Greetings folks,

So like a lot of us: I have a plethora of missile launcher armed space marines and not a really good reason to use them. I find that when I'm putting together a devestator squad I'm either going to use melta, lascannon, or perhaps the old heavy-bolter standby. The problem that I see with the launcher isn't the Krak missiles (although they are weaker than all the other dedicated anti-armor) but rather the frag missiles. Honestly, I've never even used the frag missiles because marines tend to have a lot of other really good anti-horde and the frag are just... okay.

So how do we fix that?

My proposed fix is pretty simple: make it so that the frag missile auto hits for d6 str 4 shots. Keep the exact same profile, but simply make it a very long range version of the humble flamer. Think about that for a moment. Suddenly, your devastators have a reason to equip with launchers again! Suddenly, you get what the weapon is (probably) supposed to have: versatility! I don't even think it's OP, because aside from the devastator doctrine you are stuck without AP on the frag missiles anyway.

What do you think?

Basically, by going to auto-hits you are just asking for 25-50% more hits. Hitting on 3+ means 50% more hits, using Signum is a 2+ BS so 25% more hits.

Why not make it a 3d3 weapon or d6+2/3 shots?

Of course, changing to Auto-hit also has knock-on effects with other armies. Now we can have Heavy Weapon Squad Imperial Guard move and auto-hit going from a 5+(because they moved) to auto, so +200% more hits.

Not to mention Cyclone Missile Launchers and Javelin Missile Launchers, and other double/triple missile launcher systems.

Another option: Instead of Heavy d6 for the Frag Missile, make it Assault d6 and drop the range a bit. That means you have a different use case for it. It gets buffed by Tactical Doctrine instead of Devastator, you can move and shoot it easier (even advance and still fire).

I don't get why this would be necessary, rocket launchers are pretty decent in my eyes. You have a good anti-armour weapon that can swap out to anti-horde if necessary.

If I had to suggest a change, I'd give the frag profile ignore cover, but like Kaied said, you'd then have to change all the profiles to fit.

I don't think there's an issue with Frag. Yeah it's gak and unreliable, but that's more an issue with Blast in general. If Blast was buffed it might be more viable.

What I'd rather see improved is Krak Missile (and Lascannon) damage. Change it to D6 minimum 3 damage. Make it more reliable and less swingy.

^I agree with Jarms in that both the Krak and Las need boosts. But also agree that Frag in in need of something. The auto-hit is a pretty neat idea, honestly. I'd also be up for 2D3 rather than D6 shots, and/or a S boost.

I also think a Range boost would be neat. I know it doesn't matter for most games, but conceptually it'd be nice.

I'm not a fan of autohit. Reliability with a 2D3 shots would be better.

Jarms48 wrote:
I don't think there's an issue with Frag. Yeah it's gak and unreliable, but that's more an issue with Blast in general. If Blast was buffed it might be more viable.

What I'd rather see improved is Krak Missile (and Lascannon) damage. Change it to D6 minimum 3 damage. Make it more reliable and less swingy.

Agree with this. When I take a missile launcher, I expect to get a versatile weapon that can meaningfully threaten vehicles and hordes but not as well as more specialized weapons. Right now, the missile launcher is reasonably good at chipping in against gargoyles and guardsmen, but its lack of reliable output against vehicles that makes me nervous. It compares reasonably well to the lascannon (less AP, wounds T8 on a 4+ instead of a 3+), but there's a pretty big gap between it and the multi-melta. The range difference is a factor, but melta weapons feel like they can reliably take a meaningful bite out of the enemy where lascannons and krak missiles are kind of a gamble. Make them Dd6 (min 3), and you eliminate the risk of doing the same damage as a boltgun or heavy bolter.

What chipping away are you doing at Infantry and Gargoyles? Even if you landed all six shots, that's MAYBE 3 dead.

EviscerationPlague wrote:
What chipping away are you doing at Infantry and Gargoyles? Even if you landed all six shots, that's MAYBE 3 dead.

I mean, 3 dead is 30% of a 10-strong unit gone. Frag missiles aren't super impressive at clearing hordes, but as someone else pointed out, you usually have plenty of other small arms fire floating around. So when I need my missiles to kill hordes, I usually don't need them to do the job on their own. When I need my missiles to kill tanks/monsters, on the other hand, I don't necessarily have a ton of spare anti-tank floating around, and the points/slots I used to field those missiles could have gone towards more specialized anti-tank instead.

Basically, I'm okay with taking a versatile weapon that isn't as good at killing tanks as a specialized weapon, but only up to a point. I still need my versatile weapon to be effective enough against tanks to get the job done.

Edit: And admittedly, I'm partially thinking of missile launchers in the context of my craftworlders whose S4 missiles also have AP-1. That extra AP does make a difference.

Wyldhunt wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
What chipping away are you doing at Infantry and Gargoyles? Even if you landed all six shots, that's MAYBE 3 dead.

I mean, 3 dead is 30% of a 10-strong unit gone. Frag missiles aren't super impressive at clearing hordes, but as someone else pointed out, you usually have plenty of other small arms fire floating around. So when I need my missiles to kill hordes, I usually don't need them to do the job on their own. When I need my missiles to kill tanks/monsters, on the other hand, I don't necessarily have a ton of spare anti-tank floating around, and the points/slots I used to field those missiles could have gone towards more specialized anti-tank instead.

Basically, I'm okay with taking a versatile weapon that isn't as good at killing tanks as a specialized weapon, but only up to a point. I still need my versatile weapon to be effective enough against tanks to get the job done.

Edit: And admittedly, I'm partially thinking of missile launchers in the context of my craftworlders whose S4 missiles also have AP-1. That extra AP does make a difference.

Also keep in mind my math gave the benefit of somehow hitting all six shots. In reality it's only 1 or 2 dead.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
What chipping away are you doing at Infantry and Gargoyles? Even if you landed all six shots, that's MAYBE 3 dead.

I mean, 3 dead is 30% of a 10-strong unit gone. Frag missiles aren't super impressive at clearing hordes, but as someone else pointed out, you usually have plenty of other small arms fire floating around. So when I need my missiles to kill hordes, I usually don't need them to do the job on their own. When I need my missiles to kill tanks/monsters, on the other hand, I don't necessarily have a ton of spare anti-tank floating around, and the points/slots I used to field those missiles could have gone towards more specialized anti-tank instead.

Basically, I'm okay with taking a versatile weapon that isn't as good at killing tanks as a specialized weapon, but only up to a point. I still need my versatile weapon to be effective enough against tanks to get the job done.

Edit: And admittedly, I'm partially thinking of missile launchers in the context of my craftworlders whose S4 missiles also have AP-1. That extra AP does make a difference.

Also keep in mind my math gave the benefit of somehow hitting all six shots. In reality it's only 1 or 2 dead.

Sure. I still stand by my points. The blast profile doesn't get used very often, but it's nice to have when you need to finish clearing off an objective or on those rare occassions that you see a big horde unit across the table. One frag missile is basically 3 firstborn rapid firing bolters against that weird 20 strong kabalite warrior blob your friend is trying out.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^I agree with Jarms in that both the Krak and Las need boosts. But also agree that Frag in in need of something. The auto-hit is a pretty neat idea, honestly. I'd also be up for 2D3 rather than D6 shots, and/or a S boost.

Personally, I'd rather see Blast buffed. Something like:
- Minimum Blast triggers on 5 - 10 models. Maximum Blast triggers on 11+.
- Blast works on each D3 or D6, rather than per weapon. D3 minimum Blast is reduced to 2, D6 minimum Blast remains 3.

What this means, for example a 4D3 Blast weapon will now get minimum 8 shots against a unit of 5 - 10 models. Rather than not benefiting from the Blast rule at all, as it's always getting minimum of 4 shots. Now Frag Missiles will always get minimum 3 shots on the largest MSU targets we see, which makes instantly more viable.

Buff hordes so 11+ units are more common and thus the blast rules become more relevant.

Kinda hard to make a blast profile work when its optimal target (large horde units) doesn't exist.

Flakk missiles (an anti-flyer option additional to frag and krak) could be interesting for missile launchers. Or giving them a fixed BS of 2+ (aren't they supposed to be guided?). Or even giving them an option for other specialised warheads, like plasma or melta.

If they ever bring back armour facing, the missile launcher could also take inspiration from the real-life Javelin, and always attack vehicles' rear armour.

And a change to blast rules would be good too. I think the randomness of the D3/D6 system is a problem; it results in huge variability and makes weapons that should be reliable (e.g. flamers) unreliable.

A different system, covered here: essentially, blast weapons would make a number of hit rolls equal to half the model count of the unit they're targeting (rounding up). Or for large blast weapons, equal to the full number of models in the target squad. They'd be capped at a maximum number of attacks; for example, an Assault 6, Blast grenade launcher could only make 6 attacks maximum, even if firing at a huge unit. And there'd still be some randomness given the need to roll hits.

I would advocate for the addition of Flakk Missiles - make it a true all-rounder.

48" Heavy 2 S7 AP-1 D2. Each time an attack is made with this weapon against an AIRCRAFT unit, make 2 hit rolls instead of 1 and add 1 to both those hit rolls

I doubt GW would make it Heavy 2. That’s literally a better autocannon.

Isn't there still a flakk missile strat? The tricky thing about a flakk missile profile is that you have to make it more efficient than a krak missile against planes without also making it more efficient than krak against non-flyer vehicles. And ideally you do that while also making the flakk so much more efficient against flyers that it's worth the extra ink; a flakk profile wouldn't be all that worthwhile if it only did something like 0.25 more damage against planes than the krak missile.

But honestly, I'd be pretty happy if they just made krak min 3 damage or d6 + 2 or whatever. You should be getting a less reliable anti-tank weapon than a lascannon but with the added flexibility of having an anti-horde blast profile for those rare times you need them.

Well could have a tactical marine rule that if they roll a 6 to hit their weapon gets max shots or max damage.

Flakk missiles could be BS2+ vs AIRCRAFT units and ignore Hard to Hit... weaker stats than a Krak, but maybe Heavy D3. Side note, Krak could have a BS buff of their own vs non-FLYER VEHICLE units.

Give frag -1 ap maybe, then krak min 3 damage.

Here's a crazy idea. Don't make it better. Just make it cheaper.

A Missile Launcher would look much more attractive if it was 10 points like a Heavy Bolter rather than 15 points like a Lascannon or Plasma Cannon.

Well that's just silly.

If there’s a cheap but gak faction it shouldn’t be space marines.

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a crazy idea. Don't make it better. Just make it cheaper.

A Missile Launcher would look much more attractive if it was 10 points like a Heavy Bolter rather than 15 points like a Lascannon or Plasma Cannon.

Whilst I absolutely agree this is an option, at this point I don't even think the lascannon is justified at 15 points anymore. Compared to the missile launcher you lose frag, and only gain +1 S and +1 AP over krak. Is that really worth 5 points?

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a crazy idea. Don't make it better. Just make it cheaper.

A Missile Launcher would look much more attractive if it was 10 points like a Heavy Bolter rather than 15 points like a Lascannon or Plasma Cannon.

Make lascannon and plasma cannons more expensive instead. Maybe giving the former higher damage (D3+3). 15 points sounds about right for the current missile launcher in the hands of BS3+ dudes, and the lascannon profile has kinda become obsolete anyway.

I'd change the Missile Launcher to an 'Assault' weapon.

Frag: 1 shot, -1AP (if this hits, 2d3 wounds to models in enemy unit)
Krak: 1 shot, -2AP, 2D3 dmg (if vs vehicle, 2d3+1)

I'd probs half its range too. Now it fills a better role IMO, taken in infantry squads as a frontline, mobile, heavy hitting option.

 Some_Call_Me_Tim wrote:
If there’s a cheap but gak faction it shouldn’t be space marines.

I mean, you're not wrong, but also the current missile launcher rules aren't especially gak. It has fallen slightly behind due to power creep, but it still fulfills its anti-tank and anti-infantry roles reasonably well; just not as well as more specialized weapons. So in theory, making it more points-efficient but leaving its stats unchanged seems like it has merit.

But I'm still probably in favor of just raising its minimum damage somehow (D3 + d3, D2d3, Dd6 min 3, whatever) and maybe making frags AP-1. (I'm perfectly content with aeldari missile launchers' blast profile at AP-1.)

I'd change the Missile Launcher to an 'Assault' weapon.

Frag: 1 shot, -1AP (if this hits, 2d3 wounds to models in enemy unit)
Krak: 1 shot, -2AP, 2D3 dmg (if vs vehicle, 2d3+1)

That strikes me as too much of a departure from its current form. We probably don't need special rules based on target keywords (the bonus damage vs vehicles), no do we need missile launchers to become a weapon that you load and fire from the hip while sprinting. Even for astartes that seems out of character for the weapon. We also probably don't need the frag profile to somehow bypass the Toughness characteristic of the target. Wraithguard probably ought to be harder to harm than eldar guardians. You're pitching a lot of special rules for a weapon that probably just needs a modest stat boost maybe even just a price change.

The profile I think it needs to be relevant at this point in 9.7th edition is :
Frag Assault D6 Blast S4 AP 0 Dmg D3 Ignores cover
Krak Heavy 1 S8 AP -2 Dmg 1+D6 If firing model didn't move, +1 to hit T6+

Flakk Heavy1 S7 AP-2 Dmg D3/vs AIRCRAFT 3+D3 If firing model didn't move, +2 to hit if AIRCRAFT

 Valkyrie wrote:
I don't get why this would be necessary, rocket launchers are pretty decent in my eyes.

It's necessary because missile launchers suck. Frag missiles do pathetic damage, barely more than a krak missile even against fairly weak targets, and krak missiles are just bad lascannons. In pretty much every scenario where you could take a missile launcher you'd rather have a lascannon instead.

Missile launchers suffer from being "jack of all trades, master of none". Their advantage is supposed to be that its a single weapon that is supposedly decently effective against both infantry and vehicles. Whereas if you took a lascannon you would have a weapon that was more effective against tanks but useless against infantry, and if you took a mortar you would have a weapon that is effective against infantry but not against tanks. Problem is that lascannons are already awful at hunting tanks, and the minor stat downgrade on missile launchers makes them considerably less capable to the point of uselessness, and the only advantage of the mortar over the missile launcher is its ability to fire indirectly, so the missile launcher is effectively wedged between two already kinda gakky weapons (mortars have utility to them, but thats not based on their profile, its based on a rule which doesn't make sense to apply to missile launchers) with no room for the missile launchers to really be viable.

You can't improve missile launchers without improving lascannons (GW has started taking steps in this direction but still hasn't committed to the idea that all lascannons should be D6+2) and mortars (which might be kinda OP) first. Otherwise, instead of missile launchers being the "flexible good enough solution" they become a two-in-one combo lascannon mortar, but better.

chaos0xomega wrote:
Missile launchers suffer from being "jack of all trades, master of none".

I don't think that's it. It's more like "jack of one trade, master of none". If missile launchers were genuinely decent against all targets they'd be fine, taking a slight downgrade on the anti-tank profile vs. a lascannon would be justified by having the frag profile. The problem is that in 9th edition's math frag missiles don't work. Once you account for all the RNG failure points you're left with a weapon that is barely better than a single shot that always wounds on a 2+ with good AP, especially in a game where the most common infantry profile is W2 or better and DD6 is a decisive advantage over D1. Against marines a krak missile will do more damage than a frag missile, so you're starting to push into edge case situations before frag has any advantage at all, no matter how slight.

Frag would be more useful if large horde units were viable and common.

But it is never going to be useful on planet Space Marine and other MSU elite infantry.

 Tyran wrote:
Frag would be more useful if large horde units were viable and common.

I doubt it. A space marine frag missile against a 10-man GEQ squad does 1.19 damage, a krak missile (or lascannon) does 0.55 damage. That's a pretty underwhelming advantage even against the best possible frag target and worst possible krak target. And just for fun, a plasma cannon does 1.67 damage against those same GEQs while having vastly better performance against elite infantry.

CadianSgtBob wrote:

 Tyran wrote:
Frag would be more useful if large horde units were viable and common.

I doubt it. A space marine frag missile against a 10-man GEQ squad does 1.19 damage, a krak missile (or lascannon) does 0.55 damage. That's a pretty underwhelming advantage even against the best possible frag target and worst possible krak target. And just for fun, a plasma cannon does 1.67 damage against those same GEQs while having vastly better performance against elite infantry.

Tbf, he did say "large horde units." Against an 11-man GEQ squad, the frag missile does ~1.78 unsaved wounds, so it's roughly keeping pace with the plasma cannon against the frag's preferred target. But then against a rhino, the plasma cannon (overcharged) will do something like 1.489 (ignoring AoC) damage while the krak missile's ~ 1.037 damage. So the plasma cannon does come out ahead mostly due to the krak missile's damage stat. If you made the Damage on the krak missile d6+2, the damage inflicted goes up to ~1.628, which is pretty close to the plasma cannon and less susceptible to rules that reduce Damage by 1. That would also put the krak missile pretty close to the new lascannon's performance against T7 targets (while still leaving the lascannon with the edge in terms of Strength and AP).

Although ultimately, two generalist weapons like the PC and the ML are going to end up with a winner and a loser unless you add in some other factor to give each its own niche.

R&H Missile Launcher HWS, been testing them out. Super fun.
The ability to have the two different profiles on the fly really makes them worth it.

 Blndmage wrote:
R&H Missile Launcher HWS, been testing them out. Super fun.
The ability to have the two different profiles on the fly really makes them worth it.

Fun, until you realize that only one of those profiles does anything and it does everything worse than a lascannon. It's the same problem the grenade launcher has, missile launchers and grenade launchers have two profiles but lascannons and plasma guns are the versatile weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Against an 11-man GEQ squad, the frag missile does ~1.78 unsaved wounds, so it's roughly keeping pace with the plasma cannon against the frag's preferred target.

Yeah, and that's exactly the problem. Against one of the rarest targets in the game, the perfect target for the frag missile, the absolute best it can do is just very slightly better than the generalist weapon.

If you made the Damage on the krak missile d6+2, the damage inflicted goes up to ~1.628, which is pretty close to the plasma cannon and less susceptible to rules that reduce Damage by 1. That would also put the krak missile pretty close to the new lascannon's performance against T7 targets (while still leaving the lascannon with the edge in terms of Strength and AP).

IMO I'd go the other way. Instead of buffing the ML against tanks and elites buff frag missiles to actually be useful. Give them AP -1 or 2D6 shots or whatever, so they're a meaningful option against infantry targets instead of just barely better than a krak missile. Then you have lascannons for killing tanks effectively, plasma cannons for killing tanks and elites reasonably well, and missile launchers for anti-horde with the option to take a decent anti-tank shot if needed.

IMO I'd go the other way. Instead of buffing the ML against tanks and elites buff frag missiles to actually be useful. Give them AP -1 or 2D6 shots or whatever, so they're a meaningful option against infantry targets instead of just barely better than a krak missile. Then you have lascannons for killing tanks effectively, plasma cannons for killing tanks and elites reasonably well, and missile launchers for anti-horde with the option to take a decent anti-tank shot if needed.

That seems reasonable.

Yeah, and that's exactly the problem. Against one of the rarest targets in the game, the perfect target for the frag missile, the absolute best it can do is just very slightly better than the generalist weapon.

I think the issue here is that they're both the generalist weapon. One just does it with a single profile while the other does it with multiple profiles. I still agree with you; just pointing out that the point of the ML isn't for it to be a dedicated anti-horde weapon but to be a generalist weapon that's pretty good against hordes and pretty good against tanks without being the best against either.

why change the missle launcher it flexible and thats its job, you can use it agains armour and infantrie. Shure a lascannon is beter against a vehicle but not against infantrie and a plasma cannon is better against infantrie but not against vehicles and you have a change to cook on off your own men.

 skeleton wrote:
why change the missle launcher it flexible and thats its job, you can use it agains armour and infantrie. Shure a lascannon is beter against a vehicle but not against infantrie and a plasma cannon is better against infantrie but not against vehicles and you have a change to cook on off your own men.

A frag missile, average 3.5 shots, with BS4+, only kills 0.78 Guardsmen. If you change that to BS3+ it only kills 1.04 Guardsmen. It’s useless verse infantry.

Plasma is far better as an all rounder.

I dunno, I don't think you can make frag missiles better without making mortars useless, and I think theres enough traumatized people still out there who don't want to see mortars made better just so that frag missiles can be useful.

Mortars are super cheap and ignore LoS. There's a niche case for those things.

 skeleton wrote:
why change the missle launcher it flexible and thats its job, you can use it agains armour and infantrie. Shure a lascannon is beter against a vehicle but not against infantrie and a plasma cannon is better against infantrie but not against vehicles and you have a change to cook on off your own men.

Because "flexible" and "has two profiles" are not the same thing. The missile launcher has two profiles, the plasma cannon is good against a wide range of targets. And the plasma cannon is better against vehicles, D3 shots at S8/AP-3/D2 is better than a single shot at S8/AP-2/DD6.

As for killing your own models, who cares. Elite armies with plasma tend to have easy access to re-roll 1s, cannon fodder with plasma dies anyway so it doesn't matter if you roll a 1.

chaos0xomega wrote:
I dunno, I don't think you can make frag missiles better without making mortars useless, and I think theres enough traumatized people still out there who don't want to see mortars made better just so that frag missiles can be useful.

Mortars are the best HWS choice right now. They’re the most efficient nLoS weapon they have.

I'd like to go on record as advocating the removal of useless weapons like the ML. It serves no true purpose when Plasma rifles can be spammed (Hellblasters) or Melta/HBs can be spammed which do the job far better in every aspect. The best thing about primaris is that they seemingly deleted a lot of bloat. Grav/MLs/LCs. Not to mention the rediculousness of the melee weapon list.

I'd love for them to go further and do a house cleaning like this for Guard.

It's hard to say Primaris reduces bloat when they add three versions (Assault, Rapid Fire, and Heavy) of nearly every infantry weapon they do add

But the Missile Launcher would be better if they improved the Frag Missile (AP -1 maybe) and managed the rules and unit points values to encourage those larger units that Blast is effective against.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I'd like to go on record as advocating the removal of useless weapons like the ML. It serves no true purpose when Plasma rifles can be spammed (Hellblasters) or Melta/HBs can be spammed which do the job far better in every aspect. The best thing about primaris is that they seemingly deleted a lot of bloat. Grav/MLs/LCs. Not to mention the rediculousness of the melee weapon list.

I'd love for them to go further and do a house cleaning like this for Guard.

To an extent I agree. ML models can just use the Lascannon profile and have lost nothing, as the Frag was THAT bad against infantry.

Frag missile +1 bs and 2d3 shots

Range weapon that explode should be easier to hit!!!!

This gives missiles the niche of easier to hit but horrible armor penetration and low strength.

Also Essentially making it a heavy weapon that is able to move and fire without BS penalty… (alternatively just make krak and frag missiles able to move and fire without penalty)

Since most troop infantry want to move and claim objectives this encourages missile launchers for mobile units.

If instead of trying to up the damage they gave it the ability to "ignores cover" or something in Frag mode, I could see it being slightly less worthless...but then I don't like the idea of every like-style weapon being granted ignores cover....

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If instead of trying to up the damage they gave it the ability to "ignores cover" or something in Frag mode, I could see it being slightly less worthless...but then I don't like the idea of every like-style weapon being granted ignores cover....

Well, there has to be some difference between samey weapons though. Autocannon, Missile Launcher, Plasma Cannon, Lascannon... aren't that different in stats and points costs. Different abilties might be the way to properly differentiate them.

I mean just allow missile launchers to move and fire without penalty.
No increase in damage just allows infantry to score objectives like they are meant to do.

I mean it’s you think of all the Less sophisticated shoulder mounted surface to air missile systems being used by mobile infantry today.

The more advanced systems like javelins take longer but shoot further and more accurately. But for the generic SAM like missile launcher infantry should be able to move pop up from cover and fire.

Again, and I want to stress this, Space Marines aren't the only ones who use ML-like weapons. Do we give the same type of buffs to Ork Rokkits or Chaos Space Marines? No? Then it's bloat for the bloat god to the most bloated faction in the history of 40k. Either scrap it (My hope) or leave it as is.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Again, and I want to stress this, Space Marines aren't the only ones who use ML-like weapons. Do we give the same type of buffs to Ork Rokkits or Chaos Space Marines? No? Then it's bloat for the bloat god to the most bloated faction in the history of 40k. Either scrap it (My hope) or leave it as is.

Ork Rokkits aren't exactly the same weapon, but I don't think anyone would disagree they need their own buff.

I mean last Ed ork rokkits literally could move and fire without penalty and then Gw ruined them and tankbustas by making them hvy and unable to move and fire.


Guard infantry would also benefit from this change as would space marines. I wouldn’t carry this change over to tau but it probably wouldn’t matter much there anyway.

gungo wrote:
I mean last Ed ork rokkits literally could move and fire without penalty and then Gw ruined them and tankbustas by making them hvy and unable to move and fire.

That was definitely an odd move since, as far as I can remember, they were an Assault weapon their entire lives otherwise.

Right, my point was you change "frag" profiles on this one system, how many other systems have "frag" systems? Forget MLs. Now we're talking Frags launchers, Fragstorms, Frag Grenades, Cerberus Launchers, Stickk bombs, etc. We give frag profile weapons AP1, we have to review the cost of half the entries in several codexes for cost balancing, because now, it's better for my DKoK to mass volley grenades than to hope for 6s with Las. Fragstorms become better than Storm Bolters, regular Bolters, and basically, we've broken the mold.

Nope, easier to just chuck MLs on the rubbish pile and make it, AC/LC/PC/HB or go home.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Right, my point was you change "frag" profiles on this one system, how many other systems have "frag" systems? Forget MLs. Now we're talking Frags launchers, Fragstorms, Frag Grenades, Cerberus Launchers, Stickk bombs, etc. We give frag profile weapons AP1, we have to review the cost of half the entries in several codexes for cost balancing, because now, it's better for my DKoK to mass volley grenades than to hope for 6s with Las. Fragstorms become better than Storm Bolters, regular Bolters, and basically, we've broken the mold.

Nope, easier to just chuck MLs on the rubbish pile and make it, AC/LC/PC/HB or go home.

But also the Frag Missile Launcher is launching frag missiles and not frag grenades.

In fact, grenades need a whole different thread LOL

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Right, my point was you change "frag" profiles on this one system, how many other systems have "frag" systems? Forget MLs. Now we're talking Frags launchers, Fragstorms, Frag Grenades, Cerberus Launchers, Stickk bombs, etc. We give frag profile weapons AP1, we have to review the cost of half the entries in several codexes for cost balancing, because now, it's better for my DKoK to mass volley grenades than to hope for 6s with Las. Fragstorms become better than Storm Bolters, regular Bolters, and basically, we've broken the mold.

Nope, easier to just chuck MLs on the rubbish pile and make it, AC/LC/PC/HB or go home.

Those are all literally different weapons with completely different profiles. Some are heavy some assault some rapid fire some str 3, 4, 5… some have ap 0,1, 2.
The only thing in common is frag in name. I’m not even sure what your point is…

My point is that 40k is too bloated as is, and it starts with needlessly redundant models like ML. There is literally zero purpose to taking them. PC, LC, and AC all do the same jobs, but FAR better. MLs are a solution to a problem that never existed. Stop trying to save Gen 1 marines. They need to go extinct.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
My point is that 40k is too bloated as is, and it starts with needlessly redundant models like ML. There is literally zero purpose to taking them. PC, LC, and AC all do the same jobs, but FAR better. MLs are a solution to a problem that never existed. Stop trying to save Gen 1 marines. They need to go extinct.

I'm not saying you're wrong about the ML, just wanted to point out the Frag Missile was different LOL

I get that it's a different weapon, but it's still a multi-profile weapon. Fragstorms can also be krak storms. Frag Grenades can also be Krak Grenades. Anything with an attack option to be "frag mode" would require a review I feel like, or else it's more special treatment for Astartes.

Maybe it's time to reduce the bloat and merge all different, but still samey, weapons into a single profile, like merging all power weapons into a single profile.

Plasma cannons, lascannons, missile launchers, autocannons... can simply be "heavy anti tank weapon". Different aesthetics, same profile.

Heavy bolters would be different, also mortars. But I don't see any point for units such as devastators or AM heavy weapon teams to have multiple weapons that compete for the same role.

At this point lascannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, etc... are just like power sword, power axe and power maul. They're all in the same boat, one weapon is always mathematically better and overshadows all the other options.

I think it’s good having multiple viable choices.
A heavy weapon with ools shooting but low str and low ap
High volume low str low ap requires line of sight
Even a mid str mid ap wpn with 2 shots is okay
A heavy wpn able to move and fire but single shot and reduced str and ap
A hard hitting single shot high ap hvy wpn

Not everyone of these wpns work every unit though. And there is a clear best use for each

 Blackie wrote:
Maybe it's time to reduce the bloat and merge all different, but still samey, weapons into a single profile, like merging all power weapons into a single profile.

Plasma cannons, lascannons, missile launchers, autocannons... can simply be "heavy anti tank weapon". Different aesthetics, same profile.

Heavy bolters would be different, also mortars. But I don't see any point for units such as devastators or AM heavy weapon teams to have multiple weapons that compete for the same role.

At this point lascannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, etc... are just like power sword, power axe and power maul. They're all in the same boat, one weapon is always mathematically better and overshadows all the other options.

I'd argue Plasma Cannons and Autocannons fill particular niches though compared to the ML.

I would rather MLs just get tossed. If you up the S or dam you are invalidating multiple other weapons. You cannot alter the ML and not make other weapons pointless.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I would rather MLs just get tossed. If you up the S or dam you are invalidating multiple other weapons. You cannot alter the ML and not make other weapons pointless.

Eh, maybe you're right. At minimum, until other weapons are fixed, it's too difficult to figure out what place the ML has.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Maybe it's time to reduce the bloat and merge all different, but still samey, weapons into a single profile, like merging all power weapons into a single profile.

Plasma cannons, lascannons, missile launchers, autocannons... can simply be "heavy anti tank weapon". Different aesthetics, same profile.

Heavy bolters would be different, also mortars. But I don't see any point for units such as devastators or AM heavy weapon teams to have multiple weapons that compete for the same role.

At this point lascannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, etc... are just like power sword, power axe and power maul. They're all in the same boat, one weapon is always mathematically better and overshadows all the other options.

I'd argue Plasma Cannons and Autocannons fill particular niches though compared to the ML.

The autocannon is a heavy bolter most of the times, and between missile launchers, plasma cannons and lascannons there isn't much differentiation, except for the dual profile of the missile launcher, they're all anti tank/anti armoured elite weapons, very samey in range, S, AP and D. At least something like the multimelta has its niche having much shorter range.

I'd keep an anti infantry weapon (mortars), anti elite weapon (heavy bolter) and an anti tank weapon (lascannon, autocannon, missile launcher merged into a single profile) for something like the AM HWS. Devastators can have anti elite weapon (heavy bolter and grav cannon merged into a single profile), anti tank weapon (lascannon, missile launcher and plasma cannon merged into a single profile) and short ranged but killier anti tank weapon (multimelta).

There's no point in choosing between 5-6 weapons. Only bloat and the obsession that every bitz has to have its own rules/profile.

 Blackie wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Maybe it's time to reduce the bloat and merge all different, but still samey, weapons into a single profile, like merging all power weapons into a single profile.

Plasma cannons, lascannons, missile launchers, autocannons... can simply be "heavy anti tank weapon". Different aesthetics, same profile.

Heavy bolters would be different, also mortars. But I don't see any point for units such as devastators or AM heavy weapon teams to have multiple weapons that compete for the same role.

At this point lascannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, etc... are just like power sword, power axe and power maul. They're all in the same boat, one weapon is always mathematically better and overshadows all the other options.

I'd argue Plasma Cannons and Autocannons fill particular niches though compared to the ML.

The autocannon is a heavy bolter most of the times, and between missile launchers, plasma cannons and lascannons there isn't much differentiation, except for the dual profile of the missile launcher, they're all anti tank/anti armoured elite weapons, very samey in range, S, AP and D. At least something like the multimelta has its niche having much shorter range.

I'd keep an anti infantry weapon (mortars), anti elite weapon (heavy bolter) and an anti tank weapon (lascannon, autocannon, missile launcher merged into a single profile) for something like the AM HWS. Devastators can have anti elite weapon (heavy bolter and grav cannon merged into a single profile), anti tank weapon (lascannon, missile launcher and plasma cannon merged into a single profile) and short ranged but killier anti tank weapon (multimelta).

There's no point in choosing between 5-6 weapons. Only bloat and the obsession that every bitz has to have its own rules/profile.

I FIND YOUR LACK OF BLOAT DISTURBING, ADMEERAL. THERE IS NO POWER IN THE UNIVERSE GREATER THAN THE POWER OF THE BLOAT.
/s

I fully expect GW to just do the same thing about it as SF does about their Homeless. Ignore it to death, and then pass a rule making it a legends weapon.

Heavy bolter.. 36 hvy 4, str 5 ap -1 dam 1
Autocannon…48 hvy 2, str7 ap -2 dam 2
Lascannon ..60 hvy 1, str9, ap-4 dam 2d3
Plasma…36 hvy d3, str7 ap-3 dam1 (blast)
Plasma(charge)36 hvy d3, str8 ap-3 d2 (blast)
Missile(frag)48 hvyd6, str4 ap- d1(move &fire, blast)
Missile(krak)48 hvy1, str8 ap-2 d6(move &fire)
Motar 48 hvy2d3, str4 ap- d1 (out of line sight, blast)

There is room for all different types and just because your 1 unit preferred 1 type over the other or the meta changes and prefers 1 type over the other doesn’t mean they are bad… right now lots of units have high saves, AoC, dam reductions and ap 1-2 and 2 dam weapons aren’t that good.

gungo wrote:
Heavy bolter.. 36 hvy 4, str 5 ap -1 dam 1
Autocannon…48 hvy 2, str7 ap -2 dam 2
Lascannon ..60 hvy 1, str9, ap-4 dam 2d3
Plasma…36 hvy d3, str7 ap-3 dam1 (blast)
Plasma(charge)36 hvy d3, str8 ap-3 d2 (blast)
Missile(frag)48 hvyd6, str4 ap- d1(move &fire, blast)
Missile(krak)48 hvy1, str8 ap-2 d6(move &fire)
Motar 48 hvy2d3, str4 ap- d1 (out of line sight, blast)

There is room for all different types and just because your 1 unit preferred 1 type over the other or the meta changes and prefers 1 type over the other doesn’t mean they are bad… right now lots of units have high saves, AoC, dam reductions and ap 1-2 and 2 dam weapons aren’t that good.

I thought we were discussing the Marine version. But here goes. The fact that IG shoot at WS4+ makes the ML even more worthless. You want lots of shooting, with high AP, not less. 1 shot per HWT/HWS is not valuable considering the other, BETTER options. For marines, they shoot twice, can shoot at 2+ with the signum and cherub, and have numerous chapter buffs on specific weapons. For instance, Salamander Devestators will ALWAYS do more damage with MMs than with MLs. I hate to sound like CSB but you have to see, the current slate of bloat in all the Imperial factions is getting out of hand. We need to throw away some of our old toys.

Better yet, remove the Primaris cash cow. That will reduce the SM ranged weapons list down from 4.5 PAGES to 2? There's so much Primaris bloat in the Space Marine book, Nurgle is getting aroused.

I mean, I don't mind the Primaris line, I think they are mostly more in line with Space Marines asthetic than the older models were. I want to see size difference on the table between Marines and IG squads. I want their guns to be massive. I want the Primaris look. It's supposed to be huge and over the top. It's perfect for 40k.

I'm more interested in the primaris and firstborn datasheets just getting consolidated together. We don't need intercessors and tacticals; we can just have a single datasheet that represents both. At which point, primaris just become the truescale marines they were probably meant to be with a little extra fluff attached that you can embrace or disregard at your discretion.

It wouldn't be the end of the world to consolidate some of the weapon profiles, but I'm not sure doing so would accomplish much either. I definitely wouldn't go so far as to lump all the anti-tank guns together, and the missile launcher doesn't jump out at me as being in need of consolidation. The various super special bolters, the assault cannon/H. Bolter, and maaaybe power weapons could all probably stand to be consolidated before the ML. Alternatively, you could just allow some weapons to have identical stats if that's really what serves the game best. That way, you'd still have the option to make them more distinctive later on, and you could make one or the other available to certain strats, buffs, platforms, etc.

I don't see an inherent upside to merging most weapons together other than making the armory section quicker to skim through.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm more interested in the primaris and firstborn datasheets just getting consolidated together. We don't need intercessors and tacticals; we can just have a single datasheet that represents both.

Completely agree. Intercessors having options for Special and Heavy weapons is not broken, and gives more feel for the eliteness of Marines.

Grav Weapons are now entirely pointless given most chapters Devestators with HBs. Or the Heavy Intercessors with their stupid SUPER heavy Bolters....Plasma cannons are now literally baked into Hellblasters with their HEAVY variant plasma rifles. They're PCs in all but name. So they are pointless to keep around. Flak and Krak MLs are equally worthless given Heavy Intecessors HB and the EradicatorsMulti-Meltas. Eliminators with Las-Fusil's are basically now the new LCs Devestator squads, and better at it for the cost.

The entire SM base codex is a sterling example of wasted paper. Just make the oldies Legends, and go full primaris.

The thing that bothers me to no end is that I like the Primaris sculpts. It was how they were rolled out (fluff wise) and restricted from Rhinos, etc, that soured me permanently. Because they should have been "Hey look at these great true scale models you can buy to upgrade your tactical squads" I'm sure they still would have sold like fried chicken at a county fair. For the record I don't own any Primaris anything and never will. Making my Green Wing into Legends would remove my ability to use my Dark Angels outside of specialist detachments. Also how int he bleep are Dark Angles so easily down with this Primaris stuff, god the fluff.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


The entire SM base codex is a sterling example of wasted paper. Just make the oldies Legends, and go full primaris.

It could work for vanilla marines, maybe. Former standalone chapters (SW, DA, BA) have tons of units with no primaris counterpart. A SW army with no TWC, wulfen, etc... is no SW army, just a SM army painted in light blue.

It would make sense to squat primaris rather than firstborn then, or to relegate them into legends or something like FW books. Primaris didn't add anything to the game, or even to SM. Keep them for collectors, that's where they belong.

Gibblets wrote:The thing that bothers me to no end is that I like the Primaris sculpts. It was how they were rolled out (fluff wise) and restricted from Rhinos, etc, that soured me permanently. Because they should have been "Hey look at these great true scale models you can buy to upgrade your tactical squads" I'm sure they still would have sold like fried chicken at a county fair. For the record I don't own any Primaris anything and never will. Making my Green Wing into Legends would remove my ability to use my Dark Angels outside of specialist detachments. Also how int he bleep are Dark Angles so easily down with this Primaris stuff, god the fluff.

I'm not as sour on primaris as you are (I'm doing a primaris AL army and working some other primaris into my Indomitus Crusade army), but I largely agree. Primaris models are cool. I like the "tacticool" gear they have. If they'd just been introduced as truescale marines with a couple new optional toys, that would have been fair enough. I get that the size difference might be awkward, but GW doesn't seem to mind weird scale disparities for my new/old sisters, eldar, or chaos marines. I don't begrudge anyone who likes the primaris fluff, but personally it just feels really forced to me.

Regarding DA, I was under the impression that there was a novel or two all about the DA initially not being comfortable with bringing primaris into the fold?

Blackie wrote:It could work for vanilla marines, maybe. Former standalone chapters (SW, DA, BA) have tons of units with no primaris counterpart. A SW army with no TWC, wulfen, etc... is no SW army, just a SM army painted in light blue.

Rolling primaris/firstborn together doesn't have to mean getting rid of the unique units. You can still have TWC and wulfen even if you lump grey hunters and intercessors together into the same datasheet.

It would make sense to squat primaris rather than firstborn then, or to relegate them into legends or something like FW books. Primaris didn't add anything to the game, or even to SM. Keep them for collectors, that's where they belong.

Again, you can just kind of lump them into the same datasheets as the non-primaris. A tactical marine is almost identical to an intercessor at this point. Just officially fuse them together. So people can use primaris or firstborn models as they prefer with both using the datasheets. You'd have to do some kitbashing if you wanted firstborn interceptors or what have you, but that's not a big deal. And if you simply don't like the new units regardless of whether or not they're fluffed as being primaris, just don't use them. Just like people who don't like wulfen just don't take them.

Literally the only ones that would have anything beyond a lore issue with making them all the same thing, are hardcore modelers or competitive gamers MAYBE. Everyone else is strictly arguing against the fluff. There is zero reason to argue against Primaris existing as an update to the oldest faction in 40k.

They need to give missile launchers a +1 to ballistic skill of shooter for missile tracking. Then they would be better

So then Marines are firing on a 2+?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So then Marines are firing on a 2+?

If they're standing still with the ML, why not?

Yes. 2+ with krak missiles. In older editions they had a targeter for +1 to hit.

This way it’s not as strong as las cannons but it does have higher chance of hitting. We have missiles that can track tanks now. So why not? Maybe even pay a CP for a tank buster missile that can do top attack to hit the top armor and does extra damage.

In older editions you have way more missile types to choose from. Plasma. Anti plant. ( for removing organic terrain). So missile launchers should have a lot of versatility. just two types of missiles is lame. And frag missiles just suck.

Quoting myself because I still think it's relevant:

"The profile I think it needs to be relevant at this point in 9.7th edition is :
Frag Assault D6 Blast S4 AP 0 Dmg D3 Ignores cover
Krak Heavy 1 S8 AP -2 Dmg 1+D6 If firing model didn't move, +1 to hit T6+

Flakk Heavy1 S7 AP-2 Dmg D3/vs AIRCRAFT 3+D3 If firing model didn't move, +2 to hit if AIRCRAFT "

The frag blast being DD3 is the worst suggestion I've seen.

 Gibblets wrote:
Quoting myself because I still think it's relevant:

"The profile I think it needs to be relevant at this point in 9.7th edition is :
Frag Assault D6 Blast S4 AP 0 Dmg D3 Ignores cover
Krak Heavy 1 S8 AP -2 Dmg 1+D6 If firing model didn't move, +1 to hit T6+

Flakk Heavy1 S7 AP-2 Dmg D3/vs AIRCRAFT 3+D3 If firing model didn't move, +2 to hit if AIRCRAFT "

I might be missing something, but it doesn't sing to me. The frag profile looks like it's tweaked to specifically kill marines better (Dmg D3), which feels gamey and not particularly lore appropriate. I'm also not sure how I feel about frags ignoring cover. It's a direct shot missile, right? Not something with a programmable arc? Seems like exactly the sort of weapon you'd want to hug cover against, but I acknowledge that the rule helps it against hordes. Also, I know averages are a thing, but potentially inflicting 18 damage with a single frag missile feels odd. But maybe it would work out in practice.

Tying the to-hit modifier to the target's Toughness seems odd now that keywords exist. Your goal is to make it better at hitting tanks and monsters, right? Why not just give the bonus versus that keyword so that you don't also buff it against grotesques standing near a haemonculus or against Salamander gravis characters. (Salamanders still have a +1T WL trait, right?) I think I kind of like the idea of trading movement for a +1 to hit.

 Gibblets wrote:
Quoting myself because I still think it's relevant:

"The profile I think it needs to be relevant at this point in 9.7th edition is :
Frag Assault D6 Blast S4 AP 0 Dmg D3 Ignores cover
Krak Heavy 1 S8 AP -2 Dmg 1+D6 If firing model didn't move, +1 to hit T6+

Flakk Heavy1 S7 AP-2 Dmg D3/vs AIRCRAFT 3+D3 If firing model didn't move, +2 to hit if AIRCRAFT "

This seems a bit overboard. I agree the Frag Missile profile is lackluster, but D3 and Ignores Cover is way too much. The way to protect yourself from fragmentation explosives is to hide, so Ignore Cover is the wrong move.

I would think something like:

Frag Missile: Heavy D6 S4 AP 0 D 1, Blast, Attacks with this weapon gain a +1 to Hit

Krak Missile: Heavy 1 S8 AP -2 Dmg D6

Flak Missile: Heavy 1 S7 AP -1 Dmg D3, attacks with the weapon gain +1 to Hit targets that Fly. Each time a successful wound roll is made for an attack with this weapon, an Aircraft target suffers D3 mortal wounds in addition to any other damage.

My reasons are the Krak Missile profile is OK if the other profiles are equally useful against other targets. The Frag Missile is lackluster under the current rules, but the point of explosive shrapnel is it is easier to hit with. The Flak profiles needs to negate Hard to Hit for Aircraft, but doesn't need to be magically more accurate that other attacks. However, a solid hit with a Flak weapon is a nightmare for Aircraft, hence Mortal Wounds.

The Frag profile on a ML would hit harder than a Custodes with an Axe, yeah, no.

Hate to keep harping on this, but not Every weapon needs to be able to be the best thing ever. Please stop with the ever increasing power creep. What would be the point of Heavy Bolters if a frag profile does better damage? What is the point of LC if Krak do better damage? What is the point of Melta? Stop with the silliness. Just legends it and lets get back to nerfing Orks.

/s

 Wyldhunt wrote:

--

Regarding DA, I was under the impression that there was a novel or two all about the DA initially not being comfortable with bringing primaris into the fold?

Yes, the Dark Angels / Tau book "War of Secrets" is about a freshman class of Primaris getting hazed by the veteran upper classmen to learn their place. Unfortunately one prank is taken too far when a hotshot Primaris rolls a 1 on his plasmagun. Was there foul play? It's a secret...

Back on topic, I'm with others here that giving a bonus to-hit with the frag missiles is the way to go, but I'd rather see ALL blast weapons get that bonus against hordes.
From the Buff the blast rule thread:
Blast weapons give +1 to-hit per model in the target unit. Coupled with heavy weapon's -1, blast weapons would become the anti-horde weapons but would be less effective against single targets.
Also, I would give krak missiles +1 to-hit VEHICLE keywords.

Edit: I also like I_am_a_Spoon's idea: having the number of shots be tied to the number of models in a target unit, capped at the old maximum. Example: Frag missiles D6 shots becomes 6 against a 10 model unit, or 5 to make it 1:2 but I don't think it's necessary...

I'd prob make the blast be AP -1, and make the krak missile Damage 3. Something I'd love to see in general is to have blast weapons be more powerful, but be limited to a max number of attacks of the models in the target unit (at the time the attack is allocated). Also make Multimeltas Blast.

I think this may have been suggested at some point, but I was thinking about a system of weapon/target keywords earlier (ie. a Lascannon has <ANTI-TANK>, which would be defined as "+1 to [hit or wound] targets with the <VEHICLE> keyword"). It wouldn't be a directed at Missile Launchers specifically, but if most weapons only had 0-1 "Preferred target" keywords, that would indirectly buff the Missile Launcher (and Grenade Launcher, and anything else that had a choice of weapon profile) since the Missile Launcher would have two - one anti-infantry for the Frag round, one anti-tank for the Krak round.

I don't want squads of 60p Infantry blobs launching hordes of AT Krak rounds at my 400 point Repulsor. That's not exactly fair. No, AT should be limited to actual AT weapons. LasCannons, Meltas, other tank shooting, etc. If we start giving AT to everything, than where does it stop? A Custodes can literally punch a hole through the armor of a "tank" does that mean a Custodes is naturally a AT weapon? What about a Assault Marine with a Thunder Hammer? Stalker bolt rifles in the right hands has better AP than a LR Tank shot. Do we make bolter rifles AT?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I don't want squads of 60p Infantry blobs launching hordes of AT Krak rounds at my 400 point Repulsor. That's not exactly fair. No, AT should be limited to actual AT weapons. LasCannons, Meltas, other tank shooting, etc. If we start giving AT to everything, than where does it stop? A Custodes can literally punch a hole through the armor of a "tank" does that mean a Custodes is naturally a AT weapon? What about a Assault Marine with a Thunder Hammer? Stalker bolt rifles in the right hands has better AP than a LR Tank shot. Do we make bolter rifles AT?

Hi, Fezz. Was that in response to someone in particular or just a general sentiment? Also, I seem to be missing something because I can't find a way to make a repulsor more than 300 points in Battlescribe. And are you referring to guard infantry squads here?

At 60 points apiece, you'd get 5 squads of 10 guardsmen with a total of 5 krak missiles per turn. So 2 normal hits and one to-hit roll of 6 that automatically wounds. A repulsor is T8, so those 2 normal hits become 1 normal wound plus the auto wound. At AP-2 (AoC makes it functionally AP-1), the repulsor will pass half of its saves meaning that a single wound gets through. That single unsaved wound would do 3.5 damage with the current rules. 300 points of units doing 3.5 damage to a tank with anti-tank weapons doesn't seem all that impressive. Make krak missiles a flat 3 damage like Hecaton suggested, and that damage actually goes down to just 3.

If you incorporate one of the suggestions that gives them +1 to-hit against tanks, you're looking at 3.333 hits, one of which probably auto-wounds, so we'll be generous and say 2.333 normal hits and 1 auto-wounding hit. Those 2.333 normal hits turn into 1.1665 wounds +1 from the autowound. Which the repulsor will save half of, so 2.1665/2 = 1.08325 unsaved wounds. Which at Damage d6 would be about 3.791375 damage. So less than a quarter of your repulsor's 16 Wounds meaning that it would take these buffed krak missiles 5 turns of average shooting to kill the repulsor you're worried about. Take it a step farther and make the kraks Damage d3+3 (average 4.5), and those buffed, sometimes auto-wounding krak missiles do 4.874625 damage.

So to reiterate, even if guard infantry squads keep their auto-wounding rule and their free wargear rule, and if we give krak missiles +1 to-hit if they hold still or target vehicles or whatever, AND if we up their damage to 3+d3, you'd still be looking at taking less than 1/3rd of your repulsor's health in damage from 300 points worth of guard infantry squad krak missiles. Which doesn't sound very scary to me. Maybe I misunderstood you? What is it exactly that you're concerned about?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Hate to keep harping on this, but not Every weapon needs to be able to be the best thing ever. Please stop with the ever increasing power creep.

Agreed. But also you can make the missile launcher a bit better against guardsmen without ousting the heavy bolter, and you can make it a bit better against tanks without overshadowing the lascannon. And you could even make it roughly as good as both of those weapons against both of those targets if you really wanted to; you'd just have to make it more expensive than those weapons as well. (Plus a little extra for the flexibility.)

Quick note-d3+3 averages to 5 damage, not 4.5.

Also, a guard squad can have a Grenade launcher AND a ML. That's two krak profiles. Which is what I was getting at. Not everything needs to be AT. Some things have to just be not as good. Those things can be reduced cost. However seeing as how all guard options are free right now, it makes zero sense to actually "reduce the cost" of one over the other.

Here is an actual suggestion:

Delete the ML from the codex, and roll it into the Mortar. Give the mortar the ability to fire Krak rounds, or Frag rounds. If it fires Krak, it gets 1 S8 shot at AP2 D3+1. If it fires Frag, it gets D6 shots at S4 AP0 D1.

Done. We've removed bloat from useless weapons, and made the Mortar now significantly more useful.

JNAProductions wrote:Quick note-d3+3 averages to 5 damage, not 4.5.

Good catch. My bad. My brain reached for 3.5 being the average on d6 and got confused.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:Also, a guard squad can have a Grenade launcher AND a ML. That's two krak profiles. Which is what I was getting at. Not everything needs to be AT.

Apologies. I'm really not trying to be dense here. A krak grenade would still be missing half the time, would wound our hypothetical repulsor on 5's, only get through the repulsor's saves 1/3rd of the time, and would then do 2 damage. So while the krak grenade is trying to be the "anti tank grenade", it's not actually very good anti-tank at the moment despite having "krak" in the name. You could rename lasguns "krakblasters," but it wouldn't make them into effective anti-tank weapons.

Your position as I understand it is:
* You don't want to make MLs better at anti tank.
* ^The reason for this is that guard infantry squads can also take grenade launchers which have an "anti-tank" profile. (But not really because krak grenades are bad at anti-tank.)
* ^The reason you're worried about the krak grenade launcher contributing to anti-tank is that the krak profile has "krak" in the name despite not being mechanically similar to krak missiles?

Which obviously doesn't make sense, so I assume I have to be misunderstanding something.

Some things have to just be not as good.

Right. For instance, a krak missile can be less good at anti-tank than a lascannon. However, that can still be true even if we make the krak missile better than it currently is. There's room between where the krak missile is now and where the lascannon is now.

Those things can be reduced cost. However seeing as how all guard options are free right now, it makes zero sense to actually "reduce the cost" of one over the other.

That's a fair point. Free wargear makes things weird. Although the missile launcher is available on a lot of platforms, and I'd rather not base balance decisions for the entire game on this one unit's bandaid patch rule.

Here is an actual suggestion:

Delete the ML from the codex, and roll it into the Mortar. Give the mortar the ability to fire Krak rounds, or Frag rounds. If it fires Krak, it gets 1 S8 shot at AP2 D3+1. If it fires Frag, it gets D6 shots at S4 AP0 D1.

Done. We've removed bloat from useless weapons, and made the Mortar now significantly more useful.

So your pitch has two main parts here:
A. You're proposing a buff to the krak missile here which I'm all for but seems contrary to your own concerns about having MLs going after your repulsor.
B. You're proposing combining it wiht the mortar. Would the mortar retain its indirect fire? If not, then I worry about losing an interesting option from the game. If it does retain its indirect fire, then you're making the krak profile even stronger, which again seems contrary to the concerns you were expressing before.

I'm just having trouble figuring out what it is you're trying to say. Are you fine with improving krak missiles but (separately) just want there to be fewer weapon profiles in general? Is the use of the word "krak" in "krak grenade" bugging you?

Fluff police here, wee woo wee woo!

Missile launchers make sense as an anti-tank weapon, it's grenade launchers that don't. GL's are anti-personnel weapons and I don't think loading one with high-explosive grenades would make it anti-tank. They'd be effective against LAV's but wouldn't be able to hit a tank's weak spot reliably.

IMO, grenade launchers should replace their krak grenades with smoke grenades or something.
Infantry could use krak handgrenades (do they have those?) as the sticky HE grenades you would place by hand on a tank's weak point.

So for krak missiles, I think they should be +1 to-hit vehicles (and monsters?) since they are guided, -1 to-hit infantry and characters, and keep its AP because handheld anti-tank launchers are armor-penetrating high explosive by design. Would like to see the damage flattened to 2d3 as well.

And mortars, I suppose they should be effective anti-tank weapons even though I got no such thing in Battlefield 4.
But IMO mortars should also be -1 to hit since they are indirect...

 kingpbjames wrote:

IMO, grenade launchers should replace their krak grenades with smoke grenades or something.

Yeah. There was a discussion not so long ago in the General section about what to do with grenades/grenade launchers. Some of the more interesting ideas involved using them to put down smoke clouds or some other effect. It's probably more complicated than it needs to be, but it's interesting.

Infantry could use krak handgrenades (do they have those?) as the sticky HE grenades you would place by hand on a tank's weak point.

They definitely exist in-universe. Krak grenades are often described as being "clamped" into position. I'm not sure if that refers to an actual clamp or just a magnetic clamp, but they certain exist. In previous editions, it was harder to stick a krak grenade on a walker than on a tank because the walker was assumed to be trying to fight you while you attempted to clamp the grenade on.

So for krak missiles, I think they should be +1 to-hit vehicles (and monsters?) since they are guided, -1 to-hit infantry and characters, and keep its AP because handheld anti-tank launchers are armor-penetrating high explosive by design. Would like to see the damage flattened to 2d3 as well.

Not opposed to some sort of +1 to hit, but are 40k missile launchers guided? I'm not sure I've ever seen confirmation one way or the other. I guess they do have those little targeter bits on them. -1 to hit infantry/characters seems unnecessary. Going after small infantry is a waste of a krak missile (usually). Going after chonky infantry is a pretty decent use for a weapon that we're talking about needing a buff, so nerfing it against one of its better targets is counter-productive. "Character" is a keyword that could go on any sort of unit. I'm not sure a hive tyrant needs to ignore the +1 to hit vs monsters.

And mortars, I suppose they should be effective anti-tank weapons even though I got no such thing in Battlefield 4.
But IMO mortars should also be -1 to hit since they are indirect...

Easiest way to do that is to just delete the sentence saying guard get to ignore the BS penalty when firing indirectly.

I always figured that the krak grenades from GL's/Mk 1 Terran-pattern Shoulder-mounted Rotary Projectile Launchers were more akin to World-War-era anti-tank grenades or rifle grenades - something you would, yes, only really use against light vehicles or monstrous creatures (barring desperation or ambushes or something), but which would be more effective than a frag grenade at actually damaging them.

I think some units do still get access to krak grenades as actual grenades (at least, Waha mentions them in a few datasheets that don't have GLs of some kind).

I don't think that MLs are explicitly guided. Hunter-Killers are, but I think regular krak missiles are either dumbfire or of limited guidance (or perhaps just handwaved as "guided, yes, but your opponent also has countermeasures or something").

Mortars, though...it made some sense to have them be light AT back when AV was a thing, since indirect sometimes got "roll to hit against side armor to represent hitting top armor", but I'm not sure it would make sense to give them any special AT bonus now.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

There was a discussion not so long ago in the General section about what to do with grenades/grenade launchers ... ideas involved using them to put down smoke clouds or some other effect.

Smoke grenades for cover/concealment or to blind your enemy. Could use a blast template as temporary terrain or just copy the pop smoke rule. I'll try it next time I play.

-1 to hit infantry/characters (with a krak missile) seems unnecessary. Going after small infantry is a waste of a krak missile (usually). Going after chonky infantry is a pretty decent use for a weapon that we're talking about needing a buff, so nerfing it against one of its better targets is counter-productive. "Character" is a keyword that could go on any sort of unit. I'm not sure a hive tyrant needs to ignore the +1 to hit vs monsters.

You're right, I just didn't really want to give krak missiles +1 to-hit vehicles without giving it to other faction's AT missiles, and then we get back to pondering if all vehicles should just be +1 to-hit but not skimmers or bikes...

But IMO mortars should also be -1 to hit since they are indirect...

Easiest way to do that is to just delete the sentence saying guard get to ignore the BS penalty when firing indirectly.

I'm in favor. Stuff like that should be reserved for elites or strategems or something, not standard mortar teams.

 waefre_1 wrote:

I don't think that MLs are explicitly guided. Hunter-Killers are, but I think regular krak missiles are either dumbfire or of limited guidance...

I thought I remember someone bringing up a quote about krak missiles being guided by their machine spirit, but maybe it was the HK missile. I suppose it makes sense that krak missiles are standard issue unguided launchers.

So as for the topic, I think the missile launcher could use a small buff like changing damage from 1d6 to 2d3 but would benefit most by giving it space to fill its role. Grenade Launcher could trade krak grenades for smokes to make it a utility weapon, mortars are already indirect making them mobile/light artillery, and that leaves the lascannon. Is the ML a budget LC that can shoot frag rockets in a pinch? Should the LC be changed or is that fine?

I feel like the ML just needs a flat damage profile and not random. Then again, I'm tired of random damage for weapons ANYWAY but that's a debate for another day.

I feel like ML should be more consistent damage due to the fact it's an explosive. The Lascannon should have higher potential damage output because it's a frickin' laser beam. More 'direct/concentrated' beam that can rip right through the target it's aimed at upon direct hit but is also 'easier' to dodge due to it being, well, a straight laser and not a kaboom ('Simulated' by low damage roll that gives the illusion of a glancing hit as opposed to a 6 which would be a direct hit).

I dunno. I like the fact the ML can fire a frag to have multi purpose but I don't feel like the main reason you take it should be 'lascannon's little brother' stat profile. I really think a static damage value alone would help set it apart. It's already lower S and Ap than the Las so why not give it the flat damage to make it worth using. Las will still be more consistent at getting damage through with superior S and AP but you gamble on getting big damage or lower damage due to the randomness of a D6 toss?

Melevolence wrote:

I feel like ML should be more consistent damage due to the fact it's an explosive. The Lascannon should have higher potential damage output because it's a frickin' laser beam. More 'direct/concentrated' beam that can rip right through the target it's aimed at upon direct hit but is also 'easier' to dodge due to it being, well, a straight laser and not a kaboom ('Simulated' by low damage roll that gives the illusion of a glancing hit as opposed to a 6 which would be a direct hit).
Las will still be more consistent at getting damage through with superior S and AP but you gamble on getting big damage or lower damage due to the randomness of a D6 toss?

Makes sense to me. All in favor say "aye."
AYE

Not sure what the the random damage on explosives is supposed to represent. Explosions are great big balls of fire and force. If you're in it you're in it.

Well, explosions are pretty chaotic - the explosive doesn't burn instantly (which can change how the blast propagates), shrapnel doesn't always go exactly where its intended, there might be impurities or structural weaknesses in the casing that cause the blast to vent harmlessly away from the target, the charge might fail entirely, even if the thing goes off exactly to spec the shrapnel might just ding your leg or knock the radio off the wall rather than putting a hole in your chest/the gunner's chest/the gun...basically, you're right that you're in the blast radius if you're in the blast radius, but that doesn't mean your're getting the exact same effect as the poor schlub standing next to you, and I'd assume random damage was chosen as a means to represent that.

(Full disclosure - I have no expertise in the above, I just learnt things through book readin' and whatnot)

 waefre_1 wrote:
Well, explosions are pretty chaotic - the explosive doesn't burn instantly (which can change how the blast propagates), shrapnel doesn't always go exactly where its intended, there might be impurities or structural weaknesses in the casing that cause the blast to vent harmlessly away from the target, the charge might fail entirely, even if the thing goes off exactly to spec the shrapnel might just ding your leg or knock the radio off the wall...)

The krak grenade is a high explosive like TNT or C4, although it's described as having a highly dense but small blast radius. You're thinking of a frag grenade which is a shrapnel bomb. That's why frags in 40k have a random chance to hit, representing the shrapnel. Da krak has only one chance to hit, representing the small blast radius, but whatever's in it would suffer tremendous damage.
I'd be fine with 2d3 damage but I'd understand making it a flat 4 to cut down on rolling. Seems high though...

Well Lascannons should be D3+3 to begin with. Krak getting a straight D3 and then some other buff to Frag would be reasonable.

D3 for Krak missiles would be a downgrade. Krak missiles have always been a step under Lascannons. With D3+3 Lascannons; Krak missiles should be D6.

Tygre wrote:
D3 for Krak missiles would be a downgrade. Krak missiles have always been a step under Lascannons. With D3+3 Lascannons; Krak missiles should be D6.

100% not. Consistent D3 means you'll have a preferable target compared to Dd6 being wasted due to bad rolls. I'd rather take a weapon doing the same damage than randumb.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Tygre wrote:
D3 for Krak missiles would be a downgrade. Krak missiles have always been a step under Lascannons. With D3+3 Lascannons; Krak missiles should be D6.

100% not. Consistent D3 means you'll have a preferable target compared to Dd6 being wasted due to bad rolls. I'd rather take a weapon doing the same damage than randumb.

Getting rid of random damage is one thing but Damage3 is too low. The average of a D6 is 3.5, so a straight downgrade there. It will guarantee that low level Marine characters need at lest 2 hits through there armour. Marines are not supposed to be that tough. Krak is a shaped charge warhead. It is basically a 40k bazooka. At least make it Damage 4. That would make it one step below Lascannons in Damage (D3+3 average 5), Strength, and AP.

Speaking as someone who uses both reaper launchers (D3) and aeldari missile launchers (Dd6), both are fine, but the chance for a damage spike is a big deal. If I manage to roll box cars on my damage, I might kill my main target sooner than expected and thus free up my remaining missile launcher units to go after my next target.

I like the idea of Dd6 minimum 3 (so treat rolls of 1 and 2 as 3) so that you'll never do a frustratingly low amount of damage, but you also aren't denying yourself the chance to spike your damage. Though I'm not sure how the math on Dd6 min 3 compares to D3+d3 (the new lascannon stats.)

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Speaking as someone who uses both reaper launchers (D3) and aeldari missile launchers (Dd6), both are fine, but the chance for a damage spike is a big deal. If I manage to roll box cars on my damage, I might kill my main target sooner than expected and thus free up my remaining missile launcher units to go after my next target.

I like the idea of Dd6 minimum 3 (so treat rolls of 1 and 2 as 3) so that you'll never do a frustratingly low amount of damage, but you also aren't denying yourself the chance to spike your damage. Though I'm not sure how the math on Dd6 min 3 compares to D3+d3 (the new lascannon stats.)

Average of 4 versus 5.
But a much higher chance of minimum damage, since it happens half the time.

Here's a simple Anydice link.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Speaking as someone who uses both reaper launchers (D3) and aeldari missile launchers (Dd6), both are fine, but the chance for a damage spike is a big deal. If I manage to roll box cars on my damage, I might kill my main target sooner than expected and thus free up my remaining missile launcher units to go after my next target.

I like the idea of Dd6 minimum 3 (so treat rolls of 1 and 2 as 3) so that you'll never do a frustratingly low amount of damage, but you also aren't denying yourself the chance to spike your damage. Though I'm not sure how the math on Dd6 min 3 compares to D3+d3 (the new lascannon stats.)

Average of 4 versus 5.
But a much higher chance of minimum damage, since it happens half the time.

Here's a simple Anydice link.

Cheers! So hypothetically, an ML whose krak profile is Dd6 min 3 would wound and get through armor less reliably than a lascannon, would have a slightly lower average damage, and would spike high on damage less often than lascannon, but it would also have a frag profile that would be relatively effective against squishy targets. I feel like this hypothetical ML and updated LC could both be priced competitively against each other without rendering each other irrelevant.

 kingpbjames wrote:
Fluff police here, wee woo wee woo!

Missile launchers make sense as an anti-tank weapon, it's grenade launchers that don't. GL's are anti-personnel weapons and I don't think loading one with high-explosive grenades would make it anti-tank. They'd be effective against LAV's but wouldn't be able to hit a tank's weak spot reliably.

IMO, grenade launchers should replace their krak grenades with smoke grenades or something.
Infantry could use krak handgrenades (do they have those?) as the sticky HE grenades you would place by hand on a tank's weak point.

So for krak missiles, I think they should be +1 to-hit vehicles (and monsters?) since they are guided, -1 to-hit infantry and characters, and keep its AP because handheld anti-tank launchers are armor-penetrating high explosive by design. Would like to see the damage flattened to 2d3 as well.

And mortars, I suppose they should be effective anti-tank weapons even though I got no such thing in Battlefield 4.
But IMO mortars should also be -1 to hit since they are indirect...

Tell that to my M433 HiEx Dual Purpose munitions! Can penetrate and kill the occupants of a Bradly or even a light tank at 150m with reliability. It uses one explosion to literally melt a hole in the armor, and once inside, detonates the hi-ex charge. Used to great effect both by, and against the US forces in Iraq. Although, when they used it, the device was called an EFP, or Explosively Formed Penetrator. Took out even our heaviest tanks. Not a hard concept to even make one.

But yeah, Grenades have long been used as anti-tank weapons. Look at the White Phosporous Grenade. That will kill a tank within 1 minute if properly aimed. Or hell, even the basic frag round can disable the tracks on a heavy vehicle, making it essentially useless.

 Wyldhunt wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

 Wyldhunt wrote:
Speaking as someone who uses both reaper launchers (D3) and aeldari missile launchers (Dd6), both are fine, but the chance for a damage spike is a big deal. If I manage to roll box cars on my damage, I might kill my main target sooner than expected and thus free up my remaining missile launcher units to go after my next target.

I like the idea of Dd6 minimum 3 (so treat rolls of 1 and 2 as 3) so that you'll never do a frustratingly low amount of damage, but you also aren't denying yourself the chance to spike your damage. Though I'm not sure how the math on Dd6 min 3 compares to D3+d3 (the new lascannon stats.)

Average of 4 versus 5.
But a much higher chance of minimum damage, since it happens half the time.

Here's a simple Anydice link.

Cheers! So hypothetically, an ML whose krak profile is Dd6 min 3 would wound and get through armor less reliably than a lascannon, would have a slightly lower average damage, and would spike high on damage less often than lascannon, but it would also have a frag profile that would be relatively effective against squishy targets. I feel like this hypothetical ML and updated LC could both be priced competitively against each other without rendering each other irrelevant.

I mean I'd be fine with compromising on Dd6min3 but goddamn I don't want there to be more rolling.

Just make it 2d3 so it isn’t a 1. Lol

warpedpig wrote:
Just make it 2d3 so it isn’t a 1. Lol

But bellcurves though! My tasty, tasty damage spikes!

Why not just make AT weapons do a flat damage amount to Vehicles (D6 with a min of 3 damage to anything T7+) Then Bikes get to do their thing without worrying about being shot out of the sky by a 30ish point model, and Dreadnoughts actually crap ceramite bricks again. Then the AC is great for anti-biker fire, LCs will likely get the D6+3 treatment making them the go-to for heavy AT shooting, Tank Turrets already mostly have flat damage profiles.

The AT Lehman Russ variant (The Extinctinator or something stupid) needs the axe.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why not just make AT weapons do a flat damage amount to Vehicles (D6 with a min of 3 damage to anything T7+) Then Bikes get to do their thing without worrying about being shot out of the sky by a 30ish point model, and Dreadnoughts actually crap ceramite bricks again. Then the AC is great for anti-biker fire, LCs will likely get the D6+3 treatment making them the go-to for heavy AT shooting, Tank Turrets already mostly have flat damage profiles.

The AT Lehman Russ variant (The Extinctinator or something stupid) needs the axe.

I'd be fine with special rules that change the Damage vs vehicles. At least, I'd be okay with that sort of thing being handed out selectively. But I think it's intuitive that an anti-tank weapon generally be pretty scary to non-tanks as well. I'd expect a lascannon to take out a gravis marine pretty reliably, for instance.

Maybe vehicles and some monsters need more wounds to leave some design space for infantry. Combined with an increased damage for AT weapons. Maybe double vehicles wounds and increase AT weapons (like krak missiles and lascannons) by 6. Take that as a starting position and adjust it for better balance. Any man sized target that has their armour penetrated by an AT weapon should be toast.

Tygre wrote:
Maybe vehicles and some monsters need more wounds to leave some design space for infantry. Combined with an increased damage for AT weapons. Maybe double vehicles wounds and increase AT weapons (like krak missiles and lascannons) by 6. Take that as a starting position and adjust it for better balance.

I don't think you have to go that extreme. I'd try giving vehicles/monsters like, 20% more wounds. Just enough to take the edge off of incoming fire, but not literally doubling the amount of shots it takes to kill a tank. Although this kind of gets into the issue of just how durable you really want a rhino to be against bolters and against lascannons. Should a lascannon be capable of one-shotting a rhino? Or should it just take away a chunk of the rhino's hitpoints? If you double the number of hitpoints a rhino has, you may as well officially make them immune to S4 shooting again because bolters wouldn't do enough damage to be worth the time it takes to roll them. If you want it to take at least a couple lascannon hits to kill a rhino (like now), then making a rhino go from W10 to W12 accomplishes that (you need to get two lascannon wounds through and then roll box cars to kill the rhino) while still leaving the bolters relevant enough to be worth rolling for.

Any man sized target that has their armour penetrated by an AT weapon should be toast.

Ehhhh. I mean, probably. If we bring physics into it. But also I'm pretty sure I've read more than one BL story where a marine loses some armor and/or a limb to a plasma/las shot and keeps going. Rolling a 1 on your Dd6 means that your energy beam got close enough to burn the guy but not close enough to vaporize his insides, etc. I'm willing to handwaive that the 41st millenium is a setting where energy weapons somehow destroy chunks of armor without quite managing to incapacitate the guy inside of that armor.

I agree that "non-character" man sized targets should be toast. And you can say that any single model out of a squad of infantry, poof, who cares? But when you start deleting characters with AT weapons, we have a problem. No, AT weapons should only have their AT profile against that specific target. Otherwise, what's the point of making the distinction in the first place?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I agree that "non-character" man sized targets should be toast. And you can say that any single model out of a squad of infantry, poof, who cares? But when you start deleting characters with AT weapons, we have a problem. No, AT weapons should only have their AT profile against that specific target. Otherwise, what's the point of making the distinction in the first place?

Why should a Commissar be able to survive a direct hit from a Missile Launcher?
Plus, even with Dd6 (Min 3) a full four wound Commissar will survive it half the time anyway.

 JNAProductions wrote:

Why should a Commissar be able to survive a direct hit from a Missile Launcher?

Because a commissar is always behind an ogryn, or a space marine, or at the very least a squad of conscripts. As long as something big and meaty is in between that krak missile and the hero of the Imperium, Ciaphas Cain.

I still think the best way to go about balancing AT weapons is by making it easier to hit a big target. For example, +1 to hit vehicles, monsters, units with 10+ wounds, etc. That way you'd risk missing a commissar on a failed BS since you only get 1 or 2 shots.

Might also add a LORD Commissar has an invuln Mcguffin device. A Regular one doesn't, but I still don't think it's far to consider anything below a T7 as a Vehicle.

To that point, if you are wasting LC shots on my standard Commissar, go nuts, I'm not going to stop my opponent from a bad move.

 kingpbjames wrote:
Not sure what the the random damage on explosives is supposed to represent. Explosions are great big balls of fire and force. If you're in it you're in it.

It is to increase variance. The likelihood 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 missile launcher hits scoring a kill against a Rhino is different depending on whether the damage is flat or random. In 7th there was a lot of variance, even a single krak missile could destroy a Rhino, in 9th there is much less, but it is possible to destroy a Rhino with 2 krak missiles. Flat 3 damage makes it impossible to kill a Rhino with less than 4 krak missiles. It would change the krak missile from the anti-vehicle profile to the anti-Terminator option. If anything I could see lascannons being flat 4 damage to make them better against Cents and Termies. Bolter Discipline and FRFSRF makes it hard for frag missiles and frag grenades to compete, mortars have their no-LOS niche, but in 9th with the terrain and table size the extra range of frag missiles is worth little and with krak grenades being a total joke due to Hammer of the Emperor grenade launchers are worth 0 at best.

Does the missile launcher need improving?

Many moons ago when I actually played IG, it was a decent "jack of all trades" option. It wasn't the best at either of it's jobs, but it did okay and more importantly it was cheap. This was also around the time that the basic autocannon was king and the IG leaf blower was the tournament standard for them, for anyone that can help me out dating my frame of reference.

I'm aware that autocannons are kind of eh now, and that special/heavy weapons for guard are free, but is the missile launcher still not a cheaper option than the others for things like Marines or Eldar?

To me it looks like more of an IG issue and they just need an up to date codex. But I'm behind the curve for anything that isn't Orks nowadays, so please correct my assumptions.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Does the missile launcher need improving?

Many moons ago when I actually played IG,

And many moons ago it wasn't good then either unless you got them ABSURDLY cheap.

For guard, they don't really do much that other weapons do better. For Space Marines, they are still slightly valuable.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
For guard, they don't really do much that other weapons do better. For Space Marines, they are still slightly valuable.

In theory yes. When a model is expensive to begin with, if paying for an upgrade you want to ensure you not terribly off against an improper target.

The culprit becomes that Frag blast. In older editions, you lucky if you hit two dudes under it, and the S4 AP6 meant it wasn't hurting to the point that often times the Krak Missile wasn't very far off mathematically against that same exact target. So at that point.....why not just get the S9 AP2 from the Lascannon?

If it got the LC profile, we'd need to boost the LC. Why do we need the ML at all?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If it got the LC profile, we'd need to boost the LC. Why do we need the ML at all?

It is in the fluff and there are models for it. The fluff should fit the models and the rules should fit the fluff. Points need to make the faction externally balanced and make every option reasonably viable.

ML S8 -2 Dmg2+d3
LC S9 -3 Dmg3(4)+d3
All have roles.

Then we have to make the AC damage more, because THAT is now worthless, and we can start a 5 page thread on buffing the AC. Once that's buffed, there is no reason to take HBs. See? Stop being part of the tide. Can we go one codex without some new stupidly broken change? The Las rifle is already outperforming the Bolter for every target above T3.

The only purpose I could foresee the ML getting is some form of anti-flyer role. Heatseekers give it +1 vs anything with aircraft keyword.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Then we have to make the AC damage more, because THAT is now worthless, and we can start a 5 page thread on buffing the AC. Once that's buffed, there is no reason to take HBs. See? Stop being part of the tide. Can we go one codex without some new stupidly broken change? The Las rifle is already outperforming the Bolter for every target above T3.

The only purpose I could foresee the ML getting is some form of anti-flyer role. Heatseekers give it +1 vs anything with aircraft keyword.

Well actually the Autocannon does need a buff due to the Heavy Bolter taking away its role when it got D2. That has nothing to do with the ML being a useless weapon.

Lets make the ML a MAGIC MISSILE LAUNCHER. No attack role needed, it auto-hits at S8 AP2 D2, but can only be fired once per game. Sorta a man portable HK Missile?

Just watched Auspex Tactics' latest video, in which he states that Militarum HWTs may be getting a rework that includes a bigger, meaner missile/rocket weapon option.

Would love if it came with additional anti-flyer missiles or some kind of aim-assist, as suggested previously.

I like the idea of a one shot man portable rocket launcher that’s very potent but only gets one shot

A real issue with the game though is how infantry don’t get awesome bonuses for being in buildings for cover/save boosting. Otherwise then urban combat would be more dynamic with people holding buildings with heavy weapons

Then having to send in assault troops to clear buildings in close combat.

Ok, so the new Votann ML is S9 AP1 D6 Blast

Am I reading this wrong? What good is a blast on a 1 shot weapon?

It’s a penalty-you can’t fire it in Close Combat.

 JNAProductions wrote:
It’s a penalty-you can’t fire it in Close Combat.

That's...one way to do it. GW should probably take inspiration from 4th and introduce Defense weapons for vehicles or whatever it was called and update it for 9th.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
It’s a penalty-you can’t fire it in Close Combat.

That's...one way to do it. GW should probably take inspiration from 4th and introduce Defense weapons for vehicles or whatever it was called and update it for 9th.

Agreed, although I think the current state of affairs is a response to the sentiment that vehicles were too easy to shut down by tagging them in melee in 8th. So Now you can still shoot your railgun or prism cannon or what have you; but you take a to-hit penalty, and your target options are reduced to whatever's tickling your armor. But again, I agree. It would probably be better to let little guns shoot into melee and make big guns stay quiet.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Ok, so the new Votann ML is S9 AP1 D6 Blast

Am I reading this wrong? What good is a blast on a 1 shot weapon?

I think you misread the weapon profile.

It has 2 stat lines, one called "focused" and is Type HunTR 1, without the Blast ability; the other profile is called "Blast" is Type HunTR D6 and does have the Blast ability.

Thank you! I only saw it on my phone today when riding the train home. When I looked at it on Google it was much more clear.

Still, ML is now basically better than the LC.

Anyone see them making this the standard for ML across the board? I can see Devestators getting out of hand.

This entire edition is out of hand. May as well buff it all to 9/10 and say GL.

I don't see how they don't just release 10th at this point, and do a complete reset.

How is AP1 better than AP3? I am not even sure S9 AP1 is better than S8 AP2.

 vict0988 wrote:
How is AP1 better than AP3? I am not even sure S9 AP1 is better than S8 AP2.

It's a typo.

Looking at Google, I found stats for the "L7 missile launcher", which has the following stats;

Focused 30" HunTR1 S9 AP -2 Dd6
Blast 30" HunTRd6 S5 AP -1 D1 blast


So it looks like they have increased strength at the cost of range.

Can't they run those with judgement tokens or whatever to give them auto-wounds and extra damage? I mean, it's STILL a troop unit doing stupid levels of shenanigans. If this were a heavy weapon or whatever, that limits them to a specific role, that would be one thing. This is the best part of the guard's flexibility with the worst parts of creep.

I don't want to see guard squads being able to take this sort of profile, in every squad on the board.