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.

 Bosskelot wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:

 Bosskelot wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:
20 wracks is possible in the new codex, it's just that wracks were SIGNIFICANTLY more durable in the old codex rules which is why they dropped down to 8pts.

Basically 3rd place here abuses the new point cost with the old rules resulting in busted. It's as indicative of the overall power level of drukhari as the lists winning competitive events off of 10pt reavers before that got 2-week FAQed.

Just standard competitive WAAC-ness on display.

The new Codex isn't even out yet so why/how would they have been using the new rules?

If I understand this correctly the recent point FAQ updated Drukhari to have the new points even if it was using the old codex. Ie. GW released the points for the new codex entries even if we didn't have a new codex available.

That's at least how I understand it.

No I know.

That's why I'm asking why it's such an issue.

He was using points intended for new rules with old rules.

To put it clearly. Imagine terminators would be getting HUGE nerf and for some bizarre reason going to S1 T1 6+ save no gun no melee and cost 5 pts/model. You then come to tournament with 5 pts/model but use old rules. You don't see issue? In essence that's what happened here(albeit not to that ridiculous degree ). Unit got nerfed, points were dropped, for the period between point costs and codex there was time unit was too cheap for what it gave.

Now with codex that list got hit hard as same cost, worse effiency.

So that list is fairly irrelevant in thinking what works now because the list is already dead and buried.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

the_scotsman wrote:
I wonder if we'll ever reach a point in 40k's existence where somebody winning a tournament with something doesn't automatically cause the community to conclude that it requires enough of a nerf to never ever see it again.

It's sisters of battle. Multimeltas are their antitank. If they're taking antitank weapons, they're taking multimeltas, meltas, or i guess exorcists. Seeing a modest number of multimeltas in a sisters list and concluding that this means MMs must be nerfed to 35pts is like seeing someone take bolters in a space marine list and conclude this means bolters need a 5pt cost to curb their OPness.

a) you can still have it op despite them being their antitank
b) multi melta isn't sister unique weapon...haven't you heard? It's available for pretty much every imperium army. That's...lots of armies.

Tyel wrote:
Lascannons are "dead" because MMs are so ludicrously superior.

If you were to imagine such a thing as a Retributor with a Lascannon, how many points would it be to be competitive with a 34 point one with an MM? The Lascannon in this scenario is worth 5 points - if that.

Since they are obviously overcosted for what they do, people don't take them. See Missile Launchers as another example. Autocannons are probably there too.

I'm not sure that's the reason the list won though. Realistically I think the old claim that lists win 40k is getting less and less true for 9th, because the objective system makes it much more a function of player decisions and dice rolls. There are obviously still good and bad units - but I don't think we'll get the situations of previous editions where two or three lists (and variants thereof) are obviously head and shoulders above the rest - and prove at tournament after tournament.

Nick Nanavati was the player who won. That explains a lot more than having a Sisters army. He nearly won the prior weekend in a 6 round GT (playing Death Guard), but lost to Sean Nayden in the final game. His ability to understand and play the game is a very significant factor in this GT win.

@Tneva82,

I don’t think we can effectively discuss Multi-Meltas across the game based on how they perform with Sisters without discussing their Stratagem to buff them. It’s a bit like discussing Obliterators without considering Mark of Slaneesh and Endless Cacophony.

That could be reason except melta's see use outside sisters as well...

Funny that. Busted weapon seeing use. Who would imagine that.

tneva82 wrote:
That could be reason except melta's see use outside sisters as well...

Funny that. Busted weapon seeing use. Who would imagine that.

Why is it busted tho? Being used itself is not a reason for it to be busted.
Being used over other methodes doesn't automatically mean its busted when the alternatives are crap (aka lascannons are bad because 1 shot d6 damage is unreliable without a lot of volume)
Being made better without increasing its points doesn't automatically mean its busted when it was previously garbage (and it was garbage, for the same reason Lascannons still are).

MM's might be to good but I would love to hear actual solid reasoning for why they are rather then their simple existence.
And please don't compare them to something like a Lascannon that no one ever takes. If you want to do comparisons use weapons people actually pointed to as being 'good' AT weapons before the MM change.

Yep, I agree.

Is it being used because it is busted, or because it is actually the best anti-tank weapon available in reasonable numbers for a good price?

Outside of broken theoretical examples like "delete the target on a 2+, no saves allowed" I think it might be hard to prove mathematically.

I'd rather look at it from a POV of
1. "how often do these weapons show up in a given list? Are they so effective that they reduce weapon variety?" and
2. "are they effective enough to reduce model variety for other armies?"

In my opinion MM are not guilty of 1 but partially guilty of 2. On the other hand, a lot of MM targets (tanks) just have horrible defensive profiles. Pumping vehicles up to T8+ would help alot already.

I'm not sure it really relates to this tournament - which is really a function of that meta evolving. Nanavati is an excellent player, although many of these other players are very good too, so I wouldn't discount his choices entirely.

To my mind the argument on MMs being busted is
A) it does too much damage to certain units (vehicles/monsters) and so makes it rationally impossible or incredibly risky to run them.
B) it does too much damage compared to rival weapons - such as the Lascannon and humble Krak Missile.

B) will arguably cease to be as much of a problem as every codex gets their update. Dark Lances for instance are no longer just "bad Lascannons" - the boost to 4-6 damage rather than D6 should make a big difference. Its possible to imagine a future where everyone's equivalent weapons stack up against the MM and, some minor variation aside, its "fair". (Heavy Lokhusts are an example of the weapon being "fair", but the points total is not.)
Sucks for people who own a lot of Lascannons perhaps - but they can always buy new stuff.

But arguably, even as you resolve B by codex upgrade, you exaggerate A. Soft, not great Vehicles have often been something of a liability - during the Pax-Castellan era you were handing your opponent hundreds of points a turn. Admittedly in Codex DG and DE there are sufficient defensive perks (coupled with general "cheapness") that they can perhaps hold up. But most SM vehicles aside from Dreadnoughts are a joke (and even they may start to wilt as more armies boost their anti-tank). Even Necron Vehicles don't seem to be run competitively - although that may reflect D6 shot weapons just being too unreliable. (Quite why GW went on a journey on the Sister's Exorcist but then kept this in for Necrons - and potentially other factions to come - is a complete mystery.)

Basically TL/DR, its often said lethality is too high in 40k, and I don't think there's much more lethal than being in a regular T7/3+ vehicle, looking into the eyes of a retributor squad.

tneva82 wrote:
That could be reason except melta's see use outside sisters as well...

Funny that. Busted weapon seeing use. Who would imagine that.

Sure - MultiMeltas and their equivalents in other armies were buffed. It is hard to deny, though, that the Strat available to Retributors alone has a major impact on games involving Sisters.

a_typical_hero wrote:
Yep, I agree.

Is it being used because it is busted, or because it is actually the best anti-tank weapon available in reasonable numbers for a good price?
.

Well, if you're talking about it in context of a SoB list, it's literally 1/2 thier heavy ranged AT options.
You can take MM, in assorted squads.
You can take Exorcists.
Or you can take some mix.

How good/bad some other choice is doesn't matter as whatever it is it's not on the Sisters list.

So, why do SoB players use MMs?
Same answer here in 2021 as back 5/10/15/20+ years ago:
Because limited options. You're either using MM or your not. Doesn't really matter how the rules shift.

ccs wrote:
So, why do SoB players use MMs?
Same answer here in 2021 as back 5/10/15/20+ years ago:
Because limited options. You're either using MM or your not. Doesn't really matter how the rules shift.

To be fair SoBs using multimeltas is a good indication as to whether they are better or worse* than using meltaguns / pistols. The winning list here is pretty much identical to pre-buff lists save for the retributors replacing a couple of lesser melta weapon units.

(*within the context of the sisters bonuses - i.e. retributors currently being able to fire multimeltas with +1 damage, +50% shots, and +75% range, dominions lacking mechanised scouting, and seraphim being able to shoot inferno pistols from deepstrike)

Tyel wrote:
I'm not sure it really relates to this tournament - which is really a function of that meta evolving. Nanavati is an excellent player, although many of these other players are very good too, so I wouldn't discount his choices entirely.

To my mind the argument on MMs being busted is
A) it does too much damage to certain units (vehicles/monsters) and so makes it rationally impossible or incredibly risky to run them.
B) it does too much damage compared to rival weapons - such as the Lascannon and humble Krak Missile.

B) will arguably cease to be as much of a problem as every codex gets their update. Dark Lances for instance are no longer just "bad Lascannons" - the boost to 4-6 damage rather than D6 should make a big difference. Its possible to imagine a future where everyone's equivalent weapons stack up against the MM and, some minor variation aside, its "fair". (Heavy Lokhusts are an example of the weapon being "fair", but the points total is not.)
Sucks for people who own a lot of Lascannons perhaps - but they can always buy new stuff.

But arguably, even as you resolve B by codex upgrade, you exaggerate A. Soft, not great Vehicles have often been something of a liability - during the Pax-Castellan era you were handing your opponent hundreds of points a turn. Admittedly in Codex DG and DE there are sufficient defensive perks (coupled with general "cheapness") that they can perhaps hold up. But most SM vehicles aside from Dreadnoughts are a joke (and even they may start to wilt as more armies boost their anti-tank). Even Necron Vehicles don't seem to be run competitively - although that may reflect D6 shot weapons just being too unreliable. (Quite why GW went on a journey on the Sister's Exorcist but then kept this in for Necrons - and potentially other factions to come - is a complete mystery.)

Basically TL/DR, its often said lethality is too high in 40k, and I don't think there's much more lethal than being in a regular T7/3+ vehicle, looking into the eyes of a retributor squad.

Lethality certainly is a problem, and one I have brought up myself plenty often, but the conundrem is less lethal MM's (aka Lascannons) are simply not taken and people go to higher RoF weapons like Autocannons and its equivalents. There is not much room between 'dedicated AT weapon that doesn't delete tanks by the bucket' and 'I'll just grab non-AT weapons who are better at being AT weapons'.

some quick napkin math says a MM does 5 damage against a typical tank (BS 3+, T7) at half range.
Is that to much? You could bring it down to 4 by removing 1 AP. How much damage should an AT weapon do? And go lower then that and your back at the non-AT weapons are better.
How many dedicated AT weapons should it take to kill a Rhino?
Maybe tanks (and monster) need a few wounds more. Maybe a Rhino should be 15 instead of 10. I would rather increase wounds then add more Toughness because High RoF S6 weapons don't care if they are shooting T7 or 8.

And over this entire discussion looms the spectre of Knights. In a game where Knight armies exist you want to be able to kill a Knight per turn.
Tanks cannot live in a game where a Knight dies in 1 turn.

Doomsday Arks suffer from even worse Lascannon issues. D6 shots doing D6 damage, and not being allowed to move is garbage. Way to unreliable to do anything.