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.

Ailaros wrote:Sun Tsu says it takes 4 turns for an autocannon to kill a single marine. Why do you choose to think that a weapon that on average takes this long to get even a single casualty is good?

This is where you go completely off the rocker. It does not take 4 turns for an autocannon to kill a single Marine. This is not a video game where every attack does a set amount of fractional damage. You roll dice. An autocannon could very well kill 8 marines in those 4 turns, and it's far more likely the casualties will fall somewhere in between. You can't just look at the raw statistic and extrapolate performance from that, that's what internet loudmouths who hardly hit the table do. Each shot has a percentage attached to it to succeed. The more times you roll the dice, the more likely you are to succeed. By your logic, it's idiotic to have a company standard in an army with merged infantry platoons, since it takes about 10 turns to fail with Ld9. Of course, it doesn't really take 10 turns, and you could just as easily fail the first time.

I stand by the autocannon because it is dirt cheap and it has performed exceptionally well time and time again. You stand against the autocannon because you read some idiot's flawed statistical analysis and are now parroting it. If you're really so convinced the autocannon is crap, let's hit the virtual table of Vassal and see what happens in a real game.

Ailaros wrote:

ph34r wrote:And guess what Sun Tzu? Autocannons are not bad against Marines. In fact they are more effective than plasma guns, missile launchers, lascannons, mortars, melta guns, grenade launchers, and every other weapon except the heavy bolter and flamer, against marines in cover. And they sure are a lot more long ranged than heavy bolters and flamers.

Sun Tsu says it takes 4 turns for an autocannon to kill a single marine. Why do you choose to think that a weapon that on average takes this long to get even a single casualty is good?

You still avoid the point. Isn't good compared to WHAT? I would love to know what cheap spammable weapon is so much more effective than an AC or HB. Really, tell me. How do you kill your enemies. (Honestly, I think that no IG heavy weapon is particularly good at killing marines)

And you don't have to be super bunched up to get multi charged. Rhino tank shocks through one squad, sits there. Now unless you make your entire army flee away from the single rhino, you will have at least 2 units charged next turn, unless somehow you space your infantry squads feet apart.

ph34r wrote:You still avoid the point. Isn't good compared to WHAT? I would love to know what cheap spammable weapon is so much more effective than an AC or HB. Really, tell me. How do you kill your enemies. (Honestly, I think that no IG heavy weapon is particularly good at killing marines)

I would like to second this question. Ailaros' math is pretty twisted, but even real numbers do say that a single HWT (with any gun) won't do much. So, is it better to take your cheap infantry (who are needed to take objectives and tie up enemies) with or without the added HW cost? Most of us say yes, Ailaros says no.

Gunline IG isnt' leaf blower: it's not about a massive alpha strike or tabling your opponent in three turns. Infantry heavy weapons fire, pretty much every turn until they die. Sometimes they get pinned, but that's pretty rare.

As the article ailaros links to points out, you pay a premium to stop the enemy on his side of the board, to which I respond: "sure!"

Outside of shooting from chimeras, where they only have a 6" movement, meltas generally only get to fire once: after they shoot, they get charged and die. heavy weapons can shoot from far farther away.

I use 16 autocannons in my Sisters army with inducted guard. (they form a large part of my ranged threat)

The only army that outshoots me is Mech Guard. (I rush them instead to win)

Infantry die.

Light Mech DIES.

I dont even use CCS's or BRING IT DOWN in my list

Autocannons inneffective? Rubbish. Play some games. Get back to me when you know what you're talking about.

Autocannons are really good,ive been beaten alot by it

Polonius wrote:1) Heavy weapons are still really effective against Monstrous Creatures and light vehicles...2) Autocannons are a negligible cost increase over a platoon squad.

It takes about 18 turns for a single autocannon to take down a Carnifex. Even with a 3x HWS with BiD every turn, it still takes 4 turns. In the meantime, it can do some serious damage, and it's also requiring you to keep your CCS near your static gunline instead of the troops. Also, unlike other anti-MC weapons, it's pretty worthless against non MC's. Why is this worth it?

As for light vehicles, I basically cover that with transports. But what about light vehicles that aren't also transports? Either they're going to be fast, and thus are going to be just as hard to kill, or they're going to be piddling away with low firepower and can be ignored. It doesn't seem worthwhile to me to take autocannons just to kill non-outflanking scout sentinels.

The upgrade itself isn't all that expensive, but just looking at the upgrade cost itself is myopic. For example, there is a mobility cost. As well there is a big opportunity cost in list-as-a-whole weapons coverage.

Polonius wrote:I'd agree with the statement that footslogging gunline IG is going to suffer in 5th, but to use the classic smoked rhino situation, 18 AC shots can be had in 4 turns from two squads. The ACs only cost 10pts a piece, and grant a flexibility the squad didn't have before.

What is the benefit of flexilility if you're not effective? Why is taking down a rhino in 4 turns better than nailing it with meltaguns turn 2 after it arrives?

Polonius wrote:If I had a better way to spend the points (or a better way to gain access to PCS and SWS squads), I might drop the ACs.

There are a lot of guns out there (much less other useful upgrades like standards and officers of the fleet), many of which are actually effective against their intended targets. To me, these are better ways to spend points. Why is taking autocannons better than these other things?

Polonius wrote:Gunline IG isnt' leaf blower: it's not about a massive alpha strike or tabling your opponent in three turns. Infantry heavy weapons fire, pretty much every turn until they die.

I agree that this is an unfortunate conclusion that people make when seeing a leaf blower list. It's not a static artillery list that's a very good example of a gunline. It's a mechanized list with artillery support. Gunline = static, leafblower = everything's a vehicle, therefore mobile.

Polonius wrote:As the article ailaros links to points out, you pay a premium to stop the enemy on his side of the board, to which I respond: "sure!"

Why?

Polonius wrote:Outside of shooting from chimeras, where they only have a 6" movement, meltas generally only get to fire once: after they shoot, they get charged and die. heavy weapons can shoot from far farther away.

I heartily concede that an autocannon will get more shots off than a meltagun (at least a vast chunk of the time). The thing is, though, that a meltagun is much, much more effective per shot than is an autocannon. Thus you do more damage in three turns with a meltagun than with an autocannon, even though the autocannon is shooting for all three turns and the meltagun is not.

It's about overall effectiveness, not just a single part of the statline, like range.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:So, is it better to take your cheap infantry (who are needed to take objectives and tie up enemies) with or without the added HW cost? Most of us say yes, Ailaros says no.

Right, and I say "no" because I believe that heavy weapons are generally expensive for their cost. Certain weapons have certain uses at certain times (which is why I take some mortars, for example), but there is nothing that is worth spamming in my mind. This is because they're expensive for what they do, a problem which taking lots of them exacerbates, rather than alleviates.

ph34r wrote:You still avoid the point. Isn't good compared to WHAT? I would love to know what cheap spammable weapon is so much more effective than an AC or HB.

Well, I can think of meltaguns and meltabombs for starters. Likewise an eviscerator priest is cheaper than a 3x autocannon HWS, and can do much more damage. I'm sure if you look through your codex you can find other stuff that's more effective against vehicles than autocannons. With anti-infantry, it should be easy as an autocannon is near the bottom of the list for anti-infantry weapons.

ph34r wrote:Really, tell me. How do you kill your enemies. (Honestly, I think that no IG heavy weapon is particularly good at killing marines)

I agree that no IG heavy weapon is particularly good at killing marines. Therefore, I don't use IG heavy weapons to kill marines. It really is that simple.

Instead of spamming poor-quality weapons like autocannons, I'd advocate for the use of other stuff that's good against marines like basilisks or rough riders, or priestly power weapon blobs, etc.

Most target types have at least one weapon which is effective against them. Use those weapons.

ph34r wrote:And you don't have to be super bunched up to get multi charged. Rhino tank shocks through one squad, sits there. Now unless you make your entire army flee away from the single rhino, you will have at least 2 units charged next turn, unless somehow you space your infantry squads feet apart.

Once again, this is assuming that I have no control over movement of my troops. If I move my meltaguns, I can basically assure that he's going to be tank shocking into a death or glory with a meltagun, something which the rhino is very unlikely to survive, much less be able to continue his tank shock through.

You can pose an infinite number of scenarios of how your opponent chooses to move their units, and I can counter with an infinite number of ways I could move to counter it. None of this has any bearing on the quality (or lack thereof) of certain heavy weapons.

Terminus wrote:This is not a video game where every attack does a set amount of fractional damage.

That's why I said "on average"

Terminus wrote:You can't just look at the raw statistic and extrapolate performance from that,

What do you choose to extrapolate performance from?

Terminus wrote:By your logic, it's idiotic to have a company standard in an army with merged infantry platoons, since it takes about 10 turns to fail with Ld9. Of course, it doesn't really take 10 turns, and you could just as easily fail the first time.

Actually, no, I really like standards. Every unit and upgrade has a cost:benefit ratio. In the case of autocannons, the cost is low and the benefits are very low. In the case of standards, the cost is medium, but, as you note, sometimes the return is very, very high. When you take the return of those times when you DO use the standard and average it out over time, it still appears worthwhile to me.

Plus, it takes about 10 leadership tests to fail with Ld9, not 10 turns. I have definitely taken several LD tests in the same turn before.

Terminus wrote:I stand by the autocannon because it is dirt cheap and it has performed exceptionally well time and time again.

So you're really lucky with your autocannons. Any advice for those who don't share your blessing of the dice gods?

Ailaros wrote:

sourclams wrote:The third reason why the "math" is misleading is because there are units that, if within melta range, have already won. Ork Battlewagons, for example. You can not spend enough points to counter the effects of 20 Boyz multi-charging a squad, even a blob squad, especially if they can burn WAAAUGH!.

can't spend enough points? A single PIS, properly spread out, can catch a 20-boyz attack no problem. Once they die a horrible death, you nail the boyz with a basket of flamers. What's the problem?

The aforementioned battlewagon tank shocks through your spaced out PIS and multicharges the guts of your army. You seem to value efficient points trade-offs very highly; IG whose threat range doesn't extend beyond the exterior of an enemy transport are not going to be points efficient.

There are some units out there that require them to be in close range for them to be effective. We have already established that you're not going to be able to stop them from getting close anyways. Furthermore, this does not change the fact that the guard are perfectly capable of being more effective at close range than they are.

First, we haven't established this at all. Vendettas, Manticores, Hydras, and lowly IG AC teams reliably stop transports at 48" away. You say they don't do this efficiently, I say that it doesn't have to be "efficient" because you're only fighting half of an army; the transports. I don't have to fight 20 Marines and 8 Terminators if I can blow up two rhinos and 1 Land Raider. The "efficiency" of the weapon is multiplied by its ability to neutralize the transported squad for X number of turns. If I spend 150 points on 2 AC HWTs to isolate a 250 point rhino squad then I'm ahead in "efficiency".

Second, the fact that guard can be made more effective at close range means that it again requires a point investment. Since you really tout that effectiveness is benchmarked in relationship to efficiency, investing more points for marginal return doesn't seem effective.

Plus, in order to KEEP them at range with autocannons, you need to spend a lot of points and weapons slots that could have been used to make them regret getting so close. It's a bad trade-off.

Please provide a weapon loadout effective enough to deter 20 Boyz capable of tank shocking through screens and multiassaulting squads and vehicles.

I-bounty-hunt-the-elderly wrote:

ph34r wrote:You still avoid the point. Isn't good compared to WHAT? I would love to know what cheap spammable weapon is so much more effective than an AC or HB. Really, tell me. How do you kill your enemies. (Honestly, I think that no IG heavy weapon is particularly good at killing marines)

I would like to second this question. Ailaros' math is pretty twisted, but even real numbers do say that a single HWT (with any gun) won't do much. So, is it better to take your cheap infantry (who are needed to take objectives and tie up enemies) with or without the added HW cost? Most of us say yes, Ailaros says no.

Well, yes, a single heavy weapon team is not horribly impressive if you look at statistical averages (especially if you twist it into nonsense like claiming it takes 20 turns to destroy one AV10 vehicle), but when you combine two or three and perhaps add BiD into the mix, they become a very potent anti-tank weapon. And hell, even just a single autocannon could blow up a vehicle in one volley; it's not super likely, but that's the beauty of dice. Now I don't give autocannons to infantry platoons 100% of the time; if I'm outflanking 30-40, I'm far more likely to give them some power weapons and meltaguns and call it a day. But for mostly static platoons indented to guard your lines? Autocannons are a no-brainer.

One thing Ailaros implied in this thread is that using infantry platoons to fire at vehicles is a waste of points, "because you're spending 180 points to try to take out a 35-point rhino". Now is that really true? Let's say you don't have the autocannons, and just a bare naked 150-point 30-man squad. Of course, this line of thinking implies that holding the objective, protecting artillery from outflankers and deep strikers, and creating a melee tarpit for any assault unit that comes their way is worthless, but let's roll with it. If those don't count, how does this unit justify its existence? If it just sits there performing the tasks above, ZOMG you just wasted 150 points. If you move forward out of cover, you've just given your opponent easier targets and free KPs, and ZOMG you just wasted 150 points. You can't use their lasguns to any great effect due to almost everyone running mechanized, and ZOMG you just wasted 150 points. Except, of course, you're not really wasting any points because the aforementioned tasks are very important, and for a measly 30 additional points you now have a solid anti-vehicle/MC platform that can reach pretty much anywhere you can see and ensures the unit always has something to do. If they kill even one enemy transport (and likely they will kill far more), ZOMG suddenly you're "wasting" at least 5 points less on that platoon (180 - 35[rhino] = 145 < 150).

He goes on further to imply that issuing the Bring it Down order makes this even more inefficient, because now somehow the CCS's points are added to the tally of "points you are wasting shooting at rhinos". Er... what? The CCS is worth it for the BS4 special weapons alone, and the orders are icing on the cake. It's not every turn you're zooming up melta or plasma vets and unloading to fire, or even if you are, that's why you have TWO orders. This is like saying that ordering a unit to Get Back in the Fight is totally wasting the 150-200 points you spent on your CCS. This mode of thinking just strikes me as absolute madness.

So again, Ailaros, if you are so sure of your theories and that website's math, meet me on Vassal and we can see whether those vaunted statistics are an accurate representation of reality. We can even do best out of 3, or best out of 5, so we have a large enough sample-size that the result can't be written off as a fluke of the dice.

Terminus wrote:One thing Ailaros implied in this thread is that using infantry platoons to fire at vehicles is a waste of points, because you're spending 180 points to try to take out a 35-point rhino

It's not a 35 point rhino. It's a 250 point package of squad plus transport. The synergies become obvious when you actually build an army list (something Ailaros has historically been very reluctant to do). Example, two rhinos with Tac Marines are across the table. You've got a 30 IG blob squad and a Plasma Executioner. If those IG have autocannons, pretty good chance they'll immobilize/destroy one rhino and the Executioner can shoot at the squad. If those IG don't have autocannons, then you're left with shooting an Executioner at a rhino. If it's a sin against efficiency to shoot a 180 point squad at a "35 point transport", then how is it any better shooting a 230 point tank at a "35 point transport"?

Or is it just assumed that we never use Leman Russes or artillery in our IG armies?

Of course it's not just a 35-point rhino, because 40k is about more than just raw statistical data (especially flawed, raw statistical data).

Ailaros wrote:

Polonius wrote:1) Heavy weapons are still really effective against Monstrous Creatures and light vehicles...2) Autocannons are a negligible cost increase over a platoon squad.

It takes about 18 turns for a single autocannon to take down a Carnifex. Even with a 3x HWS with BiD every turn, it still takes 4 turns. In the meantime, it can do some serious damage, and it's also requiring you to keep your CCS near your static gunline instead of the troops. Also, unlike other anti-MC weapons, it's pretty worthless against non MC's. Why is this worth it?

Because it's not hard to bring 9 autocannons in a list, in which case it now only takes two turns to kill that same carnifex. 9 ACs can be had for as little as 225 pts, which is comparable to many of the things that could also kill a fex in two turns (Executioner, plasma vets, etc) while generally staying safe from any being charged (unlike, say, plasma vets).

As for light vehicles, I basically cover that with transports. But what about light vehicles that aren't also transports? Either they're going to be fast, and thus are going to be just as hard to kill, or they're going to be piddling away with low firepower and can be ignored. It doesn't seem worthwhile to me to take autocannons just to kill non-outflanking scout sentinels.

The upgrade itself isn't all that expensive, but just looking at the upgrade cost itself is myopic. For example, there is a mobility cost. As well there is a big opportunity cost in list-as-a-whole weapons coverage.

Well, one of the problems is that you're comparing apples to oranges. When you shoot a rhino across the board with an AC, you're happy with a stunned result, because it buys you a turn that the squad inside doesn't move. Or, the squad gets out, and can be shot directly. Either way, if you're a static (or mostly static) gunline, that's a big win. Buying time = buying more shots = more dead enemy & less dead boys = more wins.

So, if you look at slowing or stopping a rhino, the number of shots goes down. It's also a bit of a fallacy to assume that the rhinos will always be in cover, they get one turn of smoke and then they're generally in the open. If nothing else, in half the games you get a "free" shot at the enemy before they get a chance to pop smoke. Still, assuming smoke, 4 of the 6 pen results slow the rhino, meaning you need 1.5 unsaved pens, or 3 pens. Interestingly, 6 glances will also slow the rhino. Given that you get 1 glance for every two pens, some simply algebra shows that for every 2 pens plus one glance, you'll really only need 2.5 unsaved pens plus 1.25 unsaved glaces. That's 7.5 hits or 15 shots, or about three AC HWS's worth of shooting.

Here's where things get exciting. If you're shooting at a smoked rhino with meltas, you really don't' care if you stun or immobilize it. you want to crack it open. That means you need to get two unsaved pens. Of course, 6 unsaved glances will accomplish the same thing, but you glance on a rhino with a double dice melta only 1/18 times. The two unsaved pens require four total pens, meaning even if you pen each time, you need six BS4 meltas to destroy a rhino at close range.

So, If I shoot 7.5 ACs on turn one, I probably buy myself some time, while you really do explode that rhino with your six meltas, that's to be sure. Of course, I'll almost assuradly get two turns to shoot while you only get one. Also, the ACs aren't put in harms way, unlike the meltas. This is why ACs are effective: they do what we want them to do, which is to delay the enemy from hitting our lines.

Polonius wrote:I'd agree with the statement that footslogging gunline IG is going to suffer in 5th, but to use the classic smoked rhino situation, 18 AC shots can be had in 4 turns from two squads. The ACs only cost 10pts a piece, and grant a flexibility the squad didn't have before.

What is the benefit of flexilility if you're not effective? Why is taking down a rhino in 4 turns better than nailing it with meltaguns turn 2 after it arrives?

It's not, but I'd argue that taking down a rhino in 4 turns is better than doing nothing for 4 turns.

Polonius wrote:If I had a better way to spend the points (or a better way to gain access to PCS and SWS squads), I might drop the ACs.

There are a lot of guns out there (much less other useful upgrades like standards and officers of the fleet), many of which are actually effective against their intended targets. To me, these are better ways to spend points. Why is taking autocannons better than these other things?

Because I've already taken them all? It's not like i took two autocannons and left a veteran squad with only one melta to do so. The IG suffer, like most armies, with the last 40pts dillema.

Polonius wrote:As the article ailaros links to points out, you pay a premium to stop the enemy on his side of the board, to which I respond: "sure!"

Why?

The same reason people pay a premium for anything: because it's worth it. You're fundamental complaint against heavy weapons is that they take too long to do any damage. If you stun or immobilize the enemy vehicles across the board, you get more turns to shoot before that unit is most effective.

Polonius wrote:Outside of shooting from chimeras, where they only have a 6" movement, meltas generally only get to fire once: after they shoot, they get charged and die. heavy weapons can shoot from far farther away.

I heartily concede that an autocannon will get more shots off than a meltagun (at least a vast chunk of the time). The thing is, though, that a meltagun is much, much more effective per shot than is an autocannon. Thus you do more damage in three turns with a meltagun than with an autocannon, even though the autocannon is shooting for all three turns and the meltagun is not.

It's about overall effectiveness, not just a single part of the statline, like range.

As I demonstrated above, given the differing success conditions for the two weapons, they're output difference narrows. Will a melta do more damage than an AC? Of course. Which doens't matter if you've just stunned a rhino full of berzerkers.

ph34r wrote:And you don't have to be super bunched up to get multi charged. Rhino tank shocks through one squad, sits there. Now unless you make your entire army flee away from the single rhino, you will have at least 2 units charged next turn, unless somehow you space your infantry squads feet apart.

Once again, this is assuming that I have no control over movement of my troops. If I move my meltaguns, I can basically assure that he's going to be tank shocking into a death or glory with a meltagun, something which the rhino is very unlikely to survive, much less be able to continue his tank shock through.

You can pose an infinite number of scenarios of how your opponent chooses to move their units, and I can counter with an infinite number of ways I could move to counter it. None of this has any bearing on the quality (or lack thereof) of certain heavy weapons.

It does have a bearing, because you seem to have an incredibly polarized view of the IG codex, where melta guns are insanely good, and heavy weapons are insanely bad.

If your vets get tankshocked, they first have to pass a morale test on LD8. They'll pass something like 70% of the time, and with the autohit, penetrate the rhino ~90% of the time. Once penetrated, they stop the rhino on anything but a 2 (+1 to 3 for weapon destroyed), or just about 84% of the time. This means you'll stop the rhino about 53% of the time. That's not a high probability shot.

What is the benefit of flexilility if you're not effective? Why is taking down a rhino in 4 turns better than nailing it with meltaguns turn 2 after it arrives?

This comment is hilarious, because it clearly illustrates a complete lack of regard for (or understanding of?) combined arms.

Yes, death or glory that rhino or shoot it after it arrives, let's completely ignore the contents of said rhino that will immediately proceed to wreck havoc with rapid firing bolters, their own meltaguns, and multicharges against your lines. Brilliant.

Terminus wrote:

Try Again Bragg wrote:Ah the allaros vs almost every other guard player on this forum debate over autocannons begins in another thread.

Are we in the triple digits for this old chestnut yet? Why do people persist in arguing with Ailaros' magical quantum math and his flawless win record? It's madness, I tells ya!

[Insert obligatory THIS! IS! GRIMDARK! joke]

On a serious note, I really do wish threads like these would stop resurfacing time and time again. I haven't even read much past page one but I believe I can make a very accurate assumption as to how this thread will develop...Ah well.

Next time people, PLEASE use the search function; it saves everyone having to constantly re-bash their heads together over the same topic again and again.

L. Wrex

Addendum: And whilst I'm all for the development of new ideas because of new threads, this simply isn't happening whenever a discussion about Guard heavy weapons surfaces.

Spam what ever weapon that takes your fancy.
If i had the money i would field two heavy weapon platoons full of Las-cannons HWS then Auto-cannons in the Inf squads.

Each heavy has is pros and cons,
Las-cannon; pro- good AV power, con- 1 shot only
Missile launcher; pro- tacitcal flexabilaty, con- cost for what it is
Heavy Bolter; pro- 3 shots, con- low strenth
Auto-cannon; pro- can bust transports and MC, con- 2 shots
Morter; pro- 48" non LoS fire, con- low strenth

That being said, i do find that massed Morter fire can act as an awesome perimiter of fire when used in conjuntion with Auto-Cannons.
Pops open transport with the Auto-cannons then pin them with a moter barrage, any kills are a cheeky little bonus

On that note, mortars are probably about the best weapon you can give to HWTs. Being able to stay out of sight mitigates a lot of their survivability issues.

Terminus wrote:On that note, mortars are probably about the best weapon you can give to HWTs. Being able to stay out of sight mitigates a lot of their survivability issues.

I can't help but think you get effectiveness issues with them. The mortar has been an IG staple for a long time, and I've played 'Mortar Kombat!' armies before to fair effect, but it's not a damaging weapon against power armor.

Ribon Fox wrote:Spam what ever weapon that takes your fancy.
If i had the money i would field two heavy weapon platoons full of Las-cannons HWS then Auto-cannons in the Inf squads.

Each heavy has is pros and cons,
Las-cannon; pro- good AV power, con- 1 shot only
Missile launcher; pro- tacitcal flexabilaty, con- cost for what it is
Heavy Bolter; pro- 3 shots, con- low strenth
Auto-cannon; pro- can bust transports and MC, con- 2 shots
Morter; pro- 48" non LoS fire, con- low strenth

That being said, i do find that massed Morter fire can act as an awesome perimiter of fire when used in conjuntion with Auto-Cannons.
Pops open transport with the Auto-cannons then pin them with a moter barrage, any kills are a cheeky little bonus

i actually think the fact the Autocannon gets 2 shots is a bonus more than a con.
i like popping the transports with the AC and either dropping Russ templates on what falls out, or more AC fire(Hydras).

sourclams wrote:The aforementioned battlewagon tank shocks through your spaced out PIS and multicharges the guts of your army. You seem to value efficient points trade-offs very highly; IG whose threat range doesn't extend beyond the exterior of an enemy transport are not going to be points efficient.

sourclams wrote:Please provide a weapon loadout effective enough to deter 20 Boyz capable of tank shocking through screens and multiassaulting squads and vehicles.

Polonius wrote:If your vets get tankshocked, they first have to pass a morale test on LD8. They'll pass something like 70% of the time, and with the autohit, penetrate the rhino ~90% of the time. Once penetrated, they stop the rhino on anything but a 2 (+1 to 3 for weapon destroyed), or just about 84% of the time. This means you'll stop the rhino about 53% of the time. That's not a high probability shot.

Terminus wrote:Yes, death or glory that rhino or shoot it after it arrives, let's completely ignore the contents of said rhino that will immediately proceed to wreck havoc with rapid firing bolters, their own meltaguns, and multicharges against your lines. Brilliant.

Okay, guys, this is WAY off topic. You're asking me "If unit X moves in a certain way, how will you stop it with meltaguns?" The answer is if my opponent moves certain things in certain ways, I move certain things in certain ways. What this has to do with spamming heavy weapons, I'm not completely sure.

sourclams wrote:The "efficiency" of the weapon is multiplied by its ability to neutralize the transported squad for X number of turns.

I'm already taking this into account when I say that heavy weapons are expensive for what they do.

sourclams wrote: IG AC teams reliably stop transports at 48" away.

Why do you choose to derive the word "reliably" from the math?

Terminus wrote:But for mostly static platoons indented to guard your lines? Autocannons are a no-brainer.

Polonius wrote:Either way, if you're a static (or mostly static) gunline, that's a big win.

Polonius wrote:The same reason people pay a premium for anything: because it's worth it. You're fundamental complaint against heavy weapons is that they take too long to do any damage. If you stun or immobilize the enemy vehicles across the board, you get more turns to shoot before that unit is most effective.

Why spend the points to give your platoons crappy weapons regardless of their movement? Why not give them effective ones? I agree that taking ineffective weapons implies a decidion made without brains.

True, if you do some damage early on, it gives you the chance to do more damage later on, sure. Firstly, ALL weapons benefit from this fact, and, in any case, this only marginally boosts the effectiveness of the weapon.

Terminus wrote:He goes on further to imply that issuing the Bring it Down order makes this even more inefficient, because now somehow the CCS's points are added to the tally of "points you are wasting shooting at rhinos". Er... what? The CCS is worth it for the BS4 special weapons alone, and the orders are icing on the cake.

That's exactly my point. Officers have a primary role. Instead of being able to fulfil that role, they need to sit on their hands shouting orders to units with crappy weapons. The cost of the officer is more than just points, when it comes to the opportunity cost of throwing officers at autocannon squads.

sourclams wrote:It's not a 35 point rhino. It's a 250 point package of squad plus transport.

But you don't kill the squad when you stop a rhino (in fact, you do nothing to the squad). Therefore including its cost into an autocannon stopping a transport is wrong.

Polonius wrote:Because it's not hard to bring 9 autocannons in a list, in which case it now only takes two turns to kill that same carnifex. 9 ACs can be had for as little as 225 pts, which is comparable to many of the things that could also kill a fex in two turns

8 rough riders put down a carnifex in one turn for 85 points, compared to autocannons putting it down in two turns for 225 points. Meanwhile, a plasma CCS puts down a carnifex in one turn for 110 points. Vets with plasma all around does it in one turn for 125 points.

Plus, all of these do the same job with a single squad, rather than hoping that several squads all have good LOS and none of them are being raked by gaunts.

In any case, you're still comparing 225 points to MCs which cost much less. If anything, this supports the argument that they're expensive for what they do.

Polonius wrote:It's also a bit of a fallacy to assume that the rhinos will always be in cover, they get one turn of smoke and then they're generally in the open.

Well, look at the two extremes. On the one hand, they get turn 1 and they deploy right at the front of they're DZ. Turn 1 they move forward 12" and pop smoke. Turn 2, they move 12" and unload their cargo straight into your DZ. On the other hand, you get turn 1 and they keep their rhinos in reserve. Turn 1, you shoot at nothing while they move their rhinos 12" and pop smoke. Turn 2, after you're done shooting at smokey rhinos, they move forward 12" again and unload their marines which make their 12" double-tap shots on your stuff (unless you deployed way back in your DZ, in which case they already basically won). In either case, you're always shooting at them in smoke.

Where's the fallacy in this?

Plus, I don't think it's a good thing to assume that all of your autocannons will always have cover-free shots against all viable targets all the time. If anything, spamming aggrivates this problem as you're forced to place more guns in sub-optimal locations due to having a crammed deployment zone.

Polonius wrote:If you're shooting at a smoked rhino with meltas, you really don't' care if you stun or immobilize it. you want to crack it open.

Actually, I'm looking to destroy the spent cartridge. I'm already assuming that their dudes have piled out and the meltaguns are there to blow up the rifraff or to prevent a tank shock. Cracking it open isn't necessary once they've already disgorged their cargo.

Polonius wrote:It's not, but I'd argue that taking down a rhino in 4 turns is better than doing nothing for 4 turns.

Were that the case, I'd agree. As it is, it's a matter of spending 4 turns taking down a rhino (and only taking it down after it drops it's cargo, thus nullifying the point of long-ranged anti-transport), with weapons that are basically useless against everything else compared to taking down a rhino turn 2 with weapons that are also good against other targets.

What this really boils down to is "I take heavy weapons because I can't figure out anything else to do with my units". Being a refuge for uncreativity isn't a great reason to spam autocannons.

Terminus wrote:

What is the benefit of flexilility if you're not effective? Why is taking down a rhino in 4 turns better than nailing it with meltaguns turn 2 after it arrives?

This comment is hilarious, because it clearly illustrates a complete lack of regard for (or understanding of?) combined arms.

I believe in combined arms, but clearly you choose to define that idea in a different way than I do. How does your idea of combined arms make it a good thing to spam ineffective weapons?

The Grog wrote:I can't help but think you get effectiveness issues with them. The mortar has been an IG staple for a long time, and I've played 'Mortar Kombat!' armies before to fair effect, but it's not a damaging weapon against power armor.

Heavy weapons have niche roles that they play. In the case of mortars, they're not advertising being good at vehicles of any stripe or power armor. That said, if you ever think you're going to play against a horde, they can be effective.

Furthermore, their heightened survivability and multiple barrage rules combined with their cheapness means that they don't suffer from the "bad for their points" problem as badly.

All these other arguments that are being made about autocannons don't address this fundamental problem.

Ailaros wrote:

"All these other arguments that are being made about autocannons don't address this fundamental problem."

see, that's the problem. i don't have a problem with the AC. they work fine for me.

While Meltaguns are best at destroying vehicles and MCs, they come at the cost of range and rate of fire. From what I am getting from the majority of posters on the thread is that greater range and more chances of a result is superior than a single chance to get an awesome result.

IG mostly really, really, really must stop a unit from getting into charge range because of their weakness against CC. An autocannon gives me that ability at 48" away. A meltagun only works at 12." At 48-24"" if I take out that transport, I have severely decreased the chances of the unit within being capable of getting into CC with my forces. At 12," nearly every unit in the game can charge my squishy units.

Ailaros,

I think that most people on the thread value range and ROF over probable instant lethality and I agree. With 40k, it seems the more dice you can throw, the better off you are.

Ailaros wrote:Why spend the points to give your platoons crappy weapons regardless of their movement? Why not give them effective ones?
All these other arguments that are being made about autocannons don't address this fundamental problem.

It's not that these arguments don't address "this fundamental problem", our fundamental disagreement is over whether there is a problem there in the first place. I and many others have found the performance of autocannons for their cost to be excellent. Since you've dodged this several times so far, I'll emphasize: meet me in Vassal, and we can put your supposed statistical certainty to the test when the vagaries of dice are involved. Let's see how many turns it really takes for a handful of autocannons to pop your transports. We can play as many games as you feel necessary to achieve your proposed statistical average.

That's exactly my point. Officers have a primary role. Instead of being able to fulfil that role, they need to sit on their hands shouting orders to units with crappy weapons. The cost of the officer is more than just points, when it comes to the opportunity cost of throwing officers at autocannon squads.

Um, yes, as far as orders are concerned, their role is to issue orders to units that can use them. The 12" bubble from the transport allows the Officer to engage the enemy with their special weapons while still issuing orders to the platoon. Not every turn calls for sacrificing a veteran squad to take out a tank, often you'd much rather sit in the transport. So you could argue that you are wasting points if you're NOT throwing orders at platoons with autocannons.

But you don't kill the squad when you stop a rhino (in fact, you do nothing to the squad). Therefore including its cost into an autocannon stopping a transport is wrong.

Except not really... a Grey Hunter squad forced to dismount near its deployment phase is a lot less scary than one within rapid fire/melta/melee range. Destroying that aggressively deployed BA rhino on turn one is the difference between an assault squad with flamers and/or meltaguns and furious charging attacks taking 2-3 turns to reach your lines (if they run for 6" for the first two, there's no difficult terrain, and you don't shoot them), or that same assault squad being several inches in your deployment zone on turn 2. I can largely ignore that squad and deal with it at my leisure, rather than have it thrust in my face and having to deal with it on my opponent's terms.

Yeah, it's so much preferable to killing their transport with meltas when they are already in your face, so they can disembark and have their choice of either shooting you up, or crushing you in combat. /sarcasm

Ailaros wrote:

sourclams wrote:It's not a 35 point rhino. It's a 250 point package of squad plus transport.

But you don't kill the squad when you stop a rhino (in fact, you do nothing to the squad). Therefore including its cost into an autocannon stopping a transport is wrong.

Destroying the transport the foot slogging content sits in effectively leave the foot slogging units out of range of their intended targets.
They'll spend turns trying to reach some target , which makes them essentially "dead" to the game , as they are useless.

Ailaros:

I see your point, except your math assumes AV 12 while it's silly easy to get an AV 10 hit. I have troops deployed across the table, giving overlapping fields of fire. You're either going to be facing one side or the other side, but not both at the same time, unless you're Eldar. The other thing you're doing is only considering it meaningful if you get a destroyed result. And getting the squad out of the transport at range is killing the squad, because the next thing that's going to follow up behind whatever killed the Rhino is a LRBT/LRD/Basilisk that's going to tend to the leftovers. In an objective game, keeping something from moving/shooting is in my mind just as valuable as killing it. It's not shooting or moving at you next turn. For one turn, it may as well not exist.

On the actual topic, I think that mortar and lascannon heavy weapon squads are the most justifiable. Lascannons can be twinlinked by BiD, cost less than a Vendetta, and don't occupy a precious Fast Attack slot, which are typically in short reserve. They're also effective against vehicles, and at range. Mortars are cheap and barrages can be devastating, especially to low leadership or non-MEQ. For me, the hard part is justifying buying infantry platoons to get the squads. I do more of a mech vet thing most times, and I enjoy being too mobile to use any of my (unfortunately) large array of heavy weapon squads.

Disclaimer: Far as I'm concerned, if you have any direct fire HWS that doesn't have a Company Standard within range of it, you've wasted both your time and your points throwing those guys away.

Personally, I've found AC work pretty well for me too, better than the statistical analysis above would suggest anyway. Part of this may be my play style; I tend to have 30-man blobs holding down objectives in cover. I give that squad a HB and 2 AC's, which gives them range and some heavier punch than the lasgun.

daedalus wrote:On the actual topic, I think that ... lascannon heavy weapon squads are the most justifiable. Lascannons can be twinlinked by BiD, cost less than a Vendetta, and don't occupy a precious Fast Attack slot, which are typically in short reserve.

Eh, I may agree with this if you're taking about heavy weapon teams inside infantry squads. If you're talking about actual heavy weapon squads, I couldn't possibly disagree more.

- HW squads will fail those orders 50% of the time, while the vendetta is always twin-linked.
- They cost only 10 points less than a Vendetta, while being a LOT easier to kill.
- Fast Attack slots aren't that precious when you consider the Vendetta is the best of the lot in most situations anyway.

Terminus wrote:

daedalus wrote:On the actual topic, I think that ... lascannon heavy weapon squads are the most justifiable. Lascannons can be twinlinked by BiD, cost less than a Vendetta, and don't occupy a precious Fast Attack slot, which are typically in short reserve.

Eh, I may agree with this if you're taking about heavy weapon teams inside infantry squads. If you're talking about actual heavy weapon squads, I couldn't possibly disagree more.

- HW squads will fail those orders 50% of the time, while the vendetta is always twin-linked.
- They cost only 10 points less than a Vendetta, while being a LOT easier to kill.
- Fast Attack slots aren't that precious when you consider the Vendetta is the best of the lot in most situations anyway.

My hellhound squadron says that at most I can only have two vendettas, since I can't abide squadroning them. Thats just not enough lascannons for me. Also, your comment about only passing half the time is incorrect: 7 is the most likely number that you'll roll on 2d6. They're leadership 7. Half the sums of 2d6 that are not 7, will be higher than 7, and the other half will be lower than 7.

The probability of the sum of 2d6 is about:
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1 2 3 4 5 6 5 4 03 02 01

Which really puts the chance of the order going off at about 21/36, which is 58%. Not spectacular, but almost 10% higher than previously alluded to. The real awesome thing is that they at least get to fire still even if the order doesn't go off. All things considered you have a 25% chance of penning AV12 with a 58% chance of getting a 37% chance to pen instead per lascannon. I'm not saying they're better than vendettas. I'm saying they're good choices on top of vendettas.

Ailaros wrote:

sourclams wrote:The "efficiency" of the weapon is multiplied by its ability to neutralize the transported squad for X number of turns.

I'm already taking this into account when I say that heavy weapons are expensive for what they do.

No, your'e not, because your analysis is largely rooted in a scenario that doesn't play out within the structure of common IG army lists and therefore your conclusions aren't accurate, even if they're mathematically correct. This is why I keep saying your math is misleading.

sourclams wrote: IG AC teams reliably stop transports at 48" away.

Why do you choose to derive the word "reliably" from the math?

Because autocannons are reliable...? 6 Autocannons or their equivalent (hydras, HWTs) will stop a rhino more than half of the time. They will also cost less than the rhino and its contents. I spend fewer points than my opponent in order to neutralize a unit more than half of the time. That's "reliable".

All these other arguments that are being made about autocannons don't address this fundamental problem.

Actually the fundamental problem is that you continue to look at weapon profiles in a vacuum.

I disagree with the "LC HWT are good" idea. It costs 25 points less than a vendetta. For those 25p, you free up an order for your AC HWT, you gain 24" move potential, tranasport capacity, and even though your vendetta will almost never get cover, it's still probably more reliable than t3 w2 that can be instant-death'd by everything and have ld7.

In my experience, Vendettas don't get to shoot that much, while weapon teams stick around longer than you'd think.