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.

Not Online!!! wrote:

i do think 40k had it right at 1500 for a 6x4 field with the points at the time.

I have often felt that 1500 points is where you stop adding new stuff into a list and start finding stuff to take a 3rd copy of. I've been rather impressed that 10th has me feeling less of this, but I find games are snappier at 1500 regardless.

 LunarSol wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

i do think 40k had it right at 1500 for a 6x4 field with the points at the time.

I have often felt that 1500 points is where you stop adding new stuff into a list and start finding stuff to take a 3rd copy of. I've been rather impressed that 10th has me feeling less of this, but I find games are snappier at 1500 regardless.

Agreed. A 1500 point list has enough points to play into a theme and cover your bases while still retaining some characterful weaknesses. Beyond that, you usually just start adding redundancy to the list or sprinkling in a big centerpiece model. It's more fun to take down your opponent's heavy-hitter and feel like you accomplished something rather than knowing that there's still an exact copy of that unit right around the corner.

I feel like point arguments are tricky because each edition the values of units jump around. Sometimes units are priced way above or below in general so the relative value of a fixed point level - eg 1500 - can end up meaning quite different things to different people.

Personally I'm more of a fan of bigger armies because they allow you far more potential diversity to put models on the table. I think that if GW went for more alternating activation by units this would be reinforced even more. Right now the big downside to bigger armies is the potential to lean more and more into a specific single tactic and get a powerful alpha with that tactical approach to obliterate a good chunk of your opponent's force from the table in one go.

Smaller point games on decently large tables tends to reduce that a little because objectives can be more spread out so you've got to spread out a bit more and can't quite so easily (or shouldn't be able to at least) just concentrate in one spot.

Points are definitely subject to... kind of a reverse inflation. Point cuts tend to result in armies from the end of an edition being notably larger than they were at the start.

 LunarSol wrote:
Points are definitely subject to... kind of a reverse inflation. Point cuts tend to result in armies from the end of an edition being notably larger than they were at the start.

GW uses long term shrinkflation of both points and bank balances. I honestly hate it when people clamour for point cuts in the balance passes for this reason, make them worth their cost, not make them cost less.

Yeah I always feel a unit should have a rough points value they should be at based on fluff and then the rules and stats should be worked around that rather than the other round. Otherwise you just get some very weird stuff like elite troops as hordes.

Dai wrote:
Yeah I always feel a unit should have a rough points value they should be at based on fluff and then the rules and stats should be worked around that rather than the other round. Otherwise you just get some very weird stuff like elite troops as hordes.

The problem is most armies don't translate well from the fluff.

Take Marines VS Tyranids - if you were any where near close to the fluff you'd be putting down 5 tactical marines VS 2000 Gaunts in a 2K match. That's the kind of numbers disparity that you're looking for if you're leaning toward the Lore.
Not to mention that elite can be such a variable term. An elite unit doesn't always mean small in number, it might just mean specialist. The army could still have a LOT of them fielded and just be a very specialised force in that particular area. Marines might actually be the only army that could be translated due to their technical cap of warriors. Meanwhile every other faction is basically totally open numbers wise as to what they have. +


One one level I like the idea of many Tyranids vs very few Marines. On another I want Tyranids to be able to complete a turn without taking 1-2 hours; and I want the Marine player to be able to bring more of their awesome models to the table. In the end more model diversity on the table is a good thing and more models is a boon for a wargame where most factions are fairly large and diverse. If you're only getting 1-2 games a week "some weeks" then I'd rather sacrifice "lore authenticity" for a chance to put more models and diversity down per game

 Overread wrote:

Dai wrote:
Yeah I always feel a unit should have a rough points value they should be at based on fluff and then the rules and stats should be worked around that rather than the other round. Otherwise you just get some very weird stuff like elite troops as hordes.

The problem is most armies don't translate well from the fluff.

Take Marines VS Tyranids - if you were any where near close to the fluff you'd be putting down 5 tactical marines VS 2000 Gaunts in a 2K match. That's the kind of numbers disparity that you're looking for if you're leaning toward the Lore.
Not to mention that elite can be such a variable term. An elite unit doesn't always mean small in number, it might just mean specialist. The army could still have a LOT of them fielded and just be a very specialised force in that particular area. Marines might actually be the only army that could be translated due to their technical cap of warriors. Meanwhile every other faction is basically totally open numbers wise as to what they have. +


One one level I like the idea of many Tyranids vs very few Marines. On another I want Tyranids to be able to complete a turn without taking 1-2 hours; and I want the Marine player to be able to bring more of their awesome models to the table. In the end more model diversity on the table is a good thing and more models is a boon for a wargame where most factions are fairly large and diverse. If you're only getting 1-2 games a week "some weeks" then I'd rather sacrifice "lore authenticity" for a chance to put more models and diversity down per game

That's all fair enough and obviously there has to be some abstraction, particularly as 40k games have only ever really portrayed pitched battles between equally powerful forces (in theory). It'd be silly if we were at a point where the gaunt was more points than the marine though, if you'll forgive the slippery slope.

 Overread wrote:

Take Marines VS Tyranids - if you were any where near close to the fluff you'd be putting down 5 tactical marines VS 2000 Gaunts in a 2K match.

It becomes weirder once you start considering the rest of the Tyranid roster. How many gaunts is a Carnifex worth? a dozen, 2 dozen, a hundred?

But then 20 Carnifexes vs 5 Marines... even in the lore Marines do get killed 1v1 by Carnifexes.

 Overread wrote:

Dai wrote:
Yeah I always feel a unit should have a rough points value they should be at based on fluff and then the rules and stats should be worked around that rather than the other round. Otherwise you just get some very weird stuff like elite troops as hordes.

The problem is most armies don't translate well from the fluff.

Take Marines VS Tyranids - if you were any where near close to the fluff you'd be putting down 5 tactical marines VS 2000 Gaunts in a 2K match. That's the kind of numbers disparity that you're looking for if you're leaning toward the Lore.
Not to mention that elite can be such a variable term. An elite unit doesn't always mean small in number, it might just mean specialist. The army could still have a LOT of them fielded and just be a very specialised force in that particular area. Marines might actually be the only army that could be translated due to their technical cap of warriors. Meanwhile every other faction is basically totally open numbers wise as to what they have. +


One one level I like the idea of many Tyranids vs very few Marines. On another I want Tyranids to be able to complete a turn without taking 1-2 hours; and I want the Marine player to be able to bring more of their awesome models to the table. In the end more model diversity on the table is a good thing and more models is a boon for a wargame where most factions are fairly large and diverse. If you're only getting 1-2 games a week "some weeks" then I'd rather sacrifice "lore authenticity" for a chance to put more models and diversity down per game

I have this vague notion of a Combat Patrol sized game that plays quickly enough to give multiple games in in the same time it currently takes to play a 2k game of 40k. Probably with "detachments" that basically define the starting point for your list and have options balanced around that starting point. So 'nids might have a detachment for running one MC with some little bug support, a detachment for an endless horde, a detachment for elite bugs, one for sneaky bugs, etc. Each with some room for customization, but the detachment defines the basic shape of your army.

By zooming in, you create room for some of the lore-appropriate rules that get messy in larger-scale games. So instead of putting 2000 gaunts on the table at once, you maybe have 20-40 running around at a time and include rules for respawning them in strategic reserves to give the impression of an overhwhelming tide coming in piecemeal. Or you could flesh out some cool biomorph rules for your warriors or add some detailed terrain destruction and "weak point"/"called shot" rules for dealing with the MC.

Basically, fewer units at a time, but more games in the same amount of time, and you have more space for flavorful rules during each game.

Dai wrote:

 Overread wrote:

Dai wrote:
Yeah I always feel a unit should have a rough points value they should be at based on fluff and then the rules and stats should be worked around that rather than the other round. Otherwise you just get some very weird stuff like elite troops as hordes.

The problem is most armies don't translate well from the fluff.

Take Marines VS Tyranids - if you were any where near close to the fluff you'd be putting down 5 tactical marines VS 2000 Gaunts in a 2K match. That's the kind of numbers disparity that you're looking for if you're leaning toward the Lore.
Not to mention that elite can be such a variable term. An elite unit doesn't always mean small in number, it might just mean specialist. The army could still have a LOT of them fielded and just be a very specialised force in that particular area. Marines might actually be the only army that could be translated due to their technical cap of warriors. Meanwhile every other faction is basically totally open numbers wise as to what they have. +


One one level I like the idea of many Tyranids vs very few Marines. On another I want Tyranids to be able to complete a turn without taking 1-2 hours; and I want the Marine player to be able to bring more of their awesome models to the table. In the end more model diversity on the table is a good thing and more models is a boon for a wargame where most factions are fairly large and diverse. If you're only getting 1-2 games a week "some weeks" then I'd rather sacrifice "lore authenticity" for a chance to put more models and diversity down per game

That's all fair enough and obviously there has to be some abstraction, particularly as 40k games have only ever really portrayed pitched battles between equally powerful forces (in theory). It'd be silly if we were at a point where the gaunt was more points than the marine though, if you'll forgive the slippery slope.

Oh I agree and I don't think we'll ever hit that. That said if you go and look at much earlier editions of the game things like Gaunts were taken in 8s and perhaps 16s so not honestly all that far from a tactical squad at 5 and 10. Gaunts have gone up and down; same as AoS infantry blocks. GW went through some very BIG infantry blocks in both games and have pulled back from that a bit. It's a tricky balance because long term customers do end up with big collections and wnat to use them; whilst at the same time you don't want games so vast that newbies are put off and where the game can take too long (for the average person) because of so many things to move around. Even the board can get too chock full of models to be properly fun.

It's a tricky balance but I think honestly GW has a decent handle on that. Of all the ups and downs of their balance I'd say they are "generally" good with the visual side of things. The only time I really feel they fall down is with AoS and their whole "1 in 5 or 10" wiht banners and musicians which makes infantry blocks look silly and Cavalry can look outright daft (the best example is Seekers of Slaanesh which end up with more command units than troopers, even when in a full 15 unit block)

In contrast I feel like One Page Rules is undersized for their army variety and model sizes. That said its a newer game and in its growth period so more like GW of 2nd edition where its more important to get games under belts than it is to have big impressive battles.

 Overread wrote:


The problem is most armies don't translate well from the fluff.

Take Marines VS Tyranids - if you were any where near close to the fluff you'd be putting down 5 tactical marines VS 2000 Gaunts in a 2K match.

I mean . . . What fluff are we talking about there? 5 Marines vs 2000 Gaunts in an open field, the Marines should lose hard. If the Marines aren't just running away they should be overrun in no time.

If the scenario involves some sort of chokepoint and they go at it 300 style, then I could see them lasting quite a while. But how much ammo does a Marine carry anyways?

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:


The problem is most armies don't translate well from the fluff.

Take Marines VS Tyranids - if you were any where near close to the fluff you'd be putting down 5 tactical marines VS 2000 Gaunts in a 2K match.

I mean . . . What fluff are we talking about there? 5 Marines vs 2000 Gaunts in an open field, the Marines should lose hard. If the Marines aren't just running away they should be overrun in no time.

If the scenario involves some sort of chokepoint and they go at it 300 style, then I could see them lasting quite a while. But how much ammo does a Marine carry anyways?

As much as the plot requires, of course.

Also, with regards to the length of turns for the 2k Gaunts - I feel like there would be ways to smooth things over at least a little (movement trays/multi-unit bases, perhaps?). There'd definitely be a floor to how efficient you could be, but it might be doable enough for an occasional try.

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:


The problem is most armies don't translate well from the fluff.

Take Marines VS Tyranids - if you were any where near close to the fluff you'd be putting down 5 tactical marines VS 2000 Gaunts in a 2K match.

I mean . . . What fluff are we talking about there? 5 Marines vs 2000 Gaunts in an open field, the Marines should lose hard. If the Marines aren't just running away they should be overrun in no time.

If the scenario involves some sort of chokepoint and they go at it 300 style, then I could see them lasting quite a while. But how much ammo does a Marine carry anyways?

As much as the plot requires, of course.

Also, with regards to the length of turns for the 2k Gaunts - I feel like there would be ways to smooth things over at least a little (movement trays/multi-unit bases, perhaps?). There'd definitely be a floor to how efficient you could be, but it might be doable enough for an occasional try.

Thing is movement trays means changing the game style to compensate. For example with 40K you can (or at least used to be able too before baneblades and such appeared) have fairly dense terrain. Even now with bigger things you can still have things fairly dense. With movement trays comes formation movement which means having much more open board design. Have too much terrain and units can't wheel or turn properly or they end up getting bogged down with it; or you're always changing the movement type to fit through gaps and such.

So movement trays can most certainly help, but only if you change some fundamentals of the game to include them.

Plus even with movement trays 2K gaunts is a daunting prospect to buy and build let alone paint, transport and field. Yes its an extreme example; but again its good to consider that you have to have practical limits in games. Yes sometimes you'll play an apoc game with loads more models on the table. But those are rare and limited events for most people and clubs. So by and large you've got to consider transporting, building, painting, playing and more. Plus in the end does the Marine player also want their army so small? In the end the game is about models on the table and that's why you see elite armies like Marines fielding "too many" and swarm armies like guard and Tyranids fielding "too few". They are real world compromises.


Sometimes you can get a more "real" feel with a different scale. 8mm Tyranids and you could field a LOT more on the table more affordably. Or the other extreme, 75mm and you can have some super detailed models, but you won't field many per side

I think too many people get shlocky prose mixed up with lore and thus we get plot armour marines seen as the standard for all marines.

Movie Marines were never supposed to be real marines. They were larger than life action hero marines.


On an open field 5 marines would be killed by 50 gaunts - they wouldn't have enough ammo apart from anything else. In a bunker firing out, 5 guardsmen with enough ammo and guns can take on 20,000 gaunts.

The ability to represent something accurately is subjective. Should a marine be T5 because a bullet shot from 100 metres away won't go through their fused ribs?

Or should they be t1 because a pistol held to their eye socket will put a bullet through their brain?

The same thing is true when shooting their chest armour vs their neck re save value.

The game completely ignores the assymetry advantage marines have as one of the key reasons they survive so well.

Space marine forces could be t3 w1 and be balanced if their army rules said:

Only half the opponent's force can be deployed. The rest come on in round 3.
The marines get to deploy wherever they wish no restrictions.
Marines get the first turn.



Imo far too much of marine power is being shifted to their statline.

A marine force caught in a trap that negates their advantages should be highly vulnerable, not be able to deflect missiles off their abs.

Not Online!!! wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Fair play, the leap to 7th edition was mine by interpreting the items you requested as being things that last existed in 40k in 7th edition, it's the nearest jump off point in the games history that had a different cover system, armour facings and expanded wargear options.

I'd agree all the GW cover systems are a problem, no argument there. Given that HH is also larger games in general at 3k, does the same propensity to have too many boots on the ground not also kick in? I've little experience with HH as I've no drive to get sort yet another marine army to that size with the expensive FW bolt ons and have an army bigger than a 40k one.

I preferred 40k at 1500 on a 6x4, so I'm on board with you regards making movement more important and having more limitations against units that move.

TBF HH 2.0 was 7th.

HH has some other issues, boots only are one if you play militia. My own full army is 2500 approx, so yeah space is an issue especially for them. And realistically even marines can get clogged. Honestly the board could go to 8x4 and would be perfectly well off at 3k. That said, i don't see as many 3k games and my own table is 8x4.

i do think 40k had it right at 1500 for a 6x4 field with the points at the time.

Same difference, but HH 2.0 is what 7th edition *should* have been. Which is to say very similar, but with a lot of the absolutely pants-on-head-insane game design stripped out and tossed in a ditch to die. Making it an actual improvement on the previous ruleset.

I'd still say it's far from perfect, and it shows GW's trademark lack of comprehension for mechanical depth vs complexitiy, but it's at least a functional wargame which plays alright and does a decent job of representing what it sets out to.

morganfreeman wrote:Same difference, but HH 2.0 is what 7th edition *should* have been. Which is to say very similar, but with a lot of the absolutely pants-on-head-insane game design stripped out and tossed in a ditch to die.

HH2.0 is an improvement in many ways, but they've doubled down on the byzantine mess of special rules to patch up mechanics that don't fundamentally work. You shouldn't need a special rule for an autocannon just so that it can sometimes pierce armor. You really shouldn't need a special rule for an artillery shell so that it can do enough damage to kill a veteran.

40K's gone down the same road with mechanics like 'anti-X' for the same reason: the core rules don't work for what they want them to do. The core mechanics aren't impactful enough to make units behave how they should, or for weapons to have the appropriate targets, so these abilities are used to shortcut or magnify mechanics in lieu of the actual directly relevant attributes.

It's a mix of keyword soup and CCG-esque bespoke abilities that makes the games hard to learn and imposes significant cognitive load in gameplay. MESBG is a good example of a game that doesn't need all this bloat to function, and GW's done plenty of others in the past. Just look at Epic: Armageddon or Battlefleet Gothic, and you'll find games where units can function completely differently without any special rules at all, simply as a result of impactful and sufficiently deep core rules.

 waefre_1 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Overread wrote:


The problem is most armies don't translate well from the fluff.

Take Marines VS Tyranids - if you were any where near close to the fluff you'd be putting down 5 tactical marines VS 2000 Gaunts in a 2K match.

I mean . . . What fluff are we talking about there? 5 Marines vs 2000 Gaunts in an open field, the Marines should lose hard. If the Marines aren't just running away they should be overrun in no time.

If the scenario involves some sort of chokepoint and they go at it 300 style, then I could see them lasting quite a while. But how much ammo does a Marine carry anyways?

As much as the plot requires, of course.

There's a point where we just call it bad writing.

At least pre-primaris Marines could theoretically raid a PDF stockpile for more standard ammo like Bolter (Storm Bolters being a common accessory on tanks) Heavy Bolter, Lascannon etc.

@catbarf: Agree

In my view it's the novels that are "wrong" and not the tabletop. I think 5 Marines being able to take on 2000 gaunts is obviously ludicrous, and a function of them being the protagonist faction in schlocky pulp novels (which I also enjoy).
Going by the novels, a single squad of Guardsmen should also be able to take down a squad of Chaos Space Marine veterans with no losses. Taking the novels as literal truth is not a good idea, because certain factions will never get a novel from their POV, especially Tyranids.

And on MESBG, I agree it's currently my favourite GW ruleset, but actually, it is quite bloated these days with the special rules added during the Hobbit and all the Legendary Legions nonsense they've been adding recently. It was better when it was the Big Blue Book mostly written by Rick Priestly in my opinion, most other writers have glued rules to it that are not needed.

I think 5 Marines being able to take on 2000 gaunts is obviously ludicrous,

Hence the WD movie marine article with stats-

1,500 point army -hero, sarg, 4 marines and a razorback. the basic marine is 100 points each with T6, 2 wounds a 3++ save BS5 and his basic bolter is a 36" assault cannon with rending. the rest of the stats are even more out there for the other units.

The issue with armies not translating well from the lore is less about numbers for me and more about simple things like stats and abilities. Take the Tyranid book for example. Read the lore about a Norn Emissary and then explain to me why its melee attacks cap out at S9? The same strength as a Hive Tyrant despite the Norns being the apex predators of the Hive Fleets? In fact, why are most Tyranid monsters capped at S9? Why are carnifexes only hitting 50% of the time? I can absolutely accept that, for the game to work, you cannot have 100% lore accurate models and rules but some of the rules writing this edition baffles me.

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
The issue with armies not translating well from the lore is less about numbers for me and more about simple things like stats and abilities. Take the Tyranid book for example. Read the lore about a Norn Emissary and then explain to me why its melee attacks cap out at S9? The same strength as a Hive Tyrant despite the Norns being the apex predators of the Hive Fleets? In fact, why are most Tyranid monsters capped at S9? Why are carnifexes only hitting 50% of the time? I can absolutely accept that, for the game to work, you cannot have 100% lore accurate models and rules but some of the rules writing this edition baffles me.

The strength cap is a bit of a problem for nids in general, can't argue that, but why does anything hit on a 4+? A carnifex is meant to be a bit of a lumbering brute that's not exactly quick or skilled, but instead just applies brute force, it's always been low initiative before and the base WS has gone up and down over the years.

My one want for every future edition of 40k - people need to stop wanting everything to be efficient at everything. Hitting on a 4 should be normal, it should be acceptable, 3+ should be above average.

I'd say part of the problem is we only have 6 numbers to work with. It's one of the reasons people have argued that the game should shift to the use of D10 where you have more numbers, more of a scope of variation and you can have more break up of unit stats.

Of course its not a be-all and end-all solution and could result in extremes. For example a D10 could end up with everything being in the 5-10 range so functionally still squashed back into a small effective range of values. Or you could end up with a bit of the situation that aircraft had when they first came out in that if you didn't specifically take the hard counter to them (AA) then you couldn't deal with them which made them very easy to be overpowered in one game and underpowered in another. Making it very hard to balance their stats into the game

Monsters capping at S9 has nothing to do with the D6 and I doubt Carnifexes hitting on a 6+ on a D12 would have players saying 'finally, the lore-accurate 58% hit rate we always needed!'.

Weapon Skill in its current incarnation is a poorly designed mechanic and a perfect example of needing special rules (or inflated stats elsewhere) in order to actually represent a combatant being particularly skilled in melee combat. Hyperfocusing on granularity of such a transparently shallow mechanic is completely missing the forest for the trees; the problem isn't that there aren't enough increments between 50% and 83%, it's that hitting 50% of the time or 83% of the time is not enough to differentiate a conscript with a rusty spoon from the best swordsman in the galaxy.

And so you wind up with a character hitting on 2+ with eleventy million attacks that do bonus hits on 6s and a 5+ invuln save because they're so good, all instead of just, yknow, giving the character a high Melee Fightin' Stat because they're good at Melee Fightin' and having the core rules elegantly translate that into gameplay effects.

I have to agree with Catbarf. There are a few issues with 10th edition ( balance issues aside as I really don't want to get into any of that here) and most of them are not really related to the D6 system. I do feel like 40K should move to a D8 or D10 based system but I don't feel like this is the route of its problems. I feel like they have introduced a lot of concepts which I personally do not like or at least I do not like the way the concept has been implemented, such as devastating wounds and Anti weapons. Neither is necessarily bad on its own but combined together and especially when combined with things like fate dice (another, IMO, terrible mechanic as currently implemented) or the insane amount of re rolls in the game they become...unfun for want of a better word.

Another issue is they clearly pivot in their design philosophies even midway through the edition. Take the 'free strats' point, last night I had a game where I had an overlord in my necron army. Rule as written in the codex is I can target his unit with a stratagem for 0CP but post balance data slate it has to be a battle tactics stratagem. Problem is the Hypercrypt legion doesn't have any, because when the codex was written it didn't matter because that's not how the rule worked. A bit like how when the Necron codex came out in 9th edition a D6 damage weapon was awesome but 3 months down the line they had clearly canned that idea and decided that flat damage weapons like damage 3 or damage 2 were better. They never bothered to go back and fix the early codexes though just like Tyranids will be stuck now for the whole of 10th with no real effective method of dealing with T12 and above units.

 catbarf wrote:
Monsters capping at S9 has nothing to do with the D6 and I doubt Carnifexes hitting on a 6+ on a D12 would have players saying 'finally, the lore-accurate 58% hit rate we always needed!'.

Weapon Skill in its current incarnation is a poorly designed mechanic and a perfect example of needing special rules (or inflated stats elsewhere) in order to actually represent a combatant being particularly skilled in melee combat. Hyperfocusing on granularity of such a transparently shallow mechanic is completely missing the forest for the trees; the problem isn't that there aren't enough increments between 50% and 83%, it's that hitting 50% of the time or 83% of the time is not enough to differentiate a conscript with a rusty spoon from the best swordsman in the galaxy.

And so you wind up with a character hitting on 2+ with eleventy million attacks that do bonus hits on 6s and a 5+ invuln save because they're so good, all instead of just, yknow, giving the character a high Melee Fightin' Stat because they're good at Melee Fightin' and having the core rules elegantly translate that into gameplay effects.

Out of interest, do you have any proposals for how a Melee Fightin' Stat would work to better represent good fighters?

 catbarf wrote:
Monsters capping at S9 has nothing to do with the D6 and I doubt Carnifexes hitting on a 6+ on a D12 would have players saying 'finally, the lore-accurate 58% hit rate we always needed!'.

Weapon Skill in its current incarnation is a poorly designed mechanic and a perfect example of needing special rules (or inflated stats elsewhere) in order to actually represent a combatant being particularly skilled in melee combat. Hyperfocusing on granularity of such a transparently shallow mechanic is completely missing the forest for the trees; the problem isn't that there aren't enough increments between 50% and 83%, it's that hitting 50% of the time or 83% of the time is not enough to differentiate a conscript with a rusty spoon from the best swordsman in the galaxy.

And so you wind up with a character hitting on 2+ with eleventy million attacks that do bonus hits on 6s and a 5+ invuln save because they're so good, all instead of just, yknow, giving the character a high Melee Fightin' Stat because they're good at Melee Fightin' and having the core rules elegantly translate that into gameplay effects.

If I could exalt a beer your way I would.

What is a high melee fighting stat if not a large number of attacks with high accuracy? Ultimately however you define your core rules, the base stats you give your models are still going to in effect result in having more of these traits.

That's not to say there aren't other ways to simulate melee combat; I mean... I play Bushido, but more attacks at higher accuracy is generally what makes a character effective in melee regardless.

 vipoid wrote:

 catbarf wrote:
Monsters capping at S9 has nothing to do with the D6 and I doubt Carnifexes hitting on a 6+ on a D12 would have players saying 'finally, the lore-accurate 58% hit rate we always needed!'.

Weapon Skill in its current incarnation is a poorly designed mechanic and a perfect example of needing special rules (or inflated stats elsewhere) in order to actually represent a combatant being particularly skilled in melee combat. Hyperfocusing on granularity of such a transparently shallow mechanic is completely missing the forest for the trees; the problem isn't that there aren't enough increments between 50% and 83%, it's that hitting 50% of the time or 83% of the time is not enough to differentiate a conscript with a rusty spoon from the best swordsman in the galaxy.

And so you wind up with a character hitting on 2+ with eleventy million attacks that do bonus hits on 6s and a 5+ invuln save because they're so good, all instead of just, yknow, giving the character a high Melee Fightin' Stat because they're good at Melee Fightin' and having the core rules elegantly translate that into gameplay effects.

Out of interest, do you have any proposals for how a Melee Fightin' Stat would work to better represent good fighters?

Well put, catbarf.

@Vipoid: I feel like we could go back an opposed WS roll. Maybe shrink the range of WS values and/or simplify the comparison so that newbies don't get intimidated by a table they constantly have to look up. So something like:

* You have a WS value such as 3 or 4. (Not 3+ or 4+.) Edit: This probably has to go back to being a unit stat instead of a weapon stat so we know what value to compare against in the case that you have multiple melee weapons.

* When you attack an enemy unit in melee, compare your WS to theirs. If your WS is higher, you hit on 3+. If it's the same or higher, you hit on a 4+. If their WS is at least double your WS, you hit on 5+. Could optionally hit on 2+ if your WS is at least double theirs. This isn't quite as easy to remember as the current to-wound rules, but it's pretty close and doesn't require a table for reference.

* This means that being good at Melee Fightin' both makes you better at hitting enemies and makes you harder to hit. So when you throw your solitaire or Lelith hesperax, they're not getting hit by most of the attacks tossed out by guardsman Bob or ork boy #7.

Basically, the biggest problem with the old compared WS thing was that having an extra comparison table to look up was intimidating to new people. We can fix that without tossing the baby out with the bath water.

The idea of comparing WS was good, the issue is that the implementation was kinda awful.

It was a large table except the large majority of the game only used values 3-6, it could have easilly been condensced.

While at it also create an "Evasion" stat and add a BS vs Evasion to hit table for shooting. Cover and distance would improve evasion and large units like monsters and vehicles would usually have low evasion stats.