SwampHeart Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 So I've been listening to several podcasts lately talking about the prevalence of certain builds and models at tournaments due to an overall lack of shooting in the meta. This seems to be the case as far as back as Blackout (which granted wasn't forever ago) and doesn't seem to have changed at all in events since then. And I wonder why? Is it just a matter of time (i.e. people need to build and paint the necessary models)? There is definitely an argument to be made that meta changes aren't instant. Or is there not enough viable shooting builds on otherwise high tier armies? I don't really have a solid theory - its just something I've been curious about and I'd like to know what others think. TL;DR - Shooting armies are poised to do well in the current meta, but aren't showing up. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nos Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Total speculation but shooting in AOS is broadly damage over time, which isn't in favour at present because the meta revolves around instant decapitation at present. Also most of the current top armies have means of recovering from wounds in a prior round so DOT attacks are often a poor return. Shooting also tends to be low rend, low attack numbers and on top of that several of the top armies have multiple saving throws so it's hard to get it to count. Honestly so many armies have at least 2 saves now, it's pretty dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amysrevenge Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 I think there's a community mental block. The way Look Out Sir! was rolled out and immediately accepted by the community was of the nature "well, Heroes are immune to shooting now, so no point bringing any shooting". Even though it's not true, it was just sort of accepted as a given and we all collectively moved on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Jabber Tzeentch Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 I think the issue is that in the new cool armies there’s better models and units than having a shooty army. And in the armies heavily based on shooting they’re older models and non-battletome factions like Freeguild, wanderers, ironweld etc. Khadron are the most prevailent but their recent nerf has lowered them in the meta its just a case of not enough armies being released based solely on shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorokyl Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 you guys should play at our Garage meta. 25% (1 army) Stormcast with 10x Judicators 6x Longstrike Raptors, with Relictor blessing the weapons and Anvils of the Heldenhammer double shooting. Basically you must consider the shooting in every list you make=P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luzgurbel Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 KO's armies usually have 4+ to hit in their range weapons, so that's just bad to hit in a shooting army (barely ONLY shooting army though they have a couple of options for cc). Furthermore, there are some trais, artifacts and abilities to hinder further the hit range (such as DoK, Gryph Feather Charm and more). Basically, I am convinced the new AoS is more focused in combat and magic that shooting. P.S. All in all, there are two grand alliances that almost have no shooting, or its completely marginal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampHeart Posted November 20, 2018 Author Share Posted November 20, 2018 10 minutes ago, Luzgurbel said: P.S. All in all, there are two grand alliances that almost have no shooting, or its completely marginal. Which two? Chaos has access to really strong shooting if it wants, as does destruction. So maybe death? But order also clearly has shooting as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainSoup Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 15 minutes ago, SwampHeart said: Which two? Chaos has access to really strong shooting if it wants, as does destruction. So maybe death? But order also clearly has shooting as well. True, Death has some pretty lack luster shooting since they got rid of the Tomb Kings. Destruction has shooting in the simplest form of the word but that's it. Yes its a unit and yes it is technically shooting, but its so bad no one would dare risk taking them for their price. It also doesn't help that all of Destruction is in a really bad spot right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michu Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Bonesplitters had really good shooting for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemon Knuckles Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Really interesting and thoughtful discussion here. Does anyone know what the GHB17 points values were for Endrinriggers, Arkanaut Company and Skyfires? I believe the former two decreased in 18, while the latter increased, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luzgurbel Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 I was referring to both destruction and death. I know Order is the "I have everything and everything is really good" and Chaos have some armies that can just have some good shooting. Destruction and Death, otherwise, their shooting are quite testimonial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PJetski Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Shooting is still very strong but people are not playing the shooting armies. Most of the new releases this year have been primarily melee focused armies - Nurgle, DOK, Idoneth, Nighthaunt, Beasts of Chaos, and LON. The only outlier is the updated Stormcast battletome, but most people just use Evocators and Sequitors and tend to ignore the really powerful shooting options. Seraphon are maybe the best shooting army in the game but some of their key units (Salamanders & Razordons) are locked behind a severe paywall. The meta isn't necessarily representative of what is the strongest, just what is popular. They tend to correlate but not always Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampHeart Posted November 20, 2018 Author Share Posted November 20, 2018 58 minutes ago, CaptainSoup said: True, Death has some pretty lack luster shooting since they got rid of the Tomb Kings. Destruction has shooting in the simplest form of the word but that's it. Yes its a unit and yes it is technically shooting, but its so bad no one would dare risk taking them for their price. It also doesn't help that all of Destruction is in a really bad spot right now. Kunnin' Ruk begs to differ - destruction can play a very strong shooting list if it wants to. Also Destruction has finished well (albeit on the back of one player) in a few recent events. @PJetski that's an interesting idea. Are shooting armies less prevalent because of cost? That's another possible reason that could contribute to the lack of reaction in the meta. Ultimately I agree that the meta is about what's popular but it should see some degree of reactivity and it currently does not appear to be doing so - which is the main thrust of this post. What is preventing or is the root case of relatively slow meta reaction to current developments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drofnum Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 40 minutes ago, Lemon Knuckles said: Really interesting and thoughtful discussion here. Does anyone know what the GHB17 points values were for Endrinriggers, Arkanaut Company and Skyfires? I believe the former two decreased in 18, while the latter increased, right? Endrinriggers and Arkanaut Compay stayed the same. But those are really the only two units in KO that are any good, along with the Khemist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luzgurbel Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Sincerely, when was the last time a shooting army did a good performance at a high elo tourney? Not an army with two or three models that can shoot, I refer to an army such as KO or Wanderers or Stormcast full shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloane_paints_stuff Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 My 2 cents is that it's not a matter of shooting is bad or shooting armies are bad, it's more just a case that the other armies are better, newer and happen to be close combat focused. DoK, Idoneth (could shoot), LoN, Nurgle, new SCE, Nighthaunt. All this year's new tomes have been melee and magic focused and people want the shiny new things not to mention the tomes just creep in power each time too. If a new tome came out that was a shooting army we'd have a shooting army in the meta as soon as it was painted. On top of all this, not to jump on the bandwagon, but the shooting armies (KO, Tzeentch, Vanguard) have had nerfs that these new tomes haven't yet had which makes them all the more appealing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampHeart Posted November 20, 2018 Author Share Posted November 20, 2018 1 hour ago, sloane_paints_stuff said: My 2 cents is that it's not a matter of shooting is bad or shooting armies are bad... So what's interesting is I don't think shooting armies are bad and this post was spawned from listening to tournament coverage where more than a few podcasts talked about the fact that the armies you mentioned are doing well specifically because of the lack of shooting. So there seems to be some thought process out there that those armies are so good because they aren't facing hard counters in shooting heavy lists. I can speak anecdotally about one thing that's stopped me from building a shooting list and that's Total Commitment. So I really like the Soulstrike Brotherhood formation from the new SCE book - I think there is a lot of potency in it. However I refuse to spend time or money on the project because Total Commitment is quickly becoming what appears a tournament standard, and you basically lose all bonuses from the formation if that scenario is played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurglesFirstChosen Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 Got a feeling this may change with 40 (or should that be 120) grot bows shooting poisoned arrows, and fanatics stopping them being charged I could be wrong, but it’s possibly meta changing lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenshin620 Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 I think one problem with shooty armies is the staticness of them (outside of KO since they have some options to move). If shooting in an army is the go to strategy, then gunlines will form and either the enemy will get annihilated without be able to do anything OR the enemy gets into 1-2 turn charge (ambush, deepstrike, just being really fast) and butcher the shooty army. IIRC didnt competitive Dwarfs in WFB boil down to "make a gunline, maybe have some hammerers"? Even 40k (a game that loves guns) sometimes suffers the gunline issue. The infamous 5th edition IG Leafblower existed that either won turn 1 or would crumple like paper. Basically shooting should be an element of an army in AoS (imo) and not "100% of the army sits and shoots". Even Free People wouldn't take just crossbowmen despite 30 crossbow men units being pretty good at shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nos Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 There's also the fact that AOS is far more fun with plenty terrain on the table which if sensibly deployed should prevent 60 odd units shooting across the table at once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lemon Knuckles Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 11 minutes ago, Nos said: There's also the fact that AOS is far more fun with plenty terrain on the table which if sensibly deployed should prevent 60 odd units shooting across the table at once. I think you are right on here. That's the design challenge with shooting in general. If you have access to good shooting, then min-max you probably want to take as much of it as you can (in order to "decapitate" in one go, as you said in your first post). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwampHeart Posted November 20, 2018 Author Share Posted November 20, 2018 Something interesting that probably merits discussing (from @kenshin620's post) - what is a shooting army? When I originally posted this I didn't intend for it to mean a list that only shoots or is a gun line but it seems that's a pretty common understanding of the term. So - if you'll humor my now 2 question post - how do you define a shooting army? For me its an army that invests in the phase, not to the detriment of being able to play objectives or other good play, but an army that's, lets say, primary driver is the shooting phase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adreal Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 With a certain ability re worded to allow more then one unit to use it, and a fresh battletome I think wanderers could bring the shooting phase back. I've played wanderers, they have great shooting, and thier alliegence abilities do support this, but they are hampered by being older models, having half of thier units (mostly metal and finecast) gutted from them, and also loosing the sylvaneth. Still with a battletome, some reboxing, and some more battalions, they could be a very handy and mobile shooting force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overtninja Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 There are also considerations of scenario rules - there are a many that limit the range of sight, or ranged attacks. If you get a scenario where you can only see 12 inches with a shooting army, you pretty much lose right there, since your army has to do lots of damage at range to be effective and can't stand up in a melee fight against a full strength unit. The points on having to wipe units so they don't grow back, terrain being fun but also limiting shooting angles, and the premium that shooting units pay to do damage at range, generally combined with 4+/4+ attack values, are also salient points. I would say, however, that I wouldn't want shooting to be too good, as it would push play toward horde armies where no number of wounds, in shooting or combat, would matter over the sheer number of models on the field - and then we'd be right back to WHF again in terms of model count and 'I win the push because I have more bodies' style combats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sloane_paints_stuff Posted November 21, 2018 Share Posted November 21, 2018 6 minutes ago, overtninja said: There are also considerations of scenario rules - there are a many that limit the range of sight, or ranged attacks. If you get a scenario where you can only see 12 inches with a shooting army, you pretty much lose right there, since your army has to do lots of damage at range to be effective and can't stand up in a melee fight against a full strength unit. The points on having to wipe units so they don't grow back, terrain being fun but also limiting shooting angles, and the premium that shooting units pay to do damage at range, generally combined with 4+/4+ attack values, are also salient points. I would say, however, that I wouldn't want shooting to be too good, as it would push play toward horde armies where no number of wounds, in shooting or combat, would matter over the sheer number of models on the field - and then we'd be right back to WHF again in terms of model count and 'I win the push because I have more bodies' style combats. I think if anything this emphasises the importance (and GW's desire) to have balanced armies. A friend of mine, been in the hobby for many years and is very competitive once told me you should be contributing something in each phase; hero>movement>shooting>combat and you should do 2 of those phases really well. Look at the best armies right now, they have something to do in each phase and usually do 2 of them really well. Armies that don't do well are armies that don't do them all. For example, Ironjawz > zero shooting. Dispossessed > zero movement help. And then there's some that can do something in each but aren't great at 2; KO is a good example, should be good at shooting and movement but both have been nerfed so they're not particularly great anymore. I think its a solid theory and I craft lists based on this idea now. I also think it's why this idea of shooting armies isnt great. Lack of balance against more balanced armies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.