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.

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

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

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

Models damaged now included.

In short, Battle Cannons are pretty bad now.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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

Where is this meme coming from?

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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

Where is this meme coming from?

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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

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

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

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

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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

Where is this meme coming from?

Spoiler:

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

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



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

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



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

 Fenris-77 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Grimgold wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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

Where is this meme coming from?

Spoiler:

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

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

Spoiler:

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

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

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

Spoiler:

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

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

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

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

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

 Fenris-77 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

tneva82 wrote:

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

That's supposed to be good?

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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

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

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

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

tneva82 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Grimgold wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Against heavy vehicles:



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

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

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

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

Neither being reason for being cheap.

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

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

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

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