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.

 JimOnMars wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 mmzero252 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Units that generate models like the Tomb Spyder and Tervigon likely have that built into their costs. Unlike summoning in 7th these units also have built in limits to how many models thay can put on the table or can injure themselves by using their ability (doubles stops Tervigon frommspawning, Spyders hurt themselves on a D6 roll of a 1 iirc).

Now that may change, but a free unit or extra base or two of Scarabs from Nids and Crons is hardly as frustrating to deal with as the amount of models Daemon Summoning could bring forth in a single.

Plus units produced by other units (Scarabs and Tervigons at least) have no upgrades beyond adding bases to the table. Daemon summoning let you get a complete list of free upgrades without paying anything for the unit.

I was just talking this over with someone earlier today. Our hopes are that either things like tervigons come with a squad or two already, or somehow act as regeneration units who continuously replenish existing squads around it with new units. Neither is summoning, it's just bolstering existing units.

I'd be happy if the Tetvigon turned into a Nid version of the Ghost Ark: can carry Tervigon units and replenish lost models to said units.

No matter what you call it, it is still free models. I don't have a problem either way if the model assumes a standard output and is costed accordingly. Some games you get more, some less, but we play a randomized game, so that's OK.

Returned models to a unit that lost them don't cost anything in AoS, I imagine it's the same here. You can shut that down by removing the unit completely or killing the thing that replenishes them, so it's not a big deal for the most part.

I'm betting that's how Spyders and Tervigons will work now, or at least will be an option for them.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.

Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!

I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.

Its a good point. though with how nutty everything is about to get with new vehicle rules and even drop pods (while adding more points to the total) i can see why its more expensive while being consistent. im pretty sure the lascannon will be similarly costed for the most part. not some crazy 10 point difference or anything like that.

 labmouse42 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 nintura wrote:


27 points for a freaking multi-melta? o.O

Grav pistol is cheaper (but also perhaps weaker).

My guess is they want to encourage players to take the pistols.
Make the pistol cheaper, and it becomes a more attractive option to take.
There is a reason you never saw a IC with more than a bolt pistol in the past.

I agree, 7pt grav pistol doesn't mean it's weaker. I mean did anyone think a plasma pistol should cost the same as a plasma gun at 15pts?

 JimOnMars wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 mmzero252 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Units that generate models like the Tomb Spyder and Tervigon likely have that built into their costs. Unlike summoning in 7th these units also have built in limits to how many models thay can put on the table or can injure themselves by using their ability (doubles stops Tervigon frommspawning, Spyders hurt themselves on a D6 roll of a 1 iirc).

Now that may change, but a free unit or extra base or two of Scarabs from Nids and Crons is hardly as frustrating to deal with as the amount of models Daemon Summoning could bring forth in a single.

Plus units produced by other units (Scarabs and Tervigons at least) have no upgrades beyond adding bases to the table. Daemon summoning let you get a complete list of free upgrades without paying anything for the unit.

I was just talking this over with someone earlier today. Our hopes are that either things like tervigons come with a squad or two already, or somehow act as regeneration units who continuously replenish existing squads around it with new units. Neither is summoning, it's just bolstering existing units.

I'd be happy if the Tetvigon turned into a Nid version of the Ghost Ark: can carry Tervigon units and replenish lost models to said units.

No matter what you call it, it is still free models. I don't have a problem either way if the model assumes a standard output and is costed accordingly. Some games you get more, some less, but we play a randomized game, so that's OK.

What I was talking about was making it a transport that can replace dead models in a unit of termagaunts. Not the same as a unit of free models and requires a unit to exist to replace models on.

Plus you can still balance it with points.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Someone else explained this earlier, but when it's an ability like the whole splits for Horrors it's not supposed to cost points.

I would imagine Gaunts brought in from Tervigons would be the same thing.

They're wrong, if we're using AoS as a precedent. Here's the rules as they pertain to Age of Sigmar:

REINFORCEMENT POINTS

Sometimes a spell or ability will allow you to add units to your army, or replace units that have been destroyed. In a Pitched Battle, you must set aside some of your points in order to be able to use these units. The points you set aside are called your army’s reinforcement points, and need to be recorded on your army roster.

Each time a unit is added to an army during a battle, you must first subtract the number of points the unit would cost from your pool of reinforcement points. If there are not enough points in the pool to pay for the unit, you must either decrease the size of the unit until you have enough points for it, or decide not to use it after all. If you decide not to use the unit, then the ability or spell that allowed you to take it in the first place is still considered to have been used, even though no unit actually arrived.

Spells or abilities that allow you to add models to existing units don’t cost you any reinforcement points. However, in a Pitched Battle, spells or abilities cannot increase the number of models in a unit to more than it had at the start of the battle (i.e. they can replace slain models but not create new models for a unit).

 Red Corsair wrote:
No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point.

That's the second time melta bombs seem like they should have been mentioned and haven't been. I'm starting to believe that grenades have been changed radically in the new rules, possibly even removed altogether. It might be that melta bombs are not as cheap or widely available as they once were due to being improved. Or grenade effects could be something you buy with command points or whatever, as another tool to deal with all-vehicle lists and the like.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Someone else explained this earlier, but when it's an ability like the whole splits for Horrors it's not supposed to cost points.

I would imagine Gaunts brought in from Tervigons would be the same thing.

They're wrong, if we're using AoS as a precedent. Here's the rules as they pertain to Age of Sigmar:

REINFORCEMENT POINTS

Sometimes a spell or ability will allow you to add units to your army, or replace units that have been destroyed. In a Pitched Battle, you must set aside some of your points in order to be able to use these units. The points you set aside are called your army’s reinforcement points, and need to be recorded on your army roster.

Each time a unit is added to an army during a battle, you must first subtract the number of points the unit would cost from your pool of reinforcement points. If there are not enough points in the pool to pay for the unit, you must either decrease the size of the unit until you have enough points for it, or decide not to use it after all. If you decide not to use the unit, then the ability or spell that allowed you to take it in the first place is still considered to have been used, even though no unit actually arrived.

Spells or abilities that allow you to add models to existing units don’t cost you any reinforcement points. However, in a Pitched Battle, spells or abilities cannot increase the number of models in a unit to more than it had at the start of the battle (i.e. they can replace slain models but not create new models for a unit).

So they're wrong then.
I don't have General's Handbook so can't confirm one way or the other.

Also, that's incredibly stupid.

 frozenwastes wrote:
"For example, if you’re playing the “Ambush” mission, the side with the highest total Power Level for their army will always play the role of the attacker, where the smaller enemy force will need to escape the trap."

I'm really liking the idea of Power Level as a quick and easy approach to the game. If a friend and I bring out some models we want to play with and I end up with 85 and he has 110, then we can just go to the list of scenarios made for unequal power levels and play one of them.

This might be a really great tool for busting up the "play every game like it's a round in a tournament" mindset that dominates some areas.

Of course that works with points. Power level is just less granular points.

I have a feeling grenades have been fazed out all together too - barring one or two very specific units having them.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 nintura wrote:


27 points for a freaking multi-melta? o.O

Grav pistol is cheaper (but also perhaps weaker).

My guess is they want to encourage players to take the pistols.
Make the pistol cheaper, and it becomes a more attractive option to take.
There is a reason you never saw a IC with more than a bolt pistol in the past.

I agree, 7pt grav pistol doesn't mean it's weaker. I mean did anyone think a plasma pistol should cost the same as a plasma gun at 15pts?

It is weaker since Imobilized isn't a thing anymore. Give it a weak rend (or one of zero) and it becomes a lot less punchy.

That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.

But that's just my wishlisting talking.

I wonder if the Tervigon will have enough wounds that it can be targeted even if it's not the closest model? It's a big model, but it seems like it would be pretty thematic to have to chew through all the termagants to get to it (or maneuver around behind with deep strike, outflank, jump infantry or the like).

 Ratius wrote:
I have a feeling grenades have been fazed out all together too - barring one or two very specific units having them.

I could see them still being a thing. MAybe defensive grenades keep chargers from going auto-first for example.

 Desubot wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.

Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!

I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.

Its a good point. though with how nutty everything is about to get with new vehicle rules and even drop pods (while adding more points to the total) i can see why its more expensive while being consistent. im pretty sure the lascannon will be similarly costed for the most part. not some crazy 10 point difference or anything like that.

Vehicles that grant greater mobility and protection will definitely alter the value of a weapon, however, you shouldn't pay a premium for a metla gun because a drop pod is available, instead you should pay an apporapriate price for the drop pod. This always annoyed me, a drop pod was criminally under cost in 7th edition. It had batter armor then a dreadnought, could land on an objective anywhere, drop infantry anywhere, and to top it all off, it broke the rules set for reserves on first turn AND automatically showed up AND you got to select which units auto arrived. For 35pts...

I'd rather heavy weapons be priced according to their value when added to the unit there purchased for and not see a hidden tax based on possible future upgrades. If a drop pod makes things better, charge for the pod not the other things.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 nintura wrote:


27 points for a freaking multi-melta? o.O

Grav pistol is cheaper (but also perhaps weaker).

My guess is they want to encourage players to take the pistols.
Make the pistol cheaper, and it becomes a more attractive option to take.
There is a reason you never saw a IC with more than a bolt pistol in the past.

I agree, 7pt grav pistol doesn't mean it's weaker. I mean did anyone think a plasma pistol should cost the same as a plasma gun at 15pts?

It is weaker since Imobilized isn't a thing anymore. Give it a weak rend (or one of zero) and it becomes a lot less punchy.

That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.

But that's just my wishlisting talking.

The immobilized was way too strong, but I wouldn't mind grav guns slowing things down... Say a hit puts a grav token on a model till after the next time they move, each token halving their movement.

Requizen wrote:

 JimOnMars wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 mmzero252 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Units that generate models like the Tomb Spyder and Tervigon likely have that built into their costs. Unlike summoning in 7th these units also have built in limits to how many models thay can put on the table or can injure themselves by using their ability (doubles stops Tervigon frommspawning, Spyders hurt themselves on a D6 roll of a 1 iirc).

Now that may change, but a free unit or extra base or two of Scarabs from Nids and Crons is hardly as frustrating to deal with as the amount of models Daemon Summoning could bring forth in a single.

Plus units produced by other units (Scarabs and Tervigons at least) have no upgrades beyond adding bases to the table. Daemon summoning let you get a complete list of free upgrades without paying anything for the unit.

I was just talking this over with someone earlier today. Our hopes are that either things like tervigons come with a squad or two already, or somehow act as regeneration units who continuously replenish existing squads around it with new units. Neither is summoning, it's just bolstering existing units.

I'd be happy if the Tetvigon turned into a Nid version of the Ghost Ark: can carry Tervigon units and replenish lost models to said units.

No matter what you call it, it is still free models. I don't have a problem either way if the model assumes a standard output and is costed accordingly. Some games you get more, some less, but we play a randomized game, so that's OK.

Returned models to a unit that lost them don't cost anything in AoS, I imagine it's the same here. You can shut that down by removing the unit completely or killing the thing that replenishes them, so it's not a big deal for the most part.

I'm betting that's how Spyders and Tervigons will work now, or at least will be an option for them.

Especially since things like hormagaunts are like tissue paper when it comes to defense. The replenishing method is good when you get lucky but can quickly fall flat with a few bad rolls.
Had a tournament for AoS where my 4 Kharadron Overlord miniguns were just obliterating a hoard of zombies. Every turn the other guy was rolling 5s and 6s and getting back as many as I could kill. He made it all the way across the board 4 inches at a time just by adding units back to the squad. He srolled a few 1s and 2s and suddenly the squad vanished.
I feel like that is the most perfect way to have a tervigon work. Just make them enable that ability and possibly count as a transport for termigaunts and hormagaunts.

 frozenwastes wrote:
"For example, if you’re playing the “Ambush” mission, the side with the highest total Power Level for their army will always play the role of the attacker, where the smaller enemy force will need to escape the trap."

I'm really liking the idea of Power Level as a quick and easy approach to the game. If a friend and I bring out some models we want to play with and I end up with 85 and he has 110, then we can just go to the list of scenarios made for unequal power levels and play one of them.

This might be a really great tool for busting up the "play every game like it's a round in a tournament" mindset that dominates some areas.

Gonna say right now, if "Ambush" is anything like "The Trap" from AoS...

Beware the Sniper Rifle dedicated units like Rangers. My Waywatchers were frigging terrifying/downright broken with "The Trap" if someone was running a melee heavy force.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.

But that's just my wishlisting talking.

Might seem ind of weird when it hits an HQ harder than the grunts who are the same size though. Maybe I'll have to add a big greenstuff gut to my IG commander.

I was thinking the other day that it might be cool if Grav had the effect of making the target move as if in difficult/dangerous terrain. I have no idea what the rules for moving through difficult/dangerous terrain will be like in 8th Edition though. Maybe there won't even be any.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

 nintura wrote:


27 points for a freaking multi-melta? o.O

Grav pistol is cheaper (but also perhaps weaker).

My guess is they want to encourage players to take the pistols.
Make the pistol cheaper, and it becomes a more attractive option to take.
There is a reason you never saw a IC with more than a bolt pistol in the past.

I agree, 7pt grav pistol doesn't mean it's weaker. I mean did anyone think a plasma pistol should cost the same as a plasma gun at 15pts?

It is weaker since Imobilized isn't a thing anymore. Give it a weak rend (or one of zero) and it becomes a lot less punchy.

That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.

But that's just my wishlisting talking.

Well, your assuming a lot here. For all we know grav does mortal wounds or maybe that immobilized effect is just different and it modifies a targets movement (halved next turn or even a flat -x). Just because the vehicle chart is gone don't assume they can't engineer similar effects.

edit- davou had the exact same thought even. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see something like that.

I'm really liking the idea of power levels having an impact on missions, like the one described in the example.

I could totally see power level being counter-balanced by scenario special rules: lower power level goes first, picks deployment, etc. Would be a good incentive to tone down tournament lists if a lower power level gives mission bonuses.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.

But that's just my wishlisting talking.

Might seem ind of weird when it hits an HQ harder than the grunts who are the same size though. Maybe I'll have to add a big greenstuff gut to my IG commander.

I was thinking the other day that it might be cool if Grav had the effect of making the target move as if in difficult/dangerous terrain. I have no idea what the rules for moving through difficult/dangerous terrain will be like in 8th Edition though. Maybe there won't even be any.

Clearly he was crushed by the extra weight of his medals.

 Red Corsair wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.

Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!

I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.

Tactical Marine Squads don't have an option to buy bolt guns or bolt pistols on their sergeant they come with both. As for melta-bombs maybe they went up in points we don't know. It isn't hard to believe they could be 7 points as well.

As for the multi-melta It is as good at wounding every toughness except 9 (and 18 if it exists) so the strength is much more of a wash than the extra AP from the melta 3+ save is a 6+ against the lascannon so that wounds 16% less. This matters even more with cover melta ignores cover more. Consistent damage vs range I would again say may well be a wash. It is easy enough to get a multi-melta into range (transports, Drop pods). I look at it this way, the melta gainst quite a bit more from the new rules than the lascannon. Move and fire- bigger deal for the shorter range gun, New damage chart is a bigger advantage for melta with respect to lascannon because it is an even number. I fail to see how it gets 3-4 times as many shots due to this. With greater ability to move and fire the multi-melta is very likely to shoot every turn, much like the lascannon. Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That said I still like my idea that it should be S= targets wounds characteristic since that will almost always give it a chance to wound bigger things (more mass) but make it weaker against normal infantry (where it'd be S1 or 2). Makes it more big model dedicated than an all purpose wrecking ball.

But that's just my wishlisting talking.

Might seem ind of weird when it hits an HQ harder than the grunts who are the same size though. Maybe I'll have to add a big greenstuff gut to my IG commander.

I was thinking the other day that it might be cool if Grav had the effect of making the target move as if in difficult/dangerous terrain. I have no idea what the rules for moving through difficult/dangerous terrain will be like in 8th Edition though. Maybe there won't even be any.

Clearly he was crushed by the extra weight of his medals.

I'd rather grav simply wounds on a roll equal+ to the save like now, but is only rend -1 and on 6's to wound cause mortal wounds. Simply the nature of giving save mods and MANY more wounds already nerfed grav to a degree. If it only, and likely, inflicts single wounds you already have a tough choice between it and the other options.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.

Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!

I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.

Its a good point. though with how nutty everything is about to get with new vehicle rules and even drop pods (while adding more points to the total) i can see why its more expensive while being consistent. im pretty sure the lascannon will be similarly costed for the most part. not some crazy 10 point difference or anything like that.

Vehicles that grant greater mobility and protection will definitely alter the value of a weapon, however, you shouldn't pay a premium for a metla gun because a drop pod is available, instead you should pay an apporapriate price for the drop pod. This always annoyed me, a drop pod was criminally under cost in 7th edition. It had batter armor then a dreadnought, could land on an objective anywhere, drop infantry anywhere, and to top it all off, it broke the rules set for reserves on first turn AND automatically showed up AND you got to select which units auto arrived. For 35pts...

I'd rather heavy weapons be priced according to their value when added to the unit there purchased for and not see a hidden tax based on possible future upgrades. If a drop pod makes things better, charge for the pod not the other things.

To me it is just the opposite, costing things the way you suggest makes the drop pod less flexible because it is only appropriately costed for its most efficient use. Whereas a multi-melta benefits from the availability of various transport options.

Did anyone else notice that the 'no-mans' land between the deployments will easily allow for Turn 1 charges?
Unless there is an explicit rule preventing assaults in Turn 1, Deployment types like this could go a long way towards making melee-based armies incredibly competitive

 Red Corsair wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.

Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!

I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.

Have you considered the relatively negligible impact of the S9 LasCannon over the (presumably) S8 MultiMelta? Given the revised wound mechanics, the MultiMelta is likely to be at no disadvantage compared to a LasCannon, except in Range.

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.

Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!

I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.

Tactical Marine Squads don't have an option to buy bolt guns or bolt pistols on their sergeant they come with both. As for melta-bombs maybe they went up in points we don't know. It isn't hard to believe they could be 7 points as well.

As for the multi-melta It is as good at wounding every toughness except 9 (and 18 if it exists) so the strength is much more of a wash than the extra AP from the melta 3+ save is a 6+ against the lascannon so that wounds 16% less. This matters even more with cover melta ignores cover more. Consistent damage vs range I would again say may well be a wash. It is easy enough to get a multi-melta into range (transports, Drop pods). I look at it this way, the melta gainst quite a bit more from the new rules than the lascannon. Move and fire- bigger deal for the shorter range gun, New damage chart is a bigger advantage for melta with respect to lascannon because it is an even number. I fail to see how it gets 3-4 times as many shots due to this. With greater ability to move and fire the multi-melta is very likely to shoot every turn, much like the lascannon. Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.

A multimelta isn't as good at wounding everything but T9, it is also CRUCIALLY worse at wounding T8, which we already have as an example for the leman russ. So that is an even trade of 16% I wouldn't call consistent damage a wash for range. 40k is a game based on finite turns ie actions, any weapon that can act pretty much all game long (survival permitting) is worth more to me when they are so close as those two. I'd rather get 4 times the shots starting turn 1.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DCannon4Life wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.

Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!

I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.

Have you considered the relatively negligible impact of the S9 LasCannon over the (presumably) S8 MultiMelta? Given the revised wound mechanics, the MultiMelta is likely to be at no disadvantage compared to a LasCannon, except in Range.

Reread my post and you will notice I value range as one of the MOST important differences between the two.

I think this edition will be the epitome of "boyz before toyz"

And in my opinion, grenades should behave like what they are... grenades. A very strong one-use trick to use against that specially hard oponent, etc... how they are now to me is totally unfluffy and just... plain boring.

Breng77 wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Red Corsair wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

Breng77 wrote:


My reading of what they wrote is that Multi-meltas are now the most expensive option on tactical squads. That could be inferring too much. If so Lascannons will be cheaper than multi-meltas. In general Multi-meltas benefit more from the new rules than lascannons do.

Just reread it and you're probably right. Good catch!

I don't think that's how they intended it to read. No way a Grav pistol is the cheapest upgrade, generally you can purchase things like melta bombs or a bolt gun or bolt pistol for a point. I also doubt a multi melta is the highest cost, a las canon is flat out better. They difference between S and AP is a wash and they both inflict the same damage, so the major difference is one has twice the range while the other does a more consistent level of damage at point blank. I would say range is the stronger perk here. Sure at 25% the range of a LC you get more consistent damage, but the las canon does on average more damage since it will have fired 3-4 times as many shots. I'll take a chance at 3-4 D6 damage over one go at 2D6 drop the lowest any day.

Its a good point. though with how nutty everything is about to get with new vehicle rules and even drop pods (while adding more points to the total) i can see why its more expensive while being consistent. im pretty sure the lascannon will be similarly costed for the most part. not some crazy 10 point difference or anything like that.

Vehicles that grant greater mobility and protection will definitely alter the value of a weapon, however, you shouldn't pay a premium for a metla gun because a drop pod is available, instead you should pay an apporapriate price for the drop pod. This always annoyed me, a drop pod was criminally under cost in 7th edition. It had batter armor then a dreadnought, could land on an objective anywhere, drop infantry anywhere, and to top it all off, it broke the rules set for reserves on first turn AND automatically showed up AND you got to select which units auto arrived. For 35pts...

I'd rather heavy weapons be priced according to their value when added to the unit there purchased for and not see a hidden tax based on possible future upgrades. If a drop pod makes things better, charge for the pod not the other things.

To me it is just the opposite, costing things the way you suggest makes the drop pod less flexible because it is only appropriately costed for its most efficient use. Whereas a multi-melta benefits from the availability of various transport options.

Well yeah, you don't price things based on their worst use. That makes no sense. That's why player skill matters. If you don't know how to use something properly your not getting the maximum value out of it. Which is how it should work.

Breng77 wrote:
...Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.

Actually, I don't think this is correct thinking any more. With split fire on everything, a heavy weapon can select whatever target it has range/LoS to regardless of what weapons the rest of the squad has. It makes the range even more useful because you can now have more potential target choices for the heavy.

 Brother Xeones wrote:

Breng77 wrote:
...Further for a tactical squad the melta is superior because the range of all other guns in the squad are equal to the multi-melta so having them in range is a buff over camping at long range with a lascannon. Essentially if you are effectively using the range of the lascannon, you are paying for that benefit by not using the rest of your squad.

Actually, I don't think this is correct thinking any more. With split fire on everything, a heavy weapon can select whatever target it has range/LoS to regardless of what weapons the rest of the squad has. It makes the range even more useful because you can now have more potential target choices for the heavy.

It depends that thinking still requires you to have range with your other weapons for that to matter. So I think it is limited use that you will have range and LOS to lots of high value targets when both your bolters and lascannon have range and a multi-melta would not.