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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
The need for melee specialists to kill whatever they hit instantaneously is largely a product of high lethality. If your unit arriving from DS is likely to get shot off the board immediately, or if your footslogging melee troops will struggle to get into contact, you need your guys to kill their own value's worth in one go to have any realistic chance of them being 'worth it'. There's also the fact that you don't get locked in melee anymore, so if you don't take out the enemy on the charge, they may just walk out of combat and expose you to shooting. Scale back shooting lethality and make it harder to get out of melee, and then it might be okay if a melee unit expects significantly less than a 100% return.

I don't think that works.

Dedicated melee units have a lot going against them and as such when they reach combat they need to do something for the effort. You certainly could reduce shooting a bit, but then they'd get shot with more stuff and the table isn't in a state where everything has a good target, so, those melee units up front as considerably exposed to more.

Conversely in older editions it wasn't really a big deal to walk backwards, either so the 6" move for everything made it easier to kite. The current missions have disincentive to leaving the objective, which gives melee a chance to make an impact.

You would probably find that on a bowling ball Intercessors with no upgrades beat Genestealers all day long. With terrain, objectives, and abilities the pendulum would shift.

And to me a proper melee unit needs to be scary enough for you to want to delete it. Otherwise if you know it's just going to wind up in a protracted combat why bother? Just focus on more dangerous things.

It works perfectly fine. Especially in a game that has more ways for units to interact with each other than just deleting each other and "trading". Trust me. The game exists, is "current", and is a gw game to boot.

In prior editions there was a huge incentive to get to melee even if you weren't deleting the target, simply because you could keep it busy for a few rounds of fighting and it couldn't do other things instead. I did that ALL the time.

My 5 man Tactical squad wasn't very killy in CC, but if I could lock up some Devastaotors or Dark Reapers or whatever in combat, that's effort well spent!

Heck, that was a major part of Tyranid strategy in particular. The light and fast units hold down some units while the heavy hitters make their way to the front and start chewing through others.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
You have to realize how that reads right? "My faction got a buff, nobody should be allowed to beat us now!". You can keep complaining about the arms race until you are blue in the face, your faction is the most popular in the game and therefore will be tailored against, you are the measuring stick, sorry.

This. If you want marines to be elite you need marines to stop being the most common faction, otherwise by definition they're average and the entire rest of the game will be evaluated by how well it performs against marines. If W2 is the basic infantry profile then D2 will be the basic weapon profile.

Common on the table =/= common in the setting, which both y'all completely don't understand based on these posts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

GW upping the damage for everbody and their dog might not solely based on 2w Marines. Everything got more lethal in this edition, not just classic anti-Marine weapons.

Marines got a 2nd wound and almost immediately Heavy Bolters went to D2.

Imma stop you right there because both you and I know Heavy Bolters weren't ever supposed to be a Marine killer to begin with, which completely defeats your point.

This is true. Heavy Bolters aren't meant to be Marine killers.

I suspect that they went to D2 specifically because if an HB does get through power armour, then it probably should kill a Marine. Doesn't make it an anti-Marine weapon, because HBs don't deal with armour that well.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

To be fair, Genestealer Cults have a mechanic with positioning that could've been a universal thing for all armies. The bonuses are bit much for a D6 setup though unless you're willing to be open to no cap on modifiers again.

modifiers were fixed when they made 6's always hit
and nerfed aircrafts 25 times

if theyre dead set on keeping the cap, it should be +1/-1 per player (so no more "free" advancing if youre gonna shoot a unit that has -1 to hit anyway)

I completely agree with the the first two parts, but I think the player should be allowed to stack their buffs more than once. Everyone says it leads to deathstar units, but aren't deathstars the only units you're stacking stuff on to begin with?
MAYBE +2/-2 is where I'd negotiate.

+2 to hit is less dangerous than +1 to hit +1 to wound. Every attack should only ever be able to benefit from one of the following:
*Re-roll all hits or hits of 1.
*Re-roll all wounds or wounds of 1 and/or attacks inflict mortal wounds on hit rolls.
*Add 1 or more to hit and/or 6s explode and/or attacks inflict mortal wounds on hit rolls.
*Add 1 or more to wound and/or 6s on wound rolls explode and/or attacks inflict mortal wounds on hit or wound rolls.
*Attacks inflict mortal wounds and/or have increased AP.

A unit shouldn't be able to stack -1 to hit effects, because that has multiplicative effects just like +1 to hit +1 to wound. Make a Space Marine -1 to hit and your Drukhari Raider will be 33% harder to kill, -2 100%, -3 300%. It's not that -3 to hit cannot be balanced, you could balance one of the modifiers around making the unit 3x as hard to hit and that'd be balanced, but that modifier would be super niche as it'd only be useful in the combo scenario.

A unit of Devastators isn't a deathstar, a unit of Devastators with +1 to hit, +1 to wound, re-roll 1s to hit and to wound, ignores cover and invulnerable saves is, it's basically like two or even four units of regular Devastators in terms of damage output. What did you pay for the privilege of increasing their Damage output so? Probably not much, because individually each bonus isn't overwhelmingly strong, but the combo is stronger the the individual parts.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Common on the table =/= common in the setting, which both y'all completely don't understand based on these posts.

Common in the setting is a fluff argument that has nothing to do with anything I said.

Imma stop you right there because both you and I know Heavy Bolters weren't ever supposed to be a Marine killer to begin with, which completely defeats your point.

No, but GW certainly made sure that the anti-horde weapon was at least decent as a marine killer by adding a stat upgrade that is powerful against marines but has no effect against hordes.

But did it need additional effects against hordes?

If the weapon was effective against hordes, and suddenly gets D2, does it become less effective against hordes?

Like I said, a Heavy Bolter, should it defeat a Marine's armour, should probably kill your average Marine. That's what the D2 represents. It getting D2 didn't change its impact vs everything else it was already killing as, and correct me if I'm wrong, there aren't a lot of horde armies out there with massive multitudes of 2 wound models.

Ultimately the Heavy Bolter should be better than a Bolt Pistol or Bolter (or one of the any 30 variants thereof) at killing a Marine, assuming it gets through the armour, and slightly better at getting through the armour than a regular Bolter. The idea that a Bolter can defeat a Marine's armour, but leave him alive (D1) vs a Heavy Bolter getting past the armour and cutting the Marine in half (D2) doesn't seem at all far fetched. If anything, the change to D2 was an appropriate increase to ensure congruence between what should happen and what does happen. And it had zero effect on their damage vs hordes because, again, why should it? It hasn't lost efficacy as a result of this change, so what's the issue?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
It hasn't lost efficacy as a result of this change, so what's the issue?

It's not an issue, it's just an example of marine-focused design. Marines drive everything about the game to such an extent that when marines got W2 GW felt compelled to buff an anti-horde weapon to D2 to make it more effective against marines. Whatever the balance between needing to make anti-horde weapons at least decent against marines or they'll never appear vs. lore-wise feeling that a heavy bolter should kill a marine was it's still in both cases marines being the standard by which everything is evaluated.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Ultimately the Heavy Bolter should be better than a Bolt Pistol or Bolter (or one of the any 30 variants thereof) at killing a Marine, assuming it gets through the armour, and slightly better at getting through the armour than a regular Bolter. The idea that a Bolter can defeat a Marine's armour, but leave him alive (D1) vs a Heavy Bolter getting past the armour and cutting the Marine in half (D2) doesn't seem at all far fetched. If anything, the change to D2 was an appropriate increase to ensure congruence between what should happen and what does happen. And it had zero effect on their damage vs hordes because, again, why should it? It hasn't lost efficacy as a result of this change, so what's the issue?

A heavy bolter was better at killing Marines because it had 3 shots at S5 AP-1. 40k is pretty abstract, a heavy bolter in the foot might not take a Marine immediately out of active combat. D2 makes it twice as good against vehicles as well, which then mucks up autocannons for no good reason, insane lethality is also a problem, those are the reasons why it should be D1 again.

 vict0988 wrote:
A heavy bolter was better at killing Marines because it had 3 shots at S5 AP-1.

And then they changed Marines, so to make sure that it still fits and to keep pace, it went to D2. This change makes perfect sense.

 vict0988 wrote:
40k is pretty abstract, a heavy bolter in the foot might not take a Marine immediately out of active combat.

It did before, and now does so again. If anything, this change increased the granularity between bolters and heavy bolters, giving them a clear distinction in stopping power as well as rate of fire.

 vict0988 wrote:
D2 makes it twice as good against vehicles as well, which then mucks up autocannons for no good reason, insane lethality is also a problem, those are the reasons why it should be D1 again.

Shouldn't it be twice as good against vehicles than a bolter?

And the Autocannons problems are the Autocannons problems. They are unrelated to the heavy bolter.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
... when marines got W2 GW felt compelled to buff an anti-horde weapon to D2 to make it more effective against marines.

Not to make it more effective, to keep it as effective against Marines. It didn't stop being the anti-horde weapon it was. That part of it has not changed at all.

Yes, Marines drive changes, but this is an example of a change keeps things consistent. If the Heavy Bolter hadn't changed it would be a head-scratcher.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
A heavy bolter was better at killing Marines because it had 3 shots at S5 AP-1.

And then they changed Marines, so to make sure that it still fits and suddenly to keep pace, it went to D2. This change makes perfect sense.

Why does it need be as good at killing SM as it was previously? Why shouldn't boltguns keep pace with the durability increase on Marines?

 vict0988 wrote:
40k is pretty abstract, a heavy bolter in the foot might not take a Marine immediately out of active combat.

It did before, and now does so again. If anything, this change increased the granularity between bolters and heavy bolters, giving them a clear distinction in stopping power as well as rate of fire.

+1 S +1 AP is a clear distinction.

 vict0988 wrote:
D2 makes it twice as good against vehicles as well, which then mucks up autocannons for no good reason, insane lethality is also a problem, those are the reasons why it should be D1 again.

Shouldn't it be twice as good against vehicles than a bolter?

And the Autocannons problems are the Autocannons problems. They are unrelated to the heavy bolter.

AP-1 makes it 50% better against most vehicles, combined with S5 it's 200% better against Knights.

Reminder that autocannons were considered too good at killing everything in 8th.

Aecus Decimus wrote:
... when marines got W2 GW felt compelled to buff an anti-horde weapon to D2 to make it more effective against marines.

Not to make it more effective, to keep it as effective against Marines. It didn't stop being the anti-horde weapon it was. That part of it has not changed at all.

Yes, Marines drive changes, but this is an example of a change that made perfect sense.

By definition it stops being an anti-horde weapon when it becomes an anti-Marine weapon. Plasma guns are better than boltguns at killing hordes, but they're not an anti-horde weapon. Each weapon has a power budget based on its cost or a cost assigned based on its power. When power is allocated to killing Marines that means budget that could be spent killing hordes is instead allocated to killing Marines.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But did it need additional effects against hordes?

If the weapon was effective against hordes, and suddenly gets D2, does it become less effective against hordes?

I mean most people agreed a bump to Heavy 4 would've given it more of a place.

Of course I'm of the belief Grav should cease to exist as a weapon type and should just be substituted as a different looking Plasma weapon.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Not to make it more effective, to keep it as effective against Marines. It didn't stop being the anti-horde weapon it was. That part of it has not changed at all.

Yes, Marines drive changes, but this is an example of a change keeps things consistent. If the Heavy Bolter hadn't changed it would be a head-scratcher.

But why does an anti-horde weapon's performance against marines need to keep constant, especially when marines just got W2 to make them more durable against things that aren't marine killers? Because marines are the game and everything is evaluated based on how well it does against marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:
By definition it stops being an anti-horde weapon when it becomes an anti-Marine weapon. Plasma guns are better than boltguns at killing hordes, but they're not an anti-horde weapon. Each weapon has a power budget based on its cost or a cost assigned based on its power. When power is allocated to killing Marines that means budget that could be spent killing hordes is instead allocated to killing Marines.

Exactly. In terms of design role heavy weapons are on a scale from anti-horde to anti-tank. Heavy bolters are the anti-horde end of the scale, lascannons and multimeltas are the anti-tank end of the scale, with autocannons and missile launchers and plasma cannons falling somewhere in the middle. But even the weapon at the far anti-horde end of the scale has to allocate some of its power to anti-marine performance because a pure anti-horde weapon with very poor performance against marines can't exist in 40k. If it doesn't have at least reasonable performance against marines nobody will take it, even if it's the perfect horde killer.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But did it need additional effects against hordes?

If the weapon was effective against hordes, and suddenly gets D2, does it become less effective against hordes?

I mean most people agreed a bump to Heavy 4 would've given it more of a place.

Of course I'm of the belief Grav should cease to exist as a weapon type and should just be substituted as a different looking Plasma weapon.

Well, I fully agree with EP for a change, so I'm out of the debate from here, let's not ruin a nice moment and all that.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Breton wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


uh? No Man's land' size is the same, deployments are usually 12" from the centerline, not from the board edge

Eternal War: Outriders, Encircle, Crossfire, Four Pillars, All Out War just to name a few...

And you're forgetting the second half of the point. Now we have 30" range.

the "9" radius circle" deploymenat was a thing before too.
All-out war is still 24" between deployments.

Not way back when on 6x4 boards and 24" inch bolters. Way back when you had one Deployment Map, and 3 or 6 (I don't remember if it was 3 per side or 6 per side) mission cards like Assasinstion, Kill the Witch, etc.

i had no idea about Encircle, isnt combat patrol played on a super small board tho?

No idea, I just flipped through the book looking at the pictures of the deployment maps for anything that wasn't 12, 24, 12. Though none of them are even 12/24/12 anymore they're 10/24/10. You've lost another two inches of distance from their edge.

i don't think no man's land really got smaller than before, more that you have less room to backpedal in your deployment.

100% agreed on ranges being too long, i've been of the opinion that 24" should be the longest range that is easily accessible, with very few rare 36" weapons and almost no 48" weapons

What used to move 4 inches now moves 6 or more. What used to not be able to shoot more than 12 inches if they moved now shoot 30 even if they moved and 6" move plus 30" shooting range means basic troops can shoot off the board on turn one while a 4" move plus a 12" double tap doesn't even cross the 24" no-man's land.

 vict0988 wrote:
Why does it need be as good at killing SM as it was previously?

Why should it be suddenly worse?

 vict0988 wrote:
Why shouldn't boltguns keep pace with the durability increase on Marines?

To better show the differences between a bolter and a heavy bolter when it comes to fighting more than just hordes.

 vict0988 wrote:
+1 S +1 AP is a clear distinction.

When Marines had 1 wound. How do you not get this?

 vict0988 wrote:
AP-1 makes it 50% better against most vehicles, combined with S5 it's 200% better against Knights.

Ok, and? Why shouldn't it be better than a bolter against these types of targets?

 vict0988 wrote:
By definition it stops being an anti-horde weapon when it becomes an anti-Marine weapon.

But it didn't suddenly become an anti-Marine weapon. Nothing changed. It is just as good at killing Marines as it was before. It used to do D1 vs W1, and now it does D2 vs W2. That's a net gain of zero vs a Marine.

The issue lies not with the heavy bolter, but the other things that surround it. What other D1 weapons are suddenly not being shot at Marines? Frag Missiles?

 vict0988 wrote:
When power is allocated to killing Marines that means budget that could be spent killing hordes is instead allocated to killing Marines.

But it's ability to kill hordes/Marines didn't change.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Frag Missiles?

Frag Missiles/Grenades are a bad example because they can't decide if they're S3 or S4.

 vict0988 wrote:

By definition it stops being an anti-horde weapon when it becomes an anti-Marine weapon.

So from RT days through 8th ed everyone who thought of the HB as an anti-horde weapon was wrong? You know, since 1 HB shot could kill 1 SM.

I'm not really sure HBs were "meant" to be anything in the old days.

I guess, if you didn't move (kind of an issue), they did marginally more theoretical points worth of damage into say Boyz than naked Tactical Marines. But its so marginal as to be more or less incidental (and if you gave those marines any special weapons it could come out a wash). They were generic weapons that were kind of okay into everything, but probably not worth getting overly excited about. Flamers were better into GEQ.

I'm fairly confident they got D2 because they were seen as bad, because they were bad. Much like how Big Shootas are seen as bad today. It obviously trod all over the Autocannon - but that was bad too, and will probably get moved up next edition. We already see various iterations now, with extra AP (Havocs) or damage 3 (Predators, Helverins get both etc.)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why should it be suddenly worse?

Because the whole point of giving marines W2 was to make them more durable against things that aren't specialized marine killers! HBs are supposed to be the far anti-horde end of the heavy weapon spectrum, fully dedicated to killing boyz/guardsmen/tyranid hordes/etc. But even the dedicated anti-horde weapon has to be buffed to keep its anti-marine performance the same. The game is so absurdly marine-focused that a dedicated horde killer is complete and will never be taken if it doesn't have D2 to make it at least a decent anti-marine weapon too.

 vict0988 wrote:

+2 to hit is less dangerous than +1 to hit +1 to wound. Every attack should only ever be able to benefit from one of the following:
*Re-roll all hits or hits of 1.
*Re-roll all wounds or wounds of 1 and/or attacks inflict mortal wounds on hit rolls.
*Add 1 or more to hit and/or 6s explode and/or attacks inflict mortal wounds on hit rolls.
*Add 1 or more to wound and/or 6s on wound rolls explode and/or attacks inflict mortal wounds on hit or wound rolls.
*Attacks inflict mortal wounds and/or have increased AP.

A unit shouldn't be able to stack -1 to hit effects, because that has multiplicative effects just like +1 to hit +1 to wound. Make a Space Marine -1 to hit and your Drukhari Raider will be 33% harder to kill, -2 100%, -3 300%. It's not that -3 to hit cannot be balanced, you could balance one of the modifiers around making the unit 3x as hard to hit and that'd be balanced, but that modifier would be super niche as it'd only be useful in the combo scenario.

A unit of Devastators isn't a deathstar, a unit of Devastators with +1 to hit, +1 to wound, re-roll 1s to hit and to wound, ignores cover and invulnerable saves is, it's basically like two or even four units of regular Devastators in terms of damage output. What did you pay for the privilege of increasing their Damage output so? Probably not much, because individually each bonus isn't overwhelmingly strong, but the combo is stronger the the individual parts.

So make -1's stack (with 6's always succeeding)

Remove auras/strats/relics
Make ONE character able to join a squad to give only them a buff.


As for the "horde is bad" conversation. Yeah GW really didnt want them to be viable, even if we don't take blast into account, the coherency and engagement range rules made horded non functional. Why would you even bring a squad of 30 boys if only ~50% of it is ever gonna be able to hit their targets even if they make the charge? (yeah, i know, extra wounds means the squad is harder to kill)

The fluff says what heavy bolters are for.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
Why does it need be as good at killing SM as it was previously?

Why should it be suddenly worse?

Because Space Marines were too easy to kill, that's the whole point of giving them an extra wound. If you're tuning up the damage of everything and durability of SM only then you're just making Primaris and every other faction in the game into glass cannons.

 vict0988 wrote:
+1 S +1 AP is a clear distinction.

When Marines had 1 wound. How do you not get this?

Do models with multiple wounds not use saving throws and do you not need to roll to wound against models with multiple wounds? +1S +1 AP would still have been a clear distinction, just like it was at the end of 8th when Firstborn weren't played and Primaris had 2 wounds.

 vict0988 wrote:
AP-1 makes it 50% better against most vehicles, combined with S5 it's 200% better against Knights.

Ok, and? Why shouldn't it be better than a bolter against these types of targets?

Why should it merely deal 3x instead of 6x damage against Knights (Ignoring the extra rate of fire)? Because it's an anti-horde weapon in the fluff not an anti-Marine or anti-Knight weapon.

 vict0988 wrote:
By definition it stops being an anti-horde weapon when it becomes an anti-Marine weapon.

But it didn't suddenly become an anti-Marine weapon. Nothing changed. It is just as good at killing Marines as it was before. It used to do D1 vs W1, and now it does D2 vs W2. That's a net gain of zero vs a Marine.

The definition of what a Marine is has changed. An optimal anti-MEQ weapon in 8th would be Damage 1, in 9th an optimal anti-MEQ weapon is Damage 2, otherwise power budget is being allocated to being better against units that aren't MEQ. Marines are also more expensive because of the increased power they gained by having an extra wound, that makes heavy bolters kill more points of Marines per shot compared to previously.

ccs wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

By definition it stops being an anti-horde weapon when it becomes an anti-Marine weapon.

So from RT days through 8th ed everyone who thought of the HB as an anti-horde weapon was wrong? You know, since 1 HB shot could kill 1 SM.

If HBs were AP3 instead of AP4 you would have called them anti-MEQ instead of anti-horde even if the weapon would be just as good against hordes as previously, the power budget being assigned to killing MEQ means less power budget or pts-efficiency for killing hordes. Lascannons are not anti-horde. If lascannons were negative 100 points and Space Marines started playing with 50 lascannons and used them to clear out hordes they still wouldn't be anti-horde weapons.

Aecus Decimus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why should it be suddenly worse?

Because the whole point of giving marines W2 was to make them more durable against things that aren't specialized marine killers! HBs are supposed to be the far anti-horde end of the heavy weapon spectrum, fully dedicated to killing boyz/guardsmen/tyranid hordes/etc. But even the dedicated anti-horde weapon has to be buffed to keep its anti-marine performance the same. The game is so absurdly marine-focused that a dedicated horde killer is complete and will never be taken if it doesn't have D2 to make it at least a decent anti-marine weapon too.

Giving HBs D2 is just bad design, not at all necessary, anti-horde weapons can be good. Flamers, punishers, mortars, Guardsmen, these are not anti-MEQ units but they have been good, it's just a question of finding the right pts cost. On the other hand lots of anti-MEQ weapons have been bad because their points costs have been too high.

 vict0988 wrote:

Giving HBs D2 is just bad design, not at all necessary, anti-horde weapons can be good. Flamers, punishers, mortars, Guardsmen, these are not anti-MEQ units but they have been good, it's just a question of finding the right pts cost. On the other hand lots of anti-MEQ weapons have been bad because their points costs have been too high.

Well that's pretty much over now.

Breton wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

Giving HBs D2 is just bad design, not at all necessary, anti-horde weapons can be good. Flamers, punishers, mortars, Guardsmen, these are not anti-MEQ units but they have been good, it's just a question of finding the right pts cost. On the other hand lots of anti-MEQ weapons have been bad because their points costs have been too high.

Well that's pretty much over now.

Surely heavy bolters are great with D2 though right? Right GW?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
You have to realize how that reads right? "My faction got a buff, nobody should be allowed to beat us now!". You can keep complaining about the arms race until you are blue in the face, your faction is the most popular in the game and therefore will be tailored against, you are the measuring stick, sorry.

This. If you want marines to be elite you need marines to stop being the most common faction, otherwise by definition they're average and the entire rest of the game will be evaluated by how well it performs against marines. If W2 is the basic infantry profile then D2 will be the basic weapon profile.

Common on the table =/= common in the setting, which both y'all completely don't understand based on these posts.

Common on Table = list building against which means you will never feel durability buffs because opponents build against it. Which you and dudeface don't understand based on these posts. I don't care about fluff, i am strictly talking about the game as it is played. "Oh my Marines are super elite warriors, there's only 1 Marine per Planet in the imperium Ooooo!" Ok. now show up to a GT and count how many Power armored models you see, I bet you there will be more Marine infantry than Ork boyz and by an order of magnitude as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

GW upping the damage for everbody and their dog might not solely based on 2w Marines. Everything got more lethal in this edition, not just classic anti-Marine weapons.

Marines got a 2nd wound and almost immediately Heavy Bolters went to D2.

Imma stop you right there because both you and I know Heavy Bolters weren't ever supposed to be a Marine killer to begin with, which completely defeats your point.

Umm...it was. Go back S5 Ap-1 Heavy 3. Back in the day that worked out to 2 hits and against Ork boyz it was 1.33 dead boyz. That works out to 8pts of dead Ork. Against Marines it worked out to 0.66 dead Marines which works out to...10pts of dead Marine. But even with that said you still missed the point. Marines got 2Ws and because of the power imbalance they buffed a bunch of Marine weapons before they buffed everyone else so that Marines would still kill each other with glee. Heavy Bolters got D2, my big shoota got...dakka 3/5 which means I get 0.66 extra hits if i'm in half range, but the thing still costs the same...its just mathematically worse vs. Marines.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*Comments about Heavy Bolters blah blah blah*

They buffed the HB to give Imperials more stopping power against Marines. The problem is that in doing so they accidentally made it 100% more effective vs. vehicles, which is why the aforementioned SoB list featuring 15+ of the things did so well for a bit; it was good vs. everything.

But the main point i was making is that Marines complained about durability so GW gave them a 2nd wound for 2ppm, and then immediately complained that they weren't doing enough dmg to kill things and so GW buffed weapons which made Marines less durable. So Marines complained and then they came out with AoC which completely destroyed the usability of entire weapon selections...hell, it completely removed my factions biggest buff in 9th edition (AP-1 Choppas). But it didn't work because what happened to the meta? Players took fewer AP-1 weapon and went hard into AP2+. So now GW's answer is to make everything free for Marines and say screw it until 10th drops.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:
D2 makes it twice as good against vehicles as well, which then mucks up autocannons for no good reason, insane lethality is also a problem, those are the reasons why it should be D1 again.

Shouldn't it be twice as good against vehicles than a bolter?

its not "twice as good" a Heavy bolter Vs a T7 3+ vehicle does 3 shots, 2 hits, 0.66 wounds and 0.66dmg. A Bolter does 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.44 wounds and 0.15dmg. So its a bit more than 4x as good Vs. vehicles as a bolter.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Yes, Marines drive changes, but this is an example of a change keeps things consistent. If the Heavy Bolter hadn't changed it would be a head-scratcher.

Read my comment about Big shootas above, I could also point out the bog standard Ork Boyz model equipped with a slugga/pistol.

In the past it took about 3 Ork boyz to kill 1 Marine. That was 18pts of boyz killing 15pts of Marine. 3 boyz, 9 attacks, 6 hits, 3 wounds and 1 failed armor save. So the math worked out to 0.83 for points efficiency.

Now? to kill 1 Marine without AoC it takes 4 Ork Boyz YAY! 4 boyz 12 attacks, 8 hits, 4 wounds and 2dmg. I mean...its just 1 more boy right? not a big deal right? Those Ork boyz are now 32pts and the Marine is 18pts. Thats a points efficiency of 0.56.

So your logic of "if X then Y should happen otherwise headscratcher" seems to only apply to Marines and Marine weapons.

Tyel wrote:

I'm fairly confident they got D2 because they were seen as bad, because they were bad. Much like how Big Shootas are seen as bad today. It obviously trod all over the Autocannon - but that was bad too, and will probably get moved up next edition. We already see various iterations now, with extra AP (Havocs) or damage 3 (Predators, Helverins get both etc.)

That isn't really the case though. Heavy bolters still did a good job at mulching medium and light infantry. They were viewed as "Crap" only after Marines went to 2w. A heavy bolter in 9th is as effective against their normal Light/medium infantry targets as it was back in 7th its just now better vs elites and vehicles.

Also the Big shoota has been "seen" as bad since 7th edition dropped. Here we are at the tail end of 9th and I have literally never brought a big shoota to a game unless the model had it as required equipment (Morkanaut/trukkz/Scrapjetz). There just isn't a reason to take them.

Ironically, getting back to the main point of this entire thread, Heavy Bolters are effectively DEAD except on units where they are the best optional upgrade available. A predator for example can now take 2 of them for FREE (used to be 30pts) or pay 20pts for a pair of lascannons.

SemperMortis wrote:
That isn't really the case though. Heavy bolters still did a good job at mulching medium and light infantry. They were viewed as "Crap" only after Marines went to 2w. A heavy bolter in 9th is as effective against their normal Light/medium infantry targets as it was back in 7th its just now better vs elites and vehicles.

Not sure I'd agree because of your statement above:

SemperMortis wrote:
Umm...it was. Go back S5 Ap-1 Heavy 3. Back in the day that worked out to 2 hits and against Ork boyz it was 1.33 dead boyz. That works out to 8pts of dead Ork. Against Marines it worked out to 0.66 dead Marines which works out to...10pts of dead Marine.

I mean was killing 1.33 Boyz good? I don't think so. If you were looking at an 8th edition Green Tide list with say 120-150~ bodies (possibly more factoring in a unit coming back), you'd have had to bring an awful lot of HBs to make a dent. I feel there was much better horde clearance in the game than this.

Tyel wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
That isn't really the case though. Heavy bolters still did a good job at mulching medium and light infantry. They were viewed as "Crap" only after Marines went to 2w. A heavy bolter in 9th is as effective against their normal Light/medium infantry targets as it was back in 7th its just now better vs elites and vehicles.

Not sure I'd agree because of your statement above:

SemperMortis wrote:
Umm...it was. Go back S5 Ap-1 Heavy 3. Back in the day that worked out to 2 hits and against Ork boyz it was 1.33 dead boyz. That works out to 8pts of dead Ork. Against Marines it worked out to 0.66 dead Marines which works out to...10pts of dead Marine.

I mean was killing 1.33 Boyz good? I don't think so. If you were looking at an 8th edition Green Tide list with say 120-150~ bodies (possibly more factoring in a unit coming back), you'd have had to bring an awful lot of HBs to make a dent. I feel there was much better horde clearance in the game than this.

Were there better options? yeah, but it did a good job at killing Marines as well so it was a nice "TAC" option as opposed to specializing into hordes. BTW, why were Ork hordes good in 8th? Nobody took enough dakka to kill them. Instead of taking those Heavy Bolters they took Plasma or Melta instead because Knights and other Marines. Orkz have lived and died by the Counter Meta list for a long long time. Going to D2 did make it better Vs. Marines, nobody can argue against that point, but it didn't make it any better vs Hordes or light infantry. Its just a bit disappointing that GW chooses to only buff certain weapons to adjust for a meta shift such as the most common infantry in the game going to 2W....ironically the weapon they chose to buff just happens to be a very common weapon across a large spectrum of armies

Ork hordes were good in 8th because Boyz got a buff to their Attacks characteristic and Ld in big units and they had a fight twice Stratagem and a weird healing/deep strike Stratagem both of which were more CP efficient when used on a big unit. Weirdboys were also better and their powers synergize with big units of Boyz. Boyz also used smaller bases and the rules for which models could fight was more lenient. Ork hordes did okay at the start of 9th as well, it's the 9th ed Orks codex that ruined them by making them T9 with no Stratagems or abilities to reward big units.

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
You have to realize how that reads right? "My faction got a buff, nobody should be allowed to beat us now!". You can keep complaining about the arms race until you are blue in the face, your faction is the most popular in the game and therefore will be tailored against, you are the measuring stick, sorry.

This. If you want marines to be elite you need marines to stop being the most common faction, otherwise by definition they're average and the entire rest of the game will be evaluated by how well it performs against marines. If W2 is the basic infantry profile then D2 will be the basic weapon profile.

Common on the table =/= common in the setting, which both y'all completely don't understand based on these posts.

Common on Table = list building against which means you will never feel durability buffs because opponents build against it. Which you and dudeface don't understand based on these posts. I don't care about fluff, i am strictly talking about the game as it is played. "Oh my Marines are super elite warriors, there's only 1 Marine per Planet in the imperium Ooooo!" Ok. now show up to a GT and count how many Power armored models you see, I bet you there will be more Marine infantry than Ork boyz and by an order of magnitude as well.

The ideal game state imo should be that if you only ever build to face marines you lose more regularly into everything else. The state of the game as it is means building into marines has no negatives for nearly all decisions. You highlight it yourself by pointing out green tides works by being counter meta. The game should be encouraging people to bring TAC lists not "lets make sure I beat marines and then figure the rest out from there", which in turn might be a symptom of 2k games come to think of it.

SemperMortis wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Aecus Decimus wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:
You have to realize how that reads right? "My faction got a buff, nobody should be allowed to beat us now!". You can keep complaining about the arms race until you are blue in the face, your faction is the most popular in the game and therefore will be tailored against, you are the measuring stick, sorry.

This. If you want marines to be elite you need marines to stop being the most common faction, otherwise by definition they're average and the entire rest of the game will be evaluated by how well it performs against marines. If W2 is the basic infantry profile then D2 will be the basic weapon profile.

Common on the table =/= common in the setting, which both y'all completely don't understand based on these posts.

Common on Table = list building against which means you will never feel durability buffs because opponents build against it. Which you and dudeface don't understand based on these posts. I don't care about fluff, i am strictly talking about the game as it is played. "Oh my Marines are super elite warriors, there's only 1 Marine per Planet in the imperium Ooooo!" Ok. now show up to a GT and count how many Power armored models you see, I bet you there will be more Marine infantry than Ork boyz and by an order of magnitude as well.

So don't bring Heavy Bolters to a GT if that's what you expect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SemperMortis wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:

GW upping the damage for everbody and their dog might not solely based on 2w Marines. Everything got more lethal in this edition, not just classic anti-Marine weapons.

Marines got a 2nd wound and almost immediately Heavy Bolters went to D2.

Imma stop you right there because both you and I know Heavy Bolters weren't ever supposed to be a Marine killer to begin with, which completely defeats your point.

Umm...it was. Go back S5 Ap-1 Heavy 3. Back in the day that worked out to 2 hits and against Ork boyz it was 1.33 dead boyz. That works out to 8pts of dead Ork. Against Marines it worked out to 0.66 dead Marines which works out to...10pts of dead Marine. But even with that said you still missed the point. Marines got 2Ws and because of the power imbalance they buffed a bunch of Marine weapons before they buffed everyone else so that Marines would still kill each other with glee. Heavy Bolters got D2, my big shoota got...dakka 3/5 which means I get 0.66 extra hits if i'm in half range, but the thing still costs the same...its just mathematically worse vs. Marines.

I don't care about your whining about Orks because literally everyone and their mother knows the Ork codex wasn't done well. That seems to be more your motivation to defend a D2 Heavy Bolter than anything else.