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.

Seriously, they are each good in different situations. I don't think you can conclusively say one is better than the other. You just have to make a judgement call based on what you face in your meta scene and what is the purpose you bring them for...

BryllCream wrote:Lascannons cost 50% more than autocannons for no increase in damage output vs MEQs in 5+ cover, AV10 and AV11.

I think the entirety of the sillyness of what's going on here can be expressed in just this one sentence.

Against MEq, you're making a bad comparison by not setting up the same parameters (with the cover saves), and against vehicles you're ignoring vehicle explosions. Not only do these kill dudes in transports, but stopping a vehicle now with an explosion is better than stopping it eventually by glancing it to death.

Plus, even if we assume that your conclusions are correct, what you're talking about is a weapon that has no increase in damage output in three specific scenarios (aka niche roles). And all you're doing is saving a few measly points. Meanwhile, if you look outside of said three situations, the lascannon absolutely eats the autocannon for breakfast. The lascannon runs away with it against heavier vehicles (important now that people are shifting up to higher AVs, and meltaguns aren't offensive weapons against opponents who know anything at all about movement or target prioritization), and the lascannon is strictly better against monstrous creatures of every type. And against terminators (including being four times better against paladins). Pretty much the only thing the autocannon is better against is hordes, but that doesn't really matter, because autocannons are a terrible anti-horde weapon (especially in a codex that gets hellhounds and manticores and punishers and colossuses, etc. etc.)

To put it briefly. You have the option of spending 20 points for something that is good against basically everything, or spending 10 points for something that is equal to a couple of tasks, and then much worse against the vast majority of everything else.

Saving a handful of points in this case is wasteful. Just find the few extra points and take real guns fir your weapon slots.

I feel as if the only folk still clinging to their Autocannons are the ones that don't want to buy more HWS's.

LC are predators and AC are scavengers. A grown man has good cause to fear a 600 pound bear, where coyotes are pretty much harmless unless you just had an accident resulting in a broken hip and broken leg. Then for a pack of 15 coyotes you're a warm lunch.

Ever smash a dreadnought or rhino down to 1 HP?

Ever have a vendetta break quantum shielding only to stun or immobilize an annihilation barge?

In both situations the AC out performs additional LC shots, by a lot. Here is an simple and interesting math hammer for you. AC v LC performance on the single hp wounded vehicle.

Odds per shot/volley to wreck bs3

Av10
Lc=6/12
Ac=8/12

Av11
Lc=5/12
Ac=6/12

Av12
Lc=4/12
Ac=4/12

Av13
Lc=2/12
Ac=2/12

Playing traitor guard I find ac have good synergy with flamers of Tzeentch, and the points saved from downgrading 4 lc to ac can almost buy me 2 more flamers.

Edit: Nevermind.

More math hammer.

Against 2HP targets a penetrating LC hit will strip them down to 1 HP 66.666% of the time.

Against 3 HP targets a pair of penetrating LC hits will strip them down to 1 HP 44% of time time.

After that there's no point in sicking having a bear maul an already near dead target when coyotes can do the job. Death by hp stripping should never be plan A, but gak happens which frequently puts plan B into play.

 schadenfreude wrote:

Against 2HP targets a penetrating LC hit will strip them down to 1 HP 66.666% of the time.

Er...

Wouldn't a Penetrating Lascannon hit strip a hullpoint 100% of the time?

 CaptainGrey wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:

Against 2HP targets a penetrating LC hit will strip them down to 1 HP 66.666% of the time.

Er...

Wouldn't a Penetrating Lascannon hit strip a hullpoint 100% of the time?

The remaining third strips it down to a burning crater.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:

Against 2HP targets a penetrating LC hit will strip them down to 1 HP 66.666% of the time.

Er...

Wouldn't a Penetrating Lascannon hit strip a hullpoint 100% of the time?

The remaining third strips it down to a burning crater.

I see. Interesting way of representing such a result. Makes it look as if 33% of the time it just does nothing.

 CaptainGrey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:

Against 2HP targets a penetrating LC hit will strip them down to 1 HP 66.666% of the time.

Er...

Wouldn't a Penetrating Lascannon hit strip a hullpoint 100% of the time?

The remaining third strips it down to a burning crater.

I see. Interesting way of representing such a result. Makes it look as if 33% of the time it just does nothing.

Technically it still strips a hull point

 CaptainGrey wrote:


I feel as if the only folk still clinging to their Autocannons are the ones that don't want to buy more HWS's.

I think if you are putting Las in HWS you are missing something....important. HWS are too fragile a unit to put a Lascannon.

Alairos- I think you are still missing the point. The question is not what is better, the AC or the Las, but are there better options to fulfill the roles that each are supposed to fill? In terms of the Las, I think there are vastly better options. Most notably, melta vets versus vehicles and plasma vets versus MEQ, TEQs and Monstrous creatures, vendettas versus any vehicle.

Personally, I think everyone would benefit from a discussion on options to the AC as well as the Las. I think Las are incredibly important but i wouldn't put it in an IS. I would always drop it on a BS4 unit or a TL unit. Putting a Las on a vet squad would seem to be great (bs4) but ignores the greatest advantage of the vets, BS4 and multiple special weapons.

ender502

Well the qusstion is for 40pts would it better to have 8x Autocannon Shots or 2x Lascannon shot. The purpose of the need for either in the this list was a turn 1 & maybe 2 Alpha Strike capability.

In this case which would be of more use. I'm actually going to go with the Autocannon on this one.

You have to account for carrier cost as well.
if you go along the lines of ailorous where "effectiveness is king" then the 2 lascannon shots will be better. Maybe.
If you go along the lines where "efficiency is king" then 8 autocannon shots is better.
Only when the carrier cost is >70
And that includes special weapons
and PCS tax.

PCS tax? Excuse me?

The PCS is outstanding. 4 special weapon slots on a 30 point scoring unit? Yes please.

 ender502 wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:


I feel as if the only folk still clinging to their Autocannons are the ones that don't want to buy more HWS's.

I think if you are putting Las in HWS you are missing something....important. HWS are too fragile a unit to put a Lascannon.

No one said anything about using HWS's, but the new boxes come in squads of 3. 3 Teams. One HWS. How you split them up is up to your discretion.

Alairos- I think you are still missing the point. The question is not what is better, the AC or the Las, but are there better options to fulfill the roles that each are supposed to fill? In terms of the Las, I think there are vastly better options. Most notably, melta vets versus vehicles and plasma vets versus MEQ, TEQs and Monstrous creatures, vendettas versus any vehicle.

Yeah, Lascannons are better on Vendettas, and Melta is better at killing AV14, but Lascannons are still the most useful heavy weapon, so why give your guardsmen a less useful one if they're going to be firing at stuff regardless?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Corollax wrote:
PCS tax? Excuse me?

The PCS is outstanding. 4 special weapon slots on a 30 point scoring unit? Yes please.

It's really not that hot. It's 5 guardsmen.

The Carrier cost has been covered. The post was started as a possible upgrade to a few Vet squads in Chineras.

 BryllCream wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 CaptainGrey wrote:

 schadenfreude wrote:

Against 2HP targets a penetrating LC hit will strip them down to 1 HP 66.666% of the time.

Er...

Wouldn't a Penetrating Lascannon hit strip a hullpoint 100% of the time?

The remaining third strips it down to a burning crater.

I see. Interesting way of representing such a result. Makes it look as if 33% of the time it just does nothing.

Technically it still strips a hull point

If this were YMDC we could spend the next 15 pages debating if it strips a HP before exploding or if exploding invalidates it as a target for having it's hull point stripped...

I think the interesting question is what should the ratio of AC to LC shots be?

I think as a minimum an army should have at least 1 ac per vendetta.

6 AC shots on a HWS is a silly amount of firepower on a very fragile unit. 3 LC on a HWS is an even more silly amount of firepower on a very fragile unit.

I don't even think PCS or CCS should be sporting a LC due to the squad being too fragile. It's a fragile 5 man squad with the officers attached that already draws too much firepower onto it without a LC. Adding a LC to a 5 man squad only helps remind an opponent that they should really be shooting at it if possible. Adding an AC to a 5 man squad while the LC are in the 10 man squads doesn't help draw more firepower onto the 5 mans.

I was about to argue that in PIS and PCS that the points saved was worth it to downgrade some lascannons to autocannon. But it isn't. At 10 points a pop, the only time you should choose Autocannon over lascannon is if you choose to spam heavy weapon squads.

I was wrong, Ailaros was correct. The idea of mixing autocannons with lascannons seems good, but you don't save enough points to get anything of value.
If you're running 18 lascannons, swapping 8 of them to autocannons only gets you 1 more lascannon squad.

-Matt

Corollax wrote:
PCS tax? Excuse me?

The PCS is outstanding. 4 special weapon slots on a 30 point scoring unit? Yes please.

You still *have* to take them. I'm not arguing that they aren't useful but you have to do something with them.

< Taken by the void dragon. >

 Che-Vito wrote:

 Blaggard wrote:

Corollax wrote:
PCS tax? Excuse me?

The PCS is outstanding. 4 special weapon slots on a 30 point scoring unit? Yes please.

You still *have* to take them. I'm not arguing that they aren't useful but you have to do something with them.

For those dismissive of them, 4 Flamers on a PCS, in a HF/HF Chimera is a nasty box of surprises.
Will I claim it to be the build to end all builds? No.

But it certainly has it's uses for a 105 point scoring unit, that can give orders.

All flamer PCSis great. Put them in a HF/HF chimera and they are crazy good.

ender502

Problem is if you move you can only shoot 1 HF so your better off with a ML/HF Chimera so you can snap fire the Multi-Laser

 BryllCream wrote:
I was doing some mathhammer at work while bored (I suspect I'm not the only one) and I noticed that I've been missing a trick with autocannons. They'll get 0.37 MEQ kills per salvo (at BS4), which means they'll only have to shoot twice to get a decent chance of getting their points back. They're also handy for stripping hull points off enemy transports, and give your vets something to do turn 1. They also can be taken on my vets, essentially a "free slot". Obviously I'd take another plasma gun if I could...but I can't.

Yes they'll be snap firing a lot - but as i said above, only 2 rounds will get their points back. My average 1500 list would have say 3 mechvets, 30 points for three autocannons just seems like a bargain.

I never responded to your original post..which makes me as much of an argumentative jerk as some.

A single BS4 AC shot has a 19% chance of successfully wounding. The second shot bumps a turn of firing up to about 36%. The las, at BS 4 has about a 56% chance of a kill versus a marine. When you are dealing with BS4 i'd always go with the Las.

At BS 6 the 2 AC shots have about 16.5% chance of succesfully wounding. At BS 6 the Las about a 13% chance of a succesful wound. In that instance the AC looks like the marginally better choice at a few points cheaper versus MEQ.

ender502

 ender502 wrote:


Saying "the las is better" without numbers or context is just ignorant.

Mate, I'm going to refer you to this post, literally just a few above yours.

 ender502 wrote:
Why put las in an IS when you have them on vendettas? Why consider IS as a good place for a Las when you have CCS and Vet squds with BS4? If the point of your Las is anti-vehicle then putting them in a non-bs4 unit is kinda nuts. Heck, wouldn't you rather have vets with meltas?

If you actually think about it, you'll find that a balanced, non spam, approach to a guard army works best. You need las..but you also need horde killers as well. Las are great but are overpriced and over powered when dealing with DE raider spam. AC are great but kinda useless versus termie heavy armies.

Make all the claims you want mate. The math speaks for itself. Sure ACs might be marginally better in a handful of situations situations, but if you are not list tailoring, the las wins hands down every time.

Why does this thread have so many entries? The AC is a superior torrent weapon. It's great at dealing with low AV and units in cover that will ignore the AP 2 aspect of the lascannon.

But as the more complete chart shows, the wheels start to fall off ACs at about AV 12. Lascannons will also reliably kill heavy units out in the open (remember that one of the benefits of 2+ and 3+ armor is that you don't have to stick to cover as much) and instagib many characters.

These weapons might have the same range, but they have completely different optimal jobs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is another reason I love the auto/las predator; I'm getting some of each type of fire, so I bet the net damage table for the auto/las is pretty consistent across AVs, excluding AV 14.

Martel732 wrote:The AC is a superior torrent weapon. It's great at dealing with low AV and units in cover that will ignore the AP 2 aspect of the lascannon.

Except it isn't. Autocannons and lascannons are both terrible weapons against units dug into deep cover, and the autocannon isn't even more effective against low-AV targets, just more efficient.

ender502 wrote:The question is not what is better, the AC or the Las, but are there better options to fulfill the roles that each are supposed to fill? In terms of the Las, I think there are vastly better options. Most notably, melta vets versus vehicles and plasma vets versus MEQ, TEQs and Monstrous creatures, vendettas versus any vehicle.

Firstly, if we're going to use this criteria, then autocannons are screwed. Way more weapons achieve what autocannons do than achieve what lascannons do.

Secondly, I think that lascannons stand up pretty well using this criteria, actually. You mention melta vets, for example, but they are NOT a replacement for lascannons. Not in the slightest.

Melta guns have a tiny range, which means that it's going to be rather easy for your opponent to simply move in such a way to stay out of range. Alternately, your opponent could have a shred of common sense and focus their fire on them before they can get any solid shots in. Meltaguns (outside of being dropped in by stormtroopers), are a purely defensive weapon, designed to punish your opponent for bringing expensive things close to you, not the other way around.

Meanwhile, lascannons start hitting stuff more or less anywhere on the board turn 1. This is important. Lascannons dismount those barge lords. Lascannons break open land raiders, causing the cargo to start out the game on THEIR side of the board. Lascannons take down your opponent's biggest threats before they have a chance to do serious damage. Meltaguns can't do any of this because of their range. Even on stormtroopers, they're not guaranteed to arrive on turn 2, meaning even they aren't hitting things quickly.

Lascannons take things down right now. There are a few analogues to this, like the vanquisher cannon, for example, but everything else shows up either too little, or too late.

Meanwhile, autocannons are guaranteed to suffer from both problems...

Okay I guess I shouldn't have said "great". But if marines are say getting a 4++ from a ruin or aegis line, it's better to have the extra wounds generated by the autocannon.

But I agree. Imperial opponent who cheap out on lascannons usually end up eating fire from my auto/las all game.

Martel732 wrote:
Okay I guess I shouldn't have said "great". But if marines are say getting a 4++ from a ruin or aegis line, it's better to have the extra wounds generated by the autocannon.

Sure, better, but so what?

An autocannon shooting at marines in cover is going four whole turns just to kill a single marine. If those marines really need to survive, then they get a 2+ cover save behind that aegis you're talking about, which means the autocannon isn't doing bumpkis. The entire game.

That's terrible.

Moreover, it's rather splitting hairs comparing the weapon on this metric. It would be like saying that grenade launchers are better than sniper rifles against terminators, and therefore grenade launchers are a good weapon to take against terminators.

I'm just curious then; would you say for marines the annihilator configuration should be used over auto/las?

< Taken by the void dragon. >