Boltgun beta rule

[Captain Idaho]

I am of the opinion that game balance would mean, if the 2 changes (or variants thereof) I suggested were to be implemented, it would be on the basis points would stay the same since Marines are in need of a solid buff anyway.

[Subtleknife]

Nah, a basic Troop squad should not be erasing 30 models a turn

They won't be erasing 30 models a turn though. Against guard 10 marines at half range would take out roughly 14 models. That is against chaff. That seems fairly ok to me. Tacs should be good at clearing chaff

[Lemondish]

I fear the one thing holding back the flashy rule changes is the bloody Inquisition. Those Deathwatch bubs gain so much from any little change to bolt weapons, be it the suggestions for a Fireblade type buff for an extra shot at half range, or some extra AP at half range, or +1 to wound, or any of the other suggested changes. Bolter Discipline at the very least forces them to utilize different units and strategies outside the popular meta choices to even make much use out of it. The units that benefit for Deathwatch aren't really the popular ones used in popular ways, which is a theme for every army truly, but I think that makes it mostly an acceptable buff because it is not skewing the powerful units too far ahead while bringing up the rear on a few of the stragglers. 

 

But anything past that always has the shadow of the Deathwatch looming over it. There's no clean way to resolve that.

[Captain Idaho]

They don't gain much from my +1S suggestion at half range.

[Panzer]

To be fair I don't mind DW gaining lots more out of those changes if their cost is adjusted properly. They are supposed to be the more elite and more capable guys anyway.

[Kallas]

Bolter Discipline at the very least forces them to utilize different units and strategies outside the popular meta choices to even make much use out of it.

It really doesn't. Their Terminators benefit from it straight up, and their Storm Bolters will usurp Stalkers Bolters completely while being extra potent if a unit doesn't need to move after being teleported in. It also makes Deathwatch Intercessors fantastic backfield objective holders, although Veterans with SB/SS are probably still better.

 

While Deathwatch will probably care less about Bolter Discipline than other Marine Codexes, they benefit from it just as much - if not more, as their Bolters are by far the most effective.

[Lemondish]

 

Bolter Discipline at the very least forces them to utilize different units and strategies outside the popular meta choices to even make much use out of it.

It really doesn't. Their Terminators benefit from it straight up, and their Storm Bolters will usurp Stalkers Bolters completely while being extra potent if a unit doesn't need to move after being teleported in. It also makes Deathwatch Intercessors fantastic backfield objective holders, although Veterans with SB/SS are probably still better.

 

While Deathwatch will probably care less about Bolter Discipline than other Marine Codexes, they benefit from it just as much - if not more, as their Bolters are by far the most effective.

 

 

I wasn't arguing otherwise, mate. I did not say they didn't care. But I feel it absolutely encourages DW players to consider other uses for their popular units. I might even provide reason enough to try off meta options as well. 

 

For example, Terminators as a separate unit was not a common meta choice, nor were non obsec bikers - but bolter discipline gives you a reason to consider these two units independent of their placement in vet squads. Will it enter the meta? Unknown at this point, but consider that Scout bikes with the Guilliman reroll aura were fantastic meta units for Ultramarines, and that efficacy can mostly be achieved in DW with hellfire SIA, a watch master/captain aura, and mission tactics. 

 

And you made my point for me with Stalker Pattern Boltguns - usurping the Stalker unit was exactly what I was saying when I stated that it opened up different strategies for some units, including the storm bolter vet squad. Rather than just using it as a point and click teleportarium unit, a Deathwatch player gets to consider other uses for them. Any of the other suggested changes would simply boost the current common use of deep striking, whereas Bolter Discipline at least opens up a new use case to consider. 

 

In summary, Bolter discipline re: DW opens up new ways to maximize the damage of a unit rather than boosting that damage when used the same way it always had been. Vet squads deploying from reserves won't benefit. Vet squads piling out of a fast transport won't benefit. But new units not normally fielded will, and there's whole new ways to use common familiar units as well. That's a pretty cool effect of the rule that would not be achieved with any of the other suggestions here. 

[Jacques Corbin]

Ok, just saying, Lias Issodon and a bunch of basic Sternguard.

[Kallas]

Ok, just saying, Lias Issodon and a bunch of basic Sternguard.

 

It's good, but Bolter Discipline doesn't do a huge amount for it, does it? It lets them get into optimal positions, which is certainly worthwhile, but they can happily pop up into Rapid Fire range and the turn they appear they aren't able to leverage their 30" range to full effect.

 

Just not seeing how Bolter Discipline makes this much better than previously. Also, Strike From The Shadows, while a shadow of its former self, is good for giving them a good position from which to start the game entrenched by using the 9" move to get either up a building/move in from out of LOS before turn one.

[Jacques Corbin]

Range is not everything. His ability allows you to keep them off the board, then on a later turn, they can pop up, in hard cover, and fire away. They are not getting shot off the board early, and are holding terrain (hopefully with an objective) and for 30" all around, they are double tapping at AP-2. Considering a 48" × 60" table, that is a lot of real estate.

[Tyberos the Red Wake]

 

Nah, a basic Troop squad should not be erasing 30 models a turn

They won't be erasing 30 models a turn though. Against guard 10 marines at half range would take out roughly 14 models. That is against chaff. That seems fairly ok to me. Tacs should be good at clearing chaff

 

 

Yeah, something is wrong here. Cannon fodder that can stand out in the open without fear, face-tanking mass-reactive exploding bolt rounds? While the superhuman walking tanks shooting these rounds have to hide to stay alive ("I didn't start with any Space Marines on the table, so therefore the infantry balance is fine")?

 

Should be the other way around. Space Marines should stride the battlefield without fear, tanking all sorts of small arms and requiring heavy weapons to take down, while mowing down any lightly armored, dirt-cheap units the opponent is taking in the (sometimes literally) hundreds.

[Subtleknife]

@Tyberos the Red Wake. Exactly my thoughts. Whatever GW end up doing, all i want is an elite army to feel elite. I dont want to have to turn it into a horde to compete.

[Aurica]

I like the idea of -1AP for bolters, or just -1AP at half range, or even -1AP on a 6+ to hit. But if that happened, would we need to make things like Heavy Bolters -2AP? I mean where would it end?

 

I do like this idea in addition of the current beta rules.  But that it applies to all BOLT weapons as well.  So that Stalker Bolt Rifles a slightly less invalidated and gives other variants of Bolt Weapons more kick.

[Kallas]

Range is not everything. His ability allows you to keep them off the board, then on a later turn, they can pop up, in hard cover, and fire away. They are not getting shot off the board early, and are holding terrain (hopefully with an objective) and for 30" all around, they are double tapping at AP-2. Considering a 48" × 60" table, that is a lot of real estate.

 

Yeah, I know what Issodon does, but my point was that his ability doesn't do much in concert with Bolter Discipline. It's definitely a good combo, on that I'm in total agreement, but they don't really benefit from Bolter Discipline if he's bringing them on.

 

Certainly, they'll be able to utilise it after the drop, but considering that all told for Lias and three units of five Sternguard is 435pts; if you're planning on having them be a significant impact on the drop, at least one unit is probably going to be a unit of ten instead (so 515pts) to maximise Masterful Marksmanship. They're still just MEQ bodies, so not particularly resilient and if Lias is dropping them midfield then they're going to be pretty close to the enemy (compared to having them in your deployment zone and using their full range/Bolter Discipline) and therefore under more significant threat.

 

If they're a significant force, then they'll come under significant fire/assault, which means they're going to crumple quickly. I'm not saying it couldn't be effective - that many Special Issue Bolters popping up with Chapter Master rerolls is certainly going to hurt, especially infantry - but it's going to bring much to the table with regards to Bolter Discipline. This tactic isn't really affected by the Beta rule much; it'll get a bonus the turn after, assuming that they're targeting things far enough away, don't have to move for LOS, and haven't been engaged/put under close range pressure (and considering their Raven Guard, enemies will often prefer to close in a little to negate the -1 to hit over 12").

 

That's my point, is that Bolter Discipline isn't making much of an impact in this tactic, not that the tactic is a bad one.

 

 

I like the idea of -1AP for bolters, or just -1AP at half range, or even -1AP on a 6+ to hit. But if that happened, would we need to make things like Heavy Bolters -2AP? I mean where would it end?

 

I do like this idea in addition of the current beta rules.  But that it applies to all BOLT weapons as well.  So that Stalker Bolt Rifles a slightly less invalidated and gives other variants of Bolt Weapons more kick.

 

I like this idea too, although I'd definitely prefer the -1AP at half range over -1AP on 6+ to hit/wound. One is in my control, the other is pure chance, and I don't trust dice if I can help it! 

[Warhead01]

I like the idea of A -1 on a 6+ but only at half range or less. More exciting that way. 

[Panzer]

I hate the idea of AP-1 on a 6+. Super unreliable and Bolter don't really have enough shots for such a rule. Unreliableness is not exciting at all, just annoying. AP-1 at half range is something one can work with and build a gameplan around.

[Kallas]

I like the idea of A -1 on a 6+ but only at half range or less. More exciting that way. 

I'm going to assume that wink emoji is to signify you're not serious, rather than be extremely sad and try to argue! 

[Warhead01]

I hate the idea of AP-1 on a 6+. Super unreliable and Bolter don't really have enough shots for such a rule. Unreliableness is not exciting at all, just annoying. AP-1 at half range is something one can work with and build a gameplan around.

I understand what you mean. My view is that Marines hit on a 3+ with buffs so I would take more marines, as I usually field a lot anyway. But tha's not counting any of the other units with bolter weapons either. (My number of bolters is bigger than I think at the moment. )  It's a small boost at best to be sure but I think it's balanced because it will be unreliable.  It was pointed out that he new Bolter bata rule is a near throw back to 2nd edition in one of the treads. But  what was really going on if I recall was a marine gained a sustained fire dice for a possible 3 shots but also a possible jam. With out the possibility of a jam I would be happy with 2 hits and one or both coming up a 6 for that Ap -1. It's a gain with no loss for bolters across a whole army. (I expect most people rely on plasma more than bolters though?) But as you say it is unreliable. 

 

 

Also.

GW - "Random is fun!" 

[Aurica]

 

I like this idea too, although I'd definitely prefer the -1AP at half range over -1AP on 6+ to hit/wound. One is in my control, the other is pure chance, and I don't trust dice if I can help it! 

 

 

TBH if I could have my way... I would like an extra -1 AP for ALL bolt weapons for all ranges.. but I am afraid that would be too greedy.

But -1AP at half range is a decent suggestion too.  I feel it rewards taking risks. 

[Lemondish]

 

 

I like this idea too, although I'd definitely prefer the -1AP at half range over -1AP on 6+ to hit/wound. One is in my control, the other is pure chance, and I don't trust dice if I can help it! 

 

 

TBH if I could have my way... I would like an extra -1 AP for ALL bolt weapons for all ranges.. but I am afraid that would be too greedy.

But -1AP at half range is a decent suggestion too.  I feel it rewards taking risks. 

 

 

So this would mean at half range for any bolt weapon they'd gain -1 AP? 

 

Talk about awesome for Deathwatch storm bolters. 40 shots, hitting on 3s often rerolling 1s, wounding on 2s often re-rolling 1s, with -1 AP? If folks were worried about the current beta rule being all about the rich getting richer, this would would truly epitomize that sentiment ;)

[MARK0SIAN]

I hate the idea of AP-1 on a 6+. Super unreliable and Bolter don't really have enough shots for such a rule. Unreliableness is not exciting at all, just annoying. AP-1 at half range is something one can work with and build a gameplan around.

Absolutely agree with this. Any changes need to be reliable and consistent to be worthwhile and have the desired effect. You need to know you can count on your units to do certain things consistently.

 

You can’t make any kind of plan based on having a small improvement to an ability that only triggers on a certain roll, especially a 6. Just ask Sisters players how awkward it is to plan around the new acts of faith and that’s a whole army wide bonus.

[Kallas]

So this would mean at half range for any bolt weapon they'd gain -1 AP?

 

Talk about awesome for Deathwatch storm bolters. 40 shots, hitting on 3s often rerolling 1s, wounding on 2s often re-rolling 1s, with -1 AP? If folks were worried about the current beta rule being all about the rich getting richer, this would would truly epitomize that sentiment ;)

It would, yeah. I'd suggest that it not apply to weapons using Special Issue Ammunition, simply because they already have a variety of bonuses that they get to choose from, including additional AP.

 

Fluff it that it's because Deathwatch Bolters are less efficient because of the shot selectors or something. Or that the mixed Chapters of Kill Teams make them slightly less coordinated. Something.

 

But yes, there needs to be a disconnect somewhere or Deathwatch will just continue to outstrip other Marines by orders of magnitude (pop pop...)

[MARK0SIAN]

If you Just specify that the rule applies only to standard ammunition as Kallas says then it doesn’t combo with deathwatch special ammo. Then give some other bonus to any special ammo units in normal marine armies. It’s actually one of the few issues that’s easy to address on changes across several codexes :)

[Lemondish]

 

So this would mean at half range for any bolt weapon they'd gain -1 AP?

 

Talk about awesome for Deathwatch storm bolters. 40 shots, hitting on 3s often rerolling 1s, wounding on 2s often re-rolling 1s, with -1 AP? If folks were worried about the current beta rule being all about the rich getting richer, this would would truly epitomize that sentiment

It would, yeah. I'd suggest that it not apply to weapons using Special Issue Ammunition, simply because they already have a variety of bonuses that they get to choose from, including additional AP.

 

Fluff it that it's because Deathwatch Bolters are less efficient because of the shot selectors or something. Or that the mixed Chapters of Kill Teams make them slightly less coordinated. Something.

 

But yes, there needs to be a disconnect somewhere or Deathwatch will just continue to outstrip other Marines by orders of magnitude (pop pop...)

 

 

Honestly just needs to be storm bolters that are addressed. Their the biggest culprit across the every power armoured unit that can take them. When a weapon choice is simply so good it becomes the default, you know there's a problem. Codex marines pay 2 points to double their output - that is too cheap. At the very least most of those units have reasons to make it less of a no brainer, like Sternguard having to give up SIB and the stratagem, which makes it an actual, viable choice. Deathwatch pay a 3 point premium to do the same thing, but give up nothing to do it. They're already superior simply because of their best weapons being so bloody cheap.

 

But since the whole point of this rule is to simulate how much more capable marines are in wielding bolters, it wouldn't make much sense to suggest that Veterans of countless battles instantly lose the knowledge they have just because they happened to be standing next to a Terminator. Don't get me wrong - players would accept the rule impact even if they revolted against the reasoning, but it very much feels like just another versions of the question "why do marines forget their own tactics when they sit at a steering wheel". 

[Panzer]

Why exclude DW in the first place? If it scales too good with SIA just make DW Veterans more expensive. They ARE better than the standard Marine.