FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.
I'm thinking maybe it's not the bolter drill that's the issue with DW, maybe it's just that they pack so much power and still get the super-cheap Storm shields - maybe they just need to pay more for those - or even more for their Storm bolters. Bolter drill itself seems like a very good rule, it's just that some fine tuning is required.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.
I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters. The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)
Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)
But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019 The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.
Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half. So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3. A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1). This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.
I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters.
The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)
Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)
But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019
The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.
Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines
-
I think that is a good solution. I also ike the idea of Beta Bolters not applying to everything with Bolter in the title. Bolter Rilfes, Bolters, Sure. Storm Bolters & Hurricane Bolters, no. I realize this significantly nerfs certain vehicles (Rhinos, Land Raider Crusader) but I'm if we're saying Fallen can't get access to the rule, then how does a Land Raider?
Edit for clarity: Not referring to the obvious key word deficiency, but the fluff.
Most likely, but probably not in this upcoming FAQ (not a long time to beta it) and probably not without tweaks. But yes, it will become official in some incarnation.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.
I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters.
The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)
Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)
But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019
The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.
Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.
I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters.
The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)
Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)
But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019
The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.
Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines
-
I think that is a good solution. I also ike the idea of Beta Bolters not applying to everything with Bolter in the title. Bolter Rilfes, Bolters, Sure. Storm Bolters & Hurricane Bolters, no. I realize this significantly nerfs certain vehicles (Rhinos, Land Raider Crusader) but I'm if we're saying Fallen can't get access to the rule, then how does a Land Raider?
Edit for clarity: Not referring to the obvious key word deficiency, but the fluff.
The rule isn't about fluff, its about balance. Fallen are too irrelevant , tbh. maybe they'll add them to the list, maybe they wont.
The bar-none easiest/best way to update Fallen is to just give them ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETICUS ASTARTES keywords.
Now they can not only benefit from the Bolter Discipline rule, but also fit into Matched Play detachment without having to field a Vanguard with Cypher + 3 Fallen units. They would "break" the Faction keywords like Alpha Legions, Dark Angels, etc, but that could be the down-side to bringing them
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.
I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters.
The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)
Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)
But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019
The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.
Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines
-
You can't remove those options without removing several options for Tactical Marines.
How many of those weapon choices do you think come in that kit?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.
I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters. The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)
Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)
But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019 The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.
Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half. So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3. A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1). This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines
-
You can't remove those options without removing several options for Tactical Marines.
How many of those weapon choices do you think come in that kit?
I'm not 100% sure I understand or see how that affects non-DW units at all. I am not suggesting SBs be removed from the Beta Bolter rule, I was saying SBs might get removed from the Deathwatch Equipment list in the DW Codex, thereby preventing DW Vets from comboing SB/SIA/cheap SS. It makes the most sense given GWs history. I'm actually surprised they made it into the Codex given the DW Vet kit does not have SBs Terminators have their own equipment lists (which would still include SBs), so it isn't like removing SBs from the generic list would remove them entirely for the Codex
If GW addresses the "issue" of StormVets (which I do not think they will at all, btw) it is most likely to Errata SBs off that particular list.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.
I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters.
The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)
Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)
But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019
The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.
Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines
-
You can't remove those options without removing several options for Tactical Marines.
How many of those weapon choices do you think come in that kit?
I'm not 100% sure I understand or see how that affects non-DW units at all. I am not suggesting SBs be removed from the Beta Bolter rule, I was saying SBs might get removed from the Deathwatch Equipment list in the DW Codex, thereby preventing DW Vets from comboing SB/SIA/cheap SS.
It makes the most sense given GWs history. I'm actually surprised they made it into the Codex given the DW Vet kit does not have SBs
If GW addresses the "issue" of StormVets (which I do not think they will at all, btw) it is most likely to Errata SBs off that particular list.
-
The point I made is there are several options that Tactical Marines can take that aren't in their actual kit. That's not a legit way of thinking for the Deathwatch situation.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The point I made is there are several options that Tactical Marines can take that aren't in their actual kit. That's not a legit way of thinking for the Deathwatch situation.
Ah, I understand now. I disagree that the two should be related, but I get what you are saying. There are plenty of models that do not have the right equipment included in their kit. But there are also Codex entries that have removed options, like Twin-Autocannons for Dreads, or like 80% of the options for Eldar Autarchs, so there is precedent.
All I was saying it that if GW identifies there being an issue with StormVets, they could just remove SBs from their specific equipment options. It wouldn't require retooling of SIA, changes to Bolter Discipline, or bumping the cost of SS back up. Plus, the kit doesn't come with them anyway, so it would be a win-win for GW.
But as I've said, I really don't think it would happen but if anything does happen to StormVets, removing the SB is the most logical for GW
Quasistellar wrote: So, we throw fits when GW removes things from the codex that aren't in the kits.
Dakka's solution to DW actually being halfway decent (as if it's even a problem): remove things from the codex that aren't in the kits.
Again the issue isn't DW being half decent, it's them automatically benifiting from any PA buffs while being 5-10% better win rate means that by the time marines make 50% DW are at 60% and are the new Yannari. It's about bringing them into line so all PA can be buffed to balanced, not just become want to win with PA play DW. Thats not chocie thats imbalance.
Quasistellar wrote: So, we throw fits when GW removes things from the codex that aren't in the kits.
Dakka's solution to DW actually being halfway decent (as if it's even a problem): remove things from the codex that aren't in the kits.
Again the issue isn't DW being half decent, it's them automatically benifiting from any PA buffs while being 5-10% better win rate means that by the time marines make 50% DW are at 60% and are the new Yannari. It's about bringing them into line so all PA can be buffed to balanced, not just become want to win with PA play DW. Thats not chocie thats imbalance.
Eh, even with the bolter drill rule, Deathwatch isn't going to become the new meta. They're still way too weak against anti-tank, and still way too easy to kill. They're just even better at something they were already good at, namely killing infantry and monsters. It's gonna take more rules to bring the other marine codex up to par anyway.
fraser1191 wrote: I can't see it becoming official as is, there's too many bolt weapons that are not rapid fire in my opinion.
Intercessor loadout is basically bolt rifles or bust
Also I do not like it as it promotes standing still. Well I like it, it's noticeable but I don't like how you activate it by not moving
Agreed, which is why I have email GW directly with this suggestion:
Galef wrote: Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines
Quasistellar wrote: So, we throw fits when GW removes things from the codex that aren't in the kits.
Dakka's solution to DW actually being halfway decent (as if it's even a problem): remove things from the codex that aren't in the kits.
Again the issue isn't DW being half decent, it's them automatically benifiting from any PA buffs while being 5-10% better win rate means that by the time marines make 50% DW are at 60% and are the new Yannari. It's about bringing them into line so all PA can be buffed to balanced, not just become want to win with PA play DW. Thats not chocie thats imbalance.
That's an issue with Storm Shields and regular Bolters not having any meaning in 8th.
Personally SIA is too strong. There is exactly 0 reason that sterngaurd should be ill equipped compared to DW vets. DW should have gotten a rule (chapter tactic) that gave them +1 to wound everything without the imperium/choas keyword. This is a very strong tactic. However it allow for other marine chapters to be on par with them. WHICH THEY SHOULD BE. Then we could address individual marine weapon balance.
The new bolter rule should go through at the very minimum be buffed to be able to affect ALL bolt type weapons being used by ASTARTES and HERATIC ASTARTES. Currently it works good for units like intercessors and centurions and even terminators - but is absolutely useless on tactical marines/ devestators / ect. I very much like the suggested change by Galef. Just have it include all bolt weapons +1 shot at max range if you don't move and or double if you are in half range - keeping everything else the same.
Xenomancers wrote: Personally SIA is too strong. There is exactly 0 reason that sterngaurd should be ill equipped compared to DW vets. DW should have gotten a rule (chapter tactic) that gave them +1 to wound everything without the imperium/choas keyword. This is a very strong tactic. However it allow for other marine chapters to be on par with them. WHICH THEY SHOULD BE. Then we could address individual marine weapon balance.
The new bolter rule should go through at the very minimum be buffed to be able to affect ALL bolt type weapons being used by ASTARTES and HERATIC ASTARTES. Currently it works good for units like intercessors and centurions and even terminators - but is absolutely useless on tactical marines/ devestators / ect. I very much like the suggested change by Galef. Just have it include all bolt weapons +1 shot at max range if you don't move and or if you are in half range - keeping everything else the same.
It isn't that SIA is too strong. Outside Dragonfire, they operate mostly the same as they did.
The issue was the change to how AP worked. Since nobody JUST ignores 5+ and 6+ anymore, you need more shots pummeling in or better wounding. That makes it seem like SIA is too strong, where the real problem was a change to core rules.
If regular codex marines are good, then DW will always be overpowered because they gain so much for so little points. It's not just SIA and stormbolters and stormshields. If a tactical marine is balanced to be good at 13pts, then a 16pt DW marine with an extra attack and SIA will always be way better. The problem is the cost of SIA.
Plenty of factors contribute to regular marines being bad, but if any of those are fixed, they will also help DW. That's the core of the problem. Regular marines cannot ever be balanced without breaking DW unless it's through chapter traits or improvements to vanilla wargear that doesn't apply to SIA bolters. But the things that regular marines need fixes to are mostly their core statline, which isn't what chapter traits address.
Xenomancers wrote: Personally SIA is too strong. There is exactly 0 reason that sterngaurd should be ill equipped compared to DW vets. DW should have gotten a rule (chapter tactic) that gave them +1 to wound everything without the imperium/choas keyword. This is a very strong tactic. However it allow for other marine chapters to be on par with them. WHICH THEY SHOULD BE. Then we could address individual marine weapon balance.
The new bolter rule should go through at the very minimum be buffed to be able to affect ALL bolt type weapons being used by ASTARTES and HERATIC ASTARTES. Currently it works good for units like intercessors and centurions and even terminators - but is absolutely useless on tactical marines/ devestators / ect. I very much like the suggested change by Galef. Just have it include all bolt weapons +1 shot at max range if you don't move and or if you are in half range - keeping everything else the same.
It isn't that SIA is too strong. Outside Dragonfire, they operate mostly the same as they did.
The issue was the change to how AP worked. Since nobody JUST ignores 5+ and 6+ anymore, you need more shots pummeling in or better wounding. That makes it seem like SIA is too strong, where the real problem was a change to core rules.
Operating with the assumption that core rules aren't going to change and even if they were going to. Marines can not be balanced against DW when they can would all non vehicles on 2's or go to -2 AP on their weapons vs vehicles / 2+ saves for a minor price increase. The new bolter rule is a step in the right direction unfortunately it just makes the best marines better. It's unlikely SIA will change as a rule though so - DW ether need to lose access to it OR regular marines need even more point drops in comparison. The last suggestion works best because it is clear DW are the best marines - they really aren't so good that they outperform the best armies. DW are strong but compared to Ynnari they are garbo.
I am all for a change that makes all marines good.
Suggestion - drop all current marine prices compared to DW by a 10%-15%ish margin compared to DW and have the new bolter rule affect a lot of other bolt weapons.
So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.
Xenomancers wrote: Personally SIA is too strong. There is exactly 0 reason that sterngaurd should be ill equipped compared to DW vets. DW should have gotten a rule (chapter tactic) that gave them +1 to wound everything without the imperium/choas keyword. This is a very strong tactic. However it allow for other marine chapters to be on par with them. WHICH THEY SHOULD BE. Then we could address individual marine weapon balance.
The new bolter rule should go through at the very minimum be buffed to be able to affect ALL bolt type weapons being used by ASTARTES and HERATIC ASTARTES. Currently it works good for units like intercessors and centurions and even terminators - but is absolutely useless on tactical marines/ devestators / ect. I very much like the suggested change by Galef. Just have it include all bolt weapons +1 shot at max range if you don't move and or if you are in half range - keeping everything else the same.
It isn't that SIA is too strong. Outside Dragonfire, they operate mostly the same as they did.
The issue was the change to how AP worked. Since nobody JUST ignores 5+ and 6+ anymore, you need more shots pummeling in or better wounding. That makes it seem like SIA is too strong, where the real problem was a change to core rules.
Operating with the assumption that core rules aren't going to change and even if they were going to. Marines can not be balanced against DW when they can would all non vehicles on 2's or go to -2 AP on their weapons vs vehicles / 2+ saves for a minor price increase. The new bolter rule is a step in the right direction unfortunately it just makes the best marines better. It's unlikely SIA will change as a rule though so - DW ether need to lose access to it OR regular marines need even more point drops in comparison. The last suggestion works best because it is clear DW are the best marines - they really aren't so good that they outperform the best armies. DW are strong but compared to Ynnari they are garbo.
I am all for a change that makes all marines good.
Suggestion - drop all current marine prices compared to DW by a 10%-15%ish margin compared to DW and have the new bolter rule affect a lot of other bolt weapons.
So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.
Oh yes, that nasty AP-2 that'll totally destroy vehicles! Kinda like how people said Lasguns could kill Baneblades.
It's a nice bonus. Sure. But come on.
Also they could do the same with wounding on a 2+ last edition, and the wounding chart was a LOT more granular than now.
I'm all for a rework of the Beta Bolter rule. To say Deathwatch are OP is not remembering how things worked last edition and finding out what changed.
DW are OP compared to marines and the cost they pay - they aren't OP compared to ynnari. UHHH....if you are shooting a rhino with DW -2 AP bolters compared to marine -0 AP bolters. You will do literally double the damage. It is more than a nice bonus. There is rarely a situation where a DW bolter isn't potentially at least 50% better and up to 400% better for the cost of like...2 additional points? There is no way they can balance that without significant point drops to standard marines OR rules changes that ONLY affect standard marines.
fraser1191 wrote: I can't see it becoming official as is, there's too many bolt weapons that are not rapid fire in my opinion.
Intercessor loadout is basically bolt rifles or bust
Also I do not like it as it promotes standing still. Well I like it, it's noticeable but I don't like how you activate it by not moving
Agreed, which is why I have email GW directly with this suggestion:
Galef wrote: Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines
-
I'll never say no to more shots and I've said it before if marines are expected to be out numbered 2-1 they need either quality of shots or lots of shots. This is the latter and I'm okay with that
Xenomancers wrote: DW are OP compared to marines and the cost they pay - they aren't OP compared to ynnari. UHHH....if you are shooting a rhino with DW -2 AP bolters compared to marine -0 AP bolters. You will do literally double the damage. It is more than a nice bonus. There is rarely a situation where a DW bolter isn't potentially at least 50% better and up to 400% better for the cost of like...2 additional points? There is no way they can balance that without significant point drops to standard marines OR rules changes that ONLY affect standard marines.
A regular storm bolter at 2 points is as effective as an AP2 storm bolter at 4 points - double the damage; double the cost.
Xenomancers wrote: DW are OP compared to marines and the cost they pay - they aren't OP compared to ynnari. UHHH....if you are shooting a rhino with DW -2 AP bolters compared to marine -0 AP bolters. You will do literally double the damage. It is more than a nice bonus. There is rarely a situation where a DW bolter isn't potentially at least 50% better and up to 400% better for the cost of like...2 additional points? There is no way they can balance that without significant point drops to standard marines OR rules changes that ONLY affect standard marines.
A regular storm bolter at 2 points is as effective as an AP2 storm bolter at 4 points - double the damage; double the cost.
Xenomancers wrote: DW are OP compared to marines and the cost they pay - they aren't OP compared to ynnari. UHHH....if you are shooting a rhino with DW -2 AP bolters compared to marine -0 AP bolters. You will do literally double the damage. It is more than a nice bonus. There is rarely a situation where a DW bolter isn't potentially at least 50% better and up to 400% better for the cost of like...2 additional points? There is no way they can balance that without significant point drops to standard marines OR rules changes that ONLY affect standard marines.
A regular storm bolter at 2 points is as effective as an AP2 storm bolter at 4 points - double the damage; double the cost.
Xenomancers wrote: DW are OP compared to marines and the cost they pay - they aren't OP compared to ynnari. UHHH....if you are shooting a rhino with DW -2 AP bolters compared to marine -0 AP bolters. You will do literally double the damage. It is more than a nice bonus. There is rarely a situation where a DW bolter isn't potentially at least 50% better and up to 400% better for the cost of like...2 additional points? There is no way they can balance that without significant point drops to standard marines OR rules changes that ONLY affect standard marines.
A regular storm bolter at 2 points is as effective as an AP2 storm bolter at 4 points - double the damage; double the cost.
People are blowing DW out of proportion a bit. They're only paying 1 point now for SIA, but AP2 means 18" guns.
Isn't this meaningless without factoring in the cost of the model using it?
Yes and no.
If you could put storm bolters on grots you'd have a problem of a cheap weapon on a cheap body - not a cheap weapon on an expensive body.
The density of how many storm bolters I can put in a list has no bearing on the cost of the weapon itself.
So how does a SM vet with a stormbolter compare to a DW vet with a SIA stormbolter when it comes to points per damage? (Not even counting that one is a troop and can take a stormshield.)
So how does a SM vet with a stormbolter compare to a DW vet with a SIA stormbolter when it comes to points per damage? (Not even counting that one is a troop and can take a stormshield.)
That really depends how you want to analyze reduced range. There are intangible variables that you can't easily math.
How does a tactical sarge with a stormbolter do as compared to a company vet with a storm bolter as compared to a sister with a storm bolter?
More importantly what does any of that have to do with the cost of a storm bolter?
So how does a SM vet with a stormbolter compare to a DW vet with a SIA stormbolter when it comes to points per damage? (Not even counting that one is a troop and can take a stormshield.)
That really depends how you want to analyze reduced range. There are intangible variables that you can't easily math.
How does a tactical sarge with a stormbolter do as compared to a company vet with a storm bolter as compared to a sister with a storm bolter?
More importantly what does any of that have to do with the cost of a storm bolter?
It has to do with the cost of the storm bolter because there's no situation where you take just a stormbolter. It's always on a model. You brought up the cost of storm bolters vs SIA stormbolters originally to argue that DW is being blown out of proportion. My point is that this is a bad argument because your math isn't comparing the actual units. Compare them properly and you'll see the problem. Sure there are lots of potential situations where you have one, and the points of the units can vary, but you'll find that in ANY of these comparisons, the DW is still going to come out way ahead in efficiency per point.
It has to do with the cost of the storm bolter because there's no situation where you take just a stormbolter. It's always on a model. You brought up the cost of storm bolters vs SIA stormbolters originally to argue that DW is being blown out of proportion. My point is that this is a bad argument because your math isn't comparing the actual units. Compare them properly and you'll see the problem. Sure there are lots of potential situations where you have one, and the points of the units can vary, but you'll find that in ANY of these comparisons, the DW is still going to come out way ahead in efficiency per point.
And yet the storm bolter does not change cost despite the model it is on - terminator, sarge, captain - doesn't matter. What's the efficiency of a DW Vet with SS compared to one without?
Are terminator storm bolters simply bad by the logic that it's on a more expensive model?
A DW Vet costs 16 points. AP2 trying to hit a target at 24". Effectiveness : 0
By the virtue of being an 18" weapon they need to move more to get in range so they're dropping 2 shots @ 18".
2 * .666 * .5 * .666 = 0.4 MEQ / 16 = 0.03
Meanwhile a regular 15 point SB marine at 24" that didn't have to move:
4 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.4 MEQ / 15 = 0.03
Even deepstriking the DW Vets don't get any edge.
TL;DR it's not that simple. There is no scenario where I can conceive DW Vets going up by more than a point.
It has to do with the cost of the storm bolter because there's no situation where you take just a stormbolter. It's always on a model. You brought up the cost of storm bolters vs SIA stormbolters originally to argue that DW is being blown out of proportion. My point is that this is a bad argument because your math isn't comparing the actual units. Compare them properly and you'll see the problem. Sure there are lots of potential situations where you have one, and the points of the units can vary, but you'll find that in ANY of these comparisons, the DW is still going to come out way ahead in efficiency per point.
And yet the storm bolter does not change cost despite the model it is on - terminator, sarge, captain - doesn't matter. What's the efficiency of a DW Vet with SS compared to one without?
Are terminator storm bolters simply bad by the logic that it's on a more expensive model?
A DW Vet costs 16 points. AP2 trying to hit a target at 24". Effectiveness : 0
By the virtue of being an 18" weapon they need to move more to get in range so they're dropping 2 shots @ 18".
2 * .666 * .5 * .666 = 0.4 MEQ / 16 = 0.03
Meanwhile a regular 15 point SB marine at 24" that didn't have to move:
4 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.4 MEQ / 15 = 0.03
Even deepstriking the DW Vets don't get any edge.
TL;DR it's not that simple. There is no scenario where I can conceive DW Vets going up by more than a point.
Interesting. Now how does it compare with 2+ poison ammo at close range?
Serious LOL at people losing their minds about DW being too good. Get a grip. When they start dominating tournaments, give me a call. You do not tone down DW to match other Astartes, you bring up other Astartes to be a viable alternative. GW dropped the ball when they opened up the SB to have access to SIA, just not sure they're willing to take it back now but DW in general have serious limitations and fill a specific role (that they fill very well).
Interesting. Now how does it compare with 2+ poison ammo at close range?
You know already, but it depends what you shoot. Posion wants to shoot tough things, but tough things usually have good saves and like to stick to cover.
Poison makes wounding better by 2, but saves also better by 2 without sacrificing range. It's the better option against MEQ, but not against GEQ.
bullyboy wrote: Serious LOL at people losing their minds about DW being too good. Get a grip. When they start dominating tournaments, give me a call. You do not tone down DW to match other Astartes, you bring up other Astartes to be a viable alternative. GW dropped the ball when they opened up the SB to have access to SIA, just not sure they're willing to take it back now but DW in general have serious limitations and fill a specific role (that they fill very well).
I think you've missed the point. People are not talking about DW in terms of the overall meta. We've been talking about them in comparison to regular marines and the problem of fixing marines without breaking DW.
You know already, but it depends what you shoot. Posion wants to shoot tough things, but tough things usually have good saves and like to stick to cover.
Poison makes wounding better by 2, but saves also better by 2 without sacrificing range. It's the better option against MEQ, but not against GEQ.
Why would you ever take the less efficient SBSS vets over the more numerous vets without SS?
You'd take the SB+SS vets if you didn't want to get wiped out by plasma or equivalent weapons, which is a very real issue. Although you probably wouldn't need to take them on the entire squad.
bullyboy wrote: Serious LOL at people losing their minds about DW being too good. Get a grip. When they start dominating tournaments, give me a call. You do not tone down DW to match other Astartes, you bring up other Astartes to be a viable alternative. GW dropped the ball when they opened up the SB to have access to SIA, just not sure they're willing to take it back now but DW in general have serious limitations and fill a specific role (that they fill very well).
I think you've missed the point. People are not talking about DW in terms of the overall meta. We've been talking about them in comparison to regular marines and the problem of fixing marines without breaking DW.
But people are asking for marines to get Bolter Discipline but not happy with Deathwatch getting it. The way the fluff is currently written I'm not sure how you don't let DW get it too, it's not like they forgot how to do it when they joined the Deathwatch.
Now, there is a certain way GW could write this accordingly, highlight how specialized Deathwatch doctrine is and how they are taught how to use their bolters and SIA differently, and not lay down a torrent of fire with bolters as a unit but placing well aimed shots individually at weak points that they have learned of their Xenos foe.
I honestly think the best way forward is to disallow Bolter Discipline to Deathwatch and remove Stormbolters as an option with exception of Watch Sergeant. It won't make many happy, but it will keep DW as a specialized force with a specific role.
Understand that I don't think DW are too powerful and need a nerf, I just think that the boon of getting SBs was unnecessary. They're still good without it (vet with bolter and SS would only be 17pts) and woudl be less of an auto take over regular marines.
bullyboy wrote: Serious LOL at people losing their minds about DW being too good. Get a grip. When they start dominating tournaments, give me a call. You do not tone down DW to match other Astartes, you bring up other Astartes to be a viable alternative. GW dropped the ball when they opened up the SB to have access to SIA, just not sure they're willing to take it back now but DW in general have serious limitations and fill a specific role (that they fill very well).
I think you've missed the point. People are not talking about DW in terms of the overall meta. We've been talking about them in comparison to regular marines and the problem of fixing marines without breaking DW.
But people are asking for marines to get Bolter Discipline but not happy with Deathwatch getting it. The way the fluff is currently written I'm not sure how you don't let DW get it too, it's not like they forgot how to do it when they joined the Deathwatch.
Now, there is a certain way GW could write this accordingly, highlight how specialized Deathwatch doctrine is and how they are taught how to use their bolters and SIA differently, and not lay down a torrent of fire with bolters as a unit but placing well aimed shots individually at weak points that they have learned of their Xenos foe.
I honestly think the best way forward is to disallow Bolter Discipline to Deathwatch and remove Stormbolters as an option with exception of Watch Sergeant. It won't make many happy, but it will keep DW as a specialized force with a specific role.
Understand that I don't think DW are too powerful and need a nerf, I just think that the boon of getting SBs was unnecessary. They're still good without it (vet with bolter and SS would only be 17pts) and woudl be less of an auto take over regular marines.
Yes, that is the issue. Personally, I think it'd be nice if they had access to SBs, but they weren't an auto take. But I don't see any way to achieve that in the current system. They'll either be not worth using at all, or mandatory. That's just the nature of the current edition.
Personally, i'm not crazy about Bolter drill. It's better than nothing, but I just don't think it solves the problem very well. The problem wasn't a lack of firepower of marines at range. The problem is a lack of firepower overall (and a lack of durability, point per point, and cc, and lots of other stuff.) I would have preferred if they'd given them Legion scale bolters instead. Give their bolters better stats. Perhaps -1 ap, or +1 str, or an extra shot, whatever. Old style AP5 would also be great. That way they could actually have some teeth again. And those sorts of changes would have impacted SIA ammo less because the SIA ammo profiles would replace the better base bolter profile instead of stacking on top of it.
But I'll take what I can get. I just want to be able to field a viable marine list again (that actually uses marines.)
Xenomancers wrote: So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.
And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?
The problem is the price/efficiency ratio of SIA, and was even before this bolter rule, the rule merely emphasises it. The SIA should either be worse or cost more (marines themselves probably should cost less.) But it is simply too good for the price, you can never balance DW and vanilla marines unless the point gap between them is increased.
If you could put storm bolters on grots you'd have a problem of a cheap weapon on a cheap body - not a cheap weapon on an expensive body.
The density of how many storm bolters I can put in a list has no bearing on the cost of the weapon itself.
And then we get something like the amazing weapons Dark Reapers get on a cheap platform that cna be spamed. Imagine if cawls wrath was a weapon that cost 1CP and could be put on any knight.
A SB on a model with speciall ammo can not cost the same as on a model that has no access to it. And further it has to be modified by what models carries it. It can't cost the same when it ends with two models costing the same 20pts, but one ends up with a ++3inv and the other has nothing to balance it.
Xenomancers wrote: So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.
And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?
Maybe 10 too. If both get extra rules. A tac can have better stats then a scout, but maybe sniper rifles are good and scouts can deploy up the table. Maybe the storm trooper has ap -2 on his lasgun, or has some cool build in order mechanic, which could let him double dip on orders.
Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SSDW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.
So, as has been said in numerous other threads, regular SMs are likely going to be squatted for their obvious upgraded counterparts, the primaris. With that in play, we need to start thinking about what these "proposed changes" will do to intercessors, Aggressors, etc.
Right now, Primaris DW can't take all the super duper cool guy gear they vets can. But they also have 2 wound models and 30" range.
I am unsure how you bring up standard Primaris SM armies to DW levels without causing a lot of other problems. I would be interested in possibly adding more weapon options to standard primaris, but would that involve altering the SPRU and thus impossible?
Silver144 wrote: Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SSDW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.
as a Tyranid player I would absolutely hate that, every bolter in your army wounding my monsters on a 2+? Absolutely disgusting. If you did add that to all marines I'd want big price hike to represent a gun which can choose between ignoring the T characteristic of the target by wounding on a 2+ or getting -2 ap at whim.
And then we get something like the amazing weapons Dark Reapers get on a cheap platform that cna be spamed. Imagine if cawls wrath was a weapon that cost 1CP and could be put on any knight.
A SB on a model with speciall ammo can not cost the same as on a model that has no access to it. And further it has to be modified by what models carries it. It can't cost the same when it ends with two models costing the same 20pts, but one ends up with a ++3inv and the other has nothing to balance it.
You say this a lot, which makes me think that you're not aware that Dark Reapers are 12 points base. Their weapons also do not carry the ability granted by their base cost.
A Marine is effectively 12 points with a 1 point bolter (evidenced by Warp Talons). This means Reapers traded toughness to ignore hit penalties, which is only useful when people have hit penalties to ignore.
The Reaper Launcher is 22 points :
H1 S8 AP2 D3
H2 S5 AP2 D2
A ML is now 20 and has H1 S8 AP2 D6D. The second mode is not directly comparable. A disintegrator is 15 points and is A3 S5 AP3 D2, which is far better than the RL.
The Dark Reaper is in no way broken. What you're thinking of is how Ynnari and Doom affect the army. Alaitoc has been taken often, but many lists have been opting for Ulthwe to get a 2+/6+++ while in cover instead.
And then we get something like the amazing weapons Dark Reapers get on a cheap platform that cna be spamed. Imagine if cawls wrath was a weapon that cost 1CP and could be put on any knight. A SB on a model with speciall ammo can not cost the same as on a model that has no access to it. And further it has to be modified by what models carries it. It can't cost the same when it ends with two models costing the same 20pts, but one ends up with a ++3inv and the other has nothing to balance it.
You say this a lot, which makes me think that you're not aware that Dark Reapers are 12 points base. Their weapons also do not carry the ability granted by their base cost. A Marine is effectively 12 points with a 1 point bolter (evidenced by Warp Talons). This means Reapers traded toughness to ignore hit penalties, which is only useful when people have hit penalties to ignore.
The Reaper Launcher is 22 points : H1 S8 AP2 D3 H2 S5 AP2 D2
A ML is now 20 and has H1 S8 AP2 D6D. The second mode is not directly comparable. A disintegrator is 15 points and is A3 S5 AP3 D2, which is far better than the RL.
The Dark Reaper is in no way broken. What you're thinking of is how Ynnari and Doom affect the army. Alaitoc has been taken often, but many lists have been opting for Ulthwe to get a 2+/6+++ while in cover instead.
In general, I agree with this, though I kind of wish the 2nd mode for Reapers was H3 S5 AP2 D1. Basically make it an Eldar version of a HB with AP2. The damage 2 is what makes it seemOP. Trade the D2 for an extra shot and it feels like a more balanced weapon. Speaking of Missiles, I also wish the Marine ML secondary mode didn't completely suck. It's d6 Bolter shots. It really needs AP-1 or S5 to make it stand out above regular bolters
Xenomancers wrote: So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.
And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?
10 points - trades saving throw for advanced deployment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: The problem is the price/efficiency ratio of SIA, and was even before this bolter rule, the rule merely emphasises it. The SIA should either be worse or cost more (marines themselves probably should cost less.) But it is simply too good for the price, you can never balance DW and vanilla marines unless the point gap between them is increased.
Galef wrote: In general, I agree with this, though I kind of wish the 2nd mode for Reapers was H3 S5 AP2 D1. Basically make it an Eldar version of a HB with AP2. The damage 2 is what makes it seemOP. Trade the D2 for an extra shot and it feels like a more balanced weapon.
Speaking of Missiles, I also wish the Marine ML secondary mode didn't completely suck. It's d6 Bolter shots. It really needs AP-1 or S5 to make it stand out above regular bolters
-
Bolter shots they might be, but it's occasionally handy to throw 3D6 or 4D6 of them at something 48" away. The Tempest Launcher could probably use a bump, but most lists have one of those max.
The problem when comparing DW to regular marines is one of mono codex. Access to SIA is what makes the codex work since they have a very restricted arsenal when compared to their Astartes borthers. Of course this means nothing in the world of Soup but you can't expect DW to be paying more than what they are currently doing so for SIA.
What's really funny is that the DW codex has been around for almost a year, with access to SIA and SBs, yet the outcry for nerf was never this loud. Again, it's as a result of soup when someone adds Guard and a Knight to the mix and performs well in a few tournaments. When are we going to learn that you don't nerf the faction, you nerf the interaction? (that's a nice rhyming song that needs it's own public service announcement).
bullyboy wrote: The problem when comparing DW to regular marines is one of mono codex. Access to SIA is what makes the codex work since they have a very restricted arsenal when compared to their Astartes borthers. Of course this means nothing in the world of Soup but you can't expect DW to be paying more than what they are currently doing so for SIA.
What's really funny is that the DW codex has been around for almost a year, with access to SIA and SBs, yet the outcry for nerf was never this loud. Again, it's as a result of soup when someone adds Guard and a Knight to the mix and performs well in a few tournaments. When are we going to learn that you don't nerf the faction, you nerf the interaction? (that's a nice rhyming song that needs it's own public service announcement).
You must not have been paying much attention or just talked to a lot of space marine players who just decided to jump ship on their chapter and play deathwatch. Vanilla players like me realized instantly that SIA leaves no design space to improve vanilla marines - lots of people were really vocal about it. It's not just now.
Storm shields are currently too cheap (they should be 4 points for basic vets, 8 points for TWC, or 12 points for characters). DW storm bolters should be 2 points more than marine storm bolters since they are at least twice as effective as well.
Silver144 wrote: Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SSDW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.
My thoughts exactly. Though I would add the following changes:
- All marines have access to Dragonfire, Kraken and Vengeance rounds
- DW gets hellfire in addition
- GK get psybolts in addition
But I would make psybolts just be S4 AP - and ignores invuln saves. This gives GK a tool against demons (special ap -2) but because they can switch out for vengeance rounds and kraken bolts they are still good against non-demons in roughly equal measure. This way they aren't overpaying for anti-demon specific gear.
Silver144 wrote: Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SSDW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.
My thoughts exactly. Though I would add the following changes:
- All marines have access to Dragonfire, Kraken and Vengeance rounds
- DW gets hellfire in addition
- GK get psybolts in addition
But I would make psybolts just be S4 AP - and ignores invuln saves. This gives GK a tool against demons (special ap -2) but because they can switch out for vengeance rounds and kraken bolts they are still good against non-demons in roughly equal measure. This way they aren't overpaying for anti-demon specific gear.
Also, dragonfire should ignore cover bonuses.
I think it's better/easier to just give regular bolts old style AP5. They ignore 5+ and higher saves. That makes them a viable anti-infantry weapon and will help with some of the horde problems, but doesn't infringe on DW's special ammo as anti-elite. Coupled with something to help marine toughness, and they will be decent for shooting (they'll still need something for CC to bring them back to what they used to be.)
Silver144 wrote: Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SSDW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.
My thoughts exactly. Though I would add the following changes:
- All marines have access to Dragonfire, Kraken and Vengeance rounds
- DW gets hellfire in addition
- GK get psybolts in addition
But I would make psybolts just be S4 AP - and ignores invuln saves. This gives GK a tool against demons (special ap -2) but because they can switch out for vengeance rounds and kraken bolts they are still good against non-demons in roughly equal measure. This way they aren't overpaying for anti-demon specific gear.
Also, dragonfire should ignore cover bonuses.
So basically take away the identity of Deathwatch.
Silver144 wrote: Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SSDW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.
My thoughts exactly. Though I would add the following changes:
- All marines have access to Dragonfire, Kraken and Vengeance rounds
- DW gets hellfire in addition
- GK get psybolts in addition
But I would make psybolts just be S4 AP - and ignores invuln saves. This gives GK a tool against demons (special ap -2) but because they can switch out for vengeance rounds and kraken bolts they are still good against non-demons in roughly equal measure. This way they aren't overpaying for anti-demon specific gear.
Also, dragonfire should ignore cover bonuses.
So basically take away the identity of Deathwatch.
If the entire identity of a faction can be removed by altering one special rule, maybe that faction doesn't have much of an identity to start with.
Eihnlazer wrote: Storm shields are currently too cheap (they should be 4 points for basic vets, 8 points for TWC, or 12 points for characters). DW storm bolters should be 2 points more than marine storm bolters since they are at least twice as effective as well.
Maybe, but while a stormshield is great vs disintegrators is does jack all versus AP0 and is strictly worse than a marine in cover at that point.
Eihnlazer wrote: Storm shields are currently too cheap (they should be 4 points for basic vets, 8 points for TWC, or 12 points for characters).
Disagree. I can see SS for 1W models at 3ppm, but no more than that. At the end of the day, it only takes 3 successful wounds to drop that model reliably. 10-12ppm for multi-wound models is acceptable too.
I think a lot of what is being said here rings true, that there is no major DW list dominating the professional game right now. Very few lists even feature them. That being said, if we want to increase the base SM level, that means either doing it in a way that does not affect DW, or neutering DW to some extent.
This is really where I see the growth of Primaris coming in. Basically GW gave itself a way to re-write all the loyalist SM codecies. If they essentially squat the standard marines, they can rebuild the primaris completely differently?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I think a lot of what is being said here rings true, that there is no major DW list dominating the professional game right now. Very few lists even feature them. That being said, if we want to increase the base SM level, that means either doing it in a way that does not affect DW, or neutering DW to some extent.
This is really where I see the growth of Primaris coming in. Basically GW gave itself a way to re-write all the loyalist SM codecies. If they essentially squat the standard marines, they can rebuild the primaris completely differently?
DW do primaris better too. Like it's way worse with primaris IMO.
The truth about the meta right now is if you aren't Ynnari or IG+Castellan you can GTFO. That is another problem with the game right now. AP-4 enmass on very durable platforms. Marines of any kind can not compete with that.
Silver144 wrote: Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SSDW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.
My thoughts exactly. Though I would add the following changes:
- All marines have access to Dragonfire, Kraken and Vengeance rounds
- DW gets hellfire in addition
- GK get psybolts in addition
But I would make psybolts just be S4 AP - and ignores invuln saves. This gives GK a tool against demons (special ap -2) but because they can switch out for vengeance rounds and kraken bolts they are still good against non-demons in roughly equal measure. This way they aren't overpaying for anti-demon specific gear.
Also, dragonfire should ignore cover bonuses.
So basically take away the identity of Deathwatch.
If the entire identity of a faction can be removed by altering one special rule, maybe that faction doesn't have much of an identity to start with.
Bingo. Besides, DW still have unique units, traits, stratagems, weapons and loadouts, and would still retain unique access to Hellfire rounds. At the end of the day there's only so much you can do with marines without creating a balance issue.
bullyboy wrote: The problem when comparing DW to regular marines is one of mono codex. Access to SIA is what makes the codex work since they have a very restricted arsenal when compared to their Astartes borthers. Of course this means nothing in the world of Soup but you can't expect DW to be paying more than what they are currently doing so for SIA.
What's really funny is that the DW codex has been around for almost a year, with access to SIA and SBs, yet the outcry for nerf was never this loud. Again, it's as a result of soup when someone adds Guard and a Knight to the mix and performs well in a few tournaments. When are we going to learn that you don't nerf the faction, you nerf the interaction? (that's a nice rhyming song that needs it's own public service announcement).
You must not have been paying much attention or just talked to a lot of space marine players who just decided to jump ship on their chapter and play deathwatch. Vanilla players like me realized instantly that SIA leaves no design space to improve vanilla marines - lots of people were really vocal about it. It's not just now.
Not to the same degree we are seeing since Bolter Discipline and CA changes have materialized. It was well known that Deathwatch had better basic marines, but they were too expensive. It was all Codex Primaris initially. You still didn't see Primaris Deathwatch dominating anything.
Deathwatch do NOT need to be paying more for their SIA than they currently do. They are currently in place to compete with other armies so nerfing is out of the question.
So this is a good time to re-ignite this point. People keep looking at the whole model cost for reasons why SIA is the wrong cost.
A terminator with SIA is less efficient than a Vet with SIA. Clearly we can see that the terminator has paid for durability and a power first, but the vet has also paid for durability. You can't point at a model, look at only it's ranged weapon effectiveness and say that it's undercosted for what it does as compared to other models.
Spoiler:
Look at how amazing that IS is (this is averaging a CC in so he's 5.5 points), but this completely ignores that he's T3 5+.
Poison is slightly better than a stock SB. Paying 1 point for, at best, 56% on a 2 point weapon isn't severe.
AP2 doesn't get huge gains against GEQ. It certainly does a lot better against MEQ and PEQ, but then you need to account for the reduced range, don't you?
This is paying 1 point to improve a 2 point weapon.
The problem is giving people a reason to take marines over DW...not so much SIA itself.
Errr, what's PEQ? first time I encounter that one.
Anyway, SIA should be 2 points rather than 1. it would pretty much solve the issue (or at least turn it into an issue small enough to not matter in the grand scheme of things)
BoomWolf wrote: Errr, what's PEQ? first time I encounter that one.
Anyway, SIA should be 2 points rather than 1. it would pretty much solve the issue (or at least turn it into an issue small enough to not matter in the grand scheme of things)
DW do primaris better too. Like it's way worse with primaris IMO.
Yep. One point for SIA is blatantly absurd.
OR the Marines with regular ammo are just terribly miscosted?
It's both. But unless marines cost like five point, one point is not a proper proportional cost for SIA.
I would like to point out that a strike with a SB costs as much as a SB vet with a SS. The GK strikes has no ammo, can use a 2CP stratagem to get ammo for one squad, while DW get ammo on every unit that has bolter weapons. The cost of marines may not be perfect but SIA should really not cost as much as it does.
And DW come with a ton of other options too, people say that they die to small weapon fire, but they can take a termintor in their vet squad, to tank the shots, buffs the resiliance to small weapon fire by a lot.
I am really surprised to see so much focus on nerfing the deathwatch which at this point I have not seen win anything major or perform exceptionally well. There has been countless topics and posts about people wanting marines to be good and when we get it with DW now there is an outcry to nerf them because they are actually good, but not even good enough to be a wrecking ball in the competitive scene.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I am really surprised to see so much focus on nerfing the deathwatch which at this point I have not seen win anything major or perform exceptionally well. There has been countless topics and posts about people wanting marines to be good and when we get it with DW now there is an outcry to nerf them because they are actually good, but not even good enough to be a wrecking ball in the competitive scene.
Because it is an internal marine balancing issue. DW are heads and shoulders better than other marines for negligible cost. How the hell can this be so hard to understand? By all means, reduce the point cost of other marines while leaving DW as they are; it is not about the need to nerf DW in relation the meta as a whole, but in relation to the other marines.
BoomWolf wrote: Errr, what's PEQ? first time I encounter that one.
Anyway, SIA should be 2 points rather than 1. it would pretty much solve the issue (or at least turn it into an issue small enough to not matter in the grand scheme of things)
I assume PEQ is Primaris Equivalent.
Sorry - predator equiv - T7 3+.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
fraser1191 wrote: Everyone except GW knows GK strikes are over costed.
There is a difference between paying too much for a model and paying for things you don't want on a model.
Strikes do not in any way pay more than other models for what they get.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I am really surprised to see so much focus on nerfing the deathwatch which at this point I have not seen win anything major or perform exceptionally well. There has been countless topics and posts about people wanting marines to be good and when we get it with DW now there is an outcry to nerf them because they are actually good, but not even good enough to be a wrecking ball in the competitive scene.
Because it is an internal marine balancing issue. DW are heads and shoulders better than other marines for negligible cost. How the hell can this be so hard to understand? By all means, reduce the point cost of other marines while leaving DW as they are; it is not about the need to nerf DW in relation the meta as a whole, but in relation to the other marines.
Xenomancers wrote: So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.
And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?
10 points - trades saving throw for advanced deployment.
I'll love my 6 point sisters though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: DW can keep the SIA, they just need to pay a fair price for it.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I am really surprised to see so much focus on nerfing the deathwatch which at this point I have not seen win anything major or perform exceptionally well. There has been countless topics and posts about people wanting marines to be good and when we get it with DW now there is an outcry to nerf them because they are actually good, but not even good enough to be a wrecking ball in the competitive scene.
Because it is an internal marine balancing issue. DW are heads and shoulders better than other marines for negligible cost. How the hell can this be so hard to understand? By all means, reduce the point cost of other marines while leaving DW as they are; it is not about the need to nerf DW in relation the meta as a whole, but in relation to the other marines.
Yeah I am all for buffing other marines up to their level and I agree with you in saying that is the way to go thus my confusion as to why so many posts are about nerfing the DW.
Xenomancers wrote: So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.
And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?
10 points - trades saving throw for advanced deployment.
I'll love my 6 point sisters though.
Based on what? There's no way a sister is worth only half a marine. If marines were 10 points then a sister would be worth around 8 pts. As it stands currently, sisters are better costed than marines are.
Based on what? There's no way a sister is worth only half a marine. If marines were 10 points then a sister would be worth around 8 pts. As it stands currently, sisters are better costed than marines are.
Yes, but if a tactical marine is ten points then an Intercessor sure as hell isn't worth 15 points, so this was all about making up nonsense numbers anyway.
Based on what? There's no way a sister is worth only half a marine. If marines were 10 points then a sister would be worth around 8 pts. As it stands currently, sisters are better costed than marines are.
Yes, but if a tactical marine is ten points then an Intercessor sure as hell isn't worth 15 points, so this was all about making up nonsense numbers anyway.
Really? 15 pt intercessors seems good next to 10 pt marines. Or are you saying they're worth more than 15 pts?
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The point I made is there are several options that Tactical Marines can take that aren't in their actual kit. That's not a legit way of thinking for the Deathwatch situation.
Ah, I understand now. I disagree that the two should be related, but I get what you are saying. There are plenty of models that do not have the right equipment included in their kit. But there are also Codex entries that have removed options, like Twin-Autocannons for Dreads, or like 80% of the options for Eldar Autarchs, so there is precedent.
All I was saying it that if GW identifies there being an issue with StormVets, they could just remove SBs from their specific equipment options.
It wouldn't require retooling of SIA, changes to Bolter Discipline, or bumping the cost of SS back up. Plus, the kit doesn't come with them anyway, so it would be a win-win for GW.
You realize every single DW option is found either in their own box, or is found in tactical squad box? Hello, the only way to make DW for 15 years was to slap their upgrade kit (pads and such) on tacticals, and even now, when they got their own box, by far the most effective way of fielding them is buying upgrade sprue and one of the tactical boxes? The above is wrong, the tactical squad IS their de-facto box (to not make upgrade sprue useless) and they have access to way more than just storm bolters from it. Did it never occur to you why they can take missile launchers, heavy flamers and bolters despite them not being in their own box? Why, these are tactical squad weapons. They ARE in their kit. Ditto for like 5-10 weapons more.
Xenomancers wrote: Personally SIA is too strong. There is exactly 0 reason that sterngaurd should be ill equipped compared to DW vets. DW should have gotten a rule (chapter tactic) that gave them +1 to wound everything without the imperium/choas keyword. This is a very strong tactic. However it allow for other marine chapters to be on par with them. WHICH THEY SHOULD BE.
Completely wrong. They are NOT a chapter, they are equivalent of first company. They should NOT be equal to some mooks, DW was always super-elite force that was scalpel to other SM hammer. Trying to level them downward would not only be laughably wrong from fluff perspective, it would also make yet another boring SM army that plays the same as others instead of something at least slightly unique. The tactic you propose would make them weaker than average, and make certain matches severely lopsided. This is terrible rule design, as 7th clearly demonstrated.
Also, you might want to actually read sternguard entry. Their own version of SIA is much stronger than DW equivalent, they just lack flexibility given to them by niche SIA variants. In fact, after last points cuts sternguard is actually more flexible than DW in a lot of ways and just lacks the ability to take 3++ en masse but gets other things to compensate.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: If regular codex marines are good, then DW will always be overpowered because they gain so much for so little points. It's not just SIA and stormbolters and stormshields. If a tactical marine is balanced to be good at 13pts, then a 16pt DW marine with an extra attack and SIA will always be way better. The problem is the cost of SIA.
You realize almost no one uses this +1A and most of competitive players would gladly have even 0A for -1 point applied to these 16? Especially seeing they already apply that -1A by replacing chainswords with storm shields? That's the problem DW faces, people who have no idea how the army players look at stats, make paper tiger from something completely meaningless, demand hilariously big point costs for something that never comes into play, and ruin the army? See DW in 7th edition, Kelly wrote the rules with the above in mind so incompetently that once the novelty wore off the army was dead and almost no one played it due to ""scary"" +1A and SIA hiking the points up way too much. How people already managed to forget it?
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I am really surprised to see so much focus on nerfing the deathwatch which at this point I have not seen win anything major or perform exceptionally well. There has been countless topics and posts about people wanting marines to be good and when we get it with DW now there is an outcry to nerf them because they are actually good, but not even good enough to be a wrecking ball in the competitive scene.
+1
I got into Deathwatch a while back because (aside from the fluff) they are the only marine faction that actually feels like you are playing Space Marines. They have the survivability and output that you would expect a Marine force to have. They have plenty of weaknesses too, you look over on the Deathwatch threads and most of the discussion is about how to deal with vehicles, because Deathwatch just aren't good at it (without souping).
Do regular Marines need a points drop, probably not. But they do need better strats, better weapon profiles (which is helped with the beta rule), and probably better armor profiles. Since the start of 8th I've thought that the change to the AP system hurt Marines too much. Change Marine power armor to 2+ and Terminator armor to 1+ and it will go a long way to moving Marines back to where they should be.
Back to the actual topic of the thread. I think the Bolter Drill rules will stick. And the general consensus in the Deathwatch camp is we don't really care too much, it's nice for bike units, but really hasn't changed much else as our squads often have to keep moving or are dropping in. We don't have great board control due to squads being expensive and no cheap options, so sitting around often isn't a great option if you actually play games with the army. So Bolter Drill really hasn't had a big impact on actual Deathwatch gameplay, at least from my experience.
Drudge Dreadnought wrote: If regular codex marines are good, then DW will always be overpowered because they gain so much for so little points. It's not just SIA and stormbolters and stormshields. If a tactical marine is balanced to be good at 13pts, then a 16pt DW marine with an extra attack and SIA will always be way better. The problem is the cost of SIA.
You realize almost no one uses this +1A and most of competitive players would gladly have even 0A for -1 point applied to these 16? Especially seeing they already apply that -1A by replacing chainswords with storm shields? That's the problem DW faces, people who have no idea how the army players look at stats, make paper tiger from something completely meaningless, demand hilariously big point costs for something that never comes into play, and ruin the army? See DW in 7th edition, Kelly wrote the rules with the above in mind so incompetently that once the novelty wore off the army was dead and almost no one played it due to ""scary"" +1A and SIA hiking the points up way too much. How people already managed to forget it?
The +1 Attack for DW doesn't matter because 1) CC is bad this edition and 2) Marines are extra bad in CC this edition. If the rules were fixed so that marines were good in CC, then that +1 attack would matter. The ENTIRE conversation of DW vs standard marines in this thread has been within the context of being unable to fix regular marines without breaking DW. This has been stated multiple times per page. How are people still coming in without getting this point?
And you are, of course, also missing the soup angle. In the past, soup wasn't a thing at all, or not much of a thing. So it was fine to have DW be more powerful than standard marines, because they paid for it in army composition. Now that is no longer a factor because if you are going to take a detachment of marines, there's no reason not to take the best ones. So your complaint that people have no idea how "the army" plays is moot because the complaint is not about "the army", it's about the unit in comparison to other comparable units.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I am really surprised to see so much focus on nerfing the deathwatch which at this point I have not seen win anything major or perform exceptionally well. There has been countless topics and posts about people wanting marines to be good and when we get it with DW now there is an outcry to nerf them because they are actually good, but not even good enough to be a wrecking ball in the competitive scene.
Because it is an internal marine balancing issue. DW are heads and shoulders better than other marines for negligible cost. How the hell can this be so hard to understand?.
Because it doesn't solve the problem!! How hard is THAT to understand?
Who cares about internal marine balance? We want balance. Deathwatch right now can compete to some degree vs the upper tier lists (especially when souped), you don't improve the game by dragging them down. You improve it by figuring out how to raise the regular marines.
Also, can we stop comparing the GK to the DW vet (Karol)? Is there anyone left who doesn't realize by now how poor GKs are? Does it need to be reiterated so often. I think GW are going to address this at some point, I just don't know when.
Because it doesn't solve the problem!! How hard is THAT to understand?
It solves this problem. Now it doesn't solve some other , completely different problem, but I really don't think that anyone thinks that Ynnari and Castellan+IG are not problems.
Who cares about internal marine balance?
Apparently a lot of people.
We want balance. Deathwatch right now can compete to some degree vs the upper tier lists (especially when souped), you don't improve the game by dragging them down. You improve it by figuring out how to raise the regular marines.
Then you need to give the regular marines something DW do not get, or DW becomes broken! What you think you can give to regular marines that is worth as much as SIA?
Also, please do understand that when I say that DW need to pay relatively more for SIA, it doesn't necessarily mean they need to cost absolutely more. It may mean that marines without SIA get cheaper.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I am really surprised to see so much focus on nerfing the deathwatch which at this point I have not seen win anything major or perform exceptionally well. There has been countless topics and posts about people wanting marines to be good and when we get it with DW now there is an outcry to nerf them because they are actually good, but not even good enough to be a wrecking ball in the competitive scene.
Because it is an internal marine balancing issue. DW are heads and shoulders better than other marines for negligible cost. How the hell can this be so hard to understand?.
Because it doesn't solve the problem!! How hard is THAT to understand?
Who cares about internal marine balance? We want balance. Deathwatch right now can compete to some degree vs the upper tier lists (especially when souped), you don't improve the game by dragging them down. You improve it by figuring out how to raise the regular marines.
And when you go to raise regular marines up, then you either need to do it in such a way that doesn't change DW, or you're going to break DW...which is what the whole thread is about can we please stop doing this twice a page .
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I am really surprised to see so much focus on nerfing the deathwatch which at this point I have not seen win anything major or perform exceptionally well. There has been countless topics and posts about people wanting marines to be good and when we get it with DW now there is an outcry to nerf them because they are actually good, but not even good enough to be a wrecking ball in the competitive scene.
Because it is an internal marine balancing issue. DW are heads and shoulders better than other marines for negligible cost. How the hell can this be so hard to understand?.
Because it doesn't solve the problem!! How hard is THAT to understand?
Who cares about internal marine balance? We want balance. Deathwatch right now can compete to some degree vs the upper tier lists (especially when souped), you don't improve the game by dragging them down. You improve it by figuring out how to raise the regular marines.
And when you go to raise regular marines up, then you either need to do it in such a way that doesn't change DW, or you're going to break DW...which is what the whole thread is about can we please stop doing this twice a page .
That's what he said though? The conversation might be going in circles, because people aren't properly processing each others arguments.
At this point DW won't be losing the bolter rule.
If feels like people are enamored with the math of Deathwatch rather than the potential reality.
And in context the DW chapter tactic is rather limited - reroll 1s to wound for a specific part of an army is not incredibly strong when a Lieutenant can cover that for 60 points. And to change that type you either need the limited relic, the WL trait or 1 to 2 CP. Their other stratagems are also CP hungry, which means they'd have little room to support a Castellan without gimping themselves.
A Cadian tank commander with PGC and HB is 170. He kills 15 GEQ and 8 MEQ from 24".
That's the same points for a bit more than 9 DWSS/SB Vets who kill 18 GEQ and 9 MEQ from 18" *IF* they stand still - otherwise cut that in half.
So, yes, internal balance for marines need to be addressed, but DW are not any more powerful than many other severely deadly soup options out there.
Tibs Ironblood wrote: I am really surprised to see so much focus on nerfing the deathwatch which at this point I have not seen win anything major or perform exceptionally well. There has been countless topics and posts about people wanting marines to be good and when we get it with DW now there is an outcry to nerf them because they are actually good, but not even good enough to be a wrecking ball in the competitive scene.
Because it is an internal marine balancing issue. DW are heads and shoulders better than other marines for negligible cost. How the hell can this be so hard to understand?.
Because it doesn't solve the problem!! How hard is THAT to understand?
Who cares about internal marine balance? We want balance. Deathwatch right now can compete to some degree vs the upper tier lists (especially when souped), you don't improve the game by dragging them down. You improve it by figuring out how to raise the regular marines.
And when you go to raise regular marines up, then you either need to do it in such a way that doesn't change DW, or you're going to break DW...which is what the whole thread is about can we please stop doing this twice a page .
That's what he said though? The conversation might be going in circles, because people aren't properly processing each others arguments.
At this point DW won't be losing the bolter rule.
If feels like people are enamored with the math of Deathwatch rather than the potential reality.
And in context the DW chapter tactic is rather limited - reroll 1s to wound for a specific part of an army is not incredibly strong when a Lieutenant can cover that for 60 points. And to change that type you either need the limited relic, the WL trait or 1 to 2 CP. Their other stratagems are also CP hungry, which means they'd have little room to support a Castellan without gimping themselves.
A Cadian tank commander with PGC and HB is 170. He kills 15 GEQ and 8 MEQ from 24".
That's the same points for a bit more than 9 DWSS/SB Vets who kill 18 GEQ and 9 MEQ from 18" *IF* they stand still - otherwise cut that in half.
So, yes, internal balance for marines need to be addressed, but DW are not any more powerful than many other severely deadly soup options out there.
Okay, let me restate the argument from the beginning then so we can all be on the same page.
1) Marine infantry is not good for its cost.
2) DW is mostly okay for it's cost because of the strength of SIA and other wargear options.
3) If Marine infantry goes down in cost to make it good for its cost, then DW don't need to change.
4) Both Marines and DW don't feel much like marines should, so instead of making the existing units cheaper, it'd be nice if marines got stronger
5) If regular marines get stronger in a way that DW does not, then DW don't need to change. But this limits options and leaves DW not feeling much like marines still.
6) If all marines get stronger, including DW, and regular marines are good for their points, then DW will most likely be too strong for their points because it only costs a few more.
7) If 6 is the case, then SIA or other DW wargear may need to go up by a point or two.
8) If 7 is the case, this will NOT hurt DW in the overall meta because it already got other buffs.
The frustration and misunderstanding is coming because some of us are talking about 7 and 8, and then newcomers to the thread miss that it is within the context of 6. They think we just want to nerf DW for now reason. But we're only talking about that in the context of all marines getting buffed first.
Are we all on the same page now? I am of course open to arguments that these points are not correct. But this seems to be the model that a bunch of people in this thread have of the issue.
If Deathwatch do in fact need to be changed, it's a simple addition of a line right after Stormbolter in the Veteran weapon options "Watch Sergeant only"
The only real reason I see this is a way forward is because stormbolters are not in the Deathwatch kit, but lots of regular bolters are.
Personally though, I'd rather see other marines improved rather than bringing Deathwatch down.
bullyboy wrote: If Deathwatch do in fact need to be changed, it's a simple addition of a line right after Stormbolter in the Veteran weapon options "Watch Sergeant only"
The only real reason I see this is a way forward is because stormbolters are not in the Deathwatch kit, but lots of regular bolters are.
That would probably be unlikely at this point due to the internet rage of having to remove all those storm bolters from models.
Okay, let me restate the argument from the beginning then so we can all be on the same page.
1) Marine infantry is not good for its cost.
2) DW is mostly okay for it's cost because of the strength of SIA and other wargear options.
3) If Marine infantry goes down in cost to make it good for its cost, then DW don't need to change.
4) Both Marines and DW don't feel much like marines should, so instead of making the existing units cheaper, it'd be nice if marines got stronger
5) If regular marines get stronger in a way that DW does not, then DW don't need to change. But this limits options and leaves DW not feeling much like marines still.
6) If all marines get stronger, including DW, and regular marines are good for their points, then DW will most likely be too strong for their points because it only costs a few more.
7) If 6 is the case, then SIA or other DW wargear may need to go up by a point or two.
8) If 7 is the case, this will NOT hurt DW in the overall meta because it already got other buffs.
The frustration and misunderstanding is coming because some of us are talking about 7 and 8, and then newcomers to the thread miss that it is within the context of 6. They think we just want to nerf DW for now reason. But we're only talking about that in the context of all marines getting buffed first.
Are we all on the same page now? I am of course open to arguments that these points are not correct. But this seems to be the model that a bunch of people in this thread have of the issue.
I think marine infantry is ok-ish.
There are minor reasons to take chapters other than Deathwatch, but I think any changes would come from making marine stratagems, WL traits, and relics more interesting.
GW has already taken steps toward doing this --
Indomitus Crusade (usable by DW, but still)
UM Victrix Guard
IF Siegebreaker
CF Liberator
BT Sword Bretheren
Ravenwing Attack Squadron
SW Stalker Pack
There are minor reasons to take chapters other than Deathwatch, but I think any changes would come from making marine stratagems, WL traits, and relics more interesting.
GW has already taken steps toward doing this --
Indomitus Crusade (usable by DW, but still)
UM Victrix Guard
IF Siegebreaker
CF Liberator
BT Sword Bretheren
Ravenwing Attack Squadron
SW Stalker Pack
None of those have really been enough to get Marines infantry back on the field, with the exception of like Death Company in some lists. The Marine statline has fundamental problems and is just not good or efficient, and marines lost lots of game system rules that made them viable (like sweeping advance, powerfist instant death and anti armor, special weapon av potential, and old AP5.)
Perhaps enough special rules stacked together will do it, but I doubt it. And they shouldn't have to spend their CP to make up for bad stats.
Also, non-marine factions are getting Specialist Detachments too, so it's not gonna mean much overall.
Okay, let me restate the argument from the beginning then so we can all be on the same page.
1) Marine infantry is not good for its cost.
2) DW is mostly okay for it's cost because of the strength of SIA and other wargear options.
3) If Marine infantry goes down in cost to make it good for its cost, then DW don't need to change.
4) Both Marines and DW don't feel much like marines should, so instead of making the existing units cheaper, it'd be nice if marines got stronger
5) If regular marines get stronger in a way that DW does not, then DW don't need to change. But this limits options and leaves DW not feeling much like marines still.
6) If all marines get stronger, including DW, and regular marines are good for their points, then DW will most likely be too strong for their points because it only costs a few more.
7) If 6 is the case, then SIA or other DW wargear may need to go up by a point or two.
8) If 7 is the case, this will NOT hurt DW in the overall meta because it already got other buffs.
The frustration and misunderstanding is coming because some of us are talking about 7 and 8, and then newcomers to the thread miss that it is within the context of 6. They think we just want to nerf DW for now reason. But we're only talking about that in the context of all marines getting buffed first.
Are we all on the same page now? I am of course open to arguments that these points are not correct. But this seems to be the model that a bunch of people in this thread have of the issue.
Seems pretty straightforward. However you haven't considered that they might just exclude DW from the rule. Same way they excluded TS and GK from the smite rule.
Personally I think TS and DW will both be excluded from the rule "due to balance issues".
BoomWolf wrote: Errr, what's PEQ? first time I encounter that one.
The better question is "What exactly is meant to be being shown by that table?", as no context was given in the post.
Irbis wrote: Completely wrong. They are NOT a chapter, they are equivalent of first company. They should NOT be equal to some mooks, DW was always super-elite force that was scalpel to other SM hammer. Trying to level them downward would not only be laughably wrong from fluff perspective, it would also make yet another boring SM army that plays the same as others instead of something at least slightly unique.
I mean, you're not wrong - the clue is in the name of the unit entry (Deathwatch Veterans), yet people are concerned about their performance relative to Tactical Marines, when the Kill Team should be looked at and balanced against Sternguard instead.
The Primaris Kill Team comparison is trickier, but it is as ham-fisted as anything else involving the "P" word...
bullyboy wrote: Also, can we stop comparing the GK to the DW vet (Karol)? Is there anyone left who doesn't realize by now how poor GKs are? Does it need to be reiterated so often. I think GW are going to address this at some point, I just don't know when.
I mean, you're not wrong - the clue is in the name of the unit entry (Deathwatch Veterans), yet people are concerned about their performance relative to Tactical Marines, when the Kill Team should be looked at and balanced against Sternguard instead.
If DW Vets were elites, they would. But they are troops.
The issue is a codex marine is priced at X points
Deathwatch are priced at Z points, Z=X+Y
The issue is Z is around about balanced, X isn't really balanced and needs to be less.
As Z is X+Y if Y is constant Z is directly related to X so if X is reduced to balance Codex marines deathwatch become undercosted.
For X to be reduced and Z to remain the same Y has to increase by the amount X is resuced by.
IE if you make a marine 2 points cheaper SIA should increase by 2 point so the codex marine gets cheaper but Deathwatch stay where they are.
Deathwatch are balanced in soup atleast because they are undercosted special rules on an overcosted model, which cancel each other out and ends up balanced overall. Removing either one without the other imbalances the unit.
Also, can we stop comparing the GK to the DW vet (Karol)? Is there anyone left who doesn't realize by now how poor GKs are? Does it need to be reiterated so often. I think GW are going to address this at some point, I just don't know when.
Not until one of two happens, everything else gets nerfed to GK level or GW fixs GK. The moment there is no talk about GK being bad, GW will say they are ok and no change is needed. Plus when I see a post about DW being ok, I can't think of anything else. And If I can't think about anything else I can sleep and I need to sleep before school.
Quasistellar wrote: So, we throw fits when GW removes things from the codex that aren't in the kits.
Dakka's solution to DW actually being halfway decent (as if it's even a problem): remove things from the codex that aren't in the kits.
Again the issue isn't DW being half decent, it's them automatically benifiting from any PA buffs while being 5-10% better win rate means that by the time marines make 50% DW are at 60% and are the new Yannari. It's about bringing them into line so all PA can be buffed to balanced, not just become want to win with PA play DW. Thats not chocie thats imbalance.
DW don't get ALOT of things normal marine chapters get access too. DW are not top tier, or honestly close to overthrowing castellan or ynnari, arguing for nerfing them is silly. I believe mono marine w/ Guilliman made top 8 at LVO even. Other than Bobby G, a lot of the units in that list DW have no access to. If anything all that needs to happen for some parity is improving the things DW don't get. Though a top 8 finish would imply they don't need THAT much of a buff to achieve parity.
Never understood the concept of trying to tear down a middle tier faction to try to build another up, just absurd.
Ice_can wrote: The issue is a codex marine is priced at X points
Deathwatch are priced at Z points, Z=X+Y
The issue is Z is around about balanced, X isn't really balanced and needs to be less.
As Z is X+Y if Y is constant Z is directly related to X so if X is reduced to balance Codex marines deathwatch become undercosted.
For X to be reduced and Z to remain the same Y has to increase by the amount X is resuced by.
IE if you make a marine 2 points cheaper SIA should increase by 2 point so the codex marine gets cheaper but Deathwatch stay where they are.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: Personally I think TS and DW will both be excluded from the rule "due to balance issues".
And I think TS should have it work even after they moved (All Is Dust). Even them, I'm not sure Rubrics would become competitive. Rubrics don't have SIA and Stormbolters, you can't compared them with DW.
bullyboy wrote: If Deathwatch do in fact need to be changed, it's a simple addition of a line right after Stormbolter in the Veteran weapon options "Watch Sergeant only"
The only real reason I see this is a way forward is because stormbolters are not in the Deathwatch kit, but lots of regular bolters are.
Personally though, I'd rather see other marines improved rather than bringing Deathwatch down.
This, so much this. Lackluster marine options need to be brought up to DW level, not the other way around. I could also see some SB limitations imposed though, as currently SB spam is a little too effective compared to all the other weapon options for DW.
When Deathwatch vets dropped from 25pts to 20pts (the SB/SS option.....or should I say, the only option) they became a serious consideration for bulking out competitive armies. However, that's one unit. How often do you see terminators, vanguard vets, bikers taken on their own from the unit entries? There's plenty in the codex that is still not used (although Bolter Discipline might make Terms and Bikers see the table more).
The Deathwatch flyer is not good, most of the other support units are not good (although I'd state ven dreads are attractive now). Deathwatch is all about the Veteran or Intercessor Sqd.
How many other marine codexes do you see with such limited "desirable" units?
Dark Angels have more
Blood Angels....maybe not.
Ultras...more
OK, it's pretty funny that every time I post it seems like I'm a little schizophrenic in my decision making, I end up supporting both sides of the argument simultaneously. This tells me that Deathwatch are really, really close to balanced. Yes, the SB/SS vet is in a great place for the points, especially when you compare it to other armies and how it fits in the competitive meta. I don't want to see a marine army nerfed just because it is now competitive whereas it's lowly brothers are not and feel left out. It's good to be elite, right? However, I also don't like that the SB/SS vet is the only choice and is spammed incessantly. The book has many great options that are sadly passed over. If limiting the SB in a sqd doesn't remove them from competitive play, I'd be OK with that, but you can't bump the points of the SB/SS vet too much as it was not considered good at 25pts per model. Only at 20pts per model has it become attractive.
I also don't care if they don't get Bolter Discipline, it doesn't really gel with the playstyle anyway. If we want to sit still, we have stalker pattern boltguns that do it effectively anyway. The problem is (and Karol will cry into his massive pillow reading this), if DW don't get it, I can't see a fluffy reason why GK should get it either. Keep it for the codex compliant armies primarily.
edit: And honestly, I'd just give psybolt ammo to GK characters, Strike Sqds and terminator sqds as default. Drop the CP cost of the strat down to 1CP for other units. Would it really break the army for them to have that?
bullyboy wrote: If Deathwatch do in fact need to be changed, it's a simple addition of a line right after Stormbolter in the Veteran weapon options "Watch Sergeant only"
The only real reason I see this is a way forward is because stormbolters are not in the Deathwatch kit, but lots of regular bolters are.
Personally though, I'd rather see other marines improved rather than bringing Deathwatch down.
Ya know, I was thinking they'd outright remove the SB from the list, but I kinda like this idea more. Well, maybe "like" isn't the right word, but I feel like this could be an easy solution for GW that doesn't involve dramatically changing other rules.
And I agree regular Marines should be brought up rather than DW brought down. A 1-2 combo of rules changes could actually be a compromise, however. If GW Erratas DWSBs to "Watch Sgt only" on the DW equipment list, but than also improved the Bolter Discipline rule to add +1 shot rather than double shots more often, that could be a good compromise.
If BD was +1 shot if stationary, at half range or on the current Keywords, in additions to x2 shots at half, both a regular Marine and DW Vet with Bolter would have 2 shots if stationary, or 3 shots at 12". A model with a SB would be 3 shots if stationary, or 5 shots at 12". In both case, you are encourage to get at half range, which Marines should be doing
So a DW unit of 5 with 4 Bolters & 1 SB (Sgt) at 12" under the proposal above would get 17 shots. Under the current rules with 5 SBs, they are getting 20. That's only 3 less shots, but the unit is 12pts cheaper. That's almost enough to buy another Bolter Vet...for 3 more shots at 12" for the 20 we get now. I would be just fine if this was how GW addressed the "issue" of DW being OP. But it probably won't happen this way, or really any change at all.
Honestly the big problem for me is actually finding the SBs to spam. I've seen a few guides about modding a pair of bolters together, or using the GK versions, but I think both of those look bad.
I like the look of the SBs in the Cataphractii box, but those are Combi-bolters right?
Eh, maybe? I could perhaps see 1 more point for the SS, but a SS on a 1 Wound model does jack all against mortal wounds and tends to be only a small increase in durability in most game play.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, now what about the full squad of 3++? Do we think that needs change?
Not really. There are plenty of units that spam shots with no AP. StormVets being one of them, so in a way, they are their own counter.
As an Eldar player, for example, my general tactic for removing Marines is Doom + massed Shuriken shots. While any wound rolls of 6 won't benefit from AP-3, it's still going to be tons of saves the StormVets need to take. For every 3 wounds, 1 Vet should die, statistically. That's not hard to do for most armies if you build your list right.
All it means, is that YOUR list shouldn't be relying on just "quality" shots, but also have plenty of "quantity" shots. This has been a valid and recommended tactic for many editions.
Ok, so if the DW are balanced with their cost/fragility offsetting their volume of powerful shooting and strong saves, what would you say if GW gave their weapon options to the Primaris?
DW do primaris better too. Like it's way worse with primaris IMO.
Yep. One point for SIA is blatantly absurd.
OR the Marines with regular ammo are just terribly miscosted?
Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.
Xenomancers wrote: So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.
And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?
10 points - trades saving throw for advanced deployment.
I'll love my 6 point sisters though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: DW can keep the SIA, they just need to pay a fair price for it.
That's my opinion on this bolter rule.
A sister is about equal to a scout in both offense and defense. It loses WSStr and deployment - a 1 to 2 point drop. 8-9 point sisters. What do they cost right now? 9?
DW do primaris better too. Like it's way worse with primaris IMO.
Yep. One point for SIA is blatantly absurd.
OR the Marines with regular ammo are just terribly miscosted?
Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.
Xenomancers wrote: So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.
And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?
10 points - trades saving throw for advanced deployment.
I'll love my 6 point sisters though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: DW can keep the SIA, they just need to pay a fair price for it.
That's my opinion on this bolter rule.
A sister is about equal to a scout in both offense and defense. It loses WSStr and deployment - a 1 to 2 point drop. 8-9 point sisters. What do they cost right now? 9?
Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?
Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?
Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.
The Sisters "Codex" is CA2018. It's a beta codex (I think) but it's updated rules nonetheless.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?
Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.
The Sisters "Codex" is CA2018. It's a beta codex (I think) but it's updated rules nonetheless.
-
Thank you! So it has rules and point values and what not? Enough to start building like a proxy army?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?
Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.
The Sisters "Codex" is CA2018. It's a beta codex (I think) but it's updated rules nonetheless.
-
Thank you! So it has rules and point values and what not? Enough to start building like a proxy army?
YES! Thank you you just made my weekend!
Not a proxy army, a regular one. There're no rules for any new units that could be actually considered a "beta" - it's just the existing line, but with slightly updated rules (including Order traits , Stratagems etc) and a completely new Acts of Faith system.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?
Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.
The Sisters "Codex" is CA2018. It's a beta codex (I think) but it's updated rules nonetheless.
-
Thank you! So it has rules and point values and what not? Enough to start building like a proxy army?
YES! Thank you you just made my weekend!
Not a proxy army, a regular one. There're no rules for any new units that could be actually considered a "beta" - it's just the existing line, but with slightly updated rules (including Order traits , Stratagems etc) and a completely new Acts of Faith system.
By Proxy I mean poker chips for models at the FLGS
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?
Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.
The Sisters "Codex" is CA2018. It's a beta codex (I think) but it's updated rules nonetheless.
-
Thank you! So it has rules and point values and what not? Enough to start building like a proxy army?
YES! Thank you you just made my weekend!
Not a proxy army, a regular one. There're no rules for any new units that could be actually considered a "beta" - it's just the existing line, but with slightly updated rules (including Order traits , Stratagems etc) and a completely new Acts of Faith system.
By Proxy I mean poker chips for models at the FLGS
ah - well, i was trying to say that there are models available as long as you don't need both kidneys and your liver. and a few more organs. remember: organs are meant to be artillery pieces, not body parts.
Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.
Both of these weapons are 2 points, which means AP2 is equivalent to double the shots at AP0 (barring invulnerables and low armor).
So giving a Storm Bolter AP2 is like having two Storm Bolters at 4 points, but then you reduce range by 6" - this is why SIA is worth 1 point.
Making SIA 4 and dropping marine bodies by 3 is just rearranging chairs on the Titanic. It's also never going to happen.
Here's a graphic of what that would look like. Just bolters. No two 5 man with a SB on each sarge or plasma or any other shenanigans.
Spoiler:
In any case we can approach this logically. IS are effectively 5.5 points. They need a CC and the best ration is 20 IS to one CC. 110 / 20 = 5.5 - the commander does just about nothing when the IS are dead.
For 81% more points you get:
- hits 33% more
- has a gun that is 33% stronger
- has armor that is 100% more durable
- is 33% tougher
- can come in 5 man squads and is effectively immune to morale
There are other ways to make marines better. Going to 10 points is not likely to ever be an option.
Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.
Both of these weapons are 2 points, which means AP2 is equivalent to double the shots at AP0 (barring invulnerables and low armor).
So giving a Storm Bolter AP2 is like having two Storm Bolters at 4 points, but then you reduce range by 6" - this is why SIA is worth 1 point.
Making SIA 4 and dropping marine bodies by 3 is just rearranging chairs on the Titanic. It's also never going to happen.
Here's a graphic of what that would look like. Just bolters. No two 5 man with a SB on each sarge or plasma or any other shenanigans.
Spoiler:
In any case we can approach this logically. IS are effectively 5.5 points. They need a CC and the best ration is 20 IS to one CC. 110 / 20 = 5.5 - the commander does just about nothing when the IS are dead.
For 81% more points you get:
- hits 33% more
- has a gun that is 33% stronger
- has armor that is 100% more durable
- is 33% tougher
- can come in 5 man squads and is effectively immune to morale
There are other ways to make marines better. Going to 10 points is not likely to ever be an option.
Take that IS undercosted nonsence out of the marine bolter thread, IG IS are the poster child for undercosted units.
Try compairing deathwatch with normal marine troops instead of rubrics better bolters.
For 1 point each they can select any of the following
+1 to hit units in cover
Wound non vehicals on 2+
Get +6 inch range and -1 Ap for 36 inch range Ap-2 bolt rifles
-6 inch range and -2 Ap for -3AP bolt rifles at 24 inches
I'll math hammer out the damage mprovement once I have a computer, but gut reaction is that is worth more than 6% increase in points.
DW do primaris better too. Like it's way worse with primaris IMO.
Yep. One point for SIA is blatantly absurd.
OR the Marines with regular ammo are just terribly miscosted?
Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.
Xenomancers wrote: So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.
And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?
10 points - trades saving throw for advanced deployment.
I'll love my 6 point sisters though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson wrote: DW can keep the SIA, they just need to pay a fair price for it.
That's my opinion on this bolter rule.
A sister is about equal to a scout in both offense and defense. It loses WSStr and deployment - a 1 to 2 point drop. 8-9 point sisters. What do they cost right now? 9? Use your brain please.
WS and Str are hugely important for anyone, but particularly bloody rose.
It doesn't work like that. Models with 1 attack get almost 0 value out of close combat stats. WS/STR at +1 is worth about a point on a 1 attack model. +1 T and +1 save have about the same value though the save has MORE actual value so those cancel out. so a 1 to 2 point difference is totally justified.
Take that IS undercosted nonsence out of the marine bolter thread, IG IS are the poster child for undercosted units.
But don't you see? Such a proposed change makes marines better than IS by a solid margin. If you consider IS undercosted then a 10 point marine is even more so.
At that point you *can't* have 1 point SIA, because the body becomes too cheap for what it is.
AP2 is fancy, but with an 18" range you can't double tap deepstriking and you likely won't be making use of it the first turn, which means you need to stand still for *two* turns. It's a mental trap.
And THEN if you DO make SIA 4 points then you've just turned every single DW marine that wants to take something other than a bolter into dead weight like GK.
Take that IS undercosted nonsence out of the marine bolter thread, IG IS are the poster child for undercosted units.
But don't you see? Such a proposed change makes marines better than IS by a solid margin. If you consider IS undercosted then a 10 point marine is even more so.
At that point you *can't* have 1 point SIA, because the body becomes too cheap for what it is.
AP2 is fancy, but with an 18" range you can't double tap deepstriking and you likely won't be making use of it the first turn, which means you need to stand still for *two* turns. It's a mental trap.
And THEN if you DO make SIA 4 points then you've just turned every single DW marine that wants to take something other than a bolter into dead weight like GK.
SIA represents for intercessors as they don't have the equipment shenanigans that makes compairing DW vets to tactical marines less intuitive pay 6% for an at worst 20% improvement in damage output, with some improvements being way higher.
Guard should be 5 points, marines should be 12.
SoB are a bit mediocre but playable now - and will likely be better when they get a proper codex with some more unit options so they are not so one dimensional.
Tyel wrote: Guard should be 5 points, marines should be 12.
SoB are a bit mediocre but playable now - and will likely be better when they get a proper codex with some more unit options so they are not so one dimensional.
Technically IS are 5 points, because they always come with a CC.
Technically marines are 12 points, because a bolter is 1 point.
So, lets stay on topic - Bolter rules don't make anyone overpowered, and they definitely don't do enough to bring up standard SMs to being relevant, or at least viable in competitive over scouts.
I don't think you can fix them with points. Even dropping SMs by a % didn't affect anything major. The issue is in the weapons. I propose a simple change, partly stolen from DW.
Make Tac squads be able to outfit with anything from the basic SM special weapon list, or heavy weapon list. So a squad of 5 tac marines could be one sgt with a combi bolter, and 4 missile launchers. Or 4 Flamers, HBs, or Plasma.
Would that drastically affect the Meta? I don't believe it would, because SM's still wouldn't replace better damage dealing options like heavy vehicles. But it would cause people to start using them for their diversity over basic scouts for BN slots.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, lets stay on topic - Bolter rules don't make anyone overpowered, and they definitely don't do enough to bring up standard SMs to being relevant, or at least viable in competitive over scouts.
It's not about directly making tacticals awesome. It makes the whole group of marines better - especially bikes. The tacs or scouts you take get a modest bump and a plasma gun here or there makes them a solid unit in cover.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, lets stay on topic - Bolter rules don't make anyone overpowered, and they definitely don't do enough to bring up standard SMs to being relevant, or at least viable in competitive over scouts.
It's not about directly making tacticals awesome. It makes the whole group of marines better - especially bikes. The tacs or scouts you take get a modest bump and a plasma gun here or there makes them a solid unit in cover.
I was more pointing at the one unit that people seem to never want to take. Bikes have a purpose. Assault have a purpose. Termies have a purpose. The most abandoned units in the SM codex are the OG Dreadnaught, Venerable Dreadnaught, Tacticals, and the Land Raider. Hell, the Rhino gets more use than the LR. You could add apothecaries and Servitors to the list, but those are specialty niche units, and not really mass play. You could say the drop ships, but even those got usage in 8th.
Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote: Personally I think TS and DW will both be excluded from the rule "due to balance issues".
And I think TS should have it work even after they moved (All Is Dust). Even then, I'm not sure Rubrics would become competitive. Rubrics don't have SIA and Stormbolters, you can't compare them with DW.
I...uh...
I mean... I'm not sure what to say...I guess your right?
We don't have Storm Bolters which are a 24" S4 Rapid Fire 2 bolter weapon.
We have Combi Bolters on our SOT which are 24" S4 Rapid Fire 2 bolt weapons.
So in name no, however in rules yes.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, lets stay on topic - Bolter rules don't make anyone overpowered, and they definitely don't do enough to bring up standard SMs to being relevant, or at least viable in competitive over scouts.
I don't think you can fix them with points. Even dropping SMs by a % didn't affect anything major. The issue is in the weapons. I propose a simple change, partly stolen from DW.
Make Tac squads be able to outfit with anything from the basic SM special weapon list, or heavy weapon list. So a squad of 5 tac marines could be one sgt with a combi bolter, and 4 missile launchers. Or 4 Flamers, HBs, or Plasma.
Would that drastically affect the Meta? I don't believe it would, because SM's still wouldn't replace better damage dealing options like heavy vehicles. But it would cause people to start using them for their diversity over basic scouts for BN slots.
Let Space Marines be Space Marines.
Back on topic? The rule wont stick for TS and DW because thier Terminators will become very good at clearing out most of what kills them, or people will have to keep thier plasma out of the fight entirely until they show up.
Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.
And again, if that's the case, I'm going to love the 6 point sisters and 3 point guardsmen.
A sister is about equal to a scout in both offense and defense. It loses WSStr and deployment - a 1 to 2 point drop. 8-9 point sisters. What do they cost right now? 9? Use your brain please.
Not even close on either. It's obvious you've never used them. Use your brain please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?
Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.
I was pointing out how other points would change if you do such a drastic points reduction to Space Marines. All the buffs a marine gets over a basic sister for one point? And that's not including the bolter rule, which should be availible to other armies (and not just sisters), and shouldn't be free for "10 point marines". But the later is an argument for another time and thread.
I mean, you're not wrong - the clue is in the name of the unit entry (Deathwatch Veterans), yet people are concerned about their performance relative to Tactical Marines, when the Kill Team should be looked at and balanced against Sternguard instead.
If DW Vets were elites, they would. But they are troops.
And? The unit entry and stat line has them as "more flexible Sternguard, with some weird friends" - the basic Veteran, therefore, should be priced comparative to Sternguard performance, regardless of which FOC slot they fill. This should mean that DW end up fielding less Troops than a SM army (assuming mono-dex, to head off soup), making it harder for them to contest objectives, while emphasising the elite feel of the army.
Also, can we stop comparing the GK to the DW vet (Karol)? Is there anyone left who doesn't realize by now how poor GKs are? Does it need to be reiterated so often. I think GW are going to address this at some point, I just don't know when.
Not until one of two happens, everything else gets nerfed to GK level or GW fixs GK. The moment there is no talk about GK being bad, GW will say they are ok and no change is needed. Plus when I see a post about DW being ok, I can't think of anything else. And If I can't think about anything else I can sleep and I need to sleep before school.
Frankly, if reading stuff on here is making sleep problematic... walk away, at least for a while.
Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.
And again, if that's the case, I'm going to love the 6 point sisters and 3 point guardsmen.
A sister is about equal to a scout in both offense and defense. It loses WSStr and deployment - a 1 to 2 point drop. 8-9 point sisters. What do they cost right now? 9? Use your brain please.
Not even close on either. It's obvious you've never used them. Use your brain please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?
Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.
I was pointing out how other points would change if you do such a drastic points reduction to Space Marines. All the buffs a marine gets over a basic sister for one point? And that's not including the bolter rule, which should be availible to other armies (and not just sisters), and shouldn't be free for "10 point marines". But the later is an argument for another time and thread.
In terms of actual stats that matter. A sister is a T3 marine with a 6++ save - they should cost 1 to 2 points less. This is common sense to anyone with the ability to reason. A scout has t4 4+ to t3 3+. You realize these stats give you the same results defensively against small arms...so in other words...THEY HAVE THE SAME DEFENSIVE PROFILE vs most weapons.
Take that IS undercosted nonsence out of the marine bolter thread, IG IS are the poster child for undercosted units.
But don't you see? Such a proposed change makes marines better than IS by a solid margin. If you consider IS undercosted then a 10 point marine is even more so.
At that point you *can't* have 1 point SIA, because the body becomes too cheap for what it is.
AP2 is fancy, but with an 18" range you can't double tap deepstriking and you likely won't be making use of it the first turn, which means you need to stand still for *two* turns. It's a mental trap.
And THEN if you DO make SIA 4 points then you've just turned every single DW marine that wants to take something other than a bolter into dead weight like GK.
SIA represents for intercessors as they don't have the equipment shenanigans that makes compairing DW vets to tactical marines less intuitive pay 6% for an at worst 20% improvement in damage output, with some improvements being way higher.
Up to 400% in the case of shooting T8 mosters with bolters. It's an absurd upgrade for 1 point. LOL. OFC though - we are arguing with people who think sisters should cost roughly half what a marine should. Plus people who are repulsed by the idea that space marines should outdamage infantry squads against other infantry.
Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.
And again, if that's the case, I'm going to love the 6 point sisters and 3 point guardsmen.
A sister is about equal to a scout in both offense and defense. It loses WSStr and deployment - a 1 to 2 point drop. 8-9 point sisters. What do they cost right now? 9? Use your brain please.
Not even close on either. It's obvious you've never used them. Use your brain please.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?
Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.
I was pointing out how other points would change if you do such a drastic points reduction to Space Marines. All the buffs a marine gets over a basic sister for one point? And that's not including the bolter rule, which should be availible to other armies (and not just sisters), and shouldn't be free for "10 point marines". But the later is an argument for another time and thread.
In terms of actual stats that matter. A sister is a T3 marine with a 6++ save - they should cost 1 to 2 points less. This is common sense to anyone with the ability to reason. A scout has t4 4+ to t3 3+. You realize these stats give you the same results defensively against small arms...so in other words...THEY HAVE THE SAME DEFENSIVE PROFILE vs most weapons.
Except sisters are weaker - ws 4+ and Str 3.
They also have lower toughness, meaning anti infantry weapons will wound easier vs them -- lasguns wound on 4s and Bolters 3s, multilaser on a 2, so that's a huge jump. A 6++ never occurs unless a melta is used, and scouts have a native scout deploy method, which by itself needs to be worth points.
T3 is the only stat that matters in this example - and it's worth about 1 point on a 1 wound model the rest of the stats combined are about a 1 point difference at best.
Xeno, I'm confused which argument you are making. Are you arguing against the bolter rule, because SoBs are too cheap? Because SoB don't get the bolter rule.....
Please just declare your argument.
Mine is - Bolter rules are fair, because 90% of the affected units need it to gain a modicum of relevancy and effectiveness.
I don't like the Beta rule. A more static game is a less fun game. it benefits terminators immensely who can now have much better landing zones picked and thats cool for Deep Striking units. But I honestly dont like things that make the game more static. I get that there will be times when you just stand in place and roll dic, especially early on. But I prefer dynamic battles and i think this further depreciates the value of transports and increases the value of Squatting.
Drop pods everywhere are crying out in angst. hehe.
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: Xeno, I'm confused which argument you are making. Are you arguing against the bolter rule, because SoBs are too cheap? Because SoB don't get the bolter rule.....
Please just declare your argument.
Mine is - Bolter rules are fair, because 90% of the affected units need it to gain a modicum of relevancy and effectiveness.
Oh my argument is that the bolter rule does not fix power armor marines. It is a reasonable buff to centurians and LRC and space marine bikes but this doesn't put any of those units in the competitive picture. It is a reasonable buff to intercessors too. The humble tactical marine gets practically nothing out of it. So I hope it doesn't become official - I hope it is fixed so it can justify a costing 4 points more than a SOB unit. The max damage potential needs to be increased to justify paying that cost.
Trying to fix tactical marines is pointless. They got a small buff, which makes them slightly better and that's nice, but it is unreasonable to expect major buffs on a legacy unit.
just played against a crimson fist army with 10 bikers and a biker captain. 40 shots at bs 2-3 rerolling 1s vs horde units basically tables tyranid lists by turn 2.
Shot denial isn't really a thing at this point. not with 14 inch moves, 24 inch ranges and bolter drills. Its so many shots. thats 40 inches of threatened area which can be followed up with a charge.
dreadlybrew wrote: just played against a crimson fist army with 10 bikers and a biker captain. 40 shots at bs 2-3 rerolling 1s vs horde units basically tables tyranid lists by turn 2.
Shot denial isn't really a thing at this point. not with 14 inch moves, 24 inch ranges and bolter drills. Its so many shots. thats 40 inches of threatened area which can be followed up with a charge.
Shots=hits=wounds=failed saves.
It's actually 60 shots because the bikers have bolt guns too. 5 custodes bikers cost about the same and are about 3 times more scary. I really don't think space marine bikes are viable - though they did get a good buff.
dreadlybrew wrote: just played against a crimson fist army with 10 bikers and a biker captain. 40 shots at bs 2-3 rerolling 1s vs horde units basically tables tyranid lists by turn 2.
Shot denial isn't really a thing at this point. not with 14 inch moves, 24 inch ranges and bolter drills. Its so many shots. thats 40 inches of threatened area which can be followed up with a charge.
Shots=hits=wounds=failed saves.
5 custodes bikers cost about the same and are about 3 times more scary. I really don't think space marine bikes are viable - though they did get a good buff.
No.
212 plus 100 = 310. Banana bikes are 90. 3.5 bananas for scale. Each banana is 6 shots at 24", so like 21 shots.
dreadlybrew wrote: just played against a crimson fist army with 10 bikers and a biker captain. 40 shots at bs 2-3 rerolling 1s vs horde units basically tables tyranid lists by turn 2.
Shot denial isn't really a thing at this point. not with 14 inch moves, 24 inch ranges and bolter drills. Its so many shots. thats 40 inches of threatened area which can be followed up with a charge.
Shots=hits=wounds=failed saves.
5 custodes bikers cost about the same and are about 3 times more scary. I really don't think space marine bikes are viable - though they did get a good buff.
No.
212 plus 100 = 310. Banana bikes are 90. 3.5 bananas for scale. Each banana is 6 shots at 24", so like 21 shots.
These bikes and captain put out 70.
Man you're right - I thought marine bikes were over 30 points. They are only 23. That is pretty insanel.
list is in picture. 48 genestealers, 24 termis, a discount swarmlord, a broodlord and some shooty fexes, and hive tyrant and a boad load of mortal wounds behind 3++ saves.
by turn 3 the only thing left were a handful of the zoes, the warlord. and hive tyrant and his heavys.
even with a lot of LOS blocking terrain. the opponent was able to completely route me. t7 is meaningless against sheer volume. 70 rolls hitting on 2s rerolling 1s will hit. there wasnt a single shooting phase were i didnt loose a unit and a half. and even with GS swift and deadly they could just be kited.
I'm confused, wtf is a Biker Captain? Is that a Chaplain on a bike? Or does he mean Biker Sgt? Because I can't find Biker Captain. What am I screwing up?
Man you're right - I thought marine bikes were over 30 points. They are only 23. That is pretty insanel.
I think bananas have the durability edge though. Probably the melee edge, too.
12 T6 2+/4++ vs 26 T5 3+
Automatically Appended Next Post:
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: I'm confused, wtf is a Biker Captain? Is that a Chaplain on a bike? Or does he mean Biker Sgt? Because I can't find Biker Captain. What am I screwing up?
list is in picture. 48 genestealers, 24 termis, a discount swarmlord, a broodlord and some shooty fexes, and hive tyrant and a boad load of mortal wounds behind 3++ saves.
by turn 3 the only thing left were a handful of the zoes, the warlord. and hive tyrant and his heavys.
even with a lot of LOS blocking terrain. the opponent was able to completely route me. t7 is meaningless against sheer volume. 70 rolls hitting on 2s rerolling 1s will hit. there wasnt a single shooting phase were i didnt loose a unit and a half. and even with GS swift and deadly they could just be kited.
Yea you might need to ally in a kelermorph or bump up your D2 shooting in some other way.
list is in picture. 48 genestealers, 24 termis, a discount swarmlord, a broodlord and some shooty fexes, and hive tyrant and a boad load of mortal wounds behind 3++ saves.
by turn 3 the only thing left were a handful of the zoes, the warlord. and hive tyrant and his heavys.
even with a lot of LOS blocking terrain. the opponent was able to completely route me. t7 is meaningless against sheer volume. 70 rolls hitting on 2s rerolling 1s will hit. there wasnt a single shooting phase were i didnt loose a unit and a half. and even with GS swift and deadly they could just be kited.
You need to introduce him to trygons with devilgaunts and FHT.
So, I'm not going to lie, it sounds like from what you said you were given an impossible list to face off against. A mostly melee army against a shooty army, goes that way some times.
I am not familiar with 'nids, but don't you have a hide in the shadows thing, where you can disappear off the board and ambush somewhere else? Like not GSC style, but your own weird thing?
Also, I would like to see his list. Just out of curiosity.
In terms of actual stats that matter. A sister is a T3 marine with a 6++ save - they should cost 1 to 2 points less. This is common sense to anyone with the ability to reason. A scout has t4 4+ to t3 3+. You realize these stats give you the same results defensively against small arms...so in other words...THEY HAVE THE SAME DEFENSIVE PROFILE vs most weapons.
Except that scouts still have WS 3+ and Str 4. Those aren't free. Yes, I know you like to beat the "It doesn't matter" drum, but it's still relevant, and gives scouts options that sisters and IG don't have. Sure, they're relatively close against small arms in terms of durability. That's not the only thing in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also want to point out...
A sister is now 9 points. -2 the cost of marines is 7, -1 for the sat difference between a scout and a sister is 6. So by your own words, 6 point sisters.
Which I want to point out, isn't something I'm actually pushing for.
In terms of actual stats that matter. A sister is a T3 marine with a 6++ save - they should cost 1 to 2 points less. This is common sense to anyone with the ability to reason. A scout has t4 4+ to t3 3+. You realize these stats give you the same results defensively against small arms...so in other words...THEY HAVE THE SAME DEFENSIVE PROFILE vs most weapons.
Except that scouts still have WS 3+ and Str 4. Those aren't free. Yes, I know you like to beat the "It doesn't matter" drum, but it's still relevant, and gives scouts options that sisters and IG don't have. Sure, they're relatively close against small arms in terms of durability. That's not the only thing in the game.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also want to point out...
A sister is now 9 points. -2 the cost of marines is 7, -1 for the sat difference between a scout and a sister is 6. So by your own words, 6 point sisters.
Which I want to point out, isn't something I'm actually pushing for.
So your proposing mabey giving tac marines a rule like:
Last stand- For every model in this unit that dies within 3" of an objective, you count the unit size as 2 higher for the purpose of determining how many Ob-sec models are contesting this objective (i.e. 3 marines fell so the 5 man unit now counts as 8 models towards holding the objective) until the end of the battle round.
Having been counter charged recently, yeah, yeah it really does. It may not be the optimum way to do damage, but it can absolutely beat the snot out of some folks.
I was charged by rubric marines Sunday and it turned out to have been a good idea. Tactically screwed my day up and the survivor left me unable to deploy reserves for another good 6 inches away from the main body of his force. Which eventually lead to me over extending my HQs to try and compensate getting one of them killed.
You can't be charged by rubrics in 8th edition. no 1ksons or chaos soup army runs them. I mean someone may as well say that GK are dominating so hard they have never lost a game with them in 8th and they played 3 games each day.
Karol wrote: You can't be charged by rubrics in 8th edition. no 1ksons or chaos soup army runs them. I mean someone may as well say that GK are dominating so hard they have never lost a game with them in 8th and they played 3 games each day.
And this is why I don't take this site overly seriously. Guy I was playing has consistently had the most interesting games in our club, ran 90% rubrics till this game in which he added some of the disk-tang madness to his list.
Because you know, some people play games because they're fun or interesting, rather than just trying to win in a tournament environment.
But I didn't say anything about them being amazing, I mean, one of the more expensive shooty troop units in the game made a good decision by using it's rather unimpressive melee stat line and general durability which resulted in tactical results which changed the game. Tactics being that thing that wins games other than list building or rubbing two pages of rules together. Never mind having my ass handed to me because I charged primaris with an undersized unit a few weeks back, yall are full of gak when you say those boys can't hit back well.
Ok, what is the chance that around the world chaos soups run rubrics regularly enough for the arugment that tactical stats is what makes them good to be valid? Again this is the same type of argument I made about someone rocking it with GK. Maybe it isn't a lie, maybe it is true, but the probability that it is true for the majority of people playing w40k is rather slim.
There are probably people out there who like root canal treatment, but saying it is not that bad, because they like it, is kind of a false argument.
Also charged with primaris??? From what I know the only primaris units being used are hellblasters in DA castel builds, and they never charge. And DW pre CA, but now they all just run vets.
Your giving some sort of bizzar example where rubric fight primaris in melee, and use it as an example, true or false , of a very specific thing being right.
Karol wrote: You can't be charged by rubrics in 8th edition. no 1ksons or chaos soup army runs them. I mean someone may as well say that GK are dominating so hard they have never lost a game with them in 8th and they played 3 games each day.
And this is why I don't take this site overly seriously. Guy I was playing has consistently had the most interesting games in our club, ran 90% rubrics till this game in which he added some of the disk-tang madness to his list.
Because you know, some people play games because they're fun or interesting, rather than just trying to win in a tournament environment.
But I didn't say anything about them being amazing, I mean, one of the more expensive shooty troop units in the game made a good decision by using it's rather unimpressive melee stat line and general durability which resulted in tactical results which changed the game. Tactics being that thing that wins games other than list building or rubbing two pages of rules together. Never mind having my ass handed to me because I charged primaris with an undersized unit a few weeks back, yall are full of gak when you say those boys can't hit back well.
Agreed. There are some posters on dakka who seem to have a quite narrow view (or experience) of the game leading to hyperbolic arguments of units "never seeing play" or being "unplayable", which is usually nonsense or only focuses on the TOP 10 of some tournaments.
Karol wrote: You can't be charged by rubrics in 8th edition. no 1ksons or chaos soup army runs them. I mean someone may as well say that GK are dominating so hard they have never lost a game with them in 8th and they played 3 games each day.
And this is why I don't take this site overly seriously. Guy I was playing has consistently had the most interesting games in our club, ran 90% rubrics till this game in which he added some of the disk-tang madness to his list.
Because you know, some people play games because they're fun or interesting, rather than just trying to win in a tournament environment.
But I didn't say anything about them being amazing, I mean, one of the more expensive shooty troop units in the game made a good decision by using it's rather unimpressive melee stat line and general durability which resulted in tactical results which changed the game. Tactics being that thing that wins games other than list building or rubbing two pages of rules together. Never mind having my ass handed to me because I charged primaris with an undersized unit a few weeks back, yall are full of gak when you say those boys can't hit back well.
Agreed. There are some posters on dakka who seem to have a quite narrow view (or experience) of the game leading to hyperbolic arguments of units "never seeing play" or being "unplayable", which is usually nonsense or only focuses on the TOP 10 of some tournaments.
Just mentally add "in tournament play" to arguments like that because that's exactly what these people mean.
Yes, bad units will see play in less competitive environments, but they're still bad.
Doesn't matter as much for narrative missions, for example, but it's still a valid point. I'd prefer if all my units were decent choices even for non-competitive play.
Karol wrote: Ok, what is the chance that around the world chaos soups run rubrics regularly enough for the arugment that tactical stats is what makes them good to be valid? Again this is the same type of argument I made about someone rocking it with GK. Maybe it isn't a lie, maybe it is true, but the probability that it is true for the majority of people playing w40k is rather slim.
There are probably people out there who like root canal treatment, but saying it is not that bad, because they like it, is kind of a false argument.
Also charged with primaris??? From what I know the only primaris units being used are hellblasters in DA castel builds, and they never charge. And DW pre CA, but now they all just run vets.
Your giving some sort of bizzar example where rubric fight primaris in melee, and use it as an example, true or false , of a very specific thing being right.
Your missing the forest for the trees. He's saying that the extra WS and S made a difference in a recent game of his.
Karol wrote: Ok, what is the chance that around the world chaos soups run rubrics regularly enough for the arugment that tactical stats is what makes them good to be valid? Again this is the same type of argument I made about someone rocking it with GK. Maybe it isn't a lie, maybe it is true, but the probability that it is true for the majority of people playing w40k is rather slim.
There are probably people out there who like root canal treatment, but saying it is not that bad, because they like it, is kind of a false argument.
Also charged with primaris??? From what I know the only primaris units being used are hellblasters in DA castel builds, and they never charge. And DW pre CA, but now they all just run vets.
Your giving some sort of bizzar example where rubric fight primaris in melee, and use it as an example, true or false , of a very specific thing being right.
Your missing the forest for the trees. He's saying that the extra WS and S made a difference in a recent game of his.
I haven't spent any time with Sisters, but surely Faith shenanigans make up for the extra point difference?
So, after reading the leaked shadowspear units, I am slightly against the Beta Bolter rule, at least as it applies to Primaris.
Primaris Deathwatch Infiltrators seems like it will get stupid. Do the exploding 6s get the SIA values? I mean, DW shouldn't get any of these new Primaris marines, in my thinking.
This could seriously level the field between the old DW vets and the new primaris normies.
Karol wrote: Ok, what is the chance that around the world chaos soups run rubrics regularly enough for the arugment that tactical stats is what makes them good to be valid? Again this is the same type of argument I made about someone rocking it with GK. Maybe it isn't a lie, maybe it is true, but the probability that it is true for the majority of people playing w40k is rather slim.
There are probably people out there who like root canal treatment, but saying it is not that bad, because they like it, is kind of a false argument.
Also charged with primaris??? From what I know the only primaris units being used are hellblasters in DA castel builds, and they never charge. And DW pre CA, but now they all just run vets.
Your giving some sort of bizzar example where rubric fight primaris in melee, and use it as an example, true or false , of a very specific thing being right.
Your missing the forest for the trees. He's saying that the extra WS and S made a difference in a recent game of his.
I haven't spent any time with Sisters, but surely Faith shenanigans make up for the extra point difference?
Current faith mechanics are so bad, that GW just released a statement saying they are reworking them from the ground up, becuase most players decided they weren't worth using, making the half of the codex that "buffed" them, worthless.
Karol wrote: You can't be charged by rubrics in 8th edition. no 1ksons or chaos soup army runs them. I mean someone may as well say that GK are dominating so hard they have never lost a game with them in 8th and they played 3 games each day.
And this is why I don't take this site overly seriously. Guy I was playing has consistently had the most interesting games in our club, ran 90% rubrics till this game in which he added some of the disk-tang madness to his list.
Because you know, some people play games because they're fun or interesting, rather than just trying to win in a tournament environment.
But I didn't say anything about them being amazing, I mean, one of the more expensive shooty troop units in the game made a good decision by using it's rather unimpressive melee stat line and general durability which resulted in tactical results which changed the game. Tactics being that thing that wins games other than list building or rubbing two pages of rules together. Never mind having my ass handed to me because I charged primaris with an undersized unit a few weeks back, yall are full of gak when you say those boys can't hit back well.
Don't listen to them anyway. Rubrics are beasts with the bolter rule. They're also really really hard to kill in melee when you're not dragging anything better than AP0 - it takes 8 Catachans with 3 attacks each to kill one rubric.
Prior to the beta rule being introduced, I was thinking about ways to help out marines and what I came up with was pretty close to what GW gave us in that it was a change to the weapon profile that only affects space marines.
I wanted to make several of the marine weapons into assault weapons, most notably, the bolter and heavy bolter. Basically, when wielded by a marine, a bolter would be assault 2 instead of rapid fire 1. This would have given them that extra range, but wouldn't have encouraged standing still.
While there would certainly be kinks to work out, my rule could actually work well in combination with the rapid fire rule since it would shorten the gap between bolters and storm bolters. Bolters would be the reliable weapon, always able to shoot 2 shots at 24 inches, while storm bolters have a ton of firepower at 12 inches but are more difficult to control at 24 inches (requiring the vet to stand still.)
Karol wrote: You can't be charged by rubrics in 8th edition. no 1ksons or chaos soup army runs them. I mean someone may as well say that GK are dominating so hard they have never lost a game with them in 8th and they played 3 games each day.
And this is why I don't take this site overly seriously. Guy I was playing has consistently had the most interesting games in our club, ran 90% rubrics till this game in which he added some of the disk-tang madness to his list.
Because you know, some people play games because they're fun or interesting, rather than just trying to win in a tournament environment.
But I didn't say anything about them being amazing, I mean, one of the more expensive shooty troop units in the game made a good decision by using it's rather unimpressive melee stat line and general durability which resulted in tactical results which changed the game. Tactics being that thing that wins games other than list building or rubbing two pages of rules together. Never mind having my ass handed to me because I charged primaris with an undersized unit a few weeks back, yall are full of gak when you say those boys can't hit back well.
Don't listen to them anyway. Rubrics are beasts with the bolter rule. They're also really really hard to kill in melee when you're not dragging anything better than AP0 - it takes 8 Catachans with 3 attacks each to kill one rubric.
If the crux of someone's argument is "It is fine if your opponent just isn't trying at all", it isn't a good argument.
If the crux of someone's argument is "It is fine if your opponent just isn't trying at all", it isn't a good argument.
Except that isn't true at all and you just add to the nonsense hyperbole pile. Is someone going to win top tables with 60 rubrics? Probably not. Are 15 of them going to handicap you? I very much doubt it.
If the crux of someone's argument is "It is fine if your opponent just isn't trying at all", it isn't a good argument.
Except that isn't true at all and you just add to the nonsense hyperbole pile. Is someone going to win top tables with 60 rubrics? Probably not. Are 15 of them going to handicap you? I very much doubt it.
I'm very percent sure I'd rather have 8 Scarabs for your 15 Rubrics. Or 6 scarabs and 10 cultists to buy back my troop slot. Unfortunately Rubrics are too slow to do anything unless we DMC them but that would mean we ain't using it for Tzaangors.
I honestly do not understand why Rubrics and Scarabs dropped to 5++ for no apparent reason.
If the crux of someone's argument is "It is fine if your opponent just isn't trying at all", it isn't a good argument.
Except that isn't true at all and you just add to the nonsense hyperbole pile. Is someone going to win top tables with 60 rubrics? Probably not. Are 15 of them going to handicap you? I very much doubt it.
That's 15 of them that cam be going into an entirely different investment.
Rubrics are okay, but let's be honest about their actual performance. "Okay" does not cut it.
If the crux of someone's argument is "It is fine if your opponent just isn't trying at all", it isn't a good argument.
Except that isn't true at all and you just add to the nonsense hyperbole pile. Is someone going to win top tables with 60 rubrics? Probably not. Are 15 of them going to handicap you? I very much doubt it.
That's 15 of them that cam be going into an entirely different investment.
Rubrics are okay, but let's be honest about their actual performance. "Okay" does not cut it.
I find them to be more than okay. Maybe if I can beat the Nova Open waitlist i'll have a chance to prove it.
Booked the hotel...totally slipped my mind to order the ticket. Though I didn't expect it to sell out so fast...:\
So, the question remains unanswered. Currently, it is not proven that Beta Bolters negatively affect balance. Until we see massive over-use of the rule in competitive play, I don't think we can say it needs changing.
That being said, I am starting to see a shift of the game, from large cumbersome singular units like knights, back to the shooty deathstars of 7th. Now it's gather all your cheap shooty bits and blast your opponent off the table. I went to math hammer, and a squad of guardsmen will down a tank (T8 12w) faster than a HWT of Las. Volume of fire is more important than quantity.
And the Beta Bolter rule is part of that. Am I off the mark here?
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, the question remains unanswered. Currently, it is not proven that Beta Bolters negatively affect balance. Until we see massive over-use of the rule in competitive play, I don't think we can say it needs changing.
That being said, I am starting to see a shift of the game, from large cumbersome singular units like knights, back to the shooty deathstars of 7th. Now it's gather all your cheap shooty bits and blast your opponent off the table. I went to math hammer, and a squad of guardsmen will down a tank (T8 12w) faster than a HWT of Las. Volume of fire is more important than quantity.
And the Beta Bolter rule is part of that. Am I off the mark here?
I'm not sure your math is correct.
55 for 10 IS & commander
18 * .5 * .167 * .333 = 0.5 wounds, or 24 such squads (1320 points) to kill it in one go - you will not be getting in RF range with IS.
HWTLC is 32 points
1 * .5 * .666 * .833 * 3.5 = 0.97, or 12.4 such squads (395 points) to kill it in one go
FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: So, the question remains unanswered. Currently, it is not proven that Beta Bolters negatively affect balance. Until we see massive over-use of the rule in competitive play, I don't think we can say it needs changing.
That being said, I am starting to see a shift of the game, from large cumbersome singular units like knights, back to the shooty deathstars of 7th. Now it's gather all your cheap shooty bits and blast your opponent off the table. I went to math hammer, and a squad of guardsmen will down a tank (T8 12w) faster than a HWT of Las. Volume of fire is more important than quantity.
And the Beta Bolter rule is part of that. Am I off the mark here?
I'm not sure your math is correct.
55 for 10 IS & commander
18 * .5 * .167 * .333 = 0.5 wounds, or 24 such squads (1320 points) to kill it in one go - you will not be getting in RF range with IS.
HWTLC is 32 points
1 * .5 * .666 * .833 * 3.5 = 0.97, or 12.4 such squads (395 points) to kill it in one go
I'm sorry, I plugged 4 str in when it should have been 3. I also forgot that you can order HWTs.
That being said, the 2.24 wounds per 40pt IS is obscene. If you compare points, a HWS with LAscannons is 78pts. So a like amount of IS gives you 4.5 wounds. https://www.mathhammer8thed.com/
MOVE!MOVE!MOVE! and TAKE AIM are now Psychic spells for Primaris. Now we are in the realms of stupid.
I think you need to check your datasheets. A leman Russ has a 3+ save.
Also, to everyone whining about how weak these powers are -- everyone complains about how good Move Move Move is, so pick one. Is this power ideal for late turn objective grabbing, which is a huge part of winning the game in any format but ITC or is Move Move Move worthless because the game is only about killing stuff when playing ITC?
Or can we agree that it's somewhere in between? And that in most games This power/move move move has a place but isn't the be and end all of abilities?
MOVE!MOVE!MOVE! and TAKE AIM are now Psychic spells for Primaris. Now we are in the realms of stupid.
I think you need to check your datasheets. A leman Russ has a 3+ save.
Also, to everyone whining about how weak these powers are -- everyone complains about how good Move Move Move is, so pick one. Is this power ideal for late turn objective grabbing, which is a huge part of winning the game in any format but ITC or is Move Move Move worthless because the game is only about killing stuff when playing ITC?
Or can we agree that it's somewhere in between? And that in most games This power/move move move has a place but isn't the be and end all of abilities?
Move move move is good for an army that has so many bodies. Marines late game will have next to none. Everyone complains marines are bad cause their bad. You can’t pretend their goods so pick one. Don’t complain and accept they are bad, or admit they are bad.
I'll wait and see what all has the Phobos keyword. I figure it'll be more than these 3 kits for vanguard. DI had 3 unit types too, then later we got aggressors and reivers
fraser1191 wrote: I'll wait and see what all has the Phobos keyword. I figure it'll be more than these 3 kits for vanguard. DI had 3 unit types too, then later we got aggressors and reivers
The whole dang flock could have it. The powers won’t help at all.
fraser1191 wrote: I'll wait and see what all has the Phobos keyword. I figure it'll be more than these 3 kits for vanguard. DI had 3 unit types too, then later we got aggressors and reivers
The whole dang flock could have it. The powers won’t help at all.
After seeing that the box is all monopose and silly, leave me something to be optimistic about!
Edit: I know I plan on using hallucination on my friends riptide
Pleasestop wrote: Also, to everyone whining about how weak these powers are -- everyone complains about how good Move Move Move is, so pick one. Is this power ideal for late turn objective grabbing, which is a huge part of winning the game in any format but ITC or is Move Move Move worthless because the game is only about killing stuff when playing ITC?
Or can we agree that it's somewhere in between? And that in most games This power/move move move has a place but isn't the be and end all of abilities?
Psychic Focus: With the exception of Smite, each psychic power can be attempted only once per turn, rather than once per psyker per turn.
Also note that Temporal Corridor only works on Phobos units, so a rather limited set of units - none of which are Troop choices, and therefore do not have Objective Secured.
And it's still a psychic power which means you have to pass your psychic test and it could be denied by enemy psykers or anti-psi stratagems.
MMM doesn't have any of those limitations.
fraser1191 wrote: I'll wait and see what all has the Phobos keyword. I figure it'll be more than these 3 kits for vanguard. DI had 3 unit types too, then later we got aggressors and reivers
The whole dang flock could have it. The powers won’t help at all.
After seeing that the box is all monopose and silly, leave me something to be optimistic about!
Edit: I know I plan on using hallucination on my friends riptide
You should be excited cause at least it’s something new for your army to use just hate when people make a huge deal as if it’s broken
Having been counter charged recently, yeah, yeah it really does. It may not be the optimum way to do damage, but it can absolutely beat the snot out of some folks.
I was charged by rubric marines Sunday and it turned out to have been a good idea. Tactically screwed my day up and the survivor left me unable to deploy reserves for another good 6 inches away from the main body of his force. Which eventually lead to me over extending my HQs to try and compensate getting one of them killed.
That's your own fault for having Tau units close enough to get charged.
Karol wrote: Ok, what is the chance that around the world chaos soups run rubrics regularly enough for the arugment that tactical stats is what makes them good to be valid? Again this is the same type of argument I made about someone rocking it with GK. Maybe it isn't a lie, maybe it is true, but the probability that it is true for the majority of people playing w40k is rather slim.
There are probably people out there who like root canal treatment, but saying it is not that bad, because they like it, is kind of a false argument.
Also charged with primaris??? From what I know the only primaris units being used are hellblasters in DA castel builds, and they never charge. And DW pre CA, but now they all just run vets.
Your giving some sort of bizzar example where rubric fight primaris in melee, and use it as an example, true or false , of a very specific thing being right.
Your missing the forest for the trees. He's saying that the extra WS and S made a difference in a recent game of his.
An anecdote does not prove anything. Every other rubric on the table had WS 3+ and S4 but they apparently didn't make a difference in their cases. What did make a difference was their resilience because he couldn't deepstrike.
New bolter discipline hasn't stopped me getting wiped in my last two games. Granted, I'm a very inexperienced player, but I can't imagine a lot of games have broken down because the bolters are now massacring everything.
Also, to everyone whining about how weak these powers are -- everyone complains about how good Move Move Move is, so pick one. Is this power ideal for late turn objective grabbing, which is a huge part of winning the game in any format but ITC or is Move Move Move worthless because the game is only about killing stuff when playing ITC?
Or can we agree that it's somewhere in between? And that in most games This power/move move move has a place but isn't the be and end all of abilities?
There's a bit of space between MMM that works all the time for 30 points on up to 6 units (90 points) and MMM that has to succeed for 120 points on one unit.
fraser1191 wrote: I'll wait and see what all has the Phobos keyword. I figure it'll be more than these 3 kits for vanguard. DI had 3 unit types too, then later we got aggressors and reivers
The whole dang flock could have it. The powers won’t help at all.
After seeing that the box is all monopose and silly, leave me something to be optimistic about!
Edit: I know I plan on using hallucination on my friends riptide
You should be excited cause at least it’s something new for your army to use just hate when people make a huge deal as if it’s broken
I'm really excited for the rest of the release and hallucination. Infiltrate to 9" away from their zone(generally 21" to edge) , move 6, 18" range, potentially shut down one key unit.
