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.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
DW are OP compared to marines and the cost they pay - they aren't OP compared to ynnari. UHHH....if you are shooting a rhino with DW -2 AP bolters compared to marine -0 AP bolters. You will do literally double the damage. It is more than a nice bonus. There is rarely a situation where a DW bolter isn't potentially at least 50% better and up to 400% better for the cost of like...2 additional points? There is no way they can balance that without significant point drops to standard marines OR rules changes that ONLY affect standard marines.

A regular storm bolter at 2 points is as effective as an AP2 storm bolter at 4 points - double the damage; double the cost.

4 * .666 * .333 * .333 = 0.3 / 2 = 0.15 points per damage
4 * .666 * .333 * .666 = 0.6 / 4 = 0.15 points per damage

People are blowing DW out of proportion a bit. They're only paying 1 point now for SIA, but AP2 means 18" guns.

Isn't this meaningless without factoring in the cost of the model using it?

Yes and no.

If you could put storm bolters on grots you'd have a problem of a cheap weapon on a cheap body - not a cheap weapon on an expensive body.

The density of how many storm bolters I can put in a list has no bearing on the cost of the weapon itself.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
DW are OP compared to marines and the cost they pay - they aren't OP compared to ynnari. UHHH....if you are shooting a rhino with DW -2 AP bolters compared to marine -0 AP bolters. You will do literally double the damage. It is more than a nice bonus. There is rarely a situation where a DW bolter isn't potentially at least 50% better and up to 400% better for the cost of like...2 additional points? There is no way they can balance that without significant point drops to standard marines OR rules changes that ONLY affect standard marines.

A regular storm bolter at 2 points is as effective as an AP2 storm bolter at 4 points - double the damage; double the cost.

4 * .666 * .333 * .333 = 0.3 / 2 = 0.15 points per damage
4 * .666 * .333 * .666 = 0.6 / 4 = 0.15 points per damage

People are blowing DW out of proportion a bit. They're only paying 1 point now for SIA, but AP2 means 18" guns.

Isn't this meaningless without factoring in the cost of the model using it?

Yes and no.

If you could put storm bolters on grots you'd have a problem of a cheap weapon on a cheap body - not a cheap weapon on an expensive body.

The density of how many storm bolters I can put in a list has no bearing on the cost of the weapon itself.

So how does a SM vet with a stormbolter compare to a DW vet with a SIA stormbolter when it comes to points per damage? (Not even counting that one is a troop and can take a stormshield.)

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

So how does a SM vet with a stormbolter compare to a DW vet with a SIA stormbolter when it comes to points per damage? (Not even counting that one is a troop and can take a stormshield.)

That really depends how you want to analyze reduced range. There are intangible variables that you can't easily math.

How does a tactical sarge with a stormbolter do as compared to a company vet with a storm bolter as compared to a sister with a storm bolter?

More importantly what does any of that have to do with the cost of a storm bolter?

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

So how does a SM vet with a stormbolter compare to a DW vet with a SIA stormbolter when it comes to points per damage? (Not even counting that one is a troop and can take a stormshield.)

That really depends how you want to analyze reduced range. There are intangible variables that you can't easily math.

How does a tactical sarge with a stormbolter do as compared to a company vet with a storm bolter as compared to a sister with a storm bolter?

More importantly what does any of that have to do with the cost of a storm bolter?

It has to do with the cost of the storm bolter because there's no situation where you take just a stormbolter. It's always on a model. You brought up the cost of storm bolters vs SIA stormbolters originally to argue that DW is being blown out of proportion. My point is that this is a bad argument because your math isn't comparing the actual units. Compare them properly and you'll see the problem. Sure there are lots of potential situations where you have one, and the points of the units can vary, but you'll find that in ANY of these comparisons, the DW is still going to come out way ahead in efficiency per point.

I'd be very surprised if it doesn't become official - may not be in the March/April/May FAQ but definitely by CA2019

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


It has to do with the cost of the storm bolter because there's no situation where you take just a stormbolter. It's always on a model. You brought up the cost of storm bolters vs SIA stormbolters originally to argue that DW is being blown out of proportion. My point is that this is a bad argument because your math isn't comparing the actual units. Compare them properly and you'll see the problem. Sure there are lots of potential situations where you have one, and the points of the units can vary, but you'll find that in ANY of these comparisons, the DW is still going to come out way ahead in efficiency per point.

And yet the storm bolter does not change cost despite the model it is on - terminator, sarge, captain - doesn't matter. What's the efficiency of a DW Vet with SS compared to one without?

Are terminator storm bolters simply bad by the logic that it's on a more expensive model?

A DW Vet costs 16 points. AP2 trying to hit a target at 24". Effectiveness : 0
By the virtue of being an 18" weapon they need to move more to get in range so they're dropping 2 shots @ 18".
2 * .666 * .5 * .666 = 0.4 MEQ / 16 = 0.03

Meanwhile a regular 15 point SB marine at 24" that didn't have to move:
4 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.4 MEQ / 15 = 0.03

Even deepstriking the DW Vets don't get any edge.

TL;DR it's not that simple. There is no scenario where I can conceive DW Vets going up by more than a point.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


It has to do with the cost of the storm bolter because there's no situation where you take just a stormbolter. It's always on a model. You brought up the cost of storm bolters vs SIA stormbolters originally to argue that DW is being blown out of proportion. My point is that this is a bad argument because your math isn't comparing the actual units. Compare them properly and you'll see the problem. Sure there are lots of potential situations where you have one, and the points of the units can vary, but you'll find that in ANY of these comparisons, the DW is still going to come out way ahead in efficiency per point.

And yet the storm bolter does not change cost despite the model it is on - terminator, sarge, captain - doesn't matter. What's the efficiency of a DW Vet with SS compared to one without?

Are terminator storm bolters simply bad by the logic that it's on a more expensive model?

A DW Vet costs 16 points. AP2 trying to hit a target at 24". Effectiveness : 0
By the virtue of being an 18" weapon they need to move more to get in range so they're dropping 2 shots @ 18".
2 * .666 * .5 * .666 = 0.4 MEQ / 16 = 0.03

Meanwhile a regular 15 point SB marine at 24" that didn't have to move:
4 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.4 MEQ / 15 = 0.03

Even deepstriking the DW Vets don't get any edge.

TL;DR it's not that simple. There is no scenario where I can conceive DW Vets going up by more than a point.

Interesting. Now how does it compare with 2+ poison ammo at close range?

Serious LOL at people losing their minds about DW being too good. Get a grip. When they start dominating tournaments, give me a call. You do not tone down DW to match other Astartes, you bring up other Astartes to be a viable alternative. GW dropped the ball when they opened up the SB to have access to SIA, just not sure they're willing to take it back now but DW in general have serious limitations and fill a specific role (that they fill very well).

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:


Interesting. Now how does it compare with 2+ poison ammo at close range?

You know already, but it depends what you shoot. Posion wants to shoot tough things, but tough things usually have good saves and like to stick to cover.

Poison makes wounding better by 2, but saves also better by 2 without sacrificing range. It's the better option against MEQ, but not against GEQ.

I have one for you -

8 SB SS Vets vs 9 SB Vets - same points

32 * .666 * .833 * .333 = 6
36 * .666 * .833 * .333 = 6.6

Why would you ever take the less efficient SB SS vets over the more numerous vets without SS?

 bullyboy wrote:
Serious LOL at people losing their minds about DW being too good. Get a grip. When they start dominating tournaments, give me a call. You do not tone down DW to match other Astartes, you bring up other Astartes to be a viable alternative. GW dropped the ball when they opened up the SB to have access to SIA, just not sure they're willing to take it back now but DW in general have serious limitations and fill a specific role (that they fill very well).

I think you've missed the point. People are not talking about DW in terms of the overall meta. We've been talking about them in comparison to regular marines and the problem of fixing marines without breaking DW.

You know already, but it depends what you shoot. Posion wants to shoot tough things, but tough things usually have good saves and like to stick to cover.

Poison makes wounding better by 2, but saves also better by 2 without sacrificing range. It's the better option against MEQ, but not against GEQ.

I have one for you -

8 SB SS Vets vs 9 SB Vets - same points

32 * .666 * .833 * .333 = 6
36 * .666 * .833 * .333 = 6.6

Why would you ever take the less efficient SB SS vets over the more numerous vets without SS?

You'd take the SB+SS vets if you didn't want to get wiped out by plasma or equivalent weapons, which is a very real issue. Although you probably wouldn't need to take them on the entire squad.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Serious LOL at people losing their minds about DW being too good. Get a grip. When they start dominating tournaments, give me a call. You do not tone down DW to match other Astartes, you bring up other Astartes to be a viable alternative. GW dropped the ball when they opened up the SB to have access to SIA, just not sure they're willing to take it back now but DW in general have serious limitations and fill a specific role (that they fill very well).

I think you've missed the point. People are not talking about DW in terms of the overall meta. We've been talking about them in comparison to regular marines and the problem of fixing marines without breaking DW.

But people are asking for marines to get Bolter Discipline but not happy with Deathwatch getting it. The way the fluff is currently written I'm not sure how you don't let DW get it too, it's not like they forgot how to do it when they joined the Deathwatch.

Now, there is a certain way GW could write this accordingly, highlight how specialized Deathwatch doctrine is and how they are taught how to use their bolters and SIA differently, and not lay down a torrent of fire with bolters as a unit but placing well aimed shots individually at weak points that they have learned of their Xenos foe.

I honestly think the best way forward is to disallow Bolter Discipline to Deathwatch and remove Stormbolters as an option with exception of Watch Sergeant. It won't make many happy, but it will keep DW as a specialized force with a specific role.
Understand that I don't think DW are too powerful and need a nerf, I just think that the boon of getting SBs was unnecessary. They're still good without it (vet with bolter and SS would only be 17pts) and woudl be less of an auto take over regular marines.

 bullyboy wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
Serious LOL at people losing their minds about DW being too good. Get a grip. When they start dominating tournaments, give me a call. You do not tone down DW to match other Astartes, you bring up other Astartes to be a viable alternative. GW dropped the ball when they opened up the SB to have access to SIA, just not sure they're willing to take it back now but DW in general have serious limitations and fill a specific role (that they fill very well).

I think you've missed the point. People are not talking about DW in terms of the overall meta. We've been talking about them in comparison to regular marines and the problem of fixing marines without breaking DW.

But people are asking for marines to get Bolter Discipline but not happy with Deathwatch getting it. The way the fluff is currently written I'm not sure how you don't let DW get it too, it's not like they forgot how to do it when they joined the Deathwatch.

Now, there is a certain way GW could write this accordingly, highlight how specialized Deathwatch doctrine is and how they are taught how to use their bolters and SIA differently, and not lay down a torrent of fire with bolters as a unit but placing well aimed shots individually at weak points that they have learned of their Xenos foe.

I honestly think the best way forward is to disallow Bolter Discipline to Deathwatch and remove Stormbolters as an option with exception of Watch Sergeant. It won't make many happy, but it will keep DW as a specialized force with a specific role.
Understand that I don't think DW are too powerful and need a nerf, I just think that the boon of getting SBs was unnecessary. They're still good without it (vet with bolter and SS would only be 17pts) and woudl be less of an auto take over regular marines.

Yes, that is the issue. Personally, I think it'd be nice if they had access to SBs, but they weren't an auto take. But I don't see any way to achieve that in the current system. They'll either be not worth using at all, or mandatory. That's just the nature of the current edition.

Personally, i'm not crazy about Bolter drill. It's better than nothing, but I just don't think it solves the problem very well. The problem wasn't a lack of firepower of marines at range. The problem is a lack of firepower overall (and a lack of durability, point per point, and cc, and lots of other stuff.) I would have preferred if they'd given them Legion scale bolters instead. Give their bolters better stats. Perhaps -1 ap, or +1 str, or an extra shot, whatever. Old style AP5 would also be great. That way they could actually have some teeth again. And those sorts of changes would have impacted SIA ammo less because the SIA ammo profiles would replace the better base bolter profile instead of stacking on top of it.

But I'll take what I can get. I just want to be able to field a viable marine list again (that actually uses marines.)

 Xenomancers wrote:
So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.

And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?

The problem is the price/efficiency ratio of SIA, and was even before this bolter rule, the rule merely emphasises it. The SIA should either be worse or cost more (marines themselves probably should cost less.) But it is simply too good for the price, you can never balance DW and vanilla marines unless the point gap between them is increased.

 Daedalus81 wrote:


Yes and no.

If you could put storm bolters on grots you'd have a problem of a cheap weapon on a cheap body - not a cheap weapon on an expensive body.

The density of how many storm bolters I can put in a list has no bearing on the cost of the weapon itself.

And then we get something like the amazing weapons Dark Reapers get on a cheap platform that cna be spamed. Imagine if cawls wrath was a weapon that cost 1CP and could be put on any knight.
A SB on a model with speciall ammo can not cost the same as on a model that has no access to it. And further it has to be modified by what models carries it. It can't cost the same when it ends with two models costing the same 20pts, but one ends up with a ++3inv and the other has nothing to balance it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.

And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?

Maybe 10 too. If both get extra rules. A tac can have better stats then a scout, but maybe sniper rifles are good and scouts can deploy up the table. Maybe the storm trooper has ap -2 on his lasgun, or has some cool build in order mechanic, which could let him double dip on orders.

Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SS DW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.

So, as has been said in numerous other threads, regular SMs are likely going to be squatted for their obvious upgraded counterparts, the primaris. With that in play, we need to start thinking about what these "proposed changes" will do to intercessors, Aggressors, etc.

Right now, Primaris DW can't take all the super duper cool guy gear they vets can. But they also have 2 wound models and 30" range.

I am unsure how you bring up standard Primaris SM armies to DW levels without causing a lot of other problems. I would be interested in possibly adding more weapon options to standard primaris, but would that involve altering the SPRU and thus impossible?

Silver144 wrote:
Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SS DW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.

as a Tyranid player I would absolutely hate that, every bolter in your army wounding my monsters on a 2+? Absolutely disgusting. If you did add that to all marines I'd want big price hike to represent a gun which can choose between ignoring the T characteristic of the target by wounding on a 2+ or getting -2 ap at whim.

Karol wrote:


And then we get something like the amazing weapons Dark Reapers get on a cheap platform that cna be spamed. Imagine if cawls wrath was a weapon that cost 1CP and could be put on any knight.
A SB on a model with speciall ammo can not cost the same as on a model that has no access to it. And further it has to be modified by what models carries it. It can't cost the same when it ends with two models costing the same 20pts, but one ends up with a ++3inv and the other has nothing to balance it.

You say this a lot, which makes me think that you're not aware that Dark Reapers are 12 points base. Their weapons also do not carry the ability granted by their base cost.
A Marine is effectively 12 points with a 1 point bolter (evidenced by Warp Talons). This means Reapers traded toughness to ignore hit penalties, which is only useful when people have hit penalties to ignore.

The Reaper Launcher is 22 points :
H1 S8 AP2 D3
H2 S5 AP2 D2

A ML is now 20 and has H1 S8 AP2 D6D. The second mode is not directly comparable. A disintegrator is 15 points and is A3 S5 AP3 D2, which is far better than the RL.

The Dark Reaper is in no way broken. What you're thinking of is how Ynnari and Doom affect the army. Alaitoc has been taken often, but many lists have been opting for Ulthwe to get a 2+/6+++ while in cover instead.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Karol wrote:


And then we get something like the amazing weapons Dark Reapers get on a cheap platform that cna be spamed. Imagine if cawls wrath was a weapon that cost 1CP and could be put on any knight.
A SB on a model with speciall ammo can not cost the same as on a model that has no access to it. And further it has to be modified by what models carries it. It can't cost the same when it ends with two models costing the same 20pts, but one ends up with a ++3inv and the other has nothing to balance it.

You say this a lot, which makes me think that you're not aware that Dark Reapers are 12 points base. Their weapons also do not carry the ability granted by their base cost.
A Marine is effectively 12 points with a 1 point bolter (evidenced by Warp Talons). This means Reapers traded toughness to ignore hit penalties, which is only useful when people have hit penalties to ignore.

The Reaper Launcher is 22 points :
H1 S8 AP2 D3
H2 S5 AP2 D2

A ML is now 20 and has H1 S8 AP2 D6D. The second mode is not directly comparable. A disintegrator is 15 points and is A3 S5 AP3 D2, which is far better than the RL.

The Dark Reaper is in no way broken. What you're thinking of is how Ynnari and Doom affect the army. Alaitoc has been taken often, but many lists have been opting for Ulthwe to get a 2+/6+++ while in cover instead.

In general, I agree with this, though I kind of wish the 2nd mode for Reapers was H3 S5 AP2 D1. Basically make it an Eldar version of a HB with AP2. The damage 2 is what makes it seem OP. Trade the D2 for an extra shot and it feels like a more balanced weapon.
Speaking of Missiles, I also wish the Marine ML secondary mode didn't completely suck. It's d6 Bolter shots. It really needs AP-1 or S5 to make it stand out above regular bolters

-

 Dysartes wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
So like I've been saying since the drop of the edition. An intercessor is worth 15 points and a Tac is worth 10 and they'd still be garbage without a fix to the bolter. This would put us right about there.

And what price a Scout or a Storm Trooper under this model?

10 points - trades saving throw for advanced deployment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Crimson wrote:
The problem is the price/efficiency ratio of SIA, and was even before this bolter rule, the rule merely emphasises it. The SIA should either be worse or cost more (marines themselves probably should cost less.) But it is simply too good for the price, you can never balance DW and vanilla marines unless the point gap between them is increased.

Yes exactly. Exactly my argument.

 Galef wrote:
In general, I agree with this, though I kind of wish the 2nd mode for Reapers was H3 S5 AP2 D1. Basically make it an Eldar version of a HB with AP2. The damage 2 is what makes it seem OP. Trade the D2 for an extra shot and it feels like a more balanced weapon.
Speaking of Missiles, I also wish the Marine ML secondary mode didn't completely suck. It's d6 Bolter shots. It really needs AP-1 or S5 to make it stand out above regular bolters

-

Bolter shots they might be, but it's occasionally handy to throw 3D6 or 4D6 of them at something 48" away. The Tempest Launcher could probably use a bump, but most lists have one of those max.

The problem when comparing DW to regular marines is one of mono codex. Access to SIA is what makes the codex work since they have a very restricted arsenal when compared to their Astartes borthers. Of course this means nothing in the world of Soup but you can't expect DW to be paying more than what they are currently doing so for SIA.

What's really funny is that the DW codex has been around for almost a year, with access to SIA and SBs, yet the outcry for nerf was never this loud. Again, it's as a result of soup when someone adds Guard and a Knight to the mix and performs well in a few tournaments. When are we going to learn that you don't nerf the faction, you nerf the interaction? (that's a nice rhyming song that needs it's own public service announcement).

 bullyboy wrote:

What's really funny is that the DW codex has been around for almost a year, with access to SIA and SBs, yet the outcry for nerf was never this loud.

Largely because SB/SS vets were priced out. Going from 25->20 points per body in CA2018 was a big deal.

 bullyboy wrote:
The problem when comparing DW to regular marines is one of mono codex. Access to SIA is what makes the codex work since they have a very restricted arsenal when compared to their Astartes borthers. Of course this means nothing in the world of Soup but you can't expect DW to be paying more than what they are currently doing so for SIA.

What's really funny is that the DW codex has been around for almost a year, with access to SIA and SBs, yet the outcry for nerf was never this loud. Again, it's as a result of soup when someone adds Guard and a Knight to the mix and performs well in a few tournaments. When are we going to learn that you don't nerf the faction, you nerf the interaction? (that's a nice rhyming song that needs it's own public service announcement).

You must not have been paying much attention or just talked to a lot of space marine players who just decided to jump ship on their chapter and play deathwatch. Vanilla players like me realized instantly that SIA leaves no design space to improve vanilla marines - lots of people were really vocal about it. It's not just now.

Storm shields are currently too cheap (they should be 4 points for basic vets, 8 points for TWC, or 12 points for characters). DW storm bolters should be 2 points more than marine storm bolters since they are at least twice as effective as well.

Silver144 wrote:
Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SS DW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.

My thoughts exactly. Though I would add the following changes:

- All marines have access to Dragonfire, Kraken and Vengeance rounds
- DW gets hellfire in addition
- GK get psybolts in addition

But I would make psybolts just be S4 AP - and ignores invuln saves. This gives GK a tool against demons (special ap -2) but because they can switch out for vengeance rounds and kraken bolts they are still good against non-demons in roughly equal measure. This way they aren't overpaying for anti-demon specific gear.

Also, dragonfire should ignore cover bonuses.

Dandelion wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SS DW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.

My thoughts exactly. Though I would add the following changes:

- All marines have access to Dragonfire, Kraken and Vengeance rounds
- DW gets hellfire in addition
- GK get psybolts in addition

But I would make psybolts just be S4 AP - and ignores invuln saves. This gives GK a tool against demons (special ap -2) but because they can switch out for vengeance rounds and kraken bolts they are still good against non-demons in roughly equal measure. This way they aren't overpaying for anti-demon specific gear.

Also, dragonfire should ignore cover bonuses.

I think it's better/easier to just give regular bolts old style AP5. They ignore 5+ and higher saves. That makes them a viable anti-infantry weapon and will help with some of the horde problems, but doesn't infringe on DW's special ammo as anti-elite. Coupled with something to help marine toughness, and they will be decent for shooting (they'll still need something for CC to bring them back to what they used to be.)

Dandelion wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SS DW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.

My thoughts exactly. Though I would add the following changes:

- All marines have access to Dragonfire, Kraken and Vengeance rounds
- DW gets hellfire in addition
- GK get psybolts in addition

But I would make psybolts just be S4 AP - and ignores invuln saves. This gives GK a tool against demons (special ap -2) but because they can switch out for vengeance rounds and kraken bolts they are still good against non-demons in roughly equal measure. This way they aren't overpaying for anti-demon specific gear.

Also, dragonfire should ignore cover bonuses.

So basically take away the identity of Deathwatch.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Dandelion wrote:

Silver144 wrote:
Why not just give SIA to all marines?
It will not make them OP, cos even SS DW vets are not taking hight places, but at least the regular marines will be able to do something in battle.

My thoughts exactly. Though I would add the following changes:

- All marines have access to Dragonfire, Kraken and Vengeance rounds
- DW gets hellfire in addition
- GK get psybolts in addition

But I would make psybolts just be S4 AP - and ignores invuln saves. This gives GK a tool against demons (special ap -2) but because they can switch out for vengeance rounds and kraken bolts they are still good against non-demons in roughly equal measure. This way they aren't overpaying for anti-demon specific gear.

Also, dragonfire should ignore cover bonuses.

So basically take away the identity of Deathwatch.

If the entire identity of a faction can be removed by altering one special rule, maybe that faction doesn't have much of an identity to start with.