PDA

View Full Version : los on cannon shots



Neth
03-11-2010, 06:42
Hey guys, I have a question regarding how line of sight works when firing a cannon. This situation came up in a game I played on the weekend, I'll try and map it out.

Cannon


Warriors/clanrats

X

Hellcannon

OK, so the cannon was a warp lightning cannon that wanted to shoot at my hellcannon. My buddy place the mark (X) where we wanted the shot to land 4 in. in-front of my hellcannon. This got me thinking about if he could do that since he doesn't have line of sight to that spot. He could see the hellcannon because it is taller then the warriors and clanrats that were in combat but not the point on the ground. Anyways what are your thoughts on this? I hope this makes sense :) Thanks

T10
03-11-2010, 06:59
My thoughts is that this is OK. He is, after all, trying to hit a model he can draw line of sight to.

-T10

Frosty_TK
03-11-2010, 07:42
While I too think it is ok, I've flipped through the rules. On page 112 the first paragraph about "choosing a target" (translated from german), begins with the statement that you choose a target you can see, and implies that the shot bounces further from this point on out (further down). This target must not necessarily be a model.

Now, this reads as if you HAVE to see the spot on the board as well. But this is not only counter intuitive ("I see the target, but can't shoot it properly because it's on the edge of a hill") but also makes shooting at large targets behind anything impossible unless you're on a hill yourself ("Hey, I see the giant, but since I can only shoot at his navel and the shot is bound to bounce at least 2 inch further, I will allways miss").

Sooooo I still think shooting at the large target is ok, but...

Neth
03-11-2010, 09:36
Thanks for the replies. Frosty_TK that is exactly the thought process that I was having when I was thinking about this. It would make shooting at anything large over troops impossible without being on a hill yourself. It would also make hills and placement of your cannons that much more important, in buildings or clear paths etc. and help to lower the overall power of cannons, which seem to get a fair few complaints.

Greyfire
03-11-2010, 14:15
All in favor of flogging whoever wrote the cannon rule that requires LOS for where the cannonball must be aimed please speak up.

As written what you say is correct. I've not seen anyone play it that way, especially with regards to large targets. If there's anything out there I'm missing (with regards to RAW and errata) please let me know.

Palatine Katinka
03-11-2010, 18:12
It would actually make sense to me. I mean, if you can't see the point the cannonball will land you don't know it is safe to fire a shot there. You can't fire a shot that has a chance (no matter how small) of hitting friendly models so it makes sense that you can't fire a shot blindly.

Lex
03-11-2010, 19:28
RAW you have to see the spot on the ground to target the ground. Otherwise you have to target the front of the Hellcannon and hope for a 2 on the arty die. I see what you are saying about it not being RAI but let me use a situation in one of my games:

Cannon is behind a unit, an obstacle and not on a hill. I foolishly have a nicely converted Dark Pegasus Dreadlord that is about the height of a flying base and is about 12" from the cannon. The Empire player parks a STank 5" in front of my Peg, directly between Peg and Cannon. He can only see a few millimeters (ignoring the wings) of my model over the STank. He declares a shot that targets a point 4" from the front of my Pegasus base, which is impossible for him to see the target. I of course point out the rule that your target must be in LOS and he targets something else. Now, is it really counter-intuitive that he can fire a huge high powered cannon shot that arcs over his unit, over the wall, over the STank (nothing but net :)), only to land directly in front of a model he can only see the tail-end (literally) of, and then bounce through the model? I'm sorry, but that's a shot Napolean would be jealous of. TLOS, premeasuring, and no partials have combined to make artillery incredibly powerful. No need to make it more so by overlooking a rule. RAW says you have to see the target, whether it be a spot on the ground or a model. RAI I would think would be the same thing, but who knows?

AMWOOD co
03-11-2010, 20:42
RAW says you have to see the target, whether it be a spot on the ground or a model. RAI I would think would be the same thing, but who knows?

If I want to shoot a single model and I know that I have to aim a few inches short to make the shot, would not shooting (D to model) - (A few inches) be permissable? The cannon rules are rather screwed up, but I hold that as long as you can see the model you intend to hit and the shot is otherwise legal (ie. no chance of hitting unpermitted units) then all is well. Why should cannons suddenly be so restricted by line of sight when everyone else gains absolute reign? Fact is that a cannon is less likely to hit a single model than a stone thrower.

Lex
03-11-2010, 21:19
If I want to shoot a single model and I know that I have to aim a few inches short to make the shot, would not shooting (D to model) - (A few inches) be permissable? The cannon rules are rather screwed up, but I hold that as long as you can see the model you intend to hit and the shot is otherwise legal (ie. no chance of hitting unpermitted units) then all is well. Why should cannons suddenly be so restricted by line of sight when everyone else gains absolute reign? Fact is that a cannon is less likely to hit a single model than a stone thrower.

Cannons are restricted by LOS no more than anyone else. Everyone has to see their target. Cannon less likely than a stone thrower? Maybe if you just consider being clipped by the template and not being under the whole. But if you look at probabilities, a cannon shot on a model whose base is 2" (guess 6" if smaller) or larger aimed 4" from the model has a very high chance of hitting that model with the bounce. Being hit by the Stone Thrower hole is much much less and the lower strength portion is much less dangerous to things likely to be single models. Personally I prefer to have my dragons, et al. and even solo infantry shot at by mortars, stone throwers , etc. over cannons.

Edit: You are certainly free to house rule it as you see fit, but if the OP is asking what the rulebook says, then you can't target a spot you can't see.

AMWOOD co
04-11-2010, 03:24
I don't know what I was thinking...

Cannon hitting a man-sized target: 20 in 36 if your point is 10" short of the target.
Stone Thrower hitting same target: 10 in 36.

Where was my head, I used to know these numbers.

Agoz
04-11-2010, 07:49
you could just target the air instead of the ground, you can see the air after all.

Grey Mage
04-11-2010, 08:08
you could just target the air instead of the ground, you can see the air after all.

Actually, baring strange gases or random debris most people cannot see the atmosphere around them. Indeed, even seeing a debrisless wind is a gift that many humans dont possess.

If you told me you could see the relatively static air around you during a game Id be honorbound to call in some scientists to see if we could isolate your rather unique genes. It would be a small miracle.

H33D
04-11-2010, 09:13
Yeah you do have to see the point you are aiming for. Good for Stone Throwers, bad for Cannons. But Grudge Throwers are the new Purple Sun, so that's OK! The Purple Sun is so last week...

Greyfire
04-11-2010, 14:04
It makes it kinda odd though. I can use a unit of Saurus to partially screen a Steggie from a cannon (keep them 10" in front and hope for average rolls) but I can't stop 100 archers from turning the Steggie into a pin cushion (probably an angry pin cushion). I get a bit confused by this LOS to the ground requirement.

Palatine Katinka
04-11-2010, 17:58
I was always confused by how cannons could get the cannon ball to arc perfectly to land right behind a unit without clipping the guys in the back rank and then skim along at ground level without it just sticking into the ground. Taking the example of Saurus in front if the Stegadon, how could the cannonball bounce into the stegadon with first approaching ground level where the Saurus are and plowing through them?

Greyfire
04-11-2010, 18:51
That's a good question and one I've never seen a good answer to, Palatine. I stopped thinking about that one in early 7th. If I can accept the walking dead then magic cannonballs shouldn't be too much a stretch.

My best guess is it arcs up and when it lands that spot and everything behind it get's hit with shrapnel as it explodes. And if it's a cannon that I shot it just plants itself in the ground. That's as real world as I could make it. Maybe someone else has a better explanation?

It's just odd that the stonethrower can just pick a spot but the cannon can't. I think GW likes the stonethrower more.

Palatine Katinka
04-11-2010, 20:53
It's about time something other than cannons got love. In my local gaming group people avoided using any large monsters purely because cannons could take them out so quickly for so few points. That is until a small few of went "Screw it! Dragons are cool! Raaargh! Foosh!"

The Stonethrower doesn't need los and does actually explode with shrapnel all around. Unlike the cannon's magical directional charge. Stonethrowers would fire in a higher arc (45 degrees for best distance, probably higher as the target gets closer) while cannons fire a very shallow arc making it difficult to fire over things unless already higher.

Lord_Elric
04-11-2010, 20:54
Personaly seem totaly right to me works how a cannon fires it doesnt arc all that much tbh and if its going to bounce then its haqrdly arcing atall soon as the angle of the cannon ball dips too much it Aint bouncing shooting over a combat is gonna be a difficult shot and id see it as the crew would aim directly at the target if it something as big as a hellcannon expecting to drop the cannon directly on it.

Its common knowledge a cannon is much more effective fireing from an elevated position so haveing to see the piont your aiming for seems resonable though im not a fan of taking guess ranges away from cannons making them ever so accurate (right now its as though all dwaf and empire cannons have rifling on the barrels ffs)

So personaly I agree with seeing the piont your aiming at with a cannon due to the straight line nature of the shot, but you should only need to see the target with things like stone throwers and trebuchets agsin due to the nature in which they fire...

Ninjad by palantine katinka but yes my sentiments exactly

Agoz
05-11-2010, 01:45
Actually, baring strange gases or random debris most people cannot see the atmosphere around them. Indeed, even seeing a debrisless wind is a gift that many humans dont possess.

If you told me you could see the relatively static air around you during a game Id be honorbound to call in some scientists to see if we could isolate your rather unique genes. It would be a small miracle.

are you trying to tell me I can't visualize a point in the air between two objects? Because I think you give me too little credit.

Grey Mage
05-11-2010, 02:31
are you trying to tell me I can't visualize a point in the air between two objects? Because I think you give me too little credit.

No, Im saying you cant actually see.

You can imagine you have 4.5k HE army on the field all you want, but that doesnt mean its there to play with.

TheRolfgar
05-11-2010, 02:46
are you trying to tell me I can't visualize a point in the air between two objects? Because I think you give me too little credit.

No you really can't. Unless you have a view from multiple perspectives you will not get an accurate location, especially from looking straight forward say, 50 meters (I honestly don't know how long the range a cannon would be if you were to put it to scale).

Agoz
05-11-2010, 03:46
No you really can't. Unless you have a view from multiple perspectives you will not get an accurate location, especially from looking straight forward say, 50 meters (I honestly don't know how long the range a cannon would be if you were to put it to scale).

look, I'll just say a point 4 inches above the ground, 8 inches in front of the target model, easy enough, or I could just point, either way really.

Grey Mage
05-11-2010, 03:49
Try putting a marker there, you know- like the rules tell you to?

Agoz
05-11-2010, 04:00
it says to put a marker down where you intend the shot to land, and that is the target model, no need to mark the spot in front of it.

Grey Mage
05-11-2010, 04:40
Except thats what the rules say....

You want to abuse the rules, youll have to atleast pay them lipservice.

Agoz
05-11-2010, 04:48
Except thats what the rules say....

You want to abuse the rules, youll have to atleast pay them lipservice.

"place a small coin or counter in the correct position as a reminder of where the shot is intended to land"

Grey Mage
05-11-2010, 05:15
Yep, so how are you placing that in midair? or do you intend to try and balance in the side of someones dragon?

TheRolfgar
05-11-2010, 06:00
it says to put a marker down where you intend the shot to land, and that is the target model, no need to mark the spot in front of it.

That is not correct, you intend the shot to land in front of the target, thats the entire point of deciding the range. If you were to roll a missfire on the bounce would the canon ball simply stop in the middle of the air because clearly it has hit some sort of forcefield? Or perhaps its a giant invisible rock?

In fact now that I think about it, you really HAVE to target the ground, otherwise rolling a missfire on the bounce makes zero sense. The canon ball would not stop mid air, nor would it randomly just fall out of the sky, and it certainly wouldn't continue flying through the air at some unknown flight angle until it hit the ground either.