Valkyrie assault carrier: lascannon or multi-laser?

[Mendi Warrior]

Hi,

 

I have a question regarding the weapons for the Valkyrie assault carriers.

 

I do like the models, so I have acquired a couple boxes of them, 3 exactly, and I have started building the models.

 

Of the 12 models, I have built 6 as Vendettas and 6 as Valkyries, of which I equipped 4 with lascannons. For the remaining 2, I'm hesitating between lascannons and multi-lasers. Is there a difference in terms of stats or gameplay? What are the wysiwyg conventions for AI?

 

I could of course use magnets to have the flexibility but the plastic is quite thin and I don't feel it is absolutely necessary.

 

I don't have the rules, maybe I'll acquire them later. It is first and foremost a building/painting project but I always like to retain the option to use the models in potential games.

 

Many thanks in advance.

 

Cheers.

[Mandragola]

Basically no, multilasers are rubbish and you should only ever use lascannons. It's true that you have a bit of firepower at short range with the multilaser but it's extremely unlikely to actually do anything. 2 shots hitting on 5s and damaging on 5s aren't enough. And in exchange for that you lose firepower at medium and long-ranges, at least relative to the vendetta.

 

It's worth spending a point to get the twin-lascannon, but not really essential. It's reasonable to run valks as cheap landers, perhaps with 2 points spent on rocket pods. The multilaser at 3 points is simply worse than a 1 point twin-lascannon and not that much better than the single lascannon it starts with.

 

Unfortunately this is a pretty common theme across AI: you pay points to make your planes worse, or equal. The Tau ion cannon is pretty much a straight downgrade from a railgun, for example. I think they use some sort of formula where they add up the potential damage it could cause at any range, but this can mean a gun like the multilaser that is bad-but-not-useless at all ranges ends up costing more than a gun that's seriously good in a more limited range band.

[N1SB]

Hi Brother Mendi, you're asking good questions.  I 100% agree with everything Brother Mandragola said, Lascannons over Multi-lasers.  What he said is so true it applies to other factions, like he mentioned Tau, which is what I play.  Their Railguns...the equivalent of Lascannons...are the default, cheap, yet superior option usually.

 

My last game I think I faced some Punisher Gatling Guns, that gave me a good run for my money, though.  They were on some Fighter-Bomber that couldn't take Lascannons or something, but definitely not Multi-laser.  Multi-lasers seem especially weak.

 

 

+++ WYSIWYG conventions +++

 

 

The planes are important, I need to know what I'm shooting at and how many Wounds it's got.  I can usually tell by the size of the jet.

 

The guns are less so, because they're so small, even if I can see them I can't tell what they are.  And things like Rocket Pods are literally on the underside of the leetle planes; no one lifts your model to see which planes have got the Rocket Pods on them, they're precariously balanced on their little stands as it is.

 

It just so happens my jets are all WYSIWYG because on my Tau planes, the Railguns looked like the most Tau-like...then they turned out to be the best loadout for me.  That was pure coincidence, but I'm happy that was the case.  But honestly I don't think my opponents would be able to tell the difference either way.

[Mendi Warrior]

Thanks a lot guys, I greatly appreciate!

 

Lascannon it is then 

 

The multi-lasers will likely end-up on some AT terrain.

[Firedrake Cordova]

 Is there a difference in terms of stats or gameplay? 

The probabilities of causing damage with the multi-laser are 2/9 (short), 4/9 (medium), and 1/9 (long) versus 0 (short), 1/3 (medium), 1/3 (long) for the lascannon.

 

JustPlayGames has a spreadsheet for all the weapons, which looks about right from memory (I did all the maths for myself about a year ago): https://justplaygames.uk/blogs/warhammer-40-000/aeronautica-imperialis-weapon-statistics

 

What are the wysiwyg conventions for AI?

I think the general convention is the plane must be right, and the main guns must be right, but the other bits are optional (rockets/bombs, etc).

 

 Their Railguns...the equivalent of Lascannons...are the default, cheap, yet superior option usually.

That's interesting, because the general opinion on the Aeronautica sub-reddit seems to be that ion cannon are the better option (with ion blasters and afterburners on the Barracuda). Not saying you're wrong, just that I'm surprised.

[Mandragola]

Ion cannons are an interesting one. The loss of firepower relative to the railgun isn't huge and the gain is significant. However it's not the same for single and twin ions.

 

The single ion has only one dice at short and long ranges. In theory it does the same average damage as a railgun or burst cannons at medium range, a bit less at long, but still something at short. It's a lot cheaper than the burst cannon so it's not a bad choice.

 

The twin ion on the other hand does the same damage as the burst cannons at long and short ranges and a little less at medium, but not a lot. That makes it quite an attractive option, though the free railguns still outperform it at both medium and long ranges.

 

One problem with the ion cannon though is that it's unreliable for doing 1 damage. It damages on a 4+ with extra damage on a 6. In theory that's equivalent to doing damage on a 3+. When calculating the average, there are 4 potential damage points in your six dice results (1 on a 4, 1 on a 5, 2 on a 6). But the fact it does nothing on a 1-3 means there's a 50% chance that a ship on 1 hull will survive an ion cannon hit. The same ship is significantly less likely to survive being shot by a railgun or burst cannon. 

 

When firing at a 1-hull ship you have to ignore the extra damage and instead of looking at the average damage you're looking at the chance of doing 1 damage. The ion cannon effectively loses 25% of its effectiveness in that situation. The railgun loses 16.67% and the burst cannon loses nothing.

 

Ion cannons aren't all that expensive and they aren't terrible. The ace with them on is good enough and cheap enough to warrant taking, despite the marginally weaker guns. Otherwise I probably wouldn't bother.

 

Edit: A weird thing about AI (which it shares with AT) is that points cost matters a lot. That's because of the way that activations alternate, meaning that whoever has most planes will outmanoeuvre their opponent. They'll line up more shots, do more damage and take less in return. Unfortunately this means that a plane with a more expensive gun is, in effect, less manoeuvrable than the stock one.

 

In AT I think this is mostly ok because the cheaper units tend to be the more manoeuvrable ones, so warhounds and knights tend to get to out-activate warlords. But in AI it tends to be the other way round, with agile planes tending to cost a lot. A situation where a squadron of vendettas is easily able to out-dogfight supersonic eldar planes, due to costing less while having more firepower and toughness, is a bit of a problem. I've designed an initiative system to try and fix this problem, by letting more agile planes activate after slow ones.

Edited April 7, 2022 by Mandragola