Siranui said:

My advice was merely a joke to show that you can't castrate the most iconic SM weapon and then use your imagination to pretend everything is ok because the rules are only abstractions. The RoF for an Astartes Bolter should include a 4-round burst , otherwise it is NO Astartes Bolter, regardless of any one-shot-Hive-Tyrant-trauma!

If nerfing the HB so it doesn't kill any baddie in one round leads to the logical consistency that every other Bolter has to be nerfed down as well, than the problem is approached from the wrong side. The HB isn't to good, the adversaries are to bad. Change the Baddies!

As regards the four round burst being canon, I'm from that camp as well, but it appears things have changed. Imperial Armour 3 states that the Godwyn pattern fires three round bursts, not four. So FFG are canonically correct, and it's us who are out of date.

Changing monster stats via errata is not viable, considering that there are two net published adventures, a hardback full of adventures, one in the core book, and of course a book full of monster stats that is currently at the printers. FFG have approached the problem in a viable way.

Kain McDogal said:

It doesn't solve anything because then everybody will requisition a Heavy Bolter to be able to deal with the baddies and survive. That channels player's efforts wrongly. By nerfing the HB a lot and nerfing the Bolter and SB slightly, plus improving melta and plasma you accomplish everything you need to do.

And that includes improved integration with DH and RT. It was a reform in the right direction.

Alex

Siranui said:

And that whould be for the semi out burst, which would make a bolter S/3/something.

To be honest, the reason the HB is so overpowered is that the rules for full-auto are messed up.

The reason burst fire mode was created was because when you fire a machine gun on full-auto you are just spraying an area with bullets. Yes, you are more likely to hit a guy. But you aren't likely to get more than a few rounds into him before the kick makes you loose your aim. Full auto should be good at two things: suppressive fire and hitting hordes of guys. The problem is, under the rules, not only do you get a giant bonus to hit, but you are likely to pump a ton of rounds into the same target.

I keep thinking that full auto should have a per target limit, and that you need to spread your hits amongst nearby targets or you simply waste your ammo. Burst mode should be able to put all of their rounds in a single target, that's what it was invented for. I haven't yet decided how low to limit the per target values of full auto. I was thinking either burst rating or 1/3 auto rating (round down) for those that don't have a burst mode (heavy bolter). Of course, larger targets can be hit by more rounds at GM discretion.

ak-73 said:

I don't know if you have read my first post on this matter, but I described a session we played last weekend with the optional rules and the result was that a Sororita armed with her Godwyn-De'az Storm Bolter clearly outclassed a DW Marine with his Astartes Storm Bolter. Under the same conditions she hit 4 times while the SM only scored 2 hits. If you compare the combined damage of the bolts the Sororita did 1/4 more damage. With the Optional Rules Astartes Bolter also do less combined Damage than their RT counterparts.

I wouldn't call this an "improved integration"!

@deinol: I'd try switching around how many DoS you need per hit between Semi and Full Auto. That might fix it in a simple manner.

Kain McDogal said:

I was talking about the damage, not the ROF. I advocated multiple times to keep the ROF (except for the HB) and only change the rest. See the topic starting post.

Also if you think that the SoB's Godwyn-De'az Storm Bolter should be less powerful than (or even different from) the Astartes Godwyn Boltgun, I'll refer you over to Lynata, she'll tell you otherwise.

Alex

ak-73 said:

I decline with thanks.

As I wrote earlier the damage reduction works fine, besides the 2-3 points less and the decreased chance for RF are balanced by the reduced risk to roll low numbers. I think we both agree on this part.

deinol said:

In ideal condition such as a weapon on a bi/tripod or mounted on a vehicle or whatnot, full auto do exactly as the rules says. Which lead to the problem of how it's handled in our game for all but DW. Marines are 7 feet tall, with superhuman strength, walking around in a fully enclosed powerarmor that enhances their strength even more (well, we all know what a PA does). Under said circumstances the rules are fairly ok, the problem apply for DH and RT, and to DW only when using scout armor.

Lucius Valerius said:

But the HB by the old school rules will pulp an average DW PC in a single burst. See the long threads of "heavy bolter is over powered" and you'll find an 'average' shooty marine with a 50 BS at half range shooting at a fellow marine will hit on a 80 or less, which means on average 3 hits. Each hit does average damage of 21 pen 6, meaning that marine just took something like 27 wounds (Armor of 10, - 6 for penetration = 4, +8 to soak from toughness = 12. 21-12 = 9, x the 3 hits = 27.

Now if shooting at a horde or at a giant target the number of hits will go up and the damage is multiplicative. Add things mlike mighty shot or specialty ammo and again the damage is multiplicative.

The new rules means the marine would take 12 damage with the same hit- probably over half his health, still pretty dramatic, but a hell of a lot more sane for a weapon that comes free with just being a devestator and has no renown requirement.

Should Space Marines be able to survive being hit with a Heavy Bolter? I can understand superhuman, well armoured marines surviving a shot or two from their standard armanent, but what is the purpose of heavy weapons if not to ensure that troops taking fire from them are slain?

Charmander said:

That is the point, you are not supposed to survive that kind of firepower. Now who's asking for movie marines ? The fact it's free or not it's only relevant to us because we have req points and so forth BUT for space marines bolter and bolter are standard issued weapons and that it's not a reason for said weapons to be treated as junk.

Lucius Valerius said:

Space Marines are not the best example though. The problem is Hive Tyrants, Dameon Princes, Tau Commander all appearing, only to vanish again before the Heavy Bolter. Hordes of all flavours appearing, only to vanish before the HB and Unrelenting Dev. Astartes Rhinos appearing only to explode before the almighty HB.

The weapon has been just too good and it has been scaled back to balanced levels.

Alex

If I may ask, what makes the new weapon damage stats junk? In comparison to a "mortal's" bolter the new values are still superior.

Lucius Valerius said:

Gameplay speaking, that's not true. To balance the game, the standard issue HAS to NOT have something the weapons you have to spent Req for have. Or it would be silly to use your Req, therefore making an available ressource moot.

That something may be anti-tank value (hello Lascannon/Melta), anti-Big Tough&Bad (hello Lascannon and Plasma), and so on, and so forth.

But no, Bolters aren't "junk" right now. Against most enemies, they have a value, especially with some specialty ammo.

Stormast said:

This conversation is leaning more and more to sound like a freaking videogame. The fact they are standard issue is the most versatile weapon in the game is a great thing, tho it doesn't mean you are not gonna take that plasmagun that you love so much and always wanted to toy with just because of that. Again, as I said earlier Bolter have been used successfully for the last 10k years by astartes all around the galaxy, and we know very well the imperium doesn't really look at budgets when it's time to arm the SM.

Plus now with RoB we have even more reasons to hold off on spending all our reqs on weapons and tools. There are soo many useful things you can do with reserved reqs if that's your problem.

What about taking away all Standard Weapons, using the Setting Requisition values before the first errata and changing some Req for gears and weapons?

Lucius Valerius said:

The purpose of the bolter isn't to fight Hive Tyrants though. The nerfed Bolter does kill with ease mortals, heretics, Firewarrior, Kroot, Hormagaunts, Termangants, etc. The Bolter does not kill with ease Nid Warriors, at least not without speciality ammo and special abilities. It does not kill easily Tau battle suits.

It doesn't kill easily any master-tier enemies, even with specialty ammo. I am comfortable with that.

More importantly: the HB doesn't kill off Chaos Terminators with ease anymore. Previously that was a reliable kill. It doesn't kill Chaos Rhinos through Front Armour with one burst anymore. Unless you roll very well in such cases. It does kill a Nid Warrior if you roll well and/or got Mighty Shot and Kraken rounds, for example. It still kills hordes, just not to the point where the Boltgun becomes pointless in comparison.

I fail to see where the HB is incorrectly modeled now. Please provide examples where the Boltgun or HB perform underwhelmingly if you use the new damages but the keep the old ROF for Bolt Pistol, Bolter and Storm Bolter (use new ROF for HB!).

I'm willing to look into any examplary match-up of Bolter or HB against any xeno, daemon or heretic that anyone provides.

Alex

Lucius Valerius said:

Yes: It's versatile. Which means that although it's good all-round, it should not be the best choice for every single darned mission; as it was with the old stats. Plasma guns and melta weapons were simply not really a viable choice, even for thematic reasons, because they were pretty much trash next to the standard issue bolter.

Bolters have been used by Astartes for a long while, and hte Imperium doesn't skimp on their kit. But then: Plasma guns and Melta guns have also been used in limited number by the Astartes, because they are supposed to be *even better*. Such toys are available in limited numbers to specialists and important figures in the Chapter because they are *better*. But that was not reflected in the stats. Now it is.

The game is supposed to be about challenges. Otherwise there's no point in having a detailed game system. And it's about choices: That's why there is a list of firearms to choose from. If bolters are simply far better than everything else, to a degree where the party win 'end of scenario' fights in one combat round, then there is no choice and no challenge any more.

Siranui said:

SVD is better in some ways than standard AK74m, yet only one guy in squad use it.
PKM is better in many ways than standard AK74m, yet only one unlucky guy per squad use it.
why? those are either specialist or support weapons. Same thing with bolter, plasmagun or meltagun or heavy weapons.

Bolter should be all rounder, weapon that can be usefull in most combat situations except when some specialist weapon is needed.
Plasma should be best at fighting heavy armoured infantry, like space marines. it isnt even with errata optional rules.
Melta should be dedicated anti tank and anti hardened positions weapon. it isnt even with errata optional rules.

on basic RAW rules all weapons except HB and SB were to weak to even look at them, specialist weapons werent needed or even useful. On new optional errata weapon rules situation is starting to move in other direction, why take bolter while plasma or melta are better in every way?

but i applaud FFG for right move with new (optional) weapon rules, sadly rules need more tweaking.

Also if any GM have problem with his players being able to kill "Hivetyrant" so easily, He is doing something very wrong.

Yeah? Something wrong, really.

You mean, by showing the Hive Tyrant, they are doing something wrong. I'm sorry, the Tyrant should be able to resist one round of focus fire. That's a frickin monsteur you're throwing at your PCs, they shouldn't be able to handwave it like they could as long as somebody was carrying the mofo's HB.

And I can't agree with you, plasma or melta aren't always superior to the bolter with the optional rules, to me they are complementary. The bolter still has his versatility, with specialty ammo (the greatest schmuck you could have on it!), its range, etc, etc. Plasma and melta are basically better at hurting the big and tough guy, that's why one or two Marines in a Kill-Team should carry one now, to be able to take out the big baddies.

But bolter still rules. It just doesn't make the other weapons useless.

Then again, no one forbids you to house rule something here

Lucius Valerius said:

Honestly I'd prefer something in the middle of the movie marine and the TT marine. And FWIW, Marines survive shots with a HB on the TT plenty- I can't kill my opponents for anything unless I use meltas

I don't feel the weapons should be treated as junk, but I think that they should be treated (as others have said) as 'general' all around weapons. Using TT as an inspiration, when building out a squad of marines, you have to pay extra for a lot of this kit. With some of it you have an either or scenario, but most of it involves paying for it. And when you pay for something, however the system is abstracted, what you pay for should be at least as good as what you're replacing.

My argument is in the old system favored the boltguns so much the other weapons were rarely considered.

And from my brief expereince over the weekend, the heavy bolter and boltguns are still shredding my little bad guys up pretty well- the hordes of heretics are still speed bumps, though I'm deploying less of them. So far my group hasn't complained that they feel too weak yet, though the door is still open to applying the RAW ROF to the optional damage model.

Charmander said:

Yes but people forget that the tt nerfs many things for balance reasons not least of which is melee versus ranged. Which is heavily stacked in melee's favor in terms of probabilities to hit and wound. This games workshop did this because range would be too good if they were actually on an even footing and would invalidate too many armies and play styles.

RogalDorn said:

Sure but you got to acknowledge that TT not only nerfs Astartes weapons but also Astartes toughness. Thus I conclude that the nerfs should pretty much even out and Astartes should have a noteworthy chance surviving a Heavy Bolter attack.

Anyway, while discussing the technical aspects of the weapon rules, let's not forget one thing: from the fluff these weapons are all holy relics to be revered. That is the difference between DW and Twilight 2000 or whatever modern day Spec Ops RPG you may play. Just make sure you don't forget about it.

Alex

ak-73 said:

Maybe the stats were always supposed to be very abstract they admitted themselves that a toughness of 4 is a huge difference from a tougness of 3 not just statistically but also fluff wise. However the real nerfing was in accuracy more than anything else. Truth be told my prefereance was always to make every ranged weapon more lethal across the board and instead make cover more viable but thats not exactly practical at this point. I'm fine with the old rules but don't dislike the new ones so long as the gave back bolters autofire capabilities for suppresion and horde killing purposes.