The AV14 issue

[Corby]

ah so you are taking a combi-melta on the sarge, I guess that is ok, I am never a big fan of one shot weapons for the purpose of a unit. I think attack bikes, or regular speeders are probably better melta delivery systems. The 24" range on the multi-melta really makes a huge difference.

 

I was refering to meltaguns , so I excluded multi-meltas , but yes , Landspeeders are a much better deliverly system for Melta.

[Meatman]

5 sternguard with combi-meltas in a pod. BAM.

 

 

Bikers with 2 meltas and a multi-melta attack bike. 2 examples of mass melta that is cheap and can get in their face VERY quickly. If your argument is that it takes many turns to get melta in range, maybe your using melta wrong :)

[breng77]

5 sternguard with combi-meltas in a pod. BAM.

 

 

Bikers with 2 meltas and a multi-melta attack bike. 2 examples of mass melta that is cheap and can get in their face VERY quickly. If your argument is that it takes many turns to get melta in range, maybe your using melta wrong

 

Bubble wrapping BAM, you're not within 6" for double dice, then you get assaulted and killed....against a good player it tends to take more than 1 turn to get into melta range, which means your opponent gets 1 if not 2 turns to move their transport forward. The bikers cannot be in Melta range until turn 2 unless you are playing Dawn of War.

[Corby]

5 sternguard with combi-meltas in a pod. BAM.

 

 

Bikers with 2 meltas and a multi-melta attack bike. 2 examples of mass melta that is cheap and can get in their face VERY quickly. If your argument is that it takes many turns to get melta in range, maybe your using melta wrong

 

Bubble wrapping BAM, you're not within 6" for double dice, then you get assaulted and killed....against a good player it tends to take more than 1 turn to get into melta range, which means your opponent gets 1 if not 2 turns to move their transport forward. The bikers cannot be in Melta range until turn 2 unless you are playing Dawn of War.

 

Bubble wrapping against Skimmers and fast vehicles is incredibly difficult , even for good players. Bubble wrap works for prevent assault really not for protecting vehicles against fast melta.

[breng77]

against Multi-meltas I agree, against drop podding meltaguns, and fast melta guns it is not that tough. 2 tactical squads can bubble wrap a land raider well enough to keep you back, or Razorbacks push you back far enough, sure you can kill those razorbacks, but then the land raider moves up to kill what killed the RB.

[Meatman]

For being on the defensive, yes, bubble wrapping with 2 tactical squads will work. Doesn't help if you want to push forward with that land raider + contents. That's also at least 340 points spent on keeping that land raider slightly better protected against meltaguns.

[Brother Tual]

Every time I see threads on tactics or army list people bring up the issue of how to deal with AV14 and I'm wondering if it is really that big of an issue in most cases.

 

Sure having something to deal with the AV14 tanks are beneficial but is it absolutely necessary to focus as much on it as people seem to? In most 1500 pts games how much AV14 are you realistically going to encounter? One? And in 2000pts maybe 2?

 

So I'm wondering if when I build a list if I should even care about bringing some uber landraider can opener or just have enough firepower to crack open transports and use those points for other things

 

Any thoughts?

 

No, its not.

 

Not all people 'giving' advice or sharing their opinions on tactical discusions have enough experience actually playing the game. As a result most posts following the general concensus are nothing more than the regurgitation of some elses' opinion.

 

The threat of AV14 (and mech in general) is hypersensationalised by the B&C community. Every vehicle is subject to the same damage table making AV14 no harder to counter than AV11. The means required may be slightly different however the solution is not. High STR weaponry with range and/or high volume. Why mech is viewed as such a threat is partly due to the invulnerabilities it affords (denying small arms fire) with higher AV's having an increased spectrum of invulnerabilities, but also extends to increased player selections of dedicated AT units as the ONLY solution and quickly chewing up available army points.

 

The current flavour of the month on the B&C seems to be troop mounted MM in rhinos. This combination has been the least favoured since second edition and with NO changes in the weapon rule set, infantry rule set or transport rule set I fail to see why (of late) in the current edition it has become the best thing since sliced bread.

 

I personally see the Melta equiped infantry as the weakest choice. Players advocating the 'MM bunker' do so largely on theoretical grounds. 'Drive it into the middle of the table and create a 24" exclusion zone.' This does not and never will work. The single MM (even within half range) is not a strong enough threat to deter any serious gamer. Adding multiples of this unit FOR ANTI TANK PURPOSES is simply NOT effective or wise considering the cost. Think about all of the variables required for this tactic to work and then how little control a player actually has over these and then how easy this tactic is avoid/deny.

 

When building a list I focus on how I want the list to behave. I have to enjoy the list. I dont want a 'car park' style list that is dull and boring. I dont want a cookie cutter list for the same reasons. Once I have selected my units of choice I look to see how I can add to them. This is when I start to consider the enemy and how my list will perform both offensively and defensively. I look at options and available possible solutions. Questions like the ones you have raised are considered. What am I going to do IF I face AV14? The solution DOES NOT require melta weaponry. Other options are available and these options are hopefully ones effective through different means of application and against different target types. I dont want to HAVE to always get within 6" of a LR to have any hope of killing it. I will consider how I will (if in fact it/they can be applied in the first instance) apply this solution and how rapidly I can hope to achieve the desired result. Extending this further I consider how I will counter should my original solution be negated (removed from the table, lack of range etc). This will never be a repeat of the first solution (if my enemy can deny one MM they can surely deny 2) and will always be applied through a different means.

 

Any list that cookie cuts or employs strictly dedicated units will rely on overwhelming a certain rule set/target. The result is the perception that whatever the chosen target is maybe difficult to counter.

 

On a side note, a vindicator is my favourite anti high AV solution. It can do it at range. It can do it fairly well and it is not limited to high AV targets. If fact it is competent against all threats besides MC. This unit is followed closely by Typhoons for the same reasons however is more direct in providing these results.

[DarkGuard]

Brother Taul, another fantastic an enlightening post. I myself am trying to pull myself away from some of the more boring lists, in particular spam and full mech, and so its good to hear that there are other ways to handle mech.

 

Now speaking personally as a flip side to using the demo cannon, I still favour melta for three reasons. The first is that the demo cannon can scatter off. It's unlikely given how big the Land Raider is, but it can happen. The melta is a straight hit, and with BS4 the odds are you'll hit (unless you're only firing one meltagun, then you'll definitely miss). The second reason is AP1. Land Raiders are harder to kill than Rhinos because they often require a higher roll of the dice to pen unless using specialist equipment. AP1 means that when you do pen, you're more likely to kill it. And the third reason is that more often than not I'd prefer to have that demo cannon to shoot at the unit inside, especially if its a Terminator squad (and double especially if I can Null Zone off).

 

But yeah, good post.

[BearersOfSalvation]

The threat of AV14 (and mech in general) is hypersensationalised by the B&C community. Every vehicle is subject to the same damage table making AV14 no harder to counter than AV11.

 

I don't see any of the 'hypersensationalized' posts you're talking about in this thread. Also, AV11 is easily cracked by autocannons, but autocannons can't even scratch AV14, AC11 is easily penetrated by missile launchers but missile launchers can only glance AV14, so it is certainly harder to counter than AV11, since numerous weapons that work well against Av11 are ineffective or only mildly effective against AV14.

 

I personally see the Melta equiped infantry as the weakest choice. Players advocating the 'MM bunker' do so largely on theoretical grounds. 'Drive it into the middle of the table and create a 24" exclusion zone.'

 

No one has said anything remotely like that in this thread.

[sofacoin]

The current flavour of the month on the B&C seems to be troop mounted MM in rhinos. This combination has been the least favoured since second edition and with NO changes in the weapon rule set, infantry rule set or transport rule set I fail to see why (of late) in the current edition it has become the best thing since sliced bread.

 

I personally see the Melta equiped infantry as the weakest choice. Players advocating the 'MM bunker' do so largely on theoretical grounds. 'Drive it into the middle of the table and create a 24" exclusion zone.' This does not and never will work. The single MM (even within half range) is not a strong enough threat to deter any serious gamer. Adding multiples of this unit FOR ANTI TANK PURPOSES is simply NOT effective or wise considering the cost. Think about all of the variables required for this tactic to work and then how little control a player actually has over these and then how easy this tactic is avoid/deny

 

Melta is gold dust, not for the entire 2d6 in short range, but the AP 1 bonus to the damage table; how it penetrates so easily is lovely, but even as a 24" krak, it does the anti-tank job incredibly well just because of how 50% of penetrating hits will blow the vehicle open. In fact, this is why attack-bike squads are so scary- they rarely use the 12" melta option because at least one of the multi-melta shots has ripped open the transport the turn before

Two melta/multimelta rhino bunkers is enough, if you're taking them; that's all the multiple one really needs to make sure the meltas do their thing... and what else will you do with tacticals? They can take a missile launcher instead, should you like, but only these two heavy weapons- and all three special weapons- are the best of a rather unspectacular bunch.

 

Last, space marines already have some pretty good anti-infantry in the form of boltguns at a good BS-- Rapid firing marines can kill a squad pretty quickly. They can do that, but nothing against tanks-- so hand unto them the most reliable tank-killing one can find. Oh, it has a short range? Then drive it as close it can, say, in one of 5th ed's cheap transports.

 

I mostly, myself, use bikes- and bikes with two melta and a multi-melta, which retain their ability to take out infantry. I'll also agree that Typhoons are solid gold as anti-transport- as are riflemen dreads,

 

In short, melta is not good because it penetrates AV 14 about half the time, it's great because it blows up whatever it penetrates about half the time. The changes were the ones to the vehicle damage table, how cheap and common vehicles are now, and how important it is to counter this massive a number.

[Koremu]

The main reason I tend to have at least one Melta weapon in any Infantry squad is to discourage people from using Tank Shock to push them off Objectives.

[Brother Tual]

I don't see any of the 'hypersensationalized' posts you're talking about in this thread.

The preceeding 15 posts discuss only meltaweapons. Extending this to the larger community, the general concensus is that melta is the best AT weapon in the game. Read the Army list forum if you dont believe me. The advice centred on melta weaponry is over represented.

 

AV14, so it is certainly harder to counter than AV11

The only difference is getting to the damage table. Everything else is the same. Therfore the same strategy works against all tanks. Not all weapons are effective, as you have pointed out, however is this making the higher AV harder to kill? Where is the increased difficulty in deciding not to shoot STR7 at AV14? I see how having less effective weapons may be a concern, however there is a limited number of AV14 vehicles and these vehicles are prohibitive in cost alone. Limited weapon options vs limited targets. It is balanced out. You dont need 15 meltaguns or what ever was mathhammered out previosly. Sorry.

 

Two melta/multimelta rhino bunkers is enough, if you're taking them; that's all the multiple one really needs to make sure the meltas do their thing... and what else will you do with tacticals? They can take a missile launcher instead, should you like, but only these two heavy weapons- and all three special weapons- are the best of a rather unspectacular bunch.

Hence my dislike for such a tactic. I dont mind if you have or use a tactic but please support it better than "what else will you do with your tacticals?" This is not a good reason. On prima facie this tactic may have some merit. If you analyse this further it quickly develops weaknesses.

 

Starting with the most basic. Cost. 210 points at its most basic (with meltagun and MM in rhino) you have 8 boltguns and 1 MM and 1 meltagun mounted on infantry transported in AV11. The reality of the situation is that the MM cannot fire if the unit moves. The maximum movement of said unit is 12'. The maximum range of said unit is 24' (less for actually melting things) These factors deny the unit ANY real chance of providing anything from turn one. Secondly, the unit needs to close with the enemy due to range issues. Closing with the enemy requires movement. Movement exludes shooting with your 'glorious MM'. Obviously this equation presents difficulties in itself. The reality is the enemy has to move towards you for you to use this combination. If your enemy does do this then it is a calculated risk and I can only assunme your opponent has reduced this risk as much as possible. (smoke, stunning your MM bunker etc)

 

Next. Under perfect circumstances where the MM is in range and has not moved, you are relying on ONE and only ONE shot. There is a real chance of a miss, a non effective shot (more so given non melta range) possible enemy defence (smoke) and then a roll on the damage table. All for 210 point cost? Hardly an effective use of tactical marines. Adding multiples? why? if one does not work, two only adds to the problem of cost!

 

Last, space marines already have some pretty good anti-infantry in the form of boltguns at a good BS-- Rapid firing marines can kill a squad pretty quickly. They can do that, but nothing against tanks-- so hand unto them the most reliable tank-killing one can find. Oh, it has a short range? Then drive it as close it can, say, in one of 5th ed's cheap transports.

 

 

I will accept the senerio given two MM 'bunkers' midfield against an attacking LR. I will extend this to both 'bunkers' being fully effective (not stunned/shaken) I will accept pefect results of destroying the attacking LR (despite the long odds). Consider what happens next. The LR is merely a means. It will never win any game. Nor will it destroy the enemy. The propblem with Melta weaponry on troops becomes apparent. Your means of winning the game (scoring troops) is now squarly in range of a unit designed to destroy them. Compounding this, the said unit is probably in range to engage both units in the same phase!

 

When you consider the totality of the situation, despite the success of your MM 'bunker', there is no tactical adavantage of benefit from employing tacticals in this manner.

 

What else do yo do with tacticals? Supply them with the RIGHT weaponry/upgrades. Play them sensibly and attack a depleted enemy. Ensure their survival and move them end game onto objectives. Simple. Melta weaponry is designed to target units BEYOND the scope of the average marine. Targetting these desired units at such short range will surely see the rapid demise of your winning capabilities. Doing so when the enemy is at full strength is lunacy.

 

I agree AP1 is advantageous against vehicles. The cost associated with it being sourced from troops is too high a price to pay. I do as you do and source Melta weaponry on more appropriate platforms. 1 or 2 such units is more than enough. Looking back at my previous post, alternatives are effective yet retain value should the enemy deploy little or no armour. This is my advice to the OP. Source AT from the right units in a way that doesnt deplete your total allocation of points to a specific threat that may or may not be present.

[Hellios]

5 sternguard with combi-meltas in a pod. BAM.

 

 

Bikers with 2 meltas and a multi-melta attack bike. 2 examples of mass melta that is cheap and can get in their face VERY quickly. If your argument is that it takes many turns to get melta in range, maybe your using melta wrong :P

 

 

5 sternguard with combi-meltas in a pod. BAM.

 

 

Bikers with 2 meltas and a multi-melta attack bike. 2 examples of mass melta that is cheap and can get in their face VERY quickly. If your argument is that it takes many turns to get melta in range, maybe your using melta wrong

 

Bubble wrapping BAM, you're not within 6" for double dice, then you get assaulted and killed....against a good player it tends to take more than 1 turn to get into melta range, which means your opponent gets 1 if not 2 turns to move their transport forward. The bikers cannot be in Melta range until turn 2 unless you are playing Dawn of War.

 

Monolith :D

 

Oh and at whoever earlier I wasn't proposing 9 LRBTs as the way to go... the OP asked how much AV14 armour could you face and so I provided an answer... Also melta would constitute anti-AV14 weapon... and he was asking if it is really necessary to take stuff to blow up AV14... As for combat... yeah that works... hence I mentioned being able to get the side and rear armour but depending on how your army is constructed... 9 LRBTs might cause you a lot of pain before you get into combat... Oh and while they won't have many with so many LRBTs it is possible some guard meat shield squads exist and when you do get close... they may get in your way... you waste a turn of combat on them... get stuck in the open and have a battle cannon shell land on your head... I think I can survive 2 marines with krak grenades in combat!... if you could have damaged some of my tanks beforehand so 8 marines could make it I might be more worried.

 

So yer... I wouldn't call nine LRBTs an auto-win situation for every army possible, I don't know what the OP runs, I know people do run 9 LRBTs (Armoured company or not!) and so I thought it was worth mentioning it... I mean what if he runs Black Templars which don't come with Krak as standard war gear?

[greatcrusade08]

is AV14 an issue?

by AV14 most of us refer to land raiders and monliths, IG do have some vehciles with AV14 frontage but they are AV11 rear which makes them more delicate.

monoliths are easy to deal with, you ignore them and force a phase out.

 

so by AV14 we really mean land raiders.. are we bothered by our opponents taking land raiders and how do we deal with them?

 

i really have to echo brother tuals arguments that putting melta on tac squads is a waste, for 5 points the meltagun itself and a free upgrade to MM, it doesnt cost much.. but its a waste to leave those bolters and only fire a couple of weapons in the chance of killing a tank.. every unit should have a job, and whilst having a redundancy is a good idea, sometimes we can take it too far.

a land raider on its own isnt a game breaker, infact the godhammer land raider suffers from a severe identity crisis.. is it a heavy weapon platform or is it a heavy transport?

generally when you take a land raider its becuase of its transport capacity, lascannons can be brought cheaper elsewhere..

 

in terms of removing its effectiveness as a transport, any glancing or pen hit will cause at minimum a stun effect on the vehicle, even if you spend the first turn or two stunlocking a LR youve essentially denied your opponent the use of the vehicle.

now neither tual or myself are saying that melta is bad, or that there are better options.. fact is melta at close range is one of the best anti tank options going.. but do you really want to place a 230ish point tac squad that close to a land raider?

melta should have its own platform, in terms of anti tank, a melta speeder or melta attack bikes are some of the best options, i use a land speeder storm with tri-melta.. and i take two sets for redundancy.. by taking dedicated tank busters your freeing up the many other units in your army to do what they do best (or better)..

[MagicMan]

The most AV 14 i see are with IG.

 

 

Even in small games they can fit a few tanks in, 14 Front, 13 Side. I usually rely on punching them to death. The tanks, not the player.

[Meatman]

The most AV 14 i see are with IG.

 

 

Even in small games they can fit a few tanks in, 14 Front, 13 Side. I usually rely on punching them to death. The tanks, not the player.

 

This. Marines come with krak grenades standard. Use them!

[sofacoin]

The preceeding 15 posts discuss only meltaweapons. Extending this to the larger community, the general concensus is that melta is the best AT weapon in the game. Read the Army list forum if you dont believe me. The advice centred on melta weaponry is over represented.

Melta is the best AT in the game: no weapon is better at penetrating, or better after penetrating, for such a tiny price as 'free' or '5 points'. A missile launcher can't dent the AV 14 talked about elsewhere; even at 24" range, a melta can kill it even on a glance due to AP1. AV 12- a 50% chance of not hurting it for a missile launcher or melta, 50% of penetrating on a lascannon... except within short melta range, when it penetrates a whole lot more than either.

At worst, the multi-melta is a half-range (krak) missile launcher that's better against vehicles and terminators.

 

The only difference is getting to the damage table. Everything else is the same. Therfore the same strategy works against all tanks. Not all weapons are effective, as you have pointed out, however is this making the higher AV harder to kill? Where is the increased difficulty in deciding not to shoot STR7 at AV14? I see how having less effective weapons may be a concern, however there is a limited number of AV14 vehicles and these vehicles are prohibitive in cost alone. Limited weapon options vs limited targets. It is balanced out. You dont need 15 meltaguns or what ever was mathhammered out previosly. Sorry.

You say that the only difference is getting to the damage table-- and everything else is the same. Once again, AP1 means a meltagun or multi-melta can kill tanks on a glance, and kill fully a sixth more tanks per shot over other penetrators. Plus, strength 8 is enough to get through AV13 in saturation, and AV 11 or less reliably; strength 8 with two dice is enough to kill pretty much any vehicle reliably.

 

Hence my dislike for such a tactic. I dont mind if you have or use a tactic but please support it better than "what else will you do with your tacticals?" This is not a good reason. On prima facie this tactic may have some merit. If you analyse this further it quickly develops weaknesses.

 

Starting with the most basic. Cost. 210 points at its most basic (with meltagun and MM in rhino) you have 8 boltguns and 1 MM and 1 meltagun mounted on infantry transported in AV11. The reality of the situation is that the MM cannot fire if the unit moves. The maximum movement of said unit is 12'. The maximum range of said unit is 24' (less for actually melting things) These factors deny the unit ANY real chance of providing anything from turn one. Secondly, the unit needs to close with the enemy due to range issues. Closing with the enemy requires movement. Movement exludes shooting with your 'glorious MM'. Obviously this equation presents difficulties in itself. The reality is the enemy has to move towards you for you to use this combination. If your enemy does do this then it is a calculated risk and I can only assunme your opponent has reduced this risk as much as possible. (smoke, stunning your MM bunker etc

 

The idea a unit has to be firing from turn 1 to be effective is a fallacy- and while the other heavy weapons have the range to do so, one is overpriced and ineffective at the job it's made to do (lascannons- paying through the nose for unreliable killing that can't be taken in saturation save for at ridiculous costs) and two are anti-infantry only. Plus, closing with the enemy without support from the rest of the army IS major stupidity-- that's why you have 1000+ points to pay for stuff that CAN support the unit. What you do have that can hit the enemy from turn 1 should be putting them into smoke-popping mode ASAP, and while it's true they could stun, immobilize, or destroy your rhinos, this is always a risk- better to outshoot them.

 

Rommel, you magnificent chap, I've read your book! I understand you're all about movement-- but driving around and doing nothing, turtling up and hiding a tactical squad while hurling a single missile or lascannon bolt a turn before rushing to objectives at the end is very ineffective, and removing them from a rhino so they can walk around, get shot, and take on infantry targets is tantamount to throwing a squad away. Oh, and driving close to an enemy with the intent to just use a special weapon a turn is too aggressive- even with a melta; a plasmagun is just suicide. One must use both parts of the squad. Keeping them together in the same vehicle protects them both from the ease of death inherent to the footslogging.

Tactical squads need to find a sweet spot to sit and do their magic, and that magic being one missile a turn is awful at over 200 points; they don't threaten anything, just occasionally damage it. Remember, once they're on an objective, the rhino can die; it's a means to an end. The longer it survives, the better, but the boys inside will still be able to kill any infantry that gets in range with boltguns and anything else with melta. They create a threat radius into which anything of AV 13 or less can't just barge into, and a smaller threat radius where any tank severely risks life and limb; they need to be dealt with to remove them from the objective. Hence why you have an entire army. They're the zen garden's rocks around which the gravel flows.

 

A 5-man tactical squad walking around with a lascannon is a vulnerable, easily killed unit that has to stay still to be effective and cannot close with the enemy effectively; a plasmagun in a rhino is nothing more than doing the work of a meltagun less efficiently and more expensively, while not giving enough saturation to reliably kill tanks.

 

Next. Under perfect circumstances where the MM is in range and has not moved, you are relying on ONE and only ONE shot. There is a real chance of a miss, a non effective shot (more so given non melta range) possible enemy defence (smoke) and then a roll on the damage table. All for 210 point cost? Hardly an effective use of tactical marines. Adding multiples? why? if one does not work, two only adds to the problem of cost!

It's an unreliable shot (against AV 13+)-- why the hell would I rely on it? Enough melta, enough riflemen, enough typhoons, enough predators, and I'm very comfortable with wiping out vehicles.

It's still better than waiting all game for the tacticals to be able to take on a depleted de-meched unit that it can harm, while out its rhino and simultaneously out of range of nasty anti-infantry fire, or better than driving round doing nothing except maybe plugging one even less reliable shot per turn. And, hell, even if they DO end up in a situation where you might want them to get out and bolter the enemy (!), you can still do that.

 

I will accept the senerio given two MM 'bunkers' midfield against an attacking LR. I will extend this to both 'bunkers' being fully effective (not stunned/shaken) I will accept pefect results of destroying the attacking LR (despite the long odds). Consider what happens next. The LR is merely a means. It will never win any game. Nor will it destroy the enemy. The propblem with Melta weaponry on troops becomes apparent. Your means of winning the game (scoring troops) is now squarly in range of a unit designed to destroy them. Compounding this, the said unit is probably in range to engage both units in the same phase!

ANYTHING killing a Land Raider full of assault terminators at short range will mean that you're now facing a close-up squad of Assault Terminators. That's kind of the point of the Land Raider- it's a means to an end. Hopefully, you'll either have neutralized it before it gets close, or at least be properly supporting your units to take on the terminators resultant from the LR's approach. Also, 'long odds'- every multi-melta has a greater than 1/2 chance of penetrating, a 2/3rds chance of hitting, and a 2/3rds chance of getting immobilized or better. 2/9ths isn't great, but it's not 'long odds'. Note also that you'll be able to apply a less reliable meltagun fire this turn, too, or even drive closer to make sure that all four melta weapons will have a shot at full capacity- and that every turn they're within 24", you also risk him getting burned.Even with a paltry 2/9ths four times over, you're a sad panda? Hence why there's a lot more in your army that CAN hurt it. Typhoons and every other melta point in range should be coming to bear on a Raider until it's slagged- or at least immobilized.

 

You're captain mobility; you should know that an assault unit closing in on you is a danger. There's just not much that can stop them at range, bar suicide melta or that even-less-reliable lascannon... or the equally fragile and maneuverable Vindicator

Additionally, meltabunkers aren't a perfect remedy to land raiders-- that's again, kind of the point in taking land raiders. Rather, they're able to kill almost every other closing vehicle with an AV of 12 or less before they even enter into half range.

 

When you consider the totality of the situation, despite the success of your MM 'bunker', there is no tactical adavantage of benefit from employing tacticals in this manner.

Other than you're maintaining a stranglehold on a small area, able to support those units of yours that are far more deadly. Yeah, the rhinos get blown up; sometimes, the unit inside even dies (I can't claim I've never lost both in a game where I take 'em-- but most games, they both survive.)

 

What else do yo do with tacticals? Supply them with the RIGHT weaponry/upgrades. Play them sensibly and attack a depleted enemy. Ensure their survival and move them end game onto objectives. Simple. Melta weaponry is designed to target units BEYOND the scope of the average marine. Targetting these desired units at such short range will surely see the rapid demise of your winning capabilities. Doing so when the enemy is at full strength is lunacy.

The target for which marines are intended to kill is other infantry. Replacing two boltguns that they might also put "anything short of Land Raiders without dedicated and fast melee threats in" on that list is a good thing. A flamer is also a nice choice, as it helps do exactly what the unit's meant to do; a missile launcher also does this, and helps the unit kill its threats. Only plasma really asks the unit to try taking on something outside of its scope without doing enough to make it reliable. Two melta shots at 12" or less will reliably slag tanks and transports in that range, thus turning them into a non-threat- unless, you know, they have something that can hurt you back. Like melta (or plasma guns, but even with two shots, they're not as reliable against the rhino... in which you'll be sitting).

There's no point giving a unit one role it's okay at when you can give it two, at no loss to its primary role, for 5 points.

 

I agree AP1 is advantageous against vehicles. The cost associated with it being sourced from troops is too high a price to pay. I do as you do and source Melta weaponry on more appropriate platforms. 1 or 2 such units is more than enough. Looking back at my previous post, alternatives are effective yet retain value should the enemy deploy little or no armour. This is my advice to the OP. Source AT from the right units in a way that doesnt deplete your total allocation of points to a specific threat that may or may not be present.

Only the missile launcher and plasma cannon are as good should the enemy deploy little armour- lascannons and melta and autocannons can all do something, especially versus MCs, 2+ saves, or characters, but are less reliable. The good ol' vindicator can, too, which is why it's a shame they're as fragile as a rhino without the additional infantry.

Source your AT everywhere, and look for opportune places for AI; marines are naturally talented in anti-infantry, so help them do what they can't normally.

 

Oh, I haven't even mentioned Vulcan. That's odd.

 

Edit: I forgot to mention: why use two plasma guns to do what one melta can do, or three missile launchers to do the work of two, or six lascannons to do the work of one? Melta is efficient; using melta involves risk; efficiency counters risk; careful support counters risk.

[fredbob524]

let me answer this for you, you play space marines of some varity because you are on this boar so go get some speeders and block/destroy the land raiders. if you are to cheap a regular meltagun guy will do problem solved.

[Meatman]

Fred, as others have already said, it's harder to pop a raider with single meltaguns. Yes it's a better chance then single lascannons etc, but you still need to get the melta delivery system in range. Speeders are only AV10, and even with the cover save from moving flat out, it takes a single weapon destroyed result to stop it from firing that melta.

[greatcrusade08]

speeders follow the lanchaster square law :devil:

assault bikes, however are very nice melta delivery systems that dont suffer from the same issues of the speeders, sure they have thier own issues but nothing should be uber powerful in this game, its all about the balance.

i find the tri melta storms to be perfect for anti AV14

[fredbob524]

speeders follow the lanchaster square law :devil:

??

 

also even wep destroyed result does not prevent you from blocking

[Koremu]

speeders follow the lanchaster square law :mellow:

??

Lanchester's Square Law is a mathematical rule regarding evaluation of combat strengths in military studies. In effect, it states that the effectiveness of a mobile firepower platform in increased by the square of the quantity of said fire platform, not by a linear evaluation of same.

 

Essentially, 1 Speeder is one Speeder, but 2 Speeders are four Speeders, and 3 Speeders is nine Speeders.

[Brother Tual]

Melta is the best AT in the game

This is your opinion. Your statement is valid given your supporting examples. The problem with melta (despite the strengths you have pointed out) is that you cannot ignore its short comings, ie short range. Your claim that a MM is a 'half range ML' is bogus. The ability of a ML is not its STR8 or ap3. It IS its range. My opinion is that a MM or meltagun is a POOR Anti Tank weapon WHEN EMPLOYED ON TROOPS is 100% based on its POOR conditions of application, ie standing NEXT to the tank you are trying to destroy. To me, destroying a transport at 36' is MUCH more effective than a higher chance of destroying the same transport at a much reduced 8' or less range. The simple fact of the matter is that what ever you are trying to destroy has completed its primary task. How is destroying AFTER this effective or the best way to destroy armour?

 

AP1 is nice but it is hardly a game winning boost. I refute this as a good reason to take a melta weapon. My notion was that once an attack moves to rolling on the damage table, most of the chance has rolled yor way thus far. Once here it matters little what the actual weapon was that you fired. There is a bigger variation on weapon v armour 'chance' than +1 on the damage table. As you implied, it is much better to have two or more such chances than a single roll of the dice. I dont know of any multiple shot meltaguns in the game. There are multiple shot AT weapons sourced elsewhere. A melta (ap1) CAN destroy a tank on a glance, this is hardly reliable and given the increased risk it is not a means of tank killing I would recommend. Regardless, the way to kill a tank is to hit it with multiple high STR weapons.

 

The idea a unit has to be firing from turn 1 to be effective is a fallacy

I agree with you. I can see how this is implied in what I wrote. I meant for it to mean that the weapon choice on infantry has little flexiblity to be applied on any given turn. It cannot be moved and fired yet it requires (because of range issues) to be close to the enemy.

 

I am not sure I follow the rest of your paragraph sofacoin. You go to state that firing a single lascannon/ML from a 200 point unit is 'very ineffective' yet are claiming (assuming you are presenting the argument that a MM is a good selection on infantry) that firing what you have said to be a 'half range ML' is somehow effective?

 

You agree that destroying a transport or tank is most effective early game because as taking it out before it effects the game (this can be through applying heavy weapons or movement or both) as put by you, 'the rhino can die; it's a means to an end'. I would like for you to explain how a MM or meltagun on a infantry supplies results BEFORE this means has supplied its end?

 

They create a threat radius into which anything of AV 13 or less can't just barge into, and a smaller threat radius where any tank severely risks life and limb

This is wrong. A MM (even at melting range) against a target protected by smoke has a slim chance of actually destroying a tank. Only a foolish player would be concerned by such long odds. I wouldnt hesitate at all. Score a shaken result on your glorious AT bunker of death and it is 100% useless. You cannot dismount and shoot that gun.

 

I'm very comfortable with wiping out vehicles.

As am I. I have been to many tournaments and done well. I run lists with 0 melta. I have never ever had issues. I am commenting on the choice to apply melta weapons through the medium of troops. Your statement about other platforms highlights your own understanding that AT is best sourced elsewhere. I agree with this statement. Tacticals should run as 10 + Flamer and ML with a combi flamer if upgrades are desired.

 

In a situation where you might want them to get out and bolter the enemy (!), you can still do that.

Not if you are targetting AV. I assume you agree meltaguns are not best used in this role. (anti infantry) Tacticals should run as 10 + Flamer and ML with a combi flamer if upgrades are desired. This configuration (given average coverage with a flamer template) will provide the same results as two combined melta armed tactical squads in rapid fire range. (I am giving this advice from experience, it is MORE than my opinion) I find doubling the effect for 0 points (maybe 10 for the combi) in the desired role of a tactical squad to be much more beneficial than adding some poor AT (that I source elsewhere anyway).

 

that an assault unit closing in on you is a danger. There's just not much that can stop them

Not exactly true. My own mobility is a better counter than a meltagun. We both understand that a transport is a means to an end (ultimately) however the narrow view that destroying this means is the only way to end it is the point I am refuting. Denying a target denies the end. Denying the end is effectively making the means useless or at least in-effective.

 

Source your AT everywhere, and look for opportune places for AI; marines are naturally talented in anti-infantry, so help them do what they can't normally.

I will end here. You see this as a good use of tacticals. I dont. I see the opposite. 'help them do what they do best, leave what they cant do to something else.'

 

EDIT : your comment about attacking un-support etc is a moot point. The enemy will attack/defend in the same manner. I dont expect the reader to need to be told to support an attack nor do I assume an enemy will attack un-supported.

[thade]

Brother Tual knows what he's talking about.

 

My opponent sticking your scoring units mid-table as a "MM Bunker" is my dream come true...I will gladly feed him my Land Raider there, plowing it in to melta range and sitting there for you to shoot it. Because at that point my massive Rhino has served it's purpose: it's delivered the payload and will now kill your Tacticals on a multiple-unit assault charge. Or, if you're very unlucky, I will envelope one Rhino and auto-kill the contents when I open it up.

 

But it's okay though, right? I mean "what else would you do with tacticals"? Other than hold an objective? ;) Or rapid-fire the crap out of an exposed infantry unit.

 

I use Vindicators, Assault Cannons, and my Str 10 Psychic power to deal with AV14. I also have several combi-meltas in my Sternguard. If no other target presents itself, I'll shoot missiles at the beast; I've immobilized LRs with a missile launcher before. Is it statistically the best, shot for shot? Of course not. But I've got lots of missile launchers and 48" is a long way for you to get to them...as opposed to 6" to 12", which is delicious assault range.

[greatcrusade08]

id like to hear from idaho on this subject tbh, his use of tacticals is as anti-infantryin support of his honour guard..

the biggest issue with using melta on tacticals is range, you have to be close to do the job at which point your near the enemy units who will cut you to pieces.. the worst thing about that is you would have been firing at vehciles instead of bolter shocking the potential assaulting unit instead.

 

haveing redundancies is great and all, but every unit has a priority/main job.. tacticals excel at anti-infantry.. give them the tools to benefit them in this role and they become worth taking.

otherwise your spending 200-250 points on a couple of melta shots