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.

Looking at the Battlecannon today, there were a few obvious "Yay!" moments - namely the lack of Ordnance - but it left me seriously wondering why I would ever choose to use the gun.

The average number of wounds that a new battlecannon will cause against a medium-vehicle target - like, say, the new Dreadnought statline that was posted - is about 1.1. Against its previous optimal target, say, exposed tactical marines, it fares quite a bit worse, only causing about 1.5 unsaved wounds. Indeed, no matter what target you're shooting, it's pretty hard to move the needle on how much damage the new battlecannon does, unless you're making it less effective by increasing Sv or T.

A large amount of the problem is the to-hit roll now required. Blast weaponry used to be used by a lot of factions to compensate for bad BS, because odds are you could hit a fairly large target almost guaranteed, or you could aim for a large unit and wing a few guys.

So what do you think is most likely - that the battlecannon is not intended to be an improvement over the old, and that the Leman Russ is losing offensive power to make up for its new defenses? That there's some unseen special rule we don't know about - say, a bonus to BS for firing explosive weapons - that will make the gun usable? Or a large cost reduction to fit it into a "Jack of all trades, master of none" reliable workhorse role? Because at the moment the Russ seems to be designed around getting at least 1 hit fairly reliably, but that's exactly what the current one does and it just doesn't work, and the current one has Ordnance to back up the hits it does get.

All in all, it just seems a strange one to showcase as a "confidence booster" if there is context to improve its power.


.....


Also as a side note, RIP everyone who bought Renegade Wyverns, enjoy your to-hit rolls.

The battle cannon does look like it'll have awfully, ludicrously high variance. So much so that I wouldn't be totally shocked to see it get errata patched. That said, I'd predict some kind of bonus to hit with it, or some way to make it a bit more reliable.

One of the bonuses Guard have had for as long as I've been playing is various ways to mitigate their fairly crummy BS.

It looks fine to me. It's a jack of all trades, master of none weapon.

But here's the thing: Once you start increasing BS, the other gun options on the leman russ start becoming more attractive. The blasts have always been "the derpy, unreliable option that doesn't require buffing."

I'm just curious why I would consider a Battlecannon over, say, a Vanquisher if we extrapolate the conversions they're doing (S8, AP-4, Damage 2D6-take-the-highest) if we get some way to boost BS, or a bump to BS4, or something.

It just struck me as strange that they said "Explosives work on highly numerous infantry" and then showed a system that pretty clearly wouldn't work at all against highly numerous infantry. You'd never take a Battlecannon for that - you'd go straight for a Punisher with Heavy 20.

the_scotsman wrote:
But here's the thing: Once you start increasing BS, the other gun options on the leman russ start becoming more attractive. The blasts have always been "the derpy, unreliable option that doesn't require buffing."

I'm just curious why I would consider a Battlecannon over, say, a Vanquisher if we extrapolate the conversions they're doing (S8, AP-4, Damage 2D6-take-the-highest) if we get some way to boost BS, or a bump to BS4, or something.

It just struck me as strange that they said "Explosives work on highly numerous infantry" and then showed a system that pretty clearly wouldn't work at all against highly numerous infantry. You'd never take a Battlecannon for that - you'd go straight for a Punisher with Heavy 20.

I'm underwhelmed at the battle cannon too. I had hoped it would be "auto-hit" like the flamer template was. But, it doesn't look terrible, either, and can put some hurt on monstrous critters

Very much underwhelming. As I noted in another thead, the new profile probably matches the current one pretty accurately (barring the ASM as with all 8E weapons), but the current one has been seen as underwhelming for at least 3 editions now. I suspect the classic LRBT will mostly remain on shelves still unless something else has changed with them.

The Exterminator seems to be the hot ticket to me for the "generalist" role that the LRBT has been trying and failing at filling forever. Even with lower S and ASM, and even with only Damage 1, 8 shots (assuming they carry over the "TL is double shots" thing) vs D6 is going to be far more consistent in terms of damage output against most targets.

the_scotsman wrote:
But here's the thing: Once you start increasing BS, the other gun options on the leman russ start becoming more attractive. The blasts have always been "the derpy, unreliable option that doesn't require buffing."

I'm just curious why I would consider a Battlecannon over, say, a Vanquisher if we extrapolate the conversions they're doing (S8, AP-4, Damage 2D6-take-the-highest) if we get some way to boost BS, or a bump to BS4, or something.

It just struck me as strange that they said "Explosives work on highly numerous infantry" and then showed a system that pretty clearly wouldn't work at all against highly numerous infantry. You'd never take a Battlecannon for that - you'd go straight for a Punisher with Heavy 20.

Because d6 damage doesn't bleed over to other models like it does in AoS. Heavy 1 with d6 wounds can only kill a max of 1 model. The battle cannon's d6 shots can hit as many models as it shoots

Also article actually said that explosives aren't as good as dedicated anti infantry weapons

There may be some blast rules we haven't seen hit. That d6 may not represent the number of shots, but the number of hits. Just a thought.

 EnTyme wrote:
There may be some blast rules we haven't seen hit. That d6 may not represent the number of shots, but the number of hits. Just a thought.

I asked Reecius over at Frontline gaming. The D6 is the number of shots; not the number of hits.

That said, I think while it's easy for the gun to scrub the shot, the high end is worth it.

They didn't strike me at all, they rolled a one and only got the dude next to me.

Horrible puns aside, I've never been very luck with scatter dice, so I'm used to templates being super random. At least now it doesn't take an independent observer to tell me I got two people. Plus the templates punished large armies like Orks and guard, and now everyone is on even footing.

The Battle Cannon is absolutely amazingly designed

It's a viable option to use against all targets. That's exactly what it is in the lore.

I don't see how they could have designed it any better without it eclipsing specialized weapons.

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.

Well, I guess I can see it used as a generalist option. The requirement of the to-hit roll really hurts the average number of hits you see out of it, though. 1.75 against anything.

So, reasons this might be better than the current LRBC:

1) no Ordnance. This means you can pair it synergistically with a Hull Lascannon again, and the Heavy Bolter isn't just wasted.

2) On a (on average) more durable platform. The only thing we don't know is what the degradation we'll see after 1/2HP is, but I'm guessing -BS is a pretty safe thing to expect.

3) no longer turned off by snap firing/won't have to snap fire nearly as often because no more Shaken/stunned results.

Cons, as I can see them right now:

1) May see -1bs when moving with the heavy weapon. That'd stink, but I'm hoping they'll give it some kind of "heavy vehicle" rule that lets it move and fire. Bonus points to GW if they call it lumbering behemoth.

2) Much less differentiation between this and other weapon options now. If the Exterminator does turn out to be a S7, AP-1 Heavy 8 weapon (presumably 1 damage if the BC is D3) then it's going to be tough to compete.

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

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

To me it looks like it'll take 3 LRBT's to kill one and a half LRBTs.
Or one Gorkanaut. I just rolled it out a few times and it ether went poorly or was over the top. the lowest being something like 5 wounds then highest being 27 wounds. (After failed saves.)
Edited.
I misread the damage dice for the Battle Cannon I was thinking I had read D6 damage.

Yarium wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
There may be some blast rules we haven't seen hit. That d6 may not represent the number of shots, but the number of hits. Just a thought.

I asked Reecius over at Frontline gaming. The D6 is the number of shots; not the number of hits.

That said, I think while it's easy for the gun to scrub the shot, the high end is worth it.

I trust Reece, but I'd need to see that on the community site before calling it 100% confirmed. In either case, there's also a possibility of unit rules changing the way it works. Several AoS units have abilities that hit automatically if the target unit has X+ models. That could easily be the case here

mrhappyface wrote:

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

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

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

It will be interesting to see what they do with what are currently Gets Hot small blasts like Plasma Cannons and Kustom Mega Kannons. I imagine they won't just make them Heavy d3 attacks with the current Gets Hot rules.

I'm not sure how I feel about the new blast rules yet, especially as we haven't seen everything. I'm still hoping for the potential to miss and still randomly blow other stuff up by accident, but I can understand why they would choose to cut that out of the game.

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

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

 EnTyme wrote:

Yarium wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
There may be some blast rules we haven't seen hit. That d6 may not represent the number of shots, but the number of hits. Just a thought.

I asked Reecius over at Frontline gaming. The D6 is the number of shots; not the number of hits.

That said, I think while it's easy for the gun to scrub the shot, the high end is worth it.

I trust Reece, but I'd need to see that on the community site before calling it 100% confirmed. In either case, there's also a possibility of unit rules changing the way it works. Several AoS units have abilities that hit automatically if the target unit has X+ models. That could easily be the case here

Given that Reece literally wrote that article on the guard, I think you can trust his word on this one

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

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

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

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

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

 EnTyme wrote:

mrhappyface wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 mrhappyface wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

mrhappyface wrote:

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

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

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

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

Yes. Apparently you are.

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

 Unusual Suspect wrote:
Yes. Apparently you are.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Jambles wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since it keeps coming up:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Since it keeps coming up:

Here's the trick.

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

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

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

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

 docdoom77 wrote:
Since it keeps coming up:

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

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