89398
Post by: SGTPozy
Since they're essentially submachine guns, shouldn't they be:
18" Str4 Ap5 Assault 3?
OR
18" Str4 Ap5 Assault 2 Pinning (so the bolt equivalent of the pulse carbine).
What do you think? Does this better represent them in the fluff? Does it make them more useful in game?
46809
Post by: von Hohenstein
I guess you don't want to make your tac squad sarge better at shotting. I guess you'd like to make tac termis better. As the are veterans, give them access to the sternguard special ammunition. 2 rounds of special ammunition would help a lot.
89398
Post by: SGTPozy
My fix isn't about any particular unit, but it's about how it doesn't make much sense; how does a submachine gun shoot as far as an assault rifle?
So to reduce the range, they needed to get a slight buff (either one more shot or pinning).
46809
Post by: von Hohenstein
A stormbolter is not a submachinegun, it is more a assault rifle with higher rate of fire. And it has double the rate of fire compared to a bolter between 12" and 24".
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
As Hohenstein says, a Storm Bolter is not an SMG. It just looks like one because it's being held by a Terminator.
This is what a Storm Bolter looks like in the hands of a human;
81346
Post by: BlackTalos
 von Hohenstein wrote:A stormbolter is not a submachinegun, it is more a assault rifle with higher rate of fire. And it has double the rate of fire compared to a bolter between 12" and 24".
It depends what you go by though....
If anyone here played "Space Marine" the computer game (although i don't think that fluff should be looked at too closely). The Bolter is a rifle with stock of ~30. Storm bolter is pretty much a submachinegun with at least triple, 4x rate of fire and magazine of ~50.
Been a while since i played the game though, numbers might be wrong.
89994
Post by: natpri771
Salvo 2/3 or Assault 3 and/or special ammunition. That way, you have a higher rate of fire and are able to get out more potent shots. Terminators are relentless, so it will all be fine with salvo.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Guys, there are basically two tracks SB need to perform along. Right now they try to compete along both with a single profile and it gets awkward. If we separate those jobs and give the SB two shooting profiles, it gets both easier to see and easier to fix.
- Bolter (Rapid Fire, 24")
- Storm Bolter (Rapid Fire 2, 24")
- Hurricane Bolter (Rapid Fire 3, TL, 24")
- Bolt Pistol (Pistol, 12")
- Storm Bolter (Assault 2, 24")
- Combi-Weapon (Various)
- Grav, Plasma (Various)
Giving the SB two distinct profiles, and saying 'choose one' every time you make a shooting attack, might make it easier to fix. It's also a straight improvement for any Relentless platform, like Terminators or vehicles (where it competes poorly against the range 36" Heavy Stubber).
21954
Post by: EmperorsChampion
Honestly I think they should revamp the Storm Bolter and Heavy Bolter mostly. The regular bolter can get away with being how it is currently, only if it gave tactical marines access to at least one other type of ammo.
Storm bolter should be salvo 2/3 at 24. But sadly, this would hurt GKs the most. Unless it had two modes of fire, the storm bolter needs some work.
Heavy Bolter- Salvo 3/5 with a range of 36. Still S5 AP4.
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
 BlackTalos wrote: von Hohenstein wrote:A stormbolter is not a submachinegun, it is more a assault rifle with higher rate of fire. And it has double the rate of fire compared to a bolter between 12" and 24".
It depends what you go by though....
If anyone here played "Space Marine" the computer game (although i don't think that fluff should be looked at too closely). The Bolter is a rifle with stock of ~30. Storm bolter is pretty much a submachinegun with at least triple, 4x rate of fire and magazine of ~50.
Been a while since i played the game though, numbers might be wrong.
Exactly where is the 'sub' in the Storm Bolter as a sub machine gun?
71534
Post by: Bharring
Does the Storm Bolter really need a buff? Its firepower isn't great, but doesn't it do what its supposed to?
What platforms are struggling? Tac Termies, sure, but is a storm bolter buff really the right fix?
(I could see rapid fire 2. That could be cool.)
79992
Post by: Bishop F Gantry
Storm bolter + TDA
Twin linked up to 12 inches
2/4 Salvo up to 12 inches
Non TDA wearing characters/veterans gains acess to special issue ammo instead for their Storm bolters.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Bharring wrote:Does the Storm Bolter really need a buff? Its firepower isn't great, but doesn't it do what its supposed to?
What platforms are struggling? Tac Termies, sure, but is a storm bolter buff really the right fix?
(I could see rapid fire 2. That could be cool.)
This is why I say give terminators a different weapon.
71534
Post by: Bharring
Or make it clear that Storm Bolters are a token shooting option, and not the point of a Terminator squad.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Bharring wrote:Or make it clear that Storm Bolters are a token shooting option, and not the point of a Terminator squad.
They need more than token shooting to ever be considered by me at this point, though.
91723
Post by: Nomeny
Just make them Combi-Bolters. That re-roll is killer.
Or maybe make them Pistol 2 weapons?
71534
Post by: Bharring
Do you really want naked Tac Termies to be more of a generalist?
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Bharring wrote:Does the Storm Bolter really need a buff? Its firepower isn't great, but doesn't it do what its supposed to?
What platforms are struggling?
Well, it's pretty underwhelming compared to Heavy Stubber. SB has 12" less range and 1 less shot for AP5.
If I am taking a Volleygun/Gatling Taurox Prime, in which the SB has the exact same range band and strength as my other weapons, the Heavy Stubber is probably still a superior choice. So yes, the SB shooting profile is not very attractive. The Assault 2 is nice for non-relentless infantry, but you won't be getting much shooting in if you plan to assault.
 EmperorsChampion wrote:Storm bolter should be salvo 2/3 at 24. But sadly, this would hurt GKs the most. Unless it had two modes of fire, the storm bolter needs some work.
Heavy Bolter- Salvo 3/5 with a range of 36. Still S5 AP4.
Salvo is actually great for the Heavy Bolter. If it's a GPMG equivalent, you can fire it from the hip (very ineffectively, so Salvo). If it's an equivalent of a .50 Cal though, you can't. It then needs to be sited. But Autocannons are much more like a .50 than Heavy Bolters in terms of game role, so it's quite a nice idea in that way. (Lascannons are like a Recoilless Rifle).
Salvo on a SB would really hurt non-Relentless infantry, and it's an option for some. It also doesn't match the bolter progression, as stock and Hurricane bolters are both Rapid Fire.
Nomeny wrote:Just make them Combi-Bolters. That re-roll is killer.
Combi at 12" = 2 shots twin-linked
Combi at 24" = 1 shot twin-linked
SB at 12" = 4 shots, not TL
SB at 24" = 2 shots, not TL
Rapid Fire would seem to be at least as good as Combi-bolters. Didn't run stats. Preserving the secondary Assault 2 profile just prevents non-Relentless units from being unable to charge. You could add (Assault 2, twin-linked) if it was still a little weak.
47138
Post by: AnomanderRake
Bharring wrote:What platforms are struggling? Tac Termies, sure, but is a storm bolter buff really the right fix?
Most PAGK and non- GK Terminators (so everything that has a storm bolter as default and isn't a GK Terminator or a Purifier).
A storm bolter fix isn't essential (cost reductions are more important), but it'd certainly help.
20774
Post by: pretre
It's basically two bolters, so just make it TL Assault 2.
28444
Post by: DarknessEternal
Storm Bolters were, until very recently, much more powerful in the game mechanics than they are in the fluff.
Shuriken Catapults are equal or better than Storm Bolters in every way in the fluff, including range.
So, no, your proposition does not fit the fluff.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
SGTPozy wrote:Since they're essentially submachine guns, shouldn't they be:
18" Str4 Ap5 Assault 3?
OR
18" Str4 Ap5 Assault 2 Pinning (so the bolt equivalent of the pulse carbine).
What do you think? Does this better represent them in the fluff? Does it make them more useful in game?
As many people in this thread have pointed out, Stormbolters are not SMG equivalents. They are, by far, more comparable to a Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW). I'd classify them as such primarily due to the fact that in the background SBs are fully compatible with all of the usual Bolter magazine options, allowing munitions to be easily shared out in the squad if a Tac Sarge takes an SB- fluff-wise, at least.
I've mentioned my thoughts on the matter, which I'll repost here:
Whiskey144 wrote:New Trait: Tearing To-Wound rolls of "1" may be re-rolled; To-Wound rolls of "6" are also Pinning. All Bolt weapons have the Tearing trait.
New Trait: Storm Each successful To-Hit roll counts as two hits, rather than just one.
Stormbolters would then have the following profile:
Range 24" Assault 3 S4 AP5 Tearing, Storm
While it does introduce a few extra rules, which is potentially complicating, I feel that this would vastly improve SB firepower, making it viable in every application that Stormbolters are available for. Of course, this upgrade Stormbolter would potentially be far more useful than a Heavy Stubber, which means we'd need to fix that too, and GKs would have some enormous ripple effects from this, the nature and magnitude of which I have no idea.
Flipside, however, is that any Marine/ SoB squad leader/character now has a tough choice to make between a Stormbolter and a combi-weapon (if you're kitting up a shooty squad), while SoB players now have a viable ranged anti-infantry special weapon. Something I see a lot of people forget is that, for whatever reason, Stormbolters are a special weapon choice for the SoB army. This change would certainly make a Stormbolter a competitive choice when weighed against a flamer or meltagun.
How many people does it take to realize that Salvo cuts your range in half if you move an inch. Almost every single time I see a "Stormbolters should be Salvo" comment, it's always "Salvo 2/whatever". I say "2/whatever", because your stationary RoF is irrelevant when you consider that your moving RoF is identical to a Rapid Firing Bolter and cannot fire past 12"- unlike that Bolter.
How about some examples of Salvo weapons, so we can see which are actually good on non-Relentless/ SnP models, and which are most definitely not:
Case Study: DE Splinter Cannons
DE Splinter Cannons are basically a Splinter Rifle pumped up on whatever bizarre eldritch things the DE like to snort. The weapon offers a vast increase in firepower against targets which you want to fire Splinter Rifles at. Being Salvo 4/6 and 36" of range means that on the move it's half-range value is 18", and it still provides twice as many shots when in the 12" Rapid Fire range of Splinter Rifles. Not only that, but it even offers a 6" band where it provides 300% more shots than a Splinter Rifle, even if it's followed by the 18-24" band where Splinter Rifles can still fire and a moving, non-Relentless Splinter Cannon can't. If you do sit still, then the Cannon gets 50% more range, and from 0-12" you have 200% more shots, from 12-24" you have 500% more shots, and from 24-36" you would have infinity more shots as the Splinter Rifle then runs out of range.
Cannon Pros: more dakka at almost every range band, and longer overall range.
Verdict: VIABLE
Case Study: IG Hotshot Volley Guns
The HSVG is a Salvo 2/4 gun with 24" of range. It's accompanying rifle is the Hotshot Lasgun, at Rapid Fire 18". HSVGs also have +1S in comparison to the HS Lasgun. When on the move, the HSVG offers slightly better performance in the 0-9" band where the Lasgun can double tap, thanks to the HSVG's +1S benefit. From 9-12", the edge of on-the-move Salvo range, you get 100% more shots and +1 Strength. If you are moving, then you do have a somewhat large band of 12-18" where the HSVG can't fire due to being out of range, however, sitting still offers an enormous increase in performance.
The HSVG isn't quite as good of a Salvo weapon as the Splinter Cannon- the range and RoF differences aren't really that great if your mans are walking around, but the HSVG does offer +1S compared to the HS Lasgun, so that gives it a little bit better of an edge in comparison to the latter.
HSVG Pros: +1S, slightly better range, better RoF when camping.
Verdict: USABLE
Case Study: SM Grav Guns
Grav Guns seem to break most of the rules that are starting to form about Salvo weapons- that in order to be decent and usable they have to offer better RoF, better range, and/or some other trait that makes them better than the basic infantry weapon a unit carries. Grav Guns, however, cheat around this by being AP2 and having a special rule to wound on the same roll as the target's armor save. The flipside is that Grav Guns fulfill a different role compared to the basic infantry weapons; they excel at murdering 2+ save anything, particularly if you manage to get them into range of say, a Riptide (nearly impossible, but would have spectacular effect on target).
Grav Guns are, however, 18" range and Salvo 2/3, so giving them to a Tactical or Sternguard Marine is kind of limiting- if you have them move around, it'll only have 9" of range, and Grav weapons are pretty bad at killing light infantry. This being said, Grav weapons do excel at killing things that a bolter-toting squad usually has trouble with, so it does offer increased capability. Alas, Grav Guns are pretty terrible on anything that isn't either Bikers or DevCents, since Bikers are Relentless and DevCents are SnP.
Grav Gun Pros: murdering 2+ armor anything, AP2
Verdict: VIABLE on select units (Bikers/DevCents); PASSABLE on everything else
Case Study: GK Psycannons
And here we come to one that is borderline useless if you're not Relentless. Psycannons are Salvo 2/4, 24" range. Oh, hey, the exact same RoF+range combination that's often suggested for Stormbolters to 'fix' them. The only redeeming qualities of Psycannons on non-Relentless models (IE, PAGKs) is that Psycannons are S7 and Rending.
That's it. That's the only thing they have going for them. Granted, the current meta of 7th is to spam as many S6/7 weapons as you can, which theoretically makes Psycannons the absolute bomb given you can get them on almost everything in a GK list... except for that range if you want to move around.
Stormbolters, OTOH, would not have the almost-redemptive qualities of S7/Rending.
Verdict: TERRIBLE unless you're Relentless. Then they're pretty chill.
 AnomanderRake wrote:Bharring wrote:What platforms are struggling? Tac Termies, sure, but is a storm bolter buff really the right fix?
Most PAGK and non- GK Terminators (so everything that has a storm bolter as default and isn't a GK Terminator or a Purifier).
A storm bolter fix isn't essential (cost reductions are more important), but it'd certainly help.
AnomanderRake is mostly right, as I would amend his sentiment to be "almost anything that can take a Stormbolter". Often times the options are "combi weapon OR Stormbolter". Guess what never gets picked?
Then there's vehicles, where a Stormbolter is almost invariably passed over unless you just want a cheap spare gun to soak Weapon Destroyed results. Which is about the only use vehicles have for Stormbolters these days.
63003
Post by: pelicaniforce
I feel like the posts about salvo storm bolters have a fair amount of merit. I mean, of course the content is really weak and hard to respect. However, sometimes posting in proposed rules isn't about earnestly seeking good rules, it's about quacking. So maybe those are very successful posts.
When I'm trying out new rules, it is somewhere that uses house rules, obviously. So I always value Martel732, because the ideal rule, even if it is fluffy or narrative, functions perfectly in a non-fluffy, non-narrative competition.
What I get from that principle, is that if you take a storm bolter and make it assault 4, shred, and pinning, you have done effectively nothing. Even a full, ten model tactical squad upgraded to these weapons is not worth additional points, because its power is against a narrow group of low-priority targets that are often entirely absent from the opposing army.
You have a straight up tactical squad with bolters, and your new weapon traits, or straight up shred and pinning, but the problems are that first, the point of the squad is still theoretically to deploy a plasma gun, or melta gun, or missile launcher, and second, if you are facing mechanized-anything, or Necrons, or MEq anything, your bolters are exercises for you dice hands, if you use them at all.
Speaking of exercises, Tearing adds an additional set of dice to roll to the shooting of every single unit in the army, even though it doesn't add any new capability, e.g. penetrating vehicles, piercing armor, wounding MCs, to the gun. I like rules like gauss or bladestorm, that do allow new things, but use the same dice rolls that would be made with regular las rifles.
Ok, it is a mistake to change the storm bolter without considering that all bolt guns can change. However, I want to use the same dice rolls, and I want to do something new. E.g.: Rolls to wound of six count as a strength 8 weapon. You can wound wraithknights, you can pen most FNP and WBB, you can ID. Like I say though: "example;" that try has some problems.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Fixing Storm Bolters. ......
Done. See what I did just then? the answer is nothing which is what would fix a storm bolter.
Its 2 bolters strapped side by side and it gets assault 2 instead of rapid fire. Furthermore its only two points more expensive then a twin linked shoota which is AP6 and 18inch range. So garbage compared to a storm bolter. Stop complaining about every aspect of terminators.
11860
Post by: Martel732
No, the storm bolter is perhaps the worst part of terminators.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
for how cheap it is its amazing. your idea of equipping everyone with assault cannons would break the game.
11860
Post by: Martel732
 Ghazkuul wrote:for how cheap it is its amazing. your idea of equipping everyone with assault cannons would break the game.
Hardly. Eldar run around with that kind of firepower and no one bats an eye. On fast platforms to boot.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Yes but they don't run around DS and having 5 of them lumped into a single unit. not to mention the high leadership and 2+ save and 5+ invul
11860
Post by: Martel732
Ghazkuul wrote:Yes but they don't run around DS and having 5 of them lumped into a single unit. not to mention the high leadership and 2+ save and 5+ invul
Warp spider's mobility is more valuable than 2+/5++. Especially for the price difference. Even if you give them assault cannons, they are completely inferior to grav cents. That tells you how bad they are now.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Martel732 wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:Yes but they don't run around DS and having 5 of them lumped into a single unit. not to mention the high leadership and 2+ save and 5+ invul
Warp spider's mobility is more valuable than 2+/5++. Especially for the price difference. Even if you give them assault cannons, they are completely inferior to grav cents. That tells you how bad they are now.
your right, being able to move closer to the gunz that are mowing you down is way more valuable then being able to save the number of wounds your getting.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Ghazkuul wrote:Martel732 wrote: Ghazkuul wrote:Yes but they don't run around DS and having 5 of them lumped into a single unit. not to mention the high leadership and 2+ save and 5+ invul
Warp spider's mobility is more valuable than 2+/5++. Especially for the price difference. Even if you give them assault cannons, they are completely inferior to grav cents. That tells you how bad they are now.
your right, being able to move closer to the gunz that are mowing you down is way more valuable then being able to save the number of wounds your getting.
Warp spiders played corrected get very little return fire is there is LOS blocking on the board. And their firepower is crazy.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Again your comparing 1 aspect of a unit to that of terminators and not the entire stat line. Terminators crush spiders in CC and can survive shots that would liquify the spiders. But instead your thinking (yet again) that "spiders shoot so much compared to my expensive terminators."
11860
Post by: Martel732
Ghazkuul wrote:Again your comparing 1 aspect of a unit to that of terminators and not the entire stat line. Terminators crush spiders in CC and can survive shots that would liquify the spiders. But instead your thinking (yet again) that "spiders shoot so much compared to my expensive terminators."
Terminators can never catch spiders, so that is moot. I'm not sure terminators actually have better durability/pt than warp spiders.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Like I said earlier and probably in a different post, you hate most of your army. If you hate Terminators, Land Raiders and Tactical Marines why don't you switch armies so people don't see 3-4 different topics in this forum about changing the models to make you a better player.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Ghazkuul wrote:Like I said earlier and probably in a different post, you hate most of your army. If you hate Terminators, Land Raiders and Tactical Marines why don't you switch armies so people don't see 3-4 different topics in this forum about changing the models to make you a better player.
Are those three units most of my army? Especially given that you know I refuse to use two of them?
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Im convinced at this point your getting destroyed in your games and your complaining about units to try and balance the ego loss.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Ghazkuul wrote:Im convinced at this point your getting destroyed in your games and your complaining about units to try and balance the ego loss.
I believe I've been open and honest with my track record vs Eldar/Tau/Gravstars. Making the changes in these threads wouldn't even help against those lists. So there goes your theory.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
pelicaniforce wrote:I feel like the posts about salvo storm bolters have a fair amount of merit. I mean, of course the content is really weak and hard to respect. However, sometimes posting in proposed rules isn't about earnestly seeking good rules, it's about quacking. So maybe those are very successful posts.
When I'm trying out new rules, it is somewhere that uses house rules, obviously. So I always value Martel732, because the ideal rule, even if it is fluffy or narrative, functions perfectly in a non-fluffy, non-narrative competition.
What I get from that principle, is that if you take a storm bolter and make it assault 4, shred, and pinning, you have done effectively nothing. Even a full, ten model tactical squad upgraded to these weapons is not worth additional points, because its power is against a narrow group of low-priority targets that are often entirely absent from the opposing army.
You have a straight up tactical squad with bolters, and your new weapon traits, or straight up shred and pinning, but the problems are that first, the point of the squad is still theoretically to deploy a plasma gun, or melta gun, or missile launcher, and second, if you are facing mechanized-anything, or Necrons, or MEq anything, your bolters are exercises for you dice hands, if you use them at all.
Speaking of exercises, Tearing adds an additional set of dice to roll to the shooting of every single unit in the army, even though it doesn't add any new capability, e.g. penetrating vehicles, piercing armor, wounding MCs, to the gun. I like rules like gauss or bladestorm, that do allow new things, but use the same dice rolls that would be made with regular las rifles.
Ok, it is a mistake to change the storm bolter without considering that all bolt guns can change. However, I want to use the same dice rolls, and I want to do something new. E.g.: Rolls to wound of six count as a strength 8 weapon. You can wound wraithknights, you can pen most FNP and WBB, you can ID. Like I say though: "example;" that try has some problems.
So, first off, I fully acknowledge that Storm/Tearing are additional complications to an already complicated game. Secondly, Tearing is NOT "roll an extra dice, discard the lowest" in the wargame iteration I propose. The variation I propose is that it allows a weapon with that trait to re-roll a To-Wound roll of "1". IE, you make your usual To-Wound rolls, with no additional dice added, and the trait allows an rolls of "1" to be re-rolled.
What you refer to is the original trait as described in the 40K RPGs from FFG, which I drew inspiration from. I would also like to mention the fact that only one army can deploy a Stormbolter as an actual special weapon- the Sisters of Battle. My main issue with Stormbolters as-is, is that they're only taken under two conditions:
1) Unit has one stock; IE, you don't get to choose to have it, and you can't change it for something better
2) It's taken to be an ablative "wound" so that the important gun on a tank (usually an Exorcist of Vindicator) can continue shooting things
Squad leaders which can pick between a combi-weapon and a Stormbolter never choose the Stormbolter, even though it's half the cost of a combi. IMO a Stormbolter, in its current state, is not worth 5 points for an infantry model. As a useful spare gun on a vehicle, it's not worth 5 points. It's only barely worth 5 points when you consider the fact that it allows a much more useful gun (like the Exorcist Launcher/Demolisher Cannon) to continue firing by soaking a Weapon Destroyed result. I'd even say that a Stormbolter would really only be worth 1 or 2 points- keeping in mind that mechanically you're not so much paying to put a guy on the field with a bolter and a stormbolter, but to replace the former with the latter. Any cost the former imposes should not be in addition to the full cost of the latter- that's just nonsensical.
With that being said, I will probably amend the suggestion later (it's pretty late here), to being a much simpler Assault 3 and Shred; mechanically it's not quite as potent, but it's also simpler and reuses existing rules. It should be a viable option compared to the flexibility of a combi-weapon, and it should be effective enough to merit the costs imposed by those models whose primary weapon is a Stormbolter.
Ghazkuul wrote:Fixing Storm Bolters. ......
Done. See what I did just then? the answer is nothing which is what would fix a storm bolter.
Its 2 bolters strapped side by side and it gets assault 2 instead of rapid fire. Furthermore its only two points more expensive then a twin linked shoota which is AP6 and 18inch range. So garbage compared to a storm bolter. Stop complaining about every aspect of terminators.
Chaos Marines would like to have a word with you about Combi-Bolters. Which are literally two Bolters strapped together, and as such the only benefit it has is that it gains Twin-Linked.
I'd also like to mention that:
1) Shootas are the basic grunt gun. A twin-linked shoota should be compared to a Combi-Bolter, as they are functionally identical (18" Assault 2 S4 AP6 Twin Linked vs 24" Rapid Fire S4 AP5 Twin Linked).
2) Terminators are an Elite Heavy Infantry choice, not a line grunt. Their guns should be better.
3) Stormbolters are not two Bolters strapped together. It's actually a fairly complex fire-synced weapon that fires both mechanisms simultaneously. It doesn't haphazardly strap two guns together and then cobble a single trigger mechanism together. It's actually designed around be a twin-barrel, single feed weapon system.
The fact is that stormbolters are ass in every application they get used for. Get over it. If you want to complain about how Orks get shafted compared to Marines, then make your own damn thread.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Im not complaining about orks in this thread, im pointing out that your weapon is better then your equivalent in the Ork list. So complaining about how it doesn't do enough for your elite troops is comparable to me complaining that TL Shootas aren't good enough for my Meganobz. It is a basic weapon that is wicked cheap and double the rate of fire for the model, compared to a regular bolter.
84027
Post by: Josey4u
 pretre wrote:It's basically two bolters, so just make it TL Assault 2.
This isn't a bad idea. Could offset the costs and problems for tac dreads as they are. Not a true fix (bandaid over a bullet hole) but its something. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ghazkuul wrote:Fixing Storm Bolters. ......
Done. See what I did just then? the answer is nothing which is what would fix a storm bolter.
Its 2 bolters strapped side by side and it gets assault 2 instead of rapid fire. Furthermore its only two points more expensive then a twin linked shoota which is AP6 and 18inch range. So garbage compared to a storm bolter. Stop complaining about every aspect of terminators.
than...
It is more expensive than a twin linked shoota (author's emphasis)
I'm just poking man. I play orks also, and I think SBs do need something. Because tac terminators don't scare me when a mob with a nob armed with a power claw jumps off a truck. Even if I only kill 2 of them, I tied them up for a few turns and made up some points. Automatically Appended Next Post: I agree about shootas, but its an ork weapon so I just figure it is crude and crap. I think I only use one weapon with them. Everything else I got is slugga and choppas
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
Ghazkuul wrote:Im not complaining about orks in this thread, im pointing out that your weapon is better then your equivalent in the Ork list. So complaining about how it doesn't do enough for your elite troops is comparable to me complaining that TL Shootas aren't good enough for my Meganobz. It is a basic weapon that is wicked cheap and double the rate of fire for the model, compared to a regular bolter.
Do you even know what the profile of a Bolter is? I ask, because Stormbolters only conditionally have superior rate of fire over a Bolter. Here's the profiles:
Stormbolter
24" Assault 2 S4 AP5
Bolter
24" Rapid Fire S4 AP5
So as we can see, the only time the Stormbolter "out-dakkas" the regular Bolter is when the two weapons are considered in the 12-24" band. Up close- which is theoretically where Terminators want to be, on account of having a powerfist for whatever reason- the two weapons have identical damage output.
In other words, if Terminators are supposed to out-damage a Tac Marine squad, then they should never need to use their powerfists. Which means that Terminators are overcosted, on account of having a piece of equipment that is useless to them, as a primarily shooting-oriented unit.
Additionally, Grey Knights are the only army in the game that has Stormbolters as the basic primary weapon. As I've just demonstrated, a Stormbolter is functionally equivalent to a Bolter. There's literally almost nothing useful you can do with a Stormbolter that you cannot do with a bolter. On top of that, Stormbolters aren't "basic weapons". They're equivalent in purpose to the 'high-end' basic firearms of other Elite infantry. Equivalents would be DE Shardcarbines (18" Assault 3 S1 AP5 Poison 4+) or IG Hotshot Lasguns (18" Rapid Fire S3 AP3).
Other equivalents include Eldar Deathspinners (12" Assault 2 S6 AP- 'Monofilament'; the rule allows To-Wound rolls of "6" it's an auto-wound at AP1), Wraithcannons (12" Assault 1 S10 AP2 Distort), and D-Scythes (Template Assault 1 S4 AP2 Distort). So buffing Stormbolters is by far not unreasonable.
If you have a problem with a Terminator having a better gun, well, maybe I should complain that Terminators can't take twin Chainfists or combi- heavy flamers like MANz get. Or maybe I should complain that Terminators only have one wound and MANz get two. If you bring up the profile difference again, then why don't we just have ourselves a look at the statline for a Terminator and a MAN:
Terminator
WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 I4 A2 Ld9 2+
Mega Armor Nob
WS4 BS2 S4 T4 W2 I3 A3 Ld7 2+
So I'll give you that Terminators have superior Leadership and BS. Initiative for Tac Termies or Hammernators is irrelevant, as they carry almost all Unwieldy weapons, reducing them to Initiative 1, and a power sword on the Sarge might be able to punch an Ork before the Ork can react, but it's not going to do jack against a MAN, considering power swords are AP3.
What I'd like to point out is that MANz have 2 wounds (which is far superior in the "spam S6/7=WIN" meta of 7th), and get an additional attack on all of their guys. In fact, a basic grunt MAN gets more attacks than any SM model short of a Captain. And you get to load up on heavy flamer equivalents for all of five points. I sure wish SM Sternguard still had 5 point combi weapons, but the 6th edition book made Sternguard combis twice as expensive. I sure wish Terminators could actually take combi weapons, but apparently that's a Chaos-only thing.
A MAN having a gun is just a case of him getting something to do while he's trying to get into combat. A Terminator having a gun is so he can spend all his time shooting things in the face. So yes, the Terminator should absolutely get a better basic gun, seeing as how Tac Termies getting into combat is wasting what useful guns they can be given.
11860
Post by: Martel732
See Ghaz? I'm not the lone nut out there ranting at the wind. Other players can do math, too. The stormbolter sucks. If you play a marine list with a lot of them, most other lists will crush you.
63003
Post by: pelicaniforce
Whiskey144 wrote:pelicaniforce wrote:I feel like the posts about salvo storm bolters have a fair amount of merit. I mean, of course the content is really weak and hard to respect. However, sometimes posting in proposed rules isn't about earnestly seeking good rules, it's about quacking. So maybe those are very successful posts.
When I'm trying out new rules, it is somewhere that uses house rules, obviously. So I always value Martel732, because the ideal rule, even if it is fluffy or narrative, functions perfectly in a non-fluffy, non-narrative competition.
What I get from that principle, is that if you take a storm bolter and make it assault 4, shred, and pinning, you have done effectively nothing. Even a full, ten model tactical squad upgraded to these weapons is not worth additional points,
The variation I propose is that it allows a weapon with that trait to re-roll a To-Wound roll of "1". IE, you make your usual To-Wound rolls, with no additional dice added, and the trait allows an rolls of "1" to be re-rolled.
Squad leaders which can pick between a combi-weapon and a Stormbolter never choose the Stormbolter, even though it's half the cost of a combi
With that being said, I will probably amend the suggestion later (it's pretty late here), to being a much simpler Assault 3 and Shred; mechanically it's not quite as potent, but it's also simpler and reuses existing rules. It should be a viable option compared to the flexibility of a combi-weapon, and it should be effective enough to merit the costs imposed by those models whose primary weapon is a Stormbolter.
You're still talking about strength 4 shooting, which isn't worth it. Players don't want to use points on an elite unit that does s4 shooting, and don't want to buy a character upgrade that does s4 shooting.
How are you going to get around that? Strength 4 with a re-roll is still strength 4. It doesn't kill vehicles, light vehicles, high-toughness units, multi-wound creatures, or heavy infantry. It kills regular infantry - both GEq and MEq - and that blows. Usually those things don't even need be killed, and if they do, you don't need to buy a special unit or upgrade to kill them.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
pelicaniforce wrote:You're still talking about strength 4 shooting, which isn't worth it. Players don't want to use points on an elite unit that does s4 shooting, and don't want to buy a character upgrade that does s4 shooting.
How are you going to get around that? Strength 4 with a re-roll is still strength 4. It doesn't kill vehicles, light vehicles, high-toughness units, multi-wound creatures, or heavy infantry. It kills regular infantry - both GEq and MEq - and that blows. Usually those things don't even need be killed, and if they do, you don't need to buy a special unit or upgrade to kill them.
The problem is that I don't see any way that's consistent or logical to make Stormbolters something besides S4. Yes, you do have a point that S4 shooting is lackluster, especially in an army already awash with numerous sources of S4 guns. With Terminators a lot of the improvement to be made really comes down to the other weapons that you can take on them. Stormbolters being buffed to Assault 3 is mostly to help Terminators not be out-dakka'd by an equal cost in Tactical Marines who are also equipped with special/heavy weapons and Rhino transports (!).
The other side of the coin, however, is that Stormbolters are the primary pintle weapon of Imperial vehicles, a character weapon upgrade for almost every Marine/Sisters squad, and even a special weapon for the SoB. At this point, it may just be the case that Stormbolters need to be ridiculously cheap (as in, 2 or 3 points for a character/ SoB special weapon), in order for the Stormbolter to be a viable choice compared to the combi-weapons. In the "Fixing Terminators" thread, there was a pretty interesting suggestion that would allow Stormbolters to overwatch at full BS; here's the quote:
 NorseSig wrote:Storm Bolters are Assault 3 and may be used at full BS in overwatch if you choose to fire snap shots in the shooting phase. This is declared before firing in the shooting phase.
It's an interesting idea, and could potentially incentivize taking a Stormbolter on a squad leader.
Of course, it might be dismissed as entirely irrelevant, since it's still just an S4 gun. Unfortunately I think that the devaluing of small arms and lighter anti-infantry weapons is something that would require substantial overhaul to the core mechanics- or at least the balance of most armies- to actually fix. The meta, for whatever reason, considers spamming S6/7 weapons to be the winning strategy, while a unit can only be "durable" if it is at least T5. Whatever is causing that is similarly causing basic anti-infantry shooting to be heavily devalued. Of course, I'm not actually certain what caused this shift, so I don't really have any idea of how it can be fixed.
87420
Post by: 1/325AIR
Just give storm bolters access to special issue ammo. Terminators are just stern guard in better armor. Seems odd that by changing suits you suddenly loose access to part of your first company armory, and storm bolters are just two bolters strapped together.
63003
Post by: pelicaniforce
Whiskey144 wrote:pelicaniforce wrote:You're still talking about strength 4 shooting, which isn't worth it. Players don't want to use points on an elite unit that does s4 shooting, and don't want to buy a character upgrade that does s4 shooting.
How are you going to get around that? Strength 4 with a re-roll is still strength 4. It doesn't kill vehicles, light vehicles, high-toughness units, multi-wound creatures, or heavy infantry. It kills regular infantry - both GEq and MEq - and that blows. Usually those things don't even need be killed, and if they do, you don't need to buy a special unit or upgrade to kill them.
The problem is that I don't see any way that's consistent or logical to make Stormbolters something besides S4. Yes, you do have a point that S4 shooting is lackluster, especially in an army already awash with numerous sources of S4 guns.
Well, there are Gauss, Tesla, Splinter-poison, and Bladestorm. You had been putting rules onto all bolt weapons, hadn't you?
With Terminators a lot of the improvement to be made really comes down to the other weapons that you can take on them. Stormbolters being buffed to Assault 3 is mostly to help Terminators not be out-dakka'd by an equal cost in Tactical Marines who are also equipped with special/heavy weapons and Rhino transports (!).
The other side of the coin, however, is that Stormbolters are the primary pintle weapon of Imperial vehicles, a character weapon upgrade for almost every Marine/Sisters squad, and even a special weapon for the SoB. At this point, it may just be the case that Stormbolters need to be ridiculously cheap (as in, 2 or 3 points for a character/ SoB special weapon), in order for the Stormbolter to be a viable choice compared to the combi-weapons. In the "Fixing Terminators" thread, there was a pretty interesting suggestion that would allow Stormbolters to overwatch at full BS; here's the quote:
NorseSig wrote:Storm Bolters are Assault 3 and may be used at full BS in overwatch if you choose to fire snap shots in the shooting phase. This is declared before firing in the shooting phase.
It's an interesting idea, and could potentially incentivize taking a Stormbolter on a squad leader.
Of course, it might be dismissed as entirely irrelevant, since it's still just an S4 gun. Unfortunately I think that the devaluing of small arms and lighter anti-infantry weapons is something that would require substantial overhaul to the core mechanics- or at least the balance of most armies- to actually fix. The meta, for whatever reason, considers spamming S6/7 weapons to be the winning strategy, while a unit can only be "durable" if it is at least T5. Whatever is causing that is similarly causing basic anti-infantry shooting to be heavily devalued. Of course, I'm not actually certain what caused this shift, so I don't really have any idea of how it can be fixed.
In 2002, high toughness on units was unusual, and any very high strength weapon had a good chance of destroying a tank.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
pelicaniforce wrote:Well, there are Gauss, Tesla, Splinter-poison, and Bladestorm. You had been putting rules onto all bolt weapons, hadn't you?
Yes, I did initially propose some newly-designed bonus rules for all Bolt weapons. However, I have since revised my opinion that it would actually help- at least, not in the fashion that I initially considered. It's also worth noting that, alas, my ideas do not really mirror how Gauss/Tesla/Bladestorm scale so amazingly well. Truth be told, I consider Bladestorm to be a bit overperforming in comparison to other basic weapons. Monofilament is, however, quite a bit worse IMO, but is also relatively rare. Distort, Gauss, Tesla, and Splinter-poison I take no issue with, as they have their limits (mostly... *cough* WK *cough*); for example Gauss is auto-wound/-glance on a 6, but it still has to deal with saving throws from armor/cover/invulnerable saves. Tesla generates two bonus hits on a 6, but cannot leverage this in snapfire conditions (which was slightly over the top when it could). Splinter-poison scales tremendously well against high-T anything, but is utterly helpless against vehicles.
Distort weapons are generally saddled with a very short range, on relatively slow platforms. Wraithknights are really the only outlier in this particular case, with a very long range Distort weapon, on a very mobile and durable platform. This is related, incidentally, to a problem that was briefly touched on in the 40K GD forum, in the thread about Bladestorm 'hate'. It comes down to the fact that most Troops units that are "good" are units whose default weapons scale well. As an example, Eldar DAs and Bladestorm. Or perhaps an even better one (since most competitive Eldar players tend to take min-sized DA squads purely to get Wave Serpents), Necron Warriors (or Immortals) with Gauss weapons. There is also something to be said for GK Terminators as well, since they are a Troops choice and incorporate Force weapons (IE, something that scales). Unfortunately GK Termies are not nearly as good, due to the limitations on having to get into combat to leverage their 'scalable' weapons, something that is quite difficult to do in the face of mass S6/7 weaponry on mobile platforms (like WS, for example).
The traits I proposed for Bolt weapons would have been a slight improvement against targets that they already do well against. It's why I'm becoming less and less attached to improving Stormbolters past giving them Assault 3 instead of Assault 2. Part of that is, however, because there's very little support, it seems, for actually making Stormbolters a more useful infantry weapon.
pelicaniforce wrote:In 2002, high toughness on units was unusual, and any very high strength weapon had a good chance of destroying a tank.
And in 2015 high Toughness has become the standard, and very-high-strength weapons found wanting due to low RoF. Times, and the meta, change. I'm leaning towards the idea that it has changed slightly for the worse, though from what I understand 6th edition was slightly- though only slightly- better.
1/325AIR wrote:Just give storm bolters access to special issue ammo. Terminators are just stern guard in better armor. Seems odd that by changing suits you suddenly loose access to part of your first company armory, and storm bolters are just two bolters strapped together.
This would probably be broken. The main issue is, as you said, that "Terminators are just Sternguard in better armor". This is a bad idea. I do not think that giving Stormbolters access to Special-Issue Ammunition is necessarily bad, per se. But there should be a limit on it. My own take is that if Stormbolters get special ammo, then you should have to pick which one you want as the extra profile. I say "extra" because Vengeance rounds would not be particularly good as an "all-the-time" upgrade, due to losing 6" of range and being penalized with Gets Hot. On the flipside, we could instead device Stormbolter-specific special ammo... which would be kind of awesome. Maybe even stat up some Heavy Bolter and Shotgun specific options as well, and then allow Sternguard to take Shotguns/Stormbolters in place of regular Boltguns. This opens up some additional shooting versatility, and potential for some interesting units, IMO.
Also, Stormbolters are not "just two bolters strapped together". That particular combination is specifically referred to as a "Combi-Bolter". A Stormbolter is actually fire-synced so that both barrels fire simultaneously, every time you pull the trigger. In contrast, a Combi-Bolter is not fire-synced, and so it lacks the sheer RoF potential of a Stormbolter, instead gaining Twin-Linked.
Incidentally, if we improve Stormbolters, we'll need to fix Combi-Bolters as well.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Why not Rapid Fire 2, really? It's common to the entire S4 Bolter path, it scales with the other weapons, and Termies with Relentless don't suffer from being unable to charge.
Whiskey144 wrote:The meta, for whatever reason, considers spamming S6/7 weapons to be the winning strategy, while a unit can only be "durable" if it is at least T5. Whatever is causing that is similarly causing basic anti-infantry shooting to be heavily devalued. Of course, I'm not actually certain what caused this shift, so I don't really have any idea of how it can be fixed.
A lot of the popular or undercosted power units are AV11+ or T5+, so S3/S4 weapons can't really hurt them well. At BS4, it takes something like 10 shots to put a wound on a Riptide, 60 shots for an unsaved wound. S6 needs something like 24 shots to cause an unsaved wound, S7 needs 18 shots.
If you take a squadron of War Walkers w/2x SL, at 210pts, you get 24x S6 shots and better range as well. You'd need 840pts of Tac Marines to do the same damage at 24".
So basically you have 6x the damage against bigger targets at S6, and there's lots of undercosted big targets in the meta. Flyrants, Riptides, Wave Serpents, Wraithknights, Knights, etc...
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
The reason "why not Rapid Fire 2" is mostly because I keep forgetting about it as an option. It actually sounds pretty awesome too. The only possible issue I see is that it's not really... well, 'idiot-proof', how you'd phrase a Rapid Fire weapon that fires more shots than the common varieties.
Perhaps Rapid Fire weapons should be classified as "Rapid Fire 2/1", merely reversing the nomenclature of Salvo weapons- more shots at half range, but able to fire fewer at longer range, even if you move. Of course, the catch with that is is that it may become confusing since Rapid Fire and Salvo weapons are still somewhat similar rules-wise.
Also, thank you for the enlightening view of why S6/7 is so popular these days, especially the explanation of the "mathhammer" behind it.
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
So here's the thing with what's wrong with Storm Bolters.
I am effectively paying 5 points for... an extra shot at long range.
 Yay.
Storm Bolters were over-costed at 3 PPM. At 5 they're a fricken joke.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
Which is an excellent summary of why we need to fix them. Even if the main thing they offer is just "you get more bullets per mang", they should actually be worth the cost.
I don't mind a Stormbolter being a 5 point upgrade, as long as it's actually worth the cost.
Incidentally, after some thought, perhaps a "Rapid Fire 4/3" profile, where it gets 4 shots at 0-12", and 3 shots at 12-24"? That might be worth the 5 points that SBs are apparently supposed to cost.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
My idea is this
Make storm bolters assault 3
You can shoot snapshots in your shooting phase to get full BS with storm bolters in the overwatch
Storm bolters grant an extra melee attack to a model in TDA (like a pistol does except it works even if the weapon has the specialist weapon rule)
A model in TDA may give up the extra attack in melee for a full BS with the storm bolter in overwatch
Storm bolters may be used to make multiple overwatches even if you are in melee, but are made as snap shots after passing a leadership test at -1 leadership
86450
Post by: Alcibiades
EmperorsChampion wrote:Honestly I think they should revamp the Storm Bolter and Heavy Bolter mostly. The regular bolter can get away with being how it is currently, only if it gave tactical marines access to at least one other type of ammo.
Storm bolter should be salvo 2/3 at 24. But sadly, this would hurt GKs the most. Unless it had two modes of fire, the storm bolter needs some work.
Heavy Bolter- Salvo 3/5 with a range of 36. Still S5 AP4.
Do the math on a 5-shot HB. You hae just made autocannons near-pointless. Automatically Appended Next Post: An extra shot at long range is _double the damage output_. So yes, yay. 
80586
Post by: Zewrath
I feel like the main problem with the Storm Bolter is the fact that it's a relic of the past. Assault 2 was actually a good profile because prior to 6th/7th. You weren't able to move and shoot with rapid fire weapons, like the way you are now. The assault 2 24" profile effectively meant twice the firepower (which isn't true anymore), regardless of having moved and with the ability to assault right after! Since 6th dropped, the "advantage" and primary selling point of the stormbolter simply vanished and GW never got around to fix that. IMO, all TDA should have an additional USR when they are equipped with either combi-bolter/combi-weapon/storm bolter.
"Indominable Firepower" or "Punishing Rate of Fire" or what ever similarly silly "grimdark" name: Allows any model with TDA to fire their combi-bolter/combi-weapon/storm bolter with the following profile: S4, AP5, 24", Assault 4, Pinning.
Fluff reason would be something like; how dudes in awesome TDA can easily unload all the bolts, in both the cartridges, in a single go, with the suit compensating for recoil, while integrated "ancient" and "long lost forgotten", "relic", yada yada nonsense miracles of the past technologies, targeters maintains a steady aim on the target, regardless of its movement, which results in an "extreme" and "grimdark" hail of suppresive fire (thus pinning).
Just my 2 cents though.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
You bring up an excellent point- fixing Stormbolters means that Combi-bolters are also up on the chopping block of fixing-ness.
Unfortunately, I feel that your changes kind of miss a big issue with Stormbolters:
They're a 5 point upgrade for many Imperial vehicles, that is almost invariably only taken to provide ablative "Weapon Destroyed" protection, so as to keep a much more useful gun (the Exorcist Launcher and Demolisher Cannon being the most common examples) firing.
I don't think that that's a good reason to throw a spare gun onto the vehicle. There should be a legitimate reason to take it, that doesn't involve "hope it gets blown off instead of my actually relevant gun".
This is why I think that suggestions which revolve around adapting the Rapid Fire mechanics in such a way as to allow increased RoF depending on whether a weapon is "Rapid Fire 1/2", or simply going with Assault 3, are much better options- it's a flat bonus that provides improvement across all use cases, and not just Terminators.
There's also the slight caveat that a Terminator-specific SB could literally be almost any weapon type in the game, and it wouldn't matter, on account of models with TDA getting Relentless.
40841
Post by: Traceoftoxin
GK are why it needs to remain assault.
give it 2 profiles,
assault 3 12"
assault 2 24"
Still 2x as good at range, 50% better close range and can assault after. 5 pts for 2 more shots before charging with pf sgt isnt game breaking, but isnt a terrible investment.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Whiskey, a bolter can match a SB in shots at 1-12 inches you are right, but what you forget is that the Tactical Marines are then stranded out in the open without the chance to assault. Terminators can unload their shots and then ASSAULT to utilize their PFs So yeah a bolter can match the damage output but it can't match the utility.
Sorry but a SB as much as you hate it is better then a Bolter, furthermore when you add in the 2+ and 5++ and the ability to literally take out anything in the game with its PFs and Power sword (Sergeant) you have a great unit, As I said it is overpriced so give it a 5 point reduction.
93386
Post by: rhinosaur
Ghazkuul wrote:Like I said earlier and probably in a different post, you hate most of your army. If you hate Terminators, Land Raiders and Tactical Marines why don't you switch armies so people don't see 3-4 different topics in this forum about changing the models to make you a better player.
Ghazkuul wrote:Im convinced at this point your getting destroyed in your games and your complaining about units to try and balance the ego loss.
It seems we have a rash of inappropriate behaviour in here, and frankly, it's getting tiresome.
The proposed rules forum is here for people to propose changes to the rules of the game. You may not like some of those ideas. That's fine. But that's no excuse for ridiculing the poster making a suggestion.
Pointing out (politely!) why you think a given idea is the wrong way to go is just fine. As is offering ideas as to how the idea could be refined or improved. That's part of the point of posting these ideas in the first place.
Simply slamming someone for having the temerity to float an idea? Nope, not acceptable. The same rules on spam and inappropriate behaviour apply here as in the rest of the site.
Please keep in mind that the forum caters to people of all ages, and who don't always enjoy the same aspects of the game that you do. If you see a post that seems to be based more in youthful enthusiasm than in balanced game design, take that as an opportunity to help someone develop their ideas, rather than to stifle someone who is just trying to add a little something different to their game of toy soldiers.
This is from the sticky for this forum topic
I think maybe we should calm down a bit, we are all friends here talking about ideas. cheers.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
Your probably right, I apologize for the ad hominems, It just get's to me seeing the same 2-3 people complaining about every little thing in their armies and then shooting down any idea that does not make it unbalanced or OP as heck. I'll refrain from commenting on space marine lists for a bit because that seems to be the most dominant ones that bug me.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
 Traceoftoxin wrote:GK are why it needs to remain assault.
give it 2 profiles,
assault 3 12"
assault 2 24"
Still 2x as good at range, 50% better close range and can assault after. 5 pts for 2 more shots before charging with pf sgt isnt game breaking, but isnt a terrible investment.
Firstly, a PF Sarge in a Tac squad is a terrible idea. Anything that it will help kill, is also more likely to simply wipe the squad before the sarge ever gets to swing. Also, what happens when a savvy opponent gives their squad leader a power sword, and then challenges out your sarge? Because if you accept the challenge, it's a good chance that your opponent's character will simply cut down the PF sarge- again, before said PF model ever gets to swing, and thus making that PF a total waste of points.
Secondly, it's not that hard to give GKs a specific variant of the Stormbolter that's not quite as good as the traditional Terminator/ PA-Marine/Pintle-mount version. It's also ridiculously easy to explain- even the might of a Space Marine can only compensate for so much difficulty in weapon control, and so a lower rate of fire had to be adopted for the GK-specific SBs. Boom, done, no longer a problem.
Ghazkuul wrote:Whiskey, a bolter can match a SB in shots at 1-12 inches you are right, but what you forget is that the Tactical Marines are then stranded out in the open without the chance to assault. Terminators can unload their shots and then ASSAULT to utilize their PFs So yeah a bolter can match the damage output but it can't match the utility.
Sorry but a SB as much as you hate it is better then a Bolter, furthermore when you add in the 2+ and 5++ and the ability to literally take out anything in the game with its PFs and Power sword (Sergeant) you have a great unit, As I said it is overpriced so give it a 5 point reduction.
Firstly, Ghaz, you do remember that Terminators are Relentless, right? Which means they don't give a damn what weapon type they have, because they can always move, shoot, and charge, all in the same term, regardless of what armaments they fired. Not only that, but what's to say that Tacs are stranded in the open if they're in Rapid Fire range? I mean, seriously, why wouldn't they be sitting in cover? Not only that, but against a number of armies, Tacs don't really care if they're in the open or not, on account of power armor.
Secondly, Bolters matching the RoF of Stormbolters at 0-12" is the bloody problem. When I can literally, take twenty Tacs, give them special and heavy weapons, and Rhinos with HKMs, for the exact same price as ten Termies with a pair of ACs, then why in God's name would I ever, logically-speaking, deploy Terminators? Seriously, why?
As it happens, those Tacs offer an identical number of S4/AP5 shots at 12-24", superior volume of fire at 0-12", plus additional versatility/flexibility due to be able to choose from an assortment of AP2/AP1 short-medium range guns, along with a few high-strength guns ( ML, LC, MM).
Moreover, Stormbolter "utility" only matters if you do not have Relentless. Except that the utility almost never matters, because most of the units that would think "hey, a SB giving me extra long range shots? sounds good!" are also going to actively avoid assaulting things, for as long as they can possibly manage it.
You're also ignoring the fact that the things that a Terminator will want to shoot with a Stormbolter are pretty much some of the shittiest things to try and kill with a PF- Stormbolters are passable at killing light infantry. PFs suck at doing that, because you're paying an exorbitant price for AP2 and double Strength... both of which are, in fact, useless in a fight against mass T3- or even T4- horde infantry. Against horde/light infantry, you want weight of fire/attacks, not quality. Powerfists are admittedly a high-quality attack... it's just that that quality is entirely wasted trying to punch things like Guardsmen or Orks to death.
Seriously, what about that is hard to understand? Stormbolters=light infantry killers, Powerfists= MC/vehicle killers. Those target types are incompatible with each other.
And again, I do not want a 5 point price reduction on Terminators. What I want, is for them to actually be worth their cost. Quite frankly, the increasingly cheap costs of many units has lead to balance issues IMO. Not only that, but it also leads to increasingly unwieldy forces for the generally recommend 6x4' tables.
The only valid reason, IMO, to make Terminators cheaper is to change their PF to a power weapon. Oh, sure, you might think it's the best think ever, but the fact is that if I wanted a Terminator to punch things at S8/AP2, then I'd be better off spending the extra 5 points to take Hammernators instead, because the Stormbolter isn't worth paying for on something I want to stay in combat for as much time as possible.
Finally, you have continued to ignore that Terminators, while the most iconic user of Stormbolters, are by far not the most common. In fact, I'd argue that Imperial vehicles are much more likely to include a Stormbolter- not to mention the fact that (as many do) you seem to have forgotten that Stormbolters are actually a special weapon upgrade for SoB squads. In the former case, Imperial players throw a SB onto a vehicle in order to reduce the likelihood of the "important" gun being destroyed by a pen. In the latter case... I can't say I've ever heard of a Sisters player actually taking a Stormbolter over, say, a flamer or meltagun.
IMO, that's a problem, and symptomatic of a weapon system that's almost totally useless across every possible use case.
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
I proxy my storm bolter Sisters as heavy bolter Sisters, which is the better of the two potential uses for the score or so storm bolters every SoB who started before the boxes disappeared from the shelves will have.
The other use is reminiscent of the dreadsock.
They have never been a viable choice over Flamers. They weren't a viable choice over flamers when they were 3 points per model and flamers and heavy bolters were 5. Even when you could throw a SB on a support-geared BSS for a storm bolter / heavy bolter combo, the points were better spent elsewhere.
31885
Post by: chrisrawr
You can fire storm bolters if you run, and run if you fire storm bolters. Storm bolters are assault 3, and fire at full BS in overwatch.
Storm bolters are now fine as a 5 point upgrade.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Ghazkuul wrote:Your probably right, I apologize for the ad hominems, It just get's to me seeing the same 2-3 people complaining about every little thing in their armies and then shooting down any idea that does not make it unbalanced or OP as heck. I'll refrain from commenting on space marine lists for a bit because that seems to be the most dominant ones that bug me.
It bugs me more that I have 30 terminators that I've ended up with over 20 some odd years that are just dust collectors, I can assure you.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
So, in the Terminator thread, one of the Stormbolter-related ideas was that PA-equipped models could be equipped with Sternguard Special Issue Ammunition in their Stormbolters.
I've come up with a derivative of that, which I'll quote here:
Whiskey144 wrote:Any model with a Stormbolter may choose to take a Special Issue Ammo profile at no cost; it substitutes its own weapon type (IE, Assault) instead of the listed "Rapid Fire" type. Only one Special Ammo type may be issued with the Stormbolter. Further, if a unit includes multiple models armed with Stormbolters, all such models MUST choose the same Special Ammo type.
We could also then extend this to include Sisters-specific ammo types, as well as ammo types that would be more useful for vehicle pintle-mounts.
This would, however, really need to be included with a change from Assault 2 to Assault 3, to just nudge RoF up that little extra bit.
Thoughts on how viable this would be?
Also, thoughts on what some SoB-specific ammo types for a SB could be?
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
The problem with special ammo is that the standard special-issue ammo types are supposed to be rare and special. Storm Bolters rate of fire makes a mockery of that.
That said, they were putting psybolts in assault cannons at one point, so eh.
Sister-specific storm bolter ammo. Off the top of my head;
Psycannon bolts (psykers wounded suffer Perils, daemons can't take invuns)
Inferno Bolts (Reroll to wound, from the 2012 Codex: Sisters of Battle)
Blessed Bolts (Ignore Cover, from Codex: Witch Hunters)
11860
Post by: Martel732
Rare and special..... like Riptides?
80586
Post by: Zewrath
Oh Martel... It's sad to watch a person, who's been playing an army that have been in the receiving end far too many times for any person to consider mentally healthy. 
11860
Post by: Martel732
Maybe, but am I wrong about the fluff?
47274
Post by: adeptus ludus
As SB are normally used by Terminators surely they should count as a pistol and allow the Termi +1 CCA due to the termi armours enhanced capabilities?
OR
make them salvo 2/4 and let them come under the DA Dakka banner 
OR
Rapid fire weapons this would allow the Terminators to still attack as they are relentless!
   
84027
Post by: Josey4u
I think the salvo option makes pretty good sense. Standing fast and dumping brass is exactly what that weapon is designed for
79992
Post by: Bishop F Gantry
 adeptus ludus wrote:As SB are normally used by Terminators surely they should count as a pistol and allow the Termi +1 CCA due to the termi armours enhanced capabilities?
OR
make them salvo 2/4 and let them come under the DA Dakka banner
OR
Rapid fire weapons this would allow the Terminators to still attack as they are relentless!
While it would be AWESOME if Storm bolters worked on dakka banner, but it would only fix Storm bolters for Dark angels and no one else.
84027
Post by: Josey4u
2/4 salvo. +1 attack would only work with a power weapon, not the fist. And to get the salvo to make its worth your Termis can't move, so its a fair trade off.
But my game table is littered with terrain. So our group averages 3-4 objects per 2x2. We make sure stuff is placed in the middle to break up the always present 48" free fire zone.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Termies have Relentless, there is no tradeoff using Salvo 2/4. Point 2, if you don't understand how harshly Salvo penalises non-Relentless infantry (relevant to SoB w/SB), play with Hotshot Volleguns on Scions. Point 3, SB competes directly with the Heavy Stubber on lots of vehicles. You need to balance these two.
Salvo isn't really the answer, for the reasons above. You can still give the SB more shots through either Rapid Fire 2x (like the Hurricane Bolter) or through Assault 3.
Special Issue ammo is an option, but is complicated to balance snd play.
79992
Post by: Bishop F Gantry
Yoyoyo wrote:Termies have Relentless, there is no tradeoff using Salvo 2/4. Point 2, if you don't understand how harshly Salvo penalises non-Relentless infantry (relevant to SoB w/ SB), play with Hotshot Volleguns on Scions. Point 3, SB competes directly with the Heavy Stubber on lots of vehicles. You need to balance these two.
Salvo isn't really the answer, for the reasons above. You can still give the SB more shots through either Rapid Fire 2x (like the Hurricane Bolter) or through Assault 3.
Special Issue ammo is an option, but is complicated to balance snd play.
To attain Salvo you would need to wear TDA, special issue ammo is always an option for non TDA users.
What imbalance would this cause between sb's and Hstubbers?
sb's are primary for TDA and they should gain the most out of it since its their default weapon. sb's dosent define any vehicle, any non TDA wearing unit to my knowledge, only thing I associate stormbolters with are Dreadnoughts and Terminators they should not have to compromise.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
To attain Salvo you would need to wear TDA, special issue ammo is always an option for non TDA users.
What imbalance would this cause between sb's and Hstubbers?
sb's are primary for TDA and they should gain the most out of it since its their default weapon. sb's dosent define any vehicle, any non TDA wearing unit to my knowledge, only thing I associate stormbolters with are Dreadnoughts and Terminators they should not have to compromise.
I think assault 3 would be an ok boost to storm bolters, TDA could allow full BS during overwatch with storm bolters, and or special issue ammunition for them. Heavy bolters are higher str and lower ap weapons. I would say throw pinning onto heavy bolters and sniper rifles.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
For vehicles (which also have Relentless):
Storm Bolter - S4 AP5 Assault 2, 24".
Heavy Stubber - S4 AP6 Heavy 3, 36".
Assault 3 SB: +1 advantage in AP, with a 12" disadvantage in range.
Rapid Fire 2x SB: +1 advantage in AP, 2 shot advantage within 12". Disadvantage in ROF beyond 12" and 24" max range.
I don't think giving SB special ammo types is the answer, that's why your Termies should equip their special weapons. At the end of the day, it's still a bolter.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
 Furyou Miko wrote:The problem with special ammo is that the standard special-issue ammo types are supposed to be rare and special. Storm Bolters rate of fire makes a mockery of that.
That said, they were putting psybolts in assault cannons at one point, so eh.
Sister-specific storm bolter ammo. Off the top of my head;
Psycannon bolts (psykers wounded suffer Perils, daemons can't take invuns)
Inferno Bolts (Reroll to wound, from the 2012 Codex: Sisters of Battle)
Blessed Bolts (Ignore Cover, from Codex: Witch Hunters)
That's a fair point, which I hadn't actually considered. Also, I'd recommend that the Psycannon option be instead referred to as "Psi-Shock" bolts (or something similar), so as to reduce confusion with GK Psycannons. While I do recall that a very long time ago GK Psycannons were most boss for ignoring invulnerable saves, times have (alas) changed.
Also, some time after I wrote that I was thinking about it, and what about a "melta bolt" option, wherein the shots gain the Melta rule? That seems like it'd be kind of cool, though I'm honest as to having no idea how that would actually play out.
Also, I'm digging the idea of pulling some of the older material out to expand on in this way.
Yoyoyo wrote:Termies have Relentless, there is no tradeoff using Salvo 2/4. Point 2, if you don't understand how harshly Salvo penalises non-Relentless infantry (relevant to SoB w/ SB), play with Hotshot Volleguns on Scions. Point 3, SB competes directly with the Heavy Stubber on lots of vehicles. You need to balance these two.
Salvo isn't really the answer, for the reasons above. You can still give the SB more shots through either Rapid Fire 2x (like the Hurricane Bolter) or through Assault 3.
Special Issue ammo is an option, but is complicated to balance snd play.
As mentioned by this fellow, Salvo rules harshly penalize non-Relentless/ SnP infantry models. Oh, and Terminators are Relentless, and so don't actually care about Salvo rules anyways.
That said, I was under the impression that Hurricane Bolters were mechanically treated as a weapon consisting of three twin-linked Bolters that is then considered a single weapon for the purposes of firing and damage results, and that it didn't actually modify the Rapid Fire type in any way (IE, Rapid Fire 2). Also, wouldn't Hurricane Bolters actually be "Rapid Fire 3" to represent the fact that it's actually 3 twin-linked Bolters?
I'm also of the opinion that reusing Salvo nomenclature- merely in reverse- would allow Rapid Fire to be expanded to something like "Rapid Fire 4/3", getting 4 shots at short range and 3 at long range. This also, IMO, makes it slightly more attractive as a special weapon/character upgrade.
I'd also like to point out that my own opinion/proposal for Special Ammo usage would be that you can only get one ammo type in a Stormbolter, and that it would be limited to models/units that can only actually take a single example; units with mass Stormbolters wouldn't really need Special Ammo, IMO.
Also, I think that we can all also agree that Heavy Stubbers need some work as well... of course I personally think that Heavy Stubbers should be Salvo 3/3, with the option to take them as a special weapon in most IG squads- the basic IG Infantry Squad would actually get to take a Heavy Stubber in addition to their usual special weapon, with the caveat that the special weapon may not also be a heavy stubber. But that's just me, and I'm probably crazy or something.
Yoyoyo wrote:For vehicles (which also have Relentless):
Storm Bolter - S4 AP5 Assault 2, 24".
Heavy Stubber - S4 AP6 Heavy 3, 36".
Assault 3 SB: +1 advantage in AP, with a 12" disadvantage in range.
Rapid Fire 2x SB: +1 advantage in AP, 2 shot advantage within 12". Disadvantage in ROF beyond 12" and 24" max range.
I don't think giving SB special ammo types is the answer, that's why your Termies should equip their special weapons. At the end of the day, it's still a bolter.
My take on it is that Stormbolters with special ammo wouldn't be a Terminator thing. Terminators, as you said, already have special weapons. I do like the idea that TDA-equipped models get to do some kinda-special stuff with their SBs (like the possibility of choosing full- BS overwatch, which IIRC was also proposed with a tradeoff that you had to have snapfired in the Shooting Phase). A basic RoF buff to the Stormbolter will mostly benefit TDA-equipped models, as well as GKs, who have a very heavy "density" of SB-equipped models.
In contrast, Stormbolters for SM/ SoB character models or as a SoB special weapon do need a little extra to be worth even 3 points (given Furyou's comment that 3pt SBs weren't even worth it compared to a 5pt Flamer or 5pt HB).
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
Whiskey144 wrote:That's a fair point, which I hadn't actually considered. Also, I'd recommend that the Psycannon option be instead referred to as "Psi-Shock" bolts (or something similar), so as to reduce confusion with GK Psycannons. While I do recall that a very long time ago GK Psycannons were most boss for ignoring invulnerable saves, times have (alas) changed.
Also, some time after I wrote that I was thinking about it, and what about a "melta bolt" option, wherein the shots gain the Melta rule? That seems like it'd be kind of cool, though I'm honest as to having no idea how that would actually play out.
Also, I'm digging the idea of pulling some of the older material out to expand on in this way.
Melta bolts.... just no. If melta could work that way, nobody would make melta guns, because a melta-carrying bullet would be better in every way, and if you can make it for a bolter, you can make it for a shotgun.
Current +1S psycannon rules make no sense anyway. Ward had no idea what a psycannon actually is when he wrote the rules, after all.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
Melta bolts.... just no. If melta could work that way, nobody would make melta guns, because a melta-carrying bullet would be better in every way, and if you can make it for a bolter, you can make it for a shotgun.
Current +1S psycannon rules make no sense anyway. Ward had no idea what a psycannon actually is when he wrote the rules, after all.
Ward didn't have a clue about most everything he worked on. Still angry at him for what he did to the Iron Hands and Black Templar.
I agree with you on no melta for stormbolters. I would be ok with GK having access to special issue ammo for storm bolters.
Assault 3 on stormbolters with the option of firing snapshots in the shooting phase to have full bs in overwatch would be interesting.
Allowing TDA to use stormbolters like a pistol in CC, regardless of weather the weapon has specialist or not; and giving the option to sacrifice that attack for a full bs in overwatch would be interesting. This way if Terminators are in assault range of something they really don't want to assault they could choose to shoot at full BS in the shooting phase, then give up their attack to have full BS in overwatch. Or if they wished to assault something they couldn't really hit except on 6s, but will wipe out in assault but will then have to deal with another assault unit on the next player's turn they could fire at snapshots, assault, and keep a full BS to fire overwatch.
This rule might be better if TDA would be allowed to assault something other than what they shot at, but I worry that might make it too good.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
Furyou Miko wrote:Melta bolts.... just no. If melta could work that way, nobody would make melta guns, because a melta-carrying bullet would be better in every way, and if you can make it for a bolter, you can make it for a shotgun.
Oh, I was just brainstorming a little with that- as I said, I had no idea how it would have worked out. With how you've explained it, it becomes quite obvious as to the fact that it'd be quite daft.
Furyou Miko wrote:Current +1S psycannon rules make no sense anyway. Ward had no idea what a psycannon actually is when he wrote the rules, after all.
I'm not disputing that, merely pointing out that the current mechanics of Psycannons might cause confusion with your specialty ammo suggestion. I'm not really a fan of certain things seeming like they should be one thing and then being mechanically very different.
Incidentally, I'm still not too keen on the change Psycannons got under Ward. Being able to ignore invulnerable saves was a fairly unique- and flavorful option. It would also have made GK the perfect counter to re-rollable 2++ BS.
NorseSig wrote:Melta bolts.... just no. If melta could work that way, nobody would make melta guns, because a melta-carrying bullet would be better in every way, and if you can make it for a bolter, you can make it for a shotgun.
Current +1S psycannon rules make no sense anyway. Ward had no idea what a psycannon actually is when he wrote the rules, after all.
Ward didn't have a clue about most everything he worked on. Still angry at him for what he did to the Iron Hands and Black Templar.
I agree with you on no melta for stormbolters. I would be ok with GK having access to special issue ammo for storm bolters.
Assault 3 on stormbolters with the option of firing snapshots in the shooting phase to have full bs in overwatch would be interesting.
Allowing TDA to use stormbolters like a pistol in CC, regardless of weather the weapon has specialist or not; and giving the option to sacrifice that attack for a full bs in overwatch would be interesting. This way if Terminators are in assault range of something they really don't want to assault they could choose to shoot at full BS in the shooting phase, then give up their attack to have full BS in overwatch. Or if they wished to assault something they couldn't really hit except on 6s, but will wipe out in assault but will then have to deal with another assault unit on the next player's turn they could fire at snapshots, assault, and keep a full BS to fire overwatch.
This rule might be better if TDA would be allowed to assault something other than what they shot at, but I worry that might make it too good.
I would be leery of GK Special Issue Ammo Stormbolters. I personally think that getting Assault 3, and the overwatch bonus you propose, would go a long way to fixing Stormbolters. At that point, for units with massed Stormbolters, like Termies or GKs, they're pretty well set IMO. It's then the models/units which can take a very small number of Stormbolters that need help- this is why I mention the option of picking a Special Ammo profile for use in a SB. This would allow some increased versatility, and would probably make a Stormbolter worth 5 points as a character upgrade or special weapon.
Incidentally, this does bring up two very important points:
1) How do we fix the underperforming weapons that are comparable to Stormbolters? This is, AFAIK, mostly limited to Chaos Combi-Bolters; and
2) How do we fix Heavy Bolters, which have a similar role (weapon-wise) to the Stormbolter?
I've got some ideas on both, though I'd like to hear some input from other people. Heavy Bolters could probably get their own thread- where we can also then include dedicated anti-infantry heavy weapons of similar role/profile, while I think it would be appropriate for OP to edit the title to include Combi-Bolters.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Whiskey144 wrote:1) How do we fix the underperforming weapons that are comparable to Stormbolters? This is, AFAIK, mostly limited to Chaos Combi-Bolters; and
2) How do we fix Heavy Bolters, which have a similar role (weapon-wise) to the Stormbolter?
Basically, you put troops back on the board so vanilla S4 weapons can have targets again. All low-strength weapons without special rules are going to be unpopular until the meta changes.
A point on this -- you can already get a Combi-Weapon or Condemnor Boltgun for 10pts. This is your "special issue ammo". It also gives you a point of reference for your changes. The SB can't be a Combi-Weapon or Condemnor copy. Right now, it's a discrete choice to improve your existing S4 AP5 output. Anti-infantry is unpopular, but that's the meta. You can't let the tail wag the dog. So I personally wouldn't do anything but RoF or cost adjustments.
HB suffers from the same issues. At S5 AP4 it's still primarily an anti-infantry weapon, some utility against open-topped AV10. Most people are going to prefer spending the points on S7+ weapons that can deal with the current meta (Autocannons, Krak Missiles or Lascannon).
11860
Post by: Martel732
The heavy bolter hasn't been good in a long, long time.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I think Salvo 2/3 has some merit.
The Autocannon is like a .50 that needs to be sited. So, heavy weapon.
The HB is like a GPMG that can be fired (less effectively) on the move. So, Salvo.
Haven't looked at balance at all. Just thought it made sense thematically.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
Yoyoyo wrote:Basically, you put troops back on the board so vanilla S4 weapons can have targets again. All low-strength weapons without special rules are going to be unpopular until the meta changes.
This issue with this is that it requires changes to the core mechanics of the game. There are two, off the top of my head, that would really help though:
1) Only Troops may claim objectives, though any unit may contest an objective- IE, bring back 5th/6th-style scoring
2) Vehicles gain a 3+ armor save. It now takes, on average, three times the amount of S6/S7 firepower to spam down vehicles, so it's necessary to dilute that firepower to allow dedicated anti-armor weapons to hit the field. A trickle-down effect is that infantry end up more survivable because there's simply not as much S6/S7 coming in.
Yoyoyo wrote:A point on this -- you can already get a Combi-Weapon or Condemnor Boltgun for 10pts. This is your "special issue ammo". It also gives you a point of reference for your changes. The SB can't be a Combi-Weapons or Condemnor copy.
Not really. Combi-weapons (of which the Condemnor is one) are basically paying to get a second discrete weapon on top of a model's existing bolter. I'd actually go so far as to say that Combi-weapons themselves might be overcosted by some degree for Imperial forces; Chaos is usually paying 7 points for a Combi on a character model, 5 for a Chaos Termie to get a combi-weapon. When you consider that said weapon is a single-use armament, it makes sense to discount it to some degree- after all, I don't see much point in paying 10 points for a single shot flamer or meltagun, when I can get a regular flamer for 5 and/or a regular melta for 10. Plas/Grav costing 10 points make sense- both such "full size" weapons cost 15 for the weapon, so a single-use bolt-on package for a bolter costing 10 points is, IMO quite reasonable.
In any case, the point remains- Combis are paying to add an entire discrete additional weapon, even if it is single-shot.
Yoyoyo wrote:Right now, it's a discrete choice to improve your existing S4 AP5 output. Anti-infantry is unpopular, but that's the meta. You can't let the tail wag the dog. So I personally wouldn't do anything but RoF or cost adjustments.
Firstly, SBs simply don't offer any useful increase in S4/AP5 output. Meta problems of S4/AP5 being unimpressive aside, a Stormbolter adds a single extra shot from 12-24". That's it. In its current incarnation, I question if it's even worth one point, let alone five. Oh sure, you can argue all up and down that it gives an extra shot before charging as well, but most of the units that can buy SBs as a character upgrade are going to be interested in the extra weight of fire, and not the "I can charge after I shoot?! THAT'S AMAZING!" part... especially since it's still not all that impressive.
You get a single extra shot. Big deal. Oh sure, it's impressive when you express it as a percentage- a 100% increase in RoF from 12-24"... but that ignores the fact that Bolters are getting one shot, and SBs are only getting 2. Considering that SBs can be taken as Special weapons for Sisters, I'd say that in PA-equipped squads, the SB occupies a position similar to that of a SAW or LMG analogue.
For inclusion of Special Issue Ammo, about the only one that's not really "more better at killing infantry" (IE, does the current job in a slightly different way), is Hellfire Rounds- and only because Hellfire ammo is 2+ Poison, making it useful for wound saturation against high-T enemies.
Yoyoyo wrote:
I think Salvo 2/3 has some merit.
The Autocannon is like a .50 that needs to be sited. So, heavy weapon.
The HB is like a GPMG that can be fired (less effectively) on the move. So, Salvo.
Haven't looked at balance at all. Just thought it made sense thematically.
Salvo 2/3 is somewhat of a start for Marines and Sisters. Keep in mind that IG deploy all of their heavy weapons on a tripod mount, indicating that such weapons are very difficult to make man-portable, and certainly not practical to fire from a partially braced, standing/crouching position. Also, consider that one of the IG characters can use a Relentless HB. Since this is a special character, it points out that this is the pretty much the case of "extremely exceptional" ability for a Guardsmen.
For a PA'd Space Marine or Battle Sister, the Salvo rules provide an excellent way to make it "fire-on-the-move" capable. I admit that I'm a little skeptical of a Battle Sister being able to fire a HB while moving around- Marines are already established as being able to do a one-man operation of a HB without needing PA, while Sisters are still just regular humans in PA. That said, given that Sisters get their own pattern of Bolter and Stormbolter- the "Godwyn- De'az"- it makes sense that they might have a special pattern of HB that's just for them.
So, for an "Astartes/Sororitas pattern" HB, Salvo 2/3 works quite well. IMO, part of the problem Guard (and to a lesser degree, Chaos Marine) squads have is that they can choose between HBs- which come stock on almost every Guard vehicle ever, or are very cheap additions to almost every vehicle they have- or the AC, which gets +2S and +12" range in exchange for -1 shots. And they cost the same amount too. It's almost a no-brainer- if HBs were cheaper then they might have some merit, but they cost just as much as the Autocannon, and so an IG squad has almost zero use for one.
A squad of Marines can leverage one by a little bit- more so if it's Salvo 2/3. The problem is actually similar to Stormbolters- the HB is incredibly ubiquitous, and so it's hard to fix and not break a bazillion other things. HBs, IMO, would actually be a fantastic place to implement HB-specific special ammunition types for SM and Sisters squads- neither one really has any other heavy weapon option that is so close to the HB in profile and competes so heavily with it. For IG, just making a HB a 5 point option would go a long way, IMO- but a lot of this also has to do with the ease that the IG can mass heavy weapons. For Sisters and Marines, it's a little bit harder- and almost impossible in the Troops slot- and so I think that they'd benefit from some specific ammo types. Of course, in this case a 10-point HB should come with a special ammo type. However, I'm much more in favor of 5 pt gun+5 pt extra ammo option, primarily due to the fact that HB-specific ammo types should increase it's versatility.
Mostly because Autocannons are incredibly versatile, and other Imperial armies don't really get a heavy option that can rival an AC on that count. However, I do not think that any HB-specific ammo options should exceed S5 or have an AP lower than 3, as that would simply continue the vicious cycle of S6/7 spam. Instead, it should be through the use non- Str reliant effects- like a Salvo 1/1 or Salvo 1/2 Rending or maybe Armorbane effect.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
1) How do we fix the underperforming weapons that are comparable to Stormbolters? This is, AFAIK, mostly limited to Chaos Combi-Bolters; and
2) How do we fix Heavy Bolters, which have a similar role (weapon-wise) to the Stormbolter?
Combi bolters I would do to them what I suggest we do to stormbolters. An extra shot and some versatility options.
I say give heavy bolters and sniper rifles pinning. Maybe a slight points drop to heavy bolters. This would keep them in a similar role.
As to the before mentioned special issue ammo to GK, it would be at additional cost. ie not a freebie. Ideally something that helps with their severe lack of tank cracking. GK should have some way to be more competitive without including allies. I have played GK, but do not have a GK army (borrowed a friend's army for a few games while he played mine).
The reason I no longer favor salvo for storm bolters is due to the effect it has on armies that have them as standard issue like GK. It would literally be a nerf to the army. I know they were stinky broken chees in 5th, but GW seriously overcompensated with 7th edition. The new psychic phase doesn't do them many favors do to low model count. If they didn't risk perils of the warp to activate force it might be a little different. But this GK issue is off topic.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Typically, the units that can get a 10pt Combi-Melta *can't* get a 10pt Meltagun, you're costing in the abstract. A Melta on a 3+ Jump unit is a lot more dangerous than on a 5+ footslogger. Hence restricted or expensive access.
HB salvo makes sense by battlefield role. Wasn't thinking of the 40k fluff. A HB goes after GPMG targets (infantry and soft vehicles). A GPMG is usually crewed by a two-man team, and it has a tripod role. But a GPMG is usable by one person, albeit less effectively -- no loader, no tripod. Which translates to RoF and range reductions. It also makes sense by your own analogy. SB as LMG, HB as GPMG, Autocannon as .50, Lascannon as an anti-tank weapon.
Giving a 3+ save for vehicles would do a lot to reign in Autocannon spam. They're used for plinking transports. We can crunch stats later. The HB is still better against T3 4+ infantry. More shots and equal chance to wound. Not quite sure where the curve drops off against more resilient Infantry and MCs.
Anyway, we're a little off track. SB should get a RoF or costing adjustment, anything else is going to step on Combis or essentially be adding a new weapon type. And there's a pretty restrictive ceiling on utility between 10pts and "Combi". Adding new functionality risks adding new imbalances.
So maybe to try and get moving again, let's cover the pros and cons of:
- Assault 3
- Rapid Fire (2x)
- Costing at 5pts versus 3pts.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
Typically, the units that can get a 10pt Combi-Melta *can't* get a 10pt Meltagun, you're costing in the abstract. A Melta on a 3+ Jump unit is a lot more dangerous than on a 5+ footslogger. Hence restricted or expensive access.
I agree combi upgrades are WAY too expensive. 5 points is probably what they should be.
91895
Post by: Ghazkuul
A bolter is the equiv of a Assault Rifle
a SB Is the equiv of a SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) not that 5.56 piece of crap they gave us.
a HB is a MMG (Medium machine gun, good against light armored vehicles) a Auto cannon is probably exactly that a Bloody Cannon. Trust me a .50 puts a significant amount of lead down range.
I think the reason storm bolters are being discussed here as a item in need of a buff is because their primary mission in life is to be carried by Terminators. as a vehicle mount they make a bit of sense but realistically why?
How about just increasing the shots by 1 making them 3 shot weapons. BUT! Making them heavy!, This won't affect Terminators or vehicles but it will keep other units a bit more honest. And I just posted that HB should be Heavy 4 because I think thats more realistic.
63003
Post by: pelicaniforce
As for storm bolters as SAWs and character upgrades: if the idea is that normal bolters are for suppressive, personal-level firefights and storm bolters are for directed, squad-level shooting, then you would combine an "effect x happens on 6 to hit" for normal bolters with twin-linking on storm bolters, or "effect x on 6 to wound" on normal bolters with shred on storm bolters.
I think that certain FOC slots scoring is not a core mechanic at all, which would be more like the mechanic that melee and shooting occur by different rules in different phases, or that units may be moved independently instead of requiring something like order dice. Even stuff like a model rolls to hit separately for a number of shots determined by weapon type is better characterized as core than who can score is.
I say this because you would have a mechanic allowing bolters more damage dice for scoring a critical hit than you would other weapons, if you were talking about changing core mechanics.
As it is, changing who can score means more troopswith wave serpents, not fewer wave serpents.
I think idea 2 is interesting because an s10 ap6 weapon should reall be considered an anti tank weapon. This is one of the issues with tyranid anti tank, in particular.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
Cost-wise, I'd say that a Stormbolter with Assault 3 might be worth 3 points. Some testing would be necessary- also some input from a Sisters player might be helpful, given that (I gather) that Sisters used to be able to take 3 point SBs.
Rapid Fire "4/2" would, IMO, be pretty good for 5 points. A great deal at 3 points. I'm still not sure if Rapid Fire (2x)/"4/2" is the absolute best way to go; Assault 3 isn't as good at short-range weight of fire benefits compared to a regular bolter, but at 12-24" it becomes waaay better. It also seems a much more elegant solution.
Finally, I'd like to dispute this:
Yoyoyo wrote:Typically, the units that can get a 10pt Combi-Melta *can't* get a 10pt Meltagun, you're costing in the abstract.
I'm not sure where you're looking, but almost every unit I can think of that can take 10pt Combi-Meltas can get 10 point Meltaguns:
The various flavors of Tac Marines and Sternguard, as well as Battle Sisters, Celestians, Dominions, Chaos Marines, Chaos Chosen. I think BA ASM as well, but I don't actually know as BA have never really had my interest. Chaos Termies and various non- BA flavors of ASM/Vanguard Vets are semi-valid, but when it comes down to it should those guys really be charging a vehicle that they need a meltagun to kill? ASM are already quite poor, while VV are really pricey, so in the former case you're more likely to charge something that you can simply Krak 'nade to death, and you've got the mobility to go after backfield campers, which also means plasma pistols might (miraculously) be a useful option since, again, you've got mobility to go after rear armor, and most backfield artillery vehicles have thin armor in general anyways.
So yeah, typically units that can take 10 point Combi-Meltas absolutely can get 10-point Meltaguns. In fact, Chaos Termies get 5 point Combi-Meltas and can't take regular 10-point Meltaguns. And on top of that, Sternguard used to be able to take 5-point combis. If that's not damning evidence that 10 point Combi- Meltas are a bit overpriced, then I'm not sure what is.
Yoyoyo wrote:A Melta on a 3+ Jump unit is a lot more dangerous than on a 5+ footslogger. Hence restricted or expensive access.
Sure, 3+ save Jump Infantry with melta is better than 5+ save footslogging infantry with melta. Even better is a Fast Skimmer with two MMs. Or really any kind of fast-moving/ DS-capable Melta platform. Most such platforms also get 10 point melta weapons to boot. Land Speeders, for example, can take a 10 point MM on their pintle mount, and then add a second entire MM for 20 points. Attack Bikes get 10 point MMs.
Granted, both units are replacing a HB with a MM, and not adding an entire extra weapon... but said extra gun is One Use Only, so I'd say that a 5 point combi-melta would be perfectly fair. After all, why should combi-grav/- plas get a price discount for being One Use Only, and Combi-Meltas don't get a price discount, and Combi-Flamers actually cost more.
Yoyoyo wrote:HB salvo makes sense by battlefield role. Wasn't thinking of the 40k fluff. A HB goes after GPMG targets (infantry and soft vehicles). A GPMG is usually crewed by a two-man team, and it has a tripod role. But a GPMG is usable by one person, albeit less effectively -- no loader, no tripod. Which translates to RoF and range reductions. It also makes sense by your own analogy. SB as LMG, HB as GPMG, Autocannon as .50, Lascannon as an anti-tank weapon.
Giving a 3+ save for vehicles would do a lot to reign in Autocannon spam. They're used for plinking transports. We can crunch stats later. The HB is still better against T3 4+ infantry. More shots and equal chance to wound. Not quite sure where the curve drops off against more resilient Infantry and MCs.
ACs are better against 4+ save infantry in general, yes. The problem is that the meta favors the S6/7 weapons so far that most people bring enough to pretty much split the difference with HB anti-infantry capability. It also doesn't help that HBs aren't super awesome at anti-infantry anyways, but that's probably better saved for the HB-thread that just went up.
Also, given the design of most IG Heavy Bolters... I'm leaning more towards HBs being an HMG/GMG analogue, on account of Guardsmen almost always using a spade-grip design mounted on a tripod. Only the Elysian forces seem to buck the trend ( DKoK forces switch the tripod for a carriage mount instead, but retain the spade grip), with their HBs being bipod-mounted and equipped with traditional stocks. OTOH, Elysian forces are also all airmobile infantry, so reducing weight and relative complexity by swapping to a more traditional configuration to save weight at the cost of other drawbacks (probably recoil management) is likely worth it to them.
Ghazkuul wrote:I think the reason storm bolters are being discussed here as a item in need of a buff is because their primary mission in life is to be carried by Terminators. as a vehicle mount they make a bit of sense but realistically why?
How about just increasing the shots by 1 making them 3 shot weapons. BUT! Making them heavy!, This won't affect Terminators or vehicles but it will keep other units a bit more honest. And I just posted that HB should be Heavy 4 because I think thats more realistic.
Stormbolters may have originally been primarily a Terminator weapon, but they've since grown to be available on almost every Loyalist Marine or SoB character, in addition to being a pintle mount for almost every Imperial vehicle.
Aside: SM/ SoB forces using pintle-mount Stormbolter makes sense as this simplifies the logistics of supplying the weapon in the field. For IG forces, they have the currently-superior Heavy Stubber.
Also, Heavy 3 Stormbolters... do you just hate PAGKs? And SM/ SoB characters? Or Sisters in general since they can take Stormbolters as special weapons? I ask, not because I actually believe such, but because Heavy 3 Stormbolters would break every non-Terminator infantry model that can take (or is armed with by default!) a Stormbolter.
Like PAGKs.
Keep in mind that Stormbolters as a special weapon- since Sisters can take them this way, and most gun-related upgrades for Character models are treated as a spare special weapon anyways- are more analogous to Big Shootas. A Stormbolter in comparison to a Big Shoota trades of range and Strength, to no gain whatsoever. Literally, an Assault 3 Stormbolter is a worse Big Shoota in every way possible. About the only possible advantage is GK units, due to the sheer number of Stormbolters they can put on the field ( PAGKs get Stormbolters as a standard-issue weapon, remember).
It's also worth noting that far more powerful weapons get move-and-shoot capability:
HSVG, S4/AP3 Salvo 2/4
Splinter Cannons, Poison 4+ AP5 Salvo 4/6 (!)
Psycannons, S7/AP4 Rending, Salvo 2/4
Big Shootas, S5/AP5 Assault 3
HSVGs and Psycannons are 24" range, while the Splinter Cannon and Big Shoota are 36" range.
So, if Stormbolters had to be Heavy 3, you would of course accept Big Shootas also being Heavy 3, right?
pelicaniforce wrote:As for storm bolters as SAWs and character upgrades: if the idea is that normal bolters are for suppressive, personal-level firefights and storm bolters are for directed, squad-level shooting, then you would combine an "effect x happens on 6 to hit" for normal bolters with twin-linking on storm bolters, or "effect x on 6 to wound" on normal bolters with shred on storm bolters.
I've since come around to the idea that "less is more" in terms of fixing things, and adding some kind of "effect on To-Hit/-Wound "6"" for Bolt weapons is really just needlessly overcomplicating the game- IMO, at least. This is also why I think that Stormbolters, bare-minimum, just need to be Assault 3. Then, adding the option to take one Special-Issue Ammo type along with the basic profile (so as to not gimp Vengeance Round SBs), perhaps for additional cost, depending on where the Stormbolter ends up being fairly costed.
Assault 3, IMO, occupies the best point of compromise for the Stormbolter- it provides more shots at short range, and substantially more shots at long range. Season to taste with Special Ammo, if necessary.
pelicaniforce wrote:I think that certain FOC slots scoring is not a core mechanic at all, which would be more like the mechanic that melee and shooting occur by different rules in different phases, or that units may be moved independently instead of requiring something like order dice. Even stuff like a model rolls to hit separately for a number of shots determined by weapon type is better characterized as core than who can score is.
I say this because you would have a mechanic allowing bolters more damage dice for scoring a critical hit than you would other weapons, if you were talking about changing core mechanics.
As it is, changing who can score means more troopswith wave serpents, not fewer wave serpents.
I think idea 2 is interesting because an s10 ap6 weapon should reall be considered an anti tank weapon. This is one of the issues with tyranid anti tank, in particular.
More Troops with Wave Serpents is a problem, yes. But it's a problem more to do with Wave Serpents, which have their own problems.
Incidentally, the simple solution to Tyranid anti-tank weapons being gimped by vehicles getting 3+ armor saves is... to make Tyranid anti-armor weapons AP3 or better. I never understood why Tyranid anti-vehicle guns never really got better than AP4- I mean, you'd think that they would be able to manage AP3 pretty easily for that purpose, wouldn't you?
86991
Post by: NorseSig
Another thing to note about combi weapons is they are one shot only. Even if you miss or fail to wound with the weapon you can't use it again (exception being certain relics). While combi weapons are a bit off topic they ARE being discussed in this thread in relation to storm bolters. I just happen to think 10 points for a combi weapon is too much. I can understand the cost of hunter-killer missiles their range is infinite and they have pretty good str and ap.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I like the fact that RF links the Bolter-SB-Hurricane family together, so they end up with a sort of thematic similarity. I am a big proponent of unified design. But as a fix goes, both options are pretty close. Probably ought to test them both at this point to get some more detail. The major tabletop difference would be that Termies get a stronger DS with RF if they land within 12". For any unit gunlining with a SB equipped on a character, the assault capability is probably more meaningful than an extra Bolter shot. So:
- Assault 3 at 3pts
- Rapidfire (2x) at 5pts
I think resolving Combi pricing is a big undertaking, it sounds like a lot of cross codex messiness. Maybe it's something for down the line. The main point was that to get a different weapon profile on your Sgt, you're looking at a Combi. SB simply improves your S4 AP5.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Here are some preliminary numbers.
Target Profile and Range
-- Rapid Fire (2x) stats ---> performance
-- Assault 3 stats ---> performance
AV10 Vehicle - Within 12"
-- 4x5x(2/3)(1/6) = 40/18 = 2.22 glances
-- 3x5x(2/3)(1/6) = 30/18 = 1.67 glances
AV10 Vehicle - Outside 12"
2x5x(2/3)(1/6) = 20/18 = 1.11 glances
3x5x(2/3)(1/6) = 30/18 = 1.67 glances
T3 5+ - Within 12"
4x5x(2/3)(2/3)(1) = 80/9 = 8.89 wounds
3x5x(2/3)(2/3)(1) = 60/9 = 6.67 wounds
T3 5+ - Outside 12"
2x5x(2/3)(2/3)(1) = 40/9 = 4.44 wounds
3x5x(2/3)(2/3)(1) = 60/9 = 6.67 wounds
T4 2+ - Within 12"
4x5x(2/3)(1/2)(1/6) = 40/36 = 1.11 wounds
3x5x(2/3)(1/2)(1/6) = 30/36 = 0.83 wounds
T4 2+ - Within 12"
2x5x(2/3)(1/2)(1/6) = 20/36 = 0.56 wounds
3x5x(2/3)(1/2)(1/6) = 30/36 = 0.83 wounds
86450
Post by: Alcibiades
Give them the equivalent of Tesla.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
I think Assualt 3 is their easiest fix. Or salvo 2/4.
71534
Post by: Bharring
Assault seems more right than Rapid Fire or Salvo. The weapon just screams 'I don't care' when it comes to range/assaulting.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
Storm bolters with assault 2, tesla or assault 2 or 3, gauss could prove interesting. It kinda steps on necrons a bit, but could solve issues with storm bolters. Maybe tesla and gauss could be ammo upgrades that a squad of troops with storm bolters could take at a discount (only one type). or a character, independant character, or unique character could take at full cost.
I could live with assault 2 gauss to be honest. the ability to glance vehicles makes storm bolters much more valuable, and would give some needed vehicle wrecking to GK.
If this was done I would say allow tda to make snap shots during shooting in order to get full bs during overwatch would be a neat addition.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
It also would step on combi-plasma or combi-melta, and that's your anti-vehicle option as a Sgt upgrade. Terminators already have special weapons to increase their anti-vehicle capability.
Assault 3 seems like the winner to me.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
So, while I was out being sick (which sucks), I was unable to post my own thoughts.
In any case, my own take:
Assault 3 is the good base option, IMO. I would, however, like to throw in my (continued) support for NorseSig's idea of Stormbolters being able to fire full-BS overwatch.
In the original iteration, IIRC, non-TDA models would have to choose full-BS Shooting Phase or full-BS Overwatch, with the opposite option being reduced to Snap Shooting. While I did briefly think "huh, maybe get both but introduce "Jam" for Overwatch fire, a la Space Hulk?" I rather quickly discarded that idea, as it's simply more streamlined to go with the original idea.
An Overwatch-buffed Stormbolter with Assault 3 I would probably price as 2 points. Yes, really. However, I would also allow such a weapon to pick ONE Special Issue Ammunition profile to take in addition to the base profile for an extra 3 points.
Keeping in mind that all the Special Ammo options are limited to being primarily anti-"GEQ/MEQ", with anti-TEQ/-vehicle options being provided by combi-weapons.
This would also provide a little bit of extra flexibility for SoB players, who would be able to choose special SoB-only ammo to go with their Stormbolters.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
Yoyoyo wrote:It also would step on combi-plasma or combi-melta, and that's your anti-vehicle option as a Sgt upgrade. Terminators already have special weapons to increase their anti-vehicle capability.
Assault 3 seems like the winner to me.
I must be honest I wouldn't mind stepping on Combi-plasma and combi-melta. I HATE one use things for the most part. Especially when the one use item is the same cost or more than the actual weapon. I might consider combi weapons on drop pod units like sternguard if they were 5points instead of 10. I think you are right that assault 3 is the best choice. Maybe make special ammo available to terminators and GK that give tesla or gauss for a price increase. That might fix a lot of problems. And terminators could keep the 2 heavy upgrades total and still pack a punch worth their points.
86450
Post by: Alcibiades
Giving them the Tesla rule (or another rule by a different name that does the same thing) would increase their damage output by 33% for a BS4 model.
11860
Post by: Martel732
I still don't understand what good giving them more S4 shots is going to do.
86450
Post by: Alcibiades
Assault 3 gives them 3 times the damage of a boltgun at 12"-24" range. I think that's too much. Automatically Appended Next Post: Martel732 wrote:I still don't understand what good giving them more S4 shots is going to do.
It would have them kill morel infantry? It's an anti-light infantry weapon.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Alcibiades wrote:Assault 3 gives them 3 times the damage of a boltgun at 12"-24" range. I think that's too much.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote:I still don't understand what good giving them more S4 shots is going to do.
It would have them kill morel infantry? It's an anti-light infantry weapon.
Marines don't need more light anti-infantry fire. Especially coming from an elite slot that gets a unit that can gun down most MCs: Sternguard.
"Assault 3 gives them 3 times the damage of a boltgun at 12"-24" range. I think that's too much."
You could give them this and I still wouldn't take them. You could make it assault 5 and it would still suck because they are 40pt/model and get dusted in the current meta easily. You can stack S4 shooting to the moon and the power lists will still laugh at you.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
I still don't understand what good giving them more S4 shots is going to do.
Tesla would let terminators specialize in killing hordes while gauss would handle everything else. Gauss would probably be better for terminators over all. Every 6 on a wound roll would generate a wound vs creatures and MCs and would generate a glancing hit against vehicles on an armor penetration roll of 6.
And like I said some special issue ammos might lower RoF to prevent things from getting absurdly crazy and OP. Thought I mentioned that, but I guess I forgot too.
Granted a name change might be in order for imperium armies, but when talking about mechanics identical to tesla and gauss it is easier to just call them that.
And yes these would be upgrades with a point value you them, but I would say a discount for buying one upgrade for an entire squad (and one upgrade only) wouldn't be too unreasonable. After all command squads get bikes for 7pts a piece while a HQ pays 25pts.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Keep in mind the SB competes with Combis, even on Sternguard. There are existing options already to transition away from S4 anti-inf shooting.
81025
Post by: koooaei
Martel732 wrote:I still don't understand what good giving them more S4 shots is going to do.
Something tells me you haven't been at the recieving end of something like a ravenwing/ LRC + banner combo. It's much more frightening than riptides - at least for a footslogging ork player.
71534
Post by: Bharring
Tac Termies stormboters aren't terribly frightening, but many things in the game can't ignore even that. Assault 3 would make them hit harder. I don't think its the right change, but not everything in the game is t4 3+ or nigh innumerable.
If you don't want bolt weapons, don't take them. But some of us do like bolt weapons.
11860
Post by: Martel732
 koooaei wrote:Martel732 wrote:I still don't understand what good giving them more S4 shots is going to do.
Something tells me you haven't been at the recieving end of something like a ravenwing/ LRC + banner combo. It's much more frightening than riptides - at least for a footslogging ork player.
I have. It's meh. I tabled him. Ork players have the Orks to give. Most other lists just ignore it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bharring wrote:Tac Termies stormboters aren't terribly frightening, but many things in the game can't ignore even that. Assault 3 would make them hit harder. I don't think its the right change, but not everything in the game is t4 3+ or nigh innumerable.
If you don't want bolt weapons, don't take them. But some of us do like bolt weapons.
Why would you want bolt weapons? At any rate, I don't think it's the right change either, because it's a non-upgrade.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
Yoyoyo wrote:Keep in mind the SB competes with Combis, even on Sternguard. There are existing options already to transition away from S4 anti-inf shooting.
I honestly HATE Combi-weapons. 10pts for a one shot item? NO thank you. And quite frankly the whole combi-weapon needs to be changed. For ten points I better be getting something that I can use more than once. Especially when the upgrade costs the same or more than the actual weapon. But, that is a problem with a LOT of space marine upgrades. They cost too freaking much for what they do. Now if combi-weapons had 3 uses per game or were usable all the time, or costed less, then maybe id like them. And I think more special issue ammo for elites, HQs, and characters is the way to go myself. Sternguard could get the gauss and tesla cheaper and for their bolters and still be able to switch ammos. Terminators I think should get stuck with whatever ammo they take as a unit.
11860
Post by: Martel732
I take them because marines desperately need the dakka on many squads. Adding another bolter-toting goon isn't making a difference. More melta or plasma or grav is.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Martel732 wrote:I take them because marines desperately need the dakka on many squads. Adding another bolter-toting goon isn't making a difference. More melta or plasma or grav is.
Exactly, target type. You need those weapons for big game hunting (high AV, high T or AP2).
A SB isn't supposed to help you here, since it still doesn't fit your meta. A Combi (despite its price) will.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Yoyoyo wrote:Martel732 wrote:I take them because marines desperately need the dakka on many squads. Adding another bolter-toting goon isn't making a difference. More melta or plasma or grav is.
Exactly, target type. You need those weapons for big game hunting (high AV, high T or AP2).
A SB isn't supposed to help you here, since it still doesn't fit your meta. A Combi (despite its price) will.
I'm still having trouble imagining a meta where stormbolters mean anything.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
I'm still having trouble imagining a meta where stormbolters mean anything.
What exactly is it you want out of a 5 point upgrade? What exactly are you looking for out of units that use them.?
Me personally I want them to be a better choice than the standard bolter, but not some major game breaking item. Yes, I think there should be special issue ammo that makes them significantly better, but only if you pay for it.
I am trying to keep in mind that there are armies that use storm bolters as stock that could use a boost but not too much of one.
Ideally by using existing rules or rules that are easily implemented and don't break the game.
I think assault 3 with access (at a cost) to special issue ammo (only one type per unit) that replaces the profile with the ammo profile. Allowing TDA to fire at snapshots for a full BS during overwatch would all go towards fixing terminators and storm bolters and the units that use storm bolters.
Even if the special ammos step on other army mechanics a bit.
11860
Post by: Martel732
I don't really know, as bad as S4 shooting is now.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
What would you think of before mentioned assault 3 rules if there was either a storm bolter upgrade or ammo upgrade making them str 5 ap 5 assault 2, rending?
This would allow storm bolters on a 6 to pen AV12, Glance or Pen AV13, and Glance AV14.
I am still trying to come up with an appropriate points cost and a horde based upgrade that functions similar to tesla, but doesn't step on it.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Str 5 AP 5 assault 2 rending would be a big improvement for sure.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
Martel732 wrote:Str 5 AP 5 assault 2 rending would be a big improvement for sure.
Just to clarify I mean for it to either be an ammo upgrade or an upgrade to storm bolters themselves. I don't want to step on the toes of other weapons and risk making them even worse.
I was thinking of giving storm bolters the option to fire as skyfire weapons but all other shots are made as snapshots.
Or I could give the ability to fire as snapshots during shooting phase to get full bs during overwatch, and TDA allows for shooting snapshots during shooting and overwatch for skyfire and full bs against flyers during shooting phases and overwatch until their next shooting phase.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Stormbolter S is too low to be useful as skyfire.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
by itself yes. But with the upgrade it becomes possible.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
I think I will call my upgrade "Ripper Bolts" and say they cost 5pts on characters and 3ppm on units with storm bolters (3pts per model with a storm bolter).
For anti infantry I think "Frag Bolts" would be a good name.
Frag Bolts would have the same cost as Ripper Bolts but would be S4 AP6 Assault 3 and on a to hit roll of 6 generate an additional S4 AP6 hit.
Maybe call this rule Fragmentation.
Fragmentation: When firing a weapon with this special rule, a To Hit roll of 6 causes one additional hit on the target.
Fragmentation is like tesla but weaker in that less hits will be generated.
Ripper bolts would be like gauss but weaker.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
TBH I've come to the conclusion that Stormbolters probably shouldn't have some kind of special-snowflake rule that's only for Stormbolters.
Now, some kind of "frag round" for Bolt weapons in general would be cool- there used to be a Deathwatch supplement in White Dwarf, IIRC, that gave "Metal Storm" rounds that were actually 18" Assault 2 S3 AP- 3" Blast, which is pretty chill IMO for a basic gun.
Moreover, I'm not really sure there's any rationale that could be made for a Stormbolter-only special ammo type that's only available to certain squads. I mean, SB-only ammo types that are added as a character upgrade or a special weapon upgrade make sense- the former represents the character's veterancy and influence, while the latter represents a mission-specific consideration.
But something like "this unit with Stormbolters gets these cool bullets" doesn't make much sense to me unless it's army-specific, like GKs/SoB with old-school "no invulns allowed" psybolt ammo (which would have been a great counter to re-rollable 2++ deathstars), or is a general upgrade available to most models that take a particular upgrade.
An example of the latter would be allowing Sternguard to choose a single Special Ammo type to load into Stormbolters, but they only get that ammo type across all Stormbolters taken in the squad. You gain raw firepower of a certain type, but you loose the sheer versatility that the SIA Bolters get. A character doing the same- picking a Stormbolter with one Special Ammo profile to go with it- also makes sense, because it's available to pretty much every character in the army.
Also, what's up with Terminator sergeants not getting access to the armory? I mean, that seems kind of bogus, don't you think?
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Whiskey144 wrote:0Now, some kind of "frag round" for Bolt weapons in general would be cool- there used to be a Deathwatch supplement in White Dwarf, IIRC, that gave "Metal Storm" rounds that were actually 18" Assault 2 S3 AP- 3" Blast, which is pretty chill IMO for a basic gun.
How long would it take to resolve a single shooting phase if all the small arms were blast weapons?
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
IIRC, the ammo types were extra points and you could only pick one; it was also exclusive to a Deathwatch "Kill Team" squad that SM players could include in their armies. So it was very much the case that only a very small number of weapons would actually use that profile.
Moreso when, again IIRC, there were other ammo options for the DW Kill Team entry in WD, that were much better (though also more expensive).
If Metal Storm rounds were brought back to the table, then I'd make them a special, character-only option for SM armies. It's actually okay, IMO for that to be an option for SM character models to take with any longarm bolt weapon, like a plain bolter, as the ammo type for the bolter part of a combi-weapon, or for a Stormbolter (which would presumably benefit from increased RoF and perhaps range).
Which also brings up an interesting point- what if various character models who are armed with a plain bolter could take a special ammo type to go with it? I mean, in the 5th edition SM book you could give a Captain a Bolter with Hellfire rounds in it. I don't really see that as being particularly broken to include for basic characters for a squad of Tacs.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
Moreover, I'm not really sure there's any rationale that could be made for a Stormbolter-only special ammo type that's only available to certain squads. I mean, SB-only ammo types that are added as a character upgrade or a special weapon upgrade make sense- the former represents the character's veterancy and influence, while the latter represents a mission-specific consideration.
I would make the ammo available to all storm bolters. The rational could be the design of the firearm. Weather it be the way it fires, or the housing, or even the ammo size ect. And this change would simulate mission specific consideration. The higher cost for characters is to account for their (usually) better statistics and ability to further optimize with other weapons. Automatically Appended Next Post: IIRC, the ammo types were extra points and you could only pick one; it was also exclusive to a Deathwatch "Kill Team" squad that SM players could include in their armies. So it was very much the case that only a very small number of weapons would actually use that profile.
What I am talking about is only taking one, and probably only being able to use the upgrade ammo's profile.
How would you fix storm bolters? Automatically Appended Next Post: Maybe the easiest fix to storm bolters would be to make them S5 AP5 Assault 2, Rending. This would make them a bit better against hordes, MCs, and vehicles without making them crazy. It could remain being a 5 point upgrade. Though I am leary about that point cost being too low. I don't want the basic storm bolter to go above 5 points.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
NorseSig wrote:Maybe the easiest fix to storm bolters would be to make them S5 AP5 Assault 2, Rending. This would make them a bit better against hordes, MCs, and vehicles without making them crazy. It could remain being a 5 point upgrade. Though I am leary about that point cost being too low. I don't want the basic storm bolter to go above 5 points.
I don't think the Storm Bolter is meant to be an anti- MC, anti-vehicle weapon. Not even the Heavy Bolter is an anti- MC, anti-vehicle weapon.
A better "fix" is just letting every unit with a Krak grenade throw one 8" to replace their shooting attack. Though that has complications too. But leave the SB an anti-infantry weapon.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
Yoyoyo wrote: NorseSig wrote:Maybe the easiest fix to storm bolters would be to make them S5 AP5 Assault 2, Rending. This would make them a bit better against hordes, MCs, and vehicles without making them crazy. It could remain being a 5 point upgrade. Though I am leary about that point cost being too low. I don't want the basic storm bolter to go above 5 points.
I don't think the Storm Bolter is meant to be an anti- MC, anti-vehicle weapon. Not even the Heavy Bolter is an anti- MC, anti-vehicle weapon.
A better "fix" is just letting every unit with a Krak grenade throw one 8" to replace their shooting attack. Though that has complications too. But leave the SB an anti-infantry weapon.
Part of the issue is storm bolters aren't very good as anti-infantry and literally do nothing to help grey knights be competitive without allies. Granted they could ally with inquisition and still be grey knights, but even inquisition lacks anti tank. which is why i suggested a special ammo originally.
I'm trying to not look at storm bolters in a vacuum. If storm bolters are ever going to be worth the 5 points they just may need to change their ideal targets. Not like it has never happened before. Heavy bolters could be given rending too imo.
What would you do to fix storm bolters?
81025
Post by: koooaei
Rending. Rending everywhere.
Brace yourselves for more "Armor is useless" threads.
81831
Post by: SRSFACE
Rending would be a terrible idea.
I think 18", Assault 3 would be a fine place to start testing to see if it makes a significant enough difference to make them worthwhile. Then again, nerfing the range on them really hurts their usability on vehicles. So maybe simply assault 3, no other changes necessary.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
koooaei wrote:Rending. Rending everywhere.
Brace yourselves for more "Armor is useless" threads.
If you are going to comment could at least try to be constructive. Automatically Appended Next Post:  SRSFACE wrote:Rending would be a terrible idea.
I think 18", Assault 3 would be a fine place to start testing to see if it makes a significant enough difference to make them worthwhile. Then again, nerfing the range on them really hurts their usability on vehicles. So maybe simply assault 3, no other changes necessary.
I think 18" range is a horrible idea. Worse than rending. I know because I have tested 18" assault 3 storm bolters. They were horrible. At the very minimum storm bolters should be 24" s4 ap5 assault 3. That was my original idea and no one seemed to like it, and said it wasn't enough, and what about this unit and that unit.
Honestly, I think they should be assault 3, but There needs to be something somewhere to help out the Grey Knights who have horrible anti vehicle this edition. I personally think every army should have the tools to handle just about anything effectively without having to use allies. But, that is just me I guess.
92153
Post by: KaptinBadrukk
Referring to OP here-Yes, they should be Assault 3, but more like STR 4 AP 4
93370
Post by: Freezerassasin
NorseSig wrote: koooaei wrote:Rending. Rending everywhere.
Brace yourselves for more "Armor is useless" threads.
If you are going to comment could at least try to be constructive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SRSFACE wrote:Rending would be a terrible idea.
I think 18", Assault 3 would be a fine place to start testing to see if it makes a significant enough difference to make them worthwhile. Then again, nerfing the range on them really hurts their usability on vehicles. So maybe simply assault 3, no other changes necessary.
I think 18" range is a horrible idea. Worse than rending. I know because I have tested 18" assault 3 storm bolters. They were horrible. At the very minimum storm bolters should be 24" s4 ap5 assault 3. That was my original idea and no one seemed to like it, and said it wasn't enough, and what about this unit and that unit.
Honestly, I think they should be assault 3, but There needs to be something somewhere to help out the Grey Knights who have horrible anti vehicle this edition. I personally think every army should have the tools to handle just about anything effectively without having to use allies. But, that is just me I guess.
If you want to give GK some anti-tank, then take Salvo off of Psycannons, or at least make them 36" range so they can hit something more than spiting distance away when moving. The Psycannon is supposed to be our anti-tank/ MC weapon, but is basically useless on none relentless platforms. Giving evey member of a squad anti-tank capability on their base weapon is a bad idea. As for storm bolters themselves, I think they are fine as they are. If you want to say they should be a point or two cheaper as an upgrade, thats fine but the weapon does the job that it was meant to do well enough.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
.....In what world is the Stormbolter doing its job "well enough"? When it's possible to actually take the same amount of Stormbolter shooting from 12-24" on twice as many bodies, in transports, and even get twice as many shots at 0-12", then I'd say that no, Stormbolters are not doing their job "well enough".
In any case, fixing GK anti-vehicle options is off-topic, and should be split off to another thread. No, Stormbolters should probably not get some kind of pseudo-Gauss or pseudo-Tesla.
They're already S4, and AP4 isn't really going to help against most of the things it'll be pointed out- perhaps bizarrely, there is a comparative lack of 4+ save infantry in the game. I mean sure, you've got the Stormtrooper codex, and SM Scouts, and Ork 'Ard Boyz, and even Tau FWs, but beyond those everything tends to be 5+ or 3+ by an overwhelming majority.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
I would give them, and all Space Marine bolt weapons, shred.
63003
Post by: pelicaniforce
Whiskey144 wrote:
They're already S4, and AP4 isn't really going to help against most of the things it'll be pointed out- perhaps bizarrely, there is a comparative lack of 4+ save infantry in the game. I mean sure, you've got the Stormtrooper codex, and SM Scouts, and Ork 'Ard Boyz, and even Tau FWs, but beyond those everything tends to be 5+ or 3+ by an overwhelming majority.
those and two of the most common troops units that exist.
Now, you've said that gauss is too complicated for bolt guns, but you have also recommended stopping the game before it starts to inform opponents about which alternate profile you have chosen for a chaplain's single storm bolter. Is your problem with gauss - which involves no extra rolls, no modifiers, and no pre-game election, still that it is too complicated or is it a newer thing?
11860
Post by: Martel732
I am coming to the conclusion that on the crowded scale dictated by the D6, there is no good place for the storm bolter. Xeno players will have fits if bolters get shred. Bolt weapons in general have just been boned by the meta shifts towards more and more units that just ignore them.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
pelicaniforce wrote:Now, you've said that gauss is too complicated for bolt guns, but you have also recommended stopping the game before it starts to inform opponents about which alternate profile you have chosen for a chaplain's single storm bolter. Is your problem with gauss - which involves no extra rolls, no modifiers, and no pre-game election, still that it is too complicated or is it a newer thing?
[Emphasis Mine]
Firstly, my recommendation was that Stormbolters be made slightly cheaper and Assault 3, with the option to BUY a Special Ammo profile. As in, you must list which ammo type you have picked for a character's Stormbolter assuming that you paid for it. Further, this was also a recommendation intended to make the currently useless option of equipping Sternguard with Stormbolters a more viable option- by allowing Special Issue Ammo to be taken on Stormbolters- again, listing which one in the armylist.
As far as Gauss... part of my distaste, shall we say, is that Gauss is a decidedly Necron shtick. Moreover, there isn't really any sense to giving Stormbolters the Gauss trait- either optional or innate. Gauss is supposed to represent the super-duper magitech gubbins of Necron weapons in that it's some sort of disintegrating beam gizmo, and so it can actually damage anything. Bolt weapons have no history or equivalent of similar feats of literally damaging anything.
So if you want a simple answer, it's because I don't think that Gauss Stormbolters make any damn sense. It's not really a "complication" thing.
pelicaniforce wrote:Whiskey144 wrote:
They're already S4, and AP4 isn't really going to help against most of the things it'll be pointed out- perhaps bizarrely, there is a comparative lack of 4+ save infantry in the game. I mean sure, you've got the Stormtrooper codex, and SM Scouts, and Ork 'Ard Boyz, and even Tau FWs, but beyond those everything tends to be 5+ or 3+ by an overwhelming majority.
those and two of the most common troops units that exist.
Now, as far as this goes.... I'm working off the assumption that, meta-wise, most infantry on the board will either be massed T3/5+ (IE, GEQ) or very brave MEQs. Necron Warriors, while they are T4/4+, also have RPs, so their durability is notably better. I was also under the impression that Fire Warriors also had longer-ranged guns than most other basic infantry, and tended to either sit at 30" and have a fine time at a turkeyshoot, or hide in a Devilfish.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Martel732 wrote:I am coming to the conclusion that on the crowded scale dictated by the D6, there is no good place for the storm bolter. Xeno players will have fits if bolters get shred. Bolt weapons in general have just been boned by the meta shifts towards more and more units that just ignore them.
Pretty much. What if we let all infantry models throw their S6 AP4 Krak grenades once in range?
86991
Post by: NorseSig
I am thinking in my next game I am going to test some alternate profiles for bolt weapons namely bolt pistols, storm bolters, heavy bolters, and bolters. I will also be testing some alternate ideas to pistols, chainswords, charge, and consolidation.
Pistols no longer grant an extra melee attack and grant full BS during overwatch. Instead they grant an attack at initiative that uses the pistol's profile and rules. This attack takes the place of a melee attack or in case of having a melee weapon grants an extra attack. If you have two pistols you get two pistol attacks using each pistol's profile and rules. In the case of multiple attacks you may make multiple pistol attacks with with a pistol unless you are carrying a melee weapon. Melee weapons are used for all melee attacks except for the bonus attack for having a pistol. For example you have 4 tactical marines charge another unit. The first tactical marine has 2 bolt pistols so he gets 3 s4 ap5 attacks in the fight sub phase (1 for charging, 1 for 2 pistols, and 1 base), The second tactical marine has a bolt pistol and a plasma pistol so he also gets 3 attacks in the fight sub-phase, however he may choose to make either two plasma pistol shots and a bolt pistol shot or two bolt pistol shots and a plasma pistol shot. The third tactical marine has a power sword and bolt pistol, thus he gets 3 attacks but two are with the power sword and the third is with the bolt pistol. The fourth tactical marine only has a bolt pistol so he gets 2 attacks, both with the bolt pistol (1 for the charge, and one base). On the next fight phase, tactical marines 1, 2 and 3 get two attacks and tactical 4 gets 1. Tactical 1 gets 2 bolt pistol attacks, Tactical 2 gets a bolt pistol attack and a plasma pistol attack, and tactical 3 gets a power sword attack and a bolt pistol attack (if he had 2 base attacks he would get 2 power sword attacks and a bolt pistol attack). Tactical 4 gets a single bolt pistol attack.
Chainswords are now S-user AP-5 melee.
Bolters are now assault weapons with the profile s4 ap5 up to 12" assault 2, 12" - 24" assault 1
Storm Bolters are s4 ap5 assault 3, and can fire full bs during overwatch.
Heavy Bolters are s5 ap4 heavy 4.
Charge distance for units with a 6" move is 3+d6.
Charge for units with a 12" or better movement is 5+d6
Slow and Purposeful subtracts an inch from charge, and Relentless adds an inch.
When a unit consolidates they may consolidate into charging another unit (if they roll a high enough movement) once per turn. The new unit being charged gets overwatch unless they are already in melee, and the fight doesn't happen until the next fight sub phase (ie opponent's turn, but the charging unit still gets bonuses for charging).
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Martel732 wrote:I am coming to the conclusion that on the crowded scale dictated by the D6, there is no good place for the storm bolter. Xeno players will have fits if bolters get shred. Bolt weapons in general have just been boned by the meta shifts towards more and more units that just ignore them.
I think the problem is that people see Marines as the "Standard". Marines aren't and shouldn't be the bog-standard infantryman. That is what the Guard is for. Bolters in the lore are really, really good at fething up fleshy targets and that should be better reflected in the rules. Marines pay a premium for their Bolt-weapons which right now are just pop-guns.
92153
Post by: KaptinBadrukk
Rending sounds good.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
 TheCustomLime wrote:I think the problem is that people see Marines as the "Standard". Marines aren't and shouldn't be the bog-standard infantryman. That is what the Guard is for. Bolters in the lore are really, really good at fething up fleshy targets and that should be better reflected in the rules. Marines pay a premium for their Bolt-weapons which right now are just pop-guns.
You can field a Krak/4+ equipped Vet for about 8pts. A Marine costs 14pts. You're paying extra for a 3+ save, a +1S weapon, a better stat line, ATSKNF so you automatically regroup and can't be swept in assault, and pistol so you can shoot before assaulting.
If you see each upgrade as being worth about 10pts, an AM vet would cost about 13pts each. If you only want inexpensive BS4 caddies for Plasma Guns with abalative wounds, Vets are better. But you're not paying a premium for only the bolters on a Tac.
11860
Post by: Martel732
The issue being is that most of those upgrades have little bearing on the average game. At least, against the lists I face. We're back to the D6 based system not being able to accommodate all the weapons in said system.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
NorseSig wrote:Bolters are now assault weapons with the profile s4 ap5 up to 12" assault 2, 12" - 24" assault 1
Storm Bolters are s4 ap5 assault 3, and can fire full bs during overwatch.
Heavy Bolters are s5 ap4 heavy 4.
I snipped down a bit because this is what I wanted to focus on. First off, I like the Stormbolter concept. It's simple, neat, and IMO quite elegant. I in fact, like it better than giving Stormbolters Special Ammo options.
I'd also like to say that I'm actually quite liking the split Bolter profile of 12" Assault 2/24" Assault 1. It's surprisingly similar to how I would like to fix Combi-Bolters, which would be as follows:
Combi-Bolter
12" Assault 3 S4 AP5 Twin-Linked
24" Assault 2 S4 AP5 Twin-Linked
It would be a bit better at short range on the "active" turn, and a little bit poorer at 12-24" compared to a Stormbolter. Twin-Linking also means it's not half bad in Overwatch- it's not as nice as a special trait to give full BS in Overwatch like the Stormbolter, but it's better than nothing and is IMO nicely balanced with also being Twin-Linked and thus more accurate during the Shooting Phase.
I do, however, disagree with the Heavy Bolter change. One of the problems HBs have is that they severely limit the mobility of the squads that carry them. For some units it's not a big deal, like if you're objective camping or a dedicated heavy weapon squad. Most Marine forces can also Combat Squad... but that can dilute direct capability, particularly if you want to get ten mans up the field and still have a heavy in the squad.
I'd amend it to, at minimum, Salvo 2/4, or perhaps Salvo 3/4, if HBs become a 4-shot weapon. I'm still very leery of such a change, but it seems like it's a very popular idea and easily accepted idea, so perhaps testing it would actually work. HBs also sit in a "sweet spot" where they can actually work with the Salvo rules- half range is 18", so you still project firepower reasonably well when moving around.
I would like to finally ask what the reasoning between the split profile 12" Assault 2/24" Assault 1 Bolter is? I do like it, don't get me wrong, I'm just curious as to the rationale.
TheCustomLime wrote:I think the problem is that people see Marines as the "Standard". Marines aren't and shouldn't be the bog-standard infantryman. That is what the Guard is for. Bolters in the lore are really, really good at fething up fleshy targets and that should be better reflected in the rules. Marines pay a premium for their Bolt-weapons which right now are just pop-guns.
People see Marines as "the Standard" because Marines are "the Standard" in the meta. Certainly, the mechanics seem to indicate that no, Marines are not bog-standard infantry, and the fluff definitely states that... but the unfortunate truth is that the meta has been heavily based- by players to be clear- around facing Marine armies.
Rending doesn't actually fix anything though. It also doesn't really make much sense, IMO.
Yoyoyo wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:I think the problem is that people see Marines as the "Standard". Marines aren't and shouldn't be the bog-standard infantryman. That is what the Guard is for. Bolters in the lore are really, really good at fething up fleshy targets and that should be better reflected in the rules. Marines pay a premium for their Bolt-weapons which right now are just pop-guns.
You can field a Krak/4+ equipped Vet for about 8pts. A Marine costs 14pts. You're paying extra for a 3+ save, a +1S weapon, a better stat line, ATSKNF so you automatically regroup and can't be swept in assault, and pistol so you can shoot before assaulting.
If you see each upgrade as being worth about 10pts, an AM vet would cost about 13pts each. If you only want inexpensive BS4 caddies for Plasma Guns with abalative wounds, Vets are better. But you're not paying a premium for only the bolters on a Tac.
Martel732 wrote:The issue being is that most of those upgrades have little bearing on the average game. At least, against the lists I face. We're back to the D6 based system not being able to accommodate all the weapons in said system.
As Martel points out, there's a lot of wasted cost on many Marines, because they end up carrying kit that they rarely use. It's also worth noting that said IG Veterans can take three Plasma Guns, instead of just one, on top of having a heavy weapon in the squad, and being able to include the versatile Autocannon.
So yes, you do get a good amount of stuff at a "great" price for the cost difference between an IG Veteran and a Marine of almost every stripe, but the main problem is that the Marine is paying for things that he rarely uses. A Vet has to actually pay for Kraks, and more than likely doesn't want to actually assault anything, and thus isn't likely to buy Kraks anyways.
80243
Post by: darkcloak
You could just add a special rule to SBs.
Storm of Fire: any to hit roll of a 6 with this weapon generates one additional shot using the weapons normal strength and ap, this extra shot must still roll to hit. You may only ever gain one extra shot per dice rolled.
Bolter Wrath: For each successful wound caused by this weapon, increase its AP by 1 point to a maximum of ap3. Armour saves against these shots must use the modified AP.
Enfilidating Fire: if a shot from this weapon would negate the armour save of the target then add +1 strength to that shot.
Here are 3 ideas, obviously pick one only. Here are my ideas behind them.
1: this represents the volume of fire from a storm bolter. Get a few extra shots if you're lucky.
2&3: Seems like more bullets would do more damage. These represent both aspects of that in terms of AP and str.
Go hog wild and use all 3 just for fun and watch infantry die in droves
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Yoyoyo wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:I think the problem is that people see Marines as the "Standard". Marines aren't and shouldn't be the bog-standard infantryman. That is what the Guard is for. Bolters in the lore are really, really good at fething up fleshy targets and that should be better reflected in the rules. Marines pay a premium for their Bolt-weapons which right now are just pop-guns.
You can field a Krak/4+ equipped Vet for about 8pts. A Marine costs 14pts. You're paying extra for a 3+ save, a +1S weapon, a better stat line, ATSKNF so you automatically regroup and can't be swept in assault, and pistol so you can shoot before assaulting.
If you see each upgrade as being worth about 10pts, an AM vet would cost about 13pts each. If you only want inexpensive BS4 caddies for Plasma Guns with abalative wounds, Vets are better. But you're not paying a premium for only the bolters on a Tac.
You are not looking at whole unit costs. The cost of a Tactical Marine is deceptive. Sure, he seem like a steal in comparison to a Veteran but a full squad of Space Marines cost 140 points with no upgrades. That is why I am saying that Marines are paying a premium for crappy guns. A guard squad can get three Plasmas and a Chimera for only 30 more points. Same Ballistic skill, effective weapons, better protection, a heavy bolter and a multilaser which can fire at full BS on the move and can select different targets.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
I snipped down a bit because this is what I wanted to focus on. First off, I like the Stormbolter concept. It's simple, neat, and IMO quite elegant. I in fact, like it better than giving Stormbolters Special Ammo options.
I'd also like to say that I'm actually quite liking the split Bolter profile of 12" Assault 2/24" Assault 1. It's surprisingly similar to how I would like to fix Combi-Bolters, which would be as follows:
Combi-Bolter
12" Assault 3 S4 AP5 Twin-Linked
24" Assault 2 S4 AP5 Twin-Linked
It would be a bit better at short range on the "active" turn, and a little bit poorer at 12-24" compared to a Stormbolter. Twin-Linking also means it's not half bad in Overwatch- it's not as nice as a special trait to give full BS in Overwatch like the Stormbolter, but it's better than nothing and is IMO nicely balanced with also being Twin-Linked and thus more accurate during the Shooting Phase.
I do, however, disagree with the Heavy Bolter change. One of the problems HBs have is that they severely limit the mobility of the squads that carry them. For some units it's not a big deal, like if you're objective camping or a dedicated heavy weapon squad. Most Marine forces can also Combat Squad... but that can dilute direct capability, particularly if you want to get ten mans up the field and still have a heavy in the squad.
I'd amend it to, at minimum, Salvo 2/4, or perhaps Salvo 3/4, if HBs become a 4-shot weapon. I'm still very leery of such a change, but it seems like it's a very popular idea and easily accepted idea, so perhaps testing it would actually work. HBs also sit in a "sweet spot" where they can actually work with the Salvo rules- half range is 18", so you still project firepower reasonably well when moving around.
I would like to finally ask what the reasoning between the split profile 12" Assault 2/24" Assault 1 Bolter is? I do like it, don't get me wrong, I'm just curious as to the rationale.
The rationale behind the change to bolters has do a lot with tactical squads. It gives them a little more firepower and tactical flexibility within 12 inches, and helps solve a lot of issues with space marine shooting in general. The change makes bike upgrades still good but not so OMG good.
I think you may be right about heavy bolters. 4 shots is about right, but I think salvo 3/4 is the way to go. And is certainly better than the assault 4 people where throwing around in my local group (didn't make sense and made them too juicy).
Your idea for combi-bolters is EXACTLY what me and my group decided on. Though we also gave ours the same ability to fire at full bs during overwatch. We are ok with chaos having better shooting inside 12 inches, and arguably better shooting with combi bolters at the 12 to 24 range.
My group is liking the changes so far, but we think we need to tweak space marines a wee bit more.
We are looking at these changes:
Upgrades like when you can take a special or heavy weapon is no longer dependent on squad size (with the exception of you have to have enough models t ocarry the upgrades ie 5 heavy weapons requires 5 models). What this means is tacticals can take a heavy weapon and a special weapon without having to have a unit of 10.
These units may take an additional special weapon Sternguard, Tactical squads, Crusader squads, and Assault squads (this includes equivalents in other space marine chapters with a few exceptions)
These units may take an extra heavy weapon Terminators, Legion of the damned, and Devastator squads (again includes equivalents with a few exceptions)
Power weapons (sword, axe maul) are 10pts, combi-weapons (flamer, grav, melta, plasma) are 5 pts, flakk upgrade is 5pts, and grav-pistol and plasma pistol are 10pts.
For HQs able to take TDA it is a 25pt upgrade
Techmarines and Masters of the Forge are 15 pts cheaper, and chaplains are 5 pts cheaper.
Assault squads and devastator squads are now troop choices, and bike squads no longer exist in fast attack. They are however an upgrade for tactical squads for 7ppm except heavy weapons which are upgraded to attack bikes at 35ppm + cost of heavy weapon. Yes this expands what attack bikes can take for heavy weapons. With the new cost of attack bikes being 35pts + heavy weapon.
Tactical squads, crusader squads, and sternguard may take chainswords for 1ppm (includes sergeant). Includes equivalents with a few exceptions in other space marines
Assault marines, sternguard, and honourguard may take an additional bolt pistol for 1ppm. Again, includes most equivalents.
We are also looking at points drops for certain units and vehicles.
I know this all is a bit off topic from storm bolters, but I wanted to show some of the changes my group is trying in an attempt at fixing many of the problems with space marines and how storm bolters fit into the overall picture. That way a person isn't only looking at a small piece of a fix and they get a full perspective.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
TheCustomLime wrote:You are not looking at whole unit costs. The cost of a Tactical Marine is deceptive. Sure, he seem like a steal in comparison to a Veteran but a full squad of Space Marines cost 140 points with no upgrades. That is why I am saying that Marines are paying a premium for crappy guns. A guard squad can get three Plasmas and a Chimera for only 30 more points. Same Ballistic skill, effective weapons, better protection, a heavy bolter and a multilaser which can fire at full BS on the move and can select different targets.
Dude, I will spare you my epic wall of math. The basics are:
- 10x Tacs (140pts) and 10x Plasma Vets (105pts) shoot it out comparably well in Rapid Fire range. Effectiveness is about 4 dead Tacs, to 6 dead Vets. Each time the Vets fire they have a 33% to lose a Plasma weapon.
- 5x Tacs (70pts) crush 10x Plasma Vets (105pts) in assault. 2 Vets die to pistol fire. Vet Overwatch is as harmful to themselves as their assaulters with "Gets Hot". 1.04 unsaved wounds on a 14pt Tac, 0.66 unsaved wounds on a 20pt Plasma Vet. But it's worth firing anyways, because they will lose CC by 2W, break at 59%, and are swept at 72%.
So no suprises, right? S4 attacks are not bad against infantry, and assault is powerful. The problem is (as Martel says) what is a naked Tac squad going to do against a T6 Riptide? Well, maybe tie it up in assault and Krak it. I'll look at that too later.
If you want weapons caddies, why not a SM Devastator squad? You can get 4x Multi-Meltas for 110pts, or 4x Plasma Cannons for 130pts. Why isn't this an option?
11860
Post by: Martel732
Yoyoyo wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:You are not looking at whole unit costs. The cost of a Tactical Marine is deceptive. Sure, he seem like a steal in comparison to a Veteran but a full squad of Space Marines cost 140 points with no upgrades. That is why I am saying that Marines are paying a premium for crappy guns. A guard squad can get three Plasmas and a Chimera for only 30 more points. Same Ballistic skill, effective weapons, better protection, a heavy bolter and a multilaser which can fire at full BS on the move and can select different targets.
Dude, I will spare you my epic wall of math. The basics are:
- 10x Tacs (140pts) and 10x Plasma Vets (105pts) shoot it out comparably well in Rapid Fire range. Effectiveness is about 4 dead Tacs, to 6 dead Vets. Each time the Vets fire they have a 33% to lose a Plasma weapon.
- 5x Tacs (70pts) crush 10x Plasma Vets (105pts) in assault. 2 Vets die to pistol fire. Vet Overwatch is as harmful to themselves as their assaulters with "Gets Hot". 1.04 unsaved wounds on a 14pt Tac, 0.66 unsaved wounds on a 20pt Plasma Vet. But it's worth firing anyways, because they will lose CC by 2W, break at 59%, and are swept at 72%.
So no suprises, right? S4 attacks are not bad against infantry, and assault is powerful. The problem is (as Martel says) what is a naked Tac squad going to do against a T6 Riptide? Well, maybe tie it up in assault and Krak it. I'll look at that too later.
If you want weapons caddies, why not a SM Devastator squad? You can get 4x Multi-Meltas for 110pts, or 4x Plasma Cannons for 130pts. Why isn't this an option?
Because they are high-value T4 3+ targets and will not last a hot second in the current meta. There is a sea of marines that can't really hurt you and then this one squad with heavy weapons. They die first.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
NorseSig wrote:The rationale behind the change to bolters has do a lot with tactical squads. It gives them a little more firepower and tactical flexibility within 12 inches, and helps solve a lot of issues with space marine shooting in general. The change makes bike upgrades still good but not so OMG good.
I see; by allowing them to use the Assault profile it then permits them to actually charge in, if necessary, to clear an objective for example.
NorseSig wrote:I think you may be right about heavy bolters. 4 shots is about right, but I think salvo 3/4 is the way to go. And is certainly better than the assault 4 people where throwing around in my local group (didn't make sense and made them too juicy).
Yeah, Assault 4 doesn't make sense for HBs; IIRC even the WD Deathwatch rules that circulated at one point allowed Heavy Bolters to become Assault in weapon type, but also cut range in half- and it was a specific upgrade that you had to pay for (specifically, a Suspensor Web). I'd also say that there is a possible alternative in Salvo 2/3 Pinning- 4 shots and Pinning, particularly when considering the density that Imperial and even CSM forces can throw HBs onto the table would be a bit much, IMO.
That said I quite like Salvo 3/4.
NorseSig wrote:Your idea for combi-bolters is EXACTLY what me and my group decided on. Though we also gave ours the same ability to fire at full bs during overwatch. We are ok with chaos having better shooting inside 12 inches, and arguably better shooting with combi bolters at the 12 to 24 range.
I actually had to reread this a couple of times to get a clear grasp on exactly what you meant; for some reason I thought you were saying that you'd made the equivalent of a twin-linked Stormbolter with the changes that have been pretty well settled on in this thread. Once I had actually read more thoroughly, I realized that I suck at reading sometimes.
I do think that I'd probably want to do a lot of testing as to whether or not a Combi-Bolter with Twin-Linked and full- BS overwatch would be a tad much for its cost, but overall I do lean towards it be "nice but not really a big deal". Certainly there's a lot of units that would absolutely hate such a thing (Wyches in particular would sulk over that), but against the especially killy melee units it's really just a nuisance. I could see it becoming a bit problematic on Terminators, due to the fact that at least one dedicated "hard counter" unit- Incubi- is very combat focused, and full- BS overwatch from the squad- even with "only" Stormbolters- could be quite devastating and make Terminators very difficult to deal with even when using a 'hard counter'.
NorseSig wrote:We are looking at these changes:
Upgrades like when you can take a special or heavy weapon is no longer dependent on squad size (with the exception of you have to have enough models t ocarry the upgrades ie 5 heavy weapons requires 5 models). What this means is tacticals can take a heavy weapon and a special weapon without having to have a unit of 10.
These units may take an additional special weapon Sternguard, Tactical squads, Crusader squads, and Assault squads (this includes equivalents in other space marine chapters with a few exceptions)
These units may take an extra heavy weapon Terminators, Legion of the damned, and Devastator squads (again includes equivalents with a few exceptions)
Power weapons (sword, axe maul) are 10pts, combi-weapons (flamer, grav, melta, plasma) are 5 pts, flakk upgrade is 5pts, and grav-pistol and plasma pistol are 10pts.
For HQs able to take TDA it is a 25pt upgrade
Techmarines and Masters of the Forge are 15 pts cheaper, and chaplains are 5 pts cheaper.
Assault squads and devastator squads are now troop choices, and bike squads no longer exist in fast attack. They are however an upgrade for tactical squads for 7ppm except heavy weapons which are upgraded to attack bikes at 35ppm + cost of heavy weapon. Yes this expands what attack bikes can take for heavy weapons. With the new cost of attack bikes being 35pts + heavy weapon.
Tactical squads, crusader squads, and sternguard may take chainswords for 1ppm (includes sergeant). Includes equivalents with a few exceptions in other space marines
Assault marines, sternguard, and honourguard may take an additional bolt pistol for 1ppm. Again, includes most equivalents.
Insofar as the "special+heavy at five dudes", "Tacs love CCWs", "Flakk is 5pts", "nice pistols/ PWs are 10pts", I generally like these. I particularly approve of 5pt-Flakk Missiles, as costing 10 points for such an upgrade is incredibly stupid. No comments on TDA for HQs and Techmarine/ MotF/Chaplain recosting, as I'm not brushed up super well on these units performance on the table.
I do like the Assault Squads as Troops bit, as well as expanding Attack Bike heavy options. I do, however, not quite understand bonus specials for Tacs and ASM; Crusader squads actually make some sense as you can potentially bulk the unit up to a whopping twenty mans- even if half of them use Scout statlines- but I'm not sure of the rationale behind "2x special+1x heavy" Tacs/ASM. I do certainly think that Tacs with the ability to go double special would be an awesome bonus, but I'm not sure of "double special and heavy".
Sternguard I can see that making sense. though. LotD getting double heavy options is a nice buff, particularly since they're SnP so they can fire those heavies on the move. I would, however, say that Terminators should either be "2x heavy per 5 dudes" or "2 heavies, no size limit". I don't quite see the rationale of saying "3 heavies". Similarly, I'm not really seeing how Devastators getting 5 heavies makes a great deal of sense; they seem designed, mechanically speaking, to have either a min-size squad with 4 heavies, or a ten-man squad with 4 heavies that either stays together or splits into two 5-man squads of 2x heavies and 3 bullet catchers, so to speak. Getting 5 heavies kind of throws that off; I'm also not necessarily sold on Devastators in Troops; ASM make more sense, to me, as a Troops choice in general, but I see Devs as being more of a Heavy Support option. What's your reasoning on Troops Devs?
Also, what's up with the bonus bolt pistol for ASM/Sternguard/Honor Guard? For Sternguard it technically could give them a bonus attack in combat (assuming you don't leverage the previously mentioned CCW options), but Honor Guard and ASM already have appropriate weapon combinations to leverage the bonus CCW attack from having two CCWs.
Also, Bikers. I'm really not sold on making them a Tac squad upgrade instead of a Fast Attack choice; especially since Bike Squads seem to, in part at least, fulfill an armed reconnaissance role in SM forces. Land Speeders do as well, but Bikers also seem to be intended to function as forward skirmishers as well. What are your thoughts on the role of Bike squads in SM forces, thematically and mechanically?
Finally, I'd like to make a special mention of combi-weapons: there's some possibility that a combi-weapon's pricing is reflective of the base weapon that is being combined into the bolter component; as an example, I consider a combi- plas/-grav weapon to be reasonably priced at 10 points, but a combi-melta is overpriced- and a combi-flamer criminally expensive- at that same pricepoint. That being said, it's still a single-use armament, and it's a cleaner solution to simply blanket-price all of them at 5 points.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, double-posting, but I thought I'd throw in my two cents.
Yoyoyo wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:You are not looking at whole unit costs. The cost of a Tactical Marine is deceptive. Sure, he seem like a steal in comparison to a Veteran but a full squad of Space Marines cost 140 points with no upgrades. That is why I am saying that Marines are paying a premium for crappy guns. A guard squad can get three Plasmas and a Chimera for only 30 more points. Same Ballistic skill, effective weapons, better protection, a heavy bolter and a multilaser which can fire at full BS on the move and can select different targets.
Dude, I will spare you my epic wall of math. The basics are:
- 10x Tacs (140pts) and 10x Plasma Vets (105pts) shoot it out comparably well in Rapid Fire range. Effectiveness is about 4 dead Tacs, to 6 dead Vets. Each time the Vets fire they have a 33% to lose a Plasma weapon.
- 5x Tacs (70pts) crush 10x Plasma Vets (105pts) in assault. 2 Vets die to pistol fire. Vet Overwatch is as harmful to themselves as their assaulters with "Gets Hot". 1.04 unsaved wounds on a 14pt Tac, 0.66 unsaved wounds on a 20pt Plasma Vet. But it's worth firing anyways, because they will lose CC by 2W, break at 59%, and are swept at 72%.
So no suprises, right? S4 attacks are not bad against infantry, and assault is powerful. The problem is (as Martel says) what is a naked Tac squad going to do against a T6 Riptide? Well, maybe tie it up in assault and Krak it. I'll look at that too later.
If you want weapons caddies, why not a SM Devastator squad? You can get 4x Multi-Meltas for 110pts, or 4x Plasma Cannons for 130pts. Why isn't this an option?
5 Tacs are likely to die before they get to try to punch said PlasVet squad to death. Additionally, Plasma Vets aren't likely to cost 105 points; they're more likely going to sit at 120 to reduce the likelihood of losing one to a bad Gets Hot roll, and to improve their survivability- what little they have, being T3- if/when they disembark. It's also worth noting that said Tacs are still more expensive with no upgrades. The Vet squad gets a squad leader, carapace armor, and 3x Plasma Guns, and still is cheaper than 10x naked Tacs.
Yes, we all know that S4 is reasonably capable at killing infantry models. It's also worth noting that while Assault is powerful, it's generally very difficult to pull off outside of a few particularly stellar units; these days to succeed at assault you need to have a unit that is at a minimum both very fast and very durable, while being reasonably lethal. As an example, there are many things that are deadlier than Necron Wraiths as an assault unit; the problem is that there's very little that is both as fast and as tough as Wraiths, while still being killy enough to be a threat.
BTW, 10 Tacs with Krak grenades can barely push a single wound through onto a T6/3+ armor MC- like a Carnifex, say. But just because I can, I'll run the numbers on 10 Tacs w/ Kraks vs a Riptide with no FNP:
Round 1!
Tacs pop Kraks into the 'Tide, with WS/I 4; they have 10 strikes (using grenades in combat reduces you to one attack), and hit ~6.67 times, wound ~3.33 times, and then... put an amazing ~0.56 wounds onto the Riptide.
Riptide ineffectively slaps the Marines around with WS/I 2, 3 Attacks, and S6/AP2, for a total of 1.5 hits*, ~1.25 wounds, which being AP2 will be unsaved. There are now only 9 Marines left.
Marines lose combat. To a Riptide.
I don't think I even need to continue with this, because it'd be quite pointless.
* IIRC, 7th Ed changed the WS table so that in order to be hit on 5+ rather than 4+, you had to be more than double the WS of the opponent, instead of exactly.
So in the end, the Tacs "tie up" a Riptide for an entire game, mostly on account of being unable to kill the Riptide while the latter is able to only kill the Tacs very slowly in combat. The problem is thus:
How do you get Tacs into combat with a Riptide?!
Oh, and as pointed out, Devs are an "HVT" in a sea of relatively unthreatening T4/3+ mans. This is especially the case when you try and go "min- cost", as this very negatively impacts the survivability of the squad.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Just for fun:
Naked Tac (70pts) versus Riptide (180pts).
----------
Tac Pistols fail to wound.
Riptide OW removes about 1x Tac.
Tacs inflict 0.31W.
Riptide inflicts 0.83W.
Tacs probably test at -1, 42% chance to break. 0% chance to sweep.
Scouts with Vet PF Sarge (90pts) versus Riptide (180pts).
-----------
Scouts fail to wound with pistols.
Riptide OW removes about 1x Scout.
Scouts inflict 1.7W.
Riptide inflicts 0.83W.
Riptide tests at -1, 28% chance to break, 83% chance to sweep.
Isn't this "adapting to the meta?" Bumrushing Firebase Formations with PF Scouts and Librarians debuffing LD woukd be hilarious. In real-life, we ditched the armor when it no longer was protective. Why not do the same in a tabletop wargame?
86991
Post by: NorseSig
Insofar as the "special+heavy at five dudes", "Tacs love CCWs", "Flakk is 5pts", "nice pistols/PWs are 10pts", I generally like these. I particularly approve of 5pt-Flakk Missiles, as costing 10 points for such an upgrade is incredibly stupid. No comments on TDA for HQs and Techmarine/MotF/Chaplain recosting, as I'm not brushed up super well on these units performance on the table.
I do like the Assault Squads as Troops bit, as well as expanding Attack Bike heavy options. I do, however, not quite understand bonus specials for Tacs and ASM; Crusader squads actually make some sense as you can potentially bulk the unit up to a whopping twenty mans- even if half of them use Scout statlines- but I'm not sure of the rationale behind "2x special+1x heavy" Tacs/ASM. I do certainly think that Tacs with the ability to go double special would be an awesome bonus, but I'm not sure of "double special and heavy".
Sternguard I can see that making sense. though. LotD getting double heavy options is a nice buff, particularly since they're SnP so they can fire those heavies on the move. I would, however, say that Terminators should either be "2x heavy per 5 dudes" or "2 heavies, no size limit". I don't quite see the rationale of saying "3 heavies". Similarly, I'm not really seeing how Devastators getting 5 heavies makes a great deal of sense; they seem designed, mechanically speaking, to have either a min-size squad with 4 heavies, or a ten-man squad with 4 heavies that either stays together or splits into two 5-man squads of 2x heavies and 3 bullet catchers, so to speak. Getting 5 heavies kind of throws that off; I'm also not necessarily sold on Devastators in Troops; ASM make more sense, to me, as a Troops choice in general, but I see Devs as being more of a Heavy Support option. What's your reasoning on Troops Devs?
Also, what's up with the bonus bolt pistol for ASM/Sternguard/Honor Guard? For Sternguard it technically could give them a bonus attack in combat (assuming you don't leverage the previously mentioned CCW options), but Honor Guard and ASM already have appropriate weapon combinations to leverage the bonus CCW attack from having two CCWs.
Also, Bikers. I'm really not sold on making them a Tac squad upgrade instead of a Fast Attack choice; especially since Bike Squads seem to, in part at least, fulfill an armed reconnaissance role in SM forces. Land Speeders do as well, but Bikers also seem to be intended to function as forward skirmishers as well. What are your thoughts on the role of Bike squads in SM forces, thematically and mechanically?
Finally, I'd like to make a special mention of combi-weapons: there's some possibility that a combi-weapon's pricing is reflective of the base weapon that is being combined into the bolter component; as an example, I consider a combi-plas/-grav weapon to be reasonably priced at 10 points, but a combi-melta is overpriced- and a combi-flamer criminally expensive- at that same pricepoint. That being said, it's still a single-use armament, and it's a cleaner solution to simply blanket-price all of them at 5 points.
I will try to answer your queries as best as I can.
The main reason for the 2x special and 1xheavy has to do with Biker Squads which have that option. It keeps them streamlined
The change for devastators comes from two things. The heavy section is overloaded with MUCH better options and no amount of tweaking devastator squads will change that. Moving them to troops makes them dedicated back line objective holders that can also snipe other units if needed. The increase to the number of heavies is attack bike related. We are debating on maybe eliminating the attack bike squad and making it an upgrade option for for devastator squads. This would mean changing the minimum number of heavy weapons to 3, and saying that for every heavy weapon troop and regular troop you may upgrade them to an attack bike with one bike being the sergeant attack bike. The upgrade cost for this would be 7pts per 2 models. Sergeant attack bikes would maintain their upgrade and wargear options obviously. Veteran sergeants would add +1 attack and leadership as normal. Also the 5 heavies works nicely with razorbacks. We have also debated splitfire for devastator squads. On them it makes sense.
As far as to why to make most bike squads upgrades rather than fast attack options is it allows some HQ build diversity and cleans up the list. Especially if we decide to move all flyers to the fast slot (Super heavies excluded obviously). Bike squads as troops also promotes build diversity in that it makes more armies able to do it if they wish. We are also considering offering a bikes only buff to captains and CM like maybe a biker capt or CM gives Hit and run or maybe skilled rider or both if you take both a capt and cm biker. I tend to view motorcycles as more of a horse in many ways. Yes they move fast and give mobility, but that doesn't always mean they are skirmishers. Take the knight for example, with their crossbows, heavy armor, shields, and swords. The knight wasn't really a skirmisher. The horse helped them get into battle and around the battlefield to smash more face. Monguls on the other hand were more lightly armored and relied more on their archery and they were skirmishers. Which is why scout bikes remain as fast attack
I tend to agree with you on Terminators, but it is a rule the group wants to test out (the extra heavy weapon) and I don't think it will do any harm to test that rule.
The extra bolt pistols is to give them better shotting inside of 12" and/or better against units charging them. On the honour guard it is more of better defense vs overwatch thing. Personally, I would rather they (honour guard) got access to combat or storm shields; but this is something whacky we want to try.
Your points about the combi-grav and combi-plasma have merits, but my experience with them is they are about as good as the other combi-weapons except I have ATROCIOUS luck with plasma. Every time I take it I roll double ones lol. 1 for the to hit or gets hot rule and 1 for the save. Which is why we are considering making plasma weapons have double profiles. The profile we have now and a s6 ap3 one without the gets hot!. The standard profile could be an overcharged firing mode that one uses if they need just that bit more strength and ap. Plasma guns should probably also be assault 2,assaul1 as per the bolters; but we are leaving them as is for now.
The bonus special for assault marines has more to do with making the plasma pistol option more viable albiet more expensive, and the access to an extra flamer makes them a more competitive choice for anti-horde.
Sorry if my posts derailed this thread a little bit, but like I said I wanted to keep my proposed storm bolter fix in perspective with other changes my local group and I are trying. We hope to try and eventually balance all the codices, but we decided to start with space marines because pretty much everyone in my group has at least a small army of them in some way or another. Not all of them play them much or have them as a main army, but everyone has familiarity with them and their strenghts and weaknesses.
Again, sorry for getting off topic.
54708
Post by: TheCustomLime
Yoyoyo wrote: TheCustomLime wrote:You are not looking at whole unit costs. The cost of a Tactical Marine is deceptive. Sure, he seem like a steal in comparison to a Veteran but a full squad of Space Marines cost 140 points with no upgrades. That is why I am saying that Marines are paying a premium for crappy guns. A guard squad can get three Plasmas and a Chimera for only 30 more points. Same Ballistic skill, effective weapons, better protection, a heavy bolter and a multilaser which can fire at full BS on the move and can select different targets.
Dude, I will spare you my epic wall of math. The basics are:
- 10x Tacs (140pts) and 10x Plasma Vets (105pts) shoot it out comparably well in Rapid Fire range. Effectiveness is about 4 dead Tacs, to 6 dead Vets. Each time the Vets fire they have a 33% to lose a Plasma weapon.
- 5x Tacs (70pts) crush 10x Plasma Vets (105pts) in assault. 2 Vets die to pistol fire. Vet Overwatch is as harmful to themselves as their assaulters with "Gets Hot". 1.04 unsaved wounds on a 14pt Tac, 0.66 unsaved wounds on a 20pt Plasma Vet. But it's worth firing anyways, because they will lose CC by 2W, break at 59%, and are swept at 72%.
So no suprises, right? S4 attacks are not bad against infantry, and assault is powerful. The problem is (as Martel says) what is a naked Tac squad going to do against a T6 Riptide? Well, maybe tie it up in assault and Krak it. I'll look at that too later.
If you want weapons caddies, why not a SM Devastator squad? You can get 4x Multi-Meltas for 110pts, or 4x Plasma Cannons for 130pts. Why isn't this an option?
Except that, for points, you are getting to get a lot more mileage out of 10 Plasma/Melta Vets in a Chimera. This unit can take down Terminator Squads, is far better protected, has a relentless heavy weapon and can get around faster to get to their objective. A barebones tactical squad may be better at assaulting infantry units but they slow, poorly armed and few in number. Not good things to be in 7th ed.
About the devastators, they do not address the issue with bolters at all. They are overcosted because they not only pay for their crappy boltgun but they are also overpaying for mediocre weapons. Well, except for Lascannons. Lascannon devastators aren't too bad.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Lascannon devs are pretty good until they get shot.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
A Bolter is not an anti-tank, anti-TEQ, or anti-MC weapon. Stop trying to make it one.
The problem is that Tacs cannot be repurposed against Meta threats. Fire Warriors suffer from the same issue, and they are S5 30" weapons. So really it's not your "crappy bolter". It's players exploiting the compulsory troops restriction imposed upon you by the traditional CAD, by taking units that can't be countered by anti-infantry weapons.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Yoyoyo wrote:A Bolter is not an anti-tank, anti- TEQ, or anti- MC weapon. Stop trying to make it one.
The problem is that Tacs cannot be repurposed against Meta threats. Fire Warriors suffer from the same issue, and they are S5 30" weapons. So really it's not your "crappy bolter". It's players exploiting the compulsory troops restriction imposed upon you by the traditional CAD, by taking units that can't be countered by anti-infantry weapons.
Fire warriors hits at least cause twice as many wounds against T6 MCs. Not much help against the 2+ armor MCs, but it's decent against the others.
If people aren't bringing units that can be hurt by bolters, that makes the bolter crappy.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
I don't think that anybody is arguing that these weapons should, without exception, be changed to something that can challenge heavily armored, high-Toughness multi-Wound models, like aforementioned 2+ armor MCs.
It's more that there's a general consensus that Bolters aren't generally that great at the job they're supposed to do, on account of being on relatively expensive models that pay, quite frankly, through the nose to be "generalist" units, when the vast majority of equipment necessary to equip them so isn't coming into play most of the time.
It's also worth noting that FWs have the advantage of being able to leverage Markerlights, and abusing their 30" range to be as far away as possible from things that can/want to kill them.
EDIT: FWs are also much cheaper than Tactical Marines.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
You're not wrong but it's not significant at base points.
Pulse Rifle : 16x(1/2)(1/3)(1/3) = 16/18 (~1W)
Bolter : 10x(2/3)(1/6(1/3) = 20/36 (~0.5W)
Actually, I take that back. Versus a 5+ save :
16x(1/2)(1/3)(2/3) = 32/18 (2W)
10x(2/3)(1/6)(2/3) = 40/48 (1W)
It's not going to prevent an assault but it is a little better, against low saves.
11860
Post by: Martel732
Case in point: if a Xeno list keeps marines out of assault through weapon range and movement, most of the "extra gear" that marines get is useless. Namely, S4, WS 4, grenades, and ATSKNF. All useless outside of assault.
I myself exploit this against lists like GK. My BA run like cowards and shoot the piss out of them. I only assault to mop up.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Rending for all bolters ofc. Tacs fixed, termies fixed, csm fixed, everybody else cries but who cares especialy that it would be good but not game breaking. It would make sense fluff wise because it makes sense for a basic weapon to be able to actualy hurt the user in his basic armour, that's how it usualy works. It also properly simulates a mini rocket exploding in the greater daemon eye or anus. It would make power armour guys scary instead of a joke they are now. I play nids btw.
Or give poor termies an option to take heavy weapon each, price accordingly ofc.
Tbh though I think GW is pretty comfortable with tacs and termies being bad, after all most people have tones of them and if you dont, theyre super cheap to get.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Didn't a Tyranid player win LVO partly due to a bunch of infiltrating Lictors assaulting Wave Serpents, one of the most abused powerunits in the game?
People like to denigrate assault but it's very powerful if anyone is able to actually get their units there. Check this out, it's a fun read.
http://www.torrentoffire.com/6249/enter-the-lictor
Oh an incidentally, the runner-up had 2x Devastators w/4x Lascannons each. Just sayin'...
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
Yoyoyo wrote:Isn't this "adapting to the meta?" Bumrushing Firebase Formations with PF Scouts and Librarians debuffing LD woukd be hilarious. In real-life, we ditched the armor when it no longer was protective. Why not do the same in a tabletop wargame?
It's hard to "adapt to the meta" when almost every model in the SM book is paying for PA at a minimum, and it's being rendered completely useless by 90% of the things that shoot at them, either due to AP or just drowning them in so many wounds that they inevitably fail saves.
NorseSig wrote:As far as to why to make most bike squads upgrades rather than fast attack options is it allows some HQ build diversity and cleans up the list. Especially if we decide to move all flyers to the fast slot (Super heavies excluded obviously). Bike squads as troops also promotes build diversity in that it makes more armies able to do it if they wish. We are also considering offering a bikes only buff to captains and CM like maybe a biker capt or CM gives Hit and run or maybe skilled rider or both if you take both a capt and cm biker. I tend to view motorcycles as more of a horse in many ways. Yes they move fast and give mobility, but that doesn't always mean they are skirmishers. Take the knight for example, with their crossbows, heavy armor, shields, and swords. The knight wasn't really a skirmisher. The horse helped them get into battle and around the battlefield to smash more face. Monguls on the other hand were more lightly armored and relied more on their archery and they were skirmishers. Which is why scout bikes remain as fast attack
That's a good point; IIRC there was a thread about Biker models being changed to be more cavalry-esque since that's the closest analogue, and there was a comment about how cavalry came in two basic "forms", historically- the "shock" cavalry, who were heavily armored and focused on breaking enemy formations, and the "dragoon" cavalry who were more focused on skirmishing and engaging at a distance with various archery/cavalry carbine weapons. I suppose, however, that the catch is that even that comparison isn't particularly accurate, as a Marine is well armored, an excellent marksman, and a competent bladesman; given that Bike squads can hand out more gun upgrades than combat weapons, it kind of makes them a hybrid shock/dragoon cavalry unit.
Which has some potential for coolness, IMO.
NorseSig wrote:The extra bolt pistols is to give them better shotting inside of 12" and/or better against units charging them. On the honour guard it is more of better defense vs overwatch thing. Personally, I would rather they (honour guard) got access to combat or storm shields; but this is something whacky we want to try.
Honor Guard with combat shields? Why yes, yes I would like that. Honor Guard with Stormshields I'm not so sure about, as it might infringe a bit on Hammernators.
NorseSig wrote:Your points about the combi-grav and combi-plasma have merits, but my experience with them is they are about as good as the other combi-weapons except I have ATROCIOUS luck with plasma. Every time I take it I roll double ones lol. 1 for the to hit or gets hot rule and 1 for the save. Which is why we are considering making plasma weapons have double profiles. The profile we have now and a s6 ap3 one without the gets hot!. The standard profile could be an overcharged firing mode that one uses if they need just that bit more strength and ap. Plasma guns should probably also be assault 2,assaul1 as per the bolters; but we are leaving them as is for now.
I'd say that for dual profiles for plasma weapons, here's a few to consider:
Plasma Pistol
12" Pistol S5 AP3
Plasma Gun
24" Rapid Fire S5 AP3
OR
24" Rapid Fire S5 AP2
The current profile then represents the "overcharge". I rather like the S5/AP3 option a bit better; it better represents how turning the power up to 11, so to say, takes the weapon to an armor-melting murderdeathkill machine.
Plasma Cannon
36" Salvo 1/2 S5 AP2
36" Heavy 1 S7 AP2 Small Blast, Gets Hot
This is, incidentally, where the PlasGun being S5/AP3 helps make the Plasma Cannon a little more distinguished. Salvo 1/2 is to keep it from infringing on a Salvo 2/3 HB; obviously if HBs get a higher RoF we could take Plasma Cannons to Salvo 2/2, IMO. I'd not take them to Salvo 2/3 or higher on their "low-power" mode; that would potentially infringe on Plasma Guns and HBs both. I also listed both my idea for a "low-power" mode and the current "maximal" mode to get across the much greater difference that 'charging up' a Plasma Cannon has compared to, say, the Pistol or PlasGun variations.
Yoyoyo wrote:http://www.torrentoffire.com/6249/enter-the-lictor
Oh an incidentally, the runner-up had 2x Devastators w/4x Lascannons each. Just sayin'...
Nobody is disputing that LC Devastators are good. They are disputing that said Devs will actually live through the game to be useful. If a minimum-size squad of LC Devs is on the field, they will be quickly- and easily- focus fired down. Giving them bullet catchers makes them more expensive, which is somewhat counter intuitive to your suggestion, as you seemed to be saying "hey, Devs w/ 4x LCs are pretty cheap, why not use them?"
The answer, of course, is that a min-sized squad is easily wiped out, while a squad with bullet catchers is not cheap.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Look, at the end of the day, that list put 716pts into Scouts and LC Devastators, it beat the overall LVO winner in their first match, and it came in second overall. Did not take "bullet catchers". Happily a lot of S6 and S7 spam bounces off 3+ saves. So, both units are obviously very effective in the right hands, despite objections to the contrary. In the article I linked, look at the comments about Lictors. People were saying "oh, it's a gimmick unit, they'll never work if they get matched with Wave Serpents." Well, guess what, it did and it wrecked them. It's easier to post an opinion on the net than use these units, obviously.
I know it's hard to adapt to the meta, that's why these guys did so well. The used creativity, tactics, firepower, and flexibility to win. So I have to respect that. And one of them is a SM player. There's probably a lesson here perhaps, I am too lazy to get into an argument though.
Also, Rending is a terrible idea. 10x Bolters with Prescience have something like an 30% chance to pen an AV12 vehicle at 24". 10x Prescienced Bolters in Rapid Fire range would kill something like 3x Terminators a turn. Isn't there already something of a survivability problem there?
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
So... what are the precise circumstances of that match? What else was involved in the list?
What part of S6/7 spam drowning MEQ in wounds do you happen to not understand?
Where does it apply that player skill is completely irrelevant and "the list is king"?
When it comes down to it, the point still stands- LC Devs without bullet catchers tend to not survive well, while LC Devs with bullet catchers are expensive.
What else was included in the runner-up's list? Because stating:
Yoyoyo wrote:Oh an incidentally, the runner-up had 2x Devastators w/4x Lascannons each. Just sayin'...
Doesn't tell us anything about whether or not he included bullet catchers for the Devs, whether or not he had "scary" things to draw fire off of the Devs, or even how he might have chosen to deploy in order to keep the Devs alive.
Your statement there is meaningless- it communicates no useful information, it merely says "oh, this thing happened, so the mere occurrence proves my point". Which is fallacious.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
I have a really great idea, why don't you use google to figure it out for yourself.
Also my statement said 2x Devs with 4x Lascannons each. To be precise;
Heavy: 4 Devastators w/Lascannons, Sergeant
Heavy: 4 Devastators w/Lascannons, Sergeant
So, basically, 2x Devs. With 4x Lacannons each. Which is what I said. If you find it easier, maybe I should have included a diagram for you.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
So do you not know that a basic principle of debating is that if you make a claim, you get the proof to back it up. You claimed that the runner-up to some tournament used two squads of Devastators with 4 Lascannons.
You did not initially clarify that each squad was minimum-size. You have still not actually said what the significance of this is. As far as I can tell, it's significant only because it went to a tournament and most competitive "scenes" are dominated by WS spam.
And, again, it also doesn't communicate anything else about his list, like- as I mentioned- whether or not he was fielding "scarier" things, or how he actually played them in order to leverage their capabilities.
31121
Post by: amanita
We buffed stormbolters the same way we buffed heavy bolters - gave them both an extra shot at half their range.
Stormbolters get 3 shots at 12", and heavy bolters get 4 shots at 18".
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Well Whiskey -- I am not going to play nicely with your cute little debate ettiquette. You get no proof whatsoever, and I'm going to say I know more than you do, and the only way you will ever learn about my supposed "proof" is to either apologize for needlessly arguing at length (to put me in a better mood), or use google to figure it out for yourself.
But considering there's a thread up right now in the tactics forum on this very list, who's right is probably obvious to everyone but you. I suppose you will just have to live out the rest of your days in terrible suspense, always wondering where I developed my vast and arcane knowlege of the Warhammer 40k meta in 2015.
I'm such a jerk, right?
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
Yoyoyo wrote:Well Whiskey -- I am not going to play nicely with your cute little debate ettiquette. You get no proof whatsoever, and I'm going to say I know more than you do, and the only way you will ever learn about my supposed "proof" is to either apologize for needlessly arguing at length (to put me in a better mood), or use google to figure it out for yourself.
But considering there's a thread up right now in the tactics forum on this very list, who's right is probably obvious to everyone but you. I suppose you will just have to live out the rest of your days in terrible suspense, always wondering where I developed my vast and arcane knowlege of the Warhammer 40k meta in 2015.
I'm such a jerk, right?
I'd say donkey-cave. Because as it so happens, all you needed to do was link that thread, and that would have satisfied my demands of proof.
Seriously, that's all you needed to do. Link the thread.
But since you're such a "jerk"- or donkey-cave, as the case may be- I will explain the precise details of what I mean:
In debating, making a claim requires the person doing so to provide proof to support their claim. You claimed that 2x MSU Dev squads with Lascannons were used at a what I gather is a high-profile tournament, and to great effect, with the player and list managing second place. Moreover, you were referencing this as proof that Lascannon Devs were "good"... which no one actually disagreed; the point of contention was that MSU LC Devs have survivability issues- particularly as each loss is nearly guaranteed to take a LC off the field- and that non- MSU Devs are overly expensive, as the extra bodies are, realistically, only there to catch bullets.
I then pointed out (correctly, BTW), that simply saying "a list with 2x MSU Dev squads with LCs made second place at LVO" is meaningless- the person could have been running almost anything else with the aforementioned Dev squads, and quite possibly have made said Devs there to be bullet magnets, or because they happened to have a major love of Devastator squads, or whatever other reason you could think of.
If you had simply linked the thread, then I would have been perfectly happy to accept that as "proof". The thread provides the list, and someone else in the thread even helpfully pointed out some of the basic workings of the list, such as how it can null deploy. Very notably, it's obvious that the list is using SoT chapter tactics, as well as making the Librarian the Warlord to get two rolls on the Strategic Warlord Trait table.
It also clearly points out that the list has a degree of threat overload- with GravCents, Mephiston, and Lysander, you have what is, practically speaking, three different DISTRACTION CARNIFEX units. All of which want to be close (IE, "shoot nao"), and all of which are widely regarded as "scary".
In other words, the list leverages a number of facets that help the Devs not die in a fire, and it's obvious from just looking at it.
I know I'm repeating myself here, but all you needed to do was link the thread. Seriously; I very rarely browse the tactics forum in any great detail, as it happens.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Blah blah blah, etc. You might want to eat some humble pie and start learning more about the game.
@norsesig - apologies for derailment. Compile your houserule package and put it up in another thread, could be interesting.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Yoyoyo wrote:Also, Rending is a terrible idea. 10x Bolters with Prescience have something like an 30% chance to pen an AV12 vehicle at 24". 10x Prescienced Bolters in Rapid Fire range would kill something like 3x Terminators a turn. Isn't there already something of a survivability problem there?
So what, marines and termies would be deadly to other marines and termies, exactly like it should be. It would bring even more of survivability problem only vs bolters for guys that have bolters too, also the natural advantage of terminators vs marines would be deepstrike because properly used they would get a first shot. As for vehicles, maybe reducing rock paper scissors aspect of the game is good direction, sure you'd have to throw a bone to every other army too but why not start with sm.
Not to even mention that a change to Prescience could and should follow the rending bolters, your example is completly non issue here.
86991
Post by: NorseSig
@norsesig - apologies for derailment. Compile your houserule package and put it up in another thread, could be interesting.
I didn't start the thread, but I also didn't want to disrespect the OP. Since the OP brought up a valid topic of discussion. And I am as much responsible for the slight derailment. I am working on getting the house rules we have posted up, but I am trying to clean it up some so it is easier to read, and hopefully easier to understand. I hope to have it up in a few days (that thing called work eats up a lot of my time ). I should note that other than a few general rules it is space marines (primarily vanilla) only. It may come down to for other armies relying on help from the dakka community for help.
Also I must offer an apology to the OP for causing a brief (hopefully) derailment of your thread. It was not my intention to do so.
Like I said I favor an assault 3 with full BS in overwatch for a fix for storm bolters. A split profile on storm bolters doesn't make much sense imo. The full BS in overwatch I feel is the perfect add-on to make storm bolters worth their points but not overly powerful.
92121
Post by: Yoyoyo
Let's think this through and do a scenario. No Prescience, using your example of Deep Striking Tac Terminators so they can Alpha strike,
5x Termies are about 200pts, let's pretend we give them Assault 3. So, they attack with 15x shots. They drop into RF range assuming no mishap, fire, and kill about 3 Marines (2 due to rending, 1x to a failed armour save). Equal points in Tacs means 13 Tacs remain. Those Tacs fire 26x Rapid Fire shots, kill about 2x Terminators due to rending, and 1x to a failed save. If I use Scouts, the Termies kill 4x, remaining Scouts return fire, disastrous results ensue. So now you have a "lone survivor" Tac Terminator heroically going against 14 Scouts with Rending Rapid Fire Bolters, and who can't even Sweeping Advance to get some mileage out of DS. And incidentally, neither can any other assault unit, as SM is invulnerable to sweeping advance by the ATSKNF rule.
So now we have a troop choice with the strongest points-for-points shooting in the game, the best stat line, that can't be swept, that can't be outdeployed, that gets customized army-wide Chapter Tactics to buff it further, and that can even counter massed AP4 artillery if you take Tacs for a 3+ save. 45x Bolter shots would down a 6W Wraithknight, any MC without a good Invul save is basically hosed under the new change.
Maybe there is merit to your Rending idea. It's actually not bad on Storm Bolters only. But army-wide creates an issue. Eldar can compete with Bladestorm, but not against vehicles, and their infantry does not have equivalent stats, rules, ranges, or a single infantry carrier with fire ports. And as you can see there is probably a reason for that.
93069
Post by: Whiskey144
Yoyoyo wrote:Blah blah blah, etc. You might want to eat some humble pie and start learning more about the game.
....So, did you not even read anything of what I said, because boiling it down, I really only said "you could have linked the thread as your proof". Seriously, that was my main point.
In fact, your initial pissy exchange of "google it, durr" was shortly after the thread that YOU mentioned went up, so you could have, quite literally, linked the thread then, and we would not be arguing over you and your bruised ego because I told you that you needed to actually provide more information than "tournament dude got 2nd with MSU Lascannon Devs".
Because that statement provides no useful information, and proves nothing. Even you should be able to realize that it doesn't say anything whatsoever to make such a statement.
Yoyoyo wrote:Maybe there is merit to your Rending idea. It's actually not bad on Storm Bolters only. But army-wide creates an issue. Eldar can compete with Bladestorm, but not against vehicles, and their infantry does not have equivalent stats, rules, ranges, or a single infantry carrier with fire ports. And as you can see there is probably a reason for that.
It's also worth noting that the closest implemented equivalent- Necron Gauss- is an auto-wound/-glance with no AP value, so you always get an armor save against Gauss. For infantry, when faced with Bladestorm/Rending, you don't get the armor save if the effect triggers. Which, for Marines, really sucks.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Yoyoyo wrote:Let's think this through and do a scenario. No Prescience, using your example of Deep Striking Tac Terminators so they can Alpha strike,
5x Termies are about 200pts, let's pretend we give them Assault 3. So, they attack with 15x shots. They drop into RF range assuming no mishap, fire, and kill about 3 Marines (2 due to rending, 1x to a failed armour save). Equal points in Tacs means 13 Tacs remain. Those Tacs fire 26x Rapid Fire shots, kill about 2x Terminators due to rending, and 1x to a failed save. If I use Scouts, the Termies kill 4x, remaining Scouts return fire, disastrous results ensue. So now you have a "lone survivor" Tac Terminator heroically going against 14 Scouts with Rending Rapid Fire Bolters, and who can't even Sweeping Advance to get some mileage out of DS. And incidentally, neither can any other assault unit, as SM is invulnerable to sweeping advance by the ATSKNF rule.
So now we have a troop choice with the strongest points-for-points shooting in the game, the best stat line, that can't be swept, that can't be outdeployed, that gets customized army-wide Chapter Tactics to buff it further, and that can even counter massed AP4 artillery if you take Tacs for a 3+ save. 45x Bolter shots would down a 6W Wraithknight, any MC without a good Invul save is basically hosed under the new change.
Maybe there is merit to your Rending idea. It's actually not bad on Storm Bolters only. But army-wide creates an issue. Eldar can compete with Bladestorm, but not against vehicles, and their infantry does not have equivalent stats, rules, ranges, or a single infantry carrier with fire ports. And as you can see there is probably a reason for that.
Obviously if you added rending to all bolters ther changes would have to follow. No bolters for scouts hey that even would be fluffy, rapid fire back to old, point adjustments etc, surely sisters would require closer look too. The problem with marines is not their cost but their completly not scary damage output. And yes 2 10 man squads of marines should have a chance to shoot down a wraithknight imo, uber elite of elite rapid firing mini rockets and all that bs.
If we're disscusing isolated tweaks only, there's not much. Full BS on overwatch for example sounds nice but they need much more to be dangerous.
Btw wasnt max squad size for marines 10? I know you're doing point for point but if the unir cant be fielded, no point in using it for comparision. Not sure though dont have sm codex.
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
Yeah, Marines are max squad size 10. However, Battle Sisters have the same shooting profile and are 2 points cheaper per model, with a unit size of 5-20, so you get 16 in... and rending bolters get even crazier.
60506
Post by: Plumbumbarum
Remove the sisters from 40k then, problem solved 
86991
Post by: NorseSig
This is in no way a solution. Please stop being a troll.
81831
Post by: SRSFACE
I just can't get behind rending Bolters. I even play Dark Angels and we'd benefit from it an inordinate amount. It just doesn't feel right.
Seeing as they are supposed to be explosives, maybe some kind of rule that just permanently grants bolt weaponry some sort of -1 to cover saves? They're only AP5 so most things get to make armor saves against them anyway, so it'd just help you shoot at targets that want to go to ground or rely solely on their cover save. Also helps them ping speeders to death.
Not much of a buff, I know. Just spitballing here.
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
They only explode after penetrating the target, which is why Shred was a good suggestion. The explosive increases their killing power, not their armour penetration or damage radius.
81025
Post by: koooaei
Shred is too much of a buff for such a cheap weapon. Bolters basically cost 1 pts more than lazguns.
If you want shred (that's gona make bolters better than s5 against infantry), make them cost at least 4-5 ppm and not 1. This way, the price will get more or less reasonable for the killing power they provide.
I don't mind bolters getting better. It just needs to cost appropriately.
People whine so much about massed s6.
s4 shred shot has 3/4 chance to wound t4 - that's just 10% worse than s6. And 12.5% better than s5. And it's becoming even stronger vs t3 than s6.
And bolters are WAY more common than s6 stuff.
11860
Post by: Martel732
"And bolters are WAY more common than s6 stuff."
Tell that to my Eldar opponents.
89398
Post by: SGTPozy
Martel732 wrote:"And bolters are WAY more common than s6 stuff."
Tell that to my Eldar opponents.
Eldar is one army yet bolter-wielders are 6 (7 if AM are included) so yes, bolters are more common.
81025
Post by: koooaei
SGTPozy wrote:Martel732 wrote:"And bolters are WAY more common than s6 stuff."
Tell that to my Eldar opponents.
Eldar is one army yet bolter-wielders are 6 (7 if AM are included) so yes, bolters are more common.
Did you include inquisition with dirt cheap bolter henchmen?
89398
Post by: SGTPozy
koooaei wrote:SGTPozy wrote:Martel732 wrote:"And bolters are WAY more common than s6 stuff."
Tell that to my Eldar opponents.
Eldar is one army yet bolter-wielders are 6 (7 if AM are included) so yes, bolters are more common.
Did you include inquisition with dirt cheap bolter henchmen?
Damn, okay so there are 7 or 8 which makes Martel's point even more invalid.
81831
Post by: SRSFACE
I also think Shred is simply too much for Bolters.
For the record, I think the way Gauss and Shuriken weapons work is totally stupid. I'm in favor of making those less obnoxious more than I am buffing the most ubiquitous weapon for the most ubiquitous army.
Bolters are just fine, until you start introducing mass T6 or better units. Which are just everywhere these days. The fact marines can't really bring enough firepower other than their stock weaponry is the killer.
63003
Post by: pelicaniforce
SRSFACE wrote:
For the record, I think the way Gauss and Shuriken weapons work is totally stupid.
Do you mean what they do to other units or how they work re dice rolls and tables? I think it's really nice that they roll to hit just like normal shooting, roll to wound just like normal shooting, and roll to save. I think it's apparent from the way that GW designed these rules that they are not keen on wide-scale rules that make the players do extra stuff. For instance, you wouldn't see an army-wide rule that says roll to hit, then sixes to hit get +x str and reroll saves, because then you need to have a separate round of rolling to wound for those special hits. You want the same set of rolls as any other weapon.
Rules like rad and taser are also good examples of things that don't require separate, segregated dice rolls. They just increase the number of dice when you do the normal roll to wound or save.
This is also why I'm never going to use shred as an army-wide rule in my house. It's not something I would feel very smart for doing. It's different for things like Flayed Ones or lightning claws, partly because those are minority units, and also largely because they are in close combat. In shooting, there is a much higher proportion of casualties coming from things like battle cannons, so it's way less relevant to have shred on s4. It's pretty much terrible. You also have people suggesting bladestorm being replaced by shred, so it just seems like something people say for anything.
11860
Post by: Martel732
I think he's complaining about the precedent for small arm ++, but then not equally distributing the power from this concept.
71534
Post by: Bharring
I erred a while back, when I suggested Shred replace Blade storm. I was trying to tone down the hate, but hadn't really thought it through.
On Shurikats, Shred instead of Bladestorm would be bonkers-broken. That was made very obvious very quickly.
But Shurikats are supposed to hit harder than Bolters, as they are better tech but shorter range. Both by fluff and for balance, they should be the stronger gun.
So, if a gun that clearly should be stronger would be bonkers-broken with Shred, how could it be conceivably fair on Bolters?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Counter-thought: what would you think of Snapshots being -2 BS?
A bigger overall change to the game, sure. But it would make Storm Bolters - and Boltguns - have a lot more tactical importance. Without completely wrecking all other armies. Orkz and Nids would cry, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, about that LVO list. It wasn't the standard CentStar. Was more of a few threats, backed up by some LC devs, and more importantly, a gak-ton of boltguns. Look at how it did things. It was the boltguns instead of a real CentStar + the other usual contenders that differentiated that list from all the real CentStar lists.
In other words, Bolter weapons was a big part of what got #2 at LVO.
91128
Post by: Xenomancers
Bharring wrote:I erred a while back, when I suggested Shred replace Blade storm. I was trying to tone down the hate, but hadn't really thought it through.
On Shurikats, Shred instead of Bladestorm would be bonkers-broken. That was made very obvious very quickly.
But Shurikats are supposed to hit harder than Bolters, as they are better tech but shorter range. Both by fluff and for balance, they should be the stronger gun.
So, if a gun that clearly should be stronger would be bonkers-broken with Shred, how could it be conceivably fair on Bolters?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Counter-thought: what would you think of Snapshots being -2 BS?
A bigger overall change to the game, sure. But it would make Storm Bolters - and Boltguns - have a lot more tactical importance. Without completely wrecking all other armies. Orkz and Nids would cry, though.
Weapons don't excell at what they aren't designed to do. Shurikens are light projectiles with high velocity and low recoil - hence short range high volume of fire and good penetration (ap2) and assault. Bolts are low velocity large projectiles with high rate of fire and high recoil with an explosive payload. This should give them a profile that has intermediate range, low pentration, and high destructive power (due to high recoil rapid fire should reduce overall effectiveness accuracy (decreased range when rapid fired). 24" is intermediate, Ap5 is low penetration, STR4 fits a large low velocity shot and the weapon is rapid fire...the only thing that's not represented is the explosive round - it needs to be represented somehow. Shred makes the most sense to represent this maybe a dumbed down version of shred would be more appropriate - for example.
Explosive - failed wounds with a weapon with this rule may reroll failed to wound rolls. Rerolls recieve a -1 modifer for every toughness over the strength of the weapon to a minimum of 6+. So bolters would be 5+ reroll 6+ vs t5 targets and 6+ reroll 6+ vs t6-7.
This rule would also be added to heavy bolters as well. Allowing these weapons to excell at infantry killing without become too godly against MC. Or against t5 and t6 targets. Automatically Appended Next Post: Bharring wrote:I erred a while back, when I suggested Shred replace Blade storm. I was trying to tone down the hate, but hadn't really thought it through.
On Shurikats, Shred instead of Bladestorm would be bonkers-broken. That was made very obvious very quickly.
But Shurikats are supposed to hit harder than Bolters, as they are better tech but shorter range. Both by fluff and for balance, they should be the stronger gun.
So, if a gun that clearly should be stronger would be bonkers-broken with Shred, how could it be conceivably fair on Bolters?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Counter-thought: what would you think of Snapshots being -2 BS?
A bigger overall change to the game, sure. But it would make Storm Bolters - and Boltguns - have a lot more tactical importance. Without completely wrecking all other armies. Orkz and Nids would cry, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, about that LVO list. It wasn't the standard CentStar. Was more of a few threats, backed up by some LC devs, and more importantly, a gak-ton of boltguns. Look at how it did things. It was the boltguns instead of a real CentStar + the other usual contenders that differentiated that list from all the real CentStar lists.
In other words, Bolter weapons was a big part of what got #2 at LVO.
It's chapter tactics and drop pods that do this man. Bolters are just bonus.
63973
Post by: Furyou Miko
Having actually played with both Shred bolters (well, dual shred bolt pistols on jump infantry) and Rending bolters, I can safely say that of the two, Rending is less powerful against infantry, and both are actually fairly insane.
You don't know fear until a unit of seraphim has deep struck behind your cover and unloaded on your infantry squad.
|
|
