Switch Theme:

Cannon-musings  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





Some thoughts on how cannons might be unseated from their monster-killing throne:

The main problem: cannons can take down large, expensive monsters reliably and at little cost.

The reasons:
1. cannons are extremely accurate.
2. monsters are ideal targets for a cannon, which is in part caused by monsters and cannons being what they are, but also in part by rank-and-file troops being such a poor target for cannon fire.

The solutions(?):
1. instead of cannons rolling the first artillery die, to see where the shot actually lands (before the bounce), what if they scattered? It would have to be something small, like D3", but adding some kind of lateral variability would make cannons less accurate.
To clarify, I would suggest that the shot take place not only from the point indicated by the scatter, but at the new angle determined by this point's relation to the cannon's barrel. This would make cannons less accurate at greater distances, and give them a cone-shaped area of potential targets.
Unintentional consequences would be the more obvious limit on the cannons range (from jumping 2-10" forward to 3" back to 3" forward), and making it much harder for a cannon to be aimed in such a way that it can in no way ever hit a friendly unit. My answer to this second issue would be to change the targeting rules for a cannon so that they more resemble a Stone Thrower.

2. allow cannons to hit multiple models per rank. If cannons actually had a template (marked at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10") that actually had a width, it could potentially rip through 20 models in a 50-man bus, or 6 out of a 30-man Horde. Considering that these units are not as expensive but much more durable and tactically central to the game, they would start to look like more tempting targets than the giants and dragons beside them.

So, what are people's thoughts? Any ways to refine these ideas? How about different-but-related ideas?

 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

The only thing that needs to be done is make monsters a little more durable against cannons.

Make the Large Target special rule make cannons go from D6 wounds to D3. Problem solved.


With a cannon, the only major inaccuracy is going to be what is represented in Fantasy. The lateral inaccuracy isn't going to be enough to make an in-game difference.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Inspiring Icon Bearer






 Grey Templar wrote:
The only thing that needs to be done is make monsters a little more durable against cannons.

Make the Large Target special rule make cannons go from D6 wounds to D3. Problem solved.


With a cannon, the only major inaccuracy is going to be what is represented in Fantasy. The lateral inaccuracy isn't going to be enough to make an in-game difference.


solves everything.

3000
4000 Deamons - Mainly a fantasy army now.
Tomb Kings-2500 Escalation League for 2012

href="http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/311987.page ">Painting and Modeling Blog
 
   
Made in us
Lord of the Fleet





Texas

Warpsolution wrote:

2. allow cannons to hit multiple models per rank. If cannons actually had a template (marked at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10") that actually had a width, it could potentially rip through 20 models in a 50-man bus, or 6 out of a 30-man Horde. Considering that these units are not as expensive but much more durable and tactically central to the game, they would start to look like more tempting targets than the giants and dragons beside them.



Wait you want to BUFF cannons?

That would render Stone Throwers pretty redundant.


I agree that a D3 wounds to large targets is a great fix for them

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/03/07 20:25:34


 
   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





Except that also reduces a cannon's effectiveness against other multi-wound models.
Maybe that isn't a big deal. I mean, a human that gets hit by a cannonball is dead, no matter how heroic. But 2-3 Wounds doesn't translate to pure physical toughness. Most of that would be rolling with the punch (or cannonball) to minimize the damage.

So...I guess it'd work out okay.

 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Large Target, D3 wounds. Solves everything.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





Warpsolution wrote:
Some thoughts on how cannons might be unseated from their monster-killing throne:

The main problem: cannons can take down large, expensive monsters reliably and at little cost.

The reasons:
1. cannons are extremely accurate.
2. monsters are ideal targets for a cannon, which is in part caused by monsters and cannons being what they are, but also in part by rank-and-file troops being such a poor target for cannon fire.

The solutions(?):
1. instead of cannons rolling the first artillery die, to see where the shot actually lands (before the bounce), what if they scattered? It would have to be something small, like D3", but adding some kind of lateral variability would make cannons less accurate.
To clarify, I would suggest that the shot take place not only from the point indicated by the scatter, but at the new angle determined by this point's relation to the cannon's barrel. This would make cannons less accurate at greater distances, and give them a cone-shaped area of potential targets.
Unintentional consequences would be the more obvious limit on the cannons range (from jumping 2-10" forward to 3" back to 3" forward), and making it much harder for a cannon to be aimed in such a way that it can in no way ever hit a friendly unit. My answer to this second issue would be to change the targeting rules for a cannon so that they more resemble a Stone Thrower.

2. allow cannons to hit multiple models per rank. If cannons actually had a template (marked at 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10") that actually had a width, it could potentially rip through 20 models in a 50-man bus, or 6 out of a 30-man Horde. Considering that these units are not as expensive but much more durable and tactically central to the game, they would start to look like more tempting targets than the giants and dragons beside them.

So, what are people's thoughts? Any ways to refine these ideas? How about different-but-related ideas?


I like the idea, and have thought about something similar myself. As well as plinking monsters reliably, cannons regularly picking out the lone wizard or general on his horse has never sat right with me. I mean, the idea that a player will think 'hmm, he's got a cannon so I better hide my BSB/wizard in among that block of troops' is just completely ass about. If cannons worked as cannons did, a player would think 'hmm, that cannon is going to rip through the front line of my troop block, I better keep my key characters well away from there, and hide them at the back by themselves'.

I like the idea of a stone thrower roll, perhaps with reduced scatter of half the scatter die? Maybe balance that by having the ball always travel 10", or if that's too much maybe just roll 2 scatter dice and pick the higher one, so it consistently travels a high distance.

Doubling the hits on infantry blocks I'm not such a fan of, though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Grey Templar wrote:
With a cannon, the only major inaccuracy is going to be what is represented in Fantasy. The lateral inaccuracy isn't going to be enough to make an in-game difference.


I don't think you've got that much of a picture of the challenges of picking out targets at cannon range with the technology of the time, or the challenge of physically pointing a cannon at what you're pretty sure is the preferred target. Consider, for instance, that the appeal of commander sitting on horses guiding their troops didn't go out of fashion with cannons, but only once rifling and gunscopes were developed did officers have to make efforts to conceal themselves. Because the idea that exists in WHFB rules now that cannon is very good at sniping a model on horseback among infantry was, in the real world, completely absurd.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/03/08 05:41:53


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

Hence why i said it only doesn't make enough difference in game. IRL, it would make a difference. But in game it has to be the way it is.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





Hey, the D3 cannon was my idea.

Some monsters, like Arachnarok, Soul Grinder, etc are so unbelievably large that a D3 scatter is meaningless. And thus you end up with 2 categories of monsters. Extra wide and cannon-resistant. And that isn't reflected in their points at all.

I wouldn't even mind D3+1 on cannon dmg.

   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

I had thought about scattering the initial shot as well, but the problem is, the longer the range, the more accurate the shot.
At near point blank, a D3" scatter could produce a 45 degree miss.
At 48", a D3 scatter does almost nothing.

It would make stone throwers the premier weapon vs large targets, still doing high strength and D6 wounds.


 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Bloodthirsty Chaos Knight





Las Vegas

Demon princes are not large targets, and would still take D6 wounds by the D3 suggestion. Sadface.

   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Grey Templar wrote:
The only thing that needs to be done is make monsters a little more durable against cannons.

Make the Large Target special rule make cannons go from D6 wounds to D3. Problem solved.


Yup, pretty much.

Oh, and re-introduce guessing :*

   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





@kenshin620 and Sebster: I think Cannons should be the #1 unit-destroying war engine of choice. Two models/rank may well be too extreme, but as things currently work, no one would shoot a Cannon at a big block of infantry unless there were no better options available.
Kenshin, Cannons are only insane right now because of their efficiency versus big monsters. If we take that away from them, they go from being awesome to being outshined by Stone Throwers.

@Grey Templar: sorry, I misread your first post. That would certainly work, but I ask- why is this the only way a cannon's inaccuracy can be represented in the game? This statement--that a game system is completely unable to simulate an aspect of reality--is a bold claim indeed.

@Duke and HawaiiMatt: aren't those monsters that are super-big-and-bad already resistant to cannon fire in other ways, though? I mean, a dragon might be more easily missed, but the 'Rok has 8 Wounds and the Grinder has his Ward, so they've all got a little something...?
The shift in accuracy is a big problem that I haven't been able to smooth out. It should be the other way 'round, if anything.

Would everyone agree that Stone Throwers and Cannons have about the same chance of hitting a monster for Multiple Wounds? It seems to me like it's around 1:3, or a little more for targets with really big bases.

 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

I haven't yet seen a cannon system that was as close to reality as the warhammer system, without being way too complicated. I don't know what the various historicals do for their cannons though.

If you can come up with/find one that works I would love to see it.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/09 17:26:24


Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

 Evertras wrote:
Demon princes are not large targets, and would still take D6 wounds by the D3 suggestion. Sadface.

Daemon princes are large targets now. In both books.

-Matt

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

And even if they did take the D6, they are Unbreakable. Thats a heck of a trade off.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

 Sigvatr wrote:
 Grey Templar wrote:
The only thing that needs to be done is make monsters a little more durable against cannons.

Make the Large Target special rule make cannons go from D6 wounds to D3. Problem solved.


Yup, pretty much.

Oh, and re-introduce guessing :*


I never saw guessing as a balancing factor. Skilled opponents drop it within an inch of where they wanted. Unskilled players were losing games regardless of where the cannon ball bounced.

-Matt

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/09 17:41:58


 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
Made in us
Bloodthirsty Chaos Knight





Las Vegas

HawaiiMatt wrote:
 Evertras wrote:
Demon princes are not large targets, and would still take D6 wounds by the D3 suggestion. Sadface.

Daemon princes are large targets now. In both books.

-Matt


Looking at the Daemon Prince in the WoC book right now. No Large Target under special rules. Just Daemonic Attacks, Terror, and Unbreakable. Am I missing something?

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





The newest monsters are indeed getting more protection, but not enough that they shrug off cannons. They'll usually get a tiny regen or ward or decent scaly skin (which cannons laugh at).

I guess another fundamental question is: what are cannon supposed to be used for? If it's anti-troop, then you can balance armies for that. Dwarfs and Empire and such would then use them for that. But right now they are anti expensive stuff, which makes people not take expensive lone stuff, even though not a ton of races have cannons. Also, they are really heads and shoulders above any other war machines out there.

   
Made in de
Decrepit Dakkanaut





DukeRustfield wrote:
Also, they are really heads and shoulders above any other war machines out there.


My Doom Divers beg to differ.

   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





@DukeRustfield: a 5+ Ward or Regen is good enough. The odds of the cannon under/over shooting or Misfiring, rolling a 1 to Wound, and not rolling enough Wounds is all high enough that 1st-turn'ing monsters isn't a huge deal anyway (mathematically, anyway. I'll admit witnessing other player's statistic-denying Warp Lightning Cannon shenanigans). I don't think monsters should be immune to cannons, just more resistant than they currently are.

I think cannons should be anti-troop more than anti-lone models, but maybe where cannons should truly shine is their ability to pose a moderate threat to anything? I mean, they're the most advanced of the common war machines.
Personally, I feel like Stone Throwers are overall better than cannons, though. Better at killing big blocks of infantry, with a longer range and indirect fire, and still with potential to knock down monsters.

@Sigvatr: how is D6 S5 better than 2-10" of S10 D6 Wounds? I guess the 'Diver is a little more accurate, but the range of targets seems smaller.

 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight






Yendor

How about this,

keep cannons basically the same, with placement, d6 wounds, etc. But change these 2 things

1) the Cannon must randomize its hit between the Rider and the Mount.
2) the d6 is rolled BEFORE rolling to wound. So that the cannon must roll to wound for each of the its d6 wounds, and a ward or regeneration save may be attempted for each.

that way the cannon is less all or nothing, its not just roll one dice, if you pass your ward you live unscathed, and if you fail your ward you could lose all of your hit points. It makes it up front about how much damage the cannon can cause, and each individual wound can be saved.

Cannons would still have the laser accuracy, and they would still have solid damage output against lone things, but their damage would be lowered a bit by being forced to actually roll to wound for their bonus wounds, and their damage would be averaged out by allowing people to take their saves against all of the wounds caused instead of looking at an all or nothing crap shoot!

So lets say we have a Bretonnian Lord with the Grail Shield (4++) on a Hippogryph who benefits from the Blessing of the Lady (5++ vs cannon). The cannon hits, the hit is randomized to the Bretonni Lord, and the cannon rolls a 4 on its d6 wounds. The cannon then rolls to wound, scoring 3 wounds. The Lord then gets to make his 4++ ward save against each of those hits, resulting in him failing 2.

Still leaves cannons with pretty scary firepower and high potential damage against lone targets, but averages out their damage a bit, and doesn't needlessly punish players for taking a cool mount for their Lord.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/11 14:36:11


Xom finds this thread hilarious!

My 5th Edition Eldar Tactica (not updated for 6th, historical purposes only) Walking the Path of the Eldar 
   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





@akaen:

1. This just makes sense. I think this should be the case, no question.
2. So, instead of cannons being S10 with the Multiple Wounds (D6) special rule, they inflict D6 S10 hits on each model under the template, but no more than 1 hit/rank of a unit?
That's a little messy, but I like the way you're thinking!

 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Hammerer





I personally think that cannons should stay where they are. But maybe monsters should be a little harder to kill. Cannons are supposed to be good at killing monsters, thats what they do.

Not to mention there is no lack of ways around them, or to destroy them.
   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





Mountain-Breaker wrote:
Cannons are supposed to be good at killing monsters, thats what they do.


Only in a game where the rules chosen to represent cannons happened to be best suited at doing so. There were, to my knowledge, no dragons or their ilk that saw time on the field of battle in our world when everyone made the switch from catapults to cannons. We had infantry, and we had cavalry. And cannons outperformed catapults at killing them. A big ol' steel ball bouncing through a formation at god-only-knows how many miles per hour did and does more damage than a boulder lobbed into that said formation.

Mountain-Breaker wrote:
Not to mention there is no lack of ways around them, or to destroy them.


For some armies, sure. And even fore those that have those means, the damage a cannon does is going to be in the first few turns, before those defenses and counter measures kick in anyway.

I'm not saying a cannon should be useless against monsters. Proportionally, a dragon getting hit by a cannon would be like a human getting shot by a gun that launches baseball-sized rounds. But actually being able to pick out a single target, big as it may be, would be harder than landing that same shot into a block of marching soldiers. Especially when that lone target is faster, let alone if its capable of flight.

I think D3 Wounds would fix the issue. But then I would wonder what cannons would get in return. They're not 100% accurate, they can blow up, and, as Mountain-Breaker said, they have their counters. Honestly, I'd like to see cannons cost a little more, with the added bonus that big blocks and monsters look like equally appealing recipients for their attentions.

 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Grey Templar wrote:
Hence why i said it only doesn't make enough difference in game. IRL, it would make a difference.


Of course it can make a difference in game... if you change the rules so it does.

But in game it has to be the way it is.


No, it doesn't. That's why we propose alternative rules. That's kind of the point of this sub-forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Warpsolution wrote:
@kenshin620 and Sebster: I think Cannons should be the #1 unit-destroying war engine of choice. Two models/rank may well be too extreme, but as things currently work, no one would shoot a Cannon at a big block of infantry unless there were no better options available.
Kenshin, Cannons are only insane right now because of their efficiency versus big monsters. If we take that away from them, they go from being awesome to being outshined by Stone Throwers.


I'm really not convinced cannons should move from their current role among war machines as the best option against high quality single targets and good vs everything else, to being the very best option against everything. I mean, if nothing else that's just kind of boring.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/03/12 08:47:08


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





Ideally, I would say that cannons should be the best on average; no perfect targets and no awful ones. That seems like the best way to differentiate gunpowder versus torsion.

I just don't see people taking cannons for anything else than big monsters. S10 is awesome, as is Multiple Wounds. But 1 model/rank and the Monstrous Infantry rules regarding cannons makes them a worse choice than Stone Throwers by far. Probably even Bolt Throwers, since they cost twice as much and can explode.

 
   
 
Forum Index » The Old World & Legacy Warhammer Fantasy Discussion
Go to: