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.

"You're doing it wrong then."

There's nothing to do wrong. For what I use heavy support for, the ML is inferior to both the autocannon and lascannon. There is literally no reason for me to ever bring a ML.

MLs are still 48". 48" of nothing dying power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Its actually quite balance"

Balance and GW don't go together at all. But think what you like. I find for the table sizes, plasma is quite overpowered and MLs are garbage because they have no optimal targets outside a couple codices. I build TAC lists, so I can't count on that. Out they go.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 bocatt wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

I'm speaking more from a balance issue. I don't like that a rapid fire weapon can gun down 2+ armor wholesale while an anti-tank rocket bounces off harmlessly.

Do you know how many shots on average it takes to kill a 2+ save with a bolter vs a krak missile?

It takes 18 bolter shots, at BS4, to cause a single unsaved wound to 2+ armor.

Meanwhile, it only takes 10.8 shots with a Krak missile.


Its actually quite balanced, because Terminator armor is specifically designed with weather anti-tank fire and allow for assaults. Its so tough it takes something like Plasma or Lascannons to pierce, and even then its not a sure thing.

It stands to reason the same weapon isn't going to be effective against a target its not meant to kill.

Terminators are vulnerable against high volumes of fire, like anything with heavy armor is liable to be. Terminators are meant to take a massively powerful shot on the chin and survive, but they die to massed quantities of small weak weapons.

Its just how the game works.

Just to be clear here, a plasma gun is Rapid fire and AP2, pretty sure he wasn't talking about bolters, so without math hammering hits and Str 7 wounds vs Toughness 4, it ideally forces two invuln saves against terminators a turn vs the krak missile doing none. I agree with the missiles bouncing off statement, but I can't find a way to balance it without breaking the rest of the game

Yeah, me neither. The vehicle damage table in 6th just hosed the krak missile so badly.

If you're using a missile launcher against terminators, you're doing it wrong.

"If you're using a missile launcher against terminators, you're doing it wrong."

/headdesk

I know this. I'd like my single shot heavy support to have the option to engage terminators. That's my complaint.

Martel732 wrote:
"You're doing it wrong then."

There's nothing to do wrong. For what I use heavy support for, the ML is inferior to both the autocannon and lascannon. There is literally no reason for me to ever bring a ML.

MLs are still 48". 48" of nothing dying power.

So you are saying a s8 ap 3 shot is INFERIOR to two s7 ap 4 shots? Considering how 1/10 of the marines can have MLs and only a predator can carry a autocannon?

"So you are saying a s8 ap 3 shot is INFERIOR to two s7 ap 4 shots? Considering how 1/10 of the marines can have them and only a predator can carry a autocannon? "

These two statements have nothing to do with each other. The availability of a weapon is not a good way to judge its actual efficacy. In fact, this is the exact reason I like havocs way more than devastators.

Since both the autocannon and the ML rely on HP stripping to be effective, the weapon with the higher rate of fire and one less strength is better against AV 10, AV 11, AV 12 targets. Only at AV 13 does the krak missile get better, but at this point, the lascannon completely dominates it.

Except you can only make the comparison if the model in question can actually take both weapons. You wouldn't compare a Bright Lance with a Lascannon because they're from 2 different Codices.

Loyalist marines can only take Autocannons in limited quantities, but they can take missile launchers in large numbers. Both on infantry and on vehicles.

You are comparing Apples to Oranges.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except you can only make the comparison if the model in question can actually take both weapons. You wouldn't compare a Bright Lance with a Lascannon because they're from 2 different Codices.

Loyalist marines can only take Autocannons in limited quantities, but they can take missile launchers in large numbers. Both on infantry and on vehicles.

You are comparing Apples to Oranges.

Being able to take missile launchers in large quantities doesn't make them good. It means the marines are tempted to take lots of copies of a weapon that is inferior to the autocannon at cracking AV10-12. Also, last time I checked, marines can pack in quite a few autocannons with riflemen dreads. Unless, of course, you are BA.

Think about how many autocannon dreadnoughts you can actually fit in a marine list. 3 normally. BAs and GKs can take 6 but they're exceptions. Thats also taking up Elite and HS slots that are pretty competitive for other units.

6 autocannons that can only fire at 3 targets a turn is hardly efficient anti-tank.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Think about how many autocannon dreadnoughts you can actually fit in a marine list. 3 normally. BAs and GKs can take 6 but they're exceptions. Thats also taking up Elite and HS slots that are pretty competitive for other units.

6 autocannons that can only fire at 3 targets a turn is hardly efficient anti-tank.

How are BA taking 6 autocannon dreads?

6 twin-linked AC shots can shoot up a lot of low AV vehicles. I realize that some lists revolve around the sternguards, etc. But the riflemen dread is a way to get ACs into a marine list.

None of this changes the fact that I find alternatives to MLs in my heavy slots.

3 Venerable Dreads and 3 regular Dreads(HS)

And yes, autocannons are good anti-vehicle/anti-infantry weapons. I don't dispute that, but they don't make missile launchers obsolete or useless.

Taking even 3 dreadnoughts is expensive and means you aren't taking Terminators, Sternguard, etc... Which is a pretty serious dilemma.

My primary objection is to the ML is having to rely on HP stripping with a ROF of 1. Well, that and frag missiles don't ever seem to cause the wounds in practice that papers shows they should.

The thing you're forgetting is that the Missile Launcher is amazingly effective against other units; I know Tau for example are very afraid of a AP3 weapon that can ID crisis suits, and often the Crisis Teams are given ablative drones to prevent MLs from touching the suits... I'm fairly sure that MLs may have also contributed to the lack of units of similar multiwound T4 3+ units, like Tyranid Warriors. But the ML also is a counter to units like Zoanthropes, 'eavy Nobz. The fact that it's capable of taking these units off the board at 48" (I stated 36" earlier, idk why, brain fart) means its powerful. If it had AP2, there'd be no point to taking Plasma Guns or Autocannons for anything.

If you want to imagine why a ML is ineffective against a 2+ save infantry model, just imagine the infantry model being struck by an explosion and walking through it. Afterall, if they can get shot by a Leman Russ Battle Tank and shrug it off, the ML surely wouldn't be more capable.

No I haven't forgotten that. I use lascannons and melta for the jobs your're describing. But lascannons and melta can also take out teqs and heavy armor.

 Grey Templar wrote:
3 Venerable Dreads and 3 regular Dreads(HS)

And yes, autocannons are good anti-vehicle/anti-infantry weapons. I don't dispute that, but they don't make missile launchers obsolete or useless.

Taking even 3 dreadnoughts is expensive and means you aren't taking Terminators, Sternguard, etc... Which is a pretty serious dilemma.

Especially when those Dreadnoughts die to a Krak Missile

How about if you made krak missile shots rending? Would that help? Making them AP 2 all the time is too much.

Martel732 wrote:
Well this is what I'll say: every time I've used MLs in 6th, I've regretted it. So I've stopped.

My tyranid warriors will be quite pleased at the possibility of less missile launchers in the universe. They are getting tired of blowing up.

Martel732 wrote:
No I haven't forgotten that. I use lascannons and melta for the jobs your're describing. But lascannons and melta can also take out teqs and heavy armor.

A Devastator with a Lascannon also costs close to the same as two Devastators with Missile Launchers. Missile Launchers are also superior against IG platoons and Guardians. I don't see the problem here, except that Missile Launchers are a tad too cheap.

It also sounds like you want to use missile launchers for the job that plasma was designed for. If in such dire need of taking care of Terminators, then bring plasma or lascannons, it's really that simple.

You know, I think Martel is playing a different game to the rest of us.
Missile launchers have been quite useful for me, not to mention the Land Speeder variety and those cyclones on the terminators.
The basic ML is an effective weapon against a wide range of targets.

"It also sounds like you want to use missile launchers for the job that plasma was designed for. If in such dire need of taking care of Terminators, then bring plasma or lascannons, it's really that simple."

I would take plasma off the terminator list by making it AP 3.

"Missile launchers have been quite useful for me, not to mention the Land Speeder variety and those cyclones on the terminators. "

I'm not talking about the multiple shot versions. Those are fine. The single shot ML, however, sucks in 6th no matter how cheap it is. However, the typhoon has the problem now that speeders are incredibly fragile. Pricey + fragile is not a good combination.

"The basic ML is an effective weapon against a wide range of targets."

You mean ineffective weapon against a wide range of targets. Fixed that for you. It has some sweet spots against MCs, but in a TAC list, I can't a priori know whether I need to shoot 3+ Tau suits and 3+ MCs or a bunch of 2+ teqs or oblits. Again, are you making TAC lists or tailored lists?

Martel732 wrote:
I'd like my single shot heavy support to have the option to engage terminators. That's my complaint.

Then take a Lascannon.

 Wilytank wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'd like my single shot heavy support to have the option to engage terminators. That's my complaint.

Then take a Lascannon.

That's exactly what I do.

Problem solved, case closed, then.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. But for game balance, I think plasma should be AP 3 and the allegedly anti-vehicular missile be AP 2.

I'd love to see more MLs, because I think they are junk as they currently are implemented.

and then no one would take a lascannon ever

in addition, no one would take plasma either.

this would make missile launchers overpowered and invalidate 2 other commonly used weapons

Krak missiles are light anti tank. They are effective against light and medium armor but are defeated by armor that is made to defeat anti tank rounds. Las Cannons and such are so powerful to defeat any armour put in front of them.

I'm not sure that the plasma gun would be invalidated as it is a special weapon, but I'm seeing the problem with this proposal. Perhaps nerfing plasma guns (not cannons) down to AP 3 would make this situation more balanced, as I still don't like the single shot heavy weapon having less AP than the rapid fire special weapon.

The vehicle damage chart really makes the krak poor against any light AV when compared to the autocannon. I'm just unable to get over this. The krak missile literally can't do it's job in 6th edition. The ROF is so slow and they rely on HP stripping. It's insane.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not sure that the plasma gun would be invalidated as it is a special weapon, but I'm seeing the problem with this proposal. Perhaps nerfing plasma guns (not cannons) down to AP 3 would make this situation more balanced, as I still don't like the single shot heavy weapon having less AP than the rapid fire special weapon.

The vehicle damage chart really makes the krak poor against any light AV when compared to the autocannon. I'm just unable to get over this. The krak missile literally can't do it's job in 6th edition. The ROF is so slow and they rely on HP stripping. It's insane.

Autocannons are also light-medium anti tank weapons. I dont see why missile launchers need to be better at autocannons at taking out low level armor. The Missile launcher is better at killing Meq, better at killing MCs and has versitility from using other missiles. Autocannons cant get a small blast and cant get skyfire missiles.

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not sure that the plasma gun would be invalidated as it is a special weapon, but I'm seeing the problem with this proposal. Perhaps nerfing plasma guns (not cannons) down to AP 3 would make this situation more balanced, as I still don't like the single shot heavy weapon having less AP than the rapid fire special weapon.

Do you not understand how superheated gas to the point of ionization can eat through matter easier than a standard armor-piercing round can?

And instead of having two short ranged armor ignoring weapons (other being Meltagun), you'd rather have two long ranged ones? I can't see the balance here.

Well, skyfire missiles cost crazy points imo for their efficacy. That's a separate issue.

And the ability of the krak to kill marines better than the autocannon goes away if the meqs have a 5+ save. The krak missile is not better at killing MCs with an invulnerable save.

The krak missile really suffers against the autocannon in most situations because torrent of wounds is so strong. Torrent always works given enough torrent. AP 3 is an if-come-maybe on a single shot weapon.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wilytank wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not sure that the plasma gun would be invalidated as it is a special weapon, but I'm seeing the problem with this proposal. Perhaps nerfing plasma guns (not cannons) down to AP 3 would make this situation more balanced, as I still don't like the single shot heavy weapon having less AP than the rapid fire special weapon.

Do you not understand how superheated gas to the point of ionization can eat through matter easier than a standard armor-piercing round can?

And instead of having two short ranged armor ignoring weapons (other being Meltagun), you'd rather have two long ranged ones? I can't see the balance here.

I don't care about technical explanations. I understand about plasma just fine. I care about balance. The balance is in rate of fire. Rapid fire AP2 is kinda nuts to me when an anti-tank missile only gets AP 3. Either that, or plasma guns need to cost more and MLs less.

You want to upgrade the Space Marines most diverse weapon while destroying the efficacy of the lascannon and plasma gun. Who would take those weapons if the ML could do their job almost as good. Firing 2 shots with a modest probability that one fails and causes a wound to the shooter is the price plasma pays for AP2. It's not even capable of wounding outside 24", and at 12-24" it doesn't get volume of fire. Now make it AP3, and see how many people want to take a gun whose sole purpose is then to kill MEQ equivalent units at the cost of a chance to kill themselves.

Now, I could see adding a Armorbane missile or some such, like the Flak missile adds skyfire, but I can not see upgrading the ML to AP2 without a similar points increase.

Also, a ML beat out AC's because they are instead death to multiwound T4.

Martel732 wrote:
Well, skyfire missiles cost crazy points imo for their efficacy. That's a separate issue.

And the ability of the krak to kill marines better than the autocannon goes away if the meqs have a 5+ save. The krak missile is not better at killing MCs with an invulnerable save.

The krak missile really suffers against the autocannon in most situations because torrent of wounds is so strong. Torrent always works given enough torrent. AP 3 is an if-come-maybe on a single shot weapon.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wilytank wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I'm not sure that the plasma gun would be invalidated as it is a special weapon, but I'm seeing the problem with this proposal. Perhaps nerfing plasma guns (not cannons) down to AP 3 would make this situation more balanced, as I still don't like the single shot heavy weapon having less AP than the rapid fire special weapon.

Do you not understand how superheated gas to the point of ionization can eat through matter easier than a standard armor-piercing round can?

And instead of having two short ranged armor ignoring weapons (other being Meltagun), you'd rather have two long ranged ones? I can't see the balance here.

I don't care about technical explanations. I understand about plasma just fine. I care about balance. The balance is in rate of fire. Rapid fire AP2 is kinda nuts to me when an anti-tank missile only gets AP 3. Either that, or plasma guns need to cost more and MLs less.

That Rapid Fire AP2 costs at least 10 points, compared to the missile launcher which is free. The missile also has a higher strength and twice the range.

Its about mixing the threat. Do you want a slightly less powerful gun that can melt through any armor but has a short range? Or do you want a stronger weapon with longer range that can penetrate all but the heaviest armor?

Xyrael wrote:
You want to upgrade the Space Marines most diverse weapon while destroying the efficacy of the lascannon and plasma gun. Who would take those weapons if the ML could do their job almost as good. Firing 2 shots with a modest probability that one fails and causes a wound to the shooter is the price plasma pays for AP2. It's not even capable of wounding outside 24", and at 12-24" it doesn't get volume of fire. Now make it AP3, and see how many people want to take a gun whose sole purpose is then to kill MEQ equivalent units at the cost of a chance to kill themselves.

This. Then, we're back to another thread someone else makes about how ionized gas can't eat through terminator armor, but a simple cone of standard explosive can.