Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm at present trying to get back into Warhammer Fantasy after 13 years away from it. (and failing due to having noone to play!)

However i am abit worried about how somethings have changed in Warhammer. I have been reading the rule book over and over to make sure i know as much as i can know so that if i ever find someone to play against i'm set and ready and fully knowledged on how to play.

The one thing i don't like the sounds of is how close combat works now. You have to work out 9 different things just to see who has won a round of combat, that doesn't include suffering 25% unit loss either. As i already had a basic knowledge of how combat works i can just about get my head round it (i hope) but wouldn't this scare potential new players away and create much longer battles than is needed?

What do you guys think about close combat in warhammer now? Is it something you find easy once you got used to it? or do you just use certain rules.
Do you wan't it to be changed and made easier or do you like the combat system?

It's pretty easy once you know all of the modifiers and can bear them in mind. They're not all involved every time, but it's worth a piece of paper to make a tally when you've got outnumbering, banners, wounds either side, etc. Ranks and outnumbering become pretty intuitive. Standards are a simple +1.

I say practice will make it for you, and speed things up like rule familiarity in any tabletop game.

Like Arctik_Firangi says, it gets easier once you play for a bit.

It may seem complicated at first glance, but it's really quite straightforward in practice.

The main issue I have with CC is the Close Combat To Hit table - it seems stupid that a character can't hit better than 67% even if their WS is >2x the unit he's hitting. Conversely, it seems silly that a model has a 50% chance of hitting even someone with twice his WS.

HFJor wrote:Like Arctik_Firangi says, it gets easier once you play for a bit.

It may seem complicated at first glance, but it's really quite straightforward in practice.

The main issue I have with CC is the Close Combat To Hit table - it seems stupid that a character can't hit better than 67% even if their WS is >2x the unit he's hitting. Conversely, it seems silly that a model has a 50% chance of hitting even someone with twice his WS.

There once was a white dwarf magazine with a bit about an Ultramarine sgt parrying a carnifex (or trying to) and realizing "[my] training sucks" before being eaten face first.

Close combat really doesn't make sense.

+1 Combat Resolution for each unsaved wound inflicted. Normally you can only claim as many wounds as the model killed had, except in a challenge. See OVERKILL below....
+1 per Rank beyond the first (Ranks now being defined as 5+ models wide) to a Maximum of +3. (Ranks are calculated at the beginning of combat, BEFORE any blows are struck, including Impact Hits)
+1 for having a Standard
+1 for having Battle Standard (stacks with unit Banner now)
+1 for outnumbering (worked out after combat has been rolled for)
+1 for engaging enemy in the Flank (only apply once, even if both flanks engaged)
+2 for Rear Charge
+1 For higher ground (worked out from the highest up rear rank)

OVERKILL.

Now, this is slightly complicated, but only every applies in a challenge. Apply the normal Wounds to combat resolution (so say I kill a 3 wound character and took all 3 wounds that round, I get 3 points for that). However, as some challenges end in exceptionally gory deaths, you can claim an overkill bonus. This is a CR bonus of up to +5 OVER the slain models wounds. Ergo, in a challenge I can get 6 points of CR from a single wound model, 7 for a 2 wound model, 8 for a 3 wound model and so on.

Lordy wrote:
The one thing i don't like the sounds of is how close combat works now. You have to work out 9 different things just to see who has won a round of combat, that doesn't include suffering 25% unit loss either.

you dont use the rules for losing 25% unit strength in close combat, the 2 units fight, apply the combat reolution (as posted above) to work out the winner (not nescesarily the unit that kills the most) and you then make a leadership test based on these mdifiers (so if a unit with leadership of 9 lost by 3 it would have to roll a 6 or less), what % of its numbers a unit has lost is irrelevant. This is only used for seeing if a unit needs to make a morale check from taking wounds in the shooting or magic phase (if a unit suffers 25% or more then it does have to). overall I think the combat rules in Warhammer are straightforward enough to be fun, while they allow for enough tacticle nuance to also be fun.

HFJor wrote:Like Arctik_Firangi says, it gets easier once you play for a bit.

It may seem complicated at first glance, but it's really quite straightforward in practice.

The main issue I have with CC is the Close Combat To Hit table - it seems stupid that a character can't hit better than 67% even if their WS is >2x the unit he's hitting. Conversely, it seems silly that a model has a 50% chance of hitting even someone with twice his WS.

yes the stats are slightly out of kilter but within the confines of a D6 system it is about as fair as you will get. And remember it is evened out by the wounding and save rolls. A character with a ws of 6 st4 to4 3+save (HA Shield Hand weapon) is hitting a human ws 3 st3 to3 4+save (LA Shield). to hit this menas he has 67% chance to hit, 67% chance to wound, and the human has a 33% chance to save. this means overall he has a 30% chance to kill. now the human hits the charachter, 50% to hit, 33% to wound, 67% chance it is saved, which means the human has only a 5.5% chance to actually hurt the hero. when broken down this makes it look a lot more realistic, if the heros ws was 7 (so over 2x the Human) then the odds are 33% chance to hit, 33% chance to wound and 67% chance it is saved, wich gives a probability of only 4% that the human will cause a wound.

Now when you consider that in a real fight it is more the skill with which a weapon is wielded, rather then the strength behind the thrust that will decide if a wound is caused (ignoring the effect of armour) then you can see that strength vs toughness probably has to much importance compared to ws vs ws. I therefore dont consider the 2 in seperation, but instead in combination. As an aside, I would rather take a higher strength then a higher weaponskill any day, a ws improvement of 1 for the human above would not affect the combat, a strength increase would make him more likely to wound, and make the save less likely giving a total chance of causing a wound of 12.5%.

anyway enough of this my head hurts, and it is all irrelavant anyway, we all know no matter how hard your hero on a warhorse, the horse will kill more then the hero any day of the week.

Since Mad doc did such a good job of summarizing it is worth noting that the flank and rear bonuses are only gained at the end of the combat if the unit still has unit strength 5 after all blows have been struck.

Meph

ginric99 wrote:

HFJor wrote:Like Arctik_Firangi says, it gets easier once you play for a bit.

It may seem complicated at first glance, but it's really quite straightforward in practice.

The main issue I have with CC is the Close Combat To Hit table - it seems stupid that a character can't hit better than 67% even if their WS is >2x the unit he's hitting. Conversely, it seems silly that a model has a 50% chance of hitting even someone with twice his WS.

yes the stats are slightly out of kilter but within the confines of a D6 system it is about as fair as you will get. And remember it is evened out by the wounding and save rolls. A character with a ws of 6 st4 to4 3+save (HA Shield Hand weapon) is hitting a human ws 3 st3 to3 4+save (LA Shield). to hit this menas he has 67% chance to hit, 67% chance to wound, and the human has a 33% chance to save. this means overall he has a 30% chance to kill. now the human hits the charachter, 50% to hit, 33% to wound, 67% chance it is saved, which means the human has only a 5.5% chance to actually hurt the hero. when broken down this makes it look a lot more realistic, if the heros ws was 7 (so over 2x the Human) then the odds are 33% chance to hit, 33% chance to wound and 67% chance it is saved, wich gives a probability of only 4% that the human will cause a wound.

Now when you consider that in a real fight it is more the skill with which a weapon is wielded, rather then the strength behind the thrust that will decide if a wound is caused (ignoring the effect of armour) then you can see that strength vs toughness probably has to much importance compared to ws vs ws. I therefore dont consider the 2 in seperation, but instead in combination. As an aside, I would rather take a higher strength then a higher weaponskill any day, a ws improvement of 1 for the human above would not affect the combat, a strength increase would make him more likely to wound, and make the save less likely giving a total chance of causing a wound of 12.5%.

anyway enough of this my head hurts, and it is all irrelavant anyway, we all know no matter how hard your hero on a warhorse, the horse will kill more then the hero any day of the week.

That's the rub, though. The Strength v Toughness chart is that much more important, and having a higher strength becomes that much more important than Weapon Skill. I understand that the two go together (for obvious reasons), but generally the higher WS that many units have don't offset the points value that are normally attached to it, imo. Against WS3, WS4-6 are all the same, and yet generally, you pay a higher price for that stat increase. Even in a D6 system, you can make the To Hit table more dynamic than just 3+/4+/5+ to hit.

the only problem is then you'd hear everyone with a horde style army that lacks high WS models cry foul as all the models that used to hit elites on 5+ can now only do so on 6+ or that instead of being hit on 3+ they're now hit on 2+. Revamping the WS system would throw the balance between low WS units and high WS out the window and totally screw the point costs vs effectiveness balance backwards. That's the problem with GW's incremental army book release system: any massive changes in the game rules make it all but impossible for certain older army books to keep up with the newer ones released after the changes. Don't believe me? Look at IG for 40k... I personally would love to see the system updated, but unless GW did a mass army book release after the new rules came out it would totally shift the power in favor of elite style close combat armies because horde armies would no longer be able to contend at all in close combat..

themandudeperson wrote:the only problem is then you'd hear everyone with a horde style army that lacks high WS models cry foul as all the models that used to hit elites on 5+ can now only do so on 6+ or that instead of being hit on 3+ they're now hit on 2+. Revamping the WS system would throw the balance between low WS units and high WS out the window and totally screw the point costs vs effectiveness balance backwards. That's the problem with GW's incremental army book release system: any massive changes in the game rules make it all but impossible for certain older army books to keep up with the newer ones released after the changes. Don't believe me? Look at IG for 40k... I personally would love to see the system updated, but unless GW did a mass army book release after the new rules came out it would totally shift the power in favor of elite style close combat armies because horde armies would no longer be able to contend at all in close combat..

Oh, no doubt. I don't disagree with you at all in that regard.

If they were to change the WS system, they'd need to start completely fresh with a Ravening Hordes "basic" rule-set like they had for 40k.3e, there's no way they could "incrementally" adjust army books into a new system. I wouldn't dream of trying to have everything "catch up" to a new system. Either way, it'll be a long time before there's even a chance (microscopic as it is) of this kind of change happening.

Currently it's
Attacker's WS > Defender's WS: 3+
Attacker's WS <= Defender's WS: 4+
Attacker's WS < Defender's WS/2: 5+

Maybe this could work:

Attacker's WS > Defender's WS*2: 2+
Attacker's WS > Defender's WS: 3+
Attacker's WS <= Defender's WS: 4+
Attacker's WS < Defender's WS/2: 5+
Attacker's WS < Defender's WS/3: 6+

Attacker's WS
----1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10
-1| 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
-2| 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
-3| 5 4 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
-4| 6 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2
-5| 6 5 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3
-6| 6 6 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3
-7| 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 3
-8| 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 3
-9| 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 3
10| 6 6 6 5 4 4 4 4 4 4

I'm thinking that still makes high WS models very powerful, but it's a bit more realistic I'd say.. I do think it would make WS 7-10 models all powerful, but being that those are typically characters most of the point adjustments could be toward making high WS characters more expensive..