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.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

Massed sm devastators kill russes now. Any dev squad with splitfire is more than capable of killing 2 russes a turn.

Capable? Yes. Likely? No. Any single BS4 Lascannon had a 1/54 chance to one shot a Russ, and while thats no longer possible, between lowering the "wound" value needed (from 5+ to 3+) and Damage, such weapons will, on average, chew through tanks much faster.

This is mathematically false. How can you even say this with a straight face?

Leman Russ
Toughness: 8
Wounds: 12
Save: 3+

Lascannon
Strength: 9
Wounds: D6
Save: -3

So a lascannon devastator marine hits on 3+, wounds on 3+, and the wound is saved on 6s. If it gets through it deals D6 damage. We'll calculate the damage, after we calculate the wounds. Since, damage is D6, and wounds are still 0 or 1.

A dev squad of 4 marines, firing at a Russ with no cover.
Probability 0 wounds: 15.72%
Probability exactly 1 wound: 36.98%
Probability exactly 2 wounds: 32.62%
Probability exactly 3 wounds: 12.79%
Probability exactly 4 wounds: 1.88%

Now, 0 wounds does 0 damage. 0% chance to kill.
1 wound does D6 damage. 0% chance to kill.
2 wounds does 2D6 damage. 1/36 chance to kill, for a net probability of 0.91%

To model out the chance of dealing 12+ damage on ND6, I had to use a generating function and expand a polynomial. I've done this off-screen.

3 wounds does 3D6 damage. 81/216 chance to kill, for a net probability of 4.8%
4 wounds does 4D6 damage. 986/1296 chance to kill, for a net probability of 1.43%

So you could deal 2 wounds and kill it, or 3 wounds and kill it, or 4 wounds and kill it.

Meaning, your Lascannon Devastator Squad has a 7.14% chance to kill a Russ outright in 1 round of shooting.

I'm not even entirely sure if we're arguing the same thing here, particularly as I didn't touch on the probabilities of killing something in one round but rather the average number of shots required (which is not necessarily the same thing) and you've done no comparison to the 7E probabilities, which you'll find, does not support 4 lascannons in a split dev squad routinely killing 2 Russ tanks a turn.

While I don't have the time to crunch probabilities, looking at the averages

7E

4 BS4 Lascannons average 0.88 HP's (4x 2/3 x 1/3) & 0.074 Explodes results (4x2/3/6/6).

So, on average, it'll require 13.5 BS4 Lascanon to get the kill through HP's, and 54 through Explodes alone. Together you're looking at ~11 BS4 Lascannon shots to average 1 dead Russ in 7E through either method.


8E

4 BS4 Lascannons average 5.19 wounds (4x2/3x2/3x5/6x3.5), 0 Explodes results.

Thus, on average 1 kill requires 9.25 BS4 Lascannon shots, or about 16% fewer shots over the long term in general with AP2 Lascannons.

Golden BBs, folks.

Although I think that the AoS-like manages it reasonably well <<1%, even though that's an obvious change from 3E-7E at absolute no chance for S3/4 v AV11+.

ERJAK wrote:

This is why it's silly to apply 'feelings' to a math game.

and where did we do this?

 BlaxicanX wrote:
There is no situation in which the old Leman Russ is more durable then the new one. Against 7E lascannons it would take 40 lascannon shots at BS4 to kill a the new Russ

Sure, but that's because 7E Lascannons aren't doing D6 wound's apiece like the new ones. Why are we comparing the 8E Russ to 7E lascannons here? I'm not seeing the application as they won't face each other. In my posts I as comparing 8E tank and gun together to 7E tank and gun together, not 7E gun to 8E tank and 8E gun to 7E tank.

, vs 14 for the old one, not counting the explodes chance. Against new lascannons only a single glancing hit will strip an old Russ to death versus 10 glances 10 needed for the new one with average rolls.

Sure...but again, why are we comparing new Lascannons to old Russ tanks? It's an irrelevant comparison.

Against mid-strength shooting the disparity becomes even more massive.

Well, except that the old Russ was effectively immune to mid Strength (and low strength) shooting, except from the rear arc which wasn't terribly common, and the new one is not, which, to your earlier point, very much is a situation where the old Russ is more durable, but not one I'm terribly upset about in and of itself.

You're being intellectually dishonest for the sake of negativity here.

Wat? Ok, no, we're putting a stop to this sort of accusation right here, and right now.

I have been dramatically more optimistic about this edition than anything GW related in years. My complaints thus far have been relatively minimal and limited to select specific mechanics, and acknowledged that there are things we may be unaware of that may change the shape of things throughout this thread.

I'm not the one comparing I can pull up a million quotes from you complaining about MC's being more durable then vehicles due to them getting saves.

Right, in previous editions where weapons were doing 1 wound apiece, not up to 6. And these same concerns may apply to MC's as well, we just haven't been given the stats to play around with them.

Lascannons are total crap in 7th. They needed a buff, badly.

They *are* anti tank weaponry.

You made the claim that lascannon devs are going to be blowing up multiple Russes a turn. That's just not true.

Again, just as with the Dreadnought, people is talking like, if the tank/unit can't wistand a absurd amount of anti-tank weaponry is bad.

No! A tank should die fast to anti-tank weaponry. It will come to the offensive capabilities of Dreadnoughts and Tanks and their costs in relation to the cost of those anti tank weapons that make or broke them.

If a Leman Russ is equally vulnerable to Lasscannons or Meltas in 8th than in 7th, but the cost of those two weapons goes up, the cost of the Leman Russ goes down, and his damage output goes up, for example, then it will be very viable. It is not only about how much damage it can soak.

Forgive lascannons for being able to do their job. I know its been a long time or never for many of you. T8 3+ W12 is brutal vs most weapon systems i bet.

I think a big difference is the durabilityboost in CC. Old russes would die like flies to almost anything that reached them. The new ones will hold out a lot longer.

You were the one complaining about intellectual dishonesty. I quote:

"There is no situation in which the old Leman Russ is more durable then the new one."

Bolters and Lasguns.

 Marmatag wrote:
Lascannons are total crap in 7th. They needed a buff, badly.

Was this an issue with Lascannons as a weapon, or problems with the platforms and alternative weapons simply being more capable than they should have been? I would argue that the Lascannon itself was not fundamentally an issue, rather overcapable alternatives and issues with some lascannon platforms were.

More to the point, it's not about Lascannons specifically. We could stand in Meltaguns, Railguns, or anything else, Lascannons are just the one weapon we happen to have stats for really (unless I missed something). If heavy weapons Damage stats are that high, you're not gaining much with W12 over HP3, particularly when going from AV14 to T8 (roughly equivalent to old AV12).

They *are* anti tank weaponry.

Yes, no argument from me.

You made the claim that lascannon devs are going to be blowing up multiple Russes a turn. That's just not true.

I don't recall making that claim. I said they would chew through them fast than 7E, but if you go back and re-read the thread, I was not the one that made the claim that they will routinely blow up multiple Russ tanks a turn. ERJAK made the claim that "Massed sm devastators kill russes now. Any dev squad with splitfire is more than capable of killing 2 russes a turn." which I refuted, but argued that the average number of shots required to kill a Russ (not the same thing) would be lower.

That's true, but those weapons wlll still be laughable vs the russ.

Also this talk is forgetting the fact that lascannons were so terribly un-deadly that no one took them before, which means that other weapons were far deadlier, which if no longer true also represents a giant boost in survivability.

That may be true, but we just don't know yet. Other weapons may get toned down, they may not, or something else may get way overbalanced and be the new broken. All possibilities, we just have Lascannons, Bolters, Lasguns, flamers, Dreads and Russ tanks to go on for right now so that's all we can attempt to analyze.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 G00fySmiley wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
Riptides and Stormsurge need to die in a fire.

OSC means nothing against MCs, so I'd probably never use one because vehicles are crappy enough without taking a formation to make them even crappier.

Invalidating a bad list doesn't get you anywhere in the meta, though.

honestly I just think a riptide should be unique as should a wraithknight or stormsurge. would be cool to have heavy duty units like that that are not spammable. same for imperial knights but I doubt they would ever do that.

I have never had a problem against tau when they took 1 riptide or 1 stormsurge (or 1 ghostkeel) the issue is with packs and formations to hit rear armor or jus thave a ton of wounds and allocating to closes model

Pretty much. One Riptide, even 3 is a solvable problem. Beast Hunter Command Tanks solve that problem nicely, or a giant pile of Lascannons.

But then you get the OSC, and the formations which are "bring 3, and ignore all cover and hit all tanks on rear armor." And you know what happens when I bring 3 tanks together? Gee, I got 3 tanks! Yay!

hopefully that'll be addressed in 8th edition, I know with the 87th edition marine codex when marines started getting bonuses for having a full squadron I always thought that guard needed that more then marines

I will agree that it won't be good for the Russ if the krak missile also gets D6 damage. But it shouldn't. The lascannon should be THE premiere ranged anti-tank imperial weapon. It's cost should also reflect that depending on how competent other weapons are.

It'll be interesting to see how the Krak ends up. If I had to guess I'd say S8 ASM -2 D3 or maybe D3+1 damage?

D4? Or have they ruled out other dice?

I think krak missiles deserve to be -3 AP so they can bust heavy infantry. They should just do less damage. Terminators boucing krak is nonsense.

Martel732 wrote:
D4? Or have they ruled out other dice?

I think krak missiles deserve to be -3 AP so they can bust heavy infantry. They should just do less damage. Terminators boucing krak is nonsense.

why is termies bouncing kark nonsense? the armor is noted, repeatedly, as being able to protect against even anti tank weaponry. being -3 AP etc is a bad idea, IMHO kark should have a lower AP threshhold then las canons, and a lower strength. so kark missiles are good against light vehicles, but for truely heavy armor, you wanna bring out the lascanon. this is the big issue with weapon varity in 40k over all, has always been weather or not there is ample differance to make taking differant weapons worth it. consider plasmaguns vs grav guns. grav basicly replaced plasma

Because I think single shot weapons like krak and lascannons should have sufficient punch to knock out terminators. They should be equal to lascannons for this task, and be inferior vs actual tanks. Ie, less damage.

Also, they used to be the same as lascannons back in 2nd and that's something they should have never changed, because it ruined the missile launcher.

Personally, I'll like if Terminators were actually more durable than tanks, at least in the Armour thing... but thats me, wanting Space Marines to cost 200 points each

 Galas wrote:
Personally, I'll like if Terminators were actually more durable than tanks, at least in the Armour thing... but thats me, wanting Space Marines to cost 200 points each

No, they should not be. Not at all.

Martel732 wrote:
D4? Or have they ruled out other dice?

I think krak missiles deserve to be -3 AP so they can bust heavy infantry. They should just do less damage. Terminators boucing krak is nonsense.

D4 would make more sense yeah. I dont have a problem with AP -3 personally but I dont expect them to get it based on the other weapons we have seen.

It makes more sense to me than plasma having it. I'll never get why plasma got the bump to AP 2 in 3rd. That instantly invalided terminators.

Yeah thats kinda unexplained.

Especially because I think the fluff mentions something about terminators being adapted from suits used to go into "plasma furances". yeah.......

The kind of kinetics you can get on a good AP missile are very brutal actually.

Martel732 wrote:
Because I think single shot weapons like krak and lascannons should have sufficient punch to knock out terminators. They should be equal to lascannons for this task, and be inferior vs actual tanks. Ie, less damage.

Also, they used to be the same as lascannons back in 2nd and that's something they should have never changed, because it ruined the missile launcher.

if MLs where just as good as lascanons, did anyone take lascannons?

Yes, because they did more damage to tanks and caused more wounds. Which is now the same thing. The only thing they had in common was -6 armor save.

I'm interested to see the stats on battlecannons and demolishers. With the removal of templates they may become very effective at taking out marines. They should no longer suffer from the "hit 2 marines in cover and do nothing" problem they used to have.

Sure, lascannons may rip them apart (as they should). It does seem like damage is going up across the board though. I can see another Russ remodeling project in my future, if the rules bring back the fully loaded sponson russ as a cheap, high damage and reasonably durable unit.

The thing I am mostly looking forward to is that with templates gone I can just push around huge blobs of infantry, not having to worry about 2" spacing against flamers and thunderfires. My much loved "advancing blob-tank wall of death" may actually be fun and not a waste of time.

Bear in mind, I have only glanced at much of the info there is, after being out of the game for a year from apathy and dissatisfaction.

well Terminators would save vs krak/lascannon shots 28% of the time in 2nd edition with a -6 save. So coupled with to wound you had a 1 in 3 chance or so of surviving.

Since this is the return of modifiers and multi wound and have not been seen since 2nd ed.....here are some 2nd ed stats for those who may want to see a possible root base the devs may have used as a starting point when playtesting

Lascannon 2d6 wounds -6 save
Krak Missile d10 -6
Assault cannon d10 -3
Auto Cannon d10 -3
Multi Melta 2d12 -4
Rapier laser 2d10 -6
Battle Cannon 2d6 -3
Hvy Plasma max power d10 -6
PowerFist 1 wound -6
ThunderHammer d6 -5

Notice that a Multi Melta is a SIGNIFICANT part of the devs desire to fix 2nd ed. That weapon was awesome vs vehicles but not so good vs terminators/carnifexes, and many weapons were the reverse and they wished for comparable parity.

Thus in citadel journal we had alternate 2nd ed rules that got rid of datafax penetration rolls with RT style toughness and hit points.
Then came 3rd edition that got rid of multiple wounding weapons to impact vehicles.
Finally 8th ed is bringing RT style toughness and hit points back.

I'm going to have to echo Vaktathi again and agree that a lot of these changes are nice, but Russes might still be in a bit of a tight spot, point cost and other abilities dependent of course. I question the T8 decision, seeing as they were AV14 before. I personally feel that T9 or even T10 would be perfectly fine for the vehicle to represent their durability.

All that said, I'll be waiting on full judgement for when the point costs and full weapon profiles are released.

I am looking forward to all the other changes with the faction. Sounds like they actually play tested everything and leveraged the tournament scene to create a force that functions in multiple ways where all units are valid options with the right support.

This is another solid point in favour of the new edition for me, up there with the removal of formations.

Only AV 14 in the front. The AV 10/11 rear probably makes the average T of 8 the best representation. Only question is is the land raider T10?