PDA

View Full Version : Artillery in 8th



Von Wibble
08-01-2012, 18:23
A lot of books recently are following the trend of putting in a large model as a centrepiece for the army. And a lot of the time I am hearing the same line of

"It would be great but it won't last long on the table because the opponent will shoot it"

Which leads to the question - would the game be better if war machines were made weaker in general?

If it were me, I would have points spent on war machines come out of rare allowance for all armies (but some rare troops becomes special eg flagellants) - some internal balance tweaks necessary but it would mean no more than 4-5 machines possible in a 2000 point game at all. And 0-2 cannnon!

What do you think?

Tuttivillus
08-01-2012, 19:20
Yes, You wish ;) And I would like GW not making such a broken models like HPA. Honestly don't know how about others but I am playing a balanced army against skaven and VC, 2 cannons, mortal, Hellstrom and it's ok, as long as skaven player uses 1 HPA and no carts, becaose number of wounds and reg's makes my army struggle.

The Low King
08-01-2012, 19:21
Talk to a dwarf player and the line becomes 'It would be great if i didnt have to take cannons but if i dont those monsters will eat my entire army'


I started taking no cannons, that ended when i met hydras.

I tried a no warmachine list, instead i needed to take a 300 point anti-monster lord.


As you can guess, i disagree. I usually take 2 cannons or equivenlent. That combats on average 2 monsters. Ive had this discussion before and done the maths, warmachines are fine.

Korraz
08-01-2012, 19:40
"Paper is broken, scissors are fine", says rock.

I want to see the army that takes 4-5 cannons in one army. And I know you are talking about cannons here, because it's always about cannons. Stone Throwers and Bolt Throwers aren't even half as scary, and Mortars are just fine considering how everything gets cheaper. We are having this discussion once per week, and the fact that some armies have choices that beat other choices, and other armies have choices which beat THAT choices never changes. Or how exactly did you imagine an Empire army to combat several monsters and units of monstrous infantry? Free Company?

Agoz
08-01-2012, 19:42
great weapons, halberds, buffs, etc... The problem with cannons is you have essentially 200pts of cannons destroying 500pts of monsters before they even have a chance to do anything, and that's a problem.

Luigi
08-01-2012, 19:56
great weapons, halberds, buffs, etc... The problem with cannons is you have essentially 200pts of cannons destroying 500pts of monsters before they even have a chance to do anything, and that's a problem.

Or you have usually 200pt or less of wizard destroying 500 and even more points of units. Per turn.

Urgat
08-01-2012, 19:58
great weapons, halberds, buffs, etc... The problem with cannons is you have essentially 200pts of cannons destroying 500pts of monsters before they even have a chance to do anything, and that's a problem.

And then 70 points of light cav kill the 200 pts of cannons? Should light cav be nerfed because it forces cannons out of the field? :p

MOMUS
08-01-2012, 20:01
"Paper is broken, scissors are fine", says rock.

I want to see the army that takes 4-5 cannons in one army. And I know you are talking about cannons here, because it's always about cannons. Stone Throwers and Bolt Throwers aren't even half as scary, and Mortars are just fine considering how everything gets cheaper. We are having this discussion once per week, and the fact that some armies have choices that beat other choices, and other armies have choices which beat THAT choices never changes. Or how exactly did you imagine an Empire army to combat several monsters and units of monstrous infantry? Free Company?


No, no, no. Hes talking about those other warmachines....er. Flame throwers, yea thats right! Flame throwers! :shifty:


I like the fact that in the warhammer world the fantastical, the magical or mysterious beasts and monsters can get their head/s knocked off half a mile away by a 'boring' old cannon.
Is this poetic justice?

TsukeFox
08-01-2012, 20:19
Cannons need to drift-just D3 to the left or right

calnen
08-01-2012, 20:49
Cannons need to drift-just D3 to the left or right

Why do they need this? It would make them totally useless at killing single, rock-hard monsters - which is exactly what they are there for.

As the poster above said, the Empire and Dwarves have cannons as a way of combatting the huge, killy monsters that a lot of other races have. If an Empire or Dwarf army doesn't take any cannons, it just won't be able to beat the Hellpit without throwing wave after wave of men at the thing and hoping to roll a lot of 6's. And for Dwarves starting at 9pts per model, that's just not viable.

(Can you tell what side I'm on here? ;-) )

Crovax20
08-01-2012, 21:00
Something I hope they add in a new edition is a cover save for cannonballs

Player A declares he is shooting at the warsphinx behind a forest
Player A puts the marker down and then rolls the arty dice and moves the marker up
Player A rolls for the bounce distance and the cannon hits the warsphinx
Player B can now claim a coversave as the cannon has shot straight through a forest, where trees might stop or bounce the ball off its trajectory.
Player B rolls a dice and it is a 5+, the cannonball does not hit the warsphinx as it got stuck in the forest.

So softcover would allow you to claim a 5+ save, while hardcover would allow you to claim a 4+ save. This would knock the cannon power down a little bit, provided the monster finds something suitable to hide behind.

Leogun_91
08-01-2012, 21:02
Cannons need to drift-just D3 to the left or rightHmmm?

"Cannon crews are reckless and does not lay anchor which causes the cannons to drift. During the compulsory movement phase roll a D6 to determine drift direction, 1-3: Left, 4-6: Right. This drift direction is used for all cannons. Each cannon then drifts d3 inches in that direction (roll separately for each cannon), a cannon thus drifting does not count as having moved for the purposes of shooting. A cannon in close combat does not drift."

"Drifting into terrain
A cannon that drifts into terrain counts as moving through dangerous terrain due to the risks of running aground. If it drifts into impassable terrain or a unit the cannon takes d6 S3 hits as does any unit it drifts into, these hits are distributed as shooting."
;)

The Low King
08-01-2012, 21:06
Lets look at the Maths:

Most efficient way to aim cannons against monsters is by aiming 10" infront of the back of the base.

The 'normal' monster base (obviously giants are smaller and K'daii are larger) is 50mm by 100mm. Assuming the monster is facing you that is 100mm for the ball to land on.

100mm=3.937", most people take that as 4", it increases the accuracy slightly (worst case scenario). Any total of larger than 6" is a hit.

a miss is therefore:

2+2
Misfire
2+misfire (second misfire means sticks in ground)
4+misfire

are misses. That is 2.76%+16.7%+2.76%+2.76%= 25% chance of missing

normal cannon has a 75% chance of hitting.

A dwarf cannon with Rune of forging (reroll misfires) chance of missing:

2+2 (2.76%)
Misfire+2+2 (0.46%)
Misfire+Misfire (2.76%)
2+misfire+misfire (0.46%)
2+misfire+2 (0.46%)
4+misfire+misfire (0.46%)
The chance of 4 misfires in a row is negligible

so a 92% chance of hitting with the best cannon in the game. A reroll of artillery dice (master engineer or ironblaster, both very costly) would increase this chance by 2%.


Then the chance of wounding. Vs Everyone but the new chaos dwarf K'daii you wound on a 2+. Thats a 16.7% chance of failing, 83.3% chance of wounding.

Then, you standard monster with 5 wounds (many have more..but this is worst case) you have a 1/3 chance of killing it outright, 33.3% chance. You have a 2/3 chance of killing it if it is on 3 wound left (some shooting or another cannon shot).

Therefore, against your bog standard monster with a 100x50mm base, 5 wounds and no save of any kind (ie, not the most scary monsters) i have:

a 92% x 83.3% x 33.3% = 25.5% chance of killing a monster with any single cannon shot.

or

a 92% x 83.3% x 66.7% = 51% chance of killing a monster than has already lost nearly half its wounds.

a 92% x 83.3% = 77% chance of a cannon wounding what it shoots at


Lets do a little 'worst case scenario' (not even including not treating 4" as 100mm):

Empire/unruned dwarf cannon shoots at Hydra:

Kill chance: 75% x 83.3% x 50% (regen) x 33.3% = 10%
Wounding chance: 75% x 83.3% x 50% = 30%

Put yourself in the shoes of the player with only one cannon...and it has a 5% chance of blowing up every shot (16.7% chance of misfire)


For some added stuff:


Furgil, on 04 February 2011 - 04:01 PM, said:

Artillery To-Hit Probabilities


Assuming you want a perfectly accurate shot against a particular model (with a Cannon) or the center of a unit/model (with a Grudge thrower); here are the chances with the addition of Runes and Engineers

Cannons:


Hitting a model less than 2" deep (ie: single Human characters or Monstrous Infantry head on)
You would want to fire so a 10 total would hit the model to get the best results


53% w/o R.Forging

72% with R.Forging

Hitting a model that is 2" deep (ie: most Monsters)
Fire so a 8 or 10 total would hit the model


67% w/o R.Forging

84% with R.Forging

Hitting a model that is 4" deep (ie: Hydra, Chariot)
Fire so a 6, 8 or 10 total would hit the model


75% w/o R.Forging

92% with R.Forging

Grudge Thrower:


A Direct Hit centered (Line of Sight to target)


28% natural

32% with M.Engineer

46% with R.Accuracy

54% with R.Accuracy & M.Engineer


A Direct Hit centered (Indirect Fire)
Needing a hit and a result of 2 or 4 on the artillery dice
(this assumes you have a BS 4 Engineer upgrade, however when firing on a unit of troops or a monster a 1" scatter due to BS 3 is the same as a direct hit)


11% natural

19% with M.Engineer

19% with R.Accuracy

31% with R.Accuracy & M.Engineer

Misfire Probabilities


Cannon Misfire:


Natural
Misfire = 16.7% Total

1-2 : 5.6% (1-in-18 firings or 3 games)

3-4 : 5.6%

4-6 : 5.6%

Rune Forging
Misfire = 2.8% Total

1-2 : 0.9% (1-in-111 firings or 19 games)

3-4 : 0.9%

4-6 : 0.9%

Engineer (re-roll only 1's)
Misfire = 16.7% Total

1-2 : 1.9% (1-in-52 firings or 9 games)

3-4 : 7.5%

4-6 : 7.5%

Rune Forging
Engineer (re-roll only 1's)
Misfire = 2.8% Total

1-2 : 0.3% (1-in-333 firings or 56 games)

3-4 : 1.2%

4-6 : 1.2%

Grudge Thrower Misfire:


Natural
Misfire = 16.7% Total

* 1 : 2.8% (1-in-35 firings or 6 games)

2-3 : 5.6%

4-6 : 8.3%

Master Engineer
Misfire = 2.8% Total

* 1 : 0.5% (1-in-200 firings or 33 games)

2-3 : 0.9%

4-6 : 1.4%

Engineer (re-roll only 1's)
Misfire = 16.7% Total

* 1 : 0.5% (1-in-200 firings or 33 games)

2-3 : 6.5%

4-6 : 9.7%

Master Engineer
Engineer (re-roll only 1's)
Misfire = 2.8% Total

* 1 : 0.07% (1-in-1428 firings or 238 games)

2-3 : 1.1%

4-6 : 1.6%


Draw your own conclusions but it seems to me that killing models with large bases (unless you decided to line up a flank facing a cannon) is the only thing cannons can effectively do.

Lord Zarkov
08-01-2012, 21:09
Hmmm?

"Cannon crews are reckless and does not lay anchor which causes the cannons to drift. During the compulsory movement phase roll a D6 to determine drift direction, 1-3: Left, 4-6: Right. This drift direction is used for all cannons. Each cannon then drifts d3 inches in that direction (roll separately for each cannon), a cannon thus drifting does not count as having moved for the purposes of shooting. A cannon in close combat does not drift."

"Drifting into terrain
A cannon that drifts into terrain counts as moving through dangerous terrain due to the risks of running aground. If it drifts into impassable terrain or a unit the cannon takes d6 S3 hits as does any unit it drifts into, these hits are distributed as shooting."
;)
I think more along the lines of "Before rolling to 'Bounce' the cannon ball drifts D3" in a random direction determined using the scatter dice. On the roll of a 'hit' the ball moves in the direction of the small arrow."

But I guess you're probably being sarcastic :p

Algovil
08-01-2012, 21:22
great weapons, halberds, buffs, etc... The problem with cannons is you have essentially 200pts of cannons destroying 500pts of monsters before they even have a chance to do anything, and that's a problem.

And then the unit of Black guard destroys my entire army, different armies have different strength, and sure in one matchup your only monster gets destroyed, but then the rest of your army is often stronger then the Empire, Dwarf army you face, and they have spent a lot of points on warmachines which are not efficient vs rank and file. Cannons do miss, misfire, you roll a one to wound, low on wounds, and do not count regeneration out!

I think warmachines are just fine, not a fan of s5 templates though, that is taking it to far.

SWMLongtail
08-01-2012, 21:43
Personally I liked the 7th edition system, not just placing a marker and rolling to bounce, but guessing the range and bouncing from the range you guessed. Back then war machines took skill to use

Badbones777
08-01-2012, 21:51
And then 70 points of light cav kill the 200 pts of cannons? Should light cav be nerfed because it forces cannons out of the field? :p

Exactly!

Some things are designed to take out other things very easily-if we're saying 100 points of any given thing should be able to evenly compete/contend with 100 points of any other given thing then the game might as well be played entirely with one race and one unit by everybody.

It's like saying in an English Civil War historical rule sets that it's unfair that, say, 300 points of Pikemen could comfortably defeat 700 points of Cavalry if said cavalry frontally charges them-No it isn't, that's perfectly reasonable as that's largely what Pikemen are for. Granted, in a fantasy game it's perhaps not as cut and dried as that, but even so the game is (after the primary goal of having fun) still about the interplay of units each of which have various qualities, including strengths and weaknesses.

As such I don't think straight point value comparisons are viable in determining how one thing should perform against another. So much depends on what the unit is designed for, how the controlling player has used it, and even what is happening at any given moment on the tabletop, as well as a host of other factors such as race specific rules and inherent design qualities. Don't get me wrong, obviously how many points something costs is a general gauge of quality or potential, but it shouldn't be taken as a given that at 200 points higher cost unit X should expect to consistently beat unit Y.

Crovax20
08-01-2012, 21:55
Personally I liked the 7th edition system, not just placing a marker and rolling to bounce, but guessing the range and bouncing from the range you guessed. Back then war machines took skill to use

8th has made cannons good for everyone. I already had the uncanny ability to guess range very effectively, 8th took guess range away and made the noobs good with it. Guessing the range for landing that mortar template hole square on the head of a character was quite a feat in 7th, now everybody can do it.

SWMLongtail
08-01-2012, 21:57
8th has made cannons good for everyone. I already had the uncanny ability to guess range very effectively, 8th took guess range away and made the noobs good with it. Guessing the range for landing that mortar template hole square on the head of a character was quite a feat in 7th, now everybody can do it.


Yeah i guess i liked it cause i played dwarves and had plenty of practice, but it would make monster killing that little bit harder for cannons.. People dont like how cannons are difficult to hit with, then people dont like how effective they are when they are made easy to use....

The bearded one
08-01-2012, 22:10
7th edition guessranges: "I've played the game longer / I'm naturally adept at guessing ranges / I'm a carpenter, hence I get a bonus at playing warhammer, suck it noobies, guess you'll just lose more often than you did already, mwuahaha!"


:p

SteVieBizzLe
08-01-2012, 22:11
I think the problem lies with the fact that cannons get TOO MANY advantages and NOT ENOUGH weaknesses...

Eg: Str10, laser guided AND d6 wounds is ridiculous.

Meaning that despite what 'mathhammer' its probably 50-60% likely that i will lose my sphinx on turn 1, before its moved or even touched a model let alone scored a kill.

i think that a d3'' deviation is fair when you consider such phenomena as 'wind' (remember that natural element?) or a dodgy bounce, its perfectly legitimate to believe that the odd cannon ball would miss its target!

bottom line is this...people that use cannons will go ''cannons are fine, not over-powered at all'' and people that dont uise cannons will go ''cannons are stupid, too powerful''

This will never change.

The bearded one
08-01-2012, 22:14
50-60% likely to do 5 wounds on a sphinx? With 2 cannons maybe, in which case shame on you for exposing it to 2 cannons.




Also 7th edition dwarf cannons did D3 wounds.


They were beyond pathetic.

sulla
08-01-2012, 22:15
To me, it's sad that stone throwers and cannons don't use the crew's ballistic skill in any way. They should use this skill in firing their weapons because thaqt's what it exists for; to represent their skill at hitting ranged targets. A cannon should not be as accurate in the hands of a master engineer and a snotling.

In practical terms, cannons are also too accurate on the tabletop. It seems wrong to me that cannons hit their target more than ballistic skill troops.

That they are very powerful vs monsters is annoying, but not as annoying as those two things put together. Many of the newer monsters are resilient to one or two cannon hits. Cannons are only one of the issues monsters have in 8th anyway.

Regardless of these objections, cannon rules are in the main rulebook. They are certainly not going away anytime soon. They are very good in this edition and could 'pay for themselves' even by shooting at elite units twice in a game. nothing is going to change that and as players, we have to adapt our armylists to adjust to the double cannons we will see in most lists capable of taking cannons. If you can't get resilient monsters, or units capable of killing 2 war machines in the first turn, you shouldn't have those big targets in your list if you may face cannons. Maybe next edition...

SteVieBizzLe
08-01-2012, 22:25
50-60% likely to do 5 wounds on a sphinx? With 2 cannons maybe, in which case shame on you for exposing it to 2 cannons.




Also 7th edition dwarf cannons did D3 wounds.


They were beyond pathetic.


Yeah...a giant sphinx is quite hard to hide unless the exact piece of terrain is available.

I think d3 wounds is more than enough given the other benefits, almost impossible to miss with (unless u misfire) and wounding 99% of things on a 2+

I realise that dwarves and empire rely on warmachines but they need to be more balanced.

Korraz
08-01-2012, 22:46
You do need something to claim that it's a "probably 60% chance" if you have the math before you that tells you otherwise... I don't know what, but you need something.

And 200 pionts killing roughly their value sounds alright to me. Especially considering that they'll probably only get to shoot a single time in a game.

The bearded one
08-01-2012, 22:46
* drops cannon, deploys 4 bolt throwers instead *

furthermore I don't think a cannon can fire at a sphinx if it's seeing it's head over big rocks or a house or anything, and needs to fire at target points on the ground in it's line of sight instead.


just fyi my BSB is happily smacking the faces off of monsters with his rune of might ;)

SteVieBizzLe
08-01-2012, 22:49
You do need something to claim that it's a "probably 60% chance" if you have the math before you that tells you otherwise... I don't know what, but you need something.

And 200 pionts killing roughly their value sounds alright to me. Especially considering that they'll probably only get to shoot a single time in a game.

Something? how about facing an army using cannons, and have my sphinx die turn 1, 6 times out of 10 games...

60%

actual experience trumps mathhammer every time im afraid buddy.

Thats a 100 point cannon RELIABLY killing double its points value...thats the key its reliable!

TheEndIsNear17
08-01-2012, 22:56
As a wood elf player I have the most to fear from cannons, but I dont think they are overpowered. The problem is that they are to hit and miss they will either blow 300 points of monster away or misfire or cause one wound.

I have had games where I have lost a treeman and my general by failing a look out sir roll but I have also had games where my oppents cannon blows up on the first killing and engineer as well.

I think the main problem is the player not the rule if you play against one cannon it is okay but not if Iam facing three flaming cannons with engineers.

Korraz
08-01-2012, 22:56
I can account for 17 games that I have played in 8th Edition where at least one wizard has blown Wizard Levels of himself by Miscast. In every single game I played in 8th Edition a Wizard rolled that result.
I have never played against Dark Elves in 8th Edition.
What does this tell us?
Dice are random.
And everyone can claim whatever he wants on the internet.

Oh, and Math does not work that way. Stop whining and demanding a rules change because of some supposed statistical anomaly.

GotrekFan
08-01-2012, 22:59
Something? how about facing an army using cannons, and have my sphinx die turn 1, 6 times out of 10 games...

60%

actual experience trumps mathhammer every time im afraid buddy.

Thats a 100 point cannon RELIABLY killing double its points value...thats the key its reliable!

Then you are very unlucky dude. Even with the rune that allows me to re-roll misfires I have only taken out 1 monster in 1 turn in 8th ed with my dwarfs.
Sure it sucks IF the cannon takes out your big monster before it gets into combat, but nowhere as much as if it gets into the middle of my army.

Tuttivillus
08-01-2012, 23:07
Something? how about facing an army using cannons, and have my sphinx die turn 1, 6 times out of 10 games...

60%

actual experience trumps mathhammer every time im afraid buddy.

Thats a 100 point cannon RELIABLY killing double its points value...thats the key its reliable!

;)Have You consider using terrain in your games? Oh, wait, ain't no terrain on a desert, ups. :angel:

pimousse771
08-01-2012, 23:17
In comparison, the ballista seems really bad.
They cant misfire, but you have 50% miss, then 50% wound (on T6), then only 1D3 wounds ... ...

The Low King
08-01-2012, 23:30
Something? how about facing an army using cannons, and have my sphinx die turn 1, 6 times out of 10 games...

60%

actual experience trumps mathhammer every time im afraid buddy.

Thats a 100 point cannon RELIABLY killing double its points value...thats the key its reliable!

In about 10 games vs dark elves my 2 cannons have never managed to kill a hydra, therefore cannons kill hydras 0% of the time.

From this i can determine that Cannons are not overpowered as they dont kill anything

Chain
08-01-2012, 23:35
Something should be changed to make em more reasonable.

True line of sight, less useable cover, templates hitting everything not having to roll for partially hit, no more guess range, and whatever i may have forgotten.

it's insane just like some spells have become insane.
imo some of the rules(mainly true line of sight) need to get trashed or cannons and most other warmachines should get more expensive.

for instance cannons going from 100 p to 150 would be reasonable imo.
ofcause you could also say the cannonball lose 1 s for every 2 inches it bounce and I'd also be fine with it.(also pingpong cannonballs is stupid)


besides fliers are slower now and so spend more time to reach the warmachines and light cavalry is easily shot to pieces by bowfire or simply blocked by a unit guarding the warmachine



However some warmachines need to drop points to
mainly repeater bolt htrowers that should get back their third wound and drop to about 70 points imo

Overlord Krycis
08-01-2012, 23:37
...bottom line is this...people that use cannons will go ''cannons are fine, not over-powered at all'' and people that dont uise cannons will go ''cannons are stupid, too powerful''

This will never change.

Um...I hate to burst your bubble here, but I play as High Elves and Brettonians and think Cannons are fine.
Hell, a friend of mine who has only EVER played as Dark Elves for the last 15 years or so has ALWAYS thought cannons were/are fine.

So please don't assume it's only Dwarf and Empire players defending this.

The Low King
08-01-2012, 23:46
True line of sight, less useable cover, templates hitting everything not having to roll for partially hit, no more guess range, and whatever i may have forgotten.

You mean the fact that everything except marshes and forests stops cannonballs?

out of the 11 terrain options on the 2d6 terrain chart 3 of them wont block cannonballs.

If they hit an obstacle they stop
They can shoot over buildings

2 of the options even give you D3 obstacles and buildings to hide behind

with D6 +4 pieces of terrain you should easily have enough to hide a single monster behind



for instance cannons going from 100 p to 150 would be reasonable imo.
ofcause you could also say the cannonball lose 1 s for every 2 inches it bounce and I'd also be fine with it.(also pingpong cannonballs is stupid)

150pts for a cannon means my dwarf cannon with flaming (need vs regen), Forging (otherwise misfires 1 in 6) and maybe an engineer would cost over 200 points. Now you are spending as much on cannons as some monsters cost (especially if they follow the trend of going down in price or up in power)


besides fliers are slower now and so spend more time to reach the warmachines and light cavalry is easily shot to pieces by bowfire or simply blocked by a unit guarding the warmachine


Fliers are slower and small units of light cav/ambushers/scouts/skirmishers are enough of a threat that we have a warmachines specifically dedicated to killing them, one that most dwarf players take in most games (organ gun).

Chain
08-01-2012, 23:54
You mean the fact that everything except marshes and forests stops cannonballs?

out of the 11 terrain options on the 2d6 terrain chart 3 of them wont block cannonballs.

If they hit an obstacle they stop
They can shoot over buildings

2 of the options even give you D3 obstacles and buildings to hide behind

with D6 +4 pieces of terrain you should easily have enough to hide a single monster behind




150pts for a cannon means my dwarf cannon with flaming (need vs regen), Forging (otherwise misfires 1 in 6) and maybe an engineer would cost over 200 points. Now you are spending as much on cannons as some monsters cost (especially if they follow the trend of going down in price or up in power)



Fliers are slower and small units of light cav/ambushers/scouts/skirmishers are enough of a threat that we have a warmachines specifically dedicated to killing them, one that most dwarf players take in most games (organ gun).


True if the monster go down in points or up in wounds cannons are fine at the point they are now

however as it is now Griffens, Hipogriffen, Manticores etc
all monsters at the 200 point area with just 4 wounds which means if they're hit 50% chance of death.
and cannons shouldn't have that much trouble getting off 3 shots each before they go down...

The Low King
09-01-2012, 00:01
all of wich can fly......they can quite easily get a second turn charge or zip from cover to cover...

also, if they are hit and wounded its a 50% chance of death. Being hit is usually a 75% chance (unless you have more expensive dwarf cannons or ironblasters) and being wounded is a 83.3% chance. So basically each shot has roughly a 30% chance of killing a 4 wound monster. That seems entirely fair.

Catflap
09-01-2012, 00:01
Same here.
Sure , most of the time my Treeman get blown to high heaven but can you really blame they guy taking canons? I don't think so.
Two cannons are reasonable i would think.
What would you do if you are a Dwarf player and your friend is taking a hydra or ghorgon to every game? Magic it to death with your dwarfs?

Korraz
09-01-2012, 00:02
All of these are from 7th Edition books. And SoM, which is a different matter.

If you let cannons have 3 shooting phases, well, that's your problem, and not that of the cannons.

Chain
09-01-2012, 00:08
all of wich can fly......they can quite easily get a second turn charge or zip from cover to cover...

also, if they are hit and wounded its a 50% chance of death. Being hit is usually a 75% chance (unless you have more expensive dwarf cannons or ironblasters) and being wounded is a 83.3% chance. So basically each shot has roughly a 30% chance of killing a 4 wound monster. That seems entirely fair.


perhaps if we're talking 1 cannon
but lets take the sample of 3 then

90% chance of killing the griffin turn 1 and 90% chance of killing the second Griffin turn 2

that's 300 points killing for 400 points with a VERY high chance of success

and out of the 3 cannons the 2 will probably get off their third shot

Luigi
09-01-2012, 00:10
artillery...
ahh the memories, you know guys, I used to love the bolt-throwers and my organ guns but now I'm just attracted by the idea of a completely Artillery-less dwarf army rather than fielding cannons, grudge throwers or, god forbids!, Flame cannon.
But, as someone already stated with terrain on the ground and with random selected scenarios (I have somehow the impression that people take way too often the battle line pitched battle rather than rolling on the table) artillery o not have that much of an advantage.
While a monster coming later in the game will still be a good addition to the battle, a cannon coming out not in the first turn has lost many turns of shooting because in addition to the past turns there is the fact that enemy units will be closer to the WM.

The Low King
09-01-2012, 00:14
perhaps if we're talking 1 cannon
but lets take the sample of 3 then

90% chance of killing the griffin turn 1 and 90% chance of killing the second Griffin turn 2

that's 300 points killing for 400 points with a VERY high chance of success

and out of the 3 cannons the 2 will probably get off their third shot

And if your opponant doesnt take 2 griffins? what happens if they take 1 or even none?

because then your 300 points has a 100% chance of killing nothing (slightly ott here, it could shoot a few infantry or fail to snipe a few characters)

TsukeFox
09-01-2012, 00:24
Cannons need to drift-just D3 to the left or right


Why do they need this? It would make them totally useless at killing single, rock-hard monsters - which is exactly what they are there for.

As the poster above said, the Empire and Dwarves have cannons as a way of combatting the huge, killy monsters that a lot of other races have. If an Empire or Dwarf army doesn't take any cannons, it just won't be able to beat the Hellpit without throwing wave after wave of men at the thing and hoping to roll a lot of 6's. And for Dwarves starting at 9pts per model, that's just not viable.

(Can you tell what side I'm on here? ;-) )

Let's try again:
Roll D6 to see cannons drift
1&6 no drift
2&5 drift left
3$4 drift right

Drift totals equal D3"

Cannons are not point and click handgus- best armies in the world become so with practice-the best training is live fife training.
Or at the very least the wind should be a factor or sometin.
Laser guided cannons are just cheez---> I know cause i play Skaven & WLCs are oozing with Rank cheddar cheesee

Chain
09-01-2012, 00:26
@The Low King

heavy cavalry, Monstrous cavalry, chariots, Monsterous infantary, characters, warmachines and monsters

Plenty of target options though most of em won't bring back that much in 2 shots.


Regeneration is the big weakness of cannons atm which Trolls, Hydras and HPA enjoy.

Heck i'm mostly a DE player and I'd probably place the hydra at 200 points.

The Low King
09-01-2012, 00:39
Heavy cav run around in ranks of 2, as i explained on the first page the chances of hitting them are significatly lower than monsters.

If someone leaves a nice flanks for me then really they need to learn

characters are hard to hit and get a LOS roll

Monsterous infantry dont pay back points

Chain
09-01-2012, 00:48
it was a nice read the math hammer on page 1

however I may not have faced cannons enough times but did you include bouncing cannonballs in your math?

and remember even if you miss the intended target you might hit another.

The Low King
09-01-2012, 00:50
You mean the bounce roll right? yes, that is the entire basis for it.

The chances of hitting another target if you are aiming 10" short of the back of he monsters base.......

Chain
09-01-2012, 01:01
I think i got it a bit better now

Still a cannon killing for 40 points in a shooting phase wouldn't make for a bad shot and you got plenty chance to kill for such.

which would bring you either close to get the points home or may exceed the value of the cannon .


Out of curiosity how many points do each of your cannons in general kill for in your games?

genesis873
09-01-2012, 01:03
Personally I think cannons should be good against big monsters since that's pretty much what there for. What I don't like is when a monster gets instajibbed in one lucky shot. So I think cannons should do D3+1 wounds. You're guaranteed at least 2 wounds, but one shot won't be enough to bring down most big monsters. I find that a monster with only a few wounds left is usually at least manageable.

Korraz
09-01-2012, 01:05
I think i got it a bit better now

Still a cannon killing for 40 points in a shooting phase wouldn't make for a bad shot and you got plenty chance to kill for such.

which would bring you either close to get the points home or may exceed the value of the cannon .


Out of curiosity how many points do each of your cannons in general kill for in your games?

Depending on wether or not there are Chariots, Warmachines or Monster: Zero to potentially unmeasurable.
A cannon that shoots at a unit won't achieve much.
A cannon that stops a HPA from hitting the ranks is worth all points in the world.

Chain
09-01-2012, 01:14
Depending on wether or not there are Chariots, Warmachines or Monster: Zero to potentially unmeasurable.
A cannon that shoots at a unit won't achieve much.
A cannon that stops a HPA from hitting the ranks is worth all points in the world.


won't archive much equal how many dead in a 4-5 deep unit?
For instance Chaos warriors or other expensive infantry

Torga_DW
09-01-2012, 01:20
I'm noticing that the OP was artillery, but the focus of the thread seems to be cannons. Heres my 2 cents.

The problem (to me) with cannons and stone throwers in general is that they have unique targetting rules that don't rely on the Ballistic Skill of the shooter model/s. Which i think someone above already said. This is the first thing i would focus on if i were going to try and 'fix' them.

Okuto
09-01-2012, 03:22
As an Empire player of 11 years I strongly disagree......

Just bring back guessing.....I actually miss doing that.....I think that would fix it perfectly

The bearded one
09-01-2012, 03:26
As an Empire player of 11 years I strongly disagree......

Just bring back guessing.....I actually miss doing that.....I think that would fix it perfectly


7th edition guessranges: "I've played the game longer / I'm naturally adept at guessing ranges / I'm a carpenter, hence I get a bonus at playing warhammer, suck it noobies, guess you'll just lose more often than you did already, mwuahaha!"

Not to mention it slowed down the game significantly and would require the entire core ruleset to be reworked as premeasuring of everything else would have to be removed as well.

Okuto
09-01-2012, 03:43
Not to mention it slowed down the game significantly and would require the entire core ruleset to be reworked as premeasuring of everything else would have to be removed as well.

and moving 100 man blocks.....trying to remember what kind of terrain X is so it doesn't eat my men doesn't slow the game down?:confused:

Luigi
09-01-2012, 03:47
I really liked Guessing because I was good at it, I measured the size of the army book, the small rulebook and learned the distances of several dirt spots ad scratches on the back of my measuring tape :shifty: (like when people used it upside down to check the Cannon's LoS)
I guess (what a Pun, eh?) that by removing Guessing they just placed everyone on the same level removing any actual skill that a player may have and his opponent lack

The bearded one
09-01-2012, 03:49
and moving 100 man blocks.....trying to remember what kind of terrain X is so it doesn't eat my men doesn't slow the game down?:confused:

No.

* takes 100-man block, pushes it forward 8" * done.

* remembers of the 3 forests on the table which types were the 2 that somebody moved into. Simply knowing that table helps. 1 is normal, 2 is fear, 3 is bloodforest (magic and it goes crazy), 4 is stupidity, 5 is dangerous terrain and poison, 6 is D6str4 hits on a 4+ * pretty simple.


* takes 10 minutes to look and go "hmm... mmmmhh", and view the distance from multiple angles while comparing the distance to the amount of time his hands fit into that distance * slows down the game.

Torga_DW
09-01-2012, 04:21
I really liked Guessing because I was good at it, I measured the size of the army book, the small rulebook and learned the distances of several dirt spots ad scratches on the back of my measuring tape :shifty: (like when people used it upside down to check the Cannon's LoS)
I guess (what a Pun, eh?) that by removing Guessing they just placed everyone on the same level removing any actual skill that a player may have and his opponent lack

The issue i have with it, is it shouldn't be about how accurate the players are at guessing a range. The little man on the table is the one supposedly firing the thing, and the accuracy has nothing to do with that. The 'to hit' process for cannons went from player skill to no-one's skill (artillery dice).

Personally i find it ironic and kind of funny that an ogre rolling along on his chariot is just as accurate at shooting a cannon as a schooled artillery-guy from nuln.

gdsora
09-01-2012, 04:31
TK player.
Having/Using
Chariots, Ushabti, Stalkers, Knights, Scorpions, , WarSphinx, Necrosphinx, Colossus, Hierotitan, and Casket (4+ to wound)

All incredibly vulnerable to cannon fire, and are all high point costs units.
I feel like the cannon being able to Wound/Destroy Large targets is fine, but when it plows through a Chariot/Ushabti obliterating it and destroying the Chariot/Ushabti right behind it. I get a little peeved.

I bet there are other armies that feel the same way.

D3+1 doesnt really change the power of cannons destroying monstrous infantry/monstrous calvary etc.

I want a way for cannons to be good at destroying monsters, but not so good at destroying high point units.

Luigi
09-01-2012, 04:47
The issue i have with it, is it shouldn't be about how accurate the players are at guessing a range. The little man on the table is the one supposedly firing the thing, and the accuracy has nothing to do with that. The 'to hit' process for cannons went from player skill to no-one's skill (artillery dice).

I absolutely Agree! My post was more of a provocative one but you brought up a very good point here, maybe a fix on a possible scattering should be done for artillery in general (a little like the guessing shoot with the catapults)



Personally i find it ironic and kind of funny that an ogre rolling along on his chariot is just as accurate at shooting a cannon as a schooled artillery-guy from nuln.
yea! not to talk about dwarfs :)

Torga_DW
09-01-2012, 04:55
Well in my opinion, the dwarf is probably really drunk while he's firing the cannon. So a bit of randomness is understandable there. ;)

decker_cky
09-01-2012, 05:03
I think a nice adjustment would be to make the initial spot scatter by d6" minus crew BS. Still reliably for targeting monsters, but makes character sniping tougher, and overall slightly less accurate for monster hunting. Empire is BS3, dwarfs are BS3 with a BS4 upgrade. Seems about right.

Urgat
09-01-2012, 06:29
Why do they need this? It would make them totally useless at killing single, rock-hard monsters - which is exactly what they are there for.

Unless the shot scatters straight to one side, you're unlikely to miss a monster base with a D3 scatter on cannon balls :eyebrows: (especially not the ones on the arachnarok bases...).
It does make character sniping harder though.

Geep
09-01-2012, 07:49
I don't think cannons are too powerful, but do like the idea of an obscured model getting an invulnerable save (as mentioned earlier in the thread). Generally 'to hit' modifiers beat 40k style cover saves, but when there is no 'to hit' a coversave has a role.


* takes 10 minutes to look and go "hmm... mmmmhh", and view the distance from multiple angles while comparing the distance to the amount of time his hands fit into that distance * slows down the game.
Did anyone actually have this problem?
I've played the game for a fairly long time now, and have never known range guessing to make more than 30 seconds. Usually it was around 5 seconds.
Some people did cheat, attmepting to use measured body parts or pre-measuring the table before the mates arrived for a game, but people cheat in all sorts of ways- this is a problem of people, not range guessing itself.

Sexiest_hero
09-01-2012, 08:05
Meh, Every armyIplay can reliably kill a cannon on turn two, Yes even undead. Flying tomb king on magic carpet Charmed shield and 4+ward)Flying/scouting vampire or scouting harpies. In fact Tomb kings can take someting in every singlearmy slot that can kill Cannons by turn two. Alot of peoples issues is in the armybuilding phase.

Crovax20
09-01-2012, 08:15
Personally i find it ironic and kind of funny that an ogre rolling along on his chariot is just as accurate at shooting a cannon as a schooled artillery-guy from nuln.

Its because they are both ballistic skill 3 duh :angel:

@ the guy above this post

Lol tomb king on carpet... might as well give him cloak of dunes instead as that is also 50 points and gives flying. Still 225 points for a TOMB KING (aka your general) warmachine hunter is a bit silly no? He won't even be able to reach the warmachines at turn two because he can't march... derp. Go sacrifice 225 points of My Will Be Done on a warmachine hunter...

The only slot that has something reasonbly reliable for taking out warmachines at turn two is special, with the stalkers.

sulla
09-01-2012, 08:25
What would you do if you are a Dwarf player and your friend is taking a hydra or ghorgon to every game? Magic it to death with your dwarfs?Probably cut it to pieces with my all-great wearon horde army? Empire are probably a better example of an army that struggles in cc vs hydra/a-bomb, and even they can take core heavy cav with the flaming banner.

Regardless, if we are using poorly priced 7th edition monsters as our baseline, we will only ever get skewed results. How would dwarves defeat a giant without a cannon? Same way every other army does; with pretty much anything in their list.

Sexiest_hero
09-01-2012, 08:31
Now Sulla, using a giant isnt fair at least use a vermin lord or DoC Daemon prince!

GotrekFan
09-01-2012, 08:36
Regarding the skill required to shoot with a cannon, people should try get out if the previous editions mindset. Removing the guess ranges accounts for the engineer's skill, what skill is the player meant to have? As much skill as if takes to shoot a pretend handgun or wield a sword? That us why the cannon has 2 dice rolls to see if it hits the target. Sure IF it hits there's a good chance of a mess, but the ball still has to reach the target.

On character sniping, sure it sucks when your 400+ character bites the big one but that's what Look Out Sir is for. It reduces the chances of this happening without removing completely. I say this with no bitterness after losing my VC lord in turn 1 to a lucky cannon shot.

The bearded one
09-01-2012, 10:53
Did anyone actually have this problem?
I've played the game for a fairly long time now, and have never known range guessing to make more than 30 seconds. Usually it was around 5 seconds

I have never known any player from newbie to experienced artillery user to just snap his fingers and within 5 seconds go "oh, that's gotta be 28.5 inches, definately."



Probably cut it to pieces with my all-great wearon horde army?

I recently used an army with lots of longbeard rangers and 0 artillery. The lone hydra of my dark elf opponent killed between ~15 and 18 rangers in the first round and 7 or 8 more in the second round before I could destroy it with my hordes of WS5 str6 guys. though severely underpriced it got back nearly twice its points in two rounds. Things like HPAs will probably destroy an entire unit by themselves, while things like sphinxes and steamtanks are hard to touch. Other monsters such as the thundertusk will die if they charge in alone, but will wreak havoc when supporting other units.

The Low King
09-01-2012, 12:57
Oh, please bring back guessing ranges, i was really good at it.

In 7th cannons and Dwarf bolt throwers with the +1 strength insta-poped chariots.

Imagine how peeved the dwarf/empire player gets when he doesnt fire at the sphinx bearing down at him or the snakes that just popped up behind him (whose gaze thing is pretty much designed to kill dwarf warmachine crews) to try for that lucky shot through the chariot. He then rolls a 1 to wound or less than 4 for wounds or misses altogether.

Korraz
09-01-2012, 14:40
I think a nice adjustment would be to make the initial spot scatter by d6" minus crew BS. Still reliably for targeting monsters, but makes character sniping tougher, and overall slightly less accurate for monster hunting. Empire is BS3, dwarfs are BS3 with a BS4 upgrade. Seems about right.


Instead of the first Artillery Die?
Because Scatter D6-3+ Artillery Die + Bounce would make shooting cannons a mess. It's not just a matter of "Scatter a bit, then move and bounce from there", it alters the line of fire completely.

I really don't get this love for guessing. Anyone with half a brain had that down after four or five games, and then it just slowed the game down for no good reason.

cwang733t
09-01-2012, 14:50
I never understood why they didnt do in fantasy like the did in 40k.

For cannons, you roll the scatter and arty dice. For a hit use the arrow. Adjust the arty dice by the crew's BS. Measure and that is where the cannon hits. Do bounce normal.
-This will allow cannons to fire closer (based on a crew's BS) which means that though it may nick a unit, it still has an element of randomness and the crew skill not matters (instead of the general manually firing each cannon).

For catapults, same thing, but don't adjust with BS. Maybe a hit only hits if you pass a BS test, but you can adjust be BS.

Drops the damage of warmachines a bit, but you can through in a rule where you can avoid misfires with a BS test. This would make those BS 4 engineers golden.

IcedCrow
09-01-2012, 15:01
If you want to guess range, then house rule it back in. Ta da. If you are a tournament-only player, sorry for your luck. Maybe 9th will bring it back, but I doubt it.

I personally don't care either way.

I know that our groups had two categories of players. One group took a long time to guess range and were usually very off. The other group of players could guess the range within an inch at most and take five seconds or so to do it.

I learn more towards guessing ranges has no place because artillery firing is based on the crew, not the general (player) and so their BS should be used. That's just my opinon.

The Low King
09-01-2012, 15:04
because they dont have cannons in 40K? Also because the mechanics of 40k are entirely different

Gradek
09-01-2012, 16:05
I only have one problem with the cannons as currently (and historically) designed and that is character sniping. I don't mind shooting at monsters since they are supposed to be huge things lumbering across the battlefield, but the idea of picking out a character from across the field and being able to accurately shoot a cannon at him (regardless of the look out sir rule) has always struck me as stupid. I think cannons should target infantry type troop units just like other shooting as opposed to a direct point. This still makes them very effective against monsters and other warmachines, but eliminates the absurdity of targeting specific characters.

The Low King
09-01-2012, 16:32
50% chance of hitting, 83% chance of wounding, 16.3% chance of getting past LOS, 66.6% chance of getting enough wounds to kill him.

sulla
10-01-2012, 04:42
I recently used an army with lots of longbeard rangers and 0 artillery. The lone hydra of my dark elf opponent killed between ~15 and 18 rangers in the first round and 7 or 8 more in the second round before I could destroy it with my hordes of WS5 str6 guys. though severely underpriced it got back nearly twice its points in two rounds. Things like HPAs will probably destroy an entire unit by themselves, while things like sphinxes and steamtanks are hard to touch. Other monsters such as the thundertusk will die if they charge in alone, but will wreak havoc when supporting other units.Breathe weapon at full strength? The funny thing is, if he had unleashed that breath weapon outside of cc on the unit, he probably would have doneabout the same casualties. s5 templates are more than a little overpowered in this edition (coming from a DE player).

Both those armies are a little broken in 8th. Hydras and mindrazor for elves especially, all great weapons and high strength stone throwers for dwarves. Both armies wreck the magic phase in their own way. An impartial observer would probably be happy to see one broken crap all over the other broken. Both could do with a new armybook just to bring them in line with GWs vision for 8th.

Adder007USA
10-01-2012, 05:34
To answer the popular question "Why can cannons kill 500pts of monster in just one turn?"

If the other player is decent, the most shots you're gonna get are 2. Just about every single army has something fast, something that can ambush, something that can make it so that at turn 3, cannons have been taken out. They need to be efficient at what they do, because they don't have long to do it.

Also, if you turn to the core rulebook page regarding cannons (Pg 112), note that you cannot deliberately fire a cannon in such a way that it might hit friendly units, or an enemy locked in CC. That means not only can we not fire at units that are locked in CC, but we also cannot fire at anything where there is a chance of us plonking our own guys. Even if the cannon has somehow survived to the end of the third turn, it might not have any targets except for some measly bowmen.

T10
10-01-2012, 06:45
Hmmm?

"Cannon crews are reckless and does not lay anchor which causes the cannons to drift. During the compulsory movement phase roll a D6 to determine drift direction, 1-3: Left, 4-6: Right. This drift direction is used for all cannons. Each cannon then drifts d3 inches in that direction (roll separately for each cannon), a cannon thus drifting does not count as having moved for the purposes of shooting. A cannon in close combat does not drift."



Allowing drifting cannons to shoot is totally broken!

-T10

Liber
10-01-2012, 11:15
Which leads to the question - would the game be better if war machines were made weaker in general?



No. Not gonna read through the thread so sorry if (and I probably am) repeating things others have said, but warmachines need good rules not to be made weaker.

1. Take away that stupid as all hell bit in the BRB about cannons acting as templates and therefore hitting rider and monster.

2. Make cannons shots scatter d6 inches (reduce to d3 through engineer or runes or w/e)

Done. Thats all it takes.

For clarification on how #2 works: right now with a cannon, you measure a straight line too the point you want to fire at, place a marker (usually a d6) and then roll an artillery dice and move it forward that many inches. What I would suggest is that you place the marker, then roll a scatter dice and a d6...this would be where the cannon ball marker ends up. Then you proceed as normal: roll an artillery die, move it that many inches forward (forward means a straight line from the center of the warmachine), then roll again for bounce. Nothing changes except for one scatter roll in the beginning...and this all makes WHFB embarrassing 'sniping' cannons go away.

I should also note, that if this was put in place, I would also expect too see Look Out Sir severly nerfed. Not gotten rid of entirely, but maybe make it only work on a 5+.


EDIT: glanced through pg. 4 and noticed people saying the scatter could be affected by the crews bs. this could be a good idea.
also forgot to mention that I did not like guess range and hope it never returns...

Spiney Norman
10-01-2012, 12:02
To me, it's sad that stone throwers and cannons don't use the crew's ballistic skill in any way. They should use this skill in firing their weapons because thaqt's what it exists for; to represent their skill at hitting ranged targets. A cannon should not be as accurate in the hands of a master engineer and a snotling.

In practical terms, cannons are also too accurate on the tabletop. It seems wrong to me that cannons hit their target more than ballistic skill troops.

That they are very powerful vs monsters is annoying, but not as annoying as those two things put together. Many of the newer monsters are resilient to one or two cannon hits. Cannons are only one of the issues monsters have in 8th anyway.

Regardless of these objections, cannon rules are in the main rulebook. They are certainly not going away anytime soon. They are very good in this edition and could 'pay for themselves' even by shooting at elite units twice in a game. nothing is going to change that and as players, we have to adapt our armylists to adjust to the double cannons we will see in most lists capable of taking cannons. If you can't get resilient monsters, or units capable of killing 2 war machines in the first turn, you shouldn't have those big targets in your list if you may face cannons. Maybe next edition...

Except that being accurate with a warmachine is not about your own accuracy or hand-eye coordination per se, its more about mathematics, matching the elevation of the barrel to the position of the target. Trained warmachine crews would have a pretty good idea of where their machine would strike the field given a certain elevation angle etc, they just wait until their target passes battlefield landmark x and let rip.


I think the problem lies with the fact that cannons get TOO MANY advantages and NOT ENOUGH weaknesses...

Eg: Str10, laser guided AND d6 wounds is ridiculous.

Meaning that despite what 'mathhammer' its probably 50-60% likely that i will lose my sphinx on turn 1, before its moved or even touched a model let alone scored a kill.

i think that a d3'' deviation is fair when you consider such phenomena as 'wind' (remember that natural element?) or a dodgy bounce, its perfectly legitimate to believe that the odd cannon ball would miss its target!

bottom line is this...people that use cannons will go ''cannons are fine, not over-powered at all'' and people that dont uise cannons will go ''cannons are stupid, too powerful''

This will never change.

The odd canonball does miss its target, either because the cannon misfires, or the ball doesn't bounce as expected etc (the misfire on the bounce roll, which efficiently represents the chance of a dodgy bounce). I find it somewhat comical that "wind" should affect the path of a cannon ball. We're talking about extremely heavy, aero-dynamic objects flying through the air at high velocities, I mean do you envisage every warhammer battle being played out in the midst of a howling gale or something? The force of wind needed to deviate a cannonball even slightly would make small arms fire on the same battlefield totally impossible and visibility almost zero.

The best way to redress the effectiveness of cannons would be to make their existing draw backs more of a problem, make the misfire chart nastier etc.

Far2Casual
10-01-2012, 12:03
For cannons, I would make it even easier. Target a point, make it scatter D6", bounce. Easy.

You'll still hit big targets more than 50% of the time (with a Hit, and deviations close to the same axis of your shoot), but you won't be laser-guided anymore.

Oogie boogie boss
10-01-2012, 12:16
As someone who has never played an army that uses cannons (Skaven and OnG), i'm surprised to find myself saying this, but i don't think there's any need to change the rules for Cannons. They work exactly as they did historically, with a trained crew being fairly reliable when it comes to putting a shot into a unit.
Maybe the misfire table could be a little bit more dangerous, but i do believe that cannon SHOULD be accurate, particularly with an Engineer.
However, i also think that they should be more points to balance this out. If they stay as they are, then you're getting more value for the same cost.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 12:48
Both those armies are a little broken in 8th. Hydras and mindrazor for elves especially, all great weapons and high strength stone throwers for dwarves. Both armies wreck the magic phase in their own way. An impartial observer would probably be happy to see one broken crap all over the other broken. Both could do with a new armybook just to bring them in line with GWs vision for 8th.

Dwarfs are broken? why? because they have well priced GW troops and powerful but very expensive artillery?



Also, to people who feel that infantry are good for killing monsters:

250pts of GW Dwarf warriors (25) vs Hydra (ie, what it should cost)

Hydra strikes first, 7 Attacks + 6 from handlers + 2d6 hits from breathweapon

3.5 hydra attacks hit, 4.5 handler attacks, 7 breath weapon hits.
Hydra wounds on 3s so 7 wounds, no armour. Handlers wound on 5s, 1 more kill.

17 dwarfs left.

they strike, 4 in B2B with hydra, 8 attacks, 4 hits, 2 wounds, 1 gets through regen.

thunderstomp, kills another 2 dwarfs

Dwarfs steadfast, assume they pass

Hydra strikes next turn, ~5-6 kills on average each turn, dwarfs responding with 1

Dwarfs will lose. These are GW troops (supposedly broken?). i would hate to try using shield warrirors or something

Ctuchik
10-01-2012, 12:50
(Empire) Cannons are already terrible for cost. Very few effective targets, poor reliability, and expensive. Biggest advantage is the psychological effect, since most people don't know the probabilities.

Mortars on the other hand are pretty decent.

Lord Zarkov
10-01-2012, 12:53
As someone who has never played an army that uses cannons (Skaven and OnG), i'm surprised to find myself saying this, but i don't think there's any need to change the rules for Cannons. They work exactly as they did historically, with a trained crew being fairly reliable when it comes to putting a shot into a unit.
Maybe the misfire table could be a little bit more dangerous, but i do believe that cannon SHOULD be accurate, particularly with an Engineer.
However, i also think that they should be more points to balance this out. If they stay as they are, then you're getting more value for the same cost.
Cannons should be accurate at ploughing into units of troops, but not quite as good at hitting monsters, and definitely not good at sniping individual character models. There would always be some degree of horizontal drift and the target would be moving rather than static like the miniatures.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 13:01
Cannons should be accurate at ploughing into units of troops, but not quite as good at hitting monsters, and definitely not good at sniping individual character models. There would always be some degree of horizontal drift and the target would be moving rather than static like the miniatures.

They arnt good at sniping characters..

and ploughing into units of troops? why would anyone use cannons for that? unless they are WOC or Swordmasters there is no way you are going to bother shooting troops.

especially when you have grudge throwers, mortars etc doing that already


also to note, if you make cannons drift stone throwers will be more effective at killing monsters than them.

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 13:10
People keep yelling D6" scatter without realising how much that actually is. A wrong scatter and you can miss something the size of a sphinx with its flank turned towards you. No, even worse, a 5 or 6" scatter (sometimes 4 will probably do it too) and you are even going to miss hitting a horde unit. A damn horde!

D3 deviation at most.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 13:16
Skinks are better at killing monsters than cannons

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 13:17
I can attest to that fact, as monsters can't hide as easily from my skinks as they can from cannons :)

Kayosiv
10-01-2012, 13:23
1. Take away that stupid as all hell bit in the BRB about cannons acting as templates and therefore hitting rider and monster.


This is my biggest issue with cannons. I run Lizardmen, and used to run a Carnosaur, Engine of the Gods, and Stegadon with skink chief on top. Because of cannons/artillery changes in 8th, I have essentially had to remove all 3 of these from my army. Sure your shot has a poor chance of killing a 5 wound model outright, but it butchers the guy/s on top too.

In 7th, my monster/character pieces could take a couple cannon shots, and 1 of them would likely die, but at least I had the other who could go around riderless or mount-less. Now they both die at the same time. With the nerfs to giant monsters in 8th and steadfast/step-up making them take much more damage in combat, they simply weren't worth taking.

People foolishly say that every army doesn't have cannons. Well over 2/3 of the armies have multi-wound artillery. Great for the armies who have monsters that have 8 wounds or regeneration. Most monsters don't have this and get ripped apart by 1 cannon hit. It may not kill them, but it weakens them to the point that they can't ever effectively gain their points back because monsters take so much more damage in close combat then they did before. Things like giants and Shaggoth's are already fairly bad. How useful are they going to be when they get into combat with only 2 wounds left because they got hit by a cannon?

People might say that "well what are cannons for if not to kill giant monsters?" To that I would say, "what are big monsters for?" Big monsters are struggling in 8th edition. No I don't mean things like the Hydra, Hellpit, or anything else with 12+ attacks for no reason. Your average Griffon, Cygor, or Manticore is just bad in 8th because of they way the new rules are. Multi-wound Artillery that hits both rider and mount 83% of the time every time just ensure that these things stay on the shelf.


I can attest to that fact, as monsters can't hide as easily from my skinks as they can from cannons :)

While true, skinks generally have to get within charge range of a monster to do any damage to it and are unable to attack a monster on turn 1 before it has had a chance to do anything. Chameleon skinks are a different story as far as turn 1 attacking goes, although they are fairly appropriately priced for this opportunity and MUCH less likely to kill a big monster in a single turn of shooting than a cannon is, especially if the monster has a rider that shots randomize to.

Lord Zarkov
10-01-2012, 13:27
People keep yelling D6" scatter without realising how much that actually is. A wrong scatter and you can miss something the size of a sphinx with its flank turned towards you. No, even worse, a 5 or 6" scatter (sometimes 4 will probably do it too) and you are even going to miss hitting a horde unit. A damn horde!

D3 deviation at most.

Yeah D6 is too much (unless it was moderated by the crew's BS or something), but D3 is fine - just nudges you to the side of a character, and only a 3" scatter sideways is going to miss the biggest monsters. Should probably make a "hit" and actual hit though (or at worst half the dice again) or they'll be too inaccurate.

WarmbloodedLizard
10-01-2012, 13:33
Warmachines under 8th are far too good/prohibit single-model-units far too strongly.

I don't like the D3/D6 deviation too much, though, it's just too cumbersome, and think it should be solved differently.

Changes that I think are desperately needed:

1.) Warmachines only deal D3 wounds. (There is still room for exceptions of course)
2.) Warmachines should not hit both rider and mount with their high srength attack, only one or the other
3.) Stonethrowers should generally be S3. The stronger ones should be S4. S5 should only be available to dwarfs through runes.
4.) Terrain should have at least give some protection vs. warmachines. I would prefer cover saves (6+/5+ or even 5+/4+ward for units behind soft/hard cover). (or miss-saves, for the wiseguys that argue that the projectile wouldn't go through the terrain)
5.) Characters should get 4+ Look Out, Sir!, even if different type.

(you can still make certain warmachines slightly cheaper, if these changes would make them too weak, just make sure that they cannot be massed)

Aside from these changes to artillery, monsters should generally be costed more appropriately. Monster with lower survivability (e.g. Griffons, Manticore, Giant, Carnosaur, beastmen rares) should cost far less than they do now (or become more survivable) while others with high survivability (e.g. Hydra, HPA) should remain at their cost or even be made more expensive.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 13:40
um...75% of the time for most cannons and less than 50% of the time for stonethrowers

surely the rider is the one that suffers the least? he can easily take protetion against warmachines.

Also, the beastman Ghorgon is overpriced but in 2/2 games so far he has hacked through a block of infantry costing more than he is


also, i thought the high strength hit of stonethrowers only hit the rider or the mount anyway?

Kayosiv
10-01-2012, 13:45
Aside from these changes to artillery, monsters should generally be costed more appropriately. Monster with lower survivability (e.g. Griffons, Manticore, Giant, Carnosaur, beastmen rares) should also cost far less than they do now (or become more survivable) while others with high survivability (e.g. Hydra, HPA) should remain at their cost or even be made more expensive.

You could pretty much double the wounds of every monster without regenerate or a ward save and nobody would even notice. I don't think that less cost would solve much. For example, if a Carnosaur was Free, like, literally 0 points, I would have trouble justifying taking it over a Cold One for 30 points. It's just a liability because it bleeds combat resolution, even when taking into account it's attacks and thunderstomp, and it isn't as effective at protecting my character as a cavalry mount which is invincible.

As far as the single giant monsters like your Jabbersycthes and Bone Giants, reducing their cost would probably be effective, but I don't like where it would lead to in game terms. If giants were say, 100 points, it would help them be much more playable. However, then spamming giants would be possible, and I don't like the idea of an army having 5 giants on it, beecause I feel in game/fluff terms, such huge monsters SHOULD be a rare sight to see.



surely the rider is the one that suffers the least? he can easily take protection against warmachines.


That's not really true. Whether you have 3 wounds and a 4+ ward save or 5 wounds and no save, chances are you're going to die in about 2 cannon shots. Which really sucks when your opponent has 2 cannons and gets first turn.

Fear Ghoul
10-01-2012, 13:45
Warmachines under 8th are far too good/prohibit single-model-units far too strongly.

I don't like the D3/D6 deviation too much, though, it's just too cumbersome, and think it should be solved differently.

Changes that I think are desperately needed:

1.) Warmachines only deal D3 wounds. (There is still room for exceptions of course)
2.) Warmachines should not hit both rider and mount with their high srength attack, only one or the other
3.) Stonethrowers should generally be S3. The stronger ones should be S4. S5 should only be available to dwarfs through runes.
4.) Terrain should have at least give some protection vs. warmachines. I would prefer cover saves (6+/5+ or even 5+/4+ward for units behind soft/hard cover). (or miss-saves, for the wiseguys that argue that the projectile wouldn't go through the terrain)
5.) Characters should get 4+ Look Out, Sir!, even if different type.

(you can still make certain warmachines slightly cheaper, if these changes would make them too weak, just make sure that they cannot be massed)

Aside from these changes to artillery, monsters should generally be costed more appropriately. Monster with lower survivability (e.g. Griffons, Manticore, Giant, Carnosaur, beastmen rares) should cost far less than they do now (or become more survivable) while others with high survivability (e.g. Hydra, HPA) should remain at their cost or even be made more expensive.

1. For the kind of damage a cannonball should do, D3 wounds are just too little. There should be a reasonable chance that a cannonball can kill a Manticore in one turn if it hits it in the head or chest and shreds its insides.

2. Agreed. This alone would encourage more people to mount their characters.

3. Agreed.

4. Terrain already does provide protection against cannons. Most terrain will stop a cannonball in its tracks, and all a monster has to do is hide in terrain until it has the chance to strike.

The best way to ensure that cannons are good against monsters but poor at character sniping is to have the initial spot scatter D6" - BS, similar to the way blast weapons work in 40k.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 14:05
That's not really true. Whether you have 3 wounds and a 4+ ward save or 5 wounds and no save, chances are you're going to die in about 2 cannon shots. Which really sucks when your opponent has 2 cannons and gets first turn.

did i not work this out on the other page?

chance of hitting character and monster: 75%
Chance of wounding both: 83.3%

Chance of cannonball being stopped by wardsave: 50%
Chance of killing charcter in one shot: 66.7%

Chance of killign monster in one shot: 33.3%


so character has a 21% chance of dieing from a shot
His mount also has a 21% chance of dieing

Kayosiv
10-01-2012, 14:07
So... about 2 then?

Fear Ghoul
10-01-2012, 14:15
You could pretty much double the wounds of every monster without regenerate or a ward save and nobody would even notice. I don't think that less cost would solve much. For example, if a Carnosaur was Free, like, literally 0 points, I would have trouble justifying taking it over a Cold One for 30 points. It's just a liability because it bleeds combat resolution, even when taking into account it's attacks and thunderstomp, and it isn't as effective at protecting my character as a cavalry mount which is invincible.

As far as the single giant monsters like your Jabbersycthes and Bone Giants, reducing their cost would probably be effective, but I don't like where it would lead to in game terms. If giants were say, 100 points, it would help them be much more playable. However, then spamming giants would be possible, and I don't like the idea of an army having 5 giants on it, beecause I feel in game/fluff terms, such huge monsters SHOULD be a rare sight to see.



That's not really true. Whether you have 3 wounds and a 4+ ward save or 5 wounds and no save, chances are you're going to die in about 2 cannon shots. Which really sucks when your opponent has 2 cannons and gets first turn.

It's your own fault if you deploy Monsters in open terrain with clear potential lines of enemy artillery fire. The rules should not be changed to account for your inability to deploy properly, or your inability to use enough terrain (whichever applies).

The Low King
10-01-2012, 14:16
nooo....more like 3 shots

also, a carnosaur bleeds combat res? S7 and D3 wounds special rule is about as hard hitting as monsters get...my oldblood on a carnosaur once hacked his way through a horde of trolls led by Trogg the troll king...

Hell, ive had one singlehandedly fight a massive unit of Tomb Guard led by two characters for three turns before support arrived (i was winning every combat but he was rasing more troops)

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 14:17
People might say that "well what are cannons for if not to kill giant monsters?" To that I would say, "what are big monsters for?" Big monsters are struggling in 8th edition. No I don't mean things like the Hydra, Hellpit, or anything else with 12+ attacks for no reason. Your average Griffon, Cygor, or Manticore is just bad in 8th because of they way the new rules are. Multi-wound Artillery that hits both rider and mount 83% of the time every time just ensure that these things stay on the shelf.

thunderstomp.

A stegadon is pisspoor in combat the round after charging as far as offensive capability goes (3 ws3 attacks, come on), but can kill swathes of enemy infantry with his thunderstomp.

Monsters don't and shouldn't win combats on their own and kill units by themselves. In my opinion they should support one of your own units to win a combat decisively. Whenever you have a unit of saurus fighting enemy infantry x, they might struggle, but with a stegadon to aid them combatres generally swings back the other way unless the enemy unit is absurdly strong.

Furthermore it is not impossible to get monsters on the other side of the field. Dwarfs and empire might field 2 (or more) cannons, but I don't think you will see too many double ironblasters and not all skaven armies even use 1 warplightning cannon. Many armies might posses 1 warmachine capable of doing multiple wounds, so just stay out of sight/range/whatever of that one while your (chameleon) skinks deal with it. I managed to get my stegadon across the field against a dwarf army with 3 cannons & organ gun by using the cover of terrain. Our battlefields typically have 3 forests, 2-3 fences, a watchtower, a chapel and a 3rd large LoS blocker (a fortified mansion or temple of skulls), and it is enough to hide any monster.


While true, skinks generally have to get within charge range of a monster to do any damage to it and are unable to attack a monster on turn 1 before it has had a chance to do anything. Chameleon skinks are a different story as far as turn 1 attacking goes, although they are fairly appropriately priced for this opportunity and MUCH less likely to kill a big monster in a single turn of shooting than a cannon is, especially if the monster has a rider that shots randomize to.

A monster can generally do nothing in turn 2 either, at which point I can poison it to death already. With a cannon a monster could hide behind terrain for far longer.

Kayosiv
10-01-2012, 14:23
thunderstomp.

A stegadon is pisspoor in combat the round after charging as far as offensive capability goes (3 ws3 attacks, come on), but can kill swathes of enemy infantry with his thunderstomp.


Oh stegadons are still great. I just find that Stegadons with characters on them no longer make sense and are often a liability or die before reaching combat because of the ease at which they now die to artillery.



A monster can generally do nothing in turn 2 either, at which point I can poison it to death already. With a cannon a monster could hide behind terrain for far longer.

Fair point, although if it's got my general on it I can lead my army for those 2 turns. If it's a big monster at least I can lead the skinks away from other things in my army, or force them to get close to things that could potentially charge them.

I think I need to talk to my local gaming group about more liberal use of terrain. There often isn't more than enough to stop 1 piece of artillery, let alone enough to get a plethora of monsters across the board.


It's your own fault if you deploy Monsters in open terrain with clear potential lines of enemy artillery fire. The rules should not be changed to account for your inability to deploy properly, or your inability to use enough terrain (whichever applies).

So what you're saying, is that any person who has a giant monster or character-ridden monster who has ever been shot at by a piece of artillery, is a terrible player? They all are terrible at deployment and are too incompetent to use terrain as a defense and thus deserve to lose their monsters? OK then.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 14:25
Well....you are supposed to be using D6+4...thats what the rulebook says so it kind of what the rules are balanced for...

theunwantedbeing
10-01-2012, 14:28
Which leads to the question - would the game be better if war machines were made weaker in general?

Probably.

Cannons being less accurate at longer ranges would be useful.
eg. At long range a cannon bounces half the distance rolled and twice the extra range on the artillery dice.
Also removing their "template" status so they make sense.

Stone throwers doing much the same thing, but also not getting to shoot at things they cannot see would of course by handy.

The Dwarf organ gun would need to roll to hit.

Erm.....make the hydra 150pts more just to please the Dwarf and Empire players who are of course complaining loudly as a result of these changes.

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 14:32
The Dwarf organ gun would need to roll to hit.

if you make it 45 points.



Erm.....make the hydra 150pts more just to please the Dwarf and Empire players who are of course complaining loudly as a result of these changes.

I think nearly every non-darkelf player would be pleased with that change..



If you are convinced certain changes to artillery are needed, I suggest you find the local cannon-user, playtest and see how badly you can clobber his army into squishy goo.

Kayosiv
10-01-2012, 14:35
Erm.....make the hydra 150pts more just to please the Dwarf and Empire players who are of course complaining loudly as a result of these changes.

In all fairness, the Hydra should be 225 at least and the Hellpit 300. I'd much rather have the Hydra weaker though then increase in cost. Handlers that can die as well as a less potent breath weapon. I don't really mind that the Hellpit is a super ultra death machine, just that it doesn't cost enough to do what it does.

Fear Ghoul
10-01-2012, 14:39
So what you're saying, is that any person who has a giant monster or character-ridden monster who has ever been shot at by a piece of artillery, is a terrible player? They all are terrible at deployment and are too inconstant to use terrain as a defense and thus deserve to lose their monsters? OK then.

A good general should be able to avoid the worst of enemy artillery. This is why we have terrain and the movement phase. You don't play Warhammer on a bare table with no cover, nor do you deploy expensive units in areas where they will surely die easily to enemy fire.

Analogy:

"I will charge my Vampire Lord unsupported into a unit of Temple Guard, and if he dies in the resulting combat it's because Temple Guard are broken and not because I did something phenomenally stupid."

Kayosiv
10-01-2012, 14:59
A good general will never let a vampire lord have support while charging into his temple guard. That is why we have terrain and the movement phase. You don't play Warhammer on a bare table with no cover, nor do you deploy temple guard in areas where they will surely be charged by vampire lords and supporting units.

Analogy:

Anyone who ever gets charged by anything is bad. If you can't outmaneuver your enemy you are clearly terrible at the game.

Seriously Fear Ghoul. We disagree about the potency of artillery on monsters. There is no need to treat me like a terrible player/***** because of it. I understand how the movement phase works.

I still think artillery is too potent due to it's accuracy compared to ballistic weapons as well as it's ability to hit both rider/s and mount in 1 shot and have no partials. Artillery is much stronger than it was before, no one can dispute this. Was it too weak before? Did you take any when it was weaker? Is it too strong now? I'm trying to discuss that. You and Bearded One have brought up some great points, but there's no need for you or anyone else to point their finger and say things like "You let your army get shot at by artillery? Haha, no wonder your big monsters are dying!"

Let me ask you this. If you're right, and big monsters are impervious to cannon-fire because all they have to do is hide behind things and be properly deployed and moved throughout the game, why does ANYONE take cannons? They're not worth it against rank and file right? So why include one in your army at all? Against good players, they surely are worthless anyway.

theunwantedbeing
10-01-2012, 15:08
if you make it 45 points.

45pts,
+15pts for a bs4 model to fire it (it'll be bs3 otherwise)
+the standard upgrades for that guy
+let you slap upto 3 runes on the thing

How about that?

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 15:13
acceptable.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 15:14
Then it would be a cannon without the ability to fire cannonballs.

The power of Organ guns is vs skirmishers, that is the point of it. On average an organ gun will get two rounds of shooting of, each will get on average 6 shots. Than means vs most people 5 wounds. Vs skirmishers that probably means about 160 points worth of skirmishers dead (less if they are skinks, more if they are waywatchers). More rounds obviously means more kills.

Vs normal infantry 10 kills is barely anything.

Vs knights, who still get a 4+ armour save, that is paying its points back but they are only going to get one shot of and 24" can be avoided easily.

@kayosiv: Cannons got more powerful but now get less rounds of shooting because charges tend to happen a turn earlier.

Wesser
10-01-2012, 15:15
As an Empire General I wouldnt have a problem with cannons going back to 7th ed. rules.

I was always notorious for my sniper-cannons anyway. Would be okay with sacrificing some oomph to get that rep back :)

The big trouble with warmachines is that they are more random than anything else. People remember when cannons whack their monsters on turn 1, but not when it explodes leaving the Empire with absolutely nothing that can hurt a warsphinx. They remember when mortar shells kills 12 elves a shot, but not when scatters mean that The Empire shooting accounts for a one retarded archer leaving the empire combat troops to be slaughtered (If you are a Chaos or High elf player reading this then know that losing 1/3 of your army to empire shooting before CC is balanced, not in the least OP)

Just leave monsters and chariots at home. Then cannons wont have anything to shoot at

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 15:16
Artillery is much stronger than it was before, no one can dispute this. Was it too weak before? Did you take any when it was weaker? Is it too strong now? I'm trying to discuss that.

I never took a grudge thrower in 7th, and often wondered why I bothered with a dwarfcannon instead of 2 bolt throwers.


Let me ask you this. If you're right, and big monsters are impervious to cannon-fire because all they have to do is hide behind things and be properly deployed and moved throughout the game, why does ANYONE take cannons? They're not worth it against rank and file right? So why include one in your army at all? Against good players, they surely are worthless anyway.

To try and force those monsters to be more careful in the first place, take out some monstrous infantry/cavalry/beasts, enemy warmachines, and hopefully get off a single shot before the monster reaches combat (I use 1 cannon and 1 GT). I generally consider it lucky to kill a monster with my cannon, certainly lucky if done in 1 shot.

Autumn Leaves
10-01-2012, 15:19
"Paper is broken, scissors are fine", says rock.


Excellent quote.:D:angel:
Sigged.

Kayosiv
10-01-2012, 15:23
Just leave monsters and chariots at home. Then cannons wont have anything to shoot at

That's exactly the thing I don't want to have happen. I love my monsters.



To try and force those monsters to be more careful in the first place, take out some monstrous infantry/cavalry/beasts, enemy warmachines, and hopefully get off a single shot before the monster reaches combat (I use 1 cannon and 1 GT). I generally consider it lucky to kill a monster with my cannon, certainly lucky if done in 1 shot.

Oh I know, I just feel like Fear's view is far too binary.

WarmbloodedLizard
10-01-2012, 15:26
1. For the kind of damage a cannonball should do, D3 wounds are just too little. There should be a reasonable chance that a cannonball can kill a Manticore in one turn if it hits it in the head or chest and shreds its insides.

...

4. Terrain already does provide protection against cannons. Most terrain will stop a cannonball in its tracks, and all a monster has to do is hide in terrain until it has the chance to strike.


1. D3 wounds are plenty. I see it, that cannons don't have to kill a monster but only weaken it a little, to make sure that it will die in combat.

sure, if it hit the monster in the head that's true. but then again, it may also just graze it's skin or hit a leg/arm. AND not all historical cannons were as strong as some make them out to be. how about warmachines doing D6 wounds on a to-wound roll of a 6?

4. warmachiens can usually pretty much shoot at almost the whole battlefield. there are very few things are large enough to stop LoS to your monsters and most terrain doesn't stop cannonballs (only buildings, walls, and impassable terrain (and other monsters/MI)).


and as I said: you could then also lower the cost of war machines. making them less of a hit or miss option.



also, a carnosaur bleeds combat res? S7 and D3 wounds special rule is about as hard hitting as monsters get...my oldblood on a carnosaur once hacked his way through a horde of trolls led by Trogg the troll king...

T5 4+ AS for 210points. more often than not, he doesn't even get to strike.

it's a nice anecdote with the trolls, but really: 4 attacks, WS3. 2 hits, slightly less wounds, equals to an average of 1.67 wounds + some from the oldblood. you don't even get thunderstomp.

if anything, canosaurs/monster in general, are good against the flank of infantry units, where the S7 and D3 wounds are wasted. WS3 also ensures that he is hit quite nicely by anything WS4+. and with T5, even S4 units are dangerous.

the carno just isn't worth its 210point... at the moment it's worth more like ~150 if it were rare and maybe even less as a mount.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 15:31
Oh I know, I just feel like Fear's view is far too binary.

It is entirely possible though. My mates (dark elves) favourate tactic was to place a building on somesorts in the middle of the table, hide his hydras behind it (usually for an extra turn) and then spend a turn throwing everything at my two cannons (magic+dark riders+shades).

By turn 3 my cannons were usually dead and his two hydras popped out and annailated a unit together.

There was even a game where i managed to get one of them and he just left the otherone there most of the game. On turn 6 i broke his large spearelf unit with his Level 4 inside and pursued with my Runelord in a unit of hammerers. His turn the hydra charged out and killed the remainder of the hammerers+ broke the runelord, netting him a solid 700 points from one unit.

It is entirely reasonable to say you can hide them from cannons.

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 15:32
T5 4+ AS for 210points. more often than not, he doesn't even get to strike.

it's a nice anecdote with the trolls, but really: 4 attacks, WS3. 2 hits, slightly less wounds, equals to an average of 1.67 wounds + some from the oldblood. you don't even get thunderstomp.

if anything, canosaurs/monster in general, are good against the flank of infantry units, where the S7 and D3 wounds are wasted. WS3 also ensures that he is hit quite nicely by anything WS4+. and with T5, even S4 units are dangerous.

the carno just isn't worth its 210point... at the moment it's worth more like ~150 if it were rare and maybe even less as a mount.

He's certainly a bit pricey, but I think he can ravage enemy monsters well enough due to multiple wounds, as well as support your own infantryblocks via thunderstomp and rip apart anything heavilly armoured like knights with his high strength cancelling saves.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 15:48
1. D3 wounds are plenty. I see it, that cannons don't have to kill a monster but only weaken it a little, to make sure that it will die in combat.

certianly, because then i will definatly take 300 points of cannons in order to take a few wounds off some monsters, very good points investment there...

seriously, i took cannons in 7th because i had the models and i was good at guessing ranges. D3 wounds would mean cannons would lose their place as a hard counter to monsters and therefore their place in my list.


sure, if it hit the monster in the head that's true. but then again, it may also just graze it's skin or hit a leg/arm. AND not all historical cannons were as strong as some make them out to be. how about warmachines doing D6 wounds on a to-wound roll of a 6?

What about the Renaissance era cannons? then what about the Rennaissance era cannons with powerful runes enscribed on them and in a magical universe where the laws of physics are twisted slightly?

Hitting a leg is represented by rolling a 1 to wound or for wounds.


4. warmachiens can usually pretty much shoot at almost the whole battlefield. there are very few things are large enough to stop LoS to your monsters and most terrain doesn't stop cannonballs (only buildings, walls, and impassable terrain (and other monsters/MI)).

Most terrain? out of 11 terrain options in the table 8 of them can stop a cannonball and 2 of those give 2D3 things that can stop a cannonball.


and as I said: you could then also lower the cost of war machines. making them less of a hit or miss option.

You can only take 3 cannons in a list atm, 2 usually is just about enough to work, 3 if you are playing someone who goes monster heavy.....lowering the cost doesnt really help much when they are your only thing that can effectively stop monsters.


T5 4+ AS for 210points. more often than not, he doesn't even get to strike.

what are you fighting? even hammerers (probably one of the best counters in close combat) would have to be very lucky to kill him in one round and they have great weapons so the carnosaur will strike first.

what unit that doesnt have great weapons can possibly kill it before it attacks? (on a regular basis) Swordmasters maybe, but they are glass cannons and one of the worst targets


it's a nice anecdote with the trolls, but really: 4 attacks, WS3. 2 hits, slightly less wounds, equals to an average of 1.67 wounds + some from the oldblood. you don't even get thunderstomp.

5 after the first round. But yeah, 2 wounds....each doing D3 wounds. The old blood also had blade of realities btw, forgot to mention that.


if anything, canosaurs/monster in general, are good against the flank of infantry units, where the S7 and D3 wounds are wasted. WS3 also ensures that he is hit quite nicely by anything WS4+. and with T5, even S4 units are dangerous.

the carno just isn't worth its 210point... at the moment it's worth more like ~150 if it were rare and maybe even less as a mount.

no, he is good agaisnt other monsters and anything with more than one wound. Paticularly wizard lords on foot.

WarmbloodedLizard
10-01-2012, 17:23
certianly, because then i will definatly take 300 points of cannons in order to take a few wounds off some monsters, very good points investment there...

you get 3 cannons for that, and even with D3 wound, they definitely do more than that. if you get 3-4 wounding hits, you probably disable (i.e. down to ~2 wounds) around 2 monsters in the first 2 turns. And there is still a rather high possibility that not all 3 of them have been taken out on turn 3+. if you also take some points off of them, e.g. cannon for 80-85 points, then you also only paid some 250points to remove the effectiveness of two 250point units.

arguing that cannons would be useless if they did D3 wounds is completetly ridiculous. even if empire cannons remained at 100 points, they would still be a somewhat ok choice.



Hitting a leg is represented by rolling a 1 to wound or for wounds.

no, that's a 2. followed by a 1 for # of wounds.





Most terrain? out of 11 terrain options in the table 8 of them can stop a cannonball and 2 of those give 2D3 things that can stop a cannonball.

I don't think there are many people that use this table. as for the typical terrain that is used: woods, buildings, obstacles, water terrain, impassable terrain/rocks (we pretty much always use 8+ of these).

woods/water both do nothing, buildings are usually only really usable to hide during deployment and seldom protect you from all warmachines. impassable terrain/obstacles are more useful, but they aren't always placed where you can use them.

So, I'd say most oft the time you can do absolutely nothing about it and your monster will be shot and wounded at at least once.
having a counter is ok, but it just shouldn't be such a hard counter. this is not an RTS where you can just change your list later in the game.





lowering the cost doesnt really help much when they are your only thing that can effectively stop monsters.

really? they are the only thing that can efectivley stop monsters? no, they aren't. they are just the most effective thing you have. that doesn't mean everything else is completetly rubbish. you just have to use more than just a cannon.




what are you fighting? even hammerers (probably one of the best counters in close combat) would have to be very lucky to kill him in one round and they have great weapons so the carnosaur will strike first.

I agree that I exagerated a little. but if you consider that it will rarely arrive in combat unscathed, probably being down to ~3 wounds (magic, shooting, warmachines), it doesn't look that great. in most cases, the carno gets 1, or if he's lucky 2, opportunities to strike before he dies/runs. when he's charged, he's often dead, when you don't get a multiple charge off, he's usually dead, etc. you don't even have to fight swordmasters or hammerers, S4/5 troops are anough.




5 after the first round. But yeah, 2 wounds....each doing D3 wounds.


no, 0.83 wounds... each doing D3 wounds.

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 17:33
no, 0.83 wounds... each doing D3 wounds.

Against enemies without regeneration it would be 1.67.

Luigi
10-01-2012, 17:37
I don't think there are many people that use this table.

Maybe that could be one of the problem, I believe that artillery rules were designed to work in syncrony with the rest of the rules.

Liber
10-01-2012, 17:51
D3 wounds is not a good idea.

Not without a drastic points reduction and armies fielding more cannons...which is silly.

I did read through the entire thread, and still scattering seems the best idea.

Its the most realistic.

It solves both the sniping problem and will lessen the pain done to monsters.

Most importantly it would be FUN!

This is a game after all, and introducing scattering too cannons would let me actually use a few brain cells when shooting artillery for the first time. Right now cannons are just terribly boring to use, and its made worse by the fact that the way they operate does not make any sense...so you don't make friends for using them. Introducing scatter would introduce a layer (maybe a thin one but still) of strategic depth as well as fix what everyone agrees are problems.

How far the scatter is (d6 or d3) and also how the scatter is mitigated (bs of crew, having an engineer, etc) and other such finer points would make a great discussion I think.

Snake1311
10-01-2012, 17:52
Wow, cannot be arsed to read 7 pages of people being stupid.

If cannons were as OP, or even as insanely cost-effective as people said, Empire and especially Dwarfs would be top armies. Which they are not. So for everyone claiming that actual game experience beats theoryhammer/mathhammer, you fail. For other people, The Low King gave you the numbers on page 2.


1. D3 wounds are plenty. I see it, that cannons don't have to kill a monster but only weaken it a little, to make sure that it will die in combat.

That is incredibly ignorant, probably because you are looking at it out of context. Its not WoC that has cannons, its Empire and Dwarfs. Empire can't fight their way out of a paper bag, much less actually do 2-3 wounds to a monster in CC before it munches them away. Dwarfs are universally ASL as well as expensive, so when the monster smashes into them even at just 1 wound, it will cause stupid amounts of damage considering you've already spent resources to shoot at it.

Scatter would just add more randomness into it, how is that good? But yeah, why not - d3 scatter, reduced by the crew's BS. Happy?

The Low King
10-01-2012, 17:55
you get 3 cannons for that, and even with D3 wound, they definitely do more than that. if you get 3-4 wounding hits, you probably disable (i.e. down to ~2 wounds) around 2 monsters in the first 2 turns. And there is still a rather high possibility that not all 3 of them have been taken out on turn 3+. if you also take some points off of them, e.g. cannon for 80-85 points, then you also only paid some 250points to remove the effectiveness of two 250point units.

Dwarf cannons have rune of forging, burning and often an engineer, that makes them 145 points.


arguing that cannons would be useless if they did D3 wounds is completetly ridiculous. even if empire cannons remained at 100 points, they would still be a somewhat ok choice.

Really? 2 shots, 50% chance of hit+wound average of 2 wounds per success. 100 points to put 3 wounds on a monster.


no, that's a 2. followed by a 1 for # of wounds.


Lol, ok



I don't think there are many people that use this table. as for the typical terrain that is used: woods, buildings, obstacles, water terrain, impassable terrain/rocks (we pretty much always use 8+ of these).

so the complaint is that cannons are too good when you dont use the rule that weakens them?.....


woods/water both do nothing, buildings are usually only really usable to hide during deployment and seldom protect you from all warmachines. impassable terrain/obstacles are more useful, but they aren't always placed where you can use them.

Chances are you will have less drops than dwarfs, you can see where their cannons go. Dwarfs and empire also tend to group warmachines to protect them and keep them near a single master engineer.

buildings are everywhere on the map, there are 5 options that give you a building of some sorts


So, I'd say most oft the time you can do absolutely nothing about it and your monster will be shot and wounded at at least once.
having a counter is ok, but it just shouldn't be such a hard counter. this is not an RTS where you can just change your list later in the game.

Why? they are almost useless against anything else.

Plus the number of times ive taken cannons and my opponant doesnt have a monster.....they just sit there ineffectually picking off infantry whilst hoping i get very lucky and splat a character.




really? they are the only thing that can efectivley stop monsters? no, they aren't. they are just the most effective thing you have. that doesn't mean everything else is completetly rubbish. you just have to use more than just a cannon.

They are the only cost effective thing that can splat monsters



I agree that I exagerated a little. but if you consider that it will rarely arrive in combat unscathed, probably being down to ~3 wounds (magic, shooting, warmachines), it doesn't look that great. in most cases, the carno gets 1, or if he's lucky 2, opportunities to strike before he dies/runs. when he's charged, he's often dead, when you don't get a multiple charge off, he's usually dead, etc. you don't even have to fight swordmasters or hammerers, S4/5 troops are anough.

hide it better?



no, 0.83 wounds... each doing D3 wounds.

5 attacks, hit on 4s, wound on 2s. thats 2.

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 18:09
5 attacks, hit on 4s, wound on 2s. thats 2.

as the example was trolls, I believe he added the regeneration save in.

Damocles8
10-01-2012, 18:13
are we forgetting that when the cannon misfires, it has a 33% chance of killing itself?

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 18:14
here are some examples of our usual terrain coverage:

in this example there is a building in the centre, and buildings/gardens of morr on the flanks, allowing plenty of room to evade cannonballs.

125144

in this case the centre is open but there are once again buildings to hide behind. I hid my stegadon behind the watchtower for example. My opponent could hide behind the large tower or the chapel, and I could've hopped from behind the garden of morr towards the chapel.
125145

In this case we put the hillsections in the centre of the table, with a building on top. Around the base of the hill are buildings spread about.
125146

WarmbloodedLizard
10-01-2012, 18:16
are we forgetting that when the cannon misfires, it has a 33% chance of killing itself?

I wouldn't mind lowering that to 16.7% again. I wouldn't even mind if it were a less brutal penalty, like "only fires at half strength for the rest of the game" or something like that.

@beardface:
we usually have some 4-7 tables in our club room and nowhere near that many buildings per table available. (and even in your example photos, there are plety of awesome places to put cannons and shoot at half the board.)

Gradek
10-01-2012, 18:23
here are some examples of our usual terrain coverage:

in this example there is a building in the centre, and buildings/gardens of morr on the flanks, allowing plenty of room to evade cannonballs.


in this case the centre is open but there are once again buildings to hide behind. I hid my stegadon behind the watchtower for example. My opponent could hide behind the large tower or the chapel, and I could've hopped from behind the garden of morr towards the chapel.

In this case we put the hillsections in the centre of the table, with a building on top. Around the base of the hill are buildings spread about.


Terrain? What is that? Why would you play with that, it just gets in the way?

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 18:29
@beardface:
we usually have some 4-7 tables in our club room and nowhere near that many buildings per table available. even regular fences and stone walls stop cannonballs. It's worth adding a couple of those around. The strategic placement of buildings can lessen the impact of cannons as well, such as a large building in the center, and reserving more terrain for those games where there is actually a cannon present at all.


(and even in your example photos, there are plety of awesome places to put cannons and shoot at half the board.)

half ;)

in none of those games there was a cannon present though, so we did not take cannons into account when setting up.

In a storm of magic game against empire with 2 cannons where I had a dragon, hydra and stegadon, all 3 my monsters survived the game, and in fact the table was relatively barren. My slann on fulcrum took a pounding though, but I managed to keep all my monsters out of sight.

theunwantedbeing
10-01-2012, 18:30
Why? they are almost useless against anything else.
Nonsense, you just have a very skewed idea of what a cannon being useful is.


Plus the number of times ive taken cannons and my opponant doesnt have a monster.....they just sit there ineffectually picking off infantry whilst hoping i get very lucky and splat a character.
What's bad about that?
A cannonball kills 83% of infantry & cavalry that it touches.
56% of monstrous infantry
Hit a 4 wound no-save monster? 42% chance to kill it
Hit a hydra? 14% chance to kill it, 42% chance to deal at least a wound

Unless you are shooting at 2pt slaves or 3pt goblins, you are going to easily kill the worth of the weapon by firing into infantry blocks, let alone if you shoot at cavalry, monsterous infantry or chariots.

Nobody complains that chariots can't be insta-killed by st7+ anymore
They still do absurd damage on the charge and can charge even further than normal now
Why are people so against monsters not getting similar bonuses to survivability vs artillery?

yabbadabba
10-01-2012, 18:33
cannons this, monsters that, war machines this, magic users that .....

The other day my combined, 350pts of war machines killed 16pts of greenskins, then all but 1 of them blew themselves up. Monsters don't do that.

This has always been an issue in WFB, because outside of new players, most gamers settle down to guess ranges really quickly. So laser-cannons are not something "new" and are this editions new whinge. It also shows that the GW big monster kits are starting to hit the want-strings.

If you want a simple solution:
models that count as in cover get a 6+ ward save vs non-bs using war machines unless otherwise stated. In the case of ridden monsters, both rider and monster both get seperate ward saves. These saves may not be boosted or improved in any way, nor can they be negated other than to destroy the cover.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 18:41
really? average infantry block...lets say 8 deep and costing 10 points per model (ie, ideal circumstances). and ideal shot kills 6-7, 2 ideal shots makes the points back.

These are IDEAL circumstances, anything else and it doesnt

Kayosiv
10-01-2012, 18:41
Wow, cannot be arsed to read 7 pages of people being stupid.

If cannons were as OP, or even as insanely cost-effective as people said, Empire and especially Dwarfs would be top armies. Which they are not. So for everyone claiming that actual game experience beats theoryhammer/mathhammer, you fail.


Except nobody said that, you're just an angry man insulting people on the internet. Cannons are super effective to the point of being broken against monsters. Monsters are not very good in this edition. Being able to kill the thing that is not very good doesn't make an army with war machines overpowered. I simply dislike it, because I think monsters are fun and wish war machines were less able to cripple my already crippled big monsters. Now if they cost less points to do that or were more effective against other things in order to do that, FINE.

I'm not stupid because I like to build armies in ways that I enjoy or because I have opinions that are different than yours. I came into this thread, discussed some things with people, and now have an altered opinion. I plan to talk to my local shop about changing the way we deploy terrain so my big monsters have more of a fair shake.

You came into this thread and called everybody stupid. Bug off.


here are some examples of our usual terrain coverage:


Thank you for the pictures and explanation, that was very helpful.



The other day my combined, 350pts of war machines killed 16pts of greenskins, then all but 1 of them blew themselves up. Monsters don't do that.


Play enough game with a zombie dragon Lord and sometimes it can happen. Roll all 1's and 2's, lose combat by 5, explode. I definitely sympathize though. I once fought a dwarf opponent who, despite his runes of re-rolling, managed to blow up 3 out of his 4 artillery pieces. The lone survivor was a grudge thrower that scattered off into nowhere every single shot it fired.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 18:51
Except nobody said that

actually someone a few pages ago said exactly that, they said 'my expirience trumps mathhammer'

someone also said that cannons were way OP

maybe not you but then i dont think that part was directed at you

Kayosiv
10-01-2012, 18:52
Dang it, you're right... Well he was still rude.

The_Bureaucrat
10-01-2012, 18:53
Wow, cannot be arsed to read 7 pages of people being stupid.

If cannons were as OP, or even as insanely cost-effective as people said, Empire and especially Dwarfs would be top armies. Which they are not. So for everyone claiming that actual game experience beats theoryhammer/mathhammer, you fail. For other people, The Low King gave you the numbers on page 2.



They are insanely cost effective. Thats why every single Empire army listed under army lists warseer has at least one cannon in it (and the vast majority of the dwarf lists). They might as well rename empire to team cannon because it has become a crutch. They are worst internally balanced item in warhammer. They excell at taking out and making there cost back against monsters, chariots, other warmachines, mounstrous infantry, mountrous calvary, calvary and even do ok against elite infantry.

Now dwarves, empire both probably need a boost in overall power and cost effectiveness but don't try to tell me the cannon isn't a no brainer choice.

theunwantedbeing
10-01-2012, 18:54
really? average infantry block...lets say 8 deep and costing 10 points per model (ie, ideal circumstances). and ideal shot kills 6-7, 2 ideal shots makes the points back.

120-140pt cannon?
What sort of extras are you buying it for no reason?

The Low King
10-01-2012, 19:01
They are insanely cost effective. Thats why every single Empire army listed under army lists warseer has at least one cannon in it (and the vast majority of the dwarf lists). They might as well rename empire to team cannon because it has become a crutch. They are worst internally balanced item in warhammer. They excell at taking out and making there cost back against monsters, chariots, other warmachines, mounstrous infantry, mountrous calvary, calvary and even do ok against elite infantry.

Now dwarves, empire both probably need a boost in overall power and cost effectiveness but don't try to tell me the cannon isn't a no brainer choice.

No, i cant speak for empire but the basis for taking cannons in every dwarf list is that we are worried about monsters.

If before a game my opponant turned round and told me he didnt have any monsters then i would immediatly remove the cannons and replace them with another unit.

When i wrote a strollaz list for a local league my main concern was my ability to deal with monsters.

Even when i write a fluffy list the two things i HAVE to take are magic defence (usually a runelord) and Monster defence. In terms of monster defence the only things ive found to work (i tried a unit of hammerers for it and they failed) are cannons or expensive lords (or multiple thanes).


Now, most likely this is a perception issue. As someone without monsters i think they are good and so take cannons to deal with them. Someone who has monsters but not cannons thinks cannons are too good so either doesnt take monsters or takes a units specifically to deal with them. Both eye the other up, muttering that they wish the other unit didnt exist.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 19:03
120-140pt cannon?
What sort of extras are you buying it for no reason?

Dwarf cannon + rune of forging + fire + engineer = 145points (most common cannon combo in existance)

forging alone comes to 125pts

WarmbloodedLizard
10-01-2012, 19:03
Nonsense, you just have a very skewed idea of what a cannon being useful is.

Unless you are shooting at 2pt slaves or 3pt goblins, you are going to easily kill the worth of the weapon by firing into infantry blocks, let alone if you shoot at cavalry, monsterous infantry or chariots.


I agree. Aside from the fact that almost every list uses at least some multi-wound units (warmachines, monstrous inf, monsters, eagles, bells) cannons are always more or less useful. it can still shoot at eltie and semi-elite infantry to take off a couple of wounds, snipe an unlucky character and remove the odd rank. sure, in some cases, cannons may do almost nothing when there is absolutely no useful target to shoot at but I've never really seen any such case since I've started playing warhammer.


@beardface: we use 1-2 buildings, 3-4 walls, 2-3 rocks and things like that, but the building is really the only thing that gives enough protection. the rocks/walls may be useful vs. cannons (half the time) but not against stone throwers/doomwheels/etc.

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 19:18
the rocks/walls may be useful vs. cannons (half the time) but not against stone throwers/doomwheels/etc.

I would not be adverse to turning the D6 wound centre of stonethrowers into D3 (or less), as they are supposed to be good at killing many rank&file but the centre gives them too effective a dual role.

yabbadabba
10-01-2012, 19:20
@beardface: we use 1-2 buildings, 3-4 walls, 2-3 rocks and things like that, but the building is really the only thing that gives enough protection. the rocks/walls may be useful vs. cannons (half the time) but not against stone throwers/doomwheels/etc. I suggested an answer to that earlier.

Demoulius
10-01-2012, 19:23
I think people who think cannons are overpowerd dont think monsters cause any problems for other armies.... :shifty:

Gradek
10-01-2012, 19:31
Again, it is Warhammer, not Monsterhammer. No unit should be guaranteed to reach combat or get its points back, that isn't how the game has ever been played. After we ban/nerf cannons, next up would be the big spells (those aren't any fun either), then we would have to get rid of the rest of missile weapons (since they may prevent something from getting into combat), next up would be initiative and first strike (since no one should get killed before they get a chance to fight so everyone attacks at the same time), and finally we should get rid of movement too (since it is unfair if someone blocks my cool thingamabob with a chaff unit), so in the end we will all just line in direct contact with whatever units we want and roll dice for damage (at the same time of course).

Sexiest_hero
10-01-2012, 20:02
Or build your army choose deployment/ Terrain that can stop cannonballs.

Wesser
10-01-2012, 20:10
They are insanely cost effective. Thats why every single Empire army listed under army lists warseer has at least one cannon in it (and the vast majority of the dwarf lists). They might as well rename empire to team cannon because it has become a crutch. They are worst internally balanced item in warhammer. They excell at taking out and making there cost back against monsters, chariots, other warmachines, mounstrous infantry, mountrous calvary, calvary and even do ok against elite infantry.

Now dwarves, empire both probably need a boost in overall power and cost effectiveness but don't try to tell me the cannon isn't a no brainer choice.

How is it a crutch? It's the only thing in Empire that can kill monsters. Ofc its bloody mandatory. And humans shouldnt be powerful to kill it in combat anyway. We are weak.

What I am hearing is complaints that Empire and Dwarfs have a chance against armies with monsters? Sure we can work with the D3 thing...as long as Hydras, HPAs, sphinxes etc are reduced to M4

The_Bureaucrat
10-01-2012, 20:23
How is it a crutch? It's the only thing in Empire that can kill monsters. Ofc its bloody mandatory. And humans shouldnt be powerful to kill it in combat anyway. We are weak.

What I am hearing is complaints that Empire and Dwarfs have a chance against armies with monsters? Sure we can work with the D3 thing...as long as Hydras, HPAs, sphinxes etc are reduced to M4

Your right Bret's, WE, HE can't kill monsters because the vast majority of their troops have str 3 and weak. Good thing there is nothing like steam tanks, Wizards, flaglents/halbredier hordes, greatswords, knights of the inner circle with warrior priests, hellblaster or even van horstmans speculum ,. It's like these dwarf/empires can't imagine a creative solution to deal with a monster. And I'm not saying that there shouldn't be canons or even that they shouldn't be good at killing monsters but that maybe they should be better balanced to increase diversity. Especially many think empire can deal with monsters outside of cannons (which is crazy).

The Low King
10-01-2012, 20:41
Dwarfs solutions to monsters are warmachines, characters, slayers and greatweapons.

Characters and slayers are Moverment 3 so rarely reach a monster and slayers also get shot to pieces (even S3 shots hurt)
Great weapons can work but are usually not cost effective.
Warmachines allow us to actually gain some control as we can cover most of the board
We need warmachines to kill monsters because we simply cant get the favourable combats we need otherwise.

Snake1311
10-01-2012, 20:45
Dang it, you're right... Well he was still rude.

If you got offended, chances are you are feeling guilty about something stupid you have said at some point :)

Your argument cannot be that cannons are too effective against monsters, because that is their intended optimal target. Its like saying that lore of metal is too effective against heavy cavalry, or that unbreakable units stay in combat too long.

The_Bureaucrat:

That the cannon, or more precisely, that counter-monster measures (of which the cannon is the best) are pretty much mandatory, is because monsters are in every other list, and are FAR from underpowered when used properly (as in, not retardedly charged on its own directly into the front of something and expect it to get its points back - except some of the monsters can do that, too). As far as no-brainers go, this has more to do with the metagame rather than anything else.

Interesting though, you recommend nerfing cannons to increase diversity. Next time you are in your local, make a mental note on how many lists have monsters or equvalents in them - I bet you its around 50% mark.

Brets have problems with monsters as an army, thats why they are the only ones who have Heroic Killing Blow outside of special characters - which by the way is present in EVERY competitive Bret list.

HE have ASF with great weapons, so no one gives a crap that they are toughness 3. They also have access to Bolt Throwers (which can fire anti-infantry barrages) in cases monsters need softening.

I don't know how woodies deal with monsters. I guess you got me there, well done.

Do the math on running an abomination or hydra into a unit of halberdiers/flagellants/greatswords and see how many points it kills off before it dies. Magic is unreliable when it comes to mandatory tasks that have to happen (e.g. kill that abomb before it rapes my entire army). Feel free to do maths on a unit of 10 knights charging the Abomb, although giving them the charge is somewhat generous. The speculum is challenges only.

theunwantedbeing
10-01-2012, 20:47
@ The Low King
You forgot Quarrelers and Thunderers

Also can you explain exactly what you mean by the term "cost effective" that you keep throwing around please?

Snake1311
10-01-2012, 20:51
Oh, and one more thing on cannon balance from a dwarven perspective. Since you can't walk anywhere with your M3, your opponent can choose to draw you by just sitting on his side of the board out of range of conventional weapons, and maybe even chucking the odd spell at you, and there is absolutely NOTHING you can do about it. GTs are irrelevant in this cae, since you only get points for units fully destroyed - and once a unit is down to a few models your opponent can (and will) hide them away. As a bonus for him, the GT might misfire and give him free points.

What the cannon does in this case is smack down one of his expensive models - monster, chariot, whatever - and forces him to actually COME to you to try and make up point disadvantage.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 20:55
@ The Low King
You forgot Quarrelers and Thunderers

Also can you explain exactly what you mean by the term "cost effective" that you keep throwing around please?

Quarrelers and thunderers are not the answer to monsters..unless you mean Quarrelers with GWs and the ranger upgrade in wich case they can work but only usually to slow something down.

By cost effective i mean a solution that does not cost more points than the monsters.

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 20:56
@ The Low King
You forgot Quarrelers and Thunderers

as anti-monster?

I think that'll only work on the pathetic monsters that spend most of their time crying on the shelves (griphons, hippogryphs, manticores).

Snake1311
10-01-2012, 20:57
@ The Low King
You forgot Quarrelers and Thunderers


Are you serious? Quarellers and Thunderers as a solution to Monsters? What the hell game are you playing? 20 Thunderers are worth more than 100 points more than a Hydra, yet will take 4 turns of shooting to kill it. What exactly are you doing in the meanwhile?

Chain
10-01-2012, 21:03
here's another reason Cannons don't make much sense atm
normal cannon has a 75% chance of hitting.(in case of the avg chariot base)

compare that with bolt throwers the warmachine that's supposed to be the sniper.
if firing single shots at over half range even an elf would be at a 50% chance of hitting... others at 33%

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 21:05
The trajectory of an arrow or bolt is changed easier by wind, cover and range than a speeding cannonball.

Chain
10-01-2012, 21:09
that doesn't change that the Bolt thrower is supposed to be the sniper of the game not the Cannon


40-60% chance of hitting would be prefered though really as said before the best solution would probably be making cannons stay how they are but go ~ 50 points up

Note how the monsters that are complained about are the ones with regeneration.
the reason you pretty much only see these is due to cannons scaring off the majority of the rest.

The Low King
10-01-2012, 21:11
Why is a bolt thrower supposed to be the sniper? surely the models with the sniper rule are the snipers?

WarmbloodedLizard
10-01-2012, 21:20
Do the math on running an abomination or hydra into ...

so you think cannons should be balanced against two of the most overpowered monsters/units in the game, rather than against normal monsters?




Note how the monsters that are complained about are the ones with regeneration.
the reason you pretty much only see these is due to cannons scaring off the majority of the rest.

exactly.

Chain
10-01-2012, 21:27
Why is a bolt thrower supposed to be the sniper? surely the models with the sniper rule are the snipers?

meant the best warmachines for sniping

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 21:34
meant the best warmachines for sniping

... ow? that's... new to me. I'm not sure there's any fluffjustification for it either.


Note how the monsters that are complained about are the ones with regeneration.
the reason you pretty much only see these is due to cannons scaring off the majority of the rest.

Sphinxes and thundertusk/stonehorns are quite nasty as well and I am seeing sufficient amounts of arachnerocks as well, even a double-spider list. That's nasty stuff..

The Low King
10-01-2012, 21:36
40-60% chance of hitting would be prefered though really as said before the best solution would probably be making cannons stay how they are but go ~ 50 points up
.

That again would leave cannons as pretty poor. 50pts up and my dwarf cannons costs 200 points


meant the best warmachines for sniping

Why? they cant even shoot characters in a unit, even stone throwers are better at sniping.....

GotrekFan
10-01-2012, 22:04
But bolt throwers can't blow up if they miss!
WE have their own monsters in Treemen and dragons if necessary and a ton of very accurate long range missile fire - sure they need 6 to wound, but more dice mean more wounds.
Let's not forget greater daemons in the monster list. One of the guys in my group runs a great unclean one; try taking him out in 1 shot!

Lance Tankmen
10-01-2012, 22:30
get hit by a cannon ball, lady of the lake protects, hit by a cannon ball? didn't happen.

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 23:02
get hit by a cannon ball, lady of the lake protects, hit by a cannon ball? didn't happen.

or grudge throwers, flame cannons, bolt throwers and organ guns for that matter :p

Demoulius
10-01-2012, 23:08
Your right Bret's, WE, HE can't kill monsters because the vast majority of their troops have str 3 and weak. Good thing there is nothing like steam tanks, Wizards, flaglents/halbredier hordes, greatswords, knights of the inner circle with warrior priests, hellblaster or even van horstmans speculum ,. It's like these dwarf/empires can't imagine a creative solution to deal with a monster. And I'm not saying that there shouldn't be canons or even that they shouldn't be good at killing monsters but that maybe they should be better balanced to increase diversity. Especially many think empire can deal with monsters outside of cannons (which is crazy).

Already plenty of people who brought up the huge flaws in your logic but id like to give this a further kick...

Il adres the units you mentioned in your own order:
*Steam tank. Effected by magic now, already the biggest fire magnet in a list and its damage comes from grinding and impact hits. Opponent auto hit him and you expect us to send that at your biggest monster? This thing is good for one thing, and one thing only. It can deal with line troopers somewhat reliably. Send it at anything differently and it wont work. Why not point him at the edge of my deployment zone and drive him off it myself? Save us both the time and effort of rolling dice...

*Luckily magic cant be countered, or is needed to support our other units!

*Halberdier hordes. Do you have any idea how many models id need to send at a monster to kill him off? Sure they COULD do it if id throw enough of my troops at you (or I roll some very lucky dice, you faill all your saves and dont come back/regenerate...) but then again the hellpit/hydra isent your entire army. If I attack you or you attack me and I dont break a flank charge or supportive spells are bound to come in. Or... you know you can spend 2 turns more in combat and the entire unit would be gone...

Even with steadfast these guys can only last so long. The best they could do is stall the thing... :shifty:

Greatswords. Fair enough, the only unit that has a somewhat decent save, has S5 in combat and is stubborn even if its not a horde. They could deal with monsters no problem... Theyre still T3 though so plenty are bound to die, not the most point cost effective method here... Also your army has no elite infantry aside from your monster that need to be dealt with as well!

*Knights of the inner circle with added WP. Ok. S4 knights with a lance on the charge or great weapons would be able to hurt most monsters, sure. Could, like greatswords, indeed deal with the problem pretty effectivly, if not the cheapest way. If you start to add a character though points skyrocket fast. A WP is 90 pts barebones, he then would need armor, a weapon, and a steed. Abit steep a price to pay ontop of the unit compared for what your auto-pick monsers cost...

Oh but whats this? You regain 50% of the wounds that I caused? Oh, better include the banner of eternal flame next time... Luckily my unit of knights isent already 2 times as expensive as your single monster...

*Hellblaster is 24 inches range, S5 and still needs to roll to hit (with BS3) and the most unreliable piece of **** that you can inmagine. It could fire (and hopefully hit something) if your lucky but its more likely to blow up in your face...

*The speculum only works in challenges.

Seriously you guys are complaining that artillary is broken... If you dont bring monsters the best they can do an entire match is kill of a few infantry or cavalry models. Perhaps hit a character if a 2+ look out sir is failed (not bloody likely)

But if you bring monsters weve got an anwser! Its 100 pts, a special choice called a great cannon! Sure it doesent always work and CAN blow up! But if it hits is S10 and causes D6 wounds! Why would I WANT to deal with it any other way?

If it does work it saves my troops for the meatgrinder that are your troops and everyone is happy! If it fails, il have to be inventive or sacrifice a unit to minimize the damage. If the cannon scares you so much there are plenty of tricks to avoid getting hit by it, like for example using the terrain to your advantage.... Dont see how the cannon is the problem here though...

w3rm
10-01-2012, 23:22
You people obviously don't play against people who know how to play cannons. They'll just drop them behind thier units where fast cav can't get to them.

"Yep I can see the front paw of your sphinx from between this guy's leg, over the shoulder of my bsb and underneath that outcropping *rolls dice* it takes 4 wounds!"

The Low King
10-01-2012, 23:23
You people obviously don't play against people who know how to play cannons. They'll just drop them behind thier units where fast cav can't get to them.

"Yep I can see the front paw of your sphinx from between this guy's leg, over the shoulder of my bsb and underneath that outcropping *rolls dice* it takes 4 wounds!"

thats how i use the cannons...at least i hide them behind my guys if LOS allows it

The bearded one
10-01-2012, 23:28
You people obviously don't play against people who know how to play cannons. They'll just drop them behind thier units where fast cav can't get to them.

"Yep I can see the front paw of your sphinx from between this guy's leg, over the shoulder of my bsb and underneath that outcropping *rolls dice* it takes 4 wounds!"

you need to see your target point on the ground, not the model you want to be aiming at.

yabbadabba
10-01-2012, 23:37
You people obviously don't play against people who know how to play cannons. They'll just drop them behind thier units where fast cav can't get to them.

"Yep I can see the front paw of your sphinx from between this guy's leg, over the shoulder of my bsb and underneath that outcropping *rolls dice* it takes 4 wounds!" Sounds like you don't play against people who know the rules.

Or how to use FC.

Demoulius
10-01-2012, 23:39
you need to see your target point on the ground, not the model you want to be aiming at.

Kinda sounds like the same shenanigans you could see in 40k if one were to take the rulebook seriously... Yep I can see your models big toe! I dont think hes in cover but you obviously do, lets make it a 5+?

With rulebending like that no wonder you think cannons are overpowerd...

hashrat
10-01-2012, 23:56
It isn't shenanigans unfortunatly, the TLOS and Cannon rules, are fairly clear.
Cannon shots are aimed at a point on the ground, and if you can see something, you can see it, the exception in the book (iirc) is wings and arms, banners.

Some people must be thinking of 7th edition LOS rules.
If you can see between a guys legs and over the shoulder of another, you have LOS. You can shoot.

Nothing to do with rulebending, its RAW. It is written in everyone's rulebooks, so I cannot see why people are arguing to the contrary.

Scalebug
11-01-2012, 00:00
Kinda sounds like the same shenanigans you could see in 40k if one were to take the rulebook seriously... Yep I can see your models big toe! I dont think hes in cover but you obviously do, lets make it a 5+?

With rulebending like that no wonder you think cannons are overpowerd...

Ehh... I think you misunderstood there... that part is not in the cannon's favour... while realistically the crew would probably aim straight for the big ugly things chest or face going for a direct hit, as far as the rules mechanics for cannon goes, you have to pick a point in front of it, and that point might well be hidden from your view, even if the monster itself is glaringly visible.

Most of the time it will not matter, you will likely not be able to stop a line of sight being drawn even through multiple ranks of troops, but things like a soldid wall might easily stop you from seing the ground, even if the monster is many times the height of the wall (and as a "large target" isn't intended to be able to gain cover from it, going by how obstacles work with BS based shooting).

The Low King
11-01-2012, 00:02
i cant see a point on the ground through my ranks of GW dwarfs....

The bearded one
11-01-2012, 00:04
it is irrelevant wether you can see the enemy you want to fire at, you must see the target point on the ground you want to let the cannonball bounce at (and this point will of course move an artillery dice worth of inches forward).

However if you can see the big bad monster over a building, you still can't fire at it because you can't see a patch of ground suitable from which to bounce into his base. If the ground in front of the enemy monster is not visible because friendly or enemy models are blocking your line of sight to it, you can't shoot at that spot. If there is a wall in blocking your sight, you can't fire at that point etc. etc. You must see the point on the ground you want to bounce from (or the monster's base, in which the targetpoint of course still moves forward and has a gigantic chance of overshooting the target alltogether. the HPA's base for example is slightly less than 4", meaning if you can't see any ground in front of the HPA and place it on the front of its base you need to roll a 2 on the artillerydice, or you will overshoot)

Snake1311
11-01-2012, 00:06
With rulebending like that no wonder you think cannons are overpowerd...


TBO's opinion is actually a massive NERF to cannons you realise? I can always see your massive monster over my dwarfs; I have to wiggle around to make sure I see the ground in front of it.


so you think cannons should be balanced against two of the most overpowered monsters/units in the game, rather than against normal monsters?


OK, want other examples?

Hi, I'm a sphinx, I have T8 and since you have no models with insane amount of attacks and you only wound me on 6s I will be in combat with you forever while stomping you to death, yaaaaay. We don't want some stupid artilery runing our fun now do we?

Stonehorn is made of stoney stone in its stone skeleton, hi all im mr anticannon monster.

Stegadons are pretty numerous and not overly expensive, not to mention everything else in the lizardmen armybook is like one massive middle finger (to dawi at least, I don't know that much about empire).

Sup, Great Unclean One here. 10W, with a 5+ ward, so will need 4+ direct hits from cannons to kill me so about 6 cannon shots in total - all while I sit in the open and pick my nose.

Hai gaiz, im an Arachnarok and I have 1W in every leg. I'm also an obstacle strider so I assume clever people will keep me behind walls and stuff, but even without I'll be tanking 4 cannon shots, which is all the shooting they will do. Wow, I might just die to something worth as much as myself if people leave me as a target.

Hallo, we are Ogres / Empire and we got cannons of our own, so unless you shoot our cannons down first we will shoot all your WM instead so you better not be aiming at any monster we bring! O nvm that, the Stonehorn only takes d3 anyway and the STank is T10 W10.

Roar, we are beastmen, and it is dem cannonz fault dat our monsters are pooey.

Squeak squak, stormbanner, squeak lolz squeak.

....I don't even care if the special people agree with me anymore, I had great fun writing these :D

Scalebug
11-01-2012, 00:07
i cant see a point on the ground through my ranks of GW dwarfs....
I said "most of the time", models "filling up" their base area, like dwarves or chaos warriors with capes and such have of course a better chance of blocking sight, but I would still bet that if you took a laser pointer and placed at the cannon you would likely be able to light up a spot on the ground behind the dwarves...

The bearded one
11-01-2012, 00:08
I'm not sure wether demoulius was responding to what I said, or responding to w3rm based on what I said. I know demoulius in person, and he's less likely to disagree with me :p


all while I sit in the open and pick my nose

that's definately in-character for a great unclean one.


I said "most of the time", models "filling up" their base area, like dwarves or chaos warriors with capes and such have of course a better chance of blocking sight, but I would still bet that if you took a laser pointer and placed at the cannon you would likely be able to light up a spot on the ground behind the dwarves...

I'd like to see you try. Dwarfs are really good at blocking LoS. If there are dwarfs between the monster and the cannon, and the cannon (or monster) isn't on a hill, it's nigh impossible to look through, unless you just happen to be in a very happy angle, but apart from that they block virtually all LoS.

Korraz
11-01-2012, 00:10
I said "most of the time", models "filling up" their base area, like dwarves or chaos warriors with capes and such have of course a better chance of blocking sight, but I would still bet that if you took a laser pointer and placed at the cannon you would likely be able to light up a spot on the ground behind the dwarves...

The way State Troops rank up it's pretty hard, read: Almost god damn impossible to draw LOS through them.
Unless the unit is specifically modeled for this advantage, this just won't work.

The Low King
11-01-2012, 00:12
I said "most of the time", models "filling up" their base area, like dwarves or chaos warriors with capes and such have of course a better chance of blocking sight, but I would still bet that if you took a laser pointer and placed at the cannon you would likely be able to light up a spot on the ground behind the dwarves...

*pulls out laser pointerish instrument*

*fiddles around a bit with dwarfs on desk next to him*

only when the cannon shot lines up perfectly with the gap between ranks....wich is never the case

Scalebug
11-01-2012, 00:18
I'd say this is a case of "if you say so" here, but I have never found slender humans there to block much by themselves... And they have certainly not been assembled in any "creative" way to deliberately enable shooting through them, think having one file as far as possibly to the left on the base, and their neighbours similarly to the right, creating a sneaky corridor to fire through by a cannon behind them, just ordinary assembly.

The_Bureaucrat
11-01-2012, 00:19
Already plenty of people who brought up the huge flaws in your logic but id like to give this a further kick...

Il adres the units you mentioned in your own order:
*Steam tank. Effected by magic now, already the biggest fire magnet in a list and its damage comes from grinding and impact hits. Opponent auto hit him and you expect us to send that at your biggest monster? This thing is good for one thing, and one thing only. It can deal with line troopers somewhat reliably. Send it at anything differently and it wont work. Why not point him at the edge of my deployment zone and drive him off it myself? Save us both the time and effort of rolling dice...

*Luckily magic cant be countered, or is needed to support our other units!

*Halberdier hordes. Do you have any idea how many models id need to send at a monster to kill him off? Sure they COULD do it if id throw enough of my troops at you (or I roll some very lucky dice, you faill all your saves and dont come back/regenerate...) but then again the hellpit/hydra isent your entire army. If I attack you or you attack me and I dont break a flank charge or supportive spells are bound to come in. Or... you know you can spend 2 turns more in combat and the entire unit would be gone...

Even with steadfast these guys can only last so long. The best they could do is stall the thing... :shifty:

Greatswords. Fair enough, the only unit that has a somewhat decent save, has S5 in combat and is stubborn even if its not a horde. They could deal with monsters no problem... Theyre still T3 though so plenty are bound to die, not the most point cost effective method here... Also your army has no elite infantry aside from your monster that need to be dealt with as well!

*Knights of the inner circle with added WP. Ok. S4 knights with a lance on the charge or great weapons would be able to hurt most monsters, sure. Could, like greatswords, indeed deal with the problem pretty effectivly, if not the cheapest way. If you start to add a character though points skyrocket fast. A WP is 90 pts barebones, he then would need armor, a weapon, and a steed. Abit steep a price to pay ontop of the unit compared for what your auto-pick monsers cost...

Oh but whats this? You regain 50% of the wounds that I caused? Oh, better include the banner of eternal flame next time... Luckily my unit of knights isent already 2 times as expensive as your single monster...

*Hellblaster is 24 inches range, S5 and still needs to roll to hit (with BS3) and the most unreliable piece of **** that you can inmagine. It could fire (and hopefully hit something) if your lucky but its more likely to blow up in your face...

*The speculum only works in challenges.

Seriously you guys are complaining that artillary is broken... If you dont bring monsters the best they can do an entire match is kill of a few infantry or cavalry models. Perhaps hit a character if a 2+ look out sir is failed (not bloody likely)

But if you bring monsters weve got an anwser! Its 100 pts, a special choice called a great cannon! Sure it doesent always work and CAN blow up! But if it hits is S10 and causes D6 wounds! Why would I WANT to deal with it any other way?

If it does work it saves my troops for the meatgrinder that are your troops and everyone is happy! If it fails, il have to be inventive or sacrifice a unit to minimize the damage. If the cannon scares you so much there are plenty of tricks to avoid getting hit by it, like for example using the terrain to your advantage.... Dont see how the cannon is the problem here though...

Yes magic can be dispelled and steam tanks can be killed so can every other decent counter . You'll need more expensive units to kill hellpit/hydra because it's widely know that such monsters are broken and are point for point the best things out there by far.

Why would you want to use anything else? Well you wouldn't, because it is the best thing by far for its points but the point is that it shouldn't be that way, it shouldn't be the crutch that empire players depend on. All specials should have advantages and disadvantages and while i don't disagree that monster hunting should be its thing, it frankly is too good at killing everything for its points ( I think the d3 scatter or d6-BS scatter suggestions are both amazing fixes)

The cannon doesn't scare me because I am forced to customize my army against it just like I'm forced to customize my army against hellpit/hydra by including at least one flaming thing. In reality none of these choice should be so badly internally balanced that they are present in every list and all should be fixed. But hey maybe you can use terrain to your advantage against monsters....

Snake1311
11-01-2012, 00:19
Movement comes before shooting, so it should be the case at least like half the time? All you have to do is waddle sideways half an inch to align the gap.

Your silly argument has buried my awesome post :(

Demoulius
11-01-2012, 00:23
I was responding to what w3rm said :) I quoted you, since you had his topic quoted as well but warseer can only quote 1 person at a time :(

Guess I broke warseers mind? "quoting several people at once? But....when....how...if.... *head explodes*"

I also like that if you have LOS through your own troops, wouldnt that mean that cannonball would tear through your own unit? :D

Snake1311
11-01-2012, 00:26
it frankly is too good at killing everything for its points

Ok, first of all dwarf cannons are about 130 points, while empire ones need support from an engineer not to blow up - so even if spammed, about 130. Secondly, worst case scenario - you are right, cannons are WAY too good and OP at killing monsters (which they are not and you are wrong) - so what? Every army is good at dealing with some things more than others, I guess in the metagame it just means that you can't expect your monsters to get their points worth against artillery. So I ask you again, considering that 20% of the armies have cannons, are monsters worth taking? And for many people, that is a yes, because monsters are clearly present in lists all over the place.

When I play against magic light armies having invested 250 pts in antimagic, I don't whine like a little bitch. Its a decision you make when building lists, if you personally don't think its worth it - dont take it; if you think there is an issue by all mean start a thread so we can investigate if there are actual problems; but then what is the point of it if you can't even entertain the fact that you might be wrong?

yabbadabba
11-01-2012, 00:28
Well you wouldn't, because it is the best thing by far for its points but the point is that it shouldn't be that way, it shouldn't be the crutch that empire players depend on. Its not. Its an effective counter. OUt of all the armies in the game the Empire is probably the most all-arms encompassing tactically. If you don't use all three arms effectively in synergy then the game plan will fall apart.

Cannons do not win empire games, they help by getting the Empire into advantages elsewhere.

Demoulius
11-01-2012, 00:28
Sorry for the double post... People responded whilst I was typing my previous reply :shifty:

The_Bureaucrat, im kinda missing your point here I think. We both agree the cannon is the best tool for the job. And that certain monsters are pretty good (too good?) for their pointcosts. Yet at the same time you say that we shouldnt have that undercosted cannon because it can deal with other undercosted things like monsters? :wtf:

I think you just broke my brain :confused:

The_Bureaucrat
11-01-2012, 01:00
Sorry for the double post... People responded whilst I was typing my previous reply :shifty:

The_Bureaucrat, im kinda missing your point here I think. We both agree the cannon is the best tool for the job. And that certain monsters are pretty good (too good?) for their pointcosts. Yet at the same time you say that we shouldnt have that undercosted cannon because it can deal with other undercosted things like monsters? :wtf:

I think you just broke my brain :confused:

What I'm saying is that cannons are a no brainer choice but they shouldn't be. Not every empire army should field cannons. There should be competition for special, tradeoffs, but as it is right now 130 or 260 points of greatswords/outriders/pistoliers can't even compare to cannons unless fighting exclusively all but cheapest of infantry ( pretty much 10 points and under) and even than I'd still take cannons because of the odd sniping. It's a silly design and it takes the fun out of list building as well as gaming.

The Low King
11-01-2012, 01:06
there are lots of other options, lists include things like flagelents and greatswords. Unfortunatly there just arnt enough choices to kill monsters.

If you gave empire another unit that could reliably kill monsters as a core choice then cannons would be less common.

also, most infantry are 10 points and under...

Demoulius
11-01-2012, 01:27
To compare this argument with something else...

This is like saying that a Lascannon is overpowerd in 40K because it can pop a tank in 1 shot :shifty:

theunwantedbeing
11-01-2012, 01:34
:angel:
there are lots of other options, lists include things like flagelents and greatswords. Unfortunatly there just arnt enough choices to kill monsters.
Combat resolution (monsters don't always win combat, empire get detachments as well which can swing the fight in your favour)
Grind it down over several combat rounds (entirely plausible as if you lose, you are likely to be steadfast anyway)
Shooting (handguns/crossbows, heck even bows can hurt things)
Artillery (cannons, mortars, Hellstorms, hellblasters, Steam Tank)
Combat Characters (wyrmslayer sword, sword of fate, mace of hellstrum, etc)
Magic (any of the 8 main lores, warrior priest bound spells)
Combat units (greatswords, flagellents, knights, magic buffed things with a warrior priest to give hatred, etc etc)

Yeah, few if any choices.


If you gave empire another unit that could reliably kill monsters as a core choice then cannons would be less common.
I doubt it, cannons are simply the safest option for dealing with monsters as you can hit them from upto 80" away, everything else requires you get more within range of the enemy offensive abilities.


also, most infantry are 10 points and under...
Plenty are not though.
Cannons have lots of targets that aren't monsters trying to hide several feet away, if cannons were made far less able to kill these monsters then maybe empire & dwarf players would see that as well.

The_Bureaucrat
11-01-2012, 01:42
To compare this argument with something else...

This is like saying that a Lascannon is overpowerd in 40K because it can pop a tank in 1 shot :shifty:

The lascannon is balanced because it completely sucks at killing anything else. The cannon rocks at killing other war machines, MI, MC, calvary and of course monsters. I have never seen an army made up of completely cheap troops (even goblin/skaven armies have war machines) that would make someone regret purchasing 1-2 cannons.

Kayosiv
11-01-2012, 01:43
Plenty are not though.
Cannons have lots of targets that aren't monsters trying to hide several feet away, if cannons were made far less able to kill these monsters then maybe empire & dwarf players would see that as well.

Or just not take cannons and take a stone thrower or a unit instead. Although Stone throwers can kill monsters pretty effectively too...

I don't really mind that cannons have the potential to kill monsters in 1 shot, that's not the issue.

It's more that artillery can,
1. Hit Rider and mount both with a multi-wound shot.
2. Be more accurate than other ballistic weapons.

Tuttivillus
11-01-2012, 01:44
:angel:I doubt it, cannons are simply the safest option for dealing with monsters as you can hit them from upto 80" away, everything else requires you get more within range of the enemy offensive abilities.

60", target must lie within weapons max. range.;)

The bearded one
11-01-2012, 01:45
Yeah, few if any choices.

not everything in that list is very viable though. Sure, goblins can theoretically wound and kill a steamtank, but how likely is it they will?

close combat counters often lose as many points in combat as the monster costs, or can be evaded alltogether as monsters are generally rather quik.

Demoulius
11-01-2012, 02:07
Combat resolution (monsters don't always win combat, empire get detachments as well which can swing the fight in your favour)
True, but you dont need many troops before your combat resolution combaty units cost ALOT more points then that single cannon (or the monster your trying to kill for that matter...) Why invest more points then you have to, to solve an issue?
Grind it down over several combat rounds (entirely plausible as if you lose, you are likely to be steadfast anyway)
Steadfast on LD7 (general and/or BSB cant always be in range..) isent the most reliable of things though...
Shooting (handguns/crossbows, heck even bows can hurt things)
Anything can hurt anything on a 6+ in fantasy. True. Doesent mean that theres better targets for your ranged units though. Specialy if 1 cannon shot can achieve the same result as a few turns of handgun fire can...
Artillery (cannons, mortars, Hellstorms, hellblasters, Steam Tank)
I thought we were discussing other options then artillary?
Combat Characters (wyrmslayer sword, sword of fate, mace of hellstrum, etc)
Again, how many points would you invest that a 100 pt cannon can achieve? A captain with AOMI (for some protection) and the wyrmslayer is 100 pts exactly, yet he HAS to get into b2b with the monster he wants to bash while the cannon can do it at range. Also wyrmslayer doesent negate regeneration... And not to mention that the monster that you are trying to kill can just gobble up your precious one trick pony captain...
Magic (any of the 8 main lores, warrior priest bound spells)
Can be countered with dispells or you can fail to reach the casting requirements. Or better yet you can cast magic and your own mages can implode thanks to a miscast. Not the most reliable of things...
Combat units (greatswords, flagellents, knights, magic buffed things with a warrior priest to give hatred, etc etc)
Same point as to most of the others, how many points should we have to invest to what a 100 pt cannon can do as well?

Cannons have lots of targets that aren't monsters trying to hide several feet away, if cannons were made far less able to kill these monsters then maybe empire & dwarf players would see that as well
Why would a cannon be less able to kill these things? For whatever reason beyond "WAAA WAAA MY MONSTER GOT SHOT" do you have? Artillary has a chance to blow up, the bounce can fall short or overshoot, we can fail to wound on a roll of 1 or your opponent might a banner or magic spell that requires you to roll a 4+ before you can fire (for example) YES it is a hard counter to monsters. Yet you want to nerf this hard counter because it can also counter something else? :confused:

This last argument is particulary strange as many units in the game can be more effective against various of things, yet the cannon would need to be fixxed because it could do something else other than monster hunting? A hydra can gobble up entire units but it can also hunt warmachines or cavalry to name just an example...

Yes cannons are an almost no brainer. So are other things in different armies. Id say deal with it as I dont see it changing anytime soon...

gdsora
11-01-2012, 03:37
Big Blob of words

I think the argument they are trying to make is. For its Points/Strengths a Cannon is too efficient, ie there is no opportunity cost to taking a cannon.

Why?

It counters too many things, Monsters/Chariots/Monstrous Infantry/Monstrous Beasts/etc.

It counters those units way more effectively then anything else the army has.

Is this not counter intuitive to a well designed and internally/externally balanced army?

Shouldn't every unit have its purpose and niche? Whats the point of X units if a Cannon is way better in every aspect.

Kayosiv
11-01-2012, 05:18
Shouldn't every unit have its purpose and niche? Whats the point of X units if a Cannon is way better in every aspect.

I'm pretty sure empire bowmen and gunmen are more efficient against low armor low toughness troops than a cannon. Like if you wanted to fire at a group of skirmishers a cannon would be almost useless but archers would be pretty good at picking a few off every turn with no chance to self-explode.

gdsora
11-01-2012, 06:05
I'm pretty sure empire bowmen and gunmen are more efficient against low armor low toughness troops than a cannon. Like if you wanted to fire at a group of skirmishers a cannon would be almost useless but archers would be pretty good at picking a few off every turn with no chance to self-explode.

If Bowmen and gunmen are only better then a cannon against skirmishers. While the cannon is great against Monsters/Chariots/Monstrous Infantry/Monstrous Beasts/etc. That still seems like the cannon has the advantage.

The_Bureaucrat
11-01-2012, 06:34
If Bowmen and gunmen are only better then a cannon against skirmishers. While the cannon is great against Monsters/Chariots/Monstrous Infantry/Monstrous Beasts/etc. That still seems like the cannon has the advantage.

Actually the bowmen and gunmen aren't that good. long range 12 bowmen do a whopping 1 wound against t3 skirmishers and handgunners aren't much better. Whereas a cannon shot against 2x5 skirmishers (assuming you can get a good angle to hit 2 with a bounce >2). Will net you .944 wounds and if in a larger formation or a better angle will be better.

w3rm
11-01-2012, 06:48
The biggest problem I have with cannons is vs monstrous mounts. 1 cannonball and my expensive lord is dead and his mount now has half wounds...

yabbadabba
11-01-2012, 08:30
Actually the bowmen and gunmen aren't that good. long range 12 bowmen do a whopping 1 wound against t3 skirmishers and handgunners aren't much better. Whereas a cannon shot against 2x5 skirmishers (assuming you can get a good angle to hit 2 with a bounce >2). Will net you .944 wounds and if in a larger formation or a better angle will be better. So a cannon will kill the same number of skirmishers than a cheaper unit of archers? Then you are dependent on your opponent to provide a bigger and easier target of skirmishers. Sorry, that's not much of an argument.

theshoveller
11-01-2012, 08:32
Actually the bowmen and gunmen aren't that good. long range 12 bowmen do a whopping 1 wound against t3 skirmishers and handgunners aren't much better. Whereas a cannon shot against 2x5 skirmishers (assuming you can get a good angle to hit 2 with a bounce >2). Will net you .944 wounds and if in a larger formation or a better angle will be better.
Of course, you could just take a Mortar...

Fear Ghoul
11-01-2012, 10:45
A good general will never let a vampire lord have support while charging into his temple guard. That is why we have terrain and the movement phase. You don't play Warhammer on a bare table with no cover, nor do you deploy temple guard in areas where they will surely be charged by vampire lords and supporting units.

Analogy:

Anyone who ever gets charged by anything is bad. If you can't outmaneuver your enemy you are clearly terrible at the game.

Seriously Fear Ghoul. We disagree about the potency of artillery on monsters. There is no need to treat me like a terrible player/***** because of it. I understand how the movement phase works.

I still think artillery is too potent due to it's accuracy compared to ballistic weapons as well as it's ability to hit both rider/s and mount in 1 shot and have no partials. Artillery is much stronger than it was before, no one can dispute this. Was it too weak before? Did you take any when it was weaker? Is it too strong now? I'm trying to discuss that. You and Bearded One have brought up some great points, but there's no need for you or anyone else to point their finger and say things like "You let your army get shot at by artillery? Haha, no wonder your big monsters are dying!"

Let me ask you this. If you're right, and big monsters are impervious to cannon-fire because all they have to do is hide behind things and be properly deployed and moved throughout the game, why does ANYONE take cannons? They're not worth it against rank and file right? So why include one in your army at all? Against good players, they surely are worthless anyway.

When I said supported Vampire Lord I meant a Vampire Lord in a unit. Thus if the Vampire lord does charge, then so does his supporting unit. Your analogy thus fails, because there is no way an opponent can be charged by one and not the other in this case. The reason it is common to have a Vampire Lord in a unit is because of crumbling and the fact that Vampires are susceptible to it. You would never charge a Vampire Lord on his own into a large ranked unit, because at best he will draw combat resolution, and at worst crumble to dust. It is not the fault of the rules if a player was to decide to do this and suffer the consequences.

Likewise if you place your monster in the middle of nowhere where it can be shot at by cannons then that is your own fault I'm afraid. We agree that cannons need fixing, but we think they need fixing for completely different reasons. Saying that cannons are overpowered because they can shoot monsters when they are deployed out in the open is flawed reasoning. I don't play with cannons because I'm a Vampire Count player, but I'm not going to whine about the fact that Empire and Dwarf players have something which can hard counter my own goodies. That's the point after all. Some units are designed to kill other units.

As a Vampire Count player who has faced both gunline Empire and Dwarf armies, I can honestly say that despite their best efforts neither player was able to kill my Vampire Lord on Abyssal Terror, although the Empire player did come close. I was honestly far more annoyed at the way the Empire player continually shot at my Wight King until he failed his Look Out Sir roll. THAT is the problem with cannons. Not the fact that they can easily kill monsters out in the open, which is what they are designed for.

As for why people take cannons, it is precisely because lots of people don't deploy their monsters properly and so they get shot, or the cannons can snipe characters in units, or just plow through expensive rank and file for as long as possible.

yabbadabba
11-01-2012, 10:56
So how did characters in units suddenly become so much more vulnerable to the experienced gamer with a cannon?

Snake1311
11-01-2012, 12:18
I think the argument they are trying to make is. For its Points/Strengths a Cannon is too efficient, ie there is no opportunity cost to taking a cannon.

Why?

It counters too many things, Monsters/Chariots/Monstrous Infantry/Monstrous Beasts/etc.

It counters those units way more effectively then anything else the army has.

Is this not counter intuitive to a well designed and internally/externally balanced army?

Shouldn't every unit have its purpose and niche? Whats the point of X units if a Cannon is way better in every aspect.

Pretty well presented argument, unlike the majority here, but yo're wrong in your basic assumption - there is in fact a big opportunity cost to cannons, or to maybe word it better, to additional cannons after the first. Its very similar to magic really - one mage with a scroll is essentially mandatory; after that its whatever you're into. Thing is, most armies, even the new ones, have some sort of essential unit choice - be it a casket of souls, ironguts, sabretusks etc.

The Low King
11-01-2012, 12:53
It counters too many things, Monsters/Chariots/Monstrous Infantry/Monstrous Beasts/etc.

ok, say im playing Tomb Kings, they have 2 Sphinxes, a unit of chariots, a casket, some snake dudes popping up to stare my warmachines to death adn maybe something else monster like.

Who cares if my cannons are decent against the chariots or could kill the casket? they are both going to spend their short lifetime trying to kill the Sphinxes before they reach my lines and start murdering my units.


Shouldn't every unit have its purpose and niche? Whats the point of X units if a Cannon is way better in every aspect.

Bolt throwers are often better agaisnt chariots
Crossbows/handguns/archers are better against monsterous infantry (at least the ones that are T4 and no armour)
My dwarf Lord is actually better vs monsters....he just doesnt tend to be able to reach them (at least after the first battle)
Organ gun s are better against skirmishers
Stonethrowers are better at killing infantry blocks
Magic is FAR better at character sniping


On that topic, magic is also good against everything, ive suffered far more damage from a stong magic phase, despite investing 300 points in magic defence, than ive every done with my warmachines.

Kayosiv
11-01-2012, 15:03
The reason it is common to have a Vampire Lord in a unit is because of crumbling and the fact that Vampires are susceptible to it. You would never charge a Vampire Lord on his own into a large ranked unit, because at best he will draw combat resolution, and at worst crumble to dust.

What possessed you to type this out will remain a mystery to me. Do you really think that anyone who actively posts on this site wouldn't know this? That can't possibly be it... I think you've just somehow failed to comprehend the boatload of sarcasm in the post you quoted, but even then there's just no reasonable explanation as to why you feel the need to explain basic rules of the game to me.



Bolt throwers are often better agaisnt chariots


Is this true? That doesn't seem to make sense mathematically.



On that topic, magic is also good against everything, ive suffered far more damage from a stong magic phase, despite investing 300 points in magic defence, than ive every done with my warmachines.

Yeah well I hate a lot about the rulebook lores as well, but it doesn't really seem appropriate for this thread.

The bearded one
11-01-2012, 15:09
What possessed you to type this out will remain a mystery to me. Do you really think that anyone who actively posts on this site wouldn't know this? That can't possibly be it... I think you've just somehow failed to comprehend the boatload of sarcasm in the post you quoted, but even then there's just no reasonable explanation as to why you feel the need to explain basic rules of the game to me.

erhm, to recap how we even got on this little sidetrack of vampires charging templeguard:


A good general should be able to avoid the worst of enemy artillery. This is why we have terrain and the movement phase. You don't play Warhammer on a bare table with no cover, nor do you deploy expensive units in areas where they will surely die easily to enemy fire.

Analogy:

"I will charge my Vampire Lord unsupported into a unit of Temple Guard, and if he dies in the resulting combat it's because Temple Guard are broken and not because I did something phenomenally stupid."


A good general will never let a vampire lord have support while charging into his temple guard. That is why we have terrain and the movement phase. You don't play Warhammer on a bare table with no cover, nor do you deploy temple guard in areas where they will surely be charged by vampire lords and supporting units.


so the point was that just like you wouldn't charge a lone vampire into some templeguard and complain templeguard are broken when the vamp dies, you wouldn't/shouldn't expose a monster openly to cannons and complain cannons are broken.

That was the point that was being made... about 4 pages ago.. you discussed it sincerely as though the analogy was a serious point about people actually solo-charging with vampires. No, of course they wouldn't solocharge, that's obvious. It ought to be as obvious and logical as that monsters should not be exposed to cannons if there is a way to avoid it. ;)

Fear Ghoul
11-01-2012, 15:12
What possessed you to type this out will remain a mystery to me. Do you really think that anyone who actively posts on this site wouldn't know this? That can't possibly be it...

Well apparently I have to state the obvious to people who whine about cannons killing their monsters when they can't don't deploy them properly.:rolleyes:

theunwantedbeing
11-01-2012, 15:16
Is this true? That doesn't seem to make sense mathematically.

A Bs3 Bolt thrower will deal 0.67 wounds on average at ranges upto 24" (with no additional modifiers) per shot. (0.83 against t4 chariots)

A cannon will misfire/overshoot 2/3rds of the time against the chariot when aimed appropriately. Then it will underbounce 1/3rd of the time.
2+ to wound and an average of 3.5 wounds means the average wounds caused per shot will be 1.29.

So the cannon does more damage, has a longer range, doesn't suffer at longer range shooting or firing over other units.


The main benefit of a cannon is that you can hit multiple units with a long bounce and the shot doesn't stop if you fail to kill infantry/cavalry. Plus as they deal D6 wounds they have a far greater chance of slaying things that would stop the bounce/bolt.
A bolt thrower has a 1/3 chance to kill an ogre and not stop, then it's strength goes down by 1 so it has a harder time wounding.
The cannonball has a 1/3 chance to fail to kill the ogre and it's strength doesn't go down by 1 (wouldn't make a blind bit of difference anyway) so it still wounds the next thing on a 2+, unlike the bolt thrower which may have needed a 3+ to wound the first guy and now needs a 5+

The risk of exploding isn't massively high and you did miss with that shot anyway when you get a misfire.
I'de certainly prefer to have cannons than bolt throwers for example.

People often cite how cannons with no monsters to shoot at just ineffectually kill infantry all game but that's exactly what bolt throwers do, usually worse than a cannonball would, or a stone thrower.

Cambion Daystar
11-01-2012, 15:22
The risk of exploding isn't massively high and you did miss with that shot anyway when you get a misfire.
I'de certainly prefer to have cannons than bolt throwers for example.
Isn't that because boltthrowers are rather weak anyway?

The Low King
11-01-2012, 15:26
Bolt thrower is half the price

The bearded one
11-01-2012, 15:35
A Bs3 Bolt thrower will deal 0.67 wounds on average at ranges upto 24" (with no additional modifiers) per shot. (0.83 against t4 chariots)

A cannon will misfire/overshoot 2/3rds of the time against the chariot when aimed appropriately. Then it will underbounce 1/3rd of the time.
2+ to wound and an average of 3.5 wounds means the average wounds caused per shot will be 1.29.

So the cannon does more damage, has a longer range, doesn't suffer at longer range shooting or firing over other units.

What if we take costs into account though? if we were to take a dwarf cannon with rune of forging (125) and replace it with 2 bolt throwers with engineers (120) (note, these are the most basic upgrades, that these warmachines will have virtually always in almost every list).

The cannon does.. 1.29 wounds?

the bolt throwers have 2 shots, hits 1.333 times at ranges up to 24", do 0.888 wounds against T5 chariots, which are multiplied due to multiple wounds into 1.777

or 3 bolt throwers without engineers (135), which have 3 shots, 1.5 hits, 1 wound, multiplied into 2.

against T4 chariots the wounds caused go up to 2.222 and 2.5 respectively.

The Low King
11-01-2012, 15:37
TBO strikes again


On an interesting note, vs the T4 W4 monsters that a few people have mentioned are too vulnerable to cannons:

Cannon with rune of forging and fire (130 points), vs 3 bolt throwers (135 points)

cannon: perfect shot hits 84% of the time, wounds 83% of the time...so 0.7 wounds, multiplied on average to 2.45

Bolt throwers, 1.5 hits, 1.25 wounds, multiplied to 2.5 wounds on average

The bearded one
11-01-2012, 15:45
you can also buy 4 goblin spearchukka's for the price of 1 dwarf cannon with rune of forging and engineer.

Do note that elven bolt throwers are significantly more expensive than those of dwarfs and greenskinks as they pay for their volleyfire, so for them a cannon is definately more costeffective, but they've more or less sworn off (gunpowder) artillery anyway, so that's their choice :p

plus they are fast enough to kill things like monsters before they strike. You do not want a monster in contact with witch elves or white lions.

Dark Aly
11-01-2012, 16:28
The issue as I see it is not that artillery is too good but the monsters are all over the place eg;
1)Undercosted, overpowered- HPA, Hydra etc.
2)Overcosted, underpowred- Griffon, giant etc.
3)pretty spot on points and effect- Arachnorak, sphynx etc.

empire and dwarf (without runes) cannons are identical in both points and effect. Against group 1 they are essential, against group 2 they are over powered and against group 3 they are perhaps slightly too strong. Now bear in mind that neither dwarfs nor empire have an 8th ed army book and so we therefore have no idea about what the 'real' cost of a cannon for 8th ed is and things don't look too bad.

Once all books are updated we may see a more balanced number 3.

The Low King
11-01-2012, 16:34
They are fine against group 3

Spiney Norman
11-01-2012, 16:36
What if we take costs into account though? if we were to take a dwarf cannon with rune of forging (125) and replace it with 2 bolt throwers with engineers (120) (note, these are the most basic upgrades, that these warmachines will have virtually always in almost every list).

The cannon does.. 1.29 wounds?

the bolt throwers have 2 shots, hits 1.333 times at ranges up to 24", do 0.888 wounds against T5 chariots, which are multiplied due to multiple wounds into 1.777

or 3 bolt throwers without engineers (135), which have 3 shots, 1.5 hits, 1 wound, multiplied into 2.

against T4 chariots the wounds caused go up to 2.222 and 2.5 respectively.

Yes but you're failing to take into account how inherently cool a cannon is, compared to a bolt thrower they are absolutely made of awsome. A big BOOM trumps a big TWANG any day. I think of my Empire great cannons and I smile, I think of my Goblin bolt throwers and I weep...

I don't really think Cannons are overpowered, given the increased charge ranges and the number of ways armies can extend their movement you almost never get more than 1 or 2 turns at the most to shoot them before something charges them or the rest of the field is in combat regardless, and you really can't do that much damage with 1-2 shots.

however they are pleasingly accurate when compared to just about any other warmachine. My screaming skull catapult seems to unerringly seek out the empty spots on the battlefield with pin-point precision.

Dark Aly
11-01-2012, 16:38
I think the same erm.. 'engineers' made my catapults too.

Dark Aly
11-01-2012, 18:24
EDIT- RE: ogre cannon thing
Ah, I see why people don't like them- moving cannons aren't good. I was expecting empire and dwarf cannons to be about 110-120 points TBH but it looks like I'm well off.

Tuttivillus
11-01-2012, 18:39
Yep, I suppose they will stay as they are. That will force some people to use terrain generator and d6+4 pieces. My usual opponent plays Skaven and VC and don't have such a problem with hitting his monsters/furnace into my line despite me having two cannons. And when he deos he just tears my state regiments apart.

The bearded one
11-01-2012, 18:51
EDIT- RE: ogre cannon thing
Ah, I see why people don't like them- moving cannons aren't good.

they're move AND fire, allowing them to get into better positions before shooting at stuff.

yabbadabba
11-01-2012, 19:00
Right I have done a little digging around and this is what I have found.

Cannons have not changed for editions. The only difference in this edition is you no longer need to guess, having no effect on a good or experienced player. In addition the "look out sir rules have not changed for characters in units" but have become 1/3rd less beneficial to characters in the open. So "cannon sniping" characters in units is either something that has gone on all the time, has become more widespread because those who did not have the experience/skills for guessing don't have to, or is this editions fad/latest moan. Cannon sniping characters out of units is almost compulsory :evilgrin:

Hitting monsterous mount and rider is a bit OTT imho but there again the monster reaction table has also changed over time to favour the monster owning army.

What has changed is the LOS rules. Now I have heard people talking about shooting through the legs of models in a unit. Now that might be RAW but it is not in the spirit of the game, no is it in anyway representable in any kid of format of imagination. Its just a sheer game mechanic. So I won't do it. No the biggest impact has been terrain but here again I think people are being too literal. I am sure if we could, we would all build forests etc that blocked LOS but we haven't the time or money. so don't. Just declare or roll for a forest to be open (TLOS) or closed (blocked LOS). And this can be done with other terrain. No need for special rules, GW amendments or anything else. Just common sense. As for some smaller terrain, eg obstacles, I have suggested a minor ward save for those behind it but again, its a minor point and has never been an issue before.

All in all other than terrain (which is easily fixed) cannons have not changed in yonks, and the major change in this edition is a minor, almost non-existent boost for players. So all this for 2 regular users and to other models if I remember right.

Kayosiv
12-01-2012, 00:03
Well apparently I have to state the obvious to people who whine about cannons killing their monsters when they can't don't deploy them properly.:rolleyes:

You couldn't see the obvious if you were seeing it right in front of your face and you were looking right at it.



so the point was that just like you wouldn't charge a lone vampire into some templeguard and complain templeguard are broken when the vamp dies, you wouldn't/shouldn't expose a monster openly to cannons and complain cannons are broken.

That was the point that was being made... about 4 pages ago.. you discussed it sincerely as though the analogy was a serious point about people actually solo-charging with vampires.

Well I was trying to counterpoint his ridiculous point of "good players never let monsters get shot at" with an equally ridiculous "Good players never get charged if they don't want to" example. Both are so absurd and impossible that I thought it would be self evident, but it was lost on him.


Right I have done a little digging around and this is what I have found.
...

Hitting monsterous mount and rider is a bit OTT imho but there again the monster reaction table has also changed over time to favour the monster owning army.



Back on topic, this is the big one. Monsters generally don't hit first because big monsters are slow. Before, if a cannon wounded a monster I had, it could still get into combat and do a lot of damage if it got the charge off. With step up and initiative order attacking, each wound is a combat that the monster doesn't get to fight in because it's going to die that much sooner. This combined with the rider taking a cannonball or rock lobber hit every time the monster does as well is what I feel overpowers artillery.

I never really minded "character sniping" in units because like you pointed out, cannons could always do that.

The bearded one
12-01-2012, 00:24
Well I was trying to counterpoint his ridiculous point of "good players never let monsters get shot at" with an equally ridiculous "Good players never get charged if they don't want to" example. Both are so absurd and impossible that I thought it would be self evident, but it was lost on him.

I think the one about charging is a bit more absurd than the one about keeping monsters in cover. I once managed to shelter 3 monsters against 2 cannons with fairly little large cover around and all 3 took no wounds from cannons that game.

charging however, even staying 16" away with my templeguard couldn't prevent that bloody bullstar from charging me :shifty:
.. along with the magicphase being absolutely pathetic the one time a small spell would suffice.. :shifty:

sneakydust
12-01-2012, 04:58
How about this for an idea.. War machines should not be able to be used as snipers (which in their current for that is their most effective role). Cannons, catapults and bolt throwers in reality are effective against large blocks of infantry rather than single targets correct?? Because in formation their is little space for soldiers to avoid incoming cannon balls. I single guy in foot would have at least done chance of avoiding an incoming cannon ball or huge bolt, and catapults would struggle to hit a single target. Do I have always thought that single model units should be able to take some kind of dodge check to evade a war machines projectile as there would be adequate space to dodge out of the way (where in a unit formation the troops would lack this luxury). This check could be a 4+ to dodge and perhaps only be given if the model is facing the machine. Maybe for a rock thrower a "hit" is not allowed so always scatters (meaning there is still a chance the blast will hit. The exception of this rule would be single models with the "large target" rule, as these are either slow and lumbering or lack the monsters that lack the mental capacity to dodge incoming projectiles. What do you think of this rule to correct warmachines so that they are used as artillery rather then assassins/snipers?? lol

chaospantz
12-01-2012, 06:54
haven't read all the post but unless im mistaken all stone throwers and cannons are getting moved over to the rare section and stone throwers are getting a small template. Saw the move in ogre and O&G with the rock lobba and scrap launcher as well as the template change with the scrap. Empire should probably get their moartors and rocket launcher ready for a template change.

Spiney Norman
12-01-2012, 09:15
haven't read all the post but unless im mistaken all stone throwers and cannons are getting moved over to the rare section and stone throwers are getting a small template. Saw the move in ogre and O&G with the rock lobba and scrap launcher as well as the template change with the scrap. Empire should probably get their moartors and rocket launcher ready for a template change.

I'm not sure really, most stone throwers already used the small template, other than the scrap launcher I'm not sure I can recall any other weapon that has actually changed template size so it's probably a little premature to call it an edition trend. I think it's more likely the pts cost will go up instead.

The other problem if they move all empires artillery into the rare section is that the only real unit people will field from the special section will be great swords, I don't see pistoliers or outriders getting much use unless they get a lot better. Besides, isn't the core/special/rare sections in fantasy supposed to reflect how commonly available the different units are, rather than a bald instrument to restrict the elements people think are too powerful?

Tuttivillus
12-01-2012, 09:48
I'm not sure really, most stone throwers already used the small template, other than the scrap launcher I'm not sure I can recall any other weapon that has actually changed template size so it's probably a little premature to call it an edition trend. I think it's more likely the pts cost will go up instead.

The other problem if they move all empires artillery into the rare section is that the only real unit people will field from the special section will be great swords, I don't see pistoliers or outriders getting much use unless they get a lot better. Besides, isn't the core/special/rare sections in fantasy supposed to reflect how commonly available the different units are, rather than a bald instrument to restrict the elements people think are too powerful?

Exactly, same thing with dwarfs. It is possible though, due to the new crappy cathedral sized sets and monstrous things everywhere. It won't change a thing in my tactics. rare section will be enough to field 2 cannons, mortar and some extra stuff. About new small templates. I would go for it, but only with a proper price reduction and rule changes in hellstorm.:shifty:

Panzermike
12-01-2012, 09:49
As a Bretonnian player the trebuchet has become a life saver bigtime for us and has now become a regular feature in many a Bret list. They do get targeted but usually survive long enough to cause considerable damage and alarm. For our army in 8th it has become an integral part to us holding our own against many a foe.

Far2Casual
12-01-2012, 11:02
@chaospants :

The scrappie is maybe a bad comparison as it should have never been in the special section in the first place. I mean, it's a chariot made by Gnoblars on a Rhinox, how is that thing supposed to be "frequent" ? Thing is, in the old book, if you put the scrappie in the Rare section, you had 2 Specials and 5 Rares, which whould have been a bit odd. The new book is much better on that regard, with Maneaters and Gorgers in special and the Scrappie in rare.

The small template though, that was surprising.

WarmbloodedLizard
12-01-2012, 13:49
The small template though, that was surprising.

indeed, scrappies have sadly turned into nothing more than overpriced chariots. I'd have liked it much more if they kept the big template/cost and were more similar to the ironblaster (i.e. T6) OR if their cost was more appropriate (i.e. ~100). at their momentary points they should have a real stone thrower on their backs.

The Low King
12-01-2012, 14:01
You think a stone thrower that doubles as a chariot should be the same price as a stonethrower?



How about this for an idea.. War machines
should not be able to be used as snipers (which in their current for that is their most effective role). Cannons, catapults and bolt throwers in reality are effective against large blocks of infantry rather than single targets correct?? Because in formation their is little space for soldiers to avoid incoming cannon balls. I single guy in foot would have at least done chance of avoiding an incoming cannon ball or huge bolt, and catapults would struggle to hit a single target. Do I have always thought that single model units should be able to take some kind of dodge check to evade a war machines projectile as there would be adequate space to dodge out of the way (where in a unit formation the troops would lack this luxury). This check could be a 4+ to dodge and perhaps only be given if the model is facing the machine. Maybe for a rock thrower a "hit" is not allowed so always scatters (meaning there is still a chance the blast will hit. The exception of this rule would be single models with the "large target" rule, as these are either slow and lumbering or lack the monsters that lack the mental capacity to dodge incoming projectiles. What do you think of this rule to correct warmachines so that they are used as artillery rather then assassins/snipers?? lol

In other words the 4+ look out sire roll you get from being near a friendly unit?

Also, sniping character is by far the weakest roll of the cannon as its chances of killing are somewhere in the relm of <5%

WarmbloodedLizard
12-01-2012, 19:21
You think a stone thrower that doubles as a chariot should be the same price as a stonethrower?




1. a normal ST is worth around 90 points, the scrappie ST does not do more damage under the hole but has killing blow instead, which is probably worth around half of a normal ST, so ~45 points.
2. the chariot alone is probably worth around ~90 points.
3. chariots and stonethrower have almost no synergy.

thus, if you just combine the cost of the two, you pay ~135 points (which is ~ what they cost). you pay as much as you would for the two things separately, which really doesn't make much sense because of the lack of synergy: you would always prefer the two separately. (my ~100point estimate above may be a bit too low but not far off. the thing should probably cost ~115 points, ~145 if it still used the large template, and ~165 if it also had T6.)

(~ = +/- 5 points)

(Stegadons have a similar problem, although there it's worse, because you pay for an upgrade you will never use.)

The Low King
12-01-2012, 20:16
1. a normal ST is worth around 90 points, the scrappie ST does not do more damage under the hole but has killing blow instead, which is probably worth around half of a normal ST, so ~45 points.
2. the chariot alone is probably worth around ~90 points.
3. chariots and stonethrower have almost no synergy.

(Stegadons have a similar problem, although there it's worse, because you pay for an upgrade you will never use.)

why does taking away the centre hit half the points? i would think that loseing (an unreliable) method of killing monsters is about the same as gaining killing blow...especially when its main weakness is going to be armour...

Being a chariot seems great synergy...i shoot at the enemy for two turns and then when they reach 12" from my lines i charge the unit and et the bonus' of a chariot.

Also, can it move and fire?



I also just bought the latest White dwarf. Looking at the new VC multiwound stuff (and the TK and Ogre stuff for that matter, not sure about O&G) but i certainly cant see cannons being weakened. With cheaper monsters (Vargulf 175pts?) across the board, often with better protection or more damage, aswell as new units like those crazy warmachine things (coven throne/mortis engine) im going to need my runed up cannons. Doing the maths for the suggested points increase/accuracy decrease on my cannons vs flying regenerating monsters....that will cost as much as the cannon...it hurts.

I also cant see things like the organ gun being weakend (i couldnt before anyway, they are cannon grapeshot without the rolls to hit) with the S10 ogre grapeshot and all the new 'autohit' abilities.

The bearded one
12-01-2012, 23:34
(Vargulf 175pts?)

it costs 175pts in the 7th edition book. I am unsure wether that changed. It's a relatively well costed monster as it's quite strong in combat, but not spectacularly tough. He's pretty brutal though.

The Low King
13-01-2012, 00:28
I assume the costs in the White dwarf sample army lists are from the newest book...so still 175 points

pippin_nl
13-01-2012, 10:24
There would be a very elegant solution for the monstrous mounts and ridden chariots. Just give them the same rules as monstrous cavalry and beasts. Some might be too strong with this rule; pendant dreadlord on dragon, the arch lector on war altar and the grey seer on screaming bell. I bet you will see the reappearance of griffons and the like.

Tuttivillus
13-01-2012, 10:29
There would be a very elegant solution for the monstrous mounts and ridden chariots. Just give them the same rules as monstrous cavalry and beasts. Some might be too strong with this rule; pendant dreadlord on dragon, the arch lector on war altar and the grey seer on screaming bell. I bet you will see the reappearance of griffons and the like.

Yeah, seeing all those new monsters and their resistance, I tend to look at my dusted Griffon (:cries:) as a monstrous beast, not as a monster. I think that they should cost around 150 pts. like in the storm of magic, then I wouldn't have any problems to tool up my GotE on it in most games.

The Low King
13-01-2012, 14:17
There would be a very elegant solution for the monstrous mounts and ridden chariots. Just give them the same rules as monstrous cavalry and beasts. Some might be too strong with this rule; pendant dreadlord on dragon, the arch lector on war altar and the grey seer on screaming bell. I bet you will see the reappearance of griffons and the like.

Might be too powerful? anything involving Dragons etc would be way too powerful

Character on a dragon (one of the 6+ wounds one), talisman of preservation, dragonhelm, armour of some sorts and a magic weapon. Almost immunity to dwarf cannons and takes masses of firepower from empire cannons to make a scratch.

Get to combat and you have however many magic weapon enhanced attacks from the rider + a breath weapon, 5+ attacks and D6 thunderstomp from the dragon you cant attack.

When he gets attacked back it is against his weaponskill (so quite easily on 5s), with the riders 1+ armour save and 4+ ward and on the massive wounds of the mount........


Now, making a select few monsterous beasts (but keeping their costs reasonable because they get that advantage or removing thunderstomp from them) would be ok, but a universal addition would be insane.

Necromancer2
14-01-2012, 20:18
I'm going to take 3 cannons in the new Empire book!