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.
In those cases, a PG/combiPG Tac squad only kills a little less than the same number of Tac Termies than the same points worth of DAs.
And a 4+ cover/invuln changes things a lot.
And the Marines do a lot better than DAs at anything except AV14.
There are things Boltguns don't do well against, but generally the squad can take other weapons too. Fire Warriors, Necron Warriors, and Dire Avengers can't.
I'm not a huge fan of Blade storm, but its not nearly as OP as many seem to believe.
Bharring wrote: In those cases, a PG/combiPG Tac squad only kills a little less than the same number of Tac Termies than the same points worth of DAs.
And a 4+ cover/invuln changes things a lot.
And the Marines do a lot better than DAs at anything except AV14.
There are things Boltguns don't do well against, but generally the squad can take other weapons too. Fire Warriors, Necron Warriors, and Dire Avengers can't.
I'm not a huge fan of Blade storm, but its not nearly as OP as many seem to believe.
Pretty much this. We had a very lengthy conversation about Bladestorm in the General discussion area a while back. Bladestorm isn't insignificant, but its nothing to cry over either. Speaking as an eldar player that consistently runs dire avengers and warp spiders, the pseudo-rending doesn't wrack up a lot of extra kills. GW could release an FAQ today saying that bladestorm is no longer a thing, and I wouldn't mind much. My shuriken weapons would go back to being bland, but I wouldn't really be seeing a huge dfference in firepower.
Quick note, Bharring. I think we decided that avengers were, technically, better at shooting MCs of toughness 7 or 8 or something, though they can't hurt them at all in melee, so that's a thing.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
Bharring wrote: In those cases, a PG/combiPG Tac squad only kills a little less than the same number of Tac Termies than the same points worth of DAs.
And a 4+ cover/invuln changes things a lot.
And the Marines do a lot better than DAs at anything except AV14.
There are things Boltguns don't do well against, but generally the squad can take other weapons too. Fire Warriors, Necron Warriors, and Dire Avengers can't.
I'm not a huge fan of Blade storm, but its not nearly as OP as many seem to believe.
Point DAs at T6 MC. Watch what happens.
Point a Combi-Plasma, Plasma, ML/LCTac squad at the same T6 MC. Watch what happens.
Then understand that the Tac Squad must PAY for weapons that can do that, and one of those weapons is one-use only, while another cannot be fired on the move.
Only then will you understand why the Marine players weep for that which has never been good.
The PlasTacs are only better so long as they have an unused Combi-Plasma. You seem to be ignoring the fact that in order for a Tac squad to get the same results as a DA squad, you have to buy:
-a special weapon
-a single-use expendable weapon
-a heavy weapon that inhibits mobility
Compared to DAs who can Battle Focus their way around a MC while staying at 18".
As for Tac melee... who lets Tacs get into combat? Who runs the mythical footdar these days? Why would the Marine player even want his Tacs in combat anyways?
What happens when the Marine squad has the special weapons sniped out?
What if we made DAs require an Exarch to be alive and in the unit in order to unlock Bladestorm?
10 DAs with an Exarch and the TL Avenger Shuricat costs 145 points.
10 Tacs with a Vet Sarge, Plas, Combi-Plas, and LC costs 195 points. If we downgrade to a PC or ML, it's "only" 190 points, or 185 if we take a MM instead.
So the DAs cost 74-78% the cost of the Tacs when trying to maximize the amount of AP2/AP1 shooting in the Tac squad. Which, BTW, can all still be sniped out of the unit.
So what happens when we shoot some T6/7/8 MCs? Well, I'm glad you asked:
DAs, vs T6/7/8 MC:
Spoiler:
DAs have 20 S4/AP5 Bladestorm shots, 18 @ BS4 and 2 @ BS5/TL;
this is 13.94 hits; due to S4 vs T6-8, you can only wound on 6, so this then becomes ~2.33 AP2 automatic wounds.
AP2 Tacs vs T6/7/8 MC:
Spoiler:
Tacs have 14 S4/AP5 bolter shots @ BS4, plus 4 S7/AP2 plasma shots @ BS4 and a single BS4 heavy weapon shot.
Plasma wounds T6 on 3+; 4 shots, ~2.67 hits, ~1.78 unsaved wounds vs T6 Against T7, it wounds on 4+, for ~1.34 unsaved wounds vs T7 Against T8, it wounds on 5+, for ~0.89 unsaved wounds vs T8
For the ML, MM, and LC, it's 1 BS4 shot, so ~0.67 hits. Against T6 all of them generate ~0.56 wounds.
ML/MM/LC, vs:
T6 3+ Armor~0.56 unsaved wounds T6 2+ Armor~0.56 unsaved wounds for MM/LC; ~0.09 unsaved wounds (!) for the ML T7 3+ Armor~0.45 unsaved wounds for MM/ML; ~0.56 unsaved wounds for LC T8 3+ Armor~0.34 unsaved wounds for MM/ML; ~0.45 unsaved wounds for LC
So what happens when we take that heavy weapon and the combi out of the equation? Using the most optimistic conditions possible, a Tac squad with 9 bolters and a plasma gun will put ~1.56 unsaved wounds onto a MC.
However, the results above are also the absolute most "optimal" results possible, and require the Tac squad to be within 12" (IE, rapid fire range), and to have not moved that turn, in order to fire their heavy weapon at full BS. They also require that the combi weapon has not already been fired, which will heavily reduce their firepower.
So no, this:
Bharring wrote: Regardless of saves, PG Tacs still win against T6 MCs.
Is not actually true, because it requires the inclusion of a single-use, expendable weapon. DAs can consistently put ~2 unsaved wounds onto a MC of any Toughness or save, every turn of the game that they're in range. Considering the excellent mobility that transports like, say, the Wave Serpent possess (as well as superior durability and firepower) compared to a SM Rhino, then the 18" range "limitation" is not particularly burdensome, especially since the Tacs have to get closer.
Oh, and the Tacs have to sit still, so that they can fire their heavy weapon.
1) The Tacs do *not* need to buy a heavy weapon.
If they do buy a heavy weapon, then they can do some damage from as far away as 48".
If they do buy a heavy weapon, they are even more deadly against vehicles.
2) Of course SM need to buy some gear. That is why the comparison was 5 Tacs vs 7 DAs. So that the DAs cost a few points more.
3) If a Special weapon gets sniped, that greatly cuts down on Tac damage. However, if it doesn't get sniped, only the last few wounds lost in a squad cause significant damage to their output. So when the DAs lose half their number, their output is halved. WHen Tacs lose half their number, their output isn't significantly diminished.
4) Almost all MCs that want to be closer than 18" can move more than 12". Any JMC or biker unit or whatever will get close enough to destroy them.
5) The exarch does not unlock Bladestorm. THat has nothing to do with the DA weapons (its a formation bonus).
Tacs do have to get closer to get their full potential, but can be further away by the same margin to get half their potential. DAs get nothing past 18". Even moreso with any Heavy weapon.
There are tradeoffs in both directions. If you want to be shooting models with a 2+ that are slow with poor shooting, DAs can probably do more. If you're shooting a T8+ model, DAs will do more. If you're shooting a tank, Tacs in any configuration do much, much better at that.
My point isn't that DAs are bad. My point is that there are tradeoffs between DAs and PG/Boltgun units. IoM weapons aren't all that outclassed, even by factions who are supposedly much more advanced.
1) The Tacs do *not* need to buy a heavy weapon.
If they do buy a heavy weapon, then they can do some damage from as far away as 48".
If they do buy a heavy weapon, they are even more deadly against vehicles.
-Purchasing a heavy weapon is necessary to squeeze maximum performance out of the unit.
-A single heavy weapon with a single shot at 48" does not equate to "some damage". It equates to token firepower that is, realistically, deployed solely so that the rest of the squad can camp an objective and have something that looks halfway useful.
-A single heavy weapon does not mean a single heavy weapon with a 48" range. MMs are only 24" range, whilst Plasma Cannons are a 36" range 3" blast. Which means that you'll probably hit something... but just one dude. Because small blasts are just really gakky.
-A single heavy weapon does not equate to a vast increase an anti-armor capability. Perhaps in the case of a MM this argument can be made... but this isn't 5th edition anymore, when an AP1 weapon has a 50% chance for Explodes! on a penetrating hit.
Oh, and you completely ignored the part about how Tacs need to sit still in order to use their heavy weapon.
Bharring wrote: 2) Of course SM need to buy some gear. That is why the comparison was 5 Tacs vs 7 DAs. So that the DAs cost a few points more.
A comparison that is still flawed, because roughly 50% of the squads firepower is coming out of an expendable munition. Combi-weapons aren't even really guns, quite frankly. They're an expendable munition that's issued on an as-needed basis, in functional practice for wargaming.
It doesn't matter that the 7 DAs cost more than 5 Tacs with a Plas+Combi-Plas. It does, however, matter that the majority of a Tac squad is reduced to being used as bullet sponges to keep the important weapons alive, even though it's likely to not work because either
-the weapons will be sniped out by some method or another, -OR-
-the unit will be wiped out when faced with the total fire superiority of the Eldar army as a whole
Bharring wrote: 3) If a Special weapon gets sniped, that greatly cuts down on Tac damage. However, if it doesn't get sniped, only the last few wounds lost in a squad cause significant damage to their output. So when the DAs lose half their number, their output is halved. WHen Tacs lose half their number, their output isn't significantly diminished.
This goes back to how Marines lack the output/reliability to have average results that resemble statistical models. For example, Orks bring such an enormous weight of fire that you can hedge your strategy around the statistically likely outcomes of any given action. Marines don't have that. A single bad turn can make or break a match.
Bad rolls for armor saves? Sorry, your dudes are wiped.
Bad rolls for trying to get hits out of your combi-plasma? Sorry, your dudes fail and those 10 points you paid for that combi are sadly wasted.
But DAs? Oh, you killed 2 or 3 dudes. That's okay, I know about how much damage to expect out of their reduced numbers.
Marines are going to die, no matter what happens. The problems that face Imperial players in general, that Eldar players do not have to deal with (at least, as a general rule), is primarily one of "how do I keep my important dudes (combi-weapon carriers, special/heavy weapon gunners, specific upgrade characters/models (voxes, Commissars, Priests, Techmarines, grenade caddy Inquisitors, etc)) alive?"
Similar, DAs are going to die, no matter what. The problems that Eldar players face is... well, really they don't face many problems. DAs are all Ld9 even without the Exarch, who is now for whatever reason WS/BS5 and I+1 compared to the other members of the squad. DAs can't take specials (and really, unless it was a Shuricannon, what specials would they take), so they don't care about that. I mean, I suppose if you attached Asurmen or another Phoenix Lord, or maybe an Autarch or Farseer or a BB character to the unit, keeping that guy alive would be important... but any army can have that as an issue.
Except maybe Tyranids, because spess bugz or something.
Bharring wrote: 4) Almost all MCs that want to be closer than 18" can move more than 12". Any JMC or biker unit or whatever will get close enough to destroy them.
Riptides. WKs before becoming GCs. 99% of the Tyranid MCs. Talos/Cronos Engines. Keeper of Secrets. GUOs. IIRC C'tan Shards as well. Probably a few others that I forgot.
Admittedly, those first two are actually interested in being way farther away than 18", but hey, they can move 12+" per turn. Anything else? Not so much.
Bharring wrote: 5) The exarch does not unlock Bladestorm. THat has nothing to do with the DA weapons (its a formation bonus).
Bladestorm is the weapon trait of Shuriken weapons, correct? What I meant by that is that if it did work like that, then it would perhaps be more equitable to the Marines- the DAs have to pay for the Exarch in order to get their pseudo-rending trait for their guns, which is not really as harsh as shelling out for multiple weapons, the majority of which are either expendable ordnance or mobility impedances.
Bharring wrote: Tacs do have to get closer to get their full potential, but can be further away by the same margin to get half their potential. DAs get nothing past 18". Even moreso with any Heavy weapon.
Tacs have to get closer and fething sit still. It's like putting punchy doods into a non-assault transport. It just doesn't work, so nobody bothers doing it.
That's still ignoring the fact that whilst a Wave Serpent is around 3-4x the cost of a Rhino, it's much more survivable, mobile, and deadly in its own right, so DA 18" range isn't much of a problem.
And considering that these days the solution to Imperial army balance seems to be "Allies bitch!", then, well.
Allies bitch. Get a Shadowseer, cast Veil of Tears. Troll your opponent mercilessly.
.......
On second thought, no, don't do that. Don't sully the hilarity and awsomeness of the Harlequin army with the filth of the Craftworld Eldar. Do not defile the glory of the Killer Elf Clowns with the putrescence of "I kill MCs in my spare time" Dire Avengers.
Bharring wrote: There are tradeoffs in both directions. If you want to be shooting models with a 2+ that are slow with poor shooting, DAs can probably do more. If you're shooting a T8+ model, DAs will do more. If you're shooting a tank, Tacs in any configuration do much, much better at that.
Tacs are still gak at shooting tanks. In fact, the 5th-ed mainstay "meltabunker" build is probably the worst way to outfit a Tac squad these days. Meltaguns/Combi-Meltas are simply too specific for the Tacs. Grav also doesn't work for them given the idiocy of Salvo rules (again, I point out the Splinter Cannon as the only good Salvo weapon). Flamers are limited in use, particularly given the prevalence of increasingly powerful high-save, high-T models.
Bharring wrote: My point isn't that DAs are bad. My point is that there are tradeoffs between DAs and PG/Boltgun units. IoM weapons aren't all that outclassed, even by factions who are supposedly much more advanced.
The problem is that the DAs scale stupendously well, and pay nothing to do it. Really, when it comes down to it, even if a Tac Marine costs 13-14 points, either identical or +1 ppm compared to a DA, the DA is a much better package. Against the S6/7 spam that's so prevalent the difference between T3 and T4 is irrelevant (most T4 basic infantry do not have FNP, so that's out), and considering that neither Tacs nor DAs want to be in combat (because Tacs suck ass in combat in the first place), then S/WS4 is irrelevant (even if both are WS4). High Initiative is nice, but fairly useless.
Ld9 on everybody, without needing a 10 point Vet Sarge upgrade? That's a nice cherry on top. Weapons with full-effect fire out to 18", and a bonus run move before/after shooting? Yes please. Pseudo-rending on that same basic gun? Oh, I'll take at least two of those. BS4? Yup. Options to get BS2 Overwatch? That's pretty chill, I'll buy it.
I get to also take one of, if not the, best transport in the game to go with them? Where can I buy some right now?!
Yep, and we have a whole imperial sector vomiting pinning left and right from every darn vehicle.
Salvo 2/3. This way it's useful for non-relentless platforms on the move and doesn't give free buffs for vehicles that come stock with HB.
Anywayz, i think this thread applie wrong logics. It's basically: "Buff everything because eldar". I think it should be the other way around: "Nerf eldar because everything". It's easier to nerf 1 codex than buff 15
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/05/14 05:35:59
koooaei wrote: Yep, and we have a whole imperial sector vomiting pinning left and right from every darn vehicle.
Salvo 2/3. This way it's useful for non-relentless platforms on the move and doesn't give free buffs for vehicles that come stock with HB.
Anywayz, i think this thread applie wrong logics. It's basically: "Buff everything because eldar". I think it should be the other way around: "Nerf eldar because everything". It's easier to nerf 1 codex than buff 15
I'm inclined to agree despite running eldar as my main force. As I see it, the rules for pretty much everything in the new eldar book are fine (except *maybe* for d-scythes), but the pricing is off. Up the cost of any given eldar option appropriately, and you have an army that drips flavor and feels elite. That said, I'm still not entirely happy with marines because, as previously stated, a lot of their nice things don't mesh well with each other.
For the record, I'm the guy playing the "mythical" footdar list. My only skimmer is a night spinner. My only other vehicles are war walkers. I win more often than I lose with that particular list. I'm also the guy who gets tacs into assault pretty frequently (outflanking them mostly, sometimes infiltrating them, not uncommonly simply attacking the things that are trying to charge me). They are underwhelming in melee except against vehicles and maybe T6 or less MCs where they're quite passable for their points.
Back to the actual topic, I very much like salvo heavy bolters. It makes HB devastators a more mobile option over their heavy weapon counterparts with potential to get an angle on models with 4+ armor. Salvo heavy bolters would blow those dire avengers people seem to have so much trouble with away.
Out of curiosity, how would everyone feel about all bolt weapons gaining full-fledged rending? You'd consistently do some damage to most vehicles with a full squad of bolters, and you'd be meaner against heavily armored infantry, but it's still only affecting 1/6th of 2/3rds of your shots. Costs would have to be changed accordingly, but is this the sort of boost imperial players would be willing to pay a few points for? Or is it too game-breaking in general? Hammering away at vehicles and MCs to eventually overwhelm them with your shots seems pretty fitting for bolters.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.
If a Heavy Weapon is more of a hinderence than a benefit, don't take it?
The numbers shown are sans Heavy in the first place. Saying otherwise because HW make them worse yet they have to take a HW to not be worse is... illogical. I always do in 10mans, but then I love my Imperial weapons.
For every unlucky round of saves a T4 3+ unit has, an equally-costed T3 4+ has worse. Exactly twice as worse, in fact, when boltguns are doing the shooting.
If footdar is kicking your ass, seriously, bring more Boltguns. You won't. In large part because footdar is *not* kicking your ass. Other builds are. Many of them Eldar.
The solution, therefore, should certainly not be buffing the weapon that already shuts down Footdar. You'd make an already too-weak-to-compete slew of builds even less able to compete. Any balancing should be around what is currently broken.
Looking at all the factions, the Eldar imbalance is rather stupendous. But its stupid things like Scatterbike spam and undercosted Wraithknights. It is much more the platform than the weapons.
So, in summary:
-Nerf Eldar platforms
-Even if we were to buff Marines, don't buff things that already shut down their targets, but won't do much to the real problems, even post-buff.
Automatically Appended Next Post: (Quick note on Harlequins - to get a ShadowSeer into a non-Harlie squad, you're about 1000pts into Harlequins minimum in a Bound list)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/05/14 12:11:05
the majority of which are either expendable ordnance or mobility impedances
I think it is hilarious when people say heavies limit movement, because it raises the question of what if someday Heavy type weapons actually stop a squad from moving as fast, just for having them in the squad. Heavy: movement is reduced by two inches and successful reserve rolls must always be always re-rolled.
. DAs are all Ld9 even without the Exarch, who is now for whatever reason WS/BS5 and I+1 compared to the other members of the squad
He is supposed to be that way. That is one of the Eldar characteristics of not having squad leaders or upgrade weapons. Exarchs have almost always been this way. I wouldn't have minded them having s4, too, except that two wounds is more correct. Exarchs are frightening, I think it is nice.
[quoe]hat the DAs scale stupendously well, and pay nothing to do it. Really, when it comes down to it, even if a Tac Marine costs 13-14 points, either identical or +1 ppm compared to a DA, the DA is a much better package. Against the S6/7 spam that's so prevalent the difference between T3 and T4 is irrelevant (most T4 basic infantry do not have FNP, so that's out), and considering that neither Tacs nor DAs want to be in combat (because Tacs suck ass in combat in the first place), then S/WS4 is irrelevant (even if both are WS4). High Initiative is nice, but fairly useless.
I think this is a pretty nice thing to say.
Bharring, you know it is hard to expect your posts have useful information in them. Stop saying that having a single shot at 24" makes a bolter better than an Avenger catapult. Or at least stop saying it in the same post as saying that avenger catapults can't be compared to bolters because they are a Terminator-grade weapon.
Tacs don't want to be in CC with most dedicated CC units. They *do* want to be in CC with most non-CC units though.
If you can manage to get 4 Marines into CC with 10 DAs, Marines win. Hard to do, sure. But Tacs sure want to.
Also, recall that in CC, Tac Marines do *three times* the damage to T6 MCs and AV10s, and can still damage T8+ or AV11+ in CC, where DAs cannot.
Pelican,
Perhaps you should review the posts if you don't think they are new information?
I do restate things frequently, but when they are misinterpreted, shouldn't I restate it, hopefully more clearly?
The discussion does frequently go in circles, but I think most of my posts relate to information that was either not factored in, or incorrectly identified/applied.
The last part of your last post is a little off, and a good example.
-Am I saying 1 shot @ 24 inches fully balances the Boltgun against the Avenger Shuriken Catapault? Certainly not. I would argue, on a weapons side, having half shots at 24" and full at 12" isn't worse, or at least not substantially worse, than full shots at 18". Which, of course, is only one aspect of each weapon. Not saying this makes the Boltgun better. Just refuting that it is in all ways worse.
-Am I saying the Avenger Shuriken Catapult is a terminator-grade weapon? Not at all. Grey Knights have Storm Bolters on their PA troops. On Tactical Terminators, they do have Storm Bolters, but they are incidental weapons. Tactical Termies are (overcosted) there for their 2+/5++, their access to certain Heavies as a relentless platform, being a full unit of veterans, and a Power Fist on each member. Storm Bolters aren't what make Termies Termies.
I'm not claiming the Avenger Shuriken Catapault isn't better than the Boltgun. I'm claiming that the Shuriken Catapault is the analogue, and its at best not much better than a boltgun. Here, yes, having one shot at 24" and two at 12" vs 2 at 12" certainly is a big deal.
I'm claiming that the Avenger Shuriken Catapault should be compared to either a Storm Bolter or a Boltgun/Special Weapon mix.
The purpose of comparing it to the Storm Bolter is because it lines up well rules-wise. You can get Troops who carry them (Grey Knights) who cost more and can do more than those carrying Boltguns or Shuriken Catapults. You trade 6" range for fake-rending. Seems like a tradeoff.
The better comparison is probably Boltgun/Plasma combined. If the Avenger Shuriken Catapault is a specialist weapon designed for hunting elite infantry in good armor, then it should be compared to similar Imperial tech. The most analogous tech would be the Plasma Gun. Seems more realistic to compare it to a mix, though, because the IoM usually mix few Plasma Guns in with Boltguns in the same squad.
So I'm comparing the Shuriken Catapault to the Boltgun, and the Avenger Shuriken Catapault to the boltgun/PG mix.
If you misunderstood me, hopefully that clears it up.
If you intentionally misconstrued what I've been saying, which I realise is possible, well, I don't have an answer to trolling.
(As to the Tac vs DA argument, even against S6/7spam, 5 Marines die at the same rate as 7.5 DAs to S6/7.)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/05/14 16:37:46
Tigramans wrote: Heavy bolter: 36" Salvo 2/4, Pinning
Done. Now it's a valid choice.
For how much it costs, yeah, it's about what I would call "right". The issue becomes the army-wide mass pinning that Imperial armies can pull off.
Salvo 2/3, and dropping the cost to 5 points, is a better solution. It also helps balance the weapon against the Autocannon, which is something that IG/Chaos Marine armies have access to on the same units that can take HBs.
Wyldhunt wrote: For the record, I'm the guy playing the "mythical" footdar list. My only skimmer is a night spinner. My only other vehicles are war walkers.
I'm sure it makes you feel good to say that footdar isn't mythical because you play it.
Wyldhunt wrote: I win more often than I lose with that particular list.
So what you're saying is that despite the fact that Tacs are "good" against footdar, it doesn't matter because Tacs are still gak -OR- Eldar are still so amazing that you can run subpar armies and crush people.
Wyldhunt wrote: I'm also the guy who gets tacs into assault pretty frequently (outflanking them mostly, sometimes infiltrating them, not uncommonly simply attacking the things that are trying to charge me). They are underwhelming in melee except against vehicles and maybe T6 or less MCs where they're quite passable for their points.
They're underwhelming in combat against everything. T5 MCs are pretty much just "Daemon Princes". Good luck trying to kill one of those with a Tac squad (hint: you can't).
As for a "typical" T6/3+ MC... let's run some numbers, using that oldest and most overshadowed and obsoleted of MCs, the Carnifex:
T6, 3+ armor, and 4W. Has WS3 and I1.
I will assume a full squad of Tacs, with no combat upgrades. They charge in and Krak the 'Fex as so:
10 Grenade attacks, @ WS4 vs WS3, for 3+ To-Hit; ~6.67 hits, ~3.34 wounds, ~1.11 unsaved wounds
Whoopee, we put a single wound onto a Carnifex!
But wait, with Bharring's supposedly godmode PlasTacs, without a heavy weapon, I can do a bit more than twice as much damage! And I can do it without having my Tacs beaten to gak in combat too. Because that 'Fex? Yeah, it's got around 4 Attacks, IIRC, and will land two, and then kill ~1.67 Marines. And in the (very long) ensuing rounds of combat, the 'Fex will slowly kill all of the Marines, and be taken down to about 1 Wound left.
So even against what is probably one of the worst MCs in the game, Tacs, which are supposedly "good" in combat with MCs, die to a man.
So tell me how Tacs "aren't bad for their points against MCs in CC", again?
Wyldhunt wrote: Back to the actual topic, I very much like salvo heavy bolters. It makes HB devastators a more mobile option over their heavy weapon counterparts with potential to get an angle on models with 4+ armor. Salvo heavy bolters would blow those dire avengers people seem to have so much trouble with away.
Salvo HBs (assuming Salvo 2/3) would add ~0.89 wounds at 0-18" if moving, or ~1.33 wounds at 0.36" if stationary. I mean, if you got a bunch of them together like HBDevs, then yeah, sure, "blow away Dire Avengers" is halfway accurate I suppose.
Wyldhunt wrote: Out of curiosity, how would everyone feel about all bolt weapons gaining full-fledged rending? You'd consistently do some damage to most vehicles with a full squad of bolters, and you'd be meaner against heavily armored infantry, but it's still only affecting 1/6th of 2/3rds of your shots. Costs would have to be changed accordingly, but is this the sort of boost imperial players would be willing to pay a few points for? Or is it too game-breaking in general? Hammering away at vehicles and MCs to eventually overwhelm them with your shots seems pretty fitting for bolters.
/shrugs
I mean, yeah, sure it's a buff and it allows Bolt weapons to scale (quite excellently, in fact, compared to Bladestorm and Gauss), but the issue I see is the further cheapening of 2+ armor infantry models.
Bharring wrote: If a Heavy Weapon is more of a hinderence than a benefit, don't take it?
The numbers shown are sans Heavy in the first place. Saying otherwise because HW make them worse yet they have to take a HW to not be worse is... illogical. I always do in 10mans, but then I love my Imperial weapons.
The numbers shown are also including an expendable munition and treating it as if it's not actually expendable. Once the combi is gone, the Tacs can produce damage on T6/3+MCs equal to that of about 7 DAs. Against T6/2+, DAs can produce roughly twice as many unsaved wounds compared to the Tacs.
The heavy weapon is absolutely critical to the squad's ability to engage T6+ targets, because the combi is not a weapon, it's an expendable munition. The DAs do not have this limitation.
Bharring wrote: For every unlucky round of saves a T4 3+ unit has, an equally-costed T3 4+ has worse. Exactly twice as worse, in fact, when boltguns are doing the shooting.
....I do not think you realize the implications of what I said, because DAs are still significantly closer to statistical predictions than Marines will ever be.
Bharring wrote: If footdar is kicking your ass, seriously, bring more Boltguns. You won't. In large part because footdar is *not* kicking your ass. Other builds are. Many of them Eldar.
Footdar being brought up was in reference to the idea that Tacs are good. Tacs are not good, they are gak. This does not mean that Footdar is broken, it simply means that footdar is either more gak than Tacs because, well, Tacs are gak (as proven already), or footdar is less gak than Tacs and you simply exaggerate the issues of bolter fire against the not-that-gak footdar.
Bharring wrote: The solution, therefore, should certainly not be buffing the weapon that already shuts down Footdar. You'd make an already too-weak-to-compete slew of builds even less able to compete. Any balancing should be around what is currently broken.
My point is not "buff boltguns", my point is "nerf Eldar into the ground".
Bharring wrote: Looking at all the factions, the Eldar imbalance is rather stupendous. But its stupid things like Scatterbike spam and undercosted Wraithknights. It is much more the platform than the weapons.
Scatterlasers are still vastly superior to almost any and every Imperial heavy weapon. Avenger catapults are still vastly superior to bolters and stormbolters.
Target scaling is important.
Bharring wrote: So, in summary:
-Nerf Eldar platforms
-Even if we were to buff Marines, don't buff things that already shut down their targets, but won't do much to the real problems, even post-buff.
I'm glad we can agree to nerf Eldar.
Bharring wrote: (Quick note on Harlequins - to get a ShadowSeer into a non-Harlie squad, you're about 1000pts into Harlequins minimum in a Bound list)
I was simply offering a solution to your nattering about DA "range issues". Wave Serpents are a better delivery mechanism anyways... which you also did not address.
@Whiskey144: Now now. We're talking about toy space soldiers on the internet. No need to take on a rude text tone.
You mention that your point is not to buff bolters but rather to nerf eldar. Well, we're in a thread about buffing imperial weapons, and between you, Bharring, and myself, I think we all agree that eldar options could use either a points boost or a slight power nerf.
Personally, I think most imperial tech is largely okay mechanically, but that points values or other rules could stand to be improved. Tac marines, for instance, would benefit greatly from the relentless rule as it would let them take advantage of both their specialized weapons and their above-average (or perfectly average depending on how you look at it) melee stats. A 5 man squad could, for instance, fire two plasma shots, lob a krak grenade, fire 6 bolter shots, and then charge into melee to throw around more strength 4 and whatever the sergeant's packing all in the same turn. Which isn't too shabby.
Some imperial tech could stand to be tweaked. The heavy bolter, for instance, is a bit too niche and restrictive for what you get. If it were a salvo weapon, you could fire it out of a rhino, fire it while moving up to an objective, etc. Giving it to devastators would give you a devastator option that would play differently from other devastator options (you'd be more mobile). A lot of imperial weapons, however, are pretty solid where they're at. Flamers? As good as flamers generally are. Heavy flamer? A great way to roast lots of threats. Meltas and multi-meltas? Not terrible odds of blowing up a vehicle in one go or, failing that, leave it crippled for a turn. Missile launchers? Solid against MCs and hordes alike, though less impressive for its points against vehicles. Lascannons? Better than bright lances against most things, though costly.
I feel like most imperial weapons do their jobs just fine. If you're more worried about competing with eldar with those weapons, I'd point out that eldar are outliers on the power scale and that it's far simpler to simply tone them down than to reinvent the weapons for a large number of factions. Are there imperial weapons that don't behave the way they should on the table? In what ways are they failing? If the answer is, "They're not as good as X," then let's look at whether or not the problem lies with the imperial weapon. Especially if X is from the new eldar book.
In another recent thread, it was proposed that scatter lasers be dropped down to strength 5. I think that's closer to the sort of change we ought to see as it makes the scatter laser more niche and reasonable for its cost rather than creating an arms race with the imperials.
ATTENTION. Psychic tests are unfluffy. Your longing for AV is understandable but misguided. Your chapter doesn't need a separate codex. Doctrines should go away. Being a "troop" means nothing. This has been a cranky service announcement. You may now resume your regularly scheduled arguing.