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.

 Charistoph wrote:

 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.

What? A single model can get hit with the same weapon multiple times, if you fire a battle cannon at Robby G, you can hit him up to six times with the battle cannon if he doesn't have anyone to jump in the way of the blast. Anything else would be bizzaro

 Charistoph wrote:

 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'm not sure I understand what you're saying. A single model can certainly receive more than one hit from a single weapon. If you fire a Battle Cannon at a Dreadnought, it will fire d6 times at the dreadnought with each successful unsaved wound becoming d3 wounds.

If you fire it at a squad of marines, it will fire d6 times and each unsaved wound will remove a single model (no need to roll the d3, since marines have one wound each).

 TheLumberJack wrote:
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

That was my first instinct too, but the inverse of that is that a BC (or similar weapon) is going to have a slightly flatter damage output (and flatter is better for planning) as you won't have the entire total of one turn's output hinging on one successful roll.

 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?

Both are true. No more wound allocation shenanigans and wounds don't bleed over.

In the case of one wound models, or unwounded models, it will go with the AoS method of letting the defender pick which models get hit/killed.

 TheLumberJack wrote:
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

That would be rather counter-productive, I think, and would definitely add more steps in to the system.

 Charistoph wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
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

That would be rather counter-productive, I think, and would definitely add more steps in to the system.

...How would it add steps to the process?

Process as is:
1. Roll number of shots for each blast
2. Roll to-hit for each shot
3. Roll to-wound
4. Roll saves, if any
5. Roll damage

Process as suggested by TheLumberJack:
1. Roll to-hit for each blast
2. Roll number of hits
3. Roll to-wound
4. Roll saves, if any
5. Roll damage

If anything, it removes rolls (only ever roll a single to-hit roll, rather than 1d6 to-hit rolls) while maintaining the same number of steps.

 docdoom77 wrote:
Since it keeps coming up:

This makes the battle cannon complete trash. The hull mounted lascannon is a better anti tank weapon and the sponson mounted heavy bolters are better anti infantry weapons.

Ballasar wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Since it keeps coming up:

This makes the battle cannon complete trash. The hull mounted lascannon is a better anti tank weapon and the sponson mounted heavy bolters are better anti infantry weapons.

it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright, but it won't excell at eaither.

If the Battlecannon could choose between regular HE rounds and AT rounds, that might be good, compared to a gun that is basically an Autocannon that's only better against W2-W3 targets.

While a Leman Russ tank can only kill a max of 6 duders in a squad (then maybe more from Battleshock)

It can 1 shot another Leman Russ tank

(never mind)

 Unusual Suspect wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 TheLumberJack wrote:
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

That would be rather counter-productive, I think, and would definitely add more steps in to the system.

...How would it add steps to the process?

Process as is:
1. Roll number of shots for each blast
2. Roll to-hit for each shot
3. Roll to-wound
4. Roll saves, if any
5. Roll damage

Process as suggested by TheLumberJack:
1. Roll to-hit for each blast
2. Roll number of hits
3. Roll to-wound
4. Roll saves, if any
5. Roll damage

If anything, it removes rolls (only ever roll a single to-hit roll, rather than 1d6 to-hit rolls) while maintaining the same number of steps.

Yeah that was the plan, to make it simpler and a more reliable infantry killer

Ugh, if "blast" weapons have to roll to hit now it's a massive and pointless nerf. You get D6 shots, for an average of 3.5, at a 4+ to hit (5+ if you moved), then we'll be generous and say it's a T4 target so you're still at a 2+ to wound instead of 3+ (as the new to-wound table will nerf it to in many situations). That's 1.45 wounds even if you're standing still, and your target is still probably getting a save. That's a definite reduction in firepower, with the potential for one poor roll on the shot count to completely ruin it. This would be much more reasonable if the former blast weapons auto-hit, and the D6 roll is to see how many hits you get instead of losing at least 50% of your shots to poor IG BS.

And yes, scatter rolls had a chance of missing entirely, but it was a bell curve of scatter distance where reasonable hits were far more likely than complete misses. Now getting 1 shot is just as likely as getting 6.

 Peregrine wrote:
And yes, scatter rolls had a chance of missing entirely, but it was a bell curve of scatter distance where reasonable hits were far more likely than complete misses. Now getting 1 shot is just as likely as getting 6.

But they already had a roll to hit.

You roll the scatter die, it hits 1-in-3 times, and for IG scatter was usually 2d6-3, which gives a reasonable range of 3-5" of scatter expected. 4" of scatter could easily throw the template off of a whole unit and cause a clean miss, hell, 3" could do that (or cause a measly clip on one model).

Random hits is not really any different, but now it doesn't need to perform the fuzzy logic when balancing things out take in to account whether your opponent owns a 2" tool or whether they're a complete burk that has bunched all their units so that one pie plate will erase them from the field.

Better still, with hits being rolled first, it actually creates a smoother probability that you will hit, rather than the previous system which hinged it all on a single roll with a high chance of failure. The scatter system they've been using has massively punished guard for a while, basically instituting a -1 to-hit mod on their blast weapons and making sure scatter seldom allowed shots to stay even a little on target after the fact.

So sure, there is some variance in the amount of shots you'll hit under the new system, but given how unreliable the things have been for years this is still a marked improvement. That one-in-a-million time you manage to wipe a full 10-man marine squad off the board is equally as ludicrous as a single BC shot dealing 18 wounds.

In return? The battle cannon now gains actual effectiveness against a great many units. It is a better anti-tank weapon now (in some cases better than a lascannon), it can deal with the (soon to be more common) multi-wound infantry we'll be seeing, and it can actually scare monstrous creatures now. So yeah, an Ork horde wont be shaking in their boots from a BC alone (but they may not enjoy the BC and three heavy bolters firing simultaneously at them), but considering that large footslogging horde lists have sucked for a while why is the BC countering them a high priority in place of dealing with small units with good defenses alongside beefier multi-wound vehicles and monsters.

The new battle cannon is a hell of a lot more reliable and useful than it has been in a long while and it works against a great deal more things than it did before. Sure, sometimes you roll 1 hit, just like (usually) you'd have your shot scatter an clip a unit (at best). But now firing the battle cannon doesn't preclude firing any other weapon, and it is quite a bit more useful at dealing with other vehicles and monstrous creatures. I fail to see how this thing was worse than it has been, seems like a marked improvement. If the Vindicator gets a similar bump I may actually put mine back in the field again.

BrianDavion wrote:

Ballasar wrote:

 docdoom77 wrote:
Since it keeps coming up:

This makes the battle cannon complete trash. The hull mounted lascannon is a better anti tank weapon and the sponson mounted heavy bolters are better anti infantry weapons.

it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright, but it won't excell at eaither.

But it dose neither in a way to make it worth taking. Kills a max of 6 troops? That's a waste of points that could be spent on a real anti infantry weapon. Same for anti tank.

Whoo everybody has loota's now. : )

 Ronin_eX wrote:
You roll the scatter die, it hits 1-in-3 times, and for IG scatter was usually 2d6-3, which gives a reasonable range of 3-5" of scatter expected. 4" of scatter could easily throw the template off of a whole unit and cause a clean miss, hell, 3" could do that (or cause a measly clip on one model).

Except, again, the scatter roll is a bell curve where the middle is far more likely than the extremes. Add in the 1/3 chance of a direct hit and the 3" scatter reduction and you'd pretty consistently get at least 1-2 models under the template even if you didn't get it exactly where you wanted it, and complete misses were rare. Now you have the same chance of getting 1 shot as 6, and the 4+ (or worse!) to-hit roll reduces that even more. The average hit count is probably lower, and complete misses are now a lot more likely.

The scatter system they've been using has massively punished guard for a while, basically instituting a -1 to-hit mod on their blast weapons and making sure scatter seldom allowed shots to stay even a little on target after the fact.

Nope, it's the exact opposite. Blast templates are how we make up for our poor BS, and now 8th is going to make everything depend on those 4+ (or worse!) to-hit rolls.

Scatter also meant that while you could miss your target, you could have a chance at popping another nearby squad.

Having said that - Yes, the battlecannon does appear to be total trash, but once you remember that you're not snap-firing the hull and sponson mounted guns anymore then it's nowhere near as bad a package deal. The D3 wounds and D6 shots also mean that it's mildly threatening to MC's or vehicles too unlike 7th where you had no chance at doing anything to any of the good MC's and still had virtually no impact even on the bad ones. Not to mention we still don't know how many points it's going to be. Would you all still be complaining if a Russ was 10 points a model?

I do worry a bit for vengance weapon batteries, but then, mine have only ever made a single hit between the pair of them (and then failed to even glance the rhino!) in the 20+ games they've seen the field, so I doubt they can get any worse!

 Drasius wrote:
Scatter also meant that while you could miss your target, you could have a chance at popping another nearby squad.

Having said that - Yes, the battlecannon does appear to be total trash, but once you remember that you're not snap-firing the hull and sponson mounted guns anymore then it's nowhere near as bad a package deal. The D3 wounds and D6 shots also mean that it's mildly threatening to MC's or vehicles too unlike 7th where you had no chance at doing anything to any of the good MC's and still had virtually no impact even on the bad ones. Not to mention we still don't know how many points it's going to be. Would you all still be complaining if a Russ was 10 points a model?

I do worry a bit for vengance weapon batteries, but then, mine have only ever made a single hit between the pair of them (and then failed to even glance the rhino!) in the 20+ games they've seen the field, so I doubt they can get any worse!

I was thinking about price too. We are complaining but taking a battlecannon may be super cheap compared to the other options

Well I er uh....
Well done Gdubs, you managed to hype us up for an amazing reboot of the IG line....
And then kill our most iconic tank gun.
Thanks.

BrianDavion wrote:
it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright,

Where is this meme coming from?



How is that "alright"? How is this a "jack of all trades" weapon? "Jack of All Trades" implies that you're at least decent at everything. Unless the BC Russ is like 50 point it's awful at everything.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well I er uh....
Well done Gdubs, you managed to hype us up for an amazing reboot of the IG line....
And then kill our most iconic tank gun.
Thanks.

The Russ was already dead in 7th. You are just too stubborn to admit it and that's why you lose. I borrowed my friend's IG and won an ITC style game vs big bad ultramarines. My list had zero russes. Turns out wyverns and multilasers kill a lot of marines dead.

Martel732 wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Well I er uh....
Well done Gdubs, you managed to hype us up for an amazing reboot of the IG line....
And then kill our most iconic tank gun.
Thanks.

The Russ was already dead in 7th. You are just too stubborn to admit it and that's why you lose. I borrowed my friend's IG and won an ITC style game vs big bad ultramarines. My list had zero russes.

lmao. Where does this randomly personal post come from?

I've told this particular poster about Russes in 7th at least five times. The battle cannon is terrible in 7th because of the ordinance rule and AV 14 is mostly terrible b/c of grav, etc. If the Russ can fire its other weapons with no penalty, the actual strength of the battlecannon is just gravy.

...Maybe my Fire Prism will give up its long, long streak of never actually hitting anything this edition?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
it's a generalist weapon, it can kill troops and tanks, both alright,

Where is this meme coming from?

Spoiler:

How is that "alright"? How is this a "jack of all trades" weapon? "Jack of All Trades" implies that you're at least decent at everything. Unless the BC Russ is like 50 point it's awful at everything.

This person gets it.

Currently a small blast covers an area of 7.07 inches squared whilst a large blast covers an area of 19.63 inches squared. The large blast covers almost 3 times as much area as the small blast. So unless small blasts are D2 rather than D3, it means large blasts have been nerfed compared to small blasts. If that is the case it needs to be represented properly in the points costing otherwise GW hasn't done any of its maths properly.

I was thinking 5" blasts were going to be d6+2 personally.

If they have done their maths properly, taking current size templates into account then the following number of shots should apply for each:
3" (just over 1/3 of the size of the area of a 5") = D2 shots
7" (almost exactly double the size of the area of a 5" at 38.48 inches squared) = 2D6 shots
10" (exactly four times the size of the area of a 5" at 78.54 inches squared) = 4d6 shots

Anything else and their maths is off.

Edit- Personally I would have gone for:
3" = D3 + 1
5" = D6 + 2
7" = 2D6 + 4
10" = 4D6 + 8 (this seems high until you note with a bs3 Deathstrike you are still only averaging 11 hits - even a Fellblade with 7" blast is only averaging 7 hits at bs4)
IF you have to roll to hit rather than just auto hitting.

Anything else is just way too weak without serious points reductions across every army for blast weapons.

I just ran 100,000 trials of a Leman Russ Battle Cannon attack against a target with a toughness between 5 and 7 and a save of 3+.

The results are not encouraging.

By percentage, the wounds distribution is as follows:


As you can see, 45% of the time, the tank fails to achieve anything at all. When it does manage to achieve something, it scores between 1 and 3 wounds.

Yeah, I'm not sure that min 2 max 4 hits really represents a small template. You'd rarely catch 4 guys with a small template unless your opponent didn't know how to play. Never mind that on 40mm bases you're talking 1-2 models max.

Yeah, you're adding in TH rolls for each, I get that, but that's not really the point, since blasts already had some kind of TH roll already. The point is you will, generally, hit more models or one model more times in 8th than was possible in 7th, barring ideal conditions that rarely ever occurred.

I'm not sure how anyone looks at the new rules and gets to "OMG so much suck!". NO offense ot anyone in the thread, I just don't get it.