Discussion around Rock Lobbers

[Barry Pittman]

I have been doing some poking around with the maths behind the Orc Rock Lobber (as I find them rather underwhelming).

I did also look at most of the other artillery at the same time but want to keep the discussion narrow for now.

My problem can be highlighted like this:

Orc Rock Lobber 75pts: 3 shots at range 60cm. Wounds per round of shooting (1.5). Chance of confusion per round of shooting 25%.

Empire Cannon 85pts: Between 4 and 8 shots. Wounds per round of shooting (range of between 2 and 4). Chance of confusion per round of shooting (range of between 33% and 66%).

When working in pairs.
The Rock Lobbers deliver 3 wounds and a 50% chance of confusion per round for 150pts.
The Cannons deliver between 4 and 8 wounds with a range of confusion from 66% to 133% for 170pts.

This is not even factoring in the fact that Cannons will most likely destroy the targetted unit with Drive Backs, something the Rock Lobbers have little chance of achieving.

Finally, Cannons get to stand and shoot and have 33% more wounds per unit.

Now, I am not saying that Cannon are under-priced, they are necessary in the lists they exist in and are vulnerable to a charge from Heavy Cavalry the same as everything else. What I am saying is that Rock Lobbers are too expensive to be viable and that makes me sad.

When the Brettonain Trebuchet was looking at for the tournament lists is was moved down from 150pts to 100pts, changed to 1 per 1000pts and now delivers a much more viable package. For 200pts you can get 8 shots with range 80cms, they can even shoot indirectly. Have they broken the game? I would argue they are much more viable whilst still not being overpowered.

So back to the Rock Lobbers and a solution.

What points level would they be a decent choice at? Still being a single base and 1 per 1000pts. I reckon looking at the same 33% discount given to the Treb as a starting point, so somewhere between 50pts and 65pts, with my gut saying the lower end is better.

Thoughts?

[Aldhick]

Just quick shallow reaction withou any deeper thought...   I guess it's not Rock Lobber being too bad, but imo it's cannon too good :-) It's similar with TK bone throwers.. they suck, compared to cannon and it's price.

[Stormwind]

Orcs are compensated with under priced magic users with great spells though.

[Barry Pittman]

Good points. Keep them coming. In response.

Just quick shallow reaction withou any deeper thought...   I guess it's not Rock Lobber being too bad, but imo it's cannon too good :-) It's similar with TK bone throwers.. they suck, compared to cannon and it's price.

It's hard enough to discuss 60cm+ artillery. The 40cm stuff is virtually defensive fire weaponry in a game were Cavalry move 60cm with ease.

Orcs are compensated with under priced magic users with great spells though.

I don't like the "compensated" argument, as I believe the Rock Lobber is the benchmark that all other Stone Throwers are calibrated from. Most other armies that have Rock Lobbers don't have the Orc Magic phase and so are in reality paying a premium for something they don't have.

[Stormwind]

Yeah, that's a fair point - things like Knights are the same even in different armies.

Here's something else - only one stand, compared with the cannons having two...

I wonder - is this kind of unit costed differently in any of the experimental/fan armies?

[honestmistake]

Well the "Doom Diver" from the Goblin list is an 80 point catapult unit with 3 attacks, it doesn't have any special effect on the targets armour save but it does cause confusion on a 4-6... it's also a 2 stand unit which makes it an absolute bargain! Not sure if it's a fair comparison though as the low price could be to compensate for the armies very weak troops and low command?

[Barry Pittman]

Yeah, that's a fair point - things like Knights are the same even in different armies.

Here's something else - only one stand, compared with the cannons having two...

I wonder - is this kind of unit costed differently in any of the experimental/fan armies?

The further away from the core lists you get, the cheaper / better "Stone Throwers" get.

Well the "Doom Diver" from the Goblin list is an 80 point catapult unit with 3 attacks, it doesn't have any special effect on the targets armour save but it does cause confusion on a 4-6... it's also a 2 stand unit which makes it an absolute bargain! Not sure if it's a fair comparison though as the low price could be to compensate for the armies very weak troops and low command?

The Doom Diver is a classic example. If the Doom Diver is really worth only 80pts, then the Rock Lobber cannot be priced at 75pts. Confusion on a 4+, 6 attacks per round, the target getting an armour save is not trivial, however most stuff in the game is lightly armoured.

Wounds per round of shooting AV0 3, AV6 2.5, AV5 2, AV4 1.5.
Chance of confusion per round of shooting AV0 150%, Av6 125%, AV5 100%, AV4 75%.

Compare that with the 1.5 wounds and 25% chance of confusion from the Rock Lobber and the problem is clear. Even vs AV4 the Doom Diver delivers the same number of wounds and 3x the chance of confusion.

[andys]

...What points level would they be a decent choice at? Still being a single base and 1 per 1000pts. I reckon looking at the same 33% discount given to the Treb as a starting point, so somewhere between 50pts and 65pts, with my gut saying the lower end is better.

Thoughts?

Or 2 bases per unit.

Edit: and increase the price to 100-120 points? In this case, to reflect the "O&G aren't a shooting army", then restrict it to only one unit in the entire army.

[Aldhick]

And what about skull chukka then? Guys... shouldn't be the approach other way round? As it was already said, the Rock Lobber was originaly ment as base line for such weapons. So why are you using as an argument units from experimental or trial lists (trebuchet, doom diver).

I've never played with O&G army, but I played lots of games with TK. So what I can say about skull chukka is, that in games under 2000 pts I don't play it to cause damage, but to cause confusion - and it's pretty effective tool.
But on games over 2000 pts it's completely different story, when you can put two units togheter. Now it becomes super effective on confusion and also very good damage dealer. Overall it's "must have" option for me. I'd agree that the confusion of 4 may be worht more than 10 pts... 15 maybe.. but regarding they can be taken only once per 1000 pts it's a nuance. But 50 pts for Rock lobber? No way.. Again as I see it, it's cannon that is really cheap for it's capabilites (shooting through ranks being able to cause 8 hits on unit in column withou save and all the defended/fortified stuff atop).
 I really don't take the argument, that "no armor saves" is not as important, for there are mostly light armored units. Well that depends what army are you playing against. Conversly I think this is very important rule and have serious impact on tactis as opponent will try to avoid his elite units to being shot at and has to manouvere accordingly.

[Rowlybot]

The way I've always seen it is cannons are for infantry in column, stone throwers of all types are for cavalry. But I do much prefer two stone throwers to one. 6 attacks ignoring 4+ saves of knights is lovely.

Why not consider that stone throwers move from 1 base per unit to 2 bases per unit? Would likely require a points increase instead though.

[Barry Pittman]

The way I've always seen it is cannons are for infantry in column, stone throwers of all types are for cavalry. But I do much prefer two stone throwers to one. 6 attacks ignoring 4+ saves of knights is lovely.

Why not consider that stone throwers move from 1 base per unit to 2 bases per unit? Would likely require a points increase instead though.

I think they would be too powerful if they came in units of two. Put two units together and they have 12 shots with no armour saves, doing 6 wounds. Even Orcs would have a 100% chance of confusion and Tomb Kings would have a 300% chance. They would also destroy targets with drivebacks on average dice.

[Rowlybot]

As do 2 units of cannons as you mentioned in your first post. So I'm not sure where you're drawing the line?

You want stone throwers to be better or stone throwers to be cheaper?

[kyussinchains]

The way I've always seen it is cannons are for infantry in column, stone throwers of all types are for cavalry. But I do much prefer two stone throwers to one. 6 attacks ignoring 4+ saves of knights is lovely.

Why not consider that stone throwers move from 1 base per unit to 2 bases per unit? Would likely require a points increase instead though.

I think they would be too powerful if they came in units of two. Put two units together and they have 12 shots with no armour saves, doing 6 wounds. Even Orcs would have a 100% chance of confusion and Tomb Kings would have a 300% chance. They would also destroy targets with drivebacks on average dice.

the maths for the probability isn't quite that simple.... when rolling 6 dice and needing at least one six, the chance is 1-(5/6)^6 which is approximately a 66.5% chance of causing confusion, for the tomb kings it's 1-(1/2)^6 or 98.4%

[kyussinchains]

on the original topic, could it simply be due to the fact that the O&G aren't meant to be a shooting focused army so their missile choices are sub-optimal in terms of points to discourage people from taking an excess number?

[Lex]

on the original topic, could it simply be due to the fact that the O&G aren't meant to be a shooting focused army so their missile choices are sub-optimal in terms of points to discourage people from taking an excess number?

That, and the fact that actually constructing a good working lobber is a somewhat rare feat for the greenskins