Heavy weapons in Marine armies

[nurglephill]

Can you fire the multi melta even if the rhino moved?? I thought Heavy weapons had to be stationary...?!

[Br.Pat]

No but you can fire the combi-melta on the seargent.

[nurglephill]

Ahhh many thanks!

[DarkGuard]

Br. Pat, you do raise very good points with the multi-melta, all of which I agree with. However, you can understand why people would prefer the missile launcher, as it gives versatility. It can still take out transports, but can blow apart infantry, and from range. 48" range doesn't mean you have to fire it from there, it just means you can fire it from there, but can also fire it closer. The MM is a specialist weapon designed for taking out tanks and MCs, the ML is a versatile weapon, and given the nature of the Tactical squad, that is why it wins for some people.

 

That being said, the MM is still my favourite weapon because I like to park my Tactical squads in midfield, so it does more for me than a ML. However, I wouldn't use it in all squads. I only pair it with flamers and plasma guns, flamers for versatility, plasma gun as they complement each other. With meltaguns, I'd still prefer an ML or plasma cannon for the anti-infantry boost and because meltaguns don't match with multi-meltas. You want to move to get the meltagun in range, but then you can't fire the MM. In this respect the ML and PC are better to give them a long-range option when they've sat on an objective.

 

Also, about combi-weapons, I strongly believe that you should always take the same combi-weapon as you have special weapon. Reason is that on the crucial turn you can effectively double the main killing power of your squad. Sure it specializes them, but it's the only way Tactical squads are going to do any significant damage.

[Br.Pat]

Thankyou DarkGuard . While I do agree with you on the versatility, at the end of the day specialisation usually trumps versatility. True, the longer range is nice but you're sacrificing quite a good advantage.

 

It is very, very important for players to realise that tacical squads are okay. They aren't -good- units per se, but they are adequate. This is what a Tac squad brings to the table:

 

Good Resilience (inc morale etc etc)

Good anti light infantry capabilities

Bad anti-heavy infantry capabilities (giving plasma counteracts this, but cover in 5th makes this innefecient points wise)

Decent Maneuverability (with Rhino)

Okay close-combat prowess

Sub-par points effectiveness (i.e. expensive price). Also certain weapons Las, Plas make points effectiveness even worse.

 

Now what about anti-tank? Giving the seargent a combi-melta and also the MM gives the unit Very Good anti-tank capabilities. I would only not this as excellent because of the MM's relatively short range. A ML I would call 'Okay' at AT and a LC as 'Decent'. However the latter, reduces cost-effectiveness.

 

True a ML does give versatility, but imo there are elements in your army that can pop light armour better, and can kill heavy infantry better. At the end of the day I would prefer the MM's Ap1, against the ML's Ap3. Also, shooting at heavy infantry as short range gives them a lower chance to have a cover save.

 

In regards what you said about the combi-weapons, I generally agree with this... but flamers are cheap and useful. I have been toying with the idea of MM, MG, combi-flamer squad. I usually feel I use/need the comb-weapon/meltagun more than the flamer.

[Xeonic]

Well, I'll chime in for the plasma cannon. There's no other piece of 5 pt wargear in codex space marines that can make as big a difference in the field as a plasma cannon. One single plasma cannon can wipe whole deep striking squads off the board(oh, you just DOA 200+ pts of FnP assault marines to melta my 160 pt combi pred? My 5pt plasma cannon makes that bad math on your part), can put wounds on MCs, moderate-large footprint light vehicles(looking at rhino and chimera hulls primarily), and the focus of the thing, elites(well, anything not carrying a storm shield or in an AV14 box). Hell, even vs hordes you're at least forcing them to spread out or face the wrath of an S7 AP2 blast. Now granted, blast weapons are sometimes spectacular one way or the other, which tends to polarize people's feelings towards them(zomg, just scattered 8" onto said combi pred and immobilized it!).

 

Plus, I've never gotten the whole "well bolters are good enough antihorde" sentiment. Your average 1500 pt list has what, maybe 16-24 bolter bodies in it? Ths makes how much of a dent in 150+ ork boyz? This is even further exacerbated by combat squadding to take full advantage of heavy weapons, effectively removing 4 bolters a shot from the equation. This is also why IMO flamers are good, as a multiplier vs light infantry in masse where you just don't have enough bolters.

 

There are exactly two game-changing weapons tacticals can carry IMO, the plasma cannon and the MM, and while I like MM in theory, I lack the models to make it a reality(did proxy them and liked the fear that a MM midfield with 10 ablative wounds w/combat tactics can instill). The ML I also like and use on occasion to bring a "free" S8 shot at 48". While it lacks the destructive capability of the MM or PC vs intended targets, it can act in both aspects to a limited degree of competence. It's an all-rounder's weapon that is far overshadowed in it's intended role by specialist weapons, and rightly so.

[Captain Idaho]

The only Heavy Weapons I would say are not worth while in a Marine Tactical squad are Missile Launchers and Heavy Bolters.

 

Missile Launchers are worse than Lascannons and Multi-Meltas at anti-tank and worse than Heavy Bolters and Plasma Cannon at anti-infantry killing and to remain stationary for a couple S4 hits doesn't scream excitement to me.

 

Heavy Bolters are toothless when solo, at least from the perspective they will only put a couple wounds on an opponent. There are more effective anti-infantry weapons for Tactical Marines. Flamers and Plasma Cannons make for a more effective anti-infantry weapon.

 

Now I know both of these are free, but the cheap cost of much better weaponary means you can increase you heavy weapon total in the list as a whole, plus they are more effective at killing what you want to kill.

[Shadowstalker Grim]

What you have to keep in mind is also that there is cheap in a points sense and cheap in a money sense.

 

Multi-Meltas are free in a points sense, YAY! But from a physical cost sense, they are few and far between so will cost quite a bit unless you pay for just those bits, which isn't so great.

 

Missile Launchers are comparatively common and are a resonable choice really, sure they aren't great, but they are ok as a default choice. I like the look of HBs, but they just can't seem to compare to other heavy weapon choices...

[Grey Mage]

If you want MM you can do what my friends did- traded their SW playing friend a couple of those ever-present missile launchers for them.