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.

 Yarium wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The battlecannon profile is...underwhelming.

It probably mirrors the current capability of the Battlecannon pretty well to be fair, except that more stuff will be getting saves against it, and it has been considered an underperforming weapon for at least 3 editions now.

More and more I'm thinking the classic Russ is going to be staying on shelves. Hopefully the variants show better and/or we see some other stuff change, but I don't see much reason to take the Battlecannon Russ, if the Exterminator for example gets 8 S7 AP -1 shots, even with only 1 Damage, it's going to be the generally superior platform.

While it may have a low expected value, that just means that 50% of the time it does MORE damage than that, and 50% of the time it does LESS damage than that.

Right, but you want to judge these things by the average as much as possible, you don't want to take a weapon thats capable if "OMG" damage and expect it to routinely output that if its practical chances of doing so are very low. The average tells us how it is most likely to perform.

The "less" part means that about half the time your Leman Russ is probably just dealing 0 or 1 wounds with the battle cannon, but the "high" side is that it's killing 3 dudes from a squad (good against heavy infantry), or dealing a whopping 8 or so wounds to something bigger.

right, but in general you're probably better off with either a specialist unit or a different generalist like the Exterminator (if it carries over as expected with 8 shots), the random number of shots coupled with the decreased AP really dont do anything to improve the performance of the LRBT at all.

 Grimgold wrote:
Humans are running monkey firmware on lizard hardware . . .

Never have I seen a more sig-worthy quote. +1, sir!

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The battlecannon profile is...underwhelming.

It probably mirrors the current capability of the Battlecannon pretty well to be fair, except that more stuff will be getting saves against it, and it has been considered an underperforming weapon for at least 3 editions now.

More and more I'm thinking the classic Russ is going to be staying on shelves. Hopefully the variants show better and/or we see some other stuff change, but I don't see much reason to take the Battlecannon Russ, if the Exterminator for example gets 8 S7 AP -1 shots, even with only 1 Damage, it's going to be the generally superior platform.

While it may have a low expected value, that just means that 50% of the time it does MORE damage than that, and 50% of the time it does LESS damage than that.

Right, but you want to judge these things by the average as much as possible, you don't want to take a weapon thats capable if "OMG" damage and expect it to routinely output that if its practical chances of doing so are very low. The average tells us how it is most likely to perform.

Something that strikes me here, is that despite the average, the battle cannon will have stupidly high variance. So much so that I wonder if it was designed around some kind of buff that will bring its reliability up a fair bit.

Maybe. Or they could have made it D3+3 hits.

We can hope, the variance is pretty ridiculous (and always has been), but I would be surprised if we see anything on that count. Pleased, but surprised, though would prefer if it were just built into the weapon profile inherently.

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe. Or they could have made it D3+3 hits.

I'd even take D3+2 over D6. Seems wildly unreliable.

I guess there's the silver lining about it being safer when you have units close to the target.

jade_angel wrote:

Something that strikes me here, is that despite the average, the battle cannon will have stupidly high variance. So much so that I wonder if it was designed around some kind of buff that will bring its reliability up a fair bit.

Like maybe Ordinance is on the Battle Cannon, but GW left that off the profile they showed and ordinance allows you to roll 2D6 and pick the highest? Maybe


-

I wonder how they are going to make the vanquisher battle cannon worth taking over the default battle cannon with these stats?

If they make it Str 8 AP -3 D6 wounds even with a "roll two and take the highest" like melta it seems that the battle cannon will be more reliable as it is very unlikely you will do nothing, where as half of all shots made with the vanq will just miss or a single lucky save will negate all damage.

Never mind the fact that the Annihilator variant is now packing two lascannons which would just be better then the vanquisher. Unless maybe they give the vanquisher 3d3 damage? I doubt that though...

 NL_Cirrus wrote:
I wonder how they are going to make the vanquisher battle cannon worth taking over the default battle cannon with these stats?

If they make it Str 8 AP -3 D6 wounds even with a "roll two and take the highest" like melta it seems that the battle cannon will be more reliable as it is very unlikely you will do nothing, where as half of all shots made with the vanq will just miss or a single lucky save will negate all damage.

Never mind the fact that the Annihilator variant is now packing two lascannons which would just be better then the vanquisher. Unless maybe they give the vanquisher 3d3 damage? I doubt that though...

That's why points costs are there - to bring a semblance of balance for different weapons or options and give you the option for more weapons at lower power, or fewer weapons with more power.

Plus, the Vanquisher cannon has a 72 inch range currently, yes? That is an advantage over the Lascannon right there.

 Genestealer Jesse wrote:

 Carnage43 wrote:

TheLumberJack wrote:So does this mean the battle cannon can kill at most 6 people or at most 18 people?

6 people. 6 models hit, each taking D3 wounds. Wounds will not spill over between models. Eg. A lascannon will do D6 wounds, but only kill a single model, not 6 potentially. At least, that's how it's always worked with GW.

You would think that a weaponized laser would punch a hole through an infantryman and any of his hapless buddies unlucky enough to be in back of him. Also wouldn't be a single bolt but a beam you could drag across a area target making it effective anti infantry or anti armor if you concentrate the beam at one point.

The logic holds up for a lascannon, but what about something like a melta-gun? Or a powerfist doing D6 wounds? Does the powerfist "pass through" 6 dudes? Are they just lining up to be killed?

The vendetta. 3 twin linked las cannons. That got quite the boost.

If the BC is a reliable​ template for what we can expect from blast weapons then blasts seem pretty crap. The BC is averaging 2 dead Marines a turn, and that's assuming they're just getting their normal 5+sv and not standing in cover for a 4+.

They really should have allowed BS to still matter for blasts by adding the model's BS to the hit roll, I.E 1d6+3 hits for the BC, up to a maximum of 6 hits. That still isn't very good (only 1 more dead Marines on average) but it's better than what we've seen so far.


Also, what is up with this"maximum potential" crap being peddled in this thread? That's NOT how probability works you goobers. Yeah the battle-has a higher damage potential then a vanquisher. And? A 50-man conscript blob has a higher damage potential then a vanquisher (if you roll 50 5+ to hit rolls and 50 6s to wound that's 50 wounds on a riptide, 16 unsaved wounds!), but who the hell in their right mind would say that conscripts are an effective anti-Riptide unit?

Averages matter, max potential on a variation is completely meaningless.

 BlaxicanX wrote:


They really should have allowed BS to still matter for blasts by adding the model's BS to the hit roll, I.E 1d6+3 hits for the BC, up to a maximum of 6 hits. That still isn't very good (only 1 more dead Marines on average) but it's better than what we've seen so far.

Ballistic Skill DOES matter. You use it to see if you hit the target. You roll d6 (for the heavy d6) and roll to hit that many times.

Why would you shoot a weapon that is capable of dealing D3 damage per wound, against models with 1 wound? That seems like a horrible misuse of this weapon.

This is an anti-vehicle weapon. You will effortlessly pop Rhinos with this thing.

Am i the only one who doesn't exclusively play a kill points game? Objectives, anyone? Firing multiple shots that deal D3 damage is so good.

 Marmatag wrote:
Why would you shoot a weapon that is capable of dealing D3 damage per wound, against models with 1 wound? That seems like a horrible misuse of this weapon.

This is an anti-vehicle weapon. You will effortlessly pop Rhinos with this thing.

Am i the only one who doesn't exclusively play a kill points game? Objectives, anyone? Firing multiple shots that deal D3 damage is so good.

Have we seen confirmation that 'damage" is dealt per model, or per unit? Per models makes sense, but it could be per unit.
So firing a weapon that does D3 damage could kill 1-3 one wound models in a unit. I do not think this is how it works, but can anyone confirm?

-

 Galef wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Why would you shoot a weapon that is capable of dealing D3 damage per wound, against models with 1 wound? That seems like a horrible misuse of this weapon.

This is an anti-vehicle weapon. You will effortlessly pop Rhinos with this thing.

Am i the only one who doesn't exclusively play a kill points game? Objectives, anyone? Firing multiple shots that deal D3 damage is so good.

Have we seen confirmation that 'damage" is dealt per model, or per unit? Per models makes sense, but it could be per unit.
So firing a weapon that does D3 damage could kill 1-3 one wound models in a unit. I do not think this is how it works, but can anyone confirm?

-

Yes. In Multiple places. Here is one of them:

Yeah, the battlecannon seems like a great weapon. It is clearly meant to take down large targets but can also be turned on small elite squads. Hands down the battlecannon is better than it was in 7th. Perhaps in a vacuum, the math works out that certain targets get a benefit vs. the new cannon vs. the old cannon, but it is clearly a better take-all-comers weapon than it used to be. This thing should be deadly against large targets - as a big tank cannon should!

 docdoom77 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:


They really should have allowed BS to still matter for blasts by adding the model's BS to the hit roll, I.E 1d6+3 hits for the BC, up to a maximum of 6 hits. That still isn't very good (only 1 more dead Marines on average) but it's better than what we've seen so far.

Ballistic Skill DOES matter. You use it to see if you hit the target. You roll d6 (for the heavy d6) and roll to hit that many times.

That doesn't make BS matter in a good way, that makes BS matter in a detrimental way.

You're already rolling for random hits, rolling TO-HIT on top of that is fething awful. With the old blast system,the trade-off for the punishing scatter system is that the number of hits you generate was at least guaranteed. They took a system that was 50% random and 50% constant and made it 100% random.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:


They really should have allowed BS to still matter for blasts by adding the model's BS to the hit roll, I.E 1d6+3 hits for the BC, up to a maximum of 6 hits. That still isn't very good (only 1 more dead Marines on average) but it's better than what we've seen so far.

Ballistic Skill DOES matter. You use it to see if you hit the target. You roll d6 (for the heavy d6) and roll to hit that many times.

That doesn't make BS matter in a good way, that makes BS matter in a detrimental way.

You're already rolling for random hits, rolling TO-HIT on top of that fething awful. With the old blast system,the trade-the for the punishing scatter system is that the number of hits you generate was at least guaranteed. They took a system that was 50% random and 50% constant and made it 100% random.

Eh. I'd have preferred d6+1 shots or 2d3 shots, but otherwise I consider this to be MUCH better than templates and it achieves much the same goals.

 docdoom77 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:


They really should have allowed BS to still matter for blasts by adding the model's BS to the hit roll, I.E 1d6+3 hits for the BC, up to a maximum of 6 hits. That still isn't very good (only 1 more dead Marines on average) but it's better than what we've seen so far.

Ballistic Skill DOES matter. You use it to see if you hit the target. You roll d6 (for the heavy d6) and roll to hit that many times.

That doesn't make BS matter in a good way, that makes BS matter in a detrimental way.

You're already rolling for random hits, rolling TO-HIT on top of that fething awful. With the old blast system,the trade-the for the punishing scatter system is that the number of hits you generate was at least guaranteed. They took a system that was 50% random and 50% constant and made it 100% random.

Eh. I'd have preferred d6+1 shots or 2d3 shots, but otherwise I consider this to be MUCH better than templates and it achieves much the same goals.

I prefer a d6 system to a template one as well (if only for how much less clunky it is), but I'm having a very hard time seeing how rolling for hits and then rolling to hit after is in any way a fair system. 6th edition taught us very well that randomness only weakens a game, it doesn't make it better. All it does is reduce unit choice by forcing players to pick the units with the least variation in performance.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Yarium wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
The battlecannon profile is...underwhelming.

It probably mirrors the current capability of the Battlecannon pretty well to be fair, except that more stuff will be getting saves against it, and it has been considered an underperforming weapon for at least 3 editions now.

More and more I'm thinking the classic Russ is going to be staying on shelves. Hopefully the variants show better and/or we see some other stuff change, but I don't see much reason to take the Battlecannon Russ, if the Exterminator for example gets 8 S7 AP -1 shots, even with only 1 Damage, it's going to be the generally superior platform.

While it may have a low expected value, that just means that 50% of the time it does MORE damage than that, and 50% of the time it does LESS damage than that.

Right, but you want to judge these things by the average as much as possible, you don't want to take a weapon thats capable if "OMG" damage and expect it to routinely output that if its practical chances of doing so are very low. The average tells us how it is most likely to perform.

Reducing a single high variance weapon with a battlecannon like profile to a '1.17 wounds' is really disingenuous though and pretty much doesn't give us any useful information. It's an awful use of statistical averages. It might be passable for '10 bolt guns shooting at a unit of Orks' type scenarios where you're rolling a set large amount of dice in only 2 stages hit and wound, but even then when you end up with a 6.66 dead orks type figure, it can be quite misleading to players if they don't realise that there could be a 60% chance that they won't deal between 5 and 8 wounds (I'm fudging numbers here.)

Useful information would be plotting curves, or info like % chances of doing 0 wounds, or % chance of doing 3+ wounds to a T7/3+ save target, chance of doing 6+ wounds, etc.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:


They really should have allowed BS to still matter for blasts by adding the model's BS to the hit roll, I.E 1d6+3 hits for the BC, up to a maximum of 6 hits. That still isn't very good (only 1 more dead Marines on average) but it's better than what we've seen so far.

Ballistic Skill DOES matter. You use it to see if you hit the target. You roll d6 (for the heavy d6) and roll to hit that many times.

That doesn't make BS matter in a good way, that makes BS matter in a detrimental way.

You're already rolling for random hits, rolling TO-HIT on top of that fething awful. With the old blast system,the trade-the for the punishing scatter system is that the number of hits you generate was at least guaranteed. They took a system that was 50% random and 50% constant and made it 100% random.

Eh. I'd have preferred d6+1 shots or 2d3 shots, but otherwise I consider this to be MUCH better than templates and it achieves much the same goals.

I prefer a d6 system to a template one as well (if only for how much less clunky it is), but I'm having a very hard time seeing how rolling for hits and then rolling to hit after is in any way a fair system. 6th edition taught us very well that randomness only weakens a game, it doesn't make it better. All it does is reduce unit choice by forcing players to pick the units with the least variation in performance.

I see the roll to see how many hit as a how big the blast would be, then the hit for how many get hit by it. say a 30 sq foot area hit but while 3 were hit with a blast private steve was standing behind poor private Charles so Charles was only hit despite steve being in the blast radius

 docdoom77 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Why would you shoot a weapon that is capable of dealing D3 damage per wound, against models with 1 wound? That seems like a horrible misuse of this weapon.

This is an anti-vehicle weapon. You will effortlessly pop Rhinos with this thing.

Am i the only one who doesn't exclusively play a kill points game? Objectives, anyone? Firing multiple shots that deal D3 damage is so good.

Have we seen confirmation that 'damage" is dealt per model, or per unit? Per models makes sense, but it could be per unit.
So firing a weapon that does D3 damage could kill 1-3 one wound models in a unit. I do not think this is how it works, but can anyone confirm?

-

Yes. In Multiple places. Here is one of them:

Oh, thanx
Yeah that clearly means that you:
- roll all your hits, whether you get 1,2, D6, whatever,
- then you roll to wound, then you takes saves and for each failed save,
- THAT MODEL may take additional damage.
You would have to roll that damage to see if that models dies before rolling any further damage from unsaved wounds.

Example: Battle Cannon vs Terminators
BC gets 3 hits that do 3 wounds
Terminator fail 2 of those saves
1st Termie rolls D3
One of 2 things happens:
1) you roll a 1 and that Termie only takes 1 wound, thus rolls the D3 for the next unsaved wound, but you can only apply 1 wound since that's all the Termie has left to lose.
2) you roll 2 or more and that Termie dies, roll the next D3 on another Termie.

-

 Marmatag wrote:
Why would you shoot a weapon that is capable of dealing D3 damage per wound, against models with 1 wound? That seems like a horrible misuse of this weapon.

This is an anti-vehicle weapon. You will effortlessly pop Rhinos with this thing.

Am i the only one who doesn't exclusively play a kill points game? Objectives, anyone? Firing multiple shots that deal D3 damage is so good.

Yes shooting the battle cannon at 1W models is a waste. Luckily there are going to be more multi-wound infantry (like Terminators) so there will be plenty of infantry worth shooting with the LRBT.

 Galef wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:

Spoiler:

 Galef wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Why would you shoot a weapon that is capable of dealing D3 damage per wound, against models with 1 wound? That seems like a horrible misuse of this weapon.

This is an anti-vehicle weapon. You will effortlessly pop Rhinos with this thing.

Am i the only one who doesn't exclusively play a kill points game? Objectives, anyone? Firing multiple shots that deal D3 damage is so good.

Have we seen confirmation that 'damage" is dealt per model, or per unit? Per models makes sense, but it could be per unit.
So firing a weapon that does D3 damage could kill 1-3 one wound models in a unit. I do not think this is how it works, but can anyone confirm?

-

Yes. In Multiple places. Here is one of them:

Oh, thanx
Yeah that clearly means that you:
- roll all your hits, whether you get 1,2, D6, whatever,
- then you roll to wound, then you takes saves and for each failed save,
- THAT MODEL may take additional damage.
You would have to roll that damage to see if that models dies before rolling any further saves.

-

Exactly. And where that process will matter is multi-wound units and the decision making should be quick since they mentioned you'll have to remove wounded models first.

 Carnage43 wrote:

 Genestealer Jesse wrote:

 Carnage43 wrote:

TheLumberJack wrote:So does this mean the battle cannon can kill at most 6 people or at most 18 people?

6 people. 6 models hit, each taking D3 wounds. Wounds will not spill over between models. Eg. A lascannon will do D6 wounds, but only kill a single model, not 6 potentially. At least, that's how it's always worked with GW.

You would think that a weaponized laser would punch a hole through an infantryman and any of his hapless buddies unlucky enough to be in back of him. Also wouldn't be a single bolt but a beam you could drag across a area target making it effective anti infantry or anti armor if you concentrate the beam at one point.

The logic holds up for a lascannon, but what about something like a melta-gun? Or a powerfist doing D6 wounds? Does the powerfist "pass through" 6 dudes? Are they just lining up to be killed?

You're absolutely right on those counts. Maybe I'm asking the game to be too complicated.

wow las preds are gonna be amazing

CommanderRednaxela wrote:
So, what's the point of twin-linked anymore?

Take my Punisher Vulture 20 shots twin-linked means 40 shots! Why not just say it has 40 shots and be done with it, why do we need the special rule, and not just a change in stat line?

maybe because twin linking is still something that can be "given" to a weapon and not normally in its statline ?

BrianDavion wrote:
wow las preds are gonna be amazing

Hell yeah. 4 BS4 lascannon shots a turn.

If they remain like 100 points then they'll be one of if not the most cost-effective AV unit in the game.