PDA

View Full Version : Changing the Weapon Skill system



forgottenlor
13-09-2007, 07:04
I was interested to read in the high elf rule section to see how many players are dissapointed with the current WS system. It got me to thinking and I was curious what non high elf players also thought. There are my thoughts.

Damage is based on two stats, namely strength and toughness, while being hit and hitting is based on only one, namely WS.
To hit rolls are made first, making these rolls slightly more important than damage rolls.

A common complaint is that it seems fairly illogical that a WS 3 opponent still hits a WS 6 opponent on 4+

In my opinion, WS is often underestimated. Consider two opponents with WS 3 and WS 4 (a common situation) The WS 4 modell hits on 3+ and is hit on 4+. amd the WS 3 modell hits on 4+ and is hit on 3+. this is a great difference, but this difference tends to be reduced by an increasing gap in weapon skills.
It seems to me a logical extension of the system would be that WS 5 against WS 2 would be hit on 5+ and hit on 3+, but this advantage is first enjoyed by a WS 7 model. If one extends this logic further a Ws 6 model would be hit on 2+ and be hit on 5+, and a WS 3 model would need 6s to hit a WS 7 model.
The advantage of this would that it would allow a different sort of playing style, which would actually make elite infantry attractive. The disadvantage is that it would make the game unplayable with the current army lists, because the point levels would be completely unbalanced. Any thoughts?

Highborn
13-09-2007, 07:27
WS5 against WS2 does hit on a 3 and get hit on a 5?
The problem with 2s and 6s to wound is, as anyone who's faced An Annoyance of Netlings would know, it becomes near impossible to hit. S and T are important, but you will also notice that the range of S and T available to an army is therefore more restricted - T4 on a basic troop is something to be celebrated, and T5 on a rank and file is ridiculous. T6 is reserved for the nastiest gribblies and T7 is for war machines. Similarly, T2 is reserved for swarms and the extremely weedy, while T1 doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge.

Compare this to WS. Rank and file (I mean 20mm/25mm infantry, ranked or skirmish) WS ranges from 2 (skellies, goblins) to 6 (swordmasters, wardancers). S ranges from 3 (most things) to 4 (many other things). T also ranges from 3 to 4. When we go to monsters and characters, we get WS going up to 10, or S and T going up to 6 (7 in some extreme cases I think?)

If you try and implement something where WS starts hitting on 2s and 6s for the extremes, what you're going to find is that costs for units like Wardancers are going to blow out. The solution for that is 30+ point per model for units like Wardancers, Swordmasters, etc, and characters well into the hundreds, or you will find WS will stop ranging from 2-10. T5 is rare because it means basic troops wound on 6, which is unbalancing for most troops in the same way that natural S5 is rare because it wounds most troops on 2.

I say the WS system is fine as it is, and surprisingly well thought out. S and T can have the extra diversity in the dice rolls, because generally people are rolling less dice to wound than they are to hit.

CaptScott
13-09-2007, 08:49
The WS roll table does seem a little 'out', but it works, and any changes to it would require drastic changes to the game. Additionally high WS models tend to have better equipment, initiative, and leadership which provides them with advantages befitting their elite status.

Rioghan Murchadha
13-09-2007, 10:14
It's not 'well thought out' at all. It's not complex, since you only need 3 numbers on a 6 sided die, but not well thought out at all.. Since WS is a stat that models obviously pay for in points costs.. Say, WS6 vs WS3... Look, I'm twice as good as you in hand to hand combat, yet I only enjoy a roughly 16% effective advantage!..

The to hit table has been gimped since they switched from 3rd to 4th ed fantasy.

forgottenlor
13-09-2007, 10:46
Yes, hitting on 6s is very hard. I have played enough to know. However it seems logical that say a vampire lord with Ws 8 or 9 should hit a gnoblar on 2+ and that the gnoblar should need a 6+ to hit such a high WS. I also would say, for example that it would be fair if an imperial speerman needed a 5+ to hit a normal fighting commander that has a WS 6. Thats just my opinion. I know it would mean a complete change in the point systems though.

Crube
13-09-2007, 11:05
I like the Wargods ssytem of Att (attack) and Def (Defence)

Althoough I would like to see it combined with the WFB system of then rollong separately to wound using S and T...

Jedi152
13-09-2007, 11:11
I think it works ok now - what you have to remember is that the rules do not represent soldiers lining up 1 on 1 and fencing with the enemy, fighting will be a bloody and brutal affair, with lots of pushing, shoving and desperate swinging of weapons.

I recall when my gaming buddies used to complain that is didn't work, saying that high WS troops should hit low WS troops automatically, and lower WS one shouldn't be able to hit WS 9 or 10 people at all - which is rubbish.

WS, i.e. swordsmanship, probably counts for little on a heated battlefield such as the ones Warhammer is meant to represent. Combat will be such a desperate affair that soldiers would have no time for fancy swordplay - and remember, it's very easy for a poor fighter to kill a good fighter with a swift lucky stab.

Gorbad Ironclaw
13-09-2007, 12:32
It's because it's suppose to be a game where the basic troopers can actually do something, instead of having heroes wipe the floor with everything they meet...

Mad Doc Grotsnik
13-09-2007, 13:39
Weapon Skill.

You hit on a 4+, as when you've got 20 mates behind you, sticking someone on the end of your spear is remarkably easy, even when they are poncing around!

Remember folks, this is game in a Fantasiation of Medieval Combat, NOT a John Woo film!

Bloodknight
13-09-2007, 13:54
IIRC the WS to-hit table once in an earlier edition reached from 2 to 6, but that was abandoned because it made heroes far too good, hitting most stuff on 2+ while only being hit back on 6es.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
13-09-2007, 13:58
It can still happen...and it sucks ass.

You try fighting off WS4 Grave Guard, with the Banner of +1 to hit, when you've failed your fear test. It's just not funny. Especially when they have a Wightlord in amongst them!

theunwantedbeing
13-09-2007, 14:00
If you introduced an armour modifier to the weaponskill stat in the same sort of way that strength gives an armour modifier,but base it around being higher than your opponents weaponskill.

ie.
having double your opponents weaponskill grants an extra -1 armour modifier

That would (at least in my opinion) make for a more useful bonus to having a significantly higher weaponskill than your opponent,as you are more able to go for the weaker points in your opponents armour.

Granitearm
13-09-2007, 14:01
For me, I think I'd be happy to see it changed just so that you require a 5+ to hit if the WS is double yours, not more than double.

And maybe in the same situation make a 2+ to hit, although that would turn characters into lawnmowers, and make some magic items almost useless.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
13-09-2007, 14:05
And then my Flagellants would kill precisely nowt!

WS works about nice right now. There are improvements, but it's such an integral part of woking out how much something is worth, that to apply even a small change would have massive implications for game Balance.

Festus
13-09-2007, 14:31
Hi

I am definitely in the camp that the WS table perhaps is the most sophisticated and best in the game: No groundbreaking extremes, but a very much finetuned system of strika and counterstrike.

Believe me, a difference between 4+ and 3+ to hit may seem small, but in reality it is not, if you have 10 or more attacks to roll. Given, with your basic Infantry, it doesn't matter much, if the 5 attacks are at 3+ or 4+, as all it does is up or down the count by less than 1 hit, but that is only right and proper: WS3 and WS4 infantry is not the end of it, really, it is a brawl, a melee, not a finestyled fighting.

But with Elites, the system really shines: Working off exactly the same basic figures, the table yields a very different result, and this shows the fighting prowess of one side very well - without having some silly modifiers or over-the-top target numbers.

Festus

Dayhan
13-09-2007, 14:35
I think if your unit or char has double the WS of the unit it's in combat with. You should be hit on a 5 not 4, and hit on a 2. Even models being hit on a 5 can be hurt. It should never be better than an 5 to be hit or a 2 to hit. There is some units that can only hit on 6's normally. That should also be brought down to 5's.

I would hate to see WS 10 hero's or monsters only being wounded on 6's. Thats why I said never better than a 5 or a 2. I mean after all whats the point in having a WS that high and paying the points cost for it. If it's not got any bonas over cheaper units.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
13-09-2007, 14:41
Bare in mind though, that I has a major part to play as well.

Take Empire Swordsmen. WS4 and I4. A far superior troop to a Militia, with WS3 and I3. Not only do the Swordsmen have an easier time against WS2 and 3 troops, but in addition, they have little to fear from WS4! Add in the Initiative gain, and they ought to see far fewer wounds needing to be saved against normal Rank and File troops.

explorator
13-09-2007, 15:46
The WS chart in the book is a necessary simplification of an abstract combat system. Balance in any game system is tricky, but Warhammer does a decent job of keeping combat smooth while giving most units a role. Combat, and more specifically combat resolution, is the core of Warhammer, and as such the rules must support it. If we dedicate our lives to collecting, painting, and playing with toy soldiers, we must be content with rules that allow us to play given the constraints of real life.

If you cannot stand the WS chart then devise one of your own and convince your friends to use it for friendly game, or experiment with games that have a more complex combat system (Confrontation 3, for example).

forgottenlor
13-09-2007, 16:00
I do think the Ws table is ok. It also mirrors the current point system. So does I. It just seems having a very high WS or a very high I is often useless, because what is really important is to have one point higher than your opponent. On the other hand a point of S or T in any direction means alot. I am just saying a little bit more variety might make some troop types more interesting.

Another thought: A normal hero has a tough time say against a 56 point Kroxigore or a 48 point Irongut who can mow him down, even though his Ws is usually 2-3 points better. Take a champ of either type for 20 more points and you have more attacks coming at the hero than the hero can deliver back.

night2501
13-09-2007, 16:01
as Granitearm the only slight tweak i think could be used would be to need a5+ to hit when the oponent WS is double insted of double +1, but still you hit on 3+ no matter how much higer your WS is...
but is not really necesary, and as other have said, the diference is quit eimportant, some people might not notice but hiting on 3+ intead of 4+ really changes things ...

W0lf
13-09-2007, 16:23
the ws system works fine as it is. the idea of hitting on 6's is just silly...

anything ws 8+ is hard enough to get a decent amount of attacks at anyway...

Corrupt
13-09-2007, 17:47
I mirror this change for the 5+ to hit being moved from Double +1 to merely Double
It wouldn't be THAT game changing.
It would require Ws6 Swordmasters or heroes in a HE armyto be hit on 5+ by empire troopers. Everything else is only Ws5. Atm higher Ws and I are overshadowed by the apparantly cheaper S+t
Face off some elves and dwarves.
Despite being 11+ Pts per model and having 3 ranks of spears the elves will struggle to break the 7-8pt warriors.

Urgat
13-09-2007, 18:05
It's fine as it is. My gobs already have it hard enough, thank you.

Corrupt
13-09-2007, 18:19
It's fine as it is. My gobs already have it hard enough, thank you.

Yeah but goblins are about 1/5 the cost of Elven infantry, but in a 1v1 fight actually stand a reasonable chance.
Hitting on 4, wounding on 4, 5+(ish) save
Wheras the elves hit on 3, wound on 4 and face the same 5+ish save despite being over quadruple the cost.

GranFarfar
13-09-2007, 18:20
You try fighting off WS4 Grave Guard, with the Banner of +1 to hit, when you've failed your fear test. It's just not funny. Especially when they have a Wightlord in amongst them!

Good thing they are only WS 3 then. :D

I don't see anything wrong with the WS system as it is. However I agree that S is probably worth alot more than WS. Mostly, I think that chaning the WS system would require way to much work with ALL the army books.

Urgat
13-09-2007, 18:53
Yeah but goblins are about 1/5 the cost of Elven infantry, but in a 1v1 fight actually stand a reasonable chance.
Hitting on 4, wounding on 4, 5+(ish) save
Wheras the elves hit on 3, wound on 4 and face the same 5+ish save despite being over quadruple the cost.

Elves have M5, Ld9 or something, no animosity, they don't fear goblins when goblins fear the elves, and I'm sure they got other nifty things that gobs don't have. The price of a unit isn't just about how well it rolls to hit or wound, you know.

Corrupt
13-09-2007, 19:03
Elves have M5, Ld9 or something, no animosity, they don't fear goblins when goblins fear the elves, and I'm sure they got other nifty things that gobs don't have. The price of a unit isn't just about how well it rolls to hit or wound, you know.

Ld 8, and yes I accept that, but the fact remains that in a straight fight 250+pts of elves hardly have a convincing victory against 100ish pts of goblins.

Urgat
13-09-2007, 19:27
Come on, in a straight fight, elves hit first on 3+, they have all the chances in the world to prevail in a fight with goblins.

Festus
13-09-2007, 21:36
And going by statistics, they indeed will... !

Edit: 6 on 6 with spears.
Elves strike 12 times, hit 8 times, wound 4 times, 4 dead Gobbos (or actually 3 dead Gobbos after saves).
Gobbos strike 9 times, hit 4.5 times, and wound 2.25 times. 1.875 dead Elves after saves.

Elves win by 1 or 2, Gobbos test on 5 (10/36th, about 1/3rd chance to stay) or 4 (1/6th) ...

Probably the Gobbos will fear the Elves, with all that entails, are subject to Animosity, and mabe they are even Night Gobbos, whose Ld is one less!

Yes, Elves do cost more, but they will win more as well. Add the better Ld, the higher I, and all other pros - and you will see that Elves are quite well costed for what they can do in an infantry fight. Too bad a clever opponent will not let you fight this fight on your terms, you pansy Elf :evilgrin:

Festus

Rioghan Murchadha
14-09-2007, 05:25
Hi
Believe me, a difference between 4+ and 3+ to hit may seem small, but in reality it is not,
It seems like, and is a 16.6 recursive % difference. Certainly not a large difference in effectiveness one way or the other.


Given, with your basic Infantry, it doesn't matter much, if the 5 attacks are at 3+ or 4+, as all it does is up or down the count by less than 1 hit, but that is only right and proper: WS3 and WS4 infantry is not the end of it, really, it is a brawl, a melee, not a finestyled fighting.
Nor should it matter all that much, given that there's only a 1 pt difference in skill, what it does however, is make certain scores on the WS table largely redundant. WS4 is huge, since the vast bulk of line troops is WS3. WS5 is largely useless except against elves, since there are so few WS2 troops in the game. WS6, 8 and 10 are also pointless as they are not the magic double+1 of any of the common WS ratings in the game. WS7 and 9 are gold, as they make WS3 and 4 troops hit you on a 5+.


But with Elites, the system really shines: Working off exactly the same basic figures, the table yields a very different result, and this shows the fighting prowess of one side very well - without having some silly modifiers or over-the-top target numbers.
This is not even remotely true. run the same combat with say, WS5 or 6 elite infantry vs WS3 troopers.. the result is IDENTICAL. the higher WS guys hit on a 3+, and the WS3 guys hit back on a 4+.

It is assinine to have a stat that runs potentially from 1 to 10, and then limit said stat to 3 results on a 6 sided die.

Urgat
14-09-2007, 09:01
It seems like, and is a 16.6 recursive % difference. Certainly not a large difference in effectiveness one way or the other.

It is very large, for the simplest reason: it is the first roll of the fight.
Now I know what I would like to say, but I just deleted three sentences trying to explain, so I'll just give up ><

Horn
14-09-2007, 09:21
WS is a 'weak' stat. It doesn't do much and (presumably) doesn't cost much. That's just the way Warhammer is designed: A>S>WS>I (approximately). If GW had a WS1 S1 A1 I10 hero, everyone would give him a great weapon. Doesn't make much sense, but that's just how the system works. Personally I'd like the to-hit and to-wound chart to be the same for simplicity's sake, but that'd require giving pretty much everything new stats, with 2 or 3 things in the game having WS7. I suppose then people would complain about their wardancers having the same WS as their eternal guard.

MarcoPollo
14-09-2007, 18:01
I think the system is fine the way it is, with maybe the change from more than double to just double for 5+ to hit. I find that GW has done a good job assigning w/s stats to the troops. W/S 2 (rabble troops), W/S 3 standard troops, W/S 4 quality troops, W/S 5 elite troops (Cheap fighty heros), W/S 6 top of the line troops (medium fighty heros), W/S 7 + (Heros of ascending quality).

Every one below will do poorer than the ones above based upon w/s alone. But, other attributes come into play that compensate/adjust the quality of the set-up depending on the circumstances of the unit/opponent.

Rioghan Murchadha
16-09-2007, 03:33
The only problem with changing from double+1 to just double, is that it would pretty much obsolete all odd numbered weapon skills instead of the even ones.. :p

GranFarfar
16-09-2007, 09:16
WS4 is huge, since the vast bulk of line troops is WS3.

This here, is what I think is one of the main problems with WS. A value of 3 is somewhat assumed to be the most ordinary. But consider that there is 3 armies of elves, dwarves, mortal and beast of chaos, the Empire has Swordsmen(and thus being able to avoid ws 3 troops) and lastly Bretonnia also having a WS of 4 on their main unit(Kotr). What this adds up to is that more than half of the books have a basic WS of 4. This makes WS 3 a disadvantage, instead of having WS 4 being an advantage.


It is very large, for the simplest reason: it is the first roll of the fight.

Actually, as far as I know, this matters none at all. It is the whole serie of calculations that matters, not were in equation you put it. At least when it conserns basic multiplication.

To demonstrate my point. A WS4, S3, T3, A1 Vs. B Ws3, S4, T3, A1
A attacks - 1*2/3*1/2=1/3
B attacks - 1*1/2*2/3=1/3

The result is the same. But since S also affects AS it is a more valuble stat. This is also true because of the difference in how to hit and to wound works.

Not saying that to hit should change.

Highborn
17-09-2007, 06:19
It is assinine to have a stat that runs potentially from 1 to 10, and then limit said stat to 3 results on a 6 sided die.

3 sides of the die? Which 3 can I then eliminate, to streamline the process? Perhaps we should use a D3? ... You're forgetting that the other 3 sides serve a purpose. They miss, just like the first three indicate a hit. Assinine indeed.

Also bear in mind that this is the first stage of the fight - 2+ to hit or 6+ to hit in most circumstances will make other stats almost obsolete. A good example is the Wood Elf with Netlings - 6s to hit will mean most people happily ignore his T3, throwing him into challenges with almost anything that comes his way.

Finally, remember that items and abilities are there to boost or lower the range to 2s through to 6s, for extreme cases.


Food for thought:

Bloodthirsters would kill on average with 70% of their attacks.

A skeleton would have less than a 12% chance of killing an elf.

7 wardancers, 7 wide against a 5 wide WS3 T3 infantry formation, would average 12 wounds on the charge.

Kloud13
17-09-2007, 06:41
WS, i.e. swordsmanship, probably counts for little on a heated battlefield such as the ones Warhammer is meant to represent. Combat will be such a desperate affair that soldiers would have no time for fancy swordplay - and remember, it's very easy for a poor fighter to kill a good fighter with a swift lucky stab.

A lucky Stab? When you can always hit on a 4+ that means half their swings, are getting lucky. at that point, it's not luck, a guy has skill.

Hellebore
17-09-2007, 07:02
The problem with going from 5+ to hit on double +1 to just double, is that it completely proportionately devalues odd numbered WS.

ie, a WS5 model only gets hit on 5s by something with a WS of 2, yes? Well in the system where only doubles is required, WS5 STILL is only hit by WS2 on 5+.

In that system being WS4, 6, 8, or 10 is MUCH better proportionately than 1, 3, 5, 7, 9.

That change only helps HALF the WS stats in the game, the other half receive nothing.

Hellebore

Petey
17-09-2007, 08:24
The thing is this, with the limits of a d6 and the main focus of the game being mass combat there really isn't a great way to do it. I ve done SCA sword and board line fighting, and also martial arts and fencing; they're very different kettles of fish.
In a line you re never killed by the guy in front of you, but almost always by the guy next to him. There are lots of opportunities to get a guy when his attention isn't on you. WS as is does a fair job to represent this, with the more skilled guys seeing more openings, the problem comes in when you consider that the game ALSO has duels and personal combat, where individual skill is much more important for defense.
So at that point the game breaks a bit. A skilled man in a duel against a strong but unskilled man should most often win. The game fails to simulate this.

Keep in mind also that the designers don't think the current rules are accurate to dark ages/renaissance hand to hand. In the first edition of the rules it was much harder to hit one another, this was changed because the fans wanted more killing in close combat (it s discussed in some of the older white dwarves). In that edition, you got bonuses to hit for charging, being mounted, or having higher ground, or winning the last round of combat (all these got changed to CR stuff as we all can see).

Also due to the current nature of the game, answers to these problems need to be simple and streamlined or they just can't be taken seriously. The main gripes about WS can really be summed up like this.
1 It doesn't pay to have more than just a little bit higher WS than your opponent (as you pay for it, but don't get benefit)
2 In dueling (challenges) it s not as meaningful as it should be.

For example, if i m using elven elites, who's major benefit is that they have slightly better WS than my core (ignoring equipment, and powers for the moment), then when they face a WS 3 person they re actually wasting their time, as they re no better at murder than their core brothers, but are paying an extra point for the privilege of doing nothing.
For the second part, it means that high skill low strength heroes can't effectively beat low skill high strength opponents.

The proposition i have to fix both of these issues is systemic.
The core rules need an overhaul for this to work (therefor making it unlikely to occur). The big change should be to make all combat work in initiative order, and have initiative modified by the weapons taken (this would be going back to the original system)
Examples might be lances getting +2S and I on a charge, or great weapons getting +2S -2I 2hnded, etc.
Secondly, you make the special universal combat rule that if you have two more ws than your opponent you gain +1 initiative, or perhaps a bonus to your wounding roll.
This makes you have a bit more math (which they don't want) but is still a simple solution which offers incentives on having more WS without breaking the tables

zak
17-09-2007, 15:16
The point that is being missed here is that a WS5 or WS6 elite will still be hitting WS4 on a 3+. The higher the WS the more often you will be hitting on a 3 against your opponent. Even some hero's will be hitting you on a 4. Overall in the game this can have a big effect. The player can no longer rely on his character hitting and killing the opponents and gaining that little edge in CR.

WLBjork
17-09-2007, 15:35
I agree with the point it's not all about how skilled you are with a sword. Anyone read Sharpe? In one fight where he is completely outclassed in swordsmanship, he simply gets his opponent to stab him in the leg, whereupon his opponent is effectively disarmed and Sharpe simply hacks him down.

Sharpe doesn't bother with fancy swordplay, just goes for gutter fighting tactics - hit them with whatever is available, kick them in the crotch, whatever.

That is what the "to hit" roll in WHFB represents.

Horn
17-09-2007, 18:43
And if Sharpe was attacking an unconscious cow he'd have no greater than a 2-in-3 chance of hitting it. Similarly if he was attacked by a vampire who moves faster than the eye can see he'd always have a 1-in-3 chance of parrying or whatever.

The system is too abstracted for any of these arguments to have any real bearing on what the table "should" represent.

Rioghan Murchadha
18-09-2007, 03:50
3 sides of the die? Which 3 can I then eliminate, to streamline the process? Perhaps we should use a D3? ... You're forgetting that the other 3 sides serve a purpose. They miss, just like the first three indicate a hit. Assinine indeed.

Also bear in mind that this is the first stage of the fight - 2+ to hit or 6+ to hit in most circumstances will make other stats almost obsolete. A good example is the Wood Elf with Netlings - 6s to hit will mean most people happily ignore his T3, throwing him into challenges with almost anything that comes his way.

Finally, remember that items and abilities are there to boost or lower the range to 2s through to 6s, for extreme cases.


Food for thought:

Bloodthirsters would kill on average with 70% of their attacks.

A skeleton would have less than a 12% chance of killing an elf.

7 wardancers, 7 wide against a 5 wide WS3 T3 infantry formation, would average 12 wounds on the charge.

In a typical fight (ignoring for a moment, magic items and things that 'typically' are only carried by characters) you might as well be flipping a coin, heads you hit, tails you miss. Give one side higher weapon skill and yeah, a d3 would be fine.. higher WS hits on 2 and 3, lower WS still flips the coin.

So far, I've only suggested problems I have with the current system. I have yet to mention what I would see as an improvement.

Personally, I would move the whole game to a d10 based system instead of d6. I really quite like the way Void and Urban War handle tests. Roll a d10, and add your skill to the result. If the number is 10 or higher, it works. (1's auto fail). This allows you to have a much wider range of stats that actually mean something, while still throwing in modifiers that have a good impact on the results. I've never understood why the stat range is 1-10, but you're testing with a d6.

Chiron
18-09-2007, 13:01
a D10 system would also give a hell of a lot more variation between races, as it is goblins are as tough as humans, humans are as tough and strong as orcs and generally theres not a lot to distinguish 2 opposing forces troops. Which is why all these special rules keep creeping in, to make up for the fact that nearly everyones the same.

GavT
18-09-2007, 13:34
There's two important things to bear in mind with WS:

1. Although the difference between a 4+ to hit and a 3+ to hit is an objective 16.6% better, it is in fact 33.3% better comparatively. That is to say, a WS 3 model has 3 in 6 chances of hitting, while a WS 4 model has a 4 in 6 chance of hitting - 4 is 33.3% more than 3. Alternatively, you could say that WS3 is 25% worse than being WS4 (as 3 is 75% of 4). Confused yet? :confused: :)

2. At WS values of 5 and above (ish), the distinction is not so much about how much better than ordinary troops a model is, but how much better or worse than other elite troops. For example, a Dark Elf Assassin is WS10, and this shows that they're better than anything other than another Dark Elf Assassin. A High Elf Swordmaster with a WS 6 is better at fighting other elite types, as another example. When an Empire Grand Master fights a Dwarf Lord, that extra pip of WS makes a lot of difference.

The WS table was changed to its present incarnation with 4th edition, to make combat bloodier more decisive and less attritional (pre-4th ed combats tended to go on for many, many turns).

Cheers,

GAV

Rioghan Murchadha
20-09-2007, 06:55
There's two important things to bear in mind with WS:

1. Although the difference between a 4+ to hit and a 3+ to hit is an objective 16.6% better, it is in fact 33.3% better comparatively. That is to say, a WS 3 model has 3 in 6 chances of hitting, while a WS 4 model has a 4 in 6 chance of hitting - 4 is 33.3% more than 3. Alternatively, you could say that WS3 is 25% worse than being WS4 (as 3 is 75% of 4). Confused yet? :confused: :)

Not at all, I merely like objectivity ;)


2. At WS values of 5 and above (ish), the distinction is not so much about how much better than ordinary troops a model is, but how much better or worse than other elite troops. For example, a Dark Elf Assassin is WS10, and this shows that they're better than anything other than another Dark Elf Assassin. A High Elf Swordmaster with a WS 6 is better at fighting other elite types, as another example. When an Empire Grand Master fights a Dwarf Lord, that extra pip of WS makes a lot of difference.
Heh.. don't even get me started on how better WS doesn't even come close to compensating for the high points cost on elite infantry. They will still typically lose combat to a much cheaper, statistically weaker, but larger unit. However, I see where you're going with this. I suspect back in the day, when the flip to 4th ed was made, and we saw way more characters / elites on the table, it worked out more as it was envisaged, rather than bog standard troopers owning the day as happens now.


The WS table was changed to its present incarnation with 4th edition, to make combat bloodier more decisive and less attritional (pre-4th ed combats tended to go on for many, many turns).

Cheers,

GAV
Yup, and I remember both praising the coming of 4th ed, and lamenting the old days of 3rd at the same time. It's unfortunate that with the advent of ridiculous armour saves on infantry, we're heading back towards the days of static CR winning fights rather than killing the enemy.

Thanks for the reply.

WageMage
20-09-2007, 10:31
Heh.. don't even get me started on how better WS doesn't even come close to compensating for the high points cost on elite infantry.That's only because WH favours cavalry and flyers who can immediately take the fight to the other side while infantry needs a couple of turns before engaging, making their points less efficient.

Once the elite infantry actually engages they tend to be brutal.
Combining staying power, kills and static CR.

The WS is perfect as it is for this edition, changing it would alter the balance of way too many parameters.


It's unfortunate that with the advent of ridiculous armour saves on infantry, we're heading back towards the days of static CR winning fights rather than killing the enemy.As it should IMO. Nothing more stupid then 1 hero singlehandedly destroying entire units.
Some characters(special or not) can already do this and it really offends my suspension of disbelief.
But all new AB's seem to put shooting, characters and killing power back on their pedestal.
So Herohammer is coming back and the basic troopers can go back to the shelves.

Cycorax
20-09-2007, 12:05
The differance between 3+ and 4+ really is quite a differance when it comes down to it, quite often deciding which side wins the combat overall. The differance between 3+ and 4+ could just be one extra wound which could be that 1 extra that breaks the opposition.

Rioghan Murchadha
20-09-2007, 21:03
That's only because WH favours cavalry and flyers who can immediately take the fight to the other side while infantry needs a couple of turns before engaging, making their points less efficient.

Once the elite infantry actually engages they tend to be brutal.
Combining staying power, kills and static CR.

The WS is perfect as it is for this edition, changing it would alter the balance of way too many parameters.

What elite infantry are you fielding? Very little other than Chosen Chaos warriors.. (who nobody uses since they're too slow), actually KILL enough enemy to make up for the lack of static CR that they have, being elite. (Unless you're crazy enough to field them in blocks of 20+, which ends up being half your army in one unit.)


As it should IMO. Nothing more stupid then 1 hero singlehandedly destroying entire units.
Some characters(special or not) can already do this and it really offends my suspension of disbelief.
But all new AB's seem to put shooting, characters and killing power back on their pedestal.
So Herohammer is coming back and the basic troopers can go back to the shelves.

I believe you mistook what I meant. I'm not advocating a hero singlehandedly slashing up a whole army. I want the dog soldiers to KILL each other when they connect, not stand there taking tea, talking about what they did last summer vacation, then deciding, on the basis unit B has 1 more guy in it than unit A, that unit A will turn around and run away.

Static CR only works well if your army can crank out enough of it. Some can't. Ogre Kingdoms certainly has a hard time, as do solely Beasts of Chaos armies. Bestigors are your only static CR unit, and they're easily shot or avoided. It would be ok if you could rely on killing enough of the enemy when you hit them in an advantageous manner.

Shimmergloom
20-09-2007, 22:23
Elves have M5, Ld9 or something, no animosity, they don't fear goblins when goblins fear the elves, and I'm sure they got other nifty things that gobs don't have. The price of a unit isn't just about how well it rolls to hit or wound, you know.

Also naked goblins are 3pts. 5 times that is 15pts. There's no elven standard infantry costing 15pts. Those are elites.

Spearelves are 5 weeks from being 9pts with heavy armor, spear, lt armor and shield, striking first and fighting in 3 ranks, with ld8, ws4, m5, no animosity and causing fear to goblins, plus their higher I and BS, which won't matter, but they still have it.

Give a goblin a spear and shield and he's 5pts. That's not even 2 times the difference. Hardly 5times like he claims.

At this rate, we're only about 2 editions away from goblins being 6pts each and spearelves being 7pts each.

Kadrium
20-09-2007, 23:01
Static CR only works well if your army can crank out enough of it. Some can't. Ogre Kingdoms certainly has a hard time, as do solely Beasts of Chaos armies. Bestigors are your only static CR unit, and they're easily shot or avoided. It would be ok if you could rely on killing enough of the enemy when you hit them in an advantageous manner.

OK don't need the static CR to be successful, that's where the strategy in the game comes in. If you just push your models straight forward into someone else's models, you're going to lose, no matter how elite your units are. I don't care if I'm attacking WS 5 or 6 infantry with my ironguts, cause I have mv 6 and i'll be setting up a flank charge and winning. Mv can be > WS in a lot of situations.

WageMage
20-09-2007, 23:53
What elite infantry are you fielding? Very little other than Chosen Chaos warriors.. (who nobody uses since they're too slow), actually KILL enough enemy to make up for the lack of static CR that they have, being elite. (Unless you're crazy enough to field them in blocks of 20+, which ends up being half your army in one unit.)The trick is not to go for the full 3 ranks but still have enough static CR to destroy the rank'n file units.
Elite units only need enough to get over the 5 CR most basic units can produce.
So only 1 rank and let's say a Warbanner together with kills are enough to consistenly win.

Take 12 Black Orcs with Warbanner vs 25 Empire Swordsmen.
The Swordsmen are only about 30 pts cheaper but will be utterly destroyed if the orcs get into combat undamaged. The BO only need 2 wounds to tie, which shouldn't be a problem. (Average is about 4/5 wounds caused 1st round so Swordsmen lose by 2/3)

Besides, once battlefield constraints are applied most elites have no problem getting rid of basic troops.
All battlefields have chokepoints, anchoring scenery or simply the strategical problem of too many units to get in position.
All of this favours the elite who strive for 1 on 1 fights.

soots
21-09-2007, 02:56
The current WS system works.

But theres a reason for that.

Its offset by the the silly only front rank attacks rule. E.g When 45 strong goblin unit attacks 5 lonely chaos warriors. Chances are goblins will get 0 attacks and chaos warriors will get their 6-16 attacks.

it works :p

I always thought it would be easier to come up with an Attack strength vs Defensive strength system. But I have grown with the S T WS system and like it very much.

forgottenlor
21-09-2007, 04:42
The problem with elite infantry is that elite calvary works much better. Consider the example above of black orks and swordsmen. Say both are charged by 6 high elf silverhelms with a champion, who are relatively weak but fast heavy calvary. The silver helms kill three black orcs and the orcs one silverhelm. Now the silverhelms have numbers, and the orcs have one rank and the warbanner and lose combat by one. The next round they have no ranks.
Swordsmen in the same situation the swordsmen. They lose 4, but don't kill an elf. But they still have numbers and 3 ranks and the battle is undecided. On the next round things look really grim for the elves, who are down 4 in static combat and can only expect one (or if very lucky two) kills.
This is generally the problem with elite infantry. If you run them big they are too expensive and if you run them small they are very fragile.

Highborn
21-09-2007, 04:45
Its offset by the the silly only front rank attacks rule. E.g When 45 strong goblin unit attacks 5 lonely chaos warriors. Chances are goblins will get 0 attacks and chaos warriors will get their 6-16 attacks.


I like that rule ... Picture goblins, scrambling to get in combat with those 5 lonely warriors they saw, pushed forward by the weight of their colleagues behind them, and finally catching a glimpse of their foe only to be immediately cut down where they stand. If the chaos warriors don't kill enough goblins, then one or two might get a chance to strike ... but the chaos warriors are faster, better and stronger. They're not leaving the goblins any openings.

As for the argument about static CR being king - one of the most competitive armies out there at the moment is the Wood Elf Forest Spirit army. It also happens to be completely unable to generate static CR (without taking 10 Treekin for 650 points). Bretonnians also work better in MSU configuration with 6-9 Knights per lance and 3-5 for Grails. No ranks at all for Pegasus Knights.

Incidentally, all of the latest releases have had elite infantry that can carve up standard infantry - a big congratulations to the design team for Wardancers, Black Orcs and the rumoured new Swordmasters. The Empire hasn't had elite infantry for ages anyway, so bugger them.

RipFlag
21-09-2007, 05:14
I will agree that WS fails to deal with duals, but i think it takes care of troops of units quite well. I am personally a big fan of more static battles, i do not like these tiny highly mobile armies, (which i play...) I really enjoy seeing a huge O&G or Skaven hoard on the table. Blocks of infantry that position themselves and maneuver and engage in large scale conflicts that are swing back and forth. I really did love warmaster....

Furthermore if you look at medieval battles it was rare for an entire force to be slaughtered on the battlefield. I know there are examples, like in sieges, and such but most campaigns and battles were protracted things where maneuverability, weight of numbers along with some tactical know how and communications were the means of winning a battle. Even routing an enemy, were they rarely massacred like many warhammer armies frequently are.

Urgat
21-09-2007, 11:01
I like that rule ... Picture goblins, scrambling to get in combat with those 5 lonely warriors they saw, pushed forward by the weight of their colleagues behind them, and finally catching a glimpse of their foe only to be immediately cut down where they stand. If the chaos warriors don't kill enough goblins, then one or two might get a chance to strike ... but the chaos warriors are faster, better and stronger. They're not leaving the goblins any openings.
Now picture these same knights charging in that same mass of gobs, hacking their way through the middle, slwly being enetangled in countless bodies, being poked at by many spears as they tower way above the gobs, each little hit disturbing and throwing them off balnce, until they fall from their mounts and get submerged by the furious greenskins. I like this version better :D


Incidentally, all of the latest releases have had elite infantry that can carve up standard infantry - a big congratulations to the design team for Wardancers, Black Orcs and the rumoured new Swordmasters. The Empire hasn't had elite infantry for ages anyway, so bugger them.

Greatswords? WS4, S5, 4+ save and stubborn on Ld8, that's not elite enough for you?

BloodiedSword
21-09-2007, 12:48
I think the problem isn't so much what happens when WS still have an effect - the maths behind it shows that the effect is just as great as a 1 pt difference in Str.

I think the problem is that unlike Str, WS spends most of its time doing nothing at all. If your target is WS 3 then it doesn't matter at all whether you are WS 4 or WS 6, which is a huge difference fluffwise.

Whereas for Strength, if your target is T3 then you have to be Str 6 before you start getting any "wastage", and even then you still get the ASM. Meanwhile S3, S4 and S5 all operate differently with increasing effectiveness as you'd expect.

Highborn
21-09-2007, 15:22
Now picture these same knights charging in that same mass of gobs, hacking their way through the middle, slwly being enetangled in countless bodies, being poked at by many spears as they tower way above the gobs, each little hit disturbing and throwing them off balnce, until they fall from their mounts and get submerged by the furious greenskins. I like this version better :D

So do I ... because that's the version where those knights are getting swamped by my skeleton warriors' rank bonus. :)



[/quote]Greatswords? WS4, S5, 4+ save and stubborn on Ld8, that's not elite enough for you?[/QUOTE]

Touche. I suppose that would qualify as elite ... for a human. ;) Let down by their single attack compared to the other three, but then again the Empire was never meant to be able to clear ranked infantry formations from the front.

GranFarfar
21-09-2007, 16:28
As for the argument about static CR being king - one of the most competitive armies out there at the moment is the Wood Elf Forest Spirit army. It also happens to be completely unable to generate static CR (without taking 10 Treekin for 650 points). Bretonnians also work better in MSU configuration with 6-9 Knights per lance and 3-5 for Grails. No ranks at all for Pegasus Knights.

Incidentally, all of the latest releases have had elite infantry that can carve up standard infantry - a big congratulations to the design team for Wardancers, Black Orcs and the rumoured new Swordmasters. The Empire hasn't had elite infantry for ages anyway, so bugger them.

Elite skirmishers is something completely different from elite R'n'F. They basically maximase all the strength of having a good profile. No models not fighting, high manuverability. Also the WE skirmishers have multiple attacks, something all elite infantry should have if you ask me. Models costing 13+ points with only 1 attack will usualy have no chance against most opponents.

And on the BOs. I was under the impression that alot of people find them to expensive and not effective enough. Maybe I'm wrong?

gorenut
21-09-2007, 20:59
Personally, I would move the whole game to a d10 based system instead of d6. I really quite like the way Void and Urban War handle tests. Roll a d10, and add your skill to the result. If the number is 10 or higher, it works. (1's auto fail). This allows you to have a much wider range of stats that actually mean something, while still throwing in modifiers that have a good impact on the results. I've never understood why the stat range is 1-10, but you're testing with a d6.


a D10 system would also give a hell of a lot more variation between races, as it is goblins are as tough as humans, humans are as tough and strong as orcs and generally theres not a lot to distinguish 2 opposing forces troops. Which is why all these special rules keep creeping in, to make up for the fact that nearly everyones the same.

I totally agree with these two and been thinking the same forever. Warhammer really needs to be on a d10 system.

I think WS is acceptable because it's on a d6 system.. it's balanced the best it can on a limited system without making it overly complicated. If you overhaul everything on a d10, things will get a lot better.

zak
21-09-2007, 21:57
I can't beleive that someone thought that Bestigors were the only ranked up unit in a Beasts army. The Beasts army have beast herds, who can have ranks, but only up to a maximum of 2. The army plays well enough without ranks as it has maneouverability. This is just as important sometimes as a high weapon skill.

Black Orcs are still great for their price. At 13 points with shields they can either gain a 4+ save with one attack, have two strength 5 attacks (first turn) or choose to be strength 6. Such flexibilty means you can handle heavy cavalry just as well as rank and file.

Highborn
22-09-2007, 00:13
And on the BOs. I was under the impression that alot of people find them to expensive and not effective enough. Maybe I'm wrong?


Absolutely not effective enough, but not their own fault. If you let Black Orcs reach your lines, they have the tools to mash any comparably priced unit, and many better. The problem with Black Orcs is they're an expensive unit in a horde army. They're a prime target for missile and/or war machine fire, being far more devastating in combat than they are resilient. You can field two units of orcs for the less than one of Black Orcs, and they will only have one pip less armour with more than twice the warm bodies to absorb missile fire and let the army as a whole get into combat.

Highborn
22-09-2007, 00:19
I totally agree with these two and been thinking the same forever. Warhammer really needs to be on a d10 system.

I think WS is acceptable because it's on a d6 system.. it's balanced the best it can on a limited system without making it overly complicated. If you overhaul everything on a d10, things will get a lot better.

I think the edit button has stopped working in Opera or something. I haven't been able to edit for ages.


Things may get a lot better on a d10, but they'll also get a lot slower. I don't know about you; you might play Dungeons and Dragons or whatever and use d10s a lot or something. I find d10s a pain to use though, and fast rolling on a d10 seems like a ridiculous thought with numbers instead of patterns (less recognisability) and those stupid little faces (which one's on top? Oh, that one. Never had to think about it with fast rolling D6s). That's the opinion of a guy who's never picked up a d10 outside of Warhammer and Magic. The day GW picks up a d10 system is ... well, *shrugs*. I imagine a lot of people would not buy the new edition and just keep playing the old, leaving the role-playing guys to cheer for new unnecessary complexity.

Rioghan Murchadha
22-09-2007, 06:31
I can't beleive that someone thought that Bestigors were the only ranked up unit in a Beasts army. The Beasts army have beast herds, who can have ranks, but only up to a maximum of 2. The army plays well enough without ranks as it has maneouverability. This is just as important sometimes as a high weapon skill.

Err, have you actually played beastmen in 7th edition? The 5 wide to claim rank bonus, coupled with the herds ranking up to their opposition like skirmishers (but being able to push FOUR wide if they would normally go smaller, means that it's much harder to gain a rank bonus with a herd against anything where it matters. (Bret lances, other skirmishers etc.) Couple that with the lack of armour, and the fact that a regular gor is only S3, and I'm sorry, beast herds are NOT the be all, end all unit. They are maneuverable, yes, but only moreso than humans and dwarfs. They can't outmaneuver cavalry due to being march blocked in 7th ed, and they can't outmaneuver other skirmishers.

Bestigors are the only REAL ranked unit in the BoC book.



Things may get a lot better on a d10, but they'll also get a lot slower. I don't know about you; you might play Dungeons and Dragons or whatever and use d10s a lot or something. I find d10s a pain to use though, and fast rolling on a d10 seems like a ridiculous thought with numbers instead of patterns (less recognisability) and those stupid little faces (which one's on top? Oh, that one. Never had to think about it with fast rolling D6s). That's the opinion of a guy who's never picked up a d10 outside of Warhammer and Magic. The day GW picks up a d10 system is ... well, *shrugs*. I imagine a lot of people would not buy the new edition and just keep playing the old, leaving the role-playing guys to cheer for new unnecessary complexity.

Believe me, I play void, urban war, Stargrunt II etc. The only way it's tough to roll large amounts of D10s, is a) if you have giant ham fists, or b) if your d10 collection is a bunch of randomly coloured jewel dice from playing D&D 10 years ago. They aren't hard to read, and it certainly isn't any MORE complex than having some esoteric chart you have to look up to find out what you need to hit.

Chiron
22-09-2007, 09:46
I imagine a lot of people would not buy the new edition and just keep playing the old, leaving the role-playing guys to cheer for new unnecessary complexity.

Dude... its another 4 whole numbers on the dice, its not that hard to count up to ten...

forgottenlor
22-09-2007, 10:07
I for one would also be for a d10 system. As it is all leadership checks are made with 2 or 3 d6. I suppose one could move to a 2d6 system for everything, but that`s rolling a lot more dice. It seems counterintuitive to have a 10 point attribute system all on a d6.

soots
24-09-2007, 00:55
Anyone wanna share some decent Hit/Miss/Damage/save dice systems from other tabletop games?