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.

Or is it the same either way? If yes, why have both in the rules?

Thanks

I guess you're talking about To-Hit and To-Wound?

Yes, it's the same without modifiers.
But you have a lot of stuff that buffs To-Hit rolls and To-Wound rolls. So it totally depends on what roll your army can buff better. Lots of things that can buff To-Hit? 4+, 3+ is better. Lots of things that can buff To-Wound? 3+, 4+ is better.

Ok. How about with Stormcast Eternals? Specifically Liberators?

Is it better to arm them with the warhammer (4+, 3+) or Blade (3+,4+)?

I've looked at the Heros but can't seem to find any that buff to hit or to wound rolls.

Thanks.

The Liberators themselves have a rule that gives them +1 to hit when attacking models with 5+ wounds. So you're looking at a possibility of 3+ 3+ or 2+ 4+. Doing the fractions, you've got 0.444... chance of wounding with a warhammer with the bonus, and a 0.416... chance of wounding with a blade. Without bonuses, they're exactly the same. I wouldn't worry too much about the difference, unless you REALLY want a 0.03~ better chance of doing a wound.

let us see the math:

you throw 12 dice.
for 3+4+
On average you will hit 2/3.
So 8 hits
1/2 will wound on a 4+
so on average 4 wounds.

As for 4+3+
you throw 12 dice
on average you will hit 1/2
so 6 hits
2/3 will wound on a 3 +
So also on average 4 wounds

So where are they different? Well a bad throw on the 4+3+ will decrease chances for wounds faster.
For instance say you miss 2 hits with a 3+4+ you will have 6 hits and have on average 3 wounds
When you miss 2 more hits with a 4+3+ , you will only have on average 2-3 wounds.
You should also hold into count The chance of missing 2 hits with a 3+4 is smaller then with the 4+3.

Hope this helps

 WarbossDakka wrote:
The Liberators themselves have a rule that gives them +1 to hit when attacking models with 5+ wounds. So you're looking at a possibility of 3+ 3+ or 2+ 4+. Doing the fractions, you've got 0.444... chance of wounding with a warhammer with the bonus, and a 0.416... chance of wounding with a blade. Without bonuses, they're exactly the same. I wouldn't worry too much about the difference, unless you REALLY want a 0.03~ better chance of doing a wound.

Actually, I've just realized that Liberators have a rule stating that if they're armed with either two blades or two warhammers you reroll 1's on to hit rolls.

So, if you want to go offensive you give the Liberators 2 hammers. They hit on 4+ but get to reroll 1's. They wound on 3+

If you want to go defensive you take a shield and either blade or warhammer as it makes little difference against most troops.

Thanks.

4/3 if you have a way to increase hit, 3/4 if you have a way to increase wound (much rarer I think), or no way to increase at all IMHO. The lower to hit value gives you a higher chance of rolling more dice to wound, so you increase the chance of rolling the slightly higher number.

Liberators for example, the hammers are IMHO better because any time that "Lay Low the Tyrants" rule comes into play, the warhammer is better than the blade.

Like previously stated though, it's only better by 0.03. Judging by how it doesn't make too much of a difference, I'd go with the swords. Not for game advantage, but because they are easier to carry around. Those hammer shafts are thin, but at least swords are a little sturdier. Bit more of a practicality issue to me

Worth mentioning if you're stacking buffs the Lord celestant on foot can buff to hit with his command trait, so fighting a model with 5 or more wounds hammer liberators can be buffers to 2+ 3+ whilst the swords cannot be buffed beyond the 2+ to hit (1 will always fail) making them a 2+ 4+

Years of rpgs has taught me better accuracy beats out power.

Well that and I know my dice hate me so I can't count on them to get me that critical hit I need for a win.

 Melcavuk wrote:
Worth mentioning if you're stacking buffs the Lord celestant on foot can buff to hit with his command trait, so fighting a model with 5 or more wounds hammer liberators can be buffers to 2+ 3+ whilst the swords cannot be buffed beyond the 2+ to hit (1 will always fail) making them a 2+ 4+

Age of Sigmar has no 1=automatic fail and 6=automatic sucess rule. So you can buff things beyond 2+, so they auto hit or auto wound, or put so many debuffs that they always auto fail.

If you house rule it so 1=automatic fail, then its other thing, but its not a actual rule of the game.


In the Liberators, swords vs hammer, the difference its so slightly to the Hammer that I would recommend to just pick the ones you like more.

 Galas wrote:

If you house rule it so 1=automatic fail, then its other thing, but its not a actual rule of the game.

Yes, it is. Not in the Core rules, but in the Matched Play rules, which most people use nowadays.

Edmond Dantes wrote:
Or is it the same either way? If yes, why have both in the rules?

Thanks

The way this works is they are exactly the same before modifiers.

If you get +1 to hit 4+ 3+ is about 4% better

If you get -1 to hit 3+ 4+ is about 4% better

If you get +3 to any hit or wound rolls obviously the one that isn't wasting the bonus is gonna be way better.

Also look out for rerolls. If you can reroll one or the other, then it's advantageous to reroll the one with the worse stat. 43.89% of attacks rolled wound if you reroll the 3+, 49.5% if you reroll the 4+

I'm not saying rerolls are all that common, but it might matter.

I seem to run into more to-hit debuffs than to-wound debuffs, so when given the choice, if all else is equal (rend value, damage, etc.) I always take a better to-hit over to-wound.

 Galas wrote:

 Melcavuk wrote:
Worth mentioning if you're stacking buffs the Lord celestant on foot can buff to hit with his command trait, so fighting a model with 5 or more wounds hammer liberators can be buffers to 2+ 3+ whilst the swords cannot be buffed beyond the 2+ to hit (1 will always fail) making them a 2+ 4+

Age of Sigmar has no 1=automatic fail and 6=automatic sucess rule. So you can buff things beyond 2+, so they auto hit or auto wound, or put so many debuffs that they always auto fail.

If you house rule it so 1=automatic fail, then its other thing, but its not a actual rule of the game.


In the Liberators, swords vs hammer, the difference its so slightly to the Hammer that I would recommend to just pick the ones you like more.

Matched play does include a 1s always fail clause, and since the vast majority of games are matched play and the vast majority of people who don't do matched play will still do ones always fail, it may as well be part of the game.

Battlebrew for Destruction armies would be so good if there wasn't a 1s always fail rule. Frostlords would auto-hit and auto-wound if they took 2 swigs...

Edmond Dantes wrote:
Or is it the same either way? If yes, why have both in the rules?

Modifiers can effect either the hit or wound roll so you may want to take something based off that.

 Forcast wrote:
Battlebrew for Destruction armies would be so good if there wasn't a 1s always fail rule. Frostlords would auto-hit and auto-wound if they took 2 swigs...

You say 'so good' I say 'broken bullgak'