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.

In fact, look at Stelek's army at NovaCon 2011 where he used Razorbacks with default weapons - heavy bolters.

Well, I can't figure the mathhammer stuff out, but would like to see the result. any one wanna run the numbers for me?

BUT

In game, my Assault Cannon razorback always seems to get more kills than my Las Cannon razorback. . . That's vs armour or infantry.

I play against Orks w/ kans & dredds, Tau w/ crisis devilfish & HH, Eldar w/ wave serpent & walkers

Well, I'm too lazy to do the math.
Assault cannons are good vs. Kanz, Crisis, Devilfishes, and Warwalkers, but not so much vs. Serpents as they cannot inflict penetrating his - the energy field denies additional roll of a die; the same goes for meltas or battle cannons.

The twin assault cannon is greag. Statistically better against armor than the twin las, better against infantry, too. I take 50% twin las, 50% twin assault cannon. If it had 12" mors range, i'd only take assault cannons. They're great.

Since they are 24" though, I find a mix works best for me.

Yep the assault cannon math worths out better against all targets (monoliths, serpants etc aside). Their downside is the 24" range. So, if the 24" range is limiting in your strategy, then it might be a good idea to pass on the TL assault cannon turret. However, if you plan for the razorbacks to be taking a central position, then the Assault cannons will outperform any other option.

Dracos wrote:Yep the assault cannon math worths out better against all targets (monoliths, serpants etc aside). Their downside is the 24" range. So, if the 24" range is limiting in your strategy, then it might be a good idea to pass on the TL assault cannon turret. However, if you plan for the razorbacks to be taking a central position, then the Assault cannons will outperform any other option.

In particular, if you play BA, the range does not really matter as the tank can move 12'' and shoot the cannon.

@Dracos
You got it. The assault cannon is the swiss army knife of the 41st millennium. It works on damn near anything!

@Wustenflux
Right. And since the BAs can actually move and shoot BOTH weapons, in my mind, the las/plas is the best choice as you have the benefit of two weapons, ap2, etc.

wuestenfux wrote:

dreadknightl wrote:Ok, what about between assault cannons/Tl lascannon/ lascannon and TL plasma?

Assault cannon is a different story, 4 shots, 3 hits (or 2), and eventually one die showing a 6 when it comes to wounding. Its an allround weapon, while tl las or las + tl plas are anti-tank and anti-heavy-infantry.

Or 4 or 1 or 0...I really dont see why you would post random numbers in a Tactics thread. It will only serve to confuse the ones asking for help.The TL-AC will average 3,555 hits and will hit with all four shots ~62,5% of the time.



The TL-LC will have a (8/9) /6 = 0,1481... chance of generating a penetrating hit vs AV 14.
A TL-AC shot will have a (8/9) / 6 /3 = 0,04938...chance of generating a hit for each shot. This will givve the TL-AC a 1 - (1-0,04938...)^4 = 0,18337 ~ 18,3% chance of generating a penetrating hit with a TL-AC

The numbers will be the same for generating a glancing hit.

Against AV 12 the TL-LC will have a (8/9)/2 = 0,4444...chance of generating a Pen hit and a (8/9)/6 = 0,1481 chance of generating a glancing hit.
The TL-AC will have a (8/9) / 6 = 0,1481 chance of generating a pen/shot (and 0 chance of glancing) <=> 1-(1-0,1481)^4 = 0,4734~47,3% chance of penetrating.

Consequently, stun locking an AV 12 platform is easier to do with a TL-LC but destroying is not.

TL-LC Against AV 10 = (8/9) * (5/6) = 0,7407 ~74,1% chance of generating a pen
TL-AC vs AV 10 = (8/9)/3 = 0,2962... => 0,7547 ~ 75,5% chance of generating a Pen



*Note: Before "anyone" starts whining about how the use of parantheses is not needed in the first steps of the calculations. Im well aware of that but it makes it easier to see what is what

@Tedurur.
Thanks for that. So mathhammer proves that AC is the best after all as well as being the coolest (IMO.) Except for range.

Thinking about it, probably why my AC Razorback is more deadly than the LC one is because I prefer the ethos. I reckon I am more agressive with it and get closer to the foe. So therefore the range is not an issue.



(edit: pesky gramma & punktuashin)

Maybe have a mix of say 2:1 las and assault?

This is slightly off topic, but can someone direct me to the rules saying a Las/Plas is two separate weapons and therefore takes two weapon destroyed results to neutralize?
I've been playing it that way but in a game last week it became a bit of a dispute. My opponent said that since its bought as one it counts as one weapon.
I tried to argue that since it listed as a twin linked lascannon AND a twin linked plasma gun it is two separate weapons.
He's a friend it was a fun non serious game but I'd like to have more support for my point next time.
I guess if he doesn't agree next time than I will just move 6" every turn and fire everything until he changes his mind.

stewy37 wrote:This is slightly off topic, but can someone direct me to the rules saying a Las/Plas is two separate weapons and therefore takes two weapon destroyed results to neutralize?
I've been playing it that way but in a game last week it became a bit of a dispute. My opponent said that since its bought as one it counts as one weapon.
I tried to argue that since it listed as a twin linked lascannon AND a twin linked plasma gun it is two separate weapons.
He's a friend it was a fun non serious game but I'd like to have more support for my point next time.
I guess if he doesn't agree next time than I will just move 6" every turn and fire everything until he changes his mind.

It's listed in GW FAQ's for those armies that has the abitlity to purchase the upgrade. So i've at least seen it in Space Wolves FAQ and grey knights FAQ. Its right there at the very bottom of the FAQ, and the question can't really be disputed again after reading it

Las/Plas gives more flexibility but TL las will provide you with better speed, either 6" or 12" movement and still getting one shot. While a TL Las is going to hit 90% of the time, it is not that far superior to a single Las hitting 67% of the time. We are still talking 33% of a kill on a penetration so if we are talking AV 14 we are still only talking about a 5% chance of a blow up on a hit.

90% to hit is 23.4% better than 66.66%.

That is a huge increase. That means in a 6 turn game, you will likely hit all 6 times with a twin linked weapon, and 4 times with a non twin linked weapon.

That could mean the game. It is why I take twin las instead of las plas on anything but a fast vehicle.

Reecius wrote:90% to hit is 23.4% better than 66.66%.

That is a huge increase. That means in a 6 turn game, you will likely hit all 6 times with a twin linked weapon, and 4 times with a non twin linked weapon.

That could mean the game. It is why I take twin las instead of las plas on anything but a fast vehicle.

Interesting. I always take las/plas as it provides better firepower with the one weakness being against AV13/14 vehicles. I can live with that as invariably I am not running one or two razorbacks but 4 to 6 of them. At that rate, if I need to fire the las against a high AV target, I have an average of 3 to 4 hits against it. While if I park the las/plas I can almost guarantee vaporizing 2 MEQ or eveh TEQ per razorback. Admittedly it gives up speed but I can always overwatch given enough razorbacks so I have 2 or 3 moving while 2 or 3 can go stationary.