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.

Not for nothing, but each Multilaser shot has a 1/12 chance of slowing down a rhino (stunned, immobilized, wrecked). A three shot burst has about a 23% chance of doing so. For a weapon that costs very little and isn't' expected to really do much, that's a decent chance of slowing down the enemy.

Polonius wrote:Hey look, it's another thread where a guy who hasn't won anything notable tells us all how we're wrong.

There is no sense in arguing with him. He clearly has his mind made up.

Sure, you could mention that nobody buys the chimera for the guns, so taking a mediocre weapon is still a plus.

Or that a multilaser does similar damage to AV 10 as a BS3 melta gun outside of 6"(the melta gets +1 to all damage results). Or infinitely more than any melta gun outside of 12".

You could mention that the preferred target of the Heavy Bolter (T3 models with a 4+ save) are both uncommon and generally not very threatening, and that valuing being good against them is generally a waste.

You could also simply demand from him and explanation as to why he feels he can objectively call something "terrible." Units, weapons, and upgrades in 40k are only good or bad in relationship to each other. You don't need to prove, or even think, that multi-lasers are good. They're not. It's not their job to be awesome. It's their job to provide decent fire support against a wide range of targets. Considering it basically comes free with a bowl of soup, it's a good deal.

Quoted for great truth and furious justice.

L. Wrex

No. Multilasers are better 95% of the time. I can prove this on an etch a sketch.

which means that HB are better 5% of the time, the HB/ML debate is mostly about personal prefrence, and opinion. Which everyone is entiled too. The only way you can say a weapon is strictly better than another weapon is if it costs the same with better or equal stats in EVERY category. HB does better than ML in armor penetration, ML is better at wounding. That is all, granted cover saves are more prevalent but they aren't awarded automatically for hitting the board.

Micro dakka Chimera just doesn't seem worth it in the current mech meta game.

I like Veterans 3 Plasma Gun Las cannon team in Chimera for 190 points much better. You get less shots but you pose a threat to transports and a big ouch to Marines outside of cover or monsterous creatures.

If templates are your thing get a Leman Russ Executioner with 3 Plasma cannon shots for the same price. Ok its not scoring but plasma cannons put hurt on any infantry esp when they all bunched up from losing their ride.

Multi lasers all the way over heavy bolter for turret on chimeras and get the hull heavy flamer cause your gonna be moving most likely so can't shoot a hull heavy bolter. Multi laser can penetrate rhinos and insta kill heavy weapons teams. Enough said. Hull heavy flamers are pretty good as well to torch stuff close up.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

Polonius wrote:Hey look, it's another thread where a guy who hasn't won anything notable tells us all how we're wrong.

There is no sense in arguing with him. He clearly has his mind made up.

Sure, you could mention that nobody buys the chimera for the guns, so taking a mediocre weapon is still a plus.

Or that a multilaser does similar damage to AV 10 as a BS3 melta gun outside of 6"(the melta gets +1 to all damage results). Or infinitely more than any melta gun outside of 12".

You could mention that the preferred target of the Heavy Bolter (T3 models with a 4+ save) are both uncommon and generally not very threatening, and that valuing being good against them is generally a waste.

You could also simply demand from him and explanation as to why he feels he can objectively call something "terrible." Units, weapons, and upgrades in 40k are only good or bad in relationship to each other. You don't need to prove, or even think, that multi-lasers are good. They're not. It's not their job to be awesome. It's their job to provide decent fire support against a wide range of targets. Considering it basically comes free with a bowl of soup, it's a good deal.

Quoted for great truth and furious justice.

L. Wrex

For any new readers, this multi-laser vs heavy bolter debate (close cousin to the autocannon vs god-knows-what debate) goes on periodically, with Ailaros on one side and everyone else on the other. Polonius has explained things pretty clearly, but I'd like to get my word in as well:

MLs are better than HBs against marines and light armour. Marines and light armour are the most common things in the game. A single multi-laser will not scythe through these targets like a major ordnance weapon would. This is because it is one of two guns attached to a 55-point transport with front AV12 and 5(!) fire points. However a multi-laser is, objectively, better against these common and dangerous enemies. Every dangerous army in the game, really, has T4 troops and/or AV10-12.

HBs are better against T3, 4+ or 5+ save infantry, who are not in cover. IG have a huge array of tools to deal with these (less common) enemies, most of which are more effective than a HB. For example the HF which should be mounted on the chimera alongside the ML.

The best chimeras have a multi-laser and a heavy flamer. It's acceptable to take a multi-laser and heavy bolter if you're quite sure that the unit will never, ever want to move. DO NOT TAKE TURRET HEAVY BOLTERS.

gendoikari87 wrote:

No. Multilasers are better 95% of the time. I can prove this on an etch a sketch.

which means that HB are better 5% of the time, the HB/ML debate is mostly about personal prefrence, and opinion. Which everyone is entiled too. The only way you can say a weapon is strictly better than another weapon is if it costs the same with better or equal stats in EVERY category. HB does better than ML in armor penetration, ML is better at wounding. That is all, granted cover saves are more prevalent but they aren't awarded automatically for hitting the board.

Well, everything is about personal preference. I could prefer getting tetanus to getting a vaccination, but that would make my preference at least questionable.

Preferring HB over ML isn't as hyperbolic, of course, but I think to take the HB you have to very confident of three things:
1) you're going to face lots of 4+ & 5+ saves,
2) Those units won't be in cover, or have an invulnerable save (or FNP if T3)
3) You won't be facing lots of light vehicles (or T3 multi-wound models)

If you know those three things, then sure, go for it. I'd still argue even if I knew for a fact that you'd be facing, say, all infantry guard, you'd want the MLs for squising heavy weapon teams, but I can see making that call.

What I can't see happening for most people is knowing all three of those things, which is why I feel very confident in endorsing the ML for "take on all comers" style armies.

Jabbdo wrote:Str6 is preferable to str5, or do you disagree?

If you hit you are twice as likely to achieve a damage result, or do you disagree?

I agree. So what?

Polonius wrote:There is no sense in arguing with him. He clearly has his mind made up.

Were that true, I wouldn't keep on encouraging people to convince me otherwise.

Polonius wrote:Sure, you could mention that nobody buys the chimera for the guns, so taking a mediocre weapon is still a plus.

Firstly, the OP was making that exact argument of taking the chimera for the guns (not that I agree with this approach either). That said, why does not taking it for the firepower mean that you should take crappy firepower? I mean, you don't take PISs for the lasguns, does that mean we should be only giving them grenade launchers?

Polonius wrote:Or that a multilaser does similar damage to AV 10 as a BS3 melta gun outside of 6"(the melta gets +1 to all damage results). Or infinitely more than any melta gun outside of 12".

And infinitely less than the multilaser at any range against AV13. Of course this is moot as at no time have I advocated for taking single meltaguns without orders. Both multilasers and single meltaguns outside of 6" are pretty crappy.

Polonius wrote:You could mention that the preferred target of the Heavy Bolter (T3 models with a 4+ save) are both uncommon and generally not very threatening, and that valuing being good against them is generally a waste.

At no point have I said that these targets are common, and, indeed, most of the time the heavy bolter is a waste, unlike multilasers, which always are.

Polonius wrote:You could also simply demand from him and explanation as to why he feels he can objectively call something "terrible." Units, weapons, and upgrades in 40k are only good or bad in relationship to each other. You don't need to prove, or even think, that multi-lasers are good. They're not. It's not their job to be awesome. It's their job to provide decent fire support against a wide range of targets.

Why do you choose to objectively call it "decent"?

I've already said that both guns under consideration are bad, which is something in which we are agreement. The job of transports is to transport, meaning that weapons fire will be kept down in general, and once they do, the math shows that you're not downing models very fast at all. Assuming you only get to shoot the turret weapon twice in any given game (given that they will be moving, smoked or shaken most of the time in any given game), we're looking at both weapons killing possibly killing 1 space marine a game or about 1 GEq's in cover. I consider this to fit with the definition of "bad" as this is a very small number of casualties to inflict. Why do you choose to consider this damage "decent"?

Meanwhile, there will be times now and again when you will fight against hordes. In this case, the number of casualties over both turns jumps from 1 to 2 or 3 (or 4-6 with a 2x heavy bolter chimera). 2 chimeras taking down a 10-man squad seems to me to be "decent" as you're talking about wiping small squads or actually dinging large ones. Yes, this circumstance doesn't happen often, but in this circumstance it DOES actually do something. Meanwhile, the multilaser is still plinking away maybe 1 model at a time.

You wanted my definitions, and here they are. "bad" means doing 0-1 casualties on MEq in any given game and 1-2 GEq in any given game. This is an insignificant amount of damage to do in most games and is very unlikely to affect anything, thus the "bad" rating. Why should I loosen my tolerances for the definition of "bad"? Meanwhile, "decent" means something that doesn't do a lot, but might actually have an impact on the game. In this case, heavy bolters are usually bad as the above definition, but sometimes it wipes out MSUs and causes leadership tests. This means it can actually effect the game. Multilasers also qualify as "bad" by the above definition, except they don't also get a "decent" against anything but perhaps non-skimmer AV10 spam.

This all needn't be so contentious. If you can come up with a better defitinion of these words, I'd like to hear it.

I dont think Ailaros has the opinion, that the HB is better than the Multi laser (which is clearly not the case).His point is, that the difference between these Weapons is not that great. HB are (as we all know) next to useless because of the amount of cover and the lack of massive damage to get enough wounds past the cover save.

Multi lasers have the same problem. They are just not terminating weapons. But I would not see that as a disadvantage.

1. Multi lasers are mounted on 55p things, can move and shoot, can mostly score, and have a backup HF with the missing ap4.

2. Multi lasers are effective (concerning points/result) against T5 MCs (Daemon Princes) and AV10 (Buggies, Raiders, Warwalkers, Scout Sentinels, Vypers), quite decent against T6 MCs (Tyranid MCs, Greater Daemons) and AV11 (Rhino Equivalents).

3. Multi lasers are cheap and therefore redundant available and can lay a constant fire from turn 1 to turn 7. In this time, they should have eaten things equal their costs or more.

4. Multilasers have S6 and can engage almost everything with (unlikely, but possible) a result. So you wont have a completely useless weapon.


+1 Strength is no big deal?

Of course it is. Imagine having a Cyclone Missile launcher (without frag option) instead of an autocannon to the same costs with ap 6. Would you at any circumstances take the autocannon or open a debate?

@Ailaros

That said, why does not taking it for the firepower mean that you should take crappy firepower? I mean, you don't take PISs for the lasguns, does that mean we should be only giving them grenade launchers?

If the grenade launchers do not cost any points: Yes.
Crappy is better than completely useless.

At no point have I said that these targets are common, and, indeed, most of the time the heavy bolter is a waste, unlike multilasers, which always are.

I would change this in exact the other direction. HBs are always a waste (concerning game mechanics), Multi lasers have some targets.

1 to 2 or 3 (or 4-6 with a 2x heavy bolter chimera)

The HB is always worse against hordes, because hordes will always be covered (if played correctly on a normal table) so the multi laser will deal rather the same damage (slightly better due to S6). But Hordes are not the right target for it.

You wanted my definitions, and here they are. "bad" means doing 0-1 casualties on MEq in any given game and 1-2 GEq in any given game. This is an insignificant amount of damage to do in most games and is very unlikely to affect anything, thus the "bad" rating. Why should I loosen my tolerances for the definition of "bad"? Meanwhile, "decent" means something that doesn't do a lot, but might actually have an impact on the game. In this case, heavy bolters are usually bad as the above definition, but sometimes it wipes out MSUs and causes leadership tests. This means it can actually effect the game. Multilasers also qualify as "bad" by the above definition, except they don't also get a "decent" against anything but perhaps non-skimmer AV10 spam.

Where do you get your HBs "decent" then? HB are even unkillier than Multi lasers.
Multi lasers CAN have a great effect, if they stun a rhino for one turn. If you spend 5 of them to do this you deny your opponent a turn to move and he can not react to your following attack move precautiously. Multi lasers can prepare attacks in that manner.

Ailaros wrote:

Polonius wrote:There is no sense in arguing with him. He clearly has his mind made up.

Were that true, I wouldn't keep on encouraging people to convince me otherwise.

Logical fallacy. Just because you're encouraging people to try to convince doesn't mean you're actually willing to change your mind.

Polonius wrote:Sure, you could mention that nobody buys the chimera for the guns, so taking a mediocre weapon is still a plus.

Firstly, the OP was making that exact argument of taking the chimera for the guns (not that I agree with this approach either). That said, why does not taking it for the firepower mean that you should take crappy firepower? I mean, you don't take PISs for the lasguns, does that mean we should be only giving them grenade launchers?

Ok, I'll give you that if you're going to put harker and a squad heavy bolter in the chimera, than a fourth HB in the turret makes sense.

I guess I take crappy firepower because I'm stupid. I mean, I look at the multi-laser, which is better against nearly every target, and I take that. Because it's better. When I go to the diner, and my choices for a side are lousy french fries or lousy onion rings, I go with the onion rings. Yeah, both are lousy, but onion rings are better.

I'm saying I have zero need to buy HBs for my chimeras. I've been playing MLs for years, and rarely, if ever, do I wish I had the heavy bolters. The reason for that is that the times when the HB excel are rare. Now, I've been glad I had MLs every time I damage a Rhino.

Polonius wrote:Or that a multilaser does similar damage to AV 10 as a BS3 melta gun outside of 6"(the melta gets +1 to all damage results). Or infinitely more than any melta gun outside of 12".

And infinitely less than the multilaser at any range against AV13. Of course this is moot as at no time have I advocated for taking single meltaguns without orders. Both multilasers and single meltaguns outside of 6" are pretty crappy.

Yeah, but you're missing the point: MLs are nearly as good as a single melta, except can shoot 36"! At least against the single most common vehicle in the game. And better against AV10!

Polonius wrote:You could mention that the preferred target of the Heavy Bolter (T3 models with a 4+ save) are both uncommon and generally not very threatening, and that valuing being good against them is generally a waste.

At no point have I said that these targets are common, and, indeed, most of the time the heavy bolter is a waste, unlike multilasers, which always are.

this is where you go off the rails. Multilasers are a waste? Really? You can argue that they have a low damage yield, but they're not a waste. They can't be. Yeah, one ML is not going to lay waste to a squad or pop a rhino, but in numbers they start to add up. I'm sorry, but even a 23% chance of of stopping a rhino is valuable, if only because it buys you time.

Polonius wrote:You could also simply demand from him and explanation as to why he feels he can objectively call something "terrible." Units, weapons, and upgrades in 40k are only good or bad in relationship to each other. You don't need to prove, or even think, that multi-lasers are good. They're not. It's not their job to be awesome. It's their job to provide decent fire support against a wide range of targets.

Why do you choose to objectively call it "decent"?

Ok, I retract the term decent and replace it with "some."

I've already said that both guns under consideration are bad, which is something in which we are agreement. The job of transports is to transport, meaning that weapons fire will be kept down in general, and once they do, the math shows that you're not downing models very fast at all. Assuming you only get to shoot the turret weapon twice in any given game (given that they will be moving, smoked or shaken most of the time in any given game), we're looking at both weapons killing possibly killing 1 space marine a game or about 1 GEq's in cover. I consider this to fit with the definition of "bad" as this is a very small number of casualties to inflict. Why do you choose to consider this damage "decent"?

Well, first off I don't accept the premise that Multilasers only shoot once. Sometimes you scoot, to be sure, but a lot of players take a 6", shoot out the hatch, and shoot the turret (or hull flamer). But that's just quibbling.

Interestingly, a plasma gun that shoots twice at MEQs in cover will only kill the same number of models, if BS 3 and within 12". Even at BS4, a single plasma gun won't kill a full MEQ in 4+ cover if it only fires once.

I rate a weapon's (or unit's) effectiveness not in absolute terms. It doesn't tell use anything. Killing one MEQ over a game is a terrible result for a 150pt heavy support choice. As essentially a 10pt upgrade to the chimera (assuming 35pts base, plus two weapons), killing a single marine is fine by me. I'm killing a 15-20pt model with something that cost me essentially nothing. To use an analogy, fortune cookies aren't the best dessert. They're better than mints, but that's not the point: they're free with the meal.

Meanwhile, there will be times now and again when you will fight against hordes. In this case, the number of casualties over both turns jumps from 1 to 2 or 3 (or 4-6 with a 2x heavy bolter chimera). 2 chimeras taking down a 10-man squad seems to me to be "decent" as you're talking about wiping small squads or actually dinging large ones. Yes, this circumstance doesn't happen often, but in this circumstance it DOES actually do something. Meanwhile, the multilaser is still plinking away maybe 1 model at a time.

I'll give you that. When you face hordes that don't get cover the heavy bolter is better. I'm not saying the HB isn't good there. What I'm questioning is how often that comes up. Once every five games? Ten?

You wanted my definitions, and here they are. "bad" means doing 0-1 casualties on MEq in any given game and 1-2 GEq in any given game. This is an insignificant amount of damage to do in most games and is very unlikely to affect anything, thus the "bad" rating. Why should I loosen my tolerances for the definition of "bad"? Meanwhile, "decent" means something that doesn't do a lot, but might actually have an impact on the game. In this case, heavy bolters are usually bad as the above definition, but sometimes it wipes out MSUs and causes leadership tests. This means it can actually effect the game. Multilasers also qualify as "bad" by the above definition, except they don't also get a "decent" against anything but perhaps non-skimmer AV10 spam.

This all needn't be so contentious. If you can come up with a better defitinion of these words, I'd like to hear it.

I think that a bad unit is one, that even after support and intangible values have been added, fails to win it's points back. For things like Chimeras, they have enormous value as transports, so the actual "cost" of the Multi-laser is low, probably 10 pts. A weapon that can pretty reliably win it's points back doesn't seem bad to me, simply mediocre.

MEQs cost a lot of points, and dropping one a game is not insubstantial. Additionally, stunning a rhino for a turn helps break up an enemy formation, which can have a huge impact on the game.

And you should loosen your tolerances, because they seem to be fixated on absolutes, not on margins. Making a million dollars sounds good, but not if you spent $100 Million. Making $100 isn't that impressive, until you find out it only took $20.

Lets make this easier:

Ailaros, you are completely wrong about the HB/ML debate and you are wrong because I say so............. :-)


The real simple fact is this all depends on who you play against and how you roll.

A. I am King on rolling 5s and 6s to hit with my Guard. I am god in rolling 1s and 2s to wound
B. I play 80% Marines and 20% Necrons, Horde and others. (Very few T3 Armor 4)

With just "A" alone you all know which weapon I will pick each and every time and it will make absolute sense even to Ailaros... :-)

Ailaros wrote:Both multilasers and single meltaguns outside of 6" are pretty crappy.

[M]ost of the time the heavy bolter is a waste, unlike multilasers, which always are.

The job of transports is to transport, meaning that weapons fire will be kept down in general, and once they do, the math shows that you're not downing models very fast at all.

Ailaros, it's obvious that you love the modelling and fluff opportunities afforded by the Imperial Guard, and you seem to be a skilled player. But, rules-wise, you're clearly playing the wrong army.

Guard are not an elite army with the perfect tools for the job. They do lots of things poorly. But, thanks to their low points cost, they can still emerge victorious.

The Chimera is an amazing vehicle in part because of the versatility offered by the multilaser. Without it, Rhino rush armies would be far more dangerous. (And multilaser Chimeras will single-handedly destroy the occasional Dark Eldar army.) There is no common army build that is flummoxed by the turret heavy bolter.

You can add to that units firepower by including a Primaris. 2D6 Str 6 shots. 3 grenade launchers, Harker, and a Primaris. That's some tasty shooting. However, not very efficient.

:-) Eh, I see the Chimera as more an IFV than true transport (like a Rhino).. The Str 6 is "eh", but it's what I have. Given the cover on the table and everyone getting 4+ saves all the time (or at least it seems so...), AP is less important. Being able to threaten and potentially destroy light transports and MC's is a really nice feature, so it's the STR 6 choice for me... They aren't there to kill basic Marines, I have other things for that... 'course, I'll shoot it at them and force the saves if I have no other targets (I won't win that way, but I might make the other guy lose...)

But then I run Sentinels, Orgyns and Heavy Weapon teams too :-) So, I'm coming at this from a very different approach than most of the folks arguing above...

Do I more often see

A) something with a 4+ save standing in the open.
or
B) something with either 2+/3+/6+ save. And/or an AV10-12 vehicle (rhino, chimera, killer kanz, artillery vehicle.) And/or stuff in cover.
A monstrous creature like a tyrant will be 2+ or 3+ and T6. ML will be better than HB against
- the majority of troops
- the majority of monsters
- the majority of vehicles
- the majority of multi-wound T3 things
(Hardly warranting an unsupported claim about the difference not mattering.)

No one is claiming a multi-laser is a Battle Cannon ordinance weapon, they're simply saying it surpasses the heavy bolter in normal usefulness. If someone wants to argue otherwise, well, I'll just write them off as dim.

Do I more often see

A) something with a 4+ save standing in the open.
or
B) something with either 2+/3+/6+ save. And/or an AV10-12 vehicle (rhino, chimera, killer kanz, artillery vehicle.) And/or stuff in cover.
A monstrous creature like a tyrant will be 2+ or 3+ and T6. ML will be better than HB against
- the majority of troops
- the majority of monsters
- the majority of vehicles
- the majority of multi-wound T3 things
(Hardly warranting an unsupported claim about the difference not mattering.)

QFT

Polonius wrote:And you should loosen your tolerances, because they seem to be fixated on absolutes, not on margins. Making a million dollars sounds good, but not if you spent $100 Million. Making $100 isn't that impressive, until you find out it only took $20.

Potentially incorrect. Paradign shift. If you took that $100 and made $1 million(average, as all investments are) a week your ROI is around 52% annually(not inc. interest, or reinvesting, which I am too lazy to calculate now), which is pretty dang good. I for one could live on $52 million dollars of profit a year.
If you were making on average $1meelion a month on $100, you'd be at 12%, or 12 meelion a year, which is still enough income for most people to live on and/or do significant investing with easily.
If you're talking about a once a year deal, you're making 1%, which isn't nearly enough to make up for inflation. Stop putting heavy bolters on your Chimeras at this point, it's not worth it.

Likewise if you have a very horde friendly local metagame, you may want to invest in a few more heavy bolters, as the average amount of useful incidences would go up.
As to my opinion, I don't play guard, I play power armored armies. I'll tell you I'm more worried about multilasers than heavy bolters, if just because they have the possibility of grinding one of my most exceptional assets into nothing, and I'm talking about cheap rhino mobility! I don't even care about heavy bolters, they just bounce right off anyways.

PS, keep ignoring those land speeders off in the bushes. Your lasguns can't hurt them anyways and they're no real threat to you.

Phew.

To the OP: If you want a unit with bunch of mobile, medium strenth shots in your army your unit is not a bad way to do it. Lots of options for deployment, lots of potential targets, scoring, outflanking. I'd probably go with the ML, because then you have 6 s6 shots on the move, and the 3 s5 are just a bonus. If you do stop, you're putting out your full 15. I'd add a heavy stubber, to make it 12/18.

I'm finding my pcs with 4 gl's in a chim, for 7 mobile s6 shots, to be great for cleaning up stragglers from meq squads I hit with ordnance.

Dave47 wrote:Guard are not an elite army with the perfect tools for the job. They do lots of things poorly. But, thanks to their low points cost, they can still emerge victorious.

When did I say the guard is an elite army? Just because guardsmen has BS3 doesn't justify equipping them with crappy weapons.

TheBloodGod wrote:Do I more often see...

I well understand you're more likely to see other things than you're likely to see lots of infantry running around. How does this justify taking a weapon which is bad against all those target types you mentioned?

-Nazdreg- wrote:Of course it is. Imagine having a Cyclone Missile launcher (without frag option) instead of an autocannon to the same costs with ap 6. Would you at any circumstances take the autocannon or open a debate?

No, but that's because autocannons are also crappy weapons.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Multi lasers are effective (concerning points/result) against T5 MCs (Daemon Princes) and AV10 (Buggies, Raiders, Warwalkers, Scout Sentinels, Vypers), quite decent against T6 MCs (Tyranid MCs, Greater Daemons) and AV11 (Rhino Equivalents).

Why do you call needing to shoot at a T5 MC for 3 turns to cause a single wound "effective"? Why is shooting at their T6 cousins for 4 turns "quite decent"? I'd think that you're going to be spending more time moving, smoked, or shaken/stunned/destroyed so as to even be putting a single wound on these targets most games.

Against non-skimmer AV10, yeah, they have a decent chance of doing ANYTHING in any given bout of shooting, but really, how many massive hordes of non-skimmer AV10 are you seeing? I'd find it hard to believe you're seeing more scout sentinels than you're seeing guardsmen or war walkers than any eldar infantry model.

-Nazdreg- wrote:@Ailaros

That said, why does not taking it for the firepower mean that you should take crappy firepower? I mean, you don't take PISs for the lasguns, does that mean we should be only giving them grenade launchers?

If the grenade launchers do not cost any points: Yes.
Crappy is better than completely useless.

Opportunity cost, sir.

-Nazdreg- wrote:The HB is always worse against hordes, because hordes will always be covered

Were this true, were all units all the time literally always in cover, then yeah, I'd take the multilaser. This base assumption isn't true, though.

Polonius wrote:Yeah, but you're missing the point: MLs are nearly as good as a single melta, except can shoot 36"!

Oh, I understand you, but you're missing my point, they're both bad. Same thing with shooting plasma at marines in cover.

Polonius wrote:You can argue that they have a low damage yield, but they're not a waste.

There are lots of ways that things can be wasteful. Wasting time to move slowly to fire the weapon. Wasting purpose by moving in such a way so as to use the vehicle not as a transport but as a tank. Wasting potential of using some other weapon.

Polonius wrote:I mean, I look at the multi-laser, which is better against nearly every target, and I take that. Because it's better. When I go to the diner, and my choices for a side are lousy french fries or lousy onion rings, I go with the onion rings. Yeah, both are lousy, but onion rings are better.

My point is actually more nuianced than this, making the analogy not fit right. It's not a matter of "A and B are both crappy at everything, so let's take B because it's marginally better". Instead it's "A and B are both crappy at everything, but B actually has a role it does well sometimes." For a better analogy...

Let's say that you lose all of your kitchenware, and you're given the choice of a slinkey or a corkscrew. Neither of these tools handle kitchen work very well (imagine trying to cut beef with a corkscrew or chop onions with a slinkey). Yes, a slinkey will whisk eggs, cut shortening, and eat soup marginally better than the corkscrew, but even though it's technically better, it's still a terrible tool for the job. Meanwhile, the corkscrew is also bad with eggs, soup, and shortening, except now and again you're going to find yourself wanting to open a bottle of wine...

Ailaros wrote:

Dave47 wrote:Guard are not an elite army with the perfect tools for the job. They do lots of things poorly. But, thanks to their low points cost, they can still emerge victorious.

When did I say the guard is an elite army? Just because guardsmen has BS3 doesn't justify equipping them with crappy weapons.

TheBloodGod wrote:Do I more often see...

I well understand you're more likely to see other things than you're likely to see lots of infantry running around. How does this justify taking a weapon which is bad against all those target types you mentioned?

-Nazdreg- wrote:Of course it is. Imagine having a Cyclone Missile launcher (without frag option) instead of an autocannon to the same costs with ap 6. Would you at any circumstances take the autocannon or open a debate?

No, but that's because autocannons are also crappy weapons.

-Nazdreg- wrote:Multi lasers are effective (concerning points/result) against T5 MCs (Daemon Princes) and AV10 (Buggies, Raiders, Warwalkers, Scout Sentinels, Vypers), quite decent against T6 MCs (Tyranid MCs, Greater Daemons) and AV11 (Rhino Equivalents).

Why do you call needing to shoot at a T5 MC for 3 turns to cause a single wound "effective"? Why is shooting at their T6 cousins for 4 turns "quite decent"? I'd think that you're going to be spending more time moving, smoked, or shaken/stunned/destroyed so as to even be putting a single wound on these targets most games.

Against non-skimmer AV10, yeah, they have a decent chance of doing ANYTHING in any given bout of shooting, but really, how many massive hordes of non-skimmer AV10 are you seeing? I'd find it hard to believe you're seeing more scout sentinels than you're seeing guardsmen or war walkers than any eldar infantry model.

-Nazdreg- wrote:@Ailaros

That said, why does not taking it for the firepower mean that you should take crappy firepower? I mean, you don't take PISs for the lasguns, does that mean we should be only giving them grenade launchers?

If the grenade launchers do not cost any points: Yes.
Crappy is better than completely useless.

Opportunity cost, sir.

-Nazdreg- wrote:The HB is always worse against hordes, because hordes will always be covered

Were this true, were all units all the time literally always in cover, then yeah, I'd take the multilaser. This base assumption isn't true, though.

Polonius wrote:Yeah, but you're missing the point: MLs are nearly as good as a single melta, except can shoot 36"!

Oh, I understand you, but you're missing my point, they're both bad. Same thing with shooting plasma at marines in cover.

Polonius wrote:You can argue that they have a low damage yield, but they're not a waste.

There are lots of ways that things can be wasteful. Wasting time to move slowly to fire the weapon. Wasting purpose by moving in such a way so as to use the vehicle not as a transport but as a tank. Wasting potential of using some other weapon.

Polonius wrote:I mean, I look at the multi-laser, which is better against nearly every target, and I take that. Because it's better. When I go to the diner, and my choices for a side are lousy french fries or lousy onion rings, I go with the onion rings. Yeah, both are lousy, but onion rings are better.

My point is actually more nuianced than this, making the analogy not fit right. It's not a matter of "A and B are both crappy at everything, so let's take B because it's marginally better". Instead it's "A and B are both crappy at everything, but B actually has a role it does well sometimes." For a better analogy...

Let's say that you lose all of your kitchenware, and you're given the choice of a slinkey or a corkscrew. Neither of these tools handle kitchen work very well (imagine trying to cut beef with a corkscrew or chop onions with a slinkey). Yes, a slinkey will whisk eggs, cut shortening, and eat soup marginally better than the corkscrew, but even though it's technically better, it's still a terrible tool for the job. Meanwhile, the corkscrew is also bad with eggs, soup, and shortening, except now and again you're going to find yourself wanting to open a bottle of wine...

Weapons cant be called good or bad, as the only thing that they can be compared to is eachother.

Autocannons are crap? Really? Meltas too? What do you think is a GOOD weapon then?

Jabbdo wrote:Autocannons are crap? Really? Meltas too? What do you think is a GOOD weapon then?

Whenever this question gets asked in one of these discussions Ailaros never, ever seems to answer it. He's far more content with bemoaning the shortfalls of weapons and disagreeing with everyone to actually contribute any workable alternatives that people can actually try.

Oh, and can we please quit with the absurd analogies about onion rings and kitchenware. There are methods of discussing the merits and pitfalls of weapons without comparing them to everyday household foods/appliances.

L. Wrex

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

Jabbdo wrote:Autocannons are crap? Really? Meltas too? What do you think is a GOOD weapon then?

Whenever this question gets asked in one of these discussions Ailaros never, ever seems to answer it.

The answer:

plasma guns
anything with "melta" in the name
anything with "power" in the name
anything that ends in "cannon" (except some obvious exceptions like "auto", "nova", "punisher", and usually things like "las" and "plasma")
flamers of all stripes (sometimes too expensive, like heavy flamers in PCSs)
demo charges
mortars
eviscerators

And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. There are lots of good weapons in the guard arsenal, and plenty of proper ways to field them (so, not single meltaguns hoping for the best, for example). That some of the options are bad doesn't mean that ALL options are. If I thought ALL guard weapons were bad, I wouldn't play guard.

Of course, as I'm sure will be noted, you can't take any of these (other than a turret heavy flamer) on a chimera. That wasn't the question that was asked.

Ailaros wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:So..tell me again...how is the multi-laser bad at everything all the time when a heavy bolter is only bad in a select few circumstances? It would appear to me that you've got those completely backwards.

Multi-laser > Heavy bolter. There's absoloutely no logic in arguing to the contrary.

Both weapons are bad in most circumstances. Heavy bolters are actually good in one (light infantry out of cover). Multilasers are bad against everything all the time.

Yes, multilasers are better in several roles than heavy bolters, but "better" in this case means "less terrible" not "good". Some day you will understand this.

Da-Rock wrote:If the original poster had horde armies in mind to fight then Me Likey! against anything else - it stinkey!!

It's actually bad in both circumstances. Switching it to a multilaser does not significantly improve its killing power, and it's still terribly expensive either way.

gendoikari87 wrote:the idea isn't just for hoarde, it's horde at range. the super flamer set up, is nice but requires getting close.

Right, THIS actually has the potential to go somewhere. 3 regular flamer vets and 2 heavy flamers on the vet make it a mini-hellhound. Of course it's still much more expensive and for arguably less firepower (hellhound can twist its template).

Holy mother of god...some day you will realize how you're argument makes zero sense.

The 4 AP value on the HB is not very useful because of the huge amount of cover that is available from so many sources. The Multilaser wins out because of this.

What do you mean "marginally better" is "less terrible"? ITS STILL BETTER. YOU'RE WRONG.

Ailaros wrote:However, I would also like to note that sometimes you DO get this advantage which means that the heavy bolter is "terrible" against all targets all the time except for sometimes when light infantry are out of cover in which case it rises to "mediocre". Multilasers, on the other hand are "terrible" against all targets always.

"Quality" isn't a binary. It's a continuum. The "terrible" multilaser still has a chance to wound TMCs and destroy Rhinos. (Hell, even a Heavy Bolter can destroy a Rhino, if all three shots glance, and roll 5s and 6s.) Since these weapons have a chance to do damage, if a Chimera hasn't moved over 6", it's worth firing the turret at a target.

The low probability of success shouldn't be "simplified" into no chance of success. That's just lazy thinking.

hold on, surely the ML/HB argument is dependent upon army?

It's better to ignore armour than be one S higher. Therefore the HB is better against armies that it can ignore the armour of.

Against both Eldar and Imperial Guard, both weapons generally wound on a 2+, but the HB also ignores armour, so is better. Against Marines, Necrons and Chaos Marines, neither weapon ignores armour, but the ML is better to wound, therefore the ML is better. Against Orks, both weapons ignore most armour, but the ML is still better to wound, and therefore the better choice.

Tau are moot as they tend to split 50/50 between T4/3+ and T3/4+. Sister are irrelevant because both weapons wound on 2+ but don't ignore armour. DE also because both weapons wound on 2+ and ignore armour.

Therefore, ML is better against any flavour Marines, Necrons, Orks or CSM. HB is better against only Guard and Eldar. When you factor in that the ML is better against every vehicle under AV13, i know which one i wound choose....

Karon wrote: ITS STILL BETTER.

So?

You can compare things relatively, but this doesn't give you a complete picture. For example, drinking a pint of mercury is better for your health than drinking a pint of cyanide. What do we make of this? Do we say that you should drink mercury because it's not as bad as drinking cyanide?

Of course not. You have to look at things in broader perspective. Mercury is better for you, but it's not GOOD for you. Both of them are bad, it's just one of them is marginally less worse.

Dave47 wrote:"Quality" isn't a binary. It's a continuum. The low probability of success shouldn't be "simplified" into no chance of success. That's just lazy thinking.

At no point have I said that the multilaser will LITERALLY do nothing (except against AV13/14). My argument this whole time hasn't been that the multilaser will never do anything ever, but that return is poor always (regardless of how other weapons preform), whereas that is not always true with other options.

Ailaros wrote:
So?

You can compare things relatively, but this doesn't give you a complete picture. For example, drinking a pint of mercury is better for your health than drinking a pint of cyanide. What do we make of this? Do we say that you should drink mercury because it's not as bad as drinking cyanide?

Of course not. You have to look at things in broader perspective. Mercury is better for you, but it's not GOOD for you. Both of them are bad, it's just one of them is marginally less worse.

Mercury is better for you than cyanide. That means that yes, given a choice between the two, you SHOULD drink the pint of mercury. This is not an open question; it is either/or. The multilaser is better. Take it.

Let me rephrase that with the proper nuance.

You have the choice to drink either a pint of mercury, or a pint of liquid full of the Meningititis bacteria. Both are pretty bad for you, but getting meningitis will make you dead a little bit faster. On the other hand, some people are immune to this disease, which means you might come away with no ill effects whatsoever.

Ailaros wrote:Let me rephrase that with the proper nuance.

You have the choice to drink either a pint of mercury, or a pint of liquid full of the Meningititis bacteria. Both are pretty bad for you, but getting meningitis will make you dead a little bit faster. On the other hand, some people are immune to this disease, which means you might come away with no ill effects whatsoever.

This is getting incredibly stupid

Karon wrote: ITS STILL BETTER.

Ailaros wrote:So?

So, it is better, you have no other choice of weapon, so you take the better weapon

Ailaros wrote:The answer:

plasma guns
anything with "melta" in the name
anything with "power" in the name
anything that ends in "cannon" (except some obvious exceptions like "auto", "nova", "punisher", and usually things like "las" and "plasma")
flamers of all stripes (sometimes too expensive, like heavy flamers in PCSs)
demo charges
mortars
eviscerators

And that's just what I can think of off the top of my head. There are lots of good weapons in the guard arsenal, and plenty of proper ways to field them (so, not single meltaguns hoping for the best, for example). That some of the options are bad doesn't mean that ALL options are. If I thought ALL guard weapons were bad, I wouldn't play guard.

Well its about damn time you actually came out and said it. At least now people can assess the grounds on which you are arguing from. I can glean a certain trend from pretty much the entire list that you've written up: it all has a very small effective range (the vast majority being 0-12"). See, I relate back to one of my previous comments about your army strategies; you tend to run a lot of infantry blobs with short, range weaponry with artillery for support. Just becuase this is YOUR way of running a Guard list does not mean that it is the ONLY WAY of doing so!

Guard have a number of diverse ways to counter a lot of enemy tactics. Just becuase you focus solely upon one of them does not mean that that automatically makes the others less effective or less able to win games. The sooner you accept this the sooner you'll be able to take your blinkers off and stop winding up 90% of the IG community with your stubborness and rediculous analogies. Hell, maybe you might even learn something new about IG, though I seriously doubt that as you seem absoloutely determined not to accept any other train of thought except your own.

L. Wrex


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ailaros wrote:Let me rephrase that with the proper nuance.

You have the choice to drink either a pint of mercury, or a pint of liquid full of the Meningititis bacteria. Both are pretty bad for you, but getting meningitis will make you dead a little bit faster. On the other hand, some people are immune to this disease, which means you might come away with no ill effects whatsoever.

And this is so full of absoloute farce that I'm not even going to try and justify it with a proper response.

L. Wrex

Ailaros wrote:Let me rephrase that with the proper nuance.

You have the choice to drink either a pint of mercury, or a pint of liquid full of the Meningititis bacteria. Both are pretty bad for you, but getting meningitis will make you dead a little bit faster. On the other hand, some people are immune to this disease, which means you might come away with no ill effects whatsoever.

Sorry A man, I'm going to let you drink whichever you choose and i'm taking a ML as a turret weapon on my Chimeras!

and i must agree with Illumini. this has gotten completely asanine.