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.

Lets try this.

Are "Missile Launchers," "Eldar Missile Launchers," "Cyclone Missile Launchers" and "Typhoon Missile Launchers" all types of missile launchers? [these all have "missile launcher in their names, as opposed to "Missile Pod" or "Monoscythe Missile." They all have the exact same profile for Krak missiles and the option to fire some other kind of missile (e.g. Frag or Plasma)]

If yes, do some of these missile launchers have the option to fire Flakk missiles shown in their profile in the "one weapon list to rule them all" in the BRB? [in 5th missile launchers were not defined in the BRB. ML and CML had Krak and Frag per the relevant codexes, EML had Krak and Plasma. In 6th the BRB overwrites codex weapon profiles as I understand it (edit: barring something special in the codex that keeps it from using the default profile)]

Is it defined somewhere in RAW that the words "upgrade" and/or "option" will always refer to something that has to be purchased to use? [especially outside the context of the actual army list.]

edited to add Typhoon ML and the other thing

In response, are Heavy Flamers heavy weapons? Are Lasblasters las weapons?

Just because something has a word in its name does not mean it is that thing.

Are "Missile Launchers," "Eldar Missile Launchers" and "Cyclone Missile Launchers" all types of missile launchers?

No, unless the weapon's rules specifically say that. A Missile Launcher is a Missile Launcher. A Cyclone Missile Launcher is a Cyclone Missile Launcher. A Dark Lance is a Dark Lance. A Bright Lance is a Bright Lance. An Eldritch Lance is an Eldritch Lance. You're trying to imagine 'weapon types' out of thin air that has no basis in rules whatsoever.

If yes, do some of these missile launchers have the option to fire Flakk missiles shown in their profile in the "one weapon list to rule them all" in the BRB?

The answer is still no, and the list is in no way a 'one weapon list to rule them all'. It's a summary and in a conflict the codex wins. That's why we have online erratas that fix and add new rules into codices. It's obvious you're disappointed that the errata didn't add new weapons with skyfire into your codex but it's no excuse to cheat, is it now?

I think this is a perfect example of why some folks prefer to avoid YMDC.

I am sitting here, and cannot see how he rule in the main book can be misread, it says 'All missile launchers come with frag and Krak as standard, and some have the option to upgrade to include flakk missiles.'

So regardless of point costs, that point is mute, but if anyone arguing that this means all missile launchers get flakk, can open up their books and show me where it allows them to upgrade to flakk missile on their missile Launcher selection I'd be happy to let you have it.

pg 410 "an entry marked with an (*) indicates it has additional rules. consult the codex..."

pg415 "Missile Launcher - frag, krak, flakk" no (*)

Looks like "Missile Launcher" can fire them, but CML and EML cannot as they are not listed.

pg415 "Missile Launcher - frag, krak, flakk" no (*)

That has to be some of the worst logic yet encountered in this thread. You're trying to base an argument for 'who can take this weapon' on whether the weapon has 'special rules'.

Aye, also using the reference section, which to me at least would indicate a location to collect all the rules for a quick checkover, not where the key rules are.

P57 in the main rules section is quite clear as I noted above.

Therion wrote:

pg415 "Missile Launcher - frag, krak, flakk" no (*)

That has to be some of the worst logic yet encountered in this thread. You're trying to base an argument on 'who can take this weapon' on whether the weapon has 'special rules'.

No he is saying that if it doesn't say that you are going to need to consult a codex in any point in the future seeing as its not got a asterix then how as some people are suggesting can it be an upgrade in the future

Therion wrote:

Are "Missile Launchers," "Eldar Missile Launchers" and "Cyclone Missile Launchers" all types of missile launchers?

No, unless the weapon's rules specifically say that. A Missile Launcher is a Missile Launcher. A Cyclone Missile Launcher is a Cyclone Missile Launcher. A Dark Lance is a Dark Lance. A Bright Lance is a Bright Lance. An Eldritch Lance is an Eldritch Lance. You're trying to imagine 'weapon types' out of thin air that has no basis in rules whatsoever.

If yes, do some of these missile launchers have the option to fire Flakk missiles shown in their profile in the "one weapon list to rule them all" in the BRB?

The answer is still no, and the list is in no way a 'one weapon list to rule them all'. It's a summary and in a conflict the codex wins. That's why we have online erratas that fix and add new rules into codices. It's obvious you're disappointed that the errata didn't add new weapons with skyfire into your codex but it's no excuse to cheat, is it now?

1. If you read my response to Scott above, I've already stated that it will not impact my enjoyment of the game either way.

2. Your argument that codex > BRB is compelling and tips me back to your side as far as RAW is concerned (this being GW RAI is still up in the air. My FAQ (CSM) says, paraphrasing, that weapon entries will be functionally identical unless stated other wise in the codex; the codex says "longhand" that my MLs can fire super-krak and frag. You win big boy

3. That is the 3rd time you've called me a "cheater" for simply taking an opposite position from you on YMDC. A position which I reiterate, I have never tried to apply to an actual game. /ignore

No. An option to be upgraded does not mean an option to shoot.
There is no RAW, logic, dictionary or any other source that makes "upgrade = shoot".

Verd_Warr wrote:Are "Missile Launchers," "Eldar Missile Launchers," "Cyclone Missile Launchers" and "Typhoon Missile Launchers" all types of missile launchers?

No, they are not because there is no "type=missile launcher". If EML was in fact Missile Launcher why isn't its profile right there under Missile Launchers?

No he is saying that if it doesn't say that you are going to need to consult a codex in any point in the future

He's doing exactly what I said he is doing, while also ignoring the specific rule (page 7) that in a conflict the rules if the codex win, and also ignoring the rules regarding Missile Launchers on page 57. He's basing his argument on a reference sheet at the back of the book and claiming that you can discern who can use a weapon based on whether the weapon has special rules or not. You'll find the asterisk after weapons like Mindstrike Missiles (perils of the warp test for psykers) and Heavy Venom Cannon (negative modifier when rolling for damage to vehicles).

That is the 3rd time you've called me a "cheater" for simply taking an opposite position from you on YMDC

Cheating by trying to convince your weak willed opponent that the rules allow you to do something they clearly do not is the most common way to cheat in GW's games, with the possible exception of cheating with dice rolls and moving an extra half an inch or inch every turn. I'll fight against this type of bullying behaviour at every turn.

Therion wrote:

No he is saying that if it doesn't say that you are going to need to consult a codex in any point in the future

He's doing exactly what I said he is doing, while also ignoring the specific rule (page 7) that in a conflict the rules if the codex win, and also ignoring the rules regarding Missile Launchers on page 57. He's basing his argument on a reference sheet at the back of the book and claiming that you can discern who can use a weapon based on whether the weapon has special rules or not. You'll find the asterisk after weapons like Mindstrike Missiles (perils of the warp test for psykers) and Heavy Venom Cannon (negative modifier when rolling for damage to vehicles).

Your saying that the codex wins but I have always been taught that the FAQ trumps codex and the FAQ says use the appendix doesn't?

As for the rest of your quote its not about who can use it just that it doesn't have special rules in the codex.

Your saying that the codex wins but I have always been taught that the FAQ trumps codex

FAQ is just questions and answers. The FAQ tells the reader how to interpret the rules. The codex errata modifies the rules in a codex, or even adds new rules. The specific (codex) trumps the general (rulebook) in case of conflict. If an errata is outdated we still have to wait for GW to update it to bring the codex up to speed. Untill then, the Missile Launchers fire krak and frag missiles. I've not encountered a single codex that allows Flakk Missiles and none of the new erratas did anything to change this.

Therion wrote:

Your saying that the codex wins but I have always been taught that the FAQ trumps codex

FAQ is just questions and answers. The FAQ tells the reader how to interpret the rules. The codex errata modifies the rules in a codex, or even adds new rules. The specific (codex) trumps the general (rulebook) in case of conflict. If an errata is outdated we still have to wait for GW to update it to bring the codex up to speed. Untill then, Missile Launchers for example Space Marines fire krak and frag missiles.

So if you don't agree with the FAQ's interpretation you are free to ignore it? Clearly not.

At the moment as far as I can see GW have explained what you do until they bring the codex up to speed, you use the appendix, if you can find anything to nullify that I would be interested to see it but as of yet reading this forum and others I haven't.

So all the kids playing store demos with just a battleforce and rulebook firing their missile launcher and referencing the, you know reference section for all weapons, and reading that a missile launcher can fire flakk missiles, knows about optional upgrades where? There's no asterisk to indicate any more reference is needed.

Mindstrike missiles, better look it up cuz it has an *
Chem cannon, yup better check the relevent codex thanks to the *
Needle Pistol, Neural Shredder, Power Lance... all have *

Missile Launcher, no *

Macok wrote:No. An option to be upgraded does not mean an option to shoot.
There is no RAW, logic, dictionary or any other source that makes "upgrade = shoot".

Verd_Warr wrote:Are "Missile Launchers," "Eldar Missile Launchers," "Cyclone Missile Launchers" and "Typhoon Missile Launchers" all types of missile launchers?

No, they are not because there is no "type=missile launcher". If EML was in fact Missile Launcher why isn't its profile right there under Missile Launchers?

Putting aside whether things with "missile launcher" in their names are in fact missile launchers, I agree that at least CSM and IG are prevented from using the Flakk option on our MLs because of the wording of the FAQ/codexes. However, if the ML entry in a particular codex was something like: Missile Launcher - Refer to the weapon profile in the BRB, wouldn't they then be able to fire Flakk from that weapon?

So if you don't agree with the FAQ's interpretation you are free to ignore it? Clearly not.

I never said that but feel free to fight against the strawman. I specifically said that the FAQ tells you how to interpret the rules. You're not allowed to interpret the rules any other way after you've been told how to do it.

Verd_Warr wrote:Putting aside whether things with "missile launcher" in their names are in fact missile launchers, I agree that at least CSM and IG are prevented from using the Flakk option on our MLs because of the wording of the FAQ/codexes. However, if the ML entry in a particular codex was something like: Missile Launcher - Refer to the weapon profile in the BRB, wouldn't they then be able to fire Flakk from that weapon?

Only if you are told that your missile launcher is indeed upgraded with flakk missiles. Even in the new edition, Warhammer40k is still a permissive rulesset. If you are not explicitly told that you can use a potential upgrade, then you can not use it.

If in doubt, grab a copy of Codex: Daemons and have a look at the mawcannon.

and reading that a missile launcher can fire flakk missiles, knows about optional upgrades where? There's no asterisk to indicate any more reference is needed.

Still fighting the "I demand new weapons" fight are you? The kids you mentioned will need to know more rules than those found on the reference sheet to be able to play the game of 40K. While they're reading the rules on how to move and how to fire their weapons, they might as well take a look at the pages constantly refered to in this thread. But you want to keep the codex out of your sight and the rulebook closed because you'll find rules that don't suit your agenda, don't you? What you want to have handy though is the reference sheet, the summary of all knowledge and wisdom, like the magic behind the asterisk.

Therion wrote:

So if you don't agree with the FAQ's interpretation you are free to ignore it? Clearly not.

I never said that but feel free to fight against the strawman. I specifically said that the FAQ tells you how to interpret the rules. You're not allowed to interpret the rules any other way after you've been told how to do it.

How is it a strawman when as it stands you are asking us to ignore what the FAQ says?

The FAQ says to refer to the BRB statistics rather than your codex
The BRB stats say that the missile launcher has 3 types of ammunition

I cannot see anything to counter this. If there is I look forward to seeing it because I would just rather decide either way.

Simo429 wrote:
The FAQ says to refer to the BRB statistics rather than your codex

No, it tells us they are the same. If there is a contradiction, see page 7 of the Rulebook.

How is it a strawman when as it stands you are asking us to ignore what the FAQ says?

Another strawman. Please point out a single event in this thread when I've asked you to go against a FAQ. Quote me saying that.

The FAQ says to refer to the BRB statistics rather than your codex

Which FAQ is that? Quote the line so we can all see what you're talking about and how it is relevant to missile launchers. I suspect you're just making stuff up.

Can I just clarify, all you people arguing for the Flakk missile, you will be fine with Broadside Battlesuits firing Submunition Railguns right?

I just want to be clear before I replace my Hammerheads.

Drunkspleen wrote:Can I just clarify, all you people arguing for the Flakk missile, you will be fine with Broadside Battlesuits firing Submunition Railguns right?

I just want to be clear before I replace my Hammerheads.

They will be because Railgun's Submunition doesn't have an asterisk after it in the reference sheet. You can figure out who can use a weapon by looking whether it has an asterisk or not at the rulebook's reference sheet, I hear.

Therion wrote:

How is it a strawman when as it stands you are asking us to ignore what the FAQ says?

Another strawman. Please point out a single event in this thread when I've asked you to go against a FAQ. Quote me saying that.

The FAQ says to refer to the BRB statistics rather than your codex

Which FAQ is that? Quote the line so we can all see what you're talking about and how it is relevant to missile launchers. I suspect you're just making stuff up.

How is it a strawman when I keep asking you questions? I have been civil to you something that you haven't managed to do with me.

I am using the quote in pink writing under amendments

How is it a strawman when I keep asking you questions? I am using the quote in pink writing under amendments

How is it not civil to say you're constantly trying to argue against things I have never said?

The quote doesn't say what you hope it would say. It says to check the reference sheet for hull points and unit types. It also says that weapon profile format has changed.

What it doesn't say is to replace your codex weapon options with whatever you want them to be, or that the rulebook (general) would override (specific) codex in any scenario. The rulebook states that this is the rule we follow.

It also most importantly says, that whenever there's a difference, that very same document (the errata) will mention it.

I still see no mention of Flakk Missiles in any of the new erratas. Just tell me which one they're found in and I'll agree that they can be used. Tell me also which vehicles have access to the new vector dancer special ability, or any of the other new rules that seemingly no unit in the game has access to. Afterall you seem to find things that simply aren't there.

@Simo429: The FAQs do not tell us to use the weapons in the Rulebook, it tells us they are the same. Which now creates a contradiction, because they are not the same.
So, what does the Rulebook tell us to do in case of a contradiction? See page 7, very last paragraph.

Verd_Warr wrote:Putting aside whether things with "missile launcher" in their names are in fact missile launchers, I agree that at least CSM and IG are prevented from using the Flakk option on our MLs because of the wording of the FAQ/codexes. However, if the ML entry in a particular codex was something like: Missile Launcher - Refer to the weapon profile in the BRB, wouldn't they then be able to fire Flakk from that weapon?

No they wouldn't. Because Missile Launcher can only fire Krak and Frag. Some missile launchers have an option to be upgraded to fire additional type of rocket.
If it is not explicitly noted that this instance can be upgraded - it cannot be upgraded. If it is not upgraded - it cannot shoot Flakk.

Basically this is the answer to this thread:

Jidmah wrote:Only if you are told that your missile launcher is indeed upgraded with flakk missiles. Even in the new edition, Warhammer40k is still a permissive rulesset. If you are not explicitly told that you can use a potential upgrade, then you can not use it.

Jidmah wrote:

Verd_Warr wrote:Putting aside whether things with "missile launcher" in their names are in fact missile launchers, I agree that at least CSM and IG are prevented from using the Flakk option on our MLs because of the wording of the FAQ/codexes. However, if the ML entry in a particular codex was something like: Missile Launcher - Refer to the weapon profile in the BRB, wouldn't they then be able to fire Flakk from that weapon?

Only if you are told that your missile launcher is indeed upgraded with flakk missiles. Even in the new edition, Warhammer40k is still a permissive rulesset. If you are not explicitly told that you can use a potential upgrade, then you can not use it.

If in doubt, grab a copy of Codex: Daemons and have a look at the mawcannon.

Well, at this point I agree, it's "No Flakk 'till the FAQ." So, off to read more of the BRB (my FLGS is closed today )

All missile launchers come with frag and krak missiles as standard and some have the option to upgrade to include flakk missiles.

That's what the rule entry states. So, until it is updated/amended in the FAQ or a codex, you don't have the option to take them because...well...you don't have the option yet.