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.

Martel732 wrote:
Okay geniuses. Have I imagined MLs accomplishing absolutely nothing? What exactly are the good for other than IDing T4 models with 3+ armor?

Popping light vehicles, doing some good DMG vs hordes, annihilating Tyranid Warriors and things like them, causing significant DMG to MC...

I could go on.

How many ML are you using in your opinion?

One is useless... Three + in a unit is pretty good vs all of the above.

Killing transports and medium vehicles(AV12 or less)

Killing MCs that don't have 2+ armor(so not Riptides or Dreadknights)

They have the ability to be a small blast weapon. Never underestimate what getting 2-3 hits vs 1 hit can do against weak enemies like Guardsmen, Orks, or Nids. Even Space Marines aren't immune.

This flexibility is a very good thing.

Str8 is actually pretty good at killing any vehicle that isn't a Land Raider and doesn't have Quantum Shielding(which it can still penetrate)


Flexibility, Flexibility, Flexibility, and did I mention Flexibility?

 Grey Templar wrote:
Killing transports and medium vehicles(AV12 or less)

Killing MCs that don't have 2+ armor(so not Riptides or Dreadknights)

They have the ability to be a small blast weapon. Never underestimate what getting 2-3 hits vs 1 hit can do against weak enemies like Guardsmen, Orks, or Nids. Even Space Marines aren't immune.

This flexibility is a very good thing.

Str8 is actually pretty good at killing any vehicle that isn't a Land Raider and doesn't have Quantum Shielding(which it can still penetrate)


Flexibility, Flexibility, Flexibility, and did I mention Flexibility?

This... Everything in this!!!

You two also forgot that they're the only AA weapon our infantry can use besides a quadgun/icarus Lascannon

Martel732 wrote:
Okay geniuses. Have I imagined MLs accomplishing absolutely nothing? What exactly are the good for other than IDing T4 models with 3+ armor?

They can be good against light-med armor. Good against crisis suits, but a smart opponent will have a T5 2+ suit in the front to tank the wounds. Problem is they are pricey & mostly 1shot. What I don't get is why whirlwinds & typhoons are different entries

Actually, even 4 MLs is too slow at popping vehicles. Do the math. They're terrible, even against lowly AV 11. They are ROF 1 hull strippers. That's the slowest possible way to kill a vehicle in this game.

I can't count on MLs against MCs, becaue the MC might be a Riptide or something else with a 2+ save. Remember I'm going for TAC, not a tailored list. I need a reliable choice, not if-come-mabye.

Frag missiles are terrible against hordes because the small blast template is very inconsistent and mitigated by spacing of models. Also, they allow a 5+ armor save, so things like guardians and guardsmen in the open are able to save against them. Terrible.

I use 0 MLs. Because whenever I see them in action, they are fail. Epic fail. They accomplish none of the tasks they are purported to. And they usually take up a heavy slot. Unacceptable.

Typhoon launchers on speeders are much better, because they can maneuver for side shots on more valuable targets. But the speeders themselves have issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are "flexible" but do none of the jobs well enough to consider the job done. Flexibility is worthless without efficacy. If you try this scheme with the centurions, you will find out the hard way.

While I think Martel is often "overly negative," he's dead on about MLs. As a veteran Space Wolf player, I completely agree about MLs being nearly useless in a TAC build.

The only exception being a Typhoon squadron with Prescience. That's an outstanding unit, and sadly the best AA option in the DA codex.

The math doesn't lie. Just because GW sells the ML as a TAC weapon that is flexible, doesn't mean a thing. You have to look at what it is taking off the battlefield that you care about. And the answer to that is not much.

I agree with him that ML are not very good for their cost & as they are utilized with SM. Just that the weapon itself is ok, but more often than not you are shooting a single ML shot from a combat squad, that will inevitably miss its target, or bounce off, or be saved. We all have seen it happen over & over. So your 70pt combat squad has effectively become a carrier for your 1 ML shot. Not saying its useless, but not a superstar by any stretch of the imagination.

It's worse than that. Even massed up their damage is meh. Especially now that are only 5 pts less than a lascannon. For how they function, they should be 5 pts max, not 15.

Oh, and what exactly am I 'overly negative' about? Do I lie about how miserable the BA are? Do I lie about MLs? Do I lie about how the new codex is just a speed bump for the Tau/Eldar?

Martel732 wrote:
Actually, even 4 MLs is too slow at popping vehicles. Do the math. They're terrible, even against lowly AV 11. They are ROF 1 hull strippers. That's the slowest possible way to kill a vehicle in this game.

I can't count on MLs against MCs, becaue the MC might be a Riptide or something else with a 2+ save. Remember I'm going for TAC, not a tailored list. I need a reliable choice, not if-come-mabye.

Frag missiles are terrible against hordes because the small blast template is very inconsistent and mitigated by spacing of models. Also, they allow a 5+ armor save, so things like guardians and guardsmen in the open are able to save against them. Terrible.

I use 0 MLs. Because whenever I see them in action, they are fail. Epic fail. They accomplish none of the tasks they are purported to. And they usually take up a heavy slot. Unacceptable.

Typhoon launchers on speeders are much better, because they can maneuver for side shots on more valuable targets. But the speeders themselves have issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are "flexible" but do none of the jobs well enough to consider the job done. Flexibility is worthless without efficacy. If you try this scheme with the centurions, you will find out the hard way.

Ahhhh... Now we get to the bones of contention.

In a TAC list the ML has uses. But if your meta contains Riptides (which honestly, mine doesn't) then you're better off with LC or Grav Weapon.

As always Metas are subjective and making a TAC list is very difficult with all the variables. I don't see Riptides in either of the two Metas I play in. We have five-six Drakespam players, tons of MEQ, two Tau both without Riptide, an Iyanden player, a Guard player and a smattering of other things.

Going from experience of my Meta, Centurions will rip face.

 Fulcrum wrote:
I agree with him that ML are not very good for their cost & as they are utilized with SM. Just that the weapon itself is ok, but more often than not you are shooting a single ML shot from a combat squad, that will inevitably miss its target, or bounce off, or be saved. We all have seen it happen over & over. So your 70pt combat squad has effectively become a carrier for your 1 ML shot. Not saying its useless, but not a superstar by any stretch of the imagination.

But see, I run Space Wolves. I used to run them A LOT. Which means I own a ridiculous amount of ML Long Fangs, because I used to be that guy. Long Fangs are probably still the best ML delivery system in the game...and well, they're still meh.

Krak Missles do have targets they excel against. They're awesome against Nid MCs. No doubt. And if we lived in a world where Tau players were idiots and ran a bunch of Suits around without a Commander tanking; then yeah, they'd be good there too. But ultimately, they're a poor TAC choice, because that's about all they're good at killing. A Daemon MC is going to be so buffed up, and flying, if he ever exposes himself to your immobile ML squad, that it doesn't matter. Marines are either going to be in cover or in massive numbers (assuming you even see Marines). They actually suck against light vehicles compared to other options because of the low ROF and AP 3.

Frag Missles are useless against a good opponent because of spacing versus small blast. I can think of one time I got good value out of frag misles....against a squad of Pink Horrors that chose to shoot rather than run after a deep strike.........but that's a pretty rare example; haha

Puscifer wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Actually, even 4 MLs is too slow at popping vehicles. Do the math. They're terrible, even against lowly AV 11. They are ROF 1 hull strippers. That's the slowest possible way to kill a vehicle in this game.

I can't count on MLs against MCs, becaue the MC might be a Riptide or something else with a 2+ save. Remember I'm going for TAC, not a tailored list. I need a reliable choice, not if-come-mabye.

Frag missiles are terrible against hordes because the small blast template is very inconsistent and mitigated by spacing of models. Also, they allow a 5+ armor save, so things like guardians and guardsmen in the open are able to save against them. Terrible.

I use 0 MLs. Because whenever I see them in action, they are fail. Epic fail. They accomplish none of the tasks they are purported to. And they usually take up a heavy slot. Unacceptable.

Typhoon launchers on speeders are much better, because they can maneuver for side shots on more valuable targets. But the speeders themselves have issues.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are "flexible" but do none of the jobs well enough to consider the job done. Flexibility is worthless without efficacy. If you try this scheme with the centurions, you will find out the hard way.

Ahhhh... Now we get to the bones of contention.

In a TAC list the ML has uses. But if your meta contains Riptides (which honestly, mine doesn't) then you're better off with LC or Grav Weapon.

As always Metas are subjective and making a TAC list is very difficult with all the variables. I don't see Riptides in either of the two Metas I play in. We have five-six Drakespam players, tons of MEQ, two Tau both without Riptide, an Iyanden player, a Guard player and a smattering of other things.

Going from experience of my Meta, Centurions will rip face.

No, that's the whole thing about TAC. It's not TAC if there's a huge swath of enemy types it can't engage. And it's your *heavy support*. Not your troops or fast attack. I don't know if I'm gonna see riptides or not. But I'll tell you that staring down Vindicator spam sucks if you are shooting them in the front with wimpy ass krak rockets. They will instagib your list before you can glance them to death.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

anonymou5 wrote:

 Fulcrum wrote:
I agree with him that ML are not very good for their cost & as they are utilized with SM. Just that the weapon itself is ok, but more often than not you are shooting a single ML shot from a combat squad, that will inevitably miss its target, or bounce off, or be saved. We all have seen it happen over & over. So your 70pt combat squad has effectively become a carrier for your 1 ML shot. Not saying its useless, but not a superstar by any stretch of the imagination.

But see, I run Space Wolves. I used to run them A LOT. Which means I own a ridiculous amount of ML Long Fangs, because I used to be that guy. Long Fangs are probably still the best ML delivery system in the game...and well, they're still meh.

Krak Missles do have targets they excel against. They're awesome against Nid MCs. No doubt. And if we lived in a world where Tau players were idiots and ran a bunch of Suits around without a Commander tanking; then yeah, they'd be good there too. But ultimately, they're a poor TAC choice, because that's about all they're good at killing. A Daemon MC is going to be so buffed up, and flying, if he ever exposes himself to your immobile ML squad, that it doesn't matter. Marines are either going to be in cover or in massive numbers (assuming you even see Marines). They actually suck against light vehicles compared to other options because of the low ROF and AP 3.

Frag Missles are useless against a good opponent because of spacing versus small blast. I can think of one time I got good value out of frag misles....against a squad of Pink Horrors that chose to shoot rather than run after a deep strike.........but that's a pretty rare example; haha

This. Spoken by a space wolf player. My BA can't beat SW because of their grey hunters, not their lame MLs long fangs. They evaporate in a mist from fragnoughts if I so desire.

So, just two small things to add from a non-SM player.

Firstly. Centurions appear to be MoN obliterators. They cost about the same for basically the same stats. Their two weapons isn't as good as the pick-any weapon, but do get a couple of options that obliterators don't. In any case, they're roughly comparable.

Oblits are good, but not straight up awesome in my book. Can centurions deepstrike? Because if they can't then they're definitely worse. In any case, the idea of deploying obliterators on the table and then walking them forward and hoping they survive is absurd. I can't imagine it would be any different for centurions.

Also, as for the mention of a BT T4 horde, I agree that it's nothing special. Not only because of bolter banner DA, but also because of CSM. CSM can get 120 T4 models in just over 1500 points, but all of them have power armor, which, unless they changed that in the new codex, I was under the impression that BT didn't. Plus, CSM can take marks and close combat weapons + BP + bolters.

I'd like to see how 120 BT bodies do against 120 BP+CCW MoK CSM for roughly the same price.

I can't speak much to the rest of it, as my knowledge of SM has suddenly become obsolete. What it does appear like, though, is that the codex is relatively on-balance with DA and CSM. Just because it doesn't have the same power level as "difficulty level: sandbox" taudar doesn't mean that it's a bad codex, though. It means that it's a good codex, and that the tau codex is bad.

Having the new SM codex compete with tau for which army requires the least effort to use would make the game overall a worse one, and I'm glad that they appear to have resisted the temptation.

Martel732 wrote:
The math doesn't lie. Just because GW sells the ML as a TAC weapon that is flexible, doesn't mean a thing. You have to look at what it is taking off the battlefield that you care about. And the answer to that is not much.

Oh, I don't bother with ML in Tactical Squads.

I either go with HB, PC or MM, depending on the army I'd be facing or the job I want them to do, which most of the time is infantry killing.

Also, counting on Tau players to not have riptides is a horrible, horrible plan.

No offense but that sounds like a pretty small limited meta. There's a couple hundred players in my area & since tau & eldar have come out 60%ish have switched to 1 of those 2(or just brought out their old armies & bought a few new models). Power armor is about as common as nids, chaos, or IG. Say 1 in 5 players or so.

I'll have to have a go at writing a TAC list from the new Dex and get back to you.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I don't count on the tau players not having them. I know they own them, they choose not to field them.

I guarantee it will be better without MLs. Unless they are on speeders. Do the math on them massed in groups of four. It's depressing. Oh and flakk missiles? By the time you shoot donw the helldrake with them, your army is barbequed.

This is a game about time, efficiency and efficacy. The ML is too slow at its job to be effective.

 Fulcrum wrote:
No offense but that sounds like a pretty small limited meta. There's a couple hundred players in my area & since tau & eldar have come out 60%ish have switched to 1 of those 2(or just brought out their old armies & bought a few new models). Power armor is about as common as nids, chaos, or IG. Say 1 in 5 players or so.

I play in two metas, roughly 100 miles apart from each other and they have embraced the Drakespam more than any other army.

I've got a good record against Drakespam, but i lack experience in a TAC environment.

I think we have 40 players across the two metas I play in.

Not great, but we do have one, possibly two very experienced tourney players (both of them Drakespam players).

They top ten everywhere they play.

I'd kill for a more varied Meta though.

 Ailaros wrote:
So, just two small things to add from a non-SM player.

Firstly. Centurions appear to be MoN obliterators. They cost about the same for basically the same stats. Their two weapons isn't as good as the pick-any weapon, but do get a couple of options that obliterators don't. In any case, they're roughly comparable.

Oblits are good, but not straight up awesome in my book. Can centurions deepstrike? Because if they can't then they're definitely worse. In any case, the idea of deploying obliterators on the table and then walking them forward and hoping they survive is absurd. I can't imagine it would be any different for centurions.

Also, as for the mention of a BT T4 horde, I agree that it's nothing special. Not only because of bolter banner DA, but also because of CSM. CSM can get 120 T4 models in just over 1500 points, but all of them have power armor, which, unless they changed that in the new codex, I was under the impression that BT didn't. Plus, CSM can take marks and close combat weapons + BP + bolters.

I'd like to see how 120 BT bodies do against 120 BP+CCW MoK CSM for roughly the same price.

I can't speak much to the rest of it, as my knowledge of SM has suddenly become obsolete. What it does appear like, though, is that the codex is relatively on-balance with DA and CSM. Just because it doesn't have the same power level as "difficulty level: sandbox" taudar doesn't mean that it's a bad codex, though. It means that it's a good codex, and that the tau codex is bad.

Having the new SM codex compete with tau for which army requires the least effort to use would make the game overall a worse one, and I'm glad that they appear to have resisted the temptation.

Sorry, not good enough. I don't pour in time and effort and $$ to be humiliated by Tau/Eldars through *not fault of my own*. The Tau codex is the one that is "good", because your judgments about "difficulty: sandbox" doesn't help the W-L column at the end of the day. Compared to a company like Blizzard, GW is really pathetic.

"Firstly. Centurions appear to be MoN obliterators. They cost about the same for basically the same stats. Their two weapons isn't as good as the pick-any weapon, but do get a couple of options that obliterators don't. In any case, they're roughly comparable." 60pts base w/bolters, 80 with anything useful. No invul.

"Oblits are good, but not straight up awesome in my book. Can centurions deepstrike? Because if they can't then they're definitely worse. In any case, the idea of deploying obliterators on the table and then walking them forward and hoping they survive is absurd. I can't imagine it would be any different for centurions."
No deep strike, only transport option is LR, slow & purposeful(like oblits).


"Also, as for the mention of a BT T4 horde, I agree that it's nothing special. Not only because of bolter banner DA, but also because of CSM. CSM can get 120 T4 models in just over 1500 points, but all of them have power armor, which, unless they changed that in the new codex, I was under the impression that BT didn't. Plus, CSM can take marks and close combat weapons + BP + bolters."
For BT it would be 50/50 3+/4+, also 50% WS/bs 3, but with atsknf.

As a decade long avid Khorne player I didn't like the chaos dex either. I traded my army. I don't like oblits, heldrakes, or cultists :(

 Krellnus wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
One of the problems goes back to the fact that the ML sucks hard. So, of course, the hurricane bolter can only be changed out to a ML!!! WTF??

ML don't suck. They're a pretty good weapon.

Yes, yes they do, they are in fact the marine version of Grenade Launchers.

So a weapon that can insta pop hq's and most tanks or is effective against swarm armies sucks? Huh...

They can't pop most tanks. Trying reading the thread. And small blasts suck.

No need for your attitude Martel. Thats what got the last thread closed.

I don't typically use ML's bar a 4x ML squad of devs in the old dex.

Most of the time in Tac squads I'm running MM or LC

Now -- that being said, with the new codex and point costs, why bring a missile launcher at all (unless you are going for Flakk Missiles)? The lascannon and plasma cannon are only 5 points more, and seem like they are much better TAC options. LC has the AP2 and high str. shot. The PC has AP2 and handles all types of infantry and even some light armor.

This is intended to be a legitimate question -- what does the ML bring that makes it more efficient than the other options in the new dex? When they were free, I could see them being a very solid option, but now you have to pay for them, and if I'm going to invest point, why not go the 5 more points to get something that appears to be better?

I'm not trying to get the thread locked. But I've had this conversation about MLs over and over. The math says they suck. Especially with the new price tag.

This concept is important when analyzing the new Centurions. Since half their firepower comes from a weapon that is really not effective in 6th edition, I have to question whether these models are good or not.

I don't think any of the new units are must haves.


Assault Centurions are slow, and I really don't see any reason to use them over TH/SS Terminators which have an option of DSing, aren't S&P, and have an invuln save to help against the CC monsters they can go up against as well as the anti-tank weapons that could be pointed their way . Dev Centurions are somewhat more usable, and if you can stick them in bolstered ruins or behind an Aegis, they have a bit more survivability. Both also run into the problem of being expensive...both in points and model cost.

Both the Stalker and Hunter are lacking Interceptor, which is severely missed. Neither is going to help all that much against the biggest problem unit for Space Marines, which are Helldrakes. I also think Hunters are too gimmicky, and the Savant Lock rule relies on opponents not paying attention. On the other hand, Stalkers can find use against Tau, Eldar, and Necrons since all 3 use skimmers (and some jetbikes) extensively, and twin-linked 4 shot autocannons (or two 4 shot autocannons firing at separate targets at BS2) can be some use against them.

Of course, the big problem with selecting any of the new Heavy Support units is the fact that Thunderfires actually got buffed. Barrage makes them much easier to hide and I'm having trouble justifying not taking at least 2.

 NickTheButcher wrote:
I don't typically use ML's bar a 4x ML squad of devs in the old dex.

Most of the time in Tac squads I'm running MM or LC

Now -- that being said, with the new codex and point costs, why bring a missile launcher at all (unless you are going for Flakk Missiles)? The lascannon and plasma cannon are only 5 points more, and seem like they are much better TAC options. LC has the AP2 and high str. shot. The PC has AP2 and handles all types of infantry and even some light armor.

This is intended to be a legitimate question -- what does the ML bring that makes it more efficient than the other options in the new dex?

Thank you for using logic and not swallowing the old wisdom of MLs being the default TAC choice. True story: they weren't good in 5th, either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nobody wrote:
I don't think any of the new units are must haves.


Assault Centurions are slow, and I really don't see any reason to use them over TH/SS Terminators which have an option of DSing, aren't S&P, and have an invuln save to help against the CC monsters they can go up against as well as the anti-tank weapons that could be pointed their way . Dev Centurions are somewhat more usable, and if you can stick them in bolstered ruins or behind an Aegis, they have a bit more survivability. Both also run into the problem of being expensive...both in points and model cost.

Both the Stalker and Hunter are lacking Interceptor, which is severely missed. Neither is going to help all that much against the biggest problem unit for Space Marines, which are Helldrakes. I also think Hunters are too gimmicky, and the Savant Lock rule relies on opponents not paying attention. On the other hand, Stalkers can find use against Tau, Eldar, and Necrons since all 3 use skimmers (and some jetbikes) extensively, and twin-linked 4 shot autocannons (or two 4 shot autocannons firing at separate targets at BS2) can be some use against them.

Of course, the big problem with selecting any of the new Heavy Support units is the fact that Thunderfires actually got buffed. Barrage makes them much easier to hide and I'm having trouble justifying not taking at least 2.

The Hunter and Stalker needed to be upgrades to a Rhino, not heavy support choices.

Fulcrum wrote:No invul. No deep strike,

Oh wow, then definitely worse.

Did they make preds cheaper like they did in the other power armor codices of late? Because if that's the case...

Fulcrum wrote:For BT it would be 50/50 3+/4+, also 50% WS/bs 3, but with atsknf.

Yeah, that's what I thought.

It would actually be kind of interesting to see a series of games played between CSM, BT, and DA, all with power-armor-heavy armies.

Martel732 wrote: I don't pour in time and effort and $$ to be humiliated by Tau/Eldars through *not fault of my own*. The Tau codex is the one that is "good", because your judgments about "difficulty: sandbox" doesn't help the W-L column at the end of the day.

Umm...

You're talking about being humiliated. You're talking about impoverishing yourself. You're talking about fundamental unfairness and inequality. You're talking about winning being the only thing that matters.

... about a dice game with toy soldiers.

You appear to be suffering a great deal of negative emotion about something that was never designed to be taken so seriously. Your first steps towards healing all of this hurt and anger might involve some time spent seriously reconsidering some of your life choices, at least with regard to 40k.