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.

Martel732 wrote:
GW doesn't match their own fluffl, thereby invalidating the fluff.

since the dawn of Tactical Dreadnaught Armour, they habe always had powerfists

Martel732 wrote:
GW doesn't match their own fluffl, thereby invalidating the fluff.

Truer words.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
GW doesn't match their own fluffl, thereby invalidating the fluff.

since the dawn of Tactical Dreadnaught Armour, they habe always had powerfists

Don't really care. Especially if paying for powerfists makes them unaffordable and impractical for all time.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
GW doesn't match their own fluffl, thereby invalidating the fluff.

since the dawn of Tactical Dreadnaught Armour, they habe always had powerfists

*And suddenly a wild centurion suit appears
GW retcons things all the time, and changes them to match their models. So I have no problem doing the same.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
GW doesn't match their own fluffl, thereby invalidating the fluff.

since the dawn of Tactical Dreadnaught Armour, they habe always had powerfists

*And suddenly a wild centurion suit appears
GW retcons things all the time, and changes them to match their models. So I have no problem doing the same.

It doesnt make sense to completely redo the unit because it costs a lot. Now what would make sense is allowing them to take combiweapons or... specialist ammunition in a stormbolter. S4 AP3 on a relentless platform(After Storm Bolters become salvo 2/4)? Yes please.

You people and your S4. S4 AP3 isn't good, because if it were, 1K sons would be good. The game is about mid-strength shooting to generate as many wounds as possible. A huge percentage of the time your AP 3 only knocks a save down to a 5+ cover save anyway. Mid-strength shooting duplicates this effect by generating more wounds in the first place AND being anti-tank AND being anti-MC.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
GW doesn't match their own fluffl, thereby invalidating the fluff.

since the dawn of Tactical Dreadnaught Armour, they habe always had powerfists

*And suddenly a wild centurion suit appears
GW retcons things all the time, and changes them to match their models. So I have no problem doing the same.

It doesnt make sense to completely redo the unit because it costs a lot. Now what would make sense is allowing them to take combiweapons or... specialist ammunition in a stormbolter. S4 AP3 on a relentless platform(After Storm Bolters become salvo 2/4)? Yes please.

Terminators have never had combi-weapons before...and its ok for terminators to have them...but Terminators can't tank power weapons because they never had them before?

Then I can follow it up with: It makes no sense to completely redo the weapon profile on the stormbolter because it isn't useful.

These kinds of arguments are not worth anything.

If you think that the rules I proposed are imbalanced, and point out and explain what you think is causing that problem, then we can fix that.

Martel732 wrote:
You people and your S4. S4 AP3 isn't good, because if it were, 1K sons would be good. The game is about mid-strength shooting to generate as many wounds as possible. A huge percentage of the time your AP 3 only knocks a save down to a 5+ cover save anyway. Mid-strength shooting duplicates this effect by generating more wounds in the first place AND being anti-tank AND being anti-MC.

Well with special ammunition, youd get one round that does either poisoned (2+), range 30" AP4, Ignore cover or AP3 gets hot

Salvo 2/4 with specialist ammo would be worth having for sure.

I'd be okay with that.

Martel732 wrote:
Salvo 2/4 with specialist ammo would be worth having for sure.

What about special ammo upgrades where you have to buy them for the entire squad for different effects (cost based on number of SBs)?

That would allow for customizing the SB to be more effective in conjuction with the heavy weapons brought along.


On a side note Ithink under the proposed changes (to upgrade costs to terminator weapons) I still think 4 points is too much for two lightning claws compared to the other options. Especially since all the claws are bringing to the table is an extra attack. I would always take something other than a second lightning claw. I think twin lightning claws should either give another bonus of some sort or only cost 3 points total. I would rather have an extra ability since I think that would make them more attractive. but that is just me.

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:
Ok so here is a compilation of all the good ideas for Terminators put into stat form.

Its a little bit different than what I was originally thinking, but let me know if this works for everybody.
150pts (4x Terminators, 1x Terminator Sgt)

Terminator Infantry WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 A2 Ld9 Sv2+4+
Terminator Sgt Infantry (character) WS4 BS4 S4 T4 W1 A2 Ld9 Sv2+4+

Wargear: Wargear, Terminator Armor*, Power Weapon, Godwyn pattern Stormbolter

Special Rules: And They Shall Know No Fear, Chapter Tactics, Combat Squads, Plasma Hardened Armor*

May take up to 5 more Terminators for 30ppm.
Each model may replace its stormbolter or power weapon with a
Lightning claw-2pts
Power fist-2pts
Storm Shield-3pts
Chainfist-7pts
Thunder Hammer-7pts
Up to 2 models per 5 may choose options from the heavy weapons list.
Terminator Armor- Confers a 2+ Armor Save , a 4+ invulnerable save, and the Relentless special rule. Models wearing Terminator Armor may choose to enter the game via Deep Strike following the rules for Deep Strike Reserves. Models Wearing Terminator Armor may never make sweeping advances.
Plasma Hardened Armor- Models with this rule may choose to take invulnerable saves after they failed their armor save. (This is basically that 2+ 4+ from ITC you were talking about)

Godwyn pattern Stormbolter- range 24" S4 ap5 salvo 2/3

While I definitely like the direction of your changes go Doom - especially in light of some of the others being suggested - there are several concerns and a couple of problems that I’d like to point out with it.

The Price Efficiency: The total stats buffs being given here are pretty big when you stop to consider everything. Your changes to storm bolters effectively gives them a 50% increase in shooting efficiency. Your increase of their base invulnerable save, as well as your special rule, mean that their defensive save efficiency is also increased by 50% for both armor and armor ignoring hits. You also doubled their heavy weapon capacity per squad, so 100% gain there. Cutting costs on top of all this is just not okay. If anything, this should probably push their points costs up slightly. You have even made them fairly solid against AP 2 now and that is supposed to be their counter. Their points efficiency has gone way up with your changes, which leads to problem two.

Slot Efficiency: The reason that most of the ideas that everyone have suggested in this thread are bad is that they are ridiculously efficient. Not necessarily in a purely stat sense per se, but rather because they eliminate choice and options by buffing things to do everything well. Everyone likes to talk about how scatbikes are the most OP things ever, but the reason this is the case is because they can do almost everything well with no real downsides. This is exactly the same problem that many of these suggestions have. Give everyone heavy weapons: you didn’t want to take Devastators anyways, right? Special ammo: It’s not like this was Sternguard’s unique niche or anything. Terminators are supposed to be more about defense than offence and everyone wants them to rule both absolutely. The problem here is that one of yours creates a similar problem: the 4++. So, why is this a problem? you have just rendered pure assault terminators irrelevant. With your changes to shooting and the inherent strength of powerfists, the advantages gained by using the TH/SS combo is not even remotely worth what you give up by losing their shooting capabilities. the difference between a 3++ and 4++ is just not enough to give up all that shooting. This leads directly into problem number three.

Role Efficiency (or the deathstar problem): While I can understand the desire to combine the differing Terminator types into one unit with many customizations; there is a very important reason that they are separate. Terminators are actually a fairly efficient unit in melee... provided you can get them there. The problem with allowing the unit types to mix - with the changes you already have - is that it is now possible to just make a unit maximized for destroying/surviving everything. You have a squad of 10 terminators with 2-3 TH/SS users at the front to tank hits; 3-4 in the middle with storm bolters and power fists; and 4 in the back with heavy weapons and power fists. This is the maximized way to use this squad in pretty much all scenarios (maybe give the middle ones a thunder claw if you are worried about higher initiative enemies.) This unit is a deathstar all on it’s own. You don’t want to charge it and you certainly can’t let it shoot. It has no real weaknesses aside from the ones that every infantry unit shares.

Now, this all being said, I do think your changes are about right. There are only a few things I’d suggest. First, just make the storm bolter assault 3. Salvo actually makes it worse for everyone else than it was before since you lose half its range when moving. Second, reduce the invulnerable back to normal or increase the base cost per model to 38-40 points. Third, keep the two Terminator role types separated. More options isn’t good when will actually result in less diversity due to optimal builds. Anyways, thought I’d give you some useful feedback on your changes.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Outside of CSM, when does one see tactical termies taking power weapons if they arent the sergeant?

They're not strictly "tactical terminators" but wolf guard termies have them by default


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

Confers a 2+ Armor Save , a 4+ invulnerable save....Plasma Hardened Armor- Models with this rule may choose to take invulnerable saves after they failed their armor save.

Something I just thought about. Heavy weapons with mid level AP that should present a reasonable threat to termies (missile launcher, autocannon) would be screwed over by this. A krak missile hit would only stand a 5 in 72 chance of a kill, which is dismal.

Therefore I'd suggest Plasma Hardened Armour be chnged to "against weapons with an AP of 4+ or higher (weaker) Models with this rule may choose to take invulnerable saves after they failed their armor save." Arguably it should be 5+ or higher to so autocannons don't get caught in that net, but I don't think that would be overall desireable. Also it's long being held that autocannons should be AP3, but that's a discussion for another day...

Sorry to be coming back to you with more suggested alterations, but will be worth it if you can refine your proposed changes into something truly balanced that can be widely accepted and used.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Outside of CSM, when does one see tactical termies taking power weapons if they arent the sergeant?

They're not strictly "tactical terminators" but wolf guard termies have them by default


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

Confers a 2+ Armor Save , a 4+ invulnerable save....Plasma Hardened Armor- Models with this rule may choose to take invulnerable saves after they failed their armor save.

Something I just thought about. Heavy weapons with mid level AP that should present a reasonable threat to termies (missile launcher, autocannon) would be screwed over by this. A krak missile hit would only stand a 5 in 72 chance of a kill, which is dismal.

Therefore I'd suggest Plasma Hardened Armour be chnged to "against weapons with an AP of 4+ or higher (weaker) Models with this rule may choose to take invulnerable saves after they failed their armor save." Arguably it should be 5+ or higher to so autocannons don't get caught in that net, but I don't think that would be overall desireable. Also it's long being held that autocannons should be AP3, but that's a discussion for another day...

Sorry to be coming back to you with more suggested alterations, but will be worth it if you can refine your proposed changes into something truly balanced that can be widely accepted and used.

I still think the 2+ rerollabe armor save helps defend better against mass shooting attacks. There are still enough AP2 and 1 weapons in the game that will nullify their armor save and force them to rely on their 5++ at best. Everyone likes to say that the availability of low AP weapons is all over the place.

If my terminators get shot by plasma or melta or some such weapon then I don't mind grinning and bearing it. It's when they get shot 25+ times with non armor penetrating shots from units that makes me go "Why am I paying such a premium for 2+ armor when there are units in the game that basically nullify my walking tanks through sheer volume?"

 bomtek80 wrote:


I still think the 2+ rerollabe armor save helps defend better against mass shooting attacks. There are still enough AP2 and 1 weapons in the game that will nullify their armor save and force them to rely on their 5++ at best. Everyone likes to say that the availability of low AP weapons is all over the place.

If my terminators get shot by plasma or melta or some such weapon then I don't mind grinning and bearing it. It's when they get shot 25+ times with non armor penetrating shots from units that makes me go "Why am I paying such a premium for 2+ armor when there are units in the game that basically nullify my walking tanks through sheer volume?"

I did consider that myself, and while it'd be fluff realistic to the armour's true abilities vs small arms, I think it's too extreme for the game. Also as mentioned, even Doom's more moderate rule proposals would make missile launchers, autocannon and other AP3 and AP4 heavy weapons severely weakened at killing termies. And not only would that badly imbalance such weapons, I don't think it's fluff-adherent either. So needless to say giving them a 2+ rerollable would make such weapons near useless altogether. For example a missile launcher hit would then stand a 2.3% chance of killing a termie! I think you'll agree that considering the same weapon stands a 50% chance of penning or glancing a dreadnought, that the above probability would be outrageous for a terminator!

On your second po, there's a ridiculous aboundance of AP2, I've always held to it that plasma guns and pistols should be AP3, and AP2 template weapons bigger than small blast should be very rare and expensive. But I'll open that can of worms another day!

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 bomtek80 wrote:


I still think the 2+ rerollabe armor save helps defend better against mass shooting attacks. There are still enough AP2 and 1 weapons in the game that will nullify their armor save and force them to rely on their 5++ at best. Everyone likes to say that the availability of low AP weapons is all over the place.

If my terminators get shot by plasma or melta or some such weapon then I don't mind grinning and bearing it. It's when they get shot 25+ times with non armor penetrating shots from units that makes me go "Why am I paying such a premium for 2+ armor when there are units in the game that basically nullify my walking tanks through sheer volume?"

I did consider that myself, and while it'd be fluff realistic to the armour's true abilities vs small arms, I think it's too extreme for the game. Also as mentioned, even Doom's more moderate rule proposals would make missile launchers, autocannon and other AP3 and AP4 heavy weapons severely weakened at killing termies. And not only would that badly imbalance such weapons, I don't think it's fluff-adherent either. So needless to say giving them a 2+ rerollable would make such weapons near useless altogether. For example a missile launcher hit would then stand a 2.3% chance of killing a termie! I think you'll agree that considering the same weapon stands a 50% chance of penning or glancing a dreadnought, that the above probability would be outrageous for a terminator!

On your second po, there's a ridiculous aboundance of AP2, I've always held to it that plasma guns and pistols should be AP3, and AP2 template weapons bigger than small blast should be very rare and expensive. But I'll open that can of worms another day!

Then perhaps a re-rollable armor save vs weapons that are ap4 and worse as I've seen others suggested here. I know you might say this can screw over the auto cannon but that is just one weapon system among many. Most of the times my termies have died to large volumes of shooting were from IG blobs full of lasguns, Tau Broadside missle spam, or ironically enough Tyranid dakkafexes.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

Outside of CSM, when does one see tactical termies taking power weapons if they arent the sergeant?

They're not strictly "tactical terminators" but wolf guard termies have them by default


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DoomShakaLaka wrote:

Confers a 2+ Armor Save , a 4+ invulnerable save....Plasma Hardened Armor- Models with this rule may choose to take invulnerable saves after they failed their armor save.

Something I just thought about. Heavy weapons with mid level AP that should present a reasonable threat to termies (missile launcher, autocannon) would be screwed over by this. A krak missile hit would only stand a 5 in 72 chance of a kill, which is dismal.

Therefore I'd suggest Plasma Hardened Armour be chnged to "against weapons with an AP of 4+ or higher (weaker) Models with this rule may choose to take invulnerable saves after they failed their armor save." Arguably it should be 5+ or higher to so autocannons don't get caught in that net, but I don't think that would be overall desireable. Also it's long being held that autocannons should be AP3, but that's a discussion for another day...

Sorry to be coming back to you with more suggested alterations, but will be worth it if you can refine your proposed changes into something truly balanced that can be widely accepted and used.

This could work. It keeps them tough, but not against everything( I like) And it makes also makes it so that things like power weapons have a better chance of wounding in cc than the schmucks beating them with their fists.

#ObjectivelyBiased
Assault 3 could work. It makes no difference on this unit of course, but some people are worried that it would have reprecussions with PA Grey Knights and things like that( but I believe they could use the buff anyways so no harm done).

The difference betweena 5+ to 3+ has always seemed to be TOO good for anyone to ever pass up on taking assault terminators, but you are correct in saying that the opposite might be true now.

That unit you described does sound like it would be tough to crack. I'm not sure if it would be broken or not, but it very well could be too strong.

Specifically on Broadsides shooting them off the table -

Even without any change to SBs, under the change, the Termies take half the casualties. Then, remaining SB Termies kill the drones. Then the two HW guys open up. All for under 200.

Misslespam broadsides are still nasty, and I'm not sure how exactly they would stack up, but certainly much better than before.

Bharring wrote:
Specifically on Broadsides shooting them off the table -

Even without any change to SBs, under the change, the Termies take half the casualties. Then, remaining SB Termies kill the drones. Then the two HW guys open up. All for under 200.

Misslespam broadsides are still nasty, and I'm not sure how exactly they would stack up, but certainly much better than before.

Is this a good or a bad thing though? What do those broadsides cost?


I'm thinking of instating the ap4 or better ignores the plasma hardened rule.

Any thoughts?

You guys know that Augur Triangulation rule? I like that idea.

Augur Triangulation: If a [Terminator] arrives from Deep Strike Reserve within 12” of at least two models equipped with teleport homers, then it does not scatter, and can charge on the same turn it arrives.

 bomtek80 wrote:


Then perhaps a re-rollable armor save vs weapons that are ap4 and worse as I've seen others suggested here. I know you might say this can screw over the auto cannon but that is just one weapon system among many. Most of the times my termies have died to large volumes of shooting were from IG blobs full of lasguns, Tau Broadside missle spam, or ironically enough Tyranid dakkafexes.

No, you're dead right -I suggested it myself! Yes it does screw over the autocannon but that weapon shouldn't be AP4 in the first place -I'm pretty sure something which can pen the side armour of most tanks should go through power armour like butter!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ObjectivelyBiased wrote:

The Price Efficiency: Cutting costs on top of all this is just not okay. If anything, this should probably push their points costs up slightly.

Fair point. A lot of folks would say they're overcosted at their official stats, but yeah when you're talking about 100% durability increases and 50% firepower increase then they probably should have a higher base points cost be if anything.

 ObjectivelyBiased wrote:

Slot Efficiency: The 4++. So, why is this a problem? you have just rendered pure assault terminators irrelevant. With your changes to shooting and the inherent strength of powerfists, the advantages gained by using the TH/SS combo is not even remotely worth what you give up by losing their shooting capabilities. the difference between a 3++ and 4++ is just not enough to give up all that shooting.

I'd nearly forgotten about this. I'd suggested giving ss "models with a storm shield have hammer of wrath" to keep it an attractive choice. Truth is with the increase to base invul 4+, and increasing the base cost of a termie, ie. a sb / pw one, and decreasing the cost of a ss, there might not be much of a difference in cost between the two, this would keep it viable I reckon.

In light of protecting the role of devastators I tend to lean towards your suggestion in keeping it at 1 per 5 heavy weapons. The way I see termies it should be durability=best, close combat=good (assault=very good) shooting =good, mobility=poor. On the other hand one could argue that the assault cannon and heavy flamers are weapons not accessable to devastators, and fulfill shorter range, different roles. (I don't even consider the heavy flamer a heavy weapon in its function.) That still leaves the cyclone launcher of course. Perhaps 1 in 4 heavy weapons would be a fair compromise?

 ObjectivelyBiased wrote:

Role Efficiency (or the deathstar problem): While I can understand the desire to combine the differing Terminator types into one unit with many customizations; there is a very important reason that they are separate. Terminators are actually a fairly efficient unit in melee... provided you can get them there. The problem with allowing the unit types to mix - with the changes you already have - is that it is now possible to just make a unit maximized for destroying/surviving everything. You have a squad of 10 terminators with 2-3 TH/SS users at the front to tank hits; 3-4 in the middle with storm bolters and power fists; and 4 in the back with heavy weapons and power fists.

I don't think this will be a problem. Firstly such a mob would be a very expensive unit. Second not an efficient use of points either -if a unit like that gets into melee then the points spent on those heavy weapons is wasted. And if they're taking their time getting into combat, instead shooting away then all the points on those hammers, fists and claws isn't being put to use. Us wolves have been able to mix and match for a long time and it's not as though wolf guard terminators are considered broken or anything...

 ObjectivelyBiased wrote:

First, just make the storm bolter assault 3. Second, reduce the invulnerable back to normal or increase the base cost per model to 38-40 points. Third, keep the two Terminator role types separated.

Fine for termies and it'd make it an actually competitive choice for the power-armoured troops that have access to it, but would it benefit Grey Knights too much? Not insurmountable, you could just increase their points too I suppose.

Definately in favour of term points increase and getting that 4++. 5++ always felt meager to me, especially seeing the ease with which anything can get a 4++ cover save these days

ObjectivelyBiased wrote:

First, just make the storm bolter assault 3. Second, reduce the invulnerable back to normal or increase the base cost per model to 38-40 points. Third, keep the two Terminator role types separated.
Fine for termies and it'd make it an actually competitive choice for the power-armoured troops that have access to it, but would it benefit Grey Knights too much? Not insurmountable, you could just increase their points too I suppose.

Definately in favour of term points increase and getting that 4++. 5++ always felt meager to me, especially seeing the ease with which anything can get a 4++ cover save these days

My group has tried out assault 3 storm bolters. We didn't find them to be OTT. While that add a bit of power to grey knights (makes them a bit better vs hordes more than anything) we didn't feel it made them too powerful. In fact we have been playing around with special issue ammunitions for them as well. The special issue ammos are treated as upgrade and the entire squad must take the upgrade for each storm bolter in the squad. In this fashion a 5 pt special issue ammo costs 25 pts for a 5 man unit. Some of our special issue ammo types lower the rof back down to assault 2 like our rending ammo. We still can't decide on point costs on all the different ammos.

That's because extra S4 shooting doesn't matter against good lists, and terminators don't need buffs against weak lists to begin with.

Martel732 wrote:
That's because extra S4 shooting doesn't matter against good lists, and terminators don't need buffs against weak lists to begin with.

Exactly this. A S5 buff is better, since S4 can be found elsewhere for much cheaper. It also allows wounding of Wraithknights (even if only on 6's).

Too many people are in S4 denial. They think that more S4 shooting will somehow make terminators good or at least worth taking. That is just nonsense to me. Even S5 at 24" is super weak. They need heavy bolters for the range as well. Why is 24" weak? Well, 24" puts your terminators within range of all kinds of nasty stuff just to shoot. If the counter is that they are going to deep strike in exclusively, then terminators should be able to get a 12" gun with very high str or very high ROF.

People are in "S4 denial" because Strength 4 can still be useful, you just have ridiculous standards.

Will reply to other stuff here later on.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
People are in "S4 denial" because Strength 4 can still be useful, you just have ridiculous standards.

Will reply to other stuff here later on.

We can get S4 literally ANYWHERE else. Remember that Tacticals and Sternguard do more with their Bolters for less. It's not having ridiculous standards. You just have no reason to care about the Stormbolter so long as it stays at S4.

And it's useful in those other places, same thing here. That's why there's reason to care.
Besides there have been proposals for S5 and for Special Ammo if it was necessary to change the attack profile (which it isn't), way better than just plonking Heavy Bolters on them, particularly since Martel's now basically demanding that because of range. Screw that! Termies are legitimately supposed to be short-ranged. Of course that doesn't sit right with Martel, but that's just reason to ignore his input, listening to him will get you a horribly broken, one-dimensional, unfluffy, boring, model-invalidating and just all around awful unit.

 CrashGordon94 wrote:
And it's useful in those other places, same thing here. That's why there's reason to care.
Besides there have been proposals for S5 and for Special Ammo if it was necessary to change the attack profile (which it isn't), way better than just plonking Heavy Bolters on them, particularly since Martel's now basically demanding that because of range. Screw that! Termies are legitimately supposed to be short-ranged. Of course that doesn't sit right with Martel, but that's just reason to ignore his input, listening to him will get you a horribly broken, one-dimensional, unfluffy, boring, model-invalidating and just all around awful unit.

I agree the range with SBs is fine on Terminators. The only reason I suggested HBs as standard instead of SBs, is because this is a Terminator thread and I didn't want to derail it. I have also been apart of previous HB and SB change threads in the past and they don't ever seem to go well. The majority can't seem to agree on anything.

I personally like the idea of assault 3 SBs with special ammo available to them for a price. Others don't. I also like the idea of HBs having pinning (and giving pinning back to sniper rifles). And don't get me started on the way we handle charge ranges which are too random imo. Shooting and assault need to be more balanced imo. But those are pretty much discussions for elsewhere.

I was more getting at Martel pushing them, not you suggesting them.

In any case, as controversial as buffing the Storm Bolter is, Heavy Bolters as standard and a complete and utter 100% non-option.