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.

But what about Melta screams "Reaches through the immaterium to hit the opponent even if they don't exist"?

Why should Melta have a benefit when shooting Wyches and Harlequins and Demons, but not when shooting Falcons and Marines and Titans?

Bharring wrote:
But what about Melta screams "Reaches through the immaterium to hit the opponent even if they don't exist"?

Why should Melta have a benefit when shooting Wyches and Harlequins and Demons, but not when shooting Falcons and Marines and Titans?

Because its expensive. I don't care about fluff. Maybe it superheats the air around them and they can't dodge that?

The other option is to make melta dirt cheap because it sucks. Because it does.

 Horst wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Why should Melta be more deadly than a Lascannon to a T3 1W model with a 5++, for instance?

Shouldn't anti-tank weapons be geared to ignore armor saves, easily wound, and do massive damage, but have no edge vs Invulns?

Yes, but unfortunately a lot of vehicles have invulnerable saves that completely invalidate melta's higher AP.

Maybe make Meltas AP3, with a rule that vehicles have a -1 to all saves made against Melta weapons?

The problem is those invulns, not Melta's inability against them.

Those invluns are designed to stop things like Melta. Giving a bunch of things a protection so that Melta doesn't make it through their armor, then giving Melta a special rule to cut through that special rule, seems backwards.

Bharring wrote:

 Horst wrote:

Bharring wrote:
Why should Melta be more deadly than a Lascannon to a T3 1W model with a 5++, for instance?

Shouldn't anti-tank weapons be geared to ignore armor saves, easily wound, and do massive damage, but have no edge vs Invulns?

Yes, but unfortunately a lot of vehicles have invulnerable saves that completely invalidate melta's higher AP.

Maybe make Meltas AP3, with a rule that vehicles have a -1 to all saves made against Melta weapons?

The problem is those invulns, not Melta's inability against them.

Those invluns are designed to stop things like Melta. Giving a bunch of things a protection so that Melta doesn't make it through their armor, then giving Melta a special rule to cut through that special rule, seems backwards.

Then melta should just be dirt cheap, because it is completely invalidated by the commonality of invulns. It's a list tailoring choice at best.

Martel732 wrote:
Actually I think invulns should have limitations. Maybe melta should reduce invulns by 2 as well.

I'm just thinking of a mechanical way to make it relevant again. I don't really care about what things should be, because GW doesn't.

Maybe a rule where invulnerable saves are reduced by half the AP of the weapon, rounding down.

So AP0 and -1: No change.
AP-2 and -3: Reduce Invulnerable save by 1
AP -4 and -5: Reduce Invulnerable save by 2

Also increases the maximum useful cap of AP modifiers. An AP-6 weapon not only denies all armour saves but also denies any invulnerable save of a 4++, unless the saving model has positive saving throw modifiers to counter it.

Has the side effect of making invulnerable saves better on models with bad saves, since they will be more likely to be targeted by low ap weaponry, though. Probably better off with weapons having two AP values if you want to go this route. That would also open up the possibility of weapons which can more easily penetrate invulnerable saves than normal armour, like some weird chaos stuff or psychic powers etc.

Melta is already sketchy as hell vs T8, which is why making it S16 at melta range would help somewhat.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Actually I think invulns should have limitations. Maybe melta should reduce invulns by 2 as well.

I'm just thinking of a mechanical way to make it relevant again. I don't really care about what things should be, because GW doesn't.

Maybe a rule where invulnerable saves are reduced by half the AP of the weapon, rounding down.

So AP0 and -1: No change.
AP-2 and -3: Reduce Invulnerable save by 1
AP -4 and -5: Reduce Invulnerable save by 2

Also increases the maximum useful cap of AP modifiers. An AP-6 weapon not only denies all armour saves but also denies any invulnerable save of a 4++, unless the saving model has positive saving throw modifiers to counter it.

Has the side effect of making invulnerable saves better on models with bad saves, since they will be more likely to be targeted by low ap weaponry, though.

This feels like a lot of extra book keeping in the middle of a game? I think the real solution would be for invulnerable saves to be considerably rarer than they currently are, but the cat's out of the bag on that one.

Martel732 wrote:
Melta is already sketchy as hell vs T8, which is why making it S16 at melta range would help somewhat.

I definitely agree that melta as a rule should go back to "more reliable damage" rather than "more damage".

I would change the melta rule to "within half range, re-roll failed wound rolls, and treat damage rolls of 1 and 2 as 3".

Less top-end power, more reliability if you get within range.

That works, too. Make it a crappy neutron laser.

Why not just give melta a flat 6 damage? Could even limit it only to half range making it 6-12" depending on the type.

Because then it becomes super swingy. Still struggles vs T8. Still struggles vs invuln.

2d6 does normalize out more than d6, in addition to typically being higher.

That said, I like the reliability of "reroll failed wounds, and always does at least 3 D" - but feel like it's a little awkward.

If you wanted to make a change to Invulnerable saves to make them rarer and feel better when you have them, you should make them work like Ward Saves (or the "Feel no Pain" equivalent in 8th) allowing you to take your armour save, then your invuln if you failed it. It should be rarer and more valuable, and armies like daemons and harlequins can still retain their current rules and feel. Terminators might be a lot better. However, something like this would need to be in mind when the edition was designed from the beginning to be balanced properly (thinking of 2 point stormshields on Deathwatch).

Bharring wrote:
2d6 does normalize out more than d6, in addition to typically being higher.

That said, I like the reliability of "reroll failed wounds, and always does at least 3 D" - but feel like it's a little awkward.

Are neutron lasers awkward?

Martel732 wrote:
Because then it becomes super swingy. Still struggles vs T8. Still struggles vs invuln.

Should it be ignoring (or reducing) the Storm Shield on your Captain?

Turning high-AP or weapons like Melta into things that degrade Invuln saves makes Invulns just differently-named Armor Saves. The idea that nothing modifies them - they're a flat percent - is what seperates them. Anti-armor weapons shouldn't have a bonus against non-Armor protections.

I disagree, since its the only way to make them worthwhile in Invuln-hammer 40K.

Contrary to most other BA, I don't care about my captain. I resent having to one every game with the same loadout just to have a chance to win. If he gets exposed to melta, the SS shouldn't save him, no. Because melta is expensive.

Bharring wrote:
2d6 does normalize out more than d6, in addition to typically being higher.

That said, I like the reliability of "reroll failed wounds, and always does at least 3 D" - but feel like it's a little awkward.

Could make it 3+D6 damage.

Will average at 6-7 damage (so similar to 2D6) but with less swing on the lower damage end (guaranteed 4 damage) and a lower ceiling on maximum damage (9 vs 12)

Bharring wrote:
2d6 does normalize out more than d6, in addition to typically being higher.

That said, I like the reliability of "reroll failed wounds, and always does at least 3 D" - but feel like it's a little awkward.

I know it does, but in prior editions, melta range made the gun a more reliable weapon, while now it makes it a more damaging weapon. I think that change to the fundamental nature of how melta works is what killed its role/niche - we already have a basic imperial weapon type that does more damage if you take an additonal risk, and that's plasma.

Changing melta back from additoinal risk = additional reward to additional risk = additional reliability is a way to give it its niche use case back, IMO. Also reduces the struggle vs T8.

Darsath wrote:
If you wanted to make a change to Invulnerable saves to make them rarer and feel better when you have them, you should make them work like Ward Saves (or the "Feel no Pain" equivalent in 8th) allowing you to take your armour save, then your invuln if you failed it. It should be rarer and more valuable, and armies like daemons and harlequins can still retain their current rules and feel. Terminators might be a lot better. However, something like this would need to be in mind when the edition was designed from the beginning to be balanced properly (thinking of 2 point stormshields on Deathwatch).

I like "rare and valuable" - but to make it that, we just need to (1) make them rare (WTF, a 3++ on a Knight?!?), and (2) make them valuable (When everything has a ++, people take the weapons that are good against them).

So really, the best change is to drop a lot of the ++s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Bharring wrote:
2d6 does normalize out more than d6, in addition to typically being higher.

That said, I like the reliability of "reroll failed wounds, and always does at least 3 D" - but feel like it's a little awkward.

Could make it 3+D6 damage.

Will average at 6-7 damage (so similar to 2D6) but with less swing on the lower damage end (guaranteed 4 damage) and a lower ceiling on maximum damage (9 vs 12)

I like this over the "always does at least 3 D" because it fits the rulesset better. No specail rule, just "D: 3+D6".

If you wanted to do it without upping the high end, you could do "D: 3+D3" (or just 2D3).

Bharring wrote:

Darsath wrote:
If you wanted to make a change to Invulnerable saves to make them rarer and feel better when you have them, you should make them work like Ward Saves (or the "Feel no Pain" equivalent in 8th) allowing you to take your armour save, then your invuln if you failed it. It should be rarer and more valuable, and armies like daemons and harlequins can still retain their current rules and feel. Terminators might be a lot better. However, something like this would need to be in mind when the edition was designed from the beginning to be balanced properly (thinking of 2 point stormshields on Deathwatch).

I like "rare and valuable" - but to make it that, we just need to (1) make them rare (WTF, a 3++ on a Knight?!?), and (2) make them valuable (When everything has a ++, people take the weapons that are good against them).

So really, the best change is to drop a lot of the ++s.

I agree completely with your take here. Invulns should be rarer, require more investment, and in general be weaker (3+ invulns in particular).

Martel732 wrote:

Then melta should just be dirt cheap, because it is completely invalidated by the commonality of invulns. It's a list tailoring choice at best.

That's a dangerous line you're walking. There are plenty of dirt cheap models that would jump at the chance for dirt cheap melta.

Maybe, but as it is, I'm using zero melta. Because: oh look, Drukhari, I just wasted my time. Or demons. Or IKs.

For the first two, shouldn't you expect to not find much use for a dedicated anti-tank gun when fighting squishy space-elves riding in paper-thin cars? Or facing eldrich horrors who don't rely on armor?

Now, vs IKs, Melta should be amazing.

The problem is you don't need Melta to take on heavy vehicles. Plas - and many other options - simply do it better.

Eldrich horrors should still barbecue real nice. The whole thing makes no sense. Quit trying to make it make sense. There is only something being worth its cost or not.

Meltas aren't even good vs IG tanks because the infinite horde of guardsmen ensure you'll never get close enough. The problems are many and diverse.

"paper-thin cars"

They aren't paper-thin, either.

Eldrich horrors still do barbeque quite nice. Hit a Bloodletter with a Melta Gun, and he's more likely dead than not.

It's just that the Melta Gun is no more likely to kill that Bloodletter than an single Autocannon shot - which is reasonable, because that Autocannon shot similarly annihilates a Bloodletter, if it connects.

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Drager wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:
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.

It's crazy talk like this that makes GW'S game designer's look a lot less bad at their job.

1 That's not even remotely anything like how the graviton crusher works

2 So melta automatically 1 shots all sub 7 wound charictors with an invulnerable but still gets random damage vrs a vehicle?

Thats just the most rediculously unbalanced idea.

Yawn. Do tell us all about how Graviton Crushers work?

*Sigh* Against targets with an armour save of 3+ or better the damage of the Graviton crusher increases from 2 to 3.

So, after making the shot a attribute of the target modifies the damage... Kind of exactly what I was sayin my dude.

No what your proposing is totally different, take a Russ for instance you proposing that it still takes D6 damage. Where as a custode/Harliquin will take Flat 6 damage.

You can't seriously think that is in anyway a balance improvement, unless your an Astra Millicheese player.

Ok your rule interacting with bullgryns models with bruteshields take flat 6 damage from melta, models with slabshields take D6 damage.

I feel your outrage if coloring your perception. The mechanic is identical. Is there going to be an explosion of Bullgryn getting aced by Melta's? Doubt it. Don't think it would be bad if they did either.

Bharring wrote:

The problem is you don't need Melta to take on heavy vehicles. Plas - and many other options - simply do it better.

Debatable.

5 RF plas and a captain do 5.2 to an unbuffed knight.
7 melta and no captain does 5.4.

Both need to be at 12" for this.

The problems come up when we compare everything against a 3++ knight, whether various layers of support exist, etc.

Can plasma do more outside 12"? Sure, but at half the rate. Is your very expensive plasma squad sticking around at that range? Probably not.

Plasma is flexible, but requires support.
Melta is strong, but hard to get in range.

Does melta deserve to be more points than plasma? Probably not, but also not dirt cheap, either.

the_scotsman wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Melta is already sketchy as hell vs T8, which is why making it S16 at melta range would help somewhat.

I definitely agree that melta as a rule should go back to "more reliable damage" rather than "more damage".

I would change the melta rule to "within half range, re-roll failed wound rolls, and treat damage rolls of 1 and 2 as 3".

Less top-end power, more reliability if you get within range.

Why not just a flat +1 to wound rolls in half range?
Much simpler

This edition is already killy enough peeps. Ignoring invuns or reducing them is a big no no.

melta should be cheaper, but given that its potential damage is crazy high it cant be pennies to the dollar.

Since volume of fire is strong this edition and melta gets a low amount of shots i'd only charge 12 points for a meltagun, 8 for a melta pistol, and 15 for a multi-melta. Basically 4 points for each incremental range group with a reduction of one for the heavy on the MM.

Reemule wrote:

Spoiler:

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Drager wrote:

Reemule wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Reemule wrote:
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.

It's crazy talk like this that makes GW'S game designer's look a lot less bad at their job.

1 That's not even remotely anything like how the graviton crusher works

2 So melta automatically 1 shots all sub 7 wound charictors with an invulnerable but still gets random damage vrs a vehicle?

Thats just the most rediculously unbalanced idea.

Yawn. Do tell us all about how Graviton Crushers work?

*Sigh* Against targets with an armour save of 3+ or better the damage of the Graviton crusher increases from 2 to 3.

So, after making the shot a attribute of the target modifies the damage... Kind of exactly what I was sayin my dude.

No what your proposing is totally different, take a Russ for instance you proposing that it still takes D6 damage. Where as a custode/Harliquin will take Flat 6 damage.

You can't seriously think that is in anyway a balance improvement, unless your an Astra Millicheese player.

Ok your rule interacting with bullgryns models with bruteshields take flat 6 damage from melta, models with slabshields take D6 damage.

I feel your outrage if coloring your perception. The mechanic is identical. Is there going to be an explosion of Bullgryn getting aced by Melta's? Doubt it. Don't think it would be bad if they did either.

Every custodes player, Harliquins and all terminators etc should just suck up eating a flat damage while tanks get to roll the dice for an avarage of 3.5 damage.
That isn't a balance improvement that's just breaking anything with an invulnerable save out of spite.

Yeah bullgryns would be fine as they can mix brute and slab shields in the same unit and stack cover and psychic powers to have a 4+ armour save vrs melta anyways.

Your suggestion is just straight up worse than the current rules.