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.

While cannon accuracy has been an issue, I'd argue it's not the only one. I don't think the points cost of a monster reflects getting killed in a single shot before it ever contributes to the game, nor that the cost of a cannon is so high or its ideal targets so narrow that it becomes useless after taking out a monster. Compare this to Bolt Action where you can get an AT-cannon that is basically guaranteed to wreck anything it hits, but is costed very highly and quickly loses worthwhile targets. It's more of a choice you make with a plan in mind. As Empire or Dwarfs, there's precious little incentive not to throw some artillery in your army list because the points cost doesn't make it much of a commitment.

In my opinion the variance is just too great, just like with 8th ed nuke spells. The Old World would do well to put a cap on that somehow. Make cannons a worthwhile, contributing factor to bringing monsters down, but prevent one-shotting. It might even go that way considering combat doesn't result in wiped out units as easily anymore and there's a clear intent to curb lethality. Hopefully that gets seen through across the board.

Much simpler: give lone models a “spot the ball” dodge save. Ranked dudes obviously can’t do that but a guy on his own/with a mount? Sure. Maybe a 4+, -1 if mounted.

Edit: also, if we assume that all monstrous mounts work like the bretonninan unicorn, then your general’s Griffon or whatever is going to have the same ward save as its rider; no more punching the beastie out from under the boss.

Good luck with that, given how fast cannonballs move!

I’ve never found Cannons utterly deadly to my Monsters and Chariots. And I do favour my Monsters and Chariots.

Sure, it can squish my Dragon in a single shot. Except, even with being able to measure the range and choose exactly you want it to land? You still need to roll the first artillery die. Even if you avoid a Misfire (1 in 6), you risk rolling a 2 or a 4, and have to factor that in. Then the bounce - and it’s only once you’re rolling for the bounce that it starts doing damage. There you’ve again a 1 in 6 chance of it just stopping dead, or not travelling far enough to hit me, which is of course related to the initial overshoot roll.


And my Dragon (Dark Elf Black Dragon) doesn’t have a massive base, making it surprisingly tricky to hit.

Even if those two rolls are favourable? You’ve got to wound me first (2+, so admittedly likely) and then nobble me for all my wounds (6. My Dragon had six wounds).

Oh, and you first need to make sure you hit the Dragon and not the bloke riding it. Who unless you were insane had at some kind of Ward Save. Because riding a Dragon into battle tends to be a magnet for Horrible Things Trying To Murderise You.

In short? There’s far more to go wrong when trying to blat a high value target with a Cannon than folks seem to be appreciating.

And my Dragon (Dark Elf Black Dragon) doesn’t have a massive base, making it surprisingly tricky to hit.

Didnt*

Who knows in this brave new world?!

I don’t think I ever encountered anyone that didn’t put a cannon ball between the eyes of a dragon even with the randomness.

And with the points cost they often got an extra try or two.
The issue really is that even some of the big monsters couldn’t shrug off a cannon shot often enough.

I think they need to be a bit more thoughtful with things like wounds for the mot part, your potential 400+ model shouldn’t be one shot, but a few unlucky cannon balls should do it.

I also think big monsters like dragons should be on big bases, but have the wounds to take at least an equivalent to the elite units of their size.

Oh it was a risk, sure. But, shouldn’t everything face some kind of fairly reliable counter?

Facing a Dragon without Magic or Artillery was a very, very rough game. It wasn’t just good at killing stuff, but super resilient to attack, fast and manoeuvrable.

Depending on how fast your army could cross the board? I could be flank charging your units with my Dragon and Manticore from turn two. If you didn’t move at all, reliably turn three.

To complain that such powerful playing pieces faced risks of their own seems unjust to me. Artillery existing meant I couldn’t have it all my own way. And I had to box clever and accept the overall risk of concentrating so many points in them.

Sure, your artillery could always see those units (downside of being a Large Target, and indeed the main one), but if I could interpose some terrain between us? I could block your shot all the same.

Frankly, anyone lining up their Monsters and/or Chariots in a Conga Line of Intended Carnage doesn’t get to complain when a single Cannon Ball has a terrific shot and guts your army, no? Because that’s your own bloody stupid fault. Not the rules.

That’s kinda the problem, the risk/reward was a lot of monsters were useless against any opponent that had even the bare minimum understanding of the game.

Forests I think was about the only thing keeping them alive realistically.
As it was hard to hide them behind rocks or buildings against a smart opponent.

Better terrain rules probably a huge deal in balancing it out I suspect.

We already know they are reducing the damage potential of war machines. Screaming skull catapult used to do D6 wounds. Now it does D3+1.

1-6 damage range in 6th/7th/8th edition, 2-4 damage range in Old world. Or 3.5 vs 3 average damage.

Didn't is correct, almost certainly. Older edition dragons were on a 50x50, but the plastic DE Black Dragon came on a chariot base, just like the plastic HE dragon. With base sizes being explicitly stated in the unit entries, I'm sure that'll be standardized to 50x100 (or 60x120, if they change chariot bases)

Either way, if you're playing somebody that can accurately guess ranges then premeasuring doesn't change a whole lot for cannons, you're still left hoping for a misfire or bad bounce anyways.

WorldEdgePlayer wrote:
We already know they are reducing the damage potential of war machines. Screaming skull catapult used to do D6 wounds. Now it does D3+1.

1-6 damage range in 6th/7th/8th edition, 2-4 damage range in Old world. Or 3.5 vs 3 average damage.

I do wish we got the cannon as I think it’s better base for discussion, sorta a standard to work with.

leopard wrote:
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

Just what a Warhammer game needs: more unnecessary random rolls. Bonus points as you'd have us roll a random roll to randomly determine the next random rolls.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In short? There’s far more to go wrong when trying to blat a high value target with a Cannon than folks seem to be appreciating.

I think the issue is more the "all or nothing" nature of it.
To a degree this has often applied in GW games. But having a situation where a cannon (or two/three) will just one-shot a dragon in some games - and do exactly nothing in others - is a bit... unsatisfying for either side respectively.

I don't know how you fix that really. You can "nerf" cannons, rock lobbers, whatever if you just don't like them - but there has to be some sort of probability that works.

Or things like Dragons have to be much more vulnerable to chip damage (i.e. they get meaningfully weaker as they lose wounds - and they will usually lose some to cannons but its not all or nothing). But I've really not liked the tables in AoS or 40k to try and simulate that and I'm not another solution would be.

Hence my idea to have some kind of armour or save value that is dynamic based on the damage source. That allows a dragon to survive a cannonball to the chest, but take harm; whilst still allowing pikemen to take down the dragon.

It does add complexity to the game, but handled right it should be fairly simple to put into practice once people get used to the approach.


It lets you have artillery that are threatening to large infantry blocks; but not so powerful that they remove the viability of elite units; monsters and larger creatures.





Another idea that struck me is dynamic aiming. Against a Dragon or single/small unit its very inaccurate; whilst against a 10-20 man unit it becomes more accurate. Of course that approach is kind of still in that "all or nothing" but it would mean that you'd at least have some viability against one target type and not another.

You might need a stat modifier for armies like Ogors; eg "1 ogor = 2 regular infantry for the purposes of artillery shots." Just to prevent elite armies like that dominating the game and having an unfair advantage.

Tyel wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
In short? There’s far more to go wrong when trying to blat a high value target with a Cannon than folks seem to be appreciating.

I think the issue is more the "all or nothing" nature of it.
To a degree this has often applied in GW games. But having a situation where a cannon (or two/three) will just one-shot a dragon in some games - and do exactly nothing in others - is a bit... unsatisfying for either side respectively.

I don't know how you fix that really. You can "nerf" cannons, rock lobbers, whatever if you just don't like them - but there has to be some sort of probability that works.

Or things like Dragons have to be much more vulnerable to chip damage (i.e. they get meaningfully weaker as they lose wounds - and they will usually lose some to cannons but its not all or nothing). But I've really not liked the tables in AoS or 40k to try and simulate that and I'm not another solution would be.

The problem I think is single cannon value, if a dragon could always take a single shot. Needing a second then the the balance is a bit less of an issue.
Considering a dragon alone in combat was often very vulnerable, and you wanted to flank with them anyway to get their investment back.

A simple BS roll to hit single targets would be fine, make them more like a super bolt thrower when used to snipe dragons and chariots, but still roll the artillery dice to see if it misfires to offset the "super" part of super bolt thrower. Most shots will still need 3+ to hit (BS3 crew, large target), 4+ at long range. A 1/6 misfire chance makes it slightly less reliable than a bolt thrower but at a stronger hit if successful.

If they’re changing the cannon damage like they’re changing the stone throwers as someone pointed out up thread that’ll help.

2-4 damage rather than 1-6 means you’re no longer one shotting monsters, but have a pretty consistent 2-3 hits to kill.

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

What if we were to go back to reload for all Gunpowder weapons, but kept the accuracy from 8th?

I’m just not gonna agree.

Large Target with Fly tend to (maybe exlcusively) come underneath a turbo nutter with useful Magic Items.

They’re a significant points sink. Yet, used well? Can punch above their weight.

And it really doesn’t take much practice to figure out how to make best horrific murderdeathkill out of them.

Why shouldn’t I have to factor in my opponent having a Death Switch for them?

Especially when you consider all of two armies has such a Death Switch. Specifically Empire and Ogres. Oh and Dwarfs I think, though there’s something niggling at my mind that Dwarf Cannon had a base D3 wounds.


Why should the rules not provide me with some level of risk?

And I’m pretty sure my nous with monsters and chariots will kick your head in 9 times out of 10, because I got my head round the existential threats and figured out ways round them.

You put your Big Bad. Front and and centre? You don’t get to moan if my potential Off Switch is pressed. Because the fault is entirely your own.

Depending on edition, anybody could take a Dogs of War cannon. In 6th, regular cannons were 48" D3 wounds, great cannons were 60" D6 wounds. I think Dwarves only had regular cannons, but they also have Engineers and runes that can be added to make them more effective.

And even without Dogs of War, those 2 "couple armies" are pretty much the only 2 I ever fight against, so neither my HE dragon nor my undead dragon ever really see the table.

Bringing it back to ToW, I hope dragons also simply add toughness/wounds/attacks to the base hero's profile just like the unicorn previewed. Needing a separate foot-model in case the mount gets shot out from underneath you stinks.

Still not a fault in the rules.

Galloper Guns were indeed D3 wounds. If memory serves.

 Kalamadea wrote:
Depending on edition, anybody could take a Dogs of War cannon. In 6th, regular cannons were 48" D3 wounds, great cannons were 60" D6 wounds. I think Dwarves only had regular cannons, but they also have Engineers and runes that can be added to make them more effective.

And even without Dogs of War, those 2 "couple armies" are pretty much the only 2 I ever fight against, so neither my HE dragon nor my undead dragon ever really see the table.

Bringing it back to ToW, I hope dragons also simply add toughness/wounds/attacks to the base hero's profile just like the unicorn previewed. Needing a separate foot-model in case the mount gets shot out from underneath you stinks.

The Dogs of War cannon was the smaller of the two types, so only D3 wounds. Only Empire got Great Cannons.

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 Kalamadea wrote:
Depending on edition, anybody could take a Dogs of War cannon. In 6th, regular cannons were 48" D3 wounds, great cannons were 60" D6 wounds. I think Dwarves only had regular cannons, but they also have Engineers and runes that can be added to make them more effective.

And even without Dogs of War, those 2 "couple armies" are pretty much the only 2 I ever fight against, so neither my HE dragon nor my undead dragon ever really see the table.

Bringing it back to ToW, I hope dragons also simply add toughness/wounds/attacks to the base hero's profile just like the unicorn previewed. Needing a separate foot-model in case the mount gets shot out from underneath you stinks.

The Dogs of War cannon was the smaller of the two types, so only D3 wounds. Only Empire got Great Cannons.

The big problem that produced was that the Empire Great Cannons were a Special Choice, where as the Dogs of War was a Rare choice. The Empire one was better, D6 wounds, and a greater range... and is only a special choice.

Given that I have pretty large armies for both Empire and Dark Elves, I've been on both sides of this debate. Frankly, the Mad Doc is right.

The Empire was, in my view, the baseline for the whole system. They had the most dead-average troops in the game. And outside of cannons, the only things in the army that could wound a dragon on a 4+ were characters with great weapons, Inner Circle Knights on a charge, and a bloody tank. Cannons were equalizers. And bear in mind that even IF you manage to actually wound the dragon (far from guaranteed) you only have a 1/6 chance to kill it outright.

Make the most of it, because anyone with a dragon probably has a number of fast and/or shooty elements in their list - your artillery will be short-lived. My Dark Elves had Dwarves conceding as early as Top of 2 because I was already eating their war machine crews.

I agree that cannons have very high impact potential, but it's just that: potential. Just like everything else in the game.

 stonehorse wrote:

Lord Zarkov wrote:

 Kalamadea wrote:
Depending on edition, anybody could take a Dogs of War cannon. In 6th, regular cannons were 48" D3 wounds, great cannons were 60" D6 wounds. I think Dwarves only had regular cannons, but they also have Engineers and runes that can be added to make them more effective.

And even without Dogs of War, those 2 "couple armies" are pretty much the only 2 I ever fight against, so neither my HE dragon nor my undead dragon ever really see the table.

Bringing it back to ToW, I hope dragons also simply add toughness/wounds/attacks to the base hero's profile just like the unicorn previewed. Needing a separate foot-model in case the mount gets shot out from underneath you stinks.

The Dogs of War cannon was the smaller of the two types, so only D3 wounds. Only Empire got Great Cannons.

The big problem that produced was that the Empire Great Cannons were a Special Choice, where as the Dogs of War was a Rare choice. The Empire one was better, D6 wounds, and a greater range... and is only a special choice.

True, but wasn't the rest of the Empire army (supposedly) balanced around that? Fighting for Special slots against Pistoliers or Greatswords or mortars, I don't remember seeing many Empire armies with more than 2 cannons in 6th or early 7th (can't speak for 8th), but I almost always saw at least one cannon and a Hellblaster Volleygun

I've thought about trying a DoW cannon in my VC army, but would need to give up a banshee for it. That's a really tough call and I feel like it should be a tough call. Hopefully the ToW lists have a lot of those tough choices, they make for more interesting armies and as much as I'm really liking all the base system previews, the armylists are going to make or break the game

trouble is cannons were not "equalizers", they were a near auto kill on any monster, and thus auto cripple on any army that needed them.

the only adjustment needed really was a normal roll to hit, and perhaps monsters having enough wounds they can take one hit, and be left with maybe a single wound.

cannons could have been an equalizer if more factions had access to them, I know my O&G got fed up with Empire lists created with the aim of a photocopier game after game

there was literally no downside to bringing cannons, steam tanks etc

Introduce Battlemasters' approach to the Imperial cannon - a card deck turning over one at a time to see how far it bounces before it stops.

 Shakalooloo wrote:
Introduce Battlemasters' approach to the Imperial cannon - a card deck turning over one at a time to see how far it bounces before it stops.

Have an exalt for bringing up Battle Masters.

Solution: give dragons a seventh wound.

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

Laser-guided cannonballs that could shoot between the legs of a soldier without hitting the soldier, to boot!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

leopard wrote:
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

Just what a Warhammer game needs: more unnecessary random rolls. Bonus points as you'd have us roll a random roll to randomly determine the next random rolls.

But you're hard out due to random charge ranges. What do you care?

 Vulcan wrote:

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

Laser-guided cannonballs that could shoot between the legs of a soldier without hitting the soldier, to boot!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

leopard wrote:
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

Just what a Warhammer game needs: more unnecessary random rolls. Bonus points as you'd have us roll a random roll to randomly determine the next random rolls.

But you're hard out due to random charge ranges. What do you care?

Crap ideas are crap ideas whether I play the system or not. And is that seriously the best trolling you can do?

Sigh that’s not a productive attitude for this discussion and asking why you care is valid since you’ve stated you’re out.

Wonder if they will do a preview article just on artillery?