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.

 malamis wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:


2nd. in 7th battlecannon does diddly to terminators. Yes it crushed marines with AP3 but termies got their 2+. Now with the new AP system anything with a minus to saves immediately is better for termies. The battlecannon now forces termies to take their saves on a 4+. That is a huge buff. Yes marines get a 5+ from it but you can't get a buff in every aspect. There is also the chance of instant deathing their 2 wounds.

I may have been mistaken, but wasn't instant death discontinued in favor of Moar Wounds?

not that we know of. We haven't seen the rules yet. It may or may not have. Can't tell until we see full rulebook.

Well, we have seen the wound chart, I'd assume that if x2 ID is still a think, they'd mention it on that post.

Especially when x2 threshold is now the 2+ wound threshold.



So, i think x2 ID is no longer a thing in 8th.

 malamis wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:


2nd. in 7th battlecannon does diddly to terminators. Yes it crushed marines with AP3 but termies got their 2+. Now with the new AP system anything with a minus to saves immediately is better for termies. The battlecannon now forces termies to take their saves on a 4+. That is a huge buff. Yes marines get a 5+ from it but you can't get a buff in every aspect. There is also the chance of instant deathing their 2 wounds.

I may have been mistaken, but wasn't instant death discontinued in favor of Moar Wounds?

We believe so (GW haven't outright said it) but a battle cannon does D3 damage and thus has a higher chance of killing 2W models in one shot than not

 BoomWolf wrote:
Well, we have seen the wound chart, I'd assume that if x2 ID is still a think, they'd mention it on that post.

Especially when x2 threshold is now the 2+ wound threshold.



So, i think x2 ID is no longer a thing in 8th.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that people are complainnig prematurely or the fact that they will now have to get used to a new way to play. Battlecannons will have a new role to play in the game other then spamming marines to death. Vehicle main guns will be used to fight other vehicles and monsters, while infrantry will be fighting infantry for the most part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Jbz` wrote:

 malamis wrote:

mhalko1 wrote:


2nd. in 7th battlecannon does diddly to terminators. Yes it crushed marines with AP3 but termies got their 2+. Now with the new AP system anything with a minus to saves immediately is better for termies. The battlecannon now forces termies to take their saves on a 4+. That is a huge buff. Yes marines get a 5+ from it but you can't get a buff in every aspect. There is also the chance of instant deathing their 2 wounds.

I may have been mistaken, but wasn't instant death discontinued in favor of Moar Wounds?

We believe so (GW haven't outright said it) but a battle cannon does D3 damage and thus has a higher chance of killing 2W models in one shot than not

This makes sense. Although there are instant killing weapons in AoS.

Yes, there are ID weapons in AoS.
But its a special ability, not a trait that is gained automatically by pointing a big weapon at a small target.

 BoomWolf wrote:
Yes, there are ID weapons in AoS.
But its a special ability, not a trait that is gained automatically by pointing a big weapon at a small target.

Also there's like 4 across 750 warscrolls and 2 of them are from the same sword.

Captyn_Bob wrote:
So I guess the niche is multiwound infantry or lighter vehicles/monsters ?

Too bad exerminator outshines bc against those.

tneva82 wrote:

Captyn_Bob wrote:
So I guess the niche is multiwound infantry or lighter vehicles/monsters ?

Too bad exerminator outshines bc against those.

Not really, actually.



The Exterminator Autocannon is less likely to do nothing at all, but I wouldn't call the difference particularly exciting. 1 wound isn't worth much against a critter, and if you're trying to strip wounds from a big critter, the greater potential for a meaningful hit from the Battle Cannon, even though it's small, might be worth it.

The Exterminator Autocannon is more reliable, for what it's worth. But you may prefer to keep the Battle Cannon, because it's more effective against T4, which there is a lot of.


Honestly, I don't think I'd bring either, at least not without a way to ensure that I get more hits. I'm keeping my eye on Vanquishers and Punishers.

mhalko1 wrote:

I think people complaining about battlecannons already is ridiculous. Here's why.

1st Yes the weapon now has to roll to hit but it's D6 shots. So potentially 6 shots with D3 damage each. Main tank cannons aren't meant to be firing at infantry, that's what sponsons and all other mounted weapons are for. The battle cannon will be a vehicle hunter. 1 battlecannon has the damage potential to do 18 wounds. Any middle value tank will be scared of it, especially at -2 to save.

Actually the battlecannon is, as I said earlier, a direct-fire howitzer, sort of akin to a Sherman. It is specifically fluffed as a general purpose cannon that fires large calibre high explosive shells, but can also fire AP if needed (like the 25PDR which fired HE but could also fire a supercharged solid shot).
You are thinking of the Vanquisher, the Leman Russ variant specifically designed to kill vehicles. That and the Annihilator.

So yes, the Leman Russ is heavily underwhelming now. That cannon is there to murder infantry, not hunt enemy tanks, which is a good thing really because it is not really good at hunting tanks either.

And the Leman Russ isn't underwhelming now?

Martel732 wrote:
And the Leman Russ isn't underwhelming now?

Well at least with a bit of careful positioning it is immune to small arms fire, and that blast can catch a good chunk of a unit, and even if it misses.

Martel732 wrote:
And the Leman Russ isn't underwhelming now?

I would describe it as slightly below average. Now, it can clip vehicle side armor and has a good chance to pen with strength 8. It can also catch horde units and knock out 3-5 models with a good hit. Even if it misses it has a good chance to hit something.

But now... an average of 1.75 hits before it even rolls to wound.

Being immune to small arms fire is worthless in 7th. Especially since people like myself bring as few as possible.

I'm talking about the overall model, not just the battle cannon. Again, there are likely orders to make it better. I'm guessing roll 2 and take the best.

Martel732 wrote:
Being immune to small arms fire is worthless in 7th. Especially since people like myself bring as few as possible.

I'm talking about the overall model, not just the battle cannon. Again, there are likely orders to make it better. I'm guessing roll 2 and take the best.

It is a massive thing when even for most armies "as little as possible" is still around about 50% of the army at least. So, now the Leman Russ is vulnerable to an extra 50% of weapons, BUT not just those. You see it was also frontally invulnerable to anything up to S7, and even the sides where reliable against anything below S8, so now you are also vulnerable to the lighter heavy weapons that you never used to even glance at - so about 70% of the weapons that it was never vulnerable too before.

A significant nerf wouldnt you say?

No, I wouldn't. Because that vulnerability is largely theoretical. Just as Riptides are theoretically vulnerable to bolters now. I know you don't really get the magic of MCs being a guard player, but being THEORETICALLY vulnerable is actually good, I think, because it's another mistake for bad generals to make.

Most lists in 7th are full of things your Russ a) can't hurt or b) ignore AV or c) both. There is no nerf possible when that is the current state of the situation.

" is still around about 50% of the army at least"

Who do you play against? I've got lists with 6 boltguns in them at 1850. And, yes, they're bound. I'm not concerned in the least that my six boltguns can't hurt your Russ.

In all fairness, blast accuracy did get much more accurate for BS 3-5 models.

Not being able to hit your own guys is a really nice side effect as well.

IronJack wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And the Leman Russ isn't underwhelming now?

I would describe it as slightly below average. Now, it can clip vehicle side armor and has a good chance to pen with strength 8. It can also catch horde units and knock out 3-5 models with a good hit. Even if it misses it has a good chance to hit something.

But now... an average of 1.75 hits before it even rolls to wound.

Your comparison here is actually a good example of how the 8th edition battle cannon is significantly better than the 7th edition incarnation. Against vehicles it's flat out better, doing up to 18 wounds vs up to 1 wound. Against infantry you would get, on a good hit as you say, 3-5 guys, but this was totally dependent on how your opponent spaced. Now you will hit up to 6 on a good hit, doing d3 wounds to each one with no chance for your opponent to counter you with good spacing. Also, don't forget the -2 save improvement. Almost everyone had at least a 4+ save from cover vs your battle cannon in 7th, reducing it's effectiveness vs infantry even further. Now the only ones getting a 4+ save against you are TEQs. That is extremely significant. Let us not forget you will never be neutered by crew shaken or stunned results, and your other weapons will actually be shooting at full bs instead of snap shooting! Last but not least, having D6 shots is an excellent improvement because it really helps to mitigate BS3. The 8th edition BC and LR in general is significantly better than it is now.

I'm sure there will be an order to make it better, too.

If Tank Commanders still exist, and they most certainly do, then you are right. However even if they didn't I would still be very pleased to field the new LR with BC compared to the totally impotent 7th edition one.

And we can speculate special rules for it too. As has been said it will very likely fire all guns at full BS when moving. If it is anything like an AoS steam tank it will be able to do something in melee too, rather than just instantly crumple. That's an enormous improvement right there. For all we know it could have a special rule which makes any shots vs the front facing be resolved against T10 instead of T8.

Maybe. But T8 seems about right. leaving T9 for the land raider and T10 for the monolith. Yeah, heavy bolters wound you on a 5, but it's your job to give them something else to shoot at.

I think toughness above 8 will be reserved for knights and larger, the Leman Russ is already pretty close to the morkanaut in terms of durability, and toughness 9 would be the point where meltas start having difficulty hurting it. A 2+ save might be possible for the land raider and Monolith.

 Grimgold wrote:
I think toughness above 8 will be reserved for knights and larger, the Leman Russ is already pretty close to the morkanaut in terms of durability, and toughness 9 would be the point where meltas start having difficulty hurting it. A 2+ save might be possible for the land raider and Monolith.

I think that knights are going to be T8 as well. Note that wraithknights are already T8 in 7th edition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually, now that I think of it:

It could well be the case that T9 and T10 are reserved for Titans and equivalents.

A landraider might get T9. But I doubt that we'll see T10 on anything less than a Titan.

Stats aren't capping at 10 anymore, and with the new "to wound" chart, they can add things like T12 or more with no problem.

 Galas wrote:
Stats aren't capping at 10 anymore, and with the new "to wound" chart, they can add things like T12 or more with no problem.

It's certainly possible. But I'll be surprised if IKs are T9 or higher, since wraithknights are already T8.

Agreed. I'm expecting the highest toughness to be maybe 12 for Warlord Titans.

 Otto von Bludd wrote:

IronJack wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
And the Leman Russ isn't underwhelming now?

I would describe it as slightly below average. Now, it can clip vehicle side armor and has a good chance to pen with strength 8. It can also catch horde units and knock out 3-5 models with a good hit. Even if it misses it has a good chance to hit something.

But now... an average of 1.75 hits before it even rolls to wound.

Your comparison here is actually a good example of how the 8th edition battle cannon is significantly better than the 7th edition incarnation. Against vehicles it's flat out better, doing up to 18 wounds vs up to 1 wound. Against infantry you would get, on a good hit as you say, 3-5 guys, but this was totally dependent on how your opponent spaced. Now you will hit up to 6 on a good hit, doing d3 wounds to each one with no chance for your opponent to counter you with good spacing. Also, don't forget the -2 save improvement. Almost everyone had at least a 4+ save from cover vs your battle cannon in 7th, reducing it's effectiveness vs infantry even further. Now the only ones getting a 4+ save against you are TEQs. That is extremely significant. Let us not forget you will never be neutered by crew shaken or stunned results, and your other weapons will actually be shooting at full bs instead of snap shooting! Last but not least, having D6 shots is an excellent improvement because it really helps to mitigate BS3. The 8th edition BC and LR in general is significantly better than it is now.

Wrong. In 7th, most vehicles had 3-4 hull points tops. It looks like in 8th these same vehicles will have 10+ wounds with armor saves and high toughness. In fact, for a Battle Cannon to destroy a Leman Russ will require 7.2000288 turns of shooting.

And while I guess 'doing up to 18 wounds' is theoretically possible, it is also theoretically possible for lass guns to destroy tanks, so what is your point? For a Leman Russ to do 18 wounds is much less than 1%. Probably in the .1-.01% range.

You are forgetting, as is everyone else, The Leman Russ will be doing an average of 1.75 hits before rolling to wound. How anyone can call this a buff is beyond comprehension. I will keep repeating this anytime someone brings up the Battle Cannon being buffed.

Math is harder than caps lock it seems...

In 7th ed a battle cannon was str 8, and a leman russ was armor 14. So assuming for the sake of argument every shot hit, you could only glance on a 6, but since it was ordinance you Rolled two dice and took the highest. super easy to model:

1- (5/6 * 5/6) so 11/36 shots would glance, so 31 percent chance to glance. To chew thru three hull points it would take 10 shots. So the 8th ed battle cannon got buffed by about 30% compared to its 7th ed counterpart when it comes to taking on heavy vehicles.

*ahem*

OMG GW NERFED THE BATTLE CANNON BY GOING BACK IN TIME AND MAKING THE 7TH ED VERSION DEMONSTRABLY WORSE THAN THE 8TH ED VERSION.

Shouldn't it be against side armor though?

I don't mind the removal of templates from the system although I would perhaps introduce a different mechanic for 'Explosive' weapons to better mimic the scattering effect of blast weapons in previous editions.

For example, roll to hit as normal and for every point above your to hit roll you score an extra hit. Explosive weapons could have different values which are an abstraction of the size of the explosion (blast template).

So a Battle Cannon could be Explosive 2. Roll a D6+2. You score a hit for rolling your to hit roll +1 hit for every point rolled above your to hit roll. E.G. you roll a 3. 3+2=5. 5 beats your 4+ to hit roll by 1 so you get 1+1 hits.

Tweak mechanic as you feel is necessary.