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.

 schadenfreude wrote:
Catachan V bullgyrn durability widely varies.

54 S4 ap0 hits will kill 1 Bullgryn or 24 guardsmen

6 thunder hammers hits will kill 5 guardsmen or 2&2/3 Bullgryn

Both are really strong against some attacks and weak against others. The primary weakness of masses Catachan is stratagems. Butting in with 30 boys for 2 CP will kill a lot of guardsmen before they can swing as opposed to a single Bullgryn unit who swings once and is done.

Which is why like almost everything, variety will keep your force more dynamic and give you more solutions. I run 5 bulgryn along with my catachans. I also often run cyclops. That mix generally does a good job of keeping opponents away for the first few turns, since they can't enter the fray without being countered. I also have been more and more tempted lately to run Yarrick, since he provides rerolls for both units in assault (and really screws orks).

The new marine codex is big news for the meta. A lot of this is going to effect guard. These are the top 3 things that I see.

#1 Soup is off the menu. Marines lose their new doctrines if they have any soup in their army. That means no guard or admech holding their back lines. It's going to be long ranged units or scouts. Mortars are fantastic at clearing regular scouts, but terrible against camo cloaks or raven guard. New raven guard only gets their bonus in cover so ignore cover from emperors wrath will wreck them.

#2 Primaris is the new black. That's good news for guard IMO because we can carry a lot of plasma.

#3 Rowboat girly man got a hard nerf. He is now only rerolling 1s to wound instead of all to wound rolls. He was bad news for us when combined with 30-40 scouts that would dump tons of moral wounds on knights and Leman Russ tanks. Now that they are no longer anti vehicle nightmares we are not going to see mass scouts anymore sniping off all our company commanders.

 schadenfreude wrote:
The new marine codex is big news for the meta. A lot of this is going to effect guard. These are the top 3 things that I see.

#1 Soup is off the menu. Marines lose their new doctrines if they have any soup in their army. That means no guard or admech holding their back lines. It's going to be long ranged units or scouts. Mortars are fantastic at clearing regular scouts, but terrible against camo cloaks or raven guard. New raven guard only gets their bonus in cover so ignore cover from emperors wrath will wreck them.

Keep in mind it's just -1 AP for SOME of their guns at time(they can't have all heavy weapons, rapid fire weapons and assault weapons have extra -1 AP all the time) that they lose so whether it's actually worth the benefits of souping(like more CP for new powerful stratagems now that marines can actually find use for CP...) remains to be seen.

tneva82 wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
The new marine codex is big news for the meta. A lot of this is going to effect guard. These are the top 3 things that I see.

#1 Soup is off the menu. Marines lose their new doctrines if they have any soup in their army. That means no guard or admech holding their back lines. It's going to be long ranged units or scouts. Mortars are fantastic at clearing regular scouts, but terrible against camo cloaks or raven guard. New raven guard only gets their bonus in cover so ignore cover from emperors wrath will wreck them.

Keep in mind it's just -1 AP for SOME of their guns at time(they can't have all heavy weapons, rapid fire weapons and assault weapons have extra -1 AP all the time) that they lose so whether it's actually worth the benefits of souping(like more CP for new powerful stratagems now that marines can actually find use for CP...) remains to be seen.

You need to remember that e.g. Ultramarines need to have Tactical Doctrine active in order to get they second bonus (unit is considered to remain stationary if it not advanced or fell back).

When taking this into consideration soup is not so tempting anymore

Gnollu wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:
The new marine codex is big news for the meta. A lot of this is going to effect guard. These are the top 3 things that I see.

#1 Soup is off the menu. Marines lose their new doctrines if they have any soup in their army. That means no guard or admech holding their back lines. It's going to be long ranged units or scouts. Mortars are fantastic at clearing regular scouts, but terrible against camo cloaks or raven guard. New raven guard only gets their bonus in cover so ignore cover from emperors wrath will wreck them.

Keep in mind it's just -1 AP for SOME of their guns at time(they can't have all heavy weapons, rapid fire weapons and assault weapons have extra -1 AP all the time) that they lose so whether it's actually worth the benefits of souping(like more CP for new powerful stratagems now that marines can actually find use for CP...) remains to be seen.

You need to remember that e.g. Ultramarines need to have Tactical Doctrine active in order to get they second bonus (unit is considered to remain stationary if it not advanced or fell back).

When taking this into consideration soup is not so tempting anymore

White scars need assault doctrine in place to do their +1 damage devastating charge.

I'm willing to vet every chapter gets an enhancement to 1 doctrine.

Hello.

In some of my recent games I managed to score some nice hits with meltaguns in transports (one, then two special weapons squads, using proxies).
But I may have been lucky, or my opponents weak.
I wonder if using two such squads in a Valkyrie would be good enough to be played in tournaments.
Would a transported pair of special weapons squads, with 6 meltaguns, have sufficient utility against vehicles / monsters to be worth the buy ?
Are meltaguns a "has been" weapon ?

Currently I have one squad of meltaguns.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
Hello.

In some of my recent games I managed to score some nice hits with meltaguns in transports (one, then two special weapons squads, using proxies).
But I may have been lucky, or my opponents weak.
I wonder if using two such squads in a Valkyrie would be good enough to be played in tournaments.
Would a transported pair of special weapons squads, with 6 meltaguns, have sufficient utility against vehicles / monsters to be worth the buy ?
Are meltaguns a "has been" weapon ?

Currently I have one squad of meltaguns.

I have no answers for you, but I'm interested in the answers you get. I'm looking for an alternative to the rather boring plasma-spam, and melta does feel more fun.

However, as far as I'm aware, plasma is always better. Basically seems to be plasma >>>>>>> everything else

Here's the problem with melta vs plasma...

consider your 6 melta guns vs 6 plasma guns. If both shoot at an enemy Rhino, and the Plasma guns overcharge, here's what you're looking at for expected damage.

6 meltas = 3 hits, 2 wounds, ~6-8 damage.
6 plasmas = 6 hits, 4 wounds, ~6-8 damage.

Just napkin math here, the damage output looks pretty similar. The difference here though is that plasma is cheaper, longer range, and better against infantry since it has more shots, and the higher damage isn't wasted.

Melta, if I remember my math correctly, is slightly better when:

1) You get full use of AP-4
2) You're in half range

Otherwise they're worse.

 Horst wrote:
Just napkin math here

That's your problem. When you do the correct math you find that melta does have an advantage against "tank" type targets. It's just not enough of an advantage to justify the higher point cost, lower effectiveness against lighter targets, and increase in delivery difficulty.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Horst wrote:
Just napkin math here

That's your problem. When you do the correct math you find that melta does have an advantage against "tank" type targets. It's just not enough of an advantage to justify the higher point cost, lower effectiveness against lighter targets, and increase in delivery difficulty.

I think you're violently agreeing.

The napkin math shows that, against optimal for Melta targets, it does about as well as Plasma. He even listed the other advantages of Plasma in his post.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Horst wrote:
Just napkin math here

That's your problem. When you do the correct math you find that melta does have an advantage against "tank" type targets. It's just not enough of an advantage to justify the higher point cost, lower effectiveness against lighter targets, and increase in delivery difficulty.

I think you're violently agreeing.

The napkin math shows that, against optimal for Melta targets, it does about as well as Plasma. He even listed the other advantages of Plasma in his post.

Have to agree with JNA here... you're kinda coming off as insulting the guy about his napkin math, while then totally agreeing with what he was saying with his napkin math. Pick a lane dude.

 Horst wrote:
Here's the problem with melta vs plasma...

consider your 6 melta guns vs 6 plasma guns. If both shoot at an enemy Rhino, and the Plasma guns overcharge, here's what you're looking at for expected damage.

6 meltas = 3 hits, 2 wounds, ~6-8 damage.
6 plasmas = 6 hits, 4 wounds, ~6-8 damage.

Just napkin math here, the damage output looks pretty similar. The difference here though is that plasma is cheaper, longer range, and better against infantry since it has more shots, and the higher damage isn't wasted.

Which is sad. Plasma has been the more expensive weapon ever since I started, and yet for some reason GW just can't get through their head that plasma is the better weapon. If they could just swap the prices it would go a long way towards more melta showing up. Problem is GW has a massive hardon for AP and D6 damage and doesn't seem to appreciate flat damage and better range/rof. That or they just assume people never overcharge their plasma.

Meltas not even a bad weapon, Ive had some good results with them too, but it's almost always a "whelp I'm out of plasma models" situation. I've never had a target where melta felt like the superior weapon. Especially with all the invulns out there. You really need weight of fire to get through them, single shot weapons just bounce off them too much.

Niiru wrote:
Have to agree with JNA here... you're kinda coming off as insulting the guy about his napkin math, while then totally agreeing with what he was saying with his napkin math. Pick a lane dude.

No, the point is that the "napkin math" is just plain wrong.

6 melta guns within half range = 8.94 average damage.

6 plasma guns within half range = 6.66 average damage.

It's not even close to accurate to say that both are "~6-8 damage" when the melta gun is doing ~33% more damage. The fact that a 33% increase in firepower isn't typically enough to justify all of the disadvantages doesn't make the math error disappear.

 Peregrine wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Have to agree with JNA here... you're kinda coming off as insulting the guy about his napkin math, while then totally agreeing with what he was saying with his napkin math. Pick a lane dude.

No, the point is that the "napkin math" is just plain wrong.

6 melta guns within half range = 8.94 average damage.

6 plasma guns within half range = 6.66 average damage.

It's not even close to accurate to say that both are "~6-8 damage" when the melta gun is doing ~33% more damage. The fact that a 33% increase in firepower isn't typically enough to justify all of the disadvantages doesn't make the math error disappear.

But that is only in the extremely close range for the melta gun. In 6.01-12 inch range they are closer and at 12-24 they do zero compared to the plasma. I would say that they do about the same damage even if plasma is better at longer range and melta is on closer range. Half range for both isnt the same so expected damage of the melta at the same range as the plasma is basically the same.
If I just did quick math for a comparison I would also just say 6-8 damage or so and state that it isn't completely accurate like the guy did.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Horst wrote:
Here's the problem with melta vs plasma...

consider your 6 melta guns vs 6 plasma guns. If both shoot at an enemy Rhino, and the Plasma guns overcharge, here's what you're looking at for expected damage.

6 meltas = 3 hits, 2 wounds, ~6-8 damage.
6 plasmas = 6 hits, 4 wounds, ~6-8 damage.

Just napkin math here, the damage output looks pretty similar. The difference here though is that plasma is cheaper, longer range, and better against infantry since it has more shots, and the higher damage isn't wasted.

Which is sad. Plasma has been the more expensive weapon ever since I started, and yet for some reason GW just can't get through their head that plasma is the better weapon. If they could just swap the prices it would go a long way towards more melta showing up. Problem is GW has a massive hardon for AP and D6 damage and doesn't seem to appreciate flat damage and better range/rof. That or they just assume people never overcharge their plasma.

Meltas not even a bad weapon, Ive had some good results with them too, but it's almost always a "whelp I'm out of plasma models" situation. I've never had a target where melta felt like the superior weapon. Especially with all the invulns out there. You really need weight of fire to get through them, single shot weapons just bounce off them too much.

Back in 4th and 5th, and maybe 6th and 7th (I didn't play those), melts had a well defined roll, and was much much better at it than plasma.

 Peregrine wrote:

Niiru wrote:
Have to agree with JNA here... you're kinda coming off as insulting the guy about his napkin math, while then totally agreeing with what he was saying with his napkin math. Pick a lane dude.

No, the point is that the "napkin math" is just plain wrong.

6 melta guns within half range = 8.94 average damage.

6 plasma guns within half range = 6.66 average damage.

It's not even close to accurate to say that both are "~6-8 damage" when the melta gun is doing ~33% more damage. The fact that a 33% increase in firepower isn't typically enough to justify all of the disadvantages doesn't make the math error disappear.

But that assumes you are within 6". Which you can't rely. For better arqument you need to average all the damage you will cause. Including over 6". And yes you need to do same for over 12" for plasma too but there melta's average drops even more due to dam0...

In practice when you look at real game rather than just focus on super narrow area you find out melta loses out. You can't even just look at one round like you did which is obviously wrong as by the time you do that plasma has fired multiple times

Well thanks for the interesting replies guys !

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 Horst wrote:
Here's the problem with melta vs plasma...

consider your 6 melta guns vs 6 plasma guns. If both shoot at an enemy Rhino, and the Plasma guns overcharge, here's what you're looking at for expected damage.

6 meltas = 3 hits, 2 wounds, ~6-8 damage.
6 plasmas = 6 hits, 4 wounds, ~6-8 damage.

Just napkin math here, the damage output looks pretty similar. The difference here though is that plasma is cheaper, longer range, and better against infantry since it has more shots, and the higher damage isn't wasted.

Which is sad. Plasma has been the more expensive weapon ever since I started, and yet for some reason GW just can't get through their head that plasma is the better weapon. If they could just swap the prices it would go a long way towards more melta showing up. Problem is GW has a massive hardon for AP and D6 damage and doesn't seem to appreciate flat damage and better range/rof. That or they just assume people never overcharge their plasma.

Meltas not even a bad weapon, Ive had some good results with them too, but it's almost always a "whelp I'm out of plasma models" situation. I've never had a target where melta felt like the superior weapon. Especially with all the invulns out there. You really need weight of fire to get through them, single shot weapons just bounce off them too much.

I have to admit these are sound remarks. In line infantry squads, there is no question the plasma gun is way better.

However, I'm willing to try making a dual special weapons squad work. They would be embarked, preferably in a Valkyrie. Thanks to her very high mobility, it may be possible to position the squads in such a way that they are within 6" of the target.
If unobtainable due to screens, a distance below 12" should most probably be achieved. So the meltaguns would be in position of firing by turn 2 (if not turn 1, using the grav chutes ability of Valkyrie).

So I agree plasma guns are a better weapon overall, inexplicably made cheaper than melta guns in 8th edition rules. There is however a problem in trying to make them the most efficient possible : availability of orders. I think you pretty much need "take aim" order to reroll for a safe overcharge, 2 damage firepower. On the other hand, rerolling on meltaguns is, for sure, a nice bonus, but not anywhere near a requirement. There is the tricky part : you cannot have an officer nearby if you take two special weapons squad in a Chimera or a Valkyrie. You would have to switch one of them into a command squad. So here are the total costs :

* Two special weapons squads, 6 melta guns = 108 points
OR
* 3 melta guns special weapons squad + 4 plasma guns command squad + platoon commander = 142 points

The plasma option is not cheap anymore, but my reasoning may be skewed.
The second option definitely has more firepower. Is it worth it ?
Aaargh , I don't know which way to decide.

 Ravajaxe wrote:
They would be embarked, preferably in a Valkyrie. Thanks to her very high mobility, it may be possible to position the squads in such a way that they are within 6" of the target.

Nope. You can't drop them within 9" of any enemy models and they can't move after you place them. Before the most recent FAQ removed the ability to move it was a decent strategy but now it's useless.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Ravajaxe wrote:
They would be embarked, preferably in a Valkyrie. Thanks to her very high mobility, it may be possible to position the squads in such a way that they are within 6" of the target.

Nope. You can't drop them within 9" of any enemy models and they can't move after you place them. Before the most recent FAQ removed the ability to move it was a decent strategy but now it's useless.

I know, I was thinking about a second turn conventional disembark (so 9" out of Valkyrie base).
Which lets the opponent a turn to try to get out of short range melta, sure...

Disembark would be the only way. Also look at Taurox or Chimiera, or hell even the Stormlord (the one that holds like 30 dudes, I think its this One). Use grinding advance and just put them on the deck of the beast and drive around. Good news is you can measure from the hull of the Tank, so the 6" range is a rather large threat area.

Ive done some mock up list with a "Plasma Baneblade" variant with maxed out plasma, officers for orders FRFSRF, cadian or Tallarn or VOystroyan. Throw in 2 astropaths for +1 AS and -1 to hit on the Tank. Its a big commitment but can be nasty.

Honestly the only ways I can think of to make melta work are fast units that are going to be out of reroll range. Units that can reliably get within that 6" sweet spot and ideally have some melee because at that range if you don't kill the target may as well just charge it. For IG? That basically means Rough Riders, held as a reserve in your lines and not outflanking. For marines, something like assault marines I guess.

Yes, stormtroopers can deepstrike in, yes Valkyries can drop in SWS (and I have a Catachan aircav list, trust me I know the pain of the Valkyrie nerf) and even old stand bys like the melta hedge infantry squad exist, but you're going to keep running into three main problems with IG

1. Range. You've gotta get suicidally close with guard to make melta work, 6" to truly make it superior to plasma. This makes it essentially a one shot weapon for most units, no different than a hunter killer missile. What's sad is I'd argue the hunter killer is probably the better investment than the melta what with 4x the range. To get meltas in range you're doing one of two things, deepstriking (which means no 2d6 pick highest) or moving up, likely advancing. Which means less accurate melta guns or trying to catch a ton of units that reliably move 12+" a turn with 6+d6" infantry. The sole exception being multimeltas on Russe's and Hellhounds with Tallarn which leads me to the second issue

2. Cost. Meltas just flat out cost more than plasma. So yes, you're probably doing more damage with melta in melta range, but that doesn't do much good when I'm taking 14 plasma guns to your 10 meltas. So yes, you average a couple damage more per gun, but I have far more gun. And range. And reliability. And I can deepstrike at full effectiveness. And we're guard, so I don't really care if a few guardsmen die overcharging, I will gladly overcharge without rerolls, a habit most guard players should do unless you're fighting altaoic or something. I'm not joking, I absolutely run 2 SWS plasma squads out of a Valkyrie and while I attempt to give them rerolls where possible, sometimes that just doesn't happen. So what? You lose an 11pt model overcharging that was going to die if the target lives anyways. Hell I even overcharge on overwatch, much to the horror of an unfortunate captain who got hit in the face twice and whiffed his saves. And if the guardsman dies, again, no biggy, he was dead anyways. You should be overcharging almost every single shot, rerolls be damned, unless you're targeting something where there's no point like enemy guardsmen or wave serpents. I even overcharge with the Valhallans "fire on my command order". You want to see careless, watch a guard player kill two infantry with every one he rolls, one on the Gunner, and one on the friendly infantry unit he was trying to bail out of combat, although I will admit there sometimes I'm deliberately trying to kill my own models to expose enemy assault units.

3. Invulns. Maybe it's just me, but back in 5th, and even going into 6th, invulns weren't quite as common, especially on vehicles. We had the abomination of a rule that was jink, but usually you didn't really need meltas for those targets anyways. Nowadays? How many armies are typically running vehicles without invulns in shooting, that you would use a melta on? Guard, marines, orks, and I guess some Tyranid monsters count. Oh yeah and the new Skorpius. Really think about that for a second. Think about how many times you actually see a tank without invulns these days. The extra AP melta has is useless most of the time, plasma has plenty to get them on the invuln. And to make it worse, you need that weight of fire to push past the Shields. And just to add insult to injury, plasma guaranteed does 2 damage a hit. Melta can get through and roll snake eyes. It can hit Primaris and do 1 damage and not even kill one. You just can't plan on it, it's too swingy. And swingy weapons, while sometimes fun, just don't work on a competitive stage.



It kills me to write that, I love meltas and use the heck out of them in fluffy lists, but I just don't see much use in a competitive environment. Literally the only genuine upside I can think of is "doesn't kill you on a 1 or potentially 2/3/4", but even there I'll just use plasma and maybe not overcharge if I'm just plinking something. The average guardsman is too slow to use them effectively. The guardsmen that are have to drop out of optimum melta range. And even then, you could've just brought even more plasma and done more damage or for point with a far greater reliability.


Edit for autocorrected parts

Thank you MrMoustaffa for this compelling post.
That's decided then.

I was already building plasma guns scions, and shelved my 4 scions meltaguns due to wacky efficiency.
I have a Valhallan special weapons squad of 3 meltaguns, painted since ages. I'm planning to continue to use them from time to time.
No more meltaguns, next step will be to add some more plasma by adding Cadians to my Valhallan regiment.
Plasma guns don't exist in Valhallan range, which is a shame.

Working on a list for this weekend, have run into a conundrum.

Hellhounds or Wyverns? Both basically perform the same role of muppet mowing for about the same cost, but in different ways. The Hellhound is a bit hardier, is faster, and doesn't need to worry about to-hit rolls, the Wyvern can shoot across the board without LoS.

I'm having trouble deciding which to run, I can throw in a pair of either, the rest of the list I'll be running at 1500 is going to be a pair each of basilisks and manticores, half a dozen lascannon armored sentinels, astropaths, and 6 infantry squads all running Catachan rules. Thoughts?

So you have 2+2 artillery vehicles, right ? I think it is already quite a lot to protect with your 6 squads. I would not add another vulnerable vehicle.
On the other hand, Hellhounds in Catachan can be hot. Their other advantage is getting you quite confident about not getting charged in melee due to respectable over-watch.
I would take neither however, but mortar squads instead. The more I play, the more dissatisfied I am about vehicle rules in 8th edition.

Alas I have no extra mortar teams currently (or they'd for sure be in there), but you make a good point about trying to screen everything and use the Hellhounds forward, though I suspect half my opponents are going to immediately zap tbe hellhounds as priority targets if they can be seen. Any other thoughts?

 Vaktathi wrote:
Working on a list for this weekend, have run into a conundrum.

Hellhounds or Wyverns? Both basically perform the same role of muppet mowing for about the same cost, but in different ways. The Hellhound is a bit hardier, is faster, and doesn't need to worry about to-hit rolls, the Wyvern can shoot across the board without LoS.

I'm having trouble deciding which to run, I can throw in a pair of either, the rest of the list I'll be running at 1500 is going to be a pair each of basilisks and manticores, half a dozen lascannon armored sentinels, astropaths, and 6 infantry squads all running Catachan rules. Thoughts?

I've been running 3 hellhounds in a 2000pt Valhallans list and am loving them. They're a great distraction for leman Russe's, they must be dealt with. They also ignore to hit rolls, so help against eldar, and with S5-6 can help chip vehicles in a pinch. The main strength I think is that they're a relatively mobile and aggressive unit you can push up the board. I've been using them as screens, antihorde, mobile MW bombs, and even trying to grab objectives from time to time. They're not perfect, don't get me wrong, a Catachan one with track guards is the best way to run them, but even with Valhallans I really like them. They just open up some new tactics.

No experience with wyverns, they seem good, but it'd depend on your model collection and the rest of your list. I have mortars, basilisks, and a manticore so I've never really needed one, but they'd do the mortars job well and are far more durable as well as easier to buff. With the artillery formation it's probably the most cost efficient artillery in the game if you're willing to funnel CP into it.

From the sound of your list, you'll want the Hellhounds. Wyverns alongside basilisk and manticores just seems like major overkill. Unless you want to sit in deployment and shoot all game you'll want those Hellhounds to project force and distract fire from the artillery, since there's no way you'll be able to hide all 4.

Hellhounds it is then, good points!

How much anti-tank firepower seems to be enough in semi-competitive/competitive environments? I'm currently liking basalisks and manticores, buffed with Vigilus, Overlapping Fields and Old Grudges on a key target. 6 basalisks and 3 manticores is some serious hurt, basically guaranteeing any knight dead, potentially even if they target them and I get turn 2 due to ignoring LOS, but it's also a lot to protect/lot of points. 3 and 3 is much more manageable, but I'm worried about losing too many and not being able to kill those big targets. Those points would go towards Bullgryn and more squads probably.

In my opinion, you are at overkill levels. I run a single manticore, 2 TCs, and a krast crusader, 2 mortar teams along with a bunch of guardsmen and ogryn bodyguards to hold down objectives and either celestine for fun or a 3rd TC and i have plenty of firepower to put down at least a knight a turn.

I would back off on the artillery (feels weird to say as a guard player). Add in TC and more supporting units for boats control. Af a max id say 6 total south your choice of basi vs manticore.

With the double tapping basi every turn, i would go to 2 or 3 basi and 2 manticores. Maybe look at removing a basilisk for a wyvern.