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.

Would you consider ballistic Skill 3 to be viable?

A 50% chance of success? Certainly.

Would depend on the weapon(rate of fire, strength, range), the cost, the rest of the army, and the target to mention a few things. It's not as easy as yes or no.

Suppose so, however, not on Eldar

Uh, yes? Just look at Tau or IG.

Depends on the army.

BS3 for Orkz is awesome, BS3 for Guard is standard, BS3 on Eldar is meh (though rate of fire on most weapons makes up for that), BS3 for Marines is low (scouts).

With a good volume of fire IE IG/Orks.

It can be used, but either twin-linked or BS4 should be taken if at all possible because you just can't rely on a 4+ working.

I dont think you know what viable means. For something to be viable it needs to have a reasonable chance at success. You can say 'x build with y army is viable' meaning that it is possible to succeed with it. You can say 'armies with only 2 minimum size troop squads are not viable' because you are not likely to win objective games.

Ballistic skill 3 is a statistic that a model can have. There is no way you can say that it is viable or not viable. If the question is whether or not armies with predominantly BS3 troops are viable, well that is a silly question. Yes, IG is viable, Eldar is viable, and Orks are viable with their BS2.

BS3 means a 50% chance to hit. Having BS3 models in your army is certainly 'viable', and I'm really not sure why this question is even being asked. Things with BS3 are usually cheaper, and therefore you can get more of them for the same points. If you feel 100% confident with a 2/3 chance of hitting, but somehow a 1/2 chance is unacceptable, well that really doesnt make sense.

This is the worst poll ever. I voted both options as a protest because of how bad it is.

How is anyone supposed to respond to such a vague question?

Next time, put more thought into the thread before you make it please.

While we're at it, lets ask if S3 is viable, or maybe if armour saves of 3+ are viable. What about units of 3 models? I wonder if those are viable.



edit: Oh wait, maybe we were trolled. This must be a troll, right?

Dracos wrote:This is the worst poll ever. I voted both options as a protest because of how bad it is.

How is anyone supposed to respond to such a vague question?

Next time, put more thought into the thread before you make it please.

While we're at it, lets ask if S3 is viable, or maybe if armour saves of 3+ are viable. What about units of 3 models? I wonder if those are viable.

So, what are you really trying to say Dracos?!

I voted yes. ask anyone on the end of a FRF,SRF volley how viable it is.
is it the best? no. but it beats the hell out BS2. if it's what your army has
there's not really much choice. you make it work.

edit:
ever ongoing fight with speeling!

Absolutley not. How the feth am I supposed to win tournaments with such a crappy BS? why not just make me lose every game? I mean, if it's not viable, I may as well just play a different army, or give up entirely! This is just another example of how stupid GW is and how unreasonable the designers were.

[/sarcasm]

I'm really not seeing the point of this thread.

BS3 is just fine... for some.

Thread closed!