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.

The Rapid Fire rules were, IIRC, always, always, always preceded by some bumpf about advancing and 'shooting from the hip' vs. being stationary and being able to take better aim.

For clarity, I'm not arguing that's realistic. I wouldn't know. I will say however that if you play a game featuring Daemons, sentient fungus, Elves and fish-people, realism probably isn't actually uppermost in your mind.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The Rapid Fire rules were, IIRC, always, always, always preceded by some bumpf about advancing and 'shooting from the hip' vs. being stationary and being able to take better aim.

For clarity, I'm not arguing that's realistic. I wouldn't know. I will say however that if you play a game featuring Daemons, sentient fungus, Elves and fish-people, realism probably isn't actually uppermost in your mind.

an unrealistic setting still requires plausible game mechanics.

flying pigs still wouldn't do even if they too are unrealistic.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The Rapid Fire rules were, IIRC, always, always, always preceded by some bumpf about advancing and 'shooting from the hip' vs. being stationary and being able to take better aim.

For clarity, I'm not arguing that's realistic. I wouldn't know. I will say however that if you play a game featuring Daemons, sentient fungus, Elves and fish-people, realism probably isn't actually uppermost in your mind.

So where are my Guardsmen punching planets to death?

GW must be trying to protect its poster children from hoard armies.

If these rules go live though, Deathwatch will be awesome. Storm shields with storm bolter vets immediately come to mind.

stormcraft wrote:
From the February WD:
https://imgur.com/a/3YEDg58

Beta Rule - Bolter Discipline

All Adeptus Astartes and Heretic Astartes models gain this ability. Instead of following the normal rules for Rapid Fire weapons, Rapid fire bolt weapons used by models with this ability make double the number of attacks if any of the following apply:

The firing model's target is within half the weapon's maximum range.
The firing model remained stationary during its previous Movement phase.
The firing model is a Terminator, Biker ????, Centurion or Vehicle.

This will go a long way making marines better but my Custodes are going to be even badder mofos.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
While it's a welcome change, it doesn't really do anything to encourage you to actually take Chaos Space Marines as Troops.

Cultists are still vastly more efficient.

You can get 15 CSM for 40 Cultists.

It depends on what you're trying to do and this might reveal why cultists went to 5 points. Cultists require a lot more support and CSM benefit more from buffs.

That many CSM, while not likely in cover, have big durability advantages. One S4 hit kills a marine 16% of the time and a cultist 55% of the time (11% and 42% vs S3). That's not the whole picture, but you're getting a return on your investment in most cases.

At 24" 5 CSM produce 8.9 S4 hits with full rerolls. 13 Cultists get 9.8 S3. The strength advantage goes a long way - especially when VotLW takes them to wounding on 2/3/4 instead of 3/4/5.

Vastly is not the right word. The problem is having to stand still.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


This will go a long way making marines better but my Custodes are going to be even badder mofos.

Does not apply to Custodes. They are not Astartes.

Buff is a buff and bolters could use it, but its not my favorite addition mechanically. I'm always a little fearful of "stand still to shoot better" kind of rules, not because they don't make sense but because they trend towards more static gameplay when models are punished for moving.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
If I understand the rule correctly, technically it only works with Crimson Fists' bolter relic if that relic is taken by an Ancient, but not if it is taken by a Captain or a Lieutenant...

Err, none of those models can take the Crimson Fist relic bolter. Did you mean the Primaris versions?

However, you're right the Beta rule doesn't apply if you replace a Master-crafted auto bolt rifle or Master-crafted stalker bolt rifle, only if you replace a normal Bolt Rifle.

Good feedback - can't be intentional.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sumilidon wrote:
GW must be trying to protect its poster children from hoard armies.

If these rules go live though, Deathwatch will be awesome. Storm shields with storm bolter vets immediately come to mind.

Welcome to the most popular DW build in use since the codex.

And which never dropped outside of rapid fire anyway.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Excommunicatus wrote:
While it's a welcome change, it doesn't really do anything to encourage you to actually take Chaos Space Marines as Troops.

Cultists are still vastly more efficient.

You can get 15 CSM for 40 Cultists.

It depends on what you're trying to do and this might reveal why cultists went to 5 points. Cultists require a lot more support and CSM benefit more from buffs.

That many CSM, while not likely in cover, have big durability advantages. One S4 hit kills a marine 16% of the time and a cultist 55% of the time (11% and 42% vs S3). That's not the whole picture, but you're getting a return on your investment in most cases.

At 24" 5 CSM produce 8.9 S4 hits with full rerolls. 13 Cultists get 9.8 S3. The strength advantage goes a long way - especially when VotLW takes them to wounding on 2/3/4 instead of 3/4/5.

Vastly is not the right word. The problem is having to stand still.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:


This will go a long way making marines better but my Custodes are going to be even badder mofos.

Does not apply to Custodes. They are not Astartes.

Well my Space Wolves will get a lot of use out the rule. World Eaters not so much, too many chainaxes lol

 LunarSol wrote:
Buff is a buff and bolters could use it, but its not my favorite addition mechanically. I'm always a little fearful of "stand still to shoot better" kind of rules, not because they don't make sense but because they trend towards more static gameplay when models are punished for moving.

I mean, with basic marines having a lot of heavy weapons, if you're taking marines on foot you're most probably wanting to be stationary (firing heavy weapons) and if you're taking marines mounted, you're probably going to want to be within 12" to use grav/plasma/melta/etc, so you'll be moving and getting within half range.

The way I see it, this buffs the previously not useful heavy weapon toting mixed marine units, like Sternguard and tacticals with heavy weapons. Especially sternguard! Take a squad with two lascannons and park them in cover while the rest fire those 30" range AP-2 boltguns in rapid fire. Damn.

I'd like a heavy bolter version, mostly because I love nothing better than kitting all my long fangs out will heavy bolters, they just look so cool.

nevermind.

Hmm, don't aggressors in deathwatch squads give them a sort of relentless rule? So they could always double tap at 24 then even on the move?

Just checked, they do.... Make not being able to have normal and primaris mixed squads even more annoying now.

DW aggressors ignore advance and fire assault weapons or move and fire heavy weapons.

i think this is a step in the right direction and a great sign going forward for game balance. I love the idea of balancing SM by making them use tools better (that's exactly what they do in the fluff) this gives another balance mechanic outside just points or straight up stats adjustments.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
DW aggressors ignore advance and fire assault weapons or move and fire heavy weapons.

I must have misunderstood the rules then, oh well. Would have been cool for intercessors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
i think this is a step in the right direction and a great sign going forward for game balance. I love the idea of balancing SM by making them use tools better (that's exactly what they do in the fluff) this gives another balance mechanic outside just points or straight up stats adjustments.

I think they may increase damage output first. Then they may alter survive-ability if this alone does not do the trick (which whilst it is good, it won't). Land raider crusaders sitting back and shooting up hordes for fun from range is a strangely entertaining thought though.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
DW aggressors ignore advance and fire assault weapons or move and fire heavy weapons.

I must have misunderstood the rules then, oh well. Would have been cool for intercessors.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Asmodios wrote:
i think this is a step in the right direction and a great sign going forward for game balance. I love the idea of balancing SM by making them use tools better (that's exactly what they do in the fluff) this gives another balance mechanic outside just points or straight up stats adjustments.

I think they may increase damage output first. Then they may alter survive-ability if this alone does not do the trick (which whilst it is good, it won't). Land raider crusaders sitting back and shooting up hordes for fun from range is a strangely entertaining thought though.

Yeah, I wasn't saying that this outright fixes SM... but I think its a step in the right direction and an interesting way to go about it. I would like to see more changes like this vs simple points adjustments. I will also take small incremental changes over wild swings in power. Keep slowly buffing bad units till they feel just right

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
i think this is a step in the right direction and a great sign going forward for game balance. I love the idea of balancing SM by making them use tools better (that's exactly what they do in the fluff) this gives another balance mechanic outside just points or straight up stats adjustments.

I think they may increase damage output first. Then they may alter survive-ability if this alone does not do the trick (which whilst it is good, it won't). Land raider crusaders sitting back and shooting up hordes for fun from range is a strangely entertaining thought though.

You mean, actually doing what they do in fluff? Yeah, that's pretty strange thought about SM in most of 40K editions

cmspano wrote:

Marines blow GEQ out of the water with this - even with FRFSRF.

Uh no they won't. 90 Catachans will still be racing across the board at 4ppm, getting 12 shots for the same price as a single marine getting 2 shots. Then when they get to melee they'll be doing 3 attacks each, rerolling 1's to hit, vs a marine's 1. Plus there's 3 of them per marine. Guardsmen will still outclass marines in every way.

What are sternguard for 200?

Thoughts...

1) It's a buff for arguably the worst unit in the game at the moment (basic Space Marines)
2) It's a superb buff for Terminators and Bikers...perhaps not the right buff, but anything to make them vaguely worth taking is a plus, so I'll allow it.
3) It unfortunately buffs the units which were already better than basic Space Marines just as much.
4) It makes Assault Marines even worse, something I wasn't sure was possible.
5) It's a much larger buff to normal Space Marines who have more access to things like hurricane bolters, etc.
6) It's nice to see the buff impact vehicles, particularly since no Marine vehicles (outside dreads) gain Chapter Traits, so it's a nice little something.
7) Some armies gain even more from it, such as Thousand Sons....that many additional -2 bolter shells is a HUGE buff compared to normal bolters.

The main issue for me...is that while this helps with obnoxious armies like Orks, it equally makes any Toughness 3 army that much worse. Bolt guns are already efficient at killing Eldar. I feel the power swing between my all-Craftworld force and my buddy's Dark Angels may be pretty huge.

Generally I think it's a sloppy fix, but a needed buff to marines which are in a bad spot. However, in a game more "moar moar moar dice", this may be quite strong vs. armies with normal infantry models on the table.

Asmodios wrote:
i think this is a step in the right direction and a great sign going forward for game balance. I love the idea of balancing SM by making them use tools better (that's exactly what they do in the fluff) this gives another balance mechanic outside just points or straight up stats adjustments.

I agree. Sternguard vets are now only 15pts more per squad of 5... in return they get 30" -2ap weapon that now fires two shots if they sit back and hold an objective.

 Elbows wrote:

4) It makes Assault Marines even worse, something I wasn't sure was possible.

Yes, but progress is progress. Maybe they can get a +2A with chainswords when charging. Rhinos got a bit more useful so maybe people will be less shy about using them to get assault marines stuck in.

The overall good thing about all of this is that GW recognizes an issue exists and is willing to fix it outside of points.

The main issue for me...is that while this helps with obnoxious armies like Orks, it equally makes any Toughness 3 army that much worse. Bolt guns are already efficient at killing Eldar. I feel the power swing between my all-Craftworld force and my buddy's Dark Angels may be pretty huge.

Marines haven't been absolutely trouncing Eldar with bolters though and they certainly needed it to compete with IS.

this may be quite strong vs. armies with normal infantry models on the table.

Given that hordes backed by knights are largely dominant I can't see this as a bad thing.

the_scotsman wrote:

torblind wrote:
In the olden days rapid fire was shooting more if stationary.

As anyone who has served in the military can tell you, when you are firing while stationary, you do not gain the ability to fire more accurately at long range. Instead, when you hold down the trigger the gun starts firing more bullets.

In fact, the only thing that makes your gun fire more bullets than standing stationary is when a guy runs at you waving a sword - then your gun starts firing FOUR times as fast!

I can tell you quite the opposite. Not only does moving make for less accurate fire, it implies that you're moving to your next piece of cover or concealment. If you're doing things properly then you're doing so while your counterparts fire from their own supported and concealed positions; a favor which you immediately return as soon as you take a stable firing position so that they can then move ahead as well. There isn't a marksman in the world who would be equally accurate on the move as they would in some kind of supported firing position.

Not that this rule really represents accuracy, but there is no question that you are able to place more shots more accurately when stationary rather than moving through the open. Maybe you meant that being stationary does not increase your rate of fire?

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
I'd like a heavy bolter version, mostly because I love nothing better than kitting all my long fangs out will heavy bolters, they just look so cool.

You wouldn't need a separate rule for HBs. Just add a caveat to Bolter Discipline that allows ASTARTES to treat HBs as RF2 (b/c RF3 might be a bit much with all the rule combine)
That's 4 shots if Stationary or 4 shots at 18" with no -1 to hit.
Heck even if you had to move and weren't within half range, 2 shots that hit on 3+ is about the same as 3 shots at 4+, but you got to move

Done

-

 Irbis wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:

Asmodios wrote:
i think this is a step in the right direction and a great sign going forward for game balance. I love the idea of balancing SM by making them use tools better (that's exactly what they do in the fluff) this gives another balance mechanic outside just points or straight up stats adjustments.

I think they may increase damage output first. Then they may alter survive-ability if this alone does not do the trick (which whilst it is good, it won't). Land raider crusaders sitting back and shooting up hordes for fun from range is a strangely entertaining thought though.

You mean, actually doing what they do in fluff? Yeah, that's pretty strange thought about SM in most of 40K editions

cmspano wrote:

Marines blow GEQ out of the water with this - even with FRFSRF.

Uh no they won't. 90 Catachans will still be racing across the board at 4ppm, getting 12 shots for the same price as a single marine getting 2 shots. Then when they get to melee they'll be doing 3 attacks each, rerolling 1's to hit, vs a marine's 1. Plus there's 3 of them per marine. Guardsmen will still outclass marines in every way.

What are sternguard for 200?

Sternguard for 200...

I got it close so

Sternguard SGT with a stormbolter + special issue boltgun
6 Vets with special issue boltgun
2 Vets with combi plasma
1 vet with a plasma cannon

196pts

 Excommunicatus wrote:
The Rapid Fire rules were, IIRC, always, always, always preceded by some bumpf about advancing and 'shooting from the hip' vs. being stationary and being able to take better aim.

For clarity, I'm not arguing that's realistic. I wouldn't know. I will say however that if you play a game featuring Daemons, sentient fungus, Elves and fish-people, realism probably isn't actually uppermost in your mind.

Wish people would stop that excuse. You do know you can have all those AND it make actually sense? IT just requires professionals writing stuff.

 Excommunicatus wrote:
sentient fungus

That would be ridiculous. Luckily the setting has sentient lichens instead.

 Bobthehero wrote:


So where are my Guardsmen punching planets to death?

The datasheet is called 'Colonel "Iron Hand" Straken'

Jokes aside, in the same way as when discussing movies, the fact that the setting is fantastic does not mean consistency (different thing from realism) should not be important.
In case of a quite abstract ruleset, perhaps not the focus, but important anyway.

As Luciferan and other pointed out anyway, I am pretty sure the old rule implied that the range "gained" while stationary was the effective range the weapon could operate at. Same thing for the rate of fire.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

The datasheet is called 'Colonel "Iron Hand" Straken'

You got me there

torblind wrote:
unrealistic setting still requires plausible game mechanics..

Like psychic powers and beings made of magic and cobwebs?

 Excommunicatus wrote:

torblind wrote:
unrealistic setting still requires plausible game mechanics..

Like psychic powers and beings made of magic and cobwebs?

That, but with limits on how much a psychic power user can "psychic" a turn.

Also, for the vast majority of us shooting from the hip vs. being stationary and aiming better is plausible.