Now that heavy bolters are upgraded to damage 2, and 36" range is plenty with smaller board sizes, the autocannon could use some love, making them strength 8 would be ideal to me, not to mention games-workshop seems to be introducing a new rule of -1 damage making them even more useless

-1 damage makes Heavy Bolters useless too, so that point is moot.

Don't think it's needed, to be honest. They're cheap enough for what they do.

I would agree if you reduced their point cost from 10 to 8 or 7 but ofcourse games-workshop is obsessed with the factor of 5

And then you need to make missile launchers S9.
And then you need to make lascannons S10.
And then you need...

meh S 9 is perfect for lacannons atm, as far as missle launchers who knows

 Valkyrie wrote:
-1 damage makes Heavy Bolters useless too, so that point is moot.

Don't think it's needed, to be honest. They're cheap enough for what they do.

Let's check down the toughness chart and see how things actually shake out.

HB v T8: 3 shots, 2 hits, 0.67 wounds, 1.22 damage
AC v T8: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.44 wounds, 0.88 damage

HB v T7: 3 shots, 2 hits, 0.67 wounds, 1.22 damage
AC v T7: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.67 wounds, 1.22 damage

HB v T6: 3 shots, 2 hits, 0.67 wounds, 1.22 damage
AC v T6: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.89 wounds, 1.78 damage

HB v T5: 3 shots, 2 hits, 1 wound, 2 damage
AC v T5: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.89 wounds, 1.78 damage

HB v T4: 3 shots, 2 hits, 1.33 wounds, 2.67 damage
AC v T4: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 0.89 wounds, 1.78 damage

HB v T3: 3 shots, 2 hits, 1.33 wounds, 2.67 damage
AC v T3: 2 shots, 1.33 hits, 1.11 wounds, 2.22 damage

The Autocannon is worse or tied against everything except T6 targets, as -1 damage affects them both equally there's no change if that's included.

Here I tought Canada 5th was destined to antagonize me, but yes I figure we need to boost an autocannon to strength 8 or reduce its points to 8 or 7 compared to a heavy bolter 10, its only advantage is its range, but 36" range is plenty good with current board sizes, also strength 8 would give it that anti-tank fluff its supposed to have

bat702 wrote:
Here I tought Canada 5th was destined to antagonize me, but yes I figure we need to boost an autocannon to strength 8 or reduce its points to 8 or 7 compared to a heavy bolter 10, its only advantage is its range, but 36" range is plenty good with current board sizes, also strength 8 would give it that anti-tank fluff its supposed to have

I try to be consistent in what I gak upon.

In this case, I think that the fix is to restore the wounding chart to the old:

>T2+: 2+ to wound
>T: 3+ to wound
=T: 4+ to wound
<T: 5+ to wound
><T2+: 6+ to wound

Weapons that are twice the strength of a model's toughness deal mortal wounds. Weapons can never wound on worse than a 6, rolls of 1 always fail.>

I do agree with you that the Autocannon needs a change, but I don't think just upping it to S8 would be worth it. My gut feeling would be to reduce the points or make it Heavy 3.

 Valkyrie wrote:
I do agree with you that the Autocannon needs a change, but I don't think just upping it to S8 would be worth it. My gut feeling would be to reduce the points or make it Heavy 3.

At 3 shots it becomes strictly better than a Heavy Bolter, this might be fine but then Autocannons would need a points increase large enough that HBs are still viable which could make the new AC profile too expensive to use. Balance changes are more than just changing an underperforming option.

Making them shoot 3 times would be nice as I would imagine an autocannon being slightly more impressive than a heavy-bolter lore wise, but yes obviously the better gun HAS to cost more points when the difference in power is that obvious

bat702 wrote:
Making them shoot 3 times would be nice as I would imagine an autocannon being slightly more impressive than a heavy-bolter lore wise, but yes obviously the better gun HAS to cost more points when the difference in power is that obvious

How many points do you set a 3 shot AC at? How about the Lascannon which now looks even worse? These are questions to ask before just making a change. I wish GW did this type of thing themselves but if we want to fix the game we need to do it ourselves.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
And then you need to make missile launchers S9.
And then you need to make lascannons S10.
And then you need...

With how terrible the current wounding chart is.......is this actually a bad thing?

 Canadian 5th wrote:

bat702 wrote:
Making them shoot 3 times would be nice as I would imagine an autocannon being slightly more impressive than a heavy-bolter lore wise, but yes obviously the better gun HAS to cost more points when the difference in power is that obvious

How many points do you set a 3 shot AC at? How about the Lascannon which now looks even worse? These are questions to ask before just making a change. I wish GW did this type of thing themselves but if we want to fix the game we need to do it ourselves.

The current problem with this is Games-Workshop trying their hardest to make every point value a factor of 5, this makes adjusting the points values extremely difficult, I feel lascannons to be a bit underperforming as well, for instance many "las-cannon like" varieties of weapons are sporting flat 3 or even stuff like 3+d3 damage, which is of course miles ahead of the d6 damage, which can really suck vs the 2-3 wound infantry meta

If you make Autocannons S8 then Leviathan Dreads and Daredeo Dread instantly become broken as all hell, not to mention whatever the Chaos marine unit is that gets that Chain Autocannon with 6-8 shots of Autocannon. I can't remember?

Seriously gak on this idea of making everything More killy.

Im thinking more along the lines of a regular autocannon, not the over-powered space marine dreads, but obviously if they want the extra point of strength they would need a point increase, which they probably need a point increase anyways after that whole -1 to damage gakkk

I agree that the autocannon needs some changes based on the breakdown provided by Canadian 5th. The easiest option is probably to drop the points.

That being said, I'd prefer if the rules matched the fluff a bit better, and I think the Heavy bolter is the problem rather than the autocannon.

My understanding is that the autocannon is a solid round, high rate of fire weapon, in many ways similar to the assault cannon, slighlty lower rate of fire, and larger rounds, so more stopping power. It would be comparable to a real-world fixed machine gun.

The Heavy bolter however is firing individual bolts - explosive bolts like a boltgun, just bigger. Similar to a boltgun, it isn't particularly high rate of fire (compared to the autocannon)

It seems to be that the autocannon should have more shots than the Heavy bolter, and should probably have lower strength than the heavy bolter too. If anything it seems that the two weapons profiles should be swapped.

Of course, then the Heavy bolter underperforms, so an adjustment is needed either to the points or the profile.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If you make Autocannons S8 then Leviathan Dreads and Daredeo Dread instantly become broken as all hell, not to mention whatever the Chaos marine unit is that gets that Chain Autocannon with 6-8 shots of Autocannon. I can't remember?

Seriously gak on this idea of making everything More killy.

Seeing they have different named weapon the change isn't automatic. You can leave them as is and nothing gets broken.

As is you can even have 2 units with　same named equipment with different　rules if you want. That's how gw designed 8&9e. Different units with different weapons having differing stats is no biggie　in comparison.

Probably a dumb question, but do the heavy bolter and autocannon actually compete for slots on a lot of platforms? I *think* they compete on sentinels and predators, but where else? If they don't compete with each other in many places, then doesn't that sort of render the topic moot?

And if I'm mistaken, then how about...
* Just charging an appropriate amount for each weapon; the divisible by 5s thing is silly.
* Maybe make HB Damage 1 against vehicles and monsters.

Guard infantry is often fielding heavy weapons, and then you also have heavy weapon teams

Wyldhunt wrote:
Probably a dumb question, but do the heavy bolter and autocannon actually compete for slots on a lot of platforms? I *think* they compete on sentinels and predators, but where else?

Umm... Chaos Marines, Chaos Chosen, Chaos Havocs, Fallen Angels. Making autocannons obsolete if you can take a heavy bolter instead effectively reduces CSM heavy weapon options even further relative to their loyalist cousins, when they were already behind. What used to be the handy TAC option that loyalists didn't get is now a stupid trap option.

Aash wrote:

My understanding is that the autocannon is a solid round, high rate of fire weapon, in many ways similar to the assault cannon, slighlty lower rate of fire, and larger rounds, so more stopping power. It would be comparable to a real-world fixed machine gun.

The autocannon has always been a slow RoF but powerful weapon.

The problem is GW moved to the new wounding chart but kept all the strengths/toughnesses that had been developed for the old chart. Consequently, a lot has been lost and many problems have been created.
I don't think adopting the old chart would be a simple drop-in fix to solve all of life's problems, but I think doing so would require far fewer adjustments and lead to better results than any alternative.
People disliked the old chart due to how it was presented, not the actual function. Was you learnt it was literally just +/- 1 or 2 you never needed to reference the chart again.

 Duskweaver wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:
Probably a dumb question, but do the heavy bolter and autocannon actually compete for slots on a lot of platforms? I *think* they compete on sentinels and predators, but where else?

Umm... Chaos Marines, Chaos Chosen, Chaos Havocs, Fallen Angels. Making autocannons obsolete if you can take a heavy bolter instead effectively reduces CSM heavy weapon options even further relative to their loyalist cousins, when they were already behind. What used to be the handy TAC option that loyalists didn't get is now a stupid trap option.

This, AC's were a staple in many CSM lists, for one being the lore wise oldschool solution and generalist weapon and for two being something SM didn't have and diversified CSM away from them...

Now, though, you just don't need a AC' when the HB is just better, mostly thanks to how completely lopsided the wounding chart is but...

To be honest, just drop all vehicles not "Heavy Armor" to T7, problem solved. The AC was originally designed to hunt light armor vehicles. I think it should still be used for that. Most dreads are now T7 unless they are heavy walkers like Telemons. We need to keep the T7 vehicles a thing. Make repulsors and their entire line, T7. Make most vehicles in the game t7. T8+ should really be for Knights or "Near-knights". I don't think you should be granting everything T8 just because it's a vehicle.

Already medium armour is T7.
This isn't exactly satisfactory either, as you can see from the calculations above against T7 the Autocannon and Heavy Bolter are equal.

Are you calling Rhino's and Chimera's medium vehicles? I disagree. Medium armor is a dumb idea anyway. There is no real place for "medium Armor". Heavy Armor is T8, light is T7, Easy. Is there really any reason a Repulsor is considered more armored than a Predator?

Predators, Hammerheads, Wave Serpents, etc, are T7.
A Repulsor is closer to a Landraider than a Rhino. The Primaris Rhino is the Impulsor which is... T7
So yeah, medium armour including APCs and MBTs are T7.
It's only really light stuff like Land Speeders which get T6.

Granted the cut off for T8 isn't much higher than the tanks listed above, with Leman Russes and Repulsors coming in at T8 (albeit with 3+ save still),

In really rough terms compared to old edition - AV10 = T6, AV11-13 = T7, AV14 = T8.

But the difference between those toughnesses is marginal at the moment. A lascannon wounds every single one on a 3+, a heavy bolter wounds them all on a 5+, they barely notice the difference between "super light vehicles" and "heavily armoured vehicles", it's just armour that counts and even that's not a big difference.
That's why we need to return to the old wounding system, the current one just doesn't suit the values of strength and toughness they've assigned.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Predators, Hammerheads, Wave Serpents, etc, are T7.
A Repulsor is closer to a Landraider than a Rhino. The Primaris Rhino is the Impulsor which is... T7
So yeah, medium armour including APCs and MBTs are T7.
It's only really light stuff like Land Speeders which get T6.

Granted the cut off for T8 isn't much higher than the tanks listed above, with Leman Russes and Repulsors coming in at T8 (albeit with 3+ save still),

In really rough terms compared to old edition - AV10 = T6, AV11-13 = T7, AV14 = T8.

But the difference between those toughnesses is marginal at the moment. A lascannon wounds every single one on a 3+, a heavy bolter wounds them all on a 5+, they barely notice the difference between "super light vehicles" and "heavily armoured vehicles", it's just armour that counts and even that's not a big difference.
That's why we need to return to the old wounding system, the current one just doesn't suit the values of strength and toughness they've assigned.

The new wounding table sucks, period. We need a new one.

I say we just use the old one, there was nothing wrong with it.
You could even present it in almost the same table as the current one, just change the values and add an extra box for S more than 3 higher = cannot wound.
Or leave out that last box if you want to keep the autowounding on 6s, I'm not that fussed on that.

Could we possibly expect a radical change to Armor in 9th, or is that more of a Generational shift? Has GW ever revamped a integral system or core mechanic, mid edition, or after the BRB was released?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Predators, Hammerheads, Wave Serpents, etc, are T7.
A Repulsor is closer to a Landraider than a Rhino. The Primaris Rhino is the Impulsor which is... T7
So yeah, medium armour including APCs and MBTs are T7.
It's only really light stuff like Land Speeders which get T6.

Granted the cut off for T8 isn't much higher than the tanks listed above, with Leman Russes and Repulsors coming in at T8 (albeit with 3+ save still),

In really rough terms compared to old edition - AV10 = T6, AV11-13 = T7, AV14 = T8.

But the difference between those toughnesses is marginal at the moment. A lascannon wounds every single one on a 3+, a heavy bolter wounds them all on a 5+, they barely notice the difference between "super light vehicles" and "heavily armoured vehicles", it's just armour that counts and even that's not a big difference.
That's why we need to return to the old wounding system, the current one just doesn't suit the values of strength and toughness they've assigned.

IMO, lack of granularity in the game can be solved by foregoing the arbitrary T cap of 8. Heavy tanks should be T9, titans (if they shall must exist) at T10.

Then, if S = T/3 or less, weapon cannot wound. If S = 3T or greater, treat the damage as if they are mortal wounds (but they do not spill over like 'normal' mortal wounds). So, a lascannon can deal up to 6 mortal wounds against a single T3 model.

T10 means that it is never subject to any mortal wound conversion mechanic, and T9 now portrays more closely what shooting at pre-hull points old AV14 felt like.

S7 for autocannons is perfectly fine. Also, you don't want them to go to ap-2 as that would horrible in devastator doctrine.

Arguably, heavy bolter should be different. Say, 2d vs infantry and bikes and d1 vs vehiclea and monsters. That will skew the math in the right direction in terms of wounds vs T.

The last thing we want is to add *more* exceptions to rules!

Autocannon can be fixed somewhat more easily by making this S7/-2/2 weapon. I think that would push it back into competition with the heavy bolter -- but it would be a smidge more "I am shooting your light armor now" rather than "I am shooting your marines now" Marines "autocannon" are usually assault cannons, or something, ie, a different beast with different stats. They are S6/-1/1 and can stay as such, so no "nightmare" of dev doctrine need apply. Icarus autocannon are also different weapons -- they maybe sacrifice a bit of their power for accurate, lighter shooting shells fired up at aircraft. So no extra pen there, either.

A marine player may someday complain about not having better autocannons than gaurd on every model. and no doubt GW will graft an s9/-3/3 autocannon pistol3 that can fire twice on every eradicator and invictor, but whatever, man, till then, why should it matter one bit if the marines aren't the same as gaurd? Our autocannon ddon't shoot six times, their assault cannon aren't -2 ap. Fair? Hardly. But you can kill a lot more termagaunts with 6 shots of ap -1 than 2 of ap -2.

Don't touch its price -- its just being balanced for sucking, you don't have to raise the price of something that you are bringing back into line with the other weapons. If it performs about as well as a 10 point heavy bolter (just more pen, fewer shots, and more strength) ... no need to touch price.

Why not just toss it on the ash heap? There are already proof that GW is hyper focusing it's units, and preventing "options" with primaris. You want Meltas, we have a specific unit with those. Plasma? A specific unit. Autocannons? A Specific unit. Even HBs have a specific unit now. And they are all special named weapons. What out there uses the Generic Autocannon? AM tanks, AM HW teams, and Baneblades.....Chaos troops have an AC but it's named right? All the FW model naughts have named ACs right? Why keep it around? The generic AC is a weapon without purpose now. Unless you give it the "suppression" bonus that the Primaris version gets, it's pointless.

I wish the lore had more clear defined "rules" about weapons being stronger than each other or having more range. Then we could create a super list for each weapons stats

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Why not just toss it on the ash heap? There are already proof that GW is hyper focusing it's units, and preventing "options" with primaris. You want Meltas, we have a specific unit with those. Plasma? A specific unit. Autocannons? A Specific unit. Even HBs have a specific unit now. And they are all special named weapons. What out there uses the Generic Autocannon? AM tanks, AM HW teams, and Baneblades.....Chaos troops have an AC but it's named right? All the FW model naughts have named ACs right? Why keep it around? The generic AC is a weapon without purpose now. Unless you give it the "suppression" bonus that the Primaris version gets, it's pointless.

"Autocannons are useless because only the Guard uses them anyway", excuse me what? The Guard have a right to proper weapons too.

It's not just Guard anyway - it's also Chaos Marines (Repaer Autocannons are only on Terminators, Defilers and a few other FW units, Chaincannons are included as an option alongside regular Autocannons), arguabley Loyalist Marines (Predator Autocannon is still techncially a type of Autocannon) and Genestealer Cults (I'm fairly certain Brood Brother units can have Autocannons) at the very least.

And why shouldn't they exist? They're a fairly iconic Imperial Weapon and it's only realatively recently that they've become wholey overshadowed by everything else.

Brood Brothers are literally just Imperial Guard though aren't they?
I do agree that they're an iconic weapon and the direction Primaris are headed should be avoided, not embraced.

Yeah, they are pretty much just IG (just with a more restricted weapon pool because BB-approved the boxes don't come with all the weapons the equivalent IG units have access too).

I bring them up both for completion and because the boxs/units that are used for Brood Bothers infantry/heavy teams now used to be treated as alternate options for Neophytes in 7th. So Neophytes used to be able to have Autocannons, too.

I thought Brood Brothers literally let you bring an Imperial Guard detachment with 'Brood Brothers' as the regiment. Is that not the case?

It's weird. You can do that (replacing <Regiment> with Brood Brothers), but the codex also included several datasheets of Brood Brother units that can be included in a Genestealer Cult detachment and have Cult Ambush. However, the Brood Borther Infantry Squad at the very least has a watered down selection of options - the unit leader has no weapon options at all and the only special weapons they can use are the flamer or grenade launcher.

Guard are the only ones who don't have a special snowflake named version of the weapon. That's what I was implying. Reaper and chaincannons can be easily altered stat wise, and call it the same thing. But if you alter the generic plain 2% milk version of the AC, it's no longer an AC. And the only faction that would affect is the Guard, as I understand it.

And if a crappy weapon only exists for one single faction, why not take the next step and just drop it? Give them a new HW platform, call it the Executor Auto-cannon, keep the same model, but make it S7 that has two profiles: wounds infantry on a 2+ (Manstopper rounds) or wounds T7+ on a 3+ (Armor Piercing) and make the points higher to offset. Right now it's completely worthless, statistically and fluff wise. It has no purpose. It's worse than literally all the other HW options, because It's stuck on it's same old worthless profile designed before the whole Primarising of the entire universe, where everything became special and separate. The guard are left without any updates, still using HH era weapons.

The absolute last thing we need is MORE special snowflake weapons with special snowflake abilities.

Fluffwise the autocannon has a very definite niche compared to a heavy bolter, it has lower RoF but more powerful.
The problem is GW has kept the autocannon's rules the same, whilst moving everything around it to the point it's no longer relevant. S7 is hardly better than S5 at wounding anything, and now heavy bolters do 3 damage as well.

The solution to it's profile now being naff is to make it not naff. Not to scrap and weapon and replace it with a new one for no other reason than giving it an annoyingly ostentatious name.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Guard are the only ones who don't have a special snowflake named version of the weapon. That's what I was implying. Reaper and chaincannons can be easily altered stat wise, and call it the same thing. But if you alter the generic plain 2% milk version of the AC, it's no longer an AC. And the only faction that would affect is the Guard, as I understand it.

And if a crappy weapon only exists for one single faction, why not take the next step and just drop it? Give them a new HW platform, call it the Executor Auto-cannon, keep the same model, but make it S7 that has two profiles: wounds infantry on a 2+ (Manstopper rounds) or wounds T7+ on a 3+ (Armor Piercing) and make the points higher to offset. Right now it's completely worthless, statistically and fluff wise. It has no purpose. It's worse than literally all the other HW options, because It's stuck on it's same old worthless profile designed before the whole Primarising of the entire universe, where everything became special and separate. The guard are left without any updates, still using HH era weapons.

Leman Russ Exterminators have their own unique Autocannon.
Regular Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Chosen, Chaos Havoc and various GSC Brood Brothers units (that are in the codex and not just allied Guard) have regular Autocannons. It isn't just Imperial Guard that use them.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Guard are the only ones who don't have a special snowflake named version of the weapon. That's what I was implying. Reaper and chaincannons can be easily altered stat wise, and call it the same thing. But if you alter the generic plain 2% milk version of the AC, it's no longer an AC. And the only faction that would affect is the Guard, as I understand it.

And if a crappy weapon only exists for one single faction, why not take the next step and just drop it? Give them a new HW platform, call it the Executor Auto-cannon, keep the same model, but make it S7 that has two profiles: wounds infantry on a 2+ (Manstopper rounds) or wounds T7+ on a 3+ (Armor Piercing) and make the points higher to offset. Right now it's completely worthless, statistically and fluff wise. It has no purpose. It's worse than literally all the other HW options, because It's stuck on it's same old worthless profile designed before the whole Primarising of the entire universe, where everything became special and separate. The guard are left without any updates, still using HH era weapons.

Leman Russ Exterminators have their own unique Autocannon.
Regular Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Chosen, Chaos Havoc and various GSC Brood Brothers units (that are in the codex and not just allied Guard) have regular Autocannons. It isn't just Imperial Guard that use them.

Thank you for checking me on that. I thought all the ACs on the Chaos side were special named ones. I stand corrected.

Again, if we give the base AC More S, it's too powerful. More D it's too powerful. AP is practically useless these days, but I do like giving base ACs in Guard HWTs an Ability that goes something like "Spotter" The second man in this unit can spot and call out targets of value. when the unit first loses a model, lose this ability. (Grant +1 to shooting, or to Wound, or give it character targeting).

Then the Guard AC becomes useful in the one unit it's likely to see action, (Does anyone actually run AC Sentinels?) and it doesn't make affect the Chaos boys, but does synergize with the Brood brothers.

I just checked, the Havoks have a special named version, the Reaper chain cannon.

Why not D3? That would be impactful in a metagame with DG and Gravis units, while not stepping on the toes of the Heavy Bolter, and also making it more efficient vs Vehicles/Monsters.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Guard are the only ones who don't have a special snowflake named version of the weapon. That's what I was implying. Reaper and chaincannons can be easily altered stat wise, and call it the same thing. But if you alter the generic plain 2% milk version of the AC, it's no longer an AC. And the only faction that would affect is the Guard, as I understand it.

And if a crappy weapon only exists for one single faction, why not take the next step and just drop it? Give them a new HW platform, call it the Executor Auto-cannon, keep the same model, but make it S7 that has two profiles: wounds infantry on a 2+ (Manstopper rounds) or wounds T7+ on a 3+ (Armor Piercing) and make the points higher to offset. Right now it's completely worthless, statistically and fluff wise. It has no purpose. It's worse than literally all the other HW options, because It's stuck on it's same old worthless profile designed before the whole Primarising of the entire universe, where everything became special and separate. The guard are left without any updates, still using HH era weapons.

Leman Russ Exterminators have their own unique Autocannon.
Regular Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Chosen, Chaos Havoc and various GSC Brood Brothers units (that are in the codex and not just allied Guard) have regular Autocannons. It isn't just Imperial Guard that use them.

Thank you for checking me on that. I thought all the ACs on the Chaos side were special named ones. I stand corrected.

Again, if we give the base AC More S, it's too powerful. More D it's too powerful. AP is practically useless these days, but I do like giving base ACs in Guard HWTs an Ability that goes something like "Spotter" The second man in this unit can spot and call out targets of value. when the unit first loses a model, lose this ability. (Grant +1 to shooting, or to Wound, or give it character targeting).

Then the Guard AC becomes useful in the one unit it's likely to see action, (Does anyone actually run AC Sentinels?) and it doesn't make affect the Chaos boys, but does synergize with the Brood brothers.

I just checked, the Havoks have a special named version, the Reaper chain cannon.

Havocs have both the regular Autocannon and the Chaincannon (same for Chosen and regular CSMs)

But yeah, it's a hard thing to balance with the current To Wound chart. It's almost as if they shouldn't have changed it to start with lol

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Guard are the only ones who don't have a special snowflake named version of the weapon. That's what I was implying. Reaper and chaincannons can be easily altered stat wise, and call it the same thing. But if you alter the generic plain 2% milk version of the AC, it's no longer an AC. And the only faction that would affect is the Guard, as I understand it.

And if a crappy weapon only exists for one single faction, why not take the next step and just drop it? Give them a new HW platform, call it the Executor Auto-cannon, keep the same model, but make it S7 that has two profiles: wounds infantry on a 2+ (Manstopper rounds) or wounds T7+ on a 3+ (Armor Piercing) and make the points higher to offset. Right now it's completely worthless, statistically and fluff wise. It has no purpose. It's worse than literally all the other HW options, because It's stuck on it's same old worthless profile designed before the whole Primarising of the entire universe, where everything became special and separate. The guard are left without any updates, still using HH era weapons.

Leman Russ Exterminators have their own unique Autocannon.
Regular Chaos Space Marines, Chaos Chosen, Chaos Havoc and various GSC Brood Brothers units (that are in the codex and not just allied Guard) have regular Autocannons. It isn't just Imperial Guard that use them.

Thank you for checking me on that. I thought all the ACs on the Chaos side were special named ones. I stand corrected.

Again, if we give the base AC More S, it's too powerful. More D it's too powerful. AP is practically useless these days, but I do like giving base ACs in Guard HWTs an Ability that goes something like "Spotter" The second man in this unit can spot and call out targets of value. when the unit first loses a model, lose this ability. (Grant +1 to shooting, or to Wound, or give it character targeting).

Then the Guard AC becomes useful in the one unit it's likely to see action, (Does anyone actually run AC Sentinels?) and it doesn't make affect the Chaos boys, but does synergize with the Brood brothers.

I just checked, the Havoks have a special named version, the Reaper chain cannon.

In what world are you in that a S8 Autocannon would be "too powerful" LOL

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The absolute last thing we need is MORE special snowflake weapons with special snowflake abilities.

Fluffwise the autocannon has a very definite niche compared to a heavy bolter, it has lower RoF but more powerful.
The problem is GW has kept the autocannon's rules the same, whilst moving everything around it to the point it's no longer relevant. S7 is hardly better than S5 at wounding anything, and now heavy bolters do 3 damage as well.

The solution to it's profile now being naff is to make it not naff. Not to scrap and weapon and replace it with a new one for no other reason than giving it an annoyingly ostentatious name.

S7 is 50% better against T7, 100% against T6, those are the two most common vehicle Toughness values in the game. D2 heavy bolters was a mistake, they were never meant to be anti-vehicle or anti-Marine.

 vict0988 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The absolute last thing we need is MORE special snowflake weapons with special snowflake abilities.

Fluffwise the autocannon has a very definite niche compared to a heavy bolter, it has lower RoF but more powerful.
The problem is GW has kept the autocannon's rules the same, whilst moving everything around it to the point it's no longer relevant. S7 is hardly better than S5 at wounding anything, and now heavy bolters do 3 damage as well.

The solution to it's profile now being naff is to make it not naff. Not to scrap and weapon and replace it with a new one for no other reason than giving it an annoyingly ostentatious name.

S7 is 50% better against T7, 100% against T6, those are the two most common vehicle Toughness values in the game. D2 heavy bolters was a mistake, they were never meant to be anti-vehicle or anti-Marine.

Erm... Maybe it's just me, but T7 and T8 are the common vehicle values. T6 is pretty rare.

And the only time an Autocannon outperforms a Heavy Bolter is against T6. At literally every other Toughness value, a Heavy Bolter does at least the same damage (on average), if not more.

D3 would make sense as the simplest change. The Predator Autocannon (which used to just be a standard one) is D3 already.

The biggest problem I see with making the AC T8 is now it's threatening big scary t8 stuff, which is a major problem. This edition is already WAY too killy as is. If a HWS cost 50 points with 3 ACs, if it goes up to 20 per gun, then sure.

So we would then be talking (With the changes listed here) 50 points per 6n shots at S8 AP2 DD3. You are now threatening entire squads of DG, for 50 points. Not gonna lie, that seems a scooch too killy for the cost.

Not to mention you are now making Lascannons practically irrelevant.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
The biggest problem I see with making the AC T8 is now it's threatening big scary t8 stuff, which is a major problem. This edition is already WAY too killy as is. If a HWS cost 50 points with 3 ACs, if it goes up to 20 per gun, then sure.

So we would then be talking (With the changes listed here) 50 points per 6n shots at S8 AP2 DD3. You are now threatening entire squads of DG, for 50 points. Not gonna lie, that seems a scooch too killy for the cost.

Not to mention you are now making Lascannons practically irrelevant.

No one has said "Let's implement ALL the changes!" Because, yes, that turns it into a 2-shot Krak Missile, trading d6 for flat 3.

But currently, it has a direct competitor in the form of the Heavy Bolter, which is equal against T7, worse against T6, and better against literally every other Toughness value until you hit T10, which does not, to my knowledge, exist in the game.

Warlord Titans are T16, iirc Reavers are 12 or something (Warhounds are T9).
But yeah, I don't think that's too much of a concern.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Warlord Titans are T16, iirc Reavers are 12 or something (Warhounds are T9).
But yeah, I don't think that's too much of a concern.

According to Battlescribe, only the Warlord Titan breaches T8-and it's only T9!

Hmm, maybe I'm still thinking of 8th edition numbers?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Hmm, maybe I'm still thinking of 8th edition numbers?

Probably. I do recall they used to be really high Toughness.

But yeah, that means that the only models that actually exist where Heavy Bolters are outperformed by Autocannons are T6 models.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The absolute last thing we need is MORE special snowflake weapons with special snowflake abilities.

Fluffwise the autocannon has a very definite niche compared to a heavy bolter, it has lower RoF but more powerful.
The problem is GW has kept the autocannon's rules the same, whilst moving everything around it to the point it's no longer relevant. S7 is hardly better than S5 at wounding anything, and now heavy bolters do 3 damage as well.

The solution to it's profile now being naff is to make it not naff. Not to scrap and weapon and replace it with a new one for no other reason than giving it an annoyingly ostentatious name.

S7 is 50% better against T7, 100% against T6, those are the two most common vehicle Toughness values in the game. D2 heavy bolters was a mistake, they were never meant to be anti-vehicle or anti-Marine.

Erm... Maybe it's just me, but T7 and T8 are the common vehicle values. T6 is pretty rare.

T5 is pretty common as well with Drukhari and Harlequins, there it's a 33% increase, you're right T6 is not common, but I don't think T8 is more common.

And the only time an Autocannon outperforms a Heavy Bolter is against T6. At literally every other Toughness value, a Heavy Bolter does at least the same damage (on average), if not more.

Because it's damage 2 which I pointed out it shouldn't be. Otherwise, autocannon would outperform heavy bolter in every case, as it should.

Hey, how about just doubling damage of autocannons and increasing their pts cost by 5 pts? /s Slippy slide to the bottom, see how fast the game can get absolutely ruined.

Each shot is 33% more likely to wound a T5 thing, but then it shoots 50% less - net negative.

If all that changes is it becoming D3 that's not a major buff, doesn't invalidate anything else, and makes the autocannon much better in it's own niche.
It's not even unprecedented as Predator Autocannons are already D3, and back in editions prior to 8th is was a normal autocannon.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Each shot is 33% more likely to wound a T5 thing, but then it shoots 50% less - net negative.

If all that changes is it becoming D3 that's not a major buff, doesn't invalidate anything else, and makes the autocannon much better in it's own niche.
It's not even unprecedented as Predator Autocannons are already D3, and back in editions prior to 8th is was a normal autocannon.

Why does it need to be better? Just to keep up with another bad change? Why not suggest D1 heavy bolters instead, they are the problem that caused this thread, not the autocannon. Autocannon Strength, Damage and rate of fire was not too low in 8th. Good call on suggesting D2 predator autocannons as well, no good reason for them to be D3.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
D3 would make sense as the simplest change. The Predator Autocannon (which used to just be a standard one) is D3 already.

Nobody took the standard Autocannon Predator, so thay doesn't really help the argument.

 vict0988 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Each shot is 33% more likely to wound a T5 thing, but then it shoots 50% less - net negative.

If all that changes is it becoming D3 that's not a major buff, doesn't invalidate anything else, and makes the autocannon much better in it's own niche.
It's not even unprecedented as Predator Autocannons are already D3, and back in editions prior to 8th is was a normal autocannon.

Why does it need to be better? Just to keep up with another bad change? Why not suggest D1 heavy bolters instead, they are the problem that caused this thread, not the autocannon. Autocannon Strength, Damage and rate of fire was not too low in 8th. Good call on suggesting D2 predator autocannons as well, no good reason for them to be D3.

Returning HBs to D1 is probably a reasonable suggestion. I don't hate them at D2, but you could have made them S6 or rapid fire 2 or something instead if you wanted to buff them. D2 feels like a response to:
A.) Marines getting an extra wound
B.) All of the other super special bolt weapons occassionally having D2. It's slightly weird for the stalker rifle to do more damage with a normal-sized round than the HB does with a big, chunky round. (Although I always head canon'd that as being the result of usage; you aim the stalker bolter at weak points like a video game sniper weapons whereas the heavy bolter just gets sprayed into the center of the target's mass.)

The heavy bolter becoming damage 2 is a direct result of Astartes escalating the game, 2W is now not uncommon so weapons had to respond.
Heavy Splinter Cannons are also being increased to D2, and I can see this sort of change trickling on through.
Which is why I don't think dropping heavy bolters to D1 is a good idea.
Unless we drop astartes to 1W again, but you've got to draw the line somewhere...

Increasing the capabilities of autocannons seems to be the easiest solution.
I do like Predator Autocannons being better than regular Autocannons though, but they're already 2d3 shots rather than 2.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
D3 would make sense as the simplest change. The Predator Autocannon (which used to just be a standard one) is D3 already.

Nobody took the standard Autocannon Predator, so thay doesn't really help the argument.

In some editions the TLLC was massively overpriced. The Auto/Las pred was a solid choice, and remains my favorite loadout. Quad las was king for a bit, I’ll give you that. I think both options are valid choices in 9th, with all the buffs on the Pred AC.

---

One problem with 40k is there is not a lot of room in the design space. And especially with imperium (and chaos for that mater) units/weapons is that there are a lot of things already sharing it. What’s the AC’s role? Long range generalist weapon for taking down light vehicles and monsters. Problem is that other weapons are stepping on its toes. Which is a little ironic, as when the preferred method of killing vehicles was glancing them to death, it was the weapon of choice over dedicated AV guns. Bumping it to S8 I think would push it out of its role. T8 things are heavy armor, and S8+ things are dedicated AV guns. Plus this would let it wound T4 things on a 2+, which is a pretty critical breakpoint.

But if we are not going to change the S, what are the other options? AV? Not a bad call. This helps differentiate it from the horde killing HB by giving it fewer shots, but with more punch. Up to D3? Again, letting its fewer shots hit harder. This option also doesn’t step on the role of guns that clear chaff, as 3 damage is overkill. But for its primary target, very important. Up both? That would be nice, but might be a little too much. Points can be adjusted to power level.

If we make the HB D1, you have nerfed far more things in the game than you would if you just dropped the AC. For point of reference almost every tank and or Imperial T8 vehicle has a HB. Nerfing a HB means nerfing Astartes. Dropping the AC or making it a special named version JUST affects the guard or Stock Chaos, which will likely get a pretty big buff here anyway.

Make the AC S7 AP2 D2 and make it so the damage cannot be altered. By anything. Then it's got it's role back (Heavy infantry mulcher) and it's actually useful.

I honestly don't see the relevance of giving it a special name. How does that factor into solving anything?

It would also be very strange to give the autocannon some special rule to negate damage reduction, almost nothing has that in the game.
Making it D3 would make it effective for killing heavy infantry like Gravis and light vehicles. Whereas the moderate strength would prevent it from being properly effective vs heavier vehicles.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If we make the HB D1, you have nerfed far more things in the game than you would if you just dropped the AC.

What's the problem with nerfing the damage output of these units? It's not a problem, it's solving the problem of heavy bolters being too killy against multi-wound models.

Nerfing heavy bolters does not nerf Astartes, it's not a weapon that they spam and it's a weapon that is great against Astartes, nerfing it is buffing Astartes because it means the main anti-infantry heavy weapon for Firstborn is not also an anti-Astartes weapon. Plasma still counters Astartes, there was never a need for D2 HB.

Demolisher cannons and doomsday cannons also need to go back to d3 shots. Exorcists need to have their shots and damage brought back down. Multi-melta should go back to Heavy 1. Eradicators need to lose their double-tap ability as Aggressors did. Doctrines should be Stratagems, not purity abilities.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
I honestly don't see the relevance of giving it a special name. How does that factor into solving anything?

It would also be very strange to give the autocannon some special rule to negate damage reduction, almost nothing has that in the game.
Making it D3 would make it effective for killing heavy infantry like Gravis and light vehicles. Whereas the moderate strength would prevent it from being properly effective vs heavier vehicles.

If it's not a "generic AC" it can have any rules it wants. It can be S50 with 30 shots of AP5 3d6 if it's a "OPCANNON". Thats my point. Named weapons can have special profiles. If you alter the generic one then you alter tons of units. I would not be surprised to see IG get some form of Gunnery buff, either by strat or by orders, or by weapon profiles. They are just so bad right now under 9th, they need something to be able to stand up against the Elite Armies.

The autocannon being bad applies to everyone that has it.
Although that's pretty much only the Guard and Chaos Marines.
Altering all the units that suffer from a terrible autocannon is surely a good thing.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The autocannon being bad applies to everyone that has it.
Although that's pretty much only the Guard and Chaos Marines.
Altering all the units that suffer from a terrible autocannon is surely a good thing.

It wasn't terrible in 8th was it? https://spikeybits.com/2019/06/top-5-imperial-weapons-to-spam-in-8th-edition.html What changed?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The autocannon being bad applies to everyone that has it.
Although that's pretty much only the Guard and Chaos Marines.
Altering all the units that suffer from a terrible autocannon is surely a good thing.

Lootas have the equivalent of autocannons, and they're also bad. Which is even worse than imperium counterparts since they don't have many other units with different weapons that compete with them, and yet they're outperformed by pretty much everything.

 vict0988 wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:
The autocannon being bad applies to everyone that has it.
Although that's pretty much only the Guard and Chaos Marines.
Altering all the units that suffer from a terrible autocannon is surely a good thing.

It wasn't terrible in 8th was it? https://spikeybits.com/2019/06/top-5-imperial-weapons-to-spam-in-8th-edition.html What changed?

Points changes, Heavy Bolters becoming D2, and smaller/tighter boards are the main changes that mattered

I can see why people would not want to upgrade those dumb spacemarine leviathan autocannons, but currently the guard are really looking for buffs, and the autocannon is pretty iconic to the guard, also chaos space marines could definitely use an upgrade to their autocannons, btw still cannot believe chaos space marines havent gotten their extra wounds

bat702 wrote:
I can see why people would not want to upgrade those dumb spacemarine leviathan autocannons, but currently the guard are really looking for buffs, and the autocannon is pretty iconic to the guard, also chaos space marines could definitely use an upgrade to their autocannons, btw still cannot believe chaos space marines havent gotten their extra wounds

Leviathans were nerfed, so they're really not an issue.

 Canadian 5th wrote:
In this case, I think that the fix is to restore the wounding chart to the old:

>T2+: 2+ to wound
>T: 3+ to wound
=T: 4+ to wound
<T: 5+ to wound
><T2+: 6+ to wound

Weapons that are twice the strength of a model's toughness deal mortal wounds. Weapons can never wound on worse than a 6, rolls of 1 always fail.>

Oh God if only that was the case.

Make that change and suddenly vehicles are less squishy. GW will remain too scared to give out toughnesses above 8, but still, it'll help things immensely.

I never understood why they changed the To Wound chart in the first place.

I can see the benefit of the new to-wound chart.
A big part of the problem is they changed the chart, but kept the same weapon and toughness scale (eg S9 lascannon). Which is silly because those values were designed to be used with the old to-wound chart.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I never understood why they changed the To Wound chart in the first place.

Because they want Timmy "Fresh new player" to be able to roll their dice and see a result every time. I just 12 d6s to simulate my las-guns shooting your Warhound! And I hit 6 times, and did 1 wound!

It gets even worse when an Ork opponent chipped a wound off my Landraider with a Grot Blaster.

It's catering to the crowd that don't like rules saying they CANNOT do something. As in you CANNOT damage that 12k year old land raider with your las pistol. But what if my Sgt shoots a lucky shot?!

I hate it, and want the old wounding chart back, also AV tables.

Changing the Heavy Bolter to be D2 only against INFANTRY and CAVALRY, and maybe BIKE (and thus not against VEHICLES); perhaps having the autocannon get AP-2 against the same range of targets, would make each more different in some respects.

 Kcalehc wrote:
Changing the Heavy Bolter to be D2 only against INFANTRY and CAVALRY, and maybe BIKE (and thus not against VEHICLES); perhaps having the autocannon get AP-2 against the same range of targets, would make each more different in some respects.

that sounds exactlly like what S vs T is supposed to be. Only problem is we use a d6 system that says "Anyone can cook, I mean Wound".

 Kcalehc wrote:
Changing the Heavy Bolter to be D2 only against INFANTRY and CAVALRY, and maybe BIKE (and thus not against VEHICLES); perhaps having the autocannon get AP-2 against the same range of targets, would make each more different in some respects.

Why should the heavy bolter be anti-MEQ?

Because it's literally designed to kill large ammounts of heavy infantry, lol. I mean without getting into the fluff, it actually fires bigger bullets than the AC.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I never understood why they changed the To Wound chart in the first place.

Because they want Timmy "Fresh new player" to be able to roll their dice and see a result every time. I just 12 d6s to simulate my las-guns shooting your Warhound! And I hit 6 times, and did 1 wound!

It gets even worse when an Ork opponent chipped a wound off my Landraider with a Grot Blaster.

It's catering to the crowd that don't like rules saying they CANNOT do something. As in you CANNOT damage that 12k year old land raider with your las pistol. But what if my Sgt shoots a lucky shot?!

I hate it, and want the old wounding chart back, also AV tables.

AV is stupid and anyone defending it and facing values needs to let go of the rose tinted glasses. Being able to wound anything isn't the problem. The problem is the D6 system it's limited to.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I never understood why they changed the To Wound chart in the first place.

Because they want Timmy "Fresh new player" to be able to roll their dice and see a result every time. I just 12 d6s to simulate my las-guns shooting your Warhound! And I hit 6 times, and did 1 wound!

It gets even worse when an Ork opponent chipped a wound off my Landraider with a Grot Blaster.

It's catering to the crowd that don't like rules saying they CANNOT do something. As in you CANNOT damage that 12k year old land raider with your las pistol. But what if my Sgt shoots a lucky shot?!

I hate it, and want the old wounding chart back, also AV tables.

AV is stupid and anyone defending it and facing values needs to let go of the rose tinted glasses. Being able to wound anything isn't the problem. The problem is the D6 system it's limited to.

I wasn't playing during the AV system days, but word got back from those who were, and their arguments for a return have good points.

I am confused, the d6 system is the problem, but not the fact that anything can wound anything? Are you advocating a d10/12 system? I'll wager GW will give out free rules to every new player before they give up their special dice racket. Plus having the re-write the entire game.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Because it's literally designed to kill large amounts of heavy infantry, lol. I mean without getting into the fluff, it actually fires bigger bullets than the AC.

So why was it AP 4 and not AP 3 in the old AP system? No, I think we should get into the fluff, how do you know the different calibres of the guns in 40k? You can't say "without getting into the fluff" and then get into the fluff and then also not provide proof of your claim, that's just weasely debate tactics. If you can't explain away why heavy bolters were not an anti-MEQ weapon previous to 8th you should at least be able to find a piece of fluff that says heavy bolters are designed for killing large amounts of Astartes and not just generic infantry like Guardsmen. I found one quote in the Astra Militarum book that said that heavy bolters and autocannons are good at mulching down infantry and light tanks, whether that means both are good at killing both or that heavy bolters are good at killing infantry while autocannons are good at killing light tanks is unclear, but even you read heavy bolters as being excellent anti-light tank leading to Damage 2 then autocannons should be excellent at killing infantry as well and should get another shot. Giving them the same profile would at least make the game a little simpler.

 vict0988 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Because it's literally designed to kill large amounts of heavy infantry, lol. I mean without getting into the fluff, it actually fires bigger bullets than the AC.

So why was it AP 4 and not AP 3 in the old AP system? No, I think we should get into the fluff, how do you know the different calibres of the guns in 40k? You can't say "without getting into the fluff" and then get into the fluff and then also not provide proof of your claim, that's just weasely debate tactics. If you can't explain away why heavy bolters were not an anti-MEQ weapon previous to 8th you should at least be able to find a piece of fluff that says heavy bolters are designed for killing large amounts of Astartes and not just generic infantry like Guardsmen. I found one quote in the Astra Militarum book that said that heavy bolters and autocannons are good at mulching down infantry and light tanks, whether that means both are good at killing both or that heavy bolters are good at killing infantry while autocannons are good at killing light tanks is unclear, but even you read heavy bolters as being excellent anti-light tank leading to Damage 2 then autocannons should be excellent at killing infantry as well and should get another shot. Giving them the same profile would at least make the game a little simpler.

I really don't know why you are picking a fight on a fantasy space battle forum, but whatever.

Getting into the fluff - They (The writers have listed out the dimensions of the rounds in various texts and books.) That being said, the HB round is a larger Bolter round, which is already a Rocket Propelled Grenade. The dimensions of the Bolter round are .75 calibre mass reactive explosive tipped round(https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Bolter#Standard_Bolt). The heavy bolter fires a much larger round (https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Bolter#Heavy_Bolter) So all I have to do is prove the AC fires a smaller round than the standard bolter and I'm set. In several of the gaunt books it talks about the Autocannons putting out 20mm rounds of death. A 20mm is effectively .76 caliber. So if the HB is MUCH larger than a standard Bolter round, the HB round would be bigger than the AC round, not to mention Explosive tipped mass reactive and rocket propelled.
Again, I don't like getting "into the fluff" because none of it matters. IT's all completely made up and the rules are dropped at the earliest convenience. Ala back flipping terminators and Multi-laser Land Raiders, or Brothers of the Snake where a single marine is faster than a pack of Dark Eldar. Or the entire Cain series, where he defeats a Black Legionaire in single combat. Fluff is BS and not to be trusted. Thats why I said lets not get into it.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
I never understood why they changed the To Wound chart in the first place.

Because they want Timmy "Fresh new player" to be able to roll their dice and see a result every time. I just 12 d6s to simulate my las-guns shooting your Warhound! And I hit 6 times, and did 1 wound!

It gets even worse when an Ork opponent chipped a wound off my Landraider with a Grot Blaster.

It's catering to the crowd that don't like rules saying they CANNOT do something. As in you CANNOT damage that 12k year old land raider with your las pistol. But what if my Sgt shoots a lucky shot?!

I hate it, and want the old wounding chart back, also AV tables.

AV is stupid and anyone defending it and facing values needs to let go of the rose tinted glasses. Being able to wound anything isn't the problem. The problem is the D6 system it's limited to.

I wasn't playing during the AV system days, but word got back from those who were, and their arguments for a return have good points.

I am confused, the d6 system is the problem, but not the fact that anything can wound anything? Are you advocating a d10/12 system? I'll wager GW will give out free rules to every new player before they give up their special dice racket. Plus having the re-write the entire game.

I've been advocating for D8 at minimum, and think that a D10 system would work incredibly well.

GW will never move away from d6. Although it's not a dice racket at all.
Games like legion or dust use unique dice with special symbols.
GW uses the most generic dice going and uses normal numbers.

The idea of the autocannon being equivalent to the bolter is ridiculous, and isn't substantiated by anything but a single line in a book.
A book which, btw, includes events such as a lasgun felling a Space Marine, a lasgun blowing a man's arm off, and a lasgun hitting someone square in the throat and not killing them.

But let's assume for a second that autocannons firing 20mm rounds was accurate in that instance.
Maybe they were firing sabot rounds for armour penetration? Even if they were firing at infantry targets, it might have been what was in the belt, or they were blasting through cover.

It's better to look at role instead of one single reference in a book, because those aren't even internally consistent let alone across the entire lore!
The heavy bolter has always been the heavy machine gun. Adept at mowing down lower toughness and mid-armoured troops.
The autocannon has always had equivalent AP, but higher strength. This particularly made it effective against light to medium vehicles over the heavy bolter, which is where it's role was seen.

At the moment the autocannon doesn't even do that. It's just a gak choice.
D3 would make it more useful against very heavy infantry like Deathguard or Gravis, and vehicles. But the heavy would still be superior against other infantry, up to and including regular Astartes. I think that's fair.

I could get behind a flat 3 damage gun, but then I would hate seeing all the hordes of Havocs mowing down anything in the game at 48".

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I could get behind a flat 3 damage gun, but then I would hate seeing all the hordes of Havocs mowing down anything in the game at 48".

It could work if it becomes heavy 2 S8, AP -1, D3 @ price of lascannon, as to become a lower AP, static damage, higher ROF alternative to lascannon.

Reaper autocannon could be reworked as lower D, higher ROF version of autocannon (i.e. assault cannon)

You mean put them to S8!

I dont think saying that it would make the las-cannon worthless a valid argument, in the sense that the auto cannon is just under-performing, I think the las-cannon is also a bit under-performing and we see that games-workshop is making las-cannon "like" weapons better in the way of flat 3 damage or even 3damage + d3 damage in the case of las-cannon rapiers, also a big problem is games-workshop obsession with the factor of 5 in their point costs, currently the las-cannon at 15 pts is over-costed in the guard with a BS of 4+, it should cost 12, or have its damage not capable of being only 1 on a d6

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 vict0988 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Because it's literally designed to kill large amounts of heavy infantry, lol. I mean without getting into the fluff, it actually fires bigger bullets than the AC.

So why was it AP 4 and not AP 3 in the old AP system? No, I think we should get into the fluff, how do you know the different calibres of the guns in 40k? You can't say "without getting into the fluff" and then get into the fluff and then also not provide proof of your claim, that's just weasely debate tactics. If you can't explain away why heavy bolters were not an anti-MEQ weapon previous to 8th you should at least be able to find a piece of fluff that says heavy bolters are designed for killing large amounts of Astartes and not just generic infantry like Guardsmen. I found one quote in the Astra Militarum book that said that heavy bolters and autocannons are good at mulching down infantry and light tanks, whether that means both are good at killing both or that heavy bolters are good at killing infantry while autocannons are good at killing light tanks is unclear, but even you read heavy bolters as being excellent anti-light tank leading to Damage 2 then autocannons should be excellent at killing infantry as well and should get another shot. Giving them the same profile would at least make the game a little simpler.

I really don't know why you are picking a fight on a fantasy space battle forum, but whatever.

Getting into the fluff - They (The writers have listed out the dimensions of the rounds in various texts and books.) That being said, the HB round is a larger Bolter round, which is already a Rocket Propelled Grenade. The dimensions of the Bolter round are .75 calibre mass reactive explosive tipped round(https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Bolter#Standard_Bolt). The heavy bolter fires a much larger round (https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Bolter#Heavy_Bolter) So all I have to do is prove the AC fires a smaller round than the standard bolter and I'm set. In several of the gaunt books it talks about the Autocannons putting out 20mm rounds of death. A 20mm is effectively .76 caliber. So if the HB is MUCH larger than a standard Bolter round, the HB round would be bigger than the AC round, not to mention Explosive tipped mass reactive and rocket propelled.
Again, I don't like getting "into the fluff" because none of it matters. IT's all completely made up and the rules are dropped at the earliest convenience. Ala back flipping terminators and Multi-laser Land Raiders, or Brothers of the Snake where a single marine is faster than a pack of Dark Eldar. Or the entire Cain series, where he defeats a Black Legionaire in single combat. Fluff is BS and not to be trusted. Thats why I said lets not get into it.

Thank you for providing a source, I can get behind the lore in Black Library books not being something to base rules on directly, but I do think lore is important for crafting a narrative with the rules of the game. If HBs are much better anti-vehicle weapons than autocannons then I think that should be displayed in the rules. It sounds kind of like the autocannon is way overstatted, perhaps it should be S4 D1...

D2 HBs are leaving a role in the Imperium heavy weapons arsenal unfilled (anti-medium infantry) and taking over roles that other weapons already fill in both AM and SM (autocannons and plasma cannons respectively). I think the game design argument goes in favour of reverting the heavy bolter, the only argument I can see is that the designers want more D2 weapons in the game to make 2W models worse.

as i see it 3 "Solutions" To the AC.

1. Up rof, by one f.e..
It's not really an generalist anti heavy infantry and anti light vehicle gun anymore and quite well would lead to issues in some cases.

2. Up S value. --> you turned it into a discount AT weaponry with bad penetration values.

3. You improve the penetration statistic. This would lend itself probably the most i guess.

It's a relic of an old edition where noting had much armor, especially light vehicles. Now everything is running around with a 3+ or a 2+/4++/5+++. Instead of making everything more killy, just drop AVs on stuff. Plague Marines and gravis are now AV5, tanks are AV4, and only knights and above are 2+.

Then ACs become much better with their AP2, because they'd be wounding on 5s (v S8) and forcing saves of 6+. Infantry wouldn't be able to save without a stormshield or an invuln.

bat702 wrote:
I dont think saying that it would make the las-cannon worthless a valid argument, in the sense that the auto cannon is just under-performing, I think the las-cannon is also a bit under-performing and we see that games-workshop is making las-cannon "like" weapons better in the way of flat 3 damage or even 3damage + d3 damage in the case of las-cannon rapiers, also a big problem is games-workshop obsession with the factor of 5 in their point costs, currently the las-cannon at 15 pts is over-costed in the guard with a BS of 4+, it should cost 12, or have its damage not capable of being only 1 on a d6

It's not that it's under performing, it's just that the weapon is designed that way. I don't really care what it is supposed to be as per lore, and as far as its in-game role goes (since 3rd ed) it's a pot-shot gun capable of insta-gib/near insta-gibbing models (it was ALWAYS "it doesn't always hit well, but when it does hit well, it hits like a truck" type of gun). If LC was the go to weapon for AV14, then autocannon was undoubtedly the go to weapon for AV10~13. Now that any vehicle explodes if you just look at it the wrong way, there's no need for dedicated light/medium armor weapons anymore, so why not fold it into anti-high armor option?

If you like to gamble, then you include lascannon in your list. If you like stable damage, you take something else.

I genuinely wish they would extend the strength and toughness values and just restrict the ability of small arms to even damage tanks beyond scratch damage which they are kinda doing right now. Issue is, they could do more. I have little problem with my shootas or Ork Boyz being able to chop down a Leman Russ and leave it the Nob with a Power Klaw.

One of the things I think would help the various mid strength weapons would be an opening of the T and Str values to help reduce the clumping of values. If to use Guard as a bench mark, Russes were T9, Lascannons were strength 10 and Autocannons 8 this would establish that you'd prefer the Lascannon as an AT gun against the tank but if say Chimera stayed at T7 to reflect their lighter construction in order to have a large carrying capacity, you could use the big Lascannon against it but the Autocannon is just as good and if the Autocannon got improved AP, such as AP-2 to reflect its improved penetration over the heavy bolter but not at the same level as a Lascannon. Increasing it to Damage 3 would be nice, however I think autocannons should be diversified, with a difference made between the ones on the Leman Russ/Hydra and the infantry portable one. Think a 40mm autocannon vs a 20mm autocannon.

The infantry one could be given a higher ROF while the vehicle mount could be a higher damage one. Hell the Predator autocannon is remarkably similar to that Russian 57mm autocannon and using the effects of those IRL systems could be a good basis for establishing their effectiveness in game.

Combining these ideas could probably bring a more balanced and nuance to list construction for Guard lists, along with being a decent basis for other factions division between essentially Light, medium and heavy autocannons. Treating the various autocannons as variations from that archetype. Reaper Autocannons are multibarreled light autocannons with high ROF. Accelerators are beefy light autocannons with good AP ammo. Executioner Autocannons on a Russ are twin medium autocannons. Predator autocannon is the archetypical Heavy autocannon.

A wounding table based on greater dice value would be very handy.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
A wounding table based on greater dice value would be very handy.

Such as using D10s over d6s or expanding the current used values to the point where they make more sense.

If you raise the LC to S10, what does the Melta become? This is the problem with the bloat of killiness. Bolters suddenly became D2, then HBs became 3 shot S2, then there were HEAVY HEAVY Bolters, which are 3 damage, then Meltas became d6+2/3 depending on type, distance, and what color pants your opponent is wearing, not we are talking about making ACs s8, and LCs S10? No. Stop bloating the old useless guns and just get rid of them. Whats next, Plasma is d6 damage when overcharged and D3 normally?

panzerfront14 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
A wounding table based on greater dice value would be very handy.

Such as using D10s over d6s or expanding the current used values to the point where they make more sense.

You can just have a second wound roll, that would be way easier to implement.

10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%.

3%, 6%, 8%, 11%, 14%, 17%... Having a second wound roll gives more values and does not require everyone to get new dice.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
If you raise the LC to S10, what does the Melta become? This is the problem with the bloat of killiness. Bolters suddenly became D2, then HBs became 3 shot S2, then there were HEAVY HEAVY Bolters, which are 3 damage, then Meltas became d6+2/3 depending on type, distance, and what color pants your opponent is wearing, not we are talking about making ACs s8, and LCs S10? No. Stop bloating the old useless guns and just get rid of them. Whats next, Plasma is d6 damage when overcharged and D3 normally?

My point was regarding changes values across the board, using Leman Russ tanks as an examples. Raising T values for vehicles and tanks as appropriate and returning to the older 7th Edition style wound chart, or possible retaining the current one but increasing the various values across the board so you can further differentiate the various armored units from one another in order to add a bit of nuance to Guard models.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vict0988 wrote:

panzerfront14 wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
A wounding table based on greater dice value would be very handy.

Such as using D10s over d6s or expanding the current used values to the point where they make more sense.

You can just have a second wound roll, that would be way easier to implement.

10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%.

3%, 6%, 8%, 11%, 14%, 17%... Having a second wound roll gives more values and does not require everyone to get new dice.

To clarify requiring a second successful wound after the first?

Yes, you could call it whatever roll to shock or whatever, give every weapon a shock value to have more points between S3 and S4, but needing a D10 is silly IMO.

Apocalypse shows just how useless adding D10s to a system can be. It does nothing except make it so that heavily armoured units need even numbers of wounds inflicted on them while unarmoured units are hurt almost as much by uneven damage in terms.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote: The heavy bolter fires a much larger round.... So all I have to do is prove the AC fires a smaller round than the standard bolter and I'm set.

-- That's not how penetration works in the real world. Pure width is not as important as density, velocity and the shape of the round. A 9x19mm pistol round is much wider and typically has a bullet twice as heavy as the one in a 5.56x45mm NATO round. But the 5.56mm has much higher penetration because of its much higher velocity and design. The round in a bolter/heavy bolter lore wise is designed to penetrate the thick skin and lightish armour of Xenos and then explode inside them causing serious wounds. It's anti-infantry weapon. It has pretty much universally been the case across editions that the heavy bolter is for high RoF/low strength shots, the Lascannon is a one shot, high strength weapon, and the Autocannon kind of sits between the two. Until the ruined the strength/toughness chart.

As far as people complaining about D6s again, it's a perfectly adequate system. GW just seems to find new and interesting ways to break it and/or make it needlessly complicated in what should otherwise be a fairly fast moving game e.g. having toughness and armour saves seperately, which makes little sense when most high strength weapons also have high armour penetration.

Auto cannons do need something, in the same thought I have thought multi lasers need a touch upon as well.

Str 6, ap 0 and heavy 3 dam 1 means all of crapola. Heavy bolter is better than it in every metric of worth. Now maybe some weapons are just supposed to gak, maybe that is their goal I'm not sure but for that stat line multilaser needs to have more shots at least, or any kind of ap or something. As is its been crap for awhile and all it had before was when AV was a thing and Str 6 actually meant anything in touching a vehicles armor.

Missile launchers as are could be fine it they worked on their costing. As is they seem to overly hamstring them based on being versatile but that hasn't been a real good choice in a long time if ever. At this point I feel I take as many of them as I do less to be effective and more to give GW the finger and use it just to be unique or out of some sense of bitterness that it always feels like the inferior choice.

I dare say, every type of las-weapon needs a buff. Right now the most useful is LasCannons, and those are only useful on vehicles or devestators. Las rifles and pistols need to be S4, and multilas needs to be assault 5, I mean you only ever find them on vehichles like transports or the stupid walker things. Neither of them are that prevelent in the AM meta. let alone the whole game meta. ACs are almost everywhere.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:I dare say, every type of las-weapon needs a buff. Right now the most useful is LasCannons, and those are only useful on vehicles or devestators. Las rifles and pistols need to be S4, and multilas needs to be assault 5, I mean you only ever find them on vehichles like transports or the stupid walker things. Neither of them are that prevelent in the AM meta. let alone the whole game meta. ACs are almost everywhere.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:If you raise the LC to S10, what does the Melta become? This is the problem with the bloat of killiness. Bolters suddenly became D2, then HBs became 3 shot S2, then there were HEAVY HEAVY Bolters, which are 3 damage, then Meltas became d6+2/3 depending on type, distance, and what color pants your opponent is wearing, not we are talking about making ACs s8, and LCs S10? No. Stop bloating the old useless guns and just get rid of them. Whats next, Plasma is d6 damage when overcharged and D3 normally?

Posted for the irony.

Are you saying I'm wrong? I don't see how either point is mutually exclusive. On one hand Las weapons have become pointless. On the other point, I am saying they are useless BECAUSE everything has grown out of control. Raising las weaponry to S4 doesn't break the game at all. But it does allow an entire faction to still be slightly competitive against factions that field T5/T6 units with 3+5++ like it's going out of style.

panzerfront14 wrote:

You can just have a second wound roll, that would be way easier to implement.

10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%.

3%, 6%, 8%, 11%, 14%, 17%... Having a second wound roll gives more values and does not require everyone to get new dice.

To clarify requiring a second successful wound after the first?

For reference, this is what the Lord of the Rings SBG does/did.

S=T or S>T by 1: 4+
S<T by 1 or 2: 5+
by 3 or 4: 6+
by 5: 6+/4+
by 6: 6+/5+
by 7: 6+/6+
by 8+: Cannot wound.

EDIT: Very strange bug involving less than and greater than symbols.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Are you saying I'm wrong? I don't see how either point is mutually exclusive. On one hand Las weapons have become pointless. On the other point, I am saying they are useless BECAUSE everything has grown out of control. Raising las weaponry to S4 doesn't break the game at all. But it does allow an entire faction to still be slightly competitive against factions that field T5/T6 units with 3+5++ like it's going out of style.

I will if he doesn't. You seem like a troll. They are mutually exclusive because moving up lasgun strength makes them too similar to boltguns, meaning boltguns have to be further improved... The thing you pointed out. Lasguns are not pointless, especially for AM where you have very decent damage compared to durability via orders, the game has enough glasscannons, games are decided early enough already. 5++ does not matter against lasguns, T5 is no better than T4 against lasguns and lasguns are not supposed to be good against medium vehicles like T6 models are, raising lasguns to S4 makes them twice as good against T6/T7. It's a hilariously bad suggestion, if AM are bad then they should get points decreases. You cannot go in and fix every single balance problem with a rules adjustment, people will never be able to adjust or learn the game if rules are changed too often.

 vict0988 wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Are you saying I'm wrong? I don't see how either point is mutually exclusive. On one hand Las weapons have become pointless. On the other point, I am saying they are useless BECAUSE everything has grown out of control. Raising las weaponry to S4 doesn't break the game at all. But it does allow an entire faction to still be slightly competitive against factions that field T5/T6 units with 3+5++ like it's going out of style.

I will if he doesn't. You seem like a troll. They are mutually exclusive because moving up lasgun strength makes them too similar to boltguns, meaning boltguns have to be further improved... The thing you pointed out. Lasguns are not pointless, especially for AM where you have very decent damage compared to durability via orders, the game has enough glasscannons, games are decided early enough already. 5++ does not matter against lasguns, T5 is no better than T4 against lasguns and lasguns are not supposed to be good against medium vehicles like T6 models are, raising lasguns to S4 makes them twice as good against T6/T7. It's a hilariously bad suggestion, if AM are bad then they should get points decreases. You cannot go in and fix every single balance problem with a rules adjustment, people will never be able to adjust or learn the game if rules are changed too often.

Right now there are three things about your post that are Internet tough guyish, so hakuna your tata's tough guy.

1. AM - Points decreases? Are you high? they are already the cheapest faction by points.
2. Rules changed too often people won't learn - yep, you are smoking crack. The rules here change literally every month with FAQs, CAs, and new codex drops, not to mention the ridiculousness that is WD rules leaks.
3. Very decent damage compared to durability via orders: A full squad of AM with FRFSRF will on AVERAGE score just over 1.5 wounds against a squad of basic marines. So that isn't even a single dead marine. That isn't decent.


But I'm a troll for wanting to eliminate a useless weapon that has been a useless weapon for several generations of this game, unless it's on a FW Dread along with 7 others, firing a BS 2+_with double shooting.

Yeah, AC's are garbage, Las weaponry is garbage. Catch up.

I'm not interested in "fixing" Lasguns but we could say that Multilasers and Lascannons need a bit of fixing. A fixed damage value on Lascannons (or less deviation like the new Dark Lances) and bumping Multis to Heavy 4 or even 5 are solid ideas.

However that has nothing to do with Autocannons hahaha

Multi las guns are only on two vehicles (check?) in the entire game. I don't know if they need fixing. But Lascannons are supposed to be long range anti-heavy armor. Which is reflected in their s9 48" range. What really hampers them is their 1 shot nature. If all Melta is now assault 2-3, perhaps we look at multiple firing profiles for lasguns? Heavy 1 S9, D6+3 AP3. or Heavy 2 S8 AP2 d3+1?

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Multi las guns are only on two vehicles (check?) in the entire game. I don't know if they need fixing. But Lascannons are supposed to be long range anti-heavy armor. Which is reflected in their s9 48" range. What really hampers them is their 1 shot nature. If all Melta is now assault 2-3, perhaps we look at multiple firing profiles for lasguns? Heavy 1 S9, D6+3 AP3. or Heavy 2 S8 AP2 d3+1?

All Melta isn't assault 2-3 though? Meltaguns are still Assault 1.
It was Multi-meltas that got the extra shot (and Eradictors with their "shoot twice" rule).

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Right now there are three things about your post that are Internet tough guyish, so hakuna your tata's tough guy.

I'm not mad, you're mad I will also never kick your ass, I am not a violent person. At worst I'll call you a troll for suggesting laspistols should have the same profile as bolt pistols.

1. AM - Points decreases? Are you high? they are already the cheapest faction by points.

Termagants are cheaper than Infantry Squads, AM are doing poorly at tournaments and their rules outside Stratagems are already as powerful as they can possibly be without stopping the game from making sense.

2. Rules changed too often people won't learn - yep, you are smoking crack. The rules here change literally every month with FAQs, CAs, and new codex drops, not to mention the ridiculousness that is WD rules leaks.

The rules are changing too fast. Keeping up with who gets to use new or old weapon profiles, which Marines do or do not get an extra wound. It's a good thing the hobby isn't growing right now, imagine having to teach someone these things.

"Oh yeah, Ork flamers don't get the the same range as most other flamer weapons, but every time you play against an Ork player with any flamers make sure to ask if this month was the month that Orks won the weapon lottery and had their profiles changed."

Errata and codexes for matched play should come out a couple of times a year, not every month. Campaign books should not be bringing in new rules that everybody using a given faction have to use, the Book of Rust stuff seems fine, since people can ignore the rules in most cases.

3. Very decent damage compared to durability via orders: A full squad of AM with FRFSRF will on AVERAGE score just over 1.5 wounds against a squad of basic marines. So that isn't even a single dead marine. That isn't decent.

FRFSRF Guardsmen kill 6 Guardsmen or 1 Marine ((9*4+1)/2/3/3=2).
5 Marines with tactical doctrine, Captain and Lieutenant kill 5 Guardsmen or 1,13 Marines.

Your expectations for how much damage a small squad of weaklings should do is simply out of wack.

Yeah, AC's are garbage, Las weaponry is garbage.

But I'm a troll for wanting to eliminate a useless weapon that has been a useless weapon for several generations of this game, unless it's on a FW Dread along with 7 others, firing a BS 2+_with double shooting.

That's purely a question of points. Lasguns and ACs were great in 8th, their profiles don't need to be updated for 9th. Multi-meltas are the guns that were actually trash for many editions outside of flyers with power of the machine spirit, but even those went too far IMO. GW probably just thought Heavy 2 made sense because it is called a MULTI melta so it should have MULTIple shots or something silly like that. Lascannons were not trash in previous editions, a little meh perhaps.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Multi las guns are only on two vehicles (check?) in the entire game. I don't know if they need fixing. But Lascannons are supposed to be long range anti-heavy armor. Which is reflected in their s9 48" range. What really hampers them is their 1 shot nature. If all Melta is now assault 2-3, perhaps we look at multiple firing profiles for lasguns? Heavy 1 S9, D6+3 AP3. or Heavy 2 S8 AP2 d3+1?

All Melta isn't assault 2-3 though? Meltaguns are still Assault 1.
It was Multi-meltas that got the extra shot (and Eradictors with their "shoot twice" rule).

Let him live in his fantasy land of Assault 3 meltaguns. The Necron twin multi-melta actually didn't even get any extra shots in the new codex.

Yeah Multilasers need some work, I can't recall seeing anyone opt to have one on their vehicles if they had a different option. Perhaps making them heavy 5 would do it, more emphasis on tearing into light targets as opposed to the heavier targets that heavy bolters are for.

panzerfront14 wrote:
Yeah Multilasers need some work, I can't recall seeing anyone opt to have one on their vehicles if they had a different option. Perhaps making them heavy 5 would do it, more emphasis on tearing into light targets as opposed to the heavier targets that heavy bolters are for.

They weren't terrible in 6th/7th, as glancing with them wasn't unreasonable and weren't paying for AP that wouldn't be used.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

panzerfront14 wrote:
Yeah Multilasers need some work, I can't recall seeing anyone opt to have one on their vehicles if they had a different option. Perhaps making them heavy 5 would do it, more emphasis on tearing into light targets as opposed to the heavier targets that heavy bolters are for.

They weren't terrible in 6th/7th, as glancing with them wasn't unreasonable and weren't paying for AP that wouldn't be used.

I remember, that was the last time I saw them commonly used. Now its only on tanks that were built with them from that era that have them. I always see them using heavy bolters or heavy flamers.

TBH if they ever updated the heavy weapons team, I could see them adding multilasers to the kit, would be a nice addition

I think we have the stats on the new Autocannon: 48", 3 shots, S7, AP-1, D2, from BoLS (https://www.belloflostsouls.net/2021/04/warhammer-40k-breaking-updated-mechanicus-ironstriders-sydonians-confirmed.html)

Well if the new LC is heavy 1 48" S9 AP3 D3+3, I don't think we can avoid the fact that AC is still pointless. HBs are for mulching infantry, and LCs are for blasting tanks. ACs are for what then, super heavy infantry and bikes? T6 stuff? I mean, ok, sure. But what if your next opponent is all T8 or hordes of T3? ACs are still kinda this in between that doesn't really shine...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Might also add, that is just for ONE unit of a single faction, not really "Gamewide confirmed yet....

There might be some autocannons variants that are well balanced, but the basic autocannon is very lack luster to me atm, str8 would be good but ap-2 would be better

bat702 wrote:
There might be some autocannons variants that are well balanced, but the basic autocannon is very lack luster to me atm, str8 would be good but ap-2 would be better

If autocannons gain a shot, like we see in this update, they'll be a decent upgrade from heavy bolters, in such a case they may just get upped in price. I'd rather they give Autocannons an additional AP to AP-2 so they have a roll in that same niche.

A huge problem when trying to put point costs together, honestly, is games-workshop trying to make everything in a factor of 5. some things should be 8 pts but are instead 10, other things are worth 7 pts but are instead 5 points, etc

If you make ACs S8 Heavy 3, d2 at 48" range, do you honestly believe that will have no negative affect on the game? I would further tip the scales towards imbalance. Chaos would have a field day running squads with ACs, backed up by Daredo and Leviathan Dreads, all punmping out even more death. I don't want to see Chaos Daredos become the new meta....

How many ACs can a full or min squad of Chaos MArines take?

Better question: How broken can Chaos get with ACs in their squads?

Ultimately it depends on how much Autocannons cost.
The best they could do is a Havoc Squad with 4x Autocannons.
4 more shots than a Forgefiend with 2x Hades Autocannons at + 12" range. Depending on the points, that might be fair and reasonable, or it might not be (in either direction).


That being said, I don't believe anyone actually suggested for Autocannons to be Heavy 3 S8.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ultimately it depends on how much Autocannons cost.
The best they could do is a Havoc Squad with 4x Autocannons.
4 more shots than a Forgefiend with 2x Hades Autocannons at + 12" range. Depending on the points, that might be fair and reasonable, or it might not be (in either direction).


That being said, I don't believe anyone actually suggested for Autocannons to be Heavy 3 S8.

Look above at Panzer's post about giving them an extra shot. Before that someone suggested making them S8 AP2.

I mean I get this sub is for Proposed rules and all, but seriously. We have so much damned bloat why not cut some, and make one of the 5 or so Heavy Weapons in the game more akin to what is actually needed?

Right now we have Missile Launchers, ACs, LCs, HBs, Plasma Cannons, and Mortars. If we just stick with Imperial Heavy Weapons. Do we really need Plasma cannons when we have ACs? Or vice versa?

If we are strictly arguing from a Guard perspective, I can see ACs being the go to tool for mulching Primaris and stuff, But their BS makes that iffy. Also they can't take orders that do anything meaningful. Orders might fix this. If bring it down affected HWTs, that would go a long way to shoring up the gap....

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:
Ultimately it depends on how much Autocannons cost.
The best they could do is a Havoc Squad with 4x Autocannons.
4 more shots than a Forgefiend with 2x Hades Autocannons at + 12" range. Depending on the points, that might be fair and reasonable, or it might not be (in either direction).


That being said, I don't believe anyone actually suggested for Autocannons to be Heavy 3 S8.

Look above at Panzer's post about giving them an extra shot. Before that someone suggested making them S8 AP2.

I mean I get this sub is for Proposed rules and all, but seriously. We have so much damned bloat why not cut some, and make one of the 5 or so Heavy Weapons in the game more akin to what is actually needed?

Right now we have Missile Launchers, ACs, LCs, HBs, Plasma Cannons, and Mortars. If we just stick with Imperial Heavy Weapons. Do we really need Plasma cannons when we have ACs? Or vice versa?

If we are strictly arguing from a Guard perspective, I can see ACs being the go to tool for mulching Primaris and stuff, But their BS makes that iffy. Also they can't take orders that do anything meaningful. Orders might fix this. If bring it down affected HWTs, that would go a long way to shoring up the gap....

I like the wide spread of heavy weapons, but I think that they should have differing ideal targets. I think that heavy bolters should be the ideal against heavy infantry like Marines but it can be pointed at lighter targets thanks to its high fire rate, Have the Autocannon be the better hitting power variant with fewer shots but higher strength and AP-2 to emphasize it's role against light vehicles with the capability to be turned on heavy infantry. Have the plasma cannon be, well remarkably similar to its current usage as being a multirole weapon, if its a better weapon than price it higher. Have the Lascannon be your AT gun and the missile launcher basically be THE multirole weapon able to be used against tanks, flyers and infantry with varying effectiveness. Drop the Flak missile stratagem and give it an anti flyer profile in the base weapon stats.

So basically have 5 Multi-role weapons...got it.

Just give the AC 3 damage and call it good. Keep it at 2 shots so it doesn't compete with HB, and keep it at 48 inches. Keep it S7 so it's not competing with the LC, ML, and Plasma cannons for anti-tank.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
So basically have 5 Multi-role weapons...got it.

Just give the AC 3 damage and call it good. Keep it at 2 shots so it doesn't compete with HB, and keep it at 48 inches. Keep it S7 so it's not competing with the LC, ML, and Plasma cannons for anti-tank.

I'd rather up the AP of the Autocannon over increasing its damage. One of the big issues IMO is that Autocannons are a very disparate category to get the handful of entries they do. The Autocannons on the Hydra are large enough to qualify for increased stats over the infantry counterpart.

What I honestly wishlist for is for Autocannons to be broken into 3 or so categories, each behaving akin to how a 20mm (light) 40mm (medium) 60-57mm (heavy) autocannons of today perform. Each has its uses and advantages and disadvantages over the others.

Tentative statlines being STR 7 AP-2 and D2 for light autocannons, Strength 8 AP-2 and D2 for medium autocannons and Strength 8 AP-2 D3 for heavy autocannons. adjust fire rate as needed for platform.

Have some of the more specialist variations be simply variations on one of the three major archetypes above. But clearly separate them and allow the Guns on a Hydra/Leman Russ Exterminator not be linked to the ones carried by Havoc, Lootas (tangentially as autocannon counterparts) and the various heavy weapons teams that carry them.

Here's a crazy idea: there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Autocannon profile that a nice 5 point reduction won't fix.

A 5 Point Autocannon looks like a viable alternative to a 10 point Heavy Bolter. It also starts to make a reasonable choice on some units for a cheap weapon that has a chance to do damage against moderate targets.

panzerfront14 wrote:

bat702 wrote:
There might be some autocannons variants that are well balanced, but the basic autocannon is very lack luster to me atm, str8 would be good but ap-2 would be better

If autocannons gain a shot, like we see in this update, they'll be a decent upgrade from heavy bolters, in such a case they may just get upped in price. I'd rather they give Autocannons an additional AP to AP-2 so they have a roll in that same niche.

If GW just make the autocannon heavy 3, then they've just made the heavy bolter redundant. If they make the autocannon 15 points compared to 10 of the heavy bolter, then the autocannon is still useless. 2 autocannons would be 6 shots at 30 points and 3 heavy bolters would be 9 shots at 30 points. It's no different than now.

I think it's only certain autocannons that are moving to heavy 3. Not all of them. So something like a leman russ exterminators autocannon might become heavy 3, being twin would make it heavy 6, then grinding advance would essentially make it heavy 12. That'd be welcome. A hydra autocannon should become flat damage 3 similar to the predator one.

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a crazy idea: there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Autocannon profile that a nice 5 point reduction won't fix.

A 5 Point Autocannon looks like a viable alternative to a 10 point Heavy Bolter. It also starts to make a reasonable choice on some units for a cheap weapon that has a chance to do damage against moderate targets.

I disagree with this for similar reasons as to above. This just swings the balance in favour of autocannons over heavy bolters. Armies like Guard could just spam autocannons. If 2 autocannons are 10 points that's 4 shots, compared to 3 of the heavy bolter.

As a blanket buff to all autocannons they should either move to S8 or AP-2 whichever is more appropriate.

I'd be more inclined to go S8 to wound Marines on 2+

I just hope that whatever "fix" also gets applied to other armies with autocannon equivalents.

Was infuriating enough when Imperial plasma became just as safe as Tau plasma whilst retaining its higher strength and gained an even more powerful profile on top. So if that happens with autocannons in comparison to missile pods I'll be extra salty.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
I just hope that whatever "fix" also gets applied to other armies with autocannon equivalents.

Was infuriating enough when Imperial plasma became just as safe as Tau plasma whilst retaining its higher strength and gained an even more powerful profile on top. So if that happens with autocannons in comparison to missile pods I'll be extra salty.

Ideally yes, Imperial favoritism is very irritating, we would see thinks like Those Tau missile pods, Ork Deffguns, and whatever the Eldar and Dark Eldar use as their autocannon counterpart get these upgrades as well. Do Dark Eldar/Eldar have a counterpart?

Jarms48 wrote:

panzerfront14 wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a crazy idea: there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Autocannon profile that a nice 5 point reduction won't fix.

A 5 Point Autocannon looks like a viable alternative to a 10 point Heavy Bolter. It also starts to make a reasonable choice on some units for a cheap weapon that has a chance to do damage against moderate targets.

I disagree with this for similar reasons as to above. This just swings the balance in favour of autocannons over heavy bolters. Armies like Guard could just spam autocannons. If 2 autocannons are 10 points that's 4 shots, compared to 3 of the heavy bolter.

As a blanket buff to all autocannons they should either move to S8 or AP-2 whichever is more appropriate.

I think your reasoning is off because you don't just pay for 2 Autocannons instead of 2 Heavy Bolters in very many instances. The only two units I can think of are CSM Havocs and AM Heavy Weapon Squads. Everywhere else, they either aren't choices at all or are a single weapon in a squad of troops. Plus you always have to pay for the bodies carrying the weapons.

They would have to adjust the cost on Heavy Weapons Squads because currently neither weapon has an upgrade cost, so let's move on.

A squad of Havocs with 4 Autocannons would be 105 points for 8 Autocannon shots versus Havocs with 4 Heavy Bolters for 125 points for 12 Heavy Bolter shots. Does the 20 points difference between the two squads look so bad given the full picture?

But if we use the humble AS Infantry squad we are looking at 60 points with Autocannon versus 65 with Heavy Bolter. Do two squads each and we have 120 points versus 130 points for two the heavy weapons and their squads. You pay 10 points to get the higher ROF from the Heavy bolters while giving up strength.

Besides, GW isn't going to make a normal Autocannon better than the existing Autocannon plus weapons like the new Cognos Autocannon. Easier to economize the price point to make a difference from the Heavy Bolter.