I am having a real hard time wrapping my brain around why meltaguns are better than plasma guns (based on price) for IG.

I currently have 20 special weapons in my army list...because of some psychoses of mine I have an inclination to put 4 of each in. But as I look at meltaguns I feel that the plasma gun is so much better and cheaper. So I ask, what am I missing. Experience is more important to me than math btw...

I think they used to be better, but they took a big nerf when the Edition changed. Plasma guns are better, unless you facing a tough, mechanized list. And even then.

You’re not missing anything. In this edition plasma is currently king and Melta is currently overcosted.

JmOz01 wrote:
I am having a real hard time wrapping my brain around why meltaguns are better than plasma guns (based on price) for IG.

I currently have 20 special weapons in my army list...because of some psychoses of mine I have an inclination to put 4 of each in. But as I look at meltaguns I feel that the plasma gun is so much better and cheaper. So I ask, what am I missing. Experience is more important to me than math btw...

You're not missing anything. Plasma guns are currently outperforming meltaguns.

In short, plasma has the versatility of being used against a variety of targets to great effect and has typical range. Meltaguns are dedicated vehicle/monster/character slayers. The way to get the most out of your meltaguns is to make sure they are shooting at vehicles or monsters.

The meltagun has some advantages over the plasma gun:
Meltaguns come with no risk; they do not overheat.
Meltaguns do d6 damage instead of 1 or 2. On average this means you're dealing 3-4 damage per unsaved wound.
Really, the only points justification for taking a meltagun is getting those half-range shots in (6") where you roll 2d6 for damage and pick the highest. Meltaguns can reliably deal 4-5 wounds up close.

If you don't have a reliable plan to get within 6" of an enemy vehicle or monster, you'll probably have more luck with your plasma.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
In this edition plasma is currently king and Melta is currently overcosted.

I can agree with this, however, a single plasma cannot strip more than a couple wounds off a multi-wound model like a vehicle and as most vehicles are T7, plasma has to risk overcharge to wound on 3+, while Meltas have no risk (aside from needing to get closer)

At the end of the day, I feel they should be costed exactly the same because they are different tools for different situations.

 Kharneth wrote:

In short, plasma has the versatility of being used against a variety of targets to great effect and has typical range. Meltaguns are dedicated vehicle/monster/character slayers. The way to get the most out of your meltaguns is to make sure they are shooting at vehicles or monsters.

100% this. Plasmas are more useful in more situations. However, in the situations that are ideal for Meltas, you'll really wish you had a Melta

My philosophy would be to have a ratio of 1 Melta for every 2-3 Plasmas in your army.
But only if you can get them on fast platforms that can respond to their ideal target. Bikes, for example
If you can't do this, then just stick with Plasmas

-

My current build has (for special weapons)

06.....6 Infantry man
04.....2 Command squads (2 each)
06.....3 Rough Rider units (2 each)
04.....1 Scions command squad (4 each)
---
20

Right now
infantry have 3 Flamers and Grenade Launchers

Command Squad has sniper rifles

Scions have Plasma

Rough riders have Grenade Launcher, Flamer, 4 Melta's

I love all this talk about melta sucking compared to plasma....

It's 2D6 at half range pick the highest for everything now. For fast mechanized forces, like sisters or marines, you can do quite a bit of damage.

Everyone assumes plasma does 2 damage, but that only works with rerolls, melta works everywhere.

On the Op's question, IG are poor in BS, pistols are much better, melta guns are really wasted on that type of model. It has more to do with the army style than the weapon itself.

I could see melta making a comeback if Knights become part of the competitive meta.

 sfshilo wrote:
Everyone assumes plasma does 2 damage, but that only works with rerolls, melta works everywhere.

I don't understand this statement. What do rerolls have to do with it, other than avoiding Overcharge casualties?
A single plasma can actually do 4 damage total. Granted it needs to Overcharge in Rapid fire distance (2 shots at 2 damage each) but that is risky without rerolls. Even riskier if the enemy has -1 to hit rules.

Both weapons have clear efficiencies, but since Melta is more limited in targets it can be effective at, Plasma is considered better. Bottom line is Melta shouldn't be more expensive than Plasma.

-

To be honest Melta Guns are very much worth it in my ravenwing bikers. They need to advance every turn and I can't use "Speed of the raven" all the time to allow them to shoot their plasma guns.

And with 18" movement I have no problem getting them in melta range.

I can see that, but if they were limited to 10" movement would you feel that way?

 sfshilo wrote:
I love all this talk about melta sucking compared to plasma....

It's 2D6 at half range pick the highest for everything now. For fast mechanized forces, like sisters or marines, you can do quite a bit of damage.

Personally, I don't think Melta sucks compared to Plasma. I think Melta sucks compared to Lascannons.

Melta sucks period. It would still suck if lascannons didn't exist.

Melta should be improved. Flat 3 base, flat 6 in melta range. Then, it's appropriately costed.

Martel732 wrote:
Melta sucks period. It would still suck if lascannons didn't exist.

Maybe it is just the scale of the games I've played most in 8th (500-1000pts) but without Meltas, vehicles would never die in my games at all. And we use Plasma too.
Melta does not suck, it is just 5pts or so too expensive.

-

No, melta outright sucks. Especially vs Xenos. Low rate of fire is the kiss of death in 8th, and invulns are just the final insult.

It takes ~8 shots from the warglaive weapon to down an 80 pt raider. That's nuts.

OP, ask yourself this:

Does my list have enough to counter vehicles and monsters?

The choice between Plasma and Melta also comes down to your army composition as a whole. As an Imperial Guard player, you have a lot of options for anti-tank weaponry. If you're already fielding sufficient anti-tank weapons than you're probably better off getting all Plasma. If you have a lack of anti-tank than the extra power from a meltagun over a plasma gun might be more important to you.

If you really just want to use all of the special weapons, find which of your units would be able to use the meltaguns to the greatest effect. I think your rough riders is the right choice, however as has already been stated, BS 4+ isn't going to do your meltaguns any favors. You'll need 2 meltaguns if you want to get a single hit, but 4 meltaguns on a rough rider squad should be able to take down a vehicle.

Just bring more battlecannons. You'll be fine. Don't give your 4 pt dum dums anything. They're there to die.

Plasma is good but struggles a lot against hit penalties. I’m not convinced that spamming plasma guns is a good solution to anything.

Most armies don't get to-hit penalties, though. Also, IG don't really care if they blow up.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Melta sucks period. It would still suck if lascannons didn't exist.

Maybe it is just the scale of the games I've played most in 8th (500-1000pts) but without Meltas, vehicles would never die in my games at all. And we use Plasma too.
Melta does not suck, it is just 5pts or so too expensive.

-

Basically this is my opinion - if Melta and Plasma were just price swapped, a lot of problems would go away. Melta itself is fine, if somewhat situational due to its short range. It just gets sidelined by Plasma, which is more versatile due to a longer range, flexible settings (if you are firing at 1 wound models no need to overheat), the number of rerolls/reroll 1s in the game, and then the fact that Plasma is the cheaper option.

In the Guard example in the OP, if Plasma were 12/17 and Melta were 7/13, it would actually begin to become a meaningful choice. As it currently stands though, Melta has the honor of being a short ranged weapon in a mostly mid to long ranged army, and is outshone by Plasma in the special weapon slot, and for 3 points more you can just get a Lascannon on a BS 3+ model and do the same damage but at a much greater range.

That's still too expensive for melta. The opportunity cost of short range and only being S8 push its value down really far.

The -4 AP is downright useless against most targets now.

Martel732 wrote:
Most armies don't get to-hit penalties, though.

Off the top of my head, the following armies all have -1 to hit penalties for at least some units or subfactions:
Eldar
Dark Eldar
Harlequins
Tau
Space Marines (Raven Guard)
CSM (Alpha Legion)
Necrons
Tyranids

Some units don't cut it. The plasma will find its way to the units w/o the penalties. I'd argue the 12" -1 to hit bubbles don't cut it, either, because that's the range plasma wants to be at anyway. I've never lost a marine to overloaded plasma vs Raven Guard or Alpha legion myself by rolling a 2.

 sfshilo wrote:
I love all this talk about melta sucking compared to plasma....

It's 2D6 at half range pick the highest for everything now. For fast mechanized forces, like sisters or marines, you can do quite a bit of damage.

Everyone assumes plasma does 2 damage, but that only works with rerolls, melta works everywhere.

On the Op's question, IG are poor in BS, pistols are much better, melta guns are really wasted on that type of model. It has more to do with the army style than the weapon itself.

Need for rerolls would be fair point if gw didn#t hand out rerolls like candy so you always have rerolls thus making plasma better even against vehicles that aren't land raider caliber. And are cheaper. And can actually get to optimal range unlike melta


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Melta sucks period. It would still suck if lascannons didn't exist.

Maybe it is just the scale of the games I've played most in 8th (500-1000pts) but without Meltas, vehicles would never die in my games at all. And we use Plasma too.
Melta does not suck, it is just 5pts or so too expensive.

-

Thanks to quaranteea rerolls(thanks gw) making overcharge no brainer plasma is better vs vehicles. Well except 2+ but unlikely to be on that point level

 Galef wrote:

 sfshilo wrote:
Everyone assumes plasma does 2 damage, but that only works with rerolls, melta works everywhere.

I don't understand this statement. What do rerolls have to do with it, other than avoiding Overcharge casualties?
A single plasma can actually do 4 damage total. Granted it needs to Overcharge in Rapid fire distance (2 shots at 2 damage each) but that is risky without rerolls. Even riskier if the enemy has -1 to hit rules.

Both weapons have clear efficiencies, but since Melta is more limited in targets it can be effective at, Plasma is considered better. Bottom line is Melta shouldn't be more expensive than Plasma.

-

Middle paragraph proves the final one: at the 12-6" with easy to get rerolls to hit plasma performs exactly the same as melta.

Multi meltas are actually worse than Plasma cannons and are also over-costed.

meleti wrote:Plasma is good but struggles a lot against hit penalties. I’m not convinced that spamming plasma guns is a good solution to anything.

The thing with Plasma is that you don't actually have to use the overheat. Strength 7 damage 1 is still useful for taking on infantry. Plus, with a few exceptions, most hit penalties are "if you are more than 12" away from your opponent" type deals. That means if you are in rapid fire range for Plasma, you don't particularly care about the -1 to hit because it doesn't effect you.

Martel732 wrote:That's still too expensive for melta. The opportunity cost of short range and only being S8 push its value down really far.

The -4 AP is downright useless against most targets now.

You might be right there, I just think it does have a role, but that it is so niche that you have to build your plan around it.

I do kind of wonder what changes might make Melta more competitive, without making it the new broken.

Make melta double strength in melta range. This will cause more wounds, and force more saves. As it stands, melta can't force enough saves to be remotely worthwhile.

JmOz01 wrote:
I can see that, but if they were limited to 10" movement would you feel that way?

Oh yeah. Ravenwing bikers is the only way I have find Melta usefull, and not only usefull but actually pretty good. Marines don't have Fire Dragons like Eldar that can have a 22" treat range turn 1.

As a BA player i like my inferno pistols. They are 6" range melta pistols, costing 9 pts. A little expensive, but once in melee they can be devastating.

Inferno pistols can sometimes let you nuke something you are fighting in CC and then charge something new. That's kinda worthwhile.

Martel732 wrote:
Make melta double strength in melta range. This will cause more wounds, and force more saves. As it stands, melta can't force enough saves to be remotely worthwhile.

That is simple enough of a fix - it causes more successful hits to wound, makes it better at hurting what it is supposed to hurt, and doesn't balloon the number of wounds it causes per successful hit. tl;dr: I like that idea a lot.

Why is melts still str 8 even after removing the old melta rules?

Because GW can't do math.

My buddy lost 3 Plague Marines (including his Champion) because he decided to try to pop my rhino (using smoke) with some overcharged rapid fire shots. He had a lord and everything. Rolled 3 too many 1s and then kept them on the reroll. He will never overcharge his plasma again, he says.

At close range, the Meltagun is definitely superior. Under 12", the plasma gun needs to risk hurting itself and also (somewhat) needs rerollable 1s in order to mitigate (not negate!) the risk. Only after combining this reroll and the risk does the Plasma gun begin to be roughly equal to the meltagun. But if you're within 6" the meltagun is better and comes with no risk whatsoever and doesn't require support (unless you want to count the "thing" that helped the melta to get into range).

On guard, I think plasma is the way to go. The risk is mostly irrelevant because your dudes are cannon fodder and the meltagun needs precision, which the guardsmen lack. I don't see people giving their guardsmen special weapons, though. I see people using them as bare minimum troops to do nothing except screen their tanks, secure objectives, and provide CP.

 Kharneth wrote:
My buddy lost 3 Plague Marines (including his Champion) because he decided to try to pop my rhino (using smoke) with some overcharged rapid fire shots. He had a lord and everything. Rolled 3 too many 1s and then kept them on the reroll. He will never overcharge his plasma again, he says.

At close range, the Meltagun is definitely superior. Under 12", the plasma gun needs to risk hurting itself and also (somewhat) needs rerollable 1s in order to mitigate (not negate!) the risk. Only after combining this reroll and the risk does the Plasma gun begin to be roughly equal to the meltagun. But if you're within 6" the meltagun is better and comes with no risk whatsoever and doesn't require support (unless you want to count the "thing" that helped the melta to get into range).

On guard, I think plasma is the way to go. The risk is mostly irrelevant because your dudes are cannon fodder and the meltagun needs precision, which the guardsmen lack. I don't see people giving their guardsmen special weapons, though. I see people using them as bare minimum troops to do nothing except screen their tanks, secure objectives, and provide CP.

Under 12 inches plasma is better. In fact, only under 6 is melta better sometimes. In fact, your only really getting one extra wound through on average. Plasma has advanatages though, like having 2 shots, multiple profiles, and the ability to kill 2 guys, or put 4 wounds on 1 target.

2 shots of plasma at a leman Russ. You’ll hit with about 2 shots probably, wound with one, and get 2 wounds through.

Melta, you’ve already a 1/3 chance of missing, then you’ve a 1/2 chance of failing to wound. You then need to roll well and be closer to the damn thing than you can deep strike if you want to out preform plasma (4 dmg is better than 3.5 average).

Martel732 wrote:
Make melta double strength in melta range. This will cause more wounds, and force more saves. As it stands, melta can't force enough saves to be remotely worthwhile.

This is more of a modeling nitpick of mine, but shouldn't Multi-meltas have 2 shots? They have 2 melta "barrels", so in addition to having twice the range for being Heavy, they should have 2 shots.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Kharneth wrote:
My buddy lost 3 Plague Marines (including his Champion) because he decided to try to pop my rhino (using smoke) with some overcharged rapid fire shots. He had a lord and everything. Rolled 3 too many 1s and then kept them on the reroll. He will never overcharge his plasma again, he says.

At close range, the Meltagun is definitely superior. Under 12", the plasma gun needs to risk hurting itself and also (somewhat) needs rerollable 1s in order to mitigate (not negate!) the risk. Only after combining this reroll and the risk does the Plasma gun begin to be roughly equal to the meltagun. But if you're within 6" the meltagun is better and comes with no risk whatsoever and doesn't require support (unless you want to count the "thing" that helped the melta to get into range).

On guard, I think plasma is the way to go. The risk is mostly irrelevant because your dudes are cannon fodder and the meltagun needs precision, which the guardsmen lack. I don't see people giving their guardsmen special weapons, though. I see people using them as bare minimum troops to do nothing except screen their tanks, secure objectives, and provide CP.

Under 12 inches plasma is better. In fact, only under 6 is melta better sometimes. In fact, your only really getting one extra wound through on average. Plasma has advanatages though, like having 2 shots, multiple profiles, and the ability to kill 2 guys, or put 4 wounds on 1 target.

2 shots of plasma at a leman Russ. You’ll hit with about 2 shots probably, wound with one, and get 2 wounds through.

Melta, you’ve already a 1/3 chance of missing, then you’ve a 1/2 chance of failing to wound. You then need to roll well and be closer to the damn thing than you can deep strike if you want to out preform plasma (4 dmg is better than 3.5 average).

Between 12" and 6" the plasma and melta are roughly equal when targeting vehicles/monsters (I'm ignoring infantry completely). Under 6" the meltagun becomes superior.

You're being very unfair with your statistics here. Rounding up for the plasma gun, assuming it'll hit with all its shots, ignoring the probability of rolling 1s, and giving the meltagun an average of 3.5 damage when in fact the average is higher when you get to the best out of 2d6. Let's assume you're BS 4+, like IG. A plasma gun can rapid fire to deal 2-4 s8 hits. 1 will hit and 1 will miss. 66% of that 1 will wound and will result in 1.32 wounds with likely only invulnerable saves. A meltagun will deal 0.5 hits and deal 0.3 wounds with only invulnerable saves. This becomes 1.16 if you only get the d6 damage, but becomes 1.32 if you roll a 4 or 1.66 if you roll a 5 for damage.

If you're targeting something with at least 4 or 5 wounds the melta and plasmagun are pretty similar in output, but the plasmagun comes with risks that result in dedicating a character aura to the unit. The real benefit of the plasma is that it has more opportunities to be effective and it has longer range. If you compare melta to plasma within 6" against a vehicle/monster than the meltagun is superior because it inflicts a bit more damage and requires no support/risk.

RE: "naked" Guard units...dislike them personally...I tend o go full hog on them, Hvy Weapon team, special wepon, 50/50 on a vox caster...Then again I am going with a heavy weapon intense army (17 of them) and I like the grenade launcher and flamers


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Another thing, if you get a +1 you are immune to overheating, right? (I have a stratagem for that)

 Kharneth wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

 Kharneth wrote:
My buddy lost 3 Plague Marines (including his Champion) because he decided to try to pop my rhino (using smoke) with some overcharged rapid fire shots. He had a lord and everything. Rolled 3 too many 1s and then kept them on the reroll. He will never overcharge his plasma again, he says.

At close range, the Meltagun is definitely superior. Under 12", the plasma gun needs to risk hurting itself and also (somewhat) needs rerollable 1s in order to mitigate (not negate!) the risk. Only after combining this reroll and the risk does the Plasma gun begin to be roughly equal to the meltagun. But if you're within 6" the meltagun is better and comes with no risk whatsoever and doesn't require support (unless you want to count the "thing" that helped the melta to get into range).

On guard, I think plasma is the way to go. The risk is mostly irrelevant because your dudes are cannon fodder and the meltagun needs precision, which the guardsmen lack. I don't see people giving their guardsmen special weapons, though. I see people using them as bare minimum troops to do nothing except screen their tanks, secure objectives, and provide CP.

Under 12 inches plasma is better. In fact, only under 6 is melta better sometimes. In fact, your only really getting one extra wound through on average. Plasma has advanatages though, like having 2 shots, multiple profiles, and the ability to kill 2 guys, or put 4 wounds on 1 target.

2 shots of plasma at a leman Russ. You’ll hit with about 2 shots probably, wound with one, and get 2 wounds through.

Melta, you’ve already a 1/3 chance of missing, then you’ve a 1/2 chance of failing to wound. You then need to roll well and be closer to the damn thing than you can deep strike if you want to out preform plasma (4 dmg is better than 3.5 average).

Between 12" and 6" the plasma and melta are roughly equal when targeting vehicles/monsters (I'm ignoring infantry completely). Under 6" the meltagun becomes superior.

You're being very unfair with your statistics here. Rounding up for the plasma gun, assuming it'll hit with all its shots, ignoring the probability of rolling 1s, and giving the meltagun an average of 3.5 damage when in fact the average is higher when you get to the best out of 2d6. Let's assume you're BS 4+, like IG. A plasma gun can rapid fire to deal 2-4 s8 hits. 1 will hit and 1 will miss. 66% of that 1 will wound and will result in 1.32 wounds with likely only invulnerable saves. A meltagun will deal 0.5 hits and deal 0.3 wounds with only invulnerable saves. This becomes 1.16 if you only get the d6 damage, but becomes 1.32 if you roll a 4 or 1.66 if you roll a 5 for damage.

If you're targeting something with at least 4 or 5 wounds the melta and plasmagun are pretty similar in output, but the plasmagun comes with risks that result in dedicating a character aura to the unit. The real benefit of the plasma is that it has more opportunities to be effective and it has longer range. If you compare melta to plasma within 6" against a vehicle/monster than the meltagun is superior because it inflicts a bit more damage and requires no support/risk.

If you need something to be 6 inches away to do its job and it’s on a shooting unit, odds are it’s bad. You can’t deep strike close enough to use melta where it’s better than plasma, so it’s pretty trash.

Something to consider - one of the things that made Melta useful in older editions was that you could often deep strike such units near to their targets (e.g. via Drop Pods).

If a unit wasn't deep striking, it would probably have been given Plasma or Grav.

As it stands, you simply can't deep strike units into melta range. Hence, there's no longer any way to counteract the short range.


So, what if we removed 'melta range' entirely? Instead, against Vehicles and Monsters, Meltaguns automatically roll 2d6 for damage and pick the highest result (regardless of range).

Now deep strike can actually bring them into optimal range of their targets.

 Jaxler wrote:

 Kharneth wrote:

 Jaxler wrote:

 Kharneth wrote:
My buddy lost 3 Plague Marines (including his Champion) because he decided to try to pop my rhino (using smoke) with some overcharged rapid fire shots. He had a lord and everything. Rolled 3 too many 1s and then kept them on the reroll. He will never overcharge his plasma again, he says.

At close range, the Meltagun is definitely superior. Under 12", the plasma gun needs to risk hurting itself and also (somewhat) needs rerollable 1s in order to mitigate (not negate!) the risk. Only after combining this reroll and the risk does the Plasma gun begin to be roughly equal to the meltagun. But if you're within 6" the meltagun is better and comes with no risk whatsoever and doesn't require support (unless you want to count the "thing" that helped the melta to get into range).

On guard, I think plasma is the way to go. The risk is mostly irrelevant because your dudes are cannon fodder and the meltagun needs precision, which the guardsmen lack. I don't see people giving their guardsmen special weapons, though. I see people using them as bare minimum troops to do nothing except screen their tanks, secure objectives, and provide CP.

Under 12 inches plasma is better. In fact, only under 6 is melta better sometimes. In fact, your only really getting one extra wound through on average. Plasma has advanatages though, like having 2 shots, multiple profiles, and the ability to kill 2 guys, or put 4 wounds on 1 target.

2 shots of plasma at a leman Russ. You’ll hit with about 2 shots probably, wound with one, and get 2 wounds through.

Melta, you’ve already a 1/3 chance of missing, then you’ve a 1/2 chance of failing to wound. You then need to roll well and be closer to the damn thing than you can deep strike if you want to out preform plasma (4 dmg is better than 3.5 average).

Between 12" and 6" the plasma and melta are roughly equal when targeting vehicles/monsters (I'm ignoring infantry completely). Under 6" the meltagun becomes superior.

You're being very unfair with your statistics here. Rounding up for the plasma gun, assuming it'll hit with all its shots, ignoring the probability of rolling 1s, and giving the meltagun an average of 3.5 damage when in fact the average is higher when you get to the best out of 2d6. Let's assume you're BS 4+, like IG. A plasma gun can rapid fire to deal 2-4 s8 hits. 1 will hit and 1 will miss. 66% of that 1 will wound and will result in 1.32 wounds with likely only invulnerable saves. A meltagun will deal 0.5 hits and deal 0.3 wounds with only invulnerable saves. This becomes 1.16 if you only get the d6 damage, but becomes 1.32 if you roll a 4 or 1.66 if you roll a 5 for damage.

If you're targeting something with at least 4 or 5 wounds the melta and plasmagun are pretty similar in output, but the plasmagun comes with risks that result in dedicating a character aura to the unit. The real benefit of the plasma is that it has more opportunities to be effective and it has longer range. If you compare melta to plasma within 6" against a vehicle/monster than the meltagun is superior because it inflicts a bit more damage and requires no support/risk.

If you need something to be 6 inches away to do its job and it’s on a shooting unit, odds are it’s bad. You can’t deep strike close enough to use melta where it’s better than plasma, so it’s pretty trash.

I agree. Meltaguns are ineffective because their range is too short and Multimeltas are ineffective because they aren't assault weapons.

None of that negates the fact that meltagun beats the plasmagun at damaging vehicles within 6". You don't want to do improper probability when you're comparing weapons, especially if you already have a preference. A rapid firing overcharged plasma gun on a space marine is going to deal 1.78 damage (assuming no saves) to a t7 foe (with no rerolling) and has a 16% chance to kill itself in the process. A single meltagun on a space marine shooting within 6" is going to deal 1.78 damage (assuming no saves) to a t7 foe (with no rerolling) if it rolls a 3.5 for damage (which is impossible). On a 4, 5, or 6 the meltagun is better and on a 1, 2, or 3 it is worse. 2d6 pick the highest will likely have at least 1 4+.

Plasmagun is certainly the better choice, AND it's cheaper. But it's not better at doing what the meltagun does. It's the outside circumstances that make plasma better. You can't deep strike within 6", but you can within 12". You can't move a vehicle and then disembark with your meltagun.

 vipoid wrote:
Something to consider - one of the things that made Melta useful in older editions was that you could often deep strike such units near to their targets (e.g. via Drop Pods).

If a unit wasn't deep striking, it would probably have been given Plasma or Grav.

As it stands, you simply can't deep strike units into melta range. Hence, there's no longer any way to counteract the short range.


So, what if we removed 'melta range' entirely? Instead, against Vehicles and Monsters, Meltaguns automatically roll 2d6 for damage and pick the highest result (regardless of range).

Now deep strike can actually bring them into optimal range of their targets.

That would only remove one of the last parts of positining in 8th and favour the alpha strike and letality of the game.

I don't disagree Melta needs buffs. But I don't believe thats the way. The doubling your S in melta range of Martel is something I like more.

 Kharneth wrote:
My buddy lost 3 Plague Marines (including his Champion) because he decided to try to pop my rhino (using smoke) with some overcharged rapid fire shots. He had a lord and everything. Rolled 3 too many 1s and then kept them on the reroll. He will never overcharge his plasma again, he says.

Excelent. The more people who put superstition and once in a blue moon events into decision the easier time others have winning.

At close range, the Meltagun is definitely superior. Under 12", the plasma gun needs to risk hurting itself and also (somewhat) needs rerollable 1s in order to mitigate (not negate!) the risk. Only after combining this reroll and the risk does the Plasma gun begin to be roughly equal to the meltagun. But if you're within 6" the meltagun is better and comes with no risk whatsoever and doesn't require support (unless you want to count the "thing" that helped the melta to get into range).

On guard, I think plasma is the way to go. The risk is mostly irrelevant because your dudes are cannon fodder and the meltagun needs precision, which the guardsmen lack. I don't see people giving their guardsmen special weapons, though. I see people using them as bare minimum troops to do nothing except screen their tanks, secure objectives, and provide CP.

It does not roughly equal. It exceeds it as long as we aren't talking about 2+ save vehicles. Not common niche. And rerolls are so common you could say automatic. Meanwhile melta, short of very few units like ravenwing bikers, will never get to 6" if opponent doesn't want to. The 6" range is bigger risk than overheat so your no risk whatsoever is platantly false. Getting within 6" is death sentence orde.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I don't disagree Melta needs buffs. But I don't believe thats the way. The doubling your S in melta range of Martel is something I like more.

At least then it would have some scenario where it gets more damage than plasma. Albeit you will never really get to that situation but hey at least something.

I don't know, having 2d6 pick the highest damage all the time might be a good solution. For the current cost, at least.
It gives Melta the same effectiveness no matter the range (as long as it is in range), but Plasma will still be more versatile.

The Alpha strike issue is already addressed by the beta rule that you wouldn't be able to drop in turn 1

-

Still won't force enough saves. Useless. I don't think there's any change you can make to make it worth its current point cost, except make it ignore invulnerable saves.

Martel732 wrote:
Still won't force enough saves. Useless.

What saves? A Melta's ideal targets would not have a save. AP -4 effectively ignores 3+ armour. But 2 shot Multi-meltas sound like a great idea.
RE: invulnerable saves are call as such for a reason and most are only 5+, or on units with no really armour save, so Autocannons are better anyway.

That's one thing I like about 8th, most weapons seem to have a purpose. Plasma just happens to be the only one that is multi-purpose.

-

Most melta targets have invulns now. Only the crappy Imperials are left out in the cold.

Thats the reason I hate when people say "Oh, this super heavy/vehicle isn't thougt enough. Give him a invul!"

No. The game needs less invulnerable saves, no more.

Well, IK codex just dropped. That's not the way its going.

tneva82 wrote:

 Kharneth wrote:
My buddy lost 3 Plague Marines (including his Champion) because he decided to try to pop my rhino (using smoke) with some overcharged rapid fire shots. He had a lord and everything. Rolled 3 too many 1s and then kept them on the reroll. He will never overcharge his plasma again, he says.

Excelent. The more people who put superstition and once in a blue moon events into decision the easier time others have winning.

At close range, the Meltagun is definitely superior. Under 12", the plasma gun needs to risk hurting itself and also (somewhat) needs rerollable 1s in order to mitigate (not negate!) the risk. Only after combining this reroll and the risk does the Plasma gun begin to be roughly equal to the meltagun. But if you're within 6" the meltagun is better and comes with no risk whatsoever and doesn't require support (unless you want to count the "thing" that helped the melta to get into range).

On guard, I think plasma is the way to go. The risk is mostly irrelevant because your dudes are cannon fodder and the meltagun needs precision, which the guardsmen lack. I don't see people giving their guardsmen special weapons, though. I see people using them as bare minimum troops to do nothing except screen their tanks, secure objectives, and provide CP.

It does not roughly equal. It exceeds it as long as we aren't talking about 2+ save vehicles. Not common niche. And rerolls are so common you could say automatic. Meanwhile melta, short of very few units like ravenwing bikers, will never get to 6" if opponent doesn't want to. The 6" range is bigger risk than overheat so your no risk whatsoever is platantly false. Getting within 6" is death sentence orde.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
I don't disagree Melta needs buffs. But I don't believe thats the way. The doubling your S in melta range of Martel is something I like more.

At least then it would have some scenario where it gets more damage than plasma. Albeit you will never really get to that situation but hey at least something.

I already did the math and posted it. Meltaguns are superior against vehicles (regardless of armor) when they are within 6".

Rerolls are far from automatic. It's easy to say that they're automatic when you play an army that can take a unit of 4 plasma guns, stick them next to a character and call it a day. It's very different when you're looking at a force where you want to sprinkle some special weapons here and there. When you have 4 independent units that all want a single special weapon, you're not going to grab 4 plasma guns and run around overcharging everything because you have free rerolling 1s.

I keep hearing Plasma guns are better, but what's actually being said is plasma guns with character support are better and we're ignoring the fact that we'll still lose guys. Every time I've had an enemy shoot me with their 4 plasma guns rerolling 1s with their character one of them dies. That's with the rerolls and no modifiers. The meltagun will never die unless your opponent chooses to kill it.

Plasma guns are better, I'm not denying that, but they do not out-damage plasma guns when they are within 6" of a vehicle. If you're getting rerolls on 1s with your plasma guns than surely the meltaguns deserve the same buff. You can't claim that plasma guns are more worth their points and then neglect to factor in the 40-100 points it costs for the rerolls.

Only marines care about rerolls on plasma.

 Galas wrote:
Thats the reason I hate when people say "Oh, this super heavy/vehicle isn't thougt enough. Give him a invul!"

No. The game needs less invulnerable sabes, no more.

So much this.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, IK codex just dropped. That's not the way its going.

GW should start to give super heavies more wounds, better saves and better T. But when they have capped themselves at T8, saves for superheaveis at 3+, and wounds at 24-28 (Ignoring the Stompa) then of course they can only make things more survivable with invulnerable saves.

Superheaveis with T9 and T10 would make a Melta that doubles his S in melta range much more usefull, for example. And more vehicles with 2+ would make the -4P of the melta relevant.

That's all very true. But for what currently exists in the game, the pricing on melta is insane.

Oh yeah, I agree with that.

And I agree too with Galef. The fact that it has two barrels, its called "multi"-melta, and it only shoots 1 proyectile its a failure at a fundamental level.

Multimelta was a blast back in the day.

Martel732 wrote:
Multimelta was a blast back in the day.

So you are saying it really should be D3 shots? I agree.

-

Yeah, it should probably have D3 shots especially at is current cost.

When was the multimelta a blast weapon? I don't remember that from any of the editions I've played.

For the multimelta rationale, this is my thought:

Melta clearly is more powerful when you're closer to your target. I really appreciated how the Space Marine video game used meltaguns like shotguns with a spread that made it so they dealt more damage from closer distances. With this rationale, the multimelta does not shoot twice because that's not the function of the additional barrel. The multimelta instead has increased range because the additional barrel is amplifying the heat that is shot out. More heat will allow it to travel a further distance. It's still one, brief explosion of intense heat traveling over a short distance, but with the added barrel and added heat, the effect is carried further before it dissipates.

Otherwise, you'd be talking about twin meltaguns which would have 2 shots but would be the same range as the regular meltagun.

2nd ed it had a blast marker, which was devastating vs vehicles.

I'd give it 2d6 pick highest at all ranges, and straight 2d6 damage in half range. That would be a scary gun, but still one that asks a lot of positioning to make it work to its full potential.

Damage mods aren't the fix. The current implementation has a huge chance to doing nothing at all, which is the problem.

Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed it had a blast marker, which was devastating vs vehicles.

Oh wow. I started in 4th.

Martel732 wrote:
Damage mods aren't the fix. The current implementation has a huge chance to doing nothing at all, which is the problem.

Same as a Lascannon.

Martel732 wrote:
2nd ed it had a blast marker, which was devastating vs everything.

Fixed. Multimelta shooting from rhino's top door was ... a blast

The Legend of Melta was born somewhere in the 3rd to 7th edition days when it had a pretty decent chance of a one-shot kill inside melta range. Now I am a big fan of 8th but the change to the toughness/wounds system away from the AP/damage chart approach means that it's really difficult to recreate those types of weapons. Melta guns are still useful but they will do a max of 6 wounds in a game where most vehicle targets have 10 or more wounds.

This means a unit like a squad of Fire Dragons that could reliably kill a vehicle in one volley in older editions (and was often overkill because it could only fire at one target) can still kill a vehicle pretty handily in this edition because they're shooting 5 of the things at one target, typically.

Other units like a Blood Angels assault squad or a marine bike squad where you could usually only take 2 meltas could still kill vehicles alright in those older editions but have a much harder time in 8th because they just do not generate enough wounds to kill a big target.

Unfortunately the cost of the various melta weapons does not seem to have been adjusted to reflect this change.

Potential fix then:
Melta = Assault 1, or Assault D3 at half range
Multi-melta = Heavy D3, or Heavy D6 (or 2D3) at half range

Always D6 damage regardless of range (cuz, c'mon you are get moar dakka to reflect that extra damage).
So it will basically work like Rapidfire, but keep the properties of Assault and Heavy respectively

-

I will say that I have had really good luck with my Chaos Bikers with 2 Melta Guns and a Combi Melta.

But this has been the exception rather than the rule for my experiences with Melta. Chaos Bikers have a number of advantages that help them use Melta effectively. Mainly what it comes down is they have incredible options for force multipliers in their codex. Prescience helps them land their shots, Warp Time and a huge movement stat helps them get into that 6 inch range. In terms of Stratagems, Veterans of the Long War makes their Melta Guns more reliable against high toughness targets, and also makes the combi-bolters on the bikes a credible threat to t7 and below, and of course they can mark Slaanesh which opens up the Endless Cacophony Strategem if they need a second shooting phase to bring something down.

I prefer the melta guns on the bikes to plasma because I don't have to worry about overheating on 1s against negative to hit modifiers, and their blistering speed gives them an easier time sliding into that 6 inch range. The Combi Bolters on the bikes are nice vs Infantry even if the melta guns do not have a good target anyway. And they can split fire. Bikes are a very versatile and good unit.

that said, Raptors thoroughly let me down with Melta Guns, and have since switched to Plasma. Not being able to Deep Strike into Melta's optimal range makes Overcharged Plasma stronger and more reliable with 4 damage if both Plasma bursts land on target. Still, if there is a lot of Craftworld Eldar in your meta, Melta is much stronger. Wave Serpents make a mockery of Plasma, god help you if they have vectored engines and use lightning reflexes. Suddenly those overcharged Plasma Guns are overheating on 1, 2 and 3. And just to pour salt on the wound, Serpent Shields reduce the damage of your Overcharged Plasma to a measley 1 damage. Which means you are relegated to firing non overcharged plasma at that Serpent. A Melta has no danger of killing its user, and if its in melta range you've got 2d6 take the highest to help circumvent that -1 damage from Serpent Shield.

 Galef wrote:
Potential fix then:
Melta = Assault 1, or Assault D3 at half range
Multi-melta = Heavy D3, or Heavy D6 (or 2D3) at half range

Always D6 damage regardless of range (cuz, c'mon you are get moar dakka to reflect that extra damage).
So it will basically work like Rapidfire, but keep the properties of Assault and Heavy respectively

-

My sisters would be happy to see this.

I will say that I have one massive concern with all this melta sucks and must be brought into line with plasma.

8th edition already favours cheap bodies, making more and more weapons better against multi wound models, just adds to the push to bring the biggest number of the cheapest model and some charictors.

I get the melta doesn't fit its supposed niche, but given how unwilling GW are to make big scary things properly hard to kill giving cheap infantry more ways to kill 300-400 point models with 50point units feels like the last nail in the coffin for 8th edition as it becomes hoard edition.

I like the melta gun. It's next to useless but it looks cool in my army!

Honestly, an easy way to fix plasma is have that balance of risk vs reward. On a natural 1 the user has to make an armour save, no rerolls for both.

Probably a lazy fix but it was what we used to do.

Easy fix: make melta double strength within half range, on top of any increased damage. The problem with melta is that 50% chance to fail to wound, make it more reliable at delivering that 2D6 damage and it has much more of a purpose compared to plasma.

Got no problem with meltas.
I'd be happy to take them in equal measure.
Every special weapon has its own special job. So limiting yourself to 1 choice is just poor planning and poor list building.

ValentineGames wrote:
Every special weapon has its own special job.

Except they really don't. Plasma is the clear winner in most situations, and melta has a very small advantage in a small number of situations. The higher damage is offset by the lower rate of fire, meaning you need to get within 6" to have any advantage and even there the advantage is small. Essentially you're paying extra points to avoid losing models to rolling 1s (assuming you have no buffs to remove that problem, which is a very generous assumption), but since you have to get so close to your target you're probably losing them next turn anyway. So when you have a choice between a weapon that is better almost all of the time vs. a weapon that occasionally has a slight advantage but mostly just sucks you always take plasma and ignore the other options.

In addition to rebalancing melta, plasma probably also needs to be looked at. Making melta better might not help that much since plasma's biggest strength is that it's a general-purpose weapon that's too good at all of the things it tries to do. Reducing the Strength or AP of plasma might be a good start. S7 is incredibly powerful compared to S6 in 8th edition. Plasma also demonstrates one of the core issues with 8th edition at the moment, which is the prevalence of re-rolls. Reduce those and overheating is actually a drawback.

I do think plasma is too good, and meltaguns are pretty expensive (could use a couple point drop). Even 15 points instead of 17 (which is too close to 20 for a lascannon/brightlance which is 3x/4x the range and similar damage)

My main beef is the slaughter of the Multimelta....while I hate Heavy D3 normally, the Multi-Melta should be Heavy D3 to represent the fact that historically it was a short range blast version of the lascannon (similar damage back in the day). It was half or less of the range, but gave you a template. I'd even be fine with Multmeltas being shorter range, but give them a vague multi-hit opportunity.

 Galef wrote:
Potential fix then:
Melta = Assault 1, or Assault D3 at half range
Multi-melta = Heavy D3, or Heavy D6 (or 2D3) at half range

Really like this idea, as it is a decent buff that makes that half range nastier and also helps with the invulnerable save problem.

The other option is to make it ignore invuln saves and cause D3+3 damage. That's the only way it's worthwhile with a low RoF.

 Peregrine wrote:

ValentineGames wrote:
Every special weapon has its own special job.

and melta has a very small advantage in a small number of situations

Ah...well I have come to learn while on this forum that the tiniest of advantages is actually blown out of all proportion and makes whatever it is the greatest choice in the entire world.

So by DakkaDakka logic...the Melta gun is the single greatest weapon in the game because of that.
Awesome!

Martel732 wrote:
The other option is to make it ignore invuln saves and cause D3+3 damage. That's the only way it's worthwhile with a low RoF.

I don't think it should ignore Invul entirely. Maybe it gives a -1 penalty to Invul and at half range a -2 Penalty?

It needs to be ignore because drukhari and knights exist. Otherwise, i'll go back to high rof guns.

Martel732 wrote:
It needs to be ignore because drukhari and knights exist. Otherwise, i'll go back to high rof guns.

Only Mortal Wounds should ignore Invuls. I don't think Melta should do MWs, unless it is on a to-wound roll of 6 (maybe 5+ against Vehicles) or something like that

I still hold that they just need a Rapidfire-like mechanic that gives them more shots at half range (instead of more damage), but still keeps the Assault/Heavy type

-

Nah, it doesn't need more shots. Those shots just need to not suck.

I'm content with the Multi-Melta having D3 shots akin to small blasts though.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Nah, it doesn't need more shots. Those shots just need to not suck.

Expensive single shot weapons will always "suck" no matter how powerful they are because you only get 1 chance to hit, 1 chance to wound and 1 change to get past the enemy save.
If Meltas are supposed to do more damage up close, the best way to do this is to give them more chances to succeed, rather than just give them a bigger pay-off in the limited times they do succeed.

Or, make them so cheap you can spam them over Plasma.

-

I disagree. They shouldn't have multiple shots, because that is a big part about what distinguishes them mechanically.

I think I better way to do it would be to allow re-rolls to wound in half range, on top of making damage more consistent at all ranges.

They should also be brought down to Plasma cost.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It needs to be ignore because drukhari and knights exist. Otherwise, i'll go back to high rof guns.

Only Mortal Wounds should ignore Invuls. I don't think Melta should do MWs, unless it is on a to-wound roll of 6 (maybe 5+ against Vehicles) or something like that

I still hold that they just need a Rapidfire-like mechanic that gives them more shots at half range (instead of more damage), but still keeps the Assault/Heavy type

-

Melta wounds would not spill over like mortal wounds, so the mechanic would be distinct. I think ignoring invulns would be a great niche for melta. It would still suck vs hordes.

A lot of this is more of a 'plasma needs to be addressed' than meltas in particular. Either by points for plasma weapons going up, or plasma getting a bump in strength. Plasma being S6 base / S7 overcharged would definitely swing it towards its proper role as an anti-infantry weapon, leaving Meltas and Lascannons with a better anti-vehicle slot.

Still doesn't make melta weapons great, but it does mean they're not completely overshadowed in their role. Really Plasma being such an everything killer has been a big problem for a while in this game - having it reduced to only doing 1 damage on either profile might be the best solution and promote more of a weapons mix.

Means Primaris are even more screwed but we know they need more anti-tank options.

Nerfing plasma won't make me take more melta. I just won't take either. Melta sucks independent of anything else existing in the game.

Martel732 wrote:
Nerfing plasma won't make me take more melta. I just won't take either. Melta sucks independent of anything else existing in the game.

People often forget that hitting one thing doesn't make you take the other thing.

I think Melta is overlooked at the moment. Overcharged plasma has taken its glory but if you ONLY take plasma you are making yourself weak vs all the -1 to hit shenanigans.

I'm making a scions battalion with 4 plasma, 2 melta and 4 hot shots. I feel like the meltaguns can contribute well if pointed at the right kind of target... something with lots of wounds, no invulnerable and a 3+ save. Leman Russes for example.

Meltaguns are anti-imperium. Which makes no sense given that its the imperium fielding them.

Melta is not overlooked. It's not used b/c it has crappy return.

Martel732 wrote:
Meltaguns are anti-imperium. Which makes no sense given that its the imperium fielding them.

I agree with you in execution, but thematically it does make sense. Imperials hate those ex-Imperials the most after all.

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Meltaguns are anti-imperium. Which makes no sense given that its the imperium fielding them.

I agree with you in execution, but thematically it does make sense. Imperials hate those ex-Imperials the most after all.

Aren't they also the second most common enemy as well?

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Meltaguns are anti-imperium. Which makes no sense given that its the imperium fielding them.

I agree with you in execution, but thematically it does make sense. Imperials hate those ex-Imperials the most after all.

I don't care about the thematics. Being hamstrung vs Xenos is dumb from a game standpoint.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

pm713 wrote:

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Meltaguns are anti-imperium. Which makes no sense given that its the imperium fielding them.

I agree with you in execution, but thematically it does make sense. Imperials hate those ex-Imperials the most after all.

Aren't they also the second most common enemy as well?

Not in practice.

 Silentz wrote:
I feel like the meltaguns can contribute well if pointed at the right kind of target... something with lots of wounds, no invulnerable and a 3+ save. Leman Russes for example.

The problem is that their advantage against even that perfect target at half range is fairly small: an extra 0.5 average damage and a -1 save modifier. In exchange for that small benefit you get a gun that is much weaker against everything else, and weaker against the ideal target if you deep strike (and you are deep striking with storm troopers). This is something where you just have to do the math instead of trying to trust your intuition that melta is supposed to be good against vehicles.

Plasma needs to cost more and go down in strength.
Melta probably needs to cost less but it's stats aren't realy the problem, it's costed like it's 7th edition.
Flamers also need some work but thats off topic.

Infantry spam sucks, giving 50 point units the ability to one shot 200 point vehicals is the definition of imbalance.

It just makes having an invulnerable saves mandatory for playability.

If you want to up the damage avarage change it from d6 to 2d3 damage.
and maybe +1 to wound at half range

Ice_can wrote:
Infantry spam sucks, giving 50 point units the ability to one shot 200 point vehicals is the definition of imbalance.

No, it's fine. Those 50-point units can only one-shot a vehicle with extreme luck and from suicidally close range. It's entirely fair that if you can work hard and set up the perfect conditions for an anti-tank unit to attack a tank the result is a dead tank.

 lolman1c wrote:
I like the melta gun. It's next to useless but it looks cool in my army!

Yes, I too, am very fond of oversized hair dryer of doom.

 Peregrine wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Infantry spam sucks, giving 50 point units the ability to one shot 200 point vehicals is the definition of imbalance.

No, it's fine. Those 50-point units can only one-shot a vehicle with extreme luck and from suicidally close range. It's entirely fair that if you can work hard and set up the perfect conditions for an anti-tank unit to attack a tank the result is a dead tank.

Not exactly a challange when you can rush forward and blow up the transport to get to survive the explosion and oh free shooting. At 1.5 ich

Admittedly the above is exploiting GW pants plasma rules.

But give SM bikers the ability to delete a tank per turn with each melta gun and ravenwing bikers would be insane.

The rwal solution is to leave them as maxing out at 6 wounds but take the opportunity cost into consideration when pointing melta. In infantry it's probably 5points range on bikes and vehicals 15 point range. Points can be unit specific, weapon stats can't.

So what I am hearing, is that my gut instinct is right....

Martel732 wrote:
Meltaguns are anti-imperium. Which makes no sense given that its the imperium fielding them.

Melta is not overlooked. It's not used b/c it has crappy return.

Why are they anti Imperium?

But another thing to recall is that historically, most of what the Imperium fights is Orks and itself.

Because Imperial targets are the only ones where they are getting their full -4 AP. Everyone else has invulns out the ass.

Martel732 wrote:
Because Imperial targets are the only ones where they are getting their full -4 AP. Everyone else has invulns out the ass.

Or Quantum Shielding. That's a harsh one to face...

Imperium, Chaos (Space marines, not demons), Tau and Orks. All of those are good targets for melta. Even Tyranids and their big bugs.

The only ones that have invulnerables everywhere are those pesky Eldars, Dark Eldars, Imperial Knights ,Demons and Necrons with their strange rules.

Of course, if your meta is 90% of those in the second list, Melta will be useless. But thats the same as if every opponent you are facing are orks, tyranids, and tau with Hordes. All your anti tank won't be worth a damm.

Melta doesn't even do that impressive of an amount of damage even when it works. A lascannon will have done much more damage due to many more shot opportunities.

Melta sucks vs CSM. They have invulns all over the place. Esp those plague crawlers.

Do you think drop Meltagun cost by 5 points and automatically maximize the damage at half range (instead of roll 2d6, pick best) would be enough?

I like doubling is strength. more 2d6 pick the highest is good enough for damage output. The problem is wounding the target.

How many other weapons double the strength on a given condition? I am afraid of the crazy idea the design team could have setting this precedent (if it IS a precedent, correct me if I am wrong).

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
How many other weapons double the strength on a given condition? I am afraid of the crazy idea the design team could have setting this precedent (if it IS a precedent, correct me if I am wrong).

Many meele weapons do it. Shooting ones, I don't know. But it is not like theres any other weapon with something similar to the melta rule.

Damn. Besides standard Hot shots, I only have Melta and Volley Scions since I don't care for the Plasma Scion pose and that's the only Plasma gun in the kit...

I kind of feel like that's a problem with my guard. None of the other special weapons feel great to use compared to Plasma.

 Kelligula wrote:
Damn. Besides standard Hot shots, I only have Melta and Volley Scions since I don't care for the Plasma Scion pose and that's the only Plasma gun in the kit...

I kind of feel like that's a problem with my guard. None of the other special weapons feel great to use compared to Plasma.

It's more a problem with plasma being way better than it should be for its points.

Plasma is good, ok... but to be honest, Grav, Flamers and Melta suck. If you nerf plasma people won't start using the other weapons.

 Galas wrote:
Plasma is good, ok... but to be honest, Grav, Flamers and Melta suck. If you nerf plasma people won't start using the other weapons.

Sure they will. Those weapons are still better than a basic lasgun/bolter/whatever that the model would otherwise be armed with, so if plasma is no longer a good choice people will have to take those other weapons.

No we don't.

Swap the points of plasma and melta around and people might actually have a decision to make right now it's so imbalanced other options may aswell not exsist.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Plasma is good, ok... but to be honest, Grav, Flamers and Melta suck. If you nerf plasma people won't start using the other weapons.

Sure they will. Those weapons are still better than a basic lasgun/bolter/whatever that the model would otherwise be armed with, so if plasma is no longer a good choice people will have to take those other weapons.

No, because 3 Storm Bolters or Combi-Bolters is better than the Flamer. Unless you're seriously suggesting that those weapons be bumped up in price, of course.

And Grav Guns are bad whereas Grav Cannons are not. The weapon is bad, not the rules.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
No, because 3 Storm Bolters or Combi-Bolters is better than the Flamer. Unless you're seriously suggesting that those weapons be bumped up in price, of course.

But that's not a valid comparison. You can't take 3 storm bolters vs. 1 flamer because you're ignoring the cost of the carrier and limits on how many models can take upgrade weapons. If I have an IG infantry squad I can take one special weapon and one heavy weapon. If I can't take a plasma gun anymore I'm still going to take a melta/flamer/whatever because any special weapon is better than the lasgun it replaces.

Ice_can wrote:
Swap the points of plasma and melta around and people might actually have a decision to make right now it's so imbalanced other options may aswell not exsist.

See this is weird. Put aside your experience and look at the statline.

Rapid Fire 1 - S7, AP-3 D1 or S8 AP-3 D2 but your model can die
or
Assault 1 - S8 AP-4 Dd6, roll twice pick the best dmg

Doesnt feel like the 2nd option should be cheaper than the first.

24" on the plasma is great tho.

 Silentz wrote:
Put aside your experience and look at the statline.

Except when you do that and do the math on the stat line plasma wins 95% of the time and melta only has a small advantage in the rare situations where it comes out ahead at all. Put aside your intuition about what things should do and look at the math, because the math is all that matters. Melta is a much less effective weapon and should be cheaper.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
No, because 3 Storm Bolters or Combi-Bolters is better than the Flamer. Unless you're seriously suggesting that those weapons be bumped up in price, of course.

But that's not a valid comparison. You can't take 3 storm bolters vs. 1 flamer because you're ignoring the cost of the carrier and limits on how many models can take upgrade weapons. If I have an IG infantry squad I can take one special weapon and one heavy weapon. If I can't take a plasma gun anymore I'm still going to take a melta/flamer/whatever because any special weapon is better than the lasgun it replaces.

That would be true in a Power level setting where weapon upgrades come for free, but they don't. Every flamer you take without needing is, is 9 less points you could spent elsewhere. Make plamsma not worthwile and people won't change it for flamers or meltas, they won't take any other special weapon and they will just use other units/models.

I'm not saying plasma don't need to be toned down. I'm saying that needs to go with a upgrade for grav, melta and flamers, to make all the four kind of imperial special weapons equally usefull, everyone at their intended role.

(And I'll add that not all weapons are equal. Plasma its only overpowered in the form of plasma guns. Plasma cannons and plasma pistols are totally fine. The same happens with grav. Grav cannons are fine, but grav guns and grav pistols are not. In the other hand, flamers aside from the Valiant and the Helllhound one are normally bad, the same goes with meltas)

 Silentz wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
Swap the points of plasma and melta around and people might actually have a decision to make right now it's so imbalanced other options may aswell not exsist.

See this is weird. Put aside your experience and look at the statline.

Rapid Fire 1 - S7, AP-3 D1 or S8 AP-3 D2 but your model can die
or
Assault 1 - S8 AP-4 Dd6, roll twice pick the best dmg

Doesnt feel like the 2nd option should be cheaper than the first.

24" on the plasma is great tho.

Actually I would disagree as even at a glance rapid fire flat 2d for one less AP vrs d6 says the first profile is more consistent in damage. Plasma gut feeling should be more points than melta.

You also baised your data as melta doesn't get 2d6 pick the highest untill 6 inch. So your not conpairing fairly.

As perigrine says doing the math properly makes the decision of which is worth more even more blatant.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
No, because 3 Storm Bolters or Combi-Bolters is better than the Flamer. Unless you're seriously suggesting that those weapons be bumped up in price, of course.

But that's not a valid comparison. You can't take 3 storm bolters vs. 1 flamer because you're ignoring the cost of the carrier and limits on how many models can take upgrade weapons. If I have an IG infantry squad I can take one special weapon and one heavy weapon. If I can't take a plasma gun anymore I'm still going to take a melta/flamer/whatever because any special weapon is better than the lasgun it replaces.

You most certainly can ignore that when you have units like Command Squads and Celestian squads. The moment you have those 3 Storm Bolters and 2 Bolters vs the 1 Flamer and 4 Bolters, you lose in everything but Overwatch (and it is basically no damage so who cares?)

So YES it is a valid comparison. Flamers are garbage and you don't change that nerfing the Plasma Gun.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You most certainly can ignore that when you have units like Command Squads and Celestian squads. The moment you have those 3 Storm Bolters and 2 Bolters vs the 1 Flamer and 4 Bolters, you lose in everything but Overwatch (and it is basically no damage so who cares?)

That isn't a relevant comparison. Why are you leaving special weapon slots empty? And even if storm bolters are better than flamers most units don't get storm bolters as a special weapon option. An IG squad will always take a special weapon, any special weapon, over a lasgun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
That would be true in a Power level setting where weapon upgrades come for free, but they don't. Every flamer you take without needing is, is 9 less points you could spent elsewhere. Make plamsma not worthwile and people won't change it for flamers or meltas, they won't take any other special weapon and they will just use other units/models.

The issue is that carrier cost is a thing. Using a unit's special/heavy weapon slots is almost always more effective than buying entire additional units because getting that additional unit means sinking more points into carrier cost before you can start to add real weapons. Maybe in an extreme situation you strip a squad down to naked lasguns/bolters/whatever because the exact combination of points worked out that way, but as a general rule you aren't doing that. If a unit is so ineffective that you don't want to use those weapon upgrades then you probably aren't taking the unit at all.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
You most certainly can ignore that when you have units like Command Squads and Celestian squads. The moment you have those 3 Storm Bolters and 2 Bolters vs the 1 Flamer and 4 Bolters, you lose in everything but Overwatch (and it is basically no damage so who cares?)

That isn't a relevant comparison. Why are you leaving special weapon slots empty? And even if storm bolters are better than flamers most units don't get storm bolters as a special weapon option. An IG squad will always take a special weapon, any special weapon, over a lasgun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
That would be true in a Power level setting where weapon upgrades come for free, but they don't. Every flamer you take without needing is, is 9 less points you could spent elsewhere. Make plamsma not worthwile and people won't change it for flamers or meltas, they won't take any other special weapon and they will just use other units/models.

The issue is that carrier cost is a thing. Using a unit's special/heavy weapon slots is almost always more effective than buying entire additional units because getting that additional unit means sinking more points into carrier cost before you can start to add real weapons. Maybe in an extreme situation you strip a squad down to naked lasguns/bolters/whatever because the exact combination of points worked out that way, but as a general rule you aren't doing that. If a unit is so ineffective that you don't want to use those weapon upgrades then you probably aren't taking the unit at all.

Its because we are comparing unit and weapon costs unless you want to talk about Power Level, which I know you're strictly against.

Also you might not even want that special weapon on an Infantry unit because of range issues (Melta Gun and Flamer) or performance issues (Grenade Launcher and Flamer). Heavy Weapons make more sense for Infantry squads. A more valid comparison would be Vets, but they don't have an equivalent.

Also: does it actually matter who has access to the Storm Bolter and Combi-Bolter? You're making excuses at this point. Either you want the Storm Bolter to be 3 points (which is ridiculous) or the Flamer needs a buff. With that said, you're not taking Flamers ever, and that's NOT because of Plasma Guns. End of story.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Its because we are comparing unit and weapon costs unless you want to talk about Power Level, which I know you're strictly against.

You have to consider whole unit costs, including the cost of the model carrying the weapon, not just the weapon cost. This has nothing to do with PL.

Also you might not even want that special weapon on an Infantry unit because of range issues (Melta Gun and Flamer) or performance issues (Grenade Launcher and Flamer). Heavy Weapons make more sense for Infantry squads. A more valid comparison would be Vets, but they don't have an equivalent.

Uh, no. IG infantry squads always take a special weapon over a lasgun. If plasma is not available then you take the next best thing.

Also: does it actually matter who has access to the Storm Bolter and Combi-Bolter? You're making excuses at this point. Either you want the Storm Bolter to be 3 points (which is ridiculous) or the Flamer needs a buff. With that said, you're not taking Flamers ever, and that's NOT because of Plasma Guns. End of story.

Of course it matters! You're talking about alternatives to plasma so it's a very relevant question if a storm bolter is a legal choice at all. I don't care if a storm bolter is better than a flamer in some abstract comparison when I'm trying to decide which weapon to give my IG infantry squads because the storm bolter is not an option. It's like saying that railguns are better than storm bolters so you should never take storm bolters. If plasma is nerfed then my choices are lasgun, melta, flamer, grenade launcher or sniper rifle. And virtually no scenario ends with the lasgun being the choice, even if plasma is removed entirely.

 Peregrine wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Its because we are comparing unit and weapon costs unless you want to talk about Power Level, which I know you're strictly against.

You have to consider whole unit costs, including the cost of the model carrying the weapon, not just the weapon cost. This has nothing to do with PL.

Also you might not even want that special weapon on an Infantry unit because of range issues (Melta Gun and Flamer) or performance issues (Grenade Launcher and Flamer). Heavy Weapons make more sense for Infantry squads. A more valid comparison would be Vets, but they don't have an equivalent.

Uh, no. IG infantry squads always take a special weapon over a lasgun. If plasma is not available then you take the next best thing.

Also: does it actually matter who has access to the Storm Bolter and Combi-Bolter? You're making excuses at this point. Either you want the Storm Bolter to be 3 points (which is ridiculous) or the Flamer needs a buff. With that said, you're not taking Flamers ever, and that's NOT because of Plasma Guns. End of story.

Of course it matters! You're talking about alternatives to plasma so it's a very relevant question if a storm bolter is a legal choice at all. I don't care if a storm bolter is better than a flamer in some abstract comparison when I'm trying to decide which weapon to give my IG infantry squads because the storm bolter is not an option. It's like saying that railguns are better than storm bolters so you should never take storm bolters. If plasma is nerfed then my choices are lasgun, melta, flamer, grenade launcher or sniper rifle. And virtually no scenario ends with the lasgun being the choice, even if plasma is removed entirely.

Whole unit cost? Okay. 87 points for a Command Squad with 4 Bolters and a Flamer, and 86/88 points for a Command Squad with 3/4 Storm Bolters and 2/1 Bolters. That was easy!

Also you'd be paying 2-3 dudes for a Melta shot only hitting half the time. So that's actually a no-go. Plus if you're using them strictly for screening you keep them cheap.

And the options don't entirely matter here, as the units that are doing these weapon spams (Chosen, Command Squads, Sternguard, Celestian, Dominion) all have access to those same weapons in quite a proliferation.