AndrewGPaul wrote: I think "twin weapon x" will simply be listed as a different weapon to "weapon x". For example a Predator Destructor might have:
"this vehicle is equipped with two lascannon in the sponsons and a twin-linked lascannon in the turret.
Weapon Range Type ...
Lascannon 72" Heavy 1 ...
Twin lascannon 72" Heavy 2 ..."
Exactly this. There is no "twin-linked" rule. They're just weapons with the "twin" prefix that get more shots on their profile.
davou wrote: jesus, not sure I like the combi weapons being able to fire forever.... Sternguard were NOT hurting for shooting power.
depends on pricing, if they are 5 points they are way to good, at 15...They also allow for very multi-task units. Sternguard with combi-meltas are straight up better than ones with meltas, So I would expect a combi-melta to be more expensive than a melta. I think I would also want combi-weapons priced separately now because they vary so much in usefulness.
I like how everyone is saying the good old Russ tank got terrible with the new random hits with it's battle cannon.
I'm sure that it used to be ordinance. It's now just a heavy weapon on the new article (assuming the battle cannon wasn't heavy before). That means no rule for scatter of its not ordinance? I think the Russ just became more reliable and tougher...
AndrewGPaul wrote: I think "twin weapon x" will simply be listed as a different weapon to "weapon x". For example a Predator Destructor might have:
"this vehicle is equipped with two lascannon in the sponsons and a twin-linked lascannon in the turret.
Weapon Range Type ...
Lascannon 72" Heavy 1 ...
Twin lascannon 72" Heavy 2 ..."
This.
So a Hurricane Bolter would just read: Hurricane Bolter Rapid Fire 6.
nintura wrote: So Hurricane Bolters get 12 shots at 12" or less? Land Raider Crusaders are going to be terrifying.
No... they get 12 shots at 24" Very cool indeed.
How so? They fire as if not moving, sure. but they are 3 sets of TL-Bolt guns right? Meaning they get 1 shot at 24", or 2 at 12". But being TL they get double. So 4 at 12" x 3 sets = 12 shots at 12"
nintura wrote: So Hurricane Bolters get 12 shots at 12" or less? Land Raider Crusaders are going to be terrifying.
No... they get 12 shots at 24" Very cool indeed.
No. Hurricane bolters are 3 twinlinked bolters which would mean (assuming a straight conversion) that they would be effectively rapid fire 6. Six shots out to 24" and 12 up to 12."
I though they were just twin-linked, 6-shot bolters without rapid fire based on the statement that they would have 12 shots at 12". My bad.
Twin-Linked weapons. In 2nd Ed you'd fire once, and hit twice. In 3rd-7th you'd fire once, hit once, but re-roll if you missed. Now you just fire twice. I'm totally ok with this.
Combi-Weapons. Hey! They remembered that weapons can be reloaded. 'Bout fething time!
Explosives. Uhh... just as I feared/predicted. Battlecannon gets D6 hits. A massive weapon can hit a unit of infantry and cause 1 casualty. That's daft. If they must got the all random all the time route, at least give it 2D3. D6 is absurd.
I was thinking that with some of these shooting & close combat changes, armies could mow down swathes of the enemy.
I was also thinking, and have been around since the start of 40k, that GW will drop point costs on models.
Thus fulfilling their desire (stated in WD years ago about wanting 40k to be more like epic) about huge armies on the board. It also makes sense in terms of sales. If there were 50 models in your 2k army, I am suspecting they'll make it to where you'll need 75 to even 100 models for a 2k army. Maybe even make (unarmed) transports free & pay a point cost for weaponizing it
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how everyone is saying the good old Russ tank got terrible with the new random hits with it's battle cannon.
I'm sure that it used to be ordinance. It's now just a heavy weapon on the new article (assuming the battle cannon wasn't heavy before). That means no rule for scatter of its not ordinance? I think the Russ just became more reliable and tougher...
I'm on the fence with the battle cannon.
I think it's targets won't be regular 1 wound infantry, but rather big targets and multi-wound infantry (which I think Orks will be).
Explosives. Uhh... just as I feared/predicted. Battlecannon gets D6 hits. A massive weapon can hit a unit of infantry and cause 1 casualty. That's daft. If they must got the all random all the time route, at least give it 2D3. D6 is absurd.
I am guessing they're going for the "the shot was wide so the explosion was to the side and didn't cause that much damage" route. It's silly but that's how it's gonna be.
Crimson wrote: Ultimately this character size debate is about arbitrary cutoff point. Such thing previously existed with characters who were MCs. There is always some edge cases that will feel a bit weird either way, in any system where the choice is binary.
I'm interested in seeing how Daemon Princes are handled, they're about the same size as Guilliman.
???
Mortarion looks (from the leaks) like he's going to be around the same size as Magnus and as shown multiple times in this thread, Magnus is huge and easily dwarfs Girlyman by several magnitudes. IIRC Angron is sometimes described being as big as a lesser titan, in terms of size, and Fulgrim is supposedly a tall several limbed, serpent looking, creature with huge wings.
Claiming that daemon princes are "about the same size as Guilliman" is a postulate made on a hugely misinformed basis.
If you look at Belakor, he's probably smaller than Guilliman actually.
I'm conflicted on where daemon princes will fall because I feel like they should have had a lot more wounds than they did in 7th so I wouldn't be surprised if they went above 10 but the fact remains that in 7th they were definitely set to have less than Guilliman so they could come out at 7ish like a dreadnought or something.
Daemon Princes have often been a funny point with Games Workshop
In 2nd, the Daemon Princes were the most powerful special characters around and had stats that went above 10- even though the edition did not normally allow for this (Doombreed had a Ld value of 12, for example). M'kachen was even a character Lord of Change who had been 'elevated' to the rank of Prince.
There are a lot of things that they might do with daemon princes.
Twin-Linked weapons. In 2nd Ed you'd fire once, and hit twice. In 3rd-7th you'd fire once, hit once, but re-roll if you missed. Now you just fire twice. I'm totally ok with this.
Combi-Weapons. Hey! They remembered that weapons can be reloaded. 'Bout fething time!
Explosives. Uhh... just as I feared/predicted. Battlecannon gets D6 hits. A massive weapon can hit a unit of infantry and cause 1 casualty. That's daft. If they must got the all random all the time route, at least give it 2D3. D6 is absurd.
While I agree that d6 is not a good choice (I'd have done 2d3 or d6+1), how is your assertion that "a massive weapon can hit a unit of infantry and cause 1 casualty. That's daft." any different from the last several editions (and 2nd edition)? A scattered template can hit 1 guy too.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how everyone is saying the good old Russ tank got terrible with the new random hits with it's battle cannon.
I'm sure that it used to be ordinance. It's now just a heavy weapon on the new article (assuming the battle cannon wasn't heavy before). That means no rule for scatter of its not ordinance? I think the Russ just became more reliable and tougher...
I'm on the fence with the battle cannon.
I think it's targets won't be regular 1 wound infantry, but rather big targets and multi-wound infantry (which I think Orks will be).
I like this thought.
New edition equals new roles for different weapons.
Generally just a complete rethinking of all old tactics!
Explosives. Uhh... just as I feared/predicted. Battlecannon gets D6 hits. A massive weapon can hit a unit of infantry and cause 1 casualty. That's daft. If they must got the all random all the time route, at least give it 2D3. D6 is absurd.
I am guessing they're going for the "the shot was wide so the explosion was to the side and didn't cause that much damage" route. It's silly but that's how it's gonna be.
It was pretty normal in prior editions to 8th for big blasts to scatter so far as to only hit the odd model in a unit. It makes battle cannons random as hell but they pretty much were anyway!
Latro_ wrote: and math hammer time:
chaos terminator combi-bolter:
fire two shots 12-24 -1bs: 1hits
one shot 12-24: 0.667 hits
two shots 0-12: 1.33hits
four shots 0-12 -1bs: 2 hits
So always double tap my chaotic friends its statistically better
Maybe. It's more likely that any combi weapon that resulted in the twin-linked rule in 7th edition will become a "Twin (insert weapon name here)." If that's the case it will be a Twin Bolter and have Rapid Fire 2.
Twin-Linked weapons. In 2nd Ed you'd fire once, and hit twice. In 3rd-7th you'd fire once, hit once, but re-roll if you missed. Now you just fire twice. I'm totally ok with this.
Combi-Weapons. Hey! They remembered that weapons can be reloaded. 'Bout fething time!
Explosives. Uhh... just as I feared/predicted. Battlecannon gets D6 hits. A massive weapon can hit a unit of infantry and cause 1 casualty. That's daft. If they must got the all random all the time route, at least give it 2D3. D6 is absurd.
While I agree that d6 is not a good choice (I'd have done 2d3 or d6+1), how is your assertion that "a massive weapon can hit a unit of infantry and cause 1 casualty. That's daft." any different from the last several editions (and 2nd edition)? A scattered template can hit 1 guy too.
Agreed.
At least now you're guaranteed to hit at least one guy. I get thematic appeal of a blast scattering away, but this makes those types of weapons much more reliable.
I loathed taking blast weapons before for that very reason. Now I can reliably expect at least a few hits per round.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how everyone is saying the good old Russ tank got terrible with the new random hits with it's battle cannon.
I'm sure that it used to be ordinance. It's now just a heavy weapon on the new article (assuming the battle cannon wasn't heavy before). That means no rule for scatter of its not ordinance? I think the Russ just became more reliable and tougher...
I'm on the fence with the battle cannon.
I think it's targets won't be regular 1 wound infantry, but rather big targets and multi-wound infantry (which I think Orks will be).
Yep it's going to want to target either elite infantry or single models. Makes sense, but I don't know about the 1D6 hits... it's too swingy in this case, much more so than the 2D6 charge (which I'm in favour of) that at least has an uneven distribution.
Sweet twin linked punisher cannons is 40 dice.
Time to order a crate of dice!!!
Vendetta with 3x twin linked lascannons are 6 lascannon shots at str 9, -3 armour, d6 wounds. And a potential 36wounds!!! Of course only Ave of 18 wounds!!!
It was pretty normal in prior editions to 8th for big blasts to scatter so far as to only hit the odd model in a unit. It makes battle cannons random as hell but they pretty much were anyway!
It's a big downgrade, but I think we need to stop thinking of the BC as a horde killer and more of a elite infantry and tank killer. Its role changed. Its just different.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gungo wrote: Sweet twin linked punisher cannons is 40 dice.
Time to order a crate of dice!!!
Vendetta with 3x twin linked lascannons are 6 lascannon shots at str 9, -3 armour, d6 wounds. And a potential 36wounds!!! Of course only Ave of 18 wounds!!!
Yea, I think, things like this won't be a straight port.
Twin-Linked weapons. In 2nd Ed you'd fire once, and hit twice. In 3rd-7th you'd fire once, hit once, but re-roll if you missed. Now you just fire twice. I'm totally ok with this.
Combi-Weapons. Hey! They remembered that weapons can be reloaded. 'Bout fething time!
Explosives. Uhh... just as I feared/predicted. Battlecannon gets D6 hits. A massive weapon can hit a unit of infantry and cause 1 casualty. That's daft. If they must got the all random all the time route, at least give it 2D3. D6 is absurd.
While I agree that d6 is not a good choice (I'd have done 2d3 or d6+1), how is your assertion that "a massive weapon can hit a unit of infantry and cause 1 casualty. That's daft." any different from the last several editions (and 2nd edition)? A scattered template can hit 1 guy too.
At least in 7ed if you hit a unit of space marines, they where most certainly going to die with your S8 AP3. Now you have random wounds AND they get a save.
docdoom77 wrote: While I agree that d6 is not a good choice (I'd have done 2d3 or d6+1), how is your assertion that "a massive weapon can hit a unit of infantry and cause 1 casualty. That's daft." any different from the last several editions (and 2nd edition)? A scattered template can hit 1 guy too.
Because the shot didn't vanish into the ether. As you said yourself, the shot scattered. It could hit other things. It could hit one thing in the unit you targeted and then hit something else in another unit. It was an entity that had a certain range of threat even when it completely missed its mark. Hell, I once had a Demolisher destroy itself 'cause of a bad scatter roll.
This makes it like explosions aren't a thing, how you can score a direct hit and then still only hit 1 guy?
Yep it's going to want to target either elite infantry or single models. Makes sense, but I don't know about the 1D6 hits... it's too swingy in this case, much more so than the 2D6 charge (which I'm in favour of) that at least has an uneven distribution.
"If a Leman Russ tank commander is within 6" the battle cannon can reroll the number of hits"
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how everyone is saying the good old Russ tank got terrible with the new random hits with it's battle cannon.
I'm sure that it used to be ordinance. It's now just a heavy weapon on the new article (assuming the battle cannon wasn't heavy before). That means no rule for scatter of its not ordinance? I think the Russ just became more reliable and tougher...
I'm on the fence with the battle cannon.
I think it's targets won't be regular 1 wound infantry, but rather big targets and multi-wound infantry (which I think Orks will be).
Yep it's going to want to target either elite infantry or single models. Makes sense, but I don't know about the 1D6 hits... it's too swingy in this case, much more so than the 2D6 charge (which I'm in favour of) that at least has an uneven distribution.
So just bring 3 of them like any self respecting Imperial Guard player will do
Youn wrote: Am I missing something or are Chaos Terminators with their older weapon configuration going to be better then Modern Terminators with a stormbolter.
Twin Linked Bolter - 24" AP - Dam 1 --- Rapid Fire 2 = 2 shots at 24" and 4 shots at 12"
Vs
Stormbolter - 24" AP - Dam 1 -- Assault 2? = 2 shots at 24"
We don't know what Assault does yet. And also there's no reason why Storm bolters keep at 2 shots - they may change to 3 or 4.
Explosives. Uhh... just as I feared/predicted. Battlecannon gets D6 hits. A massive weapon can hit a unit of infantry and cause 1 casualty. That's daft. If they must got the all random all the time route, at least give it 2D3. D6 is absurd.
I am guessing they're going for the "the shot was wide so the explosion was to the side and didn't cause that much damage" route. It's silly but that's how it's gonna be.
I mean, that easily could happen in the current system with a bad scatter dice roll. Not sure why this is wildly different.
Also, I don't think any of us would want the top-end damage result of a single Russ shot to be 36 wounds (12 hits plus 3 wounds apiece). Unlikely, sure, but I don't think those kind of shells should ever have the possibility of acting like a Destroyer weapon. Oops, I read the suggestion as 2D6. Ignore me.
1d6 hits plus D3 damage make them pretty good at damaging big things, alright at firing at hordes, and really good against elite infantry. If you're worried about dealing more damage to hordes, well, that's what the sponson heavy bolters are for.
SOMEHOW they managed to make the leman russ even more terrible than it currently is.
Pfffffffffffff, you serious?
The main cannon can now absolutely slaughter single model units. We are talking about a potential of EIGHTEEN damage to a single model. It's just a role shift away from being a horde/Space Marine in the open-killer to a vehicle/Monster/Character if targetable killer, while still dealing good damage to Marines in the open and also now being REALLY good against Terminators (who get a modified 4+ save and as the they now have 2 wounds are also affected by the D3 damage, meanwhile D6 hits mean that likely most of a classic 5 men terminator unit will be hit as well).
If split-fire being the indication that weapon systems on vehicles can also target different targets, you can just use sponson weapons to effectively kill infantry while the battle cannon shoots a juicy terminator unit, vehicle or monster, especially if not moving results in unmodified BS/to hit rolls. Guard doesn't lack tools to kill massed TEQ anyway.
docdoom77 wrote: While I agree that d6 is not a good choice (I'd have done 2d3 or d6+1), how is your assertion that "a massive weapon can hit a unit of infantry and cause 1 casualty. That's daft." any different from the last several editions (and 2nd edition)? A scattered template can hit 1 guy too.
Because the shot didn't vanish into the ether. As you said yourself, the shot scattered. It could hit other things. It could hit one thing in the unit you targeted and then hit something else in another unit. It was an entity that had a certain range of threat even when it completely missed its mark. Hell, I once had a Demolisher destroy itself 'cause of a bad scatter roll.
This makes it like explosions aren't a thing, how you can score a direct hit and then still only hit 1 guy?
But rolling a "1" doesn't represent a direct hit. It represents the unit catching the edge of the explosion, just like a scattered template that hits 1 guy. You're correct that it can no longer hit other things, but that was true in 3rd edition too (a miss with a blast did nothing).
I get that you prefer templates. That's totally fine, but saying that rolling a '1' is a direct hit seems a little silly to me.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: My RW Black Knights are gonna have a fething field day. 4 Plasma shots per rider at 12"
Haha the whole Ravenwing just got a huge boost! Double the shots! Sgt can use his combi special weapon multiple times!
I'm loving it!
true, if they have all the current options I will need to remodel my sergeants (depending on cost of combi-weapons). This would be super broken right now. So I assume there will be some changes.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how everyone is saying the good old Russ tank got terrible with the new random hits with it's battle cannon.
I'm sure that it used to be ordinance. It's now just a heavy weapon on the new article (assuming the battle cannon wasn't heavy before). That means no rule for scatter of its not ordinance? I think the Russ just became more reliable and tougher...
The russ can also take a hull mounted LC and twin HB sponsons.
That means a russ is chucking out the following
1d6 STR 8, AP -2. D3 wounds
1 STR 9, AP -2, D6 wounds
6 STR 5, AP-1 1 wound shots
This is on a T8, 3+ save, 12 wound platform. It's not an 'overwhelming amount of firepower' level of shooting ... but it's not bad.
SOMEHOW they managed to make the leman russ even more terrible than it currently is.
Pfffffffffffff, you serious?
The main cannon can now absolutely slaughter single model units. We are talking about a potential of EIGHTEEN damage to a single model. It's just a role shift away from being a horde/Space Marine in the open-killer to a vehicle/Monster/Character if targetable killer, while still dealing good damage to Marines in the open and also now being REALLY good against Terminators (who get a modified 4+ save and as the they now have 2 wounds are also affected by the D3 damage).
If split-fire being the indication that weapon systems on vehicles can also target different targets, you can just use sponson weapons to effectively kill infantry while the battle cannon shoots a juicy terminator unit, vehicle or monster, especially if not moving results in unmodified BS/to hit rolls. Guard doesn't lack tools to kill massed TEQ anyway.
That's the job of a vanquisher cannon, not a battle cannon. I'm sure the vanquisher will do a way better job.
Because the shot didn't vanish into the ether. As you said yourself, the shot scattered. It could hit other things. It could hit one thing in the unit you targeted and then hit something else in another unit. It was an entity that had a certain range of threat even when it completely missed its mark. Hell, I once had a Demolisher destroy itself 'cause of a bad scatter roll.
And all those bullets, krak missiles and lascannon shots that miss their intended targets could accidentally hit other things. Why are you not bothered by this not being modelled?
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: My RW Black Knights are gonna have a fething field day. 4 Plasma shots per rider at 12"
Haha the whole Ravenwing just got a huge boost! Double the shots! Sgt can use his combi special weapon multiple times!
I'm loving it!
true, if they have all the current options I will need to remodel my sergeants (depending on cost of combi-weapons). This would be super broken right now. So I assume there will be some changes.
Thank the Emprah all my RW sarges and knights have magnetized arms
SOMEHOW they managed to make the leman russ even more terrible than it currently is.
Pfffffffffffff, you serious?
The main cannon can now absolutely slaughter single model units. We are talking about a potential of EIGHTEEN damage to a single model. It's just a role shift away from being a horde/Space Marine in the open-killer to a vehicle/Monster/Character if targetable killer, while still dealing good damage to Marines in the open and also now being REALLY good against Terminators (who get a modified 4+ save and as the they now have 2 wounds are also affected by the D3 damage).
If split-fire being the indication that weapon systems on vehicles can also target different targets, you can just use sponson weapons to effectively kill infantry while the battle cannon shoots a juicy terminator unit, vehicle or monster, especially if not moving results in unmodified BS/to hit rolls. Guard doesn't lack tools to kill massed TEQ anyway.
That's the job of a vanquisher cannon, not a battle cannon. I'm sure the vanquisher will do a way better job.
Was about to write this.
Also, it also has the potential to do ONE damage to single model.
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how everyone is saying the good old Russ tank got terrible with the new random hits with it's battle cannon.
I'm sure that it used to be ordinance. It's now just a heavy weapon on the new article (assuming the battle cannon wasn't heavy before). That means no rule for scatter of its not ordinance? I think the Russ just became more reliable and tougher...
The russ can also take a hull mounted LC and twin HB sponsons.
That means a russ is chucking out the following
1d6 STR 8, AP -2. D3 wounds
1 STR 9, AP -2, D6 wounds
6 STR 5, AP-1 1 wound shots
This is on a T8, 3+ save, 12 wound platform. It's not an 'overwhelming amount of firepower' level of shooting ... but it's not bad.
OR just keep its heavy bolter on the front for 9 Str 5 AP -1 shots.
SOMEHOW they managed to make the leman russ even more terrible than it currently is.
Pfffffffffffff, you serious?
The main cannon can now absolutely slaughter single model units. We are talking about a potential of EIGHTEEN damage to a single model. It's just a role shift away from being a horde/Space Marine in the open-killer to a vehicle/Monster/Character if targetable killer, while still dealing good damage to Marines in the open and also now being REALLY good against Terminators (who get a modified 4+ save and as the they now have 2 wounds are also affected by the D3 damage).
If split-fire being the indication that weapon systems on vehicles can also target different targets, you can just use sponson weapons to effectively kill infantry while the battle cannon shoots a juicy terminator unit, vehicle or monster, especially if not moving results in unmodified BS/to hit rolls. Guard doesn't lack tools to kill massed TEQ anyway.
That's the job of a vanquisher cannon, not a battle cannon. I'm sure the vanquisher will do a way better job.
Doubt it will kill Terminators or Marines in the open as efficiently though, you know what they say about versatility
I like the melta rule - 2D6 damage would have been too brutal IMO, so 2D6 pick highest I like. Keeps the traditional way melta works nicely without becoming too silly.
MaxT wrote: I like the melta rule - 2D6 damage would have been too brutal IMO, so 2D6 pick highest I like. Keeps the traditional way melta works nicely without becoming too silly.
I would have preferred 2D3 damage but I can live with this.
Well, Meltagun solves EVERYTHING except hordes now. Meltavets will kill those characters, that landraider, unit in cover, whatever. While I like meltaguns in general, they could have used a nerf more than a buff.
Twin linking going to double shots is bad. It was a solid mechanic that kept things reasonable before and had distinct uses. If they wanted to mess around they could have increased their damage to reflect the double bullets.
"Yer gonna have to keep track of twenty wound models, but wether or not you used yer combi weapon was too much book keeping, so we had to ditch that."
Does battlecannon auto hit? Doesn't seem to, unlike flamers.
gungo wrote: Sweet twin linked punisher cannons is 40 dice.
Time to order a crate of dice!!!
Vendetta with 3x twin linked lascannons are 6 lascannon shots at str 9, -3 armour, d6 wounds. And a potential 36wounds!!! Of course only Ave of 18 wounds!!!
Yea, I think, things like this won't be a straight port.
Ya there are going to have to nueter the punisher cannon because a vulture or punisher tank with hvy bolter sponsons will bury most targets in weight of dice. this is potentially a problem with always wounding on a 6.
That is going to make a Grey Knight Stormraven scary...
Twin Linked Assault Cannon R36 S6 AP -2 D:1 Heavy 8
Twin Linked Lascannon R48 S9 AP-3 D:1D6 Heavy 2
Right Side Sponson Hurricane Bolter R24 S4 AP - D:1 Rapid Fire 6
Left Side Sponson Hurricane Bolter R24 S4 AP - D:1 Rapid Fire 6
Four Stormstrike missiles R72 S8 AP -1 D:1D3 Heavy 1, One use
That seems like a huge amount of shooting for a transport. You don't want to be within 12" of that when it decides to unload.
Love the twin-linking and combi-weapon change. The rules finally seem to be heading in the direction that feels more natural for me when I think about it thematically overall. Less unit restrictions, more free flow on the battle field.
So much random has been removed from annoying areas and added to areas where it is nice.
I would rather it be a chance to kill rather than guaranteed instant death. I like the idea that we can think of it as glancing hits rather than everything being all or nothing. Before they were limited by the AP system, now they can have more nuanced ranges for each weapon.
Overall I really like the weapons profiles we are seeing and we can get a pretty good idea of how AP ranges will translate
AP4 - 1
AP3 - 2
AP2 - 3
AP1 - 4
Weapons strength stays the same. We also see that even with fixed basic statlines they have no problems making it plus or minus to hit (and wound probably) as abilities. So for example a unit with the flyer type might have a set of rules that goes with it like -2 to hit. You might then have the keyword vehicle that represents how a flying vehicle works, so on and so forth.
Really excited about what the key word system has to offer as it streamlines everything while also making it really easy to make changes and updates without having to republish everything.
"Units with the "Flyer" Keyword now operate this way"
A lot of this will depend on points, but I expect we will see options priced based on the wielder rather than a set price across all units. I look forward to seeing guardsmen paying less for meltas than marines. It will be interesting to see if they stick to the multiples of 5 route or if they will add in more variance(like 3 or 4 point upgrades)
kestral wrote: Well, Meltagun solves EVERYTHING except hordes now. Meltavets will kill those characters, that landraider, unit in cover, whatever. While I like meltaguns in general, they could have used a nerf more than a buff.
Twin linking going to double shots is bad. It was a solid mechanic that kept things reasonable before and had distinct uses. If they wanted to mess around they could have increased their damage to reflect the double bullets.
"Yer gonna have to keep track of twenty wound models, but wether or not you used yer combi weapon was too much book keeping, so we had to ditch that."
Does battlecannon auto hit? Doesn't seem to, unlike flamers.
If they are following the AOS model, then points are going to change. In WHFB a dwarf trooper decked out might cost 12 points each. In AOS a Fyreslayer might cost 30 points or more. Army size will drop by half. So yes, you will be able to make an OP unit, but at the expense of not having much else. In a game where holding objectives is important, having just one big unit might lose you the game because you can't be everywhere at once.
The Battle Cannon is going to be a lot better than before from what I'm seeing.
1) They can't scatter and miss completely against single targets like monstrous creatures, which is very common now.
2) Instead of a maximum of one wound on monstrous creatures and vehicles, they can potentially do 18.
3) The effectiveness against infantry is not really that much worse. In 7th, you would hit 5 models on 25mm bases, assuming 2" coherency. Assuming Guardsmen stats, this would be 5 hits*3,33 wounds = 3 dead guardsmen. In 8th, this would be 3,5 hits*2,33 wounds = 2 dead guardsmen. And that's the worst case scenario.
Consider 32mm bases in 7th, you would do even less hits.
Consider elite infantry on 40mm bases, like Terminators, now you're hitting 3 (?) models, doing 2 wounds = 1,33 dead Terminator after saves.
In 8th, you'd be hitting the terminators 3,5 times, doing 2,33 wounds, halved to 1,165 after 4+ saves, then upped to 2,33 wounds again after the D3 damage, killing one terminator (since they have 2 wounds now IIRC).
Unless my math is off (might be, I'm in a bit of a hurry), this is a huge buff to the Battle Cannon since it's only slightly less effective against most infantry but a LOT more effective against vehicles and monstrous creatures.
EDIT: Yes, I'm stupid, I missed the To Hit roll Please someone competent do the math...
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how everyone is saying the good old Russ tank got terrible with the new random hits with it's battle cannon.
I'm sure that it used to be ordinance. It's now just a heavy weapon on the new article (assuming the battle cannon wasn't heavy before). That means no rule for scatter of its not ordinance? I think the Russ just became more reliable and tougher...
The russ can also take a hull mounted LC and twin HB sponsons.
That means a russ is chucking out the following
1d6 STR 8, AP -2. D3 wounds
1 STR 9, AP -2, D6 wounds
6 STR 5, AP-1 1 wound shots
This is on a T8, 3+ save, 12 wound platform. It's not an 'overwhelming amount of firepower' level of shooting ... but it's not bad.
That's assuming a Leman Russ (or any vehicle) can fire all it's weapons - have we actually had confirmation of that?
I dunno, the battle cannon just seems bad. The godhammer lascannons are now actually better, on average, if leman russes still hit on 4+ (BS3). Just do some maths with me:
VS MEQ: 4+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 5+ save, 3.5 shots, damage irrelevant = 3.5(1/2)(5/6)(2/3)=35/36 wounds; you expect to kill slightly less than one marine every time you fire.
VS TEQ: 4+ to hit, 2+ to wound, 4+ save, 3.5 shots, 2 av. damage = 7(1/2)(5/6)(1/2)=35/24 wounds; you expect to kill slightly less than one Terminator every time you fire.
VS New Dreadnought: 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound, 5+ save, 3.5 shots, 2 av. damage = 7(1/2)(2/3)(2/3)=14/9 (=1.55 rec); you expect to do around 1.6 wounds to a Dread.
I don't know about you, but none of these numbers impress me. You barely dent a Tactical squad, you don't dent terminators and you might make a Dreadnought laugh at you. The best thing that Leman Russes seem to be able to do now is be a gun boat - their normal shooting seems woeful.
I just realized, a scout squad with sniper rifles and a single model carrying a missile launcher with flakk is gonna be amazing in this eddition. Particularly in cover with cloaks!
You can pick off characters or pin large squads with the snipers, and shoot at planes or tanks with the ML!
Hope my orks get some interesting toys for assault on part with what my marines are getting for shooting.
kestral wrote: Well, Meltagun solves EVERYTHING except hordes now. Meltavets will kill those characters, that landraider, unit in cover, whatever. While I like meltaguns in general, they could have used a nerf more than a buff.
Twin linking going to double shots is bad. It was a solid mechanic that kept things reasonable before and had distinct uses. If they wanted to mess around they could have increased their damage to reflect the double bullets.
"Yer gonna have to keep track of twenty wound models, but wether or not you used yer combi weapon was too much book keeping, so we had to ditch that."
Does battlecannon auto hit? Doesn't seem to, unlike flamers.
Depends on how tough some vehicles are. What if a Land Raider is toughness 9/10 and 18 wounds and a 2+ save, add in the potential for cover and its not so simple. I think smoke launchers add to the save now and so we might see units with like -1 save(always fail on a 1) situations like we used to see in fantasy. I really like it because they made it so things are less all or nothing like they were before.
It will be interesting to see what upgrades do now, I could see upgrades adding to saves or wounds.
Dozer Blade: +1 armor save when fired on from the front
Extra Armor: +1 wound
But it looks like large blast is going to be d6 shots, so small blast is probably d3. So given what we know we can probably guesstimate most of the profiles. It will be interesting to see the rules for salvo.
1) They can't scatter and miss completely against single targets like monstrous creatures, which is very common now.
That's not my read of it. If it's D6 shots, you still need to roll to hit, meaning misses are possible- just not as probable if you roll decently on the number of shots.
1) They can't scatter and miss completely against single targets like monstrous creatures, which is very common now.
That's not my read of it. If it's D6 shots, you still need to roll to hit, meaning misses are possible- just not as probable if you roll decently on the number of shots.
Well I meant exactly what I said - they can't scatter and miss completely, since they can't scatter. They CAN miss completely, but that is a whole heck of a lot less likely. On average you'll be hitting 3,5 times.
edit: Oh wait, I'm stupid, I actuyally missed the to hit roll. DOH
1) They can't scatter and miss completely against single targets like monstrous creatures, which is very common now.
That's not my read of it. If it's D6 shots, you still need to roll to hit, meaning misses are possible- just not as probable if you roll decently on the number of shots.
This is actually very important because it brings down the effectiveness of the BC even further. A clarification would be necessary.
Does battlecannon auto hit? Doesn't seem to, unlike flamers.
The Flamer profile only says "Assault D6" as well, yet we still know that those are auto-hits from the article. Unless Flamers are the only Assault weapons now (which seems doubtful), I would be surprised if the battlecannon wasn't dishing out autohits as it wouldn't make sense otherwise (tank shells don't magically split into D6 smaller projectiles that then don't even deal explosive damage because they have to hit their targets like a bullet first).
The Flamer profile only says "Assault D6" as well, yet we still know that those are auto-hits from the article. Unless Flamers are the only Assault weapons now (which seems doubtful), I would be surprised if the battlecannon wasn't dishing out autohits as it wouldn't make sense otherwise (tank shells don't magically split into D6 smaller projectiles).
The Flamer included its auto-hit rule on the profile; the battle cannon didn't. I think it's unlikely.
I like the new TL profile. My gatling Taurox Prime will be Heavy 20 S4 AP- with a additional 8 S4 AP-2. That little transport will be pushing out 28 shots!!! If Militarum Tempsetus orders stay the same we can order twin linked on our men. This could get interesting.
Yeah, I was assuming it would be auto-hits since that's effectively how the template change seemed to work. Otherwise, if you still needed to roll to hit the BC would definitely need something along the lines of 2D3 shots or D6+3 shots. Orks would be hosed with our BS2.
Does battlecannon auto hit? Doesn't seem to, unlike flamers.
The Flamer profile only says "Assault D6" as well, yet we still know that those are auto-hits from the article. Unless Flamers are the only Assault weapons now (which seems doubtful), I would be surprised if the battlecannon wasn't dishing out autohits as it wouldn't make sense otherwise (tank shells don't magically split into D6 smaller projectiles).
Battle cannon doesnt have any special abilities so it still needs to roll to hit, however it has also lost ordinance so there is that.
1) They can't scatter and miss completely against single targets like monstrous creatures, which is very common now.
That's not my read of it. If it's D6 shots, you still need to roll to hit, meaning misses are possible- just not as probable if you roll decently on the number of shots.
Well I meant exactly what I said - they can't scatter and miss completely, since they can't scatter. They CAN miss completely, but that is a whole heck of a lot less likely. On average you'll be hitting 3,5 times.
Well that's obviously impossible because nothing scatters anymore... But they can miss completely.
Now I am curious about the odds of actually pulling out a 18 wound shot with BS 3 against, say... RG. (No I don't have a beef with him it's just about the biggest thing we have at the moment to mathhammer against)
The Flamer profile only says "Assault D6" as well, yet we still know that those are auto-hits from the article. Unless Flamers are the only Assault weapons now (which seems doubtful), I would be surprised if the battlecannon wasn't dishing out autohits as it wouldn't make sense otherwise (tank shells don't magically split into D6 smaller projectiles).
The Flamer included its auto-hit rule on the profile; the battle cannon didn't. I think it's unlikely.
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm not worried about CC yet, but it does look like we're going to have a ton of bullets flying.
The pieces we're missing are:
- Transports and charging
- The cost of these weapons
- Character buffs to charge rolls
- The number of attacks for bp/ccw
I don't think there's any reason to worry yet.
Yes there's a lot of boosts to shooting, but the thing I think people are missing is that with the adjustment to AP there are a lot more units that are going to stand up a lot better to shooting.
Land Raider Crusaders just became absolutely ferocious. Each sponson has 3 TL bolters (presumably, this translates from 3 TL shots at 24"/6 shots at 12", to 6 at 24", and 12 shots at 12". Per sponson. Not to mention the TL assault cannon.
Stormravens with TL Hurricane Bolters, TL assault cannons, TL Heavy Bolters... that's a horrendous number of shots.
Dakkajets with 3 TL Supa-Shootas are just absurd. Assuming the retain the same 3 shot per weapon, this just doubled them to 18shots each. I'm gonna take a chance and predict they lose the Waaagh! doubling shots rule, otherwise that's 36 shots from 1 model.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Now I am curious about the odds of actually pulling out a 18 wound shot with an BS 3 againts, say... RG. (No I don't have a beef with him it's just about the biggest thing we have at the moment to mathhammer against)
Easy enough: (1/2)(2/3)(2/3)(1/3) = Hit*wound*save*3 damage roll = 2/27
Need to roll 6 shots once: 1/6 Need to do that roll 6 times: (1/6)(2/27)^6=32/1162261467, or in other words ~0.0000028%
Yes there's a lot of boosts to shooting, but the thing I think people are missing is that with the adjustment to AP there are a lot more units that are going to stand up a lot better to shooting.
Not to mention To Hit and Save modifiers adding a lot of design space to make units more resilient when necessary.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Now I am curious about the odds of actually pulling out a 18 wound shot with an BS 3 againts, say... RG. (No I don't have a beef with him it's just about the biggest thing we have at the moment to mathhammer against)
Easy enough:
(1/2)(2/3)(2/3)(1/3) = Hit*wound*save*3 damage roll = 2/27
Need to roll 6 shots once: 1/6
Need to do that roll 6 times:
(1/6)(2/27)^6=32/1162261467, or in other words ~0.000000028%
Damn was really hoping melta was 2D6 at half-range, but I guess that would be too overpowered. Mathhammer guys, is there an real benefit to 2D6-and-pick-the-highest?
Also I'm confused by the combi-weapon rules: Can you now fire both at the same time?
1) They can't scatter and miss completely against single targets like monstrous creatures, which is very common now.
That's not my read of it. If it's D6 shots, you still need to roll to hit, meaning misses are possible- just not as probable if you roll decently on the number of shots.
Well I meant exactly what I said - they can't scatter and miss completely, since they can't scatter. They CAN miss completely, but that is a whole heck of a lot less likely. On average you'll be hitting 3,5 times.
Well that's obviously impossible because nothing scatters anymore... But they can miss completely.
Now I am curious about the odds of actually pulling out a 18 wound shot with BS 3 against, say... RG. (No I don't have a beef with him it's just about the biggest thing we have at the moment to mathhammer against)
If they do have to roll to hit then my calculations are completely off and they suddenly become pretty horrible... really hope they don't somehow.
1) They can't scatter and miss completely against single targets like monstrous creatures, which is very common now.
That's not my read of it. If it's D6 shots, you still need to roll to hit, meaning misses are possible- just not as probable if you roll decently on the number of shots.
Well I meant exactly what I said - they can't scatter and miss completely, since they can't scatter. They CAN miss completely, but that is a whole heck of a lot less likely. On average you'll be hitting 3,5 times.
Well that's obviously impossible because nothing scatters anymore... But they can miss completely.
Now I am curious about the odds of actually pulling out a 18 wound shot with BS 3 against, say... RG. (No I don't have a beef with him it's just about the biggest thing we have at the moment to mathhammer against)
If they do have to roll to hit then my calculations are completely off and they suddenly become pretty horrible... really hope they don't somehow.
We'll know soon enough, I guess. But right now my Vindicator Triumvirate are set to be gathering dust for a loooooooooooong time.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Damn was really hoping melta was 2D6 at half-range, but I guess that would be too overpowered. Mathhammer guys, is there an real benefit to 2D6-and-pick-the-highest?
Yeah, it moves the average from 3.5 to ~4.5, so you gain 1 damage on average. It also reduces the variance - chance to get only 1 damage moves from 1/6 to 1/36, whereas chance to get a 6 goes from 1/6 to 11/36.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Damn was really hoping melta was 2D6 at half-range, but I guess that would be too overpowered. Mathhammer guys, is there an real benefit to 2D6-and-pick-the-highest?
Also I'm confused by the combi-weapon rules: Can you now fire both at the same time?
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Damn was really hoping melta was 2D6 at half-range, but I guess that would be too overpowered. Mathhammer guys, is there an real benefit to 2D6-and-pick-the-highest?
Also I'm confused by the combi-weapon rules: Can you now fire both at the same time?
It appears so yes, with a -1 to hit.
Combi-plasma got a lot more dakka all of a sudden.
Remember to ask in the facebook comments if battlecannons now really have to roll to-hit rolls with D6 "shots", it doesn't make any sense for a single, explosive projectile and it might be a typo. If enough of us ask it is likely we will get an answer.
Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote: Damn was really hoping melta was 2D6 at half-range, but I guess that would be too overpowered. Mathhammer guys, is there an real benefit to 2D6-and-pick-the-highest?
Also I'm confused by the combi-weapon rules: Can you now fire both at the same time?
It appears so yes, with a -1 to hit.
Combi-plasma got a lot more dakka all of a sudden.
My Sternguard are very very happy.
5 bolters = 10 shots at BS4
5 Combi-weapon bolters = 10 shots at BS4
4 Plasma Shots at BS3
1 Melta Shot at BS3
3 Grav shots at BS3
+D6 flamer hits, if in range
Daedalus81 wrote: I'm not worried about CC yet, but it does look like we're going to have a ton of bullets flying.
The pieces we're missing are:
- Transports and charging
- The cost of these weapons
- Character buffs to charge rolls
- The number of attacks for bp/ccw
I don't think there's any reason to worry yet.
Yes there's a lot of boosts to shooting, but the thing I think people are missing is that with the adjustment to AP there are a lot more units that are going to stand up a lot better to shooting.
Just my opinion, we'll see how it goes.
Hmm...
7th TLHB
vs T4
3 shots, 2.7 hits, 1.8 wounds/dead
vs T3
3 shots, 2.7 hits, 2.2 wounds/dead
vs T4 3+
3 shots, 2.7 hits, 1.8 wounds, .6 dead
8th TLHB
vs T4/T3; 5+
6 shots, 4 hits, 2.7 wounds, 2.2 dead
vs T4/T3; 4+
6 shots, 4 hits, 2.7 wounds, 1.8 dead
vs T4/T3; 3+
6 shots, 4 hits, 2.7 wounds, 1.4 dead
Interesting.
Dire Avengers are doing great with their 4+. Guardians are no change.
Nobs in 'Eavy armor are a wash.
kestral wrote: I fear we're seeing where the quicker games are coming from - enormous vehicle firepower.
That was my point earlier, that GW will most likely drop point costs on miniatures (they did it before) to 1.) sell more miniatures & 2.) maintain an 1.5 to 2 hour game...
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Remember to ask in the facebook comments if battlecannons now really have to roll to-hit rolls with D6 "shots", it doesn't make any sense for a single, explosive projectile and it might be a typo. If enough of us ask it is likely we will get an answer.
They obviously did.
D6 shots represents the blast marker, so how many models it catches if in a unit or how 'blasted' the target was if solo model. It's just another way of doing it rather than using a template.
D3 damage for each 'shot' represents the impact on each model in a unit, or if the solo model is caught in an anti-tank blast, eh, it's gonna hurt.
Not hard to see the abstraction behind this weapon statline, to be honest. Just have to flip your mindset a little as the rules are different.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Remember to ask in the facebook comments if battlecannons now really have to roll to-hit rolls with D6 "shots", it doesn't make any sense for a single, explosive projectile and it might be a typo. If enough of us ask it is likely we will get an answer.
Flamers specify you don't need to hit in their rules, battle cannons don't.
Y'know, I was more excited about stats no longer being capped at 10 for the sake of increased granularity before we saw stats.
It feels like only wounds aren't capped at 10, as we've yet to see anything else. (Outside of double strength modifiers, but that's on specific weapons.) I was kinda hoping that's how they'd buff vehicles, by giving them much higher toughnesses and adjusting the strength of anti-tank to keep up.
Sheesh that battle cannon looks really average. I really wish they had worked on a better mechanic than just "random d6 shots" to replace templates. Seeing it on a squad flamer was one thing, but then again, there might be something I'm missing.
Pretty happy with the twin-linked and combi-weapon changes though, and the melta stats. While the old twin-linked was a good mechanic, this new one is a bit more intuitive and hopefully makes the standard land raiders more effective.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Remember to ask in the facebook comments if battlecannons now really have to roll to-hit rolls with D6 "shots", it doesn't make any sense for a single, explosive projectile and it might be a typo. If enough of us ask it is likely we will get an answer.
They obviously did.
D6 shots represents the blast marker, so how many models it catches if in a unit or how 'blasted' the target was if solo model. It's just another way of doing it rather than using a template.
D3 damage for each 'shot' represents the impact on each model in a unit, or if the solo model is caught in an anti-tank blast, eh, it's gonna hurt.
Not hard to see the abstraction behind this weapon statline, to be honest. Just have to flip your mindset a little as the rules are different.
It just confuses the heck out of me when flamers are now D6 auto-hits weapons.
D6 shots that require to-hit rolls with BS3 /hit on 4+ is pretty awful even before factoring in movement (good luck when you hit on 5+ because you moved the tank unless some special rules take care of it). Even if you roll 6 shots that would statistically result in only 3 hits, which is just awful against any infantry that's not TEQ (and that's if rolling 6 on the number of shots roll, mind, good luck killing anything at all if you roll a 1 or 2).
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: Now I am curious about the odds of actually pulling out a 18 wound shot with an BS 3 againts, say... RG. (No I don't have a beef with him it's just about the biggest thing we have at the moment to mathhammer against)
Easy enough:
(1/2)(2/3)(2/3)(1/3) = Hit*wound*save*3 damage roll = 2/27
Need to roll 6 shots once: 1/6
Need to do that roll 6 times:
(1/6)(2/27)^6=32/1162261467, or in other words ~0.000000028%
AKA don't count on it!
Thank you good ser!
2.8 x 10e-8, which is 2.8 x 10e-6 % (you forgot to multiply by 100 to get a percentage, I think?)
Going from the info we have any ap3 weapons get hosed as marines are now getting a +5 save. So the TL avenger bolt cannon puts out 16 shots now but since everything gets a save it is a NERF overall.
I would guess thus is where the points are going to drop to balance out the changes and increase army sizes.
On the plus side Rapier quad HB are hilarious now with 36 str5 rend -1 shots for a battery of 3.
Also curious to see how Laser.destroyers pan out 4 str8 rend -4 shots per rapier would be fun.
Wow, battle cannons are looking incredibly mediocre, or at least unreliable-- that's a lot of opportunities to whiff vs. the current pretty good chance of hitting a concentration of infantry as long as you prioritize volume over specific models.
The battle cannon is definitely changing its role to anti-elite & anti-single model - which isn't bad. I can get behind this.
I think the new rules make it better. While you're not guaranteed to hit your target; you are guaranteed to not scatter onto your own units. For this reason alone I think the new rules are better.
SeanDrake wrote: Going from the info we have any ap3 weapons get hosed as marines are now getting a +5 save. So the TL avenger bolt cannon puts out 16 shots now but since everything gets a save it is a NERF overall.
Nerf against 3+ saves, massive boost against 2+ saves.
oni wrote: The battle cannon is definitely changing its role to anti-elite & anti-single model - which isn't bad. I can get behind this.
I think the new rules make it better. While you're not guaranteed to hit your target; you are guaranteed to not scatter onto your own units. For this reason alone I think the new rules are better.
It's also worth keeping in mind that Leman Russes are going to be gaining firepower with the ability to split-fire its sponsons and hull weapon at the same time it's firing its cannon. I don't think that they're going to be lacking in damage dealt, even if their cannon doesn't roll great hits.
oni wrote: The battle cannon is definitely changing its role to anti-elite & anti-single model - which isn't bad. I can get behind this.
I think the new rules make it better. While you're not guaranteed to hit your target; you are guaranteed to not scatter onto your own units. For this reason alone I think the new rules are better.
Yea in a way it more sharply defines the usefulness of other anti-infantry weapons.
I am actually really surprised by this, it goes against the streamlining they otherwise seem to be doing.
How do you figure? You now don't need to keep track on whether or not you fired the combi...that's quite a bit easier now at least. The rule is otherwise straightforward.
Cryonicleech wrote: Y'know, I was more excited about stats no longer being capped at 10 for the sake of increased granularity before we saw stats.
It feels like only wounds aren't capped at 10, as we've yet to see anything else. (Outside of double strength modifiers, but that's on specific weapons.) I was kinda hoping that's how they'd buff vehicles, by giving them much higher toughnesses and adjusting the strength of anti-tank to keep up.
Sheesh that battle cannon looks really average. I really wish they had worked on a better mechanic than just "random d6 shots" to replace templates. Seeing it on a squad flamer was one thing, but then again, there might be something I'm missing.
Pretty happy with the twin-linked and combi-weapon changes though, and the melta stats. While the old twin-linked was a good mechanic, this new one is a bit more intuitive and hopefully makes the standard land raiders more effective.
We've already seen the Morkanaught has 18 wounds, the Leman Russ has 12 and they've hinted that a Knight will have more than 20.
If facing is missing off vehicles side sponsons on the Crusader and Stormraven will be pretty silly at effectively Rapid Fire 12 for both sponson together. I am going to need to have more dice as a Grey Knight player.
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Remember to ask in the facebook comments if battlecannons now really have to roll to-hit rolls with D6 "shots", it doesn't make any sense for a single, explosive projectile and it might be a typo. If enough of us ask it is likely we will get an answer.
They obviously did.
D6 shots represents the blast marker, so how many models it catches if in a unit or how 'blasted' the target was if solo model. It's just another way of doing it rather than using a template.
D3 damage for each 'shot' represents the impact on each model in a unit, or if the solo model is caught in an anti-tank blast, eh, it's gonna hurt.
Not hard to see the abstraction behind this weapon statline, to be honest. Just have to flip your mindset a little as the rules are different.
It just confuses the heck out of me when flamers are now D6 auto-hits weapons.
D6 shots that require to-hit rolls with BS3 /hit on 4+ is pretty awful even before factoring in movement (good luck when you hit on 5+ because you moved the tank unless some special rules take care of it). Even if you roll 6 shots that would statistically result in only 3 hits, which is just awful against any infantry that's not TEQ (and that's if rolling 6 on the number of shots roll, mind, good luck killing anything at all if you roll a 1 or 2).
Anecdotal reply: I play against Imperial Guard a lot. Very, very seldom did I see more than four or five infantry models end up under the large blast template when my opponent fired battle cannons, after rolling for hit and scatter. It missed units entirely far more often than it hit. When he did bring Battle Cannon Leman Russes at all, my opponent almost exclusively used them for anti-vehicle duty: they were never very good at killing large units. At a glance, the weapon now looks to be more reliable at hitting single targets, and is slightly more consistent against multiple targets. Wasn't MEQ what the battle cannon was made for shooting at, anyways?
oni wrote: The battle cannon is definitely changing its role to anti-elite & anti-single model - which isn't bad. I can get behind this.
I think the new rules make it better. While you're not guaranteed to hit your target; you are guaranteed to not scatter onto your own units. For this reason alone I think the new rules are better.
I agree with this and makes it more appealling and fluff in my eyes. It had enough firepower to total a squad of tacticals and characters before, but wasn't really used for such, as well as wound most MCs fairly easily. I do like the idea of Leman Russ firing a shell at point blank down a Carnifex's throat.
oni wrote: The battle cannon is definitely changing its role to anti-elite & anti-single model - which isn't bad. I can get behind this.
I think the new rules make it better. While you're not guaranteed to hit your target; you are guaranteed to not scatter onto your own units. For this reason alone I think the new rules are better.
It's also worth keeping in mind that Leman Russes are going to be gaining firepower with the ability to split-fire its sponsons and hull weapon at the same time it's firing its cannon. I don't think that they're going to be lacking in damage dealt, even if their cannon doesn't roll great hits.
I don't doubt that, what I doubt is the viability of the battlecannon variant.
I mean D6 shots, hit on 4+ (or worse if moving and no special rule like 5th Ed. lumbering behemoth), wound on 3+ against T7 or 4+ against T8, a modified 5+ save if the target has a 3+ save in its profile (Vanilla Dreads, Lemon Russes), then pray for a good D3 roll on any shot who actually made it through all of this. Sounds extremely unreliable and like something the Exterminator or Vanquisher might do better, and the anti-infantry firepower of the battlecannon is greatly diminished (except against TEQ assuming you actually get enough hits which is not that likely either).
oni wrote: The battle cannon is definitely changing its role to anti-elite & anti-single model - which isn't bad. I can get behind this.
I think the new rules make it better. While you're not guaranteed to hit your target; you are guaranteed to not scatter onto your own units. For this reason alone I think the new rules are better.
It's also worth keeping in mind that Leman Russes are going to be gaining firepower with the ability to split-fire its sponsons and hull weapon at the same time it's firing its cannon. I don't think that they're going to be lacking in damage dealt, even if their cannon doesn't roll great hits.
I don't doubt that, what I doubt is the viability of the battlecannon variant.
I mean D6 shots, hit on 4+ (or worse if moving and no special rule like 5th Ed. lumbering behemoth), wound on 3+ against T7 or 4+ against T8, a modified 5+ save if the target has a 3+ save, then pray for a good D3 roll on any shot who actually made it through all of this. Sounds extremely unreliable and like something the Exterminator or Vanquisher might do better, and the anti-infantry firepower is greatly diminished (except against TEQ assuming you actually get enough hits which is not that likely either).
The only way this could get a bit better (maybe) is if you roll to hit once for the shell, so to say, and then roll the 1d6 hits...etc etc
How do you figure? You now don't need to keep track on whether or not you fired the combi...that's quite a bit easier now at least. The rule is otherwise straightforward.
Removing the one-use restriction is not weird, but two fire modes, one of them with hit modifiers, is opposite of simple.
oni wrote: The battle cannon is definitely changing its role to anti-elite & anti-single model - which isn't bad. I can get behind this.
I think the new rules make it better. While you're not guaranteed to hit your target; you are guaranteed to not scatter onto your own units. For this reason alone I think the new rules are better.
It's also worth keeping in mind that Leman Russes are going to be gaining firepower with the ability to split-fire its sponsons and hull weapon at the same time it's firing its cannon. I don't think that they're going to be lacking in damage dealt, even if their cannon doesn't roll great hits.
I don't doubt that, what I doubt is the viability of the battlecannon variant.
I mean D6 shots, hit on 4+ (or worse if moving and no special rule like 5th Ed. lumbering behemoth), wound on 3+ against T7 or 4+ against T8, a modified 5+ save if the target has a 3+ save in its profile (Vanilla Dreads, Lemon Russes), then pray for a good D3 roll on any shot who actually made it through all of this. Sounds extremely unreliable and like something the Exterminator or Vanquisher might do better, and the anti-infantry firepower of the battlecannon is greatly diminished (except against TEQ assuming you actually get enough hits which is not that likely either).
What I'd like to know is how weaker 'cannon' weapons will fair by comparison. Standard Autocannons are still just a Heavy 2 while TL will ensure all the Chaos variants will be Heavy 4. The Battle Cannon is heavy d6 with higher S and AP values. Since I can take a squad full of dudes with Autocannons what possible incentive do I have to pay for a Predator Destructor - It's Autocannon is radically devalued by this. Unless they make it something like a 'Destructor Pattern Autocannon' that has a separate profile, why would anyone take it?
oni wrote: The battle cannon is definitely changing its role to anti-elite & anti-single model - which isn't bad. I can get behind this.
I think the new rules make it better. While you're not guaranteed to hit your target; you are guaranteed to not scatter onto your own units. For this reason alone I think the new rules are better.
It's also worth keeping in mind that Leman Russes are going to be gaining firepower with the ability to split-fire its sponsons and hull weapon at the same time it's firing its cannon. I don't think that they're going to be lacking in damage dealt, even if their cannon doesn't roll great hits.
I don't doubt that, what I doubt is the viability of the battlecannon variant.
I mean D6 shots, hit on 4+ (or worse if moving and no special rule like 5th Ed. lumbering behemoth), wound on 3+ against T7 or 4+ against T8, a modified 5+ save if the target has a 3+ save, then pray for a good D3 roll on any shot who actually made it through all of this. Sounds extremely unreliable and like something the Exterminator or Vanquisher might do better, and the anti-infantry firepower is greatly diminished (except against TEQ assuming you actually get enough hits which is not that likely either).
The only way this could get a bit better (maybe) is if you roll to hit once for the shell, so to say, and then roll the 1d6 hits...etc etc
So, it would work like this vs Marines? Just to clarify
1 shot x BS3 = 0.5 hits. Assuming hit then
D6 hits averaging to 3.5
So 3.5 hits, wounds on a 2+* = 2.905 hits
Modified 5+ armour save = 1.937 unsaved wounds
Averaging out to 2 unsaved wound rolls, each of which averages rolls 4 on a D3, results in 2 results of 2.
People here need to remember 1 thing: everyone gets split fire.
Use the battle cannon against elite or single models/vehicle types, let the hull gun and side guns dakka the infantry. Also, no scatter means safer shots!
Also, I assume heavy D6 means you roll once to hit, and if it does, you roll a further D6 to determine how many hits in the explosion. And D3 means how badly the unit was hit by the explosion.
Freddy Kruger wrote: People here need to remember 1 thing: everyone gets split fire.
Use the battle cannon against elite or single models/vehicle types, let the hull gun and side guns dakka the infantry. Also, no scatter means safer shots!
Also, I assume heavy D6 means you roll once to hit, and if it does, you roll a further D6 to determine how many hits in the explosion. And D3 means how badly the unit was hit by the explosion.
Why would you assume that? The article shows us how Heavy X works on the Heavy Bolter profile.
Freddy Kruger wrote: People here need to remember 1 thing: everyone gets split fire.
Use the battle cannon against elite or single models/vehicle types, let the hull gun and side guns dakka the infantry. Also, no scatter means safer shots!
Also, I assume heavy D6 means you roll once to hit, and if it does, you roll a further D6 to determine how many hits in the explosion. And D3 means how badly the unit was hit by the explosion.
They said different models can shoot different targets, did they also say different weapons on one model can shoot different targets?
Freddy Kruger wrote: People here need to remember 1 thing: everyone gets split fire.
Use the battle cannon against elite or single models/vehicle types, let the hull gun and side guns dakka the infantry. Also, no scatter means safer shots!
Also, I assume heavy D6 means you roll once to hit, and if it does, you roll a further D6 to determine how many hits in the explosion. And D3 means how badly the unit was hit by the explosion.
We're not questioning the Leman Russes - just the Battlecannon.
And I think that through the Battlecannon we can get a glimpse at the rest of the traditional "Big Guns", so to say.
For example, I can see the Vindicator's Demolisher Cannon being very similar to the Battle Cannon but at 24": something along the lines of S10 Heavy D6 D3 wounds
Ragnar Blackmane wrote: Remember to ask in the facebook comments if battlecannons now really have to roll to-hit rolls with D6 "shots", it doesn't make any sense for a single, explosive projectile and it might be a typo. If enough of us ask it is likely we will get an answer.
They obviously did.
D6 shots represents the blast marker, so how many models it catches if in a unit or how 'blasted' the target was if solo model. It's just another way of doing it rather than using a template.
D3 damage for each 'shot' represents the impact on each model in a unit, or if the solo model is caught in an anti-tank blast, eh, it's gonna hurt.
Not hard to see the abstraction behind this weapon statline, to be honest. Just have to flip your mindset a little as the rules are different.
It just confuses the heck out of me when flamers are now D6 auto-hits weapons.
D6 shots that require to-hit rolls with BS3 /hit on 4+ is pretty awful even before factoring in movement (good luck when you hit on 5+ because you moved the tank unless some special rules take care of it). Even if you roll 6 shots that would statistically result in only 3 hits, which is just awful against any infantry that's not TEQ (and that's if rolling 6 on the number of shots roll, mind, good luck killing anything at all if you roll a 1 or 2).
Anecdotal reply: I play against Imperial Guard a lot. Very, very seldom did I see more than four or five infantry models end up under the large blast template when my opponent fired battle cannons, after rolling for hit and scatter. It missed units entirely far more often than it hit. When he did bring Battle Cannon Leman Russes at all, my opponent almost exclusively used them for anti-vehicle duty: they were never very good at killing large units. At a glance, the weapon now looks to be more reliable at hitting single targets, and is slightly more consistent against multiple targets. Wasn't MEQ what the battle cannon was made for shooting at, anyways?
I'd agree. Looks potentially better than the 4/6 chance you scatter an average of 7" and miss everyone you aimed at.
Freddy Kruger wrote: People here need to remember 1 thing: everyone gets split fire.
Use the battle cannon against elite or single models/vehicle types, let the hull gun and side guns dakka the infantry. Also, no scatter means safer shots!
Also, I assume heavy D6 means you roll once to hit, and if it does, you roll a further D6 to determine how many hits in the explosion. And D3 means how badly the unit was hit by the explosion.
Well, since it's Heavy d6, it pretty clearly means you roll a d6 and that's the number of dice you roll to hit. Just like Heavy3 means roll three times to hit, Heavy d6 means roll to hit d6 times.
Freddy Kruger wrote: People here need to remember 1 thing: everyone gets split fire.
Use the battle cannon against elite or single models/vehicle types, let the hull gun and side guns dakka the infantry. Also, no scatter means safer shots!
Also, I assume heavy D6 means you roll once to hit, and if it does, you roll a further D6 to determine how many hits in the explosion. And D3 means how badly the unit was hit by the explosion.
Opposite So you roll a d6 to see how many shots, then roll to hit.
For all the people complaining that it is a nerf must not have played against people who spaced well. Most shots would get two maybe three hits depending on base size. So instead of the randomness being based on your opponents skill it is now something you can account for and is reliable from game to game
Freddy Kruger wrote: Also, I assume heavy D6 means you roll once to hit, and if it does, you roll a further D6 to determine how many hits in the explosion. And D3 means how badly the unit was hit by the explosion.
That's actually what I was assuming too, but rereading the profile I'm not so sure. It might depend on how the exact weapon rules are worded. From an Occam's Razor perspective, the profile of 'Heavy D6' has no difference between, say 'Heavy 3' - and we know that Heavy 3 has to roll three times to hit.
Freddy Kruger wrote: People here need to remember 1 thing: everyone gets split fire.
Use the battle cannon against elite or single models/vehicle types, let the hull gun and side guns dakka the infantry. Also, no scatter means safer shots!
Also, I assume heavy D6 means you roll once to hit, and if it does, you roll a further D6 to determine how many hits in the explosion. And D3 means how badly the unit was hit by the explosion.
Why would you assume that? The article shows us how Heavy X works on the Heavy Bolter profile.
Heavy 6 means you roll 6 times to-hit.
Heavy d6 means you roll d6 times to-hit.
This. D6 To Hit Rolls against the target model/unit.
MaxT wrote: It depends on the targets as well. A battle cannon is money vs multi wound low armour models for example. Not everything is a marine or a terminator
My nobs never liked battle cannons, and that clearly won't be changing any time soon...
Freddy Kruger wrote: Also, I assume heavy D6 means you roll once to hit, and if it does, you roll a further D6 to determine how many hits in the explosion. And D3 means how badly the unit was hit by the explosion.
That's actually what I was assuming too, but rereading the profile I'm not so sure. It might depend on how the exact weapon rules are worded. From an Occam's Razor perspective, the profile of 'Heavy D6' has no difference between, say 'Heavy 3' - and we know that Heavy 3 has to roll three times to hit.
Exactly, and it makes a bit of a difference in the gun's effectiveness.
gungo wrote: In the old edition most weapons could hurt a leman russes av10-11 rear i see no issue. It was never a durable tank.
Furthermore Titans will still have regenerating power fields/void shields and IWND likely still exist making small arm fire immunity still existant.
I guess as an older gamer who began with 2nd edition I have nostalgia for a Leman Russ/Land Raider/Dreadnoughts being something a lasgun, boltgun or similar basic weapon couldn't do damage to at all.
In 2nd Leman russ rear armour was 17 while a lasgun had armour penetration of D6+3 so a maximum of 9 which meant you couldn't do anything to it. Which is why you either kept the infantry away from the tank, you would take a heavy weapons guyin the squad to look out for these big threats or equip specialist infantry to deal with tanks.
Maybe I was hoping to much for that kind of thing to return in 8th.
Freddy Kruger wrote: People here need to remember 1 thing: everyone gets split fire.
Use the battle cannon against elite or single models/vehicle types, let the hull gun and side guns dakka the infantry. Also, no scatter means safer shots!
Also, I assume heavy D6 means you roll once to hit, and if it does, you roll a further D6 to determine how many hits in the explosion. And D3 means how badly the unit was hit by the explosion.
They said different models can shoot different targets, did they also say different weapons on one model can shoot different targets?
Vehicles are looking great and infantry got a defense boost. Sweet!
Not gonna lie, I'm so happy to be able to use a old godhammer pattern land raider without being blown up first turn and actually contributing to the battle!
The change to explosives means bigger units are hurt less, which would be a counter to how battle shock was introduced in a way that now penalizes bigger units
torblind wrote: Are those 2 wounds on 2 models each or 4 wounds total against the unit?
Multi-wounds won't spill over. They have said this in FB several times.
Ambigious meaning of damage. Does damage indicate that each failed save inflict 1/D3/D6 wounds to the model that failed, or that the unit will suffer D3 wounds per unsaved wound. I'd prefer a plain answer rather than "spill-over" as a shortcut because the meaning is not clear. This could mean "Inflict D6 wounds on model X. Model X takes 2 wounds then dies." Do the remaining 1-4 wounds get lost, and not spill over to other models, or does it mean that each failed save removes D3 remaining wounds from a model? Its a fine line and very important.
This is a huge boost for Tau XV-8 let me tell you. Going to be seeing twin-linked dual weapons. So that would bring their burst cannon capability of a single XV-8 up to 16.
If they don't let us twin-link both weapons then it's a cost saver and opens up the possibility of bringing other things with the spare points or upgrading your suits with upgrades now instead of taking them dirt cheap.
Edit
I remember now that twin-linking counts as two. So it is the latter option. Still this is good news. This brings down the costs of crisis suits greatly.
torblind wrote: Are those 2 wounds on 2 models each or 4 wounds total against the unit?
Multi-wounds won't spill over. They have said this in FB several times.
Ambigious meaning of damage. Does damage indicate that each failed save inflict 1/D3/D6 wounds to the model that failed, or that the unit will suffer D3 wounds per unsaved wound. I'd prefer a plain answer rather than "spill-over" as a shortcut because the meaning is not clear. This could mean "Inflict D6 wounds on model X. Model X takes 2 wounds then dies." Do the remaining 1-4 wounds get lost, and not spill over to other models, or does it mean that each failed save removes D3 remaining wounds from a model? Its a fine line and very important.
You can't kill more models than the number of hits you rolled - for any weapon.
We've already seen the Morkanaught has 18 wounds, the Leman Russ has 12 and they've hinted that a Knight will have more than 20.
Definitely, but what I'm saying is that I wish the other stats reflected this. While it seems like we've gone away from the old strength/toughness table, having something like a T12 Land Raider could have been interesting in the attempt to re-balance vehicles.
All I'm arguing is that we could be seeing a more granular system than what we currently have, where it seems like most things are still stuck on the 0-10 chart (though this might not be true for things like Baneblades, Warhounds, etc.)
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: You just bend over and take it like a good chum? I'm thinking Khorne might have something against it (giftss that make your champion count as a psyker for the purpose of dispelling powers and what not) but... what if you don't have a psyker?
Ohhhhhh fun!
The same as pre-magic phase. Tons of spells getting through and yeah you are either way going to be just taking it. You have 1 psyker in 8th ed he's not able to even try to stop all spells from opponents 8 psykers. So there no change really to 7th ed. Opponent has more psykers than you he's casting at will. Biggest difference is there will be lot more spells attempted and unless he tries hardest spells all the time lot more succesfull casts as well.
For all 7th ed magic phase gets flak at least it cut number of spells cast per psyker. Albeit power level rose up. Now let's see if power level drops to compensate more spells per psyker going off.
Gamgee wrote: This is a huge boost for Tau XV-8 let me tell you. Going to be seeing twin-linked dual weapons. So that would bring their burst cannon capability of a single XV-8 up to 16.
If they don't let us twin-link both weapons then it's a cost saver and opens up the possibility of bringing other things with the spare points or upgrading your suits with upgrades now instead of taking them dirt cheap.
We can't anyway, as each takes 2 hardpoints. However, 1 TL + 1 normal will be the new hot (unless some of the support systems are so awesome we cannot leave them behind)
Silly us thinking assault would be buffed or be viable again. Seems like these shooting changes blow everything out of the water. I don't see why you'd want to run close combat units that get same number of attacks as before just to get hit with twin linked guns and falling back from combat.
No, I totally 100% agree on the hiding of regular sized characters. I'm 100% in disagreement that Robutt should be able to hide. He's freaking massive and it feels to me that the whole 10-11 wound rule was made with him in mind instead of base size or size of model. This just harkens back to my paranoia of all things Ultramarines getting the special treatment.
If they were showing Ultramarine favoritism just to make him as good as possible then why didn't they make him 10 wounds so he could just barely hide? Making him a wound lower than that seems to indicate they weren't designing the cutoff around him.
One could be paranoid and say they were sneakier than you give them credit for and give him 9 wounds precisely to fool you thinking 9 or 10 isn't as big difference as 10 or 11. And any 11-12 wound character would gladly trade spare wounds and be 9 wound.
Gamgee wrote: This is a huge boost for Tau XV-8 let me tell you. Going to be seeing twin-linked dual weapons. So that would bring their burst cannon capability of a single XV-8 up to 16.
If they don't let us twin-link both weapons then it's a cost saver and opens up the possibility of bringing other things with the spare points or upgrading your suits with upgrades now instead of taking them dirt cheap.
We can't anyway, as each takes 2 hardpoints. However, 1 TL + 1 normal will be the new hot (unless some of the support systems are so awesome we cannot leave them behind)
So a 50% fire output increase. This is fantastic. This more than makes up for the loss of AP 2 to AP 3 on human targets with burst cannons. GW you clever bastards I need to go and buy more kits now lol for twin-linking purposes.
Edit
This means Broadsides railguns are two shots now. I don't think this makes them any more viable truth be told. Their twin-linked high yield missile pods on the other hand are definitely going to be a competitive choice to the Riptide.
Kirasu wrote: Silly us thinking assault would be buffed or be viable again. Seems like these shooting changes blow everything out of the water. I don't see why you'd want to run close combat units that get same number of attacks as before just to get hit with twin linked guns and falling back from combat.
That and I am unsure If I want to assault Combi-flamer wielding units....
So, to clarify: with the battlecannon, if you roll 18 wounds against a squad you can only kill 6 models tops?
Yes, absolutely.
... RIP Battlecannon.
How!? It simply is better versus big targets which AM has traditionally struggled against in almost every edition. Besides, if you need more anti-infantry weapons in guard army you are doing something very wrong.
So, to clarify: with the battlecannon, if you roll 18 wounds against a squad you can only kill 6 models tops?
Yes, absolutely.
... RIP Battlecannon.
Really? Because you could put a stonking amount of wounds on a single model with good rolls.
I guess this is just my personal preference but I see it as far too unreliable. Yeah you can rip out a good number of wounds but you can also just take out 1 or 2. I am unsure I would risk fielding a gun that unreliable.
So, to clarify: with the battlecannon, if you roll 18 wounds against a squad you can only kill 6 models tops?
Yes, absolutely.
... RIP Battlecannon.
Really? Because you could put a stonking amount of wounds on a single model with good rolls.
I guess this is just my personal preference but I see it as far too unreliable. Yeah you can rip out a good number of wounds but you can also just take out 1 or 2. I am unsure I would risk fielding a gun that unreliable.
It used to have a 4/6 chance of scattering an average of 7" and missing completely. It's automatically way better than that now!!! Didn't everyone skip them this edition anyway? I suspect we'll see some back purely as they now don't knacker your other shooting.
We've already seen the Morkanaught has 18 wounds, the Leman Russ has 12 and they've hinted that a Knight will have more than 20.
Definitely, but what I'm saying is that I wish the other stats reflected this. While it seems like we've gone away from the old strength/toughness table, having something like a T12 Land Raider could have been interesting in the attempt to re-balance vehicles.
All I'm arguing is that we could be seeing a more granular system than what we currently have, where it seems like most things are still stuck on the 0-10 chart (though this might not be true for things like Baneblades, Warhounds, etc.)
We'll have to wait and see.
Well, you're looking at toughness only. Plenty of high wound counts so far. Reinventing the toughness for common stuff against common weapons would have been more work for little gain.
The battlecannon is now much better at taking down multi-wound model squads. If your using it against bog standard one wound infantry your probably doing something wrong now.
Target prioritization folks. I would only use it against one wound models if I felt my guard line was about to be hit by something nasty in melee.
Gamgee wrote: The battlecannon is now much better at taking down multi-wound model squads. If your using it against bog standard one wound infantry your probably doing something wrong now. \
Target prioritization folks.
Given weapons have much more defined roles in new edition, THIS! Absolutely.
It's not a very strange scenario, You have drop pods landing behind gunlines all the time, all of which you must kill before you can target the lone captain walking up the field. It feels like a side in these discussion dont really understand how it will play out. There will be many times you will try to target characters a foot away and be denied since you have a landraider over on the side 11" away. Characters will be overprotected and it will be gamed to hell and back :(
Yep this may be something that we need to push GW on if it becomes problematic.
Have the protection apply only when within X" of unit AND that unit is closer to shooter than charger.
That would be my solution. No "hiding" next to drop pod half a table away.
What are the chances that not all of the weapons with the twin-linked rule in 7th will get double shots in 8th and instead retain the "to-be-renamed re-roll missed shots" rule?
So, stuff that Sisters don't use a lot (we have twinlinked on immolators only and combi on sisters superior only) get a massive buff, and while the melta gets a nice buff on monstrous creature (somehow balanced by apparently better Toughness and more wounds), it also gets a nerf on IC (not wounding any IC with T5 or more on 2+ anymore), and a big nerf against vehicles (no more one shot, huge toughness, will requires tons of shot to blow anything now!)
Vehicles are going to be mighty annoying now.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, stuff that Sisters don't use a lot (we have twinlinked on immolators only and combi on sisters superior only) get a massive buff, and while the melta gets a nice buff on monstrous creature (somehow balanced by apparently better Toughness and more wounds), it also gets a nerf on IC (not wounding any IC with T5 or more on 2+ anymore), and a big nerf against vehicles (no more one shot, huge toughness, will requires tons of shot to blow anything now!)
Vehicles are going to be mighty annoying now.
My hammerheads are jumping in excitement in their closet with all of this news Tanks snipping tanks and giants monsters across the field, oh, it will be GLORIOUS!
shinr wrote: What are the chances that not all of the weapons with the twin-linked rule in 7th will get double shots in 8th and instead retain the "to-be-renamed re-roll missed shots" rule?
I would assume 0 chance if the model has a twin linked weapon since they said that rule is gone? I think it's safe to assume if the weapon looks twin linked then it will be.
Special rules that give twin linked may simply be a reroll or removed tho.
This makes so many units way better at shooting, let's hope they increase the cost.
So, to clarify: with the battlecannon, if you roll 18 wounds against a squad you can only kill 6 models tops?
Yes, absolutely.
... RIP Battlecannon.
Really? Because you could put a stonking amount of wounds on a single model with good rolls.
I guess this is just my personal preference but I see it as far too unreliable. Yeah you can rip out a good number of wounds but you can also just take out 1 or 2. I am unsure I would risk fielding a gun that unreliable.
It used to have a 4/6 chance of scattering an average of 7" and missing completely. It's automatically way better than that now!!! Didn't everyone skip them this edition anyway? I suspect we'll see some back purely as they now don't knacker your other shooting.
But that's the thing - yes you had the scattering issue but once you hit you knew that whatever was under that pie was usually crisply toasted. It's too many rolls for me to be comfortable with:
- Roll # of shots,
- Roll to hit,
- Roll to wound;
- Apply saves
- Roll # of wounds for each hit,
And you can never kill more models than the number of hits you rolled.
torblind wrote: Are those 2 wounds on 2 models each or 4 wounds total against the unit?
Multi-wounds won't spill over. They have said this on FB several times.
Haven't seen anything official say that myself yet. Everything seems like it should work that way though. Gives weapons the niche protection they keep talking about. Got a link?
Damage splits in Age of Sigmar. Is a straitforward mechanic that makes things faster, but personally, I prefer the system of 40k.
If you have damage spliting in a unit, then the anti-infantry and anti-tank weapons difference is inexistant. If my Lasscanon can kill 6 guards rolling a 6 on damage, why I bother with a flamethrower?
Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model. So, as we can see, the bolter does a single wound per hit, and so is optimised for shooting models that have a single wound themselves, whereas the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted.
Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote: So, stuff that Sisters don't use a lot (we have twinlinked on immolators only and combi on sisters superior only) get a massive buff, and while the melta gets a nice buff on monstrous creature (somehow balanced by apparently better Toughness and more wounds), it also gets a nerf on IC (not wounding any IC with T5 or more on 2+ anymore), and a big nerf against vehicles (no more one shot, huge toughness, will requires tons of shot to blow anything now!)
Vehicles are going to be mighty annoying now.
Yea the Morka/Gorka/nauts are a rough target for meltas now.
7.5 shots in 7th to strip it with a good chance to just blow the whole damn thing much sooner than that.
torblind wrote: Are those 2 wounds on 2 models each or 4 wounds total against the unit?
Multi-wounds won't spill over. They have said this on FB several times.
Haven't seen anything official say that myself yet. Everything seems like it should work that way though. Gives weapons the niche protection they keep talking about. Got a link?
It was the very first one on weapons...
Damage is a big change. This stats effectively lets a single hit deliver multiple wounds to one model. So, as we can see, the bolter does a single wound per hit, and so is optimised for shooting models that have a single wound themselves, whereas the lascannon, one of the most powerful man-portable weapons in the game, kicks out D6 damage, allowing it to blast chunks off large vehicles and monsters and kill light vehicles and characters in a single hit. Against something like Guardsmen or Orks though, this formidable damage output will be wasted.
For those worrying about melta, we have no idea what the melta rule does. Or if it has stayed the same. The premier anti-tank weapon might work differently now. I would like to see them get a damage bonus at half their range instead of simply a bonus to penetration. This makes the risk of bringing them so close worth it.
Gamgee wrote: For those worrying about melta, we have no idea what the melta rule does. Or if it has stayed the same. The premier anti-tank weapon might work differently now.
Q: I am a bit confused on the big guns. Do multiple wounds spill over to other troopers? If not a battlecannons looks underwhelming due to rng?
I have to look at the point cost of a leman russ and its option to have a clear picture i think.
A: 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...
Eyjio wrote: Explosives - kinda hate it, to be honest. Rolling for random shots, then to hit is worse IMO than rolling once to hit then doing random hits from that. This just "feels" less like an explosive to me I guess. It's not a huge deal breaker, but it's a little saddening. That said, battle cannons now have a quite insane potential 18 wound output, though the average is 3.5 total wounds, over 2 models assuming 4+ to hit. It's actually kinda bad against infantry which is weird.
It might feel better but actually you should prefer first shots, then to hit. Average is same but it averages out much better. There's lot less extreme results.
Battle cannon will be pretty lousy against infantry though. Ah well. Stats for weapons were pretty much exactly as expected except for combi weapon change.
Eyjio wrote: I dunno, the battle cannon just seems bad. The godhammer lascannons are now actually better, on average, if leman russes still hit on 4+ (BS3).
There are still a lot of unknowns. We don't know if POTMS will let godhammers fire one weapon without a minus for moving. Will the LRBT be able to move and shoot at full BS?
I ran the numbers using the full range of weapons for the LRBT. A single weapon by itself does not give a good measuring stick. We should compare it to other tools. Until we learn more weapon status, were limited in the numbers we can run.
As Breng77 suggested, keeping the HB on the LRBT along with 2 HB sponsons means the LRBT kills ~2.47s MEQ.
Without POTMS, the godhammer kills ~2.388. With POTMS, the godhammer kills ~2.62
10 marines with 1 HB and 1 Flamer 20" away will kill ~1.39 MEQ Those same marines 10" away will kill ~2.86 MEQ
I look at that and I'm not depressed. They are all in the same rough ball park.
The LRBT is tougher than the marines and can outshoot them at long range. Up close the marines are more deadly (like dropping from a pod), but are more fragile.
The LRBT can also use it's cannon against vehicles or MCs, where the marines are not nearly as effective vs vehicles, so the LRBT has some dual-purpose there. The marines can build in dual-purpose by grabbing a melta-gun instead of a flamer, and a ML instead of a HB -- but they lose anti-infantry power. They can also grab a combi-weapon with their sergeant for an extra flamer/melta shot.
The LR is shoots better, likely has better armor, and is a transport -- but we can bet it will be more expensive. It also should be shooting those LCs at vehicles. Using them against MEQ is a bad choice.
Ovearll -- I would just be happy if LRs were decent again. I've not seen people field them competitively in years. They are one of the iconic points of the 40k universe, and it would be great to see them in play.
I hate to be the glass half empty guy, but when the firepower of your model suddenly nearly doubles there are 3 possibilities:
A) It's points go way up, you get to use it less.
B) It is totally broken, everyone hates you, it ruins games.
C) There is some mechanic that cancels out the effectiveness of your shooting and you're rolling more dice for nothing.
Gamgee wrote: For those worrying about melta, we have no idea what the melta rule does. Or if it has stayed the same. The premier anti-tank weapon might work differently now. I would like to see them get a damage bonus at half their range instead of simply a bonus to penetration. This makes the risk of bringing them so close worth it.
Well meltagun didnt have the melta rule, the rule is probably gone. It has a typed out ordinance like rule instead
I didn't even see that thanks for pointing it out. Hmm... I'm not sure if I want to take melta-guns anymore or take broad-side teams with heavy rail rifles (as I should as Tau).
It all depends on our weapons final balancing. Then again cheap suicide suits are cheap and they just got a 50% firepower output.
Hmmm... it all depends. I think either could be useful now.
Gamgee wrote: This is a huge boost for Tau XV-8 let me tell you. Going to be seeing twin-linked dual weapons. So that would bring their burst cannon capability of a single XV-8 up to 16.
If they don't let us twin-link both weapons then it's a cost saver and opens up the possibility of bringing other things with the spare points or upgrading your suits with upgrades now instead of taking them dirt cheap.
We can't anyway, as each takes 2 hardpoints. However, 1 TL + 1 normal will be the new hot (unless some of the support systems are so awesome we cannot leave them behind)
So a 50% fire output increase. This is fantastic. This more than makes up for the loss of AP 2 to AP 3 on human targets with burst cannons. GW you clever bastards I need to go and buy more kits now lol for twin-linking purposes.
Edit
This means Broadsides railguns are two shots now. I don't think this makes them any more viable truth be told. Their twin-linked high yield missile pods on the other hand are definitely going to be a competitive choice to the Riptide.
You have no idea what the feth a rail gun does. HYMP are certainly only gonna do 1 damage -1 save, the rail weapons I would guess will pump out a minimum of d6 damage with -4 to your save. I would argue plasma rail rifle broadsides will be the new hot sauce if I were to guess.
Nah Man Pichu wrote: So the HB profile, is it Heavy 6 because it's twin? Or is that it's new base profile?
Little confused there.
Facebook confirms that the profile listed is for the twin linked heavy bolter, so a standard heavy bolter will only have three shots.
Didn't GW say something that HB would be good? It's fairly similar to previous and was already so cheap not much room for cheaper version so maybe other heavy weapons up the price if HB's are to become popular again.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Freddy Kruger wrote: I like how everyone is saying the good old Russ tank got terrible with the new random hits with it's battle cannon.
I'm sure that it used to be ordinance. It's now just a heavy weapon on the new article (assuming the battle cannon wasn't heavy before). That means no rule for scatter of its not ordinance? I think the Russ just became more reliable and tougher...
No scatter because it has to hit on 4+ for each shot...
Battle cannon kills in average about 1 tactical marine now.
And duel between 2 russes will be slow watch. In average takes tad over 5 turns for battle cannon to take out russ. Not much hope of recreating gaunt's ghost tank battles.
Eyjio wrote: Explosives - kinda hate it, to be honest. Rolling for random shots, then to hit is worse IMO than rolling once to hit then doing random hits from that. This just "feels" less like an explosive to me I guess. It's not a huge deal breaker, but it's a little saddening. That said, battle cannons now have a quite insane potential 18 wound output, though the average is 3.5 total wounds, over 2 models assuming 4+ to hit. It's actually kinda bad against infantry which is weird.
It might feel better but actually you should prefer first shots, then to hit. Average is same but it averages out much better. There's lot less extreme results.
Battle cannon will be pretty lousy against infantry though. Ah well. Stats for weapons were pretty much exactly as expected except for combi weapon change.
Thankfully I still have a couple of DA Vets to convert... and a few combis left lying about...
I was taking a guess at the railweapons. I do know nothing. For all I know they could troll us and make hem do no damage but a troll weapons choice.
I get an idea for what a Lascannon can do though and the Railgun on the Hammerhead is stronger. I'm expecting STR 10 -4 d6 wounds. So a heavy rail rifle would be less than that. It can't be a single damage that would be dumb.
As for the twin-linked HYMP yeah of course only one damage. Still if they keep four shots they went from 4 to 8 means a squad puts out 24. However that seems insane so I expect the amount of shots fired to be nerfed in accordance.
Well, you're looking at toughness only. Plenty of high wound counts so far. Reinventing the toughness for common stuff against common weapons would have been more work for little gain.
Considering the "everything hurts everything" mentality, I doubt that higher T would really mean much in this system. While wound counts most certainly helps, it does feel that the only real stat that isn't capped is wounds.
Gamgee wrote: I didn't even see that thanks for pointing it out. Hmm... I'm not sure if I want to take melta-guns anymore or take broad-side teams with heavy rail rifles (as I should as Tau).
It all depends on our weapons final balancing. Then again cheap suicide suits are cheap and they just got a 50% firepower output.
Hmmm... it all depends. I think either could be useful now.
Well 3 melta hits on a dreadnought would wound twice, each inflicting 4.5 wounds, and thus bringing it down. It's not terribly worse compared to 7th
And duel between 2 russes will be slow watch. In average takes tad over 5 turns for battle cannon to take out russ. Not much hope of recreating gaunt's ghost tank battles.
Given that the same battle would take 6's to glance before, that actually seems to be an improvement.
Plus degrading capabilities mean whoever gets the lead is at an advantage, which is more interesting than now.
Gamgee wrote: I was taking a guess at the railweapons. I do know nothing. For all I know they could troll us and make hem do no damage but a troll weapons choice.
I get an idea for what a Lascannon can do though and the Railgun on the Hammerhead is stronger. I'm expecting STR 10 -4 d6 wounds. So a heavy rail rifle would be less than that. It can't be a single damage that would be dumb.
As for the twin-linked HYMP yeah of course only one damage. Still if they keep four shots they went from 4 to 8 means a squad puts out 24. However that seems insane so I expect the amount of shots fired to be nerfed in accordance.
I would wager heavy rail rifles are the same as the canon but s8 not s10.
As for HYMP, they shoot with a higher maximum but now flack and carapace armor get a save. You also can pack twice the fire power on drones and fire warriors, anti tank you will be hurting though so thats why I'd take the plasma heavy railrifle broadsides, but of course we need to see points etc. However it's not hard to induce from what we have so far that this edition wants you to use the right weapon for the job, so odds are HYMP are not going to kill tanks and monsters better then their alternative loadouts.
Yeah I was already considering broadsides with HHR the second I seen this. It all comes down to how they balance it. It's funny I already have a team of three HHR's with plasma-rifles. Time to dust them off. I really enjoy how the models look.
Gamgee wrote: Imagine Tau crisis suits with one twin-link flamer and one regular one. Muahah.
For all those loving the flamethrower buffs to all factions.
Well, I'm liking my Twin-Linked Fusion + Single Flamer loadout just fine right now. Roll 3 of those up to a squad and unleash 3D6 Flamer hits and 6 melta shots? BBQ!
torblind wrote: Well 3 melta hits on a dreadnought would wound twice, each inflicting 4.5 wounds, and thus bringing it down. It's not terribly worse compared to 7th
Assuming 3+ to hit, 6 melta shots, 4 hits, 2 wound, if not in mid range that means an average of 7 HP (so quite good chance it will survive) and if in mid range it means 9HP (so it should die but no guarantee).
That's 6 melta shots.
Melta is going to have a hard time to deal with vehicles.
The battle cannon is heavy duty infantry killing, it isn't there to nuke a guardsman squad with one hit, it's there to (potentially) nuke a 5 man ogryn, or 2W terminator squad in one hit.
The whirlwind or griffin is there to nuke large light armoured squads, I expect them to have 2D6 hits (to make more sense) but only 1 damage with maybe -1 AP. That would make sense to me more anyway.
Cryonicleech wrote: Y'know, I was more excited about stats no longer being capped at 10 for the sake of increased granularity before we saw stats.
It feels like only wounds aren't capped at 10, as we've yet to see anything else. (Outside of double strength modifiers, but that's on specific weapons.) I was kinda hoping that's how they'd buff vehicles, by giving them much higher toughnesses and adjusting the strength of anti-tank to keep up.
Sheesh that battle cannon looks really average. I really wish they had worked on a better mechanic than just "random d6 shots" to replace templates. Seeing it on a squad flamer was one thing, but then again, there might be something I'm missing.
Pretty happy with the twin-linked and combi-weapon changes though, and the melta stats. While the old twin-linked was a good mechanic, this new one is a bit more intuitive and hopefully makes the standard land raiders more effective.
We've already seen the Morkanaught has 18 wounds, the Leman Russ has 12 and they've hinted that a Knight will have more than 20.
That was kinda his point. We have seen over 10 wounds. We have seen no over 10 OTHER stat.
Presumably >10 T will be super heavy and >10 S will be destroyer class weapons.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: The only way this could get a bit better (maybe) is if you roll to hit once for the shell, so to say, and then roll the 1d6 hits...etc etc
oni wrote: The battle cannon is definitely changing its role to anti-elite & anti-single model - which isn't bad. I can get behind this.
I think the new rules make it better. While you're not guaranteed to hit your target; you are guaranteed to not scatter onto your own units. For this reason alone I think the new rules are better.
It's also worth keeping in mind that Leman Russes are going to be gaining firepower with the ability to split-fire its sponsons and hull weapon at the same time it's firing its cannon. I don't think that they're going to be lacking in damage dealt, even if their cannon doesn't roll great hits.
That's an excellent point if true - and I do hope that it's true as it would benefit all tanks. We know units of multiple models can choose different targets, but I believe GW clarified on their Facebook page that it's on a model-by-model basis. If a single model can still only target one unit than we'll sadly not be taking those hip-shots with sponson weapons.
This brings up a curious question about Power of the Machine Spirit... If we assume a single model can still only have one target than PotMS as we know it still has good utility. If targeting changes than I wonder what will become of PotMS.
torblind wrote: Are those 2 wounds on 2 models each or 4 wounds total against the unit?
Multi-wounds won't spill over. They have said this in FB several times.
So, to clarify: with the battlecannon, if you roll 18 wounds against a squad you can only kill 6 models tops?
Yes and thank god they got rid of that AOS stupidity. As a bonus also there's way to separate weapons as anti-tank weapon isn't also anti-horde weapon.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The battle cannon is heavy duty infantry killing, it isn't there to nuke a guardsman squad with one hit, it's there to (potentially) nuke a 5 man ogryn, or 2W terminator squad in one hit.
The whirlwind or griffin is there to nuke large light armoured squads, I expect them to have 2D6 hits (to make more sense) but only 1 damage with maybe -1 AP. That would make sense to me more anyway.
If a gun can nuke heavy infantry it can do the same to light infantry. Heavy D6 is really weak, especially once you get to batterys of basilisks and such.
Also those heavy infantry have a chance to save so even less deaths.
I see the battlecannon, once the golden beautiful angel baby of IG stuck on the shelf in favor of heavy bolters and lascannons.
So, to clarify: with the battlecannon, if you roll 18 wounds against a squad you can only kill 6 models tops?
Yes, absolutely.
... RIP Battlecannon.
Really? Because you could put a stonking amount of wounds on a single model with good rolls.
If you want to put lots of wounds to single model probably Vanquisher is the to-go weapon. That's been job of a vanquisher after all. Longer range to boot.
JohnnyHell wrote: It used to have a 4/6 chance of scattering an average of 7" and missing completely. It's automatically way better than that now!!! Didn't everyone skip them this edition anyway? I suspect we'll see some back purely as they now don't knacker your other shooting.
Scatter was 2d6-BS so 4" scatter.
Don't remember when battle cannon wasn't averaging over 1 dead infantry per shot. Now it's less than 1 tactical per turn.
torblind wrote: Well 3 melta hits on a dreadnought would wound twice, each inflicting 4.5 wounds, and thus bringing it down. It's not terribly worse compared to 7th
Assuming 3+ to hit, 6 melta shots, 4 hits, 2 wound, if not in mid range that means an average of 7 HP (so quite good chance it will survive) and if in mid range it means 9HP (so it should die but no guarantee).
That's 6 melta shots.
Melta is going to have a hard time to deal with vehicles.
The to-hit roll is specific to shooter, surely that should be kept out of the picture? S8 will wound T7 on 3+, so 2 out of 3 hits will wound. And melta range was half distance in 7th too, right?
That's an excellent point if true - and I do hope that it's true as it would benefit all tanks. We know units of multiple models can choose different targets, but I believe GW clarified on their Facebook page that it's on a model-by-model basis. If a single model can still only target one unit than we'll sadly not be taking those hip-shots with sponson weapons.
GW Facebook wrote:
Q: Battle Cannon is A1 steak sauce! Question I have now is: Will vehicles have the ability to target multiple units? Example: Leman Russ Battle Tank fires Battle Cannon at big Tyranid monster, fire the Heavy Bolters at the Genestealers.
A: Warhammer 40,000 Haha! Actually made us laugh, this!
EDIT: Tanks can split their weapons fire between different targets.
Oh hey, they brought back 2nd Edition style combi-weapons. A change that I didn't even remember missing, but now clearly remember how much I hated it when it was made back in 3rd.
And I'm liking the twin-link change (my TLas/ML dread is looking pretty good, price dependant), but I think that means storm bolters will need a buff even more now compared to combi-bolters (even if they make them combi-weapons instead of twin-linked bolters and make them eat a -1 to-hit). If they don't get a boost, then combi-bolters become significantly more effective than them at close range while not being noticeably worse farther out.
If they can fix the transport space issues on the basic Land Raider, the thing is looking to become a beast this edition (well, price dependant again).
And the battle cannon preview shows that there will be some variable hit, multi-wound weaponry in the game. So that is some interesting design space revealed and confirmed. On average, it looks like the battlecannon does more single target damage than the lascannon on average, and is still decent at anti-infantry work. But it wont work as a magic eraser against MeQ's anymore. The big plus is that the LR can fire everything off now, so it isn't relying on the battle cannon to be better than the combined shooting of its sponsons and hull-mounted weaponry. It gets that in addition to the battle-cannon which is a pretty alright generalist weapon. It can deal with infantry better than a single-shot anti-tank weapon, it deals with tanks and monstrous creatures (and can potentially do a whole ton of damage to them), and it is workable against heavy infantry to boot. Since it no longer needs to be a singular, peerless powerhouse, but rather part of a vehicles repertoire the stats seem basically fine.
And it looks like folks were correct in the AP conversion, -4 should be the ceiling for 8th and it all seems to be roughly based on the old scale. AP nil-5 gets nothing, AP4 is -1, AP3 is -2, AP2 is -3, and AP1 is -4. So based on this, unless they are specifically nerfing them, plasma is probably sticking to AP -3 since they have a bit more leeway at the high-end to represent things.
Yeah that seems to be the intent. Kind of makes a little more sense than a template, and makes the turret seem more like a "standard take all comers" type deal.
With sponson options, it can be set up to deal with more infantry or hard targets.
Kirasu wrote: Silly us thinking assault would be buffed or be viable again. Seems like these shooting changes blow everything out of the water. I don't see why you'd want to run close combat units that get same number of attacks as before just to get hit with twin linked guns and falling back from combat.
he who charges strikes first, is this not a boost ?
if a squad falls back it looses the ability to do anything in the next turn, is this not a boost?
torblind wrote: Well 3 melta hits on a dreadnought would wound twice, each inflicting 4.5 wounds, and thus bringing it down. It's not terribly worse compared to 7th
Assuming 3+ to hit, 6 melta shots, 4 hits, 2 wound, if not in mid range that means an average of 7 HP (so quite good chance it will survive) and if in mid range it means 9HP (so it should die but no guarantee).
That's 6 melta shots.
Melta is going to have a hard time to deal with vehicles.
The to-hit roll is specific to shooter, surely that should be kept out of the picture? S8 will wound T7 on 3+, so 2 out of 3 hits will wound. And melta range was half distance in 7th too, right?
Though with AP1 it was a clear threat that most vehicles could be one-shotted
And duel between 2 russes will be slow watch. In average takes tad over 5 turns for battle cannon to take out russ. Not much hope of recreating gaunt's ghost tank battles.
Given that the same battle would take 6's to glance before, that actually seems to be an improvement.
Plus degrading capabilities mean whoever gets the lead is at an advantage, which is more interesting than now.
7th ed version sucked as well. Luckily 2nd ed has more quicker way for russ to take out second russ with the battle cannon.
endlesswaltz123 wrote: The battle cannon is heavy duty infantry killing, it isn't there to nuke a guardsman squad with one hit, it's there to (potentially) nuke a 5 man ogryn, or 2W terminator squad in one hit.
The whirlwind or griffin is there to nuke large light armoured squads, I expect them to have 2D6 hits (to make more sense) but only 1 damage with maybe -1 AP. That would make sense to me more anyway.
If a gun can nuke heavy infantry it can do the same to light infantry. Heavy D6 is really weak, especially once you get to batterys of basilisks and such.
Also those heavy infantry have a chance to save so even less deaths.
I see the battlecannon, once the golden beautiful angel baby of IG stuck on the shelf in favor of heavy bolters and lascannons.
Not necessarily. Whilst I'm a novice with ballistics in real life, some have more spread than others right? A battle cannon may have much punch but be quite compact now, whilst the griffin may explode above ground with less punch but more spread.
if a squad falls back it looses the ability to do anything in the next turn, is this not a boost?
No, not really. You can't hide in combat anymore.
So... now is a bad idea to have a single squad charging the whole enemy gunline alone? Hmmm... whats the problem with that?
If the enemy has 3 shooting units and you charge them at the same time, even if they retreat, they achieve nothing with that. Is only a problem if you have one squad charging 2-3 enemy squads that are supporting each other alone.
The Battlecannon is might underwhelming, a fair translation of its current iteration, but an underwhelming iteration since at least 5E, methinks the classic LRBT will continue spending lots of time on shelves in favor of other variants.
What, the battle cannon looks to me better than ever? It never hit anything before, and when it did, it hit max three guys who had 4+ cover. Or a tank/mc, against what it didn't do any notable damage.
Galas wrote: So... now is a bad idea to have a single squad charging the whole enemy gunline alone? Hmmm... whats the problem with that?
If the enemy has 3 shooting units and you charge them at the same time, even if they retreat, they achieve nothing with that. Is only a problem if you have one squad charging 2-3 enemy squads that are supporting each other alone.
You won't be able to charge entire enemy army at once.
And compared to before where either they died or were in combat locked and you safe from shooting this is infinitely preferable to the shooter. As it is that unit would be dead ANYWAY so they wouldn't be shooting anyway so the "cannot shoot" is irrelevant. You have unit safe vs dead. You have to wait for turn but that's infinitely better to having unit totally DEAD except preventing you to shooting enemy as a last "service"(backstabbing more like it). Shooty armies would gladly remove unit from board rather than have it in combat.
Please. The Battlecannon is crap. Heavy d6, so you get 3.5 shots, or 1.75 BS3 hits on average. With S8, that's only 1.5 wounds. Against SM, Sv3+ becomes Sv5+. Net result?
An 8E Battlecannon firing into a densely-packed pile of Space Marines kills 1 guy? 2, if you get to roll the d3? Meh.
Please. The Battlecannon is crap. Heavy d6, so you get 3.5 shots, or 1.75 BS3 hits on average. With S8, that's only 1.5 wounds. Against SM, Sv3+ becomes Sv5+. Net result?
An 8E Battlecannon firing into a densely-packed pile of Space Marines kills 1 guy? 2, if you get to roll the d3? Meh.
A 5" Blast would have killed 5 out of 6.
...if it hit, and it had a 4/6 chance of scattering, an average of 7(-BS)" away, likely entirely missing the target. You have to compare apples to apples. :-)
I was trying to be diplomatic about it, but yeah, not impressed with the Battlecannon or really what we have seen of the Russ in general thus far.
That said, if its allowed to split fire with all its weapons, and cheaper, it might be a functional unit, or if gobs of other stuff get waaaaayyyyy toned down, but I'm not terribly optimistic about the Russ in 8E thus far.
Galas wrote: So... now is a bad idea to have a single squad charging the whole enemy gunline alone? Hmmm... whats the problem with that?
If the enemy has 3 shooting units and you charge them at the same time, even if they retreat, they achieve nothing with that. Is only a problem if you have one squad charging 2-3 enemy squads that are supporting each other alone.
You won't be able to charge entire enemy army at once.
And compared to before where either they died or were in combat locked and you safe from shooting this is infinitely preferable to the shooter. As it is that unit would be dead ANYWAY so they wouldn't be shooting anyway so the "cannot shoot" is irrelevant. You have unit safe vs dead. You have to wait for turn but that's infinitely better to having unit totally DEAD except preventing you to shooting enemy as a last "service"(backstabbing more like it). Shooty armies would gladly remove unit from board rather than have it in combat.
That's undeniable boost to shooty army.
I was talking about charging their 3 units with your 3 meele units, or even 2 and charging 3 at the same time. My point is: Its offer a tactical choice to people in one of the more un-interactive phases of the game: meele, and makes the jumping from combat to combat with a single over powered meele unit unreliable, as it should be.
To me, they are good changes. A buff to shooting yes, but that adds tactical deep to the game. At least thats how I see it.
It is better than a regular lascannon - we have that much.
It is also better than a TL lascannon when the target has a max of 2 wounds. The battlecannon's max potential (still rolling to hit) is a good bit higher than a TL las.
I would not expect it's points to be very high otherwise...
It should also be considered that the TL las capped at 3 versus the BC max potential is quite a canyon.
Vaktathi wrote: I was trying to be diplomatic about it, but yeah, not impressed with the Battlecannon or really what we have seen of the Russ in general thus far.
That said, if its allowed to split fire with all its weapons, and cheaper, it might be a functional unit, or if gobs of other stuff get waaaaayyyyy toned down, but I'm not terribly optimistic about the Russ in 8E thus far.
Looks way scarier from where I'm sitting. No more easy kills after charging them with a unit of boyz in trukks, that strategy was my best option for taking out IG armour...
I think the question is how the Battlecannon compares with a HWS armed with 3 MLs. Same BS, S8, same Sv-2 modifier. Heavy 3 instead of d6, and 1 damage instead of d3.
And duel between 2 russes will be slow watch. In average takes tad over 5 turns for battle cannon to take out russ. Not much hope of recreating gaunt's ghost tank battles.
Given that the same battle would take 6's to glance before, that actually seems to be an improvement.
Plus degrading capabilities mean whoever gets the lead is at an advantage, which is more interesting than now.
Two similar tech level MBT shooting at each other with main guns... whoever fires first gets the kill right? Maybe not every time, but if you get nailed by a main gun and survive that should mean you are REALLY lucky.
has anyone considered that the leman russ may have a rule like quite a few things in AOS that says something along the lines of - if a unit contains X models then you receive + 1 to hit?
that should crank up the damage a bit shouldn't it?
Vaktathi wrote: I was trying to be diplomatic about it, but yeah, not impressed with the Battlecannon or really what we have seen of the Russ in general thus far.
That said, if its allowed to split fire with all its weapons, and cheaper, it might be a functional unit, or if gobs of other stuff get waaaaayyyyy toned down, but I'm not terribly optimistic about the Russ in 8E thus far.
Looks way scarier from where I'm sitting. No more easy kills after charging them with a unit of boyz in trukks, that strategy was my best option for taking out IG armour...
thats probably about the only big plus thus far, though Powerklaws may still be fully capable of making a mess of one in a single round, we havent seen CC weapons like that yet.
usernamesareannoying wrote: has anyone considered that the leman russ may have a rule like quite a few things in AOS that says something along the lines of - if a unit contains X models then you receive + 1 to hit?
that should crank up the damage a bit shouldn't it?
I certainly have. Even if we were to get the 12 pages of rules tomorrow we're still missing the majority of the rules, which are the units themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: I think the question is how the Battlecannon compares with a HWS armed with 3 MLs. Same BS, S8, same Sv-2 modifier. Heavy 3 instead of d6, and 1 damage instead of d3.
Vaktathi wrote: I was trying to be diplomatic about it, but yeah, not impressed with the Battlecannon or really what we have seen of the Russ in general thus far.
That said, if its allowed to split fire with all its weapons, and cheaper, it might be a functional unit, or if gobs of other stuff get waaaaayyyyy toned down, but I'm not terribly optimistic about the Russ in 8E thus far.
Looks way scarier from where I'm sitting. No more easy kills after charging them with a unit of boyz in trukks, that strategy was my best option for taking out IG armour...
thats probably about the only big plus thus far, though Powerklaws may still be fully capable of making a mess of one in a single round, we havent seen CC weapons like that yet.
Unless they make powerklaws do 2d6 wounds, I don't know how they're going to manage to make it capable of one shotting a Russ And considering a battle cannon is only 1d6, and melta is 2d6-pick-highest...
Genestealer Jesse wrote: Two similar tech level MBT shooting at each other with main guns... whoever fires first gets the kill right? Maybe not every time, but if you get nailed by a main gun and survive that should mean you are REALLY lucky.
That's how it works in our world. Not in 40k 8th edition world though when those MBT's pack up pathetic anti tank weapon.
TBH this changes to cobi-guns benefit combi-flamers the most. the -1 to hit would only effect the bolter shots, well the flamer shots would still auto hit.
On stuff like the melta or plasma, I can see ever choosing to fire the bolter part. What ever your shooting a melta or plasma at, itn't likely to be wounded by a bolter shot anyway. So the -1 to hit on the special weapon shots would be a huge downside.
Genestealer Jesse wrote: Two similar tech level MBT shooting at each other with main guns... whoever fires first gets the kill right? Maybe not every time, but if you get nailed by a main gun and survive that should mean you are REALLY lucky.
That's how it works in our world. Not in 40k 8th edition world though when those MBT's pack up pathetic anti tank weapon.
But turn a blind eye to demonic possession, inter-galactic super-predators, MIIIIND-BULLETS, etc and so forth?
Genestealer Jesse wrote: Two similar tech level MBT shooting at each other with main guns... whoever fires first gets the kill right? Maybe not every time, but if you get nailed by a main gun and survive that should mean you are REALLY lucky.
That's how it works in our world. Not in 40k 8th edition world though when those MBT's pack up pathetic anti tank weapon.
It falls between a Lascannon and TL Lascannon in regards to anti-tank and better at taking on 2-3 wound targets.
I don't know what a battlecannon "should be", but to me it seems to have a purpose. Just how well it fills it for the cost and what bonuses they can get remains to be seen.
Genestealer Jesse wrote: Two similar tech level MBT shooting at each other with main guns... whoever fires first gets the kill right? Maybe not every time, but if you get nailed by a main gun and survive that should mean you are REALLY lucky.
That's how it works in our world. Not in 40k 8th edition world though when those MBT's pack up pathetic anti tank weapon.
But turn a blind eye to demonic possession, inter-galactic super-predators, MIIIIND-BULLETS, etc and so forth?
Keep in mind for many people those are real. Either way there should be a compelling use for a main battle tank in a wargame with so many MBT. I hope the new rules play that out.
Genestealer Jesse wrote: Two similar tech level MBT shooting at each other with main guns... whoever fires first gets the kill right? Maybe not every time, but if you get nailed by a main gun and survive that should mean you are REALLY lucky.
That's how it works in our world. Not in 40k 8th edition world though when those MBT's pack up pathetic anti tank weapon.
Battle Cannons have been shoddy anti-tank for quite some time.
This is, IMO, a good "all-rounder". And I think that is the part people keep forgetting about.
The Leman Russ with Battle Cannon? It's the "jack of all trades" variant.
Genestealer Jesse wrote: Two similar tech level MBT shooting at each other with main guns... whoever fires first gets the kill right? Maybe not every time, but if you get nailed by a main gun and survive that should mean you are REALLY lucky.
That's how it works in our world. Not in 40k 8th edition world though when those MBT's pack up pathetic anti tank weapon.
But turn a blind eye to demonic possession, inter-galactic super-predators, MIIIIND-BULLETS, etc and so forth?
What's that got to do with it?
Fact: Real world MBT duel is decided mostly by who shoots first as it's basically hit and dead tank. Only the very top of the line tanks have any realistic chance of surviving a hit from MBT.
Fact: 8th ed 40k Russ has patheticly weak anti tank gun that won't be deciding battle by getting first shot by far. Indeed it's not even quaranteed to blow one target during course of the game.
Why you bring out completely irrelevant stuff? ARe you just interested in trolling?
People... please dont get super hyped about random X vehicle or unit... point costs are a big unknown. A Lemon Russ for 100 points is something completely different to one for 75 or 150 or 200 or 300.
Genestealer Jesse wrote: Two similar tech level MBT shooting at each other with main guns... whoever fires first gets the kill right? Maybe not every time, but if you get nailed by a main gun and survive that should mean you are REALLY lucky.
That's how it works in our world. Not in 40k 8th edition world though when those MBT's pack up pathetic anti tank weapon.
Battle Cannons have been shoddy anti-tank for quite some time.
This is, IMO, a good "all-rounder". And I think that is the part people keep forgetting about.
The Leman Russ with Battle Cannon? It's the "jack of all trades" variant.
Too bad 8th ed doesn't really work as jack of all trades. It has very narrow field in which it does okay. And that's multi wound infantry basically. It sucks against tanks, is lousy against W1 infantry. Could be good against characters but those you won't be able to shoot.
Might be decent against monsters but if vanquisher doesn't beat the crap out of battle cannon at that there's something very wrong with vanquisher.
Please. The Battlecannon is crap. Heavy d6, so you get 3.5 shots, or 1.75 BS3 hits on average. With S8, that's only 1.5 wounds. Against SM, Sv3+ becomes Sv5+. Net result?
An 8E Battlecannon firing into a densely-packed pile of Space Marines kills 1 guy? 2, if you get to roll the d3? Meh.
A 5" Blast would have killed 5 out of 6.
Statistically speaking, I suspect the big battle cannons are more dangerous against other tanks.
On the other hand, the Laserstorm Redoubt now has 8 lascannon shots. That deserves a 'Mwahahahahahahah'.
if a squad falls back it looses the ability to do anything in the next turn, is this not a boost?
No, not really. You can't hide in combat anymore.
I will give you a situation, Tau gun line 3x fire warrior squads 2x hammer heads 3x teams of battle suits, all sorts of crazy weaponry.
Oks 3x 30 blobs of orks 2x squads of nobz in truks squad of bikers a deff dread all really choppy and killy.
Orks turn 1 So orks go first lets say every thing runs at full distance truks everything the ork army is half way across the board.
Tau turn 1 Tau shoot the life out of the orks, orks loose lets say on average 10 boys for each of the 30 blobs you pop both the truks loose a knob in the blast, dread takes 3 wounds and you mow down 3 of the 10 bikers, plenty of casualties.
Ork turn 2 Waghhh!!! everything charges each of the 20 blobs of boys charge the fire warriors the knobs charge the battle suites the bikers charge one of the hammer heads the dread charges another, the tau player decides hes going to fall back , everything falls back.
Tau turn 2 the tau player can not do anything because he chose to fall back.
Ork turn 3 the ork player charges again.
Tau turn 3 falls back again he's now against the table edge, can not fall back any further.
Ork turn 4 charges again orks obviously win the mele as we are striking first now you have been pushed off all of the objectives game over.
You know, I've been mulling a few things over and I've completely flipped a few opinions. My issue is I've been stuck in a 7e mindset when making these calculations. The reality is that almost everything is more durable now due to how the new roll to wound works, and you have to factor that into anything you try to assess a unit. Couple of things to address first:
I was wrong on the percentage chance to do 18 wounds to RG earlier, as someone pointed out. It turns out I was even more wrong than they said, as I counted him as having a 3+ save instead of a 2+ as base, so the chance to do 3 damage per shot is actually (1/2)(2/3)(1/2)(1/3)=1/18. That means the chance to do 18 wounds is really 1/204073344, or in other words ~0.00000049% (I even managed to do convert to percentage correctly this time ). Basically, it will never happen - you've got a better chance to win the UK lottery by a factor of 4.
Secondly, drop podding melta isn't as scary as it used to be. Take the humble Leman Russ, which we know know is T8 W12 3+, versus 5 melta Sternguard. 3+ to hit (probably), S8 v T8 so 4+ to wound, no save and then E(highest of D6x2)=161/36 (~4.47). That means, per shot they do (2/3)(1/2)(161/36)=161/108 damage, which is about 1.5 wounds per shot. Not only is drop pod melta not scary, it's often not doing much of anything at all. Suicide squads are a horrible idea; consider that a lascannon does 35/27 or ~1.30 wounds to the same target at 48" range, and you can clearly see that vehicles are likely going to be on the table for some time. However, it's worth noting that melta now applies to everything - T4 multiwound models will HATE facing them, and even Dreadnoughts expect to take ~2 wounds per meltagun. They're not down and out, but their role will be very different.
Next, consider the lascannon on a Leman Russ compared to the battle cannon. Both have the same roll to hit, both have a D6 roll (one for damage, one for shots), and both are wounding most units other than those with T8/9 on the same numbers. However, the Leman Russ will do twice as much damage; therefore, the only difference is the damage vs an additional -1 rend for the lascannon - this favours the battle cannon. Further, it's much better against infantry - consequently, it's usually still better than a lascannon other than against T8 vehicles. Now, consider the heavy bolter - 3 shots is fewer than the average 3.5 of the battle cannon, with lower strength, rend and damage. The battle cannon is therefore always better; in the case of MEQ, the heavy bolter expects to do 0.5 wounds to the battle cannon's near 1 wound (35/36). It's almost twice as good, and is almost 4 times as effective against multi wound models. It might not be the most dangerous gun, but I'd say outperforming a lascannon or 2 heavy bolters in many situations isn't too shabby. Now, it still looks like the best role for a Leman Russ will be to slap a bunch of heavy bolters on it as I thought initially, but the battle cannon is decently effective.
The TL thing is not as bad as I thought for hordes. My immediate thoughts were the old rifleman dreads, and the annihilation barge - these units, if left unchanged, would get 8 S7 AP -1 shots in 8e. However, when you factor in the roll to wound, that's actually better than 3 heavy bolters are in 7e - not that impressive at all really, you're doing ~1.78 wounds to MEQ per volley. It's good damage, but considering S7 is now pretty weak against vehicles due to their armour saves, you're doing less damage proportionally with these TL shots than before to AV11/12.
Finally, combi-guns firing both guns at -1 to hit. I feel it's a bit weird, but it actually makes quite a hard tactical choice; for example, is it better to use plasma at full BS vs MEQ, or is it better to fire the bolter at -1 as well as the plasma at -1? Well, on 3+ to hit, using AP2=-3 rend, a plasma does (2/3)(2/3)(5/6)=10/27 (~0.37) wounds to MEQ on its own; on 4+ to hit it does 5/18 (~0.28) and the bolter does (1/2)(1/2)(1/3)=1/12 wounds (~0.083). That means that it's better to NOT fire both guns, but the difference is less than 1% (1/108 to be precise). That's not at all obvious just looking at it. Even less obvious is that at the combi-flamer almost outperforms a combi-plasma at 8", managing 2/3 wounds compared to 20/27 - a difference of 2/27ths. Yet, the plasma may overheat if that's still in the game, and will likely cost more points. It's a really interesting dynamic.
Battlecannons are better all rounders then before and look like they have an actual role against multi wound multiple model units like terminators. Also less reliant on edge case scenarios or your opponent making a mistake. Also since ordnance appears to be gone they no longer nerf the other weapons on the platform.
Also for all those seeing 1 marine die to a battlecannon per round on average, I'd bet some solid monte carlo analysis on 7ed battlecannons would reveal they are even worse for typical marine targeting scenarios, where they aren't clumped and you get at best 4 under the blast if you are lucky. Just a hunch though.
if a squad falls back it looses the ability to do anything in the next turn, is this not a boost?
No, not really. You can't hide in combat anymore.
I will give you a situation, Tau gun line 3x fire warrior squads 2x hammer heads 3x teams of battle suits, all sorts of crazy weaponry.
Oks 3x 30 blobs of orks 2x squads of nobz in truks squad of bikers a deff dread all really choppy and killy.
Orks turn 1 So orks go first lets say every thing runs at full distance truks everything the ork army is half way across the board.
Tau turn 1 Tau shoot the life out of the orks, orks loose lets say on average 10 boys for each of the 30 blobs you pop both the truks loose a knob in the blast, dread takes 3 wounds and you mow down 3 of the 10 bikers, plenty of casualties.
Ork turn 2 Waghhh!!! everything charges each of the 20 blobs of boys charge the fire warriors the knobs charge the battle suites the bikers charge one of the hammer heads the dread charges another, the tau player decides hes going to fall back , everything falls back.
Tau turn 2 the tau player can not do anything because he chose to fall back.
Ork turn 3 the ork player charges again.
Tau turn 3 falls back again he's now against the table edge, can not fall back any further.
Ork turn 4 charges again orks obviously win the mele as we are striking first now you have been pushed off all of the objectives game over.
Ork win EZ PZ
More like Tau stand firm and Overwatch as Orks charge into the properly deployed sacrificial Kroot Carnivore Squads. The following turn, any surviving Kroot fall back as the rest of the Tau army lights up the Orks. Rinse, repeat with successive waves of Kroot fodder. Hope the Kroot enjoy that Greater Good.
Genestealer Jesse wrote: Two similar tech level MBT shooting at each other with main guns... whoever fires first gets the kill right? Maybe not every time, but if you get nailed by a main gun and survive that should mean you are REALLY lucky.
That's how it works in our world. Not in 40k 8th edition world though when those MBT's pack up pathetic anti tank weapon.
But turn a blind eye to demonic possession, inter-galactic super-predators, MIIIIND-BULLETS, etc and so forth?
When I'm able to read historical accounts of inter-galactic super- predators in action I'll complain if they work differently. We have tanks. The more they work like historical tanks (WW1-WW2) the happier I am. By grounding in things we understand fantasy becomes better.
After all, why not just declare Leman Russ can fly if "Realism" isn't a thing any more? It is a matter of degree.
Genestealer Jesse wrote: Two similar tech level MBT shooting at each other with main guns... whoever fires first gets the kill right? Maybe not every time, but if you get nailed by a main gun and survive that should mean you are REALLY lucky.
That's how it works in our world. Not in 40k 8th edition world though when those MBT's pack up pathetic anti tank weapon.
But turn a blind eye to demonic possession, inter-galactic super-predators, MIIIIND-BULLETS, etc and so forth?
When I'm able to read historical accounts of inter-galactic super- predators in action I'll complain if they work differently. We have tanks. The more they work like historical tanks (WW1-WW2) the happier I am. By grounding in things we understand fantasy becomes better.
To clarify, that is your opinion, and is only that - do not subjectively treat that as a fact.
This is not about realism. Is about "Universe consistence". If 40k tanks can jump like bunnies because thats how the universe works, 40k tanks should jump like bunies.
It doesn't mater how X work in real life. In this case, 40k tanks work aproximately like the ones in real life, but they aren't equal. So don't use "realism" as an argument.
Change to T/L gets my vote, this is harking back to the old Epic scale Space Marine with 'Grades' of weapons being how many shots it put into the same target.
Newer really understood why firing two marine guns at something just made one of them more accurate.
Plus the less re-rolls in the game the better for me, limit that to characters and only characters
torblind wrote: So since that would work equally effective in 7th, Ork were superior to Tau in most encounters?
no you can not fall back in 7th, they have over watch, and marker lights IMO sounds a lot more effective then simply falling back and making you useless, but this is all speculation no body knows how the game will actually play, so making a statement like "how stupid we were to think CC would be viable again" with no real evidence or facts is a bit stupid to me.
you read one rule buffing ranged combat and completely dismissed all of the CC buffs crazy talk bro.
gorgon wrote: There was an entire edition of 40K in which units had to shoot the nearest unit of a given type. Somehow I think the game will survive some screening mechanics for characters.
And which edition would that be?
If you're referring to 4th, a simple Ld test bypassed the target priority rules.
gorgon wrote: There was an entire edition of 40K in which units had to shoot the nearest unit of a given type. Somehow I think the game will survive some screening mechanics for characters.
And which edition would that be?
If you're referring to 4th, a simple Ld test bypassed the target priority rules.
gorgon wrote: There was an entire edition of 40K in which units had to shoot the nearest unit of a given type. Somehow I think the game will survive some screening mechanics for characters.
And which edition would that be?
If you're referring to 4th, a simple Ld test bypassed the target priority rules.
And its almost like you have an entire movement phase and part of a shooting phase to adjust and try and get the characters.........
Battle Cannons have been shoddy anti-tank for quite some time.
This is, IMO, a good "all-rounder". And I think that is the part people keep forgetting about.
The Leman Russ with Battle Cannon? It's the "jack of all trades" variant.
Battle cannon is terrible. BS3 Battle cannon shooting at your typical vehicle or Monstrous creature (T6 or T7, 3+ save) does, on average, 0.444 wounds per shot. Old Battle Cannon wasn't that great either but it wasn't this bad against heavy targets.
Russes might still be good because of Hull Weapons and Sponsons, but unfortunate that main weapon is so impotent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: This is not about realism. Is about "Universe consistence". If 40k tanks can jump like bunnies because thats how the universe works, 40k tanks should jump like bunies.
It doesn't mater how X work in real life. In this case, 40k tanks work aproximately like the ones in real life, but they aren't equal. So don't use "realism" as an argument.
Not equal, but they were quite close approximation (infantry also doesn't work like in real life, with much more emphasis on close combat). Tanks have now moved much away from the old model, it's understandable people don't like it.
Fact: Real world MBT duel is decided mostly by who shoots first as it's basically hit and dead tank.
I don't think that would make a very fun game though.
Tell that to the Flames of War people. They seem to like it ok.
Thats Team Yankee with its high AT ratings v armour and 2+ Firepower as standard, Flames of War certainly used to avoid the one hit wonders with most nations tanks outside the light ones and earlier German units which suffer against later Anti Tank Guns as they historically did.
But then the trick in flames is using cover to minimise the effectiveness of the enemies guns and forcing them to move to reduce their rate of fire.
FoW has had a better and more detailed core system in 15mm for years.. units splitting fire on a team by team basis, to hit roll based on the enemies training not yours.
And thats why they play an historical and not a fantasy wargame.
And it is not like even in FoW a tank which shots first autokills the enemy. They have maybe one in four chance of doing so or something thereabouts. It is just that being a 15mm game you persemably have more tanks than in average 40K game, so keeping track of HP for each individually would be annoying, so they're just either fine, bailed out, or destroyed.
Battle Cannons have been shoddy anti-tank for quite some time.
This is, IMO, a good "all-rounder". And I think that is the part people keep forgetting about.
The Leman Russ with Battle Cannon? It's the "jack of all trades" variant.
Battle cannon is terrible. BS3 Battle cannon shooting at your typical vehicle or Monstrous creature (T6 or T7, 3+ save) does, on average, 0.444 wounds per shot. Old Battle Cannon wasn't that great either but it wasn't this bad against heavy targets.
lol?
Hey remember when a Leman Russ could only deal one wound to a MC or 1 HP(before penetration) on vehicles?
Russes might still be good because of Hull Weapons and Sponsons, but unfortunate that main weapon is so impotent.
That main weapon is 1 point of Strength less than a Lascannon and with one less point of AP modifier.
And again:
This is the basic Leman Russ Battle Cannon. It's not the Vanquisher, it's not the Demolisher, it's not the Eradicator, it's the basic cannon.
Battle Cannons have been shoddy anti-tank for quite some time.
This is, IMO, a good "all-rounder". And I think that is the part people keep forgetting about.
The Leman Russ with Battle Cannon? It's the "jack of all trades" variant.
Battle cannon is terrible. BS3 Battle cannon shooting at your typical vehicle or Monstrous creature (T6 or T7, 3+ save) does, on average, 0.444 wounds per shot. Old Battle Cannon wasn't that great either but it wasn't this bad against heavy targets.
Russes might still be good because of Hull Weapons and Sponsons, but unfortunate that main weapon is so impotent.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Galas wrote: This is not about realism. Is about "Universe consistence". If 40k tanks can jump like bunnies because thats how the universe works, 40k tanks should jump like bunies.
It doesn't mater how X work in real life. In this case, 40k tanks work aproximately like the ones in real life, but they aren't equal. So don't use "realism" as an argument.
Not equal, but they were quite close approximation (infantry also doesn't work like in real life, with much more emphasis on close combat). Tanks have now moved much away from the old model, it's understandable people don't like it.
How are you figuring this? If you treat the "average" roll of a D6 to be 3.5, a BS3 battlecannon gets 3.5 * 0.5 hits * .66 wounds * .66 unsaved * 1.5 damage = 1.14 unsaved wounds/shot on average versus a Dreadnought with the new save system. Not amazing, but generally better than the current LRBC does against a dread.
Galas wrote: This is not about realism. Is about "Universe consistence". If 40k tanks can jump like bunnies because thats how the universe works, 40k tanks should jump like bunies.
It doesn't mater how X work in real life. In this case, 40k tanks work aproximately like the ones in real life, but they aren't equal. So don't use "realism" as an argument.
Not equal, but they were quite close approximation (infantry also doesn't work like in real life, with much more emphasis on close combat). Tanks have now moved much away from the old model, it's understandable people don't like it.
Yes, in the Imperial Guard tanks it has a point, but not because "realism"; but because thats how they worked in the past in-universe. I just wanted to throw away this "realism" thing before going any further. Universe consistence=/=realism.
Battle Cannons have been shoddy anti-tank for quite some time.
This is, IMO, a good "all-rounder". And I think that is the part people keep forgetting about.
The Leman Russ with Battle Cannon? It's the "jack of all trades" variant.
Battle cannon is terrible. BS3 Battle cannon shooting at your typical vehicle or Monstrous creature (T6 or T7, 3+ save) does, on average, 0.444 wounds per shot. Old Battle Cannon wasn't that great either but it wasn't this bad against heavy targets.
lol?
Hey remember when a Leman Russ could only deal one wound to a MC or 1 HP(before penetration) on vehicles?
I also remember that those days, average Vehicle had 3 Hull points and average MC had 4 Wounds. Now, Dread has 8 wounds and a Carnifex probably about same.
Doing d6 hits on hordes is also pretty mediocre. Battle Cannon seems ok against multiwound infantry like Tyranid Warriors, Nobs etc.
How are you figuring this? If you treat the "average" roll of a D6 to be 3.5, a BS3 battlecannon gets 3.5 * 0.5 hits * .66 wounds * .66 unsaved * 1.5 damage = 1.14 unsaved wounds/shot on average versus a Dreadnought with the new save system. Not amazing, but generally better than the current LRBC does against a dread.
Shouldn't that be 2 damage? So 1,5 unsaved wounds in total?
Two similar tech level MBT shooting at each other with main guns... whoever fires first gets the kill right? Maybe not every time, but if you get nailed by a main gun and survive that should mean you are REALLY lucky.
If that were modeled in game, one of two things would have to be true.
Either a) The LRBT would also be capable of reliably one-shotting anything of similar or lesser bulk to itself- so Carnifexes, Dreadnoughts, etc.
Or b) The LR would be exceptionally easy to kill compared to its likely opponents.
Neither of those are desirable game outcomes, so here we are.
You're also applying 20th/21st century tank doctrine to a tank with vastly different operating requirements and likely opposition.
Ork turn 2 Waghhh!!! everything charges each of the 20 blobs of boys charge the fire warriors the knobs charge the battle suites the bikers charge one of the hammer heads the dread charges another, the tau player decides hes going to fall back , everything falls back.
Tau turn 2 the tau player can not do anything because he chose to fall back.
You realize tau shooting isn't going to be so weak that he would be able to charge everything? If he could why isn't ork curb stomping tau at will? After all in 7th ed those tau would be dead instantly or locked in combat and dead then anyway so no difference to here except here any units not in combat can shoot freely unlike before...So for shooty army it's either same as before(units assaulted are dead or in combat preventing shooting) or better(they didn't die and aren't in combat anymore so you can shoot at will)
Very cool indeed.
thanks
Please someone competent do the math...
