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.

Last night my Dwarf army faced a friends skaven, and apparently was quite unprepared for what I considered a modest amount of shooting: two Grudge Throwers, two Cannons, and nothing else. I used these machines to weaken his hardest hitters, then used the rest of my army (100% GW close combat) to close with and destroy what remained. He railed at the notion that this was a "ridiculous display" of gunline army, and "should have known better" that dwarves would "do anything BUT bring a gunline to any fight."

My stance is that a gunline is nigh to 75% of your army being shooting, with little to no counter assault elements. My total shooting commitment amounted to 20% of my total points.

For the dwarven gun line lists that I have seen, this is nothing (as I could easily go to 3 GT, 3 cannons, and 3 OGs, with the rest of my points being in shooters), but it is effective. Is it a gunline when 80% of my army is dedicated close combat with no manuverability?

Nagashek wrote:My stance is that a gunline is nigh to 75% of your army being shooting, with little to no counter assault elements. My total shooting commitment amounted to 20% of my total points.

Or just 2 of the best warmachines available....in pairs......

For the dwarven gun line lists that I have seen, this is nothing (as I could easily go to 3 GT, 3 cannons, and 3 OGs, with the rest of my points being in shooters), but it is effective. Is it a gunline when 80% of my army is dedicated close combat with no manueverability?

OK, yours isnt a true gunline army, but enough of one to wreck face if you know what i mean?

I can see a double WLC Skaven list coming to a table near you soon too

Seriously though, a gunline army IMO is one where the majority of your playstyle is focussed on the shooting phase. So, you may have lots of GW Warriors, but is their main aim to keep the enemy away from your warmachines while they go to work? Or are they there to advance under artillery support as it were?

Thats how i see it anyway, if you are aiming to do major damage in the shooting phase and then mop up in the combat phase, you are likely to be playing a gunline (not always though, for example, small scale WoC with a Hellcannon isnt exactly a gunline because the Warriors are hard as nails, but they can do a lot of damage when shooting)

Well, his list WAS a duo WLC army! With 2 mortars. It also included an HPA and a plague furnace. And yes, my aim with the WM is to remove MAJOR threats (HPA, cannons) and then the GW's advance and kill. Naturally I have no other means to destroy flankers or supporting cav than the warmachines.

It should also be stated by "lots of warriors" we are talking in this case of a 115 model strong great weapon wielding wall of beards and hate.

Nagashek wrote:Well, his list WAS a duo WLC army! With 2 mortars. It also included an HPA and a plague furnace. And yes, my aim with the WM is to remove MAJOR threats (HPA, cannons) and then the GW's advance and kill. Naturally I have no other means to destroy flankers or supporting cav than the warmachines.

Gyrocopters and Rangers do this fairly well or so ive heard.
I will say though, thats a fairly beardy Skaven list ill admit, but....

It should also be stated by "lots of warriors" we are talking in this case of a 115 model strong great weapon wielding wall of beards and hate.

.... you still (and most definitely) have a gunline

115 warriors is a gun line? More close combat troops than most dwarf players I have ever seen is a gun line? Very well. I at least know your definition. To clarify, however, that isn't one unit. Its 4.

Skaven are hands down the best army in 8th so the guy your were playing should take a long look at his army book before he declares someone elses army boring to fight.

And that combined with the fact that your are a dwarf player its basically fluffy as hell to field a gunline and to be honest you didnt even do that to any extreme level.

Players only bitch about gunlines because they write list without taking units to deal with warmachines. Skaven have access to some of the best warmachine hunters in the game its not your fault your mate was too noob to field them.

Nagashek wrote:115 warriors is a gun line? More close combat troops than most dwarf players I have ever seen is a gun line? Very well. I at least know your definition. To clarify, however, that isn't one unit. Its 4.

Well the way you described it i did kinda think it was all one big line
Hence why i thought of it as a gunline, warmachines pus a giant line of Dwarves stopping anyone getting close
My apologies

Soundslike a bad case of whine, you'r friend should se the light if you patiently show him some gunline lists off the net.
Don't use them tho and explain to him why you don't use them, my guess is you find them boring.

You are running two of the best War Machines in Warhammer, and 8th Edition has made War Machines very nasty, but you certainly aren't running a gunline. If your opponent runs two WLCs and still has the cajones to gripe about two Cannons and two Stone Throwers well, maybe it's time to find a new opponent.

A gunline in Warhammer is essentially any army designed to do more damage in the shooting phase than in any other phase. Most gunlines will have four or more archer/gunner regiments and a similar number of war machines (alternatively, they'll have six or more archer units and no war machines), backed up by enough melee support units to keep people from running straight over them if they manage to cross the board and get into charge range.

I consider a gunline to be any of the following:

a) Three or more war machines / blaster mages;
b) Two war machines / blaster mages plus at least one large ranged unit;
c) One war machine / blaster mage plus two or more medium-sized ranged units
d) Two or more medium-sized ranged units plus one large ranged unit.

... per 1000 points.

Note: By "blaster mage" I mean a mage, at least level 2, who is built purely around damaging spells. Typical example would be a level 2 Warlock Engineer with Warp-Energy Condensor. Bolt throwers count as half a war machine each. The definition of a "large" or "medium" ranged unit varies by army, but as a good basic rule 100-200 points is medium, 200+ is large.

Alternatively, if more than about a third to a half of the army (in points) is there specifically for dealing damage at range, it's a gunline. It's hard to give the exact borderline, though; how many points from Lothern Sea Guard or from Crossbow / Great Weapon Rangers count towards their shooting prowess and how much towards their combat skills?

next time you play him you should bring 3 cannons, 3 grudge throwers and have 4-6 units of 20 gunners.

that will show him a true gunline, or at least show him how good he had it.

then you can have a good laugh and go back to your normal lists.

Aelyn wrote:I consider a gunline to be any of the following:

a) Three or more war machines / blaster mages;
b) Two war machines / blaster mages plus at least one large ranged unit;
c) One war machine / blaster mage plus two or more medium-sized ranged units
d) Two or more medium-sized ranged units plus one large ranged unit.

... per 1000 points.

Note: By "blaster mage" I mean a mage, at least level 2, who is built purely around damaging spells. Typical example would be a level 2 Warlock Engineer with Warp-Energy Condensor. Bolt throwers count as half a war machine each. The definition of a "large" or "medium" ranged unit varies by army, but as a good basic rule 100-200 points is medium, 200+ is large.

Alternatively, if more than about a third to a half of the army (in points) is there specifically for dealing damage at range, it's a gunline. It's hard to give the exact borderline, though; how many points from Lothern Sea Guard or from Crossbow / Great Weapon Rangers count towards their shooting prowess and how much towards their combat skills?

So... when he brought two WLC, two Warlock engineers, one with a condensor, the other with the bottle rocket, two mortars, a lvl4 grey seer and a lvl2 plague priest then, by your definition, HE ran a gunline?

Certainly the idea of actual gunline lists bore me, and they are too static. His problem was, perhaps, my deployment.

I anchored one side with a horde of 50 GW warriors with SB King and BSB on the corner. Next was 25 Hammerers with MR of Grungni (+5 ward against shooting and magic missles for all friendlies within 6") then my warmachines (cannons in front, GTs in back) then another unit of 25 gw warriors. I had enough room to cover everything in that line with Grungni's protection, my BSB, and my king's leadership, plus keep him from flanking my warmachines with his single unit of gutter runners. My Miners came in turn two and in turn three put paid to his last WLC and were threatening his lines from the rear while a triple charge a turn earlier than was prudent sealed up the game with a bow on it.

Really the problem was more an issue of luck. I got 3 of my WM to work on the Storm Banner round, then it shut down on my next turn. His wm ALL scattered or misfired, and mine were spot on. :shrugs:

Consider Dwarfs can ONLY bring either infantry blocks or war machines, I don't see how four war machines can be considered a gunline. Sure, cannons and stone throwers are really good, but bolt throwers and flame cannons are both almost worthless this edition, and the Organ Gun is also great, so I certainly wouldn't have a problem. I only consider an army a gunline if it was built like 7th ed Dwarf lists, where it relies on shooting so heavily that closing to combat is an almost guaranteed loss.

So my 6 mortars,4 cannons, 4 hellblaster volley guns, and all my handgunners along with my 5 engeniers with pidgion bombs are considered a gunline?

But seriously, if people complain about you running a gunline run an actuall gunline next time you play them. SO at 3k if you play dwarfs max out on artillery and quarelers with GW. Like when people complain about my 1 mortar and 2 cannons that i usually run at 3k i will take out the old Nuln artillery list and show them the meaning of a gunline.

It's more the approach to the game than the points allocations. Basically, if you just stand there shooting, waiting while the enemy advances over the field before grinding down his weakened units at the end, then it's probably fair to say you're playing a gunline.

The point about 'gunline is boring' isn't that you should kill so many enemy troops with ranged attacks, and killing one more suddenly makes the game boring, the point is that an army that just stands still waiting for the enemy to approach is boring.

I've had about 20% of my list as ranged units and been called gunline, and they were right to call it such because that 20% was all warmachines and the rest was state troops in big blocks that stood there. On the other hand, I've have nearer to 50% of my list be ranged, and it played entirely unlike a gunline because the rest was cavalry that moved out into the field, playing funny buggers to upset the enemy's advance, before finally falling on the flank I focussed most of my range fire on, hoping to crush if fast enough that I could turn and relieve the large block of crossbowmen that made up much of my gunline.

Really, the question isn't "are you relying on the ranged phase to do your damage?", but "are you trying to achieve anything in the movement phase?"

As long as your dwarfs are moving forward (which they seem to be) then you don't have a problem.

I personally find dwarfs fun to face if they meet you half way. Walking your army across the table only to meet hoard formation dwarfs...is the same to me as playing a gunline.

I don't complain though, its part of the game, your opponent just needs to change tactics.

How much can dwarves TRULY achieve in the movement phase? Not alot. THey can carefully position themselves and charge when it is advantageous to do so, but will never truly outmanuver their opponants.

Seb I would say that your latter description is exactly the same as your first. Just because you are manuvering on the weakened side doesn't mean that you are using your guns any less. You are still taking advantage of guns weakening your opponant before battle. Is that not the point of range weapons?

Whether or not it's a gun-line, if your army book supports the army you brought, what's he crying about? Fluff only goes so far, and frankly, if they have the tech, you can bet there's a dwarven clan who'd field it.

It's like when I play my CC centered (incomplete) chaos marine army against my friend's shooty space marines, in a game without objectives. He'll invariably just hang back and pulverize my units, pulling back and back as I get closer. I chose to field the CC army when I knew what his tactics was going to be. Sure I complain a bit, and tease him about his cowardly fairy marines, but in the end, it's my fault for bringing a knife to a gunfight. He isn't cheating by fielding a shooty army, even if his tactics are a wee bit cowardly, so any argument against his army is moot.

He also likes to complain when I have at him with my (complete) ork army, and completely decimate his shooty fairy marines. And we both complain a bit when I play my IG and we fight each other to a standstill and an eventual draw. Complaining and whining is a part of the game, but if your friend is serious about his complaints, he shouldn't be playing.

Gunline : When close to 100% of your points are either in ranged troops or shooting warmachines, and your only strategy is "Shoot him to bits before he makes it into CC".

Theres a clear difference between gunline and having some ranged troops/warmachines soften up the enemy before you close to CC range. Gunlines often have no CC at all.

Ive no problems facing gunlines as usual all the whinging comes down to "how dare you play to win"

Nagashek wrote:Seb I would say that your latter description is exactly the same as your first.

No, it's not. One army maneouvres, and the other does not. Whether or not you think that's relevant is up for debate (I'm taking a fairly non-traditional view on what defines a gun-line), but they remain objectively different things.

Just because you are manuvering on the weakened side doesn't mean that you are using your guns any less. You are still taking advantage of guns weakening your opponant before battle. Is that not the point of range weapons?

It isn't about whether or not you use guns. Losing models to shooting isn't the problem, it isn't why people complain about 'gun line armies'.

People complain about gun line armies because they are boring to play against. They are boring to play against because they deploy in a little castle formation, then stand there waiting to get charged. In response, the other player has no manoeuvering to think about, it's just get up the field as quick as possible and get stuck in. Games like that, which at their worst can be played on auto-pilot, are rubbish games.

If a player builds an army around ranged attacks, but invests resources in using maneouvre to give his troops more time to shoot the enemy dead, then players have to think again during the movement phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SgtSixkilla wrote:Whether or not it's a gun-line, if your army book supports the army you brought, what's he crying about?

Look, there's a large portion of the population who believe that there's more to the game than just bringing the most powerful possible army, and playing it in the style most likely to win. A lot of people believe that this generally produces less interesting games.

You're welcome to believe otherwise, and avoid games against those of us who think differently from you, or only play them on your terms. But this thread has been started under the assumption that people can have more fun with some kind of mutual understanding of what is too 'extreme' a list. It isn't helpful to come and give your opinion that no such thing exists.

Jubear wrote:Ive no problems facing gunlines as usual all the whinging comes down to "how dare you play to win"

Gunlines really aren't playing to win though, they're boring and and pretty much depend entirely on list matchup and good or bad die rolls on the part of the gunline player. A gunline isn't competitive enough to actually win tournaments. It basically comes down to "does the other player have enough fast troops/special deployers/good enough luck to cross the board, or doesn't he?" An army that is a 50/50 shot of winning overwhelmingly or losing overwhelmingly isn't competitive.

As long as both players are in the same mindset (so that one player doesn't bring a tourney list while the other brings a fluffy bunny Wood Elf patrol), bringing your best lists and playing to win is great fun. But gunlines aren't fun or strong lists.

Point out to your friend that he is running SKaven, if he really had a problem with the 'power' of your list Im pretty sure he could bring the hammer down. Gunlines look great on paper but really suffer on the TT.

If the player who takes a gunline believes that is the most competitive list he can bring to the matchup, then by definition he is playing to win at all costs.

Complaints about WACC are probably due to a mismatch in what the two players want. One wants tournament level competitiveness and the other doesnt. Then theres a problem. At tournaments everyone is trying their best to win, so nobody complains about how competitive a list is.

Put it this way...if at your local store, you brought the most competitive list you could think of against every new player who wanted to try the game out to predictable results, you would quickly get a certain reputation.