New Beta rule - GW Buffs all Marine BOLTERs

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.

**fraser1191**

Insectum7 wrote:
The amount of misreading the rule earlier in the thread is bizarre.

I think people were just very excited to see the Boltgun get something. I was a little more jaded when I read it. It's a decent rule though

**Karol**

But how do you find points for running bolter armed models in a chaos list. You need the cultists chaff, and the rest of points are being eaten by the 3-4 princes and the 1ksons casters. a 75pts csm unit just does not cut it, and your not going to take 3-4 such units. one AC won't be efficient enough and 3-4 aren't good enough to be worth the drop in efficiency of the cultist chaff. Plus if you want under 100pts hvy weapons why not just take a dreadnought.

**AlmightyWalrus**

But Bikes aren't troops, so who cares? The 5 CP from the 3 batallions of Guard and 2 Commanders is what makes the army work, Running 3 squads of SM bikes and an HQ only gives you 1 CP.

**the_scotsman**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Blackie wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Blackie wrote:

I said unbuffed orks. Which means no KFF, no painboy, and most importantly no other larger units or a warboss nearby. If a large squad takes enough casualties all the survivors run away unless the ork player invests 2 CPs to let them stay, and for an army that is largely dependant on CPs those 2 CPs matter. With average rolls the crusader should kill 15 orks but it will likely have some re-rolls from characters so it can actually kill even more. Re-rolling 1s to hit and wound, typical for a SW army and even more for other SM, means 20 dead orks on average rolls. Assuming the orks lost a couple of dudes to overwatch if they charged and or/the marine player rolled slightly above average and then investing those 2 CPs just for letting 5-6 dudes alive looks like a huge investment. Alternatively you may need just the bolters from a standard troop squad that doesn't have anything in range other than those surviving orks to finish them off. If you are ultramarines and have Guilliman it's even overkill on 30 orks.

Imagine 30 orks that arrived from deep strike, which is their typical tactics now, but if they do so they won't have the LD buff in the opponent's turn, as other mobs and warboss would be too far away. They charge chaff like scouts and then are riddled with bullets by the crusader. Before the bolter buff the crusader could have done that only in rapid fire range, not possible if those orks deep striked too far away from the tank.

This makes a lot of not great assumptions. If you're deepstriking 30 naked orks then that Crusader is getting double tap on you anyway. It didn't magically become awesome - that's just bad play.

Nevertheless it isn't coming anywhere near killing 30 orks on it's own.

12 * .666 * .666 = 5.3
24 * .666 * .5 * .833 = 6.7

So, a 300ish point model just killed 84 points of boyz...(and a painboy and KFF cuts that in half)

Twin assault cannon: 12 shots, 8 hits, 6 dead orks (yeah average says 9 hits would cause 6 orks but 5.something doesn't exist in real games, is either 5 or 6 dudes and it's more likely to be 6 than 5).

Bolters (I assumed a storm bolter in the lot): 28 shots, 19 hits, 9 or 10 wounds (again, 9.5 wounds make no sense), 8 or 9 casualties.

Grand total of 14-15 dead orks.

Unless the crusader was in rapid fire range its damage output was way lower with the older rules. Note that those orks may want to assault something else, not necessarily the crusader so it might be out of rapid fire range. It actually happened several times with my SW that deep striking units were attacking units in my deploying zone but the crusader was too far away to be in rapid fire range.

Painboy and KFFs aren't that relevant as footslogging orks aren't that scary, deep striking ones are. And those ones don't have any defensive buffs. On the other hand offensive buffs on the crusader can be easily factored in since SM usually have characters that give re-rolls anyway. Against footslogging dudes now it can kill way more orks at distance.

The crusader just costs 266 points, and it's also useful to reduce the drops with its transport capacity of 16 models. It will get his points back in a couple of turns of shooting, three at most. A full mob of 30 orks costs between 210 to 225 points, according to what weapon the nob has. We're talking about matches against hordes armies, not against imperium or aeldari soups where there's only anti tank usually and enough firepower to 1-shot a knight.

I sure hope you never have to play against a Leman Russ Punisher.

Yeah lol. This was my thought too. "As opposed to the IG version, which costs what now, 162, helps generate command points in the HQ slot, and removes 17 in a single round of shooting totally ignoring the extra heavy bolters."

**TwinPoleTheory**

Karol wrote:
But how do you find points for running bolter armed models in a chaos list. You need the cultists chaff, and the rest of points are being eaten by the 3-4 princes and the 1ksons casters. a 75pts csm unit just does not cut it, and your not going to take 3-4 such units. one AC won't be efficient enough and 3-4 aren't good enough to be worth the drop in efficiency of the cultist chaff. Plus if you want under 100pts hvy weapons why not just take a dreadnought.

Honestly, you should be happy they even remembered to add Heretic Astartes to this rule. The fact that Rubrics aren't treated like terminators is probably not something they thought out, it's more likely it's just something they never bothered to consider. The primary goal of this rule was to improve Adeptus Astartes, the fact that Heretic Astartes got included at all is a minor miracle.

**Daedalus81**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But Bikes aren't troops, so who cares? The 5 CP from the 3 batallions of Guard and 2 Commanders is what makes the army work, Running 3 squads of SM bikes and an HQ only gives you 1 CP.

Bikes are part of the picture.

If we both have a Castellan and the rest of my list is more effective than the rest of yours I have an edge. How you construct the the whole list is up to you.

**Slayer-Fan123**

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But Bikes aren't troops, so who cares? The 5 CP from the 3 batallions of Guard and 2 Commanders is what makes the army work, Running 3 squads of SM bikes and an HQ only gives you 1 CP.

It isn't like there's a whole lot of Strategems you want to use in the Vanilla codex anyway.

**Daedalus81**

Karol wrote:
But how do you find points for running bolter armed models in a chaos list. You need the cultists chaff, and the rest of points are being eaten by the 3-4 princes and the 1ksons casters. a 75pts csm unit just does not cut it, and your not going to take 3-4 such units. one AC won't be efficient enough and 3-4 aren't good enough to be worth the drop in efficiency of the cultist chaff. Plus if you want under 100pts hvy weapons why not just take a dreadnought.

Don't run cultists? This isn't a hard change. You're talking about a very specific kind of list. 75 points gets you 15 cultists which are way less durable (more so with more bolters flying around) and do less damage. Zone spreading is less of an issue with no deepstrike until turn 2. Cultists become good when you have 40 of them and a ton of support. An AC at 10 points is extremely efficient.

Why not a dreadnought? Why don't people just take mortars instead of adding the loyal 32 as well? Because I do want to fill troops. And why not both? A dread gets me 3.5 S4 and 2 S7 for 90. A CSM squad gets me obsec, 2+, 8 S4 and 2 S7 for 75. There are pros and cons to both.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TwinPoleTheory wrote:
Karol wrote:
But how do you find points for running bolter armed models in a chaos list. You need the cultists chaff, and the rest of points are being eaten by the 3-4 princes and the 1ksons casters. a 75pts csm unit just does not cut it, and your not going to take 3-4 such units. one AC won't be efficient enough and 3-4 aren't good enough to be worth the drop in efficiency of the cultist chaff. Plus if you want under 100pts hvy weapons why not just take a dreadnought.

Honestly, you should be happy they even remembered to add Heretic Astartes to this rule. The fact that Rubrics aren't treated like terminators is probably not something they thought out, it's more likely it's just something they never bothered to consider. The primary goal of this rule was to improve Adeptus Astartes, the fact that Heretic Astartes got included at all is a minor miracle.

Well, regular terminators are no longer slow and purposeful like Scarabs. They just need to change the dust rule to read "this unit counts as never having moved for purposes of shooting" instead of adding a layer to a high level rule. It's easily FAQ'd and I've already pinged them on it as should others if they think it's a sensible change.

**Galef**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But Bikes aren't troops, so who cares? The 5 CP from the 3 batallions of Guard and 2 Commanders is what makes the army work, Running 3 squads of SM bikes and an HQ only gives you 1 CP.

It isn't like there's a whole lot of Strategems you want to use in the Vanilla codex anyway.

This is only partially correct. While a particular army may not have a ton of specific Strats that are usefull to them, every single possible army benefits for Command Re-rolls.
1 guaranteed re-roll per phase can mean the difference between rolling poorly and winning. So in that regard, an army with significantly more CPs will almost always have more advantages.

This is the main reason I really, really wish GW would reverse the Eratta that made Battalions (and Brigades) more CPs. Just go back to 3CPs/9CPs respectively and give Battle Forged 5CPs. But that's for another thread (or several, apparently)

-

**Delvarus Centurion**

Crimson wrote:
Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Yeah but if you use normal marines with them, they are pretty much useless I find unless you are buffing them or kitting them out with stormshields etc. and you also find that only your Primaris last. Terminators are good options from normal marines I find but I'm focusing my army to be Primaris, but your right 40k armies just need tweaks until we see some sort of balance.

I'm pretty sure focusing your army to be Primaris is exactly what GW wants you to do.

Doesn't matter, GW will be getting rid of old marines, I've been playing since 2nd its not the first time I've had to update an army. People that can't see the writing on the wall are just wasting their money.

**Luke_Prowler**

Well, looks like the usual suspects are out and claiming the rule's bad 'cause it can't let naked tacticals slaughter IG. Maybe play a few games with the new rules rather than getting grumpy that your particular fix wasn't done.

**Elbows**

Tournament players need to occasionally remember that 90% of the 40K gamers don't run LVO lists each and every time they play 40K. Those people tend to use more than three entries from their codices, thus terminator, bike, and tactical buffs are actually worthwhile.

**Crimson**

Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Doesn't matter, GW will be getting rid of old marines, I've been playing since 2nd its not the first time I've had to update an army. People that can't see the writing on the wall are just wasting their money.

Yeah, no argument here.

**xeen**

This adds some improvement to my Rubics at lest

**Apple Peel**

Crimson wrote:
Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Doesn't matter, GW will be getting rid of old marines, I've been playing since 2nd its not the first time I've had to update an army. People that can't see the writing on the wall are just wasting their money.

Yeah, no argument here.

I wish they’d do it faster.

**the_scotsman**

Apple Peel wrote:
Crimson wrote:
Delvarus Centurion wrote:

Doesn't matter, GW will be getting rid of old marines, I've been playing since 2nd its not the first time I've had to update an army. People that can't see the writing on the wall are just wasting their money.

Yeah, no argument here.

I wish they’d do it faster.

I wish they'd do it in a way that promotes ant kind if interesting modeling or fluff or game play. If wishes were fishes I guess.

They've got a good concept for how one good space marine would look, I guess? Too bad three of the four armor designs are centurion - tier and the one good design has no options.

**Galef**

Luke_Prowler wrote:
Well, looks like the usual suspects are out and claiming the rule's bad 'cause it can't let naked tacticals slaughter IG. Maybe play a few games with the new rules rather than getting grumpy that your particular fix wasn't done.

I mean...it won't slaughter Guard. But that doesn't make it a bad rule, just a step in the right direction. I guess some people don't want steps, but rather leaps.
I, for one, am glad GW is taking the cautious approach rather than massively buffing things that could cause other issues

-

**Slayer-Fan123**

Galef wrote:
Luke_Prowler wrote:
Well, looks like the usual suspects are out and claiming the rule's bad 'cause it can't let naked tacticals slaughter IG. Maybe play a few games with the new rules rather than getting grumpy that your particular fix wasn't done.
I mean...it won't slaughter Guard. But that doesn't make it a bad rule, just a step in the right direction. I guess some people don't want steps, but rather leaps.
I, for one, am glad GW is taking the cautious approach rather than massively buffing things that could cause other issues

-

Honestly I think this was more a leap than anything due to the horrendous scaling issue. I mean, I'll TAKE it for now, but a proc rule would've been so much easier to implement and goes further to universally fix Bolt weapons.

After all, this does nothing for Bolt Pistols, Carbines, Heavy Bolters, etc.

**Xenomancers**

Sterling191 wrote:
Crimson wrote:
They either shouldn't receive this buff, or they should cost more. Also, I feel that Stormbolters are generally underpriced, whenever there is an option to take a SB over a normal one, it is a no-brainer choice.

You realize that DW weapons cost more than vanilla Astartes right?

Yeah they pay a slight increase to have double the shots that also wound a lot better. Plus they get a 3++ for 2 points. Lets get real. DW are not marines - they are kind of OP. The only reason they aren't out of hand right now is because the Castellan exists and they can't really hurt it.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Xenomancers wrote:
Sterling191 wrote:
Crimson wrote:
They either shouldn't receive this buff, or they should cost more. Also, I feel that Stormbolters are generally underpriced, whenever there is an option to take a SB over a normal one, it is a no-brainer choice.

You realize that DW weapons cost more than vanilla Astartes right?

Yeah they pay a slight increase to have double the shots that also wound a lot better. Plus they get a 3++ for 2 points. Lets get real. DW are not marines - they are kind of OP. The only reason they aren't out of hand right now is because the Castellan exists and they can't really hurt it.

It isn't just a slight point increase. That's 4 points and turning a originally 15 point model into a 18 point model.

I agree the 2 point Storm Shields are stupid, but let's be real. Deathwatch being the best Marines doesn't make them OP in the slightest. There's simply an issue with other Marine armies.

**Xenomancers**

look at how bad Sm units are compared to DW. DW aren't OP? What does that make marines? Overcosted chaff? Okay - got it.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Xenomancers wrote:
look at how bad Sm units are compared to DW. DW aren't OP? What does that make marines? Overcosted chaff? Okay - got it.

Uh yeah. If GW is consistent at one thing, it is how they present Marines and how to fix them. Battle Demi Company proved they really don't have a clue what to do at points.

**Karol**

Daedalus81 wrote:
AlmightyWalrus wrote:
But Bikes aren't troops, so who cares? The 5 CP from the 3 batallions of Guard and 2 Commanders is what makes the army work, Running 3 squads of SM bikes and an HQ only gives you 1 CP.

Bikes are part of the picture.

If we both have a Castellan and the rest of my list is more effective than the rest of yours I have an edge. How you construct the the whole list is up to you.

the thing is, if your army is made out of culstists, DPs and some 1ksons casters, you can fit in a knight in to it. But there are armies which just won't fit, IG a castellan and their own stuff in to a list. Or they end up like BAs do, that their BA flavour comes from a bunch of HQs and 15 scouts.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Xenomancers wrote:
Sterling191 wrote:
Crimson wrote:
They either shouldn't receive this buff, or they should cost more. Also, I feel that Stormbolters are generally underpriced, whenever there is an option to take a SB over a normal one, it is a no-brainer choice.

You realize that DW weapons cost more than vanilla Astartes right?

Yeah they pay a slight increase to have double the shots that also wound a lot better. Plus they get a 3++ for 2 points. Lets get real. DW are not marines - they are kind of OP. The only reason they aren't out of hand right now is because the Castellan exists and they can't really hurt it.

I don't think they are OP, but a SB vet with a SS costs like a GK strike. And the strike trades the super ammo and ++3 for a baby smite and melee weapons, which he will never use effectivly. If anything marines to be valid should be more like DW vets, and at least as far as super casuals goes, the DW rules seem to make marines fine. They even make primaris of the non hellblaster type worth being taken.

**Racerguy180**

Elbows wrote:Tournament players need to occasionally remember that 90% of the 40K gamers don't run LVO lists each and every time they play 40K. Those people tend to use more than three entries from their codices, thus terminator, bike, and tactical buffs are actually worthwhile.

I totally agree, but now they need to fix the defense side. Last week @ flgs we were discussing maybe a 3++ armour save or reducing incoming AP by 1.

**Oggthrok**

I’m a little late to this party, but am I correct that the change this beta rule makes could be summed up this way:

“If you stand still, you can fire twice out to the maximum range of the bolter”

And everything else works just the same as it has since the start of the edition?

**dkoz**

I can see this making the Bolger that were already good better but it doesn't really help,out the basic 0 point bolter that wasn't killing the enemy before.

**Lemondish**

Oggthrok wrote:
I’m a little late to this party, but am I correct that the change this beta rule makes could be summed up this way:

“If you stand still, you can fire twice out to the maximum range of the bolter”

And everything else works just the same as it has since the start of the edition?

You get to fire a rapid fire bolt weapon twice if any of these apply...

1. your target is within half the weapon's range (as usual),
2. you did not move in your last movement phase
3. you are a Biker, Centurion, Terminator, or Vehicle

Two thirds of the rule is detailing what a rapid fire bolt weapon is.

**Quickjager**

Lemondish wrote:
Oggthrok wrote:
I’m a little late to this party, but am I correct that the change this beta rule makes could be summed up this way:

“If you stand still, you can fire twice out to the maximum range of the bolter”

And everything else works just the same as it has since the start of the edition?

You get to fire a rapid fire bolt weapon twice if... ANY OF THE FOLLOWING ARE TRUE

1. your target is within half the weapon's range (as usual),
2. you did not move in your last movement phase
3. you are a Biker, Centurion, Terminator, or Vehicle

Two thirds of the rule is detailing what a rapid fire bolt weapon is.

Correction and emphasis mine.

**DarknessEternal**

Daedalus81 wrote:
DarknessEternal wrote:
Completely irrelevant. Bolter Marines aren't being used because bolters aren't good enough.

They aren't being used because Imperial Knights, Custode Jetbikes, and Blood Angel Captains are a thing.

No. The choice is between marines and guarddmen (or cultists). All those units require CP to function. IG fits that role well, because they are cheap and effective. If marines can be made to be more effective then you've cut away some of that gap.

3 bikes can carry a storm bolter and 3 twin boltguns for 65. With a 14" move and no need to be within 12" they can be places where it suits their durability and still shoot well. It's 55 points for a squad of IS with commander.

Remember when I mentioned Bolter Marines, and you said they're good, but only if they're bikes? What a strange way to reply.

**Asherian Command**

Marines need better stratagems. Period. That aren't just locked to the terrible primaris units.

Along with bolter weapons being increased in potential, this is a good rule for some units. Dreadnoughts, Terminators, Bikes, land raider crusaders all excel in potential firepower in terms of anti-infantry. which is great. But marines weren't struggling against horde armies, they never were. They struggled against titan units, and super heavies. They also suffered in close combat and morale. This is a band aid at best.