Making Heat Lances Great Again

So the Heat Lance - S6, AP-5 Melta. Sounds good when you say it. But it's utter garbage as a weapon. It has two specific targets that exist in 40k that it is actually better at killing than other DE weaponry. Land Raiders (T8 2+) and the handful of Astarts T9 2+ super heavies that exist (Falchions, Fellblades, Typhons etc). In the first case, it is marginally better than a dark lance (like 3% better if you allow the averages to play out long enough). In the case of super heavies it is statistically better than even the Void Lance at killing them, but it's good at the job by any means with an average of less than 1 damage per shot fired on average. None of this is really worth taking into consideration, especially given the opportunity cost of sending 5 Scourge to their deaths within 9" of something so valuable to the enemy, or the cost of fielding tons and tons of jetbikes to get enough hay lances on the board. So in real terms, the weapon has zero value. Not even as a character slayer, because Disintegrators are significantly better at that, and it's hardly more difficult to get a Raider into position to fire at a character than it is to get 5 Scourge into the same spot.

The problem is -5 AP and the Melta rule look good on paper, but the reality of the maths involved on a d6 mean that with a S value of only 6 the weapon just can't wound anything significant enough for those rues to come into play. Not to mention to amount of invulnerable saves available that make anything beyond -2 or -3 AP worthless against those targets (most invuls are 5+, on a 3+ anything beyond -2 is wasted, as is anything beyond -3 on a TEQ). -5 is only significant vs Land Raiders and super heavies. Few other vehicles have a 2+. Melta only works if you can do damage in the first place. You can't just raise the S of the weapon either, without making it a weird assault version of the dark lance (but better). It shouldn't be a dark lance, there's nothing wrong with DL's as they are. So you can't really change the S of the weapon.

There's a real simple solution to the problem though. Replace Melta with an innate r-roll damage vs vehicles. Re-rolls are massively strong on a d6. Re-rolling wounds, even on a S6 weapons is more powerful than having the Melta rule. What does this do to the weapon? Well it opens up two niches in which the Heat Lance shines for the DE.

T5/6 3/4+, light vehicles (DE skimmers, IG artillery etc). The Dark Lance and Void Lance perfrom exactly the same on vehicles from T5-7, whether they have 3+ or worse (I don't think any vehicles of this toughness exist that are 2+). They're reliable and perform the same regardless of armour. Nice and reliable. The Dissie Cannon actually outperforms both vs T5 vehicles due to the number of shots but there aren't many of those outside DE (hings like Sentinels and other light walkers mostly). Replacing Melta with re-roll wounds for the HL pushes the weapon into prime position as the DE's leading light vehicle killer. The HL becomes about 20% more effective than the Dissie vs T5 and about 11% better than the other lances vs T6.

T7 3+. The HL will gain some damage output vs the majority armour of the game, but the DL/VL will remain much stronger (about 17% stronger), rightfully so.

T8 2+/3+. At this level or armour the DL drops off in penetration power. The Void Lance is forced to pick up the slack (though only being available on one platform is kind of crappy for DE). However with the change to how HL should work they now become better than DL vs T8 units but don't reach the penetration of the VL. So vs Land Raiders and Leman Russ the HL is the superior weapon over the more common DL, but is outclassed by the DE's real big hitter lance.

T9 2+. At this level all I can really find are super heavies. Even VL drop off a bit here despite being S9 also. Here the HL picks up the slack and actually becomes better again than the other lances, putting out a respectable 1.3 damage per shot fired.

Against anything higher I won't even entertain because now you're into T14 titans and crazy stuff that none of these units are gonna come close to do anything significant against.

So with this change you get two types of targets for the HL to excel against light armour- T5 light walkers, T6 artillery tanks and DE vehicles, and very heavy armour - Astartes super heavies and the two LR's (if you're lacking in Void Raven Bombers). They don't overshadow the Ravager vs regular armour or the dissie vs heavy infantry but they do add some value against targets DE aren't the most effective against right now.

All GW needs to do is swap Melta for re-roll wounds. They can play with the idea of re-rolls at half range if they want the HL to be a high-risk weapon, but I'd argue that throwing out the half range advantage would be the way to go. They couldn't give them re-roll wounds on top of Melta, because that would make the weapon significantly better than both the other lances vs everything.

There's no need for GW to stick to keywords that are, lets be honest, still USR's when they're not working as intended. Melta is nice conceptually, but with the changes to the way tanks work, and the way shooting now works, Heat Lances no longer do anything of value. A simple rule swap, that shouldn't rally affect anything else (it doesn't interfere with other DE re-roll wounds because DE don't have anything that buffs like that). Just swap the rule and be done with it. Overnight the HL now has value. Simple and elegant.

All you need to do is run the numbers and it jumps out at you. The earlier in the shooting sequence you apply re-rolls or roll twice, pick the highest, the greater value that mechanic has on the overall shooting efficiency. -5 AP and roll 2d6 pick highest for damage is worthless if you can't wound in the first place (or if you're wounding with only 1/3 of hits like now).

Tl DR: GW, if you're reading this, swap Melta for re-roll wounds. HL is worth taking now.

I really like the heat lance, but it is too many points.

It should probably be a little cheaper than a tau fusion gun. Which is an 18" st8 melta.
I think the heat lance being around 17-18 points would be fair

Farseer for Doom really helps. But then you don't have a full Drukhari army

Thats a very longwinded way of saying the Heat Lance should be S7 and 20pts.

Respect for that analysis and you are very much correct in those points. However, I think a simple rule tweak will not make this weapon useful. For a 35pts weapon the weapon just does not deliver.

About 90% our indices are just direct translations from 7th edition and the HL is no exception. The Heat Lance was a garbage weapon to begin with and if anything, it got better in 8th edition.


It starts that nobody needs a AP-5 weapon and it won't achieve much more an AP-4 weapon couldn't do either. I think most of all the HL needs a cost reduction and be made S7. S6 was bad in 7th edition against vehicles and it still is in 8th. Wound re-rolls could also be a thing, but I would prefer a clearly defined role and a clear cut from the past.

We can deal with T8 just fine with Darklight, but I think S7 would be the sweet spot for Scourges to be come out of the sky and deal devastating damage to everything that isn't T8 (which not many things are).

And I really think the damage re-roll should get more credit. It poses a considerable increase in damage output and can always expect to deal at least 3 damage or more.
And if you take away the damage re-roll you can just grab Dark Lances and have the superior weapon.

Edit:

Imateria wrote:

Thats a very longwinded way of saying the Heat Lance should be S7 and 20pts.

This

Heat lances are a way to deal with tanks at close range. That's the identity of the weapon.
Problem is : now that the darklight weapons are good, there is no need for that weapon. Especially if it's more expensive than a DL, while having half the range, and less strength.
And AP-5 is a joke.

I think honestly the Heat Lance might be best off becoming poison vs vehicles, wounding on 4+ regardless of toughness. And keep the damage boost, AP -5, and S6 vs non-vehicles.

That's the niche Haywire is supposed to occupy.
Heat lances are supposed to be the best anti vehicle, but at close range only. So they could, and maybe should, double their strength at close range.

Problem is they are not going to change the melta rule. To many other weapons have it in other armies that are already being printed.

Thus no matter if it would be better I think we are stuck with the reroll d6 damage.
S7 would alivate the problems a little bit, but I actually like that it is a s6 right now since it is slightly more differentiating.

What I think should be the case is that the pricing should go way down. We should not see it as an alternative to lances, but as an alternative to blasters and haywire. Dealing slightly more damage, but with a higher chance to not do anything. So I would actually say make it a crap cheaper and make scourges max 2 dark lances.

|Meavar wrote:

make scourges max 2 dark lances.  

There is a difference between making one weapon great again, and ruining other weapons to force people to take the crappy one.
I really hope GW are not going to force us to take those crappy HL by nerfing everything else.

Heat lances never were great, actually. Darklight weapons were just bad AT in the 7th edition, so HL looked good. But it always was inferior to every other melta weapon.

Mppqlmd wrote:

|Meavar wrote:

make scourges max 2 dark lances.  

There is a difference between making one weapon great again, and ruining other weapons to force people to take the crappy one.
I really hope GW are not going to force us to take those crappy HL by nerfing everything else.

Agreed! Never tempt GW to Nerf DE, it seems to be a favorite past time of theirs!

I do not think everything should be nerfed.
But right now unless the heat lance will always be in the same spot as the dark lance. Both will try to deal a lot of damage to heavy things. The only difference is s and range, where in both cases the heat lance is inferior. Which means either the heat lance becomes much better or the dark lance becomes the instant choice. Which is why I suggest to change the choice.
How many people are running haywire right now? Blasters and lances was at one point a debate, but right now the consensus seems to be lances are always better. Simply because they are better against every target. Haywire still needs a boost, and heat lances need to be much cheaper. But when you have the option on a squishy nonmelee unit to have a dark lance you will always pick that over the other options unless the others are either seriously underpriced or the dark lance overpriced.

So I say make the haywire, heat lance and blaster usefull and make them the main weapons of the scourges. Leave the massed lances for vehicles with infantry only having 1 or 2 max per unit. The other option is to make blasters and heat lances a lot cheaper, because unless they are they will never compete with the dark lance.

The problem right now is that blasters deal only 57% (to 76% if lances moved) of the damage of the dark lance. The price is 87%, thus lances are universally better.
Now lance damage can be a little bit more, since you gain more survivability if you are cheaper. But you also already have the range. Lances right now are quite ok in price I think, they are good but not very under priced. So let's take the scourges with lances (who are a nice debate compared to the ravager)
So I would say to make them comparable a scourge unit with blasters should cost around 76%*150 = 114 points, which would mean blasters should cost 10 points each.
Sort of makes sense considering you deal roughly half the damage of the dark lance and have halve the range.
Heat lances are in a comparible situations dealing similar damage as blasters vs t7 (the majority of vehicles), deal slightly more damage against t5 and 6 and 8+ vehicles so give them a price of 12-15 points.
Haywire right now is worse dealing less then 2/3 of the damage of the others. So I suggest make it rapid fire. This will mean it will deal 33% more damage in rapid fire range and 33% less at long range. Combined with a slightly longer base range, I suggest we price it similar to the heat lances (or keep the price it has now of 12) Even at rapid fire range against t5-7 a haywire blaster deals less damage then a moving dark lance, thus making a significant price decrease mandatory. While it is slightly better versus things with a reasonable ward save, it is useless against monstrous creatures.

So ok maybe you guys are right and we can keep the dark lances at the scourges. But the cost of blasters/ heat lances etc should go drastically down and haywire should either be a whole lot better or be (practically) free (right now just considering damage vs the moving dark lance a free hayblaster on scourges has about the same output (since you can then have over twice as many scourges), although ward saves, or not moving with the scourges swings it one way or the other. So probably they should cost a few points but right now if haywire would cost more then a few points it is overpriced compared to dark lances.

Sorry for the big piece of text

Haywire in this edition needs a damn overhaul. It lacks reliability, damage, rate of fire, and flexibility, and is way overcosted for what it brings to the table. With perfect rolls, a haywire blaster needs 3 turns to kill an average (12 wounds) vehicle. That requires every shot to hit, every damage roll to be a 6, every mortal wounds roll to be a 5+, and every save the vehicle makes to be a failure, which is unlikely given the pathetic -1 save modifier.

To be clear a Blaster rolling max damage needs 4 shots of max damage to take down the same 12 wounds, but the Blaster is most likely needing 3+ rather than 6's to do reasonable damage output for an AV weapon and it has a healthy -4 save modifier.

As Ironic as it is, the Blaster is the reliable option compared to the Haywire Blaster this edition. How strange is that?

I disagree haywire needs a drastic overhaul, it just needs to increase it's number of shots by a factor 1.5-2 which is why I suggest a rapid fire. In that case you deal less damage then the blaster at long range, but more at close range.
The thing is the reliability comes not from certain wounds right now it comes from the same amount of wounds no matter the target.
It is roughly as reliable against t8 targets and more reliable against t9+ targets and targets with a 5+ invurnerable. But since those are "rare" and it deals less damage against all other targets it needs a bigger punch, but just making it rapid fire seems fine to me.

|Meavar wrote:

I disagree haywire needs a drastic overhaul, it just needs to increase it's number of shots by a factor 1.5-2 which is why I suggest a rapid fire. In that case you deal less damage then the blaster at long range, but more at close range.
The thing is the reliability comes not from certain wounds right now it comes from the same amount of wounds no matter the target.
It is roughly as reliable against t8 targets and more reliable against t9+ targets and targets with a 5+ invurnerable. But since those are "rare" and it deals less damage against all other targets it needs a bigger punch, but just making it rapid fire seems fine to me.

While true, you have not stated that you are factoring in that not every big thing on the battlefield is a vehicle. The blaster is good vs monsters and the like too, while the Haywire Blaster is not. Any points cost should reflect that limitation, as a Blaster is a good choice against a rampaging 'fex while a haywire blaster is inferior to a splinter rifle in such an instance, even if made rapid fire.

An alternative option to rapid fire would be to simply make the Haywire mortal wound vehicles on 2+ instead of 4+, while maintaining the potential for d3 wounds. The choice then becomes between a reliable but small number of mortal wounds vs the potential for more but bigger potential to fail. And tinkering with the price of course.

FuelDrop wrote:

Haywire in this edition needs a damn overhaul. It lacks reliability, damage, rate of fire, and flexibility, and is way overcosted for what it brings to the table. With perfect rolls, a haywire blaster needs 3 turns to kill an average (12 wounds) vehicle. That requires every shot to hit, every damage roll to be a 6, every mortal wounds roll to be a 5+, and every save the vehicle makes to be a failure, which is unlikely given the pathetic -1 save modifier.

To be clear a Blaster rolling max damage needs 4 shots of max damage to take down the same 12 wounds, but the Blaster is most likely needing 3+ rather than 6's to do reasonable damage output for an AV weapon and it has a healthy -4 save modifier.

As Ironic as it is, the Blaster is the reliable option compared to the Haywire Blaster this edition. How strange is that?

I think Haywire simply needs to deal two mortal wounds on a 2+. Problem solved.
Right now, Haywire is not bad, it is just worse than any other choice. In the case of Quantum Shields and Knights it is even slightly stronger than a Dark Lance.

The problem with Haywire is (if you do the Mathhammer) that it is just as strong as it was in 7th edition but less reliable and everything got more wounds. By making it a a straight 2+ to wound again and giving it two mortal wounds instead would fix this.

Or maybe Rapid Fire 1, I think that would be very fitting for our army too.

The reason I like the haywire to be rapid fire over the 2+ to wound is because not everything is a vehicle.
It means that under the right circumstances (close range, high t/ward save vehicle) haywire is much better (dealing around 1 wound versus 0.5 wounds). But you will not prefer haywire all the time, because sometimes it will be a bit less (outside of rapid fire range) or a lot less (not a vehicle).
Which means that a TAC list will probably prefer a mixture of the two. And this is something good.
If you just make the haywire deal a wound slightly more reliable but less wounds as you suggested it will not help at all. Since people who want reliability will want it against everything, while those wanting as much damage as possible are often more willing to take the gamble and not have it be as usefull in every match. Which is why I prefer to make haywire more damaging instead of just more reliable. And within rapid fire range it will be slightly more reliable as well.

Making it deal 2 mortal wounds would also be fine.

Oh, wow I took way to long to make my post and didn't see that Rapid Fire was already being discussed. I think Rapid Fire really suits our army and is a great risk/reward mechanic.

However thinking about it, I am a bit reluctant about Rapid Fire Haywire Blasters because this way we move very closely to the territory of the Heat Lance.

With an optimal range of 12" we are suddenly not too far away from the optimal range of Heat Lances which is 9". This puts us in a scenario where one weapon will most likely always outclass the other.

Looking the Scourge AT in terms of range we could have:
- Heat Lance: Short Range, S7, 2D6 damage (pick the highest)
- Haywire Blaster: Medium Range, same mechanic as before, but 2 damage instead
- Dark Lances: Long Range, the good trustworthy one

Now, I don't care if Haywire Blasters wound on a 2+ or 4+ with something special happening on a 6+. But on average it should deal roughly twice the damage, probably a little bit less.

You can get the Melta if you really want to see something dead and don't care about survivability of your Scourges. Haywire Blasters return to their 7th edition glory where they can zoom around and hunt some AT. And the DL if you need some Darklight snipers and don't care about the mobility of your Scourges.


@Offtopic I actually think there are more pressing aspects of our army right now. Primarly in terms of anti-character and anti-horde. It's always great to have more viable assets but we already have great anti-tank (Darklight ftw).

The way I see it is that the Heat Lance is a short ranged powerful anti tank weapon, the Blaster is a high powered jack of all trades weapon and the Haywire Blaster is a lower powered but more reliably anti tank weapon, all for infantry.

The current problem is that the Blaster is the only one of the three capable of achieving this. The Heat Lance lacks the strength to wound most vehicles, which is why I suggested the S7 change and make it 20pts because it would still struggle against the toughest vehicles and monsters, and as for the Haywire I'd suggest going with both options, Rapid Fire 1 and Mortal Wounds on a 2+. A Scourge with a HB will still be 26pts for T3 model.

The problem I have is that the Blaster is horrible when compared to the Special Weapons of other armies. Compared to an equivalent amount of Plasma, the Blaster causes less damage against all targets.

I base the cost off of Guard's plasma, given we have nearly identical defensive stats.

You can get two Plasma Guns for the cost of a single Blaster, already meaning the latter will either double or quadruple your rate of fire.

Rapid Fire Plasma - Overcharged:
2.22 Dead GEQ
1.85 Dead MEQ
3.70 Dead PEQ
2.96 Dead TEQ
2.96 Damage to a Rhino
2.22 Damage to a Russ
1.76 Damage to a Land Raider.

Blaster:
.56 Dead GEQ
.56 Dead MEQ
1.11 Dead PEQ
.93 Dead TEQ
.89 Damage to a Rhino
.67 Damage to a Russ
.56 Damage to a Land Raider

I think you can see the problem. Even without overcharging, the Plasma beats us in all instances (granted with a significantly reduced margin against vehicles). Overcharged and out of rapid fire beats us again. ONLY when plasma is out of rapid fire, and not overcharged does the Blaster surpass it, and even then, Plasma is still winning against GEQ and MEQ.

Having these discussions is all well and good, but they mean nothing unless they can compete with options outside our army, not just within

I agree that our blaster should be cheaper. Although I think it should be slightly more expensive then plasma since plasma is slightly underpriced. And I compared it to a dark lance (which I think is pretty ok compared also compared outside our index). And we got much better vehicles to shoot out of. Which increases our survivability a lot compared to those guardsmen.

Not completely sure about your numbers.
You take 2 plasma guns, at rapid fire range: 4 shots: 2 hits: 1.66 wounds max verus 1 wound models (but you get 2.22GEQ and 1.85 MEQ) what did you do differently?
2 plasma guns at rapid fire range versus a tank (t7 3+): 4 shots: 2 hits: 1 wound: 0.83 damage.
I think you assumed veterans and thus hitting on a 3+