I have been seeing this pop up now and again, even a bit around my local meta. However, I am not completely sure as to why or what replaced them.

I dont play imperium armies, so I am unsure as to that aspect. From the eldar standpoint, our missile launchers are one of the better buys for a heavy weapon on a wraithlord, wave serpent or falcon. Our submunitions blast is Ap4 and causes pinning, better than the frag missiles of the imperium. We also lack S7 in our codex; no ranged, shooting attack or model has this(except Jain Zar, on the charge...). We either get massed S6 fire or S8 to deal with tough targets and armor. Our only other S8 gun is the brightlance, which is horribly overpriced and only outperforms the EML against Av13/14. Against eldar krak missiles work well to take out our armor(lascannons are reduced to S8 against wave serpents), wraith units, war walkers and the avatar. Things you will likely see in an eldar army these days.

With my tau, I use railguns/missile pods for the missile launcher role. Krak missiles are dangerous as they kill battlesuits with ease; a lynchpin of most tau armies.

I know imperial guard missile launchers are pretty garbage, but normal tac squad marines usually have one. Long fangs spam missile launchers, and dev. squads usually have one. At least that was in 5th, but I still see missile launchers in marine lists.

So why the new found dislike? Av11/12 parking lots and armor walls are far less common now, but Monsterous creatures are on the rise(most have 3+ armor and T6). Missile launchers don't work well against Av13/14 battle tanks, which are becoming more prevelant as well. Foot and horde armies are on the rise, but the frag missile provides an option there. Are they just not performing for their costs anymore? Have they been replaced by autocannons and lascannons? Any imperial armies that still use them en masse?

What are you doing with your lists in 6th? Do you take missile launchers? Even if your army does not use them, do you consider them dangerous if you are playing against them? Have you shelved your missiles for other guns?

48" range, S8 AP3 and can now snap fire on the move or when charged? What's not to love?

I haven't seen any more AV13 and 14 than back in 5th, but way more fliers, massed ML's are great against them, as half are av 10/11 so that odd 6 you roll is usually going to take them down.

If you're not the Space Wolf codex, I'd strongly advise leaving them at home. Imperial Guard in particular shouldn't touch the bloody things.

I'd say they are still viable but no longer the default option for a lot of things, so think about what you are intending to use them against.

There should be an option for they got better, hull points means they can actually glance AV 14 to death. Especially with flak munitions being a possibility.

The IG still should probably not touch them as they are better off with two dedicated weapons. Mortar+Autocannon is the same price and tends to outperform in most respects.

All the other imperials do well with them, space marines especially. Plasma got much better though so the ML compete with plasma in many places.

totally dependent on the cost and the codex. Longfang missile spam is still very effective. Chaos and IG are better with autocannons or lascannons.

If I could take Autocannons on my loyalist Tac Squads as well I would do it outright. I never use the Frag Missile ever and I find it horribly ineffective. I mean it's just a single S4 3" template that in half of the cases scatters so it hits less and with maximum coherency (which most of the people i play with myself included do) it gets the effectiveness of a long ranged Bolter.

I have run my Heavy Bolter the whole time through 5th and it was never that bad that I was tempted to switch it to another heavy weapon and now in 6th with snapshots it has become really nice.

Everytime I play against a person who brought missile launchers I laugh a bit.

Everything I bring is either an AV 14 tank, or a 5pt guardsman.

Go ahead, shoot my tanks. If you can glance me enough times to get through my guardsmen cover saves (go go guardsmen meatshield) I'll give you a cookie.

I have never given anyone a cookie

If you can get them the flakk missle option. Then they are ok.

But other then that they are in some weird middle ground. And people generally dont like to take general purpose weapons.

They do ok at poping armor but for a few more points why not bring a lascannon instead?

They do ok at anti infantry. But if thats what you need why not bring autocannons or heavy bolters or flamers for cheaper?

I play Eldar as well and I LOOOOOOVE Eldar missile launchers. For the exact reasons you listed.

Etched In Pride wrote:
If you can get them the flakk missle option. Then they are ok.

But other then that they are in some weird middle ground. And people generally dont like to take general purpose weapons.

They do ok at poping armor but for a few more points why not bring a lascannon instead?

They do ok at anti infantry. But if thats what you need why not bring autocannons or heavy bolters or flamers for cheaper?

the only codex that can take flakk missile options are too expensive.

for IG and CSM a missile launcher is 5pts more than an autocannon and 5 points less than a lascannon. I just cant see that ever being a spot you want to be.
With flakk they are 5 points MORE than a lascannon, and do only 1 thing better and only marginally better most of the time.

For longfangs though, the lascannon is 15 points more than the missile launcher, making it a steal.

The change to the damage table made them worse in 6th. You are simply worse at popping a transport with that missile launcher in your tac squad. You're far better off paying the points for the lascannon, where you get the +1 strength and +1 to the damage roll.

So unless you get large numbers of missile launchers unusually cheap, leave them at home. Or, if you're running a ton of infantry, you could try those Flakk Missiles. They aren't great, but they are often good enough.

-Matt

I think that missile launchers improved with snap fire/defensive fire.

Plus, getting the frag on deepstriking units, 2/3rds of the time right on target, generally hits to entire enemy squad.

I love em in my tallarn force i run 9 of them in one of my platoons twin linking them is excellent i also use 3 autocannons

Corollax wrote:
If you're not the Space Wolf codex, I'd strongly advise leaving them at home. Imperial Guard in particular shouldn't touch the bloody things.

Also still good on BA devs.

Missile launchers got worse against vehicles in 6th edition for sure. They don't have the volume of fire to get reliable Hull Point kills, nor do they have AP 1/2 for improved damage chart results-- in my experience, their main reliable anti-vehicle use is now to snipe off vehicles that only have one hull point left. Further, missile launchers are worse against Nob Bikers, Attack Bikes, etc. than they once were. However, they are still a very strong weapon against Monstrous Creatures, especially those from Codex: Tyranids.

Perhaps a more pertinent fact is that many of the dedicated missile launcher platforms have become much worse in 6th edition. Long Fangs, for instance, are difficult to justify relative to 120 point autocannon/lascannon Predators, which are now much more resilient.

I think the importance of ap2 has seen a few missile squads be replaced with plasma, I know when I run my BA now, instead of 3 squads of missile DEVS, I'll take 2 and 1 Plasma cannon squad. I still think they have there place in every marine army though, just for their threat range, and versatility.

I chose the "garbage" option and this is why: everytime I consider putting in a missile launcher, there is a better weapon. I don't know about Eldar, but I think this is true for Imperium and CSM.

Str 8 AP 3 Heavy 1 is a horrible profile for antitank in 6th edition. It is extremely inefficient to glance vehicles to death, or even pen and not get a "6" with a weapon with a rate of fire of "1".

The frag missile in my experience has been trash since 2nd edition. The small template does not hit many targets and what it does hit is allowed cover saves. And it is Str 4. It is not good at torrent of wounds, it is not good against cover, its just not good.

Are there cases where the missile launcher is good? Certainly. Tyranids come to mind. But I can't count on that circumstance happening. I have to be as generalist as possible. The missile launcher in theory is generalist, but it doesn't do *either* job well enough to make it into any list.

A round about exception is the typhoon missile launcher on a flyer. Two krak missiles a round against other flyers is quite nice because in that case, glancing to death is pretty efficient because of low armor values and very little that flies has a 2+ save, if anything.

Also, Str 8 no longer overkills bikers of ork or spess mahreen variety, and this is another non-trivial nerf.

The most important point, and only briefly mentioned: The change to the Vehicle Damage Chart and Krak being AP3. Missile Launchers are now viable anti-tank by stripping hull points. And, since they strip hull points instead of explode sh*t, they suck with only one shot.
A lascannon will explode a vehicle twice as often.
A meltagun will do it 3 times as often.

Missiles are flat out worse at anti-tank for their points than, well, than just about everything that is designed for busting tanks per point.

 Brymm wrote:
The most important point, and only briefly mentioned: The change to the Vehicle Damage Chart and Krak being AP3. Missile Launchers are now viable anti-tank by stripping hull points. And, since they strip hull points instead of explode sh*t, they suck with only one shot.
A lascannon will explode a vehicle twice as often.
A meltagun will do it 3 times as often.

Missiles are flat out worse at anti-tank for their points than, well, than just about everything that is designed for busting tanks per point.

I'll give you all but the last one, at least on vanilla Tacs as it is free.

Let's not kid ourselves, missile launchers were ALWAYS crummy. Yes, if you've got fancy eldar rules, or you can take them for ludicrously cheap (like longfangs, or free like tac squads), then you might as well, but they've never been a star weapon.

And in 6th ed, they've only gotten worse. Against infantry, they've still got their small blast, which is still very ho-hum, especially against people who know what displacement means. Against vehicles, their chances of wrecking a vehicle just got cut in HALF. Yes, they can now peel hull points, but they don't do this very well with being only a one-shot-per-turn weapon. If you want to peel hullpoints, anyone who can take missile launchers can also take auto and/or assault cannons instead.

Of course, we're starting to see flakk missiles, and so there is some argument to be made for them being the only weapon that can hit fliers properly, but against most flying targets, I'd just rather stick with my non-skyfire autocannons and lascannons. Especially if the flakk upgrade is going to be so darned expensive.

 Ailaros wrote:
If you want to peel hullpoints, anyone who can take missile launchers can also take auto and/or assault cannons instead.

Let's take a look at the devastator marines in the various codices to see how this statement bears out:
1) Vanilla codex: Nope. No autocannons or assault cannons available.
2) Blood Angels: Nope. Same story.
3) Space Wolves: Still nope, even on the legendary Long Fangs.
4) Dark Angels: Nope. Same story again.
5) Black Templar: No devastator marines available.
6) Grey Knights: Purgation Squads can purchase psycannons for a staggeringly inefficient 40 points per model once they've bought a 20 point Justiciar.
7) Chaos Space Marines: Havocs are a notable exception in that they can take autocannons. Assault cannons are out of the question.

So out of the seven marine codices, only the heretics can take autocannons and none of them get assault cannons. Psycannons might count if you squint.

It's free for the BA, but why not pay for a weapon that does something? Or just not use a heavy and move all my guys?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why did so many people pick "just as good as in 5th", when this is demonstrably untrue on its face? Because they can glance AV 14? They could glance it before and actually stun it and have an effect.

Not only that, a very significant number of T4(5) units are no longer suffering instant death. The Ork codex and CSM codices have tons of units like this.

Well, they got a hit when you consider them as anti-tank since the damage chart has changed a bit.
Against infantry, it is still the same.

The problem is the meta shift. ML were great in the 5th ed 3m meta. Everyone was mech'd up and running MEQ. It's not just the new vehicle damage table, it's a more diverse meta. The game is no longer mostly about opening a rhino and killing MEQ.

Martel732 wrote:
Why did so many people pick "just as good as in 5th", when this is demonstrably untrue on its face? Because they can glance AV 14? They could glance it before and actually stun it and have an effect.

I don’t see as a fact that they are worse. Now I admit I do use One Missile Launcher Long Fang Packs, but in my experience so far they have improved a little.
1] I can now kill a Land Raider with them rather than just cause it to be shaken repeatedly.
2] I can now kill Transports quickly and efficiently rather than watch is just get Shaken repeatedly.
3] They still make Tyranid Warriors and Crisis Suits a waist of points.

Recently I had a game were I was using the Following vs. a Mechanized Marine list
>Long Fang Pack [1x Heavy Bolter, 2x Las-Cannon, 2x Missile Launchers] with an attached Rune Priest with Divination.
>Rifleman Dread
>3x Land Speeders with Heavy Bolters and Typhoon Missile Launchers
>2x Grey Hunters with 2x Plasma Guns

By the second turn I had destroyed 3 Dreads, 2 Razorbacks, Biker Captain, a Land Speeder and I don’t remember how many Marines. Half of the kills were from Glancing to death with Missile Launchers. Back in 5th edition I would have destroyed the Biker Captain and maybe one or two Dreads, everything else would have been sitting there Shaken.

So with the mix of how Hull Points work makes the Missile Launcher great for killing of the AV 10-12 range. Yes Las-Cannons, and Melta are better than the Missile Launcher, but sometimes they are just not an option for whatever reason.
Also the flexibility of being able to fire Flak Missile makes the Missile Launcher a Workhorse, not the Star.

I will note this also might be the result of my local Meta.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Why did so many people pick "just as good as in 5th", when this is demonstrably untrue on its face? Because they can glance AV 14? They could glance it before and actually stun it and have an effect.

I don’t see as a fact that they are worse. Now I admit I do use One Missile Launcher Long Fang Packs, but in my experience so far they have improved a little.
1] I can now kill a Land Raider with them rather than just cause it to be shaken repeatedly.
2] I can now kill Transports quickly and efficiently rather than watch is just get Shaken repeatedly.
3] They still make Tyranid Warriors and Crisis Suits a waist of points.

Recently I had a game were I was using the Following vs. a Mechanized Marine list
>Long Fang Pack [1x Heavy Bolter, 2x Las-Cannon, 2x Missile Launchers] with an attached Rune Priest with Divination.
>Rifleman Dread
>3x Land Speeders with Heavy Bolters and Typhoon Missile Launchers
>2x Grey Hunters with 2x Plasma Guns

By the second turn I had destroyed 3 Dreads, 2 Razorbacks, Biker Captain, a Land Speeder and I don’t remember how many Marines. Half of the kills were from Glancing to death with Missile Launchers. Back in 5th edition I would have destroyed the Biker Captain and maybe one or two Dreads, everything else would have been sitting there Shaken.

So with the mix of how Hull Points work makes the Missile Launcher great for killing of the AV 10-12 range. Yes Las-Cannons, and Melta are better than the Missile Launcher, but sometimes they are just not an option for whatever reason.
Also the flexibility of being able to fire Flak Missile makes the Missile Launcher a Workhorse, not the Star.

I will note this also might be the result of my local Meta.

I feel this example only shows how, yes, missile launchers are great against mechanized marines. Yes, this is true. I have not been losing to too many mechanized marines lately, its been daemons, necrons, daemons, necrons, grey knights, daemons, necrons, grey knights, and guard.
Missile Launchers can be good, but unless they are free or nearly free, there is usually a way better option as an anti-tank weapon (lascannon) or anti-transportweapon (autocannon/assault cannon) to choose.

 Brymm wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Said Stuff

Said Stuff

I feel this example only shows how, yes, missile launchers are great against mechanized marines. Yes, this is true. I have not been losing to too many mechanized marines lately, its been daemons, necrons, daemons, necrons, grey knights, daemons, necrons, grey knights, and guard.
Missile Launchers can be good, but unless they are free or nearly free, there is usually a way better option as an anti-tank weapon (lascannon) or anti-transportweapon (autocannon/assault cannon) to choose.

I completely agree about there is better. Personally I prefer Plasma Cannons and Heavy Bolters. However I do not feel that Missile Launchers have gotten worse. I actually feel they got a little better and most others Weapons got A LOT Better.

My Land Speeder Typhoons went from Anti-Infantry in 5th to Anti-Light Armor in 6th. Because 9 Heavy Bolter Shots and 6 Missile Launcher Shots generally lets me kill off AV11 with ease.

To me the weapons that got the Biggest Boost was the Heavy Bolter, but that discussion should be for another thread.

I thought we were talking about missile launchers, not typhoon missile launchers. A rate of fire "2" weapon on fast platform is completely different than a heavy "1" on a foot slogger. It's also a hell of a lot more expensive, so it should be better.

Also, who let's themselves get shot over and over by typhoon speeders? Oh yeah, people without autocannons and lascannons to fire back at them. It's not like typhoon speeders aren't just about the juiciest target ever at 80+ pts and AV 10.

Corollax wrote:So out of the seven marine codices, only the heretics can take autocannons and none of them get assault cannons.

... You're kidding, right?

It's not like tactical terminators or razorbacks or baal predetors or dreadnoughts or land raiders or land speeders can take assault cannons, or that marines (allied or otherwise) can take rifleman dreads...

Missile launchers can't be the 'big losers', because the 'big losers' are already Rhinos...

 Ailaros wrote:

Corollax wrote:So out of the seven marine codices, only the heretics can take autocannons and none of them get assault cannons.

... You're kidding, right?

It's not like tactical terminators or razorbacks or baal predetors or dreadnoughts or land raiders or land speeders can take assault cannons, or that marines (allied or otherwise) can take rifleman dreads...

I think he was just pointing out that you can't take Autocannons or Assault cannon on normal Powered Armor troops (tactical squads, sternguard), not that you can't take them at all.

However, I still like missile launcher devastator squads on my crimson fists lists. My Chaos Havocs will be toting Forge World's Autocannons, though!

 AnomanderRake wrote:
Missile launchers can't be the 'big losers', because the 'big losers' are already Rhinos...

This is the point I was trying to make.

But autocannons frag rhinos almost twice as fast. And at the same range. And generate double the wounds vs infantry. The rhino taking a hit does not make the missile launcher better. It has to be compared to the other weapons available. Just because Space Marine devastators can't take autocannons does not make the missile launcher good. It makes devastators suck.

MLs and Melta lost in 6th. While they still have their role, their not as critical as they were in 5th.

ACs and PGs won in 6th. Changes to rapid fire rules, combined with hull points made these better weapons.

Melta may have lost a bit, but its still the weapon of choice against AV 13 and AV 14. And it penetrates the now-popular 2+ armor. Multimeltas are particularly good because they have the range to kite around things like assault terminators and monstrous foot sloggers.

Missile Launchers are like Marines: A Jack of Trades, Master of None.
I don’t need Mathhammer to tell me witch weapon is better, the Missile Launcher is like a .45 ACP. It will not perform the best at the range, but it will probably have the Highest and Lowest Scores.

Nothing does the same number of jobs as the Missile Launcher, but all of them do their job better. The closest to it profile is the Plasma Cannon, but if a monolith or a Land Raider Shows up you are hosed. Nothing beats it in range though the Las-Cannon is the same range, but if that Nid Swarm shoes up you are screwed.

6th though has given it an ability it has not had since 1st edition, the ability to kill a Land Raider. I know the odds are against it happening, but it could happen. With 4 Missile you have a chance of scoring a HP every turn, but you have a better chance of killing it before it gets within range of your Multi-Meltas let alone the MM Sweet Spot than in 5th.

I am not saying it got a whole lot better in 6th, but it did not get worse.

Martel732 wrote:
Melta may have lost a bit, but its still the weapon of choice against AV 13 and AV 14. And it penetrates the now-popular 2+ armor. Multimeltas are particularly good because they have the range to kite around things like assault terminators and monstrous foot sloggers.

Your right on the AV13/14 point. We are starting to see a resurgance of those vehicles since more people are bringing PGs and ACs.
Smart opponents won't let you 'kite' anything around, however. The key is that players don't have aggro charts like MMO mobs. If there is a bike that's moving around shooting my assault units, Ill just ignore it and assault something else. Units don't have 'taunt' buttons in this game.

For any assault unit to be viable in today's meta, you need to have a delivery system. The days of the 10 TH/SS termies rushing across the board are dead. The days of orks rushing up and assaulting you are dead.

In today's meta, the assault units are fast, or can be delievered to where they need to be. A great example of this would be Necron wraiths. They can move 12" and ignore cover -- simply put their getting into assault with what they want to.

Another example of this would be bloodcrushers. These are slow, but you deep strike them near multiple enemy units so its impossible for all the enemy to get away from them. They also have such a large footprint on the board its nearly impossible to get far enough away from their area of influence.

A picture is worth 1000 words. This is from a game earlier this year. Notice how I played my bloodcrushers so they can effect a variety of different units. I can go after the demolisher, the predators, or the marines next to the bloodcrushers. There was no way he could kite them. They had to many targets of oppertunity due to the insanely large footprint 9 of those 60mm bases have.

I am not saying it got a whole lot better in 6th, but it did not get worse.

This. Missiles didn't get worse, it's just that everything else got better. Armies like Space Wolves and Eldar still benefit from them because of special rules or ease of spamming. Most other armies, however, can now fill this role with autocannons, assault cannons, las etc.

This to me, is a matter of philosophy I guess. Heavy weapons, to me, are there to eliminate targets that my S4 marines and S4 boltguns can't deal with.

I don't want a jack of all trades because by this philosophy, the frag missile is worthless. I want specialization. Because I have a huge amount of S4 available to me as a marine player. I want AV 14 and AV 13 to go away. And wounds that penetrate 2+ armor.

Everyone discounts the lascannon until they run into the vindicator spam list, which is certainly viable now. Your krak missiles will bounce too much to be effective and melta is a suicide mission. I have never regretted switching out every missile launcher slot for a lascannon in 6th. Ever.

Because the "anti-horde" function of the frag missile sucks. For hordes, meet my assault marines and fragnoughts. The fragnought alone can kill more models in a single turn than frag devs over the course of two or three turns. This is the BA answer.

For vanilla, I can get the much more point efficient thunderfire cannon which has the option to ignore cover, or just rely on my huge boltgun count for anti-horde. Being able to back up and fire bolters out to 24" is such a huge boost for the vanilla marines.

Also, any marine list has the option to bring multiple template weapons which are all assault and ignore cover as well. These are far superior for anti-horde work than frag missiles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 labmouse42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Melta may have lost a bit, but its still the weapon of choice against AV 13 and AV 14. And it penetrates the now-popular 2+ armor. Multimeltas are particularly good because they have the range to kite around things like assault terminators and monstrous foot sloggers.

Your right on the AV13/14 point. We are starting to see a resurgance of those vehicles since more people are bringing PGs and ACs.
Smart opponents won't let you 'kite' anything around, however. The key is that players don't have aggro charts like MMO mobs. If there is a bike that's moving around shooting my assault units, Ill just ignore it and assault something else. Units don't have 'taunt' buttons in this game.

For any assault unit to be viable in today's meta, you need to have a delivery system. The days of the 10 TH/SS termies rushing across the board are dead. The days of orks rushing up and assaulting you are dead.

In today's meta, the assault units are fast, or can be delievered to where they need to be. A great example of this would be Necron wraiths. They can move 12" and ignore cover -- simply put their getting into assault with what they want to.

Another example of this would be bloodcrushers. These are slow, but you deep strike them near multiple enemy units so its impossible for all the enemy to get away from them. They also have such a large footprint on the board its nearly impossible to get far enough away from their area of influence.

A picture is worth 1000 words. This is from a game earlier this year. Notice how I played my bloodcrushers so they can effect a variety of different units. I can go after the demolisher, the predators, or the marines next to the bloodcrushers. There was no way he could kite them. They had to many targets of oppertunity due to the insanely large footprint 9 of those 60mm bases have.

Landspeeders and attack bike bikes with multimeltas certainly can kite around assault terminators after the LR is fragged. They can also kite around bloodcrushers. I guess this is one of the few advantages of a pure BA army. I can get the hell away from deep strikers and shoot them lots at the same time! The kiting, however, is a tertiary consideration for all the reasons you mentioned. But elimination of AV 13/AV 14 is a primary consideration.

I might also add that deep striking that close to the enemy can end very, very badly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

omerakk wrote:

I am not saying it got a whole lot better in 6th, but it did not get worse.

This. Missiles didn't get worse, it's just that everything else got better. Armies like Space Wolves and Eldar still benefit from them because of special rules or ease of spamming. Most other armies, however, can now fill this role with autocannons, assault cannons, las etc.

Getting worse relative to other weapons is the definition of being a "big loser" of heavy weapons. In fact, the change to the vehicle damage table is non-trivial for the missile launcher because it halves their chance of a kill on a pen. That sucks big time. You basically have to play the HP stripping game with krak missiles, which is insane with a ROF 1 weapon.

Missile Launchers are the same as they've always been, a decent generalist weapon that is only worth it when you can get it either for free or for dirt cheap. If you can get them cheap, and don't have a specific hole that you desperately need patching, take them, but otherwise take a more specialized weapon.

Martel732 wrote:
Said Good Stuff

I agree, i run a 2000 Space Marine gunline with 36 Plasma Weapons, mostly Combi-Plasmas, but there are 15 Plasma Connons it it. The only reson I feel safe with it it there are no AV14/14/14 vehicles in my local Meta [Actualy there are some AV14/14/14 Vehicels, but they are mine].
My list in order of "Devistor" Weapons are:
1] Plsama Cannon
2] Heavy Bolter
3] Las-Cannon
4] Multi-Melta
5] Misslie Launcher

Most of this personal tase, but it has been this way since 3rd Edition. If i could get Auto Cannons they would take the #2 or #3 spot.

I also think things will change the moment Missile Lauchers are able to take Flakk Missile.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Said Good Stuff

I agree, i run a 2000 Space Marine gunline with 36 Plasma Weapons, mostly Combi-Plasmas, but there are 15 Plasma Connons it it. The only reson I feel safe with it it there are no AV14/14/14 vehicles in my local Meta [Actualy there are some AV14/14/14 Vehicels, but they are mine].
My list in order of "Devistor" Weapons are:
1] Plsama Cannon
2] Heavy Bolter
3] Las-Cannon
4] Multi-Melta
5] Misslie Launcher

Most of this personal tase, but it has been this way since 3rd Edition. If i could get Auto Cannons they would take the #2 or #3 spot.

I also think things will change the moment Missile Lauchers are able to take Flakk Missile.

Dark Angel missile launchers might be some better, but the upgrade costs points, and S7 AP4 single shot is not wowing me. Skytryrants all over the world laugh at your flakk missiles, as do vendettas and storm ravens.

I'm not a big fan of the plasma cannon, but I'll take them all day over MLs. They command respect. The payoff for when PCs work right is huge. Terminator squads can be devastated! Light vehicle squadrons melt! The payoff for krak missiles? Oh yeah, I get to strip hull points. One at a time. Yay. Or I get to bounce off a TEQ. Yay. Just because I'm not into high risk high reward doesn't make the PC not scary. The ML is not scary at all.

I think they are as good as they ever were. The versatility remains and with HP they can glance to death better.

If versatility results in ineffectiveness, then versatility becomes an undesirable trait. 6th edition battles can move quite quickly, and you don't usually have the luxury of stripping HP one at a time with a single shot weapon. By the time the LR is even worried about HP, its dumped terminator death all over you. Much less multiple LR lists.

Oh, and you can't back up and fire your krak missiles either. You stand there as terminator death gets closer. If your answer is to this is melta, then I would agree with you. Why even have the ML then as "heavy support"?

 ansacs wrote:
The IG still should probably not touch them as they are better off with two dedicated weapons. Mortar+Autocannon is the same price and tends to outperform in most respects.

Wait, I thought the only thing worst than IG MLs were IG mortars?

 Enigwolf wrote:

 ansacs wrote:
The IG still should probably not touch them as they are better off with two dedicated weapons. Mortar+Autocannon is the same price and tends to outperform in most respects.

Wait, I thought the only thing worst than IG MLs were IG mortars?

Apparently, you have never met the IG grenade launcher.

One Mortar is junk, a bunch is Great especially when mixed with Grenade Launchers.

Individually on any one shot, Missile Launchers are less effective due to the changes to the vehicle damage chart. However, en-masse, they are significantly more effective due to the HP mechanic hamfisted onto vehicles. In terms of the average number of missiles you need to pump into a vehicle to kill it, you need significantly fewer, so they won in that respect.

However, relative to other weapons, they did lose out. Lascannons got all the benefit of HP's without losing any of their damage chart effectiveness. Autocannons against most light/medium vehicles are generally more effective through HP infliction, as, for example, you'll only need 9 BS3 autocannons firing 18 shots to kill off an AV12 vehicle through HP loss as opposed to a Missile Launcher's average of 12.

So yeah, relative to other weapons, Missile Launchers lost out. Relative to their 5th edition usefulness, as with pretty much all weapons, en-masse they are significantly more effective.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Individually on any one shot, Missile Launchers are less effective due to the changes to the vehicle damage chart. However, en-masse, they are significantly more effective due to the HP mechanic hamfisted onto vehicles. In terms of the average number of missiles you need to pump into a vehicle to kill it, you need significantly fewer, so they won in that respect.

However, relative to other weapons, they did lose out. Lascannons got all the benefit of HP's without losing any of their damage chart effectiveness. Autocannons against most light/medium vehicles are generally more effective through HP infliction, as, for example, you'll only need 9 BS3 autocannons firing 18 shots to kill off an AV12 vehicle through HP loss as opposed to a Missile Launcher's average of 12.

So yeah, relative to other weapons, Missile Launchers lost out. Relative to their 5th edition usefulness, as with pretty much all weapons, en-masse they are significantly more effective.

This post clarifies what people are conflating. Just because vehicles got the hull point mechanic, does not instantly make the ML good. If one wants to exploit the HP mechanic, you want autocannons. For quality shots, its the lascannon. There really isn't an AV where the missile launcher has a sweet spot vs those two alternative. Yes, I know devastators can't take autocannons, but that's not the autocannons' fault. It's still better for the playing the glancing game.

The whole point of the ML is that *it has no one sweet spot*.

Yes, in a perfect game, we'd have the right tool for the right job, every time we wanted to shoot something. I don't know about the rest of you, but for me, if my game's going perfectly -- I'm probably going to win easily.

When my back is against the wall though -- in a close game, or one when I'm losing -- you can bet that there will be times when I don't have the right tool for the job. At that point, sometimes, the second best tool for EVERY job can be a lifesaver. And that's the missile launcher. Because there's no unit in the game that it can't hurt.

Just because a tool isn't the second best doesn't make it a good tool. If you're stuck between using an ice cream scoop or a chef's knife to loosen lug nuts, that doesn't mean that a knife is good for loosening lug nuts, it means you should have packed a tire iron in the first place.

I have to say, the OP's avatar is extremely annoying, it's big enough to move all the text boxes over and require me to scroll.

Anyway for me to fix that?

But the ML doesn't hurt anything enough to swing a game. If I'm in a hole, I need a big melta shot or lucky lascannon one shot-one kill.

Martel732 wrote:
I thought we were talking about missile launchers, not typhoon missile launchers. A rate of fire "2" weapon on fast platform is completely different than a heavy "1" on a foot slogger. It's also a hell of a lot more expensive, so it should be better.

Also, who let's themselves get shot over and over by typhoon speeders? Oh yeah, people without autocannons and lascannons to fire back at them. It's not like typhoon speeders aren't just about the juiciest target ever at 80+ pts and AV 10.

A. DA cant get tml on landspeeders for 75
B. they can jink
C who would waste a lascannon on a bumper car
D. when would you waste a autocannon just to maybe kill one little bumper car
E. if your firing a lascannon at it there is alot of factors that could make the shot useless i.e. missing, rolling a one to glance, not making it go boom, it jinking, the fact that there is probably gonna be more right behind it
F. who in their right mind wouldn't take out the lascannons/autocannons with their tml's

MLs didnt get worse, heck they got better. its just that PG and lascannons got a bigger boost with the new vehicle damage table.

 A GumyBear wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I thought we were talking about missile launchers, not typhoon missile launchers. A rate of fire "2" weapon on fast platform is completely different than a heavy "1" on a foot slogger. It's also a hell of a lot more expensive, so it should be better.

Also, who let's themselves get shot over and over by typhoon speeders? Oh yeah, people without autocannons and lascannons to fire back at them. It's not like typhoon speeders aren't just about the juiciest target ever at 80+ pts and AV 10.

A. DA cant get tml on landspeeders for 75

Until the 5th, atleast >.>

B. they can jink

5+ Save is only saving 1/3 shots. I use speeders, but they are made out of paper. A decent amount of anti tank fire thrown at them is going to ruin their day.

C who would waste a lascannon on a bumper car

Depends on their threat to ones army compared to other things. If the Speeders are in a Squad, they are a large threat. If they are a singleton, it might be worth shooting the lascannon just to take out the annoyance.

D. when would you waste a autocannon just to maybe kill one little bumper car

Because an Autocannon's job is to kill Light Vehicles, which the Landspeeder is almost the definition of.

E. if your firing a lascannon at it there is alot of factors that could make the shot useless i.e. missing, rolling a one to glance, not making it go boom, it jinking, the fact that there is probably gonna be more right behind it

If it was going to miss, it was going to miss on another target anyways. 1/6 chance to glance is still a 5/6 chance to pen. There's a 1/3 chance he'll jink it, so that means there's about a 67% chance your 84% chance pen will get through. If there's more than one speeder, it's an even of a target to shoot at.

F. who in their right mind wouldn't take out the lascannons/autocannons with their tml's

A Lascannon buried in the back of a squad in a ruin or Aegis Line isn't going to get taken out by a Speeder in one, or even two turns.

Blobbed Guardsmen will have more than enough guns in there to take out an entire speeder squadron in one go.

One of my first priorities is when facing enemy typhoon speeders is to take them out. They can do serious damage if you ignore them, and it makes me smile a bit when people do.

Typhoon speeders cost so many points that's its quite efficient to shoot lascannons at them. It's a high percentage shot, and with only 2HP, the guaranteed hull damage if the shot gets through is nice. Granted, I'd rather shoot autocannons at them, but with auto/las preds I can shoot both.

My AV 13 auto/las pred doesn't much care about your krak missiles. Since my range is huge, I can keep my AV 13 facing you for most of the battle, unlike a vindicator or a Baal. If you are shooting my AV 13 with krak missiles, I'm coming out ahead.

Didn't 4 ML at BS4 have like .4 chance to kill a rhino in 5th? Like without cover? They were well liked because they seemed versatile and they added reasonably priced reach and the ability to bother blobs to your core of melta spam.

4 x .66 x .5 x .33 to blurst av11? A bit better if you are happy to just immobilize.


Armies with BS3 dun like it so much, but usually they have autocannons and scatter caster type things to make that work and were exciting against infantry and for stunning.

You guys shouldn't expect too much from 4 guns on a general basis, unless they are like pretty expensive. Being able to throw around a decent amount of str8+ shots at range is pretty helful though, and I think if we see a rise in MCs it'll be decen.

Speeders are fragile but Templars get cyclones the way you'd want them.

Ailaros, I'd always aim to bring the right tool for the job, too... but once the right tool gets shot up, I'd rather have a Swiss Army Knife than try to use a sledgehammer to turn a screw.

Missile Launchers are a jack of all trades weapon, and as such, are now, and always have been, less effective versus a certain type of target than a more specialised weapon. against light vehicles, autocannons are more effective, and against heavy armour, the lascannon is more effective. frag missiles can also shoot a blast that does 'ok' but isn't as stellar as say, a plasma cannon or similar weapon.
The only Plus to a missile launcher is really that for tactical marines at least, they are to all intents and purposes, free, so if i'm stuck for points, i will take them for squads if i envision them being for long range support, and give the squads pushing up the field MM's instead.
I have found the CML on tac terminators to be a great buy because, well, they are quite limited in their options anyway, and krak missiles are very nasty when you can DS and hit a vehicle in its side or rear armour.
Aside from those times though, i will leave my missile launchers at home because since they are jack of all trades weapons, there are better tools for the job for only a few points more. My dreads are either ironclads or rifleman, and tac squads will carry either MM's or lascannons (points allowing)

That isn't to say that they are a bad weapon to have, because they are good, they just aren't 'as' good as others

 labmouse42 wrote:
MLs and Melta lost in 6th. While they still have their role, their not as critical as they were in 5th.

To add to this...

MLs are not as good as they were in 5th, yet that does not make them bad. Unit/Tool quality is not a binary solution.

A squad of four long fangs with MLs is still dead solid.

I don't understand why people want to glance something to death with the ML. You could take less ML and just purchase the quality LC and deal with your target, then move on to the next one.

Where I play we still are vehicle heavy, I always want the LC or MM.

They can't shoot overwatch, they can't move and shoot, and this means they are pretty much staying where you put them in the begining.

I just think there are better options for the heavy support role, or a better load out for my Tac Sqd. Rapid fire PG, or PC. The shots are just so much stronger......even if we do have to turn our heads and hope for no 1s.

 g0atsticks wrote:
They can't shoot overwatch, they can't move and shoot, and this means they are pretty much staying where you put them in the begining.

Why shouldn't you be able to fire a krak missile as overwatch? With those you can even move and shoot unlike the PC.

But if you're going for dedicated anti-tank, why not just get a Vendetta with its triple TLLCs and call it quits, rather than having to have a heavy weapons team do that?

 Shadox wrote:

 g0atsticks wrote:
They can't shoot overwatch, they can't move and shoot, and this means they are pretty much staying where you put them in the begining.

Why shouldn't you be able to fire a krak missile as overwatch? With those you can even move and shoot unlike the PC.

True the PC doesn't have overwatch, still just a better weapon hands down imho.

 Anpu42 wrote:
One Mortar is junk, a bunch is Great especially when mixed with Grenade Launchers.

I'm guessing this just replies on a mass of blast template weapons...

 Enigwolf wrote:
But if you're going for dedicated anti-tank, why not just get a Vendetta with its triple TLLCs and call it quits, rather than having to have a heavy weapons team do that?

...because not everyone plays Guard?

I am trying to figure out how hull points has done anything more than remove the chance to blow up a vehicle on rare glances and given lower strength weapons a bit more capability in the new rules.

For MEQ armies the only difference is that occasionally heavy bolters have a shot at killing a light tank.

Missile Launchers haven't changed at all. If marines had access to auto cannons or Assault Cannons on their heavy troops they would have been taking them all along. We don't. The choice is cheap missile launchers, moderate MM, or Expensive LC.

For me the Missile Launcher still fits the exact same spot as always. I will still take heavy armor popping units. The only time you can ignore the 2+ save and the av 13/14 is to watch your local meta and see if they have abandoned the big armor. LC's have always been superior to ML's in the rules but also far more expensive from top to bottom.

The reasons people didn't take LC's have not changed since the drop of 6th edition. It was always points cost versus effectiveness.

It is also because of the vehicle explosion table now. Before you just had to get a 5 or 6 to kill with a missle but now you have to get a 6 to really stop it. Snap firing a lot of twin linked tank weapons is still leaving the vehicle a threat

Hull points increase the siren's call for MLs. But the real kick in the nuts is as sudojoe notes, the vehicle damage table.

I don't think the lascannon is unfairly prices for the ability to pop 2+ armor, and provide a realistic shot of one-shotting vehicles. It's still rare, but with the LC it can happen.

And if its a transport, you get all those S4 hits on the occupants you don't get with the glancing scheme.

This whole dilemma is why I rarely field devastators, btw. Auto/las predators, whirlwinds, and allied thunderfire for the win! Not the division of labor amongst these choices. My list needs to be versatile, not individual units or weapons.

Don't 4 lascannons at BS4 only have something like a .6 chance at blowing up a rhino per turn (via 'splosion)?

I think they do something like 2 hull points of damage to av 11 each time they shoot.

We aren't including cover of course, then the numbers get kinda crappy. It's also just not incredibly impressive for the price you are paying for it. The 2 marines out of cover or 2 wound it does to T6 3+ MC's aren't really worth mentioning either. Lascannons are awfully useful but they also tend to be kinda expensive and feel like wasteful spending a lot of the time.

I guess LC vs ML is one of those situations where they price point can be differing greatly so it's hard to really set a nice standard and give you guys a succinct talking point to rally behind whenever this conversation comes up online again.


Blowing up tanks last edition wasn't something fun either guys. I don't know why yall think ML was all that better before. Ugly business trying to penetrate and then roll a 5 or 6. Especially with 4+ cover. I'd say hull points made them a lot better. Strength 8 gives you a lot of breadth now. I like LC a lot more than I used to now too because of the the 5+ cover and how secure you feel in racking up glances with them but I can't say I feel safe and happy loading up 5 man squads of marines with them in my lists.

I'm not advocating lascannon devastators. Since I'm not advocating MLs either, I guess my pick for devastators is PCs, but that's not really what I want out of heavy support either. I suppose I'm really saying "don't use devastators". Unless you're a wolf. Everything's better if you're a wolf.

Martel732 wrote:
This whole dilemma is why I rarely field devastators, btw. Auto/las predators, whirlwinds, and allied thunderfire for the win! Not the division of labor amongst these choices. My list needs to be versatile, not individual units or weapons.

auto/las pred are cheaper, faster, look cooler, and die harder.

Corollax wrote:
If you're not the Space Wolf codex, I'd strongly advise leaving them at home. Imperial Guard in particular shouldn't touch the bloody things.

Imperial Guard should have been avoiding them last edition, too.

ML's are the Siren's call Heavy Weapon of 40k. Oh sure, a spare S8 missile is great at popping off a random character... in last edition. S4 blast templates...meh.

I used to really like them, but I usually run AC's and LC's now. Just not enough oomph from the ML.

 Dr. Serling wrote:
So why the new found dislike?

There's no new found dislike, only old found dislike. Missile launchers were never amazing in 5th, they were just cheap. And that's still exactly the situation in 6th: they're good if they're free or cheap (tactical squads, Long Fangs) and you aren't willing to turn the carrier into an expensive but effective unit with LCs/etc, and they're garbage if they cost almost as much as better weapons (anything IG).


(Yes, some people thought that missile launchers themselves were good in 5th, but they were just low-skill netlisters who assumed that "ML Long Fangs are great" meant that any missile launcher was a good option.)

After thinking about it, the impotence of the frag missile is almost worse than the impotence of the krak missile. All the people talking about glancing stuff to death at least have that on their side. ST 4 AP 6 small blast? And it gives cover saves?That's craptastic.

Martel732 wrote:
After thinking about it, the impotence of the frag missile is almost worse than the impotence of the krak missile. All the people talking about glancing stuff to death at least have that on their side. ST 4 AP 6 small blast? And it gives cover saves?That's craptastic.

You've obviously never piled 5 frag templates on a unit and watched them fail a bunch of cover/armor saves.

 pretre wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
After thinking about it, the impotence of the frag missile is almost worse than the impotence of the krak missile. All the people talking about glancing stuff to death at least have that on their side. ST 4 AP 6 small blast? And it gives cover saves?That's craptastic.

You've obviously never piled 5 frag templates on a unit and watched them fail a bunch of cover/armor saves.

But I can generate wounds that way with any low strength weapon. You know, the low strength weapons that my army is already full of on my troops? ST 4 AP 6 small blast for a heavy weapon is crap. Ancedotal evidence of it being awesome in a game or two doesn't make it not crap integrated across many, many games.

Martel732 wrote:
But I can generate wounds that way with any low strength weapon. You know, the low strength weapons that my army is already full of on my troops? ST 4 AP 6 small blast for a heavy weapon is crap. Ancedotal evidence of it being awesome in a game or two doesn't make it not crap integrated across many, many games.

If it was just a heavy weapon that only had one profile of S4 AP6 small blast? Yeah, I'd agree with you.

But instead it is a dual heavy weapon with S8 AP3 and S4 AP6 small blast. That's a big difference.

If there are packed troops in front of you, the small blast really counts. I have used it to great effect against deepstrikers.

And, ofc, I would say that I don't take ML in my non-SW armies.

Against a horde army, you might want to start generating those wounds rather earlier than 24", if there were a way to do that...

 Ian Sturrock wrote:
Against a horde army, you might want to start generating those wounds rather earlier than 24", if there were a way to do that...

Ooh, I can see the future. Counterpoint to this will be 'Any horde player worth anything knows to exactly space their models to minimize template hits at all times...'

Yeah...

I find that often players don't take the time to move with such precision. I just think that heavy weapons should be packing more punch than STR 4. Again, its back to specialization. I'd rather have the ammo options of the thunderfire cannon, forget the krak missiles and use real anti-tank weapons against tanks.

I consider both modes of the missile launcher to be crap, making the whole thing crap. I guess for the magic space wolves, its fine, but they would probably win with lascannons too. It's not like grey hunters can't eat endless amounts of horde models anyway.

I can tell you from experience that horde players hate templates far more than small blast markers.

Low strength, high AP, AND IT SCATTERS. Rather have something else. Whats to like about these things? At least with the PC you get high strength low AP, super important.

 g0atsticks wrote:
Low strength, high AP, AND IT SCATTERS. Rather have something else. Whats to like about these things? At least with the PC you get high strength low AP, super important.

Or High Strength, Low AP and it doesn't. What's your point? It allows you two profiles for a low cost. With the PC, you pay more points for the lower AP but also lose strength and gain gets hot. Everything is a trade off.

Is the ML the best weapon ever? No. Is it a good generalist weapon with multiple applications? Yes.

Ian Sturrock wrote:Against a horde army, you might want to start generating those wounds rather earlier than 24", if there were a way to do that...

Seconded. 48" let's you start hammering out those shots pretty early, typically in turn 1 or 2. I'm not saying that it's super-awesome or anything, but the versatility offered by it is pretty decent.

g0atsticks wrote:At least with the PC you get high strength low AP, super important.

And the potential to Gets Hot! yourself.

As I said a few posts ago, this is why I don't use devastators.

In a vacuum, I can see the arguments for the ML. In practice, however, I have always regretted fielding this weapon.

I'll take the home run potential of the PC over the anemic ML all day though. But the reality is that both usually get left at home for me.

I'll also mention that even horde armies usually have something for my lascannons to shoot at. So I'd rather have those in my heavy slots and let my other army elements deal with the hordes.

I think you're talking vacuum as well. Of course, if they were the same points cost and availability, I would take lascannons.

They aren't though.

 pretre wrote:
You've obviously never piled 5 frag templates on a unit and watched them fail a bunch of cover/armor saves.

It's awesome when it works. Like when you have a daemon player that deep strikes, and you managed to get 8 models under each template that hits. When that happens its awesome.

More often than not, though, its not nearly as awesome. Usually I'm hitting 2-3 models under each template. Each template has a 1/3 chance of a 'hit' so even with a BS of 4, more often than not they will scatter. Lets say you manage to hit half the time. That's only 7.5 hits. Against anything with a 4+ armor save your better off just using kraks.

That's the story of the frag missile. It sounds great on paper, but in play its practical use is limited. When you do use it, its awesome, but its not going to happen every game.

 labmouse42 wrote:
It's awesome when it works. Like when you have a daemon player that deep strikes, and you managed to get 8 models under each template that hits. When that happens its awesome.

Agreed.

More often than not, though, its not nearly as awesome. Usually I'm hitting 2-3 models under each template. Each template has a 1/3 chance of a 'hit' so even with a BS of 4, more often than not they will scatter. Lets say you manage to hit half the time. That's only 7.5 hits. Against anything with a 4+ armor save your better off just using kraks.

A bit more than a 1/3 chance. It is a 1/3 chance of a hit and then any roll of 4 or less is still a hit as well. Keep in mind that against anything with a 2+ save, you may be better using frags as well.

That's the story of the frag missile. It sounds great on paper, but in play its practical use is limited. When you do use it, its awesome, but its not going to happen every game.

Sure, but having options is always nice. It isn't like you don't have the S8AP3 as well.

Agreed. Its the option that is nice. That's what gives the ML some flavor.

I mentioned this before. Weapon overall quality is not a binary equation. A weapon is not either 'good' or 'bad'. There is a wide range in weapon quality.
The ML is still a good weapon. Units like long fangs are still very good, especially for the cost.

However, the ML has lost some of its effectiveness. Other weapons have gotten better. As such the ML is no longer the 'go-to' it was in 5th.

Yeah, I can dig that.

Although I think a lot of people (and someone said this earlier) though ML were the goto weapon simply because of Long Fangs. They are still really good for long fangs just because of cost. They have never been really good for anyone else though.

So is it a good weapon or not by these assertions? Assuming its good for the space wolves, being good for one unit in one codex is kinda dubious to me. Do the space wolves have a way to make relentless long fangs in a drop pod and the split MM fire? This seems much more dangerous than some MLs. You can drop in some grey hunters next to them to make sure they don't it WTF owned in HTH.

I still imagine why a C:SM or BA list would ever use a ML.

SW can give Relentless to Long Fangs through Logan Grimnar.

It is really only good for SW because of the points cost.

 pretre wrote:
It is really only good for SW because of the points cost.

I'm wiling to let that be the consensus position.

Still good on BT Typhoons and Terminators, although that's CMLs.

True, true. 2 shots for one weapon system are nice.

I'm not talking about typhoons. These platforms are usually mobile, allowing for side shots and fire twice. The math for them is totally different. They are a grave threat to predator and chimera hulls. But some foot slogger shooting kraks into the front of predators or chimeras is in for a long day. I've considered the typhoon over the multimelta on my stormraven many times. I'm not as crazy about the cyclone. They still end up shooting into front armor too much. Give me the AC and I'll just hose down troops.

I think they were the goto weapon because penetrating light-medium av was much more important back then, while they still gave you the ability to interact with other heavier or body heavy units at a distance while your melta or whatever was on it's way. Stunning things before melta came around was pretty decent back then.

I think that is why str8 was so important. It was the breaking point where you got a lot of benefits and breadth of use out of it, but before the weapons became super expensive. More glances are the important thing now it seems and volume of fire is very helpful against flyers so I'm sure everyone is ruing their MLs.

36-48 range strength 8 weaponry is very very helpful if it's moderately priced. You can only expect to lean on those plasma guns and autocannons so heavily.

As much as people are saying glancing helped the ML, the autocannon got helped almost twice as much. The AC is better against everything up to AV 12 if you all you care about are glances. The real problem is that AP 4 and AP 3 are the same on the vehicle table. If AP 1 were +3, AP 2 +2, AP 3 +1, and AP 4 0, I'd have to rethink it.

The sad part about the ML is I'm not even sure how good the flakk missile really is vs flyers. Especially for the cost. It just seems better to bring your own flyers and shoot real weapons with skyfire.

 pretre wrote:
Although I think a lot of people (and someone said this earlier) though ML were the goto weapon simply because of Long Fangs. They are still really good for long fangs just because of cost. They have never been really good for anyone else though.

BA dev squads also would take lots of MLs -- the few times we actually see lots of BA. Aside from that...yea...we did not see ML spam. I guess people think of it as such a staple because SW were so common for such a long time.

I think people also got used to them as they were 'free' in a C:SM tactical squad. I use air quotes around it because you paid for the ML in the base cost of the model. Its like a hidden tax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
So is it a good weapon or not by these assertions?

I still imagine why a C:SM or BA list would ever use a ML.

Its a good weapon, and there might be a better one for your unit.
For BA, a ML makes excellent sense. Its just as cheap as SW in dev squads.

For C:SM, its not as hot. You can use it in tactical squads. Otherwise its either overpriced, or there are better options (like LC sternguard)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The sad part about the ML is I'm not even sure how good the flakk missile really is vs flyers. Especially for the cost. It just seems better to bring your own flyers and shoot real weapons with skyfire.

Agreed. Take havocs. Its so expensive to give them skyfire MLs, that its simply cheaper to bring multiple squads with just autocannons. Each squad pumps out 8 shots, which will, on average, land one shot.

In practice, I've found frags to be almost as good against horde armies as heavy bolters are (at about the same cost). Not quite as good, but you wouldn't expect them to be quite as good, given it's a generalist. Plus, if the opponent is getting an armour save against frags, rather than being an Armour 6 gribbly like an ork or gant, the heavy bolter is a lot better.

What really happened with 6th was that the heavy bolter, plasma cannon, and lascannon all became a little better, relative to the missile launcher -- meaning that it's no longer the obvious 'best heavy weapon for the points' in a take-all-comers army. Personally I think the balance between those four is considerably better than it was in 5th. There's no obvious best option. Which is great.

Martel732 wrote:
The sad part about the ML is I'm not even sure how good the flakk missile really is vs flyers. Especially for the cost. It just seems better to bring your own flyers and shoot real weapons with skyfire.

I've played with a list than ran with 3 Havoc squads with 2 MLs (w/ Flakks) and 2 ACs each a couple of games now. Take it from me when I say that volume of fire is still more important, and that my ACs have consistently been the ones to put flyers out of action. The issue is that any half-decent player who knows how to zig-zag his flyers to maximize shooting potential will also most likely be putting his front and side armors to you, i.e. AV12 for most flyers that you'll see (Storm Raven, Valkyries, Vendettas, Heldrakes). That's a 5 to glance, 6 to pen for a Flakk Missile. You're better off bringing your own flyer or finding more weight of fire to shoot down flyers.

Yeah, the S7 on Flakk really doesn't help it out.

Beleive it or not, I see similarites between the scouts and missile launchers.

You think; yeah they might work this time but more often than naught you get bit for taking them.

I just can't see a reason for BA to take them EVER. I feel confidant in my armies capabilites to overcome anything with something else. I just think the ML could b just army based. Play SW, take them. Play anyone, you have other things that could do just as good if not better.

Of course this begs the question as to whether BA devs can earn a spot in the army vs Stormraven, predator, whirlwind, vindicator. I'm thinking it's a big fat no.

I forgot dreadnought, but please. That's a joke.

Martel732 wrote:
So is it a good weapon or not by these assertions? Assuming its good for the space wolves, being good for one unit in one codex is kinda dubious to me.

It's because of the cost. Long Fang missile launchers are cheaper than C:SM Devastator missile launchers, so they're a better weapon. ML Long Fangs are a cheap spammable unit, while the C:SM equivalent costs more per weapon and has fewer weapons in the unit.

 labmouse42 wrote:
BA dev squads also would take lots of MLs -- the few times we actually see lots of BA.

Of course that's because BA also get the cheaper missile launchers.

I'm having a pain in the butt time trying to convert my steel legion missile launchers to something else atm. Sounds like I'm better off grabbing some auto cannons oryou guys think the lascannon is gonna be better? (at least they make las cannon models for steel legion lol)

I like BA Devastators because of the cheap missiles and the relative focus on having infantry units as opposed to armor saturation when playing BA this edition. The ability to get a FNP and have a combat squad in the back with them scoring and benefiting from the (potential) FNP and aegis isn't too bad either.

4 missiles firing at a AV 11 in cover get 0.6 fewer glances than 4 autocannons. It's an improvement but not exciting. ML are widely available and when not priced in an absurd way and available at BS4 they can be relied on to be very helpful in a number of tasks. They are a little less good at one of them now than they used to be, compared to the improvement some other guns received, and don't make for a very good solution to one of the new flying elements of this edition. I'd say they are about as good as they used to be, but now there is more reason to consider alternative weapons.

I also think that as we see more FNP marines and T6 3+ MCs missiles will look more attractive again. I love 48 range. Autocannons are also just not that widely available. 10 points seems right for missile launchers to me 15 is harder to justify because you will usually have a cute option elsewhere for multipurpose str8+ fire. Psyriflemen, ravagers, vendettas and hades autocannons are an example of this.

The BA best bet is still armor. Their infantry is frankly underwhelming now and that's partly why their devs still suck.

I'd generally rather have jumpers than razor or rhino assault squads. I'd also just rather not have a lot of tactical a in BA either. Trying to make more target saturation with boots on the ground work. ACLC predators are pretty good still but aren't really amazing for much but plinking at light transports or other gunboats. It's too bad BA preds aren't any good for blocking anymore. The close combat change sucked.

I guess this is a little off topic though!

Yes, I guess so. I maintain that the ML is garbage for the BA.

You make the mistake of thinking that anything in the BA book is amazing. The auto/las predator is still one of the best things in the book, and by your own admission, its not amazing. Simply put, the BA suck now.

I find myself agreeing with Pretre, multiple frag blasts are useful, especially against hordes, but even against Space Marines who've grouped up, such as in cover. Three or more frag bursts can really ruin a IG or tyranid player's day, and can mess up armies that like to bunch up for shooting or deep striking. As for "dispersion will avoid most of the casualties" I say great! if your 30 man unit is spread out to max cohesion, you're going to be out of cover with at least part of the unit, relatively slow moving, and have a rather anemic shooting and close combat, and a good chance that it'll be all three. It's a rare unit that can spread itself across half the board and still be effective at anything useful. Anyone who says otherwise is either a genius, or more likely, a fool. So yeah, great, disperse your troops, really, that awesome of you. If taking a few missile launchers encourages that, than I'll take missile launchers.


Having said that, I really don't like them as one off weapons, for much of the reasons pointed out. There are better weapons to be toted around one/squad. While the average points cost isn't too high for me to pay, I really only like taking them when I can get three or more. So you'll really only see them in heavy weapons teams, war walkers, and dev squads in the armies I play. I still wish conscripts could take them, at auto cannon prices, and better than a 1/3 chance to hit (not by much I know) and a handy commissar, I could just plaster an area and giggle at all the return fire.

 Mmmpi wrote:
I find myself agreeing with Pretre, multiple frag blasts are useful, especially against hordes, but even against Space Marines who've grouped up, such as in cover. Three or more frag bursts can really ruin a IG or tyranid player's day, and can mess up armies that like to bunch up for shooting or deep striking.

This actually got me thinking. Everyone here has posted more or less sound arguments for why missile launchers are good, decent/"ok"/meh, or bad, but I'm wondering whether it's more of a function of the local meta. This thread has been on my mind pretty recently, and today I observed a game where SMs were bunched tightly together in multiple places because the only available pieces of cover weren't that big - two or so big buildings, with lots of walls around 4" to 5" long. Also, my local meta hasn't much moved on from 5th ed yet, and MSU lists are still quite common. As a result, high AP weapons were still aplenty, and thus hiding in cover was more prevalent. Sure, anyone smart enough will maximize the 2" coherency radius to avoid blast templates, but I could totally envision a few scenarios where missile launchers would've worked really nicely to inflict multiple wounds in bunched-up marines.

Thoughts?

 Enigwolf wrote:
This actually got me thinking. Everyone here has posted more or less sound arguments for why missile launchers are good, decent/"ok"/meh, or bad, but I'm wondering whether it's more of a function of the local meta. Thoughts?

I think we have a Winner!

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I find myself agreeing with Pretre, multiple frag blasts are useful, especially against hordes, but even against Space Marines who've grouped up, such as in cover. Three or more frag bursts can really ruin a IG or tyranid player's day, and can mess up armies that like to bunch up for shooting or deep striking.

This actually got me thinking. Everyone here has posted more or less sound arguments for why missile launchers are good, decent/"ok"/meh, or bad, but I'm wondering whether it's more of a function of the local meta. This thread has been on my mind pretty recently, and today I observed a game where SMs were bunched tightly together in multiple places because the only available pieces of cover weren't that big - two or so big buildings, with lots of walls around 4" to 5" long. Also, my local meta hasn't much moved on from 5th ed yet, and MSU lists are still quite common. As a result, high AP weapons were still aplenty, and thus hiding in cover was more prevalent. Sure, anyone smart enough will maximize the 2" coherency radius to avoid blast templates, but I could totally envision a few scenarios where missile launchers would've worked really nicely to inflict multiple wounds in bunched-up marines.

Thoughts?

I would absolutely agree with your overall point. The Local Meta completely dictates how you play and what is more effective agains certain armies. Marines in cover are surely move vulnerable to lots of shots (whether they be blasts or small arms). I think it all depends on what army you run. IG have a superb selection of weaponry that punish infantry in the open and they have range to go with it. Marines are great hen they're within 24" so the frag blasts might be something they actually need in quantity.

Of course, those frag missiles pale in comparison to what heavy bolters can do -- for five points cheaper, no less!

(Using Long Fangs as an example: 115 points yields 2.22 dead marines, whether in cover or no. To achieve that result with frag missiles, your five frag missiles would have to generate over 13 hits. Of course, you're also spending 25 points more on that squad...)

Of course, those frag missiles pale in comparison to what heavy bolters can do

It all depends on the situation. Yeah, if the target is really spread out a heavy bolter has a chance of getting more hits. On the other hand, if the enemy is clustered up, three missile launchers are more than capable of racking up more hits than three heavy bolters. It all depends on the target, the situation, and the terrain. There is something to be said about forcing your enemy to disperse, possible out of cover, and missiles do that better than many other weapons, certainly better than heavy bolters will. Also unlike h.bolters if you run out of infantry targets, or you're only going to get one model per blast, you can always switch to krak and at least have a chance of hurting light armor, or annoying something heavy.