The AV14 issue

[Brother Tual]

In response to #62 (Marshall's post)

 

The examples are basic x vs y. I have put forward my views on flamer v melta and quite frankly I have nothing more to say on this issue. The listed examples are those considered to be strengths or adding to the flexability of a melta over a flamer. The ability to target high AV or high T or 2+ saves.

 

I will reply respectfully to your post, (in the context of I respect your views, not that I have an otherwise malicious intent)

 

Melta weaponry is intended to target armour. Mostly High AV (13+). Regardless of your type of support, this weapon requires the target and responding unit to be in close proximity. Hence the move to part of my comment. A meltagun is a shooting weapon. Obvious why I said shoot. Miss. This is a real chance. A 3+ to hit with one shot is hardly a given. Factor in a second shot (combi melta) into this equation and your chances of both missing is fairly low however it still exists. The result is most high AV tanks have high anti MEQ anti AV output. The closer you get to them, often the more offensive they become (LRR/LRC/Wagons with rollas etc). The result is often the demise or a serious compromise to the continued effectiveness of your tactical squad.

 

Your comment,

Why were you attacking something that demanded only success from your unit, and failure condemned it to death?

is preciesly the result of the means required inorder to best effect use of a meltagun. It is a high risk weapon. Failure is costly. There is a reason why a str8, AP1 weapon cost half the price of a str7 ap2 weapon option. Risk.

 

You can argue support issues etc. The enemy can also argue support issues. I am not going to write a 5000+ word response factoring in all possible outcomes. I will say I consider tacticals to be support units. Tacticals hardly are the main source of 'kill hammer' in any given list. In a support role tacticals shine becasue they are targetting a reduced enemy. A LRR or vindicator is hardly ever a reduced target. It is alive or dead. I recommend never to put your tacticals as direct counterance to a high AV problem. The risk is simply too high. As a Meltagun is designed as a high AV counterance, I recommend these not to be placed on tactical marines.

 

Why are you expecting success whenever you do something?

 

The obvious response is because I do. Why would I action a response I think is going to fail? Ofcourse I expect a positive result.

 

Flamer unit doing nothing - fine. Melta unit whiffing dice rolls - terrible, terrible, terrible.

 

I am yet to experience this. A melta unit and a flamer unit are best used at close range. This requires closing with the enemy. This requires movement phases, normally two. If in two or three turns you have not popped ANY transports or similar using other units then you are in a difficult position. If you are still employing meltagun V armour on turn 2 or 3 you may miss. A flamer never misses.

 

You can extend what I have said to cover the other issues raised. The issues raised are situations likely to occur when using meltas and targetting high end targets.

 

Even though the Flamer has the same statline as the Bolter in hurting Marines

. No. A flamer auto hits. A flamer can rack up 6 or 7 hits. (6 or 7 hits is the same as an assault 10 'bolter') Add a combi flamer and your double this. Factor in boltguns/pistols and you have a considerable amount of 'to wound' dice to roll. A meltagun will only ever provide one dice. The bolters (even with rapid fire) will not provide outstanding results unless shooting GEQ. You cannot rely on bolter shock without making it overwhelming - 2 x dual flamer units is overwhelming.

 

The crux of my concerns of melta equipped tacticals extends from the risk involved. Thats it. There is no way to reduce this risk.

 

=================================================================================================

 

I am going to reply on specialist a little later. Player skill has an impact on how successful such units can be. I agree with Marshall's points on this in general.

 

I disagree that sprinkling 'back up' means through other units (tacticals and meltas or any of the other 'confused' units suggested) is a good idea.

 

There are other means of destroying AV. Melta or lasconnons are not the only answers nor the best.

[Mysticaria]

Even if we assume a flamer is equal to an Assault 10 bolter and it gets 6 auto hits... against MEQ it only wounds 3 times.. and then only kills 1 guy after saves. Compared to the meltagun this is roughly half a dead marine more... at the cost of being able to threaten vehicles ever. If you play in an environment where killing half of a marine more (on average) is worth more than being able to kill vehicles ever... then it's a good play. If you play in an environment where being able to threaten vehicles is worth more than killing half a marine... then meltagun is a good play.

 

By the way, I like that analogy of Assault 10 bolter. Going to have to use that. Renaming my flamer guys "A10" right now.

 

-Myst

[greatcrusade08]

Even if we assume a flamer is equal to an Assault 10 bolter and it gets 6 auto hits... against MEQ it only wounds 3 times.

 

ah now we get to the crux of the issue, MEQ might be the biggest group of armies people face, but they arent the only armies people face.. try using flamers agaist orks nids, IG or eldar (either flavour) and see how it compares against the meltagun then..

it may only be 'half' a marine more, but thier are tactical applications to getting more bang for your buck, flaming disembarked units is a nice way to double your effectiveness, just ask my t-fire techies, they are always riding the heels of my AT weapons looking for fresh victims

[Paulochromis]

Renaming my flamer guys "A10" right now.

Or Warthog after the US aircraft with the same designation.

Having said that, it was a tankbuster so maybe not.

[Captain Idaho]

Taking a melta squad in a Tactical squad doesn't make them useless in their primary role as a support infantry unit. They can still lay waste to light infantry effectively with rapid fire or bolt pistol fire followed by a charge, yet also have the capacity to instant kill models, destroy vehicles and kill heavy infantry with a melta. A combi-melta makes a first strike from the squad more reliable against vehicles.

 

I acknowledge reliance on them to destroy vehicles with melta guns is woefully dangerous and inefficient, but having the option is extremely valuable.

 

I've never struggled against light infantry with Tacticals; it's one of the few times they are well worth their points.

 

I warrant the extra impact a flamer would have on Tactical Marines performance against light infantry is worth less than the flexibility gained from a melta weapon, simply because the Tactical Marines already outclass the infantry the flamer is being used for so a flamer isn't adding much in 4 out 5 games (at least).

[MagicMan]

It depends who you play.

 

 

I play against Tau, IG and Orks, and i never leave home without a flamer.

 

 

They're just too useful.

 

 

Against Tau and IG im wanting to get in their face anyway, so the flamer rocks. Against Orks they're wanting to get in mine, so again it rocks. More useful than a Meltagun anyway.

 

 

Though i like to have one squad with a Melta/Combi-melta. Just incase all my tank busting stuff is dead/the oppurtunity for tank killing arises.

[DarkGuard]

Just a quick comment from me on this issue. I have used a squad with combi-melta/melta a few times before, and then it's gone back in the case and not come out for a while. Reason being that I don't like the way it works, and I don't need my squads with that set up. I have other units like Speeders, Sternguard, even Vindys that can knock out big tanks, I'd prefer to keep my Tactical squads either truly flexible, so with a plasma weapon, or anti-infantry, with a flamer. Either way, they have a MM because they will be midfield, it is more melta and its cheap, but I don't use them as mobile melta, just hasn't worked out for me.

[Mysticaria]

Even if we assume a flamer is equal to an Assault 10 bolter and it gets 6 auto hits... against MEQ it only wounds 3 times.

 

ah now we get to the crux of the issue, MEQ might be the biggest group of armies people face, but they arent the only armies people face.. try using flamers agaist orks nids, IG or eldar (either flavour) and see how it compares against the meltagun then..

Good point.

 

1- Most opponents in my area are MEQ so that's my main consideration. Even those with balanced metas should expect 50% of their games against MEQ. That's a pretty significant portion of games, so it deserves some serious consideration. I can't advocate using a less effective weapon those matchups because it's better a little less than half the time.

 

2- Against those enemies where flamer will shine, bolters and chainswords are already good enough. Flamer just helps you "win more". Against enemies that bolter and chainswords are not good against, flamers don't help. Meanwhile, meltaguns don't help you "win more" they help you "not lose" when faced with those bad positions. In competative card playing, we tend to dislike "win more" cards in favor of "not lose" cards... but it's definately a player preference in warhammer.

 

As for dealing with AV14, meltagun probably shouldn't be the main game plan. Still, if you've got it in addition to the other tools in the army it definately increases flexibility and gives some extra in-game options.

 

-Myst

[Marshal Wilhelm]

Even if we assume a flamer is equal to an Assault 10 bolter and it gets 6 auto hits... against MEQ it only wounds 3 times.

 

ah now we get to the crux of the issue, MEQ might be the biggest group of armies people face, but they arent the only armies people face.. try using flamers agaist orks nids, IG or eldar (either flavour) and see how it compares against the meltagun then..

Good point.

 

1- Most opponents in my area are MEQ so that's my main consideration. Even those with balanced metas should expect 50% of their games against MEQ. That's a pretty significant portion of games, so it deserves some serious consideration. I can't advocate using a less effective weapon those matchups because it's better a little less than half the time.

 

2- Against those enemies where flamer will shine, bolters and chainswords are already good enough. Flamer just helps you "win more". Against enemies that bolter and chainswords are not good against, flamers don't help. Meanwhile, meltaguns don't help you "win more" they help you "not lose" when faced with those bad positions. In competative card playing, we tend to dislike "win more" cards in favor of "not lose" cards... but it's definately a player preference in warhammer.

 

As for dealing with AV14, meltagun probably shouldn't be the main game plan. Still, if you've got it in addition to the other tools in the army it definately increases flexibility and gives some extra in-game options.

 

-Myst

 

I concur :)

When you consider:

Space Marines.

Templars.

Dark Angels.

Blood Angels.

Grey Knights.

Space Wolves.

Chaos Marines.

Necrons. -> not strong

Sisters. -> not strong

 

from 14 Dexes are MEq, more or less, not taking Flamers isn't really a biggie. Those lists all favour transports, if not fighting AV

9/14. That is a pretty good "gamble"

 

Yes, Necrons and Sisters will get a low turn out, with a more competitive eye.

 

Deldar perhaps don't need Melta. Celdar have those annoying shields.

 

Tau are a hybrid of MEq and non-MEq. What do you really need to Flame with them? Kroot are the only thing. But by the time you are that close, with frag grenades, even Tacticals will do for a like amount on Kroot on the volley and charge.

 

But besides Nids and Daemons, practically all lists are packing transports. Yes, a Mg not killing Nobz is generally wasted against Boyz. But remember, when you pop their transport, you are inflicting a good amount of damage against them from the explosion.

 

How many 'Flames' is a Flamer going to get off on those Boyz? If you are that close, and don't kill/break them, you are in mêlée. That one Mg shot popping the trukk/battlewagon, is like Flaming them anyway.

 

+++

 

When you add in Bolters, HF and frag missiles, you generally already have a goodly amount of AI in your list. If you need to kill infantry, because there is a massive horde of them, you are far better off killing them from T1 with frags anyway.

 

If Flamers were as per Heavy Flamers, or HF could be taken instead, then they'd be adding some solid killiness. But the Flamer is like more Bolters. We already have much of that.

The Melta is unlike anything else the squad can do.

 

+++

 

The thing is, it seems like one group is saying Meltas on TROOPS is bad, which has been demonstrated as untrue both in practice and theory.

The pro-Melta group is not saying not-Melta is terrible/unusable, just inflexible.

 

There seems to be a unfairness in the argument:

"I think not-Melta is inflexible and overcommits on something that is already a strength of the unit."

'Oh yeah, well I think Melta is rubbish and doesn't work at all."

 

One is arguing against being rail-roaded into specialisation, but the other is just saying Melta doesn't work. At all. Inspite of our experience and logical arguments showing otherwise.

 

Is that a discussion? ;)

 

Or have I misread this thread? :blush:

 

If dudes are using not-Melta units to good effect, great.

But please don't tell people that Melta TROOPS do not work.

[Destaro]

Hmm, the issue seems to be that some players believe Melta Tactical Squads are ineffective/unreliable/inefficient compared to a ML/Flamer loadout (which cannot possible make a unit good at killing light infantry any worse). There is some wiggle room in this argument as some players prefer the "in case crap" option of Melta in squads while others prefer the increase in "standard" Tactical Squad anti-infantry duties.

 

However, in my experience using C:SM, MM/Melta-Gun/Combi-Melta just feels...unsatisfying. The MM/PG/Combi-Plasma loadout has worked better for me. The flexibilty is nice and seems to make the Tactical Squad fit the "jack of all trades" role that might be lacking in my other Troop choices (Scouts as it were).

 

But back to AV14. Using Melta Tactical Squads as your only answer, probably not going to work out (in C:SM anyway). Having a couple of "hidden" Melta shots in addition to your other anti-tank, not necessary, but certainly worth considering.

 

My opinion on building my all comers lists is that you can't ignore AV14. For every 500 or so points of a list, one dedicated anti-heavt tank unit is taken. So, in 1500 points for example, one MM Dreadnought in a Drop Pod, a 5-man Scout Squad (PF/Combi-Melta on the Sgt) in a MM LSS, and a Las/Autocannon Pred would work out just fine. That may not be enough Melta or long range anti-tank for some, but it's less than a third of my points and some AV13/14 isn't going to roll me just by being placed on the board.

[Marshal Wilhelm]

So, in 1500 points for example, one MM Dreadnought in a Drop Pod,

 

It is funny that you mention that unit. You would think I would be for it, given my pro-Melta standpoint.

 

The thing is, it is too killy with its MM and DCCW. Or at least it seems like that, especially to your opponent. Therefore your opponent is so jumpy and nervous about getting rid of the thing, that it gets taken out asap.

 

It's threat perception is too high.

 

You might as well use a Speeder in its place. You'd think the AV10 would be a bad thing, but given how intimidated people are of Dreads, let alone Dreads in their DZone, let alone Dreads with MM in their DZone, the Dread is going to bite the dust pretty quick.

In my experience, anyway.

 

The reason the Dreads with Assault cannons on Foot last is a] the Dread is not in the lion's mouth and so not as many guns are trained on it, and against a near unmarked army, b] the Assault cannon doesn't get the same squawking effect generated from a half-range MM shot c] the Dread is amongst other AV, and so can get cover and d] is not a UH-OH! threat, jammed down the throat of the opponent's army.

 

Now if it is working, then keep going with it.

 

But I have found that the AC compliments the HF's AI role much better, and the DCCW is already an excellent weapon for AT.

 

If I were DPodding something, it would be a squad of men with combi-Mg or Mg. The squad cannot be one-shot'ed like any AV can be, and after the combis have fired off, the opponent thinks more like 'well, they've already done their worst, maybe I don't have to kill them....?' whereas the MM Dread is thought of like 'I better kill it before it keeps slagging my AV and then starts using its DCCW to wreck them too. It's just gotta go!'

 

Those are my thoughts on Dreads with MMs in DPods :tu:

[MagicMan]

2- Against those enemies where flamer will shine, bolters and chainswords are already good enough. Flamer just helps you "win more". Against enemies that bolter and chainswords are not good against, flamers don't help.

 

 

 

Got to say i don't agree with that, at all. Flamers are a huge help against Orks in cover, for example. Which is where they love to be so they get that tasty 4+ save.

 

 

Bolters vs 30 strong Ork unit = not so great.

 

Bolters + Flamers vs 30 strong Ork unit = Verrrry niiiice!

 

 

They're good against Guard in cover too, anything in cover with a 5+ or worse save, infact. Plus with a flamer you can get way more hits than with any other weapon.

[Captain Idaho]

Meh, my Honour Guard have never been scared of those 30 strong Ork squads! I have killed 2 units of them in one game by using a Tactical squad (with melta gun) to melta a Dreadnought and the next turn rapid fire a 30 Strong Ork mob before the Honour Guard charged them. Combat resolution saw the squad destroyed in a single turn and I lost but a single model. Next turn the Honour Guard charged a 30 Strong Ork mob which was held up by a Dreadnought. That unit again died, though did kill the Dread unfortunately.

 

So with the rest of the army sporting Lascannons, multiple armour, strong anti-infantry with Typhoons, assault units and the like, the need for a flamer is reduced. It comes down to how you build your army; if you put the anti-infantry in with other units the Tacticals don't need a flamer.

 

Incidently I build my lists so the anti-infantry units can be of use against heavy infantry also. Tactical squads with flamers are asking for trouble if they are your specialised anti-infantry element because they just can't compete with Grey Hunters, Grey Knights or even Assault Marines. It's actually more points efficient to have anti-infantry which can deal with all types of infantry in general, rather than pay points for a portion of your army to be great at killing light infantry but that's really it.

[MagicMan]

I rarely play games above 1500 points, so maybe that has some bearing on why i love roasting Xenos so much compared to other weapons...? I just love burning things.

 

 

I just disagree that a Flamer ''just helps you "win more'', against light infantry. It piles the wounds on heavy infantry too. And it ignores cover, which is a huge benefit against some units.

 

 

Anyway, agree to disagree. It works for me, other options work for you.

[Mysticaria]

2- Against those enemies where flamer will shine, bolters and chainswords are already good enough. Flamer just helps you "win more". Against enemies that bolter and chainswords are not good against, flamers don't help.

 

Bolters vs 30 strong Ork unit = not so great.

 

Bolters + Flamers vs 30 strong Ork unit = Verrrry niiiice!

Unfortunately... not true. Against Orks in cover, even assuming you get 6 hits, you're killing 3 orks. Um... hate to say it but 2-3 extra dead orks is not going to swing that battle. Yeah, it's kind of fun laying that template down... but it's not helping you win.

 

-Myst

[MagicMan]

I don't really know what to say except that ive had repeated success against Orks with it. Not to mention other armies.

 

 

''Untrue'' as it may be, lol.

 

 

Ive had a time where i bagged seventeen hits from two flamers and only killed one, according to math-hammer thats not true.

[Mysticaria]

I don't really know what to say except that ive had repeated success against Orks with it. Not to mention other armies.

 

 

''Untrue'' as it may be, lol.

 

 

Ive had a time where i bagged seventeen hits from two flamers and only killed one, according to math-hammer thats not true.

So what's the argument? It's worked for you some times when it probably shouldn't have...against one army in one specific situation? That's not a really good reason to include it over another item that adds capabilities more often against more opponents.

 

While it's true that things sometimes happen that aren't the most likely outcomes, it's also true that the most likely outcome is the one that happens most of the time.

 

It's also true that with a flamer in place of a meltagun there are many things the squad can't hurt at all. Meanwhile, with a meltagun instead of a flamer there is next to nothing that the squad can't hurt. When comparing the two heads up, I can't help but seeing the loss of melta capability being a poor trade for killing a few more infantry models... typically units that the squad is already good enough against anyway.

 

-Myst

[angry man]

love how the thread has gone from being about AV14 to whats the best loadout for a tac sqd. reading the last handful of posts, i cant help but think of the bath scene from the adam sandler film 'billy madison'

 

"meltas are better, we open up tanks to get the guys inside!!"

"nooooooo, flamers are better, we make infantry all crispy and burt!!"

...

"stop looking at me swaaaaaaaaaaan!"

 

personally i favour the melta gun to the flamer - giving the squad an extra option, gives me a choice with how i deal with the threats, and how i prioritise my shooting.

 

something that i dont think has been mentioned is the meltagun's ability to down a transport and then assault the content. with a flamer that isnt even an option. or a plasma for that matter. and whilst you dont really gain anything against regular infantry units by taking a melta, you dont lose very much either.

 

AM

[Brother Tual]

Melta is inflexible. Its range is too short to be flexible. It is a weapon that adds versatility but not flexability. A meltagun can only be used in one way and only one way. You cannot do anything differently when employing this weapon if you intend to use it. You cant alter or effect the results. You can with a flamer.

 

You have missed the point of my argument if you believe I am saying " Melta is rubbish and doesn't work at all."

I am saying melta is best sourced from other platforms and is less effective when sourced on troops. I have put forward my reasons for this previously.

 

Honestly, I have put in alot of time and effort in trying to phrase my advice and if all you gleamed from my response is the above then it does not matter what I write you are so blind to your Melta ideals and nothing will change that. Fine. Run your melta.

 

Inspite of our experience and logical arguments showing otherwise.

Not in MY experience. Every marine list running melta at a competative level is a walk over for me. I find it harder to win games using melta armed troops because I am using a 'fat' unit that doesnt do anything well (and by well I mean to its fulllest) I find it easier to win against such units because I know where, and how the enemy is going to use this unit. I can tell from before deployment begins exactly where you will deploy said units and how I can change your deployment or render such units useless from the outset. I know you deploy your melta directly opposite my LR or other heavy vehicles. You will NOT depoly it diagonnally opposed because you know, and I know, you want to close distance. If you have an armarda of melta in your list I know I will out range you. I know your marine list is as fast (mostly slower) than my own list. This is not hard to counter.

 

There are soo many reasons not to take melta troops. The only reason so far presented to take a meltagun is to shoot AV 13+ (otherwise multiple plasma is a better choice). Is this really a GODD thing to be doing with your tacticals? The ability to target AV13 under 6 inches?

 

Anti MEQ with a melta gun provides 0-1 kills potential. A flamer is 0-6 (I respect the upper limits are slim, however so is the 0). A miss with a melta is a significant factor to consider. A flamer never misses. Ever. I will always get dice to roll to wound.

 

Marshall,

One is arguing against being rail-roaded into specialisation

Provide a winning tournament list that does not focus on specialisation. The best units in the game are specialists. A generalist list is not a strong list. (generalist is not the same as balanced). People dont run DEVs with 1 of each heavy weapon for this exact reason. Balance is best sourced from a group of specialised units not from within a generalist unit. Too much waste. Too expensive. Too hard to employ properly. That is MY experience.

[greatcrusade08]

i was going to reply yesterday, but i wanted to hear some more arguments first, as always ill piggyback tuals comments :teehee:

 

i would argue that tacticals are already balanced towards fighting infantry anyway, so you wouldnt be 'specialising' by taking flamers, youd be building on the foundations already laid by the codex writers.. thus increasing thier ability to perform in thier basic role.

 

and i have to ask why would you want to pop open a land raider and assault its contents with a tac squad?? the meltagun lets you kill tanks up close, paired with a combi then yes you stand a good chance of killing that raider, but youve spent 230+ points and moved your tac squad (your scoring unit) to within 6" of his land raider to make it happen... so what happens next?

if your aguing that a unit with combi-melta and meltagun CAN kill aland raider, then youd be correct, but SHOULD this unit be used in that way?

 

edit: tbh id actually favout the las/plas tac squads now anyway, what with GK so popular at the moment.. flamers a close second but melta tac squads at dead last

[angry man]

the transport comment wasnt particularly aimed at land raiders. with boters and a flamer, your tactical squad has 0% chance of destroying most transports that i can think of (there may be 1 or 2 i havent considered - raiders/trukks?), without getting access to their rear armour. with a meltagun, and maybe a combi also, you can now make your opponent think twice about bringing his vehicles near you. i know i dont want to be T3 with a 4+/5+ save when my ride has a 33% chance of hurting me when it gets penetrated. of course the melta could miss, or wiff the 2d6 pen, or not get a great damage role, but thats all part of the game.

 

maybe im less precious about my tactical marines because i combat squad, or because i can have 6 scoring units at 1500pts, but im more than happy to drive a rhino up to in front of my opponents tank, of any armour value, disembark my melta, and shoot the vehicle. if i destroy or cripple it - win. if not, well then i might lose a combat squad, but that tank still isnt going far, if anywhere (and playing clever means my sqad cant be shot/assaulted anyway - tag team rhinos go!)

 

tual, you say you can mess my deployment about by not putting your big hitters near where i have melta - maybe you've been played, and i dont want your big hitter in that part of the board. or maybe not, but its a possibility.

i have a lot of melta, but you can outrange me? maybe, but also maybe not - i would say its down to list balance. i think i have the right amount of melta to deal with heavy stuff, whilst remaining sufficient ranged gubbins to hit your lighter tanks/infantry and the rest of it.

 

the best units in the game are specialists?? how are eldar doing these days?? oh yeah, not so good.

all missile devs are not specialised. they can hit av12 downwards and stunlock av13. they can also frag the balls of infantry - i find the best units in the game to be those with dual-purpose

 

melta has a longer range than a flamer. and a melta in a rhino has total range 27", with a 2d6 range of 21" - not too shabby. of course melta has better platforms. but so do flamer varients. there are also more effective ways to deliver anti infantry firepower. the way i see it, tacticals are designed to plug the gaps; bolters and melta allows this, bolters and fllamer does not.

 

also, i dont mean to be rude, but could you make clear the differences between generalist and balanced. im confused

 

AM

[greatcrusade08]

the transport comment wasnt particularly aimed at land raiders. with boters and a flamer, your tactical squad has 0% chance of destroying most transports that i can think of (there may be 1 or 2 i havent considered - raiders/trukks?), without getting access to their rear armour. with a meltagun, and maybe a combi also, you can now make your opponent think twice about bringing his vehicles near you. i know i dont want to be T3 with a 4+/5+ save when my ride has a 33% chance of hurting me when it gets penetrated. of course the melta could miss, or wiff the 2d6 pen, or not get a great damage role, but thats all part of the game.

well you do realise this thread IS about land raiders (AV14) right? anything AV11 can be hurt by plasma which a: has a better chance of hitting a vehicle at close range and b: is also useful as an anti-infantry capacity, arguing taking meltaguns on tacticals for hurting rhinos is not part of this discussion, nor is it tactically savvy.. if an opponent is close enough for his land raider to be hit by your meltas hes close enough to disembark and cut you to pieces, dont forget his land raider has weapons that will easily blow up your rhino and open your tac squad to be charged..

im sure somone will regale me with some tactic that involves using a combat squad in rhino to break open land riaders and make the enemy commit, but the scout melta torpedoes can do that better for cheaper.

 

maybe im less precious about my tactical marines because i combat squad, or because i can have 6 scoring units at 1500pts, but im more than happy to drive a rhino up to in front of my opponents tank, of any armour value, disembark my melta, and shoot the vehicle. if i destroy or cripple it - win. if not, well then i might lose a combat squad, but that tank still isnt going far, if anywhere (and playing clever means my sqad cant be shot/assaulted anyway - tag team rhinos go!)

most transports have side doors, if your close enough to shoot at the land raider your close enough to be assaulted next turn

 

tual, you say you can mess my deployment about by not putting your big hitters near where i have melta - maybe you've been played, and i dont want your big hitter in that part of the board. or maybe not, but its a possibility.

i have a lot of melta, but you can outrange me? maybe, but also maybe not - i would say its down to list balance. i think i have the right amount of melta to deal with heavy stuff, whilst remaining sufficient ranged gubbins to hit your lighter tanks/infantry and the rest of it.

 

the best units in the game are specialists?? how are eldar doing these days?? oh yeah, not so good.

all missile devs are not specialised. they can hit av12 downwards and stunlock av13. they can also frag the balls of infantry - i find the best units in the game to be those with dual-purpose

misiles do jack against AV14, if your listis based around meltaguns and missiles, then your in trouble.. this is exactly the reason why melta needs its own platform, preferably fast moving bikes and/or speeders, although sternies in a pod are to be feared also

 

melta has a longer range than a flamer. and a melta in a rhino has total range 27", with a 2d6 range of 21" - not too shabby. of course melta has better platforms. but so do flamer varients. there are also more effective ways to deliver anti infantry firepower.

firstly your overeaching by an inch, even then these figures are only correct if you move twelve inches, turn the rhino around and then disembark from the rear hatches.. in terms of keepin your own units alive, that isnt clever

also except for the AP1 the ML can do the same thing as a meltagun at long range, from even further away.. why risk the unit just for that?

 

the way i see it, tacticals are designed to plug the gaps; bolters and melta allows this, bolters and flamer does not.

tacticals have many uses, they dont 'plug gaps'. In 40k terms that term means nothing unless your running a gunline.. generally speaking tacticals are a support unit, which is why tactical heavy armies dont work, they dont have the offensive potential to win games by themselves and they arent very durable in close combat..

if your postion is one in favour of melta of flamer, thats fine, everyone in this thread has a differing opinion, but simply stating that flamers dont work on tacticals is very narrow minded.

a single melta on a tactical squad isnt scary at all and used in suh an agressive manner as a 12" drive foward turn around and disembark will likely lose you a unit for a single shot at an enemy vehicle.. again not clever

 

 

ive always said in this discussion, that decisions must be tempered by your local meta, im not going to argue that melta is better than flamer against paladins or deathwing becuase its not.. however most of the time your tacticals are targetting infantry, its thier main role after all..

i realise people are arguing that the meltagun gives your an element of flexiblity if the enemy survives your other melta platforms and thats true to a degree, but id rather my tac squads were efficient at their main roles first and foremost, and they still have thier ML to target enemy mech with (although not AV14 obviously)

 

i would suggest that the lascannon on tacticals is a far better upgrade than the meltagun to counter AV14, and when they need to move forward and engage enemy infantry, they dont lose any hitting power.

[angry man]

well we can all play the 'quote and attempt to shoot down arguement' game

 

 

well you do realise this thread IS about land raiders (AV14) right?

yes, thank you very much though. as part of the threads heading it is quite clear. but if you carefully read my earlier post, i clearly said that i felt that the thread had digressed from being about anti av14 to how to kit out tac sqds. that is why i felt the rhinos (AV11/10) comment was appropriate.

 

anything AV11 can be hurt by plasma which a: has a better chance of hitting a vehicle at close range and b: is also useful as an anti-infantry capacity, arguing taking meltaguns on tacticals for hurting rhinos is not part of this discussion, nor is it tactically savvy..

i clearly mentioned rhinos on the context of destroying them to assault the content in the same turn - this cant be done with a plasma gun. given the context, this is a:not relevant to what i said and b:double the chance for double the price. and hoestly, using a melta tactical squad to hunt a well hidden rhino sat near an objective seems perfectly tactically savvy to me.

 

if an opponent is close enough for his land raider to be hit by your meltas hes close enough to disembark and cut you to pieces, dont forget his land raider has weapons that will easily blow up your rhino and open your tac squad to be charged..

again, reading my posts carefully would have informed you that i dont consider 5 tactical marines too precious. if their rhino has served the purpose of preventing a LR moving very far, and/or has occupied a dedicated cc unit for a turn, then i am perfectly happy with their performance.

 

im sure somone will regale me with some tactic that involves using a combat squad in rhino to break open land riaders and make the enemy commit, but the scout melta torpedoes can do that better for cheaper.

yeah, but then you realise that your scout melta has bs3, and that your storm took up a valuable FA slot, and that they are less survivable than marines (unless you shell out for cloaks). cheaper =/= better. not always

 

most transports have side doors, if your close enough to shoot at the land raider your close enough to be assaulted next turn

the rhinos yeh, but odds are they moved 12". if a base cant fit betwwen my 2 rhinos, then there is no assault going that way. angle the rhinos and suddenly the LR content has to mooch around the hull. either way, if im charged or not, as i mentioned earlier im not really overly fussed

 

misiles do jack against AV14, if your listis based around meltaguns and missiles, then your in trouble.. this is exactly the reason why melta needs its own platform, preferably fast moving bikes and/or speeders, although sternies in a pod are to be feared also

im aware of the limitations of missiles. im also aware of the limitations of of melta, and the superiority of platform mounted melta, hence the 2 MM/HF speeders im my 1.5k army.

 

firstly your overeaching by an inch, even then these figures are only correct if you move twelve inches, turn the rhino around and then disembark from the rear hatches.. in terms of keepin your own units alive, that isnt clever

not true. 12"move + 2" disembarkation + 1"(25mm) base + 12"/6" range = 27"/21". and i will say 1 final time - losing 5 marines isnt the end of the world for me. i have others...

 

also except for the AP1 the ML can do the same thing as a meltagun at long range, from even further away.. why risk the unit just for that?

guess what the other half of my combat squad has...

 

tacticals have many uses, they dont 'plug gaps'.

it is because of this that they do, or at least can, plug gaps. give a tactical squad a flamer, and they dont have many uses. they have two use, and that is kill infantry or camp on an objective. give tham a meltagun and now they have 3 uses; objectives, kill infantry or worry/hunt tanks. give them a rhino and now they have 4 uses; objectives, infantry, tanks, and blocking movement. and they can have a go at this anywhere between 0" and 27" form their starting location

 

generally speaking tacticals are a support unit

i agree, see above

 

if your postion is one in favour of melta of flamer, thats fine, everyone in this thread has a differing opinion, but simply stating that flamers dont work on tacticals is very narrow minded.

i dont believe that i wrote anywhere about flamers not working on tacticals. i was merely outlining why i believe that melta is superior

 

ive always said in this discussion, that decisions must be tempered by your local meta

meta schmeta. when i build a list i believe its important to create something that is balanced and will perform well in any situation. in my eyes, meta is just another term for list tailoring. if my entire gaming community was ork horde players, i wouldnt all of a sudden stock up on plasma cannons, whirlwinds, flamers etc... all it takes is someone new to turn up with a mech list and all of a sudden you look silly. in terms of a tournament friendly/very competitive/whatever, that bad matchup could cost you big time

 

however most of the time your tacticals are targetting infantry, its thier main role after all..

no. most of the time your tacticlas are targetting infantry. mine are doing whatever it is that needs doing to support the rest of my army against each individual opponent. in my opinion, that is their main role, after all

 

AM

[Mysticaria]

i would suggest that the lascannon on tacticals is a far better upgrade than the meltagun to counter AV14, and when they need to move forward and engage enemy infantry, they dont lose any hitting power.

I'm starting to think this is going to be the way to go too. Lascanons weren't super popular for the last year or so, but more people are slowly starting to get back to them. A lone lascanon on a tactical squad isn't too impressive by itself, but as part of an army-wide strategy that has a number of lascanons it should work. Against AV14 it's going to take a lot of lascanons, but it's not like they're every going to be wasted. They'll be better than missiles against rhinos and other light transports, and better than missiles against AV14 as well.

 

One more thought, what happens if you were to roll with a lascanon and a meltagun... and maybe a combimelta as well. Options for combat squading there. Should be plrenty scary to AV14, and even if the contents of the LandRaider get out to kill the combat squad, they should be standing around in the open the next turn.

 

-Myst

[greatcrusade08]

well we can all play the 'quote and attempt to shoot down arguement' game

just so :D

im not gunna requote and argue your posts, i canot agrewith many ofyour assertions tbh

 

im sure somone will regale me with some tactic that involves using a combat squad in rhino to break open land riaders and make the enemy commit, but the scout melta torpedoes can do that better for cheaper.

yeah, but then you realise that your scout melta has bs3, and that your storm took up a valuable FA slot, and that they are less survivable than marines (unless you shell out for cloaks). cheaper =/= better. not always

 

except that the scout sergeant has Bs4 and a combi-weapon, we can both agree that whether its a combat squad or unit of scouts they will die anyway..

i personally assert that the melta-torpedo is one of the best anti AV14 units in the dex if you get first turn, ifyou dont get first turn,its stillpretty effctive albeit having to go flat out in scout phase to stay aliveorby outflanking.. indeed in terms of what units counter AV14 best a tac squad with meltagun is at the bottom of the list

 

@Myst: i dont think the lascannon adds itselfto the melta tbh, i feel the las/plasma combo is better.. it also mean you dont have to purchase power fists

the lascannons can fire from rhino hatches from turn one