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

torblind wrote:
Well 3 melta hits on a dreadnought would wound twice, each inflicting 4.5 wounds, and thus bringing it down. It's not terribly worse compared to 7th

Assuming 3+ to hit, 6 melta shots, 4 hits, 2 wound, if not in mid range that means an average of 7 HP (so quite good chance it will survive) and if in mid range it means 9HP (so it should die but no guarantee).
That's 6 melta shots.
Melta is going to have a hard time to deal with vehicles.

via the Salty Wargaming
http://saltywargaming.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/warhammer-40k-8th-edition-rumours-dark.html

Overview:
Jink is +2 to armour save but -1 to hit with weapons. People inside unaffected.

Shadow field is +1 to armour save
Flickerfields is 5++ still.

Dark eldar vehicles come with a 4+ armour save.
Raider has 10 wounds, venom has 6.[b]

The battle cannon is heavy duty infantry killing, it isn't there to nuke a guardsman squad with one hit, it's there to (potentially) nuke a 5 man ogryn, or 2W terminator squad in one hit.

The whirlwind or griffin is there to nuke large light armoured squads, I expect them to have 2D6 hits (to make more sense) but only 1 damage with maybe -1 AP. That would make sense to me more anyway.

 Imateria wrote:

 Cryonicleech wrote:
Y'know, I was more excited about stats no longer being capped at 10 for the sake of increased granularity before we saw stats.

It feels like only wounds aren't capped at 10, as we've yet to see anything else. (Outside of double strength modifiers, but that's on specific weapons.) I was kinda hoping that's how they'd buff vehicles, by giving them much higher toughnesses and adjusting the strength of anti-tank to keep up.

Sheesh that battle cannon looks really average. I really wish they had worked on a better mechanic than just "random d6 shots" to replace templates. Seeing it on a squad flamer was one thing, but then again, there might be something I'm missing.

Pretty happy with the twin-linked and combi-weapon changes though, and the melta stats. While the old twin-linked was a good mechanic, this new one is a bit more intuitive and hopefully makes the standard land raiders more effective.

We've already seen the Morkanaught has 18 wounds, the Leman Russ has 12 and they've hinted that a Knight will have more than 20.

That was kinda his point. We have seen over 10 wounds. We have seen no over 10 OTHER stat.

Presumably >10 T will be super heavy and >10 S will be destroyer class weapons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
The only way this could get a bit better (maybe) is if you roll to hit once for the shell, so to say, and then roll the 1d6 hits...etc etc

Averages same, more swings. No thanks.

theocracity wrote:

 oni wrote:
The battle cannon is definitely changing its role to anti-elite & anti-single model - which isn't bad. I can get behind this.

I think the new rules make it better. While you're not guaranteed to hit your target; you are guaranteed to not scatter onto your own units. For this reason alone I think the new rules are better.

It's also worth keeping in mind that Leman Russes are going to be gaining firepower with the ability to split-fire its sponsons and hull weapon at the same time it's firing its cannon. I don't think that they're going to be lacking in damage dealt, even if their cannon doesn't roll great hits.

That's an excellent point if true - and I do hope that it's true as it would benefit all tanks. We know units of multiple models can choose different targets, but I believe GW clarified on their Facebook page that it's on a model-by-model basis. If a single model can still only target one unit than we'll sadly not be taking those hip-shots with sponson weapons.

This brings up a curious question about Power of the Machine Spirit... If we assume a single model can still only have one target than PotMS as we know it still has good utility. If targeting changes than I wonder what will become of PotMS.

I just realized twin-linked smart missiles on the Stormsurge. Hahah.

Also excellent news about the Dark Kin. I hope those rumors are true. They need this super badly.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

torblind wrote:
Are those 2 wounds on 2 models each or 4 wounds total against the unit?

Multi-wounds won't spill over. They have said this in FB several times.

So, to clarify: with the battlecannon, if you roll 18 wounds against a squad you can only kill 6 models tops?

Yes and thank god they got rid of that AOS stupidity. As a bonus also there's way to separate weapons as anti-tank weapon isn't also anti-horde weapon.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
The battle cannon is heavy duty infantry killing, it isn't there to nuke a guardsman squad with one hit, it's there to (potentially) nuke a 5 man ogryn, or 2W terminator squad in one hit.

The whirlwind or griffin is there to nuke large light armoured squads, I expect them to have 2D6 hits (to make more sense) but only 1 damage with maybe -1 AP. That would make sense to me more anyway.

If a gun can nuke heavy infantry it can do the same to light infantry. Heavy D6 is really weak, especially once you get to batterys of basilisks and such.

Also those heavy infantry have a chance to save so even less deaths.

I see the battlecannon, once the golden beautiful angel baby of IG stuck on the shelf in favor of heavy bolters and lascannons.

I think its safe to say that orks will continue to suck anyway, great fun...

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

So, to clarify: with the battlecannon, if you roll 18 wounds against a squad you can only kill 6 models tops?

Yes, absolutely.

... RIP Battlecannon.

Really? Because you could put a stonking amount of wounds on a single model with good rolls.

If you want to put lots of wounds to single model probably Vanquisher is the to-go weapon. That's been job of a vanquisher after all. Longer range to boot.

Tau units will undoubtedly see a points increase across the board. Get used to fielding less models in your armies LOL

Well we can basically determine the system now.

AP 1 -4
AP 2 -3
AP 3 -2
AP 4 -1
AP 5+ 0

 JohnnyHell wrote:
It used to have a 4/6 chance of scattering an average of 7" and missing completely. It's automatically way better than that now!!! Didn't everyone skip them this edition anyway? I suspect we'll see some back purely as they now don't knacker your other shooting.

Scatter was 2d6-BS so 4" scatter.

Don't remember when battle cannon wasn't averaging over 1 dead infantry per shot. Now it's less than 1 tactical per turn.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

torblind wrote:
Well 3 melta hits on a dreadnought would wound twice, each inflicting 4.5 wounds, and thus bringing it down. It's not terribly worse compared to 7th

Assuming 3+ to hit, 6 melta shots, 4 hits, 2 wound, if not in mid range that means an average of 7 HP (so quite good chance it will survive) and if in mid range it means 9HP (so it should die but no guarantee).
That's 6 melta shots.
Melta is going to have a hard time to deal with vehicles.

The to-hit roll is specific to shooter, surely that should be kept out of the picture? S8 will wound T7 on 3+, so 2 out of 3 hits will wound. And melta range was half distance in 7th too, right?

 oni wrote:

That's an excellent point if true - and I do hope that it's true as it would benefit all tanks. We know units of multiple models can choose different targets, but I believe GW clarified on their Facebook page that it's on a model-by-model basis. If a single model can still only target one unit than we'll sadly not be taking those hip-shots with sponson weapons.

GW Facebook wrote:
Q: Battle Cannon is A1 steak sauce! Question I have now is: Will vehicles have the ability to target multiple units? Example: Leman Russ Battle Tank fires Battle Cannon at big Tyranid monster, fire the Heavy Bolters at the Genestealers.

A: Warhammer 40,000 Haha! Actually made us laugh, this!
EDIT: Tanks can split their weapons fire between different targets.

Oh hey, they brought back 2nd Edition style combi-weapons. A change that I didn't even remember missing, but now clearly remember how much I hated it when it was made back in 3rd.

And I'm liking the twin-link change (my TLas/ML dread is looking pretty good, price dependant), but I think that means storm bolters will need a buff even more now compared to combi-bolters (even if they make them combi-weapons instead of twin-linked bolters and make them eat a -1 to-hit). If they don't get a boost, then combi-bolters become significantly more effective than them at close range while not being noticeably worse farther out.

If they can fix the transport space issues on the basic Land Raider, the thing is looking to become a beast this edition (well, price dependant again).

And the battle cannon preview shows that there will be some variable hit, multi-wound weaponry in the game. So that is some interesting design space revealed and confirmed. On average, it looks like the battlecannon does more single target damage than the lascannon on average, and is still decent at anti-infantry work. But it wont work as a magic eraser against MeQ's anymore. The big plus is that the LR can fire everything off now, so it isn't relying on the battle cannon to be better than the combined shooting of its sponsons and hull-mounted weaponry. It gets that in addition to the battle-cannon which is a pretty alright generalist weapon. It can deal with infantry better than a single-shot anti-tank weapon, it deals with tanks and monstrous creatures (and can potentially do a whole ton of damage to them), and it is workable against heavy infantry to boot. Since it no longer needs to be a singular, peerless powerhouse, but rather part of a vehicles repertoire the stats seem basically fine.

And it looks like folks were correct in the AP conversion, -4 should be the ceiling for 8th and it all seems to be roughly based on the old scale. AP nil-5 gets nothing, AP4 is -1, AP3 is -2, AP2 is -3, and AP1 is -4. So based on this, unless they are specifically nerfing them, plasma is probably sticking to AP -3 since they have a bit more leeway at the high-end to represent things.

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
The battle cannon is heavy duty infantry killing

Yeah that seems to be the intent. Kind of makes a little more sense than a template, and makes the turret seem more like a "standard take all comers" type deal.

With sponson options, it can be set up to deal with more infantry or hard targets.

 Kirasu wrote:
Silly us thinking assault would be buffed or be viable again. Seems like these shooting changes blow everything out of the water. I don't see why you'd want to run close combat units that get same number of attacks as before just to get hit with twin linked guns and falling back from combat.

he who charges strikes first, is this not a boost ?

if a squad falls back it looses the ability to do anything in the next turn, is this not a boost?

torblind wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

torblind wrote:
Well 3 melta hits on a dreadnought would wound twice, each inflicting 4.5 wounds, and thus bringing it down. It's not terribly worse compared to 7th

Assuming 3+ to hit, 6 melta shots, 4 hits, 2 wound, if not in mid range that means an average of 7 HP (so quite good chance it will survive) and if in mid range it means 9HP (so it should die but no guarantee).
That's 6 melta shots.
Melta is going to have a hard time to deal with vehicles.

The to-hit roll is specific to shooter, surely that should be kept out of the picture? S8 will wound T7 on 3+, so 2 out of 3 hits will wound. And melta range was half distance in 7th too, right?

Though with AP1 it was a clear threat that most vehicles could be one-shotted

 Formerly Wu wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

And duel between 2 russes will be slow watch. In average takes tad over 5 turns for battle cannon to take out russ. Not much hope of recreating gaunt's ghost tank battles.

Given that the same battle would take 6's to glance before, that actually seems to be an improvement.

Plus degrading capabilities mean whoever gets the lead is at an advantage, which is more interesting than now.

7th ed version sucked as well. Luckily 2nd ed has more quicker way for russ to take out second russ with the battle cannon.

Loving the change to twin linked weapons.

 Megaknob wrote:

if a squad falls back it looses the ability to do anything in the next turn, is this not a boost?

No, not really. You can't hide in combat anymore.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

endlesswaltz123 wrote:
The battle cannon is heavy duty infantry killing, it isn't there to nuke a guardsman squad with one hit, it's there to (potentially) nuke a 5 man ogryn, or 2W terminator squad in one hit.

The whirlwind or griffin is there to nuke large light armoured squads, I expect them to have 2D6 hits (to make more sense) but only 1 damage with maybe -1 AP. That would make sense to me more anyway.

If a gun can nuke heavy infantry it can do the same to light infantry. Heavy D6 is really weak, especially once you get to batterys of basilisks and such.

Also those heavy infantry have a chance to save so even less deaths.

I see the battlecannon, once the golden beautiful angel baby of IG stuck on the shelf in favor of heavy bolters and lascannons.

Not necessarily. Whilst I'm a novice with ballistics in real life, some have more spread than others right? A battle cannon may have much punch but be quite compact now, whilst the griffin may explode above ground with less punch but more spread.

 nintura wrote:

 Megaknob wrote:

if a squad falls back it looses the ability to do anything in the next turn, is this not a boost?

No, not really. You can't hide in combat anymore.

So... now is a bad idea to have a single squad charging the whole enemy gunline alone? Hmmm... whats the problem with that?
If the enemy has 3 shooting units and you charge them at the same time, even if they retreat, they achieve nothing with that. Is only a problem if you have one squad charging 2-3 enemy squads that are supporting each other alone.

torblind wrote:
S8 will wound T7 on 3+, so 2 out of 3 hits will wound.

Yeah, somehow I thought the dread was T8.

Battle cannon seems kind of underwhelming. Sure, you can wipe a squad of terminators or chip some wounds off of a vehicle, but it's so inconsistent.

I guess the plus side is infantry based armies can actually exist again.

The Battlecannon is might underwhelming, a fair translation of its current iteration, but an underwhelming iteration since at least 5E, methinks the classic LRBT will continue spending lots of time on shelves in favor of other variants.

 nintura wrote:

 Gamgee wrote:
Imagine Tau crisis suits with one twin-link flamer and one regular one. Muahah.

For all those loving the flamethrower buffs to all factions.

Spoiler:

Im loving the flame thrower buff for another reason all together. I play Salamanders. I hope to see more armies fielding them

I'm putting together Salamanders Devastators right now, and I'm thinking Sarge(s) gets a Combi-Flamer rather than a power weapon.

Let's frame the battle cannon debate a little differently.

Edit fixing file...