Do infantry krak missiles/grenades deserve a buff?

[Karhedron]

8 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

As do guardsmen :)

 

And Eldar missile launchers.

[Xenith]

16 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

you cannot compare weapons that fill different roles.

 

But that's exactly what you did in the very first post of this topic, and the basis for this whole discussion?

[TheArtilleryman]

6 hours ago, The Unseen said:

Yeah, the problem is that the versatility you're supposedly awarded isn't actually worth anything, because Frag Missiles haven't been relevant since like 5th edition. A marine, Guard, or Chaos army does not need more Str4 AP0 shooting, but they all need good AT at range. So you shoot Krak missiles 99% of the time, and they are just worse lascannons, ESPECIALLY when all the weapons cost the same. 

This I agree with actually. The krak missile I think is fine but the frag missile sucks. If anything it’s that that needs a slight buff. Not sure what because I wrote S5 AP-1 and that now seems too much. 

[Xenith]

A lot of stuff in the game has got tougher since the frag missile used to be ok - though even in 3rd, it was always just better to fire krak against marines etc as you'd statistically kill more. I think frag missiles could easily go to D6+3 BLAST  at S4 AP0 and it wouldn't change much. 

[AutumnEffect]

7 minutes ago, TheArtilleryman said:

Not sure what because I wrote S5 AP-1 and that now seems too much. 

I think S5 AP -1 would be fine.
Heavy Bolters would still have Damage 2, Sustained Hits and a guaranteed 3 shots against it.  

[Kallas]

2 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

This I agree with actually. The krak missile I think is fine but the frag missile sucks. If anything it’s that that needs a slight buff. Not sure what because I wrote S5 AP-1 and that now seems too much. 

Probably higher consistency of output/shots than straight up S/AP/D buffs: something like the 3+d3 (+Blast) that Karhedron mentioned would go a long way to making the Frag missile more useful; maybe S5 AP0 could work to help it punch into things like Orks, which it should be reasonbly useful against (without spreading AP wildly like 8th->9th did)?

[TheArtilleryman]

2 hours ago, Kallas said:

Probably higher consistency of output/shots than straight up S/AP/D buffs: something like the 3+d3 (+Blast) that Karhedron mentioned would go a long way to making the Frag missile more useful; maybe S5 AP0 could work to help it punch into things like Orks, which it should be reasonbly useful against (without spreading AP wildly like 8th->9th did)?

What about a special rule that gives it +1 S against poorly armoured targets? That would make a lot of sense given the way frag grenades work in real life and make it more useful against hordes. Like +1 S vs anything with a 5+ save or worse.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

9 hours ago, Xenith said:

 

But that's exactly what you did in the very first post of this topic, and the basis for this whole discussion?

I didn’t.

the krak missile and the lascannon both have the role of anti-armor.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

9 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

This I agree with actually. The krak missile I think is fine but the frag missile sucks. If anything it’s that that needs a slight buff. Not sure what because I wrote S5 AP-1 and that now seems too much. 

I think 2d3 shots S4 AP0 D1 would be a solid buff, max is still 6 shots but you never get that feel bad moment of only getting 1 shot with a weapon that’s supposed to be good at clearing out infantry.

[roryokane]

On 2/21/2024 at 6:22 PM, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I think 2d3 shots S4 AP0 D1 would be a solid buff, max is still 6 shots but you never get that feel bad moment of only getting 1 shot with a weapon that’s supposed to be good at clearing out infantry.

I think this is a decent shout, though I think maybe slightly more? D3+3?

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

29 minutes ago, roryokane said:

I think this is a decent shout, though I think maybe slightly more? D3+3?

Idk, minimum 4 shots seems a little extreme.

[Helias_Tancred]

For a Frag missile S5 is solid, but there should be 0 AP on it. There is no armor piercing design behind fragmentation. The fact it is the same strength or one higher than a suit of space marine armor is plenty good enough for a fragmentation weapon in the 41st millennium. 

 

 

Edited February 23 by Helias_Tancred

[AutumnEffect]

I also think Strength 5 would be solid.

Mortars are Strength 5 AP 0. 

[TheArtilleryman]

In the end I don’t think they will buff the regular missile launcher any further. They want people to buy desolators that fit into impulsors instead of just using their old missile launcher devastators that can ride in razorbacks.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, TheArtilleryman said:

In the end I don’t think they will buff the regular missile launcher any further. They want people to buy desolators that fit into impulsors instead of just using their old missile launcher devastators that can ride in razorbacks.

More armies than marines have missile launchers…

[TheArtilleryman]

1 hour ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

More armies than marines have missile launchers…

Oh totally. I’ve already mentioned my guard earlier in the thread and someone else mentioned Eldar.

Edited February 23 by TheArtilleryman

[jaxom]

On 2/21/2024 at 3:28 AM, Xenith said:

A lot of stuff in the game has got tougher since the frag missile used to be ok - though even in 3rd, it was always just better to fire krak against marines etc as you'd statistically kill more. I think frag missiles could easily go to D6+3 BLAST  at S4 AP0 and it wouldn't change much. 

 

I played Marines in 3rd and often played against Guard. They never took missile launchers because, as noted, they don't really need more anti-infantry with all those las-guns, and lascannons were better for anti-armor. I, however, regularly took missile launchers because I did need that versatility and didn't have enough bolters on the board to just rely on them for anti-infantry. Mind you, that may have been because I regularly took Deathwing Terminators and they'd eat up like 1/4 of my points while having somewhat anemic shooting and survivability at the time (it was before they had a 5+ Invulnerable Save).

 

Edit: Right, the point being that most armies now a days have enough points efficiency that they can fit in enough of each anti-X that they don't need to make a hard choice about what to include or comprise by choosing the missile launcher.

Edited February 23 by jaxom

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

9 hours ago, jaxom said:

 

I played Marines in 3rd and often played against Guard. They never took missile launchers because, as noted, they don't really need more anti-infantry with all those las-guns, and lascannons were better for anti-armor. I, however, regularly took missile launchers because I did need that versatility and didn't have enough bolters on the board to just rely on them for anti-infantry. Mind you, that may have been because I regularly took Deathwing Terminators and they'd eat up like 1/4 of my points while having somewhat anemic shooting and survivability at the time (it was before they had a 5+ Invulnerable Save).

 

Edit: Right, the point being that most armies now a days have enough points efficiency that they can fit in enough of each anti-X that they don't need to make a hard choice about what to include or comprise by choosing the missile launcher.

Imma double check my 3rd Ed codex but I could have sworn terminators have had an invulnerable save since at least 3rd

 

edit

 

well damn you right 

Edited February 24 by Inquisitor_Lensoven

[jaxom]

2 hours ago, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

Imma double check my 3rd Ed codex but I could have sworn terminators have had an invulnerable save since at least 3rd

 

edit

 

well damn you right 

Yep, it's one of the first cases (that I'm aware of) of a mid-edition update. They got it in White Dwarf Chapter Approved.

Spoiler

 

 

[TheArtilleryman]

Nice bit of nostalgia - I remember that exact article with the bit about guardsmen getting fried :)

[Deus_Ex_Machina]

On 2/21/2024 at 9:28 AM, Xenith said:

A lot of stuff in the game has got tougher since the frag missile used to be ok - though even in 3rd, it was always just better to fire krak against marines etc as you'd statistically kill more. I think frag missiles could easily go to D6+3 BLAST  at S4 AP0 and it wouldn't change much. 

Should the frag missile become more useful than a heavy bolter then you have a problem.

[jaxom]

Depending on edition, a small blast template would reliably hit 1 or 2, and then clip a few more. I would have loved to see D3+2 become the standard for old small blast template weapons, but that ship has sailed.

[AutumnEffect]

11 hours ago, Deus_Ex_Machina said:

Should the frag missile become more useful than a heavy bolter then you have a problem.

The Heavy Bolter would still have Strength 5, AP-1, 2 damage and Sustained Hits over the frag missile in that example.
The frag would just have more shots (Average 6-7).

They'd just have different roles. Heavy Bolter would be for infantry toughness 4, frag missile for toughness 3.

[Wolf Lord Duregar]

On 2/20/2024 at 2:16 AM, Noserenda said:

The Lasgun is the bolt action rifle to the lascannons pak40, same basic technology, just a lot bigger!

Its worth mentioning that as originally envisioned waaaaaay back, a lot of the shoulder mounted heavy weapons we have now were tank weapons that space marines/orks carried on their shoulders because they were badass but the weedier types like humans or Eldar ran as crewed support guns. 

Theyve just been adding stuff for near 40 years :D 

 

To be fair, Guards carried lascannons on their shoulders in Rogue Trader..

 

I always saw the missile launcher as a recoilless rifle a la the Carl-Gustaf (even though GW sometimes make them as RR, rocket propelled things like the RPG and sometimes a missile). The lascannon is more like a TOW or similar, maybe? In its role atleast. Anti-armour.

 

In 2nd Ed you could buy more missiles for the missile launcher, like melta, plasma and blind as well iirc. Mela and plasma had pros and cons over both frag and krak so it was real versatile.

iirc the melta was the 1" template and like amelta bomb, but against vehicles, like bikes, you could then hit more locations and make more damage than both a frag and krak (light vehicles). Plasma was 1.5" template (like the current smaller I think) and remained in play and could disappear or expand.. Time consuming to deal with but real fun.

 

I don´t know the current rules but it should still be versatile?

[Dr. Clock]

I agree that if anything it's the frag profiles that need a buff, but also appreciate that it shouldn't be quite as good as heavy bolter overall.

 

I'd probably just add [ignores cover] and call it a day. AP-1 doesn't make much sense when a regular bolter is AP0 to my mind.

 

I actually quite like the infantry grenade launchers for Guard these days tbh if only just to leaven the 'all plasma or melta' which typified the last... 15 years of the game? Honestly I think it's too easy to discount the range of them... by the time a melta is in range you've already lost at least one chance to shoot compared to a launcher... And above 12" it even compares reasonably with a plasma on high. Plus you never know when you're gonna be trying to wipe a unit of 20 T3 idiots which is where the frag comes in spades. Missile launchers will wreck gaunt hordes and the like if you let them. The scaling feature of blast this edition makes them deceptively powerful even compared to something like a heavy bolter.

 

Basically I think gl/ml both have their place if you value the flexibility. I definitely take task-specific weapons first, but once I feel confident that I can do the focused anti-tank or anti-infantry job well enough, throwing a few flex picks like that into a list just smooths out the edges so you can respond to unexpected moves or changes in target as needs be.

 

Cheers,

 

The Good Doctor.