Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Martel732 wrote:
Forget 2D6. Double its strength in melta so it generates more wounds so it might be able to brute force though invulns.

Doubling it's strength wouldn't generate more wounds or help it get past invulns at all. Doubling it's shot count would do those things.

Although even at 22 points it should probably be at least S9 to offset the short range compared to a Lascannon.

Reemule wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Drager wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:
My melta update was to make it like the graviton crusher off the Imperial Knight Styrix.

If the Target has a invulnerable save, increase the damage from the shot to 6. Leave the cost alone.

It's crazy talk like this that makes GW'S game designer's look a lot less bad at their job.

1 That's not even remotely anything like how the graviton crusher works

2 So melta automatically 1 shots all sub 7 wound charictors with an invulnerable but still gets random damage vrs a vehicle?

Thats just the most rediculously unbalanced idea.

Yawn. Do tell us all about how Graviton Crushers work?

*Sigh* Against targets with an armour save of 3+ or better the damage of the Graviton crusher increases from 2 to 3.

So, after making the shot a attribute of the target modifies the damage... Kind of exactly what I was sayin my dude.

No what your proposing is totally different, take a Russ for instance you proposing that it still takes D6 damage. Where as a custode/Harliquin will take Flat 6 damage.

You can't seriously think that is in anyway a balance improvement, unless your an Astra Millicheese player.

Ok your rule interacting with bullgryns models with bruteshields take flat 6 damage from melta, models with slabshields take D6 damage.

I feel your outrage if coloring your perception. The mechanic is identical. Is there going to be an explosion of Bullgryn getting aced by Melta's? Doubt it. Don't think it would be bad if they did either.

Increase damage by 1 (from 2 to 3) and gurantee max damage are very different.

Martel732 wrote:


Then melta should just be dirt cheap, because it is completely invalidated by the commonality of invulns. It's a list tailoring choice at best.

Looks at entire faction with nothing better than a 5++ invuln bubble.....Nah

The Newman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Forget 2D6. Double its strength in melta so it generates more wounds so it might be able to brute force though invulns.

Doubling it's strength wouldn't generate more wounds or help it get past invulns at all.

It'd wound T8 on 2+ instead of 4+ and T7 on 2+ instead of 3+. That's quite a jump.

I'd like to see a + to saves that negate modifiers instead of invulnerable saves.

So something could have a 3+ save with a +1.

Regular 3+ save but -2AP would only count as -1AP against it. It could help give vehicles some toughness back while giving anti-tank weapons some more kick and some small arms fire with Ap would be useful against infantry and whatnot.

I dunno, plenty of ways to spread out the field for toughness and strength on a D6 system.

Its about risk versus rewards. On a model with a 3+ to hit, and a 3+ to wound, 50% of the time your never even getting to the Invulnerable save.

On something that is short ranged and expensive that isn't ever going to be a good risk.

There shouldn't be invun saves. Just different kinds of saves and OFC different kinds of weapons.

Just look at starcraft.
You have mechanical targets / psionic targets / biological targets/ ect. Every weapon should have a weakness and a strength. OR the weapon is a good all a rounder and gets no bonuses or negatives vs all targets.

I understand that would require some serious game testing but man....it really is disappointing the game doesn't have a system like this.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Reemule wrote:
Its about risk versus rewards. On a model with a 3+ to hit, and a 3+ to wound, 50% of the time your never even getting to the Invulnerable save.

On something that is short ranged and expensive that isn't ever going to be a good risk.

In space marine the video game. The melta gun is basically a shotgun. It really should be an autohit weapon if it is in melta range.

 Xenomancers wrote:


I understand that would require some serious game testing but man....it really is disappointing the game doesn't have a system like this.

Haywire?
Poison?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The Newman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Forget 2D6. Double its strength in melta so it generates more wounds so it might be able to brute force though invulns.

Doubling it's strength wouldn't generate more wounds or help it get past invulns at all.

It'd wound T8 on 2+ instead of 4+ and T7 on 2+ instead of 3+. That's quite a jump.

Is it though? Keep in mind these are all averages and that actually plotting out all the different data points will give you a much better idea of what the actual results will be but:

1 S8 melta shot against a T8 model fired from a marine or SoB= 1*.667*.5*3.5= 1.17 Against a 4++ that's .58

1 S16 melta shot against a T8 model fired from a marine or SoB= 1*.667*.833*3.5= 1.94 Against a 4++ that's .97

So you get essentially .77 additional damage per shot or .39 against a 4++ invul. If you had an SoB dominion squad of 5 meltas that's an extra 3.85 or 1.95 wounds for the entire squad.


Obviously the D6 damage makes this super swingy and averages isn't a fantastic indicator of output in this situation, but the initial impressions seem...okayish at best.

People asking for some mechanics to Ap to affect invul saves is just a victim of invulnerable saves creep.


Invul saves should have never been better than 4++, 3++ for some niche, small characters or super elite but relatively fragile to small fire spam units.

Invul Saves should have never been used with big vehicles and monsters. Something like a small demon or a genestealer can have a invul. Thats not a problem. Something like a Knight or a giant demon Primarch shouldn't. Because those units tend to have high armour and many wounds so high AP weapons with high damage should be the weapons you use agaisnt them.

If big units need to be tougther don't give them invuls, give them more wounds.

 Galas wrote:
People asking for some mechanics to Ap to affect invul saves is just a victim of invulnerable saves creep.


Invul saves should have never been better than 4++, 3++ for some niche, small characters or super elite but relatively fragile to small fire spam units.

Invul Saves should have never been used with big vehicles and monsters. Something like a small demon or a genestealer can have a invul. Thats not a problem. Something like a Knight or a giant demon Primarch shouldn't. Because those units tend to have high armour and many wounds so high AP weapons with high damage should be the weapons you use agaisnt them.

If big units need to be tougther don't give them invuls, give them more wounds.

The problem is, there is to much damage in the game, we need invuls. Lookat many of the units that are large and bad, if you see what players are suggesting... Invuls. B.c with an invul they wont be shot off the table turn 1 instantly.

If damage was upped by 300% we wouldnt need to add invuls everywhere.

Then give those models more wounds instead of giving them invulnerable saves. it makes them tougther without making antitank weaponry irrelevant.

 Galas wrote:
Then give those models more wounds instead of giving them invulnerable saves. it makes them tougther without making antitank weaponry irrelevant.

But then that makes all other weapons irrelevant. If i can wound stack with big models and you only took autocannons...good luck.

But if the goal is to make AT weapons more niche at destroying heavy targets, and currently anti-infantry weapons do a better job of melting the heavy targets due to invuln saves, wouldn't increasing wounds such that anti-infantry weapons aren't as good at dropping the big stuff accomplish the goal?

If you only increased the wounds of the big stuff that you would otherwise give an invuln to, then anti-infantry weapons dont' become irrelevant; they just become more specialized against anything but the big vehicles.

Isn't that what we want?

I say have more terrain on the table, better terrain rules, and an ability to keep more units in reserve so they aren't starting on the table in front of the entire other army's guns.

Bharring wrote:
But if the goal is to make AT weapons more niche at destroying heavy targets, and currently anti-infantry weapons do a better job of melting the heavy targets due to invuln saves, wouldn't increasing wounds such that anti-infantry weapons aren't as good at dropping the big stuff accomplish the goal?

If you only increased the wounds of the big stuff that you would otherwise give an invuln to, then anti-infantry weapons dont' become irrelevant; they just become more specialized against anything but the big vehicles.

Isn't that what we want?

Yea, I dunno. Just seems like it removes the agency of the player being shot if he loses first turn. If Magnus gets 27 wounds, but not invuln what do you think will happen when a Castellan shoots? You'd just make the biggest guns the best due to the IGOUGO system.

Bharring wrote:
But if the goal is to make AT weapons more niche at destroying heavy targets, and currently anti-infantry weapons do a better job of melting the heavy targets due to invuln saves, wouldn't increasing wounds such that anti-infantry weapons aren't as good at dropping the big stuff accomplish the goal?

If you only increased the wounds of the big stuff that you would otherwise give an invuln to, then anti-infantry weapons dont' become irrelevant; they just become more specialized against anything but the big vehicles.

Isn't that what we want?

Thanks, somebody that understands and explains better my own point .

IMO the problem with invulns is that they're too binary. It doesn't matter what gun was shot, you still get your 4++. Nerfing invuns to be no better than a 5++ would be a good start and we can adjust costs and profiles as needed.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Bharring wrote:
But if the goal is to make AT weapons more niche at destroying heavy targets, and currently anti-infantry weapons do a better job of melting the heavy targets due to invuln saves, wouldn't increasing wounds such that anti-infantry weapons aren't as good at dropping the big stuff accomplish the goal?

If you only increased the wounds of the big stuff that you would otherwise give an invuln to, then anti-infantry weapons dont' become irrelevant; they just become more specialized against anything but the big vehicles.

Isn't that what we want?

Yea, I dunno. Just seems like it removes the agency of the player being shot if he loses first turn. If Magnus gets 27 wounds, but not invuln what do you think will happen when a Castellan shoots? You'd just make the biggest guns the best due to the IGOUGO system.

But Magnus wouldn't get 27 wounds and no invuln. Daemons wouldn't be trading invulns for more wounds. Dark Eldar tanks and Eldar tanks and IK would be trading invulns (or at least invulns that aren't as good) for more wounds so they're less afraid of anti-infantry weapons than they are of anti-tank weapons.

Dark Eldar don't have tanks. They have 1 Attack vehicle. They've also had invuls on them since before any other vehicle had invuls. They are also low wound by design and theme as they are light vehicles with high tech defences and have been since they came out in 3rd. They should have invuls more than most. And their invuls are only 5++ with no way to boost them.

I love the idea of Inferno Pistols being the template for Meltas. You aren't stopping any chargers, but you are taking 6 wounds off any vehicle without an invuln save, per shot. Then Multi-meltas get extra range.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Then give those models more wounds instead of giving them invulnerable saves. it makes them tougther without making antitank weaponry irrelevant.

But then that makes all other weapons irrelevant. If i can wound stack with big models and you only took autocannons...good luck.

Don't bring all autocannons? It's not that complex.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Then give those models more wounds instead of giving them invulnerable saves. it makes them tougther without making antitank weaponry irrelevant.

But then that makes all other weapons irrelevant. If i can wound stack with big models and you only took autocannons...good luck.

Other weapons shouldn’t be tank killers. Butcher cannon/autocannons shouldn’t outperform lascannon/meltaguns for hunting T8 targets, but in a world with 3++ knights they are. Going full Oprah with invulns cause units do too much damage isn’t addressing the issue that units do too much damage. All it does is cherry pick a few units to be durable while sending “hopes and prayers” to everything else.

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Then give those models more wounds instead of giving them invulnerable saves. it makes them tougther without making antitank weaponry irrelevant.

But then that makes all other weapons irrelevant. If i can wound stack with big models and you only took autocannons...good luck.

Don't bring all autocannons? It's not that complex.

It's also not that simple.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Galas wrote:
Then give those models more wounds instead of giving them invulnerable saves. it makes them tougther without making antitank weaponry irrelevant.

But then that makes all other weapons irrelevant. If i can wound stack with big models and you only took autocannons...good luck.

Don't bring all autocannons? It's not that complex.

It's also not that simple.

Could you explain why? It seems pretty reasonable that if you bring only weapon then you shouldn't be able to comfortably take all comers.

 Burnage wrote:

Could you explain why? It seems pretty reasonable that if you bring only weapon then you shouldn't be able to comfortably take all comers.

IGOUGO

Do you think it's not possible to have all your "effective" anti-tank weapons degraded or removed from the table before you can take a turn?

What do I want to see? GW actually post it.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Burnage wrote:

Could you explain why? It seems pretty reasonable that if you bring only weapon then you shouldn't be able to comfortably take all comers.

IGOUGO

Do you think it's not possible to have all your "effective" anti-tank weapons degraded or removed from the table before you can take a turn?

Of course it's possible. And if that happens, my opponent should be rewarded for taking out the biggest threats to his or her vehicles, and I should be punished for allowing them to be removed.

I mean, I sort of see your point, but not having first turn doesn't mean that I have no control over what happens to my units. I can deploy them hidden, or behind a screen, or deep strike them, etc. Additionally, just because some weapons might be more effective against certain targets wouldn't make other weapons completely useless against them. I'd much prefer that instead of the current system that feels like guns with lots of shots and -1 or 2 AP are the best weapons to be taking in almost all situations.

The answer is already there, just have meltas in melta range deal mortal wounds to the target. There we go, mortal wounds for everyone, nothing is safe.

Really though I don't know if you can improve melta aside from lowering the cost. I think in melta range should double the strength of the shot and keep the roll two keep the highest for damage or even have a flat 6 damage. It doesn't deal with the invulns but I don't think there will be a fix to that without a very large system over haul or a cap to those saves depending on the unit or target.

What I’d like to see?

Only 1 detachment can generate CP in a list
Warlord death halves CP
Only 1 strategm per player per turn
Invulns hard capped at 4++ no rerolls
Primaris keyword can only be on half the models in a list