Astartes really do suck, unfortunately!

[MARK0SIAN]

The problem is that a wound roll of 6 is a remote prospect when a tactical squad fires. Assuming they’re in rapid fire range with no rerolls a full squad of 10 tactical marines (in itself quite expensive) could only reasonably expect 2 wound rolls of a 6 on average. It’s not enough of an improvement to make the bolters a real threat or give anyone reason enough to take them.

 

The other side is that damage does not roll over so the rule doesn’t help the marines or their bolters against most of their intended targets, namely infantry. Bolters should be good at clearing out basic infantry but they simply don’t have the lethality or volume of shots required.

 

I agree the bolter needs help but extra damage on a wound roll of 6 doesn’t go anywhere near far enough to make them good at killing infantry. I’d much prefer just a simple Rapid Fire 2 profile. It’s consistent and helps with the volume of fire issue.

[Dark_Jober]

What about studying the possibility of: Bolter weapons-> Explosive ammo: when hitting with a natural 6+ it generates an additional hit.

 

It will increase the number of hits (because number of hits > number of wounds when firing this kind of weapons) and it will be nice against light armoured units.

Any Space Marine unit with Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Stormbolter or Heavy Bolter will become really interesting in weight of fire.

[Wargamer]

Honestly, while I'm okay with GW doing new things with existing ranges, I think new stuff might be the way to go. I would love to see boarding Marines come to 40k (my thought would be either +1 Toughness, or a -1 to wound for all attacks against them).

 

As long as the new units don't feel like a complete asspull (like Centurions, or every single flyer) I think people will accept them. Hell, if Intercessors and Hellblasters had been regular Marines I doubt anyone would have raised an eyebrow.

[MARK0SIAN]

What about studying the possibility of: Bolter weapons-> Explosive ammo: when hitting with a natural 6+ it generates an additional hit.

 

It will increase the number of hits (because number of hits > number of wounds when firing this kind of weapons) and it will be nice against light armoured units.

Any Space Marine unit with Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Stormbolter or Heavy Bolter will become really interesting in weight of fire.

Hit rolls will generate more than wound rolls but it still doesn’t go far enough. A full tactical squad in rapid fire range will still only average 3 extra hits. So 16 hits altogether.

 

When you compare that to the equivalent points of guardsmen who, under orders, could put out 120 shots for 60 hits (admittedly at S3) it just doesn’t measure up.

[Dark_Jober]

 

What about studying the possibility of: Bolter weapons-> Explosive ammo: when hitting with a natural 6+ it generates an additional hit.

 

It will increase the number of hits (because number of hits > number of wounds when firing this kind of weapons) and it will be nice against light armoured units.

Any Space Marine unit with Bolter, Bolt Pistol, Stormbolter or Heavy Bolter will become really interesting in weight of fire.

Hit rolls will generate more than wound rolls but it still doesn’t go far enough. A full tactical squad in rapid fire range will still only average 3 extra hits. So 16 hits altogether.

 

When you compare that to the equivalent points of guardsmen who, under orders, could put out 120 shots for 60 hits (admittedly at S3) it just doesn’t measure up.

Ok. Another easier change could be simply changing Bolter from RapidFire1 to RapidFire2. And increasing the shots in other weapons too.

A Stormbolter cost 2p so still space marines at 13p are not bad, even at 14p

[ShibeKing]

I feel like that would make Hurricane Bolters insanely powerful.

Edit: Unless those aren't included.

[Kallas]

I feel like that would make Hurricane Bolters insanely powerful.

 

Edit: Unless those aren't included.

Extra shots/hits on 6s to hit aren't actually that good, particularly for expensive models such as Marines, unless we're talking about outlier dice rolls (at which point it's barely relevant).

[9x19 Parabellum]

Ok radical concept here...bolter changes to Assault 3 weapon at 18".  Turns Marines into an actual, you know, assault army, where they want to start closing in to take advantage of both their boltguns but also eventually getting into melee.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

 

Funny thing: Reece is 3-0 with ultrasmarines at Nova.

Sure the hardest part as yet to come but still a good start.

 

Is he running Guilliman? And did he splash in some Guard or did he go monodex?

Monocodex build cannot win NOVA. If that is what you wanf you are out of touch.

[Volt]

 

 

Funny thing: Reece is 3-0 with ultrasmarines at Nova.

Sure the hardest part as yet to come but still a good start.

Is he running Guilliman? And did he splash in some Guard or did he go monodex?

Monocodex build cannot win NOVA. If that is what you wanf you are out of touch.

 

Then GW should just ban allies this edition until they get a system going that's actually balanced. 

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

They never will learn to deal with it.

[Brother Crimson]

 

 

Funny thing: Reece is 3-0 with ultrasmarines at Nova.

Sure the hardest part as yet to come but still a good start.

 

Is he running Guilliman? And did he splash in some Guard or did he go monodex?

Monocodex build cannot win NOVA. If that is what you wanf you are out of touch.

As expected he went 4-0, got top bracket and lost badly afterwards.

As for monodex, there were three list monodex in the top bracket: Tau, Ultramarine, Nurgle demon. They ended up in 14,15,16th place in their bracket, in other words they did not performed well at all once they got top bracket.

[Ishagu]

Yeah they could have faced favourable match ups, but once the armies they came across were optimised they were beaten soundly.

[BLACK BLΠFLY]

Multi factions are too strong as armies now. Kudos for those that did well with mono faction armies.

[BitsHammer]

Multi-faction armies are a crutch to get more CP more than anything else. Let's hope that the beta rules update actually addresses this properly instead of thinking that upping the CP would be enough.

[Ishagu]

CP and board control. Lots of bodies basically create obstacles.

[BitsHammer]

CP and board control. Lots of bodies basically create obstacles.

Yeah, board control is the name of the game for hordes. The lost of turn 1 deep strikes actually hurt us more in that regard than most things.

[MARK0SIAN]

Board control is a huge problem. Needing a 9 inch circle to deploy any deep strikers is just too much. I know why they put in the 9 inch range but I think the whole deep strike rules are something they seriously need to look into.

 

I’d prefer a system like we used to have, not necessarily scatter but a system where you can deep strike closer to the enemy than 9 inches but it comes with a risk of some sort.

 

It would stop hordes from being able to instantly deny deep strike space across the whole table in turn 1.

[Morticon]

Would it be heresy to suggest that Power Armour be 2+ and Terminator armour be 1+ ? 

[Panzer]

Would it be heresy to suggest that Power Armour be 2+ and Terminator armour be 1+ ?

 

It would make them incredibly resilient against AP0 and AP-1 respectively but I'd be willing to give it a go before completely dismissing it.

[MARK0SIAN]

I just can’t see them ever giving a 1+ armour save when a roll of one always fails. It’s writing a stat that is immediately invalidated.

 

It would have to be some other wording like the rubric Marines who get plus one to saves against D1 weapons. Maybe +1 to saves against AP0 or AP -1

[Captain Idaho]

I've always suggested it. Though Terminators would still need a 3rd wound in my view.

[MARK0SIAN]

Or how about linking the save bonus to weapon strength?

 

Maybe something like marines can add one to armour saves if their Toughness matches or exceeds the strength of the weapon used.

[Panzer]

I just can’t see them ever giving a 1+ armour save when a roll of one always fails. It’s writing a stat that is immediately invalidated.

It would have to be some other wording like the rubric Marines who get plus one to saves against D1 weapons. Maybe +1 to saves against AP0 or AP -1

How so? It just means it has the best possible armour save against AP0 and AP-1 wounds. Same as any Sv2+ model in cover. There's literally no problem with giving units a better save than 2+ (even negatives are possible) as long as it's balanced.

[MARK0SIAN]

 

I just can’t see them ever giving a 1+ armour save when a roll of one always fails. It’s writing a stat that is immediately invalidated.

It would have to be some other wording like the rubric Marines who get plus one to saves against D1 weapons. Maybe +1 to saves against AP0 or AP -1

How so? It just means it has the best possible armour save against AP0 and AP-1 wounds. Same as any Sv2+ model in cover. There's literally no problem with giving units a better save than 2+ (even negatives are possible) as long as it's balanced.

Oh I don’t have a problem with them giving them a better save, I just don’t think they’ll word it like that or stat it like that because it conflicts too obviously with the core rule of a 1 always failing.

 

I think it’s be worded more like the TS one which effectively gives Terminators a 1+ save against 1D weapons, but it’s just not phrased like that. I have no objection to the principle, I just don’t think they’ll go for wording it like that.