WHFB - 9th Edition

[GreenGiant]

I would also love to see some changes to ASF and ASL. They seem way to max or min when talking about the initiative spectrum. What does an Elf get a better chance to hit my Vampire with a lower Weapon Skill?

On the Cannon thinking... My Other army is Dwarfs, and Cannons/ Grudge Throwers (Stone Throwers) are the only real way to combat the big (mostly flying) creatures. Reducing the effectiveness of the cannons would basically doom them against any army Taking a big monster. I will say however, Cannons are not an instant monster killer that people perceive them to be. I have fired 2 cannons at large targets entire games, either missing, failing to wound, or rolling a 1 for the number of wounds.

Having said that, I do not think the rider should be hit by a cannonball. It is stupid that both should be hit.

I would propose one of two scenarios to fix cannons.
1) Give Dwarfs a specific kind of "shot" that their cannons can use that fires via BS for example, but is just as effective, maybe at S7 or something. Then, nerf the other armies cannons to do a D6 to infantry and Monstrous infantry, and only D3 to Monsters and Large Targets.

or

2) Have Some sort of chart when a cannon hits a Large Target/Monster. Something like:

Whenever a cannon hits a Large Target, ignore the to Wound roll, and roll a D6 and consult this chart:
1-2: The Cannonball screams through the legs/arms of the beast, no damage is done. The ball continues behind the monster.
3-4: The Cannonball hits an extremity of the beast, causing D3 wounds and stopping the cannonball from traveling any farther
5: The Cannonball hits the beast squarely, the Monster suffers D3+2 wounds (or whatever)
6: The cannonball ricochets randomly and strike the rider, the rider suffers a Single S6 hit with armor piercing and causes multiple wounds D3.

 

[John Rainbow]

I think the whole way cannons are done needs revision. For instance, why does shooting through a forest impose a penalty to a bowman but not a cannon crew? Something like this needs to be accounted for in addition to some of the others you mention i.e. not hitting both rider and mount.

 

[GreenGiant]

I think the whole way cannons are done needs revision. For instance, why does shooting through a forest impose a penalty to a bowman but not a cannon crew? Something like this needs to be accounted for in addition to some of the others you mention i.e. not hitting both rider and mount.

Agreed, the problem is that it either too complex to make sense on a simplified war-game, or to simple and it doesn't make the real world thing. I supposed you could say that a cannonball that hits anything scenery that is not an obstacle, it only continues on say a 4+. Or just make it block the shot completely.

I have always liked the idea of individual weapons granting initiative bonuses.

Edit: Typo

 

[John Rainbow]

4+ idea is nice. I also like the idea of cannons getting sighted in somehow as would be more realistic i.e. first shot is terribad but they get better as they go on at the same range. Not sure how that could be implemented though.

 

[HERO]

4+ idea is nice. I also like the idea of cannons getting sighted in somehow as would be more realistic i.e. first shot is terribad but they get better as they go on at the same range. Not sure how that could be implemented though.

Yeah, something definitely needs to be done about laser cannons because right now, 10" from the back is hardly any demonstration of skill or chance. I don't think anything in the game has that kind of reliability, from magic, to stonethrowers, to BS shooting, or anything.

I thought about this long and hard, and it's very difficult to balance cannons that is..
1. Easy to understand
2. Have simple mechanics
3. Serves its intended purpose
4. Still preserves a degree of risk
5. Does more damage than a Bolt Thrower
6. Utilizes the artillery dice.

This is what I think it should do:
-You mark a spot where you want the cannon to go, just like it is now.
-You then throw both the scatter dice and the artillery dice, just like you would the Stonethrower. If it's a HIT!, the spot where you marked is exactly where it lands and then you continue to do the standard laser cannon like you do now. If you roll a scatter, you do 2d6 - the crew's BS just like it does in 40K. So if you roll a scatter and then a 7 on 2 dice, you do 7 minus 3 (say your crew is BS3) and you place the new spot 4" in the direction where you originally marked.
-Now, you roll the 2nd artillery dice and draw a straight line from the cannon to the new spot, to where the ball bounces to.
-Apply D6 damage like usual.

This is not overly complicated, already exists in one of GW's systems, resembles what we have now, incorporates crew's BS as a shooting factor, adds more deviation to the cannon so its no longer a laser, preserves its degree of risk, and maintains its purpose and high damage. Best of all, it does NOT conflict with any of the existing rules written for Warmachines in the army books, and actually gives meaning to RoAccuracy for the Dwarfs to be put on Cannons.

 

[Sanguinus]

Your proposed change is very much what I was thinking.

 

[GreenGiant]

Yes that would do wonders I think, maybe a little tuning... But that not what we are here for

 

[najo]

Solid fix hero!

 

[Banat]

Nice Hero. Yes it seems rather absurd that the crew's ballistic skill WOULDN'T be a major deciding factor.

 

[John Rainbow]

Nice work Hero. Its almost like you've got experience designing games... erv:

 

[GreenGiant]

Does anyone have any thoughts on how Mounts could possibly be incorporated with their riders, as seen with the Mortarchs in Nagash?

I would like it to be something like what they did with the Dwarf Lord on Shield Bearers. sooo...

This model may ride a Zombie Dragon for x points, a riding this dragon increases the character's toughness by +2, to a maximum of 6; and increases his wounds by +3. Give it its own attacks like a mount normally would and bam, done!

 

[Banat]

I really don't know how they will do it if they intend to do that for ALL mounts, or whether that was solely for special characters... Or maybe just Large Target Mounts, since Valten still has the option of being mounted in the standard way.

 

[Infernal Skull]

Not sure about Hero's cannon rules... I like the idea that you can no longer aim to bounce through a character in a regiment (scatter means you'll likely deviate even 1 inch off of him), and I like the BS reducing he scatter. What I have a problem with is that I think in practice it will make it very difficult to hit a monster with a cannonball:

Average scatter roll 7, minus average BS of 3 = 4 inches of scatter. Targeting the 100mm monster bases, if you deviate even 2 inches to either side, that's a miss. (I guess this applies to a 5-man wide regiment, too, since that's also 100mm.) And that's only aiming 1 inch in front of the target. The further in front you are, the less distance you need to be off center for the angle to no longer cross the base.

Someone more mathematically inclined than me can work out the percentages of missing based on a 360 degree scatter, but there's a strong chance of scattering to the side, and even if it scatters at an angle back away from the target, it is more likely to be a miss, whereas the same angle and distance toward the target might hit.

 

[GreenGiant]

Not sure about Hero's cannon rules... I like the idea that you can no longer aim to bounce through a character in a regiment (scatter means you'll likely deviate even 1 inch off of him), and I like the BS reducing he scatter. What I have a problem with is that I think in practice it will make it very difficult to hit a monster with a cannonball:

Average scatter roll 7, minus average BS of 3 = 4 inches of scatter. Targeting the 100mm monster bases, if you deviate even 2 inches to either side, that's a miss. (I guess this applies to a 5-man wide regiment, too, since that's also 100mm.) And that's only aiming 1 inch in front of the target. The further in front you are, the less distance you need to be off center for the angle to no longer cross the base.

Someone more mathematically inclined than me can work out the percentages of missing based on a 360 degree scatter, but there's a strong chance of scattering to the side, and even if it scatters at an angle back away from the target, it is more likely to be a miss, whereas the same angle and distance toward the target might hit.

Thats kinda what I was saying, its a great start to making it more dynamic and interesting (and based on the crew's skill). But it obviously needs to go through a process of testing and such. Its just a step in the correct direction, in my opinion.

 

[Knockroe]

As for Canons, GW wont change the rules for shooting etc.. and bring back a guessing or a scatter. The obvious answer is to reduce canons to D3 wounds and have an upgrade to increase it to D3+1. That way canons can still have a chance to take out characters in a unit and can cause slight paranoia in monsters with a definite min 2 shots to kill rather that the existing 1. That way none of the old measuring scatter rules need to resurrected just a simple nerf on canons power. Monsters and characters will feel safer to come out from hiding and dwarfs and empire will consider an extra canon in their list so as not to lose their defensive strength.
So from a financial side of things everyone now goes to the shop to BUY, BUY, BUY. At the least Dwarfs and Empire for their canons and everyone else for their Monsters and riders. The horned rat and the Nurgle tower, who knows what else might come. Even the WE that didn't like Durthu or a few more Glade guard and archers to get poison.

Ladies and gentlemen we are dealing with a company that has survived for 30 or so years. They have plans within plans. I believe this new plan is big in many senses. I foresee big Nagash type books and rules for most armies and the joining of all the elves, The chaos and un usually beastmen to Skaven or Slann. The arrival of big heroes on big Monsters and then the arrival of 9th edition to bind them all together.

Ok I live in a conspiracy theory world but what if this conspiracy benefits us in the long run.

 

[StavrosVonStrongheim]

Well, if I was a member of GW I would:

1. Fix steadfast, by allowing Disruption cancel it out too.
2. Fix Magic Innate Abilities: on a miscast, not just "stop being able to use for this round", but for D3 turns, as well as an extra (smaller) miscast table for thingies like the War Altar. I'm sick and tired of my Empire friend 6dicing banishment with no drawback...
3. Miscasts WITHOUT casting the spell if you get a score of total 3 on the dice roll (much like the auto fail feature).
4. Cannons as proposed (my ideas were not as good as those proposed by Hero though XD)
5. Balanced multiplayer scenarios and winds of magic depending on the game points: we can't only have 12 power dice in a 5k match

 

[HERO]

Someone more mathematically inclined than me can work out the percentages of missing based on a 360 degree scatter, but there's a strong chance of scattering to the side, and even if it scatters at an angle back away from the target, it is more likely to be a miss, whereas the same angle and distance toward the target might hit.

Math-wise, you have about a 33% higher chance to hit if you place it directly in front of the monster's base (given 100m and is facing direct towards the cannon), since the average deviation is 4" (using 4 different directions for mathing purposes). Don't forget that there's a Hit! factor as well, which accounts for 33% of all hits. The chance to hit a monster from 100mm base, while placing the desired shot with the proposal above, is just a little bit less than it is now, ~20% less accurate actually given most BS3 crews. But if you take say, a Master Engineer who would increase the BS of the crew, you suddenly increase that percentage by about 8% per BS. That is, if you place the desired shot directly in front of the monster's base, just clipping it, and then accounting for the second roll of the artillery which would carry the shot directly forwards or back. I only did rough calculations based off of 4 directions, but you get the picture by now.

Anyways, I think its a better system than what we have right now, but with this "fix", it would invariably..
1. Increase the use for high BS models crewing the WM.
2. Make smaller monster bases less vulnerable to cannons particularly, while keeping their threat from other WMs the same.
3. Make really large base models like the Terrorgheist a technically "bigger" target than the 100mm chariot bases for the cannon specifically, since it has less chances to miss. Compare this to right now, and larger base models are hit on the same percentage as smaller base models, which is absurd. So this fix would actually add realism to the cannon as well as its intended game fixes.

It's not perfect I would imagine, and it sure needs some game-testing to be sure, but I prefer this over what we have now definitely.

 

[najo]

Not sure about Hero's cannon rules... I like the idea that you can no longer aim to bounce through a character in a regiment (scatter means you'll likely deviate even 1 inch off of him), and I like the BS reducing he scatter. What I have a problem with is that I think in practice it will make it very difficult to hit a monster with a cannonball:

Average scatter roll 7, minus average BS of 3 = 4 inches of scatter. Targeting the 100mm monster bases, if you deviate even 2 inches to either side, that's a miss. (I guess this applies to a 5-man wide regiment, too, since that's also 100mm.) And that's only aiming 1 inch in front of the target. The further in front you are, the less distance you need to be off center for the angle to no longer cross the base.

Someone more mathematically inclined than me can work out the percentages of missing based on a 360 degree scatter, but there's a strong chance of scattering to the side, and even if it scatters at an angle back away from the target, it is more likely to be a miss, whereas the same angle and distance toward the target might hit.

I just had an idea for cannons. What about this:

1. Place initial impact point like you do now.
2. Roll to hit with crews' BS like normal shooting. Modifiers all apply.
3. If the BS roll hits, then roll the artillery dice and adjust impact as now, then roll bounce. Essentially a successful hit resolves like current laser guided rules.
4. If the BS roll misses, roll both the scatter and artillery dice and scatter the impact marker. If a hit is rolled then use the scatter arrow. Move the impact point as indicated by the artillery AND scatter. That is where the cannon ball lands. It then bounces with a second artillery dice roll as normal in a straight line from the cannon towards the impact point. Everything under that is hit as normal.

Thoughts?

 

[GreenGiant]

What about a new way of thinking about a crews ballistic skill?

When firing a cannon or stone thrower, choose a target point on the field that will be the initial position (same as now).

Next, roll a single D6, and add the crew's BS and consult the following chart.
5-6: The Shot fires as normal, however, the mixture of combustive components was not exact and the aim was slightly off. The shot carries on like normal, but is resolved at S6, with the armor piercing rule. The shot does not hit everyone under the line but penetrates exactly like a bolt thrower.
6-8: The Shot is primed and set correctly, however the aim was slightly off target. Roll a D6, on a 1-3, the shot deviates 2" to the left, on a 4-6 it deviates 2" to the right (both from the war machine's perspective. Now roll the extra range and bounce using the new initial position.
9+: The shot is perfectly aimed, roll as normal.

 

[John Rainbow]

I like all of these, my main issue though is that these make the whole process more complex. Can we come up with a suggestion that reduces the time taken to resolve the shot AND makes it more difficult to laser tag someone with it?

 

[Sanguinus]

So...40K's rule for blast/barrage weapons?

 

[GreenGiant]

As both a Dwarf and Vampire player, there are some unique perspectives to work out.

The major complaints I have about a cannon (as someone playing against them), feel free to let me know if I miss anything...
1) They hit both Monster and Rider automatically.
2) They are very powerful strength wise (is there anything else out there that is S10 so consistently)
3) They generate a significant number of wounds on targets they hit.

The Downsides that happen when using a cannon are
1) If either artillery dice ends up a misfire, the shot is almost certainly wasted (not always, depends on specific distances and rolls)
2) Can fail to wound (only a 2+ but it happens; my last game... I dont wanna talk about it )
3) Does not deliver a consistent number of wounds, D6 can kill a Giant, or not even kill a Goblin Hero. (no offense to Goblin Heroes, just a 'cheap' 2 wound model)

The problem is how do we take those two (granted incomplete) lists and make it so that each is fair? The big item I see is that it has both completely random, and also 100% chance systems built into it. Maybe a way where everything is random? Or more consistent rules, like its just a bolt thrower that starts at S10, but you continue for the entire length determined by the bounce roll instead of stopping at the end of the initial unit?

 

[HERO]

I think you're missing 1 crucial component, and the one that everyone cares about.

It's the fact that they are just SO freakin' accurate. Shooting the cannon is really as easy as shooting as drawing a straight line.

 

[GreenGiant]

Well, yes and no, I was trying to make it concise, by putting that into 'too accurate' point with the first #1.

The problem is that you only remember when it hits, because it is so devastating. It really has quite a good probability to miss. Let me do a little math...

Place the initial point at 7" away from my intended target (my standard starting distance). I have a 1/6 chance of the shot not doing anything this turn (or even more). Now I lets assume I roll a 2, 4, 6 ( a whole 50% chance), I still now have another 1/6 chance to no do anything.

Now lets assume I get through all of that, and I do get the hit I want. Now I have to roll a 2+, then roll a significant number of 1's.

Doing a little quick math, I have the 7" starting point at about a 50% chance of just hitting the intended Large Monster base. And 5" at about 56%. When you include wound, ward/regen, and number of wounds the chance of killing a large monster is... about 17% with any given shot, with about a 17% chance of misfiring.

It really is "too hit-or-miss" :tongue:

 

[HERO]

How are you doing your math? Are you factoring in 2 bounces? Why are you doing 7" away from the target? Ever heard that saying 10" from the back?