Nova Cannon -House Rules-

[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

[Admiral_d_Artagnan]

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.

[Vaaish]

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?

[RayB HA]

Admiral_d_Artagnan, which issue of WR are you NC rules in?

Also, anyone else having problems with the WR website?

Cheers,

RayB

[RayB HA]

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
  

[Vaaish]

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.

[RayB HA]

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

[Vaaish]

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]

Admiral_d_Artagnan, which issue of WR are you NC rules in?

Also, anyone else having problems with the WR website?

Cheers,

RayB

WR14

[RayB HA]

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

[Vaaish]

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]

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,

[RayB HA]

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

[Vaaish]

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.

[RayB HA]

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