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.

tneva82 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Melta is not a worse weapon than plasma, it's a different weapon, specialized in taking down things that cost a lot and for the economy of the game that means that it has an high cost. Melta gun at 12 points for bs3+ models was an anomaly, since the bs3+ models of other factions pay more than that.
You could say that the plasma is a better weapon than melta FOR SCIONS that can deepstrike, which puts the model inside the rapid fire range but outside the melta range.
On all the other guys that can carry this weapon, melta is actually a better choice in a lot of situations, does not require a source of rerolls and doesn't blow up the moment that the enemy inflicts an hit penalty. Now, you could say that the other melta platforms, like veterans, suck. I could agree with this, but the blame there is in the model, not in the weapon. Altering the weapon balance to cover a model issue is bad design.

It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else. Anybody that has done elementary school math knows it's worse.

Even on optimal situation it only slightly outperforms. All other situations it's worse. That does not make it worth more. If melta is better weapon why no serious list used it? All but you incapable of seeing it's worth?

Tell me in how many lists you see someone not using scions, that's why. Scions are the problem. Since for Scions the better weapon is plasma, everyone assumes that plasma is the always the better weapon. And if you really think what you said then go back to elementary school because you need to relearn math. Plasma against big targets is good only in one particular situation (target closer than 12", no hit penalties, reroll 1's to hit), if you can't overcharge or are not closer than 12" then guess which weapon is inflicting more damage?

I repeat, your view of this is altered by the fact that AM has a unit that puts the plasma exactly in the perfect situation for it to work, but plasma is not a weapon that will always shoot 2 times at 2 damage. Even if you can overchage safely, plasma wins from 24" to 18" and from 12" to 6", so your definition of "It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else." is higly inaccurate.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

The Kill Tank isn't in the same league as a Baneblade, it's actually pretty close to a Land Raider both in terms of its role and how powerful it is.

The Kill Tank is a little better than a Land Raider, but not a lot better. The Land Raider is more durable and a little bit better at shooting. The Kill Tank is a little bit faster, a little bit better of a transport* and significantly better in melee. The Kill Tank used to be ~50 points cheaper than the Land Raider, which meant it was undercosted. Now it is ~50 points more expensive than a Land Raider, which I think means it is overcosted but closer to fairly costed than it was before the change.

To be honest, I'm basing its cost entirely on comparing it to a Land Raider. I don't know if the Land Raider is currently appropriately costed or not.

8 S8/10 attacks with WS3+ is no joke.

It's also trivial to get a big mek onboard and give it the same survivability as a land raider against anti-tank, but with 8 more wounds.

So previously landraider - T8, 2+ 18W @ 239 - 13.3 per wound
Killtank - T8, 4+/5++ 24W @ 290 - 12 per wound

Then slap on good melee and mortal wounds. Then take 3 of them and stick the mek on a bike to save on costs.

Sure you could shoot assault cannons at them, but that's going to be a long slog and they're not exactly slow. Maybe 365 is too far, but they needed to go up.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
FW was always for the Acpoc players and such and I always did hate having it in normal pointed games.

No it wasn't. There was literally never a point in FW's existence where this was true. And nerfing FW units so that nobody brings them anymore is a profoundly stupid thing to do.

Titans belong in Apoc games, imo. But of course FW makes more than that.

Flyers as well, but that's for another thread.

 Peregrine wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
FW was always for the Acpoc players and such and I always did hate having it in normal pointed games.

No it wasn't. There was literally never a point in FW's existence where this was true. And nerfing FW units so that nobody brings them anymore is a profoundly stupid thing to do.

Obviously the entirety of Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades and Heretics only belongs in Apocalypse. Same with Lias Issodon and other normal Space Marine Captains/Chapter Masters.

Oh and so does Inquisitor Hector Rex. Can't let an Inquisitor with Grey Knight bonuses out of Apocalypse.

Audustum wrote:
Obviously the entirety of Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades and Heretics only belongs in Apocalypse. Same with Lias Issodon and other normal Space Marine Captains/Chapter Masters.

Oh and so does Inquisitor Hector Rex. Can't let an Inquisitor with Grey Knight bonuses out of Apocalypse.

Actually... yeah, that was the rule really until very late 5th edition. When I started in 3rd, FW stuff was never allowed in tournaments, and was generally seen as unsporting to spring on an opponent in casual games.

6th/7th editions really eroded that, but even know, plenty of events limit FW in some way.

It was always seen as "something other," at least until maybe 5-6 years ago.

 Polonius wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Obviously the entirety of Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades and Heretics only belongs in Apocalypse. Same with Lias Issodon and other normal Space Marine Captains/Chapter Masters.

Oh and so does Inquisitor Hector Rex. Can't let an Inquisitor with Grey Knight bonuses out of Apocalypse.

Actually... yeah, that was the rule really until very late 5th edition. When I started in 3rd, FW stuff was never allowed in tournaments, and was generally seen as unsporting to spring on an opponent in casual games.

6th/7th editions really eroded that, but even know, plenty of events limit FW in some way.

It was always seen as "something other," at least until maybe 5-6 years ago.

Kind of the wrong point. My point was the FW was never designed only for Apoc.

And yeah, in bygone days it was different. We aren't there anymore. Time to move on. Forgeworld is being balanced by GW. In 7th ITC and NOVA, the biggest formats, fully allowed Forgeworld. Time to stop living in the past.

Spoletta wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Melta is not a worse weapon than plasma, it's a different weapon, specialized in taking down things that cost a lot and for the economy of the game that means that it has an high cost. Melta gun at 12 points for bs3+ models was an anomaly, since the bs3+ models of other factions pay more than that.
You could say that the plasma is a better weapon than melta FOR SCIONS that can deepstrike, which puts the model inside the rapid fire range but outside the melta range.
On all the other guys that can carry this weapon, melta is actually a better choice in a lot of situations, does not require a source of rerolls and doesn't blow up the moment that the enemy inflicts an hit penalty. Now, you could say that the other melta platforms, like veterans, suck. I could agree with this, but the blame there is in the model, not in the weapon. Altering the weapon balance to cover a model issue is bad design.

It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else. Anybody that has done elementary school math knows it's worse.

Even on optimal situation it only slightly outperforms. All other situations it's worse. That does not make it worth more. If melta is better weapon why no serious list used it? All but you incapable of seeing it's worth?

Tell me in how many lists you see someone not using scions, that's why. Scions are the problem. Since for Scions the better weapon is plasma, everyone assumes that plasma is the always the better weapon. And if you really think what you said then go back to elementary school because you need to relearn math. Plasma against big targets is good only in one particular situation (target closer than 12", no hit penalties, reroll 1's to hit), if you can't overcharge or are not closer than 12" then guess which weapon is inflicting more damage?

I repeat, your view of this is altered by the fact that AM has a unit that puts the plasma exactly in the perfect situation for it to work, but plasma is not a weapon that will always shoot 2 times at 2 damage. Even if you can overchage safely, plasma wins from 24" to 18" and from 12" to 6", so your definition of "It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else." is higly inaccurate.

I stopped using Scions a few months back. When I do use them now, I just take 5 man squads with maybe HSVGs but usually bare. Just to drop them on far away OBJs. Since the Valk became feasible I started dropping in Bullgryns or guard with meltas. With the Leman Russ getting to fire twice, I haven't required scion plasma spam anymore.

What I'm saying is, the guard codex is full of options now. Well, at least until the next FAQ probably. The only people spamming Scions anymore are just folks with a Scion army. Why do normal guard players need to deep strike in a suicide squad anymore? We don't. Heavy infantry used to be my fear as a guard player but battle tanks have solved that problem, as they should. I don't think melta needed to go up. Scions can't deep strike them into optimal range. Our ONLY way to get melta into optimal range is via Valkyrie or Chimera/Taurox. And if we NEED to kill something, that's not going to be how we do it. I'm not trying to get my squishy guys CLOSER to tough enemy units. With all the invulnerable saves, negative modifiers to hit, and feel no pain equivalents, it just doesn't make sense to bank on melta and definitely not now with the price hike. It was already difficult for me to choose them with the previous prices. You'll no longer see anything besides plasma guns in AM lists now. Final nail in the coffin. I'm not salty about it, I don't care, I was only using melta before to be something different. Part of the allure of the guard has always been their diversity and vast amount of options which I'm just seeing slowly fall away if you wish to be somewhat competitive.

Spoletta wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Melta is not a worse weapon than plasma, it's a different weapon, specialized in taking down things that cost a lot and for the economy of the game that means that it has an high cost. Melta gun at 12 points for bs3+ models was an anomaly, since the bs3+ models of other factions pay more than that.
You could say that the plasma is a better weapon than melta FOR SCIONS that can deepstrike, which puts the model inside the rapid fire range but outside the melta range.
On all the other guys that can carry this weapon, melta is actually a better choice in a lot of situations, does not require a source of rerolls and doesn't blow up the moment that the enemy inflicts an hit penalty. Now, you could say that the other melta platforms, like veterans, suck. I could agree with this, but the blame there is in the model, not in the weapon. Altering the weapon balance to cover a model issue is bad design.

It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else. Anybody that has done elementary school math knows it's worse.

Even on optimal situation it only slightly outperforms. All other situations it's worse. That does not make it worth more. If melta is better weapon why no serious list used it? All but you incapable of seeing it's worth?

Tell me in how many lists you see someone not using scions, that's why. Scions are the problem. Since for Scions the better weapon is plasma, everyone assumes that plasma is the always the better weapon. And if you really think what you said then go back to elementary school because you need to relearn math. Plasma against big targets is good only in one particular situation (target closer than 12", no hit penalties, reroll 1's to hit), if you can't overcharge or are not closer than 12" then guess which weapon is inflicting more damage?

I repeat, your view of this is altered by the fact that AM has a unit that puts the plasma exactly in the perfect situation for it to work, but plasma is not a weapon that will always shoot 2 times at 2 damage. Even if you can overchage safely, plasma wins from 24" to 18" and from 12" to 6", so your definition of "It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else." is higly inaccurate.

Uh.

Plasma is 100% better than Melta at any range over 12 inches. Because Melta only has a range of 12 inches. If your target is 13 inches away at the end of your move? You always want a plasma gun, which you can always overcharge. Yes, you have a 1/6 chance of killing someone not suffering from a cheap order buff, that model costs 8-10 points +gun, if you're shooting it at something that costs less than that, you're doing it wrong.

Melta is only better in exceptionally narrow situations, [Less than 6 inches against targets with at least 3, if not five wounds,.] And if you're in that situation as a guardsman, you're also throwing the unit away for sure, which means that extra expense on the melta's is a one shot for sure.

If the issue was to bring Melta prices in line on BS3+ models across factions, [which in itself is silly, as the gun carrier's durability is intesely relevent with close range weapons] then a price _Drop_ is what was needed, not a raise.

Audustum wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


It was always seen as "something other," at least until maybe 5-6 years ago.

Kind of the wrong point. My point was the FW was never designed only for Apoc.

And yeah, in bygone days it was different. We aren't there anymore. Time to move on. Forgeworld is being balanced by GW. In 7th ITC and NOVA, the biggest formats, fully allowed Forgeworld. Time to stop living in the past.

Well, it does address your point. Yes, strictly speaking, FW wasn't always meant for Apoc, but that's because FW actually predates formal Apoc rules. That said, the rules were always "opponents permission" while the superheavies required two FOC games, which was super rare. it was what we would now call open play.

That has changed, and I freely note that, but let's not pretend that FW was always fully integrated into 40k play.

I think this CA is the first sign that GW is really balancing FW. I know the debate about FW's balance is tired, but you saw less diversity in FW units than in codex units, which really suggests that players have typically cherry picked the broken nuggets from FW, which has really hurt it's reputation.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
If the issue was to bring Melta prices in line on BS3+ models across factions, [which in itself is silly, as the gun carrier's durability is intesely relevent with close range weapons] then a price _Drop_ is what was needed, not a raise.

I find that logic to be extremely flawed. The durability of a model is in it's base cost.

Terminator - 54 points <== most durable and shooty
Marine - 30 points
Scion - 26 points
Infantry - 16 points <== least durable and shooty

Now the base cost for the Scions themselves could go down (a little) now that the guns are not the problem.

Ratlings went up in cost... Why... Nobody used them anyway.

Taurox went up in cost... Why... I've never seen one fielded. It was supposed to be our only cheap transport. You really really don't want mech guard to be a thing, do you.

Taurox prime went up in cost. Huge increase in points. 19 point difference in classic prime loadout. Dunno if warranted. But again, another strike against mech guard.

Manticore and wyvern both went up in cost... Why... Were these a problem? I don't recall seeing any tourney lists fielding either of these. Am I wrong?

Hot shot volley guns went up in cost... Why?... People chose plasma over it anyway.

Melta guns went up in cost... Why?... Again, people chose plasma over it. Why in the world are you making plasma even MORE the obvious choice.

Conscripts went up in cost... hahaha. Just stop pretending. Just delete the unit from the codex and lets stop playing this silly pretend game. We get it. You never want to see another conscript on a table. We understand.

Hellstrike missiles went up to 30 points per missile?... Why am I paying 50% more for a worse lascannon? Who thought this was a good idea?

And of course the obvious earthshaker carriage, but that's been beaten to death already. Why would I pay more for a worse, and much more difficult to obtain unit.

Daedalus81 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
If the issue was to bring Melta prices in line on BS3+ models across factions, [which in itself is silly, as the gun carrier's durability is intesely relevent with close range weapons] then a price _Drop_ is what was needed, not a raise.

I find that logic to be extremely flawed. The durability of a model is in it's base cost.

Terminator - 54 points <== most durable and shooty
Marine - 30 points
Scion - 26 points
Infantry - 16 points <== least durable and shooty

Now the base cost for the Scions themselves could go down (a little) now that the guns are not the problem.

You didn't actually explain why the logic is extremely flawed. It actually seems obvious to me that the value of a weapon + body is not just the sum of the independent value of the weapon and the body. Like, if Stormravens' only possible weapon loadout was a single lasgun, no one would ever take them. Why?

It's generally the case that weapons are worth more on more durable platforms, and likewise that you're wasting the platform if you aren't giving it adequate firepower. Now, obviously there's more to platforms than durability -- plasma is great on Scions because they deep strike into rapid fire range -- but you should absolutely expect the price difference between big and small weapons to be bigger for more durable platforms. The difference in appropriate price between a Stormraven with a lasgun and a Stormraven with a twin AC, twin HB, missiles, etc., is a lot bigger than the difference in appropriate price between a single-model 1-wound cavalry unit with the same weapon options.

Dionysodorus wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
If the issue was to bring Melta prices in line on BS3+ models across factions, [which in itself is silly, as the gun carrier's durability is intesely relevent with close range weapons] then a price _Drop_ is what was needed, not a raise.

I find that logic to be extremely flawed. The durability of a model is in it's base cost.

Terminator - 54 points <== most durable and shooty
Marine - 30 points
Scion - 26 points
Infantry - 16 points <== least durable and shooty

Now the base cost for the Scions themselves could go down (a little) now that the guns are not the problem.

You didn't actually explain why the logic is extremely flawed. It actually seems obvious to me that the value of a weapon + body is not just the sum of the independent value of the weapon and the body. Like, if Stormravens' only possible weapon loadout was a single lasgun, no one would ever take them. Why?

If you could give entire units of brimstones/gretchin/cultists melta guns would you cost them appropriate to their toughness? Why these models can't deepstrike and need to footslog so they need those guns to be even cheaper, right?

Here's how you fix conscripts, add a rule "you may only take one unit of conscripts per 2 units of guardsman."
Now you can leave them dirt cheap as they should be, but only as a filler instead of spamming them which was the problem. And it makes the army composition lore friendly instead of goofy. IG can still swarm bodies, but only to a degree that isn't silly. Because really what always ends up breaking 40k balance, going back through the past 4 edition, has been tourney players finding ways to create really goofy spammy army compositions through loopholes, soup lists, and scummy list building that obviously wasn't intended. Hell look at every single tactics thread here and it's tourney players figuring out how to ally in IG with every single army or how to use other armies relics, etc.
Fix that and balance would be much better.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Dionysodorus wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
If the issue was to bring Melta prices in line on BS3+ models across factions, [which in itself is silly, as the gun carrier's durability is intesely relevent with close range weapons] then a price _Drop_ is what was needed, not a raise.

I find that logic to be extremely flawed. The durability of a model is in it's base cost.

Terminator - 54 points <== most durable and shooty
Marine - 30 points
Scion - 26 points
Infantry - 16 points <== least durable and shooty

Now the base cost for the Scions themselves could go down (a little) now that the guns are not the problem.

You didn't actually explain why the logic is extremely flawed. It actually seems obvious to me that the value of a weapon + body is not just the sum of the independent value of the weapon and the body. Like, if Stormravens' only possible weapon loadout was a single lasgun, no one would ever take them. Why?

If you could give entire units of brimstones/gretchin/cultists melta guns would you cost them appropriate to their toughness? Why these models can't deepstrike and need to footslog so they need those guns to be even cheaper, right?

These are bad examples since Brimstones can deep strike (summoned), Cultists can infiltrate with Alpha Legion or take drop pods, and Gretchin can ride in open-topped transports (I think). But yeah, if you had a unit of T2 7+ save models that came equipped with nothing but melta guns, and they absolutely had to footslog, you definitely wouldn't take these at more than, say, 8 points per model, and that's probably still too high.

Spoletta wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Melta is not a worse weapon than plasma, it's a different weapon, specialized in taking down things that cost a lot and for the economy of the game that means that it has an high cost. Melta gun at 12 points for bs3+ models was an anomaly, since the bs3+ models of other factions pay more than that.
You could say that the plasma is a better weapon than melta FOR SCIONS that can deepstrike, which puts the model inside the rapid fire range but outside the melta range.
On all the other guys that can carry this weapon, melta is actually a better choice in a lot of situations, does not require a source of rerolls and doesn't blow up the moment that the enemy inflicts an hit penalty. Now, you could say that the other melta platforms, like veterans, suck. I could agree with this, but the blame there is in the model, not in the weapon. Altering the weapon balance to cover a model issue is bad design.

It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else. Anybody that has done elementary school math knows it's worse.

Even on optimal situation it only slightly outperforms. All other situations it's worse. That does not make it worth more. If melta is better weapon why no serious list used it? All but you incapable of seeing it's worth?

Tell me in how many lists you see someone not using scions, that's why. Scions are the problem. Since for Scions the better weapon is plasma, everyone assumes that plasma is the always the better weapon.

What other IG infantry unit is going to be able to put Meltaguns to better use than them, especially that are BS3+ ? Certainly not Veterans. Basic Guardsmen? Nope. Command Squads? Not really.

Where would the Meltagun be a superior option...?

And if you really think what you said then go back to elementary school because you need to relearn math. Plasma against big targets is good only in one particular situation (target closer than 12", no hit penalties, reroll 1's to hit), if you can't overcharge or are not closer than 12" then guess which weapon is inflicting more damage?

Why wouldn't you be able to Overcharge? The only situation where Melta is objectively superior is at 6" or under against models with hefty numbers of wounds, of if Advancing and are attempting to hit a target over 12" away (in which case, neither weapon is exactly optimal or well performing and the Meltagun isn't *that* much better). At 12-6", an Overcharged plasma gun matches a Meltagun almost identically (and is better against multi-model targets), at anything over that the Meltagun doesn't have range (unless it tries to Advance and shoot with less accuracy and hope it makes it into range). Against any other target or at any other distance, the Plasma Gun is superior, and given the nature of most IG infantry, fits their role much better.

There was no good reason to nerf the meltagun. The plasma gun is a more flexible weapon able to be used against a wider variety of targets and the Melta's optimal usage doesn't outweigh the flexibility of the plasma gun that's *almost* as good as the Melta at its own job.

You can see this looking at IG army lists. Even with the lower points costs...how often did you see Meltaguns? Very rarely. They certainly weren't something anyone complained about. Certainly not something worth nerfing.

Now an Eldar Fire Dragon, with a 3+sv, better statline across the board, way better Advance and shoot capabilities, ability to reroll Damage rolls of 1, and a higher Mv, is *cheaper* than a Stormtrooper with a Meltagun and 1pt more than an IG vet who's a basic IG grunt with BS3+.

It's a shame because I loved my vets with meltas jumping out of a Valerie. At least I can go back to using the flamers and heavy flamer vet squad.

ThePorcupine wrote:
Ratlings went up in cost... Why... Nobody used them anyway.

Taurox went up in cost... Why... I've never seen one fielded. It was supposed to be our only cheap transport. You really really don't want mech guard to be a thing, do you.

Taurox prime went up in cost. Huge increase in points. 19 point difference in classic prime loadout. Dunno if warranted. But again, another strike against mech guard.

Manticore and wyvern both went up in cost... Why... Were these a problem? I don't recall seeing any tourney lists fielding either of these. Am I wrong?

Hot shot volley guns went up in cost... Why?... People chose plasma over it anyway.

Melta guns went up in cost... Why?... Again, people chose plasma over it. Why in the world are you making plasma even MORE the obvious choice.

Conscripts went up in cost... hahaha. Just stop pretending. Just delete the unit from the codex and lets stop playing this silly pretend game. We get it. You never want to see another conscript on a table. We understand.

Hellstrike missiles went up to 30 points per missile?... Why am I paying 50% more for a worse lascannon? Who thought this was a good idea?

And of course the obvious earthshaker carriage, but that's been beaten to death already. Why would I pay more for a worse, and much more difficult to obtain unit.

Firstly, anecdotes of personal experience are not evidence.
Second, a unit doesn't need to have been in the top 3 at a tournament for them to want to address points.

And instead of addressing all these individually i'll do one example.

A taurox (T6 W10 3+) and wyvern (T6 W11 3+) have roughly the same durability.
The wyvern and it's weapon are tied together so we don't know it's true base cost.

The Taurox base increased by 10. It follows that the Wyvern base should increase by 10 as well, which it did. The same happened to the Manticore, which is a little tougher overall so it got a bit of a "deal" on this change.

Orks currently pay 76 points for T6 W10 4+. Does it make sense for IG to pay almost HALF of that with a better armor save? Sure you could say the Orks are paying too much. It's hard to value Open Top and Ramshackle, but it should be less. But I bet we can agree that it shouldn't be 40 points, right? So why do you think the Taurox should be 40?

Think about it for a moment. The Taurox was paying 4 points per T6 3+ wound and now it is 5.
A Rhino pays 7 points per T7 3+ wound.

And you'll conveniently ignore that the Autocannons are now 6 points cheaper for the Taurox.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

Dionysodorus wrote:

These are bad examples since Brimstones can deep strike (summoned), Cultists can infiltrate with Alpha Legion or take drop pods, and Gretchin can ride in open-topped transports (I think). But yeah, if you had a unit of T2 7+ save models that came equipped with nothing but melta guns, and they absolutely had to footslog, you definitely wouldn't take these at more than, say, 8 points per model, and that's probably still too high.

Base abilities, but in either case you'd be ok with someone fielding 200-250 (or more) melta guns in a 2,000 point game? Do you view smite spam as a problem?

 Vaktathi wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

Melta is not a worse weapon than plasma, it's a different weapon, specialized in taking down things that cost a lot and for the economy of the game that means that it has an high cost. Melta gun at 12 points for bs3+ models was an anomaly, since the bs3+ models of other factions pay more than that.
You could say that the plasma is a better weapon than melta FOR SCIONS that can deepstrike, which puts the model inside the rapid fire range but outside the melta range.
On all the other guys that can carry this weapon, melta is actually a better choice in a lot of situations, does not require a source of rerolls and doesn't blow up the moment that the enemy inflicts an hit penalty. Now, you could say that the other melta platforms, like veterans, suck. I could agree with this, but the blame there is in the model, not in the weapon. Altering the weapon balance to cover a model issue is bad design.

It's marginally better in highly specialised situation that's hard to get to while notably worse in all else. Anybody that has done elementary school math knows it's worse.

Even on optimal situation it only slightly outperforms. All other situations it's worse. That does not make it worth more. If melta is better weapon why no serious list used it? All but you incapable of seeing it's worth?

Tell me in how many lists you see someone not using scions, that's why. Scions are the problem. Since for Scions the better weapon is plasma, everyone assumes that plasma is the always the better weapon.

What other IG infantry unit is going to be able to put Meltaguns to better use than them, especially that are BS3+ ? Certainly not Veterans. Basic Guardsmen? Nope. Command Squads? Not really.

Where would the Meltagun be a superior option...?

And if you really think what you said then go back to elementary school because you need to relearn math. Plasma against big targets is good only in one particular situation (target closer than 12", no hit penalties, reroll 1's to hit), if you can't overcharge or are not closer than 12" then guess which weapon is inflicting more damage?

Why wouldn't you be able to Overcharge? The only situation where Melta is objectively superior is at 6" or under against models with hefty numbers of wounds, of if Advancing and are attempting to hit a target over 12" away (in which case, neither weapon is exactly optimal or well performing and the Meltagun isn't *that* much better). At 12-6", an Overcharged plasma gun matches a Meltagun almost identically (and is better against multi-model targets), at anything over that the Meltagun doesn't have range (unless it tries to Advance and shoot with less accuracy and hope it makes it into range). Against any other target or at any other distance, the Plasma Gun is superior, and given the nature of most IG infantry, fits their role much better.

There was no good reason to nerf the meltagun. The plasma gun is a more flexible weapon able to be used against a wider variety of targets and the Melta's optimal usage doesn't outweigh the flexibility of the plasma gun that's *almost* as good as the Melta at its own job.

You can see this looking at IG army lists. Even with the lower points costs...how often did you see Meltaguns? Very rarely. They certainly weren't something anyone complained about. Certainly not something worth nerfing.

Now an Eldar Fire Dragon, with a 3+sv, better statline across the board, way better Advance and shoot capabilities, ability to reroll Damage rolls of 1, and a higher Mv, is *cheaper* than a Stormtrooper with a Meltagun and 1pt more than an IG vet who's a basic IG grunt with BS3+.

Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.

Spoletta wrote:
Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.

Bingo.

Daedalus81 wrote:

The Taurox base increased by 10. It follows that the Wyvern base should increase by 10 as well, which it did.

These units have different roles and capabilities. That doesn't follow at all. They didn't increase either the Hydra or Basilisk one will notice (thank the Emperor...), there's certainly no consistency by this line of thinking.

The same happened to the Manticore, which is a little tougher overall so it got a bit of a "deal" on this change.

Orks currently pay 76 points for T6 W10 4+. Does it make sense for IG to pay almost HALF of that with a better armor save? Sure you could say the Orks are paying too much. It's hard to value Open Top and Ramshackle, but it should be less. But I bet we can agree that it shouldn't be 40 points, right? So why do you think the Taurox should be 40?

Think about it for a moment. The Taurox was paying 4 points per T6 3+ wound and now it is 5.
A Rhino pays 7 points per T7 3+ wound.

And you'll conveniently ignore that the Autocannons are now 6 points cheaper for the Taurox.

The issue is that these armies are going to be using their transports in different ways. IG infantry have historically gotten very little use out of transports. They don't want to advance and get closer, that ends up with them being dead, the transports have typically been mobile bunkers more than transports. This remains true in 8E. Other armies get a whole lot more utility out of their transports as actual transports. As is, how many *mechanized* IG armies are we seeing in 8E? Especially of the kind that were popular the last several editions? Almost none, they're practically extinct already. Especially outside of Taurox Primes (which I expect will probably be relatively rare going forward as well).

And yeah, with Orks there's absolutely an argument that their transports are overcosted, they're not a great comparison.

One part I missed in my Wyvern/Taurox example.

The Wyvern should have roughly the same base cost as the Taurox. A change to its points now tells me that they feel like they mis-pointed it somewhere along the line.

To confirm this the base of the Wyvern should be about 5 points more than the Taurox for the extra wound. This leaves the cost of it's weapon at 40 points.

Is the Quad Mortar worth 40?

A Taurox Gatling cannon is 20 points for 20 S4 shots. The mortar is effectively 14 shots S4 with rerolls to wound and no LOS requirement.
A power sword is 4 points. A lightning claw is the same thing, but with rerolls to wound at 8 points.

Clearly the mortar has fewer shots so it isn't a straight comparison. The reroll to wounds are highly values as they probably should be and being able to shoot out of LOS is quite valuable. It is not far fetched to state that the mortar is worth at least 40 points.

That made the Wyvern chassis too cheap for the formula GW is apply to base costs.

Spoletta wrote:


Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.

Why are we insisting on making the weapon standardized across all platforms and armies instead of recognizing that it has different value for different units in different armies with different capabilities? How does one go about changing things for IG infantry to get more use out of Melta, that won't similarly make Plasma just that much better, when changing the cost will do it much more easily and simply, particularly when Melta was already seen as a distinctly 2nd-option niche choice?

Why must Meltaguns (and plasma) be the same price for IG as for Eldar (in the case of Meltaguns) and Space Marines, but not Autocannons, Lascannons, Flamers, Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, etc?

 Vaktathi wrote:
These units have different roles and capabilities. That doesn't follow at all. They didn't increase either the Hydra or Basilisk one will notice (thank the Emperor...), there's certainly no consistency by this line of thinking.

See my note above.

The issue is that these armies are going to be using their transports in different ways. IG infantry have historically gotten very little use out of transports. They don't want to advance and get closer, that ends up with them being dead, the transports have typically been mobile bunkers more than transports. This remains true in 8E. Other armies get a whole lot more utility out of their transports as actual transports. As is, how many *mechanized* IG armies are we seeing in 8E? Especially of the kind that were popular the last several editions? Almost none, they're practically extinct already. Especially outside of Taurox Primes (which I expect will probably be relatively rare going forward as well).

And yeah, with Orks there's absolutely an argument that their transports are overcosted, they're not a great comparison.

Yes, internal balance is a thing, but that is a criminally cheap transport. Armored sentinels don't even get that kind of price per wound. Which begs the question why would I ever taker an armored sentinel with one AC when I can take a Taurox for the same base cost and have two ACs? See the problem? (Yes degradation exists and the meta looked down on ACs, but not likely as much with the point drop).

And eventually you need to hop out anyway. So if you want to be mechanised you better do it to get special weapons in range.

 Polonius wrote:

Audustum wrote:
Obviously the entirety of Death Korps of Krieg and Renegades and Heretics only belongs in Apocalypse. Same with Lias Issodon and other normal Space Marine Captains/Chapter Masters.

Oh and so does Inquisitor Hector Rex. Can't let an Inquisitor with Grey Knight bonuses out of Apocalypse.

Actually... yeah, that was the rule really until very late 5th edition. When I started in 3rd, FW stuff was never allowed in tournaments, and was generally seen as unsporting to spring on an opponent in casual games.

6th/7th editions really eroded that, but even know, plenty of events limit FW in some way.

It was always seen as "something other," at least until maybe 5-6 years ago.

And there was a time when Special Characters were 'opponent's permission only.' But we've moved past that. Actually, around the same time that FW stuff started being standardized as well. So if you want to act with the assumption that FW units should be considered for apocalypse only is a reasonable position, then you should also assume that the game should be excluding Special Characters as well.


And as for the case for melta weaponry, the only time anyone ever takes a melta gun is when a plasma gun is not available. Melta was bad before the point hike, and it's horrendous now.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.

Why are we insisting on making the weapon standardized across all platforms and armies instead of recognizing that it has different value for different units in different armies with different capabilities? How does one go about changing things for IG infantry to get more use out of Melta, that won't similarly make Plasma just that much better, when changing the cost will do it much more easily and simply, particularly when Melta was already seen as a distinctly 2nd-option niche choice?

Why must Meltaguns (and plasma) be the same price for IG as for Eldar (in the case of Meltaguns) and Space Marines, but not Autocannons, Lascannons, Flamers, Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, etc?

I agree with this. GW making Powerfist cost different for a space marine, a guardsmen and a Ork was a good thing. You can't value one weapon generally, thats one of the biggest problems of Warhammer40k balance-wise. They put a cost to a weapon, and that weapon can be used maybe by 6-9 units in one Codex alone (Not even talking about different Codex). How can you balance a Lasscannon with a single point cost? A Lasscannon shouldn't cost the same for a Space Marine than for a Vehicle or a Tank. Even with the same BS, the tank is just gonna be much more tought. And you can say "Yeah, but you put the cost of that tougthness on the tank", but as others have said, units are more than the sum of their parts. You can have a platform that is very expensive and very tought, but if it doesn't have options for good weapons nobody is gonna use it.

The same goes for Deepstrike. Should a Tactical squad with max +1 special weapon +1 heavy weapon +1 combi weapon pay the same for Deepstrike than a Sternguard that can have all combi weapons? No, because is obvious that the deepstrike hability sinergizes much better with the Sternguard squad.

One unit of Conscripts don't receive the same value from Deepstrike than a Bloodthirster of Khorne.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Indeed as i'm saying, the problem is not in the melta, is in the fact that guard has no good platform for melta. This means that the melta should be correctly costed, like it is now, but at the same time something should be done for models like veterans.

Why are we insisting on making the weapon standardized across all platforms and armies instead of recognizing that it has different value for different units in different armies with different capabilities? How does one go about changing things for IG infantry to get more use out of Melta, that won't similarly make Plasma just that much better, when changing the cost will do it much more easily and simply, particularly when Melta was already seen as a distinctly 2nd-option niche choice?

Why must Meltaguns (and plasma) be the same price for IG as for Eldar (in the case of Meltaguns) and Space Marines, but not Autocannons, Lascannons, Flamers, Missile Launchers, Heavy Bolters, etc?

Because autocannons, lascannon, missile launchers and heavy bolters don't have any bs3+ platform, that's why.

Having all the weapons at the same cost across codices gives consistency to the ruleset, it's a good thing. It means that when you change something, you have less chances to break something else without knowing.


Anyway, we don't know if in the next months the plasma will still be the best choice like it is now. There are already targets around that are best served with melta, rather than plasma, like a carnifex with sporocyst rushing your lines.
Top SM lists are already switching it for grav.

Daedalus81 wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
These units have different roles and capabilities. That doesn't follow at all. They didn't increase either the Hydra or Basilisk one will notice (thank the Emperor...), there's certainly no consistency by this line of thinking.

See my note above.

I would dispute that they should have the same basic cost. They have different hulls, different weapons options, different roles and different capabilities unless you're talking about the most basic starting staline regardless of role and utility, which we don't have a cost for, and you're assuming a lot that we don't have any confirmation or evidence for, particularly that there's some sort of formula involved, that's being slavishly adhered to, and being done in very narrow context without deviation (GW has a long history of admittedly fudging costs in purely subjective manners through out the games existence and have said as much about 8E), and no such changes were applied to other platforms that share the same basic stats. There are far too many unknowns on our end unfortunately.

The issue is that these armies are going to be using their transports in different ways. IG infantry have historically gotten very little use out of transports. They don't want to advance and get closer, that ends up with them being dead, the transports have typically been mobile bunkers more than transports. This remains true in 8E. Other armies get a whole lot more utility out of their transports as actual transports. As is, how many *mechanized* IG armies are we seeing in 8E? Especially of the kind that were popular the last several editions? Almost none, they're practically extinct already. Especially outside of Taurox Primes (which I expect will probably be relatively rare going forward as well).

And yeah, with Orks there's absolutely an argument that their transports are overcosted, they're not a great comparison.

Yes, internal balance is a thing, but that is a criminally cheap transport. Armored sentinels don't even get that kind of price per wound.

Here's the issue with that comparison, nobody uses Armored Sentinels because they're painfully expensive for what they offer. 52pts (formerly 55, not going to make a big difference either way) for a single Autocannon that's hitting on 5's if it moves isn't anyone's idea of a good buy. The issue there isn't with the Taurox, the Armored Sentinel is overcosted. How often do you see them used? Almost never.

Which begs the question why would I ever taker an armored sentinel with one AC when I can take a Taurox for the same base cost and have two ACs? See the problem?

To which I would counter...even without the Taurox...why would I ever bother with the Armored Sentinel? I own a grip of them and they're *really* expensive for what they offer. For what a trio of AC armored sentinels costs, you can get a Leman Russ Exterminator that's pushing out 25% more shots, without any BS penalty on the move, and gets a heavy bolter to boot, and even that's seen as a distinctly sub-par option. Alternatively, you can just take an Infantry Squad with an autocannon, have just as much mobility, roughly the same resiliency (different against different types of weapons, but neither are exactly hardy units), but the Infantry Squad can receive orders, make use of ObSec, has more Stratagems to take advantage of, and better fills out detachments.

And eventually you need to hop out anyway. So if you want to be mechanised you better do it to get special weapons in range.

Only a couple of IG units have enough special weapons to care, and of those the one people actually typically use has a Deep Strike ability.

Again, mechanized IG armies are already almost nonexistent in 8th for a reason. They're certainly not going to be more viable now.

Is it me or did the PL stay the same on all units and gear?

If so, gotta love GW fixing most of the hard to balance stuff by moving it out of the way - honestly it's a good idea.

Not like I wouldn't want to play Apoc with PL anyway.