Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think a change to bolter type weapons etc would result in a term coined, the 'Butterfly Effect'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dandelion wrote:

As an aside I also think special issue ammunition for all marines could go along way to represent the generalist and tactical nature of the marines (i.e. being able to adapt), while improving the "elite" feel.

The problem with that is then why do we have Deathwatch?

Spectral Ceramite wrote:
The problem with changing a weapon system that is prolific as the bolter type or even just the boltgun is the inherent fact it is prolific among many armies/factions. It doesn't just affect Space Marines or Chapters from their codex, it affects other chapters and factions eg: Deathwatch and all other released Marine codexes, Grey knights, Imperial guard, Chaos, Inquisition, Sisters of Battle and a lot more armies.

That's a massive change, to fix Space marines.

And that's why i usually propose to change the way that marines use bolters, and not the bolters. The bolters in the hands of a guard sergeant or a sister are fine as it is.

I propose the following:

Fire Pattern:"A unit composed of at least 3 ADEPTUS ASTARTES models rerolls all failed hit rolls in the shooting phase with bolters, bolt pistols, storm bolters. If the unit contains at last 6 of those models, they can also reroll wound rolls of 1 with those weapons"

Then you increase the cost of bolters to 3 points, bolt pistol to 1 and stormbolters to 6, while reducing the cost of tactical marines by 4 and terminators and bikes by 6.

What does this solve:

1) A bolter in the hands of a marine becomes a scary weapon, but nothing truly exagerate (+33% output, like having an AP-1 against a 4+ save).
2) The cost of marines doesn't change, but the cost of special weapons gets indirectly reduced. This is correct, since the "bonus" that you get from a special weapons is lessened by the fact that you had to give up a weapon which is already decent. A plasma tac ends up being 23 instead of 26 for example.
3) You reduce the reliance of marines on auras, which is absolutely necessary. A tac squad becomes capable of acting as an isolated element, likewise a tactical terminator squad. Auras keep being useful to buff special weapons.
4) Hurricane bolters and heavy bolters are not included, they are special weapons and should be treated like that.
5) The 3 model base allows bikes to benefit from this, while the 6 model bonus give an incentive to bring larger squads.

In general, this fixes the overreliance of marines on specialized squads and buff auras, indirectly increasing the durability of the marine army, since you are decreasing the more glassy parts of it.
If the theme of the faction is "Rerolls", then i find it correct that the basic troops with the basic weapons do get it.

An identical change should be made for primaris obviously.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

The problem with that is then why do we have Deathwatch?

The same reason we have BA/DA/SW?

Consider also that DW has veterans as troops, super adaptive squads with great customization and unique traits and stratagems. Or I dunno, give em somewhat better versions of the generic SIA?

IDK though, would any resident DW player like to comment?

Dandelion wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

The problem with that is then why do we have Deathwatch?

The same reason we have BA/DA/SW?

Consider also that DW has veterans as troops, super adaptive squads with great customization and unique traits and stratagems. Or I dunno, give em somewhat better versions of the generic SIA?

IDK though, would any resident DW player like to comment?

My main army is DW, if you give SIA to every Normal Marine it kinda defeats the purpose of DW (even if vet stats) and Normal Marines (because would have to cost more, and is not what they need). DW are super customisable etc (that is why they are my main, cause they offer customisation). DW are fun to play and can be good but suffer from the same drawbacks as Normal marines, they pay a lot for a 3+ armour and a 3+ sv isn't that great in this edition. However, with DW this can be mitigated with a storm shield etc but then, more points and doesn't address massed fire. Then you have to throw in a termie in a DW squad to absorb no AP fire, but termies are expensive, limited etc.

I think this edition all we will see is a reduction in points for most Space marine units across all armies, no special rules to bolters or anything etc, is just to much it affects. Maybe in a future addition, they will rework the bolter, but it is just such a mainstream weapon would be more effort than worth to change atm.

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

My main army is DW, if you give SIA to every Normal Marine (and don't increase cost) it kinda defeats the purpose of DW (even if vet stats) and Normal Marines (because cost more).

Why do you assume points would stay the same? The cost of units should always reflect their ability, so DW would be paying the same amount as normal marines, not more.

Besides I think you did somewhat agree with my point that SIA is not the only selling point for DW. The structure of the DW is unique at the very least.

I must of edited it after you quoted me. Anyway my points above. I didn't say I was disagreeing with you anywhere, just expanding.

EDIT: If they do add another SIA to Space Marines (I think you eluded to this Dandelion) say it is called: Emperor's Benediction Rounds (has some special rule) and can be equipped by all space marine faction armies (to boltguns or bolter type weapons. I think boltguns, bolter type weapons is to many things, but depends on rule). That could get around influencing non space marine armies and would be cool.

However, as I said above
I think this edition all we will see is a reduction in points for most Space marine units across all armies, no special rules to bolters or anything etc, is just to much it affects. Maybe in a future addition, they will rework the bolter, but it is just such a mainstream weapon would be more effort than worth to change atm.

"Which at their current price point, would be perfectly fair and fluffy, IMO, especially considering Eldar are supposed to be squishing and avoid being in RF range of big scary gorillas with shotguns (which is basically what Marines are to the Aeldari).
The idea is that if Marines can get that close, it's all over for the Eldar, but if the Eldar can coordinate their forces to pick off enough Marines before they get close, DAs and Gaurdians can swoop in a finish off the remainders.
In a 1-1 fight, Marines should win 90% of the time, but instead Marines and DAs are about even."

I think you're missing the scenario. It'd be Marine shooting killing twice as many Dire Avengers as *Dire Avengers* kill Marines. Marines already kill twice as many Dire Avengers as Marines as-is (although it'd be the same ratio at present).

"especially considering Eldar are supposed to be squishing and avoid being in RF range of big scary gorillas with shotguns" Which they already are. Marines kill over half their number of DAs in a single round of shooting. That's fair. What you're missing is that Eldar are shooting those big scary armored gorillas with their super advanced armored gorilla shooting guns. With the change, Marines nearly wipe equal numbers (or points) of DAs in a single round of shooting, while DAs kill less than half their numbers of Marines.

"The idea is that if Marines can get that close, it's all over for the Eldar, but if the Eldar can coordinate their forces to pick off enough Marines before they get close, DAs and Gaurdians can swoop in a finish off the remainders."
Is that why Eldar range is so much longer than IoM? Whereas IoM Lascannons are only 48", CWE's equivelent is a whopping 36"? Whereas IoM troop weapons are only 24", CWE is a whopping 12" or 18"?
CWE doesn't pick you off at range then dice you up close. Most of their weaponry is close range. Outside of Reapers, IoM destroy Eldar at long range. It's Eldar that need to get up close to kill Marines, not Marines that need to get up close to kill Eldar.

"In a 1-1 fight, Marines should win 90% of the time, but instead Marines and DAs are about even."
This is why I have such a problem with this thread. DAs are only 1ppm cheaper than Marines. DAs are kitted similar to Tac-Plas squads, but without Overcharge, so are kitted for killing Marines. It's their ideal troop to fight. Yet they lose both on points and per model. Why *should* Marines win 90% of the time vs an equally-elite unit that specializes in fighting elite troops?

I think you don't quite get how most of CWE functions. We've had some OP units and combos, but most units in our books for many editions have not worked that way.

My biggest issue with just dropping the points on Marines is that is doesn't actually translate to anything significant.
While Marines definitely need to be cheaper, say 11ppm, what does that buy anyone? Most lists are still just gonna take as few Marines as is required.

Let's assume most lists have about 20 Marines in their list. Going from 13ppm to 11ppm saves only 40pts. 40pts!?!?
That buys NOTHING of worth. You can't even get another unit of Marines with just 40pts, so hardly anyone will.

That, dear friends, is why Marines need something extra along with the points decrease.
Explosive Rounds causing 2 wounds per 6 to wound against non-Vehicles could be that something extra. 3 wounds per 6 for Heavy Bolters
It is a simple change that puts Bolter Weapons on par with Shuriken, Splinter and Gauss weapons and most importantly, makes them noticeably better than Lasguns

And I am well aware of just how far reaching this change could be. That's the point. It will affect several factions, none of which spam Bolter weapons (by choice as a valid tactic) currently and many of them have issues with Hordes.

-

CA is clearly going with cheaper based off the leaks.

If you think about it, marines with the current rules are the models they have the data for.

18 pt DC and 14 pt ASM stack up much better vs 5 pt guardsmen and 7 pt boyz. 2 pts on one end and 1 pt on the other matters.

Martel732 wrote:
CA is clearly going with cheaper based off the leaks.

If you think about it, marines with the current rules are the models they have the data for.

18 pt DC and 14 pt ASM stack up much better vs 5 pt guardsmen and 7 pt boyz. 2 pts on one end and 1 pt on the other matters.

Cheaper Marines and more expensive Horde models would certainly make a difference, yes. 11ppm Marines may not make a big difference in how many more Marines you can take, but 1-2pt increases on Guardsmen, Ork Boys, Kabalites, etc will make a difference in how many less models those armies can take.
Fingers crossed.

I'm trying not to get my expectations too high for CA, but I am really hoping for significant changes to several factions. Mostly cheaper Windriders

-

GW gave that model a nice timeout. Still not sure I'm ready to see them, or WK again. Even with fair rules.

To be clear, I also support 5 pt Guardsmen relative to 11 point Marines.

5x 13 pts = 65
6x 11 pts = 66

For 1 more point, you get 20% more firepower, staying power, board control. A 2 point reduction per model translates to, essentially, a holistic 20% buff to the unit.

Or more accurately, allowing a player to take about 10% to 15% more infantry for the same cost... depending on MSU-Style max upgrades or not. That is a big, holistic buff to Marines.

I'd expect elite versions of Marines to have their chassis dropped by a similar points value. Assault units, Devs, Anything in PA should see a points drop, and likely more points / chassis for elite units. Maybe 3 or even 4 points for certain unit models.

Call it the dissy cannon discount.

Marines need the weight of fire that almost every other faction in the game can bring. Otherwise they will lose every time vs cheaper, better infantry

Dandelion wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

The problem with that is then why do we have Deathwatch?

The same reason we have BA/DA/SW?

Consider also that DW has veterans as troops, super adaptive squads with great customization and unique traits and stratagems. Or I dunno, give em somewhat better versions of the generic SIA?

IDK though, would any resident DW player like to comment?

As a Deathwatch player, that's already their gimmick. I also believe that the Angel codices need to be consolidated into the main Marine codex as neither are THAT unique that they need their own codex. I would also consolidate the Renegade Chapter marines into the Loyalist codex as well. They could've been easily handled but the way GW did it was lame.

Nature's Minister wrote:
Marines need the weight of fire that almost every other faction in the game can bring. Otherwise they will lose every time vs cheaper, better infantry

With the most recetn rumors putting Marines 5-10% cheaper and "cheaper, better infantry" getting increased in points, we may see enough of a tip of the scales so that Marines feel like they have more weight of fire.
Being outnumbered 2:1 will feel vastly different than being outnumbered 3:1

-

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

The problem with that is then why do we have Deathwatch?

The same reason we have BA/DA/SW?

Consider also that DW has veterans as troops, super adaptive squads with great customization and unique traits and stratagems. Or I dunno, give em somewhat better versions of the generic SIA?

IDK though, would any resident DW player like to comment?

As a Deathwatch player, that's already their gimmick. I also believe that the Angel codices need to be consolidated into the main Marine codex as neither are THAT unique that they need their own codex. I would also consolidate the Renegade Chapter marines into the Loyalist codex as well. They could've been easily handled but the way GW did it was lame.

Considering what happened to Black Templars when they got folded, please don't fold anyone else. Just don't.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Spectral Ceramite wrote:

The problem with that is then why do we have Deathwatch?

The same reason we have BA/DA/SW?

Consider also that DW has veterans as troops, super adaptive squads with great customization and unique traits and stratagems. Or I dunno, give em somewhat better versions of the generic SIA?

IDK though, would any resident DW player like to comment?

As a Deathwatch player, that's already their gimmick. I also believe that the Angel codices need to be consolidated into the main Marine codex as neither are THAT unique that they need their own codex. I would also consolidate the Renegade Chapter marines into the Loyalist codex as well. They could've been easily handled but the way GW did it was lame.

Considering what happened to Black Templars when they got folded, please don't fold anyone else. Just don't.

They still have most of their tools (Sword Brethren are just Vanguard, seriously) and gained even more tools.

The issue is how bad Marine melee is.

To be fair BT did get shafted in the tactics section but what did they lose being clumped in VS what did they gain?

There are lots of threads with Black Templars players outlining exactly that. I’d say vows foremost for them, and relics. As for what they gained they hardly care about devastators scouts or sternguard.

If they’re going to drop a codex at all they’d might as well drop the vanilla one. They could put a few pages on ultramarines at the back of the Dark Angels or Black Templars book.

My personal opinion on the matter is that there should be 5+ Marine Codices in the first place. 2-3 would have sufficed:
1 "Master" Codex that details all shared units + some generic traits for all the "vanilla" Chapters
1 Supplement Codex that adds to that with all the Blood Angel and Dark Angel special units and traits

Space Wolves might have enough unigue stuff to get their own codex, but it's entire possible to have rolled them into that same Supplemental Codex, which should be about as "thick" as the master Codex
Deathwatch and Grey Knights can then have a shared Codex lead by Inquisitors.

The indexes came really close to finally achieving this, but alas, GW wants you to buy as many books as possible

-

The 'unique' codex should add something for all chapters, and they know they can.

Iron Hands have Iron Fathers ect.

pelicaniforce wrote:
There are lots of threads with Black Templars players outlining exactly that. I’d say vows foremost for them, and relics. As for what they gained they hardly care about devastators scouts or sternguard.

If they’re going to drop a codex at all they’d might as well drop the vanilla one. They could put a few pages on ultramarines at the back of the Dark Angels or Black Templars book.

Every Chapter lost Relics this edition. That's nothing specific to them.

Also why wouldn't a melee army care about fire support from Devastators or Sternguard (where they could at least leverage their two attacks)? Even Daemons have units that can shoot for fire support like Soul Grinders and Skullcannons and such.

At most the Chapters only need like 2-3 unique units each, and maybe 3 total special relics. Consolidate almost all of the equipment (there's literally no reason why Dark Angels don't have Centurions, which is like a unit they should enjoy), and you can focus on better internal and therefore external balance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seriously Black Templars really only lost vows.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Seriously Black Templars really only lost vows.

And the ability to actually have good melee units, because if you propose a melee buff to Black Templars now everyone gets up in arms about how you can't buff Marine melee because it'd break the book. You have a much greater ability to make the army have unique strengths and weaknesses when you can play around with wargear selection and model statlines without having to worry about how Bobby G will break the proposed changes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Seriously Black Templars really only lost vows.

And the ability to actually have good melee units, because if you propose a melee buff to Black Templars now everyone gets up in arms about how you can't buff Marine melee because it'd break the book. You have a much greater ability to make the army have unique strengths and weaknesses when you can play around with wargear selection and model statlines without having to worry about how Bobby G will break the proposed changes.

Bobby G is just a big issue all-around.

And I don't think anyone has said Marines have good melee, outside maybe BA and SW, so I don't know why you think people are against Marines getting better melee.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Seriously Black Templars really only lost vows.

And the ability to actually have good melee units, because if you propose a melee buff to Black Templars now everyone gets up in arms about how you can't buff Marine melee because it'd break the book. You have a much greater ability to make the army have unique strengths and weaknesses when you can play around with wargear selection and model statlines without having to worry about how Bobby G will break the proposed changes.

Literally nobody would complain about that, and you already know the codex shouldn't be balanced around Roboute like it already was. That's just bad reasoning to try and give them a separate codex they don't need.

 Galef wrote:
My personal opinion on the matter is that there should be 5+ Marine Codices in the first place. 2-3 would have sufficed:
1 "Master" Codex that details all shared units + some generic traits for all the "vanilla" Chapters
1 Supplement Codex that adds to that with all the Blood Angel and Dark Angel special units and traits

Space Wolves might have enough unigue stuff to get their own codex, but it's entire possible to have rolled them into that same Supplemental Codex, which should be about as "thick" as the master Codex
Deathwatch and Grey Knights can then have a shared Codex lead by Inquisitors.

The indexes came really close to finally achieving this, but alas, GW wants you to buy as many books as possible

-

Yeah I would have loved buying a marine codex broken into 2 books, one all fluff for all the chapters then the other all the data sheets. They did it with the index after all

If marines had decent melle options - BT tactic would be awesome.

It isn't even really necessary. You only need the following for Loyalist Scum:
Master Codex with 8 of the founders, covering Successor Chapters and Renegades
Space Wolves
Grey Knights and Deathwatch in an Inquisition Codex? Or keep them separate for the time being.

Minor correction - there are only 8 loyalist Founders, and one of those is Space Wolves. So you meant 7 Founders in the first book.