New Warhammer 40,000: Weapons Part 2 - Today's update!

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.

**Ballasar**

Ronin_eX wrote:
Ballasar wrote:
Now that's been proven wrong ...

Except, you know, it hasn't. People are posting various kinds of mathhammer, some are interpreting that as the BC being the worst thing ever, others are looking at it in context of what has been revealed thusfar and seeing how its role appears to be changed.

It is best against multi-wound models, but unlike, say, a lascannon it can actually deal with other targets as well.

The numbers bear this out. It is a better anti-infantry weapon than a single heavy bolter (in fact, it's about twice as good). It is a better anti-vehicle weapon than the lascannon (which is actually pretty good this edition for anti-vehicle work). It hits its niche versus small units of multi-wound units with good saves (units likely to become much more common in 8th).

So there, you have what it is best at, and why some are referring to it as a jack-of-all trades in other places.

Will this cause it to be overpriced because it can do the jobs of multiple weapons? Who knows at this point. We can only discuss its apparent role and rules in relation to what has been revealed so far.

In terms of the other weapons we've seen it performs well in a variety of conditions alongside having potentially the highest single-target damage of any weapon revealed so far. Unlike other revealed anti-vehicle/MC weapons it can deal with more than a single target. And unlike revealed anti-infantry weaponry so far, it can deal with tougher, hardier units with multiple wounds. Those are the only definitive things we can say. To know whether it is efficient or inefficient in these varied roles is down to information we can't know yet. Pretending otherwise is tilting at windmills.

After typing out a much longer reply. I think we are coming at the topic from 2 very different perspectives. I agree that there is much we have yet to see and I've been quite pleased with much of what we have seen. I think the battle cannon issue is something we'll have to just agree to disagree on. I will continue to hold out hope that it works out in the end.

**Purifier**

Ballasar wrote:

Except you know it has. You can try to hand wave all the real math away under the guise of "we don't know everything yet" but that doesn't change the math. I'm looking for a positive here. But the only thing I've seen from most is "it looks a little better than the 7th ed one, so it must be good." A small step up from complete trash is still just trash.

To some degree I agree with you. We can compare it to other weapons and we can to a certain degree make some assumptions. That said, there can definitely be things that bring it up a lot. Rules might favour it slightly, but more importantly, things like Orders may well play right into its wheel house. Or it may not. We don't know.

**Lythrandire Biehrellian**

It also doesn't have ordinance anymore, it also can shoot at different targets than whatever the tank is also equiped with, it also has 12 wounds and toughness 8 with a 3+ save.

The old battle cannon was 15 points more expensive than a heavy bolter in my vehicle design rules, and that price was constant throughout every vehicle equiped with a battle cannon.

If they remain the same price, then heavy bolter on a 4+ to hit is 10 points,, while battle cannon is worth 25. 15 points for 24" higher range, better to wound rolls, better armor penetration, causes a similar number of hits per round and has a better damage per hit ratio.

That sounds like a win to me if it continues the current trend.

**Purifier**

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It also doesn't have ordinance anymore, it also can shoot at different targets than whatever the tank is also equiped with, it also has 12 wounds and toughness 8 with a 3+ save.

Good points.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

The old battle cannon was 15 points more expensive than a heavy bolter in my vehicle design rules, and that price was constant throughout every vehicle equiped with a battle cannon.

If they remain the same price, then heavy bolter on a 4+ to hit is 10 points,, while battle cannon is worth 25. 15 points for 24" higher range, better to wound rolls, better armor penetration, causes a similar number of hits per round and has a better damage per hit ratio.

That sounds like a win to me if it continues the current trend.

Not a good point. A heavy bolter doesn't have to pay the price of the relatively expensive weapons platform that the tank is to be fielded. So while true, it's disingenuous to compare the two in a vacuum.

**Talamare**

tneva82 wrote:

You want all purpose tank, take the exterminator. Kills more light infantry, kills more heavy infantry and is doing it's job well against monsters. About only thing it's worse is T8 multi wound models with good saves but for example vs T7 2+ save battle cannon is only bit better. T6 targets and they are basically equal at least for 2+ save guys.

Exterminator is the all purpose tank. Battle cannon is cheaper version of very specified niche tank.

Oh, did I miss the post where they told us what the new Exterminator stat line is?

BlaxicanX wrote:
Ronin_eX wrote:
The numbers bear this out. It is a better anti-infantry weapon than a single heavy bolter (in fact, it's about twice as good). It is a better anti-vehicle weapon than the lascannon (which is actually pretty good this edition for anti-vehicle work). It hits its niche versus small units of multi-wound units with good saves (units likely to become much more common in 8th).

The numbers don't bear it out because you're failing to calculate points-per-wound. It may put out twice as many wounds as a heavy bolter but it isn't "twice as good" unless it's less than twice the cost, and the same is true for the lascannon comparison.

There is no way for you to spin the battlecannon as being "a jack of all trades" so long as it's averaging only one to two wounds on every unit type in the game. That isn't a jack-of-all-trades, that's being terrible at everything.

I've already proven it right using Mathhammer
Standard Guard (and other hoard infantry) is 5+Save, which this removes.
S8 means it is rolling 2+ to hit against basically all Hoard Infantry.

The best part is... Even if it gets mathematically proven to be only okay at killing Hoards. My argument still makes me the winner overall.
Which is, It's fine shooting at literally everything you point at it. It won't beat specialized weapons, but you won't ever feel like you just shot a Lascannon into a Squad of 50 or a Lasgun into a Morkanaut.

So, yea man. You can keep repeating yourself, but I'm dropping the mic on you.

**Halfpast_Yellow**

BlaxicanX wrote:
Talamare wrote:
The Battle Cannon is basically Good at shooting EVERYTHING

Oh?

Spoiler:

Please tell me more. What information are you privy to that makes killing 2 hormagaunts or a single marine sound like "good shooting"? Is the battle-cannon Leman Russ 50 points, or something?

Please stop posting this 'mathhammer' site, it's an awful way of modelling expectations.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Here, 100000 trials. Demonstrating wound distribution and # of models hit distribution.

**jeff white**

BlaxicanX wrote:
We know based off available data that the battlecannon is averaging about two dead GEQ a turn, or 1 dead MEQ or one dead TEQ a turn.

So exactly how many points do you think 2 dead guardsmen or 1 dead termie or marine with average rolls is worth? Do you seriously think that it's going to cost like 50 points for the stock Russ+BC?

We don't know everything yet, but it's not difficult to infer or eliminate completely unlikely scenarios, like the tank costing 50 points. lol

A tank is more than its guns.
And that is not even its only gun.
If it were a mobile heavy weapons platform with two or three crew and toughness seven then it should cost what?
The tank is more than anything a threat sure to draw a lot of fire and to be a big distraction from an opponent's battle plans when her or his own guns don't manage to take it out as she or he might have expected. Hard to put points on this sort of thing.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It also doesn't have ordinance anymore, it also can shoot at different targets than whatever the tank is also equiped with, it also has 12 wounds and toughness 8 with a 3+ save.

The old battle cannon was 15 points more expensive than a heavy bolter in my vehicle design rules, and that price was constant throughout every vehicle equiped with a battle cannon.

If they remain the same price, then heavy bolter on a 4+ to hit is 10 points,, while battle cannon is worth 25. 15 points for 24" higher range, better to wound rolls, better armor penetration, causes a similar number of hits per round and has a better damage per hit ratio.

That sounds like a win to me if it continues the current trend.

This is truth on a cracker IMO.

**Halfpast_Yellow**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Here, 100000 trials. Demonstrating wound distribution and # of models hit distribution.

Yes, this is much better.

Now what would be helpful is to see the modelling of a Heavy Bolter and a Lascannon (weapons we know) in the same way. And then a repeat of all three against T4 or less 3+ saves single wound models, and T4 or less 3+ saves multiple wound models.

Then we can have a discussion of expected comparative points values, and the comparative value of multi-purpose vs specialisation.

I'm not asking you to do that of course, I'm just going to hypothesize that the Battlecannon is going come out the other side looking to be in a pretty good place.

**Lythrandire Biehrellian**

Purifier wrote:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It also doesn't have ordinance anymore, it also can shoot at different targets than whatever the tank is also equiped with, it also has 12 wounds and toughness 8 with a 3+ save.

Good points.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

The old battle cannon was 15 points more expensive than a heavy bolter in my vehicle design rules, and that price was constant throughout every vehicle equiped with a battle cannon.

If they remain the same price, then heavy bolter on a 4+ to hit is 10 points,, while battle cannon is worth 25. 15 points for 24" higher range, better to wound rolls, better armor penetration, causes a similar number of hits per round and has a better damage per hit ratio.

That sounds like a win to me if it continues the current trend.

Not a good point. A heavy bolter doesn't have to pay the price of the relatively expensive weapons platform that the tank is to be fielded. So while true, it's disingenuous to compare the two in a vacuum.

But they aren't in a vacuum. They are on the exact same platform in this instance. So, if a Leman Russ paid 10 points for a heavy bolter and 25 for a battle cannon the only difference is the cost because everything else is equal. Yes other units can take a heavy bolter, but that doesn't mean their price points aren't able to be compared directly.

Also, before someone states it, the battle cannon is NOT 150% more expensive, it is 15 points more expensive. That is a small difference in this game system.

**Luke_Prowler**

I would say this seems like bad news for killkannons, but no one used those anyway.

**Lythrandire Biehrellian**

Hopefully they realise the level of their mistake with the killcannon. It should be about 15 points,, not the 30 something it costs when you add in the points lost for transported models.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Here, 100000 trials. Demonstrating wound distribution and # of models hit distribution.

Yes, this is much better.

Now what would be helpful is to see the modelling of a Heavy Bolter and a Lascannon (weapons we know) in the same way. And then a repeat of all three against T4 or less 3+ saves single wound models, and T4 or less 3+ saves multiple wound models.

Then we can have a discussion of expected comparative points values, and the comparative value of multi-purpose vs specialisation.

I'm not asking you to do that of course, I'm just going to hypothesize that the Battlecannon is going come out the other side looking to be in a pretty good place.

IG Lascannon is inferior to IG Battle Cannon

Also, Meltagun in Melta Range.

10000 trials each.

**Earth127**

Talamare wrote:
The Battle Cannon is basically Good at shooting EVERYTHING

It's not the best anti infantry with mediocre number of shots, but d6 dudes a turn is pretty good.

It's not the best anti elite infantry with mediocre AP, but -2 AP and potential for d3 damage is pretty good.

It's not the best anti tank with mediocre d3 damage, but being able to deal d6 shots makes it pretty good.

ITS AN ALL PURPOSE TANK

It shouldn't outshine specialized options, but it should be alright at all targets.

It does it's job perfectly.

That's pretty much my conclusion as well.

Also @Katherine can you give some context on your simmulations and run comparitive damage vs different kinds of target?
I can use excell for statistical calculation but can't program worth gak.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Earth127 wrote:
Talamare wrote:
The Battle Cannon is basically Good at shooting EVERYTHING

It's not the best anti infantry with mediocre number of shots, but d6 dudes a turn is pretty good.

It's not the best anti elite infantry with mediocre AP, but -2 AP and potential for d3 damage is pretty good.

It's not the best anti tank with mediocre d3 damage, but being able to deal d6 shots makes it pretty good.

ITS AN ALL PURPOSE TANK

It shouldn't outshine specialized options, but it should be alright at all targets.

It does it's job perfectly.

That's pretty much my conclusion as well.

I've processed the numbers, and I disagree. Don't shoot infantry. You'll achieve next to nothing. You can achieve 1-3 wounds split between 1, sometimes 2, targets, about 50% of the time.

**Earth127**

can you give some context on your simmulations and run comparitive damage vs different kinds of target?
I can use excell for statistical calculation but can't program worth gak.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also bad at explaining I'm afraid

**Halfpast_Yellow**

Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Here, 100000 trials. Demonstrating wound distribution and # of models hit distribution.

Yes, this is much better.

Now what would be helpful is to see the modelling of a Heavy Bolter and a Lascannon (weapons we know) in the same way. And then a repeat of all three against T4 or less 3+ saves single wound models, and T4 or less 3+ saves multiple wound models.

Then we can have a discussion of expected comparative points values, and the comparative value of multi-purpose vs specialisation.

I'm not asking you to do that of course, I'm just going to hypothesize that the Battlecannon is going come out the other side looking to be in a pretty good place.

IG Lascannon is inferior to IG Battle Cannon

Also, Meltagun in Melta Range.

10000 trials each.

This is good for getting my head around the variance, thanks!

Meltaguns in Melta range are obviously the go to for chance of stacking up wounds on single models, I think the Battlecannon being slightly better than but more equivalent to the Lascannon vs single tough targets and able to shoot down range the same 48" is fair.

If you could do me a favour, how does 2 Lascannon shots hitting on 3+ come out? (Space Marine Pred Annihilator turret or Land Raider sponson)

**Waaargh**

Lord Katherine whar exactly am I looking at? I can see some pillar diagrams and some numbers. Excuse me for not seeing the obvious, please explain what the numbers mean.

**Halfpast_Yellow**

Waaargh wrote:
Lord Katherine whar exactly am I looking at? I can see some pillar diagrams and some numbers. Excuse me for not seeing the obvious, please explain what the numbers mean.

I'm not a statistician, so there is probably a formal name for it, but I'd call it % expectations.

So example the blue pillars for the battlecannon, everytime you shoot one, you can expect 45% of the time nothing to happen, 12.25% of the time exactly 1 wound to be caused, 15.4% of the time exactly 3 wounds to be caused, and so on.

This is better for assessment than reducing the battlecannon down to 'firing a battlecannon at a Rhino does 1.17 wounds' type mathhammer we see elsewhere. For one, you can't do .17 of a wound, and it doesn't illustrate any sort of potential variance at all.
The modelling is against T7 3+ save.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Earth127 wrote:can you give some context on your simmulations and run comparitive damage vs different kinds of target?
I can use excell for statistical calculation but can't program worth gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also bad at explaining I'm afraid

I can. 100000 trials for the Battle Cannon, 10000 for the others, target is T5-7, Sv. 3+, not in cover. Approximately a modern Carnifex.

I basically wrote into the cells die rollers, and logic statements that tested whether or not the shot hit, wounded, was saved, and how much damage it caused, then repeated 100000 times, and collected the data. It's fairly simple.

Waaargh wrote:Lord Katherine whar exactly am I looking at? I can see some pillar diagrams and some numbers. Excuse me for not seeing the obvious, please explain what the numbers mean.

The blue bars represent the percentage of the 100000 trials that resulted in that many wounds. The orange bars represent the percentage of the 100000 trials that struck that many models.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

I'm not a statistician, so there is probably a formal name for it, but I'd call it % expectations.

So example the blue pillars for the battlecannon, everytime you shoot one, you can expect 45% of the time nothing to happen, 12.25% of the time exactly 1 wound to be caused, 15.4% of the time exactly 3 wounds to be caused, and so on.

This is better for assessment than reducing the battlecannon down to 'firing a battlecannon at a Rhino does 1.17 wounds' type mathhammer we see elsewhere. For one, you can't do .17 of a wound, and it doesn't illustrate any sort of potential variance at all.
The modelling is against T7 3+ save.

Sure, give me ten. And this is a lot more useful than average results, because as you can see, the average 1.5 wounds caused by the battle cannon tells you nothing about it's actual performance.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:

This is good for getting my head around the variance, thanks!

Meltaguns in Melta range are obviously the go to for chance of stacking up wounds on single models, I think the Battlecannon being slightly better than but more equivalent to the Lascannon vs single tough targets and able to shoot down range the same 48" is fair.

If you could do me a favour, how does 2 Lascannon shots hitting on 3+ come out? (Space Marine Pred Annihilator turret or Land Raider sponson)

Here you go. Space Marine Twin-Linked Lascannon, 50000 trials.

Looks good, and mighty dangerous. Especially compared to ImpyGuard weapon systems.

Also, I'm going to be travelling from about an hour from now to late this evening, so if anyone wants me to process the numbers for any other weapon systems, tell me now and I can run it while I fly. I intend to run the numbers for the entire Leman Russ tanks and Predator tank to see where we end up in the end.

**Waaargh**

Thanks for explanation.

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Waaargh wrote:
Thanks for explanation.

You're welcome. Hope it helps give a better idea of how the Battle Cannon, and other weapons, can be expected to perform.

**Earth127**

Is there you can make excell give you the result of 1000000 simulations rather then dragging it across your screen?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alright I found trutorial/command

**Youn**

So, what you have proven is I have to put a magnet on each of my terminators to represent their wounds. As a battlecannon fired at a squad of terminators has a very good chance of putting 1 wound on about 3 terminators each. And I will have to be able to represent spreading wounds over the entire unit.

The question then because if fired on a second time do I have to put those wounds on the same terminators or can I spread them out of the rest of the terminators and finally when I run out of second wounds pull one terminator off the pile.

**Purifier**

Youn wrote:
So, what you have proven is I have to put a magnet on each of my terminators to represent their wounds. As a battlecannon fired at a squad of terminators has a very good chance of putting 1 wound on about 3 terminators each. And I will have to be able to represent spreading wounds over the entire unit.

The question then because if fired on a second time do I have to put those wounds on the same terminators or can I spread them out of the rest of the terminators and finally when I run out of second wounds pull one terminator off the pile.

It seems very probable that the rules will tell you to keep wounding anyone that you have started wounding.

**JohnMarik**

Youn wrote:
So, what you have proven is I have to put a magnet on each of my terminators to represent their wounds. As a battlecannon fired at a squad of terminators has a very good chance of putting 1 wound on about 3 terminators each. And I will have to be able to represent spreading wounds over the entire unit.

The question then because if fired on a second time do I have to put those wounds on the same terminators or can I spread them out of the rest of the terminators and finally when I run out of second wounds pull one terminator off the pile.

Wasn't it confirmed that you have to apply wounds to wounded models first? So if termie squad took 3 wounds that'd be one dead termie and one with 1 W?

**Halfpast_Yellow**

That Space Marine TL Lascannon looks nasty. 25% stripping 4+ wounds vs ~14% for the Battlecannon, which then falls away sharply.

We still don't know if Guard have any sort of orders that will give them a to-hit boost on their tanks that general purpose SM tanks won't get. Speculation.

How does a Single Heavy Bolter stack up vs 2 Heavy Bolters vs a Battlecannon vs a Lascannon, against single wound T3-T4 models with 3+ save (out of cover)?

**Inquisitor Lord Katherine**

Leman Russ Battle Tank (Blue) [BC, Las, Multimelta, Multimelta], Predator Annihilator (Orange) [Las, Las, Las], Leman Russ Vanquisher [Predicted H1, S8, Sv-3, 2D6B1] [Vq, Las, Multimelta, Multimelta] (Grey), Leman Russ Exterminator [Predicted H8, S7, Sv-1, 1] [Ac, HB, HB, HB] (Yellow)

The chart is hard to read, but if you want to hit hard, you want the Vanquisher. The Vanquisher completely flubs most frequently, but it also puts out a lot of wounds on target fairly well. The battle tank does so pretty well as well, so we can infer that much of this comes from choice of sponson.

Exterminator is fairly reliable, and is resolved against infantry. It looks like a lot of the tank's power is coming from the Multimeltas, since the Exterminator can't hit the high rolls at all, even though it's maximum potential isn't that much lower.

**Youn**

JohnMarik wrote:
Youn wrote:
So, what you have proven is I have to put a magnet on each of my terminators to represent their wounds. As a battlecannon fired at a squad of terminators has a very good chance of putting 1 wound on about 3 terminators each. And I will have to be able to represent spreading wounds over the entire unit.

The question then because if fired on a second time do I have to put those wounds on the same terminators or can I spread them out of the rest of the terminators and finally when I run out of second wounds pull one terminator off the pile.

Wasn't it confirmed that you have to apply wounds to wounded models first? So if termie squad took 3 wounds that'd be one dead termie and one with 1 W?

No, what was said is if a lascannon fires at a squad of guardsman, One guardsman dies and the other five guardsman don't die of sympathy pains. In this case, you allocate out hits, then resolve the damage off each of their saves. It hasn't been stated that you have to allocated out the hits on the same target until it's dead.

**tneva82**

Youn wrote:
JohnMarik wrote:
Youn wrote:
So, what you have proven is I have to put a magnet on each of my terminators to represent their wounds. As a battlecannon fired at a squad of terminators has a very good chance of putting 1 wound on about 3 terminators each. And I will have to be able to represent spreading wounds over the entire unit.

The question then because if fired on a second time do I have to put those wounds on the same terminators or can I spread them out of the rest of the terminators and finally when I run out of second wounds pull one terminator off the pile.

Wasn't it confirmed that you have to apply wounds to wounded models first? So if termie squad took 3 wounds that'd be one dead termie and one with 1 W?

No, what was said is if a lascannon fires at a squad of guardsman, One guardsman dies and the other five guardsman don't die of sympathy pains. In this case, you allocate out hits, then resolve the damage off each of their saves. It hasn't been stated that you have to allocated out the hits on the same target until it's dead.

Well seeing they are looking at making game faster don't you think it's BIT unlikely they would suddenly slow down game like that and deviate from 8th ed's spiritual ancestor AOS?

I mean sure technically they haven't yet stated it but then again some things can be deduced pretty well. Hands up who was surprised by battle cannons stats? Or standard heavy bolter?