I am not talking about WS5 versus WS4 or simialr match ups but when you haev WS 7,8,9 or even 10 versus 3, 2 or even 1 and you only hit on a 3+ - seriously?

So a Avatar of the Eldar God of War, or a thousand year old Succubus who lives for close combat or a Greater Daemon of Khorne tries to hit a Gretchin and only does so on a 3+ - sooo very annoying.

If you have high BS you are rewarded by 2+ and even re-rolls - but high WS is just poor.

I really don't see any reason why if you have double or more WS than your opponent you don't hit on 2+?

I honestly have no idea why other than GW's pathological over-estimation of close combat's power. I dunno, maybe they're afraid of the Avatar of Khaine dynasty warriori'ing it's way through a Guard army.

 Kain wrote:
I honestly have no idea why other than GW's pathological over-estimation of close combat's power. I dunno, maybe they're afraid of the Avatar of Khaine dynasty warriori'ing it's way through a Guard army.

Yeah, pretty much this. GW is fine with your expensive big guns killing multiple models per turn, every turn. But your expensive close combat character can barely kill five guys in total because 1/3 of his attacks miss and he might only get into one or two combats the entire game .

Probably because shooting does allow for cover saves (most of the time at least). Therefore, with Sweeping Advances, causing wounds even easier, hitting on 2+ would likely lead to scenarios where nearly every unit assaulted would get wiped.

 Thairne wrote:
Probably because shooting does allow for cover saves (most of the time at least). Therefore, with Sweeping Advances, causing wounds even easier, hitting on 2+ would likely lead to scenarios where nearly every unit assaulted would get wiped.

There aren't an awful lot of models with a WS so high that they would hit on 2s and only get hit on 6s against most basic infantry if the WS table scaled like the BS table. Like, that's mostly the realm of a small number of HQ models like Hive Tyrants, Phoenix Lords, Assassins, and melee oriented greater daemons.

What it would do however, is make WS less of a dump stat and give more of an incentive to make WS scores make more sense (no more Eversors being able to tango with Jain Zar and Karandras kthxbai) rather than just letting them hang around in nonsensical limbo because it never really matters outside of an extreme difference in score anyway.

 Thairne wrote:
Probably because shooting does allow for cover saves (most of the time at least). Therefore, with Sweeping Advances, causing wounds even easier, hitting on 2+ would likely lead to scenarios where nearly every unit assaulted would get wiped.

How much ignore cover / AP2 weaponry is about nowadays?

Again its not every combat - its when super elite combat characters or individual are fighting pitifully poor fighters....... as I said - Gretchen versus Greater Deamon of Khorne etc. The Bloodthirster should be hitting on 2's

And lastly unlike in shooting - quite often the unit being attacked gets to hit back - sometimes.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Again its not every combat - its when super elite combat characters or individual are fighting pitifully poor fighters....... as I said - Gretchen versus Greater Deamon of Khorne etc. The Bloodthirster should be hitting on 2's

Hardly. It's basically every fight this would affect by a lot.

The units that are already hard off, to be specific. All marines are WS4, and crush most opponents that are WS3. These are who it would hurt the most, and this matchup is *very common*
It would mean those would go from hitting 50% of all hits to hitting 33%. That's pretty massive for a guardsman trying to swing his I1 power fist at a marine.
It's an army wide huge nerf to the melee of those already suffering in melee. It's not like the gretchen have any chance against the Khorne daemon in close combat as it is, so why exactly are you clamouring for nerfs to the gretchen?

Your idea is bad and there is good reason for the WS table to be the way it is.

 Purifier wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Again its not every combat - its when super elite combat characters or individual are fighting pitifully poor fighters....... as I said - Gretchen versus Greater Deamon of Khorne etc. The Bloodthirster should be hitting on 2's

Hardly. It's basically every fight this would affect by a lot.

The units that are already hard off, to be specific. All marines are WS4, and crush most opponents that are WS3. These are who it would hurt the most, and this matchup is *very common*
It would mean those would go from hitting 50% of all hits to hitting 33%. That's pretty massive for a guardsman trying to swing his I1 power fist at a marine.
It's an army wide huge nerf to the melee of those already suffering in melee. It's not like the gretchen have any chance against the Khorne daemon in close combat as it is, so why exactly are you clamouring for nerfs to the gretchen?

Your idea is bad and there is good reason for the WS table to be the way it is.

Have you read what I wrote - the example you quote would not have any effect -

to gain the 2+ to hit they need to DOUBLE their opponents WS so against IG have WS6 or more - to do that against marines they need WS 8 or more.

There is NO reason for the travesty we have at the moment

"All marines are WS4, and crush most opponents that are WS3. "

If only this were true.

I would make rework the CQC Hit Table ranging from 2+ to 5+, whereas 2+ is only allowed if you got double the WS of your enemy.

In short, I wholeheartedly agree with the OP

This problem would go away if we dumped the D6.

Martel732 wrote:
This problem would go away if we dumped the D6.

Apparently a lot of people here have never played D&D and are in utter horror at the idea of rolling a large number of D8s or D10s at once and spending a few extra seconds to read the faces.

Martel732 wrote:
"All marines are WS4, and crush most opponents that are WS3. "

If only this were true.

Indeed and its also completely irrelevant to the discussion which relates to those with double or more their opponents WS.

It works fine in the games we play......

 Mr Morden wrote:


to gain the 2+ to hit they need to DOUBLE their opponents WS so against IG have WS6 or more - to do that against marines they need WS 8 or more.

If it was like BS you would need +2 only.
And WS4 against WS3 would mean that the WS3 would hit on 5+.

 Purifier wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


to gain the 2+ to hit they need to DOUBLE their opponents WS so against IG have WS6 or more - to do that against marines they need WS 8 or more.

If it was like BS you would need +2 only.
And WS4 against WS3 would mean that the WS3 would hit on 5+.

Sigh - which is not what I said!

if you have double or more WS than your opponent you hit on 2+

Right, making a big change would swing too hard in close combat's favor. Even though my earlier post was complaining about shooting vs close combat damage output, I think the real answer is to give units ways of interacting at range other than killing each other's models - I'm talking pinning here, and not the crappy pinning USR that already exists, but a real core mechanic built into the DNA of the game. Instead of making close combat deadlier, make it so shooting (all shooting) is a little less deadly, but has a chance to contribute in some way to suppressing the enemy's shooting or movement.

If long range shooting was more effective at suppressing the enemy than killing them, and close range shooting and hand to hand combat were more effective at killing or breaking the enemy, I think you'd see more maneuvering to push each other off objectives. Then reform the mission system a bit so it isn't either schizophrenic chasing of Maelstrom objectives, or last turn springing on objectives in Eternal War. Then change out IGOUGO for proper alternating activations so one player isn't killing/suppressing the entire other army.

I guess what I'm saying is, 40k has so many problems I'd rather play a different game.

Right, making a big change would swing too hard in close combat's favor.

Only if you are massively better in h-to-H than you opponent - it will make ZERO difference to some match ups as have been mentioned earlier - so say Marines versus Guard/ Sisters etc Unless one of the participants is massively more skilled - ie Double their WS.

So only the best Astartes in the galaxy, St Celestine etc are going to hit Guard and basic Sisters on a 2+ and only Greater Daemons, God Sparks and Assassins are going to do the same to normal marines.

That's kinda a key point.

I agree, I think if the weaker opponent hits on 5+, then the stronger opponent should hit on 2+. Only makes sense to me.

And WS10 should reroll 1s.

It's that absurdly stupid GW stubbornness to the close combat weapon chart. It amazes me that a Guardsmen with his bayonet can still hit the Avatar of Khaine 1/3 of the time despite WS 3 vs. WS 10- a weapon skill greater then THREE TIMES that of the Guardsmen, and that the Avatar of Khaine can still miss the Guardsmen 1/3 of the time.

GW tries to make close combat this brutal, ugly affair, but it's not. You hope you engage a nonfearless unit, get at least one more unsaved wound then your opponent so you can force them to make a Leadership test, THEN you hope they fail it, THEN you hope you can roll higher then them on the sweeping advance.

Close combat is pretty broken in this edition. Overwatch, random charge range, that stupid hit chart, and every other unit with Fearless/Stubborn/AKSKNF or what ever else that makes a unit unbreakable in close combat, and if they don't have that stuff, they have a stupid high leadership.

Fluff != rules. If it did, then the Avatar of Khaine would walk up to a unit of Guardsmen and swing his sword ONCE, and it would kill every Guardsmen in that platoon. On the backswing, the Avatar would hit the Leman Russ tank parked next to them and blow it up. The Avatar of Khaine would go toe to toe with a Great Deamon of Khorne- a Bloodthirster no less, and the fight would go on for days in a stalemate. They are both that awesome in close combat.

Instead, we have a 195 point chump Lord of War that couldn't even be bothered to have Eternal Warrior that can be gunned down by a Space Marine Tactical Squad with Bolters.

 Tamwulf wrote:
It's that absurdly stupid GW stubbornness to the close combat weapon chart. It amazes me that a Guardsmen with his bayonet can still hit the Avatar of Khaine 1/3 of the time despite WS 3 vs. WS 10- a weapon skill greater then THREE TIMES that of the Guardsmen, and that the Avatar of Khaine can still miss the Guardsmen 1/3 of the time.

GW tries to make close combat this brutal, ugly affair, but it's not. You hope you engage a nonfearless unit, get at least one more unsaved wound then your opponent so you can force them to make a Leadership test, THEN you hope they fail it, THEN you hope you can roll higher then them on the sweeping advance.

Close combat is pretty broken in this edition. Overwatch, random charge range, that stupid hit chart, and every other unit with Fearless/Stubborn/AKSKNF or what ever else that makes a unit unbreakable in close combat, and if they don't have that stuff, they have a stupid high leadership.

Fluff != rules. If it did, then the Avatar of Khaine would walk up to a unit of Guardsmen and swing his sword ONCE, and it would kill every Guardsmen in that platoon. On the backswing, the Avatar would hit the Leman Russ tank parked next to them and blow it up. The Avatar of Khaine would go toe to toe with a Great Deamon of Khorne- a Bloodthirster no less, and the fight would go on for days in a stalemate. They are both that awesome in close combat.

Instead, we have a 195 point chump Lord of War that couldn't even be bothered to have Eternal Warrior that can be gunned down by a Space Marine Tactical Squad with Bolters.

I do feel like Dawn of War gives a better impression of the power an avatar of Khaine should wield.

The avatar laughs at your puny bolters and shrugs off your whimpy plasma guns and battle cannons, taking the firepower of a whole army to stop it as it pretty much crumps anything short of other end-game melee units in close combat.

Its simply down to the to hit chart.

And its just another reason why hth takes a back seat in 7th.
(along with overwatch, random charge distance, minus movement through DT, wound tanking, characters with not enough attacks - Ork Nob (3), Ragnar Blackmane (4) huh?)

When a gretchin has a 33% chance to hit the Avatar of Khaine and the Avatar has a 33% to miss said Gretchin: something is amiss.

There are boatloads of proposed solutions some of them pretty good but until GW want to shift 40k back into the realm of visceral hth combats, we're stuck with it.

Personnally I believe 8th will resurrect hth.

edit: what Tamwulf said basically.

I may be mis-remembering, but at one point the to hit in close combat used the same table as the to wound chart.
(It might have been WHFB 3rd ed or RT.)

The results lower than 3+ and higher than 5+ were dropped in WHFB to speed up combat resolution for massed ranked units.
And because 40k is a poor WHFB clone they just copy pasted the new table into 40k without thinking too much.

I agree with tho op, a model with very high WS should have a much better time of it in close combat than they currently do.
To get into close combat you have to maneuver under constant ranged weapons fire for at a turn.

So having the same chances to hit in close combat as for shooting seems the be much more sensible.(EG 2+ to 6+)

EG
if your opponent has double or higher your WS you need 6+ to hit them.
If your opponent has half or less your WS you should hit them on 2+

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using D6 in 40k.
What is wrong is reducing the chances to hit to only 3+,4+,5+ in assault and 2+ to 6+ at range.
(And not using limited modifiers apart from in stupidly applied special rules!!)

I would much rather use a wider range of results by using all the sides of the dice .(Allow auto hits and auto miss.)

Combat should be WS vs INT and use the BS rules.

Example: space marine swings at ork. WS 4 vs INT 2. Space marine hits on 2+. Captain hits on 2+/6+.

Of course a few stats would need to be altered.

I think the same could work for BS. A space marine shouldn't hit everything on 3+. If a marine shoots at a slow necron warrior he should hit more often than if firing at a nimble space elf.

Buff space elves more, lol) Make them T2 to compinsate then, those long limbs are so fragile after all.

You can even do double WS+1 to hit on 2+, like it is implimented in &th ed today. So to hit guardsmen on 2+ you have to have WS7 or higher (assassins, avatars, greater daemons e.t.c.).

 Kain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This problem would go away if we dumped the D6.

Apparently a lot of people here have never played D&D and are in utter horror at the idea of rolling a large number of D8s or D10s at once and spending a few extra seconds to read the faces.

I think that it is because people (in GW) think that getting enough d10s for a game would be prohibitive, while d6s are plentiful(, well known,) and easily obtained.

As already suggested, the reason to why units with high WS does not auto hit, is likely to ensure they do not wipe one squad a turn.

The problem would become apparent against the armies that lack high WS cc units all together.

 DeffDred wrote:
Combat should be WS vs INT and use the BS rules.

Example: space marine swings at ork. WS 4 vs INT 2. Space marine hits on 2+. Captain hits on 2+/6+.

Of course a few stats would need to be altered.

I think the same could work for BS. A space marine shouldn't hit everything on 3+. If a marine shoots at a slow necron warrior he should hit more often than if firing at a nimble space elf.

This is actually kind of an interesting idea, but I worry it would slow the game down unnecessarily and just make everything on the board tankier.

I'd make it something like this...

Hitting someone of equal or 1 higher Ws = 4+ to hit
Hitting someone of 1 less Ws = 3+ to hit
Hitting someone of 2 or more less Ws = 2+ to hit
Hitting someone with 2 or 3 higher Ws = 5+ to hit
Hitting someone with 4 or more Ws = 6+ to hit

That means a Ws5 model would hit a Ws3 model on a 2+, but the Ws3 model would hit the Ws5 model on a 5+. Ws4 vs Ws3 would work the same way it does currently. Ws7 vs Ws3 or higher would be 2+ to hit or 6+ to get hit.

 Kain wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
It's that absurdly stupid GW stubbornness to the close combat weapon chart. It amazes me that a Guardsmen with his bayonet can still hit the Avatar of Khaine 1/3 of the time despite WS 3 vs. WS 10- a weapon skill greater then THREE TIMES that of the Guardsmen, and that the Avatar of Khaine can still miss the Guardsmen 1/3 of the time.

GW tries to make close combat this brutal, ugly affair, but it's not. You hope you engage a nonfearless unit, get at least one more unsaved wound then your opponent so you can force them to make a Leadership test, THEN you hope they fail it, THEN you hope you can roll higher then them on the sweeping advance.

Close combat is pretty broken in this edition. Overwatch, random charge range, that stupid hit chart, and every other unit with Fearless/Stubborn/AKSKNF or what ever else that makes a unit unbreakable in close combat, and if they don't have that stuff, they have a stupid high leadership.

Fluff != rules. If it did, then the Avatar of Khaine would walk up to a unit of Guardsmen and swing his sword ONCE, and it would kill every Guardsmen in that platoon. On the backswing, the Avatar would hit the Leman Russ tank parked next to them and blow it up. The Avatar of Khaine would go toe to toe with a Great Deamon of Khorne- a Bloodthirster no less, and the fight would go on for days in a stalemate. They are both that awesome in close combat.

Instead, we have a 195 point chump Lord of War that couldn't even be bothered to have Eternal Warrior that can be gunned down by a Space Marine Tactical Squad with Bolters.

I do feel like Dawn of War gives a better impression of the power an avatar of Khaine should wield.

The avatar laughs at your puny bolters and shrugs off your whimpy plasma guns and battle cannons, taking the firepower of a whole army to stop it as it pretty much crumps anything short of other end-game melee units in close combat.

This does not come from a problem with the to-hit chart. This comes from the Avatar being old, back when monstrous creatures were a big deal. Now gargantuan creatures took their place, and just proxy your avatar as a wraithknight, problem solved.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd make it something like this...

Hitting someone of equal or 1 higher Ws = 4+ to hit
Hitting someone of 1 less Ws = 3+ to hit
Hitting someone of 2 or more less Ws = 2+ to hit
Hitting someone with 2 or 3 higher Ws = 5+ to hit
Hitting someone with 4 or more Ws = 6+ to hit

That means a Ws5 model would hit a Ws3 model on a 2+, but the Ws3 model would hit the Ws5 model on a 5+. Ws4 vs Ws3 would work the same way it does currently. Ws7 vs Ws3 or higher would be 2+ to hit or 6+ to get hit.

I think double or more WS is 2+ to hit is fine and easy to remember. I'd be more than happy to give a re-roll if you are WS10

Has anyone (who has actually read the thread) got a good reason that this (or somethng similar) would not be a good thing.

As already suggested, the reason to why units with high WS does not auto hit, is likely to ensure they do not wipe one squad a turn.

The problem would become apparent against the armies that lack high WS cc units all together.

No the only suggestion was from someone who misread everything and then started talking nonsense - again the proposal is extremely high WS units versus extremely low WS (in comparsion) hit on a 2+.

Why is it that you feel that the more common 2+ and re-rolls is fine for shooting (and wiping out squads?)

I don't know if it's been said yet as I haven't read the full post but it's a hangover from earlier editions of the game and also whfb.
The charts were kept the same to provide a level of familiarity between the two systems.
Back in the day it was harder to shoot things with both range and cover modifiers in place. As need has grown to sell/kill models more quickly in bigger and bigger games the shooting modifiers have dropped away but a change to the hand to hand To Hit chart would stray too far from the core mechanics already established. It has been patched by making models throw more dice in hand to hand.
GW have always had the tables this way and probably always will.

Working within these pre established, draconian rules is really starting to affect the flow and intuitive nature of the game with all of the needless exceptions to the rules.

The game needs a rewrite at this new scale.
Ask Andy Chambers how well that went last time.

Ratflinger wrote:
As already suggested, the reason to why units with high WS does not auto hit, is likely to ensure they do not wipe one squad a turn.

The problem would become apparent against the armies that lack high WS cc units all together.

Gee it'd sure be a shame if the game had elite units that were able to use what they're good at to kill a unit a turn. It's a good thing units like that don't exist- oh wait. There are like 50 of them in the shooting side of the game. -_-

niv-mizzet wrote:

Ratflinger wrote:
As already suggested, the reason to why units with high WS does not auto hit, is likely to ensure they do not wipe one squad a turn.

The problem would become apparent against the armies that lack high WS cc units all together.

Gee it'd sure be a shame if the game had elite units that were able to use what they're good at to kill a unit a turn. It's a good thing units like that don't exist- oh wait. There are like 50 of them in the shooting side of the game. -_-

Exactly - its not even units -you need WS 6 to 2+ even gaurdsmen and 8+ against Marines...... its normally only single names characters that will get ths with a few unit exceptions.

IMO, 3+ is entirely reasonable for high WS characters. Gotta make them earn their kills lol.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
IMO, 3+ is entirely reasonable for high WS characters. Gotta make them earn their kills lol.

Surely they've earned their kills by getting into combat in the first place?

Instead of this double and double +1 I'd like to just see a single chart that goes:
WS vs opponent
4+ points less, hit on 6s
2-3 points less, hit on 5s
1 point less or the same, hit on 4s.
1-2 points higher, hit on 3s
3+ points higher, hit on 2s

So a WS6 Chapter master would hit a WS4 Chaos Marine on 3s and WS3 guardsmen on 2s.
A WS3 Guardsman would hit a WS4 Marine on a 4, but need a 5 to hit a WS5 Khorne Berzerker, and a 6 to hit a WS7 Archon.

 MajorWesJanson wrote:
Instead of this double and double +1 I'd like to just see a single chart that goes:
WS vs opponent
4+ points less, hit on 6s
2-3 points less, hit on 5s
1 point less or the same, hit on 4s.
1-2 points higher, hit on 3s
3+ points higher, hit on 2s

So a WS6 Chapter master would hit a WS4 Chaos Marine on 3s and WS3 guardsmen on 2s.
A WS3 Guardsman would hit a WS4 Marine on a 4, but need a 5 to hit a WS5 Khorne Berzerker, and a 6 to hit a WS7 Archon.

Does make it more predictable, as you get sequences of 3's and 5's that don't go nicely into an 'oh, x on y, right', but it does make it a little less powerful then the BS chart, with rerolls for anything over BS6. Maybe just make it a flat, if you hit on 2's you get to preroll on 4's.

niv-mizzet wrote:

Ratflinger wrote:
As already suggested, the reason to why units with high WS does not auto hit, is likely to ensure they do not wipe one squad a turn.

The problem would become apparent against the armies that lack high WS cc units all together.

Gee it'd sure be a shame if the game had elite units that were able to use what they're good at to kill a unit a turn. It's a good thing units like that don't exist- oh wait. There are like 50 of them in the shooting side of the game. -_-

List them. Hell, list 25 of them. Actually, I'll be nice, list 10. Alright, I'll be generous, List 5. Let's see if we can't find equal points melee that do just as well or better.

 Purifier wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:

Ratflinger wrote:
As already suggested, the reason to why units with high WS does not auto hit, is likely to ensure they do not wipe one squad a turn.

The problem would become apparent against the armies that lack high WS cc units all together.

Gee it'd sure be a shame if the game had elite units that were able to use what they're good at to kill a unit a turn. It's a good thing units like that don't exist- oh wait. There are like 50 of them in the shooting side of the game. -_-

List them. Hell, list 25 of them. Actually, I'll be nice, list 10. Alright, I'll be generous, List 5. Let's see if we can't find equal points melee that do just as well or better.

Pretty much half the Eldar Codex for a start

I honestly wonder if it has something to do with the relatively large number of modifiers that exist granting extra attacks to models in melee.

Ranged weapons are static in terms of how many "attacks" they make, while melee can vary wildly with varying degrees of effectiveness.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:

Ratflinger wrote:
As already suggested, the reason to why units with high WS does not auto hit, is likely to ensure they do not wipe one squad a turn.

The problem would become apparent against the armies that lack high WS cc units all together.

Gee it'd sure be a shame if the game had elite units that were able to use what they're good at to kill a unit a turn. It's a good thing units like that don't exist- oh wait. There are like 50 of them in the shooting side of the game. -_-

List them. Hell, list 25 of them. Actually, I'll be nice, list 10. Alright, I'll be generous, List 5. Let's see if we can't find equal points melee that do just as well or better.

Pretty much half the Eldar Codex for a start

So pick out one unit then.

Jet Bikes with Cannons - so range, accuracy and killing power.

What exactly is your problem with the best CC models beign able to do their job -remember you need DOUBLE WS to get 2+

 Mr Morden wrote:
Jet Bikes with Cannons - so range, accuracy and killing power.

What exactly is your problem with the best CC models beign able to do their job -remember you need DOUBLE WS to get 2+

My problem isn't "with the best CC models beign able to do their job"
My problem is that the best CC models can do their job and this whining that they can't is completely misguided.

The problem CC has isn't that they might get hit by an inferior foe, it's their delivery into combat.
CC models are already crushing harder than shooting are once they get into combat, pound for pound.

Have you missed that CC models generally have more attacks per model than shooters have? Have you missed that charging CC models get more attacks? Have you missed that some CC models often get even more attacks on the charge?
Is it realistic that CC models will often be able to hit twice as much, if not more, than what a shooting model is capable of shooting in the same time? Is it reasonable that you can swing your sword more than twice as fast as an automatic rifle and shoot its rounds?

My problem is with your one dimensional whine. You're looking at one part of a greater picture and comparing it to a corresponding part of a completely different picture.

Why would the best CC'ers need a buff to hit? They are already the kings of the fight once they get into combat and will often leave the combat without taking a single scratch.

The problem CC has isn't that they might get hit by an inferior foe, it's their delivery into combat.

I disagree. If I am paying however many hundred points for a cc monster like lelith hesperax for example, then grots should not be able to hit her on a 5.

Similarly, with a weaponskill quadruple that of her target, you would expect her to be hitting on 2's.

The cc table really does favour weaker units. Getting more than double your opponent's weapon skill is usually impossible for most units, and not doing so means you are still hit 50% of the time.

Even the supposedly close combat inept tau are still hitting space marines on 4+

 Purifier wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Jet Bikes with Cannons - so range, accuracy and killing power.

What exactly is your problem with the best CC models beign able to do their job -remember you need DOUBLE WS to get 2+

My problem isn't "with the best CC models beign able to do their job"
My problem is that the best CC models can do their job and this whining that they can't is completely misguided.

The problem CC has isn't that they might get hit by an inferior foe, it's their delivery into combat.
CC models are already crushing harder than shooting are once they get into combat, pound for pound.

Have you missed that CC models generally have more attacks per model than shooters have? Have you missed that charging CC models get more attacks? Have you missed that some CC models often get even more attacks on the charge?
Is it realistic that CC models will often be able to hit twice as much, if not more, than what a shooting model is capable of shooting in the same time? Is it reasonable that you can swing your sword more than twice as fast as an automatic rifle and shoot its rounds?

My problem is with your one dimensional whine. You're looking at one part of a greater picture and comparing it to a corresponding part of a completely different picture.

Why would the best CC'ers need a buff to hit? They are already the kings of the fight once they get into combat and will often leave the combat without taking a single scratch.

Total Nonsense, almost everyone else is agreeing that its not only hard to get into combat but then you have a stupidly high chance of failing to do gak - i have lost count of the nu mber of times high WS characters have failed to kill easy targets - half their WS or less.

Have you missed in you misguided and misinformed rant that CC models pay lots for thier abilities - half of them canl;t even get through 2+ armour - have you somehiow forgotten that many of the best guns fire mutiple times and are in fact AP2.

oh and with the whining remark - considering you starting crying and screaming after

completely misreading

the OP - or not bothering to do so - thata bit rich.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Have you missed in you misguided and misinformed rant that CC models pay lots for thier abilities - half of them canl;t even get through 2+ armour - have you somehiow forgotten that many of the best guns fire mutiple times and are in fact AP2.

I'm just gonna ignore all the stuff you said that was completely irrelevant and respond to this.

"Half of them can't even get through 2+ armour"
Are you seriously claiming that more than half of the shooters can get through 2+ armour? Where are you playing that has AP2 on every gun? Where I'm at, that's a rare and heavy gun. They are no more prevalent than thunder hammers or other AP2 melee weapons.
This is such a ridiculous claim I don't even know where you get off saying something like that.
"CC models pay lots for their abilities."
A powerfist is 25 points. Now check out the price for a lascannon on a marine. No, you're not paying a bunch more. And that's AP2 on all of your hits.
And if you're saying you should be able to tear through 2+ armour just because you're CC, that's even more ridiculous.

And what the hell are you both on about. Your extremely powerful characters getting hit by a grot is such a huge problem for you that you NEED it to hit on a 5+? This is the problem CC has in your minds? That once they are in CC they might get slapped by a grot? I can't even begin to understand the thinking here. Oh no, it hit you. Since you're a ws7 character or whatever, you probably have a big save, big toughness and a few wounds. Big god damn whoop! He's not gonna wound you anyway and if he miraculously does, you've got loads of wounds still.

You have yet to give any example of a match up that this actually would affect in any way. you just throw around these hypothetical reasons. Come on. Show me a match up where a big expensive CC hero has a chance of getting into bad trouble in CC against weaklings that would have been helpless if they had 5+ instead of 4+ to hit.

Listen up then mate - I never said that - you seem to think that all shooters have crappy guns and can't hit - or some other rubbish - I said - and again I see your not actually reading again rather than all that that many of THE BEST GUNS ignore armour! FFS learn to read.

I have played many games where my oh so awesome Archon that's WS7 - missed all but one or even all her attacks in close combat against WS 3 opponents because she hits on 3+ rather than the poor shooters that your desperate to protect that get - oh yeah 2+ and a re-roll.

I have "awesome" close combat characters like St Celestine that's wait for it - AP3 and there are plenty of others.

 Purifier wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Have you missed in you misguided and misinformed rant that CC models pay lots for thier abilities - half of them canl;t even get through 2+ armour - have you somehiow forgotten that many of the best guns fire mutiple times and are in fact AP2.

I'm just gonna ignore all the stuff you said that was completely irrelevant and respond to this.

"Half of them can't even get through 2+ armour"
Are you seriously claiming that more than half of the shooters can get through 2+ armour? Where are you playing that has AP2 on every gun? Where I'm at, that's a rare and heavy gun. They are no more prevalent than thunder hammers or other AP2 melee weapons.

In a Farsight Enclave army, it's possible for the entire army to be equipped with plasma rifles or better.

Of course, since they're not a formation-hammer army, I can't imagine most players will have a problem handling FE no matter what.

 EmpNortonII wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Have you missed in you misguided and misinformed rant that CC models pay lots for thier abilities - half of them canl;t even get through 2+ armour - have you somehiow forgotten that many of the best guns fire mutiple times and are in fact AP2.

I'm just gonna ignore all the stuff you said that was completely irrelevant and respond to this.

"Half of them can't even get through 2+ armour"
Are you seriously claiming that more than half of the shooters can get through 2+ armour? Where are you playing that has AP2 on every gun? Where I'm at, that's a rare and heavy gun. They are no more prevalent than thunder hammers or other AP2 melee weapons.

In a Farsight Enclave army, it's possible for the entire army to be equipped with plasma rifles or better.

Of course, since they're not a formation-hammer army, I can't imagine most players will have a problem handling FE no matter what.

I use Dominions quite a bit - so that squads of 4 sisters with Melta guns - ALL AP1 and a superior or Canoness with Combi-metla.

Then we have Grav guns, Eldar and pseudo rending / D Weapons / etc etc - nuff said.

 Ratius wrote:
When a gretchin has a 33% chance to hit the Avatar of Khaine and the Avatar has a 33% to miss said Gretchin: something is amiss.

Read that backwards or using the same term for both and it doesn't sound that bad.
Example
When a gretchin has a 67% chance to miss the Avatar of Khaine and the Avatar has a 67% to hit

or
When a gretchin has a 33% chance to hit the Avatar of Khaine and the Avatar has a 67% to hit

Still not great, but it does sound a lot less "OMG!"

kaotkbliss wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
When a gretchin has a 33% chance to hit the Avatar of Khaine and the Avatar has a 33% to miss said Gretchin: something is amiss.

Read that backwards or using the same term for both and it doesn't sound that bad.
Example
When a gretchin has a 67% chance to miss the Avatar of Khaine and the Avatar has a 67% to hit

or
When a gretchin has a 33% chance to hit the Avatar of Khaine and the Avatar has a 67% to hit

Still not great, but it does sound a lot less "OMG!"

When you consider that the avatar is 200+ points, and the grot is 3 however...

There are some reasons why close combat is generally held to more limits than shooting. Shooting does not lock another units action. Shooting has no equivalent of "sweeping advance" where you can inflict one wound and force an Ld test and then wipe the entire unit. Close combat also inherently ignores all cover saves. Close Combat, unlike shooting, also gets to hit the weakest armor facing on vehicles and simply has to make it into base contact to do so and can auto-hit immobilized vehicles (unlike shooting).

Now, is that to say that the WS table isn't a bit wonky? No, it's a relic of the earliest vestiges of 40k when WS functioned differently. But there's some good reasons as to why CC is treated differently than shooting.

 Vaktathi wrote:
There are some reasons why close combat is generally held to more limits than shooting. Shooting does not lock another units action. Shooting has no equivalent of "sweeping advance" where you can inflict one wound and force an Ld test and then wipe the entire unit. Close combat also inherently ignores all cover saves. Close Combat, unlike shooting, also gets to hit the weakest armor facing on vehicles and simply has to make it into base contact to do so and can auto-hit immobilized vehicles (unlike shooting).

Now, is that to say that the WS table isn't a bit wonky? No, it's a relic of the earliest vestiges of 40k when WS functioned differently. But there's some good reasons as to why CC is treated differently than shooting.

The oldest WS chart used to be 2+ to 9+ to hit but there was quite a few modifiers..........

Thats fair enough but shooting is also without risk (unless it gets hot of course) - you can't get hit back in the same phase, you can shoot from cover and form a safe distance, would you be against the original proposal given its inherent limitations to the most elite close Combat units?

Oh I'm not really against having higher WS do more. Only explaining why CC is often treated somewhat more stringently. I wouldn't mind if WS had a wider hit array, but, that said, I think it would only make a big difference in "killy unit vs killy unit" scenarios, as mega-skilled killy CC units already simply obliterate weeny units.

EDIT: also, for some reason, I always think your avatar is someone wearing a sombrero...

On a similar line, does anyone think there should be a bonus for having much higher initiative than your opponent?

I guess it just seems a bit silly that being 1 initiative higher than your opponent is exactly as effective as being 5pts higher.

In my opinion it should be "double" to get 2+

If WS is tied then 50/50 chance. 4+

if WS is higher 3+

If WS is double the opponents then 2+

If WS is lower 5+

If WS is half 6+

I think that would balance pretty well.

 Purifier wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:


Gee it'd sure be a shame if the game had elite units that were able to use what they're good at to kill a unit a turn. It's a good thing units like that don't exist- oh wait. There are like 50 of them in the shooting side of the game. -_-

List them. Hell, list 25 of them. Actually, I'll be nice, list 10. Alright, I'll be generous, List 5. Let's see if we can't find equal points melee that do just as well or better.

Problem with this is that it takes multiple turns, and fairly heavy investment in deployment methods, in order to get a melee unit in and let them start grumping.

Plenty of ranged units, and especially most powerful ones, can start laying down the pain-train turn 1.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Listen up then mate - I never said that - you seem to think that all shooters have crappy guns and can't hit - or some other rubbish

And I never said that you said that, so try not to shove words into my mouth. It's easy to make up what I said and then start slamming it.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I said - and again I see your not actually reading again

No, that seems to be you, this time.

 Mr Morden wrote:
rather than all that that many of THE BEST GUNS ignore armour!

And many of them don't. And many of the best melee weapons ignore armour. I know. That's what I responded to, and it's still a messed up comparison. You're basically saying that some melee weapons don't ignore armour and some ranged weapons do, instead of accepting that they both have weapons that do and weapons that don't. You're making unfair comparisons and shoving them out as proof that melee is bad.

 Mr Morden wrote:
FFS learn to read.

Keep it classy, buddy. Remember Rule #1.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I have played many games where my oh so awesome Archon that's WS7 - missed all but one or even all her attacks in close combat against WS 3 opponents

And you have played many games where Archon has hit every single attack. Missing all attacks on 3+ is a statistical improbability. You can miss all your attacks on 2+ too, better make it auto hit.

 Mr Morden wrote:
because she hits on 3+ rather than the poor shooters that your desperate to protect that get - oh yeah 2+ and a re-roll.

And there you go hyperboling again without giving any solid data. Who are these mythical creature shooters with BS5 and twin-linked? I can't take you seriously anymore because you just throw out these things like they are what every shooter gets.
Almost every shooter in the game is BS4 and hit on a 3+. Anything above that is rare. BS3 isn't entirely uncommon either. Most people that have BS5+ are the same people that have WS7.

 Mr Morden wrote:

I have "awesome" close combat characters like St Celestine that's wait for it - AP3 and there are plenty of others.

I play Sisters too. Celestine isn't an awesome fighter. That's not her role and if you're using her for it, you're either using her wrong or playing against Guard. She harasses with her flamer, uses her amazing mobility and picks off weak squads.

 Mr Morden wrote:
I use Dominions quite a bit - so that squads of 4 sisters with Melta guns - ALL AP1 and a superior or Canoness with Combi-metla.

One shot each. One sarge with a Thunderhammer or Powerfist can output the same amount of high AP, high damage attacks on the charge. Alternatively, 4 guys with melta bombs. This is hardly firepower that melee can't match.
Those Dominions also cost a premium. You said that melee pays a lot for their powers. So do shooters.

 morganfreeman wrote:
Problem with this is that it takes multiple turns, and fairly heavy investment in deployment methods, in order to get a melee unit in and let them start grumping.
Plenty of ranged units, and especially most powerful ones, can start laying down the pain-train turn 1.

And that's exactly what I said. The problem melee has isn't with missing some attacks. It's with delivery.

Once melee charges, it is already much more powerful than shooting. You get many more attacks than shooting gets shots for the same price. There is a bonus on extra attacks for charging. When you lock up a shooting unit in combat, they won't get out until they are dead. The same isn't true for a melee unit taking shots from a shooting unit. They can still reposition out of the range or line of sight of further shots.

A shooting unit next to a melee combat is not going to be able to do much to help their mates. The melee units already in combat are immune to shots, but not immune to further melee hits. The only thing immune to melee are flyers, and they're almost immune to most shooting too.

A lot of the big shooting weapons can't be used after moving. That's never true for the big melee weapons.

Mr Morden is trying to make out like melee specialists are in a tight spot because the world is ripe with all powerful shooting, and melee is weak at best. That's simply not true. Melee is already much more pwerful than shooting if you can get into combat. So their only problem is getting into combat.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:
When you consider that the avatar is 200+ points, and the grot is 3 however...

You can't compare a grot's price to an avatar in the vacuum of only comparing WS though, now can you? The grot wounds him on what... a 6+? And gets wounded on a 2+? The avatar then gets a save and the grot sure doesn't. The avatar will also spill loads of wounds over what the grot has and the grot, even rolling like a God, would still not be able to kill the avatar. The grot also has limited usability at best, while the avatar has a lot of battlefield roles it can fill.

Just going "it's messed up that this 3 point guy can hit my 200 point guy on a 5+!" is taking things so wildly out of context that the context is a dot to you.

WS chart needs to change or been tweaked.

On a separate note, someone talked about the fact that an Avatar of khaine could swipe a guard squad in one swoop of his sword.

Yes, i always found hilarious that lets say a BT has to attack one target at a time to kill them, when nearly 75% of things he strikes at, are the height of his knees...

Some kind of "swipe" attack?, forfeit all your attacks for 1 attack that hits all targets in BtB maybe? and you get to reroll as many targets that are in BtB or some other way.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
WS chart needs to change or been tweaked.

On a separate note, someone talked about the fact that an Avatar of khaine could swipe a guard squad in one swoop of his sword.

Yes, i always found hilarious that lets say a BT has to attack one target at a time to kill them, when nearly 75% of things he strikes at, are the height of his knees...

Some kind of "swipe" attack?, forfeit all your attacks for 1 attack that hits all targets in BtB maybe? and you get to reroll as many targets that are in BtB or some other way.

There are characters with that special rule. It's normally not that great. He has 5 attacks base, iirc? It's not very often you'll have more than 5 people in BtB contact.
And you can see the massive amount of attacks (5) as a way of representing that exact thing. It's not very probable that he is hacking that huge sword so fast that he manages to hack it more than twice as fast as a bolter using rapid fire. So maybe those 5 attacks are just to represent how many hits his one swing has a chance of connecting with.

@ Purifier

You started this by charging into the thread before reading it - jumping up and down and screaming about how all close combat will now be one sided etc etc.

You then kept saying I was whining - hardly Rule 1 !

Why is it so hard to understand that my issue is that the best fighters in the universe should have a more than good chance at hitting the worst fighters in the universe - why is that so wrong and apparently breaks the game.

WS 6-10 should just hit WS3 on a 2+ as MANY on this thread agree with.
Why is is fine for BS 6-10 to hit on 2 + with a re-roll (variable target) but high WS gains zero reward compared to high BS

Celestine is ok against some opponents - WS 7, I7, S5 AP3 - but she still can never hit on better than 3+ - WHY? when she shoots - she can hit on a 2+ / 5+

Can't use melta bombs against infantry - why is that relevant?

He is Kaela fething Mensha Khaine. He swings Wailing Doom as fast as he likes!

WS/I 10 say so!

On a more serious note, he'd probably splat 3-4 Grots on the assault, and he's unlikely to take a single wound. So Grots are testing at -3/4. And he sweeps anything not I5 regardless of roll.

With the table as it is, if a WS6 Chaos Lord makes it into CC with most of my units - even some of my CC units - he's probably going to win. May not be the first round, but it'll probably happen.

It does suck when Asurmen loses a challenge to an already-wounded Nob, because he didn't hit *at all*. It happens. But when that happened, it was all 1's anyways. Dice are dice.

But then you have some wild swings in stats that shouldn't be. Cypher strikes before Baharoth? Vindicare Assassin being better swordsmen than Jain Zar? Random low-rent Archons having the same statline as Asurmen? Some of the abstractions are rather abstract.

Generally speaking, once a unit gets into CC with something weaker than it, its victim can't do anything but flail until its dead. Perhaps its not removing a unit a turn, but even Scatterbikes, some of the ugliest shooting in the game, when they shoot a Marine squad (of equal numbers, so substantially fewer points), aren't going to stop it from doing their thing next turn. The survivors (there will be survivors) can shoot at whoever is in range. The reverse though - charge a 10man Tac squad into a 10-man Jetbike squad - isn't true. The Tacs keep them in combat until they break or die. Won't be a single turn, but the odds of the Windriders winning is low.

Also note that BS has no defensive use. WS does. So it shouldn't be straight up the same numbers.

If a change were made, deviations in both directions need to be accounted for. And breakpoints should be minimized.

Bharring wrote:
He is Kaela fething Mensha Khaine. He swings Wailing Doom as fast as he likes!

WS/I 10 say so!

On a more serious note, he'd probably splat 3-4 Grots on the assault, and he's unlikely to take a single wound. So Grots are testing at -3/4. And he sweeps anything not I5 regardless of roll.

With the table as it is, if a WS6 Chaos Lord makes it into CC with most of my units - even some of my CC units - he's probably going to win. May not be the first round, but it'll probably happen.

It does suck when Asurmen loses a challenge to an already-wounded Nob, because he didn't hit *at all*. It happens. But when that happened, it was all 1's anyways. Dice are dice.

But then you have some wild swings in stats that shouldn't be. Cypher strikes before Baharoth? Vindicare Assassin being better swordsmen than Jain Zar? Random low-rent Archons having the same statline as Asurmen? Some of the abstractions are rather abstract.

Generally speaking, once a unit gets into CC with something weaker than it, its victim can't do anything but flail until its dead. Perhaps its not removing a unit a turn, but even Scatterbikes, some of the ugliest shooting in the game, when they shoot a Marine squad (of equal numbers, so substantially fewer points), aren't going to stop it from doing their thing next turn. The survivors (there will be survivors) can shoot at whoever is in range. The reverse though - charge a 10man Tac squad into a 10-man Jetbike squad - isn't true. The Tacs keep them in combat until they break or die. Won't be a single turn, but the odds of the Windriders winning is low.

Also note that BS has no defensive use. WS does. So it shouldn't be straight up the same numbers.

If a change were made, deviations in both directions need to be accounted for. And breakpoints should be minimized.

Why would it be all 1's - the character is as likely to roll 2's and fail as 1's and fail - and that's my issue.

Whilst it can be amusing to watch the commander of the Ravenwing kicked to death by a pair of tau Pathfinders (true story) - I think it should happen a lot less than it does.

I think I will stick a poll in proposed rules and see what happens.............

I was referring to a specific instance where it happened. The dice were all 1s there.

The flipside is just how much more powerful should they be? Should one Marine that makes it into a full 12man FW squad wipe them?

Bharring wrote:
I was referring to a specific instance where it happened. The dice were all 1s there.

The flipside is just how much more powerful should they be? Should one Marine that makes it into a full 12man FW squad wipe them?

No def not - unless we are using Movie Marines

What I would want is if you manage to actually charge a close combat master into combat with relatively inept opponents he/she would be almost certain to hit unless a fluke happens (represented by rolls of a 1).

So the Avatar of Khaine charges and hits on 2+ against anything that it would not consider a true rival. if it however faces a worthy opponent then its still hitting on 3's or 4's. Same with everything else. The only things a Marine is going to hit on a 2+ is something with WS 2 or less.........and that seems more than fine to me.

I should say that we have tried it in quite a few games and no one has yet had any issues - on either side.

 Mr Morden wrote:
@ Purifier

You started this by charging into the thread before reading it - jumping up and down and screaming about how all close combat will now be one sided etc etc.

Wasn't jumping up and down, wasn't screaming. There you go again. Lay off the hyperbolic ridicule.

 Mr Morden wrote:

You then kept saying I was whining - hardly Rule 1 !

Yeah, that was a poor choice of words. I just don't know what else to call this. I can't think of a nice word to describe this nonsense.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Why is it so hard to understand that my issue is that the best fighters in the universe should have a more than good chance at hitting the worst fighters in the universe - why is that so wrong and apparently breaks the game.

Why is it so hard to understand that I'm not saying that it would break the game. I'm saying that it would have almost no effect at all on the game except where it doesn't even matter anyway?
Why is it so hard to understand that this would only make already predetermined fights even more one-sided. It just makes the ultra-rare fun of seeing a weakling stand up to a stronger foe even more rare. It just solidifies an outcome we already assumed we were gonna get anyway.
It's less fun and doesn't do anything to balance out melee or come to terms with the problems that melee does have.

And you're the one that started bringing armour saves and other things into this.

 Mr Morden wrote:

WS 6-10 should just hit WS3 on a 2+ as MANY on this thread agree with.

You keep saying that. The amount of people in this thread (i.e the people that even care) are not "MANY." It's what. 4 people?
And that's why I'm here to begin with. People (you specifically) are looking at ONLY BS and WS and comparing them, saying that if one of them can hit on X then the other should also be buffed from what it is. You're looking at the stats in a vacuum that they don't belong in. There are looooads of factors that play a part in why WS and BS are different. I'm here to try and give the full picture.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Why is is fine for BS 6-10 to hit on 2 + with a re-roll (variable target) but high WS gains zero reward compared to high BS

There isn't zero advantages. Your high WS means you can still hit at 3+ against others with a higher than average WS and you have a high chance to have others hit you at 5+.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Celestine is ok against some opponents - WS 7, I7, S5 AP3 - but she still can never hit on better than 3+ - WHY? when she shoots - she can hit on a 2+ / 5+

Yeah, she's "ok." Not a melee beast. Which is exactly where she should be.

She shoots using a template. She hits automatically. Do you think she should hit in melee automatically too? Is that your point?
But let's say she had a bolter instead. At best she would have 2 shots that could hit on 2+. She has more attacks than that in close combat. Don't you see how that levels it out? More attacks means more hits.

She also has, like many of the top level melee, a master crafted weapon, so she can actually reroll a missed attack. Something you have been toting as a shooting specific thing. There are rules that give you this too, like preferred enemy, which in effect raises it from a 3+ to a 3++.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Can't use melta bombs against infantry - why is that relevant?

You gave an example of a crew that is basically made to take out tanks. I was giving several examples of how melee can do that too (both against infantry and tanks) for same or lesser price, and you completely ignored anything that didn't fit with your narrow perspective.

Lets read your first inspired post again

Hardly. It's basically every fight this would affect by a lot.

The units that are already hard off, to be specific. All marines are WS4, and crush most opponents that are WS3. These are who it would hurt the most, and this matchup is *very common*
It would mean those would go from hitting 50% of all hits to hitting 33%. That's pretty massive for a guardsman trying to swing his I1 power fist at a marine.
It's an army wide huge nerf to the melee of those already suffering in melee. It's not like the gretchen have any chance against the Khorne daemon in close combat as it is, so why exactly are you clamouring for nerfs to the gretchen?

Your idea is bad and there is good reason for the WS table to be the way it is.

So zero reading comprehension or total misrepresentation.

Again We have actually tried it IN games and for us its more fun - so you have tried it and found it less fun - or are just arm chairing and telling us how it will be?

Like I said I'll do a poll and I'll see what happens and what those who are interested think.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Lets read your first inspired post again

Hardly. It's basically every fight this would affect by a lot.

The units that are already hard off, to be specific. All marines are WS4, and crush most opponents that are WS3. These are who it would hurt the most, and this matchup is *very common*
It would mean those would go from hitting 50% of all hits to hitting 33%. That's pretty massive for a guardsman trying to swing his I1 power fist at a marine.
It's an army wide huge nerf to the melee of those already suffering in melee. It's not like the gretchen have any chance against the Khorne daemon in close combat as it is, so why exactly are you clamouring for nerfs to the gretchen?

Your idea is bad and there is good reason for the WS table to be the way it is.

So zero reading comprehension or total misrepresentation.

Again We have actually tried it IN games and for us its more fun - so you have tried it and found it less fun - or are just arm chairing and telling us how it will be?

Like I said I'll do a poll and I'll see what happens and what those who are interested think.

Yeah, I missed that in the first post that you weren't talking about a direct BS=WS. I made a mistake there, and you have tried to regurgitate it every single post since as if it invalidated everything I have said since. It hasn't. You can't refute anything I've said since as I changed my critique to actually refute all your claims, and all you have at this point is my first misinformed post.

So keep trying. You have nothing. The idea is still pointless at best and bad at worst. Try to expand the view of the change you are hoping to bring.
I wouldn't try it because I can't even think of anyone besides my Celestine that it would affect in the games I usually play. If you're so desperate to get some buffs that you will rearrange the system just to work for you specifically, you need to look over how objectively you are considering this.

You can make as many polls as you want. You will make them in the vacuum that you have been spouting here, thinking nothing of the balance against the rest of the melee system.

 Purifier wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Lets read your first inspired post again

Hardly. It's basically every fight this would affect by a lot.

The units that are already hard off, to be specific. All marines are WS4, and crush most opponents that are WS3. These are who it would hurt the most, and this matchup is *very common*
It would mean those would go from hitting 50% of all hits to hitting 33%. That's pretty massive for a guardsman trying to swing his I1 power fist at a marine.
It's an army wide huge nerf to the melee of those already suffering in melee. It's not like the gretchen have any chance against the Khorne daemon in close combat as it is, so why exactly are you clamouring for nerfs to the gretchen?

Your idea is bad and there is good reason for the WS table to be the way it is.

So zero reading comprehension or total misrepresentation.

Again We have actually tried it IN games and for us its more fun - so you have tried it and found it less fun - or are just arm chairing and telling us how it will be?

Like I said I'll do a poll and I'll see what happens and what those who are interested think.

Yeah, I missed that in the first post that you weren't talking about a direct BS=WS. I made a mistake there, and you have tried to regurgitate it every single post since as if it invalidated everything I have said since. It hasn't. You can't refute anything I've said since as I changed my critique to actually refute all your claims, and all you have at this point is my first misinformed post.

So keep trying. You have nothing. The idea is still pointless at best and bad at worst. Try to expand the view of the change you are hoping to bring.
I wouldn't try it because I can't even think of anyone besides my Celestine that it would affect in the games I usually play. If you're so desperate to get some buffs that you will rearrange the system just to work for you specifically, you need to look over how objectively you are considering this.

You can make as many polls as you want. You will make them in the vacuum that you have been spouting here, thinking nothing of the balance against the rest of the melee system.

Yeah you keep spouting the same old stuff and have a nice life

Yeah Ignore the statement about WE changed it to have more fun - apparently WE were playing the game wrong as its not your game and how you want to play it.

I have specifically stated WHY I thinks its a good idea - a number of other people agreed - you didn't and apparently are god fricking almighty and always right.

You keep that mind tightly shut and mouth open to shout down anything that does not fit.

Have a nice life.......

 Mr Morden wrote:


Yeah you keep spouting the same old stuff and have a nice life

Yeah Ignore the statement about WE changed it to have more fun - apparently WE were playing the game wrong as its not your game and how you want to play it.

I have specifically stated WHY I thinks its a good idea - a number of other people agreed - you didn't and apparently are god fricking almighty and always right.

You keep that mind tightly shut and mouth open to shout down anything that does not fit.

Have a nice life.......

Haha, yeah, on page three you changed it from a public debate hailing everyone to agree with you to a thing where it's suddenly me being an aggressor on the way your group plays for having an opinion that wasn't the same as yours.
Have fun with your system, but don't make out like I'm a bad guy for highlighting the weaknesses in your argument when you post it on a public bulletin board.

Have a great life.

Some people have added Consolidate into Combat and Charge from Reserves too. They like the change.

Many other players - myself included - would hate it.

A few players agreeing and liking it is a decent endorsement, but only says so much. It certainly doesn't prove its a good idea.

 Purifier wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


Yeah you keep spouting the same old stuff and have a nice life

Yeah Ignore the statement about WE changed it to have more fun - apparently WE were playing the game wrong as its not your game and how you want to play it.

I have specifically stated WHY I thinks its a good idea - a number of other people agreed - you didn't and apparently are god fricking almighty and always right.

You keep that mind tightly shut and mouth open to shout down anything that does not fit.

Have a nice life.......

Haha, yeah, on page three you changed it from a public debate hailing everyone to agree with you to a thing where it's suddenly me being an aggressor on the way your group plays for having an opinion that wasn't the same as yours.
Have fun with your system, but don't make out like I'm a bad guy for highlighting the weaknesses in your argument when you post it on a public bulletin board.

Have a great life.

No I got sick of you spouting off that I was whining, and trying to make the thread all about you - which is still the case.

Some people have added Consolidate into Combat and Charge from Reserves too. They like the change.
Many other players - myself included - would hate it.
A few players agreeing and liking it is a decent endorsement, but only says so much. It certainly doesn't prove its a good idea.

No totally agree- we all like different things

I said I and others found it fun as one poster had categorically stated that "it is not fun" - based on nothing more than gut feeling of course and I feel that this may or may not be the case depending on the person.

We have not tried Consolidate Into Combat for a long long time - I wonder if they allow overwatch for the newly charged unit?

 Mr Morden wrote:

No I got sick of you spouting off that I was whining, and trying to make the thread all about you - which is still the case.

Yeah, how dare I reply to forum posts directed at me. Must be my giant ego.

 Purifier wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

No I got sick of you spouting off that I was whining, and trying to make the thread all about you - which is still the case.

Yeah, how dare I reply to forum posts directed at me. Must be my giant ego.

Must be - certainly seems like it

 morganfreeman wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

niv-mizzet wrote:


Gee it'd sure be a shame if the game had elite units that were able to use what they're good at to kill a unit a turn. It's a good thing units like that don't exist- oh wait. There are like 50 of them in the shooting side of the game. -_-

List them. Hell, list 25 of them. Actually, I'll be nice, list 10. Alright, I'll be generous, List 5. Let's see if we can't find equal points melee that do just as well or better.

Problem with this is that it takes multiple turns, and fairly heavy investment in deployment methods, in order to get a melee unit in and let them start grumping.

Plenty of ranged units, and especially most powerful ones, can start laying down the pain-train turn 1.

That follows inherently from the fact that ranged weapons have got a longer range than H2H weapons.

As someone who uses kharn a lot, hitting on a 2+ is extremely powerful, I'd rather not have 2+ to hit but Rr based on weapon skill, if your higher rr 1's, double enemy W's rr all hits, or something easier like if your double enemy Ws, the model that is double gets prepared enemy against the target, doesn't confer to any unit they are leading.

I'd happily see saves removed from combat all together, but bringing in a parry mechanic, both players roll to hit at the same time, adding their Ws to a d6, higher results cancel out lower ones, to a maximum of 10, so a captain would need a 4+ to hit an avatar 1 on one, but grots and guardsman would find it impossible to hit an avatar, this could even remove the wound mechanic too, speeding up the game massively.

Things like power fists would work the same on vehicles, but couldn't be parried by things half their strength.

Just some musing and needs a lot of work.

CC maxes at 3+ because GW is dumb as gak.

If you've ever seen a skilled guy fight a chump you know that 3+ is a joke. Same goes for being hit on 4+ until you double - if anything increase the durability first and the hit chance later, or gods forbid, give the player a choice of more damage or less damage.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Right, making a big change would swing too hard in close combat's favor. Even though my earlier post was complaining about shooting vs close combat damage output, I think the real answer is to give units ways of interacting at range other than killing each other's models - I'm talking pinning here, and not the crappy pinning USR that already exists, but a real core mechanic built into the DNA of the game. Instead of making close combat deadlier, make it so shooting (all shooting) is a little less deadly, but has a chance to contribute in some way to suppressing the enemy's shooting or movement.

If long range shooting was more effective at suppressing the enemy than killing them, and close range shooting and hand to hand combat were more effective at killing or breaking the enemy, I think you'd see more maneuvering to push each other off objectives. Then reform the mission system a bit so it isn't either schizophrenic chasing of Maelstrom objectives, or last turn springing on objectives in Eternal War. Then change out IGOUGO for proper alternating activations so one player isn't killing/suppressing the entire other army.

I guess what I'm saying is, 40k has so many problems I'd rather play a different game.

Genuinely made me LoL

Cause super high WS also offers protection.

And grots can't hurt an avatar allready. They're s2.

 koooaei wrote:
Cause super high WS also offers protection.

Tell you what, put your WS10 Avatar in front of my gunline, and we'll see just how much protection his high WS grants him.

He's talking about in CC.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
He's talking about in CC. If BS offered a defense against shooting, maybe you could argue that, but in this case it is meaningless.

Except that it's far from meaningless because the game is heavily focussed on shooting right now - so a tiny amount of protection while in melee is hardly substantial.

Furthermore, these are dedicated melee units we're talking about - if they're worried about taking damage in melee then it seems something is seriously wrong. Either they suck at their job or you suck at choosing targets for them. I'm not sure that the piddling protection afforded by high WS will help with either of those.

Then you have the fact that WS needs to be ridiculously high to get even this tiny amount of protection. Does WS7-8 offer any protection against WS4? Nope. You need to have 9+ for probably the most common WS in the game to need anything but 4s to hit you. And, WS5 never needs more than 4s to hit - even against a unit with the highest WS in the game.

Saying it offers no substantial protection I can agree with, but just saying "gunline army kills it" is not a problem with WS.

 Purifier wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Again its not every combat - its when super elite combat characters or individual are fighting pitifully poor fighters....... as I said - Gretchen versus Greater Deamon of Khorne etc. The Bloodthirster should be hitting on 2's

Hardly. It's basically every fight this would affect by a lot.

The units that are already hard off, to be specific. All marines are WS4, and crush most opponents that are WS3. These are who it would hurt the most, and this matchup is *very common*
It would mean those would go from hitting 50% of all hits to hitting 33%. That's pretty massive for a guardsman trying to swing his I1 power fist at a marine.
It's an army wide huge nerf to the melee of those already suffering in melee. It's not like the gretchen have any chance against the Khorne daemon in close combat as it is, so why exactly are you clamouring for nerfs to the gretchen?

Your idea is bad and there is good reason for the WS table to be the way it is.

look dude...guardsmen that get in assaults are supposed to lose to marines. Your argument is pretty weak. It's marines that suffer for paying for ws4 when it basically means they still get hit on a 4+ vs almost everything weaker than them. paying for WS 2-3 and still hitting on 4's is the problem.

What about this. You never hit on worse then a 6+, for balance, and the only 2+/2+ is WS10 hitting WS1. Seems relatively fair.

Thoughts?

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
What about this. You never hit on worse then a 6+, for balance, and the only 2+/2+ is WS10 hitting WS1. Seems relatively fair.

Thoughts?

I like it myself (well no surprise there) - I'll see what our group feels about trying this version out

I certainly wouldn't object to that chart.

Made it in to a poll in the proposed rules section

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/653015.page

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
What about this. You never hit on worse then a 6+, for balance, and the only 2+/2+ is WS10 hitting WS1. Seems relatively fair.

Spoiler:

Thoughts?

I am mostly okay with this as long as :
- The rerolls to hit are removed, given we have a bunch of models with WS10 and that would be such a huge boost, and preferably
- All the stuff that reduce WS in the game is removed or toned down.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

I am mostly okay with this as long as :
- The rerolls to hit are removed, given we have a bunch of models with WS10 and that would be such a huge boost

I can think of only 3 in the entire game, none of which seem particularly strong.

Could you list the bunch of models that would benefit so much from this?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

- All the stuff that reduce WS in the game is removed or toned down.

What like?

The only thing that comes to mind is Fear, and if you tone that down any more you might as well just remove it from the game entirely.

Don't some of the psychic abilities do it as well?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Don't some of the psychic abilities do it as well?

Entirely possible, though I've no idea which ones.

In any case, it's not like the current psychic system is the pinnacle of balance to begin with.

Id agree that hand to hand needs a little help. We're well past the bad old days where you could overrun into another unit & start another combat.

Id say GW needs to get rid of random charge, challenges or improve the to-hit chart. Getting a 2+ to hit if you double your opponents ws is good. I believe doubling is good, not more then doubling. That way a chapter master hits a cultist on a 2, a Deldar warrior hits a Fire Warrior on a 2, as well. On the reverse, said inferior opponents would hit on 5s.

Just one change would be needed I believe. If I had to choose one I'd say random charge. The overkill change to challenged demoted it to a lesser evil. An improved to-hit would be a good consolation prize.

With that chart, you would need to remove master crafted and digital weapons as well as preferred enemy. They're way too cheap for what they do together with that.

 Purifier wrote:
With that chart, you would need to remove master crafted and digital weapons as well as preferred enemy. They're way too cheap for what they do together with that.

Sorry, but that's a really idiotic solution.

Not all units with one or more of those rules will even be benefiting from the new chart. My Destroyer Lord has Preferred Enemy and sometimes Master Crafted too. That'll make him unstoppable with his... WS4. But I guess his now needing 5s and 6s to hit many enemies needs to be balanced by... making him even worse as hitting.

Also, whilst preferred enemy is good for high-WS characters, is Master Crafted really that amazing?

I don't even see the connection with regard to digital weapons.

 vipoid wrote:
I can think of only 3 in the entire game, none of which seem particularly strong.

Could you list the bunch of models that would benefit so much from this?

There is the avatar, the bloodthirster and… I do not know, others…

 vipoid wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

- All the stuff that reduce WS in the game is removed or toned down.

What like?

The only thing that comes to mind is Fear, and if you tone that down any more you might as well just remove it from the game entirely.

I kind of remember Dark Angels have stuff like this, and then some horrible grenades some Inquistor can take. And then there is blinding.

 vipoid wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
With that chart, you would need to remove master crafted and digital weapons as well as preferred enemy. They're way too cheap for what they do together with that.

Sorry, but that's a really idiotic solution.

Not all units with one or more of those rules will even be benefiting from the new chart. My Destroyer Lord has Preferred Enemy and sometimes Master Crafted too. That'll make him unstoppable with his... WS4. But I guess his now needing 5s and 6s to hit many enemies needs to be balanced by... making him even worse as hitting.

Also, whilst preferred enemy is good for high-WS characters, is Master Crafted really that amazing?

I don't even see the connection with regard to digital weapons.

When you hit everything on 2+ master crafted is fantastic. If you have 4 attacks, you MIGHT miss one, and master crafted then brings it from 75% hit to 100% hits. That's a big difference.

I KNOW it's an idiotic solution. That's my whole point. The "new chart" fails to take all the reroll options that melee has into account. That's why it's bad.

 Purifier wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Purifier wrote:
With that chart, you would need to remove master crafted and digital weapons as well as preferred enemy. They're way too cheap for what they do together with that.

Sorry, but that's a really idiotic solution.

Not all units with one or more of those rules will even be benefiting from the new chart. My Destroyer Lord has Preferred Enemy and sometimes Master Crafted too. That'll make him unstoppable with his... WS4. But I guess his now needing 5s and 6s to hit many enemies needs to be balanced by... making him even worse as hitting.

Also, whilst preferred enemy is good for high-WS characters, is Master Crafted really that amazing?

I don't even see the connection with regard to digital weapons.

When you hit everything on 2+ master crafted is fantastic. If you have 4 attacks, you MIGHT miss one, and master crafted then brings it from 75% hit to 100% hits. That's a big difference.

I KNOW it's an idiotic solution. That's my whole point. The "new chart" fails to take all the reroll options that melee has into account. That's why it's bad.

Yet shooting can hit on a 2+ and have re-rolls and that is ok?

When I pay 150+ points for a single infantry model like a SM captain, he should be murdering 4 guys a turn. We have all got used to supposed melee powerhouse characters hitting well under their points value.

Letting them hit on 2+ would be a good start.

 Purifier wrote:

When you hit everything on 2+ master crafted is fantastic. If you have 4 attacks, you MIGHT miss one, and master crafted then brings it from 75% hit to 100% hits. That's a big difference.

Only if you use false probabilities.

 Purifier wrote:

I KNOW it's an idiotic solution. That's my whole point. The "new chart" fails to take all the reroll options that melee has into account. That's why it's bad.

But that's the thing, I still don't see why rerolls are such a big issue with the new chart. Yes, you'll usually get an extra hit... so how is that different to what they do now? Either way, you're just upping the average a little.

Furthermore, there's the matter of diminishing returns. Spending points to increase your hit change, when you're already hitting most things on 2s, tends to be a relatively poor investment. Rerolls are better if you're hitting on 3s or 4s, because you're losing a significant portion of your attacks - and so anything you can do to prevent that will help a great deal. But, when you're losing just 1/6 of your attacks this way, it's really not a great bonus.

You'd be much better off looking to increase your to-wound chance and/or AP. After all, hitting with virtually every attack means naff-all if most of those then fail to wound and/or bounce off the enemy's armour save.

With so much wounding on a 2+ and ignoring armor saves, the To Hit is what generally saves the defending unit...

Bharring wrote:
With so much wounding on a 2+ and ignoring armor saves, the To Hit is what generally saves the defending unit...

Really?

I can't recall it ever saving mine.

Usually what I see saving units is 3+ invulnerable saves and FNP/Necro-no-pain.

 Big Blind Bill wrote:


When you hit everything on 2+ master crafted is fantastic. If you have 4 attacks, you MIGHT miss one, and master crafted then brings it from 75% hit to 100% hits. That's a big difference.

Actually rerolls benefit a 6+ most (goes from 17% to 31% chance to hit, a 83% increase in expected hits) and 2+ the least (83% to 97%, only a 17% increase in expected hits). Basically, with a very low probability of hitting you almost double the amount of hits with rerolls (converging on a 100% increase on expected hits), but with very high probabilities it does very little (converges on a 0% increases on expected hits).

 Vaktathi wrote:
There are some reasons why close combat is generally held to more limits than shooting. Shooting does not lock another units action. Shooting has no equivalent of "sweeping advance" where you can inflict one wound and force an Ld test and then wipe the entire unit. Close combat also inherently ignores all cover saves. Close Combat, unlike shooting, also gets to hit the weakest armor facing on vehicles and simply has to make it into base contact to do so and can auto-hit immobilized vehicles (unlike shooting).

Now, is that to say that the WS table isn't a bit wonky? No, it's a relic of the earliest vestiges of 40k when WS functioned differently. But there's some good reasons as to why CC is treated differently than shooting.

Yep, you are correct, sir. I don't know how many people here played third edition, but CC, armies then,using practically the same table, were beasts that elicited the same passionate debates against them as the ones on this thread urging more power to CC. I was in a tournament game using BA against Orks, and in turn 1, thanks to super charged vehicles that could be assaulted from in that edition, heavy forward deployment on the part of both armies, and a Sanguinary Priest, all but 18 Orks were removed from the table in the CC phase. In 4th, my DE did the same to another army.
Granted those were extreme examples, but CC armies would roll over pretty much anything out there. Tyranids were truly gross, also, especially in horde sized armies to the point that most armies couldn't stand against them unless they a CC army, also.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bharring wrote:
Some people have added Consolidate into Combat and Charge from Reserves too. They like the change.

Many other players - myself included - would hate it.

A few players agreeing and liking it is a decent endorsement, but only says so much. It certainly doesn't prove its a good idea.

The ability to consolidate into combat existed in earlier editions and pretty much gave the game to CC armies, like Tyranids. Once they got into CC on turn 2, it was most times game over for whoever they were facing because shooting was finished with from that point on.
Even in this edition, a good Ork player, to use an example from a codex that seems maligned for being weak, can curb stomp his opponent by taking advantage of the fact that an Ork army can be fast as well as huge.
This assumes, of course, that the table has more than a couple of hills for terrain.

the_hanged_man wrote:

 Big Blind Bill wrote:


When you hit everything on 2+ master crafted is fantastic. If you have 4 attacks, you MIGHT miss one, and master crafted then brings it from 75% hit to 100% hits. That's a big difference.

Actually rerolls benefit a 6+ most (goes from 17% to 31% chance to hit, a 83% increase in expected hits) and 2+ the least (83% to 97%, only a 17% increase in expected hits). Basically, with a very low probability of hitting you almost double the amount of hits with rerolls (converging on a 100% increase on expected hits), but with very high probabilities it does very little (converges on a 0% increases on expected hits).

Except that on 4 attacks you will only ever get one reroll with master crafted. If you have 4 attacks and miss all and get one reroll, that reroll isn't worth as much as if you have 4 attacks, hit 3 and get one reroll. So yeah, if you zone in and don't at all look at the whole picture, your math is absolutely true.

If you hit nothing and a reroll (against all odds) make you hit one, then you've hit infinity more times than you otherwise would
If you hit 3 times and a reroll (on a 2+ very likely to happen) you've hit only 33% more than you would,
but yet you both get one extra hit, giving the "weapon master" an easy extra hit and the other guy an unlikely extra hit. And the weaponmaster's hit is very likely to be thuroughly more devastating than the other guy's. You're not taking the whole picture into account by just looking at a very narrow part of the equation and determining it benefits low hit chance models more.

 vipoid wrote:
But that's the thing, I still don't see why rerolls are such a big issue with the new chart. Yes, you'll usually get an extra hit... so how is that different to what they do now? Either way, you're just upping the average a little.

It doesn't need to be upped.

 vipoid wrote:

Furthermore, there's the matter of diminishing returns. Spending points to increase your hit change, when you're already hitting most things on 2s, tends to be a relatively poor investment. Rerolls are better if you're hitting on 3s or 4s, because you're losing a significant portion of your attacks - and so anything you can do to prevent that will help a great deal. But, when you're losing just 1/6 of your attacks this way, it's really not a great bonus.

Master crafted only works for one attack, and is very very cheap. It's much much better on someone with a high hit chance.
On a low hit chance model, it's not really gonna make any difference. On a high hit, it's pretty much guarantee he gets all hits.
A low hit chance model will ALWAYS get to use it, yes... to try another 6+ roll.
A high hit chance model will at least half the time miss *one* attack and so will mostly also get to use it. To try another 2+ roll.

Assuming that table is being used, at what WS value do you think Master Crafted becomes an issue?

 Purifier wrote:


Except that on 4 attacks you will only ever get one reroll with master crafted. If you have 4 attacks and miss all and get one reroll, that reroll isn't worth as much as if you have 4 attacks, hit 3 and get one reroll. So yeah, if you zone in and don't at all look at the whole picture, your math is absolutely true.

If you hit nothing and a reroll (against all odds) make you hit one, then you've hit infinity more times than you otherwise would
If you hit 3 times and a reroll (on a 2+ very likely to happen) you've hit only 33% more than you would,
but yet you both get one extra hit, giving the "weapon master" an easy extra hit and the other guy an unlikely extra hit. And the weaponmaster's hit is very likely to be thuroughly more devastating than the other guy's. You're not taking the whole picture into account by just looking at a very narrow part of the equation and determining it benefits low hit chance models more.

The math still holds regardless of the number of rerolls. However, the real issue is whether going from 3+ to 2+ on the same guy makes MC weapons better. Let's look at 4 attacks:
4 Attacks
Prob of Number of Hits
# Hits 2+ 3+
4 0.482253086 0.197530864
3 0.385802469 0.395061728
2 0.115740741 0.296296296
1 0.015432099 0.098765432
0 0.000771605 0.012345679

Expected # Hits 3.333333333 2.666666667
Reroll Prob 0.517746914 0.802469136
Extra Expected Hits 0.431455761 0.534979424
Total Expected Hits 3.764789095 3.201646091
% Extra Hits 0.129436728 0.200617284


So, as you see allowing the "Weaponmaster" to hit on 2+ cheapens the value of that one reroll. Both in terms of additional expected hits (.43 on 2+ vs .53 on 3+) and % increase of expected hits (13% on 2+ vs. 20% on 3+). Essentially, the reroll is worth less on the 2+ because they are less likely to need it (52% chance on 2+ vs 80% on 3+). If you have enough attacks eventually it just works out to be just an extra attack for both, and the 2+ will do slightly better (1/6 of a expected hit to be exact)...but in the nothing worth repricing MC and digital weapons.

Edit: Gah...it looks fine in the editor. Don't have time to mess with it now. 2+ is the first column of numbers, 3+ is the 2nd.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd make it something like this...

Hitting someone of equal or 1 higher Ws = 4+ to hit
Hitting someone of 1 less Ws = 3+ to hit
Hitting someone of 2 or more less Ws = 2+ to hit
Hitting someone with 2 or 3 higher Ws = 5+ to hit
Hitting someone with 4 or more Ws = 6+ to hit

That means a Ws5 model would hit a Ws3 model on a 2+, but the Ws3 model would hit the Ws5 model on a 5+. Ws4 vs Ws3 would work the same way it does currently. Ws7 vs Ws3 or higher would be 2+ to hit or 6+ to get hit.

Though I like this idea, I think a rerollable modifier would be better, similar to shooting. Hitting enemy 2 lower, rerollable hits on 6, etc. WS9 & 10 auto, but if the owning player rolls dice and six comes up auto-wound. In my meta, we have stared to test this theory. It has made CC much more brutal.

Additionally, I do not want any model other than Kharn to hit on 2's.

Spaz431 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd make it something like this...

Hitting someone of equal or 1 higher Ws = 4+ to hit
Hitting someone of 1 less Ws = 3+ to hit
Hitting someone of 2 or more less Ws = 2+ to hit
Hitting someone with 2 or 3 higher Ws = 5+ to hit
Hitting someone with 4 or more Ws = 6+ to hit

That means a Ws5 model would hit a Ws3 model on a 2+, but the Ws3 model would hit the Ws5 model on a 5+. Ws4 vs Ws3 would work the same way it does currently. Ws7 vs Ws3 or higher would be 2+ to hit or 6+ to get hit.

Though I like this idea, I think a rerollable modifier would be better, similar to shooting. Hitting enemy 2 lower, rerollable hits on 6, etc. WS9 & 10 auto, but if the owning player rolls dice and six comes up auto-wound. In my meta, we have stared to test this theory. It has made CC much more brutal.

Additionally, I do not want any model other than Kharn to hit on 2's.

Interesting - seems a little more complicated but more deadly.........

Can I ask why no one other than Kharn on 2's when you also have the Greater Daemons and Shards of a God of War trying to kill stuff - not sure he should be more deadly than them?

the_hanged_man wrote:

 Purifier wrote:


Except that on 4 attacks you will only ever get one reroll with master crafted. If you have 4 attacks and miss all and get one reroll, that reroll isn't worth as much as if you have 4 attacks, hit 3 and get one reroll. So yeah, if you zone in and don't at all look at the whole picture, your math is absolutely true.

If you hit nothing and a reroll (against all odds) make you hit one, then you've hit infinity more times than you otherwise would
If you hit 3 times and a reroll (on a 2+ very likely to happen) you've hit only 33% more than you would,
but yet you both get one extra hit, giving the "weapon master" an easy extra hit and the other guy an unlikely extra hit. And the weaponmaster's hit is very likely to be thuroughly more devastating than the other guy's. You're not taking the whole picture into account by just looking at a very narrow part of the equation and determining it benefits low hit chance models more.

The math still holds regardless of the number of rerolls. However, the real issue is whether going from 3+ to 2+ on the same guy makes MC weapons better. Let's look at 4 attacks:
4 Attacks
Prob of Number of Hits
# Hits 2+ 3+
4 0.482253086 0.197530864
3 0.385802469 0.395061728
2 0.115740741 0.296296296
1 0.015432099 0.098765432
0 0.000771605 0.012345679

Expected # Hits 3.333333333 2.666666667
Reroll Prob 0.517746914 0.802469136
Extra Expected Hits 0.431455761 0.534979424
Total Expected Hits 3.764789095 3.201646091
% Extra Hits 0.129436728 0.200617284


So, as you see allowing the "Weaponmaster" to hit on 2+ cheapens the value of that one reroll. Both in terms of additional expected hits (.43 on 2+ vs .53 on 3+) and % increase of expected hits (13% on 2+ vs. 20% on 3+). Essentially, the reroll is worth less on the 2+ because they are less likely to need it (52% chance on 2+ vs 80% on 3+). If you have enough attacks eventually it just works out to be just an extra attack for both, and the 2+ will do slightly better (1/6 of a expected hit to be exact)...but in the nothing worth repricing MC and digital weapons.

Edit: Gah...it looks fine in the editor. Don't have time to mess with it now. 2+ is the first column of numbers, 3+ is the 2nd.

Right, but they're not paying for the 2+. With a table rework, you're getting that for free. So saying that it's better on a 3+ is a fallacy. It would be if the 3+ and 2+ guys had payed differently for the model as such. but if you can just go "no, I don't want 3+, I'll have a 2+ instead please." then the reroll brings you to an almost 100% hitrate, whereas the 3+actually had a chance to miss *something* for the same price.

All your maths is showing is that with this "new Weapon Skill table" you don't need the master crafted because you're already that good. So we're basically saying that the best melee characters should have an extra master crafted built in? I don't think that's needed. I feel that melee already has things to make up for the WS table being narrow. If anything, your table supports that. And what if you do the same math for the other end of the spectrum, wouldn't it be the same results but in reverse? from 5+ to 6+ you'd see it getting worse. They'd have a close to 100% chance to get to use it and a 16.7% chance to hit instead of an almost 100% chance to need it followed by a 33% chance to hit.

Another solution is to keep the actual Chart and give rerolls like BS chart does.

Or for each 2 points in WS that you have more then the opponent, you get a Parade roll.

Parade would negate 1 ennemy attack, making High WS models harder to it, but without touching the offensive capabilities of lower WS units with units of equal or marginally higher WS.

For exemple if a WS7 model is attacked by a WS4 model, then the WS4 model deals one less attack, because this attack was parried.

Now you can either make it that it negates 1 attack per ennemy model to a minimum of 1, but that would maybe be overpowered, so instead make it so that you substract 1 attack of the total of attacks?