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.

It's really about how melta doesn't work in 8th/9th. GW whips out this hamfisted "fix", which I see as them throwing in the towel on melta. Someone over there knows it doesn't work, so they just bolt on another shot.

It doesn't really even matter what the points cost is, this is another example of terrible Primaris Design (TM). It's like the rest of the game, except you just take all the weak poinst of a unit and get rid of them Because Primaris (TM). In this case, you take something lots of factions get - glass cannon, short range AT - and remove the range problem, remove the Heavy designation, remove the glass cannon part and call it a day. Now we have taken an archtype that had strengths and weaknesses and replaced it with a version that has only strengths.

So tired of the Primaris approach to design, where the only weakness is the points cost (which we don't even have here apparently).

yukishiro1 wrote:
It doesn't really even matter what the points cost is, this is another example of terrible Primaris Design (TM). It's like the est of the game, except you just take all the weak poinst of a unit and get rid of them Because Primaris (TM). In this case, you take something lots of factions get - glass cannon melta units - and remove the range problem, remove the Heavy designation, remove the glass cannon part and call it a day. Now we have taken an archtype that had strengths and weaknesses and replaced it with a version that has only strengths.

So tired of the Primaris approach to design, where the only weakness is the points cost (which we don't even have here apparently).

Yeah, that was exactly what jumped out at me, moreso than the PL. They're a melta unit that doesn't have to get close. They're a heavy weapons unit that doesn't take penalties from moving, and can even Advance and still shoot. They're an anti-tank infantry unit, but they're also tough as nails, nothing glass hammer about them at all. They'll deploy in the middle of the board and blast tanks from T1. Even fairly costed, they would be just boring, bland, never-have-any-weaknesses design- the 5PL cost just adds insult to injury.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
A unit that has clearly been passed by in the game, though.

Aaaaaaaaaannnd thaaatt mmeaaannss theeyyy shoouullldd beee fiixxeedd...

GW should be teasing the rules for improved meltas, if they did improve them. Because right now, all this says is "Guys, we found the fix to meltas, and only SM get it, because the other people are NPCs." Which isn't a good look.

As I said, this is their hamfisted "fix". Enjoy.

Fire dragons probably aren't getting fixed at this point.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
This may be indicating that melta is going to go way down in price across the board, befitting it's low performance.
If this means fusion pistols are 1-2 points and like multi-meltas are ~10 I don't think these guys are really that overcosted.
Please, GW, Please give me 20point multi-melta retributors! With Argent Shroud and cherubs they'd be like a cheaper, weaker, more faithful version of these guys!

Consider a Hellblaster with Assault Incinerator. Comparable PL.
-Increase the AP.
-Double the damage.
-Remove Gets Hot.
-Change the guy carrying it from T4/W2 to T5/W3.

Voila, you've made an Eradicator. These guys don't just make melta troops look like chumps- if they release at ~100pts, they'll be the most effective AT troops in the game, bar none. They're not just powerful in comparison to melta.

This more underscores how bad hellblasters are.

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
A unit that has clearly been passed by in the game, though.

Aaaaaaaaaannnd thaaatt mmeaaannss theeyyy shoouullldd beee fiixxeedd...

GW should be teasing the rules for improved meltas, if they did improve them. Because right now, all this says is "Guys, we found the fix to meltas, and only SM get it, because the other people are NPCs." Which isn't a good look.

As I said, this is their hamfisted "fix". Enjoy.

Fire dragons probably aren't getting fixed at this point.

There, you see the problem with this unit now. It's a "fix for melta" but only for Marines, and not the other armies in the game.

The fact that you don't see that as a problem just shows how blinkered you are.

yukishiro1 wrote:
It doesn't really even matter what the points cost is, this is another example of terrible Primaris Design (TM). It's like the est of the game, except you just take all the weak poinst of a unit and get rid of them Because Primaris (TM). In this case, you take something lots of factions get - glass cannon melta units - and remove the range problem, remove the Heavy designation, remove the glass cannon part and call it a day. Now we have taken an archtype that had strengths and weaknesses and replaced it with a version that has only strengths.

So tired of the Primaris approach to design, where the only weakness is the points cost (which we don't even have here apparently).

They're still fairly glass cannon, but depends on the gun you point at them.

I take 1 or 2 Moirax with Gravitons for Centurions - 7 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 2.6 wounding hits that do 4 damage each (regular Armigers could probably kill two). Can I out maneuver these guys and get the first shot? Probably, but I'm going to have to do something like a refused flank and keep them to one side of the board and put enough stuff to block entry on that side of the table or reserve my stuff instead.

They're beatable, but at a cost.

The unit isn't a problem. Yes, melta being awful across the board IS a problem. I just don't think comparing this to a unit that GW has clearly given up on is a fair comparison.

I'm still not sure I'd use these guys as AT units. As I said, I think they are okay in general. They are busted compared to other melta options, but melta is awful atm, so that's a pointless comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

yukishiro1 wrote:
It doesn't really even matter what the points cost is, this is another example of terrible Primaris Design (TM). It's like the est of the game, except you just take all the weak poinst of a unit and get rid of them Because Primaris (TM). In this case, you take something lots of factions get - glass cannon melta units - and remove the range problem, remove the Heavy designation, remove the glass cannon part and call it a day. Now we have taken an archtype that had strengths and weaknesses and replaced it with a version that has only strengths.

So tired of the Primaris approach to design, where the only weakness is the points cost (which we don't even have here apparently).

They're still fairly glass cannon, but depends on the gun you point at them.

I take 1 or 2 Moirax with Gravitons for Centurions - 7 * .666 * .666 * .833 = 2.6 wounding hits that do 4 damage each (regular Armigers could probably kill two). Can I out maneuver these guys and get the first shot? Probably, but I'm going to have to do something like a refused flank and keep them to one side of the board and put enough stuff to block entry on that side of the table or reserve my stuff instead.

They're beatable, but at a cost.

Or put your invuln saves next to them and watch them cry.

Comparing the Cryptotralls to a similar unit, they seem to be on pretty even footing. But then I noticed you get two Cryptothralls.

Martel732 wrote:
The unit isn't a problem. Yes, melta being awful across the board IS a problem. I just don't think comparing this to a unit that GW has clearly given up on is a fair comparison.

I'm still not sure I'd use these guys as AT units. As I said, I think they are okay in general. They are busted compared to other melta options, but melta is awful atm, so that's a pointless comparison.

No, it isn't. If melta is busted, fix melta - not for Marines, but everyone. That's the obvious answer.

Instead, we get this answer - which is that melta is fine in the designer's eyes if it is busted, just as long as Space Marine meltas aren't busted.

 Oaka wrote:
Comparing the Cryptotralls to a similar unit, they seem to be on pretty even footing. But then I noticed you get two Cryptothralls.

Nah that's fairly even. The Sslyth could take a small point cut or the PL of the thralls could be toward the higher end. A FAQ to make the Sslyth rules consistent with the new edition would help, too.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The unit isn't a problem. Yes, melta being awful across the board IS a problem. I just don't think comparing this to a unit that GW has clearly given up on is a fair comparison.

I'm still not sure I'd use these guys as AT units. As I said, I think they are okay in general. They are busted compared to other melta options, but melta is awful atm, so that's a pointless comparison.

No, it isn't. If melta is busted, fix melta - not for Marines, but everyone. That's the obvious answer.

Instead, we get this answer - which is that melta is fine in the designer's eyes if it is busted, just as long as Space Marine meltas aren't busted.

I guess I'm just more cynical at this point. It IS a pointless comparison if we look at it as comparing one functional unit to another functional unit, regardless of armament. Given the number of goobers I've ran into that still think melta is great, I'm a bit surprised GW did this, but not surprised at all that only the mary sue primaris marines get it. Old bois are going to be functionally useless by the end of 9th. Just get ready and accept it.

These guys cause about 7W to T8 from 12"-24". Less than 5W if there is a 5++. I don't see the brokenness in the scheme of the game, only relative to other useless melta units.

Martel732 wrote:
It IS a pointless comparison if we look at it as comparing one functional unit to another functional unit, regardless of armament.

You are doing some pretty incredible gymnastics here to avoid comparing these to any other decent AT unit in the game.

 catbarf wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
It IS a pointless comparison if we look at it as comparing one functional unit to another functional unit, regardless of armament.

You are doing some pretty incredible gymnastics here to avoid comparing these to any other decent AT unit in the game.

Other people are bringing up melta. What are the decent AT units? I don't use AT guns in my lists because of invulns. I don't see how these guys don't suffer the same problem as all other AT weapons except that they get to shoot twice. It's the same "fix" as the Leman Russ.

It's been my contention that 8th doesn't really HAVE AT guns because of gak like leviathans and IKs. Because the guns that WOULD be good vs them get foiled by invuln.

Martel732 wrote:
The unit isn't a problem. Yes, melta being awful across the board IS a problem. I just don't think comparing this to a unit that GW has clearly given up on is a fair comparison.

I'm still not sure I'd use these guys as AT units. As I said, I think they are okay in general. They are busted compared to other melta options, but melta is awful atm, so that's a pointless comparison.

Ok lets try this a different way so 100 points of 9th edition marines, should avarage 14 wounds on a T7 vehical or to put it bluntly 160 8th edition points so 180+ in 9th edition of tank. Bonus they also do 11 wounds on T8. So leaving that Repulsor on 5 wounds.
These lads in a single round of shooting are killing twice their oen points.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The unit isn't a problem. Yes, melta being awful across the board IS a problem. I just don't think comparing this to a unit that GW has clearly given up on is a fair comparison.

I'm still not sure I'd use these guys as AT units. As I said, I think they are okay in general. They are busted compared to other melta options, but melta is awful atm, so that's a pointless comparison.

No, it isn't. If melta is busted, fix melta - not for Marines, but everyone. That's the obvious answer.

Instead, we get this answer - which is that melta is fine in the designer's eyes if it is busted, just as long as Space Marine meltas aren't busted.

I guess I'm just more cynical at this point. It IS a pointless comparison if we look at it as comparing one functional unit to another functional unit, regardless of armament. Given the number of goobers I've ran into that still think melta is great, I'm a bit surprised GW did this, but not surprised at all that only the mary sue primaris marines get it. Old bois are going to be functionally useless by the end of 9th. Just get ready and accept it.

These guys cause about 7W to T8 from 12"-24". Less than 5W if there is a 5++. I don't see the brokenness in the scheme of the game, only relative to other useless melta units.

Yeah if you conveniently forget to put them with the 6 inches of rerolls for days marines have.

If you are upset that T7 3+ evaporates, you are a bit late to the party I think.

So, I would expect in 9th that melta weapons will cost about 1/2 of what they cost in 8th (despite suggested average points increases elsewhere)?

Martel732 wrote:
If you are upset that T7 3+ evaporates, you are a bit late to the party I think.

Not evey faction got they hey have new T8 flying tanks that are harder to charge than everyone elses.

How does that relate to T7 3+ being stupid fragile in 8th?

Repulsors are largely unusable already with the weapons in the game. These guys don't change that.

Adding these units to my lists will fix very few problems I have right now. Please explain what problem this unit is going to magically make go away in 9th?

More proof that GW does not know what the feth it is doing...

"And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!"

Martel732 wrote:
How does that relate to T7 3+ being stupid fragile in 8th?

Repulsors are largely unusable already with the weapons in the game. These guys don't change that.

Adding these units to my lists will fix very few problems I have right now. Please explain what problem this unit is going to magically make go away in 9th?

? These are adding a problem that we already told you many times, instead of fixing melta for everyone, they fixed it for marines only.

if you mean by fixed blatant powercreeped into playable autopick territory if indeed the estimations from pts to PL work out somewhat which we can somewhat support from the little patrol lists they showed off, then yeah, these will be an issue.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
How does that relate to T7 3+ being stupid fragile in 8th?

Repulsors are largely unusable already with the weapons in the game. These guys don't change that.

Adding these units to my lists will fix very few problems I have right now. Please explain what problem this unit is going to magically make go away in 9th?

? These are adding a problem that we already told you many times, instead of fixing melta for everyone, they fixed it for marines only.

Oh, that's it? Okay, well I'd be fine with making all melta fire twice, because it would similarly be not broken in the way 8th/9th works. I'm just assuming a primaris fapfest here in 9th, so I kind of skipped that part of the analysis. Primaris are the new Eldar, in case anyone didn't know that yet.

Not Online!!! wrote:
if you mean by fixed blatant powercreeped into playable autopick territory if indeed the estimations from pts to PL work out somewhat which we can somewhat support from the little patrol lists they showed off, then yeah, these will be an issue.

which is what i'm saying. If GW had modified the melta rule to automatically have the double shoot part i wouldve complained less. As it stands pretty much every melta weapon will be useless except for the marine one.

 Grimtuff wrote:
More proof that GW does not know what the feth it is doing...

"And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!"

Let's pause for a moment here.

Look at the coherency rule. It got panned out the gate for not solving the problem. Then we learned about the removal of models out of coherency. Now suddenly it is an elegant rule.

This is precisely the reason why we say, "WAIT FOR ALL THE INFO".

I'm still waiting patiently even if I think these guys are busted. I'm just not tossing my money over until I know a bit more.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
if you mean by fixed blatant powercreeped into playable autopick territory if indeed the estimations from pts to PL work out somewhat which we can somewhat support from the little patrol lists they showed off, then yeah, these will be an issue.

which is what i'm saying. If GW had modified the melta rule to automatically have the double shoot part i wouldve complained less. As it stands pretty much every melta weapon will be useless except for the marine one.

Yeah, that's bs for sure. As I said, my initial premises include "primaris fapfest", so I'm not as appalled as some might be.

Martel732 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
How does that relate to T7 3+ being stupid fragile in 8th?

Repulsors are largely unusable already with the weapons in the game. These guys don't change that.

Adding these units to my lists will fix very few problems I have right now. Please explain what problem this unit is going to magically make go away in 9th?

? These are adding a problem that we already told you many times, instead of fixing melta for everyone, they fixed it for marines only.

Oh, that's it? Okay, well I'd be fine with making all melta fire twice, because it would similarly be not broken in the way 8th/9th works. I'm just assuming a primaris fapfest here in 9th, so I kind of skipped that part of the analysis.

Yeah, im comparing it to fire dragons because theyre units with the same job, i couldve compared them to melta chosen or devastators. The problem is that GW decided to fix an issue only for primaris once again.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
More proof that GW does not know what the feth it is doing...

"And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!"

Let's pause for a moment here.

Look at the coherency rule. It got panned out the gate for not solving the problem. Then we learned about the removal of models out of coherency. Now suddenly it is an elegant rule.

This is precisely the reason why we say, "WAIT FOR ALL THE INFO".

I'm still waiting patiently even if I think these guys are busted. I'm just not tossing my money over until I know a bit more.

They're not busted. They just display how gakky melta is right now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
How does that relate to T7 3+ being stupid fragile in 8th?

Repulsors are largely unusable already with the weapons in the game. These guys don't change that.

Adding these units to my lists will fix very few problems I have right now. Please explain what problem this unit is going to magically make go away in 9th?

? These are adding a problem that we already told you many times, instead of fixing melta for everyone, they fixed it for marines only.

Oh, that's it? Okay, well I'd be fine with making all melta fire twice, because it would similarly be not broken in the way 8th/9th works. I'm just assuming a primaris fapfest here in 9th, so I kind of skipped that part of the analysis.

Yeah, im comparing it to fire dragons because theyre units with the same job, i couldve compared them to melta chosen or devastators. The problem is that GW decided to fix an issue only for primaris once again.

Oh, yeah. Par for the course. Primaris is the new Eldar. Your list can do something? Primaris do it twice as good for cheaper! GW can't help themselves. At least now they are doing it to push new models instead of breaking models from the 90s.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
More proof that GW does not know what the feth it is doing...

"And they shall know no unfavourable rules changes!"

Let's pause for a moment here.

Look at the coherency rule. It got panned out the gate for not solving the problem. Then we learned about the removal of models out of coherency. Now suddenly it is an elegant rule.

This is precisely the reason why we say, "WAIT FOR ALL THE INFO".

I'm still waiting patiently even if I think these guys are busted. I'm just not tossing my money over until I know a bit more.

Can you stop repeating this ad nauseam? We get it, but we're still allowed to evaluate new stuff based on what we currently know.
We know we're not getting new codexes on release (so no double shoot for every melta unit).
We know the approximate pts cost from PL.
We know the differences between Fire dragons and these guys (resilience, range, damage output, positioning).

Yes we don't have the big picture but its still dissapointing to see.

Martel732 wrote:
Other people are bringing up melta. What are the decent AT units? I don't use AT guns in my lists because of invulns. I don't see how these guys don't suffer the same problem as all other AT weapons except that they get to shoot twice. It's the same "fix" as the Leman Russ.

It's been my contention that 8th doesn't really HAVE AT guns because of gak like leviathans and IKs. Because the guns that WOULD be good vs them get foiled by invuln.

If rapid-fire mid-strength, mid-AP weapons are "good" AT in 8th, surely rapid-fire high-strength high-AP weapons are even better? Wounding T8 on a 4 plus re-rolling all their gak makes these pretty good against even invuln-protected targets. Alternatively they can use the new reserves and come in at melta-rule range.

Like someone brought up Crisis Suits with 2 Fusion Blasters and nothing else. You can get 6 melta shots from those on fairly similar statlines (S5 T5 W3). These cost at least 50% more (unless they get points cuts with the new edition).
Advantages: can deepstrike free, fly, and have 3" more move.
Disadvantages: 18" range, BS4+, cant' deepstrike into melta-rule, not infantry. Way fewer re-roll options.

They aren't even pretending to care about balance with this unit. What are they gonna do FAQ every melta unit's datasheets on day one?

Martel732 wrote:

Oh, yeah. Par for the course. Primaris is the new Eldar. Your list can do something? Primaris do it twice as good for cheaper! GW can't help themselves. At least now they are doing it to push new models instead of breaking models from the 90s.

Grav tanks and Ultra specialised units belong to the elves dammit!

And you know we won't get the rest of the plastic aspect warriors for a while because the banshees were sold 55/5models (with no real options) vs 60/10 intercessors (more chunky, more models, more options).