Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I was trying to customize a few of my dreadnoughts for a shooty army...I came across the missile launcher upgrade for dreadnoughts, but it seemed a little unclear and a little offskew for the points.

This is what it says in the codex:

Replace DCCW with:
- A twin-linked autocannon or missile launcher +10 points

Now, I researched furthur, and here on the dakka dakka under articles, it lists the replacement as a "Twin-Linked Missile Launcher"

First, I have no idea how a twin-linked missile launcher would work, but it at least sounds more equal to the autocannon.


Last, if it isn't...why is a twin-linked 2 shot str 7, ap 4 autocannon the same points as a single str 8, ap 3 missile shot?

So, is there some errata to the codex, or is the missile launcher just an obvious bad choice?

Mumaw79 wrote:I was trying to customize a few of my dreadnoughts for a shooty army...I came across the missile launcher upgrade for dreadnoughts, but it seemed a little unclear and a little offskew for the points.

This is what it says in the codex:

Replace DCCW with:
- A twin-linked autocannon or missile launcher +10 points

Now, I researched furthur, and here on the dakka dakka under articles, it lists the replacement as a "Twin-Linked Missile Launcher"

First, I have no idea how a twin-linked missile launcher would work, but it at least sounds more equal to the autocannon.


Last, if it isn't...why is a twin-linked 2 shot str 7, ap 4 autocannon the same points as a single str 8, ap 3 missile shot?

So, is there some errata to the codex, or is the missile launcher just an obvious bad choice?

No, it's not twin linked. If it were twin linked, it would work exactly like every other twin linked weapon (but it's not anyway).

Also, a single S8 AP3 shot can mess up AV 14. Nine Million S7 AP4 shots can't. That's why it is the same cost. Autocannons are good at mowing down light infantry. Krak missiles are good at taking out light tanks, with a chance to damage heavy tanks.

Thanks for the quick reply. I was thinking more in terms of the frag missile for how it would work with scatter...but thats kinda irrelevant since its not twin-linked.

Just seems like paying 10 points for a single missile shot each turn is a hefty price for losing a DCCW.

I think I'd rather have two str 7 shots that have a pretty good chance of hitting against armor 12 vehicles than 1 str 8 shot that will miss 33% of the time.

Additionally, a predator is 165 points for 3 lascannon shots. Seems overpriced at 145 points for a dreadnought that can only shoot 1 lascannon and a missile.

Twin-linked blast weapons reroll the scatter dice, covered in the BRB

Continuing along the same thought...the text specifies that the DCCW would be replaced. Would that include the Storm Bolter?

Mumaw79 wrote:Continuing along the same thought...the text specifies that the DCCW would be replaced. Would that include the Storm Bolter?

Yes, because the storm bolter is built in.

I can see the argument for why the Missile Launcher on a dread is Twin Linked, especially considering that the codex writer took care to seperate earlier on the options for.

"Replace Multi-Melta with:
- twin-linked autocannon.......................+x pts
- plasma cannon or assault cannon........+x pts"

where X is obviously a constant value. But then, at other points they also keep options where both choices are twin linked and at the same point cost seperate (see razorback).

I don't really know how I feel about the RAW on this, and think maybe the popular view would be "it's not twin-linked" because of previous editions of the codex.

but could it be valid to interpret the phrase as:

"[twin-linked] (autocannon) or (missile launcher)"

frankly, it's sloppy, and something that could be resolved much easier if they were consistent in how they listed options.

I am of the same opinion as Gwar. However, my "evidence" is nothing more than my belief that if GW had wanted it to be twin linked they would have explicitly said so.

If there is a more substantial ruling on this, i would very much like to see it