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.

Combi melta for sarge and melta for tacticals...even captain lieutenants etc only weapon i can thing in shooting is combi melta..

why use plasma instead of melta?

am i missing something guys?

Plasma is cheaper, longer ranged, more versatile (effective vs troops and tanks/monsters), and on average will do more damage at anything over 6" unless the target has a 3+ or better and no invulnerable save.

Literally any other weapon is better, melta is trash this edition. It's only real affective range is 6" (outside 6" just take Plasma) which means you're going to be getting a squishy squad of Marines a bit too close for comfort seeing as though two things will happen; either you will destroy the vehicle you're shooting but there is a chance it will explode and destroy your unit; or it's still alive after your shooting, angry that you shot at it but happy that you're within convenient rapid-fire/flamer/charging range.

And that's only if you can get your tac squad within 6" without being blown off the board first.

Even at 6-12" melta still beats plasma against vehicles. Better AP, and better to-wound and damage unless the plasma gunners overheat and risk death. And sure, you can add a re-roll 1s buff to make the plasma safe, but once you dump points into buffs you no longer have a cheap and efficient weapon. The fact that melta has the ability to get within 6" and really wreck a multi-wound target is just a nice bonus.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:
unless the target has a 3+ or better and no invulnerable save.

IOW, "unless the target is not infantry".

 Peregrine wrote:
Even at 6-12" melta still beats plasma against vehicles. Better AP, and better to-wound and damage unless the plasma gunners overheat and risk death. And sure, you can add a re-roll 1s buff to make the plasma safe, but once you dump points into buffs you no longer have a cheap and efficient weapon. The fact that melta has the ability to get within 6" and really wreck a multi-wound target is just a nice bonus.

Better AP - This is true but doesn't matter versus Daemon Engines, Imperial Knights, Eldar/DE skimmers, Super Heavy tanks etc.
Better to wound - Both S8, so this is wrong (and don't talk to me about the regular shot, SM and CSM have so much access to re-rolls that anyone who doesn't overcharge is just robbing themselves)
Better damage - Eh, melta does an average of 3.5D versus plasmas 2D... Per shot, but plasma has two shots. So Plasma on average does more damage.

I've run both Plasma and Melta Terminator teams in a few games just to test out which is better and the plasma always came out on top since it did more damage when it came down and it had the utility of being able to deal with infantry units as well as tanks.

Against a 3+ saves, melta only barely beats out plasma for damage dealt at a 5% increase in damage. Plasma has versatility at the cost of self destruction potential and needing a babysitter. It only takes 4 guns for a Captain + plasma to be cheaper than a Lieutenant + melta.

Melta does have a place. For example, 5x 2 man Company Vets with Salamanders tactics in a Drop Pod are one of the most point efficient ways of killing anything with 2+ wounds. If you know the unit will get close to something big and tough, melta is a good choice and can free up your HQ to babysit elsewhere. For general purpose killing, though, plasma is the default choice.

 mrhappyface wrote:
(and don't talk to me about the regular shot, SM and CSM have so much access to re-rolls that anyone who doesn't overcharge is just robbing themselves)

At which point plasma costs way more than melta. Why take a buffed plasma squad when you can drop twice as many melta squads instead? Plasma on overload may be slightly better than 6-12" melta, but it comes at a much higher cost. You're overpaying to make an anti-infantry weapon into a credible anti-tank threat instead of just taking the dedicated anti-tank threat.

The only way that plasma on overload makes sense is if you just overload and accept the chance of losses, at which point you've got a 30% chance per gun of losing a model every time you fire. And remember how plasma is cheaper than melta? Not anymore.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:
It only takes 4 guns for a Captain + plasma to be cheaper than a Lieutenant + melta.

Alternatively, you could take four melta guns and another four melta guns. Why waste points on buff HQs for "normal" squads when you can just take another copy of the squad? More armies should follow the IG principle on this.

Well you're assuming that you're paying extra for the re-roll aura, which isn't true, you'll already need to get a captain/lord to fill out tour detachment so really you're just taking advantage of something that's already there.

 Peregrine wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:
(and don't talk to me about the regular shot, SM and CSM have so much access to re-rolls that anyone who doesn't overcharge is just robbing themselves)

At which point plasma costs way more than melta. Why take a buffed plasma squad when you can drop twice as many melta squads instead? Plasma on overload may be slightly better than 6-12" melta, but it comes at a much higher cost. You're overpaying to make an anti-infantry weapon into a credible anti-tank threat instead of just taking the dedicated anti-tank threat.
.

So what better non reroll buff hq's have to fill mandatory hq's? 2-3 det's you are looking like 3-5 hq minimum...

But sure walk those reroll buffs you are required to take anyway out of range for...reasons.

Lets not forget meltas are 1-6 damage, not 3,5. The damage potential is much higher then a plasma, especially in short range. And sure you bring a captain or two, but they can't be everywhere. Or do you wanna be forced to castle each game? I bring multiple tac-squads with different load outs. One has meltabomb, - gun and multimelta, one has plasma gun, - pistol and plasma cannon. The melta squad is more independent and more often than not performes awesome. The plasma squad is good too, but not at anti tank. Against light vehicles they can do ok.

 Peregrine wrote:
The only way that plasma on overload makes sense is if you just overload and accept the chance of losses, at which point you've got a 30% chance per gun of losing a model every time you fire. And remember how plasma is cheaper than melta? Not anymore.

A) plasma doesn't stop working in 12-24 inch range, B) you can fire it at regular infantry too, with deadly, safe mode, something melta is bad at, C) plasma doesn't have a chance of rolling 1 damage, thus being more reliable, D) plasma hellblasters utterly trash regular SM with melta both point-, range- and stat-wise, and if you give them assault plasma guns, melta has literally no advantages over them, only disadvantages, save for hugging target range.

Also, why not accept chance of losses? This is not theoryhammer, if 2 of my plasma hellblasters explode (never mind there will be mandatory captain nearby, or I can just use salamander or dark angel chapter tactic to reroll 1s safely anyway) killing enemy daemon prince, or kitted out tau warlord suit, or couple of terminators/agressors, or any other target worth taking risk for, guess who comes out on top? Guy with cheap plasma, not with one dead expensive model. In fact, plasma is so good it dictates meta to such degree most of W2 models aren't really worth their price. Anything melta does can be done better by plasma or lascannon, especially given the existence of screens and current lack of cheap melta mobility/deep strike means.

I always think people are missing the point with these re-roll aura discussions.

Yes I'm paying a premium to re-roll those ones so I don't die.
I'm also _Hitting more_ as a result, not just skipping the disadvantage, that's significant.

As other posters have pointed out, I also had to take a HQ anyway, so I'm hardly saving much even by opting for something like a trash techmarine to fill the slot.

Finally, I'm not paying for a vague re-roll Aura. I'm paying for a Space Marine Captain, who is a unit in his own right that punches face. Those points are already paying for themselves, on the charge for example, that space marine captain will wipe the floor with the extra 4 melta vets you brought. It's not 'Just' a re-roll aura.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
As other posters have pointed out, I also had to take a HQ anyway, so I'm hardly saving much even by opting for something like a trash techmarine to fill the slot.

Yes, you have to take a HQ, but you don't have to attach it to a tactical squad. While would you waste the re-roll buff on a tactical squad when you could get much more power out of buffing a lascannon devastator squad? The mandatory HQs you have to take to unlock a detachment are normally going to have much more important things to do than follow your basic troops around.

Those points are already paying for themselves, on the charge for example, that space marine captain will wipe the floor with the extra 4 melta vets you brought. It's not 'Just' a re-roll aura.

Ok, sure, you kill a melta vet squad, if you can get into range to charge it, and probably after I've already killed enough to justify their point cost in the initial drop. So what? Melta vets are an expendable one-shot weapon and there are more squads where that one came from. Pretty much any unit is going to kill them, you don't need to add a HQ to a squad to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irbis wrote:
A) plasma doesn't stop working in 12-24 inch range,

But it does become much less effective. If you're taking plasma it's because you intend to deliver it to rapid fire range and you have a reliable way to do so.

B) you can fire it at regular infantry too, with deadly, safe mode, something melta is bad at,

Ok, sure, but that's exactly what I said: plasma is a great anti-infantry weapon and that's why you take it. You take melta to deal with tougher targets.

C) plasma doesn't have a chance of rolling 1 damage, thus being more reliable

It also doesn't have a chance of rolling 6 damage, and it doesn't have a chance of rolling 4 damage (2x2) unless you sacrifice 30% of your plasma gunners every turn. The consistency of plasma is mostly an advantage when dealing with two-wound infantry, where guaranteeing a 2-damage result is far more important than the potential for an overkill 6-damage result. But that's an anti-infantry weapon, not an anti-vehicle weapon.

D) plasma hellblasters utterly trash regular SM with melta both point-, range- and stat-wise, and if you give them assault plasma guns, melta has literally no advantages over them, only disadvantages, save for hugging target range.

And? Last time I checked you can't take them in a tactical squad, which is what the OP asked.

Also, why not accept chance of losses?

Why not, indeed? It's the IG way of looking at things, who cares if a squad dies because you have more to replace it. But when the claim is that plasma is cheaper than melta you can't simultaneously use its overload stats and ignore the 30% casualties every turn. Those casualties have to be included in its point cost, which makes it more expensive than melta.

 Irbis wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
The only way that plasma on overload makes sense is if you just overload and accept the chance of losses, at which point you've got a 30% chance per gun of losing a model every time you fire. And remember how plasma is cheaper than melta? Not anymore.

A) plasma doesn't stop working in 12-24 inch range, B) you can fire it at regular infantry too, with deadly, safe mode, something melta is bad at, C) plasma doesn't have a chance of rolling 1 damage, thus being more reliable, D) plasma hellblasters utterly trash regular SM with melta both point-, range- and stat-wise, and if you give them assault plasma guns, melta has literally no advantages over them, only disadvantages, save for hugging target range.

Also, why not accept chance of losses? This is not theoryhammer, if 2 of my plasma hellblasters explode (never mind there will be mandatory captain nearby, or I can just use salamander or dark angel chapter tactic to reroll 1s safely anyway) killing enemy daemon prince, or kitted out tau warlord suit, or couple of terminators/agressors, or any other target worth taking risk for, guess who comes out on top? Guy with cheap plasma, not with one dead expensive model. In fact, plasma is so good it dictates meta to such degree most of W2 models aren't really worth their price. Anything melta does can be done better by plasma or lascannon, especially given the existence of screens and current lack of cheap melta mobility/deep strike means.

A) yes, but it looses rapid fire. B) yes, plasma is better against infantry, meltas are better against heavy targets. That's the idea of those weapon options. C) Yes, but plasmas can't roll 3-6 damage either, making meltas better against big stuff. D) that unit is better than a plasma tac squad too. the thread was about options on tac's, no?

Alot of people, including me, gambles with plasma and risk losses. That's still objectively a disadvantage with plasma. And if you play dark angels, of course plasmaspam is better. I still see value in my melta squad. The plasma squad can't luck out and do 18 wounds to a big target, unlike the melta-tacs. The plasma squad only has ap-3. The meltas get more reliable damage in half range.
Targets like obliterators has 3 wounds, making meltas better suited to take them out. Both weapons are good, but against different targets and in different situations. I prefer my melta squad to attack using a rhino (no room for a captain), and my plasma squad to camp cover mid field with or without character support.

I love melta, and don't find it (as a weapon) to be trash. However, it is very expensive, and while it excels at killing tough things in many cases, as an "overall" weapon, the plasma guns is far better.

I still take plenty of melta-gun weapons in my armies, regardless of the rather extreme price.

Melta can roll 6...lousy reason. Averages matter more and plasma 4 is not that much worse anyway(and only 0.5 worse than melta at melta range which isn't that easy. You are looking for t1 deep strikes as main damage dealing anyway). Reliably more damage outweighs against big targets. Combined with plasma working against non tough models and is cheaper no wonder even semi competive lists ignore melta.

With meltas being so much more expensive than plasmas, and the increased range on plasmas being more synergistic with the bolters or other heavy weapons in the squad, I think I'd choose the plasma in most situations.

OK, so I got a quick turn one in with a friend the other week,
only time for one turn,
and a unit of devastators was able to shoot across the table at one of his units in cover,
and the heavy plasma guy overcharged,
and died, and failed to hurt anything.

I wish I had a multimelta dude.
Rather not shoot him at all than lose him to a 1.

And regardless of rules as written,
melta SHOULD be the better gun most of the time,
with limited range sure but that is the way it should be.
So, I like melta just for the idea of it, screw the rules.
Playing the game means forgetting about the actual rules, imo.
The rules plain suk, unless you want to buy hellblasters then sure, the rules are an advert for new plastic trash.

 jeff white wrote:
OK, so I got a quick turn one in with a friend the other week,
only time for one turn,
and a unit of devastators was able to shoot across the table at one of his units in cover,
and the heavy plasma guy overcharged,
and died, and failed to hurt anything.

I wish I had a multimelta dude.
Rather not shoot him at all than lose him to a 1.

And regardless of rules as written,
melta SHOULD be the better gun most of the time,
with limited range sure but that is the way it should be.
So, I like melta just for the idea of it, screw the rules.
Playing the game means forgetting about the actual rules, imo.
The rules plain suk, unless you want to buy hellblasters then sure, the rules are an advert for new plastic trash.

Preferring the fantasy of Meltas is probably the most valid argument I've seen in this thread. Totally fair!

As for dying to overcharge though... Not sure why you overcharge turn 1 unless you REALLY need the damage for some reason or have a reroll. Sure not firing a multimelta is better than your guy just dying to overcharge, but by the same token firing a non-overcharge plasma shot is better than not firing a multimelta.

The original question was "why use plasma instead of melta?" not "Is melta universally better or worse than plasma?"

Melta is good in many situations, but is too expensive in many situations, making it a specialized weapon.
Plasma is good in many situations, and still OK in most other situations, making it a generalist weapon.

And to add in the other weapons:
Grav is generally outclassed by plasma, and there are only a narrow few situations where it's better.
Flamers are good in some situations and bad in others, making them another specialized weapon like melta.

I wish melta was better than it is, but that's the breaks. I only use melta in small Biker squads as a kind of "suicide melta missile", it works ok but even then my opponent sees it coming and shoots at them very quickly.

 jeff white wrote:
OK, so I got a quick turn one in with a friend the other week,
only time for one turn,
and a unit of devastators was able to shoot across the table at one of his units in cover,
and the heavy plasma guy overcharged,
and died, and failed to hurt anything.

I wish I had a multimelta dude.
Rather not shoot him at all than lose him to a 1.

And regardless of rules as written,
melta SHOULD be the better gun most of the time,
with limited range sure but that is the way it should be.
So, I like melta just for the idea of it, screw the rules.
Playing the game means forgetting about the actual rules, imo.
The rules plain suk, unless you want to buy hellblasters then sure, the rules are an advert for new plastic trash.

If they were devastators, why weren't you using the signum on the plasma cannon? Makes it impossible to die from overcharging. Or did you have more than one cannon?

Medicinal Carrots wrote:
The original question was "why use plasma instead of melta?" not "Is melta universally better or worse than plasma?"

Melta is good in many situations, but is too expensive in many situations, making it a specialized weapon.
Plasma is good in many situations, and still OK in most other situations, making it a generalist weapon.

And to add in the other weapons:
Grav is generally outclassed by plasma, and there are only a narrow few situations where it's better.
Flamers are good in some situations and bad in others, making them another specialized weapon like melta.

Grav fills a similar role to plasma. I think it’s better then unsupported plasma, but not as good as plasma that’s in a re-roll bubble. So if you have a tac squad dropping/riding out to midfield to claim an objective away from the firebase, I’d rather have grav for a generalist loadout. If you are planning a coordinated, supported strike, go plasma.

I’ll agree that melta/flamers are specialized. There are times you need them, melta especially.

There is not one true choice to be spammed over all others. Generally plasma is best as an all-around option, and if I could only take one special army wide, I’d go with it. But we can mix and match, and in doing so make a healthy TAC list.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

I always go with plasma over melta this edition because reasons.

Because melta sucks.

Melta should probably get re-rolls to wound against vehicles within half range.

Except for IG.