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.

Forgetting the in-game range, what is the range of the multi-melta in background fluff?

I'm wondering because if a melta's range is that of a contempory shotgun and a multi-melta is simply two normal melta's strapped together - then surely a multi-melta has no greater range, but simply twice the power. If that is true, why would the Storm Eagle essentially have two infantry sized shotguns strapped to it's nose? If it's flying that close to the enemy it's surely gonna crash!

The range of melta weapons is based on attenuation - how much energy it loses over greater distances.

The reason they double in range with every upgrade (6"->12"->24" is that the initial energy is higher, but it fades at the same rate, which means that its effective range is longer.

This is also why they're less effective at their long range than they are at their short range.

As for the Storm Eagle, it's because all Space Marine transports do double-duty as assault boats - the multi-melta is there to punch a hole through a ship's hull as you close to enable a ram to break through.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The range of melta weapons is based on attenuation - how much energy it loses over greater distances.

The reason they double in range with every upgrade (6"->12"->24" is that the initial energy is higher, but it fades at the same rate, which means that its effective range is longer.

Ah, well I don't play so I was aware of that, but it makes sense - the output seems to be exponential rather than linear. So I can understand now how the range increases.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
As for the Storm Eagle, it's because all Space Marine transports do double-duty as assault boats - the multi-melta is there to punch a hole through a ship's hull as you close to enable a ram to break through.

I was aware of the function but I thought multimeltas would be far too underpowered for such a function - compared to the Magna-Melta on a Caestus Assault Ram. However, I can understand it now you've mentioned the exponential increase in output.

Cheers Furyou Miko - much appreciated.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The reason they double in range with every upgrade (6"->12"->24" is that the initial energy is higher, but it fades at the same rate, which means that its effective range is longer.

Sorry for the pedantic ramblings here, but while I do believe you are fluffically correct, in crunch it does not fade at the same rate at all. For inferno pistols it takes 3" to fade from S8 AP1 not armorbane to S0. For melta it takes 6" to do the same. For multi-melta it takes 12" for the same.
But I do believe that this is pure crunch and that you are fluffically correct.

I wouldn't imagine their range would be that fantastic, probably 40 meters at best. They're a weapon that is usually described as either a fusion beam or superheated promethium gas- neither of which is going to have fantastic energy retention over distance. Part of the reason why I wonder why Infantry even carries melta outside of melee squads- they're weapons better suited to jump infantry which can use jump packs, grav chutes, etc to get right up in front of the target for a guaranteed kill.

As for the design of the Multi-Melta compared to the standard melta: Remember this is the same company that gave us the Taurox, which in real life would suffocate it's occupants with engine fumes and then shoot the escapees with the guns mounted facing it's own doors.

@Wyzilla - That's what I figured. I can get away with a Tac Marine using one as, like Carcharodons, they may prefer to get up close. Same for Salamanders preferring CQC. But on a flyer? That's going to require some skill to pull off a shot with that.You'd have to go from shallow angle of attack to climb in a little over twice the length of the craft itself and that's if you just want to clip the target at maximum range. Hardly an ideal weapon.

@MechaEmperor7000 - Yep. There's that. Kinda disappointed that the multimeltas aren't poised to fire through the engine turbines now.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Furyou Miko wrote:
The reason they double in range with every upgrade (6"->12"->24" is that the initial energy is higher, but it fades at the same rate, which means that its effective range is longer.

Sorry for the pedantic ramblings here, but while I do believe you are fluffically correct, in crunch it does not fade at the same rate at all. For inferno pistols it takes 3" to fade from S8 AP1 not armorbane to S0. For melta it takes 6" to do the same. For multi-melta it takes 12" for the same.
But I do believe that this is pure crunch and that you are fluffically correct.

That was all explained in the quote you replied to...

Well, if the FFG rpg's are anything to go by, multimeltas have an effective combat range of 60m, doubling their penetration at half range or less. Comparatively, a boltgun has 100m. And by 'effective combat range', that is their accurate range, not their damage magically stops after that.

Almost every 40k weapon in every source has a laughable range for a ballistic weapon. It's just... these are game designers, folks, not weapon specialists.

fluffically

The best word I've read today.

Laughable ranges apply to GW, not to FFG. Though to be fair, for the tabletop game, the distances are all obviously abstractions, due to reasonable table sizes.
You can imagine the 24" range weapons are shooting at 300m, but it's all abstracted.
Otherwise if you used proper scale, if an infantryman can shoot 300m, an inch-tall model would still be able to shoot across about 13 feet of table.. we're going to need some very big tables!


Although, since we're discussing background here, there are other sources with more granular (and realistic) depictions of these factors.

The Fantasy Flight Games' RPGs use the "Range" statistic to determine range band for purposes of accuracy; it's not a maximum range.

Depending on how far away the target is, there is a modifier to the Ballistic Skill test (d100 percentage rolls).
To briefly describe it:
Point Blank: 2m or closer (but not engaged in melee). Easy (+30)
Short Range: Less than half the Range. Ordinary (+10)
Long Range: More than double the Range. Difficult (-10)
Extreme: More than three times the Range. Very Hard (-30)

There's no "medium" range listed as a modifier, but it'd be more than half, to less than double (+0 modifier).

So the boltgun's Range statistic of 100m would mean anything up to 200m is average, and up to 300m is still well within its reach.
Beyond that distance, it'll take a very good marksman (high Ballistic Skill) to hit a man-sized target consistently.

I think 300m isn't laughable, it's a pretty good number, similar to a modern assault rifle. Based on this, I'd reckon we can use FFG's numbers with confidence, so let's look at the multi-melta now.


Those same range band modifiers apply to the Multi-Melta, which has a Range statistic of 60m.
It also does have a rule that significantly increases its effectiveness (bonus penetration) within its Short Range, which means less than half of the Range statistic (meaning maximum Melta effect at less than 30m).
So a Multi-Melta would reasonably reach out to about 180m, but against heavily armored targets, it's best used at less than 30m.


Note that EVEN if we take that as a "realistic" representation of the fiction for a multi-melta's effective range, Warpig1815 is still absolutely correct.
A couple hundred meters is still a very short range for a fixed-forward centerline mounted weapon on a fixed-wing aircraft.

Keep in mind that the speed of sound at sea level is roughly 330m/s, meaning that even when slowing down to borderline subsonic flight would still mean about 300m/s. Now, if it's a fixed-forward weapon, you have to fly straight at the target. This means that at 180m, you are 0.6 seconds away from ploughing into the targe!

And considering Storm Eagles (and Storm Ravens, Thunderhawks, etc) are, canonically, very clearly SSTO-capable craft, that means they can go pretty bloody fast.. even with poor aerodynamics, it could possibly low Mach numbers through brute engine power, depending on atmospheric density.
In which case, trying to use a fixed-forward weapon with such a short range would be quite frankly insane!

Edit: Just for kicks, picture this.. if the pilot tried to get full Melta effect (less than 30m range) while traveling at Mach 2, there'd be about 0.05 seconds before ramming into the target. Which, admittedly, would probably have a pretty destructive effect..

TT models are heroic scale. If you where to scale the stuff up to be reallistic (so that they can do the stuff they are designed to do), the weapons on vehicles would be larger then for infantry. I know that because i'm doing just that for quite a while now. Bigger size means they could all be more powerfull to begin with.

For supersonic ground strafing that's not going to be enough though. Supersonic ground strafing isn't a thing in reallife. You can't aim properly in time and still pull up. Finding targets is even more difficult.
In real combat you just don't strafe a target at maximum speed. Maybe dropping precision ordonance, yes, but that's not "strafing".
Space marines may have superhuman reaction, but the brick they are steering doesnt. It needs to follow basic physics and there is this thing called inertia.

They don't need to fly at maximum speed, particulary not if their vehicle is quite sturdy. Almost all 40k SM& IG air vehicles are VTOL capable as well, so they can just hover like an attack helicopter if they need to, or fly very slowly.

Alternatively the weapon could be mounted at an angle, so that they can fly in a straight line and just press the trigger when the crosshair alignes. It's still suicidal though... If whatever you shoot at explodes and throws debris in the air, you smack right into it.

 Keep wrote:
...

Certainly, Keep, all good points.

The particular vehicle in question (the Storm Eagle) is indeed VTOL capable, which would make employing a short-ranged weapon far more viable. In general, I'd say that ~180m is too short a range for an aircraft weapon (even for a rotor-wing), but it's not entirely illogical, seeing as how the drawback of poor range is very much offset by particularly excellent destructive capability to weapon size/weight ratio in melta weapons.

Generally I'd still prefer if it was mounted in a chin turret mount like an attack helicopter, for reasons you mention (the aircraft could fly in a straight, level path, and fire at an off-angle by depressing and traversing the turret). Such a turret would make bringing the weapon to bear much easier even when hovering, too.
We even see that other Imperial aircraft do have such mounts, namely the Storm Talon gunship. I suppose to some degree that makes the fixed-forward mounting of the Storm Eagle's multi-melta even more glaring.


Agreed as well about infantry/vehicle weapons.
In reality, vehicle-mounted weapons could weigh many times as much as an infantry weapon (and in fact, several times as much as an infantryman), so it doesn't make sense that they wouldn't be vastly more effective in terms of power or range, even if they operate on the same technology; they'd simply be scaled up. Alternatively, if a heavy vehicle were to mount the same weapons as infantry, they could have their hulls literally studded with batteries of weapons.

Of course, As for tabletop weapons, tabletop vehicle-mounted weapons being identical to man-portable counterparts is just another necessary abstraction for simplification reasons. When you only have ten values for the "Strength" statistic (and values 1 and 2 are almost never used), that doesn't give a lot of room for granularity.

It's not even just the practicality of such a weapon but also the utility of being mounted on a Storm Eagle.

In terms of infantry suppression, the Multimelta isn't your go-to weapon as it has a relatively low rate of fire compared to, say, and Assault/Auto Cannon. In an air-to-ground operation your going to want to land, provide a hail of cover fire for disembarking troops and then get out of there. The Storm Eagles job isn't really to engage heavier targets but simply to give suppressive fire - hence the rack of Typhoon missiles in stead of the more powerful hunter missiles for engaging armoured targets

In terms of AT or Hard Target capabilities, again the Melta wouldn't be your first choice either. More likely, you'd replace the twin, twin-linked multimeltas with a quad battery of lascannons such as the Rapier Battery, which would give you far greater range (allowing for a more shallow angle of attack at great speeds), and would have greater punch against armoured targets - which is obviously the idea behind the wing mounted lascannons.

Finally, regarding it's utility as a breacher mechanism for assaulting starships. The Caestus assault ram needs a Magna-Melta to breach hulls because the hulls are tens of metres thick and even then, it's greatly armoured to survive the impact of outlying debris created after the Magna-melta fires. So I'm pretty sure that two multi-meltas won't have quite the same penetrating power needed to create a Storm Eagle sized hull breach.

Of course, I'm talking strictly from an in-universe standpoint. I quite understand that although there has to be a background to each unit, it also should work well on the table to prevent unfair play. But from a background point of view, the Multi-meltas are daft. They have a short range, relatively low damage output compare to other AT-Weapons and a low rate of fire compared to other Anti-Infantry weapons and both low range and low damage when used as a breaching mechanism - they make little sense. I'd support Cyke in saying that they would be much better implemented in a chin mounted turret (Which couldn't happen due to the assault ramp) or in underslung wing mounted turrets.

As far as fluff and miniatures, correct me if I'm wrong here. Isn't the Meltagun is carried by a Tactical Space Marine utilizing interchangeable power canisters attached to the weapon where as a Multimelta is fielded by Devastator/heavy weapons detachments with the additional power pack worn on the back and cables connected to the weapon. The additional power source for the Multimelta could explain the increased range?

As far as aircraft mounted Multimelta I imagine the airframe would carry an even larger power source resulting in an even greater increase in range?

Cyke wrote:
Laughable ranges apply to GW, not to FFG. Though to be fair, for the tabletop game, the distances are all obviously abstractions, due to reasonable table sizes.
You can imagine the 24" range weapons are shooting at 300m, but it's all abstracted.
Otherwise if you used proper scale, if an infantryman can shoot 300m, an inch-tall model would still be able to shoot across about 13 feet of table.. we're going to need some very big tables!


Although, since we're discussing background here, there are other sources with more granular (and realistic) depictions of these factors.

The Fantasy Flight Games' RPGs use the "Range" statistic to determine range band for purposes of accuracy; it's not a maximum range.

Depending on how far away the target is, there is a modifier to the Ballistic Skill test (d100 percentage rolls).
To briefly describe it:
Point Blank: 2m or closer (but not engaged in melee). Easy (+30)
Short Range: Less than half the Range. Ordinary (+10)
Long Range: More than double the Range. Difficult (-10)
Extreme: More than three times the Range. Very Hard (-30)

There's no "medium" range listed as a modifier, but it'd be more than half, to less than double (+0 modifier).

So the boltgun's Range statistic of 100m would mean anything up to 200m is average, and up to 300m is still well within its reach.
Beyond that distance, it'll take a very good marksman (high Ballistic Skill) to hit a man-sized target consistently.

Sorry, they apply to FFG just as well. The extreme range for a standard lasgun is 300 meters, which is inferior to the M16A2 I carried as a real-life soldier, and inferior to hunting rifles I currently own. A 300m shot with the '16 is not particularly difficult. The boltgun's extreme range is 270m, which is even worse, and 90m for the pistol!

 Psienesis wrote:
Sorry, they apply to FFG just as well. The extreme range for a standard lasgun is 300 meters, which is inferior to the M16A2 I carried as a real-life soldier, and inferior to hunting rifles I currently own. A 300m shot with the '16 is not particularly difficult. The boltgun's extreme range is 270m, which is even worse, and 90m for the pistol!

Boltguns are meant for shortrange combat and not longrange. Why else would they be so short? It's not like SM wouldnt be able to carry any larger versions with longer barrels or would have trouble with increased size.

Having said that, i would put 48" weapons at something like a 1Km on average effective range - based on heavy weapon teams for IG that we can relate to, like Autocannons and handheld Missile launchers (though its a bit far in case of the ML).
Half, 24", would be 500m which would seem more appropriate for Lasguns and Boltguns on max effective range. And 250m would be rapid fire range - which would make more sense if we relate to IG standard issue rifles. 500m you need to aim carefully and also need an optic. 250 you can still shoot quickly and still accurate.
72" for tank cannons, if we base it on WW2 style tech would mean 2Km which also is somewhat kinda fitting.

I use the guns range like 3.5's increments as a GM. Which is a simple modification to make.

So for every 100m add a -10 until you hit -60. Anything beyond -60 is impossible. Your unlikely to hit anything unless your a space marine at those ranges however. At least with the RPG rules, but at least it's there as an option.

So that's 600m for a regular bolter. 900 for a Stalker Bolter. Still kinda short, but it helps. If we had real life gun ranges melee combat would be obsolete like it mostly is in real life barring niche situations.