Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have been doing my mathammer and I reckon that Assault Cannons are the way forward for the Space Marines. However, the version that I would propose for Devastators would be:

R24" S6 AP4 Type Heavy 2 Rending and I reckon that the devastators could have them for 30pts because of the lower number of shots.

I reckon that the Space Marines should get Assault Cannons for devastators (for a suitably large price) for the following reasons:
1) If a Termie can have one, so can I: The Space Marines already have man-portable assault cannons, so why not give them to the troops?
2) They can only kill it if it's in range: The assault canon's ure awesomness is only R24" and, therefore, can be easily outranged by a large number of blast weapons (Missiles, Plasma etc.).
3) I can kill anything: The large number of shots has been reduced but the nice little touch that rending adds, means that, if necessary, you could turn your devastators to the odd pesky monolith.

The role I would see these devastators taking would be against heavy infantry but they could also kill heavier tanks when neccessary.

What do you think?

Well Assault Cannons are meant to be unique to a few units (specifically the Dread, Termies and the Raider). I suppose from a fluff point of view, Devs simply can't hold all the ammo that is required for an Assault Cannon, while the other unites can.

Allowing Devs to take them would make those other choices less desirable, as then you have a cheap source to get 4 of them. Also, there are better weapons for Devs *cough*plasma*cough*.

Because of their short range compared to most other heavy weapons, they are best used on mobile platforms such as Terminators and Razorbacks. While I hate the asscannon razorback spam with the bright burning fury of 1,000 exploding stars, I do see the logic in it. Twin-linked rending bastards...

I'm not going to totally dismiss the idea but the role of an assault cannon is in its name.

24" is really too short a range for a devastator weapon, sure there is the MM but that has a specialised role (that of heavy AT) but I have never seen too many devs armed with these either.

I reckon a unit of devs armed with H2 assault cannons would get one round of shooting? if that and provide a great opportunity for the enemy to take easy kills.

Against heavier infantry there is always the plasma cannon.

You've seen the old concept artwork for the DEvs rights ?

from

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40888

I have never seen the use for Razorback Assault Cannons except in a White Scars army. I know they seem to be "good" in a SW army but I have always preferred Rhinos for my Grey Hunters and TL Las for my Long Fangs.

I had not seen that art, but it looks amazing.

The ammo problem had been thought about - if you look at the Terminator Assault Cannon, there is an ammo store at the back which looks like it could hold plenty.

I envisaged the unit being flown around in a stormraven and quickly deployed to clear enemy infantry - at 24" you would have 12 AC shots (4 of which from the Stormraven), 5 Bolter Shots, 6 TL Bolter Shots (Hurricanes) and a Typhoon Missile launcher's best. Now THAT is what I call Anti Infantry.

I don't see any reason why the assault cannon shouldn't be available to devastators either. I really do not see the need to change its profile, however. Lowering the number of shots would really take the bite out of it, making its inclusion dubious.

Notice that not all heavy weapons are available to the devastators, notably the autocannon is also missing.

On the razorback issue, I have used assault cannon equipped razorbacks in my C:SM army for going on a year. They are absolutely great.

correct me if I am wrong but Rending doesn't work on the Monolith right?

Acardia wrote:correct me if I am wrong but Rending doesn't work on the Monolith right?

That question hurts the grammar part of my brain!

But you are correct in assuming that Rending does not work against vehicles subject to the Living Metal rule, nor does it work against the front and side facings of a vehicle with a Wave Serpent field.

@Dracos: The reason for the profile change is that 16 rending shots from 1 squad would be over powered - even if you charged 40pts for each cannon. And about the Autocannon, they are only available to the dreadnoughts whereas Assault Cannons are available to Razorbacks, Land Speeders, Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts...

@Arcadia: Monoliths ignore melta stuff that give you an extra D6 to AP but, IIRC, rending still applies.

cosmic pixie wrote:@Dracos: The reason for the profile change is that 16 rending shots from 1 squad would be over powered - even if you charged 40pts for each cannon. And about the Autocannon, they are only available to the dreadnoughts whereas Assault Cannons are available to Razorbacks, Land Speeders, Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts...

@Arcadia: Monoliths ignore melta stuff that give you an extra D6 to AP but, IIRC, rending still applies.

You recall incorrectly

The 2nd printing made it clear you roll Strength +D6 (and I quote) "no matter what".

heresy era devistators had them, it is all over the old horus heresy art books most noteably space wolf dev's

cosmic pixie wrote:@Dracos: The reason for the profile change is that 16 rending shots from 1 squad would be over powered - even if you charged 40pts for each cannon. And about the Autocannon, they are only available to the dreadnoughts whereas Assault Cannons are available to Razorbacks, Land Speeders, Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts...

I see no reason why 16 rending shots is OP. If you are thinking volume of fire is too much, the heavy bolter devastators can put out 12 shots, and those would be much less expensive. ML devastators can put out 4 blast templates, which may get more hits than the assault cannons.

I see no reason to change the weapon. As long as it is pointed appropriately (I think 40 pts is fine), it is not going to be unbalanced.

FYI the autocannon is also available on predators, but I digress. All I was saying there is that there are other heavy weapons devs can't take.

Gwar! wrote:

Acardia wrote:correct me if I am wrong but Rending doesn't work on the Monolith right?

That question hurts the grammar part of my brain!

But you are correct in assuming that Rending does not work against vehicles subject to the Living Metal rule, nor does it work against the front and side facings of a vehicle with a Wave Serpent field.

I apologize for the grammer fail. I did not know about the Wave Serpent field, however non of my armies rending attacks are ranged. At least until I start my BA army.

personally assault cannons would be good as would auto cannons. but please for the love of god bring back conversion beamer devistators

cosmic pixie wrote:@Dracos: The reason for the profile change is that 16 rending shots from 1 squad would be over powered - even if you charged 40pts for each cannon. And about the Autocannon, they are only available to the dreadnoughts whereas Assault Cannons are available to Razorbacks, Land Speeders, Land Raiders, Dreadnoughts...

You can also get autocannon on Predators.


I don't really like the idea of devestators with assault cannons because an assault cannon is made for, well, assaulting. Short range, high rate of fire, give it to mobile troops to maintain a high rate of fire as they move up to engage the enemy. Leave devestators at the back with long range weapons.

sebster wrote:I don't really like the idea of devestators with assault cannons because an assault cannon is made for, well, assaulting. Short range, high rate of fire, give it to mobile troops to maintain a high rate of fire as they move up to engage the enemy. Leave devestators at the back with long range weapons.

I was thinking that at first too, except devastators can take multimeltas, which are decidely close ranged weapons. Therefore the range argument does not really apply.

Dracos wrote:I was thinking that at first too, except devastators can take multimeltas, which are decidely close ranged weapons. Therefore the range argument does not really apply.

It means the argument isn't consistantly applied by GW, it doesn't mean the principle has no value at all. And how often do you see people actually take multi-meltas on their devestators?

The multi-melta is basically something you have lying around in your armybox for a day when it will be needed, which is when you can lean out of the rhino and do drive-by's with it.

cosmic pixie wrote:I had not seen that art, but it looks amazing.

The ammo problem had been thought about - if you look at the Terminator Assault Cannon, there is an ammo store at the back which looks like it could hold plenty.

I envisaged the unit being flown around in a stormraven and quickly deployed to clear enemy infantry - at 24" you would have 12 AC shots (4 of which from the Stormraven), 5 Bolter Shots, 6 TL Bolter Shots (Hurricanes) and a Typhoon Missile launcher's best. Now THAT is what I call Anti Infantry.

Blood Angels player then.

sebster wrote:It means the argument isn't consistantly applied by GW, it doesn't mean the principle has no value at all. And how often do you see people actually take multi-meltas on their devestators?

No, it means that the principle you propose, that devastators are long range, is not applied at all. Allowing multimeltas is proof they do not consider the unit to be long range, just full of heavies.

Gwar! wrote:That question hurts the grammar part of my brain!

I'm only posting in this thread to let Gwar! know that he's been sig'd.

Dev squads do not have assault cannons because tac squads do not have assault cannons.

Fluff wise, dev sqauds are supposed to be the step between scouts, and tacs. You are just learning the heavy weapons, so you get the most common.

Assault cannons are generally mission specific, and restricted to units that can make absolute best use of them. Relentless termies and vehicles both fill that requierment. Everyone has to settle for second best.

Something carried by a guy in terminator armor does not really mean its man-portable.

The assault cannon is simply too awesome for a mere devastator to carry into battle.

Give Devastators the option of Suspensors (Slow and Purposeful) first. Then Autocannons. After that, why not add in some Assault Cannons. They've been added to everything else.

Blood Angels 'till I die (Which, even with FnP, is more often than you would think ).

Sorry about any rule problems with Living Metal. But I don't see the connection between Assault Cannons and Autocannons - One is for shredding lighter armour with volume of fire, the other is for killing small tanks with a few heavy shots. Also, the Autocannon is a much longer weapon - more suited to fixed emplacements and tanks.

cosmic pixie wrote:Blood Angels 'till I die (Which, even with FnP, is more often than you would think ).

Sorry about any rule problems with Living Metal. But I don't see the connection between Assault Cannons and Autocannons - One is for shredding lighter armour with volume of fire, the other is for killing small tanks with a few heavy shots. Also, the Autocannon is a much longer weapon - more suited to fixed emplacements and tanks.

except that assault cannons use auto cannon rounds

TyraelVladinhurst wrote:

cosmic pixie wrote:Blood Angels 'till I die (Which, even with FnP, is more often than you would think ).

Sorry about any rule problems with Living Metal. But I don't see the connection between Assault Cannons and Autocannons - One is for shredding lighter armour with volume of fire, the other is for killing small tanks with a few heavy shots. Also, the Autocannon is a much longer weapon - more suited to fixed emplacements and tanks.

except that assault cannons use auto cannon rounds

Where do you get this notion?

Dracos wrote:

sebster wrote:It means the argument isn't consistantly applied by GW, it doesn't mean the principle has no value at all. And how often do you see people actually take multi-meltas on their devestators?

No, it means that the principle you propose, that devastators are long range, is not applied at all. Allowing multimeltas is proof they do not consider the unit to be long range, just full of heavies.

No, it doesn't. What the hell? You can't just claim that a single exception makes a general principle completely invalid. Where did you get that from?