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.

Martel732 wrote:
It is, though. All the token 5++ break high AP weapons. There's no way I'm paying what GW is asking for AP the way the game works.

Most models with a token 5++ aren't things you should shoot a high AP weapon at. For the other stuff, they should be tough/shielded/lucky enough to shrug off some hits and keep trucking because that's what the game is designed around.

Tygre wrote:
Maybe invulnerables should have an overload value. If the str of the hit is above the overload value then no invulnerable save (or perhaps -1 or something if too harsh). Dodge type saves and daemonics could have no overload value.

Refractor fields that IG have could be 5+ save overload Str 8
Conversion fields (Iron Halos, Rosarius etc) could be 4+ save overload Str 9

Just an idea. Most invulnerables should not help if hit be a Volcano Cannon.

That's kind of what I'm going for. But str is not quite detailed enough. Iron halo should block plasma pistol all day. But not the plasma gun from an executioner repulsor.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It is, though. All the token 5++ break high AP weapons. There's no way I'm paying what GW is asking for AP the way the game works.

Most models with a token 5++ aren't things you should shoot a high AP weapon at. For the other stuff, they should be tough/shielded/lucky enough to shrug off some hits and keep trucking because that's what the game is designed around.

I disagree with that design. And I shouldn't shoot high AP weapons at terminators? Okay. Or IKs? Okay. Things shouldn't be shrugging off things like lascannons and multimeltas as they do with invulns. Players are paying for that to NOT happen with those weapons.

Tygre wrote:
Maybe invulnerables should have an overload value. If the str of the hit is above the overload value then no invulnerable save (or perhaps -1 or something if too harsh). Dodge type saves and daemonics could have no overload value.

Refractor fields that IG have could be 5+ save overload Str 8
Conversion fields (Iron Halos, Rosarius etc) could be 4+ save overload Str 9

Just an idea. Most invulnerables should not help if hit be a Volcano Cannon.

Why shouldn't a unit protected by a refractor field be protected from a near miss, represented by making a save, from a Volcano Cannon while their fellows, the ones that failed their saves, get vaporized as the blast overwhelms their defenses?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
I disagree with that design. And I shouldn't shoot high AP weapons at terminators? Okay.

The most efficient weapons profile to shoot at terminators with is something that wounds on a 2, has some AP, and D2. So overcharged plasma weapons work well, as do stalker bolt rifles, etc. You shouldn't be shooting lascannons and krak missiles at termies, those go into vehicles and monsters.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Tygre wrote:
Maybe invulnerables should have an overload value. If the str of the hit is above the overload value then no invulnerable save (or perhaps -1 or something if too harsh). Dodge type saves and daemonics could have no overload value.

Refractor fields that IG have could be 5+ save overload Str 8
Conversion fields (Iron Halos, Rosarius etc) could be 4+ save overload Str 9

Just an idea. Most invulnerables should not help if hit be a Volcano Cannon.

Why shouldn't a unit protected by a refractor field be protected from a near miss, represented by making a save, from a Volcano Cannon while their fellows, the ones that failed their saves, get vaporized as the blast overwhelms their defenses?

Not all near misses are the same. And that should be determined by WEAPON not the force field.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"The most efficient weapons profile to shoot at terminators with is something that wounds on a 2, has some AP, and D2. So overcharged plasma weapons work well, as do stalker bolt rifles, etc. You shouldn't be shooting lascannons and krak missiles at termies, those go into vehicles and monsters."

They shouldn't be. That's the whole point. A krak missile or lascannon should leave a smoking crater not bounce off a 5++. Low rate of fire weapons are paying for reliability, and they pay for this independent of enemy list. Invluns given out willy nilly and for close to nothing destroy this reliability.

Martel732 wrote:
Not all near misses are the same. And that should be determined by WEAPON not the force field.

A near miss that can be saved by a 5++ is determined more by how near the miss was than by the weapon being fired.

For example, a near-miss with a bullet might be by a millimeter, a near miss by a grenade might be a couple of meters and a wall between you and it, a near miss from a nuke might be kilometers and being in an underground carpark. In all cases, we're looking at the results not the cause of said result.

They shouldn't be. That's the whole point. A krak missile or lascannon should leave a smoking crater not bounce off a 5++.

"The heretic's krak missile skipped off the surface of Brother Galtus's Iron Halo and detonated in the ruins behind him sending up a cloud of smoke and debris. As the fallout from the explosion rained down over him he said a silent prayer at the fact that the missile hadn't hit his shield square on and vaporized him."

It doesn't make for good game choices to me, regardless of narrative reasoning. -1 and -2 are too powerful, and -3 and above are too weak.

Krak missiles should be skipping off iron halos. That's my whole point.

A Krak Missile, pre-8th, gave Terminators a 2+ save. So not sure why you're harping on about that.

Martel732 wrote:
It doesn't make for good game choices to me, regardless of narrative reasoning. -1 and -2 are too powerful, and -3 and above are too weak.

They really aren't weak they're just specialized. Forcing something to use a 5++ instead of a 2+ still has a lot of value even if some shots get saved.

Krak missiles should be skipping off iron halos. That's my whole point.

So we agree then...

Shouldn't be.

"A Krak Missile, pre-8th, gave Terminators a 2+ save. So not sure why you're harping on about that."

Because I remember when they were -6. That's why.

Martel732 wrote:
Shouldn't be.

"A Krak Missile, pre-8th, gave Terminators a 2+ save. So not sure why you're harping on about that."

Because I remember when they were -6. That's why.

And?

I was answering the other question.

I know there will be little support for any large changes. I'll just continue to not pay for high AP weapons. I might as well throw all may melta units in the garbage can. I guess that's fine with GW.

Martel732 wrote:
I was answering the other question.

I know there will be little support for any large changes. I'll just continue to not pay for high AP weapons. I might as well throw all may melta units in the garbage can.

Don't do that. Just send them to me.

A quick paint stripping and a fresh coat of midnight blue and they'll be melting loyalist tanks in no time. Which they're still quite good at btw.

Martel732 wrote:
I was answering the other question.

I know there will be little support for any large changes. I'll just continue to not pay for high AP weapons. I might as well throw all may melta units in the garbage can.

High AP weapons aren't useless. Melta is worse than it was but still works against the targets it's supposed to, there are just more efficient options at the moment.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I was answering the other question.

I know there will be little support for any large changes. I'll just continue to not pay for high AP weapons. I might as well throw all may melta units in the garbage can.

Don't do that. Just send them to me.

A quick paint stripping and a fresh coat of midnight blue and they'll be melting loyalist tanks in no time. Which they're still quite good at btw.

Useless without list tailoring. I'd use melta if I could tailor. But a blind foe? Into the garbage can. Or maybe acetone. I'd enjoy acetoning a bunch of useless GW minis.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I was answering the other question.

I know there will be little support for any large changes. I'll just continue to not pay for high AP weapons. I might as well throw all may melta units in the garbage can.

High AP weapons aren't useless. Melta is worse than it was but still works against the targets it's supposed to, there are just more efficient options at the moment.

Yes, they are useless for what you pay for them. They are never a good choice in a blind situation. They only viable with list tailoring, which I don't do. Melta would have to be a lot cheaper to be even considered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So... I'm guessing you guys are list tailoring?

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, they are useless for what you pay for them. They are never a good choice in a blind situation. They only viable with list tailoring, which I don't do. Melta would have to be a lot cheaper to be even considered.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It depends on the meta at the time and what you expect to face in a given day's gaming session.

So... I'm guessing you guys are list tailoring?

I intend to play competitively so I'll build lists focused on that meta and the threats that I expect to face. I can't tailor to each list I may face but I can build a list that can handle the main categories of expected issues.

So what does melta address? T7 units with no invuln? Ie, units no one uses.

 Canadian 5th wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Yes, they are useless for what you pay for them. They are never a good choice in a blind situation. They only viable with list tailoring, which I don't do. Melta would have to be a lot cheaper to be even considered.

Perhaps, perhaps not. It depends on the meta at the time and what you expect to face in a given day's gaming session.

So... I'm guessing you guys are list tailoring?

I intend to play competitively so I'll build lists focused on that meta and the threats that I expect to face. I can't tailor to each list I may face but I can build a list that can handle the main categories of expected issues.

In fairness, I haven't come across an expensive unit I'd prefer meltas on over its other options yet. It's not that they are bad, it's just that they're not the best value. Only part of this is due to invulnerable saves however. A lot of it has to do with the fact they are low output in terms of shots. It's kind of the same problem lascannons face. Can't wound if you don't hit, and this is compounded by how many bonuses to saving throws etc there are in the game across so many different armies.

Martel732 wrote:
So... I'm guessing you guys are list tailoring?

Not my style. Rules change. Where would I be if I had thrown out all my warp talons before Faith and Fury and ca2019 made them great for Night Lords? Plus it's always good to have options for fun. You need to stop expecting everything to be op just to be effective. A squad of combi melta chosen dropping in a dreadclaw can ruin a lr or executioner's day. Running the same list all the time is boring.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So... I'm guessing you guys are list tailoring?

Not my style. Rules change. Where would I be if I had thrown out all my warp talons before Faith and Fury and ca2019 made them great for Night Lords? Plus it's always good to have options for fun. You need to stop expecting everything to be op just to be effective. A squad of combi melta chosen dropping in a dreadclaw can ruin a lr or executioner's day. Running the same list all the time is boring.

Just finished re-reading Red Tithe. Night Lords are seriously badass, if they aren't the most lethal of the heretic forces I don't know what is. Fought the Carcharodons to pretty much draw.

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So... I'm guessing you guys are list tailoring?

Not my style. Rules change. Where would I be if I had thrown out all my warp talons before Faith and Fury and ca2019 made them great for Night Lords? Plus it's always good to have options for fun. You need to stop expecting everything to be op just to be effective. A squad of combi melta chosen dropping in a dreadclaw can ruin a lr or executioner's day. Running the same list all the time is boring.

Trust me. My bar is NOT OP. I'm used to scrabbling for mediocrity. Melta is a total fail in 8th ed. I'd never pay what they charge for it. I doubt melta will ever be good again because its not a primaris weapon.

"It's not that they are bad, it's just that they're not the best value."

If they're not good value, they're bad. That's what being a poor value means.

Martel732 wrote:

Gadzilla666 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So... I'm guessing you guys are list tailoring?

Not my style. Rules change. Where would I be if I had thrown out all my warp talons before Faith and Fury and ca2019 made them great for Night Lords? Plus it's always good to have options for fun. You need to stop expecting everything to be op just to be effective. A squad of combi melta chosen dropping in a dreadclaw can ruin a lr or executioner's day. Running the same list all the time is boring.

Trust me. My bar is NOT OP. I'm used to scrabbling for mediocrity. Melta is a total fail in 8th ed. I'd never pay what they charge for it. I doubt melta will ever be good again because its not a primaris weapon.

"It's not that they are bad, it's just that they're not the best value."

If they're not good value, they're bad. That's what being a poor value means.

Ehhhh...not really. I mean there's 'meh', and then there's 'You couldn't pay me to take it'. Terminators are a rule-out if you want a shot at winning in a competitive game, for example. I mean, I'd be far happier about taking a melta on something than a bunch of cataphractii termies. The Corvus Blackstar is pretty godawful too, sadly. Beautiful model.

There's no reason to take melta anything at its current cost.

Martel732 wrote:
There's no reason to take melta anything at its current cost.

Not strictly true. They have a lot of value in overwatch especially if you have a perk granting hits on 5+ during. Pretty solid choice on attack backs too actually, given you're going to be at half range pretty much guaranteed. Melta isn't as good as Plasma but it's not a dumpster fire either. I do agree with you that it's too expensive though.

Being too expensive makes it a dumpster fire.

Roberts84 wrote:
Paladins are three wound models that have a lot more survivability in general due to GK's special rules and psychic. It's also not possible to take shields on them, which might be fair because if you could gak could get real very fast. So really, we're talking terminators and Vanguard vets that will be using shields, as well as smash captains. Really of those three options only the smash captain is a competitive choice. Honestly, I'm yet to see any evidence that Vets can take an amazing mount of anything which is why nobody uses them, and if they do, they're using SS to protect the bulk of the vets which are kitted out dual wielding (I personally think dual claws are the best). If you're not taking a hammer with a shield vet, those vets aren't really going to be fulfilling their purpose, which is kill team units.

GKs don't have any defensive abilities, they have defensive psychic powers, but what makes them tougher than Iron Hands Terminators is their extra wound on the profile.

At the end of all things, one wound is one wound; a slight survivability improvement on bugger all is still bugger all. It isn't hard to fail 3+ saves. Vets need to be bumped up to two wounds to become competitive. They're just OK with shields against low output high AP weaponry but utterly useless against hordes, or high output low AP attacks.

No, a wound isn't a wound you silly goose, it matters what T, Sv, invul and other abilities the unit has and that changes how much the unit is worth, there's a reason why a 6+ Sv Ork is 7 pts and a 3+ Sv CSM is 11 pts, neither is worth 300 pts like a model with 20+ wounds, but one is still waaaay tougher than the other and deserves to be more pts for that reason. Shields are absolutely crucial on models that can take them, with the possible exception of Captains if they aren't meant for frontline smashing, with shields the units are much better because of how little you pay.

Anyway, the point is space marines don't have access to cheap invulnerable saves the way Tau do, and they don't have anything like as many of them.The amount of drones Tau can take needs to be limited.

Space Marines can spam invulns, all it takes is the will to do it. Space Marines are more elite than Tau, their guys with invulns can actually do damage unlike Drones. Shield Drones being OP does not make shields any less of an auto-include on units that can take them. Just like if all Battlesuit models were 100% more expensive they'd all be trash, but you'd still run Shield Drones to protect them so they'd be an auto-include if you did include those units which might be horrible at base, but in combination with Shield Drones they'd be less horrible overall.

Martel732 wrote:
"Your explanation lacks detail and doesn't really address the reason WHY such a larger undertaking is worth looking at rather than fixing units that are currently over performing."

Because the game has too many false choices under the current AP system. Melta is never a good choice, for example. As I said, you are vastly overpaying for any AP -3 or above.

If there was no resistance to melta they might just be another 100% pts, no need to change underlying game systems when a pts drop fixes things and if your whole game-wide change might be ruined by yet another pts increase, the Necrons have several great AP-4/-5 options in their roster. Melta is good against a Rhino or Land Raider, less good against a Daemon vehicle because that Daemon vehicle is magical and doesn't follow real-world physics.

So many invulns being in the game keeps them out of my lists entirely. I don't think the Necron -4/-5 weapons are very good, either. 5++ ruins them.

Martel732 wrote:
So many invulns being in the game keeps them out of my lists entirely. I don't think the Necron -4/-5 weapons are very good, either. 5++ ruins them.

99% of tournament Necron lists disagree. Put (combi-)meltas down to (2+)5 pts and they become amazing against units with or without invuls.

They can disagree all they want. They are losing a huge chunk of their value whenever Drukhari show up.

 vict0988 wrote:

Roberts84 wrote:
Paladins are three wound models that have a lot more survivability in general due to GK's special rules and psychic. It's also not possible to take shields on them, which might be fair because if you could gak could get real very fast. So really, we're talking terminators and Vanguard vets that will be using shields, as well as smash captains. Really of those three options only the smash captain is a competitive choice. Honestly, I'm yet to see any evidence that Vets can take an amazing mount of anything which is why nobody uses them, and if they do, they're using SS to protect the bulk of the vets which are kitted out dual wielding (I personally think dual claws are the best). If you're not taking a hammer with a shield vet, those vets aren't really going to be fulfilling their purpose, which is kill team units.

GKs don't have any defensive abilities, they have defensive psychic powers, but what makes them tougher than Iron Hands Terminators is their extra wound on the profile.

At the end of all things, one wound is one wound; a slight survivability improvement on bugger all is still bugger all. It isn't hard to fail 3+ saves. Vets need to be bumped up to two wounds to become competitive. They're just OK with shields against low output high AP weaponry but utterly useless against hordes, or high output low AP attacks.

No, a wound isn't a wound you silly goose, it matters what T, Sv, invul and other abilities the unit has and that changes how much the unit is worth, there's a reason why a 6+ Sv Ork is 7 pts and a 3+ Sv CSM is 11 pts, neither is worth 300 pts like a model with 20+ wounds, but one is still waaaay tougher than the other and deserves to be more pts for that reason. Shields are absolutely crucial on models that can take them, with the possible exception of Captains if they aren't meant for frontline smashing, with shields the units are much better because of how little you pay.

Anyway, the point is space marines don't have access to cheap invulnerable saves the way Tau do, and they don't have anything like as many of them.The amount of drones Tau can take needs to be limited.

Space Marines can spam invulns, all it takes is the will to do it. Space Marines are more elite than Tau, their guys with invulns can actually do damage unlike Drones. Shield Drones being OP does not make shields any less of an auto-include on units that can take them. Just like if all Battlesuit models were 100% more expensive they'd all be trash, but you'd still run Shield Drones to protect them so they'd be an auto-include if you did include those units which might be horrible at base, but in combination with Shield Drones they'd be less horrible overall.

Martel732 wrote:
"Your explanation lacks detail and doesn't really address the reason WHY such a larger undertaking is worth looking at rather than fixing units that are currently over performing."

Because the game has too many false choices under the current AP system. Melta is never a good choice, for example. As I said, you are vastly overpaying for any AP -3 or above.

If there was no resistance to melta they might just be another 100% pts, no need to change underlying game systems when a pts drop fixes things and if your whole game-wide change might be ruined by yet another pts increase, the Necrons have several great AP-4/-5 options in their roster. Melta is good against a Rhino or Land Raider, less good against a Daemon vehicle because that Daemon vehicle is magical and doesn't follow real-world physics.

I can't believe that's your argument. Naturally a wound isn't just a wound due to strength/ toughness etc but that simply proves my point further, because outside of shield captains, you're only going to be putting shields on terminators and vets which are T4. Obviously having a 3+ on a Paladin ( can't be done) or or a Wraith is a way, way bigger deal than something like a Vanguard vet, because all a vet needs to do is fail one save and it's hosed of the board. A paladin or a wraith with a 3+ is an enormously bigger problem.

Honestly, you would only have a valid point to make if it were possible stick a 3+ invuln on high wound, high toughness models, and in space marines armies you can't. No such models exist to my knowledge--at least not without a relic or warlord trait. Name one elite or troop choice with more than two wounds that can take a stormshield in a space marines list. Get back to me because I'll definitely be running whatever they are.

Seriously, it's starting to feel like you're senselessly hating on SM armies.

Roberts84 wrote:
I can't believe that's your argument. Naturally a wound isn't just a wound due to strength/ toughness etc but that simply proves my point further, because outside of shield captains, you're only going to be putting shields on terminators and vets which are T4. Obviously having a 3+ on a Paladin ( can't be done) or or a Wraith is a way, way bigger deal than something like a Vanguard vet, because all a vet needs to do is fail one save and it's hosed of the board. A paladin or a wraith with a 3+ is an enormously bigger problem.

Honestly, you would only have a valid point to make if it were possible stick a 3+ invuln on high wound, high toughness models, and in space marines armies you can't. No such models exist to my knowledge--at least not without a relic or warlord trait. Name one elite or troop choice with more than two wounds that can take a stormshield in a space marines list. Get back to me because I'll definitely be running whatever they are.

Seriously, it's starting to feel like you're senselessly hating on SM armies.

YOU said a wound is a wound, that going from a 3+ to a 3+/3++ is no big difference, it is a RELATIVELY big difference, no it doesn't make them worth 300 pts each, which is not what I said, but 2/10 pts relative to their base cost makes stormshields an auto-include on most units. You don't need to become as tough as a Knight for a toughness upgrade to be worthwhile, do you think using a Stratagem to get a 4++ on Craftworld Guardians is useless because they're vulnerable anyway? No, because it massively increases their defences, it's about RELATIVE cost and RELATIVE durability, same thing with Necron Tomb Blades you can pay 2 pts for +1 Sv, it doesn't make them into Knights but it does make them a lot more durable RELATIVE to their baseline stats. Stop being silly we don't play in fantasy land how much a unit costs before and costs after compared to how tough it is before and after is what matters, stormshields are amazing for 2 pts. I don't hate on Space Marines, I just think stormshields are undercosted. We're in an invul whining thread, complaining invuls are everywhere, well guess what? When the units with invulns are OP, when the options that give invulns are OP, invulns become popular. If Repulsors and lightning claws are better than Leviathans and stormshields then melta becomes better.