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.

While such a change seems drastic, would it help? The close combat to-hit chart seems like a sacred cow in 40k, but with shooting having gotten much deadlier since 3rd, IMO it makes sense. Especially because charges are now rarely guaranteed.

Not really. Shooting units usually suck at CC. A buff would arguably hurt assault armies by making them too killy. Thus sweeping and being open to the enemy. Twilit is would be nice to see the WS char changed it is at best a slight buff against shooty. It makes a bigger impact on CC forces versus CC and even then CC will usually be close WS thanks to having to compare WS. The biggest weakness of assault armies is difficulty in getting into the fight and then not getting blasted after sweeping.

Not really. The trick with melee units is getting into combat in the first place, actual combat performance is secondary, especially if you are charging into shooting units. In fact, against shooting units you almost want mediocre performance so combat will last two rounds, protecting you against shooting for the following round.

Assault needs a lot of ground up fixing. A new to hit chart is only part of it.

inb4 white knights galloping to GW's defence.

The problem isn't winning melee, but getting to it.

Phanixis wrote:
Not really. The trick with melee units is getting into combat in the first place, actual combat performance is secondary, especially if you are charging into shooting units. In fact, against shooting units you almost want mediocre performance so combat will last two rounds, protecting you against shooting for the following round.

Basically this. You want to be just Killy enough to kill them in their turn. The real problem is more due to lack of ways to get to assault well. Guns are extremely killy, you remove from the front, cover slows, charges are excessively random, can't assault out ofa stationary vehicle, etc. all of it merges to make an assault army suffer. There is a reason assault armies were restricted to things like stars that were both fast and tanks winning by shooting like crazy and grinding things down, Flying Daemon circus that shot like wild and finished with assaults using the single MC to enhance likelihood of it finishing in the enemy turn, and the only other CC beasts being things like seekers, hounds, and wraiths. Notice all are fast. Add to that, they often were at least somewhat tanky. Not the most but pretty good. If not they gained a +2 invuln from a herald. Add to that, screamers weren't that big in competitive likely due to fragility and being too killy

See the too Killy part never made sense. I would like a Rampage rule: If you won combat on the charge and wiped/swept the enemy, every enemy unit in 9 inches would have to take a fear test. Would that work?

I seriously am sad that Genestealers feel so unloved.

I think needing 3's to hit something whose WS is 2 points lower than yours is kind of silly. Mind you then that means if you're hitting on 2's rerolls are almost useless considering that you will make far less of them, so why bother trying to get them? VOTLW just got nerfed by accident if you do that.

Fortunately the only way to come up with a solid solution is playtesting.

Should at least be able to hit on 2's in assault if your WS at least doubles your opponent, though there is the advantage that the worst they can do is 5.

3-5 or 2-6 like shooting.

Tough call.

They just need to change it to the following:


WS = WS: 4 to hit

WS 1 or 2 higher 3 to hit

WS 3 or more higher 2 to hit

WS 2 or 3 lower 5 to hit

WS 4 or more lower 6 to hit



Means you can always get lucky hits in, but makes high WS not a waste of points.

Mind you, I've never felt like my Daemon Prince was ever a waste of points in CC, no matter how poorly he rolls, eventually he rolls decent, and even a decent roll is going to smash through pretty much anything.

I think there's still this rampant misconception that close combat needs to be fixed. It doesn't. It works just fine.

I do not like the current chart and I think it is better to use the same chart for both to Hit and to Wound.

However, it is a big change, and you need to do a lot of other changes to compensate.

 AdeptSister wrote:
See the too Killy part never made sense. I would like a Rampage rule: If you won combat on the charge and wiped/swept the enemy, every enemy unit in 9 inches would have to take a fear test. Would that work?

I seriously am sad that Genestealers feel so unloved.

Is there anyone still on the table that is actually subject to Fear any more?

 Jimsolo wrote:
I think there's still this rampant misconception that close combat needs to be fixed. It doesn't. It works just fine.

Aren't you the guy who thinks that the game is secretly balanced but that nobody knows it?

Because if you are that makes me doubt anything you say.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I think there's still this rampant misconception that close combat needs to be fixed. It doesn't. It works just fine.

Please explain. I honestly cannot see it. WS seems way too overpriced right now.

Shooting in itself is fine, but melee is wtfpwn'd just like in 6th.

Yes once you get into melee its usually fine, but thats the issue - getting there. Outside Deathstar level units or biker units, most of them cannot survive or move fast enough to reach combat...and if they do they usually JUST got range aaaaand overwatch'd enough to fail the charge by 1" again.

Also what AdeptSister said. Models with higher than WS4 seem insanely expensive for not much of a boon, since you cannot hit on a 2+ in melee so who cares if im WS9 and youre WS5? you still hit on 4s and i still hit on 3s.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I think there's still this rampant misconception that close combat needs to be fixed. It doesn't. It works just fine.

A Genestealer hits a Tau Fire Warrior on a 3+ (66%), and a Fire Warrior hits a Genestealer with a 5+ (33%). Given that they are the epitome of a close combat specialist and a ranged specialist with no close combat skill at all, the gap should be far wider. It gets dumber the higher you get: an Avatar, the personification of war, hits a Gretchin on 3+ (two out of three times) and the Gretchin strikes back with a 5+.

A common example: a Tau Fire Warrior hits a Space Marine with a 4+. A Space Marine (WS4) hits the Fire Warrior (WS2) with a 3+, and another Space Marine with a 4+. If the Space Marines manage to get to the Fire Warriors and a vicious close combat starts, it should be a massacre.


In short, having +1 WS is, in most cases, completely pointless. Due to the To Hit Chart. I think it needs to be redesigned.

The same applies to BS from 6 to 10.

Highly agreed. I've said before that the WS chart is very badly designed. The fact that the best WS stats in the game are 5 and 9 is very telling. If you're above 5 but not at 9, part of the points you paid for the unit are just a tax in literally 99% of games.

eg the only time an Eldar avatar has ever cared about that last point of WS is when fighting a daemon prince or lelith hesperax. That's two models that I can think of where his WS 10 does anything at all beyond what 9 already does.

Oh, I suppose he cares about other avatars hitting him on 4's instead of 3's as well...

Even the good break points of the WS chart are hardly worthwhile. A point of BS affects your offensive output every round for the whole game. A point of WS may or may not do anything at all the entire game, and it ONLY gets a chance to when you finally make it to combat.