52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
So, just curious, which do you guys see yourselves leaning towards more for your infantry carried heavy weapons? When I say this, what I'm asking is...
Which IG heavy weapon do you prefer to use the most?
Maybe it's reliable, maybe it's a heavy hitter, maybe it just looks cool. Which one makes it into your list the most. In a way, I guess this is a debate about which heavy weapon is the "superior" choice. I know not everybody uses infantry carried heavy weapons, so if you don't tend to use them, if you were to take them, which one would it be? As for me, I feel like the real debate is between Autocannons and Lascannons. They're the two most powerful ones point for point, and seem to be the most flexible. The rest are cool and all, but they just never were able to stack up against the big two in my experience. If you've got a good reason for any of the other 3 I'd love to hear it, but I see this boiling down to the autocannon and the lascannon.
Now, on to the meat of the thread. After fooling around quite a bit with lascannons and autocannons in my army lists, I feel like the lascannon is starting to pull ahead. Now, I know what you're thinking, "but MrMoustaffa, guardsmen are idiots! Why would you trust such an expensive single shot weapon to such lowly scrubs who barely even understand which end the laser comes out of?" And to that I'd reply "that's why you bring 15+ of the friggin things."
What it's boiling down to me is that while yes, the autocannon is pulling out more hits, it's whiffing a LOT more when it comes to killing things. It's only AP4, so it's not getting a bonus on the damage table, and it's not cutting through the thick hides of most Monstrous creatures. On top of that, many high toughness elite infantry like bikers are also getting armor/cover/ FNP saves against it, so it whiffs there as well. When I dropped all my autocannons and replaced them with nothing but lascannons, I found myself doing far more damage, even when you take the points increase and shot decrease into account. Whereas an autocannon will hit, but not necessarily kill, a lascannon is more like a sledgehammer. It may not always connect, but when it does, it gets results. AP 2 ensures it's got +1 on the damage table, is cutting through any armor save for infantry, and instagibbing any T4 multiwound characters. While the accuracy problem is a serious one, it's solved like any other problem this army tends to have, by being redundant with them. Where 1 lascannon will probably fail, 9 will not. Since I play footguard, clever use of orders can also help cut down on some of the lascannon's shortcomings. "Bring it down" ups their hit rate to above BS4, and Fire on my Target" helps them mitigate the problems of night fighting and aegis defense lines.
TL;DR I guess what I'm trying to say is that if the autocannon hurts things, the Lascannon kills them. Even when I was taking 20 or so autocannons per list, they just didn't stack up to the damage I'm getting with 10 or so lascannons now. I just feel like the lascannon is the more flexible weapon, and with proper play it can put down just as much, if not more hurt, than a similar pts total of autocannons instead. It does less wounds total to MC's, but far more are making it through saves to actually stick. It's dealing more kills to characters and elite infantry, because it ignores their armor and possibly even FNP. It's even more threatening to vehicles, as it's far more likely to pen, and instead of just stripping HP through glances, has a 33% chance to outright wreck the vehicle, and another 33% or so to do a serious damage result.
However this is all data I've pulled from experience. I'm not really a mathammer guy, so if someone can crunch the numbers and "prove" me wrong, feel free to. So which is it guys? The cheap, humble autocannon, or the hard hitting lascannon? Or are you crazy and take 35 mortars every game? 
42179
Post by: ObliviousBlueCaboose
It depends. I prefer the Lascannon, but only if I have a CCS nearby to Twin Link it. If not I prefer Autocannon, or sometimes the Missile Launcher. I cant really decide between the two.
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
For the Brief time I used HWT's I used 6 Autocannons
There was so much Low AP 2-3 in the large blasts flying around.
So much Melta/Plasma with CCS/Vets
Not to mention Lascannons on Vendettas just seem better ^^
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
I like lots of lascannons, autocannons and plasma in balanced ratios.
63373
Post by: kestril
From experience, I gotta go with massed HWS autocannons.
As far as heavy weapon squads go, Lascannons sound great, no really, they sound awesome. The AP2 really shows promise, and I've had them work on occasion, but the problem is the single shot. It's great when they do work. The problem is that when they whiff it hurts. I suppose I've just got bad luck with low-shot weaponry. I've always found that firing a larger volume of shots works better than firing a few high-AP shots. I've had three Lascannon heavy weapon squads only score one hit on a terminator squad, and that hit failed to wound. :(
As far as versatility goes, I play orks and tyranids from time to time, and while a lascannon shot that hits is awesome against a very expensive model, such as a terminator or MC, they absolutely suck against hordes. One lascannon can only kill one thing. That thing may be really dead, but it's still only one unit. I find that weapons that put out a lot of shots are more versatile, as eventually that elite infantry will fail a save. Pask with a punisher+ heavy bolters can (and successfully has) engage hordes, GEQ, MEQ,TEQ, MCs and light armor due to sheer volume of fire; whereas three lascannon heavy weapon squads (a bit more than the punisher, but a fair for comparison) are limited to only 9 kills a turn, limiting their targets to TEQ (perhaps MEQ) and AV12, AV 13 (and if you're feeling lucky, AV-14) armor vehicles.
Next, there is the issue of getting lucky. When a lascannon heavy weapons squad gets lucky: great job, you've got yourself three wounds dealt out. Whupty-do. In contrast, when a high-volume-of-fire model gets lucky on the tohit/towound roll, that gak is noticeable. Case and point: one 10 man guard infantry squad (1/2 the cost of a LC HWS!) got lucky against a big tyranid monster, and they FRF 'ed the six-wound beast to death in one shooting phase. Then, they stepped forward three inches and did it again to the next one.
Of course, there's the issue of having bad luck. The more dice rolled, the more chance that things will even out, but there are occasions where 10+ autocannon rounds will miss a single AV11 vehicle. Here's my point of view: It's the target that determines the consequences a bad roll. When my lascannons miss the terminators about to charge into my gunline. It hurts; those termies are going crush some guardsman face. But when some autocannons fail to glance a lightly-armored vehicle to death, that's no biggie, because the vehicle still has to move into multi-melta range, and then deal with my leman russ's front AV-14. Or maybe it has to get to an objective and drop off troops. Whatever. The point is that failing an autocannon roll that should have done some damage is, in general, more forgiving then whiffing with lascannons that are oh-so-easy to whiff with.
Finally, the one use that the lascannon seems to try to do is long-range-anti-tank. That's nice, but I'm a guard player. I have seen many-a-player try to use lascannons to counter my leman russ, only to have each beam bounce harmlessly off the front armor. When it works, it's nice, but I'd rather throw some stormtroopers with meltas at the problem or send in a Valkyrie hungry for some rear-armor shots.
-----------
That said, I am a fan of running them in normal infantry squads when the points allow. I already shoot a bazillion lasguns at 2+ armor models trying to charge my line, and I look at the lascannon as a bit of a bonus. If it works, great! If not, well, that squad was bubblewrap first and foremost anyways.
Anyways,I guess that was a roundabout way of saying that I prefer autocannons in team and lascannons in infantry squads. I'm glad you have better luck with 'em then I do.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
So, I've come to the same conclusion, Moustaffa. Yes, autocannons can now glance vehicles to death, which makes them vaguely worth taking (outside of AV10, which they were always good at), but still. No.
I actually came to an epiphany recently. Against AV12, a S8 Ap1 weapon (outside of melta range), has the same odds as killing the vehicle as a S9 Ap2 weapon, which has roughly the same odds as a S10 Ap3+ weapon.
This is the class of weapons we consider "serious anti-tank". Drop down to an autocannon, and the kill rate drops to LESS THAN A THIRD of this, even including the fact that it gets an extra shot. A missile launcher has the same kill rate. Everything else is just worse.
This has really clarified things in my mind. In the case of infantry upgrade weapons, you have two guns - the meltagun and the lascannon, that are your only two anti-tank weapons. Everything else isn't an anti-tank weapon. Yes, you could talk about blowing up AV10 stuff, but AV10 vehicles aren't really that credible of vehicles, as they're often HP2, open topped, and can be drug down by small arms fire. You don't REALLY need fancy weapons just to handle AV10 most of the time. A heavy bolter will probably do just fine in an age of glance-to-death against that target type.
So, for me, at least, this really clarifies things. If you want to have guard infantry that has a heavy weapon that you brought to shoot at vehicles, take a lascannon. No exceptions. If damaging vehicles is only a secondary concern, then pick from any of the other ones, depending on what you're specifically looking for.
47395
Post by: UMGuy
I am also preferring Autocannons.
My reasoning being my the way I run my IS squads. I like to combine them with a melta gun. Although many people will say it is not a good setup, I am a huge fan. With the new rules to HWT being able to fire on the move and stand still and fire, it provides them with a lot of teeth for very little points. 70 points gets me a very high threat n close range as well as the option to sit back and fire as well. It is a lot of flexbility for such few points and really has allowed me to make decisions half way through the game rather than relying on my deployment choices to carry me through the game.
53403
Post by: TheCaptain
 Ailaros wrote:So, for me, at least, this really clarifies things. If you want to have guard infantry that has a heavy weapon that you brought to shoot at vehicles, take a lascannon. No exceptions. If damaging vehicles is only a secondary concern, then pick from any of the other ones, depending on what you're specifically looking for.
Pretty much this.
If all you're shooting is vehicles, vehicles, and more vehicles with your HWT, then for sure, lascannons are the bomb.
Problem is, you show up packing 15 lascannons, and oops, your opponent brought nothing but Guardsmen-equivalent troops and a bag of chips to munch on while you whittle away at him.
Autocannons aren't as good as Lascannons at anti-armor, but they aren't as good as heavy bolters at killing GEQ either. They're our multitool, and they can do a bunch things pretty good, but nothing better than our corresponding hard-counter.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Well, that's the problem, they don't do anything really well. I mean, they have their roles, like against mutli-wound T3 and stuff, but still.
It's something that I've noticed that people have missed about 6th edition vehicles. Yes, you can now glance them to death, but they're much harder to kill outside of glancing.
Quick, go look at the damage table in your 4th ed rulebook. Look at 4th ed glancing. Now look at 6th ed penetrating. Notice how they're EXACTLY THE SAME?
Given that penetrating is the new glancing, you've really got to step up the firepower of the weapons you take in order to get the same job done. Really, there is no longer a substitute for Ap2/1 against vehicles, nor for being less than S8.
As for those lascannons being made worthless against guard, well, we're TALKING about guard here. If I'm bringing an infantry horde, I'm going to have enough killing power with all those lasguns I brought to handle another horde. Yes, if my opponent used those points to buy heavy bolters instead, then yeah, the lascannons would be a real relative waste, but I'm not anticipating coming across all that many horde armies that have no anti-vehicle weapons whatsoever.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Sure, lascannons might be better in most cases, but they also cost more. So you have to ask yourself whether it's worth paying the extra points for the LCs, or if you should just consider the ACs good enough. And this is especially true if you have a lot of mobile units where your heavy weapons can expect to be snap firing frequently and not really making good use of an expensive upgrade.
39755
Post by: Jackster
On HWTs I would much rather have ACs.
Vendetta for the LCs.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
Interesting that one of the main reasons I've been picking lascannons more hasn't popped up. Monstrous Creatures. It seems like every time I go into my store I'm up against an Mc. Eldar, nids, daemons, and even DE have been fielding big, meaty MC's, and to be brutally honest, autocannons are horrible against them. Take a tervigon (I believe its the baby pooper correct?) something pretty much any nid player will have. Add in the fact it's T6 (soon to be T7-9 if its rolling on biomancy) +3 armor, fnp, and possibly able to regenerate several wounds a turn, and autocannons just don't cut it. You're going from a heavy weapon thats wounding in a best case scenario on 3's, and having to get through a +3 armor save AND THEN a +5 fnp, to a weapon that in the worst possible scenario is wounding on 4's, bypassing armor entirely, and leaving him with only cover and fnp to stay alive. What would've taken an obscene amount of autocannons to chip a few wounds away, only took about 8 lascannons with bring it down to knock 3 wounds off, and that was with fairly unlucky rolling. The pain engines things DE seem to be the same way. Autocannons just get shrugged off, but lascannons actually slap these things around fairly well. Daemons are the odd ones out, as their MC's tend to have pretty beefy invuln saves, but even there the lascannon will at least force them to save on a 4 invuln, instead of a 3 armor save.
So if autocannons suck at killing vehicles, suck at killing hordes (because a S7 hit per gun isn't wiping a blob of gaunts anytime son),and suck at killing MC's, then why are we taking them? They put out tons of fire and look cool, but thats about it I feel. Is it just because they're cheap and better than taking nothing at all? This will sound like horible blasphemy, but the more I try autocannons, the more Ifeel like the autocannon is the grenade launcher of the heavy weapons family (and not in a good way). And before you guys freak out, take a list where you spam autocannons, and replace as many as possible with lascannons. Proxy if you have to, but give them a real try. The key is redundancy with them. You need a healthy amount, which varies depending on the list.
EDIT because i cant into typing yo.
Also, I think the final nail in the coffin for autocannons for me was when I started gauging my opponent's reactions to what I took. Autocannons were treated with mild annoyance, something that was more an inconvenience almost. Lascannons on the other hand caused genuine worry. I'm not a genius, but if my opponent treats one weapon as meh, and the other as death incarnate, I know which one I'm taking. It's the same reason I've switched from vanilla russes to executioners with plasma sponsons. Battle tanks hurt, but executioners annihilate. Yes they cost more, but you get what you pay for. We've been taking plasma and meltas as our go to special weapons for ages with no question. Why wouln't we invest in heavy weapons the same way?
3933
Post by: Kingsley
The autocannon just isn't what it used to be-- despite its dominance in 5th edition, people have largely stopped taking large numbers of the units autocannons are best against (AV10/11 transports, IG heavy weapon squads, and Scarabs), and with 6th edition buffing AV13 against autocannon fire and bringing more monstrous creatures to the fore, I'm beginning to question whether autocannons are really effective at all.
As MrMoustaffa pointed out, people aren't really scared of autocannons anymore. On the other hand, lascannons really throw a wrench into almost anything aside from a pure horde army. The new Chaos codex may be the best example of this. When I see a Chaos army with maximum autocannon Havocs, I smile, because there's no way those guys are going to be effective against my AV13 and marines on foot. On the other hand, when I see a Chaos army with tri-las Predators, I get worried!
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
This is very interesting. I don't think my autocannons have ever managed to glance a tank to death, without including the occasional rhino. They do however, put the hurt on MEQ. Enough AC fire will drop MEQ fairly reliably, but, I have plenty of weapons able to do this, just not with the 48" range.
I will proxy out the ACs for LCs. See how it goes. It also brings up the idea of using a MRP valkyrie instead of a vendetta. The 3 lascannons are covered but I will have lost some ways to deal with hordes, which the MRP valk could make up for.
59773
Post by: Blaggard
I did a spreadsheet about this a while ago. Looking at it now makes me scratch my head on how I did it. it take into account invuln by just saying "highest save available". The saves with "7" is just 7 for maths purposes, it's actually no saves.
Anyway, it worked out the "to wound" cost of purely the HW ( AC/ HB=10, LC=20) at BS3.
Results can be found here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtoNxvqJp00_dHU5bGt0T1laOWlVRWJuLVBYLWdrcXc
It's not all that pretty atm, hopefully someone (else) can chart this up so y'all can make sense of it.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
People have been frothing at the mouth over how good autocannons were for a long time now. They weren't that great in 5th, and they're still not great now.
I feel that this thread is, in a way, vindication for a years-long campaign against this weapon starting with this thread. What we're seeing is probably not the result of autocannons getting worse as much as people are finally starting to see what they have been this entire time.
... of course, my dislike to meltaguns and lascannons in infantry squads three years ago is rather humorous.
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
Ailaros wrote:
I feel that this thread is, in a way, vindication for a years-long campaign against this weapon starting with this thread.
Wow, you put up a hell of a fight in that thread Ailaros. It was just logical fallacy after logical fallacy, I'd have lost my cool and quit arguing by page 2. You made some valid points, and it's made me consider the humble heavy bolter too.
44702
Post by: Trondheim
Auto cannons work wonders against Orks and Nids for my part, so I take them as a staple of my army. In fact I seldom leave home without them
62226
Post by: Glocknall
Okay if AC are not the mainstay HW now, can a case be made for the missle launcher to be the new all comers type of weapon. Its better than the LC against hordes, better than the AC against armor. I know its generally regarded as a poor weapon for IG, but 3 or 4 firing in volleys against hordes or AV10-12 isnt that bad.
59773
Post by: Blaggard
Went ahead and sorted my horribly unsorted data and created a chart:
If I could get my spreadsheet program to flip the data ranges correctly so the chart is more verticle than horizontal, I would. As it is, it screws up and decides that "Toughness and Save" need to be charted, and not the weapons.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Ailaros wrote:
I feel that this thread is, in a way, vindication for a years-long campaign against this weapon starting with this thread. What we're seeing is probably not the result of autocannons getting worse as much as people are finally starting to see what they have been this entire time.
Yeah right. Autocannons were great in 5th edition when you hated them, and then you started liking them when 6th edition came around and they got worse! Now that people seem to be coming around to them being not so great, you're with the crowd, but the fact that your opinion finally matches up with that of others doesn't mean that everyone else finally came around to your point of view, but rather that you've been wrong for two out of three cycles-- not something to be proud of!
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
Ok guys let's chill a bit. This thread is about us wasting time and endlessly debating which chunk of plastic to arm our little army dudes with to kill the other guy's plastic army dudes the best.
As for missle launchers, interesting point, but I kind of wonder what the point is if for a mere 5pts more you get the lascannon. I've taken the view that my vehicles kill infantry, and my infantry kill vehicles, and its worked well. As a result, inve just been going nuts with lascannons, and been taking things like various leman russes, artillery, and am even looking into valkyries to handle my antihorde needs. Of course, if you wanted to go 100% infantry and be able to handle hordes without gimping your long range antitank/antiMC, I guess you could make a pretty good argument for missile launchers. Thats about the only time I'd seriously consider them though. I've got 3 bases of them though, maybe I should give em another try...
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
I don't think this is an all or nothing discussion. I personall like autocannons and lascannons and those are my go to choice for squad or heavy weapon teams typically LC go into squads and AC go into heavy weapons teams. I think there is no reason for you guys to turn on each other or be snarky. I don't always agree with what Alairos says, but everything he says has a compelling and sound argument, from his persoanl experiences. I have worked and modeled my own IG army (successful 5th Ed) after his battle reports and his advice. Mr Moustaffa also has also been invaluable in providing insightful and intelligent musings on IG tactics. We're all just tryin to wrap our heads around the best way to play our toy soldiers, no reason to be nasty!
3933
Post by: Kingsley
If you ask me, missile launchers are inferior in that they are more expensive than autocannons. Were they the same price, they might be worth it, but the only thing that they have a comparative advantage in is shooting at Marines outside of cover. Admittedly, this happens a fair amount, but when there's a mere 5 point premium for a lascannon, which achieves the same performance against Marines but with substantially improved performance against vehicles, Terminators, and most Monstrous Creatures, the missile launcher seems like a pretty weak option.
59773
Post by: Blaggard
I think from the table I've made that I'm going to stick to Autocannons. They aren't *that much* more expensive per wound than HB's, I'll be shooting them all match, I can use them against fliers if required, and if I fight any MC's they can hurt them. Melta's and blast templates for vehicles.
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
AC will also ID T3 models whereas a HB will not.
3933
Post by: Kingsley
 Blaggard wrote:I think from the table I've made that I'm going to stick to Autocannons. They aren't *that much* more expensive per wound than HB's, I'll be shooting them all match, I can use them against fliers if required, and if I fight any MC's they can hurt them. Melta's and blast templates for vehicles.
This is a fair point. I would certainly take autocannons over heavy bolters or missile launchers. When it comes down to autocannons or lascannons, autocannons can still be a valid choice-- but they aren't the only thing you need to focus on, as they generally were in 5th edition. Realistically speaking, the big change of 6th edition was that lascannons got much better relative to their old position, making them a strong competitor for anti-tank slots. Since the meta has changed to favor higher- AV vehicles and tougher MCs, lascannons are getting a nice boost-- but that doesn't mean autocannons are worthless and should be discarded.
39755
Post by: Jackster
MLs are better for marines due to its relative cost compare to LCs for them and its flexibility.
IG ones cost too much compare to LC and the ability to fire a template is not that important as IG has far better templates already.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Yeah, MLs are still garbage. They aren't better against vehicles (+1S does not cover for -1 shots), and they're still not great against infantry, what with even modest displacement seriously reducing the amount of damage they can do.
It's really a matter now of:
Lascannons - I want to kill vehicles
Autocannons - I want to ID T3 models
Missile Launchers - I want to ID T4 models
Heavy bolters - I want to kill infantry and AV10 vehicles.
Mortars - Where on earth can I spend these last 5 points?
... which... wait. Is how it's always been, actually...
39755
Post by: Jackster
Well, ML is simply not the weapon for IG, Marines can use them effectively, due to the fact it's cheaper for them (As much as a HB) and marines need a versatile weapon due to higher cost of their models. IG gets cheap stuff everywhere, so specialist weapons are prefered.
AC is good against AV10-11, and the best thing a guardsman on foot can have to fight flyers with. It is also strong enough to wound MCs.
HB kills infantry, though IMO we are better off using templates for such thing. Glancing AV10 to death is okay I guess.
LC kills vehicles and MC and does it well. Cost the most for a good reason. Vendetta is the best platform for it though.
Mortars... Because you dont like heavy support for some reason?
If Vendettas dont exist, I think I'd use LC on foot much more frequently.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Jackster wrote:AC is good against AV10-11, and the best thing a guardsman on foot can have to fight flyers with. It is also strong enough to wound MCs.
But doesn't have a good enough Ap to ignore their armor saves.
So for comparison, against a TMC, a heavy bolter (at BS3) puts down 1/6th of a wound per shooting. Pretty crummy. The autocannon only puts down a little better than 1/5th of a wound. Both of these weapons could shoot at a T6 monstrous creature for the entire game without putting a single wound on it that stuck. Sure a lascannon is only twice as good as an autocannon, and before you say "yes, but it's twice the price", remember that time is important. That autocannon isn't likely doing its one wound until the end of the game. By that time, it might not matter. By that time, the autocannoneer is likely going to have been killed turns ago. Meanwhile the lascannon is more likely to do damage in the first couple of turns of the game, when it's more important, and before the guy holding the weapon is killed by something.
Meanwhile, look at AV10. A heavy bolter puts down about .5 HP per turn of shooting, while the autocannon puts down .66. Better, but not exactly stellar. Against fliers, the math looks exactly the same as against monstrous creatures. The autocannon isn't very much better, and it's not very good in general. As an interesting side note, the lascannon is exactly as good as the heavy bolter here as far as removing HP, but it's far superior to either of these two options overall as when it hits it almost always pens with an Ap2 weapon.
Then you consider that the heavy bolter is better against hordes, MEq, TEq, and that lascannons are better against AV11-AV14, MCs, and multiwound T4, and it really does make you wonder why bothering with autocannons at all?
39755
Post by: Jackster
Ailaros wrote:Jackster wrote:AC is good against AV10-11, and the best thing a guardsman on foot can have to fight flyers with. It is also strong enough to wound MCs.
But doesn't have a good enough Ap to ignore their armor saves.
So for comparison, against a TMC, a heavy bolter (at BS3) puts down 1/6th of a wound per shooting. Pretty crummy. The autocannon only puts down a little better than 1/5th of a wound. Both of these weapons could shoot at a T6 monstrous creature for the entire game without putting a single wound on it that stuck. Sure a lascannon is only twice as good as an autocannon, and before you say "yes, but it's twice the price", remember that time is important. That autocannon isn't likely doing its one wound until the end of the game. By that time, it might not matter. By that time, the autocannoneer is likely going to have been killed turns ago. Meanwhile the lascannon is more likely to do damage in the first couple of turns of the game, when it's more important, and before the guy holding the weapon is killed by something.
Meanwhile, look at AV10. A heavy bolter puts down about .5 HP per turn of shooting, while the autocannon puts down .66. Better, but not exactly stellar. Against fliers, the math looks exactly the same as against monstrous creatures. The autocannon isn't very much better, and it's not very good in general. As an interesting side note, the lascannon is exactly as good as the heavy bolter here as far as removing HP, but it's far superior to either of these two options overall as when it hits it almost always pens with an Ap2 weapon.
Then you consider that the heavy bolter is better against hordes, MEq, TEq, and that lascannons are better against AV11-AV14, MCs, and multiwound T4, and it really does make you wonder why bothering with autocannons at all?
HB does what templates can do better at BS3, LC is better on other platforms than on foot.
And sure LC is twice as effective, they are also twice the cost.
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
Sorry Ailaros,
I'm a firm believer in death through attrition.
I always ran alot of Autocannons, than again I also run alot 8-12 plasma guns, and a fair amount 6+ Melta guns, with a minor amount of flamer 3-6 depending.
Only lascannons I'll run are on Vendettas with IG as I feel everything else is overcosted.
Considering about 1/3 of my competitive meta is playing Flyer Cron, and the other ones are playing stuff not yet determined in the meta.
In fact I got a new IG/SW list I'm about to try out monday. Lots of autocannons/plasma/flamers/couple melta and an ADF+Q gun
Next part OT
We'll see how it goes, friend wants a game against something other than Daemon Flying circus. As I roll saves like a champ. Fateweaver passed 42/42 with rerolls and 32/42 w/o them 3++ rerollables are op
39755
Post by: Jackster
I mean Ailaros, I totally agree with you that LC is better than AC as weapon. If this thread is not about INFANTRY carried HWs. I simply believe if you want LCs, Vendetta is a better option.
Why would you bring 3 HWT with LCs when a Vendetta is only 25 pts more? You get a very mobile platform that is more durable and double up as a transport if you want to.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Jackster wrote:HB does what templates can do better at BS3
Not against opponents who know what displacement means. When my opponent shoot plasma cannons or missile launchers at me, the average number of hits the get is roughly 1.2, and that's when they don't just scatter away. Being able to displace 2" makes things pretty tough on a template whose radius is only 1.5". It's actually worse than that because the model base itself has a roughly .5" radius, meaning you can effectively displace at twice the distance of the blast radius.
Jackster wrote:LC is better on other platforms than on foot.
So? It's still the best weapon for foot units. The presence of vendettas does not change this fact.
You have to bring infantry units for the purpose of scoring. The question is what is the best way to arm them.
Jackster wrote:And sure LC is twice as effective, they are also twice the cost.
I feel like I've covered this recently...
Ailaros wrote:and before you say "yes, but it's twice the price", remember that time is important. That autocannon isn't likely doing its one wound until the end of the game. By that time, it might not matter. By that time, the autocannoneer is likely going to have been killed turns ago. Meanwhile the lascannon is more likely to do damage in the first couple of turns of the game, when it's more important, and before the guy holding the weapon is killed by something.
Oh, right.
We start with the one situation that an autocannon is supposed to excel in, and find that it's merely tied, per point, with other stuff. Said other stuff then has other advantages, such as...
Ailaros wrote:lascannons are better against AV11-AV14, MCs, and multiwound T4
And it leads you to the question
Ailaros wrote:it really does make you wonder why bothering with autocannons at all?
Anyways,
Jackster wrote:Why would you bring 3 HWT with LCs when a Vendetta is only 25 pts more? You get a very mobile platform that is more durable and double up as a transport if you want to.
Well, there are lots of reasons not to like vendettas, from the fact that they're not scoring (nor contesting), to the fact that you might not own the models, to the fact that you don't want to get the stinkeye from everyone at the game store every time you bring out of your army case.
In any case, I probably won't be taking a lot of lascannon HWSs out there, but that has to do with HWSs, not other things in the codex. Plus, all this really confirms is that the lascannon is the best weapon, and, now that we're not discussing the other, less useful weapons, it has become a matter of which carrier to bring them on.
Or, if you're already bringing certain carriers, what's the best weapon to give them?
39755
Post by: Jackster
Large Blast templates is what I was refering to, this is IG afterall. And most of the things that shoot these templates also happens to carry a HB standard.
You do have to bring infantry for scoring, sure, I wouldnt give them LCs still.
If you dont think ACs were worth taking back in 5th, I dont feel like anything will convince you now anyway.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ailaros wrote:That autocannon isn't likely doing its one wound until the end of the game.
No.
28300
Post by: creeping-deth87
Wow, why no love for the missile launcher? I feel like they're actually a really good match for infantry squads because they can handle anti-tank duty, do much better against monstrous creatures than auto cannons, and can actually jive with las guns in the squad. Not everyone is savvy with displacement and they strike a nice balance in cost between auto cannons and las cannons.
39755
Post by: Jackster
 creeping-deth87 wrote:Wow, why no love for the missile launcher? I feel like they're actually a really good match for infantry squads because they can handle anti-tank duty, do much better against monstrous creatures than auto cannons, and can actually jive with las guns in the squad. Not everyone is savvy with displacement and they strike a nice balance in cost between auto cannons and las cannons.
The cost mostly, in the Marine armies when they cost as much as a HB they are stellar, when they cost 5 pts less than LC in IG...
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
 Jackster wrote: creeping-deth87 wrote:Wow, why no love for the missile launcher? I feel like they're actually a really good match for infantry squads because they can handle anti-tank duty, do much better against monstrous creatures than auto cannons, and can actually jive with las guns in the squad. Not everyone is savvy with displacement and they strike a nice balance in cost between auto cannons and las cannons.
The cost mostly, in the Marine armies when they cost as much as a HB they are stellar, when they cost 5 pts less than LC in IG...
I'm still used to 5th and just about everything having a cover save of 4+. That's why I praise the Autocannon, extra shot easy to wound. Potential to force 2 3+ vs 1 4+. Guess thats not as important now with cover being mostly a 5+ . However think about Terminators, and how most people lose them. By rolling 1's at least in my store. Attrition will kill them all
58966
Post by: tankboy145
I really like this thread as I use both but very little lascannons as i have 2 vendettas to deal with flyers. I see that most people vote autocannnons but with what is being said it seems logically right to field lascannons.
MrMoustaffa, what point level is your list and what do you run as im curious, do you run Infantry squads with lascannons, or Lascannon HWS, mostlikely a mix of both as i would assume?
I think i Might have to get more heavy weapon squads for the lascannons, but i deffinelty going to play test them first.
I never really saw the mortar as good, just seems nice if you can pin a unit. Never really considered the heavy bolter, maybe in a blob squad as it charged up the field but still doesnt seem viable. Autocannon was what ive always used as it seemed best. Missile launcher never seemed good at all so i never even tried it. I usualy use my lascannons for my CCS, used to have them on my LRBT but NOT ANYMORE  LRBT for the win though!
3933
Post by: Kingsley
Ailaros wrote:Then you consider that the heavy bolter is better against hordes, MEq, TEq, and that lascannons are better against AV11-AV14, MCs, and multiwound T4, and it really does make you wonder why bothering with autocannons at all?
Lascannons aren't much better than autocannons against AV11, and are worse when you add points into the equation. A BS3 lascannon removes 5/12 of a Hull Point against AV11, with a 1/9 chance of an instant kill. A BS3 autocannon removes 1/2 of a hull point, with a 1/18 chance of an instant kill. So an autocannon (which costs half as much as a lascannon) is better than it at removing Hull Points, and while it is bad at instantly killing vehicles, when you consider the fact that you can get two autocannons for the same price as one lascannon, the autocannon remains superior against AV10/11-- those two autocannons are more than twice as good as a lascannon at removing hull points, and equal to it in terms of Explodes results.
Further, autocannons benefit from another interesting subtlety that I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere-- inflicting Crew Shaken and Crew Stunned results is actually to your advantage when targeting a transport vehicle, which most AV10/11 vehicles you're likely to see are. If you take out a vehicle via Hull Point removal (which autocannons are strictly better than lascannons at) while inflicting a Crew Shaken result, the squad inside may only Snap Fire next turn and may not assault-- if you do the same while inflicting a Crew Stunned result, the squad inside may neither fire nor assault next turn.
On the other hand, if you destroy a transport via an Explodes! result, the squad inside may take damage (though this is far from guaranteed), but they will be able to shoot (and perhaps assault, depending on rules interpretations) in their next turn. Thus, in many cases you want to avoid inflicting Explodes! results so that you can ensure the squad inside is suppressed. Autocannons obviously do this much more reliably than lascannons do.
53403
Post by: TheCaptain
I love this response. Perfect.
But yeah, Peregrine is right here. If you're not getting much out of autocannons, you might just not be using them right. With some twin linking through prescience or an order, my blob's four of them shred around one transport per turn for me. It's...nice.
"Well lascannons would do it better!"
Sure, but so what. When you're shooting at AV10-11, even 12, paying double what an autocannon costs for 2 more str, and +1 on the damage table, and one less shot? Eh. Really not worth it. Not considering how much good those 40 points could do elsewhere.
Autocannons kill transports fine, and do it cheaply. They kill light troops fine, and do it cheaply. Lascannons can do these things a bit better, but you pay through the nose for it, and they're really not what lascannons are for.
Against T4 SV4+ (and anything weaker) you'll average 1 hit, and 5/6 wounds PER autocannon per turn. So, I mean, yeah. Autocannons work fine, as long as you shoot stuff they are actually effective against.
-Capt
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
Jackster wrote: AC is good against AV10-11, and the best thing a guardsman on foot can have to fight flyers with. It is also strong enough to wound MCs. HB kills infantry, though IMO we are better off using templates for such thing. Glancing AV10 to death is okay I guess.
I'm not shooting my infantry at fliers unless they literally have no other target. The only time they are the best choice, is when it's a FMC, in which case the lasguns are more likely to cause a wound than the AC, which is also a good case for the HB since it has one more shot. I'm really thinking that the HB will be my go to weapon since my infantry tend to focus on killing other infantry. I just wish there was a weapon we could choose for heavy infantry, like an assault cannon platform. I think it's odd that IG infantry gets no marine killing heavy weapon, and this is what we come up against most of the time anyway. For the case of what weapon is best for infantry, I think it comes down to what role they are most cost effective at performing. It seems to me that killing other infantry is their best role, otherwise those masses of lasguns are wasted points.
39755
Post by: Jackster
 Griddlelol wrote: Jackster wrote:
AC is good against AV10-11, and the best thing a guardsman on foot can have to fight flyers with. It is also strong enough to wound MCs.
HB kills infantry, though IMO we are better off using templates for such thing. Glancing AV10 to death is okay I guess.
I'm not shooting my infantry at fliers unless they literally have no other target. The only time they are the best choice, is when it's a FMC, in which case the lasguns are more likely to cause a wound than the AC, which is also a good case for the HB since it has one more shot.
I'm really thinking that the HB will be my go to weapon since my infantry tend to focus on killing other infantry. I just wish there was a weapon we could choose for heavy infantry, like an assault cannon platform. I think it's odd that IG infantry gets no marine killing heavy weapon, and this is what we come up against most of the time anyway.
For the case of what weapon is best for infantry, I think it comes down to what role they are most cost effective at performing. It seems to me that killing other infantry is their best role, otherwise those masses of lasguns are wasted points.
Nothing wrong if you do it that way.
Just that in a flyer heavy enviroment, having a bunch of cheap 75 pts HWS around and CCS for bring it down is pretty good.
What I'd really like is a Multi-laser platform.
48973
Post by: AtoMaki
Griddlelol wrote:
I'm really thinking that the HB will be my go to weapon since my infantry tend to focus on killing other infantry. I just wish there was a weapon we could choose for heavy infantry, like an assault cannon platform. I think it's odd that IG infantry gets no marine killing heavy weapon, and this is what we come up against most of the time anyway.
For the case of what weapon is best for infantry, I think it comes down to what role they are most cost effective at performing. It seems to me that killing other infantry is their best role, otherwise those masses of lasguns are wasted points.
Doh. Random question: what happens if your opponent brings full mech? Or just plays long-range gunline and stays out of the 36" brand? You put your wasted Heavy Bolters next to your wasted Lasguns?
Personally, I think Autocannons are like the grenade launchers of the heavy weapons section, only not as trashy and worthless. They can hurt lots of stuff, and with good rolls, they can hurt them badly (unlike the GL... but thats another story). And as an extra bonus, you can mass them hardcore if you want. Just think about it: for each lascannon shot, you can get four autocannon shots. How cool is that?
Well, not that cool. As a fun fact, that single lascannon can potentially do more damage and can hurt a wider range of targets than the two autocannons. And more importantly, it only takes up a single heavy weapon slot, so you can spam them in normal Infantry Squads and you don't need to take the super-durable Heavy Weapon Squads. And the lascannon laso has a better synergy with the worthwhile special weapons (melta, plasma) too. So I would call the lascannon as the best, simply because it just fits better and has a higher usefulness value than the AC.
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
 AtoMaki wrote:
Doh. Random question: what happens if your opponent brings full mech? Or just plays long-range gunline and stays out of the 36" brand? You put your wasted Heavy Bolters next to your wasted Lasguns?
Full mech means my infantry will be more suited to killing what comes out of the transport. In the current meta-game, people are crying about how easy it is to kill their transports and so tend to be moving away from them anyway.
Long range gunline means I have to move, just like I have to move if all I can bring to bear are the pathetically weak autocannon. I'm not going to sit back and take pot-shots with an autocannon when I can move and bring actual strategy.
You're looking at it in a vacuum. Just because part of my list can't deal with transports, doesn't mean everything else is just as weak, it just means I've specialised my infantry to deal with infantry.
Personally, I think Autocannons are like the grenade launchers of the heavy weapons section, only not as trashy and worthless. They can hurt lots of stuff, and with good rolls, they can hurt them badly (unlike the GL... but thats another story). And as an extra bonus, you can mass them hardcore if you want. Just think about it: for each lascannon shot, you can get four autocannon shots. How cool is that?
Just think about it this way, for each autocannon shot, you can get a single grenade launcher shot. They can also move with them, and put out blast templates, plus if they're charged they have a wall of death. They're even more spammable than autocannons, but it doesn't make them good. Just like autocannons. What's wrong with specialising? You don't see people putting a melta, a plasma and a flamer in their vet squads so they can "hurt lots of stuff." This is guard, it's meant to specialise, it works best when it specialises and it can do it incredibly well.
48973
Post by: AtoMaki
Griddlelol wrote:
You're looking at it in a vacuum. Just because part of my list can't deal with transports, doesn't mean everything else is just as weak, it just means I've specialised my infantry to deal with infantry.
But isn't that a little bit counter-productive? I mean, for example if you have 6 units, 3 specialized to kill infantry and 3 that can hurt vehicles too, then your full-mech opponent can ignore half of your army and simply focus on the 3 anti-vehicle units. And if he can bring them down, then he essentially won the game.
Griddlelol wrote:Just think about it this way, for each autocannon shot, you can get a single grenade launcher shot.
NO. I don't want to think about that way. I don't want to think about GLs in any way. It hurts my brain  .
Griddlelol wrote: What's wrong with specialising? You don't see people putting a melta, a plasma and a flamer in their vet squads so they can "hurt lots of stuff." This is guard, it's meant to specialise, it works best when it specialises and it can do it incredibly well.
Meltas and plasmas are versatile weapons on their own. Specializing on weapon =/= specializing on target.
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
AtoMaki wrote: But isn't that a little bit counter-productive? I mean, for example if you have 6 units, 3 specialized to kill infantry and 3 that can hurt vehicles too, then your full-mech opponent can ignore half of your army and simply focus on the 3 anti-vehicle units. And if he can bring them down, then he essentially won the game.
See below
Specializing on weapon =/= specializing on target.
You're also missing that in 6th you have to disembark. There's no hiding in transports on an objective. If you want to assault, you have to disembark a turn ahead. This just increases the effectiveness of anti-infantry weapons, which can also kill transports, not the effectiveness of anti-transport weapons that can also kill infantry. This is why plasmas have seen a massive come-back. They are great at one, and decent at another. Autocannons are at best ok at one, and weak at the other.
31084
Post by: Djdom
For what it's worth, here's my two-pence worth
I run autocannons in my infantry squads because in my local group autocannons have a reputation and are feared, mostly by the terminators in the group! I've no idea why this is, but it does seem to work, shooting autocannons at 2+ saves results in more 1s than lascannons cause wounds.
I include lascannons in my lists on hws as it doesn't synergise with lasguns and a team of 3 (with orders) gets the job done nicely!
I must point out in my local group flyers are none existent and armour rarely used so YMMV
53403
Post by: TheCaptain
Djdom wrote: shooting autocannons at 2+ saves results in more 1s than lascannons cause wounds.
No it doesn't.
35241
Post by: HawaiiMatt
I go with lascannons, in squads, and an even mix of melta/plasma for special weapons.
For weapon teams?
3-6 teams of mortars (because 4 Russes and 1 basilisk used up all my heavy support).
Mortar teams are a nice cheap way to snipe important non-IC's, and focus a lot of firepower where you need it.
Yes, the lowly lasgun does much of the same task as a mortar. But the 48" range of the mortar allows much better focus of fire than the rapid firing lasguns. With wounds being pulled from the center marker, you can drop them in the middle of a horde, and still FRFSRF the leading edge of the horde.
-Matt
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, one more point.
Cheap mortar teams hiding out of line of sight in my backfield can very effectively camp on objectives while still safely lobbing shots into the enemy.
-Matt
59773
Post by: Blaggard
I've always been tempted of bringing 15 mortar teams. Costs too much IRL for it though (unless I go the base on base route).
339
Post by: ender502
Just some food for thought...the actual answer to the "which is better?" question is...it depends.
Here are some numbers...assuming 6 rounds of shooting from an IF versus AR 10/11/12/13/14 - the number below the ar VALUE IS THE NUMBER OF GLANCES OR PENS.... We are not taing into account any orders that can be used... just plain BS 3 is all that is considered
ac - 6 hits over 6 rounds 4 (vs ar 10) 3 (vs ar 11) 2 (vs ar 12) 1 (vs ar 13) 0 (vs ar 14)
las: 3 hits over 6 rounds 3 (vs ar 10) 2.5 (vs ar 11) 2 (vs ar 12) 1.5 (vs ar 13) 1 (vs ar 14)
Of course this is just against AR values and doesn't take into accounts big nasty models. It also doesn't take into account cost. The IF squad w/ AC is cheaper than the las squad by about15%. While I won't use cost to show effectiveness versus AR (which really isn't the most valid thing to do) I can say that 6 IF squads with las will cost almost as much as 7 IF squads with autocannons. More, it strikes me, is better. And in case you are wondering...the price difference between AC and LAS with HWS works out with ac being about 13.6% cheaper...just about the same as the IF squad.
So what does this show us? The AC is more effective at AR 10 & 11, as effective at ar 12, less effective at ar 13 and 14.
So, depending on your meta...land raiders and monstrous creatures? Hordes and rhinos and dark eldar? you have a choice between 2 weapons that accomplish different tasks. So, AC is better versus 2 AR values, las is better versus 2 types and they are both equally valuable versus ar 12. SOUNDS LIKE A DRAW TO ME.
ender502
56367
Post by: Inquisitor Jex
I use lascannons and mortars in HWS with missile launchers in infantry squads. the ML is more for anti-infantry blasts with the possible anti-low/medium armour penetration and back-up AV weapons if the lascannons gets taken out or cannot fire at a priority target,
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
This thread is turning into a magic 8 ball answer. Result unclear!
For now I will be keeping both LC and AC in my list as neither can replace the other and I find both to be useful. Then again I am a guard wierdo who also likes grenade launchers and mortars.
58966
Post by: tankboy145
I agree I was hoping it would help me make a better decision but i think i might just have to use both in my list for the time being.
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
It typically seems that way beings you'll sometimes force 9+ 2+ saves and they fail 3 vs forcing 2-3 3++ saves and them failing 1ish
Most people remember 1's being rolled more than invuls.
For example I remember the time I killed 3/5 of my TH/ SS termies by exploding a LRBT, failed 3/3 2+ saves >.>
24707
Post by: Hesperus
Several people have said that a lascannon costs twice as much as an autocannon. Not true.
If we're talking HWS, autocannons cost 25 points and lascannons cost 35 points.
If we're talking basic grunt squads, an autocannon costs 60 points and a lascannon costs 70 points, assuming no other squad upgrades. If you're shooting the heavy weapon, the rest of the squad is doing jack diddly, so you should really factor in the cost.
Does that change anyone's calculus?
34666
Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com
Hesperus wrote:Several people have said that a lascannon costs twice as much as an autocannon. Not true.
If we're talking HWS, autocannons cost 25 points and lascannons cost 35 points.
If we're talking basic grunt squads, an autocannon costs 60 points and a lascannon costs 70 points, assuming no other squad upgrades. If you're shooting the heavy weapon, the rest of the squad is doing jack diddly, so you should really factor in the cost.
Does that change anyone's calculus?
Well you can still move and snapshot heavy weapons. Not the worst Idea with a Platoon with 5 HWT's in it to move issue bring it down and shoot at a flyer.
53403
Post by: TheCaptain
Hesperus wrote:Several people have said that a lascannon costs twice as much as an autocannon. Not true.
If we're talking HWS, autocannons cost 25 points and lascannons cost 35 points.
If we're talking basic grunt squads, an autocannon costs 60 points and a lascannon costs 70 points, assuming no other squad upgrades. If you're shooting the heavy weapon, the rest of the squad is doing jack diddly, so you should really factor in the cost.
Does that change anyone's calculus?
No.
That is completely misinterpreting the way prices of an upgrade works.
Also
If you're shooting the heavy weapon, you can also fire the lasguns, provided the enemy is in range.
There are the codex-specific prices of the weapons listed on page 97 of Codex: Imperial Guard, and that is how they are assessed.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
Interesting point Ender502. My area has practically given up on anything under AV 12 (except for the pointy ears) and that could be a big factor influencing my experiences. Simply put, the things autocannons are good at killing, I just don't see anymore. As a result, I feel more and more like they are useless. The few times I have come up against rhinos/other low av vehicles, they've performed well, but these instances are increasingly rare. Something I've been wondering about though, is if the autocannon is really that much cheaper if you're trying to spam them. I've spammed autocannons before (like, 18 in a 2k list spammed) and I know what happens when you try to pull this. Simply put, you run out of places to stick the damn things. Let's say you want 100pts worth of autocannons. Although the gun itself is cheap, you still need available slots to buy the weapon for. This means you either need 10 infantry units with available heavy weapon slots, or will have to resort to HWS's. Long story short, I'm having to spend a lot on carriers to get the level of firepower I need from autocannons. However, to get a 100pts of lascannons, I only need 5 squads with free heavy weapon slots, which can easily be filled by a single platoon with no HWS's required. If lascannons are putting out roughly equal or superior damage to all but a select few targets, I'm getting better bang for my buck, because I don't need to spend as much points for carriers as the autocannon guy does to get a similar level of firepower and damage. Even if the lascannon comes out slightly behind the autocannon point for point, I'm better off with lascannons because I can bring more pts worth of firepower with less slots. To demonstrate what I'm talking about in non idiot language, here's an example. I'm going to buy 80pts worth of each heavy weapon, and see how much I'm having to spend on carriers, as if I was writing a basic core to a list. I'm keeping things simple, and only using platoons, CCS, and vet squads. I'm not adding HWS's at the moment just to keep things simpler, but the trend continues with them added, just less extreme. I'm also not adding any other upgrades whatsoever. This is just to show what happens as you start to buy these heavy weapons and what happens to available slots. So, to get 80pts of autocannons on infantry units in the cheapest way possible (without HWS's), aka 8 autocannons That's 480pts, as is. So basically, you're spending 400pts on carriers to get 80pts worth of autocannons, if you ignore HWS's. If your goal is to get lots of heavy weapons, or at least get a decent amount of firepower from them, autocannons force you to either buy tons of squads to get that 80pts of autocannons or resort to HWS's. Obviously, no sane person is buying squads just for the heavy weapon, but what it means is that if you want to add a significant amount of firepower with autocannons, you're going to end up spending a lot on carriers for them. Now, to see how many units I need to get 80 points of lascannons. thats 330pts as is, and that's without even using the PCS slot, leaving them free to perform other duties. Ignoring the weapon costs, I'm only paying 250pts (technically 220 if you ignore the PCS) to get the slots I need to field the 80pts worth of lascannons. So if both heavy weapons are doing roughly an equal amount of damage for the points you pay (aka 8 Autocannons are getting 80pts worth of damage and the 4 lascannons are getting 80pts worth of damage) I can actually get the lascannons CHEAPER by having to spend far less on guardsmen to lug the things around. I'm getting just as much firepower as the autocannon guy, with far fewer slots being used up in the process. By not having to get extra carriers to lug heavy weapons around, this gives me more points elsewhere in the list to buy other, more powerful weapons to make my army stronger. Admittedly, if you're bringing a ton of infantry squads anyways, the fact that it takes a lot of slots to field a decent pts worth of autocannons won't bother you. But for other guys like Ailaros, who fields two minimum strength platoons with a unit of SITNW conscripts each, he can get a 120pts worth of lascannons for much cheaper than he could get 120pts worth of autocannons. This means he's getting a similar level of firepower for "cheaper". I'll try to edit this down a bit and condense it once I've had some more sleep. I've been working a lot this weekend, so I'm a bit tired. Hope this makes sense as to what I'm trying to get across. (and yes, in case you haven't figured out, I enjoy endlessly debating minute differences in completely unimportant things. Gotta keep busy somehow when you live in the middle of nowhere )
24707
Post by: Hesperus
Would you mind explaining how it's a misinterpretation? And if you want to shoot your lasguns at the tanks you're shooting with your heavy weapon, go right ahead.
Quick edit: sounds like MrMoustaffa is thinking along the same lines.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Because the rest of the squad is still doing something. It's still claiming the objective, it's still providing a cover save and assault protection to the more important unit behind it, it's still ready to fire those lasguns next turn when you need to kill an infantry target, etc. Reducing an entire unit to a single heavy weapon just isn't an accurate model.
24707
Post by: Hesperus
I'm assuming you think it's an accurate model for the HWS, though?
And obviously an IS has more value than just the heavy weapon; otherwise people would minimize IS's and maximize HWS's. My point is that, when you're comparing heavy weapons, you can't ignore the fact that you can't buy the weapon by itself. It would be like saying that battle cannons are free when you get them on Leman Russes because you don't pay extra for them.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
Hesperus wrote:I'm assuming you think it's an accurate model for the HWS, though?
And obviously an IS has more value than just the heavy weapon; otherwise people would minimize IS's and maximize HWS's. My point is that, when you're comparing heavy weapons, you can't ignore the fact that you can't buy the weapon by itself. It would be like saying that battle cannons are free when you get them on Leman Russes because you don't pay extra for them.
The way I've looked at HWS's is that you're paying 30pts for 6 guardsmen. You then pay the additional price for each heavy weapon, which with 3 mortars comes out to 15pts. This leaves 15pts leftover, which is your "premium" for getting to have the heavy weapons by themselves in a squad. This 15pts extra stays consistent no matter which heavy weapons you buy. Basically, you're always buying 3 heavy weapons, with a 45pts tax to get them in a 3 base strong squad.
339
Post by: ender502
 MrMoustaffa wrote:Interesting point Ender502. My area has practically given up on anything under AV 12 (except for the pointy ears) and that could be a big factor influencing my experiences. Simply put, the things autocannons are good at killing, I just don't see anymore. As a result, I feel more and more like they are useless. The few times I have come up against rhinos/other low av vehicles, they've performed well, but these instances are increasingly rare.
Something I've been wondering about though, is if the autocannon is really that much cheaper if you're trying to spam them. I've spammed autocannons before (like, 18 in a 2k list spammed) and I know what happens when you try to pull this. Simply put, you run out of places to stick the damn things. Let's say you want 100pts worth of autocannons. Although the gun itself is cheap, you still need available slots to buy the weapon for. This means you either need 10 infantry units with available heavy weapon slots, or will have to resort to HWS's. Long story short, I'm having to spend a lot on carriers to get the level of firepower I need from autocannons. However, to get a 100pts of lascannons, I only need 5 squads with free heavy weapon slots, which can easily be filled by a single platoon with no HWS's required. If lascannons are putting out roughly equal or superior damage to all but a select few targets, I'm getting better bang for my buck, because I don't need to spend as much points for carriers as the autocannon guy does to get a similar level of firepower and damage. Even if the lascannon comes out slightly behind the autocannon point for point, I'm better off with lascannons because I can bring more pts worth of firepower with less slots.
To demonstrate what I'm talking about in non idiot language, here's an example. I'm going to buy 80pts worth of each heavy weapon, and see how much I'm having to spend on carriers, as if I was writing a basic core to a list. I'm keeping things simple, and only using platoons, CCS, and vet squads. I'm not adding HWS's at the moment just to keep things simpler, but the trend continues with them added, just less extreme. I'm also not adding any other upgrades whatsoever. This is just to show what happens as you start to buy these heavy weapons and what happens to available slots.
So, to get 80pts of autocannons on infantry units in the cheapest way possible (without HWS's), aka 8 autocannons
That's 480pts, as is. So basically, you're spending 400pts on carriers to get 80pts worth of autocannons, if you ignore HWS's. If your goal is to get lots of heavy weapons, or at least get a decent amount of firepower from them, autocannons force you to either buy tons of squads to get that 80pts of autocannons or resort to HWS's. Obviously, no sane person is buying squads just for the heavy weapon, but what it means is that if you want to add a significant amount of firepower with autocannons, you're going to end up spending a lot on carriers for them.
Now, to see how many units I need to get 80 points of lascannons.
thats 330pts as is, and that's without even using the PCS slot, leaving them free to perform other duties. Ignoring the weapon costs, I'm only paying 250pts (technically 220 if you ignore the PCS) to get the slots I need to field the 80pts worth of lascannons.
So if both heavy weapons are doing roughly an equal amount of damage for the points you pay (aka 8 Autocannons are getting 80pts worth of damage and the 4 lascannons are getting 80pts worth of damage) I can actually get the lascannons CHEAPER by having to spend far less on guardsmen to lug the things around. I'm getting just as much firepower as the autocannon guy, with far fewer slots being used up in the process. By not having to get extra carriers to lug heavy weapons around, this gives me more points elsewhere in the list to buy other, more powerful weapons to make my army stronger. Admittedly, if you're bringing a ton of infantry squads anyways, the fact that it takes a lot of slots to field a decent pts worth of autocannons won't bother you. But for other guys like Ailaros, who fields two minimum strength platoons with a unit of SITNW conscripts each, he can get a 120pts worth of lascannons for much cheaper than he could get 120pts worth of autocannons. This means he's getting a similar level of firepower for "cheaper".
I'll try to edit this down a bit and condense it once I've had some more sleep. I've been working a lot this weekend, so I'm a bit tired. Hope this makes sense as to what I'm trying to get across. (and yes, in case you haven't figured out, I enjoy endlessly debating minute differences in completely unimportant things. Gotta keep busy somehow when you live in the middle of nowhere )
That's an interesting way of looking at it..my comparisons above are a single weapon versus a single weapon. Cost was not a factor.
I think where your analysis is most apt (and 100%) correct is in looking at how to make the autocannon work as well or better than the las cannon versus av 13 and 14...well, av14 is right out the window, eh? So, versus av13 you need 50% more autocannons as las cannons. SO basically you are looking at increasing your costs by 50% as well (again, assuming the standard IF squad). In that case the autocannon IS more expensive than the lascannon. The other side of the coin is the lascannon versus av 11. In that scenario you would need 20% more lascannons which are already (for the points) twice as expensive and include an IF squad..Or putting in a total coost light. the las cannon is actually (when you include the squad price) about 15 % more expensive. Versus lower AR values you need to increase that by an additional 20%..so you get an equal firepower with the lascannon at an 18% increase in total cost...not a good trade off even if we are talking about a relative increase of only 12 or 13 points.
Ofcourse, the situation is turned on its head when you are comparing versus AR 13..and the utility of the autocannon drops by a lot.
In the end I think they both do different jobs and you have to pick the one that is most useful in your own meta. Like you said, you aren't seeing av12 at all. That would clearly make the las a better choice for you. This is very much a "right tool fo are the right job" sort of thing... for higher AV my army has other tools .. LRBT's, Vendettas and melta vets... The autocannons don't shoot at AV 13 unless everything else has gone and there are no other options....or they have nothinG else in LOS.
I guess I should conclude and just say this..... in talking about guard, a good balance of weapons is the way to go in a take all comers list assuming you don't know what you will be fighting. Huuhhhh...maybe GW actually did something right.
ender502
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Yes, you're right, Moustaffa. In addition to the math favoring the lascannon for killing power (the existence of glancing vehicles to death causing some people to pretend like penetrating hits don't exist, or aren't better is puzzling to me), but it also has better force concentration. Easier to get more power on target, more efficient orders, and a greater position of your killing power in cover and with good fire lanes.
It's also more efficient, as, when spamming them, you have to pay for fewer carriers. As you mention, to get the same amount of killing power out of autocannons, you've got to spend more points to take more HWSs (or whatever) in order to field the quantity required.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ailaros wrote:(the existence of glancing vehicles to death causing some people to pretend like penetrating hits don't exist, or aren't better is puzzling to me)
It makes perfect sense when you realize that death by HP removal is much more likely than death by the damage table unless you're talking about melta or railguns (especially now that random 'weapon destroyed' results don't act as a guaranteed kill against gun tanks). For example, let's consider a lascannon against the average 3 HP vehicle: assuming you get three penetrating hits, you have a 70% chance of getting an "explodes" result, but a 100% chance of wrecking it. If you don't have AP 2 you're down to a 40% chance of "explodes", but still 100% chance of wrecking it. Once you add in glances (a major factor with high-volume fire where you might have a 5 to glance, 6 to pen) and you'll find that while it's nice to have a penetrating hit most of your vehicle kills will be through stripping HP.
Conclusion: the most important thing now is to maximize your volume of HP removal, with any rolls on the damage table being a nice bonus.
53403
Post by: TheCaptain
 Peregrine wrote:Conclusion: the most important thing now is to maximize your volume of HP removal, with any rolls on the damage table being a nice bonus.
Kinda the philosophy I buy into as well. We are guard, after all. Volume of fire is...sortof our thing.
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Peregrine wrote:... with any rolls on the damage table being a nice bonus.
I'd say that killing a vehicle outright instead of having to spend a few more turns shooting at it to peel off all its remaining HP is a hell of a bonus. I mean, back in 5th ed, you could always kill something by glancing it to death through weapon destroyed and immobilized results. It is now easier to kill by glancing, but that still doesn't make it fast or efficient.
And that speed is very important. If you kill that land raider turn 1 with a lascannon, now those terminators are walking. That's a pretty big deal. If a trukk is barreling down at you, and you cause a vehicle explosion that kills half the boyz inside, that's a pretty big deal. And that's just exploding. Immobilize a transport, and it's no longer a transport. Cause a weapon destroyed result to a helldrake with the flamer template, and you have now saved probably several squads of infantry compared to if you had to bring it down the hard way with glances, all the while allowing that unit to keep shooting. Plus, once you kill a vehicle, it frees up the weapon to shoot at other stuff, allowing it to do even more damage over all.
The best way to kill vehicles is still killing them now, and causing casualties to nearby units, than killing them later, after they've already made a strategic impact, and allowing them to get unharmed out of a transport. Killing outright is still much better. Glancing to death is more GW taking pity on lower strength weapons than an attempt to substitute crummy anti-tank weapons for good ones.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ailaros wrote:I'd say that killing a vehicle outright instead of having to spend a few more turns shooting at it to peel off all its remaining HP is a hell of a bonus. I mean, back in 5th ed, you could always kill something by glancing it to death through weapon destroyed and immobilized results. It is now easier to kill by glancing, but that still doesn't make it fast or efficient.
Except it does make it fast and efficient. Read the stats I posted again, even if you're doing nothing but AP 2 penetrating hits you still have almost a 50% chance of killing the target by stripping its last hull point before you get an "explodes" result. It's nice when your dice love you and you blow it up on the first shot, but it's not even close to reliable.
And comparing it to 5th edition glancing to death is just laughable. 5th edition glancing to death was an incredibly rare situation that required a lot of luck with the dice (or dice that hated you and wouldn't roll pens), 6th edition HP removal is extremely consistent and often happens faster than trying to kill something through the damage table.
If you kill that land raider turn 1 with a lascannon, now those terminators are walking.
That's a big assumption. To simplify the math a bit, let's assume that each time you get a penetrating hit you also get a simultaneous glancing hit (reasonable when you have 5s to glance, 6s to pen). You have only a 55% chance of killing it at the same speed or faster with an "explodes" result than with HP removal. That's a 55% chance to break even on your plan, and a 45% chance of killing it SLOWER with the damage table.
Glancing to death is more GW taking pity on lower strength weapons than an attempt to substitute crummy anti-tank weapons for good ones.
Read more carefully. The odds I posted were for lascannons. The only weapons that will consistently kill a target through the damage table before they kill it through hull point removal are melta and railguns.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
Lascannons are awesome and all Ailaros, but I will have to agree that Peregrine has a point. I get redicuosly lucky with mine (as in, something blows up first shot every game it seems) but in reality, what the pens will do is slowly cripple a vehicle until the final glance finishes it off. Maybe you just shake it, maybe you immobilize it, whatever. The thing is you have to wear em down, lascannons just have a better chance of killing it outright. The nice thing is that with a lascannon you've got a better chance of neutralising that vehicle for a turn. For example, shaking that gun tank so it can't fire at full effect.
I use my lascannons just like I used autocannons. I pick a target, make sure I've got a good lane of fire, and then tell my opponent "that thing dies this turn. One lascannon or 20, it. Will. Die."
Of course, that's kind of IG in a nutshell.
And seeing all the stuff for autocannons, I may give em another try. I still stand by my statement that they feel useless in my meta though. As for the average guy reading this thread, just because I'm more for lascannons, doesn't mean autocannons are trash. I'm sure most people can find god uses for them in their area. Mine is just so crazy right now that when it comes to vehicles and MC's, its go big or go home. For people who have a wider playerbase, a balance between the two is probably the best way to g
339
Post by: ender502
Ailaros wrote:Yes, you're right, Moustaffa. In addition to the math favoring the lascannon for killing power (the existence of glancing vehicles to death causing some people to pretend like penetrating hits don't exist, or aren't better is puzzling to me), but it also has better force concentration. Easier to get more power on target, more efficient orders, and a greater position of your killing power in cover and with good fire lanes.
It's also more efficient, as, when spamming them, you have to pay for fewer carriers. As you mention, to get the same amount of killing power out of autocannons, you've got to spend more points to take more HWSs (or whatever) in order to field the quantity required.
I think you're missing the point..entirely. The lascannon is better at killing some targets and it is less good at killing others.
Moustaffa's point was 100% correct when asking an autocannon to be as good as a lascannon (which it is at AR10,11 & 12) for AR 13. Simply put, the autocannon will never be as good at hurting AR13 as the lascannon. This is much the same way as a lascannon will never be as good at killing a guardsman, a land speeder or a rhino as an autocannon will be.
Different tools for different jobs. It really isn't that complicated. Both weapons have their place.
ender502
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
I see a lot of people saying "for my meta x > y" now how about we extend this to tournament play where we don't know what to expect and so there is a usefulness to know what weapon is better.
59773
Post by: Blaggard
Goddamit, going to have to do a chart for vs AV x now.
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
Lets ask another question: what should a balanced guard list be including for heavy weapons. If you don't like AC where/with what do you make up their rate of medium strength fire. If you don't like LC where are you mking up your anti take firepower.
Personally I take a Stalin approach to guard in that I preffer quantity over quality. Redundancy is our strength, we can weather the storm and dish it out. I am yet to field guard in 6th as I am still condensing what list will work for me. I bought 2 manticores to use, I have to refit my LRBT as I am not firing a weapon that makes me snapfire the reminding weapons on my platform. I bought one vendetta. And I like approx 65-100 infantry.
Lets say I went with the AC are suboptimal group. How would I make up the 18 str 7 log range shot that I was dishing out previously (these are not plasma shots, those never get left out of the list).
In other words what I want is practical application of how you would omit or utilize the weapons types you are either for or against. Stats in a vacuum only tell one story, the game we play is fairly dynamic.
59773
Post by: Blaggard
Done, I think. Shows total points spent on killing a HP3 with BS3. Not that convinced my maths is perfect (mainly because some people would disagree with the results) so I've added the speadsheet as an attachment. It's in open office format. Sheet1 is calculations, the weapon select is a drop down box.
| Filename |
GWSplody.ods |
![[Disk]](/dakkaforum/templates/default/images/icon_disk.gif)
Download
|
| Description |
|
| File size |
20 Kbytes
|
339
Post by: ender502
Griddlelol wrote:I see a lot of people saying "for my meta x > y" now how about we extend this to tournament play where we don't know what to expect and so there is a usefulness to know what weapon is better.
I think that is part of the problem...there is no way to determine which one is better than the other in every situation.
For Guard it seems as if a balanced approach will work best.... I have specific anti-armor elements. I also have specific anti-horde/light vehicle elements. I always take a lascannon with a CCS because it is better versus any AV than an autocannon. It's not that the lascannon is intrinsically better across all platforms/units but it is way better in a CCS.
When I ran my numbers i just looked at either weapon "doing damage" that means glancing or penetrating. Because of the ability for pens to not actually destroy a vehicle, and vehicles ability to have multiple weapons, I think it is going to be difficult to add "penetrating" results as a factor. Well, at least not beyond "X% OF PENS = VEHICLE DESTROYED"
Past that you'll literally need to make a chart VS every vehicle and every vehicle permutation.
ender502
Automatically Appended Next Post: BLAGGARD..THAT IS AWESOME!!!
I think that shows the basic cost of doing damage at the lower AV values is better than the las...the cost seems to equalize right around AV 12. At that point the las gets way better.
ender502
39296
Post by: gpfunk
There are the associated fringe benefits of using lascannons. Like the fact that just because a penetrating hit didn't blow up the vehicle doesn't mean it's not out of commission for a turn. So if a lascannon penetrates the least it is doing is stopping the vehicle from firing. It can also force the thing not to move, immobilize it permanently, or remove a key weapon. So, the lascannon may not be able to shave off HP as effectively. But if it silences the leman russ or manticore or vindicator or any other scary shooting thing for a round or for the game, then I think it has already earned some of its keep right there.
So, with the lascannon more likely to penetrate, you're more likely to get the favorable results with a +1 to that roll. I understand it's a random chance, as is most everything in this game, and it's possible for you to get the worst possible result for your target (i.e. immobilized for a leman russ that was never going to move), but where the autocannon is more likely to shave multiple HP through glances, a lascannon is more likely to shave an hp AND get a nifty status effect.
Something to consider. It's not like that table or effects disappeared after 6th edition came out.
34120
Post by: ruminator
My main issue here is down to spacing and orders. Those 60mm round bases take up a lot of space and if you're running them in blobs as well as separate HWSs, then there's a concern in having enough potential order givers in range and making sure enough of the teams can somehow leach of the back of someone else's leadership. The leadership of HWSs is prety abysmal and there's pretty much only a 50/50 chance of getting that order off if you don't, say, take Kell in your command squad, attach a Lord Comm etc
If there's going to be a HWS reliant on their own leadership then I'd always put this on one with multi-shots. 6 shots at WS3 and I'm reasonably happy if 3 hit. With lascannons, it's either 2 which is great or 1 which is a disaster. I'd fancy a non-twin linked AC team to maybe take 2 hull points of a rhino/razorback etc, but not a LC team!
For armour 13 or 14 I'm looking at ordnance or melta to do a job and not really my HWSs.
59773
Post by: Blaggard
I didn't take into account the Weapon Destroyed and immobilized because that'll make the maths more annoying (X chance to immobilize+destroyed Y weapons).
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
TheLionOfTheForest asked a really good question, and I have no idea how to answer it. There really isn't a true substitute for either heavy weapon on infantry. The closest thins is the vendetta against lascannons, but a vendetta can't contribute to an alpha strike, which is usually why you take infantry carried lascannons. The exterminator and hydra are close "substitutes" for infantry carried autocannons, but the hydra has to snapfire at ground targets, and the exterminator can't put out nearly as many autocannon shots as you could with infantry carried autocannons. The closest I've found to making up my lack of autocannons were leman russ executioners, as they put out 5 ap2 S7 blasts a turn. That's enough S7 shots to put a hurt on most light vehicles, and scattering can be a good thing if the enemy vehicles are packed in. But I've never gotten to test this idea in game, and it's a pretty inefficient way to handle it. To handle a lack of lascannons, you'd probably need to rely on more melta guns, and using things like suicide stormies or paratrooper vets.
If I were going to a place where i didnt know what I was in for, I'd take lascannons and autocannons in roughly a 2:1 ratio. And that's really only because of how they can cover each other's roles. For example, if I'm up against DE skimmers, my lascannons aren't useless, they can still kill skimmers. They're not as efficient as autocannons, but they can pull their weight. However, if I pull a BT player with nothing but landraiders and termis, the autocannon can't do much. the best it can hope for is to ding a termi off occassionally. However, since autocannons are cheap, and I didn't take a lot, it wouldn't be as big a deal. But that's how I look at it, I'm sure others would take the exact opposite approach.
59773
Post by: Blaggard
I'm thinking just have you're infantry as 55pt flamer carriers with suicide SS and sponsoned executioners*. If HWSs could take plasma cannons that'd be a very interesting choice.
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
MrMoustaffa wrote: the exterminator can't put out nearly as many autocannon shots as you could with infantry carried autocannons. The closest I've found to making up my lack of autocannons were leman russ executioners, as they put out 5 ap2 S7 blasts a turn. That's enough S7 shots to put a hurt on most light vehicles, and scattering can be a good thing if the enemy vehicles are packed in. But I've never gotten to test this idea in game, and it's a pretty inefficient way to handle it.
I've found the exterminator to be the weakest Russ variant I've taken so far. I avoid them now. I don't know if that could be a commentary on how useful ACs are, or how useful ACs are on a Russ which can take far better options. I find it interesting that you are considering the executioner to deal with low AV. I always try to pop the transport with autocannons or lascannons then proceed to use the Executioner to vaporise what ever was inside said transport. To handle a lack of lascannons, you'd probably need to rely on more melta guns, and using things like suicide stormies or paratrooper vets.
I think this is a really good point. Missing lascannons on turn one will hurt the alpha strike, but on turn two, you can get a lot of anti-vehicle in. Stormies, vets, vendettas. These are also all good against MCs. It leads me to consider that if I'm taking these things anyway, the low- av transport popping should be in my infantry squads. It also gives a far more reliable chance on turn two. You don't have to worry about night fighting then. If I were going to a place where i didnt know what I was in for, I'd take lascannons and autocannons in roughly a 2:1 ratio.
Does the 2:1 ratio of las:auto consider vehicles? Or is that just on infantry. My 1500 TAC list has Las:auto in a 2:1 ratio now I come to think of it. The infantry troop sporting the ACs and the vehicles or CCS taking LCs. I would like to find a more efficient way of popping transports other than ACs on infantry. Short of allying GK and taking a psyfleman dread, I can't think of one in the IG codex.
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
Braggart - thanks for the awesome cost analysis graph. It confirms for me that both weapons are needed.
Moustaffa - I too go for a 2-1 ration of LC to AC.
My 5th list had evolved to approx 20 and 30 man blobs with LC and PG. HWTs with 6 to 9 AC. 3 LRBTs 2 regular and one Demolisher. 2 CCS with LC. 2 PCS with 1 mortar and 2 flamers.
My current issue is obviously retooling he army for 6th Ed, in that I need to figure out how to hold objectives. I WAS a static gun line before.
I still like the idea of LC and PG in my squads and AC for HWTs. You want to waste your time shooting at HWTs with AC in cover, go ahead (redundancy). I do try to maximize orders for my troops. I have 2 chimeras (enough?) to throw scoring troops in and one vendetta to put a SWS squad in to score. Like I said before I need to recustomize my LRBT,s one or 2 with the all plasma setup. Maybe keep he Demolisher although I preffer longer range than 2 feet for guard as it is unforgiving. And also how to fit in 2 manticores without gimping the LRBTs that will be squaded.
If hurricane sandy doesn't knock out my power I will post up a list later today. (Not doing it with my iPhone)
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
Well, only reason I see the executioner as a way to deal with low AV is that if I'm up against a large horde of flimsy vehicles, the things that the executioner is meant to kill (MEQ, TEQ) are probably not on the field. Essentially, figuring out how to use it in less than perfect scenarios.
As for the 2:1 lascannon/autocannon ratio, that counts for my whole army. Vehicles, infantry, whatever, 2:1 ratio if possible.
And to be completely honest, our whole codex can pretty much annihilate low AV. Even vehicles like the punisher which were never meant for the task can usually put a hurt on flimsy transports. The key then is figuring out what to shoot first and at what targets. In my exectutioner example, obviously I would wait until after all my infantry heavy weapons had fire. Hopefully, they would have popped a few transports and the executioner can mop up the survivors. However, if the transports live, I have a backup plan to stop them. Basically, redundancy.
59773
Post by: Blaggard
Give him pask as well as *essentially* you have S8 autocannons and S6 HBs against vehicles.
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
Your line of thinking is similar to mine Moustaffa... still the problem lies in how the hell are we going to get to and hold points or the relic without dying. I have also toyed with the idea of including Pask and I have come to the conclusion that he would be nice to have, if there is points left over. I am also considering armored sentinals with, you guessed it, more auto cannons. These would give more av 12 armor saturation to make my chimera's be part of a larger target pool. I would possibly also use them as screeners for my Chimeras. The third reason, again more AC saturation. With 2 manticore's that I want to field and squading up 2 LRBTs (which should be the max I think) I assume I will have left over points to include them. I know they are fragile, however I think that just having more things on the board (that can be in cover) will provide too many targets for most armies to handle efficiently. In my experience if guard go firs and roll well, we can do a lot of damage. In addition most opponents we go up against wont be able to work through 1 or 2 turns of bad shooting, since they really need to optimize the number of our units that they are killing a turn. I find guard to be able to take a lot of hits before you start loosing effective firepower.
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
I've taken the easy way out when it comes to forward objectives: allies. Every time I've tried to sit a squad on an objective, it gets assaulted, or shot off. My fire-ball PCS has on occasion actually scored, but it's pretty rare that they manage to flame a target off. Nice, tough space marines on the other hand can sit on a forward objective without any worry for a couple of turns. They act as a great distraction and do a nice amount of damage. People under estimate rapid firing bolters.
When playing pure guard, I try to maximise the strengths we have: resilient blobs to hold home objectives.
Big guns and search lights for turn 1 alpha strike.
339
Post by: ender502
I gues sthe question about objectives revolves around how quickly can we obliterate our opponent with firepower and can we then move our blobs fast enough to take or contest objectives. We can't realistically take and hold objectives on turns 2 or 3.. guard just aren't resilient enough to hold.
So, I assume we have to spend 3 turns of nothing but shooting and then move on turn 5 to actually take or contest. But even if we do that are blobs fast enough? Do we need to invest in cheap infantry squads that do nothing but grab objectives in the last 2 turns?
I have veterans and storm troopers as specialist weapon toters. But they are usually sort of sacrificial. I doubt they'll make it to turn 6.
ender502
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
Space marine allies does seem like the perfect answer. BA assault troops would be my choice.
59773
Post by: Blaggard
I've been playing around with the idea of having space wolves ally holding the home objective, with a blob and Termi SS/CF LW walking forward.
339
Post by: ender502
Allies are pants!
ender502
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
TheLionOfTheForest wrote:Space marine allies does seem like the perfect answer. BA assault troops would be my choice.
I use something similar - ouflanking GHs with a Wolf Priest and as much plasma as I can bring. They're pretty nasty actually, I always feel rather bad when they stroll onto the board and wipe out any SM squad <8 men without a problem. I toyed with the idea of BA deep strikers too, but I wanted them to be able to sit there and shoot. I think pistol/ CCW would be wasted when I can take bolters and plasma. Blaggard wrote:I've been playing around with the idea of having space wolves ally holding the home objective, with a blob and Termi SS/CF LW walking forward.
I feel that guard works well for holding home objectives. A 30 man blob in a 1500pt game, joined by a character with ATSKNF doesn't die. ender502 wrote:Allies are pants!
You're pants!
59924
Post by: RegalPhantom
Just a question. Admittedly I'm not a guard player so I don't have the most in-depth knowledge of the army, but when you consider the role of the Lascannon, Anti-Tank, could you argue that the potential value of lascannons not only has them competing with autocannons on HW teams (both within troops platoons and Heavy Support Choices) but also with other anti-tank weapons as well, particularly meltaguns. In that case, could you perhaps argue that you may want to take Autocannons over Lascannons because, while Autocannons do fill a more specific niche than a lascannon, the role that Lascannons play is better filled by other choices in your army, such as Melta-vets and deep striking stormtroopers?
I'm guess that what I am basically asking is whether the choice between autocannons and lascannons should be decided soley by their performance against each other, but if the performance of other anti-tank/anti-heavy weapons, such as plasma and melta, and if so or not, what are the implications for the composition of the rest of your army list?
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
RegalPhantom wrote:In that case, could you perhaps argue that you may want to take Autocannons over Lascannons because, while Autocannons do fill a more specific niche than a lascannon, the role that Lascannons play is better filled by other choices in your army, such as Melta-vets and deep striking stormtroopers?
Pretty much the conclusion I came to. I've got anti-tank in Vendettas and melta-vets. I'd love anti-infantry but then I'd lose out on my av12 and lower threat so it's got to stay autocannons unfortunately.
59773
Post by: Blaggard
Well, from my maths, I'd say lascannons are a waste on BS3 units. Auto cannons apparently do everything for cheaper on BS3 models. Melta guns and guards other anti-tank weapons will have to do for the AV14
I'd argue that both these weapons need a rethink, why spend 90(AC)/150(LC) to wreck a AV12 vehicle wreak per turn? What could be spent there instead?
edit: I've come to a different conclusion than that of the both of you two. Autocannons fill *every* niche apart from wrecking AV14 and instagibbing T4 things for cheaper than a lascannon on a BS3 model. They're only a little bit more expensive per wound than HBs for what HBs are supposed to do as well.
339
Post by: ender502
Griddlelol wrote:RegalPhantom wrote:In that case, could you perhaps argue that you may want to take Autocannons over Lascannons because, while Autocannons do fill a more specific niche than a lascannon, the role that Lascannons play is better filled by other choices in your army, such as Melta-vets and deep striking stormtroopers?
Pretty much the conclusion I came to. I've got anti-tank in Vendettas and melta-vets. I'd love anti-infantry but then I'd lose out on my av12 and lower threat so it's got to stay autocannons unfortunately.
Even though I am an autocannon fan, I ALWAYS put a lascannon in the CCS. That BS 4 makes it better at just about everything. But, as pointed out by others, most of my guard AT comes from vets/vendettas/vehicles. The infantry/ hws weapons are all about killing light vehicles/hordes and giving t6 something to worry about.
ender502
62216
Post by: Griddlelol
Me too. It's fairly reliable. I'm considering trading it out for 4 snipers in the CCS just to keep their threat level even lower. I really want to like snipers, they just don't do anything awesome when I use them.
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
BID makes LC worth it in squads for me, especially if i have blobbed 20 or 30 man squads with LC.
BA do get cheap devastators with 4 ML, a weapon system we have already agreed is not worth it for Guard, maybe that would mitigate the need for so many AC. Or maybe I just add further firepower to what I have. If I add marines, they will be as cheap and effective units as I can pack... again for redundancy. Dont want the marine contingent getting picked off... BA could also use DSing melta. I hate having to figure out each game how to get the guardsman with the MG to the target in one peice. BA assaulters negate the "how to" part.
The more I think about it, maybe guard would be the better allied contingent, I mean we can pack a TON of troops into one troop choice... the only problem is I am gimping my heavy slot choices to one Manticore or squading LRBTs.
59773
Post by: Blaggard
Just did another calculation with 100% hit rate.
The chart looks the same as per chart #2 on Pg #3 except the Y axis is smaller. Same ratios for everything.
Are you willing to pay the premium? You'll still need about 8/9 AC's and LC's firing each turn to reliably bring down stuff (at BS3)
58966
Post by: tankboy145
For the relic, the best way is to have great firing lanes watching it and if your opponent tried to snatch it blast everything you got into it and kill it. slowly move up some infantry squads to grab and go with it. Relic has posed as a hard mission for my gunline.
This forum and all the mathhammer posts have seemed to lead me into using lascannons and autocannons now. always massed lascannons but never thought of lascannons in infantry squads.
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
LC in infantry squads means your LC will last a while. Put AC in the HWT and now your opponent has a choice shoot cheap AC (which I have more ban a few) or shoot squads with and LC having to do a lot of wounds to reduce my long range ap2 firepower.
38952
Post by: sinistermind
even if I had better access to other steel legion heavy weapons i would still run ML's.... In a guard army you should not be worried about cost effectiveness, it can put a S8 shot into tanks, it cant put a S8 AP3 shot into MC's , or it can put a blast into a squad, I run Vet units for now until i can collect more steel legion troops to make a platoon so with Bs4 and orders for twin linked Ill take S8
339
Post by: ender502
sinistermind wrote:even if I had better access to other steel legion heavy weapons i would still run ML's.... In a guard army you should not be worried about cost effectiveness, it can put a S8 shot into tanks, it cant put a S8 AP3 shot into MC's , or it can put a blast into a squad, I run Vet units for now until i can collect more steel legion troops to make a platoon so with Bs4 and orders for twin linked Ill take S8
The ML certainly has some advantages... The numbers versus armor don't match up to the AC or the LC IMO but against infantry it may be another story. An autocannon hots an infantry target once every turn. In your exerience, how many infantry tagets get hit buy a ML blast? 2, 3...4?
I like the autocannon but am not wedded to it... what are people's eXperiences with the ML?
And A great point above about lascannons in Infantry squads versus HWS.
ender502
4820
Post by: Ailaros
Blaggard wrote:Are you willing to pay the premium?
Definitely.
Lascannons and autocannons may be roughly equal at glancing AV10-12 to death, but that's where it stops. The lascannon is better at stunning, immobilizing, weapon destroying and outright wrecking vehicles. Any of these may have a pretty serious strategic impact, depending on the circumstances. Having the chance to kill the target faster than glancing to death means more survivability for the gunners, and it means that it can do a lot more damage in a much shorter time, which is especially important for things like HWSs, but killing things faster cascades through the rest of the game in other ways too.
And lascannons can hurt AV13 and 14. If you've ever come across quantum shielding, or tau vehicles, or ironclad dreads, or anything AV14, you'll understand just how big of a deal this is.
And lascannons are a credible threat to monstrous creatures, both wounding on 2's instead of 3's, and ignoring armor saves. And lascannons are a credible threat to TEq's, what with turning that 2+ save into a 5++ save, and is even better against MEq. And lascannons ID paladins and other multi-wound T4 bad guys, and it denies FNP.
In large numbers, lascannons have better force concentration, and lower carrier costs. It has better of efficiency of fire lanes, better survivability through efficiency of cover saves, and gives you better efficiency of officer orders.
People here can ignore the facts all they want, but the lascannon is better.
339
Post by: ender502
Ailaros wrote:Blaggard wrote:Are you willing to pay the premium?
Definitely.
Lascannons and autocannons may be roughly equal at glancing AV10-12 to death, but that's where it stops. The lascannon is better at stunning, immobilizing, weapon destroying and outright wrecking vehicles. Any of these may have a pretty serious strategic impact, depending on the circumstances. Having the chance to kill the target faster than glancing to death means more survivability for the gunners, and it means that it can do a lot more damage in a much shorter time, which is especially important for things like HWSs, but killing things faster cascades through the rest of the game in other ways too.
And lascannons can hurt AV13 and 14. If you've ever come across quantum shielding, or tau vehicles, or ironclad dreads, or anything AV14, you'll understand just how big of a deal this is.
And lascannons are a credible threat to monstrous creatures, both wounding on 2's instead of 3's, and ignoring armor saves. And lascannons are a credible threat to TEq's, what with turning that 2+ save into a 5++ save, and is even better against MEq. And lascannons ID paladins and other multi-wound T4 bad guys, and it denies FNP.
In large numbers, lascannons have better force concentration, and lower carrier costs. It has better of efficiency of fire lanes, better survivability through efficiency of cover saves, and gives you better efficiency of officer orders.
People here can ignore the facts all they want, but the lascannon is better.
Is the lascannon better at killing an ork horde than an autocannon? No.
Is the autocannon better at killing AV13. No.
The lascannon is better at somethings..and not as good at others. Is that distinction too complex?
As you state, for some targets only a lascannon will do. Of course, that is why everyone seems to agree that mass autocannon fire versus AV13 and AV14 is silly and you should use a lascannon or other AT elements to do those jobs.
Your argument about the cost of cariers is a false one. It assumes the player will be buy X more autocannon units to make them AS GOOD as a lascannon at killing AV13. This is ridiculous. Autocannons are best for killing infantry and light vehicles. You don't just buy more autocannons to make them as good as a lascannon. You buy lascannons for AV13 and 14 targets...or melta vets, or vendettas, or lrbt or colossus, etc.... There is no increased carrier cost so long as you buy a mix of weapons..with each assigned its own specific tasks.
But to use your flawed logic...the lascannon's cost is much higher thanthe autocannons versus killing hordes. Why? Because you need twice as many lascannons you achieve the sam enumber of hits as an autocannon. Could I make that argument from your example? Yes. Will I? No. Why? Because it is dumb. What kind of player depends on lascannons to kill gaunts?...
Your "facts" seem to be based on the idea that everyone desinging their army is pretty dumb. Most of us hold out little hope of defeating AV13 with an autocannon. We use OTHER AT elements for that. Do you have other AT elements in yoru army? I know I do.
ender502
48973
Post by: AtoMaki
 ender502 wrote:
Your "facts" seem to be based on the idea that everyone desinging their army is pretty dumb. Most of us hold out little hope of defeating AV13 with an autocannon. We use OTHER AT elements for that. Do you have other AT elements in yoru army? I know I do.
But then... Why couldn't we have something else to be better against hordes?
Say, you take Lascannons and Manticores with them. Now you have all kinds of firepower there. Anti- TEQ, anti- MC, anti-whatever. You just choose your target and you will have a weapon that can deal with it effectively.
Now, take autocannons with Manticores. Ooookay... Now you will kill TEQ with what? Massed AC fire? Sounds like waste of (ineffective) firepower. So you will end up with a smaller range of possible targets to take out effectively, thus kinda' weakening the overall optimal damage output of your army.
339
Post by: ender502
AtoMaki wrote: ender502 wrote:
Your "facts" seem to be based on the idea that everyone desinging their army is pretty dumb. Most of us hold out little hope of defeating AV13 with an autocannon. We use OTHER AT elements for that. Do you have other AT elements in yoru army? I know I do.
But then... Why couldn't we have something else to be better against hordes?
Say, you take Lascannons and Manticores with them. Now you have all kinds of firepower there. Anti- TEQ, anti- MC, anti-whatever. You just choose your target and you will have a weapon that can deal with it effectively.
Now, take autocannons with Manticores. Ooookay... Now you will kill TEQ with what? Massed AC fire? Sounds like waste of (ineffective) firepower. So you will end up with a smaller range of possible targets to take out effectively, thus kinda' weakening the overall optimal damage output of your army.
Exactly!
Thank you for going beyond "X is better than Y."
Autocannons are not necesarily the best at anti-horde. Better than lascannons? Sure...but versus a manticore? what about versus just plain old missile launchers? Not sure at all. Templates are tough to quantify. What have your experience been? How many models can you normally hit with a small blast? A large one? If we can agree on a number of hits than we can start to quantify some numbers as above. heck..what about griffins versus a manticore? Aren't griffins about half the price?
In my army I like 2 griffins in concert with about 6 AC for thinning out hordes. For AT I like a CCS lascannon, 3 x vendettas, 3 x melta vets, and to a lesser degree 2 x LRBT.
See, now this is becoming a conversation.
ender502
59773
Post by: Blaggard
6 mortars are cheaper than 2 griffins. Same range, 2 less strength and 2 less AP, but 6 small blasts rather than 2 large and you get 30 points for more things. Ailaros wrote:Blaggard wrote:Are you willing to pay the premium?
Definitely.
My question should have been "Do you want to spend 200 points on 10 lascannons or 100 points on 10 autocannons" on your infantry squads. That 100 points could be spent on other things. You answer this question later on. Lascannons and autocannons may be roughly equal at glancing AV10-12 to death, but that's where it stops. The lascannon is better at stunning, immobilizing, weapon destroying and outright wrecking vehicles.
Well, no. Autocannons can kill AV10-12 for half the cost of lascannons. Chart posted earlier shows this. At AV12 autocannons have got a better chance of glancing it to death than the same points worth of lascannons of glancing + wrecking/sploding. They are even better against Any of these may have a pretty serious strategic impact, depending on the circumstances. Having the chance to kill the target faster than glancing to death means more survivability for the gunners, and it means that it can do a lot more damage in a much shorter time, which is especially important for things like HWSs, but killing things faster cascades through the rest of the game in other ways too.
Since you're posting in favour of the lascannon, what you're gambling on here is not "it will most probably kill it early on" but rather "it may kill it early on". But because I've shown that autocannons do it for almost half the points. You can use those saved points elsewhere for more efficient dakka. And lascannons can hurt AV13 and 14. If you've ever come across quantum shielding, or tau vehicles, or ironclad dreads, or anything AV14, you'll understand just how big of a deal this is.
Autocannons can deal with AV13 more cheaply than LC as well. In this instance it's only 50 points spent per turn. I agree with the hurting AV14, but it's incredibly inefficient to do so. You're having to spend almost 350/500 points to hope to wreck&splode/glance to death it in a single turn. And lascannons are a credible threat to monstrous creatures, both wounding on 2's instead of 3's, and ignoring armor saves. And lascannons are a credible threat to TEq's, what with turning that 2+ save into a 5++ save, and is even better against MEq. And lascannons ID paladins and other multi-wound T4 bad guys, and it denies FNP.
Autocannons do it cheaper, as per the chart shown on page 1. Autocannon cost to wound t4 2+ is ~80, LC to wound t4 5+ is also 80. If they spend points on stormsheilds? The LC goes up to 150, the autocannons still at 80. Monstrous creatures? Same thing. In large numbers, lascannons have better force concentration, and lower carrier costs. It has better of efficiency of fire lanes, better survivability through efficiency of cover saves, and gives you better efficiency of officer orders.
I disagree with the ones I've stroked out. This is because I think that because of the carrier costs you will be bringing the same amount of autocannons as you would lascannons, you're just using the points elsewhere on different weapons or carriers. People here can ignore the facts all they want, but the lascannon is better.
Only for 1/5 reasons you've listed. I'm not even convinced on force concentration either.
53403
Post by: TheCaptain
Ailaros wrote:People here can ignore the facts all they want, but the lascannon is better.
Too vague.
You're claiming a specialized weapon being better at its specialty makes it better than a multitool that does other stuff pretty nicely in addition to doing quite well at AV12 and lower
4820
Post by: Ailaros
ender502 wrote:Is the lascannon better at killing an ork horde than an autocannon? No.
Is the autocannon better at killing AV13. No.
The lascannon is better at somethings..and not as good at others. Is that distinction too complex?
No it's not, but you're missing subtleties here. Is the autocannon better than a lascannon at killing a mob of boyz? Yes. Is it GOOD at killing a mob of boyz? Not by a long shot.
The argument you're making is that because bolters are more likely to kill a tervigon than a lasgun, then we should all consider bolters to be premier monstrous creature killers. This is, of course, just silly.
What's important is what a weapon is good at. That something is better than something else really only matters if both of them are worth taking to handle that threat in the first place.
ender502 wrote:As you state, for some targets only a lascannon will do. Of course, that is why everyone seems to agree that mass autocannon fire versus AV13 and AV14 is silly and you should use a lascannon or other AT elements to do those jobs.
Yes, and then expand it out. AV13 and AV14 are just two things that the lascannon can do well that the autocannon can't. There are many others.
ender502 wrote:It assumes the player will be buy X more autocannon units to make them AS GOOD as a lascannon at killing AV13. This is ridiculous.
Well, if you don't have enough to kill AV13 then you do, indeed, need to spam them, that or not handle them.
The fact that there are other things that can be added to a list that does one thing or another well does not in any way negate that the lascannon is still the best weapon against the most targets.
I mean, if you had a couple of Demolishers, would you go and look at your mechvets and think to yourself "you know what? I'll give these guys sniper rifles, because the demolishers can handle heavier stuff?". Of course you wouldn't. The best guns for mechvets are plasma or melta REGARDLESS of what else is in your list. If you can't make use of melta or plasma vets, then don't take vets. Taking the unit anyway and giving them crappy guns is what seems ridiculous to me.
Blaggard wrote:My question should have been "Do you want to spend 200 points on 10 lascannons or 100 points on 10 autocannons" on your infantry squads. That 100 points could be spent on other things. You answer this question later on.
My answer is still yes. They're not just better, they're better for their points.
Blaggard wrote:Well, no. Autocannons can kill AV10-12 for half the cost of lascannons.
BY GLANCING THEM TO DEATH.
If you can't understand why causing penetrating hits on stuff is better than glancing stuff, then there's nothing more than I've already said that can explain it more. You're just going to have to get steamrolled a couple of times and think to yourself "Oh, I wish I would have been able to kill THAT faster" to drive the point across.
TheCaptain wrote:You're claiming a specialized weapon being better at its specialty makes it better than a multitool that does other stuff pretty nicely in addition to doing quite well at AV12 and lower
Doing AS well (well, not quite) as a lascannon.
Furthermore, what other stuff do you think that an autocannon does pretty nicely?
53403
Post by: TheCaptain
Ailaros wrote:
TheCaptain wrote:You're claiming a specialized weapon being better at its specialty makes it better than a multitool that does other stuff pretty nicely in addition to doing quite well at AV12 and lower
Doing AS well (well, not quite) as a lascannon.
Furthermore, what other stuff do you think that an autocannon does pretty nicely?
If you look at them entirely subjectively in comparison, weapon to weapon.
Autocannon gets twice the hits a lascannon would when subject to snapshooting (and firing in general)
It will kill twice the amount of infantry with armor weaker than 3+ and toughness 4 and below.
It will strip hull points from vehicles quite nicely.
and I hear it bakes a mean soufflé.
I'm not denying the Lascannon is better at things like force concentration, penetration, and killing Sv2+ stuff, but I just think it's got it's own niche, so the comparison being narrowed to just anti-armor stuff is kindof silly.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
 TheCaptain wrote: Ailaros wrote:
TheCaptain wrote:You're claiming a specialized weapon being better at its specialty makes it better than a multitool that does other stuff pretty nicely in addition to doing quite well at AV12 and lower
Doing AS well (well, not quite) as a lascannon.
Furthermore, what other stuff do you think that an autocannon does pretty nicely?
If you look at them entirely subjectively in comparison, weapon to weapon.
Autocannon gets twice the hits a lascannon would when subject to snapshooting (and firing in general)
It will kill twice the amount of infantry with armor weaker than 3+ and toughness 4 and below.
It will strip hull points from vehicles quite nicely.
and I hear it bakes a mean soufflé.
I'm not denying the Lascannon is better at things like force concentration, penetration, and killing Sv2+ stuff, but I just think it's got it's own niche, so the comparison being narrowed to just anti-armor stuff is kindof silly.
Which would make the showdown come down to what kind of firepower you need in your army. Which explains why guys like Ailaros and I need Lascannons over autocannons, and why other players would need autocannons more.
For an extremely infantry heavy army, a large amount of lascannons is important to us because we want them out of their boxes and fighting on our terms. We also need to crack the hard targets because we have more lasguns than sense, and can kill most infantry fairly well. Things like the big MC's, walkers, and main battle tanks are what hurt us the most. So, we take the heavy weapon that can kill them as soon as possible.
For your average IG list though, they're relying more on vendettas, meltavets, suicide stormies, etc, and don't see the big deal in lascannons. They want autocannons to crack transports, but they don't need high powered AT, because all that comes in second turn for them.
Or at least, that's my theory. It would definitely explain the 3 to 1 results of autocannons vs Lascannons in the polls.
59773
Post by: Blaggard
Ailaros wrote:
Blaggard wrote:My question should have been "Do you want to spend 200 points on 10 lascannons or 100 points on 10 autocannons" on your infantry squads. That 100 points could be spent on other things. You answer this question later on.
My answer is still yes. They're not just better, they're better for their points.
Blaggard wrote:Well, no. Autocannons can kill AV10-12 for half the cost of lascannons.
BY GLANCING THEM TO DEATH.
If you can't understand why causing penetrating hits on stuff is better than glancing stuff, then there's nothing more than I've already said that can explain it more. You're just going to have to get steamrolled a couple of times and think to yourself "Oh, I wish I would have been able to kill THAT faster" to drive the point across.
TheCaptain wrote:You're claiming a specialized weapon being better at its specialty makes it better than a multitool that does other stuff pretty nicely in addition to doing quite well at AV12 and lower
Doing AS well (well, not quite) as a lascannon.
Furthermore, what other stuff do you think that an autocannon does pretty nicely?
They glance it to death for cheaper than the lascannon costs to pen and blow it up/wreak it on average. I've posted charts for the vehicles and toughness + saves on this thread elsewhere and the calculations for the vehicle chart elsewhere on this thread. I invite you to show me if I've gone wrong somewhere on those calculations.
The lascannon, on average, does nothing better than the autocannon. It's left with the role of "hurting AV14" which, if given to infantry squads and HWSs, is overly expensive for not a huge return. I'd rather give the Infantry Squads autocannons so they can focus fire and bring stuff down, spending the rest on SITNW or Artillery or Storm Troopers or something better than inefficient lascannons.
53403
Post by: TheCaptain
MrMoustaffa wrote:
Which would make the showdown come down to what kind of firepower you need in your army. Which explains why guys like Ailaros and I need Lascannons over autocannons, and why other players would need autocannons more.
Exaaaaactly.
64816
Post by: washout77
MrMoustaffa wrote: TheCaptain wrote: Ailaros wrote:
TheCaptain wrote:You're claiming a specialized weapon being better at its specialty makes it better than a multitool that does other stuff pretty nicely in addition to doing quite well at AV12 and lower
Doing AS well (well, not quite) as a lascannon.
Furthermore, what other stuff do you think that an autocannon does pretty nicely?
If you look at them entirely subjectively in comparison, weapon to weapon.
Autocannon gets twice the hits a lascannon would when subject to snapshooting (and firing in general)
It will kill twice the amount of infantry with armor weaker than 3+ and toughness 4 and below.
It will strip hull points from vehicles quite nicely.
and I hear it bakes a mean soufflé.
I'm not denying the Lascannon is better at things like force concentration, penetration, and killing Sv2+ stuff, but I just think it's got it's own niche, so the comparison being narrowed to just anti-armor stuff is kindof silly.
Which would make the showdown come down to what kind of firepower you need in your army. Which explains why guys like Ailaros and I need Lascannons over autocannons, and why other players would need autocannons more.
For an extremely infantry heavy army, a large amount of lascannons is important to us because we want them out of their boxes and fighting on our terms. We also need to crack the hard targets because we have more lasguns than sense, and can kill most infantry fairly well. Things like the big MC's, walkers, and main battle tanks are what hurt us the most. So, we take the heavy weapon that can kill them as soon as possible.
For your average IG list though, they're relying more on vendettas, meltavets, suicide stormies, etc, and don't see the big deal in lascannons. They want autocannons to crack transports, but they don't need high powered AT, because all that comes in second turn for them.
Or at least, that's my theory. It would definitely explain the 3 to 1 results of autocannons vs Lascannons in the polls.
Thank you. Neither is better than the other. You can argue statistics, facts, and theory's all you want but it comes down to what you need in your list and for your meta. I may have a dozen ways to bring LC's (I for one, have 2 Vendettas and some LC HWS but not a lot), so for me AC's are going in my infantry to cover that. If you run infantry, then LC's may be more useful to you to knock out armor. If your meta has primarily hordes...well neither will help you too much there, but an AC would help more than an LC depending on how well you roll. If you feature a lot of heavy AV or stuff like that, an LC would help more.
All this thread is doing is making people pissed off and causing arguments by making something objective which is actually really subjective.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Ailaros wrote:BY GLANCING THEM TO DEATH.
If you can't understand why causing penetrating hits on stuff is better than glancing stuff, then there's nothing more than I've already said that can explain it more. You're just going to have to get steamrolled a couple of times and think to yourself "Oh, I wish I would have been able to kill THAT faster" to drive the point across.
Except for one tiny little problem: even if you inflict nothing but penetrating lascannon hits you only have a 50% chance of killing the target faster than stripping its HP. If you consider, say, lascannons against AV 14 your chances of exploding the target before stripping its last HP are pretty depressingly small. And when you consider the fact that volume of fire can often strip HP faster than single powerful shots you run into the very real chance that you're paying twice as much for a gun that kills the target slower on average.
And yes, penetrating hits can shake/stun the target, but when you're focusing fire and killing one target at a time that's not a very important factor.
20815
Post by: Deceiver
I've used the autocannon in abundance, I still swear by it but I know its limitations. For me, the autocannon is a well balanced gun for a well balanced list. Decent strength, decent ap, decent range, decent price. The lascannon is better in terms of tank hunting but it also has its downfalls. I field a lot of both weapons and if i'm honest, I don't think either is essential. Lascannons are not the best tank hunters but they do their job. Autocannons don't have a definate role so they can easily be replaced with more specialist weaponary.
If I had to choose only one of them to take I think it would be the Lascannon but there isn't much between them in my eyes. The lascannon will give me a decent ranged threat against tough targets with AV but the Autocannon gives me versatility and will seldom lack a good target.
63562
Post by: Fouler
I'm not a guard player, but I am an Ork player who has used Lootas in just about every game I've played so I've been able to see first hand what autocannons are for, and it's simple:
Autocannons are good at killing things that are moderately tough and have terrible armor saves. However, since anything AV10-11 falls into this category they are useful guns to have around because no matter what the meta shifts to Marines will always love their rhinos.
Lascannons (as far as I know) are good at killing AV12-13, monstrous creatures and TEQ. They are good enough at killing AV10, 11 and 14 and even high value MEQ (plague marines etc.), that you won't feel foolish for spending the points on the upgrade to lascannon. I don't have much experience with them, but they certainly seem more versatile than autocannons.
Now autocannons are twice as good at killing horde infantry as a lascannon, but two times nothing is still nothing. So saying an autocannon is a versatile generalist is misleading at best, they are only good at killing light armor and those rare units that are really tough but don't have 3+ or better armor. This is coming from someone who has seen autocannon fire (lootas) erase infantry units from the board only to realize that small arms fire (shoota boys) would have done the same job for cheaper.
It just so happens that killing light armor is an important job so I would suggest that one should have some autocannons, but you should probably have more lascannons.
52054
Post by: MrMoustaffa
One last thing I'll say, but people are saying the vehicle only has a 50% chance to blow up before you've glanced it to death like thats a bad thing. Thats a 1/2 chance of not needing that third pen/glance to kill something. And you've still got a 1/3 chance of killing something in the first pen, so that's not too shabby either. Yeah it relies a little on luck, but so does almost everything else in this game. I know I've seen enough landraiders and leman russes blow up on the first lascannon shot of the game to realize that even if the odds are low, doesn't mean it won't happen.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
MrMoustaffa wrote:One last thing I'll say, but people are saying the vehicle only has a 50% chance to blow up before you've glanced it to death like thats a bad thing. Thats a 1/2 chance of not needing that third pen/glance to kill something. And you've still got a 1/3 chance of killing something in the first pen, so that's not too shabby either. Yeah it relies a little on luck, but so does almost everything else in this game. I know I've seen enough landraiders and leman russes blow up on the first lascannon shot of the game to realize that even if the odds are low, doesn't mean it won't happen.
The problem is that you're paying extra points for that ability. It's nice when it happens obviously (especially with something like a Vendetta where you have AP 2 by default), but it's a mistake to overestimate the chances of destroying something with the vehicle damage table.
Oh, and that 50% chance was making the incredibly generous assumption that you inflict nothing but AP 2 penetrating hits. Against, say, a Land Raider where the chances of a glance and pen are equal the chances of successfully getting an "explodes" result before you remove the last HP are pretty disappointing.
22051
Post by: Barksdale
Blaggard wrote:Done, I think. Shows total points spent on killing a HP3 with BS3.
Not that convinced my maths is perfect (mainly because some people would disagree with the results) so I've added the speadsheet as an attachment. It's in open office format. Sheet1 is calculations, the weapon select is a drop down box.
Unless something has gone wrong opening in Office .... You might want to check some of your calculations again. Its a good cencept though.
53776
Post by: TheLionOfTheForest
This thread is starting to sound like : what's better in rock, paper, scissors? Rock or paper? Rather than debating which one is better, as they are two seperate tools in the tool box, stick to your practical application of each and why you omit one or the other and what you replace the omitted weapon type with.
Otherwise this conversation will just continue to go around and around in circles. Even put your sample army lists in spoiler windows so we can discuss why one list is or is not good without AC or LC. (Jus got power back from hurricane sandy, I'll put my list up tomorrow sometime)
|
|
