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.

Number of hits is also important to buggering up squadrons, since hits are distributed amongst squadron members.

An interesting thing to note about the whole "effective range" meme by which movement distance is added to a weapon's range to reach some aggregate effective range is that it assumes moving directly towards your target. In other words, for Multi-Meltas, it means getting within 24" range of your target. That is if you can move directly towards your target. Sometimes it's not only unwise, but impossible as well. The nice thing about Typoon Launchers is the range lets you engage units you're running directly away from, or allows you to engage units while you move to a better angle. Being able to cross-fire a Leman Russ, for example, is easier if you can shoot at it from opposite short edges of the table.

While I'm busy pontificating, I thought I might add that Dreadnought Missile Launchers should be 20pts each and treated like Cyclone and Typhoon Missile Launchers. It's a multi-missile launcher, treat it like one. Plus players should have more options for the Mortis Pattern, although twin Autocannons is pretty cool.

sourclams wrote:I think your analogy falls a little flat. Taking a NetDeck spam list is like eating a four course meal with a wood chipper. No matter which course you're on, soup, salad, entree, dessert, just chuck the whole dish in plate and all and watch your UBARLIST explode it into a million shreds of pulverized goo to spew it across the dining room wall. The half of the table that thinks that sort of thing is AWESOME (self included) is going to be standing on the chairs whooping and making pelvic face-hump motions while the half that showed up for fun or to be "hobbyists" is going to sit by in mute horror or righteous indignation.

Counterargument: most "NetDeck" lists are gimmicks and/or overrated.

Fetterkey wrote:

sourclams wrote:I think your analogy falls a little flat. Taking a NetDeck spam list is like eating a four course meal with a wood chipper. No matter which course you're on, soup, salad, entree, dessert, just chuck the whole dish in plate and all and watch your UBARLIST explode it into a million shreds of pulverized goo to spew it across the dining room wall. The half of the table that thinks that sort of thing is AWESOME (self included) is going to be standing on the chairs whooping and making pelvic face-hump motions while the half that showed up for fun or to be "hobbyists" is going to sit by in mute horror or righteous indignation.

Counterargument: most "NetDeck" lists are gimmicks and/or overrated.

Counter-counter argument: When compared to other NetDeck lists.

So, lots of Assault Cannon if you're fighting a buggied-up ork army.

sourclams wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:Counterargument: most "NetDeck" lists are gimmicks and/or overrated.

Counter-counter argument: When compared to other NetDeck lists.

No.

Hey, maybe we could keep it on topic instaed of hijackin into e-peen duel about the online interpretation of the meta-game?


Ardens- Yes, vs AV 10 or 11 the AC is brutal. So trukks, buggies, loota wagons, kanz, are are very susceptible to it. Even aganst battle wagon front armor it has a decent chance(lower then the MM close up, but better than an LC) Side/rear shots are best....but massed firepower is better

Typhoons have a better chance of beating AV14 than AssCan shots, though; and they can do it from 48" away, keeping your Speeders nice and safe(well... safe-ER, they're still flying plywood dinghies).

Frank Fugger wrote:Typhoons have a better chance of beating AV14 than AssCan shots, though; and they can do it from 48" away, keeping your Speeders nice and safe(well... safe-ER, they're still flying plywood dinghies).

No they do not, 8+1d6 = 14 max, which means s8 shots do not beat AV 14- they annoy it. Assault cannons can actually penetrate.

Did you even read my original post?

He's saying that range is a primary consideration.

I would argue that S8 glances against AV14 are so useless that they're a non-concern to a player with Land Raiders.

Range is only a factor when balanced with effectiveness.

Considering most people are getting into 12/6" for most AT work these days, 24" seems pretty easy.

The Typhoon certainly has a role it excels in- shooting at AV 14 from any range with bare S8 is either a serious lack of more suitable targets- or an even more serious lack of tactical awareness. Keep the typhoon on AV 12 or less, 13 in a pinch, troops(Krak on MEQ/MC- frags for the rest), random wild animals for target practice, and then AV 14 dead last.

Mistress of minis wrote:Assault cannons can actually penetrate.

Yes, yes they can, but first they have to hit. Then they have to roll a 6 for their AP. Then they have to roll a 5 or 6 on the Rending roll. Then they have to roll a 6 on the normal AP dice, and THEN they have to roll on the damage table. Seems like a pretty outside shot to me, and a lot of polava to go through when you could just take a weapon that fires twice and needs only a 6 on either roll to cause some form of damage. And doesn't have to come within Multimelta/ Hurricane Bolter/ TL Heavy Bolter/ TL Assault Cannon/ Particle Whip range to do it. AND can be fired twice as a defensive Blast weapon after having moved 12".

Seriously, there's just nothing to recommend an Assault Cannon Speeder, especially considering you get Typhoons for the same cost and HF/ HB/ MM attachments for less.

If you want to talk about Typhoons- I have a thread on them- this is about the weapons- not their platforms.

I like Typhoons. Alot. But after crunching alot more numbers than you seem to have, the assault cannon is very viable in the same roles. Slightly better in some(AV 14, 2+ armor saves) aspects, and against lighter AV the Typhoons sole strength is its range as their performance is almost identical-with the overall edge to the assault cannon. This thread isnt about 'Tornado or Typhoon' its about SM weapons in general

And seriously Frank- I dont need you to repeat the numbers a assault cannon needs to roll in order to hit and penetrate- I knew all that when I wrote the post and started this thread. You seem to be forgetting, that while it does take some decent rolls- assault cannon roll 4 dice. And 100,000 fire phases dont lie, averages are just patterns.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
PS-Where do you think I said anything positive about Assault Cannon on speeders?

If you had read, and comprehended what Ive put in this thread- Ive said stick typhoons on you speeders and assault cannons on everything else that you can.

I wish they sold dice that rolled by the law of averages. I'd win every game I ever played. I don't just mean 40K either; Ludo, Snakes 'n' Ladders, Eights... I'd be rich as an astronaut.

It's all well and good to say they Rend and penetrate 499,999 times out of every half a million, but the fact is they simply can't be relied on to do it when you need them to; which, for a weapon with such a short range and limited list of uses, is not a Good Thing. Typhoons are better because they can hit most points on the board, and as such if you don't much feel like firing them at the AV14 you can fire them at something else instead. Like infantry. Using the Frag profile. After having moved 12" and fired the Heavy Bolter too. I know this is all stuff you said in the other thread about Typhoons, but it bears repeating.

Frankly my approach to Assault Cannons is the same as my approach to novelty pens; if I get them free with something I'm buying anyway then that's fine, but I'm not going to pay for them.

Ive seen a few of your posts pop up today, you seem to just like being contradictory without backing up your claims with much substance.

This thread was to point out a few things- of which you have not seemed to grasp.

Against armor- In order of effectiveness: Meltas at close range, Assault cannon, typhoon, lascannon.

Mostly Im pointing put that Assault cannon now exceed lascannon in most anti-vehicle roles(monolith being an exception-and wave serpents).

On the subject of your dice comment- Im well aware of dice. I have several years worth of 'Murphys Luck' 40k awards. That does not change the fact- that fpr every game you roll poorly in, theres gonna be one you roll well in.

Once again- you argue for the typhoon here- and thats not the point of this thread.

You argument for range is kinda silly-yes, 48" is better than 24". But, since many people are using speeders as melta platforms it should be obvious that 24" isnt a hindrances combined with 12" of movement- Once again I am NOT advocating the use of Tornado Speeders of Typhoons. If you keep arguing the point like I am. you're going to start looking slowed.

Please keep the thread on track and about using the SM arsenal VS targets with armor values.

On the subject of your dice comment- Im well aware of dice. I have several years worth of 'Murphys Luck' 40k awards.

Generally when people say the "you can't count on dice" stuff, they're wrongheadedly making an actual valid point, which is particularly operative for Meltas...

More rolls are better than fewer.

Even when the expected outcomes are the same, you'd rather have more rolls, as with more rolls comes a less granular result set. Basic bell curve stuff...

It's less obvious when shooting at vehicles, as the results tend to be "kill or not," but when shooting at infantry, it's clearer.

In general you want predictability. If something kills 1.5 Marines per round on average, it'd be nice if it was always exactly that. You can plan around it. But if it's just as likely to kill none as 3, and averages to 1.5, that's much harder to gameplan around.

Frank, I'm starting to worry about you here... have you actually tried any of these tactics, or is it still theoryhammer at this point?

From your description, you make it sound like an Assault Cannon needs to roll about six times before it does anything to AV 14.

It goes like this: Roll to hit @ 3+
Just like any other weapon, you have to hit, so this isn't any more of a hinderance than to any other weapon. Also of note; 4 shots hits more often than 2.

Roll to Penetrate Armor - Here, the Assault Cannon needs a 6 to get a Rend, giving a penetration of AV 12 and qualifying as a "Rend" for an extra D3 power.

Rending power roll - Starting at 12, you need a 3 or 4 to glance (14), a 5 or 6 to penetrate (15).

Damage Result Roll - Standard table

Simple Fact: Assault cannons ARE better against AV14, range not being a consideration.
Not-So-Simple Fact: Every weapon and weapon system has a place. Arguing about the "best" is like trying to decide whether to stock only forks or only spoons. Get both, enjoy dinner.



Second point -
Typhoons are tons better against squadrons of light vehicles than HF/MM speeders (Can we just call them Vulkan Speeders?) will ever be. 3 Typhoons could put out such a significant volume of fire against light armor, you could wipe a squadron of War Walkers or Land Speeders or Sentinels in a single volley. A Squad of Vulkan Speeders will never have a squadron of Land Raiders to target, and will never have a chance to take more than 3 kills a turn. Not being twin-linked, I'd say you'd be lucky to average a 2/3 shot-to-kill ratio.

Mistress of minis wrote:Ive seen a few of your posts pop up today, you seem to just like being contradictory without backing up your claims with much substance.

I'm not really sure what else I can do other than say what I see.

I get what you're saying about averages over 100,000 shooting phases, I really do; I haven't got the inclination to check your maths so I'm going to just assume it's absolutely spot-on accurate. 100,000 shooting phases, Assault Cannons penetrate AV14 more than lascannons or Typhoons, check. Gotcha. What I'm saying is that, while I trust your maths 100%, I don't see how it makes spamming Assault Cannons the way of the future. I run Land Raiders. A lot. They're the fulcrum upon which my Grey Knights are balanced. I haven't yet seen one so much as Glanced by an Assault Cannon, and I've run up against a few of them. Maybe if they were being spammed, or if an opponent made a concerted effort to use them as AT weapons, it'd be different, but when better and nastier alternatives exist, and most of those alternatives cost the same or less and are more effective without the reliance upon extra dice rolls, there's just no getting around the fact that they're not as all-fire awesome as the maths makes them out to be. They might be a nice fall-back, but they're not something I'd pay for.

Also, considering that a single tooled-up Land Raider is worth a Tactical Squad and a half, I'd say any roll on the Damage Table your opponent makes against them is worth worrying about, even if it is at -2.

Frank, please quote me where I advocate Assault cannon spam to the exclusion of all else. Otherwise you're arguing for a point you -believe- I am trying to make.

I did the math hammer to illuminate people that assault cannon where more capable for AT work than lascannon, and very comparable to typhoons on medium AV. But that they were not anywhere near Meltas at close range.

Your Land Raiders never being glanced by an assault cannon is why I thought this was worth posting. Most people think theres no chance, so they'll shoot at something else, or forgo shooting altogether if they do not know any better.

And you dont have to pay for them. If you want to take other options thats up to you. But since you play GK's, and they often lack the ability to deal with AV 13/14, you might have assault cannon on your land raider crusaders? Now you know that they can affect armored vehicles better than a lascannon. A reg AC is better than a TL/lascannon. And Crusaders come with a MM and TL/Ac, thats better Anti Tank than a regular Land Raider.

GeneralRetreat wrote:Frank, I'm starting to worry about you here... have you actually tried any of these tactics, or is it still theoryhammer at this point?

From your description, you make it sound like an Assault Cannon needs to roll about six times before it does anything to AV 14.

The way I phrased it made it seem like five, actually; one to hit, a 6 to AP, a 5-6 on the Rending D3 to Penetrate, a second 6 on the AP roll (not sure what I was thinking there), and then finally a roll on the Damage Table. Even discounting the extra D6 roll I added as part of my sinister ploy to discredit Assault Cannons, it's still a D6 more than you'd need to roll to Glance AV14 with a Typhoon. It also needs to be closer, which opens it up to reprisals and more or less allows any AV14 vehicle that survives the frightening onslaught of S6 weaponry to pretty much handle the entire squadron itself while the rest of your army does other things.

And that's just the Speeders. "Assault Cannons on everything else" implies putting them on Termies, Razorbacks and Dreads is the done thing, when in fact it makes them more expensive, less likely to survive a trip across the table, and/ or less likely to be able to get into a good shooting position quickly enough to matter.

Boil it all down and you're left with the conclusion that mathematically, Assault Cannons are awesome. Tactically they're dead dogs. If I get them free all is good, but if not I'm not going to pay for them.

Second point -
Typhoons are tons better against squadrons of light vehicles than HF/MM speeders (Can we just call them Vulkan Speeders?) will ever be. 3 Typhoons could put out such a significant volume of fire against light armor, you could wipe a squadron of War Walkers or Land Speeders or Sentinels in a single volley. A Squad of Vulkan Speeders will never have a squadron of Land Raiders to target, and will never have a chance to take more than 3 kills a turn. Not being twin-linked, I'd say you'd be lucky to average a 2/3 shot-to-kill ratio.

They also cost 60pts more for a full squadron (i.e, 5pts less than a Land Raider with a Multimelta and Extra Armour) and have no way to ignore cover saves. I know we're all for 3 shots being better than one, but when that one hits automatically and hits based on the position of a template rather than dice rolls, and ignores cover, I know which one I'd prefer. I know which one I'd rather not have being flung at me either, especially if I was trying to get by on cover saves because something had killed my transports. I also know which one I'd prefer to have shooting at my Open-Topped AV10, and it'd be the ones that won't Wreck my vehicles on a 3+ because of AP1.

It might also be worth mentioning that a squad of Tactical Marines will also put out enough firepower to wipe out a squadron of War Walkers or Land Speeders, and woe betide the flying plywood rafts or perambulatory armchairs if the Taccies decide to charge them.

Boil this one down, and what you're left with is a straight choice between economy and efficiency. The MM/HF Speeder, even without Vulkan, is going to give you more bang for your buck against pretty much any army; and even if it doesn't there's not a damn thing stopping you throwing in some Typhoon/ HB Speeders too. That'd be the way I'd go.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mistress of minis wrote:Frank, please quote me where I advocate Assault cannon spam to the exclusion of all else.

I'm not saying you are advocating it to the exclusion of all else. What I'm saying is that, because of math-hammer, you believe that AssCans are still worth the points in 5th Edition. See:

Mistress of minis wrote:All this being said- I really think the Assault cannon- while 'nerfed' from 4th ed, is still worth the points in 5th ed.

What I'M saying is it's not, for multitudinous reasons. The biggest one being for those self-same points your Speeder can have a fantastic stand-off weapon that will do a number on light-medium infantry and light vehicles just as well as your AssCan but from a greater range. Crunch the numbers on the AssCan and Typhoon/ Cyclone versus the three most irritating MEQ units - Bike Squads, Plague Marines and 1k Sons - and I'll bet it bears out my hypothesis. Then crunch them against gak-ass infantry like Orks, Kroot, Guardsmen and Guardians and I'll bet it does the same. You could even try it from 36" and moving 12" per turn, and throw in the 9 extra Heavy Bolter shots you'd get from Speeders firing Frag Missiles.

Your Land Raiders never being glanced by an assault cannon is why I thought this was worth posting. Most people think theres no chance, so they'll shoot at something else, or forgo shooting altogether if they do not know any better.

That's fine. I'm with you on that; there is, at least, a chance that they'll do damage. The problem is to use them on my Speeders I have to pay Typhoon points, when I could alternatively just take a mixture of Typhoons, which are less likely to kill AV14 but far more useful against most other things, and MMs, which are 20pts cheaper and a far safer horse to back for killing AV14.

What your OP seems to imply is that it is sometimes worth taking AssCans over Typhoons or Cyclone Launchers, and I don't really think that bears out (not with the Typhoons at least - Cyclones maybe moreso, but I'd still rather not be throwing my 230pt Terminators into the middle of the field on the off-chance they'll Rend a Land Raider).

And you dont have to pay for them. If you want to take other options thats up to you. But since you play GK's, and they often lack the ability to deal with AV 13/14, you might have assault cannon on your land raider crusaders? Now you know that they can affect armored vehicles better than a lascannon. A reg AC is better than a TL/lascannon. And Crusaders come with a MM and TL/Ac, thats better Anti Tank than a regular Land Raider.

They still use the Heavy 3 profile, otherwise they'd be awesome in a GK army. Which I suppose demonstrates that they're at least situationally useful, considering the free Multimelta and that GKLRCs can always fire their Hurricane sponsons no matter what without the need for PotMS. However since the GK AssCan uses the old fail-profile it's a moot point :(

Excellent statistical work here Mistress. These ratios would be interesting to consider when choosing weapons for units like the obvious speeder, as well as the razorback and dread. People seem to be missing the fact that those are just about the only time you have a choice on whether to take lascannons or assault cannons, or lascannons vs multi-shot missiles.
It is fairly amusing that so many people seem to miss your point about assault cannons being worth firing on AV14. I suppose when looking at theory it is easy to forget that once you are in the game, what you could have taken is irrelevant, and what you do in fact have on the table is of paramount importance.

And Frank, if you are looking so desperately for statistically accurate dice, go to eBay and search for "casino dice." You can usually get cancelled craps dice for 10-15$ for 10-20, and they are really nice. You still get the occaisional run of numbers, but throwing 10 dice and getting 5 come up 4+ is by far the norm. I love mine.

Frank Fugger wrote:What your OP seems to imply is that it is sometimes worth taking AssCans over Typhoons or Cyclone Launchers, and I don't really think that bears out (not with the Typhoons at least - Cyclones maybe moreso, but I'd still rather not be throwing my 230pt Terminators into the middle of the field on the off-chance they'll Rend a Land Raider).

Mistress of minis wrote:This also has me wondering if the Assault cannon is better than the Cyclone/Typhoon, as for anti vehicle use krak missles are very easy to compare (use the melta w/1d6 stat line and jsut x2 for the results- its rough but close enough), however, 2 frag missles are pretty random, so are really hard to balance in an anti- infantry role. Oddly, it looks like the Assualt cannon is better Vs Av 14, and AV 10, but a Cyclone/typhoon would be noticably better Vs 11,12, and debatable vs 13 if you look at the glances. So, I think for termies, the assault cannon is better- as it cooperates with their 24" storm bolter range. For speeders, the typhoon gives better stand off range.

Please read what I wrote. I point out that both weapons have minor advantages over the other in different applications. And that for terminators, and speeders there are obvious advantages based on the platform and cooperating with its strengths/weaknesses.

How you decide to utilize those strengths and weaknesses is up to you- Im just pointing out what is possible. If you choose to assume Im telling you what to do with that, I really have no idea what to tell you.

I haven't yet seen one so much as Glanced by an Assault Cannon, and I've run up against a few of them.

In order to make sense of what you're saying, I have to assume your reasoning here is that while ACs might be better mathematically, they don't get to shoot as often due to being out of range or dead, so they don't ever put that advantage to work...

Is that accurate?

Because the other option is that you're doing that thing people do when they don't fully grasp math, where they say they believe it, but don't...

As far as spamming ACs go, I don't think that's the suggestion. What I think should be clear from the Mathhammer, is that an Assault Cannon is a great choice if you don't have a specific need in your list. ACs aren't all powerful, but they are relatively effective against virtually anything in the game.

You'll never go WRONG by taking one.

Also the math shows that if you take an even spread of weapons there are certain weapons that it's better to target at certain enemies, where they are more likely to do damage etc.

Mistress of minis wrote:Please read what I wrote. I point out that both weapons have minor advantages over the other in different applications. And that for terminators, and speeders there are obvious advantages based on the platform and cooperating with its strengths/weaknesses.

But you still maintain it's worth it's points in 5th Edition, no?

Phryxis wrote:In order to make sense of what you're saying, I have to assume your reasoning here is that while ACs might be better mathematically, they don't get to shoot as often due to being out of range or dead, so they don't ever put that advantage to work...

Is that accurate?

In a fashion, yeah. Unless the thing is mounted on an LRC it'll get, at best, one shooting phase at my Land Raiders before I kill it. It might get two if I feth up moving my Grey Knights out to deal with it, but even still I've never had one damage my Raiders. Considering that, when I'm running my pure GK list, 3 Raiders are all I deploy, I think that's fairly telling in and of itself; although I'll admit that it might not be the fairest comparison since Raider-mounted GKs deal remarkably well with AV10-12 considering they get tons of S6 shooting and every CC attack they make is equivalent to a Krak Grenade. Against other Raider-spam-capable MEQs (like Smurfs, and, erm.... Black Templars?) the results might be different. I doubt it though, because I've never really used an AssCan other than the free one on Crusaders and I've never found myself cursing for the lack of one, which suggests to me that they're neither the be all, the end all, or indeed worth bothering with at all.

As far as spamming ACs go, I don't think that's the suggestion. What I think should be clear from the Mathhammer, is that an Assault Cannon is a great choice if you don't have a specific need in your list. ACs aren't all powerful, but they are relatively effective against virtually anything in the game.

You'll never go WRONG by taking one.

You go wrong simply by choosing to pay for the AssCan over anything else. Range not being a factor, yeah, they're coo'; but like it or not range IS a factor. It's why the Monolith sucks, and why Broadsides are widely considered to be the best AT unit in 40K. Being able to attempt to hurt something from 48" away is always better than being able to attempt to hurt something from 24" away, particularly if your AssCan is being wielded by 220pts of Termies or an AV10 floater.

Oshova wrote:Also the math shows that if you take an even spread of weapons there are certain weapons that it's better to target at certain enemies, where they are more likely to do damage etc.

An old Chinese bloke once said, "Get out of my toolshed or I'll call the police".

An even older Chinese bloke said "He who prepares everywhere will be weak everywhere". What you do by taking an even spread of weapons is attempt to prepare everywhere, and while math-hammer establishes that you're not ENTIRELY screwed if all you have left to fire at that Land Raider is your Termie's Assault Cannon, you'd still have been better taking something that can specifically deal with the Land Raider, particularly if you're able to take it on a unit that also has the capacity to deal with things OTHER than Land Raiders too. That's what you get with an MM/ HF Speeder. It's what you get with Bike Squads, and TH/ SS Termies, and indeed by putting an MM on Land Raider variants (not the Redeemer. Never the Redeemer). It's what you get with Combi-Melta Sternguards to an extent, and with Ironclad Dreads, and MM Dreads, and Conversion Beamers, and any number of other things in the Smurf Codex.

Wait.....did you really just say Ironclad Dreads are a better buy from the SM codex then arming something with an Assault Cannon?

You arent adding anything to the discussion other than -opinions-. If you get something even semi-factual to contribute about Space Marine weaponry used against armor- please feel free to contribute.

But all you're doing is being contrary and obstinate because you dont 'think' assault cannon are worth it. Thats your choice. Get with the topic of the thread, or go start your own thread about how much you think assault cannons suck.

That sharp cracking sound you just heard was the tip of a whip exceeding the speed of sound just before impacting on someone's back.

POW

Mistress of minis wrote:You arent adding anything to the discussion other than -opinions-. If you get something even semi-factual to contribute about Space Marine weaponry used against armor- please feel free to contribute.

Well, how about this:

The lascannon has about a 7% chance to immobilize or destroy a Land Raider.

The AssCan is about 50% better.

A melta weapon at half range is about 3 times better than a lascannon, and twice as good as an AssCan.

Likewise, a lascannon can put one wound on an infantry squad against which they'll likely get a 4+ cover save.

An Asscannon will likely put three wounds on an infantry squad, against which they'll likely get a 4+ cover save.

A Heavy Flamer will likely put between five and eight wounds on an infantry squad, against which they'll die outright unless they're MEQ models, in which case "only" 2-3 die.

So in both of these scenarios, the AssCannon is the weapon in the middle; it's not the worst, and it's not the best. However, in both of these scenarios, the difference between the best and the second best is an order of magnitude, something like 2x the effectiveness.

The asscannon may not be 'bad', but if you want to create a competitive list, you should probably take something 'good'.

Mistress of minis wrote:Wait.....did you really just say Ironclad Dreads are a better buy from the SM codex then arming something with an Assault Cannon?

I did. I'm not saying they're awesome, I'm just saying that they bring more to the table than anything you'd care to name with an AssCan.

You arent adding anything to the discussion other than -opinions-.

Based on observed evidence. Isn't that exactly what you're doing? Sure all I've got to back me up is anectodal evidence, but then again your maths ignores "very situational tabletop factors that are very difficult to account for"; i.e 90% of gameplay.

If you get something even semi-factual to contribute about Space Marine weaponry used against armor- please feel free to contribute.

How about revising your hypothesis around more tangible factors than simple D6 rolls first? Or is the point of the thread for us to crunch our own numbers and then "OMG!" agree with you? Or was it, as you've stated previously, to get people thinking about Assault Cannons in a different light? If the latter is the case, then surely lending a bit of tabletop context to the evidence provided by the math-hammer is a good thing?

But all you're doing is being contrary and obstinate because you dont 'think' assault cannon are worth it.

From where I'm sitting it looks like the entire point of the thread was to demonstrate that Assault Cannons aren't completely a lost cause, and that they can indeed be useful. Agreed. What I'm saying in response is that whilst they ARE useful, as your math-hammer shows, they're still not worth the points for no matter what you put them on; there simply is no way to math-hammer that, because calculators can't really account for "very situational tabletop factors" (like terrain, what he's got, what you've got, what you're both going to do with it and who's going to do it first, what you're playing towards, how good you are at eyeing distances, and all that other piffling "gameplay" nonsense that gets in the way of good pattern calculation), but go up to any Smurf player in any tournament and ask him "why haven't you got Assault Cannons?", and his likely answer will be "because they're gak and expensive and hard to use". You may then say to him "but lookie these numbers what I crunched!", and he'll still shrug and say "OK, that's why they cost what they do; but I can still get 2 Krak Missiles for the same price and they hurt more things more often". Then you say "but but the numbers say they don't", he says "I don't see that", and you hopefully realise the flaw inherent in math-hammer; all those "very situational tabletop factors", they count for something. Or maybe it's the Smurf player's fault for not taking enough Assault Cannons and using them often enough? I dunno.

Mistress of minis wrote:Wait.....did you really just say Ironclad Dreads are a better buy from the SM codex then arming something with an Assault Cannon?

Not precisely. He said that the best Space Marine units have the ability to deal with certain unit types very effectively as well as the capability to deal with a wide range of unit types, and then used Ironclad Dreadnoughts as an example of such a unit. Further, he stated that while your data indicate that using Assault Cannons against Land Raiders can be effective, it's not reliably effective, and you shouldn't plan on using your Assault Cannons in that sort of role.

In general, I agree with his perspective. The assault cannon is decently good against a wide range of targets, but not really outstanding against any specific target, except Imperial Guard heavy weapon teams, which are not a very common foe. However, it is so expensive that it is generally not worth it. Upgrading a Razorback's twin-linked heavy bolter to a twin-linked assault cannon almost doubles the cost of the vehicle and does not provide sufficient benefits to be worth that cost, especially since the twin-linked heavy bolter is already effective against light infantry. Giving a Land Speeder an Assault Cannon is also bad, since the Typhoon launcher is better, provides increased survivability and synergy, and costs the same.

Mom, ignore frank, its pointless to feed a troll. I have learned this, and it has lowered by blood pressure and made me a happier person overall.