|
Post by DiscoQing on Oct 16, 2018 23:08:54 GMT
Yes, but still better than not having any blocking terrain at all.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Oct 17, 2018 13:39:17 GMT
When it comes to cannons... I can't recall the kills, per say. They've certainly killed my stuff dozens of times over. What I recall is the VERY sketchy calls for (1) line of sight, (2) guessing of distance, and (3) phantom/quantum geometry. That’s what bugs me and gives be “Bad Feels”.
Not an issue of "Ahhhh. Good tactics" or "Great rolls, budday" --An issue of playing rules in a way in which I don't think they were intended; kind of WAAC --An issue of playing rules in a way in which seems very out of touch for the physics and presumed reality of the Fantasy World in which we all live.
When I play this here game, I want a day filled with "Ahhhh. You got me there. Good tactics" or "Ermegerd. Great rolls. That's a lot of 6's" The chicanery involved with Ogre Ironblaster and Empire Steam Tank don't give me those deep down good feels.
That all said, I would not vote YES to take cannons out of Warhammer.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Oct 17, 2018 14:20:40 GMT
I suspect that may be down to the difference between how you think the rules should work and how they actually work. 1) Issues with line of sight are usually due to how LoS is defined in the 8th edition: it is a general problem, not one limited to cannon. Problems can easily be resolved by using a laserpointer. And do not forget: cannon require LoS to the target point, i.e. the point x-inches in front of where you want the bounce to begin. The target of the cannon is NOT the unit(s) it wants to hit. 2) Not sure where guessing distances comes into play. Everything can be measured beforehand. 3) I agree that the quantum cannonball is somewhat counter-intuitive. Nevertheless, it is according to the rules.
Personally, the only change I would deem necessary is the randomisation of the hit between rider and mount in the case of a Ridden Monster.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Oct 17, 2018 14:26:09 GMT
2) Not sure where guessing distances comes into play. Everything can be measured beforehand. I still call it guessing. One might easily say "determine" in place of guess. I take umbrage with the folks that say "10 inches from the back corner" According to the rules, you don't guess distance relative to and from a random point in space... One should guess (determine) the range from the tip of the muzzle of the cannon. I challenge players to say "20.5 inches" As opposed to "10 inches from the back corner"
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Oct 17, 2018 14:30:52 GMT
Problems can easily be resolved by using a laserpointer. True. But...Did the engineers guild in Altdorf have laser pointers? Or was the Imperial Laser Pointer invented in Nuln? A laser pointer truly is a good tool to implement the rules (RAW). But I gotta say, when an opponent (especially at a tournament) pulls out a laser pointer, I get that feeling of "HERE WE GO". It doesn't feel right, to me at least, but it certainly does help execute a ruling to the most exacting letter of the law. #RulesLawyer #ButAGoodRulesLawyer "He's one of the good ones, folks"
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Oct 17, 2018 14:33:54 GMT
But that would not change anything, because "You can always check the distance before you declare an action, such as charging or shooting" (BRB p.6). So, they could just measure first where the 10 inches from the back corner is and then say "X inches." The result would be exactly the same.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Oct 17, 2018 14:40:59 GMT
Regarding LoS & laser pointers: true enough, but, as I pointed out, is a direct result of the LoS rules of the 8th edition.
BRB p. 8: Line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy — they must be able to see their foe through, under or over the battlefield terrain, and other models (friendly or enemy).
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace an unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the body (i.e. the head, torso, arms or legs) of the target. [Italics mine]
I do not like this rule either, but it is what it is.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Oct 17, 2018 14:45:01 GMT
But that would not change anything, because "You can always check the distance before you declare an action, such as charging or shooting" (BRB p.6). So, they could just measure first where the 10 inches from the back corner is and then say "X inches." The result would be exactly the same. Mildly disagree. I am responding to "Gamesmanship" with " Gamesmanship" of my own. They're shooting a 100mm long x 50mm wide Cygor. Or something similar. They want to take advantage of a rule such that if they say "10 inches from the back corner"... And then they roll a 4, and then a 2... Quantum math says they hit the front tip. IRL with a tape measure on the actual battlefield measurement = 20.5" + 4" + 2" might be 1/8" short. If they want to talk funny geometry and fractions of an inch, I am willing and able to do so as well. What can I say? I don't like the theoretical shortcuts. I believe in actual on-board measurements to determine a hit or miss.
|
|
|
Post by wilsonthenarc on Oct 17, 2018 14:49:28 GMT
Regarding LoS & laser pointers: true enough, but, as I pointed out, is a direct result of the LoS rules of the 8th edition. BRB p. 8: Line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy — they must be able to see their foe through, under or over the battlefield terrain, and other models (friendly or enemy). For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace an unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the body (i.e. the head, torso, arms or legs) of the target. [Italics mine] I do not like this rule either, but it is what it is. I agree with this rule more than the average bear. My beef is this: (with, say, the Ironblaster) ----- 1). An Ogres player may draw one theoretical line from eyeballs for LoS and then, they may, if they choose2). Draw another [ DIFFERENT] theoretical line to represent the path of the cannonball That second theoretical line originates in weird places. --True, the cannon shot wouldn't start at the models actual eyeballs... I think the path of the cannonball line must originate at the muzzle of the cannon on the miniature. i.e. typically front center of the base. Not the back side corner. The games people play with this....
|
|
|
Post by knoffles on Oct 17, 2018 15:30:55 GMT
When it comes to cannons... I can't recall the kills, per say. They've certainly killed my stuff dozens of times over. What I recall is the VERY sketchy calls for (1) line of sight, (2) guessing of distance, and (3) phantom/quantum geometry. That’s what bugs me and gives be “Bad Feels”. Not an issue of "Ahhhh. Good tactics" or "Great rolls, budday" --An issue of playing rules in a way in which I don't think they were intended; kind of WAAC--An issue of playing rules in a way in which seems very out of touch for the physics and presumed reality of the Fantasy World in which we all live. When I play this here game, I want a day filled with "Ahhhh. You got me there. Good tactics" or "Ermegerd. Great rolls. That's a lot of 6's" The chicanery involved with Ogre Ironblaster and Empire Steam Tank don't give me those deep down good feels. That all said, I would not vote YES to take cannons out of Warhammer. I think the WAAC comment sums it up (or call it gamey play if you prefer). Some players will always push things to the limit of what ‘normal’ players find acceptable. I personally really like the KOW rules on sight to the 8th true LOS. It’s not perfect but it makes things simpler (like most of their rules). I also don’t mind 10” from the back as long as players remember they are aiming for the front of that 10”. It’s probably only done that way as it’s easier maths (it has an ‘s’ if your British).
|
|
|
Post by midnightfox0083 on Oct 17, 2018 17:40:43 GMT
See, I've always seen people target X" from the front of the target, not seen this '10" from the back'.
|
|
|
Post by FvonSigmaringen on Oct 17, 2018 19:00:10 GMT
I think the path of the cannonball line must originate at the muzzle of the cannon on the miniature. i.e. typically front center of the base. Not the back side corner. The games people play with this.... Which is, in fact, the correct way to play it. As the Cannon of the Sky-titans is fired "in the same way as a normal cannon" LoS is taken from the muzzle.
|
|
|
Post by vulcan on Oct 17, 2018 22:20:19 GMT
I mainly just don't like tanks - which the Ironblaster and other chariot-borne cannons are - in a fantasy setting. I can deal with cannons, but tanks break verisimilitude... AND are far too efficient for their points.
|
|
|
Post by midnightfox0083 on Oct 17, 2018 22:55:57 GMT
They break the versimilitude of a high fantasy, steampunk tech level world that literally used to exist 38,000 years in the future and still had 40K tech showing up in 6th edition?
|
|
beef
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by beef on Oct 17, 2018 23:30:14 GMT
I am the opponent that DiscoQing was speaking of. The back story of our conversation was that we were playing our first game of 8th in quite some time. We had been previously been playing the 9th age rules but found the last few updates and general direction the game is taking to be less fun so are in the process of switching back. Moving from a game where cannons rarely even hit their target, to one where they can one shot monsters was an eye opener to say the least. I had forgotten that cannons had driven most monsters out of the game before I stopped playing and with good reason. The point I was trying to make was that I have no problem being good at hitting big monsters just the amount of damage they can inflict consistently ruins monsters and the points cost for such is not comparable. Even if they do not kill the monster outright it can often not really risk fighting anything but the weakest of troops due its few remaining wounds. It was just a conversation about a reduction to the overall damage they can do and some it was just floating ideas. I will continue to play 8th with no amendments I just won't be taking monsters as they are not good enough on the whole.
|
|