Missile Launchers Missing the Tabletop

[SaradominWrecksYou]

Note- It has been a while since I posted regularly, or followed 40k for that matter, and I don't know if I am allowed to talk point specifics. So, I will leave the official GW numbers out.
 
Why do missile launchers in both the IG and SM books cost the same as lascannons? If you want anti-tank, take lascannons; and if you want anti-infantry, take heavy bolters. GW has made it clear that in this edition they no longer care about point costs being divisible by 5. GW should take advantage of that and give missile launchers proper pricing.
 
For IG it should go something like this:
heavy bolter x
auto-cannon x+4
missile launcher x+8
lascannon x+12
 
For SM the cost should be between 15 and 20.
 
Furthermore, what is this nonsense with typhoon landspeeders and cyclone launchers being the cost of 2 straight missile launchers? This has ruined my 2 favorite units in the SM book.
Both of those weapons were not priced at that point because landspeeders get blown off the table on the same turn the opponent decides to act against them, and terminators aren't being terminators unless they get in cc before the game ends -- you do not get the same use out of those missile launchers compared to ML's in a dev or tac squad. These need a price drop as well.
 
Currently, I have yet to see missile launchers used against me or by me. Split-fire has made multi-role weapons not as powerful as in previous edition. How about multi-role weapons get some love in the form of a points drop? What do other people think?
 
Edits- Trying to fix font

Edited February 8, 2018 by WarriorFish
Font fixed :)

[Lord_Caerolion]

GW have always had a very conservative attitude to how they view things (such as plasma pistols previously always being the same cost, regardless of the unit, the role, or what other options were available), and something they seem to rate incredibly highly is versatility. Doesn't matter that split-fire now makes it less useful (it is still useful though, at least in my mind), but given the one gun can do both, GW seem to want to price it as if it was basically one of each.

The other thing to consider is that they're including the possibility of the Flakk Missile stratagem into the points-cost of the Launcher.

[The Unseen]

The Flakk Missile Strategem is costed with CP and limited to once per turn, it shouldn't be included in the cost of every missile launcher.

 

I was reading somewhere, and it was actually more effecient for guard heavy weapon teams to buy 2 heavy bolters and 1 lascannon than 3 missile launchers.

 

Their just super overcosted for what they do, they should realistically cost about 15-20 each. Cyclones shouldn't be any higher than like 35, 50 pts for them is an absolute joke.

[Lord_Caerolion]

Yep, and Raptors used to pay half again as much to swap their bolt pistol with a plasma pistol as to take a meltagun in addition to their bolt pistol, with the plasma pistol being objectively worse in every single way. Why? Because plasma pistols have always cost what they priced it as, regardless of other factors. It's the same with missile launchers. GW have always valued versatility above dedicated focus, which could actually explain why Eldar are often so undercosted (a whole unit with the same gun, and no option to swap? How could Dark Reapers be truly valuable like that?).

[M@verik115]

I dont know hey. I always use missile launchers. They are great for taking out everything from hordes to vehicles. 
Everything has its place, but I find missile launchers are usually the best all round heavy weapon especially if you dont know what you will be facing. 

[The Unseen]

I dont know hey. I always use missile launchers. They are great for taking out everything from hordes to vehicles.

Everything has its place, but I find missile launchers are usually the best all round heavy weapon especially if you dont know what you will be facing.

Except, in a theoretical dev squad, 4 missile launchers vs 2 heavy bolters and 2 lascannons, the mixed unit is 30 pts cheaper, and gives you almost the same average results vs geq or T7 3+ save, and I think better vs meq. Just checked, yeah, 2 HB and 2 Las kill 2.3 meqs, missiles do 1.5 with either type.

 

So the mixed unit is cheaper, performs the same vs hordes and standard vehicles, and does better vs heavy infantry and tanks, as T8 or a 2+ cripple missile launchers, but heavy bolters and lascannons don't care nearly as much.

 

Statistically speaking, missile launchers are just bad at 25 pts a pop.

Their mediocre at shooting 2 things, rather than good at 1, and they can only shoot at one target at a time, so your better off bringing a mix of weapons that each do their job.

If they were costed at around 15-20, they would do alright, as then they would be worse than the specialists vs their best targets, but a bit better than a mixed unit against anything.

[WarriorFish]

Missile Rocket Launchers have been in a funny place for a while now. You're paying for the versatility but unfortunately versatility isn't rewarded very well in recent editions of 40k.

[Claws and Effect]

I typically run 3 lascannons and a missile launcher in my Devastator squads.

 

Krak missiles lose 1 strength and AP vs a lascannon. They're still pretty good at anti armor. That's a 20 point weapon, easily. Then you pay another 5 points for both the strategem being available and being able to fire 1-6 bolter shots.

 

If missile launchers were cheaper I'd run them exclusively.

[Major_Gilbear]

Really, I have to agree.

 

For as long as I can remember, having a useful generalist unit is always more expensive (relatively) than an equivalent specialist unit. If the game is small and there are few units, this utility is worth a premium.

However, in more typically-sized games where you bring multiple squads, focus is always more efficient. Which units get to be "useful" and which units get to be "fodder" will depend on the enemy and scenario, but something has to soak up enemy fire and die - so better to lose a cheaper specialist unit that isn't as helpful in that particular game than to lose a more useful and expensive generalist unit.

 

I feel that either the ML needs a proper price drop to reflect its true averageness, or its performance needs to be upped so that it is is a genuinely versatile weapon that at least matches the performance of dedicated equivalent weapons of the same value. In the end though, its cost still needs to reflect that you can't fire both missile types at once.

 

Another thing is that in the case of the Cyclone ML, you pay double the normal cost of a ML and get two Krak missiles, but you then get short-changed on the Frag with 2D3 instead of 2D6 shots. For an already very expensive trooper model that has limited damage output anyway, that's a pretty rubbish way to blow 50pts (or 98pts for the whole model).  

 

Finally, whilst the thread is about ML specifically, I feel the same comments apply to Autocannons too. Not enough shots/damage, and yet you pay a premium for a gun that has more than one relatively high-strength shot. I wouldn't mind if they became 3 shots, and you then had to choose between the weaker and cheaper HB or pay more to get the Autocannon. Alternatively, if they did a bit more damage to give them more bite against bigger targets. I think making them cheaper though simply makes them cheaper - but not necessarily a more interesting choice.

[Claws and Effect]

I sort of disagree on autocannons.

 

2 shots at S7 isn't bad. Especially when you consider that there are multiple platforms to get twin autocannons.

 

A Venerable dreadnought with 2 twin autocannons is laying down 8 S7 shots per turn at 2+ to hit. And it costs around 150 points. Still a little confused why a single autocannon is considered an appropriate weapon for a tank, though.

 

I agree the Cyclone and Typhoon are overpriced, but I don't have an issue with the missile launcher. I wouldn't complain if it got a reduction, but there are tons of things that need addressed more urgently.

[Major_Gilbear]

I'm really talking about plain single Autocannons - not so much Predator Autocannons or Twin Autocannons which are quite specific to particular models and are typically priced better for those platforms.

[The Unseen]

I'm really talking about plain single Autocannons - not so much Predator Autocannons or Twin Autocannons which are quite specific to particular models and are typically priced better for those platforms.

At least they fixed the predator autocannon.

2D3 shots and 3 damage means it feels like a proper tank weapon now.

 

If they made autocannons 3 damage or -2 ap I think they'd be fine.

I think 3 shots would step on the heavy bolters toes to much, and it already isn't a super good weapon.

As is, they don't do enough damage to tanks with the average anti tank str7, and only -1AP means average vehicle still has a 4+.

With 3 flat damage, taking several of then and getting some hits through despite its relatively poor to-wound roll and poor ap is worth it, or make it punch through armor a little better and make that 2 damage hit more likely to go through.

[Ishagu]

Autocannon isn't really a vehicle hunter. It does a good job against light Eldar skimmer, bikers, etc

[OnboardG1]

Missile Launchers are good in small games on Havocs (because the ability to fire twice allows you to make better use of the split profile). Otherwise I’d take lascannons.

[MrZakalwe]

Autocannon isn't really a vehicle hunter. It does a good job against light Eldar skimmer, bikers, etc

They are also some of the most efficient Hammernator/primarch killers in the game. Against anything with a good invulnerable save, <8 toughness, and multiple wounds they are fantastic value.

 

Missile Launchers are good in small games on Havocs (because the ability to fire twice allows you to make better use of the split profile). Otherwise I’d take lascannons.

Check the maths with the same havoc squad with 2x HB and 2xLC. Against nearly any target you will do the same or better while saving points. Damned shame.

[SaradominWrecksYou]

While I didn't make this thread about autocannons, I do agree that autocannons are not in the best spot either. I think they are in a similar situation to other mid-tier strength, low ap weapons like multi-lasers where vehicle saves now negate the ability for these weapons to be effectively used in an anti-tank role like before. At least autocannons received a points drop in CA. 

 

Going back to missile launchers; however, this point increase is directly related to having the flakk ammo as a CP cost and not a points cost, as others have already pointed out. Missiles were in the right spot back in 5th (barring the marines +1 wolves and angles) before flakk existed. 

 

This may be going to far but maybe if GW hadn't added units that belong epic or apoc, not regular 40k; missile launchers wouldn't have a bloated price.

[Ishagu]

Auto cannons only worked in 7th due to glancing hits stripping hull points. They didn't work in 5th.

 

Also, vehicles SHOULD be resilient.

[Closet Skeleton]

Krak missiles aren't worse than lascannons against a lot of targets. If there isn't much T8 3+ no invulnerable save stuff in your local meta then lascannons are a waste over missile launchers.

 

Why? Because plasma pistols have always cost what they priced it as, regardless of other factors.

 

Plasma pistols were cheaper before 5th ed. 15 points was a random unnecessary nerf that made them vanish off the table top.

[Major_Gilbear]

Apologies, I didn't mean to derail the thread into Autocannons; I merely wanted to point out that they have similar issues in being in that awkward place where they don't do many jobs all that well and still cost a lot.

 

This may be going to far but maybe if GW hadn't added units that belong epic or apoc, not regular 40k; missile launchers wouldn't have a bloated price.

 

Well, it's more subtle than that really.

 

The way wounding is worked out now has changed where a lot of weapons sit, and vehicles are now big monsters that degrade as they take damage instead of the all-or-nothing results we had before. We also lost blast templates and scattering, which affected missile launchers too.

 

The tradeoff for having the freedom to make a vehicle-heavy or troop-heavy army, is that everything can wound everything. This means that low-cost volume of fire, especially at a "good enough" strength, is now sufficient in many cases - therefore the higher cost and lower (relative) flexibility of more dedicated antitank weapons means that they need to be especially effective against their preferred targets in order to be worth considering.

 

This is why you often see HB, Plasma guns, Assault Cannons, etc, but very few missile launchers; and where dedicated ranged AT weapons are needed, Lascannons seem to be the preferred (obvious) choice.

[chapter master 454]

missile launchers lost quite a bit in the transition. One of these is the instant death rule. Prior, unless you were something big, a Krak Rocket was a great way to snipe a character as you often brought to help take down tanks, thin horde because of the blast and in general were good for the fact they were str 8, which again was instant death for MEQs so slamming one against any character who got left in the open was a huge deal. Now however, they lack that snipe ability because of the removal of instant death and thus lack some essence of what they are. At 20 points, they are pretty reasonable however at 25, it is a steep price for having the option select for anti-infantry and anti-tank (which the former is poor and the latter is ok).

[Schlitzaf]

Krak Missiles do D6 Damage on a successful wound, which if your willing to CP for most mid-teir characters in 3-5 wound range. That isn't bad (4 Wound Support Characters, if you willing to CP, is a 75% chance to murder). Honestly the removal of instant death, made is to mid-teir combat characters can actually exist. Raise your hand, if you didn't take Shield Eternal on anything that resembled on a combat-styled character. I know until return of the Mantle in Gathering Storm, I always take the Shield Eternal. 

 

But that is another discussion

[Wargamer]

Every game I play, I regret having built missile launchers for my Calth set squads more and more.

 

They need a points drop, and ideally a radical change to the frag missile - D3+3 hits at the absolute minimum or it's just not worth it over the vastly superior... boltgun.

[Schlitzaf]

Serious food for thought, if all D6 attack weapons, became D3+2. What would everyone's feeling be on things like missile launchers?

[Captain Idaho]

I'd like Missile Launchers to be cheaper or just with a more effective Frag missile. But then Space Marines being elites should probably have a rule that is D6 shots with a minimum of 3.

 

Without those sorts of changes, I guess 18-20pts is fair.

[Wargamer]

Serious food for thought, if all D6 attack weapons, became D3+2. What would everyone's feeling be on things like missile launchers?

I would say that D6 for anything has to go - it's simply an unacceptably high variance.

 

D3+2 is an okay compromise for most things (wounds from a big gun, for example) but for weaker stuff like frag missiles I'd say D3+3 just to make them that little bit better vs hordes.

 

Anything that's currently D3 should probably be D3+1... unless it's a plasma cannon because we don't need more plasma.