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.

I proxy my storm bolter Sisters as heavy bolter Sisters, which is the better of the two potential uses for the score or so storm bolters every SoB who started before the boxes disappeared from the shelves will have.

The other use is reminiscent of the dreadsock.

They have never been a viable choice over Flamers. They weren't a viable choice over flamers when they were 3 points per model and flamers and heavy bolters were 5. Even when you could throw a SB on a support-geared BSS for a storm bolter / heavy bolter combo, the points were better spent elsewhere.

You can fire storm bolters if you run, and run if you fire storm bolters. Storm bolters are assault 3, and fire at full BS in overwatch.

Storm bolters are now fine as a 5 point upgrade.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
Your probably right, I apologize for the ad hominems, It just get's to me seeing the same 2-3 people complaining about every little thing in their armies and then shooting down any idea that does not make it unbalanced or OP as heck. I'll refrain from commenting on space marine lists for a bit because that seems to be the most dominant ones that bug me.

It bugs me more that I have 30 terminators that I've ended up with over 20 some odd years that are just dust collectors, I can assure you.

So, in the Terminator thread, one of the Stormbolter-related ideas was that PA-equipped models could be equipped with Sternguard Special Issue Ammunition in their Stormbolters.

I've come up with a derivative of that, which I'll quote here:

Whiskey144 wrote:
Any model with a Stormbolter may choose to take a Special Issue Ammo profile at no cost; it substitutes its own weapon type (IE, Assault) instead of the listed "Rapid Fire" type. Only one Special Ammo type may be issued with the Stormbolter. Further, if a unit includes multiple models armed with Stormbolters, all such models MUST choose the same Special Ammo type.

We could also then extend this to include Sisters-specific ammo types, as well as ammo types that would be more useful for vehicle pintle-mounts.

This would, however, really need to be included with a change from Assault 2 to Assault 3, to just nudge RoF up that little extra bit.

Thoughts on how viable this would be?

Also, thoughts on what some SoB-specific ammo types for a SB could be?

The problem with special ammo is that the standard special-issue ammo types are supposed to be rare and special. Storm Bolters rate of fire makes a mockery of that.

That said, they were putting psybolts in assault cannons at one point, so eh.

Sister-specific storm bolter ammo. Off the top of my head;

Psycannon bolts (psykers wounded suffer Perils, daemons can't take invuns)
Inferno Bolts (Reroll to wound, from the 2012 Codex: Sisters of Battle)
Blessed Bolts (Ignore Cover, from Codex: Witch Hunters)

Rare and special..... like Riptides?

Martel732 wrote:
Rare and special..... like Riptides?

Oh Martel... It's sad to watch a person, who's been playing an army that have been in the receiving end far too many times for any person to consider mentally healthy.

Maybe, but am I wrong about the fluff?

As SB are normally used by Terminators surely they should count as a pistol and allow the Termi +1 CCA due to the termi armours enhanced capabilities?

OR

make them salvo 2/4 and let them come under the DA Dakka banner

OR

Rapid fire weapons this would allow the Terminators to still attack as they are relentless!

I think the salvo option makes pretty good sense. Standing fast and dumping brass is exactly what that weapon is designed for

 adeptus ludus wrote:
As SB are normally used by Terminators surely they should count as a pistol and allow the Termi +1 CCA due to the termi armours enhanced capabilities?

OR

make them salvo 2/4 and let them come under the DA Dakka banner

OR

Rapid fire weapons this would allow the Terminators to still attack as they are relentless!

While it would be AWESOME if Storm bolters worked on dakka banner, but it would only fix Storm bolters for Dark angels and no one else.

2/4 salvo. +1 attack would only work with a power weapon, not the fist. And to get the salvo to make its worth your Termis can't move, so its a fair trade off.

But my game table is littered with terrain. So our group averages 3-4 objects per 2x2. We make sure stuff is placed in the middle to break up the always present 48" free fire zone.

Termies have Relentless, there is no tradeoff using Salvo 2/4. Point 2, if you don't understand how harshly Salvo penalises non-Relentless infantry (relevant to SoB w/SB), play with Hotshot Volleguns on Scions. Point 3, SB competes directly with the Heavy Stubber on lots of vehicles. You need to balance these two.

Salvo isn't really the answer, for the reasons above. You can still give the SB more shots through either Rapid Fire 2x (like the Hurricane Bolter) or through Assault 3.

Special Issue ammo is an option, but is complicated to balance snd play.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Termies have Relentless, there is no tradeoff using Salvo 2/4. Point 2, if you don't understand how harshly Salvo penalises non-Relentless infantry (relevant to SoB w/SB), play with Hotshot Volleguns on Scions. Point 3, SB competes directly with the Heavy Stubber on lots of vehicles. You need to balance these two.

Salvo isn't really the answer, for the reasons above. You can still give the SB more shots through either Rapid Fire 2x (like the Hurricane Bolter) or through Assault 3.

Special Issue ammo is an option, but is complicated to balance snd play.

To attain Salvo you would need to wear TDA, special issue ammo is always an option for non TDA users.

What imbalance would this cause between sb's and Hstubbers?

sb's are primary for TDA and they should gain the most out of it since its their default weapon. sb's dosent define any vehicle, any non TDA wearing unit to my knowledge, only thing I associate stormbolters with are Dreadnoughts and Terminators they should not have to compromise.

To attain Salvo you would need to wear TDA, special issue ammo is always an option for non TDA users.

What imbalance would this cause between sb's and Hstubbers?

sb's are primary for TDA and they should gain the most out of it since its their default weapon. sb's dosent define any vehicle, any non TDA wearing unit to my knowledge, only thing I associate stormbolters with are Dreadnoughts and Terminators they should not have to compromise.

I think assault 3 would be an ok boost to storm bolters, TDA could allow full BS during overwatch with storm bolters, and or special issue ammunition for them. Heavy bolters are higher str and lower ap weapons. I would say throw pinning onto heavy bolters and sniper rifles.

For vehicles (which also have Relentless):

Storm Bolter - S4 AP5 Assault 2, 24".
Heavy Stubber - S4 AP6 Heavy 3, 36".

Assault 3 SB: +1 advantage in AP, with a 12" disadvantage in range.
Rapid Fire 2x SB: +1 advantage in AP, 2 shot advantage within 12". Disadvantage in ROF beyond 12" and 24" max range.

I don't think giving SB special ammo types is the answer, that's why your Termies should equip their special weapons. At the end of the day, it's still a bolter.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The problem with special ammo is that the standard special-issue ammo types are supposed to be rare and special. Storm Bolters rate of fire makes a mockery of that.

That said, they were putting psybolts in assault cannons at one point, so eh.

Sister-specific storm bolter ammo. Off the top of my head;

Psycannon bolts (psykers wounded suffer Perils, daemons can't take invuns)
Inferno Bolts (Reroll to wound, from the 2012 Codex: Sisters of Battle)
Blessed Bolts (Ignore Cover, from Codex: Witch Hunters)

That's a fair point, which I hadn't actually considered. Also, I'd recommend that the Psycannon option be instead referred to as "Psi-Shock" bolts (or something similar), so as to reduce confusion with GK Psycannons. While I do recall that a very long time ago GK Psycannons were most boss for ignoring invulnerable saves, times have (alas) changed.

Also, some time after I wrote that I was thinking about it, and what about a "melta bolt" option, wherein the shots gain the Melta rule? That seems like it'd be kind of cool, though I'm honest as to having no idea how that would actually play out.

Also, I'm digging the idea of pulling some of the older material out to expand on in this way.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Termies have Relentless, there is no tradeoff using Salvo 2/4. Point 2, if you don't understand how harshly Salvo penalises non-Relentless infantry (relevant to SoB w/SB), play with Hotshot Volleguns on Scions. Point 3, SB competes directly with the Heavy Stubber on lots of vehicles. You need to balance these two.

Salvo isn't really the answer, for the reasons above. You can still give the SB more shots through either Rapid Fire 2x (like the Hurricane Bolter) or through Assault 3.

Special Issue ammo is an option, but is complicated to balance snd play.

As mentioned by this fellow, Salvo rules harshly penalize non-Relentless/SnP infantry models. Oh, and Terminators are Relentless, and so don't actually care about Salvo rules anyways.

That said, I was under the impression that Hurricane Bolters were mechanically treated as a weapon consisting of three twin-linked Bolters that is then considered a single weapon for the purposes of firing and damage results, and that it didn't actually modify the Rapid Fire type in any way (IE, Rapid Fire 2). Also, wouldn't Hurricane Bolters actually be "Rapid Fire 3" to represent the fact that it's actually 3 twin-linked Bolters?

I'm also of the opinion that reusing Salvo nomenclature- merely in reverse- would allow Rapid Fire to be expanded to something like "Rapid Fire 4/3", getting 4 shots at short range and 3 at long range. This also, IMO, makes it slightly more attractive as a special weapon/character upgrade.

I'd also like to point out that my own opinion/proposal for Special Ammo usage would be that you can only get one ammo type in a Stormbolter, and that it would be limited to models/units that can only actually take a single example; units with mass Stormbolters wouldn't really need Special Ammo, IMO.

Also, I think that we can all also agree that Heavy Stubbers need some work as well... of course I personally think that Heavy Stubbers should be Salvo 3/3, with the option to take them as a special weapon in most IG squads- the basic IG Infantry Squad would actually get to take a Heavy Stubber in addition to their usual special weapon, with the caveat that the special weapon may not also be a heavy stubber. But that's just me, and I'm probably crazy or something.

Yoyoyo wrote:
For vehicles (which also have Relentless):

Storm Bolter - S4 AP5 Assault 2, 24".
Heavy Stubber - S4 AP6 Heavy 3, 36".

Assault 3 SB: +1 advantage in AP, with a 12" disadvantage in range.
Rapid Fire 2x SB: +1 advantage in AP, 2 shot advantage within 12". Disadvantage in ROF beyond 12" and 24" max range.

I don't think giving SB special ammo types is the answer, that's why your Termies should equip their special weapons. At the end of the day, it's still a bolter.

My take on it is that Stormbolters with special ammo wouldn't be a Terminator thing. Terminators, as you said, already have special weapons. I do like the idea that TDA-equipped models get to do some kinda-special stuff with their SBs (like the possibility of choosing full-BS overwatch, which IIRC was also proposed with a tradeoff that you had to have snapfired in the Shooting Phase). A basic RoF buff to the Stormbolter will mostly benefit TDA-equipped models, as well as GKs, who have a very heavy "density" of SB-equipped models.

In contrast, Stormbolters for SM/SoB character models or as a SoB special weapon do need a little extra to be worth even 3 points (given Furyou's comment that 3pt SBs weren't even worth it compared to a 5pt Flamer or 5pt HB).

Whiskey144 wrote:
That's a fair point, which I hadn't actually considered. Also, I'd recommend that the Psycannon option be instead referred to as "Psi-Shock" bolts (or something similar), so as to reduce confusion with GK Psycannons. While I do recall that a very long time ago GK Psycannons were most boss for ignoring invulnerable saves, times have (alas) changed.

Also, some time after I wrote that I was thinking about it, and what about a "melta bolt" option, wherein the shots gain the Melta rule? That seems like it'd be kind of cool, though I'm honest as to having no idea how that would actually play out.

Also, I'm digging the idea of pulling some of the older material out to expand on in this way.

Melta bolts.... just no. If melta could work that way, nobody would make melta guns, because a melta-carrying bullet would be better in every way, and if you can make it for a bolter, you can make it for a shotgun.

Current +1S psycannon rules make no sense anyway. Ward had no idea what a psycannon actually is when he wrote the rules, after all.

Melta bolts.... just no. If melta could work that way, nobody would make melta guns, because a melta-carrying bullet would be better in every way, and if you can make it for a bolter, you can make it for a shotgun.

Current +1S psycannon rules make no sense anyway. Ward had no idea what a psycannon actually is when he wrote the rules, after all.

Ward didn't have a clue about most everything he worked on. Still angry at him for what he did to the Iron Hands and Black Templar.

I agree with you on no melta for stormbolters. I would be ok with GK having access to special issue ammo for storm bolters.

Assault 3 on stormbolters with the option of firing snapshots in the shooting phase to have full bs in overwatch would be interesting.

Allowing TDA to use stormbolters like a pistol in CC, regardless of weather the weapon has specialist or not; and giving the option to sacrifice that attack for a full bs in overwatch would be interesting. This way if Terminators are in assault range of something they really don't want to assault they could choose to shoot at full BS in the shooting phase, then give up their attack to have full BS in overwatch. Or if they wished to assault something they couldn't really hit except on 6s, but will wipe out in assault but will then have to deal with another assault unit on the next player's turn they could fire at snapshots, assault, and keep a full BS to fire overwatch.

This rule might be better if TDA would be allowed to assault something other than what they shot at, but I worry that might make it too good.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Melta bolts.... just no. If melta could work that way, nobody would make melta guns, because a melta-carrying bullet would be better in every way, and if you can make it for a bolter, you can make it for a shotgun.

Oh, I was just brainstorming a little with that- as I said, I had no idea how it would have worked out. With how you've explained it, it becomes quite obvious as to the fact that it'd be quite daft.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Current +1S psycannon rules make no sense anyway. Ward had no idea what a psycannon actually is when he wrote the rules, after all.

I'm not disputing that, merely pointing out that the current mechanics of Psycannons might cause confusion with your specialty ammo suggestion. I'm not really a fan of certain things seeming like they should be one thing and then being mechanically very different.

Incidentally, I'm still not too keen on the change Psycannons got under Ward. Being able to ignore invulnerable saves was a fairly unique- and flavorful option. It would also have made GK the perfect counter to re-rollable 2++ BS.

 NorseSig wrote:

Melta bolts.... just no. If melta could work that way, nobody would make melta guns, because a melta-carrying bullet would be better in every way, and if you can make it for a bolter, you can make it for a shotgun.

Current +1S psycannon rules make no sense anyway. Ward had no idea what a psycannon actually is when he wrote the rules, after all.

Ward didn't have a clue about most everything he worked on. Still angry at him for what he did to the Iron Hands and Black Templar.

I agree with you on no melta for stormbolters. I would be ok with GK having access to special issue ammo for storm bolters.

Assault 3 on stormbolters with the option of firing snapshots in the shooting phase to have full bs in overwatch would be interesting.

Allowing TDA to use stormbolters like a pistol in CC, regardless of weather the weapon has specialist or not; and giving the option to sacrifice that attack for a full bs in overwatch would be interesting. This way if Terminators are in assault range of something they really don't want to assault they could choose to shoot at full BS in the shooting phase, then give up their attack to have full BS in overwatch. Or if they wished to assault something they couldn't really hit except on 6s, but will wipe out in assault but will then have to deal with another assault unit on the next player's turn they could fire at snapshots, assault, and keep a full BS to fire overwatch.

This rule might be better if TDA would be allowed to assault something other than what they shot at, but I worry that might make it too good.

I would be leery of GK Special Issue Ammo Stormbolters. I personally think that getting Assault 3, and the overwatch bonus you propose, would go a long way to fixing Stormbolters. At that point, for units with massed Stormbolters, like Termies or GKs, they're pretty well set IMO. It's then the models/units which can take a very small number of Stormbolters that need help- this is why I mention the option of picking a Special Ammo profile for use in a SB. This would allow some increased versatility, and would probably make a Stormbolter worth 5 points as a character upgrade or special weapon.

Incidentally, this does bring up two very important points:

1) How do we fix the underperforming weapons that are comparable to Stormbolters? This is, AFAIK, mostly limited to Chaos Combi-Bolters; and
2) How do we fix Heavy Bolters, which have a similar role (weapon-wise) to the Stormbolter?

I've got some ideas on both, though I'd like to hear some input from other people. Heavy Bolters could probably get their own thread- where we can also then include dedicated anti-infantry heavy weapons of similar role/profile, while I think it would be appropriate for OP to edit the title to include Combi-Bolters.

Whiskey144 wrote:
1) How do we fix the underperforming weapons that are comparable to Stormbolters? This is, AFAIK, mostly limited to Chaos Combi-Bolters; and
2) How do we fix Heavy Bolters, which have a similar role (weapon-wise) to the Stormbolter?

Basically, you put troops back on the board so vanilla S4 weapons can have targets again. All low-strength weapons without special rules are going to be unpopular until the meta changes.

A point on this -- you can already get a Combi-Weapon or Condemnor Boltgun for 10pts. This is your "special issue ammo". It also gives you a point of reference for your changes. The SB can't be a Combi-Weapon or Condemnor copy. Right now, it's a discrete choice to improve your existing S4 AP5 output. Anti-infantry is unpopular, but that's the meta. You can't let the tail wag the dog. So I personally wouldn't do anything but RoF or cost adjustments.

HB suffers from the same issues. At S5 AP4 it's still primarily an anti-infantry weapon, some utility against open-topped AV10. Most people are going to prefer spending the points on S7+ weapons that can deal with the current meta (Autocannons, Krak Missiles or Lascannon).

The heavy bolter hasn't been good in a long, long time.

Martel732 wrote:
The heavy bolter hasn't been good in a long, long time.

I think Salvo 2/3 has some merit.

The Autocannon is like a .50 that needs to be sited. So, heavy weapon.

The HB is like a GPMG that can be fired (less effectively) on the move. So, Salvo.

Haven't looked at balance at all. Just thought it made sense thematically.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Basically, you put troops back on the board so vanilla S4 weapons can have targets again. All low-strength weapons without special rules are going to be unpopular until the meta changes.

This issue with this is that it requires changes to the core mechanics of the game. There are two, off the top of my head, that would really help though:

1) Only Troops may claim objectives, though any unit may contest an objective- IE, bring back 5th/6th-style scoring
2) Vehicles gain a 3+ armor save. It now takes, on average, three times the amount of S6/S7 firepower to spam down vehicles, so it's necessary to dilute that firepower to allow dedicated anti-armor weapons to hit the field. A trickle-down effect is that infantry end up more survivable because there's simply not as much S6/S7 coming in.

Yoyoyo wrote:
A point on this -- you can already get a Combi-Weapon or Condemnor Boltgun for 10pts. This is your "special issue ammo". It also gives you a point of reference for your changes. The SB can't be a Combi-Weapons or Condemnor copy.

Not really. Combi-weapons (of which the Condemnor is one) are basically paying to get a second discrete weapon on top of a model's existing bolter. I'd actually go so far as to say that Combi-weapons themselves might be overcosted by some degree for Imperial forces; Chaos is usually paying 7 points for a Combi on a character model, 5 for a Chaos Termie to get a combi-weapon. When you consider that said weapon is a single-use armament, it makes sense to discount it to some degree- after all, I don't see much point in paying 10 points for a single shot flamer or meltagun, when I can get a regular flamer for 5 and/or a regular melta for 10. Plas/Grav costing 10 points make sense- both such "full size" weapons cost 15 for the weapon, so a single-use bolt-on package for a bolter costing 10 points is, IMO quite reasonable.

In any case, the point remains- Combis are paying to add an entire discrete additional weapon, even if it is single-shot.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Right now, it's a discrete choice to improve your existing S4 AP5 output. Anti-infantry is unpopular, but that's the meta. You can't let the tail wag the dog. So I personally wouldn't do anything but RoF or cost adjustments.

Firstly, SBs simply don't offer any useful increase in S4/AP5 output. Meta problems of S4/AP5 being unimpressive aside, a Stormbolter adds a single extra shot from 12-24". That's it. In its current incarnation, I question if it's even worth one point, let alone five. Oh sure, you can argue all up and down that it gives an extra shot before charging as well, but most of the units that can buy SBs as a character upgrade are going to be interested in the extra weight of fire, and not the "I can charge after I shoot?! THAT'S AMAZING!" part... especially since it's still not all that impressive.

You get a single extra shot. Big deal. Oh sure, it's impressive when you express it as a percentage- a 100% increase in RoF from 12-24"... but that ignores the fact that Bolters are getting one shot, and SBs are only getting 2. Considering that SBs can be taken as Special weapons for Sisters, I'd say that in PA-equipped squads, the SB occupies a position similar to that of a SAW or LMG analogue.

For inclusion of Special Issue Ammo, about the only one that's not really "more better at killing infantry" (IE, does the current job in a slightly different way), is Hellfire Rounds- and only because Hellfire ammo is 2+ Poison, making it useful for wound saturation against high-T enemies.

Yoyoyo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The heavy bolter hasn't been good in a long, long time.

I think Salvo 2/3 has some merit.

The Autocannon is like a .50 that needs to be sited. So, heavy weapon.

The HB is like a GPMG that can be fired (less effectively) on the move. So, Salvo.

Haven't looked at balance at all. Just thought it made sense thematically.

Salvo 2/3 is somewhat of a start for Marines and Sisters. Keep in mind that IG deploy all of their heavy weapons on a tripod mount, indicating that such weapons are very difficult to make man-portable, and certainly not practical to fire from a partially braced, standing/crouching position. Also, consider that one of the IG characters can use a Relentless HB. Since this is a special character, it points out that this is the pretty much the case of "extremely exceptional" ability for a Guardsmen.

For a PA'd Space Marine or Battle Sister, the Salvo rules provide an excellent way to make it "fire-on-the-move" capable. I admit that I'm a little skeptical of a Battle Sister being able to fire a HB while moving around- Marines are already established as being able to do a one-man operation of a HB without needing PA, while Sisters are still just regular humans in PA. That said, given that Sisters get their own pattern of Bolter and Stormbolter- the "Godwyn-De'az"- it makes sense that they might have a special pattern of HB that's just for them.

So, for an "Astartes/Sororitas pattern" HB, Salvo 2/3 works quite well. IMO, part of the problem Guard (and to a lesser degree, Chaos Marine) squads have is that they can choose between HBs- which come stock on almost every Guard vehicle ever, or are very cheap additions to almost every vehicle they have- or the AC, which gets +2S and +12" range in exchange for -1 shots. And they cost the same amount too. It's almost a no-brainer- if HBs were cheaper then they might have some merit, but they cost just as much as the Autocannon, and so an IG squad has almost zero use for one.

A squad of Marines can leverage one by a little bit- more so if it's Salvo 2/3. The problem is actually similar to Stormbolters- the HB is incredibly ubiquitous, and so it's hard to fix and not break a bazillion other things. HBs, IMO, would actually be a fantastic place to implement HB-specific special ammunition types for SM and Sisters squads- neither one really has any other heavy weapon option that is so close to the HB in profile and competes so heavily with it. For IG, just making a HB a 5 point option would go a long way, IMO- but a lot of this also has to do with the ease that the IG can mass heavy weapons. For Sisters and Marines, it's a little bit harder- and almost impossible in the Troops slot- and so I think that they'd benefit from some specific ammo types. Of course, in this case a 10-point HB should come with a special ammo type. However, I'm much more in favor of 5 pt gun+5 pt extra ammo option, primarily due to the fact that HB-specific ammo types should increase it's versatility.

Mostly because Autocannons are incredibly versatile, and other Imperial armies don't really get a heavy option that can rival an AC on that count. However, I do not think that any HB-specific ammo options should exceed S5 or have an AP lower than 3, as that would simply continue the vicious cycle of S6/7 spam. Instead, it should be through the use non-Str reliant effects- like a Salvo 1/1 or Salvo 1/2 Rending or maybe Armorbane effect.

1) How do we fix the underperforming weapons that are comparable to Stormbolters? This is, AFAIK, mostly limited to Chaos Combi-Bolters; and
2) How do we fix Heavy Bolters, which have a similar role (weapon-wise) to the Stormbolter?

Combi bolters I would do to them what I suggest we do to stormbolters. An extra shot and some versatility options.

I say give heavy bolters and sniper rifles pinning. Maybe a slight points drop to heavy bolters. This would keep them in a similar role.

As to the before mentioned special issue ammo to GK, it would be at additional cost. ie not a freebie. Ideally something that helps with their severe lack of tank cracking. GK should have some way to be more competitive without including allies. I have played GK, but do not have a GK army (borrowed a friend's army for a few games while he played mine).

The reason I no longer favor salvo for storm bolters is due to the effect it has on armies that have them as standard issue like GK. It would literally be a nerf to the army. I know they were stinky broken chees in 5th, but GW seriously overcompensated with 7th edition. The new psychic phase doesn't do them many favors do to low model count. If they didn't risk perils of the warp to activate force it might be a little different. But this GK issue is off topic.

Typically, the units that can get a 10pt Combi-Melta *can't* get a 10pt Meltagun, you're costing in the abstract. A Melta on a 3+ Jump unit is a lot more dangerous than on a 5+ footslogger. Hence restricted or expensive access.

HB salvo makes sense by battlefield role. Wasn't thinking of the 40k fluff. A HB goes after GPMG targets (infantry and soft vehicles). A GPMG is usually crewed by a two-man team, and it has a tripod role. But a GPMG is usable by one person, albeit less effectively -- no loader, no tripod. Which translates to RoF and range reductions. It also makes sense by your own analogy. SB as LMG, HB as GPMG, Autocannon as .50, Lascannon as an anti-tank weapon.

Giving a 3+ save for vehicles would do a lot to reign in Autocannon spam. They're used for plinking transports. We can crunch stats later. The HB is still better against T3 4+ infantry. More shots and equal chance to wound. Not quite sure where the curve drops off against more resilient Infantry and MCs.

Anyway, we're a little off track. SB should get a RoF or costing adjustment, anything else is going to step on Combis or essentially be adding a new weapon type. And there's a pretty restrictive ceiling on utility between 10pts and "Combi". Adding new functionality risks adding new imbalances.

So maybe to try and get moving again, let's cover the pros and cons of:

- Assault 3
- Rapid Fire (2x)
- Costing at 5pts versus 3pts.

Typically, the units that can get a 10pt Combi-Melta *can't* get a 10pt Meltagun, you're costing in the abstract. A Melta on a 3+ Jump unit is a lot more dangerous than on a 5+ footslogger. Hence restricted or expensive access.

I agree combi upgrades are WAY too expensive. 5 points is probably what they should be.

A bolter is the equiv of a Assault Rifle
a SB Is the equiv of a SAW (Squad Automatic Weapon) not that 5.56 piece of crap they gave us.
a HB is a MMG (Medium machine gun, good against light armored vehicles) a Auto cannon is probably exactly that a Bloody Cannon. Trust me a .50 puts a significant amount of lead down range.

I think the reason storm bolters are being discussed here as a item in need of a buff is because their primary mission in life is to be carried by Terminators. as a vehicle mount they make a bit of sense but realistically why?

How about just increasing the shots by 1 making them 3 shot weapons. BUT! Making them heavy!, This won't affect Terminators or vehicles but it will keep other units a bit more honest. And I just posted that HB should be Heavy 4 because I think thats more realistic.

As for storm bolters as SAWs and character upgrades: if the idea is that normal bolters are for suppressive, personal-level firefights and storm bolters are for directed, squad-level shooting, then you would combine an "effect x happens on 6 to hit" for normal bolters with twin-linking on storm bolters, or "effect x on 6 to wound" on normal bolters with shred on storm bolters.


I think that certain FOC slots scoring is not a core mechanic at all, which would be more like the mechanic that melee and shooting occur by different rules in different phases, or that units may be moved independently instead of requiring something like order dice. Even stuff like a model rolls to hit separately for a number of shots determined by weapon type is better characterized as core than who can score is.

I say this because you would have a mechanic allowing bolters more damage dice for scoring a critical hit than you would other weapons, if you were talking about changing core mechanics.


As it is, changing who can score means more troopswith wave serpents, not fewer wave serpents.

I think idea 2 is interesting because an s10 ap6 weapon should reall be considered an anti tank weapon. This is one of the issues with tyranid anti tank, in particular.

Cost-wise, I'd say that a Stormbolter with Assault 3 might be worth 3 points. Some testing would be necessary- also some input from a Sisters player might be helpful, given that (I gather) that Sisters used to be able to take 3 point SBs.

Rapid Fire "4/2" would, IMO, be pretty good for 5 points. A great deal at 3 points. I'm still not sure if Rapid Fire (2x)/"4/2" is the absolute best way to go; Assault 3 isn't as good at short-range weight of fire benefits compared to a regular bolter, but at 12-24" it becomes waaay better. It also seems a much more elegant solution.

Finally, I'd like to dispute this:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Typically, the units that can get a 10pt Combi-Melta *can't* get a 10pt Meltagun, you're costing in the abstract.

I'm not sure where you're looking, but almost every unit I can think of that can take 10pt Combi-Meltas can get 10 point Meltaguns:

The various flavors of Tac Marines and Sternguard, as well as Battle Sisters, Celestians, Dominions, Chaos Marines, Chaos Chosen. I think BA ASM as well, but I don't actually know as BA have never really had my interest. Chaos Termies and various non-BA flavors of ASM/Vanguard Vets are semi-valid, but when it comes down to it should those guys really be charging a vehicle that they need a meltagun to kill? ASM are already quite poor, while VV are really pricey, so in the former case you're more likely to charge something that you can simply Krak 'nade to death, and you've got the mobility to go after backfield campers, which also means plasma pistols might (miraculously) be a useful option since, again, you've got mobility to go after rear armor, and most backfield artillery vehicles have thin armor in general anyways.

So yeah, typically units that can take 10 point Combi-Meltas absolutely can get 10-point Meltaguns. In fact, Chaos Termies get 5 point Combi-Meltas and can't take regular 10-point Meltaguns. And on top of that, Sternguard used to be able to take 5-point combis. If that's not damning evidence that 10 point Combi-Meltas are a bit overpriced, then I'm not sure what is.

Yoyoyo wrote:
A Melta on a 3+ Jump unit is a lot more dangerous than on a 5+ footslogger. Hence restricted or expensive access.

Sure, 3+ save Jump Infantry with melta is better than 5+ save footslogging infantry with melta. Even better is a Fast Skimmer with two MMs. Or really any kind of fast-moving/DS-capable Melta platform. Most such platforms also get 10 point melta weapons to boot. Land Speeders, for example, can take a 10 point MM on their pintle mount, and then add a second entire MM for 20 points. Attack Bikes get 10 point MMs.

Granted, both units are replacing a HB with a MM, and not adding an entire extra weapon... but said extra gun is One Use Only, so I'd say that a 5 point combi-melta would be perfectly fair. After all, why should combi-grav/-plas get a price discount for being One Use Only, and Combi-Meltas don't get a price discount, and Combi-Flamers actually cost more.

Yoyoyo wrote:
HB salvo makes sense by battlefield role. Wasn't thinking of the 40k fluff. A HB goes after GPMG targets (infantry and soft vehicles). A GPMG is usually crewed by a two-man team, and it has a tripod role. But a GPMG is usable by one person, albeit less effectively -- no loader, no tripod. Which translates to RoF and range reductions. It also makes sense by your own analogy. SB as LMG, HB as GPMG, Autocannon as .50, Lascannon as an anti-tank weapon.

Giving a 3+ save for vehicles would do a lot to reign in Autocannon spam. They're used for plinking transports. We can crunch stats later. The HB is still better against T3 4+ infantry. More shots and equal chance to wound. Not quite sure where the curve drops off against more resilient Infantry and MCs.

ACs are better against 4+ save infantry in general, yes. The problem is that the meta favors the S6/7 weapons so far that most people bring enough to pretty much split the difference with HB anti-infantry capability. It also doesn't help that HBs aren't super awesome at anti-infantry anyways, but that's probably better saved for the HB-thread that just went up.

Also, given the design of most IG Heavy Bolters... I'm leaning more towards HBs being an HMG/GMG analogue, on account of Guardsmen almost always using a spade-grip design mounted on a tripod. Only the Elysian forces seem to buck the trend (DKoK forces switch the tripod for a carriage mount instead, but retain the spade grip), with their HBs being bipod-mounted and equipped with traditional stocks. OTOH, Elysian forces are also all airmobile infantry, so reducing weight and relative complexity by swapping to a more traditional configuration to save weight at the cost of other drawbacks (probably recoil management) is likely worth it to them.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
I think the reason storm bolters are being discussed here as a item in need of a buff is because their primary mission in life is to be carried by Terminators. as a vehicle mount they make a bit of sense but realistically why?

How about just increasing the shots by 1 making them 3 shot weapons. BUT! Making them heavy!, This won't affect Terminators or vehicles but it will keep other units a bit more honest. And I just posted that HB should be Heavy 4 because I think thats more realistic.

Stormbolters may have originally been primarily a Terminator weapon, but they've since grown to be available on almost every Loyalist Marine or SoB character, in addition to being a pintle mount for almost every Imperial vehicle.

Aside: SM/SoB forces using pintle-mount Stormbolter makes sense as this simplifies the logistics of supplying the weapon in the field. For IG forces, they have the currently-superior Heavy Stubber.

Also, Heavy 3 Stormbolters... do you just hate PAGKs? And SM/SoB characters? Or Sisters in general since they can take Stormbolters as special weapons? I ask, not because I actually believe such, but because Heavy 3 Stormbolters would break every non-Terminator infantry model that can take (or is armed with by default!) a Stormbolter.

Like PAGKs.

Keep in mind that Stormbolters as a special weapon- since Sisters can take them this way, and most gun-related upgrades for Character models are treated as a spare special weapon anyways- are more analogous to Big Shootas. A Stormbolter in comparison to a Big Shoota trades of range and Strength, to no gain whatsoever. Literally, an Assault 3 Stormbolter is a worse Big Shoota in every way possible. About the only possible advantage is GK units, due to the sheer number of Stormbolters they can put on the field (PAGKs get Stormbolters as a standard-issue weapon, remember).

It's also worth noting that far more powerful weapons get move-and-shoot capability:

HSVG, S4/AP3 Salvo 2/4
Splinter Cannons, Poison 4+ AP5 Salvo 4/6 (!)
Psycannons, S7/AP4 Rending, Salvo 2/4
Big Shootas, S5/AP5 Assault 3

HSVGs and Psycannons are 24" range, while the Splinter Cannon and Big Shoota are 36" range.

So, if Stormbolters had to be Heavy 3, you would of course accept Big Shootas also being Heavy 3, right?

pelicaniforce wrote:
As for storm bolters as SAWs and character upgrades: if the idea is that normal bolters are for suppressive, personal-level firefights and storm bolters are for directed, squad-level shooting, then you would combine an "effect x happens on 6 to hit" for normal bolters with twin-linking on storm bolters, or "effect x on 6 to wound" on normal bolters with shred on storm bolters.

I've since come around to the idea that "less is more" in terms of fixing things, and adding some kind of "effect on To-Hit/-Wound "6"" for Bolt weapons is really just needlessly overcomplicating the game- IMO, at least. This is also why I think that Stormbolters, bare-minimum, just need to be Assault 3. Then, adding the option to take one Special-Issue Ammo type along with the basic profile (so as to not gimp Vengeance Round SBs), perhaps for additional cost, depending on where the Stormbolter ends up being fairly costed.

Assault 3, IMO, occupies the best point of compromise for the Stormbolter- it provides more shots at short range, and substantially more shots at long range. Season to taste with Special Ammo, if necessary.

pelicaniforce wrote:
I think that certain FOC slots scoring is not a core mechanic at all, which would be more like the mechanic that melee and shooting occur by different rules in different phases, or that units may be moved independently instead of requiring something like order dice. Even stuff like a model rolls to hit separately for a number of shots determined by weapon type is better characterized as core than who can score is.

I say this because you would have a mechanic allowing bolters more damage dice for scoring a critical hit than you would other weapons, if you were talking about changing core mechanics.


As it is, changing who can score means more troopswith wave serpents, not fewer wave serpents.

I think idea 2 is interesting because an s10 ap6 weapon should reall be considered an anti tank weapon. This is one of the issues with tyranid anti tank, in particular.

More Troops with Wave Serpents is a problem, yes. But it's a problem more to do with Wave Serpents, which have their own problems.

Incidentally, the simple solution to Tyranid anti-tank weapons being gimped by vehicles getting 3+ armor saves is... to make Tyranid anti-armor weapons AP3 or better. I never understood why Tyranid anti-vehicle guns never really got better than AP4- I mean, you'd think that they would be able to manage AP3 pretty easily for that purpose, wouldn't you?