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.

from what i have learned playing IG, specialized squads (IE melta vets) or heavy weapons on tanks/artillery/air support are best left to take out vehicles and transports. The basic grunts are best at holding the line, thinning down light/medium infantry, for this reason heavybolters & a very close second autocannons (depending which armies you plan to play most) are the best choice IMHO. Personally though I just love the look of the autocannon model

Ah the allaros vs almost every other guard player on this forum debate over autocannons begins in another thread. For my points I take HWS squads which will never be mobile and give them autocannons for support and mc/ transport busting. Maneuverability I leave to the valkyries who out maneuver and block everything too threatning. Anything moderatly fast will perform this role, I just prefer valks. Now as to the question which to spam, I will partially agree with allaros and say non. The weapons each perform a role, some better then others. The weapons that I drop are usually the ml and lascannons. The lascannon role is better fulfilled by melta. the variability of ml is not worth the cost. Otherwise a combination of HB and auto will smash the transports and pulp its contents. The power to numbers ratio of your target should be close to the ratio of HB to auto. Mortars are good at indirect pinning and reasonably effective anti horde. Combined in proper ratios these weapons become very effective, and then they get additional bonuses such as being affected by orders and can score. If forced to spam, I would take the autocannons for the reason of range, number of shots, and accuracy of those number of shots.

cygnnus wrote:One thing that's changed a bit on the whole AC front is the prevalence of T6 Sv3+ 'Nid big bugs. If your local area has a lot 'Nid players with a lot of monstrous creatures, ML might be the better option. Taking out the 3+ Sv is worth losing the shot from the AC.

Valete,

JohnS

Perhaps. An autocannon against said-target with the BiD! order would cause ~0.30 wounds. The missile launcher against the same target with the same order would cause 0.47 wounds, or half that if its in cover (and come on, it's probably in cover). If you face a lot of monstrous creatures, it may be worth it, but I find my meltas/Vendettas/Executioner tend to handle MCs just fine.

The heavy bolter is not a bad weapon, but I'm of the opinion that it should cost 5 points just like the mortar (and the missile launcher should cost 10 so it can somewhat compete with the autocannon, and the plasma gun should be 10 like the meltagun).

ph34r wrote:Damnit, it's Ailaros again, spouting this anti-Autocannon nonsense with zero backing in statistics.

You want statistics? here ya go

Omegus wrote:Where are you getting this complete and utter nonsense from? Autocannons are fantastic at destroying the majority of vehicles you see on the 5th edition battlefield, and the math is quite clear on this.

Where am I getting it from? Math. You say the math is clear on this. The numbers are what they are. If you want to claim that they say that the math proves they're "fantastic" then you need to make an argument for why shooting an autocannon for 20 turns at a chimera in order to stop it should qualify for the definition of "fantastic".

I choose to define a weapon that's "effective" against a transport as a weapon which can stop a transport before it offloads it's cargo. If you choose to define it some other way, you're going to need to defend your definition.

Now, it is possible to create the illusion of effectiveness by spamming them (a million autocannons will very likely stop a transport turn 1), but, as I said in my OP here, they're expensive for what they do, and if you want them to actually DO something, you have to spend a LOT of points. Spamming plays into problems of points effectiveness, rather than alleviating them.

The math in your link is frankly slowed. It does not take 11 autocannon hits to immobilize a rhino. I will be off from work in about half an hour, and I will return to enlighten you.

I always use autocannons in my platoon infantry squads, and they perform admirably.

Where am I getting it from? Math. You say the math is clear on this. The numbers are what they are. If you want to claim that they say that the math proves they're "fantastic" then you need to make an argument for why shooting an autocannon for 20 turns at a chimera in order to stop it should qualify for the definition of "fantastic".

This is silly. The reason it's silly is because in fifth edition, no weaponry looks good against vehicles, not even melta or railguns. It takes a little less than ten turns of an autocannon shooting to immobilize AV12 (not 20, unless it's in cover, which is "more rare than not"). Benchmark that against 3 for a meltagun (that's right, 3, even within 2d6 range) or nearly 5 for a rail gun, and suddenly daylight begins to shine through. A meltagun is 3x as good as an autocannon. An autocannon gets to shoot very probably 3-4 times as often due to longer range. A rail gun is 2x as good as an autocannon, but Tau players only have 3-9 while IG can easily carry 9+ for fewer points.

So in this sense, the "math" is misleading; it's easy to go LOLOL 10 FAILCANNONZ but against AV10-12, your other options, even the great options, aren't that great either.

The second reason why the "math" is misleading is because there's a lot of in-game effect from threatening 48" of the table. If I have a heavily meched list and I'm staring at nothing on the other side except flamers and meltaguns (because those are THE BEST), then I know that I've got at least 2 turns of safety. All bets are off once I close within 12" of my opponent, but until then I'm free to maneuver or pick my entry points. A rhino wall hates staring down 12 autocannons on turn 1. Your 3 lead rhinos get immobilized or blown up, movement gets blocked, and 200 point squads with 12" engagement ranges are stuck hiking across the table. You have to "waste" your smoke on turn 1, just to try to survive long enough to get halfway across the table, which means you don't have anything left to protect against short range fire.

The third reason why the "math" is misleading is because there are units that, if within melta range, have already won. Ork Battlewagons, for example. You can not spend enough points to counter the effects of 20 Boyz multi-charging a squad, even a blob squad, especially if they can burn WAAAUGH!. Autocannons, due to the nature of the BW model, at least have the option of setting up firing lanes for side shots at an effective AP1.

Yes, I'd use autocannons too.

Ailaros wrote:You want statistics? here ya go

As I am not a statistician, I won't comment on the math in this article. However, it does bring up an interesting point, with the idea that expending effort on killing transports from extremely far away is sometimes not worth the cost. I could see the "wait for them to get close and unload with special weapons" as working against armies without Open-Topped or Assault-class transports, but against Orks or any Land Raider-using army, it would be a very risky strategy indeed.

I might assume, Ailaros, that you would just use mech to counter mech? Or does static infantry with Melta point-defense work for you in practice?

Personally, I like Heavy Weapons for their range, primarily as it gives your static infantry something to do when the enemy isn't close to them. Threat range and zones of fire have an important tactical and psychological effect on the game, after all, which can't be calculated into Mathhammering. Additionally, a single Meltagun and a single Autocannon are the same price in an Infantry Squad, and yet the Autocannon will certainly be getting off more shots in any battle, thanks to its far superior range and Heavy 2 status. Even if these are slightly lower strength shots, I still count volume of fire as a valuable commodity all its own.

Okay, typical 30-man infantry platoon with autocannons.

Vs. AV10: 6 shots, 4.5 hits; 0.40 immobilized results, 0.75 destroyed results.
Vs. AV11: 6 shots, 4.5 hits; 0.28 immobilized results, 0.49 destroyed results.

I'd go on, but that already shows that each squad has a very solid chance to immobilize/destroy one transport a turn. And it can do this from 48" away from the very start of the game. Immobilize/destroy a single cheapo rhino, and the heavy weapons have already more than paid for themselves. What's your retort, meltaguns? Oh fantastic, let's destroy a dirt cheap transport when it has already done its job by delivering far superior troops within 12" of your lines, super awesome. My autocannons break more transports on average than my meltaguns.

And as for AV12, it's less likely to immobilize or destroy, but AV12 usually means chimeras, vendettas or Eldar skimmers, so merely shaking these vehicles can be worth it to silence their guns (and in the case of the chimera, forcing the troops inside to disembark to fire), so the guns are actually even more valuable against these targets.

So I wonder where that guy got the idea that it takes 20 autocannons to destroy a single AV10 vehicle? Hmm, probably some deep crevice of his ass. The same place you get your statistics, it seems.

alanedomain wrote: I could see the "wait for them to get close and unload with special weapons" as working against armies without Open-Topped or Assault-class transports, but against Orks or any Land Raider-using army, it would be a very risky strategy indeed.

Why is it risky? To me, it seems like there are a lot of knowns and not a lot of unknowns.

alanedomain wrote:I might assume, Ailaros, that you would just use mech to counter mech? Or does static infantry with Melta point-defense work for you in practice?

Yeah, mech, or meltaguns. "in practice" refers to how I do movement on the battlefield, which isn't all that particularly applicable to every one else. Assuming correct movement, this should work just fine. Sure, heavy weapons are easier, as they involve no movement, but clearly melta defense is better, even if more difficult to enact.

And I'd never advocate for static infantry anything.

alanedomain wrote: Personally, I like Heavy Weapons for their range, primarily as it gives your static infantry something to do when the enemy isn't close to them.

It doesn't matter if they're long-ranged if they're ineffective. Secondly, it's not that your army is static, what will it do? it's that heavy weapons force your army to be static.

Being static is bad. You can ameliorate this slightly by giving them heavy weapons, but a much better solution is to take actually effective guns that allow for liberty of movement.

alanedomain wrote:Additionally, a single Meltagun and a single Autocannon are the same price in an Infantry Squad, and yet the Autocannon will certainly be getting off more shots in any battle, thanks to its far superior range and Heavy 2 status. Even if these are slightly lower strength shots, I still count volume of fire as a valuable commodity all its own.

They may get more shots off, but meltaguns are SO much more effective per shot that it more than covers the gap.

In order to calculate the benefits of range and strength of shots and volume of fire, we can all roll this into statistics. Statistics clearly show how cruddy autocannons are, especially compared to meltaguns.

sourclams wrote:A meltagun is 3x as good as an autocannon. An autocannon gets to shoot very probably 3-4 times as often due to longer range.

Yes, but.

An autocannon may get to shoot more times, but it still takes longer to destroy the transport than it takes for the transport to unload its cargo.

Given that you're going to be destroying transports after it's too late regardless, would you rather destroy a transport with a weapon that's going to render your squads immobile and have bigger problems with cover and LOS once the transports are close, or would you rather have a gun that does the same job but allows you to be mobile and is also effective against heavier armor and terminators and MC's?

sourclams wrote:it's easy to go LOLOL 10 FAILCANNONZ but against AV10-12, your other options, even the great options, aren't that great either.

I agree that the weapons options are in such a way where it's neigh on impossible to stop a transport before its too late in a points effective manner. This fact does not make autocannons good.

Instead, I think the guard needs to get a little creative when it comes to transport defense, rather than vainly placing its hopes in poor-quality weaponry.

sourclams wrote:The second reason why the "math" is misleading is because there's a lot of in-game effect from threatening 48" of the table. If I have a heavily meched list and I'm staring at nothing on the other side except flamers and meltaguns (because those are THE BEST), then I know that I've got at least 2 turns of safety. All bets are off once I close within 12" of my opponent, but until then I'm free to maneuver or pick my entry points.

There is a non-zero amount of threat to transports with a autocannon hedge. That said, it's still not worth it, pointswise.

Furthermore, there is a much greater threat with a meltagun hedge. Having the ability to keep transports far away for several turns as your opponent seeks safety is a powerful tool. Your opponent may be free to move everywhere outside of 18", but they're always going to stay at least 18" away.

The benefit of transports is that you can move your stuff quickly to where you want it to go. The benefit of a melta hedge is that you can fundamentally deny your opponent access to places he wants to go. With autocannons, they're still going there, it's just they do it faster because they're not afraid of getting close.

sourclams wrote:The third reason why the "math" is misleading is because there are units that, if within melta range, have already won. Ork Battlewagons, for example. You can not spend enough points to counter the effects of 20 Boyz multi-charging a squad, even a blob squad, especially if they can burn WAAAUGH!.

can't spend enough points? A single PIS, properly spread out, can catch a 20-boyz attack no problem. Once they die a horrible death, you nail the boyz with a basket of flamers. What's the problem?

There are some units out there that require them to be in close range for them to be effective. We have already established that you're not going to be able to stop them from getting close anyways. Furthermore, this does not change the fact that the guard are perfectly capable of being more effective at close range than they are.

Plus, in order to KEEP them at range with autocannons, you need to spend a lot of points and weapons slots that could have been used to make them regret getting so close. It's a bad trade-off.

Omegus wrote:The math in your link is frankly slowed. I will be off from work in about half an hour, and I will return to enlighten you.

Omegus wrote:Okay, typical 30-man infantry platoon with autocannons.

Vs. AV10: 6 shots, 4.5 hits; 0.40 immobilized results, 0.75 destroyed results.
Vs. AV11: 6 shots, 4.5 hits; 0.28 immobilized results, 0.49 destroyed results.

I'd go on, but that already shows that each squad has a very solid chance to immobilize/destroy one transport a turn. And it can do this from 48" away from the very start of the game.

So I wonder where that guy got the idea that it takes 20 autocannons to destroy a single AV10 vehicle? Hmm, probably some deep crevice of his ass. The same place you get your statistics, it seems.

Where do I get my statistics from? Well, firstly, I do it by assuming that guard are BS3 not BS4. If you're going to do your math wrong, you really could save a lot of effort by not being a jerk about it.

Secondly, as I said, if you pack enough autocannons in, of course you can be effective. The thing is, though, that a 30-man blob with 3 autocannons costs 180 points. That's nearly 4x the price of the transport itself. And that's just price in points, ignoring things like the cost of immobility, etc.

As said, heavy weapons are expensive for what they do. Taking more of them doesn't change that.

Ailaros wrote: Yeah, mech, or meltaguns. "in practice" refers to how I do movement on the battlefield, which isn't all that particularly applicable to every one else. Assuming correct movement, this should work just fine. Sure, heavy weapons are easier, as they involve no movement, but clearly melta defense is better, even if more difficult to enact.

And I'd never advocate for static infantry anything.

>snip

It doesn't matter if they're long-ranged if they're ineffective. Secondly, it's not that your army is static, what will it do? it's that heavy weapons force your army to be static.

Being static is bad. You can ameliorate this slightly by giving them heavy weapons, but a much better solution is to take actually effective guns that allow for liberty of movement.

>snip

Given that you're going to be destroying transports after it's too late regardless, would you rather destroy a transport with a weapon that's going to render your squads immobile and have bigger problems with cover and LOS once the transports are close, or would you rather have a gun that does the same job but allows you to be mobile and is also effective against heavier armor and terminators and MC's?

So, as I can see here and in a few other threads we've both posted in, you seem to simply detest any strategy involving infantry that stays put, which I can understand. You talk about the current metagame, though, so let's look at the current metagame: two out of every three battles in 5th edition are going to be objective-based in some manner. As such, your primary strategic goal is to be able to sit on something and let the game finish before your opponent can push you off of it, and I ask you, what can accomplish that better than an infantry platoon? Since these Troop choices have to just kinda hang around anyway, why not give them Heavy Weapons that will let them actually spend their time doing something productive every turn?

I definitely see where you're coming from, though, with movement and melta being more effective. Melta squads in Chimeras and Valks is at the heart of the Leafblower strategy (as far as I understand it, anyway), which seems to be fairly strong. However, if a player simply doesn't want to run all mechanized all the time, you're going to have infantry squads, and you're going to want them staying in cover as much as possible. I assume this is what you do, as the idea of Guardsmen squads running around an open field without a transport seems sub-optimal, and you seem like an efficiency-minded fellow.

However, so far we've mostly just been discussing Autocannons vs. Meltaguns, with your dismissing the Autocannon as a device to stop transports at a distance. How do you feel about Lascannons to do that job? They are more expensive, of course, but are the quintessential anti-vehicle/heavy infantry/MC gun.

I can see ailaros' point in that special weapons allow for mobility, which is a key part of many IG lists, since the IG can basicly either play static horde or mech, just like tau (minus the horde of course)
To that end he is correct in assessing that Meltas are more effective, because you can move and shoot, which, when you hope out of that chimera, is a great ability to have
However, in a list less geared towards mech, or even with a minimum of mech (i no, IG without mech?! gasp! blasphemy!) Autocannons are the most cost effective option, for the reasons stated above
namely, when you don't gotta move, range is far more important that one point of strength
I've played frequently against a friend who would have a scary mech list, if he only had more than one chimera and one sentinel (thats one sentinel, not one sentinel squad) and he ALWAYS uses Las and missile, or else autocannons and missiles, because they can deny me fire lanes, as his 48" range is greater than my own 30" basic range
admitedly, yes, lascannons suck due to low number of shots combined with low BS
BUT
arrogance gets you nowhere fast, especially when you stick your railhead out in the open and watch him catch that one lucky shot
cause that's all it takes, is one lucky shot
so that volume of "So-so" fire delivered by an autocannon is deadly, both as a scare tactic and a denial system, especially when your cheap guardsmen can field what...ten? twenty? at a 1000 points level? whereas i can field ONE railhead, and ONE devilfish
for larger games tho, or more mech (basicly as long as you can move it more than 6"/turn) the melta is definatley more deadly with that 2D6 armor pen and AP1 giving it +1 to damage rolls

Ailaros wrote: Well, firstly, I do it by assuming that guard are BS3 not BS4. If you're going to do your math wrong, you really could save a lot of effort by not being a jerk about it.

Secondly, as I said, if you pack enough autocannons in, of course you can be effective. The thing is, though, that a 30-man blob with 3 autocannons costs 180 points. That's nearly 4x the price of the transport itself. And that's just price in points, ignoring things like the cost of immobility, etc.

Um, BS4 would be a 66% hit rate, not 75%. I guess now I understand where your statistics come from, you must operate on a completely different scale or dice system the rest of us do. If a blobbed platoon isn't receiving Bring it Down, you fail as an IG player. That 30-man squad is also controlling one or multiple objectives, is providing bubble wrap for your artillery against outflankers and deepstrikers, can tie up the inevitable close combat assault, and once the transports have been destroyed and things have gotten up close and personal they can forget the autocannons and advance to rapid fire range (to use those specials or whatever).

If you take chimeras for those infantry squads (as well you should), you then have a 115+special weapon scoring tank with AV12, that can sit in cover over an objective and throw out 2 S7, 3S6 and 3S5 shots a turn. Isn't that why everyone is so jealous of IG? 30 points is a tiny price to pay for the additional flexibility. So even mechanized lists can take great advantage of the platoon squads and the autocannon. I know my lists have gotten a lot better and my win ration significantly improved once I stopped just spamming vets.

"Pack enough autocannons"? There were three. Your source was claiming it takes 20 to destroy an AV10 vehicle. So please, stop spouting nonsense.

Ailaros wrote:

ph34r wrote:Damnit, it's Ailaros again, spouting this anti-Autocannon nonsense with zero backing in statistics.

You want statistics? here ya go

Your "statistics", which are just a couple of values with no other comparison or backing, are worthless when the rest of your analysis is such a failure!

Your argument is basically "If you are fighting an army of only transports in cover, there's no way to blow them up with an equal amount of points of guns!"
No DUH.

First off, count the points of the unit inside along with your argument. A unit that can't get to you is effectively crippled, the transport just facilitates this. Suddenly the "too efficient to bother killing" 50 point transport becomes a 200 point unit+transport (or more) vs your 235 point unit.
Your 235 point unit cripples theirs on turn 1, and then does whatever the hell it wants for the next 5 turns, having effectively earned its place in the list.

You have churned out a bunch of numbers that are quite meaningless.


You say that a 50 point blocker unit saves you from a 50 point transport, therefore being effective and efficient!

WRONG.
Your 50 point squad will get tank shocked through by the 50 point transport, or killed by a flamer, or killed on YOUR assault phase, all terrible outcomes that guarantee the demise of further squads, and eventually the entire army from horrible multicharges. Meanwhile, what is your army doing? Letting the enemy get close? Shooting their squad of scouts in the woods that has 3+ cover? Running around in circles?

The only thing your strategies are good for is losing a game in a glorious close combat.

In the end, your infantry and special weapons should be the last thing you decide on. With the exception of mobile MeltaVets with whatever transport you like/can afford for real anti-tank work.

If you have lots of Chimeras, you won't really need heavy bolters. If you have Hydras, you won't get that much use out of autocannons. If you have Hellhound variants, you won't have that much use for flamers. If you have Russ hulls, you probably won't need missile launchers. If you have meltavets, you probably won't need lascannons.

Fill in the holes in the rest of your list with infantry heavy weapons, and if you don't think you have any holes you might not need to bother.

If you are really undecided, autocannons are a good fallback. Most other weapons have obvious problems. Lascannons are expensive, and not AP 1. Missile launchers tend towards the mediocre of both worlds, and if there is an army in the game that doesn't really need frag templates it is IG. Heavy Bolters are usually outpeformed by Chimeras. Flamers usually require a transport to really make them work, and the Hellhound is often just better. That leaves the plasma/melta/GL debate, and there are entire threads just on that.

People love to hate Ailaros, but he does have some decent points at times.

There's a difference between recognizing the weakness of a unit, and completely discarding it as useless. My 65pt AC/GL squads generally accomplish little, but they're mostly there to hold objectives and provide bodies.

I see the two as similar weapons - the missile launcher is more powerful, in that it can kill heavier armour and more infantry per round than the autocannon, and at longer range. They share the same targets, and each outperforms the other in certain respects. They are both outperformed by heavy bolters and lascannons, and other weapons in the codex, at the extremes of the spectrum. I see them more as support than as the core of a list.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've made heavy bolters the exclusive heavy weapons team for my platoon infantry squads, and all my other heavies into heavy weapon squads. I'm going to try it like that for awhile, to try and get some synergy with the lasguns. With a grenade launcher in there too, they will provide dedicated anti-light infantry firepower. That way I'm not so hesitant to move the squad, thinking I need to use the heavy because they have scary things on the other side of the board...

alanedomain wrote: Since these Troop choices have to just kinda hang around anyway, why not give them Heavy Weapons that will let them actually spend their time doing something productive every turn?

Ah, but that assumes productivity. Were there a way for them to be effective at range, I'd be willing to give it half a consideration. Otherwise, what do you really gain by being able to shoot every turn for little effect if it sacrifices your ability to be very effective on the turns that you do shoot?

Of course, there are certain heavy weapons which can be more effective (read productive) than others, but they're still expensive for what they do.

alanedomain wrote:How do you feel about Lascannons to do that job?

cf. the lascannon. I like it because it's scary and it allows me to insta-splat T4 scoundrels and has good AP to boot. I don't like it because it's really expensive. If there was some particular that justified the cost, then I'd take them, but generally I avoid them for general use due to cost:benefit problems.

alanedomain wrote:However, if a player simply doesn't want to run all mechanized all the time, you're going to have infantry squads, and you're going to want them staying in cover as much as possible. I assume this is what you do, as the idea of Guardsmen squads running around an open field without a transport seems sub-optimal, and you seem like an efficiency-minded fellow.

Yeah, I'm not a mechanized player either.

I'll grant that running around on foot is less than optimal on an individual basis, but comprehensively it can work, you just have to think about things a little different from the norm. For example, placing hope in orders to keep up mobility (remember that a squad of infantry that are "go go go"ing are nearly always the same speed as are chimeras - except they can't be immobilized by terrain), and placing hope in redundancy over durability or mobility. In any case, this is a little off-topic.

dbsamurai wrote:Autocannons are the most cost effective option...

namely, when you don't gotta move, range is far more important that one point of strength...

so that volume of "So-so" fire delivered by an autocannon is deadly

Firstly, autocannons are the most cost effective option of PIS heavy weapons choices. There are way better ways of handling things elsewhere in your list.

Secondly, range isn't more important than 1 more point of strength and AP1 and the ability to roll 2D6 vs. vehicles. What do you really gain with more range when the shots patter off what they hit?

Thirdly, yes, the "poor" fire delivered by autocannons can be "effective" if you take a lot of them. This doesn't change the fact that they still cost a lot for what they do.

Omegus wrote: If a blobbed platoon isn't receiving Bring it Down, you fail as an IG player.

So how many points are you now spending to stop a single transport?

Polonius wrote:My 65pt AC/GL squads generally accomplish little, but they're mostly there to hold objectives and provide bodies.

Oh yeah, the primary purpose of infantry is to take objectives. That said, why spend points to give them ineffective weapons when you can spend the points to give them effective ones?

ph34r wrote:Your argument is basically "If you are fighting an army of only transports in cover, there's no way to blow them up with an equal amount of points of guns!"
No DUH.

Actually, my argument is basically "The reason to take long-range anti-transport is to stop the transports before they hit your lines. If you can't do this, then why try?"

I'm running under the assumption that you're only going to get a turn or two to shoot at transports before they've unloaded their cargo in your lines (after which point, why not take weapons that trade range for effectiveness?). It's under the assumption that your opponent is able to deploy transports behind cover (terrain or other units) and that they're going to get at least 1 turn of smoke. If they're skimmers, then they'll always be in cover, as far as stopping them before it's too late is concerned.

I'm basing my argument that your opponents aren't going to be stupid enough to deploy and move out in the open, straight into your fire lanes, while forgetting to pop smoke or move fast. If you want to take the opposite as true, then yeah, autocannons become MORE effective, but they're still not great - even in this perfect set of circumstances.

ph34r wrote:First off, count the points of the unit inside along with your argument. A unit that can't get to you is effectively crippled, the transport just facilitates this.

What? Which units are totally crippled by losing their transport? As far as I can tell, anything that can be loaded in a transport is perfectly capable of moving without one. If they get pinned, then yeah, it slows them for a turn, but that still just one turn, and if they're not pinned, then they still have the ability to run just as fast as the transport was taking them anyways.

At best, you're just temporarily slowing them down while the rest of their troops continue on in their transports unhindered.

ph34r wrote:
You say that a 50 point blocker unit saves you from a 50 point transport, therefore being effective and efficient!

WRONG.

I'm sorry, you have a more points effective way?

ph34r wrote:Your 50 point squad will get tank shocked through by the 50 point transport, or killed by a flamer, or killed on YOUR assault phase, all terrible outcomes that guarantee the demise of further squads

Umm, I was actually assuming that the 50 point squad would die a horrible death. Did you actually read the article all the way through to the end?

ph34r wrote:Meanwhile, what is your army doing? Letting the enemy get close? Shooting their squad of scouts in the woods that has 3+ cover? Running around in circles?

Yeah, you didn't actually read all the way to the end. Rather than explaining it again here, I'll just redirect you to the article.

ph34r wrote:The only thing your strategies are good for is losing a game in a glorious close combat.

Actually, the OTHER thing that the strategy is good for is neutralizing a transport rush in a points-effective way that is also still good if you're not facing against a transport rush.

With autocannons, you're not going to stop your opponent before he forces you into a "glorious close combat". Given this, would it be better to arm yourself properly for the close-range firefight that's going to happen anyways, or sacrifice some of your ability to be effective when the iron is hot in order to be ineffective against non-transport armies and not actually even delay the inevitable scrum anyways?

Umm, I was actually assuming that the 50 point squad would die a horrible death. Did you actually read the article all the way through to the end?

Your article somehow assumes that the sacrifice of one squad guarantees the survival of your army. Dead wrong. Once one squad falls, or is shocked through, your whole army gets multi-charged and you lose the ability to shoot, even at close range.

And guess what Sun Tzu? Autocannons are not bad against Marines. In fact they are more effective than plasma guns, missile launchers, lascannons, mortars, melta guns, grenade launchers, and every other weapon except the heavy bolter and flamer, against marines in cover. And they sure are a lot more long ranged than heavy bolters and flamers.

So you could either: Take ~400 points of autocannons to guarantee you can cripple 2 or so mechanized squads per turn, or...

Take 400 points of heavy bolters and grenade launchers and whatever the hell else you put in your army that is so wonderfully effective against marines that are in close combat with your entire army simultaneously, and lose the game.

It's not a very hard decision for me!

Ailaros wrote:

Lexx wrote:Also an auctocannon fan. For the points you spend per squad you get a gun that can damage anything effectively bar heavy armor.

You can damage anything INEFFECTIVELY, regardless of if it's heavy armor or not.

Heavy weapons are expensive for what they do. In the case of autocannons, this stems from the fact that they're ineffective, rather than that they cost a lot of points. Spamming only plays into this problem.
.

How are autocannons ineffective for what they do? Its a good all rounder gun for 10 points a squad for long range fire support. Leaving more specialist units like hellhounds, russes and melta/plasma vets to do their support roles. With Guard I prefer a semi static gunline with other elements supporting it. And for that role autocannons perform well. How is spamming them a problem?

Hi Guys

enjoying the thread a lot, even though i'm sure i've read it before.

Personally I don't get why you would want to spam anything, my 1500 list has go LC, AC and melta's in it. Is it not better to have a balance?

@Ailaros - I quite liked you idea of punishing the enemy when they get close (melta hedge), my main problem with it is I fight a lot of orks so i'd probably get waaghed without getting a shot off. Do like the idea though, make marine think again about drop podding into my gunline.

I think everything has a place, except missile launchers

@Spank: I thought the same thing about MLs, but a poster on the IG message board discussed ML HWS, saying they have decent anti-tank, range, anti-meq, anti-horde, and are cheap. Essentially, they're the infantry version of the LRBT. I'm not sold, but at 90pts a throw and an increasing amount of AV12 and AV13 around, I can see the appeal.

And with AV12, the AC isn't equal to the LC. For every 12 hits, the AC gets 2 pens and 2 glances. For every 6 hits (half the shots), the LC gets 3 pens and 1 glance. This is 5th, where pens are far, far better than glances.

I play a mostly mech style army, so I think I generally run two infantry mounted heavies. I'm happy with them, and frankly they cost so little, there's nothing I would seriously swap them for. I think I'm getting aileros's point, but for me I just don't exactly have a lot of places 20pts in upgrades would make a difference. My army has something like 16 melta guns in 1850, and I really don't need more.

The other big thing to consider is that the game doesn't magically end on turn 2. Most games go 6 rounds, and having long range firepower enables squads to keep beings at least a little useful.

ph34r wrote:

It's not a very hard decision for me!

oh ho ho you are forgetting my 50+ man stubborn blob squad with tons of power weapons!

but really, autocannons are pretty great.

Could care less about fuzzy math that proves little, the more dice I throw the more the gods of chance could statistically smile upon me, I just need one glancing 6 or one penetrating 4 and the problem is solved.
Point values and "paying for itself" units are irrelevent If you are confident in your ability to roll dice, and want to run up and melta down a transport and then obliterate the crew, well thats one way of doing things, but both have merit.
Saying that autocannons are just total crap is complete nonsense however.

Try Again Bragg wrote:Ah the allaros vs almost every other guard player on this forum debate over autocannons begins in another thread.

Are we in the triple digits for this old chestnut yet? Why do people persist in arguing with Ailaros' magical quantum math and his flawless win record? It's madness, I tells ya!

The same reason cranks get shouted down in every forum, online and IRL: to show everybody else that they're cranks.

You're not going to change his mind, the key is to present the arguments for new people.

And he has a decent point buried in there somewhere: heavy weapons aren't great in 5th edition. In fact, they're pretty mediocre. That said, they're cheap for IG and provide an option besides melta vets.

Polonius wrote:And with AV12, the AC isn't equal to the LC. For every 12 hits, the AC gets 2 pens and 2 glances. For every 6 hits (half the shots), the LC gets 3 pens and 1 glance. This is 5th, where pens are far, far better than glances.

I'm not going to double check the numbers, so I'll take them at face value and just point out that you can get twice as many autocannons for the same price as those lascannons.

As for their supposed mediocrity, considering their cost they do just fine. Hell, very often when my platoons take wounds, I'll pop one on the heavy weapon teams at every opportunity since losing that extra wound doesn't reduce the squad size or really cost me anything.

Terminus wrote:

Polonius wrote:And with AV12, the AC isn't equal to the LC. For every 12 hits, the AC gets 2 pens and 2 glances. For every 6 hits (half the shots), the LC gets 3 pens and 1 glance. This is 5th, where pens are far, far better than glances.

I'm not going to double check the numbers, so I'll take them at face value and just point out that you can get twice as many autocannons for the same price as those lascannons.

As for their supposed mediocrity, considering their cost they do just fine. Hell, very often when my platoons take wounds, I'll pop one on the heavy weapon teams at every opportunity since losing that extra wound doesn't reduce the squad size or really cost me anything.

LCs aren't twice the cost of an AC, that's a common mistake people make. You certainly can't get twice the ACs as LCs. An AC HWS is 75pts, an LC one is 105. Yes, that's a 50% increase, but you're still only getting 3 ACs for every 2 LCs. The numbers are worse in platoons.

I would never not include a heavy weapon in a platoon squad. Even mortars add soemthing for almost nothing.

I like ACs in PIS and on Hydras. once in awhile i run an Exterminator.
i like my Lascannons on my Vendettas.
i like my meltas in my vet and CCS.
ACs aren't junk or a waste. i think Ailaros is entitled to his opinion. even if i don't agree with it.
i base their worth on what they've done for me in the past. not someone's math skill.

to the op's OT, what are you wanting to do would answer what to "spam". i like lots of several
options, not just one. so, currently i run lots of AC amd Melta. PIS/Hydras for my ACs and
my Vets and CCS for my Meltas. YMMV.

ph34r wrote:Your article somehow assumes that the sacrifice of one squad guarantees the survival of your army. Dead wrong. Once one squad falls, or is shocked through, your whole army gets multi-charged and you lose the ability to shoot, even at close range.

This appears to assume that I've got my squads all clustered together, and I'm incapable of moving them. My opponent's ability to multi-charge me is very much determined by how I deploy and move my troops. Given that you can no longer consolidate into close combat with a new unit, why are you assuming some sort of domino theory?

Yes, once their troops hit your lines, you're in a tough position if you have crappy guns. If you have the proper weaponry, you are much more able to handle their stuff when they come in close.

Given that they're getting in close regardless of what weapons you take, why not take weapons that are effective once they arrive instead of weapons that aren't?

ph34r wrote:And guess what Sun Tzu? Autocannons are not bad against Marines. In fact they are more effective than plasma guns, missile launchers, lascannons, mortars, melta guns, grenade launchers, and every other weapon except the heavy bolter and flamer, against marines in cover. And they sure are a lot more long ranged than heavy bolters and flamers.

Sun Tsu says it takes 4 turns for an autocannon to kill a single marine. Why do you choose to think that a weapon that on average takes this long to get even a single casualty is good?

Lexx wrote:How are autocannons ineffective for what they do?

As mentioned, it takes a long time to get even a single casualty against a marine. Against a GEq in perfect circumstances, you kill a little shy of one a turn. This is better than against marines, sure, but you've got to remember that GEqs, if you're getting a lot of autocannon shots in on them, are horde armies. Losing a single model here and there does not matter to a horde army. Thus, they are ineffective against their strategy as a whole, even if they are capable of plinking off individual gretchin.

Against lighter armor, you can go to that link I posted to see how long it takes a single autocannon to stop a transport (or how many you need to bring to stop them in time). I consider long-range-anti-transport to be effective only if it stops the transport before it offloads it's cargo. If you choose to define effective in some other way, I'm curious as to why?

Obviously, they're nothing against heavy armor.

Lexx wrote:How is spamming them a problem?

Spamming makes them more effective as a whole, but they don't make them any more effective per-gun. This means that while you're creating the illusion of effectiveness, you're shooting yourself in the foot as far as points-effectiveness goes.

SpankHammer III wrote: I quite liked you idea of punishing the enemy when they get close (melta hedge), my main problem with it is I fight a lot of orks so i'd probably get waaghed without getting a shot off.

Well, you just have to be a lot more careful with your movement. Heavy weapons aren't very movement-dependent (as well they shouldn't be). If you switch off of heavy weapons, you can't just keep sitting there and crossing your fingers - you've got to actually move around to meet the demands of the tabletop.

Polonius wrote:You're not going to change his mind, the key is to present the arguments for new people.

It is very possible to get me to change my mind, it's just that you can't do it with mere assertions and snide comments.

Polonius wrote:And he has a decent point buried in there somewhere: heavy weapons aren't great in 5th edition. In fact, they're pretty mediocre. That said, they're cheap for IG and provide an option besides melta vets.

My point isn't buried, it's the point that I'm trying to explicitly make this whole time: heavy weapons are bad for their points in 5th ed.

They may be cheap, relative to buying a shiney new executioner, but they're still not effective for their points, despite their low price.

you keep ignoring two things:

1) Heavy weapons are still really effective against Monstrous Creatures and light vehicles

2) Autocannons are a negligible cost increase over a platoon squad. I'd agree with the statement that footslogging gunline IG is going to suffer in 5th, but to use the classic smoked rhino situation, 18 AC shots can be had in 4 turns from two squads. The ACs only cost 10pts a piece, and grant a flexibility the squad didn't have before.

Building an army around infantry heavy weapons is still pretty ballsy, but including a few as a way for a squad to contribute doesn't seem wasteful to me. If I had a better way to spend the points (or a better way to gain access to PCS and SWS squads), I might drop the ACs.

I do know that my all mechanized, all short range IG army ran into problems holding objectives, so I added the platoon.