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.

So I've recently seen a couple arguments on both sides saying that the ML outmatches the MM in tactical squads, and that the MM is not a good choice.

I, personally, say the Multi-melta is a justified addition. I would argue that the 24" range isn't too prohibitive, especially if the squad it is in will be in a more forward position. I mean, a 24" str 8 ap 1 isn't bad. As well, the MM is a sign to tanks that makes them less willing to approach. If the squad is within 24" of a tank, it is more efficient than a ML. As well, the MM creates a 12" zone around it which suddenly becomes an off-limits area to heavy armor. Yes, it can be argued that an opponent throwing a transport that way too offload it's contents would still screw you up, but it would do this to any major tactical squad. And as long as the squad is within 24" of a target, it is still more effective (as mentioned above) than an ML against armor.
Not to say the ML is a bad choice. Rather, I am saying that the MM is an acceptable choice for a competitive armies' tactical squads, and that the zone of control brought by the MM is a justifying factor that is often overlooked.

Anyway, that's all I currently have to say on the matter, but I was wondering if anyone had other opinions. As the MM is rather common for tac squads in competitive lists, if I am wrong, and the MM is not as viable as the ML, then this is an error that should be corrected, so as to increase the success of of space marine armies on the whole.

I wouldn't object to _one_ tac squad having a MM - in most games you should be able to deploy that one squad forward but in cover so it can do some damage without being slaughtered first. But I'd still give MLs to my other tac squads - a ML is just far more versatile when you don't know what mission or opponent or terrain to expect.

I would happily put MM on Legion of the Damned, but my tac squads will stick with the ML. Between a non-relentless MM and a ML, the MM just does not bring enough to the table to justify the loss of the MLs versatility.

Yes, it is better than a ML from the 12-24 range band against armor. You have AP1. You still need to roll a 6 to glance a raider, you still need a 4 to pen a rhino, etc. Does this equalize with the loss of frag missiles and cutting your range in half? For me, not a chance.

It is also better than a ML in the 12 and under range band, with the 2D6 armor penetration, however, here it is surpassed by ye olde meltagun that is pretty much standard issue in every squad that can take them. Now, before anyone has a blood vessel pop in their brain hear me out: You have a 12 inch 2D6 range. A meltagun moving 6 and firing has a 12 inch 2D6 range. A meltagun moving 12 in transport and popping out to fire can 2D6 for 18 inches. It has the same strength, same AP, and the squad can assault the target if desired afterwards (Excepting non-assault vehicle transports, mind.). Now, this implies that you will be ABLE to move, don't desperately need to remain in cover, what have you...but then again, the MM has its own mobility downfalls as well.

In the 24+ band, well....it's no contest. ML wins, it's just math.

I see no advantage to taking a non-relentless MM by choice.

To argue for the MM
The MM does have the ability to wreck a raider at full range. Not a great probability of doing so, but it still can.

Also I would argue that, against vehicles that are less than AV 14 (of which there are a great deal) the MM really does shine, as it has a 50% chance to destroy the vehicle, vs. the 33.3% chance on the ML for a pen hit.

Indeed, at these armor values, the ML and MM distinction disappears.

The following percentages show the chance for each weapon to succeed at a task (taking into account the chance that the SM may miss).
One set shows the chance at Wrecking/exploding, second for at least stunning a vehicle (that does not have EA).

Wreck/Explode
AV 14 ML = 0% MM = 1.85%
AV 13 ML = 3.7% MM = 7.1%
AV 12 ML = 7.3% MM = 13%
AV 11 ML = 11% MM = 18%

AT least stun
AV 14 ML = 5.55% MM = 7.4%
AV 13 ML = 14.66% MM = 18.5%
AV 12 ML = 25% MM = 30%

So you can make your own decisions, but the MM, for destroying a vehicle, has a definite edge over the ML. Depending on your current LasCannon contingent, of course, you could scoff at this. However, I still see no harm in an army having one of these in cover in a forward position. As the MM has roughly a 65% better chance to wreck/explode vehicles at upper AV levels, I say this gives it some value on the battlefield, and can more than justify one of them in an army.

NB: Edits were to add the AV 11 stats on wreck/explode, and correct a typo in the AV 12 stun subset

It seriously depends on how the rest of the list looks.

Albeit, I haven't tested it outside of a Vulkan list yet, but my first round of testing with my Vulkan list makes my MM Tacs actually be a threat to everything for once.

Since it has no point cost difference, proxy it out and try it for yourself. Keep in mind that if you do use them, the Tac squad needs to sit midfield, so in an objective game you want to place objectives accordingly.

the Multi-melta is just too unreliable to justify on a non-relentless platform.


24" isn't a bad range, it is bad for an anti-vehicle weapon.

the MM is nothing special outside of 12". its just an over glorified missile launcher.


a Missile launcher has double the range, meaning it can engage turn 1 and keep engaging the whole game. Multi-meltas, due to low range, usually get 1 round of shooting before assault are happening or the fate of vehicles is largely irrelevent.

For example: a Landraider. this is what MMs are meant to crack. the problem is that the Landraider is a transport first and formost. Transports need to be stopped at long ranges before they can deliver their cargo. the Multi-meltas range is not condusive to stopping the raider at long distances. Lets say you are in Melta range and popped the raider and the Terminators come spilling out. the Landraider has actually completed its job because they are certaintly in striking range of your lines. The death of the landraider was pointless as its job was completed(delivering those Terminators)

Yes, you can wreck the raider at 24". but that requires you to roll a 6 to glance. Ap1 is pointless if the weapon can't even damage the target reliably. a Missile launcher has the same chance, no one shoots missiles at Land Raiders unless you are desperate.


Now, what about shooting at vehicles which arn't transports like Hammerheads or Lemun Russ? these vehicles have a long range on their guns. they will NEVER come into range of your Melta's voluntarly. that means you have to come to them. but MM are a heavy weapon. that means a turn of set up. your target has a chance to either drive outside of your effective range and/or shoot back. 12" isn't that hard to clear with a tank.

Grey, what you just listed is not the role of a MM Tac Squad. The role of a MM Tac Squad is area denial. Land Raiders and long range vehicles should be hunted by Attack Bikes/Land Speeders, which are the best platforms for fast moving melta.

Exactly. The Melta creates a zone where vehicles fear to tread. It is zone control and objective denial

ahhh yes, Area Denial, that old argument.


That doesn't work for one primary reason.

What are you attempting to deny area to? Transports!

If I see this, I will just drive in anyway. so you pop my Rhino/Devilfish/Landraider. guess what, my unit being transported has been carried to the location I wanted it. I no longer need my transport.

Vehicles that are gunplatforms simply outrange the Multi-melta and care nothing for your area denial.

But it's not just for transport. It's for almost all AV armor under 14. It means that you can pivot your army around that area, in order to better deny armor los/grant cover saves. Yes, I will agree that this is better facilitated by smart objective positioning, but it is still valid.
And a 65% increase in the chance to wreck/explode an Av 13-11 vehicle is not too bad a decrease. Especially given that on an average table length, you can effectively force an armored force into one of two corners with a well placed MM, or even force armor to move by choosing the proper set-up position to threaten them (with a rhino as partial cover or terrain as cover
You aren't just threatening transports, you're threatening armor in general, 2d6 or 1d6

Like I said, Armor that isn't a transport won't need to come within 24" of you to do damage. CC walkers excluded.

However 24" is half a standard board. Two turns of a rhino moving you up to position and then you have a chance to threaten a large chunk of an enemy's board. Again, it's not something an entire army needs, but it is not unfeasible for a tactical squad to do such a thing.

THough not to sound argumentative, the points raised against MM have been good and interesting points, and I thank everyone for posting so far, and for posting any new ideas in the future

Keep in mind that during those 2 turns of moving, the enemy has moved too. they can easily intercept those Multi-melta squads in that much time. and 2 turns of moving mean you arn't shooting until turn 3.

True. I guess, again, it all goes back to what Ares said, it depends on the list. If you have some large/scary/fast/ or all of the above things coming toward the enemy, the good thing is that a MM will probably not be straight up targeted.
Again, I think the main thing to review is what the MM is supposed to do. I find that, in my games, they can control movement corridors and threaten enemy armor, granting control over portions of the battlefield. However, that may also be my list.
Mostly the problem I see is that I have seen the MM work reliably (holding and dnying positions, especially when placed in the middle of the board at roughly 1.5ft in on either side). It takes two turns, yes, but the zone control is often extraordinary. AGain though, this may be more a question of Army list vs. Army tactics...