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.

Kimonnarrez, you've seen my army lists, so you know I'm hardly a WAAC type of guy. And of course people can use whatever they want. It's not like I can enforce my guidelines for good army list construction over the internet.

But in this case the simple math is that it's less efficient/effective to take the HB Annihilator. Any player is generally better off with one of the other configurations, just based on how many points you're spending to do a given job and the fact that the HBs are completely wasted against most things you'd want to shoot the Las at.

I would think of it from the other angle.

What are you losing by taking tl lc instead of the AC with HB sponsons.

Both tanks kill infantry almost as well as the other, in the case of meqs the lascannon actually kills more.
Sure it costs a little more and thus is less efficient against 4+ or wose saves but against 3+ atleast I am sure the numbers come close.

You also have the option to take out armour/MCs if need be with said tank, that is not its main purpose but it can if need be.

I would not consider the HBs the bonus weapons, it is the tl lc.

Umm. Stationary targets die on turns 1 or maybe 2? The TL LC + HB sponsons will be effective against any army, whereas 3 LCs are not necessary against a good many armies.

~20% is a pretty big premium to pay for that TL lascannon. Spread out over 3 preds thats almost enough to buy a tornado.

Who said you had to buy 3? I've done quite well with just 1.

Posted By KiMonarrez on 03/20/2006 1:28 PM
Who said you had to buy 3? I've done quite well with just 1.

Yeah, nothing quite as effective as a lone pred.

Out in the wide open all by its lonesome? No. Used like you have half a brain (use terrain, be mindful of your LOS, etc...), it does just fine.

20% does not sound horrible (though not great) and while I would likely do quite an analysis on the benefits before paying that price I think 90% of the players out there really won't need to go that far as they don't optimise that far.

Posted By KiMonarrez on 03/20/2006 1:49 PM
Out in the wide open all by its lonesome? No. Used like you have half a brain (use terrain, be mindful of your LOS, etc...), it does just fine.

Well, with the other half of my brain I've determined that having just a single pred is a bad idea, so arguing that you can equip a single pred in a less efficient manner is secondary to the sillyness of arguing that you should field a lone pred.

Once again, Ed... you miss the point. You can play your way, where everything has it's slot and hope the "rock" army never shows up against your "scissors" army. I'll even grant you, that style of play has served you well... but there is another way. In that other way, you interweave the army into an amorphous whole. And that style has served me very well.  And in that style... that single predator does just fine.

Which GW tactica was that in?