Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The problem with SL is you can pay 27ppm for them on relentless jetbikes.

If you could pay 27ppm for Heavy Bolters on jetbikes, I'm sure you would.

ScatterBikes are broken.

That said, when you pay over 100 pts for an AV12 transport with just a Scatter Laser and a sidearm, its not so scary. Better than an individual Heavy Bolter, certainly. But not so points efficient at drowning MEQs.

Look at it this way:
For Eliteish units:
SLs kill 4x(2/3)(5/6)(1/3) = 20/27 Marines/round, or 280/27 (just over 10 pts)
SLs kill 4x(2/3)(5/6)(1/2) = 20/18 DAs/round, or 260/18. Over 14 pts/round.

For Hordes:
SLs kill same numbers of Necron Warriors as Marines, for just under 10pts of them/round. Not a big differnece. But that's playing to Necron strengths, so should be better.
SLs kill 4x(2/3)(5/6)(2/3) Guardsmen. 40/27. Guardsmen only lose about 7.5 points. Doing what Guardsmen do best. Dying.
SLs kill Guardians at the same rate, but at 9ppm. That's 13 points lots a round. Kalabites too (even with FnP, same numbers).
SLs kill 4x(2/3)(5/6)(1) T-shirt save Orks (6ppm?). That's 40/18. That's 13.3 points?

So yes, Scatter Laser bikes drown Marines in wounds. Marines lose. That's not because the 3+ is bad. Its because Scatter Bikes are absurdly good.

Marines do better at receiving SL fire than other elite infantry - see the Dire Avengers listed above. Even against elite-ish GEQs (Guardians, Kalabited), Marines do much better.

Comparing them to hordes of course changes things.

Marines are marginally more efficient per point at soaking the firepower than Necron Warriors. Where Necron Warriors are designed to take firepower even more than SMs. So the Silver Horde comes out ahead.

And Guardsmen. SM players just love Guardsmen. The unit best designed to shrug at the losses from stuff like Scatter Lasers actually does outperform Marines in this regard. Congrats, Guardsmen are better Guardsmen than marines! Surprising, isn't it? They take about 25% fewer losses pointswise! Which is good. Why should SM be better per point at what Guardsmen are designed to do?

Finally, we come to your standard Ork. Losing 40% more than Marines, per point, does not mean they soak fire *better*.

It may feel like the 3+ fails too much when Scatter Lasers flood the table. Guardsmen may even be better at soaking their firepower. But compared to almost all other troops, that 3+ does work. If SL shoot Marines off the table with their 3+, most every other troop in the game without a 3+ gets shot off faster and harder, even per point.

"ScatterBikes are broken. "

But legal. So that doesn't help us much.

Marines haves too many units that don't have enough offense. That's the real sin here, not the 3+ save. It makes the 3+ save look bad because you must endure a large fraction of enemy firepower turn after turn because you can't take them off the board. It forces marines to use the drop pod as a crutch. I guess there's the Gladius now for free transports.

"If you could pay 27ppm for Heavy Bolters on jetbikes, I'm sure you would. "

Actually, I might not. That's how bad the gap is between the heavy bolter and scatterbike. That one less str makes it FAR less versatile.

"Its because Scatter Bikes are absurdly good. "

Arguably making 3+ armor bad now. Everything is relative. I've faced scatterbikes the last 3 out of 5 games. People use what works. Scatterbikes are the new standard for success.

Bharring wrote:
Inability to stack saves definitely diminishes the value of higher AP values.

Agreed. Having played Necromunda and Mordenheim, having a modifier makes armor nice but not important. Cover being penalties to hit is excellent as well. I wish 40k played like this, since it would open up the game a lot more. WMH uses this system and it makes the game a lot more tactical.

Bharring wrote:

(I had meant beat 10 DAs, not kill. 3 Marines vs 10 DAs? 10x1/2x1/3x1/3 is about half a dead Marine, then 2.5x2x1/2x2/3x/1/2 kills about 1 DA, so you only need 3 Marines to make it into CC to beat 10 DAs - certainly won't kill them in one round unless they sweep, which is probably something like 12% on the first round.)

Right, fair enough. Kill seemed odd. I would imagine, from experience, it takes about 4 rounds of combat for marines to sweep DA unless they are one of the more combat heavy chapters.
Honestly considering fleet I don't see how marines charge DA's. Then again, I don't see many DAs at all on the table considering scatbikers, so I can't say I'm experienced with them.

Bharring wrote:

I think AP4 being AP "Doesn't Matter" not because either people don't take a lot of 4+ or because people don't take a lot of AP4, but because they don't generally factor it in, because targets with a 4+ don't take noticeably more AP- shots to kill than AP4- shots, whereas AP3 can take up to 3 times as many shots.

Well, people with 4+ take 2x as many shots if they get their save. Granted, 3+ saves mean a 50% increase in saves made when compared to a 4+, but 2x seems to me to be noticeably more.

Bharring wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Krak Grenades outperform Bolt Pistols on all targets, and Boltguns on some.

You can charge after throwing a grenade.

Its not a major weapon, but it has its uses. More so on vehicles than on 4+ save models, though.

You don't often fire before charging because of the random charge distances. You may kill enough models that you are no longer in charge range.
What targets do they out perform bolters against? I would think against most targets 2 shots is better than 1. Though we both know no one takes marines for their terrible bolters.

 sub-zero wrote:


They are expensive at 23 pts. per model, but in terms of dakka, anything not in terminator armor is killed with no armor save allowed thanks to my inferno bolt ammo. Pair that with a 3+ 4++ and I'd say they are worth the points.

Thousand Sons seem good against AP3 and better. But they're paying for that 4+ invulnerable save and against massed AP4+ shooting the die just as easily as a 14pt tactical marine.

My Fire Warriors don't care about the 4+ as they never have to get through it. I just make you roll enough 3+ saves that you fail them.

In the current meta of ranged firepower more cheaper bodies is better than an invulnerable save which won't be used.

Unless you go the Plague Marine route or high toughness and feel no pain. Feel No Pain is superior to an invulnerable save because it is less situational, you get to take it alongside any other save unless it is against instant death. If the opponent is throwing massed fire against you then you have your 3+ armour save then your 5+ FNP. If they're throwing AP3- then you get 5+ FNP etc.

 carldooley wrote:
Or perhaps anyone who thinks 3+ is an awful save should consider other things that contribute to the survivability of the model? 'Oh I want Iridium Armor to become standard equipment so that my suits gain a 2+ save and T5.' Actually, no I don't. My suits are plenty survivable already with an engagement range of 36" and JSJ.

I think I'm in partial agreement. I certainly don't think that we should be just giving more units invulnerable saves, FNP etc. because their armour saves aren't working (like all the people who want terminators to be T5, 2 wounds and immune to small-arms fire). This kind of one-upmanship is the whole reason the game is such a mess.

Instead, we should really be looking to tone down a lot of weapons, and also the game in general. For example, D-weapons and Apocalypse Templates should not exist within the standard game. Put them back in apocalypse and leave them there. Same goes for Super Heavies, Gargantuan creatures and the like.

I'd probably use plasma as a jumping-off point. Plasma weapons are S7 AP2, and pay for that with a drawback that can damage or kill the user. So, if a weapon is going to be the same strength (or stronger) as plasma, then you'd expect an appropriate drawback or cost. Obviously there's some leeway, but when some armies are suffering a drawback for S7 AP2, at the same time another is suffering no drawback for S10 AP2 D-weapons, something is seriously wrong. The game could also do with a massive reduction in Ignores Cover. Flamers aside, most weapons with this rule should really be reducing cover - not ignoring it outright.

At the same time, many defences in this game need to be toned down as well. No saves - especially invulnerable or cover saves - need to be rerollable. Nor do we need this stacking cover save and jink nonsense, which often has units getting 3+ or 2+ over saves whenever they want them. Also, a 3++ should be incredibly rare - not a standard upgrade. Same goes for Eternal Warrior and, to a lesser degree, FNP. Finally, fire whoever wrote the rules for Invisibility and burn all his work (it's the only way to be sure ).

Alk -
(For academic purposes) - Krak Grenades will outperform Boltguns on the following:
-Anything with a 4+
-t3 multi-wound models (kill aspect warriors/guardians/fire warriors with boltgun rounds, then throw a krak when the Exarch/Farseer/Etherial is the closest one left - odds are you aren't killing it, but its a big deal if you do!)
-Anything T5+ it either ties or outperforms
-Any AV10-12, especially if open topped

So it happens. Not sure its even half the time, but it can make a difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vipid - I very, very much agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Aki - both Termies and Tacs suffer a lot from not stacking saves. On the other hand, how much fun would trying to kill shrouded TH/SS Termies behind an Ageis be?

I'd think stacking saves implemented with armor save modifiers would make a lot of things more interesting, but those threads in Proposed Rules, while fun, never go anywhere.

Bharring wrote:
Alk -
(For academic purposes) - Krak Grenades will outperform Boltguns on the following:
-Anything with a 4+

So with boltguns its going to be 20 shots, 2/3 hit, 2/3 wounds (T3), 4+ save is ~4.5 wounds. Against T4 its 3.3, so grenades are slightly ahead here.
Grenades are 10 shots, 2/3 hit, 5/6 wound, 5+ cover (I believe you get cover from grenades, I could be wrong) for 3.6 wounds. T4 or 3 doesn't matter.
So anything was wrong, unless grenades ignore cover (which makes them way better).

Bharring wrote:

-t3 multi-wound models (kill aspect warriors/guardians/fire warriors with boltgun rounds, then throw a krak when the Exarch/Farseer/Etherial is the closest one left - odds are you aren't killing it, but its a big deal if you do!)

Fair enough.

Bharring wrote:

-Anything T5+ it either ties or outperforms

10 grenades, 2/3 hit, 2/3 wounds, 3+ save (I don't know many units that have a T5+ that don't have a 3+ save) is 1.44 wounds. Without the 3+ and 5+ cover it becomes 2.87, which is good.
20 bolters is 1.44 against T5 and a 3+ save, so it ties. Against T6 its .726 for bolters and 1.089 for grenades, so they pull ahead here. Granted 10 guys putting 1 wound on something is...garbage.
Just to give you an idea, 2 plasma guns will be 1.452 against T5 and 1.15 against T6 (assuming 5+ cover). So the entire squad firing most likely does 2 wounds.

Bharring wrote:

-Any AV10-12, especially if open topped

No one denied its good against tanks, though you usually use grav, plasma, or melta for that.

Bharring wrote:

So it happens. Not sure its even half the time, but it can make a difference.

Well, its T6 units, so that is mainly MC and nurgle bikers. Not exactly common.
T4 4+ saves troops include...necrons? I think just necron warriors and flayed ones.
T3 multiwound is mainly HQs , so is by definition not common.
AV 10-12 sure, that's relatively common. Though usually you are using long range mid strength weapons for that, or podding meltas.

Calling it anywhere close to half the time feels like a huge exaggeration, imo.

Bharring wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Vipid - I very, very much agree.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Aki - both Termies and Tacs suffer a lot from not stacking saves. On the other hand, how much fun would trying to kill shrouded TH/SS Termies behind an Ageis be?

Probably as much fun as any death star, which have become somewhat common in this game.
Then again, TH/SS termies behind an Aegis can't attack anything without leaving the Aegis so....kinda useless? The problem with marines is they don't have the offensive firepower to be scary. This is mainly due to the fact that the bolter is crap.
2 Plasma guns do as much work as 10 guys tossing grenades at their best targets. Against many targets, the special weapons equal the entire squad, sometimes surpassing it.

Bharring wrote:

I'd think stacking saves implemented with armor save modifiers would make a lot of things more interesting, but those threads in Proposed Rules, while fun, never go anywhere.

With one exception I'm aware of, involving the Druchii, GW does not make FAQs based on player suggestions. I'd be surprised if they went anywhere.

Akiasura wrote:

Bharring wrote:

I'd think stacking saves implemented with armor save modifiers would make a lot of things more interesting, but those threads in Proposed Rules, while fun, never go anywhere.

With one exception I'm aware of, involving the Druchii, GW does not make FAQs based on player suggestions. I'd be surprised if they went anywhere.

And that exception was a long time ago.

Aki - in most situations, if you're within 8", you have a good chance of having no cover.

If there is a secondary save (cover, invuln), that certainly changes things. I considered writing "with no secondary save" for the units with 4+s, but didn't feel the need.

Boltguns and Krak actually tie for T5 and T7, but for T6, 8, and 9, Krak again takes the lead. If you're relying on Krak to bring down a Wraithknight. You're in a world of trouble. But it can, if you're really desperate.

You can also only throw one Krak grenade per unit.

I think all the above is validly summarized as "and sometimes outperforms boltguns". It still outperforms the pistol where it can be used.

All that being said, if krak grenades were optional I wouldn't use them.

They are optional. Guardsmen don't have them.
Orks.
Dark Eldar.
Craftworlders.
Termies.

But then those aren't Tactical Marines. They aren't kitted to have an option for nearly anything, instead of beoling optimized for a specific role.

Martel732 wrote:
All that being said, if krak grenades were optional I wouldn't use them.

They're free, isn't that good enough?

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All that being said, if krak grenades were optional I wouldn't use them.

They're free, isn't that good enough?

Not if I could get a discount for NOT having them. I'd love to sell back the pistol, WS, S, and frag grenades as well. All pretty useless in 7th.

Martel732 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All that being said, if krak grenades were optional I wouldn't use them.

They're free, isn't that good enough?

Not if I could get a discount for NOT having them. I'd love to sell back the pistol, WS, S, and frag grenades as well. All pretty useless in 7th.

Have you considered Sisters of Battle?

Martel732 wrote:
Marines haves too many units that don't have enough offense. That's the real sin here, not the 3+ save. It makes the 3+ save look bad because you must endure a large fraction of enemy firepower turn after turn because you can't take them off the board. It forces marines to use the drop pod as a crutch. I guess there's the Gladius now for free transports.

This is spot-on.

On another note, a failing of 40k (and many other games) is the linear nature of weapon progression. With most weapons, a big weapon is always more effective than a smaller weapon regardless of the target. So other than for point values and unit restrictions, there are very few reasons to take bolters instead of meltaguns. There's no reason to take meltaguns instead of grav cannons. Et cetera (maybe not NO reason, but if the upgrade was free, everyone would take 5 grav canons per 5 models).

A better system would be if nearly all weapons had different effectiveness versus different grades of armor. So a tank's main gun should not be very effective at targeting infantry (it shouldn't even hit except by fluke), but should be very effective at targeting or destroying another tank. Infantry with a specialist weapons should be more points-efficient against armor, but less points-efficient against regular infantry. So taking 5 grav guns/melta guns/plasma guns/hand flamers should not be better than taking 5 bolters in 95% of scenarios. Air units should be highly vulnerable to antiair, with some highly effective against soft targets, others highly effective against armored targets, and some highly effective against air.

There should also be specialist infantry units that have a GOOD chance at taking down a really big unit at a disproportionately low cost, but with very poor means of defending itself.

Instead, mostly, we have "specialist = better, basic = cannon fodder", and that's just not a way any rational commander would outfit a squad The thing is, a tactical marine squad actually makes sense, the way it's imagined. It should revolve around a heavy weapons guy who can take out big targets, but where the regular marines with bolters can defend that fella. Instead, in this scenario, what we have is the heavy weapons guy can't really take out anything worth the value of the entire squad, and the rest of the squad sits around until something scarier comes and squashes them.

So what we end up doing is saying "screw the heavy weapons guy, have them pop out of a pod and focus on having them pod and focus on specialist damage".

If weapons were more specific as to what they were good against, we'd see a larger variety of battleforces.

Bharring wrote:
Aki - in most situations, if you're within 8", you have a good chance of having no cover.

....why? What does proximity of the unit have to do with anything involving cover?
If I position fire warriors in cover, they probably aren't leaving it unless they might get assaulted.

Could be true for units that want to assault you I suppose, but most of those units are so fast the grenades don't even come into the equation.

Bharring wrote:

If there is a secondary save (cover, invuln), that certainly changes things. I considered writing "with no secondary save" for the units with 4+s, but didn't feel the need.

When you have the "right" amount of cover, its rare for units not to get a cover save. If units don't get a save, then against 5+, bolters really take off. Rarely does this happen, ime.

Bharring wrote:

Boltguns and Krak actually tie for T5 and T7, but for T6, 8, and 9, Krak again takes the lead. If you're relying on Krak to bring down a Wraithknight. You're in a world of trouble. But it can, if you're really desperate.

True, Kraks are garbage. So why bring them up as a commonly seen weapon? Its true that marines are forced to take them, but outside of tanks, I rarely see them used.

Bharring wrote:

You can also only throw one Krak grenade per unit.

Wait, per model or per unit? I assumed a ten man unit each throwing the grenade, and 10 guys rapid firing bolters. This isn't realistic, true, but it makes the math easier to work with.
If its per unit I don't know why they were brought up at all, since they are then god awful.

Bharring wrote:

I think all the above is validly summarized as "and sometimes outperforms boltguns". It still outperforms the pistol where it can be used.

You could argue that sometimes should be shifted to rarely, but that wasn't the original point when you brought them up.
The point was that if 4+ saves were more common, you'd see AP4 weapons used. We explored grenades. It turns out that, compared to bolters, they still don't do great against 4+ save infantry. This is mainly due to cover.
So...yeah, most AP 4 weapons are crap outside of Heavy flamers and assault cannons. Autocannons are average but still decent. The rest are terrible on their own.

You could try Epic: Armageddon's shot types.

Each gun would have one of three to-wound values. When firing at infantry, your gun would have to use an Anti-Infantry value, when firing at a tank, it had to use the Anti-Tank value, and for fliers, an Anti-Aircraft value.

Most rifle-type weapons only had an AI value, and thus could only target infantry. Most heavier weapons either only had an AT value, or a fairly bad AI value, and only specific weapons had an AA value (which on occasion also had an AI or AT value, depending on the unit role).

This meant that you couldn't take your pure tank-hunting formation, and have it wipe out an infantry company with Lascannons. In fact, you'd get wiped out by the infantry, as they could engage in assaults, and fk you up with statistical advantages.

Implementing that system into 40k would make shooting much much easier and more balanced.

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
All that being said, if krak grenades were optional I wouldn't use them.

They're free, isn't that good enough?

Not if I could get a discount for NOT having them. I'd love to sell back the pistol, WS, S, and frag grenades as well. All pretty useless in 7th.

Have you considered Sisters of Battle?

Was thinking the same thing

Krak grenades are meant to be used in assaults against vehicles and monstrous critters, not hurled at opposing infantry, which would be ridiculous.

Also, Martel, you may not realize this, and if you do you may not care, but you're coming across as a blowhard know-it-all and general jerk. TONE IT DOWN FOR GOD'S SAKE.

Quit discriminating against blood angels. It isn't their faul they have the black rage.

I dunno, I quite like Martel's posts. He is not wrong.

 Ashiraya wrote:
I dunno, I quite like Martel's posts. He is not wrong.

Depends how you look at it, I guess.

For example, whilst I joked above that he should be playing SoB, there is an important point to be made regarding that.

Compared with SMs, SoB have -1WS, -1S, -1T, -1I, no ATSKNF and no Chapter Tactics. They also have no access to Grav, plasma, lascannons or missiles.
In return they get a 6++ and Acts of Faith.

So, what discount do SoB get over marines for trading away so much stuff? -1pt.

Now, granted, this isn't an ideal comparison, but it's about as close as we can get to his request (unless someone knows a better unit to juxtapose?).

The point I'm trying to make is that trading away marines' WS, strength, frag grenades etc. probably wont lead to the discount he seems to think it will. The reason for this is the exact same reason he's willing to trade them away - they're not worth much at the moment. Hell, I doubt frag grenades are even factored into their costs anymore (they were back in 5th, but after their significant price-drop in 6th, I highly doubt that this remained the case).

I almost never notice frag grenades anyway.
My group keeps forgetting that they do anything. Unless it's kill team. Then the marines are spamming those small blasts at me.

 vipoid wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I dunno, I quite like Martel's posts. He is not wrong.

Depends how you look at it, I guess.

For example, whilst I joked above that he should be playing SoB, there is an important point to be made regarding that.

Compared with SMs, SoB have -1WS, -1S, -1T, -1I, no ATSKNF and no Chapter Tactics. They also have no access to Grav, plasma, lascannons or missiles.
In return they get a 6++ and Acts of Faith.

So, what discount do SoB get over marines for trading away so much stuff? -1pt.

Now, granted, this isn't an ideal comparison, but it's about as close as we can get to his request (unless someone knows a better unit to juxtapose?).

The point I'm trying to make is that trading away marines' WS, strength, frag grenades etc. probably wont lead to the discount he seems to think it will. The reason for this is the exact same reason he's willing to trade them away - they're not worth much at the moment. Hell, I doubt frag grenades are even factored into their costs anymore (they were back in 5th, but after their significant price-drop in 6th, I highly doubt that this remained the case).

I guess inq stormtroopers male a better comparison since they can be tooled out in all kinds of manners

 mathaius90 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I dunno, I quite like Martel's posts. He is not wrong.

Depends how you look at it, I guess.

For example, whilst I joked above that he should be playing SoB, there is an important point to be made regarding that.

Compared with SMs, SoB have -1WS, -1S, -1T, -1I, no ATSKNF and no Chapter Tactics. They also have no access to Grav, plasma, lascannons or missiles.
In return they get a 6++ and Acts of Faith.

So, what discount do SoB get over marines for trading away so much stuff? -1pt.

Now, granted, this isn't an ideal comparison, but it's about as close as we can get to his request (unless someone knows a better unit to juxtapose?).

The point I'm trying to make is that trading away marines' WS, strength, frag grenades etc. probably wont lead to the discount he seems to think it will. The reason for this is the exact same reason he's willing to trade them away - they're not worth much at the moment. Hell, I doubt frag grenades are even factored into their costs anymore (they were back in 5th, but after their significant price-drop in 6th, I highly doubt that this remained the case).

I guess inq stormtroopers male a better comparison since they can be tooled out in all kinds of manners

I think that you 2 are missing the point here. Space marines have had several updates and point drops over the years while SoB only had one update, to take away options from the Witch Hunters Codex with no corresponding drop in points. If Sisters did get a new codex, they would likely be updated (though getting a flyer with torrent weapons might be entertaining. . .) and would get a hefty point drop as well.

 vipoid wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
I dunno, I quite like Martel's posts. He is not wrong.

Depends how you look at it, I guess.

For example, whilst I joked above that he should be playing SoB, there is an important point to be made regarding that.

Compared with SMs, SoB have -1WS, -1S, -1T, -1I, no ATSKNF and no Chapter Tactics. They also have no access to Grav, plasma, lascannons or missiles.
In return they get a 6++ and Acts of Faith.

So, what discount do SoB get over marines for trading away so much stuff? -1pt.

Now, granted, this isn't an ideal comparison, but it's about as close as we can get to his request (unless someone knows a better unit to juxtapose?).

The point I'm trying to make is that trading away marines' WS, strength, frag grenades etc. probably wont lead to the discount he seems to think it will. The reason for this is the exact same reason he's willing to trade them away - they're not worth much at the moment. Hell, I doubt frag grenades are even factored into their costs anymore (they were back in 5th, but after their significant price-drop in 6th, I highly doubt that this remained the case).

I agree that we don't have a better unit to compare to, but SoB are so outdated that its hard not to see the flaws in such an endeavor.
It'd be like comparing Chaos Dwarves with Dwarves in Fantasy.

 mathaius90 wrote:

I guess inq stormtroopers male a better comparison since they can be tooled out in all kinds of manners

Their statlines are even further from SMs though.

 carldooley wrote:

I think that you 2 are missing the point here. Space marines have had several updates and point drops over the years while SoB only had one update, to take away options from the Witch Hunters Codex with no corresponding drop in points. If Sisters did get a new codex, they would likely be updated (though getting a flyer with torrent weapons might be entertaining. . .) and would get a hefty point drop as well.

SoB actually got 2 WD updates - one in 5th and then a second one in 6th (which was, IIRC, after the 6th edition SM book and its various price drops).

Regardless, that really wasn't the point I was making. There seemed to be an assumption that SMs are paying significant points for stuff like WS, S and frag grenades - and SM players would happily trade those for a good point reduction. What I was saying was that trading those three might not even net them a single point off the cost of a SM - precisely because they're the least valuable things to SMs, and unlikely to have much impact on their cost. It's entirely possible that SMs aren't even paying for them at all.

At the very least, it's something you have to consider - especially since there's no formula for calculating a unit's cost.

Akiasura wrote:

Wait, per model or per unit? I assumed a ten man unit each throwing the grenade, and 10 guys rapid firing bolters. This isn't realistic, true, but it makes the math easier to work with.
If its per unit I don't know why they were brought up at all, since they are then god awful.

Unit can throw one grenade, rest of them can shoot their weapons. But if I am correct, each model can make close combat attack with grenade instead normal attack. That is why they have kraks.

 Draco wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Wait, per model or per unit? I assumed a ten man unit each throwing the grenade, and 10 guys rapid firing bolters. This isn't realistic, true, but it makes the math easier to work with.
If its per unit I don't know why they were brought up at all, since they are then god awful.

Unit can throw one grenade, rest of them can shoot their weapons. But if I am correct, each model can make close combat attack with grenade instead normal attack. That is why they have kraks.

Incorrect, they may use Kraks only against Vehicles, Walkers, MC, and I suppose GC now. Kraks are effectively useless against other infantry.

 Quickjager wrote:

 Draco wrote:

Akiasura wrote:

Wait, per model or per unit? I assumed a ten man unit each throwing the grenade, and 10 guys rapid firing bolters. This isn't realistic, true, but it makes the math easier to work with.
If its per unit I don't know why they were brought up at all, since they are then god awful.

Unit can throw one grenade, rest of them can shoot their weapons. But if I am correct, each model can make close combat attack with grenade instead normal attack. That is why they have kraks.

Incorrect, they may use Kraks only against Vehicles, Walkers, MC, and I suppose GC now. Kraks are effectively useless against other infantry.

Good to know.