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.

Make the guns as powerful as you want.

Just be willing to bite the bullet when their cost increases dramatically.

Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
Snip

This is an excellent post.

And space marines aren't the big dogs (as if they ever were) of the setting. The more space marines are pushed up, the more specialty marines (like Grey Knights) and factions like Custodes have to uplifted to compensate. Even something like Necron Immortals should probably better than the standard Tactical/Intercessor to both give 'crons that old 'better than you' feel and have a wider separation between Immortals (hype-elite) and Warriors (horde) in army construction.

This especially, the more the Marines are made to be good, the more other factions have to be uplifted to match them. And then suddenly, they fight normal humans and well, the humans should get their teeth kicked in with no chances whatsoever. How fun is that for the players of that faction, hm? Much better Marines are kept weaker, and the rest won't have to be cranked up to match them, making any sort of victories by Guardsmen feel almost unfluffy at some point.

As for Marine lore itself, it's wildly inconsistent, I have read books where five Marines (a named Reclusiarch and his retinue) get overwhelmed by 30 or so Orks, and need militiamen (and a Stormtrooper) to rescue them. Or another where a squad of ten Kasrkins defeat two Traitor Marines at the cost of 3 men. You still have the Marine > Human dynamic, but it's not so huge a difference that it makes you question why having human soldiers at all, if everything is so dangerous out there.

 Tyran wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Imo fleshborer being s4 ap 0 but +1 to wound (bug bullets) makes sense. Maybe something like poison, but we gotta power creep somehow.

You said that as if the devourer, which historically was better than the bolter, wasn't nerfed into the ground while termagants were inflated in price

If the ultimate point of power creep is churn to encourage new purchases, nerfing one build while heavily incentivising another accomplishes the same thing.

 Insectum7 wrote:

If the ultimate point of power creep is churn to encourage new purchases, nerfing one build while heavily incentivising another accomplishes the same thing.

It isn't powercreep when the resulting build isn't particularly more powerful than the one it replaced (and in fact lost firepower because 3 S4 shots are better than 1 S5 AP-1 shot, specially with AoC around).

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Imo fleshborer being s4 ap 0 but +1 to wound (bug bullets) makes sense. Maybe something like poison, but we gotta power creep somehow.

You said that as if the devourer, which historically was better than the bolter, wasn't nerfed into the ground while termagants were inflated in price

If the ultimate point of power creep is churn to encourage new purchases, nerfing one build while heavily incentivising another accomplishes the same thing.

I said creep because I mentioned that I think the poison special rule would work for fleshborers, but +1 to wound on s4 is going to work better in all cases.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

If the ultimate point of power creep is churn to encourage new purchases, nerfing one build while heavily incentivising another accomplishes the same thing.

It isn't powercreep when the resulting build isn't particularly more powerful than the one it replaced (and in fact lost firepower because 3 S4 shots are better than 1 S5 AP-1 shot, specially with AoC around).

Creep or no, it's still churn for the churn god.

Dudeface wrote:
Why is it acceptable that a tactical marine randomly fires and extra shot with a point of ap than a sister does? Is a bolter mysteriously deadly enough in the hands of a model with the exact same ranged offensive stats without those rules?

I mean yeah, Astartes are supposed to be a bit more skilled than Sororitas, especially given they likely have even more experience than them.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

If the ultimate point of power creep is churn to encourage new purchases, nerfing one build while heavily incentivising another accomplishes the same thing.

It isn't powercreep when the resulting build isn't particularly more powerful than the one it replaced (and in fact lost firepower because 3 S4 shots are better than 1 S5 AP-1 shot, specially with AoC around).

Creep or no, it's still churn for the churn god.

Good thing 99% of the player base has no idea how to differentiate Tyranid guns. They would totally believe me if they told them those devourers are actually venom cannons, which helps mitigate churn with Tyranids.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Why is it acceptable that a tactical marine randomly fires and extra shot with a point of ap than a sister does? Is a bolter mysteriously deadly enough in the hands of a model with the exact same ranged offensive stats without those rules?

I mean yeah, Astartes are supposed to be a bit more skilled than Sororitas, especially given they likely have even more experience than them.

Don't Astartes get bigger bolters? IIRC Astartes bolters have recoil that would break an unagmented human, and Sororitas are not augmented.

Still though, Doctrines are such a poor rule, both boring and yet more powerful than most faction purity bonuses.

 Tyran wrote:

Don't Astartes get bigger bolters? IIRC Astartes bolters have recoil that would break an unagmented human, and Sororitas are not augmented.

Still though, Doctrines are such a poor rule, both boring and yet more powerful than most faction purity bonuses.

They are bigger and a better design than Sororitas and especially IG bolt weapons, so yeah.

Having "Astartes/Legion boltgun" being a bit better than an IG boltgun would be fine.

 carldooley wrote:
Make the guns as powerful as you want.

Just be willing to bite the bullet when their cost increases dramatically.

How much of a Tactical Marine's point budget is the Boltgun? 1 pt? Maybe less?

Compare a Sternguard to a Tactical Marine. 20 points vs 18 points each with the same stat line, except +1 Attack/Leadership for Sternguard, let's call it +1 budget point for the upgraded statline.

Special Issue Boltgun vs Boltgun, SIB has +6" range, and AP-2 over the regular Boltgun. An additional AP-2 against Marines is worth 50%-100% additional damage (AoC drops it to 50% since Boltgun is AP0 and can't get worse). Sure, Tactical has Obj Sec and Melta Bomb and Sternguard can take more combi/special/heavy weapons, but that should swing the budget further toward Tactical being more efficient since the weapon options have point costs to balance them already. So +1 budget point for the Special Issue Boltgun.

So, potentially adding 50% or doubling a Tactical Marine's Boltgun damage only worth +1 point (and frankly, I'd still rather have the +1 Attack/Leadership). 19 point Tactical Marines are still cheaper than Intercessors and tied for Assault Intercessors as the cheapest Troop (barring chapter specifics). You could easily give Tactical Marines RF3 24" S4 AP0 D1 Boltguns and budget them at 20 points a model... and still don't think they would be better than Auto Intercessors. About the same shooting (strat to double shoot, vs half range/not moving) but Intercessors have +1A each which is worth something. Frankly, a 5-man RF3 Tacticals at 20 points/each is still inferior shooting to a 3-man Bike Squad with 2x Flamer and a Combi-Flamer for 110 points unless they are in half range or standing still.

But GW likely doesn't adhere well to point budgets, because the Storm Bolter (ie a double Boltgun) that we just showed is worth maybe 2 budget points total (so +1 point if upgrading from Boltgun) costs +5 points (so budgeted at 6 points). Sternguard can take Storm Bolters at a cheaper +3 points (4 budget points), but it isn't even worth a full +1 point upgrade for them, it is more of a sidegrade really since they give up their SIB for it.

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

If the ultimate point of power creep is churn to encourage new purchases, nerfing one build while heavily incentivising another accomplishes the same thing.

It isn't powercreep when the resulting build isn't particularly more powerful than the one it replaced (and in fact lost firepower because 3 S4 shots are better than 1 S5 AP-1 shot, specially with AoC around).

Creep or no, it's still churn for the churn god.

Good thing 99% of the player base has no idea how to differentiate Tyranid guns. They would totally believe me if they told them those devourers are actually venom cannons, which helps mitigate churn with Tyranids.

Sure you can always counts-as, but some(many) like to stick to WYSIWYG, which is also the competetive standard.

Dudeface wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
Shootas are kind of just better than bolters, as are basically all the weapons orks use, they’re just limited by the aim and the squishness of the bearer.

Correct, which is the point Dude likes to ignore as often as possible. You kind of have to factor in how good a weapon is in the hands of the bearer not just in a vacuum. Otherwise you are just building strawmen arguments.

The bit you choose to ignore semper:

Guard sergeant - bs 4+ 1 shot at 24" 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1

That is an upgrade for the Sgt, hes nominally equipped with a laspistol and chainsword. So you used to be paying a point for this. Which, surprising basically nobody, until it became free, nobody did this since it was just a waste of a point.

Dudeface wrote:
Sister of battle - bs 3+ 1 shot at 24" 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1

Which is why sisters use their required troop slots to equip special weapons and use them as ablative wounds.

Dudeface wrote:
Heretic astartes - bs 3+ 2 shots at 24" if stationary, 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- d1

Yep, on a relatively cheap model. This is significantly better than the Shoota and better than a lot of other troops in the game even now.

Dudeface wrote:
Tactical marine -bs 3+ 2 shots at 24" if stationary, 2 shots at 12" s4 ap- (unless its turn 2-3) d1

All the same weapon.

Again yes. Still better than most other factions. So instead of buffing Bolters acros the board you can give sisters of battle something if you really wanted to, but they don't even need it since those bolter squads are just ablative wounds for special weapons.

Dudeface wrote:
Edit: in hindsight I can see how you might feel this backs your angle up, but my point is the *gun* isn't good enough to function beyond the bearer. You constantly just point at the marine version and go "look it's good enough" but then marines don't use it and everyone else who can doesn't have multiple layers of supplementary buffs.

I constantly point to it because its the most common army in the game that takes bolters. Hell, its the most common army in the game full stop. The VAST majority of bolter bearers are sitting with BS3, 2 shots at 24' and -1AP for 2 turns, that is pretty damn good. You can point to fringe cases like the aforementioned Imperial Guard Sgt, but that is such an outlier that its ridiculous to even look at, not to mention its a FREE upgrade for them now.

Dudeface wrote:
Why is it acceptable that a tactical marine randomly fires and extra shot with a point of ap than a sister does? Is a bolter mysteriously deadly enough in the hands of a model with the exact same ranged offensive stats without those rules?

The point is marines don't even use a bolter most of the time, they use auto bolters or bolt rifles. It simply isn't a good weapon even firing twice if stationary with ap-1 for 2 turns. Take those 2 rules off (which aren't part of the bolter anyway) and it sucks.

Why is it acceptable for a Tac marine to be better than a sisters of battle? Points for starters, beyond that fluff and beyond that because Marine players bitched and moaned loud and often enough that eventually GW gave into them.

Dudeface wrote:
Regards the pulse rifle above as well, they used to have 6" more range, +1 strength and importantly ap5 same as the bolter. They now have 12" more range, +1 strength and ap-1 where as the bolter innately has 0.

It should be better agreed, but not by the margin it is.

The Pulse Rifle used to have +6 range and +1 strength over the Bolter, their shtick was that they were better at range than Marines and every other faction. Marines now have a 30' weapon as well as -1AP on a standard troops choice, and thanks to the game getting more durable *looks at 2W Marines* Tau firewarriors needed a buff, and unlike Orkz who got a nerf, Firewarriors got +6inches of range and -1AP both upgrades are good for them, they also took a 1pt increase in their base cost to make up for it...you know...compared to the 3pts Marines paid to get a 2nd wound, AoC, Bolter, Angels of whatever the hell it is and other special rules.

And why did those Firewarriors get that upgrade? Because in a pt for pt firefight, Tau Firewarriors were LOSING to Intercessors. Just like those Intercessors are now BETTER at CC than Ork boyz.

20 Tau Firewarriors in 8th = 140pts, 7 Intercessors = 140pts.

7 intercessors get 14 shots, 9.3 hits and 6.2 wounds for 4.14 dead Tau. That is 29pts of dmg.
20 Firewarriors get 20 shots, 10 hits, 6.6 wounds and 2.3dmg for 1 Dead Marine. That is 22.2pts of dmg.

NOW its 10 Firewarriors = 80pts, 4 Intercessors = 80pts

4 Intercessors get 8 shots, 5.3 hits, 3.5 wounds and 2.37dmg for 18pts of dmg.
10 Firewarriors get 10 shots, 5 hits, 3.33 wounds and 1.11dmg for 11pts of dmg. (Pre AoC it was 16.65pts of dmg)....Whoops, looks like AoC broke that formula again good work GW.

If you want to compare them against Tac Marines instead its almost as bad.
5 Firewarriors WERE 35pts, 2 Tac Marines were 36pts.
2 Tac Marines got 4 shots, 2.66 hits 1.77 wounds and 0.88dmg for 6.2pts of dmg
5 Firewarriors got 5 shots, 2.5 hits, 1.6 wounds and 0.55dmg for 5pts of dmg.

It went to 7 Firewarriors = 56pts, 3 Tacs = 54pts
3 Tacs got 6 shots, 4 hits, 2.66 wounds and 1.33dmg for 10.6pts of dmg.
7 Firewarriors got 7 shots, 3.5 hits, 2.3 wounds and 0.77dmg for 7pts of dmg (Pre AoC it was 10.5)

So ironically, the bolters you are calling bad are still out performing Tau Firewarriors still, though they have shorter range, which is important so I'll gladly still give the edge to the firewarriors.

SemperMortis wrote:
NOW its 10 Firewarriors = 80pts, 4 Intercessors = 80pts

4 Intercessors get 8 shots, 5.3 hits, 3.5 wounds and 2.37dmg for 18pts of dmg.
10 Firewarriors get 10 shots, 5 hits, 3.33 wounds and 1.11dmg for 11pts of dmg. (Pre AoC it was 16.65pts of dmg)....Whoops, looks like AoC broke that formula again good work GW.

So, in your calculations, Firewarriors never get into Rapid Fire range, but Marines always do. Sure, that seems fair /s. I'd probably put Bolter Discipline bringing up SM Rapid Fire percentage to 75% instead of 50% and Firewarriors RF 50% of the time, but that is just me.

Let's use your numbers for now, and shoot them into themselves.
10 Firewarriors shooting at Firewarriors is 2.22 damage, for 17.75 pts of damage.
4 RF Intercessors shooting at Intercessors is 0.88 damage, for 8.88 pts of damage.

So both Intercessors and Firewarriors are equivalent at killing Firewarriors.
Firewarriors are better at killing Intercessors than Intercessors are.

Seems like Firewarriors are not losing to Intercessors when you compare them shooting at the same targets.

Getting into Rapid Fire range for Tau means getting to charge range.
Think about why that might end badly for them.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Getting into Rapid Fire range for Tau means getting to charge range.
Think about why that might end badly for them.

Being outside the range of Intercessor Boltguns seems like it might mean the Intercessors do zero damage.
Think about why that might end badly for them.

You don't get to choose what your opponent does.

Kaied wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Getting into Rapid Fire range for Tau means getting to charge range.
Think about why that might end badly for them.

Being outside the range of Intercessor Boltguns seems like it might mean the Intercessors do zero damage.
Think about why that might end badly for them.

You don't get to choose what your opponent does.

Well...since intercessors have 30' range...good luck? At that point you have surrendered most of the board to the Marine player. And as far as rapid fire range...marines start rapid fire range at 30' where as Firewarriors have to get to within 18 to hit that sweet spot. And as JNAP mentioned, when a firewarriors is 18 from the enemy, he is in charge range which means he is in trouble.

I played a game against a newer Tau player recently, and he thought that since he had killed 6 of my Kommandos he could safely move up his Firewarriors and kroot hounds into charge range to attempt to get an objective....lets just say it didn't work out well for him

SemperMortis wrote:

Kaied wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Getting into Rapid Fire range for Tau means getting to charge range.
Think about why that might end badly for them.

Being outside the range of Intercessor Boltguns seems like it might mean the Intercessors do zero damage.
Think about why that might end badly for them.

You don't get to choose what your opponent does.

Well...since intercessors have 30' range...good luck? At that point you have surrendered most of the board to the Marine player. And as far as rapid fire range...marines start rapid fire range at 30' where as Firewarriors have to get to within 18 to hit that sweet spot. And as JNAP mentioned, when a firewarriors is 18 from the enemy, he is in charge range which means he is in trouble.

I played a game against a newer Tau player recently, and he thought that since he had killed 6 of my Kommandos he could safely move up his Firewarriors and kroot hounds into charge range to attempt to get an objective....lets just say it didn't work out well for him

Rapid Fire at 30'... if they don't move. Did you start on that Objective or did you need to move? That is why I figure Marines with Bolter Discipline get Rapid Fire 75% of the time, whereas everyone else/non-bolt gets it 50% of the time.

What is a better estimate? Give me a percentages that Intercessors and Fire Warriors are getting Rapid Fire. Currently, the numbers above are assuming Marines 100% and Firewarriors 0%, hence the /s.

It's a bit of a false comparison anyway, since Intercessors should be using the Auto Bolt Rifle and only have 24" range and comparing it to the Pulse Carbine at Assault 2 S5 AP0 24"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here, the same calculations with Auto Bolt Rifle and Pulse Carbine
4x Auto Bolt Rifle vs Intercessor: 1.33 damage, 13.3 points
4x Auto Bolt Rifle vs Fire Warrior: 3.55 damage, 28.4 points
10x Pulse Carbine vs Intercessor: 2.22 damage, 22.2 points
10x Pulse Carbine vs Fire Warrior: 4.44 damage, 35.5 points

 Tyran wrote:

Don't Astartes get bigger bolters? IIRC Astartes bolters have recoil that would break an unagmented human, and Sororitas are not augmented.

Still though, Doctrines are such a poor rule, both boring and yet more powerful than most faction purity bonuses.

This is a bit naff. as far as gw it is substantiated from the existence of some civilian or smaller caliber bolt weapons in stuff like the Dark Heresy game from FFG. that doesn't mean the guard and inq use different calibers than marines. It's rare for them to say 'marine bolt rounds are always bigger than guard pintle mount ones.' They're also phoning it in if they do. It's an idea for mush brained casual players like "marines are big because they're big because they're big because they're big, and their real rules are the sagitarum guard"

The idea is that for humans there's weapons like GP machine guns and grenade launchers, where you couldn't give them to every rifleman because the kind of speculative firing they do would waste ammunition and they can't carry enough. With marines, they keep that grade of weapon the same size, but upsize the trooper so much that they can use an m60 like it were a sub machine gun. The rounds and power on guard and marine boltguns are equivalent to each other, the thing that changes is the task.

Hecaton wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Why is it acceptable that a tactical marine randomly fires and extra shot with a point of ap than a sister does? Is a bolter mysteriously deadly enough in the hands of a model with the exact same ranged offensive stats without those rules?

I mean yeah, Astartes are supposed to be a bit more skilled than Sororitas, especially given they likely have even more experience than them.

when you're shooting and you have a better "experience" stat (attacks) you should get a buff like +1 shots or 1ap against anything with less experience/fewer attacks. Just anything in the game: exarchs, nobs, HQ characters, ork boyz, guard sergeants, aeldari of all kinds

(Edit to fix quote boxes)

pelicaniforce wrote:

 Tyran wrote:

Don't Astartes get bigger bolters? IIRC Astartes bolters have recoil that would break an unagmented human, and Sororitas are not augmented.

Still though, Doctrines are such a poor rule, both boring and yet more powerful than most faction purity bonuses.

This is a bit naff. as far as gw it is substantiated from the existence of some civilian or smaller caliber bolt weapons in stuff like the Dark Heresy game from FFG. that doesn't mean the guard and inq use different calibers than marines. It's rare for them to say 'marine bolt rounds are always bigger than guard pintle mount ones.' They're also phoning it in if they do. It's an idea for mush brained casual players like "marines are big because they're big because they're big because they're big, and their real rules are the sagitarum guard"

The idea is that for humans there's weapons like GP machine guns and grenade launchers, where you couldn't give them to every rifleman because the kind of speculative firing they do would waste ammunition and they can't carry enough. With marines, they keep that grade of weapon the same size, but upsize the trooper so much that they can use an m60 like it were a sub machine gun. The rounds and power on guard and marine boltguns are equivalent to each other, the thing that changes is the task.

In fairness I believe it was Black Library that originated the idea that there's a difference between an Astartes bolter and a normal human one, and that an Astartes bolter will break your arm if you try to shoot it or something to that effect.

Otherwise I agree with you that it's pretty significant when every Marine is carrying what would be a special weapon for a human, and able to use it on full-cyclic with full accuracy rather than being limited to semi-auto to handle recoil. It's always seemed very crude to me to think that Marines need to have bigger bolters (or bigger tanks, or bigger leaders, etc) to be special.

From a gameplay perspective I would be interested to hear from bolters-need-buffs proponents what Marines should be good and bad at for the points. Because the power fantasy of Marines being highly lethal, highly durable, and also lightning-fast can not hold up in a balanced game; at a macro level you don't get to be good at everything. It's historically been that Marines are pretty middle of the road in terms of mobility, but had higher durability at the cost of raw firepower. Give Marines an offensive boost and hike their base cost, and then the complaint will be that they're too fragile for the points.

Kaied wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Make the guns as powerful as you want.

Just be willing to bite the bullet when their cost increases dramatically.

How much of a Tactical Marine's point budget is the Boltgun? 1 pt? Maybe less?

Compare a Sternguard to a Tactical Marine. 20 points vs 18 points each with the same stat line, except +1 Attack/Leadership for Sternguard, let's call it +1 budget point for the upgraded statline.

Special Issue Boltgun vs Boltgun, SIB has +6" range, and AP-2 over the regular Boltgun. An additional AP-2 against Marines is worth 50%-100% additional damage (AoC drops it to 50% since Boltgun is AP0 and can't get worse). Sure, Tactical has Obj Sec and Melta Bomb and Sternguard can take more combi/special/heavy weapons, but that should swing the budget further toward Tactical being more efficient since the weapon options have point costs to balance them already. So +1 budget point for the Special Issue Boltgun.

So, potentially adding 50% or doubling a Tactical Marine's Boltgun damage only worth +1 point (and frankly, I'd still rather have the +1 Attack/Leadership). 19 point Tactical Marines are still cheaper than Intercessors and tied for Assault Intercessors as the cheapest Troop (barring chapter specifics). You could easily give Tactical Marines RF3 24" S4 AP0 D1 Boltguns and budget them at 20 points a model... and still don't think they would be better than Auto Intercessors. About the same shooting (strat to double shoot, vs half range/not moving) but Intercessors have +1A each which is worth something. Frankly, a 5-man RF3 Tacticals at 20 points/each is still inferior shooting to a 3-man Bike Squad with 2x Flamer and a Combi-Flamer for 110 points unless they are in half range or standing still.

But GW likely doesn't adhere well to point budgets, because the Storm Bolter (ie a double Boltgun) that we just showed is worth maybe 2 budget points total (so +1 point if upgrading from Boltgun) costs +5 points (so budgeted at 6 points). Sternguard can take Storm Bolters at a cheaper +3 points (4 budget points), but it isn't even worth a full +1 point upgrade for them, it is more of a sidegrade really since they give up their SIB for it.

Guy wants stuff for free.

 carldooley wrote:

Karol wrote:
Really? Okey then GK only have storm bolters, the heavy weapons that GW gave them are so bad, it is a downgrade you pay points for , if you take them. Where aren't the blessed ammo SB GK have the same kind of a blessed ammo SB SoB have?

Plus Tau squad weapons are much better then the bolter, and on top of that they exist in an army that has crissis suits, broad sides etc And shoting , specially out of LoS shoting beats out melee every time, so we can't even say that power armoured armies are balanced vs tau by virtue of having better melee. Because there is no melee, if a tau kills or cripples your units before you reach it.

How about Ad mecha guns?

Out of LOS shooting is better then melee?
HAVE YOU READ THE F** **G BALANCE DATASLATE???

Ever get around to reading that thing?

 Insectum7 wrote:
^The Grav-Cannon is definitely undercosted, especially when compared to the Heavy Bolter. Even with its buff, the Heavy Bolter hasn't made it into any of my lists if there's another option.

Yeah, the Grav Cannon has been a better AT weapon than the Lascannon since the start if 8th, lol. Lascannon needs a buff, big time.

I mean, for Imperial heavy weapons it should be like this:

10 points:
- Autocannon
- Heavy bolter
- Heavy flamer
- Mortar
- Multi-laser: Increased to Heavy 6.
- Twin heavy stubber: Increased to Heavy 8.

15 points:
- Assault cannon
- Conversion beam cannon
- Grav cannon
- Hurricane bolter
- Plasma cannon
- Missile Launcher: Krak missiles changed to D6 minimum 3 damage.
- Lascannon: Changed to D6 minimum 3 damage.
- Volkite culverin

20 points:
- Cyclone missile launcher: Krak missiles changed to D6 minimum 3 damage.
- Heavy plasma cannon
- Multi-melta

 carldooley wrote:
Guy wants stuff for free.

Free? I showed how I paid for it or did you not read the post?

Even then, a triple boltgun Tactical Marine wasn't worth 20 points to me, but I do skew a little more toward melee.

I just want to point out that we're calling bolters on chaos marines ok "because they're cheap", irrelevant on sisters units because they don't matter and are just ablative wounds and then using intercessors as the point of comparison for loyalist Marines because they have an outright better gun. So we're back to: is the bolter not good enough?

Tbh if you make a different named bolter variant for each faction, bundle the rules onto their own unique gun, I'd be a lot happier. With the inconsistencies.

Out of LOS shooting is better then melee?
HAVE YOU READ THE F** **G BALANCE DATASLATE???

For tau, with the stuff they run? yes. Or do you mean a different army. Ah and both pre and post the changes.

Dudeface wrote:


We just need to expand the scope of the stats ranges, refine the breakpoints and yes, a 30-odd point marine facing off against multiple cultists or whatever is fine by me, shrink army sizes back down a little across the board, everyone wins.

Everybody wins? Not if the same players, who can't accept leaving a massive chunk of their collection at home, start demanding 2500 points as the new standard. So in practise you'd get the opposite effect, most armies will be even more massive across the board. Everyone loses.

SM armies are already reasonable in terms of numbers, they're not bigger than 1500 points ones of 3rd, 4th and 5th edition. Definitely smaller than 1850 points ones of 7th.

Kaied wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Guy wants stuff for free.

Free? I showed how I paid for it or did you not read the post?

Even then, a triple boltgun Tactical Marine wasn't worth 20 points to me, but I do skew a little more toward melee.

1 point to triple your ranged firepower…
I’m not even gonna bother running the math. That’s bonkers.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Kaied wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Guy wants stuff for free.

Free? I showed how I paid for it or did you not read the post?

Even then, a triple boltgun Tactical Marine wasn't worth 20 points to me, but I do skew a little more toward melee.

1 point to triple your ranged firepower…
I’m not even gonna bother running the math. That’s bonkers.

If you're not gonna run the math, why bother posting? I didn't even read his post but come on dude.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Kaied wrote:

 carldooley wrote:
Guy wants stuff for free.

Free? I showed how I paid for it or did you not read the post?

Even then, a triple boltgun Tactical Marine wasn't worth 20 points to me, but I do skew a little more toward melee.

1 point to triple your ranged firepower…
I’m not even gonna bother running the math. That’s bonkers.

If you're not gonna run the math, why bother posting? I didn't even read his post but come on dude.

18 point Tactical Marine with RF1 Bolter.
19 point Tactical Marine with RF3 Bolter.

I mean, at that point it's an AutoBolt Intercessor who loses one attack and the ability to Advance and Shoot at -1, but gains double the shots if they stand still or get within 12".

If you RAELLY want me to run the numbers, sure. Give me a target.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
If you're not gonna run the math, why bother posting? I didn't even read his post but come on dude.

Okay, triple the firepower at 20pts instead of 18pts, so that's 3.0 * (18/20) = 2.7, or a 170% increase in offensive firepower point-for-point, with a (20/18) = 1.1x reduction in durability, or 90% as durable as before.

So... what deeper meaning have we extracted from this exercise? Throwing six shots at 12" when moving or 24" when stationary would render Auto Bolt Intercessors completely redundant.

Out of curiosity I went back to 3rd/4th edition and did some math for Tau Firewarriors vs. Tacticals:

4 Tacticals for 60 points
6 Fire Warriors for 60 points

Fire Warriors shooting: 6×0.5×0.666×0.333×15= 9.98 point return

Tactical Marines firing: 4×0.666×0.666×0.5×10=8.8 point return.

Tau edge out the win, while also having greater range and therefore better Rapid Fire range as well.

Edit: Also, gosh those numbers are easy to calculate and look at. No doctrines, stratagems, mitigating circumstances, reroll buffs, etc. How refreshing!