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

[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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Forgive me Unseen for cutting your post like that (which was spot on) but I wanted to use it to highlight EXACLY why I avoided speaking of weapons in the other thread baseline stats for a model Vs baseline stats for guns are two separate things.  

[Slan Drakkos]

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 giving bolters higher AP is the way to go. Rather, I'd like to see the crunch more closely duplicate a bolt rounds explosive properties (perhaps deal an extra wound on a wound roll of 6+)

[Iron Father Ferrum]

The problem with that is that most of the things you should be firing bolters at are single wound models. Sure, it'll come in handy if you're able to punch through the he saves of heavy infantry or an HQ, but it's not universally useful.

[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.

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.

 

 

Never thought you were complaining and I'm certainly not. My initial reply was meant to illustrate that giving bolters (only) a -1 save wouldn't have that big of a ripple effect since there is precedence for it, while the second is meant more to say that giving bolters AND lasguns -1 save AND giving something akin to Terminators or your toughest vehicles a 1+ save would likely have a more drastic effect on necessitating changes to the game. Changes in points costs because of the increases power of a bolter and lasgun as well as everything having decreased survivability. Changes to other weapons possibly needing to be buffed or altered to accurately reflect their role, etc.

[utilityzero]

On a hit roll (or probably a wound roll) of 6 plus an astartes bolter causes a separate mortal wound in addition to its normal damage. Against a single target it could cause 2 wounds. Against a squad of single wound models it could kill 2. Represents bolts exploding and wounding other squad members as bits of shrapnel and bone and carapace fly around.

 

Also gives marines a way to cause mortal wounds other than librarians which they really ought to have.

[Wargamer]

Being wounded by bone fragments is utterly ludicrous when most of the people being wounded will be wearing armour designed to deflect laser blasts or armour-piercing rounds...

[Skaorn]

Being wounded by bone fragments is utterly ludicrous when most of the people being wounded will be wearing armour designed to deflect laser blasts or armour-piercing rounds...

This reminds me of the last line of the poem Death of a Ball Turret Gunner by Randell Jarrell:

 

"When I died they washed me out of the turret with a hose."

 

Also there tend to be a lot of meaty bits attached to said bone.

[Commander Dawnstar]

Being wounded by bone fragments is utterly ludicrous when most of the people being wounded will be wearing armour designed to deflect laser blasts or armour-piercing rounds...

 

The Dark Eldar already have a weapon that does exactly this: The Ossefactor. Its bone-splosions cause Mortal Wounds.

 

Edit: I stand somewhat corrected. I thought it made people explode with such force that their bones pierced others when in fact it causes rapid bone growth that makes spears of bone burst from the target's body.

[utilityzero]

Being wounded by bone fragments is utterly ludicrous when most of the people being wounded will be wearing armour designed to deflect laser blasts or armour-piercing rounds...

Which would also fragment and wound people. I don't think bones were the only thing I said. But if a man's skull exploded and pieces of his skull imbedded themselves in your face and eyes you're out of the fight. Maybe not dead but down. And armor and carapace from things without bones might do as well.

[Volt]

 

Being wounded by bone fragments is utterly ludicrous when most of the people being wounded will be wearing armour designed to deflect laser blasts or armour-piercing rounds...

Which would also fragment and wound people. I don't think bones were the only thing I said. But if a man's skull exploded and pieces of his skull imbedded themselves in your face and eyes you're out of the fight. Maybe not dead but down. And armor and carapace from things without bones might do as well.

 

..Except virtually everything in this game is heavily armored and low-velocity bone fragments aren't much of a threat. It's such a small, rare chance that representing it in the rules is ridiculous.

[The Unseen]

Bolters aren't sniper rifles, and increasing the things that cause mortal wounds is exactly the opposite direction this game needs.

 

Bolters held by marines, primaris or otherwise, need either more shots per gun, to make up for their low number of models holding an "en masse" weapon, or a ridiculous increase in the worth of each of those limited shots. Or a moderate increase in both.

No weird special rules needed.

 

Make the "bolter" and similar ap-1, and get an additional shot within half range.

(So a bolt rifle would get the extra shot at 15", making it just a longer ranged bolter)

 

Reward the aggressive plays that fluffwise marines engage in, without turning them into a tau or guard like gunline.

 

And if your using Primaris as the new standard for marines, like I'm sure GW is, bolters don't get a huge spike in killing MeQ, as while it will reduce power armor to a 4+ save, you'll need to fail 2 of them to lose a guy.

 

Edit: this would of course require that you finally seperate "mortal" bolters and Astartes bolters on the tabletop, not just in the fluff.

[Corswain]

I understand why you started a new topic but I really feel that the answer is the same - if I assert (and I do) that Guard should be the baseline, then it would be crazy to make the boltgun the weapon base, it would have to be the lasgun.

The basic unit and their basic weapons are so intrinsically linked in the game that they should really be considered the same thing. It’s symbiotic, you wouldn’t design one without considering the other.

 

So..... I guess for me, yes, the bolter is the wrong weapon. It should be the lasgun instead.

[Marshal Reinhard]

What's the basis for the baseline anyway? That it is the middle of  the road result, the average? That's 3.5 on a d6 meaning both 3's and 4's are equally near the average if at opposite sides of it.

[Deathwalker]

I understand why you started a new topic but I really feel that the answer is the same - if I assert (and I do) that Guard should be the baseline, then it would be crazy to make the boltgun the weapon base, it would have to be the lasgun.

The basic unit and their basic weapons are so intrinsically linked in the game that they should really be considered the same thing. It’s symbiotic, you wouldn’t design one without considering the other.

 

So..... I guess for me, yes, the bolter is the wrong weapon. It should be the lasgun instead.

2 reasons

1: points cost

2: The variation on the "to wound" calculation.

What's the basis for the baseline anyway? That it is the middle of  the road result, the average? That's 3.5 on a d6 meaning both 3's and 4's are equally near the average if at opposite sides of it.

 

Points cost.

How many points should it cost to bring a model on to the field is one calculation, it's effectiveness at range is another.

[Chaplain Killmer]

Humanities standard issue field rifle is the las gun - will billions and billions tin foil armored guys wielding them vs. all kinds of horrors.

So from mankind point of view the few marines with their bolter are the elite.

[cypherthefallenangel]

If it where up to me I'd change the profile of these weapons too.

boltguns and bolt rifles to assault 2, S4, AP0(-1br).

This would give a slight boost in fire with the ability to advance and shoot for the basic bolters without making them too good. This would effect hurricane bolters also.

Auto bolt rifles and bolt carbines to rapid fire 2, S4, AP0.

Again a small boost to weight of fire and a slight nerf to losing the ability to advance and shoot. Really though it's hard enough to hit a target standing still with an automatic weapon, never mind while running.

Storm bolted to rapid fire 3, S4, AP0.

Another small boost that would really help out terminators(unfortunately not fix).

Stalker bolt rifle to remain mostly the same just give it the sniper rule. Heavy 1, S4, AP-2 sniper. This would give a reason to actually take them but with out some testing it might be a little o.p.

[Panzer]

I gotta love how this thread came into existence because of the other thread and the "conclusion" there that the overall damage output in 40k is too high compared with how durable supposedly elite units like Marines are ... and then people start suggesting to increase the damage output of the Bolter vatiants even further here. :D

[The Unseen]

I gotta love how this thread came into existence because of the other thread and the "conclusion" there that the overall damage output in 40k is too high compared with how durable supposedly elite units like Marines are ... and then people start suggesting to increase the damage output of the Bolter vatiants even further here. :D

Bolters aren't the weapons that have seen vast increases on lethality over the years though.

If you make marines more durable, but still leave their weapons alone, their still going to hit like wet noodles.

 

I remember using a thought experiment I used to explain to someone ages ago when they wouldn't understand why primaris marines low damage output is bad.

I asked how many points would you pay for an immortal single model, with no weapons or cc attacks.

Just an infantry model who's damage output was always zero, but who was immune to literally everything.

At 100 pts, that model would be insane.

At 1000 pts, it'd be trash.

 

Marines problems are both low durability and low lethality.

And fluffwise, marines should be more lethal than they are durable.

Their rapid reaction shock and awe troops, not attritional fighters. (Even though more than a few of them try to act like it)

They can garrison strongholds and refuse to yield, because their still inhumanely powerful supermen, but they'd be much better off dropping into the back lines of an Ork Waagh and killing the warboss, and letting the guard mop up.

[Deathwalker]

I gotta love how this thread came into existence because of the other thread and the "conclusion" there that the overall damage output in 40k is too high compared with how durable supposedly elite units like Marines are ... and then people start suggesting to increase the damage output of the Bolter vatiants even further here.

That wasn't my intent.

[Bryan Blaire]

What's the basis for the baseline anyway? That it is the middle of the road result, the average? That's 3.5 on a d6 meaning both 3's and 4's are equally near the average if at opposite sides of it.

There's no such thing as an "average roll" on a single d6. A single die should statistically roll all six faces equally.

 

The "expected value" of a single die is the sum of each value multiplied by the probability of rolling that value, and is calculated over a large number of trials (rolls). That is equal to 3.5, but there isn't an "average roll" of a single die for any given event, because the probability of all sides is equal.

 

If the discussion is going to be "What is the base line?" and the answer is intended to be "A 50% chance of success on any given roll", then the answer should be that the "base line is anything where the roll for success is 4+".

[Deathwalker]

By choice, I would change 40K to a D10 system rather than D6 and ditch the whole "if more/if twice" system, it's elegant to a degree, it's also far too narrow and simplistic to have any kind of flexibility.