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.

That's an interesting idea. Still a little too complicated and awkward for my tastes, but that might be a possible solution instead of the "Large Targets take D3 wounds" rule.

Do people often have problems with cannons, aside from their ability to take down monsters with extreme efficiency?

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 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.

I am not a tournament player. When I talk about cannons, and why I dislike them, my problem is not "cannons are too competitive." My problem is "cannons take away my fun." For my Vampire Counts, they make my big smashy lord into something that's really just not feasible on the battlefield. I don't take a Lord on an Abyssal Terror because it's game-breaking or cost-effective. I take it because I want Count Van Krauss riding into battle on an undead gryphon. So when I get nailed on t1 with a cannon and lose mount and rider both, I'm not upset because "wow that's powerful." I'm upset because my awesome, narrative battle just went from "sinister vampire swooping down onto scared, but still resolute Imperial soldiers" to "sinister vampire and his mount eat dirt on turn 1, crumbling zombie horde doesn't even get halfway across the intervening field, nothing to see here." When I play Lizardmen, I will often forgo a Slann entirely because I'd rather bring a Carnosaur Lord. Carnosaur Oldbloods are not the "competitive" choice. They're not tourney-winners. But feth me if it's not super-cool to have a dinosaur riding a dinosaur stomping through a line of Dwarves, trying to eat them as they hack at the legs of the prehistoric monster. It's significantly less super-cool to have my dinosaur and rider alike smacked down before I get to so much as move out of my deployment zone.

Cannons hit mount and rider, every time. That totally sucks. Cannons hit from really far away. That also totally sucks. And cannons can, for just over a hundred points, slay my 600-point Hero Of Legend On Mighty Steed(TM) about fifty percent of the time ON TURN ONE. And that, my friend, totally sucks the fun out of the game.

Oh, yeah, and then on turn 2 they can fire again.

@FerrusFair: now you're talking!

I'd like to make two quick side notes, though. For the records:

1. I hear people call Warhammer a game of rock-paper-scissors, and I heartily disagree. It's not "X beats Y", it's "X has a 75% chance of beating Y, except in this situation, where it drops to 55%, or if Y is supported by Z, where it shifts to 30%", and so on.
If it really was as simple as taking one thing to get rid of another thing, I wouldn't be investing hundreds of dollars into this game.

2. the chances of a cannon insta'-gibbing a monster in one shot:

a. first roll isn't a misfire (5/6 chance)
b. first roll + second roll mus equal somewhere around 10-14", so not 2/2, 2/4, 2/6, 4/2, 4/4, 6/2, and 2-8/Misfire (13/18)
c. must roll a 2+ to wound (5/6)
d. must roll 5+ (or 6+) for Multiple Wounds (1/3)

So 5/6 X 13/18 X 1/3 = 0.167 = 17%

It's not all that likely. Granted, two or three cannons makes it substantially more so. And even a 17% chance is pretty lame on turn 1. But there is still some hope!

Warpsolution wrote:
@FerrusFair: now you're talking!

I'd like to make two quick side notes, though. For the records:

1. I hear people call Warhammer a game of rock-paper-scissors, and I heartily disagree. It's not "X beats Y", it's "X has a 75% chance of beating Y, except in this situation, where it drops to 55%, or if Y is supported by Z, where it shifts to 30%", and so on.
If it really was as simple as taking one thing to get rid of another thing, I wouldn't be investing hundreds of dollars into this game.

2. the chances of a cannon insta'-gibbing a monster in one shot:

a. first roll isn't a misfire (5/6 chance)
b. first roll + second roll mus equal somewhere around 10-14", so not 2/2, 2/4, 2/6, 4/2, 4/4, 6/2, and 2-8/Misfire (13/18)
c. must roll a 2+ to wound (5/6)
d. must roll 5+ (or 6+) for Multiple Wounds (1/3)

So 5/6 X 13/18 X 1/3 = 0.167 = 17%

It's not all that likely. Granted, two or three cannons makes it substantially more so. And even a 17% chance is pretty lame on turn 1. But there is still some hope!

The chance bumps up with Engie rerolls, if I remember right. And by Abyssal Terror only has 4 Wounds. And the only people I know who bring cannons bring 2 or 3. -_______-

Sure, some cannons are more accurate. A Dwarf Cannon with the Rune of Forging is a ton more accurate than a normal cannon, but even then, I seem to recall it being something like a 25% chance of doing 5 wounds in one shot.

People always complain about their big monster getting shot dead turn one by a single cannon. My concern is when my big monster gets shot down turn 2 by two cannons. Still efficient, still not fun, and almost guaranteed to happen, rather than pretty unlikely.

So what happens when we nerf cannons against the big stuff?

Next will be a thread about big stuff screwing people over.

Look at the T8 monsters available for TK.
Now tell me, if not a cannon, whats going to actually damage that?

Monsters have got bigger and better, so the cannon really does need to stay to help keep monster mash down a bit.


If your having issues with cannons, invest in flyers / fast moving units.
Even a hero on a carpet does the job.

Why not just really simplify it, there are two ways to go about this, First Cannons always wound a 4+, Ignore armor, Makes them a little harder to snipe, but still kills when they do,

The other option, is to give monsters a Dodge for war machines.Monster Standard rule: Monsters are able to protect against the oncoming projectile of war machines. and as such get a 6+ ward save against War machines, Flying monsters which are more agile gain a 5+ ward save against War machines.


Both of these do not sevearly change the game, but make it more realistic. Though I like option two better. As cannons should ripe through anything they touch. but larger beasts would be able to Partially deflect the blow, or simply side step it.

 Jackal wrote:

Look at the T8 monsters available for TK.
Now tell me, if not a cannon, whats going to actually damage that?

I dunno, why don't we ask the 70%ish of armies that don't have any cannons?

The problem seems to have only one solution. Most armies don't have access to that solution. The thing that solves those problems is also exceedingly efficient at solving many *other* problems. Seems to me the answer is to make the problem less problematic. Then you can make the solution less solvey and still not break the game.

T8 monsters are still wounded on 6's. I've seen them get locked against goblins once and die.

Even before poison was cast upon them.

@Jakal: I don't think cannons should be worthless. Just not as idiotically efficient at this one thing as they currently are.
I mean, I don't think cannons are good enough against most regular infantry; Stone Throwers usually get better results.

Cannons ought to be expensive and potent. Just not at turning on a dime and taking off dragon's heads. That is a cool image, but I don't want it happening in every other game.

And as far as "OMG, T8, that's unkillable" goes...I somehow doubt most Tomb King players would agree with you.

@cawizkid: I feel like taking the Strength value away from cannons would get problematic, and bring up all sorts of rule-conflicts.
I said: large targets take D3 wounds from cannons. That's a 50% cut in efficiency. You're saying that they go from a 2+ to a 4+, a 33% drop. I kind of like the idea, but it would need to be worded very carefully.

If monsters can dodge bolts, boulders, and cannonballs, regular models should be able to dodge arrows, sling-stones, and bullets. I just don't see a Giant dodging...well, anything.

My local group has enjoyed a lot of success when it comes to "improving" on cannonball rules. We have enjoyed a very simple, but surprisingly effective, solution. We roll the scatter dice.

Cannons have never been the sort of thing that is used to snipe targets. It is aimed at a general location, and has many degrees of freedom for where it lands (not just hitting a little forward, which is insane). Cannons rarely have rifling, often shoot sphere projectiles, and suffer from any number of other variables to cause 3 axis movement of the projectile.

We pick our intended target as usual, then roll a scatter dice and an artillery dice. If a HIT! is scored, then the cannon lands right on target, and does not move further (so no traveling closer to the target). If an arrow is rolled, you move the impact point in that direction by the number on the artillery dice.

You then roll for the bounce as normal. The direction of the bounce is determined by tracing a line from the cannon to the impact point.

Misfire's, number of wounds, LoS's, etc. all function as normal. I highly recommend you lot give it a try. It has made a world of difference for us.

Not sure if this was posted, but what about reduce 1S for each inch it bounced?

So at 10" you'd have a very weak cannonball and at the first impact you'd still have a full strength one.

Hm...I'm trying to think about how that would affect the odds of it hurting monsters, etc. I'm not in the mood to do all that math just yet, but I guess the average cannon ball would be S6, then?

It's an interesting idea; totally different angle. But I don't think it adds up. I mean, a cannon ball isn't really going to hit with any less force at the end of it's flight than at the beginning. And a S1 Multiple Wounds (D6) attack is funny.

Even a slow rolling cannon ball is enough force limbs of bodies. Soldiers learnt very quickly not to stop a seemingly slow rolling cannon round that looked harmless. The only thing that should change is accuracy not damage.

I agree cannons are problematic, they are too good for what they pay.

Even if you write the Chaos Skill-Cannon off as a joke (because that thing should cost 250 fething points. ) theres a lot of death for next to no investment.

My biggest gripe is when players defend their cannons and say its my fault for not having enough target saturation.

Last night I played against a pals Dwarves.

Turn 1, Ashtari got shot out from under Caradryan. He lived from the ward but had to hide behind a house all game. Second cannon put a single wound on my flame phoenix.

Turn 2, Cannon took out my flame phoenix. Second cannon killed both Eltharion and his Griffon.

Turn 4, my generic prince on an eagle got pasted by grapeshot.

Turn 6, my fire phoenix rises up and then eats a million organ gun rounds and dies again.

Even at 2500 points, it very hard to have more saturation than an eagle, a griffon and 2 birdies.

Point being, d3 wounds to Large Targets would be awfully nice for those of us who like using our big expensive kits. The answer HAS to be found in nerfing the cannon slightly instead of expecting someone to spend every available point on big creatures if they want to see one make it to combat. (where it would die to combat rezz because you had no points left to support it with your good stuff.)

Warpsolution wrote:

And as far as "OMG, T8, that's unkillable" goes...I somehow doubt most Tomb King players would agree with you.

As a dwarf player, those Tomb Kings players would be wrong. Best case scenario for us is ~12 S6 attacks (from a horde of hammerers). They hit on a 3+, so 8 attacks get through which wound on 6+... for 1.33 wounds. So generally at least 3 turns before it dies. And in return it's using firebreath/thunderstomping and just generally ruining your horde of 12pt models every turn.

Now, if you're absolutely insane, you can take a horde of Slayers and take some Giant slayers, using the double hand weapons. Then you're getting ~16 attacks, for 1.777 wounds! And 777 is a lucky number

My favorite thing to do is take a Lord with the runes for +1S, double strength vs T5+, and Multiple Wounds (d6). THAT is how I reliably kill sphinxes. The only issue is getting him into combat with them.

Even at 2500 points, it very hard to have more saturation than an eagle, a griffon and 2 birdies.

My regular opponent is a guy who fields 3 of those T8 monsters at 1500. At 2500 he says he can field 8. Even with 3 cannons, there's no way I can keep up with that.


Granted, I understand that every single other armies gets access to T6 at best, and most armies can get enough S5+ to be able to deal with those kinds of monsters relatively easily without cannons making having cannons an insult to add to the injury, but cannons are the only thing that I can see that can reliably handle a huge amount of very very high toughness monsters like that.

Rihgu wrote:

As a dwarf player, those Tomb Kings players would be wrong. Best case scenario for us is ~12 S6 attacks (from a horde of hammerers). They hit on a 3+, so 8 attacks get through which wound on 6+... for 1.33 wounds. So generally at least 3 turns before it dies. And in return it's using firebreath/thunderstomping and just generally ruining your horde of 12pt models every turn.

Now, if you're absolutely insane, you can take a horde of Slayers and take some Giant slayers, using the double hand weapons. Then you're getting ~16 attacks, for 1.777 wounds! And 777 is a lucky number

My favorite thing to do is take a Lord with the runes for +1S, double strength vs T5+, and Multiple Wounds (d6). THAT is how I reliably kill sphinxes. The only issue is getting him into combat with them.

Why would you send Hammerers into a Sphinx? Regular warriors do just fine, since they're all wounding on 6's anyway. One turn of fire breath hurts. Thunderstomp plus regular attacks is, what, a little less than 4 wounds a turn, on average? Please. That means that you're doing 1 wound per phase out of static combat resolution minimum. 3 turns = maybe something around 15 Warriors dead? Not scary.

Slayers and tooled-up Lords are all fine and dandy, but the bottom line remains: Sphinxes aren't that great. They're slow to die, and slow to kill. Against a block of infantry, they'll get ground down. Maybe they're scary on a flank charge, supporting another block, but then you've got your other units for support, etc.

What Warp says.

True, how to kill sphinx isn't really the point, but there's not much T8 out there and ours dies to combat resolution more often than it does to wounds.

If you see them, rank as deep as you can. Or just shoot them. Cannons are broke that way. 1 shotting 250+ point monsters with the greatest of ease.

Cannons are fine just play them to the letter of the rules and they really are not to bad.

Far to many peeps get away with 8-10" from the back of the base without actually checking LoS etc.

Cannons exist to be a hard counter to large flying monsters if anyone has ever faced a HE flying circus list you understand how frustrating and boring they are to play against and why cannons need to exist.

First: I don't really see how needing line of site to that spot 8-10" from your target is going to mitigate many situations. I mean, the number of times you can see your target, but not that point ahead of him are pretty few. Probably about as many as being able to see that point, but not the monster itself.

Second: High Elves should not set the standard for...anything. Now, if everyone could have monsters like that, backed by fast cavalry and chaff like that, I'd agree.
...but that would also be terrible. Because such lists are really boring to play against.

Finally: I hate the concept of a "hard counter". It's tactically and theatrically lazy.
The best Warhammer games involve a bunch of soft counters; a unit or a rule that tips the odds in your favor, but more like 2:1, instead of 9:10.
People refer to Warhammer as rock/paper/scissors, but I just don't see it.

Warpsolution wrote:
First: I don't really see how needing line of site to that spot 8-10" from your target is going to mitigate many situations. I mean, the number of times you can see your target, but not that point ahead of him are pretty few. Probably about as many as being able to see that point, but not the monster itself.

Second: High Elves should not set the standard for...anything. Now, if everyone could have monsters like that, backed by fast cavalry and chaff like that, I'd agree.
...but that would also be terrible. Because such lists are really boring to play against.

Finally: I hate the concept of a "hard counter". It's tactically and theatrically lazy.
The best Warhammer games involve a bunch of soft counters; a unit or a rule that tips the odds in your favor, but more like 2:1, instead of 9:10.
People refer to Warhammer as rock/paper/scissors, but I just don't see it.

If you set up some models and really get down to check you will be surprised, unless the canons are deployed on really high hills it can actually be a real pain in the butt to get a good shot (deploying your monsters side ways also help mitigate this)

 Jubear wrote:
If you set up some models and really get down to check you will be surprised...

I have. I was not terribly surprised. It's not all the time, but it's most of the time.

Theres a guy at our store who has put tiny little laser pointers in all of his cannons for checking line of sight angles. It's pretty awesome.

D3 wounds would probably be the best solution, IMHO.

Cannon accuracy isn't the issue, as others have said, guess ranges didn't really effect experienced players.

If people are worried that their big gribblies are dying too quickly, then reducing the possible amount of wounds a cannon can do would probably be best.

Even so, as a Dwarf Player I can tell you that honestly, cannons aren't that OP. If Dwarves and Empire didn't have cannons, they'd have almost no way of dealing with monsters outside of sub-par Lord/Hero builds. What people need to focus on more is target saturation. If you bring 1 monster to the table (Coven Throne, Altar of Khaine, Necrosphinx, etc.) then you're bound to lose it to cannon fire. Meanwhile, if you bring 3-4 monsters, even 3 cannons will have a hard time killing all of your monsters. A Necrosphinx supported by 2 Screaming Skull Catapults (and possibly a hierotitan, or whatever) forces your opponent to pick what he kills.

All that being said, I think d3 wounds would probably be the best change, if any.

Like I said earlier though, the problem with target saturation is that it usually kills an army in the list-built phase.

A cannon is ~100 points that on average has to kill about 1 monster or 4 horses or 1 character or 10 infantry to make its points back.

If I have to bring 800ish points of monsters to negate 300ish points of cannons it's a pretty messed up ratio.

Warpsolution wrote:

 Jubear wrote:
If you set up some models and really get down to check you will be surprised...

I have. I was not terribly surprised. It's not all the time, but it's most of the time.

Your blind then. If you dump a monster sideways then deploy a bus in front of it 1" as per the rules there is no way you well be able to target in front of the monster, Sure your opponent can then try and bounce a cannonball thru the bus unit and try and clip it but being that the bus unit is so deep the chances of the cannon landing a hit is greatly reduced. I cant put it any clearer its not my problem if your a bad.

 Jubear wrote:

Warpsolution wrote:

 Jubear wrote:
If you set up some models and really get down to check you will be surprised...

I have. I was not terribly surprised. It's not all the time, but it's most of the time.

Your blind then. If you dump a monster sideways then deploy a bus in front of it 1" as per the rules there is no way you well be able to target in front of the monster, Sure your opponent can then try and bounce a cannonball thru the bus unit and try and clip it but being that the bus unit is so deep the chances of the cannon landing a hit is greatly reduced. I cant put it any clearer its not my problem if your a bad.

Way to show some class.

There is a lot to argue and it's mostly the fault of TLoS.

Me: Look man, there's 18 Chaos Warriors in the way. You don't have LoS to the spot your trying to aim for.

Him: Yea I do. I can see through the legplates of the warriors in all three ranks.


Frustratingly enough, if he can see even a pixels-worth of table, he can shoot there.

 FerrusFair wrote:

 Manfred von Drakken wrote:

 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.

I am not a tournament player. When I talk about cannons, and why I dislike them, my problem is not "cannons are too competitive." My problem is "cannons take away my fun." For my Vampire Counts, they make my big smashy lord into something that's really just not feasible on the battlefield. I don't take a Lord on an Abyssal Terror because it's game-breaking or cost-effective. I take it because I want Count Van Krauss riding into battle on an undead gryphon. So when I get nailed on t1 with a cannon and lose mount and rider both, I'm not upset because "wow that's powerful." I'm upset because my awesome, narrative battle just went from "sinister vampire swooping down onto scared, but still resolute Imperial soldiers" to "sinister vampire and his mount eat dirt on turn 1, crumbling zombie horde doesn't even get halfway across the intervening field, nothing to see here." When I play Lizardmen, I will often forgo a Slann entirely because I'd rather bring a Carnosaur Lord. Carnosaur Oldbloods are not the "competitive" choice. They're not tourney-winners. But feth me if it's not super-cool to have a dinosaur riding a dinosaur stomping through a line of Dwarves, trying to eat them as they hack at the legs of the prehistoric monster. It's significantly less super-cool to have my dinosaur and rider alike smacked down before I get to so much as move out of my deployment zone.

Cannons hit mount and rider, every time. That totally sucks. Cannons hit from really far away. That also totally sucks. And cannons can, for just over a hundred points, slay my 600-point Hero Of Legend On Mighty Steed(TM) about fifty percent of the time ON TURN ONE. And that, my friend, totally sucks the fun out of the game.

Oh, yeah, and then on turn 2 they can fire again.

I have no sympathy for this line of reasoning in Warhammer. Sure, it's cool to put your grand champion aboard a mighty monster and then sending him into battle as though he were in a movie. However neither in real life or in any form of wargamming is that even remotely what would happen on a battlefield. I'd love to see my Skaven be able to tear down Chaos Warriors in an endless sea of rats, however if I even put up two clanrat blocks against a chaos warrior block, my clanrats would take a righteous beating. If you want to sacrifice strategy for fluff and fantasy that is your choice but don't be surprised if it fails.

In real life it was gunpowder which revealed many myths and legends and opened up parts of countries that were originally sealed off. If the Empire or Dwarf gunpowder armies are representative of real gunpowder performance, your damn right 3 cannon balls smacking right into some dumbass riding a dinosaur would kill him.

Making cannons weak in this universe just so monsters can wreak crap makes no sense at all. Cannons destroy fluff, kill huge monsters and basically destroy any pricey unit they see wandering around on it's own. Good. If we are going to change Cannons for that reason, I think Skaven Warlords need a stats boost to go toe to toe with Chaos Lords or Bretonnian dukes. The fact my Skaven Warlord can't go Grand Theft Auto on them just ruins the fluff for me.

I think that flying units should be allowed a ward save against warmachine attacks. I also agree that ballistic skill should play a roll in it. Additionally i'd like to see guess ranges removed but that's just me.

Way to sound completely bitter instead of just making your point. Your first post was a resounding success.

Snarkiness aside, it's the balance issue, not the fluff issue.

120pt cannons should NOT put 250pt monsters on notice. Sure, I can take more monsters, but you can take more cannons to counter...

Now I have 750pts of monsters trying to make it past 360pts of cannons.

Still don't see an imbalance?

The reason your Skaven Chieftan gets owned by a Exalted hero is the fact you clock in at 45 points base compared to his 110.

Then we toss in your 80pt block of 40 Ld10 slaves with a BSB nearby and ALL of warhammer world is glad you don't pull more combat rezz per point than you already do.

Cannon supporters point to misfires as the balancing factor in warmachines but I don't buy it. You have about an 8% chance of something actually BAD happening. Everything else is basically just missing.

(Unless your Skaven, but you get super-cannons with wonky rules anyways. Your terrible misfires balance out your cheap points cost.)

Sure, you have to spend more points, but that's the cost of running monsters effectively.

If tournament players can bring them and find them still solid, then honestly I don't see much of a problem. I'll admit cannons are pretty easy to use, but they're not so game breaking that fielding monsters becomes impossible.