H.i.s.h.p

[Jgolden]

Hey all, after reading the current runs of "why I hate" and "Why I love" 40k rules, I thought of a slightly different way to present my case.

Most of you are familiar with How It Should Have Ended (H.I.S.H.E.), on Youtube, right? Well, what if we did a How It Should Have Printed for all our 7th edition thoughts and reports?

How is this different from anything else being put up? Well, the idea is that instead of saying "I wish this", "I hate that" or "Where the #$%$# did that rule come from" we actually compile these thoughts, tweeks and edits to bring out the full flavor of the game.

I know I know, this will never work because player A, who likes CSM, will only want changes that will help their army, but not anyone else' army. yeah, that's going to happen to some extent, but if each army is represented properly, it should stay in balance.

We also have to keep it organized or this will be over before it ends. Here is an idea on how to submit a change:

Book: (Codex, Rule Book, etc.)
Page:
Title of the change: (Rule, fluff, etc.)
Type of change: (addition/edit/removal/clarification)
Reason:
Change: (What you propose is put in, taken out, etc.)

Of all of these, I think the "Reason:" section is the most important. Some reasons need little argument to get ratified, but others NEED to have strong reasoning and no, "Cause' I want it" is not a good reason. :p

Once we have an edit formulated, we'll put up a poll and it will get voted on.

Again, this is just an idea that might bare fruit in an effort to really make the game fun.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

[Wolfshade]

Good luck, I think that this would make number 3 attempt for someone on the board to make a ruleset.

[Jgolden]

Thanks Wolfshade,

I really really know that I'm most likely setting myself up for failure but I figure if we give up and don't try, we can't complain, as much, when rules get changed for real...

[Wolfshade]

Book: BRB
Page: [digital edition]
Title of the change: Rule
Type of change: edit
Reason: Interaction with ruins
Change: Revert template rules to 6th ed. i.e. can shoot +/- 1 level for infantry/tanks

[Charistoph]

Book: Rulebook
Page: Vehicles in the Shooting Phase > Vehicles & Ordnance Weapons (Digital Edition)
Title of the change: Rule clarification
Type of change: Edit
Reason: Clarification of interaction with other weapon systems.
Change: "Unlike other units, vehicles can move and fire with Ordnance weapons. However, a vehicle that fires an Ordnance weapon can only make Snap Shots with its other weapons that turn. Any Weapons with the Ordnance type must be fired before any other weapon type. A vehicle that moved at Cruising Speed can still Snap Shoot Ordnance, but of course, cannot fire any Ordnance weapon that cannot be fired as Snap Shots." {change in bold}

Book: Rulebook
Page: Shooting Phase > Choose a Target (Digital Edition)
Title of the change: Rule clarification
Type of change: Edit
Reason: Clarification of interaction with units that can fire at more than one target.
Change: Add after first paragraph: "If a unit is able to shoot more than one target, all targets must be declared before resolving each Attack."
or
"If a unit is able to shoot more than one target, select an initial target. Fire all desired weapons at the target, then choose a another target. Repeat as desired and weapons are available."

[Houghten]

Any Weapons with the Ordnance type must be fired before any other weapon type.

There might be reasons for wanting to fire the heavy bolters first. Why not: "A vehicle that fires any weapons at its full Ballistic Skill may not fire an Ordnance weapon that turn (unless the first weapon was also Ordnance, in which case any other Ordnance weapons may be fired as Snap Shots if they are capable)."

Which is, of course, already the case, it's just making it explicit that it flows both ways.

I'm not sure if I strictly need the bit in brackets. Is there any vehicle that can have two Ordnance weapons and can't just say "sod this, I'm a super-heavy"?

[DWest]

The Spartan Heavy Tank (IA 2; it's the 25-man stretch Land Raider) can take two Laser Destroyers, which are Ordinance. To make things even better, it also has Power of the Machine Spirit, so there's two rules snarls for the price of one.

[Charistoph]

There might be reasons for wanting to fire the heavy bolters first. Why not: "A vehicle that fires any weapons at its full Ballistic Skill may not fire an Ordnance weapon that turn (unless the first weapon was also Ordnance, in which case any other Ordnance weapons may be fired as Snap Shots if they are capable)."

I was going more for a one sentence fix. It could probably be added that "If the Vehicle is to fire any Ordnance Weapons, they must be resolved first before any other weapon types."

Of course, we're missing out on Primary weapons at that point, too.


Which is, of course, already the case, it's just making it explicit that it flows both ways.

Actually, it's not the case. The mechanic runs smacks in to a problem with how the system works. Right now, technically speaking, if I fire Heavy Bolters first, I can use them at full BS, but there is absolutely zero rule preventing me from firing an Ordnance at other-wise full BS after that fact. It's unsportsmanlike, but the rules for Ordnance do not consider that other weapons may be chosen to fire first.

[Gleipnir]

The Spartan Heavy Tank (IA 2; it's the 25-man stretch Land Raider) can take two Laser Destroyers, which are Ordinance. To make things even better, it also has Power of the Machine Spirit, so there's two rules snarls for the price of one.

If the unit has the Heavy type its not an issue

[Houghten]

Actually, it's not the case. The mechanic runs smacks in to a problem with how the system works. Right now, technically speaking, if I fire Heavy Bolters first, I can use them at full BS, but there is absolutely zero rule preventing me from firing an Ordnance at other-wise full BS after that fact. It's unsportsmanlike, but the rules for Ordnance do not consider that other weapons may be chosen to fire first.

Yes, they do.

If you fire an Ordnance weapon, your other weapons may only fire Snap Shots. We're agreed on that part, right?

Therefore, if, in a turn in which you fire an Ordnance weapon, you have fired another weapon except as Snap Shots, you have made an illegal move. There's no sneaking around that; it's not unsportsmanlike, it's cheating.

[DWest]

If the unit has the Heavy type its not an issue
Heavy doesn't change the Ordinance rule though, as Leman Russ owners have found to their dismay. So the Spartan can fire one Laser Destroyer at full BS, and then it has to fire the other as a Snap Shot, unless PotMS overrides that and lets the 2nd fire at full BS.

[Gleipnir]

Actually players have been misinterpreting that rule since 6th edition is the issue, Forgeworld has already said as much, Ordinance rules for snap shots while moving do not apply to Heavy vehicles, and the rules as they are spelled out indicate this, but players choose to ignore context of rules and subheadings to make the argument that the rule applies in every instance. Take a good hard look at the rule in your rule book, read where it is, what rule heading it is listed under and what subheading it is listed under and ask yourself why they wrote it that way instead of placing it under the description for Ordinance weapons in the weapon entries, or under a more general heading instead as the subset of rules of another subset of rules.

[Jgolden]

I'm seeing both sides of what you two are saying. What if we tweaked what Charistoph initially said as such.

"Any Weapons with the Ordnance type must be DECLARED before any other weapon type is fired"

How this would work Fluff-wise is that all the efforts to target and fire the Ordinance weapon take away resources to fire any the vehicle's other weapons.

What do you all think?

[John Bower]

Actually players have been misinterpreting that rule since 6th edition is the issue, Forgeworld has already said as much, Ordinance rules for snap shots while moving do not apply to Heavy vehicles, and the rules as they are spelled out indicate this, but players choose to ignore context of rules and subheadings to make the argument that the rule applies in every instance. Take a good hard look at the rule in your rule book, read where it is, what rule heading it is listed under and what subheading it is listed under and ask yourself why they wrote it that way instead of placing it under the description for Ordinance weapons in the weapon entries, or under a more general heading instead as the subset of rules of another subset of rules.

Trouble is it is a problem and hasn't been FAQ'd, but it is under the separate heading of 'Vehicles and Ordnance weapons', not under 'movement and Ordnance Weapons' in its own right. Had it been directly sub headed that way I'd agree with you, but it isn't; it is a blanket and just poorly placed (nothing unusual there).

[Gleipnir]

Trouble is it is a problem and hasn't been FAQ'd, but it is under the separate heading of 'Vehicles and Ordnance weapons', not under 'movement and Ordnance Weapons' in its own right. Had it been directly sub headed that way I'd agree with you, but it isn't; it is a blanket and just poorly placed (nothing unusual there).

Look again it is in fact a subheading of Moving and Shooting, the Large type bold font(rules section), small bold type font(more specific rules section falling within the above section) italics type font(rules subheading falling under the aforementioned small bold rules subsection) are the indicators of this. You have only to read thru 10 or so pages of rules to notice that pattern.

Could it have been made clearer for people so it would not be taken out of context and played wrong? Hell yes but the reason it has not been FAQ'd is GW is just stubborn enough to feel they wrote it clear enough the first time and can't be bothered to FAQ let alone playtest and edit their own ruleset.

[DWest]

The problem is, they reverted the FAQ entirely with 7th, and changed the wording of the Ordinance rule so that the way the FAQ fixed it no longer works.

[Charistoph]

Yes, they do.

If you fire an Ordnance weapon, your other weapons may only fire Snap Shots. We're agreed on that part, right?

Therefore, if, in a turn in which you fire an Ordnance weapon, you have fired another weapon except as Snap Shots, you have made an illegal move. There's no sneaking around that; it's not unsportsmanlike, it's cheating.

So, then why not make it simple and clear instead of creating a situation of someone having to "go back in time" or making Ordnance not work with other's full BS shots?

This entry I put in here is BECAUSE it is poorly setup and worded, making it terribly clunky and could be the cause of arguments.

If you have a problem with that, then maybe you are in the wrong thread.

[Houghten]

What I have a problem with is that your solution doesn't clarify, it adds a new restriction.

[Charistoph]

What I have a problem with is that your solution doesn't clarify, it adds a new restriction.

Not really. It clarifies it by requiring to be fired first (if at all) so that way there wouldn't be any need for an argument or discussion since it is black and white. If you look at it, it really is the same thing as how you believe it should be run. I am just asking that it be put in order so that there is zero question about it, is all.

And yes, there are those out there who would try to twist it out to fire their Leman Russ's Heavy Bolters first at full BS and then fire their Battle Cannon full force.

I'm not saying that either of use would do it, I'm just laying it down in black and white for those who would.

[Houghten]

And yet, there are still tactical reasons to want to fire your Snap Shotting weapons first. For example, if you're firing at a Crusader Squad where the Scouts are in front.

[Charistoph]

And yet, there are still tactical reasons to want to fire your Snap Shotting weapons first. For example, if you're firing at a Crusader Squad where the Scouts are in front.

The counter-point would then be, why would you need to be snap-firing the weapons first without actual known need or requirement? After all, if your snap-fired weapons make any other shots pointless (ha ha), then you wouldn't need to fire the Ordnance weapon, and thus didn't need to snap-fire those weapons.

I'm not necessarily saying it's my way only, but the simple fact is that they changed the Shooting Phase process without taking Ordnance on Vehicles in to account, and it needs to be addressed. What I posted was the easiest/simplest way to address it without creating major changes to the system. But, you are coming across as it does not need to be addressed at all.

[Houghten]

You what? Of course you still want to fire the Ordnance weapon! I'm saying you want to clear out the 4+ bodies using the AP4 weapons before you move on to the 3+ bodies with your AP3 weapon.

And I maintain that it doesn't need addressing. Firing a weapon at full BS and then firing an Ordnance weapon is like moving a rook diagonally. Just because you did it doesn't mean it was a legal move. The rule doesn't say "afterwards" anywhere, just "that turn."

[DWest]

You what? Of course you still want to fire the Ordnance weapon! I'm saying you want to clear out the 4+ bodies using the AP4 weapons before you move on to the 3+ bodies with your AP3 weapon.
Actually, this is already taken care of with the current rules: In the Shooting Phase section, under Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties, it says "If several pools of Wounds need to be allocated, the player making the attacks decides the order in which they are allocated." The Battlecannon and Heavy Bolters have different Strength and AP, and so they form different Wound Pools. So fire the Battlecannon, then the Bolters, then resolve the Bolter wounds first, followed by the Battlecannon.

[Houghten]

That step comes after Select A Weapon but before Select Another Weapon. It's there for things like Rending weapons that can actually have different APs by themselves.

[Charistoph]

You what? Of course you still want to fire the Ordnance weapon! I'm saying you want to clear out the 4+ bodies using the AP4 weapons before you move on to the 3+ bodies with your AP3 weapon.

And I maintain that it doesn't need addressing. Firing a weapon at full BS and then firing an Ordnance weapon is like moving a rook diagonally. Just because you did it doesn't mean it was a legal move. The rule doesn't say "afterwards" anywhere, just "that turn."

And those cases where a Leman Russ fires 3 Lascannon at another Tank, but Snap-Fired them, got REALLY lucky, and blew up the tank... Why were you Snap-Firing again? Oh, right, the Battle Cannon was going to shoot, too. At the Exploded Tank...

Not every case is about shooting Crusader Squads or Aspect Squads.

[Houghten]

...aside from not actually being able to take sponson lascannon, I'm curious why you would choose to fire the weapons in that particular order in that particular case.

I want to keep the ability to choose, not dictate thou must fire thy ordnance last.

[John Bower]

And those cases where a Leman Russ fires 3 Lascannon at another Tank, but Snap-Fired them, got REALLY lucky, and blew up the tank... Why were you Snap-Firing again? Oh, right, the Battle Cannon was going to shoot, too. At the Exploded Tank...

Not every case is about shooting Crusader Squads or Aspect Squads.

He didn't say you want to fire them first 'every' time; read the whole statement; it was an example of when you might want to. Of course if you're firing at a tank you want to fire the big gun first in the hope it hits. If not then you would hit it with the Lascannon(s).

But the point still stands; the rule is clear; if you have or are going to fire the ordnance weapon all other weapons must fire snapshots; makes no difference if you fire first or after the big gun.

[Gleipnir]

gotta say I agree the whole Select a Weapon rule in the Shooting and Assault phase was a stupid rule addition, specially since it doesn't hold up well when used in conjunctions with any rules that impose penalties for further attacks.

Do Tau now get to Shoot with and resolve markerlights attacks then choose to fire pulse rifles oh but don't forget you cant remove any counters you added from the same unit only counters that were there before your unit started firing. Its crappy rules writing. I understand the intent was they wanted to give the attacker the option of determining what attack types get used in what order as a direct counter to the defender being able to position where he takes his loses from his unit first via positioning his units and look out sir rolls. 6th edition did this fine by separating out all the attack types into dice pools by strength, AP, special effects and resolving each one at a dice pool at a time(the rule simply could have used better clarification that it applied to both shooting and assault attacks and applied to both rolls to Wound and rolls for armor penetration.

[Charistoph]

...aside from not actually being able to take sponson lascannon, I'm curious why you would choose to fire the weapons in that particular order in that particular case.

Hunh, that changed. But change it to Multi-meltas, and you have the same case.

As to why in that order? Um... Lascannons and multimeltas have a better chance to cause an Explosion! than a Battle Cannon. But you choose to Snap Fire in case it doesn't work and you need the Battle Cannon's hit.


I want to keep the ability to choose, not dictate thou must fire thy ordnance last.

Um, I said first. And as I said, it is more for clarification and smoothness of the game to prevent problems such as they were described. I even said it doesn't have to be my way. As someone said above, just having it declared should be sufficient in most cases. There are almost as many cases where firing any snap-fired weapons may cause the Ordnance NOT to be able fired after the case due to loss of target.

The simple fact is that it is a hole in the order of operations. People forget things all the time and it helps having that order of operations to smooth things out.

Either way, you are still having to make the same basic choice, to fire Ordnance or not. The only difference is that always firing Ordnance first will set those conditions up without question instead of leaving it an open case that someone could argue.



But the point still stands; the rule is clear; if you have or are going to fire the ordnance weapon all other weapons must fire snapshots; makes no difference if you fire first or after the big gun.

Actually, the rule is not clear because it does a piss poor job of recognizing the order of operations. If it was clear, then this wouldn't have been needed to be brought up.

[Gleipnir]

Actually, this is already taken care of with the current rules: In the Shooting Phase section, under Allocate Wounds and Remove Casualties, it says "If several pools of Wounds need to be allocated, the player making the attacks decides the order in which they are allocated." The Battlecannon and Heavy Bolters have different Strength and AP, and so they form different Wound Pools. So fire the Battlecannon, then the Bolters, then resolve the Bolter wounds first, followed by the Battlecannon.

Actually this changed with 7th Edition, with the addition of the Select your Weapon type/name to the shooting phase and the new wording that makes you resolve every weapons attacks from roll to hit to roll to wound to its completion prior to selecting the next weapon and starting over again, gone are the days of Fast Dice rolling to hit.

[Flammenwerfer13]

First thing I would change is wound allocation, omg the current way is mind boggling slow and easy to abuse. I would mix it with 5th and 6/7th ways to allocate wounds.
Allocate one wound at a time from closes model to furthest model, repeat until all wounds are allocate. You can only allocate wounds and remove models from the maximum distance of each weapon fired (you would fire all the weapons at the same time, the current 7th edition firing is super easy to abuse and lazy rule design). Once you allocate out all the wounds you roll all characters in the unit first one at a time and choice to LOS! the rolls or take their armour saves. For all the other models roll all the wounds with the same armour save starting with the lowest armour group first (2+ saves, 3+ saves, then 4+ saves, ect) removing models with failed saves ect.

This alone would greatly reduce the current abuse of the wound allocation system and reduce the effectiveness of deathstars. Yes characters still get their LOS! rolls but you're not having one model tank a bjillion saves by itself.

I would change snap fire shots to -3 Ballistic Skill (can never go below BS1) and flame template weapons only hit D3 models.
Heavy Vehicles fire all weapons at normal even if they fire an Ordnance Weapon.
Extra Armour gives you +1 to hull points (will have Errant out a lot of units that have Extra Armour build it (reduce their cost by 15 points to compensate and increase the costof extra units that can buy it cheaper tan 15 pts to 15 pts).
I would change Gets Hot! Rolls of 1 that you can fire that weapon that turn or the next.
I clarify that Preferred Enemy affects the roll of 1 to Gets Hot! for template weapons.
Vehicles ignore the Gets Hot! for Plasma weapons (what the hell is GW thinking that vehicles Get Hot!)
I would universally reduce all Plasma Pistols to 5pts.
I would universally reduce Power Weapons to 10 pts
I would universally reduce power first/chain first to 15pts

Next I would normalize cover saves from shooting similar to Going to Ground.
I would bring jinking, firing smoke launchers, and going to ground into line as follows;
When declare Jinking, Firing Smoke Launchers, or Going to Ground; before any penetration or wound dice are rolls the unit that is being hit most declare whether they are Jinking, Fire Smoke Launchers, or Going to Ground. If so then that unit receives a +2 to their cover save (so in the open its a 5+ cover save). Any unit that has Gone to Ground can not move or assault the next turn and can only snap fire. Any unit that has jinked can move normal but can not assault and fires snap shots only the next turn. Any unit that has Fired their Smoke Launchers can only fire snap shots next turn but moves and assaults normally.
An Immobilized Vehicle can not jink but can still fire it's smoke launchers if they have not already done so.

Bikes, Wings and Jumppacks are treated as part of the model and can be shot at.
Line of Sight is draw from the models eyes.

I would fix Monstrous Creatures as follows.
MC's can only receive cover from Line of Sight Blocking terrain and have to be at east 25% obscured, this includes intervening units. In units with mixed infantry and Monstrous Creatures to determine if they receive a cover save by ignoring models in the same unit after all wounds are allocated out (if this last sentence matters)
Flying Monstrous Creatures that start on the board can not enter Swooping Mode the 1st Game turn.
FMC only Benefit from Line of Sight Blocking Terrain while in Zooming mode.
FMC's can not jink while in Gliding Mode. FMC that Jink while in Zooming mode receive a +1 to their grounding check at the end of the shooting phase. FMC's that are grounded can not assault the next turn and can not enter Swooping Mode the following turn it can move. Otherwise the FMC can move as normal.

Jump Infantry and FMCs can assault Flyers that are in Zooming mode but can only hit the zooming flyer on a 5+ in assault.
Flyers that can hover can start on the board first turn but can not enter zooming mode the first game turn.

I would change assault to 6"+D6
Hull mounted, Sponsoon, and Pintel Mounted Weapons on vehicles can fire Overwatch in Assault (most still be able to draw LOS as normal before the assault).

You can allocate up to half your attacks per pistol equal to number of shots the pistol could fire normally in the assault phase (so only one shot from a plasma pistol in close combat for example).
You can not allocate wounds in Assault further than 3 inches from the your closest model.
You can choice to snap fire your weapon in close combat instead of fight normal (does not apply to pistols) if you can fight in close combat as normal.
Chainswords are User Str, AP6, rending.
Power Axes at +2 Str, -1 Int, AP2, Concussive
The Specialist Weapon USR would only apply to models with matching sets of weapons (dual power fist or dual power claws).

I would change that Eldar and Gk's cast normal on Sanctic Powers but can't cast on the Daemon powers. (stupid GW and letting Eldar summon daemons!)
Chaos Marines and Daemons can cast on the Daemon Powers but not the Sanctic powers.
When rolling to deny blessings you roll normal as if they were targeting you and you just need to subtract the deny dice from the dice that allow the power to go off. If the total is less than the charges needed the power fails.

I think could think of a dozen other things but here are some ideas.

[Lee D Boosey]

:cool:I'd like to see all Astartes (both loyalist and chaotic) get rules for their weapons that reflect their decades of training and indoctrination. Surely, a marine equipped with a boltgun should be much more proficient with it than an officer of the astra militarum (imperial guard). I'd suggest maybe making an Astartes Boltgun rapid fire 2 to reflect this.
Also, I'd like to see rules for power armour and terminator armour that negate the unwieldy rule. After all isn't that the point to wearing those types of armour. It makes no sense that a marine in terminator armour can shoot heavy and rapid fire weapons without any penalties, but that that power fist he's to rely on in combat is too heavy to swing effectively.

[sfshilo]

I would change grenades to one per unit per phase instead of may throw one per unit per phase.

Having a bunch of dudes fighting with JUST grenades is dumb. Also stealth vehicle buff.

Finally, in my area everyone plays ordinance as order of firing. If you fire it first you snap after. If you fire it last good to go.

Not sure why you want to change it, literally one vehicle has this issue, the leman russ, and everyone but you seems ok with that rule the way it is written.

[Charon]

I think could think of a dozen other things but here are some ideas.

Congratz you completely destroyed Dark Eldar *thumbs up*

[John Bower]

:cool:I'd like to see all Astartes (both loyalist and chaotic) get rules for their weapons that reflect their decades of training and indoctrination. Surely, a marine equipped with a boltgun should be much more proficient with it than an officer of the astra militarum (imperial guard). I'd suggest maybe making an Astartes Boltgun rapid fire 2 to reflect this.
Also, I'd like to see rules for power armour and terminator armour that negate the unwieldy rule. After all isn't that the point to wearing those types of armour. It makes no sense that a marine in terminator armour can shoot heavy and rapid fire weapons without any penalties, but that that power fist he's to rely on in combat is too heavy to swing effectively.

They already are Rapid Fire weapons..... Not sure what you'd change here. I do agree that a tac marine should be better at both CC and ranged combat than Assault or Devastators due to having got past that already.

[Charistoph]

They already are Rapid Fire weapons..... Not sure what you'd change here. I do agree that a tac marine should be better at both CC and ranged combat than Assault or Devastators due to having got past that already.

Personally, I think the Grey Hunters have the answer for that, honestly, at least partially.

According to fluff, Grey Hunters run the experience from an Assault Marine to a Tactical. What I find is odd is that Tacticals carry a pistol and a main weapon, but no knife or chainsword. For an "experienced" unit, they should carry a pistol, combat blade, and main weapon (or at least, the option to). From there, 1 out of 5 can carry a Special or Heavy Weapon, no matter the final total in the squad. This should allow the unit to carry out both aspects of the mission they have trained for.

[Lee D Boosey]

They already are Rapid Fire weapons..... Not sure what you'd change here. I do agree that a tac marine should be better at both CC and ranged combat than Assault or Devastators due to having got past that already.

Yes they do but I said that maybe an Astartes boltgun should be rapid fire 2, by that I mean 2 shots at 24" and 4 at 12". After all it seems to me that a basic space marine or csm should be something to worry about but they are, imo, sub par when compared to their fluff. Also, I feel that the storm bolter as an assault 2 weapon seems odd. It was always meant to be basically 2 boltguns fitted together and fired simultaneously, thereby giving twice the firepower of a single weapon. As a assault weapon they seem, imo, very watered down.
I also mentioned the unweildy rule with regard to power and terminator armour as it seems odd that my marine equipped with thunder hammers, power fists and power axes are unable to heft these weapons in the way they should be.

Another thing that bothers me is that an Astartes is meant to be the elite of the elite, stuffed choc full of uber genetics meant to keep them alive except under the most grievous of wounds, and yet they are effectively not much better on the table than a basic guardsman. Maybe its just me and that my marines seem to wear tin foil armour but surely an extra wound and attack would go some way to making them seem like the imposing warriors they are meant to be.

[John Bower]

Yes they do but I said that maybe an Astartes boltgun should be rapid fire 2, by that I mean 2 shots at 24" and 4 at 12". After all it seems to me that a basic space marine or csm should be something to worry about but they are, imo, sub par when compared to their fluff. Also, I feel that the storm bolter as an assault 2 weapon seems odd. It was always meant to be basically 2 boltguns fitted together and fired simultaneously, thereby giving twice the firepower of a single weapon. As a assault weapon they seem, imo, very watered down.
I also mentioned the unweildy rule with regard to power and terminator armour as it seems odd that my marine equipped with thunder hammers, power fists and power axes are unable to heft these weapons in the way they should be.

Another thing that bothers me is that an Astartes is meant to be the elite of the elite, stuffed choc full of uber genetics meant to keep them alive except under the most grievous of wounds, and yet they are effectively not much better on the table than a basic guardsman. Maybe its just me and that my marines seem to wear tin foil armour but surely an extra wound and attack would go some way to making them seem like the imposing warriors they are meant to be.

Ah sorry, misunderstood you; I thought you meant too by your '2' rather than actually meaning 2. Oh the wonders of the connected generation confusing us all. :) As to the way Spess Mehrens are, I'm quite happy for them that way; they can be dangerous enough if Sternguard pop up behind your tanks as it is grabbing first blood. If they made them like the fluff we'd never beat them as you'd only hit them on 6's wound them on 6's and they'd get a 4+ fnp that gets buffed to 2+ with an Apothecary.