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 gues sthe question about objectives revolves around how quickly can we obliterate our opponent with firepower and can we then move our blobs fast enough to take or contest objectives. We can't realistically take and hold objectives on turns 2 or 3.. guard just aren't resilient enough to hold.

So, I assume we have to spend 3 turns of nothing but shooting and then move on turn 5 to actually take or contest. But even if we do that are blobs fast enough? Do we need to invest in cheap infantry squads that do nothing but grab objectives in the last 2 turns?

I have veterans and storm troopers as specialist weapon toters. But they are usually sort of sacrificial. I doubt they'll make it to turn 6.

ender502

Space marine allies does seem like the perfect answer. BA assault troops would be my choice.

I've been playing around with the idea of having space wolves ally holding the home objective, with a blob and Termi SS/CF LW walking forward.

Allies are pants!

ender502

TheLionOfTheForest wrote:Space marine allies does seem like the perfect answer. BA assault troops would be my choice.

I use something similar - ouflanking GHs with a Wolf Priest and as much plasma as I can bring. They're pretty nasty actually, I always feel rather bad when they stroll onto the board and wipe out any SM squad <8 men without a problem. I toyed with the idea of BA deep strikers too, but I wanted them to be able to sit there and shoot. I think pistol/CCW would be wasted when I can take bolters and plasma.

Blaggard wrote:I've been playing around with the idea of having space wolves ally holding the home objective, with a blob and Termi SS/CF LW walking forward.

I feel that guard works well for holding home objectives. A 30 man blob in a 1500pt game, joined by a character with ATSKNF doesn't die.

ender502 wrote:Allies are pants!

You're pants!

Just a question. Admittedly I'm not a guard player so I don't have the most in-depth knowledge of the army, but when you consider the role of the Lascannon, Anti-Tank, could you argue that the potential value of lascannons not only has them competing with autocannons on HW teams (both within troops platoons and Heavy Support Choices) but also with other anti-tank weapons as well, particularly meltaguns. In that case, could you perhaps argue that you may want to take Autocannons over Lascannons because, while Autocannons do fill a more specific niche than a lascannon, the role that Lascannons play is better filled by other choices in your army, such as Melta-vets and deep striking stormtroopers?

I'm guess that what I am basically asking is whether the choice between autocannons and lascannons should be decided soley by their performance against each other, but if the performance of other anti-tank/anti-heavy weapons, such as plasma and melta, and if so or not, what are the implications for the composition of the rest of your army list?

RegalPhantom wrote:
In that case, could you perhaps argue that you may want to take Autocannons over Lascannons because, while Autocannons do fill a more specific niche than a lascannon, the role that Lascannons play is better filled by other choices in your army, such as Melta-vets and deep striking stormtroopers?

Pretty much the conclusion I came to. I've got anti-tank in Vendettas and melta-vets. I'd love anti-infantry but then I'd lose out on my av12 and lower threat so it's got to stay autocannons unfortunately.

Well, from my maths, I'd say lascannons are a waste on BS3 units. Auto cannons apparently do everything for cheaper on BS3 models. Melta guns and guards other anti-tank weapons will have to do for the AV14
I'd argue that both these weapons need a rethink, why spend 90(AC)/150(LC) to wreck a AV12 vehicle wreak per turn? What could be spent there instead?

edit: I've come to a different conclusion than that of the both of you two. Autocannons fill *every* niche apart from wrecking AV14 and instagibbing T4 things for cheaper than a lascannon on a BS3 model. They're only a little bit more expensive per wound than HBs for what HBs are supposed to do as well.

 Griddlelol wrote:

RegalPhantom wrote:
In that case, could you perhaps argue that you may want to take Autocannons over Lascannons because, while Autocannons do fill a more specific niche than a lascannon, the role that Lascannons play is better filled by other choices in your army, such as Melta-vets and deep striking stormtroopers?

Pretty much the conclusion I came to. I've got anti-tank in Vendettas and melta-vets. I'd love anti-infantry but then I'd lose out on my av12 and lower threat so it's got to stay autocannons unfortunately.

Even though I am an autocannon fan, I ALWAYS put a lascannon in the CCS. That BS 4 makes it better at just about everything. But, as pointed out by others, most of my guard AT comes from vets/vendettas/vehicles. The infantry/hws weapons are all about killing light vehicles/hordes and giving t6 something to worry about.

ender502

 ender502 wrote:
I ALWAYS put a lascannon in the CCS.

Me too. It's fairly reliable. I'm considering trading it out for 4 snipers in the CCS just to keep their threat level even lower. I really want to like snipers, they just don't do anything awesome when I use them.

BID makes LC worth it in squads for me, especially if i have blobbed 20 or 30 man squads with LC.

BA do get cheap devastators with 4 ML, a weapon system we have already agreed is not worth it for Guard, maybe that would mitigate the need for so many AC. Or maybe I just add further firepower to what I have. If I add marines, they will be as cheap and effective units as I can pack... again for redundancy. Dont want the marine contingent getting picked off... BA could also use DSing melta. I hate having to figure out each game how to get the guardsman with the MG to the target in one peice. BA assaulters negate the "how to" part.

The more I think about it, maybe guard would be the better allied contingent, I mean we can pack a TON of troops into one troop choice... the only problem is I am gimping my heavy slot choices to one Manticore or squading LRBTs.

Just did another calculation with 100% hit rate.
The chart looks the same as per chart #2 on Pg #3 except the Y axis is smaller. Same ratios for everything.

Are you willing to pay the premium? You'll still need about 8/9 AC's and LC's firing each turn to reliably bring down stuff (at BS3)

For the relic, the best way is to have great firing lanes watching it and if your opponent tried to snatch it blast everything you got into it and kill it. slowly move up some infantry squads to grab and go with it. Relic has posed as a hard mission for my gunline.

This forum and all the mathhammer posts have seemed to lead me into using lascannons and autocannons now. always massed lascannons but never thought of lascannons in infantry squads.

LC in infantry squads means your LC will last a while. Put AC in the HWT and now your opponent has a choice shoot cheap AC (which I have more ban a few) or shoot squads with and LC having to do a lot of wounds to reduce my long range ap2 firepower.

even if I had better access to other steel legion heavy weapons i would still run ML's.... In a guard army you should not be worried about cost effectiveness, it can put a S8 shot into tanks, it cant put a S8 AP3 shot into MC's , or it can put a blast into a squad, I run Vet units for now until i can collect more steel legion troops to make a platoon so with Bs4 and orders for twin linked Ill take S8

sinistermind wrote:
even if I had better access to other steel legion heavy weapons i would still run ML's.... In a guard army you should not be worried about cost effectiveness, it can put a S8 shot into tanks, it cant put a S8 AP3 shot into MC's , or it can put a blast into a squad, I run Vet units for now until i can collect more steel legion troops to make a platoon so with Bs4 and orders for twin linked Ill take S8

The ML certainly has some advantages... The numbers versus armor don't match up to the AC or the LC IMO but against infantry it may be another story. An autocannon hots an infantry target once every turn. In your exerience, how many infantry tagets get hit buy a ML blast? 2, 3...4?

I like the autocannon but am not wedded to it... what are people's eXperiences with the ML?

And A great point above about lascannons in Infantry squads versus HWS.

ender502

Blaggard wrote:Are you willing to pay the premium?

Definitely.

Lascannons and autocannons may be roughly equal at glancing AV10-12 to death, but that's where it stops. The lascannon is better at stunning, immobilizing, weapon destroying and outright wrecking vehicles. Any of these may have a pretty serious strategic impact, depending on the circumstances. Having the chance to kill the target faster than glancing to death means more survivability for the gunners, and it means that it can do a lot more damage in a much shorter time, which is especially important for things like HWSs, but killing things faster cascades through the rest of the game in other ways too.

And lascannons can hurt AV13 and 14. If you've ever come across quantum shielding, or tau vehicles, or ironclad dreads, or anything AV14, you'll understand just how big of a deal this is.

And lascannons are a credible threat to monstrous creatures, both wounding on 2's instead of 3's, and ignoring armor saves. And lascannons are a credible threat to TEq's, what with turning that 2+ save into a 5++ save, and is even better against MEq. And lascannons ID paladins and other multi-wound T4 bad guys, and it denies FNP.

In large numbers, lascannons have better force concentration, and lower carrier costs. It has better of efficiency of fire lanes, better survivability through efficiency of cover saves, and gives you better efficiency of officer orders.

People here can ignore the facts all they want, but the lascannon is better.

 Ailaros wrote:

Blaggard wrote:Are you willing to pay the premium?

Definitely.

Lascannons and autocannons may be roughly equal at glancing AV10-12 to death, but that's where it stops. The lascannon is better at stunning, immobilizing, weapon destroying and outright wrecking vehicles. Any of these may have a pretty serious strategic impact, depending on the circumstances. Having the chance to kill the target faster than glancing to death means more survivability for the gunners, and it means that it can do a lot more damage in a much shorter time, which is especially important for things like HWSs, but killing things faster cascades through the rest of the game in other ways too.

And lascannons can hurt AV13 and 14. If you've ever come across quantum shielding, or tau vehicles, or ironclad dreads, or anything AV14, you'll understand just how big of a deal this is.

And lascannons are a credible threat to monstrous creatures, both wounding on 2's instead of 3's, and ignoring armor saves. And lascannons are a credible threat to TEq's, what with turning that 2+ save into a 5++ save, and is even better against MEq. And lascannons ID paladins and other multi-wound T4 bad guys, and it denies FNP.

In large numbers, lascannons have better force concentration, and lower carrier costs. It has better of efficiency of fire lanes, better survivability through efficiency of cover saves, and gives you better efficiency of officer orders.

People here can ignore the facts all they want, but the lascannon is better.

Is the lascannon better at killing an ork horde than an autocannon? No.
Is the autocannon better at killing AV13. No.

The lascannon is better at somethings..and not as good at others. Is that distinction too complex?

As you state, for some targets only a lascannon will do. Of course, that is why everyone seems to agree that mass autocannon fire versus AV13 and AV14 is silly and you should use a lascannon or other AT elements to do those jobs.

Your argument about the cost of cariers is a false one. It assumes the player will be buy X more autocannon units to make them AS GOOD as a lascannon at killing AV13. This is ridiculous. Autocannons are best for killing infantry and light vehicles. You don't just buy more autocannons to make them as good as a lascannon. You buy lascannons for AV13 and 14 targets...or melta vets, or vendettas, or lrbt or colossus, etc.... There is no increased carrier cost so long as you buy a mix of weapons..with each assigned its own specific tasks.

But to use your flawed logic...the lascannon's cost is much higher thanthe autocannons versus killing hordes. Why? Because you need twice as many lascannons you achieve the sam enumber of hits as an autocannon. Could I make that argument from your example? Yes. Will I? No. Why? Because it is dumb. What kind of player depends on lascannons to kill gaunts?...

Your "facts" seem to be based on the idea that everyone desinging their army is pretty dumb. Most of us hold out little hope of defeating AV13 with an autocannon. We use OTHER AT elements for that. Do you have other AT elements in yoru army? I know I do.

ender502

 ender502 wrote:

Your "facts" seem to be based on the idea that everyone desinging their army is pretty dumb. Most of us hold out little hope of defeating AV13 with an autocannon. We use OTHER AT elements for that. Do you have other AT elements in yoru army? I know I do.

But then... Why couldn't we have something else to be better against hordes?

Say, you take Lascannons and Manticores with them. Now you have all kinds of firepower there. Anti-TEQ, anti-MC, anti-whatever. You just choose your target and you will have a weapon that can deal with it effectively.

Now, take autocannons with Manticores. Ooookay... Now you will kill TEQ with what? Massed AC fire? Sounds like waste of (ineffective) firepower. So you will end up with a smaller range of possible targets to take out effectively, thus kinda' weakening the overall optimal damage output of your army.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 ender502 wrote:

Your "facts" seem to be based on the idea that everyone desinging their army is pretty dumb. Most of us hold out little hope of defeating AV13 with an autocannon. We use OTHER AT elements for that. Do you have other AT elements in yoru army? I know I do.

But then... Why couldn't we have something else to be better against hordes?

Say, you take Lascannons and Manticores with them. Now you have all kinds of firepower there. Anti-TEQ, anti-MC, anti-whatever. You just choose your target and you will have a weapon that can deal with it effectively.

Now, take autocannons with Manticores. Ooookay... Now you will kill TEQ with what? Massed AC fire? Sounds like waste of (ineffective) firepower. So you will end up with a smaller range of possible targets to take out effectively, thus kinda' weakening the overall optimal damage output of your army.

Exactly!

Thank you for going beyond "X is better than Y."

Autocannons are not necesarily the best at anti-horde. Better than lascannons? Sure...but versus a manticore? what about versus just plain old missile launchers? Not sure at all. Templates are tough to quantify. What have your experience been? How many models can you normally hit with a small blast? A large one? If we can agree on a number of hits than we can start to quantify some numbers as above. heck..what about griffins versus a manticore? Aren't griffins about half the price?

In my army I like 2 griffins in concert with about 6 AC for thinning out hordes. For AT I like a CCS lascannon, 3 x vendettas, 3 x melta vets, and to a lesser degree 2 x LRBT.

See, now this is becoming a conversation.

ender502

6 mortars are cheaper than 2 griffins. Same range, 2 less strength and 2 less AP, but 6 small blasts rather than 2 large and you get 30 points for more things.

 Ailaros wrote:

Blaggard wrote:Are you willing to pay the premium?

Definitely.

My question should have been "Do you want to spend 200 points on 10 lascannons or 100 points on 10 autocannons" on your infantry squads. That 100 points could be spent on other things. You answer this question later on.

Lascannons and autocannons may be roughly equal at glancing AV10-12 to death, but that's where it stops. The lascannon is better at stunning, immobilizing, weapon destroying and outright wrecking vehicles.

Well, no. Autocannons can kill AV10-12 for half the cost of lascannons. Chart posted earlier shows this. At AV12 autocannons have got a better chance of glancing it to death than the same points worth of lascannons of glancing + wrecking/sploding. They are even better against

Any of these may have a pretty serious strategic impact, depending on the circumstances. Having the chance to kill the target faster than glancing to death means more survivability for the gunners, and it means that it can do a lot more damage in a much shorter time, which is especially important for things like HWSs, but killing things faster cascades through the rest of the game in other ways too.

Since you're posting in favour of the lascannon, what you're gambling on here is not "it will most probably kill it early on" but rather "it may kill it early on". But because I've shown that autocannons do it for almost half the points. You can use those saved points elsewhere for more efficient dakka.

And lascannons can hurt AV13 and 14. If you've ever come across quantum shielding, or tau vehicles, or ironclad dreads, or anything AV14, you'll understand just how big of a deal this is.

Autocannons can deal with AV13 more cheaply than LC as well. In this instance it's only 50 points spent per turn. I agree with the hurting AV14, but it's incredibly inefficient to do so. You're having to spend almost 350/500 points to hope to wreck&splode/glance to death it in a single turn.

And lascannons are a credible threat to monstrous creatures, both wounding on 2's instead of 3's, and ignoring armor saves. And lascannons are a credible threat to TEq's, what with turning that 2+ save into a 5++ save, and is even better against MEq. And lascannons ID paladins and other multi-wound T4 bad guys, and it denies FNP.

Autocannons do it cheaper, as per the chart shown on page 1. Autocannon cost to wound t4 2+ is ~80, LC to wound t4 5+ is also 80. If they spend points on stormsheilds? The LC goes up to 150, the autocannons still at 80. Monstrous creatures? Same thing.

In large numbers, lascannons have better force concentration, and lower carrier costs. It has better of efficiency of fire lanes, better survivability through efficiency of cover saves, and gives you better efficiency of officer orders.

I disagree with the ones I've stroked out. This is because I think that because of the carrier costs you will be bringing the same amount of autocannons as you would lascannons, you're just using the points elsewhere on different weapons or carriers.

People here can ignore the facts all they want, but the lascannon is better.

Only for 1/5 reasons you've listed. I'm not even convinced on force concentration either.

 Ailaros wrote:
People here can ignore the facts all they want, but the lascannon is better.

Too vague.

You're claiming a specialized weapon being better at its specialty makes it better than a multitool that does other stuff pretty nicely in addition to doing quite well at AV12 and lower

ender502 wrote:Is the lascannon better at killing an ork horde than an autocannon? No.
Is the autocannon better at killing AV13. No.

The lascannon is better at somethings..and not as good at others. Is that distinction too complex?

No it's not, but you're missing subtleties here. Is the autocannon better than a lascannon at killing a mob of boyz? Yes. Is it GOOD at killing a mob of boyz? Not by a long shot.

The argument you're making is that because bolters are more likely to kill a tervigon than a lasgun, then we should all consider bolters to be premier monstrous creature killers. This is, of course, just silly.

What's important is what a weapon is good at. That something is better than something else really only matters if both of them are worth taking to handle that threat in the first place.

ender502 wrote:As you state, for some targets only a lascannon will do. Of course, that is why everyone seems to agree that mass autocannon fire versus AV13 and AV14 is silly and you should use a lascannon or other AT elements to do those jobs.

Yes, and then expand it out. AV13 and AV14 are just two things that the lascannon can do well that the autocannon can't. There are many others.

ender502 wrote:It assumes the player will be buy X more autocannon units to make them AS GOOD as a lascannon at killing AV13. This is ridiculous.

Well, if you don't have enough to kill AV13 then you do, indeed, need to spam them, that or not handle them.

The fact that there are other things that can be added to a list that does one thing or another well does not in any way negate that the lascannon is still the best weapon against the most targets.

I mean, if you had a couple of Demolishers, would you go and look at your mechvets and think to yourself "you know what? I'll give these guys sniper rifles, because the demolishers can handle heavier stuff?". Of course you wouldn't. The best guns for mechvets are plasma or melta REGARDLESS of what else is in your list. If you can't make use of melta or plasma vets, then don't take vets. Taking the unit anyway and giving them crappy guns is what seems ridiculous to me.

Blaggard wrote:My question should have been "Do you want to spend 200 points on 10 lascannons or 100 points on 10 autocannons" on your infantry squads. That 100 points could be spent on other things. You answer this question later on.

My answer is still yes. They're not just better, they're better for their points.

Blaggard wrote:Well, no. Autocannons can kill AV10-12 for half the cost of lascannons.

BY GLANCING THEM TO DEATH.

If you can't understand why causing penetrating hits on stuff is better than glancing stuff, then there's nothing more than I've already said that can explain it more. You're just going to have to get steamrolled a couple of times and think to yourself "Oh, I wish I would have been able to kill THAT faster" to drive the point across.

TheCaptain wrote:You're claiming a specialized weapon being better at its specialty makes it better than a multitool that does other stuff pretty nicely in addition to doing quite well at AV12 and lower

Doing AS well (well, not quite) as a lascannon.

Furthermore, what other stuff do you think that an autocannon does pretty nicely?

 Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:You're claiming a specialized weapon being better at its specialty makes it better than a multitool that does other stuff pretty nicely in addition to doing quite well at AV12 and lower

Doing AS well (well, not quite) as a lascannon.

Furthermore, what other stuff do you think that an autocannon does pretty nicely?

If you look at them entirely subjectively in comparison, weapon to weapon.

Autocannon gets twice the hits a lascannon would when subject to snapshooting (and firing in general)

It will kill twice the amount of infantry with armor weaker than 3+ and toughness 4 and below.

It will strip hull points from vehicles quite nicely.

and I hear it bakes a mean soufflé.

I'm not denying the Lascannon is better at things like force concentration, penetration, and killing Sv2+ stuff, but I just think it's got it's own niche, so the comparison being narrowed to just anti-armor stuff is kindof silly.

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:You're claiming a specialized weapon being better at its specialty makes it better than a multitool that does other stuff pretty nicely in addition to doing quite well at AV12 and lower

Doing AS well (well, not quite) as a lascannon.

Furthermore, what other stuff do you think that an autocannon does pretty nicely?

If you look at them entirely subjectively in comparison, weapon to weapon.

Autocannon gets twice the hits a lascannon would when subject to snapshooting (and firing in general)

It will kill twice the amount of infantry with armor weaker than 3+ and toughness 4 and below.

It will strip hull points from vehicles quite nicely.

and I hear it bakes a mean soufflé.

I'm not denying the Lascannon is better at things like force concentration, penetration, and killing Sv2+ stuff, but I just think it's got it's own niche, so the comparison being narrowed to just anti-armor stuff is kindof silly.

Which would make the showdown come down to what kind of firepower you need in your army. Which explains why guys like Ailaros and I need Lascannons over autocannons, and why other players would need autocannons more.

For an extremely infantry heavy army, a large amount of lascannons is important to us because we want them out of their boxes and fighting on our terms. We also need to crack the hard targets because we have more lasguns than sense, and can kill most infantry fairly well. Things like the big MC's, walkers, and main battle tanks are what hurt us the most. So, we take the heavy weapon that can kill them as soon as possible.

For your average IG list though, they're relying more on vendettas, meltavets, suicide stormies, etc, and don't see the big deal in lascannons. They want autocannons to crack transports, but they don't need high powered AT, because all that comes in second turn for them.

Or at least, that's my theory. It would definitely explain the 3 to 1 results of autocannons vs Lascannons in the polls.

 Ailaros wrote:

Blaggard wrote:My question should have been "Do you want to spend 200 points on 10 lascannons or 100 points on 10 autocannons" on your infantry squads. That 100 points could be spent on other things. You answer this question later on.

My answer is still yes. They're not just better, they're better for their points.

Blaggard wrote:Well, no. Autocannons can kill AV10-12 for half the cost of lascannons.

BY GLANCING THEM TO DEATH.

If you can't understand why causing penetrating hits on stuff is better than glancing stuff, then there's nothing more than I've already said that can explain it more. You're just going to have to get steamrolled a couple of times and think to yourself "Oh, I wish I would have been able to kill THAT faster" to drive the point across.

TheCaptain wrote:You're claiming a specialized weapon being better at its specialty makes it better than a multitool that does other stuff pretty nicely in addition to doing quite well at AV12 and lower

Doing AS well (well, not quite) as a lascannon.

Furthermore, what other stuff do you think that an autocannon does pretty nicely?

They glance it to death for cheaper than the lascannon costs to pen and blow it up/wreak it on average. I've posted charts for the vehicles and toughness + saves on this thread elsewhere and the calculations for the vehicle chart elsewhere on this thread. I invite you to show me if I've gone wrong somewhere on those calculations.
The lascannon, on average, does nothing better than the autocannon. It's left with the role of "hurting AV14" which, if given to infantry squads and HWSs, is overly expensive for not a huge return. I'd rather give the Infantry Squads autocannons so they can focus fire and bring stuff down, spending the rest on SITNW or Artillery or Storm Troopers or something better than inefficient lascannons.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

Which would make the showdown come down to what kind of firepower you need in your army. Which explains why guys like Ailaros and I need Lascannons over autocannons, and why other players would need autocannons more.

Exaaaaactly.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:

 TheCaptain wrote:

 Ailaros wrote:

TheCaptain wrote:You're claiming a specialized weapon being better at its specialty makes it better than a multitool that does other stuff pretty nicely in addition to doing quite well at AV12 and lower

Doing AS well (well, not quite) as a lascannon.

Furthermore, what other stuff do you think that an autocannon does pretty nicely?

If you look at them entirely subjectively in comparison, weapon to weapon.

Autocannon gets twice the hits a lascannon would when subject to snapshooting (and firing in general)

It will kill twice the amount of infantry with armor weaker than 3+ and toughness 4 and below.

It will strip hull points from vehicles quite nicely.

and I hear it bakes a mean soufflé.

I'm not denying the Lascannon is better at things like force concentration, penetration, and killing Sv2+ stuff, but I just think it's got it's own niche, so the comparison being narrowed to just anti-armor stuff is kindof silly.

Which would make the showdown come down to what kind of firepower you need in your army. Which explains why guys like Ailaros and I need Lascannons over autocannons, and why other players would need autocannons more.

For an extremely infantry heavy army, a large amount of lascannons is important to us because we want them out of their boxes and fighting on our terms. We also need to crack the hard targets because we have more lasguns than sense, and can kill most infantry fairly well. Things like the big MC's, walkers, and main battle tanks are what hurt us the most. So, we take the heavy weapon that can kill them as soon as possible.

For your average IG list though, they're relying more on vendettas, meltavets, suicide stormies, etc, and don't see the big deal in lascannons. They want autocannons to crack transports, but they don't need high powered AT, because all that comes in second turn for them.

Or at least, that's my theory. It would definitely explain the 3 to 1 results of autocannons vs Lascannons in the polls.

Thank you. Neither is better than the other. You can argue statistics, facts, and theory's all you want but it comes down to what you need in your list and for your meta. I may have a dozen ways to bring LC's (I for one, have 2 Vendettas and some LC HWS but not a lot), so for me AC's are going in my infantry to cover that. If you run infantry, then LC's may be more useful to you to knock out armor. If your meta has primarily hordes...well neither will help you too much there, but an AC would help more than an LC depending on how well you roll. If you feature a lot of heavy AV or stuff like that, an LC would help more.

All this thread is doing is making people pissed off and causing arguments by making something objective which is actually really subjective.

 Ailaros wrote:
BY GLANCING THEM TO DEATH.

If you can't understand why causing penetrating hits on stuff is better than glancing stuff, then there's nothing more than I've already said that can explain it more. You're just going to have to get steamrolled a couple of times and think to yourself "Oh, I wish I would have been able to kill THAT faster" to drive the point across.

Except for one tiny little problem: even if you inflict nothing but penetrating lascannon hits you only have a 50% chance of killing the target faster than stripping its HP. If you consider, say, lascannons against AV 14 your chances of exploding the target before stripping its last HP are pretty depressingly small. And when you consider the fact that volume of fire can often strip HP faster than single powerful shots you run into the very real chance that you're paying twice as much for a gun that kills the target slower on average.

And yes, penetrating hits can shake/stun the target, but when you're focusing fire and killing one target at a time that's not a very important factor.

I've used the autocannon in abundance, I still swear by it but I know its limitations. For me, the autocannon is a well balanced gun for a well balanced list. Decent strength, decent ap, decent range, decent price. The lascannon is better in terms of tank hunting but it also has its downfalls. I field a lot of both weapons and if i'm honest, I don't think either is essential. Lascannons are not the best tank hunters but they do their job. Autocannons don't have a definate role so they can easily be replaced with more specialist weaponary.

If I had to choose only one of them to take I think it would be the Lascannon but there isn't much between them in my eyes. The lascannon will give me a decent ranged threat against tough targets with AV but the Autocannon gives me versatility and will seldom lack a good target.