<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them"]]>

<![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them"]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/69.page JForum - http://www.jforum.net Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them PCS + PIS; The template is the best way to mitigate Guardsman’s BS3 while still putting out some serious hurt on the enemy. Veteran Squads are not an awful choice as they can carry 3 or carry a Heavy Flamer+ 2 Flamers for Template redundancy, but are best kitted with direct-fire weaponry.

-Plasma Gun: CCS, Veterans, and Storm Troopers; Both of the first options can take Carapace armor, and the third comes with it standard which drastically improves survivability in the event of an overheat. Both of these options also have a BS4 improving the probability of a Hit with the plasma gun. PIS will do if the squad is equipped with a Lascannon as well as these two weapons paired are incredibly powerful (and when targeting Vehicles/MCs can be twin-linked to avoid over-heat/increase the chances to hit)

-Grenade Launcher: Anyone; The single most versatile weapon in the guard armory, it is both direct-fire and has the option to Blast-fire. Veterans and PCS can go Light Vehicle/light MC/Multi-wound character hunting with a Grenade Launcher while still being able to effectively deal with Horde-type units. This weapon is best used in numbers and/or Paired with an Auto-Cannon, Missile Launcher, or Heavy Bolter. Finally this is one of the cheapest special Weapons.

-Melta Gun: CCS, PCS, Veterans, and Storm Troopers; The key to a Melta Gun is to fire as many as possible at the enemy Vehicle/MC, Twin-linking them under Bring it down if possible. Beware the temptation to take too many as this will leave you with too little in the way of fire-power to deal with large numbers of enemy infantry.

-Sniper Rifles: Ratlings, maybe Veterans; You want sniper rifles in numbers and with BS4. Ratlings have both for the best points cost. Veterans can take 2 and a Heavy Weapon but the only good pairs for a Sniper rifle is an Auto-cannon, Mortar, or Heavy Bolter; and you often want your Vets mobile anyways.

-Mortars: Combined PIS + Heavy Weapons Squads; Due to the Fragile nature of a Heavy Weapons Squad this is the only desirable choice for them. You can hide Mortars behind LOS blocking terrain and Rain multi-template death down on your advancing enemy. They also have excellent Range.

-Missile Launchers: Combined PIS, PIS, and CCS; A very versatile weapon System, the missile launcher can mitigate Guard BS3 via Frag Blast markers, or threaten light-medium vehicles/MC via the “bring it down” order. A static CCS loves the Missile Launcher just as much as it loves the auto-cannon due to its versatile nature.

-Lascannon: Combined PIS, PIS; Dedicated Anti-tank/MC, the Lascannon is best taken in Combined squads of 2-3 and under the Bring it down order, this will allow you to hit more reliably and ensure heavy damage to your chosen target. In a Pinch it can be used on Heavy Infantry such as TEQs but the IG have no way of ensuring you can even hit reliably with the weapon, multi shot weapons actually work better on Heavy infantry based on the pure number of shots sent out, and number of saves forced. Static CCS Like them too, and hit more reliably, but the nature of the weapon limits the CCS to a single role.

-Heavy Bolters: Combined PIS + PIS; A dedicated Anti-infantry weapon, the Heavy Bolter is also best used in combined squads of 2-3, but with the “fire on my Target” or “First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire” orders. They may not have the Range nor the Strength of an Autocannon but the additional shot gives you a better chance to hit more enemy infantry and the AP denies all but MEQs their armor save altogether. With proper target allocation you can take out entire squads (even large ones) of close combat troops well before they ever hit your lines.

-Autocannon: Combined PIS, PIS, and CCS; Arguably the best Heavy Weapon available to the guard, the Autocannon is a Transport hunter that can easily and reliably be turned on the contents of the now disabled/destroyed transport. The Guard have access to large numbers of autocannons on various platforms but as this guide is dealing with infantry I will say this: Static CCS Love the Autocannon, it is so Versitile, and dangerous that no enemy can ignore it but has such range that few enemies can get close to it. If I am outfitting my Infantry squads with Lascannons and Heavy Bolters I often outfit my CCS with Autocannons, this allows the to have multiple shots that hit more often then miss, crack open enemy transports, and threaten any infantry that oppose them.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1403208.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1403208.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them ccs/pcs is being able to have 2 GL's to back it up.

I think the vets can take 3 SR's, no?

Sometimes I throw a mortar in a CCS, just so it can hide behind something and safely issue orders to the gunline, while still firing something. Nice and cheap.

Good analysis.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1403243.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1403243.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them AC+GL in the GL entry but should have reiterated it in the AC entry, especially with the CCS love for them.

Yeah Vets can take 3 Sniper rifles that is why I listed them as the other good choice, they are just significantly more expensive for it and do not come with stealth for free(as ratlings do), they have to pay even more for it; and do not have infiltrate(unless it is Harker's squad).

A Mortar in a CCS is a good idea(for reasons you stated) but wastes their BS4.

Thank you for your feedback and additional information(also for taking the time to read all this).

Spoiler: Forthcoming; Vehicle loadouts!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1403252.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1403252.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them SWS's. No love? I've taken them with SR's when my platoons are maxed out or I just have some models/pts left over. They get use in lists on Dakka, often with 2xflamer/demo in a valk/vend. I think the cheaper specials (flamer/SR/GL) work best, but I've seen them as suicide melta squads as well.

I guess they just aren't as good at delivering any special weapon's payload as any of the other choices. The only real reason to take them is because you're short on points, maxed your platoons, plan them for suicide, or want the demo.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1403294.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1403294.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them SWS;

And Demo-charges for that matter.

I will meditate on them and edit both in where they need to be.

I will say this: without adequate transport all Flamer SWS squads do is suck and die(although not as bad as Direct-fire HWS).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1403338.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1403338.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them SWS do need including, but due to their small squad size maybe just as an addendum and listing some of the more effective builds? (Flamer and Demo is my personal favourite!)

Good job!

L. Wrex]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1403362.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1403362.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them FRFSRF is for lasguns only, isn't it? (So won't work with heavy bolters).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1404634.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1404634.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
That said just note a couple of things. Firstly, the grenade launcher's real strength is that it is a small blast lasgun, as such, it really only pairs best with lots of other lasguns (like regular infantry squads). If you're using them to take down armor, you've just wasted 50 points.

Secondly, autocannons are NOT the best weapon the guard arsenal has to offer. Against light infantry, it is massively outclassed by flamers, anything in the fast attack slot, and anything in the heavy support category. Against heavy infantry, autocannons are comically bad (just do the math), and are WAY outclassed by anything that begins with "plasma" or ends in "cannon" (other than the autocannon, that is). They are totally ineffective against heavy armor.

So the autocannon, straight out of the gate is worse at 3/4 of the big target types than other weapons. The only category left is transports. Straight away, we can throw out AV12 transports (once again, do the math). This means that the autocannon has ONE use: AV10 vehicles. Even here, the autocannon loses to several options elsewhere in the guard arsenal.

As the autocannon is worse than several other specialized guns in every possible category, the only strength possible is its versatility. While it does lots of things, it does them all POORLY, so it's not really an advantage. Sure, you can chuckle smugly to yourself when you've got an autocannon vs. MCs and all of your plasma guns died, but that laughter will end when the MC smashes into your lines in the face of inneffective autocannon fire.

For comparison, autocannons are like lasguns: they have the ability to be effective against several kinds of targets, but that doesn't change the fact that they are bad against them all. In the case of lasguns, this is mitigated by the absolute throng of them you can take, but autocannons don't have that luxury unless you're willing to put down a lot of points, at which point you might as well build your army list properly and doll out those points to guns that can actually get their respective jobs done.

The guard is about specialization. We are not space marines. It behooves us not to think like we are.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1404729.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1404729.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Ailaros wrote:...

I don't think I could disagree more with this.

Autocannons are one of, if not the best, option for PIS heavy weapons. Why? Multiple shot, high Str, long range weaponry at cheap prices. Firstly, let's look at the alternatives;

Lascannon: Single shot, 50% chance of a hit, High S, Long Range, no way to twin-link via (ill-advisably) ordering with CCS, expensive.
Lascannons are too expensive and too inaccurate to be recommended to PIS in an en masse basis. These are far better suited on HWS that can then 'Bring it Down' much more effectively. If you have the points to burn, you may want to buy some of these.

Heavy Bolter: Multiple shot, Mid S, Mid Range.
Good choice if you face lots of horde. Not so effective vs MEQ. THIS if anything is the gun that piddles around the mid-field. Neither strong enough to target vehicles, MC or MEQ it really only works well vs its chosen target; horde infantry. You get these for free on 90% of your vehicles anyway.

Missile Launcher: Choice of shot, Long Range, High S OR Blast, one shot.
Another 'one shot' weapon that in a Guardsman's hands simply won't hit enough times to justiify its point cost. It's krak round is only marginally better than an autocannon, which gets two chances when compared to the ML's one. It can multi-task but this is not recommended. If you're buying this for your PIS you may as well invest the extra points and upgrade to lascannons.

Those are the major three people usually decide upon, now let's consider the autocannon.

Autocannon: Multiple shot, High S, Long Range, good vs transports, MC and throwing wounds at heavy infantry. CHEAP!
An autocannon is one of the cheapest heavy weapons available to PIS, it throws multiple shots which increased the liklihood of hitting. It has a good all round S which makes putting wounds on MC/MEQs easy as well as being able to effectively knock out AV11 (Rhinos and Trukks). It is CHEAP and so you can take lots of them!

You claim the autocannon isn't very good because it does lots of things poorly. I completely disagree. An autocannon performs above average in a variety of battlefield roles and can alter its target depending upon what you shoot at. No, you can't negate MEQ armour, but you can throw so many wounds at them that some will eventually stick. No you can't effectively target AV12/13 but you CAN knock out transports, which is far more important to line Guard than killing Predators. Plasma cannons are not very common in Guard armies, and when you can get them they eat into your points allowance massively. I'd rather take quantity over quality any day, which is both far more characterful and a FAR better utilization of your points balance anyway.

In short: More shots, for cheaper is far better than hoping you'll get lucky with that expensive, one-shot gun. Autocannons are the one weapon that allows PIS to effectively engage a multitude of targets and at least have the possibility of causing wounds/damage.

L. Wrex]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1404916.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1404916.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
So, let's run some numbers:

Against heavy infantry, an autocannon shoots twice, hits once, wounds 5/6, and gets through armor 1/3. This means for every round of shooting, you kill .27 marines. Is this better than a lasgun or a heavy bolter or a flamer? Yes. Is it GOOD? If you think that shooting for over half the game just to kill ONE MODEL is a sign that it is effective, I have to seriously question your definition of "good".

Now, let's look at AV12. A single autocannon will stun, immobilize, wreck, or explode (that is, stop) a transport that has AV12 at its front is .15. If they have cover (smoke or are moving fast), or are strategically positioned behind terrain relative to the gunner, they operate at .075. Even under the best circumstance, you need to shoot the autocannon for SEVEN turns just to STOP the transport (and if it's stunned, it still gets to move the turn after). Given that transports give you, at most, TWO turns of shooting before they've unloaded their cargo (thus making stopping them moot), are you really going to tell me that autocannons are "good" at stopping transports? Are they better than heavy bolters? Sure. Are they good? Absolutely not.

But what about AV10? of course the autocannon is going to do better than they would at AV12. In fact, a 3x autocannon battery is, I dare say, "effective" at stopping AV10 vehicles within that two turn time frame. Of course, they don't do it better than other weapons, but that's not the argument here.

And lastly, what about MCs? Assuming T6 3+, a single cannon does .22 wounds per turn. That means it takes FOUR TURNS to get ONE wound on an MC. Don't you think they might be able to do some damage in the meantime? No, autocannons are pathetic against MCs, regardless of how good they may first appear when looking at the statline.

Of course, I could go over things like light infantry, or heavy armor, or buildings, but it is self-evident that the autocannon is not only "worse" than other weapons, but it is patently "bad".

So, what does this leave us with? With the exception of AV10, the autocannon is BAD AT EVERYTHING, regardless of how much "better" it is than certain other weapons at certain other targets.

So, if you're fighting a crap-ton of dark eldar, then fine, take some autocannons. Few other armies have AV10 nowadays, and those that do can spam it WAY harder than you can deal with because AV10 vehicles in those armies are cheaper than are the autocannons which you brought to kill them. The only solution, then, is to bring lots, and lots of autocannons, thereby sacrificing points spend on other stuff, while playing deeper into the fact that they are less points effective to filed more cannons than is your opponent in fielding more AV10. Plus, the odds of a single cannon in a single infantry platoon are so long against any target that the sheer badness of the autocannon can't be mitigated by taking a lot of them (in the best possible circumstance, a single guard squad autocannon holds about a 33% chance of stopping a DE raider, and that's assuming that it's stationary, and in the open, etc.).

So, if the autocannon is, as stated, bad, then what do you take instead? I agree that lascannons are also bad (see my comments from the earlier post). Missile launchers are OK if you are planning to face a lot of multiwound T4 (tau suit spamming of doom, or picking off force commanders), but otherwise they're basically the same as a 48" flamer with a smaller template (still useful, but only in limited circumstances (and way worse than artillery)).

If you take these weapons out, you're left with heavy bolters and mortars. Both of these are actually good against the targets they're designed to shoot against, but they're also good against targets that the weapons of the other 9 dudes in the squad are holding. Sure, they don't pair all that great with meltaguns, or to a lesser extent, plasma, but if I were running those special weapons on my squads, I wouldn't bother taking heavy weapons at all.

Now, if you're only taking heavy bolters and mortars (or plasma guns/meltas), does that mean that there are certain kinds of targets that the squad can't engage? Of course. But that doesn't give you the excuse to waste time and potential making them BAD at those targets (rather than not at all). The guard is all about combined arms, not the versatility of individual units (like space marines).

In short, make the squads good at what the squads are good at, and bring in other units with other guns that are actually GOOD at what the autocannon is BAD against. The guard has the options, and the cheapness of upgrades to be able to specialize. It is this advantage which gives the guard the edge, not looking at statlines and making silly statements like "autocannons are great against marines!" just because they're S7.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405047.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405047.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them AP- rifle.

Heavy and specials are the guns that cause the damage, any additional casualties caused by lasguns are simply a nice bonus or, as is more often the case, ablative wounds that allow those heavy weapons to keep firing.

If you're suggesting I'm better off taking heavy bolters or mortars in a PIS because they'll make my lasguns more cost-effective (as they are 'good against targets that the weapons of the other 9 dudes in the squad are holding') then may I humbly suggest you ignore Platoons entirely and stick with Vets?

Obviously cold, hard maths is a strong argument, and admittedly I can't really compose an effective counter other than I don't simply fire one autocannon at a target, I fire three, four, even five to ensure the job gets done. This coincides with my previous argument of quantity > quality.

I think you may be trying to over-specialise your PIS to the extent that you're trying to squeeze every ounce of effectiveness out of them, down so far as to making even the lasguns effective. Whilst this is commerable, it is more certainly not advised, as you'll end up with an understrength unit that only comes into its own when the enemy gets to 24".

Finally, I never said that autocannons are great against marines due to their S7, I merely said that due to their afforability and shot volume COUPLED with their propensity to land wounds on infantry, they are more likely to force more and more armour saves until the inevitable does happen.

L. Wrex

Automatically Appended Next Post:
'Now, if you're only taking heavy bolters and mortars (or plasma guns/meltas), does that mean that there are certain kinds of targets that the squad can't engage? Of course. But that doesn't give you the excuse to waste time and potential making them BAD at those targets (rather than not at all). The guard is all about combined arms, not the versatility of individual units (like space marines).'

I have to quote this bit as well as, again, you're failing to see that having SOME CHANCE of dealing with those targets is better than having no chance at all. Take your above calculations and swap in a heavy bolter, and see how the results churn out that way. At least the autocannon creates a decent playing field to actively engage a multitude of targets, rather than shoehorning you down a particular path.

It allows some flexibility, some versatility, some adaptability, all of which are essential when composing an all-comers list, rather than reserving 2-3 PIS armed with heavy bolters and then realising, too late, your folly when you come up against a mech army.

L. Wrex]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405095.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405095.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Ailaros wrote:....

I think your logic is quite flawed. So, instead of taking AC's you recommend the Heavy Bolter on the grounds that it is more effective against its chosen targets.

Let's look at how much more effective:

Against a toughness 4 defender (and there are bunches of those) a heavy bolter gets approximately 1 kill per turn (sans armor). (3 shots * .50 to hit * .66 to wound). An AC gets approximately .83 kills per turn (2 shots * .50 to hit * .83 to wound). Thus, over the course of a six turn game the heavy bolter gets a measly one extra kill over the AC at the price of being substantially worse against transports as well as MC's. Moreover, if the enemy is running a mech list the HB may do absolutely nothing for the first turn or two of the game, while a lucky hit from an AC can really put a crimp in the opponent's plan.

I think the trade off between 1 kill over the whole game (maybe) vs. a much better capacity to engage MC's and light armor is well worth it.

I am more interested in how people think the IG should deal with enemy armor at long range short of the Vendetta/Valk melta suicide run. As we've seen LC's aren't worth it, most IG long range blasts won't reliably hit/penetrate armor 13/14 vehicles. As Air support doesn't really fit the theme of my force, I am looking for other solutions...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S. I also think you underestimate the usefulness of simply slowing one or two transports down for a turn. This really impacts how coherently the enemy hits your line which can make a huge difference, giving your better weapons, ie meltas, plasma, and ordnance a chance to engage fewer incoming targets at once.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405123.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405123.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
Also, you are assuming front armour. The presence of autocannons can restrict an enemy's movement, forcing him to keep his vehicle facing forward instead of turning to engage a juicier target. There is value simply in the 'threat' of a weapon.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405173.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405173.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
I give meltas to almost everything. PCS with meltas are just as effective as veterans at popping vehicles, and more so if you have an order. If I'm running a 30-man combined squad for close combat (outflanking), I'll give them meltaguns so they can deal with encroaching dreadnoughts or monstrous creatures, or even for popping transports before assaulting the contents.

Plasmas I reserve for Inquisitor retinues, and only occasionally will consider giving them to veterans/CCS. Stormtroopers can make good use of them too, but I don't use stormtroopers. They aren't a terrible choice for firebase infantry squads either, since they are almost always benefiting from orders.

Flamers I will use in infantry squads occasionally, but I prefer to use them in PCSs and/or SWSs. A PCS with 4x flamers is probably the best-spent 50 points in the game, and my standard SWS load-out is 2x demo + 1 flamer.

GLs are the default weapon for combined firebase squads (except the rare instances when I give them plasmas or flamers), or for mechanized infantry squads (giving me 4 S6 shots while moving, and adding an autocannon and maybe heavy bolter when stationary).

I never give sniper rifles to anyone, ever. Waste of time, IMO, as you really need volume of shots to make them worth it. If I wanted sniper rifles, I would grab ratlings and think nothing further of it.

I give autocannons pretty much to anyone that can take them, except never to command squads (giving up two special slots for a heavy weapon is not my idea of a good trade). I do not bother with other heavy weapons, as the price/performance ratio is not satisfactory. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405219.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405219.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
T4, 3+, (5+ cover) Cost per wound, (cost per wound in cover)
Lascannon: .42 W, (.28) 48, (71)
Missile Launcher: .42 W, (.28) 36, (54)
Autocannon: .28 W, (.28) 36, (36)
Heavy Bolter: .33 W, (.33) 30, (30)
Lasgun Fire, per 6 shots: .33 W, (.33) 152, (152)

T4, 6+, (5+ cover) Cost per wound, (cost per wound in cover)
Lascannon: .42 W, (.28) 48, (71)
Missile Launcher: .42 W, (.28) 36, (54)
Autocannon: .83 W, (.56) 12, (18)
Heavy Bolter: 1 W, (.66) 10, (15)
Lasgun Fire, per 6 shots: .83 W, (.66) 60, (60)

T3, 5+, (5+ cover) Cost per wound, (cost per wound in cover)
Lascannon: .42 W, (.28) 48, (71)
Missile Launcher: .42 W, (.28) 36, (54)
Autocannon: .83 W, (.56) 12, (18)
Heavy Bolter: 1.25 W, (.83) 8, (12)
Lasgun Fire, per 6 shots: 1 W, (1) 50, (50)

As we can see, the Heavy Bolter is the clear winner for killing infantry of all non-2+ non-WBB kinds. In return, it is pretty much incapable of harming vehicles. And it turns out the gap between the HB and the AC isn't that big, while the AC does threaten AV 10 & 11 fairly well. Your comments on how the AC doesn't synergize well with the squads lasguns is deceptive considering that you failed to give % for them. Lasguns suck. Without the Lasgun Order they will contribute less to the squad's shooting than the heavy & special weapon will unless the weapon match is pretty bad. And it is unlikely that the lasguns will fire more than once, maybe twice, per game. And then there is attrition too, while the heavy just keeps blazing away.

Yes, autocannons aren't that effective at dropping AV 12. But nothing much will work better except airborne lascannons and meltaguns.

Special Weapons are a much thornier problem with more externalities. Flamers and meltas are meant to be mobile or you run into the fire or move problem when they conflict with your heavy weapon, so I'd keep them in SWT/Vets/CS units. Taking a line squad without a heavy seems silly to me unless you are desperate for walking bodies or are using some strange melee blob. That leaves plasma, snipers, and GLs. I don't like GLs. They are cheap, but you get even less. Plasma is three times the price for three times the MEQ killing, plus better strength and the possiblity of rapid fire at 12. Snipers also tend not to do anything, but at least they have range. 25% chance for a wound before armor saves?
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405220.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405220.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:If you're trying to craft some form of synergy between the heavy weapons wielded by a PIS and *lasguns* then I think you're missing the entire point of fielding PIS. The sole reason you take PIS is to include heavy and special weapons, not to increase the effectiveness of a S3 AP- rifle.

Heavy and specials are the guns that cause the damage, any additional casualties caused by lasguns are simply a nice bonus or, as is more often the case, ablative wounds that allow those heavy weapons to keep firing.

This is actually a common mistake I see. You pay half a hundred points for 9 lasguns, and then you spend some more points to make the lasguns ineffective due to confusion of their role. Space marine players are also especially adept at ignoring their small-arms, which is why they are often trashed so badly.

Consider a basic 2 PIS platoon with three autocannons and 18 lasguns. The three autocannons, in a single turn, kill .83 marines. The 18 lasguns (without orders, mind you), kill .99. Sure, both of these are bad at killing marines, but it still stands to say that those "big, killy heavy weapons" you brought do LESS damage than do small arms fire. That's right, taken the list as a whole, autocannons are worse at killing marines than are lasguns.

But even this misses the point. Lasguns have a role. Lasguns kill light infantry. A squad of dudes with nothing but lasguns kills 5 light infantry models per turn (with orders) PER PIS. If you have the minimum of 4 squads, they kill 20 infantrymen PER TURN of fire. One of the dirty secrets about the new lasguns is that they are the best anti-horde weapon in the guard arsenal (next to possibly manticores). Do you really want to compromise all of this light infantry killing power by giving it something bad against light infantry? Even if it means that you make it bad at killing something else?

Of course, lasguns are bad at taking out lots of target types, but that is no excuse for compromising its effectiveness against those things which it IS good at handling.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
If you're suggesting I'm better off taking heavy bolters or mortars in a PIS because they'll make my lasguns more cost-effective (as they are 'good against targets that the weapons of the other 9 dudes in the squad are holding') then may I humbly suggest you ignore Platoons entirely and stick with Vets?

individual special and heavy weapons are worthless. Spreading around a lot of individual bad weapons by themselves in PIS is therefore a bad idea. Might I humbly suggest you put heavy and special weapons in HWS and SWS? Not only does this actually give things like autocannons the CHANCE of being effective, but it doesn't screw up all of those other PISs out on the field.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Obviously cold, hard maths is a strong argument, and admittedly I can't really compose an effective counter other than I don't simply fire one autocannon at a target, I fire three, four, even five to ensure the job gets done. This coincides with my previous argument of quantity > quality.

But this violates a fundamental of list-building. Of course 200 autocannons could put a dent in a marine squad, but the opportunity cost is staggering. Just because that quantity CAN kill lots of marines does not mean it's a GOOD way to kill marines.

I mean, if I told you that my conscripts were having a problem taking out marines, would your answer be to add more conscripts (add more quantity)? Of course not, you'd tell me to add plasma guns or some artillery. The doctrine of quantity can't be used to crucify quality. Otherwise, every single imperial guard army would be a horde of lasgun-toting infantry with frag grenades without any special or heavy weapons at all.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
you're trying to squeeze every ounce of effectiveness out of them, down so far as to making even the lasguns effective. Whilst this is commerable, it is more certainly not advised, as you'll end up with an understrength unit

Understrength against some targets, but strong against others. That's the POINT of specialization. Rather than being bad at everything, you're good at some things and not effective at all against others. The whole job of the commander on the field is to position their units so that they always face their most effective targets. non-specialization is just a way to overcome sloppy movement and deployment.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
I have to quote this bit as well as, again, you're failing to see that having SOME CHANCE of dealing with those targets is better than having no chance at all. Take your above calculations and swap in a heavy bolter, and see how the results churn out that way. At least the autocannon creates a decent playing field to actively engage a multitude of targets, rather than shoehorning you down a particular path.

Firstly, I never said that heavy bolters were good against transports. My point was that autocannons are BAD against them. The quality of the heavy bolter is independent of these numbers.

Secondly, what's the point of being able to engage multiple target types if you're not effective against any of them?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
It allows some flexibility, some versatility, some adaptability, all of which are essential when composing an all-comers list, rather than reserving 2-3 PIS armed with heavy bolters and then realising, too late, your folly when you come up against a mech army.

Yes, an army list AS A WHOLE needs to be able to cover all the bases. You're talking about UNIT-level stuff here. It's almost like you're assuming that there isn't the whole rest of the army outside of a single unit. I mean, if I have 4 PISs with heavy bolters and I'm up against a mechanized unit, does that mean I'm screwed because those 4 units are bad against transports? By no means! You see, BEHIND those 4 squads are 3 manticores, ABOVE them are vendettas with melta vets, AROUND them are outflankers and fast units. The REST of my army that is composed of things which are GOOD against transports are there to handle the transports.

The guard, due to the poor quality and inexpense of any one given unit means that the only way to play guard properly is to take lots of units and use combined arms. Space marines, on the other hand, aren't that way, and they benefit from versatility at the unit level (in part because they have no choice). The guard already need to overlap fire, and they have the specialization opportunities to overlap specialized firepower. Put another way, the guard has the ability to always have the best guns on the right target. Why throw this advantage away, and try to play the guard like an army it's not?

AaronG wrote:
Ailaros wrote:....

I think your logic is quite flawed. So, instead of taking AC's you recommend the Heavy Bolter on the grounds that it is more effective against its chosen targets.

Let's look at how much more effective:

Against a toughness 4 defender

Woah, woah, woah. Space marines are NOT a heavy bolter's chosen target. Are heavy bolters bad against MEq's? Of course. Does that make autocannons GOOD against them? Not in the slightest.

AaronG wrote:
Ailaros wrote:....

I am more interested in how people think the IG should deal with enemy armor at long range short of the Vendetta/Valk melta suicide run. As we've seen LC's aren't worth it, most IG long range blasts won't reliably hit/penetrate armor 13/14 vehicles. As Air support doesn't really fit the theme of my force, I am looking for other solutions...

I'm not advocating heavy-weapons anti-tank, actually. It's one of the reasons I don't advocate autocannons for use against transports.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405255.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405255.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
I am a long time IG player and I think that both sides make great points, but in the end I disagree that autocannons are the worst choice for a PIS. I actually feel they are one of the two best choices, the other being the heavy bolter.

Tossing out the idea that this is a Mech IG list, because they don't follow the traditional approach of IG list building, we can assume that its either a hybrid list using some tanks, some transports and a different types of squads, including HWS and combined squads, or a pure gunline choice that isn't using many, if any vehicles and countless squads in various forms.

The autocannon belongs is the lone PIS, one which you don't plain on combining with other squads, one that is basically in the game to hold an objective, maybe kill something, and if it gets run over or shot to pieces, hell, you got 2 more of things nearby.

As soon as you take that PIS and intend on combining it, or moving it, or mounting it up, I quickly shift away from the autocannon. Combined, you definitely need to look to lascannon or heavy bolters. FRFSRF with a 2 or 3 combined squad w/ HBs is, as pointed out, amazing anti horde work for IG. 3 combined lascannon PIS is reliable, steady AT firepower with a nearby CCS. The autocannon quickly loses its effectiveness because of being waterdown compared to the other heavy weapons.

And interestingly enough, as long as your KPs are reasonable, autocannons are excellent selections for HWS, they remain cheap and because of their flexiblity, they can engage numerous types of targets and prove effective, while not sacrificing a lot of lasguns or needing to receive an order to be effective.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405285.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405285.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
2. Heavy bolters doing statistically 1 more kill over 6 turns assumes you get to shoot for 6 turns. If your enemy is safe inside of his transports for 3 of those turns because your heavy bolters are banging away at AV11 trying to glance rhinos to death, the "one more wound over 6 turns" analysis fails horribly.

3. Autocannons are substantially better than HB versus MCs. If the MC has cover, the AC is substantially better than lascannons and missile launchers as well.

4. And, finally, you don't need the heavy bolter because you've already got 10+ S5-6 weapons on your transports. The platoon heavy bolter simply adds redundancy while the autocannon fits well into the niche between your multilasers and your Vendetta lascannons.

Stop looking at it in a vacuum. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405289.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405289.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Dainty Twerp wrote:great debate here. I disagree that autocannons are the worst choice for a PIS.

I didn't read the whole thread, but someone actually said that!? That's enough for me to ignore everything that person says forever. If anything, the autocannon the best heavy weapon choice for IG, given its cost and good performance against a wide variety of targets, particularly under the vehicle-heavy 5th edition rule set. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405297.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405297.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405299.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405299.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Dainty Twerp wrote:
...maybe kill something, and if it gets run over or shot to pieces, hell, you got 2 more of things nearby.

If the point of autocannons is to "maybe kill something", that sort of implies that the heavy weapon is there to support the rest of the lasguns in the squad (rather than some other specific purpose). If that's the case, why not do it right with a heavy bolter or mortar?

Dainty Twerp wrote:
3 combined lascannon PIS is reliable, steady AT firepower with a nearby CCS.

True, but it costs far and away more than 3x lascannons in a heavy weapons team. Also true for autocannons.

Dainty Twerp wrote:
because of their flexiblity, they can engage numerous types of targets and prove effective

But, see, that's the point. Autocannons AREN'T effective. If they were a weapon that could engage multiple targets effectively, I'd be all for them. As it is, they engage mutliple targets very poorly. If they can't reliably be effective against anything, what is the benefit of flexibility?

sourclams wrote:1. The autocannon versus AV11 and 12 performs equally well as the lascannon for 15 fewer points, and substantially better than the missile launcher or heavy bolter.

neither "equally well" and "substantially better" imply "good".

sourclams wrote:
2. Heavy bolters doing statistically 1 more kill over 6 turns assumes you get to shoot for 6 turns. If your enemy is safe inside of his transports for 3 of those turns because your heavy bolters are banging away at AV11 trying to glance rhinos to death, the "one more wound over 6 turns" analysis fails horribly.

HEAVY BOLTERS AREN'T TRANSPORT BUSTERS. Furthermor, just because they're not doesn't mean that autocannons do much more then "try to glance rhinos to death". Flamers are much better at taking down AV10 than are lasguns. Does that mean that you should take flamers if you are concerned about transports?

sourclams wrote:
3. Autocannons are substantially better than HB versus MCs. If the MC has cover, the AC is substantially better than lascannons and missile launchers as well.

but they are still BAD against MCs. A single flamer is substantially better than a laspistol when it comes to taking down MCs. Does that mean that flamers should be the anti-MC weapon of choice?

sourclams wrote:
4. And, finally, you don't need the heavy bolter because you've already got 10+ S5-6 weapons on your transports. The platoon heavy bolter simply adds redundancy while the autocannon fits well into the niche between your multilasers and your Vendetta lascannons.

That implies that every guard commander is bringing hordes of transports. If you are, you're not bringing hordes of guys, and it's all moot. If you're not, then were else is the anti-light infantry? In PISs, which are only helped by heavy bolters.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405313.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405313.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them frfsrf can punch out a fair bit of firepower on the right targets, but its often hard to pull off with everyone all up in your face in transports.

Pretty much every army I play against is mech heavy, either meqs in rhinos or orks in trukks, so my opinion is biased towards anti-transport. If I was up against a foor horde army, I would pile on the hbs for sure (I've got a bunch of them sitting on the shelf) but short of that, no thanks.

Don't get me wrong, the HB is a good gun, but I think its overcosted when compared to the AC because the AC can do everyhting the HB can do (although not as well) but can also do a hell of a lot that the HB can't. Flexibility rules.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405389.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405389.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405398.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405398.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
so thats why you SHOULD take the auto cannon in your platoons and remember you don't take one you take 4

auto cannon shooting at av 12- 1 hit .33pen so when you fire 4 of them you get - 4 hits 1.33 pens so for the sake of 40 points you are looking at disturbing your opponents battle plan from the first turn

what exactly do heavy bolters do --- well they shoot the infantry once after it gets out of its transport 2 bloody inches away from your lines

HEAVY BOLTERS = FAIL
AUTO CANNONS = WIN WINNITY WIN WIN]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405444.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405444.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Ailaros wrote:neither "equally well" and "substantially better" imply "good".

well know I have you figured out.

Every gun for the IG suck unless you apply them to their perfect situation and thank god you are a good enough general to always be able to do so.

In this case, you are right, autocannons suck because they don't kill LR like lascannons, don't mince hordes like HB. So in you're world its either white or black because that's how you play, always the right tool to get the job done.

that's a fine theory until you hit the table top and play armies that don't just sit there.

Dainty Twerp wrote:
3 combined lascannon PIS is reliable, steady AT firepower with a nearby CCS.

Ailaros wrote:True, but it costs far and away more than 3x lascannons in a heavy weapons team. Also true for autocannons.

and here we prove Sourclams observations. You do live in a vacuum and apparently base your game theory in the same setting.

Have you ever played a lascannon HWS? Have you ever had anybody try to kill a 30 man combined squad w/ commissar? I think you need to push more models around the table top and theorize less, experience is key.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405456.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405456.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Ailaros wrote:

AaronG wrote:
I think your logic is quite flawed. So, instead of taking AC's you recommend the Heavy Bolter on the grounds that it is more effective against its chosen targets.

Let's look at how much more effective:

Against a toughness 4 defender ......

Woah, woah, woah. Space marines are NOT a heavy bolter's chosen target. Are heavy bolters bad against MEq's? Of course. Does that make autocannons GOOD against them? Not in the slightest.

How about every orc in creation and a lot of Tyranids...?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405466.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405466.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
And this guy is really good at presenting skewed examples. Those autocannons are firing every turn. The lasguns get one volley, maybe two.

Troll?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405536.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405536.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
Three combined squads indeed have 18 lasguns. The sarges not having the option to buy lascannons is the dumbest thing in the codex, even more so than the RR downgrade character, the Stormtroopers, and the cost of all the Ogryn models (character or otherwise). But yes, all his examples assume the opponent is presenting the optimum target for whatever weapon he brings and isn't shooting back.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405672.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405672.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Terminus wrote:But yes, all his examples assume the opponent is presenting the optimum target for whatever weapon he brings and isn't shooting back.

BINGO!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405743.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405743.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Ailaros wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:...

No. Simply, no. Lasguns are a dreadful weapon. As stated above me I do not take a PIS for the lasguns, I take it for the ablative wounds and the scoring bodies that those 10 Guardsmen provide me with and the ability to take heavy/special weapons. There are also a few flaws in your argument. The most obvious one is range. That autocannon can fire 2, 3 maybe even 4 times prior to the enemy assaulting the unit, the lasguns may only get to fire once, perhaps twice. That needs to be factored into your working.

Lasguns may indeed have a role targeting light infantry but they perform so utterly POORLY at this role that trying to improve it is simply a waste of resources. Furthermore, if an enemy is silly enough to charge light infantry at my line PIS so that I can get those potential 20 kills then he is playing right into my hands.

Ailaros wrote:
Lycaeus Wrex wrote:...

individual special and heavy weapons are worthless. Spreading around a lot of individual bad weapons by themselves in PIS is therefore a bad idea. Might I humbly suggest you put heavy and special weapons in HWS and SWS? Not only does this actually give things like autocannons the CHANCE of being effective, but it doesn't screw up all of those other PISs out on the field.

If you put autocannons in HWS then there's something you're not doing quite right. I DO take HWS (SWS not so much) but I take them with 3 lascannons which, when ordered to BiD, are fantastic at popping armour. Yes, individual heavy and special weapons are worthless, but thats why you dont take the minimum two PIS and expect them to perform, I keep re-iterating my point about shot volume and I will do so again here. Furthermore, if you're scared of screwing up your PIS by pattering heavy weapons in amoungst the squads then by all means, field purely 9 lasguns sans upgrades, and let me know how effective and useful that squad is for you.

Ailaros wrote:
Lycaeus Wrex wrote:...

But this violates a fundamental of list-building. Of course 200 autocannons could put a dent in a marine squad, but the opportunity cost is staggering. Just because that quantity CAN kill lots of marines does not mean it's a GOOD way to kill marines.

I mean, if I told you that my conscripts were having a problem taking out marines, would your answer be to add more conscripts (add more quantity)? Of course not, you'd tell me to add plasma guns or some artillery. The doctrine of quantity can't be used to crucify quality. Otherwise, every single imperial guard army would be a horde of lasgun-toting infantry with frag grenades without any special or heavy weapons at all.

This may violate a fundamental of list-building with MEQ and other high BS units which are expensive points-wise, but it is exactly the path that Guard should follow. Our units are expendable, our weaponry cheap, therefore we can fit an obscene amount of it in for a fraction of the cost. Consider a 5-man Devestator squad with lascannons compared to a HWS with lascannons, the points chasm is huge and rightly so. This means that to achieve the same effectiveness we are entitled and encouraged to take more, which offsets to a certain degree the reduction in killing power.

If you told me your conscripts were having trouble killing marines I'd tell you to stop taking conscripts, and take PIS. With autocannons.

Ailaros wrote:
Lycaeus Wrex wrote:...

Understrength against some targets, but strong against others. That's the POINT of specialization. Rather than being bad at everything, you're good at some things and not effective at all against others. The whole job of the commander on the field is to position their units so that they always face their most effective targets. non-specialization is just a way to overcome sloppy movement and deployment.

No. Lasguns are incompetent and barely effective against anything. Putting 'lasguns' and 'strong' in the same sentence is laughable. See above where I ask you to take range into your calculations coupled with the possibility of you getting FRFSRF; lasguns. Suck. And to spend resources trying to rectify this is, I'm afraid, an exercise in futility.

I also disagree on your second point. Non-specialisation allows you to adapt and alter your battle plan dependant upon how your enemy reacts to yours. What commander in his right mind will sit there with his scissors opposite your rock? What if he deploys second? How do you counteract this? Yes, you could move, but that stops heavy weapons firing anyway, rendering the entire PURPOSE you brought the unit along for moot. Again, this over-specialisation at the expense of allowing yourself to engage multiple targets will only hinder you in the long run.

Ailaros wrote:
Lycaeus Wrex wrote:...

Firstly, I never said that heavy bolters were good against transports. My point was that autocannons are BAD against them. The quality of the heavy bolter is independent of these numbers.

Secondly, what's the point of being able to engage multiple target types if you're not effective against any of them?

At least it gives you the OPTION to engage them. You can prioritise your fire, focus on one target before switching to a more optimal one (crack a transport then engage the passangers). My point is, if you cannot engage that primary target with a chance, however slim, of doing damage in the first place, then your PIS is doing nothing. This game works on luck, and a small possibility is better than no possibility at all.

Ailaros wrote:
Lycaeus Wrex wrote:...

Yes, an army list AS A WHOLE needs to be able to cover all the bases. You're talking about UNIT-level stuff here. It's almost like you're assuming that there isn't the whole rest of the army outside of a single unit. I mean, if I have 4 PISs with heavy bolters and I'm up against a mechanized unit, does that mean I'm screwed because those 4 units are bad against transports? By no means! You see, BEHIND those 4 squads are 3 manticores, ABOVE them are vendettas with melta vets, AROUND them are outflankers and fast units. The REST of my army that is composed of things which are GOOD against transports are there to handle the transports.

This I agree with. BUT I think you're target priority is wrong. Vendettas and Meltas are wasted on transports, bar LR and Battlewagons. These are much more powerful weapons and should be given more important targets to facilitate this. If you're shooting a Rhino with a Vendetta for example, so that your PIS can than shoot the occupants, then thats one less Vendetta shooting a LR or a Vindicator. My PIS, on the other hand, has the potential to knock out that transport (even preventing it moving for a turn is good enough) allowing my bigger guns to shoot more important targets.

Ailaros wrote:The guard, due to the poor quality and inexpense of any one given unit means that the only way to play guard properly is to take lots of units and use combined arms. Space marines, on the other hand, aren't that way, and they benefit from versatility at the unit level (in part because they have no choice). The guard already need to overlap fire, and they have the specialization opportunities to overlap specialized firepower. Put another way, the guard has the ability to always have the best guns on the right target. Why throw this advantage away, and try to play the guard like an army it's not?

You're not. You're merely open to, and accepting the, very likely possibility that your enemy will do his utmost to foil you. Over-specialising means you have a complete lack of a back-up in case plan A fails. To take your above hypothesis, what if your Vendettas with melta vets get shot down Turn 1? How do you stop those transports then? Your heavy bolter PIS cannot do it, and your meltas will spend the entire game running into range, thus ensuring your enemy gets to pick his fights and automatically handing him the initiative. If the above happened to me, however, I still have 5 PIS able to target those transports and hopefully delay them to allow me better guns to get into position.

L. Wrex]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405965.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1405965.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them LOL, guard infantry squads shouldn't use heavy weapons and focus on lasguns, and now tactical marines have versatility? They only have that if you give them meltaguns, which means they aren't very good at tank busting and are wasting their anti-infantry potential.

PIS are way more flexible and versatile than Tac marines, as an equal value worth of combined squads can both outshoot and outfight them. PIS can be effective as single mech units with a GL&AC, they can be effective as smallish merged squads with GL/PG&AC. Or they can be large close combat units with flamers/meltas, and even these are good candidates for autocannons since you never know when the mission will call for a long ranged firefight.

But what do I know, my opponents must be braindead since I win games despite not playing "the only way to play guard properly". ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406024.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406024.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
An impassioned player appears and makes dozens of unfounded statements, and rather than jumping on the bandwagon and 'I see it from your point of view'-ing everybody has smacked him down and LOLed at simplistic, patent nonsense.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406194.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406194.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them FRFSRF, point for point, other armies' troops. Lasguns aren't negligible.

I would argue with him that autocannons diminish the lasguns effectiveness though - it's more how you use the unit than what it actually does mathematically. If I shoot the enemy infantry with my lasguns, it doesn't matter what special and heavy weapons the PIS has - the lasguns kill a few marines and I get my points back.

Taking autocannons in your PIS and only targeting transports the whole game when you could kill transports more easily and cheaply (for the level of reliability you get) with, say, Hydras or Vendettas isn't a great idea. Giving your blob of 50 men 5 lascannons and plinking away at a Land Raider the whole game is a bad idea because you never get to use the lasguns. As long as you fire at infantry, your Guardsmen are doing what they're supposed to.

Before anyone asks, I prefer autocannons (I like lascannons too, but that's another debate) - having a little bit of extra transport-killing power to demechanize an opponent in the first few turns of the game is more important than making sure you kill an extra marine every few turns.

At the end of the day, you are paying for those lasguns. Did you use the lasguns? If so, congratulations, your infantry served their main purpose. If not, you could probably get what you got out of the PIS cheaper elsewhere.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406564.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406564.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Jimole wrote:Lasguns. Suck. Sad but true. I dont pay 'half a hundred points' for my 9 lasguns, I pay it for the objective-capping bodies and wounds to wrap around my special heavy and power weapons. Whenever I shoot with a pis, it's the heavy and special weapons do the damage. Any lasgun kills are a happy bonus.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Lasguns are a dreadful weapon...Lasguns may indeed have a role targeting light infantry but they perform so utterly POORLY at this role that trying to improve it is simply a waste of resources...Lasguns are incompetent and barely effective against anything.

Lascannons aren't blanket very bad no good awful at everything everywhere. They're specialized. Lasguns are good at what they're designed to be good at. Quoting how bad they are against marines, does not address this point.

If the only damage you're doing is with special and heavy weapons, and the lasguns can't do anything, that's because you're picking targets that the lasguns aren't good against (perhaps because you gave them a heavy weapon that encourages you to waste lasgun fire).

If you want to waste all your small arms just for a slim chance at having a heavy weapon do damage, you do so at your own peril. I can't say how many space marine players I've seen in the past take 2 10 man tac squads, with the ability to do terrible damage to my guardsmen who then buy a missile launcher and waste over 150 points standing in the backfield, wasting their small arms, while trying to peel paint off my vehicles with the ML.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Furthermore, if you're scared of screwing up your PIS by pattering heavy weapons in amoungst the squads then by all means, field purely 9 lasguns sans upgrades, and let me know how effective and useful that squad is for you.

... and because lasguns are good against light infantry doesn't mean that you shouldn't give them ANY upgrades. Heavy bolters and mortars will make the squad even better at what it does.

Jimole wrote:
I think its overcosted when compared to the AC because the AC can do everyhting the HB can do (although not as well) but can also do a hell of a lot that the HB can't. Flexibility rules.

saying they can "do a hell of a lot" more than HB's implies that they can actually "do a hell of a lot" against anything. The fact that they're BETTER against certain targets that the HB is bad against doesn't mean that the AC is GOOD against them, it just means they're less bad.

croggy wrote:why does everyone think the auto cannon sucks at AV12 its just as good as a lascannon at AV12 and better at everything below that

Just because an autocannon is as good as a lascannon doesn't mean the autocannon is good. If anything, it means that the lascannon is bad.

croggy wrote:
what exactly do heavy bolters do --- well they shoot the infantry once after it gets out of its transport 2 bloody inches away from your lines

And they do the job well. Moreso than autocannons.

AaronG wrote:
How about every orc in creation and a lot of Tyranids...?

Autocannons will stop a huge mob of boyz before they waaaugh you? Really?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
At least it gives you the OPTION to engage them...This game works on luck, and a small possibility is better than no possibility at all.

Once again, what is the point of having the option of engaging something, when you're not going to be effective against what you're engaging? Why should we build lists on "small possibilities" rather than sound possibilities created by real weapons which are actually good against their targets?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Our units are expendable, our weaponry cheap, therefore we can fit an obscene amount of it in for a fraction of the cost. Consider a 5-man Devestator squad with lascannons compared to a HWS with lascannons...

I agree, and it's BECAUSE our units are expendable and our weponry cheap that we CAN specialize our units. Devestators are so expensive, that you're really only ever fielding one or two units. If these two unis are providing all of your heavy support, then they need to be able to handle everything by just themselves, which means they have to be versatile.

HWSs are so cheap and plentiful that the same number of tasks can be spread across a lot more units, which allows us to specialize our units so that they're good at particular tasks.

Dainty Twerp wrote:
Every gun for the IG suck unless you apply them to their perfect situation and thank god you are a good enough general to always be able to do so.

that's a fine theory until you hit the table top and play armies that don't just sit there.

Terminus wrote: But yes, all his examples assume the opponent is presenting the optimum target for whatever weapon he brings and isn't shooting back.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Furthermore, if an enemy is silly enough to charge light infantry at my line PIS so that I can get those potential 20 kills then he is playing right into my hands.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Non-specialisation allows you to adapt and alter your battle plan dependant upon how your enemy reacts to yours. What commander in his right mind will sit there with his scissors opposite your rock?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
You're merely open to, and accepting the, very likely possibility that your enemy will do his utmost to foil you. Over-specialising means you have a complete lack of a back-up in case plan A fails.

And here we have the crux of it all.

The whole point of generalmanship in this game is movement. It's getting troops onto objectives; it's getting the right guns against the right targets; it's getting your units in places where they are safe from enemy weapons which are good against them.

You are assuming that I believe that the enemy is just going to stand there while I line my guns up and shoot him down. At the same time, you are also assuming that the opposing army is going to be running circles around my units while I stand still - helpless because he attacked my "weak spots" (attacking with heavy vehicles in places I don't have meltaguns, for example). Both of these are, of course, untrue. So, let's take it for granted that there is a whirling melee, in which I am trying to get my specialized guns onto their targets, while they are trying to get away from my specialized guns and attack somewhere else.

If you take a high-versatility army, then your opponent can attack you anywhere, as you're equally strong (and equally weak) everywhere. It is not difficult to figure out how to move your troops to bring specialized guns against this kind of force. You make it MUCH more difficult for them if certain fire lanes are blocked off by heavy weapons which are good against certain targets, or if they have to get close to a part of your army without getting close to those parts of your army without getting close to others due to SW threats. Likewise, if you have a high-versatility army, then it is difficult to know how to move things around yourself. If you have lots of stuff that's crappy against your opponent's entire front, then how do you attack their weaknesses?

I think we can all agree that in a perfect world, you would always be able to soundly outmaneuver your opponent and that specialization would DEFINITELY be the best option in said world. Likewise, in a absolutely un-perfect world, where your troops don't get to move once they're deployed (and you always have to deploy first), then yes, versatility would be better. So how, then do we judge?

Firstly, as mentioned before, guard units are cheap. This means I can take redundant special units. I don't have to rely on just a single meltagun squad - I can form a perimeter of meltagun squads given their inexpense. The primary challenge of not having the right units in the right places is countered by having the right units everywhere at once. The guard are able to be redundant. As such, the guard are able to be specialized.

Secondly, 5th ed is a fast game. The problem of getting units where they need to be is also cancelled by cheap-as-chips transports and the fact that infantry can sprint now. If there is a surprise threat on the other side of the board that I need a meltagun squad to deal with, I can either mount them up and drive-by melta them. Or I can sprint for a 7-12" movement (more like 12 with orders), and then move 6" and shoot 12" the next turn. That gives a single squad a 25"-30" effective two-turn range with any one infantry unit. This is also all ignoring things like outflanking, and other methods of guard mobility. It isnt' the old, slow, gunline army in the old, slow, gunline rules edition anymore.

Yes, versatility does give you a proverbial "plan B", but plan B is bad, because it's guns are ineffective, at least as autocannons are concerned. Furthermore, it heavily sacrifices from your plan A. This would be worth it if you don't have lots of mobility or if you don't have lots of units, but the guard has enough of the former and way more than enough of the latter, to make this sacrifice necessary.

Yes, you can win game with a versatile army, espeically if you're facing off against another versatile army, or your opponent can't figure out how to attack you. That said, versatile armies lose to specialized ones in the right hands. One could appeal to experience (how many times have space marine armies fallen to guard artillery fire, etc.), but more importantly, one can appeal to math. Your army is always more effective if you bring a combination of specialized weapons and use them properly than if you bring a bunch of crappy, versatile weapons and use them properly.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406600.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406600.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them HB/Mortars simply do nothing for a turn seeing as you have no way of targetting the infantry (the unit you particularly equipped it to deal with)? Your entire theory hinges on consistently emerging unscathed from encounters, which simply will not happen.

The autocannon strikes an excellent balance between the stopping power of a lascannon and the multiple shots of a heavy bolter; whilst not falling into an extreme it remains an exceptionally competitive weapon. It allows you to divert and prioritise your targets taking into account what the rest of your army achieves, alternatively, it has the ability to engage targets that you would otherwise be wasting more valuable and powerful guns on.

Furthermore, you don't HAVE to move with a versatile weapon because of its inherent versatlity! You may have to alter position on your HB PIS which detracts from the overall potency of your shooting phase. I do not. My firebase will remain strong and still be throwing shots your way whilst your finding your optimal location.

You are deliberately over-specialising. A stated above, what happens if that unit gets incapacitated or killed? And your plan revolves around that unit doing its job? You may (and with Guard, should) have a second or third unit, but what if they are similarly compromised? What do you do? I at least CAN do something, because I have that inherent flexibility in my PIS.

L. Wrex

PS. Let's not drag HWS or SWS into this debate, those SHOULD be specialised in order to maximise their effectiveness. Let's keep this to the humble PIS otherwise this'll begin to get horribly convoluted.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406720.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406720.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Ailaros wrote:Your army is always more effective if you bring a combination of specialized weapons and use them properly than if you bring a bunch of crappy, versatile weapons and use them properly.

I'm sorry but I don't think this is accurate and in fact it can be quite misleading.

What we are talking about is a playstyle choice between generalist, multiple purpose units/weapons/armies that are often quoted as "jack of all trades, master of none" and the specialist, everything has its place and purpose units/weapons/armies.

Thats a great debate for another time but the two issues that complicate a simple playstyle choice is
1) The current meta-game
2) The point pricing on those units/weapons/armies

Just as an example. The current meta-game heavily features multiple low AV transports. This means to play well against the meta-game, your army must be built in such a way as to cope with this fact. In a comparison between Heavy Bolters and Autocannons, the Autocannon is typically better at busting transports. The oppurtunity cost of not using the rest of the squad's Lasguns on basic infantry is mitigated by the assumption that there will be little to no exposed infantry as they will be within the transports. This means that those shots will normally be wasted anyway. Furthermore they will only be useful if you can expose the target infantry by removing their transport. If giving that squad a weapon (Autocannon) to allow them to expose the infantry quicker is an option, it actually improves their chances of using the rest of those Lasguns on that infantry, thereby making the squad more useful.
Conversely, if the current meta-game revolved around large numbers of basic infantry, the Autocannon would be replaced by the Heavy Bolter or Mortar, as both fit into the that meta-game's needs better.

As for pricing, this is a factor of each armies codex and FOC slots. For IG, Autocannons as priced equally to Heavy Bolters for the basic Infantry squads. This means that there is no point disadvantage to taking a weapon that is better in the current meta-game (Autocannon) over one that isn't (Heavy Bolter). This is also the reason that its more rare to see Lascannons in Infantry squads as you are paying a premium for a weapon that is equivalent or worse than the cheaper Autocannon against transports (again refencing the current meta-game). You will notice that the Missile Launcher is not even mentioned, as it is both more expensive then the equivalent Autocannon and less effective then the superior Lascannon. For Codex Marines, this situation is reversed, where the Missile Launcher is the preferred heavy weapon and the much more expensive Lascannon is rarely taken, even though it performs the role of tank destroyer better.

I'll stop my ranting but hopefully its clear that saying "specialized > general" isn't a fair statement and a canny player will take in both the point cost and meta-game before making a decision about what is "best".

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406736.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406736.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
If your specialised tank-buster cannot fire for a turn or gets destroyed, whats your fallback plan? Your entire theory hinges on consistently emerging unscathed from encounters, which simply will not happen. A stated above, what happens if that unit gets incapacitated or killed? And your plan revolves around that unit doing its job? You may (and with Guard, should) have a second or third unit, but what if they are similarly compromised? What do you do?

I already answered this: redundancy. It does not matter if I lose a meltagun squad if I have 4 more behind it. My plan B is just as strong as my plan A.

Yes, if I lost all of a single type of specialized squad, I'd be in a pickle. This is an unrealistic concern, however, as if they are able to destroy a third of my army in a single go, then ANY list is going to lose the game, specialized or otherwise.

Plus, this is once again ignoring the fact that I have a say in this. If I have specialized units that I know are going to be necessary, I'm not going to stupidly run them out headlong into the open in front of everything else so that my opponent can kill them.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
The autocannon strikes an excellent balance between the stopping power of a lascannon and the multiple shots of a heavy bolter.

You may have to alter position on your HB PIS which detracts from the overall potency of your shooting phase. I do not.

I at least CAN do something, because I have that inherent flexibility in my PIS.

"strikes an excellent balance" does not imply "good".

Yes, a heavy-weapons specialized army does lose potency when it has to move, but when it doesn't move, it actually HAS potency, unlike autocannons, which never do, sitting still or not. Furthermore, this is once again ignoring redundancy. If I have multiple copies of units, I don't NEED to move anything as there is always something suited to the task at the point of crisis.

Finally, we've proven with math that you even thouh you "can" do something, you "don't". Yes, hypothetically an autocannon can destroy an AV12 SMF serpent in the one turn you get before it disembarks. Math shows that those odds are so long that you're NOT doing anything, even if you theoretically COULD.

It's a classic gambler's fallacy.

minigun762 wrote:
The current meta-game heavily features multiple low AV transports. This means to play well against the meta-game, your army must be built in such a way as to cope with this fact.

I agree, but I don't think autocannons are the way to cope with it.

Due to SMF and smoke + the speed of transports in general, you're only going to get one or two turns of shooting at your opponent's transports before they unload their cargo (thus making shooting the transports mostly moot). As mentioned, during that one or two turns, they're moving fast or using smoke (or behind cover from lots of your guns, or are fortuned, etc. etc.). This means that guard heavy weapons are unlikely to accomplish the goal of stopping transports.

Furthermore, as you mention, look at the points. I have to spend 75 points on autocannons, while the opponent needs to spend 55 points on rhinos or chimeras. This means that using infantry heavy weapons is a points inefficient way of killing tranports. The more autocannons you take, the more you're handing free points to your opponent.

As such, not only are autocannons ineffective when they need to be, but they have a lot of opportunity cost, especially given that they're not effective against non-transport targets.

minigun762 wrote:
For IG, Autocannons as priced equally to Heavy Bolters for the basic Infantry squads. This means that there is no point disadvantage to taking a weapon that is better in the current meta-game (Autocannon) over one that isn't (Heavy Bolter).

The disadvantage is that you waste more of the ability to kill what's inside the transports than you gain in killing the transport. It's neutering your own firepower, while giving your squads a confused role.

minigun762 wrote:
This means that those shots will normally be wasted anyway. Furthermore they will only be useful if you can expose the target infantry by removing their transport. If giving that squad a weapon (Autocannon) to allow them to expose the infantry quicker is an option, it actually improves their chances of using the rest of those Lasguns on that infantry, thereby making the squad more useful.

So this is once again where opportunity cost comes in.

Let's say that you take autocannons in your infantry squads, and other weapons which are good against transports (because, honestly, single PIS autocannons aren't doing jack). Compare that to a list that has infantry squads which are good at the goop that comes out of the transport, along with other weapons that are good against transports. In both these scenarios, you're needing to bring extra weaponry to make up for the fact that PIS autocannons aren't doing anything. Simultaneously, you're compromising the infantry squads.

Yes, with just a heavy bolter, the squads aren't doing anything to the transports in the first few turns (and thus have no targets). With a single autocannon, they're ALSO not doing anything to the transports. Just because they can target the transports doesn't mean that the squad's firepower isn't being wasted. If it's going to be wasted those first turns anyways, why not make them more effective for turns 3-6, instead of making them less effective turns 3-6 just for a chance to be marginally less ineffective turns 1 and possibly 2?

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406796.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406796.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
I run;

CCS w/ 4 plasmas, Chimera
PCS w/ 4 flamer, Chimera
PCS w/ autocannon and 2 x GL
4 x PIS w/ autocannon and GL
2 x Vets w/ meltaguns in Chimeras
2 x Vendettas
2 x Demolishers

All tanks have hull heavy flamers.

Total: 1500pts

Looking at this list I have very effective counters for any vehicles that are AV 12-14. I have 4, potentially 6 when the Demolishers get into range) decent ways of bringing down those higer AV vehicles.

I needed a way to effectively and numerously deal with the AV11 Rhino/Trukk as I didn't want to divert my dedicated AT fire away from the more dangerous targets such as WS, Battlewagon or LR. The autocannon fitted in exceptionally well as it can damage AV11+ as well as shoot its contents when they get to within that magic 12-24" range of the PIS. Sub in heavy bolters and I need to start shooting lascannons at Rhinos, something I do not want to be doing especially if one Vendetta fluffs its rolling. Sub in ML or lascannons and suddenly I have to reduce my numbers due to the expensive, one shot weapons, again not the most viable option.

The autocannons fill a gap in my army and have worked exceptionally well at the job they are there for; stunning/immobilising/wrecking transports and also RELIABLY testing the armour saves of marines/terminators whilst they take the long slog down towards my lines.

I seriously do not believe you can argue against the effectiveness of the autocannon. Time and time again it has prevailed and let my more specialised units do the jobs I brought them for.

L. Wrex]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406828.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406828.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

General Mayhem wrote:FRFSRF is for lasguns only, isn't it? (So won't work with heavy bolters).

Yes FRFSRF is lasgun only but, no, it works Very well with Heavy Bolters.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406852.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406852.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Right, I'll attempt to quash this by postng my list and showing you how autocannons can fit in quite seamlessly into a balanced list.

Just because it's possible to fit them into an already balanced list doesn't make them good, it just means you can make army lists.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Looking at this list I have very effective counters for any vehicles that are AV 12-14. I have 4, potentially 6 when the Demolishers get into range) decent ways of bringing down those higer AV vehicles.

You most certainly do have good anti tank. It's called demolishers, vendettas and melta vets. The list AS A WHOLE can counter these targets, not the autocannons. If anything, the fact that you're using combined arms only further proves my point.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
I needed a way to effectively and numerously deal with the AV11 Rhino/Trukk as I didn't want to divert my dedicated AT fire away from the more dangerous targets such as WS, Battlewagon or LR.

weapons that are good against heavy vehicles are also good against light ones. If you don't have enough anti-tank to do both, then bring more anti-tank. It's not an excuse to take crappy weapons.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
The autocannon fitted in exceptionally well as it can damage AV11+ as well as shoot its contents when they get to within that magic 12-24" range of the PIS.

Except it DOESN'T damage AV11+ in that critical moment when it matters. You are making the argument that they are good because they have a role in which they are effective. If that were the case, I'd advocate taking them (like when I said if you face a crap-ton of dark eldar). As they are not effective weapons against anything, it sort of implies that they don't, in fact, have a role.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Sub in heavy bolters and I need to start shooting lascannons at Rhinos, something I do not want to be doing especially if one Vendetta fluffs its rolling. Sub in ML or lascannons and suddenly I have to reduce my numbers due to the expensive, one shot weapons, again not the most viable option.

Are you really relying on just a couple of PIS autocannons? If they weren't there, would your army really fall apart? Why have a crappy weapon as your lynchpin? Given redundancy, why have a lynchpin at all?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
The autocannons fill a gap in my army and have worked exceptionally well at the job they are there for; stunning/immobilising/wrecking transports and also RELIABLY testing the armour saves of marines/terminators whilst they take the long slog down towards my lines.

I seriously do not believe you can argue against the effectiveness of the autocannon. Time and time again it has prevailed and let my more specialised units do the jobs I brought them for.

Math proves that autocannons don't work well at stopping transports. The reason I can argue against the effectiveness of the autocannon is math. If you're not using an objective system like math, then how you you make an argument for objective reality?

Sure, you can pick out examples "time and time again" of where an autocannon actually did something, but what does this mean for the rest of us? How are we supposed to look at your luck and anecdotal evidence and believe that it somehow applies to us?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406867.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406867.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
Autocannon
4 shots. 50% chance of hit = 2 hit.
Of those two hit you have a 50% chance of glancing (4,5,6) = 1 glance.
Of that one glance you have a 33% chance of stopping the transport (rolling 4 or 6). = 1 x 0.333 = 0.333.
Therefore an autocannon has a third of a chance of stopping a transport (unless my math is completely off).

Lascannon.
1 shot. 50% chance of hit = 50% chance of hit.
Of that 50% chance you have an 83.3% chance of a glance (2,3,4,5,6). Ergo 0.5 x0.83 = 0.415. Of that 0.415 you have one third of a chance of stopping that transport (as above) 0.415 x 0.333 = 0.138

So, to stop a vehicle via a glance the autocannon has a 0.195 better chance of stopping it. Make sense?

The same can be done for a penetrating hit, but the results become a bit closer due to the higher propensity of a lascannon to penetrate.

So...by using maths I think I may have just proven that, point for point, autocannons are BETTER at stopping a transport than a lascannon.

L. Wrex]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406929.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406929.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them Math proves that autocannons don't work well at stopping transports. The reason I can argue against the effectiveness of the autocannon is math. If you're not using an objective system like math, then how you you make an argument for objective reality?

my real life experience with AC's popping transports tells me your math may be wrong...? PIS ACs and Hydras work great for me against SM, CSM and Eldar transports.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406938.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406938.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
So...by using maths I think I may have just proven that, point for point, autocannons are BETTER at stopping a transport than a lascannon.

L. Wrex

It isn't even point for point. A single autocannon shooting at a Rhino without cover or orders has a 18.5% chance of killing or immobilizing vs the lascannon's 18%. With cover and no orders it becomes 9.5% vs 9%. With cover and orders 14.1% vs 13.5%. Without cover and with orders the lascannon does edge out the autocannon, 27% chance with autocannon vs 27.1% chance with lascannon. If you must destroy the Rhino then odds shift to be marginally in favor of the lascannon.

edit: Autocannon also beats lascannon against Wave Serpents, though the odds aren't terribly good with either.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406982.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1406982.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
and yet the auto cannon is half the price]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407162.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407162.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
L. Wrex]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407166.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407166.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

makr wrote:Admittedly, he does make a point: Guard are a shooty army for a reason, and Guardsmen will outshoot, with FRFSRF, point for point, other armies' troops. Lasguns aren't negligible.

No basic trooper's gun is negligible, but most are pretty close. In order for this outshooting to happen you need several (likely 2) successful orders AND several (also likely 2) squads in range on your turn. The combo isn't trivial to setup. Many units skip straight past small arms range to either charge or pile out of a transport that's invulnerable to said lasguns.

Ailaros' comments on specialization are accurate, I believe he carries it too far. Being focused to a task is good for IG, since you can afford lots of units to all be focused on different ones, but you also have to realize that most of those units are also fragile. This makes them vulnerable to target saturation and focus fire. Having versatile line squads is good because it helps you avoid the mistake of putting the slow footslogger in spots to be outmaneuvered, and autocannons everywhere makes people be concerned for their rear armor facing in a way that HBs don't. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407182.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407182.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
So...by using maths I think I may have just proven that, point for point, autocannons are BETTER at stopping a transport than a lascannon.

Better does not mean good. What can I say to make this more clear?

a 3x battery of autocannon v. AV12 when they've had a chance to pop smoke or move fast (as in, you don't go first), that battery stops transports on a .0775. I don't CARE how bad lascannons are. Autocannons are also better at killing AV12 than are laspistols. That does not make autocannons good. Not even in 3x batteries. The math for an individual one in a PIS in this case is DEPLORABLE.

alarmingrick wrote:

Math proves that autocannons don't work well at stopping transports. The reason I can argue against the effectiveness of the autocannon is math. If you're not using an objective system like math, then how you you make an argument for objective reality?

my real life experience with AC's popping transports tells me your math may be wrong...? PIS ACs and Hydras work great for me against SM, CSM and Eldar transports.

So you're saying autocannons are universally good because you're lucky with them? How does that help anyone else who may or may not be as lucky as you?

If our individual experiences are important, then any tactics discussion would devolve into swapping stories of "oh yeah? Well, when I did that..."

The Grog wrote:
makr wrote:Admittedly, he does make a point: Guard are a shooty army for a reason, and Guardsmen will outshoot, with FRFSRF, point for point, other armies' troops. Lasguns aren't negligible.

No basic trooper's gun is negligible, but most are pretty close. In order for this outshooting to happen you need several (likely 2) successful orders AND several (also likely 2) squads in range on your turn. The combo isn't trivial to setup. Many units skip straight past small arms range to either charge or pile out of a transport that's invulnerable to said lasguns.

Granted, lasguns aren't the absolute best way of killing infantry (that's what we have hellhounds and artillery for). That said, they're not bad when you use them right (for example, not just shooting a single squad and hoping it will all work out). Plus, they are REALLY cheap, (and have other uses in the metagame such as scoring), so you can't expect a single squad of lasguns to work miracles.

The Grog wrote:
Ailaros' comments on specialization are accurate, I believe he carries it too far. Being focused to a task is good for IG, since you can afford lots of units to all be focused on different ones, but you also have to realize that most of those units are also fragile. This makes them vulnerable to target saturation and focus fire. Having versatile line squads is good because it helps you avoid the mistake of putting the slow footslogger in spots to be outmaneuvered, and autocannons everywhere makes people be concerned for their rear armor facing in a way that HBs don't.

Yes, they're fragile. The answer? Redundancy. Guard can afford to bring several copies of fragile units. Plus, ALL guard units are fragile, specialized or not. If durability of individual units is the problem, the guard itself itself is not the solution.

Now yes, I'd agree that if a person is going to horribly bungle their movement and deployment in such a way where "slow footsloggers" are outmaneuvered, then versatility is AN answer. The BETTER answer is specialized redundancy. That way you don't need to worry about movement (because you already have an effective unit in the area), or getting "outmaneuvered".

And for the last time, a heavy bolter is not a transport killer. Also, I can guarantee that an opponent will fear for their transports more due to manticores or lots of meltaguns or something that is actually effective against transports rather than the long shot of an autocannon hitting rear armor.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407240.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407240.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them AC? how about you go and TRY them, then come back and say how bad they suck? right now all you have is your "Math" to go on. go and actually prove us wrong.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407276.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407276.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Ailaros wrote:

Better does not mean good. What can I say to make this more clear?

a 3x battery of autocannon v. AV12 when they've had a chance to pop smoke or move fast (as in, you don't go first), that battery stops transports on a .0775. I don't CARE how bad lascannons are. Autocannons are also better at killing AV12 than are laspistols. That does not make autocannons good. Not even in 3x batteries.

Uh. . . your math is off, friend.

3 autocannons = 6 shots = 3 hits.

Against AV12, that's 0.5 glances and 0.5 pens.

After the 4+ save, that's 0.25 glances and 0.25 pens.

A pen stops (Stunned, Immobilized, Wrecked, Explodes) on 4/6 results; a glance stops on 2/6. So that's 0.166 stopped from the pen, 0.0833 stopped from the glance. Total of 0.2499 AV12 transports stopped per turn of fire, with no orders AND assuming the target is obscured. I believe you ran the math for ONE autocannon, and then claimed it applied to a battery of 3.

If you issue BiD, you get 0.375 Av12 per turn.

If it isn't obscured, you get 0.5 AV12 per turn.

If it isn't obscured AND you issue BiD, you get 0.75 per turn.

So I CAN, in fact, using an objective system (that is, basic math), argue that autocannons are good at killing transports. Want me to crunch the numbers for AV11? How about AV10? They just get better every time. Autocannons are quite effective against transports, thanks very much.

In addition; your argument seems to be that autocannons aren't good, despite being better than everything else. Do you then recommend simply conceding whenever one faces a mechanized opponent?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407281.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407281.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
so all our weapons suck so we are all mega fail

time to go home guys we suck]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407293.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407293.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Ailaros wrote:Better does not mean good. What can I say to make this more clear?

I'm sorry dude, but now you're just making arguement for arguement's sake. 'Better does not mean good' vs one of the most established anti-tank weapons in 3 editions of 40k? I don't know what else I need to do to convince you. Of COURSE 'better' is both equal to and better than 'good', ESPECIALLY when compared to a f*cking lascannon!

Furthermore I'm not arguing vs AV12. Bar I.G. themselves very, very, VERY few armies have access to AV12 transports. the most common are Rhinos (11), Trukks (11) and Razorbacks (11). This means your math needs serious re-considering as AV12 is simply NOT the most common type of armour you will face in a game setting.

The fact that you have not even corrected my maths can only mean that it is correct; thus proving my over-arching arguement over this whole debate being that autocannons, in spite of being well worth their cost in points are an effective and GOOD way of targetting and preventing transports from doing what they want to do; delivering their cargo.

Luck DOES, despite your objectivist methods, count for an awful lot in this game. Whilst this cannot be argued effectively on paper, maths can. Which, I believe, I have just proven to the benefit of autocannons.

L. Wrex]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407302.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407302.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

Ailaros wrote:Better does not mean good. What can I say to make this more clear?

Trukks are AV10, actually. And open-topped. But that merely adds even more validity to your point!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407303.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407303.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Can you present your working? It's all well and good throwing percentages at me, but I have no idea how you worked that out; as I came up with vastly different results?

L. Wrex

Both weapons hit on a 4+. Against Av11 autocannons glance on a 4 followed by immobilizing on a 6 and penetrate on a 5+ and kill or immobilize on a 4+. I'm not counting vehicle stunned. For a single shot the chances of doing what we're trying to do are 1/2(1/6*1/6+1/3*1/2) = 9.7%. 1/2 is the chance to hit, 1/6*1/6 is the chance of glancing then immobilizing, 1/3*1/2 is the chance of penetrating then killing or immobilizing. There are two shots but you can't just add together the odds of doing what you want. If you do that you'll be double counting those times when both shots do what you want, and killing a Rhino twice isn't really any better than killing it once. The quick and dirty way of figuring this is to find the individual odds of not doing what you want, exponentiating by the number of tries (in this case 2) to find the odds that *neither* shot does what you want, then when you turn that around you have the odds of at least one shot getting the desired result. Then the percent chance of doing what we're trying to do with an autocannon becomes (you'll want a calculator for this) 1-(1-1/2(1/36+1/6))^2, times 100 of course = 18.5%. You can skip all that with singular lascannons because they only shoot once. Lascannon is simple 1/2(1/36+1/3) = 18%. 1/36 is again the chance of glancing then immobilizing and 1/3 represents the 2/3 chance of penetrating times the 1/2 chance of a penetrating hit doing what we're trying to do.

With cover and without orders it's the same thing except the 1/2 becomes 1/4, with orders and without cover 1/2 becomes 3/4, and with both cover and orders 1/2 becomes 3/8. This is all for BS3 of course. Performing this calculation against other targets and in other circumstances is left as an exercise to the reader.

Your own math is so completely off I don't know where to begin explaining how. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407913.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1407913.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
Penetrating Hits=2*1/2*1/3=.33

Lascannon versus AV11, at BS3:

Penetrating Hits=1*1/2*2/3=.33

Against AV11, the two weapons are equal. This is your baseline; cover saves, orders, range, LOS, etc are all equally aplicable to both weapons. It doesn't matter what factors are acting upon the weapons, you're simply multiplying both by the same constant.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408268.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408268.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
Autocannons are good. The maths, and player experiences with the weapon, consistently seem to verify this.

L. Wrex]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408297.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408297.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408318.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408318.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them ?) you'll not only get the abillity to stop AV12 quite easy but also the chance to actually kill tougher vehicles like Vindicators, Battle Waggons or Land Raiders. Stopping transports is fine, but if you are facing LR spam or masses of TMCs the lascannon is by far superior, especially with BID. Autocannons are great weapons, but you can overdo things. I would rather leave them to Hydras and equip my blobs with lascannons. The blob offers great protection against fire and if you got a comissar and some power weapons in it your HWs are also likely to survive an assault. You'll need balance in your army and even I agree that 'Dettas are the best way to go if you want lascannons, it's never a bad idea not to concentrate 'em on a single vehicle which can be destroyed or at least shaken.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408399.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408399.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them IG are at the top of the pile; so many vehicles mount weapons much more effectively than what the men can do.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408418.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408418.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

sourclams wrote:Eh. So if I invest 250 points in a 30 man blob squad with 3 lascannon teams and give them orders, I can shoot something with 3 t/l lascannons? I understand that the blob squad has additional utility, but there's a reason why mech IG are at the top of the pile; so many vehicles mount weapons much more effectively than what the men can do.

for example, the Vendetta is 130 points for the same Lascannon options(if you use orders) as the afore mentioned blobbed squad. for the price i'd rather have 2 Vendettas.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408567.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408567.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

alarmingrick wrote:So you're saying i'm just lucky every time i kill a transport with an AC? how about you go and TRY them, then come back and say how bad they suck? right now all you have is your "Math" to go on. go and actually prove us wrong.

So, if I'm really unlucky with autocannons when I actually use them on the field, does that mean that autocannons are bad, or that I was just unlucky with them? Furthermore, statistics assume the result of an infinite number of trials. As such, math gives us all infinitely more accurate assumptions than a few times you shot them in your basement.

Why do you believe the subjectivity of a few test casts is better than an objective system? How can I "prove you wrong" with anecdotes? You have set up a scenario in which it is impossible to be proven right without first discarding your assumptions regarding subjectivity.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Luck DOES, despite your objectivist methods, count for an awful lot in this game. Whilst this cannot be argued effectively on paper, maths can. Which, I believe, I have just proven to the benefit of autocannons.

This is a likewise failure to understand the purpose of statistics. Yes, it is possible for a 3x autocannon battery to kill 6 marines in a single turn, and if I play long enough, and gain enough "experience", eventually this will, in fact happen. This does not mean that autocannons, in general, are good against marines.

Without objectivity, there is no medium for meaningful exchange of ideas, as incommensurability will shut everything down before it begins. Touting the subjective does nothing to prove autocannons are good in PISs.

croggy wrote:i get it now what he is saying is that guard suck

so all our weapons suck so we are all mega fail

time to go home guys we suck

I believe that the guard is the best army in the game, which is why it's my only army. What does this have to do with the futility of autocannons?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: 'Better does not mean good' vs one of the most established anti-tank weapons in 3 editions of 40k? I don't know what else I need to do to convince you.

That better implies good is a logical fallacy. If you're going to convince me, sticking by your fallacies is not a good way about it.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Of COURSE 'better' is both equal to and better than 'good', ESPECIALLY when compared to a f*cking lascannon!

... followed up by another fallacy.

Missile launchers are much better than lasguns at taking down AV14. Does this mean I should pack my army lists full of missile launchers? No. Missile launchers are still a terrible weapon against AV14 regardless of the qualities of lasguns.

You're making the argument that because lasguns are better at killing space marines than are laspistols, that lasguns are good against marines. This is simply not so. Repeating this fallacy is unconvincing.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
The fact that you have not even corrected my maths can only mean that it is correct; thus proving my over-arching arguement over this whole debate being that autocannons, in spite of being well worth their cost in points are an effective and GOOD way of targetting and preventing transports from doing what they want to do; delivering their cargo.

That I didn't correct your math means that autocannons are good? This is a selective reading fallacy. If you're going to make an argument for them being good, you should make them on the merits of the weapon itself.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Trukks are AV10, actually. And open-topped. But that merely adds even more validity to your point!

I actually agree that autocannons can be effective against AV10, open-topped vehicles (see earlier postings). This does nothing to address the crippling opportunity cost problems, though.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
(math)

Ah, I know what I did wrong: I was excluding stunning in my original calculations. Probably because stunning doesnt' actually stop them, it just slows them. Assuming that the delay of the inevitable is rolled in...

6 shots = 3 hits
3 hits * .16 (glance) * .333 (stun or immobilize) * .5 (smoke, SFM, cover, etc.) = .079
3 hits * .16 (pen) * .666 (wreck, immobilize, stun) * .5 (smoke, etc.) = .159

Then yes, it's a .238. But what does this mean?

Assuming the most points-efficient use of autocannons (HWS), I need to spend 300 points on autocannons just to stop a 55 point transport before it unloads. In the quantity that most people are going to take them, they are woefully unequal to the task of stopping heavier transports (given that there will generally be more than one of them), and in order to make them effective, you need to take so many that you've crucified the rest of your list. Specialization allows you to be effective with much lower points expenditure, thus refraining from dooming your list to a torturous death.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
In addition; your argument seems to be that autocannons aren't good, despite being better than everything else. Do you then recommend simply conceding whenever one faces a mechanized opponent?

Once again, "better" does not mean "good". Just because they are the "best" at this role (which is arguable), does not make them good at that role, it just means that everything is worse.

And just because autocannons are bad doesn't mean we need to just throw up our hands and quit. It means that, lacking a specific wonder-weapon, you need to be able to handle these threats with your list as a whole.

For example, if you run a mechanized list yourself, this nullifies the advantage that your opponent gets over bringing transports of their own. Secondly, and this is my personal favorite, rather than spending 75 points for something that MIGHT stop a transport (but will do so only in a minority of cases), why not spend 55 points for another PIS? The dudes pile out of the transport and get a free kill, but the rest of your army destroyes what came out with dedicated anti-infantry squads, and the transports themselves (now basically moot) with things like meltaguns (they're going to be close, after all). Not only do you have a counter that is points-appropriate, but having those extra squads will also be useful if your opponent DOESN'T bring hordes of transports, unlike autocannons.

But these are just two ways of killing transports without autocannons. If you can't figure out any other way (of which there definitely are), that doesn't mean that autocannons are good, it just means you can't figure out any other way.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408651.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408651.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them ACs kill troops really well also. i know a lascannon will, but AC's are 10 point's cheaper allowing you to now add one to a PCS(for example).
if you go cheap and give the PIS A GL, or a Plasma gun the AC workds well with both. now you have points left to by bigger toys (Tanks for example).]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408688.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408688.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Ailaros wrote:
Assuming the most points-efficient use of autocannons (HWS),

Actually since nearly every guard list is taking PIS anyways, the most points efficient use is the PIS since it's simply a 10 point upgrade on top of what was already going to be in your list.

I need to spend 300 points on autocannons just to stop a 55 point transport before it unloads.

So let's say you don't take any auto/lascannons. What does stop the 55 point transport before it unloads? Your only other option is melta, so now the transport is 6" away from your units. Is that ultimately your answer? That no weapon stops transports until they're 6" away?

In the quantity that most people are going to take them, they are woefully unequal to the task of stopping heavier transports (given that there will generally be more than one of them), and in order to make them effective, you need to take so many that you've crucified the rest of your list. Specialization allows you to be effective with much lower points expenditure, thus refraining from dooming your list to a torturous death.

2 Autocannons on static scoring PIS that are in your list anyways: 20 points

3 Hydras: 225 points
89 autocannons, 6 of which are forever twin-linked. Why is my list crucified?

9 T/L Lascannons on 3 Vendettas: 390 points

I've got 1200 points' worth of list left and more long range shooting than most other armies. Long-range fire support is specialization. If you're going to fling around banalities that you insist have a sound theoretical basis, then make a fething list to really show us what the "right" way of building an effective army is.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408814.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408814.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

alarmingrick wrote:but that's part of it. if your opponent doesn't bring alot of transports, the ACs kill troops really well also.

Were this true, I might agree that the autocannon is a good weapon. As it is, the autocannon is bad against light infantry (slightly worse than two lasguns assuming the target is in cover), and they're hilariously bad against heavy infantry.

sourclams wrote:
Actually since nearly every guard list is taking PIS anyways, the most points efficient use is the PIS since it's simply a 10 point upgrade on top of what was already going to be in your list.

2 Autocannons on static scoring PIS that are in your list anyways: 20 points
3 Hydras: 225 points
8 autocannons, 6 of which are forever twin-linked. Why is my list crucified?

You're missing my point, though. In order to be able to stop a transport horde, you need to spend too many points. This does not spend too many points, but it is also unable to stop a transport horde.

On the one hand, you have the fact that autocannons in small quantities are worthless, on the other hand, you have enough autocannons so as to make them be worthwhile being ruinously expensive. The only thing worse is the middle road of taking some autocannons, whereby you waste points AND aren't effective.

Sure, spending 20 points on a couple of autocannons in a PIS doesn't cost much, but they will also do virtually nothing while confusing the role of the PIS. I wouldn't take autocannons in squads if they were free, as you only make things complicated for little real gain.

sourclams wrote:
So let's say you don't take any auto/lascannons. What does stop the 55 point transport before it unloads? Your only other option is melta, so now the transport is 6" away from your units. Is that ultimately your answer? That no weapon stops transports until they're 6" away?

My point is that we should treat transports like drop pods or outflankers: that we assume that most of their forces will be delivered relatively unmolested and work from there (rather than to waste points at a huge opportunity cost in a vain attept to inhibit the delivery system). We don't have a good way of stopping frop pods from delivering their cargo, and we don't have a good way to stop transport spamming. This doesn't mean that we give up when we see drop pods or transports, but neither does it mean we load up on weapons poorly equipped for the task.

sourclams wrote: If you're going to fling around banalities that you insist have a sound theoretical basis, then make a fething list to really show us what the "right" way of building an effective army is.

I'm surprised that you're defending logical fallacies with ad-hominem attacks. Furthermore, were I to post my list, you would find that it contains no autocannons, thus rendering it irrelavent to the utility of autocannons. Any such list would show A possible alternative to autocannons, which itself would do nothing to my point that autocannons are bad, only that other things are better (because, as mentioned before, showing that autocannons are "worse" does not, by itself, imply that they are "bad").

There are many possibly alternatives to using bad weapons, but none of them can be used to defend said bad weapons, even if you think my alternatives are "worse" (as such "worse" alternatives would not imply that autocannons are "good" only that they're "better").

I insist that I have a sound theoretical basis because I rely on objectivity and rhetoric that doesn't involve logical fallacies. If you want to call that banal, then there's no amount of reason that will convince you otherwise.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408863.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408863.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408887.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408887.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
I stand by my previous arguement. A lascannon is, and has been for a long time, a well respected and 'good' AT gun. We can therefore establish a lascannon is 'good'. Now, excluding the targets that you wouldn't shoot at with an autocannon (AV12+) maths tells us that an autocannon is 'better' at killing these targets.

So an autocannon is 'better' at shooting AV11 than an already established 'good' gun. Does this make it 'good'? Yes, it does! Furthermore, when you factor in the points cost and also the ability to shoot at other targets, it makes the gun even 'better'. What's 'better' than 'good'? I don't know...'great'? I don't see how this is a fallacy...it's simple common sense.

I have neither a misconception, nor exhibited incorrect reasoning throughout my entire arguement. You want maths, I've given you maths. You want in-game experience, numerous players have come forth with that. You want to argue alternatives, both the maths AND gamers have highlighted the benefits of an autocannon over the alternatives, in ways that aren't as black and white as simple numbers are.

If anything I believe that you're exhibiting a fallacy by simply not realising the vast, VAST number of external variables that can affect any given situation. You have a black and white, Yin and Yang style to your play, fine. But don't assume that because I prefer some inherent flexibility to mine that it is a fallacy. It simply isn't.

L. Wrex]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408893.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408893.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Neither of you are taking into account the fact that you can have two autocannons for every lascannon; thus doubling your chances.

Autocannons are good. The maths, and player experiences with the weapon, consistently seem to verify this.

L. Wrex

Not only are autocannons half the cost of the lascannons, but it is safe to assume that any guard squad firing at vehicles is benefiting from Bring it Down, and the multiple shots of the autocannon benefit more from the order. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408998.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1408998.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Terminus wrote:

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:Neither of you are taking into account the fact that you can have two autocannons for every lascannon; thus doubling your chances.

Autocannons are good. The maths, and player experiences with the weapon, consistently seem to verify this.

L. Wrex

Lascannons actually benefit more from Bring It Down than autocannons. While it does help both weapons, bring it down magnifies the possibility that both shots can hit and score more than one destroyed result. That is still a good outcome, but the way most people calculate the odds they count that twice when in most cases it should only count once. I ran the numbers a few posts up, Bring it Down order outside of cover is the only situation where a lascannon outperforms an autocannon shooting at Rhinos. I originally examined this particular issue to determine whether my lascannon or autocannon squads should have priority for orders. All else being equal orders help lascannons more. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409055.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409055.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them BiD, so does every other weapon. As such, given that all bonuses can be applied equally, it's usually best just to cancel them out and ignore them (unless there really is a significant difference).

sourclams wrote:And I insist that your objectivity and rhetoric is absolutely useless if you can't build a freaking list.

In which case you're testing my list-building skills, which are inconsequential to the effectiveness of an autocannon. Non Sequitur.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:So some guns can be 'better' but not 'good'. They can also be 'worse' but not neccesarily 'bad'. Therefore 'bad' weapons can then become 'good' weapons because they're 'better' at shooting the 'good' targets that your opponent does not want you to shoot.

Not only does this not make sense, but it's also based on a non sequitur. Good is good and bad is bad, regardless of better or worse.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
I stand by my previous arguement. A lascannon is, and has been for a long time, a well respected and 'good' AT gun. We can therefore establish a lascannon is 'good'.

Wisdom of Ancients fallacy. Lascannons may HAVE BEEN the best choice, but they certainly aren't now.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
So an autocannon is 'better' at shooting AV11 than an already established 'good' gun. Does this make it 'good'? Yes, it does!

Yes, it WOULD, if lascannons were good. As lascannons are not good, saying the autocannon is better doesnt' mean it's good, it just means less bad than the lascannon.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
Furthermore, when you factor in the points cost and also the ability to shoot at other targets,

We have already established the ineffectiveness of autocannons against other targets. This therefore does not add to the quality of the autocannon.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
What's 'better' than 'good'? I don't know...'great'? I don't see how this is a fallacy...it's simple common sense.

To say that because A is better at X than B is, therefore A is good at X is a syllogism fallacy.

For example, drinking a cup of mercury a day is better for your health than drinking a cup of cyanide (which it is). Does this mean that it's good for your health to drink a cup of mercury a day?

The point you're trying to make is that autocannons are better than good. The math tells us that they're better than bad. This does not make them good.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
I have neither a misconception, nor exhibited incorrect reasoning throughout my entire arguement. You want maths, I've given you maths. You want in-game experience, numerous players have come forth with that. You want to argue alternatives, both the maths AND gamers have highlighted the benefits of an autocannon over the alternatives, in ways that aren't as black and white as simple numbers are.

Fine, let me spell it out more clearly.

Logical fallacies will not convince me that my position is inaccurate. Anecdotal evidence will not convince me that my position isn't universal. As for alternatives, I do believe that there are alternatives to autocannons, and I do not believe that the autocannon is a better alternative to anything due to the characteristics of specialization and the metagame.

If you're going to convince me that autocannons are good, you have to convince me it's better in the metagame without throwing subjective garbage or logical fallacies at me. Sheer weight of words will not convince me that my position, as it is, is not more accurate and universal.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
If anything I believe that you're exhibiting a fallacy by simply not realising the vast, VAST number of external variables that can affect any given situation.

This isn't a fallacy. The whole point of abstraction is the ability to talk about things without describing every single one of that VAST number of variables. Furthermore, because you don't know the variables in advance, you have to build lists based on abstractions. If you want to delve absurdly in the concrete, you could talk about the possibility of a 3x autocannon battery killing 6 marines a turn, but that isn't helpful.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote: But don't assume that because I prefer some inherent flexibility to mine that it is a fallacy. It simply isn't.

I'm not assuming the idea of versatility is fallatious in and of itself, I'm saying that they way you're arguing on behalf of it is. My argument isn't that unit-level flexibility is based on faulty reasoning, I'm saying it's bad. Specialization in any given local situation is better than generalization everywhere, and the guard is the best army to take advantage of this.

That and I'm saying the autocannon suffers terribly from opportunity cost in large numbers, and effectiveness and role-confusion problems in small numbers. What's so illogical about that?]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409126.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409126.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
Lascannons will match autocannons against AV12, and be negligebly worse against AV11. They're not as good against AV10, but still. Lascannons will do much more damage to MEQs, TEQs, and all sorts of MCs, and can threaten AV13 tanks like Hammerheads/Predators.

I sometimes run my infantry with autocannons. Their primary purpose is, make no mistake, to serve as anti-infantry. I don't care that autocannons aren't good against infantry - the first turn or two of the game, you simply aren't going to have any enemy infantry in lasgun range. During that time, the autocannons bang away at enemy transports. If they do some damage or stun a transport, great - that just means the infantry did some secondary damage. Make no mistake, PIS are meant for anti-infantry and if you're trying to use them for anti-tank, you're using them wrong. If they manage to do some damage before there's an infantry-rich target environment, that's great. There is nothing wrong with autocannons, and I agree they're a great weapon.

My personal choice for PIS is the lascannon, mostly because of the rest of the army list. My heavies are Manticores and Hydras, so having lascannons in line squads gives some anti-MC ability as well as making them more effective against heavy infantry. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409131.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409131.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

makr wrote: If they do some damage or stun a transport, great - that just means the infantry did some secondary damage. Make no mistake, PIS are meant for anti-infantry and if you're trying to use them for anti-tank, you're using them wrong... If they manage to do some damage before there's an infantry-rich target environment, that's great.

Okay, but I must ask, why take them at all? Why spend 10 points for a secondary role when you could spend those points instead somewhere else for a primary role?

I mean, I could take every single possible vehicle upgrade with every single vehicle but I don't. It's argued that you shouldn't take vehicle upgrades because you're wasting points on "just in case" things when the better answer is always to spend the points on redundancy rather than survivability (the guard itself having individual unit survivability issues and the ability to spam redundancy in spades). Why should this opportunity cost problem not also apply to PIS weapons as it does to tank upgrades?

makr wrote: There is nothing wrong with autocannons, and I agree they're a great weapon.

Against what? The only thing I can see them even decent against is speed freaks and dark eldar, and against both of these you're paying opportunity cost at a really bad exchange rate.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409171.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409171.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
I think we're simply going to have to agree to disagree. I've presented my arguement logically, mathematically and anecdotally. In none of my arguements have you come up with a counter-arguement, merely choosing to dismiss *my* arguement as fallatious.

The metagame is transport heavy. The vast majority of transports are AV11 or under. The autocannon is mathematically the best weapon against these targets. Arguing against this is illogical, you're simply trying to hide this by writing everyone else's opinion off as fallatious.

Ailaros wrote:That and I'm saying the autocannon suffers terribly from opportunity cost in large numbers, and effectiveness and role-confusion problems in small numbers. What's so illogical about that?

This is simply wrong. The reasons have been discussed and argued over for the last 3 pages. The cost is not huge when compared to other alternatives, the effectiveness, shot-for-shot, is GOOD when compared to other guns and your arguement regarding role-confusion is, simply, absurd. I'm not generalising 'everywhere' I have got specialised units that I use for specialised roles. However, you cannot specialise for EVERY eventuality that may surface, you simply do not have that extreme a gift of farsight. Thusly, you need something that is flexible, able to fill potential gaps in your list. This is essential! And the autocannon fits this role.

L. Wrex]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409173.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409173.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
CCS 4 plasma
CCS 4 plasma
PCS 4 Flamers
PIS HB
PIS HB
PIS HB
HWS Lascannons
HWS Lascannons
HWS Lascannons
HWS Lascannons
HWS Lascannons
SWS 3 Meltaguns
SWS 3 Meltaguns
SWS 3 Meltaguns
PCS 4 flamers
PIS HB
PIS HB
PIS Mortar
HWS 3 lascannons
SWS 3 Meltaguns

Who thinks they can beat it? (in non-KP missions)]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409192.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409192.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them HWS. My autocannons can safely blast away at them, and only one casualty will force a Ld test on Ld7. Even my multilasers can cause ID. His HB possibly won't be in range of my PIS and the meltaguns will have to wait/walk up to my vehicles to do anything, same with the PCS/CCS.

Against a list like this I simply won't reveal my vehicles untl at least 60-70% of the HWS are dead/running. Even then, there's a possibility I can just outshoot you for 4 turns before charging to the objective in the 5th.

L. Wrex

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409216.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409216.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them lol) 6 lascannons are dead, and 6 more run off of the table.

At that point it's your entire army versus 6 lascannons, 5 heavy bolters, and a mortar and a whole bunch of small squad infantry trying to move up the field to claim objectives 6" at a time.

This sort of army is also a real bitch in Dawn of War scenarios. Even with Runx3 command (which HWS fail almost 50% of the time) it's so hard to get your models into cover or create decent firing lanes.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409283.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409283.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Raxmei wrote:]Lascannons actually benefit more from Bring It Down than autocannons. While it does help both weapons, bring it down magnifies the possibility that both shots can hit and score more than one destroyed result. That is still a good outcome, but the way most people calculate the odds they count that twice when in most cases it should only count once. I ran the numbers a few posts up, Bring it Down order outside of cover is the only situation where a lascannon outperforms an autocannon shooting at Rhinos. I originally examined this particular issue to determine whether my lascannon or autocannon squads should have priority for orders. All else being equal orders help lascannons more.

I couldn't find the post you were referring to, but I'm half blind from fatigue and this computer's screen sucks. Let's assume we're comparing 2 autocannons with 2 lascannons. I say two because firebase squads should be at least in pairs, if not trios, but let's go with 2 for simplicity. The autocannon gains a whole extra hit, the lascannon gains half of one.

Autocannons sans order vs. AV10, 2 hits, 1.33 glances or better (1 pen)
Autocannons with order vs. AV10, 3 hits, 2 glances or better (1.5 pen)
Lascannons sans order vs. AV10, 1 hit, 1 glances or better (0.83 pen)
Lascannons with order vs. AV10, 1.5 hits, 1.5 glances or better (1.25)

Vs AV10, the autocannons are better at both glancing (+0.33) and penetrating (+0.17) and gain more relative benefit from BiD (+0.17, +0.08).

Autocannons sans order vs. AV11, 2 hits, 1 glance or better (0.67 pen)
Autocannons with order vs. AV11, 3 hits, 1.5 glances or better (1 pen)
Lascannons sans order vs. AV11, 1 hit, 0.83 glances or better (0.67 pen)
Lascannons with order vs. AV11, 1.5 hits, 1.25 glances or better (1 pen)

Vs. AV11, the autocannon is better at glancing (+0.17) and gains more benefit for that from BID (+0.08), but their chance to penetrate is identical and improves the same amount.

Autocannons sans order vs. AV12, 2 hits, 0.67 glances or better (0.33 pen)
Autocannons with order vs. AV12, 3 hits, 1 glance or better (0.51 pen)
Lascannons sans order vs. AV12, 1 hit, 0.67 glances or better (0.33 pen)
Lascannons with order vs. AV12, 1.5 hits, 1 glance or better (0.51)

Vs. AV12, absolutely no difference

makr wrote:Lascannons will match autocannons against AV12, and be negligebly worse against AV11. They're not as good against AV10, but still. Lascannons will do much more damage to MEQs, TEQs, and all sorts of MCs, and can threaten AV13 tanks like Hammerheads/Predators.

I disagree, about them being "negligibly worse against AV11". While glancing hits can't destroy, the autocannon is more likely to blow off the weapon off that vindicator or predator (side shots) or at least prevent it from shooting, and it's significantly more likely immobilize or stun transports (I rarely see heavy armor anymore at 15 points a pop).

TEQs: these are almost always assault terminators, so using the same 2 vs. 2 comparison from above, the autocannons will kill 0.28 TEQ, while the lascannons will kill 0.14. So autocannons are twice better against assault terminators than lascannons. Against Meganobz and Sanguinary Guard, the lascannon is significantly better (especially against meganobz), but I've never seen the former used and I kind of doubt we'll see much of the latter once BA tactics mature (tiny unit size, very large cost, can't hide in transports).

MEQs: Without cover, autocannons kill 0.55 and lascannons kill 0.83, so pretty solid difference. However, I don't know too many people that throw their marines out into the open against IG (if their transport is popped, they just disembark behind it). In 5+ cover, they both kill the same amount of Marines. In 4+ cover (which is far more common in my experience), the autocannons still kill 0.55, while the lascannons drop to 0.42. This comparison is pretty much indentical, unless you introduce FNP to the equation, which makes the lascannon better. Neither weapon is particularly effective at frying marines, though. :(

MCs: I agree here, if you face tons of Tyranid MCs (all T6 and 3+ or better), the lascannon is the better weapon if they are in the open (1.25 vs.. Against Daemon Princes, the numbers are the same as vs. Marines (identical if in the open, autocannons better if in cover). This is far from their optimum target, of course, as lasguns are pretty much meaningless at this point (but without FRFSRF and only 12 of them, you weren't doing much anyway).

AV13: Could you define "threaten"? Glancing hits are still effective vs. these tanks, as they stop them from shooting. They side AV11 or 12, at which point the autocannon is either better or the two weapons are identical. Against front armor (assuming 2 squads and BiD) the autocannons glance 0.51 times, while the lascannons glance or better 0.75 times (pen 0.50 times). So the lascannon is significantly better if you're facing a wall of these and can't get side shots, but the autocannon isn't awful. And again, it's not the squad's optimum target.

So if we look purely at performance, the lascannon is the better weapon if you face a lot of Nidzilla or Blood Angels (wall of AV13, FNP marines), although these targets are far from optimal and we have far better ways to deal with these guys in our army. Against everything else, the autocannon rocks its face.

And we absolutely cannot dismiss cost in a game where we have finite resources. Cost is at least as important as the stat line. Cost is the ultimate balancing factor. Conscripts have a crap statline, but if they were suddenly made 2 points, we'd be dropping 50-man squads all over the place. The Ogryns have a fantastic statline, but their cost makes them mediocre at best. The lascannon is not a bad weapon, not by a long shot, but the performace/cost ratio of the autocannon completely blows all competition out of the water. By the way, people were saying earlier that if the meta was infantry-heavy, the heavy bolter would be the superior weapon. Even this is not true, as the autocannon performs better than a heavy bolter vs T4 infantry, regardless of saves. The autocannon is the best "vs. all comers" weapon available to Infantry Squads, period. There is no arguing or debating this, it's a fact set in stone.

By the way, you said you use infantry lascannons to deal with MCs, because your heavy support choices are Hydras and Manticores. These tanks are actually quite excellent vs. MCs. The hydras put out a lot of firepower, and can force wounds through by sheer weight of fire. Manticores almost auto-hit MCs, insta-splat Daemon Princes, could cause multiple wounds with multiple templates, and are excellent vs Hive Tyrants with guards. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409730.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409730.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Terminus wrote:

Raxmei wrote:]Lascannons actually benefit more from Bring It Down than autocannons. While it does help both weapons, bring it down magnifies the possibility that both shots can hit and score more than one destroyed result. That is still a good outcome, but the way most people calculate the odds they count that twice when in most cases it should only count once. I ran the numbers a few posts up, Bring it Down order outside of cover is the only situation where a lascannon outperforms an autocannon shooting at Rhinos. I originally examined this particular issue to determine whether my lascannon or autocannon squads should have priority for orders. All else being equal orders help lascannons more.

You're counting average number of hits. That is precisely the problem I was referring to. When shooting at a single model, what you really need to know is your chance of killing it at least once. If you just count average number of hits the instances in which multiple hits are scored will be weighted more heavily than they should (killing a Rhino twice is no better than killing it once), and that distorts your numbers in the autocannon's favor. Sanity check: Weapon X has a 25% chance of killing a Rhino when fired, is the chance of killing a Rhino 100% when you fire four of them at once? That's basically what you're doing here, but on a different scale. This distortion is magnified under Bring It Down because it increases the chances that multiple shots will hit. I'll just post for AV11 because those are the numbers I've been working with:
Two autocannons trying to kill or immobilize a Rhino have a 33.6% chance of succeeding without orders and a 46.8% chance of succeeding with.
1-(1-1/2(1/36+1/6))^4 = .336, 1-(1-3/4(1/36+1/6))^4 = .468
Two lascannons trying to do the same thing have a 32.9% chance of succeeding without orders and a 46.8% chance of succeeding with.
1-(1-1/2(1/36+1/3))^2 = .329, 1-(3/4(1/36+1/3))^2 = .468

I actually posted this in separate posts, one with numbers and another demonstrating how those numbers were generated. For you I repost:
A single autocannon shooting at a Rhino without cover or orders has a 18.5% chance of killing or immobilizing vs the lascannon's 18%. With cover and no orders it becomes 9.5% vs 9%. With cover and orders 14.1% vs 13.5%. Without cover and with orders the lascannon does edge out the autocannon, 27% chance with autocannon vs 27.1% chance with lascannon.
***
Both weapons hit on a 4+. Against Av11 autocannons glance on a 4 followed by immobilizing on a 6 and penetrate on a 5+ and kill or immobilize on a 4+. I'm not counting vehicle stunned. For a single shot the chances of doing what we're trying to do are 1/2(1/6*1/6+1/3*1/2) = 9.7%. 1/2 is the chance to hit, 1/6*1/6 is the chance of glancing then immobilizing, 1/3*1/2 is the chance of penetrating then killing or immobilizing. There are two shots but you can't just add together the odds of doing what you want. If you do that you'll be double counting those times when both shots do what you want, and killing a Rhino twice isn't really any better than killing it once. The quick and dirty way of figuring this is to find the individual odds of not doing what you want, exponentiating by the number of tries (in this case 2) to find the odds that *neither* shot does what you want, then when you turn that around you have the odds of at least one shot getting the desired result. Then the percent chance of doing what we're trying to do with an autocannon becomes (you'll want a calculator for this) 1-(1-1/2(1/36+1/6))^2, times 100 of course = 18.5%. You can skip all that with singular lascannons because they only shoot once. Lascannon is simple 1/2(1/36+1/3) = 18%. 1/36 is again the chance of glancing then immobilizing and 1/3 represents the 2/3 chance of penetrating times the 1/2 chance of a penetrating hit doing what we're trying to do.

With cover and without orders it's the same thing except the 1/2 becomes 1/4, with orders and without cover 1/2 becomes 3/4, and with both cover and orders 1/2 becomes 3/8. This is all for BS3 of course. Performing this calculation against other targets and in other circumstances is left as an exercise to the reader.
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409796.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409796.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Dainty Twerp wrote:Here's a Ailaros style 1500 point list.

CCS 4 plasma
CCS 4 plasma
PCS 4 Flamers
PIS HB
PIS HB
PIS HB
HWS Lascannons
HWS Lascannons
HWS Lascannons
HWS Lascannons
HWS Lascannons
SWS 3 Meltaguns
SWS 3 Meltaguns
SWS 3 Meltaguns
PCS 4 flamers
PIS HB
PIS HB
PIS Mortar
HWS 3 lascannons
SWS 3 Meltaguns

Who thinks they can beat it? (in non-KP missions)

This list will definitely benefit from a company standards..,makes them boys much more resilient..

and whatever you guys think it is a waste of the PIS slot if you do not also take special weapons....

This list is actually not bad but will suffer once anything touches it in hth...I would sacrifice a few points by giving a squad a commissar and making a PW armed blob....in fact if you think about it this list will also benefit from straken..some points to consider if you want to upgrade the points to 1850...

On the topic on the AC vs LC, in this edition of 40k the effectiveness of the LC and ML was lowered with the new and improved cover saves rule. This means volume of fire becomes much more critical, and as the autocannon also got cheaper it suddenly became a points efficient general purpose weapon for line squads. The advent of the vendetta also give the IG a more efficient lascannon platform than LC's in squads, besides looking damn good as well.

This is also the reason why artillery became a better option for me than russes. The fact that most can lob their rounds over cover and hit side armor too makes artillery tanks like the basilisk and manticore such real killers for me.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409831.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409831.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them CSM rhino list with some DP's for HQ's against a list bringing a slappin' of Autocannons. Then tell me they suck, since they seem to have a quite painful effect on my army. Sure it ain't going to worry my marines as much- thats what a Lemon with plas sponsons is for]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409917.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409917.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Jihallah wrote:I have and idea. Run a CSM rhino list with some DP's for HQ's against a list bringing a slappin' of Autocannons. Then tell me they suck, since they seem to have a quite painful effect on my army. Sure it ain't going to worry my marines as much- thats what a Lemon with plas sponsons is for

This, in a nutshell, summarizes the effect of the autocannon on today's light armor heavy environment...]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409939.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409939.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409981.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409981.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Raxmei wrote: When shooting at a single model, what you really need to know is your chance of killing it at least once. If you just count average number of hits the instances in which multiple hits are scored will be weighted more heavily than they should (killing a Rhino twice is no better than killing it once), and that distorts your numbers in the autocannon's favor. Sanity check: Weapon X has a 25% chance of killing a Rhino when fired, is the chance of killing a Rhino 100% when you fire four of them at once?

For a single shot the chances of doing what we're trying to do are 1/2(1/6*1/6+1/3*1/2) = 9.7%. 1/2 is the chance to hit, 1/6*1/6 is the chance of glancing then immobilizing, 1/3*1/2 is the chance of penetrating then killing or immobilizing.

Four weapon Xs have about a 68% chance to wreck the rhino. As you said, the easiest way of doing this is taking the chance of it not happening, taking it to the power ^4, and then subtracting that result from one for the chance to actually succeed.

I'll take your word for the numbers on the Rhino, and will do the same calcs for a Chimera (although I don't bother with orders or cover).

Chance to immobilize or destroy a Chimera: A single autocannon shot hits on a 4+ (1/2), glances on a 5 (1/6), and immobilizes on a 6 (1/6). So 1/2*1/6*1/6 = 1/72 = 1.39%. It hits on 4+ (1/2), penetrates on a 6 (1/6), and immobilizes or destroys on 4+ (1/2). So 1/2*1/6*1/2 = 1/24 = 4.2%. Adding those together gives us 5.6%. So odds of failure is 94.4%. Taking that to ^4 is 79.4% of not succeeding. So chance to succeed is 20.6% (11% just to destroy).
Chance to immobilize or destroy a Chimera: A single lascannon shot hits on a 4+ (1/2), glances on a 3 (1/6), and immobilizes on a 6 (1/6). So 1/2*1/6*1/6 = 1/72 = 1.39%. It hits on 4+ (1/2), penetrates on a 4+ (1/2), and immobilizes or destroys on 4+ (1/2). So 1/2*1/2*1/2 = 1/8 = 12.5%. Adding those together gives us 13.9%. So odds of failure is 86.1% Taking that to ^2 is 74% of not succeeding. So chance to succeed is 26% (16% just to destroy).

Chance to stop Predator/Vindicator/whatever from firing: A single autocannon shot hits on a 4+ (1/2), glances on 6 (1/6) = 1/2 = 12.5%. 87.5% to fail with one shot. 58.6% chance to fail with 4 shots. So 41.4% to succeed (0% to destroy).
Chance to stop Predator/Vindicator/whatever from firing: A single lascannon shot hits on 4+ (1/2), glances on 4+ (1/2) = 1/4 = 25%. 75% to fail with one shot. 56.2% chance to fail with 2 shots. So 43.1% to succeed (10.8% to destroy).

So I stand corrected, a lascannon and autocannon perform about the same vs. AV11, the lascannon edges out ahead a bit vs. AV12, and both weapons are just as likely to silence an AV13 vehicle with the lascannon having an okay chance to destroy it in the process. Once we factor in the cost difference (lascannon being 2x the cost, or increasing the squad's cost by ~15% or so), the autocannon still has the best performance/cost ratio, and is more in keeping with the squad's anti-infantry role. I'll take three autocannons and a demolitions doctrine over three lascannons any day of the week.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409986.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1409986.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Dainty Twerp wrote:Here's a Ailaros style 1500 point list

Firstly, this is not my list. Everyone who has commented on this has fallen into one huge straw man trap.

In any case, list building has nothing to do with the statline of a weapon, or it's metagame effectiveness. Why belabor this irrelevant point?

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:I've presented my arguement logically, mathematically and anecdotally. In none of my arguements have you come up with a counter-arguement, merely choosing to dismiss *my* arguement as fallatious.

that's because they ARE fallatious. I mean, if I said that autocannons are good at killing space marines because the sky is blue or bacon is delicious, would that be convincing? Why should I engage in non-sensical, fallatious arguments? All I would do is encourage it.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
The metagame is transport heavy. The vast majority of transports are AV11 or under. The autocannon is mathematically the best weapon against these targets. Arguing against this is illogical, you're simply trying to hide this by writing everyone else's opinion off as fallatious.

I agree that the metagame is transport heavy. My solution is to handle this metagame problem in the metagame. This is not an illogical position.

Calling a fallatious argument illogical is not illogical. I am not trying to hide anything, I'm just trying to make arguments based on reason rather than on logical garbage.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

Ailaros wrote:That and I'm saying the autocannon suffers terribly from opportunity cost in large numbers, and effectiveness and role-confusion problems in small numbers. What's so illogical about that?

This is simply wrong. The reasons have been discussed and argued over for the last 3 pages.

Over the last three pages, there has been a lot of me making arguments, and other people making irrational fallacies. If there were real arguments, I would address them (which I have, when they've come up)

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
The cost is not huge when compared to other alternatives, the effectiveness, shot-for-shot, is GOOD when compared to other guns and your arguement regarding role-confusion is, simply, absurd.

PLEASE provide some arguments for this point (that don't make the same mistakes as arguing that drinking mercury is good for your health).

I have proven that the effectiveness is poor because of math. I have proven that they have opportunity cost with both math and metagame reasoning and have proposed better alternatives.

I have reasonably argued that role confusion is real, and I have not heard an argument against it other than name-calling or illogical ramblings.

Lycaeus Wrex wrote:
I think we're simply going to have to agree to disagree.

If you are unable to formulate real arguments, then we can't have a discussion. If you want to go on believing in whatever fallacy-based fairy tale you want, then go ahead. It doesn't make you right, and it doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

The reason that I haven't agreed to disagree is because I want to promote accuracy and utility of thought. I will continue to disagree with people who want to promote something else. If you're willing to accept inaccuracy and futility, then fine, agree to disagree with me.

Without logical arguments on both sides, there really isn't a discussion. As such, there really isn't much more to say. If anyone else desires to actually engage what I've said, I'd be glad to hear their arguments.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411106.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411106.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
Lycaeus Wrex wrote:

"I think we're simply going to have to agree to disagree. "

i agree with this idea as well.

Ailaros wrote:
"If you are unable to formulate real arguments, then we can't have a discussion."
i think your version of "real" vs. other member's versions make it impossible to discuss this with you.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411152.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411152.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
This. You're also not coming up with any original theories or ideas, merely constantly de-bunking other peoples.

I've expressed my point enough, and as it stands we're just going round in circles, bringing the whole aspect of fallacy into this has effectively de-railed the thread. I'm not so desperate to win an arguement on the internet as to continue this discussion any further.

You haven't convinced me to stop taking autocannons and I haven't convinced you to take them. Furthermore, I have to resent your labelling my arguement as a 'fallacy-based fairy tale'. We're having a debate, not a pissing contest.

Maybe it's time for a lock and to move on?

L. Wrex

EDIT: Spelling]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411443.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411443.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
1. He's a fool, which I don't think is the case, because anyone that stupid would have flippers for hands, and thus would be incapable of using a keyboard.
2. He's a troll, and his posts are crafted to annoy and irritate. I think this is the truth of it, so engaging any further "argument" is just giving him what he wants.

That said, while the thread has run its course, I'm glad for its existence, as it finally got me to run the numbers that I've been putting off out of sheer laziness. It's helped improve my opinion of the lascannon, although instead of replacing my infantry autocannons, it has made me value my Vendettas and hull-LC Battle Tanks all the more. It's also given me a more concrete picture of what to expect from the autocannon, and how awesome it really is. Any thread where you learn something new is a success in my opinion, even if it just supports what experience has already shown me. At least now I know my dice aren't faulty and 1-prone like rounded dice often are. Thanks to all the contributors and math nerds.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411681.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411681.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Ailaros wrote:I agree that the metagame is transport heavy. My solution is to handle this metagame problem in the metagame. This is not an illogical position.

Calling a fallatious argument illogical is not illogical. I am not trying to hide anything, I'm just trying to make arguments based on reason rather than on logical garbage.

And you'd have to agree that AC's do a smashing job of taking down them transports

You're making an arguement for the sake of argueing, and pretty much ignoring what everyone else is saying. This makes you one of those dumb gakkers that will only be proven wrong via experience. PM me next time you come to Australia, I can provide a demonstration for you buddy

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411744.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411744.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Ailaros wrote:

Dainty Twerp wrote:Here's a Ailaros style 1500 point list

Then post a fething list.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411764.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411764.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Kommissar Kel wrote:-Flamer: PCS + PIS; The template is the best way to mitigate Guardsman’s BS3 while still putting out some serious hurt on the enemy. Veteran Squads are not an awful choice as they can carry 3 or carry a Heavy Flamer+ 2 Flamers for Template redundancy, but are best kitted with direct-fire weaponry.

-Plasma Gun: CCS, Veterans, and Storm Troopers; Both of the first options can take Carapace armor, and the third comes with it standard which drastically improves survivability in the event of an overheat. Both of these options also have a BS4 improving the probability of a Hit with the plasma gun. PIS will do if the squad is equipped with a Lascannon as well as these two weapons paired are incredibly powerful (and when targeting Vehicles/MCs can be twin-linked to avoid over-heat/increase the chances to hit)

-Grenade Launcher: Anyone; The single most versatile weapon in the guard armory, it is both direct-fire and has the option to Blast-fire. Veterans and PCS can go Light Vehicle/light MC/Multi-wound character hunting with a Grenade Launcher while still being able to effectively deal with Horde-type units. This weapon is best used in numbers and/or Paired with an Auto-Cannon, Missile Launcher, or Heavy Bolter. Finally this is one of the cheapest special Weapons.

-Melta Gun: CCS, PCS, Veterans, and Storm Troopers; The key to a Melta Gun is to fire as many as possible at the enemy Vehicle/MC, Twin-linking them under Bring it down if possible. Beware the temptation to take too many as this will leave you with too little in the way of fire-power to deal with large numbers of enemy infantry.

-Sniper Rifles: Ratlings, maybe Veterans; You want sniper rifles in numbers and with BS4. Ratlings have both for the best points cost. Veterans can take 2 and a Heavy Weapon but the only good pairs for a Sniper rifle is an Auto-cannon, Mortar, or Heavy Bolter; and you often want your Vets mobile anyways.

-Mortars: Combined PIS + Heavy Weapons Squads; Due to the Fragile nature of a Heavy Weapons Squad this is the only desirable choice for them. You can hide Mortars behind LOS blocking terrain and Rain multi-template death down on your advancing enemy. They also have excellent Range.

-Missile Launchers: Combined PIS, PIS, and CCS; A very versatile weapon System, the missile launcher can mitigate Guard BS3 via Frag Blast markers, or threaten light-medium vehicles/MC via the “bring it down” order. A static CCS loves the Missile Launcher just as much as it loves the auto-cannon due to its versatile nature.

-Lascannon: Combined PIS, PIS; Dedicated Anti-tank/MC, the Lascannon is best taken in Combined squads of 2-3 and under the Bring it down order, this will allow you to hit more reliably and ensure heavy damage to your chosen target. In a Pinch it can be used on Heavy Infantry such as TEQs but the IG have no way of ensuring you can even hit reliably with the weapon, multi shot weapons actually work better on Heavy infantry based on the pure number of shots sent out, and number of saves forced. Static CCS Like them too, and hit more reliably, but the nature of the weapon limits the CCS to a single role.

-Heavy Bolters: Combined PIS + PIS; A dedicated Anti-infantry weapon, the Heavy Bolter is also best used in combined squads of 2-3, but with the “fire on my Target” or “First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire” orders. They may not have the Range nor the Strength of an Autocannon but the additional shot gives you a better chance to hit more enemy infantry and the AP denies all but MEQs their armor save altogether. With proper target allocation you can take out entire squads (even large ones) of close combat troops well before they ever hit your lines.

-Autocannon: Combined PIS, PIS, and CCS; Arguably the best Heavy Weapon available to the guard, the Autocannon is a Transport hunter that can easily and reliably be turned on the contents of the now disabled/destroyed transport. The Guard have access to large numbers of autocannons on various platforms but as this guide is dealing with infantry I will say this: Static CCS Love the Autocannon, it is so Versitile, and dangerous that no enemy can ignore it but has such range that few enemies can get close to it. If I am outfitting my Infantry squads with Lascannons and Heavy Bolters I often outfit my CCS with Autocannons, this allows the to have multiple shots that hit more often then miss, crack open enemy transports, and threaten any infantry that oppose them.

for Me:

flamer - PCS , PIS
Plasmagun - Vets, PIS
grenade launcher - PCS, PIS
Melta - CCS, Vets
Sniper - Ratlings
Mortor - HWS
Missle launcher - don't use...
Lascannon - CCS, PCS and PIS
H bolter - don't use...
Autocannon - CCS, PCS and PIS]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411783.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411783.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411811.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411811.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
Like I said, persisting in this "debate" is just feeding the troll, as he has no real argument to speak of. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411842.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411842.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

alarmingrick wrote:

Kommissar Kel wrote:-Flamer: PCS + PIS; The template is the best way to mitigate Guardsman’s BS3 while still putting out some serious hurt on the enemy. Veteran Squads are not an awful choice as they can carry 3 or carry a Heavy Flamer+ 2 Flamers for Template redundancy, but are best kitted with direct-fire weaponry.

-Plasma Gun: CCS, Veterans, and Storm Troopers; Both of the first options can take Carapace armor, and the third comes with it standard which drastically improves survivability in the event of an overheat. Both of these options also have a BS4 improving the probability of a Hit with the plasma gun. PIS will do if the squad is equipped with a Lascannon as well as these two weapons paired are incredibly powerful (and when targeting Vehicles/MCs can be twin-linked to avoid over-heat/increase the chances to hit)

-Grenade Launcher: Anyone; The single most versatile weapon in the guard armory, it is both direct-fire and has the option to Blast-fire. Veterans and PCS can go Light Vehicle/light MC/Multi-wound character hunting with a Grenade Launcher while still being able to effectively deal with Horde-type units. This weapon is best used in numbers and/or Paired with an Auto-Cannon, Missile Launcher, or Heavy Bolter. Finally this is one of the cheapest special Weapons.

-Melta Gun: CCS, PCS, Veterans, and Storm Troopers; The key to a Melta Gun is to fire as many as possible at the enemy Vehicle/MC, Twin-linking them under Bring it down if possible. Beware the temptation to take too many as this will leave you with too little in the way of fire-power to deal with large numbers of enemy infantry.

-Sniper Rifles: Ratlings, maybe Veterans; You want sniper rifles in numbers and with BS4. Ratlings have both for the best points cost. Veterans can take 2 and a Heavy Weapon but the only good pairs for a Sniper rifle is an Auto-cannon, Mortar, or Heavy Bolter; and you often want your Vets mobile anyways.

-Mortars: Combined PIS + Heavy Weapons Squads; Due to the Fragile nature of a Heavy Weapons Squad this is the only desirable choice for them. You can hide Mortars behind LOS blocking terrain and Rain multi-template death down on your advancing enemy. They also have excellent Range.

-Missile Launchers: Combined PIS, PIS, and CCS; A very versatile weapon System, the missile launcher can mitigate Guard BS3 via Frag Blast markers, or threaten light-medium vehicles/MC via the “bring it down” order. A static CCS loves the Missile Launcher just as much as it loves the auto-cannon due to its versatile nature.

-Lascannon: Combined PIS, PIS; Dedicated Anti-tank/MC, the Lascannon is best taken in Combined squads of 2-3 and under the Bring it down order, this will allow you to hit more reliably and ensure heavy damage to your chosen target. In a Pinch it can be used on Heavy Infantry such as TEQs but the IG have no way of ensuring you can even hit reliably with the weapon, multi shot weapons actually work better on Heavy infantry based on the pure number of shots sent out, and number of saves forced. Static CCS Like them too, and hit more reliably, but the nature of the weapon limits the CCS to a single role.

-Heavy Bolters: Combined PIS + PIS; A dedicated Anti-infantry weapon, the Heavy Bolter is also best used in combined squads of 2-3, but with the “fire on my Target” or “First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire” orders. They may not have the Range nor the Strength of an Autocannon but the additional shot gives you a better chance to hit more enemy infantry and the AP denies all but MEQs their armor save altogether. With proper target allocation you can take out entire squads (even large ones) of close combat troops well before they ever hit your lines.

-Autocannon: Combined PIS, PIS, and CCS; Arguably the best Heavy Weapon available to the guard, the Autocannon is a Transport hunter that can easily and reliably be turned on the contents of the now disabled/destroyed transport. The Guard have access to large numbers of autocannons on various platforms but as this guide is dealing with infantry I will say this: Static CCS Love the Autocannon, it is so Versitile, and dangerous that no enemy can ignore it but has such range that few enemies can get close to it. If I am outfitting my Infantry squads with Lascannons and Heavy Bolters I often outfit my CCS with Autocannons, this allows the to have multiple shots that hit more often then miss, crack open enemy transports, and threaten any infantry that oppose them.

for Me:

flamer - PCS , PIS, SWS
Plasmagun - Vets, PIS, storm troops
grenade launcher - PCS, PIS
Melta - CCS, Vets, SWS, storm troops
Sniper - Ratlings
Mortor - HWS
Missle launcher - don't use...
Lascannon - CCS, PCS and PIS
H bolter - don't use...
Autocannon - CCS, PCS and PIS

just added the SWS and storm troopers....and in my opinion for all the heavy weapons HWS are still an option....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411917.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411917.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Terminus wrote:

Like I said, persisting in this "debate" is just feeding the troll, as he has no real argument to speak of.

That's just your fallacious... ad homine BLAHBLAHBLAH!]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411947.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411947.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

freddieyu1 wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:
Kommissar Kel wrote:-Flamer: PCS + PIS; The template is the best way to mitigate Guardsman’s BS3 while still putting out some serious hurt on the enemy. Veteran Squads are not an awful choice as they can carry 3 or carry a Heavy Flamer+ 2 Flamers for Template redundancy, but are best kitted with direct-fire weaponry.

-Plasma Gun: CCS, Veterans, and Storm Troopers; Both of the first options can take Carapace armor, and the third comes with it standard which drastically improves survivability in the event of an overheat. Both of these options also have a BS4 improving the probability of a Hit with the plasma gun. PIS will do if the squad is equipped with a Lascannon as well as these two weapons paired are incredibly powerful (and when targeting Vehicles/MCs can be twin-linked to avoid over-heat/increase the chances to hit)

-Grenade Launcher: Anyone; The single most versatile weapon in the guard armory, it is both direct-fire and has the option to Blast-fire. Veterans and PCS can go Light Vehicle/light MC/Multi-wound character hunting with a Grenade Launcher while still being able to effectively deal with Horde-type units. This weapon is best used in numbers and/or Paired with an Auto-Cannon, Missile Launcher, or Heavy Bolter. Finally this is one of the cheapest special Weapons.

-Melta Gun: CCS, PCS, Veterans, and Storm Troopers; The key to a Melta Gun is to fire as many as possible at the enemy Vehicle/MC, Twin-linking them under Bring it down if possible. Beware the temptation to take too many as this will leave you with too little in the way of fire-power to deal with large numbers of enemy infantry.

-Sniper Rifles: Ratlings, maybe Veterans; You want sniper rifles in numbers and with BS4. Ratlings have both for the best points cost. Veterans can take 2 and a Heavy Weapon but the only good pairs for a Sniper rifle is an Auto-cannon, Mortar, or Heavy Bolter; and you often want your Vets mobile anyways.

-Mortars: Combined PIS + Heavy Weapons Squads; Due to the Fragile nature of a Heavy Weapons Squad this is the only desirable choice for them. You can hide Mortars behind LOS blocking terrain and Rain multi-template death down on your advancing enemy. They also have excellent Range.

-Missile Launchers: Combined PIS, PIS, and CCS; A very versatile weapon System, the missile launcher can mitigate Guard BS3 via Frag Blast markers, or threaten light-medium vehicles/MC via the “bring it down” order. A static CCS loves the Missile Launcher just as much as it loves the auto-cannon due to its versatile nature.

-Lascannon: Combined PIS, PIS; Dedicated Anti-tank/MC, the Lascannon is best taken in Combined squads of 2-3 and under the Bring it down order, this will allow you to hit more reliably and ensure heavy damage to your chosen target. In a Pinch it can be used on Heavy Infantry such as TEQs but the IG have no way of ensuring you can even hit reliably with the weapon, multi shot weapons actually work better on Heavy infantry based on the pure number of shots sent out, and number of saves forced. Static CCS Like them too, and hit more reliably, but the nature of the weapon limits the CCS to a single role.

-Heavy Bolters: Combined PIS + PIS; A dedicated Anti-infantry weapon, the Heavy Bolter is also best used in combined squads of 2-3, but with the “fire on my Target” or “First Rank Fire, Second Rank Fire” orders. They may not have the Range nor the Strength of an Autocannon but the additional shot gives you a better chance to hit more enemy infantry and the AP denies all but MEQs their armor save altogether. With proper target allocation you can take out entire squads (even large ones) of close combat troops well before they ever hit your lines.

-Autocannon: Combined PIS, PIS, and CCS; Arguably the best Heavy Weapon available to the guard, the Autocannon is a Transport hunter that can easily and reliably be turned on the contents of the now disabled/destroyed transport. The Guard have access to large numbers of autocannons on various platforms but as this guide is dealing with infantry I will say this: Static CCS Love the Autocannon, it is so Versitile, and dangerous that no enemy can ignore it but has such range that few enemies can get close to it. If I am outfitting my Infantry squads with Lascannons and Heavy Bolters I often outfit my CCS with Autocannons, this allows the to have multiple shots that hit more often then miss, crack open enemy transports, and threaten any infantry that oppose them.

for Me:

flamer - PCS , PIS, SWS
Plasmagun - Vets, PIS, storm troops
grenade launcher - PCS, PIS
Melta - CCS, Vets, SWS, storm troops
Sniper - Ratlings
Mortor - HWS
Missle launcher - don't use...
Lascannon - CCS, PCS and PIS
H bolter - don't use...
Autocannon - CCS, PCS and PIS

just added the SWS and storm troopers....and in my opinion for all the heavy weapons HWS are still an option....

okay, i'll give you the SWS! i forgot them.
and the H bolter has really been beat out for it's role by the AC, imho. for the the same price, i'll take the higher STR, greater range and AP4 all day long.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411957.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1411957.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Fetterkey wrote:Ailaros, I think that the main difference here is philosophical; most of those arguing with you favor autocannons and the like in order to attempt to bring down transports at range, while you seem to consider this an inefficient task. I think the question now is simple-- what approach you prefer, and how do you make that approach effective?

I second that. I'd genuinely very much like to hear the answer to this question.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412007.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412007.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them TL autocannons and 2 TL grenade launchers) is inefficient, how much better must the HB be against infantry to be considered efficient?

With apologies to Lycaeus for using average results*, against T3 models, two HBs would deal 2.5 wounds and the ACs would deal 1.66. So that's almost a whole wound difference, which drops to 0.42 against cover, and 0.27 against Sv3+ models (Scorpions, Sororitas). Against T4 models, two HBs would deal 2 wounds and the ACs would deal 1.66, so the difference is now just a third (0.34) of a wound. If we add cover the difference is 0.17, and if we add power armor the difference is 0.11. So against the most common infantry in the game, the heavy bolter does a whole 1/10 of a wound more. In exchange, you give up practically all capability vs vehicles, except speeders and ork trucks.

The argument could be made that you'd be better off making the infantry squad exclusively anti-infantry, and then using HWTs (or vendettas/hydras/manticores/russes/melta squads) to pop the actual tanks. I think this is the point he's trying to make. While the theory is sound if we're talking about Tac Marines, who are indeed very inefficient if you're trying to use them to pop tanks at long range, the picture is completely different when you're firing 2 or 3 TL autocannons (and 2-3 S6 grenade launchers or even plasmaguns). When you consider the prevalence of vehicles, the fact GL&AC combined squads are actually quite capable of wrecking them, and how marginal* the HB's "superiority" is when it comes to killing troops, this is simply an unnecessary over-specialization.

*Of course, much like fractions skewed the results in the AC vs. LC comparison, I'm sure the actual difference is actually even smaller if we consider complete wounds. However, I don't recall in the slightest how to calculate the chance of killing at least 2 models with the heavy bolter, for example. Lycaeus? That'd be your cue.

]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412150.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412150.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412225.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412225.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them Yes, this is now a math tutoring session. I can do pharmacokinetics in my sleep, but this probability stuff I haven't touched in a good 6 years has completely abandoned my brain, it seems. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412316.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412316.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them

Terminus wrote:Certainly, but I'm still curious how you would calculate that.

Yes, this is now a math tutoring session. I can do pharmacokinetics in my sleep, but this probability stuff I haven't touched in a good 6 years has completely abandoned my brain, it seems.

I don't know how they teach this in schools. Here's an illustrative problem:
You have a line of 10 boxes. X of those boxes contain a kitten. Now set up another identical line of ten boxes perpendicular to the other one and draw a grid between them. This line also has X boxes containing a kitten. You now have a grid with 100 cells in ten rows and columns. How many of those cells are in a row or column or both that contains a kitten?

The hard way to do this is to first count up the 10x cells that are in the same row as a kitten. 10x cells are in the same column as a kitten. Clump the kittens together to make the next step easier to imagine, the cells the are both in the same row and column as a kitten and thus have been counted twice in hte previous step form a square x cells across. The number of cells in the same row or column as a kitten is 20x-x^2 (for a ten by ten square).

Easier way. It's easier if you first imagine that the boxes with kittens are all next to each other on the ends of the rows. The cells that are not in a cell in the same row or column as a kitten form a square 10-x cells on a side. (10-x)^2 is the number of squares that do not meet our criteria. Subtract that number from the number of cells (100) and you have the number that do meet our criteria. 100-(10-x)^2. This adds up to the same answer as before. It is trivial to visualize how this also works in three or more dimensions. You now have a cubic grid with 1000 cells and a cube containing (10-x)^3 cells that are not in the same row, column, or level as a kitten.

To generalize that example, you have lines of y boxes in which x contain kittens. In a line, x out of y boxes contain kittens. y-x out of y boxes do not contain kittens, fraction (y-x)/y. Remember that fraction. In an n-dimensional grid (y-x)^n cells do not meet our criteria and the fraction is (y-x)^n/y^n. This is equal to that fraction from before raised to the power of n. The number of boxes containing kittens compared to the number of boxes in the line is analogous to the odds of a given shot succeeding.

How this works in relation to what you're trying to be should be obvious. Take the fraction of outcomes not getting what you want out of any given shot, raise to that the power of the number of tries you have (this gets you all of the outcomes where you don't get what you want), then subtract that from 1 to get the fraction of outcomes that do get you what you want.

edit: Oh, and if you happen to have a mixed group you can use mostly the same method. Just multiply all of those fractions together. ]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412459.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412459.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412500.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412500.page GMT Re:Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them Lol, boxes of kittens....

What a thread! Reading through (and skipping lots of math), I think that, philisophically, Ailoros has engaged in a sound argument, and certainly has pointed out (and correctly labelled - can you say training in logic?) some fallacious ones. I don't think he should have to apologize for doing that, even if he's not very friendly or likeable. We're allowed our own opinions, no?

None of this helps me much, however, as I can't find anywhere in here his suggestion as to how I stop transports. He doesn't like autocannons or lascannons, barely mentions meltas (or how to mitigate the short range), makes no mention of vehicles or grenades, won't post a list. What's your secret, Ail? I guess it's hidden in his message - don't bother trying to stop transports, just bring stuff to kill the squishy innards. Fetterkey asks the critical question: "what approach do you prefer, and how do you make that approach effective?" Unless you provide some answers to that, it does seem like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. What do you call that type of argument?

Here's my two cents: lascannons and heavy bolters sandwich autocannons as far as targets go. Autocannon targets overlap with HB targets and LC targets, while HB and LC targets basically do not overlap. Therefore, I wouldn't take all autocannons, but I think that some are a good thing, because they provide redundancy across a broad spectrum. We all agree that we need a mix of weaponry to be successful, and imo AC's are good to bring when you're not sure what you're up against. If I know the exact list I'm facing, I'm sure most of my optimal counter-lists wouldn't have AC's in it - but I usually don't know the exact list I'm facing. In short, I think a good list can be built w/o AC's, but I'm not too keen on lists with all AC's.

I also think that the AC's performance can be improved by pairing it with a GL or PG, both of which can help with most targets the AC will shoot at. The other heavies don't get that kind of synergy with specials, imo. (Except maybe HB's and sniper rifles, and I know how people feel about those weapons these days - no love).

Also, as someone said above, it's not accurate to say that AC's are half the cost of LC's, as you must compare the total cost of the squads.]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412557.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412557.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
The ultimate question has been asked; and I'm quite eager to hear the response. Maybe this thread does still have a bit of life in it yet!

L. Wrex.

Also, I think arguing for the sake of arguing can be labelled as simply being combatative, but I think that it Ailaros' case it may be an extreme form of Devil's Advocate? Who knows....]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412620.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1412620.page GMT Imerial Guard Infantry Weapons and who should take them
]]> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1413152.page http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/283748/1413152.page GMT