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:

Martel732 wrote: No one is going to kill your russ with small arms in 8th. Do the math.

Just like Grots won't kill a Terminator unit?

What are you suggesting? Be explicit.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:2. Infantry units don't have a really long range. Anything in range to shoot at your tanks has moved a considerable amount of distance or exposed itself to the brunt of your gunlines.

It depends on how you define really long range. Sure, Grots don't right now, but those Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas do have some range. And if they are sitting in cover with that long range, then they still have cover without being as exposed.

And that's the point, again, anti-tank weapons can actually be used against tanks. But his complaint was largely about small arms fire. Can you make a credible argument that anti-tank weaponry should not hurt or be threatening to tanks? I've already shared the math that 4 lascannon devastators have roughly a 7% chance to kill a Russ in 1 round of shooting. But i'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:3. While tanks are vulnerable to every weapon, all in all, they're less vulnerable to the weapons that killed them easily in 7th edition. Meltaguns, for instance, won't have an effective 1in3 chance to flat out explodes a vehicle. Additionally, the vehicle damage table is gone - in addition to survivability increase from this, you also get the benefit of usability. No more shaken, stunned, etc.

An assumption based on null data. In fact, they have mentioned that there are ways to instant-kill tanks still, I believe.

If they've mentioned it, find the source. Share it. I would imagine characters like Saint Celestine, or Magnus the Red, or Roboute Guilliman could 1 shot a tank. Saying tanks are less vulnerable to being 1 shot by meltaguns is absolutely not an assumption based on null data. You are making an assumption based on null data, actually.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:4. Ditching blasts means your tanks can hunt 1 big model if you want. You could, potentially, deliver 18 wounds to 1 nasty creature with 1 Leman Russ. Suddenly the Tau aren't auto-winning against your tanks and you can respond to Riptides with some measure of force.

Tau are one of those forces which rely on big long range guns that you mentioned do not exist in point 2. A Leman Russ is just as likely to survive a Riptide's opening salvo in 8th and it is in 7th. This is especially an agregious point as we don't know the Riptide's Weapon capabilities or the special rules that either unit will be employing.

On the one hand you mention a very specific probabilistic outcome, and in the next you say you don't know what the Riptide's weapon capabilities are. So, i'll just say i disagree until you prove this claim.

We are assuming the Leman Russ hits on a 4, but remember ballistic skill is different in this edition. Perhaps the Leman Russ has its own to hit profile of 3+. But even then, the battlecannon would still be nerfed beyond usability. Unless vanilla Russes cost 70 points (I am serious), they are not usable based on the rules we have been given.

In all seriousness, the Battle cannon would have to be D6+1 auto hits before I would even consider it being mediocre based on the rules we have been given.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
Sounds like the stats for BCannons just changed too much for some. The gun functions differently now, and it being such an iconic weapon on such an iconic unit, there's a decent amount of consternation as a result. There's an expectation in the minds of some that the Battle Cannon was something it's not anymore, and in my opinion maybe never was. They want a large blast template to put over the battlefield, smash a big hole in a large unit, kill lots of models with their big blasty tank gun. Now that it's basically been changed to be a run-of-the-mill tank-mounted cannon that's made for shooting at beefy targets and has less of a big, visual boom, the feels are flying.

Being points-inefficient and weak against all targets is "run of the mill"?

Dog you're speculating, and extrapolating, and you're doing it with feels.

How could you POSSIBLY say it's points inefficient, without knowing how many points it - or anything else in the game - costs?

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote: No one is going to kill your russ with small arms in 8th. Do the math.

Just like Grots won't kill a Terminator unit?

What are you suggesting? Be explicit.

I am suggesting that I can get a lot of Grots in range of a Terminator unit or a Leman Russ and by sheer numbers cause the Leman Russ to die with pistol-toting goblins.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

You want me to be explicit, but then try to defend a generalist statement of "any infantry unit". You seemed to be indicating an Infantry unit shooting at a tank cannot be also shooting at something else. This is not the case. Now, the guns they shoot at that Tank won't be shooting at something else, true, but usually the small arms are shooting at the Tank because they cannot effectively shoot at anything else, anyway.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:2. Infantry units don't have a really long range. Anything in range to shoot at your tanks has moved a considerable amount of distance or exposed itself to the brunt of your gunlines.

It depends on how you define really long range. Sure, Grots don't right now, but those Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas do have some range. And if they are sitting in cover with that long range, then they still have cover without being as exposed.

And that's the point, again, anti-tank weapons can actually be used against tanks. But his complaint was largely about small arms fire. Can you make a credible argument that anti-tank weaponry should not hurt or be threatening to tanks? I've already shared the math that 4 lascannon devastators have roughly a 7% chance to kill a Russ in 1 round of shooting. But i'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here.

It was more that you were implying that no infantry unit has anything with "a really long range". Currently Heavy Weapon squads, Devastator Squads, and Long Fangs fit that bill remarkably well, and they are all Infantry. Your own lack of explicitness is what is causing the comment. If you had said, "Infantry small arms don't have a really long range", then you would have been correct.

In addition, those same Infantry, whether carrying small or heavy arms, are going to be hugging cover as much in 8th as they are in 7th. Probably even more so for the Marine Boyz as Cover actually is useful against everything and not just Plasma/Grav. Exposure in 8th is just as likely to happen as it is now, unless some of those weapons gain an increase in range as well.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:3. While tanks are vulnerable to every weapon, all in all, they're less vulnerable to the weapons that killed them easily in 7th edition. Meltaguns, for instance, won't have an effective 1in3 chance to flat out explodes a vehicle. Additionally, the vehicle damage table is gone - in addition to survivability increase from this, you also get the benefit of usability. No more shaken, stunned, etc.

An assumption based on null data. In fact, they have mentioned that there are ways to instant-kill tanks still, I believe.

If they've mentioned it, find the source. Share it. I would imagine characters like Saint Celestine, or Magnus the Red, or Roboute Guilliman could 1 shot a tank. Saying tanks are less vulnerable to being 1 shot by meltaguns is absolutely not an assumption based on null data. You are making an assumption based on null data, actually.

It was part of the Profiles page at one point. They must have edited it out now that I look for it.

It still is possible that a Meltagun will have a 1in3 chance to completely remove a Vehicle as it is. We don't know of its stats or if it has any other special abilities. It is this part that we have null data on.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:4. Ditching blasts means your tanks can hunt 1 big model if you want. You could, potentially, deliver 18 wounds to 1 nasty creature with 1 Leman Russ. Suddenly the Tau aren't auto-winning against your tanks and you can respond to Riptides with some measure of force.

Tau are one of those forces which rely on big long range guns that you mentioned do not exist in point 2. A Leman Russ is just as likely to survive a Riptide's opening salvo in 8th and it is in 7th. This is especially an agregious point as we don't know the Riptide's Weapon capabilities or the special rules that either unit will be employing.

On the one hand you mention a very specific probabilistic outcome, and in the next you say you don't know what the Riptide's weapon capabilities are. So, i'll just say i disagree until you prove this claim.

Well, you can disagree, but this point of yours also is just as provable. We don't have the stats on the Riptide's weapons, but we know that they will be very good based on simple extrapolation. What if that generator of the Riptide converts the Damage from Savable to Mortal? That's just an example of possibilities we do not know.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Martel732 wrote: No one is going to kill your russ with small arms in 8th. Do the math.

Just like Grots won't kill a Terminator unit?

What are you suggesting? Be explicit.

I am suggesting that I can get a lot of Grots in range of a Terminator unit or a Leman Russ and by sheer numbers cause the Leman Russ to die with pistol-toting goblins.

Show the math of accomplishing this goal. It's somewhat absurd.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

You want me to be explicit, but then try to defend a generalist statement of "any infantry unit". You seemed to be indicating an Infantry unit shooting at a tank cannot be also shooting at something else. This is not the case. Now, the guns they shoot at that Tank won't be shooting at something else, true, but usually the small arms are shooting at the Tank because they cannot effectively shoot at anything else, anyway.

Any infantry unit (we've seen) cannot kill a Leman Russ with a measure of certainty. I proved this point in the extreme by demonstrating that a devastator squad with 4 lascannons has a 7% chance to kill a Leman Russ (deal 12 damage) in 1 turn. You're poking at my language, but again, your point is very unclear. Please state your argument! We are talking about non-anti-tank weapons hurting a Russ. Lascannons SHOULD hurt tanks.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:2. Infantry units don't have a really long range. Anything in range to shoot at your tanks has moved a considerable amount of distance or exposed itself to the brunt of your gunlines.

It depends on how you define really long range. Sure, Grots don't right now, but those Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas do have some range. And if they are sitting in cover with that long range, then they still have cover without being as exposed.

And that's the point, again, anti-tank weapons can actually be used against tanks. But his complaint was largely about small arms fire. Can you make a credible argument that anti-tank weaponry should not hurt or be threatening to tanks? I've already shared the math that 4 lascannon devastators have roughly a 7% chance to kill a Russ in 1 round of shooting. But i'm not sure exactly what you're arguing here.

It was more that you were implying that no infantry unit has anything with "a really long range". Currently Heavy Weapon squads, Devastator Squads, and Long Fangs fit that bill remarkably well, and they are all Infantry. Your own lack of explicitness is what is causing the comment. If you had said, "Infantry small arms don't have a really long range", then you would have been correct.

This is hilarious. My lack of explicitness. Got it. This is not an argument. That is being argumentative. This whole point is derived from small arms fire hurting a tank. You seemed aware of this when you mentioned Grots but have since abandoned that train of thought and replaced small arms with lascannons and other 48" range guns...

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:3. While tanks are vulnerable to every weapon, all in all, they're less vulnerable to the weapons that killed them easily in 7th edition. Meltaguns, for instance, won't have an effective 1in3 chance to flat out explodes a vehicle. Additionally, the vehicle damage table is gone - in addition to survivability increase from this, you also get the benefit of usability. No more shaken, stunned, etc.

An assumption based on null data. In fact, they have mentioned that there are ways to instant-kill tanks still, I believe.

If they've mentioned it, find the source. Share it. I would imagine characters like Saint Celestine, or Magnus the Red, or Roboute Guilliman could 1 shot a tank. Saying tanks are less vulnerable to being 1 shot by meltaguns is absolutely not an assumption based on null data. You are making an assumption based on null data, actually.

It was part of the Profiles page at one point. They must have edited it out now that I look for it.

It still is possible that a Meltagun will have a 1in3 chance to completely remove a Vehicle as it is. We don't know of its stats or if it has any other special abilities. It is this part that we have null data on.

Melta-guns deal 1D6 worth of damage, and you can roll a second D6 and pick the higher result. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/10/new-warhammer-40000-weapons-part-2-may10gw-homepage-post-4/ So no, it's not null data, it's very explicit data. A melta-gun cannot 1shot a tank in 8th edition unless that tank has <=6 wounds.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:4. Ditching blasts means your tanks can hunt 1 big model if you want. You could, potentially, deliver 18 wounds to 1 nasty creature with 1 Leman Russ. Suddenly the Tau aren't auto-winning against your tanks and you can respond to Riptides with some measure of force.

Tau are one of those forces which rely on big long range guns that you mentioned do not exist in point 2. A Leman Russ is just as likely to survive a Riptide's opening salvo in 8th and it is in 7th. This is especially an agregious point as we don't know the Riptide's Weapon capabilities or the special rules that either unit will be employing.

On the one hand you mention a very specific probabilistic outcome, and in the next you say you don't know what the Riptide's weapon capabilities are. So, i'll just say i disagree until you prove this claim.

Well, you can disagree, but this point of yours also is just as provable. We don't have the stats on the Riptide's weapons, but we know that they will be very good based on simple extrapolation. What if that generator of the Riptide converts the Damage from Savable to Mortal? That's just an example of possibilities we do not know.

Actually it's factually correct that Leman Russ tanks would be more survivable to heavy arms fire than in the past. Your extrapolation is completely baseless without some numbers. Do you have any? Share the specific numbers you're using to create your statement. My evidence is in the profile of the updated Russ.

The more I think about it, small blasts especially have pretty much always been underwhelming. Now apoc pie plates that's satisfying to throw on the field.

Halfpast_Yellow wrote:
I think people are looking at the 7th ed large blast scatters compared to an 8th ed D6 mechanic with the rosiest of rose-tinted glasses.

Sure at one time or another everyone over their life of 40k has hit a grouped up marine squad out in the open with a battlecannon(or equivalent) and effectively taken the unit off the table.

But there is a reason that Vindicators, Monoliths, LRBTs and Doomsday guns weren't highly prioritised weapons and remained on the shelf. Generally at most they'd take one wound off an monstrous creature, miss, flub against the AV or cover save of a vehicle, and even on a direct hit on an infantry squad they'd take 3+ or 4+ cover saves.

Now you have a high variance weapon that certainly can punch though saves to deal multiple damage against single model targets. Yes, Marines will get 4+ or 5+ saves against it, but Marines will almost always get *some* save this edition. The nature of AP has totally changed from all or nothing(and then you take a cover save) to almost always something. There is no longer big gulfs between 2+ and 3+ and 4+, and cover is always going to give a benefit to infantry regardless of whether its a Marine or a Guardsman. Conversely, heavy weaponry is always going to have some effect on saving throws, regardless of whether it's a Terminator or a Dire Avenger.

The Battle cannon seems to be in a much better place, especially if a Russ can add sponson and hull weaponry downrange on the same turn. It's still a bit swingy like the old ~2/3 chance to scatter off target, but 1/3 of the time you're rolling out a 5 or 6 shot weapon that wounds Marines (or Terminators or Nobs) on a 2+, an 8th ed rarity and has -2 armour shred which is no slouch either.

Monoliths and Arks are overcosted while the Vindicator also suffered from short range and weak side armor. The Manticore was popular in 5th until 6th nerfed it, while the Riptide was fairly common to run as an Iontide.

"I am suggesting that I can get a lot of Grots in range of a Terminator unit or a Leman Russ and by sheer numbers cause the Leman Russ to die with pistol-toting goblins"

Bring it. I can kill Riptides with lasguns in 7th, too.

 Grimgold wrote:
You have no idea how much a battle cannon costs in 8th ed

 BlaxicanX wrote:
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

- - - - -

It's also not weak compared with other 8th ed weapons (the only valid comparison frame), it's better than a las cannon at anti-vehicle work and as good as two heavy bolters at anti-infantry work.

 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.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Let me get up on a soapbox for a second, a lot of you are comparing the previews to 7th ed, and I have two words for you, Stop that. You will not be fighting 7th ed orks with your 8th ed space marines, the only valid comparisons are between 8th ed items. Comparing battle cannons to heavy bolters, las cannons, and some reasonable guesses of what other weapons will look like show that the battle cannon is not a bad weapon and is actually quite flexible.

It doesn't though. Heavy bolters and lascannons already outstrip it by virtue of being cheaper and easier to spam in armies. I mean our discussion about the LR being 80 points was a fun mental exercise but it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to buy a battlecannon LR at even close to the value of a lascannon/heavy bolter marine or veteran.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mrhappyface wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
losing firepower on the main gun is a big thing.

Your main gun is now a big monster/tank/small elite units hunter, that is not a loss of fire power it's a change of target priority.

The main gun is awful against big monster/tank/small elite units.

I've seen so many examples of Gambler's Folly since the announcement of 8th.

 Jambles wrote:
How could you POSSIBLY say it's points inefficient, without knowing how many points it - or anything else in the game - costs?

Because I can say with near 100% certainty that the entire tank would need to be around 80 points in order for that to be worthwhile, and even then you wouldn't be buying it for the damage, you'd be buying it because it's 80 points for a T8 3+sv 12W vehicle.

 Marmatag wrote:
Show the math of accomplishing this goal. It's somewhat absurd.

Look it up somewhere else. It is about forcing sufficient Saves that the 1's are bound to happen. It's long been a tactic of horde armies facing such units, especially when their AP Weapons are directed elsewhere.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

You want me to be explicit, but then try to defend a generalist statement of "any infantry unit". You seemed to be indicating an Infantry unit shooting at a tank cannot be also shooting at something else. This is not the case. Now, the guns they shoot at that Tank won't be shooting at something else, true, but usually the small arms are shooting at the Tank because they cannot effectively shoot at anything else, anyway.

Any infantry unit (we've seen) cannot kill a Leman Russ with a measure of certainty. I proved this point in the extreme by demonstrating that a devastator squad with 4 lascannons has a 7% chance to kill a Leman Russ (deal 12 damage) in 1 turn. You're poking at my language, but again, your point is very unclear. Please state your argument! We are talking about non-anti-tank weapons hurting a Russ. Lascannons SHOULD hurt tanks.

Sure, change the goal posts of the point. That is always a good way to get people to appreciate the point.

I stated my argument against this point, twice. If I have a unit of Devastators with 4 Lascannons, a Combi-Melta and 5 Boltguns, those 4 Lascannons and Meltagun can fire at the Leman Russ effectively, while the 5 Boltguns go shoot at Infantry. The idea you were implying was that all of those Boltguns would be forced to shoot at the Leman Russ. That was the point.

If I have 30 Grots shooting at a Leman Russ it is because they simply cannot shoot anything else that they have better odds against, and so I might be able to get one or two Wounds knocked off. Sure, it's a long shot, but sometimes the dice roll the boxcars you need in order to get the job done.

 Marmatag wrote:
This is hilarious. My lack of explicitness. Got it. This is not an argument. That is being argumentative. This whole point is derived from small arms fire hurting a tank. You seemed aware of this when you mentioned Grots but have since abandoned that train of thought and replaced small arms with lascannons and other 48" range guns...

This is pointing out that not everything is in a vacuum in a 40K game. The point was that there are Infantry who do carry Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas alongside the the Lasguns and Shootas. Many Infantry units are far more than just the small arms that they carry, if they carry any at all.

 Marmatag wrote:
Melta-guns deal 1D6 worth of damage, and you can roll a second D6 and pick the higher result. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/10/new-warhammer-40000-weapons-part-2-may10gw-homepage-post-4/ So no, it's not null data, it's very explicit data. A melta-gun cannot 1shot a tank in 8th edition unless that tank has <=6 wounds.

Which was implied will be available to some Vehicles.

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually it's factually correct that Leman Russ tanks would be more survivable to heavy arms fire than in the past. Your extrapolation is completely baseless without some numbers. Do you have any? Share the specific numbers you're using to create your statement. My evidence is in the profile of the updated Russ.

My extrapolation is as baseless as yours. We don't have any specific numbers, but you were painting with some very broad brushes in your numbered response.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Show the math of accomplishing this goal. It's somewhat absurd.

Look it up somewhere else. It is about forcing sufficient Saves that the 1's are bound to happen. It's long been a tactic of horde armies facing such units, especially when their AP Weapons are directed elsewhere.

Sorry, no, you don't get a pass on this one. If you fire 415 shots at BS3 S3, that's only a 16% chance (1/6) to kill a Russ. Is that realistic? The expected shots to kill is 432 in that scenario. Explain to me how that's feasible.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

You want me to be explicit, but then try to defend a generalist statement of "any infantry unit". You seemed to be indicating an Infantry unit shooting at a tank cannot be also shooting at something else. This is not the case. Now, the guns they shoot at that Tank won't be shooting at something else, true, but usually the small arms are shooting at the Tank because they cannot effectively shoot at anything else, anyway.

Any infantry unit (we've seen) cannot kill a Leman Russ with a measure of certainty. I proved this point in the extreme by demonstrating that a devastator squad with 4 lascannons has a 7% chance to kill a Leman Russ (deal 12 damage) in 1 turn. You're poking at my language, but again, your point is very unclear. Please state your argument! We are talking about non-anti-tank weapons hurting a Russ. Lascannons SHOULD hurt tanks.

Sure, change the goal posts of the point. That is always a good way to get people to appreciate the point.

We're done here.

 Charistoph wrote:
I stated my argument against this point, twice. If I have a unit of Devastators with 4 Lascannons, a Combi-Melta and 5 Boltguns, those 4 Lascannons and Meltagun can fire at the Leman Russ effectively, while the 5 Boltguns go shoot at Infantry. The idea you were implying was that all of those Boltguns would be forced to shoot at the Leman Russ. That was the point.

Ok? So the melta-gun is within 12" of the Russ, meaning the entire army can shoot the devastators. This is such a "lol" inducing scenario it's beyond funny.

 Charistoph wrote:
If I have 30 Grots shooting at a Leman Russ it is because they simply cannot shoot anything else that they have better odds against, and so I might be able to get one or two Wounds knocked off. Sure, it's a long shot, but sometimes the dice roll the boxcars you need in order to get the job done.

it's beyond a long shot. your expected wounds dealt is less than 1. If you add the standard deviation to the mean you're still producing less than 1 wound.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is hilarious. My lack of explicitness. Got it. This is not an argument. That is being argumentative. This whole point is derived from small arms fire hurting a tank. You seemed aware of this when you mentioned Grots but have since abandoned that train of thought and replaced small arms with lascannons and other 48" range guns...

This is pointing out that not everything is in a vacuum in a 40K game. The point was that there are Infantry who do carry Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas alongside the the Lasguns and Shootas. Many Infantry units are far more than just the small arms that they carry, if they carry any at all.

Okay, not everything is in a vacuum, explain how you're gettting your 430 Grots within 12" of the Leman Russ.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Melta-guns deal 1D6 worth of damage, and you can roll a second D6 and pick the higher result. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/10/new-warhammer-40000-weapons-part-2-may10gw-homepage-post-4/ So no, it's not null data, it's very explicit data. A melta-gun cannot 1shot a tank in 8th edition unless that tank has <=6 wounds.

Which was implied will be available to some Vehicles.

Let's recap: You made a false statement. I proved your statement was false. And your reply is: "Which was implied will be available to some vehicles." Can you clarify your language here?

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually it's factually correct that Leman Russ tanks would be more survivable to heavy arms fire than in the past. Your extrapolation is completely baseless without some numbers. Do you have any? Share the specific numbers you're using to create your statement. My evidence is in the profile of the updated Russ.

My extrapolation is as baseless as yours. We don't have any specific numbers, but you were painting with some very broad brushes in your numbered response.

Not even true. We have the profile of the Russ. Can you please conceive of a realistic weaponset based on the info we have, that would kill a Russ before it could return fire?

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
How could you POSSIBLY say it's points inefficient, without knowing how many points it - or anything else in the game - costs?

Because I can say with near 100% certainty that the entire tank would need to be around 80 points in order for that to be worthwhile, and even then you wouldn't be buying it for the damage, you'd be buying it because it's 80 points for a T8 3+sv 12W vehicle.

Do we know the stats on it yet?

And maybe they will be cheap, so guard players can bring a lot of battlecannons if they want

 BlaxicanX wrote:

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.

It doesn't though. Heavy bolters and lascannons already outstrip it by virtue of being cheaper and easier to spam in armies. I mean our discussion about the LR being 80 points was a fun mental exercise but it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to buy a battlecannon LR at even close to the value of a lascannon/heavy bolter marine or veteran.

Wait did you just quote the part where I proved your whole argument is shenanigans? Again, We don't know the cost, the only basis we have for comparison is raw effectiveness, and as it lays it's pretty effective compared to its peers. Also STOP THINKING IN 7TH ED TERMS, none of the weapons we've seen remove units by the handful, and by this point, we've seen a large selection of template weapons. By all evidence put forward so far, your expectation of auto-murdering hordes is no longer realistic.

Also, your arguments of efficiency are completely unfalsifiable, because we have no reference for points in 8th ed. So it falls to Hitchens law, "That which can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence". For all we know they could be using Doritos as the game currency, and a battle cannon could literally cost all that and a bag of chips, and in a month we'll be arguing whether that terminator squad costing a fun sized bag of nacho flavor should be upgraded to cool ranch.

 Grimgold wrote:


Also, your arguments of efficiency are completely unfalsifiable, because we have no reference for points in 8th ed. So it falls to Hitchens law, "That which can be asserted with no evidence can be dismissed with no evidence". For all we know they could be using Doritos as the game currency, and a battle cannon could literally cost all that and a bag of chips, and in a month we'll be arguing whether that terminator squad costing a fun sized bag of nacho flavor should be upgraded to cool ranch.

What we do have however, is $prices. There may in fact be value in doing comparisons that way, since i'll bet you a full bag of Doritos that GW are certainly doing it - the Goblin index is a known phenomenon after all.

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Show the math of accomplishing this goal. It's somewhat absurd.

Look it up somewhere else. It is about forcing sufficient Saves that the 1's are bound to happen. It's long been a tactic of horde armies facing such units, especially when their AP Weapons are directed elsewhere.

Sorry, no, you don't get a pass on this one. If you fire 415 shots at BS3 S3, that's only a 16% chance (1/6) to kill a Russ. Is that realistic? The expected shots to kill is 432 in that scenario. Explain to me how that's feasible.

That is the probability, it still doesn't mean it can't happen. That's why the dice are rolled, after all.

Now, I am not saying we should go out Leman Russ Hunting with Conscript and Grot Squads, and you are stretching if you think I am. I am saying the possibility exists, and if there is nothing else around to shoot, why not shoot the Leman Russ?

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

You want me to be explicit, but then try to defend a generalist statement of "any infantry unit". You seemed to be indicating an Infantry unit shooting at a tank cannot be also shooting at something else. This is not the case. Now, the guns they shoot at that Tank won't be shooting at something else, true, but usually the small arms are shooting at the Tank because they cannot effectively shoot at anything else, anyway.

Any infantry unit (we've seen) cannot kill a Leman Russ with a measure of certainty. I proved this point in the extreme by demonstrating that a devastator squad with 4 lascannons has a 7% chance to kill a Leman Russ (deal 12 damage) in 1 turn. You're poking at my language, but again, your point is very unclear. Please state your argument! We are talking about non-anti-tank weapons hurting a Russ. Lascannons SHOULD hurt tanks.

Sure, change the goal posts of the point. That is always a good way to get people to appreciate the point.

We're done here.

What? No pithy come back? Not bothering to address anything else? Just you're done and yet you still go on?

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I stated my argument against this point, twice. If I have a unit of Devastators with 4 Lascannons, a Combi-Melta and 5 Boltguns, those 4 Lascannons and Meltagun can fire at the Leman Russ effectively, while the 5 Boltguns go shoot at Infantry. The idea you were implying was that all of those Boltguns would be forced to shoot at the Leman Russ. That was the point.

Ok? So the melta-gun is within 12" of the Russ, meaning the entire army can shoot the devastators. This is such a "lol" inducing scenario it's beyond funny.

Why would an entire army shoot the Devastators just because it is within 12" of a Leman Russ? Do you play on planet bowling ball with nothing but the units which carry the really long ranged weapons you claim Infantry do not have? Would not such a unit still be in Cover that may also block Line of Sight?

The point here wasn't about being exposed. It was about having to concentrate fire.

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
If I have 30 Grots shooting at a Leman Russ it is because they simply cannot shoot anything else that they have better odds against, and so I might be able to get one or two Wounds knocked off. Sure, it's a long shot, but sometimes the dice roll the boxcars you need in order to get the job done.

it's beyond a long shot. your expected wounds dealt is less than 1. If you add the standard deviation to the mean you're still producing less than 1 wound.

There's expectation, and then there's reality. Starting off with 30 dice is usually good enough to risk a chance, especially if there is no drawback to the situation.

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is hilarious. My lack of explicitness. Got it. This is not an argument. That is being argumentative. This whole point is derived from small arms fire hurting a tank. You seemed aware of this when you mentioned Grots but have since abandoned that train of thought and replaced small arms with lascannons and other 48" range guns...

This is pointing out that not everything is in a vacuum in a 40K game. The point was that there are Infantry who do carry Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas alongside the the Lasguns and Shootas. Many Infantry units are far more than just the small arms that they carry, if they carry any at all.

Okay, not everything is in a vacuum, explain how you're gettting your 430 Grots within 12" of the Leman Russ.

Terrain. And it doesn't have to be 430 Grots, just enough to get 1's on Saves. We're not necessarily talking about a one turn knock out here, are we? It could be that last Wound that Leman Russ is having, dropping its stats to a point that its performance is altered, or leaving it weakened for the really heavy punchers that are coming across.

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Melta-guns deal 1D6 worth of damage, and you can roll a second D6 and pick the higher result. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/10/new-warhammer-40000-weapons-part-2-may10gw-homepage-post-4/ So no, it's not null data, it's very explicit data. A melta-gun cannot 1shot a tank in 8th edition unless that tank has <=6 wounds.

Which was implied will be available to some Vehicles.

Let's recap: You made a false statement. I proved your statement was false. And your reply is: "Which was implied will be available to some vehicles." Can you clarify your language here?

I thought it was pretty clear. You are making up assumptions about situations in which we had no real data, especially as we do not know the full ramifications of Wounds on a Vehicle. Will they follow the same pattern as the Monster we saw, or will there be other options? By the statements in their posts, some Vehicles will have 6 Wounds or less.

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually it's factually correct that Leman Russ tanks would be more survivable to heavy arms fire than in the past. Your extrapolation is completely baseless without some numbers. Do you have any? Share the specific numbers you're using to create your statement. My evidence is in the profile of the updated Russ.

My extrapolation is as baseless as yours. We don't have any specific numbers, but you were painting with some very broad brushes in your numbered response.

Not even true. We have the profile of the Russ. Can you please conceive of a realistic weaponset based on the info we have, that would kill a Russ before it could return fire?

You mean like a long-ranged, high Str, multi-shot, multi-damage weapon that could be Overcharged to doing all of them as Mortal or at least AP your Save to uselessness? No, I couldn't possibly be thinking that the Riptide might have one of those.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Show the math of accomplishing this goal. It's somewhat absurd.

Look it up somewhere else. It is about forcing sufficient Saves that the 1's are bound to happen. It's long been a tactic of horde armies facing such units, especially when their AP Weapons are directed elsewhere.

Sorry, no, you don't get a pass on this one. If you fire 415 shots at BS3 S3, that's only a 16% chance (1/6) to kill a Russ. Is that realistic? The expected shots to kill is 432 in that scenario. Explain to me how that's feasible.

That is the probability, it still doesn't mean it can't happen. That's why the dice are rolled, after all.

Now, I am not saying we should go out Leman Russ Hunting with Conscript and Grot Squads, and you are stretching if you think I am. I am saying the possibility exists, and if there is nothing else around to shoot, why not shoot the Leman Russ?

So, you mentioned 1-2 wounds. You can create the world's most awesome confidence interval and not contain 2 wounds. Why not shoot at the Leman Russ? Because you have the tiniest chance to do anything. if you absolutely insist on moving your Grots so far out of position they're within 12" of a Russ, i would forgo my shooting that round and run them to a place where they could be more effective. Because their odds are seriously that low.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:1. Any infantry unit shooting at a tank isn't shooting something else that they could actually kill with some measure of certainty.

Models of a unit do not have to target the same thing. Those Lascannons in the Blob Squad (if that remains a thing) can all fire at the Leman Russ while the Flashlights focus on the other Flashlight Carriers.

The comment was in regards to small arms fire. Lascannons are not small arms fire. They are anti-tank weapons, that could always hurt a tank.

You want me to be explicit, but then try to defend a generalist statement of "any infantry unit". You seemed to be indicating an Infantry unit shooting at a tank cannot be also shooting at something else. This is not the case. Now, the guns they shoot at that Tank won't be shooting at something else, true, but usually the small arms are shooting at the Tank because they cannot effectively shoot at anything else, anyway.

Any infantry unit (we've seen) cannot kill a Leman Russ with a measure of certainty. I proved this point in the extreme by demonstrating that a devastator squad with 4 lascannons has a 7% chance to kill a Leman Russ (deal 12 damage) in 1 turn. You're poking at my language, but again, your point is very unclear. Please state your argument! We are talking about non-anti-tank weapons hurting a Russ. Lascannons SHOULD hurt tanks.

Sure, change the goal posts of the point. That is always a good way to get people to appreciate the point.

We're done here.

What? No pithy come back? Not bothering to address anything else? Just you're done and yet you still go on?

What you said is obviously false. Why continue discussing that point? I'm not going to dignify such nonsense with comment. I pass. You score one victory point, sound good?

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I stated my argument against this point, twice. If I have a unit of Devastators with 4 Lascannons, a Combi-Melta and 5 Boltguns, those 4 Lascannons and Meltagun can fire at the Leman Russ effectively, while the 5 Boltguns go shoot at Infantry. The idea you were implying was that all of those Boltguns would be forced to shoot at the Leman Russ. That was the point.

Ok? So the melta-gun is within 12" of the Russ, meaning the entire army can shoot the devastators. This is such a "lol" inducing scenario it's beyond funny.

Why would an entire army shoot the Devastators just because it is within 12" of a Leman Russ? Do you play on planet bowling ball with nothing but the units which carry the really long ranged weapons you claim Infantry do not have? Would not such a unit still be in Cover that may also block Line of Sight?

The point here wasn't about being exposed. It was about having to concentrate fire.

I actually play with quite a bit of terrain, which makes it even funnier that you think you could get a squad within 12" of a Russ without tripping over a million guard.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
If I have 30 Grots shooting at a Leman Russ it is because they simply cannot shoot anything else that they have better odds against, and so I might be able to get one or two Wounds knocked off. Sure, it's a long shot, but sometimes the dice roll the boxcars you need in order to get the job done.

it's beyond a long shot. your expected wounds dealt is less than 1. If you add the standard deviation to the mean you're still producing less than 1 wound.

There's expectation, and then there's reality. Starting off with 30 dice is usually good enough to risk a chance, especially if there is no drawback to the situation.

Please understand, when you start jumping standard deviations from the mean, it's no longer the expectation, it becomes a relative certainty. You would barely be within 2 standard deviations of the mean to expect ONE wound in this scenario. That's not expectation, that's telling you your odds are like 5%.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
This is hilarious. My lack of explicitness. Got it. This is not an argument. That is being argumentative. This whole point is derived from small arms fire hurting a tank. You seemed aware of this when you mentioned Grots but have since abandoned that train of thought and replaced small arms with lascannons and other 48" range guns...

This is pointing out that not everything is in a vacuum in a 40K game. The point was that there are Infantry who do carry Lascannons and Rokkit Launchas alongside the the Lasguns and Shootas. Many Infantry units are far more than just the small arms that they carry, if they carry any at all.

Okay, not everything is in a vacuum, explain how you're gettting your 430 Grots within 12" of the Leman Russ.

Terrain. And it doesn't have to be 430 Grots, just enough to get 1's on Saves. We're not necessarily talking about a one turn knock out here, are we? It could be that last Wound that Leman Russ is having, dropping its stats to a point that its performance is altered, or leaving it weakened for the really heavy punchers that are coming across.

Again, the odds that 30 shots from Grots deal 1 wound is low. Forgetting of course that the Grots would even have to be in range.

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Melta-guns deal 1D6 worth of damage, and you can roll a second D6 and pick the higher result. https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/05/10/new-warhammer-40000-weapons-part-2-may10gw-homepage-post-4/ So no, it's not null data, it's very explicit data. A melta-gun cannot 1shot a tank in 8th edition unless that tank has <=6 wounds.

Which was implied will be available to some Vehicles.

Let's recap: You made a false statement. I proved your statement was false. And your reply is: "Which was implied will be available to some vehicles." Can you clarify your language here?

I thought it was pretty clear. You are making up assumptions about situations in which we had no real data, especially as we do not know the full ramifications of Wounds on a Vehicle. Will they follow the same pattern as the Monster we saw, or will there be other options? By the statements in their posts, some Vehicles will have 6 Wounds or less.

But the Russ doesn't, so how does that matter? We're discussing the Leman Russ? Can you please explain how a melta-gun can 1 shot a Leman Russ as per your claim?

 Charistoph wrote:

Marmatag wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Actually it's factually correct that Leman Russ tanks would be more survivable to heavy arms fire than in the past. Your extrapolation is completely baseless without some numbers. Do you have any? Share the specific numbers you're using to create your statement. My evidence is in the profile of the updated Russ.

My extrapolation is as baseless as yours. We don't have any specific numbers, but you were painting with some very broad brushes in your numbered response.

Not even true. We have the profile of the Russ. Can you please conceive of a realistic weaponset based on the info we have, that would kill a Russ before it could return fire?

You mean like a long-ranged, high Str, multi-shot, multi-damage weapon that could be Overcharged to doing all of them as Mortal or at least AP your Save to uselessness? No, I couldn't possibly be thinking that the Riptide might have one of those.

Which gun specifically do you think will have this profile?
Let's also remember this is the basic argument at this point:

Me: Leman Russ are more survivable in general, meaning they have a chance to fight back against Tau.
You: No, because I don't have data on Riptides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm kind of tired of going back & forth. Make your closing argument, i'm done. I'll read it, I honestly will, I just won't reply.

I'm confused by this discussion. I don't play Guard anymore but when I saw the profile on the Battlecannon I was pretty happy with it.

It looked good to me... I missed a lot with my battlecannon when I played them.

 Grimgold wrote:
Again, We don't know the cost, the only basis we have for comparison is raw effectiveness, and as it lays it's pretty effective compared to its peers.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
Let me get up on a soapbox for a second, a lot of you are comparing the previews to 7th ed, and I have two words for you, Stop that. You will not be fighting 7th ed orks with your 8th ed space marines, the only valid comparisons are between 8th ed items. Comparing battle cannons to heavy bolters, las cannons, and some reasonable guesses of what other weapons will look like show that the battle cannon is not a bad weapon and is actually quite flexible.

It doesn't though. Heavy bolters and lascannons already outstrip it by virtue of being cheaper and easier to spam in armies. I mean our discussion about the LR being 80 points was a fun mental exercise but it's highly unlikely that you'll be able to buy a battlecannon LR at even close to the value of a lascannon/heavy bolter marine or veteran.

Also STOP THINKING IN 7TH ED TERMS, none of the weapons we've seen remove units by the handful, and by this point, we've seen a large selection of template weapons. By all evidence put forward so far, your expectation of auto-murdering hordes is no longer realistic.

When did I ever use 7th edition weapons in a direct comparison?

Also, your arguments of efficiency are completely unfalsifiable, because we have no reference for points in 8th ed.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
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

- - - -

Let me explain in really simple terms why your argument falls apart. It's because your entire argument is predicated upon one possibility being true: that a battlecannon Leman Russ will cost the same amount of points, or a similar amount of points, to a lone infantry model armed with a lascannon or heavy bolter. Your speculation is that either infantry heavy weapons will suddenly jump 60 points in cost, or an entire Leman Russ is going to only cost ~50 points (the cost of a Long Fang+LasCannon in today's edition).

^ That, is the only scenario in which the battlecannon compares favorably to a lascannon or heavy bolter. A scenario where they cost the same. If the tank is more expensive then either then it ceases to compare favorably to either.

ArmchairArbiter wrote:
I'm confused by this discussion. I don't play Guard anymore but when I saw the profile on the Battlecannon I was pretty happy with it.

It looked good to me... I missed a lot with my battlecannon when I played them.

It's an upgrade, but it's not a significant upgrade, and the original wasn't that good in the first place. I personally still won't use them unless the Eradicator becomes completely useless.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 Jambles wrote:
Sounds like the stats for BCannons just changed too much for some. The gun functions differently now, and it being such an iconic weapon on such an iconic unit, there's a decent amount of consternation as a result. There's an expectation in the minds of some that the Battle Cannon was something it's not anymore, and in my opinion maybe never was. They want a large blast template to put over the battlefield, smash a big hole in a large unit, kill lots of models with their big blasty tank gun. Now that it's basically been changed to be a run-of-the-mill tank-mounted cannon that's made for shooting at beefy targets and has less of a big, visual boom, the feels are flying.

Being points-inefficient and weak against all targets is "run of the mill"?

You don't know the points how can you claim points inefficiency

 BlaxicanX wrote:

Let me explain in really simple terms why your argument falls apart. It's because your entire argument is predicated upon one possibility being true: that a battlecannon Leman Russ will cost the same amount of points, or a similar amount of points, to a lone infantry model armed with a lascannon or heavy bolter. Your speculation is that either infantry heavy weapons will suddenly jump 60 points in cost, or an entire Leman Russ is going to only cost ~50 points (the cost of a Long Fang+LasCannon in today's edition).

Just a quick question, why are we comparing the whole tank platform to a single infantry models with Heavy weapons? You generally can't get that single guy by himself. Marines, for example, in 7th, pay a 70 pt premium in marines minimum to put that lascannon the field. Or a squad of guard, Whatever - there's a unit that gun goes in. Which leads to my second point - the survivability of the platform matters a turn based game. Factor in the cost and survivability of the unit needed to get that Lascannon on the field, the survivability of that unit (which indexes general expectations of rounds of fire), atnd then maybe you can directly compare the way you want to.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

^ That, is the only scenario in which the battlecannon compares favorably to a lascannon or heavy bolter. A scenario where they cost the same. If the tank is more expensive then either then it ceases to compare favorably to either.

Um, no? This isn't true at all because the BC isn't being carried by an infantryman. You're not accounting for the cost of the platform Or trying to deduce the cost of the weapon separate from the tank platform, one of the two. As is you're just incorrect. Apples and oranges.

 Marmatag wrote:
So, you mentioned 1-2 wounds. You can create the world's most awesome confidence interval and not contain 2 wounds. Why not shoot at the Leman Russ? Because you have the tiniest chance to do anything. if you absolutely insist on moving your Grots so far out of position they're within 12" of a Russ, i would forgo my shooting that round and run them to a place where they could be more effective. Because their odds are seriously that low.

Right now, in 8th Edition, it is literally impossible for Grots to do anything to a Leman Russ. In 8th, it will be a very small chance, but that's still a chance. Choosing to Advance or not over that is a tactical choice that largely depends on if that Advance would ever actually get you anywhere. It's reliant on the board as a whole.

I have seen people move their tanks away from the supporting Infantry because of their confidence that it can weather what will come at them and it will give them a better shot at what they want the tank to shoot at.

 Marmatag wrote:
I actually play with quite a bit of terrain, which makes it even funnier that you think you could get a squad within 12" of a Russ without tripping over a million guard.

As I said above, it can happen because the situation provided the best reason to move the Leman Russ away from the "million guard". Just because you wouldn't do it, doesn't mean your opponent won't.

 Marmatag wrote:
Please understand, when you start jumping standard deviations from the mean, it's no longer the expectation, it becomes a relative certainty. You would barely be within 2 standard deviations of the mean to expect ONE wound in this scenario. That's not expectation, that's telling you your odds are like 5%.

And I've seen dice be rolled that was better than that. But you want to know how much damage Grots Advancing make? 0. Possibility of something, even remote, can be better than nothing. It's called taking a chance.

 Marmatag wrote:
Again, the odds that 30 shots from Grots deal 1 wound is low. Forgetting of course that the Grots would even have to be in range.

The possibility of it happening exists, or else why the concern over it?

 Marmatag wrote:
But the Russ doesn't, so how does that matter? We're discussing the Leman Russ? Can you please explain how a melta-gun can 1 shot a Leman Russ as per your claim?

As I said, we don't know all the rules regarding Vehicles yet. And considering the attitude that some people have regarding degraded models in such situations, that Meltagun may indeed, make it "useless" in their eyes, and that's good enough for Wrecked.

 Marmatag wrote:
Which gun specifically do you think will have this profile?
Let's also remember this is the basic argument at this point:

The Ion Accelerator has the possibility of such an existence.

 Marmatag wrote:
Me: Leman Russ are more survivable in general, meaning they have a chance to fight back against Tau.
You: No, because I don't have data on Riptides.

Actually, I said we don't have enough data on Tau to know about that. The most likely candidate for killing a Leman Russ before it could move was the Riptide. The Riptide Wing has been popular, so it will see some table time no matter the stats. The Stormsurge would also qualify, but has not been as popular. We have no idea of what the Railguns and HYMP will be capable of doing, either, making Broadsides and Hammerheads a possibility. And that's not including what possibilities may occur with Stealth Suits and if they can Infiltrate Fusion Blasters (and how many, though likely no more than the 2/unit they have now) right up its can.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Let me explain in really simple terms why your argument falls apart. It's because your entire argument is predicated upon one possibility being true: that a battlecannon Leman Russ will cost the same amount of points, or a similar amount of points, to a lone infantry model armed with a lascannon or heavy bolter. Your speculation is that either infantry heavy weapons will suddenly jump 60 points in cost, or an entire Leman Russ is going to only cost ~50 points (the cost of a Long Fang+LasCannon in today's edition).

^ That, is the only scenario in which the battlecannon compares favorably to a lascannon or heavy bolter. A scenario where they cost the same. If the tank is more expensive then either then it ceases to compare favorably to either.

So your smoking gun here is that... the body a gun is attached to shouldn't be included in the point calculus between units?

An LRBT with a battlecannon cannot be efficient, because a singular infantryman with a lascannon will be cheaper? Slow down there bud, you're playing some impressive 3D chess there, we mortals cannot compete!

No wonder you're seeing things the way you are!

I mean, it doesn't make any real sense on the face of it, but at least I can see why you see it like this.

Yeah, so long as that is how you are imagining point efficiency to work I can't imagine any argument is going to bare fruit here.

So let's start here.

We both know that an LRBT and a Long Fang (or any singular infantry unit) are going to cost different amounts (or rather we hope they are). No one in their right mind will argue that a T8, 12 wound unit should be close to a T4 1 wound model in cost (and if they are GW have up). No matter what, the LRBT will be more expensive (for the love o' Mork and Gork, please). The important factor is by how much? This is information we don't have. You appear to be starting from a place where you are assuming that the basic LRBT chassis starts off being not worth the points. I mean, we can go in to why each of its wounds is harder to ablate than those in an infantry squad and the relative pros and cons between a singular lump of tough wounds as opposed to a distributed lump of singular wounds standing near each other, but it isn't hugely necessary. An LRBT is likely more expensive than one infantry model before either of them get weapons. This is because the LRBT is better than a one wound infantry model. It may end up being priced too high or even too low, 40k has had plenty of point shakeups over its lifespan. We can't know whether or not this basic thing is in the Goldilocks zone, and it isn't worth wringing our hands over before we have the info.

Second, we can look at the battlecannon and see its performance against various revealed units. It's better at dealing with infantry than a heavy bolter, it's better at dealing with tough multiwounds than a lascannon. Whether or not it is spammable is something we'll only know when we know how many LRBTs once can pack in to a list. But given what we can tell? It should be priced a bit higher than either an HB or lascannon, but not dramatically so. It is basically a lascannon that can do infantry in the off-season. Again, if this is priced in the Goldilocks zone (not too high, not too low) then we have achieved "balance".

So yes, a Long Fang with a lascannon will be cheaper than an LRBT with a battlecannon (probably). This isn't a revelation. But this doesn't mean the former is suddenly going to be de facto more efficient than the latter. This is why we need to wait and see comparative point values and why wringing our hands about how "weak" the battlecannon is is pointless. Could turn out that GW overcosted infantry-carried heavy weapons and tanks are where it's at. Could be that the battlecannon is actually grossly underpriced (for example, maybe they just cost it like a lascannon and call it a day). Could be that tank bodies are costed too high and no one takes them (such a dramatic change!). We have no clue, and trying to frame it in terms of the old prices when so much has changed is currently meaningless. As such, there is no real frame of reference for how powerful or weak the battlecannon even is because a lot of that hinges on its actual cost! Thus far, it is the strongest weapon they've shown (well outside the Avatar's sword now) and is able to deal with just about any target (whereas most other weapons appear to be more mono-specialized in this edition).

This is why folks are saying to wait on the point values, you'll give yourself an ulcer if you keep trying to use 7th to divine some info about comparative costs in 8th. You may turn out to be right in the end, the things may be overcosted for what they do. But at the end of the day, you have no way of knowing that right now and we can only make suppositions on things based on what they've shown us.

So blast weapons can only be over- or underwhelming based on the info we have, and thus far they are comparable to the non-blast stuff we've seen in terms of lethality. Full stop. Some are more effective against some targets than others, it is obvious some are designed with certain roles in mind. We wont really know how effective any of it is until we get point values though. We can only evaluate what is by what has been revealed. We have no other context and trying to evaluate beyond that point is basically trying your hand at scrying using chicken bones and goat entrails.

Blast strike me as underwhelming. I get it, we don't have all the info, but as it stands right now? Meh. Not encouraged.

FLAMER TEMPLATES, though, those seem nice. D6 auto-hits is maybe a nerf against hoards, but hot DIGGITY is that a buff compared to single targets!

 JNAProductions wrote:
Blast strike me as underwhelming. I get it, we don't have all the info, but as it stands right now? Meh. Not encouraged.

FLAMER TEMPLATES, though, those seem nice. D6 auto-hits is maybe a nerf against hoards, but hot DIGGITY is that a buff compared to single targets!

And twin doubles shots, so twin flamers dropping 2d6. Yes please, I'll take two,

Yeah. Everyone I've EVER seen trying to "force 1's" on Riptides or Dreadknights loses. So step right up and try to kill Russes with small arms in 8th. I'll be over here with my inferno pistols laughing at you.

 Fenris-77 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
FLAMER TEMPLATES, though, those seem nice. D6 auto-hits is maybe a nerf against hoards, but hot DIGGITY is that a buff compared to single targets!

And twin doubles shots, so twin flamers dropping 2d6. Yes please, I'll take two,

No, that can't be right. Sisters have twin hand flamers, and that would make them good. Betcha Sisters get a nerf, just because.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Fenris-77 wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
FLAMER TEMPLATES, though, those seem nice. D6 auto-hits is maybe a nerf against hoards, but hot DIGGITY is that a buff compared to single targets!

And twin doubles shots, so twin flamers dropping 2d6. Yes please, I'll take two,

No, that can't be right. Sisters have twin hand flamers, and that would make them good. Betcha Sisters get a nerf, just because.

Well, there's hand flamers and hand flamers right? One is a pistol that shoots flaming goo, and other one is palm size and dresses so much better than I do. Guess which one Sisters get as wargear? I kid, but seriously...

I can see some of the flamer type stuff that's currently twin getting changed to something else, 2d6 auto hit is pretty sick. I'll keep my fingers crossed for your pistol though, even if I'm pretty sure you're not going to get it. Now that I'm thinking about it, I wonder if another mechanic might be less sick and therefore more broadly useful. Something ,like reroll on the d6, or +2? IDK. Food for thought.