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.

Allowing units to assault out of stationary transports would certainly be logical.

I took note on the point that Tacs have a semi-melee statline, which is true... Could it then help them to have a sorta 'relent-little' ability, that only caried over to Bolters (and Heavy Bolters, maybe) that lets Tacs use Bolters as had they Relentless, without having that affect on any other weapons? It would allow them to 'mop up' survivers of a given volley of Bolter fire, putting that S 4 I 4 to use.

Also, as the other, smaller SM Codexes have other rules (Outflank and Counter-charge, Grim Resolve, Furious Charge), only regular Tacs from the SM codex would need it. Hell, call it 'Bolter Mastery' and call it a day

They do have pistols to shoot and charge after with.

Yeah, no AP for bolter 4+ saves are already irrelevant as it is

Actually, 4+ is the break point where I consider armor good. This is because most 'ignore cover' weapons are AP 5. 4+ troops in cover are pretty solid. Especially if they are 3-4 pts cheaper than marines. 4+ armor also gives AP 2 the finger, as those weapons are getting inefficient at that point.

The only basic troop with an AP of more than 5 are Scions and they pay a ton for it and their weapon is still pretty bad.
AP4 bolter make all carapace upgrade useless and devaluates even more the units that are stuck with carapace

There's a whole lot of AP4 ignores cover weapons however that are relatively common (hellhounds, LR Eradicators, Hammerheads with markerlights and submunitions, Heavy Flamers), and most common anti-infantry weapons that bother Marines relatively little are absolute murder on 4+sv infantry (e.g. Heavy Bolters), particularly as most 4+sv models also tend to be T3.

4+sv's also only recently (like over the last year or so) have become relatively sanely costed for armies other than Eldar, IG stormtroopers used to be 16ppm and are now 12 (and many think still too expensive/undercapable) Fire Warriors were 12ppm and are now 9, Carapace Vets were 10ppm and are now 7.5ppm, Carapace for IG Command Squads used to be 20pts now its effectively 8, Scourges were 22ppm and they're 16, etc. Carapace is still ludicrously expensive for Inquisitorial Henchmen (4ppm on for models that cost 4ppm in the first place).

I was recently reminded of how much Vostroyans used to cost with carapace armor in the old 3.5E IG codex when they were released in 2006, 105pts for a basic platoon Infantry Squad before any weapons or upgrades (like an Ld8 vet sergeant).

 Bobthehero wrote:
The only basic troop with an AP of more than 5 are Scions and they pay a ton for it and their weapon is still pretty bad.
AP4 bolter make all carapace upgrade useless and devaluates even more the units that are stuck with carapace

Don't forget Thousand Sons...who are also pretty bad

Gauss Immortals get AP4. And S5.

Lovely on the odd occasion I actually get to face Xenos rather than marines. They make a right mess of basically any other Xenos troop that fails to find cover to camp in.

I forgot about Gauss immortals, good catch.

That said, I haven't seen them on a table I don't think since 5E, they're always armed with Tesla's instead, or, more commonly, not taken at all in favor of either small warriors squads to spam nightscythes or 9man warrior squads for Lords with Warscythes to hide in and assault from Ghost Arks.

My preferred troop layout is a Phaeron in Gauss Immortals and a Stormtek in Tesla Immortals.

Possibly not up to tournament standards of point efficiency, but allows me to play aggressively with the Gauss going for rapid fire then charge and the Tesla trying to lure things into tesla+lightning field+haywire stick overwatch.

Mini-relentless is also something I've seen talked about and like for basic marines.

It would make the unit a lot less schizophrenic, and if it affected the heavy bolter, the out-and-out worst choice for Marines possible, they'd actually fill a particular niche; engaging basic infantry. Being able to shoot fully and charge Guardsmen, Fire Warriors and whatnot would allow Marines to actually accomplish their theoretical task; win one on one with basic infantry, and do it while maintaining some basic cost effectiveness. A Marine squad with bolters, a flamer/meltagun, a HB and a sergeant with something *other* than a combi weapon would actually be more than just a massive points sink better spent elsewhere.

As really, at present, if someone is foolish enough to run Tacs over Scouts, what form do they take other than 5 man squad with one special and matching combi weapon? And that's the same price, usually, as a Guard Veteran squad with three special weapons....

One thing I feel I should point out here - marines are generally regarded as the 'basic' army, and the one recommended for beginners to learn the game.

So, is it really a good idea to let them ignore so many of the rules?

They already ignore most of the morale rules, thanks to And They Shall Know No Rules, and now we're talking about letting their troops ignore the Rapid Fire rules as well.


Although, this is perhaps more a problem with 40k as a whole. Armies aren't good at things because of exceptional stats - they're good because they ignore rules. e.g. Tau aren't good at shooting because they have high BS, they're good because they ignore many of the shooting rules - Cover, Night Fight, LoS etc. Marines aren't good at staying around because they have high Ld - they're good at staying around because (as above) they just flat-out ignore most of the morale rules.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Again, Shred would make them far and away the most powerful small arm in the game, when they're not supposed to be. Giving them an extra shot would largely do the same thing, making them superior to Fire Warriors in most instances in the shooting arena, even on a point for point basis, and exploding their relative value next to something like guardsmen on a point for point invested basis.

The bigger issue honestly is that they can't make use of the versatility of their statline as effectively as they used to. I think the big kick there was the changes to transport functionality resulting in having to sit in the open for a turn, shooting and being shot at, before one can initiate an assault, even if the transport was stationary. I think reverting to the 4E/5E rules on being allowed to assault out of stationary transports would resolve many of the issues people have with tac marines and assaults in general.

nope - they would just be decent. pseudo rending is better (kills terms) - str 5 30" is better (kills tanks)- assault 2 24" is better (more ranged fire, assault after shooting). Obviously stationary transport should be able to be assaulted out of - this isn't really a marine issue, except for the fact that weve got some troops that don't mind being in assault with some other armies troops.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:
One thing I feel I should point out here - marines are generally regarded as the 'basic' army, and the one recommended for beginners to learn the game.

So, is it really a good idea to let them ignore so many of the rules?

They already ignore most of the morale rules, thanks to And They Shall Know No Rules, and now we're talking about letting their troops ignore the Rapid Fire rules as well.


Although, this is perhaps more a problem with 40k as a whole. Armies aren't good at things because of exceptional stats - they're good because they ignore rules. e.g. Tau aren't good at shooting because they have high BS, they're good because they ignore many of the shooting rules - Cover, Night Fight, LoS etc. Marines aren't good at staying around because they have high Ld - they're good at staying around because (as above) they just flat-out ignore most of the morale rules.

Rapid fire is a very limited rule...It only affects a few units in the game and most are in the SM and IG and tau (tau get bonus range though). However, Tau and IG are gun line armies with almost 0 assault focus - they are gun line armies - they have no need to assault most of the time and they will just be helping their opponent out if assaulting anyways. Rapid fire is only a bad thing for marines (and kroot).

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Again, Shred would make them far and away the most powerful small arm in the game, when they're not supposed to be. Giving them an extra shot would largely do the same thing, making them superior to Fire Warriors in most instances in the shooting arena, even on a point for point basis, and exploding their relative value next to something like guardsmen on a point for point invested basis.

The bigger issue honestly is that they can't make use of the versatility of their statline as effectively as they used to. I think the big kick there was the changes to transport functionality resulting in having to sit in the open for a turn, shooting and being shot at, before one can initiate an assault, even if the transport was stationary. I think reverting to the 4E/5E rules on being allowed to assault out of stationary transports would resolve many of the issues people have with tac marines and assaults in general.

nope - they would just be decent. pseudo rending is better (kills terms) - str 5 30" is better (kills tanks)- assault 2 24" is better (more ranged fire, assault after shooting). Obviously stationary transport should be able to be assaulted out of - this isn't really a marine issue, except for the fact that weve got some troops that don't mind being in assault with some other armies troops.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Again, Shred would make them far and away the most powerful small arm in the game, when they're not supposed to be. Giving them an extra shot would largely do the same thing, making them superior to Fire Warriors in most instances in the shooting arena, even on a point for point basis, and exploding their relative value next to something like guardsmen on a point for point invested basis.

The bigger issue honestly is that they can't make use of the versatility of their statline as effectively as they used to. I think the big kick there was the changes to transport functionality resulting in having to sit in the open for a turn, shooting and being shot at, before one can initiate an assault, even if the transport was stationary. I think reverting to the 4E/5E rules on being allowed to assault out of stationary transports would resolve many of the issues people have with tac marines and assaults in general.

nope - they would just be decent. pseudo rending is better (kills terms) - str 5 30" is better (kills tanks)- assault 2 24" is better (more ranged fire, assault after shooting). Obviously stationary transport should be able to be assaulted out of - this isn't really a marine issue, except for the fact that weve got some troops that don't mind being in assault with some other armies troops.

If you're giving S5 the edge just because of its anti-vehicle capability, that's rather silly, such weapons are only effective against the lightest of vehicles, and are only employed against such when there is absolutely no better targets to shoot at.

Looking at the basic math here, Pseudo-rending is only better than Shred or +1 shot against heavy infantry in the open (and only very marginally so against 3+ saves), but against infantry in cover (or with invul saves) or against 4+/5+/6+/-sv infantry the Shred or +1 shot are both drastically superior to Pseudo-Rending, and both Shred & +1shot would make bolters superior to any other small arm in the game against such targets, Pulse Rifles included.

Id take shred over str 5 rapid fire 24" - but 30" w/15" rapid rife str 5 is way better because it's more usable and can kill more targets in the game. Ofc that's my opinion. Shred will be better vs some targets, Rending better vs some, and str 5 better for some.

 Bobthehero wrote:
The only basic troop with an AP of more than 5 are Scions and they pay a ton for it and their weapon is still pretty bad.
AP4 bolter make all carapace upgrade useless and devaluates even more the units that are stuck with carapace

That said, they can take TWO special weapons at minimum, which can allow a better damage output in the first place. Even if the other weapons are S3, at least the AP is okay. That's more the fault of how Tactical Marines are designed, true, but it brings back the point of how little Bolters you really want, along with the platform being blech to boot.

I don't know if this has already been brought up as it's a MASSIVE thread, but 12 bolter acolytes cost 60pts. 5pt bolters are pretty damn points efficient. 14pt bolters are not...

That's also a weird niche book, which still has old, far more effective Chimeras with 5 fire points and 10pts cheaper than the current IG ones. They're also not a Troops unit. They're also exceedingly easy to erase from a game board with even the most paltry bits of firepower that a tac squad would largely ignore (stuff like drop pod storm bolters and the like).

Despite all that, they are 5pt bolters, which are still pretty damn points efficient. Which is what the original question was about.