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.

Hi dakka:

I'm playing around with the following points equivalent options. Tell me which you think is best and why.

Loadout 1:

2 5 man devastator squads, each with 4 flakk missile launchers
5 man tactical squad with multimelta
5 man tactical squad with multimelta
5 man tactical squad with multimelta

Loadout 2:

2 devastator squads, each with 3 flakk missile launchers
5 man tactical squad with multimelta and melta bombs
5 man tactical squad with multimelta and melta bombs
5 man tactical squad with plasma gun and melta bombs

Loadout 3:

2 devastator squads, one with 4 flakk missile launchers and one with 3.
5 man tactical squad with multimelta
5 man tactical squad with multimelta
5 man tactical squad with plasma gun and melta bombs

Out of these 3 loadouts, which do you think is best and why?

Assume rhinos for the tactical squads in all 3 loadouts.

Option 4: none of the above. Multimeltas are bad on mech squads because they have to snap fire, take melta/plasma instead. Melta bombs are a waste of points on a squad that will rarely get a chance to use them, and those points could be spent on giving a full load of heavy weapons to your devastator squads. As a general rule if you ever have a devastator squad with empty heavy weapon slots then you're doing something seriously wrong. Finally, the flakk missiles are marginal at best. I guess if you absolutely refuse to bring any proper AA units they're better than nothing, but they're almost always a complete waste of points.

Peregrine:

In all 3 scenarios I've presented, there are 4 missile launchers on each dev squad. The differences between 1 and 2 is that, in 2, each squad has 3 flakk missile launchers and 1 without flakk, whereas 1 has 4 flakk missile launchers.

Basically, my question is whether it's worth it to downgrade 2 of the missile launchers (from flakk to no flakk) to buy meltabombs and a plasma gun.

If it matters, I use crimson fists (Imperial fists chapter tactics), so the flakk missile launchers have tank hunter.

Ok, that makes somewhat more sense. The answer is no, because melta bombs are even less useful than the flakk missiles. You will rarely get an opportunity to charge anything, and on the rare occasion that you do the krak grenades you already get for free are usually good enough to get the job done. At least the flakk missiles could in theory do something useful, even if they're spectacularly inefficient at it.

Of course the point about not taking heavy weapons on tactical squads stands. Take melta/plasma instead.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, that makes somewhat more sense. The answer is no, because melta bombs are even less useful than the flakk missiles. You will rarely get an opportunity to charge anything, and on the rare occasion that you do the krak grenades you already get for free are usually good enough to get the job done. At least the flakk missiles could in theory do something useful, even if they're spectacularly inefficient at it.

Of course the point about not taking heavy weapons on tactical squads stands. Take melta/plasma instead.

Alright. Thanks!

I play Crimson Fists as well, and I still avoid Flakk like the plague. They are that awful. If you are insistent on running a four ML squad, just keep them basic. It will set you back 130 pts. Don't put heavy weapons on Tactical Squads. Basically ever. Tacticals want to move so they can get objectives, which means you aren't going to be firing the heavy weapon. If you want melta that bad, either give the Sergeant a combi-melta, or give the squad a meltagun. If you are insistent on giving the Tacticals a heavy weapon, give them a Heavy Bolter. It has enough shots that it might mitigate snap shooting, and Fists reroll ones on bolters.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, that makes somewhat more sense. The answer is no, because melta bombs are even less useful than the flakk missiles. You will rarely get an opportunity to charge anything, and on the rare occasion that you do the krak grenades you already get for free are usually good enough to get the job done. At least the flakk missiles could in theory do something useful, even if they're spectacularly inefficient at it.

Of course the point about not taking heavy weapons on tactical squads stands. Take melta/plasma instead.

Well… I think melta bomb still have its uses, by the time your Tactical Squads got charged by a Maulerfiend, Dreadnoughts, or the dreaded IK or even WK, the melta bomb is the only tool would allow your Marines to somehow do a few retailiation before being wiped out, while still being cheap that I can let every Assualt, Tactical and Scout Sargeant pack one.

Neophyte2012 wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, that makes somewhat more sense. The answer is no, because melta bombs are even less useful than the flakk missiles. You will rarely get an opportunity to charge anything, and on the rare occasion that you do the krak grenades you already get for free are usually good enough to get the job done. At least the flakk missiles could in theory do something useful, even if they're spectacularly inefficient at it.

Of course the point about not taking heavy weapons on tactical squads stands. Take melta/plasma instead.

Well… I think melta bomb still have its uses, by the time your Tactical Squads got charged by a Maulerfiend, Dreadnoughts, or the dreaded IK or even WK, the melta bomb is the only tool would allow your Marines to somehow do a few retailiation before being wiped out, while still being cheap that I can let every Assualt, Tactical and Scout Sargeant pack one.

Exalted for truth. I don't think I would put Melta Bombs on all of my squads, but if I have a few points left over they would get a serious look from me. I mainly put them on bike squads and assault squads.

Neophyte2012 wrote:Well… I think melta bomb still have its uses, by the time your Tactical Squads got charged by a Maulerfiend, Dreadnoughts, or the dreaded IK or even WK, the melta bomb is the only tool would allow your Marines to somehow do a few retailiation before being wiped out, while still being cheap that I can let every Assualt, Tactical and Scout Sargeant pack one.

So, in your opinion, which of the 3 loadouts of the OP is either 1. best or 2. least bad?

Probably option 1, but lose the flakk and exchange the multimeltas for meltaguns.

I don't really see the point in having multimeltas, I think they're absolutely useless unless they're on a tank, or in a unit with relentless. Far too short range to ever be able to sit and shoot.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
I play Crimson Fists as well, and I still avoid Flakk like the plague. They are that awful. If you are insistent on running a four ML squad, just keep them basic. It will set you back 130 pts. Don't put heavy weapons on Tactical Squads. Basically ever. Tacticals want to move so they can get objectives, which means you aren't going to be firing the heavy weapon. If you want melta that bad, either give the Sergeant a combi-melta, or give the squad a meltagun. If you are insistent on giving the Tacticals a heavy weapon, give them a Heavy Bolter. It has enough shots that it might mitigate snap shooting, and Fists reroll ones on bolters.

Are flakks really that bad in an Imperial Fist (or equivalent) army? Consider the following:

1. With combat doctrines (e.g., because of the battle company), you can reroll to hit with those flakk missiles.

2. With tank hunter, you can reroll to penetrate with those flakk missiles if rolling against a vehicle flyer.

Against a 12 AV flyer, this amounts to glancing on a 5, but rerolling if you roll a 4 or less.

And even against a flying MC, it strongly encourages the opponent to jink.

No?

Most Flying MCs have 3+ so don't need to jink against ap4 flakk missiles.

Take Stormtalons, they completely rule. Or even the humble Stalker tank.

Melta bombs suck on tac squads, don't bother. You need a dedicated assault unit to make them worthwhile.

tbh tac squads just kinda suck. If you're going Battle Company, they're ok just because you're spamming MSU obsec and getting free razorbacks, but that's about it.

If you are taking flack missiles, Imp. Fist devs are the best place to do it. That doesn’t make them good though. MLs are a bit overpriced to start with, and paying extra for more options (which you might not need) does not help with that. If you are concerned enough about flyers to take an AA unit, pretty much everything else is going to be a better use of points. The other option is to ignore them and focus on the ground game.

I still take heavy weapons in tac squads. But only in full 10 man squads, and because I’m an obsolete, codex-adherent, Ultramarine. 5 man squads are going to want a special, and probably a matching combi on the sarge. If you are going to take a heavy on a 5 man squad, invest in something like a LC, and don’t bother with the rhino. But for backfield campers, I prefer scouts. Formations can alter this, of course.

Of the options you list, I’d go with 2. The plasma gun is the only thing that makes sense on a tac squads, and the MBs might be relevant. Pretty much any points spent not on ML/ML upgrades are points better spent.

I normally only hand out MBs if I’ve got points left over. Assault marines and their ilk get them first, but then forward deployed tac squads. Most games they don’t make a big difference. But then there are the games where you are standing on the shattered rubble of a superheavy, and it’s all worth while.

If I was spending points you have to outfit 2 dev and 3 tac 5 man squads, I’d probably go with something like:
2x dev squads, 4xLC
2x tac squad w/flamer
1x tac squad meltagun/c-melta on sarge

But a lot depends on the list overall.

I'm sorry, but what Destroyer Cult list is afraid of 60 Tactical Marines, with a total of six Melta Guns?

Flank could be free 2nd I'd still ignore it. Slap those multimeltas into the devs instead of ML.

Anyone who thinks MM devs are bad simply haven't played with them or don't understand their usefulness. They are a cheap AREA DENIAL unit.

I've seen them before. MM devs are total trash. They don't deny anything. They shoot once, maybe, and then get wiped up.

Non-skyhammer devs and tac marines are both useless garbage in 7th. They have marine stat lines: of course they are useless in MC-Hammer 40K.

Flakk is really bad. Really bad.

Take it at your peril, but a Stormtalon will be far better. It can target both ground and air targets, and has some pretty nifty tricks it can pull. Plus, your ground-bound Devastators can now direct their fire on ground targets, supporting the rest of the force.

If you're going to equip Devastators particularly, I'd advise lascannons. Rather cheap, as lascannons go, and with huge benefits and potential - being able to explode a Land Raider is never bad.

If you want to be that guy, I'd suggest grav-cannons over multi-meltas.

Grav cannon is the only truly effective heavy weapon the marines have access to.

Nevelon wrote:Of the options you list, I’d go with 2. The plasma gun is the only thing that makes sense on a tac squads, and the MBs might be relevant. Pretty much any points spent not on ML/ML upgrades are points better spent.

I guess what I am wondering is this:

Would a reduction from 4 to 3 flakk missiles per squad (i.e., firing 3 flakks and snapfiring krak instead of firing 4 flakk at full BS) substantially decrease my firepower vs. fliers?

Traditio wrote:

Nevelon wrote:Of the options you list, I’d go with 2. The plasma gun is the only thing that makes sense on a tac squads, and the MBs might be relevant. Pretty much any points spent not on ML/ML upgrades are points better spent.

I guess what I am wondering is this:

Would a reduction from 4 to 3 flakk missiles per squad (i.e., firing 3 flakks and snapfiring krak instead of firing 4 flakk at full BS) substantially decrease my firepower vs. fliers?

Dude, just ignore fliers. Get rid of flakk missiles, and then get rid of missile launchers, and then get rid of devastators. If you want anti-air, bring Stalkers.

Flyers aren't scoring while zooming, and tend to pay excessive points just to be hard to kill while getting in maybe 3 turns of shooting against good targets, and maybe another against a suboptimal target.

Unless you're in some air superiority narrative thing, the best route is to let them buzz around while you take ground superiority.

Traditio wrote:

Nevelon wrote:Of the options you list, I’d go with 2. The plasma gun is the only thing that makes sense on a tac squads, and the MBs might be relevant. Pretty much any points spent not on ML/ML upgrades are points better spent.

I guess what I am wondering is this:

Would a reduction from 4 to 3 flakk missiles per squad (i.e., firing 3 flakks and snapfiring krak instead of firing 4 flakk at full BS) substantially decrease my firepower vs. fliers?

I’m not a mathhammer guy. You could probably crunch the numbers vs. possible targets and get some percentages. What’s considered an acceptable loss in firepower is a very subjective point, as is what is a reliable chance of shooting down a flyer.

Outside buffs, from formations or librarians, can also make a big difference. It might be worth just taking LCs, and on the turn you want to try to down a bird, pop off a re-roll and take your snap shots.

For me, I’m a little soured on MLs in general. Frag missiles are generally a waste of time, and krack missiles are mediocre for AV work. So besides the few I field for traditional reasons, they generally sit on the shelf these days, replaced with LCs.

Now, flyers generally have lighter armor then tanks, and as Fists you have tank hunter. But what do you expect S7 to do vs. most things in the air? At AP4, most FMCs are just going to take the hit and not bother jinking. Against light flyers, they are going to have to jink. Bigger guys like the SR might just take their chances.

If they don’t have flyers, you wasted a lot of points that could have been invested better.

Nevelon wrote:I’m not a mathhammer guy. You could probably crunch the numbers vs. possible targets and get some percentages. What’s considered an acceptable loss in firepower is a very subjective point, as is what is a reliable chance of shooting down a flyer.

Outside buffs, from formations or librarians, can also make a big difference. It might be worth just taking LCs, and on the turn you want to try to down a bird, pop off a re-roll and take your snap shots.

For me, I’m a little soured on MLs in general. Frag missiles are generally a waste of time, and krack missiles are mediocre for AV work. So besides the few I field for traditional reasons, they generally sit on the shelf these days, replaced with LCs.

Now, flyers generally have lighter armor then tanks, and as Fists you have tank hunter. But what do you expect S7 to do vs. most things in the air? At AP4, most FMCs are just going to take the hit and not bother jinking. Against light flyers, they are going to have to jink. Bigger guys like the SR might just take their chances.

If they don’t have flyers, you wasted a lot of points that could have been invested better.

Very good considerations over all. I think I might just go with the second alternative.

Basically, here's the reason I want to use multimeltas over meltaguns:

Meltaguns only have a 12 inch range.

Multimeltas have a 24 inch range.

If I advance a rhino on turn 1 (say, 12 inches and then pop smoke) with a meltagun, that gives me a 24 inch threat range the following turn. And even if I have to disembark, I still get the 24 inch snap shot.

If I end up wrecked/disembarked on my opponent's turn, then on my turn, there's the distinct possibility, if I have MBs, of just outright charging and meltabombing if I'm within 12 inches.

If you haven't bought it yet. Proxy that list and tell us if you think worth it. Unless your meta spams talons you won't get your money with flak. One multi melta on a 5 man tac squad sitting in a rhino has done way more than a dev squad of them have. The snap shots or short range make a skilled player avoid them or make them snap. Better to put melta gun drop pods if want to bust things open. I've used melta bombs in almost all my games as I seem to have five points around. Out of 30+games with my marines I've used it once on a knight. And it whiffed lol. Krak seems to do the trick or I die before i can use it.

Traditio wrote:

Nevelon wrote:I’m not a mathhammer guy. You could probably crunch the numbers vs. possible targets and get some percentages. What’s considered an acceptable loss in firepower is a very subjective point, as is what is a reliable chance of shooting down a flyer.

Outside buffs, from formations or librarians, can also make a big difference. It might be worth just taking LCs, and on the turn you want to try to down a bird, pop off a re-roll and take your snap shots.

For me, I’m a little soured on MLs in general. Frag missiles are generally a waste of time, and krack missiles are mediocre for AV work. So besides the few I field for traditional reasons, they generally sit on the shelf these days, replaced with LCs.

Now, flyers generally have lighter armor then tanks, and as Fists you have tank hunter. But what do you expect S7 to do vs. most things in the air? At AP4, most FMCs are just going to take the hit and not bother jinking. Against light flyers, they are going to have to jink. Bigger guys like the SR might just take their chances.

If they don’t have flyers, you wasted a lot of points that could have been invested better.

Very good considerations over all. I think I might just go with the second alternative.

Basically, here's the reason I want to use multimeltas over meltaguns:

Meltaguns only have a 12 inch range.

Multimeltas have a 24 inch range.

If I advance a rhino on turn 1 (say, 12 inches and then pop smoke) with a meltagun, that gives me a 24 inch threat range the following turn. And even if I have to disembark, I still get the 24 inch snap shot.

If I end up wrecked/disembarked on my opponent's turn, then on my turn, there's the distinct possibility, if I have MBs, of just outright charging and meltabombing if I'm within 12 inches.

Good luck, have fun. Continue to ignore all the advice given to you.

I do like meltaguns or flamers in 5-man tac squads, giving a specialisation for anti-tank or anti-infantry. I tend to have a dedicated anti-armour unit (LC devs, perhaps in a bunker - my army is Fists so it's more of a fluffy choice).

Traditio wrote:


Very good considerations over all. I think I might just go with the second alternative.

Basically, here's the reason I want to use multimeltas over meltaguns:

Meltaguns only have a 12 inch range.

Multimeltas have a 24 inch range.

If I advance a rhino on turn 1 (say, 12 inches and then pop smoke) with a meltagun, that gives me a 24 inch threat range the following turn. And even if I have to disembark, I still get the 24 inch snap shot.

If I end up wrecked/disembarked on my opponent's turn, then on my turn, there's the distinct possibility, if I have MBs, of just outright charging and meltabombing if I'm within 12 inches.

If you're relying on snap shots with a multimelta to do some work for you, you are then wasting 9 bolters. Not to mention, if you walk into melta range then sit there for a turn, that unit will never, ever shoot, or the tank will move an inch.

Yeah, I've never heard of someone's strategy on weapon choice be reliant on snap-firing.

You're better off with the mobility of a Melta Gun.