PDA

View Full Version : Why hate on the assault cannons?



Pages : [1] 2 3

Maelx
10-04-2007, 15:08
I have a few theories as to why assault cannons are hated on so much:

1. Arguably the best weapon in the game. Easy to build a "take all comers" list around. Called "imba" by many.

2. Losing to marines. People HATE to lose to marines. It's embarrassing, considering how much experience most people have against them!

3. Too competitive and need a reason to justify their recent loss. The assault cannon is good! This might be why 1. is so popular.

4. Jump on the bandwagon...

Any others?

Gen_eV
10-04-2007, 15:13
I reckon it's the fact that the Asault Cannon is "master of all trades, jack of none".

People can take an assault cannon with no fear of finding it unsuitable for the opponent, unlike taking Lascannons versus Hordes, Heavy Bolters versus tanks. Not to mention the fact that it's actually better than both of these weapons at their specialised roles (well, if it's in range).

Personally I couldn't care less, it's not that hideously unbalanced at either role, and I generally find my tactical skills (or lack thereof) to be the deciding factor in most of my losses. :p

god octo
10-04-2007, 15:13
The fact that you can get tonnes of them in 1 army list.

Prodigalson
10-04-2007, 15:16
It's the new starcannon. It's a no braiter weapon. About the only thing in the game it isn't effective against is the monolith. Everything else... it just dominates. It has high ROF to kill horde, can also kill heavily armored units and can crack huge vehicles.

In addition, in normal marine armies (as apposed to dark angels) you can run large numbers of them at fairly cheap costs. If an army has 2-3 of them, it isn't a problem. But terminators with 2 in squads, cheap landspeeders with them and dreadnoughts with them mean that they can be fielded fairly cheaply.

Thoth62
10-04-2007, 15:17
I reckon it's the fact that the Asault Cannon is "master of all trades, jack of none".

People can take an assault cannon with no fear of finding it unsuitable for the opponent, unlike taking Lascannons versus Hordes, Heavy Bolters versus tanks. Not to mention the fact that it's actually better than both of these weapons at their specialised roles (well, if it's in range).

Personally I couldn't care less, it's not that hideously unbalanced at either role, and I generally find my tactical skills (or lack thereof) to be the deciding factor in most of my losses. :p

Gen_eV, I think the phrase you were looking for is "Jack of all trades, and master of none." Regardless, I couldn't agree more with everything you just said. It's better at different roles then a lot of specialized weapons are at their particular loads.

Bookwrak
10-04-2007, 15:17
#1 is the closest to the actual reason. GW went too far in the opposite direction after toning down the asscann down too far in 3rd edition. 4 shots, rending, and cheap (too cheap), and easy to field in large amounts. A real pain in the donkey.

Arhalien
10-04-2007, 15:22
Gen_eV, I think the phrase you were looking for is "Jack of all trades, and master of none."

I think Gen_eV was trying to make the point that, unlike other multi-function weapons, it's great at lots of roles, rather than being good at lots of roles but great at none. Am I right?

Ravenous
10-04-2007, 15:22
The fact that you can get tonnes of them in 1 army list.

Its that and the only army that gets them is the marines.

People tend to be..... unhappy when it comes to them getting weapons that can kill every with relative ease.

If your at a big event and have 30 minutes to kill walk around and look at all the marine armies and count up the number of assault cannons.

On average the number of assault cannons per marine army at 1500-1700pts is 5. 2 of which were ALWAYS with termies.

Bookwrak
10-04-2007, 15:31
Gen_eV, I think the phrase you were looking for is "Jack of all trades, and master of none."
No, he has it right. He was just putting a twist on the old phrase to make a point.

Joewrightgm
10-04-2007, 15:42
I honestly (as a new marine player) don't buy into the hype of the assault cannon. Sure its good, but Rending depends alot on your ability to roll sixes, a skill i don't seem to possess.:(

I also don't believe i've had a bad experience facing them, so maybe that contributes to my youthful optimism regarding their abuse.

Zerosoul
10-04-2007, 15:45
Can't we just sticky threads like this? Maybe make one enormous Assault Cannon/Marine Hate thread, so that we don't have a new one cropping up every ten seconds like we do now. Sheesh.

Same old thread, same old answer. Assault Cannons are the best guns in the game. From an Armored Company to a 'nid horde, there's no army that an AC isn't good against. People tend to like no-brainers, therefore, they dislike assault cannons. The rest can be chalked up to typical 'net Marine-hate. Simple as that.

jfrazell
10-04-2007, 15:49
-Its better than a heavy bolter for horde troops (and statistically a heavy flamer at short range as well).
-Statistically its actually better than a lascannon against hard targets.
-In a vanilla list its available to four unit choices, three of which can deepstrike/pod, thus avoiding counterfire and instantly being in range.
-Its not priced for these abilities.

azimaith
10-04-2007, 15:49
Oh I do love arrogant and self satisfied choices up on the OPs post :).

People don't like it because of whats been said over and over again. Too good at doing everything. I don't care that much about assault cannons, they're a weapon thats too good, but not so good you can't win against them. They're one of those things where it eats at you as really annoying imbalance but not enough to motivate you to want get all up in arms about.

With the DA codex its obvious the GW has realized the assault cannon was made too good, in truth, rending is really too good, but thats besides the point. I'm sure in the next edition of codex space marines the assault cannon or rending will be different.

IAMNOTHERE
10-04-2007, 15:53
I can't see peoples problem with terminators having 2 assault cannons in a squad.

This squad takes up either an elites choice or a hq and costs over 200 points.
If I'm paying this much I expect to get a quality unit.

In a 1500pt game I've just spent 1/6th of my points on a single scoring unit that has 5 models. I've yet to see any hoard army wither in the face of 8 assault cannon shots a turn which on average will wound 5 models!

My Orks are so scared they're....going to run right at you and eat your 5 termies for breakfast even going at iniative 2.

The assault cannon only becomes lame when you see land speeder squadrons with them in, ie 9. But then to use them they have to be in 24" and therefore vulnerable to bolter fire.

Its not even lame on a dreadnought as its av12 so not difficult to waste if you hit it with 2 or 3 shots.

CommisarMolotov
10-04-2007, 16:15
I don't like the current assault cannon rules because I don't think they fit the "fluff."

Why should an antipersonnel weapon be so damned effective against heavy armor? It just ain't right.

Maelx
10-04-2007, 16:19
Oh I do love arrogant and self satisfied choices up on the OPs post :).


I've been known to be arrogant and self-satisfied. :)

I do admit they are very powerful, but there seems to be SO much hate directed towards them and not other things.

Do people not have issues with:
Mech Tau?
Mech Eldar?
Siren Daemonbomb?
Greater Daemon/Daemon Bikebomb?
FtD pod-libby?
Iron Warriors w/ 9 obliterators?
Armored Companies?
Super Swarm nids! (200 gaunts with 15 rending warriors in 1500 points!)

There seems to be much more focus on the "overpowered" assault cannon and not any other of these armies. I find ANY marine army hard-pressed as a great take-all commers list that doesn't incorperate at LEAST 5 assault cannons.

kaimarion
10-04-2007, 16:23
why dont chaos get to use the assault cannon

Arhalien
10-04-2007, 16:24
why dont chaos get to use the assault cannon

Erm....


Siren Daemonbomb?
Greater Daemon/Daemon Bikebomb?
Iron Warriors w/ 9 obliterators?


Is that the answer? :p

Champsguy
10-04-2007, 16:26
I don't like the current assault cannon rules because I don't think they fit the "fluff."

Why should an antipersonnel weapon be so damned effective against heavy armor? It just ain't right.

The assault cannon was never an anti-personnel weapon in 2nd edition. It was a sustained fire krak missile launcher. It got so toned down in 3rd that many people never knew it used to be GOOD. Really good. It's still not as good as it used to be.


why dont chaos get to use the assault cannon

It was invented after the Horus Heresy.

machine_recovered_meat
10-04-2007, 16:40
The assault cannon was never an anti-personnel weapon in 2nd edition. It was a sustained fire krak missile launcher. It got so toned down in 3rd that many people never knew it used to be GOOD. Really good. It's still not as good as it used to be.

And it was better than that in RT.
I think the OP's point number three might have some mileage in it,
in addition to the fact that people will spout off long and hard on these things based on statistical probabilities [which as anyone whose played a respectable number of games will know isn't anything to rely on more than as a rough guide to expectable performance as once the dice hit the table anything can happen]
rather than on battletable experience.

And if people don't like something, they'll make more noise about it than if they like it.

jfrazell
10-04-2007, 16:44
The assault cannon was never an anti-personnel weapon in 2nd edition. It was a sustained fire krak missile launcher. It got so toned down in 3rd that many people never knew it used to be GOOD. Really good. It's still not as good as it used to be.

I must respectfully disagree. It utilized three sustained fire dice or a maximum of nine shots. I can't remember anything outside of a maugetar with double shot or whatever it was called, having that amount of firepower.

kaimarion
10-04-2007, 16:48
and how does that stop chaos getting an assault cannon

CommisarMolotov
10-04-2007, 16:50
The assault cannon was never an anti-personnel weapon in 2nd edition. It was a sustained fire krak missile launcher. It got so toned down in 3rd that many people never knew it used to be GOOD. Really good. It's still not as good as it used to be.

Yeah, but the current incarnation can't triple-jam and kill the bearer...

Seemed like that happened WAY more than it should have in 2nd Ed.

Bookwrak
10-04-2007, 16:50
Obviously, obliterators ate them all, and just have a real hard time crapping them back out.

Democratus
10-04-2007, 16:58
As others have said, the Assault Cannon is very probably broken. It's the best weapon in the game - bar none. Even this might be forgivable if it (or an equivalent) was available to every race in the game. But instead it is only found in the Space Marine armory.

Broken + Only for SM = Angry players.

People play 40k to have a fun and challenging time. If the Assault Cannon makes the game not fun, then they have a perfect right to compain and demand the rules be changed.

Bunnahabhain
10-04-2007, 17:02
The assault cannon only becomes lame when you see land speeder squadrons with them in, ie 9. But then to use them they have to be in 24" and therefore vulnerable to bolter fire.

But it's not in bolter range. You kill stuff before it can fire back. You've moved 12, and then opened up with an assault cannon and heavy bolter, or three of those. That should kill 5.5 marines, 3.5 terminators, 12 guardsmen, any heavy armour, or light vehicle squadron, and you can only take glancing hits. And that's lame?

Maelx
10-04-2007, 17:15
I'm with Scelus. Assault Cannons are one of the biggest boons to Space Marines in this edition. Good for them. Every other army has a way to compensate.


Marines ARE supposed to be the epitome of tactical flexibility, right?

Champsguy
10-04-2007, 17:21
I must respectfully disagree. It utilized three sustained fire dice or a maximum of nine shots. I can't remember anything outside of a maugetar with double shot or whatever it was called, having that amount of firepower.

Umm... why are you disagreeing with me then? :confused:

Skyth
10-04-2007, 17:26
Assault cannons are what make Marines a take-all-comers list, like any list 'should' be, allowing them to stand against the other good lists out there.

Stella Cadente
10-04-2007, 17:29
I don't hate assault cannons personally (heck in my DA I have a 1...yes only 1) I think the main hate is towards the annoying hated people who take 100 in one list and think its "balanced"....yeah right.

Egaeus
10-04-2007, 17:29
and how does that stop chaos getting an assault cannon

IIRC the Assault Cannon was developed after the Heresy, thus not a weapon available to Chaos. The Reaper Autocannon was a precursor to the Assault Cannon.

What always surprises me is that is does receive this much hate when it is available on a fairly limited number of platforms, all of which have their disadvantages.

Terminators get expensive and are far from invulnerable.
Dreads have fairly weak armour for the amount of antitank weaponry available to most armies.
The Land Raider Crusader is expensive.

Also, all of these units tend to fall into the "elite" category (yes, the LRC technically is a Heavy/Transport choice but will be typically role-specific. I find it highly unlikely that people would be taking many LRCs just for the Asssault Cannnon), and I have no problems with "elite" units having an excellent multi-role weapon.

The main problem I have with the AC is on the Land Speeder, and my main issue is that I think it is far too cheap. The problem is that when given the choice between a Multimelta (as its only weapon) and an Assault Cannon and Heavy Bolter for only 15 points more, it truly is a no-brainer.

The other thing to point out was that in 3rd Edition, Tornados were their own entry. You could have at most 3 of them and they always ran alone. Had they simply limited the upgrade to one LS per squadron, I doubt there would be quite as much ire directed at the Assault Cannon.

I would point to the new Dark Angels Codex (as at least one other poster has) and say that at least GW is aware of the problem. And I think that overall their solution was perfect (although I am not quite sure about the increse in the base cost of the LS...)

sigur
10-04-2007, 17:32
and how does that stop chaos getting an assault cannon

You really are adding a somewhat amusing facette to this thread. :)

Anyway, the biggest problem is that an Assault Cannon that is so good against everything seems to be the the king of no-brainers. You don't need to use a specific piece of wargear, a combination of units or items, it's just about whenever you see "x can be upgraded to an Assault Cannon for +y points", you do it.

Another factor, as mentioned above, is that it's a Space Marines-only weapon (since GW took it away from other armies), an army that tends to emotionalize quite a few individuals.



Marines ARE supposed to be the epitome of tactical flexibility, right?

Not really. They have their Codex Astartes which sais what to do. The squad Sergeant looks at the situation, remembers what CA sais about it and applies the proposed tactic. Roboute Guilliman and the others who contributed to the Codex were cunning foxes; they knew what to do and warfare didn't change since then. This is also an answer to all those "Why don't they just..."-questions people ask with their early-21st century, local mindsets.

azimaith
10-04-2007, 17:56
I've been known to be arrogant and self-satisfied. :)

I do admit they are very powerful, but there seems to be SO much hate directed towards them and not other things.

Do people not have issues with:
Mech Tau?: Yes, i've seen hate threads.
Mech Eldar?: Double Yes, I've seen many hate threads.
Siren Daemonbomb?: Quintuple Yes to the 9th power. This is possibly one of the most hated army lists ever.

Greater Daemon/Daemon Bikebomb?: Yes, I've seen many many complaints.
FtD pod-libby?: Yes, i've seen many complaints about this, especially form Guard/Tau players
Iron Warriors w/ 9 obliterators?: Of course i've seen tons of complaints about this, probably one of the second most hated armies.
Armored Companies?: Sometimes, the army is rare and its not very strong, it looks great on paper but personal experience is that its easy to beat.
Super Swarm nids! (200 gaunts with 15 rending warriors in 1500 points!): No, because its not only fluffy in the extreme its not very effective. Take out 15 2 wound maximum 4+ save models and the army falls apart. Whose going to complain about that?


There seems to be much more focus on the "overpowered" assault cannon and not any other of these armies. I find ANY marine army hard-pressed as a great take-all commers list that doesn't incorperate at LEAST 5 assault cannons.

There is focus on all other "overpowered" armies, doesn't mean that assault cannons get off scott-free now does it? Just use the search function and you'll find "A hojillion billion" complaint threads about just about everything up there. The only reason why the assault cannon is up here and not list XYZ is because someone brought it up.

In short, yes people complain about the assault cannon, its all part of the complaining ecology that exists in the microcosm of the Warseer forum. Its not going to stop, complaining in fact is never going to stop, more so, its not going to decrease if you bring up the topic, or worse, bring up a thread *Complaining about complaining*.

I've seen these threads come up so often i've stopped posting (to many peoples delight i'm sure) practically at all. Theres always some "Genius" who thinks he can solve "the problem" with unit XYZ that brings it up or some pundit who decides to say something like "Why do people hate XYZ" when the answer is so obvious via forum consensus you'd need to be blind to miss it. I've seen some real gems of those, especially one from an eldar player complaining about the starcannon nerf saying it was because everyone was "Afraid of their tactical ability" but I digress. The consensus is pretty obvious here and it was pretty obvious before. There isn't some "Fairness in complaining" clause in the Warseer Terms and Agreements that states we institute must follow an affirmative action style complaint system.

We don't need to be "Equal Opportunity Complainers" here.

Arhalien
10-04-2007, 18:21
Assault cannons are what make Marines a take-all-comers list, like any list 'should' be, allowing them to stand against the other good lists out there.

And they don't have other stuff to make them a good all-comer's list?

Wait, let me rephrase that. You seem to be saying that to be an all comer's army then you must have a devestating weapon that can take down elite troops, hordes and vehicles that can be mounted on a wide variety of useful platforms. Fine, no problem with that in itself if it was available to everyone, evening things out. But do any of the other armies have that? To my knowledge, no, meaning that only marines have it.
Are armies other than marines good against all-comers? Yes. Can marines work against all comers without the assault cannon? Yes, I think so. I therefore don't quite see how that point is valid.

jfrazell
10-04-2007, 18:23
Umm... why are you disagreeing with me then? :confused:



You stated it was not an antipersonnel weapon in 2nd edition. On the contrary it was often used for that. Set up a wolfguard termie squad on a hill and prepare for obliteration. Speeder pop ups added to the fun.

Maelx
10-04-2007, 18:28
In short, yes people complain about the assault cannon, its all part of the complaining ecology that exists in the microcosm of the Warseer forum. Its not going to stop, complaining in fact is never going to stop, more so, its not going to decrease if you bring up the topic, or worse, bring up a thread *Complaining about complaining*.


The problem isn't in complaining, I'm all up for that.

The problem comes when a deep-seeded negative feeling gets associated with a particular type of army list because everyone is afraid of it. This then translates to me getting screwed in soft scores regardless of how well I do in painting, sportsmanship, or generalship just because people view me as that "assault cannon jerk" - all created from baseless conjecture in the first place. Just accept the rules and move on.

Champsguy
10-04-2007, 18:29
Umm... why are you disagreeing with me then? :confused:


You stated it was not an antipersonnel weapon in 2nd edition. On the contrary it was often used for that. Set up a wolfguard termie squad on a hill and prepare for obliteration. Speeder pop ups added to the fun.

What I meant was, it's not PURELY an anti-personnel weapon, like, say, the Heavy Bolter. It was really a rapid-fire anti-tank weapon. Heck, it was an anti-EVERYTHING weapon. You hit a tank with 9 Krak Missiles and it's going down.

jfrazell
10-04-2007, 18:37
The problem isn't in complaining, I'm all up for that.

The problem comes when a deep-seeded negative feeling gets associated with a particular type of army list because everyone is afraid of it. This then translates to me getting screwed in soft scores regardless of how well I do in painting, sportsmanship, or generalship just because people view me as that "assault cannon jerk" - all created from baseless conjecture in the first place. Just accept the rules and move on.

Sure we can accept the rules. You have to accept the slamming in the soft scores and fewer people wanting to play you outside of tourneys. I have no interest in playing against or with the 12 - 18 assault cannon army. The phrase,'bored to tears' comes to mind.

jfrazell
10-04-2007, 18:38
What I meant was, it's not PURELY an anti-personnel weapon, like, say, the Heavy Bolter. It was really a rapid-fire anti-tank weapon. Heck, it was an anti-EVERYTHING weapon. You hit a tank with 9 Krak Missiles and it's going down.

Sorry we are in agreement then. The old assault cannon was the generic killer of everything.

azimaith
10-04-2007, 18:48
The problem isn't in complaining, I'm all up for that.

The problem comes when a deep-seeded negative feeling gets associated with a particular type of army list because everyone is afraid of it.

Part of what would make an "assault cannon jerk" would be thinking people disliked your army because they're "afraid of it" rather than assault cannons being boring, common, and unbalanced in their current state.



This then translates to me getting screwed in soft scores regardless of how well I do in painting, sportsmanship, or generalship just because people view me as that "assault cannon jerk" - all created from baseless conjecture in the first place. Just accept the rules and move on.
I'm sure your tune would be different if the assault cannon was a "S2 AP- 60 point 2" range gun Heavy 1" If the rules are bad the rules are bad. GW already knows they went overboard with the assault cannon and they showed it in the Dark Angels rule book. If you don't like getting bad soft scores in your tournaments try switching up your army rather than piling on assault cannons. Its like me complaining people call me an ass when I am *an ass*. (And they do, and I am.)

Maelx
10-04-2007, 18:53
Sure we can accept the rules. You have to accept the slamming in the soft scores and fewer people wanting to play you outside of tourneys. I have no interest in playing against or with the 12 - 18 assault cannon army. The phrase,'bored to tears' comes to mind.

I've never really had a problem with anyone slamming my army outside of a tournament setting. In fact, I have frequent games with all sorts of players..

And why is it boring? It sounds to me like your making another excuse because you don't think you can beat it.

CommisarMolotov
10-04-2007, 18:54
IIRC the Assault Cannon was developed after the Heresy, thus not a weapon available to Chaos. The Reaper Autocannon was a precursor to the Assault Cannon.

Back in the days of 2nd ed., Chaos terminators could take 'em. I've got one in my termie squad that I use as a Reaper. Here's a picture from the web - the assault cannon one is top-right of the picture:

http://www.pockettrash.com/ebay/chao_term.jpg

azimaith
10-04-2007, 18:55
Then whats your complaint? In tournaments your playing competitive players who are going to try to get the edge on you and who don't get the option to say "No I don't want to play your list because I think it will be XYZ"

Maelx
10-04-2007, 18:59
GW already knows they went overboard with the assault cannon and they showed it in the Dark Angels rule book.

How did it show up? 1 cannon per term squad? Are you sure it wasn't to counterbalance the fact that they can be troops with first turn deepstrike?

Or is it the fact that the DA have many other benefits that counterbalance the need for assault cannons. They're not just going to make an army list the same as the marine codex and give them a bunch of bonuses over regular marines. They made the DA not assault cannon focused, at the same time making assault terms viable in the mixed squads! (because lets face it, assault terminators suck by themselves).

This is what happened in the previous version, suddenly all your marines are stubborn to shooting with the same wargear. Yeah, that's balanced.

I don't think they "nerfed the assault cannon" in the new DA like you say, rather gave the army a different focus due to it's other formidable strengths.


Then whats your complaint? In tournaments your playing competitive players who are going to try to get the edge on you and who don't get the option to say "No I don't want to play your list because I think it will be XYZ"

This goes with the other thread. The complaint comes in when soft scores (such as sportsmanship) are based on what people read about "assault cannons are overpowered" on the internet.

I suppose I got the answer I needed. The answer is "because they're overpowered" which is pretty straight forward. There is no really good reason as to why however.

azimaith
10-04-2007, 19:09
How did it show up? 1 cannon per term squad? Are you sure it wasn't to counterbalance the fact that they can be troops with first turn deepstrike?

They limited the number of tornado land speeders which is in generally agreed to be one of the cornerstones of assault cannon balance problems.



Or is it the fact that the DA have many other benefits that counterbalance the need for assault cannons. They're not just going to make an army list the same as the marine codex and give them a bunch of bonuses over regular marines. They made the DA not assault cannon focused, at the same time making assault terms viable in the mixed squads! (because lets face it, assault terminators suck by themselves).

The need for assault cannons? There are plenty of marine armies that do just fine without using a single assault cannon. I've played them many times. Assault cannons are a choice, the problem is that when it gets competitive they are a no-brainer choice. So if your saying that marines can't win without the assault cannon I'm saying *your nuts.*



This is what happened in the previous version, suddenly all your marines are stubborn to shooting with the same wargear. Yeah, that's balanced.

I don't think they "nerfed the assault cannon" in the new DA like you say, rather gave the army a different focus due to it's other formidable strengths.
But they did by limitings its platforms. Just because you nerf one thing doesn't mean you nerf an entire codex. The assault cannon isn't necessary for marine existence, its just a bit of kit thats a long standing tradition since space hulk. Marines would continue to be competitive if the assault cannon vanished completely. You seem convinced that without the assault cannon being available to everyone and his grandmother in a marine army that marines would all suddenly implode on themselves and never be able to win another game.

The reasons for "Assault Cannon Hate" have been repeated over and over again and I don't think I need to reiterate them for you. I don't see your problem here, many people on this thread think assault cannons are unbalanced, thats just how it is at this time and this place. What are you expecting? Changed minds?



This goes with the other thread. The complaint comes in when soft scores (such as sportsmanship) are based on what people read about "assault cannons are overpowered" on the internet.

They just played you so there certainly capable of making up their own mind on whether they are or if they think the internet consensus is wrong.



I suppose I got the answer I needed. The answer is "because they're overpowered" which is pretty straight forward. There is no really good reason as to why however.
People have been saying the same good reasons over and over again.
1: They're too good against everything. They can kill infantry well, they can kill super heavy infantry well, they can kill MCs well, they can kill any AV of tank well.
2: Because of reason one there very common, which makes alot of people who fight them all the time very sick of it.
3: Because people form lists that take a giant crap on background just to cram as many of them into their lists as possible which leads to cookie cutter lists. This signifies a lack of creativity to many people thus leading to reason 2.

If you can't see the reason why, or for some reason are incapable of empathizing with other people about it then I can't help you, and no number of "Why do people hate assault cannons" threads will help it. Its would be like trying to describe the color mauve to a person who was blind from birth.

Bolter Bait
10-04-2007, 19:20
why dont chaos get to use the assault cannonFor the same reason Loyalists don't have a less spikey version of the Defiler. Chaos weaponry is supposed to represent pre-Heresy equipment, which is why their power armour looks older, their dreadnaughts all have heads and their heavy bolters look less advanced (they look like a gun barrel with a handle on top and a place to stick a clip instead of being a clean, belt-fed, albeit rediculously overlarge, gun), to name a few differences. The reason they have a defiler is that it is a new weapon created after the Heresy.

On topic, I think the hate for assault cannons is the fact that they went from Heavy 3 with special "Jammed" rules to Heavy 4 Rending overnight a year or two before the 4th edition rules came out. In other words, they gained more shots and a special rule that makes them have a AP roll of a minimum of thirteen 1/6th of the time per shot while losing any disadvantage they used to have. If they had kept the "If you roll three 1s, the gun jams and cannot be fired next turn" special rule, I doubt anyone would have any problem with the gun as it is.

My personal grievance with it (indeed, my grievance with Daemonettes, Harlequins, and assault cannons) is that it gained the Rending special property which I've always felt was a Tyranid-only special rule which was created to help tone down the rediculousness of genestealers while still making them unique. Now, Daemonettes do it for cheaper, Harlequins live longer to do it and assault cannons basically do everything a Lictor can do but at a 24" range and ignores 4+ saves (although in the 4th ed codex, lictors now can always hit on 3s, which they did before against most targets and give a reserve reroll, so now lictors aren't just gimped assault cannons anymore, but still...).

Kristoffer-Robin
10-04-2007, 19:41
I've been away from warhammer since the old assault cannon, maybe abit longer and what hit me when I read it's stats at first was "wow.. rending on a long range weapon?" Anyway I haven't really played much with new rules so can't give an opinion on it. One thing is for sure tho, on my starting DW army I intend to include at least 2 of them, always loved the looks and now they don't jam anymore!:p

jfrazell
10-04-2007, 19:59
I've never really had a problem with anyone slamming my army outside of a tournament setting. In fact, I have frequent games with all sorts of players..

And why is it boring? It sounds to me like your making another excuse because you don't think you can beat it.


Interesting how you immediately come to the conclusion I can't beat the list.
When the vanilla list first came out, I helped my then 10 year son work up several A cannon lists. They are eminently beatable. They are just tiring to play against (or with as I originally noted).

Draedan
10-04-2007, 20:04
This goes with the other thread. The complaint comes in when soft scores (such as sportsmanship) are based on what people read about "assault cannons are overpowered" on the internet.

This is why I avoid tournies where you are judged by your opponenent. I am not going to spend all that money and time playing so some pissant with a grudge can ruin my score.

There is nothing wrong with the assault cannon. I have used them and had them used on me and they are very, very far from game breaking. What I find amazing is people getting upset that you take a good option in your list. It was like the 3rd Ed. starcannon. How do you begrudge someone for making a decent list with the tools they are given?

*Edit*

They are eminently beatable. They are just tiring to play against (or with as I originally noted).
Agreed, but that is true for any unit.

jfrazell
10-04-2007, 20:10
I don't begrudge them. But I don't really feel like playing them either. In moderation they are fine. Start pushing multiples and they get boring fast.

OTT: the starcannon was nerfed in the last codex. Following that train of thought the Acannon will get nerfed as well, for the same reasons.

BrainFireBob
10-04-2007, 20:18
It's not begrudging. Soft scores are intended to reflect sportsmanship, and fluff in army composition.

Assault cannon spam, regardless of who you are, fails the latter litmus, and as regards the former, anyone with an attitude that "if you don't like them it's because you can't beat them" or "it's just because you're a marine hater" is quite probably being an arrogant prick about how they "outplayed" the other person, when they simply stacked their deck without shuffling it at all- beatable, but definitely a crutch- ie, talking very offensive smack.

Moreover, if you're getting screwed in soft scores in your local area for taking a list like that, you're spitting in the face of the local tournament mentality, like showing up to play a casual Saturday game of tag football in full pads with impedded, sharpened spikes. If you boast you outplayed other people, they'll deservedly not want anything to do with you, and if they complain you're deliberately being exploitive, and you try claiming that no-one said you *couldn't* wear razor lined pads for a casual game of touch football, then yes, they're gonna slam you on your prep, too.

cheesydude03
10-04-2007, 20:26
No one likes assault cannons i always take an autocannon or heay bolter over them just because my opponent like it more i think if some one goes assault can spam i just laugh then wate for my scouts to show up behind enemy lines and blowthem with meltaguns and power weapons ( or turbo boost some bikes or drop pod etc.) it is kinda fun for me to play even if my opponent bes kinda cheap ( once beat a movie marine army)

Champsguy
10-04-2007, 20:38
I like Assault Cannons. If I had a Marine army, I'd use them. However, I think people react to the statline instead of what they actually do. They're a nice, solid, all-around gun. You can't go wrong with taking an Assault Cannon. But they're not really great at anything. They're just all-around solid.

That Rending scares people, but it's really only going to Rend an average of about twice a game (assuming you'll get around 3 rounds of fire with any given weapon in a 6 turn game). That's not so bad. They're all around-good, but I'd take a 3rd ed Starcannon over them any day.

People fear the Assault Cannon because of its potential. Potentially, it can destroy a Land Raider. Potentially, it can wipe out a squad of Terminators. Potentially, it can cut down a horde of Orks (okay, it will likely do so on that last one). People can't ignore Assault Cannons like they used to be able to ("Ha ha! Armor 13! You can't do anything!"). Also, it seems they're used quite a bit in tournaments, because players know that no matter who they fight, it'll be useful.

jfrazell
10-04-2007, 20:57
[QUOTE=Champsguy;1458586]I like Assault Cannons. If I had a Marine army, I'd use them. However, I think people react to the statline instead of what they actually do. They're a nice, solid, all-around gun. You can't go wrong with taking an Assault Cannon. But they're not really great at anything. They're just all-around solid.

QUOTE]

Exactly. They vitiate the need for missile launchers, flamers, lascannons. Only a melta gun at half range has a better statistical anti-armor capability. 4shots is equal to a scatter laser (not counting the rending effect), which when married to BS4, is quite good. A simple H4 rending versus non vehicles would have been just fine. This would have retained the viability of flamers, and missile launcher/lascannons.

TRICorp
10-04-2007, 21:06
I think this thread needs to be merged with this one: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78623

How many threads do you need to create complaining about people complaining about assault cannons??

jfrazell
10-04-2007, 21:09
I think this thread needs to be merged with this one: http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78623

How many threads do you need to create complaining about people complaining about assault cannons??


forty seven. But only if there are first forty six complaining about the DA codex and those complaining about the complainers about the DA Codex.

TRICorp
10-04-2007, 21:14
forty seven. But only if there are first forty six complaining about the DA codex and those complaining about the complainers about the DA Codex.

Not bad, but how many of those were created by one person?

Egaeus
10-04-2007, 21:18
On topic, I think the hate for assault cannons is the fact that they went from Heavy 3 with special "Jammed" rules to Heavy 4 Rending overnight a year or two before the 4th edition rules came out. In other words, they gained more shots and a special rule that makes them have a AP roll of a minimum of thirteen 1/6th of the time per shot while losing any disadvantage they used to have. If they had kept the "If you roll three 1s, the gun jams and cannot be fired next turn" special rule, I doubt anyone would have any problem with the gun as it is.

Actually my recollection is the AC didn't get it's current incarnation until after 4th Edition had been released (actually it was the 4th edition Marine Codex that was, what, about 6 months after the release of 4th Ed?) There was a BFM scenario on line that used a Dreadnought, which was where we got the first peek at the new rules (H4, Rending).

The thing was that in 3rd Edition the AC was generally considered underwhelming. Shorter range but slightly higher strength than a Heavy Bolter and fairly pricey to boot. It was generally considered that it needed something more. Although now a lot of people think that an extra shot and Rending went a bit overboard. Personally, I'm not convinced and still feel that it was applications of the list that created a great deal of the problems (as pointed out, most of these were solved in the new DA book). The way some people carry on it makes it appear as if it's available to every single unit in the army. It's not, and an assault cannon heavy army isn't "balanced" because it doesn't reflect a good cross section of the army list.


My personal grievance with it (indeed, my grievance with Daemonettes, Harlequins, and assault cannons) is that it gained the Rending special property which I've always felt was a Tyranid-only special rule which was created to help tone down the rediculousness of genestealers while still making them unique. Now, Daemonettes do it for cheaper, Harlequins live longer to do it and assault cannons basically do everything a Lictor can do but at a 24" range and ignores 4+ saves (although in the 4th ed codex, lictors now can always hit on 3s, which they did before against most targets and give a reserve reroll, so now lictors aren't just gimped assault cannons anymore, but still...).

I've always placed the blame squarely on the revised Chaos Codex. Up to that point GW had been fairly good at coming up with new rules to make the armies special. But here is where they seemed to go "what the heck" and lumped all the special rules into one Codex, thus paving the way for "Universal Special Rules" (Choppas, Fleet, and 'Nid Rending Claws were just a few of the victims, although it was nice to have a universal True Grit).

Champsguy
10-04-2007, 22:00
[QUOTE=Champsguy;1458586]I like Assault Cannons. If I had a Marine army, I'd use them. However, I think people react to the statline instead of what they actually do. They're a nice, solid, all-around gun. You can't go wrong with taking an Assault Cannon. But they're not really great at anything. They're just all-around solid.

QUOTE]

Exactly. They vitiate the need for missile launchers, flamers, lascannons. Only a melta gun at half range has a better statistical anti-armor capability. 4shots is equal to a scatter laser (not counting the rending effect), which when married to BS4, is quite good. A simple H4 rending versus non vehicles would have been just fine. This would have retained the viability of flamers, and missile launcher/lascannons.

I still think those things are viable. When I did have a Marine army, I didn't use Land Speeders. So that would have limited my choices to ACs on Termies and on the Dreadnaught.

If you've got an army that isn't built around the AC, you'll actually find it's fairly rare. If you don't want Termies (and I think they're overpriced) or Land Speeders (too fragile), you've got very limited options to get them. If I were to build a Marine army, I'd include some, but I think you're sacrificing quite a bit just to get a wonder-weapon that's really only pretty good.

And I still think a Heavy Flamer, if used properly, is one of the most dangerous weapons in the game.

Bolter Bait
10-04-2007, 22:19
Actually my recollection is the AC didn't get it's current incarnation until after 4th Edition had been released (actually it was the 4th edition Marine Codex that was, what, about 6 months after the release of 4th Ed?) There was a BFM scenario on line that used a Dreadnought, which was where we got the first peek at the new rules (H4, Rending).Really? I know my memory of that year is a bit sketchy (college + liquor = bad) but I was pretty sure that the new incarnation of the a-can was a little bit before the release of the new rules.

No wait, I'm mixing up my thoughts. Ah, I got it. When the DH codex came out, I was complaining to a friend (well, more of a mortal enemy power-gamer whose sole concern was winning by rules exploitation) about how the DH were better at killing my Tyranids then they ever could be against Daemons/Chaos. Then when the new a-can rules were released, I was complaining to the same guy about them. Yeesh, those were years apart and yet I've been lumping them into one moment.

Yeah, the Universal Special Rules streamlined the game but at the same time struck the death-blow to fun and individualistic/flavourful rules. Oh well, if I want a nice, complex game, I can always go play Mordheim.

And now back to your regularly scheduled reruns of assault-cannon threads.

Locke
10-04-2007, 22:30
Its too versitile, its range needs to be bumped to 18" and then it would be a more forgiving weapong for the opponeont.

Thoth62
10-04-2007, 22:34
Not bad, but how many of those were created by one person?

Umm... All of them? ;)

The biggest problem here is that as long as the Assault cannon is as good as it is, people are going to complain about it. If it gets nerfed, people are going to complain about it and/or find something else to complain about. Face it. Complaining and the rules just go togther, much like wine and cheese, or PB&J.

On another thought entirely, and in resoponse to another comment by somebody else. No, I do not think that the Assault cannon will be 'nerfed' in a newer edition of the codex. Just look at DA. Yes, there were some restrictions added to who can take it, and how many, but the rules remained the same. The heavy 4, rending donkey cannon is here to stay.

Locke
10-04-2007, 22:35
This is why I avoid tournies where you are judged by your opponenent. I am not going to spend all that money and time playing so some pissant with a grudge can ruin my score.

There is nothing wrong with the assault cannon. I have used them and had them used on me and they are very, very far from game breaking. What I find amazing is people getting upset that you take a good option in your list. It was like the 3rd Ed. starcannon. How do you begrudge someone for making a decent list with the tools they are given?

*Edit*

Agreed, but that is true for any unit.

Starcannons could never hurt predators from the front. Marine players would say how cheesy 9 war walkers w/ starcannons would be... I would say I'll take that list on with 3 predators and 1/2 your over all points!

Draedan
10-04-2007, 22:56
No, I do not think that the Assault cannon will be 'nerfed' in a newer edition of the codex. Just look at DA. Yes, there were some restrictions added to who can take it, and how many, but the rules remained the same. The heavy 4, rending donkey cannon is here to stay.

I think you are right. Look at the units that can take it. If you nerf the assault cannon the other options suddenly become quite a bit better than it. I think we will see more of the same from the DA codex: an increase in the base cost of the units that can take it and an increase in the cost of the upgrade itself.

Gutlord Grom
10-04-2007, 23:08
Starcannons could never hurt predators from the front. Marine players would say how cheesy 9 war walkers w/ starcannons would be... I would say I'll take that list on with 3 predators and 1/2 your over all points!
Why would you use Star Cannons against the front of a Predator? A Frag Missile can't hurt the front of a Falcon, so what's the problem?

Now, three Predators across the board from you would be cheese, but you must realize, you have Bright Lances on hover platforms that become Assault weapons, so I don't see a problem.

golembane
10-04-2007, 23:22
Why would you use Star Cannons against the front of a Predator? A Frag Missile can't hurt the front of a Falcon, so what's the problem?

Now, three Predators across the board from you would be cheese, but you must realize, you have Bright Lances on hover platforms that become Assault weapons, so I don't see a problem.

He's bringing that statement up because earlier in the thread it was stated that the 3rd Starcannon was better then the 4th Assault cannon.

The Starcannon can't hurt the front of a pred and thus they do have to swap out weapons to either something higher strength or the brightlance. Those marine players who load up on Assault cannons though can just turn their guns on almost any target and expect some result, could be anything from a horde of Gaunts caught in the open, to a Landraider. Marines don't *have* to swap out the A cannon for a Laser cannon, missile launcher, flamer, heavy bolter, ect.

Kriegsherr
10-04-2007, 23:22
It was invented after the Horus Heresy.

Actually, before the 2nd edition CSM Codex chaos Termies had assault cannons.

This is a simple "trying to seperate Marines from Chaos Marines" thingy.

And there are so many problems with AssCannons as there are solutions, one (or two it seems) seems to have been chosen to be THE solution for the AssCannon Affair in codex DA.
They will get more rare and more expensive. It still doesn't seem right to many people from a fluff perspective that a heavy machine gun that MAYBE uses special ammunition is so much better at cracking tanks than an automatic tank gun. But the problem with it at a whole is getting solved over the next few SM Codices, and it doesn't really matters.

xibo
10-04-2007, 23:37
My guardsmen hate the assault cannon far more than they hated star cannons, as asscanns have one more shot and more bs than starcannons had.

IMO GW made the asscann so IMBA to 'force' us to get some asscann termis, speeders or glue asscann systems on dreadnaughts, so they could nerf the asscann to bolterlike capabilities plus bump the price or maybe even get completely rid of the asscan as they did for the autoguns/autopistols so that we would 'need' to get new models...

IIRC guard and eldar once had asscanns, too...

Voodoo Boyz
11-04-2007, 00:23
FYI, in the Horus Heresy books they talk about Dreads with Assault Cannons on them. :p

The problem with the Assault Cannon (Despite me having a tournament army that has a possible 11 Assault Cannons in it) is that it's too good. It's great at killing Marines, hoardes, or even tanks. And not just normal tanks, but Skimmers too (even more when you give it tank hunters).

Combine that with the mobility of the units they come on, and you have something that's too good for its points.

Easiest fix EVER would be to make it have the same rules as the Cyclic Ion Blaster. That'd fix a whole lot about the gun.

smileyface
11-04-2007, 01:20
The thing that annoys me about it is the price. I mean, it does seem a little unreasonable that everyone else has to choose between anti-infantry and anti-tank guns, but AC wielders don't, however I wouldn't mind that if the weapon was priced higher than similar but inferior guns. After all, some gun has to be the best. The problem is the price. It's not bad on terminators, because they cost an arm and a leg. But when you start mounting it on dreadnoughts, and it's cheaper and better than all the other weapons that's a bit off - especially for all the marine players out there who would like to field dreadnoughts with a different gun but don't like shooting themselves in the foot. Then you mount it on a landspeeder and you get a fantastic anti-personnel platform for a pittance, points wise - and it can also knock out tanks without trying? Madness.

It's a bit of a clue that no marine players field single-model landspeeders just with the heavy bolter. Including me.

Vaktathi
11-04-2007, 02:39
FYI, Chaos Obliterators had Assault Cannons in their first 3rd ed Codex.

Anyway, the biggest thing that stands out to me about the Assault cannon is its ability to ID any GEQ character, with more shots than a heavy bolter (at higher strength as well) with rending, and is available exclusivley to units which can fire it and move (and assault) thus largely negating its "relativley" short range and totally negating its "heavy" firing type (might as well make it assault, it wont make a difference). Add to that its effectiveness against armor and it gets even more silly (IMO).

Against GEQ armies it is death incarnate, statistically a 5man terminator squad w/2 assault cannons (and 3 storm bolters) will cause 7.1 wounds against a GEQ (guard, IST, Tau, Eldar, etc) squad in shooting, *while moving*, and then still retains the ability to assault after that (if in range) then statistically causing enough wounds to wipe out most GEQ units (another 5.5 wounds if fighting against WS 3 T3, or 4.1 against WS4 T3 assuming use of Powerfists). Which is arguably the purpose of Terminator squads, but 40pts for 2 assault cannons is a wee bit underpriced (as always, IMO)

All this would be fine, if the assault cannon wasnt so cheap pointswise. 20pts for a 24" range, 4 shot rending weapon (no matter STR really, although STR6 and AP4 makes it even worse) is way underpriced, especially as any unit that can take it can fire and move (and assault if able), or worse, deep strike and dakka at something in most cases.

EDIT: also, you'd think such a powerful weapon would be made available to other Imperial armies? although I guess since the only 4th ed Imperium codex's that have been released are Marine codex's this may change.

xenotaph
11-04-2007, 03:04
I think Locke is onto something. I like the idea of 18" range. 24" range on an assault weapon is rarely a problem.

toxic_wisdom
11-04-2007, 04:18
...there's no army that an AC isn't good against...

-- Um, Dark Eldar. The Rending effect has little significance - considering the SV value. You can spit at most DE units and they'll drop.

-- Thankfully my army usually comes under fire for a turn, maybe two. After that its just another weapon in a dead models hand.

Zerosoul
11-04-2007, 05:28
-- Um, Dark Eldar. The Rending effect has little significance - considering the SV value. You can spit at most DE units and they'll drop.

-- Thankfully my army usually comes under fire for a turn, maybe two. After that its just another weapon in a dead models hand.

Yeah, it's terrible against DE. Except for, you know, knocking down Raiders/Ravagers, instakilling characters, destroying Warrior squads, violating Wyches...The same thing it's good for against ALL low-T/bad save armies.

insectum7
11-04-2007, 07:03
No no, it really isn't that great against Dark Eldar, becasue Dark Eldar armies tend to bring about 12-18 Dark Lances, which are perfect for killing any unit that bears an assault cannon. One doesn't feel too good about their Acannon units ether, because you wind up with a 200-300 point unit that shoots down a 50 point raider.

It's also not that great vs tyranind horde armies, 4 shots feels pretty useless when you're shooting at several squads of 30. You need either gobs of A-Cannons, or you could more wisely invest in more wounds, more bolters and greater flexibility for your army.

The Assault Cannon is more effective than a Lascannon at killing armor, IF in range of that armor. However, I find that the single Lascannon is fired at a tank its for the off-chance pot-shot and not the concentrated fire. The real strength of the lascannon comes from its range, which provides a whole network of possible shots, allowing a single tank to be shot at by 4-6 lascannons arranged in strong positions. The Assault cannon wielders usually have to go out and get at the offending tank, unless that tank is barreling down the field at them, whereas the Lascannons can fire without comprimising their position.

azimaith
11-04-2007, 08:13
It's also not that great vs tyranind horde armies, 4 shots feels pretty useless when you're shooting at several squads of 30. You need either gobs of A-Cannons, or you could more wisely invest in more wounds, more bolters and greater flexibility for your army.
I can tell you don't play tyranids. Several squads of 30? Sure you could fire at them, you know, if you didn't have anything *but* gaunts. In which case practically anything that could fire an assault cannon would be nigh invulnerable all game.

Assault cannons excel against tyranids, I've played against them enough to tell that.

Ianos
11-04-2007, 08:22
I won't even start mathhammering on what the AssCannon can do to each race and unit specifically (in general it can hurt any unit more than any other weapon, any other army has in move 6" fire 24" range, except the Monolith). I insist on the following: the multimelta a dreadnaught can bear has less much less chance to kill a Land raider at 24" than the AssCannon and a slightly higher chance at 12", yet costs more than the Cannon since the cannon is free! The AssCannon is imbalanced even within the list as it is the cheapest most mobile weapon and has the best effect against all types of units with no drawbacks.
Why get a heavy bolter when you can get a speeder with AssCannon and move 12" and fire 24" killing med infantry better?
Why take a Lascannon when you can get a dread that from minimum the 2nd turn and usually by the 1st will be in range to terminate a Land raider better?
Why take a Missile Launcer when it has less then half the hitting power?

Personally i have no problem with a "jack of all trades" weapon for the marines. What i have a problem with is the fact that they don't pay the points, and they should pay a very high cost for the best weapon in the whole game!

Zerosoul
11-04-2007, 08:25
No no, it really isn't that great against Dark Eldar, becasue Dark Eldar armies tend to bring about 12-18 Dark Lances, which are perfect for killing any unit that bears an assault cannon. One doesn't feel too good about their Acannon units ether, because you wind up with a 200-300 point unit that shoots down a 50 point raider.

It's also not that great vs tyranind horde armies, 4 shots feels pretty useless when you're shooting at several squads of 30. You need either gobs of A-Cannons, or you could more wisely invest in more wounds, more bolters and greater flexibility for your army.

The Assault Cannon is more effective than a Lascannon at killing armor, IF in range of that armor. However, I find that the single Lascannon is fired at a tank its for the off-chance pot-shot and not the concentrated fire. The real strength of the lascannon comes from its range, which provides a whole network of possible shots, allowing a single tank to be shot at by 4-6 lascannons arranged in strong positions. The Assault cannon wielders usually have to go out and get at the offending tank, unless that tank is barreling down the field at them, whereas the Lascannons can fire without comprimising their position.

The Raider isn't the scary part. It's what's inside that is. So your DE opponent packs 12-18 lances. How does that stop, say, a Deepstriking Termie squad, which is essentially guaranteed a turn of uninterrupted shooting, one round of which is more than sufficient to ruin utterly your lovely undercosted sniper squad? Or what about podding, whether it be Termies or Dreads? All you need is one turn of shooting to utterly wreck a Dark Eldar line, and I find it remarkably silly to act like a Heavy 4 rending gun with enough AP to punch through any armor save in the army and high enough Strength to instakill everything except one character is something to laugh at, but whatever.

Looking at exchanging points is as silly here as other "make your points back" arguments. It leads to pointless "Yeah, but!" escalations. Look - if you seriously want to argue that Dark Eldar, of all armies, aren't concerned about relatively cheap, relatively plentiful Assault Cannons, based on nothing but Theoryhammer, be my guest. All I'm saying is that I'd happily have a 200-300 point Termie squad gunning down a Raider if it meant that what was inside never touched the lines. DE can chew up high Armor save guys, sure. But they can't ignore the ACs any more than any other army can, and all the fire spent on nuking the units that carry the ACs isn't fire spent dealing with the regular Marines with bolters that are just as scary to your warriors.

Cheitan Shadowless
11-04-2007, 08:39
It's been said so many times I'm afraid it may soon cause some sort of terrible temporal feedback, but even so:

The Assault Cannon is good at everything, and I for one just don't feel it's fair that the most all-round army in the game gets the most all-round weapon in the game. Especially not at the current points cost and level of availability. And don't you ancient gamers from the first incarnations of 40K dare come to me, crooked fingers entangling the gnarled head of an even more ancient wooden walking-stick, and babble about how much nastier it was back in the day. I was there, man, I was there!

What happened two editions - or more - ago hardly qualifies as justification for how the game looks and/or behaves today.

The Dude
11-04-2007, 08:40
Just thought I'd chime in here and say that I think the weapon itself is fine. It's meant to be a particularly nasty piece of kit, so the rules fit it well. The problem is it is also supposed to be a particularly RARE piece of kit.

Therefore the problem isn't with its power, but its availability. The Dark Angels Codex has helped this considerably.

Let's all just be glad that they didn't make that Devastator with two Assault Cannons :D

WLBjork
11-04-2007, 08:50
I have to agree with others that the 4th ed. Assault Cannon isn't within shouting distance of the power of the 2nd ed. Assault Cannon.

The old gun used to murder everything. It had 36" range, S8, -5 ASM and inflicted D10 wounds - just like Krak Missiles did (well, a longer range on the Missiles).

Maybe it's a little on the cheap side, maybe a little too available, but not much, and never as bad as the 2nd ed. version.

Cheitan Shadowless
11-04-2007, 08:53
I have to agree with others that the 4th ed. Assault Cannon isn't within shouting distance of the power of the 2nd ed. Assault Cannon.

The old gun used to murder everything. It had 36" range, S8, -5 ASM and inflicted D10 wounds - just like Krak Missiles did (well, a longer range on the Missiles).

Maybe it's a little on the cheap side, maybe a little too available, but not much, and never as bad as the 2nd ed. version.
What did I just say? :p


And don't you ancient gamers from the first incarnations of 40K dare come to me, crooked fingers entangling the gnarled head of an even more ancient wooden walking-stick, and babble about how much nastier it was back in the day. I was there, man, I was there!

What happened two editions - or more - ago hardly qualifies as justification for how the game looks and/or behaves today.

daladzor
11-04-2007, 09:15
I play as marines quite often and i dont really like assualy cannons, just because almost every army i play has lots in, with my current army ,it has 2 asualt cannons, in the termie command squad i prefer to make my army, different, however i do agree with reducing its range,

Marked_by_chaos
11-04-2007, 09:28
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the assault cannon in itself, and its not that much harder (if at all) than a tau rail gun for example.

The problem if any is that it is (as the star cannon was) effective on too many platforms.

This will be addressed as and when the new marine codexes and the redux version come out. For example the new blood angels list (in white dwarf is set to closely follow the DA structure).

Having said that for a unit that would cost 240 points it is not unreasonable for terminators to be able to deepstrike with 2 assault cannons, especially with all the ap2 weaponry out there.

I think the main problem was allowing the proliferation of tornado land speeders (again this has been addressed in Codex Dark Angels which is apparently to be the standard bearer of future marine codexes).

Bunnahabhain
11-04-2007, 09:55
The prevelence of AP2 stuff is very simple really. There are so many MEQ armies about, and next to no AP3 ( krak missiles and equivalents, ion cannons, staff of light, and assorted ordnance). If we want AP3 stuff, we end up having to take AP2 to get it.

Give all the marine players who think that it's ok a year or two with, say, every Guard and Ork vehicle able to take Assault cannons. Leman Russ exterminators with 3 assualt cannons, or a horde of buggies with them.

Vaktathi
11-04-2007, 10:24
The prevelence of AP2 stuff is very simple really. There are so many MEQ armies about, and next to no AP3 ( krak missiles and equivalents, ion cannons, staff of light, and assorted ordnance). If we want AP3 stuff, we end up having to take AP2 to get it.

yar, and this is one of the things that bugs me. I don't like plasma guns, I find them to be rather unfluffy for most guard armies (at least in the numbers they are fielded in) and Gets Hot! makes them a huge liability, especially to guardsmen. I'd much rather have a STR 5 AP3 krak grenade (as opposed to STR6 AP4, which is more useful against GEQ armies but the vast majority of opponents are MEQ's and there is still the Frag grenade for GEQ's which works very nicely) or something that didnt have Gets Hot! but was weaker than a plasma gun that I could give the majority of my troops, and give maybe my HQ squad a couple plasma guns or something rather than having to throw them out to every squad.

there just are no decent anti-3+ sv weapons besides Plasma guns, you could take meltaguns, but you might get one shot off with them in most cases. I'm pretty sure if there was a STR4/5 AP3 special weapon for guard, you'd see it taken over plasma guns in the vast majority of cases, I know I would.


Give all the marine players who think that it's ok a year or two with, say, every Guard and Ork vehicle able to take Assault cannons. Leman Russ exterminators with 3 assualt cannons, or a horde of buggies with them.

oh man, a 3 AC russ would be disgusting beyond measure.

Stingray_tm
11-04-2007, 10:50
Get rid of the rending (maybe give it AP1 on a 6) and the assault cannon is perfectly fine.

I really dislike the weapons versatility, because it really is a no-brainer. But as long as my opponents only field a maximum of three of them (two in a Terminator squad, one on a Landspeeder), i am okay with it. More than that and i get angry.

Bunnahabhain
11-04-2007, 11:33
oh man, a 3 AC russ would be disgusting beyond measure.

I know. I was trying to think of the worst possible thing I could, and an exterminator is supposed to throw out a real torrent of fire......

DesolationAngel
11-04-2007, 11:38
They are good, but with rending are also very random, ive seen 6 of my Tornados (480pts) only barely wipe out 5 Marines (80pts) in the open, would be even less if they were in cover, in the same respect I've lost 2 tanks in 2 turns to a assault cannon in a Deathwing Terminator Squad.

Consider that you get 2 for 240pts with Marines in a Termi squad, which is quite a lot, 2 for 160pts with Tornados that regulary get destroyed after shooting and 2 for unit 210pts on 2 Dreadnoughts. Then consider that its based a lot on luck, will bounce most of the time if in cover/obscured and have a hard time against AV12 vechiles bar luck. Also consider that escalation messes them up due to often being out of range when you come on the table, especailly the Dreads.

They are good but beatable. Complaining about seeing lots of Assault Cannons is like complaining about Zilla Nids, Mech Eldar, Iron Warriors and so on, those are also nasty lists that exist, best bet to to adapt to face them and accept that people can take whatever they like from a codex. I played 2 Monoliths a short time ago and you don't see me complaining about that, same with Assault Cannons.

Also consider that against some competitive lists (5 2+ save zilla nids, Iron Warriors and so on) you often need Assault Cannons and that they are mounted on either AV10 (one game my friend lost 6 speeder in a turn to 3 deepstriking Crisis Suit Teams for example) or AV12 vechiles that are easy to take down or Termis that are expensive and far to easy to take down for their points. With the Bael Preds if you immoblise them you can just stay more than 24" away, same with Dreads, so there are counters for each of these units, just take weapons to handle them in each game, set up in cover/deepstrike, obscure vechiles and so on.

Incendently when are the Blood Angels/Space Wolves updates getting done in White Dwarf? i'll be interested to see those.


Get rid of the rending (maybe give it AP1 on a 6) and the assault cannon is perfectly fine.

I really dislike the weapons versatility, because it really is a no-brainer. But as long as my opponents only field a maximum of three of them (two in a Terminator squad, one on a Landspeeder), i am okay with it. More than that and i get angry.

There are lot of no-brainers in 40k though (2 Monoliths, Deciever, mass destroyers, daemon bombs, iron warriors, oblits, Preds with LC, HB, Min/Maxing Las/Plas, Princes with Dread Axe combo, Falcons with holofields and other kit for example, the list goes on), would you get angry about facing them or would you adapt and find ways of facing such things? I know what I would do and have done so with most of my armies, which are take on all comers lists.

Also why should someone have to feild a less competitive list to make it acceptable for other people to play against them? people should take what they like and then it down to their opponents to play against it and adapt to face it.

Stingray_tm
11-04-2007, 11:59
There are lot of no-brainers in 40k though (2 Monoliths, Deciever, mass destroyers, daemon bombs, iron warriors, oblits, Preds with LC, HB, Min/Maxing Las/Plas, Princes with Dread Axe combo, Falcons with holofields and other kit for example, the list goes on), would you get angry about facing them or would you adapt and find ways of facing such things? I know what I would do and have done so with most of my armies, which are take on all comers lists.

You are missing the point. Why do I have to find a way to beat this kind of army, while the opponent doesn't have to, because with these options, he can face everything equally well. With Nids i simply can't build a list, that can crush all oponents like an Asscannon/IW list can. Maybe going Godzilla (wich i don't), but that makes a very uninteresting game, where minmaxed no-brainer lists all look the same.



Also why should someone have to feild a less competitive list to make it acceptable for other people to play against them? people should take what they like and then it down to their opponents to play against it and adapt to face it.
Because around here we play for fun, which doesn't always mean winning... One of my regular opponents (who by the way regularly kicks my ass with his very balanced Marine list due to tactical superiority and experience) refuses to deep strike his Terminators, because he says it's too lame... (Note: That is not my opinion, i have absolutely nothing against deep striking Terminators)

Ianos
11-04-2007, 12:50
I don't care if a marine army has only one assault cannon. I don't care if they are allowed only one per 1500 points in the future. What i do care about is that the single most powerfull weapon in the marine codex, outclassing all other weapons in all their respective roles, is equiped, either for free or at a very low cost in relation to all other choices.
It is simply extremely undercosted for what it does and to me not a single unit should be able to field one without paying for it appropriately. And as for availability, i just don't want to hear that argument, when one can have at least 20 termies with 8 assault cannons and still fill with troops and heavies in 1500. The termies are practically invulnerable to antything that can fire above 24" and anyone whishing to shoot AP2 at them has to get shot first by the termies with 24 str4 ap 5 shots and 32 str6 ap4 Rending!!! shots. Thats almost 6 ap1 wounds and 3-4 penetrating hits on a land raider!!!

DesolationAngel
11-04-2007, 12:50
I'm not saying beat as in building a nemesis list, just having something in your list that will have a chance of taking them down, say a Tyrant with Venom Cannon and a couple of Sniperfexs with T7 and a 2+ save. Godzilla does work, my friend uses a nasty list, as do I, but you don't need to go that far, just consider that you'll play against speeders and have some answer for it, Fexs should be either sniper fexs or dakka fexs anyway as they are slow and need to shot things so a couple of sniper fexs are reasonable, if your tyrants walking it a venom cannons reasonable too.

Asssault Cannon/IW lists don't crush all opponents though, I can think of a number of lists that can handle them, spefically Necrons against Assault cannons for example.

It's only uninteresting using such lists if other players don't do the same, the way 40k ends up is a lot of nasty lists, people keep up with such lists to some extent (even to a small extent) and you get more close game.

As do I, I have a 21 model Daemon Hunter list with two 200pt 5 man Grey Knight Power Armour squads in it, I also play guard, who regulary lose, as well as balanced Witch Hunters. Its not all about winning, but it makes sense to make games close by making minor tweaks. I play a lot of games with a against competitive lists (ive even played against 6 oblits, 4 tanks and daemon prince IW with my Daemon Hunters and nearly won it) and wouldn't use some squads with nids as they wouldn't survive most of the time.

Thats not to say you should go to that extent but perhaps minor tweaks, after all its not fun repeatly losing against assault cannons, so why not add a couple of things to make it more fun for you and balance it out a bit.

Why would deepstriking termis be lame? it generally not a good idea but its in the rules and players can do what they wan't with those rules. Yes you can lose against/win with a balanced list, I use balanced armies myself and win with them, but the when considering escaltion in games it can be just as tricky winning with assault cannons in some games due to the squad/vechiles they're mounted on.


You are missing the point. Why do I have to find a way to beat this kind of army, while the opponent doesn't have to, because with these options, he can face everything equally well. With Nids i simply can't build a list, that can crush all oponents like an Asscannon/IW list can. Maybe going Godzilla (wich i don't), but that makes a very uninteresting game, where minmaxed no-brainer lists all look the same.


Because around here we play for fun, which doesn't always mean winning... One of my regular opponents (who by the way regularly kicks my ass with his very balanced Marine list due to tactical superiority and experience) refuses to deep strike his Terminators, because he says it's too lame... (Note: That is not my opinion, i have absolutely nothing against deep striking Terminators)

jfrazell
11-04-2007, 12:54
The prevelence of AP2 stuff is very simple really. There are so many MEQ armies about, and next to no AP3 ( krak missiles and equivalents, ion cannons, staff of light, and assorted ordnance). If we want AP3 stuff, we end up having to take AP2 to get it.

Give all the marine players who think that it's ok a year or two with, say, every Guard and Ork vehicle able to take Assault cannons. Leman Russ exterminators with 3 assualt cannons, or a horde of buggies with them.


Can I have my Imperial guard skimmers back with A cannons, or old school sentinels back? I'd call it even at that point...(thinks of 12 deepstriking A cannon sentinels and smiles).

Warsmith Strader
11-04-2007, 13:01
God, I miss 2nd edition with the assault cannons and reaper autcannons nearly being equal.... bring the reapers back...GW. at least a str 7 rending weapon! mwhahahaha!:cheese:

DesolationAngel
11-04-2007, 13:05
I don't care if a marine army has only one assault cannon. I don't care if they are allowed only one per 1500 points in the future. What i do care about is that the single most powerfull weapon in the marine codex, outclassing all other weapons in all their respective roles, is equiped, either for free or at a very low cost in relation to all other choices.
It is simply extremely undercosted for what it does and to me not a single unit should be able to field one without paying for it appropriately. And as for availability, i just don't want to hear that argument, when one can have at least 20 termies with 8 assault cannons and still fill with troops and heavies in 1500. The termies are practically invulnerable to antything that can fire above 24" and anyone whishing to shoot AP2 at them has to get shot first by the termies with 24 str4 ap 5 shots and 32 str6 ap4 Rending!!! shots. Thats almost 6 ap1 wounds and 3-4 penetrating hits on a land raider!!!

2 Assault cannons for 240pts for a termi squad with 2 assault cannons is cheap?

4 squads is around 1000pts (leaving 500pts, at least 200 of which gets used up), your looking with 32 shots at getting 6 rending hits on average a turn. If marines in cover get shot that 6 cover saves on a 4+, 1/3 will miss, 1/6 won't wound and generally you don't get your points back.

There are more AP2 weapons than AP3 ones, which is why Termis suffer badly, a 10pt plasmagun can kill 2 in one go, happened to me at the last GT, the same model then took down one of my speeders in a turn.

Consider how many points those 32 shots cost (960) and what they kill in a turn (250pt Land Raider, which should have fired smoke and could survive it as in your example and all the other shots are wasted). Not only that but apart from Lysander the only way your guarenteed of shooting it first is deepstrike, which is random and they don't all appear at once.

Marine lists can be hard but you do pay the points for what you get, I used to play against a 10 assault cannon deathwing and beat it with balanced tau, crisis heavy tau also beat the same list.

Many armies can handle assault cannons, theres a reason assault cannons are on the weaker units and why you pay 240/160/210 for 2 assault cannons, with rending as many people find there are also reasons why you can't just win with assault cannons and if you try to you'll suffer against some lists/armies.

40k is game with a lot of hard units/options and can make for harsh games, but things balance out if people adapt in some respect to have a answer for such things.

Stingray_tm
11-04-2007, 13:24
You seem to forget a very important thing:

Those Terminators are very reliable. No matter what they are shooting at, they will probably damage/kill it. And with Deep Striking they can do it where they want.

They are vulnerable to Ap2 weapons? Well, i hope so. So the opponent can bring his specialized weapons into position and use them, instead of wasting those few expensive shots at hordes.

An assault cannon salvo is almost never wasted, because it is good at everything from turn 1. And Space Marines don't pay enough for this enormous tactical flexibility.

Let's take a look at one of the most reliable Tyranid creatures. For about 300 points you get three Dakkafexes which are great at taking out certain targets. But they can't harm a Landraider, unless they are in cc (which would happen VERY late in the game, if ever).
Or take 15 Genestealers. They can kill anything in the game. But not in turn 1/turn 2. And how many of those Genestealers will be alive, when they reach cc?

toxic_wisdom
11-04-2007, 13:33
...Look - if you seriously want to argue that Dark Eldar, of all armies, aren't concerned about relatively cheap, relatively plentiful Assault Cannons, based on nothing but Theoryhammer, be my guest...

-- Theoryhammer? No, my own experiences.

-- In case my original point was missed: The asscannon is no different than any other weapon against DE Infantry. We don't get armor saves so the Rending effect is pointless. And quick note - I typically have 9 Dark Lanes at most in my lists (four infantry - five vehicles).

-- As for everything else, you're assuming a DE Player has deployed all of his units. You should take into consideration a Portal army - putting a DE player in control one turn behind. I personally laugh to myself when I see drop pod armies, and also deep striking terminators.

They fall, shoot some Warriors, and prematurely celebrate. Next turn my Reserve units arrive and its lights out for the opposition.

-- BTW - I guess you haven't seen what a Ravager with Disintegrators can do to a squad of Termies after they arrived via DS. Its enough damage that I don't usually worry about assaulting them. So as for the Raider squads - they're usually locked with Troops.

Budro
11-04-2007, 13:37
The problem isn't in complaining, I'm all up for that.

The problem comes when a deep-seeded negative feeling gets associated with a particular type of army list because everyone is afraid of it. This then translates to me getting screwed in soft scores regardless of how well I do in painting, sportsmanship, or generalship just because people view me as that "assault cannon jerk" - all created from baseless conjecture in the first place. Just accept the rules and move on.

I'm not afraid of your army. I've played against a very similar one and trounced the crap out of it with mech tau. Even if I had played vs it in a tourney and beat the snot out of it in a similar fashion, I still would have given it a bad comp score. Why? Because it's a cookie cutter army.

You're complaining on at least two different threads (I think it used to be 3 until they combined two of them) about the same thing - you're army is boring to every one who looks at it and agrees that it would/should receive a low comp score because of it's lack of diversity.

Winning a tourney isn't just about winning games (though some are and that's great too). If you want to go to a tourney and you KNOW that soft scores will affect the final scoring and possibly the outcome, then it behooves you to factor that into your army design. If you don't then you are an idiot. It's like going to a job interview dressed in rags but thinking that only your qualifications mean anything - in reality, the overall package counts for quite a bit. You don't deserve to win a tourney if you don't factor in the overall picture becauase it means you are a suck ass general that can't comprehend the basic facts of the competition.

Instead of whining about asscannon hate, why don't you organize your own tourney that is based solely on VP's and wins/losses? Then you would be happy and everyone that played in your tourney would be happy because they would all have signed on with the knowledge that VPs were the only thing that mattered.

Sai-Lauren
11-04-2007, 14:01
The assault cannon was never an anti-personnel weapon in 2nd edition. It was a sustained fire krak missile launcher. It got so toned down in 3rd that many people never knew it used to be GOOD. Really good. It's still not as good as it used to be.

Sigh.

It is an anti-personnel weapon and always has been - vehicle armour penetration was based on strength and wounds caused, not simple strength like it is now, and armour values were much higher to compensate. With an AC in RT or 2nd edition,you'd be doing quite well to merely open a Rhino up, and you couldn't reliably hurt anything heavier.

High strength + decent ASM + low-medium armour penetration ability = Anti-personnel.

Cyclone's the terminator anti-tank weapon, AC's and Heavy Flamers are the anti-personnel support weapons.

DesolationAngel
11-04-2007, 14:07
I used to use 2 lots of Termis in my previous marine list, they go down so easily I now take 5 and soon maybe taking none in favour of more tactical marines with lascannons.

Its all on luck I had 5 termis, 2 assault cannon deepstrike and shoot the side of a predator and not get through the armour, thats 8 S7 shots with rending, as such its not all overpowering and is based far more on luck than say a broadsides railgun or a couple lascannons. But on average half your units will deepstrike and theres a 1/3 chance that you will hit, which is where the problem comes in.

If someone puts a Land Raider in assault cannon range and LoS without being obscured on turn 1 then it should be getting to shoot effectivily from the off. Players deploy their army knowing the risks, if you go in range of a termi squad you can work out the average shots. The point is against a land raider for example on average 26 shots are wasted bouncing off the armour, not all will damage it, the others will glance due to smoke (5 hits) which may not destroy it and that thats with 960pts shooting a 253pt tank. Similar respect with troops in 4+ cover they take more hits than you think.

So do I, I play 9 of the 11 main 40k armies and know that plasma is intended for termis, point is a 25pt marine can take out 2 termis in a turn and 2 termis are double the points. Personally I would never use a termi army as to me other things are better choices, even our local deathwing player would agree.

240pts for 2 assault cannons isn't enough? I think Monoliths are far to cheap compared to land raider crusaders but I still find the costs reasonable, as I do with assault cannons when I play against such lists. In anycase the costs are likely to go up eventually so there it is, people complain enough, GW eventually notice and things change forcing people to spend money on other units, as they did with DA. If anything I find DA to be underpowered now having played them a few times and much prefer playing against the previous dark angel list as it gives them a better chance.

I would have thought fully maxed out sniperfexs (mine are around 260ish points) would be the most reliable, 5 wounds, T7, 2+ save, regenerate usually in 4+ cover with barbed strangler and venom cannon, can take down quite a few things inc Land Raiders, which aren't a very good unit to take anyway, far to many points for what they do, Crusaders are a bit better though.

My Nids have 2 tyrants, 3 fexs and 12 stealers, the big guys form a wall that the stealers go behind. What you could try is only revealing squads that can take down speeders and hiding the rest, denying points, I would never run stealers out in front of massed assault cannons, just hide them and plink away with sniper fexs, works most of the time.

A lot of 40k now is about mobile shooting, which is why it works so well, Nids can have this too so just take a VC tyrant and a couple of sniperfexs and give it a go. Also a lot of 40k is about finding new tactics against new lists, AC lists require a different approach to a balanced marine force for example.


You seem to forget a very important thing:

Those Terminators are very reliable. No matter what they are shooting at, they will probably damage/kill it. And with Deep Striking they can do it where they want.

They are vulnerable to Ap2 weapons? Well, i hope so. So the opponent can bring his specialized weapons into position and use them, instead of wasting those few expensive shots at hordes.

An assault cannon salvo is almost never wasted, because it is good at everything from turn 1. And Space Marines don't pay enough for this enormous tactical flexibility.

Let's take a look at one of the most reliable Tyranid creatures. For about 300 points you get three Dakkafexes which are great at taking out certain targets. But they can't harm a Landraider, unless they are in cc (which would happen VERY late in the game, if ever).
Or take 15 Genestealers. They can kill anything in the game. But not in turn 1/turn 2. And how many of those Genestealers will be alive, when they reach cc?

Stingray_tm
11-04-2007, 14:25
For their point costs, Dakkafexes are more reliable in what they do, than Sniperfexes are in what they do.

The low AP of the Devourer doesn't matter, if you are firing at low AV vehicles or MEQs/Terminators. The sheer amount of high power shots fired with re-roll everything makes them very reliable. You can always count on a Dakkafex clancing a vehicle with AV12 or less, or killing/wounding a couple of high toughness/low armour save models.

A Sniperfex can deal out more damage, when killing a Land Raider or Monolith, but chances are worse, that he will actually accomplish something with one round of shooting.

Also the 2+ save T7 won't help that much. If the enemy wants the Carnifex dead, he will kill it anyway with Lascannons/Powerfests/Asscannons/whatever. The additional wound helps indeed, but the only reason for taking a 260 point Sniperfex instead of two Dakkafexes is the lack of anti-tank weaponry. If the Dakkafexes were good against heavy tanks too, we would have a Tyranid-version of the Asscannon...

Maelx
11-04-2007, 14:35
Exactly. They vitiate the need for missile launchers, flamers, lascannons. Only a melta gun at half range has a better statistical anti-armor capability. 4shots is equal to a scatter laser (not counting the rending effect), which when married to BS4, is quite good. A simple H4 rending versus non vehicles would have been just fine. This would have retained the viability of flamers, and missile launcher/lascannons.

I was thinking yesterday about assault cannons and points.

1 Assault Cannon Term (60) = 2 Lascannon Marines (30) = 3 Heavy Bolter Marines (20 each). Let's pair these up against each other to see who is better at killing respective things.

For killing a land raider:
Lascannon Marines = 7.4% * 2 Shots = 14.8% chance

Assault Cannon = 4% * 4 shots = 16%

For Kill Hordes (Vs Tyranid Warriors):
Heavy Bolters = 36% chance per shot * 9 shots = 324% (or 3.24 wounds average..)

Assault Cannon = 57% chance per shot * 4 shots = 230% (or 2.3 wounds)

Point for point, you're wrong. It was close with those two lascannon shots though, not taking into account the benefits of instakilling and ap2

mkrulik@inet.hr
11-04-2007, 14:36
I think space marines should evolve something like a tactiacl marine ass.cannon,and instead of heavy 4 it should be assault 3 but still with same characteristics-and it should cost like heavy bolter-5 pts.:D

Many people wouldnt be able to stop crying, and many would never play a match against sm!:D

Champsguy
11-04-2007, 14:51
It still doesn't seem right to many people from a fluff perspective that a heavy machine gun that MAYBE uses special ammunition is so much better at cracking tanks than an automatic tank gun. But the problem with it at a whole is getting solved over the next few SM Codices, and it doesn't really matters.

Look at what happens when the A-10 Warthog shoots a tank. It's basically armed with an assault cannon.

EmperorEternalXIX
11-04-2007, 14:56
See my sig.

My army had ACs in it at first. I didn't start winning until I got rid of them.

That aside I have had many games where there was not a single rending roll to be had. In those cases shooting the AC at a vehicle is completely stupid.

There are many other strength 6 weapons in the game that can do horrendous amounts of shots for less points, most with the same AP. Wound on 2 against most stuff, break armor on GEQs and such. Nobody minds them.

But the assault cannon...it is apparently some game winning weapon that is unstoppable and unbeatable.

Ehh. Again, I've never seen one do even remotely worthwhile damage compared to, say, a squad of Str6/AP4 Gauss rule-toting jetbike-moving Destroyers.

There are much worse things out there than the AC, I just think people have sort of coelesced into this weird bandwagon via word of mouth. I mean, I've told the story of a young kid who was like 12, playing the store owner, marines versus necrons. The kid uses the assault cannon, doesn't even get a rending roll, and manages to instakill two T3 scarab swarms. Flabbergasted the kid goes "Gee they really need to fix that!!" like he just annihilated a whole unit or something.

Seriously, it's just blown way out of proportion.

CommisarMolotov
11-04-2007, 15:07
Look at what happens when the A-10 Warthog shoots a tank. It's basically armed with an assault cannon.

A twenty-one foot long, 680 pound (without ammunition) assault cannon, maybe...

The GAU-8/A is so freaking big that they had to build the plane AROUND the gun. It's simply not an appropriate comparison.

Champsguy
11-04-2007, 15:07
Sigh.

It is an anti-personnel weapon and always has been - vehicle armour penetration was based on strength and wounds caused, not simple strength like it is now, and armour values were much higher to compensate. With an AC in RT or 2nd edition,you'd be doing quite well to merely open a Rhino up, and you couldn't reliably hurt anything heavier.

High strength + decent ASM + low-medium armour penetration ability = Anti-personnel.

Cyclone's the terminator anti-tank weapon, AC's and Heavy Flamers are the anti-personnel support weapons.

I do remember how to play 2nd Ed, you know.

Strength 8 +D10 Wounds +D6. The same as a Krak Missile. The only difference was a Krak Missile was one shot and was -6 armor save. The assault cannon was 3 sustained fire dice and -3 armor save. They had the same armor busting capabilities. :rolleyes:

Cyclones were a heavy anti-infantry weapon, because you could fire off all your missiles and get a 5 1/2" blast.

Champsguy
11-04-2007, 15:11
A twenty-one foot long, 680 pound (without ammunition) assault cannon, maybe...

The GAU-8/A is so freaking big that they had to build the plane AROUND the gun. It's simply not an appropriate comparison.

Ah yes, but you know, 38 thousand years of technological advancement and everything. :D

Brother Drakist
11-04-2007, 15:13
I do not understand the hate myself. I have 2-3 most in my army....two of which are on Dreads, and I have faced much :cheese:ier tactics/weapons in my limited time playing 40k. My opinion is that it gives an outlet for non-marine players to complain.

Egaeus
11-04-2007, 15:20
But the assault cannon...it is apparently some game winning weapon that is unstoppable and unbeatable.

Ehh. Again, I've never seen one do even remotely worthwhile damage compared to, say, a squad of Str6/AP4 Gauss rule-toting jetbike-moving Destroyers.

There are much worse things out there than the AC, I just think people have sort of coelesced into this weird bandwagon via word of mouth. I mean, I've told the story of a young kid who was like 12, playing the store owner, marines versus necrons. The kid uses the assault cannon, doesn't even get a rending roll, and manages to instakill two T3 scarab swarms. Flabbergasted the kid goes "Gee they really need to fix that!!" like he just annihilated a whole unit or something.

Seriously, it's just blown way out of proportion.

I agree with this completely. I still think part of the problem is this perception that ACs are "common" in a Marine army. The truth is, to get a lot of them you do have to sacrifice...what is the right word...it's not really "balance"...but your army is going to be overly invested in Elites and/or Fast attack. And I don't care how one tries to justify it (as I can off the top of my head think of a number of ways to justify such armies from a thematic perspective), the army isn't being built around a strong core of Troops, but around more specialized units.

Another issue is comparing it to other weapons that aren't available to the platforms that carrry the AC. I don't care how it stacks up against a Lascannon since only one unit that carries the AC has the ability to take a Lascannon (although I would like it if the TL Lascannon on a Dread were simply a weapon swap rather than a pricey upgrade). The Land Raider/LRC isn't really even a fair comparison either because they tend to have slightly different roles. Now if one wanted to look at Termies specifically and compare how it stacks up to the Cyclone launcher or Heavy Flamer, or Land Speeders and how it's the best choice over the Multimelta and/or Heavy Flamer, then there's something that I feel would be a more legitimate discussion.

Comparing it to weapons across other armies is even more pointless, especially when one uses weapons which are readily available across the army (such as the Starcannon, which can be carried in nearly any slot in the army).

Ianos
11-04-2007, 15:30
15 posts later and the same recycling. Some argue that the assault cannon isn't all that powerful and that the platforms are either unreliable or very expensive. Please someone tell me how exactly are terminators threatened by plasma guns when the army that can field the most of them is IG and can only fire once at 24" with bs3 per wielder, while the termies step out 6" and fire 24" and kill the enemy first. These guys are even immune to defilers!!! and even if someone can get to hit them with massed ap2 fire 10 bs 3 shots will kill 2.7 termies! leaving 2-3 alive, ususally the assault cannon wielders and that is at least 5 squads firing plasma at 24". Then the 20-3=17 termie block (assuming the player who uses the termies is foolish and for some reason has not used his superior move and fire to exterminate the 4 out of 5 squads) will open up and kill them all!

Also how exactly is it balanced and rational that a dreadnaught (which can become venerable and can move in terrain hull down with av12, plus get tank-hunter) gets to have the assault cannon for free and all other weapons are the costed upgrades?

As for land speeders, how is a deep striking, closed-top (which btw is not paid again but is free just because of passenger marine-hood), fast vehicle with 3 str5 and 4 str 6 rending shots and a bs4 balanced at smth like 80 points? Have people checked how much an eldar vyper with lance costs and what it does?

Maelx
11-04-2007, 15:39
As for land speeders, how is a deep striking, closed-top (which btw is not paid again but is free just because of passenger marine-hood), fast vehicle with 3 str5 and 4 str 6 rending shots and a bs4 balanced at smth like 80 points? Have people checked how much an eldar vyper with lance costs and what it does?

Ok, so the landspeeder outclasses the vyper.

Can you please explain to me how much a dreadnought is outclassed by a fireprism? I dont think you have to.

DesolationAngel
11-04-2007, 15:50
15 posts later and the same recycling. Some argue that the assault cannon isn't all that powerful and that the platforms are either unreliable or very expensive. Please someone tell me how exactly are terminators threatened by plasma guns when the army that can field the most of them is IG and can only fire once at 24" with bs3 per wielder, while the termies step out 6" and fire 24" and kill the enemy first. These guys are even immune to defilers!!! and even if someone can get to hit them with massed ap2 fire 10 bs 3 shots will kill 2.7 termies! leaving 2-3 alive, ususally the assault cannon wielders and that is at least 5 squads firing plasma at 24". Then the 20-3=17 termie block (assuming the player who uses the termies is foolish and for some reason has not used his superior move and fire to exterminate the 4 out of 5 squads) will open up and kill them all!

Also how exactly is it balanced and rational that a dreadnaught (which can become venerable and can move in terrain hull down with av12, plus get tank-hunter) gets to have the assault cannon for free and all other weapons are the costed upgrades?

As for land speeders, how is a deep striking, closed-top (which btw is not paid again but is free just because of passenger marine-hood), fast vehicle with 3 str5 and 4 str 6 rending shots and a bs4 balanced at smth like 80 points? Have people checked how much an eldar vyper with lance costs and what it does?

Tau, good movement, avoid getting shot and at close range (ie deepstriking a few units get 4 shots a unit, or moving shooting and then hiding).

Guard - Demolishers, sit in cover with mutliple troops to take the damage, for the ulimate take some drop guard squads, demo charge is dirt cheap, command squad with 4 plasma guns and plasma pistol or the same in a chimera for example, not to mention demolisher cannons and so on, Guard can definetly take Termis down.

Necrons - shoot till they fail their saves, you get WBB and a Monolith which is unaffected, Also the Deciever eats them for breakfast.

Just a few examples, ive played a number of nasty termi lists (10 AC for example and beat it with balanced Tau). In most games ive played Termis suffer horribly, depends what you play and what you use in your list I suppose.

The AC isn't free, a Grey Knight Dread comes without weapons at 80pts and Marine Dread would be about 75 without weapons, making the AC worth 30pts. They include it as basic to let people replace it if they wan't, personally I would much rather have a Twin-Linked Lascannon. Its also mounted on a weak armoured vechile that moves 6" a turn and would do little with escalation.

If a Marine speeder deepstrikes it can't shoot according to the Marine FAQ, so thats not much of a benefit, you pay 30pts for the AC which is reasonable otherwise you just have a HB. Vipers are a bit febble because they were so good before, to balance that you get near unkillable Prisms and Falcons among other things.

Also Eldar is a new balanced out book, Marines and Chaos are going to get the same treatment soon enough.

Speeders are balanced because in a balanced list you should have enough firepower to knock them out the sky, which with AV10 isn't too difficult, I know as ive seen in happen many times, Speeders aren't as amazing as people make them to be, if they are its because your opponent knows how to use them.

jfrazell
11-04-2007, 16:17
Am I incorrect or is it only marines that can have 9 fast attack skimmers (real question, not familiar with the Tau FA simmer rules)?

Anathema
11-04-2007, 16:23
9 Vyper Eldar, DE can have 14 Fast Skimmers at AV 10 and 11, not sure on their FA options though.

Egaeus
11-04-2007, 16:27
I really don't want to devolve into one of these types of arguments (I complained about this in my previous post)...but I still want to respond...


15 posts later and the same recycling. Some argue that the assault cannon isn't all that powerful and that the platforms are either unreliable or very expensive. Please someone tell me how exactly are terminators threatened by plasma guns when the army that can field the most of them is IG and can only fire once at 24" with bs3 per wielder, while the termies step out 6" and fire 24" and kill the enemy first. These guys are even immune to defilers!!! and even if someone can get to hit them with massed ap2 fire 10 bs 3 shots will kill 2.7 termies! leaving 2-3 alive, ususally the assault cannon wielders and that is at least 5 squads firing plasma at 24". Then the 20-3=17 termie block (assuming the player who uses the termies is foolish and for some reason has not used his superior move and fire to exterminate the 4 out of 5 squads) will open up and kill them all!


Realize that for those 5 Termies you can get 40 Guardsmen (yes, I do undestand that upgrades and officers are going to make this number a bit less, but you can get a legal platoon for this price), which are broken into at least 3 seperate units...that's one of the Guard's huge strengths...that each FOC slot actually gets them a minimum of 3 seperate units that must be engaged individually (unless you have blast weapons). Even without this, I would like to see a unit with 14 individual shots kill 40 models in one round...it just isn't going to happen.


Also how exactly is it balanced and rational that a dreadnaught (which can become venerable and can move in terrain hull down with av12, plus get tank-hunter) gets to have the assault cannon for free and all other weapons are the costed upgrades?

You are making the huge assumption that is is "free" and not already rolled into its points cost. I have said before and I stand by my opinion that I do think the other weapon options ought to be simple swaps rather than costed upgrades.

Of course one could argue that it is "only" AV12 and that most armies are going to be carrying plenty of antitank weaponry because that is the most efficient way to deal with Marines in the first place. Also, the range of the Assault Cannon means that it must get close to the enemy to be effective.


As for land speeders, how is a deep striking, closed-top (which btw is not paid again but is free just because of passenger marine-hood), fast vehicle with 3 str5 and 4 str 6 rending shots and a bs4 balanced at smth like 80 points? Have people checked how much an eldar vyper with lance costs and what it does?

When it deep strikes it can't shoot. It's fast enough, why bother DSing it anyways? Again, there is no points-cost breakdown for any unit in the game, so you are again making the assumption that this "upgrade" is free.

I have also said on a number of occaisions that I think the LS Tornado is the most broken aspect of the list that makes it open to AC abuse. My main frustration stems for the fact that I have two Land Speeders that I built with Multimeltas to be a specfic anti-tank element of my army and then the new Codex comes out with the relatively cheap Tornado that gets 7x the shots for only a few points more and is infinitely more flexible.

I am exceptionally happy with the way this was fixed in the DA codex (price hike and limited availability) and would fully expect to see similar treatment in a Marine Codex revision.

And as I said in my previous post, comparing units across armies is generally futile. Although I think it should be doable, I do understand that there are many factors that make it difficult.

max the dog
11-04-2007, 16:27
[QUOTE=Maelx;1457930]I've been known to be arrogant and self-satisfied. :)

I do admit they are very powerful, but there seems to be SO much hate directed towards them and not other things.

Do people not have issues with:
Mech Tau?
Mech Eldar?
Siren Daemonbomb?
Greater Daemon/Daemon Bikebomb?
FtD pod-libby?
Iron Warriors w/ 9 obliterators?
Armored Companies?
Super Swarm nids! (200 gaunts with 15 rending warriors in 1500 points!)
QUOTE]

People do have problems with all those other lists but the difference is those lists have easy countermeasures for a smart player with a well thought out allcomers list. The Asscannon horde isn't that easy to get around with an allcomers list. Don't get me wrong, the asscannon can be beaten but it can be a difficult fight.

Maelx
11-04-2007, 16:29
No. Tau can have 9 as well.

Actually.. Tau can have uhh:

6 Devilfish for Troops
3 Devilfish for Pathfinders (arent these guys elites?)
3 Hammerheads
9 Piranhas (sp?)

Budro
11-04-2007, 16:41
You can get 15 pirahnas in a tau list, but then you can't have the 3 fish for the pathfinders as both are Fast attack. Oh yeah, and that's 1050 points. That's either a single S8, 12" gun or S5, AP5 assualt 3 with 18". Not 9 LS with asscannons that can DS.

Face it, no one likes lists that are cookie-cutter. If you had a list that was min/max las/plas people would whine about that as well. People complain about FK crisis/Railhead spam the same way. Get over it.

Sai-Lauren
11-04-2007, 17:14
I was thinking yesterday about assault cannons and points.

1 Assault Cannon Term (60) = 2 Lascannon Marines (30) = 3 Heavy Bolter Marines (20 each). Let's pair these up against each other to see who is better at killing respective things.

For killing a land raider:
Lascannon Marines = 7.4% * 2 Shots = 14.8% chance

Assault Cannon = 4% * 4 shots = 16%

For Kill Hordes (Vs Tyranid Warriors):
Heavy Bolters = 36% chance per shot * 9 shots = 324% (or 3.24 wounds average..)

Assault Cannon = 57% chance per shot * 4 shots = 230% (or 2.3 wounds)

Point for point, you're wrong. It was close with those two lascannon shots though, not taking into account the benefits of instakilling and ap2

What about Lascannon vs Tyrannid Warriors and Heavy Bolters vs Land Raiders? (I can tell you that last one straight off - 0% - because it can't penetrate).
Which is the point we're trying to make, AC is better against most things, and in those situations where it isn't, it's that close that there's no real point in going for the better weapon for that limited scenario.

And we've done the GAU-8 to death on every other AC thread. It's about as close to the AC as a .22 pistol is to a 155mm artillery piece - they may have similar principles, but they've got very different effects.

As for the AC being anti-tank, why does it have such a high fire rate then? Everything else that's in that role has at most two shots, in nearly all cases one, yet this thing has four - roughly in the range of things like the Heavy Bolter, Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon and so on.
The AP for the AC isn't in the kind of ranges for the AT weapons either, it's roughly similar to the anti-personnel weapons, and it certainly doesn't have the range of it's supposed contempories, again, it's in the same sort of area as the HB, SL et al.

In fact, if you take the rending off, guess what you get? The very good anti-personnel weapon it should be.

Champsguy
11-04-2007, 17:14
My thoughts, one more time.

1) The assault cannon is SUPPOSED to be good. The 3rd edition version was an abberation. It's supposed to be as scary as a lascannon. In the 2nd edition codex, it was the best weapon Marines had.

2) All the platforms you can mount an AC on suck. Dreadnaughts are fairly crappy - they lose to any monstrous creature out there, and a squad with a power fist can rip one apart. Land Speeders are fast, but die to bolters. Terminators are so over-priced it's not even funny. LRCs are so expensive that I'll laugh if you took it just for the AC. So to make heavy use of assault cannons, you've got to take the weakest/most overpriced parts of a Marine list. No assault marines, no veteran squads. You're making a very specialized army, one that generally isn't as strong as other Marine armies.

3) People make too big a deal of Rending. Yeah, it's nice, but it's just the possibility of ignoring a save, or penetrating a vehicle. You're just as likely to shoot a squad and get no rending results. While two ACs in a Termie squad might cut down 8 Marines with no save, they're much more likely to dish out 5 wounds and the opponent only fails like one armor save. The POTENTIAL is great - but relying on Rending for all anti-armor and anti-heavy infantry work is a stupid, stupid move.

Champsguy
11-04-2007, 17:20
What about Lascannon vs Tyrannid Warriors and Heavy Bolters vs Land Raiders? (I can tell you that last one straight off - 0% - because it can't penetrate).
Which is the point we're trying to make, AC is better against most things, and in those situations where it isn't, it's that close that there's no real point in going for the better weapon for that limited scenario.

And we've done the GAU-8 to death on every other AC thread. It's about as close to the AC as a .22 pistol is to a 155mm artillery piece - they may have similar principles, but they've got very different effects.

As for the AC being anti-tank, why does it have such a high fire rate then? Everything else that's in that role has at most two shots, in nearly all cases one, yet this thing has four - roughly in the range of things like the Heavy Bolter, Scatter Laser, Shuriken Cannon and so on.
The AP for the AC isn't in the kind of ranges for the AT weapons either, it's roughly similar to the anti-personnel weapons, and it certainly doesn't have the range of it's supposed contempories, again, it's in the same sort of area as the HB, SL et al.

In fact, if you take the rending off, guess what you get? The very good anti-personnel weapon it should be.

Who determines what it "should" be? I think it "should" be the Heavy 4 Krak Missile Launcher from 2nd ed. Do I get to dictate what goes in the codex now?

Zerosoul
11-04-2007, 17:24
Ok, so the landspeeder outclasses the vyper.

Can you please explain to me how much a dreadnought is outclassed by a fireprism? I dont think you have to.

A Dread with all of the trimmings costs as much as a basic fire prism does. One is also a tank and another a Walker, one takes up hotly contested Heavy Support slots and another doesn't, one has a maximum of 4 shots, the other has a minimum(with AC) of four shots. And that's before we talk transport options, in which a Dread clearly outclasses a Prism. Try again.

Gutlord Grom
11-04-2007, 17:29
A Dread with all of the trimmings costs as much as a basic fire prism does. One is also a tank and another a Walker, one takes up hotly contested Heavy Support slots and another doesn't, one has a maximum of 4 shots, the other has a minimum(with AC) of four shots. And that's before we talk transport options, in which a Dread clearly outclasses a Prism. Try again.


But the Fire Prism is a hover vehicle. So if it moves everything becomes a glance if it is damaged. And then you have to add in holofields, it's even harder to kill.

And the Fire Prism can mount a Shuriken Cannon which is Strength 6, which has a chance of killing a dread.

LoerdofallJoy
11-04-2007, 17:33
To fix the assault cannon?

Why not make it AP-.

It's a high strength, high rate of fire anti-infantry cannon, it then still has a fair chance against vehicles, but can only glance them.

A rediculously high volume of relitively small projectiles should shred infantry - check - high strength & rending

It isn't a tank busting weapon, but that many projectiles might just go through a tank, but it is primarily an anti-infantry weapon - check - rending, but can only glance

I'm off to apply for a job at GW games design department (with tongue firmly in cheek!).

Champsguy
11-04-2007, 17:43
To fix the assault cannon?

Why not make it AP-.

It's a high strength, high rate of fire anti-infantry cannon, it then still has a fair chance against vehicles, but can only glance them.

A rediculously high volume of relitively small projectiles should shred infantry - check - high strength & rending

It isn't a tank busting weapon, but that many projectiles might just go through a tank, but it is primarily an anti-infantry weapon - check - rending, but can only glance

I'm off to apply for a job at GW games design department (with tongue firmly in cheek!).

Because it's a ridiculously high volume of BIG projectiles. The assault cannon is good. It's FINALLY worth taking again.

Stingray_tm
11-04-2007, 17:45
2) All the platforms you can mount an AC on suck. Dreadnaughts are fairly crappy - they lose to any monstrous creature out there, and a squad with a power fist can rip one apart. Land Speeders are fast, but die to bolters. Terminators are so over-priced it's not even funny. LRCs are so expensive that I'll laugh if you took it just for the AC. So to make heavy use of assault cannons, you've got to take the weakest/most overpriced parts of a Marine list. No assault marines, no veteran squads. You're making a very specialized army, one that generally isn't as strong as other Marine armies.


So i guess my Tyranids really, really, really suck, because Genestealers can get killed by Heavy Bolters, my 200 point cc MCs can get killed by a couple of Lascannon shots (no save against this) or hidden Powerfists, while my Sniperfex can get destroyed by Harlequins...




3) People make too big a deal of Rending. Yeah, it's nice, but it's just the possibility of ignoring a save, or penetrating a vehicle. You're just as likely to shoot a squad and get no rending results. While two ACs in a Termie squad might cut down 8 Marines with no save, they're much more likely to dish out 5 wounds and the opponent only fails like one armor save. The POTENTIAL is great - but relying on Rending for all anti-armor and anti-heavy infantry work is a stupid, stupid move.
Yeah, your right. For killing Marines you should use more realiable weapons like Heavy Bolters, Lascannons, Flamers or Plasma Guns...
Oh. Waitaminute...

Sarcasm aside: Assault Cannons don't need rending. They are powerfull enough (4 shots, S6, AP4!!!). But rending makes them a potential threat to everything.

Champsguy
11-04-2007, 17:54
So i guess my Tyranids really, really, really suck, because Genestealers can get killed by Heavy Bolters, my 200 point cc MCs can get killed by a couple of Lascannon shots (no save against this) or hidden Powerfists, while my Sniperfex can get destroyed by Harlequins...

Tyranids are a different army. They have a different balance. OUR genestealers (yeah, I play 'Nids too) would suck if we had a troop choice with a 3+ armor save that was just as good in HTH.

Dreadnaughts can get killed by Harlies, too.

And if you had to buy a 250 point Carnifex to get a Str 6 Devourer, and he didn't get to count as a monstrous creature, then yeah, I'd say he sucked too.

Tyranids have a different play balance. The fact is, the assault cannons come on the weakest and/or most overpriced Marine units. If your Genestealers cost 40 points a model, and only two of them could get Rending, then yeah, they'd suck.



Yeah, your right. For killing Marines you should use more realiable weapons like Heavy Bolters, Lascannons, Flamers or Plasma Guns...
Oh. Waitaminute...

I don't care what anyone says, Flamers absolutely rock at killing Marines. "Okay, that's 8 guys touched by the template, 4 wounds, one failed armor save." You're almost guaranteed a kill or two. But the best way to kill Marines is through massed fire - the kind of massed fire you WON'T GET if you spend all your points getting assault cannon platforms.

--

Edit: They may not NEED Rending, but it's not a crime that they have it either.

Zerosoul
11-04-2007, 18:01
But the Fire Prism is a hover vehicle. So if it moves everything becomes a glance if it is damaged. And then you have to add in holofields, it's even harder to kill.

And the Fire Prism can mount a Shuriken Cannon which is Strength 6, which has a chance of killing a dread.

What does that have to do with anything? No sane person is going to argue that a Dread is more survivable than a Fire Prism. In the vast majority of games, unless you roll dice like me, your Prism will come out of it alive, if not limping a little. Who cares? You can also very nearly take two Dreads for the cost of a single tooled Prism - not to mention the fact that Space Marine elite choices aren't nearly as heavily contested as Eldar Heavy Support choices. I'm not saying Dreads are better than Prisms. That would be kinda crazy. I'm saying that there are certainly ways that Dreads outclass Prisms, and the only one that really matters is the sheer amount of dakka a Dread can put out.

Stingray_tm
11-04-2007, 18:16
Dreadnaughts can get killed by Harlies, too.


My point was: You are complaining about your Dreadnaught, being designed for long range support and close combat against weaker opponents getting squished by cc monsters. Big deal... I don't expect my Genestealers to win a firefight, they have other strenghts to do... The same with Landspeeders. They die fast. So what? They can put out a lot of damage first and are and they are very fast so you can decide what you want to damage.




I don't care what anyone says, Flamers absolutely rock at killing Marines. "Okay, that's 8 guys touched by the template, 4 wounds, one failed armor save." You're almost guaranteed a kill or two. But the best way to kill Marines is through massed fire - the kind of massed fire you WON'T GET if you spend all your points getting assault cannon platforms.

I agree. IF you manage to get into flamer range, without getting shot by Assaultcannons first during your way there and IF your opponent is stupid enough to place his Marines in a way where you can hit 8 guys and IF he doesn't go for 6 men las/plas squads in the first place, THEN you have ALMOST EXACTLY the same chance of killing one Space Marine with the flamer as you have with the assault cannon. (Chances for a single Asscannon shot: 0.33)
You want massed fire? The assault cannon is massed fire. On crack.

jfrazell
11-04-2007, 18:50
My thoughts, one more time.

1) The assault cannon is SUPPOSED to be good. The 3rd edition version was an abberation. It's supposed to be as scary as a lascannon. In the 2nd edition codex, it was the best weapon Marines had.

2) All the platforms you can mount an AC on suck. Dreadnaughts are fairly crappy - they lose to any monstrous creature out there, and a squad with a power fist can rip one apart. Land Speeders are fast, but die to bolters. Terminators are so over-priced it's not even funny. LRCs are so expensive that I'll laugh if you took it just for the AC. So to make heavy use of assault cannons, you've got to take the weakest/most overpriced parts of a Marine list. No assault marines, no veteran squads. You're making a very specialized army, one that generally isn't as strong as other Marine armies.

3) People make too big a deal of Rending. Yeah, it's nice, but it's just the possibility of ignoring a save, or penetrating a vehicle. You're just as likely to shoot a squad and get no rending results. While two ACs in a Termie squad might cut down 8 Marines with no save, they're much more likely to dish out 5 wounds and the opponent only fails like one armor save. The POTENTIAL is great - but relying on Rending for all anti-armor and anti-heavy infantry work is a stupid, stupid move.

And the same arguments were made defending the starcannon.

Which was just nerfed.

Vaktathi
11-04-2007, 18:52
Look at what happens when the A-10 Warthog shoots a tank. It's basically armed with an assault cannon.

Yeah, but an A-10's assault cannon is 19 1/2 feet long, generating enough force from the recoil to exceed of the output of a single A-10 turbofan engine, and wieghs over 4,000 pounds with everything but ammo, about 600 pounds without an ammo drum or ammunition feed system.


All the platforms you can mount an AC on suck. Dreadnaughts are fairly crappy - they lose to any monstrous creature out there, and a squad with a power fist can rip one apart. Land Speeders are fast, but die to bolters. Terminators are so over-priced it's not even funny. LRCs are so expensive that I'll laugh if you took it just for the AC. So to make heavy use of assault cannons, you've got to take the weakest/most overpriced parts of a Marine list. No assault marines, no veteran squads. You're making a very specialized army, one that generally isn't as strong as other Marine armies.



Yes, because platforms that can all fire and move (and assault), or deep strike and dakka, are all terrible platforms for a 24", 4shot 6STR rending weapon :eyebrows:

I think you are the first person I've ever heard to say that dreadnaughts suck. They are very nice pieces of kit. yes they will lose to an MC, but they will also tear up very tooled & expensive non-MC HQ's and CC units,and can Deep Strike (with a pod). Also, have you ever seen a Dread with a multi-melta? I havent, and that because an AC is just as effective at popping tanks and is still useful against everything else too, with 4 shots you have a really good chance of getting a rending hit (though not guaranteed admittedly), and a rending hit with an AC has about the same average AP as a 2d6 multi-melta pen. (6str+6+avg3.5=15.5, 8str+avg3.5+avg3.5=15 wierd math yes, but average of rolls is 3's and 4s)

Landspeeders can be destroyed by bolters yes, but they are also skimmers so they are most likely going to only get glanced, are Fast so they can get range easily, and can Deep Strike. Compare a Land Speeder with an AC to an IG Sentinel with any weapon on a point for point basis (say for anti-infantry, IG sentinel with a Multilaser at 45pts and a LS Tornado at 80pts, the sentinel gets 3 str6 ap6 bs3 shots, is av10 all around, and open topped and moves 6" per turn, or an 85pt Chimera which gets 3 S6 AP6 and 3 S5 AP4 BS3 shots per turn but has AV12 in the front. the LS can move 12" and fire everything or move 24" if it chooses, and only takes glancing hits if it moves more than 6" and is not open topped and gets 7 BS4 AP4 shots per turn 3 s5 and 4 s6, tell me which you think is more points effective), and you'll see that Land Speeders really arent that bad at all, if they were, you wouldnt see them in Marine lists.

LRC's are overpriced for most things, but its not hard to see where an LRC transporting an assault termi squad is a very nasty thing indeed. people dont take LRC's for the assault cannons alone.

As for terminators price, they have gotten cheaper in every codex that has them with every new release, and I think are still well worth their points if used well. Also, since the assault cannon is so good, why bother taking any of the other Terminator weapons options? why even have them in there if most people dont take them? More to the point, why is a Cyclone missile launcher more points than an Assault cannon?

As for rending, yes you are right, you are not going to get a whole lot of auto-wounds, but the fact that you get 4 shots at STR 6 makes it pretty likely you will get at least one. which would be fine if the AC wasnt so cheap, if you want an STR6 AP4 heavy4(might as well be assault 4, it would make no difference to anything) weapon with Rending, it needs to be more points than it is now, it shouldnt be as cheap as it is. Also given the fact that just about every other Rending weapon in the game is a CC weapon (hence why Rending is under Special close combat attacks in the 4th ed rulebook) is a wee bit telling of something.


If you are going to constantly compare the 4th ed AC to the 2nd ed AC, why not argue that Multi-meltas should get a blast template? why not make Psykers able to defeat entire armies again? there is a reason things got wayyy toned down after 2nd ed.

BrainFireBob
11-04-2007, 19:06
People defending the assault cannon are forgetting the other advantage of mounting it on Dreads and Termies- tank hunters. That's Str7 base, when Rending is added, that's a minimum AP of 13- that's extremely serious in a game with max armor 14!

Champsguy
11-04-2007, 20:48
People defending the assault cannon are forgetting the other advantage of mounting it on Dreads and Termies- tank hunters. That's Str7 base, when Rending is added, that's a minimum AP of 13- that's extremely serious in a game with max armor 14!

Tank Hunter is a complete waste if you're trying to target AV 13 vehicles. Complete waste. You need a 6 to do anything anyway, so it's a waste. It makes it a little easier to penetrate lighter vehicles, but the last thing I'd put Tank Hunter on is a Rending weapon.

Damore
11-04-2007, 23:53
The only problem I have with Assualt Cannons is they over shadow heavy bolters. Why take HBs when you can take ACs and get more shoots.

Captain Micha
12-04-2007, 01:25
okay, str7 ap 4 heavy 2... thats the autocannon explain to me how one point less str, for TWO more shots. AND rending. is balanced.

let alone tank hunters.......

making it by far the best at gun in the game... str 7 heavy 4...

oh look it shreds infantry too...

and is easily massable...

=imbal

Master Bait
12-04-2007, 01:33
The only problem I have with Assualt Cannons is they over shadow heavy bolters. Why take HBs when you can take ACs and get more shoots.


because you can still accumulate a lot of fire power with the units that can use HBs

a game i watched a friend play, he included a LRC and two Land Speeder Tornados in his army.

he missed with most of his AC shots, and failed to rend with any of the ones he did hit with.

meanwhile his HBs chewed through whole units each turn.

ACs don't need to be changed at all. army lists simply need to be rewritten to prevent blatant abuse of the use of this weapon as per the DA codex.

onnotangu
12-04-2007, 02:30
I don't mind the assault cannon getting 4 shots what I simply don't like is it getting rending. why give rending to an army that never needed it to win before?

Master Bait
12-04-2007, 02:42
why play the game at all?

its a special rule that was simply added to ACs to give them the colour and power they previously had in 2nd ed. for some reason, its been thoroughly abused in 4th ed, when i never heard of that being the case for 2nd.

or rather, i STILL haven't seen for 4th either - the only time i've heard of it being abused is from the handful of people that post here

Master Drusus
12-04-2007, 03:12
Rending is the real problem here not the A.C. itself.......
It's a too powerful rule attached to a powerful weapon.......
The rule by itself is very potent a 16.666% chance when rolling to hit; to wound barring any Inv. saves, or an additional d6 on penetration rolls against vehicles......
The problem is the A.C. is a Hvy 4 Str. 6 A.P. 4 Rng. 24 weapon......
What G.W. need to do is change the rules for A.C's, make them get an extra shot with every 6 rolled to hit, or somthing like that......
The A.C. should be badass, but it is a little too much for the cost and availability in C:SM......

The Dude
12-04-2007, 04:16
Rending is the real problem here not the A.C. itself.......
It's a too powerful rule attached to a powerful weapon.......
The rule by itself is very potent a 16.666% chance when rolling to hit; to wound barring any Inv. saves, or an additional d6 on penetration rolls against vehicles......
The problem is the A.C. is a Hvy 4 Str. 6 A.P. 4 Rng. 24 weapon......
What G.W. need to do is change the rules for A.C's, make them get an extra shot with every 6 rolled to hit, or somthing like that......
The A.C. should be badass, but it is a little too much for the cost and availability in C:SM......

Hang on, I'm confused. You start your argument saying Rending is the problem and not the Assault Cannon itself. You then move on to say that the problem is the Assault cannon's stats. Then you say the Assault Cannon should be badass, but that the cost and availability is the problem. :eyebrows::confused:

Master Drusus
12-04-2007, 04:47
Hang on, I'm confused. You start your argument saying Rending is the problem and not the Assault Cannon itself. You then move on to say that the problem is the Assault cannon's stats. Then you say the Assault Cannon should be badass, but that the cost and availability is the problem. :eyebrows::confused:

Yeah adding Rending to the assualt cannon's stats is too powerful......
If you remove the rending rule you will balance the weapon against its cost......
Yes the A.C. should be a badassed weapon, just not what it is currently an under priced super weapon......

Master Bait
12-04-2007, 05:13
but it isn't? or certainly, it isn't if people are senisble in its use or are restricted as per the DA codex?

i think most people don't give a toss if there's only 3 or 4 ACs on the field but complaints arise when people turn up sporting more than that. which is a fair complaint, because it IS meant to be a good weapon. but its availbility is also meant to be restricted due to its power and also because its fluff historically said that only terminators could weild them. from my understanding some people have taken advantage that you can take several ACs in the current SM codex.

and that's what most of the complainants seem to be addressing. but instead of discussing its availability to the army, they're talking about changing the statline.

i personally know what's easiest to fix

deathwing_marine
12-04-2007, 05:19
If rending was taken away from the assault cannon, it wouldn't really have any major advantages over the heavy bolter. +1 strength and shot but less range. It definitely wouldnt be as useful then.

zendral
12-04-2007, 05:21
I don't think it should be considered a "Superweapon". If someone would come along and read this forum, one could get the impression that the assault cannon is a cheese weapon. I have seen assault cannon based armies and they are truly not that impressive. My gaming group even understands that the assault cannon is not all that great. It may be very versitile, but it still quite a random weapon. Sure someone may get lucky and rend a landraider to death, but it is certainly a rare moment. I would rather rely on weapons designed for what they are made for than rely on something that is versitile but with a high random value. I imagine the asscannon players in tournaments either face a big win or a big loss for most games. The gun itself is fine. Maybe limit the amount like what is done in the dark angels codex. Mind, I am usually on the recieving end of an asscannon army and I have no big qualms with it. Seeing the rending results were quite random. Drop podding/deepstrike assault cannons on my tanks are usually a big hit or miss and if my opponent wants to take that risk...go for it.

Champsguy
12-04-2007, 06:35
See, this is what I don't get.

Assault Cannon lists aren't dominating tournaments. Assault Cannon lists aren't winning games by the boatload. Most Marine players I know don't even use ACs. AC lists fall far behind the "Drop Pod Army" in frequency (from what I've seen) and in effectivity. Actually, from reports here, AC lists don't really seem to win any more than any other list.

So everyone is complaining about how good this thing is, when performance wise, it's not living up to its billing.

I think people overestimate how good it is. Sure, an AC COULD kill a Termie squad. It COULD blow up a Land Raider. Whether it DOES or not isn't important - it's the fear that something COULD happen. The AC has a high ceiling as far as what it can accomplish (theoretically), but the odds of it happening aren't particularly important. It's the fact that it COULD happen that has people upset.

But ACs aren't doing this with any regularity. They aren't winning tournaments, and nobody is arguing that they have any higher win % than any other Marine army. Therefore, no problem. It doesn't matter how bent out of shape people get about it - that doesn't actually make them into the monstrosities that everyone fears.

AngryAngel
12-04-2007, 06:47
Alright I've said it once..and I'll say it again. The assault cannon isn't master of all trades. Its Jack of all trades. It handles hordes well with good str and ap, as well as very light vehicles.

Heavy infantry it has to roll 6's to punch through their armor. Medium to heavy vehicles needs to roll 6's. Monsterous creatures, needs to roll 6's most often to do anything to um.

Something so dependant on luck is hardly amazing. It is good. It gives you hope in perhaps an otherwise hopeless situation. I think that is another reason why its so hated. People need to respect it. More over, people fear it beyond reason and people hate to fear marines.

I think it suffers most from the fact of people needing to think. "What if it rolls 6's?" Which is silly, as I've seen a good amount run in an army and not roll a single 6 all game. Sound crazy ? It happens more then ya think. Though honestly, if it wasn't that, it would be something else marines have. Why ? People hate marines, simple.

AngryAngel
12-04-2007, 07:07
The only problem I have with Assualt Cannons is they over shadow heavy bolters. Why take HBs when you can take ACs and get more shoots.

I posted my comments but let me answer this question. Why take HBs when the assault cannon is better ? First, its way cheaper then an assault cannon, can be taken in troops, dev squads, tanks. Even as well the land speeder. It has longer range, which believe it or not matters.

Yeah you can move your units closer, but that also means they are closer to the enemies massed fire just getting into range to shoot themselves. I'd rather use more hbs then assault cannons in my lists honestly.

TheSanityAssassin
12-04-2007, 07:13
Every time I play one they end up dead or immobile before they get within 24. I don't find a problem with them, because every other list is going to be loaded with Anti-Marine fire. So why can't marines have anti-everything else guns? They don't cause me any overwhelming trouble until there's like 10 of them, and by then, the army is broken not by the weapon but by the player. And even then, they tend to not be that effective, as they'll have spent a foolish number of points on speeder squadrons that get hauled down on turn 1 or 2

Mr_Smiley
12-04-2007, 08:07
Well damn, this is a very long and hideously repetitive thread.
The AC problem, from my own experience, is the people who use them, not the cannon itself.

Ianos
12-04-2007, 08:29
When i played Eldar with the 3rd edition codex, i used to field 3 starcannons in 1500. I would then go to tournaments or friendly matches and people would unleash all the Eldar-hatred in the world because i have access to the superweapon with 3 ap2 shots.
They believed they had their right to protest as we are talking about a weapon that could with bs3 kill 1.245 marines/turn if they were absolutely out of cover all the time. They also stated that it was way overpowered for its 35-50 points for what it does. It can glance av12 if you are lucky and it can take care of a couple of gaunts if not in cover and all that at 36".
So GW listened to all those protests (via forums mostly) especially from marine players and nerfed the "overpowered" starcannon to heavy 2. Note however i still get the cries of cheese just because i play Eldar but thats another story.
Moral of the story: a 35-50 points gun that can kill 1.245 marines out of cover and has minor effects on armour and is half-descent vs horde was considered overpowered by the developers and was nerfed.
Even if one has one assault cannon in 3000 points he should pay for it. It is ridiculus to get a dread with a free assault cannon and the melta as an upgrade and the cost of the weapon across the list is tottaly silly. The starcannon was 35-50 and was considered too strong without ever coming near to what the assault cannon can do. Yet the assault cannon is roaming the lists freely and people say "omg please don't nerf it, i don't get many sixes anyway". Well i don't care how many sixes people get and GW doesn't either, at least thats what they have shown with the last couple of dexes and i sincerely hope they follow-up in the future...

Lancaster
12-04-2007, 10:12
When i played Eldar with the 3rd edition codex, i used to field 3 starcannons in 1500. I would then go to tournaments or friendly matches and people would unleash all the Eldar-hatred in the world because i have access to the superweapon with 3 ap2 shots.
They believed they had their right to protest as we are talking about a weapon that could with bs3 kill 1.245 marines/turn if they were absolutely out of cover all the time. They also stated that it was way overpowered for its 35-50 points for what it does. It can glance av12 if you are lucky and it can take care of a couple of gaunts if not in cover and all that at 36".
So GW listened to all those protests (via forums mostly) especially from marine players and nerfed the "overpowered" starcannon to heavy 2. Note however i still get the cries of cheese just because i play Eldar but thats another story.
Moral of the story: a 35-50 points gun that can kill 1.245 marines out of cover and has minor effects on armour and is half-descent vs horde was considered overpowered by the developers and was nerfed.
Even if one has one assault cannon in 3000 points he should pay for it. It is ridiculus to get a dread with a free assault cannon and the melta as an upgrade and the cost of the weapon across the list is tottaly silly. The starcannon was 35-50 and was considered too strong without ever coming near to what the assault cannon can do. Yet the assault cannon is roaming the lists freely and people say "omg please don't nerf it, i don't get many sixes anyway". Well i don't care how many sixes people get and GW doesn't either, at least thats what they have shown with the last couple of dexes and i sincerely hope they follow-up in the future...

Although comparing points across different armies is folly, that is certainly a shocking story after playing vs assault cannons

My friend regularily abuses assault cannons, so I can empathise

I have always thought that an assault cannon might be balanced if twice the point cost. Beyond that, I like its effects, it is a neat weapon.

Also somebody compared one assault cannon armed marine to the equivilent cost in Lascannon Marines (2), and forgot to point out that Lascanon marines in this case are two seperate wounds hidden in two seperate squads

Also, I constantly have the urge to kill people when I hear terminators are underpowered...

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 10:24
a game i watched a friend play, he included a LRC and two Land Speeder Tornados in his army.

he missed with most of his AC shots, and failed to rend with any of the ones he did hit with.

meanwhile his HBs chewed through whole units each turn.



Heavy infantry it has to roll 6's to punch through their armor. Medium to heavy vehicles needs to roll 6's. Monsterous creatures, needs to roll 6's most often to do anything to um.

Something so dependant on luck is hardly amazing. It is good. It gives you hope in perhaps an otherwise hopeless situation. I think that is another reason why its so hated. People need to respect it. More over, people fear it beyond reason and people hate to fear marines.

I think it suffers most from the fact of people needing to think. "What if it rolls 6's?" Which is silly, as I've seen a good amount run in an army and not roll a single 6 all game. Sound crazy ? It happens more then ya think. Though honestly, if it wasn't that, it would be something else marines have. Why ? People hate marines, simple.



I think people overestimate how good it is. Sure, an AC COULD kill a Termie squad. It COULD blow up a Land Raider. Whether it DOES or not isn't important - it's the fear that something COULD happen. The AC has a high ceiling as far as what it can accomplish (theoretically), but the odds of it happening aren't particularly important. It's the fact that it COULD happen that has people upset.


And here we go again. Gut-Feeling-Truthiness versus scientific facts...
You all seem to think, that you don't have to depend on luck, when you fire a Lascannon at a Landraider or a Heavy Bolter at a Space Marine.

I have seen Carnifexes getting killed by Lasguns and Spinegaunts taking down Terminators. Does that mean that Carnifexes suck and i should use only Spinegaunts in my list? According to what was said before i should, because single freak accidents are more important than statistic probability...

If you don't want to do the math, just roll the dice 100 times and you will see, that the Assaultcannon is more reliable in most situations than most other weapons, even if you "need luck to roll those 6's". You have 3-4 chances to do so, unlike a Lascannon, where you have a single chance of rolling that six to penetrate a Landraider...

The assaultcannon is not a weapon with Ap4. Or a weapon with rending. Or a weapon with S6. Or a weapon with 4 shots.

It is a weapon with AP4 AND rending AND S6 AND 4 shots...

And the "short" range (look at Tyranid weaponry for short ranges...) isn't that much of a problem, when you mount the weapon on platforms that can deep strike or deploy last and move 12"...

jfrazell
12-04-2007, 13:53
Again the A cannon could be easily modified to be more in line with current weaponry. Make it rednign to troops only, or limit the number of vheicles that can carry it/increase cost. GW chose the latter option with DA's. It will be interesting to see if this is carried forward to later marine minidexes.

CommisarMolotov
12-04-2007, 14:05
Hmmm...I'd like to see some sort of variation on the old 2nd edition "jamming" rules come back for the assault cannon.

That'd be a fun, fluffy balancer!

Champsguy
12-04-2007, 14:22
When i played Eldar with the 3rd edition codex, i used to field 3 starcannons in 1500. I would then go to tournaments or friendly matches and people would unleash all the Eldar-hatred in the world because i have access to the superweapon with 3 ap2 shots.
They believed they had their right to protest as we are talking about a weapon that could with bs3 kill 1.245 marines/turn if they were absolutely out of cover all the time. They also stated that it was way overpowered for its 35-50 points for what it does. It can glance av12 if you are lucky and it can take care of a couple of gaunts if not in cover and all that at 36".
So GW listened to all those protests (via forums mostly) especially from marine players and nerfed the "overpowered" starcannon to heavy 2. Note however i still get the cries of cheese just because i play Eldar but thats another story.
Moral of the story: a 35-50 points gun that can kill 1.245 marines out of cover and has minor effects on armour and is half-descent vs horde was considered overpowered by the developers and was nerfed.
Even if one has one assault cannon in 3000 points he should pay for it. It is ridiculus to get a dread with a free assault cannon and the melta as an upgrade and the cost of the weapon across the list is tottaly silly. The starcannon was 35-50 and was considered too strong without ever coming near to what the assault cannon can do. Yet the assault cannon is roaming the lists freely and people say "omg please don't nerf it, i don't get many sixes anyway". Well i don't care how many sixes people get and GW doesn't either, at least thats what they have shown with the last couple of dexes and i sincerely hope they follow-up in the future...

The Starcannon wasn't that bad, either. It shouldn't have been nerfed. Yeah, it was a really good gun - nobody else gets a 3 shot gun. But now it's an obviously inferior choice unless you're fighting against Deathwing.

Champsguy
12-04-2007, 14:58
And here we go again. Gut-Feeling-Truthiness versus scientific facts...
You all seem to think, that you don't have to depend on luck, when you fire a Lascannon at a Landraider or a Heavy Bolter at a Space Marine.

I have seen Carnifexes getting killed by Lasguns and Spinegaunts taking down Terminators. Does that mean that Carnifexes suck and i should use only Spinegaunts in my list? According to what was said before i should, because single freak accidents are more important than statistic probability...

If you don't want to do the math, just roll the dice 100 times and you will see, that the Assaultcannon is more reliable in most situations than most other weapons, even if you "need luck to roll those 6's". You have 3-4 chances to do so, unlike a Lascannon, where you have a single chance of rolling that six to penetrate a Landraider...

The assaultcannon is not a weapon with Ap4. Or a weapon with rending. Or a weapon with S6. Or a weapon with 4 shots.

It is a weapon with AP4 AND rending AND S6 AND 4 shots...

And the "short" range (look at Tyranid weaponry for short ranges...) isn't that much of a problem, when you mount the weapon on platforms that can deep strike or deploy last and move 12"...

You need luck in everything. You probably won't fire 100 shots in a game, unless you've got 10 assault cannons (and even then, only barely). The odds only even out when you fire an excessive number of shots. The AC relies on more luck than the Lascannon.

An average gun in the game probably fires 2.5 times in a 6 turn game. Let's say 3 just because I'm being nice. You've got to take into account that 1) sometimes you're not in range or don't have sight of a target, 2) if you're deep-striking, you're missing at least one turn, 3) sometimes you're in HTH if you're a troop or walker, or you've got a "can't fire" result if you're a vehicle, or 4) your guy with the cool gun got blown up and won't fire for the rest of the game. So let's say 3 rounds of fire for a weapon in an average game (this will, of course, vary game by game - sometimes you'll get to fire every round, and sometimes everything is dead by the end of your opponent's first turn).

So an Assault Cannon will get to fire about 12 shots. Of those, 8 should hit and 2 should be Rending. That's not bad. What are you shooting at? If you're shooting at hordes, it doesn't matter that it's Rending (they're dead anyway). If you're firing at light vehicles, it doesn't matter that it's Rending (you're going to pen/glance anyway). In those cases, the AC is really overkill - it's Rending ability doesn't matter, because you don't need it (you'd still glance the Falcon on a 6, but all hits on the thing are going to be reduced to glancing anyway, so it doesn't matter how much you get in by). If you're firing at Marines, it doesn't matter that it's AP 4. You just want to get as many wounds as possible, so they fail saves, or hopefully get a Rending. Against heavy vehicles, you want Rending.

Against mixed armies, like Tyranids, Rending on the AC is incredibly unpredictable. In your 3 rounds of fire, you may shoot twice at a group of Gaunts and once at a Carnifex. If you get your 2 Rending results against the Fex, then good. But you're twice as likely to get them against the Gaunts, in which case, they're wasted (technically, they increase your chances of killing a Gaunt by 18% or so, because you don't have to worry about rolling a 1 to wound - big whoop). Turn 1: out of range. Turn 2: shoot gaunts - RENDING! Turn 3: shoot gaunts - RENDING! Turn 4: shoot Carnifex - no rending. Turn 4, opponents turn, Carnifex kills you. Boy, that AC was really dangerous, huh? Rending depends entirely on the how and when.

Say you're fighting Ravenwing. You shoot at his Landspeeders. Rend away, it doesn't matter. Then you shoot at his bikes... no Rending. Even if you get the statistically average rolls you "should" get, WHEN you get them is what matters.

A Lascannon is superior to an AC at vehicle penetration. A Lascannon will penetrate an Ork Trukk with a 2 on the armor roll. It'll glance it on a 1. An AC has to roll a 4 to glance and a 5 to penetrate. It gets 4 shots, but the Lascannon will do it every time automatically. An AC needs a 6 to glance a Falcon. A Lascannon needs a 3. An AC needs a 6, then a 2 to glance a Land Raider. A Lascannon needs a 5. An AC can't hurt a Monolith. A Lascannon can. An AC needs a 6 to glance a Predator. A Lascannon needs a 4. Even when you account that an AC has more shots than a Lascannon, it's still not as good.

A Plasma Cannon is superior at killing Marines. Because every single time you wound, they don't get a save. With an AC, they don't get a save on only 1/4th of the shots. You get the desired result with a Plasma Cannon on a 3 to hit. With an AC, you only get with the desired result with a 6 to hit. You get 4 times the shots, but you still need that 6.
--

40K is more than simply math. You've got to take into account much more than simply the stats of the gun. The platforms the guns can be mounted on, the selections that you gave up in order to get the platform, how the army operates as a whole, those are all important. The fact is, AC lists perform no better than basic lists. Since the ultimate goal is WINNING, and AC lists don't do that too well, they're not overpowered.

Ianos
12-04-2007, 15:04
Personally i didn't find it at all overpowered and even though i played in tournaments 3 where enough and only because nothing else was worth it. But in this case it was the "no save syndrome" that turned the balance on the starcannon as almost all MEQ players did not want to loose their 3+ for any reason despite the fact the all they had to do was to stay in cover since the 3rd ed. Eldar could do little in that case.
Now with the 4th ed. codex my weapon of choice is the scatter laser they get to roll their saves allright, by the bucketload... :evilgrin:

Anyway the starcannon for 35-50 points was not imbalanced, and i wouldn't ever mind if a marine player fielded 15 assault cannons in 1500 as long as he paid the right price. As for the availability argument that many claim, it is tottally invalid IMHO. An army can have 1 dread, 1 speeder, 1 termie squad, 1 pred, 1 deva squad, 1 scout, 1 tactical, 1 chaplain, 1 assault squad and can be utterly broken (even more than nidzilla, mechs etc) for its points cost if the weapon options and units are underpriced for what they do.
Think of it, i can have 3 wraithlors in 1500, what if they included a brightlance for free and the shuriken cannon costed +20? How about us Eldar then saying: "ahh come one its just 3 units with cheap lances, just one shot per each, besides with all those blessed hulls, monoliths and skimmers flying around, it's not that powefull?"

Underpriced options should be fixed one way(cost) or the other(rarity), especially for an army that we all know is extremely underprized for everything it has and does already...

Champsguy
12-04-2007, 15:25
Do Marines win all the time? No? Then I guess their options aren't that underpriced, are they?

Maelx
12-04-2007, 15:31
okay, str7 ap 4 heavy 2... thats the autocannon explain to me how one point less str, for TWO more shots. AND rending. is balanced.

let alone tank hunters.......

making it by far the best at gun in the game... str 7 heavy 4...

oh look it shreds infantry too...

and is easily massable...

=imbal

And then you have a unit of 5 that costs more than a land raider.

I don't really consider that imba. lol.

Democratus
12-04-2007, 15:35
Do Marines win all the time?

Yes. Constantly. Assault cannon marine lists dominate tournies in my area.


Then I guess their options aren't that underpriced, are they?

Yes. Apparently they are.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 15:39
You need luck in everything. You probably won't fire 100 shots in a game, unless you've got 10 assault cannons (and even then, only barely). The odds only even out when you fire an excessive number of shots. The AC relies on more luck than the Lascannon.

No, it doesn't.



So an Assault Cannon will get to fire about 12 shots. Of those, 8 should hit and 2 should be Rending. That's not bad. What are you shooting at? If you're shooting at hordes, it doesn't matter that it's Rending (they're dead anyway). If you're firing at light vehicles, it doesn't matter that it's Rending (you're going to pen/glance anyway). In those cases, the AC is really overkill - it's Rending ability doesn't matter, because you don't need it (you'd still glance the Falcon on a 6, but all hits on the thing are going to be reduced to glancing anyway, so it doesn't matter how much you get in by). If you're firing at Marines, it doesn't matter that it's AP 4. You just want to get as many wounds as possible, so they fail saves, or hopefully get a Rending. Against heavy vehicles, you want Rending.

You are absolutely entirely missing the point. Against hordes the AC doesn't need rending, it's a bonus. But it has rending, so it can engange heavy tanks too! And it is better to shoot with an AC at Gaunts than with a Lascannon. There may be weapons and situations, where a different weapon is slightly better thant the AC, but why the hell lose the tactical flexibility of being able to shoot anything you want?



Against mixed armies, like Tyranids, Rending on the AC is incredibly unpredictable. In your 3 rounds of fire, you may shoot twice at a group of Gaunts and once at a Carnifex. If you get your 2 Rending results against the Fex, then good. But you're twice as likely to get them against the Gaunts, in which case, they're wasted (technically, they increase your chances of killing a Gaunt by 18% or so, because you don't have to worry about rolling a 1 to wound - big whoop). Turn 1: out of range. Turn 2: shoot gaunts - RENDING! Turn 3: shoot gaunts - RENDING! Turn 4: shoot Carnifex - no rending. Turn 4, opponents turn, Carnifex kills you. Boy, that AC was really dangerous, huh? Rending depends entirely on the how and when.
Say you're fighting Ravenwing. You shoot at his Landspeeders. Rend away, it doesn't matter. Then you shoot at his bikes... no Rending. Even if you get the statistically average rolls you "should" get, WHEN you get them is what matters.

I am really sorry, but that's just wrong. With the same kind of logic:
Turn 1: You shoot with a Lascannon at a Gaunt. You kill it. Turn 2-6: You shoot with the Lascannon at a Carnifex. You miss all the time in the first place. Wow, this Lascannon is really unpredictable and sucks.
You can not disregard statistic probabilities by just stating outcomes that support your point of view. I could argue with the same kind of logic, that the AC is great, because it rends at Carnifexes and doesn't rend at Gaunts. It's the same probability like in your scenario. And that's what counts if you play enough games: statistics, not freak scenarios.



A Lascannon is superior to an AC at vehicle penetration. A Lascannon will penetrate an Ork Trukk with a 2 on the armor roll. It'll glance it on a 1. An AC has to roll a 4 to glance and a 5 to penetrate. It gets 4 shots, but the Lascannon will do it every time automatically. An AC needs a 6 to glance a Falcon. A Lascannon needs a 3. An AC needs a 6, then a 2 to glance a Land Raider. A Lascannon needs a 5. An AC can't hurt a Monolith. A Lascannon can. An AC needs a 6 to glance a Predator. A Lascannon needs a 4. Even when you account that an AC has more shots than a Lascannon, it's still not as good.


Okay, i will get you the stats for the statistical NUMBER of penetrating hit on different AV so we can finally get over with this...

Lascannon vs. AV10: 0.55
AC vs. AV10: 0.88

Lascannon vs. AV11: 0.44
AC vs. AV11: 0.44

Lascannon vs. AV12: 0.33
AC vs. AV12: 0.44

Lascannon vs. AV13: 0.22
AC vs. AV13: 0.37

Lascannon vs. AV14: 0.11
AC vs. AV14: 0.29

What is the better AT-weapon?



A Plasma Cannon is superior at killing Marines. Because every single time you wound, they don't get a save. With an AC, they don't get a save on only 1/4th of the shots. You get the desired result with a Plasma Cannon on a 3 to hit. With an AC, you only get with the desired result with a 6 to hit. You get 4 times the shots, but you still need that 6.
--

But you have to hit first and you have only 1 shot. You have 4 tries with an AC!!!

You will probably kill 2-3 Marines with the PC instead of 1 with the AC. But the AC is better at killing tanks and low save models, while still doing okay against marines.. And it will not blow up.



40K is more than simply math. You've got to take into account much more than simply the stats of the gun. The platforms the guns can be mounted on, the selections that you gave up in order to get the platform, how the army operates as a whole, those are all important. The fact is, AC lists perform no better than basic lists. Since the ultimate goal is WINNING, and AC lists don't do that too well, they're not overpowered.

But you can not disregard math like you are doing... Play 100 games with Assault Cannons and 100 games with Heavy Bolters/Lascannons. Let's see what happens... (Especially in situations, where you try to kill a tank with the Heavy Bolter and the only target you can shoot with your Lascannon are Gretchins...)

BTW: Can you prove that AC lists aren't better than other Marines lists? Or do you just "know" they do?

Maelx
12-04-2007, 15:40
But ACs aren't doing this with any regularity. They aren't winning tournaments, and nobody is arguing that they have any higher win % than any other Marine army. Therefore, no problem. It doesn't matter how bent out of shape people get about it - that doesn't actually make them into the monstrosities that everyone fears.

Yet my very much take-all-commers marine list is suddenly marked down a great deal because of the widespread idea that assault cannons are overpowered.

What WONT i get marked down for as not being cheesy? Should I take 2 Monoliths? Nope, that wont do it.

What about a horde army of over 200 models? Nope, will probably get marked for that too.

Just because people tend to dislike marines the most, I'm getting grilled at tournies. :(!

Oh! I know! A pure Grey Knight force with no anti-tank!



Lascannon vs. AV10: 0.55
AC vs. AV10: 0.88

Lascannon vs. AV11: 0.44
AC vs. AV11: 0.44

Lascannon vs. AV12: 0.33
AC vs. AV12: 0.44

Lascannon vs. AV13: 0.22
AC vs. AV13: 0.37

Lascannon vs. AV14: 0.11
AC vs. AV14: 0.29

What is the better AT-weapon?


That math is horribly wrong. I already posed the math earlier in the thread.

The AC vs AV14 is about 16% vs the lascannons 14%. Considering I deal with statistics and probability all the time (with my physics degree) I don't trust anything else your writing.

Locke
12-04-2007, 15:49
When i played Eldar with the 3rd edition codex, i used to field 3 starcannons in 1500. I would then go to tournaments or friendly matches and people would unleash all the Eldar-hatred in the world because i have access to the superweapon with 3 ap2 shots.
They believed they had their right to protest as we are talking about a weapon that could with bs3 kill 1.245 marines/turn if they were absolutely out of cover all the time. They also stated that it was way overpowered for its 35-50 points for what it does. It can glance av12 if you are lucky and it can take care of a couple of gaunts if not in cover and all that at 36".
So GW listened to all those protests (via forums mostly) especially from marine players and nerfed the "overpowered" starcannon to heavy 2. Note however i still get the cries of cheese just because i play Eldar but thats another story.
Moral of the story: a 35-50 points gun that can kill 1.245 marines out of cover and has minor effects on armour and is half-descent vs horde was considered overpowered by the developers and was nerfed.
Even if one has one assault cannon in 3000 points he should pay for it. It is ridiculus to get a dread with a free assault cannon and the melta as an upgrade and the cost of the weapon across the list is tottaly silly. The starcannon was 35-50 and was considered too strong without ever coming near to what the assault cannon can do. Yet the assault cannon is roaming the lists freely and people say "omg please don't nerf it, i don't get many sixes anyway". Well i don't care how many sixes people get and GW doesn't either, at least thats what they have shown with the last couple of dexes and i sincerely hope they follow-up in the future...

Wow well put!! When I would tell people the actual stats for killing with a starcannon, vs the cost they pay for plasma guns and plasma cannons, it would suprise them!

I would usually roll bad, but when I would roll one good round and odds over 5 rounds with a starcannon or reaper launchers, my opponesnts woul call cheese, w/o relizing all the crappy rolls, and the starcannon still got a STRAIGHT nerf. No str 7 or rending or a drop to ap3, they just made it more expensive and stat-wise worse.

Ianos
12-04-2007, 15:49
You need luck in everything. You probably won't fire 100 shots in a game, unless you've got 10 assault cannons (and even then, only barely). The odds only even out when you fire an excessive number of shots. The AC relies on more luck than the Lascannon.

--------Lets se, the lasscannon has to hit on a 3+ and then pens a land raider on a six, thats 11%. The assault cannon has to hit on a 3+ and pens again on a six, but it fires 4 shots!

An average gun in the game probably fires 2.5 times in a 6 turn game. Let's say 3 just because I'm being nice. You've got to take into account that 1) sometimes you're not in range or don't have sight of a target, 2) if you're deep-striking, you're missing at least one turn, 3) sometimes you're in HTH if you're a troop or walker, or you've got a "can't fire" result if you're a vehicle, or 4) your guy with the cool gun got blown up and won't fire for the rest of the game. So let's say 3 rounds of fire for a weapon in an average game (this will, of course, vary game by game - sometimes you'll get to fire every round, and sometimes everything is dead by the end of your opponent's first turn).

-------------What you are stating depends almost entirely on the player's abilty to maintain the advantage and keep the enemy under fire with minimum return damage. What you are describing above is a battle which will usually end in a draw, i have seen otherwise.

So an Assault Cannon will get to fire about 12 shots. Of those, 8 should hit and 2 should be Rending. That's not bad. What are you shooting at? If you're shooting at hordes, it doesn't matter that it's Rending (they're dead anyway). If you're firing at light vehicles, it doesn't matter that it's Rending (you're going to pen/glance anyway). In those cases, the AC is really overkill - it's Rending ability doesn't matter, because you don't need it (you'd still glance the Falcon on a 6, but all hits on the thing are going to be reduced to glancing anyway, so it doesn't matter how much you get in by). If you're firing at Marines, it doesn't matter that it's AP 4. You just want to get as many wounds as possible, so they fail saves, or hopefully get a Rending. Against heavy vehicles, you want Rending.

---------An assault cannon like any other wepon and unit will get to fire as many shots as it can depending on mission, and player abilty and of course luck. Especially when this particular weapon can be mounted on ven. dreads terminators and land raiders that can move/fire/assault and most importantly will not fall back, get pinned, loose wounds easily or sustain many vehicle damage rolls.

Against mixed armies, like Tyranids, Rending on the AC is incredibly unpredictable. In your 3 rounds of fire, you may shoot twice at a group of Gaunts and once at a Carnifex. If you get your 2 Rending results against the Fex, then good. But you're twice as likely to get them against the Gaunts, in which case, they're wasted (technically, they increase your chances of killing a Gaunt by 18% or so, because you don't have to worry about rolling a 1 to wound - big whoop). Turn 1: out of range. Turn 2: shoot gaunts - RENDING! Turn 3: shoot gaunts - RENDING! Turn 4: shoot Carnifex - no rending. Turn 4, opponents turn, Carnifex kills you. Boy, that AC was really dangerous, huh? Rending depends entirely on the how and when.



Say you're fighting Ravenwing. You shoot at his Landspeeders. Rend away, it doesn't matter. Then you shoot at his bikes... no Rending. Even if you get the statistically average rolls you "should" get, WHEN you get them is what matters.

------------That's what you get for playing an all around army, and thats why i like Eldar and not Marines, but that doesn't mean anything. Should i complain if my banshees get charged by 20 gaunts and get killed? No i will learn to use my tactics better. Same for the marine... why would he be shooting assault cannons at inv.saved warriors anyway? when he can:
a)bolter them to death
b)heavy bolter them to death
c)assault with jump infantry and furious charge
d)a combination of all the above

A Lascannon is superior to an AC at vehicle penetration. A Lascannon will penetrate an Ork Trukk with a 2 on the armor roll. It'll glance it on a 1. An AC has to roll a 4 to glance and a 5 to penetrate. It gets 4 shots, but the Lascannon will do it every time automatically. An AC needs a 6 to glance a Falcon. A Lascannon needs a 3. An AC needs a 6, then a 2 to glance a Land Raider. A Lascannon needs a 5. An AC can't hurt a Monolith. A Lascannon can. An AC needs a 6 to glance a Predator. A Lascannon needs a 4. Even when you account that an AC has more shots than a Lascannon, it's still not as good.

--------Throwing numbers without probability calculations is utterly invalid. At first glance you and i will think you are absolutely right, but lets check the math:
1)Truck: lasscannon glance=.66 pen=.55
ass.cannon >> =.8 pen=.63 (without even mentioning multiple hits!), guess who does it automatically now.

2)Falcon: lasscannon glance=.435
ass.cannon >> =37.25 looks better here yet the assault cannon still has the upper hand due to the potential of scoring more hits. Also what it the falcon is immobilized with the new vectored engines...

3)Land Raider: lasscannon glance=.22 pen=.11
ass.cannon >> =.07 pen=.26!!!! suddenly the lasscanon isn't much of a tank killer compared to the mighty horde/light-tank/heavy.inf/light infantry/montstrous creature and on top of it all undercosted Assault Cannon!!!
--------------------------------------------

A Plasma Cannon is superior at killing Marines. Because every single time you wound, they don't get a save. With an AC, they don't get a save on only 1/4th of the shots. You get the desired result with a Plasma Cannon on a 3 to hit. With an AC, you only get with the desired result with a 6 to hit. You get 4 times the shots, but you still need that 6.


------What if the six man tactical squad spreads out in cover, who is the marine killer then?

40K is more than simply math. You've got to take into account much more than simply the stats of the gun. The platforms the guns can be mounted on, the selections that you gave up in order to get the platform, how the army operates as a whole, those are all important. The fact is, AC lists perform no better than basic lists. Since the ultimate goal is WINNING, and AC lists don't do that too well, they're not overpowered.

--------I love math and i too agree that they are a part of the game, the basis of which is points cost. I don't care if one plays assault cannon heavy or just one in the list. I want him to pay for it thats all. And who says assault cannon lists aren't winning anywhay, in my environment they are top league, and although i have no grudge with the players that use the weapon i strongly believe it should be fixed somehow.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 15:50
The AC vs AV14 is about 16% vs the lascannons 14%. Considering I deal with statistics and probability all the time (with my physics degree) I don't trust anything else your writing.

So what did i do wrong?

Probability of a single Lascannon penetrating hit on AV14:

To hit: 2/3 (3+)
You need a 6 to penetrate: 1/6
Probability of penetrating (2/3) * (1/6) = 1/9 = 0.11111111111.....


Probability of a single AC penetrating hit on AV14:
To hit: 2/3 (3+)
You need a 6 to rend: 1/6
you need an additionl 3+ to penetrade = 1/3
Probability of penetrating (2/3) * (1/6) * (1/3) = 0.037
Statistical number of hits = single probability * number of shots (4) = 0.15 (roughly) (that last one was a problem with me using my calculator.. doh)

Or not?

The rest seems to be okay, though?

Maelx
12-04-2007, 16:03
Oh, you're just doing penetrating and ignoring a glancing hit. I see. The assault cannon has considerably more chance of penetrating, except much less chance of glancing.

You are ALSO comparing 30 points of marine to 60. Let's make the points equal for a minute.

vs av14:

Lascannon -
2/3 * glancing hit 1/6 * destroyed 1/6 = 1.9%
2/3 * penetrating hit 1/6 * destroyed 1/2 = 5.6%

7.5% (times 2 shots to make the points equal) 15%! (two marines with lascannons at 30 each = 60)

AC -
2/3 hit * 1/6 rend * 1/6 glancing hit * 1/6 destroyed = 0.3%
2/3 hit * 1/6 rend * 1/2 pen * 1/2 destroyed = 2.7 %

So if it's 3% per shot * 4 shots = 12%

15% vs 12% AND the Lascannon has double range. The math is flawless! The AC is not superior POINT FOR POINT.

and before you tell me that 3% doesnt matter, the 3% in this case is 20% MORE likely to destroy av14. 20%! I'm sure you'd agree that 20% matters.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 16:13
Now it is starting to get out of hands... If we start with point efficency I COULD argue with the amount of points a Lascannon statistically can take out in a brood of Genestealers compared to an assault cannon combined with both weapon's potential of earning VP by killing tanks as long as with their probability of surviving a certain amount of turns provided by the plattform they are mounted on, but this would get really, really, really stupid...

Axel
12-04-2007, 16:14
So what did i do wrong?

Probability of a single AC penetrating hit on AV14:
To hit: 2/3 (3+)
You need a 6 to rend: 1/6
you need an additionl 3+ to penetrade = 1/3
Probability of penetrating (2/3) * (1/6) * (1/3) = 0.037


Looks OK so far, but...


Statistical number of hits = single probability * number of shots (4) = 0.15 (roughly)
(that last one was a problem with me using my calculator.. doh)

Nope. You cannot simply add the single probabilities.
If so, you would reach ONE at some point, and could even surpass it, which is not allowed.

The problem is with several (four) shots that you can get zero to four penetrating hits. The probability for one penetrating hit with an AC is 1/27.
If you consider TWO shots, its 1/27 + (26/27 * 1/27)...

This, of course, adds only up to the chances for ONE penetrating hit. There are chances for two, three and four hits with an AC, while these are zero for a LC.
To make things really complex, two penetrating hits are far from doubly as effective as one. If the vehicle dies with the first hit, the second becomes worthless. You can also not simply ignore glancing hits.

While there certainly is a way to calculate the efficiency exactly, it is probably easier to just write a simulation and let it do a million attempts. I think I will do that right now... (coming back)

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 16:18
Nope. You cannot simply add the single probabilities.
If so, you would reach ONE at some point, and could even surpass it, which is not allowed.


But I wasn't calculating the probability of a single penetrating hit in this scenario. I was calculating how many penetraging hits you would statistically get. (Like in: "This weapon kills 2.3 Marines per turn in average", as the average roll on a D6 is 3.5).

Axel
12-04-2007, 16:54
OK, if you are looking for the average number of penetrating hits you get some 0.148 per salvoe.

This ignores the fact that the second, third or fourth penetrating hit is likely to be much less worth then the first (perfectly valid for units, but not for shooting vehicles), and also ignores the efficiency of glancing hits.


Here are the stats for simulating an Assault cannon, using 1.000.000 test runs:

Destroyed %: 9.1009
Immobilized %: 3.4918
Weapon destroyed % : 3.5112
Crew Stunned % : 9.0575
Crew Shaken %: 1.4001

I have assumed AP14 with two weapons for a vehicle (using the rule that an immobilized vehicle without weapons gets killed). Using a different test with four weapons yields insiginificant lower results - I do NOT log destroyed weapons over several salvoes, just within one shooting phase here. A tank destroyed with the first shot gets no further damage, though other damage gets logged if it occurs before another shot of the same salvoe destroys the vehicle.

A lascannon with 100.000 runs gets the following results:
Destroyed %: 7.313
Immobilized %: 3.745
Weapon destroyed%: 3.738
Crew Stunned %: 7.31
Crew Shaken %: 3.704

Conclusion:
An assault cannon is considerably more efficient against AP 14, but naturally a lascannon has double the range...

(If somebody wants the Python program, drop me a line)

Maelx
12-04-2007, 16:58
Now it is starting to get out of hands... If we start with point efficency I COULD argue with the amount of points a Lascannon statistically can take out in a brood of Genestealers compared to an assault cannon combined with both weapon's potential of earning VP by killing tanks as long as with their probability of surviving a certain amount of turns provided by the plattform they are mounted on, but this would get really, really, really stupid...

Cmon Stringray! What you were telling me is that "the assault cannon is underpriced" and that i was better against vehicles than a lascannon.

Point for point it's not. You're wrong. Don't give me this "if this situation blah blah blah.." I PROVED that the assault cannon is not the best at what it does for it's points but rather MORE VERSATILE. A quote from a movie i'll always remember is "overspecialize and you breed in weakness". For it's points it's a little worse at killing hordes and a little worse at killing heavy tanks. (light tanks it's obviously better, as that's the role it was designed for).

I'm sure if you calculate it the lascannons also have an equal probability of killing MEQ as a single assault cannon as well. 3 Heavy Bolters vs 1 assault cannon is better against hordes, so what's the problem?

The argument of "the assault cannon is better at killing a land raider than a lascannon and therefore imba!" is an old one. Give me something new to disprove! :P

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 17:16
Cmon Stringray! What you were telling me is that "the assault cannon is underpriced" and that i was better against vehicles than a lascannon.


It is. It is more expensive than a Lascannon, but because it is more versatile. But it is not costing ENOUGH for it's enormous versatility. There is no formula or way to mathematically prove or disprove this statement, but a lot of people agree.



Point for point it's not. You're wrong. Don't give me this "if this situation blah blah blah.." I PROVED that the assault cannon is not the best at what it does for it's points but rather MORE VERSATILE. A quote from a movie i'll always remember is "overspecialize and you breed in weakness". For it's points it's a little worse at killing hordes and a little worse at killing heavy tanks. (light tanks it's obviously better, as that's the role it was designed for).

Nobody ASKED you to "prove" this with a point/point comparison. As i said before, your comparison didn't include other factors like versatility, potential damage, etc. We both can always add another level of complexity to "prove" our point, since we define our own criteria suited for our point of view. This is nonsense.



I'm sure if you calculate it the lascannons also have an equal probability of killing MEQ as a single assault cannon as well. 3 Heavy Bolters vs 1 assault cannon is better against hordes, so what's the problem?

Those Heavy Bolters don't have the potential to kill heavy tanks and they are not as good against a lot of other targets (MCs, Wraithlords). They lack versatility, the AC has. That's the whole point.



The argument of "the assault cannon is better at killing a land raider than a lascannon and therefore imba!" is an old one. Give me something new to disprove! :P
Read the thread carefully. This argument was never made.

DeadEye
12-04-2007, 17:17
Statistically, an assault cannon only rends slightly over half the time, even with their magical four shots. They only become effective and reliable tank killers in mass numbers. I would wager that limiting AC Tornados to the Ravenwing, as in 2nd edition, would cut down on the number of ACs in an army to an acceptable level. That'd be 6 in Elites from 3 Termi squads and 3 twin-linked ACs on LRCs.

I don't think they should be nerfed. If the loss of one heavy weapon choice in DW Termi squads has taught us anything, it's that Terminators are barely viable with only one heavy weapon, even if that weapon is the vaunted AC. They're too expensive and they don't have enough damage output to be workable. Two ACs give Termis the punch they need (and should rightly have).

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 17:18
Conclusion:
An assault cannon is considerably more efficient against AP 14, but naturally a lascannon has double the range...


Agreed. But with the plattforms mobility (fast skimmers, deep strike capability) this shouldn't be a major factor.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 17:19
Statistically, an assault cannon only rends slightly over half the time, even with their magical four shots. They only become effective and reliable tank killers in mass numbers.

So do Lascannons. Why should the ACs be different?

Maelx
12-04-2007, 17:30
Those Heavy Bolters don't have the potential to kill heavy tanks and they are not as good against a lot of other targets (MCs, Wraithlords). They lack versatility, the AC has. That's the whole point.


But you pay the extra points for said versatility, making the weapon a very good (but not best) choice against any number of targets. It does not however make the weapon overpowered, (and as i'm sure you'll agree) the lascannons will still win attacking MC's and wraithlords over the assault cannon point for point. The heavy bolters are better at killing hordes.

So what this argument is comming down to is that people find the assault cannon underpriced simply because of it's versatility. Its ability to perform in an average way in a number of scenarios. As marines should, right?

This does not mean the weapon isn't overpowered.

I will admit that the weapon is MOST versatile of all weapons in the 40k universe.

I will still stand by my claim that anyone who thinks I am a cheesebag/imba/power gamer because I choose to capatalize off of the assault cannons VERSATILITY is completely wrong. There doesnt seem to be any other reason to hate this weapon, right?

Wraithbored
12-04-2007, 17:31
When i played Eldar with the 3rd edition codex, i used to field 3 starcannons in 1500. I would then go to tournaments or friendly matches and people would unleash all the Eldar-hatred in the world because i have access to the superweapon with 3 ap2 shots.
They believed they had their right to protest as we are talking about a weapon that could with bs3 kill 1.245 marines/turn if they were absolutely out of cover all the time. They also stated that it was way overpowered for its 35-50 points for what it does. It can glance av12 if you are lucky and it can take care of a couple of gaunts if not in cover and all that at 36".
So GW listened to all those protests (via forums mostly) especially from marine players and nerfed the "overpowered" starcannon to heavy 2. Note however i still get the cries of cheese just because i play Eldar but thats another story.
Moral of the story: a 35-50 points gun that can kill 1.245 marines out of cover and has minor effects on armour and is half-descent vs horde was considered overpowered by the developers and was nerfed.
Even if one has one assault cannon in 3000 points he should pay for it. It is ridiculus to get a dread with a free assault cannon and the melta as an upgrade and the cost of the weapon across the list is tottaly silly. The starcannon was 35-50 and was considered too strong without ever coming near to what the assault cannon can do. Yet the assault cannon is roaming the lists freely and people say "omg please don't nerf it, i don't get many sixes anyway". Well i don't care how many sixes people get and GW doesn't either, at least thats what they have shown with the last couple of dexes and i sincerely hope they follow-up in the future... I tottaly agree with this sentiment. And I hope GW listens to the complaints and does something. As to what I won't say because I know I'll get flamed. Heck this post alone is perhaps enough to get most people very riled up.

But I find this interesting, if most people don't use assault cannons or claim they use a small ammount of them, why would altering it bring such drastic changes to people's play styles and furthermore why are they so worried about this "unused or rarely used weapon"?

Maelx
12-04-2007, 17:31
So do Lascannons. Why should the ACs be different?

Please, read my math posts. Straight up ignoring points comparsion of the two.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 17:32
One last thing: I seriously doubt, that you can get two Lascannons for each Assault Cannon.

1. The weapon platform costs something too. You will need two of those.
2. A lot of times you simply can't take two Lascannons. You would have to get 4 Lascannons in a Terminator squad... And the additional points you have to put into your AC in a powergamer list usually don't come from your other heavy weapon choices. You take less Bolter wearing Marines or a couple less Assault Marines...

Nobody complains about versatility. It is the fact, that the weapon outclasses it's competitors most of the time even at their own special field, while only performing slightly less good in cases where the specialist weapon is better. It is not a good versatile weapon, it is a GREAT weapon. Too good.

Maelx
12-04-2007, 17:37
I tottaly agree with this sentiment. And I hope GW listens to the complaints and does something. As to what I won't say because I know I'll get flamed. Heck this post alone is perhaps enough to get most people very riled up.

But I find this interesting, if most people don't use assault cannons or claim they use a small ammount of them, why would altering it bring such drastic changes to people's play styles and furthermore why are they so worried about this "unused or rarely used weapon"?

Ah, the starcannon nerf. That one is easy to explain.

The problem lies in the abundance of ap2 available to the eldar army so readily. After the last marine incarnation, terminators were NOT viable choices in any tournament setting (due to bad weapon options and eldar starcannons mostly). Terminators were never used because of this!

New marine codex comes out. Assault Cannons Revamped. Terminators are awesome again! People want to take them, but still consider them point-sinks. Enter the starcannon nerf.

Starcannons EXCEL at destroying termiators SPECIFICALLY. With the availability in any eldar army for mass amounts of starcannons, terminators were useless as soon as you hit an eldar army. Now the ap2 of the starcannon is a little more pricey (as it is in any other army...) and ALSO augmented with new and improved fire prism.

All GW does it try to make everything viable in an army list as a competitive option. Considering marines are so popular and terminators are the best of the marines, why should they be never used?

jfrazell
12-04-2007, 17:44
Funny, once I saw the change to the A cannon occurred, with drop pods, I saw plenty of terminators, with or without marines. So because one model is negatively impacted the starcannon is out? Well the A cannon potentially impacts all model types...

Wraithbored
12-04-2007, 17:45
Ah, the starcannon nerf. That one is easy to explain.

The problem lies in the abundance of ap2 available to the eldar army so readily. After the last marine incarnation, terminators were NOT viable choices in any tournament setting (due to bad weapon options and eldar starcannons mostly). Terminators were never used because of this!

New marine codex comes out. Assault Cannons Revamped. Terminators are awesome again! People want to take them, but still consider them point-sinks. Enter the starcannon nerf.

Starcannons EXCEL at destroying termiators SPECIFICALLY. With the availability in any eldar army for mass amounts of starcannons, terminators were useless as soon as you hit an eldar army. Now the ap2 of the starcannon is a little more pricey (as it is in any other army...) and ALSO augmented with new and improved fire prism.

All GW does it try to make everything viable in an army list as a competitive option. Considering marines are so popular and terminators are the best of the marines, why should they be never used?Absolutely well put, however you do realise Eldar players (this includes also nonpowergamey ones) severly felty smacked down because of it.

As for the fire prism yes it's good at hitting termies but with a small blast it will kill 1 termie per turn (unless he just deepstriked and is clumping them together) and if you use 2 prisms the price for one uber shot of doom is 380 pts+(if you want your prism to survive more than one shot). And I agree Starcannons are still viable if you mount em on War Walkers however using a scatter laser produces better results. Also I am one of the Eldar players that welcomed the "nerf" because at least we're not on the recieving end off all cheese screams.

But back to the AC. What really makes it owie in my oppinion is the fact it rends. Perhaps the ol'assy could keep it's strength and ap and voluem of shots and in return for the rending it could get an extra 6" of range(ducks at incoming flame).


Funny, once I saw the change to the A cannon occurred, with drop pods, I saw plenty of terminators, with or without marines. So because one model is negatively impacted the starcannon is out? Well the A cannon potentially impacts all model types...
True I agree, perhaps GW saw a slump in sales of Termies? But as an Eldar player I do admit that the Starcannon was very good at doing everything. From fragging guardsmen to termies to av 12 or less vehicles.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 17:52
But back to the AC. What really makes it owie in my oppinion is the fact it rends. Perhaps the ol'assy could keep it's strength and ap and voluem of shots and in return for the rending it could get an extra 6" of range(ducks at incoming flame).


I just say, get rid of rending and make it AP1 on a 6. And this comes from a Tyranid player, so this rule change wouldn't change anything at all for me.

Maelx
12-04-2007, 17:54
Funny, once I saw the change to the A cannon occurred, with drop pods, I saw plenty of terminators, with or without marines. So because one model is negatively impacted the starcannon is out? Well the A cannon potentially impacts all model types...

But not in a horribly imbalancing way. It doesn't EXCEL at any role like the starcannon did. (lascannons and heavy bolters better at their respective things, right?) It's average at everything (which doesn't make any specific unit type less viable.

The same reason GW made tyranid warriors immune to instakill by st8 weapons. Nobody took them because a good "take all commers" army in 3rd edition consisted of 6 lasplas squads. Why shouldn't heavy bolters be better against nids?

Champsguy
12-04-2007, 17:55
It is. It is more expensive than a Lascannon, but because it is more versatile. But it is not costing ENOUGH for it's enormous versatility. There is no formula or way to mathematically prove or disprove this statement, but a lot of people agree.

You're right - there is no mathematical way to prove or disprove this statement. 40K has too many variables. Which is why I said look at how well they're performing. I don't see them dominating around here - in fact, we see so much firepower in my area that nobody takes them.



Those Heavy Bolters don't have the potential to kill heavy tanks and they are not as good against a lot of other targets (MCs, Wraithlords). They lack versatility, the AC has. That's the whole point.

Exactly. The AC is versatile - that's the point. A Lascannon is better at killing vehicles, not only because 1) you've got the ability to twin-link the Lascannon, which dramatically improves its AP performance (and you can do so on 2 of the 4 AC platforms - Land Raider and Dreadnaught), but also 2) because your range allows to hit from much farther away and much greater safety, increasing the number of rounds you can fire it. It's an all-around better anti-tank weapon, and it's cheaper.

With the AC, you pay a premium to be able to use it. Plus, the units that can carry it are either 1) frail (the landspeeders), 2) slow (the dreads and termies), or outrageously expensive (the termies and the LRC).

Champsguy
12-04-2007, 17:59
I tottaly agree with this sentiment. And I hope GW listens to the complaints and does something. As to what I won't say because I know I'll get flamed. Heck this post alone is perhaps enough to get most people very riled up.

But I find this interesting, if most people don't use assault cannons or claim they use a small ammount of them, why would altering it bring such drastic changes to people's play styles and furthermore why are they so worried about this "unused or rarely used weapon"?

People want to be able to take them. I got a Marine army off a guy years ago. It was a 2nd ed army that I got during 3rd ed. All the ACs were useless, which sucked because I always thought they were cool. A few years passed, and I gave the army to a friend. Then 4th came out, and I said "hey! these are good again!"

The weapon is a cool concept, and it really needed something to make it worthwhile. The ultimate test of something being "too good" in 40K is if everyone and their dog takes it every single time. The test of it sucking is that nobody ever takes it.

Templar Ben
12-04-2007, 18:01
I just say, get rid of rending and make it AP1 on a 6. And this comes from a Tyranid player, so this rule change wouldn't change anything at all for me.

There are a lot of rending weapons so having the AC rend is not reaching. Creating a new weapon type would be. Rend or not rend but let's not create more bookkeeping.





We have a lot of statisticians on here and I am curious if anyone has run a regression on the various aspects of the weapons available (str, pen, #attacks, heavy, assault, rending, template, blast) to see if any of the points make sense.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 18:10
There are a lot of rending weapons so having the AC rend is not reaching. Creating a new weapon type would be. Rend or not rend but let's not create more bookkeeping.


There are already such weapons.

Maelx
12-04-2007, 18:17
bad excuse for changing a rules when you can't convince me of a reason they have to be change :P

superknijn
12-04-2007, 18:20
You know, sometimes I wonder wether everything would be much better if the Strength were to be reduced a bit (S4 or something, making it more reasonable against tanks while still good enough against most hordes (if it retains Heavy4 and rending)), or (somewhat milder) loes rending against vehicles. IT might not fit in with GW policy of universal rules, but itīs sure better.
Note that these ideas are mere contemplations, and nothing more. Donīt attack me about it or anything.:eyebrows:

jfrazell
12-04-2007, 18:25
There are a lot of rending weapons so having the AC rend is not reaching. Creating a new weapon type would be. Rend or not rend but let's not create more bookkeeping.





We have a lot of statisticians on here and I am curious if anyone has run a regression on the various aspects of the weapons available (str, pen, #attacks, heavy, assault, rending, template, blast) to see if any of the points make sense.


That would be the same as the Tau weapon (sorry I forget the name).

DeadEye
12-04-2007, 18:43
So do Lascannons. Why should the ACs be different?

Why would you pull one line out of my post and then ascribe some inane argument that I didn't make to it? Did I even mention lascannons? No. What point are you even trying to make?

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 18:51
Why would you pull one line out of my post and then ascribe some inane argument that I didn't make to it? Did I even mention lascannons? No. What point are you even trying to make?

Sorry, but your post looked like a defense of Assault Cannons with the argument, that a single Assault Cannon is not a reliable anti-tank weapon. But with this kind of logic, no ranged weapon is a reliable anti-tank weapon, because you get no guarantee with anything. To be absolutely sure (in a tactical sense, not mathematical) you need redundancy. It doesn't matter if we are talking about Lascannons or Assault Cannons.

Laughingmonk
12-04-2007, 19:03
Ah, the starcannon nerf. That one is easy to explain.

The problem lies in the abundance of ap2 available to the eldar army so readily. After the last marine incarnation, terminators were NOT viable choices in any tournament setting (due to bad weapon options and eldar starcannons mostly). Terminators were never used because of this!

New marine codex comes out. Assault Cannons Revamped. Terminators are awesome again! People want to take them, but still consider them point-sinks. Enter the starcannon nerf.

Starcannons EXCEL at destroying termiators SPECIFICALLY. With the availability in any eldar army for mass amounts of starcannons, terminators were useless as soon as you hit an eldar army. Now the ap2 of the starcannon is a little more pricey (as it is in any other army...) and ALSO augmented with new and improved fire prism.

All GW does it try to make everything viable in an army list as a competitive option. Considering marines are so popular and terminators are the best of the marines, why should they be never used?

So GW nerfed the starcannon so the SM players could use their precious terminators? I don't buy this. SM, even the new DA, can throw more AP2 firepower than eldar could ever hope to imagine, for much less as well.

No, eldar kill SM through making take hundreds of amor saves. GW, instead of making the starcannon a viable weapon against anyone, decided that eldar needed a purely anti-marine weapon, yet upped the price AND reduced it's effectivness. So, instead of starcannons, eldar use shuriken cannons and scatter lasers.

Yes, starcannons were pretty bad in third, but assault cannons are a whole different kind of animal. We used starcannons in third becuase the other options were pretty pathetic. Do you want this str. 6 weapon with a 24" range? Or do I want an unpredictable str 6 gun with a better range? Or, for a bit more, I get a predictable, decent anti infantry gun that also conveniently kills marines? Which would you choose?

Furthermore, terminators still need to be fixed, IMO. the DA codex did alot to remedy this, (be realizing that DS is the only thing that makes terminators viable) I think, but as plasma is still ludicrously cheap (plasma cannons are getting cheaper, are on better platforms, hit more often, etc. etc. ) Terminators are still rather inneffective for their cost. Assault cannons on termies just make sense. Oh, a missile launcher? Already found in abundance in Tac/ dev squads. Heavy flamer? Too short ranged. But assault cannons are just right!

Assault cannons are not the problem. The real issue is the marine codex in General.

Voodoo Boyz
12-04-2007, 19:07
I'd trade the assault cannon for the 3rd Ed Starcannon stats.

Heck I'd probably trade it for the current stats.

Locke
12-04-2007, 19:16
As an eldar player i always killed marines in hth with scorpions, banshees, and at close range with fire dragons. The starcannon was used to kill nid monsters and obliterators

I dont mind GW saying that no weapons should be heavy 3 ap2, but they didnt fix the starcannon they just broke it differently... Same with the asusalt cannon, if it had an 18" range there would be alot less to cry about, right now you smack something int he middle of the table and it cant not shoot just about everything.

DeadEye
12-04-2007, 19:27
Sorry, but your post looked like a defense of Assault Cannons with the argument, that a single Assault Cannon is not a reliable anti-tank weapon. But with this kind of logic, no ranged weapon is a reliable anti-tank weapon, because you get no guarantee with anything. To be absolutely sure (in a tactical sense, not mathematical) you need redundancy. It doesn't matter if we are talking about Lascannons or Assault Cannons.

It was a defense of ACs. They're portrayed as some sort of infinitely powerful wonder weapon. They're not. They have good versatility, and taken en masse, you can bucket'o'rend mostly everything you come across, but equally, you have a pretty even-money chance of bouncing off some of the harder targets you might come across. This, to me, seems less reliable than firing three lascannons from my Pred Annihilator at your choice of big tank or heavily armoured squad.

It's the same with Genestealers/Harlequins/insert random Rending thingy here. Sure, you could roll a torrent of sixes when you plow into that Terminator squad, or you could fail to roll one in your fistfuls of dice and ineffectually bounce off the 2+ armour. I am of the opinion that the variability of Rending makes the weapon less reliable than people imply. It's not a auto-rend death hose, and like anything with Rending, you need to throw a lot of dice if you want to be sure of killing what you aim at. Given this, it is a nice, versatile weapon, and I don't think it needs a nerf.

This isn't a situation like the 3rd ed Starcannon where you were taking rolls out of the equation and simply denying armour saves at a decent standoff range to a large majority of armies (though the 4th ed nerf combined with the jacked-up price is plain dumb - one or the other, please!). This is an effective if somewhat random multi-role gun, and nerfing it into a sawn-off scatter laser doesn't do it justice.

That said, if the problem is that people can fit too many into an army list, limit AC Tornados to Ravenwing as they were in previous editions and you're set. You've halved the potential number of ACs in the army with a single restriction and limited ACs to expensive, elite units in the army list, as befits an elite multi-role weapon. And by not restricting Terminators to one heavy, they remain an effective source of solid mobile firepower, as contrasted by the new inferior Deathwing squads, which suffer from no ranged punch and far too limited numbers to last in CC, especially with the increasing number of heavy CC weapons and (gasp) rending-capable units in the game at the moment.

Maelx
12-04-2007, 19:40
Good call Deadeye. Best post yet.

The problem with weapons that are seen as "infinitely powerful wonder weapons" is that as soon as you bring a few of them to the table your a jerkface, regardless if they deserve that title or not.

Seriously, I think assault cannon armies are hated the most by tourny players, yet they are BY FAR not the most cheesy/overepowered lists people can bring.

DeadEye
12-04-2007, 19:41
So GW nerfed the starcannon so the SM players could use their precious terminators? I don't buy this. SM, even the new DA, can throw more AP2 firepower than eldar could ever hope to imagine, for much less as well.

Someone never fought Saim-Hann. Or Ulthwe Strike Force with their infinite BS4 Guided War Walkers. :skull:

To be fair, both of those died with the 4th ed Codex. But they were super ouchy at the time.

Maelx
12-04-2007, 19:50
Someone never fought Saim-Hann. Or Ulthwe Strike Force with their infinite BS4 Guided War Walkers. :skull:

To be fair, both of those died with the 4th ed Codex. But they were super ouchy at the time.

Yeah, they were uber broke. Vypers as troops? Ok. Then give them Crystal Targeting Matrix.

Oh, the cheese. It still baffles me how much people hate assault cannons. Perhaps we need to keep a list of things that have died before.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 19:53
It was a defense of ACs. They're portrayed as some sort of infinitely powerful wonder weapon. They're not. They have good versatility, and taken en masse, you can bucket'o'rend mostly everything you come across, but equally, you have a pretty even-money chance of bouncing off some of the harder targets you might come across. This, to me, seems less reliable than firing three lascannons from my Pred Annihilator at your choice of big tank or heavily armoured squad.


I don't get your point. Firing three weapons at something is more reliable than firing one weapon? Sure. You're right. How about firing additional Assault Cannons instead, because you didn't take that Annihilator but a couple of LandSpeeders?
20 Genestealers also do more damage than 10. So what?



It's the same with Genestealers/Harlequins/insert random Rending thingy here. Sure, you could roll a torrent of sixes when you plow into that Terminator squad, or you could fail to roll one in your fistfuls of dice and ineffectually bounce off the 2+ armour. I am of the opinion that the variability of Rending makes the weapon less reliable than people imply.

This may be your opinion, but you are wrong. It all comes down to probalities. You could also fail to hit with your three Lascannons for 6 turns. But it is not very probable. It is also not very probable (but it happens), that you don't get a single 6 in 18 Genestealer attacks.



It's not a auto-rend death hose, and like anything with Rending, you need to throw a lot of dice if you want to be sure of killing what you aim at. Given this, it is a nice, versatile weapon, and I don't think it needs a nerf.

The Assault Cannon already has 4 dice to do this. Which gives it a higher chance in most cases to kill something than a Lascannon. AP2 doesn't mean, that you hit and wound automatically.

Maelx
12-04-2007, 20:52
Firstly: It depends what your attacking to say "the assault cannon is probably better against this" Against hordes heavy bolters are better. Against tanks lascannons are better. If you want to kill a single gaunt of course an assault cannon is going to be better, nobody is going to argue with you on that one. Assault cannons are the middle ground being average against everything.

Secondly:
You are right with your reference to probability being what counts. The probability states the assault cannon fares less well against all targets than dedicated weapons (hb's, lascannons). I've proved this mathematically at least twice in this thread already.

There's no way an average weapon needs a nerf.

BTW: Did anyone even notice that EVERY NECRON WEAPON glances tanks on 6's? Seriously, why is everyone complaining about AC's?

lanrak
12-04-2007, 21:10
Hi all.
Well the reasons I am not overly happy about the decision GW made on the new assault cannon rules are the following.

Rending special rule was primarily introduced to improve the effectivness of close combat assaults, especaily on vehicles.
So giving this special rule to the assault cannon just seems to be breaking unwritten rules,(applying a close combat attack ability to a ranged weapon.)and inspires another round of arms race, mentality.
(Because now one ranged weapon has rending ,then all gamers will be asking for rending on some of thier ranged weapons.And the SMs will get super rending on one of thier weapons,... ad nausium ....)

Also the assaultcannon is now a 'no brainer' choice for the units allowed to take them.So this actualy tends to reduce the weapons option loadouts actually taken.This reduces the limited variety in 40k games actually played.So not only do SMs make up about 60% of all armies played but most will now have a high percentage of assault cannons...

And of course the assaultcannon is only allowed to be taken by SMs.(Favoritism perhaps.It does seem odd every time a race gets an ability etc,that is effective vs SMs,then the SM player get 'more improvments' in the next codex?)

I honestly belive the decision to add rending to the asaultcannon was more to do with marketing models than game ballance.(AGAIN!!).

I belive most SM players would have been happy with the assault cannon just having the number of shots increased to 4.(Before GW went mad and added rending as well as +1 shot!)

There you go, my personal grivance over another GW PLC decision based on marketing rather than gameplay.
GW PLC Marketing decision overiding 40k game play requirment, No 1258.

jfrazell
12-04-2007, 21:16
Firstly: It depends what your attacking to say "the assault cannon is probably better against this" Against hordes heavy bolters are better. Against tanks lascannons are better. If you want to kill a single gaunt of course an assault cannon is going to be better, nobody is going to argue with you on that one. Assault cannons are the middle ground being average against everything.


Acannons have a higher strength and higher number of shots than a heavy bolter. They are indisputably better than a H bolter in everything but range. As their firing platform either deepstrikes or moves 12"-24" thats a pretty minimal difference.


Necrons can glance vehicles. It fits the structure of their list. Necrons don't have access to heavy or sepcial weapons of any sort.

For the same reasons the starcannon was adjusted, the A cannon should be adjusted, either in cost, availability, or capability.

Champsguy
12-04-2007, 21:43
Acannons have a higher strength and higher number of shots than a heavy bolter. They are indisputably better than a H bolter in everything but range. As their firing platform either deepstrikes or moves 12"-24" thats a pretty minimal difference.


Necrons can glance vehicles. It fits the structure of their list. Necrons don't have access to heavy or sepcial weapons of any sort.

For the same reasons the starcannon was adjusted, the A cannon should be adjusted, either in cost, availability, or capability.

You don't think the Strength 9 shot from the Monolith counts as a heavy weapon? Or the Strength 9 shots from the Necron Heavy Destroyers?

--

Again, ACs are on dedicated platforms only. You can put a HB in every single Marine squad (except Termies and Assault Marines, I guess).

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 21:43
Acannons have a higher strength and higher number of shots than a heavy bolter. They are indisputably better than a H bolter in everything but range. As their firing platform either deepstrikes or moves 12"-24" thats a pretty minimal difference.


I guess what he meant to say was, that dedicated weapons are better than ACs, when you take more of them. (Which you can't...)

Maelx
12-04-2007, 21:43
Acannons have a higher strength and higher number of shots than a heavy bolter. They are indisputably better than a H bolter in everything but range.

No no no.

*sigh* Are you not paying attention? I already went over this.

Assault Cannon vs Heavy Bolter (assault cannon terminator 60 points - 3 heavy bolter marines 20 points each = 60 points)

Do you honeslty need me to do the math again? The heavy bolter is definitely the best choice vs hordes FOR ITS POINTS. The same was as a lascannon is point for point better at vehicles...

So against Fire Warriors:
Assault Cannon = 3/6 hit 5/6 wound = 59% chance of wound per hit + (the rend) + 1/6 =
4 shots = 236% (or 2.4ish rounding up dead models per turn per 60 points of assault cannon)

Heavy Bolter = 2/3 hit 5/6 wound = 55% chance of wound per hit. 9 Shots (3 heavy bolters is 60 points..) = 495% (or 4.95 dead models per turn at longer range than the assault cannon)

Which is a better value for the points? 3 models with 3 shots each or a single model with 4 shots? Even two devestator HB's (at 30 points each) STILL outclass the assault cannon against hordes.

I stand by the assault cannon is AVERAGE for its points. There's another post where I do the math to prove lascannons are better against heavy tanks as well.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 21:46
You don't think the Strength 9 shot from the Monolith counts as a heavy weapon? Or the Strength 9 shots from the Necron Heavy Destroyers?


What HE meant, i guess, was Necron Warriors. Troop selections of Necrons can't have heavy or special weapons. Space Marines can.

Is it totally necessary for the list to work? I don't know. Never played against Necrons. But from what i can see on the list, it seems balanced.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 21:48
No no no.

*sigh* Are you not paying attention? I already went over this.

Assault Cannon vs Heavy Bolter (assault cannon terminator 60 points - 3 heavy bolter marines 20 points each = 60 points)

Do you honeslty need me to do the math again? The heavy bolter is definitely the best choice vs hordes FOR ITS POINTS. The same was as a lascannon is point for point better at vehicles...

So against Fire Warriors:
Assault Cannon = 3/6 hit 5/6 wound = 59% chance of wound per hit + (the rend) + 1/6 =
4 shots = 236% (or 2.4ish rounding up dead models per turn per 60 points of assault cannon)

Heavy Bolter = 2/3 hit 5/6 wound = 55% chance of wound per hit. 9 Shots (3 heavy bolters is 60 points..) = 495% (or 4.95 dead models per turn at longer range than the assault cannon)

Which is a better value for the points? 3 models with 3 shots each or a single model with 4 shots? Even two devestator HB's (at 30 points each) STILL outclass the assault cannon against hordes.

I stand by the assault cannon is AVERAGE for its points. There's another post where I do the math to prove lascannons are better against heavy tanks as well.

We are not talking about hypothetical weapon selections you can't take. You can not take two Heavy Bolters instead of an Assault Cannon.

When you deal with real lists, ACs are better.

If you consider an AC an average weapon (!!!) then what would be a great weapon in your opinion?!?

Maelx
12-04-2007, 21:48
I guess what he meant to say was, that dedicated weapons are better than ACs, when you take more of them. (Which you can't...)

Why not? The only units in the space marine army that can't take either a lascannon or a heavy bolter are:

Vindicators
Land Raider Crusaders
Whirlwinds
IC's without a retinue.

I'm pretty sure marines can get enough.



If you consider an AC an average weapon (!!!) then what would be a great weapon in your opinion?!?


Wrong definition of average. It performs worse than dedicated weapons in specific roles, it can however fill multiple roles. It is a GREAT weapon for this purpose (not because it's uber-powered). Why are marines awesome? They can fill many roles. This is mirrored in the functionality of the assault cannon. Good job GW!

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 21:50
You have (in reality) the choice beween:

- 2 Terminators with ACs.
- 2 Terminators with Lascannon + a couple of additional stuff, that you won't miss, when it's not there. (Wargear, etc.)

Not

- 2 Terminators with ACs
- 4 Terminators with Lascannons

If you don't want ACs in the first place, then you won't take the plattforms, that excell with them. But then nobody has a problem with it in the first place.

If you really want ACs you get as much as the list allows you to take. Because they are better. You get rid of useless stuff, not Heavy Bolters, which you can take additionally.

jfrazell
12-04-2007, 21:55
You don't think the Strength 9 shot from the Monolith counts as a heavy weapon? Or the Strength 9 shots from the Necron Heavy Destroyers?

-
Right and thats not relevant. You stated necron warriors -aka the grunts. The basic grunts have no heavy weapon capacity. This is basic list construction. Just as eldar have a true Napoleonic combined arms philosophy, the necrons are on opposite end fo the spectrum. They have basic troopers and some ancillaries. Without the gauss the "grunts" can't bring down vehicles. Another apect of that is firewarriors-they have higher strength basic weapons because they have no heavy weapon option.





Again, ACs are on dedicated platforms only. You can put a HB in every single Marine squad (except Termies and Assault Marines, I guess).
True, but not relevant.
Vehicles and unit choices that can take an AC or a heavy bolter will invariably take an AC. AC's are better infantry and monstrous creature killers. PLUS they have the anti-vehicle capability.

Starcannons were nerfed partially because it was a "no brainer" that other weapon options were not being taken. The list was rebalanced so that they became effectively plasma cannon with the the scatlaser reprising the true multishot weapon role.

A Cannon suffer the same problem. Ease of solution, remove options to make them not a no brainer, or remove the amount of vehicles/units that can take them. Easy.

*termies two heavy weapons per squad, one may be an A cannon.
*speeders, one tornado per FA slot maximum.
*dreads switch the price to make the A cannon option cost more vs. the multimelta or such.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 21:55
Wrong definition of average. It performs worse than dedicated weapons in specific roles, it can however fill multiple roles. It is a GREAT weapon for this purpose (not because it's uber-powered). Why are marines awesome? They can fill many roles. This is mirrored in the functionality of the assault cannon. Good job GW!

The Assault Cannon performs better than dedicated weapon, unless you take more of them, which you can't, as i already told you. (BTW: Is a Lascannon a a bad weapon then, because it sucks at anti-horde, but is great in it's job? An AC is an average weapon, because it is great in what it is supposed to do? What?!?)

We are judging the quality of the weapon. A Ferrari is not a worse car than a Toyota, just because it is more expensive. The Toyota doesn't drive faster, when you buy two of them.

jfrazell
12-04-2007, 21:58
No no no.

*sigh* Are you not paying attention? I already went over this.

Assault Cannon vs Heavy Bolter (assault cannon terminator 60 points - 3 heavy bolter marines 20 points each = 60 points)

Sarcasm is the refuge of the desperate, and you're clouding your own issue.

To properly compare you must look at an A cannon vs. H bolter- its cost only. Adding in the support mechanism obviscates the issue because you are not using an apples to apples comparison.

its the cost of the heavy bolter vs. the cost of the A cannon, not twenty tac marines vs. four devastator squads or whatever you're grousing up.

Maelx
12-04-2007, 21:59
You have (in reality) the choice beween:

- 2 Terminators with ACs.
- 2 Terminators with Lascannon + a couple of additional stuff, that you won't miss, when it's not there. (Wargear, etc.)

Not

- 2 Terminators with ACs
- 4 Terminators with Lascannons


So instead give yourself troops squads armed with las-plas that come to 100 points each. Take 6 of them. Use the rest of your points buying destructors that pump out 8 shot a turn. Take some assault squads. Whatever.

I don't take the assault cannon because it's "better". I take it because I like having every unit in my army be able to deal with any threat.

I also like uniformity. Makes a list easier to maintain and memorize. Means i'm very aware of how my units will perform in a given situation. I like that knowlege.

Capitalizing on assault cannons? that's garbage.

Maelx
12-04-2007, 22:01
Sarcasm is the refuge of the desperate, and you're clouding your own issue.

I wasn't being sarcastic...



To properly compare you must look at an A cannon vs. H bolter- its cost only. Adding in the support mechanism obviscates the issue because you are not using an apples to apples comparison.

Fair enough. Heavy Bolter cost = 5 points. Assault cannon cost = 20 points.
4 heavy bolters vs the single assault cannon. Assault cannon is less overpowered in this scenario.


The Assault Cannon performs better than dedicated weapon, unless you take more of them, which you can't, as i already told you.

Regardless of how many you can take, the points STILL work for the weapon in question. We've proved it through mathematics and probability, correct? It costs more than dedicated weapons because it can do more than one thing. Its versatility however, means it's less effective at each job than the deadicated weapon (when you compare the points premium that you pay for the AC). Ignore platforms. The weapon is balanced.

Perhaps i'm getting a little frustrated as people are completely disregarding the math in this situation. Just read the math and disregard everything else.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 22:03
I take it because I like having every unit in my army be able to deal with any threat.


This is exactly the reason why people dislile the assault cannon. You can deal with any threat, which you can't with other weapons. Therefore a no-brainer.

Locke
12-04-2007, 22:06
Wrong definition of average. It performs worse than dedicated weapons in specific roles, it can however fill multiple roles. It is a GREAT weapon for this purpose (not because it's uber-powered). Why are marines awesome? They can fill many roles. This is mirrored in the functionality of the assault cannon. Good job GW!

marines are awesome because their lists allows for a "heightened effeciency level" that other armies dont ahve the advantage of...

BASICALLY meaning that their tacticial units are almost for COST as effective as other armies dedicated units. Their dedicated units ALWAYS have been extremely cost effective case in point:

1. any config on the predator
2. any config on the landspeeder
3. whirlwind
4. 15 point las cannons and 6 point plasma guns in tactical squads
5. tac vet sarges with powerfists

when you take the best of everything in a marine army you are getting essentially a whole additional unit over an eldar army. most balanced marine armies have 10-12 heavy weapons (mostly assuat cannons, h. bolters, and lascannons) and 6-8 special weapons, where most balanced eldar armies have 6-8 heavy weapons (mostly eml and scatterlasers) not including reaper launchers.

GW has finally wised up and has added 20 points to the cost of a full pred, added 10 points to the cost of extra armor, and has limited hte number of speeders and raised the cost of a full tornado by 20.

These adjustments are huge!! Porbably because marines were too awesome.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 22:06
To properly compare you must look at an A cannon vs. H bolter- its cost only. Adding in the support mechanism obviscates the issue because you are not using an apples to apples comparison.


I disagree. You have to use the platform in this calculation. But you have to use the SAME platform, that has the choice between both weapons. (If you don't have the choice, the whole discussion is pointless) At this point it doesn't work anymore, because you can't get 2 Dreadnaughts with Lascannons for the price of 1 AC Dreadnaught.

Maelx
12-04-2007, 22:10
I disagree. You have to use the platform in this calculation. But you have to use the SAME platform, that has the choice between both weapons. (If you don't have the choice, the whole discussion is pointless) At this point it doesn't work anymore, because you can't get 2 Dreadnaughts with Lascannons for the price of 1 AC Dreadnaught.

You're right! But you also pay a premium for a move and shoot TLLC lascannon, dont you? On the dread you pay already 25 points for the assault cannon in lowest form. It also isn't on any troops either.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 22:11
Regardless of how many you can take, the points STILL work for the weapon in question. We've proved it through mathematics and probability, correct? It costs more than dedicated weapons because it can do more than one thing. Its versatility however, means it's less effective at each job than the deadicated weapon (when you compare the points premium that you pay for the AC). Ignore platforms. The weapon is balanced.


So you mean, when you buy two Toyotas instead of a Ferraris, the two Toyotas have more power. Maybe. But if there is only one Toyota available, it doesn't help you in a race. Math won't help you there, even if you are correct. (Yeah, bad example, but the point should be clear).

The Assault Cannon is better, because it is there. Two Heavy Bolters aren't. You only have the choice between one Heavy Bolter or one AC. A theoretical additional Heavy Bolter does not count.

bertcom1
12-04-2007, 22:17
I think the only problem with the assault cannon is the Land Speeder Tornado.

Land Speeder Tornadoes are fast, hard to take down because of skimmer rules, and have a heavy bolter to add to the anti personnel fire that it can put out.

Terminators might be able to deepstrike, but they then lack mobility, and have low model count. The other weapon options they have aren't very good either. Heavy flamers are only good at very short range, while the cyclone launcher is expensive and single shot and has no real role - Frag rounds against hordes? Blast rules mean you rarely get more than 2 hits. Krak rounds against armour? That wastes the other firepower of the squad, and is a role that the rest of the force should be able to cover. Long range? Terminators should not be exposing themselves to opposing long range weapons as those are the high strength low AP weapons that Terminators often get killed by. It also wastes the rest of the squads firepower.

Dreadnoughts also lack mobility. For anti armour, there are usually better options than the lascannon/missile launcher Dreadnought, the Multimelta is not a good weapon - single shot and short ranged, which leaves anti personnel as the role the Dreadnought is best at, which means assault cannon, as there is no longer the option to take heavy bolters or other weapons.

Land Raider Crusaders are a slow big target, with a compromised role - if they are shooting, they are not moving their cargo. If they have transported their cargo and now supporting them, then the game is nearly over, and 2 or 3 turns of shooting is not much to get fussed over.

Assault cannons are only the no-brainer choice because the other choices aren't useful for much of the time, and most of the time compromise the unit's abilities. The units that can have assault cannons are usually better at anti-personnel than anti-armour, and the other weapon options don't go with that.

Templar Ben
12-04-2007, 22:23
Great argument Bert.

Stingray_tm
12-04-2007, 22:30
Okay, consider this:

You made an army list, without any AC, because you like to specialize. You took some Terminators with Lascannons, because Terminators are cool. You took a Land Raider Crusader for your Assault Terminators. You took a Dreadnaught with Lascannons, because Dreadnaughts are cool to. Than you took a Landspeeder with Heavy Bolters.

Then you suddenly realize: By getting rid of 2 Assault Marines, 2 Tactical Marines and some Wargear for your Commander, you could upgrade all of units to Assault Cannons and now they are not specialized anymore, they are anti-EVERYTHING. Because you know, the AC is "average". And you still have other units with Lascannons and Heavy Bolters, like you already planned.

jfrazell
12-04-2007, 22:52
I think the only problem with the assault cannon is the Land Speeder Tornado.

Land Speeder Tornadoes are fast, hard to take down because of skimmer rules, and have a heavy bolter to add to the anti personnel fire that it can put out.



Assault cannons are only the no-brainer choice because the other choices aren't useful for much of the time, and most of the time compromise the unit's abilities. The units that can have assault cannons are usually better at anti-personnel than anti-armour, and the other weapon options don't go with that.

Very true on both counts.



Then you suddenly realize: By getting rid of 2 Assault Marines, 2 Tactical Marines and some Wargear for your Commander, you could upgrade all of units to Assault Cannons and now they are not specialized anymore, they are anti-EVERYTHING. Because you know, the AC is "average". And you still have other units with Lascannons and Heavy Bolters, like you already planned.


Exactly. A cannons aren't the awesome uber killy gun of death, but they are a better jack of all trades than their weapon competition.

bertcom1
12-04-2007, 22:53
Terminators can't have Lascannons.

Templar Ben
12-04-2007, 22:56
But wasn't his point that the Terminators will not be taken with Lascannons and the Dread is a terrible anti armor platform due to its slow movement and low armor?

How about you don't have any shooty Terminators and you have a couple of Predators? You could drop the dread and have more marines with Heavy bolters. That would be an interesting scenario to work out. AC heavy list vs a HB and LC heavy list. See how that works against horde, MC and Mech lists.

Master Bait
12-04-2007, 23:34
Rending special rule was primarily introduced to improve the effectivness of close combat assaults, especaily on vehicles.
So giving this special rule to the assault cannon just seems to be breaking unwritten rules,(applying a close combat attack ability to a ranged weapon.)and inspires another round of arms race, mentality.
(Because now one ranged weapon has rending ,then all gamers will be asking for rending on some of thier ranged weapons.And the SMs will get super rending on one of thier weapons,... ad nausium ....)

perhaps. but the idea of the assault cannon is that its a special weapon developed for use by the elite troops of the SMs. so its strength and effectiveness is reflected in its stats and rules.


Also the assaultcannon is now a 'no brainer' choice for the units allowed to take them.So this actualy tends to reduce the weapons option loadouts actually taken.This reduces the limited variety in 40k games actually played.So not only do SMs make up about 60% of all armies played but most will now have a high percentage of assault cannons...
the AC was ALWAYS a no-brainer. if you took terminators, you equipped them with an AC. it was a specially developed weapon for them to use. if you want to maon about something moan that GW increased their availability to be used on a variety of platforms that they introduced for 3rd ed - and then failed to revise for 4th ed when they upp'ed the stats.


And of course the assaultcannon is only allowed to be taken by SMs.(Favoritism perhaps.It does seem odd every time a race gets an ability etc,that is effective vs SMs,then the SM player get 'more improvments' in the next codex?)
i don't see any marines carrying venom cannons, do you? different weapons for different armies, hopefully help dictate different tactics are used.

again, it was the availability of the AC that broke it, not its stats. 2nd ed stats are even more ridiculous compared to what they are now, but they hardly dominated the game at all


I honestly belive the decision to add rending to the asaultcannon was more to do with marketing models than game ballance.(AGAIN!!).

I belive most SM players would have been happy with the assault cannon just having the number of shots increased to 4.(Before GW went mad and added rending as well as +1 shot!)

There you go, my personal grivance over another GW PLC decision based on marketing rather than gameplay.
GW PLC Marketing decision overiding 40k game play requirment, No 1258.
boiling this down to a marketting decision is silly because its OBVIOUS that GW are in this business to make money. and to do that they have to please as many of their consumers as possible, so aiming for a good balanced game is their perogative.

perhaps they've cocked up a bit here because ONE WEAPON has created such a divide. and really, people are just getting far too worked up.

i think they are honestly working on it though, not to change the statline, but to alter the weapon's availability, which to me makes perfect sense no matter what.

they shouldn't start changing statlines of anything now, that they're in the full swing of 4th ed. sure they did it to the starcannon, but then again they changed quite a bit when they changed from 3rd to 4th

thelightbringer
13-04-2007, 00:18
eh!!what about rendering claws of genestealers!!!!!

Wraithbored
13-04-2007, 00:19
eh!!what about rendering claws of genestealers!!!!!

They don't scratch you from 24" away. :rolleyes:

Gutlord Grom
13-04-2007, 00:22
eh!!what about rendering claws of genestealers!!!!!

Well, rending did start in the Tyranid codex, so it's generally accepted that they're there. Personally, their nastier than an Assault Cannon, but to a lot of people who dislike Assault Cannons, it's usually touted that it's supposedly imposible to keep Genestealers alive so they can get into close combat.

thelightbringer
13-04-2007, 00:47
lets not whinge here!!they are very fast and cheap compared to a termie!!

insectum7
13-04-2007, 00:54
Well, rending did start in the Tyranid codex, so it's generally accepted that they're there. Personally, their nastier than an Assault Cannon, but to a lot of people who dislike Assault Cannons, it's usually touted that it's supposedly imposible to keep Genestealers alive so they can get into close combat.

I think GW has mindfully made a move to make a general menu of special rules available, like 'rending' and 'feel no pain' and 'skilled rider', which originally started in one codex or another but were adopted for general use. The handy part has been that any player with the rulebook ought to have some knowledge about the majority of special rules. Each new codex seems to introduce an even newer special rule though...

As for Genestealers not making it to hand-to-hand, I find that the public playing areas rarely have enough terrain for a decent game. Earlier in this thread I mentioned that I usually found that Acannon units got swamped by gaunts, and I was accused of not playing Tyranids! Terrain makes a huge difference in the way unit balance works out, and the viability of certain tactics. I for one see Genestealers get into combat all the time, and yeah, their rending capability is awesome.

I agree with many posters here in saying that the Land Speeder tornado is probably the biggest foul by the Asault Cannon. I for one don't actually think its a good unit for the way I balance my Marine armies, but I dislike the idea of people making such simple lists as "nine of these rare and specialized units, and a handfull of these other elite units, yup thats my army". I like that GW made Acannons harder to get in the Ravenwing list, too bad there isn't a similar fix for the standard marines, although the no-fire-when-deep-striking does help.

I really dislike the idea of re-statting the Assault Cannon again, I think the gun is perfect. Its availability on the Land Speeder is just a little ovezealous.

Stingray_tm
13-04-2007, 01:02
The whole Tyranid army concept depends on rending, because we have no Power Weapons, almost no AP2/3 weapons and no reliable ranged anti-tank weaponry. And at least you can easily shoot at Genestealers before they arrive in combat. (*Cough* Harlequins *Cough*) Without rending on Genestealers or whatever Tyranids were unplayable.

Wraithbored
13-04-2007, 01:07
(*Cough* Harlequins *Cough*) Here's a lozenge and 2 advices: 1: Use flamers or heavy flamers they make Harlequins dead, and secondly indirect fire wepons provided they don't scatter also plonk them into the big stage beyond. ;)

Stingray_tm
13-04-2007, 01:09
Here's a lozenge and 2 advices: 1: Use flamers or heavy flamers they make Harlequins dead, and secondly indirect fire wepons provided they don't scatter also plonk them into the big stage beyond. ;)

If you can tell me the Tyranid unit with flamers, i'd be happy to try this out ;)
Indirect fire only works at my local club, where we all agree, that VoT does work like Nightfighting. The rest of the world seems to disagree...

Wraithbored
13-04-2007, 01:13
If you can tell me the Tyranid unit with flamers, i'd be happy to try this out ;)
Indirect fire only works at my local club, where we all agree, that VoT does work like Nightfighting. The rest of the world seems to disagree...
We play the same here, and In all honesty everybody should! An FAQ clearing this up would be most welcome. And for nid flamers, fraid you got me there, but then again biovores with sporemines are a good threat to harlequins. As are big units of gaunts. Sure the harlies kill some but no way you're gonna kill 20+

insectum7
13-04-2007, 01:22
True that, rending can play a big part in Tyranid anti-armor. But the gun-fexes are usually reliable enough for me against the big tanks, and the Warriors with deathspitters do allright against light armor. We arent entirely devoid of power weapons, but the Genestealers rending WS 6 I 6 and A 2 definitely make up for any wargear descrepancies by a long shot. Rending is certainly a part of the Tyranid identity.

But by the same token, I think that the Terminators ought to have acces to some of the best weapons in the game, because they are touted as the best infantry in the game. I think the Assault Cannon is the perfect all-around gun for their role. Heavy flamers for the corridors of a space hulk, cyclones for a more fire support role, but for the bread-and-butter stand-against-all-comers fluff role of the Terminators, the assault cannon is perfect. It is good, but not broken in their hands, and like other people have said it doesn't even compare to the nastiness of the 2nd ed version. I'd use a similar argument for the Dreadnaught assault cannon, and the LRC is neither common, nor taken for its Acannon. It's those dang landspeeders that are the real issue for me.

Brockafally
13-04-2007, 02:21
I at first was a staunch hater of assault cannons. Just despised them. They can shred you to pieces with rending.... blah blah blah. Yes that is true. But odds are they won't as bad as people make them out to be.

The assault cannon is a 6 barreled gun that spins at hyper velocities and spits bullets out at a prodigious rate per second. I believe the term is cyclic rate of fire. Meaning before the first bullet has hit you there are another 4-5 at least on the way. That in itself speaks of some special rule like rending. It should be able to shred vehicles to bits with its high rate of fire or infantry regardless of armour. How often it happens is reflected in its rules. Is it balanced? Of course. They are only on specific units (expensive terminators, some landspeeders which get one volley off then usually die horribly and dreads which rarely get to within 24" to use the thing in the first place) and the big balancing part is, it only fires at a range of 24". Sure it's assault and it is effectively 30", but well placed anti-assault cannon squads (that would be anti-tank squads and low ap squads) can shred them before they become really effective.

I played against a termi army with 8 bloody assault cannons. How well did they perform? he rended maybe 6 times all game. When a unit could be good, but isn't all the time that's balance.

Personally, they should have kept the jam rule in (3 1's and it blows up) but that's just me.

Finally, if you really want to mathhammer it (sorry didn't real previous posts, so if this was done then my bad). Two assault cannons shooting, needing a 6 (so 1/6=.167) and odds are they get 1.333 a turn. Sometimes they will get more, sometimes they will get less. Against a vehicle (just looking for the rend) 8x.66(marine BS)x.167=.88. Meaning more often then not you stand a chance of rolling it once, but don't count on it to take down a landraider all the time.

For those with rebuttals such as, "but I've seen it happen 5 times out of 8". It's called the probability. Sometimes you roll better, sometimes you roll worse. Look at my game with the terminator army. He rended 6 times and he had 8 assault cannons in his army shooting for two turns. That's rotten luck.

Wraithbored
13-04-2007, 02:30
The assault cannon is a 6 barreled gun that spins at hyper velocities and spits bullets out at a prodigious rate per second. I believe the term is cyclic rate of fire. Meaning before the first bullet has hit you there are another 4-5 at least on the way. That in itself speaks of some special rule like rending. It should be able to shred vehicles to bits with its high rate of fire or infantry regardless of armour. Poppycock. If all weapons would be incarnation of their fluff then the "lowly" bolter would explode a traitor guardsmen and the chimaera behind it.:rolleyes:

Master Bait
13-04-2007, 02:55
that's besides the point

the rest of his post is more about the actually game application of the weapon.

after all the math-hammer you can create and go on about, the rending had little effect in that particular game. had even less effect in the previous game i talked about a couple of pages back.

Wraithbored
13-04-2007, 02:59
And if you read the posts you'll see taht people are irritated by rate of fire/strength/rending/price. And they all feel something should be done about one of these aspects.

Voodoo Boyz
13-04-2007, 03:00
We play the same here, and In all honesty everybody should! An FAQ clearing this up would be most welcome. And for nid flamers, fraid you got me there, but then again biovores with sporemines are a good threat to harlequins. As are big units of gaunts. Sure the harlies kill some but no way you're gonna kill 20+

I don't, because that's not what the rules say.

And there isn't anyone alive who hates Eldar more than I do. I hate them enough that I'm considering starting Necrons, just because I hate Eldar (and Skimmer armies) that much.

And honestly, the comparisons to the 3rd Ed Starcannon are rediculous. I'd take that any day over the assault cannon's current rules. I'd probably even take the current rules for the Starcannon over the assault cannon. 2 Shots, No overheats? S6 AP2? 36"? YES PLEASE.

I don't need that much help for anti-tank, if you're relying on the assault cannon for anti-tank on anything other than say the Master of Ravenwing Speeder, then you're not taking enough Lascannons in your army anyway. I've done the all-assault cannon army and it's really not that good. The old Deathwing needed 2 A-Cannons per squad to compete, now they just plain can't stand up to other armies.

And when I say that it's not that good, I don't mean it in the retarded internet way where users of broken crap downplay it's effectiveness. No, I mean it's not that good to the point where I re-did my tournament army lists and removed assault cannons from it for other units in order to make the list more competitive.

Seriously, all this complaining, 13 ******* pages, and the marines are still simply not that good. What army won the Adepticon tournament? 3 Falcon Eldar, with Harlies & Dragons (where just about zero shooting affects them before they charge). What took the top stuff at the UK GT's? I don't recall any assault cannon heavy lists doing well. Heck the ELDAR had the highest battle points, and it was 3 Holofield Grav Tanks, one of which was a Falcon with Harlies.

Seriously, the Assault Cannon is good. Too good, it needs to be nerfed, honestly. And I have 11+ models with it. But the only reason people hate it 13 pages worth is because it's for Loyalist Marines only, and by golly if it's one thing online 40k website forums hate it's Space Marines.

Seriously, it's good, it needs a nerf, but if you want to talk about other game breaking unbalanced rules or units then GW should be looking to revise the Tyranid or Eldar dex's before they worry about doing something about the Assault Cannon.

Captain Micha
13-04-2007, 03:01
ok, according to fluff eldar plasma is by far more advanced than mankinds and the tau... if the star cannon which is a PLASMA weapon got a nerf I think the ac should as well.

lets make the auto cannon worth something..please......?

the ac is so cheap I don't even bother with the autocannon in guard lists and they dont get acs! I just sigh and take more heavy bolters, or take more lascannons

Wraithbored
13-04-2007, 03:06
Interstingly you said Adepticon isn't adepticon held at the end of march if I'm not mistaken? And the new eldar codex was released last year in september so the codex used was the old 3rd ed eldar codex.

Master Bait
13-04-2007, 03:14
And if you read the posts you'll see taht people are irritated by rate of fire/strength/rending/price. And they all feel something should be done about one of these aspects.


so?

what has that got to do with what i was pointing out?

but taking what you're syaing seriously, i know people have issue with these things. i feel they shouldn't, because they're asking for things contrary to what the problem ACTUALLY is; accessibility to the assault cannon.

as i've pointed out two or three times now the AC was a LOT scarier in 2nd ed. but their availability was almost exclusive to terminator squads.

that is different now, and so THAT is what should change, not the stats

Wraithbored
13-04-2007, 03:16
so?

what has that got to do with what i was pointing out?

but taking what you're syaing seriously, i know people have issue with these things. i feel they shouldn't, because they're asking for things contrary to what the problem ACTUALLY is; accessibility to the assault cannon.

as i've pointed out two or three times now the AC was a LOT scarier in 2nd ed. but their availability was almost exclusive to terminator squads.

that is different now, and so THAT is what should change, not the stats
But regardless of what you change people will whine. And in 2nd edition a lot of things were also scary for example d-cannons, wraithcannons, deathspinners, and from the ork armoury pulsa rokkits& shok attack gunz. Also the cyclone missile launcher was horrific.If we'd make everything scale up to 2nd ed power like the Assault cannon has been we'd have a power escalation with each codex. A trend I don't want to see.

Master Bait
13-04-2007, 03:27
certainly not. neither should they power things down either, especially when there's plenty of proof that the weapon we're addressing isn't as powerful as some people would like to believe

and you're right, GW is in the unenviable position that people are going to whine no matter what. poor guys.

certainly were a lot of scary weapons in 2nd ed. as there are now actually. its the presence of these items and rules that are meant to keep players on their toes, but unfortunately you'll see more people trying to abuse them.

remember the conversion beamer? i always wanted to use one back in the day just for fun. that and vortex grenades for every vet serg on the battle field :p

Wraithbored
13-04-2007, 03:33
certainly not. neither should they power things down either, especially when there's plenty of proof that the weapon we're addressing isn't as powerful as some people would like to believe

and you're right, GW is in the unenviable position that people are going to whine no matter what. poor guys.

certainly were a lot of scary weapons in 2nd ed. as there are now actually. its the presence of these items and rules that are meant to keep players on their toes, but unfortunately you'll see more people trying to abuse them.

remember the conversion beamer? i always wanted to use one back in the day just for fun. that and vortex grenades for every vet serg on the battle field :p I acctually refused to use warp spiders! 2 units of those guys back then could anihilate an entire army by themselves! Disgustingly powerful. I also remember virus bombs those were nasty anythign not wearing a helmet PLOP dead! that's why I modeled all of my Eldar with helmets(and besides I can't paint a face to save my life). The problem is also that the loud majority of marine players want their dex to be über and that other army lists should be toned down, BUT DON'T touch my dex it's perfectly balanced(acctually not an exageration I have met 2-3 people who pretty much said that)! And if you look back at the history and find my posts you'll find that I couldn't wait for the new dex so finally people wouldn't stigmatize me just because I played Eldar(these people have never seen me use more than 1 wraithlord, or more than 1 falcon, nor did I use more than 1 unit of anything i think some of my army lists are still hidden away somewhere in the bowels of tactica).