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.

Spent yet another game taking 2.5 game turns (so, literally half the game) stuck in an assault that eventually worked out exactly the way we predicted (based on expected averages) it would. For the record, I lost that combat.

Why can't we arrive at the same conclusion, but faster? The Assault Phase of the game does not play at anywhere near the speed (tempo may be a better word to use?) of the Shooting Phase.

One of the things that stands in the way of speeding up combat is the to-hit chart.

I'll forego the reasoning and just put out the proposal:

WS 4 v 4 (equal) = 3's to hit on both sides (anytime WS is equal it's 3's)
WS 3 v 4 (plus one) = 4's to hit for the WS3 and 3's to hit for the WS4
WS 2 v 4 (double) = 5's to hit for the WS2 and 2's to hit for the WS4
WS 2 v 5 (double plus one) = 6's to hit for the WS2 and 2's to hit for the WS5, with rerolls for the WS5, hitting on 5's
WS 2 v 6 (triple) = 6's to hit for the WS2 and 2's to hit for the WS6, with rerolls for the WS6, hitting on 3's
WS 2 v 7 (triple plus one) = 6's to hit for the WS2 and AUTOHITS for the WS7

So: Rather than keep the status quo set at 'you hit each other 50% of the time', we bump it up to ~66% of the time. We also recognize the advantages enjoyed by god-like, legendary fighters taking on truly inferior opponents (Bloodthirster v Scarabs, for example).

Additional ideas (that I'm not necessarily tied to, but seem like they'd speed up close combat):
--The To-Hit chart should be expanded to include 6's ('snap hits'). I have included this in the proposed table above.
--There should be more AP6/5/4 close combat weapons than there are currently (again, would speed up close combat).
--Different weapon types (Maul/Axe/Sword for example) should modify from the model's BASE initiative, rather than placing it at a fixed value.

And perhaps Master Crafted would allow a re-roll to hit OR to wound?

I look forward to your reasoned responses.

Kharn's special rule could be re-written, but even unchanged he still hits opponents of equal/better WS (and Invisible opponents) on 2's

Other than Kharn, does this seem like a reasonable idea?

Murrdox wrote:

1) Too complicated. The to-hit table is very nice and easy to remember.
...
3) You are integrating a system of re-rolls into close combat, a situation where models frequently are granted re-rolls from special rules or equipment. For models like this, you'd be doubling the amount of dice that they have to roll to attack, slowing gameplay down (e.g. Okay I have 5 re-rollable attacks at WS5 against your WS2 unit. I roll those 5 dice. Any misses, I reroll and hit on 5's. Any of THOSE that miss, I then again get to re-roll and hit on 2+, and again reroll to hit on 5's.)
3) Hitting on "3's" by default instead of "4's" would basically have the effect of balancing close combat 16% more in favor of whomever had the higher initiative in combat. Higher Initiative models would hit more frequently, cause more casualties, and thus lower initiative forces would have less chances to inflict casualties in return.

All other things being equal, you would be "speeding up" combat, but you'd also be tilting the scales more in favor of whichever force had the higher initiative.

On unequal terms, inferior forces would be helpless against a superior force. "Tarpit" units would become less viable.

1) I don't agree that it's TOO complicated. As is, the To-Hit table is indeed very easy to remember. The progression proposed has a rhythm to it that seems like it would be easy to learn. /shrug
2) As for allowing re-rolls being 'cumbersome'; if the end result speeds up the game, it seems like it could be worth it.
3) The rule disallowing for a dice (die?) to be re-rolled more than once covers this situation. The values of Hatred, Preferred Enemy, Prescience, etc. would certainly be affected.
3.1) /wink Combat is already in favor of higher-initiative models, all other things being equal. Changing the To-Hit table would get assaults to their ultimate result sooner than they do now. The situation I mentioned in the original post (2.5 game turns, ultimate outcome as predicted at the beginning) is the boring situation I would hope to avoid/reduce.

Inferior forces are already helpless--there are plenty of things a unit can bump into that it cannot hurt, plenty of things that are faster and have AP weapons, etc. The mechanic Tarpit units rely on isn't necessarily whether they can hit (or even wound) what they are keeping locked in combat, it's primarily a function of whether or not they are fearless and whether or not they can be eliminated in time for their target to get back into the game. Changing the To-Hit table would help cut through at least some Tarpits faster, but 30-man conscript squads with a Priest will still hold up a 4 attack Wraith Knight from turn 2 through the end of the game, even if the Wraith Knight hit and wounded with every attack, leaving Tarpits functionally unchanged, no?

@Bharring: Your Guardians are WS4 and I5, so unless the Marines bring I5 and AP5 or better to that party, you would strike first AND hit on 3's! I think that still works out to you having chances for a multi-phase heroic last stand. And how long does it have to be to be 'heroic'? 1.5 game turns? 2.5 game turns?

Bharring wrote:
...it will definitely make combat faster. And that's not what everyone wants.

Faster is exactly what I'm going for! I'm sure it's not what everyone wants, but would they mind?

My original idea, revised to remove re-rollable attacks:

WS 2 v 2 (equal) = 3's to hit on both sides (anytime WS is equal it's 3's)
WS 2 v 3 (greater than equal, but less than double) = 4's to hit for the WS3 and 3's to hit for the WS4
WS 2 v 4 (double) = 5's to hit for the WS2 and 2's to hit for the WS4
WS 2 v 5 (greater than double, but less than triple) = 6's to hit for the WS2 and 2's to hit for the WS5
WS 2 v 6 (triple) = 6's to hit for the WS2 and 2's to hit for the WS6
WS 2 v 7 (greater than triple) = 6's to hit for the WS2 and AUTOHITS for the WS7

Perhaps important to note that most combats are in the range of WS3 to WS5, and that there is little change from the way things are now:
WS3 v WS3 is 3's (~16% more hits than now)
WS3 v WS4 is 4's and 3's (what it is now)
WS3 v WS5 is 4's and 3's (what it is now)
WS4 v WS4 is 3's (~16% more hits than now)
WS4 v WS5 is 4's and 3's (what it is now)
WS5 v WS5 is 3's (~16% more hits than now)

So: combats between equally skilled opponents would be sped up a little. Combats with less than a doubling's worth of skill difference would follow the current chart. Since the side with the higher WS is hitting on 3's already, the combat resolves at a decent pace.

Where things would change dramatically is when the opponents have significantly different skill levels (double or more):
WS2 v WS4 5's and 2's (Typically requires double-plus-one to go to 5's to hit, and going to 2's is unheard of, save for Kharn)
WS2 v WS5 6's and 2's (This is sub-cultist level CC skill vs Elite CC Unit....)
WS2 v WS7 6's and Autohits (This is sub-cultist level CC skill vs Legendary fighters, almost always characters)

I think the core of my idea is to see the CC To-Hit table reflect the prowess of elite close combat units and legendary fighters, along with the consequences of a gross mismatch in Weapon SKill.

Lanrak wrote:
There are only about 7 models with WS higher than 6, out of the 200+ model types in 40k.

Is this true? I was figuring there would be 3-5 characters (alone) per codex with WS7, along with the odd unit here and there.