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 always thought these were good all-comers weapons, if you did not know what exactly you were up against. With BS3, having 2 shots each helps, they have great range, and seem pretty economical in the codex. I hear people insist on lascannons instead, which I understand the logic, but having half as many shots is rather painful.

Against AV10, the Autocannon has roughly a 30% chance of getting a penetrating hit per round of shooting. A Lascannon has a 41.7% chance of getting a penetrating hit per round of shooting against AV10. Against higher AVs, the Lascannon only gets better in a relative sense. Of course, the Lascannon is also a lot better against heavy infantry, and neither weapon is very good against hordes.

So, the only thing the Autocannon has is price and perhaps less variance in results, as more shots means lower overall dispersion. I'm not arguing for either, but I can see why some people would prefer Lascannons overall.

It's personal preference. But I think that anyone who is telling you one is always right and one is always wrong is pretty wrong themselves. I always say that a mix of the two is always appropriate, and I always bring both in games. They both have their places in an Imperial Guard Army.

Currently in 40k transporting troops is king (mostly). So many players have decided to bring more lascannons to destroy transports before they can advance their troops too far forward and into position. Autocannons aren't as reliable as lascannons at AT, but lascannons are only one shot at BS 3. So, it's clear that HWS's may be better suited for lascannons, as they benefit from orders more efficiently.

However, autocannons outclass lascannons in regular squads. This is because the BS 3 of guardsmen is better for the 2 shots the autocannon gives than the 1 from the lascannon. It is not as efficeint to give a Bring it Down order to a single squad of guardsmen as it is to an entire HWS, as said before. Autocannons can be useful for transport killing, but are better suited at helping lend fire support to the lasguns from the rest of a squad of guardsmen than a lascannon.

Don't forget that lascannons are 10 points more expensive each than autocannons are.

In short, I think that both should be used in a guard army.

I run lascannons in my Infantry platoons and Autocannons in my HWS. I found that works just fine.

Must agree with Ignatus, I find my LC HWT work better than my AC HWT. On the other hand, my Infantry Squad enjoy the extra power from the Autocannons (especially combined with a Grenade Launcher).

The problem here isn't that autocannons have gotten worse, the problem is that people GROSSLY overestimated the killing power of autocannons in the past, and people are more and more returning to reality. Autocannons have always had their role of being the most efficient way of handling light vehicles and harassing monstrous creatures at the cost of effectiveness against anything that isn't one of those unit types.

They're still good for what they're good at, and they're still crappy against everything else. It's people's understanding of what fits in the former of those categories and what fits into the latter of those categories has changed over time to more accurately reflect what the mathhammer has been saying about them all along.

Without overinflated sentiments towards autocannons, it only makes sense that other weapons are starting to see more love.

For how much I love the autocannon idea and models, I have never been succesful with them.
Cost may be the only advantage but you take kit to get things done.
Lascannons do get things done and threaten a wide range of targets, IMO, from vehicles to MS to heavy infantry, giving ID to lots of models.
I am more positive towards missile launchers than autocannons.

I think he key is to have several different kinds of heavy weapons spread out over your army. I have lascannon and AC HWTs. I put both in my blob squads. I like to give melta/chimera vets either a ml or ac. Every heavy weapon has its advantages and draw backs as previously stated 1 shot at str9 vs 2 at str7, orders further increase heavy weapon utility. The question is not really to take one weapon over another but where in your army to place said weapon.
I like to run a blob in games over 1k which consists of 30 guys with 3 ac and 3 gl and 20 guys with 2 lc and 2 pg; both have commies and pws dstributed throughout. I will always use at least 2 HWTs one with ac one with lc.

Meh...many IG players get their autocannons from Hydras and Exterminators, and their lascannons from Vendettas, so we're talking two vastly different unit types.

If we're talking weapons alone, in infantry squads, priorities change completely. Mech IG has no problem handling armored vehicles at long range, so autocannons attached to Vet Squads probably make more sense (for the price) than lascannons. For Foot Guard, lascannons probably make more sense...there's less antitank overall in these types of lists. Maybe Ailaros can set me straight on that...but it's seemed to be my impression.

i LOVE my HWT. i run mostly AC but i have 4 LC 1 dedicated to a HWT and the other sits in my CCS. other than that i run 9 AC HWT and 4-5 Missile launchers. i find that my AC's do their job, popping rhinos filled with scary marines far far away from me. then my MOO mops up. LC are great but at BS 3 they miss too much and enrage me. at BS4 i feel much better about spending the points hence the LC in the CCS. i have only ever experimented with Missile Launchers in Vet squads.

TL;DR AC are better en mass, i dont trust bs3 LC but i love them at BS 4

You think AC's have fallen by the wayside? Look at heavy bolters. No that's fallen by the wayside!

I love my Hydras. I think there will always be people who never agree on anything, too.

If you like them, keep using them. If you don't , then don't!

alarmingrick wrote:You think AC's have fallen by the wayside? Look at heavy bolters. No that's fallen by the wayside!

I love my Hydras.

Yeah, no kidding.

I think the reason that autocannons haven't totally disappeared is, in fact, because they have a couple of decent platforms for them outside of the HWS, like the hydra and the exterminator. If, perhaps, there was an AV12 vehicle in an FA slot that came with three twin-linked heavy bolters (with hull heavy bolter), we'd actually see them used more. Unfortunately, the russ version of the heavy bolter tank has AP-, and costs 30 points too much.

I think Auto Cannons are more a cheaper alternative in Imperial Guard Squads than the Las Cannon. You can have two Auto Cannons per one Las Cannon, which makes the AC very reliable against AV 10-12 without investing an expensive Las Cannon.

The only real strength of the Las Cannon is that it can penetrate AV13-14, and you rarely see them spammed unless you're Orks, Necrons, or IG, so investing in a couple Las Cannons and spending double that for Auto Cannons is a decent buy without too much expense.

KplKeegan wrote:The only real strength of the Las Cannon is that it can penetrate AV13-14,

?

Lascannons ignore armor saves on monstrous creatures. And marines. And terminators. Lascannons cause instant death to T4 miniatures.

Furthermore, lascannons have better killing power concentration - doing with just one squad what you need two squads to do otherwise. 3 HWS with autocannons pen AV12 just as often as 2 HWSs with lascannons. The lascannons do the job cheaper (needing fewer carriers), and they do the job with much better efficiency of orders (a CCS can issue BiD to 100% of the lascannons, but not the autocannons), provide fewer KP for your opponent to claim, are easier to keep all in cover, and require less money and time making them to boot. This is only exacerbated if we're talking about heavy weapons on troops choices.

And yes, they also penetrate AV13 and 14. Every army but eldar can field vehicles in this AV range, and some (like IoM armies) can spam them.

Really, the only thing that autocannons are better at is efficiency of taking down AV10, and they make a slightly better anti-horde weapon, but even that's moot as autocannons are still a terrible anti-horde weapon regardless of what they're better than.

Ailaros wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:The only real strength of the Las Cannon is that it can penetrate AV13-14,

?

Lascannons ignore armor saves on monstrous creatures. And marines. And terminators. Lascannons cause instant death to T4 miniatures.

True about the MC's, but I think we have a different ethos about killing the other bits.

Furthermore, lascannons have better killing power concentration - doing with just one squad what you need two squads to do otherwise. 3 HWS with autocannons pen AV12 just as often as 2 HWSs with lascannons. The lascannons do the job cheaper (needing fewer carriers), and they do the job with much better efficiency of orders (a CCS can issue BiD to 100% of the lascannons, but not the autocannons), provide fewer KP for your opponent to claim, are easier to keep all in cover, and require less money and time making them to boot. This is only exacerbated if we're talking about heavy weapons on troops choices.

But why take an excessive amount of them? Wouldn't it be more efficient to field a couple HW's and Blobs of Las Cannons, for those must die units, and spend the points on the same amount of Auto Cannons, so they can shoulder the things the Las Cannons be wasted on? Wouldn't that save you more points and give you some flexibility?

...they do the job with much better efficiency of orders (a CCS can issue BiD to 100% of the lascannons, but not the autocannons

Can you elaborate?

KplKeegan wrote:True about the MC's, but I think we have a different ethos about killing the other bits.

Ethos shmethos, this is math.

3 autocannon squads put down 1.26 terminators over two turns. 2 lascannon squads put down 3.3. That's the difference between basically killing a termie squad and leaving a termie squad all but in tact. Likewise, those autocannons over that same time period puts down 2 wounds on a tervigon, while the lascannons do 5. That's the difference between a nearly dead monstrous creatures and not. Likewise, it's the difference between FNP units sneering at you and them taking casualties.

KplKeegan wrote:But why take an excessive amount of them?

Right, and that's part of the problem with autocannons. Because they're not all that good against most targets, you have to take a lot more of them to get the same effectiveness against.

KplKeegan wrote:

...they do the job with much better efficiency of orders (a CCS can issue BiD to 100% of the lascannons, but not the autocannons

Can you elaborate?

So, lascannons are more expensive, and they do more damage. That means you need fewer of them in order to have the same amount of effectiveness. Not only does this save you points on carriers (fewer other bodies required to get the heavy weapons slots), but it also means that you can issue orders more efficiently. If a CCS has two orders available, and two HWSs, you're good to go. If in order to get the same amount of effectiveness you need to take three HWSs, then there will be one that doesn't have access to orders. With two squads, a single CCS can issue orders to 100% of them. With three, the CCS can only help 66% of them, which means that the lascannons actually do more damage because more of their base effectiveness is increased by orders.

Ailaros wrote:...that's part of the problem with autocannons. Because they're not all that good against most targets, you have to take a lot more of them to get the same effectiveness against.

I look at it another way. As a player who plays platoons with HWS, I start with lascannons and work my way down as points go up. The core of my long range anti-tank is a LC CCS, 2x LC HWS, bassy, and LRBT/LC. With 8 lascannons and an earthshaker I feel pretty confident I can handle AV14. The problem is with cheaper vehicles, of which there could be alot. Therefore adding a ML HWS gives me another layer (with the battle cannon), that can handle medium armour and still does some of things that the lascannon is great for (AP, ID). By 1500 points I'm adding an AC HWS as well. This gives me another layer, albeit a specialized one. (Multilasers, grenade launchers, and heavy bolters round out the layered AT, providing more options for light vehicle spam). Although it is only superior at AV10, I find 3x AC to be fairly reliable at stopping AV11 as well, expecially with BiD, and it is also argued to be good against some montrous targets. If you don't face these threats, well, they will likely still have some targets so probably won't be a total waste, but I wouldn't want to take too many of them. Even under 1000, I'd still look to LC/ML options before AC's, where I'd consider them in glac squads.


Less rambly version: I only bring small numbers of AC's, as extra insurance against spammage of cheap, light vehicles and monsters.

Ailaros wrote:

KplKeegan wrote:True about the MC's, but I think we have a different ethos about killing the other bits.

Ethos shmethos, this is math.

3 autocannon squads put down 1.26 terminators over two turns. 2 lascannon squads put down 3.3. That's the difference between basically killing a termie squad and leaving a termie squad all but in tact. Likewise, those autocannons over that same time period puts down 2 wounds on a tervigon, while the lascannons do 5. That's the difference between a nearly dead monstrous creatures and not. Likewise, it's the difference between FNP units sneering at you and them taking casualties.

3 autocannon squads is 18 shots, 9 hits, 7.5 wounds, 1.25 dead. Lascannons give 6 shots, 3 hits, 2.5 wounds, 1.25 dead with cover. 0.83 if they have storm shields. So the autocannons draw with the lascannons, and are slightly better vs SS termies.
Lascannons are far better against LCs, what about tyranid warriors or hive guard?
Autocannon Vs warriors: 18 shots, 9 hits, 7.5 wounds, 4.25 dead. Lascannon 6 shots, 3 hits, 2.5 wound, 1.25 dead. Oh whoops, looks like lascannons got spanked!
What about Hive Guard?
Autocannon: 18 shots, 9 hits, 4.5 wound, 2.25 dead (assuming cover). Lascannon: 6 shots, 3 hits, 2.5 wound, 1.25 dead. Looks like lascannons got spanked again.

Autocannons are useful against anything that's not MEQ, MC or a tank.

It depends what your meta is like. Mine is overhwhelmingly MEQ. Thus I don't use much autocannons. TL LC through orders spammed en masse in my foot guard more than handle most things, from Psyriflemen to Predators.

At BS 3 with no twin linked
AC - AV 10 : ~15.87% of destroyed/exploded
AC - AV 11 : ~10.91% of destroyed/exploded
AC - AV 11 : ~5.42% of destroyed/exploded

LC - AV 10 : ~13.87%% of destroyed/exploded
LC - AV 11 : ~11.22% of destroyed/exploded
LC - AV 11 : ~8.38% of destroyed/exploded
For AV 10 the AC outperforms the LC due to having 2 shots. At AV 11, they are about even, and at AV 12 and above, the LC pulls ahead.

So which to bring depends on your meta, and the people you play with on a regular basis.

If you are seeing a lot of long fangs and razorspam, then the AC is a better weapon. Its cheaper, and is much better against targets like long fangs, who will be getting a cover save either way. In a similar fashion, its also better against lootas, havocs, bikes, etc.

Today, we are seeing a lot less AV 11 razorwolf spam. This is because psydread armies tear AV 11 to pieces, and the razorwolf spam has a harder time competing.
Today with more GK, and the rise of the necrons I see LCs being used more commonly in blob squads. As Ailaros mentioned, the AP2 and STR 9 insta-killing are better vs paladins, and they handle those highly armored Necrons more effectively.

You still need both weapons in your list in some ratio. If you exclude one type you are leaving gaps in your list. AC are quantity over quality. LC are all quality. Sometimes you need one strong right hook, sometimes you just need a couple quick jabs. Arguing one over the other is futile as each weapon has different roles to play on the battlefield.

Ailaros wrote:Ethos shmethos, this is math.

But its probability, statistical chance. Yes it gives you an average of what your suppose to expect, however, there's always the statistical chance of rolling below or above average.

Averages are not concrete. It is a game of dice after all.

And having a concious tactic of addressing certain units should not be dismissed.

I find shooting terminators and marines with Las Cannons a colossal waste. Forcing them to roll as many dice as possible will kill them faster than plinking a few BS3 Strength 9 Shots at them, Auto Cannons (or Heavy Bolters) help in this strategy.

Autocannons also don't threaten necrons or gk, mostly due to both armies being very hard to suppress. Lascannons just do better

Zid wrote:Autocannons also don't threaten necrons or gk, mostly due to both armies being very hard to suppress. Lascannons just do better

Autocannons have two shots that wound on 2s and allow a 3+ save. Lascannons wound on 2s and allow a 4+ cover save. But yeah you'd want lascannons to deal with multi-wound bastards like Paladins.

Testify, I'm pretty sure suppression refers to shaking and stunning vehicles. GK and Necrons are less affected because they are more resistant to shaken and stunned results.

Zid wrote:Autocannons also don't threaten necrons or gk, mostly due to both armies being very hard to suppress. Lascannons just do better

There are a lot of different GK builds. Its hard to just blanket GK as a whole. ACs are big problems for henchmen armies. MSU razor spam armies have a hard time with ACs, as was mentioned with the number of saves required to be made.

Paladin armies scoff at ACs, and so on.

The same almost can be applied to the Necrons. AC 13 spam scoffs at ACs, but night fighting spam with wraiths scoffs at both.

NuggzTheNinja wrote:Testify, I'm pretty sure suppression refers to shaking and stunning vehicles. GK and Necrons are less affected because they are more resistant to shaken and stunned results.

Exactly what I was refering to.

Both weapons aren't great anti-infantry weps anyway, but lascannons as mentioned are far better against draigowing.

I like autocannons in blob squads, because you don't get as sad if they are in CC and don't get to shoot. I like lascanons in static vet squads and CCS, because with BiD and BS4 it is almost a sure hit. I also like lascannons that can fly, and autocannons that walk.

BB

beerbeard wrote:I like autocannons in blob squads, because you don't get as sad if they are in CC and don't get to shoot. I like lascanons in static vet squads and CCS, because with BiD and BS4 it is almost a sure hit. I also like lascannons that can fly, and autocannons that walk.

BB

I am in agreement, and generally how I play the game with regards to heavy weapons. And Vendettas. And Sentinels.

I feel like 3 vendettas is enough LC for my IG army, especially when backed up by a manticore.

Melta can do any job a lascannon can do, usually with better results, but only at close range. Meltas come dirt cheap in an IG army.

So in a mechanized army with 3 vendettas, a manticore, and over a dozen melta guns I usually find my army doesn't have much of a need for more lascannon.

I don't have a huge need for AC either, but when crunch time hits during list creation it all comes down to the fact that I hate transports, Transports are usually about AV11. I can usually free up 30 or 40 points for a few ac to toss in without major sacrifice on other parts of the list. Freeing up 75 to 100 points is significantly more painful. IMO cost is everything, so I just stick with the AC so the vendettas are less likely to end up wasting lascannon shots on transports.