So...numbers can be funny sometimes. We all know meltas are the uber tank rapers in the current rule set.

But, there are other weapons out there that do things meltas dont, and Ive been toying with them. I saw a post in which someone said they thought Assault cannons were better Vs av 14 than las cannons. I think most initial reactions will be 'Bullcrap!' Mine was. So, Osyr's thread on Las Vs Assualt cannons got me thinking on this.


But, then I crunched the numbers with the nifty Vassal40k- this is 100,000 turns worth of fire for each weapon- hittin on a 3+. Thats 100,000 shots for the meltas/lascannon and 400,000 for the assault cannon(PS- crunchin the numbers for 400,000 ac shots made my laptop use its safeword). Note- the Melta w/1d6 is also the same as a Krak Missle(jsut thought Id mention it since some SM armies still use them for the cheapie upgrade).

So Lascannon vs AV 14 11056 dice glance (5), 11186 dice penetrate (6+)
Metla-with 2d6 vs Av 14= 9074 dice glance (6), 38830 dice penetrate (7+) =
Melta w/1d6 vs Av 14= 11071 dice glance (6) =
Assault Cannon vs AV 14 14786 dice glance (8), 15082 dice penetrate (9+)


Lascannon Vs AV 13= 11036 dice glance (4), 22466 dice penetrate (5+)
Melta w/2d6 vs av 13=7274 dice glance (5), 48219 dice penetrate (6+) =
Melta w/1d6 vs Av 13= 11085 dice glance (5), 11089 dice penetrate (6+) =
Assault Cannon vs Av 13 = 14288 dice glance (7), 29664 dice penetrate (8+)


Lascannon Vs Av 12 = 11097 dice glance (3), 33222 dice penetrate (4+) =
Melta w/2d6 vs av 12=5496 dice glance (4), 55943 dice penetrate (5+) =
Melta w/1d6 vs Av 12= 11042 dice glance (4), 22196 dice penetrate (5+) =
Assault cannon vs AV 12 = 45188 dice penetrate (7+) (note- cant glance AV 12 since a 6 pen roll adds the 1-3 to its AP)

Lascannon Vs Av 11 = 11019 dice glance (2), 44327 dice penetrate (3+) =
Melta w/2d6 vs av 11=3655 dice glance (3), 60849 dice penetrate (4+) =
Melta w/1d6 vs Av 11= 11207 dice glance (3), 33192 dice penetrate (4+) =
Assault cannon vs AV 11 = 44201 dice glance (5), 44956 dice penetrate (6+)

Lascannon Vs Av 10 = 11007 dice glance (1), 55415 dice penetrate (2+) =
Melta w/2d6 vs av 10= 1902 dice glance (2), 64722 dice penetrate (3+) =
Melta w/1d6 vs Av 10= 11067 dice glance (2), 44509 dice penetrate (3+) =
Assault cannon vs AV 10= 45276 dice glance (4), 89708 dice penetrate (5+) =


So, Meltas within 12/6" are king Vs Heavy armor. Assault cannon are however capable of more penetrating hits than Lascannon. But the Lascannon has the edge over Meltas when they are only using a single penetration dice.

Once you get to lighter armor however, the sheer number of Pen & glancing hits the assault cannon puts forth is pretty impressive. This seems to make it an ideal weapon for working over squadron based vehicles.

And, all this isnt even getting into using the weapon Vs Infantry.

All this being said- I really think the Assault cannon- while 'nerfed' from 4th ed, is still worth the points in 5th ed.

This also has me wondering if the Assault cannon is better than the Cyclone/Typhoon, as for anti vehicle use krak missles are very easy to compare (use the melta w/1d6 stat line and jsut x2 for the results- its rough but close enough), however, 2 frag missles are pretty random, so are really hard to balance in an anti- infantry role. Oddly, it looks like the Assualt cannon is better Vs Av 14, and AV 10, but a Cyclone/typhoon would be noticably better Vs 11,12, and debatable vs 13 if you look at the glances. So, I think for termies, the assault cannon is better- as it cooperates with their 24" storm bolter range. For speeders, the typhoon gives better stand off range.

Note: I realize this is pure meta-gaming- there are numerous factors unaccounted for. But most of those are very situational table-top factors and difficult to account for- hence are excluded.

My own anecdotal evidence agrees with your thoughts: I've found Assault cannon equipped razorbacks to be worth their weight in gold (try to take at least 2 of them). Not only for for their tank killing power, but for their ability to finish off remnant squads and wounded monstrous creatures.

Instead of having to devote a whole tactical squad's worth of firepower to put that last wound on a Daemon Prince, I'll shoot the assault cannon at it. the higher strength of the weapon means more wounds (even if I don't roll rending) and opponents will roll ones and twos eventually.

My own feelings about it are they are well worthwhile taking if it comes twinlinked or the model using it has BS5 and above. Otherwise, the unit fielding it will tend to have other weaponry that might be more effective. (I.E. I'll gladly take them on a razorback (where I'll avg 4 hits more often), but on a regular Dreadnought I prefer to give a shooting dreadnought autocannonsx2)

Range is the major factor unaccounted for. At ranges of 25" and more, the assault cannon is totally worthless. That hasn't changed since 4th edition.

On landspeeders that extra range is key. The typhoon launcher lets you stand off at ranges greater than 37" when you fire (and move 12" to maintain that standoff range) which means the high-volume, high strength shots from things like assault cannons, shuriken cannons, multilasers, heavy bolters etc. can't shoot back at you. At the start of 5th edition I still had some speeders with assault cannons on them and they did abysmally because they had to close in to shoot and always got caught by the short-range counterfire. I just finished ripping the AC off the last one and replacing it with typhoon launchers.

Maybe the one place where the Assault Cannon might still be worthwhile is on a dread, where mobility and heavier armor means the range doesn't matter as much. But taking assault cannons on dreads means you can't take a multimelta, which is cheaper too.

I agree that the Typhoon is the choice for speeders now, because of the fragility of the platform. Assuming you're not on that MM/HF Vulkan-wagon. Basically, extreme range for survivability, or extreme close range for disruption factor and punch. Medium range speeders just get owned by medium range weaponry.

Terminators are really a toss up, I tend to come down on the CML side of things, but I made an AC model just to switch out when I like it. Keeping the CML has the added benefit of not removing a Storm Bolter. Fairly minor, but against hordes like Nids, just two extra shots can make a difference, and those frag missles just clean house. I think it goes without saying that the AC is better at Anti-Armor work, but then again, why are Terminators doing Heavy Anti-Armor work? And if they are, why not just close in to use Chainfists for 2D6? With the CML, you're ready for light to medium armor (transports) even at maximum engagement range, and can even lay down Anti-Infantry fire from 48" away. Once you close to 24", Storm Bolters open up and it becomes all about volume of fire. Also, if you use the Assault Cannon for this, you're only adding two shots overall, and still not denying cover saves. If the enemy is getting cover, you want to just throw the bucket at them, so those extra SB shots and Frag Missles to rack up some cluster shots is just what the Apothecary ordered.

If SW do get a special AC LR, that will be neat, and a deadly beast inside of 24".

GeneralRetreat wrote:I agree that the Typhoon is the choice for speeders now, because of the fragility of the platform. Assuming you're not on that MM/HF Vulkan-wagon. Basically, extreme range for survivability, or extreme close range for disruption factor and punch. Medium range speeders just get owned by medium range weaponry.

Terminators are really a toss up, I tend to come down on the CML side of things, but I made an AC model just to switch out when I like it. Keeping the CML has the added benefit of not removing a Storm Bolter. Fairly minor, but against hordes like Nids, just two extra shots can make a difference, and those frag missles just clean house. I think it goes without saying that the AC is better at Anti-Armor work, but then again, why are Terminators doing Heavy Anti-Armor work? And if they are, why not just close in to use Chainfists for 2D6? With the CML, you're ready for light to medium armor (transports) even at maximum engagement range, and can even lay down Anti-Infantry fire from 48" away. Once you close to 24", Storm Bolters open up and it becomes all about volume of fire. Also, if you use the Assault Cannon for this, you're only adding two shots overall, and still not denying cover saves. If the enemy is getting cover, you want to just throw the bucket at them, so those extra SB shots and Frag Missles to rack up some cluster shots is just what the Apothecary ordered.

If SW do get a special AC LR, that will be neat, and a deadly beast inside of 24".

At this point I've basically decided that my ten man Termie squad is just going to have one of each. I realize I'm not optimizing for any given role, but I just feel like marines don't really have to.

If all of my units can do a bit of everything, then the built in redundancy of my force should make it more durable than the next guy's.

That's a great attitude! And one that should keep you interested in the game a lot longer than the conventional wisdom of "anything worth taking is worth taking a billion of."

I've never liked spam lists. They smack of untried theoryhammer and unimaginative generalship. It's like trying to eat a 4 course meal with just a spoon. Sure, it works great on the soup, but no help at all with the meat.

I think your analogy falls a little flat. Taking a NetDeck spam list is like eating a four course meal with a wood chipper. No matter which course you're on, soup, salad, entree, dessert, just chuck the whole dish in plate and all and watch your UBARLIST explode it into a million shreds of pulverized goo to spew it across the dining room wall. The half of the table that thinks that sort of thing is AWESOME (self included) is going to be standing on the chairs whooping and making pelvic face-hump motions while the half that showed up for fun or to be "hobbyists" is going to sit by in mute horror or righteous indignation.

Pelvic face-hump motions........... lol

Land speeders are easy to destroy. Land speeders are easier to destroy at 24 inch range (Multi Melta & Assault cannon armorment range) due to more weapons being in range of the unit. Land Speeders are much more difficult to kill at 36+ inch range because there are fewer weapons that can get range.

Therefore, unless you are using your land speeder as a Multi Melta platform (at 30 points less then an assault cannon) you should be throwing on the missile pods so they can sit back and fire.

Since 5th edition came out I thought Lascannons were crap (except in a guard army when spammed & twin linked or ignoring cover saves).

I often find myself firing the assault cannon on my land raiders and doing more damage then a multi melta. The one key factor to remember for the multi melta is AP1. by "upgrading" every damage chart roll you have a much better chance of destroying a vehicle (I love blowing up ork battlewagons on a 5 or 6 on a glancing hit! or a 3-6 on a pen!)

Flavius Infernus wrote:Range is the major factor unaccounted for. At ranges of 25" and more, the assault cannon is totally worthless. That hasn't changed since 4th edition.

On landspeeders that extra range is key. The typhoon launcher lets you stand off at ranges greater than 37" when you fire (and move 12" to maintain that standoff range) which means the high-volume, high strength shots from things like assault cannons, shuriken cannons, multilasers, heavy bolters etc. can't shoot back at you. At the start of 5th edition I still had some speeders with assault cannons on them and they did abysmally because they had to close in to shoot and always got caught by the short-range counterfire. I just finished ripping the AC off the last one and replacing it with typhoon launchers.

This. To an extent, at least. You need Melta; there's no getting around that. You need it because Mech lists are powerful, and thus AV14 is powerful, and there's very little (nothing, in fact) in C: SM that can reliably take care of AV14 from 20+ inches aside from the 8+2D6. So yeah, Melta is necessary. Fast Melta is necessary-er, and as such I still like the good old MM (HF optional) Speeder.

However, considering the vast majority of mech in the game nowadays is AV10-12, and considering most of that Mech may or may not also be carrying Melta, having something to swat it from 25+ inches away is also a good idea. Cyclones, Typhoons, Missile Launchers, Lascannons and Autocannons (and, to a lesser extent, Plasma Cannons and Heavy Bolters) are fantastic for this; that won't change. Sure you can get a few Penetrating hits on AV12 with a couple of Assault Cannon Dreads, but a single AC/LC/LC Pred will likely get just as many per turn without having to move an inch; and, as Flavius notes, without having to expose itself to reprisals. You can also turn most of these weapons on infantry once the vehicles are dealt with, and although they're not as effective as bona fide anti-infantry kit like the Thunderfire Cannon they'll still produce casualties.

Frank Fugger wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:Range is the major factor unaccounted for. At ranges of 25" and more, the assault cannon is totally worthless. That hasn't changed since 4th edition.

On landspeeders that extra range is key. The typhoon launcher lets you stand off at ranges greater than 37" when you fire (and move 12" to maintain that standoff range) which means the high-volume, high strength shots from things like assault cannons, shuriken cannons, multilasers, heavy bolters etc. can't shoot back at you. At the start of 5th edition I still had some speeders with assault cannons on them and they did abysmally because they had to close in to shoot and always got caught by the short-range counterfire. I just finished ripping the AC off the last one and replacing it with typhoon launchers.

This. To an extent, at least. You need Melta; there's no getting around that. You need it because Mech lists are powerful, and thus AV14 is powerful, and there's very little (nothing, in fact) in C: SM that can reliably take care of AV14 from 20+ inches aside from the 8+2D6. So yeah, Melta is necessary. Fast Melta is necessary-er, and as such I still like the good old MM (HF optional) Speeder.

However, considering the vast majority of mech in the game nowadays is AV10-12, and considering most of that Mech may or may not also be carrying Melta, having something to swat it from 25+ inches away is also a good idea. Cyclones, Typhoons, Missile Launchers, Lascannons and Autocannons (and, to a lesser extent, Plasma Cannons and Heavy Bolters) are fantastic for this; that won't change. Sure you can get a few Penetrating hits on AV12 with a couple of Assault Cannon Dreads, but a single AC/LC/LC Pred will likely get just as many per turn without having to move an inch; and, as Flavius notes, without having to expose itself to reprisals. You can also turn most of these weapons on infantry once the vehicles are dealt with, and although they're not as effective as bona fide anti-infantry kit like the Thunderfire Cannon they'll still produce casualties.

I've had great success with AC/HB/HB Preds to date. Great for popping holes in oncoming Rhinos and the like and decent against the crap that spews out of them. All at a significant range.

In summary, mad love for the dakka pred.

My wolves want that triple AssCan land raider liek woah lol

I think the AP1 from melta is quite useful, from AV13 and down. As it can only glance AV14 (at 12") the assaultie does come up trumps.

But all these marine squads with meltaguns and such, if they are within decent meltagun range then they are also within assault range. With Krak grenades which are basically equivelent to krak missiles vs AV12.

I have been saying this exact same thing since I mathhammerd' this out a few months ago.

Whenever given the choice I always field assault cannons over any other weapon.

my dreads even use ACs instead of MMs because they have a S10 close combat attack for the really heavy vehicles at close range.

Well, while the meta is so heavy in favor of Mech lists Meltas are an obvious necessity for consistantly penetrating av 12 -14.

But, as mentioned, the assualt cannon in its stereotyped role is hard on infantry and MC's alike.

Using the same model of 100,000 (BS 4) fire phases:
Melta/Lascannon vs T4, 3+ save =56,274 wounds
AC Vs T4, 3+ save= 44,554 rending wounds, and 222,644 wounds with saves. 73,721 failed saves(vs termies 66488 wounds counting Inv saves vs rends)

Melta/LC Vs T6, 3+ save= 56,739
Assault cannon Vs T6, 3+ = 44,563 rending, 133,403 wounds with saves, 43,894 unsaved wounds (vs 2+ 22,247 unsaved)

Melta Vs T8, 3+ save=34,002
LC Vs T8, 3+ save=44,209
AC Vs T8 3+ save=44,462 rends (cant wound it any other way)

So, I was pretty surprised on the T8 results- ran them a few times to be sure lol.

Also- its pretty obvious in this role a CML/Typhoon is superior vs 3+ saves, but far less Vs 2+ saves and anything with a 4+save.

This tells me that anything that can take a Ac/CML/Typhoon probly should, anything that cant, can be equipped with the melta weaponry.

Unless you are running Vulkan

When it comes to Speeders Mathhammer is less useful. It's always useful to know what Mathhammer says about your capabilities, but a lot of what Speeders do or don't do will depend on their synergy with the rest of the list.

Speeders are a unit that depends on other units to stay alive. They need something else providing a more immediate threat to allow them to operate. In this respect taking 3x can often backfire, as it earns them a round of shooting that can potentially kill them all. One or two, on the other hand, can provide highly available shooting that isn't so dangerous that the enemy has to focus on it.

This is particularly true of the Typhoon, less so with the Melta versions, where they may be able to use cover, then pounce and kill something before the enemy can effect them at all.

I used a typhoon squadron at Ardboyz and the stand of range was great.Multilasers couldnt reach and the can squadrons i faced were torn apart just getting to into range.The old tornadoe speeder while deadly has been almost a one shot or nothing survivability rate.

I use 6-8 speeders with great effectiveness.

You would be amazed at how resilient they are.

If you are going to take down a squad of three, you had best not shoot it with one weapon at a time.

Even with a single lascannon shot, you only have a roughly 1 in 3 chance of downing a speeder in a squadron.

If you don't succeed in killing a speeder and shoot the squadron again, guess who's taking that damage?

Taking down a squad of three Speeders isn't that hard, given the squadron rules. If any Immobilized results come up, then they count as Destroyed, if they go Flat Out then they aren't shooting, and Autocannons and similar weapons chew them right up. That's a possibility of a Destroyed result on a glance, meaning bolters and the like, and 50% odds of a Destroyed result on penetration.

Maybe it's just the games of Warhammer that I play, but nobody shoots one Lascannon at a squadron and hopes for the best: you pour firepower into a unit until it's destroyed and then you move onto the next unit.

What drives me nuts are the lone Landspeeders, the ones that are dangerous because they have a chance of doing damage, but not something you want to waste an entire unit's shooting on.

Nurglitch wrote:Taking down a squad of three Speeders isn't that hard, given the squadron rules. If any Immobilized results come up, then they count as Destroyed, if they go Flat Out then they aren't shooting, and Autocannons and similar weapons chew them right up.

Which typically represents two to three times the speeders' point values dedicated to destroying them. And moving flat out is a huge benefit to a short range firefighter like the Land Speeder. The best designed Speeder Lists that I've seen take advantage of high levels of armored target saturation; 6-9 Speeders, Land Raiders/Dreadnoughts/Predators/Rhinos. You have to make a conscious decision *not* to shoot the big scaries if you're killing the Speeders.

And if you don't kill the Speeders, they kill you on turn 2.

There's a reason that Sallies on Wheels is a top tourney army.

Another example is Dark Eldar . . . so yes their vehicles are low AV but you can have so many plasma cannons that those Space Marines are going down . . . and you can always stick in some lances to open up their tin cans to get to the cowardly ones =]

Frank Fugger wrote:

This. To an extent, at least. You need Melta; there's no getting around that. You need it because Mech lists are powerful, and thus AV14 is powerful, and there's very little (nothing, in fact) in C: SM that can reliably take care of AV14 from 20+ inches aside from the 8+2D6. So yeah, Melta is necessary. Fast Melta is necessary-er, and as such I still like the good old MM (HF optional) Speeder.

I'm currently running a squadron of 3X typhoon speeders *and* 2X MM/HF speeders for the best of both.

Mistress of minis wrote:This tells me that anything that can take a Ac/CML/Typhoon probly should, anything that cant, can be equipped with the melta weaponry.

This is, generally speaking, the best way to do it; although...

Flavius Infernus wrote:I'm currently running a squadron of 3X typhoon speeders *and* 2X MM/HF speeders for the best of both.

This ain't a bad idea either

It's all about redundancy and overloading at the end of the day, although if you're going to go towards one thing over the other then lots of quick Melta with a little bit of 48" shooting to back you up would be the way to go.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Frank Fugger wrote:

This. To an extent, at least. You need Melta; there's no getting around that. You need it because Mech lists are powerful, and thus AV14 is powerful, and there's very little (nothing, in fact) in C: SM that can reliably take care of AV14 from 20+ inches aside from the 8+2D6. So yeah, Melta is necessary. Fast Melta is necessary-er, and as such I still like the good old MM (HF optional) Speeder.

I'm currently running a squadron of 3X typhoon speeders *and* 2X MM/HF speeders for the best of both.

That sounds like a great little combo, and the best of both worlds. I may have to try it myself when I can collect up the models. One of these days I'm going to build the biker army I always wanted, and the Ravenwing Boxed sets will give me 1 speeder per 6, so I think I'll end up with 5 or 6 in the end.

You've got 6 missles and 9 HB shots downrange, and 2 MM or HF up close. That sounds like plenty of redundancy without overkill. The main problem with spam lists is that they waste so much fire by throwing the same hammer at everything. Efficient warfare is about using just the right amount of force, and no more. That way, your unwasted resources can go account for more kills elsewhere.

All sorts of power, in just the right amount. So many heavy weapons, all for under 500 points. You can't base a force around something so fragile as these paper airplanes, but they really are a points efficient "kicker" unit, taken in support of the more durable but less killy choices like Tactical marines in Rhinos.

GeneralRetreat wrote:
You've got 6 missles and 9 HB shots downrange, and 2 MM or HF up close. That sounds like plenty of redundancy without overkill. The main problem with spam lists is that they waste so much fire by throwing the same hammer at everything. Efficient warfare is about using just the right amount of force, and no more. That way, your unwasted resources can go account for more kills elsewhere.

It's not a bad combo at all, but let's not get stuck singing the praises of this "equilibrium" approach. The HB shots are going to be largely wasted against AV12-ish targets, which makes the Typhoon guilty of the same inefficiency that you claim is present in the Spammer lists. Likewise the redudancy is somewhat low.

If your goal is to seek "just the right amount" of whatever, then you probably don't have enough. Your opponent will prioritize targets, and they will crush whatever they see as the most threat, which will probably be the unit most effective at dealing with them.

Look at battleship gun batteries prior to HMS Dreadnought, for example. All differing bore sizes arranged by type to strike some sort of theoretical equilibrium. Then you get Dreadnought, the spam-hammer, and the design sticks because waste is irrelevant after you've blown the feth out of your target.

Same thing with Typhoon LS versus MM/HF LS; Typhoon is not bad, not in the least, but MM/HF can kill literally everything while Typhoon kinda craps out against AV13+.

sourclams wrote:
Same thing with Typhoon LS versus MM/HF LS; Typhoon is not bad, not in the least, but MM/HF can kill literally everything while Typhoon kinda craps out against AV13+.

Again, range is the key factor. MM/HF speeders have to get so close to do what they do that they typically only get one volley off, then get wrecked by return fire--same as assault cannon speeders. I'm pretty sure that's everybody's experience of them. It's the only way I've ever seen them work.

Typhoons can always find a good target because of their mobility/flexibility, and can--in my experience--almost always find a spot to shoot from where there's not much that can shoot back (or where the things that are able to shoot back are things you'd rather have shoot at speeders than your rhinos or whatever).

True but often times a single shot from the MM or HF is more lethal than several turns of shooting from the Typhoons and HB.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Again, range is the key factor. MM/HF speeders have to get so close to do what they do that they typically only get one volley off, then get wrecked by return fire--same as assault cannon speeders. I'm pretty sure that's everybody's experience of them. It's the only way I've ever seen them work.

Typhoons can always find a good target because of their mobility/flexibility, and can--in my experience--almost always find a spot to shoot from where there's not much that can shoot back (or where the things that are able to shoot back are things you'd rather have shoot at speeders than your rhinos or whatever).

I have no difficulty finding targets with my mm/hf speeders. If you are not running a vulkan list, I can see the attraction of typhoons. However, I don't like them since typhoons only have an advantage when shooting over 24". It's a lose when shooting under 24". With an effective range of 36" with mm speeders, it's not a huge factor.

Besides, I run vulkan.

Typhoons have the advantage over MM's (per number of damaging hits) on AV12 and less. Since speeders should be shooting at side or rear armor, which in all but a few cases(Land Raider and Russes) is 12 or less.

Number of hits is also important to buggering up squadrons, since hits are distributed amongst squadron members.

An interesting thing to note about the whole "effective range" meme by which movement distance is added to a weapon's range to reach some aggregate effective range is that it assumes moving directly towards your target. In other words, for Multi-Meltas, it means getting within 24" range of your target. That is if you can move directly towards your target. Sometimes it's not only unwise, but impossible as well. The nice thing about Typoon Launchers is the range lets you engage units you're running directly away from, or allows you to engage units while you move to a better angle. Being able to cross-fire a Leman Russ, for example, is easier if you can shoot at it from opposite short edges of the table.

While I'm busy pontificating, I thought I might add that Dreadnought Missile Launchers should be 20pts each and treated like Cyclone and Typhoon Missile Launchers. It's a multi-missile launcher, treat it like one. Plus players should have more options for the Mortis Pattern, although twin Autocannons is pretty cool.

sourclams wrote:I think your analogy falls a little flat. Taking a NetDeck spam list is like eating a four course meal with a wood chipper. No matter which course you're on, soup, salad, entree, dessert, just chuck the whole dish in plate and all and watch your UBARLIST explode it into a million shreds of pulverized goo to spew it across the dining room wall. The half of the table that thinks that sort of thing is AWESOME (self included) is going to be standing on the chairs whooping and making pelvic face-hump motions while the half that showed up for fun or to be "hobbyists" is going to sit by in mute horror or righteous indignation.

Counterargument: most "NetDeck" lists are gimmicks and/or overrated.

Fetterkey wrote:

sourclams wrote:I think your analogy falls a little flat. Taking a NetDeck spam list is like eating a four course meal with a wood chipper. No matter which course you're on, soup, salad, entree, dessert, just chuck the whole dish in plate and all and watch your UBARLIST explode it into a million shreds of pulverized goo to spew it across the dining room wall. The half of the table that thinks that sort of thing is AWESOME (self included) is going to be standing on the chairs whooping and making pelvic face-hump motions while the half that showed up for fun or to be "hobbyists" is going to sit by in mute horror or righteous indignation.

Counterargument: most "NetDeck" lists are gimmicks and/or overrated.

Counter-counter argument: When compared to other NetDeck lists.

So, lots of Assault Cannon if you're fighting a buggied-up ork army.

sourclams wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Counterargument: most "NetDeck" lists are gimmicks and/or overrated.

Counter-counter argument: When compared to other NetDeck lists.

No.

Hey, maybe we could keep it on topic instaed of hijackin into e-peen duel about the online interpretation of the meta-game?


Ardens- Yes, vs AV 10 or 11 the AC is brutal. So trukks, buggies, loota wagons, kanz, are are very susceptible to it. Even aganst battle wagon front armor it has a decent chance(lower then the MM close up, but better than an LC) Side/rear shots are best....but massed firepower is better

Typhoons have a better chance of beating AV14 than AssCan shots, though; and they can do it from 48" away, keeping your Speeders nice and safe(well... safe-ER, they're still flying plywood dinghies).

Frank Fugger wrote:Typhoons have a better chance of beating AV14 than AssCan shots, though; and they can do it from 48" away, keeping your Speeders nice and safe(well... safe-ER, they're still flying plywood dinghies).

No they do not, 8+1d6 = 14 max, which means s8 shots do not beat AV 14- they annoy it. Assault cannons can actually penetrate.

Did you even read my original post?

He's saying that range is a primary consideration.

I would argue that S8 glances against AV14 are so useless that they're a non-concern to a player with Land Raiders.

Range is only a factor when balanced with effectiveness.

Considering most people are getting into 12/6" for most AT work these days, 24" seems pretty easy.

The Typhoon certainly has a role it excels in- shooting at AV 14 from any range with bare S8 is either a serious lack of more suitable targets- or an even more serious lack of tactical awareness. Keep the typhoon on AV 12 or less, 13 in a pinch, troops(Krak on MEQ/MC- frags for the rest), random wild animals for target practice, and then AV 14 dead last.

Mistress of minis wrote:Assault cannons can actually penetrate.

Yes, yes they can, but first they have to hit. Then they have to roll a 6 for their AP. Then they have to roll a 5 or 6 on the Rending roll. Then they have to roll a 6 on the normal AP dice, and THEN they have to roll on the damage table. Seems like a pretty outside shot to me, and a lot of polava to go through when you could just take a weapon that fires twice and needs only a 6 on either roll to cause some form of damage. And doesn't have to come within Multimelta/ Hurricane Bolter/ TL Heavy Bolter/ TL Assault Cannon/ Particle Whip range to do it. AND can be fired twice as a defensive Blast weapon after having moved 12".

Seriously, there's just nothing to recommend an Assault Cannon Speeder, especially considering you get Typhoons for the same cost and HF/ HB/ MM attachments for less.

If you want to talk about Typhoons- I have a thread on them- this is about the weapons- not their platforms.

I like Typhoons. Alot. But after crunching alot more numbers than you seem to have, the assault cannon is very viable in the same roles. Slightly better in some(AV 14, 2+ armor saves) aspects, and against lighter AV the Typhoons sole strength is its range as their performance is almost identical-with the overall edge to the assault cannon. This thread isnt about 'Tornado or Typhoon' its about SM weapons in general

And seriously Frank- I dont need you to repeat the numbers a assault cannon needs to roll in order to hit and penetrate- I knew all that when I wrote the post and started this thread. You seem to be forgetting, that while it does take some decent rolls- assault cannon roll 4 dice. And 100,000 fire phases dont lie, averages are just patterns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS-Where do you think I said anything positive about Assault Cannon on speeders?

If you had read, and comprehended what Ive put in this thread- Ive said stick typhoons on you speeders and assault cannons on everything else that you can.

I wish they sold dice that rolled by the law of averages. I'd win every game I ever played. I don't just mean 40K either; Ludo, Snakes 'n' Ladders, Eights... I'd be rich as an astronaut.

It's all well and good to say they Rend and penetrate 499,999 times out of every half a million, but the fact is they simply can't be relied on to do it when you need them to; which, for a weapon with such a short range and limited list of uses, is not a Good Thing. Typhoons are better because they can hit most points on the board, and as such if you don't much feel like firing them at the AV14 you can fire them at something else instead. Like infantry. Using the Frag profile. After having moved 12" and fired the Heavy Bolter too. I know this is all stuff you said in the other thread about Typhoons, but it bears repeating.

Frankly my approach to Assault Cannons is the same as my approach to novelty pens; if I get them free with something I'm buying anyway then that's fine, but I'm not going to pay for them.

Ive seen a few of your posts pop up today, you seem to just like being contradictory without backing up your claims with much substance.

This thread was to point out a few things- of which you have not seemed to grasp.

Against armor- In order of effectiveness: Meltas at close range, Assault cannon, typhoon, lascannon.

Mostly Im pointing put that Assault cannon now exceed lascannon in most anti-vehicle roles(monolith being an exception-and wave serpents).

On the subject of your dice comment- Im well aware of dice. I have several years worth of 'Murphys Luck' 40k awards. That does not change the fact- that fpr every game you roll poorly in, theres gonna be one you roll well in.

Once again- you argue for the typhoon here- and thats not the point of this thread.

You argument for range is kinda silly-yes, 48" is better than 24". But, since many people are using speeders as melta platforms it should be obvious that 24" isnt a hindrances combined with 12" of movement- Once again I am NOT advocating the use of Tornado Speeders of Typhoons. If you keep arguing the point like I am. you're going to start looking slowed.

Please keep the thread on track and about using the SM arsenal VS targets with armor values.

On the subject of your dice comment- Im well aware of dice. I have several years worth of 'Murphys Luck' 40k awards.

Generally when people say the "you can't count on dice" stuff, they're wrongheadedly making an actual valid point, which is particularly operative for Meltas...

More rolls are better than fewer.

Even when the expected outcomes are the same, you'd rather have more rolls, as with more rolls comes a less granular result set. Basic bell curve stuff...

It's less obvious when shooting at vehicles, as the results tend to be "kill or not," but when shooting at infantry, it's clearer.

In general you want predictability. If something kills 1.5 Marines per round on average, it'd be nice if it was always exactly that. You can plan around it. But if it's just as likely to kill none as 3, and averages to 1.5, that's much harder to gameplan around.

Frank, I'm starting to worry about you here... have you actually tried any of these tactics, or is it still theoryhammer at this point?

From your description, you make it sound like an Assault Cannon needs to roll about six times before it does anything to AV 14.

It goes like this: Roll to hit @ 3+
Just like any other weapon, you have to hit, so this isn't any more of a hinderance than to any other weapon. Also of note; 4 shots hits more often than 2.

Roll to Penetrate Armor - Here, the Assault Cannon needs a 6 to get a Rend, giving a penetration of AV 12 and qualifying as a "Rend" for an extra D3 power.

Rending power roll - Starting at 12, you need a 3 or 4 to glance (14), a 5 or 6 to penetrate (15).

Damage Result Roll - Standard table

Simple Fact: Assault cannons ARE better against AV14, range not being a consideration.
Not-So-Simple Fact: Every weapon and weapon system has a place. Arguing about the "best" is like trying to decide whether to stock only forks or only spoons. Get both, enjoy dinner.



Second point -
Typhoons are tons better against squadrons of light vehicles than HF/MM speeders (Can we just call them Vulkan Speeders?) will ever be. 3 Typhoons could put out such a significant volume of fire against light armor, you could wipe a squadron of War Walkers or Land Speeders or Sentinels in a single volley. A Squad of Vulkan Speeders will never have a squadron of Land Raiders to target, and will never have a chance to take more than 3 kills a turn. Not being twin-linked, I'd say you'd be lucky to average a 2/3 shot-to-kill ratio.

Mistress of minis wrote:Ive seen a few of your posts pop up today, you seem to just like being contradictory without backing up your claims with much substance.

I'm not really sure what else I can do other than say what I see.

I get what you're saying about averages over 100,000 shooting phases, I really do; I haven't got the inclination to check your maths so I'm going to just assume it's absolutely spot-on accurate. 100,000 shooting phases, Assault Cannons penetrate AV14 more than lascannons or Typhoons, check. Gotcha. What I'm saying is that, while I trust your maths 100%, I don't see how it makes spamming Assault Cannons the way of the future. I run Land Raiders. A lot. They're the fulcrum upon which my Grey Knights are balanced. I haven't yet seen one so much as Glanced by an Assault Cannon, and I've run up against a few of them. Maybe if they were being spammed, or if an opponent made a concerted effort to use them as AT weapons, it'd be different, but when better and nastier alternatives exist, and most of those alternatives cost the same or less and are more effective without the reliance upon extra dice rolls, there's just no getting around the fact that they're not as all-fire awesome as the maths makes them out to be. They might be a nice fall-back, but they're not something I'd pay for.

Also, considering that a single tooled-up Land Raider is worth a Tactical Squad and a half, I'd say any roll on the Damage Table your opponent makes against them is worth worrying about, even if it is at -2.

Frank, please quote me where I advocate Assault cannon spam to the exclusion of all else. Otherwise you're arguing for a point you -believe- I am trying to make.

I did the math hammer to illuminate people that assault cannon where more capable for AT work than lascannon, and very comparable to typhoons on medium AV. But that they were not anywhere near Meltas at close range.

Your Land Raiders never being glanced by an assault cannon is why I thought this was worth posting. Most people think theres no chance, so they'll shoot at something else, or forgo shooting altogether if they do not know any better.

And you dont have to pay for them. If you want to take other options thats up to you. But since you play GK's, and they often lack the ability to deal with AV 13/14, you might have assault cannon on your land raider crusaders? Now you know that they can affect armored vehicles better than a lascannon. A reg AC is better than a TL/lascannon. And Crusaders come with a MM and TL/Ac, thats better Anti Tank than a regular Land Raider.

GeneralRetreat wrote:Frank, I'm starting to worry about you here... have you actually tried any of these tactics, or is it still theoryhammer at this point?

From your description, you make it sound like an Assault Cannon needs to roll about six times before it does anything to AV 14.

The way I phrased it made it seem like five, actually; one to hit, a 6 to AP, a 5-6 on the Rending D3 to Penetrate, a second 6 on the AP roll (not sure what I was thinking there), and then finally a roll on the Damage Table. Even discounting the extra D6 roll I added as part of my sinister ploy to discredit Assault Cannons, it's still a D6 more than you'd need to roll to Glance AV14 with a Typhoon. It also needs to be closer, which opens it up to reprisals and more or less allows any AV14 vehicle that survives the frightening onslaught of S6 weaponry to pretty much handle the entire squadron itself while the rest of your army does other things.

And that's just the Speeders. "Assault Cannons on everything else" implies putting them on Termies, Razorbacks and Dreads is the done thing, when in fact it makes them more expensive, less likely to survive a trip across the table, and/ or less likely to be able to get into a good shooting position quickly enough to matter.

Boil it all down and you're left with the conclusion that mathematically, Assault Cannons are awesome. Tactically they're dead dogs. If I get them free all is good, but if not I'm not going to pay for them.

Second point -
Typhoons are tons better against squadrons of light vehicles than HF/MM speeders (Can we just call them Vulkan Speeders?) will ever be. 3 Typhoons could put out such a significant volume of fire against light armor, you could wipe a squadron of War Walkers or Land Speeders or Sentinels in a single volley. A Squad of Vulkan Speeders will never have a squadron of Land Raiders to target, and will never have a chance to take more than 3 kills a turn. Not being twin-linked, I'd say you'd be lucky to average a 2/3 shot-to-kill ratio.

They also cost 60pts more for a full squadron (i.e, 5pts less than a Land Raider with a Multimelta and Extra Armour) and have no way to ignore cover saves. I know we're all for 3 shots being better than one, but when that one hits automatically and hits based on the position of a template rather than dice rolls, and ignores cover, I know which one I'd prefer. I know which one I'd rather not have being flung at me either, especially if I was trying to get by on cover saves because something had killed my transports. I also know which one I'd prefer to have shooting at my Open-Topped AV10, and it'd be the ones that won't Wreck my vehicles on a 3+ because of AP1.

It might also be worth mentioning that a squad of Tactical Marines will also put out enough firepower to wipe out a squadron of War Walkers or Land Speeders, and woe betide the flying plywood rafts or perambulatory armchairs if the Taccies decide to charge them.

Boil this one down, and what you're left with is a straight choice between economy and efficiency. The MM/HF Speeder, even without Vulkan, is going to give you more bang for your buck against pretty much any army; and even if it doesn't there's not a damn thing stopping you throwing in some Typhoon/ HB Speeders too. That'd be the way I'd go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mistress of minis wrote:Frank, please quote me where I advocate Assault cannon spam to the exclusion of all else.

I'm not saying you are advocating it to the exclusion of all else. What I'm saying is that, because of math-hammer, you believe that AssCans are still worth the points in 5th Edition. See:

Mistress of minis wrote:All this being said- I really think the Assault cannon- while 'nerfed' from 4th ed, is still worth the points in 5th ed.

What I'M saying is it's not, for multitudinous reasons. The biggest one being for those self-same points your Speeder can have a fantastic stand-off weapon that will do a number on light-medium infantry and light vehicles just as well as your AssCan but from a greater range. Crunch the numbers on the AssCan and Typhoon/ Cyclone versus the three most irritating MEQ units - Bike Squads, Plague Marines and 1k Sons - and I'll bet it bears out my hypothesis. Then crunch them against gak-ass infantry like Orks, Kroot, Guardsmen and Guardians and I'll bet it does the same. You could even try it from 36" and moving 12" per turn, and throw in the 9 extra Heavy Bolter shots you'd get from Speeders firing Frag Missiles.

Your Land Raiders never being glanced by an assault cannon is why I thought this was worth posting. Most people think theres no chance, so they'll shoot at something else, or forgo shooting altogether if they do not know any better.

That's fine. I'm with you on that; there is, at least, a chance that they'll do damage. The problem is to use them on my Speeders I have to pay Typhoon points, when I could alternatively just take a mixture of Typhoons, which are less likely to kill AV14 but far more useful against most other things, and MMs, which are 20pts cheaper and a far safer horse to back for killing AV14.

What your OP seems to imply is that it is sometimes worth taking AssCans over Typhoons or Cyclone Launchers, and I don't really think that bears out (not with the Typhoons at least - Cyclones maybe moreso, but I'd still rather not be throwing my 230pt Terminators into the middle of the field on the off-chance they'll Rend a Land Raider).

And you dont have to pay for them. If you want to take other options thats up to you. But since you play GK's, and they often lack the ability to deal with AV 13/14, you might have assault cannon on your land raider crusaders? Now you know that they can affect armored vehicles better than a lascannon. A reg AC is better than a TL/lascannon. And Crusaders come with a MM and TL/Ac, thats better Anti Tank than a regular Land Raider.

They still use the Heavy 3 profile, otherwise they'd be awesome in a GK army. Which I suppose demonstrates that they're at least situationally useful, considering the free Multimelta and that GKLRCs can always fire their Hurricane sponsons no matter what without the need for PotMS. However since the GK AssCan uses the old fail-profile it's a moot point :(

Excellent statistical work here Mistress. These ratios would be interesting to consider when choosing weapons for units like the obvious speeder, as well as the razorback and dread. People seem to be missing the fact that those are just about the only time you have a choice on whether to take lascannons or assault cannons, or lascannons vs multi-shot missiles.
It is fairly amusing that so many people seem to miss your point about assault cannons being worth firing on AV14. I suppose when looking at theory it is easy to forget that once you are in the game, what you could have taken is irrelevant, and what you do in fact have on the table is of paramount importance.

And Frank, if you are looking so desperately for statistically accurate dice, go to eBay and search for "casino dice." You can usually get cancelled craps dice for 10-15$ for 10-20, and they are really nice. You still get the occaisional run of numbers, but throwing 10 dice and getting 5 come up 4+ is by far the norm. I love mine.

Frank Fugger wrote:What your OP seems to imply is that it is sometimes worth taking AssCans over Typhoons or Cyclone Launchers, and I don't really think that bears out (not with the Typhoons at least - Cyclones maybe moreso, but I'd still rather not be throwing my 230pt Terminators into the middle of the field on the off-chance they'll Rend a Land Raider).

Mistress of minis wrote:This also has me wondering if the Assault cannon is better than the Cyclone/Typhoon, as for anti vehicle use krak missles are very easy to compare (use the melta w/1d6 stat line and jsut x2 for the results- its rough but close enough), however, 2 frag missles are pretty random, so are really hard to balance in an anti- infantry role. Oddly, it looks like the Assualt cannon is better Vs Av 14, and AV 10, but a Cyclone/typhoon would be noticably better Vs 11,12, and debatable vs 13 if you look at the glances. So, I think for termies, the assault cannon is better- as it cooperates with their 24" storm bolter range. For speeders, the typhoon gives better stand off range.

Please read what I wrote. I point out that both weapons have minor advantages over the other in different applications. And that for terminators, and speeders there are obvious advantages based on the platform and cooperating with its strengths/weaknesses.

How you decide to utilize those strengths and weaknesses is up to you- Im just pointing out what is possible. If you choose to assume Im telling you what to do with that, I really have no idea what to tell you.

I haven't yet seen one so much as Glanced by an Assault Cannon, and I've run up against a few of them.

In order to make sense of what you're saying, I have to assume your reasoning here is that while ACs might be better mathematically, they don't get to shoot as often due to being out of range or dead, so they don't ever put that advantage to work...

Is that accurate?

Because the other option is that you're doing that thing people do when they don't fully grasp math, where they say they believe it, but don't...

As far as spamming ACs go, I don't think that's the suggestion. What I think should be clear from the Mathhammer, is that an Assault Cannon is a great choice if you don't have a specific need in your list. ACs aren't all powerful, but they are relatively effective against virtually anything in the game.

You'll never go WRONG by taking one.

Also the math shows that if you take an even spread of weapons there are certain weapons that it's better to target at certain enemies, where they are more likely to do damage etc.

Mistress of minis wrote:Please read what I wrote. I point out that both weapons have minor advantages over the other in different applications. And that for terminators, and speeders there are obvious advantages based on the platform and cooperating with its strengths/weaknesses.

But you still maintain it's worth it's points in 5th Edition, no?

Phryxis wrote:In order to make sense of what you're saying, I have to assume your reasoning here is that while ACs might be better mathematically, they don't get to shoot as often due to being out of range or dead, so they don't ever put that advantage to work...

Is that accurate?

In a fashion, yeah. Unless the thing is mounted on an LRC it'll get, at best, one shooting phase at my Land Raiders before I kill it. It might get two if I feth up moving my Grey Knights out to deal with it, but even still I've never had one damage my Raiders. Considering that, when I'm running my pure GK list, 3 Raiders are all I deploy, I think that's fairly telling in and of itself; although I'll admit that it might not be the fairest comparison since Raider-mounted GKs deal remarkably well with AV10-12 considering they get tons of S6 shooting and every CC attack they make is equivalent to a Krak Grenade. Against other Raider-spam-capable MEQs (like Smurfs, and, erm.... Black Templars?) the results might be different. I doubt it though, because I've never really used an AssCan other than the free one on Crusaders and I've never found myself cursing for the lack of one, which suggests to me that they're neither the be all, the end all, or indeed worth bothering with at all.

As far as spamming ACs go, I don't think that's the suggestion. What I think should be clear from the Mathhammer, is that an Assault Cannon is a great choice if you don't have a specific need in your list. ACs aren't all powerful, but they are relatively effective against virtually anything in the game.

You'll never go WRONG by taking one.

You go wrong simply by choosing to pay for the AssCan over anything else. Range not being a factor, yeah, they're coo'; but like it or not range IS a factor. It's why the Monolith sucks, and why Broadsides are widely considered to be the best AT unit in 40K. Being able to attempt to hurt something from 48" away is always better than being able to attempt to hurt something from 24" away, particularly if your AssCan is being wielded by 220pts of Termies or an AV10 floater.

Oshova wrote:Also the math shows that if you take an even spread of weapons there are certain weapons that it's better to target at certain enemies, where they are more likely to do damage etc.

An old Chinese bloke once said, "Get out of my toolshed or I'll call the police".

An even older Chinese bloke said "He who prepares everywhere will be weak everywhere". What you do by taking an even spread of weapons is attempt to prepare everywhere, and while math-hammer establishes that you're not ENTIRELY screwed if all you have left to fire at that Land Raider is your Termie's Assault Cannon, you'd still have been better taking something that can specifically deal with the Land Raider, particularly if you're able to take it on a unit that also has the capacity to deal with things OTHER than Land Raiders too. That's what you get with an MM/ HF Speeder. It's what you get with Bike Squads, and TH/ SS Termies, and indeed by putting an MM on Land Raider variants (not the Redeemer. Never the Redeemer). It's what you get with Combi-Melta Sternguards to an extent, and with Ironclad Dreads, and MM Dreads, and Conversion Beamers, and any number of other things in the Smurf Codex.

Wait.....did you really just say Ironclad Dreads are a better buy from the SM codex then arming something with an Assault Cannon?

You arent adding anything to the discussion other than -opinions-. If you get something even semi-factual to contribute about Space Marine weaponry used against armor- please feel free to contribute.

But all you're doing is being contrary and obstinate because you dont 'think' assault cannon are worth it. Thats your choice. Get with the topic of the thread, or go start your own thread about how much you think assault cannons suck.

That sharp cracking sound you just heard was the tip of a whip exceeding the speed of sound just before impacting on someone's back.

POW

Mistress of minis wrote:You arent adding anything to the discussion other than -opinions-. If you get something even semi-factual to contribute about Space Marine weaponry used against armor- please feel free to contribute.

Well, how about this:

The lascannon has about a 7% chance to immobilize or destroy a Land Raider.

The AssCan is about 50% better.

A melta weapon at half range is about 3 times better than a lascannon, and twice as good as an AssCan.

Likewise, a lascannon can put one wound on an infantry squad against which they'll likely get a 4+ cover save.

An Asscannon will likely put three wounds on an infantry squad, against which they'll likely get a 4+ cover save.

A Heavy Flamer will likely put between five and eight wounds on an infantry squad, against which they'll die outright unless they're MEQ models, in which case "only" 2-3 die.

So in both of these scenarios, the AssCannon is the weapon in the middle; it's not the worst, and it's not the best. However, in both of these scenarios, the difference between the best and the second best is an order of magnitude, something like 2x the effectiveness.

The asscannon may not be 'bad', but if you want to create a competitive list, you should probably take something 'good'.

Mistress of minis wrote:Wait.....did you really just say Ironclad Dreads are a better buy from the SM codex then arming something with an Assault Cannon?

I did. I'm not saying they're awesome, I'm just saying that they bring more to the table than anything you'd care to name with an AssCan.

You arent adding anything to the discussion other than -opinions-.

Based on observed evidence. Isn't that exactly what you're doing? Sure all I've got to back me up is anectodal evidence, but then again your maths ignores "very situational tabletop factors that are very difficult to account for"; i.e 90% of gameplay.

If you get something even semi-factual to contribute about Space Marine weaponry used against armor- please feel free to contribute.

How about revising your hypothesis around more tangible factors than simple D6 rolls first? Or is the point of the thread for us to crunch our own numbers and then "OMG!" agree with you? Or was it, as you've stated previously, to get people thinking about Assault Cannons in a different light? If the latter is the case, then surely lending a bit of tabletop context to the evidence provided by the math-hammer is a good thing?

But all you're doing is being contrary and obstinate because you dont 'think' assault cannon are worth it.

From where I'm sitting it looks like the entire point of the thread was to demonstrate that Assault Cannons aren't completely a lost cause, and that they can indeed be useful. Agreed. What I'm saying in response is that whilst they ARE useful, as your math-hammer shows, they're still not worth the points for no matter what you put them on; there simply is no way to math-hammer that, because calculators can't really account for "very situational tabletop factors" (like terrain, what he's got, what you've got, what you're both going to do with it and who's going to do it first, what you're playing towards, how good you are at eyeing distances, and all that other piffling "gameplay" nonsense that gets in the way of good pattern calculation), but go up to any Smurf player in any tournament and ask him "why haven't you got Assault Cannons?", and his likely answer will be "because they're gak and expensive and hard to use". You may then say to him "but lookie these numbers what I crunched!", and he'll still shrug and say "OK, that's why they cost what they do; but I can still get 2 Krak Missiles for the same price and they hurt more things more often". Then you say "but but the numbers say they don't", he says "I don't see that", and you hopefully realise the flaw inherent in math-hammer; all those "very situational tabletop factors", they count for something. Or maybe it's the Smurf player's fault for not taking enough Assault Cannons and using them often enough? I dunno.

Mistress of minis wrote:Wait.....did you really just say Ironclad Dreads are a better buy from the SM codex then arming something with an Assault Cannon?

Not precisely. He said that the best Space Marine units have the ability to deal with certain unit types very effectively as well as the capability to deal with a wide range of unit types, and then used Ironclad Dreadnoughts as an example of such a unit. Further, he stated that while your data indicate that using Assault Cannons against Land Raiders can be effective, it's not reliably effective, and you shouldn't plan on using your Assault Cannons in that sort of role.

In general, I agree with his perspective. The assault cannon is decently good against a wide range of targets, but not really outstanding against any specific target, except Imperial Guard heavy weapon teams, which are not a very common foe. However, it is so expensive that it is generally not worth it. Upgrading a Razorback's twin-linked heavy bolter to a twin-linked assault cannon almost doubles the cost of the vehicle and does not provide sufficient benefits to be worth that cost, especially since the twin-linked heavy bolter is already effective against light infantry. Giving a Land Speeder an Assault Cannon is also bad, since the Typhoon launcher is better, provides increased survivability and synergy, and costs the same.

Mom, ignore frank, its pointless to feed a troll. I have learned this, and it has lowered by blood pressure and made me a happier person overall.

Demogerg wrote:Mom, ignore frank, its pointless to feed a troll. I have learned this, and it has lowered by blood pressure and made me a happier person overall.

How is Frank a troll? From where I'm standing, it looks like he's the reasonable one, and Mistress of minis is the one throwing insults.

Fetterkey wrote:
In general, I agree with his perspective. The assault cannon is decently good against a wide range of targets, but not really outstanding against any specific target, except Imperial Guard heavy weapon teams, which are not a very common foe. However, it is so expensive that it is generally not worth it. Upgrading a Razorback's twin-linked heavy bolter to a twin-linked assault cannon almost doubles the cost of the vehicle and does not provide sufficient benefits to be worth that cost, especially since the twin-linked heavy bolter is already effective against light infantry. Giving a Land Speeder an Assault Cannon is also bad, since the Typhoon launcher is better, provides increased survivability and synergy, and costs the same.

Agree with this summation. In general, everything that could take an assault cannon can also have a multi melta and a heavy flamer. An assault cannon is decent in a pinch against AV of all values, but against heavy armor its effectiveness falls off to the point that you should have a weapon dedicated to the role like one of the melta types.

Umm, are you guys (exept demogerg) suffering from fugger-itis?

Symptoms include(but are not limited to) assuming im advocating assault cannons above all else?

I pointed out that they are better than lascannons, and melatas at long range. They are not better than meltas up close until you deal with AV 10/11 vehicles when the AC racks up multiple pens pretty easy.

This thread is about options and what has a chance of doing what. Assault cannons surprised me, but I dont think they're the uber-est thing ever. Like any other weapon they have a role and a place. Theyre cheap on dreads, but pricey on razorbacks. But- on a RB they do give it a heft punch- the rending makes it effective against heavy infantry and MC's. Just another tool in the box you can choose to use, or not.

I think suggesting that Assault Cannons are better than Lascannons at long range is somewhat mistating your case. up to 12" is close range. up to 24" is medium range, and up to 48" is long range.

Something to mention about the Assault Cannon on Razorbacks is how easy it would be to convert Twin-linked Assault Cannons from the Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer kit.

Fetterkey wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Mom, ignore frank, its pointless to feed a troll. I have learned this, and it has lowered by blood pressure and made me a happier person overall.

How is Frank a troll? From where I'm standing, it looks like he's the reasonable one, and Mistress of minis is the one throwing insults.

I guess you are not carefully reading what frank is saying, in nearly all his posts (not just in this thread) he makes snide condesending remarks that indirectly insult the person he is trolling. He does this to invoke a more radical response from the person he is debating with to discredit their opinions and make him seem like the better person.

an example of this style of posting would be

OP: I like chocolate ice cream, I think it tastes the best!
Troll: Chocolate ice cream is obviously inferior to vanilla, vanilla is far more popular, and anyone who thinks that chocolate is better than vanilla is a fool, because numbers dont lie, and the numbers show that vanilla is better.

the troll just called the OP a fool, and anyone who isnt invested in the conversation might not notice that, so when the OP responds with anger, any onlookers might not see the troll for what it is.

one trait of this style of posting is that the post need to be long, to better hide the insults.

There's a "Your mom!" joke in here somewhere...

Nurglitch wrote:I think suggesting that Assault Cannons are better than Lascannons at long range is somewhat mistating your case. up to 12" is close range. up to 24" is medium range, and up to 48" is long range.

Mistress of minis wrote:I pointed out that they are better than lascannons, and melatas at long range. They are not better than meltas up close ....

"meltas at long range" = 8+1d6 for pen rolls. There is a comma seperating lascannon, and meltas at long range there

That's my point, meltas don't work at long range. They work at short range (12") or very short range (6").

Demogerg wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Mom, ignore frank, its pointless to feed a troll. I have learned this, and it has lowered by blood pressure and made me a happier person overall.

How is Frank a troll? From where I'm standing, it looks like he's the reasonable one, and Mistress of minis is the one throwing insults.

I guess you are not carefully reading what frank is saying, in nearly all his posts (not just in this thread) he makes snide condesending remarks that indirectly insult the person he is trolling. He does this to invoke a more radical response from the person he is debating with to discredit their opinions and make him seem like the better person.

an example of this style of posting would be

OP: I like chocolate ice cream, I think it tastes the best!
Troll: Chocolate ice cream is obviously inferior to vanilla, vanilla is far more popular, and anyone who thinks that chocolate is better than vanilla is a fool, because numbers dont lie, and the numbers show that vanilla is better.

the troll just called the OP a fool, and anyone who isnt invested in the conversation might not notice that, so when the OP responds with anger, any onlookers might not see the troll for what it is.

one trait of this style of posting is that the post need to be long, to better hide the insults.

Besides, we all know ice cream has to have some sort of cookies(or dough) in it to be the best. Or cheese cake...

But ya, the length of the passive aggressive trolls posts are generally long, most people just glance over the long posts, and then see something mean and 'out of line' in the shorter succinct replies from someone who is direct in what they have to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:That's my point, meltas don't work at long range. They work at short range (12" or very short range (6".

ffs dude, please read the whole thing in context- we're saying the same thing.

Melta at 12/6" > assault cannon/lascannon> Meltas 24/12"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit-add= Im counting multimetlas in hte 'meltas' label for simplicity....in case that needs to be clarified

But honestly it's a false dichotomy. It is *so* easy for a Marine army to get a multimelta (again, anything that can mount an assault cannon can generally mount a multimelta, exception being Razorbacks) into melta range that the "range issue" is basically a non-issue.

For example, a Tac squad with bolters firing at a target 19" away is better than a Dire Avenger squad with Bladestorm firing at a target 19" away, because the Avengers are out of range.

Is that a fair analogy, though? Probably not, because the Dire Avengers can actually get into range and become 3x as effective.

If Marines form a fire base whose optimal range is 24", then they're probably losing. 1. because they don't really have the tools to operate that far away, and 2. because in general, every other army can outshoot them at that range.

So yes, the AssCan is better at 13-24" than the Melta, Multimelta, or Lascannon.

But 13-24" is a sphere that Marines aren't intended to operate in, don't need to operate in, and aren't very good at operating in.

Do you always just keep saying stuff til you sound like you're right?

Youre correct about most marine firepower being most effective at 12" for infantry. Depending on how many troops are in the army, and their load out. The fewer infantry there are the less true that statement becomes.

But I think its rather silly to dismiss a 24" weapons solely on that basis. Assault cannon arent carried by tactical marines or anything that rapid fires. Theyre carried by terminators- which have 24" storm bolters, and vehicles which likely have other weapons with range of 24 or greater. So that point is invalid. If you were comparing Multi Meltas to Lascannon it would fit- as those can both me carried by Tac squads.

And by making a statement that marines arent intended to operate in 13-24, you're presuming to have the knowledge of the intent that the GW designers have in mind.

You seem to be missing the point of the thread, and making a point of your own, like mr fugger.

I clearly stated in my OP that the stats I generated did not take into account many factors and were mathhammer/metagaming-

So, would you guys knock off the crap where you seem to think Im telling everyone to stop taking multimeltas because assaualt cannon are better? Time and again Ive jsut said theyre different tools. You dont have to use them- I jsut pointed out capabilities most arent aware of.

Okay, I've gone back and looked over your posts, just to see if I missed anything.

Assault cannons are okay against AV. That's the crux of the thesis.

Then other posters take the discussion to a natural next step, are assault cannons really any good in an AV capacity, and what do you lose by taking assault cannons.

The general concensus is that they're not a competitive addition due to eliminating other, more specialized weapons.

Then certain individuals explode into Pariah-like behavior.

So okay, there's your point, you made it, I didn't realize that the conversation was done at that point.

Thus far I've found you to be incredibly rude and domineering, so I'll leave you to your conclusions regarding your subject material, and play the game my own way.

Thanks.

You know, I think the OP addressed most of the issues pretty well. I do agree with Sourclams, that range isn't as huge a factor as it seems, particularly for multi-meltas. And the OP notes, it was really a comparison of the AC to the typhoon launcher. And lastly, the OP notes, this is all very metagame-ish. Maybe I missed it in a later post, but I don't see where anyone said, "take only ACs". The AC is a good weapon. But it's not the end-all-be-all. It's nice on Dreads. Not so nice on Razorbacks (just due to the points). And not as good against landraiders as a multi-melta (at least when they're both on a speeder platform).

Here's another idea to throw out. With the game seeing more vehicle squadrons being introduced, does the high rate of fire of the AC offset it's points? A multi-melta has a better chance to take out a land raider, but it can only take out one Hydra. An AC could take out a squadron of three vehicles with some luck.

After reading this thread I converted up an assault cannon razor turret, and I have to say that I'm very pleased with the results in gameplay. I'm finding that the "more dice" thing makes it much more reliable than the TL lascannon at the same cost, and that range isn't really a factor since transports (in my army at least) tend to move toward the center of the board, and the added flexibility is an asset. I recommmend it.

But as already mentioned, the razorback is a special case because there it really is a choice between a lascannon and an assault cannon (because multimelta isn't an option).

I have followed this discussion with interest and something occurred to me.

A general consensus seems to be that Meltas, especially Multimeltas, are the best weapons against AV14. That's part of the reason for the length of this debate, because people want to express the superiority of the MM over the assault cannon, if I'm right. I remember that fetterkey said, assault cannons are not reliably enough to deal with AV14. That melta weapons are more reliable.

Now, there were some numbers at the beginning of the thread. I did some numbers just now and came up with a percentage; the percentage of a multimelta killing AV14 at 1-12" range.

The chance is around 20,9%. That, in my opinion, is still not that reliable. I admit, it is better than assault cannon or lascannon and by pure one-hit percentage the best. BUT - and here comes the point - it is definitely harder to get a multimelta into range than lascannons or even assault cannons. (And keeping the unit alive for a possible second shot!)

Vehicle-mounted weapons can usually fire while moving (at least the imortant one), so what I'm saying is: Where a MM unit needs 1 turn to get into range and 1 turn to shoot, a AssC or LC unit may be able to get out a second or even third shot out while the MM unit is outta range. And remember one thing: Everybody knows how good meltas are and will try to get out of the way of a charging MM unit as best as possible (or take it down).

So my point is: While a MM shot at close range has a chance of 20,9% of taking that AV14 down, two TL lascannon shots from wherever on the table have a combined chance of 9,5% of scoring a wrecked/destroyed. That is much closer to a MM than the one-shot chance of 4,9%, right? And it is important in my opinion to factor the extra range into this calculations.

Just wanted to point this out.

Postscriptum: Recrunched numbers, had some mathematical error in there that made me think MMs had a chance of only 10,9% of killing AV14. Now the two lascannon shots don't look that good in comparison any more, but still I think it's worth noting.

Part of the idea behind this calculation is, of course, that long range LCs or TL-LCs (and AssCs to a degree) will probably live far longer than the close-combat MMs and Meltaguns. Therefore they increase their chance of killing a vehicle in a game drastically; I admit I never fielded one, but MM/HF Landspeeders really sound like one-hit wonders. Land Raider is a different thing, of course.

dietrich wrote:Here's another idea to throw out. With the game seeing more vehicle squadrons being introduced, does the high rate of fire of the AC offset it's points? A multi-melta has a better chance to take out a land raider, but it can only take out one Hydra. An AC could take out a squadron of three vehicles with some luck.

Front armor is 12, requiring 6's to rend although those will most certainly penetrate.

Side armor is 10, however if you're somehow pulling off side armor shots, your opponent isn't very good at either deployment or screening.

So against a squadron, of which the most typical AV is 12 (i.e. IG artillery tanks), you're basically banking on rolling 6 on 3/4 dice.

Its potential is very high, but the average return is far, far lower.

The multimelta will likely destroy one Hydra, and the assault cannon will likely destroy less than one hydra.

This thread has also convinced me to try the Assault Cannon Razorback on a third troop choice.

sourclams, I disagree that Marines have to get within a certain range to be effective. That is not the only consideration, if anything Marines benefit most from being adaptive to situations. Assault Cannons help with that.

I would agree that the Razorback is probably the only good platform where an Assault Cannon upgrade is a reasonable consideration. Terminators are better off with the multishot Cyclone missile launcher (but they are overshadowed by the superior assault terminator) and Land Speeders are way to over priced to carry them.

Another thing to carry away from this discussion though is target priority when using a Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer. You can easily use these numbers to help pop two or more vehicles in a turn if you use this data to determine your probability against certain targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Witzkatz wrote:I have followed this discussion with interest and something occurred to me.

A general consensus seems to be that Meltas, especially Multimeltas, are the best weapons against AV14. That's part of the reason for the length of this debate, because people want to express the superiority of the MM over the assault cannon, if I'm right. I remember that fetterkey said, assault cannons are not reliably enough to deal with AV14. That melta weapons are more reliable.

Now, there were some numbers at the beginning of the thread. I did some numbers just now and came up with a percentage; the percentage of a multimelta killing AV14 at 1-12" range.

The chance is around 10,7%. That, in my opinion, is nowhere near reliable. I admit, it is better than assault cannon or lascannon. BUT - and here comes the point - it is definitely harder to get a multimelta into range than lascannons or even assault cannons. (And keeping the unit alive for a possible second shot!)

Vehicle-mounted weapons can fire while moving, so what I'm saying is: Where a MM unit needs 1 turn to get into range and 1 turn to shoot, a AssC or LC unit may be able to get out a second or even third shot out while the MM unit is outta range. And remember one thing: Everybody knows how good meltas are and will try to get out of the way of a charging MM unit as best as possible (or take it down).

So my point is: While a MM shot at close range has a chance of 10,7% of taking that AV14 down, two lascannon shots from wherever on the table have a combined chance of 9,5% of scoring a wrecked/destroyed. That is much closer to a MM than the one-shot chance of 4,9%, right? And it is important in my opinion to factor the extra range into this calculations.

Just wanted to point this out.

I think you are on the right track, but the problem also comes from cover. I regularly deploy a cheap dreadnought in front of a Land Raider (plus the use of terrain) to get a cover save. The Lascannon simple cannot be fielded enough to produce the number of shots to compensate for cover and it's relative weakness, and even if you where to try and field those numbers, you are certainly hurting in other areas.

Another thing to take into consideration is whether the gun is mounted or not, which adds an effective 6" to its range.

Here is what I consider the "Heavy Weapon Priority List" for the Marines, essentially it is the list of things you want include in your in order of importance:

Multimelta in Tactical Squads
Multimelta Land Speeders and Attack Bikes
Multimelta Dreadnoughts
Autocannon Predators
Multimelta on Land Raider
Assault Cannon on Land Raider

See a trend? I think this thread is great for reevaluating the Assault Cannon and putting it into perspective. It is still great on some platforms, the Multimelta when looking at the options that can take them.

Also, I think the Assault Cannon is worthless if it isn't twin-linked or tank hunting (as the BT can do)

For what it's worth, I'm more or less forced to take Assault Cannons given the "Doublewing" build of my Dark Angels army, but this is offset by the fact that they always Deepstrike into range of whatever I want them to kill. That, and the other set I use is BS5, and re-rolls any 1's; I genuinely consider Sammael the best AC platform in the game. But between the ACs and Bike-mounted Multi-meltas, my entire army becomes much less scary if you can move more than 6" a turn and have a chance of shooting back, since everything but a single Heavy Bolter is 24" range or less.

sourclams wrote:Okay, I've gone back and looked over your posts, just to see if I missed anything.

Thank you for taking the time to do that- if a few others would do the same there would be far less confusion on their part.

sourclams wrote:Assault cannons are okay against AV. That's the crux of the thesis.

Yes- 'okay' is an apt word. It was also to point out that las-cannons pretty much suck vs AV compared to other options. And then you take a plethora of metla-brained key board bangers and suddenly Im the 'wrong one' for saying assault cannons are the coolest thing ever-which I never said not implied. Moronic interpretation did the assuming and implication.

sourclams wrote:Thus far I've found you to be incredibly rude and domineering, so I'll leave you to your conclusions regarding your subject material, and play the game my own way.

Thanks.

And you're a bucket of sunshine with a fresh citrus scent. And a rainbow.

Dude- get over yourself. If by rude and domineering you mean that I dont let people misinterpret my statements just so they can feel smarter/more justified about some meta-gaming aspect, or illuminate them that their overall reading comprehension may be lacking, I guess that makes me rude and domineering. Truth hurts i suppose.

But maybe you have a different definition of domineering? I thought it was when someone tells people what to do- rather than explaining something to someone over & over because theyre being a bonehead.

I think you may have forgot that Assault cannons are heavy 4 weapons.

Mistress of minis wrote:Thank you for taking the time to do that- if a few others would do the same there would be far less confusion on their part.

What were you saying about passive aggressive trolling?

I've directly quoted your posts on a number of occasions and all I get in response is "OMFG TAHT'S NOT WHUT I SAYS!!", when it demonstrably IS whut you says. Case in point; you said AssCans are worth their points in 5th Ed. You did. You said it. I quoted it, and responded that in my opinion they're not. Then suddenly I'm being told to go away and gather scientific data before I go sticking my nose in your thread.

And then you take a plethora of metla-brained key board bangers and suddenly Im the 'wrong one' for saying assault cannons are the coolest thing ever-which I never said not implied.

You said they were worth paying points for, which was wrong.

Moronic interpretation did the assuming and implication.

Mistress of minis wrote:All this being said- I really think the Assault cannon- while 'nerfed' from 4th ed, is still worth the points in 5th ed.

Yes, I'm the moron for misinterpreting this as a conclusion that Assault Cannons are worth their points in 5th Edition.

Mistress of minis wrote:This also has me wondering if the Assault cannon is better than the Cyclone/Typhoon, as for anti vehicle use krak missles are very easy to compare (use the melta w/1d6 stat line and jsut x2 for the results- its rough but close enough) however, 2 frag missles are pretty random, so are really hard to balance in an anti- infantry role. Oddly, it looks like the Assualt cannon is better Vs Av 14, and AV 10, but a Cyclone/typhoon would be noticably better Vs 11,12, and debatable vs 13 if you look at the glances. So, I think for termies, the assault cannon is better- as it cooperates with their 24" storm bolter range. For speeders, the typhoon gives better stand off range.

Here's the qualification for the earlier statement, in which you're still maintaining that Assault Cannons are worth putting on a Terminator squad. Terminator squads aren't worth putting in an army list so I'll let that one go, despite the fact that Relentlessness means the Termies benefit from the Cyclone's stand-off range to largely the same extent as a Speeder would. You'd have to be stupid enough to take a shooty Terminator squad in the first place to figure that one out though, so it'll probably slip past most people.

And you're a bucket of sunshine with a fresh citrus scent. And a rainbow.

He's quite good actually; he has this thing that he does where he comes into a thread and sharpens three pages of inarticulate bollocks into a reasonable point. And people dislike him for it because he makes them look stupid and boorish.

Or rather they do that to themselves by getting defensive and directing insults at him. Q.E.D, see below.

Dude- get over yourself. If by rude and domineering you mean that I dont let people misinterpret my statements just so they can feel smarter/more justified about some meta-gaming aspect, or illuminate them that their overall reading comprehension may be lacking, I guess that makes me rude and domineering. Truth hurts i suppose.

I'm not saying that you're advocating Assault Cannons above all else.

I agree that on average Assault Cannons hurt more AV14 than lascannons, and are better against AV10 than a Multimelta.

Your conclusion is that Assault Cannons are "okay" and "worth their points" because of these things. Your conclusion is based solely on the number of penetrating hits the Assault Cannon can score on average versus these other weapons in pure math-hammer terms, which ignores "situational tabletop factors" such as, like... gameplay and stuff. Because ignoring a game's core mechanics and gameplay is not a good thing when trying to reach a conclusion about a facet of the game, what I'm saying is that this is not a safe foundation upon which to base a conclusion, and therefore your conclusion is at best shaky, and at worst a load of bollocks.

Basically Assault Cannons are indeed another tool in the box, but they're a gak tool for a vast litany of reasons, and not one worth building an army list around (in the way Melta is) or indeed even attempting to squeeze into your list (as you might with Typhoons).

Wow-you really like long drawn out replies dont you?

You dont like assault cannons, you dont have to. All of the reasons you give for not using them are your own, and not something I see many people supporting for a variety of reasons. Im not going to repeat them- because they arent something you can comprehend because it doesnt fit in with your beliefs.

And theres nothing passive aggressive about what I intend to say. I think Ive been pretty clear, and very concise. If there has been more comprehension issues, please let me know and I'll include some crayon & construction paper diagrams to assist your understanding.

Mistress of minis wrote:Wow-you really like long drawn out replies dont you?

If it's worth saying, it's worth taking a while to say.

And theres nothing passive aggressive about what I intend to say. I think Ive been pretty clear, and very concise.

They're not mutually exclusive...

If there has been more comprehension issues, please let me know and I'll include some crayon & construction paper diagrams to assist your understanding.

Q.E.D Your definition of passive-aggressive seems to be "something other people do".

I'd also caution you against smugness when it comes to reading comprehension, because your powers don't really seem to be up to much:

You dont like assault cannons, you dont have to. All of the reasons you give for not using them are your own, and not something I see many people supporting for a variety of reasons. Im not going to repeat them- because they arent something you can comprehend because it doesnt fit in with your beliefs.

That's funny, because I've seen a few replies from people who share my views; and as near as I can tell they've all reached the conclusion that AssCan is Ass by themselves. That's got to say something about the logicality of the conclusion, no?

Im wondering if you are aware of what passive/aggressive really means. Not that it matters- you're allowed to behave ignorantly if you so choose.

And yes- there have been a few people that have expressed that assault cannons do not work them. And they have left it at that. 2 others have gone on and on about how much assault cannons suck. But the majority of the thread has been useful information being exchanged. Something you have yet to do really.

I dont want to see a useful thread continue getting hhijacked because you have something to prove. So, please contribute something worthwhile, or go make your own thread about how much you think assault cannons suck.

Personally I think you both need to grow up . . . but that's kind of obvious . . .

Anyway, yes the AC is more diverse than the other weapons mentioned, but due to it's lack of specifics this can leave it stranded. Personally I like taking them, only on termies and the occasional razorback though. . . And never more than 2 or 3 are bought for the army, and that's when using full Deathwing . . . So yes they are good to have ine the army, but usually it's better to have more specific weaponry =]

The 4+ CS, vehicle damage chart and change in rending all led to the AssCannons demise. Not to mention, the strongest marine build is a Vulkan list...which force multiplies the AssCannons competition.

The other issue it has lies where it can be mounted;

Razorbacks (suck)
Dreads (It's a vehicle, it will very likely survive to get into 18' MM threat range)
Speeders (WILL survive to get into MM range)
Shooty Terms (suck)
LRs (Don't have a choice)

Mahu wrote:This thread has also convinced me to try the Assault Cannon Razorback on a third troop choice.

Let us know how it works out. I just don't see the 'value' in making a fine small transport at 40pts into a large points sink at 75pts.

Mahu wrote:sourclams, I disagree that Marines have to get within a certain range to be effective. That is not the only consideration, if anything Marines benefit most from being adaptive to situations. Assault Cannons help with that.

Generalists, in general, don't work that well in the 5th ed environs. All-comers lists usually require dual purpose weapons, i.e. be able to slay vehicles outright (via melta) and the ability to lay the hurt on troopers (via flamer) via a mm/hf landspeeder or a mm/flamer tac squad. A weapon that only does 'ok' (especially at a limited range of 12.1" to 24") at both, like the assault cannon, doesn't fit the 5thed mold very well, imho.

Mahu wrote:I would agree that the Razorback is probably the only good platform where an Assault Cannon upgrade is a reasonable consideration. Terminators are better off with the multishot Cyclone missile launcher (but they are overshadowed by the superior assault terminator) and Land Speeders are way to over priced to carry them.

I would think that regular dreads would be another option as well as it's only a 10pt swap for the mm.

Mahu wrote:Another thing to carry away from this discussion though is target priority when using a Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer. You can easily use these numbers to help pop two or more vehicles in a turn if you use this data to determine your probability against certain targets.

Of course, but it will be uncommon that you will only be moving 6" to take advantage of this.

This thread had make me think about my own Space Marine army and has a) convinced me to keep the MM on my dreadnought because the 0-12" death range of that gun is, after crunching the numbers, so superior to other weapons, I now totally agree on that.

However, it has also shown me that you really have to try to get into that range, because at ranges above 12" other weapon systems like CML, LC/TL-LC and AsC do have a better probability of killing AV12/13 and AV14 (apart from CML) and the advantage of bigger range and therfore positioning versatility. If the enemy is able to keep your MMs at 12.1" or higher, everything else of this list is better to kill their armor.

Therefore, I think another heavy weapon addition to my marines team will be either something wielding an AsC, CML or (TL)LC, just to be sure that something is able to kill the big 'uns if the MM is outmanoeuvered.

This thread has helped me, thank you all for that.

Witzkatz wrote:This thread had make me think about my own Space Marine army and has a) convinced me to keep the MM on my dreadnought because the 0-12" death range of that gun is, after crunching the numbers, so superior to other weapons, I now totally agree on that.

However, it has also shown me that you really have to try to get into that range, because at ranges above 12" other weapon systems like CML, LC/TL-LC and AsC do have a better probability of killing AV12/13 and AV14 (apart from CML) and the advantage of bigger range and therfore positioning versatility. If the enemy is able to keep your MMs at 12.1" or higher, everything else of this list is better to kill their armor.

Therefore, I think another heavy weapon addition to my marines team will be either something wielding an AsC, CML or (TL)LC, just to be sure that something is able to kill the big 'uns if the MM is outmanoeuvered.

This thread has helped me, thank you all for that.

You're welcome, Im glad there are some that are getting out of this what I had hoped and intended for.

This is a prime example of knowing when to take things with a grain of salt. Sure the assault cannon seems to do as well as the melt weapon in some situations and better than the las cannon in others, but how often will those situations come up? In addition, you have to consider the benefits of range on a weapon. A weapon with a 48" range is going to end up with at least one if not more rounds of shooting than the weapon with 24" range if for no other reason that its in range of its targets at the start of the game. It will also get more shots because that extended range means it can stay farther away from the enemy and take less incoming fire. This in turn means that it not only lives longer but can avoid those pesky stuned results. So try running those numbers again except this time give the las cannons / missile launchers 1-2 extra turns of shooting and see what happens then.

Phoenix wrote:This is a prime example of knowing when to take things with a grain of salt. Sure the assault cannon seems to do as well as the melt weapon in some situations and better than the las cannon in others, but how often will those situations come up?

How often? Anytime the melta weapon doesnt get 2 dice(which is more often than most people will admit). The assault cannon does better than a lascannon anytime its fired-against heavy armor its only a few %, but as the armor gets lighter the margin widens significantly.

Phoenix wrote:In addition, you have to consider the benefits of range on a weapon. A weapon with a 48" range is going to end up with at least one if not more rounds of shooting than the weapon with 24" range if for no other reason that its in range of its targets at the start of the game. It will also get more shots because that extended range means it can stay farther away from the enemy and take less incoming fire. This in turn means that it not only lives longer but can avoid those pesky stuned results. So try running those numbers again except this time give the las cannons / missile launchers 1-2 extra turns of shooting and see what happens then.

Assault cannon are only available to terminators(who are relentless), dreadnaughts, and a few vehicles(land raiders and razorbacks)- this means they are always mobile.

Lascannons come on space marines, dreadnaughts(at a premium price over the MM/AC), Land raiders and predators(yet again-at a premium price). No one takes them on dreads or Annialator Preds anymore- too pricey. So, in many cases, maneuvering your lascannon infantry means they wont fire- better to jsut hunker down and pull the trigger- which, I will agree they will get an extra shot or two off- this is balanced with them being easily avoided since theyre pretty static.

Multi Meltas we get on speeders, dreads, and tactical marines. The tac marines are entirely reliant on a transport to get them into range for the MM to be effective. Dreads and speeders can get in closer via DS or Flat Out with the speeders. But, neither of them are considered robust- and if you can melta them- they can melta you in return.

So- your argument about range of the lascannon being better is sort of a moot point as no one is fielding the units that can fire it on the move. And in the case of land raiders they're always driving at the objectives(hence towards the opponent) so its longer range may come in useful for occasional cross table shots after it unloads its troops- but thats if it makes their intact.

The same range argument you make against the assault cannon in favor of the Las cannon, applies even more strongly to the multimelta- since it needs to get twice as close to be fully effective.

Your point for range/maneuver is best exemplified with the Typhoon launcher though- its higher rate of fire long range, and fast platform enable it to easily stay out of range in most cases while providing alot of fire power. Thats why I have 6 of them...and want a few more


And, I will also note- the last line of my OP

Mistress of minis wrote:Note: I realize this is pure meta-gaming- there are numerous factors unaccounted for. But most of those are very situational table-top factors and difficult to account for- hence are excluded.

Situational tabletop factors-meaning things like range, terrain, cover, maneuvering, player skill etc. Too many variables to account for in a practical fashion, if there were some magical algorithm to work all that out, we'd never have to put minis on the table except to compare paint jobs.

Getting the weapons to fire and be on targets is the players responsibility. I crunched the numbers I did so people would know what is possible when they select a target for those weapons. Telling me I need to let the lascannons fire more 1-2 more turns isnt quantifiable, as I calculated for 100,000 fire phases in order to make an accurate statistical model.

Mistress of minis wrote:Im wondering if you are aware of what passive/aggressive really means. Not that it matters- you're allowed to behave ignorantly if you so choose.

You're doing it again... ;D

Actually that's name-calling, which is just out-and-out aggressive. Wind your neck in

And yes- there have been a few people that have expressed that assault cannons do not work them. And they have left it at that. 2 others have gone on and on about how much assault cannons suck. But the majority of the thread has been useful information being exchanged. Something you have yet to do really.

You can keep saying it but it won't start being true. Your OP posits that AssCans are worth taking because they're able to outperform Lascannons and 1D6 Melta weapons in terms of scoring Penetrating hits. Nobody's going to argue with that. More shots are better than less, especially if they have a chance to Rend. Well done, you have successfully used basic maths to demonstrate something that anyone could guesstimate simply by reading the Codex.

What you also need to do, however, if you want people to really start thinking about all the tools in the box and their possible applications, is to flesh out that math-hammer with some sort of context. I.E, all that "situational" stuff that's impossible to account for with calculations, like range, and terrain, the other bloke's list composition; core gameplay stuff. Doing that nets you a very different picture of the worth of the AssCan's net worth to your army. For me, that picture is a vista of wasted points, ineffective shooting phases and squandered FoC slots.

Once again I'm not about saying AssCans suck. It's more a case of presenting a second perspective on the issue, so's that when people start trying out Assault Cannons as AT weapons and find they don't work as well as the calculator says they should, they'll have some idea why.

All this assault cannon talk have sparked up my old love of blood angels (My first evar army yay \o/) and with the new rules for death company and the Baal predator (being able to move + shoot as a fast vehicle on a 4+) has given me some interesting ideas. Mephiston is also so very awesome but too expensive..Buut ahh, I digress.

How good is a TL-AC vs AV10-14 (Could some one please quickly quote me the relative % for a 'somthing' happening vs each of those groups, thanks!)

Chances of something happening, meaning at least a "Shaken" when there is no cover involved:

TL-AsC (I assumend you meant the assault cannon and not the autocannon)

AV10: 1,68 damage chart rolls, glance/pen mixed (dcr)
AV11: 1,185 dcr
AV12: 0,59
AV13: 0,59
AV14: 0,197


Against light vehicles, it really is useful. Medium armour may be still worth a short, and even AV14 isn't that bad if you just want to stop the enemy from shooting at you for a round.

Just keep in mind that these are just the chances of something happening, and that is usually not enough.

Okay, I was just talking out of my bum. Shame I can't just delete posts.

Need a mint?

Frank Fugger wrote:

Mistress of minis wrote:Im wondering if you are aware of what passive/aggressive really means. Not that it matters- you're allowed to behave ignorantly if you so choose.

You're doing it again... ;D

Actually that's name-calling, which is just out-and-out aggressive. Wind your neck in

Please make yourself aware of the difference between name calling, and observing behavior. Im not aggressive, Im assertive, a subtle difference that seems to be lost on many.




Witzkatz, I'll see if I can run a comparison of the increase of a TL/ac over a standard one- its viable info for the guys that run AC's on their razorbacks also. But, more hits, is always good, moreso since more hits is more rend chances

I am notoriously bad with my melta rolls, so I take as many assault cannons as I can, because my melta rolls wont do anything.

one game I put over 20 melta shots (within 12") on a single battlewagon, only one hit and i rolled snakeeyes for penetration...

now, even as I say this, I dont run land speeders, and I dont run razorbacks, so they only time I have a choice of MM/Asscan is on dreads, so i go for Asscan there and call it a day.

One tabletop factor that you can't account for mathematically, but which makes a big difference in the AC vs. lascannon debate is the relative mobility of the firing platform that MoM has mentioned.

It makes a big difference because, although it's not quantifiable, a mobile platform can often maneuver to deny the target its cover save. That's why it's so hard to kill tanks with long-range, static firepower in 5th edition: because I know that predator annihilator isn't going anywhere, so I can park my tanks to maximize cover. But if it's an AC on a mobile platform, it can shift to expose more of the tank that it wants to shoot to LoS.

...and guys I think I have to say that you're being unfair to MoM with the yelling at her about being aggressive. There's a large body of well-documented research that shows men tend to perceive the same behavior as being "assertive" when men do it, but "aggresive" when women do it. I think if you step back and look at MoM's posts pretending that she didn't have a female avatar & name, you'd see that she's not doing anything that isn't really common for men to do on this forum. But because you know (?) she's a woman you're getting all defensive about it.

Mistress of minis wrote:Im not aggressive, Im assertive,

They're not mutually exclusive, you being a case in point.

a subtle difference that seems to be lost on many.

You're doing it AGAIN!

Witzkatz wrote:Chances of something happening, meaning at least a "Shaken" when there is no cover involved:

TL-AsC (I assumend you meant the assault cannon and not the autocannon)

AV10: 1,68 damage chart rolls, glance/pen mixed (dcr)
AV11: 1,185 dcr
AV12: 0,59
AV13: 0,59
AV14: 0,197

Interesting. What are the stats for Heavy Bolters versus AV10 and 11?

Flavius Infernus wrote:...and guys I think I have to say that you're being unfair to MoM with the yelling at her about being aggressive. There's a large body of well-documented research that shows men tend to perceive the same behavior as being "assertive" when men do it, but "aggresive" when women do it. I think if you step back and look at MoM's posts pretending that she didn't have a female avatar & name, you'd see that she's not doing anything that isn't really common for men to do on this forum.

Are you serious?

If it was a bloke being as priggish as she is I'd call them on it just the same. And, indeed, have. Trying to paint me as a sexist simply because I'm not willing to let her bs slide is offensive; both to me, since it's blatantly untrue, and I'd suspect to any enlightened woman, since you're trying to excuse bs simply because it originates from a female.

But because you know (?) she's a woman you're getting all defensive about it.

Would you be writing this here paragraph if she was a man? If the answer is "no" you're a condescending chauvinist.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
It makes a big difference because, although it's not quantifiable, a mobile platform can often maneuver to deny the target its cover save.

The more positively you weight mobility, the more value that short range/melta weapons will gain over longer range weapons. The only value to the AssCannon in an anti armor capacity is sitting at 13"-24". In general, all the things that can mount the AssCannon (except the Razorback) are goign to be operating at 12" or less, and can mount a Multimelta.

...and guys I think I have to say that you're being unfair to MoM with the yelling at her about being aggressive. There's a large body of well-documented research that shows men tend to perceive the same behavior as being "assertive" when men do it, but "aggresive" when women do it. I think if you step back and look at MoM's posts pretending that she didn't have a female avatar & name, you'd see that she's not doing anything that isn't really common for men to do on this forum. But because you know (?) she's a woman you're getting all defensive about it.

Actually I assume that everyone posting on this board is a dude, regardless of what gender may be in RL. I generally reply to everyone who takes an "aggressive" tone in the same way, you can refer to my responses to Nurglitch to establish a baseline of acceptance, if you like.

Sotomayor has my support, by the way.

sourclams wrote:
The more positively you weight mobility, the more value that short range/melta weapons will gain over longer range weapons. The only value to the AssCannon in an anti armor capacity is sitting at 13"-24". In general, all the things that can mount the AssCannon (except the Razorback) are goign to be operating at 12" or less, and can mount a Multimelta.

It's interesting that you say this -- I can think of one army where assault cannons are the vastly superior choice.
I was assisting my friend in creating a blood angels army. When building the army we designed it using 3 Baal Predators and 3 Razorbacks with Assault Cannons as the ranged Anti-Tank. So far his list has played out quite well. The best part is that since they are twin-linked the number of hits jumps from 2/3 to 8/9, meaning that the original numbers posted are even more in the favor of the AC over the LC.

What makes his assault cannons so effective is the versatility. Unlike a multi-melta, they work great on clearing out lots of infantry -- and can be used without having to get dangerously close to my nob-filled battlewagons.

All in all, MoM inspired my buddies blood angles list, and thanks for bringing the attention about how great assault cannons are vs. armor.

labmouse42 wrote:
All in all, MoM inspired my buddies blood angles list, and thanks for bringing the attention about how great assault cannons are vs. armor.

Thanks for letting me know That was the overall intent, just looking at things a bit differently can open new doors for people

Id like to know how it does as he gets in more games too. BA were my first marine army, I might go back to them some day