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.

LOL, guard infantry squads shouldn't use heavy weapons and focus on lasguns, and now tactical marines have versatility? They only have that if you give them meltaguns, which means they aren't very good at tank busting and are wasting their anti-infantry potential.

PIS are way more flexible and versatile than Tac marines, as an equal value worth of combined squads can both outshoot and outfight them. PIS can be effective as single mech units with a GL&AC, they can be effective as smallish merged squads with GL/PG&AC. Or they can be large close combat units with flamers/meltas, and even these are good candidates for autocannons since you never know when the mission will call for a long ranged firefight.

But what do I know, my opponents must be braindead since I win games despite not playing "the only way to play guard properly".

This thread has actually made me a bit proud of the Dakka Tactics population, which is something rather novel after the months' worth of posts regarding the competitiveness of Chaos Marines.

An impassioned player appears and makes dozens of unfounded statements, and rather than jumping on the bandwagon and 'I see it from your point of view'-ing everybody has smacked him down and LOLed at simplistic, patent nonsense.

Admittedly, he does make a point: Guard are a shooty army for a reason, and Guardsmen will outshoot, with FRFSRF, point for point, other armies' troops. Lasguns aren't negligible.

I would argue with him that autocannons diminish the lasguns effectiveness though - it's more how you use the unit than what it actually does mathematically. If I shoot the enemy infantry with my lasguns, it doesn't matter what special and heavy weapons the PIS has - the lasguns kill a few marines and I get my points back.

Taking autocannons in your PIS and only targeting transports the whole game when you could kill transports more easily and cheaply (for the level of reliability you get) with, say, Hydras or Vendettas isn't a great idea. Giving your blob of 50 men 5 lascannons and plinking away at a Land Raider the whole game is a bad idea because you never get to use the lasguns. As long as you fire at infantry, your Guardsmen are doing what they're supposed to.

Before anyone asks, I prefer autocannons (I like lascannons too, but that's another debate) - having a little bit of extra transport-killing power to demechanize an opponent in the first few turns of the game is more important than making sure you kill an extra marine every few turns.

At the end of the day, you are paying for those lasguns. Did you use the lasguns? If so, congratulations, your infantry served their main purpose. If not, you could probably get what you got out of the PIS cheaper elsewhere.

Jimole wrote:Lasguns. Suck. Sad but true. I dont pay 'half a hundred points' for my 9 lasguns, I pay it for the objective-capping bodies and wounds to wrap around my special heavy and power weapons. Whenever I shoot with a pis, it's the heavy and special weapons do the damage. Any lasgun kills are a happy bonus.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Lasguns are a dreadful weapon...Lasguns may indeed have a role targeting light infantry but they perform so utterly POORLY at this role that trying to improve it is simply a waste of resources...Lasguns are incompetent and barely effective against anything.

Lascannons aren't blanket very bad no good awful at everything everywhere. They're specialized. Lasguns are good at what they're designed to be good at. Quoting how bad they are against marines, does not address this point.

If the only damage you're doing is with special and heavy weapons, and the lasguns can't do anything, that's because you're picking targets that the lasguns aren't good against (perhaps because you gave them a heavy weapon that encourages you to waste lasgun fire).

If you want to waste all your small arms just for a slim chance at having a heavy weapon do damage, you do so at your own peril. I can't say how many space marine players I've seen in the past take 2 10 man tac squads, with the ability to do terrible damage to my guardsmen who then buy a missile launcher and waste over 150 points standing in the backfield, wasting their small arms, while trying to peel paint off my vehicles with the ML.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Furthermore, if you're scared of screwing up your PIS by pattering heavy weapons in amoungst the squads then by all means, field purely 9 lasguns sans upgrades, and let me know how effective and useful that squad is for you.

... and because lasguns are good against light infantry doesn't mean that you shouldn't give them ANY upgrades. Heavy bolters and mortars will make the squad even better at what it does.

Jimole wrote:
I think its overcosted when compared to the AC because the AC can do everyhting the HB can do (although not as well) but can also do a hell of a lot that the HB can't. Flexibility rules.

saying they can "do a hell of a lot" more than HB's implies that they can actually "do a hell of a lot" against anything. The fact that they're BETTER against certain targets that the HB is bad against doesn't mean that the AC is GOOD against them, it just means they're less bad.

croggy wrote:why does everyone think the auto cannon sucks at AV12 its just as good as a lascannon at AV12 and better at everything below that

Just because an autocannon is as good as a lascannon doesn't mean the autocannon is good. If anything, it means that the lascannon is bad.

croggy wrote:
what exactly do heavy bolters do --- well they shoot the infantry once after it gets out of its transport 2 bloody inches away from your lines

And they do the job well. Moreso than autocannons.

AaronG wrote:
How about every orc in creation and a lot of Tyranids...?

Autocannons will stop a huge mob of boyz before they waaaugh you? Really?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
At least it gives you the OPTION to engage them...This game works on luck, and a small possibility is better than no possibility at all.

Once again, what is the point of having the option of engaging something, when you're not going to be effective against what you're engaging? Why should we build lists on "small possibilities" rather than sound possibilities created by real weapons which are actually good against their targets?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Our units are expendable, our weaponry cheap, therefore we can fit an obscene amount of it in for a fraction of the cost. Consider a 5-man Devestator squad with lascannons compared to a HWS with lascannons...

I agree, and it's BECAUSE our units are expendable and our weponry cheap that we CAN specialize our units. Devestators are so expensive, that you're really only ever fielding one or two units. If these two unis are providing all of your heavy support, then they need to be able to handle everything by just themselves, which means they have to be versatile.

HWSs are so cheap and plentiful that the same number of tasks can be spread across a lot more units, which allows us to specialize our units so that they're good at particular tasks.

Dainty Twerp wrote:
Every gun for the IG suck unless you apply them to their perfect situation and thank god you are a good enough general to always be able to do so.

that's a fine theory until you hit the table top and play armies that don't just sit there.

Terminus wrote: But yes, all his examples assume the opponent is presenting the optimum target for whatever weapon he brings and isn't shooting back.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Furthermore, if an enemy is silly enough to charge light infantry at my line PIS so that I can get those potential 20 kills then he is playing right into my hands.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Non-specialisation allows you to adapt and alter your battle plan dependant upon how your enemy reacts to yours. What commander in his right mind will sit there with his scissors opposite your rock?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
You're merely open to, and accepting the, very likely possibility that your enemy will do his utmost to foil you. Over-specialising means you have a complete lack of a back-up in case plan A fails.

And here we have the crux of it all.

The whole point of generalmanship in this game is movement. It's getting troops onto objectives; it's getting the right guns against the right targets; it's getting your units in places where they are safe from enemy weapons which are good against them.

You are assuming that I believe that the enemy is just going to stand there while I line my guns up and shoot him down. At the same time, you are also assuming that the opposing army is going to be running circles around my units while I stand still - helpless because he attacked my "weak spots" (attacking with heavy vehicles in places I don't have meltaguns, for example). Both of these are, of course, untrue. So, let's take it for granted that there is a whirling melee, in which I am trying to get my specialized guns onto their targets, while they are trying to get away from my specialized guns and attack somewhere else.

If you take a high-versatility army, then your opponent can attack you anywhere, as you're equally strong (and equally weak) everywhere. It is not difficult to figure out how to move your troops to bring specialized guns against this kind of force. You make it MUCH more difficult for them if certain fire lanes are blocked off by heavy weapons which are good against certain targets, or if they have to get close to a part of your army without getting close to those parts of your army without getting close to others due to SW threats. Likewise, if you have a high-versatility army, then it is difficult to know how to move things around yourself. If you have lots of stuff that's crappy against your opponent's entire front, then how do you attack their weaknesses?

I think we can all agree that in a perfect world, you would always be able to soundly outmaneuver your opponent and that specialization would DEFINITELY be the best option in said world. Likewise, in a absolutely un-perfect world, where your troops don't get to move once they're deployed (and you always have to deploy first), then yes, versatility would be better. So how, then do we judge?

Firstly, as mentioned before, guard units are cheap. This means I can take redundant special units. I don't have to rely on just a single meltagun squad - I can form a perimeter of meltagun squads given their inexpense. The primary challenge of not having the right units in the right places is countered by having the right units everywhere at once. The guard are able to be redundant. As such, the guard are able to be specialized.

Secondly, 5th ed is a fast game. The problem of getting units where they need to be is also cancelled by cheap-as-chips transports and the fact that infantry can sprint now. If there is a surprise threat on the other side of the board that I need a meltagun squad to deal with, I can either mount them up and drive-by melta them. Or I can sprint for a 7-12" movement (more like 12 with orders), and then move 6" and shoot 12" the next turn. That gives a single squad a 25"-30" effective two-turn range with any one infantry unit. This is also all ignoring things like outflanking, and other methods of guard mobility. It isnt' the old, slow, gunline army in the old, slow, gunline rules edition anymore.

Yes, versatility does give you a proverbial "plan B", but plan B is bad, because it's guns are ineffective, at least as autocannons are concerned. Furthermore, it heavily sacrifices from your plan A. This would be worth it if you don't have lots of mobility or if you don't have lots of units, but the guard has enough of the former and way more than enough of the latter, to make this sacrifice necessary.

Yes, you can win game with a versatile army, espeically if you're facing off against another versatile army, or your opponent can't figure out how to attack you. That said, versatile armies lose to specialized ones in the right hands. One could appeal to experience (how many times have space marine armies fallen to guard artillery fire, etc.), but more importantly, one can appeal to math. Your army is always more effective if you bring a combination of specialized weapons and use them properly than if you bring a bunch of crappy, versatile weapons and use them properly.

You did not address the point I made regarding potential flaws in your Plan A. If your specialised tank-buster cannot fire for a turn or gets destroyed, whats your fallback plan? Will your PIS with HB/Mortars simply do nothing for a turn seeing as you have no way of targetting the infantry (the unit you particularly equipped it to deal with)? Your entire theory hinges on consistently emerging unscathed from encounters, which simply will not happen.

The autocannon strikes an excellent balance between the stopping power of a lascannon and the multiple shots of a heavy bolter; whilst not falling into an extreme it remains an exceptionally competitive weapon. It allows you to divert and prioritise your targets taking into account what the rest of your army achieves, alternatively, it has the ability to engage targets that you would otherwise be wasting more valuable and powerful guns on.

Furthermore, you don't HAVE to move with a versatile weapon because of its inherent versatlity! You may have to alter position on your HB PIS which detracts from the overall potency of your shooting phase. I do not. My firebase will remain strong and still be throwing shots your way whilst your finding your optimal location.

You are deliberately over-specialising. A stated above, what happens if that unit gets incapacitated or killed? And your plan revolves around that unit doing its job? You may (and with Guard, should) have a second or third unit, but what if they are similarly compromised? What do you do? I at least CAN do something, because I have that inherent flexibility in my PIS.

L. Wrex

PS. Let's not drag HWS or SWS into this debate, those SHOULD be specialised in order to maximise their effectiveness. Let's keep this to the humble PIS otherwise this'll begin to get horribly convoluted.

Ailaros wrote:Your army is always more effective if you bring a combination of specialized weapons and use them properly than if you bring a bunch of crappy, versatile weapons and use them properly.

I'm sorry but I don't think this is accurate and in fact it can be quite misleading.

What we are talking about is a playstyle choice between generalist, multiple purpose units/weapons/armies that are often quoted as "jack of all trades, master of none" and the specialist, everything has its place and purpose units/weapons/armies.

Thats a great debate for another time but the two issues that complicate a simple playstyle choice is
1) The current meta-game
2) The point pricing on those units/weapons/armies

Just as an example. The current meta-game heavily features multiple low AV transports. This means to play well against the meta-game, your army must be built in such a way as to cope with this fact. In a comparison between Heavy Bolters and Autocannons, the Autocannon is typically better at busting transports. The oppurtunity cost of not using the rest of the squad's Lasguns on basic infantry is mitigated by the assumption that there will be little to no exposed infantry as they will be within the transports. This means that those shots will normally be wasted anyway. Furthermore they will only be useful if you can expose the target infantry by removing their transport. If giving that squad a weapon (Autocannon) to allow them to expose the infantry quicker is an option, it actually improves their chances of using the rest of those Lasguns on that infantry, thereby making the squad more useful.
Conversely, if the current meta-game revolved around large numbers of basic infantry, the Autocannon would be replaced by the Heavy Bolter or Mortar, as both fit into the that meta-game's needs better.

As for pricing, this is a factor of each armies codex and FOC slots. For IG, Autocannons as priced equally to Heavy Bolters for the basic Infantry squads. This means that there is no point disadvantage to taking a weapon that is better in the current meta-game (Autocannon) over one that isn't (Heavy Bolter). This is also the reason that its more rare to see Lascannons in Infantry squads as you are paying a premium for a weapon that is equivalent or worse than the cheaper Autocannon against transports (again refencing the current meta-game). You will notice that the Missile Launcher is not even mentioned, as it is both more expensive then the equivalent Autocannon and less effective then the superior Lascannon. For Codex Marines, this situation is reversed, where the Missile Launcher is the preferred heavy weapon and the much more expensive Lascannon is rarely taken, even though it performs the role of tank destroyer better.

I'll stop my ranting but hopefully its clear that saying "specialized > general" isn't a fair statement and a canny player will take in both the point cost and meta-game before making a decision about what is "best".

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
If your specialised tank-buster cannot fire for a turn or gets destroyed, whats your fallback plan? Your entire theory hinges on consistently emerging unscathed from encounters, which simply will not happen. A stated above, what happens if that unit gets incapacitated or killed? And your plan revolves around that unit doing its job? You may (and with Guard, should) have a second or third unit, but what if they are similarly compromised? What do you do?

I already answered this: redundancy. It does not matter if I lose a meltagun squad if I have 4 more behind it. My plan B is just as strong as my plan A.

Yes, if I lost all of a single type of specialized squad, I'd be in a pickle. This is an unrealistic concern, however, as if they are able to destroy a third of my army in a single go, then ANY list is going to lose the game, specialized or otherwise.

Plus, this is once again ignoring the fact that I have a say in this. If I have specialized units that I know are going to be necessary, I'm not going to stupidly run them out headlong into the open in front of everything else so that my opponent can kill them.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
The autocannon strikes an excellent balance between the stopping power of a lascannon and the multiple shots of a heavy bolter.

You may have to alter position on your HB PIS which detracts from the overall potency of your shooting phase. I do not.

I at least CAN do something, because I have that inherent flexibility in my PIS.

"strikes an excellent balance" does not imply "good".

Yes, a heavy-weapons specialized army does lose potency when it has to move, but when it doesn't move, it actually HAS potency, unlike autocannons, which never do, sitting still or not. Furthermore, this is once again ignoring redundancy. If I have multiple copies of units, I don't NEED to move anything as there is always something suited to the task at the point of crisis.

Finally, we've proven with math that you even thouh you "can" do something, you "don't". Yes, hypothetically an autocannon can destroy an AV12 SMF serpent in the one turn you get before it disembarks. Math shows that those odds are so long that you're NOT doing anything, even if you theoretically COULD.

It's a classic gambler's fallacy.

minigun762 wrote:
The current meta-game heavily features multiple low AV transports. This means to play well against the meta-game, your army must be built in such a way as to cope with this fact.

I agree, but I don't think autocannons are the way to cope with it.

Due to SMF and smoke + the speed of transports in general, you're only going to get one or two turns of shooting at your opponent's transports before they unload their cargo (thus making shooting the transports mostly moot). As mentioned, during that one or two turns, they're moving fast or using smoke (or behind cover from lots of your guns, or are fortuned, etc. etc.). This means that guard heavy weapons are unlikely to accomplish the goal of stopping transports.

Furthermore, as you mention, look at the points. I have to spend 75 points on autocannons, while the opponent needs to spend 55 points on rhinos or chimeras. This means that using infantry heavy weapons is a points inefficient way of killing tranports. The more autocannons you take, the more you're handing free points to your opponent.

As such, not only are autocannons ineffective when they need to be, but they have a lot of opportunity cost, especially given that they're not effective against non-transport targets.

minigun762 wrote:
For IG, Autocannons as priced equally to Heavy Bolters for the basic Infantry squads. This means that there is no point disadvantage to taking a weapon that is better in the current meta-game (Autocannon) over one that isn't (Heavy Bolter).

The disadvantage is that you waste more of the ability to kill what's inside the transports than you gain in killing the transport. It's neutering your own firepower, while giving your squads a confused role.

minigun762 wrote:
This means that those shots will normally be wasted anyway. Furthermore they will only be useful if you can expose the target infantry by removing their transport. If giving that squad a weapon (Autocannon) to allow them to expose the infantry quicker is an option, it actually improves their chances of using the rest of those Lasguns on that infantry, thereby making the squad more useful.

So this is once again where opportunity cost comes in.

Let's say that you take autocannons in your infantry squads, and other weapons which are good against transports (because, honestly, single PIS autocannons aren't doing jack). Compare that to a list that has infantry squads which are good at the goop that comes out of the transport, along with other weapons that are good against transports. In both these scenarios, you're needing to bring extra weaponry to make up for the fact that PIS autocannons aren't doing anything. Simultaneously, you're compromising the infantry squads.

Yes, with just a heavy bolter, the squads aren't doing anything to the transports in the first few turns (and thus have no targets). With a single autocannon, they're ALSO not doing anything to the transports. Just because they can target the transports doesn't mean that the squad's firepower isn't being wasted. If it's going to be wasted those first turns anyways, why not make them more effective for turns 3-6, instead of making them less effective turns 3-6 just for a chance to be marginally less ineffective turns 1 and possibly 2?

Right, I'll attempt to quash this by postng my list and showing you how autocannons can fit in quite seamlessly into a balanced list.

I run;

CCS w/ 4 plasmas, Chimera
PCS w/ 4 flamer, Chimera
PCS w/ autocannon and 2 x GL
4 x PIS w/ autocannon and GL
2 x Vets w/ meltaguns in Chimeras
2 x Vendettas
2 x Demolishers

All tanks have hull heavy flamers.

Total: 1500pts

Looking at this list I have very effective counters for any vehicles that are AV 12-14. I have 4, potentially 6 when the Demolishers get into range) decent ways of bringing down those higer AV vehicles.

I needed a way to effectively and numerously deal with the AV11 Rhino/Trukk as I didn't want to divert my dedicated AT fire away from the more dangerous targets such as WS, Battlewagon or LR. The autocannon fitted in exceptionally well as it can damage AV11+ as well as shoot its contents when they get to within that magic 12-24" range of the PIS. Sub in heavy bolters and I need to start shooting lascannons at Rhinos, something I do not want to be doing especially if one Vendetta fluffs its rolling. Sub in ML or lascannons and suddenly I have to reduce my numbers due to the expensive, one shot weapons, again not the most viable option.

The autocannons fill a gap in my army and have worked exceptionally well at the job they are there for; stunning/immobilising/wrecking transports and also RELIABLY testing the armour saves of marines/terminators whilst they take the long slog down towards my lines.

I seriously do not believe you can argue against the effectiveness of the autocannon. Time and time again it has prevailed and let my more specialised units do the jobs I brought them for.

L. Wrex

General Mayhem wrote:FRFSRF is for lasguns only, isn't it? (So won't work with heavy bolters).

Yes FRFSRF is lasgun only but, no, it works Very well with Heavy Bolters.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Right, I'll attempt to quash this by postng my list and showing you how autocannons can fit in quite seamlessly into a balanced list.

Just because it's possible to fit them into an already balanced list doesn't make them good, it just means you can make army lists.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Looking at this list I have very effective counters for any vehicles that are AV 12-14. I have 4, potentially 6 when the Demolishers get into range) decent ways of bringing down those higer AV vehicles.

You most certainly do have good anti tank. It's called demolishers, vendettas and melta vets. The list AS A WHOLE can counter these targets, not the autocannons. If anything, the fact that you're using combined arms only further proves my point.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
I needed a way to effectively and numerously deal with the AV11 Rhino/Trukk as I didn't want to divert my dedicated AT fire away from the more dangerous targets such as WS, Battlewagon or LR.

weapons that are good against heavy vehicles are also good against light ones. If you don't have enough anti-tank to do both, then bring more anti-tank. It's not an excuse to take crappy weapons.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
The autocannon fitted in exceptionally well as it can damage AV11+ as well as shoot its contents when they get to within that magic 12-24" range of the PIS.

Except it DOESN'T damage AV11+ in that critical moment when it matters. You are making the argument that they are good because they have a role in which they are effective. If that were the case, I'd advocate taking them (like when I said if you face a crap-ton of dark eldar). As they are not effective weapons against anything, it sort of implies that they don't, in fact, have a role.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Sub in heavy bolters and I need to start shooting lascannons at Rhinos, something I do not want to be doing especially if one Vendetta fluffs its rolling. Sub in ML or lascannons and suddenly I have to reduce my numbers due to the expensive, one shot weapons, again not the most viable option.

Are you really relying on just a couple of PIS autocannons? If they weren't there, would your army really fall apart? Why have a crappy weapon as your lynchpin? Given redundancy, why have a lynchpin at all?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
The autocannons fill a gap in my army and have worked exceptionally well at the job they are there for; stunning/immobilising/wrecking transports and also RELIABLY testing the armour saves of marines/terminators whilst they take the long slog down towards my lines.

I seriously do not believe you can argue against the effectiveness of the autocannon. Time and time again it has prevailed and let my more specialised units do the jobs I brought them for.

Math proves that autocannons don't work well at stopping transports. The reason I can argue against the effectiveness of the autocannon is math. If you're not using an objective system like math, then how you you make an argument for objective reality?

Sure, you can pick out examples "time and time again" of where an autocannon actually did something, but what does this mean for the rest of us? How are we supposed to look at your luck and anecdotal evidence and believe that it somehow applies to us?

If you indeed want to use the objective system of maths to argue against the viability of autocannons I will use that. This will be done on an AV11 vehicle. Firstly, points value. Autocannon = 10, lascannon = 20. 2:1.

Autocannon
4 shots. 50% chance of hit = 2 hit.
Of those two hit you have a 50% chance of glancing (4,5,6) = 1 glance.
Of that one glance you have a 33% chance of stopping the transport (rolling 4 or 6). = 1 x 0.333 = 0.333.
Therefore an autocannon has a third of a chance of stopping a transport (unless my math is completely off).

Lascannon.
1 shot. 50% chance of hit = 50% chance of hit.
Of that 50% chance you have an 83.3% chance of a glance (2,3,4,5,6). Ergo 0.5 x0.83 = 0.415. Of that 0.415 you have one third of a chance of stopping that transport (as above) 0.415 x 0.333 = 0.138

So, to stop a vehicle via a glance the autocannon has a 0.195 better chance of stopping it. Make sense?

The same can be done for a penetrating hit, but the results become a bit closer due to the higher propensity of a lascannon to penetrate.

So...by using maths I think I may have just proven that, point for point, autocannons are BETTER at stopping a transport than a lascannon.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
So...by using maths I think I may have just proven that, point for point, autocannons are BETTER at stopping a transport than a lascannon.

L. Wrex

It isn't even point for point. A single autocannon shooting at a Rhino without cover or orders has a 18.5% chance of killing or immobilizing vs the lascannon's 18%. With cover and no orders it becomes 9.5% vs 9%. With cover and orders 14.1% vs 13.5%. Without cover and with orders the lascannon does edge out the autocannon, 27% chance with autocannon vs 27.1% chance with lascannon. If you must destroy the Rhino then odds shift to be marginally in favor of the lascannon.

edit: Autocannon also beats lascannon against Wave Serpents, though the odds aren't terribly good with either.

i take it thats one auto cannon against one lascannon

and yet the auto cannon is half the price

Can you present your working? It's all well and good throwing percentages at me, but I have no idea how you worked that out; as I came up with vastly different results?

L. Wrex

makr wrote:Admittedly, he does make a point: Guard are a shooty army for a reason, and Guardsmen will outshoot, with FRFSRF, point for point, other armies' troops. Lasguns aren't negligible.

No basic trooper's gun is negligible, but most are pretty close. In order for this outshooting to happen you need several (likely 2) successful orders AND several (also likely 2) squads in range on your turn. The combo isn't trivial to setup. Many units skip straight past small arms range to either charge or pile out of a transport that's invulnerable to said lasguns.

Ailaros' comments on specialization are accurate, I believe he carries it too far. Being focused to a task is good for IG, since you can afford lots of units to all be focused on different ones, but you also have to realize that most of those units are also fragile. This makes them vulnerable to target saturation and focus fire. Having versatile line squads is good because it helps you avoid the mistake of putting the slow footslogger in spots to be outmaneuvered, and autocannons everywhere makes people be concerned for their rear armor facing in a way that HBs don't.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
So...by using maths I think I may have just proven that, point for point, autocannons are BETTER at stopping a transport than a lascannon.

Better does not mean good. What can I say to make this more clear?

a 3x battery of autocannon v. AV12 when they've had a chance to pop smoke or move fast (as in, you don't go first), that battery stops transports on a .0775. I don't CARE how bad lascannons are. Autocannons are also better at killing AV12 than are laspistols. That does not make autocannons good. Not even in 3x batteries. The math for an individual one in a PIS in this case is DEPLORABLE.

alarmingrick wrote:

Math proves that autocannons don't work well at stopping transports. The reason I can argue against the effectiveness of the autocannon is math. If you're not using an objective system like math, then how you you make an argument for objective reality?

my real life experience with AC's popping transports tells me your math may be wrong...? PIS ACs and Hydras work great for me against SM, CSM and Eldar transports.

So you're saying autocannons are universally good because you're lucky with them? How does that help anyone else who may or may not be as lucky as you?

If our individual experiences are important, then any tactics discussion would devolve into swapping stories of "oh yeah? Well, when I did that..."

The Grog wrote:

makr wrote:Admittedly, he does make a point: Guard are a shooty army for a reason, and Guardsmen will outshoot, with FRFSRF, point for point, other armies' troops. Lasguns aren't negligible.

No basic trooper's gun is negligible, but most are pretty close. In order for this outshooting to happen you need several (likely 2) successful orders AND several (also likely 2) squads in range on your turn. The combo isn't trivial to setup. Many units skip straight past small arms range to either charge or pile out of a transport that's invulnerable to said lasguns.

Granted, lasguns aren't the absolute best way of killing infantry (that's what we have hellhounds and artillery for). That said, they're not bad when you use them right (for example, not just shooting a single squad and hoping it will all work out). Plus, they are REALLY cheap, (and have other uses in the metagame such as scoring), so you can't expect a single squad of lasguns to work miracles.

The Grog wrote:
Ailaros' comments on specialization are accurate, I believe he carries it too far. Being focused to a task is good for IG, since you can afford lots of units to all be focused on different ones, but you also have to realize that most of those units are also fragile. This makes them vulnerable to target saturation and focus fire. Having versatile line squads is good because it helps you avoid the mistake of putting the slow footslogger in spots to be outmaneuvered, and autocannons everywhere makes people be concerned for their rear armor facing in a way that HBs don't.

Yes, they're fragile. The answer? Redundancy. Guard can afford to bring several copies of fragile units. Plus, ALL guard units are fragile, specialized or not. If durability of individual units is the problem, the guard itself itself is not the solution.

Now yes, I'd agree that if a person is going to horribly bungle their movement and deployment in such a way where "slow footsloggers" are outmaneuvered, then versatility is AN answer. The BETTER answer is specialized redundancy. That way you don't need to worry about movement (because you already have an effective unit in the area), or getting "outmaneuvered".

And for the last time, a heavy bolter is not a transport killer. Also, I can guarantee that an opponent will fear for their transports more due to manticores or lots of meltaguns or something that is actually effective against transports rather than the long shot of an autocannon hitting rear armor.

So you're saying i'm just lucky every time i kill a transport with an AC? how about you go and TRY them, then come back and say how bad they suck? right now all you have is your "Math" to go on. go and actually prove us wrong.

Ailaros wrote:

Better does not mean good. What can I say to make this more clear?

a 3x battery of autocannon v. AV12 when they've had a chance to pop smoke or move fast (as in, you don't go first), that battery stops transports on a .0775. I don't CARE how bad lascannons are. Autocannons are also better at killing AV12 than are laspistols. That does not make autocannons good. Not even in 3x batteries.

Uh. . . your math is off, friend.

3 autocannons = 6 shots = 3 hits.

Against AV12, that's 0.5 glances and 0.5 pens.

After the 4+ save, that's 0.25 glances and 0.25 pens.

A pen stops (Stunned, Immobilized, Wrecked, Explodes) on 4/6 results; a glance stops on 2/6. So that's 0.166 stopped from the pen, 0.0833 stopped from the glance. Total of 0.2499 AV12 transports stopped per turn of fire, with no orders AND assuming the target is obscured. I believe you ran the math for ONE autocannon, and then claimed it applied to a battery of 3.

If you issue BiD, you get 0.375 Av12 per turn.

If it isn't obscured, you get 0.5 AV12 per turn.

If it isn't obscured AND you issue BiD, you get 0.75 per turn.

So I CAN, in fact, using an objective system (that is, basic math), argue that autocannons are good at killing transports. Want me to crunch the numbers for AV11? How about AV10? They just get better every time. Autocannons are quite effective against transports, thanks very much.

In addition; your argument seems to be that autocannons aren't good, despite being better than everything else. Do you then recommend simply conceding whenever one faces a mechanized opponent?

i get it now what he is saying is that guard suck

so all our weapons suck so we are all mega fail

time to go home guys we suck

Ailaros wrote:Better does not mean good. What can I say to make this more clear?

I'm sorry dude, but now you're just making arguement for arguement's sake. 'Better does not mean good' vs one of the most established anti-tank weapons in 3 editions of 40k? I don't know what else I need to do to convince you. Of COURSE 'better' is both equal to and better than 'good', ESPECIALLY when compared to a f*cking lascannon!

Furthermore I'm not arguing vs AV12. Bar I.G. themselves very, very, VERY few armies have access to AV12 transports. the most common are Rhinos (11), Trukks (11) and Razorbacks (11). This means your math needs serious re-considering as AV12 is simply NOT the most common type of armour you will face in a game setting.

The fact that you have not even corrected my maths can only mean that it is correct; thus proving my over-arching arguement over this whole debate being that autocannons, in spite of being well worth their cost in points are an effective and GOOD way of targetting and preventing transports from doing what they want to do; delivering their cargo.

Luck DOES, despite your objectivist methods, count for an awful lot in this game. Whilst this cannot be argued effectively on paper, maths can. Which, I believe, I have just proven to the benefit of autocannons.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Better does not mean good. What can I say to make this more clear?

I'm sorry dude, but now you're just making arguement for arguement's sake. 'Better does not mean good' vs one of the most established anti-tank weapons in 3 editions of 40k? I don't know what else I need to do to convince you. Of COURSE 'better' is both equal to and better than 'good', ESPECIALLY when compared to a f*cking lascannon!

Furthermore I'm not arguing vs AV12. Bar I.G. themselves very, very, VERY few armies have access to AV12 transports. the most common are Rhinos (11), Trukks (11) and Razorbacks (11). This means your math needs serious re-considering as AV12 is simply NOT the most common type of armour you will face in a game setting.

The fact that you have not even corrected my maths can only mean that it is correct; thus proving my over-arching arguement over this whole debate being that autocannons, in spite of being well worth their cost in points are an effective and GOOD way of targetting and preventing transports from doing what they want to do; delivering their cargo.

Luck DOES, despite your objectivist methods, count for an awful lot in this game. Whilst this cannot be argued effectively on paper, maths can. Which, I believe, I have just proven.

L. Wrex

Trukks are AV10, actually. And open-topped. But that merely adds even more validity to your point!

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Can you present your working? It's all well and good throwing percentages at me, but I have no idea how you worked that out; as I came up with vastly different results?

L. Wrex

Both weapons hit on a 4+. Against Av11 autocannons glance on a 4 followed by immobilizing on a 6 and penetrate on a 5+ and kill or immobilize on a 4+. I'm not counting vehicle stunned. For a single shot the chances of doing what we're trying to do are 1/2(1/6*1/6+1/3*1/2) = 9.7%. 1/2 is the chance to hit, 1/6*1/6 is the chance of glancing then immobilizing, 1/3*1/2 is the chance of penetrating then killing or immobilizing. There are two shots but you can't just add together the odds of doing what you want. If you do that you'll be double counting those times when both shots do what you want, and killing a Rhino twice isn't really any better than killing it once. The quick and dirty way of figuring this is to find the individual odds of not doing what you want, exponentiating by the number of tries (in this case 2) to find the odds that *neither* shot does what you want, then when you turn that around you have the odds of at least one shot getting the desired result. Then the percent chance of doing what we're trying to do with an autocannon becomes (you'll want a calculator for this) 1-(1-1/2(1/36+1/6))^2, times 100 of course = 18.5%. You can skip all that with singular lascannons because they only shoot once. Lascannon is simple 1/2(1/36+1/3) = 18%. 1/36 is again the chance of glancing then immobilizing and 1/3 represents the 2/3 chance of penetrating times the 1/2 chance of a penetrating hit doing what we're trying to do.

With cover and without orders it's the same thing except the 1/2 becomes 1/4, with orders and without cover 1/2 becomes 3/4, and with both cover and orders 1/2 becomes 3/8. This is all for BS3 of course. Performing this calculation against other targets and in other circumstances is left as an exercise to the reader.

Your own math is so completely off I don't know where to begin explaining how.

Autocannon versus AV11, at BS3:

Penetrating Hits=2*1/2*1/3=.33

Lascannon versus AV11, at BS3:

Penetrating Hits=1*1/2*2/3=.33

Against AV11, the two weapons are equal. This is your baseline; cover saves, orders, range, LOS, etc are all equally aplicable to both weapons. It doesn't matter what factors are acting upon the weapons, you're simply multiplying both by the same constant.

Neither of you are taking into account the fact that you can have two autocannons for every lascannon; thus doubling your chances.

Autocannons are good. The maths, and player experiences with the weapon, consistently seem to verify this.

L. Wrex

Well, you can't, really. You're still stuck with the 50 point squad, so do you want a 60 point squad or a 70 point squad. If you're giving a heavy weapon to a PIS to sit on an objective and not move the entire game, then the autocannon is in general the better investment because, obviously, you get the same/similar effect for fewer points.

But for 10 points more (not the world, right ?) you'll not only get the abillity to stop AV12 quite easy but also the chance to actually kill tougher vehicles like Vindicators, Battle Waggons or Land Raiders. Stopping transports is fine, but if you are facing LR spam or masses of TMCs the lascannon is by far superior, especially with BID. Autocannons are great weapons, but you can overdo things. I would rather leave them to Hydras and equip my blobs with lascannons. The blob offers great protection against fire and if you got a comissar and some power weapons in it your HWs are also likely to survive an assault. You'll need balance in your army and even I agree that 'Dettas are the best way to go if you want lascannons, it's never a bad idea not to concentrate 'em on a single vehicle which can be destroyed or at least shaken.

Eh. So if I invest 250 points in a 30 man blob squad with 3 lascannon teams and give them orders, I can shoot something with 3 t/l lascannons? I understand that the blob squad has additional utility, but there's a reason why mech IG are at the top of the pile; so many vehicles mount weapons much more effectively than what the men can do.

sourclams wrote:Eh. So if I invest 250 points in a 30 man blob squad with 3 lascannon teams and give them orders, I can shoot something with 3 t/l lascannons? I understand that the blob squad has additional utility, but there's a reason why mech IG are at the top of the pile; so many vehicles mount weapons much more effectively than what the men can do.

for example, the Vendetta is 130 points for the same Lascannon options(if you use orders) as the afore mentioned blobbed squad. for the price i'd rather have 2 Vendettas.

alarmingrick wrote:So you're saying i'm just lucky every time i kill a transport with an AC? how about you go and TRY them, then come back and say how bad they suck? right now all you have is your "Math" to go on. go and actually prove us wrong.

So, if I'm really unlucky with autocannons when I actually use them on the field, does that mean that autocannons are bad, or that I was just unlucky with them? Furthermore, statistics assume the result of an infinite number of trials. As such, math gives us all infinitely more accurate assumptions than a few times you shot them in your basement.

Why do you believe the subjectivity of a few test casts is better than an objective system? How can I "prove you wrong" with anecdotes? You have set up a scenario in which it is impossible to be proven right without first discarding your assumptions regarding subjectivity.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Luck DOES, despite your objectivist methods, count for an awful lot in this game. Whilst this cannot be argued effectively on paper, maths can. Which, I believe, I have just proven to the benefit of autocannons.

This is a likewise failure to understand the purpose of statistics. Yes, it is possible for a 3x autocannon battery to kill 6 marines in a single turn, and if I play long enough, and gain enough "experience", eventually this will, in fact happen. This does not mean that autocannons, in general, are good against marines.

Without objectivity, there is no medium for meaningful exchange of ideas, as incommensurability will shut everything down before it begins. Touting the subjective does nothing to prove autocannons are good in PISs.

croggy wrote:i get it now what he is saying is that guard suck

so all our weapons suck so we are all mega fail

time to go home guys we suck

I believe that the guard is the best army in the game, which is why it's my only army. What does this have to do with the futility of autocannons?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: 'Better does not mean good' vs one of the most established anti-tank weapons in 3 editions of 40k? I don't know what else I need to do to convince you.

That better implies good is a logical fallacy. If you're going to convince me, sticking by your fallacies is not a good way about it.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Of COURSE 'better' is both equal to and better than 'good', ESPECIALLY when compared to a f*cking lascannon!

... followed up by another fallacy.

Missile launchers are much better than lasguns at taking down AV14. Does this mean I should pack my army lists full of missile launchers? No. Missile launchers are still a terrible weapon against AV14 regardless of the qualities of lasguns.

You're making the argument that because lasguns are better at killing space marines than are laspistols, that lasguns are good against marines. This is simply not so. Repeating this fallacy is unconvincing.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
The fact that you have not even corrected my maths can only mean that it is correct; thus proving my over-arching arguement over this whole debate being that autocannons, in spite of being well worth their cost in points are an effective and GOOD way of targetting and preventing transports from doing what they want to do; delivering their cargo.

That I didn't correct your math means that autocannons are good? This is a selective reading fallacy. If you're going to make an argument for them being good, you should make them on the merits of the weapon itself.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Trukks are AV10, actually. And open-topped. But that merely adds even more validity to your point!

I actually agree that autocannons can be effective against AV10, open-topped vehicles (see earlier postings). This does nothing to address the crippling opportunity cost problems, though.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
(math)

Ah, I know what I did wrong: I was excluding stunning in my original calculations. Probably because stunning doesnt' actually stop them, it just slows them. Assuming that the delay of the inevitable is rolled in...

6 shots = 3 hits
3 hits * .16 (glance) * .333 (stun or immobilize) * .5 (smoke, SFM, cover, etc.) = .079
3 hits * .16 (pen) * .666 (wreck, immobilize, stun) * .5 (smoke, etc.) = .159

Then yes, it's a .238. But what does this mean?

Assuming the most points-efficient use of autocannons (HWS), I need to spend 300 points on autocannons just to stop a 55 point transport before it unloads. In the quantity that most people are going to take them, they are woefully unequal to the task of stopping heavier transports (given that there will generally be more than one of them), and in order to make them effective, you need to take so many that you've crucified the rest of your list. Specialization allows you to be effective with much lower points expenditure, thus refraining from dooming your list to a torturous death.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
In addition; your argument seems to be that autocannons aren't good, despite being better than everything else. Do you then recommend simply conceding whenever one faces a mechanized opponent?

Once again, "better" does not mean "good". Just because they are the "best" at this role (which is arguable), does not make them good at that role, it just means that everything is worse.

And just because autocannons are bad doesn't mean we need to just throw up our hands and quit. It means that, lacking a specific wonder-weapon, you need to be able to handle these threats with your list as a whole.

For example, if you run a mechanized list yourself, this nullifies the advantage that your opponent gets over bringing transports of their own. Secondly, and this is my personal favorite, rather than spending 75 points for something that MIGHT stop a transport (but will do so only in a minority of cases), why not spend 55 points for another PIS? The dudes pile out of the transport and get a free kill, but the rest of your army destroyes what came out with dedicated anti-infantry squads, and the transports themselves (now basically moot) with things like meltaguns (they're going to be close, after all). Not only do you have a counter that is points-appropriate, but having those extra squads will also be useful if your opponent DOESN'T bring hordes of transports, unlike autocannons.

But these are just two ways of killing transports without autocannons. If you can't figure out any other way (of which there definitely are), that doesn't mean that autocannons are good, it just means you can't figure out any other way.