40K BREAKING: More 8th Edition Weapons Teased

Games Workshop has another preview for the weapons coming in Warhammer 40k 8th Edition!

After Games Workshop showed off the new “To-Wound” chart for 8th, folks have been wildly speculating about the weapon profiles for 8th. We got a couple of teasers already but today GW is showing off even more leg.

via Warhammer Community

Twin-Linked Weapons

“In the new Warhammer 40,000, twin-linked weapons instead get double the number of shots.”

(Edit: The original GW article had “…at half range” – they have corrected it on their page so we have changed it here.)

Combi-weapons

…in the new Warhammer 40,000 you can either shoot both all the time, but at a -1 to hit modifier, or choose to just shoot one with no modifier.”

Explosives

“…in the new Warhammer 40,000, these are resolved much faster by just using a random number of shots.”

Read the full preview HERE

Okay – WOW. These changes are going to be amazing for shooting! Twin-Linked weapons getting double the shots? Combi-Weapons get to KEEP using the “Combi-” part the entire game? Oh man, this is going to be bonkers. Combi-melta’s were already a hot commodity, but now…And don’t even get started about Combi-Grav

How about this HUGE buff for Land Raiders? Seriously, combine the fact that they just doubled the firepower and sprinkle in the new Large Model rules and you got a proper-death machine!

Okay, before we get to far ahead of ourselves, let’s also zero in on the Meltagun for a moment because it’s showing us the new “Melta” Rule as well. No longer will you need to roll for Armor Pen (because, ya know – that’s going away). Now it’s packing a -4 AP with D6 damage – and if you’re under 1/2 range you roll 2 dice for damage and pick the highest. I like the way that works.

Explosive weapons make sense and fill a combat role. They can still pop armor and can do a number on units of infantry, too. They just have to roll hot – which is why we play a dice game, right?!

Now, just as a refresher, here’s that new “To-Wound” table:

Based on what we know about shooting and these changes are starting to add up. It’s going to be interesting to see how everything stacks up when we finally get all the rules but for now vehicles with twin-linked weapons are starting to look pretty cool. And I’m really curious to see how my Dakka-Fexes will shape-up…

 

So what do you think of these new Weapons and Weapon types? Anyone else going to make a run on Twin-Linked and Combi-Weapon units now?

  • Emprah

    Now twin linked and combi weapons actually do what they logically should. I like that.

    I wish the old Wounding table was kept so that lasguns can’t ever damage the baneblade though.

    • kloosterboer

      … firing small arms against hard armoured targets is an act of pure desperation….and while yielding small results is unlikely to ever be considered a serious threat.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        And it isn’t. It takes over 400 Lasgun shots to take down a Leman Russ.

        • AircoolUK

          Or just 20 very lucky shots (or however many wounds the tank has).

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            12 wounds.

            And yes that could, and will, happen but on average it will not happen that often.

          • AircoolUK

            Once, one of my drop pods exploded totally annihilating the Terminator Squad which had decided to shoot it for ‘First Blood’.

            These things do happen…

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            Which makes the game exciting.

          • AircoolUK

            And the manager of the store quite upset 😉

            Then again, I’ve also Plasma Cannoned my Dark Angels Devastators camping on top of a Bastion before, due to a really short ranged shot deviating right back at me.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            I had my Whirlwind Scorpius scatter backwards and annihilate a squad of my marines! So funny when that happens.

          • OldHat

            Thank you!

          • Gunther Clone C

            My termagaunt “looted” an objective and received a powerfist. It then proceeded to lead a charge against a rhino, exploded it, killed all off the crew inside and died in the explosion…greatest moment of my wargaming life since I first started in 5th Edition. I’ve since clipped off the gaunt’s feeder arm and gave it a left handed power-fist. I love it.

          • DJ860

            “Once”

          • Koonitz

            Along the same vein that a Leman Russ battle cannon can do EIGHTEEN wounds to a single target, annihilating a Morkanaut outright.

            However, the chances of that are astronomically low, so don’t go around screaming it’s overpowered just yet.

            d6 shots needing 6, all 6 shots hitting (presumed 4+ hitting), all 6 shots wounding, all 6 shots failing a 5+ save, all 6 d3 wounds rolling 3.

            That’s a lot of variables.

          • Thomson

            Chance that happens 1 in 4000. Usually that thing does less damage than in 7th. And it wasn’t that good in 7th.

          • Jani Jalassalo

            just asked on warhammer 40,000 about this does it do 6 damage or 18 and got answer that 6 shots, but doesn’t make that 18 damage

        • Nameless

          urm not sure where you have gotten that number from. a Leman rus is wounded on 6’s, saves on a 3+ and has 8 wounds. this gives 72 light arms fire hits to take it out, 144 for bs 4+ or 108 at bs 3+ still a lot, but a fraction of the 400

          In fact is as survivable as 8 space marine bikers into lasguns, so not unreasonable that they are going to chip wounds off.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            4 to hit, 6 to wound, 3+ save, 12 wounds.

          • mannstein

            Your maths is off… 432 *shots* to kill a Russ reliably is what I’m getting for 4+ to hit. 36 wounds to reliably bypass the save, needs 216 hits , needing 432 shots at 4+ or 328 shots at 3+ to hit.

          • Nameless

            apologies, I believe you are correct

        • Charon

          To be fair with the amount of firepower floating in here (guard was already mentioned to shoot 4 times at 12″ with an auto success to the order) 400 Lashshots do not seem too hard to acive. Hell.. have seen 150 Points of conscripts rolling 150 dice in this edition already.
          Add that even things like heavy bolters will “wound” dreadnoughts on a 5+ (instead of just getting ignored) and you are in for some serious firepower from anti infantry weapons.
          Also look at the battlecannon which may be a nail in the coffin of single multi wound models.

          • Emprah

            I may be wrong here, but if you mean 4 shots per guardsmen….

            That needs 100 IG to shoot at one target. Or 50 Ig to shoot at it for 2 rounds.

        • Frank O’Donnell

          Yep but how sweet it will be when your Russ lose’s it’s last wound to my lasgun

          • V0iddrgn

            Awesome!

      • AircoolUK

        There’s quite a few examples in recent history (Iraq, Afghanistan etc…) of tanks being disabled by small arms fire. Optics are easy to knock out (which also means you can’t shoot) and tracks/sprockets are particularly vulnerable, particularly as kinetic energy from bullets is turned into heat, and as metal heats up, it becomes weaker.

        Once a tank is immobilised and blind, it becomes much less of a threat.

        Throw enough bullets at a tank and something is going to give.

        • Ronin

          Not to mention a damaged vehicle full of holes can be exploited due to exposed parts, pilots, etc.

          • AircoolUK

            Also tank armour, whilst highly complex (and super secret) still suffers degradation and weakens.

            It’s still better than having a Tau Pulse Pistol smack your rear armour and ker-splode your Predator.

          • Emprah

            Except 40k has way better armour than nowdays.

            If we are talking about Pulse rifles and Heavy Bolters , or Kraken Bolters, I would agree.

            But stuff like shootas and lasguns?

            That’s like shooting a BB gun at Sherman and taking it out.

            Everybody forgets that this is not WW2 in space, not even Iraq in Space. The “defense” technology is much higher in 40k.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            You can take Shermans out with small arms fire. You just have to hit it in the right place.

            Also, I would posit that all weapons and armor are better than what we have today, even the lasgun.

          • Emprah

            Oh they are. But I mean that today, Defense technology lags behind Offense by a large margin. Most infantry armour can’t take a full clip of shots to the chest and protect fully.

            There is nothing we have today that compares to the Power Armour and heavier defenses in 40k. The weapons are stronger, indeed quite so, but the armour is even stronger.

            From reading almost all the books, I think that while a lasgun would be quite effective against a modern tank, there is no modern weapons beside nukes that would reliably damage 40k heavy armour like Power armour or a Chimera. Maybe set off some ammo or something, but not much else.

            Therefore basic infantry weapons should not damage tanks. Debuff them maybe, but not damage.

            A lasgun should not kill a terminator, nor should a grot shrug off a heavy bolter round.

            Even the firearms I mentioned are on the weaker end of the 40k spectrum.

            Tau Pulse weapons or Bolters have better armour piercing and indeed may damage exposed parts. However those rank on the higher end of personal rifles in universe.

            This is not a rifle vs a modern tank, this is a bb gun vs a modern tank thing.

            If this was a D100 game, and the damage waas like from throwing a 100, sure. But D6 is just too much of a chance.

          • AircoolUK

            Well, considering an autogun is just the same as a regular, 2K machine gun and the Heavy Stubber is essentially a 2K HMG…

          • Emprah

            Actually it is not. Auto weapons fire caseless ammunition with different propellant and different materials used for the bullet.

            There is a limit of propellant power due to the human firing, but the shells can be much harder than regular lead.

            One novel even has autocannon rounds striking with a high enough velocity to convert to plasma upon impact, but those were Thunderbolt autocannons…

          • AircoolUK

            ‘Shells’, by which you mean ‘bullets’ are, for military use, covered in a nice, shiny metal casing with a lump of something very, very hard, like tungsten carbide at the tip.

          • Emprah

            I was talking about general issue autogun bullets. I use the word bullet to differentiate it from the shells that usually refer to the larger auto weapons in the game.

            The 40k AP shells seem to use a super-sharp adamantium sabot (kind of akin to your description), while AI shells use high explosives and pressure waves coupled with shrapnel (a general purpose solution, I presume, one of those will surely take out whatever was hit) .

            There are of course more different shells, some real life based , some fantastical, but I was explicitly saying basic Autogun and Stubber shells, which seem to be rather regular bullets, but without casing.

            There are of course other shells, like the famed “Organ grinder” which is a very, very nasty hollow point analogue, but those are generally reserved for something else than regular troopers.

            Autocannon rounds seem to be very high speed, armour percing explosives.

            Bolts are a mix between rocket and shell, with a “diamantine” tip. There is a sensor that detects when it burrows into the target, than explodes.
            Interesting fact to note that most of the bolt is made up by explosive material, with the part where the “Bullet” would be in a regular shell being depleted uranium.

            They are a really interesting concept, as they are half gyrojet (TG always says this) and part cased projectile (TG always forgets this) that allows for them to actually gain more speed in flight, rather than being slowed down.

            This also means that they are less limited by recoil, since their ultimate velocity is the recoil+rocket, with the latter usually cited as the “larger” portion of the propulsion.
            The “smaller” part is still enough to break a human’s arm, in case of Marine issue bolter ammunition.

          • Muninwing

            i think that they’ve said more than once that the analogues are for our benefit, but are not intended to in any represent parallels between their tech and ours.

            even 4000 years of technology is a huge gap. our last half-century of rapid increase notwithstanding, imagine the changes in transportation or weaponry or navigation/exploration from ancient Egypt to today… and imagine ten times that gulf between them and us

          • ieyke

            Not at all.
            Even the crappy basic lasgun, a joke among 40k weapons, is powerful enough to blast holes clean through thick concrete walls.

            Even terrible 40k armor is actually extremely durable.

          • Walter Vining

            as soon as you used “clip” you lost credibility in what you were talking about lol. clip. ITS A MAGAZINE

          • Emprah

            Semantics.

          • Walter Vining

            at least be educated about something and use the proper terminology if you are going to try to equate something. and using far off comparisons like pop guns make your argument even weaker. try again when you have something stronger.

          • Emprah

            I know about 40k lore and that is the only thing that counts here. Everything else, including your views, is irrelavant to the topic at hand.

            I am commenting from a lore perspective. I’m not even taking a game balance perspective, which is the other important factor here.

          • Walter Vining

            you are comparing pop guns, that are toys with corks attached to a wooden stock with string, to las guns. Guns that fire a focused beam of light to deal damage. and in multiple spots you use reality (pop guns against shermans) to make your point. you are straw manning all over the place. At least use something similar like garands or mausers to las guns and auto guns. and yes those can damage vision slits which disable vehicles. tanks in 40k have what….VISION SLITS! Guess what, las guns and auto guns could do what….DAMAGE VISION SLITS!
            game balance wise, you are going to need MULTIPLES upon MULTIPLES of shots from these weapons to even get something through, UNLESS the person taking the saves has a bad roll. then guess what, YOU DAMAGED A VISION SLIT.
            Lore, reality, destroyed.

          • Emprah

            Well well well Mr Cruise Control for Cool, aka Capslock:

            Except those are heavily armoured vision slits made from some form of “armoured crystal” .
            This is in fact needed, or any fragmentation ordenance that explodes in front of the tank would blow the vision slits in and cook off ammunition all the time.
            So if your argument hold valid, the vehicles would be very easily taken out by anti infantry AOE weapons all the time.

            Also Imperial las weapons are “supposedly” using a “energy blast channeled through a laser” akin to Phasers , according to Dawn of War 2, which matches best what most visual descriptions of las weapon effects and even some odd stats, like Hot Shot lasguns having smaller range but more power than regular ones.

          • Haighus

            You don’t need to damage the interior of a tank to damage it- a tank with destroyed optics is essentially knocked out of the fight. It happened frequently in Afghanistan and Iraq- one of the incidents that showed how tough a Challenger II is, also showed how it was useless as anything other than a distraction once it had it’s optics knocked out and just had to sit tight and hope nothing penetrated.

            A lasgun is capable of damaging the external optics of a tank, just as explosives are.

          • Emprah

            Why are we to assume that the optics are not armoured in the same material as the vision slits?

            Also, most imperium tanks have multiples of them just because the Imperium loves redundancy.

            Actually, if the rule was that “small arm weapons interfere with the optics of the big tank, reducing its BS by 1 on roll of 6 even if they can’t wound ” I would not raise an issue.

            If we follow logic and say they are covered in armoured crystal, a lot of fire impacting on them would still disturb the visual feed, even if the armoured crystal can take the beating.

            On a totally other note, I thought the US army had communication good enough to “blind guide” the tank at least out of trouble, with telling it where to go, how many degrees to shift and fire. Especially with spy drones and satellites to guide the fire.

            I mean, most tanks got weapons that shoot well beyond visual range, I imagine they use a targeting computer, right? Could they not just feed them the coordinates through the radio, have them shoot at the rough distance of the enemy and retreat before a bazooka took careful aim? I assume their radio was not jammed since they were technologically better than the locals, I can be wrong there.

          • Haighus

            A vision slit is optics.

            Modern tanks also have multiple optics for redundancy. It is why it takes extensive fire to fully disable a tank that way.

            Blind guiding a tank out of trouble is fine, but that does not mean the tank is functional- if it is being guided out it has been knocked out of the battle and is serving no useful role until it is repaired. It is actually causing issues, because you then need to have other personnel telling the tank where to go, which you can’t afford to do if there is a very dangerous ongoing situation. This just means the tank has to sit there until either the situation is resolved enough that they can be guided, or safely pop the hatch to drive themselves, or until something penetrates (which isn’t likely for modern western MBTs).

            The tank is certainly not shooting- you have no idea where to shoot the thing, and someone observing can’t accurately aim it, it is just asking for a mistake to happen.

            Your argument actually supports what I am saying, because tanks now will get less effective as they take damage- only a bit of damage, and they have enough redundancy to keep functioning as normal. Take more, and they start getting characteristics reduced- this probably will be BS for tanks relying on shooting.

            To be honest, a vision slit is likly to be very vulnerable to lasfire, because lasers would pass through the crystal/glass/whatever it is as easily as visible light. Then it fries whatever is on the other end.

            When a model is destroyed in game, that does not mean it has been killed or totally wasted in fluff terms (except for Explodes! results). In fact, you used to be able to wreck tanks by immobilising them and knocking out all weapons. Yeah, the tank is still intact, and any crew are probably alive, but they can play no further roll in the battle. Knocking out all the optics on a tank has this roll, it is essentially weapons destroyed (weapons optics) and immobilised (driver can’t see either). Technically they can drive, but most tanks in that situation get stuck because they can’t see what they are reversing into.

          • Emprah

            Well as I pointed about, the Las weapons are energy weapons, the laser itself is not doing the damage just “carrying” the “Destructive energy” which is something we don’t know anything about except that its technobabble unobtainium. If it went through anything see through, that would be something useful but I do not think it does it.

            I’m fine with tanks loosing BS/WS because of this. I just do not think that the big tanks should actually be always able to be wounded by them. Both for lore’s and balance’s sakes.

            I also wish they kept the armour facings with simply them being a different T value, like -1 toughness at the rear, +1 at the front, and such.

          • Haighus

            The laser is the destructive energy. There are actually some reasons for it not going through see-through things that well that I forgot about before*, but lasguns are just meant to be powerful lasers. There are not many lasers that suggest a different technology to just coherent light, the main one is neutron lasers, but the others are em lasers as far as is stated.

            *nothing is perfectly clear, so some energy would be transmitted to the clear object. This means that a very powerful laser would cause it heat up, and become more opaque, blocking more of the laser energy etc. It would be damaged after this happening repeatedly, but it probably would protect a driver viewing through it for example.

          • Emprah

            The description clearly said “channeling some form of energy along the laser beam” which also explains such “unlaser” like physics aberrations such as las weapon recoil, muzzle flare, and giant turbolaser explosions.

            This is just Dow2 common sense, which was a much needed “explanation” for many 40k stuff.

            One Meltagun for example states that its barrel acts as a heat shielding force field that directs all heat forward, thus preventing the user from being cooked as well.
            A marine there has tooled his melta so that it’s containment field is not 100% heat proof, so that while it does not harm him in his power armour, it cooks unarmoured infantry around him.

          • Haighus

            Eh, again, those things are also explained by writers not being consistent- other writers also state how they don’t have a recoil. Probably the ones who actual thought about lasers. FW mentions how the Solar Auxillia prefer lasers because they are great in void warfare, because they are lasers.

            Explosions from firing a laser are not an aberration, the entire way a lasgun is meant to cause damage is by flash evaporating the water of the flesh where they hit and causing a small explosion as it all escapes. A turbolaser has enough energy that it would probably be able to flash evaporate rock and steel.

            The melta explanation makes sense.

          • Emprah

            I heard from physics nerds that it still does not explain the so regularly mentioned recoil and muzzle flash. I think the Dow2 explanation makes the most sense… or the least abuses science out of the theories.

            In void warfare, every weapon would be great that does not need its own air supply, since projectiles have no airdrag or drop off either.

            Though bolts have such a resistant to that, that Telion the Ultramarine once made two bolter sniper shots that had to take in the curvature of the planet into the aiming.

          • Haighus

            Yeah, I just explain that as BL writers having poor physics knowledge.

            In void warfare, a weapon with effectively no recoil would be ideal though, as it wouldn’t cause the shooter to be moved in low gravity.

            Yeah, Telion made bolts like that… and then has a 36″ range like the longlas with their direct fire. His fluff is so far from his rules.

          • Emprah

            Rules need to be balanced though. IF we went for full realism, IG vs Ork matches would need thousands of models for each player!

            Though… actually, in void warfare, which should mostly be done by ships, the best weapons would be guided missiles.

            40k ship combat speeds have been described up to 50-75% of C, while their ranges having their end in lightminute ranges.

            Most infantry should not make war on a ship’s surface since any weapon shot would just smear them off it, and they would be much better suited to boarding. I doubt all but the most powerful meltas could harm ship hulls. Most of them have magnetic boots, though we can not know if 40k hulls are always magnetic or not.

            As for void combat, the Imperium has a lot of weapons.
            Lances and laser batteries travel very far and are quite powerful, but have little to no AOE so they are hard to land against a fast moving target, even if one novel says that a Retribution’s laser battery broadsid can blow a planet up.

            Plasma weapons need ammo, are volatile, much slower, but they are good AP and have an AOE effect.

            Fusion beamers, which I assume are meltas, seem limited in range.

            Macrocannons, which are giant railguns, seem to be fast, versatile with different ammo, and have an AOE as well. However they MUST eat through ammo at a tremendous pace and thus strain ammo storage.

            There are also smaller, guided missiles that are used in missile batteries, which could correct course at far away targets. But these would suffer most from Flak turrets and ammo strain.

            There are also other, rarer stuff like Disruption cannons (ion cannons straight from Star Wars) and Bombardment cannons, which are giant macrocannons that trade rate of fire for one truly huge shell.

            In fact, void war seems to have two types of methods.

            First is open space fight with AU ranges where ships either duel for days until one can safely land a hit, no mean feat at those ranges, or when big fleets slug it out. 250kms is considered suicidally point blank range for Starhawk bombers to fire at their chosen target.

            Second is near-planetary warfare where ships fight at a few KMs apart, broadsiding and boarding. Quite often if one ship blows up, the reactor plasma explosion takes the other out too, this is considered dangerous.

          • Haighus

            Boarding happens in the long range war too, especially for certain forces who excel or specialise in it- Space Marines and Orks.

            I was referring to this scale- infantry scale weapons. A lasgun having no recoil is very helpful for a Navy trooper trying to repel orks when the gravity generator has failed in that area of the ship. An autogun would begin to cause rotation if not fired from the centre of gravity and generally would cause more issues.

          • DJ860

            “Rules need to be balanced though. IF we went for full realism, IG vs Ork matches would need thousands of models for each player!”

            So what’s your problem with lasguns damaging vehicles?

          • Muninwing

            everyone’s fluff is so far away from their rules.

            imagine playing Space Marines as they are represented in the fluff.

            S6 T7 I5 W3… with FNP and IWND from their implants…

          • Haighus

            If lasguns can cause explosions that will be a bit hard to explain to be fair.

          • Emprah

            It is just a “make the game quicker” mechanic I thing, so that the SvT chart is easier.

            Still I think tanks should get some immunity against small arms unless they are below 50% of health or such.

            Some las weapons can cause huge explosions due to their ” destructive energy channeled alongside powerful laser” , I love you DoW2 for making some sense of it, but those are big las type weapons are neutron and turbo lasers and such I think.

          • Muninwing

            i was hoping that some vehicles would have a rule that allowed them to ignore the first wound done by a given source, meaning that only weapons that did multiple wounds could actually take one off.

            then again, i’m actually completely fine with the new idea… if only because i cannot wait for people to focus fire on my vehicles instead of my troops in some misguided notion that it’s good gameplay. i’ll be able to get so much done that way.

          • AircoolUK

            I don’t know about you, but after taking a quick look at my Land Raider, it’s actually made of plastic which would melt over a candle flame.

          • Emprah

            Well at least its not Resin?

          • Muninwing

            you’re being a bit pedantic, and that damages your own credibility.

            toy soldiers. mandolls. invented tech. no need for super-intense complaining.

            as far as the pop-guns…

            we have basic parallels to their tech. we really have no idea how they work, or interact with their armor tech. we can only extrapolate based on our own knowledge.

          • AircoolUK

            We’ll have no anti-jewish feelings here thankyouverymuch.

          • Emprah

            I have to tip my hat for that, well memed.

          • Me

            Err… I am a veteran and am very familiar with both. Clip was perfectly valid in the way he used it (either magazine or clip could have been used).

            (Borrowed from a random web page to word it better than I could off of the top of my head) An ammunition clip is a device used to store individual rounds of ammunition together as a single unit that is then ready for insertion into the magazine of a gun. For rifles with an internal magazine, the clip loads the bullets into the firearm itself. There are stripper clips that are removed as the rounds are inserted in the magazine, while others are fed into the magazine with the rounds. When employed, clips are used to feed magazines.

            I would not have piped in, but you took a rather arrogant tone in your reply, and you were incorrect in your implication that he was misusing ‘clip’.

          • Walter Vining

            a clip, and a magazine are no where near the same. if you truly were a veteran you would know this.

          • Me

            Reread my post, I did not say they were the same. I said either could be used in his statement.

            You statement, questioning my service helps me to understand your real objective (i.e. trolling with the intent). I guess my blocked user list is finally going to have an occupant. I hope your life gets better, as it can’t be fun living like that.

          • Walter Vining

            oh no. quaking, how will I ever survive.

          • Camisa

            Just assume that the pilote was killed by a lasgun thrue is vewing window… 😂😂😂😂😂

          • Emprah

            Expect those are heavily armoured too with some form of “armour crystal” that … we know is armoured. And see through. Most likely both.

            If tank ports were open or even glassed, IG tanks would have a very bad time against Flamers….

          • Camisa

            Danm boy, it was a joke 😂😂😂😂

          • Emprah

            I know! But I’m explaining it, because some older tank marks were vulnerable in real life to flame based weapons like Molotovs, and some people may think non-ork 40k tanks suffer from the same!

            The more you know!

          • Camisa

            Iup true story 😉 love some old war tanks

          • Emprah

            It does work against orks though. But than again, orks love storing explosives in easy to reach locations, and it is only their reality bending luck that their tanks don’t go up in flames the moment they fire the main cannon.

          • DJ860

            Perhaps you should read the book where Celestine destroys a Baneblade with a powersword. There are plenty of examples in the fluff of marines being taken down by lasguns.

          • Szymon Palka

            i dont remember where but i am quite sure a lassgun can one hit a space marine..if you overcharge it and (full mag in 1 shot) and hit in the head from around 2 m distance. 🙂

          • AircoolUK

            Not really, considering that… man, I hate all this reality vs made up stuff arguing, but here goes..

            Considering that (in 40K) a Lasgun can easily kill a man, in exactly the same way that an autogun, or a human with a sharp stick can kill a man, then it’s possible that any of those items could damage a 40K tank.

            Meanwhile, a Lasgun (or equivalent, like a guardsman with the butt of his pistol) can kill a Terminator, whilst a naked grott could shrug off a heavy bolter round.

          • Martin Lucaj

            Are you saying the defense technology is higher in the year 40k but the weapons tech for small arms fire hasn’t really improved? Because from my point of view it looks like you’re trying to say the armor and tech for tanks has improved significantly in 38k years but they’re still using the same conventional ballistic weapons we use now.

            Sure the weapons they use are ballistic but we don’t know what materials those ballistics are made of. What they use to launch the projectile. Is it still using a gun powder and primer with a firing pin or is it something else entirely? What’s the speed at which the projectile is launched? Comparing anything in an imaginary setting to anything in a real world setting is not a good idea. We don’t know what the armor of tanks are made out of or how thick, or dense, that’s the toughness strength under pressure and tension etc. Nor do we know what they’re shooting, how fast it’s going, what the exact size and shape or material it’s made of.

            TL;DR stop saying imaginary guns can’t hurt imaginary tanks in an imaginary universe. We don’t know anything about any of them because we have nothing to actually compare them to. It’s a game and just treat it as such.

          • Emprah

            Except we know that in the lore, Lasguns are known to:

            -Blow a limb clean off. This is very much above modern weaponry or most sci fi weaponry that does not disintegrate.
            -Shoot through concrete easily.
            -Do minimal damage to power armour per shot, which is on the average is less hard to penetrate than Baneblades or Land Raiders.

            This power armour has been reputed to:
            -Be immune to lava.
            -Be vacuum proof.
            -Be at times proof against flame-based weapons or even a star’s atmosphere.
            -Be capable of withstanding impacts that would explode a human body.
            -Crush a “solid rock” with bare hands if it was an egg.
            -Be unable to be fractured by natural forces that one finds around on a planet.

            So we are comparing very high end tanks to very low end infantry weapons.
            This is not bolters taking out a trukk, this is about the weakest infantry weapons taking out some of the strongest tanks in universe.

          • AircoolUK

            Um, I suggest you go behind a brick wall and have someone shoot at you with a GPMG, then come back to me with your findings. I have a friend that could tell you a really interesting story about how he thought he’d broken his ankle after getting shot by small arms fire, only to realise that the twitching, jumping leg several feet away and not attached to anything was in fact, his.

            Also, I’d be very surprised if Power Armour was vulnerable to a hoover/vax/dyson.

          • Emprah

            I did not say a word about bricks, I said concrete. I also know that there are snipers that can easily punch through that nowdays.

            But tell me more about how a regular machine gun can fire a single bullet through a meter of concrete.

          • AircoolUK

            I wasn’t aware that Space Marine armour was made from a metre of concrete.

            Still, if it makes you feel any better, I’d be quite happy to test your theory. If you’d like to stand (or crouch) behind a 1 metre thick concrete block, I’d be delighted to fire a GMPG at you whilst you cower behind it.

          • Emprah

            There was a novel that is often cited where lasguns went through a meter of concrete like hot knife through butter.

            To be fair and point it out, this was just regular old concrete apparently, not the some kind of made up unobtainium-upped versions of “plascrete, ferrocrate, rockcrate” the Imperium regularly uses, which space marines still break through.

            Space Marine armour is far tougher than a meter of concrete. Perhaps tougher than ten meters of the stuff or more.
            It is even known in lore to sometimes let the wearer survive a plasma gun shot, which uses hydrogen plasma at 100 Million Kelvins , which is pretty hot.

            There was a quote in a codex where a veteran Space Marine on a bike was said to be able to burst through a meter of concrete without slowing down.

            It can also take up to 5-10 bolter rounds for the same area to break, which are supposedly fast enough to kill a human in a meter radius by kinetic shockwave, have depleted uranium core, and “diamantium” tip, as well as deliver a fatal concussion to humans in super armour who die from a shot, even if their armour holds.

            So yep, pretty tough.

            I… think a meter thick concrete would be able to take a single AK-47 bullet. Not a burst, a single shell. No CIA super sniper, I’m afraid, since Lasguns ain’t that in 40k, that’s the Exitus Rifle.

          • Haighus

            I think this just highlights how inconsistent Black Library fluff especially is at dealing with how tough things are- a lasgun should never penetrate a metre of concrete, it just isn’t how lasguns are commonly portrayed in most 40k sources. They have low penetration, but reasonably high damage on unarmoured flesh.

            Also, power armour is designed in such a way that it mitigates directly the sort of damage lasguns to, by being made largely out of ceramite, something that is very heat resistant. Even so, Marines can, and do die to lasguns. It just takes a lot, and for them to hit the areas on power armour that are less protected. The exposed cabling in the joints, eye lenses, vents, things like that. Tanks generally have similar more vulnerable bits that can be damaged, but need a high volume of fire to have a good chance of hitting.

          • Emprah

            That is true for marines. BL can be rather inconsistant, but remember that the mostly concrete is a very weak material in that universe, with more “beefed up” versions available.

            Space marines are also very hard to hit, since they are supposed to be very fast, though vastly outnumbered. Or stupid enough not to wear a helmet.

          • Haighus

            Well, I’m not sure if I have ever specifically seen it mentioned that concrete is weak. For all we know, rockcrete is concrete, but just another name for it in the vast Imperium. Ferrocrete sounds a lot like reinforced concrete, which is concrete with steel rods in it. Ferrous rods.

            I don’t know if the speed of Marines matters enough to make them hard to hit except in close quarters situations. From normal weapons ranges, they wouldn’t be going that fast in comparison to the ability to track a weapon towards them. No one is aiming for a lense or something at range anyway, they are just chucking many rounds at the entire Marine.

          • Emprah

            In most books, marines are able to move “faster than the human eye can follow” and “so fast that a human can not draw a bead on them” and one HH novel puts their marching speed at 60kms per hour at around… if I remember right, two days march time without this tiring them.

            Of course in TT they are dumbed down so that people need to buy a lot of SM models.

          • Haighus

            Which books say that?! That is simply not compatible with the more “historical” accounts, such as the FW Imperial Armour and Horus Heresy books where normal humans are capable of taking down Marines, albeit with great difficulty. It would be true to a degree in very close quarters, say inside a building, but Marines do not move faster than vehicles, and humans can draw a bead on a speeding bike. 60kmph is fast, but it isn’t so fast a human cannot follow with a weapon, except when very close. Sometimes I wonder if BL writers even think about what they are writing.

          • Emprah

            A lot of HH books and 40k books. Most of them actually.

            Just read anything written about Ragnar or Talos the Night Lord. One even says that a space marine can move ten meters in less than a heartbeat.

            These feats are littered all over the books, really.

            I do admit that I do not trust FW, since FW is notoriously stupid when it comes to fluff, even going so far as to say a Land Raider’s armour is equivalent to 20cms of steel, or that a Dreadnought can only hold 8 missiles, when there is clearly enough space behind those missiles for another 8 even if most of the missile launcher is empty air.

            Which would , ironically, mean that a Land Raider would go up like plastic when lasguns found it.

            GW, proof reading is your friend. Remember the deuterium water bolters?

          • Haighus

            Yeah, but that was old FW. The stuff in the HH books is amazing. I trust FW more than BL, as they are generally consistent now. They even talk about things like the standard for a basic lasgun being a 70% mortality rate after a single shot to the centre mass of an unarmoured human. Better lasguns are more lethal, but this is the minimum level recommended for Imperial Army weaponry.

            On the other hand, BL books are both less consistent with each other, and less consistent with the game by a long way. If you read fluff that isn’t from a Marine perspective they are very different to those from a human perspective.

            In addition, Space Marines are usually shown to be very quick and dangerous when close, but not especially hard to target from range. Which is why they choose not to fight in those circumstances, at least after the Legions were turned into Chapters.

            A heartbeat can be quite a long time. Usain Bolt can run about 12m in a second. Many people have heart rates of 70bpm normally. That is 10m in a heartbeat. Space Marines should be faster than Usain Bolt on the sprint, so it is not really surprising they can move that fast. Any soldier would be able to track Usain Bolt with a weapon unless they were very close.

          • Haighus

            The weapons tech is also much higher- Lasguns are far more powerful than our small arms- they are described in places as being capable of removing limbs from unarmoured humans. That same level of damage takes a .50cal round with our weapons.

          • Koonitz

            For some things, sure. But for most things, absolutely not. Most Imperial Tech is based on 10,000 year old (or older) designs, barely understood by the most advanced of admech priests and built using fully automated STC machines using whatever materials are at hand (not necessarily the originally intended materials).

            They’re bull****ing their way through most of what they’re doing.

            A Leman Russ is barely more advanced than a modern tank (if that), more akin to a WW2 tank in design. More rugged and reliable than advanced and technological. After all, a Rhino is modeled with a front view port for the driver. A Leman Russ is designed with a front view hole. A well timed shot and the driver is dead.

            A Predator, while more advanced than a Leman Russ, is more lightly armoured to allow it to move faster. This makes it actually MORE susceptible to small arms fire than a Leman Russ.

          • Emprah

            That Dark Age of Technology era was often regarded as the “best” part of the human technological advancement, sometimes said to be on par with Necrons, outpacing Eldar or Tau.

            The Leman Russ is indeed more reliable and rugged. It is mean to be like the Russian designs, that is true. Easy to mass produce, reliable, though, easy to operate. With a very tough frontal slab of armour and a vulnerable rear engine.

            The Rhino / Predator on the other hand has a lot of very advanced features.

            This includes 4 engines, emergency electric batteries in case all 4 engines are shot down, with those four engines being capable to go on almost anything (Because it is painted red?) and automatic repair systems.

            Some sources even go as far as to say that the Predator has a neural control plug so that the Marine’s power armour is linked to it, and that it can “re-weave” its tracks if shot.

            Some sources also claim that the Baneblade and such are very advanced, more in line with SM tanks for the most part than with their lesser IG kindred, and the same stands of course for Fellblades and Land Raiders.

            So all in all, I would expect the Predator to be more easily damaged, but to need more damage to actually take it out of commission due to its multiple redundancies and much more resilient crew.

          • V0iddrgn

            I can’t wait to shoot those tanks with Sluggas.

          • georgelabour

            Worth noting that the ‘weak’ lasgun has performance superior to pretty much every infantry small arms of today.

            Heck it has performance superior to some anti material rifles as far as its ratio of firepower to weight/ammo goes.

            In the 40k RPGs a lasgun can rip an arm clean off, set that limb on fire, AND cause massive internal trauma. All from just one shot. And that’s before you add in full auto, hot shot packs and variant patterns.

            In the novels the lasguns routinely punch holes in walls, and through people. So their performance is consistent across media.

            All in a simple easily produced weapon with a MASSIVE ammo capacity that can be resupplied in the field.

          • paxter

            Have u noticed how finicky the sponsons on a predator are built? or the exposed belts of ammo on some vehicles, some vehicles even have exposed cables and even engines … you cant tell me a lucky lasgun shot cant hit some lascannon cable/opticals/ hell a lucky shot thru the tank visor hitting the driver in the head… OR after 500 lasgun shots which are basically laser guns on a metal tank thread u cant tell me that wont budge a bolt out of place or blow the whole transmission…

          • DJ860

            As is the gun technology. Last time I checked, people right now aren’t running round firing laser weapons as each other, so to even compare the two is fairly pointless.

          • Muninwing

            way better armor, but way better weapons shooting at them…

          • generalchaos34

            precisely, one lucky shot could get through a hole and cook off the ammo in the magazine, or hit the fuel lines, or kill the crew, etc.

        • Graham Roden

          The humble RAF regiment shot through a Hardened Aircraft shelter using nothing but a lot of bullets

          • AircoolUK

            To be fair, if they’d just used one of their heads as a battering ram, it would have a similar effect.

      • Nik Dixon

        “Scientists have calculated that the chances of something so patently absurd actually existing are millions to one.
        But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine times out of ten.”
        ― Terry Pratchett, Mort

    • Anthony Keen

      It’s already been said – by GW as well as players who’ve worked it out – lasguns against something like a Baneblade or a gorkenaut will take hundreds upon hundreds of shots to kill it.

      • Muninwing

        not even a baneblade… IG with lasgun takes over 400 shots to down a LRBT. it’s even still over 300 for SM with Bolters

        though Heavy Bolters wound on 5s…

    • Rajak

      In reality small arms fire can hurt a tank. There are many components that can’t be armored. It is still difficult but a good shot could knockout viewports, sensors, communications, and other sensitive items. Armor is there to protect the people.

      • Emprah

        Except this is not real life, and the disparity between a Baneblade or Land Raider and a lasgun or an ork slugga pistol is bigger than between a pop gun and a Sherman tank.

        • generalchaos34

          its not real life, we don’t know how powerful a lasgun or a slugga pistol really is compared to what is realistic now. We also know that most imperium tanks are run on duct tape and prayers so assuming there are no weak spots that a lasgun can hit on a really really lucky shot is also unrealistic.

          Besides, any vehicle thats down to its last wound probably has a lot of big gaping holes in it, theres any chance that a lucky shot could enter one of those holes, ricochet around and kill the crew or hit some shells in the ordnance bay and cook of the magazine resulting in a kill.

    • AircoolUK

      I think with regards to templates, particularly the blast ones, there was always the possibility that it could deviate and hit absolutely nothing.

      • Muninwing

        possibility? welcome to my regular rolls…

    • Koonitz

      It may be random, but overall, the battle cannon is going to do reliable damage to most targets, whereas, say, a lascannon may end up missing more often than a battle cannon rolling 1 shot and missing.

  • Blinghop

    Did we just gloss over that a heavy bolter is heavy 6 now and a twin is heavy 12 at 18″?

    • BClement

      No, I think you’re reading that wrong. The profile is for a TWIN Heavy Bolter – so a regular heavy bolter is still 3 shots.

      • Blinghop

        When I made the comment, the article said double shots at half range with the profile given. So I read it correctly, but the article was incorrect.

        • BClement

          You said that “a heavy bolter is heavy 6 now” – I was referring to that part.

          The weapon profile is for a TWIN Heavy Bolter which has 6 shots.

          • Blinghop

            gotcha. That was operating from the assumption via the article that what twin did was double shots at half range.

            edit: the good ol’ assumption quote still holds strong

    • AircoolUK

      Yeah, I read the half range thing before they corrected it 🙂

      • orionburn

        lol…everybody was confused as hell on their FB page.

    • Dumbcow1

      My LR Crusaders machine spirits are pleased by this announcement. Time to unfurl holy vengeance on the mutant, the witch, and the heretic!

      • AircoolUK

        Meanwhile, Tau Crisis Suit Pilots are suffering a dichotomy as to whether they should take twin linked weapons… or not.

  • PGConley

    FYI they corrected the article. Twin-Linked weapons are just a flat double of attacks. So a Twin Heavy bolter get’s 6 shots, a Twin Lascannon gets 2, etc. They misprinted the double attacks at half-range

  • ejvter

    So this means a Land Raider Crusader will have how many shots?

    • James Drazic

      4 lascannon shots, 6 heavy bolter shots + 1 multimeta shot if you bought the upgrade.

      • James Drazic

        Crap, wrong LR variant…

    • Blinghop

      I imagine a hurricane bolter will be a twin rapid fire 3, so 6 each at long range and 12 each at half if I’m thinking that through correctly

      • orionburn

        Lots more shots, but no save modifier with bolters now. Wonder how the math works out compared to the old hurricane bolters and which one will causes more loses.

        • Blinghop

          While the bolter lost their ap, the assault cannons will be more useful then ever on better armor now, so that will be interesting. Its going to come down to the difference between reroll vs more shots. I imagine one of our mathhammer heroes will come to the rescue soon enough

          • orionburn

            I wonder if they are going to do away with the rending rule or if that will remain.

          • AircoolUK

            They’ll scrap the rending rule as all USR’s are getting binned. I’d imagine each weapon that had rending will get its own special rule which may differ for each weapon for balancing purposes.

            I’d imagine that, most rending weapons will now cause a Mortal Wound if you roll a 6 on the to-damage roll. Or maybe not… who knows 🙂

          • AircoolUK

            Old AP 4 weapons (which appear to translate to AP -1) are now going to be a lot more useful. They kind of occupied an area which was relatively untouched as most infantry weapons were AP5 and if you took weapons for popping elite infantry, you looked to AP3 or better.

          • Koonitz

            To a point. Against heavier armour, they will, unless that armour is in cover, in which case it won’t change (or will get worse, depending on whether there is a heavy cover granting +2 save).

            It is nice, though, to not have to rely so heavily on AP3 weapons all the time.

    • OldHat

      ALL THE SHOTS

  • Kyle

    So much dakka.

    • petrow84

      But never enough.

  • Urban Bungledorph

    Why do they have both twin linked and rapid fire? Aren’t they redundant now?
    Also what about large explosive templates that used to be able to hit multiple squads, is that just gone in favor of all blasts doing d6 hits?

    • Anthony Keen

      I’m guessing that different blasts will have different values. Blast = dx. A titan’s blast shot is going to be bigger than a leman russ’, for example.

      • Emprah

        I think that is reasonable to assume.

        Twin linked is now just twice the shots, the half range was a mistake apparently.

        Twin just means double the shots, something I have always been saying. Combi now has both shots too, but at a penalty, again very logical but fun.

    • Rajak

      Rapid fire will still have other associated rules. Like needing to be in half range to get the Rapid fire rule. Where twin just doubles the shots as there is a second weapon shooting at the same time.

  • Luca Lacchini

    Unholy xeno crap, Batman!
    That Leman Russ Exterminator squadron I was planning for my oldguard (I found a box of Rogue Trader era plastic guardsmen, so I’m converting some WWI MkIV british tanks for them) suddenly looks so much more devastating!
    Twin autocannon, front sponson lascannon, side sponson heavy flamers, split fire… that’s a whole bundle of hurt!

    • Leif Leegard

      I don’t know, 3 heavy bolters supporting the main gun still sounds more scary at range. Guess it’s a matter of what your targeting. Multiple wound targets, or just multiple targets.

    • AircoolUK

      Until 12 Grots ruin your day by rolling an unlikely amount of 6’s.

  • The Battle Cannon seems a but underwhelming. Quick and dirty math averages it out to killing 1.5 marines a turn. Woof. Hope there’s something we don’t know about.

    • Loss of ordnance on the main gun so the rest of your stuff can fire as well

      • Good, because 3 Heavy Bolters will usually be the better option than the main gun.

      • uatu13

        Yeah, but unless the LR has some special rules, it can’t move and shoot unless it’s at -1 BS, so it’s basically an Ork looted wagon. Yippie.

        • So? Its better than before when they could only shoot at one target with all their weapons and only hit on 6’s with everything non ordanace. And that is while sitting still.

        • LR have machine spirits. Wanna bet they can move and fire at full BS?

        • Simon Bates

          You also don’t know what BS it will be yet. For all we know, they’ll give vehicles a general boost, so that they’re just more accurate standing still than they are now. Probably more likely, they’ll give a lot of them rules to off-set.

    • Xodis

      Yeah, but luckily with split fire you can not waste it against Marines and instead shoot those 2W Terminators for roughly the same amount of success.

      • Uh, no. It will kill a Termie every 2 turns on average. (1.09 wounds per turn). The possible upside is huge, but math is math.

        • Xodis

          1.09 isnt roughly 1.5? You can’t kill half a marine or .09 Terminators, and like you said the upside is HUGE, especially if you convert that to points killed.

          • Those numbers aren’t the bottom, they are the middle, so the downside is also HUGE. Look, maybe there is something we don’t know. As it is though, it’s not looking good.

          • Xodis

            d6 shots wounding on 2+ against a 4+ save with a 66% chance of completely killing a terminator? Ill take those odds, especially when you convert to points killed like I said.

          • Sorry, too much random for me. Hopefully they won’t follow this pattern for the rest of the Guard’s big guns. This is the first thing about 8th I really don’t like, but I really don’t like it.

          • Xodis

            Always the option of shooting a vehicle with it, will probably more than make up for the weakness of shooting troops.

            D6 hits wounding a Dread on 3+ with his 5+ save and D3 on each hit that goes through….might 1 shot him.

          • That’s good because a TL Lascannon Dread can one shot me as well.

          • Xodis

            2-12 wounds at best? I doubt it, not sure how much weaker/stronger the vehicle with a Battle Cannon will be, but the Morkanaut comes in at 18W already.

          • Russes have 12 wounds.

          • Xodis

            Really? When did they release that?

          • Except that the Dread will hit on a 3+ (or 2+ for the Ven) I can live with not liking the BC, as long as this isn’t how all pie plates work.

          • SprinkKnoT

            I have a feeling all large plates are d6 hits and all small plates are d3 hits.

          • Xodis

            4+ if it moved and at 48 inches. With a 72″ range Russ doesn’t need to move.

          • I picked up Guard ’cause I like tanks. I’m not interested in this much random, particularly when the average results are so low. It just doesn’t sound fun. It sounds frustrating. That’s just my opinion. If the other gun options are better or if their is some other rule that mitigates this, then it’s all good. If not I’ll pass. No amount of litigating is going to change the basic math.

          • Xodis

            I got that, but your basic math isn’t taking into account all factors either. The Battle canon is useful, but its not the only reason to take a Russ. There are a lot of other weapons on the vehicle that still get to fire (at whoever they can do the most damage to), and saying the lack of certainty for a single weapons damage output ruin the vehicle, the Faction, or even the weapon itself is absurd. That weapon firing at 72″ is a beast from turn 1 regardless of where its located on the board. The weapon doesn’t need anything to mitigate its “randomness” because if it was any less random it would be the only thing anyone needs to put on the table.

          • Here’s hoping there are other factors and that D6 isn’t the go to replacement for big plates and D3 for small, because I don’t like that system, and I have a lot of former template weapons on my shelf. I didn’t run classic Russes before anyway, too random 😉

          • Xodis

            The biggest question I have is what is going to happen to Apocalyptic pie plates and barrages? Hit units within a certain amount of length to the target unit? Target multiple units? Seems odd anyone would use such a powerful weapon against any single unit.

          • Probably something like units within so many inches of the target unit also take a hit. So a basilisk might be D6 shots on the target, for each 2 hits, each unit within 6 inches takes 1 hit rounded down (this would make firing danger close a risk).

          • Karru

            Here’s something you don’t seem to take into account. Other Leman Russ Variants.

            That’s the problem with the Battle Cannon when it comes to Guard. If the Executioner follows suit and has something like 3D3 shots + Plasma Cannons with Strength 7 AP -3 and possibly even some extra damage, it will be better at everything compared to the Battle Tank. Even the Exterminator is better, with 8 Strength 7 Shots with AP -1.

            Also, I don’t see a situation where you’d take a Battle Tank to fill a role. You need something to take care of big threats like the Morkanaut or a group of Carnifexes? Heavy Weapons Squads with Lascannons. Need to take care of hordes? Heavy Weapons Squads with Heavy Bolters.

            The Battle Tank doesn’t seem to fill any position in the army any more. The damage output is so random and on average so low that you are far better off with the other variants to provide you with Armoured Support. You just outright ignore it because of this. It doesn’t have any real strengths that other Variants cannot do better. The range is irrelevant since Facing is gone and one can freely move around with the Tank now, instead of having to hunker down in a corner so the enemy cannot flank it. This means that the 72″ range of the Battle Cannon is just as powerful as the 48″ of some of the other variants.

            In other words, the argument that “the cannon doesn’t make the tank” is irrelevant when it comes to Guard. All the options that the Tank has are also available to other Variants. These Variants have more reliable damage output most likely due to having fixed amount of shots or just more firepower. Unless the price of the Battle Tank is around 80pts, you won’t be seeing much of it on the table any more.

          • Xodis

            Yes but what happens when you take that lascannon squad or that Heavy Bolter squad and you dont happen to be facing the enemies you planned for? Thats what the Battlecannon is for, filling a role that isn’t specialized but gives you a much better chance at hurting a horde than lascannons and a better chance of taking down the Morkanaut than Heavy Bolters. Its a “good” weapon thats not specialized towards a specific target, and works fine against all targets. These types of weapons usually come pretty cheap as well. If you know your opponent is bringing the Green Tide or Bugzilla then you are absolutely right, but how many people actually go and tailor their armies and don’t get called out for it?

          • Karru

            But you are still better off with taking the Exterminator. Stick a Lascannon up front and boom, better monster/tank hunter AND horde killer than the Battle Tank.

            Also, if they keep the pricing around the same, you can take 3 Heavy Weapon Squads without upgrades for the price of a single Leman Russ. That is quite significant as that is 9 Heavy Weapons for the price of one Tank. That’s three separate targets and more firepower.

            Also, Heavy Weapons Squads might have gotten a nice buff if they removed Instant Death from the game. There has been no mention of it and since the game now has weapons that do multiple wounds, I hope that this will be the case.

            So yeah, Battle Tank is still complete trash when looking at all the info we currently have. They are going to need to give it a loooooot of extra rules to make up for it.

          • Xodis

            Yes but are you sure its cheaper? In a game where everything is lethal to everything else (the only difference is HOW lethal) can we really expect 3 squads full of lascannons will be cheaper than a single tank with an all comers weapon?
            Its not trash based on what we know, its only trash based on what you expect.

          • Karru

            Again, all of my comments are made based on current information and past experiences.

            Currently a single Heavy Weapons Squad costs 45pts. A Battle Tank costs 150pts. Leman Russ also has to pay for its sponsons, it only has the Front Sponson, which is a Heavy Bolter. A Lascannon is 10pts while Heavy Bolter Sponsons are 20pts.

            That means that currently a Battle Tank with Heavy Bolter Sponsons is 5pts more expensive than 9 Heavy Weapons Teams with Autocannons. If you want Lascannons, then it’s 40pts more expensive to take the Teams.

            The biggest issue with the Leman Russ pricing will be its “toughness”. Since Russ isn’t exactly the lightest of tanks, it’s going to be pretty “expensive”, at least by Guard Standards. There is no point in taking it, when a better “all-comer” choice would be the Exterminator. You are still looking at more shots, more hits on average and roughly the same amount of damage against similar targets. There is no real point in taking the Battle Tank over the Exterminator as of right now.

          • Xodis

            And all your past experience means diddly since the recent Rubric Marine datasheet shows just how different this game is costed than the last game was. That game (7e) also had weapons costed differently since they were either worthless or usable, there wasn’t the “situation specific” equipment that AoE and now 40K has done so well with and keeping them viable even when not in a situation. So your Exterminator being better only works when taking 7e into account, which you definitely shouldn’t. All you currently know is that you dont like the Battlecannon, Twin Linked Autocannons (which is what the Exterminator is correct?) is probably only 4-6 shots at 48″ range S5 AP-1. Thats a much weaker All comer than the Battle cannon.

            Also a Lemun Russ is T8, W12, 3+ save

    • Andrew B

      Yes, the Battle Cannon seems to have been nerfed vs 1-wound infantry, but can now potentially inflict 18 wounds against a single larger model; or spread across 6 medium ones.

      • It can also potentially do nothing.

        • Duncan Parker Newton-Gaines

          just like it could do nothing now, if it scatters. I fail to see the problem.

        • AircoolUK

          But rejoice. You can now fire Blast weapons whilst moving at only a -1 to-hit.

          Kinda makes up for some of the shortcomings, no?

          • Nameless

            vehicles could fire heavy weapons while moving at no penalty in 7th.

          • Walter Vining

            but they were far less resilient. I will trade a -1 to hit to be able to have a tank do what it SHOULD do. hull points was the worst thing ever

          • AircoolUK

            All their heavy weapons? I didn’t bother with 7th so I don’t know.

            However, Infantry Heavy Weapons that had a blast can now be fired on the move.

            No more waiting for Brother Dave to fire his Plasma Cannon whilst you fiddle around with your Bolter being useless.

          • Nameless

            there’s not a strait answer, vehicles that move are limited to firing up to a set number of weapons, heavy and blast don’t impact this (although ordinance does).

            for infantry (especially bs 3+ infantry) its a huge improvement, but its going to make a lot of tanks a lot less able to deal damage in a real game.

          • Walter Vining

            a tank moving combat speed (6) unless fast, could fire 1 weapon at full BS. now a tank can move, presumably the same speed (that’s unknown) and file ALL of their weapons at the same effectiveness. that’s a lot better

    • mgdavey

      If you do more than 1 damage per wound do you lose the extra damage against a unit with 1 wound models, do you lose the extra damage?

      • Andrew B

        Yes.

      • Good point. I hope not.

        • Xodis

          You do.

      • AircoolUK

        Yes, meaning the maximum number of models a Battle Cannon can take out is 6.

        However, as explained alongside the Flamer teaser, that Battle Cannon can also put up to 18 wounds onto something like a Riptide should your luck be in.

        • KingAceNumber1

          and it’s not even that rare, about a 6% chance per hit to max out those wounds. Even so, 18 is excessive against stuff like another leman russ, you could have all 3-4’s on those damage rolls and still kill it in one shot if you get 6 hits and they don’t save. It’s not -likely-, but it’s definitely something worth considering when prioritizing the targets.

        • Emprah

          Seems like a lottery tank made for monster hunting.

          “It may take out infantry, but it has a slight chance of instantkilling any big monster.”

          That does go against its old “generalist” role, though I’m not sure which variant would be more useful in the end, we need math hammer for that.

    • orionburn

      But wouldn’t it be better used against armor rather than troops anyway? Seems the way they’re going is that heavy weapons like that shouldn’t be used against troops.

      • Battle Cannons are supposed to be good all purpose guns. Vanquishers are the go to against armor.

    • Yea, 1.5 marines or like potentially up to 18 wounds to a vehicle – 5.25 on average (not including saving throws yet).

      • What toughness are you using for a vehicle? 3.5 average shots, 1.75 average hits (4+), which even if they auto wound, would be only be 2.625 on average. (1.75*1.5).

        • You’re right. I should go to bed, my math is currently just silly and borked. 🙂

  • edmundblack

    Twin-linked Assault Cannon Razorbacks are still the go-to good variety then I guess.

    • orionburn

      And Lazbacks just got a nice boost in killing armor.

    • Walter Vining

      tlhb backs got stupid

    • Koonitz

      Or a LasPlas, considering only heavy weapons get -1 on the move. A twin-linked plasma gun firing to full effect on the move (with a lascannon at -1 to hit) seems rather pleasing to me.

  • Hudson

    IG Melta-vets are back.

    • AircoolUK

      Unless faced with a stiff breeze of Heavy Bolter fire.

    • petrow84

      Were they ever gone?
      Alas, it takes now 2 melta hits to remove a single terminator, provided, they don’t get an invu save, and fail both of their 6+. We shall see, how they fare against vehicles.

      • Simon Bates

        How do you figure that out? The meltagun does D6 damage (and rolls two dice picking the highest at half range) per hit. That’s a 2+ to kill a terminator from a single unsaved wound. At short range, you’d have to roll snake eyes not to kill a terminator with a single unsaved wound (while wounding on a 2+ and allowing only a 6+ save, plus any invulnerable).

        • petrow84

          Aww, right, the D6 damage escaped my sight.

  • Xodis

    So do you roll for damage a d6 number of times or roll once and apply to all hits? Still waiting on that answer from FB.

    • mgdavey

      Pretty sure it’s you roll to hit, roll to wound, roll save, then roll the d6 to see how many wounds (i.e. damage) it causes.

      • AircoolUK

        Yep, that’s right. For the Battle Cannon, you’d roll D6, then roll to hit as many times as that result. After rolling to wound and save, any shot that still got through will do D3 damage each.

        The damage range from a Battle Cannon is 1-18.

        • Silverbeast

          So if Im shooting a three man unit with the battle cannon, and Im rolling a 6, then am I hitting every figure twice (instead of 3 times if we still have the templates)? Or the other 3 hits are going to waste, cause I can not hit the same model twice with a blast weapon?

          • Andrew B

            You hit each model twice. And if you were shooting at a single model then it would be hit 6 times (presuming that’s what you rolled).

          • Silverbeast

            Then its a buff, cause you cant hit the same model more than once with a blast template in 7th ed.

          • Andrew B

            Yes but you might only hit one model now, and the old blast template could cover more than 6 models, depending on how they were spaced.

          • AircoolUK

            Basically, you can hit a maximum six models, and cause up to 18 damage on a single model.

            It sits nicely in between dedicated anti-infantry and anti-armour weaponry.

          • AircoolUK

            But your template could deviate and miss everything, or even land on the unit shooting if you were really unlucky.

          • Nameless

            and the new rules allow you to fail your to hit rolls and score 0 hits

            actually with the -1 to hit for moving with a heavy weapon (stated to apply to tanks as well) you’re going to miss a lot more than the blast would have

          • AircoolUK

            I guess there’s got to be some losers to make up for that fact that AP is now a modifier rather than a flat value, along with the new S v T chart, heavy weapons are going to be a lot more lethal across the board.

            Also, what were the rules in 7th for moving and firing with a blast weapon? As far as I can remember, you couldn’t even snap fire a template weapon whilst moving, but now you can, and only with a -1 to-hit modifier. I’d say that is a point in favour of the new system, correct?

            How would the Battle Cannon fare against 5 Terminators using the old rules and 5 Terminators using the new rules?

          • Nameless

            you didn’t have to snap fire the battle cannon, it fired normally because they bothered writing rules to govern how different unit types worked.

            okay, so 8th first, d6 shots gives an average of 3.5, bs 4+ if stationary gives 1.75 hits. wounds on a 2+ and is saved on a 4+ gives 0.729, multiplied by 1d3 (average 2) you get 1.45 wounds… less than one terminator.

            in 7th its trickery, you have a 2/6+3/36 chance of landing the template bang on target. but as you scatter it you lose hits gradually. assuming the terminators just deep struck (bases touching) you get an average of 4.25 hits or 0.59 wounds after saves.

            so slightly better into terminators, but terminators aren’t really what it is designed to shoot at in 7th.

          • AircoolUK

            What about if the models were at maximum spread and in a line?

            I guess there’s too many factors to compare. However, at least the Battle Cannon is pretty good against single models with multiple wounds. They’ve already said that a Flamer can hit the same model 6 times, so the Battle Cannon, could in effect cause 18 wounds on one model. Light armour will be wrecked 🙂

          • Nameless

            the odds of it inflicting 18 wounds is about 1 in 9.5 million. its just not going to happen often enough for anyone to take it for that reason.

            (odds are 1 in 6 for number of hits, multiplied by hitting with all of them 1 in 64, multiplied by wounding with all of them 1 in 2.98, multiplied by failing all the saves (assume +3 for dreadnaught or the like) 1 in 11.39, multiplied by rolling max damage on 6 d3, 1 in 729.) really go roll some dice and see if you get them all 5’s and 6’s for the damage rolls.

          • AircoolUK

            Yeah, but you just watch it happen the first time someone shoots a Battle Cannon at your huge-ass tank 😉

            Highly improbable doesn’t mean impossible, and highly improbable generally means that it will happen when you least want it to happen 😉

          • Karru

            But you know what else you could do? You could take the Leman Russ Exterminator to shoot at that single target more reliably. Even better, you could take Heavy Weapons Squads with Lascannons to take it down. The Battle Tank doesn’t fill any role whatsoever in the Guard army right now that other Russ Variants wouldn’t be able to do better.

          • Where was it stated that tanks will be subject to the -1 for heavy?

          • Blinghop

            in the article that talked about the -1 modifier on heavy weapons. Specifically called out vehicles being subject to it.

          • Nameless

            New Warhammer 40,000 shooting phase, paragraph 7

            “These no longer snap fire if you move, and instead they have a flat -1
            to hit modifier for moving units. This applies to all models with heavy
            weapons, vehicles included.”

          • Silverbeast

            Ok, thanks

          • generalchaos34

            but it was highly unlikely with a player of any skill, and even less likely with larger based armies like marines.

        • Xodis

          But do I have to roll D3 a number of times equal to the wounds or roll a D3 and apply it to all that were wounded. Speed vs Precision. Thats the real question, because it could bog down real quickly.

      • Xodis

        But do I have to roll D3 a number of times equal to the wounds or roll a D3 and apply it to all that were wounded. Speed vs Precision.

    • Andrew B

      I think Damage is a D3 (for Battle Cannon) for each separate failed Armour Save.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Yes but the damage is capped to one model per d3.

        • Xodis

          but doesnt answer if I have to roll a d3 for each wound that got through or roll a d3 and apply it to all models that were wounded. Speed vs precision.

          • AircoolUK

            They really need to change the nomenclature of damage and wound.

            Either make a ‘to-damage’ roll using Strength v Toughness, then roll for the number of wounds caused after failing a saving throw…

            Or keep the current nomenclature, but just change the wound stat to damage stat considering that weapons with a multiple damage value actually cause multiple wounds.

          • Blinghop

            As the stats for 8th go, you make a to wound roll, then consult the damage stat (D for damage) for how much damage is taken on a failed save

            edit: maybe if the wound stats on models were HP, as in health points, it would cause less confusion

          • AircoolUK

            Yeah, it’s just the terminology, as wounded can mean a model that’s just been subject to a successful to-wound roll, but can also mean a model that’s just lost a wound because it failed a saving throw after it was wounded 🙂 Except, now that it’s wounded, you have to roll D3 Damage to see how many wounds to model takes.

            🙂

        • Andrew B

          Yes. It can’t spread over to other models.

  • AircoolUK

    Tau Gun Drones are going to be a lot of fun.

  • Jabberwokk

    All I see is tau and Salamanders.

  • blackbloodshaman

    hopefully the rats haven’t gotten to my 40k models. this looks like a game worth playing again

  • Tenpoletudor

    Immolators with Dominion melta and vet with combi-melt for the Tank hunt win

  • Arthfael

    Twin-Linked weapons now get double the shots? At last they’ve corrected this aberration!

    • Emprah

      And they fixed combi too! Reasonable GW? What a time to be alive in.

  • Unimpressed

    i really hope there are different ruled for barrage coming. if not this is a big artillery nerf!!!!!!!!!

    • Albert Torras sopena

      Yes i don’t like. The explosions only afect at one unit…. Apocaliptic blast? 3D6 but only afected at one unit?????????

      • Leif Leegard

        Your Warhound can only shoot 2 5man squads a turn.. hahaha… no blob units for me thanks, I’ll keep to MSU for facing titans if this is true.

        Yah, that truly sucks for titans.

        • Albert Torras sopena

          No warhound… Baneblade or thunder siege canons…..

      • Xodis

        I fully expect weapons with Apocalyptic like blasts to have rules that can also wound units within so many inches.

        • If that was true, wouldn’t that be the same as templates just without using templates? Kind of a silly thing then.

          • Xodis

            Not really, Templates had shenanigans and caused “discussions” measuring would be pretty simple and straightforward.

          • Hmm, yea, I see it may have a benefit. Still a weird thing kind of as you would still measure distance which previously was done via a template. Personally, I don’t think we will see damage-spill-overs. I think Apocalyptic blasts will just be no more a thing.

          • Xodis

            Thats another possibility, or they might just allow multiple units within range to be targeted kind of like a “sweeping” motion with an automatic gun. Itll be interesting, but I cant see focusing Apocalyptic weapon on a single squad going over very well.

      • generalchaos34

        it could always be “pick a point, all units within X inches take 2d6 hits” that already exists in Sigmar

  • Albert Torras sopena

    The explosion not afect more than one unit. I don’t like

  • AircoolUK

    I think it’s reasonably safe to assume that weapon AP now translates thus:

    AP 5 = AP 0
    AP 4 = AP -1
    AP 3 = AP -2
    AP 2 = AP -3
    AP 1 = AP -4

    and units keeping their normal saving throw.

    • Xodis

      Also been confirmed there is no +AP weapons, so no weapons sucks that much to be ineffective against an opponent with armor.

      • AircoolUK

        Sharp sticks at the ready lads… poke that Grav Tank a few hundred times and we should be good to go.

  • Basti Schreyer

    I’m really not convinced that replacing the somewhat controllable damage output of blast weapons with an entirely random system is a good idea.
    It’s just too random now. The decision to center everything around D6 rolls makes the weapons too unpredictable. So a proper threat assessment is basically impossible. Sure you can take the averages but it does not help much in predicting the outcome of any one shoting phase. The possible deviation is just too big I think.

    The big amount of randomness just makes it less fun for both players. If the player rolls low, the unit underperformes, if he rolls high, it overperformes. Five or six turns are not enough to make the actual outcome mach the statistical one. Loosing or winning based on a couple low or high rolls a game really isn’t fun for me.

    • mgdavey

      How is this mechanic any less random than scatter?

      • Blinghop

        It’s like people forgot about that RANDOM roll before every blast weapon. The one with a 1/3 chance of staying on target and 2/3 chance of moving in a RANDOM direction a RANDOM number of inches with a modifier that allowed a semblance of control to an entirely random placement.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          Exactly. Could not have said it better myself.

          I watched with horror/delight as my friend’s Deathstrike Missile scattered a full 12 inches, straight into the only empty portion of the board on multiple occasions.

          • Basti Schreyer

            Well now he’ll at least get one hit out of it. What a difference.
            Now it’s watching with horror/delight when his gunline produces a couple ones and is basically useless in the same way.

          • Xodis

            Guard are nothing if not Fickle.

            Also dont forget you still have to roll to hit for each d6 shot fired with it lol. So you can still completely miss lol.

        • Basti Schreyer

          Are you sure about the “entirely random placement“ part?
          Also some control over the scatter distance allows for predicting likely outcomes. I prefer that to a single D6 roll to see if my arty can make up for its points costs or not.

          Loosing because my oponent played around my templates seems more desireable than knowing that I won because I lucked out and rolled sixes for hits.

          • Blinghop

            Yes. I am sure. The best case scenario was to hit, or roll a scatter distance less than your ballistic skill. Even then, you could roll above the skill value and scatter a couple inches in a random direction. This makes it possible for you “controlled” shot to go from hitting 4+ guys to 2 or less. That sounds a bit familiar to the exact thing you’re complaining about now.

            From what we know now, there is no dispute that blasts are entirely worse for taking out multiple distinct units, but in 7th ed, it still always came down to a “single d6”

            Also: while skill and placement always take precedence, I always find it odd that people think that luck was never a factor before in a game where literally every interaction comes down to a luck based roll. it is the nature of the game we play to be subject to luck.

          • Basti Schreyer

            Of course luck plays a part in 40k. What I dislike is going from a semirandom system that influenced gameplay in numerous ways to a completely random one.

            I would have preferred to have a damage output that has less extreme variance. Something like 2+D3 or 2 D3 is more predictable. That would allow players to plan ahead with more confidence.

          • Blinghop

            Oh, I agree with that. I’m still hoping we get some weapons with a static damage value of 2 or 3 to make them more reliable but less outright potential damage. Maybe as more gun options are revealed it will allow for a more nuanced choice of weaponry based on what you want it to do.

          • Basti Schreyer

            Maybe that could be a feature representing advanced xenos tech. Eldar, Necron or Tau come to mind when thinking about reliability over max. damage output.

          • AircoolUK

            From my experience, anything that used the small blast template was a waste of time.

            I mean, has anyone, ever, seen a Kabalite carrying a Shredder?

        • AircoolUK

          …and as I’ve mentioned, having a stiff breeze blow my plasma cannon shot right back onto the guy shooting it.

        • Jabberwokk

          It does seem to be trading damage for accuracy. Time on the table as well as full rules will be the final judge I suppose.

      • orionburn

        Being one to consistently have terrible scatter rolls I’m happy with this change. I’ll take hitting at least something on a more regular basis compared to nothing at all.

        • Basti Schreyer

          Well you still have to hit with those D6 shots you get…

    • Hussein Alobaidi

      But scatter is random. You always have a chance of completely missing your target and even devastating your own units lol

      • Basti Schreyer

        If you decide to fire at units you want to charge that same turn you might be able to hit your own. But that is a conscious decision, a calculated one. Placement of the template makes a big difference. You could punish an opponent for bunching up or aim at the center of a blob and be guaranteed some hits.

        The standard deviation of a template is rather predictable. A shot with BS 4 would scatter an average of three inches. If your opponent decides to space out his unit to minimize big hits, he increases the units footprint at the same time. That makes it easier to get some hits.

        With templates you had a lot of decisionmaking and thinking required from both players now it’s just roll a D6 and pray for high/low depending on who rolls.

        • AircoolUK

          One of the reasons why certain units were never chosen is because you didn’t want to bunch them up, even when it was the fluffy thing to do.

          Overall, I think the randomness in each system is likely to produce a similar result for the weapon. The only thing that’s missing is the ability to hit more than one unit.

        • Hussein Alobaidi

          I agree on decision making but don’t forget the hassle templates caused when both you and your opponent need to agree on its placement. This new rule is just an easier way top achieve more or less the same thing. It will be less cumbersome for sure. But lets see how it plays out when the game is released. I’m excited for it.

      • AircoolUK

        Plus if a unit used maximum spacing in a line, there wasn’t many models you could place under the template, and any deviation would reduce that number further.

    • Defenestratus

      I’m not either. I enjoyed being able to target multiple units with the same shot.

      • Red_Five_Standing_By

        Splitfire makes up for that

        • Basti Schreyer

          You can’t splitfire with a single gun. So especially for artillery with one big gun it means that you can still only target one unit with your main means of dealing damage. But hey, at lest a Basilisk can splitfire with his hull mounted gun now.

          My point being that splitfire does indeed not help someting like a Vindicator. Defilers however might love life again.

          • Red_Five_Standing_By

            I mean split fire in general. All your other units split firing makes up for this deficit, IMO.

    • AircoolUK

      If it stops people spending five minutes positioning a pie plate, or the absolute shambles that was the blast weapon rules when three dimensions were involved…

      Yes. It is a good change 🙂

      • Basti Schreyer

        The sad thing is that 5th featured sensible rules concerning templates and verticality. GW just seemed to have forgotten to put them in the ruleboks for 6th and 7th. And then they doubled down with the ridiculousness when they released the FAQ.
        It took me and my regular opponent reading about it online to realize that the rules hadn’t been carried over. We just assumed it had and were fine playing it like we were used to. Once we found out we immediately agreed to continue using the rules from the 5th for our games.

      • Thomson

        It would be a good change if the battlecannon would still be able to deal more than 1 wound per turn. Now you are extremely lucky if it does.

  • ZeeLobby

    Thank god. Rerolls are really what dragged this game down massively. Having to pick out all those misses, reroll and math it out. I mean there were games that you saw rerolls to hit, wound, saves, etc. What a slog. Fully approve the TL change

    • Hussein Alobaidi

      THIS! I enjoy rolling more dice, not the same dice again and again.

    • orionburn

      Yep. Every reroll that goes away makes me happier and happier.

    • Red_Five_Standing_By

      Amen, bother!

    • Thomas

      Also, double shots is statistically better than rerolls. Can’t wait to spam stuff with TL Heavy Bolters and feel like they’re actually lethal weapons!

      • ZeeLobby

        Eh, that’s hard to say. really depends on whose shooting at what with what kind of save. You might get more shots, but hit/wound less.

        • SprinkKnoT

          Having twice as many shots is just strictly better. Rerolling a dice is essentially the same as rolling a dice twice and counting HH,HM, MH as Hit and MM as Miss. that gives 3/4 of outcomes a Hit. If instead you’re just firing twice you have HH as 2 hits, HM and MH as 1 hit, and MM as complete miss. You’re missing the same as many shots as before, but you now have the chance to get an extra hit 25% of the time.

          • ZeeLobby

            but now it’s AP is lower. Have you seen the stats for every single unit in the game. Do you know that “statistically”it’ll be more lethal. Do you know how cover or other mechanics that haven’t been detailed work yet? “Statistically” isn’t a word to use unless you have all the factors. I guess statistically he gets more shots, but his implication that more shots = more lethal is incalculable. My bad if i didn’t make that clear.

          • SprinkKnoT

            Sorry I thought you were just talking about old twinlinked vs new twinlinked, not any weapon in particular.

            New AP now pretty much means anything that a gun would deny a save against, now gets a 6+ save, which means all weapons are 16% less effective, sans changes to rules and not taking cover into account (new cover really varies on whether its better or worse now).

          • ZeeLobby

            Yeah, my bad. I didn’t go back and actually specify which part I was replying to. But it’s definitely still an unknown on whether TL will really shift the game or weapons in any direction. It should speed things up though.

          • Thomson

            You know enough. It is quite easy to prove that the Battlecannon is now basically worse vs everything compared to 7th.

          • ZeeLobby

            Really? I must have only played good players cause I rarely could get more than 3 models under that template at any one time, it now has much higher damage potential, especially for single targets, and can possibly put out 18 wounds. You picked like THE WORST example to support your point.

          • AircoolUK

            It also allows units to now have special rules which allow re-rolls, thus avoiding the whole ‘can you re-roll that re-roll if you fail the re-roll?’ nonsense.

    • Viper666

      Units with high BS (3+) will benefit from that a lot

    • Vachones

      Well said. I really hope they get rid of all rerolls, or at least limit them to maybe a re-roll of 1 or perhaps roll two dice take the highest. They ruin the game in my opinion. They take way too long to resolve for sure, but what they really do is screw up the math in the game. The best lists chase re-rolls, especially with volumes of dice.

  • Ravingbantha

    I really hope orks get some sort of bonus to their BS. Between getting a -1 to hit when a vehicle moves and shoots, and the -1 to hit rule for twin linked weapons, Orks aren’t going to be even worse in shooting.

    • Andrew B

      What? The -1 to hit rule is for combi-weapons that fire both parts at the same time. Not twin-linked weapons.

      • Ravingbantha

        Missed that part apparently. Still, ork vehicles are going to be horrible at shooting with that -1 if they moved

        • SprinkKnoT

          It’s not different than before when things were snapshotting.

          • AircoolUK

            I didn’t like snapshots, it severely punished units with a high BS, whilst a unit with BS1 would hit on a 6+ whether it was stationary, or bouncing around in truck full of Orks.

          • Ravingbantha

            Tanks didn’t have that problem, most weapons on an Ork tank are heavy, this includes Deff Dread and Killa Man weapons.

          • SprinkKnoT

            I think without knowing more about how each individual tank/vehicle works, it’s hard to speculate on how this will actually effect them. As seen with the Rubric Marines, there is still “relentless” type things in the game.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          You can;t be terrible if you are awful already.

          Orks win with weight of dice, not precision.

        • Dylan Tiberius Pumpson

          Except that almost all ork weapons are assault and the -1 only applies to heavy weapons.

          • Ravingbantha

            Might want to recount that, they have as many heavy weapons as assault, plus some ordnance and primary weapons. Most vehicle mounted weapons are heavy.

    • Simon Bates

      How many “heavy” weapons do Orks even have? The vast majority of their weapons are “assault”.

  • Badtucker

    betting grav will not be as good as it once was…. seeing how they changed melta.

    • Defenestratus

      I’m guessing that it will have an effect on the movement of the target units.

  • uatu13

    That battle cannon profile looks like garbage….

    • Xodis

      Its the only weapon we have seen so far that can 1 hit a Dreadnought or Guilliman…looks fine to me.

      • Twin Linked Lascannon

      • uatu13

        Except for the fact you can’t shoot Guilliman if he’s not the closest target, and that you’d need the luck of the dice gods like never before to either of these scenarios happen!

        Random number of hits, random damage, and most likely bad BS…If this is what the Guard have to look forward too I’m scared.

        • Xodis

          Wouldn’t take much to make Guilliman to closest target, especially after you destroy everything between him and you and your have 72″ to do it with.

          • Karru

            And how exactly will you achieve that? Considering that the entire SM army will most likely enjoy a 2+/3+/4+ save no matter what you are shooting at them because of the Cover modifier. +1 Cover would give them a 2+ against no AP, 3+ against -1 and so on while +2 Cover would give them a 3+ save until you hit them with a -3.

          • Xodis

            Well its a great thing they only move 6 inches then, and a squad of 20 guardsmen using Front rank/Second Rank get 40 freaking shots off.

          • Karru

            40, which leads to 20 hits, which leads to around 6 wounds which leads to around 1 dead Marine. Yep, pretty scary.

            Also, Thomson already made the calculations. The Battle Cannon can kill around one Marine on average per shot. It’s definitely not a great gun. It’s completely useless with the current Info we have on it. Unless it gets extra rules that require a scribe so you can carry it, the Tank will be taken from lists very fast.

          • Xodis

            20 hits wounding on 4+ is about 10 wounds, saving on 3+ is closer to 3 dead marines, and thats just with regular lasguns and nothing else.

            Thomson did a great job with the math, but like I already told him, he is missing a lot of other factors in the calculations. Tanks might be squishy this edition but the weapon is solid.

          • Karru

            You do realise that a Lasgun is Strength 3, right? Last I checked, 3 is less than 4, meaning it wounds of a 5+.

          • Xodis

            I forgot about that (not a Guard player really), but even still 20 hits, 7 wounds, is still closer to 3 dead marines than 1, and all for the cheap low price of 20 IG with lasguns……

          • Karru

            Where did you get those 3 wounds from? You do realise that your average player sticks them in Cover right? That means that since Lasguns have no AP, Marines are rocking themselves a 2+ save. So yeah, 1 dead Marine sounds more right.

          • Xodis

            Do you know how cover works? I dont yet, so enlighten us. With the new rules on armor saves, I highly doubt cover is as plentiful as it was in 7e.

          • Karru

            “The last big change we’re going over today is cover. Currently, cover saves give a blanket save to all units, and one that only comes into effect if the shot would otherwise ignore their armour. In the new Warhammer 40,000, cover is a bonus to your armour save. Critically, this ability often only applies to certain types of unit. For example, only Infantry gain the bonus of cover from a crater.

            This interaction works quite nicely with the modifiers to armour saves of certain guns, and means that when someone is trying to hide behind a wall or barricade, if your weapon has a high enough armour penetration, you can shoot them through a wall!”

            Here’s the link to the whole article:

            https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/04/30/new-40k-shooting-phase-apr30gw-homepage-post-4/

            One can assume that it’s going to be +1 mostly and from “heavier” cover +2.

          • Xodis

            Yes, but there are also other tidbits of information like how only infantry can gain the full usage of cover for certain types of cover, along with a host of other rules. So the answer is no, we dont know how prominent cover is or if there are limits, ways to ignore it, etc….

          • Karru

            Which is why I like to use certain term, “currently”. With all the information we have on hand, the Battle Cannon is worthless currently. Until they give us the full rules, it will remain worthless.

          • Xodis

            But its not currently because you keep trying to justify its worthlessness with rules that are more than likely already changed, based off of your experience as you said earlier. Currently it looks like a pretty solid weapon that wont just remove Marines and Terminators like it may have done in the past. Currently it looks like a weapon that has potential for large amounts of damage, but will most likely be best against mobs of multi wound targets.

          • Karru

            Here’s the problem, it doesn’t have potential to do large amounts of damage. It has been pointed out plenty of times already, the D3 wounds it can cause per wound is not great by any means.

            A maximum amount of shots the Battle Cannon can have is 6. On average you are still looking at 3 hits. Even if all of those hit, you still need to wound. On average, you are looking at 4 wounds. Even if you manage to somehow wound with everything, the opponent still has to fail his Armour saves which aren’t going to be too much since it’s only -2. So against something like a Terminator means a 4+ if not in Cover. That leads to half of your wounds getting through. After that you get to do your extra wounds, and you need a 3+ in order to kill a Terminator.

            No amount of positive thinking can hide the truth. Battle Cannon is way worse right now than it was in 7th edition. Only “buff” it got was an increase in effectiveness against single model targets and that’s it. Everything else was a massive nerf. It will generate less hits on average, it will wound around the same, but it will give the opponent the chance to save now instead of the usual Cover that people would get if they didn’t have a 2+ save. It would also Insta-kill any unit with Toughness 4 or less outright. Now that doesn’t happen as it has to rely on getting its wounds through and then rolling D3 for damage. Especially since we can expect everything getting an increase in wound characteristic that already had multiple wounds, don’t expect that Battle Cannon killing much.

          • Xodis

            There you go again, comparing a 8e weapon to its 7e equivalent. The basic rules are not even the same and you’re trying to say its nerfed because it works differently.

            -Its still one of the most powerful weapons currently we have seen.
            -It is still a single weapon capable of killing multiple multi-wound models.
            -It still has a Str high enough to be a valid concern to vehicles.
            -It still has enough AP to effectively remove any large, lightly armored model.
            You have, admittedly, much more 6/7e knowledge than I do, however, I have played a game much closer to 8e than what 6/7 is (AoS) and we both know I have more experience with it. You are still analyzing as if this is 7e with some changes, but its not, really at all. So analyzing a weapons usage from a previous edition (that can barely be recognized from the new edition) and comparing that to the new edition is asinine. Lastly….dont you think if this weapon was SO under powered to not even be considered usable…it might have come up in the play testing groups? This isn’t 40K 7e+, its 40K AoS version and things work differently.

            50% chance of hitting (assuming tanks dont get better BS which they should since tanks have targeting systems) with a 4+ BS
            50%+ chance of wounding most things with STR8
            50% or less chance to save with AP-2
            66% chance of causing 2+ wounds

            And thats on a T8 W12 platform with a 72″ range. So again, the weapon is solid, and the rules we dont know about yet are going to make it better more than likely.

      • Thomson

        Well if you speculate on a 1:4000 chance.

        in the other 3999 cases it kills a marine or strips one wound from your vehicle and then your russ gets destroyed by lascannons…

        • Xodis

          lol.
          D6 shots that hit on 3+/4+ wounding most things on a 3+, some on a 2+, with at best a 4+ save allowing D3 damage, and all of this is from 72″ away….good luck

          • Karru

            This is Guard we are talking here, they hit on a 4+.

            On average, D6 shots are hitting 2 times. Even with maximum wounding and enemy failing saves, you are looking at a maximum of 6 wounds.

            You are far better off with taking Heavy Weapons Squads with Lascannons or just other Leman Russ Variants. The Battle Cannon is utter trash.

          • Xodis

            I thought their tanks were more accurate than the grunts?

            Except the Heavy Weapons squads will be demolished being even more squashy than they already are, and Lascannons must be about 2 feet closer.

          • Karru

            Sadly not the case. Only Veterans and Commanders have better BS than Grunts. The baseline accuracy of Guard is 4+, this includes their Vehicles as well.

            The range is not a problem. Sticking the Lascannons somewhere in the middle of your Deployment zone will give them plenty of targets to shoot at freely. I have yet to see a game where the 72″ of the Battle Cannon got utilised.

          • Xodis

            You have also yet to play 8e lol

    • It is.

    • Farseerer

      Sarcasm?

      • AircoolUK

        I don’t think so. Just a bit blinkered in seeing the downsides to the changes and not the upsides, like being able to one-shot* a single, high wound model.

        *Or to be more accurate, being able to kill a single, high wound model in one round of shooting.

        • Odds of killing a Morkanaut in one round:
          1 in 500,000 or 0.000002%

          • Parthis

            Yeah, i’m sure the Morkanaut is exactly what he was thinking of.

          • Well, I guess it depends on how high is high. Against another Russ you’d have a 0.08% of scoring the minimum damage rolls (4) you would need. Then you still have the D3.

          • Thomson

            Guys, please just do your very basic math and you will see that the Russ is easier to kill and deals less damage in 8th than it did in 7th.

            Its kind of a deja vue, since when they switched to 6th they said “your tanks are tougher now” and they got weaker.

            Than came 7th and they said “your tanks got tougher” and while this was basically true, D weapons ruined the day of every tank.

            Now comes 8th and they say “your tanks got tougher…” we say “you told us two times before and you lied”, they say “we are new GW”.

            I believed them. Now they release the first true numbers and with a little bit of basic statistic and within 10 minutes you can prove that they lied again.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          You mean like we can do right now? 1 shot can nuke a Land Raider.

        • Karru

          I’ve noticed that you seem to be on this quest for complete ignorance. As many have pointed out, the odds of Battle Cannon one shotting anything is extremely low. That is the problem.

          You have OTHER Variants to use, remember that. Some of those Variants are superior to the Battle Tank if we look at the current data we have and make prediction based on that. The Battle Tank has no place in a Guard army any more. You take the other Variants over the Battle Tank any day of the week purely due to its highly unreliable damage output.

  • Defenestratus

    I’d consider melta toned down.

    While the AP is very nice (relegating a 2+ to a 6+ save) … melta’s big bonus against armor always was its reliability to penetrate at short range AND do considerable damage after the penetration.

    Now it penetrates, from what we’ve seen, rather less reliably (against T8 or higher) but will do more damage reliably at short range – but never with the ability to one-shot something of substance.

    • Basti Schreyer

      The only reliable thing I ever saw about melta weapons was them rolling ones to hit.

  • SprinkKnoT

    So happy Heavy Bolters are confirmed -1 AP. They are going to be so good.

    • Defenestratus

      Well – as a Filthy Xenos player, they don’t really scare me as much as they did before.

      Heavy Bolters were the bane of my Dire Avengers. Howling Banshees and Swooping Hawks existence. They’d hit reliably, wound on a 2+ and then offer me no save whatsoever.

      Now assuming that my troops profiles remain as static as the SM’s did, they’ll hit me less reliably (because no more rerolling to hit with TWLHB), wound me on a 3+ (because not twice my T) and only drop my armor save by 1 instead of denying it outright – which seems like it can be easily mitigated by cover – which is something that Eldar in the past have been able to generate out of thin air (conceal/shrouded). The 3+ save troops I had like Warp Spiders and Striking Scorpions will likewise have this cover mitigation strategy going on.

      So yeah, not too worried about heavy bolters that much.

      • SprinkKnoT

        Yeah I think Aspect Warriors and Necron Warriors were the only thing in the game that cared about AP4. But now heavy bolters will actually be effective against everything; they aren’t outshined by the higher shot volume, low AP weapons and they aren’t ineffective against anything with a 3+.

        • Defenestratus

          Fire Warriors, SM Scouts, IG of every flavor on earth, Tyranid gaunts, every Dark Eldar model that can’t get a shadowfield, every Ork model not in megaarmor…. the list goes on and on if you step outside what’s considered “competitive” and therefore not seen on the table top in plastic mini genital-punching contests.

          • AircoolUK

            Yeah, my Fire Warriors didn’t like Heavy Bolters, but then again, they rarely saw them.

            heh… mini genital-punching contests. That made me chuckle.

          • SprinkKnoT

            Heavy Bolters were a waste against anything with a 5+ or worse. They couldn’t put out enough shots to deal with models that come in that volume and were often not used in favor higher volume weapons. They were really only ever fielded cause they were cheap, but this AP change gives them a little more punch against everything.

  • Karru

    That Battle Cannon thing stings a lot. I doubt we’ll be seeing much of them on the battlefield over the other Variants. D6 hits that still seem to need to roll to-hit is insanely bad. Especially since they will most likely be 4+ to-hit. That thing REALLY needed to be at least 2D6 hits, I mean, it was a 5″ blast for Christ’s sake!

    Unless the Leman Russ Battle Tank now costs around 100pts, I highly doubt that it will take the field any time soon. It will most likely get replaced by something better, like the Exterminator or the Executioner. I’m quite worried about the Demolisher too. 24″ range, D6 hits, even with “high” strength and AP modifier, it’s way too weak to be of use in my opinion. The average of 4 shots which in turn means 2 hits is definitely not my idea of even “decent”.

    Well, at least there is a chance that the Repeating Battle Cannon of the Knight got such a high nerf too. 2D6 hits that still needs to roll to-hit might bring it down a peg.

    • Defenestratus

      I don’t know if they’ve posted other IG weapon profiles but don’t write off battlecannons yet. They are capable of taking out a dreadnought in one “shot” which seems pretty decent to me.

      • Karru

        You seem to miss the point here. The Leman Russ Battle Tank was one of the key weapons against Power Armour armies. Now with just -2 AP and low amount of hits on average, that things is almost completely worthless.

        If you need to take down something “heavy”, you take Heavy Weapon Teams with Lascannons. 3 shots, 3+ wound and D6 wounds with -3 to save. That’s better odds at killing the Dreadnought than the Leman Russ which on average gets 4 shots, 2 hits, wounds on a 3+ and modifies the Save of a Dreadnought by -2, which is then negated by Cover or reduced to “measly” 4+ save. After that, you do D3 wounds.

        I’m also worried on other “heavy ordnance” weapons now. The big factor is the Shots. That makes a HUGE difference. You aren’t getting hits, you are getting shots that you then have to roll to-hit with. With Guard that means you need a 4+ per shot, which is very, very bad.

        • Red_Five_Standing_By

          I think the Battlecannon is now focused on taking out more elite, multi-wound units. Like Warriors and Ogryn.

          • Karru

            Then it is even worse. Again, D6 shots, which leads to 2 hits on average, is very bad against any “horde”. You are still far better off with something like a Punisher if you wish to shoot at hordes. I mean, even the Exterminator is better at dealing with Horde Armies with this change. 8 Shots with a AP -1 is better deal than the Battle Cannon.

          • Mr.Custodes

            We haven’t seen the full rules – some artillery in AOS gets things like double hits if the unit is bigger than ten.

          • generalchaos34

            we dont know what the exterminator will do, for all we know those weapons may have gotten a damage nerf, or may lose the rend altogether. Plus we do not know how these rules will interact with rules on the vehicle itself.

          • Thomson

            We can safely assume that all other IG tanks have been properly nerfed, too.

          • No, it sucks at that too.

        • SprinkKnoT

          I’m sure a single battle cannon is far less expensive than 3 lascannons though.

          • Karru

            Actually, in a Guard army, the Battle Tank costs 150 naked. A Heavy Weapons Squad costs 120pts with Lascannons.

            In other words, that Battle Cannon is more expensive than 3 Lascannons.

          • SprinkKnoT

            A heavy weapons squad was also ridiculously easy to kill compared to even a vehicle in 7th, let alone the monster that the new Leman Russ is.

          • Karru

            They are still better at dealing with the Dreadnought than the Battle Tank. That -2 modifier really hurts it since the Dreadnought is getting a 4+ save against it, if the cover modifier is only +1.

          • AircoolUK

            But nowhere near as squishy as a few guardsmen.

          • Karru

            Maybe, but the Battle Tank is still worse when it comes to anything. You are far better off with the other Variants.

          • Thomson

            Nope it is more squishy. Lascannons and Melta deal d6 wounds on a hit and basically ignore its armor save. vs guard they deal one wound, vs a russ they deal 3.5.

            A russ is gone now with 6 lascannon hits. A squad of guard needs 10.

          • kloosterboer

            LOL. Points aren’t even out yet. Cool your jets.

          • Jabberwokk

            That’s the thing that always irked me about Guard design. Your not paying to the model just the weapon it carries. But then maybe that’s a subtle feature of guard armies that the weapons are of more value then the men.

          • Lord Blacksteel

            So you’ve seen the 9th edition IG codex then?

          • Karru

            Nope, but I’ve been looking at the current books and took the numbers from there. The pricing might change, but at least for now, the Battle Cannon is more expensive.

            This will most likely be the case in the next edition as well, because they will count the “toughness” of the vehicle to the price as well.

    • I hoping the Vanquisher is good. I’ll take my main guns to kill big guys and use the sponsons on infantry (if it comes to that. The Battle Cannon has me worried about the Basilisks though.

      • Karru

        Same, basically all blast weapons really. If a 5″ template is equal to D6 shots, will the Missile Launcher be D3? It’s the fact that these are shots you are getting, not hits, that hurts the most. It once again makes armies with high BS better than those with lower BS. This is starting to look more and more grim.

        • Koonitz

          That’s the fault, though. Don’t look at it as “shots”. Look at it as “potential hits”, which must be confirmed.

          If you look at it as “shots”, it’ll always jar in your mind and never properly fit in place.

    • Viper666

      Blasts will suck on low BS units. A moving Leman Russ will average 1.22 hits with its Battle Cannon…. This is really lame

      • SprinkKnoT

        This is of course assuming the Leman Russ don’t have a “Heavy Tank” rule that makes them ignore that penalty.

  • mgdavey

    Again, I’m really confused by all the the hype telling me that Assault is back.

    • ZeeLobby

      Supposedly night fighting lasts the first 2 turns, and you can’t shoot anything anywhere for those turns.

      • Jabberwokk

        I hate the fact assault needs a gimme still in order to be viable. I want it to stand on it’s own legs.

        I don’t mind things like smoke launcher’s, Psychic powers, blinding spore’s that simulate the effect. Functional and fluffy.

    • SprinkKnoT

      It’s mostly the charger always going first, hitting in close combat is easier for close combat units, and Sweeping Advance being removed (at least for the things that cared about it).

      Other than that we are still missing tons of information: what are some melee weapon profiles, what things like jump packs do, how hard/easy it is to retreat, if charging out of vehicles is universal, etc. I think it’s still to early to tell.

      • AircoolUK

        I’m hoping that a Chainsword gets it’s save modifier back.

        At least now, whilst engaged in melee, you can actually point your plasma pistol at someone’s head and pull the trigger, rather than stabbing them twice with your combat knife instead of just once (as you would if you were just carrying the knife…).

        • SprinkKnoT

          Yeah, I’m hoping Chainswords ad the faction equivalents to it get -1 as well. Would give dedicated assault units some bite in combat.

        • Jabberwokk

          Chainswords are too iconic NOT to have a central place in the game. And I’m a Xeno’s player.

          • AircoolUK

            Now… if they bring back the ancient chainblades that attacked to the front of a Boltgun, I’d love that.

  • SilentPony

    Gross.
    But hey at least its WAY more simpler, now that they’d added a bunch of rules and mechanics.
    Who says three times the number of rules isn’t simpler?! Logic? Pfft. He was fired years ago!

  • SprinkKnoT

    I think people are missing out that the Battle Cannon is going to be pretty solid against things like Terminators or Tyranid Warriors, things that have multiple wounds but still run around in units. Yeah Terminators still get a 4+ save, but that’s significantly better than it was in 7th.

    • Karru

      What if I told you that Guard had a tool to take down Terminators in 7th? It was called the Executioner with 5 Plasma Cannon shots that outright ignored the save of the Terminators.

      Now the Battle Cannon on average doesn’t even kill a single Terminator. A smart player will move his Terminators from Cover to Cover so they’ll be getting themselves +1. That means they are getting a 3+ save against the Battle Cannon, which on average is getting 2 HITS per turn. Then the tank has to roll to wound on a 2+ and then the enemy has to fail a 3+ save and then you need to roll a 3+ to kill one Terminator. Amazing stuff.

      • SprinkKnoT

        So you’re basing an 8th edition weapon’s usefulness off of a gun from 7th edition, without any knowledge of points, unit buffs, orders, etc. Truly the end of 40K as we know it.

        • Karru

          All my information is based purely on the information we have gotten so far, past experiences and analysis of the new system.

          I was also correcting your comment regarding the effectiveness of the weapon against said units. What you said wasn’t true at all, in fact the weapon is way worse against those units right now and here’s why.

          Well, the Terminators I already explained, so I won’t go into that more. The Warriors, oh boy, do I have some lovely things to say here. First of all, it seems that Instant Death is gone from the game. They haven’t said anything about it and since there now are weapons that do multiple wounds commonly available, one can expect that it was removed.

          Warriors are Toughness 4 in the and the Battle Cannon is Strength 8. Currently, a single Battle Cannon shot can easily wipe out a Warrior unit, especially compared to the current system. All those Warriors had at the time was Cover, which was 5+.

          Depending on the biomorphs they might give Warriors, we might be looking at 3+ save when taking cover. It’s around the same problem as is with the Terminators. Low amount of hits due to poor BS and then having to roll to wound and then your opponent needs to fail their saves after which you need to roll very well in order to kill even one Warrior.

          In other words, no, the Battle Cannon is currently worthless. It will continue to be worthless until we see the full rules that affect it.

  • Orthon234

    Um, the Vendetta is going to be crazy strong now.

    • Emprah

      Is tha Land Raider Terminus still a thing? I want one now.

  • Juan Carlos González

    Wait, does a battle cannon fire once and cause 1D6 hits or fire 1D6 times? Because if the latter, how is it different from a bigass Ork dakkagun?

    There’s this thing called “immersion” that more and more seems 8th is gonna merrily shatter.

    • generalchaos34

      i think its not “shots” its the chance of them being hit by the explosion. Tank guns aren’t exactly pinpoint weapons and the D6 represents the explosion going off target or hitting straight on. No matter what you are getting smashed unless they miss entirely. Plus the explosion damage could be further mitigated by one guy taking all the force the blast and being atomized, or a bunch of guys being in cover, or maybe just pure luck in positioning, soft ground, etc.

      • generalchaos34

        and I forgot to mention hitting a large group of guys with an AT weapon is that they may get pulverized but its not designed to kill lots and lots of guys, thats what mortars and frag shells are for. I would imagine the Anti Tank shot would be a lot of energy in a very small space instead of spread out and the guys who do get hit are probably going to absorb that energy and get turned to goo

        • Thomson

          Currently it is designed to kill basically nothing. It is crap.

      • Juan Carlos González

        Excuse it all you want, but essentially that means that explosions work exactly like machineguns that fire a random number of times.

    • Emprah

      I think its one shot, 1d6 hits.

      • I don’t think so. I think it’s 1D6 shots. Just like ‘2’ would mean ‘2 shots’ and not ‘one shot, 2 hits’.

  • Mr.Gold

    Just imagine the Knight Thermal Cannon, based on the article probably 36″ range, D6 Shots, S8/9, AP-4, and Damage D6 (2x and pick highest in half range)…

  • Visgluigers

    So are the D6 hits from blast weapons auto hits just like with the flamers?
    A little awkward with the really random effectiveness but on the other hand it is now also very random with the scatter throwing.

    • Emprah

      Apparently not auto hits. You roll to hit, than each hit nets you D6 hits if your first roll was a “hit.”

      • SIA

        What makes you think that it could also be roll a d6 and then roll that many hits.

      • Parthis

        … eh?

        The weapon his Heavy D6. You can’t miss that initial D6 roll.

        • Emprah

          If I read correctly, you can.

          First you roll to hit with your Bs. Either its a miss or a hit.

          if it is a hit, you roll D6 to see how many hits you scored.

          Than you roll a D6 for how many wounds each hit makes, and halve the result so that 1-2 roll is 1 wound, 3-4 is 2 wounds, 5-6 is 3 wounds.

          This, if your BS test hits, you roll a D6 for “second hits” and than roll to wound. Once than you roll on how many Hp the wounds take away I think.

          The second hit replaces the template at seeing how many enemies were caught in the blast.

          So if you hit, and roll just 1, you make one hit, and if you roll a 4 on wound, it takes off 2 wounds. This means you hit one model with your “template” for 2 wounds. Like a single Terminator or Ogryn or Nob.

          Not sure how it works against tanks, I heard it means you get D6 separate hits on a big thing, making it either 1 to 18 wounds per shoot.

          • SprinkKnoT

            No, you roll the d6 to see how many shots, then you roll that many dice to see how many hits.

            i.e. You roll and get 5 attacks. Then you roll 5 to hit rolls. 3 of those hit, so you roll 3 to wound rolls now. 2 of those wound and now the opponent rolls 2 save rolls. Both go through and you roll 2d3. for damage.

          • Haighus

            This way makes more sense to me.
            this line supports this in my view:
            “…in the new Warhammer 40,000, these are resolved much faster by just using a random number of shots.”

            Number of shots, not number of hits from a shot.

          • Thomson

            Exactly, you roll a d6 for the number of shots. For each shot you roll to hit. With a 4+ to hit for a Russ this sums it up to 1.75 hits. Then you roll to wound, which is a 4+ against most vehicles with T8. You are at 0.875.

            Now save with a 3+, you get -2, so 5+. Result
            0.58.

            Now you roll d3, average 2, for expected 1.16 wounds damage.

            Since you now have over 3 times as many wounds as before, your russ deals about 50% of the damage it dealt to most vehicles before.

            Or bottom line: It is utter crap.

          • Emprah

            That does not really sound logical for making attacks against vehicles, but maybe everybody else got it wrong, it could happen.

          • SprinkKnoT

            It says Heavy D6 as it’s weapon type, meaning it makes D6 Shots, just as a Heavy 3 weapon would have 3 shots.

          • Parthis

            No, you’re overcomplicating this. It’s a heavy weapon.

            Roll a D6; that’s how many shots you make. Now Roll to hit with that many dice.

          • Emprah

            So you need to do a “roll to hit” after the D6. Seems less randomy at least, so that’s propably better for balance.

      • Andrew B

        You’ve got that the wrong way around. You roll a D6, that tells you how many ‘shots’ you have, and then you roll to hit with those shots.

      • Visgluigers

        I see. Hmmmh, not sure what to think of that. Seems like a huge nerf to Leman Russ battle tanks. Also wonder what happens to Russ exterminator 😀 It already has weird stats with twin linked on top of that. Is it going to get a nerf and have a heavy 2 twin or does it stay as heavy 4 twin. It would be quite sick if it would pump up 8 shots 😀

  • Thomson

    Bottom Line: Land Raider got a boost, Leman Russ tanks got nerfed. Don’t have much hope for IG tank armies in 8th. However lasgun toting guardmen seem to be interesting now.

    • SprinkKnoT

      How is knowing the stat line for a single version of the leman russ not give you hope? They already told us the stat line for it and it sounds like it’ll be pretty durable.

      • Emprah

        It may also be dirt cheap for a good MC hunter… *coughs* buy a lot of these expensive tank models, Gw says *coughs* .

      • Thomson

        Because from what was released it is worse in *every* regard that is was in 7th. And guess how much Russes you saw in competitive lists in 7th?

        • Commissar Molotov

          Not every regard. It can fire all its weapons at once now without snap-firing.

          • Thomson

            Yeah. Basically it comes all down to point values. If the Russ does not have some very powerful special rules to boost it, it should be equal to 5 marines or 15 guardsmen. Then its about right

        • Nyyppä

          You can now fire sponsons at different targets. You need to start thinking about all of the options it has instead of just looking at it as a battle cannon platform.

          • Karru

            Which is why you outright ignore it and go for the other variants. Leman Russ Battle Tank is just one of 7 variants available. One can assume that Exterminator will be superior to Battle Tank if with the current rules we have. The Exterminator will have 8 Strength 7 AP -1 shots with Damage 1 most likely, as we haven’t seen Autocannons and I highly doubt that they’ll get extra damage.

            Currently the Battle Tank costs 150pts, Exterminator costs 120pts. If they keep the pricing roughly the same, which is likely since GW isn’t exactly known for their work enthusiasm, Battle Tank will be left to gather dust on the shelf.

  • Wow, battle-canons can really ruin other vehicle’s days in a single turn.

    • Karru

      Not really, you are looking at 2 hits per shot, which still need to wound and then you only do D3 wounds.

      The key thing to note here is that these are D6 SHOTS, not hits.

      • Thomson

        People just get excited because they just don’t do the math.

        You get 1.75 hits per shot. Vehicles have 3+ save so its 1.16 hits which penetrate or 2.33 wounds per turn.

        20 Guardsmen deal 2.22. And a Russ kills only 1.75 guards men per turn. So in the end, 20 guardsmen are better than one Russ.

        If a Leman Russ costs more than 80 pts in 8th its a waste.

        • kloosterboer

          Except that a Russ is more than a battlecannon. And it’s way tougher than 20 guardsmen.

          I think the jury’s still out on whether it’s a ” waste”.

          People get excited because they do mathhammer in a vacuum.

          • Thomson

            The Russ is not tougher than 10 guardsmen. You forget that a lot of weapons deal multiple wounds now. These just kill one guard, but spell doom to the Russ.

            A Land Raider has a huge chance to kill a Russ in one turn, while the Russ is happy if it strips off one hull point in retaliation.

          • kloosterboer

            Dude, your arguments border on the absurd and have little to do with actual gameplay, but rather some mythical ” what if a lion and a tiger fight?” that has nothing to do with anything.

            While I, and I’m sure others, appreciate ruminating on the what if’s as the excitement ( for most of us, anyway) builds for V8, but let’s stop with the absolute judgments until we actually see the game.

        • mgdavey

          Those are averages, meaning that more than half the time you’ll do that or better. You need to see the shape of the curve to be able to tell if it’s any good.

          What are the relative percentages of the 20 guardsmen doing 5 damage vs the Russ? 8, 10 damage?

        • Maitre Lord Ironfist

          yes, but you have to move those 20 Men “Lasergun” (do not know the stats atm) Inch into weaponrange. Also they are war easier too wound and kill.

          I say, till they reach the point, they loose half of the Squad (or at least some dudes) wich reduces the shots hard, thats even harder if you wnat them in Rapid Fire range thats even closer. That target is Moving too. Or another unit is pointed at them.

          The Russ on the other hand has a better range, can tank more dmg and is not wounded easy by a bolter. You have to factor that in, everything else is just “Milchmädchen Rechnung” means: Nice to do but still not usefull

        • Brian Griffith

          Nobody ever got excited playing Math-hammer.

          • If you are powergaming in tournaments, math-hammer is pretty much essential though.

  • FugeeLaw

    You all know that this is straight out of 2nd Edition right? Twin linked + Combi Weapons and you all hated it after 3rd Edition hit the fan…

    • Eldar are Chaos now

      Thank you. Nostalgia goggles have people forgetting the datafax cards, endless weapon profiles, random damage that made wound tracking impossible and all the rest of the things they dumped from 2nd.

    • Viper666

      In 2nd, twin linked meant 1hit did 2 wounds

  • Dan Osmond

    The battle cannon will be great at clearing out tyranid warrior squads if their statline stays the same. Wounding on a 2+ pushing their armour save to 6+ and causing up to 3 wounds per failed save. Also good for removing venomthropes, biovores, lictors, and raveners as they currently stand. Makes perfect sense to me.

    • generalchaos34

      agreed, its a high explosive tank round, not an anti-personnel round, that’s why the guard have punishers, wyverns, and griffons. It would appear to be the perfect fit for an anti vehicle/monster tank that in a pinch can also take on heavy infantry. I would imagine the Vanquisher will still have a single shot that does an enormous amount of wounds, which would do nothing against more than one model, but do a very good job at killing high armor high wound single models. As for all this nonsense about exterminators we have forgotten that we know nothing about how autcannons work or how that weapon will work! everyone is saying the sky is falling and for all we know the exterminator cannon could still have only 4 shots, it wasn’t a twinlinked autocannon, it wasn’t a hydra autocannon, it was its own weapon with a specific stat line that can be changed.

      • Thomson

        Its far to narrow in its use to be useful.

        Its crap, end of story.

        • Parthis

          … it’s far from crap, also, boring story.

          • Thomson

            Just do your math. Give me one scenario where it is better now than it has been before.

            I can give you 20 where it is worse.

          • Parthis

            Your maths makes too many assumptions.

            Command Point re-rolls, bonuses to hit from special rules, orders, etc.

            Vacuum Mathhammer at it’s finest. Wait and see before declaring it to be crap and closing the book.

          • Thomson

            You make a lot of assumptions that these things exist. I just take the info I have.

            I must admit though that probably 10 of my scenarions are a little far fetched…

            And I know that the story is boring. Same story as from 5th to 6th…

            tanks get tougher they said
            tanks got weaker

            then 6th to 7th…
            tanks get tougher they said
            tanks got weaker

            now 7th to 8th
            tanks get tougher they say

            boring indeed

          • Tanks aren’t able to roll through an enemy army with impunity but are good support platforms, as they are in real warfare.

            I was a tank crewman in the army. Tank battle cannons are not meant to kill infantry and tanks in general are not anti-infantry devices.

            As such I am fine with these changes.

  • effinger2

    GW said they were including FW vehicles right?

    Okay so… hold your hats… the FW Sicarian tank Accelerator Gun has 6 shots/twin linked. So… 12 freakin shots!!!! It also can have quad Lascannons! How many shots with this? Maybe 8 Lascannon shots?! Damn.. sales just went up at FW.

    • Nyyppä

      It’s not quad. Lasc sponsons yes, quad no. Spartan has quad lascs.

      • Derek Lee

        What about the vindicator laser destroyer? 6 shots overcharged or will they rewrite that? Man, I’m happier with my regular LR and still want a Spartan. Muh wallet!!!

        • Nyyppä

          Well, if you are willing to drive that tank destroyer pretty much in CC with the intended target then by all means, have those 6 shots.

  • Sch Ds

    About damn time twin linked stuff got more shots, not a hit modifier. Always thought that was such a silly idea.

  • Zuur

    None of this attempted mathhammer works unless you factor in all the rule changes. Vehicles now have full movement and full ballistic skill for all their weapons, each of which can independently target an enemy unit. Land Raiders are back, especially now that they carry models, not units. I’d hold off on the vehicle obituaries.

  • Edouard Decaen

    Don’t forget that there are engineseers and equivalents that were left on the bench during the games that might now come back as tank healers. The wound mechanism for vehicles might have more consequences that it appears to have

  • RAKSHA

    I really like those changes make sense..especially combi weapons so much better..more realistic..twin linked +2 autocanon dreadnought welcome back ..

  • RAKSHA

    But heavy d6 for cannons I think is not enough..in this edition you could have lots of more models getting hit..very random I’m not sure battle cannons will be reliable…need to start practice rolls of double 6😅

  • ILikeToColourRed

    large numbers of dice, however, do

  • I just want to know how this all pans out now.

  • Carey_Mahoney

    A large blast template equaling D6 shots? That’s not fair!

  • Muninwing

    yeah, either up or down.

    mine usually down.