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.

Demogerg wrote:Mom, ignore frank, its pointless to feed a troll. I have learned this, and it has lowered by blood pressure and made me a happier person overall.

How is Frank a troll? From where I'm standing, it looks like he's the reasonable one, and Mistress of minis is the one throwing insults.

Fetterkey wrote:
In general, I agree with his perspective. The assault cannon is decently good against a wide range of targets, but not really outstanding against any specific target, except Imperial Guard heavy weapon teams, which are not a very common foe. However, it is so expensive that it is generally not worth it. Upgrading a Razorback's twin-linked heavy bolter to a twin-linked assault cannon almost doubles the cost of the vehicle and does not provide sufficient benefits to be worth that cost, especially since the twin-linked heavy bolter is already effective against light infantry. Giving a Land Speeder an Assault Cannon is also bad, since the Typhoon launcher is better, provides increased survivability and synergy, and costs the same.

Agree with this summation. In general, everything that could take an assault cannon can also have a multi melta and a heavy flamer. An assault cannon is decent in a pinch against AV of all values, but against heavy armor its effectiveness falls off to the point that you should have a weapon dedicated to the role like one of the melta types.

Umm, are you guys (exept demogerg) suffering from fugger-itis?

Symptoms include(but are not limited to) assuming im advocating assault cannons above all else?

I pointed out that they are better than lascannons, and melatas at long range. They are not better than meltas up close until you deal with AV 10/11 vehicles when the AC racks up multiple pens pretty easy.

This thread is about options and what has a chance of doing what. Assault cannons surprised me, but I dont think they're the uber-est thing ever. Like any other weapon they have a role and a place. Theyre cheap on dreads, but pricey on razorbacks. But- on a RB they do give it a heft punch- the rending makes it effective against heavy infantry and MC's. Just another tool in the box you can choose to use, or not.

I think suggesting that Assault Cannons are better than Lascannons at long range is somewhat mistating your case. up to 12" is close range. up to 24" is medium range, and up to 48" is long range.

Something to mention about the Assault Cannon on Razorbacks is how easy it would be to convert Twin-linked Assault Cannons from the Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer kit.

Fetterkey wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Mom, ignore frank, its pointless to feed a troll. I have learned this, and it has lowered by blood pressure and made me a happier person overall.

How is Frank a troll? From where I'm standing, it looks like he's the reasonable one, and Mistress of minis is the one throwing insults.

I guess you are not carefully reading what frank is saying, in nearly all his posts (not just in this thread) he makes snide condesending remarks that indirectly insult the person he is trolling. He does this to invoke a more radical response from the person he is debating with to discredit their opinions and make him seem like the better person.

an example of this style of posting would be

OP: I like chocolate ice cream, I think it tastes the best!
Troll: Chocolate ice cream is obviously inferior to vanilla, vanilla is far more popular, and anyone who thinks that chocolate is better than vanilla is a fool, because numbers dont lie, and the numbers show that vanilla is better.

the troll just called the OP a fool, and anyone who isnt invested in the conversation might not notice that, so when the OP responds with anger, any onlookers might not see the troll for what it is.

one trait of this style of posting is that the post need to be long, to better hide the insults.

There's a "Your mom!" joke in here somewhere...

Nurglitch wrote:I think suggesting that Assault Cannons are better than Lascannons at long range is somewhat mistating your case. up to 12" is close range. up to 24" is medium range, and up to 48" is long range.

Mistress of minis wrote:I pointed out that they are better than lascannons, and melatas at long range. They are not better than meltas up close ....

"meltas at long range" = 8+1d6 for pen rolls. There is a comma seperating lascannon, and meltas at long range there

That's my point, meltas don't work at long range. They work at short range (12") or very short range (6").

Demogerg wrote:

Fetterkey wrote:

Demogerg wrote:Mom, ignore frank, its pointless to feed a troll. I have learned this, and it has lowered by blood pressure and made me a happier person overall.

How is Frank a troll? From where I'm standing, it looks like he's the reasonable one, and Mistress of minis is the one throwing insults.

I guess you are not carefully reading what frank is saying, in nearly all his posts (not just in this thread) he makes snide condesending remarks that indirectly insult the person he is trolling. He does this to invoke a more radical response from the person he is debating with to discredit their opinions and make him seem like the better person.

an example of this style of posting would be

OP: I like chocolate ice cream, I think it tastes the best!
Troll: Chocolate ice cream is obviously inferior to vanilla, vanilla is far more popular, and anyone who thinks that chocolate is better than vanilla is a fool, because numbers dont lie, and the numbers show that vanilla is better.

the troll just called the OP a fool, and anyone who isnt invested in the conversation might not notice that, so when the OP responds with anger, any onlookers might not see the troll for what it is.

one trait of this style of posting is that the post need to be long, to better hide the insults.

Besides, we all know ice cream has to have some sort of cookies(or dough) in it to be the best. Or cheese cake...

But ya, the length of the passive aggressive trolls posts are generally long, most people just glance over the long posts, and then see something mean and 'out of line' in the shorter succinct replies from someone who is direct in what they have to say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:That's my point, meltas don't work at long range. They work at short range (12" or very short range (6".

ffs dude, please read the whole thing in context- we're saying the same thing.

Melta at 12/6" > assault cannon/lascannon> Meltas 24/12"


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Edit-add= Im counting multimetlas in hte 'meltas' label for simplicity....in case that needs to be clarified

But honestly it's a false dichotomy. It is *so* easy for a Marine army to get a multimelta (again, anything that can mount an assault cannon can generally mount a multimelta, exception being Razorbacks) into melta range that the "range issue" is basically a non-issue.

For example, a Tac squad with bolters firing at a target 19" away is better than a Dire Avenger squad with Bladestorm firing at a target 19" away, because the Avengers are out of range.

Is that a fair analogy, though? Probably not, because the Dire Avengers can actually get into range and become 3x as effective.

If Marines form a fire base whose optimal range is 24", then they're probably losing. 1. because they don't really have the tools to operate that far away, and 2. because in general, every other army can outshoot them at that range.

So yes, the AssCan is better at 13-24" than the Melta, Multimelta, or Lascannon.

But 13-24" is a sphere that Marines aren't intended to operate in, don't need to operate in, and aren't very good at operating in.

Do you always just keep saying stuff til you sound like you're right?

Youre correct about most marine firepower being most effective at 12" for infantry. Depending on how many troops are in the army, and their load out. The fewer infantry there are the less true that statement becomes.

But I think its rather silly to dismiss a 24" weapons solely on that basis. Assault cannon arent carried by tactical marines or anything that rapid fires. Theyre carried by terminators- which have 24" storm bolters, and vehicles which likely have other weapons with range of 24 or greater. So that point is invalid. If you were comparing Multi Meltas to Lascannon it would fit- as those can both me carried by Tac squads.

And by making a statement that marines arent intended to operate in 13-24, you're presuming to have the knowledge of the intent that the GW designers have in mind.

You seem to be missing the point of the thread, and making a point of your own, like mr fugger.

I clearly stated in my OP that the stats I generated did not take into account many factors and were mathhammer/metagaming-

So, would you guys knock off the crap where you seem to think Im telling everyone to stop taking multimeltas because assaualt cannon are better? Time and again Ive jsut said theyre different tools. You dont have to use them- I jsut pointed out capabilities most arent aware of.

Okay, I've gone back and looked over your posts, just to see if I missed anything.

Assault cannons are okay against AV. That's the crux of the thesis.

Then other posters take the discussion to a natural next step, are assault cannons really any good in an AV capacity, and what do you lose by taking assault cannons.

The general concensus is that they're not a competitive addition due to eliminating other, more specialized weapons.

Then certain individuals explode into Pariah-like behavior.

So okay, there's your point, you made it, I didn't realize that the conversation was done at that point.

Thus far I've found you to be incredibly rude and domineering, so I'll leave you to your conclusions regarding your subject material, and play the game my own way.

Thanks.

You know, I think the OP addressed most of the issues pretty well. I do agree with Sourclams, that range isn't as huge a factor as it seems, particularly for multi-meltas. And the OP notes, it was really a comparison of the AC to the typhoon launcher. And lastly, the OP notes, this is all very metagame-ish. Maybe I missed it in a later post, but I don't see where anyone said, "take only ACs". The AC is a good weapon. But it's not the end-all-be-all. It's nice on Dreads. Not so nice on Razorbacks (just due to the points). And not as good against landraiders as a multi-melta (at least when they're both on a speeder platform).

Here's another idea to throw out. With the game seeing more vehicle squadrons being introduced, does the high rate of fire of the AC offset it's points? A multi-melta has a better chance to take out a land raider, but it can only take out one Hydra. An AC could take out a squadron of three vehicles with some luck.

After reading this thread I converted up an assault cannon razor turret, and I have to say that I'm very pleased with the results in gameplay. I'm finding that the "more dice" thing makes it much more reliable than the TL lascannon at the same cost, and that range isn't really a factor since transports (in my army at least) tend to move toward the center of the board, and the added flexibility is an asset. I recommmend it.

But as already mentioned, the razorback is a special case because there it really is a choice between a lascannon and an assault cannon (because multimelta isn't an option).

I have followed this discussion with interest and something occurred to me.

A general consensus seems to be that Meltas, especially Multimeltas, are the best weapons against AV14. That's part of the reason for the length of this debate, because people want to express the superiority of the MM over the assault cannon, if I'm right. I remember that fetterkey said, assault cannons are not reliably enough to deal with AV14. That melta weapons are more reliable.

Now, there were some numbers at the beginning of the thread. I did some numbers just now and came up with a percentage; the percentage of a multimelta killing AV14 at 1-12" range.

The chance is around 20,9%. That, in my opinion, is still not that reliable. I admit, it is better than assault cannon or lascannon and by pure one-hit percentage the best. BUT - and here comes the point - it is definitely harder to get a multimelta into range than lascannons or even assault cannons. (And keeping the unit alive for a possible second shot!)

Vehicle-mounted weapons can usually fire while moving (at least the imortant one), so what I'm saying is: Where a MM unit needs 1 turn to get into range and 1 turn to shoot, a AssC or LC unit may be able to get out a second or even third shot out while the MM unit is outta range. And remember one thing: Everybody knows how good meltas are and will try to get out of the way of a charging MM unit as best as possible (or take it down).

So my point is: While a MM shot at close range has a chance of 20,9% of taking that AV14 down, two TL lascannon shots from wherever on the table have a combined chance of 9,5% of scoring a wrecked/destroyed. That is much closer to a MM than the one-shot chance of 4,9%, right? And it is important in my opinion to factor the extra range into this calculations.

Just wanted to point this out.

Postscriptum: Recrunched numbers, had some mathematical error in there that made me think MMs had a chance of only 10,9% of killing AV14. Now the two lascannon shots don't look that good in comparison any more, but still I think it's worth noting.

Part of the idea behind this calculation is, of course, that long range LCs or TL-LCs (and AssCs to a degree) will probably live far longer than the close-combat MMs and Meltaguns. Therefore they increase their chance of killing a vehicle in a game drastically; I admit I never fielded one, but MM/HF Landspeeders really sound like one-hit wonders. Land Raider is a different thing, of course.

dietrich wrote:Here's another idea to throw out. With the game seeing more vehicle squadrons being introduced, does the high rate of fire of the AC offset it's points? A multi-melta has a better chance to take out a land raider, but it can only take out one Hydra. An AC could take out a squadron of three vehicles with some luck.

Front armor is 12, requiring 6's to rend although those will most certainly penetrate.

Side armor is 10, however if you're somehow pulling off side armor shots, your opponent isn't very good at either deployment or screening.

So against a squadron, of which the most typical AV is 12 (i.e. IG artillery tanks), you're basically banking on rolling 6 on 3/4 dice.

Its potential is very high, but the average return is far, far lower.

The multimelta will likely destroy one Hydra, and the assault cannon will likely destroy less than one hydra.

This thread has also convinced me to try the Assault Cannon Razorback on a third troop choice.

sourclams, I disagree that Marines have to get within a certain range to be effective. That is not the only consideration, if anything Marines benefit most from being adaptive to situations. Assault Cannons help with that.

I would agree that the Razorback is probably the only good platform where an Assault Cannon upgrade is a reasonable consideration. Terminators are better off with the multishot Cyclone missile launcher (but they are overshadowed by the superior assault terminator) and Land Speeders are way to over priced to carry them.

Another thing to carry away from this discussion though is target priority when using a Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer. You can easily use these numbers to help pop two or more vehicles in a turn if you use this data to determine your probability against certain targets.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Witzkatz wrote:I have followed this discussion with interest and something occurred to me.

A general consensus seems to be that Meltas, especially Multimeltas, are the best weapons against AV14. That's part of the reason for the length of this debate, because people want to express the superiority of the MM over the assault cannon, if I'm right. I remember that fetterkey said, assault cannons are not reliably enough to deal with AV14. That melta weapons are more reliable.

Now, there were some numbers at the beginning of the thread. I did some numbers just now and came up with a percentage; the percentage of a multimelta killing AV14 at 1-12" range.

The chance is around 10,7%. That, in my opinion, is nowhere near reliable. I admit, it is better than assault cannon or lascannon. BUT - and here comes the point - it is definitely harder to get a multimelta into range than lascannons or even assault cannons. (And keeping the unit alive for a possible second shot!)

Vehicle-mounted weapons can fire while moving, so what I'm saying is: Where a MM unit needs 1 turn to get into range and 1 turn to shoot, a AssC or LC unit may be able to get out a second or even third shot out while the MM unit is outta range. And remember one thing: Everybody knows how good meltas are and will try to get out of the way of a charging MM unit as best as possible (or take it down).

So my point is: While a MM shot at close range has a chance of 10,7% of taking that AV14 down, two lascannon shots from wherever on the table have a combined chance of 9,5% of scoring a wrecked/destroyed. That is much closer to a MM than the one-shot chance of 4,9%, right? And it is important in my opinion to factor the extra range into this calculations.

Just wanted to point this out.

I think you are on the right track, but the problem also comes from cover. I regularly deploy a cheap dreadnought in front of a Land Raider (plus the use of terrain) to get a cover save. The Lascannon simple cannot be fielded enough to produce the number of shots to compensate for cover and it's relative weakness, and even if you where to try and field those numbers, you are certainly hurting in other areas.

Another thing to take into consideration is whether the gun is mounted or not, which adds an effective 6" to its range.

Here is what I consider the "Heavy Weapon Priority List" for the Marines, essentially it is the list of things you want include in your in order of importance:

Multimelta in Tactical Squads
Multimelta Land Speeders and Attack Bikes
Multimelta Dreadnoughts
Autocannon Predators
Multimelta on Land Raider
Assault Cannon on Land Raider

See a trend? I think this thread is great for reevaluating the Assault Cannon and putting it into perspective. It is still great on some platforms, the Multimelta when looking at the options that can take them.

Also, I think the Assault Cannon is worthless if it isn't twin-linked or tank hunting (as the BT can do)

For what it's worth, I'm more or less forced to take Assault Cannons given the "Doublewing" build of my Dark Angels army, but this is offset by the fact that they always Deepstrike into range of whatever I want them to kill. That, and the other set I use is BS5, and re-rolls any 1's; I genuinely consider Sammael the best AC platform in the game. But between the ACs and Bike-mounted Multi-meltas, my entire army becomes much less scary if you can move more than 6" a turn and have a chance of shooting back, since everything but a single Heavy Bolter is 24" range or less.

sourclams wrote:Okay, I've gone back and looked over your posts, just to see if I missed anything.

Thank you for taking the time to do that- if a few others would do the same there would be far less confusion on their part.

sourclams wrote:Assault cannons are okay against AV. That's the crux of the thesis.

Yes- 'okay' is an apt word. It was also to point out that las-cannons pretty much suck vs AV compared to other options. And then you take a plethora of metla-brained key board bangers and suddenly Im the 'wrong one' for saying assault cannons are the coolest thing ever-which I never said not implied. Moronic interpretation did the assuming and implication.

sourclams wrote:Thus far I've found you to be incredibly rude and domineering, so I'll leave you to your conclusions regarding your subject material, and play the game my own way.

Thanks.

And you're a bucket of sunshine with a fresh citrus scent. And a rainbow.

Dude- get over yourself. If by rude and domineering you mean that I dont let people misinterpret my statements just so they can feel smarter/more justified about some meta-gaming aspect, or illuminate them that their overall reading comprehension may be lacking, I guess that makes me rude and domineering. Truth hurts i suppose.

But maybe you have a different definition of domineering? I thought it was when someone tells people what to do- rather than explaining something to someone over & over because theyre being a bonehead.

I think you may have forgot that Assault cannons are heavy 4 weapons.

Mistress of minis wrote:Thank you for taking the time to do that- if a few others would do the same there would be far less confusion on their part.

What were you saying about passive aggressive trolling?

I've directly quoted your posts on a number of occasions and all I get in response is "OMFG TAHT'S NOT WHUT I SAYS!!", when it demonstrably IS whut you says. Case in point; you said AssCans are worth their points in 5th Ed. You did. You said it. I quoted it, and responded that in my opinion they're not. Then suddenly I'm being told to go away and gather scientific data before I go sticking my nose in your thread.

And then you take a plethora of metla-brained key board bangers and suddenly Im the 'wrong one' for saying assault cannons are the coolest thing ever-which I never said not implied.

You said they were worth paying points for, which was wrong.

Moronic interpretation did the assuming and implication.

Mistress of minis wrote:All this being said- I really think the Assault cannon- while 'nerfed' from 4th ed, is still worth the points in 5th ed.

Yes, I'm the moron for misinterpreting this as a conclusion that Assault Cannons are worth their points in 5th Edition.

Mistress of minis wrote:This also has me wondering if the Assault cannon is better than the Cyclone/Typhoon, as for anti vehicle use krak missles are very easy to compare (use the melta w/1d6 stat line and jsut x2 for the results- its rough but close enough) however, 2 frag missles are pretty random, so are really hard to balance in an anti- infantry role. Oddly, it looks like the Assualt cannon is better Vs Av 14, and AV 10, but a Cyclone/typhoon would be noticably better Vs 11,12, and debatable vs 13 if you look at the glances. So, I think for termies, the assault cannon is better- as it cooperates with their 24" storm bolter range. For speeders, the typhoon gives better stand off range.

Here's the qualification for the earlier statement, in which you're still maintaining that Assault Cannons are worth putting on a Terminator squad. Terminator squads aren't worth putting in an army list so I'll let that one go, despite the fact that Relentlessness means the Termies benefit from the Cyclone's stand-off range to largely the same extent as a Speeder would. You'd have to be stupid enough to take a shooty Terminator squad in the first place to figure that one out though, so it'll probably slip past most people.

And you're a bucket of sunshine with a fresh citrus scent. And a rainbow.

He's quite good actually; he has this thing that he does where he comes into a thread and sharpens three pages of inarticulate bollocks into a reasonable point. And people dislike him for it because he makes them look stupid and boorish.

Or rather they do that to themselves by getting defensive and directing insults at him. Q.E.D, see below.

Dude- get over yourself. If by rude and domineering you mean that I dont let people misinterpret my statements just so they can feel smarter/more justified about some meta-gaming aspect, or illuminate them that their overall reading comprehension may be lacking, I guess that makes me rude and domineering. Truth hurts i suppose.

I'm not saying that you're advocating Assault Cannons above all else.

I agree that on average Assault Cannons hurt more AV14 than lascannons, and are better against AV10 than a Multimelta.

Your conclusion is that Assault Cannons are "okay" and "worth their points" because of these things. Your conclusion is based solely on the number of penetrating hits the Assault Cannon can score on average versus these other weapons in pure math-hammer terms, which ignores "situational tabletop factors" such as, like... gameplay and stuff. Because ignoring a game's core mechanics and gameplay is not a good thing when trying to reach a conclusion about a facet of the game, what I'm saying is that this is not a safe foundation upon which to base a conclusion, and therefore your conclusion is at best shaky, and at worst a load of bollocks.

Basically Assault Cannons are indeed another tool in the box, but they're a gak tool for a vast litany of reasons, and not one worth building an army list around (in the way Melta is) or indeed even attempting to squeeze into your list (as you might with Typhoons).

Wow-you really like long drawn out replies dont you?

You dont like assault cannons, you dont have to. All of the reasons you give for not using them are your own, and not something I see many people supporting for a variety of reasons. Im not going to repeat them- because they arent something you can comprehend because it doesnt fit in with your beliefs.

And theres nothing passive aggressive about what I intend to say. I think Ive been pretty clear, and very concise. If there has been more comprehension issues, please let me know and I'll include some crayon & construction paper diagrams to assist your understanding.

Mistress of minis wrote:Wow-you really like long drawn out replies dont you?

If it's worth saying, it's worth taking a while to say.

And theres nothing passive aggressive about what I intend to say. I think Ive been pretty clear, and very concise.

They're not mutually exclusive...

If there has been more comprehension issues, please let me know and I'll include some crayon & construction paper diagrams to assist your understanding.

Q.E.D Your definition of passive-aggressive seems to be "something other people do".

I'd also caution you against smugness when it comes to reading comprehension, because your powers don't really seem to be up to much:

You dont like assault cannons, you dont have to. All of the reasons you give for not using them are your own, and not something I see many people supporting for a variety of reasons. Im not going to repeat them- because they arent something you can comprehend because it doesnt fit in with your beliefs.

That's funny, because I've seen a few replies from people who share my views; and as near as I can tell they've all reached the conclusion that AssCan is Ass by themselves. That's got to say something about the logicality of the conclusion, no?

Im wondering if you are aware of what passive/aggressive really means. Not that it matters- you're allowed to behave ignorantly if you so choose.

And yes- there have been a few people that have expressed that assault cannons do not work them. And they have left it at that. 2 others have gone on and on about how much assault cannons suck. But the majority of the thread has been useful information being exchanged. Something you have yet to do really.

I dont want to see a useful thread continue getting hhijacked because you have something to prove. So, please contribute something worthwhile, or go make your own thread about how much you think assault cannons suck.

Personally I think you both need to grow up . . . but that's kind of obvious . . .

Anyway, yes the AC is more diverse than the other weapons mentioned, but due to it's lack of specifics this can leave it stranded. Personally I like taking them, only on termies and the occasional razorback though. . . And never more than 2 or 3 are bought for the army, and that's when using full Deathwing . . . So yes they are good to have ine the army, but usually it's better to have more specific weaponry =]

The 4+ CS, vehicle damage chart and change in rending all led to the AssCannons demise. Not to mention, the strongest marine build is a Vulkan list...which force multiplies the AssCannons competition.

The other issue it has lies where it can be mounted;

Razorbacks (suck)
Dreads (It's a vehicle, it will very likely survive to get into 18' MM threat range)
Speeders (WILL survive to get into MM range)
Shooty Terms (suck)
LRs (Don't have a choice)

Mahu wrote:This thread has also convinced me to try the Assault Cannon Razorback on a third troop choice.

Let us know how it works out. I just don't see the 'value' in making a fine small transport at 40pts into a large points sink at 75pts.

Mahu wrote:sourclams, I disagree that Marines have to get within a certain range to be effective. That is not the only consideration, if anything Marines benefit most from being adaptive to situations. Assault Cannons help with that.

Generalists, in general, don't work that well in the 5th ed environs. All-comers lists usually require dual purpose weapons, i.e. be able to slay vehicles outright (via melta) and the ability to lay the hurt on troopers (via flamer) via a mm/hf landspeeder or a mm/flamer tac squad. A weapon that only does 'ok' (especially at a limited range of 12.1" to 24") at both, like the assault cannon, doesn't fit the 5thed mold very well, imho.

Mahu wrote:I would agree that the Razorback is probably the only good platform where an Assault Cannon upgrade is a reasonable consideration. Terminators are better off with the multishot Cyclone missile launcher (but they are overshadowed by the superior assault terminator) and Land Speeders are way to over priced to carry them.

I would think that regular dreads would be another option as well as it's only a 10pt swap for the mm.

Mahu wrote:Another thing to carry away from this discussion though is target priority when using a Land Raider Crusader/Redeemer. You can easily use these numbers to help pop two or more vehicles in a turn if you use this data to determine your probability against certain targets.

Of course, but it will be uncommon that you will only be moving 6" to take advantage of this.

This thread had make me think about my own Space Marine army and has a) convinced me to keep the MM on my dreadnought because the 0-12" death range of that gun is, after crunching the numbers, so superior to other weapons, I now totally agree on that.

However, it has also shown me that you really have to try to get into that range, because at ranges above 12" other weapon systems like CML, LC/TL-LC and AsC do have a better probability of killing AV12/13 and AV14 (apart from CML) and the advantage of bigger range and therfore positioning versatility. If the enemy is able to keep your MMs at 12.1" or higher, everything else of this list is better to kill their armor.

Therefore, I think another heavy weapon addition to my marines team will be either something wielding an AsC, CML or (TL)LC, just to be sure that something is able to kill the big 'uns if the MM is outmanoeuvered.

This thread has helped me, thank you all for that.

Witzkatz wrote:This thread had make me think about my own Space Marine army and has a) convinced me to keep the MM on my dreadnought because the 0-12" death range of that gun is, after crunching the numbers, so superior to other weapons, I now totally agree on that.

However, it has also shown me that you really have to try to get into that range, because at ranges above 12" other weapon systems like CML, LC/TL-LC and AsC do have a better probability of killing AV12/13 and AV14 (apart from CML) and the advantage of bigger range and therfore positioning versatility. If the enemy is able to keep your MMs at 12.1" or higher, everything else of this list is better to kill their armor.

Therefore, I think another heavy weapon addition to my marines team will be either something wielding an AsC, CML or (TL)LC, just to be sure that something is able to kill the big 'uns if the MM is outmanoeuvered.

This thread has helped me, thank you all for that.

You're welcome, Im glad there are some that are getting out of this what I had hoped and intended for.

This is a prime example of knowing when to take things with a grain of salt. Sure the assault cannon seems to do as well as the melt weapon in some situations and better than the las cannon in others, but how often will those situations come up? In addition, you have to consider the benefits of range on a weapon. A weapon with a 48" range is going to end up with at least one if not more rounds of shooting than the weapon with 24" range if for no other reason that its in range of its targets at the start of the game. It will also get more shots because that extended range means it can stay farther away from the enemy and take less incoming fire. This in turn means that it not only lives longer but can avoid those pesky stuned results. So try running those numbers again except this time give the las cannons / missile launchers 1-2 extra turns of shooting and see what happens then.