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.

@Darkness Eternal: http://www.ailarian.com/folera/batreps/index.html

They're divided into 4th edition and 5th edition, so bear that in mind.

@Fifteenhours:
Actually I've wound up playing that scenario more than once at different tournaments, and if I'm going second with a mech army, I always win so far. Sometimes you still have to kill or tank-shock something off the table to clear enough VPs out to hold that quadrant, but that was an extreme example where I just moved and took the win.

DarknessEternal wrote:

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?

http://www.ailarian.com/folera/index.html
Definitely worth a read imo.
Nice to know even the pros struggle against BA.

Ah, I thought there were new ones, but that's not the case.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
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.

He suicide charged into your reserve edge. Mobility and mech didn't matter.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
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.

Something you only could do because you knew when the last turn was (on turn 3). This is not something you're supposed to know before turn 7 in 5th edition.

This isn't any evidence for the advantages you're talking about. It's evidence how to beat a bad opponent who gives you the victory and how to game terrible tournament rules.

Joey wrote:Nice to know even the pros struggle against BA.

"Pros"?

You need the transports to make them effective, period.

In my Mech-Vets list I run at leat 4 Chims with Melta Squads. These units effectively ruin my opponents's day, either by destroying his vaulable units, or forcing him away from me - either of which is just fine with me. The key is to keep them near enough to each other to support each other. If he avoids them, then my heavies and Vends pick him apart at range; and if he closes with me, he just got into Melta-Death range.

In addition, combining a 3x melta unit with a transport equipped with a H Flamer gives you the capability to kill just about anithing that gets close for 155 points. Using 4+ such units for close range killing, while backup up by the longe range support of Heaviy Support and Vends gives you serious bang for your buck, while being able to maintian mobiility. It allso gives great target saturation for opposing AT weapons.

Meltas on foot-blobs do none of these things, as you have limited mobility.

DarknessEternal wrote:Ah, I thought there were new ones, but that's not the case.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
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.

He suicide charged into your reserve edge. Mobility and mech didn't matter.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
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.

Something you only could do because you knew when the last turn was (on turn 3). This is not something you're supposed to know before turn 7 in 5th edition.

This isn't any evidence for the advantages you're talking about. It's evidence how to beat a bad opponent who gives you the victory and how to game terrible tournament rules.

Was trying to use my example batreps to point out the forest, not the trees.

A couple of these games happened to end in turn 3 (which was the point of that particular batrep). But I win scenarios the same way in games that run the full 5-7 turns. In fact, I'm usually one of the first to finish in the given round of a tournament because I play pretty fast and mech armies generally play faster anyway. I just picked that particular batrep because it was a really extreme example of something that's routine for me when playing mechanized armies--winning scenarios with movement, in spite of taking massive casualties and without particularly killing a lot of enemy units.

So, to get back to the OP, meltaguns are ideal for mech armies because the mobility offsets the limits on the range (over the course of the game, not necessarily a single turn), and they allow both zone control and massed, concentrated, effective firepower to be applied as needed in a sudden and overwhelming way.

Foot armies don't have the mobility to apply massed melta that way. And because infantry can't inderdict vehicle movement, they can't control zones that way.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

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.

Sorry Ailaros, but I'm with flav here. Your opinions on transports are completely counter to my own in-game experience.

Dracos wrote:

Joey wrote:Nice to know even the pros struggle against BA.

"Pros"?

I'm going to echo the "Pros"? comment.

FifteenHours wrote:"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.

It does sound like playing with Ailaros would be a barrel of laughs, and not in the sarcastic sense. Many a game I've predicted the last turn/two turns of movement shooting and assault reasonably accurate. I've called many a game at turn 5-6 by saying "this is what will happen, unless the dice go funny" and almost every time the dice go the way they should- and I'm usually decently pissed/baked/both at the time. 40k Is a game of maths in action, and analyzing a choice before you makes it involves *gasp* maths being done in your head.). I would enjoy having some brews with ailaros and beating up his little plastic mangs and gak talking about game maths. All I hear from you is "Wish I could do that. I'll laugh at the guy instead, because I fail at doing a more complex version of 1+1=2".

Jihallah wrote:

FifteenHours wrote:"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.

It does sound like playing with Ailaros would be a barrel of laughs, and not in the sarcastic sense. Many a game I've predicted the last turn/two turns of movement shooting and assault reasonably accurate. I've called many a game at turn 5-6 by saying "this is what will happen, unless the dice go funny" and almost every time the dice go the way they should- and I'm usually decently pissed/baked/both at the time. 40k Is a game of maths in action, and analyzing a choice before you makes it involves *gasp* maths being done in your head.). I would enjoy having some brews with ailaros and beating up his little plastic mangs and gak talking about game maths. All I hear from you is "Wish I could do that. I'll laugh at the guy instead, because I fail at doing a more complex version of 1+1=2".

Wow, i'm truly floored by that. You basically sound like an absolute god. I bet you have to beat all the girls off with a stick as you can drink beer AND do complex maths at the same time. Australians can only usually manage one of those at a time so I guess that's special.

Pretty much proves my point though - no sense of humour.

You made a post that had no contribution except making fun of someone who I'd consider something of an online mate, to the point of quoting from his blog. So the only Australian thing going on is sticking up for your mates.
And if your idea of an absolute god of a person is someone who can do probability off a d6 after a couple of beers, you got a low ceiling of greatness my friend

Fifteenhours wrote:FifteenHours wrote:
"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.

This is where the not-nice started. You may have meant it in genuine good humor, but it doesn't come off as a friendly comment.

I know where you're coming from, though. Personally I'm not a fan of having to do math mid-game, which is one reason I'm happy that 5th ed 40k moved away from Victory Points. That anecdote is no poor reflection on Flavius; it's a necessary consequence of that particular tournament scenario, which is getting to be a popular one in the United States due to its being used a lot at the NOVA Open and events which imitate it. Controlling table quarters by means of having more VPs in them makes it downright necessary to do math toward the end of the game to make sure you have the right units in the right quadrants at the end of the game to secure the win.

The first time I played that scenario was at Battle for Salvation last year, and I made the mistake of estimating, rather than counting, in my semifinal round game against Mike Brandt. If I had actually counted, I probably would have won. As it happened I did not, and unnecessarily exposed a unit to try to hold an objective it turned out I didn't need, because if that unit was simply alive in that quadrant I would have won the game on quadrants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarknessEternal wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote: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.

He suicide charged into your reserve edge. Mobility and mech didn't matter.

Yes they did. Flavius was going second in a KP game. The mobility of his mechanized army made Reserving a viable option, as he loses very little firepower when doing so, since basically his whole army can move and shoot to full effect. Further, his opponent's "suicide charge" was a great example of how NOT to use mechanized mobility. If the opponent had played more conservative and stayed back, he could have stayed out of melta threat range and somewhat reduced Flavius' ability to damage him as Flavius' stuff came onto the table.

DarknessEternal wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote: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.

Something you only could do because you knew when the last turn was (on turn 3). This is not something you're supposed to know before turn 7 in 5th edition.

A) The clock is a factor in many tournament games. Especially when playing games over 1500pts with only two-hour rounds (as some tournaments do), it is not uncommon to run out of time. In those circumstances you will know when you are on or approaching the last turn. It's not ideal; I would prefer that every game came to its natural end. But in timed tournaments it's a fact of life; so you can either learn to plan for it and win in that situation, or ignore it and lose due to failing to account for the clock.
B) It doesn't really matter whether it happened on turn 3, 4, 5, 6, or even 7. Having greater mobility makes it easier for you to set yourself in position to eke out the win on any turn.

This thread seems to be getting a little off course.

I am seeing more of what Ailaros is alluding to as well, ground based Melta in drabs (not concentrated like Vets, CCS PCS or SWS) is very inconsistent at cracking armor. If armor busting is the key with infantry, then Autocannons and Missile Launchers would be better investments (obviously if your infantry aren't static, then you're up a creek, different argument for a different thread).

With blob guard, there can't be enough Melta en masse to match mech efficiency and if there is enough, it's too expensive, has a massive footprint, can't dedicate an efficient number of Melta shots at one target to merit taking so many (it gets to a point where if you have too many you're wasting the points on giga overkill. Sure the rhino ate 6 penetrating hits, now what? You're blob can't fire at the infantry out of assault range) and results in a very vunerable Melta blob.

Stormrider wrote:

With blob guard, there can't be enough Melta en masse to match mech efficiency and if there is enough, it's too expensive, has a massive footprint, can't dedicate an efficient number of Melta shots at one target to merit taking so many (it gets to a point where if you have too many you're wasting the points on giga overkill. Sure the rhino ate 6 penetrating hits, now what? You're blob can't fire at the infantry out of assault range) and results in a very vunerable Melta blob.

OK so what next? if we recognise that melta may not be the most effective weapon for the blob, what changes need to be made to make the blob armies more effective? Both Ailaros and I have suggested making blobs with Lascannons and holding them stationary until the start of turn 3 so that these long range weapons can shoot. Where he and i divert in ideas is that he is considering multiple lascannon HWS whereas i believe we need to spam AV14 tanks.

both ideas have merit. are there any other differences of opinions?

I agree with having some heavy weapons in at least some squads.

I also agree that the meltas are of diminished utility in blob armies due to shorter threat ranges and inferior flexibility in placement. A model on the table is where he is, and up to 6" from that point, threatening with double melta dice a circle roughly 416 square inches in area. A model in a transport can be placed anywhere within 2" of a hatch of that model, which can itself move 12" before he disembarks. Thus threatening with double melta dice a circle roughly 1300 square inches in area (assuming a roughly 4" long transport). And with greater force concentration, as previously mentioned, because being in a transport allows you to bunch the melta guys together to make sure they're all in 6", while still covering a wide area.

I still maintain that meltas are very good in blobs, because they allow you to kill otherwise very dangerous targets which get close (such as drop-podding dreadnoughts), and because they allow you to block off/interdict vehicle movement by preventing them from tank-shocking at will through your units.

Mannahnin wrote:I agree with having some heavy weapons in at least some squads.

I also agree that the meltas are of diminished utility in blob armies due to shorter threat ranges and inferior flexibility in placement. A model on the table is where he is, and up to 6" from that point, threatening with double melta dice a circle roughly 416 square inches in area. A model in a transport can be placed anywhere within 2" of a hatch of that model, which can itself move 12" before he disembarks. Thus threatening with double melta dice a circle roughly 1300 square inches in area (assuming a roughly 4" long transport). And with greater force concentration, as previously mentioned, because being in a transport allows you to bunch the melta guys together to make sure they're all in 6", while still covering a wide area.

I still maintain that meltas are very good in blobs, because they allow you to kill otherwise very dangerous targets which get close (such as drop-podding dreadnoughts), and because they allow you to block off/interdict vehicle movement by preventing them from tank-shocking at will through your units.

I agree melta's are good in blobs in certain situations. There are deffinitely some moments where you just need them to help get the blob out of a tight spot, and none of the other special weapons really fit that role. My biggest thing that makes me take them is that they're assault, so you can shoot them and move. A few melta gun hits really help to thin out scarier targets like terminators and space marines, or popping a transport to assault the contents. Plus it keeps the opponent from just running dreads straight into them, which is always nice I suppose.

That said, I'm probably only going to be taking them in outflanking blobs from now on, and using Plasma/lascannon blobs for everything else. That way I can run a mix of gunline and assault blobs in my army. I'm also considering trying a few vendettas, stormtroopers, and a few manticores or Leman Russ variants (the ones that can threaten armor at range) or maybe even trying Medusas.

Aside from outflanking the blobs though, I find its just too hard to get them where they can do damage. Hopefully mixing the two together will help mitigate this, but I guess it'll just take a little trial and error to find out. The biggest problem I have is not that the Melta is bad, but that the rest of the special weapons are just much worse at the job than melta is. Flamers are too short range and fill a roll that the blobs are already good at, GL's are too weak to be much difference, and plasmas won't let you fire and assault in the same turn. With meltas for blobs, it basically boils down to "it's not great, but it's the best we've got, so we may as well use it."

TheMicah25 wrote:

Stormrider wrote:

With blob guard, there can't be enough Melta en masse to match mech efficiency and if there is enough, it's too expensive, has a massive footprint, can't dedicate an efficient number of Melta shots at one target to merit taking so many (it gets to a point where if you have too many you're wasting the points on giga overkill. Sure the rhino ate 6 penetrating hits, now what? You're blob can't fire at the infantry out of assault range) and results in a very vunerable Melta blob.

OK so what next? if we recognise that melta may not be the most effective weapon for the blob, what changes need to be made to make the blob armies more effective? Both Ailaros and I have suggested making blobs with Lascannons and holding them stationary until the start of turn 3 so that these long range weapons can shoot. Where he and i divert in ideas is that he is considering multiple lascannon HWS whereas i believe we need to spam AV14 tanks.

both ideas have merit. are there any other differences of opinions?

I see no problems with an objective holding blob doing this. None at all. Give them multiple S8+ weapons and watch them whittle the approaching tanks down to nothing.

An "offensive" blob might be better off with meltas however, Mr Moustaffa made a good point. All the other weapons don't handle the issues as well as melta.