Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

There have been a few articles up in the blogosphere lately talking about melta and missiles. One on BoLS, written by Mercer from Imperius Dominatus, suggested Melta is dead because Missile Launchers are really good again. There was another article up on Capture and Control talking about how melta is still really important. From a tactics stand point I have to say I think melta is still important but I also take Missile Launchers. Is this as black and white as BoLS suggested, should we start dumping our meltaguns? If you want to check out the two articles I am talking about here are the links. I am more inclined to agree with Capture and Control but I wanted the Dakkaites perspective on the issue.

http://captureandcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/02/40k-strategy-melta-mech-mobility-and.html
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2011/02/40k-death-of-meltagun.html

As I pointed out on BoLS and in my article Melta is still really good. The problem with declaring an Assault Weapon dead, useless, because a Heavy Weapon is better doesn't make sense. Again, like I said before, you can't exchange the meltagun in your squad for a Missile Launcher. There are other reasons I think Melta is still good/necessary but I stated them already elsewhere. Suffice it to say I like both weapons but you can't really compare the two because they serve different roles and are not interchangeable squad options.

It depends on which army you play.

Only one army AFAIK has the ability to spam 15 missile launchers with 3+ armour saves.

If your objective is to jump to the latest hot netlist for easy wins, I'm sure you should be looking at missile launchers.

That principle won't help you much if you play Tyranids, Orks, or Tau or something.

When you can slap a missile launcher onto jump infantry and move it around the table while unleashing hot tank-slagging hell, then melta will be dead.

Until then, I'll enjoy my melta.

Missiles are good, but against large volumes of Armour 12, 13, 14 their utility drops off. But a melta at half range is very effective, one is longer range and slightly weaker, the other is shorter range and more powerful.

I have noticed more players using Cyclone Terminator ML's and taking advantage of relentless in Tourney games and Sternguard with MM/MG with 2A they can hold their own in CC but usually not for long. A Terminator with a Multimelta would be awesome, but overly powerful hence why it is not available (:( ) Closest thing is a Character with a Combi-Melta in Termie Armour.

melta still rocks; its definitely not dead

That BoLS article was pretty terrible (like most of their articles if you are actually looking for proper tactical advice). Melta is most definitely not dead, the best lists never relied exclusively on melta in the first place (as in they had some S6/7/8/9 long ranged shooting as well). The only way you could even consider melta to be 'dying' is if you were spamming it everywhere to begin with (which was never the strongest build around). There is still nothing which beats melta if you actually want to turn a vehicle into a flaming wreck, Missile etc are good for disabling and suppressing but don't cut it if you absolutely have to kill a vehicle.

This is how I see it.

1) There are many of tournament lists that revolve around having massed shooty transports, usually Razorbacks or Chimeras (and to a lesser extent raiders fit in here). The ML is a better weapon against these targets as the 48" range helps you hit them turn 1 AND you mostly just want to stop them from shooting you back. The 2d8 armor pen from melta is "overkill" as the ML can take out the opponents shooting well.

2) AV 13 or 14 is not seen in mass (except for a few specialized lists). Melta guns are very effective even against the highest AV values. In a competitive list you might see 10 AV 12 targets, but maybe only 4 AV 14 Targets (I am thinking of an ORK BW rush). You need a ton of missiles to take care of the large number of low AV targets. You need a relative few meltaguns to deal with the low number of high AV targets you will see in a game.

It is not so much that the meltagun is dead,but SW and BA get very cheap missile launchers (and DA and BT kinda as well). Razorspam lists are more common than Land Radier Spam lists, so you need more Light Mech destroying weapons than Heavy Mech destroying ones.

It used to be that "MORE MELTA" was the cry on forums to take out the mech heavy 5th edition armies. Now the cry has changed to "MORE MISSILES", but almost every troop choice is holding onto a few meltaguns at the least.

It just goes to show how much the meta game is based on the Imperial armies at the moment. When did the Orky Melta die in favor of missiles?

Ugh, BoLS and their ridiculous ways. To reiterate what everyone has been saying, Melta is most certainly not dead. Yes Missile Launchers are very versatile but this is nothing new. Missile Launchers have been at their current cost and stats for all of 5th edition, absolutely nothing has changed with them and with Melta. What has happened is power-gaming BoLS bloggers (lulz Goatboy) have either jumped ship to Long Fang spam Space Wolves or have just been running into it a lot. The meta-game in Texas or wherever BoLS is mostly based is not necessarily the meta-game where you play and most certainly doesn't decide the meta-game for tournaments. If the players in your area favor AV13/14, then melta is likely a crucial part of your game and it should be. If you are constantly playing Razorspam or Mech IG then missile launchers will work wonders as they are so cheap and plentiful. Regardless of your area's armor meta-game, meltaguns are still fantastic weapons to have on an infantry model as they allow that unit to insta-gib independent characters and cut through 2+ armor saves like butter. The meltagun is an effective anti-heavy infantry weapon as well as an anti-armor weapon.

Sure the 40K tournament scene will likely feature plenty of missile launchers now but it will still have loads of meltaguns too as they are cheap (for Imperial armies at least) and effective. Perhaps the days of nothing but Chimeltavets are coming to a close because of missile launchers but that certainly doesn't mean that meltaguns are dead. Such a development would just mean that meltaguns are finally back to what they should be: a useful piece of kit instead of the sole defining thing to base an army upon.

Hear hear!

Very well said.

Missle launchers cant deal with Landraiders or 2+ saves. Melta therefore cant be dead.

I have to agree with the sentiment that just because one army can take a weapon that already existed and use it slighlty better than others does not mean that another weapon is now obsolete. I also disagree generally with the idea that any weapon is obsolete. Unless your local scene is made up of only two codices there is a use for virutally every weapon.

Both are really good. Missiles have more range, and can multi-task, while meltas are unsurpased at straight tank killing.... I see more reason to use meltas, what with dashing around the board in transports, but I'd be happy to spend a FOC slot on four dev/havoc missiles..

It really depends on the army. For example, in IG you get BS3 missles on a T3 platform. Woo freakin' do. LF ML spam, on the other hand, is very effective.

The problem with this argument is that a Missile Launcher is a heavy weapon. A melta is an assault weapon. It's comparing apples and oranges.

You can't slag a Landraider then assault its contents with a missile launcher, can you? Thought so.

Gavo wrote:It really depends on the army. For example, in IG you get BS3 missles on a T3 platform. Woo freakin' do. LF ML spam, on the other hand, is very effective.

The problem with this argument is that a Missile Launcher is a heavy weapon. A melta is an assault weapon. It's comparing apples and oranges.

You can't slag a Landraider then assault its contents with a missile launcher, can you? Thought so.

Well, you can if you get a group of tank-hunting terminators with cyclone missile launchers and have a lucky hit. Oh, Black Templar....Is it wrong that they can spam 10 cyclone missile launchers, have relentless and tank hunting rules? Ouch.

But jokes aside, both weapons are great and serve their own purpose-but others have summed it up so well, I'm not going to insult them and repeat their words. Suffice to say, both weapons belong in the game and neither are dead. In fact, the only weapon that I currently can't see any real use for is the heavy bolter-a slightly stronger bolter that gives slightly better shooting but lacks mobility and doesn't do anything different against most armies (seeing the prevalence of 3+ or 5+ but very little 4+ saves) . I like the look of them, but I don't see their usefulness. Melta and MLs though? Both great in their own right.

I don't get it, what changed from last week and made "missile launchers good again?

Last I checked I used both anyways...

Wow, im not sure where to start with this.

Missiles have range and anti-infanty abilities, and i think it ends there really.

Melta will allways be needed as you dont want to fire 20 missiles at a land raider for the same effect as 1-2 melta shots.

Also i guess its down to playstyle.
I prefer to keep mobile though, so missiles are no good to me.
Want to be able to get to the other side as quickly as possible, jump out and remove armour.

Missiles may be able to sit back and do that, but they lack the punch to do it at such a great rate.

SonicPara wrote:The meta-game in Texas or wherever BoLS is mostly based is not necessarily the meta-game where you play and most certainly doesn't decide the meta-game for tournaments.

Man, this bugs the heck out of me too.

It doesn't matter what your local meta is at whatever game store or whatever tournaments you go do. Projecting ultimate, indestructable, and universal truth based on the few people you play against regularly has ALWAYS been silly, at best.

Subjective positivism is no less ugly when applied to 40k.

Both have their uses. Missiles are versatile, so logically adding them is win win. However, melta is far more effective when dealing with heavy tanks, something missiles can't deal with reliably.

People are only saying melta is dead because a few models have "immune to melta" rules. Leave them to their powergaming.

Aside from the chibiraven they were immune to melta before too..

Orks can pop a Landraider with rokkits then assault the contents, but Rokkit launchas are poor poor cousins to missile launchers (and just as spendy) even before you tack bs 2 to them.

I much prefer being shot by missiles to being melta'd.

Gamewise i may have some survivors from the bombardment due to saves/good armour

Fluffwise being blown up is nicer than being melted

*edited for dyslexia*

This is exactly why i have always ignored the "'Net Meta" and various proclamations of what works/doesn't work.

Depending on the Army I have always relied on lascannons, Assault cannons, missile Launchers, and P-Fists/T-hammers to crack tanks; My guard also uses Auto-Cannons often just because the math is sound(although Orders have also made the missile launcher still useful, but that inclusive still keeps the math fairly sound on ACs most of the time). I do use melta as additional Anti-tank support; I just do not rely solely on it(especially with my guard).

I play space wolves and I take both melta and ml's.

The only reason I would even think about dumping my melta would be for plasma to help me better deal with the plethora of 2+ armor saves.

I would say that melta is far from dead. It's also far from 'pack as much as you can into a list'.

I do find myself willing to take less melta now than I did a year ago.

lets be honest... nothing has changed. Massed missiles have always been a solid base of fire.

HOWEVER. you need a mix. There is a point where there is an over load of one kind of firepower. Mass missile suffers greatly vs monoliths, BW, land raiders... while massed melta dies on its way. You need plenty of both to run a good list.

yournamehere wrote:I don't get it, what changed from last week and made "missile launchers good again?

I was wondering this myself. Did some new FAQ update thingie come out or something?

Ogiwan wrote:I was wondering this myself. Did some new FAQ update thingie come out or something?

Nope, just BoLS authors proving that they only think in absurd extremes and think that their experiences can be applied to everyone in the world. It is annoyingly pretentious really.

I pointed this trend out in 2009. It's not a new pattern by any means.

Essentially what we have here is a pendulum shift in playstyle. At first, people didn't take enough melta-- then, seeing melta was more reliable (note: more reliable != objectively better) in 5th edition, they started favoring melta more, but ended up suffering from taking too many melta weapons and losing out on ranged power. Now we are seeing the pendulum swing back to favor more long ranged weapons-- we'll see if people go too far and end up without enough melta, or if a more balanced perspective will take hold this time.

For reference, I believe both melta and long range anti-tank weapons have their place in most armies, and the vast majority of armies need to weigh the costs and benefits of each and choose a balanced approach rather than go all-in on one or the other.

And the rest of us non-imperial/non eldar will keep plodding along with our short ranged multipurpose can-openers (Rokkits etc)

Tau, Dark Eldar, and even Tyranids have melta options available, but they don't necessarily need them in order to be effective at taking down tanks via other weapons. I'm not sure about Dæmons, but I know CSMs have both melta and long-range firepower options, even though they're non-optimally costed. And while Orks and Necrons do lack these options, Orks have Deffrollas (as well as a great fire support unit in Lootas) and Necrons have... uh... their hopes for a new Codex.

frgsinwntr wrote:lets be honest... nothing has changed. Massed missiles have always been a solid base of fire.

HOWEVER. you need a mix. There is a point where there is an over load of one kind of firepower. Mass missile suffers greatly vs monoliths, BW, land raiders... while massed melta dies on its way. You need plenty of both to run a good list.

In the case of monoliths, even Meltaguns have a tough time. Even Str9 Lascannons aren't reliable unless massed like multiple Vendettas. Use Str10 or ignore Monoliths and focus on phasing out Necrons.

Fetterkey wrote:Tau, Dark Eldar, and even Tyranids have melta options available, but they don't necessarily need them in order to be effective at taking down tanks via other weapons. I'm not sure about Dæmons, but I know CSMs have both melta and long-range firepower options, even though they're non-optimally costed. And while Orks and Necrons do lack these options, Orks have Deffrollas (as well as a great fire support unit in Lootas) and Necrons have... uh... their hopes for a new Codex.

Since when do nids have melta?