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.

The issue with the missile launcher is that its not worth 20 points to have D6 S4 AP - shots.

If you end up in a scenario where your lascannon is blasting guardsmen, it is marginally better. But its still awful, to the point where you are only going to do this if all better targets are dead, or killing that unit of guardsmen is essential for claiming an objective or something.

But this is a niche upon niche situation. It isn't worth the fact lascannons have +1 S and AP over krak missiles versus the things you can efficiently shoot at.

Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Peregrin:

The calculation of the damage against GEQs was aimed at the claim, that Frag-missiles are basically worthless and following that the ML is just a worse LC. My point was that no, the frag has the advantage of having a realistic chance of killing more than one GEQ.

By that standard a basic lasgun can be worth having instead of a LC because the lasgun has a non-zero chance of killing two models.

The simple fact here is that this isn't a realistic or relevant analysis. In a case where you absolutely need two models dead you're going to focus multiple units on them, not just a single LC or ML. And the superior average damage of the LC is more likely to put you in a better position where you don't have to rely on one shot to kill two models. The point stands: people massively over-value the "flexibility" of the ML and the math doesn't support it.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I do feel that Mathhammering does often overlook potential in favour of average.

Yes, averages exist for a reason and are important to bear in mind. But, when up to your elbows in a game, being able to spot where, with a bit of luck, you can take something out is also useful.

To stick to the Lascannon vs Missile Launcher example. Yes, a Lascannon is a very reliable weapon. It does what it does, and it does it well. But as others have said, it can still on tonk at most a single model each turn (unless we include making enemy vehicles explode, which I suppose we could overall). But, that Frag Missile? It could drop two or more models. And that might be enough to battleshock the remainder off the board.

Sure, the average may not look good. But the potential remains.If you focus solely on average and Mathhammer during the game, you're blinding yourself to other possibilities. They may not be outright game winning - but they can shift the pattern of the game in your favour.

Consider. A tank is down to a single wound. In it's turn, it poses a threat to something you need alive for your next turn. But, all your heavy weapons have shot this turn, hence it's on that single wound. If you purely Mathhammer, because your remaining options are low-chance, you may just leave it, and hope it's degraded stats stop it killing stuff. But, if you look a bit further? Maybe, just maybe, you've got a bunch of pistols in range. If they've nothing better to do that turn, why not have a crack? Low chance is better than no chance. And you only need a bit of luck to pull it off.

i.e. People losing sight of dice in a dice game.

Math Hammer has no view to wasted wounds or the physical break points in dice. You can't roll 3.5 damage or 4.17 save rolls.

No, but averages come into play when, after 3-4 shooting phases, the damage rolls will be something like 3, 2, 4, and 5.

 Peregrine wrote:

Pyroalchi wrote:
@ Peregrin:

The calculation of the damage against GEQs was aimed at the claim, that Frag-missiles are basically worthless and following that the ML is just a worse LC. My point was that no, the frag has the advantage of having a realistic chance of killing more than one GEQ.

By that standard a basic lasgun can be worth having instead of a LC because the lasgun has a non-zero chance of killing two models.

The simple fact here is that this isn't a realistic or relevant analysis. In a case where you absolutely need two models dead you're going to focus multiple units on them, not just a single LC or ML. And the superior average damage of the LC is more likely to put you in a better position where you don't have to rely on one shot to kill two models. The point stands: people massively over-value the "flexibility" of the ML and the math doesn't support it.

You're creating a lascannon sized strawman there.

There are few individual models that a ML can't hurt very well that a LC would perform better. The LC is better at T8/9 and 4+ (sans invuln) saves over a krak missile - and that's it.

If you intend to shoot GEQ then frag is twice as likely to score kills than LC would. The LC is only 28% better against MEQ than a krak. If the goal is to have a cheaper and more versatile weapon then the ML does the job well.

 Daedalus81 wrote:
You're creating a lascannon sized strawman there.

Hardly. The argument was that the ML has an advantage because, despite its weaker overall performance and mediocre average-wounds advantage against light infantry, it has a non-zero chance of killing more than one model. The argument completely ignores the fact that the chance of killing one model is low and puts all the weight on the mere fact that the possibility exists. So yes, by that reasoning the lasgun also has an advantage.

There are few individual models that a ML can't hurt very well that a LC would perform better. The LC is better at T8/9 and 4+ (sans invuln) saves over a krak missile - and that's it.

Lolwut? "Anything with T8 or T9 or a save better than a 5+" is hardly "few individual models" in the context of an anti-tank weapon. In fact, that covers the majority of models you want to use a LC or krak missile against!

If you intend to shoot GEQ then frag is twice as likely to score kills than LC would.

Uh, what? Someone posted the detailed numbers already and that is not even close to right. The lascannon has a 41% chance of killing at least one model, a frag missile has a 38% chance of killing at least one model. Frag missiles are trash.

If the goal is to have a cheaper and more versatile weapon then the ML does the job well.

And here you are demonstrating my point for me! The whole "ML are versatile" argument relies on ignorance of math. Once you do the math and realize just how small an advantage a frag missile has over a lascannon shot you understand that the ML is just a trash weapon. It is much worse against big targets and only slightly better against the ideal target for frag missiles. And it costs as much as a lascannon!

To reiterate the math:

A Lascannon that hits on a 3+ has the following odds of killing a GEQ:
2/3 hit
5/6 wound
1/1 unsaved
For 10/18, or 5/9. Which is 55.56%, so I think you were talking about a BS 4+ Lascannon? Doing the math on that gets 41.67%, so yeah, let's do that.

1/2 hit
5/6 wound
1/1 unsaved
5/12 or 41.67%

A Krak missile has the exact same odds.

A Frag missile has the following odds of killing a GEQ per shot:
1/2 hit
2/3 wound
2/3 unsaved
4/18, 2/9, or 22.22%

So, the odds of killing at least X GEQs are as follows, based on the number of shots:

Shot #............1 GEQ.............2 GEQs.............3 GEQs.............4 GEQs.............5 GEQs.............6 GEQs
1........................22%
2.........................40%..............5%
3.........................53%...............13%..................1%
4.........................63%................22%................4%.....................0%
5.........................72%...............31%..................8%....................1%....................0%
6.........................78%...............40%..................13%.................2%.....................0%......................0%

All numbers rounded to the nearest percent, and the odds of killing at least X GEQs. Numbers gotten from anydice.

So, the odds of killing at least two GEQ with a BS 4+ Frag missile are...

(0+.05+.13+.22+.31+.40)/6=.185, or 18.5%.

The odds of killing at least one GEQ is:

(.22+.40+.53+.63+.72+.78)/6=.5467, or 54.67%

Making it just a little bit better than a Lascannon at GEQ. Very little. Whereas performance against big stuff suffers a ton.

 JNAProductions wrote:


Making it just a little bit better than a Lascannon at GEQ. Very little. Whereas performance against big stuff suffers a ton.

Big stuff meaning knights, basically.

1 * .666 * .666 * .5 * 3.5 = .77 / 39 = 0.019

1 * .666 * .5 * .5 * 3.5 = .7 / 34 = 0.017

It's a 10% efficiency loss for flexibility. If all you're going to do is worry about knights then LC is your game. If 5% to 10% is enough to call a weapon "trash" then I got nothing for people in hyperbole land who think flakk missiles and other units don't exist.

And against Leman Russes?

(2/3)*(2/3)*(5/6)*3.5=1.30, 1.30/39=.033

(2/3)*(1/2)*(2/3)*3.5=.78, .78/34=.023

Look at that, almost 50% better per point.

 JNAProductions wrote:
And against Leman Russes?

(2/3)*(2/3)*(5/6)*3.5=1.30, 1.30/39=.033

(2/3)*(1/2)*(2/3)*3.5=.78, .78/34=.023

Look at that, almost 50% better per point.

Knight are waaay more common. It's like telling me to worry about land raiders. They just don't show up that often to matter.

@ Peregrin: regarding the mentioning of the Lasgun: no, that is something completely different, but I think we both know that.
regarding your post including:

The argument was that the ML has an advantage because, despite its weaker overall performance and mediocre average-wounds advantage against light infantry, it has a non-zero chance of killing more than one model.

I may have been misunderstood. I'm not claiming that the ML is BETTER than a Lascannon, I only claim that it is LESS WORSE than the Mathhammer website lets us believe.
Yes, the average wounds advantage against light infantry looks small on paper, but it is there, and this flexibility does exist. That is my claim. What I'm not claiming is that this flexibility is worth it to ditch lascannons for MLs. It can be, if one personally likes flexibility, but it is definitly no No-brainer.

I hope I don't enervate everybody but I would like to back up my point with another example, taking the comparison of 4 x ML vs. 2 LC + 2 HB mentioned somewere before in this thread. I don't have a specific unit in mind, but just for this example let us assume all 4 heavy weapons are in the same unit with BS 4. Looking at Astra militarum at least this also has about the same cost (2 x 15 = 60 points vs. 2 x 8 + 2 x 20 = 56 points)
Using the Mathhammer website we get the following numbers for average killed GEQs per weapon:
ML: 0.778 unsaved wounds
HB: 0.833 unsaved wounds
LC: 0.417 unsaved wounds

Targeting the Leman Russ as common tank profile we get:
ML: 0.583 damage
HB: 0.25 damage
LC: 0.972 damage

from here it is clear (and obvious) the LC is the best anti tank, the HB the best anti GEQ weapon of this lot. Now looking at our team of 4 heavy weapons how do they perform as long as optimal targets are in range for all of them and spreading damage between GEQs and tanks makes sense?
2 x HB + 2 x LC kill of 1.667 GEQs and cause 1.944 damage at the Leman Russ
4 x ML kill 1.556 GEQs and do 1.176 damage at the Leman Russ
=> the HB/LC mix is clearly better.

But now assume that the heavy weapons should be used to concentrate on one specific target. The reason could be tactical (an approaching Hellhound, some GEQs holding an objective etc.) or the optimal targets could be behind LOS blocking terrain or out of reach.
Only attacking GEQs:
2 x HB + 2 x LC will kill 2.5 models
4 x ML will kill 3.111 models

Only attacking Leman Russ:
2 x HB + 2 x LC will cause 2.444 damage
4 x ML will cause 2.333 damage

Here we see that the ML while underperforming the HB/LC mix as long as optimal targets are present [EDIT] outperforms the mix against GEQs and underperforms less against Leman Russ tanks when target selection is impossible.
And against something with less than Toughness 8 (like all the chimera Chassis models) the 4 x ML loadout is even better (3.111 damage), while the 2HB/2LC loadout stays the same


Another hidden advantage directly following from that is that the 4 x ML loadout does neither loose flexibility nor specific use when the unit takes losses. when the first heavy weapons bearing model is lost, the user of the 2 x HB+ 2 x LC loadout has to decide if his unit will be reduced in its anti tank or its anti-GEQ capacity. And taking the second loss he has to decide if he wants to return to a balanced loadout or loose one of both capabilities completely. On the third loss he is forced to use one capability. The ML does not suffer this decisions.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:


Making it just a little bit better than a Lascannon at GEQ. Very little. Whereas performance against big stuff suffers a ton.

Big stuff meaning knights, basically.

1 * .666 * .666 * .5 * 3.5 = .77 / 39 = 0.019

1 * .666 * .5 * .5 * 3.5 = .7 / 34 = 0.017

It's a 10% efficiency loss for flexibility. If all you're going to do is worry about knights then LC is your game. If 5% to 10% is enough to call a weapon "trash" then I got nothing for people in hyperbole land who think flakk missiles and other units don't exist.

Did you actually see the math for the Frag ML? Like, at all? Is that actually flexibility?

If it weren't for the Flakk Stratagem existing in the first place, there IS no point to the ML.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Did you actually see the math for the Frag ML? Like, at all? Is that actually flexibility?

If it weren't for the Flakk Stratagem existing in the first place, there IS no point to the ML.

Say you had to clear a GEQ unit off an objective. Would you prefer four LC shots or 4D6 frags? Because one of those averages 2.2 with a maximum of 4 and the other averages 4.1 with a realistic maximum of 14 (but potential up to 24).

Does this mean everyone should take ML ALL THE TIME? No, that's stupid.

But you guys are acting like there is this massive chasm between the weapons and it's a bit silly. The ML might go down a couple points. Would saving 8 points more make it viable? It wouldn't to you, because you literally only care about whether it hurts T8 better or not.

 Daedalus81 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Did you actually see the math for the Frag ML? Like, at all? Is that actually flexibility?

If it weren't for the Flakk Stratagem existing in the first place, there IS no point to the ML.

Say you had to clear a GEQ unit off an objective. Would you prefer four LC shots or 4D6 frags? Because one of those averages 2.2 with a maximum of 4 and the other averages 4.1 with a realistic maximum of 14 (but potential up to 24).

Does this mean everyone should take ML ALL THE TIME? No, that's stupid.

But you guys are acting like there is this massive chasm between the weapons and it's a bit silly. The ML might go down a couple points. Would saving 8 points more make it viable? It wouldn't to you, because you literally only care about whether it hurts T8 better or not.

I'd rather point 4 Heavy Bolters at them. Remember, 2 Lascannons and 2 Heavy Bolters are a better choice than 4 ML.

Ok, now let's give those GEQs a cover bonus, because objective campers often have one. Now the frag missile is down to 3.111 kills.

Or what if it's MEQs? 1.55 dead, vs 1.85 for the LCs. And god help you if they have cover...

ML are trash.

 Peregrine wrote:
Ok, now let's give those GEQs a cover bonus, because objective campers often have one. Now the frag missile is down to 3.111 kills.

Or what if it's MEQs? 1.55 dead, vs 1.85 for the LCs. And god help you if they have cover...

ML are trash.

and HAVE been for several years

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
I'd rather point 4 Heavy Bolters at them. Remember, 2 Lascannons and 2 Heavy Bolters are a better choice than 4 ML.

I actually forgot about the AP doctrine for frag.

2 HB and 2 LC is the antithesis of flexibility that the ML represents. The HB if forced to shoot vehicles is way worse than Krak and if you needed all hands on deckfor AV the HB doesn't have a lot to offer.

It all comes down to preference and opponents and this whole conversation is just a stark representation of how stupid math hammer can be.

If you expect to face light infantry and you are worried that your other small arms won't cut it then pick ML -- you know -- the kind of thing that happens when you face that all plaguebearer army with anti-tank weapons that makes top tables often.

@ slayer fan:
you wrote:

Remember, 2 Lascannons and 2 Heavy Bolters are a better choice than 4 ML.

as I have pointed out in my last post: if they are forced to concentrate on a specific target and therefore can not each fire on their prefered target they are worse against GEQ and T7 3+ models (like all the chimera chassis of the IG) and not much worse against Leman Russ. And if you start to loose heavy weapons you have to make a decission between losing Anti-Tank or Anti-Infantry firepower, which the ML does not have to.

Only attacking GEQs:
2 x HB + 2 x LC will kill 2.5 models
4 x ML will kill 3.111 models

Only attacking Leman Russ:
2 x HB + 2 x LC will cause 2.444 damage
4 x ML will cause 2.333 damage

Attacking a T6/7 3+ model (like Chimera, Hellhound, Basilisk, Manticore, Deathstrike, Wyvern, Hydra, Taurox...)
2 x HB + 2 x LC will cause 2.444 damage
4 x ML will cause 3.111 damage



Small sidenote: betwen 37 and 48'' the Frag-ML is much better against all targets than the Heavy Bolter

On dakka they don't really consider weapon range to have any value. In game though...it is a pretty massive consideration.

Out of my own curiosity, is there a cost consideration? The 4ML combo costs less than the 2/2 HB LC combo? Or something similar?

Or is this yet again, another case of GW bad at maths?

Range matters, until it doesn't. On a unit with a 2+ BS and the ability to snipe characters, range definitely matter. On a unit with a 40" move, a 5+ BS, and a 2+ WS, range doesn't really matter at all. Longer range doesn't always necessarily mean "better gun", in other words. You got to look at the unit holding it and the state of the game.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Out of my own curiosity, is there a cost consideration? The 4ML combo costs less than the 2/2 HB LC combo? Or something similar?

Or is this yet again, another case of GW bad at maths?

Nope, the ML are more expensive. HB are cheap, ML and LC are both 20 points.

Frag missiles are a worse storm bolters for ten times the points. They are dire. If they were S5 AP-1 they would potentially be interesting as "do you feel lucky" HBs. They are more expensive than the HB - but you are getting the flexibility. Instead they offer an absolutely terrible anti-infantry ability to the point where they are so bad you should never ever use them.

If you are firing MLs at guardsmen the game is going either really well or really badly. In either case, its not going to help you win that game.

I'd love to play in a world where S9 wasn't a meaningful upgrade over S8, because it would be one where every other table didn't have a Knight in it, but no luck so far, and little promise of it any time soon.

regarding cost: as mentioned before: for IG the missile launchers are only 15 points. So the cost difference is 60 points for 4 x ML and 56 Points for 2 x HB + 2 x LC.

By the way this also means that looking at IG heavy weapons Squads you can either get 4 Lascannons for (4 x 26 = 104) points doing 3.889 damage against a Leman Russ or Chimera Chassis OR you can get 5 ML (5 x 21 = 104) doing 2.917 against a Leman Russ but the same 3.889 against a chimera chassis and performing much better against GEQ while having 2 Wounds more

But this has a lot to do with IG beeing incredibly cheap

Pyroalchi wrote:
if they are forced to concentrate on a specific target and therefore can not each fire on their prefered target

You are not making a very compelling argument when you start with "first assume that you have screwed up and can't use your weapons effectively".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pyroalchi wrote:
By the way this also means that looking at IG heavy weapons Squads you can either get 4 Lascannons for (4 x 26 = 104) points doing 3.889 damage against a Leman Russ or Chimera Chassis OR you can get 5 ML (5 x 21 = 104) doing 2.917 against a Leman Russ but the same 3.889 against a chimera chassis and performing much better against GEQ while having 2 Wounds more

How exactly are you getting the same damage with AP -2 and AP -3 weapons against targets with a 3+ save?

I think I mentioned quite clearly what reasons could lead to the necessity to focus all weapons on a specific target. But I will gladly do it again:
No or not enough optimal targets in line of sight and in range
Specific target that has to go now (e.g. cyclops demolition vehicle or Hellhound)
Unit holding an objective with important victory point
Unit with reanimation protocols.

Neither of this situation means you must have screwed up.


Regarding your question how AP -2 can have the same damage output as damage -3: you seem to have overlooked the number of MLs. For almost the same cost as 4LC you can get 5 MLs.
So firing in a Chimera the Lascannons do 4x 1/2 x 2/3 x 5/6 = 10/9 damage. The MLs do 5 x 1/2 x 2/3 x 2/3 = 10/9 damage.

Pyroalchi wrote:
I think I mentioned quite clearly what reasons could lead to the necessity to focus all weapons on a specific target. But I will gladly do it again:
No or not enough optimal targets in line of sight and in range
Specific target that has to go now (e.g. cyclops demolition vehicle or Hellhound)
Unit holding an objective with important victory point
Unit with reanimation protocols.

Neither of this situation means you must have screwed up.

"There is a priority target and I couldn't get the right guns to engage it" and "I put my units in a place where they don't have optimal targets" sure sound like you screwed up.

Regarding your question how AP -2 can have the same damage output as damage -3: you seem to have overlooked the number of MLs. For almost the same cost as 4LC you can get 5 MLs.
So firing in a Chimera the Lascannons do 4x 1/2 x 2/3 x 5/6 = 10/9 damage. The MLs do 5 x 1/2 x 2/3 x 2/3 = 10/9 damage.

I'm confused by this frag vs. krak discussion. My back-of-the napkin math says that a frag missile has a considerably larger chance of killing GEQ, not just of getting more than one kill. I mean, one GEQ standing by itself. Like twice as high. Am I doing something wrong?

.83
vs.
(.68 x .68) x 3.5 = 1.62

EDIT: I have no opinion as to whether this justifies the ML or not, but it just seems strange to say that frag is just marginally better against GEQ that krak.

Yes you are almost right in your calculation (even if for the frag 2/3*2/3 *3.5 get you 1.555). I think the point is more, that taking into account BS of 4 on a lot of guard platforms this gets down to 0.417 vs 0.778. It remains at a 87 % advantage but the expected result is so low that one can argue that this "advantage" is just not worth it.

Directed @ Peregrin regarding costs:
I mostly mentioned it regarding FezzikDaBullgryns question if there is a cost considerations and some earlier claim, that the missile launcher is just not worth 20 points. It is not unimportant to note that MLs are cheaper than LCs for guard and that IG has access to pretty cheap platforms to mount them on.
But of course you are right that HWS are limited and are very commonly used in combination with mortars. But this limitation of heavy weapons slots (especially in low point games) also means that it is not at all times possible to bring as much pure Anti Tank AND pure Anti infantry as one would wish for.



Regarding the repeated point that you should always be able to select optimal targets for your heavy weapons I would like to give another example: facing Transports, especially open topped/firepoints Transports like Sororitas Repressors or some of the Ork Transports. Those (as well as other lilsts focussing on mechanized warfare) can well lead to situations were on some turns (especially the first one) a majority of infantry targets including those most valuable are hidden in vehicles making those the most efficient targets. And on other turns the infantry is disembarked and present much more tempting targets.
My claim (which of course can be argued against) is, that in such situations heavy weapons that can switch between Anti Tank and Anti-GEQ from turn to turn provide an advantage.


Besides that, it of course does not have to be an this or that question. I personally think (again: opinion, not fact), that a mix of 1/1/1 or 1/2/1 LC/ML/HB provides a very good basis for flexibility. The LC and HB can try to target their optimal targets (which should usually be possible), one can see how this went and then decide if the ML should try join the attack on the tanks or on the infantry depending on the results of the first shots.




Regarding weapons reach:
fladarz wrote:

Range matters, until it doesn't. On a unit with a 2+ BS and the ability to snipe characters, range definitely matter. On a unit with a 40" move, a 5+ BS, and a 2+ WS, range doesn't really matter at all. Longer range doesn't always necessarily mean "better gun", in other words. You got to look at the unit holding it and the state of the game.

as well as Peregrin writing that "out of reach" only happens if you screw up.
Here I would like to say that on a 4'6' table with 12'' deployment zones at the short sites a heavy bolter can not reach the other deployment zone without leaving its own (and thus suffering movement penalty). The ML can. On a 4'8' table even moving the HB can only reach the enemy deployment zone if it can move more than 12' (which is hard at least for IG). And even on a 4'4' board you can not position a HB in a way that it can reach every point in the enemy deployment zone while an ML can. So especially in the first round, the additional 12'' range CAN be advantageous.

But again I can't stress it enough, because I'm under the impression that some participants of this discussion continue to misunderstand me: I only list some arguments why I think the ML is LESS BAD than the mathhammer website would let you believe. I am NOT claiming it is better than a Lascannon at Anti Tank or even competetive with HB at Anti-Infantry. And my whole flexibility argument should also be seen as I already mentioned as "IF your battle plan/the expected Terrain/enemy profits from the option of flexibility or you just like to be able to switch optimal targets, including MLs is likely better than only going for LC/HB mix"

Tyel wrote:
Frag missiles are a worse storm bolters for ten times the points.

Weird. I didn't know storm bolters shot krak missiles at 48". Today I learned.