Fixing Melta

[Xenith]

I realised recently that my Meltaguns just weren't doing much against vehicles. In my recent game v knights, I fired 9 inferno pistols from 2" away and didnt do a single point of damage - they couldn't get past the 4+ to wound T8*.

 

That's when I had the thought that from 3rd - 7th ed, when melta got closer, it always received a boost to the chance to damage a tank, and also a boost to the damage done to the tank afterwards. Right now, melta has lost the boost to damage the tank and we see stuff like multimeltas 1" way from a chaos land raider needing a 5+ to do anything.

 

I'd propose that instead of melta weapons getting +2 damage when within half range, they get double strength in place of the +2D, or even in addition to if we think meltas are in a bad place right now.

 

GW gave Eldar fire dragons, who traditionally had weapons equivalent to the standard imperial meltagun, both S9 and a flat D6+2 damage at 12", and they still don't see the table, so one could argue that double S and D6+2 damage at half range would be fine.

 

This doesn;t help with the overt lethality of the game at the moment though. Thoughts? Are they ok as they are, or underpowered?

 

*This is an example of bad rolling, keep reading to get to the point of the post.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Xenith

[Closet Skeleton]

I've played against fire dragons so they do see the table. If 9 inferno pistols fail to harm a knight that's just bad luck. I've had games where Eradicators were completely useless, doesn't make that the whole story.

[Karhedron]

Given the number of eradicators and multi-meltas in most lists, I don't think Meltas a underpowered per-se. However T8 targets do pose a particular problem for armies that rely on melta for their anti-tank and T9 targets (like Land Riaders and Rogal Dorns) will be even more problematic.

 

Fire Dragons don't see much play but that is not because melta is bad, it is because they are out-performed in pretty much every way by Wraithguard who fulfil the same role while being incredibly tough. 

 

In some ways I see this as being acceptable because making any weapon an auto-choice is not a good idea. I like the feel that melta is powerful but struggles against certain targets. This leaves an opening for other anti-tank weapons that are stronger than S8 such as Lascannons or even the Repulsor Executioner and even the Gladiator Lancer where you have weapons capable of wounding T9 targets on a 3+.

 

I see things like Knight armies as being a kind of gate-keeper against spamming meltas and encouraging diversity of anti-tank weapons.

[Emperor Ming]

Most old imperial weapons need a tune up now, flamer, lascannons, meltaguns, autocannons etc

 

Compared to the tuned up 9th stuff, these old venerable weapons are just a bit crap now

[MARK0SIAN]

The problem with making melta better (excluding the fact that tanks already have a very short life expectancy) is that it’s a very easy weapon to spam. Even the OP states he had 9 inferno pistols against one target. They were unlucky to roll that badly that not a single one got through but what if they’d all got through? It’d probably be a dead knight. 
 

I think melta needs that S8 compromise given how abundant it can be. Otherwise I think you’d see vehicles just disappear from lists altogether.

[Craig]

5 minutes ago, MARK0SIAN said:

The problem with making melta better (excluding the fact that tanks already have a very short life expectancy) is that it’s a very easy weapon to spam. Even the OP states he had 9 inferno pistols against one target. They were unlucky to roll that badly that not a single one got through but what if they’d all got through? It’d probably be a dead knight. 
 

I think melta needs that S8 compromise given how abundant it can be. Otherwise I think you’d see vehicles just disappear from lists altogether.

I agree with this. You could easily see the flip side of the original post being: 'My opponent brought 9 melta pistols to my knight and killed it turn one, meltas need to be toned down.' the only difference would have been if the op had rolled above average rather than below average as he did.

[Xenith]

Yea, the example I give above is very obviously flawed and a niche case, it was more that thinking about this made me realise that 3-7th ed, and 8/9th ed approach melta in very different ways:

 

3-7th = The closer you get, the more likely to cause at least some damage to a vehicle

8/9th = The closer you get, the more damage you will inflict if you manage to wound. 

 

Melta was supposed to be the premier anti tank weapon in the Imperium, however it now is less reliable in wounding tanks in the first place. 

 

On the other hand, tanks, other than knights, are in a bad place right now in general, which is a different issue in itself, so maybe melta doesn't need to be tweaked. 

Edited March 16, 2023 by Xenith

[WatchCaptainNavar]

I’ve had a lot of melta barely making a scratch recently, but outside of how swingy d6 damage is I think a bigger problem especially with the current top meta armies is the amount of wound and damage mitigation out there currently. 

armies can be built around mass 4+ invulnerable saves that can then be boosted with effects such as trans hitman and human, negative modifiers, no rerolls or untargatable. This all adds up to a lot of what should be powerful weapons that aren’t very abundant in an army bouncing a lot.

 

my recent games have been against deamons, custodes and deathwing and for a large chunk of those games strength and ap felt pointless to the point where an opponent is more worried about the volume of fire coming out of a gladiator reaper, than fewer but I’m theory more dangerous shots coming from the heavy melta rifles of eradicators. with quantity having taken on a quality all of its own when fishing for wounds due to the high strength and ap weapons having been neutered to the same wounding roll as the onslaught Gatling cannons.

 

the game has taken on a very all or nothing aspect to me, it’s rock paper scissors where the weapons are either going to destroy what they’re pointed at or are going to bounce round after round, with no middle ground as a lot of the older codex’s don’t really have a response to a lot of the optimised units in the books that have come out in the second half of 9th.

 

my hope is we’ll see a balance back to reduce the toughness and saves to bring the game back into balance, but my fear is that we’re just going to see more auto wound on hit and ignore invulnerable / deamon saves abilities in  10th as the codexes come round again. especially if they want to keep units so cheap in points to encourage product sales.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

This seems like a hilarious post.

hasn’t melta been super powerful all edition? 
You can’t account for you getting bad rolls and them getting good roles, but off the top of my head aren’t all melta weapons ap-3 removing the opportunity for a knight to save? And T8 means you should be wounding on a 4+ which is very doable…

 

getting closer does do more damage…between 3 and 8 damage compared to between 1 and 6 damage…that minimum damage boost is massive.

 

15 hours ago, WatchCaptainNavar said:

I’ve had a lot of melta barely making a scratch recently, but outside of how swingy d6 damage is I think a bigger problem especially with the current top meta armies is the amount of wound and damage mitigation out there currently. 

armies can be built around mass 4+ invulnerable saves that can then be boosted with effects such as trans hitman and human, negative modifiers, no rerolls or untargatable. This all adds up to a lot of what should be powerful weapons that aren’t very abundant in an army bouncing a lot.

 

my recent games have been against deamons, custodes and deathwing and for a large chunk of those games strength and ap felt pointless to the point where an opponent is more worried about the volume of fire coming out of a gladiator reaper, than fewer but I’m theory more dangerous shots coming from the heavy melta rifles of eradicators. with quantity having taken on a quality all of its own when fishing for wounds due to the high strength and ap weapons having been neutered to the same wounding roll as the onslaught Gatling cannons.

 

the game has taken on a very all or nothing aspect to me, it’s rock paper scissors where the weapons are either going to destroy what they’re pointed at or are going to bounce round after round, with no middle ground as a lot of the older codex’s don’t really have a response to a lot of the optimised units in the books that have come out in the second half of 9th.

 

my hope is we’ll see a balance back to reduce the toughness and saves to bring the game back into balance, but my fear is that we’re just going to see more auto wound on hit and ignore invulnerable / deamon saves abilities in  10th as the codexes come round again. especially if they want to keep units so cheap in points to encourage product sales.

So now suddenly the game isn’t lethal enough?

that’s a first

Edited March 16, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Xenith]

13 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

This seems like a hilarious post.

hasn’t melta been super powerful all edition? 
You can’t account for you getting bad rolls and them getting good roles, but off the top of my head aren’t all melta weapons ap-3 removing the opportunity for a knight to save? And T8 means you should be wounding on a 4+ which is very doable…

 

To address your points:

You're welcome; Multimeltas were strong at the start, then have gotten weaker as other weapons have gotten stronger, and other things have gotten tougher; I did account for them, but my point is that short range melta should, by previous editions, be having fewer bad rolls; wounding on a 4+ is a 50/50 chance. 

 

The crux of the post is, that for 16 years or more, melta made it easier to do damage if it got close. A meltagun basically autopenned a rhino, and penned a land raider on a 7 on 2d6, an average or better roll. Now a meltagun has gone from a 72% chance of doing at least 1HP/1W damage to a AV14/T9 land raider to 33%.

 

The question is:

Should melta be a near guaranteed chance to damage the tank at short range, as it used to be, or should it be less likely to damage the tank, but the damage is catastrophic if it does?

Edited March 17, 2023 by Xenith

[Closet Skeleton]

23 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

Melta was supposed to be the premier anti tank weapon in the Imperium, however it now is less reliable in wounding tanks in the first place.

 

Was it though? Melta was supposed to be a close range weapon, but krak missiles and lascannons were the main anti-tank weapon for infantry while the 'real' anti-tank guns were vanquisher battle cannons and laser destroyers (both the quad ones on rapiers and the big single barreled one on the Destroyer tank). Before the Banewolf was introduced in 5th ed the only tank with a main melta weapon were transports and really big and powerful meltas didn't exist until 7th ed brought out the expanded Knight options.

 

If anything melta was innacurately over powered from 5th to 7th ed. Close range weapons on flying chassis are also over-powered when all the terrain set up is focused on making sure first turn alpha strikes aren't decisive.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Closet Skeleton

[Redcomet]

Sooo a super tough target is hard to take down unless you use the really big guns… and this is now wrong? Haven’t we been complaining that 9th is too killy? 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 3/17/2023 at 8:54 AM, Xenith said:

 

To address your points:

You're welcome; Multimeltas were strong at the start, then have gotten weaker as other weapons have gotten stronger, and other things have gotten tougher; I did account for them, but my point is that short range melta should, by previous editions, be having fewer bad rolls; wounding on a 4+ is a 50/50 chance. 

 

The crux of the post is, that for 16 years or more, melta made it easier to do damage if it got close. A meltagun basically autopenned a rhino, and penned a land raider on a 7 on 2d6, an average or better roll. Now a meltagun has gone from a 72% chance of doing at least 1HP/1W damage to a AV14/T9 land raider to 33%.

 

The question is:

Should melta be a near guaranteed chance to damage the tank at short range, as it used to be, or should it be less likely to damage the tank, but the damage is catastrophic if it does?

And for 20ish years we had initiative, templates and armor facings.

things change.

 

there’s nothing wrong with melta. They’re perfectly fine for their role.

a 50/50 chance to wound heavy armor is pretty damn good.

it makes no sense to me that you want a stronger melta profile.

 

On 3/17/2023 at 1:11 PM, Redcomet said:

Sooo a super tough target is hard to take down unless you use the really big guns… and this is now wrong? Haven’t we been complaining that 9th is too killy? 

He’s just mad he rolled poorly and it worked out poorly for him in the end.

 

I understand the frustration as I feel that way about my SG and DC. I have not managed to get the results I ‘should’ get out of them. 

[Xenith]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

He’s just mad he rolled poorly and it worked out poorly for him in the end.

 

Not mad, particularly, just questioning whether melta functions in the game in the way it should in the background. 

 

3 hours ago, Redcomet said:

Sooo a super tough target is hard to take down unless you use the really big guns… and this is now wrong? Haven’t we been complaining that 9th is too killy? 

 

I've addressed this in 2-3 posts  and you seem to have missed the points - should melta be guaranteed to do some damage at very close range, or should it have a lower chance of doing much more damage, which is as it is now? 

[Karhedron]

One thing to remember is that in previous editions, melta was rarer and harder to bring to bear on the target. Most squads could take only 1 or 2 melta weapons at most. There were some exceptions but they tended to be fragile like Land Speeders and Attack bikes. We did not really have squads loaded with the amount of melta that we can field now.  I think this why individual melta shots are less powerful than they used to be, it is much easier to take them in large quantities.

 

We are also seeing a rebalancing against the prevalence of meltas. In 8th edition, plasma spam was everywhere with high RoF 2D weapons being the best choice a lot of the time. The result was a lot of units getting the -1 Damage rule to act as gatekeepers and give other heavy weapons a chance to shine. 9th edition buffed meltas and multimeltas in particular to the extent that most tanks became and endangered species. Now we are seeing a reaction to that with Invulnerable saves and T8/9 starting to become more common.

 

The wheel turns and 10th edition will likely bring a new hotness.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

On 3/17/2023 at 4:16 PM, Xenith said:

 

Not mad, particularly, just questioning whether melta functions in the game in the way it should in the background. 

 

 

I've addressed this in 2-3 posts  and you seem to have missed the points - should melta be guaranteed to do some damage at very close range, or should it have a lower chance of doing much more damage, which is as it is now? 

No. No weapon should be guaranteed to do some damage to the toughest targets in the game, especially not when the game is already so lethal.

 

On 3/17/2023 at 5:00 PM, Karhedron said:

One thing to remember is that in previous editions, melta was rarer and harder to bring to bear on the target. Most squads could take only 1 or 2 melta weapons at most. There were some exceptions but they tended to be fragile like Land Speeders and Attack bikes. We did not really have squads loaded with the amount of melta that we can field now.  I think this why individual melta shots are less powerful than they used to be, it is much easier to take them in large quantities.

 

We are also seeing a rebalancing against the prevalence of meltas. In 8th edition, plasma spam was everywhere with high RoF 2D weapons being the best choice a lot of the time. The result was a lot of units getting the -1 Damage rule to act as gatekeepers and give other heavy weapons a chance to shine. 9th edition buffed meltas and multimeltas in particular to the extent that most tanks became and endangered species. Now we are seeing a reaction to that with Invulnerable saves and T8/9 starting to become more common.

 

The wheel turns and 10th edition will likely bring a new hotness.

2 melta weapons per squad isn’t rare when those squads are troops choices imho

 

a basic small marine army at most editions pre-primaris could take plenty of melta.

 

captain-combi-melta

tac squad- melta, multimelta 

tac squad melta, multimelta 

dreadnought- multimelta

Devastators-4MMs

RAS-2 meltas

6 units

12 meltas wouldn’t call that rare.

 

if the game were less lethal towards vehicles as a whole right now, i'd be fine with buffing melta a bit, but as it stands now, few people take tanks because they die so easily, meaning any buff to melta will make vehicles ride the bench even more.

 

[Firedrake Cordova]

I suppose an alternative approach to boosting the strength at short range would be to grant re-rolls to wound against vehicles when at short range?

 

On 3/16/2023 at 1:08 PM, MARK0SIAN said:

They were unlucky to roll that badly that not a single one got through 

My gut reaction was that this roll was an absolute howler, but then I ran the maths - assuming that a melta weapon is being wielded by a standard space marine against a T8 target with a 4+ save (i.e. I'm assuming the use of "rotate ion shields"), the probability of that shot causing damage is 1 in 6 (2/3 * 1/2 * 1/2). If we expand that to 9 shots, there's a 19%  (1-in-5) chance of all 9 failing to cause damage, i.e. either missing, failing to wound, or being saved (5/6^9). If the Knight was not using rotate ion shields, then the probability of all 9 failing to cause damage drops to 10%.

 

5 hours ago, Closet Skeleton said:

Was it though?

As back far as I can remember (2nd Ed), it used to be described as the most potent (albeit short-ranged) infantry-portable anti-tank weapon the Imperium had, capable of slicing through structures and tanks with ease.  Back in 2nd Edition, a lascannon hit to the hull of a Predator or Land Raider would on-average not cause damage, whereas the same hit from a multi-melta would on-average penetrate.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

19 minutes ago, Firedrake Cordova said:

I suppose an alternative approach to boosting the strength at short range would be to grant re-rolls to wound against vehicles when at short range?

 

My gut reaction was that this roll was an absolute howler, but then I ran the maths - assuming that a melta weapon is being wielded by a standard space marine against a T8 target with a 4+ save (i.e. I'm assuming the use of "rotate ion shields"), the probability of that shot causing damage is 1 in 6 (2/3 * 1/2 * 1/2). If we expand that to 9 shots, there's a 19%  (1-in-5) chance of all 9 failing to cause damage, i.e. either missing, failing to wound, or being saved (5/6^9). If the Knight was not using rotate ion shields, then the probability of all 9 failing to cause damage drops to 10%.

 

As back far as I can remember (2nd Ed), it used to be described as the most potent (albeit short-ranged) infantry-portable anti-tank weapon the Imperium had, capable of slicing through structures and tanks with ease.  Back in 2nd Edition, a lascannon hit to the hull of a Predator or Land Raider would on-average not cause damage, whereas the same hit from a multi-melta would on-average penetrate.

So now what are the chances of everything getting through and everything dealing max damage?

what are the chances of everything getting through and dealing middle of the road damage(3.5 damage per shot)

what are the chances of everything getting through and doing minimum damage?

if any of those chances is equal to or greater than 19% I think it’s just fine, especially if the first two are any where near 19%

 

even that middle option is nuking a knight castellan in a single round of shooting if it happens.

Edited March 17, 2023 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[Karhedron]

Against a Knight, the odds of a single melta shot hitting, wounding and getting past the invulnerable save is 22% (assuming they have not rotated their ion shield).

 

Xenith's 9 shots should result in 2 rolls for damage on average.  That would be 7 wounds or 11 if within half range. That is almost enough to bracket a Questoris or kill an Armiger. 

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

If T9 becomes more common in 10th I can accept a slight buff to meltas.

something like a base D6+1 damage and reroll wounds within half range.

or S9 reroll wounds at half range

Or keep the current melta rule and S9

 

If GW goes to T10 in 10th I think the only weapons that should be T10 are LoW main weapons, and LoW should be the only T10 targets and be limited to 1 per army.(so like 1 really tough knight in knight army)

[Firedrake Cordova]

15 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

So now what are the chances of everything getting through and everything dealing max damage?

what are the chances of everything getting through and dealing middle of the road damage(3.5 damage per shot)

what are the chances of everything getting through and doing minimum damage?

All of those events are analogous (all shots being unsaved and a specific single result on the damage roll) - the probability of a single shot doing hitting, wounding, not being saved, and scoring a single specified result on the damage roll is 2.8% assuming rotated shields, or 3.7% if not. The odds of this happening for all 9 shots is 0%.

 

If you meant "at least", then the odds of a single shot hitting, wounding, and not being saved is 16% or "1-in-6" (2/3 * 1/2 * 1/2) if the Knight had rotated it's ion shields, or 22% or "2 in 9" (2/3 * 1/2 * 2/3) if it hadn't. The odds of this happening for all 9 shots is therefore 0% (0.22^9). The odds of a that, plus scoring a 4-6 on the damage die is half of that again.

 

(obviously assuming I haven't messed up the maths here)

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Firedrake Cordova
Adding disclaimer :)

[WatchCaptainNavar]

It’s a game wide issue of lethality, survivability  and codex creep.

 

multi meltas and heavy melta rifles represent some of the best heavy weapons available to marines currently and as others have pointed out replaced plasma which held a similar position in 8th

 

to me, as I was trying to get at in my last post the traditional anti tank weapons melta, las cannons and krak missiles have been left behind by the newer data sheets across several armies and rules. The difference between weapons has noticeably lowered in a 2k game where high volume shot weapons with medium strength and ap can deliver much the same results as the old anti tank weapons and as 9th has moved on later codexes have seemingly tried to return that definition by giving weapons like the battle cannon fixed minimums with more shots at dice + X and fixed damage. Which the older books have no answer to hence the marine points drop and weapon / unit spam to be effective, as one or two hammerheads or leman russ vanquishers can deliver more effective anti tank than several armies get for a heavier investment.

 

another problem unique to inferno pistols and melta guns is that 9th has given some factions a new short range with weapons like heavy bolt pistols now being range 18 meaning the traditional melta gun infantry is more likely to get shot before they get into range themselves.

 

then as I mentioned last time there are armies that go around the traditional anti tank weapons both defending and attacking, with mortal wound output lists offering a good alternative to needing heavy weapons unless there is a lot of screening and armies that have good invuns, deamon saves or transhuman / hitman lowering the effectiveness of low shot high damage and ap weapons.

 

last night at our local club I watched a guard tank and infantry list demolish a fast eldar one. The output of a rogal dorn and 5 russes backed up by the new lord solar, infantry to play the objectives and kasserkin to do there mortal wound bomb was oppressive, it was over after the guard players second turn. So although for some factions tanks are dead, in others they are cheap, tough and dangerous.

 

To go back to this threads knight example, I’m pretty sure my current marine list which does have the sternguard multi melta spam along with 6 eradicators and a kratos could happily kill a knight a turn, but in my list tinkering I seem to be stuck in an all or nothing situation where there is no substitute for a multi melta or heavy melta rifle which can keep up with my local meta.
However to look broader at the issue imperial knights are in a bad place, they’re toughness 8 with a 3+/5+ invun against shooting that can be boosted with a strat and questoris chassis doesn’t bring much shooting or melee for around 400 to 450 points. with a codex built around 3 model types with different load outs.

Where as locally our deamon players run a list that shares a lot of similarities with a knight one being based around 3 big models. Normally it’s 3 greater deamons typically belekor, blood thirsters, lord of change or their named character equivalents and depending on which deamon it is they all have a 4+ deamon save or better against shooting, they’re powerful psychics, can be given wound cap relics, fly and belakor has his hit, wound and damage mitigation. While they don’t have the firepower of a knight they’re more mobile, have a lot of psychic potential and hit like a brick in melee while being equal or less points than our knights with 8 less wounds but access to a heal. In addition deamons have more units to chose from so can fill out the list with flamers, khorne infantry or dogs and good objective holders. So I’m usually lucky to cripple a greater deamon in turn and blood thirster deep striking into charge range is problem to be accounted for in the early game and having to plan for rooting out beasts of nurgle who are sat out of LoS on backfield objectives in the late game. 
so in addition to the lethality problem some codex’s are broad and deep where they can adapt to the meta / missions others are narrow and shallow being stuck the moment the meta doesn’t suit them. I don’t know how GW answer this problem as the game is faction heavy already and with votann and world eaters being added to the line up it feels like the small & underselling factions are doomed to the occasional special character to go with a special event or have brief spikes of popularity depending on if souping was allowed by the rules for a period.

 

my suspicion is that some of our traditional anti tank like the melta gun won’t see much improvement as GW try’s to direct us towards there primaris or new model equivalents. The only reason I’m swimming in multi meltas at the moment is thanks to the new Horus heresy mk6 weapon packs otherwise they wouldn’t be in my list at 2 per devestator squad.
I increasingly think what we’ll see with the 10th codexes is the current old codex’s will be altered with some of the newer anti tank options getting the hammerhead / vanquisher treatment and one of the custom sub-faction abilities being the roll out of 6s to hit autowound. 
One of the ideas out of our gaming group yesterday was to get rid of degrading statlines as it is one of the things that hampers the effectiveness of tanks / monsters and transports when they can often be harder to get out of LoS on current boards while they’ll still die just as quickly with how lethal the game is.

 

[Karhedron]

On 3/18/2023 at 11:50 AM, WatchCaptainNavar said:

I increasingly think what we’ll see with the 10th codexes is the current old codex’s will be altered with some of the newer anti tank options getting the hammerhead / vanquisher treatment

 

The Gladiator Lancer and/or Respulsor Executioner would be ideal candidates for be buffed into Tank Destroyers as they are both a bit lacklustre at the moment.

[Guest Triszin]

Could also give melta -1 to hit when outside if half range.

(This the. Helps make the identity of the weapon a close range weapon)

In addition to modification to /increasing the punch ability at close range

[Helias_Tancred]

Going into 10th I certainly hope they tune down all the big AP.

 

But Melta weapons should still be the best AP weapon types out there. I also prefer the bonus to shooting at half range, the potential increased unit risk helps offset that melta weapons, shot for shot, are the strongest (next to a lascannon).