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.

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
The problem I have with this is that there's no real way to be more resilient against Small Arms without increasing their durability against Heavy Weapons at the same time. GW's rules aren't structured for that. The move to W2 does it fine, but W2 to 3 suddenly makes you much more resilient against:

1) Plasma of all shapes and sizes
2) Autocannons
3) d6 damage weapons (Lascannons, demolisher cannons, Fire Prism lance-mode) 33% of the time
4) d3 damage weapons (battlecannons, harvester cannons, <cannons>, fire prism focused-mode) 66% of the time.

that's the vast majority of heavy weapons in the game that are significantly affected by the move from 2 wounds to 3

That's fair. I was focusing specifically on models going from W1 to W2, but you're right, W2 to W3 is a significant shift that devalues D2 weapons.

I would slightly quibble in that random-damage weapons are actually affected less than fixed-D2 ones, since they're less likely to waste damage. It consistently takes 2 unsaved wounds from a D2 weapon to kill a W3 model, while DD3 weapons have a 11% chance to require 3 unsaved wounds, 55% chance to require 2, and 33% chance to do it in 1. DD6 weapons go from a 67% chance to kill to a 50% chance to kill, which is still 75% effectiveness. It's really D2 weapons that get shafted by immediately halving their effectiveness.

Right, but all of that is nontrivial. I agree that fixed D2 are worse than Dd3 and Dd6 against 3 wound models, but I'd still rate a 17% drop in effectiveness (the lowest drop, being the d6 weapon) as a significant drop. If my intel from HQ is that my TOW missiles are now 17% less effective at killing enemy infantry, I'd flip. LOL

if someone wants to run movie marines, let them pay an appropriate cost. something tells me that this current trend to inflate wounds is an attempt to get around that.

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.

Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.

Personally I don't think BD is a bad rule, but the layering of other things on top of it gets a bit crazy. Bolter Discipline doesn't seem like an issue in the hands of CSM, for example. It's markedly better in the hands of Tacticals in Tac Doctrine for a -1, but it's still 24". Intercessors 30" at -2. Sternguard at 30" -3.

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.

Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.

Personally I don't think BD is a bad rule, but the layering of other things on top of it gets a bit crazy. Bolter Discipline doesn't seem like an issue in the hands of CSM, for example. It's markedly better in the hands of Tacticals in Tac Doctrine for a -1, but it's still 24". Intercessors 30" at -2. Sternguard at 30" -3.

If tau had that rule itd be decried as the most unfun toxic fluff breaking anticompetitive unfair reward for the worst possible playstyle and more proof that tau should be squatted and all tau players out to the sword.

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.

Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.

Personally I don't think BD is a bad rule, but the layering of other things on top of it gets a bit crazy. Bolter Discipline doesn't seem like an issue in the hands of CSM, for example. It's markedly better in the hands of Tacticals in Tac Doctrine for a -1, but it's still 24". Intercessors 30" at -2. Sternguard at 30" -3.

If tau had that rule itd be decried as the most unfun toxic fluff breaking anticompetitive unfair reward for the worst possible playstyle and more proof that tau should be squatted and all tau players out to the sword.

Haha. To be fair I think Fire Warriors would be fine with it, considering Intercessors took a crap on the Pulse Rifle.

Bolter Discipline imo does a good job at pumping the offensive output of the classic marine. It's got some nice legacy behind it with older Rapid Fire incarnations, and it makes up for the big hurt given to marines with the loss of AP5 vs. GEQ targets.

Imo the greater problems lie in Intercessors and super doctrines.

Imo the greater problems lie in Intercessors and super doctrines.

I agree the super Doctrines are a bit too much. They already get Chapter Tactics on top of regular Doctrines. That's just too much bloat.

All these profile changes are great, but I wish they coincided with super docs going away.
But as we know for sure that the new Codex will still allow the existing supplements to be used, super docs aren't going anywhere soon.

-

ohh wow.. what could possibly go wrong with this approach.

 Argive wrote:
ohh wow.. what could possibly go wrong with this approach.

Nothing for gw., Just sucks for those of us that had faction Space removed , didn't get any attention and have to witness another dozen leutnants drop...

 Galef wrote:

Imo the greater problems lie in Intercessors and super doctrines.

I agree the super Doctrines are a bit too much. They already get Chapter Tactics on top of regular Doctrines. That's just too much bloat.

All these profile changes are great, but I wish they coincided with super docs going away.
But as we know for sure that the new Codex will still allow the existing supplements to be used, super docs aren't going anywhere soon.

-

Hey, they promised Power of the Machine Spirit would do something different in 9th edition. The "something different" turned out to be ceasing to exist.

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.

Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.

Personally I don't think BD is a bad rule, but the layering of other things on top of it gets a bit crazy. Bolter Discipline doesn't seem like an issue in the hands of CSM, for example. It's markedly better in the hands of Tacticals in Tac Doctrine for a -1, but it's still 24". Intercessors 30" at -2. Sternguard at 30" -3.

If tau had that rule itd be decried as the most unfun toxic fluff breaking anticompetitive unfair reward for the worst possible playstyle and more proof that tau should be squatted and all tau players out to the sword.

Haha. To be fair I think Fire Warriors would be fine with it, considering Intercessors took a crap on the Pulse Rifle.

Bolter Discipline imo does a good job at pumping the offensive output of the classic marine. It's got some nice legacy behind it with older Rapid Fire incarnations, and it makes up for the big hurt given to marines with the loss of AP5 vs. GEQ targets.

Imo the greater problems lie in Intercessors and super doctrines.

I don't think Bolter Discipline is a bad rule in a vacuum, but I do think it's a bad rule for Marines.

If you told me Tactical Marines and Intercessors- the staple units of a faction known for lightning assault, kick-down-the-door-and-kill-everyone-inside, Navy-SEALS-on-steroids tactics- were weak offensively and needed a buff, I think 'give them an extra shot if they're stationary and at long range' would be way down the list of potential solutions. It just doesn't fit their MO, and turns them into a castle gunline- the comparison to Tau is spot-on, because it's not only closer to what Tau are known for, it's also an aggressively boring playstyle.

I was just talking about this with my IF-playing friend, actually. He was pointing out to me that 9th Ed kind of screws his Firstborn army, since being reliant on bubbles prevents him from spreading out to take objectives, and Bolter Discipline only kicking in when stationary precludes moving while putting out fire. His best tactic is probably to Rhino rush... and then Bolter Discipline isn't relevant at all.

IMO it would have been better to have it be... say... 'Shock Assault: When firing Bolt weapons, this unit gains +1 shot when firing at half range or less'. Now your Marines are getting three shots at close range whether moving or stationary, allowing you to stay mobile and aggressively push on objectives. They wouldn't be units that gun you down at maximum range, they'd be units that burst onto the objective and kill everyone on it- and isn't that closer to their fluff?

Eh. Just ranting about an army I don't even play.

I for one am not looking forward to waiting 1+ years for my plastic to receive a similar wound treatment.

tbh Shock Assault in its current format makes the army braindead easy to play, the hardest part is remembering to apply the correct doctrines to your models.

The way I envisage a more interactive style of play, is the "Doctrine" being decided during your opponents command phase and only effecting one unit +1 for each lieutenant. A living chapter master would instead let you go *back* in the doctrine table if required.

It's still pretty Spot on, allbeit the comparison to commando Units seems of , well imo astartes allways reminded me more of shocktroops.
Regardless the half range +1 is a better fitting suggestion, but has so e consequences... I doubt people would Like 60 boltguns wounding 3+ on t4 rerolling 1 '. Etc.

Not Online!!! wrote:
It's still pretty Spot on, allbeit the comparison to commando Units seems of , well imo astartes allways reminded me more of shocktroops.
Regardless the half range +1 is a better fitting suggestion, but has so e consequences... I doubt people would Like 60 boltguns wounding 3+ on t4 rerolling 1 '. Etc.

Sure, Marines coming in via DS would be significantly more powerful, Rhino rush would be back in style, and I'm sure there would be exploits I'm not even thinking of.

But honestly, I'm fine with that, because we're already in an unbalanced state. If it comes down to it, I'd rather my Guard gunline was getting rolled by Marines piling out of transports to gun me down at close range, or coming down in drop pods and slaughtering everything near the landing zone, than sitting way back in their deployment and out-gunlining the Guard gunline. If it's going to be imbalanced, I'd rather it be imbalanced but feel right versus being imbalanced and also not playing like how the factions should.

Same goes for the re-roll auras. I don't just dislike those mechanically, I dislike them thematically, as multiple-centuries-old veterans accustomed to clandestine operations executing a well-rehearsed battle plan and in constant/instant communication should not be needing to huddle around the boss to maintain effectiveness. When it comes down to it, Marine re-roll auras play more like Tyranid Synapse auras than actual Tyranids do.

Yeah, nothing about the marine special rules makes any sort of thematic sense. Shock assault is also stupid - space marines shouldn't run out of steam after a round, if anything they should be the ones who keep going and going and going while non-engineered humans get tired.

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.

Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.

Personally I don't think BD is a bad rule, but the layering of other things on top of it gets a bit crazy. Bolter Discipline doesn't seem like an issue in the hands of CSM, for example. It's markedly better in the hands of Tacticals in Tac Doctrine for a -1, but it's still 24". Intercessors 30" at -2. Sternguard at 30" -3.

If tau had that rule itd be decried as the most unfun toxic fluff breaking anticompetitive unfair reward for the worst possible playstyle and more proof that tau should be squatted and all tau players out to the sword.

Haha. To be fair I think Fire Warriors would be fine with it, considering Intercessors took a crap on the Pulse Rifle.

Bolter Discipline imo does a good job at pumping the offensive output of the classic marine. It's got some nice legacy behind it with older Rapid Fire incarnations, and it makes up for the big hurt given to marines with the loss of AP5 vs. GEQ targets.

Imo the greater problems lie in Intercessors and super doctrines.

I don't think Bolter Discipline is a bad rule in a vacuum, but I do think it's a bad rule for Marines.

If you told me Tactical Marines and Intercessors- the staple units of a faction known for lightning assault, kick-down-the-door-and-kill-everyone-inside, Navy-SEALS-on-steroids tactics- were weak offensively and needed a buff, I think 'give them an extra shot if they're stationary and at long range' would be way down the list of potential solutions. It just doesn't fit their MO, and turns them into a castle gunline- the comparison to Tau is spot-on, because it's not only closer to what Tau are known for, it's also an aggressively boring playstyle.

I was just talking about this with my IF-playing friend, actually. He was pointing out to me that 9th Ed kind of screws his Firstborn army, since being reliant on bubbles prevents him from spreading out to take objectives, and Bolter Discipline only kicking in when stationary precludes moving while putting out fire. His best tactic is probably to Rhino rush... and then Bolter Discipline isn't relevant at all.

IMO it would have been better to have it be... say... 'Shock Assault: When firing Bolt weapons, this unit gains +1 shot when firing at half range or less'. Now your Marines are getting three shots at close range whether moving or stationary, allowing you to stay mobile and aggressively push on objectives. They wouldn't be units that gun you down at maximum range, they'd be units that burst onto the objective and kill everyone on it- and isn't that closer to their fluff?

Eh. Just ranting about an army I don't even play.

Yes I sorta agree. My original suggestion before Bolter Discipline was to give them an extra shot at each range band, but yours works too. I think the idea of Bolter Discipline was to go with a more legacy Rapid-Fire feeling, from 2nd through 4th(?) edition, when standing still gave them the bonus shots.

There's a whole host of problems around basic weapons of different factions now too, which just muddies things futher.

To be honest bolter discipline and traits on marine vehicles solved pretty much most of ther "issues" pre 2.0 marines faced. I thought it was really unfair they didint get traits on their vehicles. But how can you balance 3 sets of rules 30+ relics and 20 + warlord traits and not goof aye ? lol..

Alas the pendulum swings...

It's great to see Firstborn Terminators finally seeing some improvement. God-Emperor knows how many, "How to improve Terminators" threads have been put in the 40K Propose Rules section over what? THREE Editions already?

It was funny (yet sad), how all the ideas generated ended up going over to the new and shiny Primaris units each and every time. How about T5? Goes to the Aggressors. How about 3W? Now that also goes to the Aggressors and the even newer Bladeguard Veterans.

It was like always getting skipped for promotion despite always doing overtime compared to the junior employees. It was something Firstborn Terminators needed Editions ago, now that it has happened, it's almost unbelievable (yet thoroughly deserved).

Maybe iconic armies like pure Firstborn Deathwing can now be put on the table, without them being blown completely off the table easier than an all-Primaris army.

Terminators were already good in 9th though. Their points finally went down so far compared to other stuff that they are now competitively priced. If they add 1W to them without kicking up the points, they'll be seriously underpriced.

GW has done a bunch of hamfisted changes to try to fix what 8th broke. AP changes hurt marine small arms damage a lot, so they were right to try to up it a bit. Losing the +1 attack on the charge and sweeping advance hurt their melee, so they were right to try to bring some of that back too.

But there were 2 problems: First, the Primaris statline already addressed some of these issues, so adding another layer of fixes on top of that was too powerful. And second, the way they did it was bad, and didn't address that a lot of factions had similar issues.

In older editions, units like Tacticals were not considered damage dealers. Their strength was defense and the ability to hurt anything at ranged or in melee (thanks to the powerfist and special/heavy weapons.) So you could never ignore them, but they weren't putting out much pain. About the most damage they could do was via classic Rhino rush: Move, disembark, rapidfire, and dare the opponent to come melee you with 9 ablative wounds on a powerfist. Only dedicated CC specialists with power weapons or massive hordes would want that deal.

But 8th gutted this because transports stopped being cheap, and you can't move and disembark anymore (unless you're Primaris!)

Bolters were doing too little damage overall. Bolter discipline increased their damage at range, but didn't address their overall problem of not being anywhere near as good as they used to be at killing hordes (part of why 8th was dominated by durable chaff units.) So BD didn't actually address the problem. What they should have done is given Bolter's a 3rd shot when rapidfiring, or just an extra AP in general (they already had given Primaris an extra AP), or something along those lines.

Shock assault was the right idea, but they should have just brought back the +1 attack on the charge for the entire game system, as all melee was underwhelming in 8th. And again, they'd already given Primaris an extra attack. Astartes Chainswords giving everything -1 ap is also the right move, because chainsword marine infantry was always lackluster, even in previous editions.

Now that said, Primaris had more offensive firepower and an extra wound and they were STILL bad for most of 8th. Even when they were made quite cheap. But I think the updated, 2 part chapter trait + super doctrine would have been enough to fix that. They didn't need the extra AP from doctrines, as they already had it. I support super doctrines because they give another way to differentiate chapters, and incentivize mono-faction lists to help balance soup. I think the problem is doctrines themselves.

If I had been doing it, I would have had all marines be W2, and given Bolters back old AP5: Ignore 5+ and 6+ entirely, but no BD. Everyone would get +1A on the charge like in the past. Bolt Rifles would still have a point of AP, making them better against other saves (it wouldn't make them ignore 4+, just reduce it to 5+ as usual.) Super doctrines and updated traits, but no doctrines. And marine infantry goes up another couple points. Of course, Xenos wargear would need adjustments, just as it does now.

The problem is that all this statline stuff ought to have been changed at the launch of 8th. Thinking they could change the core rules so much and keep the same statlines is where almost all of 8th's problems came from, and why we're having to go through this whole process now.


Also, on another topic: This is a longshot, but did eldar infantry go up to such silly points costs because they're going to be W2 as well?

I dont think rangers or guardians are going to 2 W.

Aspecst sure, I can see primaspects being a thing & that would actually make sense. At this stage Ill take it..
But then we are back to square 1 of how a guardian has essentialy the same stat line as an aspect and is arguably better coz ob sec and celestial shield..

I think the eldar troops infantry going up so drastically is just coz the rules dudes at GW think that somehow T3 1W infantry with a 5+ and a 12" is good coz xenos so must be good coz eldar good?
They have no idea/dont care they are doing with factions outside of space marines.

I think the fire dragons might be my pick for the wild card. at 115 pts its a decent payload for a falcon. .

 Argive wrote:
I dont think rangers or guardians are going to 2 W

I doubt it too. But it'd be interesting if the price change reflects an increase in durability of some sort. If they got a better armor save or something, that might be enough. We don't know what sorts of changes are on the table anymore. We've had the general idea going around that the points changes represent the amount/distribution of these units that GW wants to see. In that case, they may be adjusting statlines to make the new prices work (as opposed to their previous approach of adjusting points to reflect the power of the statline.)

They better make Custodes the just slightly more cost than Primaris now, because Primaris are basically just better Custodes now. I am basing that off points per model. Primaris Wolves can wreck us now. What is the point of play them if Primaris are getting all the benefits. I really don't see S/T=5 as all that worth it now, or at least not 20-30 points more per model, worth it.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoiler:

 Insectum7 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.

Has this been rumored somewhere? I'd actually kind of be of two minds about shock assault being gone. bolter discipline is and always has been cancer of the highest order, encouraging just the absolute worst gameplay pattern that exists in 40k. But shock assault actually made marine melee elements worth using for the first time in ever. I would love to see bolter discipline totally gone and doctrines heavily restructured into something less oppressive in exchange for improved weapon and unit profiles across the board, but I'm not seeing any rumors to the effect that there's going to be any kind of trade-off for any of this.

Personally I don't think BD is a bad rule, but the layering of other things on top of it gets a bit crazy. Bolter Discipline doesn't seem like an issue in the hands of CSM, for example. It's markedly better in the hands of Tacticals in Tac Doctrine for a -1, but it's still 24". Intercessors 30" at -2. Sternguard at 30" -3.

If tau had that rule itd be decried as the most unfun toxic fluff breaking anticompetitive unfair reward for the worst possible playstyle and more proof that tau should be squatted and all tau players out to the sword.

Haha. To be fair I think Fire Warriors would be fine with it, considering Intercessors took a crap on the Pulse Rifle.

Bolter Discipline imo does a good job at pumping the offensive output of the classic marine. It's got some nice legacy behind it with older Rapid Fire incarnations, and it makes up for the big hurt given to marines with the loss of AP5 vs. GEQ targets.

Imo the greater problems lie in Intercessors and super doctrines.

I don't think Bolter Discipline is a bad rule in a vacuum, but I do think it's a bad rule for Marines.

If you told me Tactical Marines and Intercessors- the staple units of a faction known for lightning assault, kick-down-the-door-and-kill-everyone-inside, Navy-SEALS-on-steroids tactics- were weak offensively and needed a buff, I think 'give them an extra shot if they're stationary and at long range' would be way down the list of potential solutions. It just doesn't fit their MO, and turns them into a castle gunline- the comparison to Tau is spot-on, because it's not only closer to what Tau are known for, it's also an aggressively boring playstyle.

I was just talking about this with my IF-playing friend, actually. He was pointing out to me that 9th Ed kind of screws his Firstborn army, since being reliant on bubbles prevents him from spreading out to take objectives, and Bolter Discipline only kicking in when stationary precludes moving while putting out fire. His best tactic is probably to Rhino rush... and then Bolter Discipline isn't relevant at all.

IMO it would have been better to have it be... say... 'Shock Assault: When firing Bolt weapons, this unit gains +1 shot when firing at half range or less'. Now your Marines are getting three shots at close range whether moving or stationary, allowing you to stay mobile and aggressively push on objectives. They wouldn't be units that gun you down at maximum range, they'd be units that burst onto the objective and kill everyone on it- and isn't that closer to their fluff?

Eh. Just ranting about an army I don't even play.

Yes I sorta agree. My original suggestion before Bolter Discipline was to give them an extra shot at each range band, but yours works too. I think the idea of Bolter Discipline was to go with a more legacy Rapid-Fire feeling, from 2nd through 4th(?) edition, when standing still gave them the bonus shots.

There's a whole host of problems around basic weapons of different factions now too, which just muddies things futher.

We could always be boring and just give all Astartes weapons a proc rule. I've been a very big voice for that.

From another forum but the data is interesting:

In terms of durability, the change to 3W improves Terminators as follows:

50% better vs 1D (108 lasgun shots, 54 AP 0 bolter shots, 27 AP -1 bolter shots, 13.5 reglar plasma shots)
100% better vs 2D (18 BS 4+ or 13.5 BS 3+ autocannon shots, 10.8 overcharge plasma, 7.2 WS 3+ or 5.8 WS 2+ power fist attacks)
No change vs flat 3D or more (3.6 WS 3+ or 2.7 WS 2+ thunder hammer attacks)
33.33% better vs d3D (6 BS 3+ grav-cannon shots, 8 if moving)
16.67% better vs d6D (3.68 BS 3+ lascannon shots, 6.53 BS 4+ or 4.9 BS 3+ krak missile shots)

The bracket shot numbers are for taking out a single model, ignore re-rolls, plus and minus to hit/wound that aren't baked in, and are against 5++ invulns (so not storm shields). It looks like it'll take hard hitting melee or anti-tank weapons to reliably kill them, and overcharging plasma may not even be worth it.

Pretty nice improvements for what is supposed to be the best of the best of the Firstborn infantry.

 catbarf wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
It's still pretty Spot on, allbeit the comparison to commando Units seems of , well imo astartes allways reminded me more of shocktroops.
Regardless the half range +1 is a better fitting suggestion, but has so e consequences... I doubt people would Like 60 boltguns wounding 3+ on t4 rerolling 1 '. Etc.

Sure, Marines coming in via DS would be significantly more powerful, Rhino rush would be back in style, and I'm sure there would be exploits I'm not even thinking of.

The main issue would be CSM in such a scenario, well, somewhat.

But honestly, I'm fine with that, because we're already in an unbalanced state. If it comes down to it, I'd rather my Guard gunline was getting rolled by Marines piling out of transports to gun me down at close range, or coming down in drop pods and slaughtering everything near the landing zone, than sitting way back in their deployment and out-gunlining the Guard gunline. If it's going to be imbalanced, I'd rather it be imbalanced but feel right versus being imbalanced and also not playing like how the factions should.

well, it would certainly reinstate the faction identity that got lost somewhere along the 30" bolt rifles.

Same goes for the re-roll auras. I don't just dislike those mechanically, I dislike them thematically, as multiple-centuries-old veterans accustomed to clandestine operations executing a well-rehearsed battle plan and in constant/instant communication should not be needing to huddle around the boss to maintain effectiveness. When it comes down to it, Marine re-roll auras play more like Tyranid Synapse auras than actual Tyranids do.

I agree, and it get's especially jarring imo when you compare it to things like 18th century -19century line infantry warfare. Also why tyranids got the worse synapse is just another exemple of the atm great philosophy that primaris follow of everything you have +1.

yukishiro1 wrote:
Yeah, nothing about the marine special rules makes any sort of thematic sense. Shock assault is also stupid - space marines shouldn't run out of steam after a round, if anything they should be the ones who keep going and going and going while non-engineered humans get tired.

Think of it less of them running out of steam, and more as their opponents recovering from the initial shock of the assault.

After all, the A stat is representing how many effective attacks you make in a given period of time. If you can use "shock & awe" to be more effective at the initial point of impact, that's either going to increase your A or decrease your opponent's - but it will wear off.

Spoletta wrote:
If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.

Or it's just more bonuses for master faction. Not even quaranteed to come to chaos marines as they are NPC race as well. But loyal marines? They get everything poured at them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
And oldmarines will remain at 1W because they want to squat them.

Told everybody so when Restartes reared their ugly helmets but nobody wanted to listen. Now they are forced to recollect their SM faction.

tneva82 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:
If this really comes through, then bolter discipline and shock assault are really gone. They were the stopgap measure to make marine into elite units, with a PEQ profile there is no longer a need for those and makes the difference between a marine and a primaris more marked, since the primaris has double the number of attacks.

Or it's just more bonuses for master faction. Not even quaranteed to come to chaos marines as they are NPC race as well. But loyal marines? They get everything poured at them.

Let me help you here: You must post this 4-5 times a day at the minute, I think you need a break.

Eldar going to W2 would be truly bizarre in a game where Necrons are confirmed W1 and orks didn't receive any price increases indicating they're going to W2.

Maybe they'll get a save bump, that'd be pretty dang helpful. All currently 5+ models go to 4+, all currently 4+ models go to 3+ and currently 3+ models stay at 3+. Eldar with millenias-advanced super hyper armor providing the same save as a mass-produced flak vest has been pretty stupid for a while.