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.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Initiative represents speed, not how smart you are at avoiding being hit. What you are talking about seems like cover.

Speed means nothing if your sensory organs are incapable of detecting the incoming shot, if it moves faster than you, if you are unaware of the shot actually coming, etc.

I insist about my Grot to Terminator comparison.

If initiative represented speed, why are bikes not higher initiative than their foot equivalent?

It's not limited to speed, at least physically. It's more of how fast you 'think' and your 'detection range' in older edition used to be based off your initiative stat (for awareness of hidden things near you). Initiative is a 'mental' stat, not a physical one.

So therefore it can represent how smart you are at avoiding being hit, or moving to a better position after you are aware of the squad being shot at as it's how fast you think.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 greatbigtree wrote:
First off, most of what's been suggested is from 2nd Edition 40k, and close combat was a time consuming screw-around. I think they're just pulling legs.

We've been found out.

Bikers already get a 5+ cover to represent them being harder to hit.

Initiative is the speed of your Reflexes, how quickly you can physically react to outside stimulus.

Indeed- but enough Initiative to dodge 40K weapons (Especially blast weapons) is rare.

Even then, not everyone with high Initiative in 40K is actually physically fast-moving enough to dodge a shot, even if they detect it.

Guard are not the best trained human soldiers in the Imperium, lol. They're good, but Stormtroopers and Battle Sisters are both better trained (and no, Stormtroopers are not 'technically guardsmen', they are their own force).

The Indiana Jones anecdote is just evidence that Overwatch should be more accurate, not that close combat should take 'just shoot him' into account.

Someone like Obyron relies on his high weapon skill to survive in close combat - he's got no invulnerable save and only a 3+ armour save - not enough to protect him against even standard tactical marines punching him. He should be harder to kill!

2e rules aside, I always thought that the WS/WS chart should mirror the S/T chart so that weapon skill actually matters.

Ya, I agree.

Would make Avatars near invincible though.

Or would make the WS7-10 bracket almost identical.

Avatar should be near invincible in close combat, although maybe an Initiative penalty should be applied for monstrous creatures - a WS penalty against normal-size enemies equal to 10 minus your initiative (so the Avatar, at I7, would have WS -3, while a Carnifex, at I2, would have WS-8 against non-MCs)

Avatar is i10.

As it should be; woe betide anyone in combat with an Avatar in close combat (unless they're a Bloodthirster)

I think close combat is more than just literal "weapon skill."

It represents a furious close range action - some soldiers are hurling grenade bandoliers, others are sitting around whimpering, still more are holding the triggers down on their rifles and screaming at the top of their lungs, while their buddies tug helplessly at the pistols caught in their holsters. Some are grappling in the dust, still more tear off pieces of their own armor and bludgeon the enemy with them.

I'm reminded of the scene in Saving Private Ryan where an American sergeant and a German sergeant meet eachother in the street, jam both of their pistols, then throw their helmets at one another.

Close combat really isn't that much "dueling."

Perhaps you could use those rules for challenges, I suppose, but I'm not THAT big of a fan of the challenge rules anyways.

Except for the fact that it's explicitly stated that melee attacks with pistols are bashing the enemy round the head with them, implying that all close combat is literal punching and stabbing.

Seriously, though, what's with all the heroes in 40k throwing whole bandoliers of grenades? Six grenades do not make a significantly larger boom than one grenade, when all six are strapped together! And you might need the other five later!

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Except for the fact that it's explicitly stated that melee attacks with pistols are bashing the enemy round the head with them, implying that all close combat is literal punching and stabbing.

Seriously, though, what's with all the heroes in 40k throwing whole bandoliers of grenades? Six grenades do not make a significantly larger boom than one grenade, when all six are strapped together! And you might need the other five later!

That's a silly thing to say, and I still think the rules are an abstraction - not every attack is with a pistol or a sword.

And sure, they will throw one grenade then. lol

If your weapon skill is over a certain amount of your opponent you should get to re-roll to your misses.

If your weapon skill is under a certain amount of your opponent you should need 6's to hit. capping at 3+ and 5+ is silly for a range of ws1 to ws 10.

The whole reason modern soldiers use guns instead of swords is because guns have more force behind a bullet than any sword every has had. That and the same reasons arrows replaced swords in most medieval conflicts, range is always superior to melee.

That said in the world of 40k models don't get to fire guns in melee, they might smack someone with a pistol but they surely are not using the shooting profile.

The point of a shield (or sadoregame) is to keep your swordsman alive until he gets into sword range instead of just getting perforated by archers.

I'd say something like the chart now, but make the gaps smaller. So, equal WS = 4+. (Same)
Higher WS = 3+ (Same)
Double WS or more = 2+ (New. Only really matters when very good melee fighters are going against mediocre/low quality ones.)
Less WS = 4+ (Same)
Half WS = 5+ (Slightly worse. Instead of 'Less than half', just straight-up half.)

This makes super-high WS fighters (Avatar, Bloodthirsters, etc.) more useful, especially when tearing apart WS4 or lower squads. It also puts you at a slightly greater disadvantage with lower WS, though not by much.

 Furyou Miko wrote:
2e rules aside, I always thought that the WS/WS chart should mirror the S/T chart so that weapon skill actually matters.

I agree! My gaming group has been working on this issue and we recently came up with a revised WS chart that prevents models with a weapon skill 3 points lower than their opponent from hitting that opponent. We also gave WS 7+ a re-roll similar to the high end BS scores, so: 7/6+, 8/6+, 9/6+, 10/5+. We have only just begun play testing this but it worked out pretty well in our initial game.

Green tide VS Avatar should be interesting.

But then, it can only assault one mob, and it will sit in melee with that mob for a fair while.

Seems reasonable tbh.

Well thank you! I've been moaning about how lame the To Hit chart is since I clapped eyes on 40k.

What about something easy peasy, no nerfs. Just a tiny boost...

Any model that has a WS that is 4 (maybe 3?)or more points higher than his opponents, hits on a 2+

This way it's not just uber hi-WS models that benefit. No fuss, no muss, just a 2+!

For a moment i though that you would get a reroll for each 2points of difference between the models WS.

WS7 Vs WS4, the WS7 model would have one reroll to hit, if the model all ready have a rule permitting him to reroll failed to hits, he then reroll one to wound roll.

A WS 10 model would have 3 rerolls VS a WS4 model.

The thing with close combat is that in massed combat your personal weapon skill doesn't matter that much. It's simply impossible to pull all the tricks you're capable of when you're tightly surrounded by both friends and foes. Have you seen a line-on-line medieval-style fight irl? Well, i've seen on reconstructions and even participated in a few. It's nowhere near the 'art' you're talking about. You bash the shields with the opponent and your movement is very limited. So that you basically can strike only from the top and sometimes the right side (if u'r line's holding shields in left hand which happens in >95% of the fights).

It's a massed fight and it has it's own rules and requires more strength, endurance and shield-wall training than personal skill. When all the same people are fighting in duels or small skirmishes - they act totally different and here's where your personal fighting skill really DOES matter. Here's where a fighter with years of combat and training is worth a bunch of equally strong but less experienced foes.

So, comparing your sparring experience and a battlefield close combat fight is not quite right.

You may try to experiment with separate ws table or some special rules relying on ws in duels.

WS really should allow for hitting on 2s and only being hit on 6s,, very high WS ranks are incredibly pointless as is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Ya, I agree.

Would make Avatars near invincible though.

Or would make the WS7-10 bracket almost identical.

I'd be worried if the animated shard of a literal god of war, murder, and wrath wasn't nearly invincible to mere mortals in his chosen element.

I love the idea of adding a bit more importance to the weapon skill, as at the moment it seems pretty unimportant, although I can see the logic behind the current set-up.

As well as 40k I have been involved in 15th century reenactment, as well as crusade-era Byzantine, and I think the current set-up is a reasonable approximation for people fighting in armour in massed combat. I am tall and comparitively strong (I regularly run into combat in full harness and maille) and I find that in armoured combat strength is probably the noe of the largest factors in whether I win or not. Being faster than my opponent is probably next, but I find that tall, heavy people tend to win more easily than the small, fast people who win unarmoured combat.

In short, weapon skill is very useful without armour, but with armour it quickly reaches a point when being able to power through your opponents blocks becomes possible. You can prevent yourself getting hit with skill to a limited degree (armour is heavy and helmets drastically reduce visibility), but it takes power and speed to take the other person out.

 Drefan wrote:
I love the idea of adding a bit more importance to the weapon skill, as at the moment it seems pretty unimportant, although I can see the logic behind the current set-up.

As well as 40k I have been involved in 15th century reenactment, as well as crusade-era Byzantine, and I think the current set-up is a reasonable approximation for people fighting in armour in massed combat. I am tall and comparitively strong (I regularly run into combat in full harness and maille) and I find that in armoured combat strength is probably the noe of the largest factors in whether I win or not. Being faster than my opponent is probably next, but I find that tall, heavy people tend to win more easily than the small, fast people who win unarmoured combat.

In short, weapon skill is very useful without armour, but with armour it quickly reaches a point when being able to power through your opponents blocks becomes possible. You can prevent yourself getting hit with skill to a limited degree (armour is heavy and helmets drastically reduce visibility), but it takes power and speed to take the other person out.

Which is already represented by things like Carnifexes blowing through your armor saves and almost certainly wounding you on 2s despite their poor WS because it hits harder than getting smacked with a tank.

Pretty much, would definitely agree with you.

My only thought would be that it would be nice to have some more variation in rolls needed due to weapon skill. Maybe adding a way to get 2+ to 6+ rolls would differentiate the types of units more in close combat.

Thinking about the tyranid monstrous creatures, I would assume the weapon skill represents more the ponderousness of the creature and the model's chance of getting out of the way. Really couldn't see anyone blocking or deflecting the blows of a several tonne creature towering over you.

Indeed. Weapon skill is more of a general melee skill, which includes predicting where a blow is going to land and having the skill to evade it.