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.

Well I have a mainly plasma list but I love plasma cannons very good at taking out marine players and large groups of enemies.
But if it was a tank battle Missile Launcher.

Hey, get off the MM's back! If there happens to be a certain Salamander HQ around then the multimelta becomes insane. Also a MM uses go beyond actually shooting, tank denial zones are a big thing too.

I love when people say that if the enemy gets tanks within your MMs range, they are stupid.

MMs can out perform MLs and Lascannons within 2 foot range (Str 8 AP 1 is good enough). Thats a 2 foot anti tank bubble on 2-3 tactical squads, and 12" extreme antitank bubble. I dont know how many tanks I have killed by firing a MM out of a rhino top hatch. It can also put wounds or instagib heroes within 2 feet with a 2+ armor save when a krak missile cannot.

Think about late game objective missions when people try to contest objective with vehicles. That combat squad with a MM on an objective is lookin pretty effective.

That being said though, I would first and foremost pick a ML for a tactical squad for their range and versitility. They come in the tactical squad box and they are free, they are always a number one pick. The only reason I use MMs, and would recommend them, is when running a Vulkan list.

I like the missile launcher becasue the only games I've played have been against a surprise opponent so I never know if I have to deal with hordes or lots or armor. I like them all in theory, but in practice, I find that I would hate to stock up on heavy bolters only to find out that my opponent was a tank-heavy guard list, or stock up on lascannons and end up matched up against orks.

JSK-Fox wrote:I like heavy bolters against orks, but when fighting tough things, nothing beats ye old missle launcher or the one, the only, Monolith wrecking, Lascannon. Never in your entire life should you put a multi-melta on a marine. Ever.

QFT. I cry when I see MMs on Marines.

No non-relentless Infantry should have multimeltas other than sisters.

Most of my tacticals use ML's. Though I do run one squad in my Salamanders list with a MM and I have to say it can be quite great!

What's wrong with the MM on a forward squad? It's more useful for a 10 man forward squad than any other heavy choice. As a forward squad the squad is guranteed to be in range of its main use: death or glory on tank shock.

That being said, bolters and plasma guns have 24" range. There's nothing wrong with pushing a 10 man squad forward the first turn into cover, and then sitting there at 24" the entire game.

People have this fascination with heavy weapons requiring long range because they dont' want to move their tacticals or they feel they must shoot every turn. If you deploy them forward, it only takes one turn of movement at worst. On some scenarios like dawn of war or using sicarious to give them infiltrate, they'll be able to shoot on turn 1.

Jaon wrote:

JSK-Fox wrote:I like heavy bolters against orks, but when fighting tough things, nothing beats ye old missle launcher or the one, the only, Monolith wrecking, Lascannon. Never in your entire life should you put a multi-melta on a marine. Ever.

QFT. I cry when I see MMs on Marines.

Why? You know you're not playing a n00b and are about to get your ass handed to you?

Ah. Are we at the point in the conversation where it has devolved into where "only good players see the value of something"?

I assure you I'm not a noob, and my negative opinion of MM on non-relentless infantry is based on trying it myself as well as playing against countless people who used it. I could just as easily say that a good player's high-value vehicles won't ever be within 12 inches of your MM pillbox unless it is shaken, which isn't all that hard to do.

Personally I would say the missile launcher. It has 2 variant types, range, and strength. Plus access to the missile launcher is easy.

Monster Rain wrote:Ah. Are we at the point in the conversation where it has devolved into where "only good players see the value of something"?

I assure you I'm not a noob, and my negative opinion of MM on non-relentless infantry is based on trying it myself as well as playing against countless people who used it. I could just as easily say that a good player's high-value vehicles won't ever be within 12 inches of your MM pillbox unless it is shaken, which isn't all that hard to do.

No, not quite there yet.

You are entitled to your opinion, as everyone is, and there is never a definitive/right or wrong answer to a question like this. However, saying "You should never put a MM on a marine" is quite a strong statement, and I felt compelled to point out that saying so goes beyond stating your own opinion, and in fact implies the those who use a MM are wrong, where you are right. This is where the line was crossed.

I never said the MM was the "best" weapon for a tactical squad, I use the ML regularly for example.

It has been explained in several posts during this thread how a MM can be used effectively in a tactical squad. Read through the thread and see if you can spot them.

Jabbdo wrote:It has been explained in several posts during this thread how a MM can be used effectively in a tactical squad. Read through the thread and see if you can spot them.

I've seen them, and I agree with them in theory, but something that relies on one's opponent making a mistake by driving too close or being unable to shake a Rhino doesn't seem like the best plan.

Monster Rain wrote:

Jabbdo wrote:It has been explained in several posts during this thread how a MM can be used effectively in a tactical squad. Read through the thread and see if you can spot them.

I've seen them, and I agree with them in theory, but something that relies on one's opponent making a mistake by driving too close or being unable to shake a Rhino doesn't seem like the best plan.

i can also agree with the theory and will admit to using a MM once as well.


The MM may be used as an Area Denial weapon, but there is a problem with that.

Vehicles have 2 Purposes. Fire Support and Transportation.

A Vehicle Providing FireSupport will be well out of MM range while doing it's job. so you have to go get it to kill it.

a Vehicle that is Transporting something will drive up intoMelta range,but at that point it doesn't matter if it dies because it completed its task.

Lately I've been using multi-meltas as I've been playing a list with Vulcan. I voted for missile launcher though as it offers flexibility and that's what a tac squad is all about.

I voted for the ML. I think it offers flexibility that the other heavy choices don't. When compared to the other free options I do like the MM but generally only put the MM into a drop pod so I can put the unit right in the action and be sure to get a good shot off. I usually like to pair the ML Tac squad with a Razorback, combat squad the unit and let the 5 wound missile launcher take pot shots all game, hopefully from an objective.

Grey Templar wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Jabbdo wrote:It has been explained in several posts during this thread how a MM can be used effectively in a tactical squad. Read through the thread and see if you can spot them.

I've seen them, and I agree with them in theory, but something that relies on one's opponent making a mistake by driving too close or being unable to shake a Rhino doesn't seem like the best plan.

i can also agree with the theory and will admit to using a MM once as well.


The MM may be used as an Area Denial weapon, but there is a problem with that.

Vehicles have 2 Purposes. Fire Support and Transportation.

A Vehicle Providing FireSupport will be well out of MM range while doing it's job. so you have to go get it to kill it.

a Vehicle that is Transporting something will drive up intoMelta range,but at that point it doesn't matter if it dies because it completed its task.

Neither is completely true. If you deploy a tactical and move it first turn and then run into cover, it's 12+6+1d6" forward. At the very least it's already a good 20" forward. The 24" threat zone will mostly cover the entire middle of the board. Now, I wouldn't recommend giving every tactical squad the MM, but it's useful on forward squads, like I said.

As for the person who mentioned 12"...uh...it has 24" range. You don't take a MM as a hw to get within 12". The meltagun gets into meltra range better. It's a strength 8 AP 1 shot with 24" range that's potentially twin-linked with vulkan. It's better than a lascannon at killing armor 13 or lower because it's ap 1.

scuddman wrote:As for the person who mentioned 12"...uh...it has 24" range. You don't take a MM as a hw to get within 12". The meltagun gets into meltra range better. It's a strength 8 AP 1 shot with 24" range that's potentially twin-linked with vulkan. It's better than a lascannon at killing armor 13 or lower because it's ap 1.

I mentioned 12 inches, as that's the 2d6 range on a Multi-melta. AP1 is irrelevant if you don't glance or penetrate the armor, which the MM has an equal chance to do to a ML but with half the range. YMMV.

I voted ML. Though the blast is 16.667% less likely to hit than the other weapons, it's still useful due to long range, utility and even if you miss you might scatter into something else.

M.

You know, its kinda funny how things have changed. Back in 3rd and 4th edition no one took the ML. The consensus was that it was terrible (and it was). Then 5th comes around and they change blast templates to get rid of partials and make it free or cheap and people think it's the best thing since sliced ham.
The MM on the other hand, despite a mech atmosphere and the common tactic of using empty transports to contest objectives late game and the transports themselves being a kill point, still have people saying they're worthless. If MM's cost points I would agree they aren't effective. But on a mobile squad the only thing you're losing out on is one S4 shot out to 12" because, as mentioned, he still has a pistol. For any role other than long range fire support the MM has become a perfectly acceptable weapon. Some might say: "why not combat squad and take a ML?" the answer is that on a forward unit whose purpose is to take a central or farther objective you want as many bodies as possible on that point for when your opponent decides he wants it back.
I'm not saying it should be in every unit. I only have 1 painted and the only time I wish I had another is when I put two tac squads in drop pods.
I don't mean to mock any one in particular I just think anyone who says "a MM should never be put on a marine" is having a knee jerk reaction based on previous editions of the rules or hasn't really thought about it in the context of 5th edition.