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.

Some missile launchers get the "upgrade."

As has been previously mentioned:

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

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

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

What other kinds of ML are there?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just saying stop the wishful thinking accept reality.

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

Sincerely,
Games Workshop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cyclone Missile Launchers
Eldar Missile Launchers
Missile Launchers
Typhoon Missile Launchers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If all missile launchers get Flakk missiles

They don't so your question is nonsensical.

Therion wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is a problem with that argument.

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

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

Therion wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scott-S6 wrote:

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

There is a problem with that argument.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Scott-S6 wrote:

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

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

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

Horrible Analogy,

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

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

Confirmed.

"Missile Launcher" has flakk missiles.

"Eldar Missile Launcher" does not

"Cyclone Missile Launcher" does not

pg 415

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

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

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

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

hyv3mynd wrote:Confirmed.

"Missile Launcher" has flakk missiles.

"Eldar Missile Launcher" does not

"Cyclone Missile Launcher" does not

pg 415

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

BaronIveagh wrote:

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

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

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

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

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