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.

Maybe it's time to reduce the bloat and merge all different, but still samey, weapons into a single profile, like merging all power weapons into a single profile.

Plasma cannons, lascannons, missile launchers, autocannons... can simply be "heavy anti tank weapon". Different aesthetics, same profile.

Heavy bolters would be different, also mortars. But I don't see any point for units such as devastators or AM heavy weapon teams to have multiple weapons that compete for the same role.

At this point lascannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, etc... are just like power sword, power axe and power maul. They're all in the same boat, one weapon is always mathematically better and overshadows all the other options.

I think it’s good having multiple viable choices.
A heavy weapon with ools shooting but low str and low ap
High volume low str low ap requires line of sight
Even a mid str mid ap wpn with 2 shots is okay
A heavy wpn able to move and fire but single shot and reduced str and ap
A hard hitting single shot high ap hvy wpn

Not everyone of these wpns work every unit though. And there is a clear best use for each

 Blackie wrote:
Maybe it's time to reduce the bloat and merge all different, but still samey, weapons into a single profile, like merging all power weapons into a single profile.

Plasma cannons, lascannons, missile launchers, autocannons... can simply be "heavy anti tank weapon". Different aesthetics, same profile.

Heavy bolters would be different, also mortars. But I don't see any point for units such as devastators or AM heavy weapon teams to have multiple weapons that compete for the same role.

At this point lascannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, etc... are just like power sword, power axe and power maul. They're all in the same boat, one weapon is always mathematically better and overshadows all the other options.

I'd argue Plasma Cannons and Autocannons fill particular niches though compared to the ML.

I would rather MLs just get tossed. If you up the S or dam you are invalidating multiple other weapons. You cannot alter the ML and not make other weapons pointless.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I would rather MLs just get tossed. If you up the S or dam you are invalidating multiple other weapons. You cannot alter the ML and not make other weapons pointless.

Eh, maybe you're right. At minimum, until other weapons are fixed, it's too difficult to figure out what place the ML has.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Maybe it's time to reduce the bloat and merge all different, but still samey, weapons into a single profile, like merging all power weapons into a single profile.

Plasma cannons, lascannons, missile launchers, autocannons... can simply be "heavy anti tank weapon". Different aesthetics, same profile.

Heavy bolters would be different, also mortars. But I don't see any point for units such as devastators or AM heavy weapon teams to have multiple weapons that compete for the same role.

At this point lascannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, etc... are just like power sword, power axe and power maul. They're all in the same boat, one weapon is always mathematically better and overshadows all the other options.

I'd argue Plasma Cannons and Autocannons fill particular niches though compared to the ML.

The autocannon is a heavy bolter most of the times, and between missile launchers, plasma cannons and lascannons there isn't much differentiation, except for the dual profile of the missile launcher, they're all anti tank/anti armoured elite weapons, very samey in range, S, AP and D. At least something like the multimelta has its niche having much shorter range.

I'd keep an anti infantry weapon (mortars), anti elite weapon (heavy bolter) and an anti tank weapon (lascannon, autocannon, missile launcher merged into a single profile) for something like the AM HWS. Devastators can have anti elite weapon (heavy bolter and grav cannon merged into a single profile), anti tank weapon (lascannon, missile launcher and plasma cannon merged into a single profile) and short ranged but killier anti tank weapon (multimelta).

There's no point in choosing between 5-6 weapons. Only bloat and the obsession that every bitz has to have its own rules/profile.

 Blackie wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
Maybe it's time to reduce the bloat and merge all different, but still samey, weapons into a single profile, like merging all power weapons into a single profile.

Plasma cannons, lascannons, missile launchers, autocannons... can simply be "heavy anti tank weapon". Different aesthetics, same profile.

Heavy bolters would be different, also mortars. But I don't see any point for units such as devastators or AM heavy weapon teams to have multiple weapons that compete for the same role.

At this point lascannons, plasma cannons, missile launchers, etc... are just like power sword, power axe and power maul. They're all in the same boat, one weapon is always mathematically better and overshadows all the other options.

I'd argue Plasma Cannons and Autocannons fill particular niches though compared to the ML.

The autocannon is a heavy bolter most of the times, and between missile launchers, plasma cannons and lascannons there isn't much differentiation, except for the dual profile of the missile launcher, they're all anti tank/anti armoured elite weapons, very samey in range, S, AP and D. At least something like the multimelta has its niche having much shorter range.

I'd keep an anti infantry weapon (mortars), anti elite weapon (heavy bolter) and an anti tank weapon (lascannon, autocannon, missile launcher merged into a single profile) for something like the AM HWS. Devastators can have anti elite weapon (heavy bolter and grav cannon merged into a single profile), anti tank weapon (lascannon, missile launcher and plasma cannon merged into a single profile) and short ranged but killier anti tank weapon (multimelta).

There's no point in choosing between 5-6 weapons. Only bloat and the obsession that every bitz has to have its own rules/profile.

I FIND YOUR LACK OF BLOAT DISTURBING, ADMEERAL. THERE IS NO POWER IN THE UNIVERSE GREATER THAN THE POWER OF THE BLOAT.
/s

I fully expect GW to just do the same thing about it as SF does about their Homeless. Ignore it to death, and then pass a rule making it a legends weapon.

Heavy bolter.. 36 hvy 4, str 5 ap -1 dam 1
Autocannon…48 hvy 2, str7 ap -2 dam 2
Lascannon ..60 hvy 1, str9, ap-4 dam 2d3
Plasma…36 hvy d3, str7 ap-3 dam1 (blast)
Plasma(charge)36 hvy d3, str8 ap-3 d2 (blast)
Missile(frag)48 hvyd6, str4 ap- d1(move &fire, blast)
Missile(krak)48 hvy1, str8 ap-2 d6(move &fire)
Motar 48 hvy2d3, str4 ap- d1 (out of line sight, blast)

There is room for all different types and just because your 1 unit preferred 1 type over the other or the meta changes and prefers 1 type over the other doesn’t mean they are bad… right now lots of units have high saves, AoC, dam reductions and ap 1-2 and 2 dam weapons aren’t that good.

gungo wrote:
Heavy bolter.. 36 hvy 4, str 5 ap -1 dam 1
Autocannon…48 hvy 2, str7 ap -2 dam 2
Lascannon ..60 hvy 1, str9, ap-4 dam 2d3
Plasma…36 hvy d3, str7 ap-3 dam1 (blast)
Plasma(charge)36 hvy d3, str8 ap-3 d2 (blast)
Missile(frag)48 hvyd6, str4 ap- d1(move &fire, blast)
Missile(krak)48 hvy1, str8 ap-2 d6(move &fire)
Motar 48 hvy2d3, str4 ap- d1 (out of line sight, blast)

There is room for all different types and just because your 1 unit preferred 1 type over the other or the meta changes and prefers 1 type over the other doesn’t mean they are bad… right now lots of units have high saves, AoC, dam reductions and ap 1-2 and 2 dam weapons aren’t that good.

I thought we were discussing the Marine version. But here goes. The fact that IG shoot at WS4+ makes the ML even more worthless. You want lots of shooting, with high AP, not less. 1 shot per HWT/HWS is not valuable considering the other, BETTER options. For marines, they shoot twice, can shoot at 2+ with the signum and cherub, and have numerous chapter buffs on specific weapons. For instance, Salamander Devestators will ALWAYS do more damage with MMs than with MLs. I hate to sound like CSB but you have to see, the current slate of bloat in all the Imperial factions is getting out of hand. We need to throw away some of our old toys.

Better yet, remove the Primaris cash cow. That will reduce the SM ranged weapons list down from 4.5 PAGES to 2? There's so much Primaris bloat in the Space Marine book, Nurgle is getting aroused.

I mean, I don't mind the Primaris line, I think they are mostly more in line with Space Marines asthetic than the older models were. I want to see size difference on the table between Marines and IG squads. I want their guns to be massive. I want the Primaris look. It's supposed to be huge and over the top. It's perfect for 40k.

I'm more interested in the primaris and firstborn datasheets just getting consolidated together. We don't need intercessors and tacticals; we can just have a single datasheet that represents both. At which point, primaris just become the truescale marines they were probably meant to be with a little extra fluff attached that you can embrace or disregard at your discretion.

It wouldn't be the end of the world to consolidate some of the weapon profiles, but I'm not sure doing so would accomplish much either. I definitely wouldn't go so far as to lump all the anti-tank guns together, and the missile launcher doesn't jump out at me as being in need of consolidation. The various super special bolters, the assault cannon/H. Bolter, and maaaybe power weapons could all probably stand to be consolidated before the ML. Alternatively, you could just allow some weapons to have identical stats if that's really what serves the game best. That way, you'd still have the option to make them more distinctive later on, and you could make one or the other available to certain strats, buffs, platforms, etc.

I don't see an inherent upside to merging most weapons together other than making the armory section quicker to skim through.

Wyldhunt wrote:
I'm more interested in the primaris and firstborn datasheets just getting consolidated together. We don't need intercessors and tacticals; we can just have a single datasheet that represents both.

Completely agree. Intercessors having options for Special and Heavy weapons is not broken, and gives more feel for the eliteness of Marines.

Grav Weapons are now entirely pointless given most chapters Devestators with HBs. Or the Heavy Intercessors with their stupid SUPER heavy Bolters....Plasma cannons are now literally baked into Hellblasters with their HEAVY variant plasma rifles. They're PCs in all but name. So they are pointless to keep around. Flak and Krak MLs are equally worthless given Heavy Intecessors HB and the EradicatorsMulti-Meltas. Eliminators with Las-Fusil's are basically now the new LCs Devestator squads, and better at it for the cost.

The entire SM base codex is a sterling example of wasted paper. Just make the oldies Legends, and go full primaris.

The thing that bothers me to no end is that I like the Primaris sculpts. It was how they were rolled out (fluff wise) and restricted from Rhinos, etc, that soured me permanently. Because they should have been "Hey look at these great true scale models you can buy to upgrade your tactical squads" I'm sure they still would have sold like fried chicken at a county fair. For the record I don't own any Primaris anything and never will. Making my Green Wing into Legends would remove my ability to use my Dark Angels outside of specialist detachments. Also how int he bleep are Dark Angles so easily down with this Primaris stuff, god the fluff.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


The entire SM base codex is a sterling example of wasted paper. Just make the oldies Legends, and go full primaris.

It could work for vanilla marines, maybe. Former standalone chapters (SW, DA, BA) have tons of units with no primaris counterpart. A SW army with no TWC, wulfen, etc... is no SW army, just a SM army painted in light blue.

It would make sense to squat primaris rather than firstborn then, or to relegate them into legends or something like FW books. Primaris didn't add anything to the game, or even to SM. Keep them for collectors, that's where they belong.

Gibblets wrote:The thing that bothers me to no end is that I like the Primaris sculpts. It was how they were rolled out (fluff wise) and restricted from Rhinos, etc, that soured me permanently. Because they should have been "Hey look at these great true scale models you can buy to upgrade your tactical squads" I'm sure they still would have sold like fried chicken at a county fair. For the record I don't own any Primaris anything and never will. Making my Green Wing into Legends would remove my ability to use my Dark Angels outside of specialist detachments. Also how int he bleep are Dark Angles so easily down with this Primaris stuff, god the fluff.

I'm not as sour on primaris as you are (I'm doing a primaris AL army and working some other primaris into my Indomitus Crusade army), but I largely agree. Primaris models are cool. I like the "tacticool" gear they have. If they'd just been introduced as truescale marines with a couple new optional toys, that would have been fair enough. I get that the size difference might be awkward, but GW doesn't seem to mind weird scale disparities for my new/old sisters, eldar, or chaos marines. I don't begrudge anyone who likes the primaris fluff, but personally it just feels really forced to me.

Regarding DA, I was under the impression that there was a novel or two all about the DA initially not being comfortable with bringing primaris into the fold?

Blackie wrote:It could work for vanilla marines, maybe. Former standalone chapters (SW, DA, BA) have tons of units with no primaris counterpart. A SW army with no TWC, wulfen, etc... is no SW army, just a SM army painted in light blue.

Rolling primaris/firstborn together doesn't have to mean getting rid of the unique units. You can still have TWC and wulfen even if you lump grey hunters and intercessors together into the same datasheet.

It would make sense to squat primaris rather than firstborn then, or to relegate them into legends or something like FW books. Primaris didn't add anything to the game, or even to SM. Keep them for collectors, that's where they belong.

Again, you can just kind of lump them into the same datasheets as the non-primaris. A tactical marine is almost identical to an intercessor at this point. Just officially fuse them together. So people can use primaris or firstborn models as they prefer with both using the datasheets. You'd have to do some kitbashing if you wanted firstborn interceptors or what have you, but that's not a big deal. And if you simply don't like the new units regardless of whether or not they're fluffed as being primaris, just don't use them. Just like people who don't like wulfen just don't take them.

Literally the only ones that would have anything beyond a lore issue with making them all the same thing, are hardcore modelers or competitive gamers MAYBE. Everyone else is strictly arguing against the fluff. There is zero reason to argue against Primaris existing as an update to the oldest faction in 40k.

They need to give missile launchers a +1 to ballistic skill of shooter for missile tracking. Then they would be better

So then Marines are firing on a 2+?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So then Marines are firing on a 2+?

If they're standing still with the ML, why not?

Yes. 2+ with krak missiles. In older editions they had a targeter for +1 to hit.

This way it’s not as strong as las cannons but it does have higher chance of hitting. We have missiles that can track tanks now. So why not? Maybe even pay a CP for a tank buster missile that can do top attack to hit the top armor and does extra damage.

In older editions you have way more missile types to choose from. Plasma. Anti plant. ( for removing organic terrain). So missile launchers should have a lot of versatility. just two types of missiles is lame. And frag missiles just suck.

Quoting myself because I still think it's relevant:

"The profile I think it needs to be relevant at this point in 9.7th edition is :
Frag Assault D6 Blast S4 AP 0 Dmg D3 Ignores cover
Krak Heavy 1 S8 AP -2 Dmg 1+D6 If firing model didn't move, +1 to hit T6+

Flakk Heavy1 S7 AP-2 Dmg D3/vs AIRCRAFT 3+D3 If firing model didn't move, +2 to hit if AIRCRAFT "

The frag blast being DD3 is the worst suggestion I've seen.

 Gibblets wrote:
Quoting myself because I still think it's relevant:

"The profile I think it needs to be relevant at this point in 9.7th edition is :
Frag Assault D6 Blast S4 AP 0 Dmg D3 Ignores cover
Krak Heavy 1 S8 AP -2 Dmg 1+D6 If firing model didn't move, +1 to hit T6+

Flakk Heavy1 S7 AP-2 Dmg D3/vs AIRCRAFT 3+D3 If firing model didn't move, +2 to hit if AIRCRAFT "

I might be missing something, but it doesn't sing to me. The frag profile looks like it's tweaked to specifically kill marines better (Dmg D3), which feels gamey and not particularly lore appropriate. I'm also not sure how I feel about frags ignoring cover. It's a direct shot missile, right? Not something with a programmable arc? Seems like exactly the sort of weapon you'd want to hug cover against, but I acknowledge that the rule helps it against hordes. Also, I know averages are a thing, but potentially inflicting 18 damage with a single frag missile feels odd. But maybe it would work out in practice.

Tying the to-hit modifier to the target's Toughness seems odd now that keywords exist. Your goal is to make it better at hitting tanks and monsters, right? Why not just give the bonus versus that keyword so that you don't also buff it against grotesques standing near a haemonculus or against Salamander gravis characters. (Salamanders still have a +1T WL trait, right?) I think I kind of like the idea of trading movement for a +1 to hit.

 Gibblets wrote:
Quoting myself because I still think it's relevant:

"The profile I think it needs to be relevant at this point in 9.7th edition is :
Frag Assault D6 Blast S4 AP 0 Dmg D3 Ignores cover
Krak Heavy 1 S8 AP -2 Dmg 1+D6 If firing model didn't move, +1 to hit T6+

Flakk Heavy1 S7 AP-2 Dmg D3/vs AIRCRAFT 3+D3 If firing model didn't move, +2 to hit if AIRCRAFT "

This seems a bit overboard. I agree the Frag Missile profile is lackluster, but D3 and Ignores Cover is way too much. The way to protect yourself from fragmentation explosives is to hide, so Ignore Cover is the wrong move.

I would think something like:

Frag Missile: Heavy D6 S4 AP 0 D 1, Blast, Attacks with this weapon gain a +1 to Hit

Krak Missile: Heavy 1 S8 AP -2 Dmg D6

Flak Missile: Heavy 1 S7 AP -1 Dmg D3, attacks with the weapon gain +1 to Hit targets that Fly. Each time a successful wound roll is made for an attack with this weapon, an Aircraft target suffers D3 mortal wounds in addition to any other damage.

My reasons are the Krak Missile profile is OK if the other profiles are equally useful against other targets. The Frag Missile is lackluster under the current rules, but the point of explosive shrapnel is it is easier to hit with. The Flak profiles needs to negate Hard to Hit for Aircraft, but doesn't need to be magically more accurate that other attacks. However, a solid hit with a Flak weapon is a nightmare for Aircraft, hence Mortal Wounds.

The Frag profile on a ML would hit harder than a Custodes with an Axe, yeah, no.

Hate to keep harping on this, but not Every weapon needs to be able to be the best thing ever. Please stop with the ever increasing power creep. What would be the point of Heavy Bolters if a frag profile does better damage? What is the point of LC if Krak do better damage? What is the point of Melta? Stop with the silliness. Just legends it and lets get back to nerfing Orks.

/s

 Wyldhunt wrote:

--

Regarding DA, I was under the impression that there was a novel or two all about the DA initially not being comfortable with bringing primaris into the fold?

Yes, the Dark Angels / Tau book "War of Secrets" is about a freshman class of Primaris getting hazed by the veteran upper classmen to learn their place. Unfortunately one prank is taken too far when a hotshot Primaris rolls a 1 on his plasmagun. Was there foul play? It's a secret...

Back on topic, I'm with others here that giving a bonus to-hit with the frag missiles is the way to go, but I'd rather see ALL blast weapons get that bonus against hordes.
From the Buff the blast rule thread:
Blast weapons give +1 to-hit per model in the target unit. Coupled with heavy weapon's -1, blast weapons would become the anti-horde weapons but would be less effective against single targets.
Also, I would give krak missiles +1 to-hit VEHICLE keywords.

Edit: I also like I_am_a_Spoon's idea: having the number of shots be tied to the number of models in a target unit, capped at the old maximum. Example: Frag missiles D6 shots becomes 6 against a 10 model unit, or 5 to make it 1:2 but I don't think it's necessary...

I'd prob make the blast be AP -1, and make the krak missile Damage 3. Something I'd love to see in general is to have blast weapons be more powerful, but be limited to a max number of attacks of the models in the target unit (at the time the attack is allocated). Also make Multimeltas Blast.

I think this may have been suggested at some point, but I was thinking about a system of weapon/target keywords earlier (ie. a Lascannon has <ANTI-TANK>, which would be defined as "+1 to [hit or wound] targets with the <VEHICLE> keyword"). It wouldn't be a directed at Missile Launchers specifically, but if most weapons only had 0-1 "Preferred target" keywords, that would indirectly buff the Missile Launcher (and Grenade Launcher, and anything else that had a choice of weapon profile) since the Missile Launcher would have two - one anti-infantry for the Frag round, one anti-tank for the Krak round.