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 like that the LR Lascannon is mobile.  A lot of the time stuff can hide from infantry Lascannons too easily or redeploy in such a way that a whole squad's firepower is wasted.  The ability to move even only six inches often makes the difference in terms of drawing line of sight to a vehicle.

If you want mobile Lascannons, take Sentinels.

A 155 point Lascannon that moves 6" a turn and takes up a Heavy Support slot is not a clever buy, especially when you can get Lascannons everywhere else in your army, and enough of them that you can spread them around, making the mobility of the Lascannons unecessary.

If the Russ isn't using its Battlecannon (or, atleast, an approximation of one by using 3 HB's), then you're wasting the tank.

BYE

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 10/14/2007 3:57 AM
What's that got to do with anything?

BYE

  Oh, I thought they removed the Exterminator from the most recent IG codex.  It was the only thing I could think of. 

Posted By Samwise158 on 10/14/2007 10:29 AM
I like that the LR Lascannon is mobile.  A lot of the time stuff can hide from infantry Lascannons too easily or redeploy in such a way that a whole squad's firepower is wasted.  The ability to move even only six inches often makes the difference in terms of drawing line of sight to a vehicle.

bingo

and even though cheep sentinel las cannons are mobile they are much easier to kill and they are in a slot that s usually taken up by something more usefull and survivable like hellhounds.

in the end it is dependant on what your army needs and where you as the army builder want to put it.

for example almost all the IG players i know put a stubber on all thier tanks(including chimeras) because it has longer range and an extra shot over a storm bolter.

they have crafted thier armies to be effective overal, even with spending the points on stubbers

Sorry dont buy that.

Assuming you deployed your lascannon poorly so that the enemy had lines of advance not covered, and you had a Russ covering the advance and you had no working battlecannon on the Russ, it still wouldnt not be worthwhile. Its only one lascannon.

The lasdcannon has most of the disadvantages of the ordnance weapon, it restricts what the tank can do, its expensive and doesnt mix well with the sponson choices.

If you really want mobile lascannon use Sentinels. Though multilaser sentinels and Hellhounds are better buys. Not needed anyway, your static lascannon should be enough, every approach should be covered by several squads. With enough W10 lascannon, you dont need Av14 ones.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 10/14/2007 11:34 AM
If you want mobile Lascannons, take Sentinels.

A 155 point Lascannon that moves 6" a turn and takes up a Heavy Support slot is not a clever buy, especially when you can get Lascannons everywhere else in your army, and enough of them that you can spread them around, making the mobility of the Lascannons unecessary.

If the Russ isn't using its Battlecannon (or, atleast, an approximation of one by using 3 HB's), then you're wasting the tank.

BYE

I'm not quite sure I follow that.  If I'm gonna have a russ then I have to spend 5 pts on the HB or 15 on the lascannon so the lascannon is only really 10pts. I cant fire either if I fire the bigcannon. There is practically nothing that the HB is better at killing than the cannon. The lascannon on the other hand is better at killing a fair bit of useful stuff that the cannon doesn't handle so well - heavy armor or Sv2 stuff.  So the HB serves no real purpose, whereas the lascannon can. A lascannon sentinal is 55pts. That does give me the advantage of firing a battle cannon and a lascannon, but the lascannon is damn fragile, is it really worth an extra 45pts.

The 155pt lascannon arguement isn't valid in my opinion because the battle cannon is usually what gets used, The hull and sponson weapons are for contingencies, and IMHO the lascannon has been more useful.  The reason I think it is worth the extra 10 points, is because when I get my battle cannon knocked out, it seems to me that most of the time the thing that did it was a skimmer, monstrous creature, or another tank.  The 3HB option is good because it gives some dependable dakka against light infantry, but it doesn't give you much bite against those sorts of things.

I know I try to hide my LR from Devastators and such until my other units can wipe them out.  Enemies tanks do the same thing to IG lascannons.  You can set up your lascannons to cover every approach, but when the Drop Pods block your line of sight, The entire Eldar army goes to the opposite flank, or the Tau keep popping in and out of cover.  It can make a whole firebase unable to do anything.

Posted By Pariah Press on 10/14/2007 1:56 PM

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 10/14/2007 3:57 AM
What's that got to do with anything?

BYE

  Oh, I thought they removed the Exterminator from the most recent IG codex.  It was the only thing I could think of. 

  It's still in Imperial Armour somewhere.

Posted By puree on 10/14/2007 5:31 PM

There is practically nothing that the HB is better at killing than the cannon.

You're saying that S8 AP3 Ordnance Large Blast is better than S5 AP4? There's a shock.

There is a simple rule that governs the tanks in a Guard army:

Tanks kill Infantry.
Infantry kill Tanks.

You don't need to take a Lascannon on the Russ because your infantry should be taking care of any vehicular threats.

The 3 HBs (that cost the same as a single Lascannon), are never going to be as good as the Battlecannon - that's obvious - but it's why I said in most post on the last page that the 3 HBs are an approximation of the Battlecannon. The Russ should be firing at infantry anyway, leaving the AT duties to the infantry, who are more numerous and better at it. If the Russ cannot fire its main gun, then it's backup weapon/s should be comparable in ability whilst being cheap enough not to burden the tank down with extra bloat.

This is why the 3 HBs for 15 points make sense, as it's 9 shots per turn for the same points as a single Lascannon. This is also why the Stubber makes no sense whatsoever, as it's 3 points less than 3 HBs, yet has 1/3rd the shots, at worse S and worse AP. You'd have to be mad not to realise this.

BYE

Aside from the issue of combat roles, how about the simple fact that for the same cost, 3 HBs are a way better deal than 1 lascannon? This is not the case in squads, because 1) HBs are relatively more expensive and 2) you couldn't give your HW team 2.5 HBs instead of 1 lascannon even if you wanted to. Surely it's only sensible to take each weapon where it's relatively cheap.

Put it another way to get the three heavy bolters elsewhere you would need a vulnerable Fire Support Squad, or a whole two squad platoon. Not to mention lose the options for putting much needed lascannon or autocannon in the squads.

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 10/14/2007 9:04 PM

...

The 3 HBs (that cost the same as a single Lascannon), are never going to be as good as the Battlecannon - that's obvious - but it's why I said in most post on the last page that the 3 HBs are an approximation of the Battlecannon.

BYE

If all you are doing is buying them to use when the BigCannon is gone then I wouldn't take em, but the lascannon instead. what are your 4 shooty states:

• firing all guns available - what we hope to be doing
• not shooting anything due to stunned/shaken, - most likely result from being hit
• dead - next most likely result of being hit
• firing but wpn destroyed - our least likely scenario (not that it doesn't happen)

Why spend points to cover something that is the probably the least likely scenario but won't be used otherwise.

With the lascannon you not only have something to do in the wpn destroyed scenario, but you have the option of using what is a clearly better weapon (tha the BigCannon) against a different range of targets at other times.  We won't always have infantry to fire at, or may be more in need of stopping a heavy tank/MC more than some infantry.

Both options cost 15pts, both are insurance, 1 is like new for old on wpn destroyed, the other covers 'bad' match ups and something to do on wpn destroyed. In that respect the rest of your list and local opponents probably contribute to best option.

[edit] If you go up to 3 HBs then there are useful situations where you are better with the HBs rather than the battlecannon - 7 or fewer deepstriking termies even.

Having done a bit of maths on the HBs vs Bigcannon I might be tempted to agree with 3 HBs, on the basis that it is better than the bigcannon in some useful scenarios, not just on wpn destroyed.

You forgot to mention the other firing state:

The Russ is moving.

I don't usually bring sponsons anyway - my Russes are usually 150 points flat (Russ + HB + EA) - I'm just saying that taking a Lascannon is a really bad idea.

BYE

Moving is probably the most important state to look at whn analysing the HB,
this is really the only way that it can remain combat effective.

I don't mind lascannons on russes,
but on a point for point basis, the HB's delivery much more consistantly.

I sometimes take Hull Lascannons on Russes, but only in very specific circumstances.

All 6 of my Demolishers have hull Lascannons, my Russ Annihilator (obviously) has a Hull LC to compliment it's TL-Lascannon turret. My quartet of Vanquishers have Hull Lascannons as well, as it makes sense to pair anti-tank weapons with anti-tank weapons, even if they cannot fire at the same time.

I also have 3 regular Russes with Hull LCs and no sponsons, just for completeness' sake. And 6 LC/2HB Russes, 3 HB/2HB Russes and 3 HB/No Sponson Russes (and three Exterminators and an Executioner...). In other words, I know my Russes. I own and have used every Russ in every configuration (except for Conquerers, they suck).

The BC/HB one remains the most efficient, with the BC/3HB one having the most redundancy. The BC/LC or, worse, the BC/LC/2HB one remains distant partners to the other two types.

BYE

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 10/17/2007 1:09 AM

The BC/HB one remains the most efficient, with the BC/3HB one having the most redundancy. The BC/LC or, worse, the BC/LC/2HB one remains distant partners to the other two types.

BYE

Looking at the BC, to an extent i'm surprised at how (theoretically) bad it is. The number of times the 3 HBs would be better than the BC is larger than I expected. It seems that if you aren't facing tight groups of marines or whole armies clumped together then don't bother with it, sv4 or worse infantry switch to HBs, sv2 infantry switch to HBs, well dispersed infantry switch to HBs, deepstriking termies switch to HBs, Dakkafexes switch to HB. Almost seems as though the BC is the secondary weapon. How much do you use 3 HBs even if you still have the BC?

PS - for simplicity I was using mean averages, not the only way of determining 'best'.

Let's be generous.

9 HB shots = 5 hits = 3 wounds = 1 dead Marine
1 BS shot (assuming a HIT) = 8 hits = 7 wounds = 4-5 dead (assuming cover saves).

No, the BC is not a secondary weapon. It is the weapon that should be firing every single turn. The only time the HB's come into their own is if you come across, say, a small unit of Tau Pathfinders in the open and they're too spread out to wipe out with a single BC shell.

BYE

You mean 5 hits (If you're lucky), 2 dead...And that's with a 1/3 chance of hitting only...

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 10/17/2007 5:54 PM

Let's be generous.

9 HB shots = 5 hits = 3 wounds = 1 dead Marine
1 BS shot (assuming a HIT) = 8 hits = 7 wounds = 4-5 dead (assuming cover saves).

No, the BC is not a secondary weapon. It is the weapon that should be firing every single turn. The only time the HB's come into their own is if you come across, say, a small unit of Tau Pathfinders in the open and they're too spread out to wipe out with a single BC shell.

BYE

All you've done there is confirm what I said, it is better than the HBs against fairly close grouped MEQs.  1 dead marine to the HBs isn't really generous either, just expected, 2 would be generous but still quite probable. Whereas assuming a perfect hit and no partials? is definatley being very generous to the BC (I expect you can only get 8 full hits if they had just deepstruck, or thought a tight clump was a great defensive formation!).

We don't all play against marines, or marines who are obliging enough to put big squads in a clump.  That was the drift of my question, what do you do in those cases, that in turn feeds into the initial question - how useful are the 3 HBs. I initially thought them pretty wasted except in wpn destroyed, cases,  but looking at it more I can see they are useful even where the BC is still there, Whereas your 'always use the BC' seems to be wasting what you spent those extra points on.

If 5 termies deepstrike near you, do you fire the BC on the basis that it might hit all of them, or the HBs on the basis that it has the better average. what about 6 tau firewarriors in a forest with a bit of seperation where the BC might edge out the HBs if it gets a perfect hit, but is otherwise inferior. A unit of 8 stealers sensibly spaced, do you go for the hope that you get a 5 or 6 with the BC or the fairly consistent 2-4 killed.

I'm interested amongst other reasons for the interest in the perceived value of something that may do better, but on 'average' is inferior, or maybe better phased as do you like wide variability that includes a modest  chance of a 'great' result or the whiff, or the consistency of the better average but little chance of the 'great' result. I remember how the old variable shot eldar weapons use to get dissed due to their variability. Or is just something you've never sat down and thought about with the BC/HBs and gone for gut instinct, or being someone who uses them a lot find that in practise the theory doesn't bear out, that for some reason the BC always wipes out something (even if it wasn't the target).

Outside of widely disperesed marines in heavy cover, the BC is better than the HBs against MEQ's. The only time to fire the HBs would be where you can expect the BC to kill less than a single marine, perhaps if they are in a bunker, or there is only a single model left, or if vritually any scatter makes hitting two unlikely. There aren't a lot of these times, though.

there are enough times when the 3x HB will be superiour (dispersed light infantry, light vehicles, skimmers, and very small squads) that it's not a bad investment.

More than nearly any other upgrade, sponson HBs are both worth the points yet utterly optional. Unless I'm desperatly short on points, I take them, but there's a lot of things I'd drop them for (getting a a sixth RR, making sure I have enough lascannons, etc.)

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 10/17/2007 5:54 PM

Let's be generous.

9 HB shots = 5 hits = 3 wounds = 1 dead Marine
1 BS shot (assuming a HIT) = 8 hits = 7 wounds = 4-5 dead (assuming cover saves).

No, the BC is not a secondary weapon. It is the weapon that should be firing every single turn. The only time the HB's come into their own is if you come across, say, a small unit of Tau Pathfinders in the open and they're too spread out to wipe out with a single BC shell.

BYE

A comparison that greatly favours the battlecannon. In fact its optimal. Nor all marines are deepstriking, not all targets have 3+ saves.

let us compare that with another 'optimal' target, a line of Fire Warriors in the open at maximum legal width apart

9 HB shots = 5 hits = 4 wounds = 4 dead Tau
1 BC shot (assuming a HIT) = 1 hit, 2 partials = 2 wounds = 2 dead Tau

 

You're right. Not all targets have a 3+ save. But guess what? Due to the many different army types out there, most targets have a 3+ save, both because MEQ armies outnumber the rest and MEQ players outnumber them as well.

It's the reason the term MEQ came about, as it represents the most common foe someone is likely to face. Haven't you noticed Orlanth that the MEQ is the benchmark for effectiveness at this website. If it kills MEQ's good, then it's a good weapon.

Battlecannon vs MEQs > Heavy Bolters vs MEQs.

Furthermore you always assume cover. Why would Firewarriors be outside cover with all that AP4+ floating around...

BYE

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 10/18/2007 11:06 PM

You're right. Not all targets have a 3+ save. But guess what? Due to the many different army types out there, most targets have a 3+ save, both because MEQ armies outnumber the rest and MEQ players outnumber them as well.

It's the reason the term MEQ came about, as it represents the most common foe someone is likely to face. Haven't you noticed Orlanth that the MEQ is the benchmark for effectiveness at this website. If it kills MEQ's good, then it's a good weapon.
BYE

I don't agree with that, even in casual games whilst I do see a lot of MEQ I'm as likely to see nids, tau and eldar as things currently stand (and orks come new year I'll bet). I imagine if you wish to do well in a tourney then that line up becomes more important to 'benchmark' against. Maybe the dakka benchmark needs updating.

[edit: even the 3+ save doesn't make the BC better automatically, the 3HBs perform better on avergae against a dakka fex as well]

Perhaps they have just done FoF?

Posted By puree on 10/19/2007 1:19 AM

I don't agree with that

Great. You don't have to. But it's a simple fact that there are more Marine players out there than anything else. Marines outsell Warhammer Fantasy.

This is the reason the 'MEQ' benchmark was invented. You can disagree with that until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that Marines outnumber everything else in this game, and an S8 AP3 gun is better against them than an S5 AP4 gun, no matter how you cut it.

BYE

Posted By H.B.M.C. on 10/19/2007 6:57 AM

Posted By puree on 10/19/2007 1:19 AM

I don't agree with that

Great. You don't have to. But it's a simple fact that there are more Marine players out there than anything else. Marines outsell Warhammer Fantasy.

This is the reason the 'MEQ' benchmark was invented. You can disagree with that until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't change the fact that Marines outnumber everything else in this game, and an S8 AP3 gun is better against them than an S5 AP4 gun, no matter how you cut it.

BYE

Going with the MEQ benchmark is sound HBMC, there is no arguing against that, at least from me. But it is not all you face, and some armies have little or no MEQ at all.

My point remains that 3 heavy bolters are perfect backups for battle cannon.

1. If you lose the battlecannon one chance in six the 15pt investment over the price of the tank (ignoring that 5pts of that is mandatory) is well worth it. This assumes in your favour that you have valid targets for battlecannon each and every turn thye cannon remains.

2. There are sufficient exceptions, even when playing MeQ armies that sometimes you may decide to fire the secondary weapons as a matter of choice. With lascannon this is extremely unlikely, in fact I am yet to think of a circumstance when you would want to fire a lascannon over a battlecannon. But the reasons to fire three heavy bokltetrs are more frequent, often enough that I and others are willing to pay for the heavy bolter sponsons as a priority. I would far far rather drop 10pts elsewhere than lose the heavy bolters if points are tight.

 3. There is a third factor, that doesnt translate into statistics, and that is the 'value' of versatility. Its great for the Russ to have its role in the guard army, just count up the average number of MEQ the battlecannon can kill over the course of a game. However you cannot so easily put a points cost to the versatility, covering secondary roles. You could try and work out the stats for Russ heavy bolters vs Fire Warriors, but that is ultimately futile. Versatility kicks in when the secondary target is about to do something very dangerous. for example if Banshees/stealers or similar are in range to charge next turn and you dont have enough lasguns spare to deal with them. Once the assaulters make it to your lines they can carve their way through.

Raw stats don't cover these situations, they cannot. However the occur frequently enough in play. I have long held the opinion that basing your firepower or survivability entirely on statistics is an error, you have to account for leftfield play and situations that dont follow directly into one bracket or the next.

definitely use the three heavy bolters, no stubber, no lascannon, even on infantry. IG's main benefit is that they have lots of cheap units. it works likewise with their tanks. more is better, and more cheaper is even better!

my $0.02 is that while the 3 HBs are a better option than the lascannon, the difference is small enough that if I take 3 LRBT, 2 get 3 HBs, 1 gets the lascannon, just for variety and for the option of a mobile lascannon in a good firelane.

and I've recently found that I fire my 3 HB a reasonable amount more than I ever have. With the amount of speeders zipping around, and the hordish nature of many armies, if I move the tank, I almost aways look to find a suitable target for my 3 HBs instead of a "more likely to miss" template...

whats up mughi3 long time no see now to the topic at hand as a IG player i like 3 HB just becase of the extra shots and yes im one of those guys who like the stubber(looks like a M2 love that gun ) it all matters on your sytle of play i run small gurad armys drop troops etc. and massed fire power is some times better thats just me

I dont really like firing ordnanace at vehicles. I find it it ineffective and too likely to scatter into nowhere. Firing at infantry if much better. Also, since I think of the LR as an anti infantry machince I always give it 3 HB's.