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.

In a previous thread, I suggested making Multi-meltas Heavy 2 and giving Astartes (even Chaos ones) a firing mode for the Heavy bolter that is RF2.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/776847.page

But I have a few more ideas.
First for Primaris weapons: The Bolter Discipline rule is great, but it has all but made the non-RF Bolt Rifles pointless.
You can get 2 shots in a lot more situations, thus making the Auto bolt rifle inferior as it lacks AP-1, and getting 2 shots at 30" if stationary yields more wounds on average than the Stalker.
So I propose the following 2 additions to "rebalance" the 3 Weapons:

Bolt Rifles stay as-is, Auto Bolt rifles become Assault 3, and the Stalker becomes Damage 2. Those simple changes should give the 3 options better niches.
It would make the regular BR the "jack of all trades", but allow the other 2 options to be better than it against specific targets
-------------------------------------------

And now for some Eldar weapons/units:
Falcons should have the same "shoot twice if moved half or less" rule that Fire Prisms have.
On Fire Prisms, the rule is called "Pulsed Laser Discharge" and only allows the Prism cannon to fire twice. The Falcon's signature weapon is....wait for it....a PULSE LASER.
So give Falcons that rule on naming principle alone. Prisms and Serpents will still be "better" options, but at least this would make Falcons less trash tier by comparison

WK Suncannons should be S7
The Suncannon really should be S7 to compare with the IK Avenger Gatling, which always gets 12 shots. If the Suncannon is going to be 2d6 shots, it should at least get a bump in some other stat to be comparable, but not a carbon copy. Also at S7 it would feel more like a "mega-Starcannon" rather than just 3-4 Starcannons smooshed together

-

I disagree on Bolter Discipline being good. It was a terribly thought out rule to the point we had to say "oh btw Deathwatch can't double tap if they stand still for...reasons". That's why I've been pushing for a proc rule that actually does something and more importantly makes the Lt. have some actual synergy with Bolter toters.

As is, I think the Assault 3 is fine-ish but I've done no math on that. I'm also iffy on more D2 being added to the game.

I'm fine with your Suncannon suggestion. I don't see anything off about it.

Auto bolt rifles becoming Assault 3 seems like a sound idea to me. It is a significant offense boost, but it probably falls within an acceptable range for the price tag of primaris marines.

Damage 2 for the stalkers is an intuitive approach, Slayer-Fan123 brings up a good point about the proliferation of D2 weapons in the game. How does the math look compared to the rapid fire gun if you gave Stalkers a +1 to their to-wound rolls? It would still represent the fluff of aiming for a weak point, wouldn't make life significantly harder for terminators and other primaris, and would be useful against single wound targets as well as multi-wound targets. Assuming the math doesn't make it purely superior or inferior to the rapid fire variant, that is.

Regarding falcons, I'm not a big fan of encouraging them to move less. If anything, that's part of their current problem. Plus, at that point they'd just be competing more directly with fire prisms and night spinners.

Personally, I'd like to see the falcon play up its mobility more. Maybe let them give up their shooting to redeploy anywhere on the table more than 9" away from enemy units or even, and this is a bit weird, give them the aircraft rule with a movement stat to match and the option to hover. And they should probably become dedicated transports while we're at it. If you could zip them across the table turn 1 to deliver 6 man aspect squads into the fray on turn 2, they'd get some use out of their transport capacity and deliver units into the fight in a way that even the more durable wave serpent can't. If you let them shoot after moving, you could even get some use out of the crystal targeting matrix.

Picture, if you will, a pair of falcons zooming onto the enemy's exposed flank turn 1 and using their firepower to clear out the screens or exposed vehicles next to them. Then, turn 2, the fire dragons and banshees hop out, tying up and fusion gunning the enemy's fire base.

I'm kind of ambivalent about the suncannon changes. It wouldn't be unbalanced, but the suncannon suffers from the wonky translation of a multi-blast gun to 8th edition combined with wraith knights just generally being inferior to imperial knights. I feel like changing how blasts work in general or considering a ground-up redesign of xenos knight equivalents might both get closer to the root of the issue.

I was thinking about perhaps Stalker Bolts gain S6. While it seems a bit much considering Heavy Bolters are only S5, consider:
1. There are almost no platforms that get them in the first place
2. Kinda goes for what Sniper Rifles did in ye olden days: wound infantry easier

It's probably a bad idea though so ignore it. I think Sniper rules as is would probably suffice.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I was thinking about perhaps Stalker Bolts gain S6. While it seems a bit much considering Heavy Bolters are only S5, consider:
1. There are almost no platforms that get them in the first place
2. Kinda goes for what Sniper Rifles did in ye olden days: wound infantry easier

It's probably a bad idea though so ignore it. I think Sniper rules as is would probably suffice.

Sniper rules would be a good fit but potentially step on the toes of marksman bolt carbines (the infiltrator gun). Strength 6 would be almost identical to +1 to wound while also being a simpler, less special change, so I'm not opposed to that. Between Strength 6 and AP-2, you're probably doing comparable damage to the two shots of the rapid fire variant against T4 and less targets while also being able to chip a wound or two off of larger targets. Doesn't seem terrible. The only thing about Strength 6 is that there's a lot of Toughness 7 out there, and S6 is basically S4 when you're shooting at a rhino or wave serpent.

Would it be totally crazy to go all the way up to Strength 7? The difference between S6 and S7 only really matters to T6 and T7 targets, and there are a lot of T7 targets out there that S6 doesn't matter against.

If we were to rework the bolter discipline rule, personally i would like to keep the conditions of the current rule, so when in 1/2 range, if a terminator, biker or centurion, or the unit did not move, but change the bonus to something much broader in scope, as simply increasing the frequency of the RF chance is kinda lame, as the OP said. Something along the lines of "Bolt weapons with an Armour Piercing characteristic of 0 are improved by 1". The only unit i really think this would be far too good on, as written, would be Aggressors, but making them an exception is simple enough. It also goes without saying that this should not stack with DW special ammunition, though Kraken bolts are objectively better anyways.
I realize that this doesn't apply to the regular bolt rifle or stalker bolt rifle, but i really think that they are fine stat wise. Personally, i think the reg bolt rifle is too good as it is with the current rules implementation, so the minor nerf this rule would represent is just an appropriate adjustment. As to the Stalker Bolt Rifle, i would simply reduce their cost to 0.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I was thinking about perhaps Stalker Bolts gain S6. While it seems a bit much considering Heavy Bolters are only S5, consider:
1. There are almost no platforms that get them in the first place
2. Kinda goes for what Sniper Rifles did in ye olden days: wound infantry easier

It's probably a bad idea though so ignore it. I think Sniper rules as is would probably suffice.

Sniper rules would be a good fit but potentially step on the toes of marksman bolt carbines (the infiltrator gun). Strength 6 would be almost identical to +1 to wound while also being a simpler, less special change, so I'm not opposed to that. Between Strength 6 and AP-2, you're probably doing comparable damage to the two shots of the rapid fire variant against T4 and less targets while also being able to chip a wound or two off of larger targets. Doesn't seem terrible. The only thing about Strength 6 is that there's a lot of Toughness 7 out there, and S6 is basically S4 when you're shooting at a rhino or wave serpent.

Would it be totally crazy to go all the way up to Strength 7? The difference between S6 and S7 only really matters to T6 and T7 targets, and there are a lot of T7 targets out there that S6 doesn't matter against.

Str 6 is fine, as the stalker boltgun is a glorified sniper rifle. Str 7 approaches the workhorse Autocannon and other light anti vehicle gun. Personally Im fine with the stalker being kept how it is but adding +1 to wound if the target has the infantry keyword.

On the other side please make the Suncannon good on the Wraithknight :( hell make it heavy 9 or 10. It feels so inferior to Knights weaponry.

I hate the fact that the FIre Prism has a shoot twice if you stand still rule, so I'm completly against giving the same rule to Falcons, a unit that wants to be even more maneouverable than Prisms do.

Personally I'd want to see the Prism Cannons stats completely overhauled whilst the Falcon, I'm not even sure what you'd do with it. At present the Wave Serpent is a better transport that cna nearly match the Falcon for firepower whilst the Fire Prism out shoots it, it doesn't really have a niche to fit into anymore.

Ya know what? I kinda agree with the D2 being too common. Str5 could work for the Stalker, but I think giving it an "Always wounds on 2+ against Infantry" ability would make it feel more like a Sniper, without going to far into Eliminator territory

Regarding my comment about Bolter Discipline being "good", I meant "good enough". I still hold that it should have been +1 shot in addition to double tap at half. For example, a Bolter Marine would get 2 shots (1+1) if stationary or 3 shots (1*2 +1) if at half range.
That also would have meant regular bolters get a proportionately larger bonus as they'd get a 100% or 50% increase, while StormBolters only get a 50% or 25% increase.
And isn't it the point of BD to make regular bolters better?

Anyway, regarding the Prism/Falcon, the shoot twice rule is absolutely necessary to make those weapons viable. Both are Lasers which are generally capable of a constant "stream" of energy. It's far more believable for those weapons to be able to fire twice, than for a traditional projectile weapon, like most of the LRBT's which have the shoot twice ability.
My suggestion is to extend that rule to the Falcon's Pulse Laser, not only because it's the friggin name of the ability, but because it would make Falcons more on-par with Prisms/Serpents.
Prisms would still produce more damage output and Serpents would still be a better Transport, but Falcons would at least be a viable compromise between the 2.

-

Gir Spirit Bane wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I was thinking about perhaps Stalker Bolts gain S6. While it seems a bit much considering Heavy Bolters are only S5, consider:
1. There are almost no platforms that get them in the first place
2. Kinda goes for what Sniper Rifles did in ye olden days: wound infantry easier

It's probably a bad idea though so ignore it. I think Sniper rules as is would probably suffice.

Sniper rules would be a good fit but potentially step on the toes of marksman bolt carbines (the infiltrator gun). Strength 6 would be almost identical to +1 to wound while also being a simpler, less special change, so I'm not opposed to that. Between Strength 6 and AP-2, you're probably doing comparable damage to the two shots of the rapid fire variant against T4 and less targets while also being able to chip a wound or two off of larger targets. Doesn't seem terrible. The only thing about Strength 6 is that there's a lot of Toughness 7 out there, and S6 is basically S4 when you're shooting at a rhino or wave serpent.

Would it be totally crazy to go all the way up to Strength 7? The difference between S6 and S7 only really matters to T6 and T7 targets, and there are a lot of T7 targets out there that S6 doesn't matter against.

Str 6 is fine, as the stalker boltgun is a glorified sniper rifle. Str 7 approaches the workhorse Autocannon and other light anti vehicle gun. Personally Im fine with the stalker being kept how it is but adding +1 to wound if the target has the infantry keyword.

On the other side please make the Suncannon good on the Wraithknight :( hell make it heavy 9 or 10. It feels so inferior to Knights weaponry.

I skipped over S5 as I didn't want it wounding T3 and T4 at the same rate.

The Falcon already has a pulse laser discharge. It can already fire it's primary gun twice. It's Heavy:2.

The more I think on it, the more I think the Stalker BR should do MWs on a 6 to wound in addition to normal damage. They are basically inferior sniper rifles anyway, so make them feel like it too.

But the point of any of these changes is the make the Stalker a viable alternative to the regular BR, which gets 2 shots at 30" and AP-1, which is flat superior to 1 shot at 36" and AP-2

I glad we seem to agree on the Auto-BR being Assault 3.

Bharring wrote:
The Falcon already has a pulse laser discharge. It can already fire it's primary gun twice. It's Heavy:2.

Riiiiight. And a Fire Prism can potentially fire 6 shots at S9 AP-4 D:d3. Just give both tanks the same rule for consistency sake. Don't most/all LRBTs variant have a similar rule?

-

 Galef wrote:
Ya know what? I kinda agree with the D2 being too common. Str5 could work for the Stalker, but I think giving it an "Always wounds on 2+ against Infantry" ability would make it feel more like a Sniper, without going to far into Eliminator territory

Regarding my comment about Bolter Discipline being "good", I meant "good enough". I still hold that it should have been +1 shot in addition to double tap at half. For example, a Bolter Marine would get 2 shots (1+1) if stationary or 3 shots (1*2 +1) if at half range.
That also would have meant regular bolters get a proportionately larger bonus as they'd get a 100% or 50% increase, while StormBolters only get a 50% or 25% increase.
And isn't it the point of BD to make regular bolters better?

Anyway, regarding the Prism/Falcon, the shoot twice rule is absolutely necessary to make those weapons viable. Both are Lasers which are generally capable of a constant "stream" of energy. It's far more believable for those weapons to be able to fire twice, than for a traditional projectile weapon, like most of the LRBT's which have the shoot twice ability.
My suggestion is to extend that rule to the Falcon's Pulse Laser, not only because it's the friggin name of the ability, but because it would make Falcons more on-par with Prisms/Serpents.
Prisms would still produce more damage output and Serpents would still be a better Transport, but Falcons would at least be a viable compromise between the 2.

-

The problem with fixed to wound rolls is GW constantly find new and more rediculous ways to screw up these things.

Make it S5 or S6 (would have been helpful if GW had really used the unlimited Stats to move all vehicals to T10 + and allowed 1-9 to cover infantry)

They haven't been consistent with similar rules so far with some saying wound on fixed number unless vehical keyword, so you wound wierd things like demon primarchs on fixed numbers and it feels wrong.

 Galef wrote:

Anyway, regarding the Prism/Falcon, the shoot twice rule is absolutely necessary to make those weapons viable. Both are Lasers which are generally capable of a constant "stream" of energy. It's far more believable for those weapons to be able to fire twice, than for a traditional projectile weapon, like most of the LRBT's which have the shoot twice ability.
My suggestion is to extend that rule to the Falcon's Pulse Laser, not only because it's the friggin name of the ability, but because it would make Falcons more on-par with Prisms/Serpents.
Prisms would still produce more damage output and Serpents would still be a better Transport, but Falcons would at least be a viable compromise between the 2.

-

Highlighted for emphasis. The thing is, being a worse wave serpent a worse fire prism means that I'll just take either of those options before I take the falcon. Especially because those jobs are anti-synergistic. Being a transport means the falcon probably wants to move around to get its cargo into position, but being a gun platform means it wants to hold still to shoot better (especially with your proposed changes). But that just means I could take a transport that's better at transporting (the serpent) or a gun platform that's better at shooting (a prism) rather than taking an option that will do a worse version of both/either of those jobs.

Plus, encouraging the tank frequently depicted soaring through the clouds to hold still feels like a severe fluff/crunch mismatch.

I feel like the falcon needs to fill its own niche rather than being a worse version of similar units. Personally, I'd like to see that niche be mobility-related (again, largely because of the cloud fluff/artwork). But if you're not a fan of that, how about simply making them cheaper? The falcon is straight up worse at transporting and staying alive than a serpent. It's probably worse at shooting too unless you're equipping it and playing it in such a way as to make the most of the pulse laser. So maybe it should just be the cheap option?

If you made the pulse laser non-mandatory (and then gave the pulse laser a reasonable points cost), you could reasonably make a falcon with double shuriken cannons cost around 100 points. Maybe that's enough of a price break compared to a wave serpent to make it the "cheap" transport that you stick your spare squad of avengers or dragons or what have you in.

But again, letting the falcon be the faster, less-shielded transport that tries to assasinate backfielders seems like a more desirable role to me. Keep in mind that the Cloudstrike rule was briefly the falcon's thing. Letting it relocate mid-game, or just giving it a supersonic movement option, would make it play very differently from serpents and prisms and maybe let units like fire dragons see more play (you'd be able to get in melta range turn 2 with dragons).

I don't know why they haven't created a d2 roll

1-3 =1 4-6 =2.

They should have as few fixed damage values as possible in the game.

Any awkward values should be combinations of random rolls.

The highest fixed value should be 1 as in 1+d2, or 1d3+1 etc

Hellebore wrote:
I don't know why they haven't created a d2 roll

1-3 =1 4-6 =2.

They should have as few fixed damage values as possible in the game.

Any awkward values should be combinations of random rolls.

The highest fixed value should be 1 as in 1+d2, or 1d3+1 etc

I'm surprised by this, I haven't heard this view before. It is diametrically opposite to my own position! I'd like to see random damage removed entirely, perhaps with one or two edge cases.

Well otherwise you get into a rock paper scissors situation where you start taking weapon that are precise counters to units.

It becomes like the instant death rules.

People are already complaining about how over effective damage 2 weapons are.

You reduce the point of wounds when damage is fixed.

That makes sense.

Personally I’d prefer to make damage 2 weapons less prevalent though. I think there is already enough randomness and dice rolling that it shouldn’t be necessary at the damage stage too.

Yeah an alternative is to severely restrict multi damage weapons.

 Galef wrote:
WK Suncannons should be S7
The Suncannon really should be S7 to compare with the IK Avenger Gatling, which always gets 12 shots. If the Suncannon is going to be 2d6 shots, it should at least get a bump in some other stat to be comparable, but not a carbon copy. Also at S7 it would feel more like a "mega-Starcannon" rather than just 3-4 Starcannons smooshed together

There is something to be said for similar weapons having the exact same profile, especially when they go on the same unit, always being able to resolve these weapons at the same time is good game design IMO, same thing with the SM Aggressors having grenade launchers and bolt weapons with the same profile so they can all be resolved at the same time.

I'll port over some suggestions I've seen for Necrons in other threads.

Tesla: Each hit roll of 6+ with this weapon causes 3 hits instead of 1. -> Each unmodified hit roll of 6 with this weapon causes 3 hits instead of 1.

This is something I advocate, I think it matters too much whether you have the plusses or the minusses, in terms of opponent this is mostly chance on what your opponent has available, many armies have nothing other than flyers with a minus to hit, the current version also works way too well with the Sautekh Stratagem Methodical Destruction, it's stifling other lists from being made. Tesla Immortals being better recipients of My Will Be Done than Warriors is the only upside of the ability working as it does. Necrons would be able to advance and shoot better with the change, I don't think that's a big deal.

Gauss: AP-1/-2/-3/-4 -> AP-0/-1/-2/-3 and AP-3/-4/-5/-6 on wound rolls of 6 or AP-0/-1/-2/-3 and a the wound being replaced with a mortal wound on a wound roll of 6

The Necron's lowliest gun being able to take on a Land Raider was a huge part of the faction's feel, I think it went too far in 6th and 7th with hull points, but the suggestions above wouldn't create auto-win scenarios against anything as far as I can see. Take the -3 or MW depending on how much you hate MWs.

Tesla Sphere and Tesla Destructor Damage 1 -> Damage 2

These S7 AP- weapons were amazing in the era of hull points, but between AP being a much bigger deal against most vehicles, tesla not working against the majority of vehicles that don't have a 3+ Sv these weapons fell hard. Comparing current and previous performance against Rhinos, before you needed 4-6 hits, you now need 66 hits to destroy a Rhino.


It's a very random weapon, that doesn't fit everyone's taste. I like it as is, but I get the sentiment.

Gauss Flux Arc Heavy 3 -> Rapid Fire 3

RF is kind of useless when you can't Deep Strike within range with it and you have Movement 6, I still think it's a good idea because it fits what the Ghost Ark has going on. There was a suggestion on improving the main weapon of the Monolith as well but I don't remember off the top of my head what it was.

Focussed Death Ray Heavy 1 -> Heavy D6

It's such a laughable weapon, an 8 wound model with a single range 24" lascannon shot? It's like putting a multi-melta on a Drop Pod instead of giving it a transport capacity since the Sentry Pylon has M3 and therefore needs the DS upgrade to have any hope of getting in range with this. What am I supposed to do with this thing? You could make it worthwhile by making it 50ish pts, but I don't think it'd be fun to field unless it did more damage. The Exterminator currently does 50%-300% more damage (it never does less damage) at 2x the range. There is too much of a disparity between these weapons. Assuming the Exterminator stands still and shoots the first three turns and the Death Ray drops down turn 2, you are looking at 150% more damage from the Exterminator for 5 more pts in the worst case and 700% more damage against Alaitoc flyers. I will also point out that the focussed death ray used to be a superior, not an inferior version of what is currently a Heavy D3 weapon, going from S 10-12 and losing half your shots could be considered focussed, but it's also garbage.

So per the recent WC article, Stalker bolt rifles will indeed be D2 in the new codex. I just wanna take a moment to pay myself on the back for calling it

-