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.

Some ideas to increase the utility of these weapons.

The meltagun (including variants like melta cannons and pistols) could get split profiles:
* A 'focused' profile (conventional meltagun) with Damage 2D3 rather than D6.
* A 'dispersed' D3 Blast profile with reduced Strength, AP and Damage, retaining the Melta rule. Picture the meltagun from Space Marine.

This would make it a more effective weapon against heavy infantry and mitigate some of its unreliability, helping it settle a bit more into its revised niche (now that it's faring worse against tough vehicles and monsters). As an aside, it would also be great if the Melta rule enhanced Strength instead of/additional to Damage (I read this elsewhere on the forums and thought it was a nifty idea).

For example:
* Meltagun (focused): Assault 1, Strength 9, AP 4, Damage 2D3, Melta.
* Meltagun (dispersed): Assault D3 Blast, Strength 6, AP 2, Damage D3, Melta.

Flamers would become the best option against light infantry, especially large units, via:
* The Blast rule. Flamethrowers sweep an area in a way that certainly justifies this IMO, and it would help improve their reliability.
* Slightly fewer/more reliable baseline attacks. Assault 1D6 becomes Assault D3+1, etc. This improves consistency and is enhanced considerably by the Blast rule (e.g., 4-6 attacks against a 10-model squad).
* Higher Strength and/or AP1 standard (with minimal increases to AP as the weapon upscales). The contact wounds from flamethrowers are catastrophic (and in the context of 40k, should reliably wound most fleshy infantry). They also have second-order impacts like oxygen deprivation, carbon monoxide poisoning, heat stress, etc. These are all things that armour, and the rebreathers, self-contained atmospheres, etc. that generally come with advanced armour, are protective against. However the nature of a gout of flame means that it can effectively mitigate/flow around any barrier to some extent, in the same way it can around cover.
* -1 Ld to targeted units. Historically, fire has been weaponised as much for its psychological impacts as its physical ones, and is universally feared across the animal kingdom. Flamethrowers are this on steroids. Even among the terrors of the 41st Millennium.

For example:
* Flamer: Assault D3+1 Blast, S5, AP1, Torrent and Ignores Cover (higher Strength and AP, similar to a current Heavy Flamer).
* Heavy Flamer: Assault D3+1 Blast, S6, AP1, Torrent and Ignores Cover (wounding GEQ on a 2+ and even Plague Marines/Tyranid Warriors/etc. on a 3+).
* Inferno Cannon: Assault D6+2 Blast, S10, AP1, Torrent and Ignores Cover (higher Strength, lower AP).

(I also think a dice-less Blast rule would be better as well, but that's another topic.)

Any other ideas? As an aside, something I think would've been a cool idea when planning these weapons conceptually is the 'all-in-one meltagun', i.e., a single close-ranged weapon that could alternative between anti-armour (meltagun) and anti-horde (flamer) profiles, with no need for separate weapon options.

There probably should be an additional "Massive Blast" rule, make regular "Blasts" slightly weaker and then add "Blast" rule to flamers.

I like the oversimplified 10th rules generally, but they went too far in many aspects. A middle ground would be better.

I dont think all flamers should go +1S though. You either force Sisters to get even higher +1S or make them even worse comparatively to other armies.

Flamers applying leadership debuffs or reducing OC in some shape would definitely be a nice change.

Regarding meltas, they all need +1S across the board and/or Anti-Vehicle 4+.

Melta:
* Not fond of giving it blast. I've played the video game and see what you're going for, but I don't want melta to basically be the new plasma; I want it to be good at the job it's supposed to be specialized in.
* I actually like 2d3 Damage less than 1d6 Damage despite the higher minimum and average. It makes you less likely to spike high on your damage, and I feel like you need those damage spikes on a gun that's supposed to be going after tanks.
* Melta is a short-ranged (high risk/reward) weapon that would cost a decent number of point s(if GW hadn't made their weird decision about how points work in 10th). I feel like making it good at reliably wounding tanks is probably a reasonable ask.

Flamers:
* Totally agree they should be blast.
* Giving them AP-1 and ignores cover (on the versions that don't have it) would do a lot to offset the nerf they took from the modern AP system. It used to be that putting a flamer over a guardsman or ranger meant that you were removing every model that you wounded.
* I don't think I'd raise their strength. Going S5 gets weird in that it makes them better against vehicles but not better against T3.
* I could take or leave the -1Ld. People like to pitch an Ld debuff when flamers are discussed. It makes sense from a real-world perspective, but fire arguably isn't as big a deal for zombie robots, brain washed super soldiers, guys wrapped in vacuum-sealed suits, etc. Plus, a -1 to Ld for Battleshock tests just doesn't seem like it would be very impactful.
* With their short range and specialized nature, flamers, like meltas, should feel like high risk/reward weapons. I feel like GW sort of dropped the ball with flamers in 8th and has just never bothered to pick it back up. If we think as both flamers and meltas as weapons that should be allowed to pack a short-ranged punch, then I think it's easier for us to justify having them cost "the same" under the 10th edition points system.

Or put another way, if we can accept that flamers are allowed to be good, it's easier for us to also give meltas permission to be good.

 Guillérmidas wrote:
There probably should be an additional "Massive Blast" rule, make regular "Blasts" slightly weaker and then add "Blast" rule to flamers.

My personal fave solution is that you have:
* Large blast = number of attacks equal to the model count of the targeted unit.
* Small blast = number of attacks equal to half the model count of the targeted unit.

This could then cap out (e.g., an Assault 6 Small Blast grenade launcher would only ever get a maximum of 6 attacks).

Simpler, faster (fewer dice rolls), scales better and less arbitrarily, etc.

 Guillérmidas wrote:
I dont think all flamers should go +1S though. You either force Sisters to get even higher +1S or make them even worse comparatively to other armies.

+1S for Ministorum Flamers wouldn't be so bad. Extra attacks are another (better?) option.

 Guillérmidas wrote:
Regarding meltas, they all need +1S across the board and/or Anti-Vehicle 4+.

Well if the Melta rule was revised to enhance Strength, this would give them a big boost up close against anything Toughness 5, 9, 10 and 11 (doubling their chances of wounding a Toughness 10 target for example).

(Assuming the rule just gave a straight +2 increase to Strength in the same way it does to Damage.)

Wyldhunt wrote:Melta:
* Not fond of giving it blast. I've played the video game and see what you're going for, but I don't want melta to basically be the new plasma; I want it to be good at the job it's supposed to be specialized in.
* I actually like 2d3 Damage less than 1d6 Damage despite the higher minimum and average. It makes you less likely to spike high on your damage, and I feel like you need those damage spikes on a gun that's supposed to be going after tanks.

Fair enough with the first point, but I don't think the meltagun's inconsistency counts in its favour. With high spikes come low troughs. You may be 50% less likely to get a 6 on 2D3, but you're never going to roll a 1. I'd take a more reliable 4 almost any day.

Wyldhunt wrote:Flamers:
* Totally agree they should be blast.
* Giving them AP-1 and ignores cover (on the versions that don't have it) would do a lot to offset the nerf they took from the modern AP system. It used to be that putting a flamer over a guardsman or ranger meant that you were removing every model that you wounded.
* I don't think I'd raise their strength. Going S5 gets weird in that it makes them better against vehicles but not better against T3.
* I could take or leave the -1Ld. People like to pitch an Ld debuff when flamers are discussed. It makes sense from a real-world perspective, but fire arguably isn't as big a deal for zombie robots, brain washed super soldiers, guys wrapped in vacuum-sealed suits, etc. Plus, a -1 to Ld for Battleshock tests just doesn't seem like it would be very impactful.
* With their short range and specialized nature, flamers, like meltas, should feel like high risk/reward weapons. I feel like GW sort of dropped the ball with flamers in 8th and has just never bothered to pick it back up. If we think as both flamers and meltas as weapons that should be allowed to pack a short-ranged punch, then I think it's easier for us to justify having them cost "the same" under the 10th edition points system.

S5 would make them more potent against T4 and T5 infantry though. It's also worth noting that they can really mess up or incapacitate vehicles, even enclosed ones - by targeting optics, vision slits, ventilation panels, open hatches, etc. Not as well as Molotov cocktails, but still nothing to laugh at.

Maybe a better approach would be for them to get Anti-Infantry (2+) instead, or something along those lines (like S6 and a special rule that halves their Strength vs. vehicles). It's hard to overstate just how ferocious flamethrowers are - I've heard people say that the only way to truly understand a flamethrower is to be near one.

It would go a long way towards making them viable if you knew you were going to get a more reliable number of auto-hits up close, and that those hits were going to be scary against anything without armour.

I could see anti-infantry, but then that gets weird in that you're bypassing the main durability for big, unarmored things like grotesques. I feel like just giving it a high number of automatic hits up close, letting it ignore cover, giving them some AP all probably represent the fluff more effectively.

That means that lightly-armored units like guardsmen and ork boyz essentially aren't getting any significant protection from their armor and can't up their armor using cover. The high number of low-strength hits means that the weapon remains more firmly specialized against smaller targets rather than creeping into plasma's territory.

Do that and make meltas more reliable against tanks, and you'd have:

FLAMER
* High-risk/high-reward anti-infantry
* Ignores to-hit mods.
* Ignores cover.
* AP is good enough for dealing with light armor.
* Gets better against larger units.

MELTA
* High-risk/high-reward anti-tank
* Reliably does significant damage to tanks.
* Can go after heavy infantry/bikes/etc. in a pinch.

PLASMA
* Easier to deliver thanks to longer range.
* Good against infantry and medium-sized targets, but can't clear hordes like a flamer or do reliably/significant damage to tanks like a melta.

That gives the big three special weapons their own niches with minimal overlap and unique playstyles. A flamer behaves differently than just throwing some extra bolters into a squad would. A melta gives you anti-tank options that aren't lascannons.A plasma gun is always welcome but won't out perform either of the other two in their intended roles.

Give flamers Blast so they become proper anti-horde weapons.

Give melta S14 so it becomes viable anti-tank (and nerf the handful of melta spam units that would be problematic at S14).

I don't necessarily even need them to go all the way to S14. Letting them be S12 while within half range would do wonders for them.

 Wyldhunt wrote:
I don't necessarily even need them to go all the way to S14. Letting them be S12 while within half range would do wonders for them.

S12 still has them wounding things like Baneblades and large knights on a 5+, which probably keeps them too unreliable to be useful on anything but melta spam units with wound buffs. For melta to be worth all the drawbacks compared to plasma you really need to be wounding on a 3+ at minimum, especially within half range. Otherwise it's far more efficient to spam plasma and lascannons instead of trying to get up close.

Here is an idea for a simpler fix to Melta weapons that doesn't require changing one datasheet:

MELTA
Melta weapons are powerful heat rays whose fury is magnified at close range.

Weapons with [MELTA X] in their profile are known as Melta weapons. Each time an attack made
with such a weapon targets a unit within half that weapon’s range, that attack's Wound roll receives a positive modifier denoted by x' and that attack’s Damage characteristic is increased by the amount denoted by ‘x’.

Now we all know a Wound roll cannot be increased by more than net +1, but this means it almost always will (I haven't noticed a Melta 1 weapon). This also means the chance of wounding (and consequentially the average damage delivered) increases by 50/33/25% against Toughness higher/equal/lower than the weapon's Strength when within half weapon range.

With the risk of running into the old "special rule that grants special rules" issues of the past, what if meltas just gave [Anti-monster +x] and [Anti-vehicle +x] at half range, in addition to the existing +dmg?

Just give them a X increase to Strength in addition to the X increase in damage. E.g a melta gun in half range is S11.

I for one don't want Blood angels flying around with S14 pistols, or Eldar Jokers with S14 pistols on bikes. Melta going to S14 is horrid. I like Skchan's idea of making them Anti-vehicle or anti-monster.

Problem with anti-X is unintended interactions. Some character buff that gives devastating and you get a problematic unit.

Being in half range giving +1 or even +2 to wound would be pretty solid. Most infantry are already wounded by melta on 2s so the rule only affects things like terminators and tanks.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I for one don't want Blood angels flying around with S14 pistols, or Eldar Jokers with S14 pistols on bikes. Melta going to S14 is horrid. I like Skchan's idea of making them Anti-vehicle or anti-monster.

What's wrong with S14? You're already wounding almost all infantry on 2s, the only effect would be against vehicles. S14 would give effectively Anti-Vehicle and Anti-monster 3+ but without any of the critical wound effect stacking that is so problematic.

cody.d. wrote:
Problem with anti-X is unintended interactions. Some character buff that gives devastating and you get a problematic unit.

Being in half range giving +1 or even +2 to wound would be pretty solid. Most infantry are already wounded by melta on 2s so the rule only affects things like terminators and tanks.

Inclined to agree, but on that note...

Would anyone lose sleep if anti-X didn't trigger Devastating Wounds? GW has already had to nerf at least one interaction where that was a problem. Plus, nothing about anti-x weapons makes me expect them to be especially good at "crits". Like, my poison and haywire weapons are supposed to be good at damaging their respective targets reliably. Making them *also* trigger DW feels like a potent-but-probably-unwise design choice.

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

What's wrong with S14?

What is wrong is the idea that a handheld pistol can wound the largest superheavy tanks and knights on 3s.

 Tyran wrote:

 ThePaintingOwl wrote:

What's wrong with S14?

What is wrong is the idea that a handheld pistol can wound the largest superheavy tanks and knights on 3s.

Personally, I don't see an inherent problem with that. We're talking about a pistol built with fantasy science specifically to be a threat to heavy vehicles. It seems weirder to me that someone would bother making and distributing anti-tank guns that don't anti tanks than the idea that a rare, short-ranged, specialized weapon might be able to melt some metal reliably. That's like building a can opener that takes three tries to open a can.

Melta guns really should have anti-vehicle and anti-monster 4+. The fact is, currently in 10th melta guns are not reliable anti-armor weapons which is just silly.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

Personally, I don't see an inherent problem with that. We're talking about a pistol built with fantasy science specifically to be a threat to heavy vehicles. It seems weirder to me that someone would bother making and distributing anti-tank guns that don't anti tanks than the idea that a rare, short-ranged, specialized weapon might be able to melt some metal reliably. That's like building a can opener that takes three tries to open a can.

Sure, but heavy vehicles is the realm of T10-11 where most tanks sit. T12-14 is the realm of super heavy tanks which are supposed to be both extremely rare and extremely tough.

Superheavies don't make much sense if people can reliably defeat their armor with infantry scale handheld weaponry.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

cody.d. wrote:
Problem with anti-X is unintended interactions. Some character buff that gives devastating and you get a problematic unit.

Being in half range giving +1 or even +2 to wound would be pretty solid. Most infantry are already wounded by melta on 2s so the rule only affects things like terminators and tanks.

Inclined to agree, but on that note...

Would anyone lose sleep if anti-X didn't trigger Devastating Wounds? GW has already had to nerf at least one interaction where that was a problem. Plus, nothing about anti-x weapons makes me expect them to be especially good at "crits". Like, my poison and haywire weapons are supposed to be good at damaging their respective targets reliably. Making them *also* trigger DW feels like a potent-but-probably-unwise design choice.

A fair point. It was an issue last edition with Grudge Tokens so it is a bit surprising GW did it all over again.

Ok, so lets say we give BA Vanguard vets melta Pistols at S14. Now we have squads of guys turn one basically owning any vehicle on the map. Not even mentioning characters, or leaders. No, making 5pt pistols more powerful than dedicated AT weapons is a silly idea.

Sidetrack Discussion:

The Anti/Devastating Wounds interaction is an intended interaction. They want some weapons to easily create Mortal Wounds against some targets. Think Haywire which is Anti-Vehicle and Devastating Wounds.

IMHO, the problem is they foolishly gave a number of high damage weapons Devastating Wounds without considering how that turns an anti-tank weapon into an anti-infantry weapon. I most cases, this would lead to the odd instance of the weapon destroying a large part of an infantry squad. But then they give Aeldari Fate Dice include a mechanic to turn any use of a Fate Dice into a 6. Suddenly Wraithknights are scooping up Heavy Infantry models by the handful.

The best solution would be to change Mortal Wounds and Devastating Wounds to prevent this unintended interaction. First, change it so that Mortal Wounds can do more than one Damage and that damage doesn't spill over to other models. While the average Mortal Wound may be damage 1, don't make that universally true. Second, change Devastating Wounds to create a Mortal Wound of the weapon's damage characteristic. Now your Heavy Wraithcannon produces a 2d6 Damage Mortal Wound that can only kill 1 model instead of 2d6 Mortal Wounds of 1 damage that can kill 12 W1 models. Problem fixed.

 alextroy wrote:
Sidetrack Discussion:

The Anti/Devastating Wounds interaction is an intended interaction. They want some weapons to easily create Mortal Wounds against some targets. Think Haywire which is Anti-Vehicle and Devastating Wounds.

IMHO, the problem is they foolishly gave a number of high damage weapons Devastating Wounds without considering how that turns an anti-tank weapon into an anti-infantry weapon. I most cases, this would lead to the odd instance of the weapon destroying a large part of an infantry squad. But then they give Aeldari Fate Dice include a mechanic to turn any use of a Fate Dice into a 6. Suddenly Wraithknights are scooping up Heavy Infantry models by the handful.

The best solution would be to change Mortal Wounds and Devastating Wounds to prevent this unintended interaction. First, change it so that Mortal Wounds can do more than one Damage and that damage doesn't spill over to other models. While the average Mortal Wound may be damage 1, don't make that universally true. Second, change Devastating Wounds to create a Mortal Wound of the weapon's damage characteristic. Now your Heavy Wraithcannon produces a 2d6 Damage Mortal Wound that can only kill 1 model instead of 2d6 Mortal Wounds of 1 damage that can kill 12 W1 models. Problem fixed.

Alternatively, make it so Devastating Wounds are not Mortal, and instead just ignore all saves. Similar end result.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, so lets say we give BA Vanguard vets melta Pistols at S14. Now we have squads of guys turn one basically owning any vehicle on the map. Not even mentioning characters, or leaders. No, making 5pt pistols more powerful than dedicated AT weapons is a silly idea.

I didn't realise pistols suddenly had a points cost specifically for Blood Angels in 10th.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Alternatively, make it so Devastating Wounds are not Mortal, and instead just ignore all saves. Similar end result.

Mortal wounds should just be errata'ed to be wounds that cannot be saved without being able to spill over.

Functionally, MW's are just wounds that bypass Sv++. No real reason why should spill over anymore especially with the whole "simplified, not simple" philosophy. For weapons that specifically needs to spill over, it should just be a weapon ability and not a universal rule.

The thing is that thematically, Devastating wounds also represent weird gak with some of the more esoteric weapons. For example in the case of wraithcannons it represents it opening a gate to hell, which would likely kill an entire infantry squad.

 Tyran wrote:
The thing is that thematically, Devastating wounds also represent weird gak with some of the more esoteric weapons. For example in the case of wraithcannons it represents it opening a gate to hell, which would likely kill an entire infantry squad.

Going off the fluff, it'd kill a lot more than one squad.
But concessions must be made for gameplay.

JNAProductions wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
The thing is that thematically, Devastating wounds also represent weird gak with some of the more esoteric weapons. For example in the case of wraithcannons it represents it opening a gate to hell, which would likely kill an entire infantry squad.

Going off the fluff, it'd kill a lot more than one squad.
But concessions must be made for gameplay.

Speaking as an eldar player, I'd be fine if wraith gun damage didn't spill over. For more editions than not, they were just really good at killing a single model dead. Now that we have d-scythes, there's even less need for spillover damage.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Ok, so lets say we give BA Vanguard vets melta Pistols at S14. Now we have squads of guys turn one basically owning any vehicle on the map. Not even mentioning characters, or leaders. No, making 5pt pistols more powerful than dedicated AT weapons is a silly idea.

Most weapons in 10th don't have their own unique price tags. Are BA inferno pistols an exception? And if they do have their own points cost, then why can't we just... raise that points cost to match their effectiveness?

A dedicated squad full of specialized anti-tank weapons should probably be good at killing tanks. Just make them reasonably expensive. Inferno pistols are extremely short-ranged. Let people reliably do some damaage if they manage to get the expensive model with the specialized gun in range. Also, are screening units and overwatch not viable answers to fast moving/deepstriking anti-tank units?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, so lets say we give BA Vanguard vets melta Pistols at S14. Now we have squads of guys turn one basically owning any vehicle on the map. Not even mentioning characters, or leaders. No, making 5pt pistols more powerful than dedicated AT weapons is a silly idea.

Why shouldn't a 10-man squad costing 260 points be able to reliably kill a tank if it is armed specifically for the anti-tank role and sent in for a maximum risk close range attack that will usually result in the unit dying to return fire?