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 far in 10th, weapons previously designed for tank hunting such as meltaguns, fusion guns, and blasters went from wounding most tanks on a 3+ to wounding on a 4+ or 5+. Consequently, people seem to generally agree (feel free to tell me if I'm wrong here) that such weapons have shifted away from being anti-tank weapons to being anti-terminators or anti-light-vehicle weapons instead.

Now that we've been living with this change for a while, how do you feel about it? Does anyone like that a meltagun only wounds a rhino half the time and has to fish for 5s against anything tougher? Have people come to enjoy using things like melta and blasters to hunt down gravis/terminator armor? Are light vehicles proving to be prevalent enough that melta/blasters still have a role as anti-vehicle weapons?

Personally, the melta changes have kept me from fielding the sisters army I was excited to build up for 10th and have left me a little sour on some of my basic drukhari units (warriors). But if there's an upside to the situation that I haven't considered, I'd be happy to have it pointed out.

Cynically, I worry that the nerfing of man-portable anti-tank weapons may have been a result of the changes to how points work in 10th. That is, GW recognized that taking a chunk out of an expensive tank was more valuable than doing a couple extra wounds to a horde. Previously this would mean you'd charge more points for the melta compared to the flamer or the blaster compared to the shredder. But as they committed to the new points system, they ended up having to devalue the melta/blaster instead because they weren't allowed to charge more points for it.

In general, I'm ok with it. In the past weapons typically fell into either an anti-infantry or anti-tank category, consequently heavy infantry and light vehicles fell into a weird in between category where the best weapons to use against those targets were typically overkill and/or an inefficient utilizations of those weapons vs their intended role.

The recent evolution and changes to the way the mechanics function kind of creates a greater distinction between heavy infantry and light vehicles from infantry/heavy vehicles, etc. and as such creates niche for weapons that fit "in between" the two traditional ends of the spectrum. Its weird of course seeing melta weapons no longer be premier tank poppers but thats something that changed in 8th edition when a meltagun went from often being a one-hit-kill to just chunking off a piece of a vehicles wound count.

As you noted though, certain factions (Sisters) have been significantly harmed by the changes and are less capable at dealing with certain threats as a result of having their primary anti-vehicle system neutered. There are ways to fix that.

Do I like it? No. I'd certainly prefer to wound vehicles on a 3/4 vs 4/5s.... Who wouldn't?

But it hasn't stopped me from fielding such weapons. And then using them against any target within range, vehicle or otherwise.

Meltaguns used to be the anti-vehicle weapons, both in rules and fluff. It's been like this since the game started.

The fact that they all got left behind at S8 (and usually with just "Melta 2") is sad. It only gets worse when your army's only real AT weapon was the Melta.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Meltaguns used to be the anti-vehicle weapons, both in rules and fluff. It's been like this since the game started.

The fact that they all got left behind at S8 (and usually with just "Melta 2") is sad. It only gets worse when your army's only real AT weapon was the Melta.

Yeah, it really peeves me to no end as my Salamanders list was neutered. Basically all my anti-tank was melta and it's isn't anti-tank at all any more.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Meltaguns used to be the anti-vehicle weapons, both in rules and fluff. It's been like this since the game started.

The fact that they all got left behind at S8 (and usually with just "Melta 2") is sad. It only gets worse when your army's only real AT weapon was the Melta.

Unfortunately it just feels like the typical GW stat whiplash.

Melta still get's the two shots, which is nice, but that range nerf hurts.

And yeah, playing Marines I have alternatives like easily accessible Las and Grav, but many other armies aren't so flexible.

I’m not sure what the point of gw doing this was? Melta always hit hard vs armour but was limited by a very short range. That was its niche. Now it doesn’t really have one. I’m not a meta chasing player at all, but with my marines there isn’t a reason to being the melta guys because they don’t have a role, they aren’t anti armour but don’t really do much of anything else useful. The melta rule is the issues really, extra damage is great if you can wound the thing. Maybe it should be extra strength or a bonus to wound at half range.

As a Sisters of battle player, it's the worst change GW has ever made ever.

In reality, it's mostly fine. They're much cheaper on the whole now, so the weight of dice helps to make up for the lower To Wound roll. AP-4 is still awesome.

The problem for me is the range nerf. Going from 24 to 18 is a massive handicap for an army that already has almost 0 long range firepower. They can leave it at S9, just pop it back up to 24 inches.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
So far in 10th, weapons previously designed for tank hunting such as meltaguns, fusion guns, and blasters went from wounding most tanks on a 3+ to wounding on a 4+ or 5+. Consequently, people seem to generally agree (feel free to tell me if I'm wrong here) that such weapons have shifted away from being anti-tank weapons to being anti-terminators or anti-light-vehicle weapons instead.

Now that we've been living with this change for a while, how do you feel about it? Does anyone like that a meltagun only wounds a rhino half the time and has to fish for 5s against anything tougher? Have people come to enjoy using things like melta and blasters to hunt down gravis/terminator armor? Are light vehicles proving to be prevalent enough that melta/blasters still have a role as anti-vehicle weapons?

Personally, the melta changes have kept me from fielding the sisters army I was excited to build up for 10th and have left me a little sour on some of my basic drukhari units (warriors). But if there's an upside to the situation that I haven't considered, I'd be happy to have it pointed out.

Cynically, I worry that the nerfing of man-portable anti-tank weapons may have been a result of the changes to how points work in 10th. That is, GW recognized that taking a chunk out of an expensive tank was more valuable than doing a couple extra wounds to a horde. Previously this would mean you'd charge more points for the melta compared to the flamer or the blaster compared to the shredder. But as they committed to the new points system, they ended up having to devalue the melta/blaster instead because they weren't allowed to charge more points for it.

Not at all - If I were writing it, I probably would have leaned into the Two Profile thing you see on Plasma, Brutalis Claws and the like to give some zip to both the Melta/etc and what used to be the x2 melee (Klaws, Fists, Thunderhammers, and the like)

Profile 1) Basically what it is now - potential increased a little to make room for:

Profile 2) Supercharged/high power/whatever nomeclature/game name/etc fewer attacks, for higher damage and potentially more AP.

So MultiMelta
Standard Protocol: A2, S9, -4, D6, Melta 2
Anhilation Protocol: A1, S12ish, -4 D6(rerollable or 1,2 count as 3 etc) Melta 3

Power Fist/Klaws/etc (on what was traditionally an A2 model like a SM Sergeant)
Trickle Charge: A2, S8, -2 D2
Super Charge: A1 S12, -3 D2+2

I'm hoping 11th will be better. This was a fairly large change, especially for GW who does not do change well at all.

If fists had 2 attacks I doubt anyone would take them...

No I don't like it, the melta change is horse gak. I'd rather fish for 5s to wound with lascannons when camping and get rewarded with 3s and 2s when i move in close for the kill with my meltas, risking my unit in the process. But now it is designed the other way around.

Same goes for powerfist, they should be damage 4 minimum and strength 12. Passive play and staying long ranged is rewarded by design.

It's because they decided to make more and more units that carry lots of these weapons.

the AT weapons of 2nd ed were powerful partly because they tended not to appear much - the unit structures limited the number you could have (aspect warriors being the exception to the rule of course).

But they've been steadily increasing the number and concentration of them in units and making +1 versions with primaris,

So now they're balancing those units by nerfing the weapons.

It would have been better if they just created less powerful profiles for the squad based ones, and left the singular AT support weapons alone.

But then your eradicator squads wouldn't look as cool.

Eradicator Squads aren't exactly tearing up the Battlefields these days.

I don't think it's because there are too many. I think it's because they're terrible at writing rules and whomever did the weapon profiles forgot what they were doing to vehicle profiles.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
If fists had 2 attacks I doubt anyone would take them...

They do have 2 attacks - on the SM Sergeant stat line as I mentioned though I should have also mentioned first born, as the Tac Sgt has 2, and the Intercessor Sgt has 3


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I should also add, that the S/T expansion is good for the game but not fully realized yet.

Also, its a fix to General Purpose Best In Class vs all target weapons, not the lethality in the game they were probably going for. The fix to the lethality is targeting rules. Being able to dump 2000 points of shots into 500 points of the opposition is causing the lethality problems. When you had nearest target (except for Hoop A: Tank weapons into Tank Targets, or Hoop B: pass a LD check or whatever) you rarely saw an entire army have the ability to disintigrate wide swaths of the opponent army each turn. You were chipping away at closest targets.

Even when they had base 2 Attacks, they still never actually had 2 attacks. You'd always end up with 3, and 4 on the charge.

 Gitdakka wrote:
No I don't like it, the melta change is horse gak. I'd rather fish for 5s to wound with lascannons when camping and get rewarded with 3s and 2s when i move in close for the kill with my meltas, risking my unit in the process. But now it is designed the other way around.

Same goes for powerfist, they should be damage 4 minimum and strength 12. Passive play and staying long ranged is rewarded by design.

Maybe I'm just going full grognard as I age, but I do feel like the trade-offs between different weapon options felt better back in the day. Lascannons were never bad at AT, but getting in close and hitting with melta was one of the most satisfying parts of the game once upon a time. You probably had to pull off a deepstrike or get your unit danger close to do it, but a couple of successful melta attacks could mean you were about to remove a valuable target from the table.

I think I'm trying to get a feel for whether these particular changes have proven unpopular enough to get changed in 11th, or if meltaguns are just going to not be AT guns until 12 edition.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Even when they had base 2 Attacks, they still never actually had 2 attacks. You'd always end up with 3, and 4 on the charge.

They have two attacks NOW. in 10th. Which is the edition we're talking about because it included the the S/T bracket extensions.

A current Space Marine Tactical Sergeant with a powerfist - which I pretty explicitly stated was what I was using as an example for the theory of the change - has 2 attacks with their power fist, an Intercessor Sergeant in 10th edition, with a power fist has 3 attacks. In the current edition called 10th Edition. With a power fist. At Strength 8. in the current expansion. After the S/T bracket extension. Which is what we're talking about. Not previous editions where the A stat was on the model, and bonus attacks were able to be found. I'm really not sure where I'm losing you here.

A 10th Edition Tactical Sergeant has 2 S8 -2 D2 attacks when using a power fist. If I had been making the game, I would have had that be one profile, and then given a Tactical Sergeant with a Powerfist another profile with 1 Attack at S12 and -2 or -3 and D4 or so damage.
A 10th Edition Intercessor Sergeant has 3 S8 -2 D2 attacks - I would have given them a second profile with 2 S12 -2/-3 D4 attacks.
I would have repeated this concept for similar melee weapons as well as ranged weapons in this same state of neglect using the Brutalis Talons, or the Lion's sword Fealty as the guide/proof of concept.

I really don't like the idea of making more weapons dual-profile. The changes to how damage and AP work post-7th have already made weapons feel more 'samey' than they used to; giving classically specialized weapons multiple profiles so they can be anti-everything would be a further step in the wrong direction.

The main reason to have multiple profiles is when you have a weapon that isn't supposed to be cripplingly specialized, and needs a way to deal with multiple target profiles. Characters and monsters having both anti-horde and anti-tank profiles is fine.

But melta and powerfists are specialized weapons. I don't see what was wrong with just having them be effective low-volume anti-tank/anti-monster.

 catbarf wrote:
I really don't like the idea of making more weapons dual-profile. The changes to how damage and AP work post-7th have already made weapons feel more 'samey' than they used to; giving classically specialized weapons multiple profiles so they can be anti-everything would be a further step in the wrong direction.

The main reason to have multiple profiles is when you have a weapon that isn't supposed to be cripplingly specialized, and needs a way to deal with multiple target profiles. Characters and monsters having both anti-horde and anti-tank profiles is fine.

The idea of winding up for a big attack with a fist is kind of cool, but I pretty much agree here. My issue isn't that meltaguns aren't all-rounders; its' that they don't really do the job they've classically been used for.

But melta and powerfists are specialized weapons. I don't see what was wrong with just having them be effective low-volume anti-tank/anti-monster.

It really does feel like a weird choice. My best guesses are:

1.) It was an attempt to make vehicles more durable. Rather than giving them more wounds, just functionally give half the anti-tank weapons in the game a -1 to wound them by not scaling-up their strength.
2.) It's an awkward part of the new point system. That is, they recognized that a meltagun that can hurt tanks is probably significantly more valuable than a flamer, but both weapons are functionally competing for the same slot in a tactical squad and now aren't allowed to cost different points. So the designers made them more similar in value by nerfing/not-scaling-up meltas.

I think the way kabalite warrior squads are currently handled might kind of support theory 2. Where we were previously allowed to double-up on blasters or shredders, we're now required to take one of each and are locked into a set squad size. So rather than pricing the unit around the assumption that you're doing an anti-infantry build (shredders + splinter cannon) or an anti-tank build (blasters + dark lance), they sort of force you to take a middling option. Which means that they can price the unit around a set, suboptimal combination fo weapons rather than worrying about whether your unit is designed to kill ork boyz or battle wagons. The set squad size of 10 presumably also prevents you from spamming small, cheap stick objective units.

...Or maybe it's literally just based on what's in a single kit.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

It really does feel like a weird choice. My best guesses are:

1.) It was an attempt to make vehicles more durable. Rather than giving them more wounds, just functionally give half the anti-tank weapons in the game a -1 to wound them by not scaling-up their strength.
2.) It's an awkward part of the new point system. That is, they recognized that a meltagun that can hurt tanks is probably significantly more valuable than a flamer, but both weapons are functionally competing for the same slot in a tactical squad and now aren't allowed to cost different points. So the designers made them more similar in value by nerfing/not-scaling-up meltas.

I think the way kabalite warrior squads are currently handled might kind of support theory 2. Where we were previously allowed to double-up on blasters or shredders, we're now required to take one of each and are locked into a set squad size. So rather than pricing the unit around the assumption that you're doing an anti-infantry build (shredders + splinter cannon) or an anti-tank build (blasters + dark lance), they sort of force you to take a middling option. Which means that they can price the unit around a set, suboptimal combination fo weapons rather than worrying about whether your unit is designed to kill ork boyz or battle wagons. The set squad size of 10 presumably also prevents you from spamming small, cheap stick objective units.

I can hear H.B.M.C. coming already

 Wyldhunt wrote:

...Or maybe it's literally just based on what's in a single kit.

oh nvm, you covered your ass

Melta needed to be nerfed from their 9th "everyone spams melta" iteration.

But GW in classic GW fashion nerfed them in a lazy and awkward way that mostly neutered it.

 Tyran wrote:
Melta needed to be nerfed from their 9th "everyone spams melta" iteration.

But GW in classic GW fashion nerfed them in a lazy and awkward way that mostly neutered it.

Ok, so how would you have nerfed them?
And you're not allowed to give any answer that involves a pts cost.

Was 9th edition melta in general the issue, or was it specifically multi-melta? I never really had an issue with the former. I thought it was the latter (mostly on buffed-up droppod devs) that were considered a bit much. And the main problem with multi-meltas was just that GW doubled their number of shots because "multi".

 catbarf wrote:
I really don't like the idea of making more weapons dual-profile. The changes to how damage and AP work post-7th have already made weapons feel more 'samey' than they used to; giving classically specialized weapons multiple profiles so they can be anti-everything would be a further step in the wrong direction.

The main reason to have multiple profiles is when you have a weapon that isn't supposed to be cripplingly specialized, and needs a way to deal with multiple target profiles. Characters and monsters having both anti-horde and anti-tank profiles is fine.

But melta and powerfists are specialized weapons. I don't see what was wrong with just having them be effective low-volume anti-tank/anti-monster.

Dual profiles are one of my big bugbears of the last few editions. It's representative of the removal of meaningful choices and decision making. Why care about your big monster or Knight being swarmed by infantry when you can just use your 12 attacks to stomp all over them at S "Enough" and AP "Plenty", then switch to your big damage swing when you fight other big things?

For melta/blasters etc, I think I'd prefer to see them do more damage when they do wound. In principle I don't have a major problem with a weapon type that has good AP and good damage, but struggles to wound. Whether Melta is the correct weapon type to represent that, I'm not so sure. The problem right now is, even when it does wound, it often feels pretty weak. I'd rather have them do a lot more damage once you wound, to at least give some sort of pay-off. Then you have lascannons with high Strength and decent damage and melta with lower Strength but much more damage. At least it would feel like a trade-off, instead of one just being flat-out better.

ccs wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Melta needed to be nerfed from their 9th "everyone spams melta" iteration.

But GW in classic GW fashion nerfed them in a lazy and awkward way that mostly neutered it.

Ok, so how would you have nerfed them?
And you're not allowed to give any answer that involves a pts cost.

I have two ideas. The first one is the same Strenght nerf but Melta comes with a Strenght buff in addition to the Damage buff, so standard melta in melta range would be S11 which seems fine to me.

My other idea is give them high S as standard but nerf their damage to D3 so they are dependent on the melta Damage buf.

Either way the point it to make melta good while in melta range, but weak outside of it.

I would keep the range nerf on multi-meltas though, because melta out of deepstrike would be oppresive otherwise.

Slipspace wrote:

Dual profiles are one of my big bugbears of the last few editions. It's representative of the removal of meaningful choices and decision making. Why care about your big monster or Knight being swarmed by infantry when you can just use your 12 attacks to stomp all over them at S "Enough" and AP "Plenty", then switch to your big damage swing when you fight other big things?

Eh. I don't necessarily want to see dual profiles all over the place, but I feel like MCs/knights have different "styles" of attacking a given enemy makes sense. If my wraith lord is trying to kill a hive tyrant, he's probably using big attacks with more force behind them that are ideally aimed with the tyrant's vital organs and weak points in mind. If that same wraith lord just needs to clear a path through a carpet of termagaunts, big, powerful attacks that target one bug at a time are kind of overkill, and he's probably better of just sweeping his blade around, trusting in his sheer size and strength to make the motion sufficiently lethal. Having two profiles represents that pretty well.

In other words, a wraith lord can reasonably kill a large number of little things in a short amount of time, and he can reasonably do serious damage to a big thing. But you don't want him making the same number of attacks against the big thing that he does against the little thing. In video game terms, one is a light attack, and the other is a heavy attack.

For melta/blasters etc, I think I'd prefer to see them do more damage when they do wound. In principle I don't have a major problem with a weapon type that has good AP and good damage, but struggles to wound. Whether Melta is the correct weapon type to represent that, I'm not so sure. The problem right now is, even when it does wound, it often feels pretty weak. I'd rather have them do a lot more damage once you wound, to at least give some sort of pay-off. Then you have lascannons with high Strength and decent damage and melta with lower Strength but much more damage. At least it would feel like a trade-off, instead of one just being flat-out better.

See, I'm okay with high-damage-low-strength weapons in theory, but it just doesn't feel right for meltas. You don't see meltagunners standing there, firing away at a tank to zero effect.

"Good news, sir! We've hit that tank with our meltagun twice now which means we're due for some results next time. The meltagun hasn't so much as scorched the paint job yet, but ooooh you just wait until we roll a 5 to wound."

ccs wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Melta needed to be nerfed from their 9th "everyone spams melta" iteration.

But GW in classic GW fashion nerfed them in a lazy and awkward way that mostly neutered it.

Ok, so how would you have nerfed them?
And you're not allowed to give any answer that involves a pts cost.

Just keeping a lower Strength would have been fine, but they also reduced range. If it was one or the other things would be better. Both low Strength and shorter range was unnecessary.

As said before. Give melta a S10-11, but DmgD3. So that at range they're only good against heavy infantry. Then when in melta range give them an extra flat 3. It reduces DS alphas a bit. Though I feel like it should have a disadvantage vs MCs, beyond them usually having access to some kind of invul. But I don't know a good way to do that. Anti-Vehicle pisses in the haywire/emp pool... although that would be a bad time for Sisters.

I don't believe it should have a weakness against MCs, heat works as well on them as it does on vehicles.

I don't know how many armies get both lots of access to Melta and lots of access to Haywire, so I wouldn't think any role overlap is problematic.