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.

So apparently the close combat system is going the way of AoS. Does this throw anybody else off?
It makes no sense lore wise with the flat out to hit system. Granted the current ccs is weird, but it stands to reason to have a different chance of hitting different units.
The AoS system would be more acceptable, to me, if for melee you switched to use d20s so as to more accurately show level of skill.

Any opinions as to if and how GW will address this?


No i didn't see the threads apparently also covering this. This has already been pointed out.

Why did you feel the need to make a thread on this when there's already a dedicated topic like two threads down the page.

 Madoch1 wrote:
...The AoS system would be more acceptable, to me, if for melee you switched to use d20s so as to more accurately show level of skill...

REALLY?

You want to tell the Ork player he has to carry around, roll, and read sixty-odd d20s on a regular basis?

What is it with you people and this whole 'larger dice solve all problems' bullsh**?

(As a point of curiosity in 3rd and 4th WS and BS almost never got outside of the 2-5 range (you pretty much had to be a Greater Daemon or an Autarch), and it didn't collapse into a ball of non-differentiable weeds because the Space Marine Captain, the Farseer, and the Warboss all had the same WS.)

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Madoch1 wrote:
...The AoS system would be more acceptable, to me, if for melee you switched to use d20s so as to more accurately show level of skill...

REALLY?

You want to tell the Ork player he has to carry around, roll, and read sixty-odd d20s on a regular basis?

What is it with you people and this whole 'larger dice solve all problems' bullsh**?

(As a point of curiosity in 3rd and 4th WS and BS almost never got outside of the 2-5 range (you pretty much had to be a Greater Daemon or an Autarch), and it didn't collapse into a ball of non-differentiable weeds because the Space Marine Captain, the Farseer, and the Warboss all had the same WS.)

My issue is more with say cultists that could hit another cultist and drazar on the same value. this makes no sense to me. And bigger dice makes sense to counteract the aos system so as to show that an astartes is better in cc than an eldar, which is better than a guardsmen, which is better than a cultist.
this makes sense to me.

 Madoch1 wrote:

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Madoch1 wrote:
...The AoS system would be more acceptable, to me, if for melee you switched to use d20s so as to more accurately show level of skill...

REALLY?

You want to tell the Ork player he has to carry around, roll, and read sixty-odd d20s on a regular basis?

What is it with you people and this whole 'larger dice solve all problems' bullsh**?

(As a point of curiosity in 3rd and 4th WS and BS almost never got outside of the 2-5 range (you pretty much had to be a Greater Daemon or an Autarch), and it didn't collapse into a ball of non-differentiable weeds because the Space Marine Captain, the Farseer, and the Warboss all had the same WS.)

My issue is more with say cultists that could hit another cultist and drazar on the same value. this makes no sense to me. And bigger dice makes sense to counteract the aos system so as to show that an astartes is better in cc than an eldar, which is better than a guardsmen, which is better than a cultist.
this makes sense to me.

Fine. Try it. Write a quick patch to introduce that mechanic to the game, spend a game or two trying to roll 50+ d20s at a time, and then come back and tell me it's a good idea.

(There's a reason the only tabletop wargame I know of that actually uses d20s (Infinity) uses them in quantities of 3 or fewer on almost all rolls.)

The game is not a simulation. It's a game. The mechanics are not there to represent reality (of a fictional world full of fictional entities with no basis in realism to begin with). The game exists to be a game. The mechanics have to function in a intuitive and entertaining way first and foremost.

If you want realism in your games go play Desert Bus.

Eh it isn't perfect, but the percentage of the time weapon skill mattered more that what they're doing here was relatively small.

Darkagl1 wrote:
Eh it isn't perfect, but the percentage of the time weapon skill mattered more that what they're doing here was relatively small.

Yeah, why not just make it a percentage then? D10 rulze.

Did the old way show better representation of skill with the comparison chart? Probably. Do I want to use a d20 to represent this? Absolutly not. Yeah your super awesome close combat monster used to be able to dodge hits against weaker foes but so what, its not a big deal. I mean if we complain about this we should also be complaing about bs being a static to hit. Some characters in the fluff are fast and can dodge bullets, why dont we represent that too?

 TheLumberJack wrote:
Did the old way show better representation of skill with the comparison chart? Probably. Do I want to use a d20 to represent this? Absolutly not. Yeah your super awesome close combat monster used to be able to dodge hits against weaker foes but so what, its not a big deal. I mean if we complain about this we should also be complaing about bs being a static to hit. Some characters in the fluff are fast and can dodge bullets, why dont we represent that too?

Agreed. I'd also note that this can still be replicated under the new system with something like

Master of Blades: Enemies subtract one from their rolls to hit this model in melee combat.

Or something like that, and it can be done for shooting too.

 Madoch1 wrote:
So apparently the close combat system is going the way of AoS. Does this throw anybody else off?
It makes no sense lore wise with the flat out to hit system. Granted the current ccs is weird, but it stands to reason to have a different chance of hitting different units.
The AoS system would be more acceptable, to me, if for melee you switched to use d20s so as to more accurately show level of skill.

Any opinions as to if and how GW will address this?


No i didn't see the threads apparently also covering this. This has already been pointed out.

The present system makes less sense - Hey I am a mighty Avatar of Khaine and miss hitting a Gretchin on a 1 or a 2.

I assume you are equally unhappy with the historic BS system that took no account of the target speed, size or agility or indeed cover.

Where the chances of actually hitting a Scout in cover with camo cloaks that was just in range was exactly the same as hitting a stationary vehicles you were standing next to....

Now we have if you are good at Melee you hit things.

I gotta say, the system in 8E is much better than every edition I have played (started in 4E).
Having a Cultist hit another Cultist or Drazhar on the same value is weird, but it is far more preferable then Drazhar hitting Cultists on 3+ (he should be hitting them on 1+)
The 8E system is far more gracious to dedicated melee fighters than prior editions because it allows them to hit on 2+.

It is also 1 less step to figure out. Rather than comparing WS to WS off a chart, just use your own WS. Done

-

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Darkagl1 wrote:
Eh it isn't perfect, but the percentage of the time weapon skill mattered more that what they're doing here was relatively small.

Yeah, why not just make it a percentage then? D10 rulze.

I'm torn while the d6 is somewhat ubiquitous I do see there could be value from moving to a base 10 system for additional granularity. That said it's not really germane to whether or not the disappearance of match ws matters. The thing is the vast majority of combats units hit on between 3+ and 5+. Most of the time the matching part doesn't really matter. Beyond that for the true master where it does it's easy to just add a -1 to hit them modifier and still get the game speed up.

 Galef wrote:
I gotta say, the system in 8E is much better than every edition I have played (started in 4E).
Having a Cultist hit another Cultist or Drazhar on the same value is weird, but it is far more preferable then Drazhar hitting Cultists on 3+ (he should be hitting them on 1+)
The 8E system is far more gracious to dedicated melee fighters than prior editions because it allows them to hit on 2+.

It is also 1 less step to figure out. Rather than comparing WS to WS off a chart, just use your own WS. Done

-

See now it is that specifically that i have a gripe with. It is also a lot more gracious to non dedicated cc units. And while yes, the current system isn't perfect, it is more dynamic than the upcoming one. If nothing else there should be a rule set where hitting values can be altered based on how hilariously godlike or not the unit is in cc. You know so as to prevent somebody throwing 20 fire warriors a wraith knight to tie it up for 5 turns.

WK will probably get a rule like knights where they can just walk out if it. Tarpitting is pretty much dead.

 Lance845 wrote:
The game is not a simulation. It's a game. The mechanics are not there to represent reality (of a fictional world full of fictional entities with no basis in realism to begin with). The game exists to be a game. The mechanics have to function in a intuitive and entertaining way first and foremost.

If you want realism in your games go play Desert Bus.

Ummm. No. It began as an extended RPG which is a simulation if it is good and loses all touch with anything like a current world when it sux.

I'm not super Keen on it either its on over simplification that wasn't needed.

Hey I am a mighty Avatar of Khaine and miss hitting a Gretchin on a 1 or a 2.

This used to drive me up the walls.
The Avatar had a 33% to actually miss that grot altogether (one or a two) whilst the grot could hit the avatar back 33% of the time (on a 5 or 6).
I havent looked into 8th hth indepth - has this been fixed or amended? Im all for relatively equal opponents knocking lumps out of each other but absolute combat monsters should be.....absolute combat monsters.

Per-unit bonuses and penalties can probably take care of the most egregious cases, like Fire Warriors attacking Lelith Hesperax or Gretchin attacking a Keeper of Secrets.

7e had pretty much everyone hitting each other on 3+, 4+ or 5+. 2+ was very rare (Kharn?), 6+ pretty much only came up for invisibility (and then only if you used vanilla rules and not the ITC fix). At least now there's a somewhat broader range.

I've always thought comparing the two weapon skills was a really good method. The problem is that GW's table's didn't reflect an adequate range of results - which CAN be done with a D6. So the solution would be to enhance the table, not throw it away like they did for 8th. Unfortunately this seems to be the 'go to' method GW uses on all their rules, and since people are so fed up with how things are, for now they overlook how new things will be.

For awhile, anyway. Eventually people will realize how bland the counter-intuitive avalanche of dice 8th Edition will be and complain about it too.

 amanita wrote:
I've always thought comparing the two weapon skills was a really good method. The problem is that GW's table's didn't reflect an adequate range of results - which CAN be done with a D6. So the solution would be to enhance the table, not throw it away like they did for 8th. Unfortunately this seems to be the 'go to' method GW uses on all their rules, and since people are so fed up with how things are, for now they overlook how new things will be.

For awhile, anyway. Eventually people will realize how bland the counter-intuitive avalanche of dice 8th Edition will be and complain about it too.

I mean using a single d6 there really isn't that much that can be done. 2+ to 6+ if you want ws to be super important make it move 1 per difference if not you end up with what we have now. If you make it super important you make the game super swingy because not only does the high ws unit become much more potent at attack they're also super durable. Otoh if you go with what you have now 90% of the time the system basically boils down to what we're moving to.

If you allow for re-rolls on the extremes you can cover a pretty broad range of results. Let's say an Avatar of Khaine needs only a 2+ (instead of the current 3+) to hit a grot. Since its WS is so much higher though, also give him a re-roll of 4+ on that miss. Or whatever number you like once you crunch the numbers to your satisfaction. A D10 or D20 isn't really necessary, and a straight up to hit roll for trying to hit an Eldar exarch or a building makes even less sense.

 jeff white wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The game is not a simulation. It's a game. The mechanics are not there to represent reality (of a fictional world full of fictional entities with no basis in realism to begin with). The game exists to be a game. The mechanics have to function in a intuitive and entertaining way first and foremost.

If you want realism in your games go play Desert Bus.

Ummm. No. It began as an extended RPG which is a simulation if it is good and loses all touch with anything like a current world when it sux.

Ummm. No. RPG stands for Role Playing Game and the more simulation like a RPG is the more bogged down in paperwork and minutia it becomes and the fun gets sucked right out of it. The best RPGs I have ever played simplify for funs sake and streamline for a smooth gameplay experience. 4th and 5th ed DnD play much better than 1rst and the FF games (like Star Wars especially
) are much better than any of the DnDs. It's not because they simulate more. They simulate less while abstracting in intuitive and entertaining ways.

 amanita wrote:
If you allow for re-rolls on the extremes you can cover a pretty broad range of results. Let's say an Avatar of Khaine needs only a 2+ (instead of the current 3+) to hit a grot. Since its WS is so much higher though, also give him a re-roll of 4+ on that miss. Or whatever number you like once you crunch the numbers to your satisfaction. A D10 or D20 isn't really necessary, and a straight up to hit roll for trying to hit an Eldar exarch or a building makes even less sense.

Seems like an enormous waste of time. Your dude hits on a 2, so he's good at fighting. Their guy hits on a 5 so he's bad at fighting. There, end of story. You just cut the game down by 10-15 minutes while still leaving a clear differentiation between a skilled fighter and a weak fighter. Everything after that point is just empty calories.

I think 8th ed is doing a decent job making the most of the d6 constraint.

ERJAK wrote:

 amanita wrote:
If you allow for re-rolls on the extremes you can cover a pretty broad range of results. Let's say an Avatar of Khaine needs only a 2+ (instead of the current 3+) to hit a grot. Since its WS is so much higher though, also give him a re-roll of 4+ on that miss. Or whatever number you like once you crunch the numbers to your satisfaction. A D10 or D20 isn't really necessary, and a straight up to hit roll for trying to hit an Eldar exarch or a building makes even less sense.

Seems like an enormous waste of time. Your dude hits on a 2, so he's good at fighting. Their guy hits on a 5 so he's bad at fighting. There, end of story. You just cut the game down by 10-15 minutes while still leaving a clear differentiation between a skilled fighter and a weak fighter. Everything after that point is just empty calories.

So a guardsman with a bayonet is just as likely to hit Lelith Hesperax as he would a three-legged turtle? End of story, right?

Just not a very good story.

 amanita wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

 amanita wrote:
If you allow for re-rolls on the extremes you can cover a pretty broad range of results. Let's say an Avatar of Khaine needs only a 2+ (instead of the current 3+) to hit a grot. Since its WS is so much higher though, also give him a re-roll of 4+ on that miss. Or whatever number you like once you crunch the numbers to your satisfaction. A D10 or D20 isn't really necessary, and a straight up to hit roll for trying to hit an Eldar exarch or a building makes even less sense.

Seems like an enormous waste of time. Your dude hits on a 2, so he's good at fighting. Their guy hits on a 5 so he's bad at fighting. There, end of story. You just cut the game down by 10-15 minutes while still leaving a clear differentiation between a skilled fighter and a weak fighter. Everything after that point is just empty calories.

So a guardsman with a bayonet is just as likely to hit Lelith Hesperax as he would a three-legged turtle? End of story, right?

Just not a very good story.

But it was fine that your Guardsman with a laserrifle is just as likely to hit (not: damage!) the titan right in front of him as he would a single ratling almost outside of his max range?

40k is a pretty abstract game as it tries to allow for large model counts. The more realism and complexity you want, the slower the game will be. 40k is supposed to be played with a ton of models on the table, you can't do that with e.g. Infinity or BattleTech - unless you want to dedicate MUCH more time to a single match. 36v36 in BattleTech isn't going to be done in one evening.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:
The game is not a simulation. It's a game. The mechanics are not there to represent reality (of a fictional world full of fictional entities with no basis in realism to begin with). The game exists to be a game. The mechanics have to function in a intuitive and entertaining way first and foremost.

If you want realism in your games go play Desert Bus.

Ummm. No. It began as an extended RPG which is a simulation if it is good and loses all touch with anything like a current world when it sux.

RPGs are Role Playing Games.
There are some that are trying to be as realistic as possible (e.g. MERS), some that try to be as simplistic as possible (Fate) and some that try to hit the sweet spot in between (D&D).

The more realism you add, the less actual Role Playing you get to do. In a simplified system an epic fight might take half an hour while in a very realistic system you might not have finished setting up the dungeon to even start the fight, and each round of combat might take yet another half an hour. But that's not inherently good or bad either way. It all comes down to what you want out of your sessions. Hack'n'Slay focussed groups will probably enjoy D&D and MERS but despise Fate while groups that want to focus more on the story or character (not the one on the sheet) development will be quite happy with FATE but hate MERS.

If you want to get nitpicky and judgmental when it comes to what RPGs are supposed to be then you'd have to hold up the shining example of Fate and oppose anything that introduces even basic elements of tabletop games as all of them will distract from the Role Playing aspect. But really, that's just being a dick, so don't do that.

 Ratius wrote:

Hey I am a mighty Avatar of Khaine and miss hitting a Gretchin on a 1 or a 2.

This used to drive me up the walls.
The Avatar had a 33% to actually miss that grot altogether (one or a two) whilst the grot could hit the avatar back 33% of the time (on a 5 or 6).
I havent looked into 8th hth indepth - has this been fixed or amended? Im all for relatively equal opponents knocking lumps out of each other but absolute combat monsters should be.....absolute combat monsters.

Don't forget that orks will hit an avatar on a 3+ when they used to do it on a 5+. And they'll wound on a 5+ up from 6+. At least for the first turn. Of course, the avater will have more wounds than now but he's gona loose them faster in mellee than he used to thx to his ws10.

 koooaei wrote:

 Ratius wrote:

Hey I am a mighty Avatar of Khaine and miss hitting a Gretchin on a 1 or a 2.

This used to drive me up the walls.
The Avatar had a 33% to actually miss that grot altogether (one or a two) whilst the grot could hit the avatar back 33% of the time (on a 5 or 6).
I havent looked into 8th hth indepth - has this been fixed or amended? Im all for relatively equal opponents knocking lumps out of each other but absolute combat monsters should be.....absolute combat monsters.

Don't forget that orks will hit an avatar on a 3+ when they used to do it on a 5+. And they'll wound on a 5+ up from 6+. At least for the first turn. Of course, the avater will have more wounds than now but he's gona loose them faster in mellee than he used to thx to his ws10.

He might have a rule that makes you subtract one or something from their to hit roll

I wonder why they couldn't use the same table they made for strength/toughness for weapon skill as well?