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.

 Galas wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
This is not about realism. Is about "Universe consistence". If 40k tanks can jump like bunnies because thats how the universe works, 40k tanks should jump like bunies.

It doesn't mater how X work in real life. In this case, 40k tanks work aproximately like the ones in real life, but they aren't equal. So don't use "realism" as an argument.

Not equal, but they were quite close approximation (infantry also doesn't work like in real life, with much more emphasis on close combat). Tanks have now moved much away from the old model, it's understandable people don't like it.

Yes, in the Imperial Guard tanks it has a point, but not because "realism"; but because thats how they worked in the past in-universe. I just wanted to throw away this "realism" thing before going any further. Universe consistence=/=realism.

Why would it apply only on IG? Seems plausible other races would be bound by roughly similar technological dilemma: point of an AFV is to be immune to common weapons of the battlefield, whilst still packing firepower and mobility - requirements which inevitably gravitate to solution where lots of energy is packed in small space protected by hard outer shell. If the outer shell is pierced, bad things are like to happen.

BTW, against the same W1 targets, the Heavy Bolter is basically about as good as the Battlecannon, killing 0.8 SMs, where the BC kills 1 - a mere 20% difference. How is that acceptable?

If the Battlecannon started at 2d6 shots for Large Blast, that might be acceptable.

I expect some rules on the LRBT like "Add +1 to attack rolls if the target unit has 10 or more models".

Kind of what we have on siege weapons.

the_scotsman wrote:

How are you figuring this? If you treat the "average" roll of a D6 to be 3.5, a BS3 battlecannon gets 3.5 * 0.5 hits * .66 wounds * .66 unsaved * 1.5 damage = 1.14 unsaved wounds/shot on average versus a Dreadnought with the new save system. Not amazing, but generally better than the current LRBC does against a dread.

One hit per one model. D6 applies only multi-model targets.

 Megaknob wrote:

torblind wrote:
So since that would work equally effective in 7th, Ork were superior to Tau in most encounters?

no you can not fall back in 7th, they have over watch, and marker lights IMO sounds a lot more effective then simply falling back and making you useless, but this is all speculation no body knows how the game will actually play, so making a statement like "how stupid we were to think CC would be viable again" with no real evidence or facts is a bit stupid to me.
you read one rule buffing ranged combat and completely dismissed all of the CC buffs crazy talk bro.

There's been MANY buffs to ranged combat. So far not many buffs to CC. Funny you say "one rule buffing ranged combat" and "al the CC buffs" when it's more like reverse.

Backfire wrote:

 Galas wrote:

Backfire wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
This is not about realism. Is about "Universe consistence". If 40k tanks can jump like bunnies because thats how the universe works, 40k tanks should jump like bunies.

It doesn't mater how X work in real life. In this case, 40k tanks work aproximately like the ones in real life, but they aren't equal. So don't use "realism" as an argument.

Not equal, but they were quite close approximation (infantry also doesn't work like in real life, with much more emphasis on close combat). Tanks have now moved much away from the old model, it's understandable people don't like it.

Yes, in the Imperial Guard tanks it has a point, but not because "realism"; but because thats how they worked in the past in-universe. I just wanted to throw away this "realism" thing before going any further. Universe consistence=/=realism.

Why would it apply only on IG? Seems plausible other races would be bound by roughly similar technological dilemma: point of an AFV is to be immune to common weapons of the battlefield, whilst still packing firepower and mobility - requirements which inevitably gravitate to solution where lots of energy is packed in small space protected by hard outer shell. If the outer shell is pierced, bad things are like to happen.

I'm sorry but I'm lost. What exactly are we discussing here?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
BTW, against the same W1 targets, the Heavy Bolter is basically about as good as the Battlecannon, killing 0.8 SMs, where the BC kills 1 - a mere 20% difference. How is that acceptable?

If the Battlecannon started at 2d6 shots for Large Blast, that might be acceptable.

No it isn't. 3(1/2)(2/3)(1/2)=0.5 wounds. It's about half as good as a battlecannon, which does ~0.97.

Backfire wrote:

One hit per one model. D6 applies only multi-model targets.

Umm... No. Why would it?

Backfire wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

How are you figuring this? If you treat the "average" roll of a D6 to be 3.5, a BS3 battlecannon gets 3.5 * 0.5 hits * .66 wounds * .66 unsaved * 1.5 damage = 1.14 unsaved wounds/shot on average versus a Dreadnought with the new save system. Not amazing, but generally better than the current LRBC does against a dread.

One hit per one model. D6 applies only multi-model targets.

d6 shots will all hit to 1 model in 1 model unit.

Though 1/8 wounds isn't still that hot. Yes it might cause more wounds than before but does it cause more than twice the wounds now that wound count you need to go through has over doubled? Quadrupled in case of russ.

 Crimson wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

How are you figuring this? If you treat the "average" roll of a D6 to be 3.5, a BS3 battlecannon gets 3.5 * 0.5 hits * .66 wounds * .66 unsaved * 1.5 damage = 1.14 unsaved wounds/shot on average versus a Dreadnought with the new save system. Not amazing, but generally better than the current LRBC does against a dread.

Shouldn't that be 2 damage? So 1,5 unsaved wounds in total?

I believe you are correct sir. And that is way higher than than in 7th as an average, never mind that the potential damage goes way higher than that, Adding a reroll ups the average to 2.28. Anyway, it's a huge improvement over 7th, so I don't know why anyone would be unhappy with it.

tneva82 wrote:

Backfire wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

How are you figuring this? If you treat the "average" roll of a D6 to be 3.5, a BS3 battlecannon gets 3.5 * 0.5 hits * .66 wounds * .66 unsaved * 1.5 damage = 1.14 unsaved wounds/shot on average versus a Dreadnought with the new save system. Not amazing, but generally better than the current LRBC does against a dread.

One hit per one model. D6 applies only multi-model targets.

d6 shots will all hit to 1 model in 1 model unit.

Oh yeah, I got the logic bass-ackwards.

Liking the face that Cheese & Onion (two somewhat dusty LRMBT) may actually be useful as tanks for once, slow, lumbering but actually pretty dangerous for once, even three heavy bolters is going to be pretty nasty, and the Vanquisher may actually be nasty for once

After this update, I'm still looking the weapon changes overall...

Battle Cannon is about as expected.

Melta, likewise.

The changes to combiweapons are... Interesting. 8th edition newbies will never know the pain of waiting the whole game for that perfect target for your combimelta... And then rolling a 1.


Twin linked going back to actually being two weapons is awesome.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
BTW, against the same W1 targets, the Heavy Bolter is basically about as good as the Battlecannon, killing 0.8 SMs, where the BC kills 1 - a mere 20% difference. How is that acceptable?

Because against heavier targets that heavy bolter is far less effective. Meanwhile something that is quite effective against heavy targets like a lascannon is far less effective against infantry targets.

So a heavy bolter is good at dealing with infantry (for once), a lascannon is good for dealing with tanks/monsters, and a battle cannon can switch targets freely and still be a threat.

For the past several editions battle cannons have mostly just been a threat to MeQs because of its ability to mass remove 3+ saves (albeit unreliably due to scatter and the way cover worked). It has been getting steadily worse as well, with the blast mechanics of the last few editions making it incredibly unreliable since it tended to just scatter off target.

So in return for reducing the one-in-a-million chance of hitting a bunched up unit square in the centre while they were out of cover and removing them, you now have a weapon that deals reliably with a variety of targets.

The battle cannon used to suck against MC's or generally anything T5 or higher. The battle cannon was middling against infantry lately due to scatter. The battle cannon was in the same boat as the lascannon and other single-shot anti-tank weapons in that it sucked at killing tanks.

Now? It's actually more efficient at damaging tanks than the lascannon, it is reliable at dealing with tough multi-wound critters that used to make it pointless, and it can still deal with infantry (whereas a lascannon just plain sucks at that) with it excelling at dealing with multi-wound infantry with mid-range saves. Hell, even terminators will fear it now (whereas before, the AP system didn't really make it worthwhile to hit them) simply because it can reliably remove them if it gets through their armour, and they only get a 4+ save against it now.

This is why it is acceptable. It has a jack-of-all-trades role. You want to kill infantry reliably, grab a HB, a gun that has basically been unseen for several editions and may finally see play. The BC can't deal with infantry quite as well, and massed lascannons eventually start to overtake it, but that it can handle a wide variety of targets is a great change.

And as always, you aren't buying a battle cannon alone. It is attached to a T8, 12+ wound chassis that comes with other weapons that can now all be fired alongside that jack of all trades battle cannon. And it can split fire as well, allowing you to create loadouts that aren't hyperspecialized, and the battle cannon will complement whatever that loadout is.

The battle cannon finally has a job and a purpose, and it even appears to be working as intended as the main gun of the LRBT. Monstrous creatures can't laugh it off anymore, it will no longer tickle the front armour of a similarly armoured tank as the one firing it, and it no longer precludes firing all the other guns mounted on the unit just to take a single, unreliable potshot. How is that not acceptable?

The converion of AP to -Rend has me wondering what they will do with "rending" weapons.

 Megaknob wrote:

 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.

I will give you a situation, Tau gun line 3x fire warrior squads 2x hammer heads 3x teams of battle suits, all sorts of crazy weaponry.

Oks 3x 30 blobs of orks 2x squads of nobz in truks squad of bikers a deff dread all really choppy and killy.

Orks turn 1
So orks go first lets say every thing runs at full distance truks everything the ork army is half way across the board.

Tau turn 1
Tau shoot the life out of the orks, orks loose lets say on average 10 boys for each of the 30 blobs you pop both the truks loose a knob in the blast, dread takes 3 wounds and you mow down 3 of the 10 bikers, plenty of casualties.

Ork turn 2
Waghhh!!! everything charges each of the 20 blobs of boys charge the fire warriors the knobs charge the battle suites the bikers charge one of the hammer heads the dread charges another, the tau player decides hes going to fall back , everything falls back.

Tau turn 2
the tau player can not do anything because he chose to fall back.

Ork turn 3
the ork player charges again.

Tau turn 3
falls back again he's now against the table edge, can not fall back any further.

Ork turn 4
charges again orks obviously win the mele as we are striking first now you have been pushed off all of the objectives game over.

Ork win EZ PZ

small nitpick. You cant fall back in th combat phase. Its in your movement phase. So the tau would suffer melee anyway.

And even then, the Tau player will likely have some form of hit and run on th suits (skinks in AoS can retreat thier full move when it is their turn to swing in combat). So he may still be able to shoot during his turn. That's all considering the Ork plyer gets good charge rolls and survies overwatch.

 Bulldogging wrote:
The converion of AP to -Rend has me wondering what they will do with "rending" weapons.

Assault Cannons might be nasty! Those have always been my favorite. Give me 2 in a 5 man terminator squad!

What if....and following on this one....GW doesn't what to reveal all the USRs, I mean 'keyword special rules' that every weapon has?
What if the Battle cannons has Ordinance or something similar that allows it to roll 2d6 taking the highest for the number of shots?
But GW hasn't revealed that part of it's profile yet?

-

The new meltagun is a little deception. In previous editions at half range the D6 bonus on the penetration roll acted as +3.5 Strength.
I was expecting a similar significant fixed strength bonus in 8th edition. We just get "2D6-pick-the-highest" on damage roll. This gives an average of 161/36 = 4.472 HP removed per successful shot instead of 3.5 .
Sure, there will be less variability, but still not impressive... Erasing tanks and monstrous creatures will be hard. On the positive side, it works against monstrous creatures and other multi-wound models just fine.

The problem is I don't see plasma as an alternative for deep-striking gambling squads, as the new to-wound table and foreseeable plasma profile will likely not be favourable.

tneva82 wrote:

 Megaknob wrote:

torblind wrote:
So since that would work equally effective in 7th, Ork were superior to Tau in most encounters?

no you can not fall back in 7th, they have over watch, and marker lights IMO sounds a lot more effective then simply falling back and making you useless, but this is all speculation no body knows how the game will actually play, so making a statement like "how stupid we were to think CC would be viable again" with no real evidence or facts is a bit stupid to me.
you read one rule buffing ranged combat and completely dismissed all of the CC buffs crazy talk bro.

There's been MANY buffs to ranged combat. So far not many buffs to CC. Funny you say "one rule buffing ranged combat" and "al the CC buffs" when it's more like reverse.

The biggest buff to CC is the lessened lethality of weapons in general. New SvT table means less damage overall, new AP system means less damage overall, tanks are much harder to take down (including transports), MCs will get in your face if you don't have dedicated weapons against them.

Less lethality is a buff to CC, if you can survive 2 rounds of full damage and still get on the enemy with 55-60% of your forces, then the game is set. That's why they implemented the fall back mechanic, so that the typical game will be:

- Shoot at the enemy as much stuff as you can before he gets to you
- Lose the first line or have it fall back and shoot with whatever you have left
- Lose the second line or have it fall back and shoot with whatever you have left
- Repeat this pattern until you shoot them death or you get slaugthered.

Games that go: "I assault, you lose!" or "I shoot you off the table before reaching my deployment area!" are the targets of this kind of design, if they balanced things properly as they say, we will no longer see those types of games.

If you add in the cheapest sponson and hull options on the Leman (3 x HB) the total damage output against the Dread goes up to an average of 2.25W. Not shabby at all. With a hull Las and sponson HBs its 2.47W - also not bad. The key is the cost of the weapons (as we've established already).

Mind you, a twin Lascannon on a BS4 model does an average of 2.56W all by its lonesome, but that's a more specialized weapon. (And yeah, Landraiders, wheeee!)

 Ravajaxe wrote:

Sure, there will be less variability, but still not impressive... Erasing tanks and monstrous creatures will be hard. On the positive side, it works against monstrous creatures and other multi-wound models just fine.

Hrm, look at the average number of shots needed to kill, and with Meltaguns you end up at about the same number of shots either way, tanks and MC's arent becoming any harder to kill with these weapons, MC's are likely to be dramatically easier to kill.

You wont have the possibility of a one shot kill anymore, but I think the Meltaguns are gonna work just fine, a Russ wont be tanking more shots than in 7E at least.

 Fenris-77 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

How are you figuring this? If you treat the "average" roll of a D6 to be 3.5, a BS3 battlecannon gets 3.5 * 0.5 hits * .66 wounds * .66 unsaved * 1.5 damage = 1.14 unsaved wounds/shot on average versus a Dreadnought with the new save system. Not amazing, but generally better than the current LRBC does against a dread.

Shouldn't that be 2 damage? So 1,5 unsaved wounds in total?

I believe you are correct sir. And that is way higher than than in 7th as an average, never mind that the potential damage goes way higher than that, Adding a reroll ups the average to 2.28. Anyway, it's a huge improvement over 7th, so I don't know why anyone would be unhappy with it.

2.28 wound sounds nice. But remember wound count has also gone way up so it's not improvement.

Also just realized that against terminators that are basically new target of choice it's like 0.7 dead terminator when in open. Not that hot...

 Ravajaxe wrote:
The new meltagun is a little deception. In previous editions at half range the D6 bonus on the penetration roll acted as +3.5 Strength.
I was expecting a similar significant fixed strength bonus in 8th edition. We just get "2D6-pick-the-highest" on damage roll. This gives an average of 161/36 = 4.472 HP removed per successful shot instead of 3.5 .
Sure, there will be less variability, but still not impressive... Erasing tanks and monstrous creatures will be hard. On the positive side, it works against monstrous creatures and other multi-wound models just fine.

Hull points are gone. Vehicles are multi-wound models in 8th edition.

 insaniak wrote:
Twin linked going back to actually being two weapons is awesome.

Only oddity being that might just as well write "2 lascannons" rather than "twinlinked lascannon".

Still prefer 2nd ed version. Makes sense and linked lascannon is different to 2 lascannons.

 Ghaz wrote:

Hull points are gone. Vehicles are multi-wound models in 8th edition.

For all purposes they work the same. I just can't call hull points of a machine wounds..

 Vector Strike wrote:
>When you play Tau and these news on Twin-linked hit you

Holy gak... hadn't even thought about that.

tneva82 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Twin linked going back to actually being two weapons is awesome.

Only oddity being that might just as well write "2 lascannons" rather than "twinlinked lascannon".

Still prefer 2nd ed version. Makes sense and linked lascannon is different to 2 lascannons.

Vehicles are confirmed to be able to split fire with their weapons (i.e. they can shoot each weapon at a different target).

That means that having two separate Lascannons is, in fact, distinct in potential usage compared to Twin Lascannons, as the former can shot at two separate targets and the latter cannot.

tneva82 wrote:

Medicinal Carrots wrote:

Uh, you may want to continue reading the rest of my post, I covered 11+ wound untargetable characters further down. Give those characters their own rule that lets them hide like the wimpier guys.

Ah yes more bespoken rules...

That's stuff that needs to be in core rules and not more bespoken rules. That's the path to bloatness.

but there is no end result difference between the two.

Except one is superior causing less issues while the other needs extra bloat to make it work.

In order to allow as much unique and weird stuff as GW wants to have in 40k, something somewhere is going to be an exception to general rules eventually. GW may not have come up with the best version of character rules, but even if some better rules had been published, there would still be unique things that would need to be exceptions to rules anyways. You act like if they pulled back bespoken rules and incorporated more generalized things into the core rules, exceptions would be total rarities. 8ed is gonna be a little backwards, but I'm a little excited to see a lot of new unique stuff this ed.

tneva82 wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Twin linked going back to actually being two weapons is awesome.

Only oddity being that might just as well write "2 lascannons" rather than "twinlinked lascannon".

Still prefer 2nd ed version. Makes sense and linked lascannon is different to 2 lascannons.

Its probably to prevent a twin lascannon from shooting two different targets since its mounted together.