Artillery in AoS

[Riff_Raff_Rascal]

21 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

They usually require a dedicated buff hero to unlock their full potential

Lets definitely put those heroes to better use. I would prefer artillery to act more independent of other units or even allegiance rules so they can design them for efficiency and more accurately pointed. Besides, I want heroes fightin' and being part of the scrum.

18 hours ago, Kadeton said:

let some infantry units retain their long-range shooting ability, but change their role to Artillery.

I think you nailed it. If this was the only change they made to some trouble units, it would place a fascinating incentive structure for list building. For all of the problems we identified with the artillery role, this would immediately put into question if the warscroll is worth it. If we took this a step further and started removing artillery from the core battalions, players now have to make harder decisions about their list building. For those worried about making artillery good and thus increase the number of good shooting in the game, I propose that we let them be good and pointed fairly, with the knowledge that they are clunky to add to lists. I'll have to think a bit more on some potential examples. 

 

19 hours ago, Beliman said:

We can group all Artillery units into 4 groups:

I agree that we shouldn't shoe-horn artillery into a single purpose. Just like every other battlefield role keyword, amongst each keyword, theres still lots of diversity. Just spit balling but I would love to see some artillery pieces have  a purpose on the battlefield other than straight damage as an example. I play skaven, and every skaven player knows our plagueclaw catapult is way out of date. What if it was a de-buff at range instead? Perhaps if it hits, the enemy unit effectively gets the Curse prayer on them? Imagine artillery that slows down an enemy unit from afar, or perhaps turns off flying because of a net or something?

My favorite idea is forcing out command points from your opponent. What if archery units that are changed to artillery gain something like "if your opponent doesn't use all-out defense against this attack the damage for this attack is increased by 1". This might simulate defending units having to put their sheilds above their head. Most of my ideas would want to incorporate as much of the core rules as possible as an untapped design space. Any time we can add tough choices using rules that are familiar for defending players, especially against shooting, I believe would create a more interactive and fun game. 

[Aztok]

Honestly the range of archers should never, ever be higher than 24", and I say this as a Kruleboyz player.  Most archers should have the Man-Skewer shooting profile too, where they're more accurate and longer range if they stay still, but lose those bonuses if they move.

Artillery could be the only unit type that can gain more than +1 to hit, and they get inherent bonuses for the following, possibly depending on the type of artillery they are:

+1 to hit for units with 11+ models (catapult, cannon)

+1 to hit for units with 21+ models (catapult)

+1 to hit against Monsters/Behemoths (Bolt Thrower, cannon)

+1 to wound against Monsters/Behemoths (Bolt Thrower)

That sort of thing. Ultimately I think what normally axes artillery from people's lists is that the game's quite fast, and having enemies in your frontline turn 1 is pretty likely for a lot of matchups. In such a situation, a slow or possibly immobile artillery piece isn't as likely to help a ton.

Also, archers probably should never be able to ignore terrain or LoS. That should be an artillery-only sort of thing. I don't care how many thousands of years your archers have had their job, if I'm behind a twenty foot solid stone wall your arrows should just plink off harmlessly. You're not Tyranid Hive Guard.

Edited February 19, 2022 by Aztok

[pnkdth]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

Having a statiinary low shots mediocre damage unit that is supposed to kill enemies in an objective game (not a „who kills more points wins“ game like WHF) makes little sense imo

A part of the objective to disrupt your opponent in order to prevent them scoring though. There's already plenty of ranged units in the game. I could see artillery having a psychological effect too.

-

However, for AoS I think the category 'war machine' is more suitable since it would include all kinds of machines of, err, war. Think monster rules but for mechanical stuff. That leaves room for the more fantastical contraptions as well which are not strictly artillery or monster. I am not sure sub-categories of artillery is needed though and rather have certain special rules associated with a particular role, i.e. skewering, explosive, or whatever. Defined sub-categories could also limit the design and create a situation where X type of artillery ends up being objectively the best.

[pnkdth]

edit: le double post

Edited February 19, 2022 by pnkdth

[Dogmantra]

3 hours ago, Riff_Raff_Rascal said:

Just spit balling but I would love to see some artillery pieces have  a purpose on the battlefield other than straight damage as an example.

Big fan of this idea. I know AoS is fantasy and about as far removed from historically accurate as you can get, but I think there is inspiration to be gained from historical uses for weaponry. Making enemies easier to hurt is an obvious one and we already have mechanics for that - Vigilors grant +1 to hit if they damage an enemy unit, easy to port over onto another unit, or to adapt to -1 to save etc. Artillery that works off morale would be kind of interesting (albeit burdened with some of the problems of bravery-targeting mechanics).

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

7 hours ago, Dogmantra said:

Artillery that works off morale would be kind of interesting (albeit burdened with some of the problems of bravery-targeting mechanics).

One idea that I had when thinking about the role of the Rocket Battery was that being bombarded by it would make it harder for the enemy unit to move, simulating being pinned by covering fire. There are a few ways this could look:

• The unit gets negative modifiers to move or charge in the next phase.
• The unit can't charge without rolling below their bravery on 2d6.
• The unit takes a few mortal wounds if it moves next turn (because it abandons cover).

That would definitely align with how artillery was used in reality.

EDIT: That effect should probably be once per turn in your shooting phase, though. Pinning four enemy units would not be very fun for the opponent.

Edited February 19, 2022 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[Gailon]

13 hours ago, Riff_Raff_Rascal said:

Most of my ideas would want to incorporate as much of the core rules as possible as an untapped design space. Any time we can add tough choices using rules that are familiar for defending players, especially against shooting, I believe would create a more interactive and fun game. 

I definitely feel this way, and really hope they do this more. Ardboys being able to rally on a 4+ is a great example. I am surprised they haven’t done more with this already and hope it indicates a desire to save some of this as we get deeper into the edition and not then just missing it. 
 

Clan rats should be able to rally in combat, there should be units that get a bonus to redeploy etc. 

I agree that this really allows for interesting applications of artillery beyond damage. Just murdering support heroes from 36” is no bueno. But artillery that could prevent redeploy or unleash hell would be awesome (for example). It’s thematic and interesting and taps into the core rules. 

[Lord Krungharr]

The minimum range for artillery makes great sense and would be very balanced.  That would increase the need to screen them off with chaff.  Agree that archers shouldn't get more than 24" range (or 22" perhaps now that the table size is smaller).

Some sort of pinning check like 40k (or just old 40k?) for artillery in AoS would also be good and amazingly would make Bravery more important.  

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

I took a look at all the different artillery and long-range shooting units out there to see if I could identify any common themes and patterns. I took a look at all units with a 24" shooting attack. First off, the catapults:

Spoiler

Save	Plagueclaw	Scrap Launcher	Mortek Crawler
2+	7.78	2.92	2.78
3+	10.37	5.83	5.56
4+	12.96	8.75	8.33
5+	15.56	11.67	11.11
6+	15.56	14.58	13.89
-	15.56	17.5	16.67
Models	4	4	2
Points	540	520	430

In these calculations I am assuming the units are generally getting bonuses that are on their warscrolls, to the catapults are assumed to be shooting at 10+ model units. I am also assuming what I consider to be a realistic use case of the unit, but given the premise that the list in question is artilley-heavy (so, max numbers most of the time). For the Ossiarch Crawler, that faction is generally so point starved that you never see more than two crawlers in a list, so that's the number I went with.

The catapult units are all reasonably efficient, but you still rarely see them on the table. I think this has a lot to do with the factions they belong to and the general meta at the moment. All the catapults really work best against 10+ model units with 4+ or worse saves, which really are not all that hot at the moment. Still, the damage these units put out if they get to shoot at a good target is pretty OK, especially compared to cannons:

Spoiler

Save	Ironblaster Cannonball	Ironblaster Hail Shot	Skull Cannon
2+	2.92	3.56	3.89
3+	3.89	5.33	5.19
4+	4.86	7.11	6.48
5+	5.83	8.89	7.78
6+	5.83	10.67	7.78
-	5.83	10.67	7.78
Models	4		4
Points	520		560

Cannons generally have pretty bad attack profiles, to the point where you could literally double their damage output at high range and they would still be worse than other long ranged units. The Ironblaster can actually get the ability to fire two shots at long range from the Underguts subfaction, and it still is not used. It's easy to see why. 10 wounds on average against 4+ saves is not worth the effort and investment.

Next up, ballistas:

Spoiler

Save	Helstorm	Starshard	Celestar Single Shot	Celestar Rapid Fire
2+	4.67	6.67	5.19	6.22
3+	6.22	8.89	6.48	8.3
4+	7.78	11.11	7.78	10.37
5+	9.33	13.33	7.78	12.44
6+	9.33	13.33	7.78	12.44
-	9.33	13.33	7.78	12.44
Models	4	4	4
Points	540 (610)	500	560

I have included the Helstorm in this, because it's the closest fit. Celestar Ballista and Helstorm Rocket Battery are both pretty bad. They both have the distinction of having a role in the game, though, since at 4 models they can relatively reliably remove 6 wound support heroes from the table at long range. Even though their damage is lower than that of the catapults on average, there might be a stronger case for including them in a list because of this. It is worth noting that the Helstorm used to be a lot better before buff stacking and battalions were removed. It used to get easy access to several +1 to hit buffs as well as a the ability to shoot twice.

As always, the Lumineth units are straight up better than the rest The Starshard ballista is actually super solid. It gets a 6+ ward, easy access to +1 to hit on its warscroll, and the ability to give out -1 to hit on attack once per game, per model. The fact that you still never see them used really drives home how good Sentinels are.

Next up, let's compare these models with high-range (24"+) shooting units that are not artillery.

Spoiler

Save	Blood Stalkers	Longstikes	Judicators	Sentinels	Jezzails	Boltboyz	Freeguild Crossbows	Kurnoth Hunters
2+	8.33	9	8.61	15.1	10	10.63	3.33	2.67
3+	10	10.67	10.33	15.71	11.33	12.44	6.67	4
4+	11.67	12.33	12.06	16.31	12.67	14.26	10	5.33
5+	13.33	14	13.78	16.92	14	16.07	13.33	6.67
6+	15	14	15.5	17.52	14	17.89	16.67	8
-	15	14	15.5	18.13	14	17.89	20	8
Models	15	6	15	30	12	12	30	6
Points	540	480	600	510	580	480 (585)	315	450

Disclaimer: I tried to calculate these taking into account the buffs they commonly get, but I might well have missed the odd +1 to hit from a subfaction or something like that.

We can see that in terms of raw damage, the best artillery units can actually compete with other long range shooting units. EDIT: I had a 4+ mortal wound ward on in my calculations by accident. The numbers are fixed now. Artillery actually can't even compete against normal shooting at all. Every artillery unit is behind in damage against the best shooting unit of the faction it belongs to. It's worth noting that no artillery was even affected, since none of them deal mortals.

However, this is without taking into account all the drawbacks that being artillery has (high drops, doesn't fit battalions, slow, hard to buff, can't capture...). And even then, the best non-artillery long range units come with significant upside: Blood Stalkers get to shoot in the hero phase, Longstrikes and Judicators get to shoot twice once per game, Sentinels get to ignore line of sight. All these units plus Bolt Boys and Jezzails deal mortal wounds on hit, as well, which removes the protection from Look Out, Sir! and cover. Freeguild Crossbows are a bit of an odd one out among these units, but they make up for their crappy attacks by being dirt cheap and super easy to buff (one Freeguild General can give up to three units +1 to hit/wound).

Finally, there are the long-range shooting behemoths and single units:

Spoiler

Save	Steam Tank Cannons	Bastiladon	Gunhauler
2+	2.92	4	3.89
3+	3.89	6	5.19
4+	4.86	8	6.48
5+	5.83	10	7.78
6+	5.83	12	7.78
-	5.83	12	7.78
Models	3	2	4
Points	585	500	620

I have not calculated the damage for the Frigate and Ironclad, because I think they are less efficient than Gunhauler spam point for point (although they have other abilities that make them worth using).

The Steam Tank looks especially bad here, basically as bad as the Ironblaster. But this is not taking into account that the Steam Tank is actually more of a hybrid unit than a long range shooter. It really wants to get in close and not just hang back and shoot. The Gunhauler is actually better for long range shooting, but it also wants to play a different game, really. Still better than the Ironblaster, though.

The Bastiladon is the one unit here that can claim to actually primarily play the role of long-range shooting, and it does so quite well. There are even a lot of extra buffs it can take advantage of not included in this calculation, like mortals on wound from the Starpriest and an extra shot for one model from Thunderlizards.

There are a few units I did not look at even though they can shoot at long range. The Warp Lightning Cannon and Beastskewer Killbow, to be specific. Both of these units are good, in my opinion, but they serve a different function in so far as you don't really want to spam them. They do very well as one-of units, though, and are quite viable as inclusions in a low-drop army as a result.

Edited February 23, 2022 by Neil Arthur Hotep

[yukishiro1]

Artillery is fine, it's normal shooting that's too powerful, which in turn has produced an arms race with melee speed, to the point where almost all competitive armies can now hit you hard from the top of T1 if they want to, whether that is through shooting or though T1 charges. It's stupid, but it is where we are, and fixing it would require rebalancing the whole game. I don't know where I fall on whether making artillery as powerful as normal shooting would make the game even more broken, or just even out the brokenness, but my instinct is to say that anything that makes the game shootier is a mistake as long as the shooting rules remain as brain-dead as they are. 

 

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Kadeton]

I have to say, the idea of ballistae having "a role in the game" only via their ability to remove squishy support heroes sounds like the exact opposite of how artillery should work. The Kruleboyz' killbow is a much better model for how ballistae in particular could shine more generally - to get the best value out of it, it should be targeting the opponent's biggest single models.

Weirdly the Mortek Crawler also seems to spend most of its time on the field sniping out support models, which also feels like the wrong idea for a catapult. Artillery in general should not be precision weapons.

So while I fully agree that artillery should be boosted in effect (especially cannons) and given more well-defined roles via their special rules (e.g. catapults broadly as anti-horde, ballistae as anti-monster, cannons as anti-armour), I also agree with @yukishiro1 that it can't really come without an overhaul of the shooting rules. Which would be a good idea anyway!

[zilberfrid]

On 2/20/2022 at 1:29 AM, Lord Krungharr said:

The minimum range for artillery makes great sense and would be very balanced.  That would increase the need to screen them off with chaff.  Agree that archers shouldn't get more than 24" range (or 22" perhaps now that the table size is smaller).

Some sort of pinning check like 40k (or just old 40k?) for artillery in AoS would also be good and amazingly would make Bravery more important.  

I thought the pinning mechanic was hated by everyone but artillery IG players?

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

3 hours ago, yukishiro1 said:

Artillery is fine, it's normal shooting that's too powerful, which in turn has produced an arms race with melee speed, to the point where almost all competitive armies can now hit you hard from the top of T1 if they want to, whether that is through shooting or though T1 charges. It's stupid, but it is where we are, and fixing it would require rebalancing the whole game. I don't know where I fall on whether making artillery as powerful as normal shooting would make the game even more broken, or just even out the brokenness, but my instinct is to say that anything that makes the game shootier is a mistake as long as the shooting rules remain as brain-dead as they are.

I would have to disagree with the assertion that artillery is fine. A lot of artillery units just fundamentally lack a role. If all other long range shooting units disappeared, I am confident most artillery units would still never see play competitively and would at best be pet units in casual environments. Maybe Sentinels get replaced by the Starshard Ballista, but that's kinda it.

The big problem is that artillery units have no identity besides "damage at high range", and that role works in a very binary kind of way: Either the unit is efficient enough to cross the threshold where you can just delete units at range, in which case it's good enough to use, or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, spending points on the ability to sprinkle around something like two wounds on average anywhere on the board for 130 points is just not worth it. It's not a niche that advances any kind of game plan.

Personally, I think that if we have units in the game without a role, they need to be buffed in some way. Because otherwise, why have them at all? The problem that needs to be solved, though, is how to make artillery units actually feel like artillery. @Kadeton mentioned that sniping heroes is a really weird role for ballistas and catapults to have, and I agree. No artillery should be primarily used to snipe heroes. It just does not align with the fantasy at all that the best way to use the four cannons you brought would be to shoot cannon balls at that lone wizard hiding in the back. But the thing is, that is what the mechanics of AoS reward in the absence of additional rules: Character models have low armour and wounds and are typically only marginally harder to hit. If artillery is only defined by the damage it can do, it will meet the threshold for hero sniping earlier than the threshold for unit killing.

I'll put down a perhaps somewhat controversial take, but I think the power level of the new Stormcast Longstrikes is where I'd like to see most artillery in a maxed-out contingent. Longstrikes don't actually deal overwhelming damage, about 10 wounds against a 3+ save. That's managable, especially if there were additional mechanics that would prevent you from sniping heroes with artillery. AoS is a fast-paced game. Currently, you can expect to charge or be charged in turn 2 at the latest, often earlier for dedicated close-combat armies. I really don't think in that environment a ranged alpha strike that deletes a small unit is egregious. There is room for discussion as far as point costs and design: Maybe Longstrikes are a bit too cheap and modular, since you can basically slap them into any list without support. Maybe they shouldn't really have those mortals on hit. But I think the payoff they provide, even without their once-per-game double shot, is about right in terms of balance.

[yukishiro1]

Longstrikes should be artillery, and one of the special rules of artillery should be that you can't fire while in engagement range. In return it should get the damage and range potential that top-tier ranged units currently have, while said top-tier ranged units should either become artillery themselves or have their damage and/or range nerfed. Pretty much anything with range over 18" should have the artillery keyword and pay for it with no shooting in melee. 

Look out Sir should become a two-part rule - (1) you can't target a character unit that benefits from it at all unless it's the closest target or within 18", and (2) the normal Look out Sir we have now if you can target the character. Maybe even put it at 12" for part 1. 

 

Edited February 22, 2022 by yukishiro1

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

It turn out I had a mortal wound ward of 4+ on in the damage calculator, so I actually underestimated the damage of the best shooting units pretty significantly. It's pretty insane that even then, sentinels still managed to be competitive with Starshards, which are arguably the best artillery unit in the game. Just goes to show how underpowered artillery really is relative to good shooting.

I really hope future battletomes step it up. There are a lot of natural roles artillery could have if GW were not cowards. Hopefully they don't just default to mortals on hit.

[Popisdead]

I suspect it will come back more.  Chaos Dwarfs I think had a wicked one?  Local player has/had them.  

Much like cavalry and chariots GW will most likely return to Artillery in a useful manner/implementation.

If there is any hope in Ch. Dwarfs returning, or a classic Duardin, those would be places that appear good avenues for return.

 

Or Stormcast because Stormcast...

[Riff_Raff_Rascal]

On 2/22/2022 at 1:13 AM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Maybe they shouldn't really have those mortals on hit

This is the point of contention for all if not most of the trouble units being talked about. MW shooting doesn't jive with the current look out sir rule and that can be a problem, regardless of actual damage output of a shooting unit. Most artillery doesn't even have MW capability to begin with, another negative to that keyword *cough* WLC *cough*.

I definitely think you have the hot take that Longstrikes are what artillery should be. Lots of things make Longstrikes good, primarily because they are in stormcast. You allude to the modularity they have and that is accurate. All of this is to say that I believe they are a "proud nail" in the game because they fill MANY roles without the player making a hard choices whether in list-building, deployment or choosing targets. We can talk all day about giving them an ARTILLERY keyword but there is a subtle distinction between battlefield role and actual role in the game. I would argue that the Longstrikes problem, along with every other problem unit, can be balanced for the game as a whole, if they are in fact internally balanced within their faction, so hard choices need to be made before even showing up to the table. 

 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

14 hours ago, Riff_Raff_Rascal said:

This is the point of contention for all if not most of the trouble units being talked about. MW shooting doesn't jive with the current look out sir rule and that can be a problem, regardless of actual damage output of a shooting unit. Most artillery doesn't even have MW capability to begin with, another negative to that keyword *cough* WLC *cough*.

I definitely think you have the hot take that Longstrikes are what artillery should be. Lots of things make Longstrikes good, primarily because they are in stormcast. You allude to the modularity they have and that is accurate. All of this is to say that I believe they are a "proud nail" in the game because they fill MANY roles without the player making a hard choices whether in list-building, deployment or choosing targets. We can talk all day about giving them an ARTILLERY keyword but there is a subtle distinction between battlefield role and actual role in the game. I would argue that the Longstrikes problem, along with every other problem unit, can be balanced for the game as a whole, if they are in fact internally balanced within their faction, so hard choices need to be made before even showing up to the table.

A big problem with mortals on hit on shooting units is that it's a combination of three effects that would all, on their own, work really well to give shooting units more of a unique character:

• Ignore Look Out, Sir!
• Ignore cover
• Auto-Wound

It really restricts the design space in that way. Sniper units should probably be able to ignore Look Out, Sir!, like the Freeguild Handgunners champion. Something like the Rocket Battery or the new Nighthaunt crossbows should probably be able to ignore cover. A cannon should probably be able to auto-wound. But introduce any of these abilities now and they are just "worse mortals on hit". Mortal wounds on hit are a real blunt instrument when in terms of unit design, but it seems like GW really chose to lean into them for some reason (or was it for no reason?) and now all good shooting units have them.

It presents a real challenge for future design. I think in a vacuum, a lot of people agree that artillery units are too weak. But buffing them to a non-problematic power level without mortals on hit will still leave them outclassed a lot of the time. Especially in GA: Order, where only Lumineth, Stormcast and Cities have real artillery, and all three have access to "problem units" either natively or through coallition.

[Riff_Raff_Rascal]

I really want to open this discussion up. I want to start thinking about ARTILLERY in terms of the "power projection" on the table; Reach x Threat. I began to think that this discussion in terms of shooting was too limiting because we forget that there are still many ways to project power across a table and not many ways to mitigate it. Whether its being in your face turn one with melee, magic nuking, ambushes and so on. Generally speaking, ARTILLERY can't compete at the moment with any of these other forms of power projection, and that really made me sad. The reason why we talk about the good shooting out there is also because it sometimes outclasses the power projection  of other methods too. When you look at an army as a whole, you start combining all of these different forms of power projection, you start seeing a pattern. Generally the good to great armies can play with all different types of power projection, with the same list!

Movement is one obvious element to projecting power with any unit or style of play, a trait ARTILLERY doesn't or shouldn't have, and so I have begun to look at this problem from that point of view. This combines with the conundrum of their role as well. How do I synthesize a solution from this?

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

19 hours ago, Riff_Raff_Rascal said:

I really want to open this discussion up. I want to start thinking about ARTILLERY in terms of the "power projection" on the table; Reach x Threat. I began to think that this discussion in terms of shooting was too limiting because we forget that there are still many ways to project power across a table and not many ways to mitigate it. Whether its being in your face turn one with melee, magic nuking, ambushes and so on. Generally speaking, ARTILLERY can't compete at the moment with any of these other forms of power projection, and that really made me sad. The reason why we talk about the good shooting out there is also because it sometimes outclasses the power projection  of other methods too. When you look at an army as a whole, you start combining all of these different forms of power projection, you start seeing a pattern. Generally the good to great armies can play with all different types of power projection, with the same list!

Movement is one obvious element to projecting power with any unit or style of play, a trait ARTILLERY doesn't or shouldn't have, and so I have begun to look at this problem from that point of view. This combines with the conundrum of their role as well. How do I synthesize a solution from this?

I really think the problem that artillery specifically faces is clear: Artillery has currently no function besides dealing damage at high range, but it is not as good at that function as other shooting units. And even in a vacuum, artillery generally does not cross the threshold where its ranged damage becomes impactful enough to take the units.

I get why the designers of Age of Sigmar wanted to err on the safe side with respect to the damage potential of artillery. All artillery in all strategy games fundamentally makes the game more static. Artillery and other long range shooting encourages castle builds and safe, defensive play. But you really want your games to be dynamic and full of movement and positioning. You want players to have to take risks. Especially in objective control based games like AoS. However, that can of worms has long been opened by now. There is plenty of safe, strong long-range shooting out there. Just weirdly none of it is on artillery.

The way foreward, in my opinion, is to give artillery more special functions. I think this is the opposite of how it should be, by the way: Artillery should probably just excell at dealing damage at range, with other shooting units getting to fill special roles. However, the state of the game is such that long range damage already exists, and it's on non-artillery units with their access to higher damage, mortal wounds and additional shooting activations.

Maybe the way to go is to give the game better terrain rules that reign in the current shooting top-dogs, and then give artillery the ability to interact with those rules favourably. Like, maybe we get way more obscuring terrain on the table, but allow indirect fire weapons to ignore this restriction. Maybe we make it so that cover also works against mortal wound shooting, but allow cannons to deal extra damage to units in cover (sieging buildings was a major historical use of cannons, after all).

 

[EntMan]

On 2/25/2022 at 10:04 AM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

The way foreward, in my opinion, is to give artillery more special functions.

My thought - artillery could make it harder to capture/hold objectives e.g. increase the number of models required to occupy an objective if it is within range of enemy artillery (and perhaps even reduce the number if it is in range of friendly)

[AaronWilson]

Feels like artillery struggles to have a place in AoS due to pacing of the game / design of scenarios. Artillery more suited to a game like old school fantasy where there was no need to be in the centre / at certain places on the table to achieve victory. 

The game pace now is also fast that if you're a melee army you can alpha turn one, leaving artillery out in the wind. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

4 minutes ago, EntMan said:

My thought - artillery could make it harder to capture/hold objectives e.g. increase the number of models required to occupy an objective if it is within range of enemy artillery (and perhaps even reduce the number if it is in range of friendly)

I also like the idea of having artillery interact with objectives more. I had the though before that certain artillery units could get the ability to fire at scenery and objectives directly (not just at units occupying those places) for some kind of effect, but I struggle to come up with something that is both thematic and worthwhile.

[mojojojo101]

12 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I also like the idea of having artillery interact with objectives more. I had the though before that certain artillery units could get the ability to fire at scenery and objectives directly (not just at units occupying those places) for some kind of effect, but I struggle to come up with something that is both thematic and worthwhile.

You could allow certain Artillery the ability to use Smash to Rubble. Would probably need to adjust it a little to make the range advantage less obvious but it could work and personally I tend to prefer using existing systems rather than adding another set of 'artillery actions'.

[Riff_Raff_Rascal]

I like where @mojojojo101 and @Neil Arthur Hotep are heading. The big picture that I'm getting is what if artillery can interact with things on the table that normal shooting units can't i.e. objectives and terrain. That's spicy stuff. We would very quickly see the difference in battlefield roles between artillery and everything else. They wouldn't be competing in the same space. 

Big brain time: What if artillery could target scenery and/or terrain? Those targets then become an AOE effect/damage. From a thematic standpoint it makes sense to me installations or known targets are easier to hit with war machines, I mean I still don't understand how we could overwatch with some of them currently, but whatever. If, lets say, a terrain piece is targeted, everything inside of it or WW 3" of it gets hit with something, this also thematically makes sense for anti-horde type artillery. Basically, big swathes of the table gets rained down upon. Effectively, we are using templates from the olden days of tabletop, but not. For those of you who have made objective area game aides, you'll know that a 6" radius  is a wide area, perfect to represent an objective being bombarded. 

Alternatively, if that is too wild, there simply could be bonuses against enemy models on objectives or terrain. We kinda saw hints of that design space being explored with the new stormcast book.

I think we're finally cooking with gas here.

Edited March 10, 2022 by Riff_Raff_Rascal