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.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'll trust warhammer community articles as far as I can throw them (which is not at all because they're internet data).

They've been documented as wrong about rules sources more than once. And not just like "well maybe they interpreted it badly" wrong, but like outright incorrect.

there's this thing called a printer though, and with the right folding technique you'd be able to throw them pretty far.
And it's way cheaper than throwing your phone or computer

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Yes. They are putting the Killer in Hunter Killer Missile.

Yes, but why? S9 would have sufficed against the vast majority of heavy armour. S10 is only better against T9, which has mostly been priced out of the game, and T5. So is the best target for HK missiles now biker units? I mean, that's fine, I guess, but it seems an odd use for a one shot per game weapon.

Because it makes it better against light vehicles.

Alcibiades wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Yes. They are putting the Killer in Hunter Killer Missile.

Yes, but why? S9 would have sufficed against the vast majority of heavy armour. S10 is only better against T9, which has mostly been priced out of the game, and T5. So is the best target for HK missiles now biker units? I mean, that's fine, I guess, but it seems an odd use for a one shot per game weapon.

Because it makes it better against light vehicles.

Yeh I was gonna say... making something better against T9 is mostly useless, but it's also not the point. Making it better against T5 is actually a big deal. A bunch of expensive units are T5. Custodes are T5. So are DG, though they are hard to kill even with S10. A whole bunch of Eldar vehicles are T5.

Whether the weapon is worth taking, I wouldn't say. But S10 is not a waste.

Niiru wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Yes. They are putting the Killer in Hunter Killer Missile.

Yes, but why? S9 would have sufficed against the vast majority of heavy armour. S10 is only better against T9, which has mostly been priced out of the game, and T5. So is the best target for HK missiles now biker units? I mean, that's fine, I guess, but it seems an odd use for a one shot per game weapon.

Because it makes it better against light vehicles.

Yeh I was gonna say... making something better against T9 is mostly useless, but it's also not the point. Making it better against T5 is actually a big deal. A bunch of expensive units are T5. Custodes are T5. So are DG, though they are hard to kill even with S10. A whole bunch of Eldar vehicles are T5.

Whether the weapon is worth taking, I wouldn't say. But S10 is not a waste.

And all those units have an Invul that makes them not care or a FNP. They aren't good targets.

And I don't think they were thinking about Custodes or DG when they gave the HK S10.

They're thinking that High S = awesome vehicle killer!

Because they don't understand their own game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And I don't think they were thinking about Custodes or DG when they gave the HK S10.

They're thinking that High S = awesome vehicle killer!

Because they don't understand their own game.

Seems like a pretty reasonable guess, but then again, it would alsow explain why they think that wound roll modifiers are not that great, making votwl and transhuman way too cheap...

well either that or they expect people hate bikers and plague marines so they want to give something to utterly anahilate them..

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And I don't think they were thinking about Custodes or DG when they gave the HK S10.

They're thinking that High S = awesome vehicle killer!

Because they don't understand their own game.

Yeah considering it wounds everything the same outside T5 and T8, the better thing to make it a better vehicle killer is S20 and cover everything.

I do not understand what would be so hard about just making it have a higher damage characteristic against vehicles/monsters. Surely that would be the easiest and most straightforward way to do things?

I think it was primarily to wound T8 on a 3+, and catching light vehicles on a 2+ is a bonus. It's barely any points anyways.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not understand what would be so hard about just making it have a higher damage characteristic against vehicles/monsters. Surely that would be the easiest and most straightforward way to do things?

As already pointed out, GW doesn't understand how even their own wounding chart works.

Seems like the leaks of the simplified datasheets have finally tapered out huh? Still waiting to see one from a faction that isn't necron or space marines. Or the full datasheets with the special rules and the like.

They're revealing stuff officially next Saturday, so there's no need to leak datasheets any more to keep the buzz going.

I don't think they were leaking datasheets. They were people posting them as they happened to get newly boxed stock.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I do not understand what would be so hard about just making it have a higher damage characteristic against vehicles/monsters. Surely that would be the easiest and most straightforward way to do things?

Nah man! Vehicles have really high toughness, so you need really high strength to beat that!!1

This is how GW thinks. This is why things like HK missiles go to S10 rather than getting a damage increase. This is why they're afraid of putting T9 (or higher) on things that should have it. If the To Wound chart remained as it was in 7th, this wouldn't be such a big issue.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
As already pointed out, GW doesn't understand how even their own wounding chart works.

Or more that they don't understand how their wounding chart creates the environment where mid-strength/high ROF/mid-damage weapons trump any kind of single shot/high S/high-but-swingy damage "anti-tank" weapons.

There's a poster over on B&C claiming to have seen the new Repulsive Executioner build sheet (no pics, so take with large amounts of ). Says the laser destructer is going to Dd3+3 and the super duper plasma gun is going to D2 on its standard profile.

cody.d. wrote:
Seems like the leaks of the simplified datasheets have finally tapered out huh? Still waiting to see one from a faction that isn't necron or space marines. Or the full datasheets with the special rules and the like.

Well full datasheets will come with codex. Too early for that level leaks.

Primaris apothecary came up on reddit the other day - no changes

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Or more that they don't understand how their wounding chart creates the environment where mid-strength/high ROF/mid-damage weapons trump any kind of single shot/high S/high-but-swingy damage "anti-tank" weapons.

Maybe that is what GW really wants. Not a balanced war game, not a fun game, but something where 10 years later you tell stories at the store how 10 grots killed a chaos lord in melee.
There is also a strange interaction between fluff and game rules. It is realy hard to balance cheap multi shot plasma style weapons and marines of any kind. Either plasma owns everything, and then marine players have a bad time playing a faction that seems less resilient then orc or IG, or marines are cheap super tanks that require anti tank weapons to blow up even a single one. I would rather see the game be more abstract, and maybe with different weapon stats for different type of targets infantry, tanks and titans. But I ain't no game designer, so who knows. Maybe GW really thinks that people don't play the game and take fun from painting a model for 100 hours. And that is suppose to be the fun thing about their games. And for games one should play kill team or warcry.

Karol wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:


Or more that they don't understand how their wounding chart creates the environment where mid-strength/high ROF/mid-damage weapons trump any kind of single shot/high S/high-but-swingy damage "anti-tank" weapons.

Maybe that is what GW really wants. Not a balanced war game, not a fun game, but something where 10 years later you tell stories at the store how 10 grots killed a chaos lord in melee.
There is also a strange interaction between fluff and game rules. It is realy hard to balance cheap multi shot plasma style weapons and marines of any kind. Either plasma owns everything, and then marine players have a bad time playing a faction that seems less resilient then orc or IG, or marines are cheap super tanks that require anti tank weapons to blow up even a single one. I would rather see the game be more abstract, and maybe with different weapon stats for different type of targets infantry, tanks and titans. But I ain't no game designer, so who knows. Maybe GW really thinks that people don't play the game and take fun from painting a model for 100 hours. And that is suppose to be the fun thing about their games. And for games one should play kill team or warcry.

There is something to this. Its the crazy stuff that happened in games you remember >20 years later. I had a friend who had terrible luck with dice and I still remember killing his entire 1500 pt chaos marine army with one squad of 5 death wing terminators in 2nd edition!

I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.

Alcibiades wrote:
I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.

What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.

What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?

Gotta hurt Primaris with something.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.

What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?

Gotta hurt Primaris with something.

So the Imperium purchased Hunter-Killer Missiles 10,000 years ago from their treaty-bound Mechanicum Forge Worlds to ... kill their own Marines that wouldn't be developed for another 10,000 years?

Remember, I asked about in-universe purpose.

The HKM absolutey was an anti-vehicle weapon in past editions, both in the rules and the fluff. It didn't make the transition to vehicles having wounds because GW has a very bad grasp of their own game system and didn't realize that a single-shot, 1d6 damage weapon was not going to be a good vehicle killer if vehicles have 10+ wounds, no matter what strength or AP or bonus to hit they gave it.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.

What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?

It's a cheap tack-on anti-tank weapon for units without anti-tank armament. It exists as a real-world shout-out to the ATGM launchers stuck onto light armoured vehicles during the Cold War (though the tanks tend to carry one instead of 4-6) to allow units to engage heavy armour quickly rather than needing to wait for the real tanks to show up.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.

What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?

It's a cheap tack-on anti-tank weapon for units without anti-tank armament. It exists as a real-world shout-out to the ATGM launchers stuck onto light armoured vehicles during the Cold War (though the tanks tend to carry one instead of 4-6) to allow units to engage heavy armour quickly rather than needing to wait for the real tanks to show up.

But Alcibiades said it wasn't a vehicle killer, so I want to know what he thinks its purpose is.

(I know it is intended to be similar to the ATGMs mounted on BMP-1s and the like, but those ARE heavy vehicle killers. Alcibiades knows something we don't though, so I'd like to hear what he thinks they are. The other assumption is that GW's designers don't have a clue what they're doing, but he didn't seem to espouse that notion.)

Given that almost no weapon in the current edition can one-shot kill a tank, the hunter-killer missile has a perfectly fine anti-tank profile. Stop comparing real world effects to game play effects.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.

What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?

It's a cheap tack-on anti-tank weapon for units without anti-tank armament. It exists as a real-world shout-out to the ATGM launchers stuck onto light armoured vehicles during the Cold War (though the tanks tend to carry one instead of 4-6) to allow units to engage heavy armour quickly rather than needing to wait for the real tanks to show up.

But Alcibiades said it wasn't a vehicle killer, so I want to know what he thinks its purpose is.

(I know it is intended to be similar to the ATGMs mounted on BMP-1s and the like, but those ARE heavy vehicle killers. Alcibiades knows something we don't though, so I'd like to hear what he thinks they are. The other assumption is that GW's designers don't have a clue what they're doing, but he didn't seem to espouse that notion.)

with the new and improved S9, feth primaris, and the ones that go to S10 feth plague marines ?

 alextroy wrote:
Given that almost no weapon in the current edition can one-shot kill a tank, the hunter-killer missile has a perfectly fine anti-tank profile. Stop comparing real world effects to game play effects.

The man's not wrong.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

Alcibiades wrote:
I see absolutely no reason to think that the HKM was designed as a heavy-vehicle killer (obviously it isn't, it's a one-shot weapon that does D6 damage), and the people who are complaining out GW not making it one are just talking out of their asses.

What in-universe purpose would the HKM serve, then?

Gotta hurt Primaris with something.

So the Imperium purchased Hunter-Killer Missiles 10,000 years ago from their treaty-bound Mechanicum Forge Worlds to ... kill their own Marines that wouldn't be developed for another 10,000 years?

Remember, I asked about in-universe purpose.

Problem is most AT weapons only do 6 damage at most - I think they were always described as Krak Missiles - glanced through a few codexs and not a lot of description about them

HK missiles are anti-tank missiles, lore wise. They're basically more advanced versions of the krak missile, as they have a Cogitator on board.

They SHOULD be more precise due to that, and that's the real shame. Give them +1 toHit vs Vehicles, adjust price accordingly, done.