BFG:R Nova Cannon

[Sigoroth]

I'd like to think I was a bit more accurate than that. What's the tau reference? Is that some fluff?

Well, the 1% miss rate is to represent the extra variance of the first round of guesses. As for the Tau, ever tried playing Explorers against an NC heavy fleet? Large bases are extremely easy to hit with NC, and 1 shield ships are especially vulnerable to NC, and when they're carriers you're faced with taking a lot of damage or bracing, in which case you get no AC.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Ah I see, only played with/ against fw tau. Oh and first round= table size - each players move, always setup second .

[Sigoroth]

Ah I see, only played with/ against fw tau. Oh and first round= table size - each players move, always setup second .

Well you don't get to know exactly how far your opponent has moved, so long as it is within his movement range, nor do you get to know exactly how far in from a table edge he has deployed, again within limitations.

[AndrewChristlieb]

I guess you dont watch them make their move? Ive never had a problem not know what their movement distance was, its the little numbers on the tape measure  . As for the deployment distance everyone I play with has a habit of setting up with a tape measure to make sure theyre not over  . So... maybe its not "right" or "moral" but I got a lot of first turn direct hits  .

[Sigoroth]

I guess you dont watch them make their move? Ive never had a problem not know what their movement distance was, its the little numbers on the tape measure  . As for the deployment distance everyone I play with has a habit of setting up with a tape measure to make sure theyre not over  . So... maybe its not "right" or "moral" but I got a lot of first turn direct hits  .

My opponents didn't use tape measures while moving. They just determined their minimum and maximum movement, took the tape measure away and plonked their ship somewhere in between. Similarly, the deployment box was measured out and marked with dice. No tape measure lying handily nearby.

[horizon]

^ Like that.
But still, for some easy catch.

[Plaxor]

How about this simplicity; Ships equipped with Nova Cannon on Lock On special orders reduce the scatter distance by 1D6 to a minimum of 1D6. Meaning they will scatter 1D6 within 30-90cm, and 2D6 beyond. It improves it quite a bit IMO.

[AndrewChristlieb]

Ok so are the base rules for nova going to remain 30-45cm 1D6 scatter 46-60cm 2D6 scatter and 61+ 3D6 scatter. Or are the base rules going to read 30-90cm 2d6 scatter 91-150cm 3D6 scatter.

[Plaxor]

My Apologies, just looked at the original rules. Here is some mathmatica;

So Current 'Official' Rules;

30-45cm 1D6 Scatter
45-60cm 2D6 Scatter
60+ 3D6 Scatter

For these values it has:
1D6 Scatter: 55.5% chance of a direct hit, and a 22% chance of an indirect hit on a small base. On a large base it has a 66% chance of a direct hit, and a 22% chance of an indirect one.
2D6 Scatter: 35.1% chance of a direct hit, and a 9.1% chance of an indirect hit on a small base. On a large base it has a 38.5% chance of a direct hit, and a 12.8% chance of an indirect one.
3D6 Scatter: 33.3% chance of a direct hit, and a 2.3% chance of an indirect hit on a small base. On a large base it has a 33.8% chance of a direct hit, and a 3.3% chance of an indirect one.

Translating these into pure damage, assuming that direct hits=average 3.5 hits, and indirect hits average 1, and also assuming equal opportunities for large and small bases we have:
1D6: 2.35 hits average
2D6: 1.4 hits average
3D6: 1.2 hits average

So not much different from 3D6 to 2D6, other than when it misses it goes farther. However let's compare old to current rules; I know that there are some ambiguities to where targets lie in a game. Meaning, I've had games where NCs fired a number of times within the 30cm bracket, and all too often the 60-150cm section really didn't mean anything. So there is some 'manipulation to the numbers' here.

In this case, I am only counting half of the 60-150cm bracket. So lets say, that this is only 60-105, or 45cm.
So we have:
15cm of 1D6
15cm of 2D6
45cm of 3D6

Or an average damage output of 1.47. Naturally according to old rules, where the scatter was 1D6 under 60 and 2D6 over, this would be more like 1.78. Reducing the NCs efficacy by about 20%.

We had in system a re-rolling mechanism, where ships on LO orders could re-roll the scatter. Math looks like this for the NC in that case:

1D6: 80% direct vs. small bases, 10% indirect. 87.8% against large, 6% indirect
2D6: 56.3% direct vs. small, 6.3% indirect. 62.5% direct vs. large, 11.5% indirect
3D6: 55.5% direct vs. small, 1% indirect. 55.7% direct vs. large, 2.3% indirect

Or
1D6: 3.01 Hits average
2D6: 2.17 Hits average
3D6: 1.96 Hits average

With the 'reroll' system it really beefs up the long range damage. Making it an average overall (using the previous weighing system) of 2.213 or about 50% better than official rules.

Now looking at things that we could do;
Admiral D' proposed that reroll hits could only be glancing regardless of if the hole is over the base, meaning that you only do D3 damage in those circumstance, adding this to 'official' rules, this would mean;

1D6: 2.68 hits average
2D6: 1.82 hits average
3D6: 1.6 hits average

Average overall: 1.865 or 27% better than current rules.

Now if you take Admiral D's concept another way, in that if an NC hits a base, but is not over the center peg then damage looks like this (re-rolls included):

1D6: 2.71
2D6: 2.01
3D6: 1.74

Or an average of 1.988 or 35% better than current.

Now my proposal of dropping a D6 would have an average of: 1.78, or 20% better than current, however this seems a little boring now.

What I think in general;

Rerolling the scatter does make a bit more sense, obviously if it is done with normal efficacy then the weapon becomes too powerful. I do like Admiral D's system, although it is a little strange, and one disadvantage here is that on the rerolls it doesn't have the crippling capability, and is quite a bit more stable, so though it has a better damage output, it is lacking in a way. With my proposed system, it does a little less damage on average, but doesn't weaken the weapon.

Other things that could be done:

Altering the width of the bands, it does seem weird to me that 1D6 and 2D6 only occupy a small proportion of the entire NC range.

So finally I think that Admiral D's Proposition makes the most sense, meaning NCs on LO special orders may re-roll the scatter die regardless of result, however the 'hole' of the template must be centered over the stem of the ship to do 1D6 damage, if the hole is situated anywhere else on the base then it only does 1D3.

This should be a 37% improvement in the NC, at least when vessels are on LO, and provide a reason to be locked on. It also works well with the game, (re-rolling) and with logic (near misses shouldn't do quite so much damage).

[Sigoroth]

I agree the scatter distance should be tweaked down. In the 30-60cm range it should be 1d6cm, from 60-90cm 2d6 and 90+cm would be 3d6.

If we go by d'Artagnan's idea then an initial roll of a 'Hit' (33.3% chance) the NC will do 1d6 damage (average of 3.5). When a miss is initially rolled (even if a hit is re-rolled when locked on) the NC will do 1d3 damage (average of 2) if the centre hole touches the base. For a small base, 1d6 scatter, this makes a 37% chance of 1d3 damage and 14.8% chance of 1 damage.

With this set of rules we see an average return of 2.06 damage in the 1d6cm scatter band against a small base when locked on. Comparing this to the original incarnation of the scatter NC rules (ie, the scatter distance roughly as per given above) the same situation would yield an average of 2.17 damage. When further than 60cm, so scattering 2d6cm, this system yields an average of 1.7 damage when locked on vs 1.32 damage of the original system. So basically this allows you to lock on and get an increase in performance when you're a long way away from the enemy, but when you're in optimal firing position you would need to LO in order to maintain roughly similar damage output. This seems a little off to me.

Comparing large bases, this system gives 2.2 damage on LO in the 1d6cm scatter zone, vs 2.6 damage under normal circumstances. So again, it's worse in the optimal zone, particularly as it requires LO to even achieve this. In the 2d6cm scatter zone we get 1.77 damage vs 1.49 of the original system, so again it's better than the current system. Again, it seems a little off to improve long rang performance while simultaneously nerfing performance in the optimal band.

[Plaxor]

Yeah, reasons why I don't like Admiral D's initial idea. It is somewhat weird. However the modified idea would make non-lo NCs weaker. However I do like it, as it feels sensible. Reminder this is the system where NCs do 1D6 damage if the hole is over the ship's stem, D3 if it is over any part of the base, and 1 if the template touches the base.

So the difference for non-LO;
1D6:33% direct hits, 22% indirect, 22% partials for small bases Or 1.81 hits average, or a 23% loss from this range
2D6: 33% direct hits, 1.8% indirect, 9.2% partial. Or 1.27 hits average or a loss of 5%
3D6: 33% direct hits, 1% partial or 1.17 hits. A loss of 4%

Now even though there is this loss for Non-LO there is a substantial gain for LO.

Reasons for this system:
-NCs should have a 'damage gradient' depending on how far they land from their target.
-Fluff dictates that to fire an NC ships have to pay particular attention to targeting, and they don't turn/perform any manouvres while firing. LO prevents turning.
-This system allows a reason for NC ships to use LO orders, and not to an unreasonable extent.

Considering the fact that this does make NCs weaker in a way, I do think that the bands should be modified to Sig's suggestion, meaning 30-60cm:1D6 scatter, 60-90cm:2D6 scatter, 90cm+:3D6 scatter. Which should subjugate the loss somewhat, and make it not so 'lopsided'.

Admiral D's initial suggestion is confusing, but the modified version is logical, and flows easily within the rules.

As far as NC limitations go, I think I can see a limitation in IN fleets, however I don't think that the Admech need such a limitation. Admech pay a premium for their vessels already, and have to pay another 20 pts for the NCs, so if they stack Lunars with NCs, they max out at 6. Since they need AC, generally 2 carriers for most fleets, they can't afford to give those NCs due to the rule of NCs being less effective unless they are on LO orders. I don't think that you will see more than 4 in a normal 1500 point fleet.

1/750 always seemed odd to me, that means 2 in a 1500 point game. Although this does make sense, I think a 500 point limitation makes more sense. Perhaps there are other systems of limitation?

I.e. no more than half of your capital ships may be equipped with NCs (rounded down obviously). I think this system doesn't permit the Heavyside Concept of listbuilding. This would limit IN fleets to 3 NCs if they stacked them in a 1500 point game.

[Sigoroth]

So the difference for non-LO;
1D6:33% direct hits, 22% indirect, 22% partials for small bases Or 1.81 hits average, or a 23% loss from this range
2D6: 33% direct hits, 1.8% indirect, 9.2% partial. Or 1.27 hits average or a loss of 5%
3D6: 33% direct hits, 1% partial or 1.17 hits. A loss of 4%

Now even though there is this loss for Non-LO there is a substantial gain for LO.

There is only gain in the 2d6cm and 3d6cm scatter zones. Even when locked on there is a decrease in efficacy in the 1d6cm range band. If we up this range band to 30-60cm, as I think it should be regardless of which system the NC ends up using, then this would mean that in the most common range band the NC would get flat out worse. At longer ranges the NC would get better. So, in those rare instances when the enemy starts substantially more than 60cm away and they're thus already at the mercy of NCs then the NC becomes better. In the more typical situation where the NC is firing at ships within 60cm and has trouble competing against torpedo alternatives the NC becomes worse.

Reasons for this system:
-NCs should have a 'damage gradient' depending on how far they land from their target.
-Fluff dictates that to fire an NC ships have to pay particular attention to targeting, and they don't turn/perform any manouvres while firing. LO prevents turning.
-This system allows a reason for NC ships to use LO orders, and not to an unreasonable extent.

Possibly all true, not unreasonable. However, I don't like the effects of the proposed change.

Considering the fact that this does make NCs weaker in a way, I do think that the bands should be modified to Sig's suggestion, meaning 30-60cm:1D6 scatter, 60-90cm:2D6 scatter, 90cm+:3D6 scatter. Which should subjugate the loss somewhat, and make it not so 'lopsided'.

Well I think those range bands should be implemented regardless. The having 2 15cm range bands and a 90cm range band seems silly to me. In fact, I wouldn't mind dropping the 3d6cm scatter altogether. If it's going to scatter that much then just say that a miss scatters harmlessly off into the void.

Admiral D's initial suggestion is confusing, but the modified version is logical, and flows easily within the rules.

I don't think the system is confusing, though it does make the maths a little more so.

[Phthisis]

I'm glad you guys are addressing the Lock On Nova Cannon rules!  We found them far too powerful as well.  Also, I like where you guys are going with this.  It sounds to me like you're coming very close to a great solution. 

I have a couple of things to bring up here.

First, as discussed before, if you're going to limit the number of NCs in an IN fleet (which I think HAS to be done), you should allow players to swap NCs for torpedos and vice versa.  Up to you guys if you want to assign a point cost to go with it.

The most effective use of NCs is to use them after shooting when the target's shields are down, they are close enough for 1D6 scatter.  Blast markers don't effect the NCs so there's no reason not to do this.  At longer ranges NCs aren't that threatening because of shields, but after the shields are down they go from threat to completely devestating.  Making near misses D3 hits alleviates this a bit, but Lock On makes a direct hit a 55% chance.  So, how many points of damage will 3 NC ships on LO do Mean average to a target ship with shields down?  I get 6.9 hits mean average.  Seems a bit overpowered to me.

[AndrewChristlieb]

I could see having the option to take ships with torps instead of nova. Maybe a dominator for 160-180ish and a dictator battlecruiser for 250-260ish. Apoc is the only other ship off the top of my head that's got a nova only, don't see much point in swaping it out on that ship tho.

[Sigoroth]

The most effective use of NCs is to use them after shooting when the target's shields are down, they are close enough for 1D6 scatter.  Blast markers don't effect the NCs so there's no reason not to do this.  At longer ranges NCs aren't that threatening because of shields, but after the shields are down they go from threat to completely devestating.  Making near misses D3 hits alleviates this a bit, but Lock On makes a direct hit a 55% chance.  So, how many points of damage will 3 NC ships on LO do Mean average to a target ship with shields down?  I get 6.9 hits mean average.  Seems a bit overpowered to me.

It doesn't matter whether you combine NC fire with other direct fire or more NCs. Obviously shields make the average damage output of a single NC less than overwhelming, but the same could be said of a Gothic's broadside or any number of other ships armaments.

Also, the proposed system makes a re-rolled hit do only 1d3 damage, so there's still only a 33% chance of a direct '1d6 damage' hit. Lock On only increases the chances of a secondary '1d3 damage' hit. Against a small base in the 1d6 scatter zone this increases from a 22% chance to 37% chance. Against a large base in the 1d6 scatter zone it goes from 33% to 44%. In extreme scatter situations the chance of this secondary hit goes from practically nil up to 33%. In all cases the chances of a direct hit remain 33%.

It is the differential non-linear increase in secondary hit effectiveness between base sizes and scatter zones that is the problem for me. Perhaps it should simply reduce the scatter distance by 1d3cm.