Does shooting into combat upset you?

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.

**ALEXisAWESOME**

I don't think there is any way to avoid the stand and shoot, it just says the unit can shoot at any unit within 3'' of it during the charge phase or something to that effect. Using this he could over lap his Handgunners in lines of 10, so that 2 units could stand and shoot at the same enemy. He also gets to choose who he shoots at, unlike 40K, so he can choose to hold fire despite already being in combat to fire at the more important person charging.

I don't think there is much I could have done with wanderers at all, his shooting is better than mine and I don't have the melee powess for the few survivors of the fusillade to butcher the gunners. I could throw in some other order forces, like Stormcasts or Sylvaneth, but that's not really the point is it?

A big thing for me is that AoS isn't WHFB. I simply can't pull them completely apart in my head, because one is wearing the same skin suit as the other. So when I think of the things that just made fundermental sense in WHFB (Characters in units, units not shooting into/out of combat save Skaven, obsuring cover giving some benefit) and that AoS lacks the glaring difference stands out to me more.

**warhead01**

Ah, well. It was a thought anyway.
When I decided to play AoS I was sure I wanted an AoS army instead of any army from WHFB. I know everyone might not do that if they already have an army the own/love. But it was important for me, different game different army.
It mostly sounds like the excess of shooting was the problem with the match up. I hope the Empire player changes their army up the next time you play them.
Would playing a lower points game have balanced it out do you think?

**ERJAK**

ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
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.

You're cherry picking with those benifits pretty hard. You're also forgetting the insta-loss issue that happens if there are units that can close in without taking too much damage. For example, you play that same list against someone with double stonehorn you're laughing all the way to the podium. Or a unit of 4 fulminators with a castellant buff. 2+rerollable ignoring -1 rend, -2 in cover. In fact, going against any stormcast army will be a largely unwinnable scenario even with stand and shoot.

Shooting is strong, every list needs some way to deal with it(extreme speed, your own shooting, clever use of range banding) But it's not the be all end all.

Here's another counterpoint, if you can't shoot into and out of combat, and especially if you can't shoot out of combat, then shooting units become pretty crap for their points, so they go down in points, so now you can bring even more shooting units which means you'll start seeing even more extreme shooting lists that just accept that if they can't blast you off the table by turn 2 they just pack up and go home. Basically there would be a knock-on effect that could result in some very binary leafblower-style lists.

**auticus**

Not if they point cost them correctly.

However this is not going to happen since the designers have elected for the very simple approach to rules writing where abstraction is king and gamey game stuff is standard and the baseline difficulty level that game designers adhere to is low risk high reward.

For some no problem. For others, big problem.

The main problem as I see it is that there are still no real viable fantasy based games on the market for immersion players.

**Waaargh**

By the sound of it you should have had a lot of zulu warriors to fight that gunline.

I would suggest you play by scenario next time you meet, so he can't hug the backfield. Maybe place a realmgate too.

**Lord-celestent Putin**

Cavalry charge a unit of archers while a unit of skirmishers pinces them from behind. The front archers defend themselves from the oncoming cavalry whilst the others turn to shoot down the skirmishers - but wait, they can't, because of some arbitrary rule in the rulebook.

I really see no problem with shooting in/out of combats.

Why shouldn't my trolls be able to spew noxious vomit on some poor hand gunners just because an ogre next to them is bashing the humans over the head with a club?

**auticus**

Or... the unit of archers are entirely engaged in combat by a unit of chaos warriors. But they decide to turn their backs and fire at a different unit while the chaos warriors are beating them down.

A unit shooting into its own combat is fine by me, but being able to turn around and ignore the unit thats beating on them to shoot something else is about as gamey as it gets.

**Backspacehacker**

I think its kinda dumb but eh, its the rules. But it really does favor whoever can just bring the most tarpit unit and range.

IE bringing phoenix guard to tar up almost anything, then blast it away with bows or guns.

**ALEXisAWESOME**

ERJAK wrote:
ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
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.

You're cherry picking with those benifits pretty hard. You're also forgetting the insta-loss issue that happens if there are units that can close in without taking too much damage. For example, you play that same list against someone with double stonehorn you're laughing all the way to the podium. Or a unit of 4 fulminators with a castellan buff. 2+rerollable ignoring -1 rend, -2 in cover. In fact, going against any stormcast army will be a largely unwinnable scenario even with stand and shoot.

Shooting is strong, every list needs some way to deal with it(extreme speed, your own shooting, clever use of range banding) But it's not the be all end all.

Here's another counterpoint, if you can't shoot into and out of combat, and especially if you can't shoot out of combat, then shooting units become pretty crap for their points, so they go down in points, so now you can bring even more shooting units which means you'll start seeing even more extreme shooting lists that just accept that if they can't blast you off the table by turn 2 they just pack up and go home. Basically there would be a knock-on effect that could result in some very binary leafblower-style lists.

I'm cherry picking hard, then you choose the biggest offenders of durable assault units? I'm looking through the SCE on the GW site and I can't find what gives them this 2+ re-rollable ignoring rend? They have a 3+ base, re-rolling 1's, and the celestant gives them +1 to all rolls. But if they have +1 to all rolls, they can never roll a 1 because the roll of a 1 counts as a 2, therefore they don't get to re-roll. -1 Rend would put them back to their original 3+ re-roll 1's. At least thats how I think it works? AoS works in modifying the dice roll, not the roll required, which causes all kinds of complications.

People keep on saying that ranged units wouldn't be worth their salt if they couldn't shoot in combat, but shooting already has a load of buffs that combat doesn't. Look at the red quoted part, not being within melee range to be able to contribute to a game is a massive boon.

The problem I see is that the game is just to simple. What makes sense for some things doesn't make sense for others, such as targetting a single glade lord locking in combat with 20 crossbowmen with 20 handgunners without friendly fire hitting with 5/6 shots doesn't make sense while shooting a dragon fighting 20 crossbowmen does. There should be unit categories, with height classes, and LoS obstruction rules so models behind cover get a similar benefit to those in cover. Something to give some bonus to small infantry fights instead of large fast durable monsters. It's not that AoS doesn't have any tactics, it just seems like the types of tactics competitive lists employ are just as in not more gamey than even the worst of movement shenigans in WHFB.

**Lord Kragan**

I think you're forgetting of the rules of 1. Sure, you could add one to that 1 roll-result but... it's a one so automatically fails and trigger the re-roll.

**VeteranNoob**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
IT depends on the unit, it's just gonna make Fyreslayers useless if they can't Axe into combat.

First of all, good on ya for using Fyreslayers

Second, those 8" nerf axes are actually really great for us and with new points I've seen in 9 games with new points (so, 91 games with Open/SCGT/Clash Comp or old GHB points) the weight of fire helps immensely, especially if a runemsiter or mystical terrain has granted reroll wounds to a large unit. We get more bodies now in points so that did make a difference. Magmabomb puking in combat at range to do D6 mortal wounds as well. We need it, all the help we can get.

**ALEXisAWESOME**

Lord Kragan wrote:
I think you're forgetting of the rules of 1. Sure, you could add one to that 1 roll-result but... it's a one so automatically fails and trigger the re-roll.

A roll of a 1 is always a fail, before modifiers, but presumably, the rule for the Sigmarite Shields comes into play after modifiers? Every other rule, for example 6's generate extra attacks, comes into play after modifiers, allowing them to generate extra attacks on a 5+ with +1 to hit, or at least that's how I've seen it played.

**Lord Kragan**

ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
I think you're forgetting of the rules of 1. Sure, you could add one to that 1 roll-result but... it's a one so automatically fails and trigger the re-roll.

A roll of a 1 is always a fail, before modifiers, but presumably, the rule for the Sigmarite Shields comes into play after modifiers? Every other rule, for example 6's generate extra attacks, comes into play after modifiers, allowing them to generate extra attacks on a 5+ with +1 to hit, or at least that's how I've seen it played.

Doesn't matter, checked it. Rules of one outright say that if you roll a natural one you don't get to apply ANY modifier.

**VeteranNoob**

Hmm...curious then. I played a game recently where Nagash and a bunch of death wizards were able to cast on the roll of snake eyes. He said the bonuses make it the number higher to an automatic cast. Now rule of 1 is for hits, wounds and saves but I'll be curious to hear what the rules team says about double 1s when casting.

**Lord Kragan**

VeteranNoob wrote:
Hmm...curious then. I played a game recently where Nagash and a bunch of death wizards were able to cast on the roll of snake eyes. He said the bonuses make it the number higher to an automatic cast. Now rule of 1 is for hits, wounds and saves but I'll be curious to hear what the rules team says about double 1s when casting.

Would be interesting but it certainly doesn't fit in the rules of 1 and nagash sucks enough as it is.

**ZebioLizard2**

VeteranNoob wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
IT depends on the unit, it's just gonna make Fyreslayers useless if they can't Axe into combat.

First of all, good on ya for using Fyreslayers
Second, those 8" nerf axes are actually really great for us and with new points I've seen in 9 games with new points (so, 91 games with Open/SCGT/Clash Comp or old GHB points) the weight of fire helps immensely, especially if a runemsiter or mystical terrain has granted reroll wounds to a large unit. We get more bodies now in points so that did make a difference. Magmabomb puking in combat at range to do D6 mortal wounds as well. We need it, all the help we can get.

I like fighting Fyreslayers, it's like a sea of orange, though I'm glad they are getting a buff soon (depending on how far the experimental rules do)

**Wayniac**

ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
I think you're forgetting of the rules of 1. Sure, you could add one to that 1 roll-result but... it's a one so automatically fails and trigger the re-roll.

A roll of a 1 is always a fail, before modifiers, but presumably, the rule for the Sigmarite Shields comes into play after modifiers? Every other rule, for example 6's generate extra attacks, comes into play after modifiers, allowing them to generate extra attacks on a 5+ with +1 to hit, or at least that's how I've seen it played.

You apply re-rolls before modifiers. So if you have a +1 to save and a Sigmarite Shield (re-roll 1s), and you roll a 1, you re-roll first and then apply the modifier to the re-rolled result.

**VeteranNoob**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
VeteranNoob wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
IT depends on the unit, it's just gonna make Fyreslayers useless if they can't Axe into combat.

First of all, good on ya for using Fyreslayers
Second, those 8" nerf axes are actually really great for us and with new points I've seen in 9 games with new points (so, 91 games with Open/SCGT/Clash Comp or old GHB points) the weight of fire helps immensely, especially if a runemsiter or mystical terrain has granted reroll wounds to a large unit. We get more bodies now in points so that did make a difference. Magmabomb puking in combat at range to do D6 mortal wounds as well. We need it, all the help we can get.

I like fighting Fyreslayers, it's like a sea of orange, though I'm glad they are getting a buff soon (depending on how far the experimental rules do)

So fa Fyreslayers are doing much better for me at least, and the reports I've seen as well of other playtesters. Of course, narrative or open play games where points are used as a rough guideline for army balance (like we do quite often) then Fyreslayers get an even bigger boost when our heroes aren't limited to 6 at 2K. Though 2500 pts 8 leaders is great, and I like bigger games anyway as the whole visual mass battle is the appeal of the hobby for me. Now to play more 2500+ pts games testing matched play.

Oh, and I've heard people say Nagash sucks but never actually seen that to be the case in any of the games I've witnessed or played. Maybe they mean MP summoning rules?

**ALEXisAWESOME**

Wayniac wrote:
ALEXisAWESOME wrote:
Lord Kragan wrote:
I think you're forgetting of the rules of 1. Sure, you could add one to that 1 roll-result but... it's a one so automatically fails and trigger the re-roll.

A roll of a 1 is always a fail, before modifiers, but presumably, the rule for the Sigmarite Shields comes into play after modifiers? Every other rule, for example 6's generate extra attacks, comes into play after modifiers, allowing them to generate extra attacks on a 5+ with +1 to hit, or at least that's how I've seen it played.

You apply re-rolls before modifiers. So if you have a +1 to save and a Sigmarite Shield (re-roll 1s), and you roll a 1, you re-roll first and then apply the modifier to the re-rolled result.

Sorry for de-railing the thread, but this doesn't make sense to me. Take a Goblin Spear Chukka for example, hits on 5's, gets +1 to hit against heroes and re-rolls if within 3 of another spear chukka. If the re-rolls happen before modifiers then would the first volly hit on 5's, then re-roll misses then those misses subsequently hit on 4's because they benefit from the modifiers? That doesn't seem right at all, the modifiers should happen first, so they would hit on 4's, then the re-rolls of 3,2,1.

Rule of one: A roll of 1 to hit, wound, or save always fails. This applies to the roll after any re-rolls have been taken, but before modifiers are applied.

Here it clearly states the re-rolls happen first, so I cede the fact that those silly Space Dragons get a 2+ re-rollable

, but this state of operations must only be applicable to the roll of a 1? Otherwise Only the second attempt of a re-roll would benefit from the modifiers?

**puree**

The base rules are also extremely clear that re-rolls are based on the initial dice roll, not after modifiers.

You can never re-roll a dice
more than once, and re-rolls happen before
modifiers to the roll (if any) are applied.

**Wayniac**

It is pretty weird with how that works, it's the opposite of how you think it should work (and how it works in virtually every other game). But yeah.... re-rolls occur on the base roll, not the modified roll.

That spear-chukka example is odd, because you would THINK it works like this (assuming attacking a Hero for the +1 and within 3" of another for the re-roll):

1) Roll a die
2a) If you roll a 4+, you hit (4+1 = 5)
2b) If you roll 1-3, re-roll triggers, go to Step 1

However, it seems to work this way:

1) Roll a die
2) if you roll a 1-4, re-roll triggers, go to Step 1, this time add +1 so on a 4+ you hit (because 4+1 = 5)

Which would basically mean you never apply a modifier to the initial roll if you also get a re-roll, since the re-roll would trigger on the base roll (without modifier) even if the modifier would turn a miss into a hit, which is just asinine.

This is apparently exactly how it works, and I can't even fathom how such an insane rule got through. I don't know anyone who plays it this way, because it literally makes zero sense.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
the way it's been explained having look further into this is that rerolls are optional. So it's not quite as stupid as the wording makes it out to be, imagine if you could reroll ones and also had a plus one to hit. The reroll happens before modifiers because otherwise if you roll the one you would actually get a two and not trigger the reroll. For whatever reason the way it is worded it sounds pants on head slowed when it actually is not that bad

**Tiberius501**

I personally think shooting is fine as it stands. Some units/battalions can take advantage of it a bit too much, but the same can be said for melee. I play Bloodbound and can't use ranged units myself. But from what ranged I have faced, I can say it's been pretty fair.
Firstly, it's worked out in their points cost to work how they do. Changing the way they play (nerfing them), would mean overhauling their points costs.
Secondly, considering I can pump so many attacks into, say, a unit of blood reavers, I can understand why ranged is balanced how it is.
The only time I think ranged is particularly powerful is if the ranged player gets two turns in a row. I've not been on the receiving end of that, as my group tend to house rule out the random turns.
As a whole though, I think ranged units are generally pretty balanced compared to melee units, unlike 40k where range trumps melee 80% of the time.