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'd like to see Bolt Throwers become a better idea, and Cannons a worse one.

To be fair, I've only ever had to deal with Dwarf and Elf Bolt Throwers, not Spear Chukkas, in 8th. So maybe the following suggestion is too crazy-

- Bolt Throwers keep their Strength constant as they pierce ranks. This makes them safer but less devastating Cannons. There's still a 1/6 chance of failing to wound and stopping the shot, so the chances of taking out one Skavenslave from each of those 10 ranks is slim. And against elite infantry, it doesn't change much anyway, unless it's some kind of -star.
Elf 'Throwers would need a boosted version of their alternate fire, of course. Maybe up the Strength of the shots, or the number of shots, or make them more accurate?
If this still seems crazy-good, then maybe there could be a range (random or fixed) that the bolt "bounces"? My main concern here is: massed Spear Chukkas versus Brettonia.

- Cannons lay down a 1" wide template for the bounce, hitting up to two models in each rank (or file, if fired from the unit's flank-arc). The initial roll is a d6", not an Artillery Die. The bounce roll can result in a Misfire!. Cannons can fire once every other turn.
This would make cannons actually viable against armies that don't field monsters, and would offer monsters some respite. It's twice as damaging to rank-and-file, more accurate, but fires half the shots. So it's way worse at monster-sniping this way.
If it's too drastic a change, what would you suggest?
I've been mulling over how the Warp Lightning Cannon should work compared to this set of rules, and thought it might be best off as-is; the wide range for inaccuracy, the Strength range for ineffectiveness, but the faster rate for high damage potential--it all seems Skaven-y enough for me.

What say you, Dakka?

I definately don't like rules that change every other round. That is weird.

I think you need to ask, what's right and what's wrong about each and then work on solutions.

-Bolt Throwers. Wrong: BS sucks. BS with modifiers sucks more. Not very good against elites (not strong enough). Not very good against non-elites (reducing Str and BS roll). Right: No scatter or randomness. No misfire. No armor save.

-Cannon. Wrong: Crazy Strength against everyone/thing. Not a huge amount of scatter to worry about. Essentially no armor save cuz nothing has -6 armor. Right: Misfire table can 'splode. A min. range because of bounce.

You kind of think of a Cannon as a riskier Bolt Thrower that is better against monsters. But with the ability to measure, it's pretty much better against everything in nearly every situation.

You could do something like trade the no armor saves of BT for having no BS penalties instead. Not sure for Cannon. I'd say it shouldn't be so good at shooting infantry blocks. That is more the realm of Stone Throwers and Bolts IMHO. Something like, every rank of non-MI/MC/MO/Ca that is passed-through gets an auto 5+ (or whatever) Look Out Dude save, before any other saves. To represent a small cannonball missing a small target. If the save is passed, the cannonball misses, with no wounds rolled for that rank. It continues to the next rank regardless of the LoD save. So if it passes through 5 ranks of infantry, it may only hit the back 2 models who weren't paying attention or no one liked them to shout.

Well, I think it's weird that a cannon can be aimed, reloaded, and fired in the same amount of time it takes a block of infantry to charge into combat.
War machines are slow, ponderous, and devastating. And not actually that super high of a risk. Stuff went wrong, sure, but not 1 in 6 times.
Of course, I'm trying to overlook most of that for the sake of the game.

As for what's right and wrong...I kinda' thought I'd addressed that above with one possible set of solutions.

Getting rid of modifiers beyond Long Range for Bolt Throwers would make sense, though. Trying to hit a unit with a spear is a lot easier than trying to hit a model with an arrow.

As for Cannons: eventually, people stopped building catapults and went to cannons instead. So I think Cannons should be better (when they work). And since our world has little in the way of Monsters, it best be better at killing infantry.
If you had a choice between taking out six Chaos Warriors or doing an average of 3 wounds to a Dragon, which would you pick? I know a lot of people will still say the Dragon, but at least it's a little closer to the mark.
Killing 1 guy/rank is never worth it, if there's something better on the table. But Cannons also need a tweak to make them worse at Monster-sniping. I think that half their shots would make them so. It's still up to only a few dice, but people wouldn't fear them or rely on them as much, I suspect.
Is it really that weird to think it takes some time to load such a device? I'm not sure about old-time cannons, but I know it takes quite a while to load up a scorpion or mangonel or trebuchet. I assume a slower firing rate would suit the game, since it's more powerful and complicated.

It takes a massive amount of time to load cannon. But this is a fantasy world.

There's nothing in the game as good at killing monsters as cannon. You would have to buff BT an insane amount for them to take the place of cannon in that realm and vastly debuff cannon. There's too many other rules in place like cannon shooting through rider/mount.

We stopped making catapults because cannonballs exploded. And exploding mega velocity metal > shattering slow stone. They weren't nearly so effective anti-infantry without exploding shells, they were effective anti-building. Which brought feudalism to a close, because you could no longer hide inside a castle and secure a region. They just wheeled out cannon and blew the damn thing down. WHFB cannon balls don't explode, however. It's a really big pistol.

A Chaos Dwarf Dreadquake Mortar can fire every round even if it's slave ogre is killed (on a 3+).

There needs to be a pretty clear dilineation between all the war machines, IMHO. Cannon does everything a BT does a hell of a lot better.

Then again, I don't know if a lot of races have both. You also have to take into consideration that if an army was given sucky types of units, whether cavalry or war machines, they were intended not to be good at it. It's just that changing to 8th might have tipped those Army Books a bit more than they should have.

Bolt Throwers cost half as much, so that's basically fair, at least in concept. Are two Bolt Throwers as good as one Cannon? Maybe it's close, but not quite there, from what I've seen and considered.

I'm not trying to make the Bolt Thrower better at killing monsters and never said so. I'm offering up a way to make them better in general, so they might see play.

Cannons cost too little compared to how well they kill monsters; that's the only problem I see with them.
I don't think the device should just cost more, though; it's usually around 100pts or more for something that only throws a handful of dice, so it's subject to a lot of randomness.
Cannons are The Reason people are hesitant to field Monsters or other expensive models, right? I've seen people trying to make Monsters better against Cannons, but I think that's backwards. Cannons should just not be as absurd at taking out Monsters. Hence my attempt to make it better at other stuff while making it worse in general.

And didn't a bouncing cannonball rip through ranks of infantry and cavalry, whether it exploded or not?

As for armies not intended to be good at war machine-stuff: it better cost an appropriate amount, regardless of whether their supposed to be good at it. 45pts for a Dwarf bolt-thrower is almost okay. The Elf versions are in need of something.

The Dreadquake Mortar is a thing all its own; I'll worry about the basics first, and then look to oddballs like that to see how they're affected.

As for your first point about this being a fantasy world, I've never accepted that lame excuse and I never will. It's a fantasy world, yes. But are the humans and humanoids in it more or less what we'd expect in our world? Are they bound by the basic laws of physics as we understand them, beyond the effects of this thing called magic? The answer, of course, being yes, I'd assume it takes them a while to load a cannon.
"Fantasy" implies that some aspects of the world are fantastic, but that it's more or less a world like our own. If there's a game out there where people are made of fire and can teleport at a whim--not wizards, just regular guys--and there isn't a thing called "land" or "air", I'll accept whatever you want to claim occurs in this crazy place. But in Warhammer, I'll assume that humans and Dwarfs and Elves have two eyes, can't levitate, and view time in a linear fashion, like I do.

If you wanted to make cannon remotely un-fantasy, they would be firing once a game if that. Their movement speed would be 0 in all cases without exception. They were insanely heavy.

Sure, they could bounce. But a better anti-infantry weapon was grapeshot.

Cannons are too good at everything. Making them hit more infantry isn't a solution. If they couldn't hit monsters at all, if there was an Anti-Cannon God who swatted away every single cannon shot aimed at a Large Target MO, cannons would still be good.

And (though I bring it up a lot, I do so because I think it shows something of the future) the Tamurkhan book gave their super monsters protection from them. Chaos War Mammoth is T7 W10 4+ armor and can carry a warshrine for a 5+ ward or 4+ with MoT. The Toad Dragon can only ever be wounded on 4+ regardless of str of weapon and is also T7 W10. K'daai Destroyer has 4+ ward and 2+ vs Flaming.

Those are all many-hundred point monsters. Cannons are not. And cannons got Str10 and multi-wound D6. It's a bit over-the-top. The points are why people don't bring monsters.

IMO, cannons should have been D3 wounds. They'd still do all the none-monster jobs just as well, but we wouldn't have to theorize how to make monsters better.

-Matt

I agree with Hawaiimatt- Cannons should be d3 wounds. What irritates my most about artillery is the complete lack of thought they require. Bolt throwers require you to keep a good line of sight and encourage flank shots. Cannons and mortars just have you plop them in the back and fire away until the game ends. They don't really need hills or terrain. Blocking LoS to them is near impossible. I just want terrain to matter versus the most dangerous shooting in the game.

Jinkazeal wrote:I agree with Hawaiimatt- Cannons should be d3 wounds. What irritates my most about artillery is the complete lack of thought they require. Bolt throwers require you to keep a good line of sight and encourage flank shots. Cannons and mortars just have you plop them in the back and fire away until the game ends. They don't really need hills or terrain. Blocking LoS to them is near impossible. I just want terrain to matter versus the most dangerous shooting in the game.

You might want to re-read how a cannon fires. You need to draw LoS from the barrel to the point on the ground that is starting the bounce. A dark elf harp can fly up close enough to block LOS to the ground in front of a hydra, even though the cannon can see 75% of it's body and heads. That same harpy gives no cover vs bolt thrower.
From what I've found, most people who say cannons can just point-click-fire-kill aren't following the targeting rulse.

As for all the hate this edtion for cannons, I don't see them any better than last edtion. Skilled players could guess accurately enough the lack of guessing doesn't make a difference. Vs unskilled players, I'm not worried.

-Matt

Guessing fairly accurately is still +- a few inches. And I think it also caused a lot of flubbery (which is why they changed it). I.e., if you're on a table you know is 3 feet long you can just look around and make measurements. Or if you know a terrain piece is 4" long. I don't think you were supposed to do stuff like that, but the human brain does that automatically.

DukeRustfield wrote:Guessing fairly accurately is still +- a few inches. And I think it also caused a lot of flubbery (which is why they changed it). I.e., if you're on a table you know is 3 feet long you can just look around and make measurements. Or if you know a terrain piece is 4" long. I don't think you were supposed to do stuff like that, but the human brain does that automatically.

I was used to guessing coming within a half inch of the intended target. That's what happens when you play against archeologists and contractors.

-Matt

That's what happens when you play against a practiced human.

First off, don't make Bolt Throwers have no BS modifier. If you want that, play TK and field a Bow of the Desert Colossus.

However, one thing that should be changed is that Bolt Throwers should be able to target Characters. Make them something of a Line weapon, where you aim them at a model in the rank or file they're shooting at, and it hits that model. That lets them 'snipe' some (with the Char still able to use LoS!) and mean that their D3 Wounds actually mean something. That'd get people to take them more.

Cannon should just have varying strength or a higher Misfire rate (though not both), since the amount of Black Powder needed to propel a ball of lead across a battlefield at speed is almost guaranteed to blow the cannon itself up half the time. Have them Misfire on a Misfire or a 2 or something, or give them a unique Misfire chart if they don't already have one, where all the results are somehow damaging.

I think cannon should probably have some element of left/right scatter. That'd make it possible to miss monsters, and it'd get rid of the system where shells are always headed straight for characters, until some regular trooper pushes him out the way 5 times out of six.

Or, for a more direct fix, HawaiiMatt's option to make them D3 wounds works as well.

Warpsolution wrote:Well, I think it's weird that a cannon can be aimed, reloaded, and fired in the same amount of time it takes a block of infantry to charge into combat.
War machines are slow, ponderous, and devastating. And not actually that super high of a risk. Stuff went wrong, sure, but not 1 in 6 times.
Of course, I'm trying to overlook most of that for the sake of the game.

It takes a long time to load a cannon. But then that cannon should have been firing for many turns before the enemy got as close as they did. So instead of making the board twice as large as it is an having five or six turns of moving up the board while cannons fire every second or third turn, we just make it all a lot more abstract.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:We stopped making catapults because cannonballs exploded.

No. Solid shot was capable of bouncing through the ranks of the enemy and was still a very deadly threat to the enemy.

They weren't nearly so effective anti-infantry without exploding shells, they were effective anti-building. Which brought feudalism to a close, because you could no longer hide inside a castle and secure a region.

No. It just meant fortifications needed to adapt. The introduction of cannon led to star forts, and when those were made obselete by explosive shells forts they developed polygonal defences, and so on.

Feudalism ended as a result of the economic changes reducing the relative importance of agricultural production (and thereby reduced the importance of land ownership), combined with the adoption of firearms, meaning an army was measured by its sheer scale, and no longer dependant on a small, elite core of landed nobles.

Cannon does everything a BT does a hell of a lot better.

Cannon should be more effective that bolt throwers. They're a much higher level of technology, and had a lot more man hours invested into their production. But they should then cost a lot more. Which is exactly as it is now.

We can debate if cannon should be cheaper, and if bolt throwers should be cheaper (or possibly a lot cheaper), but we shouldn't 'fix' things by making a spear launched by a taut string as effective as a cannon ball launched by a blackpowder explosion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DukeRustfield wrote:Sure, they could bounce. But a better anti-infantry weapon was grapeshot.

No, grapeshot was barely used against infantry, and found far more use in naval engagements. Cannister shot was preferred against infantry targets, and that was limited to a range of around 75 yards. So it was solid shot up to 75 yards, then cannister shot.

The number of forts that adapted to cannon were miniscule to the number of forts that existed prior. Yes, some did. The whole idea was your city was walled and you'd hide inside with your citizenry and resist a siege. Constantinople, probably one of the most Empire-like sieges finally fell to pretty basic cannon. Feudalism changed before it was scrapped, but the era of knights and forts being dominant came to a halt with gunpowder. So I mostly mean that medieval version of feudalism, which is what kind of high fantasy draws on a lot.

Canister shot doesn't exist in WHFB. Grapeshot does. They are rough approximations of each other. The grapeshot just came first, even in small arms such as shotguns/blunderbusses or whatever comparative you wish to call them. But grapeshot had a vastly greater range than 75 yards. I mean I can throw a football that far and we're talking about a cannon. My shotgun, using a wussy skeet round, can shoot 100 yards (I see the dirt cloud, anyway). The difference is grapeshot is just an uncontrolled cone spray and part of that cone is going into the ground relatively close, part is going wide, part up, but the median will go however far any other cannon shoots, it just won't be very concentrated.

DukeRustfield wrote:The number of forts that adapted to cannon were miniscule to the number of forts that existed prior.

Military objectives changed, as much as anything. So star forts were built on key logistics points and the like. Seriously, there is no point in history when people just stopped with the idea of defensive fortifications.

The whole idea was your city was walled and you'd hide inside with your citizenry and resist a siege. Constantinople, probably one of the most Empire-like sieges finally fell to pretty basic cannon.

Constantinople was famous because it was a walled city. Seriously, those things weren't that common.

Feudalism changed before it was scrapped, but the era of knights and forts being dominant came to a halt with gunpowder. So I mostly mean that medieval version of feudalism, which is what kind of high fantasy draws on a lot.

Yes, and to repeat my point feudalism disappeared due to changing economic systems and the rise of mass musket armed armies. Not the mere existance of muskets, but their deployment in mass. Cannon in and of itself did nothing to change any of that.

Canister shot doesn't exist in WHFB. Grapeshot does. They are rough approximations of each other. The grapeshot just came first, even in small arms such as shotguns/blunderbusses or whatever comparative you wish to call them. But grapeshot had a vastly greater range than 75 yards. I mean I can throw a football that far and we're talking about a cannon. My shotgun, using a wussy skeet round, can shoot 100 yards (I see the dirt cloud, anyway). The difference is grapeshot is just an uncontrolled cone spray and part of that cone is going into the ground relatively close, part is going wide, part up, but the median will go however far any other cannon shoots, it just won't be very concentrated.

Grape shot and cannister shot are approximations of each other, excepting that cannister shot is far more deadly, but far shorter ranged, which greatly limits its effectiveness at range, and is why solid shot was fired for the most part. Which is the exact point I'd already made.

And you ability to throw a football doesn't really have a significant bearing on the effective range of various forms of early blackpowder weapons. Seriously, go look up the ranges. Cannister shot was only about 75 yards, but this gave it the range to slaughter any infantry unit that came within musket range (as these in turn had an effective range of 50 to 75 yards, depending on the weapon).

I was thinking about this earlier. I probably shouldn't have said Feudalism. Which is an economic model. I meant ended the period when 20 knights in shining armor was essentially an aircraft carrier and was enough to get you a chunk of land to manage.

My dad was a naval ballistics engineer and I got dragged to every civil war sight in America. I was shown the cannon battery that was turned to a nearby copse of trees to blow out all the rebels with grapeshot. I've been shooting for a long long time. Effective range means reliably hit and seriously injure. A 3 inch lead ball (of many) shot from a grapeshot cannon is terribly unlikely to hit you at many hundred yards, but if it did, you would be pretty dead. So no, it's not effective, but it's easily still lethal at that range.

AHA. The 1860 Artillerist's Manual (on google books) lists: "the fire of grape-shot from the mountain howitzer is not of much effect over 300 yards." Quite a bit of detail on both, but they mention 300-600 yards for both cannister and grapeshot.

A Cannon does D3 wounds. Not a bad idea. It would make the Big Spider significantly better, as well as the Great Unclean One, I guess, but who cares about him?
It would make Cannons less good in the way they are too good, and Bolt Throwers would get comparatively better at that, since the damage potential is there, but at less points.

The every-other-round thing was an idea to off-set the other idea I had--to make Cannons better at killing things that aren't monsters. Honestly, I'm pretty sure it takes more time to load a trebuchet or even a ballista than a cannon. Either way, it was a possibility.
If Cannons could kill 100% more Infantry, would that be balanced by being 50% as effective against Monsters? Or do people think a straight-up debuff is in order for Cannons?

@Duke/Sebster: I think you're mostly agreeing. At least, when it comes to the core of the discussion.

Any other thoughts would be appreciated.

Sorry for derailing.

D3 is interesting. I'm all for making Monsters more monstrous.

But I worry that cannons are also monstrous_[infantry/cavalry] killers. What do Dwarfs do against guttstars? Mournfangs will get even better. All the MI/MC. From Rat Ogres to Minotaurs to Charriots of all types. You've kind of lost one of their direct counters.

MI/MC generally want you to engage them in combat. So it takes away one hard counter and some races might not have another (such as poison or mega spells). And it's also nice to have multiple counters you can choose from for all comers.

DukeRustfield wrote:Sorry for derailing.

D3 is interesting. I'm all for making Monsters more monstrous.

But I worry that cannons are also monstrous_[infantry/cavalry] killers. What do Dwarfs do against guttstars? Mournfangs will get even better. All the MI/MC. From Rat Ogres to Minotaurs to Charriots of all types. You've kind of lost one of their direct counters.

MI/MC generally want you to engage them in combat. So it takes away one hard counter and some races might not have another (such as poison or mega spells). And it's also nice to have multiple counters you can choose from for all comers.

Cannons are bad counters to MI. The rule about the ball being stopped by MI really dampers it's effect. Crossbows and organ guns on the other hand are great.
D3 wounds for all cannons makes artillery shoot outs more viable, rather than shoot 1st = profit.

-Matt

Need to kill like 3 Ogres with a cannon to make your points back. And that's pretty likely. If not in 1 shot, certainly 2. And then it gets much easier with bunkered Kroxigor and Rat Ogres and Ushabti and such. I think people overestimate MI gutblocking cannonballs. If you shoot 1 mournfang you nearly made your points back and if you're lucky enough to get a line on 2, you'll take that shot every time you get it.

DukeRustfield wrote:I was thinking about this earlier. I probably shouldn't have said Feudalism. Which is an economic model. I meant ended the period when 20 knights in shining armor was essentially an aircraft carrier and was enough to get you a chunk of land to manage.

Fair enough. Though I'll point out cannon didn't see the end of heavy knights either, but muskets were a significant factor.

AHA. The 1860 Artillerist's Manual (on google books) lists: "the fire of grape-shot from the mountain howitzer is not of much effect over 300 yards." Quite a bit of detail on both, but they mention 300-600 yards for both cannister and grapeshot.

Yeah, grapeshot was effective up to about 300 yards. But was rarely used in land engagements, as solid shot was preferred at range, and cannister shot once the enemy came within about 75 yards.

I've never heard of cannister being effective up to 300 yards, or read of an engagement where it was fired at enemy at anything like that range.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Warpsolution wrote:The every-other-round thing was an idea to off-set the other idea I had--to make Cannons better at killing things that aren't monsters. Honestly, I'm pretty sure it takes more time to load a trebuchet or even a ballista than a cannon. Either way, it was a possibility.
If Cannons could kill 100% more Infantry, would that be balanced by being 50% as effective against Monsters? Or do people think a straight-up debuff is in order for Cannons?

One of the biggest problems with cannons, I find, is that their usefulness really depends on the enemy list. If the enemy puts a big monster down on the table, well then my cannons are very likely to pick up some easy points. On the other hand, if he's filled his list with cheap troops or MSU my cannons are unlikely to do any meaningful damage.

Making cannons a little stronger against troops (or giving a very small points break) while making them only D3 wounds would make their usefulness a lot more consistent, and get rid of one of the last 'listhammer' issues in the game.

@Duke/Sebster: I think you're mostly agreeing. At least, when it comes to the core of the discussion.

Okay, fair point.

DukeRustfield wrote:Need to kill like 3 Ogres with a cannon to make your points back. And that's pretty likely. If not in 1 shot, certainly 2. And then it gets much easier with bunkered Kroxigor and Rat Ogres and Ushabti and such. I think people overestimate MI gutblocking cannonballs. If you shoot 1 mournfang you nearly made your points back and if you're lucky enough to get a line on 2, you'll take that shot every time you get it.

1/6 misfire.
1/6 fail to bounce.
2/3rds kill ogres, with 1/3 getting gutblocked.

Chance to kill 2 or more ogres with 1 shot is worse than 21%. That's just assuming you didn't roll misfires, and managed to line up the hits perfectly.
Killing one ogre or more is 38%.
Killing 3+ in 1 shot is worse than 12%.

I know I've seen the breakdown here before, but vs S4 5+ save ogres, point for point, crossbows do as much damage, and then fight with great weapons once the ogres reach them.

Save the cannon shots for the higher point targets (maneaters and mournfangs).

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Jinkazeal wrote:I agree with Hawaiimatt- Cannons should be d3 wounds. What irritates my most about artillery is the complete lack of thought they require. Bolt throwers require you to keep a good line of sight and encourage flank shots. Cannons and mortars just have you plop them in the back and fire away until the game ends. They don't really need hills or terrain. Blocking LoS to them is near impossible. I just want terrain to matter versus the most dangerous shooting in the game.

You might want to re-read how a cannon fires. You need to draw LoS from the barrel to the point on the ground that is starting the bounce. A dark elf harp can fly up close enough to block LOS to the ground in front of a hydra, even though the cannon can see 75% of it's body and heads. That same harpy gives no cover vs bolt thrower.
From what I've found, most people who say cannons can just point-click-fire-kill aren't following the targeting rulse.

As for all the hate this edtion for cannons, I don't see them any better than last edtion. Skilled players could guess accurately enough the lack of guessing doesn't make a difference. Vs unskilled players, I'm not worried.

-Matt

Your serious thats how they work? My beautiful ghorgons have been cheatingly bloen to pieces

Tiarna Fuilteach wrote:

HawaiiMatt wrote:

Jinkazeal wrote:I agree with Hawaiimatt- Cannons should be d3 wounds. What irritates my most about artillery is the complete lack of thought they require. Bolt throwers require you to keep a good line of sight and encourage flank shots. Cannons and mortars just have you plop them in the back and fire away until the game ends. They don't really need hills or terrain. Blocking LoS to them is near impossible. I just want terrain to matter versus the most dangerous shooting in the game.

You might want to re-read how a cannon fires. You need to draw LoS from the barrel to the point on the ground that is starting the bounce. A dark elf harp can fly up close enough to block LOS to the ground in front of a hydra, even though the cannon can see 75% of it's body and heads. That same harpy gives no cover vs bolt thrower.
From what I've found, most people who say cannons can just point-click-fire-kill aren't following the targeting rulse.

As for all the hate this edtion for cannons, I don't see them any better than last edtion. Skilled players could guess accurately enough the lack of guessing doesn't make a difference. Vs unskilled players, I'm not worried.

-Matt

Your serious thats how they work? My beautiful ghorgons have been cheatingly bloen to pieces

Yeah, I'm serious that people don't read/follow the actual rules.

-Matt

HawaiiMatt wrote:

DukeRustfield wrote:Need to kill like 3 Ogres with a cannon to make your points back. And that's pretty likely. If not in 1 shot, certainly 2. And then it gets much easier with bunkered Kroxigor and Rat Ogres and Ushabti and such. I think people overestimate MI gutblocking cannonballs. If you shoot 1 mournfang you nearly made your points back and if you're lucky enough to get a line on 2, you'll take that shot every time you get it.

1/6 misfire.
1/6 fail to bounce.
2/3rds kill ogres, with 1/3 getting gutblocked.

Chance to kill 2 or more ogres with 1 shot is worse than 21%. That's just assuming you didn't roll misfires, and managed to line up the hits perfectly.
Killing one ogre or more is 38%.
Killing 3+ in 1 shot is worse than 12%.

I know I've seen the breakdown here before, but vs S4 5+ save ogres, point for point, crossbows do as much damage, and then fight with great weapons once the ogres reach them.

Save the cannon shots for the higher point targets (maneaters and mournfangs).

-Matt

Assuming we're talking Dwarf Cannons here, this math is inaccurate. No self-respecting Dwarf player fields Cannons without the Rune of Forging.

On a larger point, the idea of making cannons weaker against monsters is fairly problematic. Cannons are intended to be a hard counter to monsters... if you weaken them, "MonsterHammer" gets bigger and more important. Dwarf and Empire armies, neither one of which is currently in the top 3, fall a few ranks. Dark Elves, with their undercosted Hydra and #1 position, get even better.

If I were to balance Cannons, I'd do so by: making them explode less (so that you're not either randomly deleting monsters or taking your own models off the table), cost more, and have the Stonehorn "All Multiple Wounds are Halved" rule. If a Cannon blew itself up less often, was a lot less likely to die in a single barrage of counter-battery fire, but cost 215 points, it would make a lot more sense. It would also make the cheap Bolt Throwers an interesting option... though they still badly need some way to hit more often.

I think Bolt Throwers should just be cheaper and not take range penelties.

Monsters should get buffed, not nerf cannons.

Maybe all monsters get 2 more wounds(except possably the Aracnarok, hellpit, and Hydra) to counter their general lack of a save.

Monsters should also all count as having 2 ranks for the purposes of determining Steadfast and breaking Ranks. So a monster in the flank denys rank bonuses and a Monster will also break Steadfast on units with 2 or less ranks. That will allow a monster to be a viable flanking unit as well as possably be able to break enemy units on the charge after doing some damage to them.

Impy wrote:Assuming we're talking Dwarf Cannons here, this math is inaccurate. No self-respecting Dwarf player fields Cannons without the Rune of Forging.

On a larger point, the idea of making cannons weaker against monsters is fairly problematic. Cannons are intended to be a hard counter to monsters... if you weaken them, "MonsterHammer" gets bigger and more important. Dwarf and Empire armies, neither one of which is currently in the top 3, fall a few ranks. Dark Elves, with their undercosted Hydra and #1 position, get even better.

If I were to balance Cannons, I'd do so by: making them explode less (so that you're not either randomly deleting monsters or taking your own models off the table), cost more, and have the Stonehorn "All Multiple Wounds are Halved" rule. If a Cannon blew itself up less often, was a lot less likely to die in a single barrage of counter-battery fire, but cost 215 points, it would make a lot more sense. It would also make the cheap Bolt Throwers an interesting option... though they still badly need some way to hit more often.

Large blocks of infantry are hard counters to monsters.
So are mid-sized blocks of cav.
So are cannons.
A lot of magic hurts the Init 2 monster crowd as well.

IMO, bolt throwers just need +1 to hit large targets.

-Matt

Nobody is taking big blocks of infantry, magic, or medium-sized units of cavalry *solely* to take out enemy monsters. That's the only reason most people take cannons. (Character-sniping is a side benefit, unreliable but something to do if there are no monsters or war machines to shoot)

No one takes anything to take out monsters. Cuz no one takes monsters. *zing*

It's so very wierd seeing that here, after coming from the Tomb Kings forum. Over there, Statuary is Gods.