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.

Very simple: make plasma AP 3 and krak missiles AP 2. Makes more sense in terms of the weapon descriptions and fixes the horrid performance of the ML in 6th and keeps plasma from being the cure-all weapon.

What? how is a missile better at piercing armor then a ball/bolt of super heated "plasma" that will melt most things it touches?

EDIT: and I see more missile launches then plasma cannons.

It makes more sense the way it is now; namely that ionized gas (superheated, and used for welding btw) would cut through armor rather efficiently whereas a blunt explosion wouldn't quite as well.

Maybe. But for game balance, I think plasma should be AP 3 and the allegedly anti-vehicular missile be AP 2.

I'd love to see more MLs, because I think they are junk as they currently are implemented.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. But for game balance, I think plasma should be AP 3 and the allegedly anti-vehicular missile be AP 2.

I'd love to see more MLs, because I think they are junk as they currently are implemented.

Yeah, well, you're wrong. Missile launchers are the most used heavy weapon in all space marine armies except grey Knights. They are fine as they are.

I'm not wrong at all. Feel free to bring as many as you like. The profile of both the krak and frag missile are terrible in 6th edition. Cheap does not mean efficient if the weapon lacks efficacy.

Also, frequency of use has no bearing on their actual effectiveness.

Missile launchers are much cheaper than Lascannons. AP is the entire reason. Krak missiles do not get to be AP 2.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not wrong at all. Feel free to bring as many as you like. The profile of both the krak and frag missile are terrible in 6th edition. Cheap does not mean efficient if the weapon lacks efficacy.

Also, frequency of use has no bearing on their actual effectiveness.

Whats wrong with Frag? Str 4 AP 6 is fine. It's nice to have something that Gaurdsman fragvests can stop

Missile launchers are still effective (especially in take all comers lists). Cheap, you can have anti-armour, AND anti-horde in one weapon.

It actually does make sense the way it is now. I use plasma cutters at work and the way it cuts 1" steel is unreal. Faster than a 6" cut off wheel but uses more power. Same scenario with the plasma vs. krak.

Frag is not the reason you take the ML, its just a nice backup against hordes.


As for the Krak, if it was AP2 it would be spammed so hard it wont even be funny.
Not to mention that RL "krak" shot (high-explosive shells) are quite terrible at actually piercing through armor, and even a hammer can take a few hits before its toast.

"Cheap, you can have anti-armour, AND anti-horde in one weapon."

But it's not anti either. At least in my experience. The krak missile has been reduced to a ROF 1 HP stripper. Unacceptable.

The fact that models with 5+ saves get saves vs the frag missiles is the exact problem with them.

Even at AP2, the krak missile would have similar issues to the heavy rail rifle: getting the pen to take advantage of the low AP2.

I'm speaking more from a balance issue. I don't like that a rapid fire weapon can gun down 2+ armor wholesale while an anti-tank rocket bounces off harmlessly.

How about: NO!


ML are fine they do their job and are very cheap without a risk to blow up you own troops.

Also the AP value of a weapon is total irrelevant for anti-tank. What counts is strength and Krak > Plasma in that regard.

Krak: 8S needs a roll of 6 for AV 13 to pen

Plasma: 7S needs 6 for glance on AV 13

And if you really want Krak to be AP2, playtest it against a Space Wolves Army with 15 of those things. I 'm quite sure it wont be fun

"Also the AP value of a weapon is total irrelevant for anti-tank."

You lost me with that line. That is demonstrably false.

At least my answer to what people thought of these weapons is answered. Please keep bringing as many ML as you like to my table

With krak at AP2, I'd *consider* using BA devastators with ML at that point. As it stands now, there's no way BA devs with ML make the cut, even thought half the BA lists out there use them. There's still the issue of being immobile and the issue of frag missiles still sucking. Plasma guns would still be a better anti terminator weapons due to rate of fire.

For balance purposes, I still think that the lower ROF weapons should have lower AP than the rapid fire weapons.

A krak missile is Str8 AP3 and the Frag Str4 AP6 for a reason. Its a cheap anti-tank weapon and anti-infantry, its not the the best at either but it can do both in the same weapon.

If it was better at either there would be no point to Plasma or Lascannons.

Plus the Missile Launcher's Str8 is pretty good against anything that isn't AV14.

"Plus the Missile Launcher's Str8 is pretty good against anything that isn't AV14."

Not with a rate of fire of one. The missile launcher sucks hard vs AV 13. And if the AV 12 is cheap enough (Chimera) it's an uphill battle there too, because pens from krak missiles aren't much better than glances in killing power. The glance mechanic makes the autocannon own the krak missile's face.

"If it was better at either there would be no point to Plasma or Lascannons."

I'll agree that it would be too close to a lascannon. It's too bad there's not a wider range of AP available.

"Its a cheap anti-tank weapon and anti-infantry, its not the the best at either but it can do both in the same weapon"

But for marines, there is still the opportunity cost of the marine himself and the heavy slot. I find that, in practice, doing two jobs crappy is the same as doing no job at all. Which what I think the ML does: no job at all.

So are lascannons bad because they're only one shot a turn? And they only glance AV14 on 5+

A tactical marine gets his missile launcher for free. That alone makes it worth taking.

Martel732 wrote:
The fact that models with 5+ saves get saves vs the frag missiles is the exact problem with them.

I'm speaking more from a balance issue. I don't like that a rapid fire weapon can gun down 2+ armor wholesale while an anti-tank rocket bounces off harmlessly.

Well, we could just up the price of the ML, and give it gets hot. Problem solved. Heck, we can even up it's blast's AP in that case too.

I'm speaking more from a balance issue. I don't like that a rapid fire weapon can gun down 2+ armor wholesale while an anti-tank rocket bounces off harmlessly.

Do you know how many shots on average it takes to kill a 2+ save with a bolter vs a krak missile?

It takes 18 bolter shots, at BS4, to cause a single unsaved wound to 2+ armor.

Meanwhile, it only takes 10.8 shots with a Krak missile.


Its actually quite balanced, because Terminator armor is specifically designed with weather anti-tank fire and allow for assaults. Its so tough it takes something like Plasma or Lascannons to pierce, and even then its not a sure thing.

It stands to reason the same weapon isn't going to be effective against a target its not meant to kill.

Terminators are vulnerable against high volumes of fire, like anything with heavy armor is liable to be. Terminators are meant to take a massively powerful shot on the chin and survive, but they die to massed quantities of small weak weapons.

Its just how the game works.

"Well, we could just up the price of the ML, and give it gets hot. Problem solved. Heck, we can even up it's blast's AP in that case too."

Gets hot is a non-deterrent for people fielding huge amounts of plasma in 6th. Especially IG, who don't care about the troops holding the plasma guns. It's all about rapid firing down expensive models trivially.

"So are lascannons bad because they're only one shot a turn? And they only glance AV14 on 5+"

No, because in the range where autocannons fall off, the lascannon still has a decent "kill range" of effects. Plus, lascannons can penetrate 2+ armor. Makes a huge difference when trying to engage things like Oblits.

AV 14 is not a common case and is better handled by melta anyway. But the lascannon has a much larger chance to destroy a LR before it gets where its going than a ML.

MLs are bad because the autocannon and lascannon eat its lunch. There is no AV where the krak missile is competitive with these two weapons in play. I realize that marine devs other than DA get overcharged for lascannons and none can have autocannons. This is why I stopped using devs.

*Ahem* First, No. Second, not to bully, but you do know about the quotes function right? the way you do it seems odd to me ;_;
Anyhoo, most Imperial units in the game take missile launchers for free or dirt cheap. Give them AP2 and what in your mind makes this more balanced? a plasma gun is ap2 yes, but its very expensive in comparison to a missile launcher, and has a chance of killing the user, even more so in this godly "rapid fire" range. Plasma guns are good, but they aren't this over powered force you seem to think they are.

Martel732 wrote:
"Cheap, you can have anti-armour, AND anti-horde in one weapon."

But it's not anti either. At least in my experience. The krak missile has been reduced to a ROF 1 HP stripper. Unacceptable.

The fact that models with 5+ saves get saves vs the frag missiles is the exact problem with them.

Even at AP2, the krak missile would have similar issues to the heavy rail rifle: getting the pen to take advantage of the low AP2.

I'm speaking more from a balance issue. I don't like that a rapid fire weapon can gun down 2+ armor wholesale while an anti-tank rocket bounces off harmlessly.

You know nothing about the way modern ablative armor works. Explosive missiles fired by most RPG's penetrate the ablative ERA armor and detonate that plate, but do no damage to the internal workings. A second hit in the same spot will destroy the tank (assuming it doesn't have additional ablative layers beneath the first, which most do), but if you hit another ablative plate, the same process occurs. This changes with more advanced warheads and kinetic penetrators, which are both stopped by even more modern ceramics and depleted uranium meshing because of their thermodynamic properties (chobham armor included here)

Even when an explosive missile does score a "penetrate", odds are its not defeating the armor but instead the explosion is damaging parts of the vehicle, jamming the turret, tracking the vehicle, or destroying the optics are most common. Defeating the armor, especially when we're talking stuff like DU meshes, isn't as likely; hence why you need to roll higher to score an actual kill.

Indeed, most Tanks that get taken out aren't destroyed but are rather mobility kills. A track gets thrown or the engine stalls and the crew is forced to abandon the vehicle.

There was an Abrams tank that got immobilized in Iraq and the tank column decided to destroy it. The guns of the other Abrams actually couldn't penetrate its armor and they had to blow it up internally.

That's why RPGs are dangerous, they can blow the tracks. Thats the one weakness of tanks that probably won't ever go away.

So you want to do something that will heavily change the way that 2 common place weapons are used?
When currently, they work fine?

Theres no need for it.
The launcher works just fine.

Plasma in general is more expensive, weaker, shorter ranged and has gets hot.
It is lower AP and has a higher RoF.

They are 2 weapons designed for different use.

Heck, a kark missile is a freaking grenade with an engine, the fact it CAN damage a predator is above expectations.


For a missile to one-hit-kill a modern tank you need not only to get lucky enough to bypass any jammers or systems like Thropy (who is absurd and can intercept multiple missiles mid-air simultaneously), you need to get your missile to have enough penetrating force to go through a think layer of metal, multiple shock absorbing materials, blast plates, and the freaking hull of the tank, who is yet another chunk of metal, and then only if you are lucky enough to actually strike at something that can take out the entire tank (like the fuel tank, an explosive ammo stack or the sort, something to trigger a chain reaction)

Heck, not even all tanks are capable of it, you expect a lousy rocket carried by regular infantry to do the job?

Sure, it worked in WW2, not any longer. modern tanks take either another tank, or aircraft to take down, infantry cant do anything to it even if given a free shot.

So I see no reason to expect a lousy rocket launcher to damage tanks in 40K

Sigh.. I know exactly how modern armor defenses work. Like in most grimdark retro-future settings, I just assume our real-life weapons are just more effective than the ones in the game.

It's obvious that no one has any problems with plasma guns rapid firing extremely models off the table while krak missiles can't penetrate 2+ at all. I'll just continue to build my lists, especially TAC lists, to not include MLs.

ML's are fantastic at taking down Crisis Suits and < AV12. They also function against hordes and, in some cases, flyers. They are a very diverse weapon; while most TAC lists are about min-maxing and have paper-rock-scissors units, the ML fits in as a pascissock. Jack of all trades, master of none; if the ML was capable of defeating AP2 at 36" AND shooting at flyers AND hurting hordes, while the plasma gun could only be used against Marines and at short range, well... you'd turn plasma guns into Vespids.

How many people use Vespids?

Well this is what I'll say: every time I've used MLs in 6th, I've regretted it. So I've stopped.

You're doing it wrong then.

My first Devastator squad will always be packing 4 MLs.

One thing I'm seeing though. Did MLs loose 12 inches? I saw someone metion 36". Been a bit since I've played on the table, but still thought I stayed current on SM rules.

 Grey Templar wrote:

I'm speaking more from a balance issue. I don't like that a rapid fire weapon can gun down 2+ armor wholesale while an anti-tank rocket bounces off harmlessly.

Do you know how many shots on average it takes to kill a 2+ save with a bolter vs a krak missile?

It takes 18 bolter shots, at BS4, to cause a single unsaved wound to 2+ armor.

Meanwhile, it only takes 10.8 shots with a Krak missile.


Its actually quite balanced, because Terminator armor is specifically designed with weather anti-tank fire and allow for assaults. Its so tough it takes something like Plasma or Lascannons to pierce, and even then its not a sure thing.

It stands to reason the same weapon isn't going to be effective against a target its not meant to kill.

Terminators are vulnerable against high volumes of fire, like anything with heavy armor is liable to be. Terminators are meant to take a massively powerful shot on the chin and survive, but they die to massed quantities of small weak weapons.

Its just how the game works.

Just to be clear here, a plasma gun is Rapid fire and AP2, pretty sure he wasn't talking about bolters, so without math hammering hits and Str 7 wounds vs Toughness 4, it ideally forces two invuln saves against terminators a turn vs the krak missile doing none. I agree with the missiles bouncing off statement, but I can't find a way to balance it without breaking the rest of the game