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.

Hesperus wrote:
Several people have said that a lascannon costs twice as much as an autocannon. Not true.

If we're talking HWS, autocannons cost 25 points and lascannons cost 35 points.

If we're talking basic grunt squads, an autocannon costs 60 points and a lascannon costs 70 points, assuming no other squad upgrades. If you're shooting the heavy weapon, the rest of the squad is doing jack diddly, so you should really factor in the cost.

Does that change anyone's calculus?

No.

That is completely misinterpreting the way prices of an upgrade works.

Also

If you're shooting the heavy weapon, you can also fire the lasguns, provided the enemy is in range.

There are the codex-specific prices of the weapons listed on page 97 of Codex: Imperial Guard, and that is how they are assessed.

Interesting point Ender502. My area has practically given up on anything under AV 12 (except for the pointy ears) and that could be a big factor influencing my experiences. Simply put, the things autocannons are good at killing, I just don't see anymore. As a result, I feel more and more like they are useless. The few times I have come up against rhinos/other low av vehicles, they've performed well, but these instances are increasingly rare.

Something I've been wondering about though, is if the autocannon is really that much cheaper if you're trying to spam them. I've spammed autocannons before (like, 18 in a 2k list spammed) and I know what happens when you try to pull this. Simply put, you run out of places to stick the damn things. Let's say you want 100pts worth of autocannons. Although the gun itself is cheap, you still need available slots to buy the weapon for. This means you either need 10 infantry units with available heavy weapon slots, or will have to resort to HWS's. Long story short, I'm having to spend a lot on carriers to get the level of firepower I need from autocannons. However, to get a 100pts of lascannons, I only need 5 squads with free heavy weapon slots, which can easily be filled by a single platoon with no HWS's required. If lascannons are putting out roughly equal or superior damage to all but a select few targets, I'm getting better bang for my buck, because I don't need to spend as much points for carriers as the autocannon guy does to get a similar level of firepower and damage. Even if the lascannon comes out slightly behind the autocannon point for point, I'm better off with lascannons because I can bring more pts worth of firepower with less slots.

To demonstrate what I'm talking about in non idiot language, here's an example. I'm going to buy 80pts worth of each heavy weapon, and see how much I'm having to spend on carriers, as if I was writing a basic core to a list. I'm keeping things simple, and only using platoons, CCS, and vet squads. I'm not adding HWS's at the moment just to keep things simpler, but the trend continues with them added, just less extreme. I'm also not adding any other upgrades whatsoever. This is just to show what happens as you start to buy these heavy weapons and what happens to available slots.

So, to get 80pts of autocannons on infantry units in the cheapest way possible (without HWS's), aka 8 autocannons

That's 480pts, as is. So basically, you're spending 400pts on carriers to get 80pts worth of autocannons, if you ignore HWS's. If your goal is to get lots of heavy weapons, or at least get a decent amount of firepower from them, autocannons force you to either buy tons of squads to get that 80pts of autocannons or resort to HWS's. Obviously, no sane person is buying squads just for the heavy weapon, but what it means is that if you want to add a significant amount of firepower with autocannons, you're going to end up spending a lot on carriers for them.

Now, to see how many units I need to get 80 points of lascannons.

thats 330pts as is, and that's without even using the PCS slot, leaving them free to perform other duties. Ignoring the weapon costs, I'm only paying 250pts (technically 220 if you ignore the PCS) to get the slots I need to field the 80pts worth of lascannons.

So if both heavy weapons are doing roughly an equal amount of damage for the points you pay (aka 8 Autocannons are getting 80pts worth of damage and the 4 lascannons are getting 80pts worth of damage) I can actually get the lascannons CHEAPER by having to spend far less on guardsmen to lug the things around. I'm getting just as much firepower as the autocannon guy, with far fewer slots being used up in the process. By not having to get extra carriers to lug heavy weapons around, this gives me more points elsewhere in the list to buy other, more powerful weapons to make my army stronger. Admittedly, if you're bringing a ton of infantry squads anyways, the fact that it takes a lot of slots to field a decent pts worth of autocannons won't bother you. But for other guys like Ailaros, who fields two minimum strength platoons with a unit of SITNW conscripts each, he can get a 120pts worth of lascannons for much cheaper than he could get 120pts worth of autocannons. This means he's getting a similar level of firepower for "cheaper".

I'll try to edit this down a bit and condense it once I've had some more sleep. I've been working a lot this weekend, so I'm a bit tired. Hope this makes sense as to what I'm trying to get across. (and yes, in case you haven't figured out, I enjoy endlessly debating minute differences in completely unimportant things. Gotta keep busy somehow when you live in the middle of nowhere )

Would you mind explaining how it's a misinterpretation? And if you want to shoot your lasguns at the tanks you're shooting with your heavy weapon, go right ahead.

Quick edit: sounds like MrMoustaffa is thinking along the same lines.

Hesperus wrote:
Would you mind explaining how it's a misinterpretation?

Because the rest of the squad is still doing something. It's still claiming the objective, it's still providing a cover save and assault protection to the more important unit behind it, it's still ready to fire those lasguns next turn when you need to kill an infantry target, etc. Reducing an entire unit to a single heavy weapon just isn't an accurate model.

I'm assuming you think it's an accurate model for the HWS, though?

And obviously an IS has more value than just the heavy weapon; otherwise people would minimize IS's and maximize HWS's. My point is that, when you're comparing heavy weapons, you can't ignore the fact that you can't buy the weapon by itself. It would be like saying that battle cannons are free when you get them on Leman Russes because you don't pay extra for them.

Hesperus wrote:
I'm assuming you think it's an accurate model for the HWS, though?

And obviously an IS has more value than just the heavy weapon; otherwise people would minimize IS's and maximize HWS's. My point is that, when you're comparing heavy weapons, you can't ignore the fact that you can't buy the weapon by itself. It would be like saying that battle cannons are free when you get them on Leman Russes because you don't pay extra for them.

The way I've looked at HWS's is that you're paying 30pts for 6 guardsmen. You then pay the additional price for each heavy weapon, which with 3 mortars comes out to 15pts. This leaves 15pts leftover, which is your "premium" for getting to have the heavy weapons by themselves in a squad. This 15pts extra stays consistent no matter which heavy weapons you buy. Basically, you're always buying 3 heavy weapons, with a 45pts tax to get them in a 3 base strong squad.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Interesting point Ender502. My area has practically given up on anything under AV 12 (except for the pointy ears) and that could be a big factor influencing my experiences. Simply put, the things autocannons are good at killing, I just don't see anymore. As a result, I feel more and more like they are useless. The few times I have come up against rhinos/other low av vehicles, they've performed well, but these instances are increasingly rare.

Something I've been wondering about though, is if the autocannon is really that much cheaper if you're trying to spam them. I've spammed autocannons before (like, 18 in a 2k list spammed) and I know what happens when you try to pull this. Simply put, you run out of places to stick the damn things. Let's say you want 100pts worth of autocannons. Although the gun itself is cheap, you still need available slots to buy the weapon for. This means you either need 10 infantry units with available heavy weapon slots, or will have to resort to HWS's. Long story short, I'm having to spend a lot on carriers to get the level of firepower I need from autocannons. However, to get a 100pts of lascannons, I only need 5 squads with free heavy weapon slots, which can easily be filled by a single platoon with no HWS's required. If lascannons are putting out roughly equal or superior damage to all but a select few targets, I'm getting better bang for my buck, because I don't need to spend as much points for carriers as the autocannon guy does to get a similar level of firepower and damage. Even if the lascannon comes out slightly behind the autocannon point for point, I'm better off with lascannons because I can bring more pts worth of firepower with less slots.

To demonstrate what I'm talking about in non idiot language, here's an example. I'm going to buy 80pts worth of each heavy weapon, and see how much I'm having to spend on carriers, as if I was writing a basic core to a list. I'm keeping things simple, and only using platoons, CCS, and vet squads. I'm not adding HWS's at the moment just to keep things simpler, but the trend continues with them added, just less extreme. I'm also not adding any other upgrades whatsoever. This is just to show what happens as you start to buy these heavy weapons and what happens to available slots.

So, to get 80pts of autocannons on infantry units in the cheapest way possible (without HWS's), aka 8 autocannons

Spoiler:

CCS: autocannon

1st platoon:
1st squad: autocannon
2nd squad: autocannon
3rd squad: autocannon
4th squad: autocannon
5th squad: autocannon
PCS: Autocannon

vet squad: autocannons

That's 480pts, as is. So basically, you're spending 400pts on carriers to get 80pts worth of autocannons, if you ignore HWS's. If your goal is to get lots of heavy weapons, or at least get a decent amount of firepower from them, autocannons force you to either buy tons of squads to get that 80pts of autocannons or resort to HWS's. Obviously, no sane person is buying squads just for the heavy weapon, but what it means is that if you want to add a significant amount of firepower with autocannons, you're going to end up spending a lot on carriers for them.

Now, to see how many units I need to get 80 points of lascannons.

Spoiler:

CCS: lascannon

1st platoon:
1st squad: lascannon
2nd squad: lascannon
PCS: nothing

Vet squad: lascannon

thats 330pts as is, and that's without even using the PCS slot, leaving them free to perform other duties. Ignoring the weapon costs, I'm only paying 250pts (technically 220 if you ignore the PCS) to get the slots I need to field the 80pts worth of lascannons.

So if both heavy weapons are doing roughly an equal amount of damage for the points you pay (aka 8 Autocannons are getting 80pts worth of damage and the 4 lascannons are getting 80pts worth of damage) I can actually get the lascannons CHEAPER by having to spend far less on guardsmen to lug the things around. I'm getting just as much firepower as the autocannon guy, with far fewer slots being used up in the process. By not having to get extra carriers to lug heavy weapons around, this gives me more points elsewhere in the list to buy other, more powerful weapons to make my army stronger. Admittedly, if you're bringing a ton of infantry squads anyways, the fact that it takes a lot of slots to field a decent pts worth of autocannons won't bother you. But for other guys like Ailaros, who fields two minimum strength platoons with a unit of SITNW conscripts each, he can get a 120pts worth of lascannons for much cheaper than he could get 120pts worth of autocannons. This means he's getting a similar level of firepower for "cheaper".

I'll try to edit this down a bit and condense it once I've had some more sleep. I've been working a lot this weekend, so I'm a bit tired. Hope this makes sense as to what I'm trying to get across. (and yes, in case you haven't figured out, I enjoy endlessly debating minute differences in completely unimportant things. Gotta keep busy somehow when you live in the middle of nowhere )

That's an interesting way of looking at it..my comparisons above are a single weapon versus a single weapon. Cost was not a factor.

I think where your analysis is most apt (and 100%) correct is in looking at how to make the autocannon work as well or better than the las cannon versus av 13 and 14...well, av14 is right out the window, eh? So, versus av13 you need 50% more autocannons as las cannons. SO basically you are looking at increasing your costs by 50% as well (again, assuming the standard IF squad). In that case the autocannon IS more expensive than the lascannon. The other side of the coin is the lascannon versus av 11. In that scenario you would need 20% more lascannons which are already (for the points) twice as expensive and include an IF squad..Or putting in a total coost light. the las cannon is actually (when you include the squad price) about 15 % more expensive. Versus lower AR values you need to increase that by an additional 20%..so you get an equal firepower with the lascannon at an 18% increase in total cost...not a good trade off even if we are talking about a relative increase of only 12 or 13 points.

Ofcourse, the situation is turned on its head when you are comparing versus AR 13..and the utility of the autocannon drops by a lot.

In the end I think they both do different jobs and you have to pick the one that is most useful in your own meta. Like you said, you aren't seeing av12 at all. That would clearly make the las a better choice for you. This is very much a "right tool fo are the right job" sort of thing... for higher AV my army has other tools ..LRBT's, Vendettas and melta vets... The autocannons don't shoot at AV 13 unless everything else has gone and there are no other options....or they have nothinG else in LOS.

I guess I should conclude and just say this..... in talking about guard, a good balance of weapons is the way to go in a take all comers list assuming you don't know what you will be fighting. Huuhhhh...maybe GW actually did something right.

ender502

Yes, you're right, Moustaffa. In addition to the math favoring the lascannon for killing power (the existence of glancing vehicles to death causing some people to pretend like penetrating hits don't exist, or aren't better is puzzling to me), but it also has better force concentration. Easier to get more power on target, more efficient orders, and a greater position of your killing power in cover and with good fire lanes.

It's also more efficient, as, when spamming them, you have to pay for fewer carriers. As you mention, to get the same amount of killing power out of autocannons, you've got to spend more points to take more HWSs (or whatever) in order to field the quantity required.

 Ailaros wrote:
(the existence of glancing vehicles to death causing some people to pretend like penetrating hits don't exist, or aren't better is puzzling to me)

It makes perfect sense when you realize that death by HP removal is much more likely than death by the damage table unless you're talking about melta or railguns (especially now that random 'weapon destroyed' results don't act as a guaranteed kill against gun tanks). For example, let's consider a lascannon against the average 3 HP vehicle: assuming you get three penetrating hits, you have a 70% chance of getting an "explodes" result, but a 100% chance of wrecking it. If you don't have AP 2 you're down to a 40% chance of "explodes", but still 100% chance of wrecking it. Once you add in glances (a major factor with high-volume fire where you might have a 5 to glance, 6 to pen) and you'll find that while it's nice to have a penetrating hit most of your vehicle kills will be through stripping HP.

Conclusion: the most important thing now is to maximize your volume of HP removal, with any rolls on the damage table being a nice bonus.

 Peregrine wrote:
Conclusion: the most important thing now is to maximize your volume of HP removal, with any rolls on the damage table being a nice bonus.

Kinda the philosophy I buy into as well. We are guard, after all. Volume of fire is...sortof our thing.

Peregrine wrote:... with any rolls on the damage table being a nice bonus.

I'd say that killing a vehicle outright instead of having to spend a few more turns shooting at it to peel off all its remaining HP is a hell of a bonus. I mean, back in 5th ed, you could always kill something by glancing it to death through weapon destroyed and immobilized results. It is now easier to kill by glancing, but that still doesn't make it fast or efficient.

And that speed is very important. If you kill that land raider turn 1 with a lascannon, now those terminators are walking. That's a pretty big deal. If a trukk is barreling down at you, and you cause a vehicle explosion that kills half the boyz inside, that's a pretty big deal. And that's just exploding. Immobilize a transport, and it's no longer a transport. Cause a weapon destroyed result to a helldrake with the flamer template, and you have now saved probably several squads of infantry compared to if you had to bring it down the hard way with glances, all the while allowing that unit to keep shooting. Plus, once you kill a vehicle, it frees up the weapon to shoot at other stuff, allowing it to do even more damage over all.

The best way to kill vehicles is still killing them now, and causing casualties to nearby units, than killing them later, after they've already made a strategic impact, and allowing them to get unharmed out of a transport. Killing outright is still much better. Glancing to death is more GW taking pity on lower strength weapons than an attempt to substitute crummy anti-tank weapons for good ones.

 Ailaros wrote:
I'd say that killing a vehicle outright instead of having to spend a few more turns shooting at it to peel off all its remaining HP is a hell of a bonus. I mean, back in 5th ed, you could always kill something by glancing it to death through weapon destroyed and immobilized results. It is now easier to kill by glancing, but that still doesn't make it fast or efficient.

Except it does make it fast and efficient. Read the stats I posted again, even if you're doing nothing but AP 2 penetrating hits you still have almost a 50% chance of killing the target by stripping its last hull point before you get an "explodes" result. It's nice when your dice love you and you blow it up on the first shot, but it's not even close to reliable.

And comparing it to 5th edition glancing to death is just laughable. 5th edition glancing to death was an incredibly rare situation that required a lot of luck with the dice (or dice that hated you and wouldn't roll pens), 6th edition HP removal is extremely consistent and often happens faster than trying to kill something through the damage table.

If you kill that land raider turn 1 with a lascannon, now those terminators are walking.

That's a big assumption. To simplify the math a bit, let's assume that each time you get a penetrating hit you also get a simultaneous glancing hit (reasonable when you have 5s to glance, 6s to pen). You have only a 55% chance of killing it at the same speed or faster with an "explodes" result than with HP removal. That's a 55% chance to break even on your plan, and a 45% chance of killing it SLOWER with the damage table.

Glancing to death is more GW taking pity on lower strength weapons than an attempt to substitute crummy anti-tank weapons for good ones.

Read more carefully. The odds I posted were for lascannons. The only weapons that will consistently kill a target through the damage table before they kill it through hull point removal are melta and railguns.

Lascannons are awesome and all Ailaros, but I will have to agree that Peregrine has a point. I get redicuosly lucky with mine (as in, something blows up first shot every game it seems) but in reality, what the pens will do is slowly cripple a vehicle until the final glance finishes it off. Maybe you just shake it, maybe you immobilize it, whatever. The thing is you have to wear em down, lascannons just have a better chance of killing it outright. The nice thing is that with a lascannon you've got a better chance of neutralising that vehicle for a turn. For example, shaking that gun tank so it can't fire at full effect.

I use my lascannons just like I used autocannons. I pick a target, make sure I've got a good lane of fire, and then tell my opponent "that thing dies this turn. One lascannon or 20, it. Will. Die."

Of course, that's kind of IG in a nutshell.

And seeing all the stuff for autocannons, I may give em another try. I still stand by my statement that they feel useless in my meta though. As for the average guy reading this thread, just because I'm more for lascannons, doesn't mean autocannons are trash. I'm sure most people can find god uses for them in their area. Mine is just so crazy right now that when it comes to vehicles and MC's, its go big or go home. For people who have a wider playerbase, a balance between the two is probably the best way to g

 Ailaros wrote:
Yes, you're right, Moustaffa. In addition to the math favoring the lascannon for killing power (the existence of glancing vehicles to death causing some people to pretend like penetrating hits don't exist, or aren't better is puzzling to me), but it also has better force concentration. Easier to get more power on target, more efficient orders, and a greater position of your killing power in cover and with good fire lanes.

It's also more efficient, as, when spamming them, you have to pay for fewer carriers. As you mention, to get the same amount of killing power out of autocannons, you've got to spend more points to take more HWSs (or whatever) in order to field the quantity required.

I think you're missing the point..entirely. The lascannon is better at killing some targets and it is less good at killing others.

Moustaffa's point was 100% correct when asking an autocannon to be as good as a lascannon (which it is at AR10,11 & 12) for AR 13. Simply put, the autocannon will never be as good at hurting AR13 as the lascannon. This is much the same way as a lascannon will never be as good at killing a guardsman, a land speeder or a rhino as an autocannon will be.

Different tools for different jobs. It really isn't that complicated. Both weapons have their place.

ender502

I see a lot of people saying "for my meta x > y" now how about we extend this to tournament play where we don't know what to expect and so there is a usefulness to know what weapon is better.

Goddamit, going to have to do a chart for vs AV x now.

Lets ask another question: what should a balanced guard list be including for heavy weapons. If you don't like AC where/with what do you make up their rate of medium strength fire. If you don't like LC where are you mking up your anti take firepower.

Personally I take a Stalin approach to guard in that I preffer quantity over quality. Redundancy is our strength, we can weather the storm and dish it out. I am yet to field guard in 6th as I am still condensing what list will work for me. I bought 2 manticores to use, I have to refit my LRBT as I am not firing a weapon that makes me snapfire the reminding weapons on my platform. I bought one vendetta. And I like approx 65-100 infantry.


Lets say I went with the AC are suboptimal group. How would I make up the 18 str 7 log range shot that I was dishing out previously (these are not plasma shots, those never get left out of the list).

In other words what I want is practical application of how you would omit or utilize the weapons types you are either for or against. Stats in a vacuum only tell one story, the game we play is fairly dynamic.

Done, I think. Shows total points spent on killing a HP3 with BS3.



Not that convinced my maths is perfect (mainly because some people would disagree with the results) so I've added the speadsheet as an attachment. It's in open office format. Sheet1 is calculations, the weapon select is a drop down box.

 Griddlelol wrote:
I see a lot of people saying "for my meta x > y" now how about we extend this to tournament play where we don't know what to expect and so there is a usefulness to know what weapon is better.

I think that is part of the problem...there is no way to determine which one is better than the other in every situation.

For Guard it seems as if a balanced approach will work best.... I have specific anti-armor elements. I also have specific anti-horde/light vehicle elements. I always take a lascannon with a CCS because it is better versus any AV than an autocannon. It's not that the lascannon is intrinsically better across all platforms/units but it is way better in a CCS.

When I ran my numbers i just looked at either weapon "doing damage" that means glancing or penetrating. Because of the ability for pens to not actually destroy a vehicle, and vehicles ability to have multiple weapons, I think it is going to be difficult to add "penetrating" results as a factor. Well, at least not beyond "X% OF PENS = VEHICLE DESTROYED"

Past that you'll literally need to make a chart VS every vehicle and every vehicle permutation.

ender502




Automatically Appended Next Post:
BLAGGARD..THAT IS AWESOME!!!

I think that shows the basic cost of doing damage at the lower AV values is better than the las...the cost seems to equalize right around AV 12. At that point the las gets way better.

ender502

There are the associated fringe benefits of using lascannons. Like the fact that just because a penetrating hit didn't blow up the vehicle doesn't mean it's not out of commission for a turn. So if a lascannon penetrates the least it is doing is stopping the vehicle from firing. It can also force the thing not to move, immobilize it permanently, or remove a key weapon. So, the lascannon may not be able to shave off HP as effectively. But if it silences the leman russ or manticore or vindicator or any other scary shooting thing for a round or for the game, then I think it has already earned some of its keep right there.

So, with the lascannon more likely to penetrate, you're more likely to get the favorable results with a +1 to that roll. I understand it's a random chance, as is most everything in this game, and it's possible for you to get the worst possible result for your target (i.e. immobilized for a leman russ that was never going to move), but where the autocannon is more likely to shave multiple HP through glances, a lascannon is more likely to shave an hp AND get a nifty status effect.

Something to consider. It's not like that table or effects disappeared after 6th edition came out.

My main issue here is down to spacing and orders. Those 60mm round bases take up a lot of space and if you're running them in blobs as well as separate HWSs, then there's a concern in having enough potential order givers in range and making sure enough of the teams can somehow leach of the back of someone else's leadership. The leadership of HWSs is prety abysmal and there's pretty much only a 50/50 chance of getting that order off if you don't, say, take Kell in your command squad, attach a Lord Comm etc

If there's going to be a HWS reliant on their own leadership then I'd always put this on one with multi-shots. 6 shots at WS3 and I'm reasonably happy if 3 hit. With lascannons, it's either 2 which is great or 1 which is a disaster. I'd fancy a non-twin linked AC team to maybe take 2 hull points of a rhino/razorback etc, but not a LC team!

For armour 13 or 14 I'm looking at ordnance or melta to do a job and not really my HWSs.

I didn't take into account the Weapon Destroyed and immobilized because that'll make the maths more annoying (X chance to immobilize+destroyed Y weapons).

TheLionOfTheForest asked a really good question, and I have no idea how to answer it. There really isn't a true substitute for either heavy weapon on infantry. The closest thins is the vendetta against lascannons, but a vendetta can't contribute to an alpha strike, which is usually why you take infantry carried lascannons. The exterminator and hydra are close "substitutes" for infantry carried autocannons, but the hydra has to snapfire at ground targets, and the exterminator can't put out nearly as many autocannon shots as you could with infantry carried autocannons. The closest I've found to making up my lack of autocannons were leman russ executioners, as they put out 5 ap2 S7 blasts a turn. That's enough S7 shots to put a hurt on most light vehicles, and scattering can be a good thing if the enemy vehicles are packed in. But I've never gotten to test this idea in game, and it's a pretty inefficient way to handle it. To handle a lack of lascannons, you'd probably need to rely on more melta guns, and using things like suicide stormies or paratrooper vets.

If I were going to a place where i didnt know what I was in for, I'd take lascannons and autocannons in roughly a 2:1 ratio. And that's really only because of how they can cover each other's roles. For example, if I'm up against DE skimmers, my lascannons aren't useless, they can still kill skimmers. They're not as efficient as autocannons, but they can pull their weight. However, if I pull a BT player with nothing but landraiders and termis, the autocannon can't do much. the best it can hope for is to ding a termi off occassionally. However, since autocannons are cheap, and I didn't take a lot, it wouldn't be as big a deal. But that's how I look at it, I'm sure others would take the exact opposite approach.

I'm thinking just have you're infantry as 55pt flamer carriers with suicide SS and sponsoned executioners*. If HWSs could take plasma cannons that'd be a very interesting choice.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
the exterminator can't put out nearly as many autocannon shots as you could with infantry carried autocannons. The closest I've found to making up my lack of autocannons were leman russ executioners, as they put out 5 ap2 S7 blasts a turn. That's enough S7 shots to put a hurt on most light vehicles, and scattering can be a good thing if the enemy vehicles are packed in. But I've never gotten to test this idea in game, and it's a pretty inefficient way to handle it.

I've found the exterminator to be the weakest Russ variant I've taken so far. I avoid them now. I don't know if that could be a commentary on how useful ACs are, or how useful ACs are on a Russ which can take far better options. I find it interesting that you are considering the executioner to deal with low AV. I always try to pop the transport with autocannons or lascannons then proceed to use the Executioner to vaporise what ever was inside said transport.

To handle a lack of lascannons, you'd probably need to rely on more melta guns, and using things like suicide stormies or paratrooper vets.

I think this is a really good point. Missing lascannons on turn one will hurt the alpha strike, but on turn two, you can get a lot of anti-vehicle in. Stormies, vets, vendettas. These are also all good against MCs. It leads me to consider that if I'm taking these things anyway, the low-av transport popping should be in my infantry squads. It also gives a far more reliable chance on turn two. You don't have to worry about night fighting then.

If I were going to a place where i didnt know what I was in for, I'd take lascannons and autocannons in roughly a 2:1 ratio.

Does the 2:1 ratio of las:auto consider vehicles? Or is that just on infantry. My 1500 TAC list has Las:auto in a 2:1 ratio now I come to think of it. The infantry troop sporting the ACs and the vehicles or CCS taking LCs.

I would like to find a more efficient way of popping transports other than ACs on infantry. Short of allying GK and taking a psyfleman dread, I can't think of one in the IG codex.

Braggart - thanks for the awesome cost analysis graph. It confirms for me that both weapons are needed.

Moustaffa - I too go for a 2-1 ration of LC to AC.

My 5th list had evolved to approx 20 and 30 man blobs with LC and PG. HWTs with 6 to 9 AC. 3 LRBTs 2 regular and one Demolisher. 2 CCS with LC. 2 PCS with 1 mortar and 2 flamers.

My current issue is obviously retooling he army for 6th Ed, in that I need to figure out how to hold objectives. I WAS a static gun line before.
I still like the idea of LC and PG in my squads and AC for HWTs. You want to waste your time shooting at HWTs with AC in cover, go ahead (redundancy). I do try to maximize orders for my troops. I have 2 chimeras (enough?) to throw scoring troops in and one vendetta to put a SWS squad in to score. Like I said before I need to recustomize my LRBT,s one or 2 with the all plasma setup. Maybe keep he Demolisher although I preffer longer range than 2 feet for guard as it is unforgiving. And also how to fit in 2 manticores without gimping the LRBTs that will be squaded.

If hurricane sandy doesn't knock out my power I will post up a list later today. (Not doing it with my iPhone)

Well, only reason I see the executioner as a way to deal with low AV is that if I'm up against a large horde of flimsy vehicles, the things that the executioner is meant to kill (MEQ, TEQ) are probably not on the field. Essentially, figuring out how to use it in less than perfect scenarios.

As for the 2:1 lascannon/autocannon ratio, that counts for my whole army. Vehicles, infantry, whatever, 2:1 ratio if possible.

And to be completely honest, our whole codex can pretty much annihilate low AV. Even vehicles like the punisher which were never meant for the task can usually put a hurt on flimsy transports. The key then is figuring out what to shoot first and at what targets. In my exectutioner example, obviously I would wait until after all my infantry heavy weapons had fire. Hopefully, they would have popped a few transports and the executioner can mop up the survivors. However, if the transports live, I have a backup plan to stop them. Basically, redundancy.

Give him pask as well as *essentially* you have S8 autocannons and S6 HBs against vehicles.

Your line of thinking is similar to mine Moustaffa... still the problem lies in how the hell are we going to get to and hold points or the relic without dying. I have also toyed with the idea of including Pask and I have come to the conclusion that he would be nice to have, if there is points left over. I am also considering armored sentinals with, you guessed it, more auto cannons. These would give more av 12 armor saturation to make my chimera's be part of a larger target pool. I would possibly also use them as screeners for my Chimeras. The third reason, again more AC saturation. With 2 manticore's that I want to field and squading up 2 LRBTs (which should be the max I think) I assume I will have left over points to include them. I know they are fragile, however I think that just having more things on the board (that can be in cover) will provide too many targets for most armies to handle efficiently. In my experience if guard go firs and roll well, we can do a lot of damage. In addition most opponents we go up against wont be able to work through 1 or 2 turns of bad shooting, since they really need to optimize the number of our units that they are killing a turn. I find guard to be able to take a lot of hits before you start loosing effective firepower.

I've taken the easy way out when it comes to forward objectives: allies. Every time I've tried to sit a squad on an objective, it gets assaulted, or shot off. My fire-ball PCS has on occasion actually scored, but it's pretty rare that they manage to flame a target off. Nice, tough space marines on the other hand can sit on a forward objective without any worry for a couple of turns. They act as a great distraction and do a nice amount of damage. People under estimate rapid firing bolters.

When playing pure guard, I try to maximise the strengths we have: resilient blobs to hold home objectives.
Big guns and search lights for turn 1 alpha strike.