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.

I think the Kraken bolt and Vengeance round are pretty decent and are equally useful under different situations. Good tools that take thought to use effectively.

However, the Dragonfire bolt and Hellfire rounds don't really have the same balance. The DF bolt is basically useless due to Watch Masters & Captains and the HF round is nearly always the default SIA due to being statically the best option in most cases.
So my proposal is to tone down the HF round and combine with the DF bolt.

So there are only 3 SIA options:
Kraken and Vengeance as-is and "Hellfire Bolts" as follows
"This weapon always wounds on 3+ (except against Vehicles and Titanic units) unless the normal to wound roll would be better
In addition, add 1 to the hit rolls for this weapon when targeting a unit that is in cover"

So the 2+ wound is toned down to 3+, giving Kraken and Vengeance rounds some room to be the optimal option in slightly more cases.
And the +1 to hit rolls is tacked on for completeness sake (both rounds are "fire", so why not)

Does this still make Hellfire rounds the default option? Or does this condense the options to 3 that have equal opportunity to be optimal?

-

Honestly, what they should've done is combine the previous edition's effect and the current one. You gain a +1 to hit against units in cover, and you ignore said cover.

Bam, now each round has a particular purpose. You either need the range, the armor penetration, the wounding, or to say feth you to cover camping cowards.

So what you are saying is to keep 4 modes, but as follows:

Dragonfire bolts - +1 to hit units in cover, ignore cover
Kraken and Vengeance as-as
Hellfire roundes - 3+ to wound non-vehicles

That would work. Not sure I like there being 4 total options, but I guess it's traditionally what they've had.
I do still think Hellfire should be 3+ to wound instead of 2+. Statistically they're are few units that would take more wounds to Kraken or Vengeance over Hellfire

But against T3 units, if Hellfire wounds on 3+, the Kraken or Vengeance rounds are better

Against T3 units, Helfire works better if in Rapid Fire range in some cases. There's actually a chart that was somewhere in the Deathwatch thread. If you can't find it, I'll upload it again as I decided to save it on my phone for reference!

The only time the "Wound would be better" clause is vs Gretchin or Spore Mines. In that case I think you should be using normal ammo or a different ammo anyway. My suggestion is just to make it "This weapon always wounds on a 3+ (except against VEHICLES and TITANIC units). Add 1 to the hit rolls for this weapon when targeting a unit that is in cover. Units attacked by this weapon do not gain any bonus to their saving throws for being in cover."

Flat 3+ wounding and ignores cover. Now you have a reason to actually use DragonHellFire instead of Kraken against in-cover units.

The other option is to leace hellfire ammo at 2+, but limited to infantry, the fact it effects primarchs is mildly rediculous.

Ice_can wrote:
The other option is to leace hellfire ammo at 2+, but limited to infantry, the fact it effects primarchs is mildly rediculous.

Why? I'd argue that was what they were made for in both in fluff and crunch.

Zelse wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The other option is to leace hellfire ammo at 2+, but limited to infantry, the fact it effects primarchs is mildly rediculous.

Why? I'd argue that was what they were made for in both in fluff and crunch.

The fluff also talks about them being dangerous to thinks like Bio titans and such but deadly to entire rooms full of guardsmen and fatal to marine's.
The flat 2+ vrs non vehicals doesn't scale properly with the fluff stuff shouldn't wound a primarch as easy as a Gretchen which SIA hellfire currently does, due to the lack of granularity.
It should be like 2+ vrs infantry 4+ vrs non infantry and 6+ vrs vehicals.

Ice_can wrote:

Zelse wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The other option is to leace hellfire ammo at 2+, but limited to infantry, the fact it effects primarchs is mildly rediculous.

Why? I'd argue that was what they were made for in both in fluff and crunch.

The fluff also talks about them being dangerous to thinks like Bio titans and such but deadly to entire rooms full of guardsmen and fatal to marine's.
The flat 2+ vrs non vehicals doesn't scale properly with the fluff stuff shouldn't wound a primarch as easy as a Gretchen which SIA hellfire currently does, due to the lack of granularity.
It should be like 2+ vrs infantry 4+ vrs non infantry and 6+ vrs vehicals.

Or, since they were flat out made to kill tyranids, they should wound everything organic equally well (like they currently do), since they straight up just melt flesh. Of course they're going to wound Gretchen as easily as a bio titan or primarch; they're all made of meat. This bullet, melts meat.

The granularity of how quickly they kill things is represented by the number of wounds. Infantry already die more quickly because they have less meat. Thus far it's a pretty accurate rep of what it actually does.

Zelse wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Zelse wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The other option is to leace hellfire ammo at 2+, but limited to infantry, the fact it effects primarchs is mildly rediculous.

Why? I'd argue that was what they were made for in both in fluff and crunch.

The fluff also talks about them being dangerous to thinks like Bio titans and such but deadly to entire rooms full of guardsmen and fatal to marine's.
The flat 2+ vrs non vehicals doesn't scale properly with the fluff stuff shouldn't wound a primarch as easy as a Gretchen which SIA hellfire currently does, due to the lack of granularity.
It should be like 2+ vrs infantry 4+ vrs non infantry and 6+ vrs vehicals.

Or, since they were flat out made to kill tyranids, they should wound everything organic equally well (like they currently do), since they straight up just melt flesh. Of course they're going to wound Gretchen as easily as a bio titan or primarch; they're all made of meat. This bullet, melts meat.

The granularity of how quickly they kill things is represented by the number of wounds. Infantry already die more quickly because they have less meat. Thus far it's a pretty accurate rep of what it actually does.

Actually hellfire rounds have been described as being things from refined/synthetic bio acid, to neuro toxic, to a 40k analogue of phosphorus explosives.

Also hellfire round are a MW strategum for space marines but a 2+ fixed wound roll for DW, yeah that's a nice consistent accurate representation of metling flesh. GW can't even make it's own crunch consistent let alone fluff.

I'm just trying to give the OP a suggestion as to how to make HF shells a bit less auto use and allow the other SIA to be a bit more commonly used while still having hellfire shells feel as deadly as the fluff implies.

All good reasons to just combine Hellfire rounds and Dragonfire bolts into the same SIA option:
"This weapon always wounds on 3+ (except against Vehicles and Titanic units)
In addition, add 1 to the hit rolls for this weapon when targeting a unit that is in cover"

Both rounds at current use fire, correct? So just make them the same option
Kraken will be useful against T3-T4 units and/or targets at far range
Vengeance will still be the ideal for targets up close
but this 3rd option is for lightly armoured, tougher (T4+) units preferably in cover

-

The two have always been separate. We simply need to make Dragonfire ignore cover too, and it suddenly makes more sense.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The two have always been separate. We simply need to make Dragonfire ignore cover too, and it suddenly makes more sense.

With the amount of "while in cover, get an additional X" bonuses out there, negating cover would certainly give Dragonfire a use versus the other three. Right now there's really no reason to use it.

 Galef wrote:

Both rounds at current use fire, correct?
-

Despite the name, I have never seen a reference to Hellfire rounds actually producing flame. Whether a neuro toxin or a mutagenic acid, I have only ever seen it referred to as an extremely potent poison round (direct fire for bolters, blast shells for the heavy bolter).

First and foremost this is as of 8th editions recent publication of Deathwatch, and that I have been able to find, goes back at least as far as 5th edition. Both refer to it as an acid.

Zelse wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Both rounds at current use fire, correct?
-

Despite the name, I have never seen a reference to Hellfire rounds actually producing flame. Whether a neuro toxin or a mutagenic acid, I have only ever seen it referred to as an extremely potent poison round (direct fire for bolters, blast shells for the heavy bolter).

First and foremost this is as of 8th editions recent publication of Deathwatch, and that I have been able to find, goes back at least as far as 5th edition. Both refer to it as an acid.

Yeah, that's right. I forgot for a moment. "Hellfire" is meant to describe the felling the target has with the toxin/poison in it's blood.

-

I still say the "unless it would wound on a 2+" is unnecessary as it only affects T1 and T2 units (i.e. Spore Mines and Gretchin).

 BaconCatBug wrote:
I still say the "unless it would wound on a 2+" is unnecessary as it only affects T1 and T2 units (i.e. Spore Mines and Gretchin).

And Nurglings which is not insignificant like the other 2. But I get your point about it not mattering because you can just use the other SIA variants instead.

I'll edit my previous post to remove that.

-

Why are we calling to nerf special ammo? The over whelming performance of DW/Marines at the LVO or is there some alternative reality where marines (outside of guilliman) are performing at a competitive level and I'm just not seeing it?

The rest of marine bolters need to be pumped up to hellfire levels if marines are going to see action on a competitive table.

If we are looking to balance them across the types I'd bump dragonfire to interact with the new bolter rules by including "allows models to fire as if they had not moved in the previous turn" and just allow it to straight up ignore cover (instead of a +1 to hit against units in cover).

Swap the range penalty for vengeance and hellfire (but that really hurts not being able to drop out of DS and wound on 2s) and then all 4 seem pretty well balanced to me.

bananathug wrote:
Why are we calling to nerf special ammo? The over whelming performance of DW/Marines at the LVO or is there some alternative reality where marines (outside of guilliman) are performing at a competitive level and I'm just not seeing it?

The rest of marine bolters need to be pumped up to hellfire levels if marines are going to see action on a competitive table.

If we are looking to balance them across the types I'd bump dragonfire to interact with the new bolter rules by including "allows models to fire as if they had not moved in the previous turn" and just allow it to straight up ignore cover (instead of a +1 to hit against units in cover).

Swap the range penalty for vengeance and hellfire (but that really hurts not being able to drop out of DS and wound on 2s) and then all 4 seem pretty well balanced to me.

I pretty much agree. The issue is with the gap between DW and regular marines (DW unbuffed is stronger than marines buffed by GMan and they save 400 points in the process) Standard marines would need to be cut in points by 20% or more to compete.

Sterling191 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The two have always been separate. We simply need to make Dragonfire ignore cover too, and it suddenly makes more sense.

With the amount of "while in cover, get an additional X" bonuses out there, negating cover would certainly give Dragonfire a use versus the other three. Right now there's really no reason to use it.

Especially with Cities of Death terrain rules gaining traction in online communities, Ignoring Cover + the hit bonus would really create a balance of the different ammos having different areas where they shine. That should ultimately be the goal, after all.

 Xenomancers wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Why are we calling to nerf special ammo? The over whelming performance of DW/Marines at the LVO or is there some alternative reality where marines (outside of guilliman) are performing at a competitive level and I'm just not seeing it?

The rest of marine bolters need to be pumped up to hellfire levels if marines are going to see action on a competitive table.

If we are looking to balance them across the types I'd bump dragonfire to interact with the new bolter rules by including "allows models to fire as if they had not moved in the previous turn" and just allow it to straight up ignore cover (instead of a +1 to hit against units in cover).

Swap the range penalty for vengeance and hellfire (but that really hurts not being able to drop out of DS and wound on 2s) and then all 4 seem pretty well balanced to me.

I pretty much agree. The issue is with the gap between DW and regular marines (DW unbuffed is stronger than marines buffed by GMan and they save 400 points in the process) Standard marines would need to be cut in points by 20% or more to compete.

Actually, I am not calling for a DW nerf at all. I'm trying to balance the SIA so that all option have equal validity.
As it stands, Hellfire rounds are the defacto best option in most situations and Dragonfire bolts are completely worthless compare to other choices

My proposal is to bring Hellfire rounds down a bit (3+ to wound instead of 2+) and bring Dragonfire bolt up (+1 to hit against target in cover AND ignore cover)
DW still have Mission Tactics so that Hellfire rounds can be wounding on 3+ rerolling 1s, and the Strats that give +1 to wound so that they can go back to 2+ if you want.

Those 2 changes really aren't meant to be a nerf at all. They're meant to balance the ammo type between each other.
But I agree, other marines need points drops, or at least a Bolter Discipline rule that actually gives more shots rather than max shots more often

-

 Galef wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

bananathug wrote:
Why are we calling to nerf special ammo? The over whelming performance of DW/Marines at the LVO or is there some alternative reality where marines (outside of guilliman) are performing at a competitive level and I'm just not seeing it?

The rest of marine bolters need to be pumped up to hellfire levels if marines are going to see action on a competitive table.

If we are looking to balance them across the types I'd bump dragonfire to interact with the new bolter rules by including "allows models to fire as if they had not moved in the previous turn" and just allow it to straight up ignore cover (instead of a +1 to hit against units in cover).

Swap the range penalty for vengeance and hellfire (but that really hurts not being able to drop out of DS and wound on 2s) and then all 4 seem pretty well balanced to me.

I pretty much agree. The issue is with the gap between DW and regular marines (DW unbuffed is stronger than marines buffed by GMan and they save 400 points in the process) Standard marines would need to be cut in points by 20% or more to compete.

Actually, I am not calling for a DW nerf at all. I'm trying to balance the SIA so that all option have equal validity.
As it stands, Hellfire rounds are the defacto best option in most situations and Dragonfire bolts are completely worthless compare to other choices

My proposal is to bring Hellfire rounds down a bit (3+ to wound instead of 2+) and bring Dragonfire bolt up (+1 to hit against target in cover AND ignore cover)
DW still have Mission Tactics so that Hellfire rounds can be wounding on 3+ rerolling 1s, and the Strats that give +1 to wound so that they can go back to 2+ if you want.

Those 2 changes really aren't meant to be a nerf at all. They're meant to balance the ammo type between each other.
But I agree, other marines need points drops, or at least a Bolter Discipline rule that actually gives more shots rather than max shots more often

-

If space marines get a points drop, they'll start playing more like guardsmen than super soldiers. My suggestion would be a FNP type roll at death (what FW Graia's dogma) and reroll advance rolls of 1. Small buffs, but they add up.

I think the goal for SIA is/should be to have at least 1 scenario where it is ideal (using kraken bolts for both -1AP and range boost), generally be an improvement over normal bolter shots (using kraken just for the -1 AP), and at least one scenario when it is not needed (using kraken against an invulnerable save).

With that in mind, kraken and vengeance rounds are well balanced as is, dragonfire rounds are too situations and too weak, and hellfire rounds are too good, as you point out. You solution for dragonfire round is pretty good. It is super effective against cover, useful if the enemy is out of cover, but it pretty much negates the watch master aura. I hope I can get someone to accept it as house rules.

The problem with your change to hellfire rounds it that it makes them useless against T3 and doesn't match other descriptions of hellfire rounds (Watch Captain Artemis's flamer and the heavy bolter stratagem- which are both weird because the heavy bolter can wound anything and Artemis can wound titans))
Maybe some like This weapon always wounds on a 4+ (except against vehicles) and can re-roll failed wound rolls of 2 and 3 would be better. Now it can be used against biotitans like the hellfire flamer and sort of help wound anything like the stratagem. With a right tactics it has a 75% chance to wound non-vehicles, but otherwise has a 2/3rds chance (like your solution). Although it's bit unorthodox by most standards it's not hard to follow RAW.

One of the main reasons Marines are poor is their bolters lost their armour penetration against low armoured models.

What if Bolt weapons got -1 AP against units with T equal to or less than their strength?

 BaconCatBug wrote:
One of the main reasons Marines are poor is their bolters lost their armour penetration against low armoured models.

What if Bolt weapons got -1 AP against units with T equal to or less than their strength?

Wouldn't that then make marines worse when receiving bolt fire too?

Perhaps, "-1 AP when the target has a save of 4+ or worse" would represent its ability to penetrate light armour better.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
One of the main reasons Marines are poor is their bolters lost their armour penetration against low armoured models.

What if Bolt weapons got -1 AP against units with T equal to or less than their strength?

I honestly wish all Marines were given the "Primaris" treatment from the start of 8E: 2W/2A AP-1 Bolters across the board for Loyalist and Chaos Marines.
The actual "Primaris" models could then have been given some special rule like "Mark X or Gravis Armour reduces damage by 1 to minimum of 1" to keep them "unique", along with longer ranged Bolt Rifles (which would still be AP-1).
The disparity between Primaris and non-Primaris just doesn't make sense.

-