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.

Is there something I am overlooking?

In 4th edition, the AC was a beast. Any 6 on a to-hit roll was rending. 5th edition mitigated its ferocity somewhat as only any 6 on a to-wound roll gave it AP2. In 6th I don't seem to notice any change other than it being perhaps more efficient against 2 HP AV10 vehicles such as Sentinels or Landspeeders as it can now glance things to death due to his high rate of fire while in previous editions it had to penetrate.

But the fact that e.g. a Plasma Cannon with its greater range and far more MEQ/TEQ killyness and higher Strength is cheaper than an Assault Cannon on a dread, or the Typhoon Launcher with its double range and +2S krak missiles on a Landspeeder is cheaper than an Assault Cannon is mind boggling. Do you think the AC is overcosted similar to how the Brightlance was in the previous Eldar codex?

While a plasma cannon only get one hit on a dreadnought, how many can a assault cannon manage?

On AV12, an assault cannon will average as much hull point damage as an autocannon or lascannon -- but all of its damage will be penetrating hits.

Against literally any other AV value, it does more damage than either. Yes, it has shorter range. But there's good reason that it costs what it does.

The main reason that the AC is as expensive as it is, as far as I can see, is flexibility - whilst it's rarely the best weapon available for a given task, it can do reasonably well at everything. It's not terrible at killing hordes, it's pretty good at taking out MEQ/TEQ thanks to volume of fire and rending, and it can threaten vehicles of any armour - in a pinch, at least it can threaten a Land Raider.

Ultimately, I think that it just happens to nicely complement the roles of the two best platforms for it - Tactical Terminators and Dreadnoughts - both of which are kind of jack-of-all-trades units which can make a reasonable go at anything but don't really excel in any one area.

Land Speeders, however, excel at particular roles - either long-range picking off of opportunity targets or suicide drops designed to blow up tanks or infantry hordes - and as a result they work better with more dedicated weaponry, ie Typhoon / Heavy Bolter, Twin Multi-Melta or Twin Heavy Flamer, depending on role.

With regards to the comparison to plasma cannons - assault cannons won't blow up on you (it was fun in 2nd ed when they did, though!). Although I realise this won't really be a factor in the points cost, with 4 shots they also get much more benefit out of any buffs, like To Hit rerolls.

GW is bad about having 'assumed values for units/weapons'.
Here are two examples :
There is no reason that a terminator should cost 40 points.
There is no reason that a dreadnought should cost 100 points.

The inflated cost of the AC is a throwback to previous editions when they were better weapons. It has not been adjusted appropriately and therefore is NOT cost effective. Generally speaking if you can switch to it, the value will be overestimated. Look at the strom raven for example. I can swap out the AC for a MM? A MM on a flyer is awesome!

There are some platforms that come with the AC by default. These include storm talons and LRC/LRR. In these cases the costs of the AC are mitigated, as the unit was priced reasonably on the onset. These are the platforms where I still run the AC.

The assault cannon is very over-costed. Almost to the point where I think it's a poor weapon. Rending on four shots is too inconsistent to be a true threat. The price point on this weapon is pretty much completely arbitrary.

Actually, the TL HB on the Stormraven is traded out for a MM.

Oh yea, your right. Gads, who would ever take a TL HB over a TL MM on a flyer?

The Heavy Bolter is the weapon that I feel is most overpriced.
Why GW thinks it's equal to an autocannon or Multi Melta I'll never know.

I've seen Assault Cannons rend just about every shotting phase and many times twice in one round. I think its priced based on its possible damage output.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
I've seen Assault Cannons rend just about every shotting phase and many times twice in one round. I think its priced based on its possible damage output.

Anecdotal, and against the probabilities. The assault cannon is massively over-costed, especially compared to something like the scatter laser or starcannon. 36" range on a fast platform is so much better than 24" on a non-fast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 minigun762 wrote:
The Heavy Bolter is the weapon that I feel is most overpriced.
Why GW thinks it's equal to an autocannon or Multi Melta I'll never know.

I think the assault cannon is more over-costed, mainly because of range. 24" range is a total kick in the nuts. So much bad stuff can happen in that range.

Corollax wrote:
On AV12, an assault cannon will average as much hull point damage as an autocannon or lascannon -- but all of its damage will be penetrating hits.

Against literally any other AV value, it does more damage than either. Yes, it has shorter range. But there's good reason that it costs what it does.

False. The Assault Cannon isn't AP2 when rending vehicles. An Assault Cannon has a 0.024691358024691358024691358024691 chance to destroy a Land Raider in a single shot, whereas a Lascannon has a 0.055555555555555555555555555555556 chance to destroy the Land Raider; more than twice the chance. Similarly, both an Assault Cannon and a Lascannon has the same odds of inflicting a glancing hit as of penetrating vs. AV14. We can thus conclude that a Lascannon is better at destroying AV14 than an Assault Cannon. In 5th edition, where there was no difference between AP4 and AP2 for Vehicle Damage you'd have been correct, but in 6th the Lascannon wins out.

 labmouse42 wrote:
Oh yea, your right. Gads, who would ever take a TL HB over a TL MM on a flyer?

Someone who can give them psybolts. S6 isn't as bad. But yeah, you're generally better off with the multi-melta.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Corollax wrote:
On AV12, an assault cannon will average as much hull point damage as an autocannon or lascannon -- but all of its damage will be penetrating hits.

Against literally any other AV value, it does more damage than either. Yes, it has shorter range. But there's good reason that it costs what it does.

False. The Assault Cannon isn't AP2 when rending vehicles. An Assault Cannon has a 0.024691358024691358024691358024691 chance to destroy a Land Raider in a single shot, whereas a Lascannon has a 0.055555555555555555555555555555556 chance to destroy the Land Raider; more than twice the chance. Similarly, both an Assault Cannon and a Lascannon has the same odds of inflicting a glancing hit as of penetrating vs. AV14. We can thus conclude that a Lascannon is better at destroying AV14 than an Assault Cannon. In 5th edition, where there was no difference between AP4 and AP2 for Vehicle Damage you'd have been correct, but in 6th the Lascannon wins out.

...I didn't say a thing about AP2. I'm quite aware that the assault cannon doesn't get AP2 on its penetrating hits. That was outside the scope of my analysis. You'll notice that I specifically mentioned hull point damage. And yes, the Assault Cannon still does more hull point damage than the Lascannon against AV14.

Lascannon glances on 5, penetrates on 6. 1*(1/3) = 0.33. It takes 3 rounds to strip a hull point.
Assault Cannon fires 4 shots. 1/6 rend, 2/3 of these strip a hull point. 4*(1/6)*(2/3) = 0.44. It takes 2.25 rounds to strip a hull point.

The Lascannon gets AP2, certainly. But I'd much rather be firing an assault cannon at a land speeder than relying on a lascannon. The lascannon gets better odds on the damage table, while the assault cannon gets better results on low AV targets. It's simply a more versatile weapon, which is why I compared it to the autocannon and lascannon against AV12 -- the point where either weapon can do the job efficiently.

It's not versatile in my opinion because of the 24" range. Movement is a huge part of this game, and assault cannons often tempt me to make moves I shouldn't make .

In fact, SM lists that field lots of ACs tend to do very poorly against my BA historically. I basically avoid this weapon because of its cost and available platforms.

You're right. Almost every platform that fields it is incapable of using it properly. Hell, the Razorback prices it equivalently to a twin-linked lascannon. The extra 33% firepower you get from twin-linking a BS4 weapon means that the assault cannon loses much of its marginal advantage, even on targets where it should have an edge.

But now we're talking about the platforms for which these weapons are available, and the opportunity cost of fielding the assault cannon against the other options. In most circumstances, the assault cannon is priced higher, competing against a twin-linked weapon, or both.

It's the multi-melta problem, honestly.

Compare to Eldar platforms for scatter lasers and vomit.

I tend to think of Scatter Lasers as more like Heavy Bolters or (especially) Multi-lasers. The range and (lack of) rending make these a more apple-apple comparison.

...not that it's any less lopsided, mind you. Scatter lasers are crazy.

I have to agree with the above posts about it being king in 4th Edition. Plus an assault cannon in a Dred just looks too cool compared with any other choice.

Meltas got so cheap in 5 edition and Heavy Flamer are more cost effective against hordes at range of course.

Assault Cannons are cool but over costed.

I think it works well on Crusaders and Storm Talons, as both have the speed to get in close quickly.

Aelyn wrote:
The main reason that the AC is as expensive as it is, as far as I can see, is flexibility - whilst it's rarely the best weapon available for a given task, it can do reasonably well at everything. It's not terrible at killing hordes, it's pretty good at taking out MEQ/TEQ thanks to volume of fire and rending, and it can threaten vehicles of any armour - in a pinch, at least it can threaten a Land Raider.

This, I agree. AC can kill pretty much anything in-game (minus some Apoc stuff) but in a normal game it'll take care of light to heavy infantry, all kinds of armour (I've killed Land Raiders with it) and MC.

Corollax wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Corollax wrote:
On AV12, an assault cannon will average as much hull point damage as an autocannon or lascannon -- but all of its damage will be penetrating hits.

Against literally any other AV value, it does more damage than either. Yes, it has shorter range. But there's good reason that it costs what it does.

False. The Assault Cannon isn't AP2 when rending vehicles. An Assault Cannon has a 0.024691358024691358024691358024691 chance to destroy a Land Raider in a single shot, whereas a Lascannon has a 0.055555555555555555555555555555556 chance to destroy the Land Raider; more than twice the chance. Similarly, both an Assault Cannon and a Lascannon has the same odds of inflicting a glancing hit as of penetrating vs. AV14. We can thus conclude that a Lascannon is better at destroying AV14 than an Assault Cannon. In 5th edition, where there was no difference between AP4 and AP2 for Vehicle Damage you'd have been correct, but in 6th the Lascannon wins out.

...I didn't say a thing about AP2. I'm quite aware that the assault cannon doesn't get AP2 on its penetrating hits. That was outside the scope of my analysis. You'll notice that I specifically mentioned hull point damage. And yes, the Assault Cannon still does more hull point damage than the Lascannon against AV14.

Lascannon glances on 5, penetrates on 6. 1*(1/3) = 0.33. It takes 3 rounds to strip a hull point.
Assault Cannon fires 4 shots. 1/6 rend, 2/3 of these strip a hull point. 4*(1/6)*(2/3) = 0.44. It takes 2.25 rounds to strip a hull point.

You're ignoring to hit rolls. Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that an Explodes! result is effectively the loss of 4 Hull Points (is there an AV14 vehicle with less than 4 HPs?). The lascannon deals 1*(2/3)*(1/3)=0.222... hull points of damage to AV14 each turn on average and has a ~5.5% chance of doing all 4 HPs. 5.5% of 4 is 0.22, so add in that for a total of 0.444... Hull Points per turn. The Assault Cannon does 4*(2/3)*((1/6*(2/3))=0.293293... hull points every turn and has a ~2.5% chance to do all 4 HPs, for a total of 0.393393... Hull Points per turn.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

The lascannon deals (...) a total of 0.444... Hull Points per turn.
The Assault Cannon does (...) a total of 0.393393... Hull Points per turn.

That 0.05 difference really makes the lascannon look less optimal since for a negligible difference against AV14 the AC is better against other threats that the Lascannon would suffer against.

Lascannon has 48" range. And overkills T4. And is reliable AP 2. I'll take it in most situations.

Having to rely on rending to be scary just makes the AC very much not scary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corollax wrote:
I tend to think of Scatter Lasers as more like Heavy Bolters or (especially) Multi-lasers. The range and (lack of) rending make these a more apple-apple comparison.

...not that it's any less lopsided, mind you. Scatter lasers are crazy.

I can see that comparison. I'm just looking at 4 S6 shots vs 4 S6 shots. Given that I've lost way more marines to sheer proponderance of wounds than to actual AP 3 or AP 2 weapons in my career, the value of the scatter laser can't be underestimated. Especially in games where a marine player rolls cold on saves in the first turn or two. Having the rolls balance out after half your force is dead doesn't help.

 minigun762 wrote:
The Heavy Bolter is the weapon that I feel is most overpriced.
Why GW thinks it's equal to an autocannon or Multi Melta I'll never know.

I think the only place where I would leave a Heavy Bolter instead of swapping it out for a more powerful weapon is on the Razorback. The points leap is so huge it makes me feel giddy.

Martel732 wrote:
Compare to Eldar platforms for scatter lasers and vomit.

Laserlock is broken. I think we can all agree on that. But if you just look at the weapon's profile, you have 12 more inches range, but lose the rending AND are reduced to AP6. That means even Guardsmen can take armor saves.

Corollax wrote:
Hell, the Razorback prices it equivalently to a twin-linked lascannon. The extra 33% firepower you get from twin-linking a BS4 weapon means that the assault cannon loses much of its marginal advantage, even on targets where it should have an edge.

Doesn't a twin-link actually benefit the Assault Cannon more than the Lascannon, as more shots + twin-link > less shots + twin-link? And twin-link is also higher chance of rending

For the price, the scatter laser was broken in 4th and 5th, but the rest of the Eldar had lots of issues. Laser lock is just...... whatever.

Loss of rending and AP 6 doesn't much matter when the strat is to just spam wounds. Yes, it looses some efficiency against guardsmen, but the 12" range is absolutely enormous. The wound spamming effect is amazing in practice. Hey space marines! Save 17 wounds!

The efficacy of twinlinking is more closely tied to BS than number of shots. Twinlinking BS 1 is a much bigger increase than twinlinking BS 4. Marines have always been hosed on paying for twinlinking. Eldar, of course, just get it for free now. /facepalm

Twin-linking only affects rending indirectly by scoring more hits.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
You're ignoring to hit rolls.

I am ignoring roll to hit. Both are BS4. Unless you twin-link them, the chance to hit is identical, and we can ignore it for relative firepower comparison. Relative firepower is all ratios, and ratios let you divide common factors. Handy, that.

 Sir Arun wrote:
Doesn't a twin-link actually benefit the Assault Cannon more than the Lascannon, as more shots + twin-link > less shots + twin-link? And twin-link is also higher chance of rending

Twin-link doesn't affect rending. Rending is calculated on armour penetration or wound rolls. And relative firepower increase is the same, regardless of which weapon you're talking about, since you're shooting the same number of shots whether you twin-link it or not. Again, common factors cancel.

Martel732 wrote:

In fact, SM lists that field lots of ACs tend to do very poorly against my BA historically.

Martel732 wrote:

Anecdotal

Could not resist.

More constructively, this is what Excel gave me for the probability of removing a hull point (and I included chance to hit, whoopee!
Autocannon
# hits 1.33
AV 10 = 0.89
AV 11 = 0.67
AV 12 = 0.44
AV 13 = 0.22
AV 14 = -

Las
# hits = 0.67
AV 10 = 0.67
AV 11 = 0.56
AV 12 = 0.44
AV 13= 0.33
AV 14 = 0.22


AC
# hits = 2.67
AV 10 = 1.33
AV 11 = 0.89
AV 12 = 0.44
AV 13 = 0.44
AV 14 = 0.30


Krak
# hits = 0.67
AV 10 = 0.56
AV 11 = 0.44
AV 12 = 0.33
AV 13 = 0.22
AV 14 = 0.11


Now this is the part where somebody finds a stupid mistake in my math.

Edited because tables suck and spaces do not seem to work, and neither did cut and paste. I should just call it a day.

I was just supporting the math with some anecdotal evidence. AC don't scare me at all. Do they scare you?

Martel732 wrote:
I was just supporting the math with some anecdotal evidence. AC don't scare me at all. Do they scare you?

The ones on my Baal have generally performed well (which is, I know, anecdotal).