hey the new rule book says that some armies can upgrade the Missle Launcher to have Flakk missles. The Faqs I have looked at mention nothing about the upgrade. So since the Flakk is in the Ml main profile do all MLs get it or does no one get it since the Faq does not say so.

The rulebook says that it's an option to be upgraded with. Since the FAQs did not cover this upgrade, no army ATM can use Flakk missiles.

Wrong thread

I would say that for the moment its a change to the profile of the missile launcher for all armies with that weapon.

So all missile launchers get it for free, for now.

Ooo looks like its spliting on decision :(

Well, in the Vanilla Marines Errata;

"Note that this is an older codex, written for a previous edition of the rules. You therefore will need to consult the Reference section of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook for an up to date list Unit Types and Vehicle Hull Points. You'll also find that some of the weapons in this Codex are written out longhand, rather than using the weapon profile format in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook. Don't worry - these are functionally identical, unless noted otherwise in this document"

Does this mean that we use the rulebook's version of our weapons unless the FAQ says otherwise, or the codex one?

Yeah, you use the rule book version if its different. So Missile launchers get Flakk missiles.

No. Read the BRB version. It clearly says that all MLs get Krak and Frag, and that *some* have the *option* to get Flakk. Do you see anything stating that the Vanilla Marines are part of that 'some'? Does it say how to excercise that 'option'?

No. So no, you do not get them.



Plus, that passage only mentions weapons going from longhand to 6E notation. It does not say to use the BRB version if different... it says they are already the same. And in either case, the BRB version does *not* say all MLs come with FLakk.

I think I'm gonna have to agree with Ares and Core on this one.

Well they better FAQ it in as an option otherwise its purely useless.

Why? It is an option they want to have available. Does not mean it has to be widely available. If MLs get easy access to Flakk missiles, it kinda negates the entire concept of flyers being hard to hit.

True, but as of now nobody has access to it. So its kinda pointless to put it in there.

Maybe if it was a free upgrade, but it replaced the normal Frag and Krak ammo so you only had Flakk missiles.

coredump wrote:Why? It is an option they want to have available. Does not mean it has to be widely available. If MLs get easy access to Flakk missiles, it kinda negates the entire concept of flyers being hard to hit.

Not really, they're one shot a piece, and need a 3/4 to glance AV 10/11. They also get no bonuses to the damage chart. ETA: Immobilized doesn't even kill them any more.

1 missile with flakk is not scary, 15-20 of them are terrifying, and there are plenty of armies that can do that.

Its in the profile of the weapon. Why wouldnt you be able to use it?

Because some have the option as an upgrade not everyone. Does your codex guve you the option to upgrade to flakk?

BlueDagger wrote:Because some have the option as an upgrade not everyone. Does your codex guve you the option to upgrade to flakk?

Because if it was an upgrade that costs you points, it wouldnt be included in the profile, just like the medusa bastion breech shells are not included?

Maelstrom808 wrote:1 missile with flakk is not scary, 15-20 of them are terrifying, and there are plenty of armies that can do that.

The most regularly seen is 3x 4ML long fangs. You should get a glance and 3 pens or so out of all that shooting. You'll reliably take out one night scythe, and hurt another at triple the cost of your target. Doesn't seem game breaking.

Guard can field more, but its less effective than a Hydra, of course. It might make MLs worth taking, at least.

So I am guessing no ones FAQ gave them Flakk? If this is so then maybe every ML does get them until specified directly from GW.

Kal-El wrote:So I am guessing no ones FAQ gave them Flakk? If this is so then maybe every ML does get them until specified directly from GW.

Actually I'm guessing that since no ones FAQ gave them Flakk, then maybe every ML doesn't get them until specified directly from GW.

Grey Templar wrote:True, but as of now nobody has access to it. So its kinda pointless to put it in there.

If they didn't put it in there, it wouldn't be there when later codexes do get it as an option...

Kal-El wrote:So I am guessing no ones FAQ gave them Flakk? If this is so then maybe every ML does get them until specified directly from GW.

If it's specifically listed as an option, and nobody has that option, then nobody gets it.


I would assume it's just covering their bases for later developments.

There are other weapons on the BRB list that are in no current army. Can I equip my IG with them as well?


No.... you don't get FLAKK missiles until you either have it FAQ-ed into your army or you have a codex entry that allows you to take them. If you asked me this at a tourney where is was the TO, I would probably have trouble not laughing at you for that question.

ratfusion wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:1 missile with flakk is not scary, 15-20 of them are terrifying, and there are plenty of armies that can do that.

The most regularly seen is 3x 4ML long fangs. You should get a glance and 3 pens or so out of all that shooting. You'll reliably take out one night scythe, and hurt another at triple the cost of your target. Doesn't seem game breaking.

Guard can field more, but its less effective than a Hydra, of course. It might make MLs worth taking, at least.

Maybe you are right, but I think one weapon that can be fairly effective at pretty much every single target and cover the majority of the board as long as you have LOS is going to show up a lot more often in a shooting-centric game.

Mohoc wrote:There are other weapons on the BRB list that are in no current army. Can I equip my IG with them as well?


No.... you don't get FLAKK missiles until you either have it FAQ-ed into your army or you have a codex entry that allows you to take them. If you asked me this at a tourney where is was the TO, I would probably have trouble not laughing at you for that question.

A completely new weapon is different from an existing weapon getting a 3rd firing mode.

Grey Templar wrote:

Mohoc wrote:There are other weapons on the BRB list that are in no current army. Can I equip my IG with them as well?


No.... you don't get FLAKK missiles until you either have it FAQ-ed into your army or you have a codex entry that allows you to take them. If you asked me this at a tourney where is was the TO, I would probably have trouble not laughing at you for that question.

A completely new weapon is different from an existing weapon getting a 3rd firing mode.

I agree with Grey Templar on this. Why would you be able to equip your IG with a weapon that you have no idea which unit gets? The Missle Launcher already had a profile, units that use it, and they just added the 3rd option...It specificly does not say you can't take it, but it does not specificly say you can either. I am guessing this will be FAQ in the MRB FAQ or GW will update the current FAQs to include it in ML profiles and give us the point cost if there is one.

Because it says that some have the option to upgrade and get flakk missiles. It's not a standard option for every missile launcher.

So until the FAQ actually says that you do have the option, you don't have the option.

Some, could be a reference to some types of missiles launchers (I.e. CML do not get the option, but missile launchers do)..,

The wording is option to upgrade, not option to fire. So if you don't get an option to upgrade your missile launcher, you're not going to be able to fire flakk. By the wording "upgrade I would assume there is going to be some sort of cost involved.

I agree, but I don't recall any precedent where a weapon profile listed an optional ammo type that wasn't part of the standard profile. The regular missile launcher is the only missile launcher in the weapon list to include the "flak" missile option. None of the codex FAQs include an "option" to upgrade. Seems like the intent was to make the missile launcher include the flak, but someone hosed the language in the weapon overview to include "option" to upgrade.

punchdub wrote:I agree, but I don't recall any precedent where a weapon profile listed an optional ammo type that wasn't part of the standard profile.

The last Chaos Space Marine codex listed the indirect fire mode for the Battle Cannon in the weapon profile. This was an option that had to be purchased for an additional points cost from the Defiler's entry.

Some missile launchers get the "upgrade."

As has been previously mentioned:

Flakk are listed in the profile for Missile Launchers (in the BRB).

Flakk are not listed in the profile for Eldar Missile Launchers.

Flakk are not listed in the profile for Cyclone Missile Launchers.

What other kinds of ML are there?

edit: Could it be that "upgrade" was in this context used as a simile for "option?" 'cause I just noticed they used both words in the sentence (which imo just means they used option and upgrade redundantly).

I stand corrected on my previous post. The Mawcannon lists points upgraded options as part of the profile...

Any talk of other 'types' of missile launchers is superfluous.

the entry is for Missile Launcher. And it says that *some* (not all) *may* (not does) have the *option* (not available) to have Flakk rounds. Reading it, it sure seems pretty darn straight forward.

holy crap there's so many wishful thinkers here im surprised how can the brain NOT process the word 'some' ?

It's right there in clear writting that nobody has FLAKK missiles yet because its clearly something they intend for new codexes to be able to bring.

Consider that perhaps...just MAYBE with the new rumoured CSM codex they may have these units called Havoks....and because they are thousands of years old through living in the warp, they just happen to have ancient weaponry and other stuff that current space marines do NOT have...say...i dunno...FLAKK missiles in their missile launchers.

I'm just saying, I read it and understood this was an option that only some can purchase in their missile launchers, then i looked at the FAQ to see if any of my armies (i play 10 of them) got the option, nope none of them had it, thus nobody gets it which is indeed weird but makes perfect sense considering how many other rules are in the rulebook that nobody is really using which are clearly intended for new codex units to have.

I probably missed something but I didn't see any units with the zealot rule..but then again i only checked the armies that i play. Didn't see Hatred either..

Just saying stop the wishful thinking accept reality.

Dear (Eldar /Tau/SW/SM/BA/BT/Guard/SoB) Player,
you will obviously have to wait for your new codex before you can take the Flakk Missle Launcher upgrade, we are entirely tooo busy creating rules for 7th edition and cannot be bothered with adding a few sentences into your FAQ's at this time. please feel free to ally with guard and purchase the Hydra Tank (a model our lovely neighbors aka Forgeworld sell at a competitive price......hah i said competetive.) for all of your Anti Aircraft needs.

Sincerely,
Games Workshop

coredump wrote:Any talk of other 'types' of missile launchers is superfluous.

the entry is for Missile Launcher. And it says that *some* (not all) *may* (not does) have the *option* (not available) to have Flakk rounds. Reading it, it sure seems pretty darn straight forward.

If that's the case. why wouldn't they have a different profile for it and not include it in with the standatd profile for ml's?

I find it humorous and pathetic tos see the illogical assumption by some that,

"All missile launchers have frag and krak, but some have the option to upgrade to flakk."

Means that a FAQ is required for individual armies to use flakk and that a cost must be associated with the option to upgrade.

In the BGB we have missile launchers. Just off the top of my head we have,

Cyclone Missile Launchers
Eldar Missile Launchers
Missile Launchers
Typhoon Missile Launchers

Seriously, GW cannot have laid it out more clearly. You have the missile launchers laid right out for you with the ones that can fire frag and krak and the ones that have the option to fire frag, krak, and flakk. Do we really need GW to wipe our butts before we pull our pants up?

As of midnight last night, some missile launchers can now fire flakk in addition to frag and krak. The list is in the BGB, fire away.

imweasel wrote:If that's the case. why wouldn't they have a different profile for it and not include it in with the standatd profile for ml's?

Because it's a type of missile for a missile launcher.

Its listed under the standard missile launcher because it is fired by the same weapon. Cyclones and other choices are listed separately so there is no reason for that comparison to work.

You dont get to use flakk unless you get the option to upgrade it. at present no one does, but the rulebook ideally was designed for the next 4-5 years so some options dont make sense. I am pretty sure that at least 5 of the special rules dont apply to any army right now. So the argument that no one has the option doesn't hold up

but the rulebook ideally was designed for the next 4-5 years so some options dont make sense. I am pretty sure that at least 5 of the special rules dont apply to any army right now.

Exactly. There are special rules in the rulebook absolutely noone have access to.

The people who claim that they can read "some missile launchers have the option to be upgraded to include Flakk Missiles" to mean that all their missile launchers automatically and for no cost received new ammunition have absolutely no argument for their claim. It's just a blatant attempt to cheat. The word 'some' isn't exactly synonymous to 'all', is it? The 'option to upgrade' implies it won't be mandatory and the option will cost points. In any case untill a White Dwarf Article, a new Codex, or a Codex Errata changes that current state, noone has access to Flakk Missiles.

My guess is that either future Chaos Space Marines or future Dark Angels will have the option for Flakk Missiles. Related to rules that are interesting but not in the game, I'm expecting a flyer with vector dancer in the near future.

If all missile launchers get Flakk missiles, does that mean that since Black Templar and Dark Angel Cyclones count as Heavy 2 missile launchers, do they also get Flakk Missiles?

If all missile launchers get Flakk missiles

They don't so your question is nonsensical.

Therion wrote:

but the rulebook ideally was designed for the next 4-5 years so some options dont make sense. I am pretty sure that at least 5 of the special rules dont apply to any army right now.

Exactly. There are special rules in the rulebook absolutely noone have access to.

The people who claim that they can read "some missile launchers have the option to be upgraded to include Flakk Missiles" to mean that all their missile launchers automatically and for no cost received new ammunition have absolutely no argument for their claim. It's just a blatant attempt to cheat. The word 'some' isn't exactly synonymous to 'all', is it? The 'option to upgrade' implies it won't be mandatory and the option will cost points. In any case untill a White Dwarf Article, a new Codex, or a Codex Errata changes that current state, noone has access to Flakk Missiles.

My guess is that either future Chaos Space Marines or future Dark Angels will have the option for Flakk Missiles. Related to rules that are interesting but not in the game, I'm expecting a flyer with vector dancer in the near future.

But there is and argument for that claim and it kind of hinges on the fact that "some" does indeed =/= "all": It says some ML have the option to upgrade (leaving aside the meaning of option/upgrade for the moment). Some ML have Flakk in their profiles (MLs), some ML don't (Eldar ML, Cyclone ML, etc.).

So, It is an argument for the claim that Missile Launchers do have the option to fire Flakk missiles. It may be an argument that you don't agree with, it may be flawed in ways which I invite you to (preferably civilly) point out. However, my making this argument (or any other one that you disagree with/dismiss out-of-hand) does not make me any kind of cheater, let alone a blatant one

The entry in the rulebook does say "option to upgrade," but no where in that entry does it say anything about "purchasing" or "in your codex."

Is there a definition in the rulebook for upgrade (I can't recall seeing it, doesn't mean it isn't there)? If it is not a term with a defined meaning in the rules then possibly (imo probably) in this entry it is just a "fluffy" way of saying some ML (those that are just called ML in this case) now have another firing mode (as shown in the profile in the back of the BRB).

So, have another bash at GW for their unfortunate/vague wording, but I'm coming down on the side of "Missile Launcher" missile launchers can fire Flakk missiles.

edit: @whitedragon: imo they do not, but only because Cyclone ML are not included in the subset of missile launchers that get Flakk missiles in their profile in the back of the BRB

but I'm coming down on the side of "Missile Launcher" missile launchers can fire Flakk missiles.

...and that makes you a cheater. A blatant one. You haven't been able to support your argument, or in fact structure a proper argument, but simply concluded that you will fire weapons with ammunition they have no legal access to.

Verd_Warr wrote:But there is and argument for that claim and it kind of hinges on the fact that "some" does indeed =/= "all": It says some ML have the option to upgrade (leaving aside the meaning of option/upgrade for the moment). Some ML have Flakk in their profiles (MLs), some ML don't (Eldar ML, Cyclone ML, etc.).

There is a problem with that argument.

An Eldar Missile Launcher is not a Missile Launcher. In the same way that a Heavy Bolter is not a Bolter and a HotShot Lasgun is not a Lasgun.

So, if a rule refers to a Missile Launcher then it is not referring to Eldar Missile Launchers, Cylcone Missile Launchers or any other weapon with a name that isn't "Missile Launcher".

Therion wrote:

but I'm coming down on the side of "Missile Launcher" missile launchers can fire Flakk missiles.

...and that makes you a cheater. A blatant one. You haven't been able to support your argument, or in fact structure a proper argument, but simply concluded that you will fire weapons with ammunition they have no legal access to.

First that imo ML can fire Flakk missiles does not mean I am going to play it that way. How it gets played on the table will be determined by "The most important rule," i.e. consensus with the folks actually play 40K with (and any forthcoming clarifications from GW).

I have supported my argument. "...some (missile launchers) have the option to upgrade..." Some missile launchers (specifically those called "Missile Launchers" which are available in multiple codexes and not those called "Eldar Missile Launchers" which afaik are only available in the Eldar codex) do indeed list the "option" in their profiles in the list of weapon profiles in the rulebook.

Again, it may be a flawed argument, but your disagreement with it, or failure to grasp it doesn't mean it isn't a "proper" argument... oh whatever. If "neener neener, you're a cheater" is a proper argument, this is pointless

"Is there a definition in the rulebook for upgrade (I can't recall seeing it, doesn't mean it isn't there)? If it is not a term with a defined meaning in the rules then possibly (imo probably) in this entry it is just a "fluffy" way of saying some ML (those that are just called ML in this case) now have another firing mode (as shown in the profile in the back of the BRB)."

^ Is how I read it as well. It may or may not be correct. Giving Flakk to just DA or CSM when their new codex is absurd; it would make more sense to give flakk to all ML's across the board, particularly to armies that do not have flyers or anything with skyfire. Not everyone wants to field allies, forts, or airplanes, and should not have to just to have access to skyfire.

Why don't we all call GW and ask them over and over so they make sure to put it in the next FAQ or update the current ones. Also calling someone a cheater and a blatant one is not cool...this rule has a grey area not black and white IMO.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Verd_Warr wrote:But there is and argument for that claim and it kind of hinges on the fact that "some" does indeed =/= "all": It says some ML have the option to upgrade (leaving aside the meaning of option/upgrade for the moment). Some ML have Flakk in their profiles (MLs), some ML don't (Eldar ML, Cyclone ML, etc.).

There is a problem with that argument.

An Eldar Missile Launcher is not a Missile Launcher. In the same way that a Heavy Bolter is not a Bolter and a HotShot Lasgun is not a Lasgun.

So, if a rule refers to a Missile Launcher then it is not referring to Eldar Missile Launchers, Cylcone Missile Launchers or any other weapon with a name that isn't "Missile Launcher".

First off, thanks Scott for at least accepting that it is an argument

And I accept that it is flawed in exactly the way you describe. The argument that I (and others I believe) others are making is based on specific ML (imperial "Missile Launchers," "Eldar Missile Launchers," etc.) all falling under the definition of "missile launcher" (no initial caps) in the rulebook.

YMMV on the validity of that argument, but it will (and has been made). Clarification from GW would be helpful.

There have been many cases of rules like that (FRFSRF and a number of rules affecting "boltguns" are the more recent examples). In every case, weapon names are specific and exclusive.

If this is the logic you are arguing that ML can't take flack, then I might point out that there are quite a few codecies keeping thier old weapon profiles, which, despite what the FAQ says, don't actually match the weapon profiles in the new book.

And, as a former TO, frankly, given that it's a new edition, the Core Rulebook's weapon stats trump those in the codex, just like they did last Core Rulebook.

BaronIveagh wrote:If this is the logic you are arguing that ML can't take flack, then I might point out that there are quite a few codecies keeping thier old weapon profiles, which, despite what the FAQ says, don't actually match the weapon profiles in the new book.

Firstly, which codexes FAQ don't have the statement to use weapons profiles from the BRB?

Secondly, did you even read the ML entry in the BRB? Where it says "All missile launchers come with Frag and Krak and some have the option to upgrade to include flakk missiles"? Do any of the codex FAQs say anything about having that option to upgrade?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BaronIveagh wrote:And, as a former TO, frankly,

Nice appeal to authority. What bearing does you being an ex-TO have on anything?

Uh, guys, when you go to a dealership to look at cars to buy, and it says "optional spoiler, optional hydraulics upgrade, optional flamespainted on the side of the car" does that mean that these things come STANDARD on every car of that type? Nope.

Optional and Upgrade are the OPPOSITE of 'standard', 'standard issue', 'base model; etc;

BaronIveagh wrote:If this is the logic you are arguing that ML can't take flack, then I might point out that there are quite a few codecies keeping thier old weapon profiles, which, despite what the FAQ says, don't actually match the weapon profiles in the new book.

FAQ tells me to look to the "reference section" of the new Rule book for weapon profile, I look up Missile launcher it has 3 shot types listed.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:

BaronIveagh wrote:If this is the logic you are arguing that ML can't take flack, then I might point out that there are quite a few codecies keeping thier old weapon profiles, which, despite what the FAQ says, don't actually match the weapon profiles in the new book.

Firstly, which codexes FAQ don't have the statement to use weapons profiles from the BRB?

Secondly, did you even read the ML entry in the BRB? Where it says "All missile launchers come with Frag and Krak and some have the option to upgrade to include flakk missiles"? Do any of the codex FAQs say anything about having that option to upgrade?

Horrible Analogy,

If I buy the SE yep they are upgrades, If I buy the LX hey they are included...
Some may upgrade does not equal some Everyone does not come with. Some may not upgrade, some may not have to upgrade. Some(without definition or qualifiers) and may are horrible words to use in a rulebook.

Nobody has flakk missiles yet, as they don't have the option to buy them yet. Cut and dry.

Confirmed.

"Missile Launcher" has flakk missiles.

"Eldar Missile Launcher" does not

"Cyclone Missile Launcher" does not

pg 415

Scott-S6 wrote:There have been many cases of rules like that (FRFSRF and a number of rules affecting "boltguns" are the more recent examples). In every case, weapon names are specific and exclusive.

Were these cleared up by FAQ/errata from GW then? I either haven't encountered them or they were cleared up before I started playing 5th a couple of years ago. If there are precedents for this kind of wording then your argument is probably closer to RAW than mine.

While it will not break the game for me either way, (full disclosure, my CSM get "Missile Launchers") I am somewhat hopeful that RAI is that (initial cap) Missile Launchers were meant to get Flakk standard. If it turns out I have to spend points to purchase the "upgrade," fine. If no one gets them until a new codex comes out, that's fine too.

Played my first game of 6th last night at my FLGS (learning experience, mistakes were made, nobody got mad, great fun). No fliers on either side, so Flakk never came up. Great bunch of players at the store so I'm sure that when it does it will be settled amicably.

hyv3mynd wrote:Confirmed.

"Missile Launcher" has flakk missiles.

"Eldar Missile Launcher" does not

"Cyclone Missile Launcher" does not

pg 415

And the text on a different page which completely contradicts your argument is dismissed by you how? Was it a sentence long typo?

Scott-S6 wrote:
Firstly, which codexes FAQ don't have the statement to use weapons profiles from the BRB?

Any of them. Just says to use them for Vehicles. It does not say what to do if the weapon profiles are not identical in the event the FAQ does not address this. One would hopefully assume that this means that the Rulebook takes precedent, but it does not actually say that. Again, I'm waiting for the FAQs to be FAQd.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Secondly, did you even read the ML entry in the BRB? Where it says "All missile launchers come with Frag and Krak and some have the option to upgrade to include flakk missiles"? Do any of the codex FAQs say anything about having that option to upgrade?

No, the real problem is it doesn't give a point value. Meaning that even if they all use this profile, no one knows how much it will cost.

Scott-S6 wrote:
Nice appeal to authority. What bearing does you being an ex-TO have on anything?

Everyone else who was one was bringing TO's up, I figured I might as well.


Personally, I have the feeling that this will end up like death rollers.

BaronIveagh wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:
Firstly, which codexes FAQ don't have the statement to use weapons profiles from the BRB?

Any of them. Just says to use them for Vehicles. It does not say what to do if the weapon profiles are not identical in the event the FAQ does not address this. One would hopefully assume that this means that the Rulebook takes precedent, but it does not actually say that. Again, I'm waiting for the FAQs to be FAQd.

But, the Rulebook does tell what to do when there is a conflict between the Rulebook and a codex; page 7, very last paragraph, "...codex always takes precedence."

But, the Rulebook does tell what to do when there is a conflict between the Rulebook and a codex; page 7, very last paragraph, "...codex always takes precedence."

Thank you for pointing that out here. What we have in our hands is a severe case of selective reading. Not only is the word 'some' being distorted to mean that those 'some' missile launchers have to be in the game right now (false), but they are trying to argue the rulebook (general) takes precedence over the codex (specific) despite the rulebook specifically saying this is not the case.

Lets try this.

Are "Missile Launchers," "Eldar Missile Launchers," "Cyclone Missile Launchers" and "Typhoon Missile Launchers" all types of missile launchers? [these all have "missile launcher in their names, as opposed to "Missile Pod" or "Monoscythe Missile." They all have the exact same profile for Krak missiles and the option to fire some other kind of missile (e.g. Frag or Plasma)]

If yes, do some of these missile launchers have the option to fire Flakk missiles shown in their profile in the "one weapon list to rule them all" in the BRB? [in 5th missile launchers were not defined in the BRB. ML and CML had Krak and Frag per the relevant codexes, EML had Krak and Plasma. In 6th the BRB overwrites codex weapon profiles as I understand it (edit: barring something special in the codex that keeps it from using the default profile)]

Is it defined somewhere in RAW that the words "upgrade" and/or "option" will always refer to something that has to be purchased to use? [especially outside the context of the actual army list.]

edited to add Typhoon ML and the other thing

In response, are Heavy Flamers heavy weapons? Are Lasblasters las weapons?

Just because something has a word in its name does not mean it is that thing.

Are "Missile Launchers," "Eldar Missile Launchers" and "Cyclone Missile Launchers" all types of missile launchers?

No, unless the weapon's rules specifically say that. A Missile Launcher is a Missile Launcher. A Cyclone Missile Launcher is a Cyclone Missile Launcher. A Dark Lance is a Dark Lance. A Bright Lance is a Bright Lance. An Eldritch Lance is an Eldritch Lance. You're trying to imagine 'weapon types' out of thin air that has no basis in rules whatsoever.

If yes, do some of these missile launchers have the option to fire Flakk missiles shown in their profile in the "one weapon list to rule them all" in the BRB?

The answer is still no, and the list is in no way a 'one weapon list to rule them all'. It's a summary and in a conflict the codex wins. That's why we have online erratas that fix and add new rules into codices. It's obvious you're disappointed that the errata didn't add new weapons with skyfire into your codex but it's no excuse to cheat, is it now?

I think this is a perfect example of why some folks prefer to avoid YMDC.

I am sitting here, and cannot see how he rule in the main book can be misread, it says 'All missile launchers come with frag and Krak as standard, and some have the option to upgrade to include flakk missiles.'

So regardless of point costs, that point is mute, but if anyone arguing that this means all missile launchers get flakk, can open up their books and show me where it allows them to upgrade to flakk missile on their missile Launcher selection I'd be happy to let you have it.

pg 410 "an entry marked with an (*) indicates it has additional rules. consult the codex..."

pg415 "Missile Launcher - frag, krak, flakk" no (*)

Looks like "Missile Launcher" can fire them, but CML and EML cannot as they are not listed.

pg415 "Missile Launcher - frag, krak, flakk" no (*)

That has to be some of the worst logic yet encountered in this thread. You're trying to base an argument for 'who can take this weapon' on whether the weapon has 'special rules'.

Aye, also using the reference section, which to me at least would indicate a location to collect all the rules for a quick checkover, not where the key rules are.

P57 in the main rules section is quite clear as I noted above.

Therion wrote:

pg415 "Missile Launcher - frag, krak, flakk" no (*)

That has to be some of the worst logic yet encountered in this thread. You're trying to base an argument on 'who can take this weapon' on whether the weapon has 'special rules'.

No he is saying that if it doesn't say that you are going to need to consult a codex in any point in the future seeing as its not got a asterix then how as some people are suggesting can it be an upgrade in the future

Therion wrote:

Are "Missile Launchers," "Eldar Missile Launchers" and "Cyclone Missile Launchers" all types of missile launchers?

No, unless the weapon's rules specifically say that. A Missile Launcher is a Missile Launcher. A Cyclone Missile Launcher is a Cyclone Missile Launcher. A Dark Lance is a Dark Lance. A Bright Lance is a Bright Lance. An Eldritch Lance is an Eldritch Lance. You're trying to imagine 'weapon types' out of thin air that has no basis in rules whatsoever.

If yes, do some of these missile launchers have the option to fire Flakk missiles shown in their profile in the "one weapon list to rule them all" in the BRB?

The answer is still no, and the list is in no way a 'one weapon list to rule them all'. It's a summary and in a conflict the codex wins. That's why we have online erratas that fix and add new rules into codices. It's obvious you're disappointed that the errata didn't add new weapons with skyfire into your codex but it's no excuse to cheat, is it now?

1. If you read my response to Scott above, I've already stated that it will not impact my enjoyment of the game either way.

2. Your argument that codex > BRB is compelling and tips me back to your side as far as RAW is concerned (this being GW RAI is still up in the air. My FAQ (CSM) says, paraphrasing, that weapon entries will be functionally identical unless stated other wise in the codex; the codex says "longhand" that my MLs can fire super-krak and frag. You win big boy

3. That is the 3rd time you've called me a "cheater" for simply taking an opposite position from you on YMDC. A position which I reiterate, I have never tried to apply to an actual game. /ignore

No. An option to be upgraded does not mean an option to shoot.
There is no RAW, logic, dictionary or any other source that makes "upgrade = shoot".

Verd_Warr wrote:Are "Missile Launchers," "Eldar Missile Launchers," "Cyclone Missile Launchers" and "Typhoon Missile Launchers" all types of missile launchers?

No, they are not because there is no "type=missile launcher". If EML was in fact Missile Launcher why isn't its profile right there under Missile Launchers?

No he is saying that if it doesn't say that you are going to need to consult a codex in any point in the future

He's doing exactly what I said he is doing, while also ignoring the specific rule (page 7) that in a conflict the rules if the codex win, and also ignoring the rules regarding Missile Launchers on page 57. He's basing his argument on a reference sheet at the back of the book and claiming that you can discern who can use a weapon based on whether the weapon has special rules or not. You'll find the asterisk after weapons like Mindstrike Missiles (perils of the warp test for psykers) and Heavy Venom Cannon (negative modifier when rolling for damage to vehicles).

That is the 3rd time you've called me a "cheater" for simply taking an opposite position from you on YMDC

Cheating by trying to convince your weak willed opponent that the rules allow you to do something they clearly do not is the most common way to cheat in GW's games, with the possible exception of cheating with dice rolls and moving an extra half an inch or inch every turn. I'll fight against this type of bullying behaviour at every turn.

Therion wrote:

No he is saying that if it doesn't say that you are going to need to consult a codex in any point in the future

He's doing exactly what I said he is doing, while also ignoring the specific rule (page 7) that in a conflict the rules if the codex win, and also ignoring the rules regarding Missile Launchers on page 57. He's basing his argument on a reference sheet at the back of the book and claiming that you can discern who can use a weapon based on whether the weapon has special rules or not. You'll find the asterisk after weapons like Mindstrike Missiles (perils of the warp test for psykers) and Heavy Venom Cannon (negative modifier when rolling for damage to vehicles).

Your saying that the codex wins but I have always been taught that the FAQ trumps codex and the FAQ says use the appendix doesn't?

As for the rest of your quote its not about who can use it just that it doesn't have special rules in the codex.

Your saying that the codex wins but I have always been taught that the FAQ trumps codex

FAQ is just questions and answers. The FAQ tells the reader how to interpret the rules. The codex errata modifies the rules in a codex, or even adds new rules. The specific (codex) trumps the general (rulebook) in case of conflict. If an errata is outdated we still have to wait for GW to update it to bring the codex up to speed. Untill then, the Missile Launchers fire krak and frag missiles. I've not encountered a single codex that allows Flakk Missiles and none of the new erratas did anything to change this.

Therion wrote:

Your saying that the codex wins but I have always been taught that the FAQ trumps codex

FAQ is just questions and answers. The FAQ tells the reader how to interpret the rules. The codex errata modifies the rules in a codex, or even adds new rules. The specific (codex) trumps the general (rulebook) in case of conflict. If an errata is outdated we still have to wait for GW to update it to bring the codex up to speed. Untill then, Missile Launchers for example Space Marines fire krak and frag missiles.

So if you don't agree with the FAQ's interpretation you are free to ignore it? Clearly not.

At the moment as far as I can see GW have explained what you do until they bring the codex up to speed, you use the appendix, if you can find anything to nullify that I would be interested to see it but as of yet reading this forum and others I haven't.

So all the kids playing store demos with just a battleforce and rulebook firing their missile launcher and referencing the, you know reference section for all weapons, and reading that a missile launcher can fire flakk missiles, knows about optional upgrades where? There's no asterisk to indicate any more reference is needed.

Mindstrike missiles, better look it up cuz it has an *
Chem cannon, yup better check the relevent codex thanks to the *
Needle Pistol, Neural Shredder, Power Lance... all have *

Missile Launcher, no *

Macok wrote:No. An option to be upgraded does not mean an option to shoot.
There is no RAW, logic, dictionary or any other source that makes "upgrade = shoot".

Verd_Warr wrote:Are "Missile Launchers," "Eldar Missile Launchers," "Cyclone Missile Launchers" and "Typhoon Missile Launchers" all types of missile launchers?

No, they are not because there is no "type=missile launcher". If EML was in fact Missile Launcher why isn't its profile right there under Missile Launchers?

Putting aside whether things with "missile launcher" in their names are in fact missile launchers, I agree that at least CSM and IG are prevented from using the Flakk option on our MLs because of the wording of the FAQ/codexes. However, if the ML entry in a particular codex was something like: Missile Launcher - Refer to the weapon profile in the BRB, wouldn't they then be able to fire Flakk from that weapon?

So if you don't agree with the FAQ's interpretation you are free to ignore it? Clearly not.

I never said that but feel free to fight against the strawman. I specifically said that the FAQ tells you how to interpret the rules. You're not allowed to interpret the rules any other way after you've been told how to do it.

Verd_Warr wrote:Putting aside whether things with "missile launcher" in their names are in fact missile launchers, I agree that at least CSM and IG are prevented from using the Flakk option on our MLs because of the wording of the FAQ/codexes. However, if the ML entry in a particular codex was something like: Missile Launcher - Refer to the weapon profile in the BRB, wouldn't they then be able to fire Flakk from that weapon?

Only if you are told that your missile launcher is indeed upgraded with flakk missiles. Even in the new edition, Warhammer40k is still a permissive rulesset. If you are not explicitly told that you can use a potential upgrade, then you can not use it.

If in doubt, grab a copy of Codex: Daemons and have a look at the mawcannon.

and reading that a missile launcher can fire flakk missiles, knows about optional upgrades where? There's no asterisk to indicate any more reference is needed.

Still fighting the "I demand new weapons" fight are you? The kids you mentioned will need to know more rules than those found on the reference sheet to be able to play the game of 40K. While they're reading the rules on how to move and how to fire their weapons, they might as well take a look at the pages constantly refered to in this thread. But you want to keep the codex out of your sight and the rulebook closed because you'll find rules that don't suit your agenda, don't you? What you want to have handy though is the reference sheet, the summary of all knowledge and wisdom, like the magic behind the asterisk.

Therion wrote:

So if you don't agree with the FAQ's interpretation you are free to ignore it? Clearly not.

I never said that but feel free to fight against the strawman. I specifically said that the FAQ tells you how to interpret the rules. You're not allowed to interpret the rules any other way after you've been told how to do it.

How is it a strawman when as it stands you are asking us to ignore what the FAQ says?

The FAQ says to refer to the BRB statistics rather than your codex
The BRB stats say that the missile launcher has 3 types of ammunition

I cannot see anything to counter this. If there is I look forward to seeing it because I would just rather decide either way.

Simo429 wrote:
The FAQ says to refer to the BRB statistics rather than your codex

No, it tells us they are the same. If there is a contradiction, see page 7 of the Rulebook.

How is it a strawman when as it stands you are asking us to ignore what the FAQ says?

Another strawman. Please point out a single event in this thread when I've asked you to go against a FAQ. Quote me saying that.

The FAQ says to refer to the BRB statistics rather than your codex

Which FAQ is that? Quote the line so we can all see what you're talking about and how it is relevant to missile launchers. I suspect you're just making stuff up.

Can I just clarify, all you people arguing for the Flakk missile, you will be fine with Broadside Battlesuits firing Submunition Railguns right?

I just want to be clear before I replace my Hammerheads.

Drunkspleen wrote:Can I just clarify, all you people arguing for the Flakk missile, you will be fine with Broadside Battlesuits firing Submunition Railguns right?

I just want to be clear before I replace my Hammerheads.

They will be because Railgun's Submunition doesn't have an asterisk after it in the reference sheet. You can figure out who can use a weapon by looking whether it has an asterisk or not at the rulebook's reference sheet, I hear.

Therion wrote:

How is it a strawman when as it stands you are asking us to ignore what the FAQ says?

Another strawman. Please point out a single event in this thread when I've asked you to go against a FAQ. Quote me saying that.

The FAQ says to refer to the BRB statistics rather than your codex

Which FAQ is that? Quote the line so we can all see what you're talking about and how it is relevant to missile launchers. I suspect you're just making stuff up.

How is it a strawman when I keep asking you questions? I have been civil to you something that you haven't managed to do with me.

I am using the quote in pink writing under amendments

How is it a strawman when I keep asking you questions? I am using the quote in pink writing under amendments

How is it not civil to say you're constantly trying to argue against things I have never said?

The quote doesn't say what you hope it would say. It says to check the reference sheet for hull points and unit types. It also says that weapon profile format has changed.

What it doesn't say is to replace your codex weapon options with whatever you want them to be, or that the rulebook (general) would override (specific) codex in any scenario. The rulebook states that this is the rule we follow.

It also most importantly says, that whenever there's a difference, that very same document (the errata) will mention it.

I still see no mention of Flakk Missiles in any of the new erratas. Just tell me which one they're found in and I'll agree that they can be used. Tell me also which vehicles have access to the new vector dancer special ability, or any of the other new rules that seemingly no unit in the game has access to. Afterall you seem to find things that simply aren't there.

@Simo429: The FAQs do not tell us to use the weapons in the Rulebook, it tells us they are the same. Which now creates a contradiction, because they are not the same.
So, what does the Rulebook tell us to do in case of a contradiction? See page 7, very last paragraph.

Verd_Warr wrote:Putting aside whether things with "missile launcher" in their names are in fact missile launchers, I agree that at least CSM and IG are prevented from using the Flakk option on our MLs because of the wording of the FAQ/codexes. However, if the ML entry in a particular codex was something like: Missile Launcher - Refer to the weapon profile in the BRB, wouldn't they then be able to fire Flakk from that weapon?

No they wouldn't. Because Missile Launcher can only fire Krak and Frag. Some missile launchers have an option to be upgraded to fire additional type of rocket.
If it is not explicitly noted that this instance can be upgraded - it cannot be upgraded. If it is not upgraded - it cannot shoot Flakk.

Basically this is the answer to this thread:

Jidmah wrote:Only if you are told that your missile launcher is indeed upgraded with flakk missiles. Even in the new edition, Warhammer40k is still a permissive rulesset. If you are not explicitly told that you can use a potential upgrade, then you can not use it.

Jidmah wrote:

Verd_Warr wrote:Putting aside whether things with "missile launcher" in their names are in fact missile launchers, I agree that at least CSM and IG are prevented from using the Flakk option on our MLs because of the wording of the FAQ/codexes. However, if the ML entry in a particular codex was something like: Missile Launcher - Refer to the weapon profile in the BRB, wouldn't they then be able to fire Flakk from that weapon?

Only if you are told that your missile launcher is indeed upgraded with flakk missiles. Even in the new edition, Warhammer40k is still a permissive rulesset. If you are not explicitly told that you can use a potential upgrade, then you can not use it.

If in doubt, grab a copy of Codex: Daemons and have a look at the mawcannon.

Well, at this point I agree, it's "No Flakk 'till the FAQ." So, off to read more of the BRB (my FLGS is closed today )

All missile launchers come with frag and krak missiles as standard and some have the option to upgrade to include flakk missiles.

That's what the rule entry states. So, until it is updated/amended in the FAQ or a codex, you don't have the option to take them because...well...you don't have the option yet.

robzidious wrote:All missile launchers come with frag and krak missiles as standard and some have the option to upgrade to include flakk missiles.

That's what the rule entry states. So, until it is updated/amended in the FAQ or a codex, you don't have the option to take them because...well...you don't have the option yet.

+1.

So, if I'm reading everyones logic here, my Multi Laser still has AP 6 correct?

since nowhere in the BGB does it say that a multilaser is downgraded to AP- (it just gives a profile similar to Missle Launchers)

I'm extremely confused as GW could easily have said in FAQ's yes X Army gets Flakk missles as an upgrade andi t costs Y

So now i have to wait for a new Codex IG to take flakk missles which should be in the next few weeks right?

Or flakk missiles could be an extremely limited option that is not available yet.

Thread locked for going circular and intermittant hostility.