Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I think it's because, on the internet, it's difficult to consider important stuff that happens on actual gaming tables like no always being able to present the best armour facing to the enemy.

jp400 wrote:Why do people call a LRBT An "Av14 hull"?

It is Av 14 on ONE side, not all.

If you play it right...your opponent should be shooting at Av14. If you're opponent is decent, they'll be shooting at Av13. You've got problems if it's otherwise.

Lascannons are fine as the rules stand.

I think the only way you could make them 'dakkier' is to make vehicles harder to kill, whereby you could give the Lascannon a special rule that means its more effective than other weapons when it targets vehicles (more so than another high strength weapon anyway). This wouldn't stand within the current rules.

IF you really wanted to change them then you could say they count as AP 1 against Vehicles when determining damage on a Penetrating hit (given the high explosive nature of the bolt once it penetrates its target) or something like that...but then you may as well make them AP 1 anyway...

I still think they're fine - if you're unlucky, then you're unlucky...