PDA

View Full Version : So who thinks melta is going to get Nerfhammered in 6th ed?



AstartesWarMachine
04-11-2010, 09:08
A lot of people assume vehicles will be weakened in 6th ed. I actually don't think so. They've helped to sell big expensive kits and if anything I think that GW's obvious strategy of eventually including some kind of flyer rules for 40k implies they are on the side of vehicles being good for the foreseeable future.

However, they do love to nerf the hell out of things that everyone uses (remember the 4th ed power fists...?). This creates great shifts in the game that of course usually require us to expand our collections.

I am betting that next edition, plasma is going to be huge, and melta is going to get nerfed hardcore. What do you think they will do to it -- or, how would you handle it?

dragonet111
04-11-2010, 09:14
Well IMO meltas are great at present because vehicles are great and omnipresent, if in 6ed vehicles are still great the meltas will stay great.

AstartesWarMachine
04-11-2010, 09:17
True. I think it's also at least partially because the nearest alternative, plasma, has worse strength, AP, and will possibly kill your guy.

Ozeor
04-11-2010, 09:35
I wonder when 6th will come out....

Shinzui
04-11-2010, 09:40
Nerfing Meltaguns wouldn't solve the problem as people would just start spamming the next powerful AT weapon. They Toned down powerfists as otherwise they'd have to change Toughness. Most likely well see a slight change to the general vehicle rules.

The Judge
04-11-2010, 09:41
It's the expense of plasma as well - plasma used to be the same points as melta, but is now a flat 15 for most Imperial armies. Knocking melta up could nerfhammer it, as well as dealing with those forces who can put out a lot (Guard veterans) or have special bonuses (Vulkan).

Reaver83
04-11-2010, 10:01
I think they need to bring back the old 7+ on the vehicle damage chart from 4th, melta then is good but vehicles more risky, perhaps that would decrease the number of vehicles due to the danger to troops

Mojaco
04-11-2010, 10:46
I dearly hope so. God I'm sick of meltas.

No, wait, that's false. It's a combination of things. First off, I hardly play marines. I have one Chaos army that sees regular play.
Melta for MEQ
+ Good BS, so reliable
+ Getting close to the enemy is rarely a problem
+ Exploding the opponent vehicle = good
+ When sitting in an exploding transport it doesn't matter too much

Not MEQ armies
- Often poor BS
- Getting close is often suicidal. Doesn't combine well with the poor BS (I might die next turn, but at least I'll take that tank with me! O no, miss.)
- Killing a vehicle real good often kills your own models as well.
- Getting killed in a vehicle kill the content as well.

It seems unfair to me. It's a brilliant tool for marines, and not in the same league for others.
It's one of those weapons that seem to benefit marines best of all, as usual.

Spyral
04-11-2010, 10:55
Well with 'mech' GW have sold tonnes of vehicles. When in 3 and 4e a rhino was a liability you wouldn't shell out £15 for one (yes they were that cheap). Then 5e made vehicles great, everyones meching up in 6e transports will get a nerf. Then people will take the same amount they they did in 3/4e.

3e = no transports
4e = slightly metter
5e = troops important ergo transports extra important, counter with melta nutcracker.

Plasma will become better, meltas have always been good, in 3e not many people used them but they were/are good.

Dr Porkov
04-11-2010, 11:02
Probably. If they do nerf melta weapons, they'll either make melta weapons more expensive, seeing as though everyone claims they are the best anti-vehicle weapons in the game and should have a matching points cost. If not, they might beef up more classical tank killers such as the lascannon to S10 AP2 (or 1), maybe including lance.

Latro_
04-11-2010, 11:59
if they changed the rule so that they need a turn to recharge after firing, i think that'd reduce the spam a bit and keep all armies on an even keel.

Hendarion
04-11-2010, 12:05
I don't see anything wrong with Meltas. They are pretty short range anyway and there should be something dangerous for vehicles. Dunno why that should be changed. It's not as if each army would have Fire Dragons...

Erwos
04-11-2010, 12:10
IMHO, it's not so much that meltas are overly good so much as that plasma guns are overpriced. They could be fixed:
1. "Gets hot" is absurd for the price you pay for a plasma gun, especially for non-3+ saves. Like Chaos dreads going nuts, it's a stupid holdover from the old days.
2. Rapid-fire weapons need a rules tweak to allow you to rapid-fire before charging, but lose the +1 to attack.

Upping lascannons to AP1 would also make them much more popular as a tank-killing tool, as others have noted.

Hendarion
04-11-2010, 12:16
Yea... :D I agree... nerf Eldar plasma weaponry bonus and Eldar assault weapon speed bonus once more!

<3 the idea

If that is going to happen, I'll dig out my 2nd Edition starter box Spaiz Mareenz.
Yeaaa, who needs something else anyway?
Unify all races!
Progenoids and power armourz for all!

Seriously, you believe plasma weapons are overpriced? You don't often face elite mofers from IG, do you? 7 re-rollable plasma-shots from a squad that has moved 12" and disembarked from a Chimera. That hurts plenty!

Spyral
04-11-2010, 13:11
IMHO, it's not so much that meltas are overly good so much as that plasma guns are overpriced. They could be fixed:
1. "Gets hot" is absurd for the price you pay for a plasma gun, especially for non-3+ saves. Like Chaos dreads going nuts, it's a stupid holdover from the old days.
2. Rapid-fire weapons need a rules tweak to allow you to rapid-fire before charging, but lose the +1 to attack.

Upping lascannons to AP1 would also make them much more popular as a tank-killing tool, as others have noted.

I agree in removing the 'gets hot' rule. If you did that to RF weapons then assault weapons would be weak. A shot at a BS that you know the number to hit with a guaranteed AP is better on most troops with RF weapons as they don't have power weapons (usually).

Yes lascannons at str9 but ap one - if they DO get through they ARE breaking your tank

ColShaw
04-11-2010, 13:24
if they changed the rule so that they need a turn to recharge after firing, i think that'd reduce the spam a bit and keep all armies on an even keel.

The old 2nd Ed Plasma Cannon did that, if I remember correctly.

And honestly, I don't know that it'd make that much difference, even if implemented. A lot of the time, my Meltas get close to one good target, take it out, and then spend the next turn getting into position to attack the next one anyway. And it'd be a lot of extra bookkeeping.

I can't believe we're talking about making vehicles MORE survivable. Isn't tank-spam already the way the game is trending?!

ehlijen
04-11-2010, 13:26
I don't think there's a real problem with meltas. They're useless against hordes where a flamer would shine. They are inferior vs MCs and TEQs, where you want plasma. All they've really got is AT and IDing characters.

The problem is Vulkan, not the melta gun.

Megad00mer
04-11-2010, 13:32
Meltas themselves probably won’t change at all. I’m hoping 6th Edition makes transports (not all vehicles) less of a must have/no brainer option so we’ll start seeing more foot slogging units or a mix of both foot and mounted units on the table rather than just the sea of boxes we have now. If that’s the case then meltas themselves will become a viable option rather than the only game in town.

I think the Vehicle rules are fine. Transports, however are just too damn good across the board. You’re almost forced to take em.

Hendarion
04-11-2010, 13:37
I’m hoping 6th Edition makes transports (not all vehicles) less of a must have/no brainer option so we’ll start seeing more foot slogging units
As long as Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons are killing all my army before I'm able to reach my enemy... so long I'll keep using transports. Currently it's useless to field various of my troops on foot, because they are either 12" ranged or assault-units and they are dead before they can do anything. And they are so expensive that I can't simply spam them either. There are other armies than IG with numbers or Marines with high survival rate.

Erwos
04-11-2010, 13:48
If you did that to RF weapons then assault weapons would be weak.
Nah. Assault weapons would still get to fire at full-range when moving, which is not an insignificant advantage. It's also not like plasma would suddenly replace flamers or meltas - they all have different purposes. It's just that plasma would stop being so overpriced, and we'd see more of it. Plasma would be a much better value for use against light vehicles with these tweaks - less melta, more variety.


A shot at a BS that you know the number to hit with a guaranteed AP is better on most troops with RF weapons as they don't have power weapons (usually).
Yeah, but it's a relatively small bonus as they go. You're still on your own the next turn, and for most troops with rapid-fire guns, that's not a great prospect.

Hendarion
04-11-2010, 13:53
Sorry, Erwos, but able to assault after shooting rapid fire weapons is a *huge* boost for all rapid-fire armies and a *huge* nerf for all assault-weapon-armies.
Most rapid-fire-weapons are not that long ranged anyway and especially designed to allow shooting and assault.
I really can't disagree more actually. I seriously believe that such a change of rapid fire weapons will make me stop 40k and not me alone.

Erwos
04-11-2010, 13:57
Sorry, Erwos, but able to assault after shooting rapid fire weapons is a *huge* boost for all rapid-fire armies and a *huge* nerf for all assault-weapon-armies.
Educate me as to the situation you're thinking of. I am clearly not seeing it. At least for marines, they can already shoot then assault - they just use bolt pistols, which they all have. Switching the first ten attacks to bolter fire doesn't seem like a huge deal. It's better, but not huge.

Megad00mer
04-11-2010, 14:06
As long as Heavy Bolters and Assault Cannons are killing all my army before I'm able to reach my enemy... so long I'll keep using transports. Currently it's useless to field various of my troops on foot, because they are either 12" ranged or assault-units and they are dead before they can do anything. And they are so expensive that I can't simply spam them either. There are other armies than IG with numbers or Marines with high survival rate.

I agree but you're talking from the 5th edition perspective. What I meant was that I hope 6th edition takes steps to make foot troops an actual viable option as well as mounted ones. How they'll actually do that is anyone's guess. I hope it's not through simply nerfing transports but somehow buffing non embarked units.

We'll have to see....

Hendarion
04-11-2010, 14:07
Erwos, you do know that pistols will grant only half the number of shots than a rapid fire Bolter, no? But a better example are maybe Kroot Guns. Making them able to shoot and assault will increase their effectiveness a lot. And remember that there are more units with Bolters out there than just Space Marines with additional Bolt Pistols.

@Megad00mer: I'm not sure I want to see some units on feet to be even better than they currently are ;)

Erwos
04-11-2010, 14:11
Erwos, you do know that pistols will grant only half the number of shots than a rapid fire Bolter, no?
Clearly, you missed where I said "but lose the +1 to attack." If you rapid-fire, you don't get your +1 attack bonus for charging.


But a better example are maybe Kroot Guns. Making them able to shoot and assault will increase their effectiveness a lot.
Sounds good to me. It's not like people spend all their time figuring out how to counter Kroot.


And remember that there are more units with Bolters out there than just Space Marines with additional Bolt Pistols.
I am asking for you to tell me how such units would be completely overpowered by this change. Examples appreciated.

Hendarion
04-11-2010, 14:21
Clearly, you missed where I said "but lose the +1 to attack." If you rapid-fire, you don't get your +1 attack bonus for charging. That evens it out.
That doesn't even out anything actually. AP5 is better than AP- in close combat and 3+ hit when shooting is not the same as 4+ to hit in close combat.

Allowing rapid-fire-units to also assault will basically remove *any* use of short-range-assault weapons. But well, won't be the first nerf of my army I've seen... each new edition actually granted the same abilities Eldar had to all other armies. I assume you are right and that trend will continue, so that assault-weapons soon will be no different to anything else anymore. -1 attack is not a problem as long as you are able to counter a closing-in enemy assault unit's +1 bonus that way which you currently not able to if you're using rapid-fire. Not to mention it will give yet another speed bonus to all those that couldn't have it so far. I don't need to give examples, you can find units with rapid-fire weapons in the last pages of your rule-book. I guess you are smart enough to find them yourself.

ColShaw
04-11-2010, 14:27
Erwos:

How about IG Lasguns with FRF? Getting to blaze away with 3 shots apiece, then hit combat with the survivors? It doubles the effectiveness of basic Guardsmen in assault.

Eldoriath
04-11-2010, 14:37
Melta is not in need of nerf. Only thing that got "better" with melta is the +1 on damage table. But oh wait, in 4th ed all glancing became penetrating and destroyed vehicles on 4+ in any way. So really, melta got nerfed from 4th to 5th ed when you look at it in overall.

Glancing melta doesn't destroy on 4+ any more but only on 6s.
There are cover saves that can actually negate the whole thing, often on a 4+.

So really, why complaining now? It was much better in 4th ed. It's honestly the plasma that needs buffing, not melta nerfing, it already got nerfed and so has the plasma, but in terms of points instead of rules. If you had to nerf melta more I'd give it the Get's hot! rule. But really, there is no need for that.

x-esiv-4c
04-11-2010, 14:51
6th edition...hehe.

Erwos
04-11-2010, 15:12
Allowing rapid-fire-units to also assault will basically remove *any* use of short-range-assault weapons.
No, it won't. I'm not suddenly going to replace meltas and flamers with bolters and plasma. They do different things. If the only difference was that you could assault afterwards... well, too bad.


How about IG Lasguns with FRF? Getting to blaze away with 3 shots apiece, then hit combat with the survivors? It doubles the effectiveness of basic Guardsmen in assault.
Good catch. I suppose that you could FAQ those sorts of corner cases away for the most part; what I'm looking for is more on a broader scale like "Tyranids suck completely because of it" or something.

Hendarion
04-11-2010, 15:15
Why to make an FAQ for corner cases if the weapon's abilities clearly define what the unit is able of?

Erwos
04-11-2010, 15:24
Why to make an FAQ for corner cases if the weapon's abilities clearly define what the unit is able of?
Because the problem isn't the new rapid-fire rule in that case, it's the intersection of another rule that's only available to one army. Those are corner cases by definition. Those are FAQ fodder in my mind.

Bunnahabhain
04-11-2010, 15:28
N
Good catch. I suppose that you could FAQ those sorts of corner cases away for the most part; what I'm looking for is more on a broader scale like "Tyranids suck completely because of it" or something.

There isn't one, at a whole army level. Everyone either has assault weapons ( Orks, Nids), or has rapid fire weapons and a way round it ( Marines) or really doesn't want to be in assault if it can help it- Tau, Guard, Necrons.

Of course, there are certain units here and there ie Guardians, but most of them have multiple issues.

Sisters of battle might be the best example, but since their dominant playstyle is mechanised anyway, ( for the rank and file) their bolters are not what is preventing assaults, but rather the Rhinos and poor combat stats....

Hendarion
04-11-2010, 15:28
@Erwos:
No, that same problem exists with IG even without FRF. Suddenly they can shoot and attack and it gives them +50% hits. No huge boost for you?

Erwos
04-11-2010, 15:34
@Erwos:
No, that same problem exists with IG even without FRF. Suddenly they can shoot and attack and it gives them +50% hits. No huge boost for you?
I would not consider that hugely problematic, at least in the sense of making the rule unusable.

And I thought I was a bitter Chaos player... man, you make look positively reasonable.

Fixer
04-11-2010, 15:53
I don't think there's a real problem with meltas. They're useless against hordes where a flamer would shine. They are inferior vs MCs and TEQs, where you want plasma. All they've really got is AT and IDing characters.

The problem is Vulkan, not the melta gun.

Bah, Vulkan's not the problem. He makes a BS4 Meltagun worth 1.3 Meltaguns.
Still not as good as all those armies that pack 2-3 meltaguns in units instead.
Like my Blood Angels list for example!

Really it's only landraiders or AV14 that Meltas really excel against. Rockets and Lasannons especially on mobile platforms are much more versatile against anything else since you can also hang far out of threat range. Or if they're dirt cheap. Long fangs kick ass.

Additionally, suicide expendable melta units are also better at raider killing than expensive marine units dedicated for the task. You can happily throw a vet squad at a landraider knowing that whether you blast it to smitherines or not, the resulting Terminator charge wont lose you much. Unlike say, a combi-melta equipped sternguard unit or a couple of squads of Plague marines.

Suicide jump packed combat squads of 2x melta with decent of angels have done well for me.

However! This discussion is about the nerfhammer. If history has shown anything, it's that if something is good in one edition it will hit with the firepower of a damp sock filled with sand in the next... and there's a hole in the sock.

It's happened before with Assault Cannons and The Avatar from 2nd to 3rd, with Iron Warriors from 4th to 5th. With Starcannons (with a-vengeance!)

Trends have shown that if something is seen to be the best option, instead of hitting it with one change that would bring it back in line and balanced, GW likes to alpha-strike it with a huge multiple nerf.

For example. Why just restrict the numbers of assault cannons you can take in an army when you can restrict the numbers you can take, nerf rending, change vehicle rules and jack up the price as well?

Inquisitor_Tolheim
04-11-2010, 15:54
I would not consider that hugely problematic, at least in the sense of making the rule unusable.

Part of the issue is that the rule is unnecessary:

After all, you are arguing that it wouldn't shake up the game balance, but if it makes no difference in your eyes then why change it at all? The weapons generally work as they are, the only problem here is plasma weaponry.

With that in mind, do we REALLY need to change a core rule? Or should we just fix Plasma?

Erwos
04-11-2010, 16:00
With that in mind, do we REALLY need to change a core rule? Or should we just fix Plasma?
Fair enough. Change plasma to 24" and assault 2. Problem solved!

Hendarion
04-11-2010, 16:14
I seriously hope that was a joke, lol.

ColShaw
04-11-2010, 16:16
Fair enough. Change plasma to 24" and assault 2. Problem solved!

Hrm. Makes Grenade Launchers look pretty terrible by comparison.

I don't personally feel there's a problem with Plasma as it currently exists. I would've left it costing the same points as Melta, as I consider them basically equivalent.

But then, I would've left Autocannons costing 5 points more than Heavy Bolters in the IG codex, too (what WERE they thinking?!:wtf:)

Shave 5 points off Plasma weapons and they're fine, I think.

Erwos
04-11-2010, 16:16
I seriously hope that was a joke, lol.
OK, but really, keep them rapid-fire, get rid of gets-hot, drop them to 10 points.

Hendarion
04-11-2010, 16:27
Well, point-cost are Codex-related and not a general rule issue. And why dropping the gets-hot-stuff? That had been existing in 40k ever since, except for Eldar plasma weapons to (try to) represent better tech level.

nightgant98c
04-11-2010, 16:33
I would not be surprised to see melta get a proce hike in future editions.
On the subject of rapid fire weapons being able to assault, I don't like the idea. They could in 3rd, although they did get the bonus attack, and it was a beast to deal with. Removing the bonus attack would make it better, but still very powerful.

Nazdrugh
04-11-2010, 16:50
I think making meltas AP2 and plasma AP1 would be a fair trade. Meltas still have their 2D6 pen and plasma has a boost against vehicles but aren't land raider hunters.

Hendarion
04-11-2010, 16:50
In the 3rd most units couldn't not run though ;)

@Nazdrugh: Means basically to improve Land Raiders? :p

ColShaw
04-11-2010, 16:51
I think making meltas AP2 and plasma AP1 would be a fair trade. Meltas still have their 2D6 pen and plasma has a boost against vehicles but aren't land raider hunters.

The downside of that is that it wouldn't make any logical sense.

Nazdrugh
04-11-2010, 16:56
The downside of that is that it wouldn't make any logical sense.

40k ≠ logical sense.

fataljd
04-11-2010, 17:00
I've been told by much more...um..."seasoned" players that there is a tendency to "nerf" weapons/units/etc. that are taken in large quantity. If anything, I could see a new edition nerfing transports, making large amounts of meltas redundant.

Erwos
04-11-2010, 17:02
Well, point-cost are Codex-related and not a general rule issue.
It seems like this is less and less true as time goes on, especially for upgrades. But, yes, for codexes that pay 15, they should pay 10.


And why dropping the gets-hot-stuff? That had been existing in 40k ever since, except for Eldar plasma weapons to (try to) represent better tech level.
Yes, well, my Chaos dread used to get insane close combat weapons, and those are gone, too. The game has been simplifying every edition, and gets hot is, frankly, something of a PITA to deal with.

SoylentGreenIsPeople
04-11-2010, 17:02
Melta wont be nerfed so long as mech is king. If GW decide to do away with reliable ways of killing vehicles they are thinking with wallets rather than heads.

What i think we will see is propagation of flyers, cover saves get nerfed and a rewrite of how units in vehicles behave; no more SITW rubbish, no more using them as mobile bunkers without penalty.

But melta being nerfed? Not likely.

viking657
04-11-2010, 17:03
Many of the issues that I hear people complaining about are usually because they are not playing the game as its supposed to be played.

How many times have you played at your local independent club or local GW only to end up playing on a pretty much barren board? Even when the barren board is supposed to be a city of death or jungle board and don't get me started on the buildings on each side with a large strip of barren land in the middle.

If people tried playing more games on properly terrained boards instead of one with a token ruin and hill then many issues, not just melta, would not seem as bad at all.

Theres nothing wrong with melta the way people deal with it needs to change not the rules

LonelyPath
04-11-2010, 17:06
Personally I'd keep the rules for melta the same as now, but I'd swap the prices over with Plasma.

However, there are more important issues that need to be fixed than melta.

tuebor
04-11-2010, 21:56
3e = no transports

I seem to recall being repeatedly and brutally violated by Space Marine Rhino rushes in 3rd, especially by Blood Angels. Sure, nobody else took transports but there were a lot of mech Marine players.

jsullivanlaw
04-11-2010, 22:53
Melta won't get nerfed, transports will get nerfed in 6th.

DarkCube
04-11-2010, 23:22
4+ cover on everything is a bigger issue than melta/mech or anything else in 5th Ed. 40K.

Try playing a game with 5+ cover for the norm instead of 4+. You'll notice that long range anti-tank weapons suddenly become drastically more useful than a meltagun.

Vaktathi
04-11-2010, 23:28
I don't see why meltas are going to get nerf'd. They aren't exactly overpowered, and the alternative is going back to Plasma Spam that GW evidently didn't like. Meltas have a lot of limitations and intricacies required for their effective use, I doubt we will see any hammering of melta weapons.


Well, point-cost are Codex-related and not a general rule issue. And why dropping the gets-hot-stuff? That had been existing in 40k ever since, except for Eldar plasma weapons to (try to) represent better tech level. Well, it hasn't always been in there, it was represented differently in 2E (could only fire every other turn). That said, at this point, Gets Hot! for plasma weapons is pointless. At universally 15pts each, along with the need for flamer and melta weapons, Gets Hot! isn't really a balancing factor anymore and the weapons certainly aren't costed with it in mind. At this point it's punitive and exists for its own sake rather than actually doing anything.

Spyral
04-11-2010, 23:30
just remove gets hot from plasma. End.

koran
04-11-2010, 23:40
Im really surprised at people thinking meltas are going to get nerfed. Yes people use them quite a lot but not half as much as certain other rule that have been put in recent armies a ridiculous amount at the moment. If we look at the DE codex their anti tank has got better with dark lances remaining the same stats and blasters getting one hell of a boost.

Now have a look at feel no paint. Just as rending was, its being given to recent armies in huge amounts (blood angels, dark eldar, upcoming necrons if rumours are anything to go by). It there is one thing I expect to get nerfed in 6th ed its this rule, not meltas

Refyougee
05-11-2010, 05:23
If you want to make melta a less attractive option I think you have to make others moreso. However I think you need to change the Core rules before changing codices if you want the changes to be given to all the books at once and to give a boost to other parts.

For example:
-gets hot: rolling a 1 to hit means you cant shoot next turn
-lance: on a 5+ for armour pen (or 4+, maybe), counts as AP1
-s9 or 10 - count as Ap1 if within a certain range

making vehicles worse would **** off a lot of players, and would require even more changes. i think a few changes would make other weapons much more attractive :)

Pink Horror
05-11-2010, 06:39
I seem to recall being repeatedly and brutally violated by Space Marine Rhino rushes in 3rd, especially by Blood Angels. Sure, nobody else took transports but there were a lot of mech Marine players.

Yes, transports were pretty useful in the beginning of 3rd because the anti-vehicle weapons were weaker and everyone could assault out of a transport.

Hendarion
05-11-2010, 07:20
Well, it hasn't always been in there, it was represented differently in 2E (could only fire every other turn). That said, at this point, Gets Hot! for plasma weapons is pointless. At universally 15pts each, along with the need for flamer and melta weapons, Gets Hot! isn't really a balancing factor anymore and the weapons certainly aren't costed with it in mind. At this point it's punitive and exists for its own sake rather than actually doing anything.
Gets hot had always been there, in one form or another. I didn't say the current form makes sense or is good or that the weapons are costed correctly (which is a Codex issue after all). I said that plasma weapons always could overheat except for Eldar plasma weapons.
You are probably right though that GW will remove that, same as they have removed the jamming of weapons. But what I think about that is yet another Eldar technology nerf by making all other weapons par or superior to theirs.
Personally I really do like how a unit of 7 re-rollable plasma shots that dropped out of a chimera blows 1 or 2 guys to hell with overheated plasma guns. That's a nice punishment for the imba possibility to put so many nasty shots into a cheap-as-hell unit.

shabbadoo
05-11-2010, 08:46
True. I think it's also at least partially because the nearest alternative, plasma, has worse strength, AP, and will possibly kill your guy.

The "will possibly kill your guy" part surely sucks, but you failed to mention that plasma also gets double the range in compensation over melta weapons, the plasma gun gets rapid fire, and the plasma cannon gets a small blast. It's kind of important to take all of that into account too. ;)

I think it would be nice to see multi-meltas get their small blast back, as well as the dispersed firing mode that had them firing with the effects of a heavy flamer(2E stuff). I don't think we'll see melta weapons nerfed at all for 6E.

Mojaco
05-11-2010, 09:46
Here's my fix; when a transport is wrecked, every person inside takes a wound on a 4+.
When a transport explodes, a wound on a 4+ rending,pinning and a d6" explosion wounding on 4+ (this sound horrible, but please note that only rending is really new)

Boom! Transports become a little worse for GEQ, and more worse for MEQ. Killing a transport in HtH or in meltarange becomes a little more dangerous for MEQ and identical for GEQ. Transports slightly nerfed but not overly so, this part of 5th edition fixed.

Erwos
05-11-2010, 10:24
The "will possibly kill your guy" part surely sucks, but you failed to mention that [B][I]plasma also gets double the range in compensation over melta weapons, the plasma gun gets rapid fire
Yeah, but paying five points extra means it has to compensate for a lot more on the plasma gun side of things. Losing "gets hot!" would at least compensate for that. Again, "gets hot" purely as a rule sucks; you suddenly take casualties in the middle of your firing action, breaking the flow.

I actually kinda like the concept of making transport explodes wounds rending, and would like to see some playtests with this.

Hendarion
05-11-2010, 10:27
Well, I think the ability to rapid-fire them is worth the 5 points by far. I mean, seriously, it's the double number of shots for only +50% of the points.

DeviantApostle
05-11-2010, 12:01
What I'm hoping is that they don't nerf vehicles or melta. What they need to do in my opinion is buff infantry so that they're more versatile and pick targets that suit their individual weapons. You see meltaguns and fusionguns all over the place because heavy weapons don't do the job in an infantry unit as the rules stand.

Now, having said that, some armies (IG, SW and BA for example) don't need to be able to move and shoot with heavy weapons on Infantry. Marine Tac. Squads would be greatly improved and I think we'd see more of them on foot as a bonus. Eldar already have this, so they're ok. DE... yeah, this might get broken there, though I'd say that they can move and shoot but not shoot and assault... have to playtest.

UberBeast
05-11-2010, 12:09
My only real beef is AP1 weapons getting a shift on the column while melta already has special rules for getting extra pen dice. It seems too much for one weapon when so many other weapons with high strength will bounce off armor on a regular basis.

boogaloo
05-11-2010, 13:55
How's abouts this change to the gets hot rule... Still gets hot on a 1, and also on a 6. In the case of gets hot on a six, it counts as strength 10? Impredictability of foolish mon-keigh tech? also makes an occasional double-tapping strength 10 gun. Not allow for armour saves in the case of a 6 perhaps?

slingersam
05-11-2010, 14:20
Making a plasma gun str 10 on a six is better than rending +1. Also anyone quoting I.G. about some of the tactics they can use please don't. Everyone knows they have some BS tactics so it's not fair to throw them in your examples. Now meltas don't need to be nerfed. I believe that plasma just needs to be buffed. Also another problem is that the game is mech heavy so plasmas have a harder time punching vehicles while meltas do. So fix vehicles = fixing plasma. I can probably see plasma dropping to 10pts.

Meltas - 6" vehicle is most likely dead, can assault after shooting it, Ap 1 2D6 pen.

Plasma - 12"-18" double tap, 24" effective range,gets hot, can't assault.

Now for non-Vulkan armies plasma starts to look better because of the point decrease.

ColShaw
05-11-2010, 14:55
I agree that knocking Plasma back down to 10 points is probably the right idea.

boogaloo
05-11-2010, 15:44
Making a plasma gun str 10 on a six is better than rending +1.


True, but rending doesn't kill you when you roll a six to hit. and is also not +15 points per model in most cases.


This next comment is not directed at anyone so please, don't take it as though I'm aiming it at you slingersam. I'm really just trying to come up with a creative balance fix for plasma, instead of just complaining abouts the points cost. If gets hot scores a wound with no normal armour saves on a roll of 6+, and a wound with a normal armour save allowed on a 1. with a strength bonus on a 6+. I think its a balanced trade off rules wise, with a fluffy outcome on the board without flagrantly over complicating the rule.

Perhaps make it a "plasma reactor explodes result, and place the small template over the model firing at the increased strength. that way it would affect horde units as well. Also makes it worth it put plas on a tooled up lord with a storm shield. Maybe not S10 then, maybe just S9 or 8?

To me the idea of increased output, but increasing risk to your own squads is a balanced trade off. you can throw 2 S10 shots at that problematic tank and disintegrate a few of your guys.

susu.exp
05-11-2010, 18:41
My 2 cents:
- Plasma "Gets hot" did not exist as a general rule in 2nd Ed. - only as a rule in the Chaos Dex to represent older imperial plasma tech.
- Allowing units to rapid fire and then charge without the bonus attack would nerf defensive grenades. Sure enough, only a few units have them (Nurgle units in both C:CSM and C:CD, Tau - rarely used).

I think an option to reduce Mech-dependence would be to allow models attacking vehicles in CC to use their full attacks. Suddenly the Melta-Bomb is on par with the Meltagun and Haywire does something (and thus we“ll see a couple more Swooping Hawks maybe?).

slingersam
05-11-2010, 19:19
True, but rending doesn't kill you when you roll a six to hit. and is also not +15 points per model in most cases.


This next comment is not directed at anyone so please, don't take it as though I'm aiming it at you slingersam. I'm really just trying to come up with a creative balance fix for plasma, instead of just complaining abouts the points cost. If gets hot scores a wound with no normal armour saves on a roll of 6+, and a wound with a normal armour save allowed on a 1. with a strength bonus on a 6+. I think its a balanced trade off rules wise, with a fluffy outcome on the board without flagrantly over complicating the rule.

Perhaps make it a "plasma reactor explodes result, and place the small template over the model firing at the increased strength. that way it would affect horde units as well. Also makes it worth it put plas on a tooled up lord with a storm shield. Maybe not S10 then, maybe just S9 or 8?

To me the idea of increased output, but increasing risk to your own squads is a balanced trade off. you can throw 2 S10 shots at that problematic tank and disintegrate a few of your guys.

Now I understand your point but looking at it. SM hits on 3's right with shooting. Well if we were to say every time he rolled a 6 he would die, then the person only hopes to roll a 3,4,5. The str 10 on a 6 becomes gimmicky at best because the weapon in general is not used for anti tank. Plasma weaponry has always been anti-infantry, and not much else. Example being a SM squad shoots at terminator squad, if he rolled a 6 to hit the terminators did the SM squad gain an extra bonus or did they just lose one of they're men for no reason?

Hendarion
05-11-2010, 19:21
- Plasma "Gets hot" did not exist as a general rule in 2nd Ed. - only as a rule in the Chaos Dex to represent older imperial plasma tech.
Well, in 2nd Ed they couldn't fire each turn. ;)

duffybear1988
05-11-2010, 19:30
It's not melta weapons that are the problem - it's the silly missions in the book which mean that everything in the army HAS to have a transport so that they can move fast to contest/capture objectives.

Honestly all we need is a slight modification to weaken transports and some extra missions/deployments so that transport spam doesn't have to be the only way of winning... but then GW plan to make money and they do that by selling lots of cheap transports (chimeras, valkyries, rhinos and razorbacks come to mind) for silly prices such as £25+. Now the points costs can't be changed until the books get updated, but more missions and cool deployment options would make the game better.

susu.exp
05-11-2010, 19:42
Well, in 2nd Ed they couldn't fire each turn. ;)

Due to recharging as the fluff went (the same rule applies to some EPIC plasma weapons on titans). Chaos did that get and "gets hot" on top of it in their Codex. I don“t think I ever used a Plasma gun in 2nd Ed...

AstartesWarMachine
05-11-2010, 19:50
I agree that might be a problem, but not necessarily related. For one, I never see anyone really using their scout moves or infiltration, but rather, they almost always outflank. It's a far superior option, especially for assault units.

I don't think there is anything you can do to the missions that would make people take less transports. I think that maybe encouraging us to get out of them once in a while is the key. Right now there is literally zero reason to get out of them -- most of the time you have full use of your paid-for weapons, it can move faster, you count as holding/contesting objectives from inside (IMO, the stupidest rule relating to them), and your unit gains some free cover when it finally gets destroyed.

Compare that to being on foot, losing men left and right from deadly fire, and taking half the game to reach a target, going toe-to-toe with MCs and Walkers who decide to get in their way, and there is just no contest. The mission is almost irrelevant -- and I would know, as we often play special missions in my group and the transport is still a must-have on every level.

I enjoy that transports are prevalent because it always seemed very foolish to me before when you would rather never have them. I don't want to see them weaker or less numerous, just have some disadvantages.

The only fair thing to do without enacting the rolling coffin relapse is the idea of having the unit inside lose its ability to act during a particular upcoming phase while they are still in the wreckage. Killing guys more often or more easily from the destruction of the vehicle is just going to make people stop using them.

H.LaFever
05-11-2010, 19:50
C'mon guys, worrying about 6th ed is soo yesterday, worry about how they will nerf fast attacks in 7th ed! lol

Vaktathi
05-11-2010, 21:17
There's plenty of reasons for units to get out of transports. If they want to assault, or have more weapons than they can fire out of a transport, if they need to move more than 6" to engage an enemy unit, if they want to rapid fire the **** out of something, or if they need the extra few inches that a run move can allow them to get to an objective or vital spot on the board (assuming a Fast transport isn't involved here).


As to scoring, I feel that's actually rather important to keep. Aside from MEQ units, most armies scoring units are relatively fragile. A squad of Grey Hunters or especially something like Plague Marines can hold an objective all day long, weathering enemy firepower and repelling assaults. A squad of Guardians, Dire Avengers, Fire Warriors, Guardsmen, IST's, or Dark Eldar Warriors cannot. It's something that MEQ armies won't cry too terribly much over, but that pretty much any other army capable of mechanization (save Orks as their transports are simply one use skateboards aside from Battlewagons) will find crippling in many cases. There's very little good reason to demand that a unit be disembarked to count as holding an objective, either from a fluff or gameplay perspective.

AstartesWarMachine
06-11-2010, 06:59
Bah. Don't hand me that. In most scenarios players have control over the objective placement. At leats half of them are likely to be in cover if the weaker armies are deciding their placement. And all these "Fragile T3 troops" that litter the game also seem to have no trouble getting 3+ cover saves left and right.

Besides, there is nothing stopping you from simply getting out on your final turn, whilst still reaping the protective benefits of the transport for the other 4-6 turns.

There's your gameplay perspective. Fluff? Easy. They can't make a very secure perimeter around the objective from within the vehicle, can they?

Vaktathi
06-11-2010, 10:54
Bah. Don't hand me that. In most scenarios players have control over the objective placement. At leats half of them are likely to be in cover if the weaker armies are deciding their placement. And all these "Fragile T3 troops" that litter the game also seem to have no trouble getting 3+ cover saves left and right. For certain IG builds maybe, but Eldar, Tau and most IG builds don't unless they want to completely forego shooting and are already under fire, and a single flamer (or god forbid heavy flamer) which are not exactly rare kit can come pretty well close to clearing such unit off objectives either through casualties or morale tests. These units are also generally a cakewalk to clear off an objective through an assault relative to MEQ units.



Besides, there is nothing stopping you from simply getting out on your final turn, whilst still reaping the protective benefits of the transport for the other 4-6 turns. Except there's a random game length, and it can be very difficult to keep a T3 4+/5+ unit alive on an objective for up to 3 turns. As someone who plays pretty much the whole spectrum of armies from CSM's to IG, Tau, Eldar and now Tyranids, I can tell you that having to hold and objective with CSM's is infinitely easier than trying to hold one with disembarked Dire Avengers, Fire Warriors, or Guardsmen. Tyranids don't have it quite as bad because at least their units can be very *big* (well, so can IG, but only rather limited builds), as well has having MC's as troops (although they do have other issues, but that's another story).



There's your gameplay perspective. Fluff? Easy. They can't make a very secure perimeter around the objective from within the vehicle, can they? Neither can a pinned unit or a single lone infantryman, but they still count as scoring as long as they are Troops. I'm sure a unit of guardsmen in their bunkertank will have no problem with that, or Eldar in their floating gunships.

Mojaco
06-11-2010, 11:04
Sound like a sensible route to take. I'd make it a bit worse too; you can't do anything from a transport. No 6" radius for cover saves (Ork Meck), no 6" radius for FNP (BA Priest), no psychic hood, no scoring, no shooting, no Ld benefit/reroll, etc etc. NOTHING!
Except issueing orders for IG, as that's specifically mentioned in the codex and demands that the recieving party is outside their transport, so that seems fair.

You know, I just did some match the scared me. Firing a BS3 lascannon against a Rhino should be scary, right? Do the match. Usually you've got one turn to kill the transport before it's gotten too close to care about getting killed. It's also the turn where they pop smoke. As the glancing table is irrelevant, I'm ignoring it.
1/2 (hit) * 2/3 (penetrate) * 1/2 (failed cover save) * 1/3 (relevant damage result) = 5% change. Ouch!
Compare that to an AV11 shooting tank where all damage results matter. Please note I've added a cover save, but for shooting tanks this isn't so standard.
1/2 (hit) * 5/6 (glance or penetrate) * 1/2 (failed cover save) = 20%.
Pretty good chances. Only the Landraider is a different story with that retarded good machine spirit rule, but that's the exception.

And there you have it. The gap is huge. I don't know anyone who has a problem with shooting tanks, but transport are just too reliable. You'd have to have some pretty good luck to stop a single rhino from range.

And therefor melta's are popular, as they do loads better. But the problem isn't with meltas nor its point cost. It's with mech armies.

I hope they fix transports without hurting the armies with IMO cool mech elements. Orks and new DE aren't overpowered mech, being AV10 opentopped and having fragile contents, and Eldar at least have expensive transports and always had a strong mech flavour.

I already posted a suggestion for fixing transports. Here's another; make smoke launcher A LOT worse. IG and marine variants are the worst Mechs, and both would be easier to handle without the brainless smoke launchers. Id love to see them go. A 6+ cover save or the enemy having to use night fight would be better.

Askari
06-11-2010, 11:12
How is Immobilised not a relevant damage result vs. the Rhino? You can Immobilise it on a glance too.

Hendarion
06-11-2010, 11:14
Once again you are using the Rhino to compare. Believe me, a weapon-destroyed, immobilized or stunned-result will hurt me plenty on a Serpent, because I *have* to give it either a useless weapon or an expensive one or expensive upgrades to prevent crashing at high speed.
If you think the Rhino is too cheap for what it does, nerf the Rhino.

Spyral
06-11-2010, 12:24
The rhino *is* too cheap.

Askari
06-11-2010, 13:02
I don't think the Rhino is too cheap, maybe an extra 5 points each(so I'd lose a Marine, or a Plasma Gun, in my typical list). It doesn't really do much, except shephard a squad of Marines to where they want to go, for the rest of the game once they disembark, they're pretty pointless.

Chimeras and Valkyries - which double up as transports and gun platforms, are too cheap.

slingersam
06-11-2010, 13:10
I don't think the Rhino is too cheap, maybe an extra 5 points each(so I'd lose a Marine, or a Plasma Gun, in my typical list). It doesn't really do much, except shephard a squad of Marines to where they want to go, for the rest of the game once they disembark, they're pretty pointless.

Chimeras and Valkyries - which double up as transports and gun platforms, are too cheap.

Well IG in general is underpriced by like 25-30%. But that doesn't matter. Once a transport drops off it's passenger it honestly either becomes cover save, or even helping in the fight.

Bunnahabhain
06-11-2010, 13:37
Well IG in general is underpriced by like 25-30%. But that doesn't matter. Once a transport drops off it's passenger it honestly either becomes cover save, or even helping in the fight.

Utter nonsense! Total and utter nonsense!

The only Guard unit that underpriced is the Vendetta. Chimeras, and a few other units are maybe 10% underpriced, but many things are about right, and a considerable number are massively overpriced, or have cripplingly bad rules

Hendarion
06-11-2010, 13:40
Well, I'm not that entirely sure. But what makes me bother most of all when it comes to IG is the low number of slots they need to field so many tanks that I do not have enough slots in my entire army to counter them.

Mojaco
06-11-2010, 14:25
Once again you are using the Rhino to compare. Believe me, a weapon-destroyed, immobilized or stunned-result will hurt me plenty on a Serpent, because I *have* to give it either a useless weapon or an expensive one or expensive upgrades to prevent crashing at high speed.
If you think the Rhino is too cheap for what it does, nerf the Rhino.
Ofcourse I'm using the rhino to compare. There's more of them, they're cheaper, and their cargo is less bothered with it blowing up. A serpent is hardly the problem this edition imo.

Bestaltan
06-11-2010, 19:40
A lot of people assume vehicles will be weakened in 6th ed. I actually don't think so. They've helped to sell big expensive kits......

However, they do love to nerf the hell out of things that everyone uses (remember the 4th ed power fists...?). This creates great shifts in the game that of course usually require us to expand our collections.


Actually, I think this is exactly why they WILL change/nerf vehicles in 6th. With little change in 6th, everybody sits on their collection. But, if you go back to transports being potential death traps while also making horde-style armies attractive again, bam, more sales.

Vaktathi
06-11-2010, 20:10
Actually, I think this is exactly why they WILL change/nerf vehicles in 6th. With little change in 6th, everybody sits on their collection. But, if you go back to transports being potential death traps while also making horde-style armies attractive again, bam, more sales.

The problem is, for many armies, most especially Marine armies, the low cost of transports doesn't really translate into all that many more infantry sales. With my CSM's, I'd give up...140pts in a 2000pt list to spend on more infantry? That's maybe another HQ or an understrength CSM unit or something, ranging from $15-$35 maybe, as opposed to another player spending 4x$33 on Rhino's? Almost a 1:1 Dollar per Point ratio? As opposed to the expensive points cost infantry where it's it's almost 1:6?

The low vehicle points cost and high per model $$$ cost really makes going back on that rather silly.

Likewise for something like IG, Chimeras are cheaper than even a basic infantry squad after just a little bit of kit, and cost $10 more than a unit of guardsmen. That makes for lots of chimera kit sales. Hell, I own 16.

There's no reason to **** with that setup from a business perspective. Killing transports may result in increased revenue from a couple armies switching to infantry (probably Craftworld Eldar given their very expensive tanks in terms of points cost), but will backfire with many more.

Jayden63
06-11-2010, 22:21
If you want to fix the melta, either change the +1 to the damage roll special ability, or make them AP2.

The thing that makes melta golden is that it has no fault. It gets bonuses on the roll to pen, it gets bonuses on the damage roll, and it ignores all armor saves. Its just too good in too many rolls that makes other weapons seem inferior.

Vaktathi
06-11-2010, 22:45
If you want to fix the melta, either change the +1 to the damage roll special ability, or make them AP2.

The thing that makes melta golden is that it has no fault. It gets bonuses on the roll to pen, it gets bonuses on the damage roll, and it ignores all armor saves. Its just too good in too many rolls that makes other weapons seem inferior.

That's why it is very short ranged, and only 1 shot, which are the principle drawbacks. You have to be practically on top of your foe to use the weapons at their best, and you only get one shot per gun to do anything.

RocketFired
06-11-2010, 23:07
I'm not sure that changing weapon stat lines will improve things, by doing that multiple codex will need updates across the board which will have an effect far worse than the storm shield fiasco between C:SM and the DA codex.. there will be an outcry as the first new stat line codex is released that players armies have been unbalanced compared to others.. I honestly think core rule changes will be the best arrangement..
examples:
plasma gets hot rule: on a 1 to hit, model takes a str 4/5 hit, armour saves apply.. essentially takes some of the danger out of using plasma..
melta rule: 2d6 pen at quarter or third range instead of half.. making it that units have to be real close to use melta effectively
transports: if vehicle has moved in the turn, units cannot disembark unless open topped.. following turn after vehicle has moved, unit can disembark, move, shoot and assault..

these are just examples but could be the right approach.. I think there is a better way than trying to nerf/buff units through pts increases/deacreases and stat line changes.. everything pretty much has its place in the game already and changing things dramatically to compensate for core rules would be just chasing your tail.. its the core rules that just need refining, nothing more..

Scribe of Khorne
06-11-2010, 23:13
I would rather seen a small drop in plasma costs, then any change to Melta. Vehicles with even less to fear is not something I want to see, and I play 2 meched out armies...

slingersam
06-11-2010, 23:23
When you do get that 2D6 armor pen You have to be within 6", or 12" for multi-meltas. Those are both assault ranges for the opponent. Usually assault oriented troops are in the transports so that puts the unit in range of assault units.

Krovin-Rezh
07-11-2010, 01:19
I liked the idea of rending on damage from destroyed vehicles in passengers and bystanders. That might be just enough to make it a scary proposition to MEQs without retreating back into the "armored deathtraps edition."

But I do agree that meltas seem in a league of their own when it comes to dealing meaningful damage to armor. We can't and shouldn't mess with it's profile though, as that becomes an issue when updating armies. Having a single shot instead of possibly more is a good counter-balance, but not enough due to proliferated BS4+ or even twin-linking, as well as the cheap price and availability. So that leaves the range as an area of balancing...

Currently, the 12"(6") range of most meltas isn't that bad because it has become quiite easy to get really close to the opponent with running and dependable transportation (in all it's myriad forms). But an item from the Dark Eldar now inspires my proposed solution: Night Shields. This item is extremely useful against melta weapons, and is just about the only thing that is. Why? Because it is range modification. It hits the melta where it hurts.

If range mods were put into wider use in 40k (in specific instances), then I could start seeing a real downside to actually consider for meltaguns. Just as a for instance, what if night fighting was changed to a simple halved range on all weapons? Sure, there's not a whole lot of NF in today's games, but that's mostly because no one likes rolling spotting distances for every gunner. With a simple, fast mechanic like half range, GW could more easily include more night fighting into 6E standard missions. More upgrade items making use of that mechanic could also start showing up in various 6E codices.

Stonerhino
07-11-2010, 02:15
A hit from a meltagun against a raider (the to-hit is successful) glances on a 2 and pens on a 3+ (outside of melta range) then destroys it on a glance of 5+ and the more likely pen roll of 3+. So the lack of melta does not really mean anything. It's the reduction of 6" of range that is important.

Krovin-Rezh
07-11-2010, 05:03
I wasn't looking at the Raider when considering the night shield because my application here is as a game-wide rule of some sort. I'm just really interested in the effect the upgrade bestows, and it's effectiveness against melta weapons regardless of the vehicle it is on. Heck, range mods would work wonders on infantry units just as much as it would vehicles.

And since it is a very powerful ability to modify enemy ranges, I chose an example that would not clearly benefit one force over another, but rather whomever decides to use the rule to better effect.

Hendarion
07-11-2010, 07:15
melta rule: 2d6 pen at quarter or third range instead of half.. making it that units have to be real close to use melta effectively.
LOL, wtf? I need to go 3" close to my target? Not even my assault units get that close *after* running. Sorry, but that is really silly. And not all armies do have melters with more than 12" range.

slingersam
07-11-2010, 08:17
I could do it with BA's but thats because I have JP's. It would next to impossible for any foot slogger to even reach his opponent for the melta effect.

Askari
07-11-2010, 09:36
Not even mentioning Infernus Pistols - which would need to get in 1.5", and often will mean the entire unit gets caught in the following explosion.

dragonet111
07-11-2010, 09:53
Maybe they can make meltas rending on 4+ without range condition and forget the extra D6. It nerf the meltas quite a lot IMO but they are still rather good.

Askari
07-11-2010, 11:19
Maybe they can make meltas rending on 4+ without range condition and forget the extra D6. It nerf the meltas quite a lot IMO but they are still rather good.

Because your avatar is awesome, I'm going to ignore the slight that you think Melta even needs nerfing :p

dragonet111
07-11-2010, 11:34
I wasn't clear enough it's my fault I don't want meltas to be nerf :D It was more a thought of what can be done to nerf meltas if meltas need a nerf.

At present I like the weapons. I have some wishes like 10 points plasma pistols or Strength 10 lascanon but this just wishes:D

Bunnahabhain
07-11-2010, 11:44
I have some wishes like 10 points plasma pistols or Strength 10 lascanon but this just wishes:D

Here, have the Guards ones. They're far too widely available, and a great way to kill your officers and sergeants - if the overheats don't get you, being in assault range of a wet paper bag will...

Will trade them for 35pt APCs :D Or Storm troopers who cost less than marines. Please. Please...

Grand Master Raziel
07-11-2010, 14:34
Regarding the initial point of this thread, I believe making melta less attractive can be accomplished by giving the system armies against whom melta is relatively ineffective. We've got a couple major examples - Nids and Dark Eldar. In the case of Nids, unless you're popping Warriors, you're going to be better off with plasma than melta most of the time. Take a simple example of an approaching Carnifex. If a Fex is approaching a melta-armed unit, the melta is likely only getting one shot before winding up in close combat with the Fex. Plasma guns, on the other hand, can likely get at least 3, maybe 4, as the Fex walks his way into charge range. Even with the crazy popup Trygons and Malwocs, plasma is a little better because you get more of those vital high-strength save-ignoring shots.

In the case of Dark Eldar, melta is basically massive overkill vs their vehicles, and you really don't want to be that close to what's likely to come out of them anyway. A plasma gun can dump one from 24" away (maybe 18", if Night Shields come out as must-haves), which is way better than doing it from 12" away (or 6" in the case of Night Shields).

As far as transports go, if they get nerfed, it needs to be done with a light hand, because this edition is far better than last edition, and a big part of that is because having decent transport rules opens up the game to actual tactical maneuver. Since I've been playing, GW has yet to make any tweaks with a light hand - case in point, the shift in transport rules from 3rd ed to 4th ed, rendering them massive liabilities. Making transports liabilities again doesn't serve anyone, except maybe IG players, who could go on using their criminally cheap Chimeras as gun platforms, the only tactical shift for them being that they don't actually have units hunker down inside them all the time.



Not even mentioning Infernus Pistols - which would need to get in 1.5", and often will mean the entire unit gets caught in the following explosion.

I believe the Night Shield rule states it has no effect on weapons with a range of 6" or less.

slingersam
07-11-2010, 19:33
Not even mentioning Infernus Pistols - which would need to get in 1.5", and often will mean the entire unit gets caught in the following explosion.

Meh I'm usually an 1" from my opponent but I can still see that being annoying as our meltas just became infernous pistols without any of the bonuses.

Spyral
08-11-2010, 01:36
Mech just needs a pts hike - look at DEldar - raiders are now up in price while rhinos are down in price... I expect that transports will increase slightly.

slingersam
08-11-2010, 09:16
I think GW realized they had way to cheap transports so they are compensating for it.

Hendarion
08-11-2010, 09:21
I think GW realized they had way to cheap transports... for xenos.


so they are compensating for it.
Not really. Rhinos and Chimeras won't change up again I guess.

slingersam
08-11-2010, 14:28
When the new codices come out they will change the price. Right now IG, SW's, and BA's on a level are lucky because they have access to the cheaper rhinos. SM's will change to the probably more expensive when they gain a new codex in 6th.

Vaktathi
08-11-2010, 17:58
Raiders went up in cost...5 pts? In return they gained access to a wealth of new and useful upgrades, and its contents almost universally became either better, cheaper, or both. I wouldn't look at it as a great portent of things to come necessarily, it wasn't exactly a huge shift.

slingersam
08-11-2010, 21:21
Raiders went up in cost...5 pts? In return they gained access to a wealth of new and useful upgrades, and its contents almost universally became either better, cheaper, or both. I wouldn't look at it as a great portent of things to come necessarily, it wasn't exactly a huge shift.

I still haven't read the DE codex and have little to none of the prier codex so I wouldn't know the shift, but in any case GW may see it time to increase the points of vehicles, we just don't know yet.

AstartesWarMachine
08-11-2010, 22:36
I don't think so. Almost everything in the game has gone down in points, or gotten proportionally better.

I don't think melta needs a nerf, really. But I know GW's strategy is to massively shift the opposite direction. I wouldn't be surprised to see Assault 3 5-point plasma next edition, heh.

slingersam
08-11-2010, 23:18
I don't think so. Almost everything in the game has gone down in points, or gotten proportionally better.

I don't think melta needs a nerf, really. But I know GW's strategy is to massively shift the opposite direction. I wouldn't be surprised to see Assault 3 5-point plasma next edition, heh.

with 15pts 6" range, gets hot, meltas.

Logarithm Udgaur
09-11-2010, 23:31
Shave 5 points off Plasma weapons and they're fine, I think.
This, but as someone already said; why balance things when you can blast them to no-existence? If they are merely balanced it does not drive model sales as much as if there is one option that is clearly better than others (remembering to switch it up every edition).

MajorWesJanson
09-11-2010, 23:46
Logically, it would make sense for Melta's to have "Gets Hot," they are entirely thermal weapons after all :D