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.

Schadenfreude I see what you are saying, but it seems to me that the fist is much better for that type of tactic - if the dread is advancing all the way.

If the dread is only advancing to center field, the 2x TL AC is still better as it allows greater target selection (and of course range).

Emprahdammit, is it rocket science to avoid verbal agression so as to foster constructive discussion ?

cowmonaut wrote:This is wrong. This is wrong headed thinking.

Woah, woah. You might be going just a tad far here.
Do note that the "you have enough of it" goes for the assault cannon as well (with psybolt it's just another psycannon). On the other hand, the lack of long-ranged weaponry in the GK arsenal is precisely the main argument for the double TLAC config ; what is "wrong" with that ? Again, it's not rocket science. If you can afford to forego this kind of support, then by all means do so, but there's a reason they're popular.
Letting them in the backfield is wasting their Improved Aegis, true, but Grand Strategy makes it a completely valid option, and safer at that.

If we're going to make it walk into 24" range, I'm a bit annoyed by the autocannon. It just feels schizo, like the Godhammer pattern Land Raider. I too was thinking about using a Dread to reinforce the army's midfield presence with his Aegis ; the problem is that it's going to be much closer to the actual fight, so I'm iffy about depriving it of its DCCW. (Has somebody actually used one to good effect by the way ? That was the OP's original question and Project2501 was the closest to answering it and maybe the only one to try.)
I had thought of a more "hands-on" configuration : Venerable with a DCCW and a heavy flamer. Its improved BS benefits the assault cannon, it has less to fear from a stray melta shot and it's equipped to get its hands dirty if need be.

Roboute wrote:Phonetically, it's amuricn. Remove as many vowels as possible, then mumble something at the end about turrrists.

Damn you, my ribs hurt.

Speaking about monikers, I once saw the psyflemen nicknamed "Autopsy pattern", since, y'know, they use autocannons to fire psybolts...

The reason is that a psyfleman Dread has more AT power than a squad of Long Fangs. 4 S8 shots, just like a Long Fang missile-spam squad, but his are twin-linked.

So, if your Codex had the option to take that unit, would you ever choose anything else for your Heavy Support? I don't think I would. . .

Dracos wrote:Schadenfreude I see what you are saying, but it seems to me that the fist is much better for that type of tactic - if the dread is advancing all the way.

If the dread is only advancing to center field, the 2x TL AC is still better as it allows greater target selection (and of course range).

In most cases I would agree the fist is a better choice, though unlike other meq armies gk have a surplus of s10 close combat hits. Gk also have a surplus of psycannons.

The list I could see the assault cannon/tlac needed in would be a draigowing. It is a bit short on psycannons (compared to other gk armies), and usually has a surplus of s10 hammers.

Hyd wrote:If we're going to make it walk into 24" range, I'm a bit annoyed by the autocannon. It just feels schizo, like the Godhammer pattern Land Raider. I too was thinking about using a Dread to reinforce the army's midfield presence with his Aegis ; the problem is that it's going to be much closer to the actual fight, so I'm iffy about depriving it of its DCCW. (Has somebody actually used one to good effect by the way ? That was the OP's original question and Project2501 was the closest to answering it and maybe the only one to try.)
I had thought of a more "hands-on" configuration : Venerable with a DCCW and a heavy flamer. Its improved BS benefits the assault cannon, it has less to fear from a stray melta shot and it's equipped to get its hands dirty if need be.

Venerable with assault cannon, heavy flamer, psybolt and psyflame is a great config. I prefer them jumping out of a Stormraven with a squad of Paladins and Draigo, but I think they could perform passably well in a close support role for a less mobile army. Speed would become an issue with that dread, I think, and if you're walking him I might suggest sticking with the storm bolter, as it will be S5 anyways and a smart opponent won't let you flame him.

Roboute wrote:Phonetically, it's amuricn. Remove as many vowels as possible, then mumble something at the end about turrrists.

Damn you, my ribs hurt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGRYPYuFZLk

Watch it and cry tears of sorrow for our nation.

Also, entirely unrelated, but if we're on the subject of funny ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eLELOBuT-Q

Speaking about monikers, I once saw the psyflemen nicknamed "Autopsy pattern", since, y'know, they use autocannons to fire psybolts...

I like that. It's a little less intuitive, but it's a lot more clever.

I like the ven dread kitted out for melee as described above if you think you'll need some extra muscle in your assaults and use a Stormraven - other than that I'd stick with psyflemen.

Wolf 11x wrote:I'm looking at my Grey Knight list and wondering if anyone has given this combination a try.

I've never seen it in an army list on this site. I'm certain I'm not the only one who has thought of it.

What did you like? What didn't you like?

Incoherant ranges.
Double TLAC or AC + SB.

On a side note, abbreaviations/sigle + complicated words = nerds.
Knowing (sigle =/= acronyms) = more nerd.

/guilty.

Dracos wrote:So, what you are saying, is that if you pack only 24" range weapons you're fine because you'll be in weapons range turn 1 or 2?

Not at all. What I'm saying is that 30" (24" range on the gun, 6" of movement) is typically enough to bring the enemy into range on your turn. Particularly in Pitched Battle or Dawn of War deployment types against most armies.

Dracos wrote:So, where you play people just either sit there and allow you to get range or walk directly into it? No one you have come across realizes that they can back up?

How big are the tables where you play and how often are you playing Annihilation over Seize Ground or Capture and Control? Measure the width sometime. A surprising number of tables for game stores and tournaments aren't even a full 48" deep. I play on a (actual) 6' by 4' table most of the time, 72x48 inches.

So you have an Assault Cannon on a Dreadnought. That's a 30" threat range (24" for the gun, 6" for the walker). Deploy a little towards the middle of your deploy zone and you can affect things on most of the table. The base is what, 3 inches wide? You can move 6" to your right, or 6" to your left, or 6" forward (or gasp even 6" back but that reduces range so I'm ignoring it). That means your threat bubble is actually a bit more than 60" x 30". So in pitched battle there's roughly a 6" deep line along the short edges and the opponent's table edge that you can't hit on Turn 1, provided you have clear line of sight. You do have to move towards them to reach it, but its possible.

Also, if you are playing an Objectives based game you have a target to aim for, as does the opponent. The game will be centered on those objectives, unless you like losing. If you deploy your Dreadnought on a flank instead of in you core you might have a problem with range. But then its your fault for using the tool you brought wrong.

Dracos wrote:You also are oddly assuming your opponent starts the minimum distance apart (24"). If they have long range firepower, why in the world would they do this? They can line up at the back edge and get at least another turn of uncontested shooting.

They could. Have you really seen Space Marines do that? Roughly 60% of all W40K players play a Space Marine variant. Unless its Razorspam, most of their weapons are going to be mid ranged anyways. Orks will want to close in with you. Tyranids will want to close in with you. Imperial Guard wants to stay the hell away from you, as does Tau. Eldar/Dark Eldar could go either way, though DE is likely to keep its distance initially. Necrons will want to close in on you and will be bringing Night Fighting to cover their advance a lot of the time it seems.

And if they deploy all along the back edge, they have no where they can maneuver to except towards you. If they have anything reserved (1/3 game types everyone has something that comes into play as reserves would) they are going to need that board edge clear unless it Outflanks.

Dracos wrote:30" threat range isnt really that huge. Especially on infantry as other unit types can move further and therefore kite you around if you want to chase them.

Its a massive threat range actually. Only perhaps a dozen things have a larger one. Fewer still are mobile while they have it.

The thing is, against a mediocre general you can't actually kite infantry. That's a false assumption. Even if we ignore the limits of the engagement area, it means you are moving 12". If you are a Fast vehicle that means you can still shoot, otherwise you sacrifice your shooting for not being shot at. If you don't want to shoot my Infantry as they trudge across the table, that is fine by me!

If you are Fast, you just reduced the number of shots you can throw at the enemy. Hopefully also you have a weapon with 36" range or higher, otherwise you are out of weapons range anyways. You have to out distance my 30" after all.

Better still, I'm all slow and stuff right? Means I don't have time to lose so I'm moving towards Objectives. Its that or I'm just throwing my troops away. That means that to "run away" you'll have to move away from the only thing that win you the game.

Dracos wrote:To be honest, it really just seems like you are assuming your opponent is going to help you win the game. Seems like poor strategy to me.

You lack perspective. Possibly imagination, but I'm trying to be optimistic. Have you heard of Aikido? Its a martial art with an interesting philosophy: use the enemy against himself. Mind you, its designed not to hurt the person you use it against but we can still steal their idea and run with it. In short, I'm not assuming my opponent is going to help me win. I'm going to try to win, and if I have to I'll use my opponent's strengths against himself.

Dracos wrote:

cowmonaut wrote:there's no reason not to take the Assault Cannon with a TLAC.

Yes there certainly is. If your opponent does not help you by walking/deploying directly into your range, you lose out on at least one turn of shooting. Damage is more important the earlier in the game it occurs, and therefore it is desirable to frontload your output as much as possible.

Well now that all depends. If 10 guys land on an Objective on Turn 4 I'd say more damage later in the game is more important. Particularly if its going to cost you the win. Turns 2-4 are fairly important, and if you have a 30" threat range you should be doing something during those turns, regardless of what your opponent wishes.


In any event Draco, you seem to be miscalculating. The engagement area is big, but not as big as you think. There are limits to what you can do, even with Fast Skimmers. You also seem to think that a Rainman is doing the same job as a Rifleman "but worse". They're different builds. They are used differently, and there isn't any 100% "the best" build of anything. There are always circumstances that can come up where a different build will be more useful. All you can do is shape the cog to fit your machine.

I think the problem people have with rainman is they see the 24" range on the psycannon and think it's doing a poor job of augmenting the longer ranged TLAC.

It's not the job of the psycannon to augment the TLAC, it's the job of the TLAC to augment the psycannon. As previously noted the rainman would most commonly be used for very close support of paladins by marching up the center of the board where it's 24" range +6" move becomes a 60" threat diameter. If it's surrounded by paladins it doesn't need a DCCW. If it's in the middle of the board going towards enemy line it also doesn't need a 48" range on it's guns. In short it's there because Paladin lists lack the numbers of psycannons that other lists have and really needs the psychic defense.

cowmonaut wrote: What I'm saying is that 30" (24" range on the gun, 6" of movement) is typically enough to bring the enemy into range on your turn. Particularly in Pitched Battle or Dawn of War deployment types against most armies.

I think you need to distinguish being able to get any target in range versus getting a desired target in range. While you may be able to force something to get inside your bubble, especially early game (turns 1-3) your opponent can generally choose which units to put inside your threat radius - if any. Remember most targets these days have a 12" move (vehicles, units inside transports etc) so in the early game you can't catch them if they don't want you to.

cowmonaut wrote: How big are the tables where you play and how often are you playing Annihilation over Seize Ground or Capture and Control? Measure the width sometime. A surprising number of tables for game stores and tournaments aren't even a full 48" deep. I play on a (actual) 6' by 4' table most of the time, 72x48 inches.

So you have an Assault Cannon on a Dreadnought. That's a 30" threat range (24" for the gun, 6" for the walker). Deploy a little towards the middle of your deploy zone and you can affect things on most of the table. The base is what, 3 inches wide? You can move 6" to your right, or 6" to your left, or 6" forward (or gasp even 6" back but that reduces range so I'm ignoring it). That means your threat bubble is actually a bit more than 60" x 30". So in pitched battle there's roughly a 6" deep line along the short edges and the opponent's table edge that you can't hit on Turn 1, provided you have clear line of sight. You do have to move towards them to reach it, but its possible.

Also, if you are playing an Objectives based game you have a target to aim for, as does the opponent. The game will be centered on those objectives, unless you like losing. If you deploy your Dreadnought on a flank instead of in you core you might have a problem with range. But then its your fault for using the tool you brought wrong.

The tables are all 72x 48 - I'm surprised this is even a question. Standard 40k games are always on 6x4 tables.

Deployment type Pitched Battle you are always more than 24" away from your opponent's nearest target due to 12" deployment zones. That means that if they deploy 6" back directly in front of you, your first turn will always lose the assault cannon shooting. You analysis of the threat radius of the assault cannon is completely incorrect. I suggest you put your dread on the table and measure it out. You will clearly see that there is plenty of room along the back table edge to avoid the turn 1 shooting.

If they are are faster than you, they can always avoid turn 2 assault cannon shooting as well by moving away from you. Certainly this sequence gives you central control, which is a positive for this build. However, the combination of allowing your opponent the option to avoid the weapon and reduced target selection is a drawback, which I would argue is more often then not more influential in the outcome of the game.

This is even the best case deployment for you, as all other deployment types make this even worse.

Dawn of war makes you walk on from your long table edge, greatly reducing the effectiveness of the assault cannon.

Spearhead gives much more room to sit back and castle up, again making you wish you had another TL AC.

cowmonaut wrote:They could [line up on their back edge]. Have you really seen Space Marines do that? Roughly 60% of all W40K players play a Space Marine variant. Unless its Razorspam, most of their weapons are going to be mid ranged anyways. Orks will want to close in with you. Tyranids will want to close in with you. Imperial Guard wants to stay the hell away from you, as does Tau. Eldar/Dark Eldar could go either way, though DE is likely to keep its distance initially. Necrons will want to close in on you and will be bringing Night Fighting to cover their advance a lot of the time it seems.

And if they deploy all along the back edge, they have no where they can maneuver to except towards you. If they have anything reserved (1/3 game types everyone has something that comes into play as reserves would) they are going to need that board edge clear unless it Outflanks.

When I play my SM I do it quite frequently. If your opponent has better long range firepower than you they really have no reason not to sit on their back table edge for the first 2 turns, at least, that leaves still 3 more turns to move on objectives. I have done this many times, but i'll definitely admit that I see many people make poor decisions in this regard. However, when analyzing a strategy you are best off to consider how the best decision fares against you, rather than the worst. Also please note that maneuvering to the sides is also an option when you are along the back table edge. A vehicle can still outrun you with lateral movement along the back edge for at least another turn. Remember that is just an option, as the board position might make standing their ground and firing a better option. The point here is that you give them the option to evade instead of fight.

cowmonaut wrote: Its a massive threat range actually. Only perhaps a dozen things have a larger one. Fewer still are mobile while they have it.

The thing is, against a mediocre general you can't actually kite infantry. That's a false assumption. Even if we ignore the limits of the engagement area, it means you are moving 12". If you are a Fast vehicle that means you can still shoot, otherwise you sacrifice your shooting for not being shot at. If you don't want to shoot my Infantry as they trudge across the table, that is fine by me!

If you are Fast, you just reduced the number of shots you can throw at the enemy. Hopefully also you have a weapon with 36" range or higher, otherwise you are out of weapons range anyways. You have to out distance my 30" after all.

Better still, I'm all slow and stuff right? Means I don't have time to lose so I'm moving towards Objectives. Its that or I'm just throwing my troops away. That means that to "run away" you'll have to move away from the only thing that win you the game

We'll have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a "massive threat range". However, you are factually incorrect to say that only a dozen things have a larger threat range than 30". If you want to challenge that, simply look in codices for any weapon with a 36" range or more, I assure you there are plenty. Add to that all the fast vehicles with 24" weapons and you are simply wrong in your statement about the comparative size of the dreads threat with the assault cannon.

I find many people make this same mistake you made above with respect to objectives. Certainly I have to be in control of 1 more objective than you by game's end - no problems with that statement. However, you are mistaken that you have to move towards them right at the start of the game. Many armies have fast skimmers that can contest late game. Many armies have scoring units that move 12" per turn. That means that as long as you start moving by turn 3 towards the objectives, you can be there on turn 5 - which is the earliest you would need to be on them to win.

The result is this: On objective missions your longer-ranged enemy is able to sit back for 2 turns and outrange your 24" range (30" threat) units. This means that in the next stage of the game, mid game turns 3-4, they should have already put on more damage to your army than you have to theirs. This creates a cumulative superiority of forces. Each turn the disparity in damage increases, and you take more damage with respect to how much you dish out. The idea is that by turn 5 you have fallen so far behind that you'll have a hard time doing anything but playing for a draw - if that is even possible.

cowmonaut wrote: You lack perspective. Possibly imagination, but I'm trying to be optimistic. Have you heard of Aikido? Its a martial art with an interesting philosophy: use the enemy against himself. Mind you, its designed not to hurt the person you use it against but we can still steal their idea and run with it. In short, I'm not assuming my opponent is going to help me win. I'm going to try to win, and if I have to I'll use my opponent's strengths against himself.

cool story bro.
Except by giving yourself the assault cannon instead of the extra TL AC shot you are making the best strategy against your army better. Mid ranged shooty armies have issues with long ranged shooty armies because the deficit created early game snowballs as the game goes on.

cowmonaut wrote: Well now that all depends. If 10 guys land on an Objective on Turn 4 I'd say more damage later in the game is more important. Particularly if its going to cost you the win. Turns 2-4 are fairly important, and if you have a 30" threat range you should be doing something during those turns, regardless of what your opponent wishes.

Except that since I did all that damage early game you had less to destroy my forces, so now you have 10 guys but I have a better chance of having enough to deal with it.

cowmonaut wrote: In any event Draco, you seem to be miscalculating. The engagement area is big, but not as big as you think. There are limits to what you can do, even with Fast Skimmers. You also seem to think that a Rainman is doing the same job as a Rifleman "but worse". They're different builds. They are used differently, and there isn't any 100% "the best" build of anything. There are always circumstances that can come up where a different build will be more useful. All you can do is shape the cog to fit your machine.

I disagree. The game area is exactly the size I expect it to be, 72"x48". I know exactly what this means. One thing to note, is that the space available to maneuver is going to effect how much your opponent can evade you. In my area, 1500 point battles are essentially the only size for tournies, and most friendly games are done that way as well. I could certainly see the footprint of 2k or even 1850 making it harder to completely evade a 30" threat radius. I definitely agree that the meta will shape which is best. If you are fighting mostly short/mid-ranged armies, I would submit that your rainman build will find its strength in those battles. I just dont see GK as having a weakness in that area greater than their weakness against long-ranged opponents. I'd rather make the weak matchup more favourable then make the strong matchup more of a cakewalk.

@Draco:


In hindsight I didn't explain things very clearly. One thing seems to be overlooked more than anything else though: the options available to you with a Assault Cannon and TLAC with Psybolt Ammunition.

The argument against it is the range is "short". Its not, its on the extreme edge of mid-ranged on its way towards long-ranged. 30" radius its quite a healthy amount of reach.

The argument against it is that "preferred" targets won't be in range. How is that being defined? 2 S8 and 4 S7 Rending shots are available within 30". Any unit in the game is a potential target. 6 shots against Infantry is not without worth. It can devastate heavy infantry, monstrous creatures, and many multi-wound models. No vehicle is safe (I've destroyed, not infrequently, Predators and other AV13 with a normal Assault Cannon).

The argument is that shooting is the only option available. If you don't have a target in range, it can run. A bit of luck is required for significant distance, but this is not a worthless option either. Anyone who plays a foot list can tell you that.

The argument is that faster vehicles will "never" be in range. This is false. Some of the more complex arguments against it will probably require diagrams, and in any event would be circumstantial. The Deployment Type, Mission Type, who is going First and who is going Second, the layout of the Terrain, the size of the game and the number of units on the table all contribute to limit the available area for vehicles to maneuver. Usually, I believe you will be in range by Turn 2, with some unit. Turn 3 should see most if not all units in range.

The argument is that more firepower earlier on is more important than more firepower later on. Each "Rifleman" gets 4 shots per turn all game long until destroyed. Being on the back line, it may not be destroyed until Turn 4 or 5. So by Turn 2 the Rifleman has had 8 shots, Turn 3 12 shots, Turn 4 16 shots and Turn 5 20 shots. The "Rainman" potentially has more shots overall. Assume worst case, 2 shots by Turn 1, 4 Shots by Turn 2, 10 Shots by Turn 3, 16 shots by Turn 4, 22 shots by Turn 5.

I argue that the Rainman is probably more useful overall as a general rule. Normally S7 shots are useful for suppressing enemy vehicles. You want volume of fire in order to have more chances to Glance/Penetrate so you can get some result on the damage table. 1-2 and 5-6 on the table results in the target vehicle not shooting you. Potentially so does a 3. With two Twin-Linked S8 shots at BS4 you are likely to get the suppressing fire you need early on. 2 shots with 88% accuracy? You have a 97-99% chance to suppress AV10, and a ~48% chance to suppress AV13. Later on in the game (as early as Turn 2) you can start laying in Rending S7 shots on top of that.

I argue that later in the game, your firepower is more important as things get more desperate. Early on you can sustain yourself by denying actions to the enemy, but later you need to wipe them out. Either because of Kill Points or because you want an Objective. I'd say the more shots, with the more useful Rending special rule, are more important.

But hey! The nice thing about this game is even sub-par choices in Army List design can work. I personally don't think there is anything terribly subpar about the Assault Cannon option, but then I'd be using my Dreadnought differently.