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.

ThatMG wrote:
I don't really like this beta rule, even if it might be fun to play in a casual one off game.
The reasons why I think is the whole
"ignore what rapid fire does"
Your creating a game-state where rules exist for rapid fire but are not used and also not applying to all instances of the "bolt" weapon.
I rather have a Bolt Type with it's own rules than this..., then all bolt weapons are FAQ to the bolt type.

It's truly inelegant. Think about armies like the DG, with 2 rules layered one over the other.
I mean it could be for the greater good but it's a sign of how clueless and aimless the design team is, and especially how much clueless and aimless was in the moment the ruleset for 8th was written. This is reflected too in patch-rules like the one for Russes, a clear indication of how much they botched the transition from area effects to D6 for large cannons.
Albeit I think that part of the complication could be due to the fact that we are living in a transition period concerning marines.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

ThatMG wrote:
I don't really like this beta rule, even if it might be fun to play in a casual one off game.
The reasons why I think is the whole
"ignore what rapid fire does"
Your creating a game-state where rules exist for rapid fire but are not used and also not applying to all instances of the "bolt" weapon.
I rather have a Bolt Type with it's own rules than this..., then all bolt weapons are FAQ to the bolt type.

It's truly inelegant. I mean it could be for the greater good but it's a sign of how clueless and aimless the design team is, and especially how much clueless and aimless was in the moment the ruleset for 8th was written.
Think about armies like the DG, with 2 rules layered one over the other.
Albeit I think that part of the complication is the fact that we are living in a transition period concerning marines.

It's better than having to wait for a new edition.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

ThatMG wrote:
I don't really like this beta rule, even if it might be fun to play in a casual one off game.
The reasons why I think is the whole
"ignore what rapid fire does"
Your creating a game-state where rules exist for rapid fire but are not used and also not applying to all instances of the "bolt" weapon.
I rather have a Bolt Type with it's own rules than this..., then all bolt weapons are FAQ to the bolt type.

It's truly inelegant. I mean it could be for the greater good but it's a sign of how clueless and aimless the design team is, and especially how much clueless and aimless was in the moment the ruleset for 8th was written.
Think about armies like the DG, with 2 rules layered one over the other.
Albeit I think that part of the complication is the fact that we are living in a transition period concerning marines.

It's better than having to wait for a new edition.

A new edition might not be a bad idea actually. Easily consolidate all the changes into only a couple documents, and re-write problematic rules (looking at you, Ynarri).

Darsath wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

ThatMG wrote:
I don't really like this beta rule, even if it might be fun to play in a casual one off game.
The reasons why I think is the whole
"ignore what rapid fire does"
Your creating a game-state where rules exist for rapid fire but are not used and also not applying to all instances of the "bolt" weapon.
I rather have a Bolt Type with it's own rules than this..., then all bolt weapons are FAQ to the bolt type.

It's truly inelegant. I mean it could be for the greater good but it's a sign of how clueless and aimless the design team is, and especially how much clueless and aimless was in the moment the ruleset for 8th was written.
Think about armies like the DG, with 2 rules layered one over the other.
Albeit I think that part of the complication is the fact that we are living in a transition period concerning marines.

It's better than having to wait for a new edition.

A new edition might not be a bad idea actually. Easily consolidate all the changes into only a couple documents, and re-write problematic rules (looking at you, Ynarri).

I think they have to see more. It's pretty clear that they are slooowly awakening to everything that is fundamentally missing or it has been gravely mishandled.
I understand your intention but it's not with this design team. I mean it could happen, but it would then be like 7th was for 6th.

Can't wait to see how much this affects the meta. The sheer scope of this buff is the most impressive part. Who knows what long forgotten units and combos may now come back and see some play.

We aren't even 2 years into 8th. We don't need a 9th edition, we need GW to continue to do what they are doing and tinker with the current rules. The main issue is that they need to consolidate where you get the rules from. Putting such a change in a monthly magazine right after CA came out shows the problem with GW maintaining large portions of the rules in scattered physical formats.

w1zard wrote:
I really wish they would leave rules changes out of white dwarf. White dwarf should be a hobbying magazine and not a rules/points update like CA.

Now I feel like I have to buy this issue of WD to play marines.

Yeah, they need to post things like this one their website. GW is totally trying force us to buy copies of their magazine.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/01/21/21st-jan-introducing-better-beta-boltersgw-homepage-post-4/

We need better stratagems for marines in general along with more specific unit types, devastators, tacticals, sternguard, etc. Right now its only primaris units and those don't seem to make them any better at all.

I agree with whom ever said "The design team seems to be wandering aimlessly." IT seems to run true with some of their changes in CA.

If anything they should make an online fully free compendium of all their changes for 8th. Just not points costs. This way we can have substantial changes other than an FAQ. It would take more work but the fans have already paid for most things.

Chapter approved needs to be totally ditched at a source for rules changes and cost changes, keep it for adding new content but that's it, any and all rules changes and cost changes get moved to each armies relevent FAQ/Errata, paying for fixes to a poorly thought out and maintained system is just pure stupudity, if people insist on paying for patches then they are part of the problem.

 Formosa wrote:
Chapter approved needs to be totally ditched at a source for rules changes and cost changes, keep it for adding new content but that's it, any and all rules changes and cost changes get moved to each armies relevent FAQ/Errata, paying for fixes to a poorly thought out and maintained system is just pure stupudity, if people insist on paying for patches then they are part of the problem.

Agree with the idea. Disagree with the sentiment.

w1zard wrote:
I really wish they would leave rules changes out of white dwarf. White dwarf should be a hobbying magazine and not a rules/points update like CA.

Now I feel like I have to buy this issue of WD to play marines.

Why? It's posted on Warhammer community for free.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Formosa wrote:
Chapter approved needs to be totally ditched at a source for rules changes and cost changes, keep it for adding new content but that's it, any and all rules changes and cost changes get moved to each armies relevent FAQ/Errata, paying for fixes to a poorly thought out and maintained system is just pure stupudity, if people insist on paying for patches then they are part of the problem.

No thanks.

Chapter Approved should go the complete opposite direction.

Every year, the active edition should include any and all changes to core rules by reprinting the Battle primer. Instead of points changes, it should include ALL points costs.

Then keep all the same extra stuff like the missions, the narrative and open play components, etc.

Make it the true companion piece it should be.

Its too bad Rubrics don't have the old Slow and Purposeful anymore. Then they could move and still double tap at 24" with this. They should be able to do that.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:
Its too bad Rubrics don't have the old Slow and Purposeful anymore. Then they could move and still double tap at 24" with this. They should be able to do that.

100% agree. The only reason they don't is because the wording of All is Dust predated this idea. It would make them incredible.

I genuinely though Rapid Fire 1 would become Rapid Fire 2 within half range and was pretty ecstatic that marines were back in business. MFW I realised I misunderstood the rule and this changed practically nothing: a minor buff but nothing to write home about and definitely not something that will Make Astartes Great Again... :(

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Yeah, they need to post things like this one their website. GW is totally trying force us to buy copies of their magazine.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/01/21/21st-jan-introducing-better-beta-boltersgw-homepage-post-4/

Lemondish wrote:

w1zard wrote:
I really wish they would leave rules changes out of white dwarf. White dwarf should be a hobbying magazine and not a rules/points update like CA.

Now I feel like I have to buy this issue of WD to play marines.

Why? It's posted on Warhammer community for free.

All of the relevant rules updates that appear in every issue of WD are going to be posted online for free? I was under the assumption that this was just a "sneak peak" picture of the rule to generate hype.

TBF, I won't be surprised if this rule makes it into the next Big FAQ document (which does seem to be where most beta rules live).

Over the years, I've always thought that bolters need a boost as Marine armies are usually rather mediocre.
This change is a bit too much if you ask me.
But now I'll give my GK another go.

w1zard wrote:

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

Yeah, they need to post things like this one their website. GW is totally trying force us to buy copies of their magazine.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/01/21/21st-jan-introducing-better-beta-boltersgw-homepage-post-4/

Lemondish wrote:

w1zard wrote:
I really wish they would leave rules changes out of white dwarf. White dwarf should be a hobbying magazine and not a rules/points update like CA.

Now I feel like I have to buy this issue of WD to play marines.

Why? It's posted on Warhammer community for free.

All of the relevant rules updates that appear in every issue of WD are going to be posted online for free? I was under the assumption that this was just a "sneak peak" picture of the rule to generate hype.

Way to move the goalposts. This rule is on WHC. Others won’t be. No-one can predict the future and say all WD rules will be reprinted online. We know that meatier stuff like Crimson Fists isn’t online. But a Beta rule they want feedback from everyone on? Makes sense to post it online.

I may be eight pages late to this party, but as someone who already runs terminators in their current state, I for one welcome this boon. Hopefully, we get to keep some benefit from this rule when it leaves beta.

Darsath wrote:

A new edition might not be a bad idea actually. Easily consolidate all the changes into only a couple documents, and re-write problematic rules (looking at you, Ynarri).

Oh don't worry, 2020/2021 will get here soon enough.
Evidence:
Rulebook editions
Rogue Trader (1987)
Second edition (1993)
Third edition (1998)
Fourth edition (2004)
Fifth edition (2008)
Sixth edition (2012)
Seventh edition (2014)
Eighth edition (2017)

 Ginjitzu wrote:
I may be eight pages late to this party, but as someone who already runs terminators in their current state, I for one welcome this boon. Hopefully, we get to keep some benefit from this rule when it leaves beta.

Termies are still overpriced.
The new rule makes Tacticals and Primaris better, and I will stay with both not with Termies.

I love this change, and I think it will do exciting things to the meta. Loyal 32, for example, are going to get flensed. Hordes of all kinds are now far more vulnerable, which is exactly what needed to happen.

Squads of ten IF intercessors can now drop between 1 and 5 mortal wounds on a knight at 30" range.

Ten-man Intercessor vet squads can now pump out 40 shots down range

I'm talking about ten man intercessor squads ffs. I mean, that in itself is a sea change.

10 Intercessors vs 5 hellblasters (170pts vs 165pts) is pretty close now against a lot of targets, at long range. Do you want 20 S4 -1 D1, or 5 S8 -4 D2? That's not a non-trivial decision, especially factoring in things like harlequins, wave serpents, drones, boyz, etc.

The only problem is with special ammo. I think it needs to be exempted from this rule. Make it so DW can still access the rule, but if they want to swtich to SIA, old RF rules still apply.

 grouchoben wrote:
I love this change, and I think it will do exciting things to the meta. Loyal 32, for example, are going to get flensed. Hordes of all kinds are now far more vulnerable, which is exactly what needed to happen.

Squads of ten IF intercessors can now drop between 1 and 5 mortal wounds on a knight at 30" range.

Ten-man Intercessor vet squads can now pump out 40 shots down range

I'm talking about ten man intercessor squads ffs. I mean, that in itself is a sea change.

10 Intercessors vs 5 hellblasters (170pts vs 165pts) is pretty close now against a lot of targets, at long range. Do you want 20 S4 -1 D1, or 5 S8 -4 D2? That's not a non-trivial decision, especially factoring in things like harlequins, wave serpents, drones, boyz, etc.

The only problem is with special ammo. I think it needs to be exempted from this rule. Make it so DW can still access the rule, but if they want to swtich to SIA, old RF rules still apply.

I am split, considering Chaos does not get any primaris, luckily and sadly. (one would imagine that they would pillage and loot imperial weapons but he, let's just leave it on the battlefield, like landspeeders,etc).....
Regardless it was necessary change.

 grouchoben wrote:

The only problem is with special ammo. I think it needs to be exempted from this rule. Make it so DW can still access the rule, but if they want to swtich to SIA, old RF rules still apply.

Seems redundant, as the new bolter rules already include the Rapid Fire rule.

I love this change, and I think it will do exciting things to the meta. Loyal 32, for example, are going to get flensed. Hordes of all kinds are now far more vulnerable, which is exactly what needed to have.

Indeed, Orks, Nids and also Druhkari will have a harder vs. Marines. Infantry will die like flies and the Drukhari vehicles are even more in danger.
I figured that a Serpent (with shield) getting targeted by 10 bolter Marines with 40 shots will inflict just 2 wounds on average. Still a laugh.

 wuestenfux wrote:

I love this change, and I think it will do exciting things to the meta. Loyal 32, for example, are going to get flensed. Hordes of all kinds are now far more vulnerable, which is exactly what needed to have.

Indeed, Orks, Nids and also Druhkari will have a harder vs. Marines. Infantry will die like flies and the Drukhari vehicles are even more in danger.
I figured that a Serpent (with shield) getting targeted by 10 bolter Marines with 40 shots will inflict just 2 wounds on average. Still a laugh.

10 bolter marines still only get 20 shots. They just get it at longer range if they don't move.

It's honestly not a huge change.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crimson Fists Indomitus Crusaders, though. That's a bit better.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

ThatMG wrote:
I don't really like this beta rule, even if it might be fun to play in a casual one off game.
The reasons why I think is the whole
"ignore what rapid fire does"
Your creating a game-state where rules exist for rapid fire but are not used and also not applying to all instances of the "bolt" weapon.
I rather have a Bolt Type with it's own rules than this..., then all bolt weapons are FAQ to the bolt type.

It's truly inelegant. Think about armies like the DG, with 2 rules layered one over the other.
I mean it could be for the greater good but it's a sign of how clueless and aimless the design team is, and especially how much clueless and aimless was in the moment the ruleset for 8th was written. This is reflected too in patch-rules like the one for Russes, a clear indication of how much they botched the transition from area effects to D6 for large cannons.
Albeit I think that part of the complication could be due to the fact that we are living in a transition period concerning marines.

I think a big part of the problem is that every weapon in 40k is shoehorned into one of 4 weapon types. It seems like it would be much more logical to have 'Rapid Fire', 'Assault' etc. be special rules for weapons, rather than weapon categories.

That way, you can have weapons that don't fit into those 4 niches simply by giving them their own rules.

In this case, bolt weapons would replace 'Rapid Fire' with 'Bolter Drill'. Instead, we have this very awkward and messy switch.

It might also help if weapons had keywords.

Alot of people seem to be misinterpreting the rule.

To be clear, Rapid fire weapons usually get to fire twice when within half their range.

The new rule means that marines with rapid fire weapons get to fire them twice in the following situations: They are within half range / they did not move / they are a terminator, bike, centurion or vehicle.

These do not stack with each other or the normal rapid fire rules, unless using a stratagem or other special rule a bolter will only ever fire 2 shots, a storm bolter 4 shots and a hurrican bolter 12 shots.

This rule just give the marines more opportunity to rapid fire, generally giving them all extra shot between 12"-24" inches that they usually only get within 12".

It is a buff to marines anti-horde firepower at medium range, makes no change to their firepower at close range and in my opinion is a small but welcome buff that won't really alter the game or meta much.

Not sure, with this crimson fists and deathwatch may be punishing enough to hordes that they could shift the meta slightly more to the elite direction.

Time to play death watch I guess... The only PA marines that can compete at some level.