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.

I am not talking about WS5 versus WS4 or simialr match ups but when you haev WS 7,8,9 or even 10 versus 3, 2 or even 1 and you only hit on a 3+ - seriously?

So a Avatar of the Eldar God of War, or a thousand year old Succubus who lives for close combat or a Greater Daemon of Khorne tries to hit a Gretchin and only does so on a 3+ - sooo very annoying.

If you have high BS you are rewarded by 2+ and even re-rolls - but high WS is just poor.

I really don't see any reason why if you have double or more WS than your opponent you don't hit on 2+?

I honestly have no idea why other than GW's pathological over-estimation of close combat's power. I dunno, maybe they're afraid of the Avatar of Khaine dynasty warriori'ing it's way through a Guard army.

 Kain wrote:
I honestly have no idea why other than GW's pathological over-estimation of close combat's power. I dunno, maybe they're afraid of the Avatar of Khaine dynasty warriori'ing it's way through a Guard army.

Yeah, pretty much this. GW is fine with your expensive big guns killing multiple models per turn, every turn. But your expensive close combat character can barely kill five guys in total because 1/3 of his attacks miss and he might only get into one or two combats the entire game .

Probably because shooting does allow for cover saves (most of the time at least). Therefore, with Sweeping Advances, causing wounds even easier, hitting on 2+ would likely lead to scenarios where nearly every unit assaulted would get wiped.

 Thairne wrote:
Probably because shooting does allow for cover saves (most of the time at least). Therefore, with Sweeping Advances, causing wounds even easier, hitting on 2+ would likely lead to scenarios where nearly every unit assaulted would get wiped.

There aren't an awful lot of models with a WS so high that they would hit on 2s and only get hit on 6s against most basic infantry if the WS table scaled like the BS table. Like, that's mostly the realm of a small number of HQ models like Hive Tyrants, Phoenix Lords, Assassins, and melee oriented greater daemons.

What it would do however, is make WS less of a dump stat and give more of an incentive to make WS scores make more sense (no more Eversors being able to tango with Jain Zar and Karandras kthxbai) rather than just letting them hang around in nonsensical limbo because it never really matters outside of an extreme difference in score anyway.

 Thairne wrote:
Probably because shooting does allow for cover saves (most of the time at least). Therefore, with Sweeping Advances, causing wounds even easier, hitting on 2+ would likely lead to scenarios where nearly every unit assaulted would get wiped.

How much ignore cover / AP2 weaponry is about nowadays?

Again its not every combat - its when super elite combat characters or individual are fighting pitifully poor fighters....... as I said - Gretchen versus Greater Deamon of Khorne etc. The Bloodthirster should be hitting on 2's

And lastly unlike in shooting - quite often the unit being attacked gets to hit back - sometimes.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Again its not every combat - its when super elite combat characters or individual are fighting pitifully poor fighters....... as I said - Gretchen versus Greater Deamon of Khorne etc. The Bloodthirster should be hitting on 2's

Hardly. It's basically every fight this would affect by a lot.

The units that are already hard off, to be specific. All marines are WS4, and crush most opponents that are WS3. These are who it would hurt the most, and this matchup is *very common*
It would mean those would go from hitting 50% of all hits to hitting 33%. That's pretty massive for a guardsman trying to swing his I1 power fist at a marine.
It's an army wide huge nerf to the melee of those already suffering in melee. It's not like the gretchen have any chance against the Khorne daemon in close combat as it is, so why exactly are you clamouring for nerfs to the gretchen?

Your idea is bad and there is good reason for the WS table to be the way it is.

 Purifier wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Again its not every combat - its when super elite combat characters or individual are fighting pitifully poor fighters....... as I said - Gretchen versus Greater Deamon of Khorne etc. The Bloodthirster should be hitting on 2's

Hardly. It's basically every fight this would affect by a lot.

The units that are already hard off, to be specific. All marines are WS4, and crush most opponents that are WS3. These are who it would hurt the most, and this matchup is *very common*
It would mean those would go from hitting 50% of all hits to hitting 33%. That's pretty massive for a guardsman trying to swing his I1 power fist at a marine.
It's an army wide huge nerf to the melee of those already suffering in melee. It's not like the gretchen have any chance against the Khorne daemon in close combat as it is, so why exactly are you clamouring for nerfs to the gretchen?

Your idea is bad and there is good reason for the WS table to be the way it is.

Have you read what I wrote - the example you quote would not have any effect -

to gain the 2+ to hit they need to DOUBLE their opponents WS so against IG have WS6 or more - to do that against marines they need WS 8 or more.

There is NO reason for the travesty we have at the moment

"All marines are WS4, and crush most opponents that are WS3. "

If only this were true.

I would make rework the CQC Hit Table ranging from 2+ to 5+, whereas 2+ is only allowed if you got double the WS of your enemy.

In short, I wholeheartedly agree with the OP

This problem would go away if we dumped the D6.

Martel732 wrote:
This problem would go away if we dumped the D6.

Apparently a lot of people here have never played D&D and are in utter horror at the idea of rolling a large number of D8s or D10s at once and spending a few extra seconds to read the faces.

Martel732 wrote:
"All marines are WS4, and crush most opponents that are WS3. "

If only this were true.

Indeed and its also completely irrelevant to the discussion which relates to those with double or more their opponents WS.

It works fine in the games we play......

 Mr Morden wrote:


to gain the 2+ to hit they need to DOUBLE their opponents WS so against IG have WS6 or more - to do that against marines they need WS 8 or more.

If it was like BS you would need +2 only.
And WS4 against WS3 would mean that the WS3 would hit on 5+.

 Purifier wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:


to gain the 2+ to hit they need to DOUBLE their opponents WS so against IG have WS6 or more - to do that against marines they need WS 8 or more.

If it was like BS you would need +2 only.
And WS4 against WS3 would mean that the WS3 would hit on 5+.

Sigh - which is not what I said!

if you have double or more WS than your opponent you hit on 2+

Right, making a big change would swing too hard in close combat's favor. Even though my earlier post was complaining about shooting vs close combat damage output, I think the real answer is to give units ways of interacting at range other than killing each other's models - I'm talking pinning here, and not the crappy pinning USR that already exists, but a real core mechanic built into the DNA of the game. Instead of making close combat deadlier, make it so shooting (all shooting) is a little less deadly, but has a chance to contribute in some way to suppressing the enemy's shooting or movement.

If long range shooting was more effective at suppressing the enemy than killing them, and close range shooting and hand to hand combat were more effective at killing or breaking the enemy, I think you'd see more maneuvering to push each other off objectives. Then reform the mission system a bit so it isn't either schizophrenic chasing of Maelstrom objectives, or last turn springing on objectives in Eternal War. Then change out IGOUGO for proper alternating activations so one player isn't killing/suppressing the entire other army.

I guess what I'm saying is, 40k has so many problems I'd rather play a different game.

Right, making a big change would swing too hard in close combat's favor.

Only if you are massively better in h-to-H than you opponent - it will make ZERO difference to some match ups as have been mentioned earlier - so say Marines versus Guard/ Sisters etc Unless one of the participants is massively more skilled - ie Double their WS.

So only the best Astartes in the galaxy, St Celestine etc are going to hit Guard and basic Sisters on a 2+ and only Greater Daemons, God Sparks and Assassins are going to do the same to normal marines.

That's kinda a key point.

I agree, I think if the weaker opponent hits on 5+, then the stronger opponent should hit on 2+. Only makes sense to me.

And WS10 should reroll 1s.

It's that absurdly stupid GW stubbornness to the close combat weapon chart. It amazes me that a Guardsmen with his bayonet can still hit the Avatar of Khaine 1/3 of the time despite WS 3 vs. WS 10- a weapon skill greater then THREE TIMES that of the Guardsmen, and that the Avatar of Khaine can still miss the Guardsmen 1/3 of the time.

GW tries to make close combat this brutal, ugly affair, but it's not. You hope you engage a nonfearless unit, get at least one more unsaved wound then your opponent so you can force them to make a Leadership test, THEN you hope they fail it, THEN you hope you can roll higher then them on the sweeping advance.

Close combat is pretty broken in this edition. Overwatch, random charge range, that stupid hit chart, and every other unit with Fearless/Stubborn/AKSKNF or what ever else that makes a unit unbreakable in close combat, and if they don't have that stuff, they have a stupid high leadership.

Fluff != rules. If it did, then the Avatar of Khaine would walk up to a unit of Guardsmen and swing his sword ONCE, and it would kill every Guardsmen in that platoon. On the backswing, the Avatar would hit the Leman Russ tank parked next to them and blow it up. The Avatar of Khaine would go toe to toe with a Great Deamon of Khorne- a Bloodthirster no less, and the fight would go on for days in a stalemate. They are both that awesome in close combat.

Instead, we have a 195 point chump Lord of War that couldn't even be bothered to have Eternal Warrior that can be gunned down by a Space Marine Tactical Squad with Bolters.

 Tamwulf wrote:
It's that absurdly stupid GW stubbornness to the close combat weapon chart. It amazes me that a Guardsmen with his bayonet can still hit the Avatar of Khaine 1/3 of the time despite WS 3 vs. WS 10- a weapon skill greater then THREE TIMES that of the Guardsmen, and that the Avatar of Khaine can still miss the Guardsmen 1/3 of the time.

GW tries to make close combat this brutal, ugly affair, but it's not. You hope you engage a nonfearless unit, get at least one more unsaved wound then your opponent so you can force them to make a Leadership test, THEN you hope they fail it, THEN you hope you can roll higher then them on the sweeping advance.

Close combat is pretty broken in this edition. Overwatch, random charge range, that stupid hit chart, and every other unit with Fearless/Stubborn/AKSKNF or what ever else that makes a unit unbreakable in close combat, and if they don't have that stuff, they have a stupid high leadership.

Fluff != rules. If it did, then the Avatar of Khaine would walk up to a unit of Guardsmen and swing his sword ONCE, and it would kill every Guardsmen in that platoon. On the backswing, the Avatar would hit the Leman Russ tank parked next to them and blow it up. The Avatar of Khaine would go toe to toe with a Great Deamon of Khorne- a Bloodthirster no less, and the fight would go on for days in a stalemate. They are both that awesome in close combat.

Instead, we have a 195 point chump Lord of War that couldn't even be bothered to have Eternal Warrior that can be gunned down by a Space Marine Tactical Squad with Bolters.

I do feel like Dawn of War gives a better impression of the power an avatar of Khaine should wield.

The avatar laughs at your puny bolters and shrugs off your whimpy plasma guns and battle cannons, taking the firepower of a whole army to stop it as it pretty much crumps anything short of other end-game melee units in close combat.

Its simply down to the to hit chart.

And its just another reason why hth takes a back seat in 7th.
(along with overwatch, random charge distance, minus movement through DT, wound tanking, characters with not enough attacks - Ork Nob (3), Ragnar Blackmane (4) huh?)

When a gretchin has a 33% chance to hit the Avatar of Khaine and the Avatar has a 33% to miss said Gretchin: something is amiss.

There are boatloads of proposed solutions some of them pretty good but until GW want to shift 40k back into the realm of visceral hth combats, we're stuck with it.

Personnally I believe 8th will resurrect hth.

edit: what Tamwulf said basically.

I may be mis-remembering, but at one point the to hit in close combat used the same table as the to wound chart.
(It might have been WHFB 3rd ed or RT.)

The results lower than 3+ and higher than 5+ were dropped in WHFB to speed up combat resolution for massed ranked units.
And because 40k is a poor WHFB clone they just copy pasted the new table into 40k without thinking too much.

I agree with tho op, a model with very high WS should have a much better time of it in close combat than they currently do.
To get into close combat you have to maneuver under constant ranged weapons fire for at a turn.

So having the same chances to hit in close combat as for shooting seems the be much more sensible.(EG 2+ to 6+)

EG
if your opponent has double or higher your WS you need 6+ to hit them.
If your opponent has half or less your WS you should hit them on 2+

There is absolutely nothing wrong with using D6 in 40k.
What is wrong is reducing the chances to hit to only 3+,4+,5+ in assault and 2+ to 6+ at range.
(And not using limited modifiers apart from in stupidly applied special rules!!)

I would much rather use a wider range of results by using all the sides of the dice .(Allow auto hits and auto miss.)

Combat should be WS vs INT and use the BS rules.

Example: space marine swings at ork. WS 4 vs INT 2. Space marine hits on 2+. Captain hits on 2+/6+.

Of course a few stats would need to be altered.

I think the same could work for BS. A space marine shouldn't hit everything on 3+. If a marine shoots at a slow necron warrior he should hit more often than if firing at a nimble space elf.

Buff space elves more, lol) Make them T2 to compinsate then, those long limbs are so fragile after all.

You can even do double WS+1 to hit on 2+, like it is implimented in &th ed today. So to hit guardsmen on 2+ you have to have WS7 or higher (assassins, avatars, greater daemons e.t.c.).

 Kain wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
This problem would go away if we dumped the D6.

Apparently a lot of people here have never played D&D and are in utter horror at the idea of rolling a large number of D8s or D10s at once and spending a few extra seconds to read the faces.

I think that it is because people (in GW) think that getting enough d10s for a game would be prohibitive, while d6s are plentiful(, well known,) and easily obtained.

As already suggested, the reason to why units with high WS does not auto hit, is likely to ensure they do not wipe one squad a turn.

The problem would become apparent against the armies that lack high WS cc units all together.

 DeffDred wrote:
Combat should be WS vs INT and use the BS rules.

Example: space marine swings at ork. WS 4 vs INT 2. Space marine hits on 2+. Captain hits on 2+/6+.

Of course a few stats would need to be altered.

I think the same could work for BS. A space marine shouldn't hit everything on 3+. If a marine shoots at a slow necron warrior he should hit more often than if firing at a nimble space elf.

This is actually kind of an interesting idea, but I worry it would slow the game down unnecessarily and just make everything on the board tankier.

I'd make it something like this...

Hitting someone of equal or 1 higher Ws = 4+ to hit
Hitting someone of 1 less Ws = 3+ to hit
Hitting someone of 2 or more less Ws = 2+ to hit
Hitting someone with 2 or 3 higher Ws = 5+ to hit
Hitting someone with 4 or more Ws = 6+ to hit

That means a Ws5 model would hit a Ws3 model on a 2+, but the Ws3 model would hit the Ws5 model on a 5+. Ws4 vs Ws3 would work the same way it does currently. Ws7 vs Ws3 or higher would be 2+ to hit or 6+ to get hit.

 Kain wrote:

 Tamwulf wrote:
It's that absurdly stupid GW stubbornness to the close combat weapon chart. It amazes me that a Guardsmen with his bayonet can still hit the Avatar of Khaine 1/3 of the time despite WS 3 vs. WS 10- a weapon skill greater then THREE TIMES that of the Guardsmen, and that the Avatar of Khaine can still miss the Guardsmen 1/3 of the time.

GW tries to make close combat this brutal, ugly affair, but it's not. You hope you engage a nonfearless unit, get at least one more unsaved wound then your opponent so you can force them to make a Leadership test, THEN you hope they fail it, THEN you hope you can roll higher then them on the sweeping advance.

Close combat is pretty broken in this edition. Overwatch, random charge range, that stupid hit chart, and every other unit with Fearless/Stubborn/AKSKNF or what ever else that makes a unit unbreakable in close combat, and if they don't have that stuff, they have a stupid high leadership.

Fluff != rules. If it did, then the Avatar of Khaine would walk up to a unit of Guardsmen and swing his sword ONCE, and it would kill every Guardsmen in that platoon. On the backswing, the Avatar would hit the Leman Russ tank parked next to them and blow it up. The Avatar of Khaine would go toe to toe with a Great Deamon of Khorne- a Bloodthirster no less, and the fight would go on for days in a stalemate. They are both that awesome in close combat.

Instead, we have a 195 point chump Lord of War that couldn't even be bothered to have Eternal Warrior that can be gunned down by a Space Marine Tactical Squad with Bolters.

I do feel like Dawn of War gives a better impression of the power an avatar of Khaine should wield.

The avatar laughs at your puny bolters and shrugs off your whimpy plasma guns and battle cannons, taking the firepower of a whole army to stop it as it pretty much crumps anything short of other end-game melee units in close combat.

This does not come from a problem with the to-hit chart. This comes from the Avatar being old, back when monstrous creatures were a big deal. Now gargantuan creatures took their place, and just proxy your avatar as a wraithknight, problem solved.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd make it something like this...

Hitting someone of equal or 1 higher Ws = 4+ to hit
Hitting someone of 1 less Ws = 3+ to hit
Hitting someone of 2 or more less Ws = 2+ to hit
Hitting someone with 2 or 3 higher Ws = 5+ to hit
Hitting someone with 4 or more Ws = 6+ to hit

That means a Ws5 model would hit a Ws3 model on a 2+, but the Ws3 model would hit the Ws5 model on a 5+. Ws4 vs Ws3 would work the same way it does currently. Ws7 vs Ws3 or higher would be 2+ to hit or 6+ to get hit.

I think double or more WS is 2+ to hit is fine and easy to remember. I'd be more than happy to give a re-roll if you are WS10

Has anyone (who has actually read the thread) got a good reason that this (or somethng similar) would not be a good thing.

As already suggested, the reason to why units with high WS does not auto hit, is likely to ensure they do not wipe one squad a turn.

The problem would become apparent against the armies that lack high WS cc units all together.

No the only suggestion was from someone who misread everything and then started talking nonsense - again the proposal is extremely high WS units versus extremely low WS (in comparsion) hit on a 2+.

Why is it that you feel that the more common 2+ and re-rolls is fine for shooting (and wiping out squads?)