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.

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
So? Something has to be shot at, not matter how strong a unit will be, enough hooting will take them down. The point is to make them good as take lots of small arms damage. High AP is meant to kill them and then they will still have a better save (over 50%) than what they do now (33% b.c of 5++). They will become better at livig.

That is not how armour works. you could be shoting a 9mm at a armour apc all day, and you would be just achiving the goal of paint stripping.

Terminators aren't tank-armored in the fluff either, though.

I read a story where a termintor was stomped on by a titan and he stood up. A predator or land raider that was stomped on by a warlod titant would be a blown up wreck. Termintors should be borderline invunerable to all incoming fire. And the fact that they are build on ddesigns of suits made to walk in plasma reactors means they should take zero damage from plasma unless it is something huge like a plasma anihilator or a blastgun mounted on a warhound.

This is fantasy with daemons, magic, people with multiple lungs and carapace skin, but yes get mad over the realism of armor.

Give Terminators a rerollable 2+/3++ armour save.

Then make them 100+ points each. Paladins can be 200.
Then laugh.

Tyel wrote:
Give Terminators a rerollable 2+/3++ armour save.

Then make them 100+ points each. Paladins can be 200.
Then laugh.

Nah, Movie Marine rules!

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Give Terminators a rerollable 2+/3++ armour save.

Then make them 100+ points each. Paladins can be 200.
Then laugh.

Nah, Movie Marine rules!

A single space marine should be able to shoot 100 orks, conquer a planet singlehandedly, punch greater daemons to death, their eyes are supposed to change color with their emotions and Spock and Kirk SHOULD be fighting over their affections, how has GW managed to feth this up for 8 straight editions? Why can't they just be TRUE to the LORE???

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Karol 788712 10811934 wrote:

This is fantasy with daemons, magic, people with multiple lungs and carapace skin, but yes get mad over the realism of armor.

I ain't getting mad. But if GW thought that it was a good idea to have -3 to hit eldar flyers all edition. and pre nerf castellans running around the meta for a year. Then why, in a wishlist topic, couldn't I wish for termintors to be just as good? And it is not like anything I said was a lie, termintor armour is not a just a bit stronger power armour. It is a called a tactical dreadnought armour for a reason.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Give Terminators a rerollable 2+/3++ armour save.

Then make them 100+ points each. Paladins can be 200.
Then laugh.

Nah, Movie Marine rules!

A single space marine should be able to shoot 100 orks, conquer a planet singlehandedly, punch greater daemons to death, their eyes are supposed to change color with their emotions and Spock and Kirk SHOULD be fighting over their affections, how has GW managed to feth this up for 8 straight editions? Why can't they just be TRUE to the LORE???

Just ask your mates to let you play Movie Marines.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For those that don't know what they are. They are amazing thats what.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000/Tactics/Chapter_Approved/Movie_Marines

Karol wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:
So? Something has to be shot at, not matter how strong a unit will be, enough hooting will take them down. The point is to make them good as take lots of small arms damage. High AP is meant to kill them and then they will still have a better save (over 50%) than what they do now (33% b.c of 5++). They will become better at livig.

That is not how armour works. you could be shoting a 9mm at a armour apc all day, and you would be just achiving the goal of paint stripping.

Terminators aren't tank-armored in the fluff either, though.

I read a story where a termintor was stomped on by a titan and he stood up. A predator or land raider that was stomped on by a warlod titant would be a blown up wreck. Termintors should be borderline invunerable to all incoming fire. And the fact that they are build on ddesigns of suits made to walk in plasma reactors means they should take zero damage from plasma unless it is something huge like a plasma anihilator or a blastgun mounted on a warhound.

I remember that story, and I also remember that the terminator survived because he got stamped into the ground not that he was tough enough to resist being stepped on. Which is the problem when a titan steps on a tank, it cant sink into the ground so is crushed.

Andrew

Are terminators really that super vulnerable to 1D AP- infantry dakka? They might lose a guy here and there but in the end they mostly die to heavier multidamage weapons.

80 points of devilgaunts can fire 30 S4 shots and do little over 1W to a TEQ model. A full 240 point squad firing twice and doing 180 S4 shots in total for 2CP might take out 3-4 terminators (or Intercessors in cover.....*cough*)

That extra wound helped a lot against small arms fire. What Termies need is help against medium firepower, S5+ -1/-2 AP D2 weapons with a high volume of fire. Against big stuff they have invulnerable saves and prayers.

Kitane wrote:
Are terminators really that super vulnerable to 1D AP- infantry dakka? They might lose a guy here and there but in the end they mostly die to heavier multidamage weapons.

80 points of devilgaunts can fire 30 S4 shots and do little over 1W to a TEQ model. A full 240 point squad firing twice and doing 180 S4 shots in total for 2CP might take out 3-4 terminators (or Intercessors in cover.....*cough*)

That extra wound helped a lot against small arms fire. What Termies need is help against medium firepower, S5+ -1/-2 AP D2 weapons with a high volume of fire. Against big stuff they have invulnerable saves and prayers.

The problem is there is massive amounts of -1ap and -2ap shots in the game right now with re-rolls.

Harlequins are pretty good at the moment but it would be nice to have alternative models for the Death Jester and Shadowseer, maybe something along the lines of the GSC Broodcoven which essentially has an alternative "broodlord" and Magus. I feel the army needs just another unit to flesh it out - a large character that brings heavy firepower to the table, maybe an alterative Wraithlord or something.

Eldar! I'm not pursuing them as an 8th / 9th edition army, but the models present in Kill Team ought to be the top priority for GW to update as they are models used in two popular games. Naturally all the Aspects need a make over, as Finecast is job to clean up, but those make the most sense. Being as there is already a plastic Dire Avenger kit, I'm surprised Asurmen wasn't updated as well. DAs are not my cup of tea, but Asurmen is the primary and most iconic phoenix lord.

One thing I would definitely change about the Eldar army are the Guardians; both rules and kits. On the rules side, return the guardians to 5-20 model units, and maybe allow for the option for the gun crew to become its own heavy unit. This would open up a lot of options for smaller games. The current Guardian kit is great value for those wanting to make a Defender squad, but very expensive for a Storm squad - it'll soon be £25 for the guardians and then a further £11 for the weapon sprue. Thats £36 just to get those Stormies...

The Ynnari are having an identify crisis and unless its sorted out then Gee-Dubs needs to drop it. Its a faction that requires at least one codex and a supplement, and although it boasts units from all three Eldar factions...you can't have them in mixed detachments. Going forward I'd have their rules appended to the 9th edition Harlequin Codex so that a new Ynnari player at least has only one book to purchase and can use Harlequins as a foundation. Alternatively, just release a dedicated Codex Ynnari and select appropriate units from the three other Eldar factions.

While we're on the subject - Start Collecting sets for both Harlequins and Ynnari, already! For the Harlequin set, a Shadowseer, Troupe and Starweaver would be ideal for new players(pun not intended). Ynnari? No idea. If they allowed mixed units...Banshees, Wyches, Skyweavers and a Farseer. Ynnari are close quarters inclined so that seems reasonable?

The problem is the fluff is written mainly from an imperial/ Space Marine perspective where all of their units are awesome.
40K is just filled with a lot of stuff that doesn't really care about your tank armour. People should accept that terminator-like units probably work best in a kill team setting, in 40K however, they get a melter to the face or a whole regiment firing their lasguns at them and die - as it should be.
If you make terminators unkillable, you'll have to do the same to plague marines, meganobs, wraith guard, lychguard and probably some tyranid creatures I'm not familiar with. In the end you have unkillable death stars like in 7th and need the introduction of D-Weapons to kill them...

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The problem is the fluff is written mainly from an imperial/ Space Marine perspective where all of their units are awesome.
40K is just filled with a lot of stuff that doesn't really care about your tank armour. People should accept that terminator-like units probably work best in a kill team setting, in 40K however, they get a melter to the face or a whole regiment firing their lasguns at them and die - as it should be.
If you make terminators unkillable, you'll have to do the same to plague marines, meganobs, wraith guard, lychguard and probably some tyranid creatures I'm not familiar with. In the end you have unkillable death stars like in 7th and need the introduction of D-Weapons to kill them...

I think there are shades to this though, I think it should be possible to reach a middle ground where they don't feel as useless as they are now and are not unkillable at the same time.

As for wishlisting, I'm a custodes player, so I feel my dudes are not in a terrible spot, but they suffer from similar issue as terminators. They came out early this expansion and power creep just made them not as tanky anymore. They are still tanky, but considering how much each model costs, you still get shot off the board way too easily. Maybe war of the spider will bring some needed buffs and the new cp generation and terrain rules in 9th will fix some other issues the golden bananaboys have.
What i want though is a hetaeron guard kit with more unique archeotech weapon options, cause I'm greedy.

I also hope Eldar and imperial guard get new kits for their aspect warriors and different regiments respectively. They really deserve it. I also want a new genestealer kit and new units for the harlequins, the murder clowns deserve a bit more variety.

Tiberias wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The problem is the fluff is written mainly from an imperial/ Space Marine perspective where all of their units are awesome.
40K is just filled with a lot of stuff that doesn't really care about your tank armour. People should accept that terminator-like units probably work best in a kill team setting, in 40K however, they get a melter to the face or a whole regiment firing their lasguns at them and die - as it should be.
If you make terminators unkillable, you'll have to do the same to plague marines, meganobs, wraith guard, lychguard and probably some tyranid creatures I'm not familiar with. In the end you have unkillable death stars like in 7th and need the introduction of D-Weapons to kill them...

I think there are shades to this though, I think it should be possible to reach a middle ground where they don't feel as useless as they are now and are not unkillable at the same time.

As for wishlisting, I'm a custodes player, so I feel my dudes are not in a terrible spot, but they suffer from similar issue as terminators. They came out early this expansion and power creep just made them not as tanky anymore.

Yeah, them and literally every unit in every army in the game. Nothing feels particularly durable at this point except for 3++ invuln protected characters you generally can't focus any meaningful fire on.

For a game that's supposed to be centered around these super crazy expensive, customizable plastic models that you spend hours upon hours painting, Games Workshop sure as hell doesn't think people want those models to stick around on the table at all. Just today they previewed gak for IKs that's like "Autohit with your reaper chaincannon! Guarantee max shots with your armiger autocannons! New edition, max shots on random shot weapons vs hordes, yippee, we just looooooooooooooooove painting models for hours on end for them to last .001s when they hit the table!"

In previous editions, I always felt like I was forced to play the game with a handful of transport models and the real models I had painted sat off on the side of the table most of the game while the tranports moved around. This edition, it's like nothing is allowed to be tough. Take elite units - nope, everything has a billion AP, and if elite units don't feel elite enough we'll slap free AP on 'em like it's fething candy. OK, GW, you don't want elites, what if I take big units? We'll release armies that can guarantee 6 damage on their damage rolls, or we'll put in strats and weapons that allow piles and piles of mortal wounds. OK, guess we're down to super-cheap hordes then, is that the way I'm allowed to have an army that stays on the board? NOPE, too hard to kill, too possible to last until turn 3, gotta have max shots on random shot weapons guaranteed.

Tiberias wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:
The problem is the fluff is written mainly from an imperial/ Space Marine perspective where all of their units are awesome.
40K is just filled with a lot of stuff that doesn't really care about your tank armour. People should accept that terminator-like units probably work best in a kill team setting, in 40K however, they get a melter to the face or a whole regiment firing their lasguns at them and die - as it should be.
If you make terminators unkillable, you'll have to do the same to plague marines, meganobs, wraith guard, lychguard and probably some tyranid creatures I'm not familiar with. In the end you have unkillable death stars like in 7th and need the introduction of D-Weapons to kill them...

I think there are shades to this though, I think it should be possible to reach a middle ground where they don't feel as useless as they are now and are not unkillable at the same time.

As for wishlisting, I'm a custodes player, so I feel my dudes are not in a terrible spot, but they suffer from similar issue as terminators. They came out early this expansion and power creep just made them not as tanky anymore. They are still tanky, but considering how much each model costs, you still get shot off the board way too easily. Maybe war of the spider will bring some needed buffs and the new cp generation and terrain rules in 9th will fix some other issues the golden bananaboys have.
What i want though is a hetaeron guard kit with more unique archeotech weapon options, cause I'm greedy.

I also hope Eldar and imperial guard get new kits for their aspect warriors and different regiments respectively. They really deserve it. I also want a new genestealer kit and new units for the harlequins, the murder clowns deserve a bit more variety.

What Custodes need, I think, is a plastic Coronus. I've got some resin ones and I find the eighteen wounds under the Vexilla Magnifica lets me actually deliver Wardens to melee intact for a not unreasonable points burden (and provides some nice reliable screen-clearing firepower), but $185 US for a Land Raider-equivalent is ludicrous.

Unfortunatly my personal Impression matches quite well with the Scotsman. It seems with every CA, supplement or other update there is continuous increase in firepower and much less in durability. When greater good hit I was unpleasantly surprised about all the stratagems for more IG firepower even if I play them

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes. An AT gun should penetrate terminators easily. They aren't tanks and don't have tank-level armor.

Umm... yeah they do. That's what Terminator armour is.

It physically can't be. Having joints and such prevents it. Doesn't matter what the fluff claims.

Exceedingly advanced and rare materials plus a force field is enough to make that work. It'd just be too expensive to make a tank out of the same stuff, or doctrine/logistics would somehow prevent it.

Terminators aren't tank-armored in the fluff either, though. It was designed as a blend of Dreadnought and Power Armor to provide near-dreadnought capability where a dreadnought could not go.

That puts it in the "light vehicle" category of resiliency, which is very impressive for infantry but not like a Land Raider, Predator, or Leman Russ tank.

I'm not in a position to pull fluff at the moment, but we had two decades where anti-tank missiles bounced off Terminator Armor on a 2+, and this edition it still provides a better save than the Predator and Leman Russ before you get to the invuln.

It's generally been depicted as pretty dang tough stuff. Imo, it's Land Raider class armor with weak points to facilitate movement, and the failure point in comparison to tanks (which also have weak points like treads) is often the meat inside it. The weapons capable of reliably defeating the armor would be generally catastrophic to the wearer, as opposed to a tank which has a bunch of non-critical space inside it.

Its a matching process though. They add more firepower because its deemed a solution to the fact everyone's packing -1s to hit, or 5++/6+++ saves etc.

The problem is you then turn it on people who don't have such defensive boosts and table them in 2 turns.

I mean if you want to be tough right now, play sisters. Hello 3+/6++ (or better)/6+++ while ignoring AP1 and potentially 2.

But then if you are still shooting/defending like an army from 2017, this is kind of obnoxious. You don't do very much and then you get tabled.

CA has been good because people at least go down in points - but codex creep has remained a problem.

But GW will never holistically design the game and then leave it for 3 years. I don't think this is greed - just the realities of business. They want people to buy new rules, and new armies, and that means giving them stuff. Then giving the next generation solutions to that stuff. This edition won't be any different.

Tyel wrote:
Its a matching process though. They add more firepower because its deemed a solution to the fact everyone's packing -1s to hit, or 5++/6+++ saves etc...

Sometimes? They also add more firepower because they've designed certain armies (Tau, Guard) to be one-dimensional leafblowers that can only win games by making sure nothing ever touches them, and then just buff their firepower instead of fixing the actual problem of one-dimensional leafblowers making the game incredibly dull. Most of my games against Guard come down to "Can I touch all the tanks? Yay! I win!" or "I couldn't touch all the tanks! Crap! I lose!".

Guard have a magnificent CC counter unit though. Its' on them if they are greedy and don't use it.

Unfortunatly my personal Impression matches quite well with the Scotsman. It seems with every CA, supplement or other update there is continuous increase in firepower and much less in durability. When greater good hit I was unpleasantly surprised about all the stratagems for more IG firepower even if I play them

I'm not disagreeing with that.
Personally (but that's probably more on topic for the general thread) I'd be open for a whole list of modifiers to shooting:

-1 to hit the target when you're more than half of your max range away
- 1 to hit when the firing unit lost a model last turn
- 1 to hit when firing unit had to do a morale check last turn
-1 to hit when enemy unit is obscured (anything that's between firing and target unit means the target unist is obscured, don't look for each model, unit counts)
+1 to hit when firing unit didn't move
+1 to hit when firing at vehicles and monsters
-1 to hit if you fire all of your shots with twin weapons
+1 to hit if you fire half of your shots with twin weapons

gets hot is only on a natural 1, natural 6's always hit. Pistols, grenades and weapons with a random number of shots ignore these (or some of them, adjust accordingly).

Knowing GW, even if they implement modifiers like these half of the armies in the game probably ignore 2/3 of these after the first round of Codizes, but it's an idea to tone down shooting without needing to rewrite all shooting weapons in the game.

Improved CSMs for chaos, or some kind of incentive to take them over Cultists

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Unfortunatly my personal Impression matches quite well with the Scotsman. It seems with every CA, supplement or other update there is continuous increase in firepower and much less in durability. When greater good hit I was unpleasantly surprised about all the stratagems for more IG firepower even if I play them

I'm not disagreeing with that.
Personally (but that's probably more on topic for the general thread) I'd be open for a whole list of modifiers to shooting:

-1 to hit the target when you're more than half of your max range away
- 1 to hit when the firing unit lost a model last turn
- 1 to hit when firing unit had to do a morale check last turn
-1 to hit when enemy unit is obscured (anything that's between firing and target unit means the target unist is obscured, don't look for each model, unit counts)
+1 to hit when firing unit didn't move
+1 to hit when firing at vehicles and monsters
-1 to hit if you fire all of your shots with twin weapons
+1 to hit if you fire half of your shots with twin weapons

gets hot is only on a natural 1, natural 6's always hit. Pistols, grenades and weapons with a random number of shots ignore these (or some of them, adjust accordingly).

Knowing GW, even if they implement modifiers like these half of the armies in the game probably ignore 2/3 of these after the first round of Codizes, but it's an idea to tone down shooting without needing to rewrite all shooting weapons in the game.

The bolded bits are basically synonyms. If you lose any models, you take a morale test.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Kitane wrote:
Are terminators really that super vulnerable to 1D AP- infantry dakka? They might lose a guy here and there but in the end they mostly die to heavier multidamage weapons.

80 points of devilgaunts can fire 30 S4 shots and do little over 1W to a TEQ model. A full 240 point squad firing twice and doing 180 S4 shots in total for 2CP might take out 3-4 terminators (or Intercessors in cover.....*cough*)

That extra wound helped a lot against small arms fire. What Termies need is help against medium firepower, S5+ -1/-2 AP D2 weapons with a high volume of fire. Against big stuff they have invulnerable saves and prayers.

The problem is there is massive amounts of -1ap and -2ap shots in the game right now with re-rolls.

Aye, and this was the nice thing about the 2nd Ed save of 3+ on 2D6. Light weapons still had an uphill battle against the armor because of the probability curve. A -2 save modifier (a 2nd Ed Heavy Bolter) still gave the equivalent of a 2+ on a single D6 to the Terminator. A Boltgun had a 1/12 chance to pen, a Lasgun a 1/36.

I do hope eldar get some help with durability. Paying near marine prices for guard durability with shorter range guns than both doesn't encourage craftworlds infantry much, especially since our main defence, being hard to hit, has been essentially removed from the game.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Unfortunatly my personal Impression matches quite well with the Scotsman. It seems with every CA, supplement or other update there is continuous increase in firepower and much less in durability. When greater good hit I was unpleasantly surprised about all the stratagems for more IG firepower even if I play them

I'm not disagreeing with that.
Personally (but that's probably more on topic for the general thread) I'd be open for a whole list of modifiers to shooting:

-1 to hit the target when you're more than half of your max range away
- 1 to hit when the firing unit lost a model last turn
- 1 to hit when firing unit had to do a morale check last turn
-1 to hit when enemy unit is obscured (anything that's between firing and target unit means the target unist is obscured, don't look for each model, unit counts)
+1 to hit when firing unit didn't move
+1 to hit when firing at vehicles and monsters
-1 to hit if you fire all of your shots with twin weapons
+1 to hit if you fire half of your shots with twin weapons

gets hot is only on a natural 1, natural 6's always hit. Pistols, grenades and weapons with a random number of shots ignore these (or some of them, adjust accordingly).

Knowing GW, even if they implement modifiers like these half of the armies in the game probably ignore 2/3 of these after the first round of Codizes, but it's an idea to tone down shooting without needing to rewrite all shooting weapons in the game.

The bolded bits are basically synonyms. If you lose any models, you take a morale test.

Well, it's worded poorly right now from my side probably. What I meant is you get a -1 to hit if you lose any model in the unit and an additional -1 to hit when you lost so many models that the unit had to roll for morale (and I don't even care if a model actually fled, the unit has been hit so much so that they struggle to keep morale). Both of these are to simulate a pinning effect.

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

Unfortunatly my personal Impression matches quite well with the Scotsman. It seems with every CA, supplement or other update there is continuous increase in firepower and much less in durability. When greater good hit I was unpleasantly surprised about all the stratagems for more IG firepower even if I play them

I'm not disagreeing with that.
Personally (but that's probably more on topic for the general thread) I'd be open for a whole list of modifiers to shooting:

-1 to hit the target when you're more than half of your max range away
- 1 to hit when the firing unit lost a model last turn
- 1 to hit when firing unit had to do a morale check last turn
-1 to hit when enemy unit is obscured (anything that's between firing and target unit means the target unist is obscured, don't look for each model, unit counts)
+1 to hit when firing unit didn't move
+1 to hit when firing at vehicles and monsters
-1 to hit if you fire all of your shots with twin weapons
+1 to hit if you fire half of your shots with twin weapons

gets hot is only on a natural 1, natural 6's always hit. Pistols, grenades and weapons with a random number of shots ignore these (or some of them, adjust accordingly).

Knowing GW, even if they implement modifiers like these half of the armies in the game probably ignore 2/3 of these after the first round of Codizes, but it's an idea to tone down shooting without needing to rewrite all shooting weapons in the game.

The bolded bits are basically synonyms. If you lose any models, you take a morale test.

Well, it's worded poorly right now from my side probably. What I meant is you get a -1 to hit if you lose any model in the unit and an additional -1 to hit when you lost so many models that the unit had to roll for morale (and I don't even care if a model actually fled, the unit has been hit so much so that they struggle to keep morale). Both of these are to simulate a pinning effect.

In 8e a unit has to roll for morale if they lose a single model, whether or not they could fail. It's not important most of the time (except for the Daemon Icons of regenerate models on a 1 on a morale test) but your suggestion here would give a unit -2 to hit if they lost a single model.

 kingheff wrote:
I do hope eldar get some help with durability. Paying near marine prices for guard durability with shorter range guns than both doesn't encourage craftworlds infantry much, especially since our main defence, being hard to hit, has been essentially removed from the game.

The Shuriken Catapult should be waaay better than it is. The 12" range suuuuucks.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 kingheff wrote:
I do hope eldar get some help with durability. Paying near marine prices for guard durability with shorter range guns than both doesn't encourage craftworlds infantry much, especially since our main defence, being hard to hit, has been essentially removed from the game.

The Shuriken Catapult should be waaay better than it is. The 12" range suuuuucks.

It's unlikely to change. Given GW's tunnel-vision obsession with very specific numbers if they bumped up the range of normal shuriken catapults they'd feel they had to bump up the range of Avenger Shuriken Catapults accordingly, and I doubt they'd push those to 24".

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 kingheff wrote:
I do hope eldar get some help with durability. Paying near marine prices for guard durability with shorter range guns than both doesn't encourage craftworlds infantry much, especially since our main defence, being hard to hit, has been essentially removed from the game.

The Shuriken Catapult should be waaay better than it is. The 12" range suuuuucks.

It's unlikely to change. Given GW's tunnel-vision obsession with very specific numbers if they bumped up the range of normal shuriken catapults they'd feel they had to bump up the range of Avenger Shuriken Catapults accordingly, and I doubt they'd push those to 24".

Which is crazy, imo. If the new "marine standard" is Intercessors, it's practically marine-centric cowardice to not allow Avengers a 24" range two-shot S4 gun. (An inferior Storm Bolter, on a T3, 4+sv Troop, ffs)

The Shuriken Catapult had problems before 8th, but the Primaris+Doctrines thing just exacerbates it like ten-fold. I sincerely hope 9th Ed. re-levels some of this stuff.

 Insectum7 wrote:
...marine-centric cowardice...

An apt description of GW's design philosophy.