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.

so a lot has been made about how ineffective Flakk Missile are, and it is kind of true. They are expensive and dont do that well against flyers they are meant to kill. The three units that can take them thus far usually have better options.

2 of those units are devistators, and if you spent the points to upgrade to all those points to have Flakk, you shoot at one target and the flyer can just evade.

Now Flakk missiles, if they are anything like Flak missiles and cannons of today put up a huge amount of tiny shrapnel that is impossible to evade, so this suggestion makes sense on a variety of levels. Flyers should not be able to avoid weapons designed specifically to destroy them(much like land raiders should not be able to avoid meltaguns and guants should not be able to avoid flamers) and a flakk attack would be hard to evade.


Proposed change
Flakk missiles ignore cover.
which makes them better against flyers, better against FMC, better for the cost(which is considerable)


I would add in that if flakk is taken, frag missiles also ignore cover. Kind of a nice addition.

I would actually consider using MLs with this change in place. As it stands, I won't touch them; especially flakk missiles. Do the mathammer on how many flakk missiles to takes to bring down the mighty helldrake; it's nuts.

Missiles are still the best HW in the game for most codexes. Flakk is way overcosted for what it does but the basic missile is amazing for what it does

"Missiles are still the best HW in the game for most codexes"

Not true. But please keep thinking that. My predators will thank you later.

frag missile templates ignoring cover?, bit OP really, and denying flyers a jink from flakk is also a bit over the top, that is usually the only save they get and once all the SM dex's have been updated there will be a lot of flakk missiles avaliable.

The better option would be to reduce flakk missiles to 5pts and str 8 ap4

"frag missile templates ignoring cover?, bit OP really"

No, because frag templates are awful as currently implemented.

Really?, for a weapon that is quite cheap having two profiles i think is really good. Having frags ignore cover will hurt orks guard cultists termgants etc it will hurt any unit with a 5 plus save (as cover saves are usually 4 plus)

So yea OP

Two profiles are of no use if they both stink, imo. Thinking about it, ignoring cover would give the frag missile some utility vs things like Eldar harlistars and other cover based enemies. It'll bust them down to their armor saves, anyway, since AP 6 doesn't penetrate much of anything.

MarkyMark wrote:
Really?, for a weapon that is quite cheap having two profiles i think is really good. Having frags ignore cover will hurt orks guard cultists termgants etc it will hurt any unit with a 5 plus save (as cover saves are usually 4 plus)

So yea OP

cover is usually 5+, so guard would be fine. yes orks and cultist would feel this a bit, as would all the things rocking the now awesome 2+ cover saves (snipers, stealth suits, harlequins, ravenwing bikes, troops gtg behind ADL) but wouldnt a fragmentation missile be uhh good at killing things in cover?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Two profiles are of no use if they both stink, imo. Thinking about it, ignoring cover would give the frag missile some utility vs things like Eldar harlistars and other cover based enemies. It'll bust them down to their armor saves, anyway, since AP 6 doesn't penetrate much of anything.

yes that is what I was thinking, adding a modest amount of utility, the the utility weapon


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MarkyMark wrote:
frag missile templates ignoring cover?, bit OP really, and denying flyers a jink from flakk is also a bit over the top, that is usually the only save they get and once all the SM dex's have been updated there will be a lot of flakk missiles avaliable.

The better option would be to reduce flakk missiles to 5pts and str 8 ap4

most vehicles don't have any save, so I dont see how denying jink would be that bad. also FMC almost always have a save as well.
yes lots of SM, guard, and eldar will probably get flakk missiles. Them being a 10 point upgrade and str 7 certainly wont make them OP when everyone gets them.

changing the price and the strength required updating the brand new CSM and DA codexes as well as the rulebook. My change only required updating the rulebook.

Actually, frag weapons are only dangerous to infantry in completely open terrain without any kind of protection available (flat asphalt and such), even an open field will provide some protection (fragments burying in the ground instead of bouncing and skidding along the hard surface)

Airburst frag are an exception but they're a bit too much high tech for regular 40K uses

That is of course, if a unit goes to ground and wait for the fragments to stop flying around

Mortar strikes for instance usually don't kill much, inflict a few light wounds but do force the infantry to go to ground

Always thought it'd be more interesting to have more Pinning weapons in the game ...
Most Blast weapons (Especially Barrage) should ignore Stealth / Shrouded / Bonus to cover Saves as well, but not the inherent cover save of the cover

I have acutally used frag missiles with ignore cover and was playing a Ork player with a aegis, I very nearly tabled him mainly thanks to four frag missile templates a turn with prescience and perfect timing and a storm raven aiming over the top of the aegis.

Most boards I play on has a lot of ruins, which are 4plus, and a lot of players take aegis which are four plus. Even going to ground in area terrain is a 3plus. I personally think that a weapon you get for 10pts being able to instakill marines and if it ignores cover frag that can kill anything with a 6plus save is OTT.

Your right, most vehicles do not have a save, but you can position them and hide them a lot easier then a flyer on a flying stand, not to mention smoke launchers etc. The evade rule is purely for flyers and flakk missiles are purely anti flyer, to deny them their save with ignore cover is sillly and against what GW designed the rules for.

I actually wouldn't mind this change, it certainly would make taking the ten ML BA dev's I've got more viable. As it is right now, I have to rely on a bit of luck to survive the eventual flyer onslaught.

Of course, you'd have the people who have SW's in their meta start bitching about not being about to rapeface with three Heldrakes anymore. But, Chaos player tears are delicious, so who cares.

MarkyMark wrote:
Your right, most vehicles do not have a save, but you can position them and hide them a lot easier then a flyer on a flying stand, not to mention smoke launchers etc. The evade rule is purely for flyers and flakk missiles are purely anti flyer, to deny them their save with ignore cover is sillly and against what GW designed the rules for.

The problem is Flakk missiles (like real life flak) doesn't need to make contact with the target. If the flyer decides to do a bunch of aerial acrobatics, how does that help it dodge a giant explosion that radiates an enormous amount of shrapnel in every direction? He's still going to get hit, he's just flying fancy. Against a weapon that needs to make direct contact, it makes sense, but otherwise it doesn't. Flakk missiles really should be small blast weapons, but rules-wise those can't hit air units.

I think they're called Flakk missiles so GW can tell us that we're wrong when we talk about the way Flak works. They can say "Flakk is ours which is why its overpriced and sucks"

Because truly, Flakk missiles cost way too much. I mean, the Hydra Flak Cannon ignores jink saves, but not even because it makes a cloud of shrapnel, but because it locks onto planez.

Stupid reason for it, really.

Speaking of IG, I think they should get Flakk rounds for Earthshakers. Germans figured out how to do it in the 1940s, so why can't the Guard figure it out in the 41st millennium.

I never understood why GW looked at Flakk missiles like some sort of Stinger and then gave it a name referring to (however obtusely they claim) something like what a 20mm today does.

If they're going to have a missile based, man-mounted anti-air system, why not just give it something that makes it worth taking (like ignores cover). Not to mention, since most fliers are as heavily armored as a main battle tank, you'd need to take multiple launchers to kill just one.

I'm down for a different missile entirely actually. New name, new properties, and make it a part of the ML's natural loadout (still have no idea why they cost more, given that the ML comes with Frag and Krak rounds).

 Frankenberry wrote:
I actually wouldn't mind this change, it certainly would make taking the ten ML BA dev's I've got more viable. As it is right now, I have to rely on a bit of luck to survive the eventual flyer onslaught.

Of course, you'd have the people who have SW's in their meta start bitching about not being about to rapeface with three Heldrakes anymore. But, Chaos player tears are delicious, so who cares.

helturkeys have a 5++, so they never need to evade to get a 5+ cover save and hence would be the only flyer completely unaffected by this change.

 Exergy wrote:
(much like land raiders should not be able to avoid meltaguns and guants should not be able to avoid flamers)

How does a Landraider avoid anything? Can it Jink now?

And how are those two weapons specifically designed for those two units? And why should they not get a chance to avoid them?

Gaunts cant do anything against flamers anyway, unless they have FnP.

 Exergy wrote:

Proposed change
Flakk missiles ignore cover.
which makes them better against flyers, better against FMC, better for the cost(which is considerable)


I would add in that if flakk is taken, frag missiles also ignore cover. Kind of a nice addition.

I'd call this too much. Dropping the cost would be fine (edit - or upping the strength) but against non MEQ armies, giving missiles ignore cover you'd just destroy them.

For EG.
the only eldar fliers are all FW and are all av10 and rely on coversaves - so flakk missiles with ignore cover would pretty much auto kill them. Rangers rely on coversaves, so frags with ignore cover would just destroy them. Guardians would be annihilated by them.

Thats just nerfed one army back to the stone age. No fliers and 1 viable troops choice. It'd also ruin aegis defence lines for non meq armies. Thus taking Eldar's only flier defence off them.

The only armies who wouldn't care would be MEQ because those changes wouldn't really affect them anyway. For EG, The Heldrake has a 5++ so wouldn't care about not evading

I agree with the above poster