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.

Nah. SM shooting and melee suck. Bolters losing AP5 hurt them.

I'd like chainswords to be -1 AP and boltguns to be -1 AP. Then Chainswords can be better than brutal assault weapons. They lose their +1 A though, but SM should get +1 A anyway.

Sir Heckington wrote:
Nah. SM shooting and melee suck. Bolters losing AP5 hurt them.

I'd like chainswords to be -1 AP and boltguns to be -1 AP. Then Chainswords can be better than brutal assault weapons. They lose their +1 A though, but SM should get +1 A anyway.

Yeah. Easiest way to patch SM and get them back on the table. Give them all this:

Special Rule: Astartes Legionnaire
The Space Marines, and their wargear, are super human in both scale and effectiveness.

All models with this rule gain +1 Attack and +1 wound. Any weapons used by models with this rules that is AP 0 or AP -1 gains an additional point of AP.


And then leave their points alone, or perhaps even increase them. It's not the best fix, but it is simple and would do for the time being until they can get a Codex update or something else more comprehensive.

 fraser1191 wrote:

So the current rumor is Twin LC is going to 40, similar to current guard points. I'm betting that that's going to be the norm. GW probably sees as guard being a functional army. Theres a good chance oodles of emails have been sent saying marines are meh. I'm betting GWs fix for marines is just dropping all the point values to guard levels.

If they drop BS3 weapons to BS4 costs, they will drop BS4 costs, as currently BS4 weapons cost 20% less than BS3 weapons because they hit 25% less often.

There are examples where this is not the case (Dissies and Dark Lances are at BS4 costs despite being BS3), but those are too good, and contribute to the problem with 3+ saves being relatively worthless.

Ergo, bringing down the cost of high AP weapons is going to further exasperate the problem that an armor save is simply not worth the points multiplier assigned to it; so if they do this, I would hope that they have the foresight to also reduce the multiplier assigned to non-invuln saves.

How much of FW stuff do we expect to get points/rules changes?

PuppetSoul wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

So the current rumor is Twin LC is going to 40, similar to current guard points. I'm betting that that's going to be the norm. GW probably sees as guard being a functional army. Theres a good chance oodles of emails have been sent saying marines are meh. I'm betting GWs fix for marines is just dropping all the point values to guard levels.

If they drop BS3 weapons to BS4 costs, they will drop BS4 costs, as currently BS4 weapons cost 20% less than BS3 weapons because they hit 25% less often.

There are examples where this is not the case (Dissies and Dark Lances are at BS4 costs despite being BS3), but those are too good, and contribute to the problem with 3+ saves being relatively worthless.

Ergo, bringing down the cost of high AP weapons is going to further exasperate the problem that an armor save is simply not worth the points multiplier assigned to it; so if they do this, I would hope that they have the foresight to also reduce the multiplier assigned to non-invuln saves.

Not necessarily. Currently, weapons are costed differently based on the army's BS, but so are the models that carry them. Why should Guardsmen be cheaper because they are BS4, and also get cheaper weapons because they are BS 4? If you had a marine that had BS 4, it would cost less. So should it's weapons also cost less?

It's a balancing act where somethings are more expensive on certain units.

e.g: A thunder hammer does much more on an SM captain than an infantry guard sergeant, but a chainsword doesn't do enough to warrant the price difference needed in a thunder hammer for a captain.

But sometimes they don't need to be.

Sir Heckington wrote:
It's a balancing act where somethings are more expensive on certain units.

e.g: A thunder hammer does much more on an SM captain than an infantry guard sergeant, but a chainsword doesn't do enough to warrant the price difference needed in a thunder hammer for a captain.

But sometimes they don't need to be.

Yeah, that's necessary when you have 1 model that can take multiple pieces of wargear, so you can't just adjust the base model. My point is that wargear getting cheaper in one context doesn't necessarily mean it needs to in another.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
It's a balancing act where somethings are more expensive on certain units.

e.g: A thunder hammer does much more on an SM captain than an infantry guard sergeant, but a chainsword doesn't do enough to warrant the price difference needed in a thunder hammer for a captain.

But sometimes they don't need to be.

Yeah, that's necessary when you have 1 model that can take multiple pieces of wargear, so you can't just adjust the base model. My point is that wargear getting cheaper in one context doesn't necessarily mean it needs to in another.

Oh for sure. It shouldn't be the case with all wargear, but there are instances where it should be done.

 chimeara wrote:
How much of FW stuff do we expect to get points/rules changes?

Very close to zero. Forgeworld doesn't give a crap about 8th and 8th doesn't give a crap about forveworld.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Hot shot las has way too much AP though. More proof that the base boltgun should be AP-1 against <INFANTRY>.

edit, astartes boltguns should be. not everyone's.

Screw the astartes, A bolt gun's a boltgun. If they're gonna get an ap-1 infantry weapon then so does everyone who can take bolters.

PuppetSoul wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

So the current rumor is Twin LC is going to 40, similar to current guard points. I'm betting that that's going to be the norm. GW probably sees as guard being a functional army. Theres a good chance oodles of emails have been sent saying marines are meh. I'm betting GWs fix for marines is just dropping all the point values to guard levels.

If they drop BS3 weapons to BS4 costs, they will drop BS4 costs, as currently BS4 weapons cost 20% less than BS3 weapons because they hit 25% less often.

There are examples where this is not the case (Dissies and Dark Lances are at BS4 costs despite being BS3), but those are too good, and contribute to the problem with 3+ saves being relatively worthless.

Ergo, bringing down the cost of high AP weapons is going to further exasperate the problem that an armor save is simply not worth the points multiplier assigned to it; so if they do this, I would hope that they have the foresight to also reduce the multiplier assigned to non-invuln saves.

Why though? BS is calculated on the models cost already, with weapons being an extra charge on top of that.

So why am I paying more points for better BS, and then more points for a weapon that is identical to another book but more expensive because a model with higher BS will be using it - even when they've already paid for the privilege as a base cost.

Madness.

 NurglesR0T wrote:

PuppetSoul wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

So the current rumor is Twin LC is going to 40, similar to current guard points. I'm betting that that's going to be the norm. GW probably sees as guard being a functional army. Theres a good chance oodles of emails have been sent saying marines are meh. I'm betting GWs fix for marines is just dropping all the point values to guard levels.

If they drop BS3 weapons to BS4 costs, they will drop BS4 costs, as currently BS4 weapons cost 20% less than BS3 weapons because they hit 25% less often.

There are examples where this is not the case (Dissies and Dark Lances are at BS4 costs despite being BS3), but those are too good, and contribute to the problem with 3+ saves being relatively worthless.

Ergo, bringing down the cost of high AP weapons is going to further exasperate the problem that an armor save is simply not worth the points multiplier assigned to it; so if they do this, I would hope that they have the foresight to also reduce the multiplier assigned to non-invuln saves.

Why though? BS is calculated on the models cost already, with weapons being an extra charge on top of that.

So why am I paying more points for better BS, and then more points for a weapon that is identical to another book but more expensive because a model with higher BS will be using it - even when they've already paid for the privilege as a base cost.

Madness.

We've got an winner!

ERJAK wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
How much of FW stuff do we expect to get points/rules changes?

Very close to zero. Forgeworld doesn't give a crap about 8th and 8th doesn't give a crap about forveworld.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Hot shot las has way too much AP though. More proof that the base boltgun should be AP-1 against <INFANTRY>.

edit, astartes boltguns should be. not everyone's.

Screw the astartes, A bolt gun's a boltgun. If they're gonna get an ap-1 infantry weapon then so does everyone who can take bolters.

Legion Boltguns and human sized ones are specifically different. Legion boltguns are closer to human heavy bolters in projectile size. Different weapons should have different abilities.

They aren't different enough to warrent the change tbh. Just keep them all -1 AP. Who cares if IG has access to them?

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
How much of FW stuff do we expect to get points/rules changes?

Very close to zero. Forgeworld doesn't give a crap about 8th and 8th doesn't give a crap about forveworld.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Hot shot las has way too much AP though. More proof that the base boltgun should be AP-1 against <INFANTRY>.

edit, astartes boltguns should be. not everyone's.

Screw the astartes, A bolt gun's a boltgun. If they're gonna get an ap-1 infantry weapon then so does everyone who can take bolters.

Legion Boltguns and human sized ones are specifically different. Legion boltguns are closer to human heavy bolters in projectile size. Different weapons should have different abilities.

So each pattern of Astartas Boltgun should get different stats, much like the Cawl ones? That's quite a few. Some do have different stats too.

Regardless of that, isn't the Godwyn-De'Az used by sororitas considered far superior to other patterns and types of Boltguns? Shouldn't they be the ones getting a -1 AP, and not standard boltguns?

 NurglesR0T wrote:

PuppetSoul wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

So the current rumor is Twin LC is going to 40, similar to current guard points. I'm betting that that's going to be the norm. GW probably sees as guard being a functional army. Theres a good chance oodles of emails have been sent saying marines are meh. I'm betting GWs fix for marines is just dropping all the point values to guard levels.

If they drop BS3 weapons to BS4 costs, they will drop BS4 costs, as currently BS4 weapons cost 20% less than BS3 weapons because they hit 25% less often.

There are examples where this is not the case (Dissies and Dark Lances are at BS4 costs despite being BS3), but those are too good, and contribute to the problem with 3+ saves being relatively worthless.

Ergo, bringing down the cost of high AP weapons is going to further exasperate the problem that an armor save is simply not worth the points multiplier assigned to it; so if they do this, I would hope that they have the foresight to also reduce the multiplier assigned to non-invuln saves.

Why though? BS is calculated on the models cost already, with weapons being an extra charge on top of that.

So why am I paying more points for better BS, and then more points for a weapon that is identical to another book but more expensive because a model with higher BS will be using it - even when they've already paid for the privilege as a base cost.

Madness.

You're assuming that BS is in the base cost rather than the base cost just simply being too high.

 Carnikang wrote:

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
How much of FW stuff do we expect to get points/rules changes?

Very close to zero. Forgeworld doesn't give a crap about 8th and 8th doesn't give a crap about forveworld.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Hot shot las has way too much AP though. More proof that the base boltgun should be AP-1 against <INFANTRY>.

edit, astartes boltguns should be. not everyone's.

Screw the astartes, A bolt gun's a boltgun. If they're gonna get an ap-1 infantry weapon then so does everyone who can take bolters.

Legion Boltguns and human sized ones are specifically different. Legion boltguns are closer to human heavy bolters in projectile size. Different weapons should have different abilities.

So each pattern of Astartas Boltgun should get different stats, much like the Cawl ones? That's quite a few. Some do have different stats too.

Regardless of that, isn't the Godwyn-De'Az used by sororitas considered far superior to other patterns and types of Boltguns? Shouldn't they be the ones getting a -1 AP, and not standard boltguns?

The level of granularity doesn't need to be that extreme. And there's not really enough resolution in stats to differentiate the different patters. I wouldn't object to bolters getting AP-1 for everyone. I'm just saying that if we wanted a situation where Marine weapons got buffed and the human sized versions didn't, that it wouldn't be unreasonable given the large differences in the lore.

Sir Heckington wrote:
They aren't different enough to warrent the change tbh. Just keep them all -1 AP. Who cares if IG has access to them?

Bolters aren't the only AP5 weapons that went to AP0. Just about every S5 weapon Tau had went from AP5 to AP0 in the edition change. Kinda hard to justify bolters being ap-1 if things like tau pulse weapons aren't. They are literally miniaturized plasma. I do think going back and fixing AP5 weapons to be more effective would go a long ways for keeping IG in check. Something like "Tasty Crunch: If Armor Save > 4 then this weapon gains AP-2." It gives a reward for using cover, doesn't punish things with good saves, and it would leave statlines untouched.

Yes, but Tau weapons are fine. They put out plenty of output for their price.

Also...buffing a few armies doesn't keep one army "in check." It just buffs those chosen armies.

The only way to keep IG in check is to weaken IG, or strengthen all other armies, not just a few.

Guardsmen are almost surely going to be 5 points, and i have no doubt that the artemis pattern is going to get the FW standard treatment.

Those 2 changes alone are a huge nerf to current competitive militarum lists. Let's not take 4 steps at a time, take just a couple and see how it goes.

Basilysks too are probably getting a small bump in price. We are probably looking at a 150-200 point nerf on many AM lists, i think that is more than enough.

Jesus everyone, chill. This is a forum where we're talking about plastic miniatures, not politics, don't get so caught in the discussion that you forget to be respectful. I've read some heated comments here, or maybe it was in the other thread, either way.

On topic, I expect point changes (duh) but whole datasheets were never done in the first one I believe (at least for Matched Play), however this doesn't mean CA must ONLY be about point changes and a few more rules, they could have amped it up and added consequent changes beyond points.

As for wishlisting I'd like a good sweep of the Adeptus Mechanicus codex by the writing team so that they can read everything that is wrong with this codex. The more I read it the more I say "Why would you write that for this rule ?". There are maximum 5 relics out of 15 who are relatively useful, the others are just a waste of relic slot. 6 Warlords traits out of 13 that are good enough for casual play. Competitively that's 2 good relics and 3 traits. For some reason GW expect us to go vehicle-hunting in CC with our Warlords given that there are quite a handful of stuff to "help" him do that, and it shows they have no idea how the army plays.

There's a few useless stratagems but the worst are some of the Forge-World specific ones, namely Metalica and Ryza. Ryza's one is powerful but it's limited to two units, and only one is truly good to use on. The problem is that we have a Ryza trait (reroll 1s to Wound in CC) that has nothing to do with its stratagem.

Now concerning points there's quite a handful but I'd like them to change the most iconic unit in priority.

The Kastelan Robot. It's easily the number one in our top 3 units because of it's devastating mid-range firepower with the triple Heavy Phosphor loadout. A Robot (65 pts) costs 110 pts this way. Now the base loadout are the Fists (35 pts) and a 12" Heavy Flamer (21) which brings it to 121 pts. We're paying more for a loadout that is harder to use while sacrificing our best weapons and we shouldn't be punished for wanting to play with the Fists.

My solution would be to either give the Kastelan his invul. in CC as well when equipped with Fists (limited to shooting actually) to add some survivability to fill his role of CC smasher and we can keep the costs as it is, or if no changes to the save are made, lower the Fists to 20 pts. That would make a punchy Kastelan 65 + 20 + 21 = 101 pts for a Vehicle that moves 8", has not invul. in CC and hits on a 4+ with only the 1s rerollable with a Canticle. We could even lower the cost of the flamer to 15 because he'll get to fire it once or twice anyway before switching to Punching Protocols to fight twice in CC and by doing so preventing him from shooting. Hardly game-breaking seeing as the only ways to make him go faster would be with Lucius to DS them with a stratagem or Stygies' Infiltratition that is on its way to a nerf (glad it's a beta rule so that I can still use it at my LGS.

 DominayTrix wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
They aren't different enough to warrent the change tbh. Just keep them all -1 AP. Who cares if IG has access to them?

Bolters aren't the only AP5 weapons that went to AP0. Just about every S5 weapon Tau had went from AP5 to AP0 in the edition change. Kinda hard to justify bolters being ap-1 if things like tau pulse weapons aren't. They are literally miniaturized plasma. I do think going back and fixing AP5 weapons to be more effective would go a long ways for keeping IG in check. Something like "Tasty Crunch: If Armor Save > 4 then this weapon gains AP-2." It gives a reward for using cover, doesn't punish things with good saves, and it would leave statlines untouched.

Ork big shootas and dakkaguns were S5 AP5 in the previous editions, now AP0, usually mounted on BS5+ platforms. And we're talking about S5 weapons, not the basic troops' guns like bolters. Why they aren't AP-1 like heavy bolters is beyond me. Sure those are heavy and not assault, but they can be spammed easier than big shootas, they're mounted on BS3+ platforms and also have a stratagem that makes one of them able to cause mortal wounds.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Also...buffing a few armies doesn't keep one army "in check." It just buffs those chosen armies.

The only way to keep IG in check is to weaken IG, or strengthen all other armies, not just a few.

Exactly.

 JimOnMars wrote:
Also...buffing a few armies doesn't keep one army "in check." It just buffs those chosen armies.

The only way to keep IG in check is to weaken IG, or strengthen all other armies, not just a few.

Not true. Increasing the tools that other armies have to counter IG is a check on IG. A lot of the current problem with IG is the massive lack of effective anti hoard weapons in 8th. If we had the efficiency of anti hoard weapons from, say, 5th edition, then guardsmen would just get easily wiped by everyone, and IG would be checked.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:
Also...buffing a few armies doesn't keep one army "in check." It just buffs those chosen armies.

The only way to keep IG in check is to weaken IG, or strengthen all other armies, not just a few.

Not true. Increasing the tools that other armies have to counter IG is a check on IG. A lot of the current problem with IG is the massive lack of effective anti hoard weapons in 8th. If we had the efficiency of anti hoard weapons from, say, 5th edition, then guardsmen would just get easily wiped by everyone, and IG would be checked.

Not when they are the most efficient horde army. Every other horde army would get worse because you've just introduced a load of anti horde tools and IG would still be the 'best' horde army, even if their power relative to 'Elite' armies dropped.

You don't nerf Nids because IG hordes are over performing.

When I face IG the probem aren't killing infantry I've found, it's the Leman Russes who always wreck me. Tank Commanders specifically. I'm surprised not many people don't call on this but getting to shoot twice if you move half-speed (with Battle Cannons being 72" that shouldn't be too hard) while popping orders to get -1 to Hit on you and still fire for example. And if I try to destroy the thing it's T8 with 12W.

It was not the first time I faced three Tank Commanders but the other day I played with someone at my LGS for a "initiation game" at 1000 pts where he played 2 Tank Commanders, 1 with Punisher Gatling and two HB, 1 with BC and Plasma Cannons, and Pask with BC and Plasma Cannons, + 3 Infantry Squads with one Mortar, a Primaris Psyker and a Company Commander. Turns out someone had "advised him" to play lists like these and so my poor casual-friendly Dark Angels 1000 pts list got obliterated first turn. Lost my Redemptor Dreadnought, 10 Intercessors before my first turn, then on my turn my plasma Inceptors blow themselves up while doing 6W to Pask, and on the next turns my Master and Lieutenant get gunned down while my jump pack Librarian finally manages to kill the Commander after two rounds in CC.

Leman Russes are busted compared to some other tanks. My AdMech Onagers would love to fire twice.

The Newman wrote:
If we could take as given that the existing Marine spoilers are accurate (10% to 20% point drop, equipment dropping to Guard prices)

There are only a few weapons costed in the IG book for SM BS, so that shouldn't be much of a drop.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 chimeara wrote:
How much of FW stuff do we expect to get points/rules changes?

Very close to zero. Forgeworld doesn't give a crap about 8th and 8th doesn't give a crap about forveworld.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Marmatag wrote:
Hot shot las has way too much AP though. More proof that the base boltgun should be AP-1 against <INFANTRY>.

edit, astartes boltguns should be. not everyone's.

Screw the astartes, A bolt gun's a boltgun. If they're gonna get an ap-1 infantry weapon then so does everyone who can take bolters.

Legion Boltguns and human sized ones are specifically different. Legion boltguns are closer to human heavy bolters in projectile size. Different weapons should have different abilities.

Not where it counts though - in the rules.

 Drudge Dreadnought wrote:

Sir Heckington wrote:
Nah. SM shooting and melee suck. Bolters losing AP5 hurt them.

I'd like chainswords to be -1 AP and boltguns to be -1 AP. Then Chainswords can be better than brutal assault weapons. They lose their +1 A though, but SM should get +1 A anyway.

Yeah. Easiest way to patch SM and get them back on the table. Give them all this:

Special Rule: Astartes Legionnaire
The Space Marines, and their wargear, are super human in both scale and effectiveness.

All models with this rule gain +1 Attack and +1 wound. Any weapons used by models with this rules that is AP 0 or AP -1 gains an additional point of AP.

That already exists. They are called primaris marines. Just play you old-marine with the new-marine statline, and you should be fine.

 Dysartes wrote:

The Newman wrote:
If we could take as given that the existing Marine spoilers are accurate (10% to 20% point drop, equipment dropping to Guard prices)

There are only a few weapons costed in the IG book for SM BS, so that shouldn't be much of a drop.

If you think that's what I'm talking about then you haven't been paying attention.

The spoiler was for twin-linked Lascannons dropping to 40 points for Marines, BS 4 Guard pay 40 for a twin-linked Lascannon. The logical speculation is that all marine gear is getting the same treatment, and I think most of us are hoping that's the case because the spoiler said Marine players will be happy with the Terminator changes but the listed 3 point drop on a Terminator isn't nearly enough to accomplish that.

The Newman wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

The Newman wrote:
If we could take as given that the existing Marine spoilers are accurate (10% to 20% point drop, equipment dropping to Guard prices)

There are only a few weapons costed in the IG book for SM BS, so that shouldn't be much of a drop.

If you think that's what I'm talking about then you haven't been paying attention.

The spoiler was for twin-linked Lascannons dropping to 40 points for Marines, BS 4 Guard pay 40 for a twin-linked Lascannon. The logical speculation is that all marine gear is getting the same treatment, and I think most of us are hoping that's the case because the spoiler said Marine players will be happy with the Terminator changes but the listed 3 point drop on a Terminator isn't nearly enough to accomplish that.

Or twin lascannons in general are getting cheaper and the guard one is going to 35. I think that those that expect the SM weapons to go to BS4+ cost levels are in for a big disappointment.