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.

This is a house rule we play with in Houston to balance gunline armys out.
When a cannon ball bounces, it has half strength. While I dont like this for armys with pricey cannons, it has fixed alot of problems with Dwarfs and Skaven.

How do you guys feel about this house rule?

So, a cannonball lands and might hit one model at S10, then bounces and hits some others at S5?

That doesn't make sense. Cannons should rip through anything they touch. They're cannons, after all.

Are you trying to fix the problem of sniping dragons and Greater Daemons on turn 1?
There's been a lot of threads with that topic in mind. The most popular answer always seemed to be: give large targets a special rule where they only take D3 wounds from cannons.
It's simple, it's elegant, and it resolves the issue without creating more.

Logically speaking (which has little place in WHFB but still) a cannon isn't going to lose strength. A generic Empire dude with a fluffy codpiece could be hit by Str 5 and totally shrug it off. In fact a 16% chance of it hitting him right in the codpiece and him laughing about it. The reduced wounds makes more sense because it will still smear little guys, it just won't be as likely to smear big guys.

The strength represents there is really nothing more forceful in the entire game. It can negate all armor. S5 cannonball would 1/3 the time off the head of a barded full plate knight.

If you're trying to stop cannons from killing rank and file, well, I don't know if that is an admirable goal. Stone throwers probably do it better. What cannons do is make super high price models which can't hide somewhat lackluster.

Warpsolution wrote:
So, a cannonball lands and might hit one model at S10, then bounces and hits some others at S5?

That doesn't make sense. Cannons should rip through anything they touch. They're cannons, after all.

Are you trying to fix the problem of sniping dragons and Greater Daemons on turn 1?
There's been a lot of threads with that topic in mind. The most popular answer always seemed to be: give large targets a special rule where they only take D3 wounds from cannons.
It's simple, it's elegant, and it resolves the issue without creating more.

Yes only the bounce is strength 5
It is ment to balance the power of the cannon out not ruin competitive play.

Well, Skaven's WLC don't bounce "per se" but anyway, it means that the worst cannon for killing big uglies (the best against large blocks, OK) is now S 1-5 instead of 2-10?

Sure WLC are very good, but in the current meta they're not that good when you compare them to all the other cannons as a lot of armies field only small units, and even when they're big formations, they're usually not deep, just wide (also they effectively only shoot 70% of the time as a misfire on the second die cancels the shot)

The problem does not lie with the cannon (should just bring back random allocation for ridden monsters) themselves, but with the balance of monsters
Daemon Princes, Greater Daemons, Phoenixes, Chimeras and the like are just fine. It's Griffins, Gorghons and the like who suck hard

I do not think that the problem with cannons is the Strength, it is the fact that they shoot with ungodly aim. I would rather have a little inaccuracy added back in. Cannons can be affected by a number of things, the wind, over/under packing the powder, the ball not being perfect, ETC. No cannon ever hits the same place twice. So I would propose that if you want to make them less affective, do something like this.

Firing cannon:
When Firing a cannon roll an artillery dice, a scatter dice. IF a misfire is not rolled on the Artillery dice and the result of the scatter dice is a hit, your aim was true move the point of impact the distance of the Artillery dice directly away from the Cannon in a straight line, otherwise scatter the initial impact location D3 inches in the direction of the scatter dice, then move the initial point of impact the distance of the artillery dice as described above, Roll to bounce as normal. These will make it harder to the controlling player to snipe out characters, and stops the pinpoint accuracy of the cannons.
Special Rule, Large Target: Larger Targets are far easier to see and Hit, when shooting a cannon at a larger target do not roll a scatter dice and d3,

Honestly, I appreciate the effort to try and fix cannons, but all is needed is the following:

- Models with the Large Target special rule take only D3 wounds from Cannons (and the centre of a Stone Thrower)

- Characters auto-pass a "Look Out Sir" roll if they are in a unit of the same type with three or more ranks of at least 5 models (or 3 for Monstrous Infantry/Cav.)

@Nurgle: as you can see, this issue's been covered a fair bit before.
I think the question we have, then is: what kinds of problems do you have with cannons? What do you mean by "balance the power of the cannon"?

@TanKol: without hijacking the thread, I think it's worth considering that the Warp Lightning Cannon is a threat to basically every unit in the game. I might shave D6 wounds off a monster, and then take out 8 models from an elite horde unit the next turn. For 90pts, I consider that versatility pretty devastating.

I do think something ought to be done with cannons, though. Monsters with 7+ wounds or some kind of cannon-viable save do okay. But the idea of a cannon taking off a dragon's head is utterly ridiculous.

@cawizkid: I had the same idea, actually. The problem with that is, it makes cannons more accurate the further they shoot.
Really, though, the big reason I abandoned that idea was because, if we started talking about how accurate war machines are, we'd run into a lot of problems. Like, the fact that it apparently takes three guys the same amount of time to load and aim a catapult as it takes to notch an arrow...

The D3 wounds thing is a lot simpler, and it has the same result where we need it. Personally, I wish cannons cost more and did more to infantry. I mean, that's what they were actually used for. That's why we made the switch from catapults to cannons.

@The Shadow: I don't know about the auto-Look Out, Sir! roll. I like it, at first, but going from 1 in 6 to Never Ever, No Matter What is a big shift. I feel like match-ups between, say, Vampire Counts and Empire would change drastically. But maybe that's a good thing?

When I say balance, it is to be taken in the context of monster killing.
95 Points for a dwarven cannon (w/ Rune of Flame) killing Hydra's on turn one is a big no-no for alot of casual games.

But a hydra isn't?

/zing

Sorry but every time I read about proposed rules that weaken cannons I find that they are being proposed by owners of large monsters who would have nothing to fear if cannons were effectively neutered.

A cannon shot has two chances to fail before making contact with its intended target. The cannon can misfire, or the ball can get stuck in the ground. Furthermore the random number added to the proposed point of impact, or the length of the bounce, can also spoil a cannon shot. And against high toughness critters, the cannon could possibly fail to wound.

Monster users should remember that a cannon needs line of sight in order to target their behemoth, so keep out of the cannon's arc of fire until your scouts/ skirmishers/ fliers have attacked the cannon. (cannons cannot fire while their crew is in CC).

Here is another proposed cannon rule to chew on:
When a cannonball fails to bounce, (stuck in the ground), a D6 is rolled. on a 1-3 the ball does nothing but sit and fizzle.
If this happens, roll a D3 to see how many turns it takes the fuse to either go out or explode. (1-2=done. 3-4 roll a D6 again next turn to see if the ball explodes. 5-6 roll for explosion on the next two turns)
On a 4+ it explodes where it is, center the large blast template on the ball, anything under it takes a S5 hit.

If we had a big pile of statistics of all the games I think you would see the number of monsters being used has been drastically reduced. More armies have them now and more armies have rerolling capabilities.

If the mere threat of something existing in your opponent's army is enough for you to not take a unit TYPE, then it's probably too good. Or the type is type is too bad.

Here is another proposed cannon rule to chew on:
When a cannonball fails to bounce, (stuck in the ground), a D6 is rolled. on a 1-3 the ball does nothing but sit and fizzle.
If this happens, roll a D3 to see how many turns it takes the fuse to either go out or explode. (1-2=done. 3-4 roll a D6 again next turn to see if the ball explodes. 5-6 roll for explosion on the next two turns)
On a 4+ it explodes where it is, center the large blast template on the ball, anything under it takes a S5 hit.

At the time the cannonballs weren't shells, they were big lumps of metal ...
Decent explosive shells only started to appear mid-late 18th century

At the time? This is a fantasy universe.

You'r right though their just metal balls not explosive shells. Tough some dwarve ammunition is shell shaped and may even be shells as we know them.

As for Nurgles suggestion can you offer a reason as to why the cannonball gets so much weaker when it bounces?

@Nurgle: Thought so. And most of us will agree with you that something ought to be done. But S5 cannonballs wouldn't just make cannons worse against monsters. They'd make them worse against anything with T4+ or a 3+ save or better. And that's just no good.
Cannons are already not that great at taking on infantry. I say: make them less efficient at sniping monsters (D3 wounds). Simple, effective, and balanced. The Big Three.

@snurl: I did the math way back when, and found that a normal cannon has a roughly 50-50 chance of hitting it's target.
Now, admittedly, the chances of a cannon taking out a monster Turn 1 is still pretty low. You need to not roll a 1 (don't know what you're talking about with "high Toughness monsters", since even a T8 Sphinx is wounded on a 2+), and then you need to roll 5 or 6 on the wounds.

...but even if you don't do that; smacking a 250pt monster for 3 out of his 6 wounds is still pretty sickeningly efficient.
And if we changed the wounds to D3 on large targets, the average goes from 3.5 down to 2, which isn't actually all that drastic. It's that freak outlier of a 6 that goes way down to a 3.
Armies with cannons don't need to rely solely on cannons, either. If you can tag a monster for 4 wounds (assuming you brought two cannons, and they each hit once in two phases), your knights or greatswords or even your halberdiers can probably knock off the last one or two.

Also: explosive shells are a possibility (mortars!), but, really? S5 large template? That's insane.

Come to think of it S5 large template does seem a bit harsh. But somehow the small template seems so..small.

When a small template can hit about 20 models in WHFB, it doesn't seem so small anymore ...

Good point.

@snurl: Consider this: the Warp Lightning Cannon hits models in a line and in a small template, and is considered something between awesome and broken, at 90pts.
...and it has a worse Misfire chart.
...and can be S2-10 instead of S10(5).

Oh, and if these cannonballs do explode: what about when they do bounce through the unit? That S10 D6 Wounds is just a big hunk o' metal rolling along the ground, lopping off legs and such.

The way I see it, it just doesn't make sense, and is too good to boot.

Now, if a specific cannon were to have a special rule like that, I'd be okay with it, if it was priced appropriately.
...and the Warp Lightning Cannon is (more or less) just such a device.

I made a suggestion a while back that cannons ought to hit up tp 2 models/rank, to represent how a grapefruit-sized lump of iron tearing through a regiment would actually be rather devastating.
But cannons are too good as-is. They need a downgrade, not more stuff.

I love my A-bomb, but he fears plenty of stuff, even outside of cannons. Flaming archers and hordes of S5 models (Dwarfs) come to mind.
Moreover, no matter how much I'd benefit from a shift to D3 wounds, I'd be hurting more, since I also like to roll with two Warp Lightning Cannons.

The issue with cannons is not how hard they hit, It's how often they hit. I am yet to see one completely miss. Ever.

@Mr Mugguffins: cannons do miss on occasion, but you are correct; they are far too accurate.

But there's just no reasonable, simple way to make them less accurate.
When you think about it, though, the To-Wound chart and the Multiple Wounds rule both end up reflecting accuracy as well. The difference between rolling a 1 and a 4 for Multiple Wounds is pretty clear: the first one was a grazing shot, the second was much closer to center.
And that sort of thing changes, depending on the model. Causing 3 wounds to an infantry-Lord choice results in him losing his leg and most of his bowels. 3 wounds on a giant takes a big chunk out of his shoulder, or pulverizes his toes.

D3 wounds on large targets would mean cannons score less good hits on such units.

My take.

Where the cannon ball initially hits anything at that point takes the S10 hit for d6 wounds.

Anything solely during the bounce is hit on a 4+, though still for S10 and D6 wounds. The cannonball is a bouncing ball after all, not a wall of force following the impact point.
Riddedn monsters roll for rider and monster separately.

How about a little tweak?

After determining the location of the initial hit, but before rolling the bounce, the crew of the cannon must take a BS test.

If the test is passed, the cannon shot resolves as normal.

If the test is failed, the strength of the cannon ball is halved as the shot is misplaced.

This wouldn't apply to WLCs or spells that bounce like cannon balls..

If the issue is accuracy, just remove the "measure anything anytime" and bring back the good old "guess the range"
Was a better game without pre-measuring anyway *grumble grumble rant*

My concern is this: How often is this REALLY a problem? With the disappearance of Dogs of War, only TWO armies have cannons: Empire and Dwarves.

In terms of the Empire, cannons is the balance for other armies having big monsters, since the only way for the Empire to field one themselves is with a Lord riding one, and their most recent book hit cannons with a 20% price increase. Most commonly-taken units are ill-equipped to deal with large monsters.

Also, back in the day of guessing ranges and playing in an environment where they insisted I actually physically aim the bloody model, I was still regularly picking off both large monsters AND generals. The current rules aren't about making cannons more accurate (most players already were), they're about simplfying the rules and eliminating arguments.

Oh, and please remember that for every time someone rolls 6 wounds, someone rolls 1 wound. 1st turn kills are hardly guaranteed, and can come from a variety of sources. And if you aren't swimming in a sea of Empire/Dwarf players, how bad is the problem REALLY?

You'd be wrong however.

Ogres and Daemons also have cannons. Well, chariots that shoot cannonballs anyway.

Of course they are limited to only 2 cannons an army if playing under 3k.

Really, the reason people are worried about cannons is because they don't want to have that one tournament game where the enemy does have a cannon to screw their ranking because they got decimated.


I just had a thought that this could be solved if tournaments started doing multiple list formats like Warmachine does. You could have your big monster mash army for when you are playing against someone without cannons and a list without monsters if you were fighting cannons.

 Grey Templar wrote:


Really, the reason people are worried about cannons is because they don't want to have that one tournament game where the enemy does have a cannon to screw their ranking because they got decimated.

Cry me a river? The only time I really blamed a tournament loss what someone else put on the table was at the 'Ardboyz Finals - and it wasn't complaining, because that was the nature of the tournament.

Rock-Paper-Scissors, man. Chaos gets big scary monsters. Empire gets cannons. Chaos has access to cheap and/or fast units to go after war machines. And after nearly everything in the Empire book got more expensive, they have less models to defend those war machines with.

I have been listening to people whine about cannons for as long as I've played this game. Nothing ever satisfies them. How about focusing more on what you CAN do about them (tactics) instead of what you CAN'T. I've been on the receiving end of cannons and gunlines with my 7E Dark Elf Menagerie. Rather than complain about them, I just dealt with them and let the dice fall where they may.

 Orlanth wrote:
Anything solely during the bounce is hit on a 4+...The cannonball is a bouncing ball after all, not a wall of force following the impact point.
Riddedn monsters roll for rider and monster separately.

This would another die-roll to the game.
Also, a cannonball doesn't really "bounce" so much as it rolls along the ground really, really fast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
...the crew of the cannon must take a BS test.If the test is passed, the cannon shot resolves as normal...If the test is failed, the strength of the cannon ball is halved as the shot is misplaced...

This could work. But then cannons go from 50 to 25%. And that's against all targets, of which many are still poor choices for cannons.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
How often is this REALLY a problem?

It's about a 50-50 shot, not including multiple wounds and such, if I remember correctly.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
In terms of the Empire, cannons is the balance for other armies having big monsters

Doing 3, 4, or 5 wounds to a monster on turn 1 or 2, even with two cannons, is usually still remarkably efficient. It's not just those turn-1 kills that I think are unfair. And while an Empire army doesn't have any other great ways to deal with monsters, they still have answers. Knights can shave off another wound or two, as can Greatswords, sometimes, or Wildform'd Halberdiers, etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

Rock-Paper-Scissors, man. Chaos gets big scary monsters. Empire gets cannons. Chaos has access to cheap and/or fast units to go after war machines. And after nearly everything in the Empire book got more expensive, they have less models to defend those war machines with.

Rock-Paper-Scissors is a terrible way to think of Warhammer. If I wanted to play a game of Rock-Paper-Scissors, I'd, well, I'd play Rock-Paper-Scissors. It's a lot cheaper and quicker to play.

Seriously, though. Hard-counters are lame. I'd prefer a wider variety of soft-counters. Cannons that do D3 wounds to big ol' monsters would still rip through them pretty well, while giving them a chance to do something on their way out. With step-up and supporting attacks, almost any unit can become a threat to giant beasties nowadays, especially with the abundance of Augments and Hexes.

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:
How about focusing more on what you CAN do about them (tactics) instead of what you CAN'T.

Agreed. But one of the things I can do is talk about different cannon rules on this forum. I'll still deal with them as-is in tournaments and such, but why should I sit there and accept the game's flaws, when I could at least be thinking about their solutions?

TanKoL wrote:
If the issue is accuracy, just remove the "measure anything anytime" and bring back the good old "guess the range"
Was a better game without pre-measuring anyway *grumble grumble rant*

Bringing back Guess Range would have little effect on any experienced gamer, or anyone that knows how to keep track of movement for that matter. I feel this is why they took it out of the book., If you have played more than a hand full of games, I am fairly sure you know what 6", 12", 18" and 24" looks like,. I know for one, I can use my hand to move a model within a few MMs of 6 inches with ease. It is really simple to guess range. You know the board is 72x48, Factor in a 12" deploy on each side, once you move models, you know how far terrain is from a table edge, this all gives you some hard markers to use as a guide. If you are playing on a modular table it is even easier. People used to complain all the time how my "Guess" distance was way to accurate. It is basic math, I know my Models are X distance from my Board edge, your models are Y distance from your board edge so the Distance is 48 – (x+Y)+ the ratio of the angle between us, Guess Distance slowed down the game. In stead of me just saying I want to be x distance in front of your model, I had to stop. Think where you where last time, how far you moved, and in what direction, then do some quick math, and I would still end up very close o the same spot.

Example.
You place a monster on your deployment line, 12” from the Board edge, Approximately 12 inch form the short edge. I place canon A directly across from you 6” in. and the other Approximately 12” from the Board edge, 6” in. I know that The base of your model is just about 4” long. This puts your model between 8-12” from your edge, I know the front of mine is 6 inches from my edge. And the average hitting distance of a cannon is 8-10”. So I take 48” Length of the Board,– the known 14 inches Distance of board edge to models. Your model is 30-34” away from me. Now I subtract 6” from the closest distance. the average range I will roll on the shot, and bounce and still hit you. .Which means I want my guess range of 24”. This will give me the best change of hitting the model. Reducing every time the model moves.
Cannon B. I already know the distance your model is from. Me. You are are approximately 48” long and 30” short edge away from me. By doing Math, I know I am going to want to place the between 50 and 56” inches. So I would guess about 53” on average, depending on the base. Odds are that I would hit you 80% of the time. Then I just have to apply your movement, to each distance after than, and if you went first. It is even easier for me, as you have already given me a bench mark as to where to place the marker, I just have to know the average of the roll on the dice to make it work. Guessing just made it take a little longer.
Pre measure, makes the game more balanced, as New players are able to hit just as well as Experienced players. And it helped to speed up the game.

It would be hard to put guess range into a game that allows pre-measure. if you are not allowed to measure from the cannon, You can just measure the distance from a model next it,and get the distance.

Yes the issue with the cannon is its ungodly aim. My thought on fixing the cannon unfortunately includes adding a D6 (D3) to the roll.
*rule* From the aim point. Roll a D3. On a 1, the aim point is changed backwards the Half the distance of the 1st arty roll. On a 2, (hit) it starts the bounce from the aim point. On a 3, normal cannon execution.

So if someone aims the standard 8" from the base and rolls a 6 on the 1st arty dice, then a 1 on a D3. The aim point is moved back "3, (They are now 11" from the base). Then bounce as normal.

If a 2 was rolled from the D3. The Aim point is not moved. The bounce will start at 8" away.

If a 3 was rolled then the Aim point is moved as normal.


This represents not putting enough power in the cannon.