How do you deal with shooting?

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.

**auticus**

Requizen wrote:
auticus wrote:
I listen to the math.

Shooting heavy armies get to attack in two phases of a turn. Melee heavy armies in one.

If a shooting heavy army gets two turns in a row then thats four phases of attack dice rolled vs the melee army's two.

With there being no way to stop shooting models from shooting, and with alternate turns this becomes a data model for skewed statistics.

If both forces are using shooty heavy armies then that brings the math back on par.

If you go with a melee heavy army you are playing at a disadvantage, and in some cases a severe disadvantage.

The obvious answer to this is "suck it up and don't play a melee heavy army", but thats not a good answer to me.

Now to foster good discussion we can discuss "how do you deal with shooting" knowing that one is at a moderate to severe disadvantage if playing a melee-oriented army vs a shooty-oriented army.

That's too simplistic. Shooting armies also tend to be crap in melee, so that "second round of attack" is basically nothing compared to a combat focused unit. For many of them, it's hitting on 5+ wounding on 4+ or worse, and then 1 damage and no rend. In fact, most shooting attacks are also 1 damage no rend, though some "powerful" ones are -1/1. Melee focused power units tend to be at least -1 Rend with either multiple attacks, ways to deal mortal wounds, dealing multiple damage, or some combination of the above. Melee units also tend to have better saves and durability than ranged units on average (with some exceptions).

Would you say a unit of Freeguild Archers is better than a Mourngul because they get to go twice per turn to its one? No, of course not.

Just looking at the number of activations means nothing. General sweeping statements like that are illogical and ignore the stats of many units, as well as the combo effects of many armies. There are lots of combo effects that grant mobility, durability, or extra attacks/better rolls in combat. There are a lot less that boost shooting prowess.

It's disingenuous to assume that a unit of shooters is going to do as much with shooting + melee as a melee unit is going to do in combat alone. Most of those shooting attacks are balanced to be weaker because range is such a strong bonus, as is that second round you are talking about.

For the straight up example, look at the terrifying Arrowboyz vs Ardboyz. Arrowboyz get 2 shots at a range (3 if they're 20+) with 5+/4+/-/1. In melee, they get a single attack each at the same profile. Their save is 6+ with 2 wounds.
Ardboyz are melee only. If they're with two weapons, they get 3 attacks at 4+/3+/-/1. If they have big weapons, it's 2 at 4+/3+/-1/1. Their save is 4+ with 2 wounds.

20 Arrowboyz getting to shoot and punch deal 6.66 wounds at the end of the turn, killing three Ardboyz
10 Ardboyz with double weapons deal 8.33 wounds, killing 4 Arrowboyz
10 Ardboyz with big weapons deal 6.66 wounds, killing 3 Arrowboyz

And the Arrowboyz cost 20 more points than Ardboyz. If it was 10 v 10 it wouldn't even be close. As soon as the first round of combat for the Ardboyz is over, they lose that extra attack and the damage output during shooting goes down.

The Kunnin Rukk makes the Arrowboyz scarier, sure, but the Ironfist makes the Ardboyz scarier as well since they can start outside of the Arrowboyz range (thus negating 3/4 of that damage calculated) and still reasonably get charges off.

So yeah. Just saying "extra activation = more deader" is incorrect, at least in this situation. I picked two that were evenly matched. There are plenty of combinations of melee units vs ranged units that are clearly tipped in the melee's favor, as there are those tipped in the shooter's favor.

I posted the pure mathematical statistics with efficiency scores for every model in the past and have it up on my website. The math backs that up.

Saying "extra activation = more deader" is short hand for research that I have already done. In general it holds true overall. Yes we can cherry pick examples but what we are going to see in real life aren't things that are shooty heavy will predominantly do more damage and thus have an advantage.

The things that are shooty heavy that I see aren't bad in hand to hand combat either.

Are all shooty models like this? no. I'm not saying they all are. However from a min/max powergame perspective thats not generally what will be selected either.

To get actual examples you'd need to take a standard tournament list vs a melee heavy list and then record the statistics to get your actual weighted scores and compare them to the averages (which are composed of the numbers of every model in the game). The tournament builds scores are a lot higher than the averages.

Short of exhaustively posting each tournament build that we've seen up to this point, and comparing each build's score, there isn't another way to pull hard data.

Lets post some tournament builds and then find their average damage output compared to their point cost and then lets look at some melee-heavy armies and do the same.

**Kriswall**

Requizen wrote:
For the straight up example, look at the terrifying Arrowboyz vs Ardboyz. Arrowboyz get 2 shots at a range (3 if they're 20+) with 5+/4+/-/1. In melee, they get a single attack each at the same profile. Their save is 6+ with 2 wounds.
Ardboyz are melee only. If they're with two weapons, they get 3 attacks at 4+/3+/-/1. If they have big weapons, it's 2 at 4+/3+/-1/1. Their save is 4+ with 2 wounds.

20 Arrowboyz getting to shoot and punch deal 6.66 wounds at the end of the turn, killing three Ardboyz
10 Ardboyz with double weapons deal 8.33 wounds, killing 4 Arrowboyz
10 Ardboyz with big weapons deal 6.66 wounds, killing 3 Arrowboyz

And the Arrowboyz cost 20 more points than Ardboyz. If it was 10 v 10 it wouldn't even be close. As soon as the first round of combat for the Ardboyz is over, they lose that extra attack and the damage output during shooting goes down.

Your example doesn't take into consideration that the Arrowboys get to shoot at least once before the Ardboyz charge in. So, realistically, you're charging in with fewer than 10 Ardboys. Also, the Arrowboys will likely be sitting in some sort of cover, so it's pretty easy to give them a 5+ save instead of 6+. We're not operating in a vacuum. These are very common real world likelihoods.

Assuming the Arrowboys shoot and then the Ardboys charge in the subsequent turn into cover... you'd have...

Arrowboys turn.
1. 20 Arrowboys fire, killing 2 Ardboys and dealing 1 damage to a 3rd.
Ardboys turn.
2. The remaining 8 Ardboys charge in. Let's say they have double weapons. They deal 5.33 wounds back, killing 2 Arrowboys and dealing 1 damage to a 3rd.
3. The remaining 18 Arrowboys attack back, dealing 1.5 wounds and killing the damaged Ardboy.

A full game round is done. The Arrowboys lost 10% of their unit. The Ardboys lost 30%.

With pretty standard cover deployment... deploy near the edge, so if you get charged your opponent never gets cover... this will go on for several rounds until the Arrowboys eventually win.

Of course, the dice gods might go decide the battle in the first round. I'm talking average rolls over a million fights.

**Requizen**

auticus wrote:

I posted the pure mathematical statistics with efficiency scores for every model in the past and have it up on my website. The math backs that up.

Saying "extra activation = more deader" is short hand for research that I have already done. In general it holds true overall. Yes we can cherry pick examples but what we are going to see in real life aren't things that are shooty heavy will predominantly do more damage and thus have an advantage.

The things that are shooty heavy that I see aren't bad in hand to hand combat either.

Are all shooty models like this? no. I'm not saying they all are. However from a min/max powergame perspective thats not generally what will be selected either.

To get actual examples you'd need to take a standard tournament list vs a melee heavy list and then record the statistics to get your actual weighted scores and compare them to the averages (which are composed of the numbers of every model in the game). The tournament builds scores are a lot higher than the averages.

Short of exhaustively posting each tournament build that we've seen up to this point, and comparing each build's score, there isn't another way to pull hard data.

Lets post some tournament builds and then find their average damage output compared to their point cost and then lets look at some melee-heavy armies and do the same.

You yourself said in the thread relating to that site that it's just pure numbers calculation. Pure numbers are a pretty small part of the game, and things that look "damage efficient compared to their points" can have usability issues in the game, as is evidenced in many places.

I agree, let's look at tournament data when we have it. I'm simply saying it's way too early to say "the sky is falling (and raining shooting units)" when we have no statistically relevant data to verify that.

However, if you want to go back to pre-TGH, then the top placers in the South Coast GT 2016 (the points of which is what TGH was based off of) were Nurgle mortal (mostly, some Daemons, no shooting), Stormcast (no Skyborne, mostly foot. Not even a Retributor bomb, which I find odd), and an Order mix (mostly Elves, some Stormcast heroes, a couple archer units but not "shooting heavy").

Granted, this was before Kunnin Rukk was a thing, and the point values are a bit different, but I think there'd be at least one shooting heavy army in the top 3 if it was as broken as all that.

Kriswall wrote:
Your example doesn't take into consideration that the Arrowboys get to shoot at least once before the Ardboyz charge in. So, realistically, you're charging in with fewer than 10 Ardboys. Also, the Arrowboys will likely be sitting in some sort of cover, so it's pretty easy to give them a 5+ save instead of 6+. We're not operating in a vacuum. These are very common real world likelihoods.

Assuming the Arrowboys shoot and then the Ardboys charge in the subsequent turn into cover... you'd have...

Arrowboys turn.
1. 20 Arrowboys fire, killing 2 Ardboys and dealing 1 damage to a 3rd.
Ardboys turn.
2. The remaining 8 Ardboys charge in. Let's say they have double weapons. They deal 5.33 wounds back, killing 2 Arrowboys and dealing 1 damage to a 3rd.
3. The remaining 18 Arrowboys attack back, dealing 1.5 wounds and killing the damaged Ardboy.

A full game round is done. The Arrowboys lost 10% of their unit. The Ardboys lost 30%.

With pretty standard cover deployment... deploy near the edge, so if you get charged your opponent never gets cover... this will go on for several rounds until the Arrowboys eventually win.

Of course, the dice gods might go decide the battle in the first round. I'm talking average rolls over a million fights.

Saying percentages is again, disingenuous. Arrowboyz lost 2, Ardboyz lost 3. That's not "zomg huge damage difference". And the Ardboyz have better Bravery - Brav 8 once in combat and a 6 ignores any battleshock losses, while the Arrowboyz are 5 and will lose more models on a 4+.

Arrowboyz don't get a whole lot of shooting if any at all on the Ardboyz. If the Ardboyz are in a Ironfist, their average move is: 3.5" for Ironfist + 3.5" for Rampaging Destroyers + 2" for Ravager (Command Trait) + 4" move. A 7" average charge is 20", meaning you can, on average, start 2" outside of the Arrowboyz shooting range and get a charge off. And depending on the layout of the terrain and Arrowboyz, even if you are in range less than half of them might get to fire.

This also isn't taking advantage of Cover and LoS blocking terrain (which you should have at least some of).

This also isn't taking into account that both will be moving towards objectives, meaning that the Arrowboyz won't just get to plop themselves in the best shooting spot and play keep away. Even if the Ardboyz are taking ranged losses, if they're sitting on an objective and the Arrowboyz are afraid of getting into combat with them, the Ardboyz are winning the game.

So yes, in your situation the Arrowboyz are winning out. If the Ardboyz don't get shot and get the charge, they win super hard. Even if the Arrowboyz are in cover, they have more models to pile in (actually probably won't get all their attacks in melee) and have a 50/50 of losing more to Battleshock, while the Ardboyz are basically immune.

It's easy for shooting to feel super strong if the situation is set up in their favor. Playing the game is a different story.

**Kriswall**

Right, so ultimately there are tons of factors and we can argue forever whether or not heavy shooting is fair or balanced... none of which changes that it isn't even a little fun to play against for a casual player.

**VeteranNoob**

Requizen wrote:
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.

We, since we're all being respectful here (yay!) I agree and my thinking is the necessity to adapt is part of the huge tactical element imo AoS has over Fantasy and partly why for me it's so much more fun to play. Not just involving turns but the more you add on (multiplayer, special scenarios, expansions, campaign rules, etc.) it becomes more and more unique without being cumbersome and more required considerations like 40K has at the moment. I can see the complaints against initiative, I just don't agree personally.

**NinthMusketeer**

Weren't the last two major tournaments won by Kunnin' Rukk shooting and Order shooting, respectively?

**Requizen**

I know Warlords was won by Kunnin Rukk but I haven't heard anything about the other one. Which tournament was that?

**ERJAK**

VeteranNoob wrote:
Requizen wrote:
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.

We, since we're all being respectful here (yay!) I agree and my thinking is the necessity to adapt is part of the huge tactical element imo AoS has over Fantasy and partly why for me it's so much more fun to play. Not just involving turns but the more you add on (multiplayer, special scenarios, expansions, campaign rules, etc.) it becomes more and more unique without being cumbersome and more required considerations like 40K has at the moment. I can see the complaints against initiative, I just don't agree personally.

Fun fact, if you go first you CAN'T get the double turn until your opponent gets one because math. Which is what european players manipulate in order to mitigate the double turn effect.

**NinthMusketeer**

Its plenty possible to adapt to shooting or even counter it, but that doesn't negate shooting benefiting disproportionately from rolled initiative. To bring things back to the original question of the thread, shooting can be dealt with by:
-Not rolling for initiative
-Out playing the scenario (shooters are usually reluctant to move forward and capture objectives)
-Deploying out of range and going second, hoping for a double turn
-Bringing better toys. Shooting may have a small-but-notable advantage from turn structure but the sheer points efficiency of battalions and monsters offsets that and then some. OP units > shooting

Despite all of the back-and-forth here about shooting I think most people (even myself) would not feel it as big of an issue if that wasn't layered on top of other balance issues. In the OP's case we have the advantage of shooting combined with Kurnoths being very undercosted, for example. The Kunnin' Rukk also does the same.

I know Warlords was won by Kunnin Rukk but I haven't heard anything about the other one. Which tournament was that?

Honestly I don't remember the name. I know Bottle was talking about the list that won, maybe she can jump in to inform us.

**Wayniac**

So basically, git gud scrub

Seriously, I see people always saying how strong FEC is, but I just don't see it (this is likely another topic). They seem incredibly weak to me, folding like paper and the characters that are the crux of the army are easy to snipe out with any decent shooting (relevant to the topic yay!) and the regular units aren't able to dish out enough damage to really hurt anything, since the army seriously lacks rend.

**auticus**

I like playing against FEC with my khorne army but that's because I've not had a matchup that was super one sided.

**Wayniac**

Any melee-focused army seems like it would work pretty well against FEC. My (admittedly limited) experience has been that shooting can easily wipe me out, but it could just be lack of experience on my part.

**Bottle**

Warlords was won by Kunnin Ruk, Alliance was won by Rob from Warhammer TV with a mix of Glade Guard, Kurnoth Hunters and Hurricanums. After that, shooting hasn't been dominating from what I have heard. Facehammer GT was won by Skybourne Slayers and Clash of Swords was won by Russ Veal with Stormcast (who lost the final of Warlords with Bloodbound). Just by chance the top 5 lists from Clash of Swords was just posted on TGA:

1: Russ Veal
1 Knight Azyros 100
1 Lord Castellant 100
1 Lord Celestant on Dracoth 220
10 Judicators 320
15 Liberators 300
10 Retributors 440
10 Protectors 400
10 Decimators 400
3 Prosecutors with Javelins 80
Warrior Brotherhood 140

2: Mark Wildman
Settra The Imperishable (360)
Royal Warsphinx (340) - Venom Spike Tail
Necrotect (100)
Liche Priest (120)
Tomb Herald (100) - Skeletal Steed
Tomb King (100) - Monarch's Great Blade
Necropolis Knights x 12 (640)
Skeleton Warriors x 30 (240) - Ancient Blades - tomb shields
Ushabti x 3 (120) - Ritual Blade Stave
Screaming Skull Catapult (120) Screaming Skull
Catapult (120)

3: Donal Taylor
Frostlord on Stonehorn (460)
Huskard on Stonehorn (380)
Huskard on Thundertusk (340)
Mournfang Pack x 6 (600)
Icefall Yhetees x 3 (120)
Frost Sabres x 6 (180)
Stonehorn Beastriders (360)
Eurlbad (60)

4: Ricky Mee
Archaon (700)
Lord Of Slaanesh On Daemonic Mount (140)
Chaos Sorcerer Lord on Steed (140)
Sayl The Faithless (160)
Lord Of Khorne On Juggernaut (140)
Bloodstoker (80)
Harbinger of Decay (140)
Belakor (240)
Varanguard x 3 (360)
Chaos Marauders x 30 (180)
Plaguebearers Of Nurgle x 20 (200)

5: Martin Morrin
Grot Warboss (1) 80
3x Moonclan Grot Shaman (3) 180
1x Grot Warboss on Cave Squig (1) 80
6x Moonclan Grots (120) 720
12x Grot Fanatics (12) 360
10x Grot Squig Hoppers (10) 160
2x Mangler Squig (2) 480
2 Grot Spear Chukka (2) 240
1 Doom Diver (1) 120
Great Moonclan Formation 80

This was a 2000pt tournament but with a 500pt sideboard (to swap in and out between games). Custom scenarios too (but very similar to GHB ones as this is the creator of "clash comp").

**Wayniac**

So we have..

1 balanced army (Stormcasts)
1 OOP (RIP) army (Tomb Kings)
1 Monster-heavy (BCR)
1 Are we playing Herohammer again? (Chaos)
1 Horde/Green Tide? (Grots)

**NinthMusketeer**

The ones I found a bit surprising were the tomb kings for lack of chariots and the chaos list for putting so many eggs in one basket. I suppose the tomb kings list breaks the shooting/monster/battalion trend, though it still does so by exploiting some seriously undercosted models.

**Requizen**

Oh man, I hope sideboards become a thing that more tournies include. It really makes RPS matchups a bit less painful. I wonder how it works with units in Battalions though.

I think Moonclan will be a big thing. I've said it before and I stand by it, that's a clearly strong faction especially when you mix in some other Destruction. Our Ironjawz players loves bringing his out and I've had some rough games against it, though that many bodies makes games long.

And that Chaos Hero list is freaking hilarious. Imagine your opponent being like "hey I heard we could bring 6 heroes so I didn't bring anything else". I would love to fight that army.

**puree**

Well the bloodbound have a hero only battalion, but 1 too many for my Maleficent Seven band :(

And yes moving to a more flexible army would be great. I really liked the older event scenarios, bring what you want and deploy upto X models on the fly. It allows you to bring counters to various stuff and deploy them as needed or not, putting more emphasis on the game itself rather than some list building stuff meta game phase.

**Spiky Norman**

Requizen wrote:
And that Chaos Hero list is freaking hilarious. Imagine your opponent being like "hey I heard we could bring 6 heroes so I didn't bring anything else". I would love to fight that army.

The army brought 8 heroes, so they must have played with different rules than the standard Matched Play rules.

**Requizen**

Spiky Norman wrote:
Requizen wrote:
And that Chaos Hero list is freaking hilarious. Imagine your opponent being like "hey I heard we could bring 6 heroes so I didn't bring anything else". I would love to fight that army.

The army brought 8 heroes, so they must have played with different rules than the standard Matched Play rules.

They played "bring up to 2500 points, only place 2000",which is not uncommon. You just swap out what you need based on the opponent, so only 6 hit the table in a game.

**ERJAK**

Requizen wrote:
Spiky Norman wrote:
Requizen wrote:
And that Chaos Hero list is freaking hilarious. Imagine your opponent being like "hey I heard we could bring 6 heroes so I didn't bring anything else". I would love to fight that army.

The army brought 8 heroes, so they must have played with different rules than the standard Matched Play rules.

They played "bring up to 2500 points, only place 2000",which is not uncommon. You just swap out what you need based on the opponent, so only 6 hit the table in a game.

God I hope adepticon does their sigmar tourneys this way, sideboarding is the business.

**Kriswall**

Sideboards are great. I might try to get sideboarding folded into our local events. I like that it adds back in the 'you know what your opponent has, but you don't know what he'll deploy' element during the deployment phase. I think that's the most fun part of 'pure AoS' for me. I always felt the game balanced well if people actually displayed everything they might deploy before starting deployment. Not knowing what might possibly hit the table is what caused imbalance in my community.

**auticus**

I like this idea as well. I may integrate it into my narrative events.

**NinthMusketeer**

Honestly I don't like sideboards because it undermines the purpose of summoning.

**Kriswall**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Honestly I don't like sideboards because it undermines the purpose of summoning.

Summoning is still far more tactically flexible. A non summoning player would need to pick 500 points worth of models to set aside in a sideboard. A summoner still has every summon-able option his faction has to offer (assuming he has the needed summoners).

I do see what you're saying though. Sideboards give the average player a watered down version of an ability that is usually limited to summoning heavy lists and without the need for reinforcement points. Of course, summoning lists also gain that same ability AND still have summoning... so, they're still better off from a tactical flexibility standpoint. They're just no longer the only kids on the block to be able to play the tactical flexibility in unit choice game. As the man says, when accustomed to privilege, equality feels like persecution.

**NinthMusketeer**

Eh... I don't generally play armies with summoning. I could say that that a sideboard option to me is a license to bring extremely OP models that might have a critical weakness against one faction, knowing I can swap them out if I happen to get that matchup. Without a sideboard I'd be more motivated to make an all-comers army instead of a one-trick-pony.

**Requizen**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
Eh... I don't generally play armies with summoning. I could say that that a sideboard option to me is a license to bring extremely OP models that might have a critical weakness against one faction, knowing I can swap them out if I happen to get that matchup. Without a sideboard I'd be more motivated to make an all-comers army instead of a one-trick-pony.

Out of curiosity, what would you consider an "extremely OP models that might have a critical weakness against one faction"?

**NinthMusketeer**

Off the top of my head; thundertusks/mournguls against Bonesplittaz, kurnoth hunters against Nurgle Daemons, Skarbrand against a gun line, 'deep-strike' battalions vs gryph hounds, and daemon 30-man troop blocks vs Seraphon.

Granted some of those are not extremely OP, but I think those examples give the general idea. It also applies to certain army builds as well, like monster mash which so many people say is countered by msu, but with a sideboard it's easy enough to mitigate that if you see a potentially msu opponent across the board. There's also something to be said for generic counter units: I'd bring two or three knight-azyros in an order sideboard just because if I play chaos it's a huge advantage but I would never put that many in an all comers list.

**VeteranNoob**

I was thinking about this thread at the AoS event this weekend. Our team was two of us coming in late and paired up. Partner was quite new to AoS and he brought a Seraphon list I think mostly borrowed (was a cool guy and fun teammate) and I had Fyreslayers. This was a new type of event for me even though I went to the first Holy Wars last year. 5 games, 5 scenarios w/4 extra objectives, plus special features for each table (where the terrain plays, too). You can see pics, blurbs and even videos here as Beats of War covered it. http://www.beastsofwar.com/eventslist/holy-wars-age-sigmar-tournament-live-blog/

Anyway...games 2, 3, and 4 were very shooty opponents. Aside from scenario/objective points as none of our 5 games got past turn 3.

2 vs. Dark Elves & Stormcasts, Flagellents & war alter. I was tunneled for first two rounds before popping up to draw the cav away, kill the bolt thrower and before we basically left them little (if any) targets. Chameleon skinks were ace in this one.

3 - Kunnin' Ruck. Put all chameleon skink units ambushing to kill the boss since they gave us turn 1. (or did we win the roll...?) That imo gave us the victory.

4 - Empire war machines, hurricanumm, lumiark, units shooters, cav and 3 gryphons was too much so we started most of the game off the board as before and slann summoned stuff so once again we tried to present as little target options for the enemy as possible.

We didn't have the tools for some armies but by popping in and gunning for shooting concerns early on it made an immense difference.

**NinthMusketeer**

That must have been a lot of chameleons!

**VeteranNoob**

NinthMusketeer wrote:
That must have been a lot of chameleons!

15 or 20