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.

Just for fun:

Naked Tac (70pts) versus Riptide (180pts).
----------
Tac Pistols fail to wound.
Riptide OW removes about 1x Tac.
Tacs inflict 0.31W.
Riptide inflicts 0.83W.
Tacs probably test at -1, 42% chance to break. 0% chance to sweep.

Scouts with Vet PF Sarge (90pts) versus Riptide (180pts).
-----------
Scouts fail to wound with pistols.
Riptide OW removes about 1x Scout.
Scouts inflict 1.7W.
Riptide inflicts 0.83W.
Riptide tests at -1, 28% chance to break, 83% chance to sweep.

Isn't this "adapting to the meta?" Bumrushing Firebase Formations with PF Scouts and Librarians debuffing LD woukd be hilarious. In real-life, we ditched the armor when it no longer was protective. Why not do the same in a tabletop wargame?

Insofar as the "special+heavy at five dudes", "Tacs love CCWs", "Flakk is 5pts", "nice pistols/PWs are 10pts", I generally like these. I particularly approve of 5pt-Flakk Missiles, as costing 10 points for such an upgrade is incredibly stupid. No comments on TDA for HQs and Techmarine/MotF/Chaplain recosting, as I'm not brushed up super well on these units performance on the table.

I do like the Assault Squads as Troops bit, as well as expanding Attack Bike heavy options. I do, however, not quite understand bonus specials for Tacs and ASM; Crusader squads actually make some sense as you can potentially bulk the unit up to a whopping twenty mans- even if half of them use Scout statlines- but I'm not sure of the rationale behind "2x special+1x heavy" Tacs/ASM. I do certainly think that Tacs with the ability to go double special would be an awesome bonus, but I'm not sure of "double special and heavy".

Sternguard I can see that making sense. though. LotD getting double heavy options is a nice buff, particularly since they're SnP so they can fire those heavies on the move. I would, however, say that Terminators should either be "2x heavy per 5 dudes" or "2 heavies, no size limit". I don't quite see the rationale of saying "3 heavies". Similarly, I'm not really seeing how Devastators getting 5 heavies makes a great deal of sense; they seem designed, mechanically speaking, to have either a min-size squad with 4 heavies, or a ten-man squad with 4 heavies that either stays together or splits into two 5-man squads of 2x heavies and 3 bullet catchers, so to speak. Getting 5 heavies kind of throws that off; I'm also not necessarily sold on Devastators in Troops; ASM make more sense, to me, as a Troops choice in general, but I see Devs as being more of a Heavy Support option. What's your reasoning on Troops Devs?

Also, what's up with the bonus bolt pistol for ASM/Sternguard/Honor Guard? For Sternguard it technically could give them a bonus attack in combat (assuming you don't leverage the previously mentioned CCW options), but Honor Guard and ASM already have appropriate weapon combinations to leverage the bonus CCW attack from having two CCWs.

Also, Bikers. I'm really not sold on making them a Tac squad upgrade instead of a Fast Attack choice; especially since Bike Squads seem to, in part at least, fulfill an armed reconnaissance role in SM forces. Land Speeders do as well, but Bikers also seem to be intended to function as forward skirmishers as well. What are your thoughts on the role of Bike squads in SM forces, thematically and mechanically?

Finally, I'd like to make a special mention of combi-weapons: there's some possibility that a combi-weapon's pricing is reflective of the base weapon that is being combined into the bolter component; as an example, I consider a combi-plas/-grav weapon to be reasonably priced at 10 points, but a combi-melta is overpriced- and a combi-flamer criminally expensive- at that same pricepoint. That being said, it's still a single-use armament, and it's a cleaner solution to simply blanket-price all of them at 5 points.

I will try to answer your queries as best as I can.

The main reason for the 2x special and 1xheavy has to do with Biker Squads which have that option. It keeps them streamlined

The change for devastators comes from two things. The heavy section is overloaded with MUCH better options and no amount of tweaking devastator squads will change that. Moving them to troops makes them dedicated back line objective holders that can also snipe other units if needed. The increase to the number of heavies is attack bike related. We are debating on maybe eliminating the attack bike squad and making it an upgrade option for for devastator squads. This would mean changing the minimum number of heavy weapons to 3, and saying that for every heavy weapon troop and regular troop you may upgrade them to an attack bike with one bike being the sergeant attack bike. The upgrade cost for this would be 7pts per 2 models. Sergeant attack bikes would maintain their upgrade and wargear options obviously. Veteran sergeants would add +1 attack and leadership as normal. Also the 5 heavies works nicely with razorbacks. We have also debated splitfire for devastator squads. On them it makes sense.

As far as to why to make most bike squads upgrades rather than fast attack options is it allows some HQ build diversity and cleans up the list. Especially if we decide to move all flyers to the fast slot (Super heavies excluded obviously). Bike squads as troops also promotes build diversity in that it makes more armies able to do it if they wish. We are also considering offering a bikes only buff to captains and CM like maybe a biker capt or CM gives Hit and run or maybe skilled rider or both if you take both a capt and cm biker. I tend to view motorcycles as more of a horse in many ways. Yes they move fast and give mobility, but that doesn't always mean they are skirmishers. Take the knight for example, with their crossbows, heavy armor, shields, and swords. The knight wasn't really a skirmisher. The horse helped them get into battle and around the battlefield to smash more face. Monguls on the other hand were more lightly armored and relied more on their archery and they were skirmishers. Which is why scout bikes remain as fast attack

I tend to agree with you on Terminators, but it is a rule the group wants to test out (the extra heavy weapon) and I don't think it will do any harm to test that rule.

The extra bolt pistols is to give them better shotting inside of 12" and/or better against units charging them. On the honour guard it is more of better defense vs overwatch thing. Personally, I would rather they (honour guard) got access to combat or storm shields; but this is something whacky we want to try.

Your points about the combi-grav and combi-plasma have merits, but my experience with them is they are about as good as the other combi-weapons except I have ATROCIOUS luck with plasma. Every time I take it I roll double ones lol. 1 for the to hit or gets hot rule and 1 for the save. Which is why we are considering making plasma weapons have double profiles. The profile we have now and a s6 ap3 one without the gets hot!. The standard profile could be an overcharged firing mode that one uses if they need just that bit more strength and ap. Plasma guns should probably also be assault 2,assaul1 as per the bolters; but we are leaving them as is for now.

The bonus special for assault marines has more to do with making the plasma pistol option more viable albiet more expensive, and the access to an extra flamer makes them a more competitive choice for anti-horde.

Sorry if my posts derailed this thread a little bit, but like I said I wanted to keep my proposed storm bolter fix in perspective with other changes my local group and I are trying. We hope to try and eventually balance all the codices, but we decided to start with space marines because pretty much everyone in my group has at least a small army of them in some way or another. Not all of them play them much or have them as a main army, but everyone has familiarity with them and their strenghts and weaknesses.

Again, sorry for getting off topic.

Yoyoyo wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
You are not looking at whole unit costs. The cost of a Tactical Marine is deceptive. Sure, he seem like a steal in comparison to a Veteran but a full squad of Space Marines cost 140 points with no upgrades. That is why I am saying that Marines are paying a premium for crappy guns. A guard squad can get three Plasmas and a Chimera for only 30 more points. Same Ballistic skill, effective weapons, better protection, a heavy bolter and a multilaser which can fire at full BS on the move and can select different targets.

Dude, I will spare you my epic wall of math. The basics are:

- 10x Tacs (140pts) and 10x Plasma Vets (105pts) shoot it out comparably well in Rapid Fire range. Effectiveness is about 4 dead Tacs, to 6 dead Vets. Each time the Vets fire they have a 33% to lose a Plasma weapon.
- 5x Tacs (70pts) crush 10x Plasma Vets (105pts) in assault. 2 Vets die to pistol fire. Vet Overwatch is as harmful to themselves as their assaulters with "Gets Hot". 1.04 unsaved wounds on a 14pt Tac, 0.66 unsaved wounds on a 20pt Plasma Vet. But it's worth firing anyways, because they will lose CC by 2W, break at 59%, and are swept at 72%.

So no suprises, right? S4 attacks are not bad against infantry, and assault is powerful. The problem is (as Martel says) what is a naked Tac squad going to do against a T6 Riptide? Well, maybe tie it up in assault and Krak it. I'll look at that too later.

If you want weapons caddies, why not a SM Devastator squad? You can get 4x Multi-Meltas for 110pts, or 4x Plasma Cannons for 130pts. Why isn't this an option?

Except that, for points, you are getting to get a lot more mileage out of 10 Plasma/Melta Vets in a Chimera. This unit can take down Terminator Squads, is far better protected, has a relentless heavy weapon and can get around faster to get to their objective. A barebones tactical squad may be better at assaulting infantry units but they slow, poorly armed and few in number. Not good things to be in 7th ed.

About the devastators, they do not address the issue with bolters at all. They are overcosted because they not only pay for their crappy boltgun but they are also overpaying for mediocre weapons. Well, except for Lascannons. Lascannon devastators aren't too bad.

Lascannon devs are pretty good until they get shot.

A Bolter is not an anti-tank, anti-TEQ, or anti-MC weapon. Stop trying to make it one.

The problem is that Tacs cannot be repurposed against Meta threats. Fire Warriors suffer from the same issue, and they are S5 30" weapons. So really it's not your "crappy bolter". It's players exploiting the compulsory troops restriction imposed upon you by the traditional CAD, by taking units that can't be countered by anti-infantry weapons.

Yoyoyo wrote:
A Bolter is not an anti-tank, anti-TEQ, or anti-MC weapon. Stop trying to make it one.

The problem is that Tacs cannot be repurposed against Meta threats. Fire Warriors suffer from the same issue, and they are S5 30" weapons. So really it's not your "crappy bolter". It's players exploiting the compulsory troops restriction imposed upon you by the traditional CAD, by taking units that can't be countered by anti-infantry weapons.

Fire warriors hits at least cause twice as many wounds against T6 MCs. Not much help against the 2+ armor MCs, but it's decent against the others.

If people aren't bringing units that can be hurt by bolters, that makes the bolter crappy.

I don't think that anybody is arguing that these weapons should, without exception, be changed to something that can challenge heavily armored, high-Toughness multi-Wound models, like aforementioned 2+ armor MCs.

It's more that there's a general consensus that Bolters aren't generally that great at the job they're supposed to do, on account of being on relatively expensive models that pay, quite frankly, through the nose to be "generalist" units, when the vast majority of equipment necessary to equip them so isn't coming into play most of the time.

It's also worth noting that FWs have the advantage of being able to leverage Markerlights, and abusing their 30" range to be as far away as possible from things that can/want to kill them.

EDIT: FWs are also much cheaper than Tactical Marines.

You're not wrong but it's not significant at base points.

Pulse Rifle : 16x(1/2)(1/3)(1/3) = 16/18 (~1W)
Bolter : 10x(2/3)(1/6(1/3) = 20/36 (~0.5W)

Actually, I take that back. Versus a 5+ save :

16x(1/2)(1/3)(2/3) = 32/18 (2W)
10x(2/3)(1/6)(2/3) = 40/48 (1W)

It's not going to prevent an assault but it is a little better, against low saves.

Case in point: if a Xeno list keeps marines out of assault through weapon range and movement, most of the "extra gear" that marines get is useless. Namely, S4, WS 4, grenades, and ATSKNF. All useless outside of assault.

I myself exploit this against lists like GK. My BA run like cowards and shoot the piss out of them. I only assault to mop up.

Rending for all bolters ofc. Tacs fixed, termies fixed, csm fixed, everybody else cries but who cares especialy that it would be good but not game breaking. It would make sense fluff wise because it makes sense for a basic weapon to be able to actualy hurt the user in his basic armour, that's how it usualy works. It also properly simulates a mini rocket exploding in the greater daemon eye or anus. It would make power armour guys scary instead of a joke they are now. I play nids btw.

Or give poor termies an option to take heavy weapon each, price accordingly ofc.

Tbh though I think GW is pretty comfortable with tacs and termies being bad, after all most people have tones of them and if you dont, theyre super cheap to get.

Didn't a Tyranid player win LVO partly due to a bunch of infiltrating Lictors assaulting Wave Serpents, one of the most abused powerunits in the game?

People like to denigrate assault but it's very powerful if anyone is able to actually get their units there. Check this out, it's a fun read.

http://www.torrentoffire.com/6249/enter-the-lictor

Oh an incidentally, the runner-up had 2x Devastators w/4x Lascannons each. Just sayin'...

Yoyoyo wrote:
Isn't this "adapting to the meta?" Bumrushing Firebase Formations with PF Scouts and Librarians debuffing LD woukd be hilarious. In real-life, we ditched the armor when it no longer was protective. Why not do the same in a tabletop wargame?

It's hard to "adapt to the meta" when almost every model in the SM book is paying for PA at a minimum, and it's being rendered completely useless by 90% of the things that shoot at them, either due to AP or just drowning them in so many wounds that they inevitably fail saves.

 NorseSig wrote:
As far as to why to make most bike squads upgrades rather than fast attack options is it allows some HQ build diversity and cleans up the list. Especially if we decide to move all flyers to the fast slot (Super heavies excluded obviously). Bike squads as troops also promotes build diversity in that it makes more armies able to do it if they wish. We are also considering offering a bikes only buff to captains and CM like maybe a biker capt or CM gives Hit and run or maybe skilled rider or both if you take both a capt and cm biker. I tend to view motorcycles as more of a horse in many ways. Yes they move fast and give mobility, but that doesn't always mean they are skirmishers. Take the knight for example, with their crossbows, heavy armor, shields, and swords. The knight wasn't really a skirmisher. The horse helped them get into battle and around the battlefield to smash more face. Monguls on the other hand were more lightly armored and relied more on their archery and they were skirmishers. Which is why scout bikes remain as fast attack

That's a good point; IIRC there was a thread about Biker models being changed to be more cavalry-esque since that's the closest analogue, and there was a comment about how cavalry came in two basic "forms", historically- the "shock" cavalry, who were heavily armored and focused on breaking enemy formations, and the "dragoon" cavalry who were more focused on skirmishing and engaging at a distance with various archery/cavalry carbine weapons. I suppose, however, that the catch is that even that comparison isn't particularly accurate, as a Marine is well armored, an excellent marksman, and a competent bladesman; given that Bike squads can hand out more gun upgrades than combat weapons, it kind of makes them a hybrid shock/dragoon cavalry unit.

Which has some potential for coolness, IMO.

 NorseSig wrote:
The extra bolt pistols is to give them better shotting inside of 12" and/or better against units charging them. On the honour guard it is more of better defense vs overwatch thing. Personally, I would rather they (honour guard) got access to combat or storm shields; but this is something whacky we want to try.

Honor Guard with combat shields? Why yes, yes I would like that. Honor Guard with Stormshields I'm not so sure about, as it might infringe a bit on Hammernators.

 NorseSig wrote:
Your points about the combi-grav and combi-plasma have merits, but my experience with them is they are about as good as the other combi-weapons except I have ATROCIOUS luck with plasma. Every time I take it I roll double ones lol. 1 for the to hit or gets hot rule and 1 for the save. Which is why we are considering making plasma weapons have double profiles. The profile we have now and a s6 ap3 one without the gets hot!. The standard profile could be an overcharged firing mode that one uses if they need just that bit more strength and ap. Plasma guns should probably also be assault 2,assaul1 as per the bolters; but we are leaving them as is for now.

I'd say that for dual profiles for plasma weapons, here's a few to consider:

Plasma Pistol
12" Pistol S5 AP3

Plasma Gun
24" Rapid Fire S5 AP3
OR
24" Rapid Fire S5 AP2

The current profile then represents the "overcharge". I rather like the S5/AP3 option a bit better; it better represents how turning the power up to 11, so to say, takes the weapon to an armor-melting murderdeathkill machine.

Plasma Cannon
36" Salvo 1/2 S5 AP2
36" Heavy 1 S7 AP2 Small Blast, Gets Hot

This is, incidentally, where the PlasGun being S5/AP3 helps make the Plasma Cannon a little more distinguished. Salvo 1/2 is to keep it from infringing on a Salvo 2/3 HB; obviously if HBs get a higher RoF we could take Plasma Cannons to Salvo 2/2, IMO. I'd not take them to Salvo 2/3 or higher on their "low-power" mode; that would potentially infringe on Plasma Guns and HBs both. I also listed both my idea for a "low-power" mode and the current "maximal" mode to get across the much greater difference that 'charging up' a Plasma Cannon has compared to, say, the Pistol or PlasGun variations.

Yoyoyo wrote:
http://www.torrentoffire.com/6249/enter-the-lictor

Oh an incidentally, the runner-up had 2x Devastators w/4x Lascannons each. Just sayin'...

Nobody is disputing that LC Devastators are good. They are disputing that said Devs will actually live through the game to be useful. If a minimum-size squad of LC Devs is on the field, they will be quickly- and easily- focus fired down. Giving them bullet catchers makes them more expensive, which is somewhat counter intuitive to your suggestion, as you seemed to be saying "hey, Devs w/ 4x LCs are pretty cheap, why not use them?"

The answer, of course, is that a min-sized squad is easily wiped out, while a squad with bullet catchers is not cheap.

Look, at the end of the day, that list put 716pts into Scouts and LC Devastators, it beat the overall LVO winner in their first match, and it came in second overall. Did not take "bullet catchers". Happily a lot of S6 and S7 spam bounces off 3+ saves. So, both units are obviously very effective in the right hands, despite objections to the contrary. In the article I linked, look at the comments about Lictors. People were saying "oh, it's a gimmick unit, they'll never work if they get matched with Wave Serpents." Well, guess what, it did and it wrecked them. It's easier to post an opinion on the net than use these units, obviously.

I know it's hard to adapt to the meta, that's why these guys did so well. The used creativity, tactics, firepower, and flexibility to win. So I have to respect that. And one of them is a SM player. There's probably a lesson here perhaps, I am too lazy to get into an argument though.

Also, Rending is a terrible idea. 10x Bolters with Prescience have something like an 30% chance to pen an AV12 vehicle at 24". 10x Prescienced Bolters in Rapid Fire range would kill something like 3x Terminators a turn. Isn't there already something of a survivability problem there?

So... what are the precise circumstances of that match? What else was involved in the list?

What part of S6/7 spam drowning MEQ in wounds do you happen to not understand?

Where does it apply that player skill is completely irrelevant and "the list is king"?

When it comes down to it, the point still stands- LC Devs without bullet catchers tend to not survive well, while LC Devs with bullet catchers are expensive.

What else was included in the runner-up's list? Because stating:

Yoyoyo wrote:
Oh an incidentally, the runner-up had 2x Devastators w/4x Lascannons each. Just sayin'...

Doesn't tell us anything about whether or not he included bullet catchers for the Devs, whether or not he had "scary" things to draw fire off of the Devs, or even how he might have chosen to deploy in order to keep the Devs alive.

Your statement there is meaningless- it communicates no useful information, it merely says "oh, this thing happened, so the mere occurrence proves my point". Which is fallacious.

I have a really great idea, why don't you use google to figure it out for yourself.

Also my statement said 2x Devs with 4x Lascannons each. To be precise;

Heavy: 4 Devastators w/Lascannons, Sergeant
Heavy: 4 Devastators w/Lascannons, Sergeant

So, basically, 2x Devs. With 4x Lacannons each. Which is what I said. If you find it easier, maybe I should have included a diagram for you.

So do you not know that a basic principle of debating is that if you make a claim, you get the proof to back it up. You claimed that the runner-up to some tournament used two squads of Devastators with 4 Lascannons.

You did not initially clarify that each squad was minimum-size. You have still not actually said what the significance of this is. As far as I can tell, it's significant only because it went to a tournament and most competitive "scenes" are dominated by WS spam.

And, again, it also doesn't communicate anything else about his list, like- as I mentioned- whether or not he was fielding "scarier" things, or how he actually played them in order to leverage their capabilities.

We buffed stormbolters the same way we buffed heavy bolters - gave them both an extra shot at half their range.

Stormbolters get 3 shots at 12", and heavy bolters get 4 shots at 18".

Well Whiskey -- I am not going to play nicely with your cute little debate ettiquette. You get no proof whatsoever, and I'm going to say I know more than you do, and the only way you will ever learn about my supposed "proof" is to either apologize for needlessly arguing at length (to put me in a better mood), or use google to figure it out for yourself.

But considering there's a thread up right now in the tactics forum on this very list, who's right is probably obvious to everyone but you. I suppose you will just have to live out the rest of your days in terrible suspense, always wondering where I developed my vast and arcane knowlege of the Warhammer 40k meta in 2015.

I'm such a jerk, right?

Yoyoyo wrote:
Well Whiskey -- I am not going to play nicely with your cute little debate ettiquette. You get no proof whatsoever, and I'm going to say I know more than you do, and the only way you will ever learn about my supposed "proof" is to either apologize for needlessly arguing at length (to put me in a better mood), or use google to figure it out for yourself.

But considering there's a thread up right now in the tactics forum on this very list, who's right is probably obvious to everyone but you. I suppose you will just have to live out the rest of your days in terrible suspense, always wondering where I developed my vast and arcane knowlege of the Warhammer 40k meta in 2015.

I'm such a jerk, right?

I'd say donkey-cave. Because as it so happens, all you needed to do was link that thread, and that would have satisfied my demands of proof.

Seriously, that's all you needed to do. Link the thread.

But since you're such a "jerk"- or donkey-cave, as the case may be- I will explain the precise details of what I mean:

In debating, making a claim requires the person doing so to provide proof to support their claim. You claimed that 2x MSU Dev squads with Lascannons were used at a what I gather is a high-profile tournament, and to great effect, with the player and list managing second place. Moreover, you were referencing this as proof that Lascannon Devs were "good"... which no one actually disagreed; the point of contention was that MSU LC Devs have survivability issues- particularly as each loss is nearly guaranteed to take a LC off the field- and that non-MSU Devs are overly expensive, as the extra bodies are, realistically, only there to catch bullets.

I then pointed out (correctly, BTW), that simply saying "a list with 2x MSU Dev squads with LCs made second place at LVO" is meaningless- the person could have been running almost anything else with the aforementioned Dev squads, and quite possibly have made said Devs there to be bullet magnets, or because they happened to have a major love of Devastator squads, or whatever other reason you could think of.

If you had simply linked the thread, then I would have been perfectly happy to accept that as "proof". The thread provides the list, and someone else in the thread even helpfully pointed out some of the basic workings of the list, such as how it can null deploy. Very notably, it's obvious that the list is using SoT chapter tactics, as well as making the Librarian the Warlord to get two rolls on the Strategic Warlord Trait table.

It also clearly points out that the list has a degree of threat overload- with GravCents, Mephiston, and Lysander, you have what is, practically speaking, three different DISTRACTION CARNIFEX units. All of which want to be close (IE, "shoot nao"), and all of which are widely regarded as "scary".

In other words, the list leverages a number of facets that help the Devs not die in a fire, and it's obvious from just looking at it.

I know I'm repeating myself here, but all you needed to do was link the thread. Seriously; I very rarely browse the tactics forum in any great detail, as it happens.

Blah blah blah, etc. You might want to eat some humble pie and start learning more about the game.

@norsesig - apologies for derailment. Compile your houserule package and put it up in another thread, could be interesting.

Yoyoyo wrote:Also, Rending is a terrible idea. 10x Bolters with Prescience have something like an 30% chance to pen an AV12 vehicle at 24". 10x Prescienced Bolters in Rapid Fire range would kill something like 3x Terminators a turn. Isn't there already something of a survivability problem there?

So what, marines and termies would be deadly to other marines and termies, exactly like it should be. It would bring even more of survivability problem only vs bolters for guys that have bolters too, also the natural advantage of terminators vs marines would be deepstrike because properly used they would get a first shot. As for vehicles, maybe reducing rock paper scissors aspect of the game is good direction, sure you'd have to throw a bone to every other army too but why not start with sm.

Not to even mention that a change to Prescience could and should follow the rending bolters, your example is completly non issue here.

@norsesig - apologies for derailment. Compile your houserule package and put it up in another thread, could be interesting.

I didn't start the thread, but I also didn't want to disrespect the OP. Since the OP brought up a valid topic of discussion. And I am as much responsible for the slight derailment. I am working on getting the house rules we have posted up, but I am trying to clean it up some so it is easier to read, and hopefully easier to understand. I hope to have it up in a few days (that thing called work eats up a lot of my time ). I should note that other than a few general rules it is space marines (primarily vanilla) only. It may come down to for other armies relying on help from the dakka community for help.

Also I must offer an apology to the OP for causing a brief (hopefully) derailment of your thread. It was not my intention to do so.

Like I said I favor an assault 3 with full BS in overwatch for a fix for storm bolters. A split profile on storm bolters doesn't make much sense imo. The full BS in overwatch I feel is the perfect add-on to make storm bolters worth their points but not overly powerful.

Let's think this through and do a scenario. No Prescience, using your example of Deep Striking Tac Terminators so they can Alpha strike,

5x Termies are about 200pts, let's pretend we give them Assault 3. So, they attack with 15x shots. They drop into RF range assuming no mishap, fire, and kill about 3 Marines (2 due to rending, 1x to a failed armour save). Equal points in Tacs means 13 Tacs remain. Those Tacs fire 26x Rapid Fire shots, kill about 2x Terminators due to rending, and 1x to a failed save. If I use Scouts, the Termies kill 4x, remaining Scouts return fire, disastrous results ensue. So now you have a "lone survivor" Tac Terminator heroically going against 14 Scouts with Rending Rapid Fire Bolters, and who can't even Sweeping Advance to get some mileage out of DS. And incidentally, neither can any other assault unit, as SM is invulnerable to sweeping advance by the ATSKNF rule.

So now we have a troop choice with the strongest points-for-points shooting in the game, the best stat line, that can't be swept, that can't be outdeployed, that gets customized army-wide Chapter Tactics to buff it further, and that can even counter massed AP4 artillery if you take Tacs for a 3+ save. 45x Bolter shots would down a 6W Wraithknight, any MC without a good Invul save is basically hosed under the new change.

Maybe there is merit to your Rending idea. It's actually not bad on Storm Bolters only. But army-wide creates an issue. Eldar can compete with Bladestorm, but not against vehicles, and their infantry does not have equivalent stats, rules, ranges, or a single infantry carrier with fire ports. And as you can see there is probably a reason for that.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Blah blah blah, etc. You might want to eat some humble pie and start learning more about the game.

....So, did you not even read anything of what I said, because boiling it down, I really only said "you could have linked the thread as your proof". Seriously, that was my main point.

In fact, your initial pissy exchange of "google it, durr" was shortly after the thread that YOU mentioned went up, so you could have, quite literally, linked the thread then, and we would not be arguing over you and your bruised ego because I told you that you needed to actually provide more information than "tournament dude got 2nd with MSU Lascannon Devs".

Because that statement provides no useful information, and proves nothing. Even you should be able to realize that it doesn't say anything whatsoever to make such a statement.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Maybe there is merit to your Rending idea. It's actually not bad on Storm Bolters only. But army-wide creates an issue. Eldar can compete with Bladestorm, but not against vehicles, and their infantry does not have equivalent stats, rules, ranges, or a single infantry carrier with fire ports. And as you can see there is probably a reason for that.

It's also worth noting that the closest implemented equivalent- Necron Gauss- is an auto-wound/-glance with no AP value, so you always get an armor save against Gauss. For infantry, when faced with Bladestorm/Rending, you don't get the armor save if the effect triggers. Which, for Marines, really sucks.

Yoyoyo wrote:
Let's think this through and do a scenario. No Prescience, using your example of Deep Striking Tac Terminators so they can Alpha strike,

5x Termies are about 200pts, let's pretend we give them Assault 3. So, they attack with 15x shots. They drop into RF range assuming no mishap, fire, and kill about 3 Marines (2 due to rending, 1x to a failed armour save). Equal points in Tacs means 13 Tacs remain. Those Tacs fire 26x Rapid Fire shots, kill about 2x Terminators due to rending, and 1x to a failed save. If I use Scouts, the Termies kill 4x, remaining Scouts return fire, disastrous results ensue. So now you have a "lone survivor" Tac Terminator heroically going against 14 Scouts with Rending Rapid Fire Bolters, and who can't even Sweeping Advance to get some mileage out of DS. And incidentally, neither can any other assault unit, as SM is invulnerable to sweeping advance by the ATSKNF rule.

So now we have a troop choice with the strongest points-for-points shooting in the game, the best stat line, that can't be swept, that can't be outdeployed, that gets customized army-wide Chapter Tactics to buff it further, and that can even counter massed AP4 artillery if you take Tacs for a 3+ save. 45x Bolter shots would down a 6W Wraithknight, any MC without a good Invul save is basically hosed under the new change.

Maybe there is merit to your Rending idea. It's actually not bad on Storm Bolters only. But army-wide creates an issue. Eldar can compete with Bladestorm, but not against vehicles, and their infantry does not have equivalent stats, rules, ranges, or a single infantry carrier with fire ports. And as you can see there is probably a reason for that.

Obviously if you added rending to all bolters ther changes would have to follow. No bolters for scouts hey that even would be fluffy, rapid fire back to old, point adjustments etc, surely sisters would require closer look too. The problem with marines is not their cost but their completly not scary damage output. And yes 2 10 man squads of marines should have a chance to shoot down a wraithknight imo, uber elite of elite rapid firing mini rockets and all that bs.

If we're disscusing isolated tweaks only, there's not much. Full BS on overwatch for example sounds nice but they need much more to be dangerous.

Btw wasnt max squad size for marines 10? I know you're doing point for point but if the unir cant be fielded, no point in using it for comparision. Not sure though dont have sm codex.

Yeah, Marines are max squad size 10. However, Battle Sisters have the same shooting profile and are 2 points cheaper per model, with a unit size of 5-20, so you get 16 in... and rending bolters get even crazier.

Remove the sisters from 40k then, problem solved

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Remove the sisters from 40k then, problem solved

This is in no way a solution. Please stop being a troll.

I just can't get behind rending Bolters. I even play Dark Angels and we'd benefit from it an inordinate amount. It just doesn't feel right.

Seeing as they are supposed to be explosives, maybe some kind of rule that just permanently grants bolt weaponry some sort of -1 to cover saves? They're only AP5 so most things get to make armor saves against them anyway, so it'd just help you shoot at targets that want to go to ground or rely solely on their cover save. Also helps them ping speeders to death.

Not much of a buff, I know. Just spitballing here.

They only explode after penetrating the target, which is why Shred was a good suggestion. The explosive increases their killing power, not their armour penetration or damage radius.