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.

**Jidmah**

Insectum7 wrote:
It benefitted Genestealers, Lictors, Tyrants, Slaneesh daemons, Dark Eldar, occasionally Ork Nobs on the charge when they doubled their initiative. . .

How far back in time do I need to go to have nobz double their initiative on the charge?
The best they could do ever since I started was I4, assuming they were charging, not wielding a PK or charging into terrain.
Which meant that for many armies that their dedicated shooting units were allowed to kill a bunch of expensive melee experts before they could strike.

Plus, Orks with their natively lower Initiative actually hit harder to compensate. It's almost like things can be rebalanced if required.

They hit harder? At S3 without AP?

**AnomanderRake**

Jidmah wrote:
Plus, Orks with their natively lower Initiative actually hit harder to compensate. It's almost like things can be rebalanced if required.

They hit harder? At S3 without AP?

2A and Furious Charge on 6ppm goons (4e)? Harder than anyone else's Troops, that's for sure.

**Insectum7**

aphyon wrote:

Insectum7 wrote:

That would go some distance to dealing with something that always kinda bugged me, which is that Vehicles aren't harder to hit than infantry. Like, are you really going to miss a Monolith? The counterpoint to that is that taking out such a vehicle requires hitting weak points, and those could still be hard to hit, but opening up a stat that modifies defense could provide for some interesting opportunities.

They already had that fixed in 4th. If you remember vehicles didn't have a CC attack(except for the 30K mechanicus land raider/explorator that had a combat claw, and tau flechette launchers) but they could try to run people over with tank shock (it became really good and thematic with the old 3.5 chaos vehicle upgrades-remember when all those saw blades on a khorne rhino did something?). the vehicle owner had to trade off more accurate shooting for being harder to hit in close combat. going from being hit automatically for not moving to a 4+/6+ the faster they went. they also introduced ramming so they could effectively CC attack another vehicle in the movement phase (very useful if you had all your guns blown off). you also only hit the armor you were facing requiring tactical maneuvering (not the BS Jervis Johnson came up with in 5th- hitting on 3+ always against rear armor-.because in his words "you deserve it" if you get into CC with a vehicle-you don't deserve **** in a tactical war game-you earn it by being the better general)

Thats why our group still uses those rules in our hybrid 5th ed games- they were a good tactical and immersive element in the game.

I meant in regards to shooting, actually. This was in regards to Initiative being used for evasion in CC and Shooting.

**Jidmah**

Tiberias wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
Argive wrote:
I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...

Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.

What does that have to do with the WS comparison chart per se? Nobody claimed that all old charge and melee rules are desirable now in their entirety.

Well, if you discount initiative, your Hive Tyrand was worse with the table than without in every possible scenario. Which means that you are asking for a flat melee nerf.

**Insectum7**

Jidmah wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
It benefitted Genestealers, Lictors, Tyrants, Slaneesh daemons, Dark Eldar, occasionally Ork Nobs on the charge when they doubled their initiative. . .

How far back in time do I need to go to have nobz double their initiative on the charge?
The best they could do ever since I started was I4, assuming they were charging, not wielding a PK or charging into terrain.
Which meant that for many armies that their dedicated shooting units were allowed to kill a bunch of expensive melee experts before they could strike.

3rd -4th era. Some 5th maybe.

Orks were not expensive. Nob sergeants in a Boyz mob could fight first with Initiative 6, then Boyz would fight at I4, simultaneously with Marines. This required a Mob check, which was something like testing agains the unit size on 2d6.

Plus, Orks with their natively lower Initiative actually hit harder to compensate. It's almost like things can be rebalanced if required.

They hit harder?At S3 without AP?

Back then they actually HAD a form of AP. Choppas reduced saves to 4+, even Terminators. Slugga boys had 4 attacks each on the charge. So a good charge with 10 boyz would average 3.33 marine kills simultaneously as the Marines fought back. If the Nob was in there he could use a Choppa, but more likely he had a Power Claw, which forced him to fight last, but he'd get 5 attacks for 2 kills by himself. The marines wouldn't kill the Nob, since the Ork player could just take boyz for casualties. But that'd be 5 Marines killed by 10 Orks, and the Marines (say, 10 man squad) would only average 2 dead Orks in return.

I don't know how the same 10 Orks would fare today, but I think "not as well" is the place we're in now, considering the same 10 marines average about 6 Ork kills. . . Oh and Intercessors for 8.5

**Tiberias**

Jidmah wrote:
Tiberias wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
Argive wrote:
I dunno. I remember my hive tyrant wrecking face...

Yeah, unless there was a small shrubbery at the feet of your charge target, then even tau fire warriors were given a shot to hit the pinnacle of evolution before it was allowed to kill them.

What does that have to do with the WS comparison chart per se? Nobody claimed that all old charge and melee rules are desirable now in their entirety.

Well, if you discount initiative, your Hive Tyrand was worse with the table than without in every possible scenario. Which means that you are asking for a flat melee nerf.

We've been through this a couple of pages ago, but I'll say it one last time. The re introduction of a comparison chart would need a rule framework built around it, initiative could be a part of that.

**Jidmah**

... which really sounds the same as just writing new melee rules because the WS chart sucked and you don't like the current ones.

**JNAProductions**

Jidmah wrote:
... which really sounds the same as just writing new melee rules because the WS chart sucked and you don't like the current ones.

Seems reasonable to me. The old system was better conceptually, but had flawed implementation.

The current system is implemented better, but is very shallow.

Why not work towards a better system?

**Jidmah**

JNAProductions wrote:
Jidmah wrote:
... which really sounds the same as just writing new melee rules because the WS chart sucked and you don't like the current ones.
Seems reasonable to me. The old system was better conceptually, but had flawed implementation.

The current system is implemented better, but is very shallow.

Why not work towards a better system?

Melee feels like it's worth a damn for the first time in a decade, honestly I'd rather not take any chances.

**Charistoph**

jeff white wrote:Actually the defensive element existed in the fact that casualties were removed immediately, before having a chance to strike in the first place... but sure, more could be done.

Ah yes, true. However Lelith wasn't all that strong, making Wounding a bit more challenging against tougher foes like Marines and Nobs. She could put out a lot Attacks and once Wounded, they tended to stick.

**Tiberias**

Jidmah wrote:
... which really sounds the same as just writing new melee rules because the WS chart sucked and you don't like the current ones.

Which is why I proposed to expand the chart and distribute WS differently. I hate to say it, but have you actually read any of my posts seriously?

**Jidmah**

Not after you claimed that you don't need to support a hypothesis with arguments, no.

**Tiberias**

Jidmah wrote:
Not after you claimed that you don't need to support a hypothesis with arguments, no.

What the hell are you even talking about?

Edit: Are you KIDDING me? You gathered from my post that I believe you don't need to support a hypothesis with "arguments"? I wrote that a hypothesis has no claim to objective truth unless it can be tested and can provide reproducable and peer reviewed results, because you accused me of stating my opinion as fact. I then said I can't provide testable, reproducable results for my extended comparison chart because it would need a rule framework written around it....I don't have that framework, guess what, I didn't rework all the rules on my own.
How in the hell did you get from that to "I claimed that you don't need to support a hypothesis with arguments"?! Seriously.

**Argive**

I think the points some posters have made has wooshed well over peoples heads.

Just because there were units in certain edition that were perhaps too good/too points effcient does not mean the idea behind combination of initiative and WS v WS hititng in CC is a bad design for handling combat..

Nothin is perfect but IMO that offers much more room to design nits other then:

Tis unit always fights first
This unit always hits on 2+
This model has 999 attacks as the sole indicator for how good something is in CC.

**Slayer-Fan123**

Initiative simply implies the slower unit is twiddling their thumbs and doing nothing while getting hit. I'd rather just get rid of the activiation thing going on and everyone strikes at the same time unless there's combats that need to be resolved first/last. It would make the process significantly quicker too.

**Tyel**

Contested WS - and especially contested initiative - is incredibly hard to balance though.

Does it really matter for instance if Ork Boys hit on 3s versus say Guardsmen, but 4s versus Space Marines or Eldar or 5 vs... whatever? (If this was the rules, sorry 7th and beyond disappears from my memory like some terrible nightmare). Mathematically you are making weird probability curves when those units with higher WS likely already have superior armour saves than chaff. Making assault essentially just shooting, but at point blank range makes sort of sense to me.

**Argive**

of course it matters.. Otherwise why would we have a plethora of non standard +1/-1 to hit ?

**SemperMortis**

Insectum7 wrote:

Back then they actually HAD a form of AP. Choppas reduced saves to 4+, even Terminators. Slugga boys had 4 attacks each on the charge. So a good charge with 10 boyz would average 3.33 marine kills simultaneously as the Marines fought back. If the Nob was in there he could use a Choppa, but more likely he had a Power Claw, which forced him to fight last, but he'd get 5 attacks for 2 kills by himself. The marines wouldn't kill the Nob, since the Ork player could just take boyz for casualties. But that'd be 5 Marines killed by 10 Orks, and the Marines (say, 10 man squad) would only average 2 dead Orks in return.

I don't know how the same 10 Orks would fare today, but I think "not as well" is the place we're in now, considering the same 10 marines average about 6 Ork kills. . . Oh and Intercessors for 8.5

10 basic orkz was 60pts and the Marines were 150pts. The orkz had 40 attacks on the charge, 26.6 hits, 13.3 wounds and 4.4 ish dead Marines.

10 Basic orkz are now 80pts and the Marines are 180pts. The orkz get 30 attacks, 20 hits, 10 wounds and 3.33dmg which results in 1.5 Dead Marines.

So orkz went up in price 33%, Space Marines only went up 20%. Orkz are now a bit over 1/3rd as deadly as they used to be vs Space Marines and point for point its even worse. All told Ork boyz aren't in a good place if the meta actually brought TAC lists instead of anti-elite lists.

**JNAProductions**

Tyel wrote:
Contested WS - and especially contested initiative - is incredibly hard to balance though.

Does it really matter for instance if Ork Boys hit on 3s versus say Guardsmen, but 4s versus Space Marines or Eldar or 5 vs... whatever? (If this was the rules, sorry 7th and beyond disappears from my memory like some terrible nightmare). Mathematically you are making weird probability curves when those units with higher WS likely already have superior armour saves than chaff. Making assault essentially just shooting, but at point blank range makes sort of sense to me.

My WS9 Daemon Princes had a 5++, same as my WS3 Plaguebearers.

WS doesn’t mean better armor.

**Voss**

JNAProductions wrote:
Tyel wrote:
Contested WS - and especially contested initiative - is incredibly hard to balance though.

Does it really matter for instance if Ork Boys hit on 3s versus say Guardsmen, but 4s versus Space Marines or Eldar or 5 vs... whatever? (If this was the rules, sorry 7th and beyond disappears from my memory like some terrible nightmare). Mathematically you are making weird probability curves when those units with higher WS likely already have superior armour saves than chaff. Making assault essentially just shooting, but at point blank range makes sort of sense to me.
My WS9 Daemon Princes had a 5++, same as my WS3 Plaguebearers.

WS doesn’t mean better armor.

I suspect its a generalization. And a fairly accurate one if you don't purposefully toss the prime exception to armor into the mix.
But it is notable that the low init, low weapon skill armies often choked hard, and their actual value was far more variable on the table, as they contributed less (dying first), and hit less often (against higher WS armies).

**JNAProductions**

That’s something I actually ran-that’s not a cherry picked example.

**Sledgehammer**

The weapon skill change was one of the only good changes made between 7th and 8th.

It was just a pain in the ass for little gain.

**vipoid**

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Initiative simply implies the slower unit is twiddling their thumbs and doing nothing while getting hit.

And the current rules don't?

**Slayer-Fan123**

vipoid wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Initiative simply implies the slower unit is twiddling their thumbs and doing nothing while getting hit.

And the current rules don't?

If you read my post shortly afterwards you'd see I wanted everyone to strike at once compared to the current system and even the old system.

**Luke_Prowler**

If even if you did go back to the older system and did change it so that that the chart wasn't slowed like it used to be, the vast majority of the units will still be hitting each other on 4s (since most of the units that wanted to be in melee in were WS 4) with generally getting on 3s vs GEQs, who don't want to be in melee most of the time anyway. It's rare for an army to have varying WS outside of characters, even less where WS5 could be accessible outside, again, characters. It wouldn't add much that the current system doesn't already do. Worse for using old fashion Init. I personally like that who went first was dependat on who took the risk vs "who's number is higher goes first." there's noting interesting about unavoidable damage.

If init got used as a defensive stat, I'd be much more interested in that (as long as it applys to shooting too. Nothing more infuriating that two campions of their respective races hitting each other on 4+ while john "I didn't die in the first hour" doe being able a score a bulleyes on a dark eldar reaver at full speed two thirds of the time).

**Tiberias**

Luke_Prowler wrote:
If even if you did go back to the older system and did change it so that that the chart wasn't slowed like it used to be, the vast majority of the units will still be hitting each other on 4s (since most of the units that wanted to be in melee in were WS 4) with generally getting on 3s vs GEQs, who don't want to be in melee most of the time anyway. It's rare for an army to have varying WS outside of characters, even less where WS5 could be accessible outside, again, characters. It wouldn't add much that the current system doesn't already do. Worse for using old fashion Init. I personally like that who went first was dependat on who took the risk vs "who's number is higher goes first." there's noting interesting about unavoidable damage.

If init got used as a defensive stat, I'd be much more interested in that (as long as it applys to shooting too. Nothing more infuriating that two campions of their respective races hitting each other on 4+ while john "I didn't die in the first hour" doe being able a score a bulleyes on a dark eldar reaver at full speed two thirds of the time).

True, but if you distributed WS on a wider range across units and factions it could potentially work, and work better than the old system, while also freeing up design space compared to the current system and also being an (imo) better abstraction for melee combat than the current system. Working in initiative for both melee and/or shooting would be a cool idea for a rule framework that is built with an extended WS comparison chart in mind.

**ZebioLizard2**

Insectum7 wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Daedalus81 wrote:
Insectum7 wrote:
Pretty sure Kharandras was better in 2nd, and he's not advocating for that.

An elf was almost always WS5+ AND I5+ meaning they'd always go first and hit the most.
Heaven forbid non-Space Marines be good at something?
You mean a boost to Eldar and none other? Orks gained a ton from the change now that they weren't always swinging last against everything and often given often weak WS scores, Tyranids don't have to suffer the issues of their better assault units not having assault grenades and thus being penalized by cover. Which of course Imperium and Eldar had in Spades. Not to mention how GW always felt that "Big Monsters need WS3!"

Notice how everyone's discussing how much this system benefits Eldar units, but forgets that there's other xenos melee units in the game.
It benefitted Genestealers, Lictors, Tyrants, Slaneesh daemons, Dark Eldar, occasionally Ork Nobs on the charge when they doubled their initiative. . . It was just another way to meaningfully diversify models.

Not to mention Daedelus gives incorrect "elf" stats, Aspect Warriors were all WS4, not 5, for example.

Plus, Orks with their natively lower Initiative actually hit harder to compensate. It's almost like things can be rebalanced if required.

Genestealers.. Didn't have Assault grenades, thus got neutered by Cover and were often shot to pieces. Lictors were genuinely awful, Tyrants were never run without double ranged/wings even back in 5th, Slaanesh Daemons didn't have assault grenades and thus their high initiative didn't matter with cover charges and since they were forced to deepstrike meant they were forced to take a turn of fire, Dark Eldar always were inside vehicles, and the only Ork Nobs that fought in melee were Bikers that used 5th's weird rules so that they could split wounds across in a way that GW didn't expect.

I'm not sure how this helped differentiate them besides just simply being worse off.

**Insectum7**

^Mmmhmm, and this is one of those magical paradigms where the opposing unit is always in cover and there's no chaff to pin them down and there are no second rounds of combat and "all Nobs are on bikes" (wtf) and DE Wyches were "always inside vehicles" (wtf), etc etc etc.

Also: Here's another friendly reminder (as already mentioned above) that ALL the rules from previous paradigms don't have to be brought along even if SOME of the rules are reexamined for reinstatement.

**vipoid**

ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Genestealers.. Didn't have Assault grenades, thus got neutered by Cover and were often shot to pieces. Lictors were genuinely awful, Tyrants were never run without double ranged/wings even back in 5th, Slaanesh Daemons didn't have assault grenades and thus their high initiative didn't matter with cover charges and since they were forced to deepstrike meant they were forced to take a turn of fire, Dark Eldar always were inside vehicles, and the only Ork Nobs that fought in melee were Bikers that used 5th's weird rules so that they could split wounds across in a way that GW didn't expect.

I'm not sure how this helped differentiate them besides just simply being worse off.

You realise that the initiative rules and the cover rules aren't bolted together, right? It is possible to have one without the other.

Yes, the way cover affected Initiative was utterly stupid (not helped by the Marine-centric distribution of grenades), I'm glad we can all agree.

Seriously, can you name one person here who has championed the idea of resurrecting that particular cover rule?

If not, I fail to see the point of bringing it up because it seems clear that absolutely no one (whether they like Initiative or not) wants that rule back.

**ZebioLizard2**

vipoid wrote:
ZebioLizard2 wrote:

Genestealers.. Didn't have Assault grenades, thus got neutered by Cover and were often shot to pieces. Lictors were genuinely awful, Tyrants were never run without double ranged/wings even back in 5th, Slaanesh Daemons didn't have assault grenades and thus their high initiative didn't matter with cover charges and since they were forced to deepstrike meant they were forced to take a turn of fire, Dark Eldar always were inside vehicles, and the only Ork Nobs that fought in melee were Bikers that used 5th's weird rules so that they could split wounds across in a way that GW didn't expect.

I'm not sure how this helped differentiate them besides just simply being worse off.

You realise that the initiative rules and the cover rules aren't bolted together, right? It is possible to have one without the other.

Yes, the way cover affected Initiative was utterly stupid (not helped by the Marine-centric distribution of grenades), I'm glad we can all agree.

Seriously, can you name one person here who has championed the idea of resurrecting that particular cover rule?

If not, I fail to see the point of bringing it up because it seems clear that absolutely no one (whether they like Initiative or not) wants that rule back.

Given how often I see people championing 5th edition for melee combat I might've interpreted things a bit wrongly in this regard, you are quite correct in this regard.

Though of the other things I've mentioned knowing GW we will return to the issues of Tyranid Monsters like the Carnifex returning to WS3 and I1 with maybe a +1 or 2 boost on charge is a worry.. That and the fact that in general it seems like something that could be tweaked from the newer rules so that there can be something useful. I enjoy the idea of Orks and Tyranids having proper Melee armies again rather then being forced into Shooting with some melee on the side or none at all in some cases.