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.

 Arachnofiend wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
DG and TS should be folded back into CSM with marks actually doing gak.

GK and Deathwatch would have to stay separate, though I think those could fit in an inquisition book nicely.

Death Guard have a lesser part of this problem, but the Thousand Sons really cannot be built in a satisfying way without a specific book and a specific army list. The organization is just so fundamentally different from the baseline assumptions of a CSM warband. It's a much larger difference than the distinction between Ultramarines and Dark Angels, that's for sure.

That's my primary issue. Loyalists all have only a slight variation of the same Chapter Organization. It's easy enough to throw them into the same codex (though Space Wolves are a much harder task as they keep getting crap added as is).

Death Guard and Thousand Sons got the treatment of getting a bunch of specific crap as well, but in a much different manner compared to how the Loyalists did.

Thousand sons can still be folded.

Tzaangors and all beastmen can be folded into a lost and the damned codex, as it should be. Then, generic units like Rubric marines can be represented through a Mark of Tzeentch. Their special terminators can be a unit, along with something else. All legions would get a few special units, and hopefully better specific rules (Like 30k).

For the sake of tradition (2nd Ed.) Marine infantry gets to fire one extra shot with bolt weapons, per "rate of fire number". Rapid Fire 1 gets two shots at long range, 3 at short range. Storm Bolters fire 4 shots at long range, 6 at short range.

In 2nd they could simply fire twice if they stood still, but I'd rather reduce the output and keep them mobile instead.

---

If you wanted to continue going traditional, give all their heavy weapons a +1 to hit, as in 2nd edition all their heavy weapons came with Targeters. Which would be amazingly good. I don't necessarily recommend this, but it's academically interesting.

The less said about 2nd the better.

Martel732 wrote:
The less said about 2nd the better.

Looking to the past isn't automatically good, but that's not really a counter argument either.

It did have the benefit of not making boltguns different, at least. A boltgun was a boltgun whether held by an Ork, guardsmen or marine, the weapon itself had the same stats. Marines just got to shoot it twice if they stood still.

I also like that it doesn't add a reroll or additional roll. It's just more dice up front, which is cleaner, imo.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The less said about 2nd the better.

Looking to the past isn't automatically good, but that's not really a counter argument either.

It did have the benefit of not making boltguns different, at least. A boltgun was a boltgun whether held by an Ork, guardsmen or marine, the weapon itself had the same stats. Marines just got to shoot it twice if they stood still.

I also like that it doesn't add a reroll or additional roll. It's just more dice up front, which is cleaner, imo.

it’s way cleaner than rerolls.

Yes it was just being held by a marine. It is hugely bothering that the text of the rule just said the marine plants his feet, braces himself, and lets rip with the bolter. It’s so stupid, as though a guardsman or a orknor guardian couldn’t also do that, and you had to have the special rule, if perchamce it were left out of the space wolf or chaos books the same essential marine wouldn’t be able to.

Tie it to power armor please. If you’re a scout you can’t do it if you’ve got [p]owered armor you can. That way it’s at least WYSIWYG.

pelicaniforce wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The less said about 2nd the better.

Looking to the past isn't automatically good, but that's not really a counter argument either.

It did have the benefit of not making boltguns different, at least. A boltgun was a boltgun whether held by an Ork, guardsmen or marine, the weapon itself had the same stats. Marines just got to shoot it twice if they stood still.

I also like that it doesn't add a reroll or additional roll. It's just more dice up front, which is cleaner, imo.

it’s way cleaner than rerolls.

Yes it was just being held by a marine. It is hugely bothering that the text of the rule just said the marine plants his feet, braces himself, and lets rip with the bolter. It’s so stupid, as though a guardsman or a orknor guardian couldn’t also do that, and you had to have the special rule, if perchamce it were left out of the space wolf or chaos books the same essential marine wouldn’t be able to.

Tie it to power armor please. If you’re a scout you can’t do it if you’ve got [p]owered armor you can. That way it’s at least WYSIWYG.

Fair enough, no Scouts. Make it a byproduct of more experience and the interface between Black Carapace and Power Armor to exclude Scouts, Sisters of Battle etc. I'd also keep it off Bikes. Bikes are a little strange anyways at the moment with both the rider and the bike shooting.

I’m pretty ambivalent about it affecting sisters or not. I don’t know that it should be limited to bolters either.

Any (space marine) infantry model in power armor, who does not have a -1 to their to hit roll from normal movement, may fire (any form of bolt gun or bolt pistol) their weapons an additional time in their shooting phase. This ability may be used by models that advanced, usually allowing them to fire once.

One of the things I am growing a distaste for in the Proposed rules forum is how complicated some suggestions are or become.
While I certainly welcome constructive criticism on a proposed rules, when a simple easy change morphs into an overly complicated thing just because it benefits X more than Y, I immediately lose interest.

Not picking out anyone in particular, but pointing out that a very simple easy change has gone on for 7 pages so far with little consensus. I was particularly proud of this idea and very glad there was some early enthusiasm for it that allowed my original proposal to be "refined"

I truly feel that "Explosive Rounds" dealing 2 wounds for each roll of a 6 to wound against non-Vehicles is not only a fair and fluffy rule, but a needed one.
I am well aware of how many factions it would affect, which was the point. Bolters are largely pretty crap and should have something that makes them worthwhile in mass as well as being much better than Lasguns (which they aren't).
This could have been the rule to fix it, but many appear to disagree. That's fine, I guess, just disappointing

-

Honestly I liked your fix.

I also agree on how complicated some rules become in this subforum. All I wanted to give Terminators was WS/BS2+ and maybe an extra attack. You instead have people stacking on rules with old Relentless, ignoring penalties with unwieldy weapons, even though my fix did all that AND touched other kinds of Terminators.

 Galef wrote:
One of the things I am growing a distaste for in the Proposed rules forum is how complicated some suggestions are or become.
While I certainly welcome constructive criticism on a proposed rules, when a simple easy change morphs into an overly complicated thing just because it benefits X more than Y, I immediately lose interest.

Not picking out anyone in particular, but pointing out that a very simple easy change has gone on for 7 pages so far with little consensus. I was particularly proud of this idea and very glad there was some early enthusiasm for it that allowed my original proposal to be "refined"

I truly feel that "Explosive Rounds" dealing 2 wounds for each roll of a 6 to wound against non-Vehicles is not only a fair and fluffy rule, but a needed one.
-

It seems like lots of people thought it wasn’t simple.

A really easy change would be to add the following to all bolter weapons: "When rolling to wound against infantry and biker models you can reroll failed to wound rolls".

Clean easy and effective. Gives a clear role to bolter weapons and reduces the reliancy on auras.

also like that (a different rule) it doesn't add a reroll or additional roll. It's just more dice up front, which is cleaner, imo.

pelicaniforce wrote:
Tie it to power armor please. If you’re a scout you can’t do it if you’ve got [p]owered armor you can. That way it’s at least WYSIWYG.

I keep seeing this, but don't understand how it would work. There's no POWER ARMOR keyword in the rules anywhere. Space Marines just have a 3+ save; sure, we all know from the fluff that its because they wear Power Armor, but there's no distinction in the rules for this. Similarly there's no keyword representing Scout Armor, they just have a 4+ save stat.

Having the rule on the weapon is significantly easier than editing every single datasheet of models that are wearing power armor to reflect that. It's not like bolters are all that common in other forces really (well except SoB).

Reroll to-wound vs Infantry of Biker is indeed quite simple and easy, but man is it powerful

Yes they are, however one of the things with rerolls is that you always get them even when it’s just one model shooting. Also unlike exploding shells, you’ve said that you feel it will be effective the effect in gameplay on say a five marine combat squad seems less than cosmetic. It’s biggest effect seems to be having something on paper to separate bolters from shootas or lasguns, but in game it seems very limited.

Between the the three I’d pick rerolls closely tied with no change at all, then exploding shells in third place because it is too much of an extra rule without effecting either the models I want (like captains who roll few sixes) or enough of a difference in anything else.

For me, there might be a slightly substantial number of words in the rules, comparable to exploding shells, but on the table there are aren’t even a round of rerolls or separate results.

 Kcalehc wrote:

pelicaniforce wrote:
Tie it to power armor please. If you’re a scout you can’t do it if you’ve got [p]owered armor you can. That way it’s at least WYSIWYG.

I keep seeing this, but don't understand how it would work. There's no POWER ARMOR keyword in the rules anywhere. Space Marines just have a 3+ save; sure, we all know from the fluff that its because they wear Power Armor, but there's no distinction in the rules for this. Similarly there's no keyword representing Scout Armor, they just have a 4+ save stat.

Having the rule on the weapon is significantly easier than editing every single datasheet of models that are wearing power armor to reflect that. It's not like bolters are all that common in other forces really (well except SoB).

Traditionally armor was a war gear item and not a profile characteristic “save stat.” A reason this is changed may be that only a few types of armor had effects other than their save, whereas in most GW games other than 40k power armor does have other effects, starting in RT.

I think for some players’ purposes, proposed rules are house rules or tournament packs, in which case keywords aren’t essential. For others, this is speculation or suggestion for official GW corrections, in which case chapter approved changes might be dicey, but it might also apply to ninth edition where amendments can be done by fiat, or it’s not expected to matter because GW isn’t interested anyway.

I guess, for me, simplicity shouldn't involve both a rule change AND points change. Should be one or the other.
Giving all Bolter weapons reroll to-wound against Infantry and Bikes might require some point adjustments on some units, which complicates things.

I certainly like rerolls to-wound for Bolters, but if we added it overnight, there would be a massive power shift, and not necessarily for the betterment of the game.
But I am warming to the idea, since it does represent exploding rounds pretty well.

-

well, would Re-Rolls vs Infantry alone be as bad?

and would it be a point rais eof say, oh I dont know, the 2-3 points we're all hoping CA removes?

effectively making it the change we need for free?

I don't think it would be too powerful on just Infantry, just odd. What wouldn't a Bike or Monster feel the affects of an exploding rounds?

No, the more I think about it, the more comfortable I am with "Exploding Rounds" just flat out being reroll to-wound against all non-Vehicle units

The only downside is that Primaris Lieutenants would need a new aura rule.

-

A free Shred is never a good idea unless the model is ridiculously expensive.

I mean, both Lieutenants will...

however, it is something I dont quite know how I feel about, that an army suddenly gains re-roll to wounds with basic weaponry.

I get that it does a thing, it just does nothing except make glass cannon armies feel glassier
whereas at least an extra save on a 6 would be occaisionally-glassier, not blanket getting shredded by basic fire.

Yeah, if we are handing out Shred, overcosted units would stay as-is. So a 13ppm Marine becomes worth that cost.
Termies with Stormbolter get better too.

But Custodes bikes would need a price hike, for sure

-

 Galef wrote:

Not picking out anyone in particular, but pointing out that a very simple easy change has gone on for 7 pages so far with little consensus.

Honestly, that's why I tend not to frequent proposed rules.

Imo an extra wound on a 6 doesn't appear to meaningfully affect the damage output of a squad. If I'm not mistaken, it seems bit skewed towards higher toughness models rather than dealing with the GEQ that everyone tends to be upset about.

The more I hear the re-roll idea the more I think it is the perfect fix for marines.

Remove the stupid auras from the HQs and make the cheaper. Let marine infantry of all flavors re-roll 1's to hit and 1's to wound in combat and shooting. All hits if they stand still or charge.

Helps with the overall price of the army by reducing the over-costed HQs. Allows marines to play like marines instead of worse IG castles. Solves the Guilliman problem, helps the mobility issues, helps offensive output, is simple universal rule, helps all marine units without worrying about sisters/guard.

Hell, since re-rolls are baked into the price of marines as is why not just give it to them all the time and allow marine characters to be heroes.

Easier than exploding sixes with restrictions and cross faction issues. Already a 8th mechanic people are familiar with and would only take a couple lines in next years FAQ to fix (remove auras from HQs, reduce prices of HQs and three lines to add re-roll 1's to hit and wound for sm infantry, re-roll all misses in shooting if model did not move in previous player turn and re-roll all CqC on the charge).

Reroll 1's to Wound against all targets is also a good fix for Bolter weapons. It skews it less toward high T targets like Rerolling any failed to-wound would (since there would inherently be more failed rolls to reroll than against, say T3)

Yep, that's what I'm going with:
Explosive Rounds = Bolters of all types reroll 1's to wound.

-

I was fine with that last edition, but the Lt. exists now.

We need a more unique mechanic which is why I like your idea early on.

Well sure if you wanted something conclusive you’d have to be in a forum for tournament organizers, where most of the posters had to come to individual decisions and use it in some timeframe. Of course there isn’t much of a culture of do it yourself rules but that’s a place to find what there is.

It’s like how if you want to see some interesting fan made background you look through painting logs for someone who has also written background. The actual fan made forum sections mostly have arguments and uninteresting posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I was fine with that last edition, but the Lt. exists now.

We need a more unique mechanic which is why I like your idea early on.

There’s nothing intrinsic about marines that demands they cluster around characters. Like the fellow says:

Remove the stupid auras from the HQs and make the cheaper. Let marine infantry of all flavors re-roll 1's to hit and 1's to wound in combat and shooting. All hits if they stand still or charge.

Helps with the overall price of the army by reducing the over-costed HQs. Allows marines to play like marines instead of worse IG castles. Solves the Guilliman problem, helps the mobility issues, helps offensive output, is simple universal rule, helps all marine units without worrying about sisters/guard.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually I don’t like baked-in refills at all that’s bad, but character auras are stupid and really negatively affect the way the army plays.

People are only bitching about GEQ because it's still criminally undercosted compared to just about everything. That, and they can be shoehorned into virtually anything else ever...

my primary army, as seen by my Avatar, is not Space Marines, but I can totally see how the bolter needs buffing to be valid.

Necron Warriors come in squads of 10 minimum, at 120 points.
They have the exact same statline as Marines, with one exeption: a 4+ save.

Before we get into intense maths on the surviveability of the two units, for near enough the same price (120 vs 119), you get 10 warriors, or 9 marines where the sergeat has a Storm Bolter

at 24" range, unsupported by anything, this is the same number of shots, hitting and wounding on the same score, and after Necron modifiers, the same armour saves on both sides, for:
10 * [(2/3)*(1/2)*(1/2)] = 1.67 unsaved wounds, for 2 dead guys each if we round mathematically, 1 each if absolutely

at 12" range though, the numbers become less clean. The Necrons get:
20 * [(2/3)*(1/2)*(1/2)] = 3.33
whereas the Marines get:
22 * [(2/3)*(1/2)*(1/2)] = 3.67

The killing power doesnt change much between them actually, so it might not be quite so bad as first thought.

However, once we bring buffs into this, things get a lot worse. Not counting rerolls or bonuses, just the improvements to the guns given by this suggestion and the Necron Dakka Code: Mephrit (purely because guns and bullets and wounding is the topic, not the necessity for rerolls and stuff)

Necrons at 24"
10 * [(2/3)*(1/2)*(1/2)] = 1.67
Necrons at 12"
20 * [(2/3)*(1/2)*(1/3)] = 4.44

Space Marines at 24"
10 * [(2/3)*((1/2)+((1/6)*(1/2))*(1/2)] = 1.94
Space Marines at 12"
22 * [(2/3)*((1/2)+((1/6)*(1/2))*(1/2)] = 4.27

YMMV, but seems like rerolling 1s isnt a terrible idea. They gain a small bump at long range, and then the same level of ramp up in unsaved wounds for getting into RF

Yeah, I'm holding judgement until after CA. If Marines go down in cost AND Gaurdsmen/Cultists and other similar chaff untis go up in cost, it may very well balance out.
Time will tell

At any rate, I am very glad to see that GW is making small changes over time, rather than big changes that last whole editions. They've had a tendency in the past to over-do it, so it is nice to see they've learned from that

-

pelicaniforce wrote:
Well sure if you wanted something conclusive you’d have to be in a forum for tournament organizers, where most of the posters had to come to individual decisions and use it in some timeframe. Of course there isn’t much of a culture of do it yourself rules but that’s a place to find what there is.

It’s like how if you want to see some interesting fan made background you look through painting logs for someone who has also written background. The actual fan made forum sections mostly have arguments and uninteresting posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I was fine with that last edition, but the Lt. exists now.

We need a more unique mechanic which is why I like your idea early on.

There’s nothing intrinsic about marines that demands they cluster around characters. Like the fellow says:

Remove the stupid auras from the HQs and make the cheaper. Let marine infantry of all flavors re-roll 1's to hit and 1's to wound in combat and shooting. All hits if they stand still or charge.

Helps with the overall price of the army by reducing the over-costed HQs. Allows marines to play like marines instead of worse IG castles. Solves the Guilliman problem, helps the mobility issues, helps offensive output, is simple universal rule, helps all marine units without worrying about sisters/guard.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually I don’t like baked-in refills at all that’s bad, but character auras are stupid and really negatively affect the way the army plays.

Nothing demands they cluster around Characters, but fixes for Marines need to focus on two demands:
1. Make them less dependent on those auras
2. Make sure that, if an aura is used, it isn't redundant and too expensive.

That's why Salamanders are easily one of the worst armies conceived this edition so far. You get ONE reroll, and those campers had the aura buffing them most likely too.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

That's why Salamanders are easily one of the worst armies conceived this edition so far. You get ONE reroll, and those campers had the aura buffing them most likely too.

Two rerolls, one for hit and one for wound. Also for CC.

The other way to think about it is that every heavy weapon you deploy can have Guide and Doom on it automatically. And you have the freedom not to blob.

Except Guide and Doom affect every weapon. Or, in the case of Doom, everyone attacking a particular target.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also LOL that it affects melee. That doesn't do anything for Marines and you know that.