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.

 pretre wrote:
You've obviously never piled 5 frag templates on a unit and watched them fail a bunch of cover/armor saves.

It's awesome when it works. Like when you have a daemon player that deep strikes, and you managed to get 8 models under each template that hits. When that happens its awesome.

More often than not, though, its not nearly as awesome. Usually I'm hitting 2-3 models under each template. Each template has a 1/3 chance of a 'hit' so even with a BS of 4, more often than not they will scatter. Lets say you manage to hit half the time. That's only 7.5 hits. Against anything with a 4+ armor save your better off just using kraks.

That's the story of the frag missile. It sounds great on paper, but in play its practical use is limited. When you do use it, its awesome, but its not going to happen every game.

 labmouse42 wrote:
It's awesome when it works. Like when you have a daemon player that deep strikes, and you managed to get 8 models under each template that hits. When that happens its awesome.

Agreed.

More often than not, though, its not nearly as awesome. Usually I'm hitting 2-3 models under each template. Each template has a 1/3 chance of a 'hit' so even with a BS of 4, more often than not they will scatter. Lets say you manage to hit half the time. That's only 7.5 hits. Against anything with a 4+ armor save your better off just using kraks.

A bit more than a 1/3 chance. It is a 1/3 chance of a hit and then any roll of 4 or less is still a hit as well. Keep in mind that against anything with a 2+ save, you may be better using frags as well.

That's the story of the frag missile. It sounds great on paper, but in play its practical use is limited. When you do use it, its awesome, but its not going to happen every game.

Sure, but having options is always nice. It isn't like you don't have the S8AP3 as well.

Agreed. Its the option that is nice. That's what gives the ML some flavor.

I mentioned this before. Weapon overall quality is not a binary equation. A weapon is not either 'good' or 'bad'. There is a wide range in weapon quality.
The ML is still a good weapon. Units like long fangs are still very good, especially for the cost.

However, the ML has lost some of its effectiveness. Other weapons have gotten better. As such the ML is no longer the 'go-to' it was in 5th.

Yeah, I can dig that.

Although I think a lot of people (and someone said this earlier) though ML were the goto weapon simply because of Long Fangs. They are still really good for long fangs just because of cost. They have never been really good for anyone else though.

So is it a good weapon or not by these assertions? Assuming its good for the space wolves, being good for one unit in one codex is kinda dubious to me. Do the space wolves have a way to make relentless long fangs in a drop pod and the split MM fire? This seems much more dangerous than some MLs. You can drop in some grey hunters next to them to make sure they don't it WTF owned in HTH.

I still imagine why a C:SM or BA list would ever use a ML.

SW can give Relentless to Long Fangs through Logan Grimnar.

It is really only good for SW because of the points cost.

 pretre wrote:
It is really only good for SW because of the points cost.

I'm wiling to let that be the consensus position.

Still good on BT Typhoons and Terminators, although that's CMLs.

True, true. 2 shots for one weapon system are nice.

I'm not talking about typhoons. These platforms are usually mobile, allowing for side shots and fire twice. The math for them is totally different. They are a grave threat to predator and chimera hulls. But some foot slogger shooting kraks into the front of predators or chimeras is in for a long day. I've considered the typhoon over the multimelta on my stormraven many times. I'm not as crazy about the cyclone. They still end up shooting into front armor too much. Give me the AC and I'll just hose down troops.

I think they were the goto weapon because penetrating light-medium av was much more important back then, while they still gave you the ability to interact with other heavier or body heavy units at a distance while your melta or whatever was on it's way. Stunning things before melta came around was pretty decent back then.

I think that is why str8 was so important. It was the breaking point where you got a lot of benefits and breadth of use out of it, but before the weapons became super expensive. More glances are the important thing now it seems and volume of fire is very helpful against flyers so I'm sure everyone is ruing their MLs.

36-48 range strength 8 weaponry is very very helpful if it's moderately priced. You can only expect to lean on those plasma guns and autocannons so heavily.

As much as people are saying glancing helped the ML, the autocannon got helped almost twice as much. The AC is better against everything up to AV 12 if you all you care about are glances. The real problem is that AP 4 and AP 3 are the same on the vehicle table. If AP 1 were +3, AP 2 +2, AP 3 +1, and AP 4 0, I'd have to rethink it.

The sad part about the ML is I'm not even sure how good the flakk missile really is vs flyers. Especially for the cost. It just seems better to bring your own flyers and shoot real weapons with skyfire.

 pretre wrote:
Although I think a lot of people (and someone said this earlier) though ML were the goto weapon simply because of Long Fangs. They are still really good for long fangs just because of cost. They have never been really good for anyone else though.

BA dev squads also would take lots of MLs -- the few times we actually see lots of BA. Aside from that...yea...we did not see ML spam. I guess people think of it as such a staple because SW were so common for such a long time.

I think people also got used to them as they were 'free' in a C:SM tactical squad. I use air quotes around it because you paid for the ML in the base cost of the model. Its like a hidden tax.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
So is it a good weapon or not by these assertions?

I still imagine why a C:SM or BA list would ever use a ML.

Its a good weapon, and there might be a better one for your unit.
For BA, a ML makes excellent sense. Its just as cheap as SW in dev squads.

For C:SM, its not as hot. You can use it in tactical squads. Otherwise its either overpriced, or there are better options (like LC sternguard)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
The sad part about the ML is I'm not even sure how good the flakk missile really is vs flyers. Especially for the cost. It just seems better to bring your own flyers and shoot real weapons with skyfire.

Agreed. Take havocs. Its so expensive to give them skyfire MLs, that its simply cheaper to bring multiple squads with just autocannons. Each squad pumps out 8 shots, which will, on average, land one shot.

In practice, I've found frags to be almost as good against horde armies as heavy bolters are (at about the same cost). Not quite as good, but you wouldn't expect them to be quite as good, given it's a generalist. Plus, if the opponent is getting an armour save against frags, rather than being an Armour 6 gribbly like an ork or gant, the heavy bolter is a lot better.

What really happened with 6th was that the heavy bolter, plasma cannon, and lascannon all became a little better, relative to the missile launcher -- meaning that it's no longer the obvious 'best heavy weapon for the points' in a take-all-comers army. Personally I think the balance between those four is considerably better than it was in 5th. There's no obvious best option. Which is great.

Martel732 wrote:
The sad part about the ML is I'm not even sure how good the flakk missile really is vs flyers. Especially for the cost. It just seems better to bring your own flyers and shoot real weapons with skyfire.

I've played with a list than ran with 3 Havoc squads with 2 MLs (w/ Flakks) and 2 ACs each a couple of games now. Take it from me when I say that volume of fire is still more important, and that my ACs have consistently been the ones to put flyers out of action. The issue is that any half-decent player who knows how to zig-zag his flyers to maximize shooting potential will also most likely be putting his front and side armors to you, i.e. AV12 for most flyers that you'll see (Storm Raven, Valkyries, Vendettas, Heldrakes). That's a 5 to glance, 6 to pen for a Flakk Missile. You're better off bringing your own flyer or finding more weight of fire to shoot down flyers.

Yeah, the S7 on Flakk really doesn't help it out.

Beleive it or not, I see similarites between the scouts and missile launchers.

You think; yeah they might work this time but more often than naught you get bit for taking them.

I just can't see a reason for BA to take them EVER. I feel confidant in my armies capabilites to overcome anything with something else. I just think the ML could b just army based. Play SW, take them. Play anyone, you have other things that could do just as good if not better.

Of course this begs the question as to whether BA devs can earn a spot in the army vs Stormraven, predator, whirlwind, vindicator. I'm thinking it's a big fat no.

I forgot dreadnought, but please. That's a joke.

Martel732 wrote:
So is it a good weapon or not by these assertions? Assuming its good for the space wolves, being good for one unit in one codex is kinda dubious to me.

It's because of the cost. Long Fang missile launchers are cheaper than C:SM Devastator missile launchers, so they're a better weapon. ML Long Fangs are a cheap spammable unit, while the C:SM equivalent costs more per weapon and has fewer weapons in the unit.

 labmouse42 wrote:
BA dev squads also would take lots of MLs -- the few times we actually see lots of BA.

Of course that's because BA also get the cheaper missile launchers.

I'm having a pain in the butt time trying to convert my steel legion missile launchers to something else atm. Sounds like I'm better off grabbing some auto cannons oryou guys think the lascannon is gonna be better? (at least they make las cannon models for steel legion lol)

I like BA Devastators because of the cheap missiles and the relative focus on having infantry units as opposed to armor saturation when playing BA this edition. The ability to get a FNP and have a combat squad in the back with them scoring and benefiting from the (potential) FNP and aegis isn't too bad either.

4 missiles firing at a AV 11 in cover get 0.6 fewer glances than 4 autocannons. It's an improvement but not exciting. ML are widely available and when not priced in an absurd way and available at BS4 they can be relied on to be very helpful in a number of tasks. They are a little less good at one of them now than they used to be, compared to the improvement some other guns received, and don't make for a very good solution to one of the new flying elements of this edition. I'd say they are about as good as they used to be, but now there is more reason to consider alternative weapons.

I also think that as we see more FNP marines and T6 3+ MCs missiles will look more attractive again. I love 48 range. Autocannons are also just not that widely available. 10 points seems right for missile launchers to me 15 is harder to justify because you will usually have a cute option elsewhere for multipurpose str8+ fire. Psyriflemen, ravagers, vendettas and hades autocannons are an example of this.

The BA best bet is still armor. Their infantry is frankly underwhelming now and that's partly why their devs still suck.

I'd generally rather have jumpers than razor or rhino assault squads. I'd also just rather not have a lot of tactical a in BA either. Trying to make more target saturation with boots on the ground work. ACLC predators are pretty good still but aren't really amazing for much but plinking at light transports or other gunboats. It's too bad BA preds aren't any good for blocking anymore. The close combat change sucked.

I guess this is a little off topic though!

Yes, I guess so. I maintain that the ML is garbage for the BA.

You make the mistake of thinking that anything in the BA book is amazing. The auto/las predator is still one of the best things in the book, and by your own admission, its not amazing. Simply put, the BA suck now.

I find myself agreeing with Pretre, multiple frag blasts are useful, especially against hordes, but even against Space Marines who've grouped up, such as in cover. Three or more frag bursts can really ruin a IG or tyranid player's day, and can mess up armies that like to bunch up for shooting or deep striking. As for "dispersion will avoid most of the casualties" I say great! if your 30 man unit is spread out to max cohesion, you're going to be out of cover with at least part of the unit, relatively slow moving, and have a rather anemic shooting and close combat, and a good chance that it'll be all three. It's a rare unit that can spread itself across half the board and still be effective at anything useful. Anyone who says otherwise is either a genius, or more likely, a fool. So yeah, great, disperse your troops, really, that awesome of you. If taking a few missile launchers encourages that, than I'll take missile launchers.


Having said that, I really don't like them as one off weapons, for much of the reasons pointed out. There are better weapons to be toted around one/squad. While the average points cost isn't too high for me to pay, I really only like taking them when I can get three or more. So you'll really only see them in heavy weapons teams, war walkers, and dev squads in the armies I play. I still wish conscripts could take them, at auto cannon prices, and better than a 1/3 chance to hit (not by much I know) and a handy commissar, I could just plaster an area and giggle at all the return fire.

 Mmmpi wrote:
I find myself agreeing with Pretre, multiple frag blasts are useful, especially against hordes, but even against Space Marines who've grouped up, such as in cover. Three or more frag bursts can really ruin a IG or tyranid player's day, and can mess up armies that like to bunch up for shooting or deep striking.

This actually got me thinking. Everyone here has posted more or less sound arguments for why missile launchers are good, decent/"ok"/meh, or bad, but I'm wondering whether it's more of a function of the local meta. This thread has been on my mind pretty recently, and today I observed a game where SMs were bunched tightly together in multiple places because the only available pieces of cover weren't that big - two or so big buildings, with lots of walls around 4" to 5" long. Also, my local meta hasn't much moved on from 5th ed yet, and MSU lists are still quite common. As a result, high AP weapons were still aplenty, and thus hiding in cover was more prevalent. Sure, anyone smart enough will maximize the 2" coherency radius to avoid blast templates, but I could totally envision a few scenarios where missile launchers would've worked really nicely to inflict multiple wounds in bunched-up marines.

Thoughts?

 Enigwolf wrote:
This actually got me thinking. Everyone here has posted more or less sound arguments for why missile launchers are good, decent/"ok"/meh, or bad, but I'm wondering whether it's more of a function of the local meta. Thoughts?

I think we have a Winner!

 Enigwolf wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
I find myself agreeing with Pretre, multiple frag blasts are useful, especially against hordes, but even against Space Marines who've grouped up, such as in cover. Three or more frag bursts can really ruin a IG or tyranid player's day, and can mess up armies that like to bunch up for shooting or deep striking.

This actually got me thinking. Everyone here has posted more or less sound arguments for why missile launchers are good, decent/"ok"/meh, or bad, but I'm wondering whether it's more of a function of the local meta. This thread has been on my mind pretty recently, and today I observed a game where SMs were bunched tightly together in multiple places because the only available pieces of cover weren't that big - two or so big buildings, with lots of walls around 4" to 5" long. Also, my local meta hasn't much moved on from 5th ed yet, and MSU lists are still quite common. As a result, high AP weapons were still aplenty, and thus hiding in cover was more prevalent. Sure, anyone smart enough will maximize the 2" coherency radius to avoid blast templates, but I could totally envision a few scenarios where missile launchers would've worked really nicely to inflict multiple wounds in bunched-up marines.

Thoughts?

I would absolutely agree with your overall point. The Local Meta completely dictates how you play and what is more effective agains certain armies. Marines in cover are surely move vulnerable to lots of shots (whether they be blasts or small arms). I think it all depends on what army you run. IG have a superb selection of weaponry that punish infantry in the open and they have range to go with it. Marines are great hen they're within 24" so the frag blasts might be something they actually need in quantity.

Of course, those frag missiles pale in comparison to what heavy bolters can do -- for five points cheaper, no less!

(Using Long Fangs as an example: 115 points yields 2.22 dead marines, whether in cover or no. To achieve that result with frag missiles, your five frag missiles would have to generate over 13 hits. Of course, you're also spending 25 points more on that squad...)