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.

So far, we know the exact points cost of three things:

1. Tactical marines are going to cost 13 ppm

2. Grav pistols will cost 7 ppm

3. Multi-meltas will cost a whopping 27 ppm.

I think it's difficult to extrapolate any opinion about possible points costs from the grav pistols alone, since we have no idea what they will end up doing.

The multi-melta, however, should be more informative.

We already know that a meltagun will have a 12 inch range, have Rend -4 and deal 1d6...or, if you're at half range, you can roll 2d6 and pick the highest for damage.

Chances are, multimeltas will be exactly the same, but have a maximum range of 24 inches.

I think that a few things are working in to the multimelta's high points cost:

1. You no longer have to snap shoot when you move and then fire a heavy weapon. This will be huge for MEQ armies...but will presumably will be a factor in points costs.

2. AP is no longer all or nothing. Instead of being AP 1, we have Rend -4, which can actually "pierce" through cover.

3. Everyone has splitfire. That means that using the heavy weapon doesn't detract from using your other weapons.

I'm thinking that this will mean that we see a big points increase for heavy weapons in general.

Does anybody want to guess what those points costs are actually going to be?

I completely agree. Definitely getting a feeling from that multimelta cost and the advantages it now has, that heavy and high ap weapons will go up in cost. I was speculating as such on another thread as well. I imagine due to the new ap system and split fire, high ap assault and rapid fire weapons will go up in cost too, but maybe a bit less than heavy due to psudo relentless.
This of course means vehicles and MCs will need to go up in cost to reflect their higher durability since there won't be as many weapons around to hurt them. But not as much as the weapons themselves as most vehicles and MCs needed a durability boost anyway.
Following that, if general infantry stays around the same it will add value to your basic troops and completely rewrite the foundations of the meta of the game.
This is all good news imo. Edit: because it means you will still have a reasonable force left to you by turn 3/4, whereas at the moment either one or both players very rarely have a good deal left on the table by start of turn 4.

Poly Ranger:

I think that what you are saying is basically accurate.

I do wonder:

Do you think that all of this will result in a meta which is more friendly to storm bolters?

 Traditio wrote:
Poly Ranger:

I think that all of what you are saying is basically accurate.

I do wonder:

Do you think that all of this will result in a meta which is more friendly to storm bolters?

Depending on storm bolters stats. They will still need an improvement imo. I would say it definitely gives a boost to basic weaponry overall as we will see more units which are realistically susceptible to small arms.

Poly Ranger wrote:
Depending on storm bolters stays. They will still need an improvement imo. I would say it definitely gives a boost to basic weaponry overall as we will see more units which are realistically susceptible to small arms.

I mean, let's suppose it stayed at:

Assault 2, 24 inches, S 4, 1 damage.

5 points.

Obviously, that's not great. In and of itself, it's pretty subpar.

But compared to 27 points for a multimelta...?

And it's going to be wounding T7 on 5s.

 Traditio wrote:

Poly Ranger wrote:
Depending on storm bolters stays. They will still need an improvement imo. I would say it definitely gives a boost to basic weaponry overall as we will see more units which are realistically susceptible to small arms.

I mean, let's suppose it stayed at:

Assault 2, 24 inches, S 4, 1 damage.

5 points.

Obviously, that's not great. In and of itself, it's pretty subpar.

But compared to 27 points for a multimelta...?

And it's going to be wounding T7 on 5s.

In this edition it will definitely be twice as effective against T6&7 already, but that still doesn't feel enough, especially since its on elite troops like termis and sternguard (I mean I still wouldn't want to take one on a sternguard). Maybe assault 3 s4 and ap-1. That would justify elite troops and make sure the new bolt rifle isnt better in almost every case.

On the upside it looks like we won't be paying for wargerar in multiples of 5pts, storm bolters and the like were always over costed because of rounding up,

I'm still struggling with 27pts for a multi melta though. It's hard without other points costs to judge it against but it's still double the marine who's carrying it.
It seems to me there's something involved in the high points we don't know about yet - I've heard speculation it will be 2 shot because fluff wise it has two barrels but that seems OTT. Personally i think points costs will be adapted to units so for example a MM will be cheaper for a devastator than a tactical marine.

If the points are balanced against how good it performs on the table it could be a suggestion that the time of grav is over and the time of melta has begun!

Kataklysmic wrote:
I've heard speculation it will be 2 shot because fluff wise it has two barrels but that seems OTT.

Well MM used to be a blast weapon...

tneva82 wrote:

Kataklysmic wrote:
I've heard speculation it will be 2 shot because fluff wise it has two barrels but that seems OTT.

Well MM used to be a blast weapon...

Was it really?

Which edition?

Kataklysmic wrote:
If the points are balanced against how good it performs on the table it could be a suggestion that the time of grav is over and the time of melta has begun!

And if points are balanced there won't be age of anything as grav is just as valid as melta

And i'm hoping stormbolters can use special issue ammo now, i'd love some sternguard armed that way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

Kataklysmic wrote:
If the points are balanced against how good it performs on the table it could be a suggestion that the time of grav is over and the time of melta has begun!

And if points are balanced there won't be age of anything as grav is just as valid as melta

I think they'll feel the need to purposefully put the main culprits people thought were OP on the lower end of the power scale - partly to switch things up and get new units on the battlefield, partly so you have to buy new stuff.

 Traditio wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Kataklysmic wrote:
I've heard speculation it will be 2 shot because fluff wise it has two barrels but that seems OTT.

Well MM used to be a blast weapon...

Was it really?

Which edition?

2nd so quite a bit far.

Of course melta didn't have short range pen boost back then. Instead that blast WAS reason why it was so good at tank busting. You put template so that it contacted say hull+tracks+sponson+turret and if you hit ALL 4 got hit by the rather hefty armour pen roll. So you basically got 4 chance to damage tank, all which could result to dead tank. Hull being generally hard to penetrate but if it did almost quaranteed death(2+ generally results in death with variable result of post-mortem nastyness, 1 actually you could still be in fighting operation) while other parts were easier to damage but less dramatic result(say sponson you might suffer -BS to hit or get weapon blown up but there was chance for weapon to blow up bad enough it caused damage roll for hull with same 2+ to destruction).

So precedence is there for MM to be more than 1 shot weapon. Maybe they don't of course. We'll see. Range benefit will be then mostly being able to hurt tanks from far better as the melta effect is just 1 point of damage more in average which is pretty mild.

edit: Numbers: Multimelta threw 2d12+d6+8 for average of 18. Lascannon threw 3d6+9 for average of 19.5 so multimelta was actually WORSE penetrating by itself. Range was 24" for MM and 60" for lascannon though MM got +1 to hit up to 12". For leman russ front hull you needed to get 22, turret 25(also deadly place to get penetrated), heavy bolter(ie sponson. Back then basic russ didn't have sponson options) 17 and track 16.

Melta gun was mere 2d6+8 so was pretty toothless against heavy tanks at least from front.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kataklysmic wrote:
I think they'll feel the need to purposefully put the main culprits people thought were OP on the lower end of the power scale - partly to switch things up and get new units on the battlefield, partly so you have to buy new stuff.

Gee. We have went from GW makes stuff unbalanced out of incompetence to them making stuff unbalanced deliberately?-)

I'm going to throw out a number.

Missile launcher + flakk = 37 points.

What do you guys think?

 Traditio wrote:
I'm going to throw out a number.

Missile launcher + flakk = 37 points.

What do you guys think?

Very hard to say. I get the feeling it's definitely going to be more than 15, but without knowing it's stats, flyer rules, durability of vehicles in general, I couldn't even begin to guesstimate an answer. Saying that - 37 sounds steeeep though.

Edit to justify that last sentence: the multimelta *as we know it* due to its short range and half range buff benefits more from psudo relentless than a ML. It also benefits more from split fire as it has no anti-troop option. Lastly I reckon that ap-4 is going to be huge compared to ap-2, so it will benefit more from the new ap system as well.

Poly Ranger]Very hard to say. I get the feeling it's definitely going to be more than 15, but without knowing it's stats, flyer rules, durability of vehicles in general, I couldn't even begin to guesstimate an answer. Saying that - 37 sounds steeeep though.

Here's the thing:

We already can reliably guess that frag missiles will deal d6 hits (based on frag grenades). The minimum damage that krak missiles will deal is d3 wounds (based on krak grenades). They might deal d6. But certainly no less than d3.

It doesn't appear as though GW is messing with the ranges.

How would you compare those two weapons profiles to a multimelta, which has half of the range of a missile launcher?

It really will depend on whether or not fliers still have the hard to hit rule.

If not, the points cost might be lower. But I'd be surprised to see a missile launcher at less than 30 ppm.

 Traditio wrote:

Poly Ranger]Very hard to say. I get the feeling it's definitely going to be more than 15, but without knowing it's stats, flyer rules, durability of vehicles in general, I couldn't even begin to guesstimate an answer. Saying that - 37 sounds steeeep though.

Here's the thing:

We already can reliably guess that frag missiles will deal d6 hits (based on frag grenades). The minimum damage that krak missiles will deal is d3 wounds (based on krak grenades). They might deal d6. But certainly no less than d3.

It doesn't appear as though GW is messing with the ranges.

How would you compare those two weapons profiles to a multimelta, which has half of the range of a missile launcher?

It really will depend on whether or not fliers still have the hard to hit rule.

If not, the points cost might be lower. But I'd be surprised to see a missile launcher at less than 30 ppm.

Sorry ^ editted previous post before I saw your reply. Answers in that :-)

Or they could remove flakk altogether and replace it with a targeting system (as wargear) with skyfire at x points per model.

 Traditio wrote:
Poly Ranger:

I think that what you are saying is basically accurate.

I do wonder:

Do you think that all of this will result in a meta which is more friendly to storm bolters?

that depends what the storm bolter is, if the stormbolter stats remain the same then it'll honestly be seen as kinda sucky, as the Combi bolter will be simply better, (it's effectivly be a salvo 2/4 gun) so I expect we're gonna see the stormbolter get reworked,.

 MightyWeasel wrote:
Or they could remove flakk altogether and replace it with a targeting system (as wargear) with skyfire at x points per model.

That's assuming there's any difference between shooting at a flier and shooting at a tactical marine. In AOS there isn't.

There'd better be. My poor Barracuda just can't take abuse, it needs some sort of to hit penalty.

tneva82 wrote:


That's assuming there's any difference between shooting at a flier and shooting at a tactical marine. In AOS there isn't.

Oooh, maybe they've removed flakk completely then. Fliers will be criers.