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.

I'm not an avid AoS player, but every so often my AoS friends pull me back to have a game or two with them as often as I pull them to play Ninth Age with me. Something that stuck out to me and particularly got on my nerves was the fact models in combat could be picked out and targetted by ranged enemy fire, and could even be fired upon by the unit they were in combat with! It was especially prevalent in a game against an Empire Gunline, with crossbows and handguns, some of which hit on 3's wounded on 2's due to some stacking buffs AND had a rule saying they could stand and shoot against any enemy within 3'' at the end of the charge phase. He got to shoot me in his turn before I charged, shoot me in my turn the turn as I charged, then shoot me in his turn after I've charged. Which seemed a little skewed. I couldn't even use any tactics to avoid the stand and shoot reaction, since the wording didn't specify when in the charge phase he shot he would wait all units charged then shoot the most dangerous.

I understand there were a lot of stacking buffs there, and I'm not calling Empire out as broken, they just exemplified the issue for me. Due to True Line of Sight, and only gaining a cover save if you're *in* the cover rather than obscured by it, you can't really make use of any cover offensively. It's really jarring for me and totally breaks the immersion, that 20 crossbowmen can target a single unmounted glade lord locked in combat without friendly fire, or that Handgunners have time to reload their guns during a battle with War Dancers in order to shoot them in the face in their own turn.

Am I missing some vital tactic that protects your units from stuff like this, or some logic that supports it?

Nope, there is nothing that protects against it. The way shooting rules work in AOS is probably my largest complaint about the rules.

Wayniac wrote:
Nope, there is nothing that protects against it. The way shooting rules work in AOS is probably my largest complaint about the rules.

It is called ramming your whole army amidst their ranks by turn one. Every grand alliance has at least one way. Destruction has many.


I personally find it cute that they think their cannons will protect them against my onslaught.

Not really. I rarely play it without some house rules myself. Two really simple ones I like:

Shooting through cover counts as cover.

Shooting into a Melee you are not engaged in counts as shooting into cover, as does shooting out of melee if you are yourself engaged. Cumulative.

Frankly I'd rather just do away with shooting into or out of melee altogether unless you're shooting at a unit you're engaged with but this way it keeps the points mostly the same.

Any balance issues that comes up with shooting doesn't bother me, I'm not playing AoS to have competitive games, but i agree it just doesn't make sense and so I don't like it.

TLDR: house rules ftw.

It doesn't upset me, it just seems silly that there's no risk involved in it. I think there should be a friendly fire rule to show the risk of accidentally hitting an ally in the chaotic swirl of melee combat.

It's not a big deal honestly. Ranged units are pointed higher than melee units for their abilities and you only get 1 shooting phase per 2 combat phases so ultimately I don't think it's that big of an issue.

I'd be for a shooting out of melee penalty. Aiming and being evasive with any sort of ranged weapon is hard.

Other wise I don't mind shooting as it stands with the rest of the game.

Yeah, mechanically, in general, I am good with shooting as it stands. In a more complicated world, I feel like it would be fun if you had a choice of penalties for shooting while engaged. Something like "Pick any two if there are any enemy models within 3 inches: A) 1/2 range B) not allowed to make melee attacks if you make shooting attacks C) -1 to save rolls D) -1 to hit rolls."

No, given how deadly cc units are shooting into combat feels legit.

I'd go for something simple, like the following:

Shooting Into Close Combat: All 'To Hit' rolls of a 1 hit friendly models.

Shooting While In Close Combat: The enemy can re-roll missed 'To Hit' rolls in Close Combat against models that shot in close combat.

I would say shooting into combat should be 50/50 not just on a roll of a one. I really like your enemy can re-roll idea Ghaz. Hopefully they have something like that.

I don't have any issues yet with shooting in AoS. So far I've been the one shooting and I don't see it as very powerful.
So far I've been subject to the other play/players getting double turns, so that's two turns I didn't shoot and my shooting unit was , in one game, locked in combat before my own first turn.

However, Now I'm seeing how to better buff my one shooting unit to make it stronger but I don't trust my dice.
The group I play with plays the rules as is.
I haven't heard or read any of them thinking this was an issue.

Davor wrote:
I would say shooting into combat should be 50/50 not just on a roll of a one. I really like your enemy can re-roll idea Ghaz. Hopefully they have something like that.

Problem is, shooting into melee of similar size units would net something like this, but, if you have elves shooting at a giant over say.....dwarfs, you will likely never friendly fire given the situation.

I think the shooting into melee hits friendly on 1s would be a good blanket rule over all and get the point across while not slowing down the game trying to figure out base sizes ect ect.

It doesn't upset me at all (the concept). The problem with it is for me that it destroys immersion when your guys cannot be hurt when you drop a church into combat. It has nothing to do with powerful or not powerful for me.

I dislike shooting out of combat.

My issue with Shooting in a combat misty stems from the weapons that would be being fired at point blank range.

Muskets, handguns, pistols, cannons, one shot per combatants set few rounds, not once a player turn. They should have to reload, and even then they are being mauled by an attacker.

Bows don't suffer so much from this, but require two hands, leaving an attacker without a hand to wield a decent weapon. Shooting with a bow should really make it so you don't get to swing in melee.

Crossbows similar to guns, hand and regular variant.

Blowpipes, javelins, hand axes, etc, I could see being usable in close combat an allowing the weilder to shoot. Chameleon skinks for example use their darts in CC.

 zfreie wrote:

Davor wrote:
I would say shooting into combat should be 50/50 not just on a roll of a one. I really like your enemy can re-roll idea Ghaz. Hopefully they have something like that.

Problem is, shooting into melee of similar size units would net something like this, but, if you have elves shooting at a giant over say.....dwarfs, you will likely never friendly fire given the situation.

I think the shooting into melee hits friendly on 1s would be a good blanket rule over all and get the point across while not slowing down the game trying to figure out base sizes ect ect.

50/50 doesn't work. That would mean a 3+ 'To Hit' would always hit a model, not to mention the problems that would provide with a 4+ 'To Hit'. Almost no one would shoot into close combat if half of the hits went to their own models. They might as well remove the ability to shoot into close combat altogether.

Despite close combat often being described as a 'swirling melee', enemy and friendly models won't be evenly spaced. Initially you'll have a line where the two sides meet before it begins to break down into smaller individual groups and single combats. The enemy will be aiming for the larger groups of the enemy in the combat, with the 'To Hit' rolls of a 1 hitting friendly models simulating sudden changes in the combat and bad shots by the archers.

Correct. With any real risk, no one would execute the action that has real risk. Its only when the risk is near negligible or non existent that the action becomes considered.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
For summer campaign we will be implementing a similar rule however.

 Ghaz wrote:

 zfreie wrote:

Davor wrote:
I would say shooting into combat should be 50/50 not just on a roll of a one. I really like your enemy can re-roll idea Ghaz. Hopefully they have something like that.

Problem is, shooting into melee of similar size units would net something like this, but, if you have elves shooting at a giant over say.....dwarfs, you will likely never friendly fire given the situation.

I think the shooting into melee hits friendly on 1s would be a good blanket rule over all and get the point across while not slowing down the game trying to figure out base sizes ect ect.

50/50 doesn't work. That would mean a 3+ 'To Hit' would always hit a model, not to mention the problems that would provide with a 4+ 'To Hit'. Almost no one would shoot into close combat if half of the hits went to their own models. They might as well remove the ability to shoot into close combat altogether.

Despite close combat often being described as a 'swirling melee', enemy and friendly models won't be evenly spaced. Initially you'll have a line where the two sides meet before it begins to break down into smaller individual groups and single combats. The enemy will be aiming for the larger groups of the enemy in the combat, with the 'To Hit' rolls of a 1 hitting friendly models simulating sudden changes in the combat and bad shots by the archers.

While I respect your opinion, I feel that is wrong. To me that is just trying to make the game easier without consequence with the illusion of consequence. People find it hard enough to hit a non moving target and now you have two targets who are moving and intertwined in combat and you can easily pick your enemy with a "maybe" hitting my own guy?

That is the point. Do you shoot and hit your own guy or not. That is why in Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit the Good can't shoot into combat while the Evil can, because they don't care if they hit your own.

You want to shoot into combat, then you take the chance of killing your own. Don't want to do it, then don't shoot. Why do you need a decision to make it easier?

Again, just because a unit is in combat, doesn't mean that every model is 'intertwined' with an enemy model.

It seems fine for me, combats would ebb and flow. Front lines clash, units try to hold formation, when there is a pause in fighting the missile weapons let loose.

I see a big difference in WHFB and AoS to be the feel of the size of conflict. Because of the strict block manoeuvring it felt like the battles in WHFB were on an incredibly large scale where the arrows would be mass volleys shot up into the air to pepper the ground hundreds of yards away - not something you would want to shoot into a melee. Whereas AoS feels like the models on the table are the real size of the conflict - it's taking place on a battlefield smaller than a carpark, and when there is a beastie a couple of yards away I don't see why the bowman can't aim and shoot it.

Mechanically it would be too hard to implement a satisfying risk situation that wouldn't bog down the game. Remember things like troll vomit and throwing axes are shooting attacks too, and rules that are in place to represent hailstorms of arrows hitting friend and foe are going to be just as immersive breaking when it is applied to troll vomit that would run no risk of splashing onto the hero the other side of a 40 man conga line.

Looking at the game from the rules first (bottom up), turn 1 charges are a very real thing as well as double turns, and if no models could shoot while locked in combat, or into combat, you might find units only get one round of shooting the whole game which would take away a good many playstyles. As it stands both the gunline and the super choppy armies can be going at eachother toe-to-toe and both have full utility of their units. I don't want to play a game where the gunline has to fully break the choppy horde before they arrive or get smashed off - games like that are always more unsatisfying for he losing player because they've usually been taken out the game before they feel like they have impacted on it.

I'm wondering how strong shooting really is in games vs how people think it is. My limited experience has found no issues with shooting. What's the worst that can happen and how often does it happen?

IT depends on the unit, it's just gonna make Fyreslayers useless if they can't Axe into combat.

You shoot half as much as you attack, and shooting units tend to be clumsy in combat - with a few exceptions, of course.
At this point, it's not a simple removal of the rule. All shooting units would need not only a huge decrease in points, but a complete reworking of the rules, like reintroducing Stand and Shoot or retreating to all shooting units being charged, just to make them worthwhile.
But that's coming from someone who's in favour of the way shooting currently works.

Ghaz wrote:Again, just because a unit is in combat, doesn't mean that every model is 'intertwined' with an enemy model.

Then leave it as it is. Why bother complicating the game? Why change a mechanic that will only maybe do something and in most cases not make a difference. Why slow the game down for the illusion of more complexity? Either make the choice that will slow a game down actually mean something or don't bother at all. I say leave it as is. It doesn't slow the game down and in most cases will not mean anything then. If something is going to slow the game down, then let the choice actually mean something and impact the game, one way or the other.

I don't like the "let's try and roll the 1 or 6" and get lucky for something. Let our decisions mean something.

I hope this makes sense so you can see where I am coming from.

I think being able to shoot out of a combat you are in at a different unit you are not in combat with is kind of weird. And, as has been mentioned, some weapons like handguns probably shouldn't be able to fire in combat. In both cases it's hard to imagine what what those could plausibly represent. How could you right someone trying to hit you while shooting at someone else, or reload a handgun while fighting in combat? It just breaks the immersion I guess.

I think the "best" way to handle it would be like how Warmahordes does, kinda: You cannot shoot if you are within the melee range of another model. I think for AOS it could be something like if you shoot into combat, you're at a penalty (-1 or -2 even).

The issue is IMHO more when you can shoot OUT of combat, across the board, to snipe out something behind several other units or even behind a forest, with zero penalty at all.

 warhead01 wrote:
I'm wondering how strong shooting really is in games vs how people think it is. My limited experience has found no issues with shooting. What's the worst that can happen and how often does it happen?

The Empire player I was against had 30 Handguns, 40 Crossbowmen, 2 cannons and 2 vollyguns with some engineers and some heroes that buffed his units in a 2k match up. His handguns hit on 3's wounded on 2's with -1 rend if they didn't move, 4's 3's if they did. His crossbowmen had 40shots per unit if they didn't move and didn't loose a guy, so he used them at the back of the board to act as fire support for his front line gunners. I wasn't playing an amazing list, a mix of Wood Elves and Wanderers with a Dragon Lord and moderate shooting, but his shooting was very powerful. Maybe on a different objective he'd have to move a bit more, but as it was I had to go to him or loose the game to war machines. It was powerful.


Are shooting units over costed? Really? 10 Handguns are 100pts, 10 skeletons are 80. Handguns get a stand and shoot reaction. So they shoot in their turn, and on the turn they're charged, and in their own turn. If they're over costed, it's not by much.

Shooting units can direct all of their attacks into single models easily, melee can't.
Shooting units can target units they aren't in combat with, melee can't.
Shooting units can help out other shooting units in combat by shooting into combat while maintaining their posistion, melee can't.
Shooting units can make best use of cover due to being able to stay relatively still, melee can't.
Shooting units can make better use of min-maxing horde buffs due to their role not necesitating them being in harms way and being able to contribute earlier in the game, melee can't.
Shooting units get to attack 3 times in 2 turns, twice with usually trash melee attacks and once with shooting, Melee units only fight twice.

Just seems very skewed in my opinion. Maybe there is a catagory of melee units that dominate the meta, first turn charge high dmg high armour high wound count models, but against an every day allegiance list these advantages seem really prominent.

Wow, that's quite the gunline. As an "Empire" player I will say that if you were playing Take and Hold or Blood and Glory those are by far our strongest scenarios, whereas 3 places of power is extremely difficult to win (he wouldn't have had a chance with that list in 3PoP.) Also, was he using any battalions? The recent FAQ obsoleted the compendium "State Troop Detachment" so if he was using that it is now not allowed.

Ah freeguild. I remember the last time I played against them... I deleted a third of the enemy army with a single activation.

I would say it was just a bad match up.
Not really the friendliest of games? Unless it was a one off, I just really wanted to play this kinda game.

Somewhere above Stand and shoot was mentioned. Had you thought about just getting into range for a pile in? ( I think it works that way.)

For me the big thing is AoS isn't WFB. It just is what it is.

If you played against that list again do you think you could beat it? what would it take? What would you do differently?