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.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Flakk missiles are terrible. No interceptor, poor strength and ap vaules. Also ridiculously overcosted.

Against other targets they are the middle ground between anti armour and anti infantry. Capable of dong something against both, but not great at either. Specializing is normally a better choice.

I guess it's mostly the range and versatility that appeals to me.
EDIT: but yeah Flakk missiles do suck

I run missile launchers and grav weps, but i play IF with fortification so my tac marines never mover lol. And if something big and scary comes close grav takes care of it. The ML isn't great but it plays two roles and i have found it to be pretty useful.

Nothing else in the Space Marine arsenal has interceptor either and at least the Missile Launcher can still fire a Krak missile at a ground target with full BS.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
Flakk missiles are terrible. No interceptor, poor strength and ap vaules. Also ridiculously overcosted.

Against other targets they are the middle ground between anti armour and anti infantry. Capable of dong something against both, but not great at either. Specializing is normally a better choice.

First Part: I totally agree 15 pts/gun is too high an investment for "Incase my opponent brings flyers"; especially when the only time it is even a good Idea is in a Devastator Squad, where you are sudenly paying 60 points for 4 Anti Air Shots. Guess what else has 4 Anti Air Shots, only they are also Twin Linked and Interceptor? The Quadgun. Which is 75 points when added to a fortification which are all also worth their points for their uses(did you know you can now buy a wall for your wall? Wheres my Xibit Meme?).

Second: not quite as much, they are slightly better at both anti infantry and Tank than Plasma(not counting the superior Plasma Cannon). If a unit spreads out in anything other than a straight line you have a higher chance to hit more models when targeting the middle and scattering then you do hitting, and an overall Higher chance to scatter in such a manner. If your enemy has stretched his entire unit in a single(or double) straight line, he has done you a favor as a few wounds forces his movement to regain coherency(either moving in directions he wasn't planning, or moving models he would prefer not to) , it also facilitates Sniping of Heavys, Specials, and Characters from the unit as you can just move your shooting unit to have them the nearest models to the firing unit. So Blasts have a job and a function tactically in lists although the MLs Blast is piss-poor. The Antitank is not bad, just not that great, it does a good job on Low to mid AV vehicles, but then for the cost of a unit you want to take the ML with(Devs) you can get a fully kitted Fortification with a quadgun.

I just wish i didn't have so many ML from the last few editions, but i did go buy a Dev Box and now have Plasma cannons and Heavy bolters for my Tac squads and 4 Lascannons for my Devs.

TL;DR; Quadguns(with their fortifications) are better, More flexible, and cheaper than Missile launchers with Flakk missiles

Bronzefists42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Against any flyer you care about, the flakk missiile is not getting the job done. Don't use MLs, especially in the new C:SM codex. They are truly awful now.

um no they are awesome (at least in my experience) it gets rid of EVERYTHING.

Then you aren't using the same missile launchers that myself and my opponents use because all the ammo types for the missile launcher suck.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jefffar wrote:
Nothing else in the Space Marine arsenal has interceptor either and at least the Missile Launcher can still fire a Krak missile at a ground target with full BS.

You might as well fire spitwads. Krak missiles can't crack vehicles well and 2+ armor laughs them off.

"The Antitank is not bad, just not that great, it does a good job on Low to mid AV vehicles"

No, it's bad because the ML forces you to HP strip with a ROF 1 weapon. AP 3 is the devil when trying to take vehicles in 6th with ROF 1.

AP 3 and Strength 8 also butchers Crisis Suits.

But not Riptides. It is a fail weapon.

If you're going to be shooting at Crisis Suits you might as well get a Lascannon and have a proper anti-tank/MC weapon. It's not like you're going to miss the Frag Missile's incredible destructive potential anyway...

'Nids, Orks and Guard are all expected this year. Might be a few reasons to have the plate in the arsenal.

Besides, MLs are cheaper than Las or Plas.

The plate is the small template and it doesn't deny guardsmen armor saves or ignore cover. It's terrible. Absolutely terrible.

MLs are cheaper by a measly 5 pts now. And you lose 1 STR, 1 AP and gain effectively nothing. Because the frag missile usually accomplishes nothing.

Martel732 wrote:
The plate is the small template and it doesn't deny guardsmen armor saves or ignore cover. It's terrible. Absolutely terrible.

MLs are cheaper by a measly 5 pts now. And you lose 1 STR, 1 AP and gain effectively nothing. Because the frag missile usually accomplishes nothing.

Yes 1 Missile Launcher is meeh, but 4-5 can do a lot of damage quicly.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The plate is the small template and it doesn't deny guardsmen armor saves or ignore cover. It's terrible. Absolutely terrible.

MLs are cheaper by a measly 5 pts now. And you lose 1 STR, 1 AP and gain effectively nothing. Because the frag missile usually accomplishes nothing.

Yes 1 Missile Launcher is meeh, but 4-5 can do a lot of damage quicly.

Not really. Not for the opportunity cost of the slot. Even Space Cheese players have been noticing this problem with Long Fangs.

OTHOH, Typhoon launchers are pretty dangerous because of ROF 2, but their platform has suffered badly in 6th.

Martel732 wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
The plate is the small template and it doesn't deny guardsmen armor saves or ignore cover. It's terrible. Absolutely terrible.

MLs are cheaper by a measly 5 pts now. And you lose 1 STR, 1 AP and gain effectively nothing. Because the frag missile usually accomplishes nothing.

Yes 1 Missile Launcher is meeh, but 4-5 can do a lot of damage quicly.

Not really. Not for the opportunity cost of the slot. Even Space Cheese players have been noticing this problem with Long Fangs.

OTHOH, Typhoon launchers are pretty dangerous because of ROF 2, but their platform has suffered badly in 6th.

Note my Key word "Can".
I have two Long Fang Packs I run and whepons load out was determined by what was in my Bits Box.
My Secconday is a 5x Missile Launchers
My Primary is 1x Heavy Bolter, 2x Las-Cannons and 2x Missle Launchers.
That and Divination helps alot.

You can shoot those MLs at riptides all day and they'll never even have to pop the 3++. Likewise, you can crap out against AV 13/14 magnificently. Not what I'm looking for in a heavy slot myself.

Of course, you won't be shooting them all day because they'll Ignore Cover pie plate your Long Fangs if they actually threaten something they care about.

Jefffar wrote:
'Nids, Orks and Guard are all expected this year. Might be a few reasons to have the plate in the arsenal.

Besides, MLs are cheaper than Las or Plas.

Honestly, if I wanted a Heavy Support unit that dealt with hordes I'd go with the Thunderfire Cannon, which is cheaper AND better than Missile Launcher spam.

And less effective against vehicles.

Yes, the Lascannon is a better vehicle killer than the ML.
Yes the Thunderfire Cannon is a better infantry killer than the ML (Though if we are comparing with a squad of devastators, those 4 blasts might wind up doing a better job overall)

But the ML is a better vehicle killer than the Thunderfire Cannon and a better infantry killer than the Lascannon

For some armies, being okay at a lot of things is more important than being great at one thing.

Jefffar wrote:
And less effective against vehicles.

Yes, the Lascannon is a better vehicle killer than the ML.
Yes the Thunderfire Cannon is a better infantry killer than the ML (Though if we are comparing with a squad of devastators, those 4 blasts might wind up doing a better job overall)

But the ML is a better vehicle killer than the Thunderfire Cannon and a better infantry killer than the Lascannon

For some armies, being okay at a lot of things is more important than being great at one thing.

Jefffar wrote:
And less effective against vehicles.

Yes, the Lascannon is a better vehicle killer than the ML.
Yes the Thunderfire Cannon is a better infantry killer than the ML (Though if we are comparing with a squad of devastators, those 4 blasts might wind up doing a better job overall)

But the ML is a better vehicle killer than the Thunderfire Cannon and a better infantry killer than the Lascannon

For some armies, being okay at a lot of things is more important than being great at one thing.

But the ML is not okay at doing either. It stinks at doing anything. It loses too much efficacy to gain versatility. The correct answer is to bring TFCs and lascannons and leave all the MLs at home. There is no army that benefits from the ML anymore. Not even the Space Cheese.

But what if your choice is to bring a unit of lascannons or a unit of Thunderfire Artillery or a unit of ML because you only have the points/slots for one?

What would you take to make sure you can deal with vehicles and troops?

I'm not trying to say folks should spam MLs or anything here, just that flexibility is an attribute that can be as important as being optimized to do something. It all depends on the circumstances you are under when building your list.

I don't have just one slot. Your situation is a false dilemma. And lascannons can be found in more slots than heavy, just as ML. That makes the TFC vs the other heavy choices the real question.

There are no circumstances in a TAC situation where the ML is good. The ML is only viable when tailor against certain foes who are limited to 3+ saves like Nids.

How about Necrons?

AV is mostly limited to 13 or les and open topped, giving MLs a real chance to kill. The habit of these vehicles to suddenly loose 2 points of AV when penetrated helps a lot too.
The ML kills Wraiths just as easily as a Lascannon
Scarabs die in droves against both Frag and Krak
Large units of troops that require saturation attacks to kill off or small units of troops hoping out of flyers on the last turn making targets for frag or krak.
Enemy is extremely competent against vehicles meaning things like Predators and Vindicators tend not to live long enough to do much.

If you can afford to bring a unit for las and a unit for TFC, great. But if you can only grab one unit due to points and slots restrictions, a unit that's going to have an option against all of the above might be better for you than one that's only good at some of the above.

MLs suck against AV 13. And for Necron air, flakk missiles are prohibitively expensively.

But while the ML may have some use against Necrons, you are back to tailoring. Look at all the lists where the ML is terrible: CSM, Marines, Tau, etc. Against an unknown opponent, the ML is a terrible choice.

The bottom line is that S8 AP3 ROF 1 sucks for killing vehicles in 6th and S4 AP6 small blast sucks against infantry. Versatility is useless without efficacy.

I've lost enough tanks and crisis suits to missile launchers to know they don't suck against Tau. And I didn't mention Flakk missiles, since neither the Thunderfire nor Lascannon come with anti-air anyway.

Also, does not do as well as something else does not mean it sucks.

It's quite terrible how quickly this thread has completely deviated from the topic which the OP intended it for. It's a knock down drag out argument over heavy weapons effectiveness in the entire codex instead of discussing why individuals prefer certain special weapons.

On Topic: There truly is no best weapon. I feel like each has a purpose. Overall I like having flamers simply because they are so cheap. Pumping too many points into my tac squads isn't worth it to me. I do keep a few other special weapon models around for when I truly do need them. An extra melta on the field is great when I think there may be a chance for a large amount of armor on the field. Grav is nice if I think there's a chance a monstrous creature will show up in my face. Had a game recently in which a lone grav pistol saved the game for me by finishing off a Wraithlord before he pummeled my back field objective. Everything is situational to the point that unless your stacking against a specific opponent its hard to pick. I do believe that plasmas and flamers are very strong all comers

Jefffar wrote:

Yes the Thunderfire Cannon is a better infantry killer than the ML (Though if we are comparing with a squad of devastators, those 4 blasts might wind up doing a better job overall)

As opposed to the 4 Ignores Cover blasts of the Thunderfire Cannon? What?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

Yes the Thunderfire Cannon is a better infantry killer than the ML (Though if we are comparing with a squad of devastators, those 4 blasts might wind up doing a better job overall)

As opposed to the 4 Ignores Cover blasts of the Thunderfire Cannon? What?

Sorry, misfire on the Thunderfire's rate of fire.

 dmthomas7 wrote:
It's quite terrible how quickly this thread has completely deviated from the topic which the OP intended it for. It's a knock down drag out argument over heavy weapons effectiveness in the entire codex instead of discussing why individuals prefer certain special weapons.

On Topic: There truly is no best weapon. I feel like each has a purpose. Overall I like having flamers simply because they are so cheap. Pumping too many points into my tac squads isn't worth it to me. I do keep a few other special weapon models around for when I truly do need them. An extra melta on the field is great when I think there may be a chance for a large amount of armor on the field. Grav is nice if I think there's a chance a monstrous creature will show up in my face. Had a game recently in which a lone grav pistol saved the game for me by finishing off a Wraithlord before he pummeled my back field objective. Everything is situational to the point that unless your stacking against a specific opponent its hard to pick. I do believe that plasmas and flamers are very strong all comers

There's a lot less to talk about with the special weapons because they all have actual functions that they do well. It's hard to get on someone for choosing one over the other.

Jefffar wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Jefffar wrote:

Yes the Thunderfire Cannon is a better infantry killer than the ML (Though if we are comparing with a squad of devastators, those 4 blasts might wind up doing a better job overall)

As opposed to the 4 Ignores Cover blasts of the Thunderfire Cannon? What?

Sorry, misfire on the Thunderfire's rate of fire.

Wait, misfire? Are we in WHFB all of a sudden?