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.

as a way to potentially lift the flier limit, how would everyone feel about a MANPAD profile on missile launchers with them staying at the same points cost provide a cheap spammable counter to fliers?

Is this a 'non-Imperials need not apply' kinda thing? Tyranids and Eldar don't have a lot of missile launchers between them.

Really though the problem with fliers isn't that you can't shoot them; they're pretty much just flying tanks in terms of defensive profile and everyone can deal with that. The problem is they're flying tanks that can be in your face turn 1 before you have a chance to do anything, and giving you extra tools to deal with it after your star units have already been blown off the map doesn't really fix things.

Missile Launchers used to have a Flakk profile designed for AA work. I don't remember those being very good though. As catbarf says, flyers are really more a pain for different reasons. Shooting them down these days isn't hard.

 catbarf wrote:
Is this a 'non-Imperials need not apply' kinda thing? Tyranids and Eldar don't have a lot of missile launchers between them.

Really though the problem with fliers isn't that you can't shoot them; they're pretty much just flying tanks in terms of defensive profile and everyone can deal with that. The problem is they're flying tanks that can be in your face turn 1 before you have a chance to do anything, and giving you extra tools to deal with it after your star units have already been blown off the map doesn't really fix things.

and by doing so flyers expose themselves to nearly the entire enemy teams shooting.

Artillery doesn't even need to move the entire game, has decent armor and can remain out of sight. This is a point value problem not an inherent one to flyers.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Artillery doesn't even need to move the entire game, has decent armor and can remain out of sight. This is a point value problem not an inherent one to flyers.

Arty got mega-nerfed as well.

 Sledgehammer wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Is this a 'non-Imperials need not apply' kinda thing? Tyranids and Eldar don't have a lot of missile launchers between them.

Really though the problem with fliers isn't that you can't shoot them; they're pretty much just flying tanks in terms of defensive profile and everyone can deal with that. The problem is they're flying tanks that can be in your face turn 1 before you have a chance to do anything, and giving you extra tools to deal with it after your star units have already been blown off the map doesn't really fix things.

and by doing so flyers expose themselves to nearly the entire enemy teams shooting.

Artillery doesn't even need to move the entire game, has decent armor and can remain out of sight. This is a point value problem not an inherent one to flyers.

Yea. They die. So? They did their job. They also roadblock you. Vs melee armies they block charges.

Anything that peeks out out of los blocking terrain dies. Big news...not.

What in the fething feth is a MANPAD?

OP, little tip- if you're going to put an acronym in your OP then it might be useful to actually put what in stands for in there as well.

 Grimtuff wrote:
What in the fething feth is a MANPAD?

OP, little tip- if you're going to put an acronym in your OP then it might be useful to actually put what in stands for in there as well.

Man-portable air defence system, MANPADS. The S is relevant, though many often forget it.

 Grimtuff wrote:
What in the fething feth is a MANPAD?

OP, little tip- if you're going to put an acronym in your OP then it might be useful to actually put what in stands for in there as well.

This.
I shouldn't have to google what an OP might mean (I did eventually). Even after googling (apparently it means "man portable air defense system", yes?) I'm not sure what the OP has in mind. Would it just ignore -1 to hit against Flyers? As others have said I don't think that solves the problems around flyers, or missile launchers.

 Insectum7 wrote:
Missile Launchers used to have a Flakk profile designed for AA work.

And it's now a Strat for Marines (2D3 MW).

 catbarf wrote:
Is this a 'non-Imperials need not apply' kinda thing? Tyranids and Eldar don't have a lot of missile launchers between them.

Really though the problem with fliers isn't that you can't shoot them; they're pretty much just flying tanks in terms of defensive profile and everyone can deal with that. The problem is they're flying tanks that can be in your face turn 1 before you have a chance to do anything, and giving you extra tools to deal with it after your star units have already been blown off the map doesn't really fix things.

flying tanks with -1 to hit for most units, and for some armies that -1 to hit is a pretty big deal.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimtuff wrote:
What in the fething feth is a MANPAD?

OP, little tip- if you're going to put an acronym in your OP then it might be useful to actually put what in stands for in there as well.

google is a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

 Sledgehammer wrote:
Artillery doesn't even need to move the entire game, has decent armor and can remain out of sight. This is a point value problem not an inherent one to flyers.

Arty got mega-nerfed as well.

tell that to guard


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sgt. Cortez wrote:

 Grimtuff wrote:
What in the fething feth is a MANPAD?

OP, little tip- if you're going to put an acronym in your OP then it might be useful to actually put what in stands for in there as well.

This.
I shouldn't have to google what an OP might mean (I did eventually). Even after googling (apparently it means "man portable air defense system", yes?) I'm not sure what the OP has in mind. Would it just ignore -1 to hit against Flyers? As others have said I don't think that solves the problems around flyers, or missile launchers.

man the first world problems are strong on this forum.

Problems with basic terms being understood the same way, is one of the main problem here. People can't even agree on stuff like "We" or "All" never mind more specific game related terms. The only other problems is people disliking specific other people and one man upship.

Makes insiginificant topics go on for 10+pages.

This seems like it would help Guard and Marines kill Flyers easier… but wouldn’t help most other factions, and wouldn’t actually address the issues with Flyers.

 JNAProductions wrote:
This seems like it would help Guard and Marines kill Flyers easier… but wouldn’t help most other factions, and wouldn’t actually address the issues with Flyers.

so...the overwhelming majority of armies, but you forgot orks, they get rocket launchers as well.

Orks don’t have multiple profiles on theirs. But I think Custodes do, so that’s one more faction.

And it wouldn’t do jack for someone who plays…

Daemons
Nids
Dark Eldar
Most Eldar
Harlequins
Any army that takes something other than Missiles in armies that can take them

Nor would it solve any real problem with Flyers.

Orks have traktor kannons at least.

Anyway flyers don't seem to be big enough of an issue to warrant a concern here, I think.

As for a profile, i'd go with something like.

Heavy1 S6 AP-1 D3
Ignores the flier -1 to hit

even though i don't like strats, they could also get a 2CP strat that goes something like this, or this could be a general BRB strat for all armies, that can be used on units with anti-aircraft weapons

"this stratagem may be used in your opponent's movement phase.
if an enemy flier moves, you may shoot at it, as if it were your own shooting phase.
this stratagem may be used more than once per turn, but increases in CP cost by 1 for each subsequent use"

this way, some armies at least would have a chance to potentially bracket a flier reducing it's BS before it ever gets to shoot, especially if said army goes first, but even if you go second.

for primaris marine armies it makes the missile launcher or sky talon array, on an impulsor very desirable if you suspect you'll be going up against a list with one or more flier in it.

So, a squad of four missile launchers, hitting on a 3+, do…
Less than one point of damage to a Stormtalon.
That’s a pretty useless stratagem.

Well, when Primaris 2.0 comes out in a few months, I expect we'll see GW focus on oddly underused and never before seen weapons that were effective in 2-4th editions, suddenly getting a boost. And yet still be worthless comparative to other weapons.

Seriously, what the hell is the infatuation with MLs in 40k? There are now two threads by people trying to say we should make MLs viable again. WHY?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, when Primaris 2.0 comes out in a few months, I expect we'll see GW focus on oddly underused and never before seen weapons that were effective in 2-4th editions, suddenly getting a boost. And yet still be worthless comparative to other weapons.

Seriously, what the hell is the infatuation with MLs in 40k? There are now two threads by people trying to say we should make MLs viable again. WHY?

probably because it doesn't make sense to have weapon options that are flat out non-viable...

johnpjones1775 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, when Primaris 2.0 comes out in a few months, I expect we'll see GW focus on oddly underused and never before seen weapons that were effective in 2-4th editions, suddenly getting a boost. And yet still be worthless comparative to other weapons.

Seriously, what the hell is the infatuation with MLs in 40k? There are now two threads by people trying to say we should make MLs viable again. WHY?

probably because it doesn't make sense to have weapon options that are flat out non-viable...

Hence they should be deleted. And remove one more piece of the most bloated faction in the history of 40k.

What about Astara and R&H armies? They'd still get missile launchers, right?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, when Primaris 2.0 comes out in a few months, I expect we'll see GW focus on oddly underused and never before seen weapons that were effective in 2-4th editions, suddenly getting a boost. And yet still be worthless comparative to other weapons.

Seriously, what the hell is the infatuation with MLs in 40k? There are now two threads by people trying to say we should make MLs viable again. WHY?

probably because it doesn't make sense to have weapon options that are flat out non-viable...

Hence they should be deleted. And remove one more piece of the most bloated faction in the history of 40k.

Yea inralidating people's models is going to be popular.

Hev for losing ml's are you willing to have all your models invalidated? If not shut up with trying to get other people's models invalidated.

 Sledgehammer wrote:
and by doing so flyers expose themselves to nearly the entire enemy teams shooting.

doesn't matter if the flyers kill the stuff that can kill them

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Well, when Primaris 2.0 comes out in a few months, I expect we'll see GW focus on oddly underused and never before seen weapons that were effective in 2-4th editions, suddenly getting a boost. And yet still be worthless comparative to other weapons.

Seriously, what the hell is the infatuation with MLs in 40k? There are now two threads by people trying to say we should make MLs viable again. WHY?

probably because it doesn't make sense to have weapon options that are flat out non-viable...

Hence they should be deleted. And remove one more piece of the most bloated faction in the history of 40k.

Says the guy who runs an army wich should never leave Terra & thus never be encountered by anyone in 40k.
I mean, talk about bloat. You're clogging up the game & production/release cycle with an entire model range + book for a faction that shouldn't be a playable option.

Then of course there's the fact that those calling Missile Launchers non-viable are wrong....

yeah lol, missile launchers are pretty decent tbh

johnpjones1775 wrote:
man the first world problems are strong on this forum.

MANPAD is not a crazy obscure acronym depending on your field (anyone working in or adjacent to tactical response, military, or homeland security is likely familiar with it), but is probably a bit obscure for this forum, especially given the number of ForNAT (Foreign National) posters on the forum.

Something like AA is going to be more immediately recognizable to the painted toy solider community.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Orks don’t have multiple profiles on theirs. But I think Custodes do, so that’s one more faction.

And it wouldn’t do jack for someone who plays…

Daemons
Nids
Dark Eldar
Most Eldar
Harlequins
Any army that takes something other than Missiles in armies that can take them

Nor would it solve any real problem with Flyers.

not currently having multiple profiles doesn't mean they can't. as far as i'm concerned this would apply to every army that has infantry rocket/missile launchers.
daemons don't have much shooting in the first place, that's just something you accept as a daemons player.

well if your army can take them, and you choose not to, that's on you. that's like saying AT guns don't make sense, because orks and daemons get so few of them, and armies that have those options but don't take them don't benefit from them. that last point is the weakest point i've ever heard in a debate.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TwinPoleTheory wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:
man the first world problems are strong on this forum.

MANPAD is not a crazy obscure acronym depending on your field (anyone working in or adjacent to tactical response, military, or homeland security is likely familiar with it), but is probably a bit obscure for this forum, especially given the number of ForNAT (Foreign National) posters on the forum.

Something like AA is going to be more immediately recognizable to the painted toy solider community.

and the first world problems are strong, when googling an acronym is so stressful and taxing you feel the need to complain about it by typing out a whole post.

looking up an acronym isn't a big deal. either you do it, or you don't, or you just use context clues.

also MANPAD isn't relegated just to america...it's a term used all throughout europe, at the very least if not africa and asia as well.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
and the first world problems are strong, when googling an acronym is so stressful and taxing you feel the need to complain about it by typing out a whole post.

looking up an acronym isn't a big deal. either you do it, or you don't, or you just use context clues.

also MANPAD isn't relegated just to america...it's a term used all throughout europe, at the very least if not africa and asia as well.

Clearly the first world problems are strong on both sides when reading the room is too much trouble.

You did come here asking questions after all.

Anyhow, enjoy your time here with whoever decides to respond.

Generally, when you present an idea to others, you should try to be as clear as possible. Responding to people with "You're dumb for not knowing this" isn't a good way to get critique and improve your idea.