Vanilla Marines in the Current Space Marines Metagame

Since the release of the Vanilla Marines codex back in the beggining of the 5th edition, we have seen some huge updates according the Space Marines in general.At first, there was the release of the new Space Wolves codex, which rapidly developed to one of the most competitive codeces in the 40k scene, due the large amount of quality choices it contains.All in all, it pretty much looks like an upgraded Vanilla Marines codex.Then we had the release of the Blood Angels codex.The philosophy of this codex defers to the typical marine playstyle.Here we see some really fast and mobile units supported by a very decent assault punch.Recently we also got to know the new FAQ concerning the Black Templars and the Dark Angels codeces and we also made the first acquitances with the new Grey Knights codex.Suddently the Vanilla Marines codex looks inferior to the other Space Marines codeces, not only because of all the new updates, but also because of its "oldness" and its "well-known" options.The critical question therefore is: Are the Vanilla Marines able to compete in such a hard Space Marines metagame?

First of all, I would like to point out the main difference between the Vanilla Codex and the other SM codeces.The HQ choice in the Vanilla Codex plays a huge rule according the muster of your army.Thing is, that the named HQs of the codex come together with a certain playstyle, that influences the rest of your army choices.For example if you choose Pedro Kantor as an HQ then you most likely gonna also choose some Sternguards, in order to benefit from his abillities.Same goes also with Vulkan, Khorsarro Khan and Kayvaan Shrike.However, creating a vanilla army in such a way will lead in my opinion to strong, but also very inflexible and fragile army lists.Additionally, those playstyles are by now very well-known to each player and in my opinion also kind of old.Therefore, they dont have the surprise element to count on.By choosing the related to a Space Marine HQ playing muster, you will most-likely choose specific units that get improved by the abillities of the HQ.As a result of this, the list you will create will be very "HQ-oriented" and also very one-sided, because it will be built around a single abillity.This means that you will only have good matchups against certain lists, that have problems facing your specific playstyle.However you will have to make ends meet against each other possible matchup, because you will be specialized only against a certain opponent and not tooled-out to face lists that need other ways to get beaten.

If you dont choose an HQ like those stated above, you will probably create a balanced army list, but also an average one.Fact is, that the choices of the Vanilla Space Marine codex have nothing special from their own.They are just balanced units, that dont have notable highlights in order to make your army list competitive enough for the current metagame.By adopting to this balanced playstyle, you are adopting to the typical Vanilla philosophy.You will not have large weaknesses against each possible opponent, but at the same time you will not have a certain special element to rely on.Therefore the latter playstyle is very disputable especially in the current metagame, where all Vanilla choices are inferior to the respective choices in the other Space Marines codeces.

Finally, I believe, that the solution lies somewhere in the middle between the above-stated playstyles.This means that if you want to create a competitive Vanilla Marines list you have to pick an HQ, who boosts your army, but at the same time you have to also choose some units that have no relation to the certain playstyle of the HQ in order to add more flexibillity.If for example you choose Vulkan as your HQ its probably better to sacrifice some of the Meltas or Flamers that get improved by him in order to make your army able to defend itself against opponents tha cannot be beaten by just Meltas and Flamers.

Just-a-Justicar

Melta is alive!

Lately, I ve read an article on BoLS, which refers to the gradual disappereance of the Meltagun from the competitive scene of 40k and his replacement by the Missile Launcher.In order to prove the latter, the writer makes a comparison between the two weapons based on the current metagame , which leads him to the conclusion, that the Meltagun is less effective than the Missile Launcher.

At first, I find this comparison kind of unsuccessful, because of the differences between the Meltagun and the Missile Launcher.On the one hand, the Meltagun is a special weapon, which is meant to focus mostly on the opponents vehicles from close range and hit them with a very devastating shot.On the other hand, the Missile Launcher is a long-ranged heavy weapon with decent amount of strength and AP, which can either fire a krak or a frag Missile and do a medium amount of damage.This means, that both weapons have a different character and add a different element to your army.In my opinion they are both needed in a balanced army list.Finally, you can compare weapons with simillar character, such as the Meltagun with the Plasmagun or the Missile Launcher with the Lascannon, but in this case, not only the weapons, but also the units, that have acess to the weapons are different.Therefore, Its pretty much the same as comparing a Power Fist with a Missile Launcher and drawing conclusions about their tabletop effectiveness.

In this article, I ll try to compare the Missile Launcher with a heavy weapon, simillar to the Meltagun, the Multi-Melta.The comparison will be done, according to  three different aspects, the range of the weapon, its strength and the current metagame.We take as granted, that the shooters of each weapon have the same BS.

1)Range
-Multi-Melta: 24" is a decent amount of range if you realize, that this weapon can reach the opponent's deployment zone, when shooting from your deployment zone.The above-stated happens in two out of three standard deployments, in Pitched Battle and in Spearhead.Now let's take a look at the units which most of the time carry a Multi-Melta.They are mostly fast units, such as Bikes or Land Speeders or walkers such as the Dreadnought.You rarely see infantry models carrying a Multi-Melta, because of their lack of mobillity and the lack of range of the Multi-Melta.However, the abillity of the above-stated units to move 12" and fire their Multi-Melta or move up to 24" or move 6" and run in the shooting phase(Walkers), counters the not so large amount of range of the Multi-Melta.Their mobillity also enables them to have LOS to the unit they want to shoot at by moving and firing at the same turn.Therefore, in a scenario like Dawn of War, you can move up to  the middle of the table in order to be in range and still get protected by Night Fighting,cover from the Turbo Boost or Flat-Out movement and the fact that the opponent's units have to move in order to enter the table and then shoot at your units with less power due to their movement.The latter can have serious consequences on units, which carry for example Missile Launchers such as Long Fangs or Devastators.Finally it's safe to say, that, allthough the Multi-Melta doesn' t have a large amount of range, the fact that it's capable to reach the opponents deployment zone without a single movement and the fact that it's carried by fast units, cancel its lack of large range out.


-Missile Launcher: 48" is very large amount of range, which is very useful for infantry units, which cant move and shoot at the same turn.A Missile Launcher can reach each unit in the opponent's deployment zone.However the fact that it's mostly carried by infantry units disables it from getting LOS by moving around in order to get good angles of fire.This means that allthough you can pretty much reach everything, you will not always be able to shoot at the units you want to.In addition, in the  Dawn of War scenario, infantry models with heavy weapons(except of maybe troops) have a very hard time, because of the fact that they have to move in order to get to a spot with good LOS to the opponent's units and because of Night Fighting rules.This means, that they are pretty much useless in the first one or two turns.

2)Strength
In this aspect, I believe it's clear, who the better weapon is.Both weapons have the same amount of strength.However the fact, that the Multi-Melta has an AP of 1 gives him a huge advantage against vehicles and units with 2+ save or FNP.Furthermore, it can roll 2D6 for armour penetration if the opponents vehicle is up to 12" away.It' s therefore much more effective in terms of armour penetration.The only point, in which the Missile Launcher is superior to the Multi-Melta is the anti-infantry capabillity.The Missile Launcher can fire frag missiles which have a Strength of 4 and an AP of 6 and use the Blast template for firing purposes.As a result of this, they are very weak and therefore very rarely used especially in the current metagame, which will be our next topic.

3)The Current Metagame
As Mercer in his article on BoLS states, the current metagame is characterized by the large amount of mech in the army lists.The most popular lists such as mech IG or mech BA include many AV 12 and lower vehicles and therefore, according to Mercer, the Meltagun is an overkill.However at the beggining of his article he states that:

"When 5th edition came out vehicles got a survivbility boost and meltagun became like the dog - man's best friend. But it's lifespan has been short lived much like it's range (ho ho ho) and the day of the missile launcher has returned."

This statement is in my opinion invalid.?How did they lose this survivbillity boost, which lead to the disappereance of the Meltagun from the metagame?Fact is, that the mechanized way of playing was started after the release of the IG codex.The low cost of transports and their spam-capabillity has lead to the "invention" of a playstyle that is related to spamming as many vehicles as possible.The codices, that were released afterwards for example SW or BA were able to adopt to that playstyle by spamming razorbacks instead of chimeras.However the codices that were released before the IG codex werent able to adopt to that playstyle by having the same amount of success such as the SM codex.
The writer of the article "The Death of the Meltagun" regards, to my understanding, the Meltagun as a weapon, which is very useful only against AV 14.In terms of AV 12 or lower, it's just an overkill.
Proceeding with my comparison, it's clear, that ,despite the fact that the Multi-Melta has the double amount of melta-range than a single meltagun, it's equally strong.It's also clear that the Multi-Melta can bring much easier vehicles down than a Missile Launcher.Having a mechanized metagame, it's safe to say that the Multi-Melta is better in the current metagame than the Missile Launcher because it simply can take mechanized units easier down.For example:
 A single Multi-Melta needs 3+ to hit(2/3 chance),2D6 to penetrate an AV 11 or an AV 12 vehicle, if in melta range(almost 5/6 chance) and 4+ to wreck or to destroy the vehicle(1/2 chance).
A Missile Launcher on the other hand needs also a 3+ to hit(2/3 chance),4+ to penetrate an AV 11 vehicle(1/2 chance), 5+ to penetrate an AV 12 vehicle(1/3 chance) and 5+ to wreck or to destroy it(1/3 chance).The latter leads to the conclusion that a Multi-Melta is more effective than 3 Missile Launchers in terms of destroying AV 11 or AV 12 vehicles, which means also in the current metagame.It surely is an overkill, but why is that bad?Reducing the ifluence of the dice can only lead to secure results.

Mercer also states that firing a Meltagun at a vehicle from melta-range will lead to heavy consequences, because the unit that is embarked in it will be able to strike back next turn.However the Multi-Melta can destroy a vehicle easier that a Missile Launcher, due to his AP of 1 from 24'' away, which is a safe distance.

Final Conclusion:
The Missile Launcher is a little bit better in terms of range than the Multi-Melta.(See range-comparison)
The Missile Launcher is much weaker in terms of strength than the Multi-Melta.(See strength-comparison)
The Missile Launcher is less effective in the current metagame than the Multi-Melta(See current metagame- comparison)

The Multi-Melta is therefore better in the 5th Edition

Just-a-Justicar