|
Post by strutsagget on May 1, 2021 10:19:29 GMT
That is just not possible as if you move back the cannon player just aim at the house(wall or roof), and then overshot from that point instead. This is very legal and one point why the cannon rules are just broken. Also when moving back, very soon you monster gets visible. And second with placing the monster like this you also remove your own chance of charging as you don’t see through the building. In many cases you don’t just see one cannon, you face two. And often you place them aiming like a cross. Covering the full board. I believe the rules state you aim at a point on the ground, not a roof or building. To address other points, Cannons should have a reasonable chance of killing monsters, otherwise what is there purpose? The person who brings 3 cannons.. he better hope the enemy brings something big otherwise he could have used those points FAR more effectively. If you do have a monster and the enemy has cannons, I don't think it is unreasonable to have to shield the monster for a turn or 2? Be careful with your movement otherwise, if you can't be bothered, take your chances, or take infantry where you don't have to deal with the fear. No here you are just wrong. Point just need to be in line of sight. “Nominate a point within the war machine’s line of sight and that is not outside the cannon’s maximum range. Your target does not have to be an enemy model; it can be a point on the ground if you wish.” Excerpt From WARHAMMER RULEBOOK Second part is exactly my main point. I have no problem winning and have never complained about that. The problem is we all leave those nice models on the shelf and I believe the game would be better if more models were playable, more alternative is good. Also as I have named 3 cannon rules are just bad for the game and I believe it would better without it. 1. That you need to see what you are actually want to hit. And no quantum cannonballs. 2. Randomize between monster and rider. 3. No perfect aiming a straight line. This of course needs to decrease the cost of the WM. Monster are also there to combat big hordes, by limiting numbers of monster played we let hordes be too good. This would give the horde haters more tools to combat what they don’t like. I am just saying more options is good for the game.
|
|
|
Post by Horace on May 1, 2021 12:14:55 GMT
So you nominate a model or a point on the ground
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on May 1, 2021 13:52:17 GMT
strutsagget is correct: the second sentence gives an example, not a limitation. This is confirmed by the French version: "Ce point n'est pas forcément une figurine ennemie, il peut s'agir de n'importe quel point du champ de bataille"(this point is not necessarily an enemy model, it can be any point on the battlefield." But as I said before, IMO randomising between rider/mount and no quantum cannonballs should be enough: the rest is up to tactics like KevinC compiled.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on May 1, 2021 16:40:59 GMT
As always, one should check the Update Version first. It turns out that the French Version was amended in line with the English version, ( i.e. any point on the ground), indicating that the second sentence is to be read restrictively, after all, like Horace did. LdR Mise à Jour Officielle version 1.8, p.3: Page 112 – Canons, Choisir une Cible, 1er paragraphe Dans la deuxième phrase, remplacez « (…) il peut s’agir de n’importe quel point du champ de bataille. » par « (…) il peut s’agir de n’importe quel point sur le sol. »
|
|
|
Post by strutsagget on May 2, 2021 7:03:33 GMT
As always, one should check the Update Version first. It turns out that the French Version was amended in line with the English version, ( i.e. any point on the ground), indicating that the second sentence is to be read restrictively, after all, like Horace did. LdR Mise à Jour Officielle version 1.8, p.3: Page 112 – Canons, Choisir une Cible, 1er paragraphe Dans la deuxième phrase, remplacez « (…) il peut s’agir de n’importe quel point du champ de bataille. » par « (…) il peut s’agir de n’importe quel point sur le sol. » You kind of ignored the “if you wish” part. I don’t find those words restrictive at all but English is not my main language. But I do like that limitation, either a model or a point in the ground so I will enforce it
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on May 2, 2021 21:59:22 GMT
The sentence in the English version can be read as just an example, or a limitation. I agree that the phrase "if you wish" tends to support the the first interpretation, and it was supported by the original French version - that is why I initially said you were correct. However, if it is to be read as just an example, there was no need at all to amend the French version, which specifically reduces the target point from any point on the battlefield (provided LoS and within range) to a point on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on May 2, 2021 22:09:08 GMT
To add: there are quite a number of inane and contradictory FAQ - errata or amendments not so much.
|
|
|
Post by timbotheking on May 18, 2021 2:03:19 GMT
Hello everyone, First off I'd like to say amazing write up with some truly useful tips! Secondly I had 2 quick questions about cannons: Am I correct in assuming cannons are not template weapons and they are just treated like a template for the bounce which exempts them from the rule that requires a template to be centered on a model?
Also, is there a size or a marker that should be placed to give an actual placing for the cannons shot? Because if I place a shot at the back of a 50x50 base and it rolls a 2 and a 6 then am I not exactly 2 inches forward from the initial mark and therefore off the base of the target?
Thanks in advance!
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on May 18, 2021 7:56:55 GMT
- Cannon are template weapons, and there is no general requirement that a template must be centered on a model.
- Because of the overshoot, the (nominated) target of a cannon is hardly ever the thing you actually want to hit (the intended target): the target you nominate is a point X inch in front of the intended target - usually 10" measured from the back of the intended target, as this is statistically the best option. The rules specifically state you should place a marker on that point.
BRB p. 9: "When an attack uses a template, it will explain how the template is positioned, including any kind of scatter that might occur."
BRB p. 93: "The only exceptions to this are shooting attacks that do not use the normal shooting rules, specifically shooting attacks that use some form of template (such as cannons, stone throwers, breath weapons and so on)."
BRB p. 113: "The bounce of the cannonball is treated exactly like a special kind of template, which we assume to be about the width of the cannonball itself."
BRB p. 112: "When you have chosen your target, place a small coin or counter in the correct position as a reminder of where the shot is intended to land."
|
|
|
Post by timbotheking on May 18, 2021 21:59:53 GMT
Ahh my mistake, I was confusing it with the stone throwers rule that the center hole must be placed over a single model if firing at a unit. Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by Luigino on Dec 15, 2022 21:28:10 GMT
I understand this is a very old thread but I feel like there's an aspect of cannons that always gets overlooked in 8th edition.
And that is the game is meant to be anything other than a pitched battle most of the times. I mean in 2 out of 6 scenario your artillery might nor be placed where you want (or not deployed at all!) and in the one where in theory cannons have the most advantage (Battle for the Pass) will often be a tightly packed space with little visibility.
|
|
|
Post by wundapantz on Dec 22, 2022 20:05:37 GMT
I love the article
One thing I couldn't see mentioned are the spells that also change the cannon game (not just the ones that could destroy it).
Lore of light has both pha's protection and net of amyntok which effectively shuts down 1 cannon on a 4+, as does the heaven's signature Iceshard Blizzard.
Both the net and the blizzard have 48 inch range options.
The Skaven have the storm banner that effectively does the same but can't be dispelled 😬
High magic, lore of vampires, lore of the wild and the Big Waaagh have movement spells to help propel your big gribble out of harm's way or move something to block line of sight. Lore of vampires can summon units in to block LoS Acquiescence of slaanesh makes the cannon move randomly and not shoot (traditional cannons only) Ogres have braingobbler that can cause the crew to panic (not that it's likely result on most cannon crews due to ItP or high leadership)
Edit: fixed the autocorrect errors
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Dec 25, 2022 19:07:17 GMT
I love the article One thing I couldn't see mentioned are the spells that also change the cannon game (not just the ones that could destroy it). Lore of light has both pha's protection and net of amyntok which effectively shuts down 1 cannon on a 4+, as does the heaven's signature Iceshard Blizzard. Both the net and the blizzard have 48 inch range options. The Skaven have the storm banner that effectively does the same but can't be dispelled 😬 High magic, lore of vampires, lore of the wild and the Big Waaagh have movement spells to help propel your big gribble out of harm's way or move something to block line of sight. Lore of vampires can summon units in to block LoS Acquiescence of slaanesh makes the cannon move randomly and not shoot (traditional cannons only) Ogres have braingobbler that can cause the crew to panic (not that it's likely result on most cannon crews due to ItP or high leadership) Edit: fixed the autocorrect errors -----------You are right! I actually didn't think of spells and there are many good options in there...
|
|
karnus
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by karnus on Jun 22, 2023 17:57:07 GMT
Why do Vampires love necks? Because they are neck-romancers! Apologies if there are rules for reviving old threads but I had to say:
Fantastic analysis, as a Lizardmen player who comes up against lots of shooty armies, it was a fantastic read.
I’d like to weigh in late with another cannonball catcher - Razordon/Salamanders.
They use the rules for monsters and handlers so my understanding is when they receive a shooting attack, the wound is randomised between monster and handler. Now it is my belief that if a cannon shot wound is randomised and hits a handler, the handler dies and as the monstrous beast did not die, the shot goes no further because as per the rules for monstrous beasts/infantry etc… the shot is robbed of its momentum and stops, going no further.
Is that correct?
|
|
|
Post by KevinC on Jun 23, 2023 14:59:48 GMT
Funny joke about the vampires, haha.
In my view, your are absolutely correct...the cannon ball must slay the Razordon/Salamander or else the cannonball comes to a halt.
|
|