PDA

View Full Version : Idea: Space Marine missiles



Sojourner
23-07-2005, 11:34
Does it strike anybody as odd that space marines only use the same dumb fire rockets as the Imperial Guard? Does anyone, like me, think that they deserve better? Behold...

Cyclone Missile System

Any Space Marine model, Terminator or Dreadnought allowed to take a missile launcher now takes a Cyclone Missile System instead. The Cyclone Missile System works as a normal missile launcher with the following changes:

All units: Any model carrying a Cyclone Missile System may fire his missile launcher at any target unit in line of sight of any space marine model on the table also equipped with a Cyclone Missile System. Firing at a target out of direct line of sight of the firer treats the shot as a Barrage weapon with an unlimited range. Only frag missiles may be fired indirectly; Krak missiles require direct input from the firer to designate and strike the desired target.

Terminators, Dreadnoughts: Cyclone Missile Systems mounted on Dreadnought armour of any type feature a multiple-tube salvo-firing system with an upgraded guidance system. Dreadnoughts and Terminators may choose to fire a Salvo instead of a single missile when using the Cyclone Missile System. The shot is now treated as a multiple barrage using D3 templates as described in the main rulebook. Roll to determine the number of shots at each firing.

Thoughts? Balance isseus? Glaring mistakes in terms of rules? I confess to being extremely forgetful so my rules knowledge may not be perfect.

Angelus Mortis
23-07-2005, 11:38
What will you call them? Tau Marines? Or maybe Space Tau? :rolleyes:

Sojourner
23-07-2005, 11:40
Hey, I've never read Codex: Tau. I get the idea that Tau use clever missile technology but by rights, so should space marines. Did you never experience the joy of the 2nd edition Cyclone Launcher?

wilting_laughter
23-07-2005, 11:49
Nothing the imperium uses should be clever.

Sojourner
23-07-2005, 11:53
Still, Panzerfaust-style dumb fire rockets just don't fit with marine background at all. Especially when you consider their basic weaponry fires rocket-powered high explosives with a sensing detonator, not just chunks of metal.

Yes, I know this suggestion is powerful. I'd lean toward jacking up the points considerably, but I'm not confident enough with game mechanics to say by how much.

wilting_laughter
23-07-2005, 11:56
Then make them fire fancier explosives, rather than making them digital marines. Brute force all the way.

Sojourner
23-07-2005, 11:58
Think about it. Space marine missile launcher models of all types have targeters. This suggests that they're firing guided missiles. It just makes sense.

Puffin Magician
23-07-2005, 13:12
I certainly agree with Terminator and Dreadnought Missile Launchers receiving the Gatling upgrade [for a points increase, of course], but the first rule dealing with "normal" Missile Launchers is a bit much, I think. Not many people seem to bother with Frag Missiles anyhow; I know I wouldn't, infinite range or not.

Maybe instead the Frag Warhead should be s5 ap5?


The shot is now treated as a multiple barrage using D3 templates as described in the main rulebook.
Only if you're firing Frag Missiles, of course.

Sojourner
23-07-2005, 13:19
Only if you're firing Frag Missiles, of course.

Yep, I said that here:


Only frag missiles may be fired indirectly; Krak missiles require direct input from the firer to designate and strike the desired target.

But I agree the wording should be better. I was trying to apply the same firing rules to different types of launcher because they are, in my reckoning, all part of the same system.

Cade
23-07-2005, 14:36
Why not just give Marines back their lovely Plasma Missiles from 2nd Edition??

How about +5 points for the purchase of them and make the profile S5 Ap3 blast?

Sojourner
23-07-2005, 15:24
Personal opinion, I detest the concept of plasma weaponry. It's just so...rubbish, when you actually look into it.

Puffin Magician
23-07-2005, 16:11
Well if we're heading into the depths of 2nd Edition Warhead types, I think it would be one of the best things to happen to the game since the Assault armies were toned down. These really brought a lot of variety, and I don't think it would be a problem for them to be either limited to certain units [Devastators, Cyclones, Dreadnoughts] or make them expensive so if people want to take them for each Tactical Missile Launcher Marine, it would add up quickly.

Plasma: Cade has the right idea; s5 ap3 Blast is perfect IMO.
Melta: I'm currently thinking of S8 ap1, as giving it S8 and the "Melta" rule with a 48" range would be horribly unbalanced. Maybe also roll 2 dice when rolling on the Damage Table and accepting the highest result.
Blind: This one's tricky... it used to not effect units that have protected sensor equipment [Space Marines, Aspect Warriors, etc] but if it didn't do that now it would be rather limited in it's usefulness. Perhaps the unit must halve it's Ws and Bs for the following turn? Not sure how it could effect them... automatic penalty seems too good, allowing armour saves seems to useless. Something to think about, I suppose.
Anti-Plant: Only works against vegetation terrain, similar to the Wrecker VDR upgrade. If the whole terrain piece fits under the Ordnance template, remove it from play. Under the current fluff, it should kill Orks pretty quickly too... :p


Personal opinion, I detest the concept of plasma weaponry. It's just so...rubbish, when you actually look into it.
Why's that, I must ask? Do you not like them in 40k, or the entire idea of Plasma/Fusion weaponry? The science behind it is sound; they'd function much like a Fusion reactor with a hole in the containment field [the barrel of the gun!].

Sojourner
23-07-2005, 16:29
The whole concept, really. It's actually very dodgy science; uncontained plasma will instantly shed all its energy into the atmosphere while dissipating into a floaty cloud from the electrostatic repulsion. The only plausible use I can see is as a close combat weapon; an extremely high energy ion beam for cutting and melting.

The clever bit about plasma is the energy generation, not its ability to transfer it.

Puffin Magician
23-07-2005, 17:25
I don't want to turn this into a Plasma discussion thread, but would it not work if there was some sort of magnetic containment "tunnel", a field generated by the weapon to keep the plasma coherent the whole length of it's journey to the target?

The way I see projectiles with Plasma warheads is that it's simply a controlled reaction within a casing and an engine, once it impacts the target the shielding systems destruct and unleash the uncontained plasma onto the target.

I've looked into Fusion and Plasma weapons in depth for a science fiction universe I've been working on for the better part of a decade. You need to be more open-minded that certain technologies will probably be perfected well beyond our current understanding or theory of them. Humanity went from crude rockets and barely-comprehensible Nuclear physics to globe-crossing ballistic missiles carrying Megatons of nuclear explosive matieral within 4 decades. It's assumed we'll have Fusion reactors providing their first megawatts of energy by 2050... who knows where that technology will lead to by 2100?

IMO plasma weaponry is certainly more plausible than there being nearly countless alien races within our own Galaxy, or something as ridiculous as the Warp.

marv335
24-07-2005, 00:25
i don't think there is anything wrong with the missile launcher as is. it has the same effect as the IG one because they are the same weapon. the forges of the tech-priests of mars supply weapons for the whole imperium (or supply the STC template for the weapon) that's why all imperial weapons have the same effect.

Puffin Magician
24-07-2005, 03:46
I don't think the standard Marine Missile Launcher needs changes, although the Frag Missile is useless IMO, hence my general dislike of this supposedly versatile weapon. The currenct blast template rules neuter it's anti-infantry effectiveness.

The alternative warhead types would simply be a great houserule IMO, and would work well with the Astartes' "best of the best" in terms of equipment.

Although I certainly think Terminators and the Dreadnought needs something simply beefier. I'd gladly pay +20pts [vs. +10] on the Dreadnought or +40pts [vs. +25] for the Cyclone if they recieved the Gatling upgrade [d3 shots instead of 1]. Right now they just aren't special enough [I didn't say "good enough", I don't think in any way that these units are underpowered. I just think they should be different than the standard Space Marine Missile Launcher, let alone the crude Panzerfaust wielded by the Krieg Death Korps].

The argument about the Forge Worlds mass-producing weapons so they end up being similar doesn't work. There are plenty of exceptions for the Space Marines: Land Raiders, Thunderhawks, Terminator Armour, Land Speeders, etc. Spiffy rocket launchers would be short change compared to these.

Sojourner
24-07-2005, 08:57
Just look at the models. They're clearly not the same type of weapon. Giving marines dumb-fire when they have such advanced equipment in other fields is inconsistent.

fgervais
25-07-2005, 20:25
But then again, marines have something IG don't: BS4. IMHO, this takes into account superior training, but also superior equipment.