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.

I disagree.

That's the first thing players talk about when judging monsters, is whether or not its viable to run a whole tribe of them because 1 or 2 is useless in the cannon meta.

The only monsters that are considered universally viable are ones that come with Regen or Ward saves so they have a shot vs cannons or whether they have enough wounds to survive one for a couple turns,

Even worse, NO competitive list out there will field a ridden monster because you lose both the monster AND the character to one stupid cannon. Now there's 120 pts holding down 600.

Up the cost or nerf the wounds, but they are ridiculous in my opinion.

 Thunderfrog wrote:
I disagree.

That's the first thing players talk about when judging monsters, is whether or not its viable to run a whole tribe of them because 1 or 2 is useless in the cannon meta.

The only monsters that are considered universally viable are ones that come with Regen or Ward saves so they have a shot vs cannons or whether they have enough wounds to survive one for a couple turns,

Even worse, NO competitive list out there will field a ridden monster because you lose both the monster AND the character to one stupid cannon. Now there's 120 pts holding down 600.

Up the cost or nerf the wounds, but they are ridiculous in my opinion.

The obvious fix for ridden monsters is to have the shot hit only the rider OR the monster, not both (a change I favor).

 Jubear wrote:
Your blind then.

Easy there, big shooter.

 Jubear wrote:
If you dump a monster sideways then deploy a bus in front of it 1" as per the rules there is no way you well be able to target in front of the monster.

Debatable. There was a thread about whether or not you needed to see the area in front of the monster, or the actual tabletop in front of them. I don't remember what the consensus was, but movement trays aren't part of the rules, they're just there to make things easier. So, technically, you'd be able to see a tiny bit of ground between models, but technically, the models should be perfectly flush with each other, which they'll never be, etc.

 Jubear wrote:
I cant put it any clearer its not my problem if your a bad.

Again, steady as she goes. And if you're going to insult someone, a little proof-reading never hurt.

 Cryonicleech wrote:
Even so, as a Dwarf Player I can tell you that honestly, cannons aren't that OP.

What about all those S5 or 6 attacks? Hammerers have always done a great job of dicing my Abomination into little cubes.

 Land_Stander wrote:
I have no sympathy for this line of reasoning in Warhammer. Sure, it's cool to put your grand champion aboard a mighty monster and then sending him into battle as though he were in a movie. However neither in real life or in any form of wargamming is that even remotely what would happen on a battlefield.

Know what doesn't make sense to me? How can three guys load, aim, and fire a cannon so as to hit a dragon? He's big. But he's also soaring through the air faster than a horse. That shot should be one in a hundred. Not one in six.

 Land_Stander wrote:
The fact my Skaven Warlord can't go Grand Theft Auto on them just ruins the fluff for me.

Um...what? No where ever has the literature of this game supported such an image.

To be honest even a bouncing cannon ball would still be death to any normal troop that it touched. Heck even if the cannon ball missed actually hitting a block of infantry by flying a foot over their head men would die from the sudden pressure difference it results in. After having set down with a dwarf player we looked at the three biggest issues with cannon and that is the ability to laser snip characters and always doing d6 wounds to monsters. If you made it so the wounds always hit a block like normal shooting there by stopping its power to snipe characters and had it only do d3 wounds on the bounce to anything with large target to show it hitting the legs rather then a center of mass shoot taking out its heart. Those two changes would make monsters some times still be one shot by a cannon without it being easy since you would now need to try and land it on target rather then just get an almost fool proof hit.

My solution to cannons:

Bring it down to S6 or S7 with no armor saves allowed.

Most things will still wound on 2+ but the biggest of monsters will likely need a 3 or the rare 4+ to wound.

-OR-

Impact on hit is d6 wounds, on bounce it is reduced to d3.

The problem with dropping a cannonball to S7 is that it'd need a 5+ to wound a Sphinx. I'm pretty sure a shotgun-slug isn't going to bounce off a marble statue. But it also isn't very likely to bring the whole thing down in a pile of rubble.

I dont think needing 5's to wound one monster is too terrible. They still crumble to weak infantry and only have a 5+ save. (And Init 1)

A ballistic skill test makes sense to me a cannon shot could very easily be 'on target' and still go through a giants legs for example. This would help out the monsters. It's a shame that people aren't taking them very often as the chance of losing that much of a points sink on turn 1 is just too real.

Know what doesn't make sense to me? How can three guys load, aim, and fire a cannon so as to hit a dragon? He's big. But he's also soaring through the air faster than a horse. That shot should be one in a hundred. Not one in six.

According to the rule book, your monster isn't soaring through the air faster than a horse. Basically what is happening is the dragon is flying up and swooping down. Maybe hovering if there is a boss on there to issue orders. Obviously the experienced artillery crew would wait for it to come down. Think of in Skyrim when a Dragon is flying and attacks, he kind of hovers down to breathe fire then flies back up. He isn't flying high in the sky swooping down breathing fire and then flying back up. If that were the case, I'd completely support your opinion on the artillery.

Um...what? No where ever has the literature of this game supported such an image.

Skaven get to the rank of warlord by killing their superior in sneaky ways. You're telling me that my Skaven wouldn't throw sand into the eyes of a Chaos Warlord or spit warp acid in his face for a cheap kill? Pff we need to rewrite the rules to include special sand and acid attacks. Warlord on Warlord combat is broken, we need to balance it out so it matches my imagined fluff.

Yeah, the Fly special rule actually doesn't represent true flight. More like controlled gliding.

So while a Dragon can certainly fly, in battle its really just gliding along the ground.

@Land_Stander: I know full well what the rulebook says about how flight works. And it's silly.

As for Skaven Warlords and their dirty tricks...well, sure. They've got 'em. But a Chaos Lord should still beat him down in a one-on-one fight. I don't care how much powdered glass and poison the Skaven is packing. That's a Lord. Of. Chaos.
Now, if this were an RPG-type game, the Warlord could take advantage of ambushes, terrain, sabotage, etc., then he'd pose a serious threat to a character of greater physical might.
But, on the open field, surrounded by soldiers? The only real trick the Warlord has is to put his guys in front of him, and hightail it out of there.

Warpsolution wrote:
I'm pretty sure a shotgun-slug isn't going to bounce off a marble statue. But it also isn't very likely to bring the whole thing down in a pile of rubble.

A shotgun slug is a really bad weapon to use vs. stone. I doubt it would do much more than take a chip out if it hit the torso. And it loses force tremendously fast at distance. I mean, you really need explosives to take out thick stone. And the cannons represented in WHFB are the stone/metal ones.

You got to think that a Sphinx is what, 5-10 feet thick stone at the center. You would need C4 to blow that apart.

How many wars did all those stone buildings survive in europe?

Funny rules to solve the cannons vs monsters dilemma:

- Big Stick (Giants): every time the model is hit by a cannon or stone thrower, roll 1d6. 1 = hits normally, 2-4 = strenght halved, 5-6 = proyectile is thrown back at the shooter (scatters 1D6).

- Evasive maneuvers (models with Fly special rule): everytime the model is hit by a cannon or stone thrower, roll 1d6. 1 = hits normally, 2-4 = hit is ignored but the target can't fly for 1 turn, 5-6 = hit is completely ignored.

- Monstruosity (big walking monsters, like stonehorns & some greater demons): this model is immune to Multiple Wounds special rule. When hit by a cannon or stone thrower roll 1d6. 1 = can't move for 1 turn, 2-4 = random movement 1d6 for 1 turn, 5-6 = hatred special rule for 1 turn.


The first rule represents giants using their massive sticks to repell cannonballs.

The second rule represents how flying models would dive out of the way of big incoming proyectiles.

The third and last rule represents the outstanding resilience of huge monsters. Cannonballs should either briefly stun them or just make them angry.

adicto20 wrote:
Funny rules to solve the cannons vs monsters dilemma:

- Big Stick (Giants): every time the model is hit by a cannon or stone thrower, roll 1d6. 1 = hits normally, 2-4 = strenght halved, 5-6 = proyectile is thrown back at the shooter (scatters 1D6).

- Evasive maneuvers (models with Fly special rule): everytime the model is hit by a cannon or stone thrower, roll 1d6. 1 = hits normally, 2-4 = hit is ignored but the target can't fly for 1 turn, 5-6 = hit is completely ignored.

- Monstruosity (big walking monsters, like stonehorns & some greater demons): this model is immune to Multiple Wounds special rule. When hit by a cannon or stone thrower roll 1d6. 1 = can't move for 1 turn, 2-4 = random movement 1d6 for 1 turn, 5-6 = hatred special rule for 1 turn.


The first rule represents giants using their massive sticks to repell cannonballs.

The second rule represents how flying models would dive out of the way of big incoming proyectiles.

The third and last rule represents the outstanding resilience of huge monsters. Cannonballs should either briefly stun them or just make them angry.

I strongly disagree. This would nerf cannons to oblivion. There is no point in bringing cannons with the proposed rules stated above.

I feel the issue with cannons is always wounding on 2+ due to STR10 with amazing precision and dishing out d6 wounds. The power of the cannon should be nerfed during the bounce roll (if no direct hit on the initial bounce). We can consider modifying STR and wounds caused. This will make cannons interesting again.

The title of this thread kept catching my eye so I had to come read it.

I know nothing of this WHFB that you speak of, only that I want to steal it's minis for D&D night.

A Half Strength Cannonball Bounce sounds like one of those big fish bowl type cocktails only served in a glass instead. The full strength one would come in the fish bowl and cost $20 more...

wfr12n wrote:
I strongly disagree. This would nerf cannons to oblivion. There is no point in bringing cannons with the proposed rules stated above.

I feel the issue with cannons is always wounding on 2+ due to STR10 with amazing precision and dishing out d6 wounds. The power of the cannon should be nerfed during the bounce roll (if no direct hit on the initial bounce). We can consider modifying STR and wounds caused. This will make cannons interesting again.

Well, right now there is no point in bringing most monsters just because of cannons.

If you want a more realistic proposal, here it is:
- Change cannons to shoot just like bolt throwers, using the crew's ballistic skill. They would keep their str10, Multiple Wounds (1d6) and bouncing system, but that way lone characters and small monsters could get hard cover against them.

Problem solved.

Since most of the big monsters still represent something between a whale and elephant even with a thicker hide both of those things would still just die if they were hit by a cannon round even one made of stone. The argument that stone cannon balls wouldn't do much to stone also makes no sense seeing as those same kind of cannon balls were the type that made stone castles go the way of the dodo. Were are talking about the possibility of punching a human head sized hole into the body of something that can breath most of the time. The shock of such a hit to the center of mass on virtually anything flesh and blood would range from bad to lethal. As for the monsters of stone and such. Well cannons were originally invented to destroy targets like that so it would also make sense. Taking away multi woulds completely is not the answer as something like a cannon should do more damage then a singe spear or arrow at its best can. We need to find a way to incorporate a cannons inaccuracy into the equation more then "Oh no my straight on target shot didn't quite get far enough oh dang".

 White Ninja wrote:
Since most of the big monsters still represent something between a whale and elephant even with a thicker hide both of those things would still just die if they were hit by a cannon round even one made of stone. The argument that stone cannon balls wouldn't do much to stone also makes no sense seeing as those same kind of cannon balls were the type that made stone castles go the way of the dodo.

The cannons that are used in WHFB are anti-personnel, they are literally bouncing off the ground. They wouldn't do crap to a thick stone wall. Even the cannon that were specifically designed for siege warfare didn't just knock down a wall in one shot. Or twenty.

As for a whale, even modern explosive-injected harpoons from a deck gun don't kill whales instantly--most often. And that's some pretty damn hardcore killing stuff. A whale is gigantic and has literally feet of blubber protecting it. A round cannonball isn't a penetrating weapon. It's a really big sledgehammer. Elephants are killed via penetration shots to vital areas. Not by trying to knock them around with big hammers.

You can think of a WHFB cannon like a car or a motorcycle. If you take a motorcycle and get it going 100mph and run it into a brick wall, it's going to be a pancake. A car is much more massive and would go through I suspect, though be vastly damaged. If you had a brick wall of 3x thickness (or a stone wall), it's not going to do much. Think of those concrete road barriers. It's nearly impossible for a car to pass through one of those at any speed. That's like 3000lbs going 100mph. Yes, those are concrete filled with rebar, but they also aren't that thick. Check out this video just because it's awesome:




force = mass * acceleration.

So mass and acceleration are interchangeable since they are multiplied.

A typical medieval cannon can go about 1090 mph (1600fps). And let's say it's 24 pound ball.

That's nowhere NEAR the car going 100. Though it's in a smaller area so it can apply more dmg. Still, it's orders of magnitude less.

True enough.

Cannons brought down castles because you could pound away at the walls for weeks at a time. They were still not very fast at it. And it took a while for cannons to actually eclipse conventional siege engines because early cannons didn't have substantially greater range or destructive power while also being prone to blowing themselves up. a good Trebuchet or Mangonel was both cheaper to make and more reliable. You also didn't have to source expensive gunpowder or make specialized ammunition. With a cannon you had to make the ball of a somewhat specific diameter. Any other siege weapon could be much more flexible in its ammo choices.

Agreed.

I'll say it again: D3 wounds to Large Targets is the way to go.
Rolling a 1 would be like a glancing shot; just enough to bloody the beast.
Rolling a 3 still won't kill it, but consider that half of most Monster's costs is still significantly greater than a cannon's full one, that should be fine.
And when you've got two cannons ganging up on one monster, 4 turns at 50% of the shots landing equals a little less than 4 wounds. And a monster with 1 or 2 wounds will get ground down by infantry or fall to bowfire, pretty much regardless of what it is.