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.

While I have extremely little experience in actually playing 40k, I’d like to provide my own analysis to the current state of the metagame and see how close, or far, to the mark I am, in DakkaDakka’s opinion. I’ve mostly focused on the Space Marine army’s options, but I like to believe that you could apply my observations to most armies.

I know this is long, so if you don’t feel like reading it all, I’ll post a cliff notes version following, I just want to make my arguments and reasoning clear so if there is a fault in my logic, my fellow Dakkaites will be able to accurately address it. I understand that the points I am making are coming a few months too late to be truly earth shattering, but I think it’s still applicable to a lot of what I see on DakkaDakka.

The Me(l)ta-Game

When I first started lurking about DakkaDakka, 5th ed. was fairly new, and melta was all the rage; all the rage to a fault. Lured to the army lists page, I saw list after list spouting melta to exclusion of all other options wherever applicable. I think this melta-fetish still exists, but is on the decline; its most obvious recent incarnations are in the critiques of Vulkan lists, where any option that isn’t a flamer or melta that could be is recommended to change within the first few posts (typically, three seems to be the magic number). This becomes a bit garish when it is a proposed change to a weapon that fulfills an entirely different role, let’s say a lascannon on a tactical squad, then a multi-melta does. A lascannon parks a squad down and allows them to throw out fire from across the entire board, posing a serious threat to light armor and a plausible one to higher armor, whereas a multi-melta (on a tactical squad) must be escorted up in a transport, and assumes the role of killing heavy tanks (I’ll address its applications against transports/lighter vehicles later), which it can only accomplish well within a 12” threat range due to the heavy nature of the weapon. The situation is at least better for the meltagun because it threatens the same range with its 2d6, but it doesn’t have to be parked in a place with clear LoS for the entirety of your opponents turn prior to firing. These weapons represent two different roles with only the slight overlap which greatly shape the tactics and strategies that will be applied not only to that (combat) squad, but also to how the enemy’s army will be reshaped after one has hammered away at it, and your ability to capitalize upon their developing weaknesses.

So why are we so hooked on meltas? I can’t speak for the 40k community at large, but my observations of DakkaDakka have made it clear to me that Dakkaites have a severe fetish for the unstoppable monster. What if your opponent straight up CAN’T kill your land raider/4th ed. super-fex/ 700 point nob bikers/ monolith/ etc., or more likely, is forced to statistically launch dozens of attacks at it in order to wreck it. I think this is why the tyranid’s universal 6T on their MCs was so poorly accepted, they are universally not unstoppable forces, and that’s a bit of a turn off. There is no universally unstoppable unit in 40k, and, yes, it probably is the right thing to pack on the “too heavy” side of readiness to stop a land raider or monolith, but knowing when to stop is going to be key to freeing up vital points. I’ll accept the condom philosophy where needing and not having is worse than having and not needing, but I don’t think you need to bring the economy box to every party you go to; in short, you need to ask yourself, “how many meltaguns am I really going to need?”

The reason I am bringing this scathing indictment of the meltagun-frenzy is because 5th ed. brought something else in with it: the nearly ubiquitous need for a mechanized list. Using melta-based dedicated tank hunters as your only AT is stupid with the universal nature of the mech list in today’s metagame. Space Marines have the two of the worst (and for the sake of my argument, best!) examples of this, being their expensive dedicated tank hunters the 50 point a pop multi-melta attack bike, and his more popular cousin, the 70 point a pop multi-melta/heavy flamer land speeder. Diving these squad(ron)s into the enemy to pop a transport is typically going to result in your expensive tank hunters standing within the range of the rest of the enemy army, and these options come expensive enough (100-210 points) to be worth throwing firepower into them. I know some people might have issue with my usage of the word “expensive” in regards to attack bikes and land speeders, but my rational for doing so is A.) they must be taken in redundancy to guarantee the (likely) single shot they get is going to land, that means at LEAST 2 multi-meltas, probably 3 if you really want them to tap that AV 14 keg, and B.) they rapidly occupy your precious Fast Attack FoC if you take them in smaller, cheaper amounts.
Even the tactical armed with a meltagun, or multi-melta, must get very close to the enemy to fire it for effect, and that exposes the firing unit to the full wrath the opponent can muster. What is the point of all of this? If you run too melta-heavy, your effective AT threat range is short, meaning you MUST attack your opponent, which gives your opponent a tactical edge, both in knowing you must come to him, you must attack certain units of yours with certain units of his, and you are likely unable to muster up a major long range threat, allowing him to move to accept you, and take pot shots at your advance, with impunity, slowing or stopping it if it’s in transports, and invoking divine retribution upon it if it’s a suicide squad (likely after the suicide squad has popped their…target). And all of this is to stop the 35-60 point transport so as you can get at the goodies inside and/or stop the enemy from dominating the board/taking objectives/ mobilizing their firepower with impunity.
Finally, taking down transports in a timely manner is important. The argument for killing them is, in short: enemy wants something, so, assuming his desires aren’t stupid, I want to take it away from him. To address the “stupid desires” clause, we all should know the massive benefits of being in a car as opposed to being outside of one; I shouldn’t have to enumerate them here.

Cliffnotes Here!

I.) Meltas are not the universal best choice in anti-tank weaponry.
A.) Their strengths include excellent penetration at close ranges, a bonus to damage rolls, cheapness and the relative ease with which they can be fielded in numbers.
B.) Their weaknesses include short range, only being mediocre at penetrating high AV at 7+”/13+”.
II.) Going strictly for a one shot kill is not the only way to deal with tanks, any roll on the damage table will likely buy you time to deal with the vehicle later, making non-melta weapons propensity for striking non-lethal blows to vehicles less of an issue.
III.) Packing all melta forces you to come to your enemy, this can be a major strategic issue as it allows a smart opponent to know what you are going to do before you do it, and gives him time to respond.
IV.) We need to consider how much melta we really need to bring into a fight, more is not always better.
A.) Hard to pop units are scary (Land Raiders, MCs, Nob Bikers, etc.) but how much melta do we really need to deal with them? At what point would other weapons be better.
V.) The short range of melta means that units that fire them will likely be subject to the opposing army’s wrath on the following turn unless they have a mitigating defensive factor. As such, we need to consider the cost/reward ratio for fielding melta suicide squads.
A.) This cost/reward ratio is completely lopsided if you plan on using melta to pop transports.
VI.) Transports are good. We should deprive our enemies of them for all the reasons that they are good.
A.) Noting the above point, we need an AT weapon other than melta to deal with transports.

This is the argument half of my analysis, while I have the rest mostly written out, I’d like to see what you guys have to say, especially if someone has an observation which totally undermines my entire argument.

C&C heartily welcome.

Mechanized lists came first, when changes in vehicle damage tables suddenly made transports feasible again. The upsurge in melta weaponry is a response to the mechanization of armies in 5th edition--especially widespread use of land raiders--not the other way around.

The argument feels more valid for armies limited to meltaguns only, but armies that have multimeltas throw the part of your argument that depends on the idea that melta fire is short-ranged into question.

Effective *melta* ranges for multimelta weapons are:
-12" for static tac squad
-18" for a dreadnought
-24" for a speeder or bike on the table
-Effectively unlimited for a deepstriking speeder

In addition, the argument against speeders/bikes ignores the fact that those meltas can often avoid fire by lurking out of LoS and then jumping out to deliver a melta shot.

Also the argument makes the common mistake of assuming that melta weapons are only effective at half range. A str8 AP1 shot is still a very effective antitank shot--so you can add 12" to the effective ranges for those shots listed above, as well as bearing in mind that even a rhino-carried meltagun has an effective range of 26" for a 1d6 penetration shot.

Finally, most of the armies I see lately reserve melta weapons for shooting at the really heavy tank threats, like AR13 and 14. Most effective armies bring guns in the str6-7 range with higher volume fire for antitank against AR12 and less. In my own mech marine army I have about 4 multimeltas and no meltaguns at all, and that's plenty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and I wouldn't call a MM/HF speeder a "dedicated" tank hunter. If it didn't have a heavy flamer and couldn't contest objectives, then I would.

Mechanized lists came first, when changes in vehicle damage tables suddenly made transports feasible again. The upsurge in melta weaponry is a response to the mechanization of armies in 5th edition--especially widespread use of land raiders.

Informative, thanks. The thing I am wondering about is melta's effectiveness in dealing with transports that are not land raiders. Dealing with a land raider that is charging you by charging right back with meltas is virually always a great trade off, the same might not be true with using meltas to deal with rhinos, and thats the thrust of the argument I want to make.

The argument feels more valid for armies limited to meltaguns only, but armies that have multimeltas throw the part of your argument that depends on the idea that melta fire is short-ranged into question.

Effective *melta* ranges for multimelta weapons are:
-12" for static tac squad
-18" for a dreadnought
-24" for a speeder or bike on the table
-Effectively unlimited for a deepstriking speeder

That is a good point, I did largely lump multi-meltas in with meltaguns when writing all of this.
However: a meltagun in the hands of a tactical squad threatens the same area with its 2d6 range (12") as an MM, but does it better because the tac's get to wiggle around 6" before firing, potentially allowing them to pick a better firing position, for instance one that can see more than 50% of the vehicle. I really did not take into account deep striking, and that was silly of me, and the dread and speeder/bike threat range is larger than what I made it out to be, my point is that the speeder/bike is going to be a pothole after their one round of firing, which is fine if you're trying to deal with a land raider, but less fine if you want to try to stop a KFF truck o' boys from hitting your front lines, even from the max firing distance of 24" (threat of 36") there will be plenty of enemies that will be able to move up and shoot you into oblivion. If you're going to suicide, make it worth it, and a truck/rhino ain't worth it. Dread is a better option, but still must waddle forward for at least one turn, if not two, to get his shot in, and if you're deepstriking him, you're spending 150~ points on a guy that is likely to get shot down the next turn, 150~ point single melta shot does not a suicide jockey make.

Speeders and Bikes are going to get their shot off, and I think they're excellent units, the thing is that after your 6 bikes or whatever do their suicide thing, do you really need 8 more meltas? 2-4 more maybe, 8 more, no.

I think I did oversimplify some things and lump a number of tactical situations together, and you're very right to call me out on it. I do not think it completly invalidates the points I'm trying to make.

I'm sorry I am not a Marine player so much as a Marine player-agenster but I think board size makes melta weapons cool. You realy only need to cover a bit of ground in a couple of turns, and now we can all run in the first turns too, and 12" or 18" or 24" is just as good as 48". We can't escape the size of our board, which makes close range hard hitting shoots and assaulters much more effective than static long range stuff. I don't really care, honestly, if a missile launcher shoots xx" or xx+100 inches, it is still just a matter of a turn or two and all heavy weapons, particularly the 24 on the Multimelta become useful.

Range and board size are a big factor in the relative usefulness of long range hitters and short range punchers, and given the restricted sandbox size, the short rangers are the better team to bet on. Perhaps that is why the melta thing is popular.

Drop pods don't hurt either for convincing a noob that meltas can win any game. It's a game of combo-s. a Melta in a tac squad is lame. A melta in a drop pod, or 3 dirt cheap rhinos, or speeders, is something that owns the center board, and that way range ceases to matter.

Meltas are good as a second line of defense against LRs and the like, as well as the ideal choice for suicide units. However, I believe that your primary anti-tank firepower needs to have some range-- for Imperial armies, this means autocannons, missile launchers, and lascannons. These weapons allow you to shut down enemy light vehicles and transports from range, and help considerably against Vendettas and the like as well. As you say, killing a Trukk when it's 12" away isn't worth much-- however, killing one before it can get close is valuable indeed.

I agree with most of what these guys are saying, however I don't believe melta is the end-all weapon. I play IG, however. So my options for melta consist of dead infantry, dying infantry... or not taking melta. I feel like melta provides no bonuses over other options I have in my army. I also feel like people do over use melta. I have people thinking vets in a chimera with meltas can do anything, and this is simply not the case. Melta is not good for anti MEQ/TEQ, melta is not good for anti light armor. Melta is only good for taking down Av13 and Av14 armor... simply because it is hard to take them down without the 2d6 bonus.

Melta can be used to shoot at infantry, or light armor... and it is very powerful, and will do some damage. But it is simply not as efficient as other options... and any armies that relies heavy on melta should get wrecked by any decient opposing commander, with a decent list.

This observation is why most Vulkan-centric lists are not that big a threat to my Orks anymore. I just stay out of Melta range until I'm ready to Waaaaagh and get my charges in without much trouble. (12" Vehicle move + 1" Red Paint Job + 2" Disembark + 1" of Base size, + d6" Waaaagh Fleet move (or a guaranteed 6" if using Ghazghkull), and 6" charge = more than the 24" range of Multi Meltas)

However, I am planning on dusting off my Sisters of Battle and throwing down Immolator Spam since the synergies of that list (Rapid Fire range + Divine Guidance and TL Heavy Flamer transport with a Fire Point built for two... meltas, that is) work well with Melta Spam. A couple of variations I want to try are adding Inducted IG with Autocannon or swapping =I= StormTroopers meltas for Plasma in order to get that S7 transport-popping goodness in greater supply.

Rivkeh wrote:, my point is that the speeder/bike is going to be a pothole after their one round of firing, which is fine if you're trying to deal with a land raider, but less fine if you want to try to stop a KFF truck o' boys from hitting your front lines, even from the max firing distance of 24" (threat of 36") there will be plenty of enemies that will be able to move up and shoot you into oblivion.

I agree, but it's okay to lose a couple of speeders. They seldom survive a game. But in being destroyed, they actually still function to interdict movement. You run it up into a bottleneck for its suicide shot so that, even after it gets shot down, it still blocks movement and LoS with a dangerous terrain/wreck--or if it gets blown up at least a difficult-terrain crater (aka "pothole"). This is another thing melta bikes can't do. If the speeder gets lucky after its one shot and survives with a shaken/stunned/weapon/immob result, then it still blocks movement.

...and against that odd game where there's a land raider, the MM/HF speeder is a good sacrifice to stop it.

Tau piranhas are also good at the interdiction role--actually a bit better because of the larger chassis and heavier front armor.

But seriously I'd use an autocannon, lascannon or plasma gun to stop an ork truck o'boys. Or a typhoon speeder from standoff range. Are the players where you play actually packing melta to the exclusion of all other weapons? Where I am, it's probably been at least a year since people figured out that you need long-range, mid-strength, high-volume fire as well as melta.

Welcome to a few months ago. There's an older thread discussing the melta-myth. You'll find a lot of competitive lists now packing Autocannons (or their equivalents) and Missile Launchers to deal with light transports along with the ubiquitous melta weapons for heavier vehicles.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/258140.page

I'd just like to thank everyone who read and everyone who responded to my long winded diatribe, especially when most of what I had to say had already been said, and more concisely, by Fetterkey, and in the responses that followed his post.

One other important factor that I think is generally being overlooked is the emphasis on melee that 5th ed. brought forth. It's supremely useful to drop an Ork trukk or LR at 6" if your own melee unit is set for the charge. Gunlines generally died going into 5th through various rules tweaks meaning the game starting revolving around melee and transports. As anyone who has had a rhino duel can attest, the player who can drop the enemy transports and get the charge will win which is the big reason for the rise of the melta.

IG has thrown an interesting monkey wrench into the equation mostly because meltas will often not be able to go the distance before getting gunned down by something. The army does a great job of taking advantage of the general lack of ranged anti-armor that previously dominated the meta.

In general though, I would still say meltas are the principal anti-armor weapons even though alot of lists have picked up token weapons of longer range. The strength is naturally good, it has AP1 which is a huge deal with the current damage tables and while it often doesn't need 2D6 it does almost garauntee a pen against anything shy of a Lith. A list still needs weapons to shake/stun armor at range with the occaisional kill, but lets not fool ourselves. We all pack a few meltas away for the heavy lifting.