Why did they change Weapon Skill to be a flat value no matter who you fight?

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.

**Canadian 5th**

Tiberias wrote:
There, fixed it:

Spoiler:

This has been a pet project of mine for some time: Here's an expanded comparison chart so you can hit on 2+ and 6+. I've also made it easier to hit "upwards" so units are not instantly penalized when they fight someone with one more WS than them. Only if you fight a unit that has two more WS you go to hitting on 5+.

So now you have to distribute sensible WS values across units/factions, for example:

WS1: Spore mines
WS2: Grots, Zoanthropes, Conscripts
WS3: Guardsmen, Hormagaunts, Sisters, Necron Warrior
WS4: Space Marines, Orkboyz, Dire Avengers, Repentia
WS5: Space Marine Terminators, Grey Knights, Striking Scorpions, Wyches, Lychguard, Ork Nobz, Tyranid Warrior
WS6: Genestealers, Triarch Praetorians, Howling Banshees, Incubi, Grey Knight Terminators, Meganobz, Bloodletters
WS7: Harlequins, Custodes, Assassins, Lord of Change
WS8: Hive Tyrant, Great Unclean One, Solitaire, Demon Prince
WS9: Keeper of Secrets, Skulltaker, Guilliman,
WS10: Bloodthirster, Swarmlord, Lelith Hesperax

Edit: 6s to hit are always successful, forgot to amend that for the fringe cases on the chart when WS3 tries to hit WS10

This functionally makes WS3 and 4 the same as neither will commonly hit at better than a 4+ as the units with WS1 and 2 are either uncommon or are models that can't be taken as more than a handful of units in an army. This chart seems clever but it just causes a lot of work for nothing and only serves to make already strong armies like Harlequins and Daemons even better.

**Charistoph**

Lance845 wrote:All the referencing charts is a huge time sink for no actual gain. It's good that it's dead.

True, but considering there is the new comparison system that is being used for S v T that could have been used, I disagree on it being dead.

Tiberias wrote:The removal of the WS stat was a mistake. I've said this before and I stand by that assessment.

The "to hit" value they have replaced it with, may have streamlined the game, but it limited design space. It makes no sense that a guardsman hits a grot and a bloodthirster on the same value. It gives even less opportunity to differentiate between different units which is already hard to begin with on a D6 system with stats that range from 1-10.

They should have kept the comparison chart, but expanded it so that you can actually hit on 2+ depending on your WS and your opponents WS.
They also should have expanded the range of WS distribution between units and factions. In previous factions about 80% of all units had a WS between 3 and 5 with some outliers, which didn't matter at all, because best you could hope for was to hit on 3+ anyway so a WS 10 on a bloodthirster was more or less for show.

I understand why they made the decision to change WS, but I think it will hurt the game in the long run.

I agree with the concept, but disagree on the implementation. The chart simply isn't needed with how 8th+ Edition handles stat comparison. No extra chart really needed.

Blastaar wrote:Fixed rolls are easier (until stuff like stratagems get piled on top) but that limits design space, and it's just plain boring.

Attacking should work like this:

Roll to hit vs, evasion

Roll to wound vs. armor

Apply damage. Done.

I disagree, but only a little. I do like the player having a chance to defend their models with the Save system, so keep S v T for To Wound rolls.

Rihgu wrote:Initiative is a hard stat because it either removes all interactivity from the fight phase and you just go down the list resolving things mindlessly, or it's almost irrelevant (see WHFB 6th edition, where chargers fought first regardless of Initiative values).

Initiative could have been used for the "evasion" stat above as well as hitting first (or just alone for that matter). BS has not had anything to really compare itself against, as it just existed. Having BS and WS have to overcome a models "Initiative" or "Evasion" would allow for some significant design space and really identify the ones that are easy to hit, like Necrons who would rely on their built in toughness and regeneration to overcome, and those who should be devils to hit like Eldar Banshees and Wyches.

This would also allow Invul Saves to be actually about Invulnerability instead of being an Evasion Save.

**KidCthulhu**

I confess, I miss the old chart. It wasn't that difficult to remember. But I think it's what a lot of us just couldn't wrap our heads around; you can hit a grot with the same probability of hitting a Bloodthirster with 20,000 years of combat experience.

**Tiberias**

Canadian 5th wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
There, fixed it:

Spoiler:

This has been a pet project of mine for some time: Here's an expanded comparison chart so you can hit on 2+ and 6+. I've also made it easier to hit "upwards" so units are not instantly penalized when they fight someone with one more WS than them. Only if you fight a unit that has two more WS you go to hitting on 5+.

So now you have to distribute sensible WS values across units/factions, for example:

WS1: Spore mines
WS2: Grots, Zoanthropes, Conscripts
WS3: Guardsmen, Hormagaunts, Sisters, Necron Warrior
WS4: Space Marines, Orkboyz, Dire Avengers, Repentia
WS5: Space Marine Terminators, Grey Knights, Striking Scorpions, Wyches, Lychguard, Ork Nobz, Tyranid Warrior
WS6: Genestealers, Triarch Praetorians, Howling Banshees, Incubi, Grey Knight Terminators, Meganobz, Bloodletters
WS7: Harlequins, Custodes, Assassins, Lord of Change
WS8: Hive Tyrant, Great Unclean One, Solitaire, Demon Prince
WS9: Keeper of Secrets, Skulltaker, Guilliman,
WS10: Bloodthirster, Swarmlord, Lelith Hesperax

Edit: 6s to hit are always successful, forgot to amend that for the fringe cases on the chart when WS3 tries to hit WS10

This functionally makes WS3 and 4 the same as neither will commonly hit at better than a 4+ as the units with WS1 and 2 are either uncommon or are models that can't be taken as more than a handful of units in an army. This chart seems clever but it just causes a lot of work for nothing and only serves to make already strong armies like Harlequins and Daemons even better.

Well I didn't say it was perfect, the distribution of WS can be finetuned for sure, but I think it proves a point that GW could have done something more interesting that a flat to hit value.
Edit: also a lot of work? how hard is that to remember when you used it three times, honestly?

**catbarf**

Canadian 5th wrote:
This functionally makes WS3 and 4 the same as neither will commonly hit at better than a 4+ as the units with WS1 and 2 are either uncommon or are models that can't be taken as more than a handful of units in an army. This chart seems clever but it just causes a lot of work for nothing and only serves to make already strong armies like Harlequins and Daemons even better.

In that proposed system, WS3 fighting WS4 will hit on 4+, and WS4 fighting WS3 will hit on a 3+. Just like how it currently is when, say, Marines fight Guardsmen.

This is how it worked back in 3rd-6th. Did you really feel back then like WS3 and WS4 were the same?

**Canadian 5th**

catbarf wrote:
In that proposed system, WS3 fighting WS4 will hit on 4+, and WS4 fighting WS3 will hit on a 3+. Just like how it currently is when, say, Marines fight Guardsmen.

This is how it worked back in 3rd-6th. Did you really feel back then like WS3 and WS4 were the same?

I missed that the 4+ wash between WS3 and WS4 was only for the less skilled unit, which entirely changes how I feel about the chart.

**Manchild 1984**

all models with invul. saves are harder to hit since they dodge.

I maybe miss Initiative (a often misunderstood defensive stat)

**Jidmah**

Tiberias wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
There, fixed it:

Spoiler:

This has been a pet project of mine for some time: Here's an expanded comparison chart so you can hit on 2+ and 6+. I've also made it easier to hit "upwards" so units are not instantly penalized when they fight someone with one more WS than them. Only if you fight a unit that has two more WS you go to hitting on 5+.

So now you have to distribute sensible WS values across units/factions, for example:

WS1: Spore mines
WS2: Grots, Zoanthropes, Conscripts
WS3: Guardsmen, Hormagaunts, Sisters, Necron Warrior
WS4: Space Marines, Orkboyz, Dire Avengers, Repentia
WS5: Space Marine Terminators, Grey Knights, Striking Scorpions, Wyches, Lychguard, Ork Nobz, Tyranid Warrior
WS6: Genestealers, Triarch Praetorians, Howling Banshees, Incubi, Grey Knight Terminators, Meganobz, Bloodletters
WS7: Harlequins, Custodes, Assassins, Lord of Change
WS8: Hive Tyrant, Great Unclean One, Solitaire, Demon Prince
WS9: Keeper of Secrets, Skulltaker, Guilliman,
WS10: Bloodthirster, Swarmlord, Lelith Hesperax

Edit: 6s to hit are always successful, forgot to amend that for the fringe cases on the chart when WS3 tries to hit WS10

This functionally makes WS3 and 4 the same as neither will commonly hit at better than a 4+ as the units with WS1 and 2 are either uncommon or are models that can't be taken as more than a handful of units in an army. This chart seems clever but it just causes a lot of work for nothing and only serves to make already strong armies like Harlequins and Daemons even better.

Well I didn't say it was perfect, the distribution of WS can be finetuned for sure, but I think it proves a point that GW could have done something more interesting that a flat to hit value.
Edit: also a lot of work? how hard is that to remember when you used it three times, honestly?

The thing I fail to understand is what part of that is supposed to be "interesting". Is having to look up your to hit roll in a table really that much of an improvement to your gaming experience?

In my opinion this adds absolutely no depth to the game and just reduces melee damage across the board.

**aphyon**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Llamahead wrote:
Oddly enough a lot of the objections to WS are based on the challenge rule which was introduced in 6th so removing that rule could have sorted out the problem with Weapon Skill then?

Not really. The main problem of prior editions was that WS basically was either 3+ or 4+, while now it is 2+ to 6+. People like to praise 5th edition on that board but the WS system (and I'd say the whole CC because it allowed for zero player interaction, once units were in the fight it went on until one side was erased or fled with nothing a player could do whatsoever) really was bad. It was pseudocomplex. Look at these tables and look, your characters' WS ranges from 4 to 8 but when you played the game you realized: Oh, this is all just on paper, basically I hit on 3+ or on 4+, end of the story.
Unless you were fighting vehicles. It really made playing Daemons difficult in 5th (amongst many, many other things) when you were hitting most vehicles on 4+ or 6+ flatly because of the way their movement rules worked for them.

A few points

1.the higher end WS really mattered among the big units.

the WS10 of the avatar of khaine meant that when he fought a bloodthirster (WS 9- 3.5 chaos dex) he hit it on 3s and the BT had to hit the avatar on 4+ for a change. yeah the BT was good but when he was fighting a literal god made manifest even he had to struggle.

I think the point many people are missing is that in CC weapon skill COMBINED with initiative is what made the units stand out as i noted in my first post. it was an abstract to represent in universe lore with a d6 system without making it overly complicated. it represented both speed and skill in dueling without having to make an opposed roll like heavy gear.

2.the vehicles being assaulting in close combat rules (4th ed)were fantastic (and we put them back in our house rules version of 5th combined with snap fire) because it forces the vehicle player to make tactical choices, not only over concerns about armor facing but also a trade off between moving and becoming less and less effective at shooting the more they moved or risking the outcome of being assaulted by not moving at all for better shooting. It is another abstract with the d6 system to represent the difficulty in attacking a moving vehicle that we can naturally identify with.

3.there was a psudo opposed roll for shooting-hard cover saves. they both represented units in cover hiding behind objects for protection, but also (in the example given in the book) aiming to avoid hitting friendly intervening models.

There were many lore aspects of the game they were attempting to represent within the limits of a d6 system that 9th doesn't even bother with. as a casual player who plays because of the lore it is one of many reasons i play 5th edition over 9th for regular 28mm 40K. if i want the kind of streamlined rules that 8th introduced i will play epic scale.

**Tiberias**

Jidmah wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Canadian 5th wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
There, fixed it:

Spoiler:

This has been a pet project of mine for some time: Here's an expanded comparison chart so you can hit on 2+ and 6+. I've also made it easier to hit "upwards" so units are not instantly penalized when they fight someone with one more WS than them. Only if you fight a unit that has two more WS you go to hitting on 5+.

So now you have to distribute sensible WS values across units/factions, for example:

WS1: Spore mines
WS2: Grots, Zoanthropes, Conscripts
WS3: Guardsmen, Hormagaunts, Sisters, Necron Warrior
WS4: Space Marines, Orkboyz, Dire Avengers, Repentia
WS5: Space Marine Terminators, Grey Knights, Striking Scorpions, Wyches, Lychguard, Ork Nobz, Tyranid Warrior
WS6: Genestealers, Triarch Praetorians, Howling Banshees, Incubi, Grey Knight Terminators, Meganobz, Bloodletters
WS7: Harlequins, Custodes, Assassins, Lord of Change
WS8: Hive Tyrant, Great Unclean One, Solitaire, Demon Prince
WS9: Keeper of Secrets, Skulltaker, Guilliman,
WS10: Bloodthirster, Swarmlord, Lelith Hesperax

Edit: 6s to hit are always successful, forgot to amend that for the fringe cases on the chart when WS3 tries to hit WS10

This functionally makes WS3 and 4 the same as neither will commonly hit at better than a 4+ as the units with WS1 and 2 are either uncommon or are models that can't be taken as more than a handful of units in an army. This chart seems clever but it just causes a lot of work for nothing and only serves to make already strong armies like Harlequins and Daemons even better.

Well I didn't say it was perfect, the distribution of WS can be finetuned for sure, but I think it proves a point that GW could have done something more interesting that a flat to hit value.
Edit: also a lot of work? how hard is that to remember when you used it three times, honestly?

The thing I fail to understand is what part of that is supposed to be "interesting". Is having to look up your to hit roll in a table really that much of an improvement to your gaming experience?

In my opinion this adds absolutely no depth to the game and just reduces melee damage across the board.

The interesting part is that it finally matters again who fights against who. Which means WS also becomes a defensive stat again.
I would also change auras and strats that give +1 to hit, to instead give +1 to WS, which in turn would mean that getting more of those buffs would actually be meaningful. Right now it's really easy to make most things hit on 2+, if you really want to.
This would also serve to reduce lethality of the the game in melee, which is something many people have complained about (shooting is another story). In short it would make melee combat more interesting again.
It would also free up design space to differentiate elite units better from each other.

Regarding complexity: honestly, how hard is this really when you have used it a couple of times? The principle really isn't that difficult.

**Spoletta**

It creates quite the issue.

I can take a ranged unit for a certain role, knowing that it will perform the same against all targets.

I can't do the same for melee, because if I bring veterans to kill high armored infantry, they will fail against custodes.

This means that you have to increase the cost of WS on units, because it is defending them other than being an offensive stat.
This means increasing the cost of melee specialists, turning them into even more of a gamble. Either, you run into a good target and absolutely trash them thanks to a good offensive and defensive profile, or you meet the wrong unit and they are useless.

That's what happened in 5th 6th and 7th. Melee was unreliable because they had packed offense and defense in the same stat. 8th finally freed us of that, and indeed we saw quite the abundant use of assault units for the first time in many many years of 40k.

**Cybtroll**

I think they missed the opportunity to rationalize the game and to eliminate entirely the to hit roll. We can call it a failure of imagination.

Right now, it's basically useless since there are so much reroll and attacks that very rarely you can achieve significative statistical deviations during the to-hot step.

Wound roll, armour save and damage rolls more than enought to maintain uncertainty and variety.

6 attacks at 2+? 5 hit, no roll needed. 1 attack at 4+? A hit every two models... And so on so forth. The time saved would be immense and the impact in the game flow negligible

**aphyon**

That's what happened in 5th 6th and 7th. Melee was unreliable because they had packed offense and defense in the same stat. 8th finally freed us of that, and indeed we saw quite the abundant use of assault units for the first time in many many years of 40k.

If you think that, we had very different experiences with 4th and 5th edition. assault units were very much a thing and very effective. i should know, i regularly play against a chaos khorne army in our 5th edition game group and i have gone up against him with everything from GKs, assassins, assault marines, dreadnoughts and tyranids. just did a 5,700 point apocalypse game against him in fact...lots of CC happening there.

But it isn't just khorne our 5th ed group includes these armies-

.chaos-iron warriors
.crimson fist
.imperial guard
.orks
.tau
.necrons
.blood angels
.dark angels
.tyranids
.chaos-world eaters/khorne berserkers/demons

**Tiberias**

Spoletta wrote:It creates quite the issue.

I can take a ranged unit for a certain role, knowing that it will perform the same against all targets.

I can't do the same for melee, because if I bring veterans to kill high armored infantry, they will fail against custodes.

This means that you have to increase the cost of WS on units, because it is defending them other than being an offensive stat.
This means increasing the cost of melee specialists, turning them into even more of a gamble. Either, you run into a good target and absolutely trash them thanks to a good offensive and defensive profile, or you meet the wrong unit and they are useless.

That's what happened in 5th 6th and 7th. Melee was unreliable because they had packed offense and defense in the same stat. 8th finally freed us of that, and indeed we saw quite the abundant use of assault units for the first time in many many years of 40k.

That issue is very present with my proposal you are 100% correct. But you couldn't implement my chart into the game as it is anyway, the would have to be designed with it in mind and shooting would have to be tweaked accordingly.

While your criticism is very valid, I don't think it invalidates the charts as a generally more interesting concept GW could have used when designing 8th, while also not making shooting as reliable and lethal as it is now.

Edit: I disagree though with the sentiment that assault units were not as effective in previous editions.

Cybtroll wrote:I think they missed the opportunity to rationalize the game and to eliminate entirely the to hit roll. We can call it a failure of imagination.

Right now, it's basically useless since there are so much reroll and attacks that very rarely you can achieve significative statistical deviations during the to-hot step.

Wound roll, armour save and damage rolls more than enought to maintain uncertainty and variety.

6 attacks at 2+? 5 hit, no roll needed. 1 attack at 4+? A hit every two models... And so on so forth. The time saved would be immense and the impact in the game flow negligible

I get your point, but I personally disagree, it would make the game even more lethal and you would have even less differentiation between units, which I think is actually important for a game with that many factions.

**Cybtroll**

Sorry...but why?

Lethality would be exactly the same, and the attack sequence is a window dressing since you can already calculate exactly how many hits you will achieve at the list-builsing stage.

Already now, when you Mathammer, the only variable is the T and Save of the target, there is nothing in the attack sequence that cannot be simply expressed by a number of hits with the exact same final results.
All relevant mechanics are gradually phasing out, and already everything that is important (Invulnerability, Mortal Wound, Damage cap, modifiers to Wound) are after the to-hit step.
That's a direct consequences of capping hit modifiers at -1. I didn't like it, but that's the game we have.
I would prefer for iGW to take note of the impact of their decision and to go for it... rather than always staying in the middle of different ideas without fully realizing none.

Maybe to save the fluff of some faction like Orks could have a random number of hits (like D3) for any model. But that's windows dressing too.

That would also have the positive effect of leaving more breathing space to the system: D6 is enough if you have only wound, save and damage rolls.

And in general, I think the "cinematic" of 40k don't require hit wound. That's not The Three Musketeers, with elegant duelist that win with littl blood applied. It's much more gore, and Wound mechanics are more than enough for it

**Tiberias**

Cybtroll wrote:
Sorry...but why?

Lethality would be exactly the same, and the attack sequence is a window dressing since you can already calculate exactly how many hits you will achieve at the list-builsing stage.

Already now, when you Mathammer, the only variable is the T and Save of the target, there is nothing in the attack sequence that cannot be simply expressed by a number of hits with the exact same final results.
All relevant mechanics are gradually phasing out, and already everything that is important (Invulnerability, Mortal Wound, Damage cap, modifiers to Wound) are after the to-hit step.
That's a direct consequences of capping hit modifiers at -1. I didn't like it, but that's the game we have.
I would prefer for iGW to take note of the impact of their decision and to go for it... rather than always staying in the middle of different ideas without fully realizing none.

Maybe to save the fluff of some faction like Orks could have a random number of hits (like D3) for any model. But that's windows dressing too.

That would also have the positive effect of leaving more breathing space to the system: D6 is enough if you have only wound, save and damage rolls.

And in general, I think the "cinematic" of 40k don't require hit wound. That's not The Three Musketeers, with elegant duelist that win with littl blood applied. It's much more gore, and Wound mechanics are more than enough for it

You can calculate many things beforehand, but you can still miss ingame, there is still variance. If you remove that entirely it makes things more lethal in practice. You also lose some of the "theater", there should be a gage as to how good a unit fights compared to another unit it faces. And yes 40k not about elegant three musketeers duels, but it can have a small part of that.
I also strongly disagree that you would have enough breathing space on a D6 system. Right now many units seem to blur together in terms of their capabilities and stats, specifically because we are limited by a D6 to-hit system and a statblock from 1-10.
I completely agree though that capping modifiers at -1 was a bad decision.

**Jidmah**

Tiberias wrote:
The interesting part is that it finally matters again who fights against who.

It already matters who fights who, because of attacks, damage, strength and AP on the offensive side and toughness, wounds and saves on the defense, in addition to unit and weapon abilities. Having a slightly better or worse hit roll doesn't change a lot about that. Not a single match-up from anything on your list would significantly be affected by your table.
To pick one of the examples from this thread - a (non-exalted) blood thirster of unfetted fury currently does ~10 damage to an avatar, killing it before it can strike. If it had a lower WS and hit on 3s, it would still deal ~8.5 damage to it and kill it before it can strike.

Which means WS also becomes a defensive stat again.

We have already established that having a stat being both offensive and defensive is a bad thing. Especially when there is no equivalent for shooting which is vastly superior to melee.

I would also change auras and strats that give +1 to hit, to instead give +1 to WS, which in turn would mean that getting more of those buffs would actually be meaningful. Right now it's really easy to make most things hit on 2+, if you really want to.

+1 WS upgrades were feels-bad upgrades. If you bought a Waaagh! banner against marines, it made you hit better, if you bought it against imperial guard, it did absolutely nothing.
"Most things" also is absolutely incorrect, only units with WS 3+ can be improved to 2+, and most armies don't even anything that provides +1 to hit, and even if they do, it's often limited to a single unit.

This would also serve to reduce lethality of the the game in melee, which is something many people have complained about (shooting is another story).

Lethality in melee is not the lethality people are complaining about. I'd also see the proof of "many people" complaining about this, or is this just the appeal to popularity fallacy?

In short it would make melee combat more interesting again.

Eh, your entire argument just boils down to "make melee worse".`Once again, what part of that do you consider "interesting"?

It would also free up design space to differentiate elite units better from each other.

Having a range from 1-10 instead of 2-6 is not design space, especially when it's just a more complicated way to make units hit on 2-6 anyways. Using d10 to roll to hit in combat would be strictly superior to your solution in terms of design space.
Adding bespoke rules to the few exceptional melee combatants is vastly superior in terms of design space than comparing weapon skills between an imperial commissar and a tau ethereal.

Regarding complexity: honestly, how hard is this really when you have used it a couple of times? The principle really isn't that difficult.

You cannot deny that it adds complexity, and it adds no depth. Therefore it makes the game worse.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cybtroll wrote:
I think they missed the opportunity to rationalize the game and to eliminate entirely the to hit roll. We can call it a failure of imagination.

Right now, it's basically useless since there are so much reroll and attacks that very rarely you can achieve significative statistical deviations during the to-hot step.

Wound roll, armour save and damage rolls more than enought to maintain uncertainty and variety.

6 attacks at 2+? 5 hit, no roll needed. 1 attack at 4+? A hit every two models... And so on so forth. The time saved would be immense and the impact in the game flow negligible

While you are technically right, just try playing a game like that. I did and it was super boring.

I think a middle ground would be good, something like reducing attacks of horde units to 1 and have each successful hit doubled/trippled depending on unit size.

**AnomanderRake**

Jidmah wrote:
Regarding complexity: honestly, how hard is this really when you have used it a couple of times? The principle really isn't that difficult.

You cannot deny that it adds complexity, and it adds no depth. Therefore it makes the game worse.

WS and I didn't add that much depth in 3e-7e, where the stats were assigned such that it was effectively "Codex X attacks before Codex Y and hits them on a 3+". It adds a lot more depth in 30k when WS and I exist in narrower bands, you may have the choice to take WS4 or WS5 melee units within one Codex instead of all your melee options having the same WS, and Initiative bonuses/penalties exist on some weapons/rules rather than I being on (not a powerfist) or off (a powerfist).

**Eldarsif**

You cannot deny that it adds complexity, and it adds no depth. Therefore it makes the game worse.

Pretty much this. It adds nothing except the illusion of complexity.

**Tiberias**

Jidmah wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
The interesting part is that it finally matters again who fights against who.

It already matters who fights who, because of attacks, damage, strength and AP on the offensive side and toughness, wounds and saves on the defense, in addition to unit and weapon abilities. Having a slightly better or worse hit roll doesn't change a lot about that. Not a single match-up from anything on your list would significantly be affected by your table.
To pick one of the examples from this thread - a (non-exalted) blood thirster of unfetted fury currently does ~10 damage to an avatar, killing it before it can strike. If it had a lower WS and hit on 3s, it would still deal ~8.5 damage to it and kill it before it can strike.

Which means WS also becomes a defensive stat again.

We have already established that having a stat being both offensive and defensive is a bad thing. Especially when there is no equivalent for shooting which is vastly superior to melee.

I would also change auras and strats that give +1 to hit, to instead give +1 to WS, which in turn would mean that getting more of those buffs would actually be meaningful. Right now it's really easy to make most things hit on 2+, if you really want to.

+1 WS upgrades were feels-bad upgrades. If you bought a Waaagh! banner against marines, it made you hit better, if you bought it against imperial guard, it did absolutely nothing.
"Most things" also is absolutely incorrect, only units with WS 3+ can be improved to 2+, and most armies don't even anything that provides +1 to hit, and even if they do, it's often limited to a single unit.

This would also serve to reduce lethality of the the game in melee, which is something many people have complained about (shooting is another story).

Lethality in melee is not the lethality people are complaining about. I'd also see the proof of "many people" complaining about this, or is this just the appeal to popularity fallacy?

In short it would make melee combat more interesting again.

Eh, your entire argument just boils down to "make melee worse".`Once again, what part of that do you consider "interesting"?

It would also free up design space to differentiate elite units better from each other.

Having a range from 1-10 instead of 2-6 is not design space, especially when it's just a more complicated way to make units hit on 2-6 anyways. Using d10 to roll to hit in combat would be strictly superior to your solution in terms of design space.
Adding bespoke rules to the few exceptional melee combatants is vastly superior in terms of design space than comparing weapon skills between an imperial commissar and a tau ethereal.

Regarding complexity: honestly, how hard is this really when you have used it a couple of times? The principle really isn't that difficult.

You cannot deny that it adds complexity, and it adds no depth. Therefore it makes the game worse.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Cybtroll wrote:
I think they missed the opportunity to rationalize the game and to eliminate entirely the to hit roll. We can call it a failure of imagination.

Right now, it's basically useless since there are so much reroll and attacks that very rarely you can achieve significative statistical deviations during the to-hot step.

Wound roll, armour save and damage rolls more than enought to maintain uncertainty and variety.

6 attacks at 2+? 5 hit, no roll needed. 1 attack at 4+? A hit every two models... And so on so forth. The time saved would be immense and the impact in the game flow negligible

While you are technically right, just try playing a game like that. I did and it was super boring.

I think a middle ground would be good, something like reducing attacks of horde units to 1 and have each successful hit doubled/trippled depending on unit size.

I've presented my arguments, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I will just say that boiling my proposal down to "just making melee worse" is a bit reductive. It is more complex than the current system sure, I just contestet the idea that it's too complex to use in practice. And I strongly contest the idea that it adds no depth. In my opinion it does by default because right now it does not matter who you try to hit in melee, with my system it does matter based on your WS, thus creating more depth than the current system.

I agree with you however that moving to a D10 system would be very good, but we both know that this will never happen.

**Jidmah**

AnomanderRake wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
Regarding complexity: honestly, how hard is this really when you have used it a couple of times? The principle really isn't that difficult.

You cannot deny that it adds complexity, and it adds no depth. Therefore it makes the game worse.

WS and I didn't add that much depth in 3e-7e, where the stats were assigned such that it was effectively "Codex X attacks before Codex Y and hits them on a 3+". It adds a lot more depth in 30k when WS and I exist in narrower bands, you may have the choice to take WS4 or WS5 melee units within one Codex instead of all your melee options having the same WS, and Initiative bonuses/penalties exist on some weapons/rules rather than I being on (not a powerfist) or off (a powerfist).

In 9th the same is archived by having units with different WS, speeds, AP, strength, number of attacks or damage characteristic. In addition some can have additional bespoke rules which give them the edge in certain scenarios. Weapons can have almost anything that fits in one line as a rule, the most common one besing -1 to hit, getting multiple attacks/hits out of one attack and mortal wounds on wound rolls of 6.

While I see how it is a good thing in a world were AP is binary, movement is defined by unit type, weapon abilities are limited and damage doesn't exist, WS really doesn't any depth to a system were you already have this many values to tweak.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
I've presented my arguments, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I will just say that boiling my proposal down to "just making melee worse" is a bit reductive.

According to your proposal, almost every unit will cause reduced damage compared to now unless hitting vastly inferior combatants which they mostly likely wipe out no matter which system you use. You have failed to explain why that is interesting. From my point of view, you have provided nothing to back your arguments.

It is more complex than the current system sure, I just contestet the idea that it's too complex to use in practice. And I strongly contest the idea that it adds no depth. In my opinion it does by default because right now it does not matter who you try to hit in melee, with my system it does matter based on your WS, thus creating more depth than the current system.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Complexity does not add depth by default.
Depth means it adds more that the player needs to think about, more decision making. As I have explained and provided examples for, it does not. Feel free to provide counter-examples where your table would actually make a difference that is not just dealing 1-2 wounds more or less.

**Tiberias**

Jidmah wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tiberias wrote:
I've presented my arguments, I think we will just have to agree to disagree. I will just say that boiling my proposal down to "just making melee worse" is a bit reductive.

According to your proposal, almost every unit will cause reduced damage compared to now unless hitting vastly inferior combatants which they mostly likely wipe out no matter which system you use. You have failed to explain why that is interesting. From my point of view, you have provided nothing to back your arguments

It will create more varied and interesting combat between units who are stated and geared to do so.

It is more complex than the current system sure, I just contestet the idea that it's too complex to use in practice. And I strongly contest the idea that it adds no depth. In my opinion it does by default because right now it does not matter who you try to hit in melee, with my system it does matter based on your WS, thus creating more depth than the current system.

Sorry, but you are wrong. Complexity does not add depth by default.
Depth means it adds more that the player needs to think about, more decision making. As I have explained and provided examples for, it does not. Feel free to provide counter-examples where your table would actually make a difference that is not just dealing 1-2 wounds more or less.

You are judging my proposal on the current rules and game design. I already said, 8th would have had to be designed with a chart like that in mind. I said before that you couldn't just add it to the game as is. My whole point was that GW could have come up with a system that was more interesting, offered more design space and provied more depth than what we have now, had they kept and expanded the comparison chart.
I don't think the present system in 9th is bad, I just think they could have done something better.

**kirotheavenger**

I don't think changing how weaponskill works will add anything to combat.
It's still one side throwing a bucket of dice and killing a bunch of models, then what remains retaliating in kind.
Doing some mental movement of numbers before handhand to determine whether you hit on 3s or 4s doesn't significantly change how that feels, but does add an extra drag.

**Jidmah**

kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think changing how weaponskill works will add anything to combat.
It's still one side throwing a bucket of dice and killing a bunch of models, then what remains retaliating in kind.
Doing some mental movement of numbers before handhand to determine whether you hit on 3s or 4s doesn't significantly change how that feels, but does add an extra drag.

Exactly. Thanks for putting my thoughts in better words

**SideSwipe**

To me, the flaws of the existing combat system (and indeed, the wider 40k system) is exposed by the plethora of bespoke apecial rules units need to be considered a CC/shooty unit.

A units speciality and function is too often determined more by it's special rules, and the strategems available to it, rather than it's statline, whose most important trait is the wounds stat, with toughness being the second most.

I personally preferred the WS comparison system( with very rare special rules) to the existing flat WS+bespoke special rules system. I felt like a common chart with rare rules was less complex than the existing paradigm with it's set of modifiers (even SM, the traditional starter army, has it's assault doctrine which affects all units, is only sometimes active and vastly modifies the vase effectiveness of the unit's profile).

For me, the fact that you may or not get value out of higher WS is a benefit, as I'm of the opinion that nothing should be universally beneficial (I'd argue that the same point could be applied to the old and current AP system) and everything should be somewhat situational, with the system's depths coming out of recognizing and exploiting these systems.

I'm probably in the minority, as I'd prefer a less is more approach to rules.

**kirotheavenger**

I definitely agree with a "less is more" approach to rules.
Unfortunately that's exactly the opposite of what 40k is at the moment.

**Tiberias**

kirotheavenger wrote:I don't think changing how weaponskill works will add anything to combat.
It's still one side throwing a bucket of dice and killing a bunch of models, then what remains retaliating in kind.
Doing some mental movement of numbers before handhand to determine whether you hit on 3s or 4s doesn't significantly change how that feels, but does add an extra drag.

Jidmah wrote:
kirotheavenger wrote:
I don't think changing how weaponskill works will add anything to combat.
It's still one side throwing a bucket of dice and killing a bunch of models, then what remains retaliating in kind.
Doing some mental movement of numbers before handhand to determine whether you hit on 3s or 4s doesn't significantly change how that feels, but does add an extra drag.

Exactly. Thanks for putting my thoughts in better words

Well again, I get your points, I really do, but I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

I still believe it would increase design space and depth with a proper rules framework fitted around it. It might be a small thing, but I think it would also increase immersion. Hitting everything on the same value just doesn't make sense. From a narrative perspective it devaluates very skilled units...I know the narrative is not the most important thing for many people, but I think you can not neglect this perspective completely, even from just a game design standpoint. Your setting and lore has to be reflected on the tabletop at least in some parts.
The best example is the good old bloodthirster: an aeons old demigod of war, which a bog standard space marine can still hit on 3+ in combat, same as if he were to try and hit an ork boy. A comparison chart would fix that issue at least. And I'll say this again: I am not claiming that you could just implement my suggestion within the framework of 9th ed.

**kirotheavenger**

What is a "hit" anyway? If in reality the Blood Thirster parried the blow, what would that represent on the tabletop? Failed hit? Failed wound? Passed save? Who's to say it couldn't be any or all of those.
40k is too large a scale to accurately represent dueling between characters and it shouldn't try to be something it's not.

**Jidmah**

SideSwipe wrote:
To me, the flaws of the existing combat system (and indeed, the wider 40k system) is exposed by the plethora of bespoke apecial rules units need to be considered a CC/shooty unit.

A units speciality and function is too often determined more by it's special rules, and the strategems available to it, rather than it's statline, whose most important trait is the wounds stat, with toughness being the second most.

I personally preferred the WS comparison system( with very rare special rules) to the existing flat WS+bespoke special rules system. I felt like a common chart with rare rules was less complex than the existing paradigm with it's set of modifiers (even SM, the traditional starter army, has it's assault doctrine which affects all units, is only sometimes active and vastly modifies the vase effectiveness of the unit's profile).

For me, the fact that you may or not get value out of higher WS is a benefit, as I'm of the opinion that nothing should be universally beneficial (I'd argue that the same point could be applied to the old and current AP system) and everything should be somewhat situational, with the system's depths coming out of recognizing and exploiting these systems.

I'm probably in the minority, as I'd prefer a less is more approach to rules.

I understand, but in my opinion having a system in place that needs to be checked for everyone fighting everyone is "more" than having bespoke rules on the few exceptional combat experts on the table.

For example, I ran a rather melee heavy DG list yesterday: blightlords, deathshrouds, plague marines, pox walkers, a daemon prince, a lord of contagion and Mortarion himself. The only one of them who has a bespoke ability that changes their combat prowress is plague marines, and that is just getting an extra attack for having two melee weapons. If you really wanted I guess you could also count the extra attacks some weapons have as "bespoke", but that's about it.
Outside of those two things, their vastly differing combat skills are solely decided by their own stats, those of their weapons and what characters provided them with support buffs. A WS table would have added nothing the game the other stats didn't.

There really is nothing situational about a comparative weapon skill. Mechanically, it is replaced by a fixed value the second the game starts without either player taking any conscient decisions. Unless you are list tailoring, whether the additional WS upgrade pays off or not is mostly decided by the event pairings, by who showed up at the store or what army your opponent decided on today.
You are still sending a high WS model after its optimal target while your opponent tries bog it down with a less optimal target or kill it before it strike - the situation remains the same, at best you have a different hit roll.

**Tiberias**

kirotheavenger wrote:
What is a "hit" anyway? If in reality the Blood Thirster parried the blow, what would that represent on the tabletop? Failed hit? Failed wound? Passed save? Who's to say it couldn't be any or all of those.
40k is too large a scale to accurately represent dueling between characters and it shouldn't try to be something it's not.

Well it doesn't have to be a perfect representation of dueling, but I don't think anyone wants it to be. I don't claim any objective fact here, but for me it always manifested this way:
If your hit roll is high enough you manage to pass your opponents defenses in the sense that he doesn't manage to parry your blow.
If your wound roll is high enough it means you are physically strong enough to push through your opponents physicality.
And the save and AP represent whether the weapon can bypass the armor.

This is already an abstraction, because in my example it would be more logical for the wound roll to be after the save roll, but that is the order GW chose to go with and part of their abstraction.