How many meltabombs can I use in assault?

[Thanos33]

True, there better in 10-man units because of said tax but that still doesn't mean you should be able to eliminate any model in the game because of a 50-point upgrade, that's ludicrous! And if you do math well, you will know that 10-melta bombs kills any Monster or Vehicle cursplat! Hell, that's more damage output then most if not all Super Heavy's. 

That's far too much power for a basic unit and not only that other unit upgrades are rendered pointless and useless because of it. It really truly makes absolutely no sense! Just watch how many 10-man units take melta-bombs and how frequently you see them. if that isn't a clear sign of what's wrong then nothing will. Yes I agree there should be a discussion on just how much they need to be nerfed for balance over the simple not yet legal proposed FAQ but that requires further play-testing as well as play-testing using 8th edition when it's released in the not so distant future. 

Trust me when it's that frequent there's a reason for it, it's an obvious choice, abusive OP option and it's simply stupid not to take them. This is the exact time when you make change, because it's better for the game. You can balance like I said above too x cost per unit, 1 model may use during assault. The unit cost should be steep though, 20-40 per unit is appropriate to have a chance to eliminate a vehicle in a single go. And 8 STR Armourbane AP 1 is elimination. Skarbrand is a 225 point model with 6 str Armourbane AP 2, a single Marine is better at killing vehicles than the greatest Bloodthirster? Hmm no, no, no! 

If you want as well you could simply change it to a unit may use 2 bombs and the bombs are Haywire and not 8 str Armourbane AP 1. At least then it's not auto-dead on a vehicle. You hit and get a glance and a chance at a pen. There has to be some balance checked here for sure and I would be in agreement with workable solution. The current meta is meh because of it. 

[SkimaskMohawk]

As your friend, I have to say you have a massive bias against multiple bombs coming out since you play Daemons and Mechanicum; no other armies take quite as much damage from melta bombs. Krak grenades are only decent against rhinos, speeders and non-praevian vorax, everything else you either need to fish for 6s too much or you're just getting stonewalled by AV 13 dreadnoughts; with 1 attack you can't even kill a vehicle in combat with a grenade because of the change to the Vehicle Damage chart.

 

Bombs certainly mulch vehicles en masse. But 1 melta bomb makes range the only real option of dealing with things like Spartans, Triaros, Leviathans, Knights and the like. That 1 bomb has a 66% chance to hit at best  and then has a 33% chance to kill a vehicle, hardly elimination compared to skarbrand (who'll cost less points). The only other equivalent is chain fists and they're equally spammable with more attacks in the Pride of the Legion lists we commonly see played in our little basement of fun. 

 

Consider against your mechanicum, how are people supposed to deal with 3 triaros effectively? Range won't cut it as long as you deploy properly. Even if you manage to get a ~200 point squad in and kill one with melta bombs, they're getting blown away by the Myrmidons inside. Those same myrmidons that can do 10 graviton blasts a turn with an effective 30" range in transport or 20 imploder shots with an even longer range.

 

The meta is honestly only salvaged by bombs and chain fists or leviathans and Atroposes and heavy transports would rampage across the board. 

[Brofist]

Word. People run melta bombs regularly, but it's almost always one or two units with the main restriction being cost. Often it's really substandard units that get them too, like breachers, and they still have to get into combat somehow. As I wrote earlier, MBs are an important part of our systems balance for the reasons SkimaskMohawk wrote above.

[Terminus]

Erm.. 66% to hit and 33% to destroy a vehicle is not great? That's over 20%. Those are very solid odds and better than most ranged options, then you take 10 of them.

 

Anyway, it's just something you have to agree on with whoever you play, although the 1/bomb has both an unpublished FAQ and the once per phase rule in the book to pull on if needed.

 

If someone super insists on playing the old way, I just try to kill those units first. Skitarii and Secutarii are coming to 30K, and all vehicles will drown in the haywire anyway.

[SkimaskMohawk]

Terminus the comparison was skarbrand does worse vs vehicles compared to the "elimination" of 1 marine with a melta bomb.

 

1 armour bane str 8 attack

 

vs.

 

9 Hatred Armour bane str 6 attacks. You should be able to hull point most vehicles out.

 

 

 

And 8 STR Armourbane AP 1 is elimination. Skarbrand is a 225 point model with 6 str Armourbane AP 2, a single Marine is better at killing vehicles than the greatest Bloodthirster

 

Also, as ever, the contention isn't on the usage of "one per phase", but on what "throw" means. Without a definition from GW or it being a keyword the argument is super valid that throwing is a shooting attack, though RAW that doesn't even hold up such is the lack of defined terms.

[Charlo]

The fact that bombs cost a lot to kit a squad with and that the unit HAS to get into CC with a vehicle and are then just free to be shot up in your next turn regardless, It's fine.

 

It makes things like robots and knights take a little more finesse to use.

[Terminus]

By finesse you mean don't go near them, lol. 25 points for a squad isn't that bad for the ability to evaporate several hundred point models in melee.

 

I mean, whatever I guess, the all grenades interpretation is factually wrong from both RAW and RAI standpoint, but still has traction because the FAQ is "only" a draft. Meanwhile other folks put stakes in the ground over a one-off comment from a designer that is disseminated from third-hand sources. But I guess the writing is on be wall, so enjoy the brief time remaining before 8th edition/published FAQ. :P

[SkimaskMohawk]

Nice terminus, still not acknowledging that "throw" doesn't actually mean anything lol

[Charlo]

Nice terminus, still not acknowledging that "throw" doesn't actually mean anything lol

 

I mean... It does and it doesn't.

 

It's only a term within it's own section of the rules and even then isn't fully described.

 

Depends how pedantic/ correct you want to be?

 

Eh. It's an iffy subject and so many people have been corrected by it and see it in different ways that we won't have an answer for a while.

 

I'm hoping if 8th does have a "big" shakeup that FW just plain release a polished up 7th for use with the heresy.

[shandwen]

Nice terminus, still not acknowledging that "throw" doesn't actually mean anything lol

Your right, because in close combat you hand the grenade to the enemy MC...

[Terminus]

Nice terminus, still not acknowledging that "throw" doesn't actually mean anything lol

Because it doesn't mean anything, as it is not a game-defined term, and GW CLEARLY AND UNQUIVOCALLY STATED WHAT THEY MEANT.  What you are not acknowledging is that your entire argument just boils down to the GW FAQ being a "draft", and essentially using a technicality to string along using an unintended advantage.

 

That's fine, and it's not worth my time to fight about it, but that is the case. Like I said, enjoy the autumn months of grenade-spam, because winter is coming.

[Guiltysparc]

 

Nice terminus, still not acknowledging that "throw" doesn't actually mean anything lol

Your right, because in close combat you hand the grenade to the enemy MC...

 

 

Well ya, you just have to wrap it up like a birthday present first.

[Terminus]

Paint them like Easter eggs.

[SkimaskMohawk]

 

Nice terminus, still not acknowledging that "throw" doesn't actually mean anything lol

Your right, because in close combat you hand the grenade to the enemy MC...

 

You're right, because you throw melta bombs in the shooting phase

[IronDrake28]

 

 

 

Nice terminus, still not acknowledging that "throw" doesn't actually mean anything lol

Your right, because in close combat you hand the grenade to the enemy MC...

You're right, because you throw melta bombs in the shooting phase

I'm fairly sure you could throw them in close combat too, try climbing the back of a walker to place a krak grenade.

 

Taking the word 'throw' and other phrases literally leads to plenty of issues in different places.

[SkimaskMohawk]

My actual point was that no one used "throw" pre-faq to define melee attacks because you would never think that way as a result of never being defined in the rules. They have now said that throw is synonymous with use.

 

On another note, I'm a bit confused about all this vehemence on people not using the rules and the emphasis that "8th will fix everything". 8th is going to suck for 30k; it took them half of 7th to even bring the game system in line. Not to mention, again, the whole drop pod/vehicle wheeling issues possibly being made core rules. 

[IronDrake28]

My actual point was that no one used "throw" pre-faq to define melee attacks because you would never think that way as a result of never being defined in the rules. They have now said that throw is synonymous with use.

 

On another note, I'm a bit confused about all this vehemence on people not using the rules and the emphasis that "8th will fix everything". 8th is going to suck for 30k; it took them half of 7th to even bring the game system in line. Not to mention, again, the whole drop pod/vehicle wheeling issues possibly being made core rules.

Just because people disagree it doesn't make it vehemence, and 8th sucking is just as likely as it not sucking. Though I tend to look forward to things as little as possible, just in case it does indeed suck.

[Terminus]

The only vehemence is from folks who want to stick to their (now confirmed by GW to be erroneous) interpretation of the rules so they can keep their stacks of melta-bombs. "Throw" is not a game term, and is interchangeable with "use".

[Thanos33]

I hear you on the bias but the opposite exists for every Marine player playing with melta-bombs as a crutch. It would be no different than say a Daemon player using Fateweaver. But Mechanicum is at least 60-70% tanks and Monsters so of course. 

I lose more Hull points and Wounds in Mechanicum to Melta-bombs than any other source x2. Probably even x5. With Daemons the damage is done from 2 sources Volkites which are really only good against Daemons and militia and melta-bombs. 

But that doesn't less legitimize the argument that multiple high strength Armourbane attacks are simply too good. And having a base unit with a delivery system for the second most powerful weapon in the game - Armourbane (first being D weapons) is just absurd. It's mostly the combination of not only the Armourbane but the 8 strength and AP 1 which makes it absurd. If it was 5 strength AP 2 Armourbane such as with the Screamer power it would be more sensible and you would be glancing a lot of smaller vehicles to death, still putting HP's on Dreads and medium tanks and possibly putting HP's on larger things with good rolls.
 

[Brofist]

Honestly this whole thread is a head scratcher for me. Every group I've played with just runs things the way it's always been, the podcasts I listen to seem in agreement, and it was never a point of discussion. Meanwhile here it's a big deal and people are really entrenched in their opinions.

 

I feel the bigger point here is that, when the new edition comes out, it's going to :cuss our game up. The FAQ is definitely written with 40k in mind and we're only going to have more of these when the new one rolls out. I dread it, personally.

[Galron]

Throw is a shooting attack. Meltabombs are placed in close combat. Last I heard you couldn't actually throw melta bombs. A Meltabomb is similar to modern day thermite grenades but larger and hotter. They must be placed were you want them placed and then set off. As to the rules, until the faq is made part of the rule book, I will argue if I pay for a full squad to have melta bombs, the whole squad gets to use them in close combat. People will argue this and if they argue too much I will walk away, but I didn't pay x points for my whole squad to have them to only have one dude place the bombs.

 

Drop pod doors thankfully in my group can remain glued shut and still work. They are not part of the hull and you can shot through a pod at someone on the other side even when glued shut. If they open then there is no reason enemy troops cant walk on them.

 

Solutions:

Play without the experimental FAQ.

Play with the experimental FAQ.

Talk over which parts of the experimental FAQ you and your opponent will use.

Make two separate lists one for using the experimental FAQ and one for not using depending on if you are playing an a$$ that demands it and you really want to get a game in. I would make the with FAQ list as broken as you can in retaliation for having to deal with this person.

[Terminus]

You are making up game terms to serve your argument. Unlike pods where GW seems to have invented a new stupid rule (which thankfully doesn't affect 30k because we have different pods), their response to the meltabomb question was "uh read the rule book".

 

Anyway, it's just a thing to discuss before a game. If you're labeling someone an ass because they don't see things the same way you do, news flash, you are the ass.

[Ishagu]

I'm fully behind the FAQ that clarifies the already existing rule in the book, as I've said many times.

 

This is not an Errata but a mere clarification.

 

This makes typically vulnerable units like Dreads and some Tanks from getting punked in one round of combat by any infantry squad.

[Lysere]

I'm fully behind the FAQ that clarifies the already existing rule in the book, as I've said many times.

 

This is not an Errata but a mere clarification.

 

This makes typically vulnerable units like Dreads and some Tanks from getting punked in one round of combat by any infantry squad.

It really is just a clarification too, I'm one of those people who really needed it though because I never even noticed it changed. Now walkers and knights aren't getting assaulted by firewarriors hoping to do some damage with haywire grenades.

 

It's the same as the change that allows attacks to carry in and out of a challenge. I never noticed the change until someone pointed it out.

 

In the case of whole squads having to pay for upgrades they really can't make use of either don't take them, or ask if it's alright to take on just some of them to save points because you're playing an army that is stuck with the all or nothing approach on large squads.

[Ishagu]

Lol my Imperial Knight WAS actually killed in close combat by the very same Fire Warriors. That's madness