Specialist Arms Forum
Battlefleet Gothic => [BFG] Experimental Rules Feedback => Topic started by: RayB HA on October 15, 2009, 10:44:59 AM
-
Right,
Mucking about with some IN reminded me how much I dislike the Nova Cannon rules, and template weapons in general. How about the following 'simple' rules for Nova Cannons:
0-30cm: May not fire.
30-60cm: 2 D6 damage take the lowest. If a double is rolled no damage is caused.
60cm-150cm 3 D6 damage take the lowest. If a double or triple is rolled no damage is caused.
If on Lock-on you may re-roll all the dice. Second result stands even if worse.
There is no roll to hit or scatter and no template. It's just random amounts of damage being more powerful at close range. 0 damage on a double represents a complete miss.
The total ammount of damage caused is reduced to 5 and then 4 if over 60cm. I do not see this as a problem.
The psychological effect of the weapon being massively unpredictable is reduced. I also do not see this as a problem.
I'm tempted to reduce the minimum range to 10cm, as 30cm is colossal. However it is a nice game mechanic at 30cm.
Cheers,
RayB
-
I'd better illustrate the probable damage for those who can't envision the unholy damage that NC can bring.
2 d6 take the lowest:
miss: 3/18
1 damage: 5/18
2 damage: 4/18
3 damage: 3/18
4 damage: 2/18
5 damage: 1/18
So on average you'll cause about 2 points of damage.
3 d6 take the lowest: (My maths is wrong here, it's roughly right but a correction would be greatly appreciated)
miss: 93/216 (96/216?)
1 damage: 60/216 10 123,124,125,126,134,135,136,145,146,156,
2 damage: 36/216 6 234,235,236,245,246,256
3 damage: 18/216 3 345,346,356
4 damage: 6/216 1 456
on average you'll cause about 1 point of damage.
Hopefully that made a little sense...
Cheers,
RayB
-
With an average damage of 1 or 2 the NC will be something useless against all ships with proper shields. The "take lowest" doesn´t even let me think about BFI if there is NC fire, wich is one of the best "damage" the NC can cause on carriers to win/keep ordnance superiority.
It is not only the damage but more the threat of damage that makes a NC such a usefull weapon in my opinion. The experimental rules reduce this threat more than the damage.
-
trynerror,
Those are only averages, you can still score 4 or 5 points of damage.
In comparison the Scatter rules confer a 5+ hit with a D6 damage so an average of 1.166.. with the scatter adding 1.277..(2.44..) against large bases within 45cm or 1 (2.166..) against small bases. At over 45cm the scatter adds very little, about 0.26 for a small base and when over 60cm its completely neglagible.
My rules give you less damage on average, excluding the 45cm-60cm band. However you are far more likely to hit the enemy. But as you and I have said this dramatically reduces the fear factor in favour damage reliance.
I'm fine with this as I'm personally not keen on winning because of a lucky shot (or losing for that matter).
My rules represent far less scatter and a smaller (size not strength) explosion (moon sized is too big IMO). The variance in the damage should be considered the scatter. Also large based ships no longer have to unrealistically fear NC's more than smaller ships.
Cheers,
RayB
-
To me the threat of enough damage that I have to take action against is much less than with official rules. Combined with the wide spread house rule of 1 NC per 500/750 points it´s worse. The capped damage of 4/5 is nothing to a Battleship with full shields sitting behind the fleet out of reach for anything besides a NC.
I only play IN to show new players the game mechanics, so as a player who more likely faces IN your proposal is quite tempting, but in my opinion it makes the NC less worthy for the "psychological" effect. For this effect not the average damage is interesting but the chance to inflict serious damage. With the HR a NC looses the chance to cripple a standart cruiser in one go without BFI, wich has a chance of 5,6 % of all NC shots, only counting not shifting hits) with the official rules. To take ths chance away does´t seem fair to me.
-
If it doesn't bypass the shields, then nah, don't like it. What's the point of hitting the target but not doing any damage?
The unpredictability is part of what makes it fun for me. By taking that away, I lose something in tactics as well since my opponent won't be afraid to just ram the ships down my throat. 2 points of damage isn't really much. NC just needs a few tweaks and then put a cap on the number available in a list to prevent spamming.
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
2 points is the same as 4 lances! That seems like quite a lot for a prow weapon! Also with you only causing 0 damage on a double you will almost certainly cause 1 point of damage.
But let’s get back to the aspect you guys like about the current rules: complete uncertainty.
Unlike most other weapons there is no likely average for the amount of damage caused. For example if I shoot with 6 lances I'll most likely get 3 hits as 'six' dice are rolled, but as only 1 dice is rolled (excluding the scatter) causing 1 damage has the same probability as causing 6.
I hate this, unless it’s the first turn (as there is usually no penalty) I wouldn't BFI unless there was more than one NC. Being taken out (crippled) by that lucky shot is infuriating; it won't make me BFI though it's just my opponent being really lucky.
From a game designers point of view putting so much reliance on luck rather than tactics to shape a battle is quite distasteful.
My rules limit the fear factor but don't remove it all together. But consider not having a limit on the number of NC's... This would give a legitimate to BFI, instead of betting against your opponent luck!
Cheers,
RayB
-
Ray,
the problem with the current rules isn't the uncertainty. It is the fact you rules commitee increased the scatter dice from 2d6 to 3d6 at long range. It was a real surprise in the latest rulebook since I never seen you or Bob talking about it. The previous FAQ version was better in that aspect.
Though I think the rules by Admiral d'Artagnan in Warp Rift nail them pretty good.
The uncertainty aspect is good in the fact it is a psychological weapon. And a good Imperial weapon against carrier fleets, an enemy they otherwise have difficulties with. Even an Imperial fleet with Emperor + Mars + Dictator (in 1500pts) is overwhelmed in the ordnance phase by 5 Protectors, 2 Emissaries and 8 Castellans.
-
Ray, against what are you doing your two points of damage? Remember that there are shields involved here. So assuming I understand your math correctly, the NC won't do squat against ships with 4 shields. Against ships with 2 shields or less, yes, you do get 2 points of damage on average. But if you really wanted to go that way, then might as well make the rules similar to other direct fire weapons instead of that funky rolling 2 dice and take the lowest rule. Heck just roll 1D6 and any roll which goes over the shields would mean taking point of damage. For re-rolls, you roll 2D6 and take the higher roll (which should be the normal mechanic, not take the lowest). You still wouldn't prevent spamming unless you put a cap on it. However, Eldar still neuter this weapon and Necron would die from it or would be spending most of the game in BFI (unless again, you put a cap on it). Necron tombship on BFI every turn, every game. I figure the Necron player wouldn't like that.
But it wouldn't have the same artillery feel to it. It becomes very predictable. Ah you're shooting your NC against this ship? Ok BFI then. Takes the fun out of it for the IN player, really.
-
The artillery feel... (over shooting/undershooting?) well 2 damage is not the maximum, 5 is! You can still smack a cruiser about. The artillery feel should come from the extreme long range and the fact the damage varies (the scatter effect).
Against ships with 4 shields (BB's), the normal rules from NC's aren't that much of a threat! Only numerous NC's are, same as with my rules...
Necrons are shieldless weird, let them BFI, same as with the current rules.
The whole point of the 'funky' damage variance is to represent the scatter.
Spamming NC's is still unsettling, but at least you can BFI with an informed decision.
Cheers,
RayB
-
Loss of template to damage multiple targets or remove ordnance and reduction of damage potential makes these rules worthless to me. With this the weapon ceases to be worth 20 point and loses much of the psychological effect. It also seems to reduce the effectiveness of the shell hit at range because of the higher probability of lower damage with 3d6 when there seems to be no basis for the shell to reduce effectiveness at range. Reroll is also too unpredictable to be useful for LO orders.
2d6 scatter across the board with the existing rules or ignore shields with yours and shift LO to reroll the lowest scoring dice would help.
IIRC with the current rules you should roll at least a 4 or better 50% of the time which makes it much more threatening.
-
Vaaish,
Ordnance: That's a pretty good point! I haven't included any rules to kill ordnance. How about the amount of hits caused is the number markers removed from the wave.
Scatter: The variance of the damage represents the proximity of the target to the epicentre of the explosion. This is massively different to the random scattering of the NC template.
Templates: Due to the scale of BFG a template for an explosion is ridiculous! (similiar to the suggestion for ALL torpedo salvoes being 2 wide)
Lock-on: The current rules offer no bonus, being able to re-roll bad damage dice is pretty decent, isn't it?
IIRC with the current rules you should roll at least a 4 or better 50% of the time which makes it much more threatening.
What do you mean? The average damage of normal NC's is a little over 2.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
The artillery feel... (over shooting/undershooting?) well 2 damage is not the maximum, 5 is! You can still smack a cruiser about. The artillery feel should come from the extreme long range and the fact the damage varies (the scatter effect).
How can it be 5? You roll 6 against a cruiser with 2 shields and you'd get 4 max. Now with your rules, I can never roll the 6. Why? Bec it's at max and I can't get anything higher than 5 for the second roll bec if I rolled doubles, I wouldn't get damage in. Those are your rules right? So that means 5-2= 3 for a cruiser. How can that smack them about? I cannot rely on getting 5s on 2D6.
Against ships with 4 shields (BB's), the normal rules from NC's aren't that much of a threat! Only numerous NC's are, same as with my rules...
But with your rules, I get only 1 point of damage in in the best of rolls. With the NC, there's a chance I can plink it for 2.
Necrons are shieldless weird, let them BFI, same as with the current rules.
Again, not fun for the Necron player.
The whole point of the 'funky' damage variance is to represent the scatter.
There are better ways to represent the scatter. The original rules for example.
Spamming NC's is still unsettling, but at least you can BFI with an informed decision.
Cheers,
RayB
But I don't want my opponent to BFI with an informed decision. THAT's the POINT. You're taking that away from the IN player.
-
Ordnance: That's a pretty good point! I haven't included any rules to kill ordnance. How about the amount of hits caused is the number markers removed from the wave.
Could be workable, though again it seems pretty measly to me with rolling a 6 on any other weapon take out the entire wave.
Scatter: The variance of the damage represents the proximity of the target to the epicentre of the explosion. This is massively different to the random scattering of the NC template.
I think I see where you are coming from however I don't think this holds up with your following supposition regarding the templates and scale.
Templates: Due to the scale of BFG a template for an explosion is ridiculous! (similiar to the suggestion for ALL torpedo salvoes being 2 wide)
Well... this logic runs into flaws since the catastrophic damage table shouldn't be capable of damaging ships in even greater radii given the scales of BFG either. If you keep those, I think you can keep the NC template. Besides it's a unique mechanic in an otherwise vanilla fleet. (I do like the idea for torpedo salvos being 2 wide though it might deteriorate the IN's denial capability for the sake of uniform counters)
Lock-on: The current rules offer no bonus, being able to re-roll bad damage dice is pretty decent, isn't it?
Yes, but LO is supposed to show improvement to your shooting, e.g. reroll misses. With this you reroll all of them and are forced to accept the result. If the ship is under LO you should keep the highest die and reroll the others so you at least have better odds of doing more hits than your first rolls to show the improved accuracy of LO. Of course I disagree with the entire proposition of taking the lowest rolls.
What do you mean? The average damage of normal NC's is a little over 2.
I'm just taking into account the average hits scored if the center hole remains over the target base. You will roll a 4 or better approximately 50% of the time which gives you at least 4 hits or two points of hull damage.
-
LO is about hitting at all, only misses are rerolled. Following this you should only be allowed to reroll when rolling a double (missing) because otherwise you already hit the target.
This doesn´t change my opinion about the house rule, I think we keep the old one (the best was the 1d6/2d6 scatter version though).
-
I'm not a massive fan of the scatter rules at all in any incarnation. Nova cannon fire extremely high speed projectiles rather than parabolic artillery. If something is in front of the ship firing it will get hit.
At most the shot will be miss-fused and explode too early or too late.
However I think the nova cannon is also too reliable. They fire massive shells along gravitic rails half the length of the ship but can somehow fire every turn.
So, what about this:
Nova Cannon
Minimum range: 20cm
Maximum range: 150cm
When firing the nova cannon place the template within range and arc and take a leadership test. On a success the shot hits the intended location. On a failure the shot has either exploded early or late. 1-3 early; 4-6 late. Move the template 2D6cm past its target point or back along its target point (along the same line it was fired) and work out damage from there.
If the central hole covers a ship's base (friend or foe) that ship suffers D6 hits that ignore shields. If a ship's base is touched by the template they take D3 hits.
The number of hits scored is modified by the following:
40-60cm: -1
60-100cm: -2
100-150cm: -3
To a minimum of 1 hit.
Ordnance: Nova Cannons count as ordnance for reload purposes. You cannot fire a nova cannon again until you reload it.
Hellebore
-
Nope, too complicated for me. The old rules are still the simplest. Your rules make the NC scary good. Ld check? Heck I'd buy the Ld9 or 10 Admiral and stick him onto my NC ship. I would need only one or 2 NCs at best. Then your rules take up so many rolls assuming the shot misses plus have to figure out a few stuff.
1. Put Template on target.
2. First make an Ld check.
3. If it fails, you check if it fired early and then fired late.
4. Then you have to roll 2D6 to get the distance.
5. Afterwards, you have to subtract the hit depending on the distance from which the ship fired.
6. Then you finally check to see how much damage you make by deducting the shields.
Compare that to
1. Put template.
2. Roll scatter dice and distance dice.
3. Roll damage if on target or center base on hole or 1 point if template on hole.
4. Check for damage on target.
I'd go with the original rules. I think they're fine. They just need some tweaks to make it better but not crazy good. I don't want to toot my own horn but as Horizon has pointed out, I already made house rules based off the original rules and I'd like to think I made it better and yet not overpowered while not allowing the NC to be spammed by putting a cap on how many are available in a fleet list. It's in one of the Warp Rift magazines.
Now with respect to the Reload Ordnance, I don't mind that but that would mean IN now do not have any prow weaponry which does not need an RO check. Every ship is now conflicted. If I don't re-roll it means I can't fire it. Mars wouldn't have a problem since its a carrier but the gunships? This means I can't Lock On on my gunships like the Dominator, Lunar and Apocalypse.
Regarding the fluff for the scatter, you have to realize that ship combat isn't stationary. Ships do move. A player turn roughly is 30 minutes of combat. That means ships moving at high speeds have moved from the initial point of reference. So the NC ship fires. Even an angle off can man that by the time the NC round reached the target, which is thousands of kilometers away, it might have either deviated at launch or particles in space might have caused it to deviate. So it's plausible that it could scatter.
-
Reload is a trade off for having such a powerful weapon that no other fleet can use. You can't complain about it being 'scary good' and then also complain that you have to sacrifice something to reload it. That's what we call a trade off. The majority of navy ships possess torpedoes in their prow so they have to reload as well, do they become conflicted because of it? Or, just like torpedoes, do you the player have to decide what's more important, reloading your ordnance for another spread or use lock on for the other weapons? Absolutely no difference to having to choose between batteries and torpedoes.
And the hits ignore shields thus step 6 in your list is void.
You can use the same logic as to why a nova cannon shell scatters for normal weapon battery shots.
Hellebore
-
Reload is a trade off for having such a powerful weapon that no other fleet can use. You can't complain about it being 'scary good' and then also complain that you have to sacrifice something to reload it. That's what we call a trade off.
I'm not considering the RO as a trade off. My comments are two complaints. The first being the weapon is too powerful and the second that the IN would have no prow weapon which does not have to take the RO check other than the lances of the Dauntless. Compare that to the Chaos ships which has WBs, lances and torps as choices for their prow weapon. I'd rather have the choice to choose a non-RO weapon than a very powerful weapon which every player will abuse. Really Ld 9 or 10 will allow that one ship to knockout a crucial target esp if the NC ignores shields. I wouldn't mind RO-ing the thing. esp if I can fire it at a target 20 cm away instead of 30.
The majority of navy ships possess torpedoes in their prow so they have to reload as well, do they become conflicted because of it? Or, just like torpedoes, do you the player have to decide what's more important, reloading your ordnance for another spread or use lock on for the other weapons? Absolutely no difference to having to choose between batteries and torpedoes.
Yes, they are conflicted once the fighting gets to within 30 cm. Which is why I don't like all torp fleets. Sure, I can take the lance Dauntless' but they'd be it. This is the reason why the Dominator is my fave ship. No conflicts whatsoever. Anything beyond 30 cm, NC away. Within 30 cm LO and fire away.
And the hits ignore shields thus step 6 in your list is void.
My mistake. I missed that part. Which makes your NC version that much more powerful.
You can use the same logic as to why a nova cannon shell scatters for normal weapon battery shots.
Hellebore
Yes and which is why WB do not roll 100% and why the facing of the target is such an important factor. Even with the target Closing, an FP12 WB won't be rolling at 12.
-
I don't really like those suggested rules, as it pretty much makes the Nova Cannon just a special Lance battery. A direct fire weapon, which does damage without regards to outside effects or target variables, safe for distance.
The current Nova Cannon on the other hand is a weapon, that potentially covers a pretty large area, threatening all ships and ordonance in that area. And with the potential to cripple a cruiser with a single shot, it really gives enemies a damn good reason to avoid close formations, as in such formations, it's almost guaranteed to hit, likely even multiple targets. So it isn't just another waepon to cause damage, but an instrument to influence the enemies strategy. This would be lost with the direct fire rules.
-
After a healthy dose of constructive critisism I'm back for more! :)
15cm-60cm: Roll 2D6 take the lowest
60cm-150cm: Roll 3D6 take the lowest
If a double or triple is rolled place a Blast Marker in contact with the target, no damage is caused (unless the target can suffer damage from the Blast Marker).
Lock-on: Allows you to re-roll any of the damage dice rolled!
Ordnance: roll a D6 for each point of damage rolled for, any roll of a 6 destroys the entire wave. After this place a Blast Marker on their postion (which may destroy them in the ordnance phase as normal).
Ships in base contact: Prior to rolling the damage dice place a Blast marker on each ship in base contact with the target!
Eldar Holofields: You may make a holofield save vs each hit. (This is mainly for balance, If Eldar had shields and were MMS, it would be a different story!)
Necrons: Well, NC's are still thier bane! Close as fast as you can!
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Sorry Ray, you're still missing the point. I don't want another direct fire weapon. I want something which can alter my opponent's plans even indirectly. And really, I don't care for rolling for damage and taking the lowest if that is what I understand you are saying.
-
I didn't like taking the lowest in the original proposal and I still don't like it here. I second the admiral on the dislike of you proposed changes making it a direct fire weapon.
-
I didn't miss your point: you don't want a direct fire weapon. But the alternative is using a template the size of a moon!
My dislike of the weapon mainly comes from it's straight out randomness. Nothing except a bulkhead collapse or the PK's main gun is similar, and they are both extreme exceptions.
Now making the weapon reliable with 2d6 take the lowest, as opposed to scatter (hit on a 5+) then d6, seems to really unsettle you guys. Is this because it's a take the lowest mechanic? It's not unheard of in GW's games.
Or is it just the fact that it's not crazy random?
Or that 5 is the highest it can go with the double = a fail?
I understand that you want the template to force your opponent to spread out, but it's an unreasonble mechanic! It's not a stone thrower, it's a cannon! So even if you kept the template it should only go long or short (as in the original rules) which would not force your opponent to scatter.
My version does make massing turrets a horrible risk, all the better to use your ordnance!
Cheers,
RayB
-
I didn't miss your point: you don't want a direct fire weapon. But the alternative is using a template the size of a moon!
What's the problem? It's a unique flavor. Is that the problem? I've never heard of this being a problem.
My dislike of the weapon mainly comes from it's straight out randomness. Nothing except a bulkhead collapse or the PK's main gun is similar, and they are both extreme exceptions.
That is it's strength for me. People have been playing it for years and have never had any problems with the randomness. The problem has ever been with spamming it.
Now making the weapon reliable with 2d6 take the lowest, as opposed to scatter (hit on a 5+) then d6, seems to really unsettle you guys. Is this because it's a take the lowest mechanic? It's not unheard of in GW's games.
I made it reliable with my rules. And it still followed the idea of the weapon. 2D6 may not be unheard of but obviously it's not a good rule and counterintuitive. If it were then you'd be seeing it more. The NC, instead is being penalized all the more. What you're doing is neutering it all the more. No. More. Neutering. Please.
Or is it just the fact that it's not crazy random?
Or that 5 is the highest it can go with the double = a fail?
Random is good. I like random. The 5 as the highest damage you can do is part of it.
I understand that you want the template to force your opponent to spread out, but it's an unreasonble mechanic! It's not a stone thrower, it's a cannon! So even if you kept the template it should only go long or short (as in the original rules) which would not force your opponent to scatter.
Now we're going into fluff. Why would it be unreasonable? We don't really know how space might affect the shot. There could be gravitic anomalies, space dust, radiation which could affect the shot. According to some description, the whole turn is 30 minutes long or so. So you can't even say at which poin the shot is actually fired. The round itself might have peculiarities which caused it to scatter far. German precision manufacturing isn't really a quality common in the 40k universe. The target itself might have moved already from where the targetting array says it was. That's more of a problem with the I move you move mechanic. So if you want fluff justification, there are lots of it.
My version does make massing turrets a horrible risk, all the better to use your ordnance!
Cheers,
RayB
Your rule also neuters the NC to oblivion all the more. Why should I bring Nova Cannon armed ships? The damage output is PUNY. My version basically stays true to the fluff of the Nova Cannon. Makes it more reliable but restricts it as the fluff says it is a rare weapon. Even narrows down the distance as much as possible with its Lock On rules.
-
Re-reading your proposal, I'll see if I can give a bit more constructive feedback.
Ships in base contact: Prior to rolling the damage dice place a Blast marker on each ship in base contact with the target!
This seems a bit redundant and makes the turret massing practically useless when a NC is fielded because one NC shot regardless of where you are on the table and if you actually roll damage can strip sheilds on practically anything. IE, since a BM is in contact all around the base and since all ships in base contact are affected, three cruisers in base to base drop all shields on all ships before getting hit.
on taking the lowest...
No it's not unheard of but it tends to give the impression of a generally weak weapon with a potential to pull off a spectacular hit from time to time. It also makes it much more certain that you will get jack squat for damage at long range rolling three dice. all you have to do is swap this and say 60-150 roll two d6 and take the highest, and close in roll 3d6.
That said, I like the scatter of the current rules though it feels a bit extreme at long range and using the template is fun :)
-
Yeah, the randomness. Which ignites the psychology of the weapon is what should be kept.
-
Righty I'll try and limit my dead horse flogging.
It appears that no one shares my disliking of the out of scale template, extreme randomness or the scatter dice. So I'll try and work in a 'compromise'.
Resigning myself to the fact the scatter dice will used I'm going to go so far as to put in an always scatter mechanic! Wait! Don't kill me yet, the reason for this is that the 5+ likelihood of a direct hit every time even at extreme range where the variance of fail and success is vast erks the heck out of me.
Now the replacement mechanic for a 'hit' is minus D6cm to the scatter range, so with D6 scatter it's quite likely a hit will be a hit anyway but 3D6cm (-D6) is very unlikely to be a hit, but still possible.
Right now onto damage and 'scale': now I'm going to imagine that the explosion’s size is the hole in the template. The rest of the template is the 'shockwave'. This will mean only the hole over the stem will cause extreme damage either D6 or 2D3 damage. What would be the preference?
Now base size comes into it, if the hole is over the base it causes D3 damage. This is less harsh to BB's and other big boy ships.
If the template touches a ships base merely place a BM in contact. Note that this is not a straight out point of damage.
To Summarise:
Nova Cannons Range: 15cm-150cm, the Nova Cannon may not be fired at any targets within 15cm.
Place the Nova Cannon template anywhere within range and arc of the firing ship. Now roll a Scatter dice as close to the template as possible and then move the template in the direction shown by the following distances:
15-45cm: D6cm
45-75cm: 2D6cm
75cm-150cm: 3D6cm
If a ‘hit’ is rolled minus D6 from the distance rolled.
If the template’s hole lands over a ships stem it suffers D6 damage.
If the template’s hole lands over a ships base it suffers D3 damage.
If the template is merely touching a ships base place a blast marker on the ships base.
If the template does not hit a ship replace it with a blast marker.
If the template scatters so that there is intervening celestial phenomenon or some other obstruction that would otherwise prevent line of sight place blast marker in contact with the closest part of the obstruction and in between ship and the template.
Command checks for Brace for Impact can be made after the template scatters but before any damage dice are rolled.
If ordnance is hit by the template automatically remove any wave or salvo under the template’s hole and if not the wave or salvo is destroyed on a 4+. Place a blast marker as if no target had been hit (don’t forget to roll against the blast marker as well).
I’ve reduce the minimum range simply because 30cm is just a crazy safe distance.
Should there be a special rule for Lock-on? Like re-roll the scatter distance?
Should the scatter be elliptical? i.e. using the compass side of the template and reducing the scatter if it’s in the port and starboard arcs? Like roll an extra D6 and take away the highest result. I like this idea, but it might over complicate the rules.
As always I await your much appreciated feedback.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
You just nerfed the NC beyond usability. Whats the point of giving a weapon a 150cm range if the odds of hitting anything are probably 16%? On top of that, even if it hits, it'll do jack squat on a d3. Given the size of the stem and the template hole compounded by the scatter you might as well drop the d6 option since the odds that will come into play are pretty slim. Removing the "hit" sides and replacing it with a d6 doesn't work because the hit side has no direction marker to tell you which way to move the template. With these rules, I don't see the point in even taking NC. In light of these proposed changes, I propose one of my own:
Players must be spun in circles until disoriented and then may toss the NC template in the direction of the enemy fleet. Any ships touched receive one blast marker, and any ships knocked over by the template take d3 damage for hitting a glass wall in space.
-
Hi Vaaish,
The scatter dice does have an arrow on the hit side, quite often this is overlooked but there are a few core rule sets that use it right now.
3D6cm scatter AND the opportunity to 'hit' throws out a vast difference. You either hit with everything or you don't at all, it's crazy! With the always scatter option this is solved.
The hole over the stem as oppossed to the base basically means you'll only get this result if you start with the template over the ship and don't scatter. This is only really likely between 15cm and 45cm. But that's fair enough isn't it?
But seriously D3 damage isn't bad! No other convential weapon is even close to being that powerfull!
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
How would people feel about a more limited scatter? 75cm-150cm: 2D6, 45cm-75cm: D6, 15cm-45cm 2D6 take the lowest.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
I've had my say. I'd rather make the NC stronger but limit it's availability. In which case, I still prefer my proposed rules which were published in Warp Rift.
-
So the scatter die does have an arrow. Point taken.
The hole over the stem as oppossed to the base basically means you'll only get this result if you start with the template over the ship and don't scatter. This is only really likely between 15cm and 45cm. But that's fair enough isn't it?
No. no, it isn't. I can't justify spending nearly the cost of a cobra for something that has limited chance of producing results or support changes that effectively removes the most unique aspect of IN. I've mentioned this before, but the only changes I see the NC needing is a reduction in the scatter bands to two and limiting it to 2d6 scatter.
But seriously D3 damage isn't bad! No other convential weapon is even close to being that powerfull!
Not particularly. Torpedoes are pretty nasty and rarely get fired off offensively in less than 6's which should net approximately the equivalent of a d3 under most circumstances. These also work best at 30cm and should be more reliable than the NC which again begs the question, why bother taking it under your proposed rules?
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan, which issue of WR are you NC rules in?
Also, anyone else having problems with the WR website?
Cheers,
RayB
-
Vaaish,
You're really helping me resist my hatred for NC's. Thanks Vaaish. I went overboard with the removing the hit mechanic without replacing it with anything worth while.
Righty, these are the things I 'need' in my version:
Always scatter (a scatter of 0cm would have to be possible)
hole over stem for D6 damage.
hole over base for D3 damage.
So that just means the scattering is open to me and if possible I'd like to limit it:
15cm-45cm: D6-1
45cm-75cm: 2 D6-1 take the highest
75cm-150cm: 3 D6-1 take the highest
If a hit is rolled -D6cm from the scatter distance.
How does this sound?
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Always scatter (a scatter of 0cm would have to be possible)
hole over stem for D6 damage.
hole over base for D3 damage.
If you are keen on keeping the damage, perhaps make a hit over the stem ignore shields. That would make up for them being more rare and now only able to affect a single ship.
15cm-45cm: D6-1
45cm-75cm: 2 D6-1 take the highest
75cm-150cm: 3 D6-1 take the highest
If a hit is rolled -D6cm from the scatter distance.
I find this complicated and a bit confusing. It seems to indicate that the maximum scatter in any band is 5cm but it's a pretty solid block of stuff for what seems to just allow for the current 33% chance of a direct hit. Keep it simple. Maybe this:
15cm-75cm: D6
75cm-150cm: 2D6, take the highest
Hit: subtract the lowest D6 rolled from the highest. If only one D6 has been rolled, the cannon scores a direct hit.
I don't think this would be any worse than the planet killer gun which has no scatter and hurts everything in a straight line out to 90cm.
-
Hi Vaaish,
Well the -1 was to add to the hit probability.
Another alternative is
15cm-45cm: 2 D6 take the lowest
45cm-75cm: D6
75cm-150cm: 2 D6 take the highest
Actually after further thought I prefer this option as it elliminates the highly predictable 3d6 roll.
I would hate to have a direct fire weapon that could go through shields.
The PK is a special case (just like the BSF) best not to use as a comparison.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
I'm still not seeing the need for three bands. especially with taking lowest and highest mixed in there, why not just make it two bands? If you don't want it going through shields, then keep the damage at d6 if the hols is over the base. Simple and really doesn't give too much damage.
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan, which issue of WR are you NC rules in?
Also, anyone else having problems with the WR website?
Cheers,
RayB
WR14
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
I still can't get on th warp rift website... Luckily I've saved issue 14 and so refreshed my memory of your rules. Which turns out I've steared my way towards any way.
Apart from the scatter distance, minimum range, effect as the template, the hit result and vs ordy.
I do agree that Lock-on should have an effect, but I'm inclined to go one step further and treat it as an auto hit on the scatter. As my hit is less strong and rerolling scatter dice is always a little weird.
Vaaish,
The need for the three bands is simply there because of the extreme range, of the range.
Cheers,
RayB
-
Couldn't it work just as well with two bands? Doesn't have to be a middle ground split, but I think it would be easier and would fit more elegantly with the take the highest/lowest rolls system you are proposing.
I do like the idea of lock on being an auto hit, but perhaps that is a bit much since the NC range doesn't give much reason NOT to LO since you likely won't be needing any other SO when firing. You are basically saying any squadroned NC capable ship that LO will get d6 damage on the target of their choice which seems mildly excessive.
Perhaps instead it could instead allow the reroll of the highest d6 or allow the hit side of the scatter dice to eliminate scatter?
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
I do agree that Lock-on should have an effect, but I'm inclined to go one step further and treat it as an auto hit on the scatter. As my hit is less strong and rerolling scatter dice is always a little weird.
Autohit on the Lock On would be too strong. Re-rolling scatter dice is the simplest solution and not too strong,
-
My auto 'hit' on lock-on:
I don't mean a guaranteed D6 damage, just the effect of a hit on the scatter dice, so –D6cm to the scatter.
The chance of a direct hit on lock on is ‘roughly’ as follows:
3+ for 2d6 take the lowest, 4+ for d6 and 5+ for 2d6 take the highest. Lock-on does make the d3 damage almost certain however.
I’m still happy with 3 bands, especially with the decreased minimum range. Why would you prefer 2 bands, for simplicities sake? I wouldn’t say 3 range bands is overcomplicated; it’s the same as for WB’s!
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Partly for simplicity sake and partly because I don't see that the third band really affects the outcome enough to warrant it's inclusion and partly because the middle band doesn't follow the system for the other two. It's the odd man out with just D6 scatter while the other two are modified 2d6 rolls.
I don't even like the three bands of scatter with the normal NC rules. I think that 2d6 scatter would be plenty for even the long range shots since I, IIRC, the average is 7cm on a 2d6 scatter which is enough to miss a battleship and a hit ignores the mechanic altogether.
-
Well as I noted before, the difference between my bands is roughly +1/-1 to hit than its neighbour. If I missed the middle band it would be a drastic difference (+2/-2).
For the current rules I completely agree, 3d6 is needless, not to mention incredibly predictable.
Cheers,
RayB
-
I don't get what you mean by +2/-2 for to hit. It seems there is a 16% increase between each band in the odds of missing completely on the scatter. Given the damage output I don't really see how that will ultimately affect the end result to a noticeable degree on long ranged shooting compared to two bands. It just seems unnecessary and conflicting despite the smoother statistical accuracy gradation with three bands. if you would like to keep three bands, maybe something like this would keep the dynamics more consistent across the bands:
15cm-45cm: 2 D6 take the lowest
45cm-75cm: 2 D6 take the highest
75cm-150cm: 2 D6
-
My auto 'hit' on lock-on:
I don't mean a guaranteed D6 damage, just the effect of a hit on the scatter dice, so –D6cm to the scatter.
The chance of a direct hit on lock on is ‘roughly’ as follows:
3+ for 2d6 take the lowest, 4+ for d6 and 5+ for 2d6 take the highest. Lock-on does make the d3 damage almost certain however.
Cheers,
RayB HA
So many numbers. Heh, just re-roll the scatter dice. Simple. :)
-
Well, that doesn't seem very helpful to just reroll the scatter since even the hit side scatters now. Perhaps instead let lockon allow the reroll any one d6?
-
Not my rules. My rules, scatter die will hit. Only against Eldar and Necron would distance come in as an effect of Lock On.
-
Personally I didn't like the nova cannon rules from the start. In short it's too few dice for too much potential damage IMHO.
Just some examples:
With the current rules you can lose a small game before you even moved your ships because of one lucky hit: Hit -> D6 roll comes up as a six -> cruiser flagship (like, a Mars or a Styx, so sth. about 350 points) is crippled with a whopping two dice thrown. If it's a 1k pts game you don't have many options besides retreat at that point. Now imagine you drove an hour to play that game. Or that it was part of a campaign ...
Alternatively a cruiser can take two full hits of this thing and not lose one point of damage.
In addition you can't really tell whether it'd make sense to BFI or not before the shot impacts; the overly cautious will always and the foolhardy will never BFI, of course, but what about the rest? It's not "psychologically interesting" as was mentioned earlier IIRC, it's just guess work. Experience, intelligence, a knack for tactics: Won't help at all. Just guess and hope you're right.
That's bollocks, IMHO. I hate the nova cannon rules. Well, not "hate" hate, but ... you know what I mean. ;)
So I gave it some thought and brewed up the following. Note that most of the numbers are only placeholders, more or less what "felt right" at the moment and thus more than open for discussion. As is the rest, as a matter of fact. ;D
Without further ado I give you
*drum roll*
Easy's new and shiny
Nova cannon rules
If you fire a nova cannon, just do the same as you do now, with the following exceptions:
- You need to nominate either a ship or a wave of ordnance as a target; you can't just fire at empty space.
- The shot always scatters D6 cm. Doesn't matter whether you rolled a "Hit!" or an arrow, doesn't matter if the shot travels 30 or 150 cm.
- Whether the template hits a ship full on or only slightly glances its base doesn't matter, as well. What is touched is hit.
- Damage depends on range. 30-45 cm: D3+1. 45-60 cm: D3. 60-150 cm: D3-1. A hit always does at least one point of damage, though.
- The "Lock on!" special order simply adds one point of damage, so it's D3+2, D3+1 and D3, respectively.
- Any ordnance marker that is at least partially touched by the template is destroyed; if there are ordnance markers in the same wave but not touched by the template they're simply luckier than their comrades under the template.
- If the template did not hit any ship at all place D3 blast markers anywhere you like; only rule is that all of them have to be completely covered by the template.
- Your opponent has the chance to announce BFI after the template is placed at its final point of impact, but before you roll for damage. A shell the size of a skyscraper travelling in a straight line at a constant speed is easy to keep track of, after all.
So, there you have it. :) Discuss! :D
Or, if you want to know my reasoning behind a specific change, just ask. ;)
-
Don't like the rules. you're neutering the NC's damage all the more. So I can only do damage in the shortest band? And that's just on a cruiser. On a Grand Cruiser or Battleship, I'm doing nothing.
D6 potential damage works. You need to be really rolling good to do that 5 or 6 point damage. First you need to roll a hit, then you need to roll a 5 or 6. That combination is not easy to get.
Next the BFI before the shot is just right. One does not decide to BFI when you know the shot will hit or not, especially from artillery type shots. You decide to brace when you know the enemy is about to fire. Notealso that the "skyscraper" ammo you mention is moving at almost the speed of light. Not an easy thing to track since the ranges are so close that the shot will get to you in less than a second. Assuming the target is at 150 cm, the farthest range of the NC and the equivalent of 150,000 km at a 1:1000 scale, the NC will reach you at little more than half a second. How do you BFI against that unless it's before the shot is fired?
The NC rules for damage and when to BFI are fine. It's the way the process happens is the problem resulting in people bringing them en masse and so cry cheese. Make the NC more accurate and limit the number should be the way to go.
-
Hi Easy Prey,
Good to see more ideas hitting the topic.
I don't see the need to have to pick a ship or ordy. What is this for? To stay closer to normal weapon rules?
The always scatters mentality is good but with the entire template being the hole it will almost always hit large base targets. That is something i'm not keen on. Also it gives the impression of a moon sised explosion, which I really dislike.
The damage 'potential' should remain at a max of 5 or 6 IMO, as it is a heavy hitter that should rival the potential damage of 6 torps.
The variance of potential damage through the range bands is a mistake which i made, it make NC's having long range damn near pointless.
Cheers,
RayB
-
Hi All,
I've played with the following rules with great sucess for both thier 'feel' and overall effect. I haven't played with them in a spam enviroment however, so some sort of limit might be appropriate. Further playtesting required.
The Nova Cannon uses the Nova Cannon template on the other side of the Bearing Compass, note the hole in its centre.
A Scatter dice will also be used, note that the hit side also has an arrow on it.
When firing the Nova Cannon place it's template so that the entirety of the hole is within the Nova Cannons fire arc.
The Nova Cannon has a minimum range of 15cm: you must place the template so that the entirety of the hole is over 15cm away.
Now roll the scatter dice and move the template the scatter distance in direction shown, including if a hit is rolled.
There are 3 range bands which affect the scatter.
15cm-45cm: 2 D6 scatter take the lowest
45cm-75cm: D6 scatter
75cm-150cm: 2 D6 scatter take the lowest
If a hit is rolled and/or you are on Lock-on special orders reduce the scatter distance by D6cm.
If the hole scatters over a stem it causes D6 damage.
If the hole scatters over a base it causes D3 damage.
If any part of the template excluding the hole is over a base or ordnance it causes a blast marker.
If the hole scatters over ordnance it destroys it entirely.
If the template hits nothing place a blast marker under the hole.
You may test to brace against a nova cannon shot after it has scattered but before the random damage has been determined.
Holofields offer no save or effect.
Cheers,
RayB
-
you're neutering the NC's damage all the more. So I can only do damage in the shortest band? And that's just on a cruiser. On a Grand Cruiser or Battleship, I'm doing nothing.
You'd be "doing nothing" with a single NC, which will hardly be the only weapon in your fleet. ;)
D3+1 means 2, 3 or 4 points of damage on a hit; that means potentially taking down all the shields on any ship but a 6-spore hive ship, or taking down the shields of a grand cruiser on average, with one shot from a cruiser. How you are able to see that as "nothing" is beyond me, honestly. ???
It's just below the average of the current NC-rules, and once you take LO into account (which does squat for the current NC, BTW) the average actually gets higher in the closest range band.
Besides you seem to be missing that my take on the NC-rules is making it far more accurate; basically I'm illustrating the higher accuracy of shorter ranged shots by increasing the potential damage (just imagine the explosion being closer to the target vertically), not by decreasing potential scatter. :)
D6 potential damage works. You need to be really rolling good to do that 5 or 6 point damage. First you need to roll a hit, then you need to roll a 5 or 6. That combination is not easy to get.
It's not about the potential damage, it's about reliability. See the examples (there are two for a reason ;)) in my post above. :)
Next the BFI before the shot is just right.
After giving it a bit of thought I agree.
One does not decide to BFI when you know the shot will hit or not, especially from artillery type shots.
"Artillery"? In space? That's ... well, I never imagined NCs to work that way. ;)
More like depth charges, just that they are not dropped but fired in a straight line, exploding after they've traveled a pre-set distance.
So a captain can see the enemy ship lining up for the shot, and he'll probably be able to guess pretty accurately where the shot will go and where it will be set to explode.
This is the reason why I thought the damage of the NC should decrease with increasing range, as well: The longer the shell has to travel the harder it is to set the timer so the shell will explode close to the target; in addition the target has more time for being unpredictable the longer it takes for the shot to connect.
Direct hits are (very, very close to) impossible this way, so the shells probably won't even have impact fuzes; even if they had they'd probably explode thousands of kilometres away from the target, anyway.
Notealso that the "skyscraper" ammo you mention is moving at almost the speed of light. Not an easy thing to track since the ranges are so close that the shot will get to you in less than a second. Assuming the target is at 150 cm, the farthest range of the NC and the equivalent of 150,000 km at a 1:1000 scale, the NC will reach you at little more than half a second.
That's far off topic, but my mind boggles trying to imagine accelerating a macroscopic mass (i.e. something you could touch) to relativistic speeds over just a few kilometres. I know it's 40k so it's probably just supposed to sound cool, but ... well.
I guess I should focus my mind elsewhere. ;D
The NC rules for damage [...] are fine.
IMHO they're not. "Unreliable", yes. "Potentially griefing", just as well, at least if you (or your opponent) are unlucky. But "fine"? Not even close.
It's the way the process happens is the problem resulting in people bringing them en masse and so cry cheese. Make the NC more accurate and limit the number should be the way to go.
I made them more accurate and changed the process, yet you can't seem to get past how it's different. How's that supposed to make any sense? ???
I don't see the need to have to pick a ship or ordy. What is this for? To stay closer to normal weapon rules?
It's more for giving escort squadrons a slight edge, otherwise you'd be able to place the shot so it'd hit more than one from the start, at least if the scatter distance is short; with D3 damage against any ship touched by the template (LO shouldn't be much of a problem at higher ranges) this had the potential to go ugly pretty quickly for escorts.
Additionally I included it for the feeling that it's pretty much impossible to aim at "nothing". Space is black, empty and featureless, IMHO you shouldn't be able to just say "I want to hit that spot!" and your crew'd make it happen.
But, as with everything I posted, if it's generally disliked it's easy to throw overboard. I just thought I'd enter the brainstorming process by introducing something out of my head, as well. ;)
The always scatters mentality is good but with the entire template being the hole it will almost always hit large base targets. That is something i'm not keen on.
It's the reason I somehow feel that the damage is still too high, but I don't want to neuter the weapon into uselessness, either.
Also it gives the impression of a moon sised explosion, which I really dislike.
If we want to talk realism we should forget the NC altogether. It just has too many problems in this area. ;)
Let's just say that I can't really imagine what the explosion of an object traveling near the speed of light would look like (Crescent-shaped, maybe? ???). I simply assumed that the template was a way to give the area of unpleasantness some tangibility in terms of game mechanics, not the depiction of a real event.
The damage 'potential' should remain at a max of 5 or 6 IMO, as it is a heavy hitter that should rival the potential damage of 6 torps.
The problem here still is reliability. If it is highly accurate you can't have it do this much damage per shot; if it's highly inaccurate it lacks the reliability it'd need to make the decision to brace an informed one.
See, if I have a 5+-armoured cruiser facing a wave of 6 torpedoes I can make a pretty good guess if I should brace or not: 2 damage is average, 1 and 3 have about the same, quite high probability, 0 and 4 less so, 5 and 6 are pretty improbable altogether. If the cruiser has already taken damage, if these torpedoes are not the only thing it'd be facing this ordnance phase or if the ship couldn't do anything useful next turn anyway I'd brace; if my (obviously pretty weak) plan depended on this cruiser being on LO next turn I'd take the chance and wouldn't brace.
If the same cruiser would be looking down the barrel of a NC I can't tell if I should brace or not. It could miss altogether, it could hit, but hardly scratch my shields, or it could cripple the cruiser.
To say it in mathematical terms: The bell curve of the NC's damage distribution is too flat and too wide to be any fun to play with or against IMHO.
Regarding the damage: With my proposal the NC would become more reliable, but as I said, it can't keep it's raw potential for damage per shot that way as this would make it too powerful, obviously.
"Damage potential" could mean anything, really; one type of weapon doing a single point of damage per turn over 10 turns, one doing 10 points of damage in one turn but taking 9 turns to get into position (or recharge, or missing 9 out of 10 times, or whatever), both would have done 10 points of damage in ten turns. So if we took away the damage potential of the NC but made it hit more reliably the weapon would stay a "heavy hitter" as it is now, wouldn't it? :)
The variance of potential damage through the range bands is a mistake which i made, it make NC's having long range damn near pointless.
It's not pointless, per se.
It could whack down a shield here, do a few points of damage there, generate blast markers, threatening tightly packed ships/making the enemy fleet spread out more, and of course you still had the option of concentrating fire if you had several NCs. Two or three hits, each doing D3 damage (LO shouldn't be a problem at that range), would mean trouble even for a battleship.
The closer you got the greater would the potential for mayhem become. It would be tougher to get the LO-bonus there, though, and especially the shortest band with the highest damage potential is easy to avoid; this would make the NC a bit harder to use, but more rewarding at the same time IMHO.
-
Easy Prey,
It looks like you'd like my rules at the start of this topic...
I realise you want a more predictable weapon, but you're going too far (as I did earlier). I've limited the scatter range, limited the damage when the hole is over the base, made the outer template count as a blastmarker mainly to avoid special rules for eldar and prevent escort squadron killing.
My rules are more predictable, still allow massive potential damage and for me at least feel more realistic.
Cheers,
RayB
-
You'd be "doing nothing" with a single NC, which will hardly be the only weapon in your fleet. ;)
D3+1 means 2, 3 or 4 points of damage on a hit; that means potentially taking down all the shields on any ship but a 6-spore hive ship, or taking down the shields of a grand cruiser on average, with one shot from a cruiser. How you are able to see that as "nothing" is beyond me, honestly. ???
It's just below the average of the current NC-rules, and once you take LO into account (which does squat for the current NC, BTW) the average actually gets higher in the closest range band.
The point here being, people will then be taking it in numbers which is what I would prefer not to happen. The NC fires at far ranges beyond the typical weapon ranges. It can't shoot at anything within 30 cm. What support are you talking about unless it's another NC or long ranged lances or WBs which are few in number availability to IN? Therefore it IS nothing. When you design a weapon, you first figure out what it can do in isolation. Then you figure out what you can do with it in conjunction. There's no reason for me to want to take the NC except en masse and that is a major problem currently. the LO issue I addressed in my rules.
Besides you seem to be missing that my take on the NC-rules is making it far more accurate; basically I'm illustrating the higher accuracy of shorter ranged shots by increasing the potential damage (just imagine the explosion being closer to the target vertically), not by decreasing potential scatter. :)
Accuracy is pointless if it can't damage. if you want accuracy then might as well go back to the guess rules. Accuracy is much better there esp for some players. In my rules, it became more accurate but not as accurate as you or Ray's ruleset. I don't want it to be that accurate because the psychological aspect works for me. It forces my opponent to come close. It forces an opponent with lots of carriers to make a choice of whether to BFI or keep his carriers effective. Knowing the NC would hardly do damage would be to the advantage of my opponent.
It's not about the potential damage, it's about reliability. See the examples (there are two for a reason ;)) in my post above. :)
The NC was never about reliability. The NC was about forcing the opponent to come close to you instead of standing off and shooting the very short ranged IN fleet.
"Artillery"? In space? That's ... well, I never imagined NCs to work that way. ;)
More like depth charges, just that they are not dropped but fired in a straight line, exploding after they've traveled a pre-set distance.
So a captain can see the enemy ship lining up for the shot, and he'll probably be able to guess pretty accurately where the shot will go and where it will be set to explode.
NC shots are not dropped in a straight line like depth charges. That would be mines. The NC is fired, much like artillery. There are still factors other than gravity which can make the NC shot miss. However, the opposing captain would still not know when the NC would be fired except seconds before it does. Split second later the NC explodes near his ship. You still can't BFI against that.
This is the reason why I thought the damage of the NC should decrease with increasing range, as well: The longer the shell has to travel the harder it is to set the timer so the shell will explode close to the target; in addition the target has more time for being unpredictable the longer it takes for the shot to connect.
Direct hits are (very, very close to) impossible this way, so the shells probably won't even have impact fuzes; even if they had they'd probably explode thousands of kilometres away from the target, anyway.
Why would it decrease? It's a shell. it explodes. It's not like a laser that would bleed off energy the farther it gets. Funny that you think the NC is not artillery but your description above basically describes artillery.
That's far off topic, but my mind boggles trying to imagine accelerating a macroscopic mass (i.e. something you could touch) to relativistic speeds over just a few kilometres. I know it's 40k so it's probably just supposed to sound cool, but ... well.
I guess I should focus my mind elsewhere. ;D
It's not my description and it is on topic because the rules basically came from how the weapon is described. If by some reason they managed to make that powerful a railgun, it's not ours to reason why it exists or how. The important thing is it exists and the rules are derived by the designers from it.
IMHO they're not. "Unreliable", yes. "Potentially griefing", just as well, at least if you (or your opponent) are unlucky. But "fine"? Not even close.
You again miss the point of the NC which is it is a psychological weapon. The damage portion is fine. It's not broken. If you're lucky (or unlucky if on the receiving end) it can damage severely. If unlucky (or, again, vice versa if you're on the receiving end), it does nothing. Similar to the other weapon systems. They're just about unreliable as your the other weapon systems.
I made them more accurate and changed the process, yet you can't seem to get past how it's different. How's that supposed to make any sense? ???
You made the NC more accurate but you also made them less a threat damage wise. You just reversed the problem which was unreliability before but ok damage ruleset. It is now a accurate weapon at doing virtually nothing unlike before when it was inaccurate but when it hits, the damage can hurt. The idea is to make it accurate, make it retain it's damage potential but limit its availability so people won't be calling it cheese.
-
To name it in short: If I have a 100% hit guarantee which does 1 hit vs shields it is not worth it. Except to take multiple of them, which is not cool and non-background fitting.
-
Just gave my rules from 5 posts ago another trial in a 2000pt game. I really like them. The damage 'effect' feels more evenly random with a gradual increase the closer you get. Please give them ago!
Cheers,
RayB
-
Ray, I'll try them.
then what has been mentioned, but not compiled (along with FAQ2010 NC talks):
NC:
-min range 30cm, max range 150cm
-place the hole of the NC blast temp within range. LD test needed to not shoot at the stem of the closest enemy ship
-roll to scatter: 30-45cm = 1d6, 46-60=2d6, 61-90=3d6, 91-150=4d6. a HIT on the scatter is a direct hit.
-Under the lock on SO, you may reroll the scatter die. (chance of direct hit goes from 1/3 to 5/9)
-Any ship touching the NC temp takes 1 point of damage (no holofield save - stealth fighters still take flak)
-If the hole of the NC temp is touching a ship's base, it suffers an additional D3 damage (so a direct hit deals 2-4 damage), (you may take holofield saves against this D3 damage).
-If the NC temp misses completely, place a blast marker directly under the hole of the temp.
The idea is to keep everything as close to it is now, while making only simple modifications (range bands, Lock on, less random damage, with a similar average [~1.7 with LO]). It is true that the NC is a mental threat, attempting to force an enemy to close with the IN so they can use almost every other gun.
shortening the NC min to 15cm makes it way more likely to be an upgrade for lunars and tyrants. I believe the 30cm min forces you to choose: hang back and lob NC's or dive in a punch with torps.
-
Valhallan,
The FAQ won't change the NC rules to that degree. But my personal preferences are no more than 6cm scatter, D3 damage with the hole over the base and for the 'hit' to be a scatter reduction not a gaurenteed hit.
Cheers,
RayB
-
D3 damage over the hole? If shields do not affect this, I'm good with it. If shields do, forget it.
-
Currently, I'am going to try a mix of all these rules presented here. It isn't playtested yet.
When firing the Nova Cannon place it's template so that the entirety of the hole is within the Nova Cannons fire arc.
The Nova Cannon has a minimum range of 15cm: you must place the template so that the entirety of the hole is over 15cm away.
The Nova Cannon has a maximum range of 150cm: you must place the template so that the entirety of the hole is within 150cm.
Now roll the scatter dice and move the template the scatter distance in direction shown, including if a hit is rolled.
There are 3 range bands which affect the scatter distance.
15cm-45cm: 2 D6 scatter, take the lowest of the two scores.
45+cm-75cm: D6 scatter.
75+cm-150cm: 2 D6 scatter, take the highest of the two scores.
If you are on Lock-on special orders you may re-roll the scatter dice. If a hit is rolled on the re-roll, the shot does not scatter.
If the hole scatters over a stem or base, it causes D6 damage.
If any part of the template excluding the hole is over a base, it causes D3 damage
If any part of the template is over ordnance, the ordnance is destroyed.
If the template hits nothing place a blast marker under the hole.
You may test to brace against a nova cannon shot before the shot is fired (you detected the power surge of the firing sequence).
Holofields offer no save or effect.
Restriction: one Nova cannon per full 1000 points in the fleet.
-
I still don't like the auto-deviate rule. If it's a hit, it should be a hit. Otherwise, what's the direct hit for?
-
Commander,
The restriction of 1 per 1000pts is pretty extreme! 1 every other cap ship would be more appealing.
D3 damage even if it’s just the blast...It’s already a brutal weapon why do you think it needs a boost.
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
It’s not an always deviate rule, you can still get 0cm scatter. The problem with the ‘hit’ is that it ignores the range bands. And as it’s a hit a third of the time that’s a real problem.
Cheers,
RayB
-
The problem with the ‘hit’ is that it ignores the range bands. And as it’s a hit a third of the time that’s a real problem.
I still do not see this as problematic. Why is it a problem to hit 1/3 of the time and ignore the range bands? Is it the potential to cripple a cruiser in a single hit that bothers you more than the fact that it hits? Has the NC been shown to be problematic or broken in a competitive environment? IN is considered one of the lesser competitive fleets and even all out NC spam is rarely seen competitively or seen to perform well when it is used. Unless you are playing in deep space, it is far more likely that the NC will only fire one or two times before the 30cm min range because of asteroids, planets and moons that block the LOF to the target. As it stands right now, 3d6 scatter gives you minimal odds of hitting if you don't roll a hit and 33% odds of rolling that hit makes a single shot weapon no better at hitting a target than a WB targeting 5+ armor. The only good thing that's happened with the NC lately is that eldar can't laugh in the face of it quite as much as they have in the past with the changes in the FAQ. Strictly speaking, if any of the proposed changes here went official, I probably wouldn't field a dominator again.
-
Well, if you can only do 1 point of damage by the blast at long range, it is of no use. You can just down 1 shield and that's it. To be effective you have to spam it (because of the auto scattering, unless on lock - on) which is not fluffy. So, more powerfull but restricted use.
I'am open to suggestions ;)
-
Hi Guys,
The reason for both the 'hit' being reduced scatter and the blast having 3 strengths is to have a gradual variance as this is a massive area effect weapon.
Missing completely should be difficult but getting a direct hit should also be taxing but both should be relative to the range. If the 'hit' is a straight D6 hit, a third of the time range bands are completely ignored. The rest of the time you will not get a direct D6 hit so the range bands only exaggerate when you do miss!
Vaaish,
My rules feel quite balanced and can still get those lucky shots in at range but it is less likely. However the difference isn't D6 damage or complete miss at long range!
Cheers,
RayB
-
Hi Guys,
The reason for both the 'hit' being reduced scatter and the blast having 3 strengths is to have a gradual variance as this is a massive area effect weapon.
Missing completely should be difficult but getting a direct hit should also be taxing but both should be relative to the range. If the 'hit' is a straight D6 hit, a third of the time range bands are completely ignored. The rest of the time you will not get a direct D6 hit so the range bands only exaggerate when you do miss!
So what's the issue then? Why the need for a change to your method? It works enough as it is but the problem is people spamming it because the rules suck. Even with your rules, people will still spam it. All the more since you neuter it all the more. You want spamming to disappear? Make the NC more accurate and then impose limits on availability. Yes it is an area effect weapon, one that should be actually doing more damage than it is at the moment even if it scatters.
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
I'm pretty sure I was clear on why the 'hit' on the scatter dice shouldn't be a straight out D6 damage. Mainly because there is no point in having range bands!!! Unless shooting at large flying bases with the current rules.
In terms of accuacy, a max of 6cm scatter is way better, isn't it?
I agree on limitation. I'd be happy with no more than half your capital ships with NCs.
Cheers,
RayB
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
I'm pretty sure I was clear on why the 'hit' on the scatter dice should be a straight out D6 damage. Mainly because there is no point in having range bands!!! Unless shooting at large flying bases with the current rules.
In terms of accuacy, a max of 6cm scatter is way better, isn't it?
At this point in time after 5 pages over a couple of months, maybe it's best you re-summarize your position. Am getting confused myself. I read about auto-deviates even on the scatter and now a D6 straight out damage on the hit.
I agree on limitation. I'd be happy with no more than half your capital ships with NCs.
Cheers,
RayB
I wouldn't mind if the NC becomes really accurate and dangerous. To the point of only having 1 NC per 750 or 1000 points. Just make it better but this will not happen with the rules you're proposing.
-
Hi,
what is this thread about?
cheers,
horizon
just kiddin, it is about the Nova Cannon, which in my mind should go back to the first scatter concept, thus before new rulebook, max 2d6 scatter it was.
'kay,
thnx
bye bye.
:)
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Dang it, serious typo! I meant shouldn't not should! (I've corrected this in my last post).
I'm of the view that the NC should be more accesible than that. Escpecially as 2 cruiser classes come with it as standard.
Roy,
Any more than 1 D6 is just too far scalewise.
Any more than a single dice is too predictable.
If the serious damage is avoided almost every time when a hit isn't rolled why even bother with the range bands at all!
Cheers,
RayB
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Dang it, serious typo! I meant shouldn't not should! (I've corrected this in my last post).
I'm of the view that the NC should be more accesible than that. Escpecially as 2 cruiser classes come with it as standard.
And why should a hit not be straight out D6? A hit is a hit. Means the NC round hit the target or quite close to it. I don't think the IN player should be deprived of that roll, range bands or not, especially since the shields are still in effect. Now 33% chance to hit may seem high. However, compared to WBs (roughly the same against most races only better against SM and Necron) and lances (50% to hit), it's not far off.
The problem with the old rules was not the band. It was that the center hole, if it still landed on the base of the target ship, still did D6 damage. That was what I finally figured out was wrong with the original deviation rules. This is why in my house rules, when a shot deviates but the center hole still ended up on the base, the damage is only D3 while the rest of the template does 1 point of damage. The shot missed by a wide margin yet the effect is still strong enough to possibly be damaged. My rules have improved the NC appropriately and because of it I put in limits on its availability in the game if my rules were used to eliminate spamming.
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
If the hit on the scatter dice is always and only the direct hit(unless a lucky scatter onto another ship), why have range bands at all?
Even with just 2D6 scatter you're looking at 6-8cm scatter on average, or a hit! There is no gradual variance at all! D6 damage or a nothing!
Cheers,
RayB
-
Since you seem to be fixated on the hit or nothing effect of the scatter with the current range bands, what would be the effect of just having a single d6 scatter no matter the range?
Secondly, a more off the wall idea, but what about doing away with scatter completely and replacing it with a dud mechanic? The idea being the shot will always hit but on a d6 roll of X+ the shot is a dud and only does 1 point of damage rather than d6?
Finally, what about using some of the PK NC rules instead? no scatter, but has to reload and has the possibility of malfunctioning.
-
Vaaish,
Range bands: I suppose you could argue that given the speed of the shell and its blast radius range isn't going to be much of a factor. The Range bands only really come from the evolution from a guess range weapon to a scatter weapon, just like in 40K I suppose but in that case there is no range band.
So an even more stream-lined version would be: 30cm-150cm range (back to 30cm for balance).
Scatter dice with D6cm scatter, where a hit is 0cm scatter.
D6 damage with the hole over the stem, D3 with the hole over the base, 1 damage with the outer template over the base.
No benefit for being on Lock-on.
You have to target a ship/defence or ordy marker/wave. Target priority is identical to other weapons, so you must pass a leadership test not to shoot the closest target.
You may not have more capital ships with NC's as without.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
I mostly like that. It prevents the gameyness of trying to put the hole over multiple bases and hoping for a hit, increases the likelihood of some effect whether d3 damage or 1 damage, and retains the d6 damage if you peg a single target.
My only qualm is the d3 which I have a personal aversion to since it can't exist and requires a break down on a d6. Personally I'd be more inclined to just say it does 2 damage or modifies the d6 roll.
-
I have no problem with D3 as it allready 'exists'.
I dunno about having to target the closest vessel and doing a leadership test for further away targets. I think if that limit is installed Lock On should give an effect to the NC (re-roll scatter, last result stands).
-
Roy,
The reason for the leadership test is simply for balance, as this weapon is now brutal. Also it's one less special rule. ;D
Cheers,
RayB
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
If the hit on the scatter dice is always and only the direct hit(unless a lucky scatter onto another ship), why have range bands at all?
The range bands are for the deviation. There's still a 66% chance of missing with a deviation rolled. I would not deprive a hit from a player rolling it. What I would deprive is access to such an efficient weapon and not neuter the (ineffective as it is) weapon.
Even with just 2D6 scatter you're looking at 6-8cm scatter on average, or a hit! There is no gradual variance at all! D6 damage or a nothing!
Cheers,
RayB
6-8 cm of which is of great importance to cruiser sized targets. Battleships have the shields to shrug off the NC hits. Cruisers do not. Really, what's wrong with D6 on direct hit, D3 on deviation with center hole on target and 1 point if outer template is on target? That there is your variance already.
-
So an even more stream-lined version would be: 30cm-150cm range (back to 30cm for balance).
Scatter dice with D6cm scatter, where a hit is 0cm scatter.
D6 damage with the hole over the stem, D3 with the hole over the base, 1 damage with the outer template over the base.
I don't like this because even with a scatter, there's still the small chance that the hole will end up on the stem. I feel it's unfair for the opponent (and I'm an IN player already, this would benefit me definitely). I really feel a scatter would be D3 whether on stem or base and we don't have to worry about the hole and whether or not it is on the stem, especially if it scatters long and ends on another ship's center base. Hey could happen. If we don't worry about detailed hole placement in scatters then makes for a faster game.
No benefit for being on Lock-on.
And why not?
You have to target a ship/defence or ordy marker/wave. Target priority is identical to other weapons, so you must pass a leadership test not to shoot the closest target.
Fine with this.
You may not have more capital ships with NC's as without.
Cheers,
RayB HA
No problem with this either.
-
In my gaming community we use current rules but simply limit NC to 1 per 750 pts (500 seams like more approporiate for some ppl), limit launch bays to 4 per 500 pts (with exception to some fleets like TAU and SM) and it seams to work pretty well for us.
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Firstly, if the NC template scatters 1 cm the hole is no longer over the stem.
My point about the 2D6 scatter beyond crazy scale is that it is too predictable and completely ignores 1cm(D3 damage) scatter, and mostly ignores 2cm(D3 damage) and 3cm as well(1 point of damage). Which means the D3 damage almost never occurs!
With 3D6cm it’s obviously worse.
The range only means that if you’re not within close range you’re going to miss on a scatter. Whereas if you are within 60cm you cause damage most of the time. So no gradual difference.
With a single D6 scatter you will cause D3 damage on a 1 or 2 and 1 point of damage on a 3 or 4.
I like that a full hit can occur due to scatter and don’t want to get rid of that chance.
The no lock-on is for balance.
Cheers,
RayB
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Firstly, if the NC template scatters 1 cm the hole is no longer over the stem.
Not necessarily. The stem is wide enough at the base that 1 cm movement can still clip it. The hole itself is around 1 cm. It can still touch the stem. have to verify.
My point about the 2D6 scatter beyond crazy scale is that it is too predictable and completely ignores 1cm(D3 damage) scatter, and mostly ignores 2cm(D3 damage) and 3cm as well(1 point of damage). Which means the D3 damage almost never occurs!
With 3D6cm it’s obviously worse.
Which is why I prefer reverting to the old 2 bands. So that D6 scatter happens in 30-60 cm range band and 2d6 scatter happens in the 60-150 cm band. D3 can still happen then. This is the balancing factor for NCs being able to hurt 33% of the time with a direct hit. I don't find anything wrong with it.
The range only means that if you’re not within close range you’re going to miss on a scatter. Whereas if you are within 60cm you cause damage most of the time. So no gradual difference.
And this is a problem because?
With a single D6 scatter you will cause D3 damage on a 1 or 2 and 1 point of damage on a 3 or 4.
I don't mind as this would boost the NC alright.
I like that a full hit can occur due to scatter and don’t want to get rid of that chance.
Nope, I don't. It's a shot that scattered so the target should not be getting the full effects.
The no lock-on is for balance.
Cheers,
RayB
I prefer having the ability to Lock On.
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Scatter = miss: If the hole of the NC template scattered 1cm the stem would have to be 8mm wide for it to still be hit.
Scale: for 2d6 the average scatter range is 6-8cm which is far too far! Missing by 7000km on average is just crazy!
Progression: If there are going to be range bands at all gradual progression is important as there is already a precedent with gunnery weapons hence the 3 band preference. This becomes even more important given the 120cm for range bands.
The difference is so extreme between D6 scatter and 2D6 it’s similar to jumping straight from long range to short range for WB’s.
Miss hitting: As it’s an area effect why couldn’t a NC explosion fully hit the wrong ship. Especially as you like the 2D6 scatter.
Predictability of dice sums: As dice sums have weighted averages low and high results are unlikely, which means if a ship was massing turrets with a ship that was shot at by a NC it would be less likely to be fully hit than a ship 7cm away!
Cheers,
RayB
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Firstly, if the NC template scatters 1 cm the hole is no longer over the stem.
Will have to measure. Most probably you are right but better to be sure.
My point about the 2D6 scatter beyond crazy scale is that it is too predictable and completely ignores 1cm(D3 damage) scatter, and mostly ignores 2cm(D3 damage) and 3cm as well(1 point of damage). Which means the D3 damage almost never occurs!
With 3D6cm it’s obviously worse.
It really depends on the base size Ray. On a large base, 1 cm will still hit.
The range only means that if you’re not within close range you’re going to miss on a scatter. Whereas if you are within 60cm you cause damage most of the time. So no gradual difference.
Why do you believe there should be a gradual difference? Shouldn't one be doing more damage in a shorter range than a longer one? I, a non-pro shooter, shoots a 0.45 cal 1911 and at ranges of 0-10 meters, I should be getting hits reliably. 10 meters to 20 meters, I will be missing quite a bit. beyond 20 meters, I'm probably missing like crazy. However, there is really no definition of gradual in there.
With a single D6 scatter you will cause D3 damage on a 1 or 2 and 1 point of damage on a 3 or 4.
I like that a full hit can occur due to scatter and don’t want to get rid of that chance.
The no lock-on is for balance.
Cheers,
RayB
And I like that a scatter is a scatter and has no chance for a full hit. Again, this has been the crux of the issue with NCs and why they were adding additional D6 to the scatter distance. Because even with a scatter, the NC could still do D6 damage if the hole lands on the base. That's the issue. So to finally fix the NC, a scatter should always be D3. That's where your balance should be and not in having no Lock On.
-
I want to try this soon and I'd like to get opinions:
Range: 30 - 150 cm
Place template on target's stem, test for target priority if not the closest legal target (e.g. ignoring targets out of fire arc, without LOS or closer than 30 cm)
Scatter distance: D6 + (1 for every full 30 cm the shot travelled) cm
Damage: 4 if hole touches stem, 2 if hole touches base, 1 if template touches base [Alternatively: 3D6 pick the highest (hole touching stem), 3D3 pick the highest (hole touching base) and 1 (template touching base); I just think that a hit should hurt.]; hitting nothing places a BM
Rolling a "Hit!" reduces scatter distance by 4 cm.
Being under "Lock on!" special orders reduces scatter distance by 4 cm.
Scatter distance can't be lower than 0 cm, obviously.
A maximum of one ship armed with a Nova Cannon per 750 points, i.e. one for games up to 750 points, two for 750 - 1499 points, three for 1500 - 2249 points etc..
-
So an even more stream-lined version would be: 30cm-150cm range (back to 30cm for balance).
Scatter dice with D6cm scatter, where a hit is 0cm scatter.
D6 damage with the hole over the stem, D3 with the hole over the base, 1 damage with the outer template over the base.
No benefit for being on Lock-on.
You have to target a ship/defence or ordy marker/wave. Target priority is identical to other weapons, so you must pass a leadership test not to shoot the closest target.
I am good with this.
You may not have more capital ships with NC's as without.
I am not good with this. imo there should be no limits if there is already a point cost premium.
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Given the size of a NC blast I can see them accidentally hitting a ship full on.
EasyPrey,
I’m not a fan of the set damage and scatter amounts.
3D6 take the highest will likely be 5 or 6, which is too powerful. Hell a single D6 is strong enough.
Scattering a minimum of 2cm seems a little strange (except on a hit), maybe ignoring the first 30cm might be a good idea.
I don’t really want to limit the NC that much.
fracas,
The limitation you’re referring to is just the cost of the ship right? I think being able to field a fleet of majority Dominators is really unbalanced in certain scenarios (they suck in others, but you wouldn’t use them in those).
Every other capital ship seems like a quick and easy limitation, about 1 every 400pts or so.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
I’m not a fan of the set damage and scatter amounts.
Sorry to be a pain here, but: Why? :)
Set damage keeps out the weird case of a full hit doing nearly no damage at all, which I think is pretty neat. ;) But I can see why it would be unliked; I've got no problem throwing it overboard.
Set scatter distances aren't there AFAICS; the modifiers on the scatter distance are set because making them random as well would IMHO involve too much rolling of dice.
3D6 take the highest will likely be 5 or 6, which is too powerful. Hell a single D6 is strong enough.
That's the point. A hit should be powerful IMHO.
I still strongly dislike the fact that a hit from the current NC can be anything from a light breeze to the end of the world with both having the same probability, as has each event between them. "3D6 pick the highest" would still give the possibility of something like a malfunctioning shell (i.e. one point of damage), but it would be far more unlikely.
The NC in my "proposal" (I'm reluctant to call it that because it really isn't much more than a brainstorming experiment at the moment) wouldn't get a full hit as often as the current one, at least without special orders; but if it hits it hits harder.
Being shot by it one could still BFI and hope for scatter or a low damage roll.
Although, after giving it some thought, I reckon "2D6 pick the highest" is more in line with what I wanted.
Scattering a minimum of 2cm seems a little strange (except on a hit), maybe ignoring the first 30cm might be a good idea.
Yeah, good point. Must have missed that. :-[
The effect of LO has to be reduced to -3cm scatter then, though.
I don’t really want to limit the NC that much.
Actually I was concerned that my "proposal" was pretty strong and thus shouldn't be freely accessible.
I guess finding a fitting limitation on the use of the NC will be uncalled for for as long as there are no rules which at least the majority would use. ;) So I'm going to keep my mouth shut about limitations until then. ;D
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Given the size of a NC blast I can see them accidentally hitting a ship full on.
Sure you can hit full on. Very, very rare and requires the moon and planets to be aligned and all. Even then the center hole is the more important concern. Still, center hole scattering onto a target should not do full on damage. My rule on center hole doing only D3 damage on a scatter actually balances it out, allowing for the NC rule to now be more accurate.
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan ,
I'm only for the full damage if the hole lands over the stem of the wrong target, this is quite uncommon, perhaps rare enough that you'd be comfortable with it?
EasyPrey,
Set damage, well anthing more than 1, feels arbitrary or artificial (I feel that way for Hvy Gunz too). With such a large amount of damage being delt it's strange that it's so predictable. There is no damage variance which I feel there should be given the scale of the weapon!
2 D6 damage take the highest is still too strong, but is more in line with your 4 damage set amount. Still d6 damage is as strong as I'd want to see it!
I'm not fond of points limitations, I like the method of tweaking your fleet to allow the super weapons as appossed to I can have 1 every 500pts. Throw out a fleet of Lightcruisers and Dominators if you want! :)
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan ,
I'm only for the full damage if the hole lands over the stem of the wrong target, this is quite uncommon, perhaps rare enough that you'd be comfortable with it?
Cheers,
RayB HA
No, because again, this was the problem of the NC even when it was guess mode. The problem was that the hole was doing serious damage. So fine, they got rid of the accuracy when the switched from guess to scatter dice rule. But the problem was still that they felt it was still doing a whole lot of damage which was why they increased the scatter distance when they released the BFG2.0.
This is why for game balance I borrowed a rule which reduced the damage output of the NC shot's center hole when it deviates. Every. Time. This makes for simpler rules and easier game play. I fire at that ship. I roll scatter. On a hit, D6. On a scatter, D3. Simple. No need for any other if-then-else situations. My rules effectively weakened it by a certain degree.
Then on the other end, I retained the scatter distance rules which i feel are enough and gave it the ability to use Lock On Special Orders. Then to limit the number and so eliminate another problem, I went with a limit in how many are available to satisfy the fluff.
So other than making special rules for special races like Eldar and Necron, it works fine. Sure it can be changed but I think it works ok.
-
Who/what did you borrow the rule from?
Is this just for game balance? As fluff/scalewise it should be able to hit you full on accidentally. Why wouldn't it, the heavy blast (hole) is going to be about 1000 times bigger than the ship.
Cheers,
RayB HA
-
Another game system, Warmachine and Hordes. Elegant and simple rule enough.
Now as to your second question, I point out to the rules themselves which describe the game as 3D in 2D. Sure, the hole scattered onto another target on the X and Y plane. The Z plane however, we can assume it missed to a certain degree that the explosion was only at half efficiency. Simple enough explanation. Space is big.
Actually I have something simpler for an answer. Fluff does not automatically equal rules.
-
Admiral_d_Artagnan,
Fluff doesn't always play by the rules, but is it really 'necessary' to not have the full random hit?
Ah Warmachine, haven't played it in years!
Cheers,
RayB
-
If you want to include "balance" then yes, the full hit should not happen on a scatter because it screws up the weapons rules. People will always point out that the hole: 1. can do tremendous damage even if it scatters and 2. so make the weapon inefficient that 3. people will only take them en masse.
By making the damage only half, it's easier to improve the weapon to the satisfaction of both parties at the same time allowing for rules which limit its availability which would not be a problem to the player who brings the NC.
-
How does it screw up the weapons rules? The only real problem I can see is bracing. (as it should be able to cause you to BFI 2 ships(or squadrons).
Cheers,
RayB
-
As I said, the reason why the changes to scatter were increased was because the center hole still had a good chance of doing max damage even on a scatter.
-
A good chance? A NC hole scattering onto another stem can't happen that often (unless you 'really' bunch your cruisers). I can't really see it happening enough to need a balancing rule that could then be used to justify an increase in strength.
Cheers,
RayB
-
i know its been slightly shot down, but i'd like to mention again, my idea on the NC, and the reasoning behind it.
keep the scatter bands - they suck, but could be simplified, but for making the least changes... keep them.
the center hole of the blast template does D3 damage.
anything touching the template takes 1 damage (including something under the center hole)
The Lock-On SO allows the firer to re-roll the scatter dice.
______________
Now the math:
currently: hit (1/3) * avg damage roll (7/2) = 7/6 ~ 1.167 average damage per shot.
my way: hit (1/3) * avg damage roll + temp (3/2 +1 )= 5/6 ~ .83 average damage per shot
my way, locked on: hit (5/9) * avg damage roll + temp (3/2 +1) = 25/18 ~ 1.389 average damage per shot.
as you can see, my way, the NC is much weaker than the current version - however it gains a boost to 'just better' than the current version when locked on. however, its not extremely scary, because often it will only take down shields - it not longer has the random chance of crippling a cruiser with 1 shot (which btw is 5.6%)
-
my way: hit (1/3) * avg damage roll + temp (3/2 +1 )= 5/6 ~ .83 average damage per shot
my way, locked on: hit (5/9) * avg damage roll + temp (3/2 +1) = 25/18 ~ 1.389 average damage per shot.
Had to make an account to comment on this.
The average roll on a d3 is 2, not 3/2 as you've used.
-
old habit thanks.
my NC avg: (1/3)X(2+1) = 1 damage/shot average
my nc locked: (5/9)x(2+1)=15/9~1.67 damage/shot.
-
Sorry, the math is simply plain wrong. It simply ignores the damage that can be done by scattering hits.
A regular Base is still under hole if the Nc scatters 1-2cm and 3 touches Base
A large Base is still under the hole if the NC scatters 1-3cm and a 4 touches Base
So the current average damage is:
1D6 scatter
small base: 1/3 x 7/2(hit) + 2/3 x 1/3 x 7/2 (scatter of <=2) + 2/3 x 1/6 (scatter result "3") = 2,05
large base: 1/3 x 7/2 (hit) + 2/3 x 1/2 x 7/2 (scatter of 1-3) + 2/3 x 1/6 (scatter 4) = 2,44
2D6 Scatter
small base 7/6 + 2/3 x 1/36 x 7/2 + 2/3 x 1/18 = 1,27
large Base: 7/6 + 2/3 x 1/12 x 7/2 + 2/3 x 1/12 = 1,42
3D6 Scatter
small Base: 7/6 + 2/3 x 1/216 = 1,17
large Base: 7/6 + 2/3 x 1/216 x 7/2 + 2/3 x 1/72 = 1,19
-
(Sorry for the the second post in a row but my browser has some problems to display the answer-box: if you type someting longer than the box the scrollbar jumps up and you cant't see the thing you are currently typing)
So you can see that your suggestion is a simple downgrade. the other point is, that the NC isn't about average damage (if i want a solid source of damage I'll take Torps) it is about the possible Damage. The NC is primary about the possible damage a Nc can do: even under the worst conditions there is a 1:18 (6%) Chance for a "hit 6", meaning a crippled cruiser. This small but realistic risk is the thing that makes the NC worth taking: the enemy must always consider if he puts a carrier under BFI (and because of this can't reload ordonance next turn-meaning you get the upper hand in the "ordonance-fight") or he must take this risk that his cruiser can be crippled.
A NC with just 3 maximum damage ist close to worthless, sorry...
-
thanks for finishing that math for me!
i had brought up that it didn't account for scatter a few pages back when i first thought up the idea. my nc does 4 max damage, not 3 (d3 for the hole, +1 for the temp), the fact that it can re-roll scatter means its more useful for the true purpose of an NC - to keep the enemy from bunching up.
i do agree, if i want consistent damage, i run a torp fleet as well.
-
I don't see the use of lock on as an advantage, especially not for the Mars class.
1. An additional moral check is never an advantage. In general one of the main concepts (especially in larger battles) is to keep the number of necessary command checks as low as possible (this is the reason why you consider Squadrons of cruisers: fewer checks on the better value). If I need lock on just to "hold" the NC on a similiar level (or a modest increase at longer ranges), this is a real bad trade for any IN Admiral.
2. If a ship is on lock on, you can't give any other special rules. Sure, this is no Problem for Apocalypse, Dominator or any Lunar with Nc upgrade, but it hurts a Mars, which can't reload it's launch bays while firing the NC.
3. Back to the table: I simply LOVE the psychological effekt of that weapon: to be honest no rational player sets his absolutly untouched carrier to BFI just because there is a 5-9%(depending on Range) Chance for 6 hits.
And thats the point where pure sadism walks in ;D
Me: "oh, hit"
Opponent: "please, anything but no 6"
me: trows dice....evil grin.... "6" :D
And, hey, this is really a perfect expression of the the way of the Imperium: come over Chaos scum, I'll show you who has the biggest dick..erm...guns ^^
-
yes you speak some truth about the fear factor - however an argument to keep the NC the same on a House Rules thread is kinda useless. i like the fact that if i can hit i can drop a cruisers shields at minimum, but sacrifice the higher damage.
good point on the mars though... good thing i stopped fielding them, probably why my system works well.
cheers!
-
Sorry to sound like a broken record but I'll never be comfortable with multiple D6 scatter (in any game actually). There's too much wrong with it probability-wise and in BFG the scale is tested also!
If for some reason you wanted to scatter more than 6cm I would say get a bigger dice! But this is BFG anymore than 6cm is one hell of a miss!
Cheers,
RayB
-
Well, if multiple scatter dice are the problem, why don't keep the rules simple:
-D6 damage if "hole" touched, 1 damage if touched by template
-range: 30-150cm, scatters 1D6, regardless of range, a "hit" still scatters, but distance is halved, rounded up (1-2=1cm, 2-4=2cm, 5-6=3cm)
- to use a nova cannon a succesful "reload ordnance"- roll is needed
- Battleship mounted NC's throw 2D6 for scatter distance and take the lowest AND throw 2D6 for damage and take the highest
Average damage is 1,78 for small Bases and 2,44 for large Bases.
This is a simple rule, without "harming" the NC: you get a drawback at small Bases at short distance, but a reasonable increase over long/medium distances. This amount of damage seems fair to me, as a NC usually costs ~20p more than torpedos and therefore should deliver more damage than a torpedo tube. the "reload ordnance" is a little "price to pay" for Dominators or upgraded Lunars without harming the (IMO already overpriced) Mars. the last paragraph is in to help the underperforming Apocalypse. It doesn't solve the problem of "Nova spamming", but this is something the players must solve by reason and good manners: at all it isn't worse than Devastor-Spam, Explorer-Spam or Eldar just using destroyers....
-
Sorry to sound like a broken record but I'll never be comfortable with multiple D6 scatter (in any game actually). There's too much wrong with it probability-wise and in BFG the scale is tested also!
If for some reason you wanted to scatter more than 6cm I would say get a bigger dice! But this is BFG anymore than 6cm is one hell of a miss!
Cheers,
RayB
Are you really championing a weapon doing 6 damage and having a max scatter of 6cm? That's ridiculous.
-
It's doing a D6 Damage, not 6 damage - a small but elemental difference. ;)
-
Sorry to sound like a broken record but I'll never be comfortable with multiple D6 scatter (in any game actually). There's too much wrong with it probability-wise and in BFG the scale is tested also!
If for some reason you wanted to scatter more than 6cm I would say get a bigger dice! But this is BFG anymore than 6cm is one hell of a miss!
If the probability is a problem you could always replace extra dice with a multiplier.
e.g.
1d6 = d6
2d6 = (d6)x2
3d6 = (d6)x3 ...
I find the argument of realistic scale in BFG a bit odd though. From its approach BFG (and 40k in general) is not really science fiction.
i.e. scale serves fluff (and gameplay for that matter).
-
If for some reason you wanted to scatter more than 6cm I would say get a bigger dice! But this is BFG anymore than 6cm is one hell of a miss!
I've been thinking about this and it's sort of faulty. 6cm is only 4% of a nova cannon's range. That's not that exceptional of a miss.
That's within reasonable proximity if we go by the intrawar-period military standards 40k is based on. Heck, it's super accurate.
-
So I figured with 8 pages of debate, there must be something interesting here. Any summary without me having to read through it all?
-
Where I stand with the rules:
30cm-150cm range.
Scatter dice with D6cm scatter. Where a hit is 0cm scatter if the firing ship didn't turn.
You have to target a ship/defence or ordy marker/wave. Target priority is identical to other weapons, so you must pass a leadership test not to shoot the closest target.
D6 damage with the hole over the stem,
D3 with the hole over the base,
1 damage with the outer template over the base.
You may not have more capital ships with NC's as without.
And that's it....
Halving D6 damage is a D3, why not just say D3?
Multipliers of D6 have the problem of missing values. There is no 5cm scatter from D6x3cm.
In terms of accuracy I'm comparing it to All other weapons in BFG.
Cheers,
RayB HA