Once I've unpacked all the boxes and the workshop is up and running in my new apartment, I'm going to be starting a conversion-heavy Imperial Guard force with a Skitarii theme. I've bought some secondhand models and a set of 80 cheap "Guardsmen alternatives" on eBay to get started, but I would like your advice on what I should equip my squads with. My sticking points include:

1) I happen to have a lot of Autocannon bits: three HWTs with Autocannon emplacements and two Armoured Sentinels with Autocannons (and a third with magnetized weapon emplacement) on the GW side, and my "alternatives" include eight guys holding a minigun-thing that I could count as an Autocannon very easily, if put on a large base with an ammo-toting Servitor. I've heard good things about the AC and its anti-transport capabilities, but is there such a thing as "enough dakka" when it comes to long-range S7? Should I be certain to mix some Lascannons in there just in case?

2) As stated above, one of my Armoured Sentinels has swappable weapons. I find myself leaning towards either the Plasma Cannon (since a template S7 will help the AC Sentinels kill of infantry units, while still being useful against light vehicles) or a Lascannon (to focus on tougher vehicles). Any tips on how Sentinels are best utilized?

3) I'm a big fan of the Missile Launcher in Marine lists, but I often see them being put down for Guard armies. Is the ML any good for Guardsmen?

Thank you in advance for any advice you all can give me.

tl;dr What Heavy Weapons should I spam with my Infantry Platoons and Sentinels?

Autocannons are the best BS3 Guard Heavy weapon in my experience.

Battlecannon, lascannon, multilasers, heavy bolters and lasguns.

You can do without the rest. Plasma guns, meltas, flamers and autocannons are ok add ons, but get the above guns first.

Autocannons are great, and I feel that they and missile launchers are the best heavy weapons to put in the teams because they are not so expensive that you cringe when you lose them. Missile launchers are great because they are versatile against tanks and infantry. BS3 doesn't mean much when you fire the scatter dice on the frag template.

I also have found that mortars have been pretty good in this set up. They are a scoring unit so you can hide them on an objective out of LOS and then lob shells onto the other guy.

Lascannons are great and you really need them for long range anti tank, but I find they work better in a blob squad where they are better protected.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I meant use the auto cannons and missile launchers in heavy weapons squads, the more expensive las cannons work best in infantry squads.

And I have to disagree with Orlanth, any army that doesn't pack in some template weapons is asking for trouble. Always take a flame unit or two.

I would use Autocannons on teams because 2 shots offset the low bs and it has great range and str 7. I would leave anything heavier than that for Vendettas to pop.
Remember that Plasma Cannon is Armored Sentinel only and as such more expensive than normal (and can't outflank if I remember correct), personally I would use Vendettas just because their damage is so mad.

Thanks for the quick replies!

My long-term goal involves a Platoon with 4 Infantry Squads and a Heavy Weapon each as a nice static gunline and the core of my force. If I were planning to have two Autocannons and two Lascannons in that Platoon, what's the best way to blob those squads up? I was thinking 20 and 20, but should I put the ACs in one unit and the LCs in the other, or combine them in each squad? And what's the best HW to put in the Platoon Command, perhaps a Mortar to stay behind cover, or another direct weapon?

For the Company Command Squad, is it worth it to put them in a Chimera and have them fire a Lascannon out the top at BS4? Or should I just keep them on foot out of LOS and have them Mortar it up, too?

And while on the subject of Mortars, are whole Squads of them ever useful, or are HWSs in general just too fragile?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Aetherse wrote:I would use Autocannons on teams because 2 shots offset the low bs and it has great range and str 7. I would leave anything heavier than that for Vendettas to pop.
Remember that Plasma Cannon is Armored Sentinel only and as such more expensive than normal (and can't outflank if I remember correct), personally I would use Vendettas just because their damage is so mad.

True, Armoured Sentinels can't outflank, but they're what I own, so I'm using them. My plan is to park a formation of them in front of some of my infantry to give them some cover, while adding their fire to the Platoon's. I've also considered adding a Techpriest with Servitors (some of whom with their own guns), who can stand behind the Sentinels and repair them when they break. I figure it should result in a pretty solid gunline, especially if I can start the Sentinels in cover, of course. Or would this tactic break down in actual practice for reasons I'm not foreseeing?

Always group like weapons. I use a 20 man blob (always add a commissar, too) with 2 auto cannons and 2 plasma guns, or with 2 las and 2 plasma guns.

They make great objective holding units that shoot well, especially with orders.

I often take a las in the CCS as this unit can sit in a chimera and shoot with its BS4, definitely worth the points, IMO.

I use Mortar HWS and while they don't kill much, they win games by sitting on a hidden objective and not dying. A blob squad does the job too, and has more kill power, but I do enjoy using them for that purpose although I wouldn't do it in a tournament list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Techpriests aren't that great,t but hey, it fits your theme.

The infantry won't need cover from the sentinels, they should be in cover already. The sentinels main benefit is that they can move and shoot so don't expose them to fire unless you have to. Start them out of LOS and then move out to fire on targets as they present themselves. Even if you go first you still should do this as the other play may steal the initiative.

I find plasma guns to be a little too expensive for infantry squads. They're too easy to lose to gets hot and on a BS 3 model they are pretty underwhelming. The AP 2 typically doesn't mean a whole lot at long range since cover is so easy to get, and the grenade launcher is a much better value at this distance. You need to rapid fire to get the most use out of it, but that will leave you in assault range, so typically you won't get very many shots with it even if it doesn't overheat. It's more safely used out of vehicles, but then you're probably using veterans or a CCS anyway.

JourneyPsycheOut wrote:I find plasma guns to be a little too expensive for infantry squads. They're too easy to lose to gets hot and on a BS 3 model they are pretty underwhelming. The AP 2 typically doesn't mean a whole lot at long range since cover is so easy to get, and the grenade launcher is a much better value at this distance. You need to rapid fire to get the most use out of it, but that will leave you in assault range, so typically you won't get very many shots with it even if it doesn't overheat. It's more safely used out of vehicles, but then you're probably using veterans or a CCS anyway.

If he is planning to use armored sentinels he should put all the plasma on those. Gets Hot! is really nasty for guardsmen. And CCS and PCS higher bs should be used to maximize the effect of single shot weapons like missiles and lascannons. I would always use veterans for special weapons and leave blobs to tarpit and HWS to do damage.

I think you've got the core of a good gunline there. Definitely blob with like weapons. AC's are a cheap, versatile weapon. I'm not sure you can bring all 14 to begin with, as you need to be able to hurt heavy armour and hordes of infantry as well.

I'd go with the plasma cannon for that third sent. Because it's a plasma cannon. And don't worry about giving the infantry cover - they can get their own, the lazy bass turds. Use cover and mobility to stay alive and take potshots, keeping an eye out to charge something that can't hurt you (or can).

I've used the missile launcher in every guard game I've played, and I'm usually satisfied with their performance. 5th changed them. I am much happier with the new blast rules and find they do a good job against infantry, both in HWS and PIS. They just aren't as good against vehicles anymore, and can't be relied on vs AV13-14. Since you already have so many AC's, maybe another versatile weapon isn't important. You need to add high strength and anti-inf, which you can get cheaper with other options (HB/Mortar). I'm personally about to try HB's with my PIS's, and all other heavies in HWS's. Your heavy weapon choice is almost a matter of style, as long as you cover all the target types sufficiently...

The same goes with the command squads. There are many, many useful combinations, especially with the CCS. There's something to be said for keeping it cheap with a single mortar, and also for the BS4 LC out the chim. Keeping the PCS mobile with 4 flamers is popular.

The key to the HWS is to balance them with protection from the regulars. I also make sure they get cover, and CCS support, and a regimental standard doesn't hurt, and I throw a Lord Commissar with the CCS so that my chosen HWS's basically don't run. Ld10 morale with a reroll means they pretty much have to be completely destroyed to be silenced, and cover lets them soak up some fire. Orders are just a bonus, but it's nice to take them at ld10 too and they sure work nice with BiD and FoMT. Fragile is right. A mortar HWS is nice to have I find.

The techpriest is fairly expensive, and fragile himself, and I don't think will help the sents that much. I think they're either operational or destroyed, they don't really get 'damaged'.

If you can, I'd suggest using infantry to cover your sentinels. I'm not sure how the height difference works out, but it might be worth looking into.

BS 4 is always good for a lascannon, but if you're going to run chimeras, you want more than one. I'm pretty sure you'll be fine just hiding your company command squad inside of your gunline.

Don't waste your time with heavy bolters, imo, ever. Stick to Autocannons and Missile Launchers/Lascannons for your heavy weapon teams.

I prefer heavy weapons in infantry squads, not in the heavy weapon teams. Str 6 instakills them, and orders fail too regularly without a vox.

Plasma is pretty much best used on vehicles, and pretty useful. Although vet squads with x3 plasma also provide some nice fire support.

Oh, I'd suggest you run your platoon command squad with 4 flamers. It's cheap, and incredibly effective at getting large amounts of flame templates on a target.

Are you intending to add some tanks?

Gwar! wrote:Autocannons are the best BS3 Guard Heavy weapon in my experience.

QFT.

Autocannons and, if you can afford it, lascannons are the two best weapons you can outfit your Guard with.

The autocannon is cheap, packs a high S, multiple shots, long range and has the ability to engage a multitude of targets from medium infantry to light vehicles to MC. Realistically, you will be hard pressed to find a weapon that can do so much for such a cheap price. I spam these on my PIS like nobodys business.

Lascannons, whilst not as effective as they used to be, are still a pretty good choice. What lets them down is not the gun itself, but the person manning it. A single-shot, BS3 weapon wll only hit 50% of the time. When it hits it might well make a mess of something, but you pay a lot of points for a gun that will only hit, on average, 3 times a game. A much better use of points is to invest in a Vendetta, as it is only marginally more expensive (than a 3-las HWS) but you get 3 x TL lascannons on a fast skimmer, which is much more fun/reliable.

Mortars are also a good choice as they are cheap, scoring, and can hide behind cover whilst still peppering the enemy wiith Ld-threatening pinning checks. Barrage also ignores cover (I think...will have to double check that) so is doubly invaluable against horde-y armies.

L. Wrex

Also an autocannon fan. I think the most efficient way to work is autocannons in the static infantry, add some meltaguns (ideally mechanised or deepstriking) for really heavy vehicles like land raiders, and some outflanking lascannons via scout sentinels or vendettas (these should be the best thing for battlewagons, chimera walls, SM vindicators, etc.)

On a side note, armoured sentinels are a rip-off IMO. Even if your models are already built, surely you can saw the tops off? Outflanking is a huge offensive boost, compared to the overpriced defense upgrade you buy for 20 points/vehicle.

Alright, a lot of useful advice here, thank you!

I think what I'll end up doing is spamming Autocannons in my large static platoon, with Lascannons in the Command Squads and maybe a Mortar HWS if I'm facing hordes. Missile Launcher teams will be built and sprinkled in on occasion to gauge how well they work.

My second, smaller platoon will be outflanking with Al'Rahem, which I neglected to mention before, and will all be in Chimeras; four flamers on the PCS and a meltagun in each IS. I'm thinking since they'll be mobile, heavy weapons would be somewhat wasted on them, but might they need a little more firepower to make a credible threat?

Right now, not counting the CCS, this comes out to around 70 bodies (and three tanks) on the field for around 800pts., last time I calculated, which seems pretty cost-effective to me. Still have hundreds of points in an average-sized list for tanks, heavy artillery, and skimmers. Right now I'm thinking a LR Executioner, a Vendetta with some kind of Vets inside, and those Sentinels I was talking about (which may be converted into Scouts to help with the Outflanking). Sound like a solid plan?

Orlanth wrote:Battlecannon, lascannon, multilasers, heavy bolters and lasguns.

You can do without the rest. Plasma guns, meltas, flamers and autocannons are ok add ons, but get the above guns first.

Uh.....no. I agree you need some kind of large blast for clearing clumps of MEQs and hordes, but a battle cannon isn't necessarily the best option. Medusas are also a potential option, for example, or a demolisher.

Lascannons: Aside from the awesomeness that is vendettas, lascannons aren't a necessity.

Multilasers: Standard on chimeras, but I wouldn't try to take them anywhere else (sentinals, valks, etc)

Heavy Bolters: Aside from really cheap/standard add ons, I wouldn't worry too much about these. MAYBE hull mounted for chimeras that are sitting as part of a gunline.

Plasma guns: probably pass.

Meltas: Almost a necessity. You need at least a few mobile meltas to counter certain threats...say land raiders? Lascannons need to be spammed HEAVILY to ensure stopping a land raider (or 3) in a timely manner. Medusas and stuff are blasts, so they can't be counted on reliably either. A couple sacrificial melta units (the old 3 melta vets, for example) are much more effective, especially with "Bring it down". Insta-killing toughness 4 stuff is very handy as well. Add in the fact that you can get 2-3 meltas for the cost of a lascannon, and you really should bring a few.

Flamers: I've found hull flamers on chimeras that advance towards the enemy to be pretty handy. Sometimes I keep a PCS or similar (Inq with flamer vets) handy to clear out hordes hiding in cover.

Autocannons: a strong option to counter light (AV 10-12) armor

Look at your list and ensure you have enough of the various weapon types to handle the expected army builds: for razorback spam, you'll need a lot of ranged firepower, and autocannons will shine. Blood angels assault marine horde? You'll need some large blasts and lascannons/melta to clean up the remains. Horde? Large blasts and flamers, with lascannons and meltas to take out the leaders.

I usually look at something like: 3 vendettas, 3 heavy support options with blasts (LR, medusa), 3ish squads with melta (CCS, PCS, vets) and then the troop options fill out light anti-tank with autocannons or las/plas. Throw some chimeras in for mobility and you've got a solid basic build.

Which to spam? None of them.

Heavy weapons are expensive for what they do, and they're immobile in a mobility-intensive rules set. Taking lots and lots only compounds this problem.

If you want to spam, spam special weapons (more or equal damage for fewer points, and their short range is less of an issue now), and super-heavy weapons (manticores, earthshaker cannons, etc. etc., which are actually capable of doing lots of damage, unlike infantry-heavy weapons).

Autocannons are the best choice. They are dirt-cheap, and quite adequate at busting transports and medium-armored vehicles, which are all the rage in this edition.

It may be going against the interwebz group-think, but I happen to like plasmas in blob squads.

Yup, go ACs. Also, I think people are underestimating the accuracy of blasts. They have a 1/2 chance of hitting when you consider that 1/3 times they get direct hit, at least 1/6 times they scatter they still hit, and usually they only scatter minutely. So a medusa, specially with BBs, can hit large targets like Landraiders and destroy them much more reliably than vendettas (3 lascan shots only penetrate once 1/2 times, and don't get +1 rolls on consequences)

Ailaros wrote:Which to spam? None of them.

Heavy weapons are expensive for what they do, and they're immobile in a mobility-intensive rules set. Taking lots and lots only compounds this problem.

If you want to spam, spam special weapons (more or equal damage for fewer points, and their short range is less of an issue now), and super-heavy weapons (manticores, earthshaker cannons, etc. etc., which are actually capable of doing lots of damage, unlike infantry-heavy weapons).

I think Ailaros is right: in terms of heavy weapon spamming, you rely on PIS spam and heavy weapon squads in infantry platoons. Both lack the mobilty that is present in 5th edition in order to make worth their points (shooting stuff). Also, in order to include heavy weapons you pay much more for the carriers (the PIS) and heavy weapon squads are easilly destroyed with only T3, whic means instant death from multilasers (for ex.).

Instead, you got vets in chimeras, vendettas, lemans which synergy firepower with mobilty, at more cost, but better cost/eficience.
Of course, one infantry platoon with PCS in chim with 4 flamers, plus 2 PIS with special and heavy for keeping objectives is good. Relying on heavy weapon spam on PIS and heavy weapons teams not.

Thats my opinion.

In my experience, Mortars are great for CCS that sit back and give orders, and have all the things that you dont want to die in them like regimental advisers and such. Theres also an extremely dirty tactic where you can pull multiple barrages rule on the mortar and have the master of the ordnance call in an arty strike the same place the mortar lands do not use if you value your respect. I use a 2x heavy bolter 1x autocannon heavy weapons team atm because thats all i have, and the autocannon always gets more kills on MEQ, but the heavy bolters get more kills on orks and such. I also have a 3x lascannon squad. this is stupid for a number of reasons, such as only being able to fire at one target, also being a 105pts squad with paper for armour, and instant death from plasma pistols and such, but the upside is ordering BRING IT DOWN on anything without av14 and you have room to expect an armour kill. thats my 2 cents

Gotta disagree on plasma, now granted I use them 3 or 4 at a time in command and vet squads, AND I give out carapace armor like it's going out of style.

But for keeping your backfield clear of deep striking marines, nid worms etc nothing beats it.

Also an auctocannon fan. For the points you spend per squad you get a gun that can damage anything effectively bar heavy armor. Plus their range means they usually always have something to fire on. I'd ignore missile launchers myself. If you want to spend points in other areas more definitely try flamers. Can help soften up units trying to assault you. Use lascannons in your command squads if you can. Also if you have scout sentinels and auctocannons they are great for their points cost. A squadron of these can really spell trouble for enemy monstrous creatures, heavy infantry and light/medium armor.

Agreed Lexx, although im an armoured sentinel lover myself (space marine roots kickin in there, armour over numbers ) autocannons are an absolute steal at 5 points, and as i learnt today, autocannons have the exact same effect as plasma weaponry when firing at enemies in cover, so if ur facing lots of cover, take the autocannon! they are very superior weapons. i only wish i was around in the days chimeras could take them :(

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Gotta disagree on plasma, now granted I use them 3 or 4 at a time in command and vet squads, AND I give out carapace armor like it's going out of style.

But for keeping your backfield clear of deep striking marines, nid worms etc nothing beats it.

It's not just that. At 24" when firing those autocannons at enemy transports with Bring it Down, those plasmas improve your success rate against said vehicles dramatically (9 TL S7 shots usually = dead transport). When things get up close and personal, it can be worthwhile to forgo the autocannon fire to move into rapid fire range (assuming a squad of 30, 6 autocannon shots won't kill as many marines as 3 additional plasma shots and an additional 45 lasgun shots).

Jaon wrote:Theres also an extremely dirty tactic where you can pull multiple barrages rule on the mortar and have the master of the ordnance call in an arty strike the same place the mortar lands do not use if you value your respect.

Look at the FAQ. They outlawed this specifically. You now need to roll them seperate of each other, rather than in a barrage.

Lexx wrote:Also an auctocannon fan. For the points you spend per squad you get a gun that can damage anything effectively bar heavy armor.

You can damage anything INEFFECTIVELY, regardless of if it's heavy armor or not.

Heavy weapons are expensive for what they do. In the case of autocannons, this stems from the fact that they're ineffective, rather than that they cost a lot of points. Spamming only plays into this problem.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Gotta disagree on plasma

Yeah, it's not that plasma guns somehow got BAD, so much as they just got more specialized, and are no longer the catch-all that they used to be. It doesn't make as much spamming them as they used to.

Ailaros wrote:You can damage anything INEFFECTIVELY, regardless of if it's heavy armor or not.

Heavy weapons are expensive for what they do. In the case of autocannons, this stems from the fact that they're ineffective, rather than that they cost a lot of points. Spamming only plays into this problem.

Damnit, it's Ailaros again, spouting this anti-Autocannon nonsense with zero backing in statistics.

AC are superior vs AV 10, superior vs AV 11, sidegrades and cheaper vs AV 12, and much worse vs AV 13.

If you are trying to shoot AV 10, 11, and 12, take autocannons. If you are trying to shoot vs AV 13, take lascannons or melta guns. Vs AV 12 lascannons are slightly more effective, but in HWS units they cost 40% more, making them much less effective. Never take a lascannon HWS. Lascannons are viable in PCS, and moderately so in infantry squads.

Ailaros wrote:Heavy weapons are expensive for what they do. In the case of autocannons, this stems from the fact that they're ineffective, rather than that they cost a lot of points. Spamming only plays into this problem.

Where are you getting this complete and utter nonsense from? Autocannons are fantastic at destroying the majority of vehicles you see on the 5th edition battlefield, and the math is quite clear on this.

Im a guard player (not a very good one)
I recommend a mixture of AC and ML

I'm not a fan of missile launchers in the guard, because the two shots of the autocannons make it significantly better vs. AV10 and 11 targets, and slightly better against AV12. For dealing with infantry, the guard has far better ways to deal with them than S3 blasts, and on top of that the missile launcher costs 50% more than an autocannon.

One thing that's changed a bit on the whole AC front is the prevalence of T6 Sv3+ 'Nid big bugs. If your local area has a lot 'Nid players with a lot of monstrous creatures, ML might be the better option. Taking out the 3+ Sv is worth losing the shot from the AC.

Valete,

JohnS

from what i have learned playing IG, specialized squads (IE melta vets) or heavy weapons on tanks/artillery/air support are best left to take out vehicles and transports. The basic grunts are best at holding the line, thinning down light/medium infantry, for this reason heavybolters & a very close second autocannons (depending which armies you plan to play most) are the best choice IMHO. Personally though I just love the look of the autocannon model

Ah the allaros vs almost every other guard player on this forum debate over autocannons begins in another thread. For my points I take HWS squads which will never be mobile and give them autocannons for support and mc/ transport busting. Maneuverability I leave to the valkyries who out maneuver and block everything too threatning. Anything moderatly fast will perform this role, I just prefer valks. Now as to the question which to spam, I will partially agree with allaros and say non. The weapons each perform a role, some better then others. The weapons that I drop are usually the ml and lascannons. The lascannon role is better fulfilled by melta. the variability of ml is not worth the cost. Otherwise a combination of HB and auto will smash the transports and pulp its contents. The power to numbers ratio of your target should be close to the ratio of HB to auto. Mortars are good at indirect pinning and reasonably effective anti horde. Combined in proper ratios these weapons become very effective, and then they get additional bonuses such as being affected by orders and can score. If forced to spam, I would take the autocannons for the reason of range, number of shots, and accuracy of those number of shots.

cygnnus wrote:One thing that's changed a bit on the whole AC front is the prevalence of T6 Sv3+ 'Nid big bugs. If your local area has a lot 'Nid players with a lot of monstrous creatures, ML might be the better option. Taking out the 3+ Sv is worth losing the shot from the AC.

Valete,

JohnS

Perhaps. An autocannon against said-target with the BiD! order would cause ~0.30 wounds. The missile launcher against the same target with the same order would cause 0.47 wounds, or half that if its in cover (and come on, it's probably in cover). If you face a lot of monstrous creatures, it may be worth it, but I find my meltas/Vendettas/Executioner tend to handle MCs just fine.

The heavy bolter is not a bad weapon, but I'm of the opinion that it should cost 5 points just like the mortar (and the missile launcher should cost 10 so it can somewhat compete with the autocannon, and the plasma gun should be 10 like the meltagun).

ph34r wrote:Damnit, it's Ailaros again, spouting this anti-Autocannon nonsense with zero backing in statistics.

You want statistics? here ya go

Omegus wrote:Where are you getting this complete and utter nonsense from? Autocannons are fantastic at destroying the majority of vehicles you see on the 5th edition battlefield, and the math is quite clear on this.

Where am I getting it from? Math. You say the math is clear on this. The numbers are what they are. If you want to claim that they say that the math proves they're "fantastic" then you need to make an argument for why shooting an autocannon for 20 turns at a chimera in order to stop it should qualify for the definition of "fantastic".

I choose to define a weapon that's "effective" against a transport as a weapon which can stop a transport before it offloads it's cargo. If you choose to define it some other way, you're going to need to defend your definition.

Now, it is possible to create the illusion of effectiveness by spamming them (a million autocannons will very likely stop a transport turn 1), but, as I said in my OP here, they're expensive for what they do, and if you want them to actually DO something, you have to spend a LOT of points. Spamming plays into problems of points effectiveness, rather than alleviating them.

The math in your link is frankly slowed. It does not take 11 autocannon hits to immobilize a rhino. I will be off from work in about half an hour, and I will return to enlighten you.

I always use autocannons in my platoon infantry squads, and they perform admirably.

Where am I getting it from? Math. You say the math is clear on this. The numbers are what they are. If you want to claim that they say that the math proves they're "fantastic" then you need to make an argument for why shooting an autocannon for 20 turns at a chimera in order to stop it should qualify for the definition of "fantastic".

This is silly. The reason it's silly is because in fifth edition, no weaponry looks good against vehicles, not even melta or railguns. It takes a little less than ten turns of an autocannon shooting to immobilize AV12 (not 20, unless it's in cover, which is "more rare than not"). Benchmark that against 3 for a meltagun (that's right, 3, even within 2d6 range) or nearly 5 for a rail gun, and suddenly daylight begins to shine through. A meltagun is 3x as good as an autocannon. An autocannon gets to shoot very probably 3-4 times as often due to longer range. A rail gun is 2x as good as an autocannon, but Tau players only have 3-9 while IG can easily carry 9+ for fewer points.

So in this sense, the "math" is misleading; it's easy to go LOLOL 10 FAILCANNONZ but against AV10-12, your other options, even the great options, aren't that great either.

The second reason why the "math" is misleading is because there's a lot of in-game effect from threatening 48" of the table. If I have a heavily meched list and I'm staring at nothing on the other side except flamers and meltaguns (because those are THE BEST), then I know that I've got at least 2 turns of safety. All bets are off once I close within 12" of my opponent, but until then I'm free to maneuver or pick my entry points. A rhino wall hates staring down 12 autocannons on turn 1. Your 3 lead rhinos get immobilized or blown up, movement gets blocked, and 200 point squads with 12" engagement ranges are stuck hiking across the table. You have to "waste" your smoke on turn 1, just to try to survive long enough to get halfway across the table, which means you don't have anything left to protect against short range fire.

The third reason why the "math" is misleading is because there are units that, if within melta range, have already won. Ork Battlewagons, for example. You can not spend enough points to counter the effects of 20 Boyz multi-charging a squad, even a blob squad, especially if they can burn WAAAUGH!. Autocannons, due to the nature of the BW model, at least have the option of setting up firing lanes for side shots at an effective AP1.

Yes, I'd use autocannons too.

Ailaros wrote:You want statistics? here ya go

As I am not a statistician, I won't comment on the math in this article. However, it does bring up an interesting point, with the idea that expending effort on killing transports from extremely far away is sometimes not worth the cost. I could see the "wait for them to get close and unload with special weapons" as working against armies without Open-Topped or Assault-class transports, but against Orks or any Land Raider-using army, it would be a very risky strategy indeed.

I might assume, Ailaros, that you would just use mech to counter mech? Or does static infantry with Melta point-defense work for you in practice?

Personally, I like Heavy Weapons for their range, primarily as it gives your static infantry something to do when the enemy isn't close to them. Threat range and zones of fire have an important tactical and psychological effect on the game, after all, which can't be calculated into Mathhammering. Additionally, a single Meltagun and a single Autocannon are the same price in an Infantry Squad, and yet the Autocannon will certainly be getting off more shots in any battle, thanks to its far superior range and Heavy 2 status. Even if these are slightly lower strength shots, I still count volume of fire as a valuable commodity all its own.

Okay, typical 30-man infantry platoon with autocannons.

Vs. AV10: 6 shots, 4.5 hits; 0.40 immobilized results, 0.75 destroyed results.
Vs. AV11: 6 shots, 4.5 hits; 0.28 immobilized results, 0.49 destroyed results.

I'd go on, but that already shows that each squad has a very solid chance to immobilize/destroy one transport a turn. And it can do this from 48" away from the very start of the game. Immobilize/destroy a single cheapo rhino, and the heavy weapons have already more than paid for themselves. What's your retort, meltaguns? Oh fantastic, let's destroy a dirt cheap transport when it has already done its job by delivering far superior troops within 12" of your lines, super awesome. My autocannons break more transports on average than my meltaguns.

And as for AV12, it's less likely to immobilize or destroy, but AV12 usually means chimeras, vendettas or Eldar skimmers, so merely shaking these vehicles can be worth it to silence their guns (and in the case of the chimera, forcing the troops inside to disembark to fire), so the guns are actually even more valuable against these targets.

So I wonder where that guy got the idea that it takes 20 autocannons to destroy a single AV10 vehicle? Hmm, probably some deep crevice of his ass. The same place you get your statistics, it seems.

alanedomain wrote: I could see the "wait for them to get close and unload with special weapons" as working against armies without Open-Topped or Assault-class transports, but against Orks or any Land Raider-using army, it would be a very risky strategy indeed.

Why is it risky? To me, it seems like there are a lot of knowns and not a lot of unknowns.

alanedomain wrote:I might assume, Ailaros, that you would just use mech to counter mech? Or does static infantry with Melta point-defense work for you in practice?

Yeah, mech, or meltaguns. "in practice" refers to how I do movement on the battlefield, which isn't all that particularly applicable to every one else. Assuming correct movement, this should work just fine. Sure, heavy weapons are easier, as they involve no movement, but clearly melta defense is better, even if more difficult to enact.

And I'd never advocate for static infantry anything.

alanedomain wrote: Personally, I like Heavy Weapons for their range, primarily as it gives your static infantry something to do when the enemy isn't close to them.

It doesn't matter if they're long-ranged if they're ineffective. Secondly, it's not that your army is static, what will it do? it's that heavy weapons force your army to be static.

Being static is bad. You can ameliorate this slightly by giving them heavy weapons, but a much better solution is to take actually effective guns that allow for liberty of movement.

alanedomain wrote:Additionally, a single Meltagun and a single Autocannon are the same price in an Infantry Squad, and yet the Autocannon will certainly be getting off more shots in any battle, thanks to its far superior range and Heavy 2 status. Even if these are slightly lower strength shots, I still count volume of fire as a valuable commodity all its own.

They may get more shots off, but meltaguns are SO much more effective per shot that it more than covers the gap.

In order to calculate the benefits of range and strength of shots and volume of fire, we can all roll this into statistics. Statistics clearly show how cruddy autocannons are, especially compared to meltaguns.

sourclams wrote:A meltagun is 3x as good as an autocannon. An autocannon gets to shoot very probably 3-4 times as often due to longer range.

Yes, but.

An autocannon may get to shoot more times, but it still takes longer to destroy the transport than it takes for the transport to unload its cargo.

Given that you're going to be destroying transports after it's too late regardless, would you rather destroy a transport with a weapon that's going to render your squads immobile and have bigger problems with cover and LOS once the transports are close, or would you rather have a gun that does the same job but allows you to be mobile and is also effective against heavier armor and terminators and MC's?

sourclams wrote:it's easy to go LOLOL 10 FAILCANNONZ but against AV10-12, your other options, even the great options, aren't that great either.

I agree that the weapons options are in such a way where it's neigh on impossible to stop a transport before its too late in a points effective manner. This fact does not make autocannons good.

Instead, I think the guard needs to get a little creative when it comes to transport defense, rather than vainly placing its hopes in poor-quality weaponry.

sourclams wrote:The second reason why the "math" is misleading is because there's a lot of in-game effect from threatening 48" of the table. If I have a heavily meched list and I'm staring at nothing on the other side except flamers and meltaguns (because those are THE BEST), then I know that I've got at least 2 turns of safety. All bets are off once I close within 12" of my opponent, but until then I'm free to maneuver or pick my entry points.

There is a non-zero amount of threat to transports with a autocannon hedge. That said, it's still not worth it, pointswise.

Furthermore, there is a much greater threat with a meltagun hedge. Having the ability to keep transports far away for several turns as your opponent seeks safety is a powerful tool. Your opponent may be free to move everywhere outside of 18", but they're always going to stay at least 18" away.

The benefit of transports is that you can move your stuff quickly to where you want it to go. The benefit of a melta hedge is that you can fundamentally deny your opponent access to places he wants to go. With autocannons, they're still going there, it's just they do it faster because they're not afraid of getting close.

sourclams wrote:The third reason why the "math" is misleading is because there are units that, if within melta range, have already won. Ork Battlewagons, for example. You can not spend enough points to counter the effects of 20 Boyz multi-charging a squad, even a blob squad, especially if they can burn WAAAUGH!.

can't spend enough points? A single PIS, properly spread out, can catch a 20-boyz attack no problem. Once they die a horrible death, you nail the boyz with a basket of flamers. What's the problem?

There are some units out there that require them to be in close range for them to be effective. We have already established that you're not going to be able to stop them from getting close anyways. Furthermore, this does not change the fact that the guard are perfectly capable of being more effective at close range than they are.

Plus, in order to KEEP them at range with autocannons, you need to spend a lot of points and weapons slots that could have been used to make them regret getting so close. It's a bad trade-off.

Omegus wrote:The math in your link is frankly slowed. I will be off from work in about half an hour, and I will return to enlighten you.

Omegus wrote:Okay, typical 30-man infantry platoon with autocannons.

Vs. AV10: 6 shots, 4.5 hits; 0.40 immobilized results, 0.75 destroyed results.
Vs. AV11: 6 shots, 4.5 hits; 0.28 immobilized results, 0.49 destroyed results.

I'd go on, but that already shows that each squad has a very solid chance to immobilize/destroy one transport a turn. And it can do this from 48" away from the very start of the game.

So I wonder where that guy got the idea that it takes 20 autocannons to destroy a single AV10 vehicle? Hmm, probably some deep crevice of his ass. The same place you get your statistics, it seems.

Where do I get my statistics from? Well, firstly, I do it by assuming that guard are BS3 not BS4. If you're going to do your math wrong, you really could save a lot of effort by not being a jerk about it.

Secondly, as I said, if you pack enough autocannons in, of course you can be effective. The thing is, though, that a 30-man blob with 3 autocannons costs 180 points. That's nearly 4x the price of the transport itself. And that's just price in points, ignoring things like the cost of immobility, etc.

As said, heavy weapons are expensive for what they do. Taking more of them doesn't change that.

Ailaros wrote: Yeah, mech, or meltaguns. "in practice" refers to how I do movement on the battlefield, which isn't all that particularly applicable to every one else. Assuming correct movement, this should work just fine. Sure, heavy weapons are easier, as they involve no movement, but clearly melta defense is better, even if more difficult to enact.

And I'd never advocate for static infantry anything.

>snip

It doesn't matter if they're long-ranged if they're ineffective. Secondly, it's not that your army is static, what will it do? it's that heavy weapons force your army to be static.

Being static is bad. You can ameliorate this slightly by giving them heavy weapons, but a much better solution is to take actually effective guns that allow for liberty of movement.

>snip

Given that you're going to be destroying transports after it's too late regardless, would you rather destroy a transport with a weapon that's going to render your squads immobile and have bigger problems with cover and LOS once the transports are close, or would you rather have a gun that does the same job but allows you to be mobile and is also effective against heavier armor and terminators and MC's?

So, as I can see here and in a few other threads we've both posted in, you seem to simply detest any strategy involving infantry that stays put, which I can understand. You talk about the current metagame, though, so let's look at the current metagame: two out of every three battles in 5th edition are going to be objective-based in some manner. As such, your primary strategic goal is to be able to sit on something and let the game finish before your opponent can push you off of it, and I ask you, what can accomplish that better than an infantry platoon? Since these Troop choices have to just kinda hang around anyway, why not give them Heavy Weapons that will let them actually spend their time doing something productive every turn?

I definitely see where you're coming from, though, with movement and melta being more effective. Melta squads in Chimeras and Valks is at the heart of the Leafblower strategy (as far as I understand it, anyway), which seems to be fairly strong. However, if a player simply doesn't want to run all mechanized all the time, you're going to have infantry squads, and you're going to want them staying in cover as much as possible. I assume this is what you do, as the idea of Guardsmen squads running around an open field without a transport seems sub-optimal, and you seem like an efficiency-minded fellow.

However, so far we've mostly just been discussing Autocannons vs. Meltaguns, with your dismissing the Autocannon as a device to stop transports at a distance. How do you feel about Lascannons to do that job? They are more expensive, of course, but are the quintessential anti-vehicle/heavy infantry/MC gun.

I can see ailaros' point in that special weapons allow for mobility, which is a key part of many IG lists, since the IG can basicly either play static horde or mech, just like tau (minus the horde of course)
To that end he is correct in assessing that Meltas are more effective, because you can move and shoot, which, when you hope out of that chimera, is a great ability to have
However, in a list less geared towards mech, or even with a minimum of mech (i no, IG without mech?! gasp! blasphemy!) Autocannons are the most cost effective option, for the reasons stated above
namely, when you don't gotta move, range is far more important that one point of strength
I've played frequently against a friend who would have a scary mech list, if he only had more than one chimera and one sentinel (thats one sentinel, not one sentinel squad) and he ALWAYS uses Las and missile, or else autocannons and missiles, because they can deny me fire lanes, as his 48" range is greater than my own 30" basic range
admitedly, yes, lascannons suck due to low number of shots combined with low BS
BUT
arrogance gets you nowhere fast, especially when you stick your railhead out in the open and watch him catch that one lucky shot
cause that's all it takes, is one lucky shot
so that volume of "So-so" fire delivered by an autocannon is deadly, both as a scare tactic and a denial system, especially when your cheap guardsmen can field what...ten? twenty? at a 1000 points level? whereas i can field ONE railhead, and ONE devilfish
for larger games tho, or more mech (basicly as long as you can move it more than 6"/turn) the melta is definatley more deadly with that 2D6 armor pen and AP1 giving it +1 to damage rolls

Ailaros wrote: Well, firstly, I do it by assuming that guard are BS3 not BS4. If you're going to do your math wrong, you really could save a lot of effort by not being a jerk about it.

Secondly, as I said, if you pack enough autocannons in, of course you can be effective. The thing is, though, that a 30-man blob with 3 autocannons costs 180 points. That's nearly 4x the price of the transport itself. And that's just price in points, ignoring things like the cost of immobility, etc.

Um, BS4 would be a 66% hit rate, not 75%. I guess now I understand where your statistics come from, you must operate on a completely different scale or dice system the rest of us do. If a blobbed platoon isn't receiving Bring it Down, you fail as an IG player. That 30-man squad is also controlling one or multiple objectives, is providing bubble wrap for your artillery against outflankers and deepstrikers, can tie up the inevitable close combat assault, and once the transports have been destroyed and things have gotten up close and personal they can forget the autocannons and advance to rapid fire range (to use those specials or whatever).

If you take chimeras for those infantry squads (as well you should), you then have a 115+special weapon scoring tank with AV12, that can sit in cover over an objective and throw out 2 S7, 3S6 and 3S5 shots a turn. Isn't that why everyone is so jealous of IG? 30 points is a tiny price to pay for the additional flexibility. So even mechanized lists can take great advantage of the platoon squads and the autocannon. I know my lists have gotten a lot better and my win ration significantly improved once I stopped just spamming vets.

"Pack enough autocannons"? There were three. Your source was claiming it takes 20 to destroy an AV10 vehicle. So please, stop spouting nonsense.

Ailaros wrote:

ph34r wrote:Damnit, it's Ailaros again, spouting this anti-Autocannon nonsense with zero backing in statistics.

You want statistics? here ya go

Your "statistics", which are just a couple of values with no other comparison or backing, are worthless when the rest of your analysis is such a failure!

Your argument is basically "If you are fighting an army of only transports in cover, there's no way to blow them up with an equal amount of points of guns!"
No DUH.

First off, count the points of the unit inside along with your argument. A unit that can't get to you is effectively crippled, the transport just facilitates this. Suddenly the "too efficient to bother killing" 50 point transport becomes a 200 point unit+transport (or more) vs your 235 point unit.
Your 235 point unit cripples theirs on turn 1, and then does whatever the hell it wants for the next 5 turns, having effectively earned its place in the list.

You have churned out a bunch of numbers that are quite meaningless.


You say that a 50 point blocker unit saves you from a 50 point transport, therefore being effective and efficient!

WRONG.
Your 50 point squad will get tank shocked through by the 50 point transport, or killed by a flamer, or killed on YOUR assault phase, all terrible outcomes that guarantee the demise of further squads, and eventually the entire army from horrible multicharges. Meanwhile, what is your army doing? Letting the enemy get close? Shooting their squad of scouts in the woods that has 3+ cover? Running around in circles?

The only thing your strategies are good for is losing a game in a glorious close combat.

In the end, your infantry and special weapons should be the last thing you decide on. With the exception of mobile MeltaVets with whatever transport you like/can afford for real anti-tank work.

If you have lots of Chimeras, you won't really need heavy bolters. If you have Hydras, you won't get that much use out of autocannons. If you have Hellhound variants, you won't have that much use for flamers. If you have Russ hulls, you probably won't need missile launchers. If you have meltavets, you probably won't need lascannons.

Fill in the holes in the rest of your list with infantry heavy weapons, and if you don't think you have any holes you might not need to bother.

If you are really undecided, autocannons are a good fallback. Most other weapons have obvious problems. Lascannons are expensive, and not AP 1. Missile launchers tend towards the mediocre of both worlds, and if there is an army in the game that doesn't really need frag templates it is IG. Heavy Bolters are usually outpeformed by Chimeras. Flamers usually require a transport to really make them work, and the Hellhound is often just better. That leaves the plasma/melta/GL debate, and there are entire threads just on that.

People love to hate Ailaros, but he does have some decent points at times.

There's a difference between recognizing the weakness of a unit, and completely discarding it as useless. My 65pt AC/GL squads generally accomplish little, but they're mostly there to hold objectives and provide bodies.

I see the two as similar weapons - the missile launcher is more powerful, in that it can kill heavier armour and more infantry per round than the autocannon, and at longer range. They share the same targets, and each outperforms the other in certain respects. They are both outperformed by heavy bolters and lascannons, and other weapons in the codex, at the extremes of the spectrum. I see them more as support than as the core of a list.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've made heavy bolters the exclusive heavy weapons team for my platoon infantry squads, and all my other heavies into heavy weapon squads. I'm going to try it like that for awhile, to try and get some synergy with the lasguns. With a grenade launcher in there too, they will provide dedicated anti-light infantry firepower. That way I'm not so hesitant to move the squad, thinking I need to use the heavy because they have scary things on the other side of the board...

alanedomain wrote: Since these Troop choices have to just kinda hang around anyway, why not give them Heavy Weapons that will let them actually spend their time doing something productive every turn?

Ah, but that assumes productivity. Were there a way for them to be effective at range, I'd be willing to give it half a consideration. Otherwise, what do you really gain by being able to shoot every turn for little effect if it sacrifices your ability to be very effective on the turns that you do shoot?

Of course, there are certain heavy weapons which can be more effective (read productive) than others, but they're still expensive for what they do.

alanedomain wrote:How do you feel about Lascannons to do that job?

cf. the lascannon. I like it because it's scary and it allows me to insta-splat T4 scoundrels and has good AP to boot. I don't like it because it's really expensive. If there was some particular that justified the cost, then I'd take them, but generally I avoid them for general use due to cost:benefit problems.

alanedomain wrote:However, if a player simply doesn't want to run all mechanized all the time, you're going to have infantry squads, and you're going to want them staying in cover as much as possible. I assume this is what you do, as the idea of Guardsmen squads running around an open field without a transport seems sub-optimal, and you seem like an efficiency-minded fellow.

Yeah, I'm not a mechanized player either.

I'll grant that running around on foot is less than optimal on an individual basis, but comprehensively it can work, you just have to think about things a little different from the norm. For example, placing hope in orders to keep up mobility (remember that a squad of infantry that are "go go go"ing are nearly always the same speed as are chimeras - except they can't be immobilized by terrain), and placing hope in redundancy over durability or mobility. In any case, this is a little off-topic.

dbsamurai wrote:Autocannons are the most cost effective option...

namely, when you don't gotta move, range is far more important that one point of strength...

so that volume of "So-so" fire delivered by an autocannon is deadly

Firstly, autocannons are the most cost effective option of PIS heavy weapons choices. There are way better ways of handling things elsewhere in your list.

Secondly, range isn't more important than 1 more point of strength and AP1 and the ability to roll 2D6 vs. vehicles. What do you really gain with more range when the shots patter off what they hit?

Thirdly, yes, the "poor" fire delivered by autocannons can be "effective" if you take a lot of them. This doesn't change the fact that they still cost a lot for what they do.

Omegus wrote: If a blobbed platoon isn't receiving Bring it Down, you fail as an IG player.

So how many points are you now spending to stop a single transport?

Polonius wrote:My 65pt AC/GL squads generally accomplish little, but they're mostly there to hold objectives and provide bodies.

Oh yeah, the primary purpose of infantry is to take objectives. That said, why spend points to give them ineffective weapons when you can spend the points to give them effective ones?

ph34r wrote:Your argument is basically "If you are fighting an army of only transports in cover, there's no way to blow them up with an equal amount of points of guns!"
No DUH.

Actually, my argument is basically "The reason to take long-range anti-transport is to stop the transports before they hit your lines. If you can't do this, then why try?"

I'm running under the assumption that you're only going to get a turn or two to shoot at transports before they've unloaded their cargo in your lines (after which point, why not take weapons that trade range for effectiveness?). It's under the assumption that your opponent is able to deploy transports behind cover (terrain or other units) and that they're going to get at least 1 turn of smoke. If they're skimmers, then they'll always be in cover, as far as stopping them before it's too late is concerned.

I'm basing my argument that your opponents aren't going to be stupid enough to deploy and move out in the open, straight into your fire lanes, while forgetting to pop smoke or move fast. If you want to take the opposite as true, then yeah, autocannons become MORE effective, but they're still not great - even in this perfect set of circumstances.

ph34r wrote:First off, count the points of the unit inside along with your argument. A unit that can't get to you is effectively crippled, the transport just facilitates this.

What? Which units are totally crippled by losing their transport? As far as I can tell, anything that can be loaded in a transport is perfectly capable of moving without one. If they get pinned, then yeah, it slows them for a turn, but that still just one turn, and if they're not pinned, then they still have the ability to run just as fast as the transport was taking them anyways.

At best, you're just temporarily slowing them down while the rest of their troops continue on in their transports unhindered.

ph34r wrote:
You say that a 50 point blocker unit saves you from a 50 point transport, therefore being effective and efficient!

WRONG.

I'm sorry, you have a more points effective way?

ph34r wrote:Your 50 point squad will get tank shocked through by the 50 point transport, or killed by a flamer, or killed on YOUR assault phase, all terrible outcomes that guarantee the demise of further squads

Umm, I was actually assuming that the 50 point squad would die a horrible death. Did you actually read the article all the way through to the end?

ph34r wrote:Meanwhile, what is your army doing? Letting the enemy get close? Shooting their squad of scouts in the woods that has 3+ cover? Running around in circles?

Yeah, you didn't actually read all the way to the end. Rather than explaining it again here, I'll just redirect you to the article.

ph34r wrote:The only thing your strategies are good for is losing a game in a glorious close combat.

Actually, the OTHER thing that the strategy is good for is neutralizing a transport rush in a points-effective way that is also still good if you're not facing against a transport rush.

With autocannons, you're not going to stop your opponent before he forces you into a "glorious close combat". Given this, would it be better to arm yourself properly for the close-range firefight that's going to happen anyways, or sacrifice some of your ability to be effective when the iron is hot in order to be ineffective against non-transport armies and not actually even delay the inevitable scrum anyways?

Umm, I was actually assuming that the 50 point squad would die a horrible death. Did you actually read the article all the way through to the end?

Your article somehow assumes that the sacrifice of one squad guarantees the survival of your army. Dead wrong. Once one squad falls, or is shocked through, your whole army gets multi-charged and you lose the ability to shoot, even at close range.

And guess what Sun Tzu? Autocannons are not bad against Marines. In fact they are more effective than plasma guns, missile launchers, lascannons, mortars, melta guns, grenade launchers, and every other weapon except the heavy bolter and flamer, against marines in cover. And they sure are a lot more long ranged than heavy bolters and flamers.

So you could either: Take ~400 points of autocannons to guarantee you can cripple 2 or so mechanized squads per turn, or...

Take 400 points of heavy bolters and grenade launchers and whatever the hell else you put in your army that is so wonderfully effective against marines that are in close combat with your entire army simultaneously, and lose the game.

It's not a very hard decision for me!

Ailaros wrote:

Lexx wrote:Also an auctocannon fan. For the points you spend per squad you get a gun that can damage anything effectively bar heavy armor.

You can damage anything INEFFECTIVELY, regardless of if it's heavy armor or not.

Heavy weapons are expensive for what they do. In the case of autocannons, this stems from the fact that they're ineffective, rather than that they cost a lot of points. Spamming only plays into this problem.
.

How are autocannons ineffective for what they do? Its a good all rounder gun for 10 points a squad for long range fire support. Leaving more specialist units like hellhounds, russes and melta/plasma vets to do their support roles. With Guard I prefer a semi static gunline with other elements supporting it. And for that role autocannons perform well. How is spamming them a problem?

Hi Guys

enjoying the thread a lot, even though i'm sure i've read it before.

Personally I don't get why you would want to spam anything, my 1500 list has go LC, AC and melta's in it. Is it not better to have a balance?

@Ailaros - I quite liked you idea of punishing the enemy when they get close (melta hedge), my main problem with it is I fight a lot of orks so i'd probably get waaghed without getting a shot off. Do like the idea though, make marine think again about drop podding into my gunline.

I think everything has a place, except missile launchers

@Spank: I thought the same thing about MLs, but a poster on the IG message board discussed ML HWS, saying they have decent anti-tank, range, anti-meq, anti-horde, and are cheap. Essentially, they're the infantry version of the LRBT. I'm not sold, but at 90pts a throw and an increasing amount of AV12 and AV13 around, I can see the appeal.

And with AV12, the AC isn't equal to the LC. For every 12 hits, the AC gets 2 pens and 2 glances. For every 6 hits (half the shots), the LC gets 3 pens and 1 glance. This is 5th, where pens are far, far better than glances.

I play a mostly mech style army, so I think I generally run two infantry mounted heavies. I'm happy with them, and frankly they cost so little, there's nothing I would seriously swap them for. I think I'm getting aileros's point, but for me I just don't exactly have a lot of places 20pts in upgrades would make a difference. My army has something like 16 melta guns in 1850, and I really don't need more.

The other big thing to consider is that the game doesn't magically end on turn 2. Most games go 6 rounds, and having long range firepower enables squads to keep beings at least a little useful.

ph34r wrote:

It's not a very hard decision for me!

oh ho ho you are forgetting my 50+ man stubborn blob squad with tons of power weapons!

but really, autocannons are pretty great.

Could care less about fuzzy math that proves little, the more dice I throw the more the gods of chance could statistically smile upon me, I just need one glancing 6 or one penetrating 4 and the problem is solved.
Point values and "paying for itself" units are irrelevent If you are confident in your ability to roll dice, and want to run up and melta down a transport and then obliterate the crew, well thats one way of doing things, but both have merit.
Saying that autocannons are just total crap is complete nonsense however.

Try Again Bragg wrote:Ah the allaros vs almost every other guard player on this forum debate over autocannons begins in another thread.

Are we in the triple digits for this old chestnut yet? Why do people persist in arguing with Ailaros' magical quantum math and his flawless win record? It's madness, I tells ya!

The same reason cranks get shouted down in every forum, online and IRL: to show everybody else that they're cranks.

You're not going to change his mind, the key is to present the arguments for new people.

And he has a decent point buried in there somewhere: heavy weapons aren't great in 5th edition. In fact, they're pretty mediocre. That said, they're cheap for IG and provide an option besides melta vets.

Polonius wrote:And with AV12, the AC isn't equal to the LC. For every 12 hits, the AC gets 2 pens and 2 glances. For every 6 hits (half the shots), the LC gets 3 pens and 1 glance. This is 5th, where pens are far, far better than glances.

I'm not going to double check the numbers, so I'll take them at face value and just point out that you can get twice as many autocannons for the same price as those lascannons.

As for their supposed mediocrity, considering their cost they do just fine. Hell, very often when my platoons take wounds, I'll pop one on the heavy weapon teams at every opportunity since losing that extra wound doesn't reduce the squad size or really cost me anything.

Terminus wrote:

Polonius wrote:And with AV12, the AC isn't equal to the LC. For every 12 hits, the AC gets 2 pens and 2 glances. For every 6 hits (half the shots), the LC gets 3 pens and 1 glance. This is 5th, where pens are far, far better than glances.

I'm not going to double check the numbers, so I'll take them at face value and just point out that you can get twice as many autocannons for the same price as those lascannons.

As for their supposed mediocrity, considering their cost they do just fine. Hell, very often when my platoons take wounds, I'll pop one on the heavy weapon teams at every opportunity since losing that extra wound doesn't reduce the squad size or really cost me anything.

LCs aren't twice the cost of an AC, that's a common mistake people make. You certainly can't get twice the ACs as LCs. An AC HWS is 75pts, an LC one is 105. Yes, that's a 50% increase, but you're still only getting 3 ACs for every 2 LCs. The numbers are worse in platoons.

I would never not include a heavy weapon in a platoon squad. Even mortars add soemthing for almost nothing.

I like ACs in PIS and on Hydras. once in awhile i run an Exterminator.
i like my Lascannons on my Vendettas.
i like my meltas in my vet and CCS.
ACs aren't junk or a waste. i think Ailaros is entitled to his opinion. even if i don't agree with it.
i base their worth on what they've done for me in the past. not someone's math skill.

to the op's OT, what are you wanting to do would answer what to "spam". i like lots of several
options, not just one. so, currently i run lots of AC amd Melta. PIS/Hydras for my ACs and
my Vets and CCS for my Meltas. YMMV.

ph34r wrote:Your article somehow assumes that the sacrifice of one squad guarantees the survival of your army. Dead wrong. Once one squad falls, or is shocked through, your whole army gets multi-charged and you lose the ability to shoot, even at close range.

This appears to assume that I've got my squads all clustered together, and I'm incapable of moving them. My opponent's ability to multi-charge me is very much determined by how I deploy and move my troops. Given that you can no longer consolidate into close combat with a new unit, why are you assuming some sort of domino theory?

Yes, once their troops hit your lines, you're in a tough position if you have crappy guns. If you have the proper weaponry, you are much more able to handle their stuff when they come in close.

Given that they're getting in close regardless of what weapons you take, why not take weapons that are effective once they arrive instead of weapons that aren't?

ph34r wrote:And guess what Sun Tzu? Autocannons are not bad against Marines. In fact they are more effective than plasma guns, missile launchers, lascannons, mortars, melta guns, grenade launchers, and every other weapon except the heavy bolter and flamer, against marines in cover. And they sure are a lot more long ranged than heavy bolters and flamers.

Sun Tsu says it takes 4 turns for an autocannon to kill a single marine. Why do you choose to think that a weapon that on average takes this long to get even a single casualty is good?

Lexx wrote:How are autocannons ineffective for what they do?

As mentioned, it takes a long time to get even a single casualty against a marine. Against a GEq in perfect circumstances, you kill a little shy of one a turn. This is better than against marines, sure, but you've got to remember that GEqs, if you're getting a lot of autocannon shots in on them, are horde armies. Losing a single model here and there does not matter to a horde army. Thus, they are ineffective against their strategy as a whole, even if they are capable of plinking off individual gretchin.

Against lighter armor, you can go to that link I posted to see how long it takes a single autocannon to stop a transport (or how many you need to bring to stop them in time). I consider long-range-anti-transport to be effective only if it stops the transport before it offloads it's cargo. If you choose to define effective in some other way, I'm curious as to why?

Obviously, they're nothing against heavy armor.

Lexx wrote:How is spamming them a problem?

Spamming makes them more effective as a whole, but they don't make them any more effective per-gun. This means that while you're creating the illusion of effectiveness, you're shooting yourself in the foot as far as points-effectiveness goes.

SpankHammer III wrote: I quite liked you idea of punishing the enemy when they get close (melta hedge), my main problem with it is I fight a lot of orks so i'd probably get waaghed without getting a shot off.

Well, you just have to be a lot more careful with your movement. Heavy weapons aren't very movement-dependent (as well they shouldn't be). If you switch off of heavy weapons, you can't just keep sitting there and crossing your fingers - you've got to actually move around to meet the demands of the tabletop.

Polonius wrote:You're not going to change his mind, the key is to present the arguments for new people.

It is very possible to get me to change my mind, it's just that you can't do it with mere assertions and snide comments.

Polonius wrote:And he has a decent point buried in there somewhere: heavy weapons aren't great in 5th edition. In fact, they're pretty mediocre. That said, they're cheap for IG and provide an option besides melta vets.

My point isn't buried, it's the point that I'm trying to explicitly make this whole time: heavy weapons are bad for their points in 5th ed.

They may be cheap, relative to buying a shiney new executioner, but they're still not effective for their points, despite their low price.

you keep ignoring two things:

1) Heavy weapons are still really effective against Monstrous Creatures and light vehicles

2) Autocannons are a negligible cost increase over a platoon squad. I'd agree with the statement that footslogging gunline IG is going to suffer in 5th, but to use the classic smoked rhino situation, 18 AC shots can be had in 4 turns from two squads. The ACs only cost 10pts a piece, and grant a flexibility the squad didn't have before.

Building an army around infantry heavy weapons is still pretty ballsy, but including a few as a way for a squad to contribute doesn't seem wasteful to me. If I had a better way to spend the points (or a better way to gain access to PCS and SWS squads), I might drop the ACs.

I do know that my all mechanized, all short range IG army ran into problems holding objectives, so I added the platoon.

Ailaros wrote:Sun Tsu says it takes 4 turns for an autocannon to kill a single marine. Why do you choose to think that a weapon that on average takes this long to get even a single casualty is good?

This is where you go completely off the rocker. It does not take 4 turns for an autocannon to kill a single Marine. This is not a video game where every attack does a set amount of fractional damage. You roll dice. An autocannon could very well kill 8 marines in those 4 turns, and it's far more likely the casualties will fall somewhere in between. You can't just look at the raw statistic and extrapolate performance from that, that's what internet loudmouths who hardly hit the table do. Each shot has a percentage attached to it to succeed. The more times you roll the dice, the more likely you are to succeed. By your logic, it's idiotic to have a company standard in an army with merged infantry platoons, since it takes about 10 turns to fail with Ld9. Of course, it doesn't really take 10 turns, and you could just as easily fail the first time.

I stand by the autocannon because it is dirt cheap and it has performed exceptionally well time and time again. You stand against the autocannon because you read some idiot's flawed statistical analysis and are now parroting it. If you're really so convinced the autocannon is crap, let's hit the virtual table of Vassal and see what happens in a real game.

Ailaros wrote:

ph34r wrote:And guess what Sun Tzu? Autocannons are not bad against Marines. In fact they are more effective than plasma guns, missile launchers, lascannons, mortars, melta guns, grenade launchers, and every other weapon except the heavy bolter and flamer, against marines in cover. And they sure are a lot more long ranged than heavy bolters and flamers.

Sun Tsu says it takes 4 turns for an autocannon to kill a single marine. Why do you choose to think that a weapon that on average takes this long to get even a single casualty is good?

You still avoid the point. Isn't good compared to WHAT? I would love to know what cheap spammable weapon is so much more effective than an AC or HB. Really, tell me. How do you kill your enemies. (Honestly, I think that no IG heavy weapon is particularly good at killing marines)

And you don't have to be super bunched up to get multi charged. Rhino tank shocks through one squad, sits there. Now unless you make your entire army flee away from the single rhino, you will have at least 2 units charged next turn, unless somehow you space your infantry squads feet apart.

ph34r wrote:You still avoid the point. Isn't good compared to WHAT? I would love to know what cheap spammable weapon is so much more effective than an AC or HB. Really, tell me. How do you kill your enemies. (Honestly, I think that no IG heavy weapon is particularly good at killing marines)

I would like to second this question. Ailaros' math is pretty twisted, but even real numbers do say that a single HWT (with any gun) won't do much. So, is it better to take your cheap infantry (who are needed to take objectives and tie up enemies) with or without the added HW cost? Most of us say yes, Ailaros says no.

Gunline IG isnt' leaf blower: it's not about a massive alpha strike or tabling your opponent in three turns. Infantry heavy weapons fire, pretty much every turn until they die. Sometimes they get pinned, but that's pretty rare.

As the article ailaros links to points out, you pay a premium to stop the enemy on his side of the board, to which I respond: "sure!"

Outside of shooting from chimeras, where they only have a 6" movement, meltas generally only get to fire once: after they shoot, they get charged and die. heavy weapons can shoot from far farther away.

I use 16 autocannons in my Sisters army with inducted guard. (they form a large part of my ranged threat)

The only army that outshoots me is Mech Guard. (I rush them instead to win)

Infantry die.

Light Mech DIES.

I dont even use CCS's or BRING IT DOWN in my list

Autocannons inneffective? Rubbish. Play some games. Get back to me when you know what you're talking about.

Autocannons are really good,ive been beaten alot by it

Polonius wrote:1) Heavy weapons are still really effective against Monstrous Creatures and light vehicles...2) Autocannons are a negligible cost increase over a platoon squad.

It takes about 18 turns for a single autocannon to take down a Carnifex. Even with a 3x HWS with BiD every turn, it still takes 4 turns. In the meantime, it can do some serious damage, and it's also requiring you to keep your CCS near your static gunline instead of the troops. Also, unlike other anti-MC weapons, it's pretty worthless against non MC's. Why is this worth it?

As for light vehicles, I basically cover that with transports. But what about light vehicles that aren't also transports? Either they're going to be fast, and thus are going to be just as hard to kill, or they're going to be piddling away with low firepower and can be ignored. It doesn't seem worthwhile to me to take autocannons just to kill non-outflanking scout sentinels.

The upgrade itself isn't all that expensive, but just looking at the upgrade cost itself is myopic. For example, there is a mobility cost. As well there is a big opportunity cost in list-as-a-whole weapons coverage.

Polonius wrote:I'd agree with the statement that footslogging gunline IG is going to suffer in 5th, but to use the classic smoked rhino situation, 18 AC shots can be had in 4 turns from two squads. The ACs only cost 10pts a piece, and grant a flexibility the squad didn't have before.

What is the benefit of flexilility if you're not effective? Why is taking down a rhino in 4 turns better than nailing it with meltaguns turn 2 after it arrives?

Polonius wrote:If I had a better way to spend the points (or a better way to gain access to PCS and SWS squads), I might drop the ACs.

There are a lot of guns out there (much less other useful upgrades like standards and officers of the fleet), many of which are actually effective against their intended targets. To me, these are better ways to spend points. Why is taking autocannons better than these other things?

Polonius wrote:Gunline IG isnt' leaf blower: it's not about a massive alpha strike or tabling your opponent in three turns. Infantry heavy weapons fire, pretty much every turn until they die.

I agree that this is an unfortunate conclusion that people make when seeing a leaf blower list. It's not a static artillery list that's a very good example of a gunline. It's a mechanized list with artillery support. Gunline = static, leafblower = everything's a vehicle, therefore mobile.

Polonius wrote:As the article ailaros links to points out, you pay a premium to stop the enemy on his side of the board, to which I respond: "sure!"

Why?

Polonius wrote:Outside of shooting from chimeras, where they only have a 6" movement, meltas generally only get to fire once: after they shoot, they get charged and die. heavy weapons can shoot from far farther away.

I heartily concede that an autocannon will get more shots off than a meltagun (at least a vast chunk of the time). The thing is, though, that a meltagun is much, much more effective per shot than is an autocannon. Thus you do more damage in three turns with a meltagun than with an autocannon, even though the autocannon is shooting for all three turns and the meltagun is not.

It's about overall effectiveness, not just a single part of the statline, like range.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:So, is it better to take your cheap infantry (who are needed to take objectives and tie up enemies) with or without the added HW cost? Most of us say yes, Ailaros says no.

Right, and I say "no" because I believe that heavy weapons are generally expensive for their cost. Certain weapons have certain uses at certain times (which is why I take some mortars, for example), but there is nothing that is worth spamming in my mind. This is because they're expensive for what they do, a problem which taking lots of them exacerbates, rather than alleviates.

ph34r wrote:You still avoid the point. Isn't good compared to WHAT? I would love to know what cheap spammable weapon is so much more effective than an AC or HB.

Well, I can think of meltaguns and meltabombs for starters. Likewise an eviscerator priest is cheaper than a 3x autocannon HWS, and can do much more damage. I'm sure if you look through your codex you can find other stuff that's more effective against vehicles than autocannons. With anti-infantry, it should be easy as an autocannon is near the bottom of the list for anti-infantry weapons.

ph34r wrote:Really, tell me. How do you kill your enemies. (Honestly, I think that no IG heavy weapon is particularly good at killing marines)

I agree that no IG heavy weapon is particularly good at killing marines. Therefore, I don't use IG heavy weapons to kill marines. It really is that simple.

Instead of spamming poor-quality weapons like autocannons, I'd advocate for the use of other stuff that's good against marines like basilisks or rough riders, or priestly power weapon blobs, etc.

Most target types have at least one weapon which is effective against them. Use those weapons.

ph34r wrote:And you don't have to be super bunched up to get multi charged. Rhino tank shocks through one squad, sits there. Now unless you make your entire army flee away from the single rhino, you will have at least 2 units charged next turn, unless somehow you space your infantry squads feet apart.

Once again, this is assuming that I have no control over movement of my troops. If I move my meltaguns, I can basically assure that he's going to be tank shocking into a death or glory with a meltagun, something which the rhino is very unlikely to survive, much less be able to continue his tank shock through.

You can pose an infinite number of scenarios of how your opponent chooses to move their units, and I can counter with an infinite number of ways I could move to counter it. None of this has any bearing on the quality (or lack thereof) of certain heavy weapons.

Terminus wrote:This is not a video game where every attack does a set amount of fractional damage.

That's why I said "on average"

Terminus wrote:You can't just look at the raw statistic and extrapolate performance from that,

What do you choose to extrapolate performance from?

Terminus wrote:By your logic, it's idiotic to have a company standard in an army with merged infantry platoons, since it takes about 10 turns to fail with Ld9. Of course, it doesn't really take 10 turns, and you could just as easily fail the first time.

Actually, no, I really like standards. Every unit and upgrade has a cost:benefit ratio. In the case of autocannons, the cost is low and the benefits are very low. In the case of standards, the cost is medium, but, as you note, sometimes the return is very, very high. When you take the return of those times when you DO use the standard and average it out over time, it still appears worthwhile to me.

Plus, it takes about 10 leadership tests to fail with Ld9, not 10 turns. I have definitely taken several LD tests in the same turn before.

Terminus wrote:I stand by the autocannon because it is dirt cheap and it has performed exceptionally well time and time again.

So you're really lucky with your autocannons. Any advice for those who don't share your blessing of the dice gods?

Ailaros wrote:

sourclams wrote:The third reason why the "math" is misleading is because there are units that, if within melta range, have already won. Ork Battlewagons, for example. You can not spend enough points to counter the effects of 20 Boyz multi-charging a squad, even a blob squad, especially if they can burn WAAAUGH!.

can't spend enough points? A single PIS, properly spread out, can catch a 20-boyz attack no problem. Once they die a horrible death, you nail the boyz with a basket of flamers. What's the problem?

The aforementioned battlewagon tank shocks through your spaced out PIS and multicharges the guts of your army. You seem to value efficient points trade-offs very highly; IG whose threat range doesn't extend beyond the exterior of an enemy transport are not going to be points efficient.

There are some units out there that require them to be in close range for them to be effective. We have already established that you're not going to be able to stop them from getting close anyways. Furthermore, this does not change the fact that the guard are perfectly capable of being more effective at close range than they are.

First, we haven't established this at all. Vendettas, Manticores, Hydras, and lowly IG AC teams reliably stop transports at 48" away. You say they don't do this efficiently, I say that it doesn't have to be "efficient" because you're only fighting half of an army; the transports. I don't have to fight 20 Marines and 8 Terminators if I can blow up two rhinos and 1 Land Raider. The "efficiency" of the weapon is multiplied by its ability to neutralize the transported squad for X number of turns. If I spend 150 points on 2 AC HWTs to isolate a 250 point rhino squad then I'm ahead in "efficiency".

Second, the fact that guard can be made more effective at close range means that it again requires a point investment. Since you really tout that effectiveness is benchmarked in relationship to efficiency, investing more points for marginal return doesn't seem effective.

Plus, in order to KEEP them at range with autocannons, you need to spend a lot of points and weapons slots that could have been used to make them regret getting so close. It's a bad trade-off.

Please provide a weapon loadout effective enough to deter 20 Boyz capable of tank shocking through screens and multiassaulting squads and vehicles.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:

ph34r wrote:You still avoid the point. Isn't good compared to WHAT? I would love to know what cheap spammable weapon is so much more effective than an AC or HB. Really, tell me. How do you kill your enemies. (Honestly, I think that no IG heavy weapon is particularly good at killing marines)

I would like to second this question. Ailaros' math is pretty twisted, but even real numbers do say that a single HWT (with any gun) won't do much. So, is it better to take your cheap infantry (who are needed to take objectives and tie up enemies) with or without the added HW cost? Most of us say yes, Ailaros says no.

Well, yes, a single heavy weapon team is not horribly impressive if you look at statistical averages (especially if you twist it into nonsense like claiming it takes 20 turns to destroy one AV10 vehicle), but when you combine two or three and perhaps add BiD into the mix, they become a very potent anti-tank weapon. And hell, even just a single autocannon could blow up a vehicle in one volley; it's not super likely, but that's the beauty of dice. Now I don't give autocannons to infantry platoons 100% of the time; if I'm outflanking 30-40, I'm far more likely to give them some power weapons and meltaguns and call it a day. But for mostly static platoons indented to guard your lines? Autocannons are a no-brainer.

One thing Ailaros implied in this thread is that using infantry platoons to fire at vehicles is a waste of points, "because you're spending 180 points to try to take out a 35-point rhino". Now is that really true? Let's say you don't have the autocannons, and just a bare naked 150-point 30-man squad. Of course, this line of thinking implies that holding the objective, protecting artillery from outflankers and deep strikers, and creating a melee tarpit for any assault unit that comes their way is worthless, but let's roll with it. If those don't count, how does this unit justify its existence? If it just sits there performing the tasks above, ZOMG you just wasted 150 points. If you move forward out of cover, you've just given your opponent easier targets and free KPs, and ZOMG you just wasted 150 points. You can't use their lasguns to any great effect due to almost everyone running mechanized, and ZOMG you just wasted 150 points. Except, of course, you're not really wasting any points because the aforementioned tasks are very important, and for a measly 30 additional points you now have a solid anti-vehicle/MC platform that can reach pretty much anywhere you can see and ensures the unit always has something to do. If they kill even one enemy transport (and likely they will kill far more), ZOMG suddenly you're "wasting" at least 5 points less on that platoon (180 - 35[rhino] = 145 < 150).

He goes on further to imply that issuing the Bring it Down order makes this even more inefficient, because now somehow the CCS's points are added to the tally of "points you are wasting shooting at rhinos". Er... what? The CCS is worth it for the BS4 special weapons alone, and the orders are icing on the cake. It's not every turn you're zooming up melta or plasma vets and unloading to fire, or even if you are, that's why you have TWO orders. This is like saying that ordering a unit to Get Back in the Fight is totally wasting the 150-200 points you spent on your CCS. This mode of thinking just strikes me as absolute madness.

So again, Ailaros, if you are so sure of your theories and that website's math, meet me on Vassal and we can see whether those vaunted statistics are an accurate representation of reality. We can even do best out of 3, or best out of 5, so we have a large enough sample-size that the result can't be written off as a fluke of the dice.

Terminus wrote:One thing Ailaros implied in this thread is that using infantry platoons to fire at vehicles is a waste of points, because you're spending 180 points to try to take out a 35-point rhino

It's not a 35 point rhino. It's a 250 point package of squad plus transport. The synergies become obvious when you actually build an army list (something Ailaros has historically been very reluctant to do). Example, two rhinos with Tac Marines are across the table. You've got a 30 IG blob squad and a Plasma Executioner. If those IG have autocannons, pretty good chance they'll immobilize/destroy one rhino and the Executioner can shoot at the squad. If those IG don't have autocannons, then you're left with shooting an Executioner at a rhino. If it's a sin against efficiency to shoot a 180 point squad at a "35 point transport", then how is it any better shooting a 230 point tank at a "35 point transport"?

Or is it just assumed that we never use Leman Russes or artillery in our IG armies?

Of course it's not just a 35-point rhino, because 40k is about more than just raw statistical data (especially flawed, raw statistical data).

Ailaros wrote:

Polonius wrote:1) Heavy weapons are still really effective against Monstrous Creatures and light vehicles...2) Autocannons are a negligible cost increase over a platoon squad.

It takes about 18 turns for a single autocannon to take down a Carnifex. Even with a 3x HWS with BiD every turn, it still takes 4 turns. In the meantime, it can do some serious damage, and it's also requiring you to keep your CCS near your static gunline instead of the troops. Also, unlike other anti-MC weapons, it's pretty worthless against non MC's. Why is this worth it?

Because it's not hard to bring 9 autocannons in a list, in which case it now only takes two turns to kill that same carnifex. 9 ACs can be had for as little as 225 pts, which is comparable to many of the things that could also kill a fex in two turns (Executioner, plasma vets, etc) while generally staying safe from any being charged (unlike, say, plasma vets).

As for light vehicles, I basically cover that with transports. But what about light vehicles that aren't also transports? Either they're going to be fast, and thus are going to be just as hard to kill, or they're going to be piddling away with low firepower and can be ignored. It doesn't seem worthwhile to me to take autocannons just to kill non-outflanking scout sentinels.

The upgrade itself isn't all that expensive, but just looking at the upgrade cost itself is myopic. For example, there is a mobility cost. As well there is a big opportunity cost in list-as-a-whole weapons coverage.

Well, one of the problems is that you're comparing apples to oranges. When you shoot a rhino across the board with an AC, you're happy with a stunned result, because it buys you a turn that the squad inside doesn't move. Or, the squad gets out, and can be shot directly. Either way, if you're a static (or mostly static) gunline, that's a big win. Buying time = buying more shots = more dead enemy & less dead boys = more wins.

So, if you look at slowing or stopping a rhino, the number of shots goes down. It's also a bit of a fallacy to assume that the rhinos will always be in cover, they get one turn of smoke and then they're generally in the open. If nothing else, in half the games you get a "free" shot at the enemy before they get a chance to pop smoke. Still, assuming smoke, 4 of the 6 pen results slow the rhino, meaning you need 1.5 unsaved pens, or 3 pens. Interestingly, 6 glances will also slow the rhino. Given that you get 1 glance for every two pens, some simply algebra shows that for every 2 pens plus one glance, you'll really only need 2.5 unsaved pens plus 1.25 unsaved glaces. That's 7.5 hits or 15 shots, or about three AC HWS's worth of shooting.

Here's where things get exciting. If you're shooting at a smoked rhino with meltas, you really don't' care if you stun or immobilize it. you want to crack it open. That means you need to get two unsaved pens. Of course, 6 unsaved glances will accomplish the same thing, but you glance on a rhino with a double dice melta only 1/18 times. The two unsaved pens require four total pens, meaning even if you pen each time, you need six BS4 meltas to destroy a rhino at close range.

So, If I shoot 7.5 ACs on turn one, I probably buy myself some time, while you really do explode that rhino with your six meltas, that's to be sure. Of course, I'll almost assuradly get two turns to shoot while you only get one. Also, the ACs aren't put in harms way, unlike the meltas. This is why ACs are effective: they do what we want them to do, which is to delay the enemy from hitting our lines.

Polonius wrote:I'd agree with the statement that footslogging gunline IG is going to suffer in 5th, but to use the classic smoked rhino situation, 18 AC shots can be had in 4 turns from two squads. The ACs only cost 10pts a piece, and grant a flexibility the squad didn't have before.

What is the benefit of flexilility if you're not effective? Why is taking down a rhino in 4 turns better than nailing it with meltaguns turn 2 after it arrives?

It's not, but I'd argue that taking down a rhino in 4 turns is better than doing nothing for 4 turns.

Polonius wrote:If I had a better way to spend the points (or a better way to gain access to PCS and SWS squads), I might drop the ACs.

There are a lot of guns out there (much less other useful upgrades like standards and officers of the fleet), many of which are actually effective against their intended targets. To me, these are better ways to spend points. Why is taking autocannons better than these other things?

Because I've already taken them all? It's not like i took two autocannons and left a veteran squad with only one melta to do so. The IG suffer, like most armies, with the last 40pts dillema.

Polonius wrote:As the article ailaros links to points out, you pay a premium to stop the enemy on his side of the board, to which I respond: "sure!"

Why?

The same reason people pay a premium for anything: because it's worth it. You're fundamental complaint against heavy weapons is that they take too long to do any damage. If you stun or immobilize the enemy vehicles across the board, you get more turns to shoot before that unit is most effective.

Polonius wrote:Outside of shooting from chimeras, where they only have a 6" movement, meltas generally only get to fire once: after they shoot, they get charged and die. heavy weapons can shoot from far farther away.

I heartily concede that an autocannon will get more shots off than a meltagun (at least a vast chunk of the time). The thing is, though, that a meltagun is much, much more effective per shot than is an autocannon. Thus you do more damage in three turns with a meltagun than with an autocannon, even though the autocannon is shooting for all three turns and the meltagun is not.

It's about overall effectiveness, not just a single part of the statline, like range.

As I demonstrated above, given the differing success conditions for the two weapons, they're output difference narrows. Will a melta do more damage than an AC? Of course. Which doens't matter if you've just stunned a rhino full of berzerkers.

ph34r wrote:And you don't have to be super bunched up to get multi charged. Rhino tank shocks through one squad, sits there. Now unless you make your entire army flee away from the single rhino, you will have at least 2 units charged next turn, unless somehow you space your infantry squads feet apart.

Once again, this is assuming that I have no control over movement of my troops. If I move my meltaguns, I can basically assure that he's going to be tank shocking into a death or glory with a meltagun, something which the rhino is very unlikely to survive, much less be able to continue his tank shock through.

You can pose an infinite number of scenarios of how your opponent chooses to move their units, and I can counter with an infinite number of ways I could move to counter it. None of this has any bearing on the quality (or lack thereof) of certain heavy weapons.

It does have a bearing, because you seem to have an incredibly polarized view of the IG codex, where melta guns are insanely good, and heavy weapons are insanely bad.

If your vets get tankshocked, they first have to pass a morale test on LD8. They'll pass something like 70% of the time, and with the autohit, penetrate the rhino ~90% of the time. Once penetrated, they stop the rhino on anything but a 2 (+1 to 3 for weapon destroyed), or just about 84% of the time. This means you'll stop the rhino about 53% of the time. That's not a high probability shot.

What is the benefit of flexilility if you're not effective? Why is taking down a rhino in 4 turns better than nailing it with meltaguns turn 2 after it arrives?

This comment is hilarious, because it clearly illustrates a complete lack of regard for (or understanding of?) combined arms.

Yes, death or glory that rhino or shoot it after it arrives, let's completely ignore the contents of said rhino that will immediately proceed to wreck havoc with rapid firing bolters, their own meltaguns, and multicharges against your lines. Brilliant.

Terminus wrote:

Try Again Bragg wrote:Ah the allaros vs almost every other guard player on this forum debate over autocannons begins in another thread.

Are we in the triple digits for this old chestnut yet? Why do people persist in arguing with Ailaros' magical quantum math and his flawless win record? It's madness, I tells ya!

[Insert obligatory THIS! IS! GRIMDARK! joke]

On a serious note, I really do wish threads like these would stop resurfacing time and time again. I haven't even read much past page one but I believe I can make a very accurate assumption as to how this thread will develop...Ah well.

Next time people, PLEASE use the search function; it saves everyone having to constantly re-bash their heads together over the same topic again and again.

L. Wrex

Addendum: And whilst I'm all for the development of new ideas because of new threads, this simply isn't happening whenever a discussion about Guard heavy weapons surfaces.

Spam what ever weapon that takes your fancy.
If i had the money i would field two heavy weapon platoons full of Las-cannons HWS then Auto-cannons in the Inf squads.

Each heavy has is pros and cons,
Las-cannon; pro- good AV power, con- 1 shot only
Missile launcher; pro- tacitcal flexabilaty, con- cost for what it is
Heavy Bolter; pro- 3 shots, con- low strenth
Auto-cannon; pro- can bust transports and MC, con- 2 shots
Morter; pro- 48" non LoS fire, con- low strenth

That being said, i do find that massed Morter fire can act as an awesome perimiter of fire when used in conjuntion with Auto-Cannons.
Pops open transport with the Auto-cannons then pin them with a moter barrage, any kills are a cheeky little bonus

On that note, mortars are probably about the best weapon you can give to HWTs. Being able to stay out of sight mitigates a lot of their survivability issues.

Terminus wrote:On that note, mortars are probably about the best weapon you can give to HWTs. Being able to stay out of sight mitigates a lot of their survivability issues.

I can't help but think you get effectiveness issues with them. The mortar has been an IG staple for a long time, and I've played 'Mortar Kombat!' armies before to fair effect, but it's not a damaging weapon against power armor.

Ribon Fox wrote:Spam what ever weapon that takes your fancy.
If i had the money i would field two heavy weapon platoons full of Las-cannons HWS then Auto-cannons in the Inf squads.

Each heavy has is pros and cons,
Las-cannon; pro- good AV power, con- 1 shot only
Missile launcher; pro- tacitcal flexabilaty, con- cost for what it is
Heavy Bolter; pro- 3 shots, con- low strenth
Auto-cannon; pro- can bust transports and MC, con- 2 shots
Morter; pro- 48" non LoS fire, con- low strenth

That being said, i do find that massed Morter fire can act as an awesome perimiter of fire when used in conjuntion with Auto-Cannons.
Pops open transport with the Auto-cannons then pin them with a moter barrage, any kills are a cheeky little bonus

i actually think the fact the Autocannon gets 2 shots is a bonus more than a con.
i like popping the transports with the AC and either dropping Russ templates on what falls out, or more AC fire(Hydras).

sourclams wrote:The aforementioned battlewagon tank shocks through your spaced out PIS and multicharges the guts of your army. You seem to value efficient points trade-offs very highly; IG whose threat range doesn't extend beyond the exterior of an enemy transport are not going to be points efficient.

sourclams wrote:Please provide a weapon loadout effective enough to deter 20 Boyz capable of tank shocking through screens and multiassaulting squads and vehicles.

Polonius wrote:If your vets get tankshocked, they first have to pass a morale test on LD8. They'll pass something like 70% of the time, and with the autohit, penetrate the rhino ~90% of the time. Once penetrated, they stop the rhino on anything but a 2 (+1 to 3 for weapon destroyed), or just about 84% of the time. This means you'll stop the rhino about 53% of the time. That's not a high probability shot.

Terminus wrote:Yes, death or glory that rhino or shoot it after it arrives, let's completely ignore the contents of said rhino that will immediately proceed to wreck havoc with rapid firing bolters, their own meltaguns, and multicharges against your lines. Brilliant.

Okay, guys, this is WAY off topic. You're asking me "If unit X moves in a certain way, how will you stop it with meltaguns?" The answer is if my opponent moves certain things in certain ways, I move certain things in certain ways. What this has to do with spamming heavy weapons, I'm not completely sure.

sourclams wrote:The "efficiency" of the weapon is multiplied by its ability to neutralize the transported squad for X number of turns.

I'm already taking this into account when I say that heavy weapons are expensive for what they do.

sourclams wrote: IG AC teams reliably stop transports at 48" away.

Why do you choose to derive the word "reliably" from the math?

Terminus wrote:But for mostly static platoons indented to guard your lines? Autocannons are a no-brainer.

Polonius wrote:Either way, if you're a static (or mostly static) gunline, that's a big win.

Polonius wrote:The same reason people pay a premium for anything: because it's worth it. You're fundamental complaint against heavy weapons is that they take too long to do any damage. If you stun or immobilize the enemy vehicles across the board, you get more turns to shoot before that unit is most effective.

Why spend the points to give your platoons crappy weapons regardless of their movement? Why not give them effective ones? I agree that taking ineffective weapons implies a decidion made without brains.

True, if you do some damage early on, it gives you the chance to do more damage later on, sure. Firstly, ALL weapons benefit from this fact, and, in any case, this only marginally boosts the effectiveness of the weapon.

Terminus wrote:He goes on further to imply that issuing the Bring it Down order makes this even more inefficient, because now somehow the CCS's points are added to the tally of "points you are wasting shooting at rhinos". Er... what? The CCS is worth it for the BS4 special weapons alone, and the orders are icing on the cake.

That's exactly my point. Officers have a primary role. Instead of being able to fulfil that role, they need to sit on their hands shouting orders to units with crappy weapons. The cost of the officer is more than just points, when it comes to the opportunity cost of throwing officers at autocannon squads.

sourclams wrote:It's not a 35 point rhino. It's a 250 point package of squad plus transport.

But you don't kill the squad when you stop a rhino (in fact, you do nothing to the squad). Therefore including its cost into an autocannon stopping a transport is wrong.

Polonius wrote:Because it's not hard to bring 9 autocannons in a list, in which case it now only takes two turns to kill that same carnifex. 9 ACs can be had for as little as 225 pts, which is comparable to many of the things that could also kill a fex in two turns

8 rough riders put down a carnifex in one turn for 85 points, compared to autocannons putting it down in two turns for 225 points. Meanwhile, a plasma CCS puts down a carnifex in one turn for 110 points. Vets with plasma all around does it in one turn for 125 points.

Plus, all of these do the same job with a single squad, rather than hoping that several squads all have good LOS and none of them are being raked by gaunts.

In any case, you're still comparing 225 points to MCs which cost much less. If anything, this supports the argument that they're expensive for what they do.

Polonius wrote:It's also a bit of a fallacy to assume that the rhinos will always be in cover, they get one turn of smoke and then they're generally in the open.

Well, look at the two extremes. On the one hand, they get turn 1 and they deploy right at the front of they're DZ. Turn 1 they move forward 12" and pop smoke. Turn 2, they move 12" and unload their cargo straight into your DZ. On the other hand, you get turn 1 and they keep their rhinos in reserve. Turn 1, you shoot at nothing while they move their rhinos 12" and pop smoke. Turn 2, after you're done shooting at smokey rhinos, they move forward 12" again and unload their marines which make their 12" double-tap shots on your stuff (unless you deployed way back in your DZ, in which case they already basically won). In either case, you're always shooting at them in smoke.

Where's the fallacy in this?

Plus, I don't think it's a good thing to assume that all of your autocannons will always have cover-free shots against all viable targets all the time. If anything, spamming aggrivates this problem as you're forced to place more guns in sub-optimal locations due to having a crammed deployment zone.

Polonius wrote:If you're shooting at a smoked rhino with meltas, you really don't' care if you stun or immobilize it. you want to crack it open.

Actually, I'm looking to destroy the spent cartridge. I'm already assuming that their dudes have piled out and the meltaguns are there to blow up the rifraff or to prevent a tank shock. Cracking it open isn't necessary once they've already disgorged their cargo.

Polonius wrote:It's not, but I'd argue that taking down a rhino in 4 turns is better than doing nothing for 4 turns.

Were that the case, I'd agree. As it is, it's a matter of spending 4 turns taking down a rhino (and only taking it down after it drops it's cargo, thus nullifying the point of long-ranged anti-transport), with weapons that are basically useless against everything else compared to taking down a rhino turn 2 with weapons that are also good against other targets.

What this really boils down to is "I take heavy weapons because I can't figure out anything else to do with my units". Being a refuge for uncreativity isn't a great reason to spam autocannons.

Terminus wrote:

What is the benefit of flexilility if you're not effective? Why is taking down a rhino in 4 turns better than nailing it with meltaguns turn 2 after it arrives?

This comment is hilarious, because it clearly illustrates a complete lack of regard for (or understanding of?) combined arms.

I believe in combined arms, but clearly you choose to define that idea in a different way than I do. How does your idea of combined arms make it a good thing to spam ineffective weapons?

The Grog wrote:I can't help but think you get effectiveness issues with them. The mortar has been an IG staple for a long time, and I've played 'Mortar Kombat!' armies before to fair effect, but it's not a damaging weapon against power armor.

Heavy weapons have niche roles that they play. In the case of mortars, they're not advertising being good at vehicles of any stripe or power armor. That said, if you ever think you're going to play against a horde, they can be effective.

Furthermore, their heightened survivability and multiple barrage rules combined with their cheapness means that they don't suffer from the "bad for their points" problem as badly.

All these other arguments that are being made about autocannons don't address this fundamental problem.

Ailaros wrote:

"All these other arguments that are being made about autocannons don't address this fundamental problem."

see, that's the problem. i don't have a problem with the AC. they work fine for me.

While Meltaguns are best at destroying vehicles and MCs, they come at the cost of range and rate of fire. From what I am getting from the majority of posters on the thread is that greater range and more chances of a result is superior than a single chance to get an awesome result.

IG mostly really, really, really must stop a unit from getting into charge range because of their weakness against CC. An autocannon gives me that ability at 48" away. A meltagun only works at 12." At 48-24"" if I take out that transport, I have severely decreased the chances of the unit within being capable of getting into CC with my forces. At 12," nearly every unit in the game can charge my squishy units.

Ailaros,

I think that most people on the thread value range and ROF over probable instant lethality and I agree. With 40k, it seems the more dice you can throw, the better off you are.

Ailaros wrote:Why spend the points to give your platoons crappy weapons regardless of their movement? Why not give them effective ones?
All these other arguments that are being made about autocannons don't address this fundamental problem.

It's not that these arguments don't address "this fundamental problem", our fundamental disagreement is over whether there is a problem there in the first place. I and many others have found the performance of autocannons for their cost to be excellent. Since you've dodged this several times so far, I'll emphasize: meet me in Vassal, and we can put your supposed statistical certainty to the test when the vagaries of dice are involved. Let's see how many turns it really takes for a handful of autocannons to pop your transports. We can play as many games as you feel necessary to achieve your proposed statistical average.

That's exactly my point. Officers have a primary role. Instead of being able to fulfil that role, they need to sit on their hands shouting orders to units with crappy weapons. The cost of the officer is more than just points, when it comes to the opportunity cost of throwing officers at autocannon squads.

Um, yes, as far as orders are concerned, their role is to issue orders to units that can use them. The 12" bubble from the transport allows the Officer to engage the enemy with their special weapons while still issuing orders to the platoon. Not every turn calls for sacrificing a veteran squad to take out a tank, often you'd much rather sit in the transport. So you could argue that you are wasting points if you're NOT throwing orders at platoons with autocannons.

But you don't kill the squad when you stop a rhino (in fact, you do nothing to the squad). Therefore including its cost into an autocannon stopping a transport is wrong.

Except not really... a Grey Hunter squad forced to dismount near its deployment phase is a lot less scary than one within rapid fire/melta/melee range. Destroying that aggressively deployed BA rhino on turn one is the difference between an assault squad with flamers and/or meltaguns and furious charging attacks taking 2-3 turns to reach your lines (if they run for 6" for the first two, there's no difficult terrain, and you don't shoot them), or that same assault squad being several inches in your deployment zone on turn 2. I can largely ignore that squad and deal with it at my leisure, rather than have it thrust in my face and having to deal with it on my opponent's terms.

Yeah, it's so much preferable to killing their transport with meltas when they are already in your face, so they can disembark and have their choice of either shooting you up, or crushing you in combat. /sarcasm

Ailaros wrote:

sourclams wrote:It's not a 35 point rhino. It's a 250 point package of squad plus transport.

But you don't kill the squad when you stop a rhino (in fact, you do nothing to the squad). Therefore including its cost into an autocannon stopping a transport is wrong.

Destroying the transport the foot slogging content sits in effectively leave the foot slogging units out of range of their intended targets.
They'll spend turns trying to reach some target , which makes them essentially "dead" to the game , as they are useless.

Ailaros:

I see your point, except your math assumes AV 12 while it's silly easy to get an AV 10 hit. I have troops deployed across the table, giving overlapping fields of fire. You're either going to be facing one side or the other side, but not both at the same time, unless you're Eldar. The other thing you're doing is only considering it meaningful if you get a destroyed result. And getting the squad out of the transport at range is killing the squad, because the next thing that's going to follow up behind whatever killed the Rhino is a LRBT/LRD/Basilisk that's going to tend to the leftovers. In an objective game, keeping something from moving/shooting is in my mind just as valuable as killing it. It's not shooting or moving at you next turn. For one turn, it may as well not exist.

On the actual topic, I think that mortar and lascannon heavy weapon squads are the most justifiable. Lascannons can be twinlinked by BiD, cost less than a Vendetta, and don't occupy a precious Fast Attack slot, which are typically in short reserve. They're also effective against vehicles, and at range. Mortars are cheap and barrages can be devastating, especially to low leadership or non-MEQ. For me, the hard part is justifying buying infantry platoons to get the squads. I do more of a mech vet thing most times, and I enjoy being too mobile to use any of my (unfortunately) large array of heavy weapon squads.

Disclaimer: Far as I'm concerned, if you have any direct fire HWS that doesn't have a Company Standard within range of it, you've wasted both your time and your points throwing those guys away.

Personally, I've found AC work pretty well for me too, better than the statistical analysis above would suggest anyway. Part of this may be my play style; I tend to have 30-man blobs holding down objectives in cover. I give that squad a HB and 2 AC's, which gives them range and some heavier punch than the lasgun.

daedalus wrote:On the actual topic, I think that ... lascannon heavy weapon squads are the most justifiable. Lascannons can be twinlinked by BiD, cost less than a Vendetta, and don't occupy a precious Fast Attack slot, which are typically in short reserve.

Eh, I may agree with this if you're taking about heavy weapon teams inside infantry squads. If you're talking about actual heavy weapon squads, I couldn't possibly disagree more.

- HW squads will fail those orders 50% of the time, while the vendetta is always twin-linked.
- They cost only 10 points less than a Vendetta, while being a LOT easier to kill.
- Fast Attack slots aren't that precious when you consider the Vendetta is the best of the lot in most situations anyway.

Terminus wrote:

daedalus wrote:On the actual topic, I think that ... lascannon heavy weapon squads are the most justifiable. Lascannons can be twinlinked by BiD, cost less than a Vendetta, and don't occupy a precious Fast Attack slot, which are typically in short reserve.

Eh, I may agree with this if you're taking about heavy weapon teams inside infantry squads. If you're talking about actual heavy weapon squads, I couldn't possibly disagree more.

- HW squads will fail those orders 50% of the time, while the vendetta is always twin-linked.
- They cost only 10 points less than a Vendetta, while being a LOT easier to kill.
- Fast Attack slots aren't that precious when you consider the Vendetta is the best of the lot in most situations anyway.

My hellhound squadron says that at most I can only have two vendettas, since I can't abide squadroning them. Thats just not enough lascannons for me. Also, your comment about only passing half the time is incorrect: 7 is the most likely number that you'll roll on 2d6. They're leadership 7. Half the sums of 2d6 that are not 7, will be higher than 7, and the other half will be lower than 7.

The probability of the sum of 2d6 is about:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 03 02 01

Which really puts the chance of the order going off at about 21/36, which is 58%. Not spectacular, but almost 10% higher than previously alluded to. The real awesome thing is that they at least get to fire still even if the order doesn't go off. All things considered you have a 25% chance of penning AV12 with a 58% chance of getting a 37% chance to pen instead per lascannon. I'm not saying they're better than vendettas. I'm saying they're good choices on top of vendettas.

Ailaros wrote:

sourclams wrote:The "efficiency" of the weapon is multiplied by its ability to neutralize the transported squad for X number of turns.

I'm already taking this into account when I say that heavy weapons are expensive for what they do.

No, your'e not, because your analysis is largely rooted in a scenario that doesn't play out within the structure of common IG army lists and therefore your conclusions aren't accurate, even if they're mathematically correct. This is why I keep saying your math is misleading.

sourclams wrote: IG AC teams reliably stop transports at 48" away.

Why do you choose to derive the word "reliably" from the math?

Because autocannons are reliable...? 6 Autocannons or their equivalent (hydras, HWTs) will stop a rhino more than half of the time. They will also cost less than the rhino and its contents. I spend fewer points than my opponent in order to neutralize a unit more than half of the time. That's "reliable".

All these other arguments that are being made about autocannons don't address this fundamental problem.

Actually the fundamental problem is that you continue to look at weapon profiles in a vacuum.

I disagree with the "LC HWT are good" idea. It costs 25 points less than a vendetta. For those 25p, you free up an order for your AC HWT, you gain 24" move potential, tranasport capacity, and even though your vendetta will almost never get cover, it's still probably more reliable than t3 w2 that can be instant-death'd by everything and have ld7.

In my experience, Vendettas don't get to shoot that much, while weapon teams stick around longer than you'd think.

Then you're trying to use them as Valkyries. If you use them to do alpha strikes or play very aggressively, they won't get to fire much since they are either trying to get somewhere or are being shot at at close range.

I prefer to put cheap units like SWSs and PCSs into Vendettas to make them scoring, and keep them in my back ranks snipping enemy vehicles, and only in the last turn do I move them aggressively (turbo-boosting if I must) to deposit my small troop squads on objectives and clear out any enemies with massed flamer templates/demolition charges.

I think it's apples and oranges, in a way. The vend is a powerful unit, as Terminus has outlined above. But the HWS lascannons can kill anything the vend can, and can't be taken out with one shot, excepting a pieplate/template. With proper cover and leadership, the HWS is often harder to kill.

But you don't have to "kill" them. just making them run away is enough.
i prefer the Vendetta given the 2, for the TL.

True. I've been relying on a triad of the company commander, regimental standard, and lord commissar to keep my HWS in line and firing effectively. Rerolling morale on ld10 means they basically ain't goin nowhere, and have to be completely destroyed to silence the battery. In cover, especially with GtG or even I!, they take some effort to dig out.

a lot of sentiment here for grouping like weapons together, but I like to take a HWS of two autocannons and one missile launcher. Nice and versatile against swarms or light armor. Heavy armor draws fire from tanks or lascannon squads.

murdog wrote:True. I've been relying on a triad of the company commander, regimental standard, and lord commissar to keep my HWS in line and firing effectively. Rerolling morale on ld10 means they basically ain't goin nowhere, and have to be completely destroyed to silence the battery. In cover, especially with GtG or even I!, they take some effort to dig out.

Eeeeew, Lord Commissar. Yes, let's throw away points on one of those, and then add some overpriced HWT lascannons and then order them to ground so we can't even shoot them.

I don't know guys, I just can't stomach dropping 35 points for a single BS3 lascannon that dies to pretty much anything that shoots at it. If I'm getting lascannons, I'll put them into platoon squads where they only cost 20 and have a bunch of ablative bodies to catch shots and have much better leadership for orders and morale.

Lol - don't hold back now Terminus, tell us what you really think about Lord Commissars and HWS's....

Seriously though, I use lascannon batteries, and HWS's in general, and they don't just 'die to pretty much anything that shoots at it', at least not all the time. I pretty much give them priority for the best cover in the deployment zone. It's alot easier to get a HWS into terrain than a 30 man blob. If it's a 10 man squad, those 4 extra wounds - sorry 'bunch of ablative bodies' - really aren't going to buy you that much extra time in the face of dedicated anti-geq firepower.

I don't really see how the Lord Commie is 'throwing away points' when it provides not one but multiple squads with ld10 on morale/pinning/orders (perfect for ld7 units with 3 models that are at the top of the enemy's target priority, and are also top candidates for the orders issued by the CCS, which the Lord Commie usually hides in). That's better than ld8/9. I just don't find it difficult to place my CCS near my most important HWS's.

Your cost analysis is blurry. If you look at it as 35 points for a single lascannon in a HWS, you have to call it 70 points for a single lascannon in a PIS. If you're going to talk about them being 'only' 20 points in a PIS, well they are 15 in a HWS. It's fair to compare the two units by total unit cost, or total cost per LC, or cost to upgrade each single lascannon, but one category at a time...

Also, with GBitF, you can shoot with a unit after it has GtG. It would have to be a special circumstance for me to issue Incoming to a squad that I need to have fire that turn.

I'm not trying to argue that heavy weapons are more survivable in HWS than PIS. Clearly a single, unsupported PIS is more survivable than a single, unsupported HWS, and does a cheaper and better job of protecting the last gun. Clearly the HWS is a very fragile unit, and can't be deployed carelessly. However I don't dismiss them out of hand - I use them every battle, and I take measures to ameliorate their weaknesses and bolster their strengths.

I think Murdog make some good points, if I was going to take a LOS based HWS like 3LC, I would at least take a regimantal standard and stick them in as heavy cover as I could find. However I would want more than 1 HWS to warrant a Lord Commissar.

My favorite HW (look wise) is the mortar.

Does anyone have any tips on fielding them?
how many is good to have?

Don't take too many, because there will be targets on the field they're completely useless against. I think the general problem with such weapons is that they're useless against vehicles and not worth much against marines - the most prevalent targets around.

If you do use them, I don't think more than 2 HWS is a good idea (because of the aforementioned problems). I'd never use them in a PIS, only in a dedicated HWS. If you play an opponent with no real outflanking/deepstriking potential, they could be useful for holding a well-hidden objective in your deployment zone.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly is right I like the mortar but S4 AP6 limits your targets, so you don't want too many of them.

This is a long thread and maybe this belongs in a different thread, but I don't see anybody pointing out the basic flaw in Ailaros's math.

It's true, as stated in his article,(http://www.ailarian.com/folera/articles/tacticas/transport-defense.html) that an autocannon gets a .095 immob+ result on an AV11 rhino with one shot.

However, when he says "This means you need 11 hits to take it out," that's totally incorrect. It's a misunderstanding of how probability works.

The damaging hits fall on a bell curve. The .095 means that, about half the time, you will immob or better the rhino after 5-6 hits, and about half the time it will take more than 5-6 hits to immob or better. Sometimes you'll nail it with the first hit (but not very often) and sometimes you'll get 11-12 hits with no effect (but not very often). I don't have the statistics skills to calculate the standard deviation, but most of the damaging results are clustered in the middle, at between 4 and 7 AC hits.


So the math is right, but the interpretation is wrong.

One HWS firing autocannons at a rhino out of cover will immob or better it about 25% of the time. So two squads can disable a rhino about half the time.

Thowing BiD on the HWS will increase the odds by about 25% for a target in cover, 50% for a rhino in the open. Throwing FoMT on the squads is actually better, though, if the rhino is in cover because it gives you 50% more hits that actually do something (instead of the 25% more hits you get from BiD).

I agree that if the numbers were as bad as Ailaros calculated, HWs wouldn't be very good. But the numbers that take the probable distribution of hits into account correctly reflect the threat of ACs versus transports more accurately.

murdog wrote:I'm not trying to argue that heavy weapons are more survivable in HWS than PIS. Clearly a single, unsupported PIS is more survivable than a single, unsupported HWS, and does a cheaper and better job of protecting the last gun. Clearly the HWS is a very fragile unit, and can't be deployed carelessly. However I don't dismiss them out of hand - I use them every battle, and I take measures to ameliorate their weaknesses and bolster their strengths.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I like HWTs. I use autocannon teams all the time, and occasionally even throw in some mortars. I just feel the lascannon team is too expensive for what it does, especially when you compound their cost with a Commissar (two such HWTs + a naked LC run you 290 points... that's two vendettas and a doctrine). The Lord Commissar also means you are limited to only two BiD orders unless you take Creed. If you're adept at keeping your LC solo on foot and running around to keep your various elements in his tiny aura, that's great, but I found that makes him an easy kill point. Plus, when I need my blob to break, I can guilt-free and without hassle let the Jr. Commissar die; that's not so easy with the LC.

You mentioned that a 30-man squad is too hard to hide, while the 10-man is "only 4 extra ablative wounds" (by the way, depending on what S weapons are firing at you, the infantry squad could have up to 7 extra wounds). While we play on tables with enough terrain to hide a 30-man squad (especially considering how far they can stretch across the table, using those big HW bases as anchor points), did you consider the 20-man squad? It now provides a good bit more ablative wounds, you can FRFSRF to at least some effect, can issue reliable orders that don't require a Commissar, all while still staying < 150 points.

Flavius Infernus wrote:
Thowing BiD on the HWS will increase the odds by about 25% for a target in cover, 50% for a rhino in the open. Throwing FoMT on the squads is actually better, though, if the rhino is in cover because it gives you 50% more hits that actually do something (instead of the 25% more hits you get from BiD).

I thought these gave exactly the same effect?

BiD raises hits from 50 to 75%; FoMT raises effective results from 50 to 75%. It looks like exactly the same modifier, but one is at the beginning of the sequence, and one at the end.

Autocannons are generally the best to spam because they're the most general of all the weapons and they're cheap.

But Missile Launchers are pretty good, too.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:Don't take too many, because there will be targets on the field they're completely useless against... I'd never use them in a PIS, only in a dedicated HWS. If you play an opponent with no real outflanking/deepstriking potential, they could be useful for holding a well-hidden objective in your deployment zone.

Terminus wrote:I just feel the lascannon team is too expensive for what it does, especially when you compound their cost with a Commissar

I agree with all of this about heavy weapons in general. Niche uses, best in HWS, objective camping, expensive for what it does (especially if you have support units sit around), etc.

I likewise wouldn't take more than about 2.

Flavius Infernus wrote:So the math is right, but the interpretation is wrong.

It's interpreted using standard deviation. What's wrong with that?

Melissia wrote:Autocannons are generally the best to spam because they're the most general of all the weapons and they're cheap.

The unfortunate thing with being general is that in order to gain long shot odds against several target types, the autocannon becomes ineffective against all target types*. So while you're spamming the most general weapon, you're also spamming the most ineffective weapon. Why spam ineffective weapons?

As well, they're cheap compared to a super plasma executioner, but they are not cheap for what they do. Why not spam points-effective weapons instead?




* except AV10 that your opponent moves directly out in front of your stuff without smoke or SMF and IG HWS that your opponent doesn't put in cover for some reason.

You don't need every unit in your codex to be a specialist at destroying something. And Autocannons will save you points to GET specialists anyway.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:

Flavius Infernus wrote:
Thowing BiD on the HWS will increase the odds by about 25% for a target in cover, 50% for a rhino in the open. Throwing FoMT on the squads is actually better, though, if the rhino is in cover because it gives you 50% more hits that actually do something (instead of the 25% more hits you get from BiD).

I thought these gave exactly the same effect?

BiD raises hits from 50 to 75%; FoMT raises effective results from 50 to 75%. It looks like exactly the same modifier, but one is at the beginning of the sequence, and one at the end.

Whoops, yeah I forgot that "fire on my target" forces a cover reroll, which reduces the number of hits that "stick" by 25%. So the commutative property wins the day. I was thinking that "fire on my target" negated cover.

Actually, now that I think about it, it depends on the cover save. Versus a 5+ or worse cover save, "fire on my target" is marginally better. Versus a 3+ or better cover save, "bring it down" is better.

Ailaros wrote:The unfortunate thing with being general is that in order to gain long shot odds against several target types, the autocannon becomes ineffective against all target types*. So while you're spamming the most general weapon, you're also spamming the most ineffective weapon. Why spam ineffective weapons?

As well, they're cheap compared to a super plasma executioner, but they are not cheap for what they do. Why not spam points-effective weapons instead?

* except AV10 that your opponent moves directly out in front of your stuff without smoke or SMF and IG HWS that your opponent doesn't put in cover for some reason.

Aaand he's back again, quoting the same nonsense based on rudimentary, roughly rounded and poorly interpreted statistics. You've yet to actually illustrate how the autocannon is not a points-effective weapon, nor have you provided a superior alternative for infantry squads. You've yet to respond to my multiple invitations to play a quick game or three on Vassal, so at this point my only recourse is to just (re-)write you off as another attention-seeking troll (hey, maybe you can be the next Stelek and have your own legions of drooling devotees).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flavius Infernus wrote:Actually, now that I think about it, it depends on the cover save. Versus a 5+ or worse cover save, "fire on my target" is marginally better. Versus a 3+ or better cover save, "bring it down" is better.

You got those backwards. Forcing a re-roll on a crappy cover save is inferior to re-rolling your attacks (though often only marginally so).

I think the problem is not the weapon itself , but how GW designed the latest IG codex.

If you think about it , IG are supposed to be soso geared army that depend on flesh and steel tanks.

Specialists like melta vets should never existed in IG , they are pretty much reliable like Fire Dragons...

Its not Autocannon is too mediocre , its melta vets are too cheap and effective.

Terminus wrote:Aaand he's back again, quoting the same nonsense based on rudimentary, roughly rounded and poorly interpreted statistics. You've yet to actually illustrate how the autocannon is not a points-effective weapon, nor have you provided a superior alternative for infantry squads. You've yet to respond to my multiple invitations to play a quick game or three on Vassal, so at this point my only recourse is to just (re-)write you off as another attention-seeking troll (hey, maybe you can be the next Stelek and have your own legions of drooling devotees).

What do you hope to achieve through your endless stream of personal attacks on me? Do you really think that it's convincing anyone that you're right about anything?

I've already given several illustrations with regards to points-effectiveness. If you choose not to be convinced, that's fine, but if you're going to convince me that they ARE points effective, you're going to have to actually articulate an argument. The scant few times you have, I've addressed them, but haven't gotten anything after that other than yet more personal insults.

Furthermore, I have proposed superior alternatives to PIS autocannon. Your denial of this fact won't make my oft-linked essay dissappear off the internet, no matter how strong your desire.

And I've rejected your call to vassal because vassal is subjective while polluted with several serious uncontrolled variables. If you said anything as to how this is more objective than statistics, I'd like to hear your reasoning. Instead you appear to only repeat your belligerent demand that we whip them out on the table and measure...

Perhaps the troll here is the one that's making their argument by coming up with round after round of personal insults against other posters, rather than attempting serious dialogue on the topic at hand.

Melissia wrote:You don't need every unit in your codex to be a specialist at destroying something. And Autocannons will save you points to GET specialists anyway.

The argument here is that yes, points are being spent on crappy guns, but they're cheap, so you can buy good guns elsewhere. Why not just spend the points on the good guns in the first place? Why not spend points ONLY on good weapons?

LunaHound wrote:I think the problem is not the weapon itself , but how GW designed the latest IG codex.

I'd agree with this. Back in the day, we may not have had any choice but to use infantry heavy weapons. Now we do have a choice. Likewise, as has been mentioned, the 5th ed rulebook is unkind to heavy weapons, while simultaneously being kind to special weapons and assault.

LunaHound wrote:Its not Autocannon is too mediocre , its melta vets are too cheap and effective.

Yeah, what a pain to have cheap, effective weapons

That said, comparisons aside, autocannons still aren't stellar, what with their poor showing against infantry targets in the statistics, and their unfortunate tendency to cost more than what they kill (along with other disadvantages, such as with movement, etc.) We may have been blessed with some good weapons, but we haven't been SO blessed as to have had lots of good weapons that do the same thing, and we have to pick between only good options.

Ailaros wrote:What do you hope to achieve through your endless stream of personal attacks on me? Do you really think that it's convincing anyone that you're right about anything?

Personal attacks? I don't think disputing your claims as false and asking you to actually prove your theories in a game counts as personal attacks.

Furthermore, I have proposed superior alternatives to PIS autocannon. Your denial of this fact won't make my oft-linked essay dissappear off the internet, no matter how strong your desire.

Your linked essay is crap because the kind of averages you are calculating cannot be applied to multiple rolls. A fraction of a destroyed result doesn't mean anything, the only thing that gives an even remotely accurate representation is your percent chance of a particular result. For example, the linked essay calculates that an autocannon deals 0.05 destroy results to an AV12 target in cover (i.e. the hardest possible target), and then blithely concludes it takes 20 autocannons to pop one of these transports. This is of course nonsense. Does it really mean 20 autocannons firing have 100% chance of success? Does that mean if you fire 21 autocannons, do you suddenly have a 105% chance of success?

Sorry, but statistics don't work like that (look up binomial distribution), and in addition you are making your determinations in a complete vacuum. The average bubblewrap/tarpit IP squad is 20- or 30-strong, and is usually the most eligible to receive orders, particularly in the first few turns when your special weapons are outside of their 12" range (or you don't want to disembark). With three autocannons and BiD, you have a roughly 12% chance of destroying the vehicle (without cover it jumps to 22%). Of course, then you also have to consider that stunned and immobilized results are also good against transports as they prevent movement (which gives a combined 32% chance of at least one favorable result, or 54% without cover). The percentages are even more favorable against shooty tanks, as shaken results alone can be worthwhile. Then when you consider lighter transports such as a rhino, you have a 43% chance of at least one favorable result, and 72% outside of cover. AV10 targets just get shredded. For only 30 points, those are not bad numbers at all (and no, you can't include the rest of the squad in the cost because they serve a different function, and you can't include orders because you'll always for at least one turn won't have veterans in position).

So your math and the conclusions you draw from it are simply wrong. Your recommended alternatives are the heavy bolter, which is practically useless against vehicles and only offers a bit of extra performance against T3 infantry, and the mortar, which needs to be massed even more than autocannons to get anything out of them while being utterly useless against vehicles. Or perhaps simply spamming melta-vets is the solution (i.e. playing right into the hands of the very combat capable Space Wolves and Blood Angels which are the toughest fights for IG?)

Ailaros wrote:Yeah, what a pain to have cheap, effective weapons

But dont you think melta vets are abit too good? compared to specialists like Fire Dragons.

they are cheaper , just as good BS and they can hide inside the chimera and shoot without exposing themselves
like Fire Dragons.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I like HWTs. I use autocannon teams all the time, and occasionally even throw in some mortars. I just feel the lascannon team is too expensive for what it does, especially when you compound their cost with a Commissar (two such HWTs + a naked LC run you 290 points... that's two vendettas and a doctrine). The Lord Commissar also means you are limited to only two BiD orders unless you take Creed. If you're adept at keeping your LC solo on foot and running around to keep your various elements in his tiny aura, that's great, but I found that makes him an easy kill point. Plus, when I need my blob to break, I can guilt-free and without hassle let the Jr. Commissar die; that's not so easy with the LC.

You mentioned that a 30-man squad is too hard to hide, while the 10-man is "only 4 extra ablative wounds" (by the way, depending on what S weapons are firing at you, the infantry squad could have up to 7 extra wounds). While we play on tables with enough terrain to hide a 30-man squad (especially considering how far they can stretch across the table, using those big HW bases as anchor points), did you consider the 20-man squad? It now provides a good bit more ablative wounds, you can FRFSRF to at least some effect, can issue reliable orders that don't require a Commissar, all while still staying < 150 points.

You make some good points here, but I think the ld10 is more important than more orders - I see the orders as a bonus. I don't run the LC solo unless he can be hidden from LoS. I put him in the CCS with a medic and standard. There's 10 wounds in that squad; with 2 refractor fields and the medic, in cover it can take a beating. And if you're shooting at it, you're not shooting the stuff that is killing your army. Two killpoints for the squad is definitely regrettable. And instead of letting the commissar die to avoid his ld, can I just choose to not use his ld, being different squads?

I didn't say the 30 man squad is too hard to hide, I said the HWS is easier to place in cover. Good point about the 20-man squads, tho, they are definitely a good compromise in that regard. It's nice that you can decide at deployment, so that you can choose a size that will match advantageous terrain.

I don't think I'd ever have the heart to field a CCS without a transport bunker (for protection, not to mention the range increase for orders and standard), but okay. So you're keeping him in there just to keep the CCS from running? I usually find a Ld9 with re-roll is more than sufficient for keeping them in play. As for choosing not to use the Commissar's leadership, it depends on the wording of his ability and I don't have the book handy. I'll check on that and get back to it later.

And yes, HWSs are easy to place in cover, but the 30-man squad is not much harder. You only have to get 14 models claiming cover to give it to the whole mob. That's why I like using blobs in combination with HWSs (since you need at least 20 men to field a HWS anyway). I stick the mob in cover and wrapping my long-ranged vehicles' flanks, then stick the remaining members of the squad out in the open. Then I place the HWSs behind these soldiers, essentially extending the cover as far as I need it to be.

And yes, choosing at deployment is great. My platoons are mechanized more often than not (even if they blob up, I can rent out those chimeras to the Inquisitor, SWSs, HWSs, or just empty for interference), so this gives me a lot of options. If the scenario/terrain calls for a lot of movement, I'll split the squads and run them in the vehicles. If the terrain doesn't give me a lot of cover and/or the mission necessitates another scoring unit, I frequently leave 20 in the blob and make just the one mechanized. The platoon is an incredibly flexible troop choice, and anyone running IG without them is selling themselves short (melta vet spam simply isn't that great).

I make use of a transport bunker for the CCS as well, for the protection and leadership range increase, like you say. When it blows up they use it for cover (I think of them as bringing their own cover). The Lord Commissar is not there to keep the CCS from running, or the commiblobs, it's there to keep the ld7 HWS's from running. I just find a gunline CCS is the best place to put him, for protection and because the CCS also boosts the performance of the HWS; I run a gunline, and I get good synergy off my command triad and 2+ HWS.

I've been learning the hard way about the need for plenty of regulars to screen for the HWS and tanks, just like you say. Doesn't leave much room for vets.

Just to be clear, I'm not arguing against PIS squads with heavy weapons, of any type, in blobs or not. They are definitely safer there, fire just as well at better base leadership, and when deployed along a wide front they can create a crossfire for themselves, increasing flank shot opportunities. I'm just relating how I use my HWS.

didn't see the date. please disregard.

Dead thread? Sorry

It was a gooder, though...

Might as well lock this one up then. Mods?

I happen to be a fan of 50% heavy bolters and 50% Las-cannons fixed through large platoons with gernade launchers