Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It was an issue because he was using them to snipe all my characters that were behind the regular squads, so I couldn't replenish units, and had Drycha eating a unit. Although one mistake I made was sending my King on Terrorgheist to attack Drycha instead of wiping out the squad of Revenant guys that was by an objective. I still likely would have lost, but he wouldn't be getting double points every turn.

Don't present targets if possible Dunno, actually, haven't experimented much in AoS playing other than Fyreslayers against shooty armies. Duardin and Seraphon games were luckily not vs. all judicators or bolt throwers.

Well see the issue here is that you didn't take your 2+rerollable save that ignores rend up to -2 against shooting attacks. Or is it only Stormcasts that have that...?

ERJAK wrote:
Well see the issue here is that you didn't take your 2+rerollable save that ignores rend up to -2 against shooting attacks. Or is it only Stormcasts that have that...?

Actually it's Seraphon and Death stuff that has ignoring rends.

Kunoth Hunter is really good for their toughness and suvivabilities but not damage output. If you have weathered freeguide shooting or Kunning Orcs you will know the pwer of real shooting.

But yes, Kunoth Hunters are even more powerful caompare with other shooting units because of their toughness. Most shooting die immediately facing deep strike troops. Kunoth Hunter can stand for a way longer time.

Try playing with balefull realmgates on the board, this way it's doable to reach units surfing the edges of the battlefield.

Requizen wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Well see the issue here is that you didn't take your 2+rerollable save that ignores rend up to -2 against shooting attacks. Or is it only Stormcasts that have that...?

Actually it's Seraphon and Death stuff that has ignoring rends.

Fulminator+Castellant+cover gives you a 0+ save so -2 rend still leaves you at 2+

Played another small game against an Empire ("Free Peoples") force yesterday. Small game, guy had a cannon, a unit of 30 guys with sword and shield, a general and a unit of 20 archers. Did not move the entire game because his general gave some ability that gave his guys a bonus to hit/wound if they didn't. Again, I found eating a ton of shots to be not fun at all (although nowhere near as overpowered as Kurnoth Hunters). but once I got into combat it was quickly over for him.

I still feel that shooting needs another limitation, like you suffer a-1/-2 penalty to hit and/or wound if you are shooting INTO melee (and then some guys like Skaven can ignore it because Skaven) and you cannot shoot if you are engaged in melee (maybe even limit it to models engaged, not the entire unit)

When I wrote Azyr, we had tried a few rules to limit shooting.

All were shouted down by the community because they went against the official rules.

So I agree with you that shooting needs some limitations. Mainly realistic limitations, like if an archer unit is engaged in melee its not free to shoot at other units outside of its melee, and that shooting a mortar into a combat is not going to magically just hit the enemy.

However, that is not a realistic wish.

Well, it is if GW decides to listen and FAQ it. Problem is, a lot of the most vocal people tend to be the competitive types, so they probably WANT to keep shooting high end so they can steamroll tournaments with Skyrefire or Kurnoth Hunters or whatnot. Look at how the rabid vocal minority got the new Prospero 40k things thrown into being formations for Battle-forged, just so they would not have to sully themselves by playing Unbound.

My major problem now is that I am looking at doing another AOS army, and I feel the fact that shooting is so OP is making me want to consider an army that has shooting just so I can take advantage of it, rather than actually look at something I want to play that might not have shooting because I don't wnt to go through it again with being continually blasted off the board with literally nothing except hiding behind a large building to stop it.

As an aside one thing I find hilariously funny (in the bad way) is how many people are willing to do things like say to measure from the base, which is a house rule but are unwilling to add in other house rules because it's "not official". Neither is measuring from the base. So what, exactly, makes one fine and expected, and the other an anathema?

Wayniac wrote:
Well, it is if GW decides to listen and FAQ it. Problem is, a lot of the most vocal people tend to be the competitive types, so they probably WANT to keep shooting high end so they can steamroll tournaments with Skyrefire or Kurnoth Hunters or whatnot. Look at how the rabid vocal minority got the new Prospero 40k things thrown into being formations for Battle-forged, just so they would not have to sully themselves by playing Unbound.

My major problem now is that I am looking at doing another AOS army, and I feel the fact that shooting is so OP is making me want to consider an army that has shooting just so I can take advantage of it, rather than actually look at something I want to play that might not have shooting because I don't wnt to go through it again with being continually blasted off the board with literally nothing except hiding behind a large building to stop it.

As an aside one thing I find hilariously funny (in the bad way) is how many people are willing to do things like say to measure from the base, which is a house rule but are unwilling to add in other house rules because it's "not official". Neither is measuring from the base. So what, exactly, makes one fine and expected, and the other an anathema?

Blatant misrepresentation as far as the SoS Custodes go. The VAST majority of people WANTED to be able to bring those models into battleforged lists and honestly there was no good reason they shouldn't of been. It's the vocal minority that whines about it 'fer mah immersion!'. Secondly, things being OMG WTF BBQ OP suck for the competitive crowd too because EVERYONE takes them and there's no variety. Yeah rolling over locals is funny sometimes but at anything bigger than 20 people, half are bringing the same OP BS as you and that isn't interesting either. Having a number of very powerful competitive builds is great and having 2 of the 3 big time power builds be shooting based is no bueno.

That aside, we've ruled that your can't shoot OUT of a combat and got rid of random initiative and that was really all it took. Shooting units are extremely strong but they also tend to be very expensive and not great in melee. Certain armies(Stormcast, skaven, some destruction armies) don't care about shooting at all, so small adjustments is where you would start in terms of balancing.

Wayniac wrote:
As an aside one thing I find hilariously funny (in the bad way) is how many people are willing to do things like say to measure from the base, which is a house rule but are unwilling to add in other house rules because it's "not official". Neither is measuring from the base. So what, exactly, makes one fine and expected, and the other an anathema?

Base to base measurement can be found as a house rule in just about every AoS event that GW runs. That's why most find that as an acceptable house rule.

 Ghaz wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
As an aside one thing I find hilariously funny (in the bad way) is how many people are willing to do things like say to measure from the base, which is a house rule but are unwilling to add in other house rules because it's "not official". Neither is measuring from the base. So what, exactly, makes one fine and expected, and the other an anathema?

Base to base measurement can be found as a house rule in just about every AoS event that GW runs. That's why most find that as an acceptable house rule.

Oh I agree, but it's still a house rule, and not playing by the "official" rules. So I'm curious why that's okay, but adding other house rules is seen as taboo.

Wayniac wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Wayniac wrote:
As an aside one thing I find hilariously funny (in the bad way) is how many people are willing to do things like say to measure from the base, which is a house rule but are unwilling to add in other house rules because it's "not official". Neither is measuring from the base. So what, exactly, makes one fine and expected, and the other an anathema?

Base to base measurement can be found as a house rule in just about every AoS event that GW runs. That's why most find that as an acceptable house rule.

Oh I agree, but it's still a house rule, and not playing by the "official" rules. So I'm curious why that's okay, but adding other house rules is seen as taboo.

Like I said, its because GW uses it. That's why its okay.

Re evaluating the point costs and changing them to better represent yeah unit's value would balance shooting and other things besides. Other than that, don't roll for initiative; it helps.

Requizen wrote:

ERJAK wrote:
Well see the issue here is that you didn't take your 2+rerollable save that ignores rend up to -2 against shooting attacks. Or is it only Stormcasts that have that...?

Actually it's Seraphon and Death stuff that has ignoring rends.

Tyrion has it too... well, minus the re-rollable but he can go back to life. fething donkey-cave brought him with teclis and loaded a bunch of bolt-throwers.,

Sup all. In response to OP. I played against a similar list. I am a sylvaneth player as well. Your ghoul king on a terrorgheist is a monster. Do not be afraid to put him up in the face of those Kournoth Hunters. They have an average bravery and no way of avoiding mortal wounds. Be sure to use the synergy of your army. The healing, rerolls, and the moving of models. You are tough to kill and your high bravery will make it tough on the sylvaneth. Do not be intimidated by him. I found out that most of my opponents see my ancient and hunters intimidating and try to avoid them. I have the hardest times dealing with opponents who come straight at them. This is my biggest piece of advice.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Re evaluating the point costs and changing them to better represent yeah unit's value would balance shooting and other things besides. Other than that, don't roll for initiative; it helps.

I think the point costs for most shooting units is pretty close to where they should be (arrer boyz, Kurnoths, and Stormfiends(?) not withstanding) maybe a 5-10% increase but I think the random init is a MUCH bigger problem. Against a shooting army a melee army generally wants to go first and charge as hard as they can across the table so they can be in top of turn 2, with random initiative that's SUPER dangerous. In fact the only time random initiative doesn't help a shooting army is when the shooter went first, had no meaningful range and the melee player headlong charged and then got the double turn and ate the entire shooting army in one round of combat, which is no fun for the shooting player.

TLR random initiative inflates the power of shooting armies and makes them much more 'Swingy' which is usually bad news.

I do note a trend where the people who enjoy random initiative don't seem to play with/against shooting-heavy lists.

Random initiative is ok for melee against shooting if you can build a fast deployment force (battalions or large units) and force them to take the first turn. Few armies have the range to do much even if you deploy on the line, and then you have a chance at the double turn. I've seen an Ironfist with a Mawcrusha use this to great effect, they almost always get to choose to go second and then get a T1 or T2 charge.

If you're playing more MSU against shooting, it's a bit more up in the air. But again that's just in army building.

You can see the issue though; people are betting on the double turn where if they get it the game is more or less decided. Who cares about tactics when you can bet on a 50% and net a win provided you don't do anything stupid? If that 50% fails oh well, you'll have to actually play the game.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You can see the issue though; people are betting on the double turn where if they get it the game is more or less decided. Who cares about tactics when you can bet on a 50% and net a win provided you don't do anything stupid? If that 50% fails oh well, you'll have to actually play the game.

See but don't see as an issue

 VeteranNoob wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You can see the issue though; people are betting on the double turn where if they get it the game is more or less decided. Who cares about tactics when you can bet on a 50% and net a win provided you don't do anything stupid? If that 50% fails oh well, you'll have to actually play the game.

See but don't see as an issue

Perhaps I should clarify; I am saying that is the issue with rolling for initiative, not that rolling for initiative is the issue. There's plenty of ways such problems could be addressed while still maintaining rolled initiative, but I think most would agree that it the outcome of a game has a 50% chance of being decided by a single d6 roll that is a problem.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 VeteranNoob wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
You can see the issue though; people are betting on the double turn where if they get it the game is more or less decided. Who cares about tactics when you can bet on a 50% and net a win provided you don't do anything stupid? If that 50% fails oh well, you'll have to actually play the game.

See but don't see as an issue

Perhaps I should clarify; I am saying that is the issue with rolling for initiative, not that rolling for initiative is the issue. There's plenty of ways such problems could be addressed while still maintaining rolled initiative, but I think most would agree that it the outcome of a game has a 50% chance of being decided by a single d6 roll that is a problem.

It's not, though. In the situation that the melee player goes first and doesn't get the double turn, the game plays as normal. In the situation where the melee player goes first and gets the double turn, he's in a good spot.

So the ranged player adapts. He knows this is how things are now, so he either brings more screening units or plays even further back and spread out, knowing that he can play towards a possible double turn himself. Or he brings battalions of his own and races setup. Or he does deployment shenanigans. Or he mixes shooting with a solid frontline unit (like a wall of Plaguebearers or the like).

Things will evolve quite naturally, you'll find. I don't think there's anything wrong with melee or shooting at this point in time, people have yet to learn how to play the metagame.

I remember when the GHB launched and a few of us said 'this is going to create a battalion, shooting, monster meta' and weren't taken very seriously. So when I'm here saying the same trend will get worse it's difficult to take the 'it will balance out on the tabletop' argument seriously since that is the same one I saw before. Seeing who wins the upcoming grand tournament will provide some evidence for the matter I suppose.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
I remember when the GHB launched and a few of us said 'this is going to create a battalion, shooting, monster meta' and weren't taken very seriously. So when I'm here saying the same trend will get worse it's difficult to take the 'it will balance out on the tabletop' argument seriously since that is the same one I saw before. Seeing who wins the upcoming grand tournament will provide some evidence for the matter I suppose.

Totally agreed. The least fun armies for my melee heavy army to play against are all battlations/shooting/monsters.

I'm really not going to be shocked when the winner of the GTs are primarily shooty monster type armies that make extensive use of certain battalions.

I wouldn't throw out too many predictions on that front. Our local tourney had two shooting heavy armies (Tzeentch and Free Peoples) and three Monster heavy armies (Death with Nagash/Neferata, Flesh Eaters with 3 Terrorgheists and a Zombie Dragon, and Ironjawz with Gordrakk + Boss on Mawkrusha). The winner was an undefeated Ironjawz player with only one Mawkrusha that he's already talking about switching out.

Requizen wrote:
I wouldn't throw out too many predictions on that front. Our local tourney had two shooting heavy armies (Tzeentch and Free Peoples) and three Monster heavy armies (Death with Nagash/Neferata, Flesh Eaters with 3 Terrorgheists and a Zombie Dragon, and Ironjawz with Gordrakk + Boss on Mawkrusha). The winner was an undefeated Ironjawz player with only one Mawkrusha that he's already talking about switching out.

I don't know anything about the tournament other than what you said here, and my only question is if he used a second battalion or if it was just the one Ironfist.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Requizen wrote:
I wouldn't throw out too many predictions on that front. Our local tourney had two shooting heavy armies (Tzeentch and Free Peoples) and three Monster heavy armies (Death with Nagash/Neferata, Flesh Eaters with 3 Terrorgheists and a Zombie Dragon, and Ironjawz with Gordrakk + Boss on Mawkrusha). The winner was an undefeated Ironjawz player with only one Mawkrusha that he's already talking about switching out.

I don't know anything about the tournament other than what you said here, and my only question is if he used a second battalion or if it was just the one Ironfist.

Just Ironfist as far as Battalions go. He pumped up on heroes to get the most out of Rampaging Destroyers and had some Ardboyz units to hold objectives. The core of his force was the Boss and Brutes just rolling around 2d6+4" per turn and beating everything short of Nagash each turn, those things are nasty.

Actually what I found about Behemoths is that their main role in many armies is to just be a fire magnet. People see a Stardrake or Zombie Dragon and want to pump all their damage into it to kill it asap, and unless they're Skyre or other mass Mortal Wounds, the main draw of a Behemoth isn't the killing power, but the ability to draw all the arrows and bullets away from your foot dudes for as long as possible. Our Khorne player lost his Bloodthirster first in all of his games but the rest of his army was able to get further up the board because they put so much into killing it.