-1 to hit army traits...What are they thinking?

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.

**Arachnofiend**

Grimgold wrote:
At a guess, they figured if you care about the attack you'll have re-roll to hits, and since the IoM and Chaos get those like it was half off on a fire sale they are probably right. Also they figured that people would do math and see abilities like disgustingly resilient are way better, silly GW on that one though.

A BS 3+ (and let's face it almost all of the game is 3+) unit shooting generally has a 66% chance to hit, but is reduced to 50%. With reroll misses, it drops from 88% to 75%. That's about a 15% reduction in damage taken. Compare it to a 5+ FnP (a straight 33% reduction in damage taken) and you can see it's pretty weaksauce. Even at a 4+, it's 50% to 37% (26% reduction in incoming damage) without rerolls and 75% to 56% (25% reduction in incoming damage), neither of which achieve the levels of defense provided by disgustingly resilient.

I doubt you'll find many people on these board arguing that disgustingly resilient is OP, so it doesn't make much sense to argue an ability that is mathematically inferior, and can be bypassed by positioning is OP ethier.

The problem is one of psychology, you will miss more shots due to the -1 to hit than people will make DR rolls. The monkey brain thinks more is more powerful, despite the fact that missed shots would still have to roll to wound and have to fail an armor save. So it seems more efficacious in the minds of players, despite being inferior mathematically.

I generally agree, though this goes out the window now that we know that non-marine armies are gonna get the trait on their fliers. -1 to hit is a fairly reasonable penalty (though it is still pretty much always the best trait when available), -2 to hit though...

**Xenomancers**

Grimgold wrote:
At a guess, they figured if you care about the attack you'll have re-roll to hits, and since the IoM and Chaos get those like it was half off on a fire sale they are probably right. Also they figured that people would do math and see abilities like disgustingly resilient are way better, silly GW on that one though.

A BS 3+ (and let's face it almost all of the game is 3+) unit shooting generally has a 66% chance to hit, but is reduced to 50%. With reroll misses, it drops from 88% to 75%. That's about a 15% reduction in damage taken. Compare it to a 5+ FnP (a straight 33% reduction in damage taken) and you can see it's pretty weaksauce. Even at a 4+, it's 50% to 37% (26% reduction in incoming damage) without rerolls and 75% to 56% (25% reduction in incoming damage), neither of which achieve the levels of defense provided by disgustingly resilient.

I doubt you'll find many people on these board arguing that disgustingly resilient is OP, so it doesn't make much sense to argue an ability that is mathematically inferior, and can be bypassed by positioning is OP ethier.

The problem is one of psychology, you will miss more shots due to the -1 to hit than people will make DR rolls. The monkey brain thinks more is more powerful, despite the fact that missed shots would still have to roll to wound and have to fail an armor save. So it seems more efficacious in the minds of players, despite being inferior mathematically.

Most people on this board think DG are under-powered. I know how strong they are. Not fair to call the ability inferior ether. On units that have natural -1 to hit - Their damage reduction becomes far superior. It would also be pretty hard to factor but FNP rolls occur after rolls for damage are taken so a lot of times you will have to take 2 FNP rolls to save a 1 wound model (a 2 damage shot). There is also the issue with overcharging weapons blowing up more on the user.

**Grimgold**

I kind of hate flyers, so I'm probably biased on this, but I think the flyer rules are horrible to begin with. The fact I'll have more reason to hate flyers doesn't really sour me on the base rule.

With that said, the easy answer is that minuses to hit don't stack.

**Breng77**

Xenomancers wrote:
Breng77 wrote:
-1 to hit is not unbalanced, it is a good balancing factor to turn 1 alpha strike armies. The issue is Stacking to hit bonuses beyond -1. Further the fact that several of the -1 to hit armies also get the best army specific stratagems (CSM and Marines at least both get the infiltrate stratagem.) is an issue with faction balance.

Stacking is the main problem for 3+ armies - but 4+ armies are pretty boned by the 5+ to hit.

No stacking is the main problem for all armies. Gunline 4+ armies hitting things more than 12" away on a 5+ is fine, as it mitigates alpha strike gunline armies effectiveness. Which is good for the game. Stacking where those armies hit on a 6+ or not at all, is bad for the game.

It is good for assault armies because it reduces the effectiveness of static gunlines that sit behind chaff, and shooting that doesn't require LOS (typically long range) in the general meta. The issue is that these armies are also the most effective assault armies because they have the infiltrate stratagems along with the - 1 to hit. So the natural counter to these armies belongs to those same armies. So they end up being the only ones taken barring super buff characters.

**Xenomancers**

Grimgold wrote:
I kind of hate flyers, so I'm probably biased on this, but I think the flyer rules are horrible to begin with. The fact I'll have more reason to hate flyers doesn't really sour me on the base rule.

With that said, the easy answer is that minuses to hit don't stack.

In my OP I stated that would be my preferred secondary solution. I'd prefer a defensive buff not scale with enemy BS though - that is just flat unfair IMO.

**Bharring**

It hurts AM most - which are currently considered top dog.

SM aren't affected as much - because they are BS4.

Funnily enough, Tac squads are BS4, and typically want to move up to wihtin 12" to shoot. So everyone's favorite unit actually does fairly well against it.

It would help Assault armies that can't assume a turn-1 charge. If Ork Boyz could get it, it'd be scary. You'd either have to move up and all but give them the charge if you failed to finish them (what can't cover 12" between moving and charging?), or you stay put and lose a decent chunk of your shooting.

I don't like it. I thought it was OP when RG got it, even worse for AL, and at a whole new level for CWE. But it hurts the top dogs, and doesn't affect much of the bottom of the pack.

**Galef**

Another point that I am not sure has been addressed here is how re-rolls work before modifiers.
Meaning that if something is BS3+ with a -1 to hit modifier and a re-roll, any natural 3+ rolls cannot be rerolled as they technically counts as a successful hit before the modifier.

It really should be the player's choice when to apply modifiers. That would help make -1 to hit not such a hard pill to swallow.

**Grimgold**

Xenomancers wrote:

Most people on this board think DG are under-powered. I know how strong they are. Not fair to call the ability inferior ether. On units that have natural -1 to hit - Their damage reduction becomes far superior. It would also be pretty hard to factor but FNP rolls occur after rolls for damage are taken so a lot of times you will have to take 2 FNP rolls to save a 1 wound model (a 2 damage shot). There is also the issue with overcharging weapons blowing up more on the user.

I showed in my prior post why -1 to hit is worse in terms of damage prevention, but just to walk you down the garden path of the math, we'll do 100 bolter shots against 2 different groups of chaos marines, the first a group of sneaky alpha legion and the second a group of hideously deformed plague marines:

Alpha legion gives a -1 to hit, so the math is like this:
1/2 (to hit) * 1/2 (To wound) * 1/3 (failed armor save) = 1/12th, so it takes 12 shots to get a wound thru, so for 100 bolter shots you get 8.3 unsaved wounds.

DG have DR so the math goes like this:
2/3 (to hit) * 1/2 (to wound) * 1/3 (failed armor save) * 2/3 (failed DR) = 2/27 so for every 27 shots two wounds get thru, so in 100 bolter shots you get 7.4 unsaved wounds.

It can also be completely negated by being within 12", which does not apply to DR. As for plasma, if your in rapid fire range the -1 to hit doesn't apply, so DR is the clear winner there as well.

**Bharring**

Well, that's DG.

Other FnP attributes are 6+++, not 5+++.

Besides, there is the inverse case of a 2W weapon hitting a 2W model. A 5+++ on Termies eating overcharged Plasma is about double the durability.

**sfshilo**

Breng77 wrote:
-1 to hit is not unbalanced, it is a good balancing factor to turn 1 alpha strike armies. The issue is Stacking to hit bonuses beyond -1. Further the fact that several of the -1 to hit armies also get the best army specific stratagems (CSM and Marines at least both get the infiltrate stratagem.) is an issue with faction balance.

Balancing alpha strike is best done with deployment limitations in the mission or by making the targets harder to kill (transports). Those alpha strike armies are often putting down a sick amount of firepower at low Strength, the -1 to hit is really not going to do a lot. This in turn is countered by small mobile armies or armies that wield anti-transport firepower. These are all good mechanics in the game. (I'm glad chapter approved is bringing over the AoS missions, they are much more balanced and force you to not just net list to win.)

I really don't think -1 to hit is an issue imo, now if an army comes out that is -1 to hit at all times? That's broke. So far it's been either a single phase, or a range limited thing, both of which have options to counter. (Hit them in the face or shoot them in the face.) Age of Sigmar has one army build like that (-1 to hit all the time) and it doesn't break the game because it's slower to slow and cannot really chase anything down.

**Xenomancers**

Grimgold wrote:
Xenomancers wrote:

Most people on this board think DG are under-powered. I know how strong they are. Not fair to call the ability inferior ether. On units that have natural -1 to hit - Their damage reduction becomes far superior. It would also be pretty hard to factor but FNP rolls occur after rolls for damage are taken so a lot of times you will have to take 2 FNP rolls to save a 1 wound model (a 2 damage shot). There is also the issue with overcharging weapons blowing up more on the user.

I showed in my prior post why -1 to hit is worse in terms of damage prevention, but just to walk you down the garden path of the math, we'll do 100 bolter shots against 2 different groups of chaos marines, the first a group of sneaky alpha legion and the second a group of hideously deformed plague marines:

Alpha legion gives a -1 to hit, so the math is like this:
1/2 (to hit) * 1/2 (To wound) * 1/3 (failed armor save) = 1/12th, so it takes 12 shots to get a wound thru, so for 100 bolter shots you get 8.3 unsaved wounds.

DG have DR so the math goes like this:
2/3 (to hit) * 1/2 (to wound) * 1/3 (failed armor save) * 2/3 (failed DR) = 2/27 so for every 27 shots two wounds get thru, so in 100 bolter shots you get 7.4 unsaved wounds.

It can also be completely negated by being within 12", which does not apply to DR. As for plasma, if your in rapid fire range the -1 to hit doesn't apply, so DR is the clear winner there as well.

I was specifically talking about -2 to hit. Natural -1 plus the army trait. Also more to your point. If DG wasn't slow AF people would talk about how broken they are. Plus I am seeing a fair amount of DG stuff showing up in GT top 10's. That is a lot of CSM models though - a lot of them using -1 to hit traits themselves.

Also - love the no country for old men image - I love that movie - you made me laugh

**daedalus**

There's no problem with things getting -1 to hit. It should have never been able to stack though, let alone have been a design decision for codexes to be largely based around it.

**Martel732**

Maybe GW expects the BA codex to balance this out.

**TwinPoleTheory**

Xenomancers wrote:
So heres what am picking up from the responses. -1 to hit everywhere is good for the game because it helps assault armies?

Cherry picking.

It's more accurate to say that -1 to hit has the most impact on static gun line armies, exactly the spot where it's designed to have the most impact.

Against non-static armies, given an average starting distance of 24" from your opponent's front line, it's effectiveness is not a binary argument.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grimgold wrote:
I doubt you'll find many people on these board arguing that disgustingly resilient is OP, so it doesn't make much sense to argue an ability that is mathematically inferior, and can be bypassed by positioning is OP ethier.

DR applies on a per wound basis and may not negate an entire attack.

-1 to hit applies on a per attack basis and may negate the entire attack.

It's worth discussing from a balance standpoint, but it is a bit apples and oranges.

**Valentine009**

Yeah - no question about it ether - Space marines and Admech would have this as their go to trait if not for the presence of Cawl an Guilliman/Azreal (who offer more through having amazing auras).

I'm actually not sure about that.

My possible Mechanicus force is looking a Lucius, for the neato deepstrike stratagem and the ignoring -1 save guns (mostly for fluff reasons); Mars, and not for Cawl but rather two uses of Canticles of the Omnissiah (imagine if Guard could double their orders for free and cast 2 on the same unit...); Stygies (because frankly -1 to hit outside of 12" is hilariously good)... well really all of them. I have a reason for liking each one. Even Graia I like because of the stratagem to 50/50 deny an enemy psy power. That seems funny.

While the deepstriking shenanigans sound awesome, there is not much you would actually want to deepstrike aside from Electropriests, Ruststalkers and Punchy Kastellans. Electropriests are super fragile, so it is a huge risk if you dont get first turn, Ruststalkers are just kind of bad (take infiltrators and get deepstrike for free) and Punchy Kastellans are good and tanky, but outclassed by thier shooty brethren. This on top of the fact that Admech is INCREDIBLE CP dependent means that the ability to deepstrike is just not as good as it is with other armies.

The thing that really makes specific forgeworlds good is thier forgeworld specific stratagem. You take mars for full rerolls with Cawl and the Fury of Mars strategem, not the 2 canticles (which are frankly not that useful). Ryza is competitive, just because the +1 to wound, +1 damage with Plasma stratagem is so strong.

Segwaying off of that, the thing that bothers me about -1 to hit is how good it is against models that depend on rolling gimmicks, aka tesla weapons and plasma (both of which Admech has). With -1 to hit those procs become impossible, or disproportionally worse.

**Grimgold**

TwinPoleTheory wrote:

DR applies on a per wound basis and may not negate an entire attack.

-1 to hit applies on a per attack basis and may negate the entire attack.

It's worth discussing from a balance standpoint, but it is a bit apples and oranges.

The only case where it is substantially different is when shooting multiple wound weapons at single wound targets, which in fairness is an edge case. If someone is using las cannons to take out your plague marines, they are being very wasteful with their firepower. Still, If they use Las cannons on your ICs/dreads the math still applies in more or less the same way.

**craftworld_uk**

Look at it as a challenge. Include more close combat, fast and/or deep striking units to get up close quicker.

**warhead01**

I play Orks and don't really see the -1 to hit as much of a problem. But it really depends on just what I'm fighting.
If I am able to engage it in close combat then I'm good. If it's shooting I bring artillery with bs 4+ so it's doable. And I bring burnas and scrochas so there's lots of auto hits in there.
As long as I can balance that then I'm comfortable with my chances.

**Fafnir**

GW realized that they made 8th edition too far skewed to shooting, leaving melee at it's core too risky, weak, and prone to alpha strikes to be competitive.

So they threw a bandaid on the issue by tossing -1 to hit from shooting to everyone and their dog. I wouldn't say that it's working as intended, but I'd hardly call it game breaking.

**BoomWolf**

Well, much like some of the Tau's old 7th tricks-it only works against people who are themselves trying to pull something not too friendly to begin with (to remind you: "Tau OP! they can intercept everything and always get first shot!", well yea-but it only works when YOU tried to pull an "always get first shot" by deepstrike, if you didn't its wasted points.)

The range penalty trait only works against someone who goes "feth this, I'm not even TRYING to engage at melee, or even up close shooting"
And quite honestly, the game was never intended for gunline.
Even the shootiest army that is tau, always had some level of getting close to seal the deal, be it with suits, breacher or whatnot.
Because NOT doing it is getting old fast.

So now the range penalty comes along and says "well, if you plan to sit back and shoot all day, I got bad news for ya!, but if you come at my face, I got no trait."
Its basically a meta-balancing factor. the more gunlines dominate, the more powerful the trait becomes and ergo more common, and that directly leads to melee/point blank being better BECAUSE they practically ignore this trait.

Given that these days some units can even assault planes (and do a decent job at it), there are no excuses left to why assault CANT work. especially when so supposedly "broken trait", doesn't even work against assault armies.

**Leo_the_Rat**

Fafnir wrote:
GW realized that they made 8th edition too far skewed to shooting, leaving melee at it's core too risky, weak, and prone to alpha strikes to be competitive.

So they threw a bandaid on the issue by tossing -1 to hit from shooting to everyone and their dog. I wouldn't say that it's working as intended, but I'd hardly call it game breaking.

It seems that GKs are not anyone nor their dogs.

**BaconCatBug**

Simple solution, change the to hit/to wound/to save mechanic to a D12. That way modifiers are an 8.3% mod instead of 16.6% mod. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/743515.page

Basically, anywhere that needs a 2+ to hit/wound/save right now would instead need a 3+ on a D12, 3+ to 5+, 4+ to 7+, 5+ to 9+ and 6+ to 11+

**Kaiyanwang**

Galef wrote:
Another point that I am not sure has been addressed here is how re-rolls work before modifiers.
Meaning that if something is BS3+ with a -1 to hit modifier and a re-roll, any natural 3+ rolls cannot be rerolled as they technically counts as a successful hit before the modifier.

It really should be the player's choice when to apply modifiers. That would help make -1 to hit not such a hard pill to swallow.

That one is quite maddening too, yes. Good point.

**Infantryman**

Fafnir wrote:GW realized that they made 8th edition too far skewed to shooting, leaving melee at it's core too risky, weak, and prone to alpha strikes to be competitive.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NeverBringAKnifeToAGunFight

BaconCatBug wrote:Simple solution, change the to hit/to wound/to save mechanic to a D12. That way modifiers are an 8.3% mod instead of 16.6% mod. https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/743515.page

Basically, anywhere that needs a 2+ to hit/wound/save right now would instead need a 3+ on a D12, 3+ to 5+, 4+ to 7+, 5+ to 9+ and 6+ to 11+

Inclined to agree. The 1d6 is the biggest holdback. Maybe if they did something like FAD's system the d6 would still be useful, but I think it's a bit beyond most Warhammer players (involves division!).

M.

**Fafnir**

Yes, close combat on any large scale in the 41st millennium is silly. But Warhammer 40k is silly and fantastical, and the game is meant to represent that. It's a setting where sheer force of will and rule of cool make a chainsword a tactically viable weapon alongside mortars. If the game is meant to represent that wildly indulgent fluff, bringing that knife to the gunfight needs to be a viable option.

**Arachnofiend**

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Fafnir wrote:
GW realized that they made 8th edition too far skewed to shooting, leaving melee at it's core too risky, weak, and prone to alpha strikes to be competitive.

So they threw a bandaid on the issue by tossing -1 to hit from shooting to everyone and their dog. I wouldn't say that it's working as intended, but I'd hardly call it game breaking.

It seems that GKs are not anyone nor their dogs.

I mean, GKs are a subfaction of Space Marines and Space Marines got it. The only major faction that didn't get the -1 to hit rule so far is Guard, because obviously you're not going to give a rule designed to counter "sit back and shoot" armies to an army that does absolutely nothing except sit back and shoot.

**Fafnir**

I have to say, GK not getting a -1 to hit rule is kind of weird when you think about it, since they were the first faction to get something like that all the way back in 3rd edition with The Shrouding.

**Galef**

Martel732 wrote:
Maybe GW expects the BA codex to balance this out.

HA! Good one as usual Martel.

-

**Infantryman**

Fafnir wrote:
Yes, close combat on any large scale in the 41st millennium is silly. But Warhammer 40k is silly and fantastical, and the game is meant to represent that. It's a setting where sheer force of will and rule of cool make a chainsword a tactically viable weapon alongside mortars. If the game is meant to represent that wildly indulgent fluff, bringing that knife to the gunfight needs to be a viable option.

True, I do agree.

M.

**sennacherib**

I guess in the next chapter approved were are going to have to see some special space marine traits to help balance this out Right?