Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am reading it right that a double six dispel overides a double six cast - if so thats good

I quite like the magical duel element and that the dispeller can also suffer if they roll double 1

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

I hope artillery rolls to hit like everybody else.

Why archers roll to hit and stone thrower has to guess?

Why bolt throwers roll to hit and cannons use absurd artillery die?

I've liked everything so far, as I had designed it... but I'm wary about artillery...

SU-152 wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

I hope artillery rolls to hit like everybody else.

Why archers roll to hit and stone thrower has to guess?

Why bolt throwers roll to hit and cannons use absurd artillery die?

I've liked everything so far, as I had designed it... but I'm wary about artillery...

Because those tend to be a lot less predictable in general. Cannons have, at the best of times, always been more of a “general direction” sort of weapon with a non-negligible chance of blowing up. Various catapults and other projectile siege weapons have also been tools of broad-strikes destruction rather than precision damage.

Meanwhile, even an unskilled formation or bowmen is going to get half a dozen volleys - if not more - out in the time it takes a cannon / ballista / mangonel equivalent to reload and fire again.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I am reading it right that a double six dispel overides a double six cast - if so thats good

I quite like the magical duel element and that the dispeller can also suffer if they roll double 1

Did you miss this? I’m pretty sure a Perfect Invocation will not all a dispel roll.

Magic is still very much a duel between opposing wizards. It’s still perfectly possible to Miscast should you roll a double 1, or to achieve a Perfect Invocation on a double 6.

And then later in the article

A double 6 counts as an Unbinding, dispelling no matter the casting roll

 alextroy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I am reading it right that a double six dispel overides a double six cast - if so thats good

I quite like the magical duel element and that the dispeller can also suffer if they roll double 1

Did you miss this? I’m pretty sure a Perfect Invocation will not all a dispel roll.

Magic is still very much a duel between opposing wizards. It’s still perfectly possible to Miscast should you roll a double 1, or to achieve a Perfect Invocation on a double 6.

Not sure as it also says:

A double 6 counts as an Unbinding, dispelling no matter the casting roll,

Ninjaed!

 morganfreeman wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

I hope artillery rolls to hit like everybody else.

Why archers roll to hit and stone thrower has to guess?

Why bolt throwers roll to hit and cannons use absurd artillery die?

I've liked everything so far, as I had designed it... but I'm wary about artillery...

Because those tend to be a lot less predictable in general. Cannons have, at the best of times, always been more of a “general direction” sort of weapon with a non-negligible chance of blowing up. Various catapults and other projectile siege weapons have also been tools of broad-strikes destruction rather than precision damage.

Meanwhile, even an unskilled formation or bowmen is going to get half a dozen volleys - if not more - out in the time it takes a cannon / ballista / mangonel equivalent to reload and fire again.

And yet artillery was effective enough to make all those more predictable missiles obsolete, so it can't be that big an issue.

I get the point of the 'sabotage' dice - mechanically magic acts like another form of artillery, but it can be interfered with while mundane artillery can't be.

but the artillery equivalent is the misfire, which in these new rules is probably going to have a higher likelyhood of happening than a miscast.

- 1/36 chance of a miscast while misfires were a 1 in 6.

So although artillery can't be dispelled it now has a 6x times higher likelyhood of 'miscasting' than magic does, unless they're going to change misfires in some way.

Artillery also tends to be slow moving, vulnerable, unable to move and fire...etc

misfire =/= miscast, they shouldn't have the same effects. Most misfires (weapon dependant) were simply not firing for a turn or two and maybe blowing itself up. Miscasts have a higher chance of blowing up yourself and also those around you, but simply being dispelled is much more common (the equivelant of not firing for a turn). It'll probably work out evenly enough, while not being the same mechanic.

I'm stoked for the magic changes, I always despised the magic dice minigame. Absolutely hated it. Hated trying to guess how many dice I should toss at a spell or trying to tease out dispel dice and scrolls in a particular order. Both my armies for 6th ed are magic heavy and you have to dump so much into it that it either does absolutely nothing all game or one side swings hard and gets steamrolled.

I really like everything I'm seeing for ToW, I may force my buddies to switch assuming the armybooks are any good

Vorian wrote:And then later in the article

A double 6 counts as an Unbinding, dispelling no matter the casting roll

Mr Morden wrote:

 alextroy wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
I am reading it right that a double six dispel overides a double six cast - if so thats good

I quite like the magical duel element and that the dispeller can also suffer if they roll double 1

Did you miss this? I’m pretty sure a Perfect Invocation will not all a dispel roll.

Magic is still very much a duel between opposing wizards. It’s still perfectly possible to Miscast should you roll a double 1, or to achieve a Perfect Invocation on a double 6.

Not sure as it also says:

A double 6 counts as an Unbinding, dispelling no matter the casting roll,

No contradiction. A Double 6 on the Dispel roll dispels regardless of the casting roll, but if Perfect Invocation prevents a dispel roll (like Irresistible Force did in early editions of WFB) then you can't stop it with Unbinding

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

I hope they get rid of the misfire/chance to blow up. Why would you want a "balancing" factor of cataplut having a chance to blow up but not for bolt throwers or missile troops?

Skaven Jezzails had the special rule 'Reliable' - which meant they were almost safe and actually did have a chance to self-destruct in-game.

Also: Hellblaster Volley Guns.

 Hellebore wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

I hope artillery rolls to hit like everybody else.

Why archers roll to hit and stone thrower has to guess?

Why bolt throwers roll to hit and cannons use absurd artillery die?

I've liked everything so far, as I had designed it... but I'm wary about artillery...

Because those tend to be a lot less predictable in general. Cannons have, at the best of times, always been more of a “general direction” sort of weapon with a non-negligible chance of blowing up. Various catapults and other projectile siege weapons have also been tools of broad-strikes destruction rather than precision damage.

Meanwhile, even an unskilled formation or bowmen is going to get half a dozen volleys - if not more - out in the time it takes a cannon / ballista / mangonel equivalent to reload and fire again.

And yet artillery was effective enough to make all those more predictable missiles obsolete, so it can't be that big an issue.

Wat

Artillery (at least the variations of it which exist in the warhammer setting) did not invalidate infantry portable ranged weaponry. It had vastly different use cases and roles than formations of bowmen and variations there of.

I have literally no idea why you would think that. Even modern artillery, which is immense more effective by any metric, hasn’t invalidated portable ranged weaponry.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:

 morganfreeman wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

I hope artillery rolls to hit like everybody else.

Why archers roll to hit and stone thrower has to guess?

Why bolt throwers roll to hit and cannons use absurd artillery die?

I've liked everything so far, as I had designed it... but I'm wary about artillery...

Because those tend to be a lot less predictable in general. Cannons have, at the best of times, always been more of a “general direction” sort of weapon with a non-negligible chance of blowing up. Various catapults and other projectile siege weapons have also been tools of broad-strikes destruction rather than precision damage.

Meanwhile, even an unskilled formation or bowmen is going to get half a dozen volleys - if not more - out in the time it takes a cannon / ballista / mangonel equivalent to reload and fire again.

And yet artillery was effective enough to make all those more predictable missiles obsolete, so it can't be that big an issue.

Wat

Artillery (at least the variations of it which exist in the warhammer setting) did not invalidate infantry portable ranged weaponry. It had vastly different use cases and roles than formations of bowmen and variations there of.

I have literally no idea why you would think that. Even modern artillery, which is immense more effective by any metric, hasn’t invalidated portable ranged weaponry.

cannons were effectively used against infantry for hundreds of years. If they were as temperamentally crap as you say, then it would have been far better to deploy gunners/crossbowmen instead. That militaries continued to deploy cannons against the same targets they deployed bowmen at proves otherwise.

Your argument required that they never do that because the bows were inherently superior.

Spoken like a dwarf player


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay I’m drunk and trolling

 Hellebore wrote:

cannons were effectively used against infantry for hundreds of years. If they were as temperamentally crap as you say, then it would have been far better to deploy gunners/crossbowmen instead. That militaries continued to deploy cannons against the same targets they deployed bowmen at proves otherwise.

Your argument required that they never do that because the bows were inherently superior.

Ah I see. You're misrepresenting my statements and assigning me non-sensical positions so you can subsequently strawman me and completely disregard your own wildly inaccurate claims.

Gotcha. I'll take this from the top and be snappy.

I never said hand-held ballistics (such as bows) were superior to artillery; I pointed out that historical artillery lacked precision and said hand-held ballistics functioned differently. Specifically that cannons were a point in the general direction" (guess range, roll artillery die, ect) vs hand-held implements. Now this does change as rifling and other developments evolved cannons into field artillery, but that's another can of worms.

Artillery (in this case, cannons) did not invalidate man-portable ranged weaponry.

TLDR: Cannons are historically dangerous to infantry in the same way that they are in fantasy and are also vulnerable in the same ways. They're also historically prone to breaking or blowing up due to improper use, weather conditions, wear and tear from age / use, and less controllable factors such as casting or powder quality. Not nearly at the rate we see on the table top, but balance and thematics are a thing. Technically two things.

The point: This is pointless as my original comment had nothing to do with historical superiority. I was chiming in about why ranged weapons such as bows would roll to hit, vs stone-throwers guessing range and cannons rolling the artillery die.

We (seem to) literally agree on this: Sabotage mechanics are silly and unneeded when canons have a whopping 1/6 chance of going wrong when magic has a 3%. All you're doing is being a piece of gak who's arguing for the sake of it.

I hope Helblasters will be be improved. In 8th edition an equal points in Handgunners outperformed them.

Do we expect artillery dice to come back? I would prefer cannons roll to hit with 1's being a misfire.

 Kalamadea wrote:


I'm stoked for the magic changes, I always despised the magic dice minigame. Absolutely hated it. Hated trying to guess how many dice I should toss at a spell or trying to tease out dispel dice and scrolls in a particular order. Both my armies for 6th ed are magic heavy and you have to dump so much into it that it either does absolutely nothing all game or one side swings hard and gets steamrolled.

"Guess"? WFB was a numbers based strategy game, you didn't "guess" how many dice you needed, you calculated. Calculated and then compared probabilities with priorities as befits a wargame.

I know that basic resource management mechanism isn't exactly the state-of-the-art solution when it comes to designing player driven mechanisms, but replacing all that decision space with a flat dice roll is just so sad.

The system could have been tweaked (shoud have, rather!) or replaced by something else that encouraged interaction (slowly deteriorating enemy magic defense that you mention, for example) and player agency but instead we get another instance of removing players from the equation and putting "uga-buga-random" where their decisions used to be.

The resource management of dice pools etc hasn’t been replaced by a flat dice roll, it’s been replaced by decisions of positioning. Yes that’s really different from 4th to 8th but that doesn’t make it sad or bad.

I agree, binding countermagic to positioning is a good choice. Still, doesn't make the magic itself more intellectually engaging.

Didn't 2nd Ed give each wizard a magic points pool that once they'd spent that was it, with different spells using more or less points up? A little surprised they didn't go with that, it would seem a good compromise to retain the resource magement.

It seemed implied in the article that spell generation is radom, which I guessi sn't surprising, but it's an aspect of magic I've never liked, and find it damages the vermilsitude.

SU-152 wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

I hope artillery rolls to hit like everybody else.

Why archers roll to hit and stone thrower has to guess?

Why bolt throwers roll to hit and cannons use absurd artillery die?

I've liked everything so far, as I had designed it... but I'm wary about artillery...

Well "guess".

But I'm sure you are fine with entire shot going away if you fail your 4+ to hit? So no scattering only little and hitting enemies anyway,

Same for cannon. You either hit 1 model or entire ball vanishes.

tneva82 wrote:

SU-152 wrote:

 Sotahullu wrote:
Well there has been no mention of artillery rules, so far.

Hopefully dwarfs haven't lobbied too much!

I hope artillery rolls to hit like everybody else.

Why archers roll to hit and stone thrower has to guess?

Why bolt throwers roll to hit and cannons use absurd artillery die?

I've liked everything so far, as I had designed it... but I'm wary about artillery...

Well "guess".

But I'm sure you are fine with entire shot going away if you fail your 4+ to hit? So no scattering only little and hitting enemies anyway,

Same for cannon. You either hit 1 model or entire ball vanishes.

Same for archers.

Same for Bolt-throwers.

Why guess with artillery and not bows, crossbows, handguns etc?

Time it takes to adjust your aim, not to mention reload.

Your foe is on the move, so your range is constantly shifting. With handheld ranged weapons, that’s a matter of adjusting the angle your weapon is aimed at, and going for the broad general direction as your part of a wider volley.

Artillery? Left a bit…right a smidge. Up…no not that far….then shoot. It’s simply more involved, so you need to make a wider guess as to exactly where the enemy is going to be, using maths and angles and that.

 Baragash wrote:
Didn't 2nd Ed give each wizard a magic points pool that once they'd spent that was it, with different spells using more or less points up? A little surprised they didn't go with that, it would seem a good compromise to retain the resource magement.

It seemed implied in the article that spell generation is radom, which I guessi sn't surprising, but it's an aspect of magic I've never liked, and find it damages the vermilsitude.

Random spell gen is IMO a bad thing.

IIRc early edition had a pool of magic points to spend but once you got low I think you had to roll under the remaining points to cast it- or was that just WFRP??

Late editions did have way too much - hey look i cast this - I win - especially combined with total power which is why I hope that a double 6 dispel defeats a double 6 cast

I know for a good while GW messed with having powers and spells in sets of 6 in their games. The idea being that you "could" roll on a D6 for your powers for the game; or just flat out choose them.

IT was optional but as I recall most people just chose the spell they wanted like any pregame equipment.

Because some spells just work with certain kinds of army and some don't and some spells are so situational or just not really that good compared to others.


The whole "I cast this I win" is a hallmark of modern GW rules design and a symptom of their escalating lethality in games. Basically they solve most problems by making something perform better.

so long as we don't go back to 8th edition laser guided cannon balls that hit unless they managed to misfire when aiming at monsters, and at a stroke invalidated monsters entirely

leopard wrote:
so long as we don't go back to 8th edition laser guided cannon balls that hit unless they managed to misfire when aiming at monsters, and at a stroke invalidated monsters entirely

Yeah that is also bad! I'd be fine with the laser guided part, so long as they hit softer.
Sometimes I feel that a lot of issues like this would be solved if GW had different armour types within the game. So a cannonball could do "more" damage to a unit of infantry with light to medium armour; but not as much to something like a monster with ultra-armour. Meanwhile your spearmen can have a bonus against ultra armour models reflecting that they jab at the weak points in the thicker armour etc...

Ergo it lets you have something really powerful against X without then being super powerful against everything else.

A cannonball doesnt really care about the kind of armour you wear. If it doesn't just go right through the poor guy the momentum alone would probably crush him (if it had already moved through a bunch of other poor guys before him to "slow" it down).

Same with a monster. If it hit an arm or leg it should most likely be pulverized (if not then nothing else on the battlefield should be able to harm it either) no matter the size. Problem is more in that some of the artillery did d6 wounds and wounded on a 2+ so they had great odds of one shotting the monster if it hit.

Maybe a flat 3 Damage or d3 minimum 2 damage so if you get hit it it hurts but if you wound a larger monster it is assumed you didn't get a head shot but rather hit an arm or leg and severely wounded it but not outright killed it. The stuff with 3W or less should probably still be killed outright if hit even without hitting chest or head due to the force behind it unless they have regeneration or some ward save.

Another option would be a number of attacks based on number of targets. So 1 monster takes only 1 hit; but a unit of 20 infantry could take more.

There's certainly a few ways to adjust how they can work to build in some sense of variation between targets



Also I'd argue that there are monsters in AoS that would shrug off a cannonball; or things like a zombie dragon where it just flies right through and the dragon is "oh hey - another hole - like that's going to stop me!"

think the cannon issue is solved by having the thing roll to hit as any other ranged attack, then on a one roll 2d6 on a problem chart, with maybe 5-9 being "just a miss" or something

then allow the cannonball to hit the first rank, model dead? roll for the next rank and repeat with maybe -1S per rank or just keep going

problem with monsters was the size of the base meant the cannonball basically would never miss, the strength meant it would usually wound and then it did enough to outright kill the monster

the outright kill bit is probably fine, for a larger cannon, as is largely negating armour, the issue was the accuracy