Nova Cannon -House Rules-

[RayB HA]

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

[RayB HA]

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

[trynerror]

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.

[RayB HA]

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

[trynerror]

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.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

[RayB HA]

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     

[horizon]

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.

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

[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).

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

[Vaaish]

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.

[RayB HA]

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

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

[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.

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.

[trynerror]

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).