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.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Well, it looks like the unit can pack in a lot of stuff with the new sheet.

Unless I'm reading it wrong a 10 man can have - 2 BL, 2 spewers ( doesnt care about +1 ), and 2 plasma. Alternatively you could go for a melee build with Tally and Blightspawn giving them fights first and a bunch of the melee weapons.

Melee Plague Marines are always an interesting idea, but not sure they've ever really worked. But maybe this time.
Not sure buffing up say 3 Plasma guns and 2 BL would be worth it - unless, as said, it was very cheap.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Isn't the whole point of them to kill heavily armoured vehicles and monsters at very close range?

That was the point of them, because they did that well in a flatter S & T system. Now they're good anti-MEQ, anti-light to medium models, and servicable into heavy models.

"Darklight" can bore through armor, which these do with their AP4.

Maybe they should have done the same to Railguns then.

Rail guns are the primary weapon of a main battle tank whereas a melta can be given to a guardsman. There shouldn’t be any parity between them.

Awesome - thanks for the note on CP!

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What are you looking for? A long range weapons that kills transports in 2 shots? Just to work out the target zone here.

How about a close-range weapon that can expect to wound most vehicles and monsters on 3s, not 5s?

OK, why? Their toughness is the point, if you immediately trivialise it again, they need more wounds or less damage to get to where we are now.

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What are you looking for? A long range weapons that kills transports in 2 shots? Just to work out the target zone here.

How about a close-range weapon that can expect to wound most vehicles and monsters on 3s, not 5s?

Have them had Anti-vehicle/Anti-monster.

rail guns don't require you to get within 12" if an enemy thats an in built difference

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This puts a regular melta at 0.8, which is ~50% of the strength of a lascannon on a handheld weapon -- before any half range bonus damage comes into consideration.

So your idea of an efficient anti-tank weapon is a close-range, single-shot weapon that needs to shoot upwards of 12 times to kill a basic transport.

A lascannon needs to shoot 6 times to kill a rhino. A meltagun is a smaller weapon. Should it not be comparatively less effective?

Dudeface wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What are you looking for? A long range weapons that kills transports in 2 shots? Just to work out the target zone here.

How about a close-range weapon that can expect to wound most vehicles and monsters on 3s, not 5s?

OK, why? Their toughness is the point, if you immediately trivialise it again, they need more wounds or less damage to get to where we are now.

Because the problem was never that anti-vehicle weapons were good against vehicles.

The problem was that so many 'generalist' weapons were almost as good (sometimes even better) against vehicles than the supposed anti-vehicle weapons.

Thus, the solution was to make vehicles less vulnerable to anti-vehicle weapons without also making anti-vehicle weapons horribly inefficient against them.

Incidentally, this is why (as was suggested earlier in the thread) it would have made more sense to focus on vehicle armour rather than toughness. Because so many anti-vehicle weapons had excellent AP... which ended up being useless because so many vehicles had mediocre saves and/or invulnerable saves (so the difference between plasma's AP-3 and Melta's AP-5 was negligible in practice).

Dudeface wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What are you looking for? A long range weapons that kills transports in 2 shots? Just to work out the target zone here.

How about a close-range weapon that can expect to wound most vehicles and monsters on 3s, not 5s?

OK, why? Their toughness is the point, if you immediately trivialise it again, they need more wounds or less damage to get to where we are now.

I don't think it'd be unreasonable to have Melta add to Damage AND Strength.

A BS3+ S8 AP-4 Dd6 Melta Gun with Melta 2 would go from doing .78 wounds to a Rhino at above half range, to 2.44 wounds.

You'd have to be careful with ranges on Melta weapons, but I don't think it's unreasonable for a special weapons squad of four Melta Gunners that get within 6" of a Rhino to dumpster it. They'd have just shy of 50% odds of killing it, actually.

A lascannon should be compared to a multimelta, and those 2 as was just shown are pretty much equivalent. Lascannon is better at long range, while the multi melta is better at short.

If people believe that a lascannon is a good AT weapon, then they automatically agree that a multi melta is too.

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What are you looking for? A long range weapons that kills transports in 2 shots? Just to work out the target zone here.

How about a close-range weapon that can expect to wound most vehicles and monsters on 3s, not 5s?

Maybe get a bigger gun? I get that melta used to wound things very well within 6”, but it’s just a man portable gun and that leaves less room for other anti tank to find a spot.

 vipoid wrote:
Incidentally, this is why (as was suggested earlier in the thread) it would have made more sense to focus on vehicle armour rather than toughness. Because so many anti-vehicle weapons had excellent AP... which ended up being useless because so many vehicles had mediocre saves and/or invulnerable saves (so the difference between plasma's AP-3 and Melta's AP-5 was negligible in practice).

It's somewhat irrelevant if it was armor or toughness. You're just choosing whatever is more mentally reassuring to your sensibilities.

But using armor introduces a new problem - invulnerable saves need to creep up or they find themselves to be useless.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This puts a regular melta at 0.8, which is ~50% of the strength of a lascannon on a handheld weapon -- before any half range bonus damage comes into consideration.

So your idea of an efficient anti-tank weapon is a close-range, single-shot weapon that needs to shoot upwards of 12 times to kill a basic transport.

A lascannon needs to shoot 6 times to kill a rhino. A meltagun is a smaller weapon. Should it not be comparatively less effective?

Again range is a thing - they are both supposed to be AT weapons - like Rail Guns actually are.

Also Rail Rifles are a thing - its not just on tanks.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This puts a regular melta at 0.8, which is ~50% of the strength of a lascannon on a handheld weapon -- before any half range bonus damage comes into consideration.

So your idea of an efficient anti-tank weapon is a close-range, single-shot weapon that needs to shoot upwards of 12 times to kill a basic transport.

A lascannon needs to shoot 6 times to kill a rhino. A meltagun is a smaller weapon. Should it not be comparatively less effective?

Again range is a thing - they are both supposed to be AT weapons - like Rail Guns actually are.

Also Rail Rifles are a thing - its not just on tanks.

Rail rifles are pretty much melta gun equivalents.

Long range but heavy.
Lower damage, not including the melta bonus. 1 point higher strength and devastating wounds.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Again range is a thing - they are both supposed to be AT weapons - like Rail Guns actually are.

Also Rail Rifles are a thing - its not just on tanks.

And they are AT capable.

The only times where these short man portable weapons were used often in this capacity are when you have a flying transport like DE or when terminators would deepstrike in.

They're not a gun you really walk in.

A LC used to do 1.3 to a rhino and the MM did 3.1 ( 4.9 ) meaning the meltagun did 1.6 ( 2.4 ). Why should a meltagun have been better than a LC all around? This system brings a far better parity instead of making melta the 'only' good choice.

Spoletta wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

This puts a regular melta at 0.8, which is ~50% of the strength of a lascannon on a handheld weapon -- before any half range bonus damage comes into consideration.

So your idea of an efficient anti-tank weapon is a close-range, single-shot weapon that needs to shoot upwards of 12 times to kill a basic transport.

A lascannon needs to shoot 6 times to kill a rhino. A meltagun is a smaller weapon. Should it not be comparatively less effective?

Again range is a thing - they are both supposed to be AT weapons - like Rail Guns actually are.

Also Rail Rifles are a thing - its not just on tanks.

Rail rifles are pretty much melta gun equivalents.

Long range but heavy.
Lower damage, not including the melta bonus. 1 point higher strength and devastating wounds.

So longer range, more consistant damage and ability to do Mortal wounds plus higher strength.....on a man portable weapon...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Again range is a thing - they are both supposed to be AT weapons - like Rail Guns actually are.

Also Rail Rifles are a thing - its not just on tanks.

And they are AT capable.

The only times where these short man portable weapons were used often in this capacity are when you have a flying transport like DE or when terminators would deepstrike in.

They're not a gun you really walk in.

A LC used to do 1.3 to a rhino and the MM did 3.1 ( 4.9 ) meaning the meltagun did 1.6 ( 2.4 ). Why should a meltagun have been better than a LC all around? This system brings a far better parity instead of making melta the 'only' good choice.

Maybe cos you have to get within 12" to use them?

Spoletta wrote:
Rail rifles are pretty much melta gun equivalents.

Long range but heavy.
Lower damage, not including the melta bonus. 1 point higher strength and devastating wounds.

And the math on a rail rifle if it stands still -- which damn near the same as a meltagun. And then the railrifle can pierce invuln and melta can pick up extra damage.

1 * .5 * .5 * 3 = 0.75

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What are you looking for? A long range weapons that kills transports in 2 shots? Just to work out the target zone here.

How about a close-range weapon that can expect to wound most vehicles and monsters on 3s, not 5s?

Ah yes. Lethality drop is fine as long as it's on others. My stuff must be as lethal as before.

Skyrunner - I'll be offline for a while so this is probably the last one I source for a bit.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deathshrouds

Deathshroud Sweep seems redundant unless there's some combo. Its the same damage into say Guardsmen.

Tyel wrote:
Deathshroud Sweep seems redundant unless there's some combo. It’s the same damage into say Guardsmen.

4 attacks
4/6 wounds plus 8/3 hits
4/6 plus 40/18 wounds
52/18 or 2.89 dead GEQ

6 attacks
1 wound plus 4 hits
1 plus 8/3 wounds
22/9 failed saves
2.44 dead GEQ

Sweep is WORSE against GEQ.

tneva82 wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What are you looking for? A long range weapons that kills transports in 2 shots? Just to work out the target zone here.

How about a close-range weapon that can expect to wound most vehicles and monsters on 3s, not 5s?

Ah yes. Lethality drop is fine as long as it's on others. My stuff must be as lethal as before.

Ah yes, how silly of me, "lethality" is when a Space Marine vehicle can be destroyed by anything weaker than a warhound titan.

Heaven forbid xeno anti-tank weapons even be allowed to chip the paint of a SM transport.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Deathshroud Sweep seems redundant unless there's some combo. It’s the same damage into say Guardsmen.

4 attacks
4/6 wounds plus 8/3 hits
4/6 plus 40/18 wounds
52/18 or 2.89 dead GEQ

6 attacks
1 wound plus 4 hits
1 plus 8/3 wounds
22/9 failed saves
2.44 dead GEQ

Sweep is WORSE against GEQ.

You'd wound on 2s with sweep cos of the -1T Aura.

 bullyboy wrote:
More shocked that Asurman dropped to T3

I suspect we're going to see a lot of leaders drop in Toughness to match the unit they are leading.

Asurmen is disappointing, he's not bad, just bland. Was hoping he'd finally get a glow up, ah well, with my aspect heavy list. Curious to see how the other Phoenix Lords turn out.

Daemons Daemon Prince up on the twitch stream the moment.
No idea how to insert pictures.

Tyel wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Deathshroud Sweep seems redundant unless there's some combo. It’s the same damage into say Guardsmen.

4 attacks
4/6 wounds plus 8/3 hits
4/6 plus 40/18 wounds
52/18 or 2.89 dead GEQ

6 attacks
1 wound plus 4 hits
1 plus 8/3 wounds
22/9 failed saves
2.44 dead GEQ

Sweep is WORSE against GEQ.

You'd wound on 2s with sweep cos of the -1T Aura.

Ah, right.
So they are the same.

Which is really bad for that profile-against MEQ, it’s close to two dead from Strike, but only one wound from Sweep.

 The Red Hobbit wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
More shocked that Asurman dropped to T3

I suspect we're going to see a lot of leaders drop in Toughness to match the unit they are leading.

They don't need to. You always roll against the unit's toughness, until they're all dead (and any leftover wounds from killing them will then spill onto the character). Even precision attacks 'on the character' roll against the unit's toughness.

Ah, so foot Farseer hands out Fortune and bike mounted has Guide.
I think psychic is going to be the biggest disappointment in 10th.

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
What are you looking for? A long range weapons that kills transports in 2 shots? Just to work out the target zone here.

How about a close-range weapon that can expect to wound most vehicles and monsters on 3s, not 5s?

OK, why? Their toughness is the point, if you immediately trivialise it again, they need more wounds or less damage to get to where we are now.

Because the problem was never that anti-vehicle weapons were good against vehicles.

The problem was that so many 'generalist' weapons were almost as good (sometimes even better) against vehicles than the supposed anti-vehicle weapons.

Thus, the solution was to make vehicles less vulnerable to anti-vehicle weapons without also making anti-vehicle weapons horribly inefficient against them.

Incidentally, this is why (as was suggested earlier in the thread) it would have made more sense to focus on vehicle armour rather than toughness. Because so many anti-vehicle weapons had excellent AP... which ended up being useless because so many vehicles had mediocre saves and/or invulnerable saves (so the difference between plasma's AP-3 and Melta's AP-5 was negligible in practice).

Not to 'well achshully!' but... WELL ACHSHULLY, anti-vehicle weapons being way TOO good at killing vehicles was a pretty significant issue. People like to frame it with the idea that shuriken cannons were out there killing Repulsors, when the real issue was always more '5 melta guns kill a rhino and 3 marines'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bullyboy wrote:
Ah, so foot Farseer hands out Fortune and bike mounted has Guide.
I think psychic is going to be the biggest disappointment in 10th.

 bullyboy wrote:
I think psychic is going to be the biggest disappointment in 10th.

It is so far for me. Psychic feels more like a drawback than an advantage.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 bullyboy wrote:
I think psychic is going to be the biggest disappointment in 10th.

It is so far for me. Psychic feels more like a drawback than an advantage.

There is only one thing that could hold up the psychic stuff and that is not paying for the extra stuff. But its really dull and uninspiring tbh