v204 Release is here!

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • Bugman wrote:





    Core rules
    • Cannons: Have a rock-paper-scissors nature which offers little counterplay. Also small immersion problem of doing little vs ranked units. At the same time, we didn't want to rip the carpet out from under anyone, so decided to go for a pair of small changes.



    I've played a couple games with the new rules, and while I understand the reasoning behind this change, its very convoluted and inelegant.

    Cannons ignore cover and are good against Giant, but when they shoot at Giant they don't ignore cover.
    Just....what?

    A troll and a giant are in a forest, and another troll and a giant are outside next to it.
    You hit the troll out in the open on 5+
    You hit the troll in the forest on 5+ still...OK, cannons don't care
    You hit the giant in the open on 4+. OK, cannons are aimed at killing monsters
    You hit the giant in the forest on 5+. Wait, what? My bonus is gone...because of that thing I don't care about normally.
    Why is the smaller target unbothered about taking cover, but the big one is?

    I do implore you to clean this up before locking the rules in.
    Frankly, removing the +1 vs Giant bonus means the exception for cover can be removed as well. Considering that classification gets somewhat arbitrary related to model size (Altars are Large but monsters on smaller bases and usually shorter are Giant?) that seems a good solution.

    As for the RPS: there is little point of trying to make the cannon into a generalist piece.
    Firstly, all the armies which can take them have access to catapults if they want those instead.
    Secondly, that penetrating hit is a joke regardless of whether its S3 or S4. The cannonball losing momentum so much from S10 Ap6 d3+1 to a gentle fart is even more unimmersive than it just flat out stopping and going into the ground (or into its target) and not having penetrating hits at all.

    As a third side note, the volley gun firing mode is mathematically incredibly poor (2d6 shots at long range with a gunpowder profile hitting on 5+ vs a high profile cannonball hitting on 4+ - its often enough better to roll cannonballs at the thing that's within 12", nevermind the fact that other targets likely remain on the table). It doesn't hurt being there, but it can go the way of the dodo without really bothering anyone.

    What differentiates a cannon from a ballista functionally is mainly ignoring cover (the strength and MW profiles are represented in the cost difference). Currently differentiation (2) is bonus vs giant and (3) difference in penetrating hit quality. Point (2) is being highlighted as RPS and can go. Point (3) can be accenuated, as the pathetic penetrating from the cannons can just be removed.

    Basically, a cannon:

    Warmachine
    S10, d3+1 Clipped Wings wounds
    Ignore cover

    ^ that should be it. It does a thing. It does it well.
    It doesn't do 2 other nonsense fringe things. It doesn't have an exception that has its own exception.
    Hristo Nikolov
  • I think you are missing two points here

    1, immersion. No penetrating is unimmersive. Cannon balls are hard to stop!

    2, Lack of counterplay. It's boring to play against cannons because the options are so limited. Hide outside LoS or hope for bad rolls. New cover mechanic on cannons gives me as opponent to cannon more options for how to tackle them. Meaning more skills involved.
    - Head of Rules Team -
    - Assistant Head of Rules Clarity Team-
  • @fjugin Taking @Fnarrr example of the troll and giant in a forest, that is more immersion breaking than a cannon ball hitting a target and disentigrating! Or becoming stuck in the ground.

    Also on lack of counterplay, is someone going to risk their perhaps 600- 1k point character in cover as it now has a 16% less chance to hit?
    death is lighter than a feather, duty heavier than a mountain
  • @sparkytrypod just an FYI, I didn't call the Head of the RT to the thread to engage in open discussion as he is ridiculously busy and I don't want to impose on his limited time. But on this point,

    sparkytrypod wrote:

    Taking @Fnarrr example of the troll and giant in a forest, that is more immersion breaking than a cannon ball hitting a target and disentigrating! Or becoming stuck in the ground.
    I honestly don't know what is more immersion breaking because different people will interpret that term "immersion breaking" differently. But it is true, there is a tension at times between abstraction and realism and a balance needs to be found to make a game seem like is "makes sense" but also adds tactical depth (e.g., the problem identified as "Lack of counterplay").

    The real challenge is finding a solution that addresses both without increasing rules burden. But @DanT might have ideas.
  • Am at a conference, so only a brief response from me.

    I think the counterplay element is bigger than people are thinking.
    For a cannon at long range, the difference is between hitting on 4+ and hitting on 5+, which is the equivalent of a 5+ ward save.
    Just by moving your models differently and thinking about terrain.

    Regarding immersion, this is a real can of worms. It is something different to different people.
    So what I am about to say isn't intended to be robust or rigorous, just a perspective.

    Specifically about the cannons, I would flip it around and put it like this:
    Cover doesn't affect cannons, because
    Now, why would cannons get +1 to hit gigantic creatures? Presumably it is because of their size? And/or the fact that a cannonball (unlike most missiles) doesn't need to hit such a vital spot as perhaps an arrow.
    But, if a gigantic creature is partly shrouded, then the advantage that would normally be gained for targeting a gigantic creature no longer makes sense, so the bonus is lost.
    So I would say it does kinda work immersively, because it isn't a penalty for cover, it is just saying that the absolute ideal shot, i.e. a gigantic creature in the open, is not sufficiently ideal if the gigantic creature is in cover.
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Or, as Wasteland Warrior says, "Can't please any of the people any of the time!"

    Check out my new ID blog
    Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire
  • The fact that cover doesn't affect cannons is itself unimmersive. Cover is a penalty to hit, which means it's about how hard it is to aim at the target. It doesn't matter if magical cannonballs cut through trees and stone like hot butter, you still miss if where you put the cannonball is where the target isn't, and while the hypothetical magic cannonball cuts right through solid objects, the gunner's line of sight sure as heck doesn't.

    Once we're ignoring cover, any argument that starts with 'it's unimmersive' is on-face ridiculous.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • So presumably this argument should at least cover the difference between cover and concealment.

    There is a clear practical difference from a self defence point of view at least :P

    But how this translates to a battlefield is beyond my experience.
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Or, as Wasteland Warrior says, "Can't please any of the people any of the time!"

    Check out my new ID blog
    Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire
  • DanT wrote:

    So presumably this argument should at least cover the difference between cover and concealment.

    There is a clear practical difference from a self defence point of view at least :P

    But how this translates to a battlefield is beyond my experience.
    Cover in the game is obviously concealment, because it affects to-hit rolls.

    If it was about physically shielding you, you'd get a cover save. (Like at least older editions of 40k used to do - not sure about current).

    And ignoring the physical shielding affect of some cover by cannonballs is also pretty unimmersive. Which is why i referred to magical cannonballs above, because cannonballs do tend to bounce off objects they hit, especially if they don't hit dead on. (And certainly don't go right through them. Taking down castle walls with cannons wasn't an instantaneous process, but required full batteries of cannon hours to do so at a minimum, days for earlier cannon.)
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • So, as I said above

    Mr.owl wrote:

    there is a tension at times between abstraction and realism and a balance needs to be found to make a game seem like is "makes sense" but also adds tactical depth (e.g., the problem identified as "Lack of counterplay").

    The real challenge is finding a solution that addresses both without increasing rules burden.
    It sounds like cover versus concealment falls in this category. Maybe.
  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    Cover in the game is obviously concealment, because it affects to-hit rolls.
    I am not as sure as you are about this conclusion...

    I seem to remember discussions in old rulebooks about this being the distinction between hard cover and soft cover.
    But I think it is perhaps less clear cut now than in the days when a hedge was soft cover and a wall was hard cover.

    Regardless, the necessary abstractions of the game are part of what make the immersion arguments so murky...
    Ask not what the project can do for you, but what you can do for the project :)

    Don't forget that however convinced you are of your opinion on something in the project, or something it should/shouldn't do, there is someone out there holding on to the opposite belief just as strongly :D

    Or, as Wasteland Warrior says, "Can't please any of the people any of the time!"

    Check out my new ID blog
    Dan ventures into the lands of smoke and fire
  • Even modern high-velocity shells don't have the power to fire through a bunch of trees. Most of us very much overestimate the impact of a shell on any object, mainly due to good old action movies. Even with big guns, a human body just falls down like a bag, the corpse is not thrown backwards 10-feet away.
    This is just an ewample with a selected array of choice hand weapons:

    The same rule applies for cannons. The first tree explodes, the second breaks down, the third one stops the shell. Firing through a forest is just not possible, nor realistic.
    :HE: : If you want to conquer the world, you best have dragons. The sky itself would dream of dragons.
    :SE_bw: : Enter the woods if you think it's a game. In my forests, remember you are the game...
    :KoE: : Fair fasce
    :DH: : Dwarves have also the right to despise giants, 'cause giants too can be defeated.
  • Bugman wrote:

    So actually a 6 would always fail?

    I must admit that does make better sense all around.
    Yeah. I made rules for it and we had it in for a while, till one RT changed his mind and there where on longer a majority for it. My idea was to flip the roll to wound and armour save around. So first you made a penetrate roll, where you rolled to see if you could penetrate your enemies armour. Here you would use your str + AP vs armour, like now just just fliped around. So if my models AP value was 3 and my enemies armour was 5, I would need to roll 3+ to penetrate, was his armour 3 or less it would auto penetrate. It would also have made armour more intuitive, as a low armour score would mean no armour, while a high would mean more armour, so it would make sense to have something give +1 armour. As you would just add that to the models armour value. Also it makes sense immersive wise, that you penetrate armour before you wound a model. I then suggested to flip the wound roll around, till a resist roll. So then controlling player still had the last roll before a model died. So when a hit had penetrated a models armour, it would roll to see if it was tough enough to ignore it. So if a model with Res3 was his by a str 4 attack, it would need to roll 5+ to resist it for example.

    To me all this made more sense immersive-wise, unfortunately IMO, the majority of RT wanted here to change as little was possible to keep the community happy.
    ETC 2006 #2 (LM), ETC 2007 #4 (Brets), ETC 2008 #12 (LM), ETC 2009 #3 (DoC), ETC 2010 #1 (VC), ETC 2011 #2 (WoC & AR member), ETC 2012 #4 (Ogre & AR member), ETC 2013 #3 (Ogre, AR member & FAQ member), ETC 2014 #5 (Skaven & AR member), ETC 2015 #7 (DoC), ETC 2016 #4 (Coach), ETC 2017 #4 (Coach), ETC 2018 #5 (Media).

    "Fantasy Battles: The 9th Age Founding Member"
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    What would be the harm in letting cover affect cannons in general, but perhaps capping it at -1?
    The harm is that its starting to step on the Ballista's toes. The point of the cannon is that it ignores cover; it is (1) consistent (2) long-range pressure vs (3) single targets. Those are the three aspects that make a cannon what it is. Without (1), its a ballista. WIthout (3), its a catapult.

    DanT wrote:

    think the counterplay element is bigger than people are thinking.
    For a cannon at long range, the difference is between hitting on 4+ and hitting on 5+, which is the equivalent of a 5+ ward save.
    Just by moving your models differently and thinking about terrain.
    I am going to flip this back conceptually - not everything needs to have counterplay to that extent. Magic Missles for example don't roll to hit and don't care about cover. Volley fire on bows, also designed to ignore a bunch of things.

    DanT wrote:

    Specifically about the cannons, I would flip it around and put it like this:
    Cover doesn't affect cannons, because
    Now, why would cannons get +1 to hit gigantic creatures? Presumably it is because of their size? And/or the fact that a cannonball (unlike most missiles) doesn't need to hit such a vital spot as perhaps an arrow.
    But, if a gigantic creature is partly shrouded, then the advantage that would normally be gained for targeting a gigantic creature no longer makes sense, so the bonus is lost.
    So I would say it does kinda work immersively, because it isn't a penalty for cover, it is just saying that the absolute ideal shot, i.e. a gigantic creature in the open, is not sufficiently ideal if the gigantic creature is in cover.
    The problem with this is, that it just stops applying to Trolls or smaller creatures. And there is precedent in the general ruleset that bigger creatures generally benefit less from cover, as they don't claim it from certain types of terrain. It feels very inconsistent.

    fjugin wrote:

    I think you are missing two points here

    1, immersion. No penetrating is unimmersive. Cannon balls are hard to stop!

    2, Lack of counterplay. It's boring to play against cannons because the options are so limited. Hide outside LoS or hope for bad rolls. New cover mechanic on cannons gives me as opponent to cannon more options for how to tackle them. Meaning more skills involved.
    1. That's subjective. But also, S10 Ap6 MWd3+1 -> S4 Ap0. That doesn't reflect hard to stop at all.

    2. More skills involved only if your targets are giant, which is why its weird.

    You'll note my actual suggestion is to remove the +1 to hit vs Giant targets altogether.



    As I said, I can see why you guys have done what you have. But I don't think it achieves what you were going for, and its made a rules-mess in the process.
    Hristo Nikolov
  • AEnoriel wrote:

    The same rule applies for cannons. The first tree explodes, the second breaks down, the third one stops the shell. Firing through a forest is just not possible, nor realistic.
    F = MA
    Basic high school physics says otherwise.

    Modern bullets are measured in ounces(grams). A cannonball is measured in pounds(kg).
    That mass makes a huge difference when smashing through a forest.