Switch Theme:

Autocannon diversification  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




Been posting in the Strength 8 autocannon thread and I'm curious to see if separating out the Autocannons into distinct categories to make balancing easier, mostly because a change that would make the autocannons for a Hydra adept in their specific role at destroying flyers would perhaps be unbalanced if Havocs and CSM squads got those alterations .

I propose splitting them into roughly three archetypes with some being specific outshoots of one of the three main types. I'm gonna use Imperial weapons as the best approximations but various Xenos weapons should be included in these categories as they are the direct counter parts to them. Divided into Light, Medium and Heavy categories would probably be the best way to do this. These are designed to be archetypes for weapons to slot into and provide a basis for designing the various unique takes on these. Adjusting the base statline of these weapons for each vehicle or infantry unit carrying them would in my opinion help to keep balance and perhaps its too niche but I believe it would help with game design.

Light Autocannon: would represent the various infantry portable autocannons, along with those found on the lightest vehicles such as sentinels and be roughly analogous to a 20mm autocannon today. Base Statline Heavy 2, Strength 7, AP-2 D2.
Offshoots of this weapon would be the Reaper autocannon, the Accelerator Autocannons on suppressors.

Medium Autocannon: Would represent the majority of vehicle mounted weapons and corresponds to today's 40mm autocannons.
Base Statline: Heavy 2 Strength 8 AP-2 D2. The majority of vehicles mounting these would carry an offshoot of this. Such as Hydra Autocannons having increased range and ROF. Leman Russ Exterminator's autocannons is another prominent offshoot with simply higher ROF.

Heavy Autocannons: Would represent the largest autocannons that are often the main guns of tanks like Predators Destructors and correspond to 57-60mm autocannons of today.
Base Statline: Heavy 2 Strength 8 AP-2 D3.


   
Made in gb
Stalwart Veteran Guard Sergeant





I think distinguishing between an autocannon carried by infantry and one mounted on a tank is fair enough, not a bad idea.

Why do we need a medium and a heavy autocannon though? I especially don’t see why an autocannon on a Predator should be more powerful than one on a Leman Russ.
   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




El Torro wrote:
I think distinguishing between an autocannon carried by infantry and one mounted on a tank is fair enough, not a bad idea.

Why do we need a medium and a heavy autocannon though? I especially don’t see why an autocannon on a Predator should be more powerful than one on a Leman Russ.


This may just be my perspective but look at the barrel length, the longer the barrel the higher the velocity of the shell or shot that comes out. Its why the 75mm on a Panther was so much better at killing tanks than the 76mm on the T-34.

I figured if the tank in question is relying upon a single large autocannon as its primary weapon then why not make that autocannon one of the most potent variety.

To elaborate on that point, I honestly believe that the Leman Russ Exterminator would be stronger against its preferred targets due to having far more shots but the Predator would have a niche in a Space Marine army because it would be a source of reliable damage 3 shots. Then again, it is right now and I've never seen one across the board from me, the majority of armor I see from Space Marines nowadays is Dreadnought based.
   
Made in us
Storm Trooper with Maglight





Gainesville, VA

Heavy 2 when carried by infantry.
Rapid Fire 2 when mounted on a vehicle.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

 Kcalehc wrote:
Heavy 2 when carried by infantry.
Rapid Fire 2 when mounted on a vehicle.
The tank mounted version gets less shots at longer range then the infantry version?
   
Made in us
Battle-tested Knight Castellan Pilot





 alextroy wrote:
 Kcalehc wrote:
Heavy 2 when carried by infantry.
Rapid Fire 2 when mounted on a vehicle.
The tank mounted version gets less shots at longer range then the infantry version?


Unless the vehicle version also has double the range, I guess? Or infantry get half the range...
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Different thread, same problems. You buff the AC the HB becomes utterly useless. You buff the AC then things like Leviathan Dreads and Daredos become stupidly broken. You can only buff the AC by giving it more AP, after that it's flat out silly. I'd hate to see a triple leviathan list putting our 16 RF2 shots of AP2 D2 at 48".

How about it's fine as is and we don't need 3 threads complaining how a old pointless weapon needs to be S8 RF2 D2. The game is surely deadly enough.
   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
Different thread, same problems. You buff the AC the HB becomes utterly useless. You buff the AC then things like Leviathan Dreads and Daredos become stupidly broken. You can only buff the AC by giving it more AP, after that it's flat out silly. I'd hate to see a triple leviathan list putting our 16 RF2 shots of AP2 D2 at 48".

How about it's fine as is and we don't need 3 threads complaining how a old pointless weapon needs to be S8 RF2 D2. The game is surely deadly enough.


Yes Fezzik, altering the autocannons on things like Hydras, Leman Russ Exterminators, Predators and a few other vehicles will definitely make the Heavy Bolter obsolete. The only buff I suggested for the autocannons found on things like Havocs, Chaos Terminators, both Guard and GSC heavy teams and ork Lootas was an increase to AP-2. Otherwise all of my attention was focused on a collection of barely taken vehicles.
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

panzerfront14 wrote:
Yes Fezzik, altering the autocannons on things like Hydras, Leman Russ Exterminators, Predators and a few other vehicles will definitely make the Heavy Bolter obsolete. The only buff I suggested for the autocannons found on things like Havocs, Chaos Terminators, both Guard and GSC heavy teams and ork Lootas was an increase to AP-2. Otherwise all of my attention was focused on a collection of barely taken vehicles.

This won't fix that issue though. Vehicles are bad because they're fragile, don't score, and are difficult to maneuver around most boards. The exceptions are all either fast open-topped transports, have an invulnerable save, or are the sole source of a weapon type for that army. None of this applies to the vehicles you're looking to 'fix' with these changes.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




The biggest fix to Autocannons is twofold:
1. Fix the fething stupid "wound" chart that exists.
2. Then make Autocannons either AP-2 or S8. Core rules in the end really prevent the Autocannon from reaching its full potential.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




I don't think Autocannons need to be diversified, I think they just need to be made relevant.

Vehicles broadly fall into 'Light' (T6 or less), 'Medium' (T7) and 'Heavy' (T8+).

Unfortunatley unless an 5++ is involved a lascannon outperforms an autocannon against all of them. Which isn't a good starting point.

After a little mathhammering I think the humble autocannon needs an buff to AP (to -2) and Damage (straight 3).

This way Against T6 is outperforms a lascannon, T7 is broadly similar (is ever so slightly better), and doesn't do so well against T8.

The lower RoF help seperate it from the now Heavy 3 D2 heavy bolter.

If the lascannon gets the slight, and much needed buff to D6 (min3) then the buffed Autocannon will still perform better against T6 and lower, whilst the tweaked lascannon will perform slightly better than a buffed Autocannon against T7 with no invuln, but the Autocannon will do better against T7 with an invuln.

Yes this makes the autocannon more deadly (and the lascannon to), but to be honest the autocannon is so meek right now that's what's needed, and the lascannon tweak whilst a step up is substantially less than going to D3+3 as many things done.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

Cornishman wrote:
I don't think Autocannons need to be diversified, I think they just need to be made relevant.

Vehicles broadly fall into 'Light' (T6 or less), 'Medium' (T7) and 'Heavy' (T8+).

Unfortunatley unless an 5++ is involved a lascannon outperforms an autocannon against all of them. Which isn't a good starting point.
Why should an autocannon ever out perform a lascannon against a hard target like a vehicle. Autocannons are cheaper weapons for light vehicles and heavy infantry.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter




Easy way to solve this. ACs ignore armor on anything T6 and LC ignore armor on anything T7+. Now HBs are still good at what they do, Grav is still good at what it does, and AC/LC are still good vehicle hunters. ACs still suck booty against Heavy stuff, and LCs are suddenly incredibly powerful against anything with a gas peddle.
Tank cannons and up can all dress right dress off of LCs. Same with Knight Weapons.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/18 21:15:13


 
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




I just think the autocannon should be made AP-2. A simple change and makes its damage slightly more reliable.

Specialist autocannons should get their own further quirks on that, such as:
- Cognis autocannon: Assault 6
- Exterminator autocannon: Heavy 6
- Hades autocannon: Heavy 6.
- Armiger autocannon, Hydra autocannon, and Predator autocannon: Damage 3
- Reaper autocannon: 24 inch, Assault 4, Damage 2
- Salamander scout vehicle Agrippina autocannon: Heavy 4
   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




Jarms48 wrote:
I just think the autocannon should be made AP-2. A simple change and makes its damage slightly more reliable.

Specialist autocannons should get their own further quirks on that, such as:
- Cognis autocannon: Assault 6
- Exterminator autocannon: Heavy 6
- Hades autocannon: Heavy 6.
- Armiger autocannon, Hydra autocannon, and Predator autocannon: Damage 3
- Reaper autocannon: 24 inch, Assault 4, Damage 2
- Salamander scout vehicle Agrippina autocannon: Heavy 4


Exactly, my only real point behind this thread was codifying them into distinct categories.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 alextroy wrote:
Cornishman wrote:
I don't think Autocannons need to be diversified, I think they just need to be made relevant.

Vehicles broadly fall into 'Light' (T6 or less), 'Medium' (T7) and 'Heavy' (T8+).

Unfortunatley unless an 5++ is involved a lascannon outperforms an autocannon against all of them. Which isn't a good starting point.
Why should an autocannon ever out perform a lascannon against a hard target like a vehicle. Autocannons are cheaper weapons for light vehicles and heavy infantry.


The point is that against the targets the autocannon is optimised against (light vehicles/ monsters T6 and less) that a lascannon still does a better job than the autocannon.

This gives this situation:
Want to take out heavy (T8) things? -> Take a lascannon.
Want to take out medium (T7) things? -> Take a lascannon.
Want to take out light (T6 or less) things? -> Take a lascannon.

Or to put it another way, when considering your anti-noninfantry requirements you have 2 options
A) the autocannon, this does an almost passable job against at T6 or less (sentinels, ork buggies, landspeeders etc...), a fairly mediocre job of T7 and is comical against T8.
B) the lascannon, outperforms Option A against T6 and is as effective against T8 as T6....

At present where you have a choice of these two there is usually a straight up choice of an autocannon or a lascannon, to me unless you absolutely positively can't afford that 5pts to upgrade the choice to me is a no brainer. Once you factor in the cost of the thing that’s carrying the weapon, and that the weapons were interchangeable seem to be interchangeable on a 1:1 basis it’s not that easy to simply take more autocannons.

To me it seems sensible to tweak the baseline autocannon such that it, in and of itself is useful option and made relevant to antitank/ monster conversation (again see above how the lascannon simply outperforms the autocannon against light vehicles/ monsters) then tweak the various versions from there.

Fine this may mean that an Armiger or Predator Autocannon simply end up with the stat line of a twin autocannon whilst only having a single barrel but I’m fine with that.

Edit:
Happy to acknowledge that AP-2 would improve performance against light targets enough that including the cost of the the things thats bringing the weapon a baseline AC would generally deliver more bang for it's buck against light (T6 or less) target. So whilst being slightly cheaper would at least be good at what's it's supposed to do. The various upgunned variants would then offer improved performance, which I'd throughly support.

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/04/19 07:25:48


 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Honestly tho, spending 15 pts for a BS 4 lascannon is kind of trash too, especially if you dont have the CP to reroll the damage rolls of 1s and 2s
   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




bat702 wrote:
Honestly tho, spending 15 pts for a BS 4 lascannon is kind of trash too, especially if you dont have the CP to reroll the damage rolls of 1s and 2s


Yeah, Lascannons are in an odd boat. Its awesome when you get the 6 damage shots, and its awful when you get the single damage roll. There are plenty of d3+3 damage guns as is, so perhaps Lascannons should be raised to that standard, perhaps not depending on how you want to differentiate the standard Lascannon from a Dark Lance for instance.

On the other hand as I continually put forward in other threads regarding large caliber weaponry like Vanquisher Cannons and their counterparts is that GW needs to get more comfortable with fixed damage weapons. If a Lascannon was flat 4 damage for instance (disclaimer that is just a randomly chosen number 3-6 which COULD be a good value) then how much better would it be, its a mild raise in average damage, going from 3.5 to 4 but it would be much more consistent and allow for better planning while clearly placing the Lascannon in a field above even my hypothetical Heavy Autocannons.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Tacoma, WA, USA

Cornishman wrote:
Spoiler:
 alextroy wrote:
Cornishman wrote:
I don't think Autocannons need to be diversified, I think they just need to be made relevant.

Vehicles broadly fall into 'Light' (T6 or less), 'Medium' (T7) and 'Heavy' (T8+).

Unfortunatley unless an 5++ is involved a lascannon outperforms an autocannon against all of them. Which isn't a good starting point.
Why should an autocannon ever out perform a lascannon against a hard target like a vehicle. Autocannons are cheaper weapons for light vehicles and heavy infantry.


The point is that against the targets the autocannon is optimised against (light vehicles/ monsters T6 and less) that a lascannon still does a better job than the autocannon.

This gives this situation:
Want to take out heavy (T8) things? -> Take a lascannon.
Want to take out medium (T7) things? -> Take a lascannon.
Want to take out light (T6 or less) things? -> Take a lascannon.

Or to put it another way, when considering your anti-noninfantry requirements you have 2 options
A) the autocannon, this does an almost passable job against at T6 or less (sentinels, ork buggies, landspeeders etc...), a fairly mediocre job of T7 and is comical against T8.
B) the lascannon, outperforms Option A against T6 and is as effective against T8 as T6....

At present where you have a choice of these two there is usually a straight up choice of an autocannon or a lascannon, to me unless you absolutely positively can't afford that 5pts to upgrade the choice to me is a no brainer. Once you factor in the cost of the thing that’s carrying the weapon, and that the weapons were interchangeable seem to be interchangeable on a 1:1 basis it’s not that easy to simply take more autocannons.

To me it seems sensible to tweak the baseline autocannon such that it, in and of itself is useful option and made relevant to antitank/ monster conversation (again see above how the lascannon simply outperforms the autocannon against light vehicles/ monsters) then tweak the various versions from there.

Fine this may mean that an Armiger or Predator Autocannon simply end up with the stat line of a twin autocannon whilst only having a single barrel but I’m fine with that.

Edit:
Happy to acknowledge that AP-2 would improve performance against light targets enough that including the cost of the the things thats bringing the weapon a baseline AC would generally deliver more bang for it's buck against light (T6 or less) target. So whilst being slightly cheaper would at least be good at what's it's supposed to do. The various upgunned variants would then offer improved performance, which I'd throughly support.
Why pick an Autocannon to shoot a vehicle when a Lascannon is always better isn't really a good argument. This isn't hunting where you don't want to overkill your target by using more weapon than necessary. All else being equal, you always want the bigger gun to kill vehicles.

Therefore the balancing factor has to be something different than A is better than B against vehicles. A Lascannon is typically 15 points to an Autocannons 10 points. Maybe the AC should be 5 instead? Get what you pay for rather than pump up the effectiveness of the Autocannon until it causes problems with yet another weapon that is suddenly bad compared to an Autocannon.
   
Made in au
Regular Dakkanaut




 alextroy wrote:
Cornishman wrote:
Spoiler:
 alextroy wrote:
Cornishman wrote:
I don't think Autocannons need to be diversified, I think they just need to be made relevant.

Vehicles broadly fall into 'Light' (T6 or less), 'Medium' (T7) and 'Heavy' (T8+).

Unfortunatley unless an 5++ is involved a lascannon outperforms an autocannon against all of them. Which isn't a good starting point.
Why should an autocannon ever out perform a lascannon against a hard target like a vehicle. Autocannons are cheaper weapons for light vehicles and heavy infantry.


The point is that against the targets the autocannon is optimised against (light vehicles/ monsters T6 and less) that a lascannon still does a better job than the autocannon.

This gives this situation:
Want to take out heavy (T8) things? -> Take a lascannon.
Want to take out medium (T7) things? -> Take a lascannon.
Want to take out light (T6 or less) things? -> Take a lascannon.

Or to put it another way, when considering your anti-noninfantry requirements you have 2 options
A) the autocannon, this does an almost passable job against at T6 or less (sentinels, ork buggies, landspeeders etc...), a fairly mediocre job of T7 and is comical against T8.
B) the lascannon, outperforms Option A against T6 and is as effective against T8 as T6....

At present where you have a choice of these two there is usually a straight up choice of an autocannon or a lascannon, to me unless you absolutely positively can't afford that 5pts to upgrade the choice to me is a no brainer. Once you factor in the cost of the thing that’s carrying the weapon, and that the weapons were interchangeable seem to be interchangeable on a 1:1 basis it’s not that easy to simply take more autocannons.

To me it seems sensible to tweak the baseline autocannon such that it, in and of itself is useful option and made relevant to antitank/ monster conversation (again see above how the lascannon simply outperforms the autocannon against light vehicles/ monsters) then tweak the various versions from there.

Fine this may mean that an Armiger or Predator Autocannon simply end up with the stat line of a twin autocannon whilst only having a single barrel but I’m fine with that.

Edit:
Happy to acknowledge that AP-2 would improve performance against light targets enough that including the cost of the the things thats bringing the weapon a baseline AC would generally deliver more bang for it's buck against light (T6 or less) target. So whilst being slightly cheaper would at least be good at what's it's supposed to do. The various upgunned variants would then offer improved performance, which I'd throughly support.
Why pick an Autocannon to shoot a vehicle when a Lascannon is always better isn't really a good argument. This isn't hunting where you don't want to overkill your target by using more weapon than necessary. All else being equal, you always want the bigger gun to kill vehicles.

Therefore the balancing factor has to be something different than A is better than B against vehicles. A Lascannon is typically 15 points to an Autocannons 10 points. Maybe the AC should be 5 instead? Get what you pay for rather than pump up the effectiveness of the Autocannon until it causes problems with yet another weapon that is suddenly bad compared to an Autocannon.


One thing that's always confused me with 9th. Is that a 5 point plasma gun just outshines any of our heavy weapons. You can either spend 10 points on a heavy 2 autocannon or heavy 3 heavy bolter, or you can spend 10 points on 2 - 4 S8 AP-3 D2 shots.

Sure, some enemies like deathguard have -1 damage but that effects the heavy weapons exactly the same, at least with the plasma gun you can then choose to not overcharge to not kill your own model and still have 2 - 4 S7 AP-3 D1 shots.

The only drawback for the plasma gun is range and ability to overheat, but on a BS4+ guardsmen them dying isn't that much of an issue when you can literally take dozens of them.
   
Made in us
Roarin' Runtherd




Jarms48 wrote:
 alextroy wrote:
Cornishman wrote:
Spoiler:
 alextroy wrote:
Cornishman wrote:
I don't think Autocannons need to be diversified, I think they just need to be made relevant.

Vehicles broadly fall into 'Light' (T6 or less), 'Medium' (T7) and 'Heavy' (T8+).

Unfortunatley unless an 5++ is involved a lascannon outperforms an autocannon against all of them. Which isn't a good starting point.
Why should an autocannon ever out perform a lascannon against a hard target like a vehicle. Autocannons are cheaper weapons for light vehicles and heavy infantry.


The point is that against the targets the autocannon is optimised against (light vehicles/ monsters T6 and less) that a lascannon still does a better job than the autocannon.

This gives this situation:
Want to take out heavy (T8) things? -> Take a lascannon.
Want to take out medium (T7) things? -> Take a lascannon.
Want to take out light (T6 or less) things? -> Take a lascannon.

Or to put it another way, when considering your anti-noninfantry requirements you have 2 options
A) the autocannon, this does an almost passable job against at T6 or less (sentinels, ork buggies, landspeeders etc...), a fairly mediocre job of T7 and is comical against T8.
B) the lascannon, outperforms Option A against T6 and is as effective against T8 as T6....

At present where you have a choice of these two there is usually a straight up choice of an autocannon or a lascannon, to me unless you absolutely positively can't afford that 5pts to upgrade the choice to me is a no brainer. Once you factor in the cost of the thing that’s carrying the weapon, and that the weapons were interchangeable seem to be interchangeable on a 1:1 basis it’s not that easy to simply take more autocannons.

To me it seems sensible to tweak the baseline autocannon such that it, in and of itself is useful option and made relevant to antitank/ monster conversation (again see above how the lascannon simply outperforms the autocannon against light vehicles/ monsters) then tweak the various versions from there.

Fine this may mean that an Armiger or Predator Autocannon simply end up with the stat line of a twin autocannon whilst only having a single barrel but I’m fine with that.

Edit:
Happy to acknowledge that AP-2 would improve performance against light targets enough that including the cost of the the things thats bringing the weapon a baseline AC would generally deliver more bang for it's buck against light (T6 or less) target. So whilst being slightly cheaper would at least be good at what's it's supposed to do. The various upgunned variants would then offer improved performance, which I'd throughly support.
Why pick an Autocannon to shoot a vehicle when a Lascannon is always better isn't really a good argument. This isn't hunting where you don't want to overkill your target by using more weapon than necessary. All else being equal, you always want the bigger gun to kill vehicles.

Therefore the balancing factor has to be something different than A is better than B against vehicles. A Lascannon is typically 15 points to an Autocannons 10 points. Maybe the AC should be 5 instead? Get what you pay for rather than pump up the effectiveness of the Autocannon until it causes problems with yet another weapon that is suddenly bad compared to an Autocannon.


One thing that's always confused me with 9th. Is that a 5 point plasma gun just outshines any of our heavy weapons. You can either spend 10 points on a heavy 2 autocannon or heavy 3 heavy bolter, or you can spend 10 points on 2 - 4 S8 AP-3 D2 shots.

Sure, some enemies like deathguard have -1 damage but that effects the heavy weapons exactly the same, at least with the plasma gun you can then choose to not overcharge to not kill your own model and still have 2 - 4 S7 AP-3 D1 shots.

The only drawback for the plasma gun is range and ability to overheat, but on a BS4+ guardsmen them dying isn't that much of an issue when you can literally take dozens of them.


It is strange how the Plasma gun is so much better than those heavy weapons for the points. It honestly seems like if squads in the current era were issued an AT Rifle for use against guys in power armor or light vehicles, yet it can out shoot what is basically a MK-19 with APHE munitions or a 20mm Autocannon against most targets.

I indulge in real world comparisons a lot, but it is what it is. I wonder if perhaps, unrelated to this thread's topic a suppression mechanic would be good for the game, to reflect the absolute hail of fire from things like Big Shootas, Heavy Bolters, or an entire squad opening fire with automatic weapons. Perhaps if the shots coming in exceed the number of models in a unit and they cause damage it could reduce the actions of the unit pending a leadership check. Eh its a thought.

But heavy weapons should have much farther reach than special weapons and should hit harder than them to counter balance the mobility cost of carrying them. I honestly think that both can work in concert, mutually supporting arms, but there frankly isn't enough spread in enemy resilient profiles to properly have slots for everything.
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

i think the main problem you have is the same problem the game has been going since 7th edition. there is literally to much diversity. look at how many bolter variants exist for marines now.


It used to be
.bolt pistol
.bolter
.heavy bolter

same with autocannons.
there was the marine portable/predator/dread mounted that had the exact same profile
and the chaos reaper-same strength and AP but shorter range and twin linked for man portable use.

And plasma weapons
.pistol
.rifle
.cannon

You start adding up all the various subtypes then multiply that by all the factions that currently exist in the game and their special weapon types and you end up with a nightmare of bloat.



GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 alextroy wrote:


Why pick an Autocannon to shoot a vehicle when a Lascannon is always better isn't really a good argument. This isn't hunting where you don't want to overkill your target by using more weapon than necessary. All else being equal, you always want the bigger gun to kill vehicles.

Therefore the balancing factor has to be something different than A is better than B against vehicles. A Lascannon is typically 15 points to an Autocannons 10 points. Maybe the AC should be 5 instead? Get what you pay for rather than pump up the effectiveness of the Autocannon until it causes problems with yet another weapon that is suddenly bad compared to an Autocannon.


The same could be said about taking out infantry. A lascannon does a fine job of taking out gaunts, guard, boyz you name it, but you don't take a LC for its ability to overkill 1W infantry. You simply need to weapon to be suitably killy whether offering a small no of efficient shots, or through a larger amounts of individually less effecient shots.

I woud expect the tradespace for a weapon to absolute killiness on a per shot basis,no. of shoots and pts cost. Based on this the emergent property should be when looking at broadly comparible weapons (e.g. the specific options available for a specific something) you'd expect to see where points are similar for there to be trade off between absolute killiness per shot and no of shots (e.g. a heavy bolters offers 3 shots, and autocannon 2, and a lascannon 1).

Looking at popular anti infantry choices (chainguns, gav-cannons) these seem to either offer enough shots that weight of fire will usually see results (chaingun) or against the equivilents seem offer higher S/AP with no reduction in RoF (e.g. heavy bolter vs grav cannon) without much of a price premium.

Currently as a weapon specialising in light armour even accounting for the slight discount compared to the LC the humble autocannon is rather bad at it's job.

So against light vehciles (T5&6) where S9 isn't required, why shouldn't a weapon with lower strenght (e.g. 7) be able to outperform a lascannon through offering a higher number of shots? As laid out against the heaviest things (i.e T8+) such weapons will be 1/2 as effective and be comfortably outclassed by the LC (or similar). So this isn't a case of making the autocannon better than a lascannon, it is about making the autocannon do what's it's supposed to.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/04/20 07:32:20


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: