Nova Cannon -House Rules-

[Hellebore]

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

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

[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. 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

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

[Darkman3483]

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.

[RayB HA]

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 

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

[Vaaish]

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.

[RayB HA]

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

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

[Vaaish]

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

[horizon]

Yeah, the randomness. Which ignites the psychology of the weapon is what should be kept.

[RayB HA]

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
   

[Vaaish]

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.

[RayB HA]

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