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.

heartserenade wrote:Aaand Vulkan makes BS4 melta twin-linked. Yay C:SM!

hah, yes. This definitely seems a valid exception as well.

WhiteWolf01 wrote:Are they my first line of anti-tank? No. But they can come in handy especially when you are running them with your HQ behind them shouting orders.

Ah! There we go. Melta is a "countercharge" weapon. Getting mass melta into range on the offense is sort of like getting mass flamers into range. You've got to get a lot of guys, really, REALLY close to deliver the payload, which is rather challenging in a purely offensive role. Basically the only time flamers are effective is in a defensive attack role. Perhaps the same is true for melta?

Your opponent will never let you just charge up the field into melta range, but your opponent can only do so much about being counter-attacked by melta, which is much more likely to get safely into melta range.

Makes sense, actually.

Ailaros wrote:
Your opponent will never let you just charge up the field into melta range, but your opponent can only do so much about being counter-attacked by melta, which is much more likely to get safely into melta range.

Makes sense, actually.

This is what I was going to write too. You may not be able to rush into the enemy with your melta, but it provides a second layer of defense against armoured targets. It's more of a "if you kill unit A, unit B will melta you" weapon than anything really.

Now vehicle-mounted multi-meltas on the other hand...

You can rush the enemy with meltas if your army moves fast; either by being jumpers (BA or biker vanilla), or by being in a bunch of transports. You generally need to be decent in assault for this to work, though, as if you're not there's a bad tendency to pop a few cheap enemy transports then get charged by the contents.

Vendettas make Meltavets a much scarier choice, IMO. Scout 24' (or so), drop out the vets on your turn, BAM! Dead enemy tank. And then the Vendetta can go hunt lighter armor.

Though it seems like I am contributing kind of late into the discussion, might I suggest that meltas should only be one part of your overall weapon selection. Someone mentioned earlier how nice it would be to utilize a variety of different anti-tank weapons and I couldn't agree more. That is one of the benefits to IG lists is our choice of weapons and the chassis we wish to take them on.

For the OP and his frustration with melta, I think it is obviously a viable weapon that like any other when deployed properly against the right target they excel. Part of the challenge is getting our troops into the right position. I personally take meltas in only vet squads and storm trooper squads. This way I can either outflank with them, DS, or mount up and charge. With standard guard low BS3 I feel any one shot weapon is a risk to take since on average you are missing half the time. I don't recall if a sergeant in a IS can take a meltabomb, but if he can't, then I would take one in my blob to discourage a tank shock move against my ISs.

Not to be too critical of melta vet spam players, but they seem a bit tiresome to me. I attribute it to my play style, so obviously go with what feels right to the individual.

To the OP, is melta still viable, absolutely. I just think like the saying goes, "Too much of a good thing..."

I feel the same way, I feel that I can't "surprise" my opponents any more with Melta. I have run Melta in every feasible way. My most successful attempts involved Meltavets in a Vendetta, outflanking Meltavets with Harker, outflanking Stormtroopers with 2 Meltas, SWS with triple Melta within range of an officer and Melta CCS.

Bog standard infantry are better off with Flamers and Grenade Launchers. The albatross around the neck of BS 3 really hurts the Melta. Flamers are the grand equalizer.

Chimera Meltavets are played so frequently that the most casual player is ready for it. I personally like plasmavets in Chimeras due to their damage output even without moving.

PCS's are better augmenting platoon infantry from behind and cost too much for four BS 3 Meltas, yrs they can be twin-linked, but by the time they're in range on offense, they'll get one chance before they're brutalized in close combat. Too many points in one BS 3 basket. Al'Rahem does add more versatility that I cannot factor for now (mainly due to Like The Wind). I've used him before with some great success for two turns until he barbecued himself with his plasma pistol.

Blobs are awesome at grinding up nasty close combat squads and mowing down infantry with massed lasgun fire, but struggle with the use special weapons because of their BS 3 and their large footprint (meltas have to be near the front of the blob, and will be more likely in an assault before they can fire). They can be twin-linked, still dependent on a CCS.

My favorite application of offensive Melta though is the triple Melta SWS in a Vendetta. Very cheap and a great distraction/force multiplier for low cost and a scoring unit to boot.

My second favorite is outflanking Stormtroopers from "Reconnaissance", giving them outflank via Infiltate and Move Through Cover makes them a sneaky unit that doesn't always have to be an Assyrian Suicide Squad just to get the job done. Deep striking is great, but is predictable and really isn't that surprising.

This entire thread confuses me, mostly because everyone seems to be assuming that in most games IG cross the center-line. My full-mech guard rarely if ever gets further than 24" onto the table, and frequently stays in it's deployment zone for most of the game. I field 21 Meltaguns, and they are generally always points wonderfully spent... because generally people make a mad dash to get as close to me as possible, as fast as possible. Once they hit 12", the Meltaguns double the quality firepower being pumped into enemy. A couple of things might get to me, but the meltaguns don't stop firing, and generally all I have to do is lean on most people until the ragged remnants of their force gives out.

My die rolling isn't good enough for me to sit at the back of the table and shoot. I always get overrun when I try that.

I have to tilt the odds in my favor by advancing and using overwhelming firepower and things like tank shocks, flamers and orders to overcome with sheer numbers the typical failure of my dice to help me out with shooting.

Shooting is too random. Vehicle movement is dependable.

Flavius Infernus wrote:My die rolling isn't good enough for me to sit at the back of the table and shoot. I always get overrun when I try that.

I have to tilt the odds in my favor by advancing and using overwhelming firepower and things like tank shocks, flamers and orders to overcome with sheer numbers the typical failure of my dice to help me out with shooting.

Shooting is too random. Vehicle movement is dependable.

Highest strength a chimera can have from tank ramming is 7, which is pretty unimpressive. I also doubt you rely on tank shocks to break the enemy.
And you can't issue orders to units inside chimeras...so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't see how tank shocks and flamers would help you beat anyone but the most casual of gamers.

Panzerboy26 wrote:This entire thread confuses me, mostly because everyone seems to be assuming that in most games IG cross the center-line. My full-mech guard rarely if ever gets further than 24" onto the table, and frequently stays in it's deployment zone for most of the game. I field 21 Meltaguns, and they are generally always points wonderfully spent... because generally people make a mad dash to get and close to me as possible, as fast as possible. Once they hit 12", the Meltaguns double the quality firepower being pumped into enemy. A couple of things might get to me, but the meltaguns don't stop firing, and generally all I have to do is lean on most people until the ragged remnants of their force gives out.

I think that this nicely sums up the alternative to Allaros's thesis that meltaguns aren't useful outside of fancy deployment. There are two roles that a meltagun can fill:

1) Offensive vehicle-popping, the best in the game (outliers like bastion-breachers excluded). For this role, fancy deployment and/or speed is a must to mitigate short range and allow an alpha strike. In a Guard army, a 4x melta CCS or Al'Rahem's platoon would be an example of this, although other armies do it much better (C:SM, for example, has MM speeders, MM dreads, combi-melta Sternguard, etc.). Without their special deployment rules, the effectiveness of the offensive melta is quite limited.

2) Defensive counter-punch. Nobody does this like IG, and Panzerboy exemplifies this style of using melta. In this situation, they are used much differently, and require a ton of saturation - 6x meltavets in chimeras, 2x CCS in chimeras, etc. The idea is that even though the enemy knows what's coming, your superior firepower forces them into range, and you have enough melta on the board that the enemy can't kill them all. For this to work, you need to get a bunch of meltas in a small area, e.g. not in a blob. Blobs take up too much space with too few meltaguns to be effective in this counter-punch role, which is why the OP might be having issues with them.

If your dice are just consistently that bad, then I really don't know what to tell you.

For me, generally 9 TL Lascannons, 6-7 BS 4 Autocannons, 6-7 Scatter Lasers, 1-2 Demolisher Cannons, and 5 Plasma Cannons is generally more than enough to make the my opponent think that moving towards me is a good idea, making those 18-21 meltaguns a wonderful investment.

Roboute wrote:1) Offensive vehicle-popping. For this role, fancy deployment and/or speed is a must to mitigate short range and allow an alpha strike.

2) Defensive counter-punch. You need to get a bunch of meltas in a small area

So, I think this is what I'm taking away from this.

It's good in defensive roles where you get to concentrate against your opponent's thrust, and the short range of the melta is no big deal, and it's only good on the offense when you can use some sort of extreme mobility. Using them in a conventional offensive role is basically just charging up the field with a giant "I've got melta, shoot me first" sign which, in conjunction with its short range (and thus ability to get outmaneuvered easily), amongst several other things, means that it's not terribly likely to make it there.

Vets in chimeras or marines with a melta in a razorback for defense, chosen in outflanking rhinos or combi-melta sternguard in a drop pod for the offense. Out of these kinds of roles, more or less, don't bother.

Ailaros wrote:

Roboute wrote:1) Offensive vehicle-popping. For this role, fancy deployment and/or speed is a must to mitigate short range and allow an alpha strike.

2) Defensive counter-punch. You need to get a bunch of meltas in a small area

So, I think this is what I'm taking away from this.

It's good in defensive roles where you get to concentrate against your opponent's thrust, and the short range of the melta is no big deal, and it's only good on the offense when you can use some sort of extreme mobility. Using them in a conventional offensive role is basically just charging up the field with a giant "I've got melta, shoot me first" sign which, in conjunction with its short range (and thus ability to get outmaneuvered easily), amongst several other things, means that it's not terribly likely to make it there.

You'd rather they were shooting at your Leman Russes or Manticores? The whole point of mech vets is that you have about 8-10 vehicles on the table, all of which are capable of doing serious damage. Even if your opponent gets super lucky he won't kill more than 3 chimeras, and if the vets fail their pinning check you can bring them back up with an order and those melta guns will be unscathed.
And your Russes will be safe and sound at the back of the board laying down pie plates/plasma plates, all those chimeras will be moving again...
The way you talk about your list makes me curious though, mind showing us a sample list? And what opponant do you usually fight?

Joey wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:My die rolling isn't good enough for me to sit at the back of the table and shoot. I always get overrun when I try that.

I have to tilt the odds in my favor by advancing and using overwhelming firepower and things like tank shocks, flamers and orders to overcome with sheer numbers the typical failure of my dice to help me out with shooting.

Shooting is too random. Vehicle movement is dependable.

Highest strength a chimera can have from tank ramming is 7, which is pretty unimpressive. I also doubt you rely on tank shocks to break the enemy.
And you can't issue orders to units inside chimeras...so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I don't see how tank shocks and flamers would help you beat anyone but the most casual of gamers.

A mechanized army wins games in the movement phase, not the shooting phase. You win by putting your units in the place where they need to be, and preventing your opponent's units from going there, and/or by concentrating to bring overwhelming short ranged firepower, then dispersing to avoid the counterattack.

Meltaguns are much less random at antitank than other kinds of weapons, mainly because of the AP1 and the way they can be put into units in multiples relatively cheaply. Mobility makes it possible to actually apply the short-ranged weapons without depending on the enemy to come to you.

Flamers--another short ranged weapon-are more reliable than longer-ranged weapons because they automatically hit. Tank shocks are used to cluster up target units so you can hit more models with each flamer template.

Orders decrease uncertainty by giving you rerolls (or forcing your opponent to take rerolls). There's always one or two units on the table who have been blown out of their chimeras who can receive orders.

Flavius has been 100% correct in this discussion, as soon as you make those meltas reliably mobile their utility increases significantly. If you're able to push into board center then you've got range bands deep into your opponent's deployment zone with a wide variety of weapons to allow you to more accurately take out key parts of their army. Since early in 5th edition I don't know when footslogging melta was scary at all so of course your performance with them has been lackluster.

Meltas are good area denial weapons. They basically establish little bubbles that prevent vehicles from entering. And thats hard to quantify in terms of points. But its definitely something to consider, because there are many times where you want to keep his tanks out of an area.

As an ork player, Meltas can ruin your day when you're running a battlewagon spam list.

Joey wrote:

Ailaros wrote:

Roboute wrote:1) Offensive vehicle-popping. For this role, fancy deployment and/or speed is a must to mitigate short range and allow an alpha strike.

2) Defensive counter-punch. You need to get a bunch of meltas in a small area

So, I think this is what I'm taking away from this.

It's good in defensive roles where you get to concentrate against your opponent's thrust, and the short range of the melta is no big deal, and it's only good on the offense when you can use some sort of extreme mobility. Using them in a conventional offensive role is basically just charging up the field with a giant "I've got melta, shoot me first" sign which, in conjunction with its short range (and thus ability to get outmaneuvered easily), amongst several other things, means that it's not terribly likely to make it there.

You'd rather they were shooting at your Leman Russes or Manticores? The whole point of mech vets is that you have about 8-10 vehicles on the table, all of which are capable of doing serious damage. Even if your opponent gets super lucky he won't kill more than 3 chimeras[b], and if the vets fail their pinning check you can bring them back up with an order and those melta guns will be unscathed.
And your Russes will be safe and sound at the back of the board laying down pie plates/plasma plates, all those chimeras will be moving again...
The way you talk about your list makes me curious though, mind showing us a sample list? And what opponant do you usually fight?

I dunno, I think if your opponent is having trouble popping 3 chimeras, then he might have bigger problems than just your list...

I'm really stuck on this issue, because everyone has good answers to this. There are important reasons to take it (defensive, just in case dreads/tanks get close/ fancy deployment) and plenty of reasons not to (rarely is a typical blob going to get to use it/ short range/ can get screwed over by bad accuracy)

I'll probably keep a few in my blob for now, but I'm deffinitely going to try experimenting with GL's and plasma as well as throwing in HWT's and see what difference that makes. I'll probably end up running storm troopers with melta, outflanking an al'rahem platoon with all melta's, and possibly trying some vets with melta in vendettas as well. Anything that isn't in one of those roles will simply be using some other Special weapon with a better range...

Joey wrote:You'd rather they were shooting at your Leman Russes or Manticores? The whole point of mech vets is that you have about 8-10 vehicles on the table, all of which are capable of doing serious damage.

I understand this principle, but it's not being applied correctly here. I'm assuming that my opponent has a good list and is reasonably competent in the way he deploys, moves, and shoots with his stuff.

This is another "I'll give him no options" argument, which doesn't really make sense to me as you always have options.

Joey wrote:The way you talk about your list makes me curious though, mind showing us a sample list? And what opponant do you usually fight?

I'm assuming any list, any opponent.

I'm trying to find a general understanding of the weapon, not one limited to what army I happen to play, and the people I happen to play against.

Flavius Infernus wrote:A mechanized army wins games in the movement phase, not the shooting phase. You win by putting your units in the place where they need to be, and preventing your opponent's units from going there

This is a really strange way of thinking to me. I mean, how are you going to prevent your opponents from placing units without destroying them, or reasonably threatening said destruction? Do you really think you need nothing more than field position to win games?

Furthermore, I find your assertion that you can win games with nothing but maneuver very strange (and by "strange", I mean "wrong"). What's even more strange is the fact that you say this when the quote in your own signature is "The complete or partial destruction of the enemy must be regarded as the sole object of all engagements.... Direct annihilation of the enemy's forces must always be the dominant consideration."

... in which the Prussian is arguing basically the exact opposite of what you're saying here...

Goresaw wrote:Meltas are good area denial weapons.

Right, one of their defensive uses.

Ailaros wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:A mechanized army wins games in the movement phase, not the shooting phase. You win by putting your units in the place where they need to be, and preventing your opponent's units from going there

This is a really strange way of thinking to me. I mean, how are you going to prevent your opponents from placing units without destroying them, or reasonably threatening said destruction? Do you really think you need nothing more than field position to win games?
Furthermore, I find your assertion that you can win games with nothing but maneuver very strange (and by "strange", I mean "wrong").

I find this strange. And by strange I mean strange. Are you taking the piss by pretending you don't know what he's getting at? Or are you just going for an argument? Or have you never actually tried playing a mech'd force, and can't see what Flav is getting at?

Meltaguns are fairly cheap and effective at killing both tanks and infantry. Also a lot of the time players focus too much on the 6" range double dice against armour but S8 alone is decent for damaging medium armour and very good against light armour allowing you to take advantage of the full (slightly less shorter) 12" range.
Instant killing MEQs and even TEQs is also very helpful although plasma guns do have the advanatage of 24" range and Rapid Fire but they cost more and have a chance of killing your own units.

Goresaw wrote:Meltas are good area denial weapons. They basically establish little bubbles that prevent vehicles from entering. And thats hard to quantify in terms of points. But its definitely something to consider, because there are many times where you want to keep his tanks out of an area.

If you've got enough of them in a single unit (3+ imo) they threaten almost any unit (other than swarms) enough to keep them from getting too close and as Goresaw said that's a trait that can't really be measured.

It depends on a player's definition of "fancy deployment" but Vets, PCS and CCS with Meltaguns and mechanized (Chimeras, Valkyries or Vendettas) can be very effective. In my personal experience Deep Striking Storm Troopers is still the most effective way to get Meltaguns where you need them but they are a very limited option.

For me Meltaguns are a must have upgrade but that's not to say i will litter my army with them. If by "fancy deployment" you mean upgrading a unit with Meltaguns to use them against units that Meltaguns are particularly effective against and deploying them to best deal with said units then, no, i can't say that meltaguns are useful outside of fancy deployment.

Just my thoughts.

Peace Out!
Jonny!

Jihallah wrote:Are you taking the piss by pretending you don't know what he's getting at?

I'm genuinely confused in this case.

I well understand ideas of field position, and force concentration. I started the thread with a mention to the problems with their relevance, and continued with examples to the same with regards to their offense. In return, what I'm getting is "yeah, well transports are slightly faster than foot lists, so that makes everything you say moot" without really giving any explanation as to why. I'm left to assume that the opponent in this case must not be able to see a melta rush coming, and that the opponent has neither the tools nor understanding to do anything about it, perhaps because they've been "left no choices" by the awe-inspiring tactical awesomeness of the melta player.

Lots of people are also making the mistake that I'm trying to figure out a way to run meltaguns in foot guard lists, when in fact I'm trying to figure out how to make them work at all in any army.

RubberJonny wrote:but S8 alone is decent for damaging medium armour

Except that it isn't. That's part of my point. Sure, against AV10 open topped DE raider spam, they do okay (but good luck making it with enough of them into range and hope they don't have SMF or flickerfields), but avainst AV12, out of melta range, a few meltaguns aren't actually likely to do very much.

Ailaros wrote:

RubberJonny wrote:but S8 alone is decent for damaging medium armour

Except that it isn't. That's part of my point. Sure, against AV10 open topped DE raider spam, they do okay (but good luck making it with enough of them into range and hope they don't have SMF or flickerfields), but avainst AV12, out of melta range, a few meltaguns aren't actually likely to do very much.

A roll of 4+ is half chance/decent/adequate/average. Additional saves will impede most wepons so it seems unfair to target meltaguns specifically for this.

Peace!

I run a hammer and anvil type hybrid list: Usually a power blob with autocannons, a HWS with lascannons, and Meltavets in Chimeras, with artillery or Hydra from the back and he odd LR or two in higher points games.

The way i've been using the meltavets in most games - and I have no idea if this is how other people use them or not - is to hang them back on each flank utilising cover as best as possible. The key point is: If I don't need to move them I wont.
Armies tend to move towards my blob as it harasses them from afar and they can't seem to ignore that field presence a 40 or 50 man blob creates. I can afford to sit back and shoot with a gunline, the enemy can't.
Once the enemy advances closer to the blob or if deep striking threats appear, that is when I will use the meltavets. This is really the only role so far I have found them to be effective. I tried using them more offensively and they were next to useless (though a lot of this was down to poor dice rolls).

So to whoever said previously they use them in 'counter-assault', that's pretty much the only way I use them. They have been worth the points in this kind of counter-attack role and it works for me. I feel depending on melta for your anti-tank is suicide though. That's where I prefer twin-linking lacsannons.
The only other role i've used meltas in is 'mopping up' squads that have been weakened.

Ailaros wrote:

RubberJonny wrote:but S8 alone is decent for damaging medium armour

Except that it isn't. That's part of my point. Sure, against AV10 open topped DE raider spam, they do okay (but good luck making it with enough of them into range and hope they don't have SMF or flickerfields), but avainst AV12, out of melta range, a few meltaguns aren't actually likely to do very much.

This is just baffling. How is S8 AP1 just "okay" against AV10 open topped? Is there another weapon vs target situation that has a greater chance of destroying a vehicle in the game? I guess if you have the 2d6 you are guaranteed to at least glance, but other than that I guess only S10 AP1 weapons are better. Against AV12 they certainly are less effective, but still right up there when you compare them to other weapons you can field in the same numbers.

Ailaros you are trying to reinvent the wheel and/or tell us the wheel isn't as good as everyone knows it is. This is a very strange thread.

Saying that meltaguns are not great weapons is horrifically incorrect. They are some of the cheapest, strongest weapons in the game. They suffer from a single, large flaw in the range category.

In transports they are good since as they benefit from increased movement so that the range of the weapon itself is less of a concern. But then you don't like transports either (this one has always boggled me), so I can see how you might not really understand meltaguns.

Basically the prerequisite to understanding meltaguns is to understand transports and area control/denial.

Flavius has a solid grasp on this, and you should really read what he has said thoroughly with a mind open to changing your own thoughts about this. I've told many people how important the movement phase of this game is, yet so many don't understand how that works. Flavius has articulated this concept pretty well.

Most of my games I win in the list building/deployment stages of the game. When I find an equal in those, which I surely have, I have to outplay them in the movement phase. If I still can't do that, then it comes down to the other two phases and (therefore) luck.

Winning consistently is about using the movement phase. Melta weapons depend on the movement phase to mitigate their flaw.

Games are generally won in the movement phase. It's all about getting to objectives (most of the time) and being able to hold them. Having melta guns on foot has obvious flaws since their range is a debilitating factor. Chances are they won't get used for the majority of the game and by the time they get in range your opponent has probably already done what he needed to anyway.

This is where the added mobility of transports makes a difference.

- They can get you where you need to be earlier, thus you are controlling objectives sooner rather than later and forcing your opponent to respond to you instead of the other way around. This is turn can lead to area denial where your opponent may send his landraider/dreadnaught/whatever towards that objective, but will now be taking added risks.

1. Perhaps you have screening vehicles that moved 12" to block the way to that objective.
2. If you have Troop redundancy in the vicinity perhaps that melta unit will throw themselves forward 12", disembark and just slag the vehicle.
3. Perhaps the unit will disembark and let the vehicle move forward 12" and create a screen for them.

This isn't just about melta anymore, it's the role they fill in the right list. I mentioned before that perhaps it's a symptom of the lists you use and I still stand by that. You take footslogging lists and then ask why short range melta fails you. In this case you are using a short ranged gun and not trying to facilitate its usefulness by making slow as well as short ranged.

Melta isn't the only tool available to an IG general, but it is one that they can take mass numbers of cheaply and over lots of units (some sacrificial, some not). Utilizing transports to make up for the biggest weakness of it just makes sense to me.

The number one reason I take meltas in blobs is due to their being assault weapons. Plasmas may actually complement lasguns better, but it prevents then from charging.

Lukus83 wrote:This is where the added mobility of transports makes a difference. - They can get you where you need to be earlier, thus you are controlling objectives sooner rather than later and forcing your opponent to respond to you instead of the other way around.

Yes, slightly, and that's if your opponent doesn't do something to stop it. More importantly, though, what you're talking about is what I'm seeing as the defensive nature of meltaguns. They only become useful when you're already on that objective, and are now trying to defend it, moreso than using them to take that objective in the first place.

Dracos wrote:How is S8 AP1 just "okay" against AV10 open topped?

Because you still need to hit, you still need to penetrate the armor, you still need to roll a wreck result, and you still need to make it through a SMF save. A guardsman with a meltagun does this on a .08. Whoopee...

The reason that they're only okay is because of what the statistics show.

Dracos wrote: Is there another weapon vs target situation that has a greater chance of destroying a vehicle in the game?

In the game? I'll start with just your example. A guardsman could spend just as many points on an autocannon and achieve the same feat on a .13, over 50% better.

Dracos wrote:In transports they are good since as they benefit from increased movement so that the range of the weapon itself is less of a concern. But then you don't like transports either (this one has always boggled me), so I can see how you might not really understand meltaguns.

I understand transports well enough. I've already talked about the minor increase in force concentration that they give, and the increase in getting into +D6 range, and I've also talked about how that doesn't matter in this case. If there's something that you're confused about, I can try to be more articulate on the matter, if you tell me what you're not getting.

Dracos wrote: I've told many people how important the movement phase of this game is, yet so many don't understand how that works. Winning consistently is about using the movement phase.

This is still really bizzare to me. Yes, you do need to technically move onto objectives to win those games, and you do need to move to get the right killing power in the right place at the right time. That said, 40k isn't chess. You can never win a kill points game without killing your opponent's stuff (and lots of it), and you can never win an objectives game without killing your opponents off of objectives. To say that a ballerina's grace in the movement phase is what's most important to winning you games and that shooting and assaulting are distant seconds is just wrong, at least for 40k.

Moving is AN important part, but it's not THE important part. Ignoring your opponent's shooting and assaulting phases because you're ignoring those phases in general isn't a good place to start an argument for any particular weapon.

And I furthermore don't understand making the basis for a weapon that's worth bringing (presumably to shoot at some point) because the shooting phase isn't as important as the movement phase. That's like saying that power weapons are worth taking because the assault phase isn't all that important. On the flip side, saying "the movement phase exists, therefore meltaguns are worth taking" doesn't make any more sense either.

Ailaros wrote:
I understand transports well enough. I've already talked about the minor increase in force concentration that they give, and the increase in getting into +D6 range, and I've also talked about how that doesn't matter in this case.

When you write things like this that are completely counter to my own experience, I'm actually persuaded that you don't understand transports. Or maybe you understand transports in isolation, but your statements suggest to me that you don't understand fully-mechanized armies. A mechanized army plays qualitatively differently from an army with few or no transports.

And I'm not talking about mechanized armies like the ones your opponents in some of your battle reports are playing where the transports are operating as stationary pillboxes (I'm thinking of one in particular where, in turn 2 when the opponent didn't move, I thought he had just handed you the game. If he hadn't lucked out on his shooting for two more turns, he would have lost). I'm talking about mechanized armies where the player uses the mobility, not just the durability.

Ailaros wrote: You can never win a kill points game without killing your opponent's stuff (and lots of it), and you can never win an objectives game without killing your opponents off of objectives.

Not true, and this kind of statement even moreso makes me think that you're not grasping how a mechanized army works.

You don't have to kill lots of your opponent's stuff to win a KP game. You just have to kill *one point more than* your opponent. So if you kill 1 thing and can keep your opponent from killing anything of yours, you win. Mech Eldar armies are especially good at getting up by 1 or 2 KPs and then denying the enemy KPs, but I also do it with my mech marine and guard armies.

It's relatively easy to win objective games without killing your opponents off of objectives, because vehicles can push them off, or push through infantry units to contest objectives. Since you only need to hold 1 more than your opponent to win, you can hold a single objective and contest the other (or the rest). It frequently happens to me that when the game ends, most of my army is dead and my opponent has lost basically nothing, but I'm holding one objective and contesting the rest, so I win. I'm always surprised when people call the 2-objective games "autodraws" because I don't have any trouble winning those with a mech army.

Incidentally, I do ignore the assault phase with my mechanized armies (and therefore I don't take power weapons). Assault is something the opponent does to try to stop my tanks from moving and shooting, or to wipe out screening units that I throw up in his way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like for example in this game:

http://www.ailarian.com/folera/batreps/blood-conquers-all/blood-conquers-5.html

Where your mechanized Eldar opponent was never in any danger of losing the game. It was either going to be a draw, or a loss for you, unless he did something really stupid like shoot up your command squad.

Or this one:
http://www.ailarian.com/folera/batreps/blood-conquers-all/blood-conquers-30.html

Where your mechdar opponent for some reason threw away the game by not playing aggressively with his wave serpents--heavy weapon squads especially tend to run off when you tank shock them--and for some really inexplicable reason didn't assault your blobs with outflanking warwalkers. This guy tried to sit back and outshoot you (?) with wave serpents moving slow, which is just a waste of mechdar mobility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In contrast, here's three short batreps from a tournament I won using mech marines:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/375190.page

Notice in round 1 (the KP one) most of my army was off the table for most of the game, which allowed me to stay ahead by a few kill points until the last turn when I scored a few extra KPs and won handily.

In the second round, I held one objective and contested the rest, even though my opponent had blown away chunks of my army (I think I immobilized one of his rhinos or something).

In the final round I scored zero KPs and zero objectives, but held three table quarters (because of my mobility) for the win.

My total KP tally for the entire tournament was 9 KP, and 8 of those were in round 1. In the last game, I literally won in the movement phase by moving units into the quarters where they needed to be, and didn't need my shooting or assault phases.

That's what mechanized armies can do.

"At this point, it was more like a math puzzle than a 40K game. I actually started adding up numbers during my opponent’s turn so that, when he was done, I had about 15 minutes to do the math and figure out what needed to move where for me to win."

lol jesus. Sounds like it would be a barrel of laughs playing you.

Ailaros wrote:So, I was just going over my most recent battle report series

This isn't entirely on topic, but where might one find those?