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.

Quick inquiry, the codex states that the weapon is in fact a missile launcher, however that implies that the projectile has a guidance system and is not a rocket that flies in a straight line. However, these 'missile' launchers have the same rate of hitting a target as every other weapon in the marine arsenal. So the question is it that GW goofed in the terminology as they are actually rocket launchers, or is it that every weapon the marine fires has its own guidance system? I think plasma has a magnetic system of sorts, but I don't think bolts, assault cannons, or meltas (Then again, who can miss the broad side of a Land Raider at 6''?) do. Thoughts?

WS is really your ability to hit a moveing or hidden target. Even the best guidance system can not hit something that is able to out manuver it or dodge it. WS in 40k is alot of different variables rolled into one.

Let me ask you this, don't the guard have missile launchers at bs3? It makes sense for frags to be rockets, but krak I would expect to lock onto the tank.

I was unaware that missiles and rockets meant different things, I guess GW got mixed up too.

Actually, being a missile does not imply guidance. A missile is simply a projectile. A rocket is a missle that is propelled. Guidance can be had in either case.

Have you accounted for the longer range? WHile you may be good at targetting something 12" away, 48" could be a lot harder - hence the missiles guidance systems.

It possibly also represents the smal impact zone for a Krak missile - if it splashes just shy it will do little damage, unlike a conventional blast explosive.

In addition while an autocannon is Heavy 2, tht doesnt necessarily mean it only fires 2 shots at a go.

"If we take this unguided rocket and now add a guidance system, the result is a missile. A missile contains all three of the elements we have discussed--a warhead, a propulsion system, and some form of guidance."
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0211.shtml

They are a bit different. Nothing to get bugged over, I'm just curious is all.

As for the range: that makes sense, but lascannons have the same range and I don't think a beam of light can have a guidance system, can it? Isn't it the same in terms of a miss doing little damage in other distance weapons as well against armor?

Ballistic Skill also represents ability to operate weapons.

Just because a munition has a guidance system doesn't mean joe blow can use it correctly.

It would make it interesting by giving the gun its own BS to represent the guidance sytem though.

This is true, but joe blow would be able to use a guided system better than an unguided one at whatever bs he may be wouldn't he?

It would be interesting, though it wouldn't be simple when applied to all the weapons out there.

Ok, now with the semantic argument over, what is the point of this thread again?

I'm curious to know if it was a blooper or if all marine weapons are somehow guided projectiles. I was always under the impression that the boltgun fired dumb rounds as opposed to guided weapons but I could be wrong. I think plasma weapons are guided by some sort of magnetic field, but I might be thinking of the Halo books instead of 40k.

Luco wrote:I'm curious to know if it was a blooper or if all marine weapons are somehow guided projectiles. I was always under the impression that the boltgun fired dumb rounds as opposed to guided weapons but I could be wrong. I think plasma weapons are guided by some sort of magnetic field, but I might be thinking of the Halo books instead of 40k.

In the world of 40k magnetic tunnels are used to give some coherancy to a plasma weapon over range. The bigger the magnets the greater the range of the weapon.

In general rockets are dumb, unguided, while missles are smart, guided.

Yeah, probably a combination of the two. They are not indirect fired weapons, but there's still a chance for any guided projectile to miss.

BS is just an amagleation of a whole bunch of different things. I also belive that it was done to balance Misseles in 40k to their point cost, much like everything else in the SM codex.

Luco wrote:Quick inquiry, the codex states that the weapon is in fact a missile launcher, however that implies that the projectile has a guidance system and is not a rocket that flies in a straight line. However, these 'missile' launchers have the same rate of hitting a target as every other weapon in the marine arsenal. So the question is it that GW goofed in the terminology as they are actually rocket launchers, or is it that every weapon the marine fires has its own guidance system? I think plasma has a magnetic system of sorts, but I don't think bolts, assault cannons, or meltas (Then again, who can miss the broad side of a Land Raider at 6''?) do. Thoughts?

A missile is merely a weapon which is shot at or flies toward a target as opposed to being hand held.

That is why there are "guided missiles".

Good points all around. It would be a balance issue I suppose, though I would like it if the launchers were better... for some reason there isn't a marine player at our store who has them that are actually able to do anything. Combination of whoops, balance, and bs works I suppose. Thanks.

Guided missiles is a bit redundant, as it would be a rocket if it wasn't guided. There was a link earlier, if it isn't a good/reputable link I can try to find another that is if you'd like.

I think its a good thing that GW is doing away with autohit weapons, Ork Zap guns used to be redicusly nasty.

Luco wrote:"If we take this unguided rocket and now add a guidance system, the result is a missile. A missile contains all three of the elements we have discussed--a warhead, a propulsion system, and some form of guidance."
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/q0211.shtml

They are a bit different. Nothing to get bugged over, I'm just curious is all.

No.

a Missile is a projectile that is thrown/fired and follows a Ballistic trajectory.

Arrows, Bullets, Hampsters... basically ANY thing can be a missile.


a Rocket is a projectile that is given thrust for some duration during it's flight.


Missile has become an accepted vernacular word referring to a Rocket assisted projectile. typically carrying either a fragmentation or an Armor piercing warhead.

look up the definition of Missile. you will get projectile AND an addendum refering to what you are calling a missile. and use an actual Dictionary, NOT Wikipedia, for a change

That isn't a wiki, the reply was given by a rocket scientist with awards in engineering and awards from nasa. Those would be projectiles, or possibly ufo's if you throw them hard enough (not the hamster preferably), unless the two are identical, except that rockets are also projectiles and rockets and missiles arent the same in military terms. Projectile is a blanket term for anything that gets thrown, rocket uses an engine, missile is a rocket with a guidance system.

Luco wrote:This is true, but joe blow would be able to use a guided system better than an unguided one at whatever bs he may be wouldn't he?

Good heavens, no. There's a reason we have to train people extensively on guided munitions even though those are the same people that can shoot a gun quite well (as was required by their basic training).

"Point and shoot" is much simpler for someone to grasp than "magic box of controls".

Also:

Luco wrote:Projectile is a blanket term for anything that gets thrown, rocket uses an engine, missile is a rocket with a guidance system.

I don't know where you got this, but pretty much every organization defines terms their own way.

Wait a second, why would anyone in the guard or a marine be untrained on how to use their weapons? The guard gives them at least that if not more depending on the regiment. At least I assume the commissar doesn't walk up to someone, hand them a launcher and tell them its a boomy lasgun then walk off. I assume joe guardsman would at least know how to use the guidance system and would have better accuracy with it than with an unguided version of the same weapon. It isn't just point and shoot, if you do that you're pretty much guarenteed to miss unless the thing is directly in front of you. They'd have to know how to deal with the particular planet's gravity, wind, atmospheric makeup, to hit a target at a good range.

There probably are guidance systems in the missiles, but...

1.) Before you can even fire your missile, you've got to properly track your target. With modern weapons, this tends to leave the operator exposed and obvious, which attracts unwanted attention. Ergo, a higher Ballistic Skill could be seen to simulate the ability to quickly get a proper target lock before the enemy notices that you're a high priority target (i.e. the guy with the missile launcher).
2.) There's no reason not to assume that the vehicle you're firing your guided weapon at doesn't have some sort of countermeasures. Modern aircraft use flares and chaff to spoof incoming missiles, and In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future it is reasonable to assume that ground vehicles would have similar capabilities. The firer's Ballistic Skill might in part represent the ability of the weapon operator to overcome the spoofing abilities of the target.


In other words, all you really see from the die roll is "point and shoot". But there might be a great deal more that you're not aware of (and that would greatly complicate the game if you were forced to track it).

Eumerin wrote:There probably are guidance systems in the missiles, but...

1.) Before you can even fire your missile, you've got to properly track your target. With modern weapons, this tends to leave the operator exposed and obvious, which attracts unwanted attention. Ergo, a higher Ballistic Skill could be seen to simulate the ability to quickly get a proper target lock before the enemy notices that you're a high priority target (i.e. the guy with the missile launcher).
2.) There's no reason not to assume that the vehicle you're firing your guided weapon at doesn't have some sort of countermeasures. Modern aircraft use flares and chaff to spoof incoming missiles, and In the Grim Darkness of the Far Future it is reasonable to assume that ground vehicles would have similar capabilities. The firer's Ballistic Skill might in part represent the ability of the weapon operator to overcome the spoofing abilities of the target.


In other words, all you really see from the die roll is "point and shoot". But there might be a great deal more that you're not aware of (and that would greatly complicate the game if you were forced to track it).

Had not thought about that. Good points.

Luco wrote:Wait a second, why would anyone in the guard or a marine be untrained on how to use their weapons?

Didn't say they were. I implied they were trained in such a way that their chance to hit something with a lasgun was about the same as their chance to hit with anything else.

They're not giuded, just propelled missiles and rockets or grenades, as well.

The BS is the skill at shooting and vision purposes, augmented by technology.

40k has automated and guided missiles already, they're called Hunter-Killers, and they always fire at BS3. So what does that mean for this discussion?

Not for Space marines, At BS 4... so... guidance or target spotting on manual? Again, WS and BS are hugely variable, as are all characteristics.

Luco wrote:I'm curious to know if it was a blooper or if all marine weapons are somehow guided projectiles. I was always under the impression that the boltgun fired dumb rounds as opposed to guided weapons but I could be wrong. I think plasma weapons are guided by some sort of magnetic field, but I might be thinking of the Halo books instead of 40k.

I guess the closest we get these days are the markerlights used by Tau.

Quite some time ago... early 2nd edition IIRC Enforcers shotguns had varying ammo types, one of which incldued a "tiny robot brain" which meant that it could "correct" itself once fired and even shoot round corners.

..Yeah, yeah, In know, and yes.. it is BS, but it was really just another swipe/homage to Judge Dread and his lawgiver which can fire heat seeking bullets.

Wow, yes... I think they sorta guide, but if you point it the wrong way or get shocked by recoil...