Another theory thread from me. A lot of ideas will be thrown out, I'm sure some are wrong. I'm interested to hear what people think.

The primary focus here is Marines. But from the opposite side - instead of buffing Marines, lets talk about rebalancing weapons! So, clearly, there'll be a lot of OP gak that this won't fix that's already op.

So, to start, lets look at basic special weapons. Unless otherwise stated, same changes apply to all factions who have the weapon or similar.

Plas:
-Normal fire: S6
-Overcharge: S7 D1. On a 1 to hit, the shooting model takes 1 mortal wound.

Melta:
-Instead of reroll damage within half range, becomes +d3 damage within half range.

Flamer:
-All former templates that became d6 autohits instead become 2d6, cannot generate more hits than there are models in the target unit
-Flamers gain "May fire this weapon during Overwatch regardless of distance." (Just Flamers themselves, for now)

This is just a start. Should I continue or not?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mods - very sorry, meant to post in Proposed Rules. Is there a way I can move this?

(edit - updated based on feedback.)

Still no ideas for Grav.

Plasma needs to be nerfed a bit, but the other "solutions" are way too strong for the cost and would break the meta in other ways.

I actually miss the vehicle damage table, and it might show above. I'd love it if even 1 melta gun were actually scary again, but might be overdoing it. The idea is a Tac squad with 1 or 2 is going to be very scary if not dealt with, but a Fire Dragon or Sternie squad with 10 should be overkill on anything short of a Titan. I'd be intereseted in hearing your thoughts (should be buffed? if so, how much?).

I feel like Flamers need a buff. I'm blanking on Templates that don't. Maybe Scytheguard don't. But the Flamer change is a sidegrade - sure, you're hitting Guardsmen more, but you're hitting vehicles and individuals less. So better at why you should take one. Worse at things you shouldn't take it for.

The flamer stuff seems good enough - they are still expensive, still useless at deepstrike, and the change both buffs them (against hordes) while nerfting them (against everything else).

Melta could perhaps do with something more targeted, such as +1 to wound <vehicle> targets within half distance.

Flamers should get roll 2 dice choose the highest.
Meltas should cause and additional d3 mortal wounds within half range but drop rolling two dice.
Plasma should Get Hot on a natural 1.

I think the flamer change is interesting, because it makes it more powerful against its intended targets (hordes), while weakening it against its unintended targets (vehicles). I don't think melta weapons need a buff, as they are still used in competitive lists, due to being actually very good when they are in the right spot. Their short range is a real penalty, but you do get a very real benefit when you overcome that obstacle. I know that my big heavy hitters are still very scared when those meltas get in range. Two melta hits can kill a light vehicle, or cripple just about any vehicle with degrading profiles. That's pretty awesome.

I agree with Elbows that, right now, Plasma is just too reliable in all situations. I like that the concept of "overcharge" instead of the flat "kills the user on a 1" from previous editions, but the increase to both Strength AND Damage makes Overcharging the right thing to do nearly all the time. I think making it either +1S OR +1 Damage would be good enough. It's at the critical S7/S8 threshold, which is why the +1 Strength is not just useful, but often CRITICAL, and doubling your damage is also immensely helpful. Having both is, frankly, absurd.

The reason I don't like mortal wounds on Meltas is that Storm Shields and demons should give them a very bad day. I like that it can only hurt one model, and ignores any armor, but not invulns.

I like the 'Natural 1' concept, not sure it's enough of a change and might be a bit too wordy?

Melta should double strength inside melta range. It needs reliability in causing damage to heavy targets.

Flamers D6 + 1 per 5 models in target unit. Not a flat buff.

I think the flamers are fine at d6, but the range should be increased. Maybe to 12"? That way it's an actual anti-charge gun, instead of just being...Well, useless..

Melta just needs a price reduction, BADLY. Like, down to 13 or something.

Plasma would be pretty good at strength 6, 7 on overcharge, but keeping its -3 and 1/2 damage. It should be anti-elite, but NOT anti-tank, like it so often is.

Melta fails way too many wound rolls in practice. It's current value is less than 13. A lot less.

Part of why I like bringing it to 1 damage in both profiles is that the D:2 is a large part of why it overshadows melta.

I think there's some concern about templates being used on deepstrike, although the flamer itself isn't what most people would fear on the deepstrike. Not sure if Overwatch shouldn't be considered to be in range regardless, but I think that'd be a long discussion.

I agree that plasma should start at S6 just like Tau plasma, which was always said to be a bit weaker, but stable. Now it's even weaker compared to stable imperial plasma, which doesn't seem very fluffy. Bring it down to S6/S7, keep D1/2. If it's still too strong, adjust points.

Flamers: Keep them as they are but add +1D3 hits for every 5 models in the target unit. OR: simply bring them down to 5points again...

Melta: I like Sim-lifes suggestion. 2D6 damage within half range seems excessive.

Wouldn't d3 mortal wounds be worth more than d6 wounds in a lot of situations where Melta isn't appropriate? Would +d3 wounds make more sense?

I do want to keep Melta as super deadly when it connects, instead of increasing it's probability of connecting. It makes each successive Melta in a unit have a substantially lower expected value. Making a squad with 6-9 Meltas worth much less than triple a squad that has 2-3 Meltas.

Everything overshadows melta. That's a poor standard.

Just as another thought for Melta, but what about a simple +1 to wound rolls at half range? Better reflects the old half-range bonus and gives it back its niche as an anti-big target special weapon compared to Plasma.

Flamers are okay. I think they just need a price reduction. I like their role in overwatch, though having a rule that let them roll an additional D6 against larger units would be good too (Grav Flux Bombard is a good example).

Plasma is certainly powerful, but I'm rather fond of how well it works. Dropping strength would likely be the appropriate solution.

Melta needs some rethinking. I've never really liked it as a gun type as its always felt like it could be a more creative anti-armor solution. Something like when a unit attacks, if the melta hits, the target is at a lower toughness for all the wound rolls for the unit's attacks or something.

I think most plasma is in a good place. It's not cheap to run and as such balances out.

As for the melta i think the within half range, +1 to wound and 6 damage. over half range normal wound and D6 Damage

For flamers. difficult to balance especially with all flamer variants. Buff normal flamers, how much does that buff the giant flamers? I personally think flamers are in a good position if they did change it would be a how many hits thing only.

Why not just flip some rules around? There are lots of weapons that wound troops on X and vehicles on <X. For instance wounds on 2+ unless it's a vehicle then 6+. Why not have meltas wound vehicles on a 2+ and all others on a 5+. And/or make it so meltas do more wounds to vehicles than non vehicles.

As to flamers the biggest thing that I think would help is to allow them to be used against charges regardless of the starting range of the charging unit. Also I think that range should be a function of the weaon's category. Normal assault flamers should be 8", heavy flamers 10" and, vehicle mounted flamers 12".

Flamers: Need the Catachan treatment. 2d6 drop the lower helps to normalize their shots a bit more while also gives a bit more chance at the upside. 2 point stormbolter inside of rapid fire range "averages" about as many hits from a BS 3+ model as a flamer... for like 7 points less?

Melta: Give it a table to increase damage as the weapon closes range:

Meltagun:
> 9" = Str 8
6-9" = Str 12
< 6" = Str 16

Multi-melta:
> 18" = Str 8
12-18" = Str 12
< 12" = Str 16

Plasma:
Needs to be either STR 6/7 or 1 damage. The 8 STR 2 damage profile is just way too good for the "cost". To keep the current profile, though, maybe changing it from rapid fire 1 to assault 1 (or even heavy 1 to add a bit more risk to moving + overcharging) would be enough. The biggest problem I see with plasma comes in the form of the plasma gun.

All flame throwers need a 2" buff and 2D3 instead of D6.

All melta weapons need to be assault D3 instead of assault 1. Multi-Meltas need to be Heavy D3 as well. They are pretty good as is.

Everything else should stay the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Flamers: Need the Catachan treatment. 2d6 drop the lower helps to normalize their shots a bit more while also gives a bit more chance at the upside. 2 point stormbolter inside of rapid fire range "averages" about as many hits from a BS 3+ model as a flamer... for like 7 points less?

This would be cumbersome and ruin the weapons. Storm bolters do exactly what they should do already....

Flamers should work on overwatch regardless of distance or LOS. That should be enough for them.

I personally think melta-guns are fine, but need a point reduction. They are just extremely expensive. Rules-wise they're fine. We have added a single house-rule to our games though which I feel is fluffy/cool. A weapon with the melta rule (i.e. the roll two dice within 1/2 range) adds +1 to the chance of a vehicle exploding, so most explode on a 5+. It's not crazy potent, if anything it's more dangerous to the unit firing, but it seems fun so far.

Flamers should absolutely NOT be in range after deep strike, and this is very obviously why they were designed the range they have. I would actually be okay with heavy flamers having extended range instead of increased damage/strength (after all...fire is fire for the most part). I'd be fine with an addendum which states they cannot target units with the Flyer battlefield role. I'm actually fine with the D6 autohits. I think flamers will a role in the game and aren't insanely expensive.

Plasma is just broken as it is - and is very much "the" gun to take in most situations. This needs fixing, and not just cost-wise. I do believe GW should have instituted 'natural' dice results as it would fix a ton of issues in the game at the moment (somehow exploding and dying more often at night, or while flying, or while shooting a guy in camouflage, etc.). I personally think Plasma should have been Strength 6/7 instead of 7/8. and the default AP should be -2. I'm even okay keeping the 2 damage on the higher setting.

Possible solutions regarding melta:

Solution 1: At half range, it is AP-4, with an additional -2 against invulnerable saves. Being able to pop all of these ridiculous 3++ things running around might make it valuable.

Solution 2: Make it functionally equivalent to rapid fire, in that you get extra dice at half range to hit and wound.

Solution 3: Flat damage, which improves based on range. For instance, outside of melta range it's a flat 3 damage, inside melta range it's a flat 6.

I'm a fan of solution 1, because it gives melta a unique use case and separates it from the rest of the shooting weapons out there.

 sfshilo wrote:
All flame throwers need a 2" buff and 2D3 instead of D6.

All melta weapons need to be assault D3 instead of assault 1. Multi-Meltas need to be Heavy D3 as well. They are pretty good as is.

Everything else should stay the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Flamers: Need the Catachan treatment. 2d6 drop the lower helps to normalize their shots a bit more while also gives a bit more chance at the upside. 2 point stormbolter inside of rapid fire range "averages" about as many hits from a BS 3+ model as a flamer... for like 7 points less?

This would be cumbersome and ruin the weapons. Storm bolters do exactly what they should do already....

I never said stormbolters were bad, it was actually quite the opposite. A stormbolder, firing 4 shots where a flamer even gets an opportunity to shoot, will probably average 3 hits on a BS 3+ model. For 2 points, you're getting a weapon that performs more predictably all the time, and has a LARGE band of usefulness where the other isn't even usable. The only thing that flamers do better than stormbolters is overwatch. You're paying like 5 or 7 extra points for a weapon that is a lot less effective in all scenarios except a very tight one (being assaulted from under 8"). The stormbolter is a good weapon in the context of the game. I was just using it to point out how rough the normal flamer has it.

I would like to see Grey Knight weapons get a +1damage, because the ammo is magical. And their stormbolters getting the stratagem buff permanently.
Also let Grey knight razorbacks and dreadnoughts get hvy psycannons and psylancers, and incinerators.

A.T. wrote:
The flamer stuff seems good enough - they are still expensive, still useless at deepstrike, and the change both buffs them (against hordes) while nerfting them (against everything else).

Let's make flamers 10" so they can actually defend against assault in most cases.

I like Flamers being able to overwatch, but I also like Flamers not being able to fire on DeepStrike.

I think I like "Flamers are automatically in range during Overwatch".

Yeah, deep striking flamers could get nasty, and that is one of the reasons that they were given a range just short of deep strike. Giving them an overwatch works regardless of range rule would be a better way to buff the flamer without turning them into the deep strike death option.

One option for flamers is to give them +2-4" range if the unit didn't move in the previous move phase akin to how Aggressors work.

Bharring wrote:
I like Flamers being able to overwatch, but I also like Flamers not being able to fire on DeepStrike.

I think I like "Flamers are automatically in range during Overwatch".

Oh hell no.

Maybe if it's a flamer on an individual infantry guy. But Plagueburst Crawlers, Chimeras, just no.

 LunarSol wrote:
One option for flamers is to give them +2-4" range if the unit didn't move in the previous move phase akin to how Aggressors work.

This could work as well. Requiring no movement for the extra range would prevent deep strike shenanigans, while still providing a nice and needed buff to flamers. I actually like this better than the always can Overwatch option, as it requires a tactical sacrifice to achieve the improved Overwatch.

Don't PBC and Chimeras have a template weapon that is not a Flamer?

The first ruleschange I propose for Flamers is actually for all d6-hit templates: 2d6 hits, but no more than the models in the unit. The second fix - always in range for overwatch - I aimed only at Flamers, as I thought a blanket rule would require much more consideration. I'll update the verbage for clarity.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One concern with the +range if it didn't move is that Flamers really feel like a mobile weapon. So giving it a rule that helps only when they don't move feels counterproductive.

It could work, I'll give it more thought. Not a fan right now.

One thing that I've never really understood is people complaining about the 8 inch range on Flamers. And not being able to overwatch people charging from 8 inches away. For units that want to charge, usually they try to get as close as possible to their target so that they can minimize the chances of a failed charge. Needing an 8 to successfully charge is far from a sure thing, even with command points. If your opponents are placing their units outside of reliable charge ranges because they are afraid of overwatch from flamers, that can have a huge impact on a game where a failed charge means a unit just hangs out with its balls in the wind. This can be more dangerous than the actual over watch itself...

 akaean wrote:
One thing that I've never really understood is people complaining about the 8 inch range on Flamers. And not being able to overwatch people charging from 8 inches away.

It's because of the 9" deepstrike distance.

We don't need drastic changes.
1. Melta Guns force a -1 Penalty to Invul Saves at half distance and become 14 points. Multi-Meltas gain the same rule and get a 2 point cut
2. Flamers and Heavy Flamers ignore cover and go down 2 points

Coupled with melta’s AP, just doing wounds should be sufficient - no need to add another source of mortal wounds to Imperial soup.

What if Meltas did max damage at half-range?

Yeah - melta doesn't really need a buff - it just needs to cost less.
Plasma should probably be reworked though - you should only overheat when you rapid fire and it should just use this flat profile all the time.

Str 7 ap-3 d2

Flamers should just get re-roll wounds against infantry.

Plasma also comes in Heavy, Assault, and Pistol variants.

 LunarSol wrote:
Plasma also comes in Heavy, Assault, and Pistol variants.

Yeah, I think the best solution would be to just give both profiles -1S.

 LunarSol wrote:
Plasma also comes in Heavy, Assault, and Pistol variants.

The assault plasma has a special profile. Maybe let them keep it. Plasma cannons probably shouldn't overheat at all.

Martel732 wrote:
Melta should double strength inside melta range. It needs reliability in causing damage to heavy targets.

Agreed. Melta at half range should be rolling +2 to wound unless T16 titan.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 LunarSol wrote:
Plasma also comes in Heavy, Assault, and Pistol variants.

The assault plasma has a special profile. Maybe let them keep it. Plasma cannons probably shouldn't overheat at all.

And plasmastorm should not get 'weapon destroyed' as well. Remove that bit from the weapon and that unit is solid.

Bharring wrote:
I actually miss the vehicle damage table, and it might show above. I'd love it if even 1 melta gun were actually scary again, but might be overdoing it. The idea is a Tac squad with 1 or 2 is going to be very scary if not dealt with, but a Fire Dragon or Sternie squad with 10 should be overkill on anything short of a Titan. I'd be intereseted in hearing your thoughts (should be buffed? if so, how much?).

I feel like Flamers need a buff. I'm blanking on Templates that don't. Maybe Scytheguard don't. But the Flamer change is a sidegrade - sure, you're hitting Guardsmen more, but you're hitting vehicles and individuals less. So better at why you should take one. Worse at things you shouldn't take it for.

Couldn't you just straight up make flamers 1 mortal wound on overwatch, and bypass the range and number of hits issue all together?

Why a mortal wound, though?

Shouldn't it be much scarier to a bunch of Storm Guardians than a Custodes?

 akaean wrote:
One thing that I've never really understood is people complaining about the 8 inch range on Flamers. And not being able to overwatch people charging from 8 inches away. For units that want to charge, usually they try to get as close as possible to their target so that they can minimize the chances of a failed charge. Needing an 8 to successfully charge is far from a sure thing, even with command points. If your opponents are placing their units outside of reliable charge ranges because they are afraid of overwatch from flamers, that can have a huge impact on a game where a failed charge means a unit just hangs out with its balls in the wind. This can be more dangerous than the actual over watch itself...

As the guy immediately below you noted, its because of the 9" Deep Strike. It means that the weapon that is partially designed as an assault deterrent actually completely fails at its purpose if a melee unit uses Deep Strike via their own rule or a stratagem or whatnot. Even more, it means flamers are usually taken in place of a different weapon - a Guardsman gives up his or her lasgun for a flamer, meaning they paid however many points to not do the job they paid up for, and in fact perform less than the standard weapon.

Long story short, your point is fine, if not for the fact that Deep Strike is everywhere this edition, even if it is relegated to turn 2 or later with the beta rules.


My two cents on the different weapon suggestions:

Melta - fine as is, just reduce its price a bit (I've said before, just swapping it's price with plasma would help a lot)

Flamer - in range for all charges (or maybe 12" range in overwatch), +1d3 hits on units with over 10 men, +1d6 hits on units over 20. So vs a unit of 1-10 troopers, it would be 1d6, 11-20 - 1d6 + 1d3, and for 21+ - 2d6 hits.

Plasma - Keep all rules same, but reduce damage on overcharge to 1 - still strong vs elite units, but now only does chip damage to vehicles. The problem with plasma this edition is the combination of it going up in strength, having an option to do 2 damage, AND being fairly cheap - making overloading just deal 1 damage but still at strength 8 makes it still very useful due to doubling t4 and being equal to t8, but without the punch of the amount of damage it deals.

The best idea I've had to fix melta is: "against vehicles or monstrous creatures, to wound rolls of 1, 2, or 3 count as 3 damage" all the time, with the current bonus for half range staying the same.

I like plasma being deadly, but OC needs to be costly, though it shouldn't be blowing up razorbacks or characters: "Any time a to hit roll of 1 is rolled, including dice that can be rerolled, the firing model takes a mortal wound once all of that models firing is resolved." And leave the S and D bonuses for OC the same.

Flamers would be good if they ignored LoS and range when being charged, and did 2d6 hits, but had a 1 to 1 max hits to models in the target unit limit. Larger flame weapons could have higher limits (2 or 3 to 1, probably).

Grav should be assault 2 24", or maybe assault 3 18".

Plasma should just do damage to the user on a 1 (but character gets the S v T roll, save, invuln, etc...)..note supercharged does not matter

The issue with plasma is that it seems reasonably costed if re-rolls were not universally available. When you can overcharge all the time with basically 0 risk they are too good. Make checking for overheat happen before re-rolls and you would see them a lot less. In general special weapons are poorly balanced right now. It feels like you basically always take a plasma gun because it is an all around solid choice. I think they need to make each of the weapons fill a specific role best.

 vaklor4 wrote:
I think the flamers are fine at d6, but the range should be increased. Maybe to 12"? That way it's an actual anti-charge gun, instead of just being...Well, useless..

Melta just needs a price reduction, BADLY. Like, down to 13 or something.

Plasma would be pretty good at strength 6, 7 on overcharge, but keeping its -3 and 1/2 damage. It should be anti-elite, but NOT anti-tank, like it so often is.

These are the best suggestions on all accounts imo. Nailed it.

The thing about melta is that it's not necessarily always better, it's that it's always better on marines.

You do that rule for SoB and you better keep your head down when the codex drops.

To me, the weapons are fine as they are now, but they need to be recosted. Plasma is the only one that is appropriately costed. I think Flamers should cost 5, Meltaguns should cost 12, and Grav should cost 10, if they all keep the same stats/mechanics.

Give the flamer the ability to remove cover and stop there. The whole "flamers are anti-charge" ignores that flame throwers are *aggressive* weapons, meant for flushing out people hiding in bunkers and terrain. They're, if anything, meant to discourage gunlines and camping, not assault.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Give the flamer the ability to remove cover and stop there. The whole "flamers are anti-charge" ignores that flame throwers are *aggressive* weapons, meant for flushing out people hiding in bunkers and terrain. They're, if anything, meant to discourage gunlines and camping, not assault.

So maybe ignores cover and scores 6 hits on a unit in cover? Haha

 fraser1191 wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Give the flamer the ability to remove cover and stop there. The whole "flamers are anti-charge" ignores that flame throwers are *aggressive* weapons, meant for flushing out people hiding in bunkers and terrain. They're, if anything, meant to discourage gunlines and camping, not assault.

So maybe ignores cover and scores 6 hits on a unit in cover? Haha

That's actually a nice idea, and it works similarly to grenades in the City of Death expansion.

While I agree with the intent behind this thread, I think the proposed fixes are more complex than they need to be.

Flamer and Melta weapons just need to become cheaper; they're both too expensive for what they can do. There's nothing otherwise wrong with their basic stat lines right now, and the big advantage of having the separate points list is that you can more easily rebalance things, it's basically what it's for.

Meanwhile Overwatch should gain the addition that weapons fired during Overwatch are fired at either the charge distance, or the weapon's maximum range, whichever is shorter. This means you can always fire all your weapons, but you will only get half-range bonuses if the enemy charged within that range; i.e- the assumption is that you fire at the first available opportunity before readying melee weapons. Stratagems or abilities can then be used to maximise fire for more disciplined forces.

Were you thinking of 'remove cover' as "Flamer ignores cover", or "When hitting a unit with a Flamer, the unit is not considered to be in cover for the rest of the firing unit's shooting this turn"?

The first is a lot simpler to implement. The second is a real "Flush them out!" concept. Really doing what Flamethrowers are used for. And works wonders for combined-arms squads. May not be a huge buff to Tacs, but would do a lot more for a flamer in a Tac squad than a unit where everyone carries Flamers.

I like the concept, but might be too much, and too complex.

That's all the Flamer and Heavy Flamer need. Ignore cover and 2-3 points cheaper. Easy to implement.

My Melta fix is a bit more complex, but it makes sense. At half range, rounding up as necessary, you get the wound ability AND Invul Saves take a -1 penalty. At the next half range (3" for Melta Guns and 6" for Multi-Melta), you roll 3 dice for the wound ability picking the highest and Invul Saves take a -2 penalty.

Why should the Melta get better at killing things that are flat-out immune to the physical world for various reasons (runes, demons, etc)? The counter to invulns should be volume, IMO.

I'm hearing a lot of "Just make Flamer/Melta cheaper", which surprised me, but works.

Bharring wrote:
Why should the Melta get better at killing things that are flat-out immune to the physical world for various reasons (runes, demons, etc)? The counter to invulns should be volume, IMO.

I'm hearing a lot of "Just make Flamer/Melta cheaper", which surprised me, but works.

Because, as much as people don't want to admit it, Plasma is merely a little better functioning than it used to be, with the issues being the reroll auras and easily obtained rerolls. Melta has no niche, and that niche should be "high risk high reward" with shooting big objects up close. On top of that, there NEEDS to be punishment for the ridiculous amount of Invul saves available.

My two cents:
- Plasma: Defo reduce strength. Tau plasma is only S6 with no overcharge so...

- Flamer: ignore cover, and auto 6 hits against units in cover

- Melta: Add 1 to wound rolls within half range, 2d6 pick highest damage at full range

The niche for Melta should be that it's the best for doing lots of wounds to well armored targets that are close up.

Plas having D:2 and the same strength while having twice the shots or twice the range means that it's going to outshine Melta.

If you bring Plas back down to what it was before 8E, it becomes inefficient at killing vehicles. Melta is more likely to wound per shot, ignores more armor, and does more than triple the damage to multi-wound models than Plas per shot. But has half or fewer the shots, and much lower maximum range. That sounds like 2 different niches to me. So Plas to kill Tacs and elite infantry, Melta to kill the really big stuff.

Invulns might need punishment, but shouldn't it be tools that aren't designed to punish relying on armor saves?

 SHUPPET wrote:

 vaklor4 wrote:
I think the flamers are fine at d6, but the range should be increased. Maybe to 12"? That way it's an actual anti-charge gun, instead of just being...Well, useless..

Melta just needs a price reduction, BADLY. Like, down to 13 or something.

Plasma would be pretty good at strength 6, 7 on overcharge, but keeping its -3 and 1/2 damage. It should be anti-elite, but NOT anti-tank, like it so often is.

These are the best suggestions on all accounts imo. Nailed it.

I like these too. Fair changes to make all options worth considering.

I think Plasma needs the D2, otherwise it's just too ineffective against so many targets (not just vehicles but infantry with multiple wounds, monsters etc.)

 vaklor4 wrote:
I think the flamers are fine at d6, but the range should be increased. Maybe to 12"? That way it's an actual anti-charge gun, instead of just being...Well, useless..

Melta just needs a price reduction, BADLY. Like, down to 13 or something.

Plasma would be pretty good at strength 6, 7 on overcharge, but keeping its -3 and 1/2 damage. It should be anti-elite, but NOT anti-tank, like it so often is.

These seem like by far the best changes.

However, there is something I feel needs to be said again. The problem with meltaguns has nothing to do with plasmaguns and everything to do with Lascannons. Basically, we now have weapons that can do the same damage as a meltagun from 48" away.

If you want meltas to retain their role, then they need to be much more reliable in terms of damage. Something like '3 damage at long range, 6 damage at half-range' might work. As it stands, even at half-range, they're barely better than a Lascannon firing at 8x the distance.

And that's before we even get into the problem that plasmaguns can deep-strike into optimal range but meltas can't.

Actually, another alternative - what if, instead of the current rule, meltaguns rerolled damage against vehicles regardless of range? Now you've got an anti-vehicle weapon that can be deep-struck into optimal range.

I really liked Vaklor's suggestions, but here's where I'm not sure:

-Flamer still feels weak. I wish it did more.
-With Plas doing 2 wound, and getting twice the shots at 12" range, Melta will still average fewer wounds provided they both wound.

The lower strength and Gets Hot does give the Melta some room, but it looks to me like it'd still be crowded out.

Melta gun is the new plasma pistol - ridiculously expensive for extremely situational situations.

 skchsan wrote:
Melta gun is the new plasma pistol - ridiculously expensive for extremely situational situations.

Plasma pistol's aren't very expensive in the Guard codex at least. 5 points for putting one on an officer seems fair considering it is basically half of a plasma rifle, and those cost 13 points to put on a BS 3 model.

Plasma is obnoxious and needs fixed
Strength needs to be returned to S6 for safe and S7 Overcharged.
If it keeps the D2 it needs to overheat on 1or 2's that would really make people have to think before spaming that overcharge because the model costs nothing compaired to the gun.
Melta and Plasma shouldn't be equal given the difference in range and points cost. Melta should be better.

Flamers need to be 2d6 upto the number of models in the target unit.

Heavy flamers should get 2d6 upto the number of models in the target unit and range pushed out to 10 inch.

Why not make Flame (or other "aoe") weapons have a "splash" factor? Each model removed as a casualty lets you make a follow-up to-wound/to-save sequence or so.

Or admit that maybe slow-play exists independently of whether a game uses aoe weapons...

Ice_can wrote:
Plasma is obnoxious and needs fixed
Strength needs to be returned to S6 for safe and S7 Overcharged.
If it keeps the D2 it needs to overheat on 1or 2's that would really make people have to think before spaming that overcharge because the model costs nothing compaired to the gun.

Also, you have to perform a handstand every time you fire, and if you fall over then the entire unit dies. Plus, for each plasmagun you have in your list, your opponent can take any model from his case and add it to his army for free at the beginning of the game.

That about make plasmaguns fair?

MagicJuggler wrote:Why not make Flame (or other "aoe") weapons have a "splash" factor? Each model removed as a casualty lets you make a follow-up to-wound/to-save sequence or so.

Or admit that maybe slow-play exists independently of whether a game uses aoe weapons...

I like this, there are plenty of similar situations where extra hits are scored for an action so it's not too unique while doing what it's supposed to do. I had wanted flamers to be able to spread to nearby units but this is much more streamlined.

Haravikk wrote:While I agree with the intent behind this thread, I think the proposed fixes are more complex than they need to be.

Flamer and Melta weapons just need to become cheaper; they're both too expensive for what they can do. There's nothing otherwise wrong with their basic stat lines right now, and the big advantage of having the separate points list is that you can more easily rebalance things, it's basically what it's for.

Meanwhile Overwatch should gain the addition that weapons fired during Overwatch are fired at either the charge distance, or the weapon's maximum range, whichever is shorter. This means you can always fire all your weapons, but you will only get half-range bonuses if the enemy charged within that range; i.e- the assumption is that you fire at the first available opportunity before readying melee weapons. Stratagems or abilities can then be used to maximise fire for more disciplined forces.

The overwatch change makes sense and would help other weapons like 6" pistols as well. I don't see why everyone dislikes the better of 2d6 melta rule, but it is a bit too challenging to use on basic meltaguns. I agree that if GW isn't going to mess with profiles some points changes are in order.

 vipoid wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Plasma is obnoxious and needs fixed
Strength needs to be returned to S6 for safe and S7 Overcharged.
If it keeps the D2 it needs to overheat on 1or 2's that would really make people have to think before spaming that overcharge because the model costs nothing compaired to the gun.

Also, you have to perform a handstand every time you fire, and if you fall over then the entire unit dies. Plus, for each plasmagun you have in your list, your opponent can take any model from his case and add it to his army for free at the beginning of the game.

That about make plasmaguns fair?

If reroll ones didnt exsist in spades, so unless you have a -1 or more to hit modifier the enemy have a 1in 36 chance of overheating with plasma, my suggestions wouldn't be as extreme.
Plasma is cheaper and better thats too much and needs significant changes to make it inline with its points cost.

I don't subscribe to the race to the bottom theory that some propose.

Imo, storm bolters should/are the cheapest upgrades then flamers, grav(it's basically a straight upgrade from a bolt gun), melta then plasma.

Melta just needs to be cheaper or maybe 2 shots to justify the cost.

Flamers need to at minimum ignore cover, then maybe 6 hits against something in cover

Grav is fine-is, I just don't like how swing it is when you actually shoot something with a 3+. Maybe change it to assault 2

Plasma, with it being the most expensive (not necessarily any more expensive) I think people I think people would be more inclined to grab a gravgun or melta instead

Does Grav have a role that plas doesn't do better?

Plasma overheat is a bit of a joke and counter intuitive. I'd much rather see it be 1MW for each roll of 1 before rerolls and modifiers. That way 2W models and characters aren't overpriced for blowing themselves up. Depending on the wording it might not even hurt rerolls (2 rerolled to 1 shouldn't blow up in your face). Couple that with a reduction in str and it generalist nature is reduced enough to get off of meltas toes.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
Does Grav have a role that plas doesn't do better?

Plasma overheat is a bit of a joke and counter intuitive. I'd much rather see it be 1MW for each roll of 1 before rerolls and modifiers. That way 2W models and characters aren't overpriced for blowing themselves up. Depending on the wording it might not even hurt rerolls (2 rerolled to 1 shouldn't blow up in your face). Couple that with a reduction in str and it generalist nature is reduced enough to get off of meltas toes.

It's partly the issue of the weapon profile and price. Make it Assault 2 and 13 points, and suddenly it makes a bit more sense.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
Does Grav have a role that plas doesn't do better?

Let's go through it!

Shooting at marines seems fine. Plasmas better

Shooting light vehicles is alright (T5). Plasmas better

Shooting most transports? I guess? Plasmas better anyway

So no I don't see a situation where I'd rather take Grav over plasma. Paying more for a more rigid weapon is not ideal

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
Plasma overheat is a bit of a joke and counter intuitive. I'd much rather see it be 1MW for each roll of 1 before rerolls and modifiers.

That would be even more unintuitive, as it would basically ignore the entire point of a reroll mechainc.


What if plasma overheated on a roll of 6+?

 vipoid wrote:

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
Plasma overheat is a bit of a joke and counter intuitive. I'd much rather see it be 1MW for each roll of 1 before rerolls and modifiers.

That would be even more unintuitive, as it would basically ignore the entire point of a reroll mechainc.


What if plasma overheated on a roll of 6+?

Not that I would be opposed as I don't run a -1 to hit army but vrs Alitoc overcharge all the plasma as the highest I can roll is a 4+

I get the idea but with the to hit mechanics of 8th edition it would have some odd interactions. Plasma just staight needs its ability brough back to match its points cost.

The abundance of rerolls and to hit modifiers just weren't thought through very well for 8th edition.

Without them, it's okay that plasma is about as good as melta, because a 1/6 chance to lose the shooter is pretty risky and seems fair. I could see being able to spend CP to reroll a failed shot, but just having a captain around is too good.

Flamers ability to be good overwatch seems to be overrated because of how frequently the charging unit is out of range, and when you ignore that aspect of flamers, they are worse than storm bolters. So they either need a price drop or damage buff, or both.

I don't know why they got rid of salvo weapons, but current grav is actually better than normal Plasma against high armor multi wound models. Again it's just the ability to reroll or modify hits that make OC plasma better than grav. I agree that assault 2 would suit it better.

My only issue with current melta (Las as well) is that 1d6 damage is too random. I'd be okay with both of those weapons having a "to wound rolls of 1, 2, or 3 count as 3 damage" rule. This only ups their average damage from 3.5 to 4, but gets rid of those annoying 1s and 2s, especially the 1s rolled against things with only 2 wounds that make plasma once again more reliable than melta.

So in the end I think that the biggest relevant change to fix these weapons would be a change to the space marine auras.

Yet another idea for Meltas - what if they did 2d3 damage at full range, and d3+3 damage at half-range?

It's not that plasma's too strong it, most of the other options are too weak.

My thoughts:
Flamers: Are fine except they are overpriced compared to Storm Bolters. Ignores Cover would be nice, but not critical to balancing
Melta: Need to do it's job better. I'd go with "Within 1/2 Range gain, Damage rolls of less than 3 do 3 Damage."
Plasma: Needs to come down a notch. S 6 normal. S7 D2 MW on Attack roll of 1 when overloaded.

Flamers need 4" more range. Even if the rules only specifically let them do it on overwatch.

 SHUPPET wrote:
Flamers need 4" more range. Even if the rules only specifically let them do it on overwatch.

A lot of people bring up Overwatch, but surely the fact that flamers can be denied the ability to fire is a failing of Overwatch, rather than flamers? Overwatch really needs to be modified to allow a weapon to fire at either its maximum range, or the enemy charge distance, whichever is shorter, so that weapons can always fire.

Of course it would need to be balanced by fixing Fall Back, which is another major complaint of this edition; make Fall Back D6", with unengaged enemies getting a D6" consolidate (that counts as having charged if you get within 1", but doesn't trigger Overwatch) and you've largely fixed this edition, barring Codex-specific fixes at least.

Why does Overwatch need to always be able to hit? having the choice between making a longer, riskier charge to avoid certain weapon, vs taking more damage for better chances to get stuck in is a nice bit of tactical choice that this game is sorely lacking in.

Since Overwatch was first implemented it's specifically been a role Flamers excelled at. Now they can't reach the range to actually do it. Being that they are lacking as a weapon, they could at least let them reliably do their role, that they now only sometimes get to do. It's really awkward play if you are moving your models AWAY from your enemy to charge from outside the range of their 8" anti-assault guns.


And yeah it could be fixed by changing the Overwatch rule slightly, but I think the game having weapons to short to overwatch is fine, I just don't think that should be the case with Flamers, and similar weapons either honestly.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Why does Overwatch need to always be able to hit? having the choice between making a longer, riskier charge to avoid certain weapon, vs taking more damage for better chances to get stuck in is a nice bit of tactical choice that this game is sorely lacking in.

Because the squad flame trooper not shooting his flamethrower at the charging horde of xenos because they were too far away when they started the charge is stupid. The flamer is the only weapon that I know if this edition that has this issue.

Additionally, mortars and artillery pieces being able to fire overwatch is equally stupid.

w1zard wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Melta gun is the new plasma pistol - ridiculously expensive for extremely situational situations.

Plasma pistol's aren't very expensive in the Guard codex at least. 5 points for putting one on an officer seems fair considering it is basically half of a plasma rifle, and those cost 13 points to put on a BS 3 model.

See, this irritates me. For plasma, you pay for the gun. Why do guard get plasma pistols at 5 points, and marines get them for 7. Why do marines get plasma rifles for 13, when stormtroopers get them for like, what, 9?

This should be made consistent as well.

Otherwise, best options I've seen for these weapons are..

Flamers -2 points, 2d6 shots take the highest, ignores cover
Melta -4 points, +1 to wound at half range, change damage to 2d3 damage
Plasma Str 6/7, AP-3, d1/2 (still overheat on overcharge as normal)

 iGuy91 wrote:

See, this irritates me. For plasma, you pay for the gun. Why do guard get plasma pistols at 5 points, and marines get them for 7. Why do marines get plasma rifles for 13, when stormtroopers get them for like, what, 9?

Plasma rifles in the guard dex are 13 points for BS 3 units.

You have to take into account the platform you are buying the weapon for. T4 and 3+ is a better than T3 and 5+. Sure weapons have the same damage output, but because of their durability they last longer so they need to be more expensive.

Having flat costs for weapons was tried in the guard dex and it benefited the elite units so much they were forced to change it.

The problem is, marines pay too much for their durability. Too much of the points they are spending are going towards this "durability" that they end up lacking in damage output.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Why does Overwatch need to always be able to hit? having the choice between making a longer, riskier charge to avoid certain weapon, vs taking more damage for better chances to get stuck in is a nice bit of tactical choice that this game is sorely lacking in.

Deep striking asaulters will be charging from 10" away without giving you any opportunity to shoot at them. This is the perfect chance for flamers to do something useful except they don't get to fire overwatch in this circumstance.

From the 40k Rules Blooper Reel:

Anti-Air Flamethrowers: Flamethrowers in 8th edition no longer use an AoE "teardrop" template, but instead inflict a random number of automatic hits on a unit. For example, a Hellhound's Inferno Cannon inflicts D6 automatic hits. Due to these changes, regular flamers are less important as a crowd control weapon, and more as an anti-hitmod (and anti-aircraft) weapon; this is especially true of weapons that have a multi-damage value like the aforementioned Inferno Cannon. Where it gets silly though is how Flamers interact with "ambush/deepstrike" abilities. See, regular flamers have an effective range of 8 inches, but most "strike from Reserve" powers require you to set up more than 9 inches away. This means that flamers are useless when you appear from Reserves, but it also means they're useless for defending against units Charging from Reserves, since the flamers are out of range and thus unable to actually lay down a Wall of Death like in 6th-7th Edition, or interrupt movement like in 2nd Edition.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Why does Overwatch need to always be able to hit? having the choice between making a longer, riskier charge to avoid certain weapon, vs taking more damage for better chances to get stuck in is a nice bit of tactical choice that this game is sorely lacking in.

Deep striking asaulters will be charging from 10" away without giving you any opportunity to shoot at them. This is the perfect chance for flamers to do something useful except they don't get to fire overwatch in this circumstance.

So your solution is to pidgin hole them into a particular tactic against a different tactic so that fit the meta and only really useful for certain armies, rather than giving it something so it an stand on it's own and be useful by everyone who has access to it.

A simple fix for flamers is to implement a bit of common sense ... the unit charging doesn’t suddenly spring in from 9 inches into your units face ... they run screaming at you.... (Provided they aren't warp spiders …)
So flamers should always get the opportunity to overwatch, even hand flamers are going to be in range before people are in combat , Personally i also struggle with the " no you cant see me when I declare the charge rule too its daft again you didnt teleport from cover to my face you ran over the open ground to get here."

Melta guns as an actual weapon are fine stats wise but the fact that it’s a 1 shot weapon in a world of –‘1 , 2s and even -3 to hit so unless you normally hit on 2’s they feel unreliable and the plasma gun does that same job from longer range Job and statistically better when overcharged in rapid fire range . To help with this I would maybe like to see the range increased to 14 inches and perhaps shave a couple of points from both the Guardsman and marine prices for the weapons.

Plasma , “The elephant in the room " Its the default choice because this weapon is just “ better than all the others at every role “ Its versatile and scary , Overcharged it typically does 3 damage when you factor in re-rolls within rapid fire to a t7 vehicle where as a melta averages 3 ’ and with the abundance of re-rolls make the downside of overcharging pretty much moot , I would move explodes to on wound rolls of 1 meaning that your gun doesn’t get worse because your shooting at fliers but plasma is a scary weapon and there needs to be risk reward to using it. You may not reroll wound rolls with this weapon for any reason you failed to wound “ fine “ its because the plasma gun chuffed out a dud you rolled a 1 well it leaked all over you . That will makes you think twice before you fill up all your characters with them.

For Grav guns add an extra shot but keep them at strength 5 with re-roll to wound against vehicles, lightning claw style, So they are still wounding most T7 stuff on a 5 but aren't murdering infantry quite so badly.

Allow flamers to be used in combat.

'This weapon always hits. Models equipped with this weapon can trade in all of its attacks and make a single attack using this weapons profile at the beginning of the fight phase if there are enemy models within 1" of this model."

 skchsan wrote:
Allow flamers to be used in combat.

'This weapon always hits. Models equipped with this weapon can trade in all of its attacks and make a single attack using this weapons profile at the beginning of the fight phase if there are enemy models within 1" of this model."

Dm: "the fighter grapples you. What do you do?"
Skchsan: "i light him on fire. "

Anyways, flamer might as well get a range buff since first turn ss is gone.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Allow flamers to be used in combat.

'This weapon always hits. Models equipped with this weapon can trade in all of its attacks and make a single attack using this weapons profile at the beginning of the fight phase if there are enemy models within 1" of this model."

Dm: "the fighter grapples you. What do you do?"
Skchsan: "i light him on fire. "

Anyways, flamer might as well get a range buff since first turn ss is gone.

I've always imagined the beginning of the fight phase to be just before the moment when two opponents come in contact with each other.

If it suits you better, you can make it so that a flamer attack is made at the end of charge phase against all units that have charged, but that would be a ridiculously long rule to write in each weapon entry in each datasheet.

Another interesting idea is to make a "wall of death" stratagem:

Wall of Death
Wielders of flamer-type weapons can raise a barrier of flame to deter their enemies from encroaching too near. Even the bravest of the warriors will think twice before attempting to cross the fiery barrier.
Use this stratagem when an enemy unit makes a successful charge roll against one of your units equipped with a flamer weapon. You may force your opponent to reroll one or all of the dices used to determine the charge. For the purpose of this stratagem, a flamer weapon is any weapon profile whose name includes the word 'flmaer' (e.g. flamer, heavy flamer, hand flamer, etc.)

 MagicJuggler wrote:
From the 40k Rules Blooper Reel:

Anti-Air Flamethrowers: Flamethrowers in 8th edition no longer use an AoE "teardrop" template, but instead inflict a random number of automatic hits on a unit. For example, a Hellhound's Inferno Cannon inflicts D6 automatic hits. Due to these changes, regular flamers are less important as a crowd control weapon, and more as an anti-hitmod (and anti-aircraft) weapon; this is especially true of weapons that have a multi-damage value like the aforementioned Inferno Cannon. Where it gets silly though is how Flamers interact with "ambush/deepstrike" abilities. See, regular flamers have an effective range of 8 inches, but most "strike from Reserve" powers require you to set up more than 9 inches away. This means that flamers are useless when you appear from Reserves, but it also means they're useless for defending against units Charging from Reserves, since the flamers are out of range and thus unable to actually lay down a Wall of Death like in 6th-7th Edition, or interrupt movement like in 2nd Edition.

I don't get why they ever removed the rule where aircraft that were in flight mode counted as being 12" further away than it is to represent the vertical distance.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Why does Overwatch need to always be able to hit? having the choice between making a longer, riskier charge to avoid certain weapon, vs taking more damage for better chances to get stuck in is a nice bit of tactical choice that this game is sorely lacking in.

Erm… in what reality does it make any sense that a person being further away should make it harder for you to draw your weapon and fire on them? There are other short ranged weapons, such as inferno pistols, that also suffer from the same issue, so it makes no sense IMO to just fix flamers only when it's Overwatch itself that's broken.

As I said before; the issue for close combat units isn't really Overwatch, but Fall Back, which is why I briefly mentioned fixes to that as well having to go hand-in-hand, as fixing Overwatch will only penalise already struggling close combat units even further. There should be no need to risk your charge in the hopes of not being shot, when simply being in combat at all should prevent being shot in later rounds, it's Fall Back that breaks that.

 skchsan wrote:

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
Allow flamers to be used in combat.

'This weapon always hits. Models equipped with this weapon can trade in all of its attacks and make a single attack using this weapons profile at the beginning of the fight phase if there are enemy models within 1" of this model."

Dm: "the fighter grapples you. What do you do?"
Skchsan: "i light him on fire. "

Anyways, flamer might as well get a range buff since first turn ss is gone.

I've always imagined the beginning of the fight phase to be just before the moment when two opponents come in contact with each other.

If it suits you better, you can make it so that a flamer attack is made at the end of charge phase against all units that have charged, but that would be a ridiculously long rule to write in each weapon entry in each datasheet.

Another interesting idea is to make a "wall of death" stratagem:

Wall of Death
Wielders of flamer-type weapons can raise a barrier of flame to deter their enemies from encroaching too near. Even the bravest of the warriors will think twice before attempting to cross the fiery barrier.
Use this stratagem when an enemy unit makes a successful charge roll against one of your units equipped with a flamer weapon. You may force your opponent to reroll one or all of the dices used to determine the charge. For the purpose of this stratagem, a flamer weapon is any weapon profile whose name includes the word 'flmaer' (e.g. flamer, heavy flamer, hand flamer, etc.)

So can Pink Horrors use this Stratagem with their Coruscating Flames, while Grey Knights are out of luck with their Incinerators?

I like the ideas of the edited OP. I would be happy with that, although i would suggest the D3 damage roll for melta also apply to strength. So a roll of 2 would give +2 str and +2 dmg.

I would also add grav to the OP. I'm not sure where i'd go with it, but i'm not sure i'd take it with the new changes. S5 bonuses if it is heavily armour saved? I'd still be picking between melta and plasma at that point.

Grav isn't in the OP precisely because I have no idea where to take it. What should it be doing that others don't?

I kinda like the whole deadlier-to-heavier-things but GW removed that rule (wound-on-SV) for streamlining. Adding it back in seems meh to me. It does have the "do more wounds to anything with a 3+", but is that enough to differentiate?

The only thing I can think of is 'Heavy 3 range 24', and make it the "Here's the rifle you use in protracted warfare" (because it kinda looks like a rifle), but that's just a complete redesign, outside the scope of what I"m looking to do, and might be a trash idea.

In theory, it could be the more mobile PG - in that, you use it if you want to shoot 'n scoot. But PG does that well enough as is. With Assault, sure you could advance, but then you're only firing the one weapon, and at a -1. And that's not really an SM thing.

Some "You can't move as much" debuff would be cool, or some other way to express Grav being what it is. But anything I can think of is too clunky (although "Cannot Advance" or "-2 to M" would be really cool).

I don't think anyone knows where Grav really belongs.

Even GW introduced it as super-Plas that did what Plas did but better, with theoretical weaknesses overshadowed by ways to ignore or mitigate them. I think even they have realized they don't have a strong niche for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


For the second Flamer rule (Overwatch), after thinking it through, I'm not seeing why this shouldn't be the rule instead:

-Overwatch: While resolving Overwatch, all weapons are treated as being within 2" of their targets.

This would allow Flamers and Inferno/Fusion pistols and other such short-range weapons to not have a breakpoint where the charger benefits from being *further* away. Yes, being further away can be a tactical decision, but it's the kind of crunchy, counter-intuitive, counter-immersive metagaming that we don't want.

I realize this can be a buff to Rapid Fire weapons and Grenades (Melta Bombs not completely worthless?), but minor. It feels very appropriate, and I haven't identified a particularly nasty result of it. Although things like Scytheguard and certain Land Raider configurations are scary to charge, 9" charging them wasn't really an answer.

Grav is the odd one out, isn't it? anti-horde, anti-heavy armour, anti-tank. and then grav. I've given it a bit of thought, and it's a tough one. What about, while keeping it about the same as it is now, it causes a movement penalty, either in normal movement and/or charges? Not sure what to trigger it on, either causing damage or else just hitting, maybe based on armour value. Like a reverse armour save, where if they 'pass' their save they get the movement penalty, and if they fail it they may move normally.

About the overwatch ammendment. Yeah, it does seem logical that since the chargers are charging, they're moving closer and have to get into range at some point. The question is: would the defenders wait till the last second to fire their guns for maximum effect, or would they shoot as soon as the chargers got into range?

How about melta has double strength at half range. Making it strength 16 in short range. This makes it more reliable to woubd tough stuff up close than plasma. And we would also not add another reroll mechanic to the game

I get pissed when my d-scythe wraithguard get charged by a unit 9” away and then they get screwed. It’s such a stupid way around getting overwatched. 225 point unit cannot even overwatch. slowed

 Torga_DW wrote:
Grav is the odd one out, isn't it? anti-horde, anti-heavy armour, anti-tank. and then grav. I've given it a bit of thought, and it's a tough one. What about, while keeping it about the same as it is now, it causes a movement penalty, either in normal movement and/or charges? Not sure what to trigger it on, either causing damage or else just hitting, maybe based on armour value. Like a reverse armour save, where if they 'pass' their save they get the movement penalty, and if they fail it they may move normally.

The problem with a movement penalty is that it's something to keep track of, which I'm not sure any other weapons have (not common ones anyway); if GW wanted to go that route then they would surely have given something like it to webbers in the genestealer cult list, since entangling enemies is pretty much the entire point of those weapons.

When grav first came out I had hoped for more of a build-up type mechanic, where it couldn't outright threaten vehicles, but could with massed or sustained fire, but I'm not sure if that would fit the style now either, as again it'd mean keeping track.

One possible interesting alternative for grav could be to have it roll to wound against a target's armour save, and ignore armour completely; this would be balanced by still being relatively few shots and only damage 1, but could mean several grav weapons together could do significant chip damage to a vehicle, and even if grav's Strength were only 4 you'd be wounding marines on 3's and terminators on 2's, though the latter still gets their 5++. Not sure what the right number of shots would be, maybe Assault 2 S4 at 18" for grav-gun, Heavy 4 S5 at 24" for grav-cannon?

 Torga_DW wrote:
About the overwatch ammendment. Yeah, it does seem logical that since the chargers are charging, they're moving closer and have to get into range at some point. The question is: would the defenders wait till the last second to fire their guns for maximum effect, or would they shoot as soon as the chargers got into range?

In the past the logic of Overwatch has always been that you only hit on 6's because you're firing off quick shots before readying melee weapons, so I think it should be earliest opportunity; no half range bonuses unless the enemy was already in half range when they charged. It also keeps things simple, as it's just weapon max range or enemy charge range, whichever is shorter.

I always took it as spray and pray, keep your finger on the trigger and hope.

There are some weapons where you'd fire the first chance you get, then wouldn't have time to reload before they got to you (Missile Launchers of most varieties), so you'd be firing at further range. However, most weapons - Bolters, Lasguns, etc - don't just fire once, at least in theory. Why would the user shoot when the opponent is 12" away, but then not also shoot at 2" away? You could say there isn't time since they fired at 12" away, but if that were true, there wouldn't be time to fire if charged from 10" away at all.

Only rolling dice once (twice for RF) is an abstraction. Where the charging unit is when it gets hit is also an abstraction (weapons fire have varying travel times, and some shots actually travel slower than some units).

A "charging" unit mid-charge is neither where it started, nor already at the charged unit. In an ideal simulation, Overwatch would be resolved simultaneously with travel. It's done beforehand for crunch reasons.

Because of all that, I think it's more accurate to think of Overwatch as shooting a unit just before they hit in CC instead of before moving, yet easier to apply mechanically before. So a rule to make the firer behave as if it were point-blank wouldn't be inappropriate, IMO.