Switch Theme:

Could cannonballs be made to not snipe characters off large targets?  [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
Calculating Commissar




pontiac, michigan; usa

So yeah I don't fully understand how this would work in real life or as real life as a magical world can get (which isn't very real). However for a rider of a large target to get hit by a cannonball like the large target I'd figure it wouldn't make much sense. Perhaps the rider should not be given a 'look out sir' but it's getting ridiculous how much like a sniper rifle anti-monster weapons become. In the case of a flame template or similar it makes more sense but in the case of a cannonball it doesn't unless a monster getting hit hard knocks the rider from the mount though considering some of these large targets fly or in the case of the screaming bell they ring it shouldn't be any more of a hazard than what they're already going through.

I'm currently fine with most shooting hitting the large target 2/3 or 5/6 the time but in the case of cannonballs it shouldn't be almost 100%.

Join skavenblight today!

http://the-under-empire.proboards.com/ (my skaven forum) 
   
Made in gr
Regular Dakkanaut




The most major issue is with rerolls that dwarfs/empire engineers provide. I play Empire a lot, and I see my opponents' faces every time I reroll a missfire and then kill a monster or even 5 Chosen/3 Ironguts.
   
Made in au
Terrifying Treeman






The Fallen Realm of Umbar

Could it not just as easily represent the rider getting dismounted from the force of the blow and getting accidently trampled to death by his (now panicing) beastie?

DT:90-S++G++M++B+IPw40k07+D+A+++/cWD-R+T(T)DM+
Horst wrote:This is how trolling happens. A few cheeky posts are made. Then they get more insulting. Eventually, we revert to our primal animal state, hurling feces at each other while shreeking with glee.

 
   
Made in us
Iron Fang




US

What about something like, Cannons do D6 wounds except to Monsters and Ridden Monsters who take D6-1 wounds?

I think that makes it more likely than monsters will survive the first cannon shot, but two cannon shots would do them in. Monsters generally have good movement, so they should be able to get to combat quickly. Or your opponent is taking 2 turns to shoot off your monster.

I think its a simple fix that doesn't wholesale change cannons like D3 wounds would, but it also gives monsters a little more protection.
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

Just do what we have done since 6th, can't even remember if it's an actual rule anymore either we have been doing it so long, cannon ball hits one or the other, rider in a 5/6 Dragon the rest of the time, simple enough
   
Made in ca
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer





British Columbia

 Formosa wrote:
Just do what we have done since 6th, can't even remember if it's an actual rule anymore either we have been doing it so long, cannon ball hits one or the other, rider in a 5/6 Dragon the rest of the time, simple enough

Yeah, it didn't make sense to me why that was changed.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.


 
   
Made in gb
Worthiest of Warlock Engineers






preston

 Eldarain wrote:
 Formosa wrote:
Just do what we have done since 6th, can't even remember if it's an actual rule anymore either we have been doing it so long, cannon ball hits one or the other, rider in a 5/6 Dragon the rest of the time, simple enough

Yeah, it didn't make sense to me why that was changed.


Wait, they changed it?
Ah crap....

Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
 
   
Made in gb
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon




wolverhampton

I think they should make it much harder for warmachines to hit, unless they are firing at large blocks of troops that are slow moving.
Fast moving targets that aren't a block of infantry should be difficult to hit, especially if its something that flys!
I think it would balance out if warmachines had a front arc, instead of the free pivot thing and penalties to hit if the target moved over a certain distance.

mean green fightin machine 
   
Made in ie
Sniping Hexa




Dublin

in WHAB (Ancients), cannons cost 50 points a piece if I remember well and are S7 d3 wounds (note that only characters, elephants and other warmachines have several wounds, but elephants usually don't meet cannons)
- They can't hit characters, at all, even a single one on his own (too small a target)
- They cannot move and shoot, can only shoot straight ahead. Oh, and pivoting is moving
- They count as a formed unit towards the Army Break Point, so losing them is a very quick way to have your army rout (represents having the enemy forces close to your baggage train and such)

So they will happily murder 150+ points of Knights per shot ... if you manage to line up a shot by forcing your opponent into their firing lanes
Strong but with big drawbacks

 
   
Made in gb
Growlin' Guntrukk Driver with Killacannon




wolverhampton

See that makes sense to me.

mean green fightin machine 
   
Made in gb
Deranged Necron Destroyer




Yeah, I really don't know why it was changed. I don't really understand why you can hit the rider at all with a cannon ball honestly, unless we're using ping pong balls they shouldn't be able to bounce quite THAT high. I'd just make cannons S10 D3 wounds again, where you can't hit mounted units on monsters whatsoever because it makes no sense at all. D6 wounds is too good VS monsters (well, it can be) and mounts are too weak ATM.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




If cannons change, then all the magic and monster point cost will need to change to.

For example I play dwarfs. The only way i can deal with high T multi wound monsters at range is cannons. Do not have magic to cast some of those stupid test or die spells on them.

In a 3k game I will run 3 cannons, runed up that is 500 odd points. If I can not kill / servilely hurt a monster a turn I would be toast. Yes can use Dragon / Daemon Slayers to kill off a monster in combat. But most of the time the monster gets to pick the combat it wants to fight (due to high movement and or fly)

Cannons are good at what they do not because they are stupidly powerful (If anything is going to be Str 10 multi wound D6 its going to be a cannon) but because they are reliable. But the armies that can make them super reliable (dwarfs) do so because they don't trust the winds of magic and rather put faith in there own craftsmanship.

You want to know what is broken? A Lv1 Lore of Metal wizard vs a carmine dragon. The wizard can IF the sig spell (2d6 version) wound the dragon on 2+ and not allow any saves of any kind. A cannon would wound on a 3+ or 4+ but the wizard is wounding on a 2+ plus the cannon can do any where between 1 and6 wounds the sig spell can do any where between 1 and 12 wounds with much much better % of killing the dragon. Also for a fraction of the price.

20k+ Nids 10k Eldar (w/Phantom) 5k Necron 5k Lizardmen
3k Dwarfs
 
   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





I don't understand why people say Dwarfs have such a hard time against Monsters without Cannons.

Grudge Throwers are a pretty serious threat, too. Less accurate, but far more versatile, and impossible to hide from.

And great weapons will carve up most monsters. Just ask my poor Abomination.

I like the idea of 1-4 hitting the monster, 5-6 hitting the rider. I also like D3 wounds versus large targets.
...and I really like cannons from Warhammer Ancients. Talk about strategy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/03/29 05:45:06


 
   
Made in gb
Agile Revenant Titan




In the Casualty section of a Blood Bowl dugout

This is a good point actually. I think, as has been mentioned, reverting to something like the old system and hitting the mounted character on a 6 and the monster on a 1-5, would work well.

I also think, in general, that cannon should scatter D3" from the point where you first place it, and then proceed to travel along the new line from the cannon to the new point as normal. It would make resolving shots more long-winded, but would certainly make it fairer.

DT:90S+++G++MB++IPwhfb06#+++D+A+++/eWD309R+T(T)DM+

9th Age Fantasy Rules

 
   
Made in nl
Fresh-Faced New User




If it was easier to brake LOS than you can use scenery to stay save of get in combat.
   
Made in ie
Sniping Hexa




Dublin

I also think, in general, that cannon should scatter D3" from the point where you first place it

The problem with that is that it makes the cannon less accurate at short range than at long ranges, doesn't make much sense sadly

 
   
Made in gb
Deva Functionary





Bassline wrote:
If cannons change, then all the magic and monster point cost will need to change to.

For example I play dwarfs. The only way i can deal with high T multi wound monsters at range is cannons. Do not have magic to cast some of those stupid test or die spells on them.



*Cough cough splutter cough*
Really? Seriously? An army full of crossbows, handguns and a wide variety of other war machines? Not to mention any chuckable runic items or Irondrakes... and that's just at range!
Slayers, great weapons, tooled up characters... you're really not missing out on the whole magic front.
As a wood elf player I pretty much have bows and treemen. That's it. So don't go moaning that you need to be able to use your cannons like a sniper rifle.

:p
   
Made in gg
Regular Dakkanaut




 Aben Zin wrote:
Bassline wrote:
If cannons change, then all the magic and monster point cost will need to change to.

For example I play dwarfs. The only way i can deal with high T multi wound monsters at range is cannons. Do not have magic to cast some of those stupid test or die spells on them.



*Cough cough splutter cough*
Really? Seriously? An army full of crossbows, handguns and a wide variety of other war machines? Not to mention any chuckable runic items or Irondrakes... and that's just at range!
Slayers, great weapons, tooled up characters... you're really not missing out on the whole magic front.
As a wood elf player I pretty much have bows and treemen. That's it. So don't go moaning that you need to be able to use your cannons like a sniper rifle.

:p



Yes have other ways, but great weapons normally die before get to swing. (Expect slayers but working on a unit of them this week)


One thing will point out when people moan that guns etc are over powered in warhammer. If they want to say its nothing realistic during the 100yr war one of the battles with the English Vs the french. The english lost 200-300 men vs the 30,000 men the french lost. You know why? The English had long bows and cannons. So even in real life if you know how to use your ranged they should stop your enemy before they even get to you. That is the whole point of them.

20k+ Nids 10k Eldar (w/Phantom) 5k Necron 5k Lizardmen
3k Dwarfs
 
   
Made in ca
Inspiring Icon Bearer




Canada

Bassline wrote:
Yes have other ways, but great weapons normally die before get to swing. (Expect slayers but working on a unit of them this week)


One thing will point out when people moan that guns etc are over powered in warhammer. If they want to say its nothing realistic during the 100yr war one of the battles with the English Vs the french. The english lost 200-300 men vs the 30,000 men the french lost. You know why? The English had long bows and cannons. So even in real life if you know how to use your ranged they should stop your enemy before they even get to you. That is the whole point of them.


You're talking about the Battle of Crecy? If so, then there was a LOT more to the English victory than just long bows and cannons.

1) The English out-maneuvered the French army by crossing a tidal crossing just before the tides rose, preventing French pursuit. This game them a whole day to pick and prepare the field of battle.

2) Upon arriving at the battlefield, the French nobility was too impatient to wait until the next day to give battle, and so entered the fight unprepared. They didn't even give their mercenary crossbowmen time to retrieve their pavises (shields) from the baggage train, meaning that they had no protection whatsoever from the English archers, and their bowstrings were wet from a day marching in the rain, making them even more ineffective. The English, by comparison, spent the whole previous day preparing the field and resting up.

3) The French first sent their mercenary crossbowmen in to soften the English forces, but without their pavises they took heavy losses and broke. The English cannons came into play here as well, but note that they were EXTREMELY primitive, fired only grapeshot, and took a really long time to reload.

4) The French cavalry began the attack just as the Genoese crossbowmen were breaking and - I gak you not - decided to stop and butcher the retreating crossbowmen "as punishment for their cowardice" before proceeding against the English...who of course just rained arrows and grapeshot down on the French the whole time.

5) By the time they were done killing their own men beneath a hail of bowfire, they lined up and tried to charge the English again. But now they had to battle uphill against a heavily prepared and fortified English position. King Edward had ordered all of his knights to dismount and rank up among his supporting infantry (both to protect them, and prevent them from fleeing). The combined result was that the English position held, until the French forces were forced to retreat.


Losses from the battle were asymmetrical, but nowhere near to the extent you say. English losses were around 300 knights, but the French only lost around 2,000-4000 depending on who you believe. Neither number accounts for common infantry losses, which nobody bothered to record.

Again though, it's not cannons that caused the victory: it was tactics, terrain, and circumstances. The English out-maneuvered, out-thought, and out-fought the French and won a startling victory as a result. It's essentially the warhammer equivalent of funneling your opponent through impassable terrain under a hail of bowfire and making them fight your elite infantry in waves whilst your ranged support hammers everything in behind.
   
Made in gg
Regular Dakkanaut




Sorry yeah 3,000 not 30,000

But the tactics only worked due how powerful the ranged weapons were. If the longbow / Cannon was not as good they would of gone for different tactics

The ranged weapons were meant stop the enemy getting to you before they could even swing a sword. Same goes for Genghis Khan. His army was so good because of how well they could use a short bow whilst mounted on horse back. The tactics were great. But it was down to the weapon allowing you to do that.

Reason why think cannons are not broken in warhammer. They have one purpose. Kill the big dragon coming to you easily before it even gets to hit your front ranks. If it does kill the dragon then its not done its job. The dragon could have 1 wound or 7. It does not matter it will normally get to attack first against the armies who have cannons. This is a good reason it is Str 10 Multi Wounds D6.

20k+ Nids 10k Eldar (w/Phantom) 5k Necron 5k Lizardmen
3k Dwarfs
 
   
Made in ca
Inspiring Icon Bearer




Canada

Medieval ranged weaponry had the same effect that it does in the warhammer world: whittle the enemy numbers down, damage their morale, and just generally soften them up in preparation for your melee attack. Attacking a foe uphill under a hail of bowfire would have been a thoroughly terrifying and discouraging prospect, and morale was EVERYTHING in ancient warfare.

I mean, just look at the numbers. The English had between 10-15,000 soldiers, of which 2,700-2,800 were armoured knights. The French had around 12,000 knights and an indeterminate number of common soldiers, but probably several times more than the English. Of that we know that the English lost 300 knights (11%) while the French lost 2-3,000 (17-25%). For so many knights to die in battle was entirely unprecedented.

I should also note that longbows aren't nearly as powerful as people like to suggest. Yes researchers have demonstrated that they could punch through platemail, but only at short range and only with iron or steel-tipped arrows which would not have been economically feasible. In reality they killed by accidentally hitting weak points in the armour or killing horses and injuring the knight as he fell off (deadly because of the distance fallen, not because armour was clumsy: it wasn't). The sheer NUMBER of arrows is what was so devastating: longbowmen could fire many arrows in the time it took a crossbowman to re-crank his bow.

Anyways, my argument is essentially that ranged fire is essentially no more powerful in WHFB than it would have been in the real world...save for cannons which were neither as accurate nor as quick-to-fire as they are in warhammer. What they really ought to do is role on a modified misfire chart whether they fire successfully or not. Perhaps 1-2 explode, 2-6 can't shoot next turn, 7 can shoot next turn, +1 to the table if you fire successfully. They should also scatter the placed marker d6-BS inches to account for inaccuracy, so that they can't snipe out a fething infantryman through a forest across the bloody battlefield.

That or they need to be 50% more expensive. How cheap they are versus how effective they are is truly ridiculous, and stilts the meta in favour of only those monsters who can survive a cannon shot. HPAs, Chimeras, and Demon Princes...I'm looking at you.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/04/01 22:17:04


 
   
Made in us
Evasive Eshin Assassin





@Bassline: More importantly great weapons do not die before they swing against monsters. Even a unit of 10-15 models is going to offer some returning attacks. At 20-30, you're starting to look at a unit that can absorb the monster's attack, and then swing at full strength anyway.

15 Hammerers (210pts) vs. 1 Hell Pit Abomination (235pts)

The Abomination hits 'em for 3.5 Impact Hits, so 2.9 dead. Then he's taking out an average of (1) 4.2, (2) 4.2 (and they're at -1 to hit him), or (3) 7.3 models.

(1) 7.9 models remaining, so 12.9 attacks back, so 3.9 wounds after saves.
(2) same attacks back, but 3.3 wounds after saves
(3) 4.8 models left, so 9.6 attacks back, so 2.9 wounds after saves.

Now, while its that those Hammerers will get ground down in the next turn, I'd point out that a unit of 15 isn't exactly a popular choice anyway.
Add in a wound or two from shooting as he approached, and suddenly, it becomes apparent that you do not NEED cannons to answer your monster problems.

 
   
Made in gg
Regular Dakkanaut




PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
Medieval ranged weaponry had the same effect that it does in the warhammer world: whittle the enemy numbers down, damage their morale, and just generally soften them up in preparation for your melee attack. Attacking a foe uphill under a hail of bowfire would have been a thoroughly terrifying and discouraging prospect, and morale was EVERYTHING in ancient warfare.

I mean, just look at the numbers. The English had between 10-15,000 soldiers, of which 2,700-2,800 were armoured knights. The French had around 12,000 knights and an indeterminate number of common soldiers, but probably several times more than the English. Of that we know that the English lost 300 knights (11%) while the French lost 2-3,000 (17-25%). For so many knights to die in battle was entirely unprecedented.

I should also note that longbows aren't nearly as powerful as people like to suggest. Yes researchers have demonstrated that they could punch through platemail, but only at short range and only with iron or steel-tipped arrows which would not have been economically feasible. In reality they killed by accidentally hitting weak points in the armour or killing horses and injuring the knight as he fell off (deadly because of the distance fallen, not because armour was clumsy: it wasn't). The sheer NUMBER of arrows is what was so devastating: longbowmen could fire many arrows in the time it took a crossbowman to re-crank his bow.

Anyways, my argument is essentially that ranged fire is essentially no more powerful in WHFB than it would have been in the real world...save for cannons which were neither as accurate nor as quick-to-fire as they are in warhammer. What they really ought to do is role on a modified misfire chart whether they fire successfully or not. Perhaps 1-2 explode, 2-6 can't shoot next turn, 7 can shoot next turn, +1 to the table if you fire successfully. They should also scatter the placed marker d6-BS inches to account for inaccuracy, so that they can't snipe out a fething infantryman through a forest across the bloody battlefield.

That or they need to be 50% more expensive. How cheap they are versus how effective they are is truly ridiculous, and stilts the meta in favour of only those monsters who can survive a cannon shot. HPAs, Chimeras, and Demon Princes...I'm looking at you.



I agree with most your points.... expect how cheap they are now. To stop a dragon getting into combat will have 1 or 2 turns of shooting (depending if go first or not). One can with Rune of Forging is 1/2 the dragons points. But it does not have a 50% chance to one shot a dragon. 1/36 shots will misfire. Out of those 35 shots that leave the cannon and with good skill by placing the cannon shot 7 inches away your going to hit 75% of the time so 26/36 shots hit. (What gives you a 72% Acc rating what is just a bit better then BS4) out of those 26 shots 1/6 will fail to wound most monsters. So you have 21 wounds. Out of those 21 wounds 1/2 of those will take away half the monsters wounds. So say 11 shots will do 3+ wounds. In total you have 11/36 shots doing 3+ wounds to a monster. Which is just shy of 33% so for 50% cost of the monster I have a points cost efficiency of 33% to it. The second the monsters are in combat. Can no longer shoot at them.

Yes a cannon could 1 shot a monster in a pinch, but so can magic. But the cannon will only ever make its point back on average if it is left alone to keep on shooting and shooting. It will need to shoot 3 times at monsters before it on average could get its points back. What by then your vanguard / scouts etc should of dealt with them. There are going to be times where a cannon can do great things turn 1 (I have run 3 cannons before and they won me the game almost on turn 1 vs TK). Whilst another game Vs ogres i spent 5 turns shooting at him to kill those ogre cannon things.

20k+ Nids 10k Eldar (w/Phantom) 5k Necron 5k Lizardmen
3k Dwarfs
 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




San Diego, CA

Bassline wrote:
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
Medieval ranged weaponry had the same effect that it does in the warhammer world: whittle the enemy numbers down, damage their morale, and just generally soften them up in preparation for your melee attack. Attacking a foe uphill under a hail of bowfire would have been a thoroughly terrifying and discouraging prospect, and morale was EVERYTHING in ancient warfare.

I mean, just look at the numbers. The English had between 10-15,000 soldiers, of which 2,700-2,800 were armoured knights. The French had around 12,000 knights and an indeterminate number of common soldiers, but probably several times more than the English. Of that we know that the English lost 300 knights (11%) while the French lost 2-3,000 (17-25%). For so many knights to die in battle was entirely unprecedented.

I should also note that longbows aren't nearly as powerful as people like to suggest. Yes researchers have demonstrated that they could punch through platemail, but only at short range and only with iron or steel-tipped arrows which would not have been economically feasible. In reality they killed by accidentally hitting weak points in the armour or killing horses and injuring the knight as he fell off (deadly because of the distance fallen, not because armour was clumsy: it wasn't). The sheer NUMBER of arrows is what was so devastating: longbowmen could fire many arrows in the time it took a crossbowman to re-crank his bow.

Anyways, my argument is essentially that ranged fire is essentially no more powerful in WHFB than it would have been in the real world...save for cannons which were neither as accurate nor as quick-to-fire as they are in warhammer. What they really ought to do is role on a modified misfire chart whether they fire successfully or not. Perhaps 1-2 explode, 2-6 can't shoot next turn, 7 can shoot next turn, +1 to the table if you fire successfully. They should also scatter the placed marker d6-BS inches to account for inaccuracy, so that they can't snipe out a fething infantryman through a forest across the bloody battlefield.

That or they need to be 50% more expensive. How cheap they are versus how effective they are is truly ridiculous, and stilts the meta in favour of only those monsters who can survive a cannon shot. HPAs, Chimeras, and Demon Princes...I'm looking at you.



I agree with most your points.... expect how cheap they are now. To stop a dragon getting into combat will have 1 or 2 turns of shooting (depending if go first or not). One can with Rune of Forging is 1/2 the dragons points. But it does not have a 50% chance to one shot a dragon. 1/36 shots will misfire. Out of those 35 shots that leave the cannon and with good skill by placing the cannon shot 7 inches away your going to hit 75% of the time so 26/36 shots hit. (What gives you a 72% Acc rating what is just a bit better then BS4) out of those 26 shots 1/6 will fail to wound most monsters. So you have 21 wounds. Out of those 21 wounds 1/2 of those will take away half the monsters wounds. So say 11 shots will do 3+ wounds. In total you have 11/36 shots doing 3+ wounds to a monster. Which is just shy of 33% so for 50% cost of the monster I have a points cost efficiency of 33% to it. The second the monsters are in combat. Can no longer shoot at them.

Yes a cannon could 1 shot a monster in a pinch, but so can magic. But the cannon will only ever make its point back on average if it is left alone to keep on shooting and shooting. It will need to shoot 3 times at monsters before it on average could get its points back. What by then your vanguard / scouts etc should of dealt with them. There are going to be times where a cannon can do great things turn 1 (I have run 3 cannons before and they won me the game almost on turn 1 vs TK). Whilst another game Vs ogres i spent 5 turns shooting at him to kill those ogre cannon things.


Then again magic can be dispelled....




 
   
Made in gb
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain





Earth

And cannons can be dire wolved, eagled, los blocked etc.

Swings and roundabouts, if cannons didn't exist then characters on monsters would rule the roost again, I agree with toning down cannons as a dwarf player myself, but then I don't want a return to monster hammer either, so the random allocation and d3 wounds sounds like a fair compromise to me.
   
Made in gg
Regular Dakkanaut




 Sihdhartha wrote:
Bassline wrote:
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
Medieval ranged weaponry had the same effect that it does in the warhammer world: whittle the enemy numbers down, damage their morale, and just generally soften them up in preparation for your melee attack. Attacking a foe uphill under a hail of bowfire would have been a thoroughly terrifying and discouraging prospect, and morale was EVERYTHING in ancient warfare.

I mean, just look at the numbers. The English had between 10-15,000 soldiers, of which 2,700-2,800 were armoured knights. The French had around 12,000 knights and an indeterminate number of common soldiers, but probably several times more than the English. Of that we know that the English lost 300 knights (11%) while the French lost 2-3,000 (17-25%). For so many knights to die in battle was entirely unprecedented.

I should also note that longbows aren't nearly as powerful as people like to suggest. Yes researchers have demonstrated that they could punch through platemail, but only at short range and only with iron or steel-tipped arrows which would not have been economically feasible. In reality they killed by accidentally hitting weak points in the armour or killing horses and injuring the knight as he fell off (deadly because of the distance fallen, not because armour was clumsy: it wasn't). The sheer NUMBER of arrows is what was so devastating: longbowmen could fire many arrows in the time it took a crossbowman to re-crank his bow.

Anyways, my argument is essentially that ranged fire is essentially no more powerful in WHFB than it would have been in the real world...save for cannons which were neither as accurate nor as quick-to-fire as they are in warhammer. What they really ought to do is role on a modified misfire chart whether they fire successfully or not. Perhaps 1-2 explode, 2-6 can't shoot next turn, 7 can shoot next turn, +1 to the table if you fire successfully. They should also scatter the placed marker d6-BS inches to account for inaccuracy, so that they can't snipe out a fething infantryman through a forest across the bloody battlefield.

That or they need to be 50% more expensive. How cheap they are versus how effective they are is truly ridiculous, and stilts the meta in favour of only those monsters who can survive a cannon shot. HPAs, Chimeras, and Demon Princes...I'm looking at you.



I agree with most your points.... expect how cheap they are now. To stop a dragon getting into combat will have 1 or 2 turns of shooting (depending if go first or not). One can with Rune of Forging is 1/2 the dragons points. But it does not have a 50% chance to one shot a dragon. 1/36 shots will misfire. Out of those 35 shots that leave the cannon and with good skill by placing the cannon shot 7 inches away your going to hit 75% of the time so 26/36 shots hit. (What gives you a 72% Acc rating what is just a bit better then BS4) out of those 26 shots 1/6 will fail to wound most monsters. So you have 21 wounds. Out of those 21 wounds 1/2 of those will take away half the monsters wounds. So say 11 shots will do 3+ wounds. In total you have 11/36 shots doing 3+ wounds to a monster. Which is just shy of 33% so for 50% cost of the monster I have a points cost efficiency of 33% to it. The second the monsters are in combat. Can no longer shoot at them.

Yes a cannon could 1 shot a monster in a pinch, but so can magic. But the cannon will only ever make its point back on average if it is left alone to keep on shooting and shooting. It will need to shoot 3 times at monsters before it on average could get its points back. What by then your vanguard / scouts etc should of dealt with them. There are going to be times where a cannon can do great things turn 1 (I have run 3 cannons before and they won me the game almost on turn 1 vs TK). Whilst another game Vs ogres i spent 5 turns shooting at him to kill those ogre cannon things.


Then again magic can be dispelled....




Errm if some one is casting the test or die spells they just 6 dice it for IF. So can't dispel.

20k+ Nids 10k Eldar (w/Phantom) 5k Necron 5k Lizardmen
3k Dwarfs
 
   
Made in gb
Highlord with a Blackstone Fortress






Adrift within the vortex of my imagination.

1. Cannon fire as normal, but anything under the cannonball's travel is hit on a 3+, this is a random circumstance and is not modifiable.

2. Misfires should be more drastic for black powder or skaven war engines 1-4 should destroy the warmachine, 5 removes a crew member and a 6 prevents fire. Torsion powered warmachines add +2 to this result, dwarves gain +1. However any misfire dice roll is treated as a 6 if the warmachine spends the entire previous turn loading or otherwise preparing.

The problem with cannon and other warmachines is that they are too accurate and also too quick to fire. Warmachines should be allowed to fire every turn, but it should be very dangerous to do so, however conversely by firing every other turn they should be more reliable, cannon shouldnt blow up often and are good for way better than 1:18 odds Warhammer gives them of doing so if well handled.. Conversely reckless cannon crews wont last long. This offers a tactical tradeoff for the player with artillery, spam shots or play safe.

Note that shooting on the first turn is risky as there was no previous turn reloading or preparing, hence the wording. A prepared defences special rule should nullify this, but at the cost of going last. Maybe prepared defences and praying Bretonnians should dice off for initiative equally

n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.

It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. 
   
Made in gb
Sacrifice to the Dark God Tzeentch



Birstall (outside leeds)

Bassline wrote:
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
Medieval ranged weaponry had the same effect that it does in the warhammer world: whittle the enemy numbers down, damage their morale, and just generally soften them up in preparation for your melee attack. Attacking a foe uphill under a hail of bowfire would have been a thoroughly terrifying and discouraging prospect, and morale was EVERYTHING in ancient warfare.

I mean, just look at the numbers. The English had between 10-15,000 soldiers, of which 2,700-2,800 were armoured knights. The French had around 12,000 knights and an indeterminate number of common soldiers, but probably several times more than the English. Of that we know that the English lost 300 knights (11%) while the French lost 2-3,000 (17-25%). For so many knights to die in battle was entirely unprecedented.

I should also note that longbows aren't nearly as powerful as people like to suggest. Yes researchers have demonstrated that they could punch through platemail, but only at short range and only with iron or steel-tipped arrows which would not have been economically feasible. In reality they killed by accidentally hitting weak points in the armour or killing horses and injuring the knight as he fell off (deadly because of the distance fallen, not because armour was clumsy: it wasn't). The sheer NUMBER of arrows is what was so devastating: longbowmen could fire many arrows in the time it took a crossbowman to re-crank his bow.

Anyways, my argument is essentially that ranged fire is essentially no more powerful in WHFB than it would have been in the real world...save for cannons which were neither as accurate nor as quick-to-fire as they are in warhammer. What they really ought to do is role on a modified misfire chart whether they fire successfully or not. Perhaps 1-2 explode, 2-6 can't shoot next turn, 7 can shoot next turn, +1 to the table if you fire successfully. They should also scatter the placed marker d6-BS inches to account for inaccuracy, so that they can't snipe out a fething infantryman through a forest across the bloody battlefield.

That or they need to be 50% more expensive. How cheap they are versus how effective they are is truly ridiculous, and stilts the meta in favour of only those monsters who can survive a cannon shot. HPAs, Chimeras, and Demon Princes...I'm looking at you.



I agree with most your points.... expect how cheap they are now. To stop a dragon getting into combat will have 1 or 2 turns of shooting (depending if go first or not). One can with Rune of Forging is 1/2 the dragons points. But it does not have a 50% chance to one shot a dragon. 1/36 shots will misfire. Out of those 35 shots that leave the cannon and with good skill by placing the cannon shot 7 inches away your going to hit 75% of the time so 26/36 shots hit. (What gives you a 72% Acc rating what is just a bit better then BS4) out of those 26 shots 1/6 will fail to wound most monsters. So you have 21 wounds. Out of those 21 wounds 1/2 of those will take away half the monsters wounds. So say 11 shots will do 3+ wounds. In total you have 11/36 shots doing 3+ wounds to a monster. Which is just shy of 33% so for 50% cost of the monster I have a points cost efficiency of 33% to it. The second the monsters are in combat. Can no longer shoot at them.

Yes a cannon could 1 shot a monster in a pinch, but so can magic. But the cannon will only ever make its point back on average if it is left alone to keep on shooting and shooting. It will need to shoot 3 times at monsters before it on average could get its points back. What by then your vanguard / scouts etc should of dealt with them. There are going to be times where a cannon can do great things turn 1 (I have run 3 cannons before and they won me the game almost on turn 1 vs TK). Whilst another game Vs ogres i spent 5 turns shooting at him to kill those ogre cannon things.


But the canon can shoot other targets for the rest of the game so your points comparrison is off.

2 canons will kill a dragon in 1 turn for the dragons cost, leaving the rest of the battle to snipe awaywith impunity.
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




San Diego, CA

Bassline wrote:
 Sihdhartha wrote:
Bassline wrote:
PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:
Medieval ranged weaponry had the same effect that it does in the warhammer world: whittle the enemy numbers down, damage their morale, and just generally soften them up in preparation for your melee attack. Attacking a foe uphill under a hail of bowfire would have been a thoroughly terrifying and discouraging prospect, and morale was EVERYTHING in ancient warfare.

I mean, just look at the numbers. The English had between 10-15,000 soldiers, of which 2,700-2,800 were armoured knights. The French had around 12,000 knights and an indeterminate number of common soldiers, but probably several times more than the English. Of that we know that the English lost 300 knights (11%) while the French lost 2-3,000 (17-25%). For so many knights to die in battle was entirely unprecedented.

I should also note that longbows aren't nearly as powerful as people like to suggest. Yes researchers have demonstrated that they could punch through platemail, but only at short range and only with iron or steel-tipped arrows which would not have been economically feasible. In reality they killed by accidentally hitting weak points in the armour or killing horses and injuring the knight as he fell off (deadly because of the distance fallen, not because armour was clumsy: it wasn't). The sheer NUMBER of arrows is what was so devastating: longbowmen could fire many arrows in the time it took a crossbowman to re-crank his bow.

Anyways, my argument is essentially that ranged fire is essentially no more powerful in WHFB than it would have been in the real world...save for cannons which were neither as accurate nor as quick-to-fire as they are in warhammer. What they really ought to do is role on a modified misfire chart whether they fire successfully or not. Perhaps 1-2 explode, 2-6 can't shoot next turn, 7 can shoot next turn, +1 to the table if you fire successfully. They should also scatter the placed marker d6-BS inches to account for inaccuracy, so that they can't snipe out a fething infantryman through a forest across the bloody battlefield.

That or they need to be 50% more expensive. How cheap they are versus how effective they are is truly ridiculous, and stilts the meta in favour of only those monsters who can survive a cannon shot. HPAs, Chimeras, and Demon Princes...I'm looking at you.



I agree with most your points.... expect how cheap they are now. To stop a dragon getting into combat will have 1 or 2 turns of shooting (depending if go first or not). One can with Rune of Forging is 1/2 the dragons points. But it does not have a 50% chance to one shot a dragon. 1/36 shots will misfire. Out of those 35 shots that leave the cannon and with good skill by placing the cannon shot 7 inches away your going to hit 75% of the time so 26/36 shots hit. (What gives you a 72% Acc rating what is just a bit better then BS4) out of those 26 shots 1/6 will fail to wound most monsters. So you have 21 wounds. Out of those 21 wounds 1/2 of those will take away half the monsters wounds. So say 11 shots will do 3+ wounds. In total you have 11/36 shots doing 3+ wounds to a monster. Which is just shy of 33% so for 50% cost of the monster I have a points cost efficiency of 33% to it. The second the monsters are in combat. Can no longer shoot at them.

Yes a cannon could 1 shot a monster in a pinch, but so can magic. But the cannon will only ever make its point back on average if it is left alone to keep on shooting and shooting. It will need to shoot 3 times at monsters before it on average could get its points back. What by then your vanguard / scouts etc should of dealt with them. There are going to be times where a cannon can do great things turn 1 (I have run 3 cannons before and they won me the game almost on turn 1 vs TK). Whilst another game Vs ogres i spent 5 turns shooting at him to kill those ogre cannon things.


Then again magic can be dispelled....




Errm if some one is casting the test or die spells they just 6 dice it for IF. So can't dispel.


Sorry to get back late, but the IF also comes with some pretty nasty drawbacks...




 
   
Made in us
Killer Klaivex




Oceanside, CA

 Formosa wrote:
And cannons can be dire wolved, eagled, los blocked etc.
Swings and roundabouts, if cannons didn't exist then characters on monsters would rule the roost again, I agree with toning down cannons as a dwarf player myself, but then I don't want a return to monster hammer either, so the random allocation and d3 wounds sounds like a fair compromise to me.

Odd. I don't play armies with cannons and haven't seen characters on monsters rule the roost.
My Arachnaroks really like the idea of D3 wounds. With 8 wounds, we laugh are your empire cannons.

Maybe tie in less wounds with another disadvantage.
Shell Shock: Models who take wounds from a cannon and survive cannot march and only roll a single die for charging (even if they have swift strider).

IMO, cannon vs monsters is too Rock-Scissors-Paper. One of them kills the other, then has free reign for the rest of the game. If cannons delay the monster(s), then both last longer in the game, and other supporting units (shooters to finish the monster, or warmachine hunters to finish off the cannon) play a larger role.

-Matt

 thedarkavenger wrote:

So. I got a game with this list in. First game in at least 3-4 months.
 
   
 
Forum Index » The Old World & Legacy Warhammer Fantasy Discussion
Go to: