Shooting

[quindia]

I love the new AoS game. I think it was genius to streamline the rules and put the complexity into the individual warscrolls. That said, I have one major problem with the rules that ignore the common sense of thirty years of wargames that allow troops armed with missile weapons to fire when engaged in melee. I can almost ignore the problem if they have to shoot they unit(s) they are in contact with, though picturing 30 Night Goblin Legolases... Legolasi... 30 Night Goblins fighting like Legolas (better) is also troubling. It's the ability for archers to shoot at any target within range, blithely ignoring the chaos warriors in their faces and sniping a wizard across the table (and behind another unit as well) because they have a chance to kill him. Ok, maybe the archers don't survive long doing that, but it bothers my willing suspension of disbelief. Warmachines are even worse. I guess with the line of sight rules, I can force an opponent to fire his cannon at the one poor sod I stuck in the muzzle (but how do you block a stone thrower?), but it doesn't seem like it should be able to fire at all.

Maybe I'm missing something? How does everyone else play it?

[Nico]

Provided that there are caps on warmachines and warmachines are relatively expensive (i.e. as is the case in both SCGT and Clash Comp), shooting is quite well balanced.

Shooting needs to be able to shoot out of combat to be viable. The damage output from typical shooting units is surprisingly mediocre compared to that of a block of 10-20 elite melee troops. It's also far harder to buff ranged attacks. 

From a fluff perspective, many shooting units are weaker when there are nearby enemy units within 3 inches as they lose a buff (shooting twice, rerolling 1s to hit etc.).

[Tronhammer NZ]

As mentioned, balance-wise shooting attacks needs to be able to happen while in combat to be of any use, when you consider that combats can happen from Turn 1 regularly. 

If you want to try to visualise it in real terms, then perhaps it represents a lull in the fighting, long enough for the unit to fire off some shots, or light the cannon. 

[hobgoblinclub]

Shooting works fine in AoS.  It felt weird at first but it hasn't resulted in everyone picking all shooty stuff.  Definitely seems balanced to us.

[mhsellwood]

I don't think the game is particularly designed to have large quantities of shooting. If you look at all the new releases (Stormcast, Khorne, Fyreslayers, Ironjawz) the consistent theme is zero war machines and relatively limited high quality shooting. When you look at the Grand Alliance updates, one consistent theme of what is dropped is the removal of war machines (Order has the most but even there some have been removed and it is quite focussed).

So, War Machines in particular do feel a bit strange because I feel the design philosophy is such that War Machines that just sit and shoot are a legacy hold over and the rules do not seek to model how they work.

My suggestions of possible solutions if it feels wrong to allow shooting into or out of combat:

• Agree to not allow it. House rule requiring some definition of what is in 'in combat' as that is not a core game concept, but if that feels fair to you why not? Only thing to bear in mind is that as others have said shooting units are actually a bit rubbish if you do not allow them to shoot into or out of combat so if you are using some kind of points mechanism you need to account for how much worse they are.
• Agree that units block line of sight to units of equal size behind them. This would just be a general house rule that would give units the ability to screen others. This would help prevent character sniping, and units in combat firing at units other than the one attacking them. It would also give a more obvious role to disposable chaff units

Games I have played we do not ban it, but in general people take mixed armies so shooting is only a part of it. We also find that shooting units and War Machines get chopped up so quickly that in games we don't have shooting units going toe to toe with a melee unit for turn after turn while simultaneously putting shots into everybody around them. 

[SeanMaguire1991]

I think they shouldn't allow units to shoot while engaged (enemy within 3) however I'd like to see the return of the stand and shoot reaction. I also think Monsters should still be able to shoot while engaged, due to either the nature of the attacks (eg breath, tentacles and/or giant rocks) or that there are guys riding the beast high above the combat. That said they should have a -1 to hit due to distractions. Also they shouldn't be allowed to shoot into close combat at all (unless you're Skaven) without some kind of penalty, eg all rolls of 1(or misses) are resolved against the friendly unit.

I just think that maybe in an effort to simplify the game they made it a bit too simple in some areas.

[quindia]

Thanks, guys. We will house rule something. My three long-time pals are all using existing armies...

1. High Elves with a core of 50 Archers, a pair of bolt throwers, and half of the heroes armed with bows... He is collecting new Syvaneth models to bolster his force.

2. Tomb Kings with two screaming skull catapults and a mess of archers. He is currently painting some of the larger models...

3. A Dwarf army that has been built from 3rd edition to the present... 40 crossbows and the obligatory battery of artillery.

So it's not a question of everyone running out to stock up on missile weapons - that's what they have. Certainly contact from a single giant eagle shouldn't block 40 crossbowmen from shooting so we'll find some sort of compromise. None of us are tournament players and rarely play anywhere except my home (where I am lucky enough to have a dedicated game room) so we have no problem adopting house rules. I was just wondering how other people handled it...

[BaldoBeardo]

I think they shouldn't allow units to shoot while engaged (enemy within 3) however I'd like to see the return of the stand and shoot reaction. I also think Monsters should still be able to shoot while engaged, due to either the nature of the attacks (eg breath, tentacles and/or giant rocks) or that there are guys riding the beast high above the combat. That said they should have a -1 to hit due to distractions. Also they shouldn't be allowed to shoot into close combat at all (unless you're Skaven) without some kind of penalty, eg all rolls of 1(or misses) are resolved against the friendly unit.

I just think that maybe in an effort to simplify the game they made it a bit too simple in some areas.

That... that's basically the entire shooting overview from WFB.

[Shane]

The vanilla shooting rules are fine. Play with them as is before house ruling anything. 

My advice: play them as intended.

 

[quindia]

We HAVE played them as written - multiple games (we've played more games of AoS since it's release than the previous ten years of WFB). That's why the question arose. It feels wrong to everyone in our group. We've been playing wargames for 25 years and there isn't one single game, in any period or genre, that allows archers/muskets/ rifles to target something across the table when there is something wielding a cleaver in it's face. AoS does a fantastic job of allowing common sense to rule in most other cases in the game. I understand why they didn't wade into cluttering things with the text it might have taken to lay this out. It's not a question of IF we we are going to houserule something. It is settling on the simplest solution. I asked here - actually JOINED the site to ask - because you can't even bring up the subject on other forums without having to wade through the derogatory replies.

After speaking with the High Elf player an hour or so ago, I think we are just going with...

1. Troops block line of sight to like sized troops.

2. War Machines can't fire if an enemy is within 3 inches.

A dragon engaged in melee by grots (brave buggers) will not be bothered by them and can shoot at any targets in range. The Glotkin can't hind behind Nurglings. A unit of 30 crossbows engaged by five knights will have plenty of free models to shoot (and we'll still allow the models engaged to shoot the knights in their faces). Catapults can't fire when the crew is fending off a horde of zombies. It seems like a compromise without adding modifiers or complicated rules and meets the common sense test, at least for us. 

Anyway, thanks for the ideas and discussion. AoS has my friends interested in using their fantasy armies after more than a decade away from the game. Everyone is painting and buying new stuff (well, except the Dwarf player, but he WAS eyeing the Fyreslayers at our last get together so he'll come around) so a couple of small tweaks are worth keeping everyone interested.

[SeanMaguire1991]

4 hours ago, BaldoBeardo said:

That... that's basically the entire shooting overview from WFB.

I never knew monsters could shoot while in combat (never played 8th)

[hobgoblinclub]

4 hours ago, Shane said:

The vanilla shooting rules are fine. Play with them as is before house ruling anything. 

My advice: play them as intended.

 

This.  This as much as possible.

[Motley]

54 minutes ago, hobgoblinclub said:

This.  This as much as possible.

+1

I really don't see any issue with the shooting rules as written. Is it different to WFB of old? yes. But it is more cinematic and that seems to the be the intention of AoS, which I fully support.

This only thing I do have an issue with is auto-hitting Trebs.... :-) But that is because I don't usually have anything that can deal with them.

[rokapoke]

10 hours ago, quindia said:

It feels wrong to everyone in our group. We've been playing wargames for 25 years and there isn't one single game, in any period or genre, that allows archers/muskets/ rifles to target something across the table when there is something wielding a cleaver in it's face.

While I understand such an argument, it's kind of silly when you think about the battle being conducted by making several units take turns in combat. I just imagine a unit of Bloodreavers standing around pointing and watching while the Liberators down the table attack their general, then gearing up because they know their turn to attack is next.

At the end of the day, it's symbolic of combat -- and crazy stuff happens in combat. I've never played any tabletop games before AoS, but I would say just play as is. That said, if you and your buddies came up with a set of house rules you're all comfortable with, that satisfies "the most important rule" and you should go with that.

[Shane]

14 hours ago, quindia said:

...

GW have been open and said that they encourage house ruling on the core rules if it provides a better narrative experience for you.

I find the idea that people stand still in combat weird; same for the concept that units perpetually move the exact same amount except for when they charge and then have wobbly knees. But I let that pass for the benefit of a streamlined experience.

The two suggestions you posted definitely cover your concerns. I'm sure they'll play with little interruption.

You will need to consider them when/if you use points - community or not - as these will be based on the assumption that a unit can shoot at whatever it pleases.

[Carnelian]

On 19/05/2016 at 5:35 PM, quindia said:

1. Troops block line of sight to like sized troops.

2. War Machines can't fire if an enemy is within 3 inches.

I like these suggestions. Will certainly try and get my group to agree to the first one.