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.

The idea behind this is that Weapon Skill isn't 'fixed'. You get a stat, just like any other, and when engaging another unit in melee you compare your stat to theirs... exactly the same way you would with Strength and Toughness.

E.g., a model with WS 5 attacks a model with WS 3. The former hits on a 3+. The latter hits on a 5+.

This would make melee combat more dynamic... and in a roundabout way, do something to recapture the feel that Initiative gave combat in earlier editions.

The problem with this system used to be that you effectively only had 3 values:

3+, 4+ and 5+.

Outside of extreme cases like maybe Grots against an Avatar of Khaine (iirc), nobody ever made use of 2+ or 6+.

I'm not against it in general, but I think it needs more thought put into it instead of just using the old table.

Might be more interesting if one stretched the values a lot. Like from WS 1 to 10 or something, with the caveat of no one having to roll less then a 2+

a_typical_hero wrote:
The problem with this system used to be that you effectively only had 3 values:

3+, 4+ and 5+.

Outside of extreme cases like maybe Grots against an Avatar of Khaine (iirc), nobody ever made use of 2+ or 6+.

I'm not against it in general, but I think it needs more thought put into it instead of just using the old table.

That's only a problem because GW made it a problem with their derpy to hit matrix.

It is a problem because OP didn't provide a detailed explanation of how the system would be implemented and affect existing unit profiles.

Flamers are WS 1, I think Pox walkers are WS 6, as were most vehicles in previous editions, ie. if you didn't have a dedicated melee you got X attacks at WS 6+. I think like tanks and such in 8th. Don't also land speeders and aircraft still have a WS6 attack?

I do like the high concept of returning to compared WS values. However, you'd have to address a few things to make them work.

Some weapons are currently intentionally designed to be less good at hitting their target than others. So you'd either be changing those assumptions or else you'd have to write special rules to maintain it.

Additionally, if you use the same formula to compare WS that we currently use to compare S VS T, you end up making the gap between unit stats more impactful than it was in the past. For instance, it used be that guardsmen were WS3 while aspect warriors were WS4. At the time, this meant that while striking scorpions would hit guardsmen on 3+, the guardsmen were still hitting back on 4+. Just a one step difference. If you switched to using the current S VS T formula, then the guardsmen would be hitting back on a 5+ instead. Which I guess isn't super relevant for guardsmen, but melee units with poor WS like hormagaunts probably wouldn't be thrilled about it.

And if you switch back to the *old* compared WS chart, you run into the quirks and weirdness that were present there. Ex: Lelith Hesperax and a Keeper of Secrets would still miss grots with a third of their attacks.

None of which makes the basic concept unworkable, but it would need a lot of rebalancing to address all the knock-on effects.

Something I've pitched in the past is to basically just give sufficiently "elite" melee units a "Duelist (X)" USR that imposes to-hit penalty of X against those units in melee. So something like basic marines probably wouldn't have the Duelist rule at all, vanguard vets and Captains would probably have Duelist (1), and your creme de le creme types like Lucius or Lelith would have Duelist (2). This would obviously require to-hit penalties be allowed to go past -1 again.

The end result being that you can still adjust weapon profiles to taste and give all units a flat baseline for how well they hit stuff, but you also have an easy way to make sufficiently skilled melee units harder to hit. This would also make it easier to distinguish something like nobz (talented in melee and hit like a truck, but not particularly known for finesse or dodging) from something like harlequins.

I made a comparison formula for WS that I think is at least a bit better than GW's old chart.

Hitting In Melee
2+ If your WS is twice or more your opponents’ WS
3+ If your WS is higher than your opponents’ WS, but not double
4+ If your WS is equal to or one point lower than your opponents’ WS
5+ If your WS is exactly two points lower or less, but more than half your opponents’ WS
6+ If your WS is three or more points lower and half or less your opponents’ WS

a_typical_hero wrote:It is a problem because OP didn't provide a detailed explanation of how the system would be implemented and affect existing unit profiles.

Well you just assumed it would use 'the old table' when I never said that... although something akin to the old-school WS values would make sense. Probably with modifications.

Wyldhunt wrote:Some weapons are currently intentionally designed to be less good at hitting their target than others. So you'd either be changing those assumptions or else you'd have to write special rules to maintain it.

Just... give different weapons different WS values, same as they currently have? Or go back to base WS values on models (rather than weapons) and have certain wargear modify that value.

Wyldhunt wrote:Something I've pitched in the past is to basically just give sufficiently "elite" melee units a "Duelist (X)" USR that imposes to-hit penalty of X against those units in melee.

I mean, if comparative WS became a thing, something like this would probably just warrant additional WS. It's more indicative that fixed WS is an issue in 10th... e.g., Genestealers hitting everything on a 2+ regardless of the target's skill, or Guardsmen hitting everything on a 4+ (ignoring special rules that already modify hit rolls).

JNAProductions wrote:I made a comparison formula for WS that I think is at least a bit better than GW's old chart.

Hitting In Melee
2+ If your WS is twice or more your opponents’ WS
3+ If your WS is higher than your opponents’ WS, but not double
4+ If your WS is equal to or one point lower than your opponents’ WS
5+ If your WS is exactly two points lower or less, but more than half your opponents’ WS
6+ If your WS is three or more points lower and half or less your opponents’ WS

It's a good chart. My only concern would be that it might be hard to convey verbally. If so, then we end up with the same issue as the old chart where some people struggle to learn it and end up flipping open their books every time they resolve an attack.

I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:It is a problem because OP didn't provide a detailed explanation of how the system would be implemented and affect existing unit profiles.

Well you just assumed it would use 'the old table' when I never said that... although something akin to the old-school WS values would make sense. Probably with modifications.

I thought you were pitching we literally use the S vs T formula based on how you phrased this part.

The idea behind this is that Weapon Skill isn't 'fixed'. You get a stat, just like any other, and when engaging another unit in melee you compare your stat to theirs... exactly the same way you would with Strength and Toughness.

Wyldhunt wrote:Some weapons are currently intentionally designed to be less good at hitting their target than others. So you'd either be changing those assumptions or else you'd have to write special rules to maintain it.

Just... give different weapons different WS values, same as they currently have? Or go back to base WS values on models (rather than weapons) and have certain wargear modify that value.

That should work!

Wyldhunt wrote:Something I've pitched in the past is to basically just give sufficiently "elite" melee units a "Duelist (X)" USR that imposes to-hit penalty of X against those units in melee.

I mean, if comparative WS became a thing, something like this would probably just warrant additional WS. It's more indicative that fixed WS is an issue in 10th... e.g., Genestealers hitting everything on a 2+ regardless of the target's skill, or Guardsmen hitting everything on a 4+ (ignoring special rules that already modify hit rolls).

 I_am_a_Spoon wrote:

a_typical_hero wrote:It is a problem because OP didn't provide a detailed explanation of how the system would be implemented and affect existing unit profiles.

Well you just assumed it would use 'the old table' when I never said that... although something akin to the old-school WS values would make sense. Probably with modifications.

In your opening post you wrote that it would work "exactly like Strength and Toughness" with the added example for WS 5 against WS 3. You should give clearer, more complete information if you dont wan't people to "assume" based on your pitch.

No... when you said "the old table", it evoked this (bottom of page 2):



So yes, my proposal would work the same way Strength vs Toughness currently does. Which is very clearly different to how it used to work.