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.

DW can keep the SIA, they just need to pay a fair price for it.

 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.

Dandelion wrote:

- All marines have access to Dragonfire, Kraken and Vengeance rounds
- DW gets hellfire in addition
- GK get psybolts in addition

That would be awesome

-

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

DW do primaris better too. Like it's way worse with primaris IMO.

Yep. One point for SIA is blatantly absurd.

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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?

 Octopoid wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SS DW 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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 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.



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)

I assume PEQ is Primaris Equivalent.

 Crimson wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

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.

Everyone except GW knows GK strikes are over costed.

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.

 Octopoid wrote:

 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.

 Crimson wrote:

 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.

This is accurate.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 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.

 Crimson wrote:

 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.

 Mmmpi wrote:

That's my opinion on this bolter rule.

So point cuts for most marine units then? Given that they're not very good even with this rule.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 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.

Dandelion wrote:

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.

 Crimson wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

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?

Dandelion wrote:

Really? 15 pt intercessors seems good next to 10 pt marines. Or are you saying they're worth more than 15 pts?

No. Intercessors are not worth 50% more than tacticals.

 Galef wrote:

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.

 Irbis wrote:

 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.

 Crimson wrote:

 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.