The Melta Myth

[avatar8481]

The short-ranged nature of marines in general (between bolters, melta, etc) is why when you can find units that are cheap, effective and able to project power past their noses they're so valuable. I'm looking at dakka-preds, dual autocannon dreads and speeders (whose movement is essentially weapon range).

[Fetterkey]

The main reason that Melta works better for Marines is that our regular operational distance is around Melta range. When your squads are generally in the enemies face anyway, non-melta weaponry just isn't as neccessary.

 

I disagree with the idea of a "regular operational distance." My forces are rather flexible, whereas enemy forces are usually not; I engage at whatever distance will cause the greatest disruption to the enemy plan.

The Boltgun and Bolt Pistol have a regular operational distance. It's 12". 24", while possible, is stationary range and at half effect.

 

Thus, to fight with any degree of mobility is to fight at 18" range and below (12" range and 6" move).

 

Exceptions can be made with specific units, but for the bulk of all PA forces, 12" is primary engagement range.

 

I have won entire battles without ever firing a bolter or bolt pistol. All the weapons that play a key role in my army, meltaguns aside, have 36" range or more, and most are on platforms that can move and fire. In general, firing bolters means you're either desperate or using a bike army, whose bolters have 36" effective range.

[Giga]

In general, firing bolters means you're either desperate or using a bike army, whose bolters have 36" effective range.

Nah. In my experience, the humble bolter is usually the hammer strike that breaks an opponent's back. Rapid firing & flaming is usually what slaughters the most of an opponent's infantry, or wipes out a unit, usually within a single turn when you combine multiple units rapid firing.

 

In other words, rapid firing is what comes after the melta has blown up the transports, or all of the MCs are dead. That's when tac marines, bikers, and sternguard disembark from their transports and finish off the enemy, usually in one big turnfull of rapid fire. :)

[Koremu]

Personally I find that the most destructive piece of armament in my arsenal is the Krak Grenade. Almost every engagement is conducted at under 18" range, mostly by Bolter, Melta, Plasma and Flamer.

 

Long Range weapons fire is a utility effect, handled by the dedicated support units selected for that role and for a specific mission profile.

 

Not firing Bolters means that you are wasting your Battle-Brothers.

[Fetterkey]

Personally I find that the most destructive piece of armament in my arsenal is the Krak Grenade. Almost every engagement is conducted at under 18" range, mostly by Bolter, Melta, Plasma and Flamer.

 

Long Range weapons fire is a utility effect, handled by the dedicated support units selected for that role and for a specific mission profile.

 

Not firing Bolters means that you are wasting your Battle-Brothers.

 

My Tactical Marines are there to take objectives. If the game goes well, they will never have to leave their transports, disregarding combat squads with lascannons, who stand in cover the whole game and harass the enemy. If I wanted to drive up and rapid-fire people, I'd play Sisters.

[Koremu]

Sisters get Massacred by the inevitable counter charge. Not so Brother Marines.

 

Against any competent opponent, you don't really have any choice about having your Tactical Squads in combat. You might as well do something with your Battle Brothers while they are there.

 

Taking objectives, disregarding the rules for a second, is not simply a purview of "drive a tactical squad there". I find that forming a mutually supporting unit based around a Troops choice is the best option. A Battlefield Grouping consisting of a Tactical Squad (in a Rhino), a Vindicator and a Captain and Command Squad of some format (probably in a Razorback) is a very effective combined group force when working together. Another good one is a Tactical Squad, Predator and Whirlwind camping an objective.

 

Don't underestimate the threat radius and abilities of a Tactical Squad when used with proper co-ordination against an enemy.

[Captain Idaho]

Taking objectives, disregarding the rules for a second, is not simply a purview of "drive a tactical squad there". I find that forming a mutually supporting unit based around a Troops choice is the best option. A Battlefield Grouping consisting of a Tactical Squad (in a Rhino), a Vindicator and a Captain and Command Squad of some format (probably in a Razorback) is a very effective combined group force when working together. Another good one is a Tactical Squad, Predator and Whirlwind camping an objective.

 

Don't underestimate the threat radius and abilities of a Tactical Squad when used with proper co-ordination against an enemy.

 

Very well said. Infact, this post here is a perfect example why our "rubbish" Tacticals are actually pretty good. People compare 10 Tacticals to 10 whatever and say they are rubbish, so they preach to us on the B&C :)

 

A Space Marines army must work as a combined arms force to win; a Tactical squad rapid firing an enemy before an Assault squad/Vanguar/Terminators whatever hits them, you will find the game swinging much further your way than a unit vs unit match ups.

[Fetterkey]

Against any competent opponent, you don't really have any choice about having your Tactical Squads in combat. You might as well do something with your Battle Brothers while they are there.

 

This is simply not correct. Combat Tactics is there for a reason, and you have transports to protect your Marines as well.

[Giga]

My Tactical Marines are there to take objectives. If the game goes well, they will never have to leave their transports, disregarding combat squads with lascannons, who stand in cover the whole game and harass the enemy. If I wanted to drive up and rapid-fire people, I'd play Sisters.

That sounds nice and dandy in theory, ofc, but in reality there are all sorts of opponents out there and all sorts of ways to get close and personal with your tactical marines, or to take out your elites/fast attack/heavy support. These people will force you to rely on your whole army to beat them.

 

Which brings us to another problem here; point cost. A tac marine squad with flamer, missile launcher, and rhino costs 205 pts. Two such squads therefore cost 410 pts. Ofc, you prolly wont keep them like that, and you'll give some power fists, lascannons, plasmaguns etc. to them, depending on playstyle, or you might even upgrade their rhino, or get razorbacks instead. Either way, it'll prolly end up making your tac squads cost 215-250 pts, depending on preference. Which means your two tac squads will effectively cost 450-500 pts, which is a third of your total points in 1500 pts games. In higher point games, you're likely to add another tac squad (unless you got sternguard and pedro, or getting some bikes with a bike captain/khan), so we're suddenly talking about 650+ pts spent on 30 MEQ and their transports.

 

If you spend these 650 pts on 30 guys, and then use them to fire one lascannon shot per turn, or to camp objectives... Let's just say you're REALLY wasting their potential. 10 guys rapid firing & flaming stuff (and combiflaming too, if I'm running vulkan), are prone to get a whole lot of wounds on an enemy unit. Not to mention they're effectively as good as berzerkers when it comes to slaughtering GEQ in assault. A power fist sergeant and a bunch of krak nades can really threaten most vehicles (since the majority has rear armor 10). Ofc they're not as good as CSM or the upcoming GH, but hey, if you're gonna spend all those points on tacticals (and you're practically forced to), then might as well get lots of use form them. :)

 

 

 

 

Ofc all this is advice based on my own experiences & tactical views. If the way you use tacticals works for you, then you should keep doing it. After all, if it ain't broken, dun fix it! :)

[Fetterkey]

My Tactical Marines are there to take objectives. If the game goes well, they will never have to leave their transports, disregarding combat squads with lascannons, who stand in cover the whole game and harass the enemy. If I wanted to drive up and rapid-fire people, I'd play Sisters.

That sounds nice and dandy in theory, ofc, but in reality there are all sorts of opponents out there and all sorts of ways to get close and personal with your tactical marines, or to take out your elites/fast attack/heavy support. These people will force you to rely on your whole army to beat them.

 

Certainly. The main part of winning the game, though, is fulfilling the objectives, which is what my Tacticals are for.

 

Which brings us to another problem here; point cost. A tac marine squad with flamer, missile launcher, and rhino costs 205 pts. Two such squads therefore cost 410 pts. Ofc, you prolly wont keep them like that, and you'll give some power fists, lascannons, plasmaguns etc. to them, depending on playstyle, or you might even upgrade their rhino, or get razorbacks instead. Either way, it'll prolly end up making your tac squads cost 215-250 pts, depending on preference. Which means your two tac squads will effectively cost 450-500 pts, which is a third of your total points in 1500 pts games. In higher point games, you're likely to add another tac squad (unless you got sternguard and pedro, or getting some bikes with a bike captain/khan), so we're suddenly talking about 650+ pts spent on 30 MEQ and their transports.

 

I spend almost half my points on Tactical squads, since I use four in 2,000 points. Their purpose, though, is usually not to kill, except when facing "turkey shoot" armies like Orks. Instead, they claim objectives and pop tanks that get through my primary anti-tank fire.

 

If you spend these 650 pts on 30 guys, and then use them to fire one lascannon shot per turn, or to camp objectives... Let's just say you're REALLY wasting their potential. 10 guys rapid firing & flaming stuff (and combiflaming too, if I'm running vulkan), are prone to get a whole lot of wounds on an enemy unit. Not to mention they're effectively as good as berzerkers when it comes to slaughtering GEQ in assault. A power fist sergeant and a bunch of krak nades can really threaten most vehicles (since the majority has rear armor 10). Ofc they're not as good as CSM or the upcoming GH, but hey, if you're gonna spend all those points on tacticals (and you're practically forced to), then might as well get lots of use form them. :)

 

Tactical Marines are better than Chaos Marines or Grey Hunters. Otherwise, I wouldn't take 40 of them.

[Giga]

Why would you say tac marines are better then chaos marines? Chaos marines can take all the same stuff tac marines have (except plasma cannons), but have access to icons and are a lot better defensively because of 2 base attacks, which enables them to actually win assault lots of the time. They also have higher base leadership, which can be rerollable with icon of chaos glory. Oh, and they cost less because you aren't forced to take certain choices (ie. you only take a champion if you need one).

 

ATSKNF doesn't really make much difference if you use them for objective holding to begin with.

[Fetterkey]

Tactical Marines *want* to lose assault and fall back so that everyone else in your army can blast the assault unit. ATSKNF, Combat Tactics, and Combat Squads far outweigh ubergrit and +1 leadership.

[Gornall]

Combat Tactics isn't a sure thing to get out of combat though... especially if you're like me and have a meta with plenty of I4+ stuff floating around. I will say that it's great against those opponents who don't realize shooting and then charging is generally not going to work out for them. That or they keep units close enough to try and babysit you until you run off the table. Don't get me wrong, CT and ATSKNF are great abilities, but they're far from sure things.

[Fetterkey]

If you use Combat Squads as well. you can generally be assured of either dying outright or getting away, both of which are acceptable.

[Koremu]

Against any competent opponent, you don't really have any choice about having your Tactical Squads in combat. You might as well do something with your Battle Brothers while they are there.

 

This is simply not correct. Combat Tactics is there for a reason, and you have transports to protect your Marines as well.

"Combat" does not mean "Assault".

 

It means "inside the 12" - 18" effective range of Boltguns".

 

If you are unable to properly use Tactical Marines in a combat environment (firefight or close assault) then you are wasting a third to a fifth of your army.

 

And Transports are NOT there to exclusively defend the Brothers inside. They are also there to give you the tactical advantage of choosing your engagement profile.

 

Tactical Marines *want* to lose assault and fall back so that everyone else in your army can blast the assault unit. ATSKNF, Combat Tactics, and Combat Squads far outweigh ubergrit and +1 leadership.

 

Try that against Eldar and see how far it takes you. Combat Tactics is useful for disengaging at the end of the shooting phase before the Assault phase rolls around, but you really have to push forward to give yourself the room to pull that off if using it in the actual assault phase, which inevitably leads you into the aforementioned 12" range anyway.

 

Most competent opponents will follow up and attempt to shepherd your scoring unit off the board if you disengage from a close assault. That's assuming you can get away from the higher init enemies.

 

Works on Orks I guess though,.

[Giga]

Tactical Marines *want* to lose assault and fall back so that everyone else in your army can blast the assault unit. ATSKNF, Combat Tactics, and Combat Squads far outweigh ubergrit and +1 leadership.

I disagree. I'd much prefer my tactical marines actually killing stuff in assault and passing leadership tests, then relying on a hit and miss ability like combat tactics.

 

ATSKNF also has the added minus of meaning that your big squads of tac marines are probably not going to be wiped out in assault in a single turn. In KP missions, where combat squadding is death against a smart opponent, this is even worse, because the tacs usually get assaulted and killed in the opponent's next assault phase, hence keeping his assault specialists safe.

 

Also, as Koremu said, combat tactics can only work "reliably" against stuff like orks.

[JamesI]

This seems to have gone pretty far afield from the original topic. Lets keep it on "The Melta Myth" everyone.

[Koremu]

*shrug* We've almost exhausted the original topic tbh. Melta is good because your units operate at that range anyway. If you want to use a different tank-busting weapon, you have to design the unit specifically to use it, such as Preds, or Las/Plas setups, or Dev Squads.

 

Melta works because the units that use it are right there anyway.

[Fetterkey]

Most competent opponents will follow up and attempt to shepherd your scoring unit off the board if you disengage from a close assault. That's assuming you can get away from the higher init enemies.

 

Works on Orks I guess though,.

 

This can be advantageous. It's a trap for your opponents to fall into. I would gladly trade a combat squad for almost any unit in any enemy army.

[Bannus]

As far as the "melta myth" is concerned, I find that melta weapons are more effective at killing tanks - but my answer seems to be the antithesis of everyone else's conclusions:

 

Because the meltas are more more effective (and shorter ranged - including multi-meltas) tank-killers, I tend to have MORE of the less-effective long ranged weapons on hand so that my ability to kill tanks (regardless of range), remains "flat" - i.e. I don't like to sacrifice my long ranged ability for short.

[Koremu]

*shrug* My ultimate conclusion to anti-tank was that everything really comes down to two classes of vehicles: Those that can be take by Krak and Power Fist on the one hand, and Land Raiders on the other.

 

Long Range AT is nice, but I only really take enough to cover critical response - which basically means enough 48" range firepower to neutralise an opposing 48" range firepower unit.

[Fetterkey]

Because the meltas are more more effective (and shorter ranged - including multi-meltas) tank-killers, I tend to have MORE of the less-effective long ranged weapons on hand so that my ability to kill tanks (regardless of range), remains "flat" - i.e. I don't like to sacrifice my long ranged ability for short.

 

Agreed.

[Drudge Dreadnought]

You guys do realize that this is just a difference in playstyle? You are both right for your styles of play.

[Captain Idaho]

You guys do realize that this is just a difference in playstyle? You are both right for your styles of play.

 

Well yes and no. Many players think there is only one type of play-style, that of the "meta game". This of course helps players like myself, who don't pander to that way of playing and find my list presents separate concerns to the supposed high tier armies.

 

As an example, the Vulkan list seems the most popular for tournement play, so players watching the meta game build their lists with the capability to counter it. This means Imperial Guard become mechanised and have longer ranged firepower, Eldar become swifter (is that possible?) and take more Bright Lances to deal with Rhinos, Chaos Marines sport Obliterators to take care of Rhinos at range followed by plasma cannons up close, etc.

 

This means the Vulkan list has limited scope to counter these other lists, because the player has optimised their list to the extent they lose their options to change the way their army plays.

 

On the other hand, if you have several longer ranged Anti-tank and anti-infantry options in the list, you have the options to change your play.

 

What I'm saying is whether you favour gunlines or the above Vulkan lists, you should ensure you try and keep some options in the list that are different to your main play style, even if less than optimum in some games. That is what 5 edition is all about, because each Codex plays so differently to the last, unlike 4th edition Codex books. 40K is more about flexibility now as you have to make sure if you are rolling with rocks and your opponent changes to scissors, you can change to paper and still win the game.

[Paulochromis]

... make sure if you are rolling with rocks and your opponent changes to scissors, you can change to paper and still win the game.

looked good up to here, but I'm afraid you may have just snatched defeat from the jaws of victory (rock > scissors > paper > rock)

 

Cheers, Paul.