 3 but then the different types of infantry can use their armour save to represent how well they can endure those shots.

 

The problem with my solution though is exactly what I said earlier, it would make them too good against vehicles so I don’t really know what the answer is to making them less rubbish, however having the iconic weapon of Warhammer 40K feeling like a wet sponge is quite sad.

 

Oh certainly, as I posted before I would argue that an increase in strength would be perfectly alright. It's just with the limitations to the D6 system and the already fragile nature of marines, increasing boltguns to AP -1 would be fairly silly when that's what special issue ammo is supposed to be for. Or bolt rifles now, although those appear to be basically the bolter version of a battle rifle.

[Beams]

 

 

Put simply: No, I don't think that the Bolter is the wrong weapon to serve as the baseline for infantry weaponry in 8th Edition.

 

The Bolter should represent the baseline for infantry weaponry in 40k because it and its kin are the most prevalent infantry weapons in 40k by an absolute country mile. All of the Space Marine factions, including the traitor marines, make use of Bolters of some flavour, the Bolter is the standard weapon of the Sisters of Battle and Sisters of Silence, and bolt weapons are available in some capacity to representatives of both the Astra Militarum and Inquisition. Pushing the Bolter to be something above the baseline potentially creates all manner of problems because it isn't just a small family of weapons in the hands of handful of infantry units belonging to a single faction. You suddenly have to deal with all manner of weirdness like how to approach Storm Bolters and Heavy Bolters, Primaris bolt weapons, Deathwatch Special Ammo, Inferno Bolts and the difficulties of balancing a weapon which can find its way into the hands of infantry at a wide range of price points ... and that's before you start thinking about whether all other factions' infantry and/or weapons need adjusting to help those armies at least be somewhat competitive with all those benefiting from these changes.

 

The Bolter having its current statline definitely falls short of the fantasy, especially now it's no longer AP5, but I'm not really sure how you would go about reinventing the Bolter without it having a massive ripple effect on the system. You could certainly look to position something else as the baseline if you looked to radically redefine the Space Marine and made them a far more elite army with their own unique Astartes Bolters (although you'd still have to resolve the issues with all those variants) but with the Bolter and its kin in the hands of so many armies and units I feel like it needs to be positioned as the thing everything else is compared to and makes slight variations on rather than something exceptional. Giving the Bolter an improved Strength or AP is not only buffing a huge swathe of units, it's also making life more difficult for Space Marines and other elite infantry unless you throw buffs their way to temper the power of your improved Bolters.

Is the bolter the standard? or is it a S4 weapon that is standard?

The actual bolter profile is only used by marines, sisters and some other selected imperial models

S4 however is used by MOST of the races, but with different range, class, and AP.

Should that be the case?

Factions that use standard Bolters:

Codex Space Marines

Space Wolves

Dark Angels

Grey Knights

Sisters of Silence

Sisters of Battle

Death Guard

Chaos Marines

Inquisition

Imperial Guard uses them on Sergeants/characters

Genestealer cult on characters/sergeants as well

 

Factions that use modified Bolters

Thousand Sons

Custodes

Death Watch

 

 

Factions that don't:

Demons

Orks

Eldar

Dark Eldar

Ynnari

Tyranids

[chapter master 454]

I feel that the S4 statline is the base line for weapon and is good at that but for boltguns I would like to see some special rules noted for them.

 

For one, possibly a rule stating that boltguns are treated as having AP1 vs. units with a save value of 5+ or worse. We see this already with some special rules checking for stats like AP1 or the like. This could be reasoned as the boltround finds it's mark on light armour fairly easily but anything hardier makes it much less effective (thus we see a difference between light and medium infantry).

 

As for Lasguns, I would actually like to see their "Ease of use" applied in game. Since they fire a laser that does not suffer from any hard munition problems such as wind, humidity and drop-off, wherever you point it, it hits the mark bang on. The range being only an issue because any further the laser loses the energy needed to do damage. Possibly see a "Re-roll 1s to hit" for lasguns to represent this.

 

I think it would be nice for "standard issue" rifles of armies to have some quirk to them in relation to their position. Eldar have Rend, Tau get amped stats and range and so on. Make each army have something that makes their standard issue something memorable other than "oh dear lord, so many lasguns Imma call your army the beacon of gondor!"

[Deathwalker]

I feel that the S4 statline is the base line for weapon and is good at that but for boltguns I would like to see some special rules noted for them.

 

For one, possibly a rule stating that boltguns are treated as having AP1 vs. units with a save value of 5+ or worse. We see this already with some special rules checking for stats like AP1 or the like. This could be reasoned as the boltround finds it's mark on light armour fairly easily but anything hardier makes it much less effective (thus we see a difference between light and medium infantry).

 

As for Lasguns, I would actually like to see their "Ease of use" applied in game. Since they fire a laser that does not suffer from any hard munition problems such as wind, humidity and drop-off, wherever you point it, it hits the mark bang on. The range being only an issue because any further the laser loses the energy needed to do damage. Possibly see a "Re-roll 1s to hit" for lasguns to represent this.

 

I think it would be nice for "standard issue" rifles of armies to have some quirk to them in relation to their position. Eldar have Rend, Tau get amped stats and range and so on. Make each army have something that makes their standard issue something memorable other than "oh dear lord, so many lasguns Imma call your army the beacon of gondor!"

You could achieve such an effect by having weapons and armour graded as light, medium and heavy and base AP off that interaction, such as a light weapon giving no AP to light armour, +1 to medium and +2 to light, and conversely a Heavy weapon giving no AP to heavy, -1 to medium and -2 to light. You would still have to figure a baseline AP for any given weapon based on it's use but you would not need to have such high AP on weapons natively. that way sure you can still wound anything on a 6, but chances are you won't be penetrating a tank with an auto gun, but it's still possible. 

[The Unseen]

I feel that the S4 statline is the base line for weapon and is good at that but for boltguns I would like to see some special rules noted for them.

 

As for Lasguns, I would actually like to see their "Ease of use" applied in game. Since they fire a laser that does not suffer from any hard munition problems such as wind, humidity and drop-off, wherever you point it, it hits the mark bang on. The range being only an issue because any further the laser loses the energy needed to do damage. Possibly see a "Re-roll 1s to hit" for lasguns to represent this.

 

Not quite, lasers of any variety actually care a great deal about environmental conditions.

Fire a 7.62 mm rifle round through a heavy cloud of smoke/steam and it isn't going to appreciably change anything.

Fire a laser through the same cloud and you'd be lucky if it even made it through at all.

 

Particulate heavy smoke makes a very effective cover vs lasers, even if you can still find your target through it.

 

Humidity would probably have more of an impact on weaponized light than any conventional weapon.

Atmospheric conditions with a standard firearm within a few hundred yards isnt all that appreciable.

 

The lack of bullet drop and travel time would be quite helpful however.

 

And boltguns as they are, are a perfectly acceptable anti-infantry weapon.

The issue comes about when said bolter is carried by an "elite" model.

A sister carrying a bolter at 9 pts has an average points/damage/reslilience ratio.

A marine carrying a bolter raises the price by nearly 1.5 times, with a durability increase ranging from 0% to 17%, and the same damage output where it matters.

 

You can't seperate the problem of marines and bolters being weak, as it's only together does the problem make sense.

If marines were 10 pts a model with a bolter, they would be an "average" troop unit.

I'd pay 1 pt for +1S (a stat tacticals can barely use) and +1T (a small durability increase against Str 3,4,6,and 7 guns) over a sister, and trade a 6++ for reroll morale (both being about equally useless) and call it a pretty fair trade. 4 pts for that same trade is an absolute joke.

 

The problem doesn't go away with Intercessors either, it's just shifted over a bit.

A tactical marine with a bolt rifle at 13 pts might be decent, or at least close too it.

But an 18 pt model with a bolt rifle is again terribly skewed on the points/damage/resilience scale.

For 18 pts, a model with T4, 2 wounds, and a 3+ save is adequately (though barely so) reslilient, and yes, I do mean barely adequate. Their still less effecient than guard durability vs small arms, but only by a little, but are vastly more vulnerable to heavier weapons.

But give that same model a bolt rifle, and it's damage effeciency is pathetic, it's actually worse than than the 13 pt tactical marine with a standard bolter.

 

If you want bolters to be the baseline, you either need marines to also be the baseline and therefore much cheaper, to match their actual tabletop value, or you need to split marine bolters and "mortal" bolters apart, as someone mentioned, like FFG did when they realized this same issue.

[Deathwalker]

Land Raiders, Exorcists and Leman Russes are being wounded on 6s.

 

To be honest, I'm surprised some units (including some of the tougher vehicles) don't have a 1+ save to illustrate a virtual immunity to small arms fire. They'd still fail on a 2 but it also means you'd need at least a -2 to make their save budge to a 3+. That would also mitigate bolters and (potentially) lasguns having a -1 save modifier, but at that point you are redesigning the game.

Is there something wrong with redesigning the game?

I mean, these discussions really are about games design or re-design, cause no matter what we put forward or argue about -here- will make zero impact on the official rules.

I just happen to like looking under the hood of games design, because I -personally- find it interesting, and I think that other people who comment on these kinds of threads find it interesting as well.

The idea is to brainstorm, not to complain, at least, that was my intention.