Is shooting overpowered?

[MOMUS]

6 hours ago, daedalus81 said:

Shooting provides earlier damage at the cost of durability, overall damage, and points. Full stop.

That's your one dimensional appraisal.

Shooting attacks provide continual ranged threat throughout the game, without restriction and often without risk. As in AoS you can shoot into, out of and into another combat.

There is no inbuilt drawback in the rules for shooting, units that have a shooting attack have a massive tactical edge.

[BrAiKo]

8 hours ago, Thostos said:

  However in the case of the Bonesplitterz Arrowboyz its a bit over the top,especially with the larger units of them and the buffs.Im rather puzzled as to why they have a base 2 Arrow attacks,It just doesnt seem to fit with the fluff of the SA`s,sitting back and shooting when they should be all up in the face going apeshit on the enemy.

  Then to top off the very above board shooting stats they have 2 wounds each...

Agreed that conceptually, Savage Orruks shouldnt be the best shooting in the game.  I don't mind the 2 attacks each, I imagine the orruks just grab a fistful of arrows and try and shoot them all at once, at the cost of accuracy.  Though perhaps should be 6+ to hit if shooting twice..?

[The Jabber Tzeentch]

That's your one dimensional appraisal.

Shooting attacks provide continual ranged threat throughout the game, without restriction and often without risk. As in AoS you can shoot into, out of and into another combat.

There is no inbuilt drawback in the rules for shooting, units that have a shooting attack have a massive tactical edge.

There's no "inbuilt drawback" however there is everything previously listed...

• They can only attack pence per turn compared to potentially two combat attacks per turn.

• Ranged units in almost all cases have poor defences like low save, bravery, wounds etc

• Ranged units in almost all cases have poor melee attacks. Meaning once you reach them they are likely dead.

Range is the only thing going for them and even that isn't particularly long for most. 18" seems to be about average, which you should be able to charge pretty quickly once in range.

The Arrowboys are only good because of the battalion Warscroll, point for point they're nothing special and having 2 wounds is not that good with only a 6+ save.

[Nico]

Quote

The Arrowboys are only good because of the battalion Warscroll, point for point they're nothing special and having 2 wounds is not that good with only a 6+ save.

Yes it is! It's great. A 6+ ward save, so lopping a sixth of any mortal wound factory. Most archers will be a 6+ or 5+ but fully subject to rend. 2 wounds significantly mitigates battleshock in particular. Compare it to an 80 model unit with 1 wound each.

100 points could get you 17 Zombies with 17 wounds and no save! Or 17 Bloodreavers. Or 17 Clan Rats.

[Ollie Grimwood]

I think someone made a little bit of an error when they pointed the Bonespliters and forgot/didn't know they were 2 wounds apiece. If they were 1 w models their pricing would fit in well with the other armies. As it stands for example 20 wounds worth of Bloodreavers costs 20pts more has 10 less attacks and no save than 20 wounds of Bonespliter Arrowboys. 

I don't think any of the other shooting is particularly overpowered it just seems like there might have been a disconnect over how many wounds the Bonespliters have. 

Although this is just a paper analysis and we should give some milage to the reports from the players who said that they felt that they were beatable. 

I'd have also thought it would actually take some pretty careful movement to get all the attacks from their shooting.