Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've been comparing the SWA rules to the Necromunda and LotR rules both as a thought experiment and possibly to discover something about my own projects, and the Attacks stat has brought me up short a bit. The statlines in SWA have been ported wholesale over from 40k, but from my experience these systems the Attacks stat is a lot more important in the SWA/LotR/Necromunda melee resolution system; in Necromunda everyone (that wasn't an Orrus Spyrer, at least) started with one Attack and the statline cap when leveling was three Attacks, in LotR everything that wasn't a hero had one Attack and you had to be something on the level of Aragorn or Sauron to have three (more than three was the province of dragons, Balrogs, and the Watcher in the Water).

But in SWA we've got multiple starting warband leaders with three Attacks (Harlequins, Wyches) and a bunch of grunts/gangers with two Attacks, and I've heard complaints from friends that the Solitaire (who's running about with six Attacks on profile if they're copy-pasting his 40k statline) is unbeatably powerful.

Has anyone with more live/practical experience of SWA than I have found that there are too many Attacks wandering the field, and many-Attack models can just walk through the opposition too easily? Or am I carrying over assumptions from different games in ways that aren't really applicable?

Well the Solitaire has a handicap in that if you take him, that is it. Like an assassin he works alone, the rest of your harlequin kill team are not involved.

As for leaders with multiple attacks, they do have to get to the other team in close combat to really have an effect, in my experience of necromunda, shooting is far more key than hand to hand. The Wych team on looking at there list is also very poorly equipped for long range shooting.

Yeah, it is a case of the guys who get multiple attacks you are only taking a few models in that kill team so it balances out slightly.. probably the best atks/model combo you will get is Chaos Spacemarines

But also remember that only the highest roll counts so having a large number of attacks doesn't necessarily make you unbeatable. It depends somewhat on luck. In fact it also increases the potential number of fumbles.

Now raw weapon skill along with an advancement that provides a bonus to it on the other hand can make you impossible to beat without piling in multiple opponents.

Yeah, above a certain number, I'd say about three, more attacks are as much a hindrance as a help. Don't forget that every one you roll reduces your total by one, just like every six increases it. And you have the same chance to roll a one as a six. Two attacks is better than one since it helps to mitigate chance since you take the highest roll, and three seems to be the sweet spot in my experience with Harlequins. At four or more attacks you start rolling a one far more regularly, which sucks.

Deadawake1347 wrote:
Yeah, above a certain number, I'd say about three, more attacks are as much a hindrance as a help. Don't forget that every one you roll reduces your total by one, just like every six increases it. And you have the same chance to roll a one as a six. Two attacks is better than one since it helps to mitigate chance since you take the highest roll, and three seems to be the sweet spot in my experience with Harlequins. At four or more attacks you start rolling a one far more regularly, which sucks.

Remember that critical hits start at the second 6 rolled, so its always better to have more attacks then less, as it reduces the effects of fumble that starts with the first roll of 1.
2 attacks is 1 chance for critical, 2 fumble; 3A is 2 crit, 3 fumble; 4A is 3 crit, 4 fumble; see how the gap between crits and fumble narrows?
So 5 attacks is straight up better then 4 for example. Every additional attack does have diminishing returns though but more is still better.

I did some rolling here.

Results are?

1 Attack-Average 3.3


2 Attacks-Average 4.5


3 Attacks-Average 4.4


4 Attacks-Average 5


5 Attacks-Average 4.5


Just a small test.

Edit: I'm getting my math man to math this and see which is the best amount of attacks.

Edit II: Math guy came through.

1 attack averages to 2.5
2 attacks averages to 3.472
3 attacks averages to 3.958
4 attacks averages to 4.24
5 attacks averages to 4.43
6 attacks averages to 4.56

 Dravis wrote:
see how the gap between crits and fumble narrows?

Actually, looks like the gap is constant - one less crit than fumble.

It narrows proportionally.

On 2 dice, the crit is half that of fumbles.
3 dice, two thirds.
4 dice, three fourths.

The percentile gap steadily shrinks.

Oh thanks for the clarification!

 JNAProductions wrote:
It narrows proportionally.

On 2 dice, the crit is half that of fumbles.
3 dice, two thirds.
4 dice, three fourths.

The percentile gap steadily shrinks.

Hmm, I was basing this just on Fumbles and crits and didn't factor in average over multiple dice rolls, so I may be mistaken about this. Apparently optimum number of attacks in Necromunda was 4, followed by 3, based on most constant outcome?
Additional attacks after 4 increased the uncertainty of you winning, but when you did you caused more hits.
So I must be missing something. I did notice that fumbles add to your opponents score, not subtracted from yours.

Without doing any actual calculations, I'd say having more attack dice also makes you much less susceptible to parries.

Not sure how powerful parries will be with these rules, but it sure will make a difference now and then.

Mellon wrote:
Without doing any actual calculations, I'd say having more attack dice also makes you much less susceptible to parries.

Not sure how powerful parries will be with these rules, but it sure will make a difference now and then.

Parries are HUGE. Especial against opponents with one or two attack dice.

That reminds me. I need to read the Parry rule in SWA; can you parry any roll, or only ones that are higher than your highest roll (a rule introduced in the NCE, I believe).

So I just went back through and did the math with the crit/fumble mechanic (which I'd missed because I've only actually used this system in LotR, which doesn't use it) and came out with an average of around 5 with any situation where you've got four or more attacks (implementing fumbles as -1 to your roll rather than +1 to your opponent's for simplicity).

(This holds true out to eight attacks, but at that point my inefficient Python-array-based implementation was making my computer keep track of 6^8 (1.7 million) six-number arrays at once, so I cut it short because you're unlikely to actually see eight attacks rolled on one side of a combat.)

So it looks like I was being alarmist over nothing and it's actually fine.

There's a thread about this sort of thing (which takes into account differences in WS, parries, etc) on the Yaktribe forums.

One important note from a design perspective...

The history of Necromunda has been incrementally trying to make melee combat more tempting, or an option. It has always been a shooting-centric game, and with Overwatch having been slowly nerfed across two editions, and a fan edition, to its most "nerfed" (arguably "fixed") in Shadow War, there has been a clear intent to making melee-centric units more viable.

The increase to saves in general, plus the allure of melee, the easier access to the "dodge" modifier from running at all, weakened Overwatch, etc... DO make melee a LOT stronger, but do so because it was sooooo woefully less attractive versus shooting in the past.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:
One important note from a design perspective...

The history of Necromunda has been incrementally trying to make melee combat more tempting, or an option. It has always been a shooting-centric game, and with Overwatch having been slowly nerfed across two editions, and a fan edition, to its most "nerfed" (arguably "fixed") in Shadow War, there has been a clear intent to making melee-centric units more viable.

The increase to saves in general, plus the allure of melee, the easier access to the "dodge" modifier from running at all, weakened Overwatch, etc... DO make melee a LOT stronger, but do so because it was sooooo woefully less attractive versus shooting in the past.

Obligatory admonishment: You HAVE to HAVE way more terrain on the table than 40K, for this game (and Necro). Or, shooting dominates. More terrain = More fun. But, your comments show you are well versed with Necro, so just say'n for everyone else.

Having said that, there is another difference between Necro and SW:A. Imagine a Necro gang with every member WS4 or better. That's Orks in SW:A. Some teams, or models are going to excel at H2H. And, good shooting is expensive.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:
can you parry any roll, or only ones that are higher than your highest roll.

You can only parry a roll that's higher than your best.

Yes, I finally read that rule last night.