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 have admittedly only played 1 game shortly after the rules dropped, but shooting seemed basically pointless.

From what I’ve seen online in other spaces unless it’s artillery that has a high likelihood of causing big damage when it hits, for the most part shooting units are a bit of a waste.

I’m not a meta chaser, I like to come up with lore and build an army that fits that. For my empire army that’s a horse breeding baron who has a preference for black powder weapons, and from everything I’ve seen pistoliers are trash, handgunners are trash, though outriders seem pretty ok. I’d like to be able to play an army matching lore I like and have the game at least be competitive.

If whole swathes of units available to armies just aren’t competitive it seems like a problem.

To be clear I’m not saying that I wish we could take a wall of handgunners or archers and delete half of a melee heavy army before it gets into charge range, but it would be nice if a mix of shooting and melee didn’t feel like the shooting units was just a waste of points.

So do you guys agree that shooting is a problem?

I haven't played since the End Times so can't comment on first hand experience of the current game. From the little I hear though monsters and cavalry rule, close combat infantry tend to be pretty terrible. I wouldn't be surprised if that extends to missile infantry.

I'd be interested to know if gunline Dwarf armies are any good. I still have my Dwarf army, which is mainly gunline, so would be good to know how that fairs today.

If Dwarf gunlines are good I imagine most people don't enjoy playing against them.

El Torro wrote:
I haven't played since the End Times so can't comment on first hand experience of the current game. From the little I hear though monsters and cavalry rule, close combat infantry tend to be pretty terrible. I wouldn't be surprised if that extends to missile infantry.

I'd be interested to know if gunline Dwarf armies are any good. I still have my Dwarf army, which is mainly gunline, so would be good to know how that fairs today.

If Dwarf gunlines are good I imagine most people don't enjoy playing against them.

Apparently there was a relatively recent FAQ and infantry has gotten a pretty big buff somehow

Shooting is strong but not all shooting units are created equally. For Empire, archers (!) are probably the best core infantry shooting unit, because of their special rules and deployment. I think the Empire gunline army was one of their stronger builds though that might have changed recently.

Dwarf gunlines are pretty strong, provided the scenario and deployment are favourable for them.

 Daba wrote:
Shooting is strong but not all shooting units are created equally. For Empire, archers (!) are probably the best core infantry shooting unit, because of their special rules and deployment. I think the Empire gunline army was one of their stronger builds though that might have changed recently.

Dwarf gunlines are pretty strong, provided the scenario and deployment are favourable for them.

I could have always just gotten unlucky, but also probably didn’t have enough gunners to truly constitute a gun line as well, but 20 handgunners i don’t think killed a single ogre.

It depends on a lot of things. Poisoned shooting used to be amazing when it was 6's to hit are auto wounding (they nerfed it by at least half in the latest update). Some factions shooting was so light that the only reason i could see it having a use is to get rid of small units of chaff (which tended to be out of general's leadership aura range). Cannons and multi damage shooting was nerfed.

Honestly it really depends. I take 21 jezzails as skaven (str 6, -3 ap, 36" range, 1 damage per shot) and an orcs and goblins player REALLY hated facing it. That said against any negative modifiers to hit in shooting it goes back to being fairly bad.

Ratling guns generally suck. Warpfire throwers used to be much better in old 8th edition. They still have potential vs single wound models. The issue is i fight tomb kings a lot which has loads of chariots and multiple wound models and warpfire throwers don't do multiple damage like they did in 8th or have the strength they used to have.

Anyway the old Meta in 8th edition used to be poisoned shooting, cannons (which hit like laser guided missiles) and shooting that didn't use Ballistic Skill. Most of the rest of the shooting was just bad and only really was there as chaff killers.

Keep in mind shooting isn't like 40k. You won't easily shoot your enemies off the board. Empire and Dwarfs and maybe a couple factions can do shooting well. The de-buff of multiple damage weapons and shooting, a de-buff on poisoned shooting and melee and an emphasis on characters on monsters you'd best find a counter to characters on monsters like war machines that don't use ballistic skill to fire (cannons, stone throwers).

Are you a 40k player coming over to Old World or did you play old fantasy before it was killed?

You'll have 2 very different perspectives depending on which group you fall in.

 nathan2004 wrote:
Are you a 40k player coming over to Old World or did you play old fantasy before it was killed?

You'll have 2 very different perspectives depending on which group you fall in.

I am definitely 40k person but I did manage to get a handful of games of fantasy in back in (6th?)
Doesn’t matter. Where a player started off. In a list of mixed shooting-melee army, it should not feel like the shooting units were a complete waste of points.

Like I said, I don’t expect a gun line should be able to shoot an army officer the board or even most of an army, but shooting units should be able to pick up roughly their own points and actually contribute something.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Are you a 40k player coming over to Old World or did you play old fantasy before it was killed?

You'll have 2 very different perspectives depending on which group you fall in.

I am definitely 40k person but I did manage to get a handful of games of fantasy in back in (6th?)
Doesn’t matter. Where a player started off. In a list of mixed shooting-melee army, it should not feel like the shooting units were a complete waste of points.

Like I said, I don’t expect a gun line should be able to shoot an army officer the board or even most of an army, but shooting units should be able to pick up roughly their own points and actually contribute something.

Did you use chaff to hold back enemy melee units so your shooting units had more time to fire back?

Just be glad you didn't face a flying monster tomb king list. Regardless of the chaff i use against that list he'll just fly over it no problem and cause terror checks to it. I don't even think flying units get negatives to charging units behind low linear obstacles.

Anyway against non-flying units chaff should work fairly well.

-------

Outside of that it really depends. Poisoned shooting was good vs monsters that weren't mounts for characters (it's probably much weaker now). Jezzails (skaven sniper teams) were decent vs artillery, monsters elite units, cavalry and causing panic in units. It really does depend on the type of shooting unit. Some are just trash though against most things. Try looking at my other post for ideas.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Are you a 40k player coming over to Old World or did you play old fantasy before it was killed?

You'll have 2 very different perspectives depending on which group you fall in.

I am definitely 40k person but I did manage to get a handful of games of fantasy in back in (6th?)
Doesn’t matter. Where a player started off. In a list of mixed shooting-melee army, it should not feel like the shooting units were a complete waste of points.

Like I said, I don’t expect a gun line should be able to shoot an army officer the board or even most of an army, but shooting units should be able to pick up roughly their own points and actually contribute something.

Did you use chaff to hold back enemy melee units so your shooting units had more time to fire back?

Just be glad you didn't face a flying monster tomb king list. Regardless of the chaff i use against that list he'll just fly over it no problem and cause terror checks to it. I don't even think flying units get negatives to charging units behind low linear obstacles.

Anyway against non-flying units chaff should work fairly well.

-------

Outside of that it really depends. Poisoned shooting was good vs monsters that weren't mounts for characters (it's probably much weaker now). Jezzails (skaven sniper teams) were decent vs artillery, monsters elite units, cavalry and causing panic in units. It really does depend on the type of shooting unit. Some are just trash though against most things. Try looking at my other post for ideas.

I had knights, free company, flagellants, and halberds, and great swords. A priest was leading one of those units.

Also may not have been a great match up, against ogre kingdoms.

It was so long ago I can’t give anything close to a batrep now. But I clearly remember his giant boar cav things wrecking my knights, and a vortex spell wreaking havoc among my infantry.

Shooting in WFB has always been about softening a unit rather than deleting it. As long as modifiers exist for your rolls, then you need to EXPECT to get around 2 wounds per 10 shots, and even that may not be your average.


In 6th the point of shooting was always to try to knock off a point of rank bonus and the point for outnumber so that your units are on a more favorable ground when they charge in. From my understanding that hasn't changed with TOW.

Definitely showing my age, but I remember an old White Dwarf issue that went into exactly this. The short answer is that shooting is not supposed to be removing units because the game is supposed to be settled in close combat. Shooting is a support element that is intended to achieve 4 things:

1. Tip a combat in your favour. You want to strip the last model from a rank bonus, or gain the Outnumber bonus.
2. Destroy small units like fast cavalry or Skirmishers, who are otherwise difficult to engage on favourable terms.
3. Cause Panic checks by destroying the right targets or killing enough models.
4. Threaten characters so they have to hide in a unit.

Like I said, I don’t want shooting to be decisive, but the idea of spending 80pts for a unit that is only killing 1 model a turn, seems like an absolute waste and completely pointless.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Are you a 40k player coming over to Old World or did you play old fantasy before it was killed?

You'll have 2 very different perspectives depending on which group you fall in.

I am definitely 40k person but I did manage to get a handful of games of fantasy in back in (6th?)
Doesn’t matter. Where a player started off. In a list of mixed shooting-melee army, it should not feel like the shooting units were a complete waste of points.

Like I said, I don’t expect a gun line should be able to shoot an army officer the board or even most of an army, but shooting units should be able to pick up roughly their own points and actually contribute something.

Your background as a 40k player has definitely colored your perspective here, youd be incorrect. Shooting in whfb isnt there to shoot units off the table. They do chip damage and pick off some models, sure, but this is a melee centric game and melee is where the game is decided. The damage output and value of a shooting unit is to make a target unit easier to defeat in melee by thinning out the unit, or to pick up stragglers and survivors of a combat. Shooting is not the battle itself.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Like I said, I don’t want shooting to be decisive, but the idea of spending 80pts for a unit that is only killing 1 model a turn, seems like an absolute waste and completely pointless.

Mate, this isnt hard. Youre not trying to make your points back by killing equivalent points of enemy models, youre trying to make them bavk by deleting a rank bonus and giving your melee unit a x% higher chance of breaking the unit in combat.

If youre evaluating this based purely on trading points youre really not understanding how the game plays and probably not a very good player.

chaos0xomega wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Are you a 40k player coming over to Old World or did you play old fantasy before it was killed?

You'll have 2 very different perspectives depending on which group you fall in.

I am definitely 40k person but I did manage to get a handful of games of fantasy in back in (6th?)
Doesn’t matter. Where a player started off. In a list of mixed shooting-melee army, it should not feel like the shooting units were a complete waste of points.

Like I said, I don’t expect a gun line should be able to shoot an army officer the board or even most of an army, but shooting units should be able to pick up roughly their own points and actually contribute something.

Your background as a 40k player has definitely colored your perspective here, youd be incorrect. Shooting in whfb isnt there to shoot units off the table. They do chip damage and pick off some models, sure, but this is a melee centric game and melee is where the game is decided. The damage output and value of a shooting unit is to make a target unit easier to defeat in melee by thinning out the unit, or to pick up stragglers and survivors of a combat. Shooting is not the battle itself.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Like I said, I don’t want shooting to be decisive, but the idea of spending 80pts for a unit that is only killing 1 model a turn, seems like an absolute waste and completely pointless.

Mate, this isnt hard. Youre not trying to make your points back by killing equivalent points of enemy models, youre trying to make them bavk by deleting a rank bonus and giving your melee unit a x% higher chance of breaking the unit in combat.

If youre evaluating this based purely on trading points youre really not understanding how the game plays and probably not a very good player.

If they’re not roughly earning their points back then they’re a negative points investment.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
I have admittedly only played 1 game shortly after the rules dropped, but shooting seemed basically pointless.

From what I’ve seen online in other spaces unless it’s artillery that has a high likelihood of causing big damage when it hits, for the most part shooting units are a bit of a waste.

I’m not a meta chaser, I like to come up with lore and build an army that fits that. For my empire army that’s a horse breeding baron who has a preference for black powder weapons, and from everything I’ve seen pistoliers are trash, handgunners are trash, though outriders seem pretty ok. I’d like to be able to play an army matching lore I like and have the game at least be competitive.

If whole swathes of units available to armies just aren’t competitive it seems like a problem.

To be clear I’m not saying that I wish we could take a wall of handgunners or archers and delete half of a melee heavy army before it gets into charge range, but it would be nice if a mix of shooting and melee didn’t feel like the shooting units was just a waste of points.

So do you guys agree that shooting is a problem?

If you want Empire’ horses and gunpowder then Outriders and Road Wardens will tick all your boxes, especially in a Nuln Army from the Arcane Journal.

Nuln Outriders lose Ponderous, and you can add a character with an item that removes the -1 long range penalty.

Road Wardens avoid the Impetuous sins of Pistoliers. Both Road Wardens and Outriders have good BS as well.

So you can have decent mobile shooting!

johnpjones1775 wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

 nathan2004 wrote:
Are you a 40k player coming over to Old World or did you play old fantasy before it was killed?

You'll have 2 very different perspectives depending on which group you fall in.

I am definitely 40k person but I did manage to get a handful of games of fantasy in back in (6th?)
Doesn’t matter. Where a player started off. In a list of mixed shooting-melee army, it should not feel like the shooting units were a complete waste of points.

Like I said, I don’t expect a gun line should be able to shoot an army officer the board or even most of an army, but shooting units should be able to pick up roughly their own points and actually contribute something.

Your background as a 40k player has definitely colored your perspective here, youd be incorrect. Shooting in whfb isnt there to shoot units off the table. They do chip damage and pick off some models, sure, but this is a melee centric game and melee is where the game is decided. The damage output and value of a shooting unit is to make a target unit easier to defeat in melee by thinning out the unit, or to pick up stragglers and survivors of a combat. Shooting is not the battle itself.

johnpjones1775 wrote:
Like I said, I don’t want shooting to be decisive, but the idea of spending 80pts for a unit that is only killing 1 model a turn, seems like an absolute waste and completely pointless.

Mate, this isnt hard. Youre not trying to make your points back by killing equivalent points of enemy models, youre trying to make them bavk by deleting a rank bonus and giving your melee unit a x% higher chance of breaking the unit in combat.

If youre evaluating this based purely on trading points youre really not understanding how the game plays and probably not a very good player.

If they’re not roughly earning their points back then they’re a negative points investment.

That is not a good calculus.
Even in 40k, I can’t think of a single game my Nurglings have made their points back in terms of damage dealt. But they’re insanely valuable.

Yeah, thats a very amateur outlook of how the game works and where a units value is.

A unit 'Earning its points back' is only relevant if the unit dies. A shooting unit that contributes a few (hopefully important) kills and survives the game above half strength and with all its banners intact is a net positive, because its surrendered nothing to the opponent.

Mainly a dwarf player here that never used gunlines. Like what a lot of people said, shooting in TOW as in the editions of WFB, likewise the same in WAB; has always been something to soften the opposing units, and disrupt the opposition. I really can't recall killing a unit outright using shooting. I have gotten some to flee due to panic off the board, but not an outright kill. The most valuable war machine was my organ gun,(not played TOW yet) and it never outright killed a whole unit.

No, they soften a unit up by eliminating rank and outnumbering generally. As far as disruption, they can disrupt by causing the aforementioned panic checks, as well as disruption through reaction on deployment. Don't get me wrong, shooting has it's value, but if you want to just kill units outright in TOW, then you need a gun-line and call it a day. Just remember that everything has it's advantages and dis-advantages in this game.

Mozzamanx wrote:
A unit 'Earning its points back' is only relevant if the unit dies. A shooting unit that contributes a few (hopefully important) kills and survives the game above half strength and with all its banners intact is a net positive, because its surrendered nothing to the opponent.

No, a unit dying is irrelevant to the importance of earning its points back.

If a unit survives and did nothing or almost nothing all game is was a wasted points investment.

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
A unit 'Earning its points back' is only relevant if the unit dies. A shooting unit that contributes a few (hopefully important) kills and survives the game above half strength and with all its banners intact is a net positive, because its surrendered nothing to the opponent.

No, a unit dying is irrelevant to the importance of earning its points back.

If a unit survives and did nothing or almost nothing all game is was a wasted points investment.

If a unit is able to help other units succeed, it doesn't matter how much it personally kills.

Would you consider a character or unit who gave another unit +1 to-hit useless if they hardly do damage themselves?
Think of shooting units similarly-their job isn't to outright delete units. It's to make your other units more effective, as explained above.

 JNAProductions wrote:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
A unit 'Earning its points back' is only relevant if the unit dies. A shooting unit that contributes a few (hopefully important) kills and survives the game above half strength and with all its banners intact is a net positive, because its surrendered nothing to the opponent.

No, a unit dying is irrelevant to the importance of earning its points back.

If a unit survives and did nothing or almost nothing all game is was a wasted points investment.

If a unit is able to help other units succeed, it doesn't matter how much it personally kills.

Would you consider a character or unit who gave another unit +1 to-hit useless if they hardly do damage themselves?
Think of shooting units similarly-their job isn't to outright delete units. It's to make your other units more effective, as explained above.

Honestly i think this guy just wants to be angry rather than listen to answers to his problem. You know back in the day in 8th i had a bunch of skaven-slave units and the empire army had his demigryphs charge after one but then it opened himself up for a good flank charge by another unit of slaves. Had i had a little more combat resolution (maybe a 5th rank so he didn't delete the 4th) and he rolled worse i could've potentially run down his demigryphs with skaven-slaves. Some of the skaven-slaves don't have to make their points back and they were really cheap units that are just meant to soak up the damage and die so something more worthwhile doesn't have to die. Of course telling the OP this is a waste of time.

I just hate combat resolution as a horde army doesn't tend to do enough vs undead esp. tomb kings undead. It's sad that you are forced into melee with them one way or another and that's the best way to beat undead but shooting is kind of needed for handling things like monsters i think (or a special magical hero weapon).

I think you are expecting way way too much from shooting units.

As others have said, they are there to damage enemy units before melee. Shooting is never going to swing the game by itself other than artillery vs single targets.

You were also facing Ogres. They are extra resilient to shooting, both by being way tougher than most enemies and having multiple wounds. A few handgunners are only going to pick a few wounds off here and there and their Str4 shots are going to struggle more than normal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

johnpjones1775 wrote:

Mozzamanx wrote:
A unit 'Earning its points back' is only relevant if the unit dies. A shooting unit that contributes a few (hopefully important) kills and survives the game above half strength and with all its banners intact is a net positive, because its surrendered nothing to the opponent.

No, a unit dying is irrelevant to the importance of earning its points back.

If a unit survives and did nothing or almost nothing all game is was a wasted points investment.

You need to understand how you win games in WHFB. You don't win by killing the enemy. You win by dying less.

Yes, if a unit dies but it killed more points value of the enemy then it was worth it. But you have to remember that you don't get points for just doing a few wounds here and there. You have to get a unit below half or outright kill it.

Shooting is just a helper for your melee units to finish the job. If you want to use shooting more, you need to make sure you have proper melee units to back them up and finish the job.

Chaff units are also very important, and many small units of ranged troops can fit this role well. A chaff unit is deliberately sacrificed to force an enemy unit into a bad position.


Example: You can angle a small unit of hand gunners so that when the enemy charges them they leave their flank open to your real melee unit(say a doomstack of spearmen, knights, etc...) to flank charge them. The handgunners will die, but they enabled the death of the enemy unit by their sacrifice.

You can use multiple small 5-10 man units to pull off things like this.