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.

So I've been thinking a lot about tweaks that could be made to the Core Rules/Army Books that could make for somewhat more dynamic unit options, etc.

One of the most glaring issues, imo, is the WS To Hit table. It seems silly to me that someone whose close combat skills are half that of his opponent has a 50% chance to hit while his opponent has a mere 16% improvement likewise. As such, I thought it'd be more interesting to add a bigger dynamic range in the "To Hit" Table. Here's my preliminary thought:




Thoughts behind this:

I figured I'd go with the trend of never better than a 2+ and never worse than a 6+ with this (hey, everyone can get a lucky shot). As you can see, it's MUCH harsher to have a great disparity between WS's. Basically, if your opponent is 2 or more WS points higher than you, you'll now be hitting on 5's. Worse yet, if your opponent is more than 2x your WS, you'll now only have a 1/6 chance to hit them, and conversely, they're just so much better than you they'll be hitting you on 2+'s.

There're obvious "break-points" where these more drastic To Hit's come up, and that's at the odd numbered WS's (3, 5, 7, 9) for the most part. At a practical level, mostly only the WS7 and 9 units will really benefit, since there are relatively few WS1 or WS2 units to really benefit most WS3/5 units, and the WS7/9 units are very rare overall (barring characters). Of course, there would need to be some points adjustments for units to compensate, but overall, I think it would open up more options for unit survivability/fighting ability in the game.


Thoughts?

I think they balanced sooooo many units off the current WS tables. And for whatever reason, they hand out mega high WS just for kicks sometimes, I think because, as you pointed out, there's no real effect.

A Bloodthirster has a WS of 10 T6 and a 5+ Ward with 5 Wounds. He also strikes at I9. I don't feel like doing the math, but he can basically walk through a near infinite amount of infantry using that table above. And not even BAD infantry. Ogres have a WS of 3.

Skaven Deathmaster Snikch has a WS of 8 and only costs 270.

I think your point is that WS doesn't mean a whole lot currently. I agree, it doesn't. But it's really combined with Str vs. Toughness + armor +ward. Not only that, but the stat goes really high for whatever reason.

Think of BS. If your change were implemented, an average shooter with a BS of 3 would be vastly better than an WS of 3.

There's going to be a whole lot of missing if this went in, and ultra WS characters and monsters will totally trash rank and file. War Machines will be godlike again by extension because they're the only things that can kill.

tl;dr if you want to make WS more meaningful, and right now it isn't very meaningful, you'd have to readjust a lot of the units out there, because some of the numbers seem completely arbitrary.

DukeRustfield wrote:tl;dr if you want to make WS more meaningful, and right now it isn't very meaningful, you'd have to readjust a lot of the units out there, because some of the numbers seem completely arbitrary.

I agree! And this exercise is mostly an attempt to make a complete set of "House Rules" of 8th Edition for myself/some friends, so that point is understood. As it stands, definitely can't just use this Table w/ 8th Edition and hope for the best with current Army-books.

But in and of itself, assuming that units and everything else get adjusted accordingly, does it look reasonable?

If you're redoing stuff, why not make a 12 point scale? That might give you a bit more freedom to make it "even"?

With no context it's hard to say what is right and wrong. But like I said, BS becomes much more powerful. Because 3 is about average BS and they got a 50% to hit. But 3 WS is going to have probably at best a 50% to hit and fair a lot worse most of the time.

I'd take away some of the 6+ range and put it in 5+.
I would also shrink the 2+ range down just a little.
If you want to add 2 and 6 to the chart, they should be a little more uncommon.

-Matt

Kinda agree, with models with obscene WS, this chart makes them very very powerful

DukeRustfield wrote:With no context it's hard to say what is right and wrong. But like I said, BS becomes much more powerful. Because 3 is about average BS and they got a 50% to hit.

If someone is charging at you at long range thats a +6 to hit though, theres a lot of modifiers out there

I agree that the WS table needs to be changed. Yours is not bad, I would be willing to use it.

In the end, most things are WS 3 or 4, so there isn't a big change. And if my WS TRIPLES yours I better have a pretty easy time hitting you.

One thing I might add though is the Large target rule for CC as well. Make it 1 easier to hit a large target in CC to help those poor little gobbos hit the big nasties.

The only major problem I could see with doing this (aside from screwing up the proper points costs of WS2 and WS5+ units) would be that it'd make characters a lot harder for ordinary RnF to wound, thus making them more powerful almost across the board and raising the spectre of "Herohammer", dominated by combat monsters like Red Thirst/Infinite Hatred Vampire Lords. Of course, other 8th Ed. rules would still make it almost impossible for them to take on entire infantry blocks alone, but given any sort of token "bodyguard" of mooks, monstrous mount, or Stubborn, they could do obscene damage with little fear of dying because they'd so often be hit on 6s. And then there are monsters like the Bloodthirster ... I don't want to think about that. Fencer's Blades would become arguably the strongest item in the game overnight .

But I do see your point. It is a bit frustrating when my Skeletons are engaged with an enemy unit which finally fails a Fear test and all it does is make them hit the Skellies on 4s--so cowering in fear only reduces combat effectiveness by 17%, right?--or the fact that things like Skavenslaves don't suffer all that much for having WS2, there being no difference between 2 and 3 against a WS4 or better opponent, even though they're apparently meant to be truly terrible in close combat. So, broadly, I think this should be looked at, but I think any change to the table needs to be made in the context of other changes which will keep powerful characters in check.

I've always wondered where GW got their To Hit numbers from.

Maybe the idea stems from medieval combat scenarios; the "swirling melee". A bunch of dudes sort of piling on top of each other.

That, and I can testify from personal combat experience-- training first makes it easier to hit a guy, and second makes it easier to avoid getting hit.

But hey, you've got one solid table. Maybe it's time to write your own war game system?

Warpsolution wrote:But hey, you've got one solid table. Maybe it's time to write your own war game system?

That's partly the idea


Actually, from my understanding, the table was closer to the one I proposed above in the earlier incarnations of WFB. The case of Hero-hammer caused them to nerf to WS To Hit Table in response from what I've read/heard.

I quite like your table, yes it makes the special stuff (bloodthirsters, blood knight vampires, and named characters) really powerful, but aren't they supposed to be?

I think with the % system for points, with the current trends for deathstars and large blocks with ranks, most of these special characters are NOT worth their points without a hero delivery system. . . which is sad.

So the problem with this chart would only be with very high WS creatures that can hide in units. Last I checked they take at least 1-2 turns before in combat and few have more than 4-5 attacks. So over 4 rounds of combat they kill maybe 15 models, is that really too ridiculous for a Bloodthirster?

Also should the greatest of ninja of Skaven history be able to be hit by regular (even elite) warriors on a 4+?

I think in the horde armies I have been facing in eighth this chart would not make them too ridiculous, merely epic. Which they should be.

However I would second the +1 to hit large targets in close combat.

Interesting, although i do think it punishes low WS models un-fairly so.

models with WS4 and lower would have to take a massive points reduction accross the board to balance this out.

The list really looks likes it'd benefit a lot of high-WS armies, and punish a lot of low-WS ones.

If we saw model point changes to go along with it (I wouldn't even pay 4pts / Skelly with this table), I'm more game. As it is, though, stuff like elite Elf armies, Daemons, Chaos Warriors, and so-on get major buffs, while infantry armies for things like Vampire Counts, Orcs, Skaven... anything that wouldn't reliably have WS4 infantry is going to start taking hits.

@Minsc - I definitely agree. These changes would really rely on a game-wide reshuffling of stat-lines/points values. As mentioned many times, this would NOT be used with stat lines "as is"

To be devil's advocate as usual, what are you trying to do?

What do you see opening an army book under WS that makes you feel it should be changed? If I may, you seem more concerned that a big difference doesn't have a huge effect. But the designers knew that. They made the to-hits much more forgiving than to-wound. In a way that's probably pretty accurate. You give me a plastic sword against the greatest swordsman that ever lived, and I bet I can hit him SOMEWHERE, it just won't do anything and he'll chop my head off.

I'm just saying the numerical difference, is even fluffier than most stuff. It doesn't mean a whole lot. Some models have seemingly arbitrary values, but even if they didn't, it's not going to affect things terribly much.

The BRB lists a generic sword for 35pts that makes you 10WS. From no matter what you started at. Str and Atks items are massively more expensive.

It's just kind of a throwaway chart to initiate combat. If it even worked like the To-Wound charts, combat would take a LOT longer.

actually, i think combat would be shorter.

alot shorter

DukeRustfield wrote:To be devil's advocate as usual, what are you trying to do?

See above.

What do you see opening an army book under WS that makes you feel it should be changed? If I may, you seem more concerned that a big difference doesn't have a huge effect. But the designers knew that. They made the to-hits much more forgiving than to-wound. In a way that's probably pretty accurate. You give me a plastic sword against the greatest swordsman that ever lived, and I bet I can hit him SOMEWHERE, it just won't do anything and he'll chop my head off.

What I see is that some units seem to pay for these buffs in their WS that are negligible at best. I would argue that your chances of hitting a master swordsman shrink dramatically with greater skill-disparity, though as mentioned in the first post, I left the chance to always hit on a 6+ on the table. I'm sure there's always a fluke hit that catches them offguard. I just suspect it's FAR less than the 33% chance of likelihood that the current WS 'to-Hit' table suggests.

I'm just saying the numerical difference, is even fluffier than most stuff. It doesn't mean a whole lot. Some models have seemingly arbitrary values, but even if they didn't, it's not going to affect things terribly much.

The BRB lists a generic sword for 35pts that makes you 10WS. From no matter what you started at. Str and Atks items are massively more expensive.

I think part of the problem is that the WS stats in the army books are fairly arbitrary and for the most part don't add to the the game as much as they could (IMO). And I agree, Strength and Attacks bonuses tend to be considerably more important in a statline than WS. This, to re-iterate, is one impetus behind this Table, as I would like to see WS be a more important statline.

It's just kind of a throwaway chart to initiate combat. If it even worked like the To-Wound charts, combat would take a LOT longer.

I would argue with this last point. It would generally mean less of a "meat-grinder" combat, sure, but there's no more rolling required than currently (on average, at least. In general lesser WS will hit less and greater WS units will hit more often), just a different table to adjust to.

As you've already recognised, back in the earliest days of Warhammer the WS table used to be a lot like your proposal. They got rid of it because it was felt powerful characters and monsters were requiring player to roll unbelievably well to inflict a single wound - from what I've been told you'd need a 6+ to hit, then a 6+ to wound, then a 1 to pass their armour save, and you'd have to do that 3 or more times to kill them.

To give rank and file troops some hope of winning, they flattened out the WS table.

It doesn't really help much for simulation, because frankly high WS characters are going to be hit a lot less than 1/2 the time, but it stopped characters being quite so immune to rank and file troops. To actually represent high WS, GW has added a load of special rules over the years - look at elite High Elf troops for instance - at one point the game designers thought their WS 5 was enough to make them elite, but noticed that any decent Str, decent T troops would absolutely munch them. So, for Swordmasters for instance, over time they gave them the ability to use great weapons and strike at normal initiative, then gave them an extra attack, then let them strike first regardless, and now have them rerolling to hit as well. So even though the WS number itself doesn't mean much, there's a lot represented by WS that isn't all in that WS stat.


As for general suggestions in how to use the table, I'd suggest making it a little simpler by making the rules consistent. If we take 4+ as the default roll, you then have a rule for 5+ based on the flat difference between the two, and also a rule for 6+ based on one being double the other. Meanwhile hitting on a 3+ is based on just being higher WS, while 2+ is again based on being double the WS. It'd be a bit hard to get used to, and I think a more casual or less rules intense players would never really get around it entirely, I predict people would still be referencing the table after dozens of games, something you don't see much with the current, simpler WS table.

So perhaps you keep the idea, but streamline it? Perhaps just make it all based on intervals of 2? So that if your WS is better by 4 or more you hit on a 2+, if it's 2 or more better you hit on a 3+, 2 or more worse and you hit on a 5+, 4 or more worse and you hit on a 6+ (this would actually make it pretty similar to the now defunct Confrontation).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rhamiel wrote:But I do see your point. It is a bit frustrating when my Skeletons are engaged with an enemy unit which finally fails a Fear test and all it does is make them hit the Skellies on 4s--so cowering in fear only reduces combat effectiveness by 17%, right?

25% less effective. You don't measure by the total number of results on the dice, but the change in the number of expected hits. Going from 3+ to 4+ reduces the expected number of hits by 25%

I agree, though, that it's stuff all.

Jin wrote:What I see is that some units seem to pay for these buffs in their WS that are negligible at best.

I don't see this. It seems to be treated as a kind of bonus.

Chaos Warriors aren't pricey for their WS5.
Saurus Warriors aren't cheap for thier WS3.
Ogre Bulls are definately not cheap for their WS3.
Daemonettes aren't pricey for their WS5.

I can't really think of any units where WS made some noticeable cost change or seemed really out of line. All the above units have their costs for their other stats and abilities.

Granted this table didn't work back in 6th and earlier and It would be nice now to see ws become important again.
Other than massive cost overhaul I can't see a way for this to help rank and files get balanced again.

However part of the reason that this didn't work and you had hero hammer was that a hero would only be taking 2-3 attacks back on a charge and 5 or so when receiving, making the 6,6,1 really punishing. Now with the advent of supporting attacks even basic squad could get 6 attacks reliably and 9 in spear blocks making 6,6,1 easier to hit.

It's still unbalanced and it's going to make bigger heroes really hard to take down, but only for lords and certain armies.
Chaos will be hard as ever, VC as well, but lots of other high ws lists like elves wont have the toughness to back this up. Sure hitting on sixes but wounding on 4 or 3 with average strengths.

This (in my humble opinion) would not be a bad thing, I'd love to see powerful characters as powerful as they once were but it would mess up a lot of the basic combat to no end.