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.

Yeah it seems like the codex just had the new rules applied, such as ap adjustment, and formations turned into stratagems. But then there was no real input for adjustment cause they were trying to get as many out as possible

(Can we buff the Bolters in my Guard squads as well?)

M.

 Infantryman wrote:
(Can we buff the Bolters in my Guard squads as well?)

M.

I wanted my change implemented for all Bolt Weapons.

Gah I did not quote BaconCatBug like I intended :|

M.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.

Never underestimate how much people hate Astartes on the internet.

What if Boltors regained their AP5? "When wounded by a <BOLT> weapon a model possessing a 5+ or 6+ save is treated as having a 7+ save."

Makes Bolt weapons unique, gives them a niche against hordes, doesn't step on the toes of Gauss or Shuriken weapons and conserves the usefulness of Cover and the AP on Bolt Rifles, Heavy Boltors and the like.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.

I am sure you meant all Bolters including Adepta Sororitas.

MalfunctBot wrote:
What if Boltors regained their AP5? "When wounded by a <BOLT> weapon a model possessing a 5+ or 6+ save is treated as having a 7+ save."

Makes Bolt weapons unique, gives them a niche against hordes, doesn't step on the toes of Gauss or Shuriken weapons and conserves the usefulness of Cover and the AP on Bolt Rifles, Heavy Boltors and the like.

I actually like that!
With that nobody would complain that bolters would be "too good against vehicles"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This would be a good idea for even tau fire warriors that also took a hit after 7th

Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Nah I'd still have infantry in my Guard.

M.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Guard infantry's problems were that orders weren't automatic, S3 did nothing to lots of targets, and most basic guns ignored their save if they weren't camping in cover. THEN you add opportunity cost of needing to do a platoon.

So which of these issues weren't fixed yet?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if "6's proc a rule" were really that bad, Eldar alone would've stopped Guard infantry being fielded.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if "6's proc a rule" were really that bad, Eldar alone would've stopped Guard infantry being fielded.

Yeah well. Eldar's shuriken 'proc' doesn't hurt large numbers of cheap units. It hurts small numbers of elite 'high save' units. But you have to remember you're talking to a guy that does well alpha-striking with large numbers of tactical marines. I don't like to exclude contributions, but well, some circumstances are highly situational and not representative of the greater potentials.

 Torga_DW wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if "6's proc a rule" were really that bad, Eldar alone would've stopped Guard infantry being fielded.

Yeah well. Eldar's shuriken 'proc' doesn't hurt large numbers of cheap units. It hurts small numbers of elite 'high save' units. But you have to remember you're talking to a guy that does well alpha-striking with large numbers of tactical marines. I don't like to exclude contributions, but well, some circumstances are highly situational and not representative of the greater potentials.

Yeah and I'm not taking anyone seriously that alpha strikes with Tactical Marines and has success nobody else does with them, yet says they simply can't make time to do a major tournament once.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Guard infantry's problems were that orders weren't automatic, S3 did nothing to lots of targets, and most basic guns ignored their save if they weren't camping in cover. THEN you add opportunity cost of needing to do a platoon.

So which of these issues weren't fixed yet?

I'm honestly failing to see a point there. Elaborate?

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Guard infantry's problems were that orders weren't automatic, S3 did nothing to lots of targets, and most basic guns ignored their save if they weren't camping in cover. THEN you add opportunity cost of needing to do a platoon.

So which of these issues weren't fixed yet?

I'm honestly failing to see a point there. Elaborate?

Orders are now automatic, except on Conscripts; S3 is much better, wounding T5 on 5s and T6+ on 6s, when before it couldn't even touch a GUO, and they get their save now.

 Infantryman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Nah I'd still have infantry in my Guard.

M.

Yeah? Some would, I'm sure. Though I'd expect usage to drop some and I'd rather it didn't. Just looking for a balance. AP 5 butchered GEQ out of cover last edition, and I just didn't see many Guardsmen in recent years. Now, particularly with the recent hits againt Commissars I get the feeling that massed casualties would result, making for less GEQ types on the table again, after only 6ish months of a revival.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Guard infantry's problems were that orders weren't automatic, S3 did nothing to lots of targets, and most basic guns ignored their save if they weren't camping in cover. THEN you add opportunity cost of needing to do a platoon.

So which of these issues weren't fixed yet?

I'm honestly failing to see a point there. Elaborate?

Orders are now automatic, except on Conscripts; S3 is much better, wounding T5 on 5s and T6+ on 6s, when before it couldn't even touch a GUO, and they get their save now.

Right, but the proposal is that they are allowed no save.

Which still leaves them with two distinct advantages over where they were at before.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if "6's proc a rule" were really that bad, Eldar alone would've stopped Guard infantry being fielded.

Yeah well. Eldar's shuriken 'proc' doesn't hurt large numbers of cheap units. It hurts small numbers of elite 'high save' units. But you have to remember you're talking to a guy that does well alpha-striking with large numbers of tactical marines. I don't like to exclude contributions, but well, some circumstances are highly situational and not representative of the greater potentials.

Yeah and I'm not taking anyone seriously that alpha strikes with Tactical Marines and has success nobody else does with them, yet says they simply can't make time to do a major tournament once.

Thats Alpha Strikes with weapon-dense Tactical Combat Squads, Devastators, Chapter Master and Lieutenant, mind you. 36 Grav Cannon shots and 16 Combi Plasma shots rerolling to hit/1's to wound, after landing in cover, and sometimes using the Pods to block LOS against return fire. And sometimes assaulting with certain elements afterwards to mitigate more return fire.

I don't think it's what Id bring to a tournament, but it works pretty well in my local meta. It might work for others in theirs, or, some other folks might be looking for new ways to use Tacs, so I post it on the forum. Sorry that bothers you so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which still leaves them with two distinct advantages over where they were at before.

Fair call. But imo the flipside is that twin linked weapons get more shots, marines have access to rerolls, morale kills guys during firefights, the marine only Assault Cannon was upped by 2 shots, and marines can make more use of their generalist nature by being able to assault after firing. Also the Grav Cannon wounds them on 3s rather than 5s, making it straight better than a heavy bolter against GEQs. I'll throw in Storm Bolters getting double the shots at close range and being able to assault after deep strike.

And primaris with 2 wounds and an AP -1 were introduced.

There's just a lot more going on besides 'dps'. I approach with caution.

Edit again: Has anyone noticed that IG tanks mostly have single weapons, while many marine tanks have twin linked ones?

 Insectum7 wrote:

I don't think it's what Id bring to a tournament, but it works pretty well in my local meta. It might work for others in theirs, or, some other folks might be looking for new ways to use Tacs, so I post it on the forum. Sorry that bothers you so much.

*your local meta*. I did hellishly well in my local meta, and went to a tournament and got roflstomped. I sucked, absolutely sucked. When you're edge-testing the extremes of the game, it's important to note how you're doing *locally* vs how you're doing to *everyone else*. What bothers me, is that GW might be designing the game based on localized data vs *the rest of the world* data. That's not how you balance a game. If i make a list that sucks - i deserve to suck. That's partly on me, and partly on gw for the game they designed. My point is - local meta doesn't mean sh*t when you're exposed to the rest of the world vs the game rules. I sucked - i own that. And that's precisely why i don't attribute personal fortune with the overall balance of the game.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Infantryman wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Nah I'd still have infantry in my Guard.

M.

Yeah? Some would, I'm sure. Though I'd expect usage to drop some and I'd rather it didn't. Just looking for a balance. AP 5 butchered GEQ out of cover last edition, and I just didn't see many Guardsmen in recent years. Now, particularly with the recent hits againt Commissars I get the feeling that massed casualties would result, making for less GEQ types on the table again, after only 6ish months of a revival.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Guard infantry's problems were that orders weren't automatic, S3 did nothing to lots of targets, and most basic guns ignored their save if they weren't camping in cover. THEN you add opportunity cost of needing to do a platoon.

So which of these issues weren't fixed yet?

I'm honestly failing to see a point there. Elaborate?

Orders are now automatic, except on Conscripts; S3 is much better, wounding T5 on 5s and T6+ on 6s, when before it couldn't even touch a GUO, and they get their save now.

Right, but the proposal is that they are allowed no save.

The proposal in that post is no save on the wounding of 6+, which is what Eldar do on a lot of weapons against Guard.

Which is why I gotta ask how this would stop Guard from fielding Infantry if Eldar didn't stop that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also if "6's proc a rule" were really that bad, Eldar alone would've stopped Guard infantry being fielded.

Yeah well. Eldar's shuriken 'proc' doesn't hurt large numbers of cheap units. It hurts small numbers of elite 'high save' units. But you have to remember you're talking to a guy that does well alpha-striking with large numbers of tactical marines. I don't like to exclude contributions, but well, some circumstances are highly situational and not representative of the greater potentials.

Yeah and I'm not taking anyone seriously that alpha strikes with Tactical Marines and has success nobody else does with them, yet says they simply can't make time to do a major tournament once.

Thats Alpha Strikes with weapon-dense Tactical Combat Squads, Devastators, Chapter Master and Lieutenant, mind you. 36 Grav Cannon shots and 16 Combi Plasma shots rerolling to hit/1's to wound, after landing in cover, and sometimes using the Pods to block LOS against return fire. And sometimes assaulting with certain elements afterwards to mitigate more return fire.

I don't think it's what Id bring to a tournament, but it works pretty well in my local meta. It might work for others in theirs, or, some other folks might be looking for new ways to use Tacs, so I post it on the forum. Sorry that bothers you so much.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Which still leaves them with two distinct advantages over where they were at before.

Fair call. But imo the flipside is that twin linked weapons get more shots, marines have access to rerolls, morale kills guys during firefights, the marine only Assault Cannon was upped by 2 shots, and marines can make more use of their generalist nature by being able to assault after firing. Also the Grav Cannon wounds them on 3s rather than 5s, making it straight better than a heavy bolter against GEQs. I'll throw in Storm Bolters getting double the shots at close range and being able to assault after deep strike.

And primaris with 2 wounds and an AP -1 were introduced.

There's just a lot more going on besides 'dps'. I approach with caution.

Edit again: Has anyone noticed that IG tanks mostly have single weapons, while many marine tanks have twin linked ones?

Pfft, I could run Tyberos in 6th/7th edition on occasion and have him not die if my locals were more casual that day. This is why I don't care about your locals.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Right, and there goes any guard army with infantry.

How much GEQ did you see fielded in 5th, 5th and 7th? It got more and more rare because the basic gun of the most popular army ignored the armor. I'd prefer to see GEQ on the table.

Guard infantry's problems were that orders weren't automatic, S3 did nothing to lots of targets, and most basic guns ignored their save if they weren't camping in cover. THEN you add opportunity cost of needing to do a platoon.

So which of these issues weren't fixed yet?

I'm honestly failing to see a point there. Elaborate?

Orders are now automatic, except on Conscripts; S3 is much better, wounding T5 on 5s and T6+ on 6s, when before it couldn't even touch a GUO, and they get their save now.

Don't forget my point about Platoons not being a thing anymore either.

MalfunctBot wrote:
What if Boltors regained their AP5? "When wounded by a <BOLT> weapon a model possessing a 5+ or 6+ save is treated as having a 7+ save."

Makes Bolt weapons unique, gives them a niche against hordes, doesn't step on the toes of Gauss or Shuriken weapons and conserves the usefulness of Cover and the AP on Bolt Rifles, Heavy Boltors and the like.

@Slayer: There's no mention of rolling a 6 here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

I don't think it's what Id bring to a tournament, but it works pretty well in my local meta. It might work for others in theirs, or, some other folks might be looking for new ways to use Tacs, so I post it on the forum. Sorry that bothers you so much.

*your local meta*. I did hellishly well in my local meta, and went to a tournament and got roflstomped. I sucked, absolutely sucked. When you're edge-testing the extremes of the game, it's important to note how you're doing *locally* vs how you're doing to *everyone else*. What bothers me, is that GW might be designing the game based on localized data vs *the rest of the world* data. That's not how you balance a game. If i make a list that sucks - i deserve to suck. That's partly on me, and partly on gw for the game they designed. My point is - local meta doesn't mean sh*t when you're exposed to the rest of the world vs the game rules. I sucked - i own that. And that's precisely why i don't attribute personal fortune with the overall balance of the game.

That's great and fine, but we also have to reconcile the fact that their product is largely intended for local metas, and that the greater use case in actuality is local metas, and that people may be coming to the forum to look for solutions regarding their local metas, and not tournaments.

I agree that tournaments are a data point, but its unarguably a myopic one. The game is played a myriad of ways, and the idea that it's in any way homogenous is absurd. Simply using different density of terrain changes the respective value of units, for example. Tournament play is certainly the most recorded, but I personally don't find their terrain setups ideal. Most I see are rather barren if you ask me.

 Insectum7 wrote:

MalfunctBot wrote:
What if Boltors regained their AP5? "When wounded by a <BOLT> weapon a model possessing a 5+ or 6+ save is treated as having a 7+ save."

Makes Bolt weapons unique, gives them a niche against hordes, doesn't step on the toes of Gauss or Shuriken weapons and conserves the usefulness of Cover and the AP on Bolt Rifles, Heavy Boltors and the like.

@Slayer: There's no mention of rolling a 6 here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Torga_DW wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

I don't think it's what Id bring to a tournament, but it works pretty well in my local meta. It might work for others in theirs, or, some other folks might be looking for new ways to use Tacs, so I post it on the forum. Sorry that bothers you so much.

*your local meta*. I did hellishly well in my local meta, and went to a tournament and got roflstomped. I sucked, absolutely sucked. When you're edge-testing the extremes of the game, it's important to note how you're doing *locally* vs how you're doing to *everyone else*. What bothers me, is that GW might be designing the game based on localized data vs *the rest of the world* data. That's not how you balance a game. If i make a list that sucks - i deserve to suck. That's partly on me, and partly on gw for the game they designed. My point is - local meta doesn't mean sh*t when you're exposed to the rest of the world vs the game rules. I sucked - i own that. And that's precisely why i don't attribute personal fortune with the overall balance of the game.

That's great and fine, but we also have to reconcile the fact that their product is largely intended for local metas, and that the greater use case in actuality is local metas, and that people may be coming to the forum to look for solutions regarding their local metas, and not tournaments.

I agree that tournaments are a data point, but its unarguably a myopic one. The game is played a myriad of ways, and the idea that it's in any way homogenous is absurd. Simply using different density of terrain changes the respective value of units, for example. Tournament play is certainly the most recorded, but I personally don't find their terrain setups ideal. Most I see are rather barren if you ask me.

Yeah that's not gonna stop people using Infantry. Mathematically you still don't kill a lot. 10 in rapid fire range is almost 9 dead. Or 36 points earned back.

It isn't like Sternguard are doing that spectacularly when ignoring that armor, and they're only maybe 4 or 5 points more. Sternguard are slightly popular, and yet that's not stopping Infantry or Gaunts being ran. Hmm.

If you want to reflect the fluff of bolters and Marines in particular (which is where the focus seems always to be focussed) you have to redesign the marines to be more like cinematic marines so they will cut swathes of enemy "mortals" down in a single burst - likely a single bolt.

But then the pts costs per marine need to rocket - and that not something GW wants even if it might be better for the game and certainly might in a less obsessive focus on Marine models over everything else.

The ideas above are interesting but also I don't think they will give people what they want and still will end up wanting to tweek it further to get what they want

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah that's not gonna stop people using Infantry. Mathematically you still don't kill a lot. 10 in rapid fire range is almost 9 dead. Or 36 points earned back.

It isn't like Sternguard are doing that spectacularly when ignoring that armor, and they're only maybe 4 or 5 points more. Sternguard are slightly popular, and yet that's not stopping Infantry or Gaunts being ran. Hmm.

That's not very convincing. Sternguard are 1 unit type, boltguns are on many. Casualty rate will jump for those of us that bring lots of marines, or lots of Storm Ravens with Hurricane Bolters. IMO bolter spam will be too powerful.

Nor does your calculation take morale into account, which will give you more points back. More still if you assault, too.

*Did you know a 10 man Tac Squad w/Plas, Combi-Plas, Grav Cannon will outshoot Sternguard against GEQ beyond the 12" band?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.

I like this idea, but probably should be "non-vehicle" only, bolters are meant to tear through flesh so on infantry and monsters? sure!

MalfunctBot wrote:
What if Boltors regained their AP5? "When wounded by a <BOLT> weapon a model possessing a 5+ or 6+ save is treated as having a 7+ save."

I'd just say no, GEQ had to use cover to basically have any chance of survival, and it would force that again, but getting in cover is way harder to pull off in 8th edition.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
If you want to reflect the fluff of bolters and Marines in particular (which is where the focus seems always to be focussed) you have to redesign the marines to be more like cinematic marines so they will cut swathes of enemy "mortals" down in a single burst - likely a single bolt.

But then the pts costs per marine need to rocket - and that not something GW wants even if it might be better for the game and certainly might in a less obsessive focus on Marine models over everything else.

The ideas above are interesting but also I don't think they will give people what they want and still will end up wanting to tweek it further to get what they want

Sooo true, Table to vs lore is pretty funny when it comes to marines...

The number of marines that are fielded and killed during a 1 day 40k Tournament are less than the total number of marines grown and killed in the period of 1000 years in the lore...

 Insectum7 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Yeah that's not gonna stop people using Infantry. Mathematically you still don't kill a lot. 10 in rapid fire range is almost 9 dead. Or 36 points earned back.

It isn't like Sternguard are doing that spectacularly when ignoring that armor, and they're only maybe 4 or 5 points more. Sternguard are slightly popular, and yet that's not stopping Infantry or Gaunts being ran. Hmm.

That's not very convincing. Sternguard are 1 unit type, boltguns are on many. Casualty rate will jump for those of us that bring lots of marines, or lots of Storm Ravens with Hurricane Bolters. IMO bolter spam will be too powerful.

Nor does your calculation take morale into account, which will give you more points back. More still if you assault, too.

*Did you know a 10 man Tac Squad w/Plas, Combi-Plas, Grav Cannon will outshoot Sternguard against GEQ beyond the 12" band?

That squad loadout is almost 200 points. I'm pretty sure I'm able to make a Sternguard squad better than that for the price.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.

I would. There's no reason why Sisters boltguns have to be worse than marine boltguns.

Fethin' marinewank.

 Melissia wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
If you gave all ADEPTUS ASTARTES and HERETIC ASTARTES a special rule that made their Bolt weapons be AP-1 on a 6 to wound I am sure no-one would have a reasonable objection to it.

I would. There's no reason why Sisters boltguns have to be worse than marine boltguns.

Fethin' marinewank.

They're bigger Bolters. That's a good reason.

Nobody is opposed to fixing Sister Bolters though.

On a troop level I'd say most are balanced with each other.
It's the elites that mess up the balance and the charts that let you forgo taking troops and B-line elites don't help that.
My friend thought that crisis suit were too expensive, then he realized he can slap 3 plasma guns on a guy and melt a unit.
We do both agree that they are a tad too expensive still though

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
They're bigger Bolters.

Not really, actually. Sisters wear power armor specifically so they can wield bigger weapons than ordinary humans. This is also why Sisters can walk around toting heavy bolters, where unaugmented humans have to wield them in teams.

Boltguns don't need to be made in to tiered weapons. Hell, even having Guard be able to have that bonus on a to-wound roll of 6 wouldn't be broken, since they have to pay for their bolters and can only have one per squad anyway. And, I should remind you, FRFSRF doesn't apply to boltguns anyway, nor can conscripts have any in their squad. For a d6 game like 40k, there's no reason to have a division between different types of boltguns. After all, it's not like GW differentiates between Scouts (who get S4, no power armor) and Marines (who get S4, having power armor) in close combat.