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.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Looking at the toughness stats of monsters, I'm really struggling to see what the hell high-damage, S8 weapons like meltas, blaster etc. are supposed to be shooting at.

The person responsible for the Melta weapon rule and for vehicle rules were different people, and they never spoke to one another.

I can believe that.

 vipoid wrote:
Looking at the toughness stats of monsters, I'm really struggling to see what the hell high-damage, S8 weapons like meltas, blaster etc. are supposed to be shooting at.

They're meant to shoot at t7-77 units, it's just people are too used to deleting a tank with volley of meltas.

Voss wrote:
Or you can look at the top half of the exact same page, entitled "moving over terrain."

Doesn't appear to be much advantage to flying if they just move like everyone else though?

Voss wrote:
I get you're upset about a lot of little things, but you're stretching to find things to be publicly angry at.

Stop assuming I'm "angry". I'm asking a rules question. About new rules. That none of us have played. Jesus...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Rulebook page 15:

"When a model that can Fly starts or ends a move on a terrain feature, instead of measuring the path it has moved across the battlefield, you instead measure its path ‘through the air’, as shown in the diagram below."

And if the model with Fly neither starts nor ends its movement on a terrain feature, how does it move?

Like a leaf on the wind? #Wash #Firefly

In 9th Asurmen didn't have a lot of special rules befitting the lore either - still had a 3++, had a wound phase cap, and instead of +1 to hit gave Dire Avengers +2Ld and ObSec. They go down to T3 to fit in with being a leader now, and lose the phase cap and 1AP on the Bloody Twins, but gain the hit buff and their DA unit gets to gamble on 6s every turn. I'd say it's a reasonable translation of Asurmen's 9th rules into 10th. Whether that's a proper representation of the lore for Asurmen is a totally different matter!

Voss wrote:
Or you can look at the top half of the exact same page, entitled "moving over terrain."

Yea this is another mental change. FLY isn't as robust as it used to be. You're definitely moving more slowly with them. It's big feature is just getting over enemy models.

He could have just said that rather than giving me attitude.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Looking at the toughness stats of monsters, I'm really struggling to see what the hell high-damage, S8 weapons like meltas, blaster etc. are supposed to be shooting at.

Anything they need to, but most effective into T4-8. The idea that you need to be wounding big stuff on 2s or 3s to be effective should die.

Isn't the whole point of them to kill heavily armoured vehicles and monsters at very close range?

 vipoid wrote:
Looking at the toughness stats of monsters, I'm really struggling to see what the hell high-damage, S8 weapons like meltas, blaster etc. are supposed to be shooting at.

Tanks. They just made tanks feel like... tanks.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Isn't the whole point of them to kill heavily armoured vehicles and monsters at very close range?

Yep. And they clearly forgot that.

I don't think a 3++ is an issue on 5 wound characters.

Do DG use the Tallyman now? As far as I can see he's useless. He'd have to be incredibly cheap to be worth taking.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
He could have just said that rather than giving me attitude.

Movement using normal movement rules isn't 'giving attitude'


Its gaining altittude

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Looking at the toughness stats of monsters, I'm really struggling to see what the hell high-damage, S8 weapons like meltas, blaster etc. are supposed to be shooting at.

Tanks. They just made tanks feel like... tanks.

Ah yes, how silly of me.

Of course tanks should be all but immune to anti-tank weapons.

Can't catch Eldar

Wow…Asurman is pretty poor stat wise. When Marines are getting more and more Demigods this seems particularly underwhelming.

Maybe, as HMBC alludes to he’ll get a glow up when his model is finally replaced?

Voss wrote:
Movement using normal movement rules isn't 'giving attitude'

No, but this was:

Voss wrote:
Or you can look at the top half of the exact same page, entitled "moving over terrain."
I get you're upset about a lot of little things, but you're stretching to find things to be publicly angry at.

So maybe give it a rest?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Isn't the whole point of them to kill heavily armoured vehicles and monsters at very close range?

That was the point of them, because they did that well in a flatter S & T system. Now they're good anti-MEQ, anti-light to medium models, and servicable into heavy models.

"Darklight" can bore through armor, which these do with their AP4.

Daed, dude, Meltaguns have been anti-tank weapons since their inception. I know you like to make a lot of excuses for changes, but can you please acknowledge that it truly is weird to see Melta weaponry suddenly relegated to the minor leagues?

 Souleater wrote:
Maybe, as HMBC alludes to he’ll get a glow up when his model is finally replaced?

Well we have a kind of build-in test ahead of us. Let's see what Maugan Ra and Jain Zar get with their rules. If there's a clear distinction between them and Karandras/Saruman/Fugean/Oldest Mini GW Still Sells, then maybe there's hope for them when/if they get new minis.

Tyel wrote:
I don't think a 3++ is an issue on 5 wound characters.

Do DG use the Tallyman now? As far as I can see he's useless. He'd have to be incredibly cheap to be worth taking.

Well, it looks like the unit can pack in a lot of stuff with the new sheet.

Unless I'm reading it wrong a 10 man can have - 2 BL, 2 spewers ( doesnt care about +1 ), and 2 plasma. Alternatively you could go for a melee build with Tally and Blightspawn giving them fights first and a bunch of the melee weapons.

That Taurox disembark rule, along with boosting to 12 capacity, make them an interesting choice. If we assume they are a bit cheaper than Chimeras, and the rule for Chimeras is different, then Taurox definitely have a niche.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Daed, dude, Meltaguns have been anti-tank weapons since their inception. I know you like to make a lot of excuses for changes, but can you please acknowledge that it truly is weird to see Melta weaponry suddenly relegated to the minor leagues?

I don't think they're minor leagues. People are just too used to things wounding more.

As per the typical comparison on T10 3+ ( worst case scenario for melta ) --

1 * .666 * .666 * .833 * 4.5 = 1.7 //LC
2 * .666 * .333 * 3.5 = 1.55 // MM

This puts a regular melta at 0.8, which is ~50% of the strength of a lascannon on a handheld weapon -- before any half range bonus damage comes into consideration.

For giggles - MM at half :

2 * .666 * .333 * 5.5 = 2.4

A MM is a "stronger" AT, but needs to be close. Throw in that melta won't care when you're T12-14, but LC will reduce in effectiveness and you have a lot of room to play with.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Daed, dude, Meltaguns have been anti-tank weapons since their inception. I know you like to make a lot of excuses for changes, but can you please acknowledge that it truly is weird to see Melta weaponry suddenly relegated to the minor leagues?

 Souleater wrote:
Maybe, as HMBC alludes to he’ll get a glow up when his model is finally replaced?

Well we have a kind of build-in test ahead of us. Let's see what Maugan Ra and Jain Zar get with their rules. If there's a clear distinction between them and Karandras/Saruman/Fugean/Oldest Mini GW Still Sells, then maybe there's hope for them when/if they get new minis.

I'm not sure I agree with how they implemented the melta rule, is lower strength better than reducing ap or damage more though? The only other option is to have inflated wounds on vehicles instead of toughness. But I said it before elsewhere, melta is on its apology tour.

Simultaneously I think a lot of people have got used to just point, click, delete main battle tank. The complaint is they can't any more, but it's not a bug.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Isn't the whole point of them to kill heavily armoured vehicles and monsters at very close range?

That was the point of them, because they did that well in a flatter S & T system. Now they're good anti-MEQ, anti-light to medium models, and servicable into heavy models.

"Darklight" can bore through armor, which these do with their AP4.

Maybe they should have done the same to Railguns then.

If Leman Russes don't suck, it could be fun...

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This puts a regular melta at 0.8, which is ~50% of the strength of a lascannon on a handheld weapon -- before any half range bonus damage comes into consideration.

So your idea of an efficient anti-tank weapon is a close-range, single-shot weapon that needs to shoot upwards of 12 times to kill a basic transport.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Isn't the whole point of them to kill heavily armoured vehicles and monsters at very close range?

That was the point of them, because they did that well in a flatter S & T system. Now they're good anti-MEQ, anti-light to medium models, and servicable into heavy models.

"Darklight" can bore through armor, which these do with their AP4.

Maybe they should have done the same to Railguns then.

Railguns have always had higher base strength than melta and arguably been under tuned.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This puts a regular melta at 0.8, which is ~50% of the strength of a lascannon on a handheld weapon -- before any half range bonus damage comes into consideration.

So your idea of an efficient anti-tank weapon is a close-range, single-shot weapon that needs to shoot upwards of 12 times to kill a basic transport.

What are you looking for? A long range weapons that kills transports in 2 shots? Just to work out the target zone here.

More shocked that Asurman dropped to T3

 bullyboy wrote:
More shocked that Asurman dropped to T3

Can't have a legendary Pheonix Lord be as tough as a Space Marine never mind a Primarch.....

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Biasn wrote:
Can multiple tallymen get you extra CP?

It may be a rule in the GT pack that prevents that, but I haven't seen it in the base rules.

Core Rulebook, p.11 wrote:Outside of the CP players gain at the start of the Command Phase, each player can only gain a total of 1CP per battle round, regardless of the source.

Voss wrote:
That scuttling walker ability on the Soul Grinder is... amusing. It sounds useful, but soulgrinders are so big that with just 8" of movement, you're unlikely to actually clear the friendly model.

Presumably you still can't stop on top of other models.
Not sure why this won't work with infantry, as that seems much easier. (Vehicles can't just do that by default now, right?)

All of your models can just walk through each other now (p.13 under 1. Move Units). The only exception is that VEHICLES or MONSTERS can't walk through VEHICLES or MONSTERS.

Dudeface wrote:
What are you looking for? A long range weapons that kills transports in 2 shots? Just to work out the target zone here.

How about a close-range weapon that can expect to wound most vehicles and monsters on 3s, not 5s?