I'm going to assume that there's a misprint when it says twin-linked weapons fire twice as many shots at half range, a bit of confusion between Rapid Fire and Twin-Linked?
Large blasts look to be very dangerous indeed, as does Melta!
In the new Warhammer 40,000, twin-linked weapons instead get double the number of shots at half range. - was removed - website changed. Now just double number of shots.
Combi-weapons
Another type of weapon that is changing is the combi-weapon. While in the current edition you can only shoot the “specialist” portion of the gun once, in the new Warhammer 40,000 you can either shoot both all the time, but at a -1 to hit modifier, or choose to just shoot one with no modifier. no longer just one-hit-wonders with those shooting attacks.
Explosives
in the new Warhammer 40,000, these are resolved much faster by just using a random number of shots. This represents either how many warriors are caught in the explosion, or how direct the hit is on a larger single-model target. Otherwise, these work exactly as any other shooting.
So on a good day a battle cannon can do 18 wounds in one go.
LOL at the morkanaughts "massive" 18 wounds. This is going to be the shootiest mcshootface one shot edition!
Good thing IC can't get one killed in one shot if they are under 11 wounds! Unless they are the cloest model , it's tuesday, you're name is jeff or randy, and you own your own flgs.
Can someone please clarify if we still roll to hit with blasts weapons.
How I read it works is:
1) Roll a dice to see how many shots you get.
2) Roll to hit with those shots.
3) Roll to wound.
4) Roll D3 to see how much damage each wound does.
Is this right? if so Leman Russes with blast weapons may have just taken a big nerf, their one saving grace was they get past guards mediocre ballistic skill.
Oh boy. These are some BIG changes. I'll assume there's a typo or mistake in the information about double shots at half range.
First off;
WOW at the twin-linked changes. The Land Raider is going to be a complete beast. I assume they will stuff suffer the -1 to hit while firing heavy weapons on the move, but damn man, 4 lascannon and 6 heavy bolter shots that should be able to split fire? That serious business. The Crusader? Redeemer? I can't even imagine.
Combi-weapons. Well...I don't know about this. I feel if they are costed properly this will be okay, but I don't want to see "8th Edition, the combi-weapon terminator/sternguard deepstrike edition".
Battle cannon. D6 shots? I mean....eww. That's only going to average what, 1.75 hits per turn? That's not super amazing. This is a carry through for our big blast template now too. So, whirlwinds, vindicators....etc, are D6 shots now? Small blasts will be D3 I assume.
D3s are a thing again, so we can safely assume krak missile and most S8 and/or AP3 weapons will be D3 damage.
-4 AP is a thing, so it looks like the formula was right on target; (AP5 or 6 becomes AP0, AP4 = AP-1, AP3=-2, AP2=-3 and AP1 =-4)
Melta doing a D6 damage was a given, but I expected 2D6 at close range, the roll 2 pick highest isn't bad, but it means we won't be seeing anything bigger than a D6 for damage shy of a Super heavy "D" class weapon. This is an interesting upgrade for vehicle staying power. That Gorkanaught is going to take AT LEAST 5-6 heavy anti-tank shots to put it down.
Pancakey wrote: So on a good day a battle cannon can do 18 wounds in one go.
LOL at the morkanaughts "massive" 18 wounds. This is going to be the shootiest mcshootface one shot edition!
Good thing IC can't get one killed in one shot if they are under 11 wounds! Unless they are the cloest model , it's tuesday, you're name is jeff or randy, and you own your own flgs.
These rules stink of crowd sourcing.
erm...yeah. Math.
I mean, you could potentially 1 shot vehicles in 7th edition by rolling that destroyed results. A battle cannon will average 1.16 wounds a turn. Only need to line up ~15 battle cannons to put it down in 1 turn. Real scary.
Pancakey wrote: So on a good day a battle cannon can do 18 wounds in one go.
LOL at the morkanaughts "massive" 18 wounds. This is going to be the shootiest mcshootface one shot edition!
Good thing IC can't get one killed in one shot if they are under 11 wounds! Unless they are the cloest model , it's tuesday, you're name is jeff or randy, and you own your own flgs.
These rules stink of crowd sourcing.
And on average it'll do about 3.5 wounds before saves but don't let reality get in the way of your one-man crusade against 8th edition.
Hmmm I guess new GW are giving Tau some love! Almost all of Tau's weapon are TL or can be TL! 16 shots from Broadsides!!! 2 Shots Railguns! Riptides Ion Accelerator will do tons of damage! Release 8th ed already!!!
The battlecannon sorta got nerfed. It now seems a ton better against single-model units but will be a lot worse then the 7 ed. kind against blobs.
Also hold on, I think thats the TWIN LINKED profile, so a twin-linked heavy bolter is heavy 6. Seems like the half range thing was a missprint and it's been edited
So that would be already in the profile for Twin Heavy Bolters, I guess.
Well, we know Heavy Bolters have been Heavy 3 for the longest time, so that makes a lot of sense.
FatBoyNoSlim wrote: Can someone please clarify if we still roll to hit with blasts weapons.
How I read it works is:
1) Roll a dice to see how many shots you get.
2) Roll to hit with those shots.
3) Roll to wound.
4) Roll D3 to see how much damage each wound does.
Is this right? if so Leman Russes with blast weapons may have just taken a big nerf, their one saving grace was they get past guards mediocre ballistic skill.
And maybe one of the 7 orders that you can make automatically will make them beasts. We really can't know at this point if specific units are getting nerfed or buffed.
Pancakey wrote: So on a good day a battle cannon can do 18 wounds in one go.
LOL at the morkanaughts "massive" 18 wounds. This is going to be the shootiest mcshootface one shot edition!
Good thing IC can't get one killed in one shot if they are under 11 wounds! Unless they are the cloest model , it's tuesday, you're name is jeff or randy, and you own your own flgs.
These rules stink of crowd sourcing.
And on average it'll do about 3.5 wounds before saves but don't let reality get in the way of your one-man crusade against 8th edition.
Because in 7th there is no way a lucky shot from a tank could take out a big machine in one shot, right?
How much you want to be that units that can take 2 weapons like tau suits with multitrackers can shot each weapon at a different target or choose to take twinlinked weapons to double the shots.
xlDuke wrote: I'm going to assume that there's a misprint when it says twin-linked weapons fire twice as many shots at half range, a bit of confusion between Rapid Fire and Twin-Linked?
Large blasts look to be very dangerous indeed, as does Melta!
It's a doubling for Twin-Linked at Half Range. Rapid Fire is ALSO a doubling at Half Range. Ergo; if you have a twin-linked Bolter (like on a Land Raider Crusader), you get 1 shot, but that goes up to FOUR shots at half-range!
Talamare wrote: Twin Linked change is a little disappointing
Yes, it's more powerful but the rule was designed to be different
If Twin Linked was just going to be 2 weapons... then they could represent that by... Just giving it 2 weapons...
There is no need for a "Twin Linked" Rule
Twin Linked Heavy Bolter = 2 Heavy Bolters.
That's probably why they're called them "Twin" weapons now, rather than twinkinked. Most, if not all Twin-linked weapons are two weapons stuck together. It's not so much a rule, by the look of it, as the name for the weapon that is two weapons stuck together, with stats to work with it being two weapons
xlDuke wrote: I'm going to assume that there's a misprint when it says twin-linked weapons fire twice as many shots at half range, a bit of confusion between Rapid Fire and Twin-Linked?
Large blasts look to be very dangerous indeed, as does Melta!
It's a doubling for Twin-Linked at Half Range. Rapid Fire is ALSO a doubling at Half Range. Ergo; if you have a twin-linked Bolter (like on a Land Raider Crusader), you get 1 shot, but that goes up to FOUR shots at half-range!
That was apparently a typo: the article now just says that TL translates to double ROF. So I'd guess those TL plasma talons will be Rapid-Fire 2 (which was mentioned yesterday in the Faction Focus piece about Guard). And incidentally, it makes perfect sense to handle Rapid-Fire like that - we've had a Rapid-Fire 3 weapon since at least 5e: the hurricane bolter!
JohnMarik wrote: I'm also wondering what happens to weapons that were Rapid Fire and Twin Linked? *Thinks about his plasma talons on Black Knights*
Like I said, they just got many times more likely to kill YOU!
Assuming they still have the whole Gets Hot! bit. ISTR they didn't have that in 2e, and I wouldn't be shocked to see that gone, as much as folks will gripe about fluff-mangling.
So far, everything seems to be geared to anti elite and tank. Even flamers got better at single target killing.
But they haven't really shown anything that's anti-horde yet.
If Heavy Bolters are still only heavy 3 but AP-1, they seem better equipped to take out mid range infantry, even better now against MEQ's. Battlecannons now seem better against TEQ's and characters, urather than large groups under a pie plate.
Lascannons and meltas are obviously anti-tank.
I could be wrong, and you math hammer guys might prove that. But to me, from what they've shown, it looks like horde armies are going to flourish and elite armies are going to get utterly wrecked
A landraider can now pump out 5d6 wounds per turn now. Hide your Rowboat!
I know vehicles could die in one shot in 7th to ap2/ap1. I actually liked the armor value system (no we dont grav spam in the champagne room) from 7th because it made vehicles different and gave the game added flavor. But thats all besides the point now.
My personal "crusade" as it was called is just to highlight that things are going to die so fast in 8th, your head is going to spin! Like really really really fast! Damage potential for all units has gone way off the charts!
Pancakey wrote: So on a good day a battle cannon can do 18 wounds in one go.
LOL at the morkanaughts "massive" 18 wounds. This is going to be the shootiest mcshootface one shot edition!
Good thing IC can't get one killed in one shot if they are under 11 wounds! Unless they are the cloest model , it's tuesday, you're name is jeff or randy, and you own your own flgs.
These rules stink of crowd sourcing.
So 0.00000186% of the time the battlecannon can do 18 wounds....I'm shaking
Dear god, my IG is in love. I don't know how IG is gonna stack up once the dust settles, but so far they seem to reaping the benefits of almost every change made so far.
Pancakey wrote: So on a good day a battle cannon can do 18 wounds in one go.
LOL at the morkanaughts "massive" 18 wounds. This is going to be the shootiest mcshootface one shot edition!
Good thing IC can't get one killed in one shot if they are under 11 wounds! Unless they are the cloest model , it's tuesday, you're name is jeff or randy, and you own your own flgs.
These rules stink of crowd sourcing.
So 0.00000186% of the time the battlecannon can do 18 wounds....I'm shaking
Yeah it's new stats are actually pretty mediocre. Averaging at killing maybe 1 termie, if you're lucky
The only thing I'm not a fan of is the change to Combi-Weapons.
A simple, universal cost of 5 points like on Space Wolf and Chaos Terminators would've been the easiest way to go about it. If they were going to go this route, I would've preferred a much bigger negative modifier.
Outside of that, loving the profiles for the Battle Cannon, Melta Gun, and TL rules.
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The only thing I'm not a fan of is the change to Combi-Weapons.
A simple, universal cost of 5 points like on Space Wolf and Chaos Terminators would've been the easiest way to go about it. If they were going to go this route, I would've preferred a much bigger negative modifier.
Outside of that, loving the profiles for the Battle Cannon, Melta Gun, and TL rules.
We have no idea what any of these weapons will cost....
Carnage43 wrote: Oh boy. These are some BIG changes. I'll assume there's a typo or mistake in the information about double shots at half range.
Battle cannon. D6 shots? I mean....eww. That's only going to average what, 1.75 hits per turn? That's not super amazing. This is a carry through for our big blast template now too. So, whirlwinds, vindicators....etc, are D6 shots now? Small blasts will be D3 I assume.
.
I wonder if all blasts will be the same. To me it seems feasible that some lower S blasts meant for anti-infantry (like a whirlwind) could do 2D6 shots (or more) but only 1 wound. The same could hold true for small blasts. I'd be fine with plasma cannons being D3 and Mortars being a D6 or 2D3 etc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote: The only thing I'm not a fan of is the change to Combi-Weapons.
A simple, universal cost of 5 points like on Space Wolf and Chaos Terminators would've been the easiest way to go about it. If they were going to go this route, I would've preferred a much bigger negative modifier.
Outside of that, loving the profiles for the Battle Cannon, Melta Gun, and TL rules.
Combi-weapons will need to increase in cost substantially, as it stands they are straight up better than non-combi versions. My hope is that each are costed at a different price point as a combi-melta seems better in most circumstances than a combi-flamer (though that is still good.)
To all the mathhammer dudes. Its about potential damage. A lemon rust when form potentially doing 1 wound on a sigle model like Rowboat to doing UP TO 18.
1 < 18
Combi is another good example of the massive power boost.
A combi melta went from doing potentially 1 wound a game to 6d6 wounds a game. That is an insane power boost!
Pancakey wrote: So on a good day a battle cannon can do 18 wounds in one go.
LOL at the morkanaughts "massive" 18 wounds. This is going to be the shootiest mcshootface one shot edition!
Good thing IC can't get one killed in one shot if they are under 11 wounds! Unless they are the cloest model , it's tuesday, you're name is jeff or randy, and you own your own flgs.
These rules stink of crowd sourcing.
So 0.00000186% of the time the battlecannon can do 18 wounds....I'm shaking
Yeah it's new stats are actually pretty mediocre. Averaging at killing maybe 1 termie, if you're lucky
Yup it averages as stated elsewhere about 1.75 wounds pre-save and marines are getting a 3+ save. The other guns on the russ (sponsons etc) seem to be where the power is. Also other versions of the Russ seem likely to be better.
Pancakey wrote: So on a good day a battle cannon can do 18 wounds in one go.
LOL at the morkanaughts "massive" 18 wounds. This is going to be the shootiest mcshootface one shot edition!
Good thing IC can't get one killed in one shot if they are under 11 wounds! Unless they are the cloest model , it's tuesday, you're name is jeff or randy, and you own your own flgs.
These rules stink of crowd sourcing.
So 0.00000186% of the time the battlecannon can do 18 wounds....I'm shaking
Yeah it's new stats are actually pretty mediocre. Averaging at killing maybe 1 termie, if you're lucky
Yup it averages as stated elsewhere about 1.75 wounds pre-save and marines are getting a 3+ save. The other guns on the russ (sponsons etc) seem to be where the power is. Also other versions of the Russ seem likely to be better.
Pancakey wrote: To all the mathhammer dudes. Its about potential damage. A lemon rust when form potentially doing 1 wound on a sigle model like Rowboat to doing UP TO 18.
Stop picking on people that are bad at math, they suffer enough in life already. So battle cannon goes to ap -2, which we can assume is the same for ap 3 weapons, a heavy bolter is ap -1, and a melta is ap -4. So it looks like they are carrying ap straight across:
AP 4 = AP -1
AP 3 = AP -2
AP 2 = AP -3
AP 1 = AP -4
So now we can start thinking about nerfs and buffs.
Battle Cannon:
Expected Shots Value = 3.5
Expected Hits Value (assuming it didn't move at BS3) = 1.75
Expected To-Wound (assuming T8) = 0.875
Expected Saves (assuming 3+ save base, not in cover) = 66.6% of wounds go through
Expected Wounds Value unsaved wound = 2
Expected Total Damage Per Shot = 1+1/6
Therefore, you can expect a Battle Cannon to deal 1 wound to a vehicle or monstrous creature of these kinds. Not great against a Morkanaut. However, if it's T7 with a 3+ save; then you get 1+5/9 wounds through, on average. It's cool because this gun is sometimes just going to knock off 1 wound, but sometimes it'll get a CRUSHING amount of wounds on a lucky hit!
Pancakey wrote: To all the mathhammer dudes. Its about potential damage. A lemon rust when form potentially doing 1 wound on a sigle model like Rowboat to doing UP TO 18.
1 < 18
Combi is another good example of the massive power boost.
A combi melta went from doing potentially 1 wound a game to 6d6 wounds a game. That is an insane power boost!
1 < 36
I mean....potentially, sure. That's one way to look at it. A wrong way, but A way.
On average a battle cannon would, let's say, alway hit, wound on a 2+, then have to deal with a 2+ save. Average wounds taken = 0.1388. Battle cannon shots to kill him? Around 43.
Now we have 8th edition. 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound, D3 wounds, -2 to his 2+ save, 9 wounds to chip through. Average wounds per shot = 1.16, 0.77 if he had cover. This is assuming he doesn't have a secondary save as well. Average battle cannon shots to kill when not in cover = 7.75, in cover 11.68. So, be in cover.
This is assuming you can even target him, because he's a character and won't be an eligible target, and assuming he doesn't get a second FnP or invul save as well.
Long story short. Batttle cannons and blast weapons are much better against individual targets and probably worse against large units now. Characters have more wounds. Characters shouldn't be easy to snipe. Cover is still good.
Pancakey wrote: To all the mathhammer dudes. Its about potential damage. A lemon rust when form potentially doing 1 wound on a sigle model like Rowboat to doing UP TO 18.
1 < 18
Except it is not about potential damage, when that is likely never to happen. My stats did not even include saves (like the 4+ Rowboat would have at minimum). You need to roll a 6 for number of hits, followed by 6 4+s, followed by another 6 4+s (in my example against a morkanaut), followed by 6 5+ (D3 rolls of 3), then fail all those saves (5+ on a morkanaut). When something can potentially happen 1 time out of 10 million (not an exaggeration) it matters that it is unlikely to happen. Did a leman russ battle cannot improve slightly against a single model sure. But it got much worse on average against units. Especially single wound models.
so it matters when you make statements about it being a super shooting edition based on huge statistical unlikelihood.
Pancakey wrote: To all the mathhammer dudes. Its about potential damage. A lemon rust when form potentially doing 1 wound on a sigle model like Rowboat to doing UP TO 18.
1 < 18
Except it is not about potential damage, when that is likely never to happen. My stats did not even include saves (like the 4+ Rowboat would have at minimum). You need to roll a 6 for number of hits, followed by 6 4+s, followed by another 6 4+s (in my example against a morkanaut), followed by 6 5+ (D3 rolls of 3), then fail all those saves (5+ on a morkanaut). When something can potentially happen 1 time out of 10 million (not an exaggeration) it matters that it is unlikely to happen. Did a leman russ battle cannot improve slightly against a single model sure. But it got much worse on average against units. Especially single wound models.
so it matters when you make statements about it being a super shooting edition based on huge statistical unlikelihood.
Maybe they wanted the battlecannon to be used differently in this edition to make cannons like the punisher mini gun to be more anti-unit? Speculation of course, but perhaps they wanted to shift around the focus of the cannons.
Pancakey wrote: Why doesnt potential matter? Is it not a consideration in game design?
Not really.
I mean, it's potentially possible to wipe an entire army off the table first turn if you have enough shots to do it. 1 lascannon per vehicle, 1 lasgun per troop for example. But it's also almost mathematically impossible as well.
You don't build a game on 1 in 10 trillion chances, you build it on the average and typical outcomes.
Pancakey wrote: Why doesnt potential matter? Is it not a consideration in game design?
sure it matters, it is why the battle cannon doesn't have 2D6 shots, or do D6 wounds. Because then the likely potential of a ton of wounds is high. But as a concern for it being OP when 1/10,000,000 times it does 18 wounds to a Morkanaut is not a really important factor in balance, because if your morkanaut got taken out in that manner it would be fairly exciting that someone rolled so ridiculously well. Lets put it this way, the chance of a morkanaut being one shot is much higher right now than the chance of it getting killed by a battle cannon.
Pancakey wrote: To all the mathhammer dudes. Its about potential damage. A lemon rust when form potentially doing 1 wound on a sigle model like Rowboat to doing UP TO 18.
1 < 18
Except it is not about potential damage, when that is likely never to happen. My stats did not even include saves (like the 4+ Rowboat would have at minimum). You need to roll a 6 for number of hits, followed by 6 4+s, followed by another 6 4+s (in my example against a morkanaut), followed by 6 5+ (D3 rolls of 3), then fail all those saves (5+ on a morkanaut). When something can potentially happen 1 time out of 10 million (not an exaggeration) it matters that it is unlikely to happen. Did a leman russ battle cannot improve slightly against a single model sure. But it got much worse on average against units. Especially single wound models.
so it matters when you make statements about it being a super shooting edition based on huge statistical unlikelihood.
Maybe they wanted the battlecannon to be used differently in this edition to make cannons like the punisher mini gun to be more anti-unit? Speculation of course, but perhaps they wanted to shift around the focus of the cannons.
possibly I would have no issue with variety among russes. Their statement in the article seems to suggest they wanted explosions to be very swingy, so from a competitive standpoint, that may be undesirable. It will be a unit that will do a ton or do nothing, which is similar to blasts now really.
If the Battle Cannon profile says, "D6 Shots," without a bit of text saying something like, "this weapon automatically hits its target," then we will certainly be making To Hit rolls for this weapon system.
Pancakey wrote: Why doesnt potential matter? Is it not a consideration in game design?
Only if the probability is decently high. If it was a 1 shot weapon that did 18 wounds, it WOULD matter. As a D6 shot that has a very, very small chance to pull 18 wounds, not so much.
Looks like people who complained about Ork weapons being "too random" are going to be FURIOUS. Wonder how the unreliability of Orky tech will be represented now?
I am a bit disappointed that it seems blast weapons now just have a random rate of fire. Seems to me like a nice way to make them more distinct from high RoF weapons would have been to make it so that they do one roll to hit, but if it succeeds you do, for example, D6 hits on the target unit.
Dakkadreads with double ACs might be decent now - pumping out 8 shots on a tough(ish) platform.
And Ork bikers now put out 6 str5 shots? Grab a mob of 10 of them and thats 60 shots?
Scats on Serpents now 8 shots a piece. Not too shabby either.
Ratius wrote: Dakkadreads with double ACs might be decent now - pumping out 8 shots on a tough(ish) platform.
And Ork bikers now put out 6 str5 shots? Grab a mob of 10 of them and thats 60 shots?
Scats on Serpents now 8 shots a piece. Not too shabby either.
Grab those dice buckets.
Mother of god...think of Tyranids! Spinefists are twin linked assault X... I need more spinefists. What's more, is that they are practically pistols... Raveners will be fun as well as the rest of the Warrior genus. Here's the BIG question. If they rule spinefists as pistols, and consider a pair as a single weapon for the cost of Gunslinger...that's roughly 12-16 shots per warrior genus that can be used outside and inside of CC.
I imagine we will have a lot of the weapon profiles adjusted to account for.....oddities like those. Or at least the points cost adjusted to be in line with it.
I dunno about tyranids man. I see spinefist becoming pistol weapons actually. The real question is twin-linked devourers on tyrants and carnifexes. Those could be absolutely lethal.
Pancakey wrote: Why doesn't potential matter? Is it not a consideration in game design?
Game design is about probability, and the probability of one shotting a morkanuat is so small that you might expect it to happen once in the entirety of 8th edition. Humans are running monkey firmware on lizard hardware so we are not well equipped to think of events less common than say 1 in 20, so when I tell you it's a 1 in 537,634 occurrence people tend to round up to a 1 in 20 or judge it to be impossible, when neither of those is really the case.
Nazrak wrote: Also, a battlecannon only causing an average 1.75 hits is a bit disappointing.
Yea, but also 1/36 chance of straight up dealing 12 damage to an enemy Leman Russ
That's not "Never going to happen", That's "Happens every other game."
That's the chance of rolling Double 6s
So if the Battle Cannon now takes the roll of, sort-if-anti-tank, what will a Vanquisher be like? And what will take the place of anti-squad? I really hope a basilisk will be dishing out more pain to Units
Take my Punisher Vulture 20 shots twin-linked means 40 shots! Why not just say it has 40 shots and be done with it, why do we need the special rule, and not just a change in stat line?
Nazrak wrote: Also, a battlecannon only causing an average 1.75 hits is a bit disappointing.
Yea, but also 1/36 chance of straight up dealing 12 damage to an enemy Leman Russ
That's not "Never going to happen", That's "Happens every other game."
That's the chance of rolling Double 6s
So if the Battle Cannon now takes the roll of, sort-if-anti-tank, what will a Vanquisher be like? And what will take the place of anti-squad? I really hope a basilisk will be dishing out more pain to Units
Battle Cannon has always taken the roll of "effective against everything"
Vanquisher has plenty of room to be more effective than a Battle Cannon at being Anti-Tank since the Battle Cannon is on average worse than even a Lascannon at being Anti-Tank.
The difference tho between a Lascannon and a Battle Cannon is what some people have been trying to convey...
POTENTIAL
A Lascannon at it's maximum Potential is only 6 damage
A Battlecannon at it's maximum potential is 18 damage
Grimgold wrote: Stop picking on people that are bad at math, they suffer enough in life already. So battle cannon goes to ap -2, which we can assume is the same for ap 3 weapons, a heavy bolter is ap -1, and a melta is ap -4. So it looks like they are carrying ap straight across:
AP 4 = AP -1 AP 3 = AP -2 AP 2 = AP -3 AP 1 = AP -4
So now we can start thinking about nerfs and buffs.
I suspect that any weapons that currently have Rending or Bladstorm or similar rule might bump that up. For example an AP4 Assault cannon might actually be AP -2, or Shuriken weapons might be AP -1
Also, for those who are saying "What's the point in Twin-linked/Twin weapons? Just give us 2 guns", I think models will still be limited in the number of weapons they are allowed to fire per turn, so Twin weapons will only count as 1 for this purpose. Just a guess mind you.
I think, to some extent, making the "twin-linked" version of a weapon its own entry will prohibit players from 'splitting' twin-linked weapons. So, for Twin-Linked Heavy Bolters, those 6 shots will all go to the same target. It will be the same, I imagine, for Hurricane Bolters and Quad Heavy Bolters, etc.
Carnage43 wrote: I imagine we will have a lot of the weapon profiles adjusted to account for.....oddities like those. Or at least the points cost adjusted to be in line with it.
I dunno about tyranids man. I see spinefist becoming pistol weapons actually. The real question is twin-linked devourers on tyrants and carnifexes. Those could be absolutely lethal.
Well, they are twin linked pairs...so I guess it would be 12 shots per pair. What's odd is that I don't feel like most people would auto take TMCs with 2 pairs though. I think people may start diversifying their bugs to take advantage of other bioweapons. Survivability hasn't really changed much for most infantry compared to the standard weapons for us, so it might be better for a flying hive tyrant to take only 1 pair and take something like a heavy venom cannon or stranglethorn.
Take my Punisher Vulture 20 shots twin-linked means 40 shots! Why not just say it has 40 shots and be done with it, why do we need the special rule, and not just a change in stat line?
In the one twin-linked weapon they showed a profile for, that's exactly what they did do. There's no "twin-linked" special rule at all, just a name with "twin" in it, and double the ROF.
ETA: As others have pointed out, there is one place where this makes a difference: a weapon with double the ROF can fire at one unit, while two of a kind can possibly fire at two separate units. That would make there be a point to being able to choose, like how Crisis Suits work right now for example, and two of a kind would be strictly superior to one twin-linked weapon provided you can fire them both. Of course, that's predicated on the idea that a single model will be able to fire two weapons of the same kind at different targets. (Like, say, multiple storm bolters on a Rhino).
TheLumberJack wrote:So does this mean the battle cannon can kill at most 6 people or at most 18 people?
6 people. 6 models hit, each taking D3 wounds. Wounds will not spill over between models. Eg. A lascannon will do D6 wounds, but only kill a single model, not 6 potentially. At least, that's how it's always worked with GW.
Take my Punisher Vulture 20 shots twin-linked means 40 shots! Why not just say it has 40 shots and be done with it, why do we need the special rule, and not just a change in stat line?
That is what they are doing, they are just adding Twin to the Twin Linked Heavy Bolter to show that it is not a normal Heavy Bolter.
Take my Punisher Vulture 20 shots twin-linked means 40 shots! Why not just say it has 40 shots and be done with it, why do we need the special rule, and not just a change in stat line?
That is what they are doing, they are just adding Twin to the Twin Linked Heavy Bolter to show that it is not a normal Heavy Bolter.
Also, there may be spells or buffs that Twin-Link weapons so you'd need a rule for that. Same for if Twin-Linked is a purchasable upgrade and doesn't come standard.
I don't know about you, but those values look alright to me.
Not to mention the 1/108 chance of Russ dealing 18 damage.
(1/2 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 1/6 * 1/3 )
Edit
And the fact that a Russ will 1 shot another Russ... Every 1/36 shots
(1/2 * 1/2 * 2/3 * 1/2 * 1/3 )
Your chances of doing 18 damage seems pretty far off. You would need to roll a 6 for chances to hit (1/6), hit with every single of those 6 shots (1/2^6), wound with every single of those 6 shots(against 1/2^6), and roll a 5+ for each of those 6 hits (1/3^6) so that would be 1/6*1/64*1/64*1/729= 1/17,915,904. Your probability is calculating for a single roll to hit and a single roll to wound. That would only work if the weapon did 2D6*1D3 wounds as its damage. Those are all the things that will need to go right for a russ to do 18 damage.
Mathhammer on things with random shots and random wounds is complex
You can simplify the average to 3.5*1/2* x * 2 for figuring out what to expect, but figuring out a specific value of wounds is terribly complicated
It probably mirrors the current capability of the Battlecannon pretty well to be fair, except that more stuff will be getting saves against it, and it has been considered an underperforming weapon for at least 3 editions now.
More and more I'm thinking the classic Russ is going to be staying on shelves. Hopefully the variants show better and/or we see some other stuff change, but I don't see much reason to take the Battlecannon Russ, if the Exterminator for example gets 8 S7 AP -1 shots, even with only 1 Damage, it's going to be the generally superior platform.
Talamare wrote:Twin Linked change is a little disappointing
Yes, it's more powerful but the rule was designed to be different
If Twin Linked was just going to be 2 weapons... then they could represent that by... Just giving it 2 weapons...
There is no need for a "Twin Linked" Rule
Twin Linked Heavy Bolter = 2 Heavy Bolters.
CommanderRednaxela wrote:So, what's the point of twin-linked anymore?
Take my Punisher Vulture 20 shots twin-linked means 40 shots! Why not just say it has 40 shots and be done with it, why do we need the special rule, and not just a change in stat line?
I think some people missed the implications presented by the statements regarding the Combi-Weapons.
Firing 2 (and possibly more) Weapons will result in a -1 (and maybe more?) in your To Hit for both Weapons. Twin-Linking allows for firing both Weapons without this modifier. If you want a good reason for Twin-linking a Weapon and not splitting them, there you go. And it looks like EVERYONE will be able to do this (as noted by the inclusion of the Sternguard).
So, it looks like Tau Target Locks and Multitrackers are now useless in their old capacities. I wonder if they will be dropped or converted in to something new.
This also looks like we're back to pre-7th for Shooting so that we are not separating out the Weapons being fired, but that's just an assumption for now. Though, it could be operating under the same assumption as Ordnance was in 7th, that you had to announce you were going to shoot it, one way or another, as it affected all the Shooting the model made for that Phase.
Talamare wrote: Twin Linked change is a little disappointing
Yes, it's more powerful but the rule was designed to be different
If Twin Linked was just going to be 2 weapons... then they could represent that by... Just giving it 2 weapons...
There is no need for a "Twin Linked" Rule
Twin Linked Heavy Bolter = 2 Heavy Bolters.
Unless each weapon has to fire at a given target. If a models can fire its different weapons at different targets, but not split up the attacks of the individual weapons, then this is a way to force more shots into a unit and not let it be as flexible as two separate weapons.
Oh, I have two lascannons? I fire one at that Leman Russ, and another at that Chimera.
Oh, I have a Twin-Lascannon? I fire it at the Leman Russ.
Vaktathi wrote: The battlecannon profile is...underwhelming.
It probably mirrors the current capability of the Battlecannon pretty well to be fair, except that more stuff will be getting saves against it, and it has been considered an underperforming weapon for at least 3 editions now.
More and more I'm thinking the classic Russ is going to be staying on shelves. Hopefully the variants show better and/or we see some other stuff change, but I don't see much reason to take the Battlecannon Russ, if the Exterminator for example gets 8 S7 AP -1 shots, even with only 1 Damage, it's going to be the generally superior platform.
While it may have a low expected value, that just means that 50% of the time it does MORE damage than that, and 50% of the time it does LESS damage than that. The "less" part means that about half the time your Leman Russ is probably just dealing 0 or 1 wounds with the battle cannon, but the "high" side is that it's killing 3 dudes from a squad (good against heavy infantry), or dealing a whopping 8 or so wounds to something bigger.
TheLumberJack wrote:So does this mean the battle cannon can kill at most 6 people or at most 18 people?
6 people. 6 models hit, each taking D3 wounds. Wounds will not spill over between models. Eg. A lascannon will do D6 wounds, but only kill a single model, not 6 potentially. At least, that's how it's always worked with GW.
You would think that a weaponized laser would punch a hole through an infantryman and any of his hapless buddies unlucky enough to be in back of him. Also wouldn't be a single bolt but a beam you could drag across a area target making it effective anti infantry or anti armor if you concentrate the beam at one point.
Vaktathi wrote: The battlecannon profile is...underwhelming.
It probably mirrors the current capability of the Battlecannon pretty well to be fair, except that more stuff will be getting saves against it, and it has been considered an underperforming weapon for at least 3 editions now.
More and more I'm thinking the classic Russ is going to be staying on shelves. Hopefully the variants show better and/or we see some other stuff change, but I don't see much reason to take the Battlecannon Russ, if the Exterminator for example gets 8 S7 AP -1 shots, even with only 1 Damage, it's going to be the generally superior platform.
While it may have a low expected value, that just means that 50% of the time it does MORE damage than that, and 50% of the time it does LESS damage than that.
Right, but you want to judge these things by the average as much as possible, you don't want to take a weapon thats capable if "OMG" damage and expect it to routinely output that if its practical chances of doing so are very low. The average tells us how it is most likely to perform.
The "less" part means that about half the time your Leman Russ is probably just dealing 0 or 1 wounds with the battle cannon, but the "high" side is that it's killing 3 dudes from a squad (good against heavy infantry), or dealing a whopping 8 or so wounds to something bigger.
right, but in general you're probably better off with either a specialist unit or a different generalist like the Exterminator (if it carries over as expected with 8 shots), the random number of shots coupled with the decreased AP really dont do anything to improve the performance of the LRBT at all.
Vaktathi wrote: The battlecannon profile is...underwhelming.
It probably mirrors the current capability of the Battlecannon pretty well to be fair, except that more stuff will be getting saves against it, and it has been considered an underperforming weapon for at least 3 editions now.
More and more I'm thinking the classic Russ is going to be staying on shelves. Hopefully the variants show better and/or we see some other stuff change, but I don't see much reason to take the Battlecannon Russ, if the Exterminator for example gets 8 S7 AP -1 shots, even with only 1 Damage, it's going to be the generally superior platform.
While it may have a low expected value, that just means that 50% of the time it does MORE damage than that, and 50% of the time it does LESS damage than that.
Right, but you want to judge these things by the average as much as possible, you don't want to take a weapon thats capable if "OMG" damage and expect it to routinely output that if its practical chances of doing so are very low. The average tells us how it is most likely to perform.
Something that strikes me here, is that despite the average, the battle cannon will have stupidly high variance. So much so that I wonder if it was designed around some kind of buff that will bring its reliability up a fair bit.
We can hope, the variance is pretty ridiculous (and always has been), but I would be surprised if we see anything on that count. Pleased, but surprised, though would prefer if it were just built into the weapon profile inherently.
Something that strikes me here, is that despite the average, the battle cannon will have stupidly high variance. So much so that I wonder if it was designed around some kind of buff that will bring its reliability up a fair bit.
Like maybe Ordinance is on the Battle Cannon, but GW left that off the profile they showed and ordinance allows you to roll 2D6 and pick the highest? Maybe
I wonder how they are going to make the vanquisher battle cannon worth taking over the default battle cannon with these stats?
If they make it Str 8 AP -3 D6 wounds even with a "roll two and take the highest" like melta it seems that the battle cannon will be more reliable as it is very unlikely you will do nothing, where as half of all shots made with the vanq will just miss or a single lucky save will negate all damage.
Never mind the fact that the Annihilator variant is now packing two lascannons which would just be better then the vanquisher. Unless maybe they give the vanquisher 3d3 damage? I doubt that though...
NL_Cirrus wrote: I wonder how they are going to make the vanquisher battle cannon worth taking over the default battle cannon with these stats?
If they make it Str 8 AP -3 D6 wounds even with a "roll two and take the highest" like melta it seems that the battle cannon will be more reliable as it is very unlikely you will do nothing, where as half of all shots made with the vanq will just miss or a single lucky save will negate all damage.
Never mind the fact that the Annihilator variant is now packing two lascannons which would just be better then the vanquisher. Unless maybe they give the vanquisher 3d3 damage? I doubt that though...
That's why points costs are there - to bring a semblance of balance for different weapons or options and give you the option for more weapons at lower power, or fewer weapons with more power.
Plus, the Vanquisher cannon has a 72 inch range currently, yes? That is an advantage over the Lascannon right there.
TheLumberJack wrote:So does this mean the battle cannon can kill at most 6 people or at most 18 people?
6 people. 6 models hit, each taking D3 wounds. Wounds will not spill over between models. Eg. A lascannon will do D6 wounds, but only kill a single model, not 6 potentially. At least, that's how it's always worked with GW.
You would think that a weaponized laser would punch a hole through an infantryman and any of his hapless buddies unlucky enough to be in back of him. Also wouldn't be a single bolt but a beam you could drag across a area target making it effective anti infantry or anti armor if you concentrate the beam at one point.
The logic holds up for a lascannon, but what about something like a melta-gun? Or a powerfist doing D6 wounds? Does the powerfist "pass through" 6 dudes? Are they just lining up to be killed?
If the BC is a reliable template for what we can expect from blast weapons then blasts seem pretty crap. The BC is averaging 2 dead Marines a turn, and that's assuming they're just getting their normal 5+sv and not standing in cover for a 4+.
They really should have allowed BS to still matter for blasts by adding the model's BS to the hit roll, I.E 1d6+3 hits for the BC, up to a maximum of 6 hits. That still isn't very good (only 1 more dead Marines on average) but it's better than what we've seen so far.
Also, what is up with this"maximum potential" crap being peddled in this thread? That's NOT how probability works you goobers. Yeah the battle-has a higher damage potential then a vanquisher. And? A 50-man conscript blob has a higher damage potential then a vanquisher (if you roll 50 5+ to hit rolls and 50 6s to wound that's 50 wounds on a riptide, 16 unsaved wounds!), but who the hell in their right mind would say that conscripts are an effective anti-Riptide unit?
Averages matter, max potential on a variation is completely meaningless.
They really should have allowed BS to still matter for blasts by adding the model's BS to the hit roll, I.E 1d6+3 hits for the BC, up to a maximum of 6 hits. That still isn't very good (only 1 more dead Marines on average) but it's better than what we've seen so far.
Ballistic Skill DOES matter. You use it to see if you hit the target. You roll d6 (for the heavy d6) and roll to hit that many times.
Why would you shoot a weapon that is capable of dealing D3 damage per wound, against models with 1 wound? That seems like a horrible misuse of this weapon.
This is an anti-vehicle weapon. You will effortlessly pop Rhinos with this thing.
Am i the only one who doesn't exclusively play a kill points game? Objectives, anyone? Firing multiple shots that deal D3 damage is so good.
Marmatag wrote: Why would you shoot a weapon that is capable of dealing D3 damage per wound, against models with 1 wound? That seems like a horrible misuse of this weapon.
This is an anti-vehicle weapon. You will effortlessly pop Rhinos with this thing.
Am i the only one who doesn't exclusively play a kill points game? Objectives, anyone? Firing multiple shots that deal D3 damage is so good.
Have we seen confirmation that 'damage" is dealt per model, or per unit? Per models makes sense, but it could be per unit. So firing a weapon that does D3 damage could kill 1-3 one wound models in a unit. I do not think this is how it works, but can anyone confirm?
Marmatag wrote: Why would you shoot a weapon that is capable of dealing D3 damage per wound, against models with 1 wound? That seems like a horrible misuse of this weapon.
This is an anti-vehicle weapon. You will effortlessly pop Rhinos with this thing.
Am i the only one who doesn't exclusively play a kill points game? Objectives, anyone? Firing multiple shots that deal D3 damage is so good.
Have we seen confirmation that 'damage" is dealt per model, or per unit? Per models makes sense, but it could be per unit.
So firing a weapon that does D3 damage could kill 1-3 one wound models in a unit. I do not think this is how it works, but can anyone confirm?
Yeah, the battlecannon seems like a great weapon. It is clearly meant to take down large targets but can also be turned on small elite squads. Hands down the battlecannon is better than it was in 7th. Perhaps in a vacuum, the math works out that certain targets get a benefit vs. the new cannon vs. the old cannon, but it is clearly a better take-all-comers weapon than it used to be. This thing should be deadly against large targets - as a big tank cannon should!
They really should have allowed BS to still matter for blasts by adding the model's BS to the hit roll, I.E 1d6+3 hits for the BC, up to a maximum of 6 hits. That still isn't very good (only 1 more dead Marines on average) but it's better than what we've seen so far.
Ballistic Skill DOES matter. You use it to see if you hit the target. You roll d6 (for the heavy d6) and roll to hit that many times.
That doesn't make BS matter in a good way, that makes BS matter in a detrimental way.
You're already rolling for random hits, rolling TO-HIT on top of that is fething awful. With the old blast system,the trade-off for the punishing scatter system is that the number of hits you generate was at least guaranteed. They took a system that was 50% random and 50% constant and made it 100% random.
They really should have allowed BS to still matter for blasts by adding the model's BS to the hit roll, I.E 1d6+3 hits for the BC, up to a maximum of 6 hits. That still isn't very good (only 1 more dead Marines on average) but it's better than what we've seen so far.
Ballistic Skill DOES matter. You use it to see if you hit the target. You roll d6 (for the heavy d6) and roll to hit that many times.
That doesn't make BS matter in a good way, that makes BS matter in a detrimental way.
You're already rolling for random hits, rolling TO-HIT on top of that fething awful. With the old blast system,the trade-the for the punishing scatter system is that the number of hits you generate was at least guaranteed. They took a system that was 50% random and 50% constant and made it 100% random.
Eh. I'd have preferred d6+1 shots or 2d3 shots, but otherwise I consider this to be MUCH better than templates and it achieves much the same goals.
They really should have allowed BS to still matter for blasts by adding the model's BS to the hit roll, I.E 1d6+3 hits for the BC, up to a maximum of 6 hits. That still isn't very good (only 1 more dead Marines on average) but it's better than what we've seen so far.
Ballistic Skill DOES matter. You use it to see if you hit the target. You roll d6 (for the heavy d6) and roll to hit that many times.
That doesn't make BS matter in a good way, that makes BS matter in a detrimental way.
You're already rolling for random hits, rolling TO-HIT on top of that fething awful. With the old blast system,the trade-the for the punishing scatter system is that the number of hits you generate was at least guaranteed. They took a system that was 50% random and 50% constant and made it 100% random.
Eh. I'd have preferred d6+1 shots or 2d3 shots, but otherwise I consider this to be MUCH better than templates and it achieves much the same goals.
I prefer a d6 system to a template one as well (if only for how much less clunky it is), but I'm having a very hard time seeing how rolling for hits and then rolling to hit after is in any way a fair system. 6th edition taught us very well that randomness only weakens a game, it doesn't make it better. All it does is reduce unit choice by forcing players to pick the units with the least variation in performance.
Vaktathi wrote: The battlecannon profile is...underwhelming.
It probably mirrors the current capability of the Battlecannon pretty well to be fair, except that more stuff will be getting saves against it, and it has been considered an underperforming weapon for at least 3 editions now.
More and more I'm thinking the classic Russ is going to be staying on shelves. Hopefully the variants show better and/or we see some other stuff change, but I don't see much reason to take the Battlecannon Russ, if the Exterminator for example gets 8 S7 AP -1 shots, even with only 1 Damage, it's going to be the generally superior platform.
While it may have a low expected value, that just means that 50% of the time it does MORE damage than that, and 50% of the time it does LESS damage than that.
Right, but you want to judge these things by the average as much as possible, you don't want to take a weapon thats capable if "OMG" damage and expect it to routinely output that if its practical chances of doing so are very low. The average tells us how it is most likely to perform.
Reducing a single high variance weapon with a battlecannon like profile to a '1.17 wounds' is really disingenuous though and pretty much doesn't give us any useful information. It's an awful use of statistical averages. It might be passable for '10 bolt guns shooting at a unit of Orks' type scenarios where you're rolling a set large amount of dice in only 2 stages hit and wound, but even then when you end up with a 6.66 dead orks type figure, it can be quite misleading to players if they don't realise that there could be a 60% chance that they won't deal between 5 and 8 wounds (I'm fudging numbers here.)
Useful information would be plotting curves, or info like % chances of doing 0 wounds, or % chance of doing 3+ wounds to a T7/3+ save target, chance of doing 6+ wounds, etc.
They really should have allowed BS to still matter for blasts by adding the model's BS to the hit roll, I.E 1d6+3 hits for the BC, up to a maximum of 6 hits. That still isn't very good (only 1 more dead Marines on average) but it's better than what we've seen so far.
Ballistic Skill DOES matter. You use it to see if you hit the target. You roll d6 (for the heavy d6) and roll to hit that many times.
That doesn't make BS matter in a good way, that makes BS matter in a detrimental way.
You're already rolling for random hits, rolling TO-HIT on top of that fething awful. With the old blast system,the trade-the for the punishing scatter system is that the number of hits you generate was at least guaranteed. They took a system that was 50% random and 50% constant and made it 100% random.
Eh. I'd have preferred d6+1 shots or 2d3 shots, but otherwise I consider this to be MUCH better than templates and it achieves much the same goals.
I prefer a d6 system to a template one as well (if only for how much less clunky it is), but I'm having a very hard time seeing how rolling for hits and then rolling to hit after is in any way a fair system. 6th edition taught us very well that randomness only weakens a game, it doesn't make it better. All it does is reduce unit choice by forcing players to pick the units with the least variation in performance.
I see the roll to see how many hit as a how big the blast would be, then the hit for how many get hit by it. say a 30 sq foot area hit but while 3 were hit with a blast private steve was standing behind poor private Charles so Charles was only hit despite steve being in the blast radius
Marmatag wrote: Why would you shoot a weapon that is capable of dealing D3 damage per wound, against models with 1 wound? That seems like a horrible misuse of this weapon.
This is an anti-vehicle weapon. You will effortlessly pop Rhinos with this thing.
Am i the only one who doesn't exclusively play a kill points game? Objectives, anyone? Firing multiple shots that deal D3 damage is so good.
Have we seen confirmation that 'damage" is dealt per model, or per unit? Per models makes sense, but it could be per unit. So firing a weapon that does D3 damage could kill 1-3 one wound models in a unit. I do not think this is how it works, but can anyone confirm?
-
Yes. In Multiple places. Here is one of them:
Oh, thanx Yeah that clearly means that you: - roll all your hits, whether you get 1,2, D6, whatever, - then you roll to wound, then you takes saves and for each failed save, - THAT MODEL may take additional damage. You would have to roll that damage to see if that models dies before rolling any further damage from unsaved wounds.
Example: Battle Cannon vs Terminators BC gets 3 hits that do 3 wounds Terminator fail 2 of those saves 1st Termie rolls D3 One of 2 things happens: 1) you roll a 1 and that Termie only takes 1 wound, thus rolls the D3 for the next unsaved wound, but you can only apply 1 wound since that's all the Termie has left to lose. 2) you roll 2 or more and that Termie dies, roll the next D3 on another Termie.
Marmatag wrote: Why would you shoot a weapon that is capable of dealing D3 damage per wound, against models with 1 wound? That seems like a horrible misuse of this weapon.
This is an anti-vehicle weapon. You will effortlessly pop Rhinos with this thing.
Am i the only one who doesn't exclusively play a kill points game? Objectives, anyone? Firing multiple shots that deal D3 damage is so good.
Yes shooting the battle cannon at 1W models is a waste. Luckily there are going to be more multi-wound infantry (like Terminators) so there will be plenty of infantry worth shooting with the LRBT.
Marmatag wrote: Why would you shoot a weapon that is capable of dealing D3 damage per wound, against models with 1 wound? That seems like a horrible misuse of this weapon.
This is an anti-vehicle weapon. You will effortlessly pop Rhinos with this thing.
Am i the only one who doesn't exclusively play a kill points game? Objectives, anyone? Firing multiple shots that deal D3 damage is so good.
Have we seen confirmation that 'damage" is dealt per model, or per unit? Per models makes sense, but it could be per unit.
So firing a weapon that does D3 damage could kill 1-3 one wound models in a unit. I do not think this is how it works, but can anyone confirm?
-
Yes. In Multiple places. Here is one of them:
Oh, thanx
Yeah that clearly means that you:
- roll all your hits, whether you get 1,2, D6, whatever,
- then you roll to wound, then you takes saves and for each failed save,
- THAT MODEL may take additional damage.
You would have to roll that damage to see if that models dies before rolling any further saves.
-
Exactly. And where that process will matter is multi-wound units and the decision making should be quick since they mentioned you'll have to remove wounded models first.
TheLumberJack wrote:So does this mean the battle cannon can kill at most 6 people or at most 18 people?
6 people. 6 models hit, each taking D3 wounds. Wounds will not spill over between models. Eg. A lascannon will do D6 wounds, but only kill a single model, not 6 potentially. At least, that's how it's always worked with GW.
You would think that a weaponized laser would punch a hole through an infantryman and any of his hapless buddies unlucky enough to be in back of him. Also wouldn't be a single bolt but a beam you could drag across a area target making it effective anti infantry or anti armor if you concentrate the beam at one point.
The logic holds up for a lascannon, but what about something like a melta-gun? Or a powerfist doing D6 wounds? Does the powerfist "pass through" 6 dudes? Are they just lining up to be killed?
You're absolutely right on those counts. Maybe I'm asking the game to be too complicated.
Take my Punisher Vulture 20 shots twin-linked means 40 shots! Why not just say it has 40 shots and be done with it, why do we need the special rule, and not just a change in stat line?
maybe because twin linking is still something that can be "given" to a weapon and not normally in its statline ?
Talamare wrote: The Battle Cannon is basically Good at shooting EVERYTHING
Oh?
Spoiler:
Please tell me more. What information are you privy to that makes killing 2 hormagaunts or a single marine sound like "good shooting"? Is the battle-cannon Leman Russ 50 points, or something?
Just a thought but maybe for your crucial rolls you'll be able to use command points to reroll the D6? Or perhaps there is a armor detachment that might offer some benefits? In any case I think it makes sense that an MBT main weapon would be better at killing HVTs. I think anti infantry blast weapons you'll see your D6+X or 2D6 for hits.
I like where this is going.
Excited about everything they have shown about weapons, even got over the loss of templates.
Still suspicious of how hand to hand bubbles and roping in nearby units is NOT going to end up a mass of melee in the middle of the table EVERY game, but will see.
Seems that one fix will be to use fewer points on a 6x4 table so that units can spread out and use the range of specialist weapons to chip away at positions and give lanes of cover fire for units advancing more cautiously to claim objectives, rather than the full scale head on rush to oblivion that the new hand to hand rules seem to invite if the table is too crowded.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talamare wrote: The Battle Cannon is basically Good at shooting EVERYTHING
It's not the best anti infantry with mediocre number of shots, but d6 dudes a turn is pretty good.
It's not the best anti elite infantry with mediocre AP, but -2 AP and potential for d3 damage is pretty good.
It's not the best anti tank with mediocre d3 damage, but being able to deal d6 shots makes it pretty good.
ITS AN ALL PURPOSE TANK
It shouldn't outshine specialized options, but it should be alright at all targets.
It does it's job perfectly.
Yes, I agree that they seem to have gotten this one right for sure.
Maybe there are better guns for special jobs, but the battle cannon is supposed to be general purpose and this profile sure seems to make it that way,
though we are going to see how it plays first to be sure I guess.
Talamare wrote: It's not the best anti elite infantry with mediocre AP, but -2 AP and potential for d3 damage is pretty good.
At the very least, my terminators will be scared of this thing. -2 to my save is no laughing matter (before I still got a 2+ and could largely ignore the thing when it maybe clipped my unit) and it is actually a lot more reliable at hitting at least once than it was before. Given that it counteracts one of the upgrades terminators got in this edition (+1 wound) means that the prospect of that getting leveled at me is scary.
It went from a hit on a terminator dealing 0.14 wounds to a hit on a terminator dealing .83 wounds. That is worrisome, especially considering it gets 1d6 shots and can test for each potential hit separately. If a battle cannon hit my unit square before (rare as it was) then it would deal ~0.7 wounds. Basically, it was unlikely to kill even one terminator. Now? Each individual hit has a better chance of wiping a terminator off the board than nabbing five hits under the old version of the rules. That's nightmare inducing to small, elite units that rely on toughness/saves to survive.
And that the LRBT can still fire all its other guns makes it a potent little package depending on the loadout. The BC may not shred a horde on its own, but backed up by three heavy bolters it can certainly make a dent. It may not be the ultimate slayer of vehicles and MCs (well, it's actually pretty great there, even compared to the lascannon) but sponsob MMs and a hull lascannon will make it a mid-ranged anti-vehicle menace. Or, because of split fire you can dabble a bit with the classic lascannon/HB loadout and not lose out on much while remaining able to use the battle cannon to bolster whatever the other guns are firing at (or vice versa).
It is important to keep in mind that what was ornance no longer has to try to make up for the lack of other weapons firing (which ordnance largely sucked at by being too inconsistent to matter). Now it can be supported and complimented by the rest of the tank's weaponry. This is a pretty huge deal that is getting glossed over quite often. You no longer sacrifice all your other weapons firing to lob a shot with that battle cannon, it is just another gun on the tank, not a replacement for them.
Hey, if you have at the 8th edition points values tucked away somewhere let us all know.
Also, it's tough to gauge the value of now being able to fire all weapons, not just the BC, even if the points remain the same. Personally, if I had an option, in 7th, of the 7th Ed BC and the statline for the new one as Hd6 for the same points, I take the 8th Ed version all day. I like to fire all my guns.
We know based off available data that the battlecannon is averaging about two dead GEQ a turn, or 1 dead MEQ or one dead TEQ a turn.
So exactly how many points do you think 2 dead guardsmen or 1 dead termie or marine with average rolls is worth? Do you seriously think that it's going to cost like 50 points for the stock Russ+BC?
We don't know everything yet, but it's not difficult to infer or eliminate completely unlikely scenarios, like the tank costing 50 points. lol
The same gun also averages slightly over a full wound on T5/6 and 2+ sv, multiwound creatures which is way higher than previously. It seems obvious at least to me that MEQ infantry aren't the core target for the BC (and fluff-wise never should have been).
BlaxicanX wrote: What unit type do you think is the intended target for the battle-cannon?
Not who you asked the question but I'd say probably units that have a low number of models and more than 1 wound. The battle cannon could kill 1 or 2 termies a turn. Maybe single light vehicles or MC's like dreads
Light and medium vehicles MCs, and most multi-wound infantry, off the top of my head anyway. Somewhat dependent on other armament too, since you can fire everything now.
Mostly that's based on the logic of not wasting the D3 damage on single wound targets. The difference between the BC and the HB is way more pronounced when the D3 damage can actually be factored in.
BlaxicanX wrote: What unit type do you think is the intended target for the battle-cannon?
Not who you asked the question but I'd say probably units that have a low number of models and more than 1 wound. The battle cannon could kill 1 or 2 termies a turn. Maybe single light vehicles or MC's like dreads
Basically that's it..
With the change in rules the battlecannons role has changed.. save the anti troop work for your 100 flashlights =D
Talamare wrote: Twin Linked change is a little disappointing
Yes, it's more powerful but the rule was designed to be different
If Twin Linked was just going to be 2 weapons... then they could represent that by... Just giving it 2 weapons...
There is no need for a "Twin Linked" Rule
Twin Linked Heavy Bolter = 2 Heavy Bolters.
Well prior to 3rd edition, the 10+ years of twin linked weapons meant ONE roll to hit or miss for both weapons. Thus a twin linked lascanon was not worth twice one lascannon. (actually it was absurdably too cheap)
Not 100% sure from the article but do we know for sure that twin linked gets more than one chance to hit???
even still the likelihood is that it must fire at the same target for both guns.....as others have surmised.
This 8th is turning into more of 2.5 edition every single day. Now give us wargear cards !! lol
BlaxicanX wrote: What unit type do you think is the intended target for the battle-cannon?
Not who you asked the question but I'd say probably units that have a low number of models and more than 1 wound. The battle cannon could kill 1 or 2 termies a turn. Maybe single light vehicles or MC's like dreads
Basically that's it..
With the change in rules the battlecannons role has changed.. save the anti troop work for your 100 flashlights =D
Yeah it's just a new weapon now. With the changes to twin linked, use that to kill infantry. But the BC will shred walkers like dreads or units of termies and stuff
Hey, if you have at the 8th edition points values tucked away somewhere let us all know.
Also, it's tough to gauge the value of now being able to fire all weapons, not just the BC, even if the points remain the same. Personally, if I had an option, in 7th, of the 7th Ed BC and the statline for the new one as Hd6 for the same points, I take the 8th Ed version all day. I like to fire all my guns.
@Talamare - we need to start a club.
Do you believe it will cost less for a LRBT than a single marine? Or a single terminator? You don't need the points breakdown to see a bad weapon.
How many marines does a Godhammer Lascannon kill per turn? Uh huh, max one. That doesn't make it a bad weapon, it only means that line infantry aren't the most efficient targets for that weapon. The same thing is true of the BC.
edit -obviously I've forgotten the new twinlinked rule. Mea culpa, but my point remains - fire guns at what their best suited to kill. Complaining that a gun is bad at killing things it wasn't primarily designed to kill doesn't really advance the discussion.
Against an opponent who spaced properly a 7th edition battle cannon will hit 2-3 guys on a direct hit. Then only 1-2 will die due to the cover save. Versus a single model it can only do 1 wound ever. If your 7th edition battle cannon was smashing huge gobs of marines with every shot it was not because your battle cannon was good, it was because your opponent was bad. This new battle cannon is superior in every way to the old one (except if you were fighting players with a poor grasp of 7th edition spacing). 7th edition battle cannons are absolutely awful, I don't see how anyone could argue that this new iteration is worse. Just because you killed little Timmy's bunched up, cover less tactical squad with your battle cannon once doesn't make the new version inferior to the old. Though I do sympathize with you because I too have killed Timmy's squad with my battle cannon and it felt great, but it was due to Timmy's mistake and not my battle cannon.
Fenris-77 wrote: How many marines does a Godhammer Lascannon kill per turn? Uh huh, max one. That doesn't make it a bad weapon, it only means that line infantry aren't the most efficient targets for that weapon. The same thing is true of the BC.
edit -obviously I've forgotten the new twinlinked rule. Mea culpa, but my point remains - fire guns at what their best suited to kill. Complaining that a gun is bad at killing things it wasn't primarily designed to kill doesn't really advance the discussion.
Your buddy talmare who I originally quoted claimed that the BC was good at everything. Now that's been proven wrong here you come with a different argument all together. So what targets dose a BC engage better than anything else?
Ok, my list building strategy in pretty much every edition of 40k is all about making sure to squeeze all of the utility I can our of each part of the army.
That usually means avoiding "versatility." GW game designers make you pay out the nose for backup weapons that shouldn't come up in a game unless something has gone wrong.
With all of that said- I find I don't like the idea of rolling a single d6 to find out how many times I hit a unit. I'm ok with it being random, but a single unmodified d6 is really swingy (there's a world of difference between a 1 and 6, but they're all just as likely).
I think I'd prefer something like D3+2 or something like that. or 2D3- that'd be a lot more consistent and predictable.
The battle cannon changes I remain unsure of.
It loses loads of effectiveness against light and medium infantry (Hitting more than 6 wasn't too difficult)
Loses effectiveness against MEQ (They'll be getting a 5+ save)
Loses effectiveness against T4 multi-wound models (Assuming, and hoping that ID is no longer a thing), but is better against T 5 Multi-wound models and anything with a 2+ save
Got WAAY better for monstrous creature/vehicle killing.
Except, you know, it hasn't. People are posting various kinds of mathhammer, some are interpreting that as the BC being the worst thing ever, others are looking at it in context of what has been revealed thusfar and seeing how its role appears to be changed.
It is best against multi-wound models, but unlike, say, a lascannon it can actually deal with other targets as well.
The numbers bear this out. It is a better anti-infantry weapon than a single heavy bolter (in fact, it's about twice as good). It is a better anti-vehicle weapon than the lascannon (which is actually pretty good this edition for anti-vehicle work). It hits its niche versus small units of multi-wound units with good saves (units likely to become much more common in 8th).
So there, you have what it is best at, and why some are referring to it as a jack-of-all trades in other places.
Will this cause it to be overpriced because it can do the jobs of multiple weapons? Who knows at this point. We can only discuss its apparent role and rules in relation to what has been revealed so far.
In terms of the other weapons we've seen it performs well in a variety of conditions alongside having potentially the highest single-target damage of any weapon revealed so far. Unlike other revealed anti-vehicle/MC weapons it can deal with more than a single target. And unlike revealed anti-infantry weaponry so far, it can deal with tougher, hardier units with multiple wounds. Those are the only definitive things we can say. To know whether it is efficient or inefficient in these varied roles is down to information we can't know yet. Pretending otherwise is tilting at windmills.
Ronin_eX wrote: The numbers bear this out. It is a better anti-infantry weapon than a single heavy bolter (in fact, it's about twice as good). It is a better anti-vehicle weapon than the lascannon (which is actually pretty good this edition for anti-vehicle work). It hits its niche versus small units of multi-wound units with good saves (units likely to become much more common in 8th).
The numbers don't bear it out because you're failing to calculate points-per-wound. It may put out twice as many wounds as a heavy bolter but it isn't "twice as good" unless it's less than twice the cost, and the same is true for the lascannon comparison.
There is no way for you to spin the battlecannon as being "a jack of all trades" so long as it's averaging only one to two wounds on every unit type in the game. That isn't a jack-of-all-trades, that's being terrible at everything.
BlaxicanX wrote: What unit type do you think is the intended target for the battle-cannon?
Not who you asked the question but I'd say probably units that have a low number of models and more than 1 wound. The battle cannon could kill 1 or 2 termies a turn. Maybe single light vehicles or MC's like dreads
You want to kill termies take the exterminator(autocannon variant). Unless exterminator becomes more expensive you get more dead termies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talamare wrote: The Battle Cannon is basically Good at shooting EVERYTHING
It's not the best anti infantry with mediocre number of shots, but d6 dudes a turn is pretty good.
It's not the best anti elite infantry with mediocre AP, but -2 AP and potential for d3 damage is pretty good.
It's not the best anti tank with mediocre d3 damage, but being able to deal d6 shots makes it pretty good.
ITS AN ALL PURPOSE TANK
It shouldn't outshine specialized options, but it should be alright at all targets.
It does it's job perfectly.
You want all purpose tank, take the exterminator. Kills more light infantry, kills more heavy infantry and is doing it's job well against monsters. About only thing it's worse is T8 multi wound models with good saves but for example vs T7 2+ save battle cannon is only bit better. T6 targets and they are basically equal at least for 2+ save guys.
Exterminator is the all purpose tank. Battle cannon is cheaper version of very specified niche tank.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Otto von Bludd wrote: Against an opponent who spaced properly a 7th edition battle cannon will hit 2-3 guys on a direct hit. Then only 1-2 will die due to the cover save.
That's more hits than 8th ed with less chance of missing completely(spaced out=very hard to miss). As for cover...That applies to 8th ed too. Let's see. Battlecannon vs tacs in light cover=4+ save for tac marines. Light cover in 7th was 5+ so 4+ cover will more likely be +2 to saves so battle cannon will be having even harder time.
So 8th ed will kill even less marines than 7th ed one. Whooo!
Versus a single model it can only do 1 wound ever.
Of course wounds have gone up. Battlecannon didn't gain any ground vs say dreadnought in 8th ed compared to 7th ed. More like got swingier.
Except, you know, it hasn't. People are posting various kinds of mathhammer, some are interpreting that as the BC being the worst thing ever, others are looking at it in context of what has been revealed thusfar and seeing how its role appears to be changed.
It is best against multi-wound models, but unlike, say, a lascannon it can actually deal with other targets as well.
The numbers bear this out. It is a better anti-infantry weapon than a single heavy bolter (in fact, it's about twice as good). It is a better anti-vehicle weapon than the lascannon (which is actually pretty good this edition for anti-vehicle work). It hits its niche versus small units of multi-wound units with good saves (units likely to become much more common in 8th).
So there, you have what it is best at, and why some are referring to it as a jack-of-all trades in other places.
Will this cause it to be overpriced because it can do the jobs of multiple weapons? Who knows at this point. We can only discuss its apparent role and rules in relation to what has been revealed so far.
In terms of the other weapons we've seen it performs well in a variety of conditions alongside having potentially the highest single-target damage of any weapon revealed so far. Unlike other revealed anti-vehicle/MC weapons it can deal with more than a single target. And unlike revealed anti-infantry weaponry so far, it can deal with tougher, hardier units with multiple wounds. Those are the only definitive things we can say. To know whether it is efficient or inefficient in these varied roles is down to information we can't know yet. Pretending otherwise is tilting at windmills.
After typing out a much longer reply. I think we are coming at the topic from 2 very different perspectives. I agree that there is much we have yet to see and I've been quite pleased with much of what we have seen. I think the battle cannon issue is something we'll have to just agree to disagree on. I will continue to hold out hope that it works out in the end.
Except you know it has. You can try to hand wave all the real math away under the guise of "we don't know everything yet" but that doesn't change the math. I'm looking for a positive here. But the only thing I've seen from most is "it looks a little better than the 7th ed one, so it must be good." A small step up from complete trash is still just trash.
To some degree I agree with you. We can compare it to other weapons and we can to a certain degree make some assumptions. That said, there can definitely be things that bring it up a lot. Rules might favour it slightly, but more importantly, things like Orders may well play right into its wheel house. Or it may not. We don't know.
It also doesn't have ordinance anymore, it also can shoot at different targets than whatever the tank is also equiped with, it also has 12 wounds and toughness 8 with a 3+ save.
The old battle cannon was 15 points more expensive than a heavy bolter in my vehicle design rules, and that price was constant throughout every vehicle equiped with a battle cannon.
If they remain the same price, then heavy bolter on a 4+ to hit is 10 points,, while battle cannon is worth 25. 15 points for 24" higher range, better to wound rolls, better armor penetration, causes a similar number of hits per round and has a better damage per hit ratio.
That sounds like a win to me if it continues the current trend.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: It also doesn't have ordinance anymore, it also can shoot at different targets than whatever the tank is also equiped with, it also has 12 wounds and toughness 8 with a 3+ save.
The old battle cannon was 15 points more expensive than a heavy bolter in my vehicle design rules, and that price was constant throughout every vehicle equiped with a battle cannon.
If they remain the same price, then heavy bolter on a 4+ to hit is 10 points,, while battle cannon is worth 25. 15 points for 24" higher range, better to wound rolls, better armor penetration, causes a similar number of hits per round and has a better damage per hit ratio.
That sounds like a win to me if it continues the current trend.
Not a good point. A heavy bolter doesn't have to pay the price of the relatively expensive weapons platform that the tank is to be fielded. So while true, it's disingenuous to compare the two in a vacuum.
You want all purpose tank, take the exterminator. Kills more light infantry, kills more heavy infantry and is doing it's job well against monsters. About only thing it's worse is T8 multi wound models with good saves but for example vs T7 2+ save battle cannon is only bit better. T6 targets and they are basically equal at least for 2+ save guys.
Exterminator is the all purpose tank. Battle cannon is cheaper version of very specified niche tank.
Oh, did I miss the post where they told us what the new Exterminator stat line is?
Ronin_eX wrote: The numbers bear this out. It is a better anti-infantry weapon than a single heavy bolter (in fact, it's about twice as good). It is a better anti-vehicle weapon than the lascannon (which is actually pretty good this edition for anti-vehicle work). It hits its niche versus small units of multi-wound units with good saves (units likely to become much more common in 8th).
The numbers don't bear it out because you're failing to calculate points-per-wound. It may put out twice as many wounds as a heavy bolter but it isn't "twice as good" unless it's less than twice the cost, and the same is true for the lascannon comparison.
There is no way for you to spin the battlecannon as being "a jack of all trades" so long as it's averaging only one to two wounds on every unit type in the game. That isn't a jack-of-all-trades, that's being terrible at everything.
I've already proven it right using Mathhammer
Standard Guard (and other hoard infantry) is 5+Save, which this removes.
S8 means it is rolling 2+ to hit against basically all Hoard Infantry.
The best part is... Even if it gets mathematically proven to be only okay at killing Hoards. My argument still makes me the winner overall.
Which is, It's fine shooting at literally everything you point at it. It won't beat specialized weapons, but you won't ever feel like you just shot a Lascannon into a Squad of 50 or a Lasgun into a Morkanaut.
So, yea man. You can keep repeating yourself, but I'm dropping the mic on you.
Talamare wrote: The Battle Cannon is basically Good at shooting EVERYTHING
Oh?
Spoiler:
Please tell me more. What information are you privy to that makes killing 2 hormagaunts or a single marine sound like "good shooting"? Is the battle-cannon Leman Russ 50 points, or something?
Please stop posting this 'mathhammer' site, it's an awful way of modelling expectations.
BlaxicanX wrote: We know based off available data that the battlecannon is averaging about two dead GEQ a turn, or 1 dead MEQ or one dead TEQ a turn.
So exactly how many points do you think 2 dead guardsmen or 1 dead termie or marine with average rolls is worth? Do you seriously think that it's going to cost like 50 points for the stock Russ+BC?
We don't know everything yet, but it's not difficult to infer or eliminate completely unlikely scenarios, like the tank costing 50 points. lol
A tank is more than its guns.
And that is not even its only gun.
If it were a mobile heavy weapons platform with two or three crew and toughness seven then it should cost what?
The tank is more than anything a threat sure to draw a lot of fire and to be a big distraction from an opponent's battle plans when her or his own guns don't manage to take it out as she or he might have expected. Hard to put points on this sort of thing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: It also doesn't have ordinance anymore, it also can shoot at different targets than whatever the tank is also equiped with, it also has 12 wounds and toughness 8 with a 3+ save.
The old battle cannon was 15 points more expensive than a heavy bolter in my vehicle design rules, and that price was constant throughout every vehicle equiped with a battle cannon.
If they remain the same price, then heavy bolter on a 4+ to hit is 10 points,, while battle cannon is worth 25. 15 points for 24" higher range, better to wound rolls, better armor penetration, causes a similar number of hits per round and has a better damage per hit ratio.
That sounds like a win to me if it continues the current trend.
Here, 100000 trials. Demonstrating wound distribution and # of models hit distribution.
Yes, this is much better.
Now what would be helpful is to see the modelling of a Heavy Bolter and a Lascannon (weapons we know) in the same way. And then a repeat of all three against T4 or less 3+ saves single wound models, and T4 or less 3+ saves multiple wound models.
Then we can have a discussion of expected comparative points values, and the comparative value of multi-purpose vs specialisation.
I'm not asking you to do that of course, I'm just going to hypothesize that the Battlecannon is going come out the other side looking to be in a pretty good place.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: It also doesn't have ordinance anymore, it also can shoot at different targets than whatever the tank is also equiped with, it also has 12 wounds and toughness 8 with a 3+ save.
The old battle cannon was 15 points more expensive than a heavy bolter in my vehicle design rules, and that price was constant throughout every vehicle equiped with a battle cannon.
If they remain the same price, then heavy bolter on a 4+ to hit is 10 points,, while battle cannon is worth 25. 15 points for 24" higher range, better to wound rolls, better armor penetration, causes a similar number of hits per round and has a better damage per hit ratio.
That sounds like a win to me if it continues the current trend.
Not a good point. A heavy bolter doesn't have to pay the price of the relatively expensive weapons platform that the tank is to be fielded. So while true, it's disingenuous to compare the two in a vacuum.
But they aren't in a vacuum. They are on the exact same platform in this instance. So, if a Leman Russ paid 10 points for a heavy bolter and 25 for a battle cannon the only difference is the cost because everything else is equal. Yes other units can take a heavy bolter, but that doesn't mean their price points aren't able to be compared directly.
Also, before someone states it, the battle cannon is NOT 150% more expensive, it is 15 points more expensive. That is a small difference in this game system.
Hopefully they realise the level of their mistake with the killcannon. It should be about 15 points,, not the 30 something it costs when you add in the points lost for transported models.
Here, 100000 trials. Demonstrating wound distribution and # of models hit distribution.
Yes, this is much better.
Now what would be helpful is to see the modelling of a Heavy Bolter and a Lascannon (weapons we know) in the same way. And then a repeat of all three against T4 or less 3+ saves single wound models, and T4 or less 3+ saves multiple wound models.
Then we can have a discussion of expected comparative points values, and the comparative value of multi-purpose vs specialisation.
I'm not asking you to do that of course, I'm just going to hypothesize that the Battlecannon is going come out the other side looking to be in a pretty good place.
Talamare wrote: The Battle Cannon is basically Good at shooting EVERYTHING
It's not the best anti infantry with mediocre number of shots, but d6 dudes a turn is pretty good.
It's not the best anti elite infantry with mediocre AP, but -2 AP and potential for d3 damage is pretty good.
It's not the best anti tank with mediocre d3 damage, but being able to deal d6 shots makes it pretty good.
ITS AN ALL PURPOSE TANK
It shouldn't outshine specialized options, but it should be alright at all targets.
It does it's job perfectly.
That's pretty much my conclusion as well.
Also @Katherine can you give some context on your simmulations and run comparitive damage vs different kinds of target? I can use excell for statistical calculation but can't program worth gak.
Talamare wrote: The Battle Cannon is basically Good at shooting EVERYTHING
It's not the best anti infantry with mediocre number of shots, but d6 dudes a turn is pretty good.
It's not the best anti elite infantry with mediocre AP, but -2 AP and potential for d3 damage is pretty good.
It's not the best anti tank with mediocre d3 damage, but being able to deal d6 shots makes it pretty good.
ITS AN ALL PURPOSE TANK
It shouldn't outshine specialized options, but it should be alright at all targets.
It does it's job perfectly.
That's pretty much my conclusion as well.
I've processed the numbers, and I disagree. Don't shoot infantry. You'll achieve next to nothing. You can achieve 1-3 wounds split between 1, sometimes 2, targets, about 50% of the time.
can you give some context on your simmulations and run comparitive damage vs different kinds of target?
I can use excell for statistical calculation but can't program worth gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also bad at explaining I'm afraid
Here, 100000 trials. Demonstrating wound distribution and # of models hit distribution.
Yes, this is much better.
Now what would be helpful is to see the modelling of a Heavy Bolter and a Lascannon (weapons we know) in the same way. And then a repeat of all three against T4 or less 3+ saves single wound models, and T4 or less 3+ saves multiple wound models.
Then we can have a discussion of expected comparative points values, and the comparative value of multi-purpose vs specialisation.
I'm not asking you to do that of course, I'm just going to hypothesize that the Battlecannon is going come out the other side looking to be in a pretty good place.
IG Lascannon is inferior to IG Battle Cannon
Also, Meltagun in Melta Range.
10000 trials each.
This is good for getting my head around the variance, thanks!
Meltaguns in Melta range are obviously the go to for chance of stacking up wounds on single models, I think the Battlecannon being slightly better than but more equivalent to the Lascannon vs single tough targets and able to shoot down range the same 48" is fair.
If you could do me a favour, how does 2 Lascannon shots hitting on 3+ come out? (Space Marine Pred Annihilator turret or Land Raider sponson)
Lord Katherine whar exactly am I looking at? I can see some pillar diagrams and some numbers. Excuse me for not seeing the obvious, please explain what the numbers mean.
Waaargh wrote: Lord Katherine whar exactly am I looking at? I can see some pillar diagrams and some numbers. Excuse me for not seeing the obvious, please explain what the numbers mean.
I'm not a statistician, so there is probably a formal name for it, but I'd call it % expectations.
So example the blue pillars for the battlecannon, everytime you shoot one, you can expect 45% of the time nothing to happen, 12.25% of the time exactly 1 wound to be caused, 15.4% of the time exactly 3 wounds to be caused, and so on.
This is better for assessment than reducing the battlecannon down to 'firing a battlecannon at a Rhino does 1.17 wounds' type mathhammer we see elsewhere. For one, you can't do .17 of a wound, and it doesn't illustrate any sort of potential variance at all.
The modelling is against T7 3+ save.
Earth127 wrote:can you give some context on your simmulations and run comparitive damage vs different kinds of target?
I can use excell for statistical calculation but can't program worth gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also bad at explaining I'm afraid
I can. 100000 trials for the Battle Cannon, 10000 for the others, target is T5-7, Sv. 3+, not in cover. Approximately a modern Carnifex.
I basically wrote into the cells die rollers, and logic statements that tested whether or not the shot hit, wounded, was saved, and how much damage it caused, then repeated 100000 times, and collected the data. It's fairly simple.
Waaargh wrote:Lord Katherine whar exactly am I looking at? I can see some pillar diagrams and some numbers. Excuse me for not seeing the obvious, please explain what the numbers mean.
The blue bars represent the percentage of the 100000 trials that resulted in that many wounds. The orange bars represent the percentage of the 100000 trials that struck that many models.
Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
I'm not a statistician, so there is probably a formal name for it, but I'd call it % expectations.
So example the blue pillars for the battlecannon, everytime you shoot one, you can expect 45% of the time nothing to happen, 12.25% of the time exactly 1 wound to be caused, 15.4% of the time exactly 3 wounds to be caused, and so on.
This is better for assessment than reducing the battlecannon down to 'firing a battlecannon at a Rhino does 1.17 wounds' type mathhammer we see elsewhere. For one, you can't do .17 of a wound, and it doesn't illustrate any sort of potential variance at all.
The modelling is against T7 3+ save.
Sure, give me ten. And this is a lot more useful than average results, because as you can see, the average 1.5 wounds caused by the battle cannon tells you nothing about it's actual performance.
This is good for getting my head around the variance, thanks!
Meltaguns in Melta range are obviously the go to for chance of stacking up wounds on single models, I think the Battlecannon being slightly better than but more equivalent to the Lascannon vs single tough targets and able to shoot down range the same 48" is fair.
If you could do me a favour, how does 2 Lascannon shots hitting on 3+ come out? (Space Marine Pred Annihilator turret or Land Raider sponson)
Here you go. Space Marine Twin-Linked Lascannon, 50000 trials.
Looks good, and mighty dangerous. Especially compared to ImpyGuard weapon systems.
Also, I'm going to be travelling from about an hour from now to late this evening, so if anyone wants me to process the numbers for any other weapon systems, tell me now and I can run it while I fly. I intend to run the numbers for the entire Leman Russ tanks and Predator tank to see where we end up in the end.
So, what you have proven is I have to put a magnet on each of my terminators to represent their wounds. As a battlecannon fired at a squad of terminators has a very good chance of putting 1 wound on about 3 terminators each. And I will have to be able to represent spreading wounds over the entire unit.
The question then because if fired on a second time do I have to put those wounds on the same terminators or can I spread them out of the rest of the terminators and finally when I run out of second wounds pull one terminator off the pile.
Youn wrote: So, what you have proven is I have to put a magnet on each of my terminators to represent their wounds. As a battlecannon fired at a squad of terminators has a very good chance of putting 1 wound on about 3 terminators each. And I will have to be able to represent spreading wounds over the entire unit.
The question then because if fired on a second time do I have to put those wounds on the same terminators or can I spread them out of the rest of the terminators and finally when I run out of second wounds pull one terminator off the pile.
It seems very probable that the rules will tell you to keep wounding anyone that you have started wounding.
Youn wrote: So, what you have proven is I have to put a magnet on each of my terminators to represent their wounds. As a battlecannon fired at a squad of terminators has a very good chance of putting 1 wound on about 3 terminators each. And I will have to be able to represent spreading wounds over the entire unit.
The question then because if fired on a second time do I have to put those wounds on the same terminators or can I spread them out of the rest of the terminators and finally when I run out of second wounds pull one terminator off the pile.
Wasn't it confirmed that you have to apply wounds to wounded models first? So if termie squad took 3 wounds that'd be one dead termie and one with 1 W?
That Space Marine TL Lascannon looks nasty. 25% stripping 4+ wounds vs ~14% for the Battlecannon, which then falls away sharply.
We still don't know if Guard have any sort of orders that will give them a to-hit boost on their tanks that general purpose SM tanks won't get. Speculation.
How does a Single Heavy Bolter stack up vs 2 Heavy Bolters vs a Battlecannon vs a Lascannon, against single wound T3-T4 models with 3+ save (out of cover)?
The chart is hard to read, but if you want to hit hard, you want the Vanquisher. The Vanquisher completely flubs most frequently, but it also puts out a lot of wounds on target fairly well. The battle tank does so pretty well as well, so we can infer that much of this comes from choice of sponson.
Exterminator is fairly reliable, and is resolved against infantry. It looks like a lot of the tank's power is coming from the Multimeltas, since the Exterminator can't hit the high rolls at all, even though it's maximum potential isn't that much lower.
Youn wrote: So, what you have proven is I have to put a magnet on each of my terminators to represent their wounds. As a battlecannon fired at a squad of terminators has a very good chance of putting 1 wound on about 3 terminators each. And I will have to be able to represent spreading wounds over the entire unit.
The question then because if fired on a second time do I have to put those wounds on the same terminators or can I spread them out of the rest of the terminators and finally when I run out of second wounds pull one terminator off the pile.
Wasn't it confirmed that you have to apply wounds to wounded models first? So if termie squad took 3 wounds that'd be one dead termie and one with 1 W?
No, what was said is if a lascannon fires at a squad of guardsman, One guardsman dies and the other five guardsman don't die of sympathy pains. In this case, you allocate out hits, then resolve the damage off each of their saves. It hasn't been stated that you have to allocated out the hits on the same target until it's dead.
Youn wrote: So, what you have proven is I have to put a magnet on each of my terminators to represent their wounds. As a battlecannon fired at a squad of terminators has a very good chance of putting 1 wound on about 3 terminators each. And I will have to be able to represent spreading wounds over the entire unit.
The question then because if fired on a second time do I have to put those wounds on the same terminators or can I spread them out of the rest of the terminators and finally when I run out of second wounds pull one terminator off the pile.
Wasn't it confirmed that you have to apply wounds to wounded models first? So if termie squad took 3 wounds that'd be one dead termie and one with 1 W?
No, what was said is if a lascannon fires at a squad of guardsman, One guardsman dies and the other five guardsman don't die of sympathy pains. In this case, you allocate out hits, then resolve the damage off each of their saves. It hasn't been stated that you have to allocated out the hits on the same target until it's dead.
Well seeing they are looking at making game faster don't you think it's BIT unlikely they would suddenly slow down game like that and deviate from 8th ed's spiritual ancestor AOS?
I mean sure technically they haven't yet stated it but then again some things can be deduced pretty well. Hands up who was surprised by battle cannons stats? Or standard heavy bolter?
Interesting. The predicted tanks,I suppose that's the ones we're guessing the profiles for?, are much better overall so I hope the numbers on them turn out different or they're going to need a big points hike.
Also how do you simulate the D6 shots? I can't fifure out how to do that without needing a size-adaptable spreadsheet
I'm pretty sure you don't allocate hits, likely you will need to allocate wounds. Whether they need to be on previously wounded models may depend on what you mean by that. My understanding is that you needed to pick a model to allocate wounds to and it would take wounds until dead, then move to the next model.
Breng77 wrote: I'm pretty sure you don't allocate hits, likely you will need to allocate wounds. Whether they need to be on previously wounded models may depend on what you mean by that. My understanding is that you needed to pick a model to allocate wounds to and it would take wounds until dead, then move to the next model.
Probably. Q is who picks order? If owner can pick order or attacker that has some impact.
Earth127 wrote: I doubt that, that would make multiwounds wonky. I don't think they can carry over between models.
They don't - confirmed on FB.
As for allocation, we don't know for sure yet, but my money is on owners choice barring special rules. Hopefully with a "choice of which models" mechanic that doesn't require a micrometer and a degree in rhetoric to argue out.
Breng77 wrote: I'm pretty sure you don't allocate hits, likely you will need to allocate wounds. Whether they need to be on previously wounded models may depend on what you mean by that. My understanding is that you needed to pick a model to allocate wounds to and it would take wounds until dead, then move to the next model.
Probably. Q is who picks order? If owner can pick order or attacker that has some impact.
Yup it has an impact for units of mixed models (for instance a DE beastpack) where some models want to take the heavy fire and others the light arms. So if the attacker decides which wounds you start allocating they can somewhat force you to start on a particular model. It isn't huge necessarily, but it matters.
Earth127 wrote: Interesting. The predicted tanks,I suppose that's the ones we're guessing the profiles for?, are much better overall so I hope the numbers on them turn out different or they're going to need a big points hike.
Also how do you simulate the D6 shots? I can't fifure out how to do that without needing a size-adaptable spreadsheet
Predicted tanks are the ones we're guessing at, yes. I listed the statblock I used for their guns. Vq seems pretty fair, compared to LasPred.
For all the talk about Exterminator being a better multipurpose tank, though, the numbers aren't convincing me.
Column 1is Randbetween (1,6). I roll for all 6 potential shots, and if the shot # is greater then the value in column 1, I multiply the wounds it caused by 0.
Now I'm heading out, so if you have any more questions about my math, I'll try to get to answer them this evening.
Kataklysmic wrote: While we're talking about leman russes can we all just acknowledge how awesome the exterminator is now?
The main autocannon is now presumably 8 shots while hopefully heavy bolters are now slightly better, it's going to eat light vehicles alive.
I just posted the numbers I ran on that. It's less impressive than it sounds.
It reliably gets 2-4 wounds onto a squad, all of which can be different models, but not much more. I actually like the Vq and BT better, looking at the chart.
So I'm starting to come around to the idea of the new Battle Cannon. I forgot that it'll be able to shoot all of its sponsons now as well. 3 Heavy Bolters dishing out 9, S5, AP-1 shots into the unit as well as that cannon profile actually seems pretty awesome.
Tiberius501 wrote: So I'm starting to come around to the idea of the new Battle Cannon. I forgot that it'll be able to shoot all of its sponsons now as well. 3 Heavy Bolters dishing out 9, S5, AP-1 shots into the unit as well as that cannon profile actually seems pretty awesome.
Seems like the base leman russ cannon is going to be kinda gak actually. Leman Russ has what, BS 3? So that should turn into a 4+ in 8th. That seems to lack a lot less "punch" compared to the current rules for lascannons.
You hit with the battlecannons 1d6 hits = 4 hits. For 1,1,2,2 damage on my terminators. I choose to allocate out the wounds to my terminators as follows;
Terminator 1 gets a 1 wound followed by a 2 wound and dies.
Terminator 2 gets a 1 wound followed by a 2 wound and dies.
I have now allocated out all the hits and wounds you have told me you rolled. What I didn't choose your optimal 1 and 1 on first terminator, then 2 on second terminator and 2 on third terminator?
Youn wrote: So, here is an issue with allocating wounds.
You hit with the battlecannons 1d6 hits = 4 hits. For 1,1,2,2 damage on my terminators. I choose to allocate out the wounds to my terminators as follows;
Terminator 1 gets a 1 wound followed by a 2 wound and dies.
Terminator 2 gets a 1 wound followed by a 2 wound and dies.
I have now allocated out all the hits and wounds you have told me you rolled. What I didn't choose your optimal 1 and 1 on first terminator, then 2 on second terminator and 2 on third terminator?
Might be a rule that says to assign largest amount of wounds first then work you way down.
Tiberius501 wrote: So I'm starting to come around to the idea of the new Battle Cannon. I forgot that it'll be able to shoot all of its sponsons now as well. 3 Heavy Bolters dishing out 9, S5, AP-1 shots into the unit as well as that cannon profile actually seems pretty awesome.
Just remember not move before Shooting, or you'll be back to Shap Firing those 3 Heavy Bolters.
...Maybe.
I mean we already know that at most (unless Leman Russes have a special rule saying otherwise) it'll be a -1 To Hit penalty if they move.
Given Russes are Heavy now I wouldn't be surprised if like Rubric Maines they had a rule removing that penalty.
And then the announcement today makes all that mathammer not matter. Rubric Marines get an addition save against weapons that only do one wound. I would hazard there are a other units like this. So we have no idea what weight to add to doing more than one wound. I think I'll join the "wait for more rules first" camp.
Also, currently the tracker decides which wounds are allocated first (for rending shots,, as an example) therefore it may be safe to assume the attacker dictates which wound pile is taken first while the defender chooses which models takes the wounds with the caveat that sounded models must always take wounds first.
Tiberius501 wrote: So I'm starting to come around to the idea of the new Battle Cannon. I forgot that it'll be able to shoot all of its sponsons now as well. 3 Heavy Bolters dishing out 9, S5, AP-1 shots into the unit as well as that cannon profile actually seems pretty awesome.
Just remember not move before Shooting, or you'll be back to Shap Firing those 3 Heavy Bolters.
...Maybe.
I mean we already know that at most (unless Leman Russes have a special rule saying otherwise) it'll be a -1 To Hit penalty if they move.
Given Russes are Heavy now I wouldn't be surprised if like Rubric Maines they had a rule removing that penalty.
That's part of the "Maybe". We also don't know how Vehicles in general, or the Leman Russ specifically, will be treated any differently in firing multiple Weapons than Infantry.
Gloomfang wrote:And then the announcement today makes all that mathammer not matter. Rubric Marines get an addition save against weapons that only do one wound. I would hazard there are a other units like this. So we have no idea what weight to add to doing more than one wound. I think I'll join the "wait for more rules first" camp.
Actually its a Save modifier, a reverse AP if you will, than an additional Save. They do get an additional Save, though, in the form of their Invulnerable.
Tiberius501 wrote: So I'm starting to come around to the idea of the new Battle Cannon. I forgot that it'll be able to shoot all of its sponsons now as well. 3 Heavy Bolters dishing out 9, S5, AP-1 shots into the unit as well as that cannon profile actually seems pretty awesome.
Just remember not move before Shooting, or you'll be back to Shap Firing those 3 Heavy Bolters.
...Maybe.
I mean we already know that at most (unless Leman Russes have a special rule saying otherwise) it'll be a -1 To Hit penalty if they move.
Given Russes are Heavy now I wouldn't be surprised if like Rubric Maines they had a rule removing that penalty.
That's part of the "Maybe". We also don't know how Vehicles in general, or the Leman Russ specifically, will be treated any differently in firing multiple Weapons than Infantry.
Gloomfang wrote:And then the announcement today makes all that mathammer not matter. Rubric Marines get an addition save against weapons that only do one wound. I would hazard there are a other units like this. So we have no idea what weight to add to doing more than one wound. I think I'll join the "wait for more rules first" camp.
Actually its a Save modifier, a reverse AP if you will, than an additional Save. They do get an additional Save, though, in the form of their Invulnerable.
There's been so many threads it's hard to catch everything, where was it confirmed that invulnerable's are now taken after a wound is failed? That's interesting!
digital-animal wrote: There's been so many threads it's hard to catch everything, where was it confirmed that invulnerable's are now taken after a wound is failed? That's interesting!
I didn't mean to imply that Invuls will be allowed after taking an Armor Save, more that they have access to more than one Save over all. Honestly, I think it will pretty much be an anti-Mortal Wound Save or usable against anything that will AP their Save past 5+. In other words, pretty much like how people use Invul Saves now.
Still, it could end up that way. WHFB ran Armour Saves and Ward Saves that way (but Ward Saves and Regeneration competed). They don't have any general rule for Ward Saves in AoS, but there are some individuals who can still take Saves against Moral Wounds.
Gloomfang wrote:And then the announcement today makes all that mathammer not matter. Rubric Marines get an addition save against weapons that only do one wound. I would hazard there are a other units like this. So we have no idea what weight to add to doing more than one wound. I think I'll join the "wait for more rules first" camp.
Actually its a Save modifier, a reverse AP if you will, than an additional Save. They do get an additional Save, though, in the form of their Invulnerable.
So now the question is: do the Rubric Marines get a +1 Armor save when in cover and being shot by those weapons? Bum bum BUUUM!
Ballistic Skill DOES matter. You use it to see if you hit the target. You roll 
