Wh40k 10th Edition Combi-weapons in 10th

[Captain Idaho]

I can see this being a point of contention for many players so rather than take things off subject or take over topics elsewhere, I thought I'd raise it in its own thread.

 

So combi weapons seem... lost. Generic weapons that just don't have the feel of something they should have in a Marines army. They hit on 1 less than normal, have a low strength, single point of damage but on a 50-50 roll they'll cause a single Mortal wound on an infantry model.

 

Just doesn't seem worth it really. Even a unit of 10 Sternguard all with combi weapons will rapid fire and manage 5 Mortal Wounds total. That's pretty underwhelming for 10 elite dudes, when you could invest in Terminators, or Devastators, or Hellblasters and do more damage/be tougher.

 

For characters it might be worth a single cheeky Mortal Wound but then that's not going to change any games either.

 

Worst of all though, is the theme of the weapons just... sucks. Since when did a combi-melta or flamer operate like that? Someone else on the forum referred to them as anemic and I think that's spot on in description.

 

Potential solutions? More shots, better damage characteristics (2 or 3) or just give them a plasma, melta and flamer?

 

I mean, the latter seems like an obvious solution. 

[Kallas]

16 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

Worst of all though, is the theme of the weapons just... sucks. Since when did a combi-melta or flamer operate like that?

This is the bit that irks me. Combi-weapons aren't difficult to understand, conceptually or ruleswise. The 10e profile is just bland and kind of crap.

[apologist]

Reminds me of what happened to Space Marine assault squads in the change from 2nd to 3rd. As there, a wide range of options (everything from stub pistols and hand flamers to power axes and power fists) was de-cluttered to 'bolt pistol and close combat weapons'. This change did speed things up a great deal – mainly by streamlining the number of dice rolls.

 

While the games are very different, so the situations aren't directly comparable, I think the principle of abstraction is a welcome change at the scale 40k is played now. It also very much fits the stated aim of 'simplification', so was perhaps inevitable.

 

It's also similar to how the huge range of ork weapons was cut down into fewer, broader, weapon archetypes in 3rd.

 

+++

Ultimately, I think this is a casualty of intent versus use. I think GW pictured units with multiple combi-weapons (e.g. Sternguard, Chaos Terminators) as representing chosen warriors having their own individual personalised choice. In practice, however, players tended to buy repeats of one weapon, effectively making these (background-wise, super-versatile and individualistic) units into Space Marine Aspect Warriors.

 

Streamlining the options into a single weapon might be GW's way of encouraging players simply to tag on the bits they like to their models. Personally, I'm quietly happy with the change in principle if it means fewer 'three-man suicide squads' of Chaos Terminators (and similar), which always felt a bit jarring.

 

+++

With that said, I think the specifics of the stats of the revised combi-weapon, however, is a separate matter – and here I can absolutely see why people would be disappointed. Veterans and HQs that have been used to being a genuine threat to all manner of enemies (effectively being super-Tactical squads), have now got a fairly anaemic weapon.

[BitsHammer]

Have we seen the profile on a models outside of the two Terminator characters? If not I suspect those might be rules to represent specific combi weapons.

It's an interesting profile, though not one I fully understand at this point in time.

[Tokugawa]

Death of combi-melta impact some old marine units(e.g. some wolves units with more than 1 sergeant) a lot. Primaris/new marine units are affected less or not affected at all.

 

The situation is self-explaining, right?...

 

Sternguard, as just converted to primaris, would receive a different named combi-weapon, possibe better profile(e.g. assault 2, AP-1) but similar concept.

[Ammonius]

I was thinking that we are seeing an abbreviated entry for the sake of previews, but with the repeat, I'm not so sure.

[40k_fan]

I really hope they add something, anything other than just generic 'combi-weapon' whatever happened to 'combi-flamer' or 'combi-melta' or even 'combi-grenade launcher'

all of those added something new, they were actually combinations, they feel like two radically different types of weapons both present on one platform, this just feels like maximum soulless genericosity for the sake of... who knows. When 10e comes to my table, I'll probably just make some house rule that makes them work more how they used to for each different weapon model lol

Edited May 10, 2023 by 40k_fan2

[Blindhamster]

It’s still possible we see different profiles for combi weapons on some units, but we will have to see.

[Captain Idaho]

So far we've seen 3 separate datasheets and they've all had the same stats for Combi-weapons, so I'm not holding out hope.

[jaxom]

What if we're just seeing the bolter side of the combi-weapon in the unit profile and elsewhere is a thing saying to use the stats from the Space Marine Armoury for the other part of the weapon? That would explain the 4+ and 3+ to hit (as the current combi-weapon have -1 to hit when shooting both weapons) and the A1 Rapid Fire 1. Hope springs eternal and all that, but then it would mean character combi-weapons are loaded with the same specialist ammunition as Sternguard bolters. Looking at the new Sternguard, only two of them have combi-weapons (1 melta and 1 plasma). The 'normal' bolters could be A1 RF1 with the same special properties (which when I first saw it thought represented Hellfire rounds). So if you want to fire the Sternguard, two 'bolter' shots are hitting on 4+, but all the 'bolter' shots are the same strength/properties/AP which is what really matters for comparing to another unit, and then you also get to fire BS4+ melta and plasma?

[Blindhamster]

27 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

So far we've seen 3 separate datasheets and they've all had the same stats for Combi-weapons, so I'm not holding out hope.

Three? One on terminator captain, one on terminator librarian, what was the other?

 

also, we saw power weapons and various other things lumped together on units, then  be more granular on those characters, so it’s possible that there could be differences somewhere 

[ZeroWolf]

Maybe they're talking about the combat patrol captain datasheet?

[Karhedron]

Cutting down the number of weapon types you can take in a unit reduces the number of separate batches of dice you need to roll. 

[Captain Idaho]

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

Three? One on terminator captain, one on terminator librarian, what was the other?

 

also, we saw power weapons and various other things lumped together on units, then  be more granular on those characters, so it’s possible that there could be differences somewhere 

 

I'm actually alright with power weapons being single profile because we still have Lightning Claws, Power Fists and the like.

 

No there's only 2 combi weapons. But looking at the most likely scenario, balance of probability and all that, it's likely the combi weapon profile will be the same for everything. There's no evidence otherwise.

[Noserenda]

We know weapons vary by datasheet, having only seen characters so far, we have literally no idea how combi weapons will be implemented on units, so maybe hold out on the panic? :D 

Production wise i can see why they wouldnt want big variety on character combi weapons as it suddenly means every character needs a bunch more sprue space if they put a combi weapon on there. That is less of an issue with a squad as they have a lot more sprue space to use.

[Blindhamster]

That’s what I mean though, look at the legionnaires, they don’t have a distinct fist profile, it’s merged with “heavy melee”, so they’re clearly fine merging things in some instances, and not in others.

[Jolemai]

Punted to Amicus as this thread is of interest to multiple factions.

[burningsky25]

10 hours ago, Captain Idaho said:

Worst of all though, is the theme of the weapons just... sucks. Since when did a combi-melta or flamer operate like that? Someone else on the forum referred to them as anemic and I think that's spot on in description.

 

Potential solutions? More shots, better damage characteristics (2 or 3) or just give them a plasma, melta and flamer?

 

I mean, the latter seems like an obvious solution. 

 

Spot on here.  I think the biggest flaw with the approach overall (despite the other advantages of streamlining rolls, simplifying modelling, simplifying profiles, etc) is that it's such a step back for the visual clarity of the game; why does what looks exactly like a flamer do nothing akin to any other flamer? And for the melta, and plasma, grav, etc, to some differing extents.  I think it's understandably incongruous on that alone for people familiar with the design language of marines.

 

9 hours ago, apologist said:

Ultimately, I think this is a casualty of intent versus use. I think GW pictured units with multiple combi-weapons (e.g. Sternguard, Chaos Terminators) as representing chosen warriors having their own individual personalised choice. In practice, however, players tended to buy repeats of one weapon, effectively making these (background-wise, super-versatile and individualistic) units into Space Marine Aspect Warriors.

 

I think you're pretty much spot on here.  People use them in a way not expected or intended, and it also means that it impedes on a design space of specialization that GW is trying to make use of.  I think another problem is that they're generally just as good as a full on special weapon, despite being significantly more available than dedicated special weapons.  BUT, the only way to make them less appealing than their full counterparts is to . . have an adjusted profile.  Yup, more complexity.  

 

In general I think 'one-use' was a good reflection of this, but at the same time it wasn't always a meaningful drawback either if the unit was only ever expected to live for a single round.  I think there's a unique opportunity in 10th to just make weapon adjusted BS of -1 for combi portion, and less shots for flamer, and call it a day but . . . that's not the choice they went with.  

 

As always, working with multiple competing values/design constraints isn't easy.  I find this solution incongruous, but it's understandable why they landed here.

 

  

1 hour ago, Noserenda said:

Production wise i can see why they wouldnt want big variety on character combi weapons as it suddenly means every character needs a bunch more sprue space if they put a combi weapon on there. That is less of an issue with a squad as they have a lot more sprue space to use.

 

1 hour ago, Blindhamster said:

That’s what I mean though, look at the legionnaires, they don’t have a distinct fist profile, it’s merged with “heavy melee”, so they’re clearly fine merging things in some instances, and not in others.

 

I think this could be a reasonable explanation for differentiating character-combi and squad-combi, even though ultimately I think it's quite unlikely.  Specifically to your point Blindhamster, I think it could be the case that they want to limit the lethality available to characters by limiting access to pseudo special weapons, but would otherwise be unconcerned with squads having those same tools.  Just a possibility.  Time will tell!

Edited May 10, 2023 by burningsky25

[burningsky25]

Edit: Didn't mean to double post.

Edited May 10, 2023 by burningsky25

[Sea Creature]

The rules for combi weapons hugely disappoint and do not catch the spirit of the weapon.

[Arikel]

I was actually quite surprised that they changed combi weapons from one shot to just a full on special weapon with attached bolter in 9th. It seemed a bit much. However I don’t really like this new change they appear to be going with in 10th either as it really doesn’t mimic what a combiweapon should do.

 

I can see removing the one shot for less book keeping, but would rather they nerf the combi weapon profile a bit then what they decided to go with in 10th. E.G. the flamer part of a combi weapon could have hand flamer stats, and plasma, grav, and melta options could have lower str and/or damage then their full size equivalents. Still useful, but not as good as having the real version.

[Captain Idaho]

I think even D2 would help combi weapons, or if they had Anti-Infantry and 5+ Anti-tank they'd at least have some utility.

[Urauloth]

I get why they'd do this, but I don't like it. It's always going to bug me that flame and plasma combi-weapons do the same thing now (how are you hitting those guys at 24" with your flame weapon, brother? Please share your technique with the rest of the company!) but it's also another source of concern when it comes to Death Guard dealing with vehicles. Plasma doesn't cut it against 10E vehicle stats, and now my Blightlords with combi-meltas don't have those any more? I think I can see where this is going (it's having to buy multiples of the one Blighthauler model to get multi-meltas, or relying entirely on armour) and I don't like that much either.

[Tokugawa]

54 minutes ago, Captain Idaho said:

I think even D2 would help combi weapons, or if they had Anti-Infantry and 5+ Anti-tank they'd at least have some utility.

D2 is 2 mortal wounds on each wounding roll of 4,5 and 6, right? 

[Schlitzaf]

I’ll remind folks, Combi-Bolter were a tbing in 9th too. Certain terminator aquad had them. Combi-(X) were different. Its plausible that that this is referring to the Combi-Bolter.