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.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Suspensors in the old DW squads used to reduce range as well. Original RT suspensors I dont reall having any negative effect.

Actually DW had them in 7th edition too, with no negative effects to boot, they just lost them in 8th for some reason

 Togusa wrote:
Missile Launchers and grenades in general are strange to me. Grenades and Frag rounds are anti-infantry weapons, there is very little in the way of armor that can protect you from such weapons. I'd purpose the change to Frag Rounds and Frag Grenades to add AP-1. S5 on the missile version also makes sense. And while we're on the subject, Havok launchers should be AP-1 too.

That is pretty wrong actually, even infantry armour that offers no problems to bullets will stop shrapnel with ease (see why helmets were adopted on mass scale in WW1). What both frag rounds should offer, though, is 2d6 hits to represent wall of metal that will hit you no matter what you do. Maybe even at +1 save if 2d6 proves too lethal (as even basic armour is good against these) - it would also help differentiate them from all other weapons...

Modest Proposal Here

Heavy Flamer - 8" Assault 2d3 Str 5, AP-1
Heavy Bolter - 36" Assault 4, STR 5, AP-1
MultiMelta - 24" Heavy 2 STR 8, AP-4, 1d6 damage at ranges 24-12, Inside 12, 2d6 damage, rerolling to wound vs vehicles.
Plasma Cannon - 30" Heavy d3 STR7, AP-3, 2 Damage Normal Overcharge
Lascannon - 48" Heavy 1 STR 9 AP-3, 2d3 damage
Assault Cannon - 30" Heavy 6 STR 6, AP-1, 1 Damage

Then give Devastators the Havoc ability to move and fire them without penalty.

 iGuy91 wrote:
Modest Proposal Here

Heavy Flamer - 8" Assault 2d3 Str 5, AP-1
Heavy Bolter - 36" Assault 4, STR 5, AP-1
MultiMelta - 24" Heavy 2 STR 8, AP-4, 1d6 damage at ranges 24-12, Inside 12, 2d6 damage, rerolling to wound vs vehicles.
Plasma Cannon - 30" Heavy d3 STR7, AP-3, 2 Damage Normal Overcharge
Lascannon - 48" Heavy 1 STR 9 AP-3, 2d3 damage
Assault Cannon - 30" Heavy 6 STR 6, AP-1, 1 Damage

Then give Devastators the Havoc ability to move and fire them without penalty.

Why should the HB be assult 4 ? especially with no pricehike that steps on the Reaper chaincannon and other such weapons feet i feel?

The flamer is a good idea but from 3.5 to 4 hits average is a bit meh better would be 3 +d3 imo considering the pricetag of flamer weapons but that is just a general gripe.

Like the multi melta, might see the thing that way.

Lascannons were fine imo before.

Why the range buff on the assult cannon?

Devastors gaining the Havoc ability would also increase their price. As it did with the havocs. IS that the right solution?

Because the HB absolutely sucks right now. Its literally only seeing play because of hellfire shells. Without that stratagem, you will never see another HB again. It NEEDS a buff, and it needs it badly. Move and shoot without penalty, at full range, and 1 more shot helps.

I could get onboard with 3+d3 hits on heavy flamers

They are, but at the same time, 1d6 is very, very swingy for a 20 point gun.

24 seems absurd. Helps establish it as a fire support weapon.

Iunno. if the devs dont get a move and shoot, and t5 buff. they ought to be cheap as chips base. They are VEERY weak right now.

 iGuy91 wrote:

Iunno. if the devs dont get a move and shoot, and t5 buff. they ought to be cheap as chips base. They are VEERY weak right now.

Are they? I haven't done much with my marines this edition, but I was under the impression that devastators were one of the units that could sort of work in the right lists this edition. I've heard of Guilliman devastator castles being pretty scary (though less popular now than they were a while a go), and long fangs have the strats to make even the humble heavy bolter kind of scary. That said, I agree that devs are probably overpaying for melee stats they don't want to use, and I still support several of Galef's proposals here.

Devs are okay until targeted. They are extremely flimsy for their cost.

Any weapon that is not a slow cycle time weapon should have rapid fire rules. Any semi auto or automatic weapon would have rapid fire rules. Then heavy single shot weapons like missile launchers and cannons would not This makes it more realistic. The closer you are the more effective your fire is but the more vulnerable you are to return fire

Bharring wrote:


The issue is these weapons have ONE scenario where they probably excell, but 80% of the time the guns are useless and GW prices them at their ecell point whilest the reality is that only 1 /4 times maybee you get to actually be in that excel situation.

Probably a bit off-topic:
From a rules mechanic point of view, wouldn't this actually be the ideal way to implement all weapons apart from the general-issue loadouts? Make special weapons the perfect fit for a special purpose rather than better than the standard rifle in all respects. But yeah, pricing would need to be adjusted accordingly.

In general, I find any D6-shots weapon too swingy. 2D3 would usually be better.

The problem is they're only very marginally better at their best-case than the generalist option (generally variants of Plasma). The Plasma Gun is usually better vs vehicles than Melta. It's usually better against infantry than Flamers. It's certainly better vs heavy infantry or MCs.

Bharring wrote:
The problem is they're only very marginally better at their best-case than the generalist option (generally variants of Plasma). The Plasma Gun is usually better vs vehicles than Melta. It's usually better against infantry than Flamers. It's certainly better vs heavy infantry or MCs.

Which is both sadly true, yet easily fixed with points changes.
For example, currently Plasma gun is 11ppm and a Melta gun is 14ppm. If you swap those values (Plasma @ 14ppm & Melta @ 11ppm), you instantly get a much better balance. Plasma would pay for it's versatility and Melta would be in a better place too.

Flamers (all varieties) should be 2d3 hits, or d6+1 for every enemy model of the target unit in range (i.e if a Flamer/Heavy Flamer has 3 enemy models of the target unit in range, it gets d6+3 hits). But there are countless topics on what needs to change for Flamers already.

But to apply the general vs specific argument to my original premises (now boiled down to RF2 HBs and Heavy 2 MMS), both those iconic weapons would now be ideally suited to their intended jobs. HBs getting 4 shots if stationary or at half range due to Bolter Discipline, while also not suffering -1 for moving (to get half range) makes HBs a great anti-infantry weapon if taken en mass.
MMs too would have purpose. Lascannons and MLs would still be the go-to for ranged anti-tank, but MMs would be even better per point (double the shots) at the cost of getting close (which should be the standard for Marines as shock troops)

Both changes are subtle, but give a good deal of punch to 2 otherwise 'meh' weapons. And more importantly, apply to a ton of units that might actually see play with these changes. Attack Bikes, Landspeeders, even Tacticals are improved.

-

A meltagun is not worth 11 pts. It's like 7 pts tops atm.

Martel732 wrote:
A meltagun is not worth 11 pts. It's like 7 pts tops atm.

Based on what? A weapon that can strip the armour save off almost anything and do up to 6 wounds? How is that a 7ppm "tops" weapon?
I'm not saying you're wrong and Melta certainly needs to be cheaper, specifically cheaper than Plasma, but you seem to be pulling numbers out of no where.

My original premise was to swap the points of Plasma and Melta. That would make Plasma a bit more of a "risk" to take since it would be a considerable investment for it's range and versatility.
I could see Melta even going down to 10ppm, but its potential is too great to be lower than that. Yes it's a 1-shot gun with short range, and yes invuls exist, but still, I think you are over exaggerating.

-

Because its range sucks and invulns are everywhere. It's not stripping anything. And the opportunity cost is HUGE. Hell, I might not even pay 7 pts for it on a marine. Plasma is fine at 11 pts. The rest of them are insanely costed.

Remember than any kind of to hit penalty basically negates all your plasma.

BA has melta coming out its ears. I'm not exaggerating. Melta is fething useless in 8th and should be priced as such. It's good vs the imperium unless its IKs. In which case its useless again. VS Xenos? You just lost if you brought melta.

If meltaguns were 5 pts, I MIGHT start bringing them again.

I'm just saying that's a slippery slope. You can apply that logic (X is only good against Y, so it should be much cheaper than Z) to justify most weapons being basically free.
7ppm is way too cheap for a d6 Damage weapon, even if it "sucks" otherwise

But if I were to make a change to Melta in general (both Melta guns and Multimelas) I'd change the damage abilty to add damage at have range, rather than roll 2d6 taking the highest.
Like d6+3 at half range.

-

No, it's not. 7 points is still too high perhaps. D6 damage is meaningless if you can't a) get in range b) hit c) wound and d) get through the invuln. The actual damage melta causes after all the logic gates is very low.

Melta has a lot more working against it than say, a battlecannon. Battlecannon has high rof, long range, good str and enough AP but not so much it gets boned by invuln.

My change for melta would be always wounds vehicles on a 2+ and vehicles can't take invulns. There, now it works.

Martel732 wrote:
D6 damage is meaningless if you can't a) get in range b) hit c) wound and d) get through the invuln. The actual damage melta causes after all the logic gates is very low.

Melta has a lot more working against it than say, a battlecannon. Battlecannon has high rof, long range, good str and enough AP but not so much it gets boned by invuln.

So melee weapons should be free than since they have to "a) get in range b) hit, c) wound and d) get through the invul" and almost never on Turn 1 anyway.
At least Melta guns have a change to do something before melee.

10pt Meltas are ok in a world where Plasma is 14ppm, but if Plasma is "fine" at 11ppm, than I guess 7ppm Meltas are too. I just don't like it

-

 Galef wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
D6 damage is meaningless if you can't a) get in range b) hit c) wound and d) get through the invuln. The actual damage melta causes after all the logic gates is very low.

Melta has a lot more working against it than say, a battlecannon. Battlecannon has high rof, long range, good str and enough AP but not so much it gets boned by invuln.

So melee weapons should be free than since they have to "a) get in range b) hit, c) wound and d) get through the invul" and almost never on Turn 1 anyway.
At least Melta guns have a change to do something before melee.

10pt Meltas are ok in a world where Plasma is 14ppm.

-

That would be reasonable if plasma didn't slay it's user.

 Xenomancers wrote:
That would be reasonable if plasma didn't slay it's user.

That's a good point. It really should only be 1MW instead and only on unmodified 1s

-

Melee weapons could all be free and marine melee would still suck. So yes? Without a platform like bulls or gtrotesques or wraiths, melee is not viable

My take:

Give all Space Marines vehicles Spirit of the Machine God

Assault Cannon must become Assault, and give it back a Rending rule of some sort;

Multi Melta Heavy 2;

Area and Template weapons should have the rule that the # of shots rolled cannot exceed the # of models in the target unit

Here's a hot take, leave all the profiles as it but let marine infantry Rapid fire everything. Probably would justify all the high weapon costs

When you need this many special rules it just shows the underlying structure of the game is bad. Space marines and other heavily armored infantry should have a blanket +1 to their save against all light infantry weapons like las guns and other strength 3 weapons.

warpedpig wrote:
When you need this many special rules it just shows the underlying structure of the game is bad. Space marines and other heavily armored infantry should have a blanket +1 to their save against all light infantry weapons like las guns and other strength 3 weapons.

Yeah I proposed something like this a while.
A rule for ALL Astartes Infantry (including the Heretics) that gives them +1 to armour save rolls outside 12" would go a long way.
It basically represents the Marines anticipating the oncoming fire and "bracing themselves" by directing the strongest parts of their armour to the attack. It's the whole reason they have big rounded pauldrons after all.

But that's a durability change. Marines also need more damage output, which is why I am proposing Heavy 2 MMS and RF2 Heavy Bolters. Both weapons are accessible to quite a few Marine units, so taken in bulk, those small changes would go a long way.
Heck, RF3 HBs probably wouldn't "break" the meta either. You might actually see them taken at that point

-

My take is similar to some here.

1) Heavy Bolter: Fine, but reduce the cost. The Heavy Bolter isn't bad, but too many other weapons do its job. It is reliable and should be a little cheaper. Strength 5, -1AP is a very solid "do everything" yeoman profile.

2) Heavy Flamer: More hits, or more importantly, a bit more range. I'm opposed to flamers being 12" etc..but if that was the "bonus" to a Heavy Flamer, it'd be fine. Not many units take it. It would be far more useful as a defensive tool for tanks, and Terminators might even take one. More shots would be ideal (I'd replace all D6's with 2D3 but that becomes a bit annoying rolling large numbers of them).

3) Assault Cannon: This will be controversial. Assault 8, Strength 4, 0AP. The Assault Cannon has always inexplicable been stronger than a heavy bolter, despite having a tiny cartridge (the only benefit of a rotary weapon is barrel cooling, allowing for a higher rate of fire). This should be the buzzing anti-horde weapon, and should not be Strength 6, -1AP. There's nothing about the modeled weapons that justifies that. Making it assault means vehicles can move and shoot with it, and Terminators can do likewise. This would impede on the Hurricane Bolter, but I'm fine with that.

4) Multi-Melta: One of the worst weapons in the game. Needs to be Heavy 2, and all Melta weapons should be Strength 9 to justify them vs. the "golden child" plasma guns. This would immediately give them a place on the field, wounding strong targets on a 3+ (and often ignoring their armour). This simple change would fix the entire Melta range...just make it Strength 9. It used to have a template (and was essentially a template lascannon) thus should be Heavy 2.

5) Missile Launcher: Fine, but drop the cost. The slight dual-purpose nature does not make it worth the price over similar weapons. 20 points max.

6) Heavy Plasma Gun (Plasma Cannon): Garbage. Plasma is already too good though, so I'm wary about changing it...at least make it Heavy 2. At Heavy D3 it's terrible and often worse than a basic plasma gun....which is silly.