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.

 Insectum7 wrote:
And to be fair to the abstraction, a Rhino should be much easier to hit than a Marine.

It should but thanks to sloped thick armor, the bullet should have a big chance to just glance off harmlessly. Or penetrate then just hit nothing important on the way out. Which is why the vehicle rules in 3-7 were so crap, they had equivalent of toughness but no corresponding armor save making vehicle armor virtually toilet paper (and the rare vehicle with ++ save so much better than the rest it wasn't even funny).

The fact ork leather vest provided better protection than tons upon tons of hardened plating was not only beyond idiotic, it also made walkers garbage in comparison with virtually identical monstrous creatures (and made eldar then later tau walkers broken because they used MC rules for no reason other than pet army buff, meaning not only mountain of USRs, but also armor save, and crucially T8 rendering them downright immune to tons of weapons in the game)...

 Irbis wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
And to be fair to the abstraction, a Rhino should be much easier to hit than a Marine.

It should but thanks to sloped thick armor, the bullet should have a big chance to just glance off harmlessly. Or penetrate then just hit nothing important on the way out.

Given all the rounded surfaces on Space Marine armor, a substantial amount of a Marine's sihlouette is sloped in relation to incoming rounds.

Which is why the vehicle rules in 3-7 were so crap, they had equivalent of toughness but no corresponding armor save making vehicle armor virtually toilet paper

Many of the high strength weapons aimed at MCs ignored the armor because of their AP. A Lascannon hitting a Wraithlord gave the Wraithlord no Save, and wounded on a 3+. The same Lascannon hitting a Land Raider "wounded" on a 5+.

[On MCs] . . .crucially T8 rendering them downright immune to tons of weapons in the game)...

T8 was immune to S4. AV 11 was immune to S4. AV 14 was immune to S 7. Armor values were "immune" to more weapons in the game.

The fact ork leather vest provided better protection than tons upon tons of hardened plating was not only beyond idiotic, it also made walkers garbage in comparison with virtually identical monstrous creatures

What weapons are you even talking about here? Most high strength weapons had an AP that would defeat "ork leather vest" 6+.

(and the rare vehicle with ++ save so much better than the rest it wasn't even funny).
. . .
(and made eldar then later tau walkers broken because they used MC rules for no reason other than pet army buff, meaning not only mountain of USRs, but also armor save, and . . .

GW f****d up the later editions with their MC power creep in particular. I wont argue with that. The more restrained era of editions 3-4 were much better in that regard.

I get why people disliked MCs vs. Vehicles in 3-7, but the points you're trying to make are wierd.

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's a zero. The average roll calculation for a Sustained fire dice is (0+1+1+2+2+3) /6 = 1.5. So 3 dice is 4.5.

It's not a zero. A zero just means you get nothing. A jam costs a turn to clear.

More dice mean more chance of a jam. You go from 16.67% on one die to 30% on two and 42% on three. You can shift that down a pip if the thing's on a dreadnought, but it's not an insignificant liability. There's also a growing possibility have losing an additional turn (or two!).

If rolling 3 dice, you should expect to miss every third turn of shooting. On a dread, you could stretch that to the fourth turn.

Once jammed, your opponent now gains greater freedom of movement, something not possible with a lascannon which can always be available.

Again, I like assault cannons, but you're not giving the full picture of their liabilities. I actually like that they have a downside.

Ehhh, the ratio is still about 2/3 between the two.

That's too clever by half.

Dropping bolters from 1:4 to 1:6 was huge, and arguing that a hit range of 11 vs 16% is "the same ratio" as 16 to 25% is quite at stretch.

When you're slicing percentages to a probability of less than one pip on a die, that's a problem.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
It's a zero. The average roll calculation for a Sustained fire dice is (0+1+1+2+2+3) /6 = 1.5. So 3 dice is 4.5.

It's not a zero. A zero just means you get nothing. A jam costs a turn to clear.

More dice mean more chance of a jam. You go from 16.67% on one die to 30% on two and 42% on three. You can shift that down a pip if the thing's on a dreadnought, but it's not an insignificant liability. There's also a growing possibility have losing an additional turn (or two!).

If rolling 3 dice, you should expect to miss every third turn of shooting. On a dread, you could stretch that to the fourth turn.

Once jammed, your opponent now gains greater freedom of movement, something not possible with a lascannon which can always be available.

Again, I like assault cannons, but you're not giving the full picture of their liabilities. I actually like that they have a downside.

It's a zero for calculating the average return on a single round of firing. Sure, it could Jam. But it was so effective it was totally worth it, imo. Also, if it could Jam that's all the more reason to spam them for redundancy! I'm not even joking either. My recollection is that my Terminators and my Dreadnought were always partnered up and covering each other with their respective Assault Cannons. A Jam could happen, but my backup firepower was baked into the combo, and if things got sticky I could blow the Blind Grenades with the Auto Launchers. And being that they were using Assault Cannons, the unit combo was good against virtually anything.

As for "freedom of movement", if we're talking about infantry they're pretty free to move as the Lascannon can only kill one of them. The Assault Cannon inspired worry in opposition movement regardless of the unit type. It worked a little bit like Ordinance in 3rd+ that way. It was often not amazing, but sometimes it's really effective, and the idea that the Sustained Fire Dice might came up with a 7 8 or 9 hits was always looming.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

Ehhh, the ratio is still about 2/3 between the two.

That's too clever by half.

Dropping bolters from 1:4 to 1:6 was huge, and arguing that a hit range of 11 vs 16% is "the same ratio" as 16 to 25% is quite at stretch.

When you're slicing percentages to a probability of less than one pip on a die, that's a problem.

Our calculator decibels and rounding errors got the better of us. It's exactly 2/3, or rather, in both editions the Bolter is better than the Lasgun against Marines by exactly a half. The only difference in calculation between the two weapons against Marines is that one wounded on 4s, and one wounded on 5s. It's exactly one pip on one of the rolls in both cases.

Notably, the same wasn't true in return. The new AP system gave Guardsmen no save against Bolters, while they suddenly got a save against Lasguns. In the GEQ vs. MEG gun-stat-to-armor comparison, Marines got tougher (saving on 3+ instead of 4+), and their guns got comparatively better since Guardsmen now saved 1/3rd of incoming Lasgun shots.

 Insectum7 wrote:
As for "freedom of movement", if we're talking about infantry they're pretty free to move as the Lascannon can only kill one of them.

We're not talking about infantry, we're talking about tanks and why the lascannon was often a better choice.

If there's a jam and you pop smoke, my tracks get a free move in the area they used to cover and that could mean a lot depending on the objective.

Again, I like 'em, but there were sound reasons to take other weapons instead.

Commissar von Toussaint wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
As for "freedom of movement", if we're talking about infantry they're pretty free to move as the Lascannon can only kill one of them.

We're not talking about infantry, we're talking about tanks and why the lascannon was often a better choice.

If there's a jam and you pop smoke, my tracks get a free move in the area they used to cover and that could mean a lot depending on the objective.

Again, I like 'em, but there were sound reasons to take other weapons instead.

Oh I'm talking enemy formations overall, and why the multipurpose role of the Assault Cannon is so useful. Especially in 2nd ed the opportunity cost for weapon choice is pretty high, as armies are smaller, being able to do both AT work and anti-infantry work (while featuring a lower Jam chance than the Twin Heavy bolters at the same time) made it a no brainer for me.

And that opportunity cost was a big deal, especially when compared against the two "specialist" of the Heavy weapons armory. The Twin Heavy Bolters is ostensibly the specialist against infantry, and the Twin Lascannon the specialist against armor (or monsters, etc.). So you'd think that a good thing to do would be (if you had two slots to fill), take one Twin Lascannon and one Twin Heavy Bolters, that way you cover all your bases. But because the Assault Cannon is comparable at both of those roles, I just take Assault Cannons because the weapon gives redundancy in both directions. If I go with Twin-Las and twin HBs and I lose the Lascannons, I'm up s*** creek against vehicles, and if I lose the THBs the Infantry can overrun me. With double ACannon, lose one and I still have an answer to both potential problems. Plus, prior to potential losses, it brings the additional capability of doubling up effective fire on a target if it's the primary threat. Two Assault Cannons are definitely better at killing a tank than one TLLC, and two Assault Cannons are definitely better at removing infantry than a single TLHB. So when suddenly faced with a severe threat, I can just double up against it.

It's probably the main reason why the AC was potentially "too good".

Also worth keeping in mind the range of things Assault Cannons were good against was far smaller than the things it was really good against.

Typically it came on a Very Accurate Chassis. So its relative bucket of shots rarely went completely wide.

Infantry squads rarely, if ever (really can’t remember) came in numbers higher than 10. So 3 Sustained Fire dice of solid firepower could put real dents in them.

Heavy/Elite stuff had reason to fear, due to its respectable Damage stat.

Even the otherwise terrifying Carnifex had caused for concern, as any failed save hurt

Even big tanks had to exercise caution. Sure the AC barely bothered hulls and turrets. Their AV was just too high. But your tracks and weapons? That it could get though. They’re then just a single Hull flash result from wrecking it.

Single characters caught out on their own would usually be in deep, deep trouble. Even with layered saves.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Also worth keeping in mind the range of things Assault Cannons were good against was far smaller than the things it was really good against.

Typically it came on a Very Accurate Chassis. So its relative bucket of shots rarely went completely wide.

Infantry squads rarely, if ever (really can’t remember) came in numbers higher than 10. So 3 Sustained Fire dice of solid firepower could put real dents in them.

Orks and Nids could have big infantry squads. Same with Chaos cultists. Most topped out at 10 or less.

It really depends on how you play. My gaming these days is by appointment only, so there is no such thing as an "all-comers" list. We typically do battles as part of a narrative campaign, so force composition is discussed beforehand and it's expected that the armies are optimized against each other.

When 2nd was current, the A/C dread was the default choice for good reason. Because one of my opponents was a tread head, I got the lascannon/missile one for extra anti-armor capability. I didn't branch into the heavy bolter or plasma cannon until 3rd wrecked the A/C. I have found that they do have battlefield value, however. Against Tyranids in particular those heavy bolters are amazing.

That being said, Rapid Fire bolters usually have more than enough dakka to take out opposing infantry and I typically save the dreadnought for "heavies," be they monsters or tanks.