Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Mathhammer shows:

In Melta Range the TC should cause .97-.86 Hull Points removed and between 45-36% chance of exploding a vehicle with armors between 12-14.
Not in Melta Range the TC should cause .8-.2 Hull Points removed and between 8-2% chance of exploding a vehicle with armors between 12-14.

The BC has around 1.5-.6 Hull Points removed and 0 chance of exploding a vehicle with armors between 12-14.

So at half range the TC has a decent chance of blowing up a vehicle outright, but it is still less than 50%.

The BC is more reliable until you reach AV 14. Then it lags behind. It is more punishing to all troops except for 2+. It also has the free Heavy Stubber.

I am planning to field a Knight Crusader as my center piece and don't know which arm to give him. The BC w/HS is 5 points more.

The rest of his load out will be an Avenger Gatling Cannon w/ Heavy Flamer, chest mounted Meltagun and carapace mounted Twin Icarus Autocannon.

Thanks in advance,

Given that the Gatling cannon is putting out equal or better HP output than either weapon, and the extra range and infantry killing capability of the battlecannon over the melta-cannon, I'd probably go for the battlecannon.

If it's one weapon or the other, it's more of a tossup, but when you've already got the gatling cannon that can effectively duplicate either role, I'd go for the Battlecannon as the second option.

(Editied because I answered my own question)

Anyway, I'll be building with the Battle Cannon as well. And Icarus Autocannons if I can't tailor my list a bit. Seems like the best all-rounder while the rest of the list can focus more on anti-tank or speed to work with the Knight. But, I'm obviously new to Knights.

It's more nuanced than just hull points versus explodes. The TC denies 2+ saves and hits within assault range, encouraging CC. The BC denies 3+ saves, covers more area, and ranges well outside of CC. The AGC denies 3+ saves, has a much higher throughput for hull point stripping and wound delivery, while also staying in charge range.

This means the AGC is the better generalist weapon, while the TC and BC are more niche with tank/TDA hunting for the one, and supporting fire for the other.

SJ

Rapid battle cannon is better - hands down.

I do see more RBC than TC, but at least a third of them have TC.

That is still a significant number.

So should I pay the 5 points for the RBC?

I kited mine out with the TC and AGC with the middle pod carapace weapon and a melta gun. With those guns and his str10... He's threatening to EVERYTHING on the table.

Magnetize em and use whichever one you want its pretty easy you dont even have to drill holes out.you just need one half inch for the arm and two 1/4 inch for guns.(one for each one) and just stick em on the premade holes


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just checked my knigjt its actiallly two 1/2 inch for the guns and a 3/8 for the arm

The battlecannon is the better option.

A single melta hit against a vehicle, which does not ignore cover, is not worth 370 points. Even with a hit, a pen, and a failed cover save, it is still only has a 33% chance to destroy a vehicle in a single hit.
The battlecannon is better at stripping hull points and is more reliable due to having more shots and ordnance.

Against infantry, most targets do not care whether you are ap 2 or ap3, and non of them care if you are str 8 or str 9.

Even against optimum targets like terminators or meganobz, the thermal cannon is not much further ahead than the battlecannon due to only having a single shot.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
The battlecannon is the better option.

A single melta hit against a vehicle, which does not ignore cover, is not worth 370 points. Even with a hit, a pen, and a failed cover save, it is still only has a 33% chance to destroy a vehicle in a single hit.
The battlecannon is better at stripping hull points and is more reliable due to having more shots and ordnance.

Against infantry, most targets do not care whether you are ap 2 or ap3, and non of them care if you are str 8 or str 9.

Even against optimum targets like terminators or meganobz, the thermal cannon is not much further ahead than the battlecannon due to only having a single shot.

That's a bad comparison. It's not a 370 point Melta versus a 187.5 point Battlecannon. Based on the Gallant and Crusader pricing, it's more like 55 point Melta vs a 30 point Battlecannon. And both are bad at stripping Hull Points. At least the TC can pop a vehicle, the RFBC can't even kill a Rhino. Yet, they both excel at different things, as does the AGC.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
The battlecannon is the better option.

A single melta hit against a vehicle, which does not ignore cover, is not worth 370 points. Even with a hit, a pen, and a failed cover save, it is still only has a 33% chance to destroy a vehicle in a single hit.
The battlecannon is better at stripping hull points and is more reliable due to having more shots and ordnance.

Against infantry, most targets do not care whether you are ap 2 or ap3, and non of them care if you are str 8 or str 9.

Even against optimum targets like terminators or meganobz, the thermal cannon is not much further ahead than the battlecannon due to only having a single shot.

That's a bad comparison. It's not a 370 point Melta versus a 187.5 point Battlecannon. Based on the Gallant and Crusader pricing, it's more like 55 point Melta vs a 30 point Battlecannon. And both are bad at stripping Hull Points. At least the TC can pop a vehicle, the RFBC can't even kill a Rhino. Yet, they both excel at different things, as does the AGC.

SJ

I have no idea where you are pulling these imaginary point values from, and the comparison is fine. 2 shots vs 1 is pretty simple.

The problem is, the thermal cannon doesn't excel at anything.

As for bringing rhinos into this, the thermal cannon only has a 25% chance of killing a rhino in a single shot. That is without any cover included. Awesome.

Over 2 turns the battlecannon is more reliable at getting the job done. (3.5 hull points of damage when compared to 2 hull points and a 50% explodes chance from the thermal cannon).

Now of course 2 turns to kill a rhino isn't great for any weapon, but I wish people would realise that the thermal cannon isn't much more likely to do it faster, and in many cases would take 3 turns to do the same thing.

RFBC and the gattling cannon are the way to go to maximize shooting potential with knights imo.

Edit: The thermal cannon values here are presuming the thermal cannon is in half range. Outside of 18 inches the RFBC is more favourable vs many mid AV value vehicles.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:


Even against optimum targets like terminators or meganobz, the thermal cannon is not much further ahead than the battlecannon due to only having a single shot.

SJ

The problem is, the thermal cannon doesn't excel at anything.

The Thermal Cannon does a LOT more damage against MegaNobz than the battlecannon. Even with 2 shots, it will do 3 times as much damage. Against TEQ or 2+ in cover, it will still do twice as much damage as the battlecannon.


It does something, the question is whether that something is worth it.

Each of the arm range weapons has its niche. TC kills TDA. The RFBC kills MEQ. The AGC is a great all-rounder. In addition, each one has its range bracket and synergy with the rest of the Knight, which can also be said for the carapace, hull, and melee weapons. To the OP, neither the TC nor the RFBC are "better", as the AGC trumps both in its ability to operate over a greater selection of targets.

Yes, a TC only has a 25% chance to pop a 3HP vehicle with one shot. The RFBC has a 0% chance. Neither can overwatch, neither can target Flyers. My preference is the TC over the RFBC in most applications, with the RFBC better on a Crusader than the TC due to synergy within the unit role.

SJ

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Each of the arm range weapons has its niche. TC kills TDA. The RFBC kills MEQ. The AGC is a great all-rounder. In addition, each one has its range bracket and synergy with the rest of the Knight, which can also be said for the carapace, hull, and melee weapons. To the OP, neither the TC nor the RFBC are "better", as the AGC trumps both in its ability to operate over a greater selection of targets.

Yes, a TC only has a 25% chance to pop a 3HP vehicle with one shot. The RFBC has a 0% chance. Neither can overwatch, neither can target Flyers. My preference is the TC over the RFBC in most applications, with the RFBC better on a Crusader than the TC due to synergy within the unit role.

SJ

I built my crusader with the TC because running it with melta gun in a fast adeptus Mechanicus war convocation list with fast dragoons, rust stalkers, infiltrators etc.

The knight moves up quick with them and supports them.

 Dalymiddleboro wrote:

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Each of the arm range weapons has its niche. TC kills TDA. The RFBC kills MEQ. The AGC is a great all-rounder. In addition, each one has its range bracket and synergy with the rest of the Knight, which can also be said for the carapace, hull, and melee weapons. To the OP, neither the TC nor the RFBC are "better", as the AGC trumps both in its ability to operate over a greater selection of targets.

Yes, a TC only has a 25% chance to pop a 3HP vehicle with one shot. The RFBC has a 0% chance. Neither can overwatch, neither can target Flyers. My preference is the TC over the RFBC in most applications, with the RFBC better on a Crusader than the TC due to synergy within the unit role.

SJ

I built my crusader with the TC because running it with melta gun in a fast adeptus Mechanicus war convocation list with fast dragoons, rust stalkers, infiltrators etc.

The knight moves up quick with them and supports them.

Please note where I said, "my preference".

SJ