Melta vs Flamer

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.

**Halsfield**

Ailaros wrote:
Halsfield wrote:it is really more about fielding an army that can threaten (effectively) a wider number of different units.

Exactly, EFFECTIVELY. It doesn't matter how wide a number of different units a squad can threaten if it can't threaten any of them effectively.

Does a single meltagun shot sound like something that is absolutely going to make it dead every time? Is that flamer going to be effective at all if the meltagun was used to shoot at a vehicle?

You can't let the fear of improper movement or deployment creating the desire for units to be catch-all impede the ability of the unit to be effective.

Effectively means not shooting at a predator(or stronger) with a bolter/2x flamer. Effectively means not attacking hordes of low-cost models with lesser amounts of high-cost troops+2x melta. Having the ability to kill something with the proper weapon is better than having squads out on the table that hardly have a chance if they run into a particular opponent. Of course we can all come up with situations where one or the other type of squad is more useful, but that's really what it comes down to.

**Nurglitch**

When I'm building an army I consider three principles:

1. Flexibility
2. Redundancy
3. Synergy

I consider them at the unit-level, and at the army-level. You can maximize synergy at an army-level by specializing units at the unit-level, but at the cost of redundancy at the army-level and flexibility at the unit-level. Likewise you can maximize flexibility at an army-level by generalizing units at the unit-level, but at the cost of synergy at the army level and redundancy at a unit-level.

That's why it's interesting to run the numbers:

1 unit: optimal strategy is mixed
2 units: optimal strategy is mixed
3 units: optimal strategy is dedicated
4 units: optimal strategy is dedicated
5 units: optimal strategy is 2 mixed/3 dedicated
6 units: optimal strategy is 2 mixed/4 dedicated
Etc

**Corennus**

I'm sorry but 15 points for a weapon you can only use once during the battle (combi-weapons) seems a little redundant IMO.
Yes it might win you one round of combat, but with a little tweaking 15 points can buy you a whole SM with bolter and grenades.

Or at the very least you can turn your chainsword into a power sword and give your sergeant a bit more close combat power (where his 2 attacks REALLY count).

**Terminus**

Nurglitch wrote:Terminus:

Two Melta Guns in different units are exactly as reliable as two Melta Guns in the same unit. The difference being that if the first Melta Gun destroys its target, the second Melta Gun can engage a different targets, thereby doubling the effectiveness of the Melta Guns you have deployed.

A slightly different scenario: Two squads of Chaos Space Marines approaches two enemy Rhinos. The squads are either mixed (both with Melta and Flamer) or dedicated (two Meltas or two Flamers).

Dedicated:
1. Two Melta Guns in the Melta Squad destroys a transport, the Flamer squad cleans up its passengers, if any. The second transport now has a free hand to attack and deploy its contents against the exposed units.

2. One Melta Gun in the Melta squad destroys a transport, the Flamer squad cleans up its passengers, if any. The second transport now has a free hand to attack and deploy its contents against the exposed units.

3. The Melta Gun squad does not destroy a transport. The Flamer squad has no targets. One transport may attack, one has a free hand, and both can deploy their contents against the exposed squads.

Mixed:
1. The First squad destroys a transport, the Second squad destroys a transport. The contents of both transports can act, barring pinning.

2. One squad destroys a transport, the other squad cleans up its passengers, if any. The second transport now has a free hand to attack and deploy its contents.

3. Neither squad can destroy a transport and are left exposed.

No one is arguing that the dedicated squads aren't more efficient, but their efficacy is limited. Notice that the two mixed squads are just as reliable at destroying one or two transports as the dedicated squad is at destroying one.

Flexibility at a unit level maximizes redundancy at the army level.

I disagree. In scenario 3, you have the option of running out of range, or better yet multi-charging both Rhinos. You stand a good chance to blow them both up, and now only one of your squads is exposed to counter-attack. Advantage: dedicated.
In scenario 2, the twin-melta squad is more likely to destroy the vehicle, and the twin-flamer unit will deal more damage to the infantry. Again you are relying on a single meltagun to do the job for you. Advantage: dedicated.
Scenario 1 is just ridiculous. I would always concentrate on one transport and the unit inside before moving on to the next transport. Advantage: dedicated.

What does your dedicated Flamer squad do if the Melta squad is destroyed? Likewise, what does the Flamer squad do if the Melta squad is destroyed? If a mixed squad is destroyed, I still have half my anti-tank and half my anti-horde, rather than losing one or the other.

If the melta squad is destroyed, the flamer squad still has krak grenades and a power fist to deal with armor. And anyway, squads shouldn't work in isolation unless they have a very specific (and often suicidal) mission. A properly designed army also has more than just one anti-tank unit, so there are other units that can pick up the slack (Rule of Three). Same thing if the flamer squad gets destroyed, I'd give the melta squad's Sgt a combi-flamer (the only combi-weapon I acknowledge) for that bit of extra oomph against infantry.

That said, if you DO often find your units isolated and facing sub-optimal targets (how did that flamer squad end up facing the dreadnought again?), you could go for the compromise of melta/flamer/combi-flamer. It's like Sisters of Battle, although not quite as good (since they get a heavy flamer, and are AP1 on wound rolls of 6)

**Corennus**

Every tac squad should have anti-armour capability, be it by plasma gun or melta gun or missile launcher.

Personally I'm more inclined to take Heavy Bolters as my heavy weapon, and use either flamers or plasma guns.
The anti armour part should come from the Devastators. Better to take out the approaching tanks with long range forces and keep your tac squads tooled for closer range combat than sacrifice a marine to anti-armour duty with a missile launcher.

At present my squads look like this:
Squad 1: Plasma Gun and Heavy Bolter
Squad 2: Flamer and Heavy Bolter
Squad 3: Flamer and Heavy Bolter
Squad 4: Melta Gun and Heavy Bolter
Squad 5: Plasma Gun and Heavy Bolter.

This means the tac squads can deal with a lot of infantry (as they're designed to) with and my Devastator squads (armed with ML and Plasma Cannon) can deal with armour.

Of course it depends on the points allowed in the game you're playing. Devastators are expensive.

**Jihallah**

Corennus wrote:Every tac squad should have anti-armour capability, be it by plasma gun or melta gun or missile launcher.

Personally I'm more inclined to take Heavy Bolters as my heavy weapon, and use either flamers or plasma guns.
The anti armour part should come from the Devastators. Better to take out the approaching tanks with long range forces and keep your tac squads tooled for closer range combat than sacrifice a marine to anti-armour duty with a missile launcher.

With the ML penetrating AV 13 on 6 and only glancing AV 14 i think its more of a medium/light vehicle weapon, not an anti-tank gun. And i don't believe dev's are too cost effective to take out tanks either...

**Corennus**

Missile Launchers are pretty versatile. Yes you need a 6 for penetrating AV of 13, even if it's a glancing hit it will still cause Crew Shaken or Crew Stunned.

And you may get lucky and have a 6.

As an alternative you could take a multi melta, but you lose the long range of the missile launcher and risk being tank shocked if you miss with the MM.

**RxGhost**

1"-12" Multimelta > Missile Launcher
12"-24" Multimelta = Missile Launcher
25"-48" Multimelta = 0, Missile Launcher = INFINITY PLUS ONE!

**Corennus**

All depends on what you want your tac squad to do. if you want it to focus on close combat take a heavy weapon like a heavy bolter.

If you want a tank hunting squad take a plasma gun and ML/LC

If you want a versatile squad take a plasma cannon and flamer.

These are just my opinions

**Mannahnin**

RxGhost wrote:1"-12" Multimelta > Missile Launcher
12"-24" Multimelta = Missile Launcher
25"-48" Multimelta = 0, Missile Launcher = INFINITY PLUS ONE!

MM is also better in the 12"+ to 24" range band, due to the +1 on the damage chart for AP1.

**Corennus**

Yes, but how often do you get your melta guy within 12" of a tank without the squad getting shot to hell?

**Ailaros**

Halsfield wrote:Having the ability to kill something with the proper weapon is better than having squads out on the table that hardly have a chance if they run into a particular opponent.

Dude, that's what movement and deployment are for. It's your job as a general on the field to get the right units to the right places. Attempting to abscond from this responsibility by practicing bad list creation doesn't ameliorate this.

I'd find it hard to argue that putting the most number of the right guns at the right place should be passed over in favor of putting half the right guns in the right place just because you weren't able to figure out how to put the most number of the right guns at the right place.

Corennus wrote:Missile Launchers are pretty versatile.

Which would be great if they were actually effective against anything, and didn't force you to sit still with a bunch of expensive marines who are forced to do nothing while the heavy weapon peels paint.

**Corennus**

Which is why i'm loath to put missile launchers in tac squads.

Heavy Bolters it is for me. with one squad having a muli melta

**Nurglitch**

Ailaros:

By "peel paint" you mean shoot frag missiles at the infantry that the squad is hitting with their bolters, and krak missiles when no infantry targets are available?

Having a Heavy Weapon in a Space Marine Tactical Squad doesn't force you to sit still. If anything you need to keep moving, and then use Combat Tactics to withdrawal in the face of superior force and to Fall Back into a position from which to fire your Heavy Weapon.

Terminus:

I always take a Combi-Melta on my Aspiring Champions since the rest of the squad already have anti-infantry weapons (Bolters). It's a handy back-up for when someone tries something fancy with Tank Shock, or when you needed to Melta Gun shots in the same squad to take down a tank.

The interesting thing is that I always take dedicated Plasma Gun squads since they're Rapid Fire weapons, but those especially need the Combi-Melta for Tank Shock deterrence.

**Jihallah**

Corennus wrote:Missile Launchers are pretty versatile. Yes you need a 6 for penetrating AV of 13, even if it's a glancing hit it will still cause Crew Shaken or Crew Stunned.

And you may get lucky and have a 6.

As an alternative you could take a multi melta, but you lose the long range of the missile launcher and risk being tank shocked if you miss with the MM.

Maybe I'm a bit odd, but if my squad is packing a Multimelta, you can tank shock me anyday buddy

Although i think you missed my point, which was basically that the heavy weapons you do get aren't up to scratch for Heavier armour (13+), and you would be wasting boltguns shooting at this anyway, so don't worry about your tac squad being able to shoot up a tank- they are Marines for gods sake, they can happily assault any tank outside of a Land Raider/Monolith. A ML though is going to frag infantry in concert with the bolters, or send a krak missile off if they don't have any infantry targets. Also, when that ML/squadmates move, they can only shoot their bolters 12", the same range of our ML's bolt bistol. you lose 1 shot at 12", but gain alot more versatility.

Corennus wrote: Yes, but how often do you get your melta guy within 12" of a tank without the squad getting shot to hell?

i DO rate the MM on a tac squad- in a drop pod. if you can imagine, divide the table into 4, 12" wide bands. Dropping the pod in the middle 2 bands gives you a squad to contest the midfield objectives, with backup from your mech forces (like another squad in a rhino etc), and scares landraiders and walkers into going around it. In a rhino/razorback/footslogging, it just never seems to be worth it.

Corennus wrote: At present my squads look like this:
Squad 1: Plasma Gun and Heavy Bolter
Squad 2: Flamer and Heavy Bolter
Squad 3: Flamer and Heavy Bolter
Squad 4: Melta Gun and Heavy Bolter
Squad 5: Plasma Gun and Heavy Bolter.

This means the tac squads can deal with a lot of infantry (as they're designed to) with and my Devastator squads (armed with ML and Plasma Cannon) can deal with armour.

LR stands for Land Raider AND Leman Russ! Seriously, a pair of russes will ruin that lots day. Those strength 7/8 shots will bounce off of russes all day long, and for the 1 in 6 hit that does glance (assuming the russ isn't in cover

), thus at the very, very least stopping the russ from firing... theres another one to shell you! I sure hope those marines are in rhino's, since their only chance against those russes is your 1 meltagun getting into range, surrounding it and shooting the side with plasma, or assaulting it...

**Corennus**

I think now if you're going to have a melta gun, take a multi melta heavy weapon as well and have it a dedicated anti armour squad.

**Jihallah**

Corennus wrote:I think now if you're going to have a melta gun, take a multi melta heavy weapon as well and have it a dedicated anti armour squad.

It's free hey. Any free special/heavy weapon is worth it imo (paying 5 points for flamers sucks. Damn loyalist scum!). And if you are already going for a Anti-armour squad, I'd do it if i was loyalist. If i was CSM I'd go for a second meltagun for mobility though

Powerfist on sarge is often worth it in those squads, although since you are going to be in the thick of it, Powersword/meltabombs is another option. A combimelta if you can squeeze in the points is worth it for the extra chance. The dice god's are the same as the mathhammer gods, so stacking a bunch of meltashots is often the best way to go.

**Corennus**

if the multi melta doesn't get it at 24" then the multi melta AND meltagun should get it at 12"

And closer than that starts getting nasty for the other side....

**Hido**

I know my Crisis suits always fear meltas (Though I'm sure they shouldn't be within range...)

**Terminus**

Nurglitch wrote:
Terminus:

I always take a Combi-Melta on my Aspiring Champions since the rest of the squad already have anti-infantry weapons (Bolters). It's a handy back-up for when someone tries something fancy with Tank Shock, or when you needed to Melta Gun shots in the same squad to take down a tank.

The interesting thing is that I always take dedicated Plasma Gun squads since they're Rapid Fire weapons, but those especially need the Combi-Melta for Tank Shock deterrence.

If you're afraid of tank shock and don't have a power fist, then you can always give the Champion meltabombs. My reasoning for the combi-flamer is because if I'm only going to get one shot, then it damn better hit something. Whether the squad is loaded out with meltas or plasmas, a flamer template is always useful.

**Nurglitch**

A Combi-Melta works much better than either a Power Fist or Melta Bombs at both deterring and stopping Tank Shock, and it provides back-up to the squad's regular Melta shot on occasion.

**Adamus Kane**

if you are facing a horde army go flamers but if you are facing something more formidable like meq then take the melta. the melta has fewer shots but stronger and the flamer is a nasty tool to use just before an assault, evens the odds in a battle against a horde.

**imweasel**

RxGhost wrote:1"-12" Multimelta > Missile Launcher
12"-24" Multimelta = Missile Launcher
25"-48" Multimelta = 0, Missile Launcher = INFINITY PLUS ONE!

Ummm, why does the missile launcher = a MM at 12-24"? MM is still ap1 and that makes it better in my book.

The chart should go:
up to 24" MM >ML
24"+ ML > MM

Of course a ML has the dual role of horde control, but for anti-tank it certainly does not equal a MM out to 24".

As far as the one melta/one flamer debate? Specialize your units. I personally believe that 2xmelta makes a squad like GH more versatile than anything else in the game. Even if I am firing at horde, that's still 16 bolters and 2 melta for dakka. Not bad by any means for any SM unit that can take 2 melta.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Terminus wrote:
Nurglitch wrote:
Terminus:

I always take a Combi-Melta on my Aspiring Champions since the rest of the squad already have anti-infantry weapons (Bolters). It's a handy back-up for when someone tries something fancy with Tank Shock, or when you needed to Melta Gun shots in the same squad to take down a tank.

The interesting thing is that I always take dedicated Plasma Gun squads since they're Rapid Fire weapons, but those especially need the Combi-Melta for Tank Shock deterrence.

If you're afraid of tank shock and don't have a power fist, then you can always give the Champion meltabombs. My reasoning for the combi-flamer is because if I'm only going to get one shot, then it damn better hit something. Whether the squad is loaded out with meltas or plasmas, a flamer template is always useful.

Agreed. A CSM squad with 2 melta/1 combi-flamer is a much better overall unit than 2 flamer/1 combi-melta. Personally, I would just go with 2xmelta, skip the champ/combi all together and just spend the points some place else. CSM is another army like space wolf GH's that the 2x melta and 16 bolter shots is a formidable 'multi-role' troop unit. GH win out over CSM troopers, but CSM is by no means a bad choice.

**Nurglitch**

I'm pretty sure I was describing the utility of Combi-Meltas in combination with a mixed squad armed with a Flamethrower and a Melta Gun...

**imweasel**

Nurglitch wrote:I'm pretty sure I was describing the utility of Combi-Meltas in combination with a mixed squad armed with a Flamethrower and a Melta Gun...

I'm pretty sure the counter argument is the better utility of a combi-flamer with two melta guns is better use of the mix. A few more points, but still a better mix...

**Nurglitch**

That's not a counter-argument, that's simply an assertion. In fact I prefer a mix of Melta Gun, Flamer, and Combi-Melta precisely for the reasons given by Terminus:

1. A template weapon is always handy. Therefore a template weapon should always be handy, and thus a regular Flamer rather than a Combi-Flamer.

2. Two Melta shots are more reliable than one, but a template weapon should always be handy. Therefore a Combi-Melta and a Melta Gun rather than two Melta Guns.

3. If no other Melta shots are available, then at least one Melta shot is necessary to deter Tank Shock in order to prevent template weapons from being really handy to one's opponent.

**Terminus**

I disagree for two reasons:

#1. With any army worth its salt going mechanized, the meltas will have far more opportunities to fire at their optimum target than a flamer. A squad with two meltas can stay in their transport, blasting other tanks from the firing points. The significantly shorter range of the flamer will usually require you to disembark, which leads to...

#2. A flamer template plus a bunch of bolters rounds will usually mess a unit up quite a bit, rarely requiring another shot (especially if your opponent is one of this new breed of SW/BA idiots that advocate min-sized squads). If it's a unit that's too tough to wipe out with such a fusillade, you'll often want to assault the remnants to finish them off/keep from being shot at (or they will assault you on their turn), so you won't even have the option of firing the flamer again.

So I like the combi-flamer, 2x meltas variant. But if your current setup works for you, go for it. Oh, and again, if Tank Shock is such an issue, give the Sarge melta-bombs.

**Nurglitch**

Terminus:

I don't rely on Melta Guns in Troop squads for dismounting mechanized infantry or really for anti-tank. They're more for shots of opportunity, dealing with incoming Land Raiders, warding off enemy Dreadnoughts, and so on. Hence having the Flamethrower available for anti-infantry work is good, because I'll be firing on multiple units (or in the case of large units, like Orks, Tyranids, or Imperial Guard, multiple times).

Likewise I've found relying on being able to fire out of a Rhino is a lousy idea - you're either out of range, moving 12", or Shaken/Stunned. And as I've pointed out before, the AP1 on a Combi-Melta is much more reliable at stopping a vehicle than either a Melta Bomb or a Power Fist, because if it isn't stopped then I either lose the Melta Gunner or the Champion, and then the Flamethrowers in the opposing army burn my squad to a crisp once they've been neatly bunched up.

**Terminus**

Fair enough, everyone has their own approach, and your thought-process is certainly reasonable. I play IG primarily, so it's not like I'm exactly torn on which special weapons to include.

I just go by what Marine load-outs annoy me the most.

**starbomber109**

I think you need at least one of each. As the people have said, it's all about what you want the unit to do. Driving a rhino in front of a land raider and toasting it is all well and good, but what do you do when you fight the inevitable blob of 30 infantrymen (be they guard or orks or bugs)

You need at least one squad to burn things, the others can melta (or go with the combi-flamer sarge, seems like a good idea now that I think about it.)