From here: https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2017/05/10/newhammer-40000-weapons-part-2/#comments

Davis A Centis
May 10, 2017 7:27 am
Reply
#
Loving the Battle Cannon. Was a terrible weapon in 7th, and now is a terrifying weapon in 8th! I like that it’s okay against basic infantry, but shoots up in effectiveness against vehicles/monstrous creatures. I take it “Heavy D6” means that it shoots d6 times right, each rolling to hit separately, and not one shot that deals d6 hits, right?

Twin weapons are going to be scary. Combi-Weapons are even scarier! (Hello Combi-Flamer!)

Reecius
Reecius
May 10, 2017 7:29 am
Reply
#
Yes, you roll the number of shots (as in AoS) then to hit for each shot. It is properly powerful, as the Battle Cannon should be!

And yes, Combi-weapons are so good, now! Really fun to use.

 EnTyme wrote:

mrhappyface wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because d6 damage doesn't bleed over to other models like it does in AoS. Heavy 1 with d6 wounds can only kill a max of 1 model.

Quote from GW? I'm not questioning you just asking when they talked about wounds bleeding over.

That was confirmed on the Facebook page. Wounds are applied to one model at a time, so any overkill is lost.

I thought all they said was that wounds were to be applied to the most wounded model first before moving onto models with full wounds, am I missing all the important Facebook posts?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Battlecannon stats are pretty awful. D6 shots might work for something that was a 3" blast, but it doesn't work well for a 5" blast.

Point-for-point, one should take a Vendetta.

You've got the points costs for these units in 8th?

In my experience, after to-hit and scatter, with spaced models, I very seldom saw a large blast hit more than 3 or 4 infantry models at once. And they would still get a cover save... Battle cannons are different, sure, but not objectively worse than they were before. And that's with only going with the information we have so far, to say nothing of orders and upgrades and God only knows what else...

 mrhappyface wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

mrhappyface wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because d6 damage doesn't bleed over to other models like it does in AoS. Heavy 1 with d6 wounds can only kill a max of 1 model.

Quote from GW? I'm not questioning you just asking when they talked about wounds bleeding over.

That was confirmed on the Facebook page. Wounds are applied to one model at a time, so any overkill is lost.

I thought all they said was that wounds were to be applied to the most wounded model first before moving onto models with full wounds, am I missing all the important Facebook posts?

Yes. Apparently you are.

No, they don't spill over. If Trooper Jenkins takes 6 wounds, he dies real bad. He doesn't die so hard that 5 of his mates die from sympathy pains...

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Yes. Apparently you are.

No, they don't spill over. If Trooper Jenkins takes 6 wounds, he dies real bad. He doesn't die so hard that 5 of his mates die from sympathy pains...

I need to start using this 'social media' more.

I think people are looking at the 7th ed large blast scatters compared to an 8th ed D6 mechanic with the rosiest of rose-tinted glasses.

Sure at one time or another everyone over their life of 40k has hit a grouped up marine squad out in the open with a battlecannon(or equivalent) and effectively taken the unit off the table.

But there is a reason that Vindicators, Monoliths, LRBTs and Doomsday guns weren't highly prioritised weapons and remained on the shelf. Generally at most they'd take one wound off an monstrous creature, miss, flub against the AV or cover save of a vehicle, and even on a direct hit on an infantry squad they'd take 3+ or 4+ cover saves.

Now you have a high variance weapon that certainly can punch though saves to deal multiple damage against single model targets. Yes, Marines will get 4+ or 5+ saves against it, but Marines will almost always get *some* save this edition. The nature of AP has totally changed from all or nothing(and then you take a cover save) to almost always something. There is no longer big gulfs between 2+ and 3+ and 4+, and cover is always going to give a benefit to infantry regardless of whether its a Marine or a Guardsman. Conversely, heavy weaponry is always going to have some effect on saving throws, regardless of whether it's a Terminator or a Dire Avenger.

The Battle cannon seems to be in a much better place, especially if a Russ can add sponson and hull weaponry downrange on the same turn. It's still a bit swingy like the old ~2/3 chance to scatter off target, but 1/3 of the time you're rolling out a 5 or 6 shot weapon that wounds Marines (or Terminators or Nobs) on a 2+, an 8th ed rarity and has -2 armour shred which is no slouch either.

 Jambles wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The Battlecannon stats are pretty awful. D6 shots might work for something that was a 3" blast, but it doesn't work well for a 5" blast.

Point-for-point, one should take a Vendetta.

You've got the points costs for these units in 8th?

In my experience, after to-hit and scatter, with spaced models, I very seldom saw a large blast hit more than 3 or 4 infantry models at once. And they would still get a cover save... Battle cannons are different, sure, but not objectively worse than they were before. And that's with only going with the information we have so far, to say nothing of orders and upgrades and God only knows what else...

One reasonably assumes points will be broadly similar to what they are today (130 Vendetta / 150+ Russ).

Well-spaced models means that the shot guarantees to hit some of them. And not everything always gets cover in 7E.

Since it keeps coming up:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Since it keeps coming up:

Here's the trick.

You've got wounds - a wound is still a 0 or a 1. A model is wounded, or not. You can apply multiple wounds to a unit. each of these wounds is still saved individually.

You've got damage - how serious an unsaved wound is.

I fire a lascannon at you! Hit on 3, wound on 2. Ok, great. You failed your 6+ save. You now have 1 wound. Let's determine how much damage that one wound does to you. Roll a D6. Ok, 3. You took 3 damage from your 1 wound.

So simple to understand if you just differentiate between damage and wounds.

 docdoom77 wrote:
Since it keeps coming up:

The implications on that are troubling. It could mean that a model cannot take more than one Hit from the same Weapon. That sounds a little laborious to write, but would define Weapons by what they could do. Those Weapons that do multiple shots can hit many models, but most won't be more than one Wound. Those Weapons that can do multiple Wounds, generally won't be making many shots.

I think the rules are almost fine, except for you have to roll to see if every shot hits. It should be roll to hit, then roll to see how many models are hit, then apply wounds

 Charistoph wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Since it keeps coming up:

The implications on that are troubling. It could mean that a model cannot take more than one Hit from the same Weapon. That sounds a little laborious to write, but would define Weapons by what they could do. Those Weapons that do multiple shots can hit many models, but most won't be more than one Wound. Those Weapons that can do multiple Wounds, generally won't be making many shots.

What? A single model can get hit with the same weapon multiple times, if you fire a battle cannon at Robby G, you can hit him up to six times with the battle cannon if he doesn't have anyone to jump in the way of the blast. Anything else would be bizzaro

 Charistoph wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Since it keeps coming up:

The implications on that are troubling. It could mean that a model cannot take more than one Hit from the same Weapon. That sounds a little laborious to write, but would define Weapons by what they could do. Those Weapons that do multiple shots can hit many models, but most won't be more than one Wound. Those Weapons that can do multiple Wounds, generally won't be making many shots.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. A single model can certainly receive more than one hit from a single weapon. If you fire a Battle Cannon at a Dreadnought, it will fire d6 times at the dreadnought with each successful unsaved wound becoming d3 wounds.

If you fire it at a squad of marines, it will fire d6 times and each unsaved wound will remove a single model (no need to roll the d3, since marines have one wound each).

 TheLumberJack wrote:
I think the rules are almost fine, except for you have to roll to see if every shot hits. It should be roll to hit, then roll to see how many models are hit, then apply wounds

That was my first instinct too, but the inverse of that is that a BC (or similar weapon) is going to have a slightly flatter damage output (and flatter is better for planning) as you won't have the entire total of one turn's output hinging on one successful roll.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

mrhappyface wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
Because d6 damage doesn't bleed over to other models like it does in AoS. Heavy 1 with d6 wounds can only kill a max of 1 model.

Quote from GW? I'm not questioning you just asking when they talked about wounds bleeding over.

That was confirmed on the Facebook page. Wounds are applied to one model at a time, so any overkill is lost.

I thought all they said was that wounds were to be applied to the most wounded model first before moving onto models with full wounds, am I missing all the important Facebook posts?

Both are true. No more wound allocation shenanigans and wounds don't bleed over.

In the case of one wound models, or unwounded models, it will go with the AoS method of letting the defender pick which models get hit/killed.

 TheLumberJack wrote:
I think the rules are almost fine, except for you have to roll to see if every shot hits. It should be roll to hit, then roll to see how many models are hit, then apply wounds

That would be rather counter-productive, I think, and would definitely add more steps in to the system.

 Charistoph wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
I think the rules are almost fine, except for you have to roll to see if every shot hits. It should be roll to hit, then roll to see how many models are hit, then apply wounds

That would be rather counter-productive, I think, and would definitely add more steps in to the system.

...How would it add steps to the process?

Process as is:
1. Roll number of shots for each blast
2. Roll to-hit for each shot
3. Roll to-wound
4. Roll saves, if any
5. Roll damage

Process as suggested by TheLumberJack:
1. Roll to-hit for each blast
2. Roll number of hits
3. Roll to-wound
4. Roll saves, if any
5. Roll damage

If anything, it removes rolls (only ever roll a single to-hit roll, rather than 1d6 to-hit rolls) while maintaining the same number of steps.

 docdoom77 wrote:
Since it keeps coming up:

This makes the battle cannon complete trash. The hull mounted lascannon is a better anti tank weapon and the sponson mounted heavy bolters are better anti infantry weapons.

Ballasar wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Since it keeps coming up:

This makes the battle cannon complete trash. The hull mounted lascannon is a better anti tank weapon and the sponson mounted heavy bolters are better anti infantry weapons.

it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright, but it won't excell at eaither.

If the Battlecannon could choose between regular HE rounds and AT rounds, that might be good, compared to a gun that is basically an Autocannon that's only better against W2-W3 targets.

While a Leman Russ tank can only kill a max of 6 duders in a squad (then maybe more from Battleshock)

It can 1 shot another Leman Russ tank

(never mind)

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
I think the rules are almost fine, except for you have to roll to see if every shot hits. It should be roll to hit, then roll to see how many models are hit, then apply wounds

That would be rather counter-productive, I think, and would definitely add more steps in to the system.

...How would it add steps to the process?

Process as is:
1. Roll number of shots for each blast
2. Roll to-hit for each shot
3. Roll to-wound
4. Roll saves, if any
5. Roll damage

Process as suggested by TheLumberJack:
1. Roll to-hit for each blast
2. Roll number of hits
3. Roll to-wound
4. Roll saves, if any
5. Roll damage

If anything, it removes rolls (only ever roll a single to-hit roll, rather than 1d6 to-hit rolls) while maintaining the same number of steps.

Yeah that was the plan, to make it simpler and a more reliable infantry killer

Ugh, if "blast" weapons have to roll to hit now it's a massive and pointless nerf. You get D6 shots, for an average of 3.5, at a 4+ to hit (5+ if you moved), then we'll be generous and say it's a T4 target so you're still at a 2+ to wound instead of 3+ (as the new to-wound table will nerf it to in many situations). That's 1.45 wounds even if you're standing still, and your target is still probably getting a save. That's a definite reduction in firepower, with the potential for one poor roll on the shot count to completely ruin it. This would be much more reasonable if the former blast weapons auto-hit, and the D6 roll is to see how many hits you get instead of losing at least 50% of your shots to poor IG BS.

And yes, scatter rolls had a chance of missing entirely, but it was a bell curve of scatter distance where reasonable hits were far more likely than complete misses. Now getting 1 shot is just as likely as getting 6.

 Peregrine wrote:
And yes, scatter rolls had a chance of missing entirely, but it was a bell curve of scatter distance where reasonable hits were far more likely than complete misses. Now getting 1 shot is just as likely as getting 6.

But they already had a roll to hit.

You roll the scatter die, it hits 1-in-3 times, and for IG scatter was usually 2d6-3, which gives a reasonable range of 3-5" of scatter expected. 4" of scatter could easily throw the template off of a whole unit and cause a clean miss, hell, 3" could do that (or cause a measly clip on one model).

Random hits is not really any different, but now it doesn't need to perform the fuzzy logic when balancing things out take in to account whether your opponent owns a 2" tool or whether they're a complete burk that has bunched all their units so that one pie plate will erase them from the field.

Better still, with hits being rolled first, it actually creates a smoother probability that you will hit, rather than the previous system which hinged it all on a single roll with a high chance of failure. The scatter system they've been using has massively punished guard for a while, basically instituting a -1 to-hit mod on their blast weapons and making sure scatter seldom allowed shots to stay even a little on target after the fact.

So sure, there is some variance in the amount of shots you'll hit under the new system, but given how unreliable the things have been for years this is still a marked improvement. That one-in-a-million time you manage to wipe a full 10-man marine squad off the board is equally as ludicrous as a single BC shot dealing 18 wounds.

In return? The battle cannon now gains actual effectiveness against a great many units. It is a better anti-tank weapon now (in some cases better than a lascannon), it can deal with the (soon to be more common) multi-wound infantry we'll be seeing, and it can actually scare monstrous creatures now. So yeah, an Ork horde wont be shaking in their boots from a BC alone (but they may not enjoy the BC and three heavy bolters firing simultaneously at them), but considering that large footslogging horde lists have sucked for a while why is the BC countering them a high priority in place of dealing with small units with good defenses alongside beefier multi-wound vehicles and monsters.

The new battle cannon is a hell of a lot more reliable and useful than it has been in a long while and it works against a great deal more things than it did before. Sure, sometimes you roll 1 hit, just like (usually) you'd have your shot scatter an clip a unit (at best). But now firing the battle cannon doesn't preclude firing any other weapon, and it is quite a bit more useful at dealing with other vehicles and monstrous creatures. I fail to see how this thing was worse than it has been, seems like a marked improvement. If the Vindicator gets a similar bump I may actually put mine back in the field again.

BrianDavion wrote:

Ballasar wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Since it keeps coming up:

This makes the battle cannon complete trash. The hull mounted lascannon is a better anti tank weapon and the sponson mounted heavy bolters are better anti infantry weapons.

it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright, but it won't excell at eaither.

But it dose neither in a way to make it worth taking. Kills a max of 6 troops? That's a waste of points that could be spent on a real anti infantry weapon. Same for anti tank.

Whoo everybody has loota's now. : )

 Ronin_eX wrote:
You roll the scatter die, it hits 1-in-3 times, and for IG scatter was usually 2d6-3, which gives a reasonable range of 3-5" of scatter expected. 4" of scatter could easily throw the template off of a whole unit and cause a clean miss, hell, 3" could do that (or cause a measly clip on one model).

Except, again, the scatter roll is a bell curve where the middle is far more likely than the extremes. Add in the 1/3 chance of a direct hit and the 3" scatter reduction and you'd pretty consistently get at least 1-2 models under the template even if you didn't get it exactly where you wanted it, and complete misses were rare. Now you have the same chance of getting 1 shot as 6, and the 4+ (or worse!) to-hit roll reduces that even more. The average hit count is probably lower, and complete misses are now a lot more likely.

The scatter system they've been using has massively punished guard for a while, basically instituting a -1 to-hit mod on their blast weapons and making sure scatter seldom allowed shots to stay even a little on target after the fact.

Nope, it's the exact opposite. Blast templates are how we make up for our poor BS, and now 8th is going to make everything depend on those 4+ (or worse!) to-hit rolls.

Scatter also meant that while you could miss your target, you could have a chance at popping another nearby squad.

Having said that - Yes, the battlecannon does appear to be total trash, but once you remember that you're not snap-firing the hull and sponson mounted guns anymore then it's nowhere near as bad a package deal. The D3 wounds and D6 shots also mean that it's mildly threatening to MC's or vehicles too unlike 7th where you had no chance at doing anything to any of the good MC's and still had virtually no impact even on the bad ones. Not to mention we still don't know how many points it's going to be. Would you all still be complaining if a Russ was 10 points a model?

I do worry a bit for vengance weapon batteries, but then, mine have only ever made a single hit between the pair of them (and then failed to even glance the rhino!) in the 20+ games they've seen the field, so I doubt they can get any worse!

 Drasius wrote:
Scatter also meant that while you could miss your target, you could have a chance at popping another nearby squad.

Having said that - Yes, the battlecannon does appear to be total trash, but once you remember that you're not snap-firing the hull and sponson mounted guns anymore then it's nowhere near as bad a package deal. The D3 wounds and D6 shots also mean that it's mildly threatening to MC's or vehicles too unlike 7th where you had no chance at doing anything to any of the good MC's and still had virtually no impact even on the bad ones. Not to mention we still don't know how many points it's going to be. Would you all still be complaining if a Russ was 10 points a model?

I do worry a bit for vengance weapon batteries, but then, mine have only ever made a single hit between the pair of them (and then failed to even glance the rhino!) in the 20+ games they've seen the field, so I doubt they can get any worse!

I was thinking about price too. We are complaining but taking a battlecannon may be super cheap compared to the other options

Well I er uh....
Well done Gdubs, you managed to hype us up for an amazing reboot of the IG line....
And then kill our most iconic tank gun.
Thanks.

BrianDavion wrote:
it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright,

Where is this meme coming from?



How is that "alright"? How is this a "jack of all trades" weapon? "Jack of All Trades" implies that you're at least decent at everything. Unless the BC Russ is like 50 point it's awful at everything.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well I er uh....
Well done Gdubs, you managed to hype us up for an amazing reboot of the IG line....
And then kill our most iconic tank gun.
Thanks.

The Russ was already dead in 7th. You are just too stubborn to admit it and that's why you lose. I borrowed my friend's IG and won an ITC style game vs big bad ultramarines. My list had zero russes. Turns out wyverns and multilasers kill a lot of marines dead.

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well I er uh....
Well done Gdubs, you managed to hype us up for an amazing reboot of the IG line....
And then kill our most iconic tank gun.
Thanks.

The Russ was already dead in 7th. You are just too stubborn to admit it and that's why you lose. I borrowed my friend's IG and won an ITC style game vs big bad ultramarines. My list had zero russes.

lmao. Where does this randomly personal post come from?

I've told this particular poster about Russes in 7th at least five times. The battle cannon is terrible in 7th because of the ordinance rule and AV 14 is mostly terrible b/c of grav, etc. If the Russ can fire its other weapons with no penalty, the actual strength of the battlecannon is just gravy.

...Maybe my Fire Prism will give up its long, long streak of never actually hitting anything this edition?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright,

Where is this meme coming from?

Spoiler:

How is that "alright"? How is this a "jack of all trades" weapon? "Jack of All Trades" implies that you're at least decent at everything. Unless the BC Russ is like 50 point it's awful at everything.

This person gets it.

Currently a small blast covers an area of 7.07 inches squared whilst a large blast covers an area of 19.63 inches squared. The large blast covers almost 3 times as much area as the small blast. So unless small blasts are D2 rather than D3, it means large blasts have been nerfed compared to small blasts. If that is the case it needs to be represented properly in the points costing otherwise GW hasn't done any of its maths properly.

I was thinking 5" blasts were going to be d6+2 personally.

If they have done their maths properly, taking current size templates into account then the following number of shots should apply for each:
3" (just over 1/3 of the size of the area of a 5") = D2 shots
7" (almost exactly double the size of the area of a 5" at 38.48 inches squared) = 2D6 shots
10" (exactly four times the size of the area of a 5" at 78.54 inches squared) = 4d6 shots

Anything else and their maths is off.

Edit- Personally I would have gone for:
3" = D3 + 1
5" = D6 + 2
7" = 2D6 + 4
10" = 4D6 + 8 (this seems high until you note with a bs3 Deathstrike you are still only averaging 11 hits - even a Fellblade with 7" blast is only averaging 7 hits at bs4)
IF you have to roll to hit rather than just auto hitting.

Anything else is just way too weak without serious points reductions across every army for blast weapons.

I just ran 100,000 trials of a Leman Russ Battle Cannon attack against a target with a toughness between 5 and 7 and a save of 3+.

The results are not encouraging.

By percentage, the wounds distribution is as follows:


As you can see, 45% of the time, the tank fails to achieve anything at all. When it does manage to achieve something, it scores between 1 and 3 wounds.

Yeah, I'm not sure that min 2 max 4 hits really represents a small template. You'd rarely catch 4 guys with a small template unless your opponent didn't know how to play. Never mind that on 40mm bases you're talking 1-2 models max.

Yeah, you're adding in TH rolls for each, I get that, but that's not really the point, since blasts already had some kind of TH roll already. The point is you will, generally, hit more models or one model more times in 8th than was possible in 7th, barring ideal conditions that rarely ever occurred.

I'm not sure how anyone looks at the new rules and gets to "OMG so much suck!". NO offense ot anyone in the thread, I just don't get it.

I think people are also forgetting that the Russ can move and shoot that battlecannon with only a -1 if any neg

 Fenris-77 wrote:
I'm not sure how anyone looks at the new rules and gets to "OMG so much suck!". NO offense ot anyone in the thread, I just don't get it.

Take a look at the various tables that have been posted in here- they'll fill you in pretty adequately.

Models damaged now included.

In short, Battle Cannons are pretty bad now.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Fenris-77 wrote:
I'm not sure how anyone looks at the new rules and gets to "OMG so much suck!". NO offense ot anyone in the thread, I just don't get it.

Take a look at the various tables that have been posted in here- they'll fill you in pretty adequately.

Because bad mathhammer is something to live by in your game..


But the other factor missing here is Battleshock, if you cause 4 models with you battle cannon that is a 4 points towards additional Battleshock kills

 Fenris-77 wrote:
Yeah, I'm not sure that min 2 max 4 hits really represents a small template. You'd rarely catch 4 guys with a small template unless your opponent didn't know how to play. Never mind that on 40mm bases you're talking 1-2 models max.

Yeah, you're adding in TH rolls for each, I get that, but that's not really the point, since blasts already had some kind of TH roll already. The point is you will, generally, hit more models or one model more times in 8th than was possible in 7th, barring ideal conditions that rarely ever occurred.

I'm not sure how anyone looks at the new rules and gets to "OMG so much suck!". NO offense ot anyone in the thread, I just don't get it.

But it is not 2 min 4 max hits as you still have to roll to hit after that. So at Bs3 you are looking at 1.5 hits average and 2 hits at bs4. That puts it around what a small blast was in 7th anyway. That's why D3+1 for 3", D6+2 for 5", 2d6+4 for 7" and 4d6+8 for 10" equates quite well to how many they hit before.
Edit - Also no one is saying all the rules suck - they are saying the blast rules we have seen thus far suck.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright,

Where is this meme coming from?

Spoiler:

How is that "alright"? How is this a "jack of all trades" weapon? "Jack of All Trades" implies that you're at least decent at everything. Unless the BC Russ is like 50 point it's awful at everything.

I may just be tired, but all I see is a bunch of columns of numbers with nothing explanatory about them.

Can you translate what that table shows for those of us who aren't familiar with that particular program?

What are we using as a comparison to reach "decent at everything" levels? What bar does a weapon have to reach to meet it?

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright,

Where is this meme coming from?

Spoiler:

How is that "alright"? How is this a "jack of all trades" weapon? "Jack of All Trades" implies that you're at least decent at everything. Unless the BC Russ is like 50 point it's awful at everything.

I may just be tired, but all I see is a bunch of columns of numbers with nothing explanatory about them.

Can you translate what that table shows for those of us who aren't familiar with that particular program?

What are we using as a comparison to reach "decent at everything" levels? What bar does a weapon have to reach to meet it?

A quick look at this site: http://www.mathhammer40k.com/ will explain it all for you :-)

Yes, it is a lot more intelligible when the columns have labels, isn't it?

So what I'm seeing is that against almost any target, the Battlecannon inflicts on average between 1.67 and .87 unsaved wounds, depending on the target's toughness

So what is the threshold for "decency" for a single shot from a single weapon?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Fenris-77 wrote:
I'm not sure how anyone looks at the new rules and gets to "OMG so much suck!". NO offense ot anyone in the thread, I just don't get it.

Take a look at the various tables that have been posted in here- they'll fill you in pretty adequately.

I've been all over all the relevant threads, and done a bunch of my own math-hammering, thanks I'm firmly on the side on slightly flatter but significantly more reliable damage turn-to-turn, coupled with the ability to fire other weapons as well. Those two things combines make the LRBC significantly different in 8th

@poly ranger - I get your math, I really do. The difference that I'm pointing to is twofold. One, the top end damage done by small blasts could be mitigated by successful defensive positioning, and in that situation, you would very rarely be in a position to hit 4 guys. Your method makes it a moderately regular occurrence. Second, as I mentioned previously, small blasts were fething useless against 40mm bases for the most part, and you model also doesn't account for that at all (this also applies to all the other templates too, as the 8th Ed versions are universally better at dealing damage to stuff on 40mm bases). I'm really just suggesting that we need to be appropriately granular when we look at these things.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright,

Where is this meme coming from?

Spoiler:

How is that "alright"? How is this a "jack of all trades" weapon? "Jack of All Trades" implies that you're at least decent at everything. Unless the BC Russ is like 50 point it's awful at everything.

3.5 shots per attack, 50% of those are hits, 2+ to wound anything that's not a MC or a vehicle, -2 rend. I don't know if the board remember some of the work I did on AoS theory crafting but the best way to get Damage per round in a world of rend is to take all armor values and average them out.



So it ends up being about 1.17 kills per shot against 1 wound enemies. 2/3s that for two wound enemies (say, terminators).

So the question is does it function better than a heavy bolter:



The answer is it's almost twice as good as a heavy bolter at infantry killing. It's also better than an assault cannon. Unless we are getting into some really weird definitions I'm pretty sure being better than heavy bolters and assault cannons would make it a decent anti-infantry weapon. Against multiple wound heavy infantry, it's better than a twin linked heavy bolter. Also unlike the heavy bolter and assault cannon, it can very efficiently do anti-vehicle work. But don't let the math get in the way of a good rant.

 Fenris-77 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Fenris-77 wrote:
I'm not sure how anyone looks at the new rules and gets to "OMG so much suck!". NO offense ot anyone in the thread, I just don't get it.

Take a look at the various tables that have been posted in here- they'll fill you in pretty adequately.

I've been all over all the relevant threads, and done a bunch of my own math-hammering, thanks I'm firmly on the side on slightly flatter but significantly more reliable damage turn-to-turn, coupled with the ability to fire other weapons as well. Those two things combines make the LRBC significantly different in 8th

@poly ranger - I get your math, I really do. The difference that I'm pointing to is twofold. One, the top end damage done by small blasts could be mitigated by successful defensive positioning, and in that situation, you would very rarely be in a position to hit 4 guys. Your method makes it a moderately regular occurrence. Second, as I mentioned previously, small blasts were fething useless against 40mm bases for the most part, and you model also doesn't account for that at all (this also applies to all the other templates too, as the 8th Ed versions are universally better at dealing damage to stuff on 40mm bases). I'm really just suggesting that we need to be appropriately granular when we look at these things.

Thing is this is the model of gameplay that is going to be used. I've just suggested a change to some of the values that's all to bring it more in line with what you would expect from 7th. Small Blasts are the ones that sync slightly less well but they still sync way better than as just d3. Also 4 hits even at BS4 will only occur 6.58% of the time (1/3 * (2/3)^4) and at BS3 will only occur 2.08% (1/3 * (1/2)^4) of the time, so it's a very irregular occurrence.

GodDamUser wrote:
Because bad mathhammer is something to live by in your game..

Point out the issues you take with the mathhammer on display in this thread. Do you think the probabilities are inaccurate, or what?

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Yes, it is a lot more intelligible when the columns have labels, isn't it?

Not really. The numbers are pretty self-explanatory and the other commentators on it haven't had any issues.

So what I'm seeing is that against almost any target, the Battlecannon inflicts on average between 1.67 and .87 unsaved wounds.

So what is the threshold for "decency" for a single shot from a single weapon?

A 'gaunt costs ~5ppm and a marine costs ~13ppm, so the threshold revolves around how many points of damage you're inflicting relative to how many points your unit costs.

Your natural response may be that we don't know the points cost of the BC Russ yet, to which I'd respond that it doesn't really matter. While we don't know how much a BC Russ costs we can assume with a degree of certainty that a termagaunt isn't going to suddenly cost 10 times more in 8th edition. As such, the natural conclusion is that by shooting a squad of GEQ you're investing far more points into that shooting then what you're going to get out of it.

Okay, so GEQ maybe just isn't the appropriate target to shoot at. What about MEQ?

Well, a marine costs around 13ppm, so it's kind of the same situation. We can assume with a degree of certainty that space marines aren't going to suddenly become 50ppm, so if you're killing 13 points of marines with a battlecannon on average then the battlecannon would need to be around the 13 point mark for it to be cost-effective shooting. Is a stock Leman Russ with battlecannon going to cost like 50 points? I mean... maybe? I don't think it's very likely.

 Fenris-77 wrote:
I've been all over all the relevant threads, and done a bunch of my own math-hammering, thanks I'm firmly on the side on slightly flatter but significantly more reliable damage turn-to-turn, coupled with the ability to fire other weapons as well. Those two things combines make the LRBC significantly different in 8th

Comparing it to its 7th edition incarnation is a bit of a strawman. Yeah, the Leman Russ was crap in 7th edition. It potentially being better in 8th doesn't mean anything if it's still ultimately crap.

 Grimgold wrote:
Unless we are getting into some really weird definitions I'm pretty sure being better than heavy bolters and assault cannons would make it a decent anti-infantry weapon.

It doesn't, because the heavy bolter costs 10 points and the bolter costs even less then that.

I mean... I feel like that should be obvious my dude.

 Grimgold wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright,

Where is this meme coming from?

Spoiler:

How is that "alright"? How is this a "jack of all trades" weapon? "Jack of All Trades" implies that you're at least decent at everything. Unless the BC Russ is like 50 point it's awful at everything.

3.5 shots per attack, 50% of those are hits, 2+ to wound anything that's not a MC or a vehicle, -2 rend. I don't know if the board remember some of the work I did on AoS theory crafting but the best way to get Damage per round in a world of rend is to take all armor values and average them out.

Spoiler:

3.5 x (1/2 * 5/6) = 1.46 6+
3.5 x (1/2 * 5/6) = 1.46 5+
3.5 x (1/2 * 5/6 * 5/6) = 1.22 4+
3.5 x (1/2 * 5/6 * 2/3) = .96 3+
3.5 x (1/2 * 5/6 * 1/2) = .73 2+
avg = 1.17

So it ends up being about 1.17 kills per shot against 1 wound enemies. 2/3s that for two wound enemies (say, terminators).

So the question is does it function better than a heavy bolter:

Spoiler:

3 x (1/2 * 2/3) = 1 (6+)
3 x (1/2 * 2/3 * 5/6) = .83 (5+)
3 x (1/2 * 5/6 * 2/3) = .66 (4+)
3 x (1/2 * 5/6 * 1/2) = .5 (3+)
3 x (1/2 * 5/6 * 1/3) = .33 (2+)
average = .66

The answer is it's almost twice as good as a heavy bolter at infantry killing. It's also better than an assault cannon. Unless we are getting into some really weird definitions I'm pretty sure being better than heavy bolters and assault cannons would make it a decent anti-infantry weapon. Against multiple wound heavy infantry, it's better than a twin linked heavy bolter. Also unlike the heavy bolter and assault cannon, it can very efficiently do anti-vehicle work. But don't let the math get in the way of a good rant.

That's fair as long as the battle cannon isn't far far costlier than a heavy bolter, which it currently is. Also you would actually expect a blast that takes out the walls of a building to be killing more men than the shots from a heavy bolter. Finally it will be very easy to spam heavy bolters but not so much battle cannons. Battle cannons should be killing more infantry than a heavy bolter, just like they should kill more than an autogun (which is also anti-infantry first and foremost). That is expected.

 TheLumberJack wrote:
I think the rules are almost fine, except for you have to roll to see if every shot hits. It should be roll to hit, then roll to see how many models are hit, then apply wounds

Taking this idea in a vacuum (i.e. without bonuses TH and such) I just don't like it as much. You have a 50-50 chance of doing nothing every turn at BS3, whereas when you roll the number of shots and then to hit that 50-50 chance is only the worst 1/6th of your turns. Sure, you also limit the chances of hitting 6 times, but you'll get more reliable results in the middle range. That's more to my tastes for sure. It's a preference thing though, not an absolute argument about what's better.

 Fenris-77 wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
I think the rules are almost fine, except for you have to roll to see if every shot hits. It should be roll to hit, then roll to see how many models are hit, then apply wounds

Taking this idea in a vacuum (i.e. without bonuses TH and such) I just don't like it as much. You have a 50-50 chance of doing nothing every turn at BS3, whereas when you roll the number of shots and then to hit that 50-50 chance is only the worst 1/6th of your turns. Sure, you also limit the chances of hitting 6 times, but you'll get more reliable results in the middle range. That's more to my tastes for sure. It's a preference thing though, not an absolute argument about what's better.

Yeah I'm torn between what I like. On one hand you have the possibility of doing nothing but possibly more guaranteed hits. On the other hand you can have more chances to hit one target

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Considering that several rules are ported over from or inspired b Age of Sigmar, I can tell you that there are some "blast" AOE attacks in that game that work in different ways:

- Nominate a point on the battlefield as the target, and each unit takes an amount of hits or damage.

- If a shot misses its target, it has a chance to divert (or "scatter") its shot onto another target.

- If the enemy unit contains so many models, then the shot gets a bonus to the Hit, Wound, or Damage to represent higher casualties on a mass of bodies.

Not yet everything is released. Hold off on speculation and be glad that GW is including its customers's input in new releases.

Yes not everything is released. But battle cannon is. Those rules don't help much BATTLE CANNON since we know it's rules already.

I do feel your pain. I can see the appeal in just rolling a d6 hits on single targets every other turn. There's going to some games where that just rocks the pants off some armies.

 Jambles wrote:
In my experience, after to-hit and scatter, with spaced models, I very seldom saw a large blast hit more than 3 or 4 infantry models at once. And they would still get a cover save... Battle cannons are different, sure, but not objectively worse than they were before. And that's with only going with the information we have so far, to say nothing of orders and upgrades and God only knows what else...

So that would be over twice the hits and twice the casualties of the new battle cannon.

New one, even against terminators that unlike tac marines have 2 wounds so battle cannon gets help from d3 damage, kills only about 0.7 terminator in the open. Even less if they have cover. Woo!

Less than 1 tac, even less terminators(despite benefitting from d3 damage). Not even against dreadnought relative firepower has gone up at least significantly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
I think the rules are almost fine, except for you have to roll to see if every shot hits. It should be roll to hit, then roll to see how many models are hit, then apply wounds

You realize this would be worse for battle cannon? Same average result but swings would be worse. Result curve would go way swingier. Much more extreme results including 0 damage.

Okay if you like gambling sure but if average stays same I prefer more predictable result.

tneva82 wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
In my experience, after to-hit and scatter, with spaced models, I very seldom saw a large blast hit more than 3 or 4 infantry models at once. And they would still get a cover save... Battle cannons are different, sure, but not objectively worse than they were before. And that's with only going with the information we have so far, to say nothing of orders and upgrades and God only knows what else...

So that would be over twice the hits and twice the casualties of the new battle cannon.

New one, even against terminators that unlike tac marines have 2 wounds so battle cannon gets help from d3 damage, kills only about 0.7 terminator in the open. Even less if they have cover. Woo!

Less than 1 tac, even less terminators(despite benefitting from d3 damage). Not even against dreadnought relative firepower has gone up at least significantly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
I think the rules are almost fine, except for you have to roll to see if every shot hits. It should be roll to hit, then roll to see how many models are hit, then apply wounds

You realize this would be worse for battle cannon? Same average result but swings would be worse. Result curve would go way swingier. Much more extreme results including 0 damage.

Okay if you like gambling sure but if average stays same I prefer more predictable result.

one thing to consider is that this is "working as intended" 40k in 6th and t7h edition had gotten a little overly lethal. I think GWs moving to try and throttle that down a bit.

BrianDavion wrote:
it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright, but it won't excell at eaither.

Never seen main weapon that kills less than 1 infantry as "alright".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ronin_eX wrote:
[In return? The battle cannon now gains actual effectiveness against a great many units. It is a better anti-tank weapon now (in some cases better than a lascannon), it can deal with the (soon to be more common) multi-wound infantry we'll be seeing, and it can actually scare monstrous creatures now. So yeah, an Ork horde wont be shaking in their boots from a BC alone (but they may not enjoy the BC and three heavy bolters firing simultaneously at them), but considering that large footslogging horde lists have sucked for a while why is the BC countering them a high priority in place of dealing with small units with good defenses alongside beefier multi-wound vehicles and monsters.

It's not that much different vs say dreadnought than it was before. YEs it causes more damage but dreadnought more than doubled in wounds negatig that boost. As for multi wound infantry...Well terminators aren't particularly scared about it as even on open(nevermind cover) they lose less than a member. As it is EXTERMINATOR with it's twin linked autocannon is more dangerous than battle cannon vs terminators.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Drasius wrote:
Having said that - Yes, the battlecannon does appear to be total trash, but once you remember that you're not snap-firing the hull and sponson mounted guns anymore then it's nowhere near as bad a package deal. The D3 wounds and D6 shots also mean that it's mildly threatening to MC's or vehicles too unlike 7th where you had no chance at doing anything to any of the good MC's and still had virtually no impact even on the bad ones. Not to mention we still don't know how many points it's going to be. Would you all still be complaining if a Russ was 10 points a model?

This would be good point except russess have other alternatives that ALSO allow those sponsons and possess weapons that are actual threat.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Fenris-77 wrote:
Yeah, you're adding in TH rolls for each, I get that, but that's not really the point, since blasts already had some kind of TH roll already. The point is you will, generally, hit more models or one model more times in 8th than was possible in 7th, barring ideal conditions that rarely ever occurred.

Sorry but the 5" blast generally hit at least 2 models in 7th ed. 3-4 was more common. And if opponent spaces out while that cuts down max hits it means getting really low like 0-1 hits was less common.

2 hits is already better than 8th ed russ gets. 3 is almost double.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
I think people are also forgetting that the Russ can move and shoot that battlecannon with only a -1 if any neg

That's supposed to be good?

YES! I can move with -1! Oh wait before I didn't get ANY negative by moving! You cut down 33% of your efficiency which is already pretty abysmal. Less than 0.5 terminators! Yey! Barely over half a tactical marine! YEY!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

GodDamUser wrote:
But the other factor missing here is Battleshock, if you cause 4 models with you battle cannon that is a 4 points towards additional Battleshock kills

Right. That's obviously unique feature to the battle cannon not available to weapons that actually posses more threat with it's own shooting...wait except it's not unique to battle cannon! So there goes that defence.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Unless we are getting into some really weird definitions I'm pretty sure being better than heavy bolters and assault cannons would make it a decent anti-infantry weapon.

It doesn't, because the heavy bolter costs 10 points and the bolter costs even less then that.

I mean... I feel like that should be obvious my dude.

I feel like you aren't picking up what I'm putting down. First, it's just shy of two heavy bolters, Second, it also as effective as a Las cannon against high wound targets. How many points do you think that's worth? My personal thought is more than each weapon and less than the three weapons added together. So more than 20 less than 35, I love versatile so I'd say it's a 30 point gun as presented. In 7th ed a Leman Russ is 150 points with a battle cannon and a hull mounted heavy bolter, assuming the points don't change much, you are spending 110 points on the hull, 30 points on the battle cannon and 10 points for the hull mounted HB.Do any of those seem over or under priced to you?

tneva82 wrote:

GodDamUser wrote:
But the other factor missing here is Battleshock, if you cause 4 models with you battle cannon that is a 4 points towards additional Battleshock kills

Right. That's obviously unique feature to the battle cannon not available to weapons that actually posses more threat with it's own shooting...wait except it's not unique to battle cannon! So there goes that defence.

But also the other factor is that the Battlecannon meta is no longer a Anti-Troop weapon but more geared to shoot other Vechiles and MC's

With a full potential to do max 18wnds It can '1' shot most things (on best rolls), It does has a decent potential to put a good dint in a Dreadnaught

GodDamUser wrote:
But also the other factor is that the Battlecannon meta is no longer a Anti-Troop weapon but more geared to shoot other Vechiles and MC's

With a full potential to do max 18wnds It can '1' shot most things (on best rolls), It does has a decent potential to put a good dint in a Dreadnaught

It's also not that good against vehicles. Compared to 7th edition it's actully only about as good as before vs dreadnoughts for example. Yes more wounds in average but dread more than doubled in wounds so...7th ed BC was actually better vs dreadnought than this one.

Also if you want tank/MC buster just wait for vanquisher. I'm betting it will beat the crap out of battle cannon there. That's it's job.

GodDamUser wrote:I think people are also forgetting that the Russ can move and shoot that battlecannon with only a -1 if any neg

One other factor is all the other weapons that a Leman Russ carries. It has been stated in the second Weapon post that firing more than one Weapon will lead to a -1 on the To Hit roll as well.

Unless being a Vehicle or another internal Special Rule (ala Lumbering Behemoth) counters either or both of those things, a Leman Russ may as well be Snap Firing if moves and shoots more than one gun.

In the end we are not gonna know for sure until the rules are released

 Grimgold wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Unless we are getting into some really weird definitions I'm pretty sure being better than heavy bolters and assault cannons would make it a decent anti-infantry weapon.

It doesn't, because the heavy bolter costs 10 points and the bolter costs even less then that.

I mean... I feel like that should be obvious my dude.

I feel like you aren't picking up what I'm putting down. First, it's just shy of two heavy bolters, Second, it also as effective as a Las cannon against high wound targets. How many points do you think that's worth? My personal thought is more than each weapon and less than the three weapons added together. So more than 20 less than 35, I love versatile so I'd say it's a 30 point gun as presented. In 7th ed a Leman Russ is 150 points with a battle cannon and a hull mounted heavy bolter, assuming the points don't change much, you are spending 110 points on the hull, 30 points on the battle cannon and 10 points for the hull mounted HB.Do any of those seem over or under priced to you?

30 points sounds very fair, depending on the cost of the chassis as a whole.

Based off what we know so far, around 80 points would probably be the sweet spot. But even then that throws all the rest of Russ variants into whack. The Exterminator, for example, if it keeps it's two twin-linked autocannons will be putting out 8 strength 7 shots- statistically that is actually stronger against GEQ and MEQ then the battlecannon, while being only marginally weaker against MC's. Yet the Exterminator costs 20 points less.

Now that might not be the case in 8th. For all we know the Exterminator might actually be MORE expensive then the battlecannon Russ- or it might be downgraded to only a single TL autocannon (so 4 shots total in 8th), but either way you begin to see the dilemma.

I think it's fair to say the exterminator is going to see a price increase, it's looking like heavy 8, s7 ap -1.



1.77 which is just shy of three heavy bolters, and almost half again a battle cannon. We are not sure if it does a d3 or 1 damage, so, for now, we will error on the side of caution and say it does 1.

Against heavy vehicles:



So despite a huge volume of shots (8 vs the Battle cannons 3.5 average) the battle cannons str, AP, and damage make it the better tank hunter. So it's actually a pretty fair comparison between the 2, and these weapons should be peers in 8th.

This is because the exterminator got flat doubled in 8th, so I'm not sure it's a good comparison because in 7th ed the battle cannon was stronger than now (it straight ignored armor as opposed to made it less effective), and the exterminator was half as effective. Both of those seem to have been appropriately baked into their cost. Now I would expect to see the battle cannon and exterminator variants priced around the same, and the plasma variant to be the bargain configuration.

Except, the basic Russ should be the bargain configuration - it's the most heavily-produced, and figures most prominently in most armies.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Except, the basic Russ should be the bargain configuration - it's the most heavily-produced, and figures most prominently in most armies.

Neither being reason for being cheap.

Now main cannon sucking is better reason. Pretty funny though how weapons got reversed. Autocannon variant used to be cheap version that wasn't as good. Now autocannon version is much better while battle cannon is crap that has no real good role and the role it does is almost quaranteed to be done better by vanquisher so basically basic variant is poor man's vanquisher for when your points are too tight to upgrade to vanquisher.

Let me get up on a soapbox for a second, a lot of you are comparing the previews to 7th ed, and I have two words for you, Stop that. You will not be fighting 7th ed orks with your 8th ed space marines, the only valid comparisons are between 8th ed items. Comparing battle cannons to heavy bolters, las cannons, and some reasonable guesses of what other weapons will look like show that the battle cannon is not a bad weapon and is actually quite flexible.

The difference between the exterminator and the battle cannon is less than one additional model killed per round, far less. Let that sink, roll around in your head, and then realize the literal best gun we've seen for infantry killing will kill less than 2 MEQ per round on average. It's not that battle cannons suck for killing infantry it's that everything sucks for killing infantry and battle cannons are better at it than most. Templates were a crutch, a flamer would regularly do more damage than the shooting of a 10 man tac squad, this let 7th ed armies take small elite force with lots of templates to deal with the occasional horde army. No more, now in 8th ed if you want to kill infantry, you use infantry. Your opponent brings 120 ork boyz, your three leman Russes are not going to save you, you are going to need dudes with guns to handle that, getting all first rank second rank on their green asses. That is the new normal, vehicles suck at killing infantry, but infantry heavy weapons wreck vehicles and can fire on the move.

You want a name for this edition, call it infantry-hammer.

 Grimgold wrote:
Let me get up on a soapbox for a second, a lot of you are comparing the previews to 7th ed, and I have two words for you, Stop that. You will not be fighting 7th ed orks with your 8th ed space marines, the only valid comparisons are between 8th ed items. Comparing battle cannons to heavy bolters, las cannons, and some reasonable guesses of what other weapons will look like show that the battle cannon is not a bad weapon and is actually quite flexible.

The difference between the exterminator and the battle cannon is less than one additional model killed per round, far less. Let that sink, roll around in your head, and then realize the literal best gun we've seen for infantry killing will kill less than 2 MEQ per round on average. It's not that battle cannons suck for killing infantry it's that everything sucks for killing infantry and battle cannons are better at it than most. Templates were a crutch, a flamer would regularly do more damage than the shooting of a 10 man tac squad, this let 7th ed armies take small elite force with lots of templates to deal with the occasional horde army. No more, now in 8th ed if you want to kill infantry, you use infantry. Your opponent brings 120 ork boyz, your three leman Russes are not going to save you, you are going to need dudes with guns to handle that, getting all first rank second rank on their green asses. That is the new normal, vehicles suck at killing infantry, but infantry heavy weapons wreck vehicles and can fire on the move.

You want a name for this edition, call it infantry-hammer.

Actually HoardHammer is more likely. If your opponent brings 120 boys and you can only bring 30 infantry at the same points you basicly auto lose.

 Grimgold wrote:
Let me get up on a soapbox for a second, a lot of you are comparing the previews to 7th ed, and I have two words for you, Stop that. You will not be fighting 7th ed orks with your 8th ed space marines, the only valid comparisons are between 8th ed items. Comparing battle cannons to heavy bolters, las cannons, and some reasonable guesses of what other weapons will look like show that the battle cannon is not a bad weapon and is actually quite flexible.

It doesn't though. Heavy bolters and lascannons already outstrip it by virtue of being cheaper and easier to spam in armies. I mean our discussion about the LR being 80 points was a fun mental exercise but it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to buy a battlecannon LR at even close to the value of a lascannon/heavy bolter marine or veteran.

The difference between the exterminator and the battle cannon is less than one additional model killed per round, far less. Let that sink, roll around in your head, and then realize the literal best gun we've seen for infantry killing will kill less than 2 MEQ per round on average.

What? In what world is the Exterminator the "best gun we've seen for killing infantry?" The exterminator was utter garbage in 7th edition- it was just the king of garbage by virtue of competing against other Imperial Guard tank weapons.

That is the new normal, vehicles suck at killing infantry, but infantry heavy weapons wreck vehicles and can fire on the move.

Eh, doubtful. There were plenty of vehicles/MC's that were excellent at killing infantry in the past editions- the Guard just didn't have any of them. There's nothing we've seen thus far to indicate that things will be different this time around.

I don't really understand what your argument is though. Are you trying to assert that the majority of the vehicles in the game will have similar damage output to the battlecannon Russ? Like I understand your insistence that the stats we've seen for it aren't god-awful but I don't really understand how you're reaching that conclusion.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Models damaged now included.

In short, Battle Cannons are pretty bad now.

What are you using to model this?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I just ran 100,000 trials of a Leman Russ Battle Cannon attack against a target with a toughness between 5 and 7 and a save of 3+.

The results are not encouraging.

By percentage, the wounds distribution is as follows:


As you can see, 45% of the time, the tank fails to achieve anything at all. When it does manage to achieve something, it scores between 1 and 3 wounds.

Finally someone models this in a decent way. That mathhammer site is awful.

I disagree with your assessment, those results look very acceptable to me. 54% of the time we're doing some damage, ~28% of the time we're doing 3 or more wounds.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I just ran 100,000 trials of a Leman Russ Battle Cannon attack against a target with a toughness between 5 and 7 and a save of 3+.

The results are not encouraging.

By percentage, the wounds distribution is as follows:


As you can see, 45% of the time, the tank fails to achieve anything at all. When it does manage to achieve something, it scores between 1 and 3 wounds.

Finally someone models this in a decent way. That mathhammer site is awful.

I disagree with your assessment, those results look very acceptable to me. 54% of the time we're doing some damage, ~28% of the time we're doing 3 or more wounds.

That doesn't sound horrible. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect one single battle cannon to regularly take out a high priority target alone every round.

 Purifier wrote:


That doesn't sound horrible. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect one single battle cannon to regularly take out a high priority target alone every round.

Nah, your right. Who would ever expect a high calibre explosive round to ever be any good against anything like Infantry?

In all honesty this feels like a sick joke on GW's behalf and at our expense. They hype up how the Guard are finally coming back and then nerf the ever living gak out of our most iconic vehicle. Or maybe it is just another frantic attempt to shift the building pile of Ogryn/Bullgryn boxes and Rough Riders that no one wants on account of them being overpriced and gak.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:


Finally someone models this in a decent way. That mathhammer site is awful.

I disagree with your assessment, those results look very acceptable to me. 54% of the time we're doing some damage, ~28% of the time we're doing 3 or more wounds.

Which is a non-trivial improvement since at the moment a BC does nothing at all 55~% of the time (based on the generous assumption anything higher than a 6" scatter is a miss). The battle cannon, even with below average dice is actually going to *hit something* nearly every turn now. Folks who aren't familiar with running blast tanks won't appreciate the implications of this. Combined with meaningful sponsons, which are actually useful against marines now, the tricked out LR is something to at least consider, instead of oggling the Executioner or Punisher.

 malamis wrote:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:


Finally someone models this in a decent way. That mathhammer site is awful.

I disagree with your assessment, those results look very acceptable to me. 54% of the time we're doing some damage, ~28% of the time we're doing 3 or more wounds.

Which is a non-trivial improvement since at the moment a BC does nothing at all 55~% of the time (based on the generous assumption anything higher than a 6" scatter is a miss). The battle cannon, even with below average dice is actually going to *hit something* nearly every turn now. Folks who aren't familiar with running blast tanks won't appreciate the implications of this. Combined with meaningful sponsons, which are actually useful against marines now, the tricked out LR is something to at least consider, instead of oggling the Executioner or Punisher.

Dont know what you where playing but I can only think of about 4 games where my Battlecannon has failed to hit something thanks to scatter.

malamis wrote:
What are you using to model this?

Excel. My computer ran out of memory after 100000 trials. If I had a nicer computer, I could probably get to 1000000 trials.

Purifier wrote:

That doesn't sound horrible. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect one single battle cannon to regularly take out a high priority target alone every round.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

Finally someone models this in a decent way. That mathhammer site is awful.

I disagree with your assessment, those results look very acceptable to me. 54% of the time we're doing some damage, ~28% of the time we're doing 3 or more wounds.

As it is now, targeting a Carnifex equivalent, it manages to strip a wound 60% of the time. Targeting a MEQ or worse unit, it will also almost always get at least 1, and at least 3 35% of the time, with a higher potential for a lot more. Compare to the new stats in the second chart I posted, where it gets 3 models 5% of the time, and 2 models 15%.

It's performing roughly equivalently against Carnifex equivalent. Which is terrible now, and will still be terrible, moreso if the Carnifex and things like it get buffed. It's not worse than it is, but bad is still bad, and it effectively lost any means of effective being a threat to infantry.

 master of ordinance wrote:

 Purifier wrote:


That doesn't sound horrible. It wouldn't be reasonable to expect one single battle cannon to regularly take out a high priority target alone every round.

Nah, your right. Who would ever expect a high calibre explosive round to ever be any good against anything like Infantry?

I can't stand this line of reasoning. Don't bring in realism when the issue at hand is play balance. 40k isn't the place to try and reason what a high calibre round would or wouldn't do. You really don't see the problem with a single battle cannon deleting a unit every round? What if you buy 8 battle cannons so you can delete 8 units every round and you get first turn. Do you start to see the problem then?

I'm still saying your expectations are out of line. If you're expecting to fire a single MBT weapon and pick up an enemy line squad off the table, 8th isn't for you. This is the edition where line infantry aren't useless gak.

Purifier wrote:

I can't stand this line of reasoning. Don't bring in realism when the issue at hand is play balance. 40k isn't the place to try and reason what a high calibre round would or wouldn't do. You really don't see the problem with a single battle cannon deleting a unit every round? What if you buy 8 battle cannons so you can delete 8 units every round and you get first turn. Do you start to see the problem then?

This.

Delete this post

My question has been answered. Forgot to check beyond page 1 of thread.

Lascannon wound distribution, for those who are interested.



Also, Meltagun in Melta Range.

Also, bear in mind that we don't know all of the rules yet. A LRBT might be able to fire it's BC and 3 HBs at the same time. In which case, it would be good for killing infantry and pestering light vehicles.

But we don't know the rules yet, so everyone calm down, the sky isn't falling just yet.

If a battle cannon hits 3 terminators and causes one wound on each will you end up with 3 one wound terminators?

I think it is so interesting how all these discussions go...

someone looks at the stats and says "this thing sucks, I can prove it with math"

people say "it's not that bad and synergy and whatever"

the thing vanishes from any competetive lists and people who field it cry "it is so bad"...

and then everybody says "who could have known that?"

of course there are always those people who never ever played that unit and still claim that its not that bad...

P.S.: Someone said offensive capabilites of the Russ have been reduced to balance its increased defensive capabilities. But you can also prove with math that now it takes less Lascannon shots than before to destroy it. The offensive and defensive capabilites of a Russ have been reduced to about 65% (and there is now arguing about that, its math, and math does not lie). Also note that the offensive capabilities of a Land Raider went up 30-50%. A Land Raider still has a decent chance to kill a Russ in one turn, but even if the Russ is lucky it will probably strip only 3 hull points from the Land Raider (if you achieve more you should stop playing 40k and start winning the Lottery)

 jhnbrg wrote:
If a battle cannon hits 3 terminators and causes one wound on each will you end up with 3 one wound terminators?

1 dead, 1 wounded.

Other cases: wound rolls 3, 2, 1. That results in 2 dead and 1 damaged termie. The roll with 3 wounds kill 1 but doesn't spill over.

There's only 1 wouned model in a unit period.

UncleThomson wrote:

P.S.: Someone said offensive capabilites of the Russ have been reduced to balance its increased defensive capabilities. But you can also prove with math that now it takes less Lascannon shots than before to destroy it. The offensive and defensive capabilites of a Russ have been reduced to about 65% (and there is now arguing about that, its math, and math does not lie). Also note that the offensive capabilities of a Land Raider went up 30-50%. A Land Raider still has a decent chance to kill a Russ in one turn, but even if the Russ is lucky it will probably strip only 3 hull points from the Land Raider (if you achieve more you should stop playing 40k and start winning the Lottery)

And yet for all your "math does not lie" you don't post it. Afraid of the truth maybe or is the ass doing the research?

Lord Kragan wrote:


And yet for all your "math does not lie" you don't post it. Afraid of the truth maybe or is the ass doing the research?

uh... someone else posted his research all over the place...

7th edition, Lascannon vs Leman Russ front armor:

needs 5+ to strip a hull point (9+1d6 >= 14). Needs double 6 to blow it up. However, since you shoot several times, this may happen before it dies by the 9 hits you usually need. Basically you need 7.6 lascannon hits in the average to kill a Russ.

8th edition:

3+ to wound T8 with S8 (2/3) , 6+ Save (3+ -3 mod, 5/6 to pass) = 0.555... x d6 hull points (avg 3.5) = 1.944... hull pts per hit. Basically you need 6 to 7 Lascannon hits to kill a Russ


After running a simulation the result is:

7th Edition: Russ needs 8.2 hits in the average
8th Edition: Russ needs 7 hits in the average.

So its survivability vs Lascannons went down compared to 7th. Also it is now vulnerable to a huge chunk of weapons which could not harm it before.

If you care, here is the code of the simulation:

import java.util.Random; public class FourtyK { static final Random r = new Random(System.currentTimeMillis()); static int d6() { return r.nextInt(6) + 1; } public static void main(String[] args) { double avgDeath7th = 0; double avgDeath8th = 0; final int iterations = 1000000; for (int i = 0; i< iterations; i++) { int hp = 3; int turnsToDeath = 0; while (hp > 0) { int toPenetrate = d6(); if (toPenetrate >= 5) { hp--; if (toPenetrate == 6 && d6() == 6) { hp =0; } } turnsToDeath++; } avgDeath7th+=turnsToDeath; int wounds = 12; turnsToDeath = 0; while (wounds > 0) { int toWound = d6(); if (toWound >= 3) { if (d6() < 6) { wounds-=d6(); } } turnsToDeath++; } avgDeath8th+=turnsToDeath; } avgDeath7th/=iterations; avgDeath8th/=iterations; System.out.println("Avg death 7th: " + avgDeath7th ); System.out.println("Avg death 8th: " + avgDeath8th ); } }

The crappy performance of the battle cannon was posted several times on this thread.

Ballasar wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Let me get up on a soapbox for a second, a lot of you are comparing the previews to 7th ed, and I have two words for you, Stop that. You will not be fighting 7th ed orks with your 8th ed space marines, the only valid comparisons are between 8th ed items. Comparing battle cannons to heavy bolters, las cannons, and some reasonable guesses of what other weapons will look like show that the battle cannon is not a bad weapon and is actually quite flexible.

The difference between the exterminator and the battle cannon is less than one additional model killed per round, far less. Let that sink, roll around in your head, and then realize the literal best gun we've seen for infantry killing will kill less than 2 MEQ per round on average. It's not that battle cannons suck for killing infantry it's that everything sucks for killing infantry and battle cannons are better at it than most. Templates were a crutch, a flamer would regularly do more damage than the shooting of a 10 man tac squad, this let 7th ed armies take small elite force with lots of templates to deal with the occasional horde army. No more, now in 8th ed if you want to kill infantry, you use infantry. Your opponent brings 120 ork boyz, your three leman Russes are not going to save you, you are going to need dudes with guns to handle that, getting all first rank second rank on their green asses. That is the new normal, vehicles suck at killing infantry, but infantry heavy weapons wreck vehicles and can fire on the move.

You want a name for this edition, call it infantry-hammer.

Actually HoardHammer is more likely. If your opponent brings 120 boys and you can only bring 30 infantry at the same points you basicly auto lose.

couple things...

first we have no idea how much ork boys will cost. current numbers are 6 points per boy so 120 boys would run 720 points. if you are talking infantry vs infanty that is 51 space marines or 144 guardsman. I can tell you how that would currently go... ork player would lose if play skill is equal close to 100% of the time. (not saying tac marines are Op but that ork boys are so points inefficient it is laughable.)

second we have no idea what movement values will be. if those orks are only moving 4 or 5 inches then if shooting remained as powerful orks would still be the bottom of the bottom tier never making it into combat where they can actually so something (same place they have been for 2 editions doing the same thing bringing me to my next point...)

third horde armies have not been really viable for the past 2 editions. the reason for that is pretty simple everybody gets templates all over ripping anything outside a transport without a good armor save. I welcome the changes as I want to see more playstyles be viable making for more varied and fun games. 7th feels like paper, rock, scissors, and I choose to auto lose (horde). some lists can beat some things but everything beats a horde.

UncleThomson wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


And yet for all your "math does not lie" you don't post it. Afraid of the truth maybe or is the ass doing the research?

uh... someone else posted his research all over the place...

7th edition, Lascannon vs Leman Russ front armor:

needs 5+ to strip a hull point (9+1d6 >= 14). Needs double 6 to blow it up. However, since you shoot several times, this may happen before it dies by the 9 hits you usually need. Basically you need 7.6 lascannon hits in the average to kill a Russ.

8th edition:

3+ to wound T8 with S8 (2/3) , 6+ Save (3+ -3 mod, 5/6 to pass) = 0.555... x d6 hull points (avg 3.5) = 1.944... hull pts per hit. Basically you need 6 to 7 Lascannon hits to kill a Russ


After running a simulation the result is:

7th Edition: Russ needs 7.6 hits in the average
8th Edition: Russ needs 7 hits in the average.

So its survivability vs Lascannons went down compared to 7th. Also it is now vulnerable to a huge chunk of weapons which could not harm it before.

Yeah, no one had EVER attacked a Leman Russ' rear armour. If anything battletanks are more survivable against many weapons because they won't get shagged in their rears.

As for the lascannons. That's them actually being useful, not the russ being bad. And you not considering them attacking the sides for the lascannons either. In that case you'd need just 6 lascannon hits.

And everyone and their mother went for the sides/rear. Your model isn't really that valid because it assumes an irrational suposit that is the shooter going for a sub-optimal placement.

Lord Kragan wrote:


Yeah, no one had EVER attacked a Leman Russ' rear armour. If anything battletanks are more survivable against many weapons because they won't get shagged in their rears.

As for the lascannons. That's them actually being useful, not the russ being bad.

When someone gets to the rear of a Russ you did something terribly wrong - except in close combat where you hit it even if you're standing right in front of it - but if anybody gets into close combat with your Russ things are so bad it doesn't matter anyways.

Side armor is a different matter, and yes vs AV 13 las cannons are much better in 7th than vs AV 14, so I will admit it is tougher now if shots come from its sides (if vehicles don't get a penalty on toughness if attacked from the sides, but that is pure speculation right now).

And Lascannons where extremely useful in 7th. I never had problems with my Lascannons. They where good vs basically everything besides AV 14.
They still are good in 8th, and it seems that footslogging guardsmen may be a thing there. But Leman Russ tanks? I would almost bet that they won't see any action in any competive environment in 8th. There is still the chance that they get some special rules which will boost their performance - or their point value will be reduced to something in the ballpark of 5 or 6 marines. Then they will be interesting.

Hell, just for the sake of it, let's compare it to melta guns, another anti tank weapon.

Vs 7th edition russ.

Front side:

-Full range. 1/6 wound, no pens. 18 shots.

-Half range. 72,2% wounds. So give or take 4 hits.


Laterals:

-Full range. 1/3 wounds. 9 shots, though you may be lucky and blow it. Not counting on it though.

-Half range. 5/6 wounds. 3.6 hits.

Rear side:

-Full range. 5/6 wounds. 3.6 hits

-Half range. The land raider is dead in 3 hits.


It could as well blow up if there was a pen with just one shot.

Now vs 8th edition leman russ.

Wounds on 4s and doesn't have saves and suffers an average of 3.5 wounds per hit. On average, at full range that means you need 8 melta shots to ensure its demise while you may need like half a dozen shots to kill him.

ON ANY SIDE. Not just the front side.

And this is made better once you consider that a leman russ cannot be instantaneously killed.

Lord Kragan wrote:

Yeah, no one had EVER attacked a Leman Russ' rear armour. If anything battletanks are more survivable against many weapons because they won't get shagged in their rears.

As for the lascannons. That's them actually being useful, not the russ being bad. And you not considering them attacking the sides for the lascannons either. In that case you'd need just 6 lascannon hits.

And everyone and their mother went for the sides/rear. Your model isn't really that valid because it assumes an irrational suposit that is the shooter going for a sub-optimal placement.

Hahahahaha.... I don't think my tanks have taken a hit on their AV14 since the God-Emperor only knows when. It's the Optimized Stealth Cadre every day, all day.

Seriously. It's either Gauss Guns, that don't care which facing they're shooting, or the OSC, which ignores cover and always hits vehicles on their rear armour.

G00fySmiley wrote:
couple things...

first we have no idea how much ork boys will cost. current numbers are 6 points per boy so 120 boys would run 720 points. if you are talking infantry vs infanty that is 51 space marines or 144 guardsman. I can tell you how that would currently go... ork player would lose if play skill is equal close to 100% of the time. (not saying tac marines are Op but that ork boys are so points inefficient it is laughable.)

second we have no idea what movement values will be. if those orks are only moving 4 or 5 inches then if shooting remained as powerful orks would still be the bottom of the bottom tier never making it into combat where they can actually so something (same place they have been for 2 editions doing the same thing bringing me to my next point...)

third horde armies have not been really viable for the past 2 editions. the reason for that is pretty simple everybody gets templates all over ripping anything outside a transport without a good armor save. I welcome the changes as I want to see more playstyles be viable making for more varied and fun games. 7th feels like paper, rock, scissors, and I choose to auto lose (horde). some lists can beat some things but everything beats a horde.

I would disagree. Having a lot of guardsmen worked out fine for me. I brought a large number of Lascannons and a fair number of guys, supported by a Basilisk, Wyvern, and Manticore in that battery formation that lets them receive orders. Then I put all the guys and the artillery behind an Aegis Barricade, and shoot at the enemy. I also bring everything I can get to ensure I go first, so I get to shoot at them more.

Having served as an actual tank crewman in the army... tanks are not anti-infantry platforms. Main battle cannons are meant for taking out structures and other armor. Not infantry.

These changes are fine with me.

What I am hearing is the desire for a tank model to be really good at killing any type of target so that they are a must take instead of situationally being good at taking out some things making them a situational take.

If you're powergaming, then yeah tanks aren't going to give you 100% utility that you are searching for.

UncleThomson wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


Yeah, no one had EVER attacked a Leman Russ' rear armour. If anything battletanks are more survivable against many weapons because they won't get shagged in their rears.

As for the lascannons. That's them actually being useful, not the russ being bad.

When someone gets to the rear of a Russ you did something terribly wrong

Drop pods. Cult insurrection. Tau or any other faction deepstriking. Outflanking. Optimized stealth cadre.

Do I need to go on?

And as for the lascannons, that's why everyone and their mother took them for competitive, right?

UncleThomson wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


Yeah, no one had EVER attacked a Leman Russ' rear armour. If anything battletanks are more survivable against many weapons because they won't get shagged in their rears.

As for the lascannons. That's them actually being useful, not the russ being bad.

When someone gets to the rear of a Russ you did something terribly wrong - except in close combat where you hit it even if you're standing right in front of it - but if anybody gets into close combat with your Russ things are so bad it doesn't matter anyways.

Side armor is a different matter, and yes vs AV 13 las cannons are much better in 7th than vs AV 14, so I will admit it is tougher now if shots come from its sides (if vehicles don't get a penalty on toughness if attacked from the sides, but that is pure speculation right now).

And Lascannons where extremely useful in 7th. I never had problems with my Lascannons. They where good vs basically everything besides AV 14.
They still are good in 8th, and it seems that footslogging guardsmen may be a thing there. But Leman Russ tanks? I would almost bet that they won't see any action in any competive environment in 8th. There is still the chance that they get some special rules which will boost their performance - or their point value will be reduced to something in the ballpark of 5 or 6 marines. Then they will be interesting.

Lascannons were trash in 7th. Play some Tau or Eldar and tell me otherwise.

"When someone gets to the rear of a Russ you did something terribly wrong"

A Dante-led angel's wing with archangel demi company can deepstrike 2/3 of the list with zero scatter turn 1, and all can have melta weapons. GG Russes.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Hahahahaha.... I don't think my tanks have taken a hit on their AV14 since the God-Emperor only knows when. It's the Optimized Stealth Cadre every day, all day.

Well... Tau where cheating... and Eldar had D weapons.

We have no idea what they are doing now. Maybe Tau Weapons treat the Toughness of all vehicles as 2...

I am just looking on what we know, and that does not look nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:


Drop pods. Cult insurrection. Tau or any other faction deepstriking. Outflanking. Optimized stealth cadre.

Yeah the optimized stealth cadre is IMO silly. All the other things can't attack from off board, or get into unpassable terrain, or drop right on enemy models.

UncleThomson wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:


Hahahahaha.... I don't think my tanks have taken a hit on their AV14 since the God-Emperor only knows when. It's the Optimized Stealth Cadre every day, all day.

Well... Tau where cheating... and Eldar had D weapons.

We have no idea what they are doing now. Maybe Tau Weapons treat the Toughness of all vehicles as 2...

I am just looking on what we know, and that does not look nice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Kragan wrote:


Drop pods. Cult insurrection. Tau or any other faction deepstriking. Outflanking. Optimized stealth cadre.

Yeah the optimized stealth cadre is IMO silly. All the other things can't attack from off board, or get into unpassable terrain, or drop right on enemy models.

And at that moment you're operating outside a vacuum, and thus this math-hammering is pointless.

Lord Kragan wrote:

And at that moment you're operating outside a vacuum, and thus this math-hammering is pointless.

Well, that of course is true. I was just saying from what we know the Russ is worse than it has been before, and I agree we don't know much.
However, if there are some things we don't know which improve the durability of the Leman Russ tank, or things that boost the performance of its turret weapons, I think it wasn't wise to use just its toughness, save and wounds or the stats of the weapon to make an argument about how awesome it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S.: The numbers for Melta at short range:

vs front 7th: 3.137 hits
vs side 7th: 2.66

in 8th: 5.65

So yes, vs Melta its tougher, or Melta got worse

UncleThomson wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

And at that moment you're operating outside a vacuum, and thus this math-hammering is pointless.

Well, that of course is true. I was just saying from what we know the Russ is worse than it has been before, and I agree we don't know much.
However, if there are some things we don't know which improve the durability of the Leman Russ tank, or things that boost the performance of its turret weapons, I think it wasn't wise to use just its toughness, save and wounds or the stats of the weapon to make an argument about how awesome it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
P.S.: The numbers for Melta at short range:

vs front 7th: 3.137 hits
vs side 7th: 2.66

in 8th: 5.65

So yes, vs Melta its tougher, or Melta got worse

I didn't factor in explodes results in 7th, just for the sake of it, tbh.

I had a slight error. Here are the full numbers for Melta short and long and for Lascannon:

Melta long Range:
Avg turns to death vs Front 7th: 18.0
Avg turns to death vs Side 7th: 7.58
Avg turns to death vs Rear 11 7th: 2.63
Avg turns to death vs Rear 10 7th: 1.73

Avg turns to death 8th: 7.81

Melta short Range:
Avg turns to death vs Front 7th: 3.137324
Avg turns to death vs Side 7th: 2.66
Avg turns to death vs Rear 11 7th: 2.21
Avg turns to death vs Rear 10 7th: 2.13

Avg turns to death 8th: 6.28

Lascannon:
Avg turns to death vs Front 7th: 8.2
Avg turns to death vs Side 7th: 5.36
Avg turns to death vs Rear 11 7th: 3.14
Avg turns to death vs Rear 10 7th: 2.6

Avg turns to death 8th: 7.03

To be honest, they don't look bad.

P.S.: Biggest difference where it is worse is Melta to the front at long range by far. Lascannon to the front is worse, but not extremely worse. And I must admit I never ever saw someone firing melta at long range vs AV 14...

P.P.S: Battle cannon would be 7.65. But remember you have to figure in the ballistic skill in all of this. So a guard heavy weapons team without any boosts needs 14 turns to kill a russ, while a Devastator needs 10 turns, and a Russ needs 15.3 turns to kill an other russ just with its battle cannon.


P.P.P.S: And there we are back to point costs. A Russ with a lascannon will basically double its fire power vs vehicles, while one with a heavy bolter doubles it vs infantry. This could become interesting if they don't stick to its current 150 pts price tag.

 G00fySmiley wrote:


couple things...

first we have no idea how much ork boys will cost. current numbers are 6 points per boy so 120 boys would run 720 points. if you are talking infantry vs infanty that is 51 space marines or 144 guardsman. I can tell you how that would currently go... ork player would lose if play skill is equal close to 100% of the time. (not saying tac marines are Op but that ork boys are so points inefficient it is laughable.)

second we have no idea what movement values will be. if those orks are only moving 4 or 5 inches then if shooting remained as powerful orks would still be the bottom of the bottom tier never making it into combat where they can actually so something (same place they have been for 2 editions doing the same thing bringing me to my next point...)

third horde armies have not been really viable for the past 2 editions. the reason for that is pretty simple everybody gets templates all over ripping anything outside a transport without a good armor save. I welcome the changes as I want to see more playstyles be viable making for more varied and fun games. 7th feels like paper, rock, scissors, and I choose to auto lose (horde). some lists can beat some things but everything beats a horde.

A 7th ed marine kills 2/3 * 1/2 with a bolter per shot, so it takes 3 bolter shots to down an Ork, on board so far? 51 space marines shooting bolters is 17 dead orks per round. It will take the orks 2 rounds to get a charge which we will call 3 to reflect one of those is rapid fire. They will have 69 boyz when they hit the space marine lines, which with charge and pistol shots on the way in is more than enough to crump 51 marines. That's not counting transports, cover, or any possible smart moves on the orks part, so a literal worst case scenario. This never happened in 7th ed because of templates, heavy weapons, free transports for the marines, etc.

in 8th ed, it gets much more grim for the space marines, because the orks now get their t-shirt saves, and get to use their sluggas in CC as pistols. Worse All of the old standbys marines used to deal with hordes are gimped, flamers, missile launchers, demolisher cannons, whirlwind launchers, thunderfire cannons, etc. all do a fraction of their prior damage to hordes. You will have to plan for horde armies in 8th, it will no longer be an autowin.

Another consideration here: as far as we can tell, Crew Shaken/Stunned is no longer a thing in 8e. In 6/7e, a Russ with a blast-based gun getting shaken or stunned meant that gun couldn't even try to shoot (the sponsons and hull gun could at least fire some snap-peas that might do something on a lucky roll). So, while the 8e Russ might be easier to kill, it'll be at least somewhat useful right up until it dies, while the current one can be effectively neutralized by anything that can penetrate it (which is, admittedly, not much from the front, but more from the side and nigh unto everything from the rear).

 auticus wrote:
Having served as an actual tank crewman in the army... tanks are not anti-infantry platforms. Main battle cannons are meant for taking out structures and other armor. Not infantry.

Well my man, have I got some news for you!

The battlecannon... is terrible against other armor!

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Having served as an actual tank crewman in the army... tanks are not anti-infantry platforms. Main battle cannons are meant for taking out structures and other armor. Not infantry.

Well my man, have I got some news for you!

The battlecannon... is terrible against other armor!

No, it isn't, I swear I could throw up a gakky excel chart on this board with no axis labels claiming they sky was falling and that would create a run on umbrellas.

Las cannon vs Leman Russ
1/2 * 2/3 *5/6 * 3.5 = .97 damage per round

battle cannon vs. Leman Russ
1/2 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 3.5 * 2 = 1.17 damage per round

A battle cannon is better at hurting a Leman russ than a las cannon, and way better at hurting a dread than a las cannon. Seriously do the G-damn before you post, rather than parroting the mystery chart. we've had five pages of people quoting something that's as mathematically sound as north koreas rocket program.

 Grimgold wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Having served as an actual tank crewman in the army... tanks are not anti-infantry platforms. Main battle cannons are meant for taking out structures and other armor. Not infantry.

Well my man, have I got some news for you!

The battlecannon... is terrible against other armor!

No, it isn't, I swear I could throw up a gakky excel chart on this board with no axis labels claiming they sky was falling and that would create a run on umbrellas.

Las cannon vs Leman Russ
1/2 * 2/3 *5/6 * 3.5 = .97 damage per round

battle cannon vs. Leman Russ
1/2 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 3.5 * 2 = 1.17 damage per round

A battle cannon is better at hurting a Leman russ than a las cannon, and way better at hurting a dread than a las cannon. Seriously do the G-damn before you post, rather than parroting the mystery chart. we've had five pages of people quoting something that's as mathematically sound as north koreas rocket program.

At this point I'm just going to quote the posts I've made addressing this argument. It really isn't worth my time typing it over and over, just for you to quietly slip out of the thread without addressing it and then come back later repeating this tired line of thinking.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:
The numbers bear this out. It is a better anti-infantry weapon than a single heavy bolter (in fact, it's about twice as good). It is a better anti-vehicle weapon than the lascannon (which is actually pretty good this edition for anti-vehicle work). It hits its niche versus small units of multi-wound units with good saves (units likely to become much more common in 8th).

The numbers don't bear it out because you're failing to calculate points-per-wound. It may put out twice as many wounds as a heavy bolter but it isn't "twice as good" unless it's less than twice the cost, and the same is true for the lascannon comparison.

There is no way for you to spin the battlecannon as being "a jack of all trades" so long as it's averaging only one to two wounds on every unit type in the game. That isn't a jack-of-all-trades, that's being terrible at everything.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Let me get up on a soapbox for a second, a lot of you are comparing the previews to 7th ed, and I have two words for you, Stop that. You will not be fighting 7th ed orks with your 8th ed space marines, the only valid comparisons are between 8th ed items. Comparing battle cannons to heavy bolters, las cannons, and some reasonable guesses of what other weapons will look like show that the battle cannon is not a bad weapon and is actually quite flexible.

It doesn't though. Heavy bolters and lascannons already outstrip it by virtue of being cheaper and easier to spam in armies. I mean our discussion about the LR being 80 points was a fun mental exercise but it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to buy a battlecannon LR at even close to the value of a lascannon/heavy bolter marine or veteran.

As someone who got into 40K because of the Leman Russ Battle Tank, let me chime in...

tneva82 wrote:

Spoiler:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
Considering that several rules are ported over from or inspired b Age of Sigmar, I can tell you that there are some "blast" AOE attacks in that game that work in different ways:

- Nominate a point on the battlefield as the target, and each unit takes an amount of hits or damage.

- If a shot misses its target, it has a chance to divert (or "scatter") its shot onto another target.

- If the enemy unit contains so many models, then the shot gets a bonus to the Hit, Wound, or Damage to represent higher casualties on a mass of bodies.

Not yet everything is released. Hold off on speculation and be glad that GW is including its customers's input in new releases.

Yes not everything is released. But battle cannon is. Those rules don't help much BATTLE CANNON since we know it's rules already.

But we don't have the rules for the Leman Russ itself, do we? The Datasheet for the Leman Russ may include a special rule that gives it a bonus for firing its battle cannon at a large infantry, and a different bonus for shooting at a vehicle or monstrous creature.

 Afrodactyl wrote:
Also, bear in mind that we don't know all of the rules yet. A LRBT might be able to fire it's BC and 3 HBs at the same time. In which case, it would be good for killing infantry and pestering light vehicles.

But we don't know the rules yet, so everyone calm down, the sky isn't falling just yet.

By the Emperor, yes! Until GW releases more information through their teasers or the actual new books themselves, this is all speculation. Until we get the rules in their entirety, we won't know how everything works together.

Anyone seen the new Datasheet released that covers the Thousand Sons Rubric Marines unit? That has 3 special Abilities on the unit that we were not aware of existing beforehand, and special section about the Sorceror having a modified version of a standard Psychic power. There is more to come, and we don't know it all yet. Have we even seen how the rest of the army performs that may give it synergy? What if it gets a +1 to hit for each other Leman Russ in the squad? I might be rambling about what is to come, but so are many others with these 8th edition change threads.

 auticus wrote:
Having served as an actual tank crewman in the army... tanks are not anti-infantry platforms. Main battle cannons are meant for taking out structures and other armor. Not infantry.

These changes are fine with me.

What I am hearing is the desire for a tank model to be really good at killing any type of target so that they are a must take instead of situationally being good at taking out some things making them a situational take.

If you're powergaming, then yeah tanks aren't going to give you 100% utility that you are searching for.

Cool to hear that you actually served in the armed forces, didn't know that about you, Auticus.

Anyways, we can play with numbers and do math all day long to figure out "optimized" and "efficient for points" lists. But I will tell you exactly what I told some of the local players in my area: I don't care about that. What drew me into the game of 40K was aesthetics of the Leman Russ and Baneblade tanks. They and the other tanks of the Imperium are literally the reason I have invested so much time and money into this wonderful hobby. And I don't care about playing in tournaments or any sort of competitive environment. I have been immensely enjoying Age of Sigmar and its approach to the gaming aspects of Open, Narrative, and Matched Play options, which to me is AoS's biggest strength.

Knowing that every army has been completely re-written is the best part of this edition change. Sure, the Leman Russ might not kill very many models in a single volley, but it might not get blasted away for several turns itself. Based on that information alone gives me heart and courage to finish painting up my Guardsmen and tanks that have been sitting in storage for several years, waiting for a chance to play again.

So I ask of you, my fellow wargamers, try not to worry and speculate too much. Whatever happens will happen, and if we don't like it, we can communicate with GW directly about it now, and give them feedback on what is wrong or not based on our experiences.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
I think people are looking at the 7th ed large blast scatters compared to an 8th ed D6 mechanic with the rosiest of rose-tinted glasses.

Sure at one time or another everyone over their life of 40k has hit a grouped up marine squad out in the open with a battlecannon(or equivalent) and effectively taken the unit off the table.

But there is a reason that Vindicators, Monoliths, LRBTs and Doomsday guns weren't highly prioritised weapons and remained on the shelf. Generally at most they'd take one wound off an monstrous creature, miss, flub against the AV or cover save of a vehicle, and even on a direct hit on an infantry squad they'd take 3+ or 4+ cover saves.

Now you have a high variance weapon that certainly can punch though saves to deal multiple damage against single model targets. Yes, Marines will get 4+ or 5+ saves against it, but Marines will almost always get *some* save this edition. The nature of AP has totally changed from all or nothing(and then you take a cover save) to almost always something. There is no longer big gulfs between 2+ and 3+ and 4+, and cover is always going to give a benefit to infantry regardless of whether its a Marine or a Guardsman. Conversely, heavy weaponry is always going to have some effect on saving throws, regardless of whether it's a Terminator or a Dire Avenger.

The Battle cannon seems to be in a much better place, especially if a Russ can add sponson and hull weaponry downrange on the same turn. It's still a bit swingy like the old ~2/3 chance to scatter off target, but 1/3 of the time you're rolling out a 5 or 6 shot weapon that wounds Marines (or Terminators or Nobs) on a 2+, an 8th ed rarity and has -2 armour shred which is no slouch either.

Unless you have ignore cover earthshakers.....

I'm kinda miffed tbh, my earthshaker artillery carriages don't seem like that attractive an option now.

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
But I will tell you exactly what I told some of the local players in my area: I don't care about that.

. . .

Knowing that every army has been completely re-written is the best part of this edition change.

Why? If you don't care about the rules then what difference do the various editions make to you? It's a paradoxical statement to say "dude the rules don't matter lol it's just a game you play for fun" and then follow that up with "but I'm really excited that we're getting a rules change". If all you care about is the aesthetic then the Russ could be turned into a melee jet-pack infantry unit and it wouldn't matter to you so long as it still has the aesthetic of a cool tank, no?

So I ask of you, my fellow wargamers, try not to worry and speculate too much.

This is a discussion board centered around Warhammer 40,000. Why wouldn't we speculate and have in-depth discussions about Warhammer 40,000?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
But I will tell you exactly what I told some of the local players in my area: I don't care about that.

. . .

Knowing that every army has been completely re-written is the best part of this edition change.

Why? If you don't care about the rules then what difference do the various editions make to you? It's a paradoxical statement to say "dude the rules don't matter lol it's just a game you play for fun" and then follow that up with "but I'm really excited that we're getting a rules change". If all you care about is the aesthetic then the Russ could be turned into a melee jet-pack infantry unit and it wouldn't matter to you so long as it still has the aesthetic of a cool tank, no?

I don't care about the "mathhammer" and finding "optimized" and "points efficient" units, or the ultra-competitive nature of many players in my local area. This particular group of players had literally criticized me for bringing a less-than-optimal Space Marine list instead of one more optimized when playing at a casual tournament. I have no interest in playing the game the same way as them, and they keep trying to convince me and others that I should be playing their way, in with telling me "Oh, you need to buy these particular books, but it still isn't very points efficient." That type of gaming is not fun to me, even if I could afford all the models and books to stay competitive.

When I said I didn't care, it was in reference to metagaming and the ultra competitive playstyle that nearly drove me and several others from the hobby, not the rules of the game. The rules themselves are there to facilitate the game and give an abstract, yet understandable method for how a model will perform on the table. To use your example of the Leman Russ representing a unit of Jump Infantry, that is up to GW, though it would be silly and break my and others's suspension of disbelief and would likely have a negative effect on our experience.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
So I ask of you, my fellow wargamers, try not to worry and speculate too much.

This is a discussion board centered around Warhammer 40,000. Why wouldn't we speculate and have in-depth discussions about Warhammer 40,000?

My apologies for not being a bit more clear on this one. Speculating and theorizing is not my problem, but I am tired of seeing negativity in any forum or Facebook group related to 40K. I have seen too many flaming posts and rants and fear-mongering about what the changes might be to 40K once 8th edition hits. I am super excited for the changes coming, and glad to see things getting the complete, all at once overhaul that it was needing, and I am tired of the hate vitriol being spewed forth from others. I was pleading with someone, but maybe not anyone on this thread. I am having some serious familial issues in real life at the moment, and it is so emotionally draining that it is becoming hard to concentrate on anything.



ANYWAYS... On the topic of how blasts now work, I am okay with it. I will kinda miss having the templates themselves to measure out what gets hit or not, but a simplified mechanic that doesn't require having more items to carry and possibly lose during games is going to be nice to try out. Plus it removes the potential for shenanigans of trying to fit in more models under the blast, directionality of the attack, centering the blast over a model, or someone not being honest with how they move the template when it scatters.

Sounds like the stats for BCannons just changed too much for some.

The gun functions differently now, and it being such an iconic weapon on such an iconic unit, there's a decent amount of consternation as a result. There's an expectation in the minds of some that the Battle Cannon was something it's not anymore, and in my opinion maybe never was. They want a large blast template to put over the battlefield, smash a big hole in a large unit, kill lots of models with their big blasty tank gun. Now that it's basically been changed to be a run-of-the-mill tank-mounted cannon that's made for shooting at beefy targets and has less of a big, visual boom, the feels are flying.

 Jambles wrote:
Sounds like the stats for BCannons just changed too much for some. The gun functions differently now, and it being such an iconic weapon on such an iconic unit, there's a decent amount of consternation as a result. There's an expectation in the minds of some that the Battle Cannon was something it's not anymore, and in my opinion maybe never was. They want a large blast template to put over the battlefield, smash a big hole in a large unit, kill lots of models with their big blasty tank gun. Now that it's basically been changed to be a run-of-the-mill tank-mounted cannon that's made for shooting at beefy targets and has less of a big, visual boom, the feels are flying.

Being points-inefficient and weak against all targets is "run of the mill"?

So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

 BunkhouseBuster wrote:
I don't care about the "mathhammer" and finding "optimized" and "points efficient" units, or the ultra-competitive nature of many players in my local area. This particular group of players had literally criticized me for bringing a less-than-optimal Space Marine list instead of one more optimized when playing at a casual tournament. I have no interest in playing the game the same way as them, and they keep trying to convince me and others that I should be playing their way, in with telling me "Oh, you need to buy these particular books, but it still isn't very points efficient." That type of gaming is not fun to me, even if I could afford all the models and books to stay competitive.

When I said I didn't care, it was in reference to metagaming and the ultra competitive playstyle that nearly drove me and several others from the hobby, not the rules of the game. The rules themselves are there to facilitate the game and give an abstract, yet understandable method for how a model will perform on the table. To use your example of the Leman Russ representing a unit of Jump Infantry, that is up to GW, though it would be silly and break my and others's suspension of disbelief and would likely have a negative effect on our experience.

Uhhhh, well I'm sorry if WAAC players ruined your gaming experience. Few people like WAAC behavior.

I haven't noticed any WAAC behavior in this thread, though. Being a competitive player doesn't make you WAAC and wanting the rules to properly represent the unit's described capabilities doesn't make you WAAC either.

My apologies for not being a bit more clear on this one. Speculating and theorizing is not my problem, but I am tired of seeing negativity in any forum or Facebook group related to 40K. I have seen too many flaming posts and rants and fear-mongering about what the changes might be to 40K once 8th edition hits. I am super excited for the changes coming, and glad to see things getting the complete, all at once overhaul that it was needing, and I am tired of the hate vitriol being spewed forth from others. I was pleading with someone, but maybe not anyone on this thread. I am having some serious familial issues in real life at the moment, and it is so emotionally draining that it is becoming hard to concentrate on anything.

I'm sorry to hear that m8. If it'd make you feel better, you could always make a "what are you excited about/what do you like about 8th edition" thread, if there isn't one already. You'll probably find a lot of like-minded people in such a thread.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

Well, the durability isn't I think much of an issue. It may be AV12 equivalent in toughness, but it getting a save and no longer having exploitable rear/side arcs gives it a much needed buff. If camo-netting still exists then it has a de facto 2+ armor save- even against melta guns you're still getting like a 6+. It's basically four times as durable as the current Riptide.

The firepower is what I'm worried about. All Leman Russ have had god awful firepower for multiple editions, and that's really been the deciding factor on why no one wants to take them, rather then the durability. If the Russ is tough that's nice, but nobody wants to pay hundreds of points for unkillable boxes that can only just sit there and plink away at things...

There needs to be something that makes your opponent want to shoot at them, otherwise they're pointless.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

Yeah, it's getting a buff in 8th ed. The fact that you don't understand doesn't change that.

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

Apparently being able to tank twice the melta guns is a nerf, or needing more lascannon shots on the sides and rear. Or not getting annhilated in a combat phase the moment they get to meelee. Or not actually being wounded by a grot since he, most likely would need 30+`compatriots to even come close. Or being able to fire the side-weapons normally (as opposed to 6s all day!) and quite possibly a price reduction. Getting a GOOD save (because, let's remember only a 2+ could beat what it has) is also terrible.

But well, comming from you I didn't expect any meaningulf conversation beyond the usual: we are slapped down again, this is bad.

Firing all weapons with split fire with no chance of getting exploded or self immobilized is amazing.

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

Yeah, it's getting a buff in 8th ed. The fact that you don't understand doesn't change that.

How is it being buffed? It is losing armour, losing firepower fro its main cannon and can be smacked by basic infantry from all round? Is that really a buff?

I thought the battle cannon was kind of an all around gun. Sorta high strength, low-ish AP, blast. Doesn't the Russ have a bunch of weapon options for more specialized tactics? Maybe if you want something good for heavy armor you would want to take the Vanquisher. There might be a reason to take the other weapons now. Maybe they'll make the Eradicator better suited to take out large hordes of infantry.


edit: Please stop saying grots can hurt things. I play with grots, they do gak all die when you look at them. I barely kill Space Marines with them. They won't touch leman russes.

It's not losing armor. It's gaining armor that matters and losing armor that doesn't. Do you play against anyone who is any good? AV is usually meaningless in 7th ed. The cannon is much better vs mcs and weaker vs clumped infantry. And it can hurt 2+ armor now.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

Apparently being able to tank twice the melta guns is a nerf, or needing more lascannon shots on the sides and rear. Or not getting annhilated in a combat phase the moment they get to meelee. Or not actually being wounded by a grot since he, most likely would need 30+`compatriots to even come close. Or being able to fire the side-weapons normally (as opposed to 6s all day!) and quite possibly a price reduction. Getting a GOOD save (because, let's remember only a 2+ could beat what it has) is also terrible.

But well, comming from you I didn't expect any meaningulf conversation beyond the usual: we are slapped down again, this is bad.

Oh its okay, I am really sorry that I do not buy into the ZOMG GW! circle jerk when I see my army being handed a mixed bag once again. Of course I may be wrong but from my position becoming AV12 AND vulnerabe to every single weapon on the board whilst losing firepower on the main gun is a big thing.
Sure, splitfiring is good and do not get me wrong, it has been needed for ages now, but GW is looking dangerously close to putting out a fire by pouring fuel onto it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
It's not losing armor. It's gaining armor that matters and losing armor that doesn't. Do you play against anyone who is any good? AV is usually meaningless in 7th ed.

It used to be immune to small arms fire on three out of four sides, now it isnt?

There is no av 12 in 8th. Just stop with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
No one is going to kill your russ with small arms in 8th. Do the math.

Also small arms are mostly crap in 7th. Grav and d weapons make your armor moot.

Well, even needing '6's to wound, enough shooting will hurt a big thing.
Perhaps it is just my history buff side, or my treadhead side coming out, but seeing tanks damaged by small arms fire just hurts me somwhere deep.

 master of ordinance wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
So, from what I can gather so far, the Leman Russ is now AV12 equivalent all round with a debatable save, a vast nerf to its main guns firepower, and a bloat in "wounds" that does not actually mean anything because now even a grot can hurt it, and dedicated heavy weapons will tear it a new one thanks to multiple wounds and save modifiers....
But some people are delusional to see this as a buff?

Apparently being able to tank twice the melta guns is a nerf, or needing more lascannon shots on the sides and rear. Or not getting annhilated in a combat phase the moment they get to meelee. Or not actually being wounded by a grot since he, most likely would need 30+`compatriots to even come close. Or being able to fire the side-weapons normally (as opposed to 6s all day!) and quite possibly a price reduction. Getting a GOOD save (because, let's remember only a 2+ could beat what it has) is also terrible.

But well, comming from you I didn't expect any meaningulf conversation beyond the usual: we are slapped down again, this is bad.

Oh its okay, I am really sorry that I do not buy into the ZOMG GW! circle jerk when I see my army being handed a mixed bag once again. Of course I may be wrong but from my position becoming AV12 AND vulnerabe to every single weapon on the board whilst losing firepower on the main gun is a big thing.
Sure, splitfiring is good and do not get me wrong, it has been needed for ages now, but GW is looking dangerously close to putting out a fire by pouring fuel onto it.

I understand the immediate reaction, but once you delve into the math of it all, you'd actually be overjoyed if your opponent was focus firing wound-on-6s fire on your tanks. Consider the following:

1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

2. Infantry units don't have a really long range. Anything in range to shoot at your tanks has moved a considerable amount of distance or exposed itself to the brunt of your gunlines.

3. While tanks are vulnerable to every weapon, all in all, they're less vulnerable to the weapons that killed them easily in 7th edition. Meltaguns, for instance, won't have an effective 1in3 chance to flat out explodes a vehicle. Additionally, the vehicle damage table is gone - in addition to survivability increase from this, you also get the benefit of usability. No more shaken, stunned, etc.

4. Ditching blasts means your tanks can hunt 1 big model if you want. You could, potentially, deliver 18 wounds to 1 nasty creature with 1 Leman Russ. Suddenly the Tau aren't auto-winning against your tanks and you can respond to Riptides with some measure of force.

Truthfully, when looking at the numbers, tanks are most vulnerable to assault. When it comes to shooting, they're fairly durable.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well, even needing '6's to wound, enough shooting will hurt a big thing.
Perhaps it is just my history buff side, or my treadhead side coming out, but seeing tanks damaged by small arms fire just hurts me somwhere deep.

No one is going to be able to spare those shots vs guard. I predict their infantry is brutal in 8th.

I hope so too. As I said I will wait to see before passing final judgement, but I dont have my hopes up.

Martel732 wrote: No one is going to kill your russ with small arms in 8th. Do the math.

Just like Grots won't kill a Terminator unit?

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

Marmatag wrote:2. Infantry units don't have a really long range. Anything in range to shoot at your tanks has moved a considerable amount of distance or exposed itself to the brunt of your gunlines.

It depends on how you define really long range. Sure, Grots don't right now, but those Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas do have some range. And if they are sitting in cover with that long range, then they still have cover without being as exposed.

Really, this line is no more relevant in 8th than it is in 7th, 6th, or 5th.

Marmatag wrote:3. While tanks are vulnerable to every weapon, all in all, they're less vulnerable to the weapons that killed them easily in 7th edition. Meltaguns, for instance, won't have an effective 1in3 chance to flat out explodes a vehicle. Additionally, the vehicle damage table is gone - in addition to survivability increase from this, you also get the benefit of usability. No more shaken, stunned, etc.

An assumption based on null data. In fact, they have mentioned that there are ways to instant-kill tanks still, I believe.

Marmatag wrote:4. Ditching blasts means your tanks can hunt 1 big model if you want. You could, potentially, deliver 18 wounds to 1 nasty creature with 1 Leman Russ. Suddenly the Tau aren't auto-winning against your tanks and you can respond to Riptides with some measure of force.

Tau are one of those forces which rely on big long range guns that you mentioned do not exist in point 2. A Leman Russ is just as likely to survive a Riptide's opening salvo in 8th and it is in 7th. This is especially an agregious point as we don't know the Riptide's Weapon capabilities or the special rules that either unit will be employing.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
Sounds like the stats for BCannons just changed too much for some. The gun functions differently now, and it being such an iconic weapon on such an iconic unit, there's a decent amount of consternation as a result. There's an expectation in the minds of some that the Battle Cannon was something it's not anymore, and in my opinion maybe never was. They want a large blast template to put over the battlefield, smash a big hole in a large unit, kill lots of models with their big blasty tank gun. Now that it's basically been changed to be a run-of-the-mill tank-mounted cannon that's made for shooting at beefy targets and has less of a big, visual boom, the feels are flying.

Being points-inefficient and weak against all targets is "run of the mill"?

You have no idea how much a battle cannon costs in 8th ed. so any argument where you call them points inefficient is literally just making stuff up. It's also not weak compared with other 8th ed weapons (the only valid comparison frame), it's better than a las cannon at anti-vehicle work and as good as two heavy bolters at anti-infantry work. That sounds like a flexible weapon, and if it's priced appropriately (which we still don't know) it will be a real asset to the IG.

 master of ordinance wrote:
losing firepower on the main gun is a big thing.

Your main gun is now a big monster/tank/small elite units hunter, that is not a loss of fire power it's a change of target priority. If you want to blast infantry again I am sure the punisher will step up and do remember this is the base Russ model i.e. the cheapest, so the gun shouldn't be able to auto kill everything.

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote: No one is going to kill your russ with small arms in 8th. Do the math.

Just like Grots won't kill a Terminator unit?

What are you suggesting? Be explicit.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:2. Infantry units don't have a really long range. Anything in range to shoot at your tanks has moved a considerable amount of distance or exposed itself to the brunt of your gunlines.

It depends on how you define really long range. Sure, Grots don't right now, but those Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas do have some range. And if they are sitting in cover with that long range, then they still have cover without being as exposed.

And that's the point, again, anti-tank weapons can actually be used against tanks. But his complaint was largely about small arms fire. Can you make a credible argument that anti-tank weaponry should not hurt or be threatening to tanks? I've already shared the math that 4 lascannon devastators have roughly a 7% chance to kill a Russ in 1 round of shooting. But i'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:3. While tanks are vulnerable to every weapon, all in all, they're less vulnerable to the weapons that killed them easily in 7th edition. Meltaguns, for instance, won't have an effective 1in3 chance to flat out explodes a vehicle. Additionally, the vehicle damage table is gone - in addition to survivability increase from this, you also get the benefit of usability. No more shaken, stunned, etc.

An assumption based on null data. In fact, they have mentioned that there are ways to instant-kill tanks still, I believe.

If they've mentioned it, find the source. Share it. I would imagine characters like Saint Celestine, or Magnus the Red, or Roboute Guilliman could 1 shot a tank. Saying tanks are less vulnerable to being 1 shot by meltaguns is absolutely not an assumption based on null data. You are making an assumption based on null data, actually.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:4. Ditching blasts means your tanks can hunt 1 big model if you want. You could, potentially, deliver 18 wounds to 1 nasty creature with 1 Leman Russ. Suddenly the Tau aren't auto-winning against your tanks and you can respond to Riptides with some measure of force.

Tau are one of those forces which rely on big long range guns that you mentioned do not exist in point 2. A Leman Russ is just as likely to survive a Riptide's opening salvo in 8th and it is in 7th. This is especially an agregious point as we don't know the Riptide's Weapon capabilities or the special rules that either unit will be employing.

On the one hand you mention a very specific probabilistic outcome, and in the next you say you don't know what the Riptide's weapon capabilities are. So, i'll just say i disagree until you prove this claim.

We are assuming the Leman Russ hits on a 4, but remember ballistic skill is different in this edition. Perhaps the Leman Russ has its own to hit profile of 3+. But even then, the battlecannon would still be nerfed beyond usability. Unless vanilla Russes cost 70 points (I am serious), they are not usable based on the rules we have been given.

In all seriousness, the Battle cannon would have to be D6+1 auto hits before I would even consider it being mediocre based on the rules we have been given.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
Sounds like the stats for BCannons just changed too much for some. The gun functions differently now, and it being such an iconic weapon on such an iconic unit, there's a decent amount of consternation as a result. There's an expectation in the minds of some that the Battle Cannon was something it's not anymore, and in my opinion maybe never was. They want a large blast template to put over the battlefield, smash a big hole in a large unit, kill lots of models with their big blasty tank gun. Now that it's basically been changed to be a run-of-the-mill tank-mounted cannon that's made for shooting at beefy targets and has less of a big, visual boom, the feels are flying.

Being points-inefficient and weak against all targets is "run of the mill"?

Dog you're speculating, and extrapolating, and you're doing it with feels.

How could you POSSIBLY say it's points inefficient, without knowing how many points it - or anything else in the game - costs?

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote: No one is going to kill your russ with small arms in 8th. Do the math.

Just like Grots won't kill a Terminator unit?

What are you suggesting? Be explicit.

I am suggesting that I can get a lot of Grots in range of a Terminator unit or a Leman Russ and by sheer numbers cause the Leman Russ to die with pistol-toting goblins.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

You want me to be explicit, but then try to defend a generalist statement of "any infantry unit". You seemed to be indicating an Infantry unit shooting at a tank cannot be also shooting at something else. This is not the case. Now, the guns they shoot at that Tank won't be shooting at something else, true, but usually the small arms are shooting at the Tank because they cannot effectively shoot at anything else, anyway.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:2. Infantry units don't have a really long range. Anything in range to shoot at your tanks has moved a considerable amount of distance or exposed itself to the brunt of your gunlines.

It depends on how you define really long range. Sure, Grots don't right now, but those Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas do have some range. And if they are sitting in cover with that long range, then they still have cover without being as exposed.

And that's the point, again, anti-tank weapons can actually be used against tanks. But his complaint was largely about small arms fire. Can you make a credible argument that anti-tank weaponry should not hurt or be threatening to tanks? I've already shared the math that 4 lascannon devastators have roughly a 7% chance to kill a Russ in 1 round of shooting. But i'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here.

It was more that you were implying that no infantry unit has anything with "a really long range". Currently Heavy Weapon squads, Devastator Squads, and Long Fangs fit that bill remarkably well, and they are all Infantry. Your own lack of explicitness is what is causing the comment. If you had said, "Infantry small arms don't have a really long range", then you would have been correct.

In addition, those same Infantry, whether carrying small or heavy arms, are going to be hugging cover as much in 8th as they are in 7th. Probably even more so for the Marine Boyz as Cover actually is useful against everything and not just Plasma/Grav. Exposure in 8th is just as likely to happen as it is now, unless some of those weapons gain an increase in range as well.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:3. While tanks are vulnerable to every weapon, all in all, they're less vulnerable to the weapons that killed them easily in 7th edition. Meltaguns, for instance, won't have an effective 1in3 chance to flat out explodes a vehicle. Additionally, the vehicle damage table is gone - in addition to survivability increase from this, you also get the benefit of usability. No more shaken, stunned, etc.

An assumption based on null data. In fact, they have mentioned that there are ways to instant-kill tanks still, I believe.

If they've mentioned it, find the source. Share it. I would imagine characters like Saint Celestine, or Magnus the Red, or Roboute Guilliman could 1 shot a tank. Saying tanks are less vulnerable to being 1 shot by meltaguns is absolutely not an assumption based on null data. You are making an assumption based on null data, actually.

It was part of the Profiles page at one point. They must have edited it out now that I look for it.

It still is possible that a Meltagun will have a 1in3 chance to completely remove a Vehicle as it is. We don't know of its stats or if it has any other special abilities. It is this part that we have null data on.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:4. Ditching blasts means your tanks can hunt 1 big model if you want. You could, potentially, deliver 18 wounds to 1 nasty creature with 1 Leman Russ. Suddenly the Tau aren't auto-winning against your tanks and you can respond to Riptides with some measure of force.

Tau are one of those forces which rely on big long range guns that you mentioned do not exist in point 2. A Leman Russ is just as likely to survive a Riptide's opening salvo in 8th and it is in 7th. This is especially an agregious point as we don't know the Riptide's Weapon capabilities or the special rules that either unit will be employing.

On the one hand you mention a very specific probabilistic outcome, and in the next you say you don't know what the Riptide's weapon capabilities are. So, i'll just say i disagree until you prove this claim.

Well, you can disagree, but this point of yours also is just as provable. We don't have the stats on the Riptide's weapons, but we know that they will be very good based on simple extrapolation. What if that generator of the Riptide converts the Damage from Savable to Mortal? That's just an example of possibilities we do not know.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote: No one is going to kill your russ with small arms in 8th. Do the math.

Just like Grots won't kill a Terminator unit?

What are you suggesting? Be explicit.

I am suggesting that I can get a lot of Grots in range of a Terminator unit or a Leman Russ and by sheer numbers cause the Leman Russ to die with pistol-toting goblins.

Show the math of accomplishing this goal. It's somewhat absurd.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

You want me to be explicit, but then try to defend a generalist statement of "any infantry unit". You seemed to be indicating an Infantry unit shooting at a tank cannot be also shooting at something else. This is not the case. Now, the guns they shoot at that Tank won't be shooting at something else, true, but usually the small arms are shooting at the Tank because they cannot effectively shoot at anything else, anyway.

Any infantry unit (we've seen) cannot kill a Leman Russ with a measure of certainty. I proved this point in the extreme by demonstrating that a devastator squad with 4 lascannons has a 7% chance to kill a Leman Russ (deal 12 damage) in 1 turn. You're poking at my language, but again, your point is very unclear. Please state your argument! We are talking about non-anti-tank weapons hurting a Russ. Lascannons SHOULD hurt tanks.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:2. Infantry units don't have a really long range. Anything in range to shoot at your tanks has moved a considerable amount of distance or exposed itself to the brunt of your gunlines.

It depends on how you define really long range. Sure, Grots don't right now, but those Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas do have some range. And if they are sitting in cover with that long range, then they still have cover without being as exposed.

And that's the point, again, anti-tank weapons can actually be used against tanks. But his complaint was largely about small arms fire. Can you make a credible argument that anti-tank weaponry should not hurt or be threatening to tanks? I've already shared the math that 4 lascannon devastators have roughly a 7% chance to kill a Russ in 1 round of shooting. But i'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here.

It was more that you were implying that no infantry unit has anything with "a really long range". Currently Heavy Weapon squads, Devastator Squads, and Long Fangs fit that bill remarkably well, and they are all Infantry. Your own lack of explicitness is what is causing the comment. If you had said, "Infantry small arms don't have a really long range", then you would have been correct.

This is hilarious. My lack of explicitness. Got it. This is not an argument. That is being argumentative. This whole point is derived from small arms fire hurting a tank. You seemed aware of this when you mentioned Grots but have since abandoned that train of thought and replaced small arms with lascannons and other 48" range guns...

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:3. While tanks are vulnerable to every weapon, all in all, they're less vulnerable to the weapons that killed them easily in 7th edition. Meltaguns, for instance, won't have an effective 1in3 chance to flat out explodes a vehicle. Additionally, the vehicle damage table is gone - in addition to survivability increase from this, you also get the benefit of usability. No more shaken, stunned, etc.

An assumption based on null data. In fact, they have mentioned that there are ways to instant-kill tanks still, I believe.

If they've mentioned it, find the source. Share it. I would imagine characters like Saint Celestine, or Magnus the Red, or Roboute Guilliman could 1 shot a tank. Saying tanks are less vulnerable to being 1 shot by meltaguns is absolutely not an assumption based on null data. You are making an assumption based on null data, actually.

It was part of the Profiles page at one point. They must have edited it out now that I look for it.

It still is possible that a Meltagun will have a 1in3 chance to completely remove a Vehicle as it is. We don't know of its stats or if it has any other special abilities. It is this part that we have null data on.

Melta-guns deal 1D6 worth of damage, and you can roll a second D6 and pick the higher result. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/10/new-warhammer-40000-weapons-part-2-may10gw-homepage-post-4/ So no, it's not null data, it's very explicit data. A melta-gun cannot 1shot a tank in 8th edition unless that tank has <=6 wounds.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:4. Ditching blasts means your tanks can hunt 1 big model if you want. You could, potentially, deliver 18 wounds to 1 nasty creature with 1 Leman Russ. Suddenly the Tau aren't auto-winning against your tanks and you can respond to Riptides with some measure of force.

Tau are one of those forces which rely on big long range guns that you mentioned do not exist in point 2. A Leman Russ is just as likely to survive a Riptide's opening salvo in 8th and it is in 7th. This is especially an agregious point as we don't know the Riptide's Weapon capabilities or the special rules that either unit will be employing.

On the one hand you mention a very specific probabilistic outcome, and in the next you say you don't know what the Riptide's weapon capabilities are. So, i'll just say i disagree until you prove this claim.

Well, you can disagree, but this point of yours also is just as provable. We don't have the stats on the Riptide's weapons, but we know that they will be very good based on simple extrapolation. What if that generator of the Riptide converts the Damage from Savable to Mortal? That's just an example of possibilities we do not know.

Actually it's factually correct that Leman Russ tanks would be more survivable to heavy arms fire than in the past. Your extrapolation is completely baseless without some numbers. Do you have any? Share the specific numbers you're using to create your statement. My evidence is in the profile of the updated Russ.

The more I think about it, small blasts especially have pretty much always been underwhelming. Now apoc pie plates that's satisfying to throw on the field.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
I think people are looking at the 7th ed large blast scatters compared to an 8th ed D6 mechanic with the rosiest of rose-tinted glasses.

Sure at one time or another everyone over their life of 40k has hit a grouped up marine squad out in the open with a battlecannon(or equivalent) and effectively taken the unit off the table.

But there is a reason that Vindicators, Monoliths, LRBTs and Doomsday guns weren't highly prioritised weapons and remained on the shelf. Generally at most they'd take one wound off an monstrous creature, miss, flub against the AV or cover save of a vehicle, and even on a direct hit on an infantry squad they'd take 3+ or 4+ cover saves.

Now you have a high variance weapon that certainly can punch though saves to deal multiple damage against single model targets. Yes, Marines will get 4+ or 5+ saves against it, but Marines will almost always get *some* save this edition. The nature of AP has totally changed from all or nothing(and then you take a cover save) to almost always something. There is no longer big gulfs between 2+ and 3+ and 4+, and cover is always going to give a benefit to infantry regardless of whether its a Marine or a Guardsman. Conversely, heavy weaponry is always going to have some effect on saving throws, regardless of whether it's a Terminator or a Dire Avenger.

The Battle cannon seems to be in a much better place, especially if a Russ can add sponson and hull weaponry downrange on the same turn. It's still a bit swingy like the old ~2/3 chance to scatter off target, but 1/3 of the time you're rolling out a 5 or 6 shot weapon that wounds Marines (or Terminators or Nobs) on a 2+, an 8th ed rarity and has -2 armour shred which is no slouch either.

Monoliths and Arks are overcosted while the Vindicator also suffered from short range and weak side armor. The Manticore was popular in 5th until 6th nerfed it, while the Riptide was fairly common to run as an Iontide.

"I am suggesting that I can get a lot of Grots in range of a Terminator unit or a Leman Russ and by sheer numbers cause the Leman Russ to die with pistol-toting goblins"

Bring it. I can kill Riptides with lasguns in 7th, too.

 Grimgold wrote:
You have no idea how much a battle cannon costs in 8th ed

 BlaxicanX wrote:
So exactly how many points do you think 2 dead guardsmen or 1 dead termie or marine with average rolls is worth? Do you seriously think that it's going to cost like 50 points for the stock Russ+BC?

We don't know everything yet, but it's not difficult to infer or eliminate completely unlikely scenarios, like the tank costing 50 points. lol

- - - - -

It's also not weak compared with other 8th ed weapons (the only valid comparison frame), it's better than a las cannon at anti-vehicle work and as good as two heavy bolters at anti-infantry work.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Ronin_eX wrote:
The numbers bear this out. It is a better anti-infantry weapon than a single heavy bolter (in fact, it's about twice as good). It is a better anti-vehicle weapon than the lascannon (which is actually pretty good this edition for anti-vehicle work). It hits its niche versus small units of multi-wound units with good saves (units likely to become much more common in 8th).

The numbers don't bear it out because you're failing to calculate points-per-wound. It may put out twice as many wounds as a heavy bolter but it isn't "twice as good" unless it's less than twice the cost, and the same is true for the lascannon comparison.

There is no way for you to spin the battlecannon as being "a jack of all trades" so long as it's averaging only one to two wounds on every unit type in the game. That isn't a jack-of-all-trades, that's being terrible at everything.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Let me get up on a soapbox for a second, a lot of you are comparing the previews to 7th ed, and I have two words for you, Stop that. You will not be fighting 7th ed orks with your 8th ed space marines, the only valid comparisons are between 8th ed items. Comparing battle cannons to heavy bolters, las cannons, and some reasonable guesses of what other weapons will look like show that the battle cannon is not a bad weapon and is actually quite flexible.

It doesn't though. Heavy bolters and lascannons already outstrip it by virtue of being cheaper and easier to spam in armies. I mean our discussion about the LR being 80 points was a fun mental exercise but it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to buy a battlecannon LR at even close to the value of a lascannon/heavy bolter marine or veteran.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
losing firepower on the main gun is a big thing.

Your main gun is now a big monster/tank/small elite units hunter, that is not a loss of fire power it's a change of target priority.

The main gun is awful against big monster/tank/small elite units.

I've seen so many examples of Gambler's Folly since the announcement of 8th.

 Jambles wrote:
How could you POSSIBLY say it's points inefficient, without knowing how many points it - or anything else in the game - costs?

Because I can say with near 100% certainty that the entire tank would need to be around 80 points in order for that to be worthwhile, and even then you wouldn't be buying it for the damage, you'd be buying it because it's 80 points for a T8 3+sv 12W vehicle.

 Marmatag wrote:
Show the math of accomplishing this goal. It's somewhat absurd.

Look it up somewhere else. It is about forcing sufficient Saves that the 1's are bound to happen. It's long been a tactic of horde armies facing such units, especially when their AP Weapons are directed elsewhere.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

You want me to be explicit, but then try to defend a generalist statement of "any infantry unit". You seemed to be indicating an Infantry unit shooting at a tank cannot be also shooting at something else. This is not the case. Now, the guns they shoot at that Tank won't be shooting at something else, true, but usually the small arms are shooting at the Tank because they cannot effectively shoot at anything else, anyway.

Any infantry unit (we've seen) cannot kill a Leman Russ with a measure of certainty. I proved this point in the extreme by demonstrating that a devastator squad with 4 lascannons has a 7% chance to kill a Leman Russ (deal 12 damage) in 1 turn. You're poking at my language, but again, your point is very unclear. Please state your argument! We are talking about non-anti-tank weapons hurting a Russ. Lascannons SHOULD hurt tanks.

Sure, change the goal posts of the point. That is always a good way to get people to appreciate the point.

I stated my argument against this point, twice. If I have a unit of Devastators with 4 Lascannons, a Combi-Melta and 5 Boltguns, those 4 Lascannons and Meltagun can fire at the Leman Russ effectively, while the 5 Boltguns go shoot at Infantry. The idea you were implying was that all of those Boltguns would be forced to shoot at the Leman Russ. That was the point.

If I have 30 Grots shooting at a Leman Russ it is because they simply cannot shoot anything else that they have better odds against, and so I might be able to get one or two Wounds knocked off. Sure, it's a long shot, but sometimes the dice roll the boxcars you need in order to get the job done.

 Marmatag wrote:
This is hilarious. My lack of explicitness. Got it. This is not an argument. That is being argumentative. This whole point is derived from small arms fire hurting a tank. You seemed aware of this when you mentioned Grots but have since abandoned that train of thought and replaced small arms with lascannons and other 48" range guns...

This is pointing out that not everything is in a vacuum in a 40K game. The point was that there are Infantry who do carry Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas alongside the the Lasguns and Shootas. Many Infantry units are far more than just the small arms that they carry, if they carry any at all.

 Marmatag wrote:
Melta-guns deal 1D6 worth of damage, and you can roll a second D6 and pick the higher result. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/10/new-warhammer-40000-weapons-part-2-may10gw-homepage-post-4/ So no, it's not null data, it's very explicit data. A melta-gun cannot 1shot a tank in 8th edition unless that tank has <=6 wounds.

Which was implied will be available to some Vehicles.

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually it's factually correct that Leman Russ tanks would be more survivable to heavy arms fire than in the past. Your extrapolation is completely baseless without some numbers. Do you have any? Share the specific numbers you're using to create your statement. My evidence is in the profile of the updated Russ.

My extrapolation is as baseless as yours. We don't have any specific numbers, but you were painting with some very broad brushes in your numbered response.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Show the math of accomplishing this goal. It's somewhat absurd.

Look it up somewhere else. It is about forcing sufficient Saves that the 1's are bound to happen. It's long been a tactic of horde armies facing such units, especially when their AP Weapons are directed elsewhere.

Sorry, no, you don't get a pass on this one. If you fire 415 shots at BS3 S3, that's only a 16% chance (1/6) to kill a Russ. Is that realistic? The expected shots to kill is 432 in that scenario. Explain to me how that's feasible.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

You want me to be explicit, but then try to defend a generalist statement of "any infantry unit". You seemed to be indicating an Infantry unit shooting at a tank cannot be also shooting at something else. This is not the case. Now, the guns they shoot at that Tank won't be shooting at something else, true, but usually the small arms are shooting at the Tank because they cannot effectively shoot at anything else, anyway.

Any infantry unit (we've seen) cannot kill a Leman Russ with a measure of certainty. I proved this point in the extreme by demonstrating that a devastator squad with 4 lascannons has a 7% chance to kill a Leman Russ (deal 12 damage) in 1 turn. You're poking at my language, but again, your point is very unclear. Please state your argument! We are talking about non-anti-tank weapons hurting a Russ. Lascannons SHOULD hurt tanks.

Sure, change the goal posts of the point. That is always a good way to get people to appreciate the point.

We're done here.

 Charistoph wrote:
I stated my argument against this point, twice. If I have a unit of Devastators with 4 Lascannons, a Combi-Melta and 5 Boltguns, those 4 Lascannons and Meltagun can fire at the Leman Russ effectively, while the 5 Boltguns go shoot at Infantry. The idea you were implying was that all of those Boltguns would be forced to shoot at the Leman Russ. That was the point.

Ok? So the melta-gun is within 12" of the Russ, meaning the entire army can shoot the devastators. This is such a "lol" inducing scenario it's beyond funny.

 Charistoph wrote:
If I have 30 Grots shooting at a Leman Russ it is because they simply cannot shoot anything else that they have better odds against, and so I might be able to get one or two Wounds knocked off. Sure, it's a long shot, but sometimes the dice roll the boxcars you need in order to get the job done.

it's beyond a long shot. your expected wounds dealt is less than 1. If you add the standard deviation to the mean you're still producing less than 1 wound.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is hilarious. My lack of explicitness. Got it. This is not an argument. That is being argumentative. This whole point is derived from small arms fire hurting a tank. You seemed aware of this when you mentioned Grots but have since abandoned that train of thought and replaced small arms with lascannons and other 48" range guns...

This is pointing out that not everything is in a vacuum in a 40K game. The point was that there are Infantry who do carry Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas alongside the the Lasguns and Shootas. Many Infantry units are far more than just the small arms that they carry, if they carry any at all.

Okay, not everything is in a vacuum, explain how you're gettting your 430 Grots within 12" of the Leman Russ.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Melta-guns deal 1D6 worth of damage, and you can roll a second D6 and pick the higher result. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/10/new-warhammer-40000-weapons-part-2-may10gw-homepage-post-4/ So no, it's not null data, it's very explicit data. A melta-gun cannot 1shot a tank in 8th edition unless that tank has <=6 wounds.

Which was implied will be available to some Vehicles.

Let's recap: You made a false statement. I proved your statement was false. And your reply is: "Which was implied will be available to some vehicles." Can you clarify your language here?

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually it's factually correct that Leman Russ tanks would be more survivable to heavy arms fire than in the past. Your extrapolation is completely baseless without some numbers. Do you have any? Share the specific numbers you're using to create your statement. My evidence is in the profile of the updated Russ.

My extrapolation is as baseless as yours. We don't have any specific numbers, but you were painting with some very broad brushes in your numbered response.

Not even true. We have the profile of the Russ. Can you please conceive of a realistic weaponset based on the info we have, that would kill a Russ before it could return fire?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
How could you POSSIBLY say it's points inefficient, without knowing how many points it - or anything else in the game - costs?

Because I can say with near 100% certainty that the entire tank would need to be around 80 points in order for that to be worthwhile, and even then you wouldn't be buying it for the damage, you'd be buying it because it's 80 points for a T8 3+sv 12W vehicle.

Do we know the stats on it yet?

And maybe they will be cheap, so guard players can bring a lot of battlecannons if they want

 BlaxicanX wrote:

The numbers don't bear it out because you're failing to calculate points-per-wound. It may put out twice as many wounds as a heavy bolter but it isn't "twice as good" unless it's less than twice the cost, and the same is true for the lascannon comparison.

There is no way for you to spin the battlecannon as being "a jack of all trades" so long as it's averaging only one to two wounds on every unit type in the game. That isn't a jack-of-all-trades, that's being terrible at everything.

It doesn't though. Heavy bolters and lascannons already outstrip it by virtue of being cheaper and easier to spam in armies. I mean our discussion about the LR being 80 points was a fun mental exercise but it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to buy a battlecannon LR at even close to the value of a lascannon/heavy bolter marine or veteran.

Wait did you just quote the part where I proved your whole argument is shenanigans? Again, We don't know the cost, the only basis we have for comparison is raw effectiveness, and as it lays it's pretty effective compared to its peers. Also STOP THINKING IN 7TH ED TERMS, none of the weapons we've seen remove units by the handful, and by this point, we've seen a large selection of template weapons. By all evidence put forward so far, your expectation of auto-murdering hordes is no longer realistic.

Also, your arguments of efficiency are completely unfalsifiable, because we have no reference for points in 8th ed. So it falls to Hitchens law, "That which can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence". For all we know they could be using Doritos as the game currency, and a battle cannon could literally cost all that and a bag of chips, and in a month we'll be arguing whether that terminator squad costing a fun sized bag of nacho flavor should be upgraded to cool ranch.

 Grimgold wrote:


Also, your arguments of efficiency are completely unfalsifiable, because we have no reference for points in 8th ed. So it falls to Hitchens law, "That which can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence". For all we know they could be using Doritos as the game currency, and a battle cannon could literally cost all that and a bag of chips, and in a month we'll be arguing whether that terminator squad costing a fun sized bag of nacho flavor should be upgraded to cool ranch.

What we do have however, is $prices. There may in fact be value in doing comparisons that way, since i'll bet you a full bag of Doritos that GW are certainly doing it - the Goblin index is a known phenomenon after all.

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Show the math of accomplishing this goal. It's somewhat absurd.

Look it up somewhere else. It is about forcing sufficient Saves that the 1's are bound to happen. It's long been a tactic of horde armies facing such units, especially when their AP Weapons are directed elsewhere.

Sorry, no, you don't get a pass on this one. If you fire 415 shots at BS3 S3, that's only a 16% chance (1/6) to kill a Russ. Is that realistic? The expected shots to kill is 432 in that scenario. Explain to me how that's feasible.

That is the probability, it still doesn't mean it can't happen. That's why the dice are rolled, after all.

Now, I am not saying we should go out Leman Russ Hunting with Conscript and Grot Squads, and you are stretching if you think I am. I am saying the possibility exists, and if there is nothing else around to shoot, why not shoot the Leman Russ?

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

You want me to be explicit, but then try to defend a generalist statement of "any infantry unit". You seemed to be indicating an Infantry unit shooting at a tank cannot be also shooting at something else. This is not the case. Now, the guns they shoot at that Tank won't be shooting at something else, true, but usually the small arms are shooting at the Tank because they cannot effectively shoot at anything else, anyway.

Any infantry unit (we've seen) cannot kill a Leman Russ with a measure of certainty. I proved this point in the extreme by demonstrating that a devastator squad with 4 lascannons has a 7% chance to kill a Leman Russ (deal 12 damage) in 1 turn. You're poking at my language, but again, your point is very unclear. Please state your argument! We are talking about non-anti-tank weapons hurting a Russ. Lascannons SHOULD hurt tanks.

Sure, change the goal posts of the point. That is always a good way to get people to appreciate the point.

We're done here.

What? No pithy come back? Not bothering to address anything else? Just you're done and yet you still go on?

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I stated my argument against this point, twice. If I have a unit of Devastators with 4 Lascannons, a Combi-Melta and 5 Boltguns, those 4 Lascannons and Meltagun can fire at the Leman Russ effectively, while the 5 Boltguns go shoot at Infantry. The idea you were implying was that all of those Boltguns would be forced to shoot at the Leman Russ. That was the point.

Ok? So the melta-gun is within 12" of the Russ, meaning the entire army can shoot the devastators. This is such a "lol" inducing scenario it's beyond funny.

Why would an entire army shoot the Devastators just because it is within 12" of a Leman Russ? Do you play on planet bowling ball with nothing but the units which carry the really long ranged weapons you claim Infantry do not have? Would not such a unit still be in Cover that may also block Line of Sight?

The point here wasn't about being exposed. It was about having to concentrate fire.

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
If I have 30 Grots shooting at a Leman Russ it is because they simply cannot shoot anything else that they have better odds against, and so I might be able to get one or two Wounds knocked off. Sure, it's a long shot, but sometimes the dice roll the boxcars you need in order to get the job done.

it's beyond a long shot. your expected wounds dealt is less than 1. If you add the standard deviation to the mean you're still producing less than 1 wound.

There's expectation, and then there's reality. Starting off with 30 dice is usually good enough to risk a chance, especially if there is no drawback to the situation.

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is hilarious. My lack of explicitness. Got it. This is not an argument. That is being argumentative. This whole point is derived from small arms fire hurting a tank. You seemed aware of this when you mentioned Grots but have since abandoned that train of thought and replaced small arms with lascannons and other 48" range guns...

This is pointing out that not everything is in a vacuum in a 40K game. The point was that there are Infantry who do carry Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas alongside the the Lasguns and Shootas. Many Infantry units are far more than just the small arms that they carry, if they carry any at all.

Okay, not everything is in a vacuum, explain how you're gettting your 430 Grots within 12" of the Leman Russ.

Terrain. And it doesn't have to be 430 Grots, just enough to get 1's on Saves. We're not necessarily talking about a one turn knock out here, are we? It could be that last Wound that Leman Russ is having, dropping its stats to a point that its performance is altered, or leaving it weakened for the really heavy punchers that are coming across.

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Melta-guns deal 1D6 worth of damage, and you can roll a second D6 and pick the higher result. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/10/new-warhammer-40000-weapons-part-2-may10gw-homepage-post-4/ So no, it's not null data, it's very explicit data. A melta-gun cannot 1shot a tank in 8th edition unless that tank has <=6 wounds.

Which was implied will be available to some Vehicles.

Let's recap: You made a false statement. I proved your statement was false. And your reply is: "Which was implied will be available to some vehicles." Can you clarify your language here?

I thought it was pretty clear. You are making up assumptions about situations in which we had no real data, especially as we do not know the full ramifications of Wounds on a Vehicle. Will they follow the same pattern as the Monster we saw, or will there be other options? By the statements in their posts, some Vehicles will have 6 Wounds or less.

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually it's factually correct that Leman Russ tanks would be more survivable to heavy arms fire than in the past. Your extrapolation is completely baseless without some numbers. Do you have any? Share the specific numbers you're using to create your statement. My evidence is in the profile of the updated Russ.

My extrapolation is as baseless as yours. We don't have any specific numbers, but you were painting with some very broad brushes in your numbered response.

Not even true. We have the profile of the Russ. Can you please conceive of a realistic weaponset based on the info we have, that would kill a Russ before it could return fire?

You mean like a long-ranged, high Str, multi-shot, multi-damage weapon that could be Overcharged to doing all of them as Mortal or at least AP your Save to uselessness? No, I couldn't possibly be thinking that the Riptide might have one of those.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Show the math of accomplishing this goal. It's somewhat absurd.

Look it up somewhere else. It is about forcing sufficient Saves that the 1's are bound to happen. It's long been a tactic of horde armies facing such units, especially when their AP Weapons are directed elsewhere.

Sorry, no, you don't get a pass on this one. If you fire 415 shots at BS3 S3, that's only a 16% chance (1/6) to kill a Russ. Is that realistic? The expected shots to kill is 432 in that scenario. Explain to me how that's feasible.

That is the probability, it still doesn't mean it can't happen. That's why the dice are rolled, after all.

Now, I am not saying we should go out Leman Russ Hunting with Conscript and Grot Squads, and you are stretching if you think I am. I am saying the possibility exists, and if there is nothing else around to shoot, why not shoot the Leman Russ?

So, you mentioned 1-2 wounds. You can create the world's most awesome confidence interval and not contain 2 wounds. Why not shoot at the Leman Russ? Because you have the tiniest chance to do anything. if you absolutely insist on moving your Grots so far out of position they're within 12" of a Russ, i would forgo my shooting that round and run them to a place where they could be more effective. Because their odds are seriously that low.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

You want me to be explicit, but then try to defend a generalist statement of "any infantry unit". You seemed to be indicating an Infantry unit shooting at a tank cannot be also shooting at something else. This is not the case. Now, the guns they shoot at that Tank won't be shooting at something else, true, but usually the small arms are shooting at the Tank because they cannot effectively shoot at anything else, anyway.

Any infantry unit (we've seen) cannot kill a Leman Russ with a measure of certainty. I proved this point in the extreme by demonstrating that a devastator squad with 4 lascannons has a 7% chance to kill a Leman Russ (deal 12 damage) in 1 turn. You're poking at my language, but again, your point is very unclear. Please state your argument! We are talking about non-anti-tank weapons hurting a Russ. Lascannons SHOULD hurt tanks.

Sure, change the goal posts of the point. That is always a good way to get people to appreciate the point.

We're done here.

What? No pithy come back? Not bothering to address anything else? Just you're done and yet you still go on?

What you said is obviously false. Why continue discussing that point? I'm not going to dignify such nonsense with comment. I pass. You score one victory point, sound good?

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I stated my argument against this point, twice. If I have a unit of Devastators with 4 Lascannons, a Combi-Melta and 5 Boltguns, those 4 Lascannons and Meltagun can fire at the Leman Russ effectively, while the 5 Boltguns go shoot at Infantry. The idea you were implying was that all of those Boltguns would be forced to shoot at the Leman Russ. That was the point.

Ok? So the melta-gun is within 12" of the Russ, meaning the entire army can shoot the devastators. This is such a "lol" inducing scenario it's beyond funny.

Why would an entire army shoot the Devastators just because it is within 12" of a Leman Russ? Do you play on planet bowling ball with nothing but the units which carry the really long ranged weapons you claim Infantry do not have? Would not such a unit still be in Cover that may also block Line of Sight?

The point here wasn't about being exposed. It was about having to concentrate fire.

I actually play with quite a bit of terrain, which makes it even funnier that you think you could get a squad within 12" of a Russ without tripping over a million guard.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
If I have 30 Grots shooting at a Leman Russ it is because they simply cannot shoot anything else that they have better odds against, and so I might be able to get one or two Wounds knocked off. Sure, it's a long shot, but sometimes the dice roll the boxcars you need in order to get the job done.

it's beyond a long shot. your expected wounds dealt is less than 1. If you add the standard deviation to the mean you're still producing less than 1 wound.

There's expectation, and then there's reality. Starting off with 30 dice is usually good enough to risk a chance, especially if there is no drawback to the situation.

Please understand, when you start jumping standard deviations from the mean, it's no longer the expectation, it becomes a relative certainty. You would barely be within 2 standard deviations of the mean to expect ONE wound in this scenario. That's not expectation, that's telling you your odds are like 5%.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is hilarious. My lack of explicitness. Got it. This is not an argument. That is being argumentative. This whole point is derived from small arms fire hurting a tank. You seemed aware of this when you mentioned Grots but have since abandoned that train of thought and replaced small arms with lascannons and other 48" range guns...

This is pointing out that not everything is in a vacuum in a 40K game. The point was that there are Infantry who do carry Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas alongside the the Lasguns and Shootas. Many Infantry units are far more than just the small arms that they carry, if they carry any at all.

Okay, not everything is in a vacuum, explain how you're gettting your 430 Grots within 12" of the Leman Russ.

Terrain. And it doesn't have to be 430 Grots, just enough to get 1's on Saves. We're not necessarily talking about a one turn knock out here, are we? It could be that last Wound that Leman Russ is having, dropping its stats to a point that its performance is altered, or leaving it weakened for the really heavy punchers that are coming across.

Again, the odds that 30 shots from Grots deal 1 wound is low. Forgetting of course that the Grots would even have to be in range.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Melta-guns deal 1D6 worth of damage, and you can roll a second D6 and pick the higher result. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/10/new-warhammer-40000-weapons-part-2-may10gw-homepage-post-4/ So no, it's not null data, it's very explicit data. A melta-gun cannot 1shot a tank in 8th edition unless that tank has <=6 wounds.

Which was implied will be available to some Vehicles.

Let's recap: You made a false statement. I proved your statement was false. And your reply is: "Which was implied will be available to some vehicles." Can you clarify your language here?

I thought it was pretty clear. You are making up assumptions about situations in which we had no real data, especially as we do not know the full ramifications of Wounds on a Vehicle. Will they follow the same pattern as the Monster we saw, or will there be other options? By the statements in their posts, some Vehicles will have 6 Wounds or less.

But the Russ doesn't, so how does that matter? We're discussing the Leman Russ? Can you please explain how a melta-gun can 1 shot a Leman Russ as per your claim?

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually it's factually correct that Leman Russ tanks would be more survivable to heavy arms fire than in the past. Your extrapolation is completely baseless without some numbers. Do you have any? Share the specific numbers you're using to create your statement. My evidence is in the profile of the updated Russ.

My extrapolation is as baseless as yours. We don't have any specific numbers, but you were painting with some very broad brushes in your numbered response.

Not even true. We have the profile of the Russ. Can you please conceive of a realistic weaponset based on the info we have, that would kill a Russ before it could return fire?

You mean like a long-ranged, high Str, multi-shot, multi-damage weapon that could be Overcharged to doing all of them as Mortal or at least AP your Save to uselessness? No, I couldn't possibly be thinking that the Riptide might have one of those.

Which gun specifically do you think will have this profile?
Let's also remember this is the basic argument at this point:

Me: Leman Russ are more survivable in general, meaning they have a chance to fight back against Tau.
You: No, because I don't have data on Riptides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm kind of tired of going back & forth. Make your closing argument, i'm done. I'll read it, I honestly will, I just won't reply.

I'm confused by this discussion. I don't play Guard anymore but when I saw the profile on the Battlecannon I was pretty happy with it.

It looked good to me... I missed a lot with my battlecannon when I played them.

 Grimgold wrote:
Again, We don't know the cost, the only basis we have for comparison is raw effectiveness, and as it lays it's pretty effective compared to its peers.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Let me get up on a soapbox for a second, a lot of you are comparing the previews to 7th ed, and I have two words for you, Stop that. You will not be fighting 7th ed orks with your 8th ed space marines, the only valid comparisons are between 8th ed items. Comparing battle cannons to heavy bolters, las cannons, and some reasonable guesses of what other weapons will look like show that the battle cannon is not a bad weapon and is actually quite flexible.

It doesn't though. Heavy bolters and lascannons already outstrip it by virtue of being cheaper and easier to spam in armies. I mean our discussion about the LR being 80 points was a fun mental exercise but it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to buy a battlecannon LR at even close to the value of a lascannon/heavy bolter marine or veteran.

Also STOP THINKING IN 7TH ED TERMS, none of the weapons we've seen remove units by the handful, and by this point, we've seen a large selection of template weapons. By all evidence put forward so far, your expectation of auto-murdering hordes is no longer realistic.

When did I ever use 7th edition weapons in a direct comparison?

Also, your arguments of efficiency are completely unfalsifiable, because we have no reference for points in 8th ed.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
We don't know everything yet, but it's not difficult to infer or eliminate completely unlikely scenarios, like the tank costing 50 points. lol

- - - -

Let me explain in really simple terms why your argument falls apart. It's because your entire argument is predicated upon one possibility being true: that a battlecannon Leman Russ will cost the same amount of points, or a similar amount of points, to a lone infantry model armed with a lascannon or heavy bolter. Your speculation is that either infantry heavy weapons will suddenly jump 60 points in cost, or an entire Leman Russ is going to only cost ~50 points (the cost of a Long Fang+LasCannon in today's edition).

^ That, is the only scenario in which the battlecannon compares favorably to a lascannon or heavy bolter. A scenario where they cost the same. If the tank is more expensive then either then it ceases to compare favorably to either.

ArmchairArbiter wrote:
I'm confused by this discussion. I don't play Guard anymore but when I saw the profile on the Battlecannon I was pretty happy with it.

It looked good to me... I missed a lot with my battlecannon when I played them.

It's an upgrade, but it's not a significant upgrade, and the original wasn't that good in the first place. I personally still won't use them unless the Eradicator becomes completely useless.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
Sounds like the stats for BCannons just changed too much for some. The gun functions differently now, and it being such an iconic weapon on such an iconic unit, there's a decent amount of consternation as a result. There's an expectation in the minds of some that the Battle Cannon was something it's not anymore, and in my opinion maybe never was. They want a large blast template to put over the battlefield, smash a big hole in a large unit, kill lots of models with their big blasty tank gun. Now that it's basically been changed to be a run-of-the-mill tank-mounted cannon that's made for shooting at beefy targets and has less of a big, visual boom, the feels are flying.

Being points-inefficient and weak against all targets is "run of the mill"?

You don't know the points how can you claim points inefficiency

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Let me explain in really simple terms why your argument falls apart. It's because your entire argument is predicated upon one possibility being true: that a battlecannon Leman Russ will cost the same amount of points, or a similar amount of points, to a lone infantry model armed with a lascannon or heavy bolter. Your speculation is that either infantry heavy weapons will suddenly jump 60 points in cost, or an entire Leman Russ is going to only cost ~50 points (the cost of a Long Fang+LasCannon in today's edition).

Just a quick question, why are we comparing the whole tank platform to a single infantry models with Heavy weapons? You generally can't get that single guy by himself. Marines, for example, in 7th, pay a 70 pt premium in marines minimum to put that lascannon the field. Or a squad of guard, Whatever - there's a unit that gun goes in. Which leads to my second point - the survivability of the platform matters a turn based game. Factor in the cost and survivability of the unit needed to get that Lascannon on the field, the survivability of that unit (which indexes general expectations of rounds of fire), atnd then maybe you can directly compare the way you want to.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

^ That, is the only scenario in which the battlecannon compares favorably to a lascannon or heavy bolter. A scenario where they cost the same. If the tank is more expensive then either then it ceases to compare favorably to either.

Um, no? This isn't true at all because the BC isn't being carried by an infantryman. You're not accounting for the cost of the platform Or trying to deduce the cost of the weapon separate from the tank platform, one of the two. As is you're just incorrect. Apples and oranges.

 Marmatag wrote:
So, you mentioned 1-2 wounds. You can create the world's most awesome confidence interval and not contain 2 wounds. Why not shoot at the Leman Russ? Because you have the tiniest chance to do anything. if you absolutely insist on moving your Grots so far out of position they're within 12" of a Russ, i would forgo my shooting that round and run them to a place where they could be more effective. Because their odds are seriously that low.

Right now, in 8th Edition, it is literally impossible for Grots to do anything to a Leman Russ. In 8th, it will be a very small chance, but that's still a chance. Choosing to Advance or not over that is a tactical choice that largely depends on if that Advance would ever actually get you anywhere. It's reliant on the board as a whole.

I have seen people move their tanks away from the supporting Infantry because of their confidence that it can weather what will come at them and it will give them a better shot at what they want the tank to shoot at.

 Marmatag wrote:
I actually play with quite a bit of terrain, which makes it even funnier that you think you could get a squad within 12" of a Russ without tripping over a million guard.

As I said above, it can happen because the situation provided the best reason to move the Leman Russ away from the "million guard". Just because you wouldn't do it, doesn't mean your opponent won't.

 Marmatag wrote:
Please understand, when you start jumping standard deviations from the mean, it's no longer the expectation, it becomes a relative certainty. You would barely be within 2 standard deviations of the mean to expect ONE wound in this scenario. That's not expectation, that's telling you your odds are like 5%.

And I've seen dice be rolled that was better than that. But you want to know how much damage Grots Advancing make? 0. Possibility of something, even remote, can be better than nothing. It's called taking a chance.

 Marmatag wrote:
Again, the odds that 30 shots from Grots deal 1 wound is low. Forgetting of course that the Grots would even have to be in range.

The possibility of it happening exists, or else why the concern over it?

 Marmatag wrote:
But the Russ doesn't, so how does that matter? We're discussing the Leman Russ? Can you please explain how a melta-gun can 1 shot a Leman Russ as per your claim?

As I said, we don't know all the rules regarding Vehicles yet. And considering the attitude that some people have regarding degraded models in such situations, that Meltagun may indeed, make it "useless" in their eyes, and that's good enough for Wrecked.

 Marmatag wrote:
Which gun specifically do you think will have this profile?
Let's also remember this is the basic argument at this point:

The Ion Accelerator has the possibility of such an existence.

 Marmatag wrote:
Me: Leman Russ are more survivable in general, meaning they have a chance to fight back against Tau.
You: No, because I don't have data on Riptides.

Actually, I said we don't have enough data on Tau to know about that. The most likely candidate for killing a Leman Russ before it could move was the Riptide. The Riptide Wing has been popular, so it will see some table time no matter the stats. The Stormsurge would also qualify, but has not been as popular. We have no idea of what the Railguns and HYMP will be capable of doing, either, making Broadsides and Hammerheads a possibility. And that's not including what possibilities may occur with Stealth Suits and if they can Infiltrate Fusion Blasters (and how many, though likely no more than the 2/unit they have now) right up its can.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Let me explain in really simple terms why your argument falls apart. It's because your entire argument is predicated upon one possibility being true: that a battlecannon Leman Russ will cost the same amount of points, or a similar amount of points, to a lone infantry model armed with a lascannon or heavy bolter. Your speculation is that either infantry heavy weapons will suddenly jump 60 points in cost, or an entire Leman Russ is going to only cost ~50 points (the cost of a Long Fang+LasCannon in today's edition).

^ That, is the only scenario in which the battlecannon compares favorably to a lascannon or heavy bolter. A scenario where they cost the same. If the tank is more expensive then either then it ceases to compare favorably to either.

So your smoking gun here is that... the body a gun is attached to shouldn't be included in the point calculus between units?

An LRBT with a battlecannon cannot be efficient, because a singular infantryman with a lascannon will be cheaper? Slow down there bud, you're playing some impressive 3D chess there, we mortals cannot compete!

No wonder you're seeing things the way you are!

I mean, it doesn't make any real sense on the face of it, but at least I can see why you see it like this.

Yeah, so long as that is how you are imagining point efficiency to work I can't imagine any argument is going to bare fruit here.

So let's start here.

We both know that an LRBT and a Long Fang (or any singular infantry unit) are going to cost different amounts (or rather we hope they are). No one in their right mind will argue that a T8, 12 wound unit should be close to a T4 1 wound model in cost (and if they are GW have up). No matter what, the LRBT will be more expensive (for the love o' Mork and Gork, please). The important factor is by how much? This is information we don't have. You appear to be starting from a place where you are assuming that the basic LRBT chassis starts off being not worth the points. I mean, we can go in to why each of its wounds is harder to ablate than those in an infantry squad and the relative pros and cons between a singular lump of tough wounds as opposed to a distributed lump of singular wounds standing near each other, but it isn't hugely necessary. An LRBT is likely more expensive than one infantry model before either of them get weapons. This is because the LRBT is better than a one wound infantry model. It may end up being priced too high or even too low, 40k has had plenty of point shakeups over its lifespan. We can't know whether or not this basic thing is in the Goldilocks zone, and it isn't worth wringing our hands over before we have the info.

Second, we can look at the battlecannon and see its performance against various revealed units. It's better at dealing with infantry than a heavy bolter, it's better at dealing with tough multiwounds than a lascannon. Whether or not it is spammable is something we'll only know when we know how many LRBTs once can pack in to a list. But given what we can tell? It should be priced a bit higher than either an HB or lascannon, but not dramatically so. It is basically a lascannon that can do infantry in the off-season. Again, if this is priced in the Goldilocks zone (not too high, not too low) then we have achieved "balance".

So yes, a Long Fang with a lascannon will be cheaper than an LRBT with a battlecannon (probably). This isn't a revelation. But this doesn't mean the former is suddenly going to be de facto more efficient than the latter. This is why we need to wait and see comparative point values and why wringing our hands about how "weak" the battlecannon is is pointless. Could turn out that GW overcosted infantry-carried heavy weapons and tanks are where it's at. Could be that the battlecannon is actually grossly underpriced (for example, maybe they just cost it like a lascannon and call it a day). Could be that tank bodies are costed too high and no one takes them (such a dramatic change!). We have no clue, and trying to frame it in terms of the old prices when so much has changed is currently meaningless. As such, there is no real frame of reference for how powerful or weak the battlecannon even is because a lot of that hinges on its actual cost! Thus far, it is the strongest weapon they've shown (well outside the Avatar's sword now) and is able to deal with just about any target (whereas most other weapons appear to be more mono-specialized in this edition).

This is why folks are saying to wait on the point values, you'll give yourself an ulcer if you keep trying to use 7th to divine some info about comparative costs in 8th. You may turn out to be right in the end, the things may be overcosted for what they do. But at the end of the day, you have no way of knowing that right now and we can only make suppositions on things based on what they've shown us.

So blast weapons can only be over- or underwhelming based on the info we have, and thus far they are comparable to the non-blast stuff we've seen in terms of lethality. Full stop. Some are more effective against some targets than others, it is obvious some are designed with certain roles in mind. We wont really know how effective any of it is until we get point values though. We can only evaluate what is by what has been revealed. We have no other context and trying to evaluate beyond that point is basically trying your hand at scrying using chicken bones and goat entrails.

Blast strike me as underwhelming. I get it, we don't have all the info, but as it stands right now? Meh. Not encouraged.

FLAMER TEMPLATES, though, those seem nice. D6 auto-hits is maybe a nerf against hoards, but hot DIGGITY is that a buff compared to single targets!

 JNAProductions wrote:
Blast strike me as underwhelming. I get it, we don't have all the info, but as it stands right now? Meh. Not encouraged.

FLAMER TEMPLATES, though, those seem nice. D6 auto-hits is maybe a nerf against hoards, but hot DIGGITY is that a buff compared to single targets!

And twin doubles shots, so twin flamers dropping 2d6. Yes please, I'll take two,

Yeah. Everyone I've EVER seen trying to "force 1's" on Riptides or Dreadknights loses. So step right up and try to kill Russes with small arms in 8th. I'll be over here with my inferno pistols laughing at you.

 Fenris-77 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
FLAMER TEMPLATES, though, those seem nice. D6 auto-hits is maybe a nerf against hoards, but hot DIGGITY is that a buff compared to single targets!

And twin doubles shots, so twin flamers dropping 2d6. Yes please, I'll take two,

No, that can't be right. Sisters have twin hand flamers, and that would make them good. Betcha Sisters get a nerf, just because.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Fenris-77 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
FLAMER TEMPLATES, though, those seem nice. D6 auto-hits is maybe a nerf against hoards, but hot DIGGITY is that a buff compared to single targets!

And twin doubles shots, so twin flamers dropping 2d6. Yes please, I'll take two,

No, that can't be right. Sisters have twin hand flamers, and that would make them good. Betcha Sisters get a nerf, just because.

Well, there's hand flamers and hand flamers right? One is a pistol that shoots flaming goo, and other one is palm size and dresses so much better than I do. Guess which one Sisters get as wargear? I kid, but seriously...

I can see some of the flamer type stuff that's currently twin getting changed to something else, 2d6 auto hit is pretty sick. I'll keep my fingers crossed for your pistol though, even if I'm pretty sure you're not going to get it. Now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder if another mechanic might be less sick and therefore more broadly useful. Something ,like reroll on the d6, or +2? IDK. Food for thought.

SM hand flamer: S4 AP-1 d6 automatic hits.

SoB hand flamer: S2 AP+1 d3 automatic hits
SoB hand flamers: S2 AP+1 d6 automatic hits

Problem solved!

As a proud owner of 8 leman russes, and four of which have battlecannons, I can say what they currently released is underwhelming for the gun. It is too unpredicable. Seems like it should belong on an Ork tank, not a Guardsmen. However, from what they have been releasing, 8th in general is going to be heavily luck based, as many weapons, laz cannon included are doing d6.

Personally, I would have preferred 3d3 for the battlecannon. Or even just 2d3 to give it at least two hits. But, with everything being able to splitfire now, this may be less problematic than we think. Especially if the LR is not as expensive as it currently is. Which I assume will be the case due to its T8.

I suspect the Battlecannon Leman Russ will be outshitned by all its sisters, however, if its cheaper than the rest, i will do nicely as a support gun. Three heavy bolters, a heavy stubbor plus a battle cannon at an infantry squad seems pretty useful, even if the heavy bolters are more consistent.

So I just did the math on Lascannon vs Battle Cannon on a leman Russ, and Heavy bolter vs Battle Cannon on MEQ

VS. Leman Russ
Lascannon:
.5 hits
.2777 wounds after saves
D6 damage = .97222 damage caused

Battlecannon:
1.75 hits
.58333 wounds after saves
d3 damage = 1.1666 damage caused




VS. MEQ
Heavy Bolter:
1.5 hits
1 wound
.5 casualties after saves

Battle Cannon:
1.75 hits
1.458333 wounds
.97222 casualties after saves


So there you have it. The battle cannon can either wound a vehicle roughly the same as a 20 points lascannon, or wound Space Marines roughly the same as 2 10 points heavy bolters. So I would say that if a Battle Cannon could be taken on its own as a heavy weapon, it would cost roughly 25 points. Vanilla Russes have a heavy bolter in the hull making their total weaponry worth 35 points. So the question now is, how much is a 12 wound 3+ save platform worth? 65 points? So a Leman Russ should cost around 100 points based on what we have so far. I don't find that likley to happen. But I will hold judgement until the final game is released.

IronJack wrote:
So the question now is, how much is a 12 wound 3+ save platform worth? 65 points?

No
65 Points sounds like ... T7, 8 wounds, 3+ Save Platform
Going into T8 sounds like it's worth maybe a Mark of Nurgle, so 15 Points.
Getting an additional 4 wounds, probably another 5 points per wound.

So that makes the platform worth around 100 points. Add the weapons, and we get that it should cost around 135.

 mrhappyface wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
losing firepower on the main gun is a big thing.

Your main gun is now a big monster/tank/small elite units hunter, that is not a loss of fire power it's a change of target priority. If you want to blast infantry again I am sure the punisher will step up and do remember this is the base Russ model i.e. the cheapest, so the gun shouldn't be able to auto kill everything.

Too bad all those roles are better done by other russ variants...You want elite unit killer that does nicely against monsters? Exterminator. Or you want to bust big models? Vanquisher.

Godhammer landraiders. Great again.

tneva82 wrote:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
losing firepower on the main gun is a big thing.

Your main gun is now a big monster/tank/small elite units hunter, that is not a loss of fire power it's a change of target priority. If you want to blast infantry again I am sure the punisher will step up and do remember this is the base Russ model i.e. the cheapest, so the gun shouldn't be able to auto kill everything.

Too bad all those roles are better done by other russ variants...You want elite unit killer that does nicely against monsters? Exterminator. Or you want to bust big models? Vanquisher.

Vanquisher Cannon is S-1 and causes permanent armor save bonuses, Exterminator can only be fired at friendly models.

Comparative analysis at this point is chasing imaginary butterflies.

IronJack wrote:
So I just did the math on Lascannon vs Battle Cannon on a leman Russ, and Heavy bolter vs Battle Cannon on MEQ

VS. Leman Russ
Lascannon:
.5 hits
.2777 wounds after saves
D6 damage = .97222 damage caused

Battlecannon:
1.75 hits
.58333 wounds after saves
d3 damage = 1.1666 damage caused




VS. MEQ
Heavy Bolter:
1.5 hits
1 wound
.5 casualties after saves

Battle Cannon:
1.75 hits
1.458333 wounds
.97222 casualties after saves


So there you have it. The battle cannon can either wound a vehicle roughly the same as a 20 points lascannon, or wound Space Marines roughly the same as 2 10 points heavy bolters. So I would say that if a Battle Cannon could be taken on its own as a heavy weapon, it would cost roughly 25 points. Vanilla Russes have a heavy bolter in the hull making their total weaponry worth 35 points. So the question now is, how much is a 12 wound 3+ save platform worth? 65 points? So a Leman Russ should cost around 100 points based on what we have so far. I don't find that likley to happen. But I will hold judgement until the final game is released.

Sorry, but you are messing around with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_and_independent_variables

Since your wound roll/save determines if you roll for number of wounds at all, your results are wrong.

I would recommend to adhere to simulations.

EDIT: I was correct before, made a stupid mistake:

Here are my current results:

S 9, AP -3, SHOTS 1, D D6 vs. T 8, W 12, Sv 3: average damage per turn 1.944035182134801, average turns to death 7.033115
S 8, AP -2, SHOTS D6, D D3 vs. T 8, W 12, Sv 3: average damage per turn 1.7498897608981188, average turns to death 7.65155
S 8, AP -4, SHOTS 1, D D6 vs. T 8, W 12, Sv 3: average damage per turn 1.7512314235933175, average turns to death 7.8056
S 8, AP -4, SHOTS 1, D 2D6 MAX vs. T 8, W 12, Sv 3: average damage per turn 2.238095443126066, average turns to death 6.270834

Here is the code, maybe someone can check it:

P.S.: If you look at the main method the one liners are basically what you do to define a simulation and print its result. It should be quite easy to add other scenarions. Note that Invulnerability saves are not done, since I don't know how they work.

import java.text.DecimalFormat; import java.text.DecimalFormatSymbols; import java.text.NumberFormat; import java.util.Locale; import java.util.Random; public class FourtyK8th { static final Random r = new Random(System.currentTimeMillis()); static int d6() { return r.nextInt(6) + 1; } enum VariantStat { ONE(1), TWO(2), THREE(3), FOUR(4), FIVE(5), SIX(6), D3(1, 3), D6(1, 6), TWOD3(2, 3), TWOD6(2, 6), TWOD6MAX(2, 6, true); final String name; private final int number; private final int diceDiv; private final int numberOfDice; private final boolean max; private VariantStat(int numberOfDice, int diceType) { this.name = (numberOfDice > 1 ? numberOfDice + "D" : "D") + diceType; this.number = 0; this.diceDiv = diceType == 3 ? 2 : 1; this.numberOfDice = numberOfDice; this.max = false; } private VariantStat(int numberOfDice, int diceType, boolean max) { this.name = (numberOfDice > 1 ? numberOfDice + "D" : "D") + diceType + (max ? " MAX" : ""); this.number = 0; this.diceDiv = diceType == 3 ? 2 : 1; this.numberOfDice = numberOfDice; this.max = max; } private VariantStat(int number) { this.name = String.valueOf(number); this.number = number; this.diceDiv = 0; this.numberOfDice = 0; this.max = false; } final int numberValue() { if (number > 0) { return number; } int result = 0; for (int i = 0; i < numberOfDice; i++) { if (max) { result = Math.max(result, d6()); } else { result += d6() / diceDiv; } } return result; } } static final class TargetStats { final int toughness; final int wounds; final int save; final int invulnerabilitySave; public TargetStats(int toughness, int wounds, int save, int invulnerabilitySave) { super(); this.toughness = toughness; this.wounds = wounds; this.save = save; this.invulnerabilitySave = invulnerabilitySave; } public TargetStats(int toughness, int wounds, int save) { super(); this.toughness = toughness; this.wounds = wounds; this.save = save; this.invulnerabilitySave = 7; } @Override public String toString() { return "T " + toughness + ", W " + wounds + ", Sv " + save + "+" + (invulnerabilitySave < 7 ? ", ISv " + invulnerabilitySave + "+" : ""); } } static final class WeaponStats { final int skill; final int strength; final int ap; final VariantStat shots; final VariantStat damage; public WeaponStats(int skill, int strength, int ap, VariantStat shots, VariantStat damage) { super(); this.skill = skill; this.strength = strength; this.ap = ap; this.shots = shots; this.damage = damage; } @Override public String toString() { return "BS " + skill + "+, S " + strength + ", AP " + ap + ", SHOTS " + shots.name + ", D " + damage.name; } } static final class SimulationResult { final double averageTurnsToDeath; final double averageDamagePerTurn; final double averageKillsPerTurn; final WeaponStats weapon; final TargetStats target; public SimulationResult(WeaponStats weapon, TargetStats target, double averageTurnsToDeath, double averageDamagePerTurn, double averageKillsPerTurn) { super(); this.weapon = weapon; this.target = target; this.averageTurnsToDeath = averageTurnsToDeath; this.averageDamagePerTurn = averageDamagePerTurn; this.averageKillsPerTurn = averageKillsPerTurn; } public double getAverageTurnsToDeath() { return averageTurnsToDeath; } public double getAverageDamagePerTurn() { return averageDamagePerTurn; } @Override public String toString() { NumberFormat format = new DecimalFormat("0.00", DecimalFormatSymbols.getInstance(Locale.UK)); return weapon.toString() + " vs. " + target.toString() + ": average damage per turn " + format.format(averageDamagePerTurn) + ", average turns to death " + format.format(averageTurnsToDeath) + ", average kills per turn " + format.format(averageKillsPerTurn); } } public static SimulationResult simulate(WeaponStats weapon, TargetStats target) { double totalDamage = 0; double totalKills = 0; final int iterations = 1000000; int wounds = target.wounds; for (int i = 0; i < iterations; i++) { int shots = weapon.shots.numberValue(); for (int j = 0; j < shots; j++) { if (d6() >= weapon.skill && toWound(weapon.strength, target.toughness) && toPenetrate(weapon.ap, target.save, target.invulnerabilitySave)) { int damage = weapon.damage.numberValue(); if (damage < wounds) { wounds -= damage; totalDamage += damage; } else { totalDamage += wounds; totalKills++; wounds = target.wounds; } } } } return new SimulationResult(weapon, target, iterations / totalKills, totalDamage / iterations, totalKills / iterations); } private static boolean toPenetrate(int ap, int save, int invulnerabilitySave) { // TODO: Invulnerability saves return d6() + ap < save; } private static boolean toWound(int strength, int toughness) { int toWoundRoll = 4; if (strength < toughness) { toWoundRoll = 5; if (strength <= toughness * 2) { toWoundRoll = 6; } } else if (strength > toughness) { toWoundRoll = 3; if (strength >= toughness * 2) { toWoundRoll = 2; } } return d6() >= toWoundRoll; } public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println("vs Terminators --------------------------"); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 8, -2, VariantStat.D6, VariantStat.D3), new TargetStats(4, 2, 2))); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 5, -1, VariantStat.THREE, VariantStat.ONE), new TargetStats(4, 2, 2))); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 9, -3, VariantStat.ONE, VariantStat.D6), new TargetStats(4, 2, 2))); System.out.println(""); System.out.println("vs Leman Russ --------------------------"); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 9, -3, VariantStat.ONE, VariantStat.D6), new TargetStats(8, 12, 3))); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 8, -2, VariantStat.D6, VariantStat.D3), new TargetStats(8, 12, 3))); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 8, -4, VariantStat.ONE, VariantStat.D6), new TargetStats(8, 12, 3))); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 5, -1, VariantStat.THREE, VariantStat.ONE), new TargetStats(8, 12, 3))); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 8, -4, VariantStat.ONE, VariantStat.TWOD6MAX), new TargetStats(8, 12, 3))); System.out.println(""); System.out.println("vs Space Marine --------------------------"); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 9, -3, VariantStat.ONE, VariantStat.D6), new TargetStats(4, 1, 3))); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 8, -2, VariantStat.D6, VariantStat.D3), new TargetStats(4, 1, 3))); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 8, -4, VariantStat.ONE, VariantStat.D6), new TargetStats(4, 1, 3))); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 5, -1, VariantStat.THREE, VariantStat.ONE), new TargetStats(4, 1, 3))); System.out.println(simulate(new WeaponStats(4, 5, -1, VariantStat.SIX, VariantStat.ONE), new TargetStats(4, 1, 3))); } }

I don't like the Random part. Cause it's not random. If you want an average result, you need averages - not randoms.

 koooaei wrote:
I don't like the Random part. Cause it's not random. If you want an average result, you need averages - not randoms.

I am sorry, but an average is the sum of randoms divided by the number of your tries. Thats what a simulation is all about. If you want to do it with statics I would like to see your results. But then you have to go through all the pain of linear independent variables and binominal distribution. Just multiplying averages does not work in this case.

My simulator is here, and i've recently added a visualization spreadsheet with some aggregate functions.

4+ to hit Russ with 2 Heavy Bolters, Lascannon and battle cannon shooting at a MEQ 100,000 times breaks down as follows:
hb_m hb_w bc_m bc_w lc_m lc_w Medi 2 2 1 2 0 0 #Med 33147 33147 36767 14730 66796 66796 Max 6 6 6 15 1 3 #Max 125 125 27 1 33204 11015 ‘1’ 26324 26324 36767 12083 33204 11093

3+ to hit russ (commander?) under same conditions
hb_m hb_w bc_m bc_w lc_m lc_w Medi 3.0 3.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 #Medi 30287 30287 33387 17181 55637 55637 #Max 779 779 121 3 44363 14888 ‘1’ 14089 14089 33387 11179 44363 14662
hb - heavy bolter
bc - battle cannon
lc - lascannon
m - models wounded and failed save
w - wounds inflicted after failed save
Median - the most common result for the result in question
#Medi - number of instances the median result happened
Max - the highest result that happened - Battle Cannon went crazy dice exactly once in 100,000 tries, and it still didn't get the maximum possible.
#max - number of instances the best possible result happened
'1' - number of instances exactly 1 model or wound was affected. in the lascannon's case, it did nothing more often than it wounded.

Going by median results only; 2 heavy bolters kill between 2 and 3 times as many marines as a battle cannon.

 malamis wrote:
My simulator is here, and i've recently added a visualization spreadsheet with some aggregate functions.

Hmm...

I adjusted my code to track kills per turn.

I get:

S 9, AP -3, SHOTS 1, D D6 vs. T 8, W 12, Sv 3: average damage per turn 1.7076403100448667, average turns to death 7.027241, average kills per turn 0.14230335917040557
S 8, AP -2, SHOTS D6, D D3 vs. T 8, W 12, Sv 3: average damage per turn 1.677694325358983, average turns to death 7.649735, average kills per turn 0.13072452836601528
S 8, AP -4, SHOTS 1, D D6 vs. T 8, W 12, Sv 3: average damage per turn 1.5358124588690225, average turns to death 7.813454, average kills per turn 0.12798437157241854
S 5, AP -1, SHOTS 3, D 1 vs. T 8, W 12, Sv 3: average damage per turn 0.2500380536432628, average turns to death 48.326516, average kills per turn 0.020692573824274856
S 8, AP -4, SHOTS 1, D 2D6 MAX vs. T 8, W 12, Sv 3: average damage per turn 1.9099357083808297, average turns to death 6.282934, average kills per turn 0.1591613090317358
S 9, AP -3, SHOTS 1, D D6 vs. T 4, W 1, Sv 3: average damage per turn 0.6942848553561647, average turns to death 1.440331, average kills per turn 0.6942848553561647
S 8, AP -2, SHOTS D6, D D3 vs. T 4, W 1, Sv 3: average damage per turn 1.6209883212555096, average turns to death 1.232838, average kills per turn 1.6209883212555096
S 8, AP -4, SHOTS 1, D D6 vs. T 4, W 1, Sv 3: average damage per turn 0.8331465696439715, average turns to death 1.200269, average kills per turn 0.8331465696439715
S 5, AP -1, SHOTS 3, D 1 vs. T 4, W 1, Sv 3: average damage per turn 0.9990549420413674, average turns to death 1.422135, average kills per turn 0.9990549420413674
S 5, AP -1, SHOTS 6, D 1 vs. T 4, W 1, Sv 3: average damage per turn 1.9979869346862007, average turns to death 1.096338, average kills per turn 1.9979869346862007

With two heavy bolters being significantly better than a battle cannon.

Since the heavy bolter does not let us descend into evil statistics we can just calculate its average expected space marine kills as 3 × 2/3 × 1/2 = 1.
And since space marines have only 1 wound, it seems 3.5 × 5/6 × 2/3 = 1.94 is quite correct.