DW Veterans

[Moostick]

I feel people are overestimating SBs on Vets a little too much.

 

They're good and I'll include them as fillers to support other weapons, but I wouldn't build the majority of the army around them.

[Lemondish]

I feel people are overestimating SBs on Vets a little too much.

 

They're good and I'll include them as fillers to support other weapons, but I wouldn't build the majority of the army around them.

As far as SIA goes, why wouldn't they be the majority?

[Moostick]

Regular bolters are still a thing.

 

It may seem like it's a "no brainer" to upgrade them all to SBs, but it'll just end up becoming the same issue we've had since 7th, which is too many toys and trust in T4, 3+.

[Lemondish]

Regular bolters are still a thing.

 

It may seem like it's a "no brainer" to upgrade them all to SBs, but it'll just end up becoming the same issue we've had since 7th, which is too many toys and trust in T4, 3+.

3 points to double your offensive output. 3 points, man. I don't think that can easily be ignored.

 

10 veterans dropping with bolt guns mixed in are half as effective as those same 10 with storm bolters. For the same cost as slightly less than 2 veterans with bolters.

[Moostick]

Build a few lists and try them out. I know it feels like it's an absolute steal, and it might be a trap.

 

I can totally be wrong, but just a warning before people commit heavily into it. The issue with SBs that I see are that they're amazing against horde, but severely lacking against others; it's still just S4 shots. So not so much a direct comparison between bolter and SB, but what you could have taken instead of the SB if you saved by taking bolters.

[dicebod]

Build a few lists and try them out. I know it feels like it's an absolute steal, and it might be a trap.

 

I can totally be wrong, but just a warning before people commit heavily into it. The issue with SBs that I see are that they're amazing against horde, but severely lacking against others; it's still just S4 shots. So not so much a direct comparison between bolter and SB, but what you could have taken instead of the SB if you saved by taking bolters.

 

Sure, it's just S4 shots.  S4 shots that can wound anything that's not a vehicle on a 2+, be -1 AP at 30 inches and -2 AP at 18 inches.  You are absolutely right that vanilla Stormbolters can be a total trap - just look at the situation Grey Knights are in! - but SA Storm Bolters mean you can drown big monsters in tons of fire that will always wound on a 2+ or just absolutely chew through hordes with the same rounds or AP buffs.

[Lemondish]

Build a few lists and try them out. I know it feels like it's an absolute steal, and it might be a trap.

 

I can totally be wrong, but just a warning before people commit heavily into it. The issue with SBs that I see are that they're amazing against horde, but severely lacking against others; it's still just S4 shots. So not so much a direct comparison between bolter and SB, but what you could have taken instead of the SB if you saved by taking bolters.

The problem with that line of thinking is that unless you're taking a bolt weapon, you're giving up one of the most important and valuable rules Deathwatch has. Aside from frag cannons, I can get heavy weapons on a different, more resilient platform for cheaper. I like frag cannons myself, but not worth loading up a whole unit with em. The strength for SB isn't their profile, it's their profile WITH SIA.

 

Secondary to that, S4 means far, far less than you think it does for an army that can wound anything on 2s, or can add AP to those weapons while rerolling 1s to wound, or add +1 to wound on top of all that.

 

But I hear you - it's worth trying out. My personal vet dreamteam is a 4 vets with SB/CS, 2 vets with SB/SS, 2 vets with FC, 1 Termie with SB and fist or sword, and 1VV with dual chainswords. All dropped in, all beautifully killy. I personally can't see how they'd be made better by having 18 points with boltguns, or going with something else weaponwise.

[Moostick]

I think you're looking at things a little too idealisitcally, and too focused on one unit rather than the entire army. For hordes, yes, but most monsters that the 2+ will be good against will have 2+ saves, making 40 shots do on average 3-4 wounds a volley.

 

We will see how things are once we get more games in.

 

Edit: maybe I'm being too pessimistic and overanalyzing. It also depends on who gets the first shot off too.

 

Edit 2: to clarify, the unit you suggested is fine. It's similar to what I would do. But I would probably reduce the number of SBs; likely none on the SS holders, and maybe change another weapon.

[Marshal van Trapp]

So I'm currently theorycrafting 3 different veteran squads:

 

1. 10 vets with stormbolters, 4 with storm shields, 6 with chainswords - this squad either teleports in or uses the beacon angelus on the jp cap to get into optimal range by turn 2, the shields are to protect them from high ap weapons

 

 

2. 5 vets, 1 with missile launcher, 4 with stalkers, 3 bikers, 2 vanguard with chainsword and storm shield - this squad combat squads, the faster elements go for forward objectives while the regular vets sit back and fire at targets of opportunity while holding rear objectives.

 

3. 9 vets, 3 with missile launchers, 6 with stalkers and chainswords, 1 terminator with CML and power sword - the tank hunters, these guys get wherever they have the best view and start bringing down any armor in sight!

 

So far I haven't tested them but they seem like the best options for what models I currently have and seem strong squads on their own

[Kallas]

I think you're looking at things a little too idealisitcally, and too focused on one unit rather than the entire army. For hordes, yes, but most monsters that the 2+ will be good against will have 2+ saves, making 40 shots do on average 3-4 wounds a volley.

 

We will see how things are once we get more games in.

 

Edit: maybe I'm being too pessimistic and overanalyzing. It also depends on who gets the first shot off too.

First off, regular DW Bolters are pretty worthless when that model can take a Storm Bolter. For a basic DW Veteran (17pts) a Storm Bolter Veteran (20pts) is a 17.6% cost increase for a 100% output increase (in reverse: a 15% reduction for 50% of the output).

 

That's pretty ridiculous, and basically means that Storm Bolters absolutely should be taken if that Veteran was going for a basic Bolter anyway.

 

 

For the Monster comment:

10 SIA Storm Bolters (Hellfire)/ vs:

(Double result for Rapid Fire; halve for regular Bolters)

 

Anything non-vehicle with a 2+ save:

20*0.66*0.833*0.166= 1.8 wounds; 2.1 with MT; 2.5 with MT+Cpt

 

Anything non-vehicle with a 3+ save:

20*0.66*0.833*0.33= 3.6 wounds; 4.2 with MT; 4.9 with MT+Cpt

 

Anything non-vehicle with a 4+ save:

20*0.66*0.833*0.5= 5.5 wounds; 6.4 with MT; 7.5 with MT+Cpt

 

 

Hellfire alone won't really power through a tough Monster (eg, Tyrannofex or Tervigon) but considering their cost and general flexibility of engagement (that is, they'll be able to engage basically any non-vehicle unit with reasonable efficacy) the SIA Storm Bolters are damn good. They'll scythe through hordes like their not even there (Ork Boys with Painboy, non-RF, no MT/Cpt = 7.6 dead: Tyranid Gaunts = 9.2 dead, etc).

[Moostick]

Again, it's taking the most ideal situation.

 

Replace 10 of those SBs with 1 FC against any monster, and you'll have better output under FC's ideal situation for 6 pts less.

 

2+ save, assuming T6+

FC solid, 2*.66*.66*.66*2D = 1.2 wounds

9 bolter, 9*.66*.83*.16 = .8 wounds

Total = 2.0, which is > 1.8

 

Assume it's 2+, T5

FC, 7 flameshots, 7*.66*.33=1.6 wounds

9 bolters = .8

1.6+.8 = 2.4, which is > 1.8

 

I'm not an advocate for FC or anything (as many should know), but it's easy to make anything look amazing on paper.

 

Edit: disclaimer: in no way am I saying my example is better. Just that it's easy to make something look better than it really is. There are other factors to take into account like ablative wounds, output reduction with loss, and some other things I can't remember to note. Some correction to my numbers, was .8, not .9

[Kallas]

Again, it's taking the most ideal situation.

 

Replace 9 of those SBs with 1 FC against any monster, and you'll have better output under FC's ideal situation for 5 pts less.

Yes, the Frag Cannon will do better than the Storm Bolters, generally speaking. But on an individual level they cost a lot more.

 

Also, those numbers were not the ideal case (the first results are those for no Captain or Mission Tactics). Storm Bolters are definitely not dedicated anti-Monster weapons, absolutely agree on that, but when you have no other/better options you definitely can pump dozens of Hellfire rounds into a Monster and expect reasonable output (where SIA Bolters would be half as effective, and non-SIA Bolters would be nigh worthless).

 

And I don't really know why you're using Sv2+ as your starting point; most Monsters have a 3+. The only one that I could find with a base 2+ was the Tyrannofex.

[Moostick]

And I don't really know why you're using Sv2+ as your starting point; most Monsters have a 3+. The only one that I could find with a base 2+ was the Tyrannofex.

Come now, like that really makes any difference in the overall situation unless its save is 4+ or worse. Don't nitpick on things that don't affect the results.

 

Universal abilities that affect all weapons should generally not be taken into account when comparing weapons, especially things that cost points like aura abilities.

 

Edit: I hate phones

 

Edit 2: ah, I'm wrong. It does get worse with improved save when it comes to solid rounds. I realize I'm probably doing the D multiplication wrong too. Since it has to be a hard 0 or 2, I'm not sure how I should be doing that.

[abraxus]

Redemptors can take storm bolters.... correct?  can walkers get SIA?

[Lemondish]

I think you're looking at things a little too idealisitcally, and too focused on one unit rather than the entire army. For hordes, yes, but most monsters that the 2+ will be good against will have 2+ saves, making 40 shots do on average 3-4 wounds a volley.

 

We will see how things are once we get more games in.

 

Edit: maybe I'm being too pessimistic and overanalyzing. It also depends on who gets the first shot off too.

 

Edit 2: to clarify, the unit you suggested is fine. It's similar to what I would do. But I would probably reduce the number of SBs; likely none on the SS holders, and maybe change another weapon.

I think we got our wires crossed somewhere. I'm not advocating for Vets with SBs at the expense of any other unit. I'm not sure what gave you the impression that the rest of the army is being ignored, but I would like to remind you as nicely as I can that this is a thread about a single unit per the title ;)

 

I'm saying that if you're going to take vets, there's a powerful choice here with Stormbolters - arguably the best choice in the DW weapons locker. To clarify where I'm coming from, I'm personally very reluctant to commit to units and wargear choices on DW units that don't use SIA. It's a waste of points when another regular marine force could do it better. Or even AM. I like what kill teams can provide buffwise, but I'm wary to add too much and end up losing the unit's focus amongst all the bling and buffs. Ultimately, I want my DW majority force to bring the best of DW - bring what only they can bring and a much of it as they can. I want what's special about them to be the focus, not trying to cover for every target type in every squad. That may be tactically flexible, but in my experience generalist units tend to cost an awful lot and fail to do any job fully.

 

That's just my perspective, though.

 

Now that that's shared, what would you replace the SBs with? Combi weapons or just go with bolters?

[Moostick]

 

I think we got our wires crossed somewhere. I'm not advocating for Vets with SBs at the expense of any other unit. I'm not sure what gave you the impression that the rest of the army is being ignored, but I would like to remind you as nicely as I can that this is a thread about a single unit per the title

I'm saying that if you're going to take vets, there's a powerful choice here with Stormbolters - arguably the best choice in the DW weapons locker. To clarify where I'm coming from, I'm personally very reluctant to commit to units and wargear choices on DW units that don't use SIA. It's a waste of points when another regular marine force could do it better. Or even AM. I like what kill teams can provide buffwise, but I'm wary to add too much and end up losing the unit's focus amongst all the bling and buffs. Ultimately, I want my DW majority force to bring the best of DW - bring what only they can bring and a much of it as they can. I want what's special about them to be the focus, not trying to cover for every target type in every squad. That may be tactically flexible, but in my experience generalist units tend to cost an awful lot and fail to do any job fully.

 

That's just my perspective, though.

 

Now that that's shared, what would you replace the SBs with? Combi weapons or just go with bolters?

 

I guess my original comment wasn't directed at you, but rather from seeing a lot of people ordering SBs in droves (like over 20). Sorry if it seemed to focus on you. I am open to any discussion and won't get offended unless the purpose is to offend, so I'm good.

 

It's not that I won't take SBs, but I wouldn't replace every bolter with a SB. It kind has to do with your notion of flexibility, which I agree with; this is a game that caters more to specialized units, which is why I rarely mix melee weapons in with Vets (except maybe the Sarge or BS). SB/SS is something I would use sparingly, for example, because now it's no longer a dedicated AP blocker. Having 1 or 2 is fine, but those extra points add up eventually. Also, we need some ablative wounds in our units, and the cheapest option is a bolter Vet.

 

I just wouldn't build an army around  SBs. I see people replacing every single bolter with the SB, and that's going to run into point and efficiency problems. Every model lost is going to hurt more, and they will be lost easily. But if you take a big weapon, let's say that FC instead of 6 SBs, you have several models to lose before your output is heavily affected. Point for point, we can never outdrown other factions in wounds because we have a built in extra cost for being ok at assault as well. An equivalent points amount of Fire Warriors, Termagaunts, etc. are going to win a gunfight against 10 SB Vets (but obviously whoever shoots first has a better chance).

 

There will be situations where mass SBs will be the best, no argument there. But replacing every bolter with SB will lead to issues with other situations. There's no specific weapon in particular I would always replace the SB with; I simply won't replace the bolter to begin with and leave the points for other things (be it gear, models, or things affecting other units).

[Kallas]

Universal abilities that affect all weapons should generally not be taken into account when comparing weapons, especially things that cost points like aura abilities.

 

Eh, that kind of depends on what kind of statistical analysis you're doing. For generic output it's useful to see what you can max it out at, so in that case it's nice to see what a Captain/Watch Master would add to a unit's end result. Such as the Hellfire vs Hive Tyrant: with a Watch Master (and no MT), each individual shot goes from 0.18->0.24 failed saves (or a 33% increase in efficacy; a Watch Captain would be 0.18->0.21, or a 16% increase).

 

It doesn't matter particularly, but it's nice to have in front of you.

 

 

Come now, like that really makes any difference in the overall situation unless its save is 4+ or worse. Don't nitpick on things that don't affect the results.

Edit 2: ah, I'm wrong. It does get worse with improved save when it comes to solid rounds.

 

Yeah, a 2+ -> 3+ is halving the amount of damage taken (ie, 3+ has 1s and 2s as failures, where 2+ has only 1s).

 

For example

Hellfire vs 3+:

0.66*0.833*0.33 = 0.18 failed saves (per shot)

 

Hellfire vs 2+:

0.66*0.833*0.166 = 0.09 failed saves (per shot)

 

I realize I'm probably doing the D multiplication wrong too. Since it has to be a hard 0 or 2, I'm not sure how I should be doing that.

 

Multiple Damage weaponry is a weird one. I usually just go with multiplying the failed saves by the Damage value, and any decimal/impossible results end up representing the likelihood of succeeding with the fractional wound (eg, a 2D weapon causing 0.1 damage result will be very unlikely to cause a wound, whereas a 1.9 damage result will be very likely to cause that wound).

 

Using Frag Cannons as an example, assuming half range (S9, AP-3), vs T7/8, Sv3+ (Tyrannofex, Carnifex, Predator, Leman Russ, etc):

2*0.66*0.66*0.66*2 = 1.15 damage, or 0.58 failed saves (1.15 of 2 is more likely than not, but not by much; 0.58 is, fairly obviously, closer to 1 than 0 on the probability scale, hence why it's more likely than not but not by much).

 

That's how I do it, though it would read basically the same if you leave the damage calculation off and just go with failed saves as the end result, possibly with a deduction of how much you're do based on how many failed saves a calculation determines is likely to cause (using the above FC example, there'd be a coinflip as to whether you'd cause 2 damage or none).

[Lysere]

I would caution against nothing but Storm bolters as well, yeah it's only 3pts more but thats 3pts more in an army that already costs plenty. I'd say it comes down to what the veteran is for as do most decisions when making an army.

 

If they are there to put out bolters shots at short range, SB all day every day. If they're only for adding more bodies, maybe save those points so you don't lost much firepower when they die.

 

Also one thing to keep in mind is our tempest shell stratagem. Normal bolter marines are the single best choice for using it since they only have one shot at long range anyway so you're trading a single shot for d3 mortals against a vehicle. Any other model firing that is probably wasting shooting unless its a pistol. Also bikers have the same shooting and are faster and tougher for a reasonable cost.

 

Storm bolter captains are definitely the best ones to take bane bolts in my mind though. Four chances for mortal wounds.

[Moostick]

 

 

 

That's a good way looking at multi-D weapons. Sorry if I seemed confrontational; I don't mean to come off that way, but realize it will seem that way with just text sometimes.

[shandwen]

I would caution against nothing but Storm bolters...

Personally I aim to use plain Sia bolters on my stormshield dudes, as they are there to take hits rather than to give it, so the three extra points would probably not pay out very often.

[ashc]

I'm not ripping bolters off of my current batch of veterans, but I do want to assemble more with storm bolter in the near future.

[Vel'Cona]

I think the idea of not going "all in" on one upgrade or another is a wise one, and a lesson we already learned from the Frag Cannon craze back in 7th.  IIRC, for the first 2-3 weeks everyone was stacking 2+ FCs per squad and convinced it would be the end-all be-all for DW.  Fast forward to the "1 month slump" when we realized that our expensive specialist heavy weapon was certainly good, but it wasn't winning us all the games ever (in fact, the list had started to flag by this point).  Rational thought came into play, and many players dropped to a maximum of 2 FCs in units and started shifting back to combi-weapons or even splashing Terminators or other options.

 

I'm actually echoing a conversation I've had with some of my contemporaries around the forums, as bandwagoning armies and builds is a real issue with 8th edition's insane release cycle and it's easy to get "swept up" in the hot new thing (read: Custodes Jetbikes).  I have a feeling that in a few weeks, we'll see folks using 1-2 Veteran Squads pumped with SBs but cooler heads will prevail and we'll see a smattering of combi/special weapons as well as the classic FC.  Even the IHB may make a resurgence thanks to the Inferno Bolts (?) Strategem.

[Finkmilkana]

Oh, comb/special weapons certainly can have a place. If I wouldn’t play so often against tyranids with permanent -1 to hit (i.e. local meta), I would certainly put some plasma into my veteran squads (right now I only use some FC). It’s just the humble boltgun that seems to pale compared to the SB. Well, and the IHB, that thing is just bad design being heavy combined with a flamer (the stratagem is nice, but not enough in my opinion).

[Lemondish]

I think the idea of not going "all in" on one upgrade or another is a wise one, and a lesson we already learned from the Frag Cannon craze back in 7th. IIRC, for the first 2-3 weeks everyone was stacking 2+ FCs per squad and convinced it would be the end-all be-all for DW. Fast forward to the "1 month slump" when we realized that our expensive specialist heavy weapon was certainly good, but it wasn't winning us all the games ever (in fact, the list had started to flag by this point). Rational thought came into play, and many players dropped to a maximum of 2 FCs in units and started shifting back to combi-weapons or even splashing Terminators or other options.

 

I'm actually echoing a conversation I've had with some of my contemporaries around the forums, as bandwagoning armies and builds is a real issue with 8th edition's insane release cycle and it's easy to get "swept up" in the hot new thing (read: Custodes Jetbikes). I have a feeling that in a few weeks, we'll see folks using 1-2 Veteran Squads pumped with SBs but cooler heads will prevail and we'll see a smattering of combi/special weapons as well as the classic FC. Even the IHB may make a resurgence thanks to the Inferno Bolts (?) Strategem.

I think you're right here, though I'd caution against going that heavily the other direction. FCs are significantly more expensive than SBs are, so I'm not sure that's a totally fair comparison. Either way, I'm of the mind that DW boltguns will soon see their days numbered - combi weapons and special DW heavies will remain.

 

Though you can get better sources of heavy weapons on other platforms or from allies, which from a purely competitive standing you will want anyway, so it makes certain builds very unappealing. Not outright bad, mind...

[Delta.Skies]

I think the idea of not going "all in" on one upgrade or another is a wise one, and a lesson we already learned from the Frag Cannon craze back in 7th.  IIRC, for the first 2-3 weeks everyone was stacking 2+ FCs per squad and convinced it would be the end-all be-all for DW.  Fast forward to the "1 month slump" when we realized that our expensive specialist heavy weapon was certainly good, but it wasn't winning us all the games ever (in fact, the list had started to flag by this point).  Rational thought came into play, and many players dropped to a maximum of 2 FCs in units and started shifting back to combi-weapons or even splashing Terminators or other options.

 

I'm actually echoing a conversation I've had with some of my contemporaries around the forums, as bandwagoning armies and builds is a real issue with 8th edition's insane release cycle and it's easy to get "swept up" in the hot new thing (read: Custodes Jetbikes).  I have a feeling that in a few weeks, we'll see folks using 1-2 Veteran Squads pumped with SBs but cooler heads will prevail and we'll see a smattering of combi/special weapons as well as the classic FC.  Even the IHB may make a resurgence thanks to the Inferno Bolts (?) Strategem.

Im with you on this, it is great that SB got SIA, but im not going statistically crazy and loading up all my Vet with SB. One unit yes, but points wise this could be spread somewhere else. specially when using allies. Even in pure DW armies I wouldnt. Though I do agree, DS a unit with SB vets would be the way to go. ( I will be making another squad of them and rotating them out if need be. (Thank god for magnetization though)