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.

WS vs WS - just lookup the old 3E CC chart...

Bundle Evasion into a separate save, where Cover also counts. So the order of rolls is now:

Hit roll
Evasion/Cover roll
Wound roll
Save/Invulnerable roll
FnP roll
Morale roll

 Slayer6 wrote:
WS vs WS - just lookup the old 3E CC chart...

Bundle Evasion into a separate save, where Cover also counts. So the order of rolls is now:

Hit roll
Evasion/Cover roll
Wound roll
Save/Invulnerable roll
FnP roll
Morale roll

So, if you hit on a 2+, evade on a 6+, and wound on a 2+, you have...

58% chance of doing damage.

Now, lethality is too high at the moment, but I'm not sure that's the best idea.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

Ice_can wrote:
The everything wounding everything as a concept is fine but it now means that for anything 1 in 6 will wound at worst, ie if you throw enough dice at any given model it will die.
Add in GW current can't wound on less than 4+ and high power low shot weapons feel very over costed.
Esentially it makes strength of weapons and Toughness as a stat a lot less valuable than GW point it.

Also makes larger models esentially unviable as volume of fire becomes a jack of all trades tool. Clears hordes, still kills big bad knight's, except hordes decline in power liniarly and have massive board control advantage.

If you want to keep everything can wound it really should come with some sort of save modifier or addtional roll like thet old 7+ roll mechanics, roll a 6 followed by a 3+, 4+, 5+, 6, that gave you 1 to 10 as possibel results. But if we must stick with the doubles etc it needs spread out more like S and T to max out at 15-20 so Sx3 < T +1 to save and vice versa if we are going to keep with GW 1's fail S>Tx3 +1AP.

The reason that the 6s always wound doesn't work is because GW didn't do a good job with the wounding chart (Lascannons wound Plague Marines at the same rate as Whirlwinds, or Grots wound Rhinos the same as Imperial Knight) and sticking with the D6 system, where modifiers have too much impact. Either one (or both) being fixed solves the problem of Lasguns blowing up Baneblades too often (but let's be honest anyone really making the complaint doesn't have a leg to stand on as it doesn't really happen)

Again it's not lasguns persay that are the issue punisher cannon russes, numerous other occasions where simply put more dice> appropriate weapons.

The previous editions WS vs Ws was awful and fairly pointless.

The original edition at leadst had hitting at 2+ and 6+ but the hard limiting it to 3+ and 5+ was terrible.

Many armies just hit each other on 4+ anyway

Yeah My Blodthirster, centuries old Succubus/Pheinix Lord/ Gulliman misses a Gretchin on a 1 or 2 - right.....

Much happier with curent system but would not be averse to a WS vs Evasion or Ws even IF you had decent reflecion of the differnt levels of skill

 Mr Morden wrote:
The previous editions WS vs Ws was awful and fairly pointless.

The original edition at leadst had hitting at 2+ and 6+ but the hard limiting it to 3+ and 5+ was terrible.

Many armies just hit each other on 4+ anyway

Yeah My Blodthirster, centuries old Succubus/Pheinix Lord/ Gulliman misses a Gretchin on a 1 or 2 - right.....

Much happier with curent system but would not be averse to a WS vs Evasion or Ws even IF you had decent reflecion of the differnt levels of skill

GW did not implement WS well. They should have used the full 1-6 for the the minimum score needed to hit.

Blastaar wrote:
...GW did not implement WS well. They should have used the full 1-6 for the the minimum score needed to hit.

Using the full 1-6 wouldn't have helped if they'd stuck with the "is your army all WS3 or all WS4?" stat design. WS comparison feels a lot more relevant to me in 30k than it ever did in 40k, even limited to 3+-5+, just because I have the option of taking squads of WS4 or WS5 models in the same army rather than giving me one WS shared by everyone who isn't a character.

40K Has a universe full of fantastic diverse creatures, yet the game play is reduced to such minimal level it is painful to watch.IMO.

Having opposed stats that cover all three levels of interaction , and cover a full range of results on a dice including no effect to auto success.
Would make the interaction more tactical and intuitive.
(Eg similar to other war games that actually flow intuitively as they are based on actual conflict resolution.)

Lanrak wrote:
40K Has a universe full of fantastic diverse creatures, yet the game play is reduced to such minimal level it is painful to watch.IMO.

Having opposed stats that cover all three levels of interaction , and cover a full range of results on a dice including no effect to auto success.
Would make the interaction more tactical and intuitive.
(Eg similar to other war games that actually flow intuitively as they are based on actual conflict resolution.)

Eh... Not sure making tank spam lists and imperial knights immune to small arms fire makes the game more "tactical." Assuming that's what you mean by "no effect."

I do think there's a place for auto-success on some rolls though. I wouldn't mind skipping the to-wound roll for attacks with a strength of more than double the target's toughness. It's both mechanically frustrating and kind of hard to picture when a bunch of plasma shots get unlucky and roll 1s to wound some guardsmen, for instance. Like, you can only fluff it as "near misses" so many times before the plasmagunners start looking like Star Wars storm troopers.

Wyldhunt wrote:

That is a good point. The old WS chart actually did this pretty well. You were generally hitting on 3+ or 4+ unless the disparity in WS was really large, and you never hit on worse than 5+.

The old WS chart was absolute crap. Units with WS7-9 tipycally hit on 3s and units with WS2 hit on 5s which was absurd. I had super skilled fighters like Dark Eldar HQs who hit like WS5 models even if they had +4 points of WS and Killa Kanz that hit on 4s or 5s despite having the worst WS in the game.

Wyldhunt wrote:

Eh... Not sure making tank spam lists and imperial knights immune to small arms fire makes the game more "tactical." Assuming that's what you mean by "no effect."

it would up to a point (if done proper) as such things forces you to take all corners lists but GW is far away from that

Blackie wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

That is a good point. The old WS chart actually did this pretty well. You were generally hitting on 3+ or 4+ unless the disparity in WS was really large, and you never hit on worse than 5+.

The old WS chart was absolute crap. Units with WS7-9 tipycally hit on 3s and units with WS2 hit on 5s which was absurd. I had super skilled fighters like Dark Eldar HQs who hit like WS5 models even if they had +4 points of WS and Killa Kanz that hit on 4s or 5s despite having the worst WS in the game.

I've always played with a lot of eldar special characters like Phoenix Lords and Leltih. Only hitting on 3+ was less potent than the current rules that let me hit on 2+ (often with rerolls), but it was balanced out somewhat by getting bonus attacks from various sources (like charging) and by the fact that I was almost always swinging first and thus likely taking fewer return attacks from the enemy. The part of the old system that I really liked was that lots of stuff in the game was only hitting me on a 4+ or 5+ where those same units would likely be hitting me on a 3+ or 4+ today.

Basically, having a higher WS didn't let me autohit things, but it did tend to make it harder for the enemy to hit me; basically translating into something similar to a -1 to hit. It felt like my characters' high WS made them better at hitting things and better at not getting hit, and that second part is something I miss.

kodos wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

Eh... Not sure making tank spam lists and imperial knights immune to small arms fire makes the game more "tactical." Assuming that's what you mean by "no effect."

it would up to a point (if done proper) as such things forces you to take all corners lists but GW is far away from that

Your quote tags are off there.

In editions where vehicles were largely immune to small arms fire (because AV11+), I always found myself skewing hard away from take all comers lists and towards anti-tank options. I almost never took a flamer because shurikens and bolters can kill infantry, but I needed plasma or melta to kill tanks. This was especially true in my non-marine lists. My marines could always try to punch rear armor 10 or slap on krak grenades. But my eldar? They couldn't reliably hurt vehicles unless they were equipped with either an anti-tank weapon or something that let them spam strength 6 shots to glance the thing to death.

So my experience has been the opposite. Saying I stop being able to interact with your army once I'm out of anti-tank units will cause me to make armies that are less well-rounded and more tailored to kill tanks. Just to avoid the frustration of being told the remainder of my army is literally unable to hurt yours.

If the rules allowed simple simulation of modern warfare.
Infantry lists can take on heavy armour by using smoke to restrict their line of sight and suppression to reduce their effectiveness. Until they get close enough to assault them .

Lots more tactical options from simpler rules,(More intuitive rules that have an expanded core , but fewer contradictory special rules. )

But if you want to continue with WHFB in space , then GW have got you covered.

 Blackie wrote:

Wyldhunt wrote:

That is a good point. The old WS chart actually did this pretty well. You were generally hitting on 3+ or 4+ unless the disparity in WS was really large, and you never hit on worse than 5+.

The old WS chart was absolute crap. Units with WS7-9 tipycally hit on 3s and units with WS2 hit on 5s which was absurd. I had super skilled fighters like Dark Eldar HQs who hit like WS5 models even if they had +4 points of WS and Killa Kanz that hit on 4s or 5s despite having the worst WS in the game.

Agreed - the number of times I had Lelith or my Archon roll a load of 1s and 2s was frankly shocking....

The older WS chart did have more range but recenty editions upto 8 was pretty much everyone hitting on 3s and 4s.