View Full Version : "To Hit" and "To Wound" Table Formula

20-05-2008, 18:29
I've played Warhammer for quite some time now and I still haven't gotten the "to hit" and "to wound" table figured out to where I don't have to look at the book or reference sheet. Me not being a math wiz, figured I could ask some of the brighter minds here to help me memorize some mnemonic or something so I don't have to keep looking these tables up every time.

Any help is greatly appreciated.


Count William Grey
20-05-2008, 18:42
Okay, lets see if i can make this as simple as possible. To Hit chart: if you have a higher WS than your opponent its automatically a 3+. If you are worse (in terms of WS) than your opponent then its 4+ unless its 2 times plus 1 (ie weapon skill 3 trying to hit a ws 7) then its a 5+.

Wounding is a little tricky. if your S is higher than their T by 1 its a 3+, S higher than T > (greater than) 2 its always a 2+. On the other end of the spectrum, S lower than T by one then its a 5+. S Lower than T by at least 2, but not greater than its double plus one ( ie S3 wounding a T7) then its a 6. Anything T that is over double plus 1 your S, you cannot wound.

I apologize for the math, but its the way i know it. Hopefully this makes sense or someone has a better methodology.

S= strength
T= toughness
(just in case someone doesnt know)

Gorbad Ironclaw
20-05-2008, 18:43
It's easy really. Lets start with to hit rolls.

If your weapon skill is higher than your opponents your hitting on 3+.
If your opponents weaponskill is more than twice as high as yours your hitting on 5+.
In every other case you are hitting on 4+.

With to wound you start with wounding on 4+ when your strenght is equal to his toughness. For each step you move away from that you add or substract one from that.
So wounding on 3+ if your strenght is one higher than his toughness, and 5+ if it's one lower etc.

20-05-2008, 18:44
To hit:

If the attacker's WS is higher than the defenderss then the attacker hits on a 3+.

Otherwise, if the defender's WS is more than double the attacker's, then the attacker hits on a 5+.

In any other situation, the attacker hits on a 4+.

To wound:

If the attacker's Strength is equal to the defender's Toughness then the attack wounds on a 4+. This is your starting point.

If one is higher, then modify this roll by 1 for each point of difference, though a roll of 1 will always fail to wound (so you never wound on better than 2+).

For example, if the attacker has S5 against T4, the attacker's S is 1 higher so modify the roll by +1, so the attacker wounds on a 3+.

If the attacker has S3 against T5, the attacker's S is 2 lower so modify the roll by -2, so the attacker wounds on a 6+.

20-05-2008, 18:47
To Hit is easy.
3+ = Defender WS lower than Attacker.
4+ = Defender's WS is equal to or greater than Attacker's up to twice the Attacker's WS.
5+ = Defender's WS is more than twice the Attacker's

To Wound:
2+ = Str 2 more+ than To
3+ = Str 1 more than To
4+ = Str and To the same
5+ = Str 1 less than To
6+ = Str 2-3 less than To
NA = Str 4+ less than To

20-05-2008, 21:37
One easy way to remember base "to hit" when shooting:
7 - BS

So Bs3 need 7-3 = 4 or higher to hit.

Note this is without modifiers like long range, cover, ect.

Also remember, that you can photocopy essential pages for quick reference. I ALWAYS have a list of the magical lores in the BrB, my own armies lore (vampires), the miscast table and my armies stats table at the back of the army book handy.

Not only are the spell lists good for remembering your mage's spell, but you can use dice (or something similar) to remind yourself what spells the ENEMY mages have, so you know if the nasty ones have come out to play yet!

20-05-2008, 22:00
Rolling to hit
You'll almost always need to roll 4+ to hit in close combat, or 3+ if attacking a enemy with lower WS. The difference in WS needs to be huge to matter beyond this.

Rolling to wound
You'll typically be fighting rank-and-file troops with either Toughness 3 or 4, commonly using a Strength between 3 to 6. You should wasily be able to familiarize yourself with this scope.

Extreme values are good to look up though. That's what the charts are there for.


21-05-2008, 08:54
The difference doens't have to be huge, if you play with WS2 gobbo's, then a WS5 enemy character already requires a 5 to hit.

22-05-2008, 16:24
You know what a mnemonic is, but you can't do this math!?!

(This was not meant to be derogatory, more congratulatory!)

Anyway, the important things are:
Higher Ws than opponent its a = 3+
Same Ws as opponent = 4+

S higher than opponents T by at least 2 = 2+
S higher than opponents T by 1 = 3+
S same as opponents T = 4=
S lower than opponents T by 1 = 5+
S lower than opponents T by at least 2 = 6+

Know these ones and you should be able to get through a game, for extreme examples check the book just in case... ('cos goblins would be overpowered if they hit Ws 5 troops on 4+...)

22-05-2008, 16:40
What you have to remember is that it's not a formula but more a pattern or rule. Once you have that, just look at the many and varies responses to this thread and between them you should have no problem memorising said pattern.

22-05-2008, 18:21
MR = T-S+4

Where MR = minimum roll, T = toughness, S = strenght.
But that doesn't include the exceptions (like 1 always fails or T is 2/3 points higher means 6 on your roll), so sticking to the concept of "pattern" is better then "formula".

23-05-2008, 08:36
The difference doens't have to be huge, if you play with WS2 gobbo's, then a WS5 enemy character already requires a 5 to hit.

Then the enemy has a WS more than twice that of the gobbo! A HUGE difference!



26-05-2008, 19:25
The difference doens't have to be huge, if you play with WS2 gobbo's, then a WS5 enemy character already requires a 5 to hit.

WS 7 Characters can benefit too.
I was thinking about this recently with people talking about hordes of summoned ws1 zombies.

26-05-2008, 20:48
Huge difference? Maybe, but not one that is very unlikely, considering the fighting prowess of gobbo's.

Also, what if someone pulls a "to hit" modifier... That screws my whole formula... Darn.