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.

Would this make the GL good/seriously considered/worth taking? I think it would, though probably not enough for a points increase.

What is the range now? Like 24" right? I think its good now...36" would be real cool too. Even without that extra range I kind of like the versatility of the grenade launcher good for infantry or heavier infantry.


*YAY 2000th post!*

The 5 point grenade launcher is a great weapon at 24".

36" grenade launchers mesh very well with autocannons in hunting for av 10-11. It would make them more prolific for sure.

I think the GL is a good buy as is for 5 points, but the melta is an amazing buy at 10 points, so the GL often gets left behind.

36" range would certainly bring the GL into competition with the melta; warranting a price hike.

...

Something I've thought about with the GL is rather than increase range, how would the game change if Krak grenades were S5 Ap3? (as opposed to S6 AP4)

It would take the GL away from the Light armor role and move it to a psudo-plasma gun role. Would a price hike be necessary then?

The Grog wrote:Would this make the GL good/seriously considered/worth taking? I think it would, though probably not enough for a points increase.

Emphasis added.

Why do you think things cost what they do? "Lascannons are too expensive for what they do!" "Assault cannons need more shots!" are the cries of people who complain that every weapon is ineffectual, usually because they are using them improperly.

The grenade launcher is fine. The reason you don't see too many people use it is because there are some more effective weapons out there. Buying upgrades is like budgeting money, you can't always have everything you want, and complaining doesn't make it better. Increasing the range, AP, S, whatever won;t make it more usable, just more like another weapon that is out there.

So, what you are saying is that GLs DO have a role, however the role they are in makes them ineffective so that they are not often taken?

GLs are great on guardsmen. GL/ML spam lets you, well, spam blast templates, which is good against almost all armies.

I don't see why an upgrade is really needed; Grenade Launchers are great weapons, I take them all the time. The only truly useless special weapon the guard have is the sniper rifle, and that's mainly due to BS3 and the fact that Ratlings exist (I love those little hobbit assassins so very much).

Melissia wrote:GLs are great on guardsmen. GL/ML spam lets you, well, spam blast templates, which is good against almost all armies.

Ive got to agree Melissia taking this sort of choice along with some mortars is fun. on paper anyway. but when those templates start scattering...
on the otherhand the mortars can really hold the enemy down and stop them from closing fast and when they do...
still if you look at grenade launchers these days youll find theyve got comparitive range to ingame ranges. if anything the game versions are slightly better.

Melissia wrote:GLs are great on guardsmen. GL/ML spam lets you, well, spam blast templates, which is good against almost all armies.

Meh, I've never been too impressed with the missile launcher. It combines mediocre anti tank with decidedly sub-par anti infantry, all wrapped up in an overpriced package. I rarely find a good reason to put anything other than Autocannons in my squads, and the AC/GL combo is delcious, let me tell you.

From a fluff standpoint, it's insane to ask that a grenade launcher (a weapon that lobs a heavy, slow projectile in a high arc short distances) to have a longer range than a rifle..

An anti-horde that matches a lasgun's range, and an occasional transport cracker that doesn't require your soft infantry blob to get within flamer/assault range? It seems fine as is.

I agree, I don't think the grenade launcher needs tweaking.

If anything I would adjust the missile launcher, that thing is just bad when you consider the option to have an autocannon.

I think ML has its moments. A few of them knocking around adds more opportunities to punish tightly packed units, and whilst its anti-armour is not much different to an AC, its effectiveness against MCs, power armour and multi-wound T4 is streets ahead without the cost/lack of anti-horde issues faced by lascannons.

The missile launcher is just overpriced compared to an AC. They have comparable firepower with one slightly outperforming the other in one situation while the other outperforms the first in other situations. They should have the same point costs..

The ML is an MIAT(medium infantry anti-tank)weapon.
The auto cannons a 20-30mm automatic cannon firing most likley huge solid slugs.
Deal with it

master of ordinance wrote:The ML is an MIAT(medium infantry anti-tank)weapon.
The auto cannons a 20-30mm automatic cannon firing most likley huge solid slugs.
Deal with it

Exactly, so the missile launcher should cost the same as the autocannon.

instead of adding range to the grenade launcher, I would rather just have it barrage: with both Direct and indirect capability(that is how I use them in most FPS anyways)

Not saying anyones wrong but interesting to see most of the posters here think the GL is a fine weapons where in the tactics board it seems other wise

I do like the barrage idea

I don't think 36" is quite the right fix. The GL is a decent weapon, but too easily overshadowed. I take them on all of my Infantry Squads however, sometimes Platoon Command Squads for low points games, but never on CCS's Flamers are better anti infantry, PG's even more versatile, an meltas are better AT. I think making them Barrage could be cool though.

As to the Missile Launcher, definitely overpriced in this book, I don't know why they insisted it be a 15pt weapon, that makes it sorta pointless next to the very similar role of the Autocannon, though likewise I also think the Heavy Bolter is 5pts overcosted as well.

The grenade launcher is fine. It gets used in niche roles, and is costed appropriately. The bump in template weapons helps a lot. The change that makes the most sense is to make it Assault 1 or Heavy 2, but that would mean a price increase.

The rule of three kicks in at some point: rarely are more than three options in a list worth taking, no matter how long the list of options is. The IG have five specials, and three are very good, and one is just fine. The fifth has it's uses, but they'r pretty rare.

Upping the range would be nice though. I'm not sure it's the most fluffy change. Although GLs used to be range 60" in 2nd edition, IIRC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:As to the Missile Launcher, definitely overpriced in this book, I don't know why they insisted it be a 15pt weapon, that makes it sorta pointless next to the very similar role of the Autocannon, though likewise I also think the Heavy Bolter is 5pts overcosted as well.

I'd agree that the points should have been:
Mortar, HB: 5pts
ML, AC: 10pts
LC: 20pts

As an ex IG player I agree, also I do no remmember if the IG line of sight is required to fire a weapon but I also think they need to make it a pure artillary mini weapon that is long range and you can fire any where you want even though you do not see th target.