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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I like the Meltagun profile too and just feel like it should be cheaper than a Plasmagun. Multimelta, otoh, needs 2 shots. It has 2 friggin barrels for crying out load.

-

What if both barrels are firing at the same time to make a single, combined beam? Maybe that's why it has one shot?

Then it should have more Str and double the damage. Adding an extra barrel for a "combined beam" to extend the ...range...doesn't make as much sense as having an Extra Shot, or Str, or guaranteed double damage.
In actuality, it has only 1 shot because it's a holdover from prior editions (which didn't make sense to have only 1 shot then either)

-

Either double the shots or make the multi melta have the melta effect at all ranges would be fair imho.

Also, the problem with melta is that they pay for an ap-4 that never gets used because everything has a 4++ or 3++

Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Also, the problem with melta is that they pay for an ap-4 that never gets used because everything has a 4++ or 3++

That isn't really true. While invul saves are way too common, plenty of tanks don't have them

 Galef wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galef wrote:
I like the Meltagun profile too and just feel like it should be cheaper than a Plasmagun. Multimelta, otoh, needs 2 shots. It has 2 friggin barrels for crying out load.

-

What if both barrels are firing at the same time to make a single, combined beam? Maybe that's why it has one shot?

Then it should have more Str and double the damage. Adding an extra barrel for a "combined beam" to extend the ...range...doesn't make as much sense as having an Extra Shot, or Str, or guaranteed double damage.
In actuality, it has only 1 shot because it's a holdover from prior editions (which didn't make sense to have only 1 shot then either)

-

Yeah, it should be more than strength 8. It is meant to be the heavier version of a melta, so it should be able to deal more damage.
I understand that the extra range is meant to allow you get to the melta bonus earlier, but that was only really effective in earlier editions, due to how vehicle damage worked. Now its not as important as raw strength and damage.
Maybe like 12 strength and D6+3 damage or something.

Cynista wrote:
Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well

I am so passed the "oh well" stage and am full-on in "I guess I'm not playing 40k today" stage until this comes out.
So disappointing.

Usually these drop around 10am (my current local time). Does anyone remember them dropping a bit later? or should I just distance myself from 40k for a few weeks before my disappointment turns to something worse?

-

Cynista wrote:
Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Also, the problem with melta is that they pay for an ap-4 that never gets used because everything has a 4++ or 3++

That isn't really true. While invul saves are way too common, plenty of tanks don't have them

exactly, which is one of the reason non invuln vehicles arent played that much in competitive. Its a all related honestly, people bring anti-tank to deal with LoW , since theres a lot of -AP heavy fire on the tabletops, people dont bring invuln-less vehicles since they get collateral damage from anti-LoW weaponry.

I play mainly admech so all my units have invulns but when i started actually looking at other armies, i saw how many vehicles just weren't used and i think that the heavy weapon spam and the importance of invuln is one of the reasons why.

 Galef wrote:
I like the Meltagun profile too and just feel like it should be cheaper than a Plasmagun. Multimelta, otoh, needs 2 shots. It has 2 friggin barrels for crying out load.

-

That would make sense if it were basically a twin-linked Meltagun, otherwise it's point cost would go up a LOT. ...22 points base, 20% discount for twin linked ... [muttering in math] ... 35ish? That sounds fairly reasonable for a 24" Heavy 2, S8, AP 4.

 Galef wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well

I am so passed the "oh well" stage and am full-on in "I guess I'm not playing 40k today" stage until this comes out.
So disappointing.

Usually these drop around 10am (my current local time). Does anyone remember them dropping a bit later? or should I just distance myself from 40k for a few weeks before my disappointment turns to something worse?

-

They don't always make the standard cutoff. The FAQs are a lot more than just an article so it's still possible.

Wonder why they not just base it off LVO, instead of Adepticon, if big-tournament-feedback is so important to them.

That way, they'd have all February and more to do their thing, translations and all, and publish it in early-to-mid March without issues.

This faq delay is getting annoying. . .

More annoyed the CSM codex errata/faq still isn’t out 3 weeks later.

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Wonder why they not just base it off LVO, instead of Adepticon, if big-tournament-feedback is so important to them.

That way, they'd have all February and more to do their thing, translations and all, and publish it in early-to-mid March without issues.

pretty sure GW doesnt want to use a non-GW tournament to balance their game, lets not forget that ITC is basically a houseruled tournament (even if its the most popular competitive ruleset).

VladimirHerzog wrote:

Sunny Side Up wrote:
Wonder why they not just base it off LVO, instead of Adepticon, if big-tournament-feedback is so important to them.

That way, they'd have all February and more to do their thing, translations and all, and publish it in early-to-mid March without issues.

pretty sure GW doesnt want to use a non-GW tournament to balance their game, lets not forget that ITC is basically a houseruled tournament (even if its the most popular competitive ruleset).

Um. So is Adepticon.

They explicitly said wanting to include feedback from Adepticon was the reason for moving the FAQ backwards.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/19/coming-soon-warhammer-40000-2019-faqs-update-1gw-homepage-post-2/

Not saying that is what they should do. But if that's what they are doing, LVO can't be worse than Adepticon for that purpose.

The meltagun's problem isn't that it's bad, it's just that plasma is a better choice most of the time.

Take the Blaster, which is basically a meltagun (Trades melta rule for +6" of range, otherwise identical), but is a staple of any DE army. I'd argue that the reason the Blaster is prevalent and effective is because it's easier to get in range due to access to transports and the like. I guarantee that if Plasma was similarly costed to Melta and there was an easily avaliable way to get within 6-12" you'd see it a lot more often.

For its cost, melta is awful.

You mean "if Melta was similarly costed to Plasma" right?

Melta needs an update, and we might get it with a primaris kit.

When cent devs get updated into primaris termies we will see a new melta profile most likely.

Or we'll get meltas on the new primaris jetbikes coming soon.

It's still gonna be assault but im expecting either:

A: Thermoclast gauntlets on Primaris termies (basically powerfist with 2 meltas strapped on.

B. Melta-Helix cannons on the jetbikes (a 3 shot 18" range melta on the heavy attack bike replacement).

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Melta needs an update, and we might get it with a primaris kit.

When cent devs get updated into primaris termies we will see a new melta profile most likely.

Or we'll get meltas on the new primaris jetbikes coming soon.

It's still gonna be assault but im expecting either:

A: Thermoclast gauntlets on Primaris termies (basically powerfist with 2 meltas strapped on.

B. Melta-Helix cannons on the jetbikes (a 3 shot 18" range melta on the heavy attack bike replacement).

Meltastorm Gauntlets on Aggressors actually sounds kinda good. Considering how much Primaris favor plasma weapons though...

VladimirHerzog wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Also, the problem with melta is that they pay for an ap-4 that never gets used because everything has a 4++ or 3++

That isn't really true. While invul saves are way too common, plenty of tanks don't have them

exactly, which is one of the reason non invuln vehicles arent played that much in competitive. Its a all related honestly, people bring anti-tank to deal with LoW , since theres a lot of -AP heavy fire on the tabletops, people dont bring invuln-less vehicles since they get collateral damage from anti-LoW weaponry.

I play mainly admech so all my units have invulns but when i started actually looking at other armies, i saw how many vehicles just weren't used and i think that the heavy weapon spam and the importance of invuln is one of the reasons why.

Exactly, as long as people have to take weaponry to deal with knights, other vehicles (unless cheap and en masse, or with multiple minus to hit options) just aren't survivable and become a liability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Quasistellar wrote:
This faq delay is getting annoying. . .

More annoyed the CSM codex errata/faq still isn’t out 3 weeks later.

Pretty sure the last Spring FAQ came out on a Friday, so my expectation is this coming Friday.

My melta update was to make it like the graviton crusher off the Imperial Knight Styrix.

If the Target has a invulnerable save, increase the damage from the shot to 6. Leave the cost alone.

 bullyboy wrote:


Pretty sure the last Spring FAQ came out on a Friday, so my expectation is this coming Friday.

It was a Monday. Feels like maybe they don't want to run over the Slaanesh stuff, too? Seems a little silly if that's the case. I can't fathom why else it would be delayed.

That new daemon prince / herald has 8 Thunderhammer swings with no -1...

Cynista wrote:
Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Also, the problem with melta is that they pay for an ap-4 that never gets used because everything has a 4++ or 3++

That isn't really true. While invul saves are way too common, plenty of tanks don't have them

I think the really problem with paying for AP -4 is that a 2+ save is incredibly rare. Even in the extreme case that something has a 2+ save it probably will also have an invul save. The only example of I can think of that has a 2+ save and no invul save is that Land Raider and I don't think I need to say anything after that.

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Also, the problem with melta is that they pay for an ap-4 that never gets used because everything has a 4++ or 3++

That isn't really true. While invul saves are way too common, plenty of tanks don't have them

I think the really problem with paying for AP -4 is that a 2+ save is incredibly rare. Even in the extreme case that something has a 2+ save it probably will also have an invul save. The only example of I can think of that has a 2+ save and no invul save is that Land Raider and I don't think I need to say anything after that.

??

AP4 strips 3+. AP5 strips 2+.

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Was expecting the FAQ to drop today. Oh well

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Also, the problem with melta is that they pay for an ap-4 that never gets used because everything has a 4++ or 3++

That isn't really true. While invul saves are way too common, plenty of tanks don't have them

I think the really problem with paying for AP -4 is that a 2+ save is incredibly rare. Even in the extreme case that something has a 2+ save it probably will also have an invul save. The only example of I can think of that has a 2+ save and no invul save is that Land Raider and I don't think I need to say anything after that.

Centurions would like a word with you. So would Space Marines in cover, where they're all hiding so they don't die like flys.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:


Pretty sure the last Spring FAQ came out on a Friday, so my expectation is this coming Friday.

It was a Monday. Feels like maybe they don't want to run over the Slaanesh stuff, too? Seems a little silly if that's the case. I can't fathom why else it would be delayed.

That new daemon prince / herald has 8 Thunderhammer swings with no -1...

Keep seeing the word delayed and not understanding where it comes from.

They said April - as far as I'm concerned, they have until the following Wednesday before it can be considered delayed.

I wouldn't call the FAQ delayed. I would, however, criticise the length of time it has taken to complete. It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't also silence from Games Workshop's side in regards to it. I guess we'll find out soon enough why it has taken so long.

Their over a week behind on the Chaos dex FAQ. Normally I don't mind, but I'm actually starting to get out right pissed off at this point because there's no communication and this FAQ is particularly important.

Darsath wrote:
I wouldn't call the FAQ delayed. I would, however, criticise the length of time it has taken to complete. It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't also silence from Games Workshop's side in regards to it. I guess we'll find out soon enough why it has taken so long.

I'm using delayed, because it's now a seemingly longer wait than last year for presumably a more gentle FAQ.

I'm not upset, but more than a little curious as to what is going on.

BREAKING NEWS!!!

GW quietly kills off all FAQ's to publish them in White Dwarf as "Designer Commentary" articles.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I wouldn't call the FAQ delayed. I would, however, criticise the length of time it has taken to complete. It wouldn't be so bad if there wasn't also silence from Games Workshop's side in regards to it. I guess we'll find out soon enough why it has taken so long.

I'm using delayed, because it's now a seemingly longer wait than last year for presumably a more gentle FAQ.

I'm not upset, but more than a little curious as to what is going on.

Yeah, I'm not upset either. I've got a busy enough week ahead as is. But I am curious as to why Games Workshop has been so quiet on this front, and hope they don't disappoint with their FAQ. I'm not expecting only small-scale changes if it took this long to work on after all.

Well, the reason it feels "delayed" and why most people don't expect big changes is, because that's what GW wrote on March 19th.


https://www.warhammer-community.com/2019/03/19/coming-soon-warhammer-40000-2019-faqs-update-1gw-homepage-post-2/

However, with one of the world’s biggest Warhammer 40,000 tournaments taking place at AdeptiCon at the end of the month, we’re going to wait until after the event has finished before unleashing it upon the world. That way we can incorporate any further feedback generated during this prestigious tournament as needed. The good news is that Warhammer 40,000 is in a pretty good place at the moment, so there won’t be any seismic changes, just a handful of balancing tweaks.

So between "a handful of balancing tweaks" and the thing allegedly done on March 19th, the waiting time appears inexplicable.