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.

So I read the newly revealed data sheet for the Primaris eradicators and was disappointed that the melta rules haven’t changed.

I was hoping that melta weapons would be reworked to be a sort of anti-tank version of the new blast weapons.

Basically take the 9th edition blast rule, and use it for melta weapons within half range, except instead of number of shots being related to model count in the target unit, the damage roll would use the same rules in relation to the W stat on the target model.

So a d6 damage melta weapons in half range would roll d6 damage, but for a target model with W 6-10 the minimum damage is 3 and for models with W 11+ then it always scores max damage. Points adjusted as appropriate.

Thoughts?

Would rather not. Vehicles already feel way too squishy in 8e because they didn't give them enough wounds, buffing meltaguns to try and make them keep up with volume-AT would just make vehicles without Invulnerable saves even worse.

The new guys needed to ignore invuln imo. Extra shot is not a good fix.

What about meltas dealing D6 mortal wounds, if in melta range against monsters and vehicles, instead of rolling 2D6 and discarding the lowest? Outside melta range D3 mortal wounds against vehicles and monsters.

Against other targets no mortal wounds but simply D3 and D6 damage.

Martel732 wrote:
The new guys needed to ignore invuln imo. Extra shot is not a good fix.

They really don't... very little should ignore an Invulnerable without good reason. They just need to make units with invulnerable saves a bit more niche and stop giving vehicles (The models this weapon should be used on) invulnerable saves just because it is the flavor of the month or for some super-special reason that isn't just "well we thought it would be cool if it did"

@ Martel:
But... isn't +1 shot pretty much the same or better as ignores Inv vs. most heavily armed units?
I mean comparing just the odds of getting through the save for 2 Meltashots vs. one shot that ignors Inv

3+6++: 1.66 vs 1
3+5++: 1.33 vs. 1
3+4++: 1 vs. 1
3+3++: 0.67 vs. 1

2+6++: 1.66 vs. 0.83
2+5++: 1.33 vs. 0.83
2+4++: 1 vs. 0.83
2+3++: 0.67 vs. 0.83

=> so unless you fire at something with a 3++, the +1 shot is at least as good, maybe better than "ignores Inv" and much better against everything without an Inv, every unit with more than 1 model and also less swingy than a single shot weapon.

 Blackie wrote:
What about meltas dealing D6 mortal wounds, if in melta range against monsters and vehicles, instead of rolling 2D6 and discarding the lowest? Outside melta range D3 mortal wounds against vehicles and monsters.

Against other targets no mortal wounds but simply D3 and D6 damage.

No you've just reinvented D weapon spam effectively. Never play vehicals again edition.

These guys broke any hope of melta actually being fixed for anyone but them as giving anyone else functional melta rules will make these lads malefic lord spam busted.

Ice_can wrote:

No you've just reinvented D weapon spam effectively. Never play vehicals again edition.

Nah, it all depends on point costs. And the majority of vehicles doesn't have invulns anyway so the change I proposed is actually inferior to the current standard melta gun with D3 damage instead of D6 outside melta range, and the exact same damage in melta range. Of course 24'' melta weapons like the new SM unit shouldn't exist.

 Blackie wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

No you've just reinvented D weapon spam effectively. Never play vehicals again edition.

Nah, it all depends on point costs. And the majority of vehicles doesn't have invulns anyway so the change I proposed is actually inferior to the current standard melta gun with D3 damage instead of D6 outside melta range, and the exact same damage in melta range. Of course 24'' melta weapons like the new SM unit shouldn't exist.

To be fair I just have a serious hatred of MW mechnics as it essentially renders Toughness, Saves and Invulnerable saves as worthless despite GW charging points for them.

Heck Melta being cheaper and Flat 3 and 6 damage though I think is right up there interms of best solutions proposed, could also be rolled out to a lot of other things like Lascannons at flat 4/5 damage points dependant suck less.

 Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Martel:
But... isn't +1 shot pretty much the same or better as ignores Inv vs. most heavily armed units?
I mean comparing just the odds of getting through the save for 2 Meltashots vs. one shot that ignors Inv

3+6++: 1.66 vs 1
3+5++: 1.33 vs. 1
3+4++: 1 vs. 1
3+3++: 0.67 vs. 1

2+6++: 1.66 vs. 0.83
2+5++: 1.33 vs. 0.83
2+4++: 1 vs. 0.83
2+3++: 0.67 vs. 0.83

=> so unless you fire at something with a 3++, the +1 shot is at least as good, maybe better than "ignores Inv" and much better against everything without an Inv, every unit with more than 1 model and also less swingy than a single shot weapon.

I"m trying make the "fix" less destructive, not MORE destructive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tristanleo wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The new guys needed to ignore invuln imo. Extra shot is not a good fix.

They really don't... very little should ignore an Invulnerable without good reason. They just need to make units with invulnerable saves a bit more niche and stop giving vehicles (The models this weapon should be used on) invulnerable saves just because it is the flavor of the month or for some super-special reason that isn't just "well we thought it would be cool if it did"

Too late. Powerful AT guns should ignore invulns over giving out more shots. The good reason is the other way to fix them is give them more shots. Like GW just did.

+to wound system is by far the best way to delineate AV weapons to non-AV weapons.

+to wound diminishes in returns against T ≤ 2*S while maintaining linear increase when T>S.

I still think meltas needs to be 'higher probability of wounding at close range' weapon than the current 'deal more damage reliably at close range'.

Maybe you can add "If tar=[vehicle], then damage=d6; results of 1 and 2 counts as 3" if you want to go further to increase the damage output against vehicles, but I think this is over the top. Messing around with damage is not the fix for meltas IMO.

Ice_can wrote:


Heck Melta being cheaper and Flat 3 and 6 damage though I think is right up there interms of best solutions proposed, could also be rolled out to a lot of other things like Lascannons at flat 4/5 damage points dependant suck less.

Now that could make vehicles useless once again. I kinda like how they can soak some firepower before dying now, I'd hate to go back to vehicles being paper things once again. I don't like things can can one-shot a centerpiece model, and a unit with high BS and 4 meltas that deal 3-6 flat damage sounds a bit dangerous. Lascannons at flat 4/5 would be even worse considering that they are long range weapons. They'd need to cost 40ish points for the weapon alone then.

 Blackie wrote:

Ice_can wrote:


Heck Melta being cheaper and Flat 3 and 6 damage though I think is right up there interms of best solutions proposed, could also be rolled out to a lot of other things like Lascannons at flat 4/5 damage points dependant suck less.

Now that could make vehicles useless once again. I kinda like how they can soak some firepower before dying now, I'd hate to go back to vehicles being paper things once again. I don't like things can can one-shot a centerpiece model, and a unit with high BS and 4 meltas that deal 3-6 flat damage sounds a bit dangerous. Lascannons at flat 4/5 would be even worse considering that they are long range weapons. They'd need to cost 40ish points for the weapon alone then.

At flat 4 damage a unit of 4 lascannons maximum damage is 12 wounds, yes thats a lot but if you take into acount hitting, wounding and saves as most vehicals still have a 6+ vrs Ap-3 they aren't making vehicals out side of transport and light vehicals insta die often.

Ignoring all the Marine shenanigans
Hitting on 3+,
Wounding on 3+
Save on a 6+

Gives a flat 4 damage lascannon an avarage of 1.48 that's not makinng vehicals usless.

Marines break that by jumping it to 187% efficiency.
With CM & LT & T1 AP-1 to 2.77 wounds avarage per lascannon.


4 Multi Melta out of deepstrike at 9 inches.
Hitting on 4+ (Heavy)
Wounding on 3+ (or 4+ vrs T8)
No save vrs 3+
Avarages 8 wounds That doesnt feel very broken for 88 points of MultiMeltas let alone the models and deepstrike cost.

It's indirect, but I feel like melta would be a lot more useful if vehicles had 2+ saves base. The 3+ save makes high volume AP-1/-2 weapons more than sufficient for anti-tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
It's indirect, but I feel like melta would be a lot more useful if vehicles had 2+ saves base. The 3+ save makes high volume AP-1/-2 weapons more than sufficient for anti-tank.

Martel732 wrote:
Powerful AT guns should ignore invulns over giving out more shots.

Ignoring saves that exist solely to not be ignorable is bad design. Powerful anti-tank guns should be defeating tank armor through their AP stat and damage, and if invuln saves are too prevalent on vehicles, that should be addressed directly.

Ice_can wrote:

Ignoring all the Marine shenanigans...

I'd love to do that, unfortunately the exist and everything about the SM codex should take those into account.

I think both meltas and lascannons are already powerful enough, I'd accept to reconsider the design of both weapons, not to make them more lethal. Not at the same point cost at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:



4 Multi Melta out of deepstrike at 9 inches.
Hitting on 4+ (Heavy)
Wounding on 3+ (or 4+ vrs T8)
No save vrs 3+
Avarages 8 wounds That doesnt feel very broken for 88 points of MultiMeltas let alone the models and deepstrike cost.

8 wounds for a deep striking 88 points actually sounds a pretty solid deal for any army that isn't marines.

 catbarf wrote:
It's indirect, but I feel like melta would be a lot more useful if vehicles had 2+ saves base. The 3+ save makes high volume AP-1/-2 weapons more than sufficient for anti-tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 catbarf wrote:
It's indirect, but I feel like melta would be a lot more useful if vehicles had 2+ saves base. The 3+ save makes high volume AP-1/-2 weapons more than sufficient for anti-tank.

Martel732 wrote:
Powerful AT guns should ignore invulns over giving out more shots.

Ignoring saves that exist solely to not be ignorable is bad design. Powerful anti-tank guns should be defeating tank armor through their AP stat and damage, and if invuln saves are too prevalent on vehicles, that should be addressed directly.

I feel that making a few weapons to defeat the problem save is easier than redacting it directly at this point.

 Blackie wrote:

Ice_can wrote:

Ignoring all the Marine shenanigans...

I'd love to do that, unfortunately the exist and everything about the SM codex should take those into account.

I think both meltas and lascannons are already powerful enough, I'd accept to reconsider the design of both weapons, not to make them more lethal. Not at the same point cost at least.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ice_can wrote:



4 Multi Melta out of deepstrike at 9 inches.
Hitting on 4+ (Heavy)
Wounding on 3+ (or 4+ vrs T8)
No save vrs 3+
Avarages 8 wounds That doesnt feel very broken for 88 points of MultiMeltas let alone the models and deepstrike cost.

8 wounds for a deep striking 88 points actually sounds a pretty solid deal for any army that isn't marines.

Remeber that 88 points needs 4+ deepstriking body's to carry them the cheapest I can think of right now is 5 devs and the Ravenguard strategum for deepstike and they still add 75 points in bodies plus the cost of CP to do that so that 88 points becomes 163 points.

No the CM strategum needs to double in CP or be flat out removed and LT and Captains need some serious points increases.
Balancing things around marines isn't possible outside of making them pay more points for weapons because the weapons are shared with other BS3 and BS4 factions.

I mean, If people are really adamant on changes to Melta, wouldn't a variable profile give it more versatility.

keep Melta at current rules then give it a wide jet profile of assault D3 at Str 6, Ap-2 and damage 2.
This way, it has an interesting competition with plasma. you get more shots in melta's rapid fire range, but the AP and strength are slightly less.

Meltas have historically been used for dealing with vehicles and, occasionally, heroes (particularly T4 ones!)

Ignoring invulnerable saves is not the way to go as ~90% of their targets will not have one.

I would give meltas the edge by giving them auto-wounds in 1/2 range.

This way you can get past high toughness (what a melta should be doing) without bypassing invulns (like mortal wounds do). Essentially it will improve its utility aainst high toughness without the excessive power of mortal wounds - which should never come from a weapon which is available to entire armies.

I can tell you that way more than 90% of their targets will have an invuln. And that is a huge reason melta is currently not worth using. The lack of range being the other big reason. The cost coming in third place I think.

Ignoring invulns is not an ideal mechanic for sure, but I can think of any other change that will make them worthwhile vs the FIELD and not just the have-not vehicles and monsters.

I guess autowounds vs T8 is identical to bypassing 4++ on the target. Although you are just skipping the wound roll like mortal wounds, not the save roll. You are still taking part of mortal wounds and adding it to melta.

Martel732 wrote:
I can tell you that way more than 90% of their targets will have an invuln. And that is a huge reason melta is currently not worth using. The lack of range being the other big reason. The cost coming in third place I think.

Ignoring invulns is not an ideal mechanic for sure, but I can think of any other change that will make them worthwhile vs the FIELD and not just the have-not vehicles and monsters.

I guess autowounds vs T8 is identical to bypassing 4++ on the target. Although you are just skipping the wound roll like mortal wounds, not the save roll. You are still taking part of mortal wounds and adding it to melta.

but only part of it - there is a lot more to mortal wounds than just ignoring invulns.

If you take melta by my suggestion and the D6 MW's in 1/2 range option and fire this weapon at several targets, you see the difference:

Shoot a melta at a unit of space marines within 1/2 range:

current melta, wounds on 2's, ignores save and will usually kill one space marine very, very dead.
Autowound melta wounds, ignores saves and will kill a marine if it hits
D6 mortal wound melta, if it hits, kills d6 marines. that could wipe out a combat squad in one shot - because mortal wounds roll over.

now put that new primaris unit, let's say 5 of them, facing a horde of gribblies (which meltas should be overpriced and overkill for dealing with):

10 shots, as they shoot twice, in half range so melta happens.
assuming rerolls and other such jargon, 8 hits
that's 8D6 dead gaunts. that's an average of 28 dead gaunts. That one unit, shooting twice, deals 28 wounds per turn. 5 meltaguns, killing entire hores in one shooting phase. or 28 necron warriors, or 14 primaris marines, or 14 terminators, or (IIRC) an entire knight, plus a few spare wounds. no thanks.

Let's look at 4++ vehicles as our expected target, then:

if we do mortal wounds, we negate any reason to have the save - negating player utility (no rolls to stop it). you would roll to hit, roll the number of wounds, then move on, and as shown above, this has ramifications for hurting hordes a lot.
if we auto-wound, you take one degree of uncertainty out of the equation, without removing the ability of the attacker (which auto-hit would) or the defensive abilities of the defender (which MW's would). attacker still has t ohit, defender could still save, but you skip that "and there's half a chance you don't even wound the knight" bit, which is a good reward for getting that close to a friggin knight.

I think the 2D6 pick the highest for damage should also stay - a meltagun should kick ass in half range, like it always did before. but it shouldn't kick the asses of hordes.

So with all the proposals here, there must be zero Lord of War players. These new guys can effectively 1 shot a knight player which is a disgusting difference in points vs potential. Not only that, I would hate to spend the CP to bring in a Primarch like Bobby, Magnus, or Morty, and wtach them get deleted by a maybe 200 point unit that cost no CP to bring. If these guys can be taken in units of 5+, kiss lords of war good bye. Also if we start making Lascannons the 4-6 flat damage weapons - say hello to Landraider edition. Because they are still dedicated Transports, which means you can spam them. And all those 48' shots of S9 AP3 D4-6 damage would make them op.

How is it any different than a melta squad one shotting a land raider in 2nd-7th? Lords of War should die to things like melta. That's what melta is for.

Martel732 wrote:
I can tell you that way more than 90% of their targets will have an invuln. And that is a huge reason melta is currently not worth using. The lack of range being the other big reason. The cost coming in third place I think.

Ignoring invulns is not an ideal mechanic for sure, but I can think of any other change that will make them worthwhile vs the FIELD and not just the have-not vehicles and monsters.

I guess autowounds vs T8 is identical to bypassing 4++ on the target. Although you are just skipping the wound roll like mortal wounds, not the save roll. You are still taking part of mortal wounds and adding it to melta.

You keep saying everything is T8 and had a 4++, what the are you smoking/ playing against as knights codex Nope thats not a statline, Choas Knights Nope Not a Statline, FW knights Not a Stat Line, Guard FW nope not a Statline,

Books with thag statline
Eldar FW Scorpion and Cobra if the move 17 inches plus,Vampire Radier and Hunter if they move 45+ inches, revenant Titan T9 4++
Tau FW 1 the Manta which is 2604 points FFS.
Titans yeah all of them, but they are a joke in points.
SpaceMarine FW yeah the only army with T8 4++ statline you'll uncommonly see the Leviathn dreadnaught.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So with all the proposals here, there must be zero Lord of War players. These new guys can effectively 1 shot a knight player which is a disgusting difference in points vs potential. Not only that, I would hate to spend the CP to bring in a Primarch like Bobby, Magnus, or Morty, and wtach them get deleted by a maybe 200 point unit that cost no CP to bring. If these guys can be taken in units of 5+, kiss lords of war good bye. Also if we start making Lascannons the 4-6 flat damage weapons - say hello to Landraider edition. Because they are still dedicated Transports, which means you can spam them. And all those 48' shots of S9 AP3 D4-6 damage would make them op.

Landraiders arnt dedicated transports haven't been in all of 8th the Repulsor is and I agree shouldnt be as its a complete gunboat.

I was seeing chinaforge leviathans a LOT before the shut down. I'm definitely prepping for the worse case on weapons like this.k

Even the impulsor with T7 4++ is a poor, poor target for current melta weapons. Even the conservative case of T5-7 5++ really cuts into melta's bite the way 8th plays. Maybe 9th is different, but GW's new melta squad for primaris tells me it isn't. And their "fix" is to double the rate of fire, so melta can have meaningful effects through 5++ and 4++.

The new eradicators still fall just short of killing a Venom outside melta range.

I don't like the fix, but I'm also sick of melta being gak. Of course, I still have to trash my 30+ melta models now as per GW's plan.

Martel732 wrote:
How is it any different than a melta squad one shotting a land raider in 2nd-7th? Lords of War should die to things like melta. That's what melta is for.

Not in one turn of shooting and definitely not by a single squad shooting at them. LoW and super-heavy-armored vehicles should soak 2-3 turns of massive firepower before dying. Otherwise, what's the point in fiedling them and not just smaller chaper versions of them?

A single melta squad one-shotting a land raider in older editions was silly and I'm glad it's not possible anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:


The new eradicators still fall just short of killing a Venom outside melta range.

Which is perfectly ok since venoms are 65/75 points so the new eradicators will get their points back in a couple of turns, not just in a single one. Getting their points back in one turn of shooting is bad game design, only OP units that deserve to be nerfed into the ground can do that.

As said elsewhere: guard vehicles have 3+ and no inv. And also a lot of T7 where Melta is pretty good. Not every faction runs around with inv saves

 Pyroalchi wrote:
As said elsewhere: guard vehicles have 3+ and no inv. And also a lot of T7 where Melta is pretty good. Not every faction runs around with inv saves

They are also cheap and more numerous than units like this can successfully engage. Not EVERY faction runs around, but if I purchase melta at the current prices, and draw an invuln faction, I'm really boned.

"should soak 2-3 turns of massive firepower before dying."

Then they need to cost a lot more. Everything dies now. If you want units to be an exception, they need to pay a LOT of points.

"Which is perfectly ok since venoms are 65/75 points so the new eradicators will get their points back in a couple of turns, not just in a single one. Getting their points back in one turn of shooting is bad game design, only OP units that deserve to be nerfed into the ground can do that."

I don't think as much in getting points back as in modifying enemy behavior. Durkhari can basically ignore these guys. That's my concern.

Actually with standard CM and lT rerolls 1 unit of 3 kills a venom (unless it has a FNP or +INV trate) outside of melta range on avarages.
And a Venom is probably the worst sort of unit you could shoot at with them too.

Most guard vehicles The bigger ones at least, have wounds to compensate the lack of unvuln. They know they will get shot, even the Russ can take 2 max melta/lc shots before going pop. Unless you are talking about other stuff like Sentinels and Chimeras? In which case, eww.