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.

Ice_can wrote:
I think we're agreeing for the most part.
My only concer with going straight to giving things like railguns and vanquishers 2D6 or 3D6 damage is that they become able to oneshot vehicals without invulnerable saves at a rediculous rate and we go back to having medium Vehicals without invulnerable saves vanish from tables like they did against CP rage raven Castellen.

Now if vehicals had way more wounds that would be less of an issue and would expand the design space for MEW/TEQ killing weapons which arn't automatically destroying tanks as well.
While pointing AT weapons at infantry would be blatantly obvious overkill.

Here's the thing:

A hypothetical Repulsor Executioner with a gun that does 2 shots for 2d6 damage wouldn't actually have a higher average, potential, or chance to 1-shot any vehicle than a current repulsor with 4 shots for 1d6 [which is why that, considering it lost transport capacity for this big gun, I hope it does a little more than that]

A Vanquisher or Railcannon with 2d6 damage wouldn't have higher average damage than a Twinlas, or a Battle Cannon [though it would still be markedly worse, but there's a lot of things to fix about the existing big AT guns]

The game already takes too long for all the shooting rules. # of shots rolls, re rolls, hit rolls, re rolls, wound rolls, re rolls, save rolls, re rolls, invuln rolls, re rolls, FNP rolls, re rolls, damage rolls., then do it all again twice for the charge phase and the melee phase.

I like the idea of removing invuln saves. It would nerf psyker heavy armies like 1kSons though, because they rely on mortal wounds. Or remove FNP. But as is there are too many re-rolls, and invulns play a big part of that.

As for the Repulsor, if it's getting the damage potential that some people are throwing around here, this is getting into DBZ levels of power scaling ridiculousness. There are entire armies that were designed around the capabilities of pre-primaris weaponry.

At the end of DBZ, the power levels were expanded to such a degree that it was impossible to keep up, because each boost was muliplicative of the previous level. 2 to 4, 4 to 8, 8 to 16...etc. If you have a sub 300 pt unit roaming around with 4d6 damage potential over 2-3 shots from 1 of it's 3-5 guns, we have officially gone SSJ4 Blue.

??? Katherine suspects something isn't right with FezzikDaBullgryn.

You shouldn't be taking armour save rolls and invulnerable save rolls. You pick one [an Invulnerable save is the minimum value your armour save can be, basically].

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
??? Katherine suspects something isn't right with FezzikDaBullgryn.

You shouldn't be taking armour save rolls and invulnerable save rolls. You pick one [an Invulnerable save is the minimum value your armour save can be, basically].

Well, I'm a bullgryn, you'll pardon the mistake. That being said, are you implying that I am incorrect in my assertion that there are too many rolls, or were you agreeing with me in the premise?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

At the end of DBZ, the power levels were expanded to such a degree that it was impossible to keep up, because each boost was muliplicative of the previous level. 2 to 4, 4 to 8, 8 to 16...etc. If you have a sub 300 pt unit roaming around with 4d6 damage potential over 2-3 shots from 1 of it's 3-5 guns, we have officially gone SSJ4 Blue.

That's pretty exaggerated. Couple things:

- The Repulsor Executioner is only going to have 2 big guns, the laser destroyer/macro plasma incinerator and the heavy gatling cannon. then there's a couple medium guns like the twin heavy bolter and krak grenade launchers and a whole bunch of small arms like the heavy stubber and a bunch of storm bolters. In other words, that 4d6 damage comes from 1 of the 2 guns that are worth mentioning for the price you pay for the platform.
- If it's really going to be a D3 or 2 shot S12 AP-4 Dd6 gun-that-can-potentially-deal-2d6-or-3d6-damage (like the FW laser destroyer) it's going to cost anywhere between 60 and 80 points.
- The vanilla Repulsor is already doing kind of the same thing with it's lastalon + twin lascannon + a whole bunch of small and medium guns, and that one is widely considered underpowered unless it's part of a Guilliman parking lot.

Pandabeer wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

At the end of DBZ, the power levels were expanded to such a degree that it was impossible to keep up, because each boost was muliplicative of the previous level. 2 to 4, 4 to 8, 8 to 16...etc. If you have a sub 300 pt unit roaming around with 4d6 damage potential over 2-3 shots from 1 of it's 3-5 guns, we have officially gone SSJ4 Blue.

That's pretty exaggerated. Couple things:

- The Repulsor Executioner is only going to have 2 big guns, the laser destroyer/macro plasma incinerator and the heavy gatling cannon. then there's a couple medium guns like the twin heavy bolter and krak grenade launchers and a whole bunch of small arms like the heavy stubber and a bunch of storm bolters. In other words, that 4d6 damage comes from 1 of the 2 guns that are worth mentioning for the price you pay for the platform.
- If it's really going to be a D3 or 2 shot S12 AP-4 Dd6 gun-that-can-potentially-deal-2d6-or-3d6-damage (like the FW laser destroyer) it's going to cost anywhere between 60 and 80 points.
- The vanilla Repulsor is already doing kind of the same thing with it's lastalon + twin lascannon + a whole bunch of small and medium guns, and that one is widely considered underpowered unless it's part of a Guilliman parking lot.

Well, I will admit it was hyperbole, however power creep has been a major issue in this edition, and it's getting out of hand. A Transport that outshoots dedicated Anti-tank platforms? For around the same cost?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Pandabeer wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

At the end of DBZ, the power levels were expanded to such a degree that it was impossible to keep up, because each boost was muliplicative of the previous level. 2 to 4, 4 to 8, 8 to 16...etc. If you have a sub 300 pt unit roaming around with 4d6 damage potential over 2-3 shots from 1 of it's 3-5 guns, we have officially gone SSJ4 Blue.

That's pretty exaggerated. Couple things:

- The Repulsor Executioner is only going to have 2 big guns, the laser destroyer/macro plasma incinerator and the heavy gatling cannon. then there's a couple medium guns like the twin heavy bolter and krak grenade launchers and a whole bunch of small arms like the heavy stubber and a bunch of storm bolters. In other words, that 4d6 damage comes from 1 of the 2 guns that are worth mentioning for the price you pay for the platform.
- If it's really going to be a D3 or 2 shot S12 AP-4 Dd6 gun-that-can-potentially-deal-2d6-or-3d6-damage (like the FW laser destroyer) it's going to cost anywhere between 60 and 80 points.
- The vanilla Repulsor is already doing kind of the same thing with it's lastalon + twin lascannon + a whole bunch of small and medium guns, and that one is widely considered underpowered unless it's part of a Guilliman parking lot.

Well, I will admit it was hyperbole, however power creep has been a major issue in this edition, and it's getting out of hand. A Transport that outshoots dedicated Anti-tank platforms? For around the same cost?

Not like that's a new problem for Marines, compare a Razorback and a Predator without sponsons.

The Newman wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:


Well, I will admit it was hyperbole, however power creep has been a major issue in this edition, and it's getting out of hand. A Transport that outshoots dedicated Anti-tank platforms? For around the same cost?

Not like that's a new problem for Marines, compare a Razorback and a Predator without sponsons.

Wave Serpents have been doing that to the Eldar for years (decades?) now. It’s not exclusive to marines.

Now we are comparing SMs to Eldar? Point is, no one asked for a new Land Raider.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Now we are comparing SMs to Eldar? Point is, no one asked for a new Land Raider.

New Rhino*

Primaris land raider will be out in a few years

 fraser1191 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Now we are comparing SMs to Eldar? Point is, no one asked for a new Land Raider.

New Rhino*

Primaris land raider will be out in a few years

Well, I never considered the Rhino to be an offensive powerhouse. Whereas the Landraider USED to be a nice tanky transport thing for getting your terminators into range quickly. This is a flying landraider for getting your aggressors and centurions into combat quickly.

Neither version is a rhino, which is my favorite marine transport since it was just that, a transport.

It's firepower came from it's cargo via it's fire points, which this edition took away for no reason. I miss the days when a land raider or monolith was the height of a heavy vehicle.

So, it's kinda telling that this is the Primaris Landraider. Heavy Firepower transport. GW doesn't want anything to compete with it for sales, so they are removing older transports from shelves.

Ever notice before GW releases something, anything like it becomes "online only". The Baneblade v. Knights.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So, it's kinda telling that this is the Primaris Landraider. Heavy Firepower transport. GW doesn't want anything to compete with it for sales, so they are removing older transports from shelves.

Ever notice before GW releases something, anything like it becomes "online only". The Baneblade v. Knights.

Yeah, so? It's to do with shelf space in stores for the most part. A lot of GWs are quite pokey and don't have space to stock more stuff. So when they have new releases, something hasn't to get bumped out.

Honestly I'm not expecting much from the Executioner.

When CSM got their codex 2.0 they still had 13 point marines. So I doubt any of the Primaris stuff will change. Unless we get our Primaris codex instead

I'm going to HATE this tank. I'm also going to buy it the second its out. I need a second tank next to my regular repulsor for my Primaris only army.... dangit.

These Primaris keep coming out with new toys with the promise of eventually being a viable army. Biggest darn lie there is.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Now we are comparing SMs to Eldar? Point is, no one asked for a new Land Raider.

I did. In the customer survey. Don’t want a rhino. Want a tank. With a big gun. Thank you GW.

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 fraser1191 wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Now we are comparing SMs to Eldar? Point is, no one asked for a new Land Raider.

New Rhino*

Primaris land raider will be out in a few years

Well, I never considered the Rhino to be an offensive powerhouse. Whereas the Landraider USED to be a nice tanky transport thing for getting your terminators into range quickly. This is a flying landraider for getting your aggressors and centurions into combat quickly.

Except that in spite of all sense and consistency Centurions are not Primaris.

Setting aside the fact that buffing primaris into Terminator armor pretty much makes them HQ level, how does the Repulsive even carry them? It can only carry 6 regular primaris right? And the age old conversion chart seems to be 2-1 for Termi-non. So, 3?

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Setting aside the fact that buffing primaris into Terminator armor pretty much makes them HQ level, how does the Repulsive even carry them? It can only carry 6 regular primaris right? And the age old conversion chart seems to be 2-1 for Termi-non. So, 3?

Regular Repulsor carries 10. Which is super annoying since it's the only Primaris transport and it really wants to carry 10 and a Captain.

The Newman wrote:

 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Setting aside the fact that buffing primaris into Terminator armor pretty much makes them HQ level, how does the Repulsive even carry them? It can only carry 6 regular primaris right? And the age old conversion chart seems to be 2-1 for Termi-non. So, 3?

Regular Repulsor carries 10. Which is super annoying since it's the only Primaris transport and it really wants to carry 10 and a Captain.

Thank you for the correction!

Part of the problem is that Grinding Advance was brought in to solve the problem that the typical IG has a gunnery of 4+, so without it, on average you tank was only hitting once every other round. They didn’t factor in tank commanders making the tanks hit every single time.

Gamewise, I would really prefer that your average AFV can take two hits (giving it one turn in a 1-on-1 to do something), and is only destroyed on an outside chance in one shot. Tanks and superheavies then being able to last longer from there (say 4 hits for a Leman Russ-like tank [last to the last round] , and 6 or more hits for superheavies [likely to survive the game, but greatly battered)

Overall, I like the baseline of 2 shots, 2D6 damage and a 50% hit chance for a tank gun, and then rebalance everything around that. Man portable guns shouldn’t be able to one-shot tanks(gamewise, not real life), but be able to reasonable take down a tank if deployed in sufficient numbers with acceptable losses.

And for god’s sake, tone down the Tank commanders so people at least have to take a few moment’s thought whether they’re worth it, rather than the only thing to take.

Meltaguns should still be able to take down tanks in one shot despite being man-portable since they have to deal with poop range though.

Really there's quite a few personal weapons that should have a change of just one-shotting a tank outright if the wargame were to get some good game design. Grav Guns, Meltaguns/Fusion Blasters, and lascannons/dark/bright lances/etc should all be capable of gutting or crippling a tank on one penetrating shot.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Really there's quite a few personal weapons that should have a change of just one-shotting a tank outright if the wargame were to get some good game design. Grav Guns, Meltaguns/Fusion Blasters, and lascannons/dark/bright lances/etc should all be capable of gutting or crippling a tank on one penetrating shot.

While I agree with the sentiment that tanks don't have hitpoints, and much like people, a shot that penetrates has fair odds of just blowing the tank right up...

I don't think of Lascannons or Missile Launchers, and especially Grav Guns [which aren't even AT weapons], should be knocking out tanks in the meta. Lascannons are not big AT weapons, they're little guns that the infantry carries around to give them a chance. A Missile Launcher is [literally] a Bazooka or PTRD, a Lascannon is like a 57mm AT gun; it'll make holes in light tanks, and be adequate most of the time against medium tanks with flank shots or real close, but not really be a good option for heavy tanks. If you really want to stop that tank, that's what Vanquishers, Railcannons, Laser Destroyers, and high-caliber HE guns like the Vindicator are for.

A Battle Cannon is a much more powerful and effective weapon than a Lascannon.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Really there's quite a few personal weapons that should have a change of just one-shotting a tank outright if the wargame were to get some good game design. Grav Guns, Meltaguns/Fusion Blasters, and lascannons/dark/bright lances/etc should all be capable of gutting or crippling a tank on one penetrating shot.

While I agree with the sentiment that tanks don't have hitpoints, and much like people, a shot that penetrates has fair odds of just blowing the tank right up...

I don't think of Lascannons or Missile Launchers, and especially Grav Guns [which aren't even AT weapons], should be knocking out tanks in the meta. Lascannons are not big AT weapons, they're little guns that the infantry carries around to give them a chance. A Missile Launcher is [literally] a Bazooka or PTRD, a Lascannon is like a 57mm AT gun; it'll make holes in light tanks, and be adequate most of the time against medium tanks with flank shots or real close, but not really be a good option for heavy tanks. If you really want to stop that tank, that's what Vanquishers, Railcannons, Laser Destroyers, and high-caliber HE guns like the Vindicator are for.


A Battle Cannon is a much more powerful and effective weapon than a Lascannon.

Grav Cannons are actually more powerful than a battle cannon in the lore, being able to reduce anything from a Leman Russ or a Terminator to a crumpled wreck with one shot. Furthermore yes Lascannons and Missile Launchers are small AT weapons... because you don't need big ones to inflict massive harm to a vehicle. If a lascannon or missile launcher penetrates the armor, you're still just as dead as if a vanquisher cannon had shot you because either weapon has left a smoking hole, ignited ammunition/reactor/unstable fuel, or riddled the compartments with heatened shrapnel shredding everyone and everything in the tank not in their own compartment. And since you're bringing up historical examples, I'd actually remind you that the biggest threats to tanks were anti tank guns and infantry hiding in forests with recoilless rifles - not tanks and not planes. I also don't get why you're calling the 57mm gun a threat only to light tanks when it was disabling Tigers in the Africa Campaign.

Furthemore the only vehicles that should be really able to survive multiple penetrating hits are things like Baneblades and other superheavies - where everything is so heavily compartmentalized as a kind of motorized bunker with treads that one section getting blown to hell isn't that important because there's around 10 other guys in it with only a hardpoint or critical system being damaged. Compromising the tank's overall effectiveness, but certainly not killing it outright.

 Wyzilla wrote:


Grav Cannons are actually more powerful than a battle cannon in the lore, being able to reduce anything from a Leman Russ or a Terminator to a crumpled wreck with one shot. Furthermore yes Lascannons and Missile Launchers are small AT weapons... because you don't need big ones to inflict massive harm to a vehicle. If a lascannon or missile launcher penetrates the armor, you're still just as dead as if a vanquisher cannon had shot you because either weapon has left a smoking hole, ignited ammunition/reactor/unstable fuel, or riddled the compartments with heatened shrapnel shredding everyone and everything in the tank not in their own compartment. And since you're bringing up historical examples, I'd actually remind you that the biggest threats to tanks were anti tank guns and infantry hiding in forests with recoilless rifles - not tanks and not planes. I also don't get why you're calling the 57mm gun a threat only to light tanks when it was disabling Tigers in the Africa Campaign.

Furthemore the only vehicles that should be really able to survive multiple penetrating hits are things like Baneblades and other superheavies - where everything is so heavily compartmentalized as a kind of motorized bunker with treads that one section getting blown to hell isn't that important because there's around 10 other guys in it with only a hardpoint or critical system being damaged. Compromising the tank's overall effectiveness, but certainly not killing it outright.

Just because you can doesn't mean it's good. A PTRD can kill a Pz.V through a band of armor above the tracks, but a D-25T tank gun will make a big hole in the glacis without question at almost any range.

Also, the 6pdr OQF gun was knocking out Pz.VI E's, but it wasn't doing it well.

And, while we're talking about infantry being the greatest threat to armored targets, the infantry in the woods is only dangerous because they've already closed the range, and are able to attack tanks from directions they are weak [like the top or side], not because their weapons are more powerful or dangerous than a tank's cannon. Also, there's lots of them, and relatively few tanks.


Also, IIRC AT guns, self-propelled artillery, and mines all casued considerably more tank losses than infantry with bazookas or tanks. Let me find a source.


Edit: ORO-T-117 [Survey of Allied Tank Casulaties WWII] indicates that "Bazookas" accounted for 14% of lost vehicles, while artillery and mortars accounted for 20% and direct fire from tanks, AT, and artillery accounted for 50%

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:


Grav Cannons are actually more powerful than a battle cannon in the lore, being able to reduce anything from a Leman Russ or a Terminator to a crumpled wreck with one shot. Furthermore yes Lascannons and Missile Launchers are small AT weapons... because you don't need big ones to inflict massive harm to a vehicle. If a lascannon or missile launcher penetrates the armor, you're still just as dead as if a vanquisher cannon had shot you because either weapon has left a smoking hole, ignited ammunition/reactor/unstable fuel, or riddled the compartments with heatened shrapnel shredding everyone and everything in the tank not in their own compartment. And since you're bringing up historical examples, I'd actually remind you that the biggest threats to tanks were anti tank guns and infantry hiding in forests with recoilless rifles - not tanks and not planes. I also don't get why you're calling the 57mm gun a threat only to light tanks when it was disabling Tigers in the Africa Campaign.

Furthemore the only vehicles that should be really able to survive multiple penetrating hits are things like Baneblades and other superheavies - where everything is so heavily compartmentalized as a kind of motorized bunker with treads that one section getting blown to hell isn't that important because there's around 10 other guys in it with only a hardpoint or critical system being damaged. Compromising the tank's overall effectiveness, but certainly not killing it outright.

Just because you can doesn't mean it's good. A PTRD can kill a Pz.V through a band of armor above the tracks, but a D-25T tank gun will make a big hole in the glacis without question at almost any range.

Also, the 6pdr OQF gun was knocking out Pz.VI E's, but it wasn't doing it well.

And, while we're talking about infantry being the greatest threat to armored targets, the infantry in the woods is only dangerous because they've already closed the range, and are able to attack tanks from directions they are weak [like the top or side], not because their weapons are more powerful or dangerous than a tank's cannon. Also, there's lots of them, and relatively few tanks.


Also, IIRC AT guns, self-propelled artillery, and mines all casued considerably more tank losses than infantry with bazookas or tanks. Let me find a source.

I was talking about AT guns themselves, the bazooka wouldn't have the majority of kills as it's more of a late war weapon in terms of popularity and effectiveness. And the lascannon isn't anything like a PTRD and I don't get why you are comparing it to a megajoule laser able to flash-vaporize meter-thick armor and reduce infantry to slag. All 40k anti tank personnel weapons have far more in common with modern ATGM's which are far more of a 'one and done' deal for any vehicle. Anything being shot by a lascannon, melta, or grav gun that achieves a penetrating hit/grav field should either suffer crippling damage or be outright killed entirely. Even Imperial Knights should suffer severe damage when giant holes get punched clean through them, or a grav gun instantly turns a leg into a crumpled wreck.

Regardless of what is "realistic" there's also the little matters of game balance and good play experiences to consider. Two man-portable AT guns reliably taking a transport off the table pushes armor out of the meta altogether and the game is already too lethal as it is, making that bad play experience even worse isn't going to help things.

 Wyzilla wrote:


I was talking about AT guns themselves, the bazooka wouldn't have the majority of kills as it's more of a late war weapon in terms of popularity and effectiveness. And the lascannon isn't anything like a PTRD and I don't get why you are comparing it to a megajoule laser able to flash-vaporize meter-thick armor and reduce infantry to slag. All 40k anti tank personnel weapons have far more in common with modern ATGM's which are far more of a 'one and done' deal for any vehicle. Anything being shot by a lascannon, melta, or grav gun that achieves a penetrating hit/grav field should either suffer crippling damage or be outright killed entirely. Even Imperial Knights should suffer severe damage when giant holes get punched clean through them, or a grav gun instantly turns a leg into a crumpled wreck.

AT artillery aren't what I think of as infantry AT weapons.

Anyway, for 1944-'45 for the 6th Armored Division
50% of tanks destroyed were destroyed by direct fire
20% were destroyed by indirect fire
14% were destroyed by bazookas
62% of tanks disabled were done by indirect fire
28% disabled by direct fire
5% disabled by bazooka

That makes, since "disabled" might as well be destroyed for the scale of 40k-like wargame:
39% destroyed by direct fire
41% destroyed by indirect fire
10% destroyed by bazookas

Breaking down that "direct fire" category, which covers basically anything that isn't carried by infantry, in the ETO:
3% were from "light" antitank weapons, caliber 57mm [6lbr] and below.
92% were from "medium" antitank weapons, caliber 75mm to 105mm.
The rest were from heavy artillery conducting direct fire.

Of those medium AT weapons:
48.4% originated from 75mm guns
37.4% originated from 88mm guns

This is in presumably due to the large volume of available weapons and their ammunition in these calibers. However, orders of magnitudes more panzerfausts and panzerschrecks were manufactured than barrels of AT guns, so that's pretty decent evidence that it's guns [on artillery carraiges, tanks, and SPG's] that were killing tanks, not really the infantry's shoulder-fired rockets.

A Lascannon is a weapon carried by a team of 2 on a tripod, or one space marine over the shoulder. It's a light antitank weapon, and not exactly an analogue 7.5cm PaK 40.



And if we want to move to modern guided antitank rockets: tanks most serious threat is from guided missiles because they're not being engaged by enemy tanks, AT guns, and artillery systems. This comes down to the fact that missiles are widely available to anybody, by a good tank or advanced artillery system aren't even available to most nations.
Fortunately, there haven't been conflicts where this has been put to the test. The best attempt is the gulf war, but I don't have any documents regarding categorized Iraqi losses. The only piece of information I have is that the Bradleys supposedly claim more total kills than the Abrams, however, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Unit kill records are notoriously unreliable, and the Iraqi tanks didn't stand up to either so it's not that the Bradleys were succeeding while the Abrams weren't. It's also been noted that post-Soviet Union testing of tanks intended for use by the Soviets demonstrated superior equipment, upgrade packages, and quality for home-use tanks, and that USSR tank armor could defeat NATO antitank munitions. In addition, modern tanks and antitank weapons are much more complicated to analyzed, especially since we don't have good field performance metrics [fortunately] and there are a lot of features of both armor and munitions designed to defeat specific things.

Anyway, I think it's still valid based on cursory inspection of estimated numbers to assume that tank guns' long rods are more effective than TOWs at defeating armor. The M1 tank supposedly has ~600mm RHAe vs. APFSDS and ~1300mm RHAe vs. HEAT. HEAT ToW missiles from the Bradley and from infantry have ~900mm and ~600mm RHAe, respectively, while tank gun long rods have postulated between 600-900mm RHAe penetration. In addition, slatted armor, active defenses, and ERA are generally more effective against rockets and HEAT warheads than long rod penetrators. Finally, the tank gun has threat out to 3000m, while the missiles are only effective out to 500m.