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.

Topic.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:
Topic.

Not in this iteration for Deathwatch

If the follow the process of the other beta rules, they will most likely get tweaks based on feedback and become a official rule in one of the FAQs

I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.

I'm thinking maybe it's not the bolter drill that's the issue with DW, maybe it's just that they pack so much power and still get the super-cheap Storm shields - maybe they just need to pay more for those - or even more for their Storm bolters. Bolter drill itself seems like a very good rule, it's just that some fine tuning is required.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.

I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters.
The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)

Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)

But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019
The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.

Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines

-

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.

I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters.
The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)

Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)

But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019
The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.

Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines

-

I think that is a good solution. I also ike the idea of Beta Bolters not applying to everything with Bolter in the title. Bolter Rilfes, Bolters, Sure. Storm Bolters & Hurricane Bolters, no. I realize this significantly nerfs certain vehicles (Rhinos, Land Raider Crusader) but I'm if we're saying Fallen can't get access to the rule, then how does a Land Raider?

Edit for clarity: Not referring to the obvious key word deficiency, but the fluff.

Most likely, but probably not in this upcoming FAQ (not a long time to beta it) and probably not without tweaks. But yes, it will become official in some incarnation.

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.

I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters.
The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)

Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)

But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019
The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.

Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines

-

I'd be down for that.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.

I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters.
The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)

Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)

But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019
The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.

Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines

-

I think that is a good solution. I also ike the idea of Beta Bolters not applying to everything with Bolter in the title. Bolter Rilfes, Bolters, Sure. Storm Bolters & Hurricane Bolters, no. I realize this significantly nerfs certain vehicles (Rhinos, Land Raider Crusader) but I'm if we're saying Fallen can't get access to the rule, then how does a Land Raider?

Edit for clarity: Not referring to the obvious key word deficiency, but the fluff.

The rule isn't about fluff, its about balance. Fallen are too irrelevant , tbh. maybe they'll add them to the list, maybe they wont.

The bar-none easiest/best way to update Fallen is to just give them ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETICUS ASTARTES keywords.

Now they can not only benefit from the Bolter Discipline rule, but also fit into Matched Play detachment without having to field a Vanguard with Cypher + 3 Fallen units.
They would "break" the Faction keywords like Alpha Legions, Dark Angels, etc, but that could be the down-side to bringing them

 Marmatag wrote:
Answer: who cares.

Obviously enough people to keep the discussion going, which all that matters in a 2+ person conversation.

-

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.

I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters.
The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)

Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)

But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019
The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.

Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines

-

You can't remove those options without removing several options for Tactical Marines.

How many of those weapon choices do you think come in that kit?

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.

I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters.
The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)

Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)

But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019
The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.

Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines

-

You can't remove those options without removing several options for Tactical Marines.

How many of those weapon choices do you think come in that kit?

I'm not 100% sure I understand or see how that affects non-DW units at all. I am not suggesting SBs be removed from the Beta Bolter rule, I was saying SBs might get removed from the Deathwatch Equipment list in the DW Codex, thereby preventing DW Vets from comboing SB/SIA/cheap SS.
It makes the most sense given GWs history. I'm actually surprised they made it into the Codex given the DW Vet kit does not have SBs
Terminators have their own equipment lists (which would still include SBs), so it isn't like removing SBs from the generic list would remove them entirely for the Codex

If GW addresses the "issue" of StormVets (which I do not think they will at all, btw) it is most likely to Errata SBs off that particular list.

-

 Galef wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I just don't see how this continues in it's current form, with DW essentially taking squads of Vets with storm bolters and 3++ saves.

I still think if they change anything specifically for DW, it will be the removal of their access to Stormbolters.
The kit does not physically come with any and it's only in combination of cheap SS (which will likely stay that way as they should) and SIA (which isn't likely to change either)

Following GW's trend of "no-model/no rules" it would seem logical just to remove SBs from the DW equipment list, thereby limiting them to Termies only (which would indirectly "buff" them in comparison)

But in regards to the Bolter Discipline itself, it will most certainly become "official", but my guess is not until the Sept(ish) FAQ or CA2019
The next FAQ is most likely going to give use Beta version 2.0 based on feedback.

Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines

-

You can't remove those options without removing several options for Tactical Marines.

How many of those weapon choices do you think come in that kit?

I'm not 100% sure I understand or see how that affects non-DW units at all. I am not suggesting SBs be removed from the Beta Bolter rule, I was saying SBs might get removed from the Deathwatch Equipment list in the DW Codex, thereby preventing DW Vets from comboing SB/SIA/cheap SS.
It makes the most sense given GWs history. I'm actually surprised they made it into the Codex given the DW Vet kit does not have SBs

If GW addresses the "issue" of StormVets (which I do not think they will at all, btw) it is most likely to Errata SBs off that particular list.

-

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.

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.

But as I've said, I really don't think it would happen but if anything does happen to StormVets, removing the SB is the most logical for GW

-

So, we throw fits when GW removes things from the codex that aren't in the kits.

Dakka's solution to DW actually being halfway decent (as if it's even a problem): remove things from the codex that aren't in the kits.

Quasistellar wrote:
So, we throw fits when GW removes things from the codex that aren't in the kits.

Dakka's solution to DW actually being halfway decent (as if it's even a problem): remove things from the codex that aren't in the kits.

Again the issue isn't DW being half decent, it's them automatically benifiting from any PA buffs while being 5-10% better win rate means that by the time marines make 50% DW are at 60% and are the new Yannari. It's about bringing them into line so all PA can be buffed to balanced, not just become want to win with PA play DW. Thats not chocie thats imbalance.

Ice_can wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
So, we throw fits when GW removes things from the codex that aren't in the kits.

Dakka's solution to DW actually being halfway decent (as if it's even a problem): remove things from the codex that aren't in the kits.

Again the issue isn't DW being half decent, it's them automatically benifiting from any PA buffs while being 5-10% better win rate means that by the time marines make 50% DW are at 60% and are the new Yannari. It's about bringing them into line so all PA can be buffed to balanced, not just become want to win with PA play DW. Thats not chocie thats imbalance.

Eh, even with the bolter drill rule, Deathwatch isn't going to become the new meta. They're still way too weak against anti-tank, and still way too easy to kill. They're just even better at something they were already good at, namely killing infantry and monsters. It's gonna take more rules to bring the other marine codex up to par anyway.

I can't see it becoming official as is, there's too many bolt weapons that are not rapid fire in my opinion.

Intercessor loadout is basically bolt rifles or bust

Also I do not like it as it promotes standing still. Well I like it, it's noticeable but I don't like how you activate it by not moving

 fraser1191 wrote:
I can't see it becoming official as is, there's too many bolt weapons that are not rapid fire in my opinion.

Intercessor loadout is basically bolt rifles or bust

Also I do not like it as it promotes standing still. Well I like it, it's noticeable but I don't like how you activate it by not moving

Agreed, which is why I have email GW directly with this suggestion:

 Galef wrote:
Personally, I'd prefer the Bolter Discipline to just add +1 shot if stationary, at half range, or Keyword Terminator, Biker, Vehicle, etc in addition to the normal x2 shots at half.
So a Tac Marine standing still would get 2 shots, but at half range would get 3.
A Terminator would get 3 shots all the time, but 5 shots at half range (2x2 + 1).
This would still encourage getting closer, which Marines should be doing as shock troops, while giving proportionately higher bonuses to regular Marines

-

Ice_can wrote:

Quasistellar wrote:
So, we throw fits when GW removes things from the codex that aren't in the kits.

Dakka's solution to DW actually being halfway decent (as if it's even a problem): remove things from the codex that aren't in the kits.

Again the issue isn't DW being half decent, it's them automatically benifiting from any PA buffs while being 5-10% better win rate means that by the time marines make 50% DW are at 60% and are the new Yannari. It's about bringing them into line so all PA can be buffed to balanced, not just become want to win with PA play DW. Thats not chocie thats imbalance.

That's an issue with Storm Shields and regular Bolters not having any meaning in 8th.

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. Then we could address individual marine weapon balance.

The new bolter rule should go through at the very minimum be buffed to be able to affect ALL bolt type weapons being used by ASTARTES and HERATIC ASTARTES. Currently it works good for units like intercessors and centurions and even terminators - but is absolutely useless on tactical marines/ devestators / ect. I very much like the suggested change by Galef. Just have it include all bolt weapons +1 shot at max range if you don't move and or double if you are in half range - keeping everything else the same.

 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. Then we could address individual marine weapon balance.

The new bolter rule should go through at the very minimum be buffed to be able to affect ALL bolt type weapons being used by ASTARTES and HERATIC ASTARTES. Currently it works good for units like intercessors and centurions and even terminators - but is absolutely useless on tactical marines/ devestators / ect. I very much like the suggested change by Galef. Just have it include all bolt weapons +1 shot at max range if you don't move and or if you are in half range - keeping everything else the same.

It isn't that SIA is too strong. Outside Dragonfire, they operate mostly the same as they did.

The issue was the change to how AP worked. Since nobody JUST ignores 5+ and 6+ anymore, you need more shots pummeling in or better wounding. That makes it seem like SIA is too strong, where the real problem was a change to core rules.

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.

Plenty of factors contribute to regular marines being bad, but if any of those are fixed, they will also help DW. That's the core of the problem. Regular marines cannot ever be balanced without breaking DW unless it's through chapter traits or improvements to vanilla wargear that doesn't apply to SIA bolters. But the things that regular marines need fixes to are mostly their core statline, which isn't what chapter traits address.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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. Then we could address individual marine weapon balance.

The new bolter rule should go through at the very minimum be buffed to be able to affect ALL bolt type weapons being used by ASTARTES and HERATIC ASTARTES. Currently it works good for units like intercessors and centurions and even terminators - but is absolutely useless on tactical marines/ devestators / ect. I very much like the suggested change by Galef. Just have it include all bolt weapons +1 shot at max range if you don't move and or if you are in half range - keeping everything else the same.

It isn't that SIA is too strong. Outside Dragonfire, they operate mostly the same as they did.

The issue was the change to how AP worked. Since nobody JUST ignores 5+ and 6+ anymore, you need more shots pummeling in or better wounding. That makes it seem like SIA is too strong, where the real problem was a change to core rules.

Operating with the assumption that core rules aren't going to change and even if they were going to. Marines can not be balanced against DW when they can would all non vehicles on 2's or go to -2 AP on their weapons vs vehicles / 2+ saves for a minor price increase. The new bolter rule is a step in the right direction unfortunately it just makes the best marines better. It's unlikely SIA will change as a rule though so - DW ether need to lose access to it OR regular marines need even more point drops in comparison. The last suggestion works best because it is clear DW are the best marines - they really aren't so good that they outperform the best armies. DW are strong but compared to Ynnari they are garbo.

I am all for a change that makes all marines good.

Suggestion - drop all current marine prices compared to DW by a 10%-15%ish margin compared to DW and have the new bolter rule affect a lot of other bolt weapons.

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.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 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. Then we could address individual marine weapon balance.

The new bolter rule should go through at the very minimum be buffed to be able to affect ALL bolt type weapons being used by ASTARTES and HERATIC ASTARTES. Currently it works good for units like intercessors and centurions and even terminators - but is absolutely useless on tactical marines/ devestators / ect. I very much like the suggested change by Galef. Just have it include all bolt weapons +1 shot at max range if you don't move and or if you are in half range - keeping everything else the same.

It isn't that SIA is too strong. Outside Dragonfire, they operate mostly the same as they did.

The issue was the change to how AP worked. Since nobody JUST ignores 5+ and 6+ anymore, you need more shots pummeling in or better wounding. That makes it seem like SIA is too strong, where the real problem was a change to core rules.

Operating with the assumption that core rules aren't going to change and even if they were going to. Marines can not be balanced against DW when they can would all non vehicles on 2's or go to -2 AP on their weapons vs vehicles / 2+ saves for a minor price increase. The new bolter rule is a step in the right direction unfortunately it just makes the best marines better. It's unlikely SIA will change as a rule though so - DW ether need to lose access to it OR regular marines need even more point drops in comparison. The last suggestion works best because it is clear DW are the best marines - they really aren't so good that they outperform the best armies. DW are strong but compared to Ynnari they are garbo.

I am all for a change that makes all marines good.

Suggestion - drop all current marine prices compared to DW by a 10%-15%ish margin compared to DW and have the new bolter rule affect a lot of other bolt weapons.

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.

Oh yes, that nasty AP-2 that'll totally destroy vehicles! Kinda like how people said Lasguns could kill Baneblades.
It's a nice bonus. Sure. But come on.

Also they could do the same with wounding on a 2+ last edition, and the wounding chart was a LOT more granular than now.

I'm all for a rework of the Beta Bolter rule. To say Deathwatch are OP is not remembering how things worked last edition and finding out what changed.

DW are OP compared to marines and the cost they pay - they aren't OP compared to ynnari. UHHH....if you are shooting a rhino with DW -2 AP bolters compared to marine -0 AP bolters. You will do literally double the damage. It is more than a nice bonus. There is rarely a situation where a DW bolter isn't potentially at least 50% better and up to 400% better for the cost of like...2 additional points? There is no way they can balance that without significant point drops to standard marines OR rules changes that ONLY affect standard marines.

I'll never say no to more shots and I've said it before if marines are expected to be out numbered 2-1 they need either quality of shots or lots of shots. This is the latter and I'm okay with that

 Xenomancers wrote:
DW are OP compared to marines and the cost they pay - they aren't OP compared to ynnari. UHHH....if you are shooting a rhino with DW -2 AP bolters compared to marine -0 AP bolters. You will do literally double the damage. It is more than a nice bonus. There is rarely a situation where a DW bolter isn't potentially at least 50% better and up to 400% better for the cost of like...2 additional points? There is no way they can balance that without significant point drops to standard marines OR rules changes that ONLY affect standard marines.

A regular storm bolter at 2 points is as effective as an AP2 storm bolter at 4 points - double the damage; double the cost.

4 * .666 * .333 * .333 = 0.3 / 2 = 0.15 points per damage
4 * .666 * .333 * .666 = 0.6 / 4 = 0.15 points per damage

People are blowing DW out of proportion a bit. They're only paying 1 point now for SIA, but AP2 means 18" guns.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
DW are OP compared to marines and the cost they pay - they aren't OP compared to ynnari. UHHH....if you are shooting a rhino with DW -2 AP bolters compared to marine -0 AP bolters. You will do literally double the damage. It is more than a nice bonus. There is rarely a situation where a DW bolter isn't potentially at least 50% better and up to 400% better for the cost of like...2 additional points? There is no way they can balance that without significant point drops to standard marines OR rules changes that ONLY affect standard marines.

A regular storm bolter at 2 points is as effective as an AP2 storm bolter at 4 points - double the damage; double the cost.

4 * .666 * .333 * .333 = 0.3 / 2 = 0.15 points per damage
4 * .666 * .333 * .666 = 0.6 / 4 = 0.15 points per damage

People are blowing DW out of proportion a bit. They're only paying 1 point now for SIA, but AP2 means 18" guns.

Isn't this meaningless without factoring in the cost of the model using it?