BA and CA 2.0

[Julius Firefocht]

Rather than increase the wounds for all Marine models across the board, I think the entire concept of weaponry in 8th Ed needs to be revisited and reclassified into 2 categories: Anti-tank and anti-personnel.

 

Its fine to give anti-tank weapons access to multiple damage per wound, but make sure they are not able to fire off more than 1 shot per turn.

 

Anti-personnel weapons can have multiple shots per turn, but make sure they deal only 1 damage with no exceptions.

 

The main issue with Marine fragility stems from the easy access to "all-purpose" weapons such as Drukhari Disintegrator Cannons and equivalents to overcharged Plasma shots.. basically weapons with multiple shots that are high strength, high AP and deal at least 2 damage per shot.

 

This issue needs to be addressed even before the Marine point values are revised, otherwise whatever changes that CA2 will apply to Blood Angels and Marines are going to be nothing but sales smoke.

[Charlo]

So, what you described is already happening. It's just the issue is wounds on infantry are inherently made less effective by anti-tank weapons.

 

It's the balance between a high points cost anti-tank weapon shooting at relatively low cost infantry. Then you have mid strength, 2D, high shot weaponry that excels everywhere.

 

It's say something that will never balance out, unless you start doing things like "Lascannons and missile launchers have a -1 to hit against infantry" or a similar rule, so they are more encouraged to shoot vehicles.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

So, what you described is already happening. It's just the issue is wounds on infantry are inherently made less effective by anti-tank weapons.

 

It's the balance between a high points cost anti-tank weapon shooting at relatively low cost infantry. Then you have mid strength, 2D, high shot weaponry that excels everywhere.

 

It's say something that will never balance out, unless you start doing things like "Lascannons and missile launchers have a -1 to hit against infantry" or a similar rule, so they are more encouraged to shoot vehicles.

But frag missiles are specifically made for anti-infantry weaponry, there would need to be some level of medium there.

 

I would rather prefer the 5th edition integration of how ranged weapons work compared to what we have now. That or they need to modify saves like in 8th edition WHFB where you could have a better than 2+ save against modifiers. I.e. storm shields reduced to a 4++ or worse with a +1 or better to the armor save characteristic of the model. 1s always failing but work towards modifiers.

[Panzer]

You already can have a better armour save than a 2+ tho. You could technically have a -2+ save which would only mean that 1s always fail and against AP-5 you'd have a 3+ save and so on. (note: numbers are completely imaginary as the best save I know about would be Sv2+ infantry in Cities of Death ruins for a 0+ save)

[Kallas]

You already can have a better armour save than a 2+ tho. You could technically have a -2+ save which would only mean that 1s always fail and against AP-5 you'd have a 3+ save and so on. (note: numbers are completely imaginary as the best save I know about would be Sv2+ infantry in Cities of Death ruins for a 0+ save)

Bullgryn can have a -1+ Save: Base, 4+; Slabshields, 2+ (or whichever the not-invulnerable one is); cover, 1+; Take Cover stratagem, 0+; Psychic Barrier power, -1+.

[Charlo]

I think a lot of people should temper their expectations for CA2.

 

Beyond points, I'm positive we will see no changes. While I wish it weren't true it's probably the case.

 

However, with the all but confirmation that we'll see Dante (and maybe other characters...?) become Primaris by drinking the magical mango juice*, I'm guessing we'll see a campaign based update in the not too distant future in one of the next Vigilus books or otherwise.

 

*The Machine that upscales marines is called the "Rubicon Primaris", for those not in the know - Rubicon is also this:

 

[keeblerartillery]

Mango makes everything better- I'll buy that enough mango juice will make marines moar marine.

[Spagunk]

"Rubicon" is also a model of Jeep here in the states.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I must have all the mangos.

[brother_b]

I shall name my GSC cult "brotherhood of the fizzy mango" and they shall drive rubicons.

[dice4thedicegod]

I thought the rubic con was something Ahriman had pulled?

[durdle-durdle]

I thought the rubic con was something Ahriman had pulled?

that's the rubric of ahriman.

[Paladin777]

Back on topic; I hope that terminators come down in points far enough to be viable, tartaros termies look flippin’ sweet!

[Karhedron]

Back on topic; I hope that terminators come down in points far enough to be viable, tartaros termies look flippin’ sweet!

 

The rumour I have seen has Termies coming down by 3 points. Not sure if that is all flavours though. Not sure that 15 points per squad is going to be enough to make them viable unless there is also a drop in Power Fist prices.

 

Don't get me wrong, price drops for Marine infantry are welcome but the values they are talking about are tinkering round the edges, not deep discounts.

[Charlo]

I've got so many BA Terminators to paint up from when I was planning 7th Ed Archangels Shenanigans, i'd love to be able to use them effectively.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

 

 

 

Back on topic; I hope that terminators come down in points far enough to be viable, tartaros termies look flippin’ sweet!

The rumour I have seen has Termies coming down by 3 points. Not sure if that is all flavours though. Not sure that 15 points per squad is going to be enough to make them viable unless there is also a drop in Power Fist prices.

 

Don't get me wrong, price drops for Marine infantry are welcome but the values they are talking about are tinkering round the edges, not deep discounts.

Ive experienced no reason for that unit to be 200 points. Dropping down 15points wouldn't be enough. They really need to drop a minimum of 35 before upgrades.

 

If that's what we get then that's what we get, and I still won't field them.

[Karhedron]

Terminators have struggled with viability for several editions. GW seem to have them pegged at roughly 3x the cost of a Tactical Marine. This suffers from the problem that they are rarely 3x as effective and Tactical marines are hardly setting the tournament scene on fire as it is.

 

GW seems to overprice generalists compared to specialists. A model that has both a good gun and a good melee weapon will struggle to use both effectively for the duration of a battle as one or the other will usually end up being redundant for at least some of the time. Shooty and melee orientated units are easier to use as you know what you have to do to get value out of them. 1 shooty and 1 melee unit will usually give a better return on their points than 2 generalist units. This is why Eldar tend to be upper tier in most editions as their "thing" is hyper-specialised units. GW need to give all-rounder units from most armies a discount.

[Quixus]

On top of that their survivability has decreased over several editions, through plasma spam and recently with armour modifiers. 2+ is not what it yoused to be but it is still priced accordingly.

[Panzer]

Not just that. GW also over values durability compared with offensive capabilities. History has shown that glass cannons are always more competetive than the other side of the spectrum and that's hardly surprising if you think about it. The more damage output a unit has the more you kill the less the enemy has to kill your stuff or to score otherwise, while a unit with low damage output but high durability doesn't really contribute to the game except being there so the enemy can shoot at it.

GW might have assumed that durable units can sit on objectives for longer and score that way more reliably but that doesn't exactly work if you give each faction tons of weapons to deal with those durable units (looking at you plasma and grav). Not to mention that Terminators aren't exactly portrait as objective camping squads.

[Morticon]

Not just that. GW also over values durability compared with offensive capabilities. History has shown that glass cannons are always more competetive than the other side of the spectrum and that's hardly surprising if you think about it. The more damage output a unit has the more you kill the less the enemy has to kill your stuff or to score otherwise, while a unit with low damage output but high durability doesn't really contribute to the game except being there so the enemy can shoot at it.

GW might have assumed that durable units can sit on objectives for longer and score that way more reliably but that doesn't exactly work if you give each faction tons of weapons to deal with those durable units (looking at you plasma and grav). Not to mention that Terminators aren't exactly portrait as objective camping squads.

 

 

Ding ding ding!!!!!  

 

This is exactly it, or at least what it appears to be.   The books (all of them, though some done better than others) appear to points balance units without consideration to what can reliably kill it in another army. 

 

Instead, it's almost as if GW designers think: "Okay, so, a Terminator is X points, a Guardsman is Y points, how many guardsmen does it take to kill a terminator"

 

.....bro beans....we're not using infantry to kill terminators!!! 

 

 

 

[durdle-durdle]

 

Instead, it's almost as if GW designers think: "Okay, so, a Terminator is X points, a Guardsman is Y points, how many guardsmen does it take to kill a terminator"

 

.....bro beans....we're not using infantry to kill terminators!!!

 

 

 

Well, at least not infantry with just lasrifles anyways. I usually run up against melta toting guard squads and blaster dark eldar.

[Morticon]

 

Instead, it's almost as if GW designers think: "Okay, so, a Terminator is X points, a Guardsman is Y points, how many guardsmen does it take to kill a terminator"

 

.....bro beans....we're not using infantry to kill terminators!!!

 

 

Well, at least not infantry with just lasrifles anyways. I usually run up against melta toting guard squads and blaster dark eldar.

 

Precisely, yeh! 

[Lynnean]

Yeah, they tend to value defensive capabilities too high. 
On the other hand, noone would like to play a game where durable units are almost unkillable. Would take the fun out of the game really quickly. 

[Quixus]

Yeah, they tend to value defensive capabilities too high. 

On the other hand, noone would like to play a game where durable units are almost unkillable. Would take the fun out of the game really quickly.

The thing is that is how TDA is described in the fluff. They are not noted for exceptional damage output. Storm bolters and power fists can be used by PA marines as well.

[Charlo]

The extra wound Terminators got was mostly the answer to all of their problems!

 

...In 7th Edition.

 

And this is the same for Primaris too, they're an upgraded marines design for 8th ed that was clearly made with 7th in mind, when weapons didn't have a Damage value.