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.

I'm having serious issues evaluating the autocannon and its utility.

On the one hand, its a weapon with a longer range than a HB, albeit at a reduced rate of fire. To trade off, the autocannon has a higher damage, but the AP is the same. It's got a better chance at canning light armor, but it won't stop a mass of infantry. It's got ups and downs, but it feels like a missile launcher would do just as well if not better than the auto-cannon. The real trick comes when comparing SM and IG. SM have a sufficiently high ballistic skill that it's probably more effective to specialize them. With a higher ballistic skill, a HB becomes more effective at culling infantry, and the LC doesn't come off as a waste of points because the odds of hitting with that one shot are better. Sure, its just one shot, but the one shot will power through anything and usually kill it outright, or cripple it horrendously. I find the ideal devy setup is HB, 2x ML and LC. I find this to be the most flexible layout for marines since the ML can go either way, and there's a dedicated weapon at either end of the spectrum. Then there are the IG. IG are such terrible shots it almost comes off as a waste to use LCs unless every unit has one. Here I see great utility in ACs, since the reduced cost and extra shots mean that there's at least one hit per weapon on average per turn, freeing up the more expensive LC to work on heavier targets. The reduced cost of the AC also pays off here, because IG need a lot of weapons, and the only trade off between the HB and AC is just weapon profiles. With AC's being more expensive for marines than HBs, I'm always having a hard time justifying the AC if i could just take a ML instead or upgrade to a stronger weapon for just a few more points.

So; query. Am I the only one with this dilemma, what is your opinion on the matter, what do you value more (obviously, mention for WHOM you value it) and why, etc. Given I'm in a position to still add to my armies, I'd like to settle on a decision before I declare a moratorium on my options.

As a further example, I find twin-link ACs on dreadnoughts to be a waste of points, both in fielding them and in the effort of killing them to tiny bits. I just don't see the utility of it.

If you ever have the option for a HB or an AC, always take the AC.

AC are the best anti-tank weapon against AV 10, 11, and to an extent 12. Missile launchers are inferior and Lascannons are only better against AV 12 (partially), and AV 13 and 14.

(meltaguns notwithstanding)

Missile launchers are however cheaper than LC and more versatile than AC. They might not have a higher damage output in frag mode, but they have a better chance of inflicting more hits than an AC. Hence why I have a hard time justifying ACs for marines. Sure, the HB isn't so amazing either but it comes cheap for the marines.

AC's are good on certain platforms. AC/Las pred's are good, as the high price of the TLLC is a bit of a downside, and the AC/Las combo allows you to ping up AV10-12.
Same with the rifleman. Consistently getting 4 hits and the ability to move makes those autocannons deadly vs light armor.
CSM can take AC's on havocs, guard can get them on hydra's and HW squads+ orders for TL make them effective. It's all about getting a large number of hits.

AC are dirt cheap in an ig army so there is a large volume of shots.

AC are the ideal weapon for taking down transports, which are usually av10 or av11.

I'm not the biggest fan of autocannons, for much of what the OP said (and more). With only 2 shots, they're not a serious anti-horde weapon, and with only AP4, they're not a serious threat to anything with a 3+ save or better (which is a lot). With only S7 they're never doing much to AV13 or 14, and they're scarcely ever doing much to AV12.

What you have is a weapon that is worthless against every model in the game except for AV10, and to a lesser extent AV11. Given how cheap these targets are, you're basically never making your points back by taking stuff specifically to handle just them, and in most cases, it doesn't even really matter if you do. After all, when marines get popped out of a rhino, they just get out and run, which isn't that much slower than riding.

Add to this the fact that weapons you brought to handle serious anti-tank also works like a breeze against this armor class, and autocannons really aren't necessary, or even a good idea.

So far, the one time I've found that you really sort of have to have them is against targets that are AV10/11, and have a decent amount of firepower, AND are too fast for you to be able to catch with meltaguns, AND are too plentiful for you to be able to handle with other long-range anti-tank.

Basically this just means DE skimmer spam, and BA razorspam lists, and the like. They can be made to work in less ideal circumstances too, but unless you have a really specific need that happens to be one of the very few things that autocannons are explicitly good at, you can pass them over for weapons that can handle a greater range of targets with much more effectiveness.

Also, as for lascannons, they're not just S9, they're also AP2. Remember how autocannons aren't good against AV12+ or anything with a 3+ save or better? All of that much more substantial target list has reason to fear lascannons. It's not just that lascannons can threaten these targets, but it's that they can actually hurt them. Even with BS3, lascannons can be worth taking. You don't need to hit all the time if you hit hard when you connect.

Each weapon in the game has its role. Think of each weapon as a tool.
An AC is your go-to for anti-transport fire. Melta's are your go-to for anti-heavy armor.

poda_t wrote:It feels like a missile launcher would do just as well if not better than the auto-cannon.

ML's have half the rate of fire as a AC. They are a similar, but different tool.
When shooting at AV 10 and 11, the AC actually does better, and is a push vs. the ML at AV 12.
The ML can effect up to AV 13, and can be more useful vs. hordes.

poda_t wrote:As a further example, I find twin-link ACs on dreadnoughts to be a waste of points, both in fielding them and in the effort of killing them to tiny bits. I just don't see the utility of it.

I want to point out that riflemen dreads are fantastic at destroying transports. They are also the best weapons in the game for destroying AV 10 -- even better than a melta.
Their small footprint on the board means they are more likely to get obscurement from cover, and are less likely to be hit by template weapons. A rifleman can sit behind a rhino and fire over it.
The rifleman can also move and shoot, unlike devastators. As 1/3 of the missions are dawn of war, that means that heavy troops like long fangs or devastators are wasting 1 turn of their game just getitng on the board. The riflemen can also continually be moving to line up better shots.

Even without the psy-bolt ammo, riflemen dreads are still solid units, and I still use 2 in my C:SM list.

I don't think you can compare autocannons to missile launchers in isolation, as though the weapon existed in a vacuum. The platform that the weapon is mounted on makes a big difference in the cost and effectiveness.

-Autocannons, in most armies, are primarily vehicle mounted (IG are pretty much the only army that can take quantities of infantry ACs). Missile launchers are, in most armies, infantry-carried. This necessarily means that autocannons tend to be more mobile, more likely to be able to maneuver to deny vehicle targets cover or take side shots.

-Many vehicles that can take autocannons can take more than one, or can combine them with heavy bolters, and/or get them as twinlinked. So you get volume fire and extra accuracy. A twinlinked missile launcher is pretty rare, and I can't think of one (outside of Eldar) that's vehicle mounted.


But if you do want to compare the two weapons as though they cost the same and always occurred on the same platform--like on heavy weapon teams or sentinels-- then Normal Distribution says that, over time, more shots are more likely to come out closer to the expected value than fewer shots.

Talking about anti-tank roles only here.

A single-shot weapon at BS3 is 50% likely to completely miss in a given turn. A 2-shot weapon, on the other hand, is only 25% likely to completely miss--it may only get one hit, and it's at a lower strength, but at least it's getting a penetration roll. So over time, the larger number of hits will tend to offset the randomness of the dice more readily than single-shot weapons.

Having said all that, I do use missile HWTs in small IG armies (where versatility is important) and in places where I can give them orders that compensates for the lack of accuracy. But by default, I prefer massed autocannons in IG.

The benefit of ACs in IG is that you can take them in the Heavy slot as Hydras, TL 4 shots that ignore flat-out cover saves, good against bike squads. They are relatively cheap at 75 pts.

Next you can take them in a HWS, which at the same 75 pts. gives six shots, three average hits, chance of getting at least 1 pin against AV12, pretty much the highest AV for the average transport vehicle. This unit can also hold an objective as a troop choice as well as take orders, thus making them TL against vehicles and MCs.

IG can also mount these on Sentinels, either on a scout or the armored. The armored gets a bit expensive but the scout at 40 pts. and using a flanking move makes this a very threatening unit, taking strength 7 shots at side and rear armor. I usually match one up with a multilaser s. sentinel for 75 points, giving me a descent ace up the sleeve for later in the game.

Finally you can take a TL version mounted on a LR chassis. I don't see this taken much, just wanted to mention it to round out an ACs ability to deploy within the IG.

Personally I feel the AC is a good fit for IG armies, kind following along the rest of the guard with their less than impressive individual weapons, but once bunched up can be suprisingly effective.

As to marines, unless they are going onto a GK rifleman dread, I don't like them. The SMs have much better weapon options and benefit from a higher BS, thus not needing to depend so much on the double tap. Other than a dread, I think the only vehicle that can take one is a Pred., which is a pretty cheap tank, and with SSHB can be pretty effective against foot sloggers. I just don't really see them elsewhere in the Codex, and again they are probably the least effective weapon choice in my mind other than a TLHB on a dread.

Going for dakka, or anti light tank builds on your firing platforms is an interesting choice given the new necron codex and other things that are pretty standard.

I would say an auto cannon is almost always the better choice vs a heavy bolter in a take all comers list, given, the extra range, and the increased likelihood of targets. Most armies do not have a great infantry target for high medium ap shots, but they are still a nice accessory, especially in bulk. Most armies will, however, have a juicy target in the form of aggressively costed light tanks, or MC's or maybe just some vulnerable side armor.

AC does the less frequently occurring job a little bit worse, but the more common one, an awful lot better. Auto cannons don't feel like something you should lean on though. I'm more comfortable with them hitting somewhere tricky, your opponent has a lot of control over how effective an auto cannon is.

Why no love for Assault Cannons?

Assault Cannons are equal to TLACs against AV 10, slightly worse against AV 11, and superior against AV 12, 13 and 14.

Assault cannons are also better anti horde due to the volume of shots and better anti Elite infantry due to rending.

Just curious why no one has mentioned them. Is it their price (don't play HueMans often so I forget the point differential when both are options).

ShadarLogoth wrote:Just curious why no one has mentioned them. Is it their price (don't play HueMans often so I forget the point differential when both are options).

They were not in the orig message. AC's are great weapons.
Like an AC, they are good vs armor, but are shorter range -- which is a higher risk for your delivery platform. The TLAC dread can sit 40" back and pluck away. When your within 24", your vulnerable to MM return fire.

I find the best delivery system for Assault Cannons are Land Raider Redeemer/Crusader or a Baal Predator. They are tough enough to take that 24" return fire.
Why did I mention the land raiders? After they have delivered their cargo of terminators, they might as well shoot that and their MM at targets, right?

ShadarLogoth wrote:Why no love for Assault Cannons?

Assault Cannons are equal to TLACs against AV 10, slightly worse against AV 11, and superior against AV 12, 13 and 14.

Assault cannons are also better anti horde due to the volume of shots and better anti Elite infantry due to rending.

Just curious why no one has mentioned them. Is it their price (don't play HueMans often so I forget the point differential when both are options).

looking mostly at infantry. so it gets overlooked. I do agree though the TLAC is good, it's only downside is its seriously truncated range

To go back to the first response by ph34r, his footnote leaves me with the biggest problem in justifying an AC purchase. The additional cost of the AC for marines could see me buy other special weapons which do their job much better than the AC. Flamers, meltas and plasma rifles won't have the same range, but they are by and large more effective in their allotted role than the AC and at less or equal expense

labmouse42 wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:Just curious why no one has mentioned them. Is it their price (don't play HueMans often so I forget the point differential when both are options).

They were not in the orig message. AC's are great weapons.
Like an AC, they are good vs armor, but are shorter range -- which is a higher risk for your delivery platform. The TLAC dread can sit 40" back and pluck away. When your within 24", your vulnerable to MM return fire.

I find the best delivery system for Assault Cannons are Land Raider Redeemer/Crusader or a Baal Predator. They are tough enough to take that 24" return fire.
Why did I mention the land raiders? After they have delivered their cargo of terminators, they might as well shoot that and their MM at targets, right?

Ah yes, only 24", I forgot about that.

poda_t wrote:

ShadarLogoth wrote:Why no love for Assault Cannons?

Assault Cannons are equal to TLACs against AV 10, slightly worse against AV 11, and superior against AV 12, 13 and 14.

Assault cannons are also better anti horde due to the volume of shots and better anti Elite infantry due to rending.

Just curious why no one has mentioned them. Is it their price (don't play HueMans often so I forget the point differential when both are options).

looking mostly at infantry. so it gets overlooked. I do agree though the TLAC is good, it's only downside is its seriously truncated range

To go back to the first response by ph34r, his footnote leaves me with the biggest problem in justifying an AC purchase. The additional cost of the AC for marines could see me buy other special weapons which do their job much better than the AC. Flamers, meltas and plasma rifles won't have the same range, but they are by and large more effective in their allotted role than the AC and at less or equal expense

You underestimate the power of range. Range saves you turns from getting nearer the enemy to do damage, and you only have a finite number of turns. Range protects you from charges and short-ranged return fire. Range also means that even when you're immoblized or you lack mobility, you can still affect a large part of the board.

Say it's turn 1 and you have a rifleman dread and a MM dread and you want to kill the rhino with purifiers in your enemy's deployment zone. You would need to maneuver the MM dread nearer to blast that rhino, and it would be a lot nearer than you would like. For the sake of argument let's say that you can mount two twin-linked MMs on a dread that fires two shots each: it still wouldn't do the damage like the mortis dread while the enemy is far away. Sure, a metlagun is much scarier for tanks, but it wouldn't do jack when it's not in your face.

The other problem with melta being your anti-transport go-to is that by the time you destroy the transport, its already delivered its cargo in your face.

Exactly my point about range, labmouse. I mean, melta is really really good, but sometimes you don't want to get near stuff just to blow stuff up. And you don't want them near you.

I supose the real trick of why I don't get the heebie-jeebies about rifleman dreadnoughts is because I always take LOTD with MM over terminators...

This has been educational with regard to SM, but has done absolutely nothing for me with regard to CSM....

To be fair, no one really complains about standard Riflemen dreadnoughts. It's the GK Psyflemen because they are S8, not S7, and virtually immune to stun/shake, for extremely minimal additional cost. The regular Rifleman is a fair unit because it's firepower is balanced against its AV12 and the ability to shake/stun it.

The number one reason to favor the Autocannon over the Heavy Bolter has not been sufficiently stressed. The simple fact is that Heavy Bolters are terrible weapons that are not very effective against anything important.

One common error is thinking that Heavy Bolters are great against infantry. True, they are best suited to killing infantry, but they aren't good enough at it to really matter in most contexts. The Mathhammer shows that a BS4 Heavy Bolter averages 1.33 wounds against T4 (ie Orks) and 1.67 wounds against T3. So, that's less than two models killed per turn of shooting assuming the target doesn't have cover. So, a squad of Devs with 4 Heavy Bolters will average 5.33 dead Orks per turn of shooting in a magical fantasy land where the KFF and cover don't exist. That's pretty sad considering that squad has no other role.

In comparison, a BS4 Autocannon would average 1.11 wounds against anything T5 or less, which is a pretty minor dropoff except against T3. So, you don't lose that much relative to the Heavy Bolter against targets the Heavy Bolter is "good" at engaging, and you also get a weapon that's pretty good at killing AV10 and AV11, which is probably the most relevant target type of all these days except maybe MEQ.

PS: These results are robust to changing the Ballistic Skill. The Autocannon always does 5/6ths of the wounds the HB does against T4, for example. In absolute terms, you lose less, since each shot is less valuable in raw terms as you lower the Ballistic Skill.

When in doubt, auto cannon. If only sm devastators could take them.

Simplify your arguement. It is AC vs Missile Launcher - basically the same cost and same range. Upto AV 12, I will take the AC. If we are talking MCs we are better served by a ML. To me it is a horse apiece between 2 S7 direct shots and a S4 small blast template. While the template may cover more models, I am leery that I will get more actual wounds than 1.33 S7 hits.

My experience is that the AC is superior to a ML unless we are talking AV 13 or a MC with 3+ armor save.

MrEconomics wrote:The simple fact is that Heavy Bolters are terrible weapons that are not very effective against anything important.

Every weapon is a tool. There is job for the HB tool -- high toughness low count infantry models.
I run a marine bike army, and HBs bother me. They don't care if I'm turbo-boosting or not, and they wound on a 4+ at 36". The LRBT goes from being a nusance (the BC is a nusance when your turbo boosting and congo-lined) to something that can be pretty annoying as my bikes cost 25 points a model before upgrades.

HB are also useful vs. MC's with a T5. Take a lash prince. The HB is excellent for throwing wounds onto it at a 36" range. That same 1.5 wounds per turn means you can kill the DP on average in 2 turns.

Are HB's a go-to weapon? Of course not. One should never take a HB attack bike over a MM attack bike. One should always take a ML over a HB on the Chimera turrent.

Do they have some uses? Yes, and if your getting them anyway, you might as well use them.

For my IG, it's the simple fact of the cost, and availability. I like the range, and they are decently effective for taking down light armour, on the Hydra anything that moves fast (Eldars, EVIL Eldars, Necrons, Tau, Bikes, Jet Bikes) doesn't get a fast cover, they are excellent at popping transports, wonderful at monstrous creatures, and can insta-kill anything T3, including things that have T4 dues to being on a bike. But like I said, cost and availability, they are everywhere.

The only place in the IG that they compete with HB is in the HWT.
-I never put a HWT in an infantry squad, it removes their mobility.
-In a vet squad, the extra BS is a boon to both platforms, but if I'm giving vets a HWT, it'll be for at purposes, as they have plenty of light infantry killing power, the HB is of no benefit, the AC only for the high str. I would probably go with missiles, maybe las cannon.
-In a HWS, for horde killing, I use mortars. Cheap and AWESOME. For heavy AT, I use ML, and LC. It's the only place you can LC in volume of fire. Plus order can twin link them. I use AC in a kind of a rounded role in my HWS. AC can put the hurt on infantry, MC and light armour.
-HB don't really fill any of these roles, except anti-horde. An the mortars do much better.

On Sentinals, I tent to have them outflank, and go for side hits. You can hurt medium to heavy armour on the flanks with AC, and they are much cheaper than LC.

I WISH I could put AC on Chimera turrets, like the traitors do.

Also, and this is the most important one, AC look awesome.