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.

Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?

Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?

Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.

The Sisters "Codex" is CA2018. It's a beta codex (I think) but it's updated rules nonetheless.

-

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?

Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.

The Sisters "Codex" is CA2018. It's a beta codex (I think) but it's updated rules nonetheless.

-

Thank you! So it has rules and point values and what not? Enough to start building like a proxy army?

YES! Thank you you just made my weekend!

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?

Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.

The Sisters "Codex" is CA2018. It's a beta codex (I think) but it's updated rules nonetheless.

-

Thank you! So it has rules and point values and what not? Enough to start building like a proxy army?

YES! Thank you you just made my weekend!

Not a proxy army, a regular one. There're no rules for any new units that could be actually considered a "beta" - it's just the existing line, but with slightly updated rules (including Order traits , Stratagems etc) and a completely new Acts of Faith system.

nekooni wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?

Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.

The Sisters "Codex" is CA2018. It's a beta codex (I think) but it's updated rules nonetheless.

-

Thank you! So it has rules and point values and what not? Enough to start building like a proxy army?

YES! Thank you you just made my weekend!

Not a proxy army, a regular one. There're no rules for any new units that could be actually considered a "beta" - it's just the existing line, but with slightly updated rules (including Order traits , Stratagems etc) and a completely new Acts of Faith system.

By Proxy I mean poker chips for models at the FLGS

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

nekooni wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Galef wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?

Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.

The Sisters "Codex" is CA2018. It's a beta codex (I think) but it's updated rules nonetheless.

-

Thank you! So it has rules and point values and what not? Enough to start building like a proxy army?

YES! Thank you you just made my weekend!

Not a proxy army, a regular one. There're no rules for any new units that could be actually considered a "beta" - it's just the existing line, but with slightly updated rules (including Order traits , Stratagems etc) and a completely new Acts of Faith system.

By Proxy I mean poker chips for models at the FLGS

ah - well, i was trying to say that there are models available as long as you don't need both kidneys and your liver. and a few more organs. remember: organs are meant to be artillery pieces, not body parts.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.

Good god no.

Storm Bolter - 4 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.44
Inferno Bolter - 2 * .666 * .5 * .666 = 0.44

Both of these weapons are 2 points, which means AP2 is equivalent to double the shots at AP0 (barring invulnerables and low armor).

So giving a Storm Bolter AP2 is like having two Storm Bolters at 4 points, but then you reduce range by 6" - this is why SIA is worth 1 point.

Making SIA 4 and dropping marine bodies by 3 is just rearranging chairs on the Titanic. It's also never going to happen.

Here's a graphic of what that would look like. Just bolters. No two 5 man with a SB on each sarge or plasma or any other shenanigans.


In any case we can approach this logically. IS are effectively 5.5 points. They need a CC and the best ration is 20 IS to one CC. 110 / 20 = 5.5 - the commander does just about nothing when the IS are dead.

For 81% more points you get:

- hits 33% more
- has a gun that is 33% stronger
- has armor that is 100% more durable
- is 33% tougher
- can come in 5 man squads and is effectively immune to morale

There are other ways to make marines better. Going to 10 points is not likely to ever be an option.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.

Good god no.

Storm Bolter - 4 * .666 * .5 * .333 = 0.44
Inferno Bolter - 2 * .666 * .5 * .666 = 0.44

Both of these weapons are 2 points, which means AP2 is equivalent to double the shots at AP0 (barring invulnerables and low armor).

So giving a Storm Bolter AP2 is like having two Storm Bolters at 4 points, but then you reduce range by 6" - this is why SIA is worth 1 point.

Making SIA 4 and dropping marine bodies by 3 is just rearranging chairs on the Titanic. It's also never going to happen.

Here's a graphic of what that would look like. Just bolters. No two 5 man with a SB on each sarge or plasma or any other shenanigans.

Spoiler:

In any case we can approach this logically. IS are effectively 5.5 points. They need a CC and the best ration is 20 IS to one CC. 110 / 20 = 5.5 - the commander does just about nothing when the IS are dead.

For 81% more points you get:

- hits 33% more
- has a gun that is 33% stronger
- has armor that is 100% more durable
- is 33% tougher
- can come in 5 man squads and is effectively immune to morale

There are other ways to make marines better. Going to 10 points is not likely to ever be an option.

Take that IS undercosted nonsence out of the marine bolter thread, IG IS are the poster child for undercosted units.

Try compairing deathwatch with normal marine troops instead of rubrics better bolters.

For 1 point each they can select any of the following
+1 to hit units in cover
Wound non vehicals on 2+
Get +6 inch range and -1 Ap for 36 inch range Ap-2 bolt rifles
-6 inch range and -2 Ap for -3AP bolt rifles at 24 inches

I'll math hammer out the damage mprovement once I have a computer, but gut reaction is that is worth more than 6% increase in points.

There really aren't options to make marines better unless you give them more wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

It doesn't work like that. Models with 1 attack get almost 0 value out of close combat stats. WS/STR at +1 is worth about a point on a 1 attack model. +1 T and +1 save have about the same value though the save has MORE actual value so those cancel out. so a 1 to 2 point difference is totally justified.

Ice_can wrote:

Take that IS undercosted nonsence out of the marine bolter thread, IG IS are the poster child for undercosted units.

But don't you see? Such a proposed change makes marines better than IS by a solid margin. If you consider IS undercosted then a 10 point marine is even more so.

At that point you *can't* have 1 point SIA, because the body becomes too cheap for what it is.

AP2 is fancy, but with an 18" range you can't double tap deepstriking and you likely won't be making use of it the first turn, which means you need to stand still for *two* turns. It's a mental trap.

And THEN if you DO make SIA 4 points then you've just turned every single DW marine that wants to take something other than a bolter into dead weight like GK.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Take that IS undercosted nonsence out of the marine bolter thread, IG IS are the poster child for undercosted units.

But don't you see? Such a proposed change makes marines better than IS by a solid margin. If you consider IS undercosted then a 10 point marine is even more so.

At that point you *can't* have 1 point SIA, because the body becomes too cheap for what it is.

AP2 is fancy, but with an 18" range you can't double tap deepstriking and you likely won't be making use of it the first turn, which means you need to stand still for *two* turns. It's a mental trap.

And THEN if you DO make SIA 4 points then you've just turned every single DW marine that wants to take something other than a bolter into dead weight like GK.

SIA represents for intercessors as they don't have the equipment shenanigans that makes compairing DW vets to tactical marines less intuitive pay 6% for an at worst 20% improvement in damage output, with some improvements being way higher.

Guard should be 5 points, marines should be 12.
SoB are a bit mediocre but playable now - and will likely be better when they get a proper codex with some more unit options so they are not so one dimensional.

Tyel wrote:
Guard should be 5 points, marines should be 12.
SoB are a bit mediocre but playable now - and will likely be better when they get a proper codex with some more unit options so they are not so one dimensional.

Technically IS are 5 points, because they always come with a CC.
Technically marines are 12 points, because a bolter is 1 point.

So, lets stay on topic - Bolter rules don't make anyone overpowered, and they definitely don't do enough to bring up standard SMs to being relevant, or at least viable in competitive over scouts.

I don't think you can fix them with points. Even dropping SMs by a % didn't affect anything major. The issue is in the weapons. I propose a simple change, partly stolen from DW.

Make Tac squads be able to outfit with anything from the basic SM special weapon list, or heavy weapon list. So a squad of 5 tac marines could be one sgt with a combi bolter, and 4 missile launchers. Or 4 Flamers, HBs, or Plasma.

Would that drastically affect the Meta? I don't believe it would, because SM's still wouldn't replace better damage dealing options like heavy vehicles. But it would cause people to start using them for their diversity over basic scouts for BN slots.

Let Space Marines be Space Marines.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, lets stay on topic - Bolter rules don't make anyone overpowered, and they definitely don't do enough to bring up standard SMs to being relevant, or at least viable in competitive over scouts.

It's not about directly making tacticals awesome. It makes the whole group of marines better - especially bikes. The tacs or scouts you take get a modest bump and a plasma gun here or there makes them a solid unit in cover.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, lets stay on topic - Bolter rules don't make anyone overpowered, and they definitely don't do enough to bring up standard SMs to being relevant, or at least viable in competitive over scouts.

It's not about directly making tacticals awesome. It makes the whole group of marines better - especially bikes. The tacs or scouts you take get a modest bump and a plasma gun here or there makes them a solid unit in cover.

I was more pointing at the one unit that people seem to never want to take. Bikes have a purpose. Assault have a purpose. Termies have a purpose. The most abandoned units in the SM codex are the OG Dreadnaught, Venerable Dreadnaught, Tacticals, and the Land Raider. Hell, the Rhino gets more use than the LR. You could add apothecaries and Servitors to the list, but those are specialty niche units, and not really mass play. You could say the drop ships, but even those got usage in 8th.

 Nym wrote:

 Thousand-Son-Sorcerer wrote:
Personally I think TS and DW will both be excluded from the rule "due to balance issues".

And I think TS should have it work even after they moved (All Is Dust). Even then, I'm not sure Rubrics would become competitive. Rubrics don't have SIA and Stormbolters, you can't compare them with DW.

I...uh...

I mean... I'm not sure what to say...I guess your right?

We don't have Storm Bolters which are a 24" S4 Rapid Fire 2 bolter weapon.

We have Combi Bolters on our SOT which are 24" S4 Rapid Fire 2 bolt weapons.

So in name no, however in rules yes.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, lets stay on topic - Bolter rules don't make anyone overpowered, and they definitely don't do enough to bring up standard SMs to being relevant, or at least viable in competitive over scouts.

I don't think you can fix them with points. Even dropping SMs by a % didn't affect anything major. The issue is in the weapons. I propose a simple change, partly stolen from DW.

Make Tac squads be able to outfit with anything from the basic SM special weapon list, or heavy weapon list. So a squad of 5 tac marines could be one sgt with a combi bolter, and 4 missile launchers. Or 4 Flamers, HBs, or Plasma.

Would that drastically affect the Meta? I don't believe it would, because SM's still wouldn't replace better damage dealing options like heavy vehicles. But it would cause people to start using them for their diversity over basic scouts for BN slots.

Let Space Marines be Space Marines.

Back on topic? The rule wont stick for TS and DW because thier Terminators will become very good at clearing out most of what kills them, or people will have to keep thier plasma out of the fight entirely until they show up.

 Xenomancers wrote:


Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.

And again, if that's the case, I'm going to love the 6 point sisters and 3 point guardsmen.

A sister is about equal to a scout in both offense and defense. It loses WS Str and deployment - a 1 to 2 point drop. 8-9 point sisters. What do they cost right now? 9? Use your brain please.

Not even close on either. It's obvious you've never used them. Use your brain please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?

Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.

I was pointing out how other points would change if you do such a drastic points reduction to Space Marines. All the buffs a marine gets over a basic sister for one point? And that's not including the bolter rule, which should be availible to other armies (and not just sisters), and shouldn't be free for "10 point marines". But the later is an argument for another time and thread.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

I mean, you're not wrong - the clue is in the name of the unit entry (Deathwatch Veterans), yet people are concerned about their performance relative to Tactical Marines, when the Kill Team should be looked at and balanced against Sternguard instead.

If DW Vets were elites, they would. But they are troops.

And? The unit entry and stat line has them as "more flexible Sternguard, with some weird friends" - the basic Veteran, therefore, should be priced comparative to Sternguard performance, regardless of which FOC slot they fill. This should mean that DW end up fielding less Troops than a SM army (assuming mono-dex, to head off soup), making it harder for them to contest objectives, while emphasising the elite feel of the army.

Karol wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:


Also, can we stop comparing the GK to the DW vet (Karol)? Is there anyone left who doesn't realize by now how poor GKs are? Does it need to be reiterated so often. I think GW are going to address this at some point, I just don't know when.

Not until one of two happens, everything else gets nerfed to GK level or GW fixs GK. The moment there is no talk about GK being bad, GW will say they are ok and no change is needed. Plus when I see a post about DW being ok, I can't think of anything else. And If I can't think about anything else I can sleep and I need to sleep before school.

Frankly, if reading stuff on here is making sleep problematic... walk away, at least for a while.

@Karol

Yeah, this is nothing to get that stressed about.

Take a brake for a bit. We'll still all be here and screaming when you've relaxed and can come back.

Tactical Squads should get Objective Secured (ie super-scoring) over and above the other 'OS' types.

That'd make them relative again, and tie in with their moniker.

zerosignal wrote:
Tactical Squads should get Objective Secured (ie super-scoring) over and above the other 'OS' types.

That'd make them relative again, and tie in with their moniker.

They already do? Or is that just Bobby's Boys?

Yes, but then they gave that to every boy and his dog.

For the purposes of matched play, make only troops scoring, and make Tactical Marines (and only tactical marines) super-scoring.

Boom, lists using basic troops again.

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.

And again, if that's the case, I'm going to love the 6 point sisters and 3 point guardsmen.

A sister is about equal to a scout in both offense and defense. It loses WS Str and deployment - a 1 to 2 point drop. 8-9 point sisters. What do they cost right now? 9? Use your brain please.

Not even close on either. It's obvious you've never used them. Use your brain please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?

Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.

I was pointing out how other points would change if you do such a drastic points reduction to Space Marines. All the buffs a marine gets over a basic sister for one point? And that's not including the bolter rule, which should be availible to other armies (and not just sisters), and shouldn't be free for "10 point marines". But the later is an argument for another time and thread.

In terms of actual stats that matter. A sister is a T3 marine with a 6++ save - they should cost 1 to 2 points less. This is common sense to anyone with the ability to reason. A scout has t4 4+ to t3 3+. You realize these stats give you the same results defensively against small arms...so in other words...THEY HAVE THE SAME DEFENSIVE PROFILE vs most weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Take that IS undercosted nonsence out of the marine bolter thread, IG IS are the poster child for undercosted units.

But don't you see? Such a proposed change makes marines better than IS by a solid margin. If you consider IS undercosted then a 10 point marine is even more so.

At that point you *can't* have 1 point SIA, because the body becomes too cheap for what it is.

AP2 is fancy, but with an 18" range you can't double tap deepstriking and you likely won't be making use of it the first turn, which means you need to stand still for *two* turns. It's a mental trap.

And THEN if you DO make SIA 4 points then you've just turned every single DW marine that wants to take something other than a bolter into dead weight like GK.

SIA represents for intercessors as they don't have the equipment shenanigans that makes compairing DW vets to tactical marines less intuitive pay 6% for an at worst 20% improvement in damage output, with some improvements being way higher.

Up to 400% in the case of shooting T8 mosters with bolters. It's an absurd upgrade for 1 point. LOL. OFC though - we are arguing with people who think sisters should cost roughly half what a marine should. Plus people who are repulsed by the idea that space marines should outdamage infantry squads against other infantry.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:


Well - if that is that case - the special ammo should be about 4 points and the marine goes down 3 points....I think that is in the realm of correctness.

And again, if that's the case, I'm going to love the 6 point sisters and 3 point guardsmen.

A sister is about equal to a scout in both offense and defense. It loses WS Str and deployment - a 1 to 2 point drop. 8-9 point sisters. What do they cost right now? 9? Use your brain please.

Not even close on either. It's obvious you've never used them. Use your brain please.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, seriously confused. Why are we arguing over the cost of SoB when they haven't even been released? Did I miss a codex release, or do we have a really good idea where they will be at in this codex?

Also, what do SoB have to do with Bolter rules? They won't be getting it, they won't be getting DW ammo types, theyre balance will be on a completely different model.

I was pointing out how other points would change if you do such a drastic points reduction to Space Marines. All the buffs a marine gets over a basic sister for one point? And that's not including the bolter rule, which should be availible to other armies (and not just sisters), and shouldn't be free for "10 point marines". But the later is an argument for another time and thread.

In terms of actual stats that matter. A sister is a T3 marine with a 6++ save - they should cost 1 to 2 points less. This is common sense to anyone with the ability to reason. A scout has t4 4+ to t3 3+. You realize these stats give you the same results defensively against small arms...so in other words...THEY HAVE THE SAME DEFENSIVE PROFILE vs most weapons.

Except sisters are weaker - ws 4+ and Str 3.

They also have lower toughness, meaning anti infantry weapons will wound easier vs them -- lasguns wound on 4s and Bolters 3s, multilaser on a 2, so that's a huge jump. A 6++ never occurs unless a melta is used, and scouts have a native scout deploy method, which by itself needs to be worth points.

T3 vs t4 is a huge one.

T3 is the only stat that matters in this example - and it's worth about 1 point on a 1 wound model the rest of the stats combined are about a 1 point difference at best.

Xeno, I'm confused which argument you are making. Are you arguing against the bolter rule, because SoBs are too cheap? Because SoB don't get the bolter rule.....

Please just declare your argument.

Mine is - Bolter rules are fair, because 90% of the affected units need it to gain a modicum of relevancy and effectiveness.

I don't like the Beta rule. A more static game is a less fun game. it benefits terminators immensely who can now have much better landing zones picked and thats cool for Deep Striking units. But I honestly dont like things that make the game more static. I get that there will be times when you just stand in place and roll dic, especially early on. But I prefer dynamic battles and i think this further depreciates the value of transports and increases the value of Squatting.

Drop pods everywhere are crying out in angst. hehe.

Yes because Drop Pods were such a popular choice right now.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Yes because Drop Pods were such a popular choice right now.

Thank you. precisely. Rhinos and other transports are, Pods needed no help suckin ballz. The ball to keep ones eye on is: dynamism = good.