PDA

View Full Version : The People v. Fixed to-hit & to-wound rolls in AoS



veterannoob
22-03-2016, 19:22
Serious question here. Please don't kill each other and get blood on the nice new Dracothian rug.

So, I'm curious as to the reasoning behind the AoS players who don't like the fixed to-hit and to-wound. I actually love the leveling if the playing field somewhat so I and my opponents can bring models they like rather than the optimal choice. I think understand the reasoning as a dragon vs. a snotling in prowess should be vastly different, so instead of hitting on a low of 3 and high of 5 hitting is common on 4s or crappier units forming over 10 or 20 models get a bonus sometime to represent the horde factor.

I genuinely don't know the reasoning behind the dislike but it's good to understand more of the likes and dislikes of my fellow gamers. Just please don't attack each other for disagreements. So, OK, let 'er rip!

HereComesTomorrow
22-03-2016, 19:33
It makes the fight one sided. Not in the sense that one side doesn't stand a chance versus another but in the sense that you're just sitting waiting for someone to roll dice with no input from yourself. It's like your vampire lord is standing still and simply waiting to see if the odd are in his favor. He might be the fastest, most skilled swordsman in the known universe, but that doesn't matter because his odds to be hit by that snotling will always be the same.

Really, it's more of a narritive complaint than a mechanical one. I don't really remember if AoS had defensive modifiers very frequently so I won't comment on the mechanics.

Vazalaar
22-03-2016, 19:35
The removal of the weapon skill and to wound table is for me the biggest issue with AoS.

Skargit Crookfang
22-03-2016, 19:39
The removal of the weapon skill and to wound table is for me the biggest issue with AoS.

had they kept old stat lines, had some sort of balancing system for pickup games, created some sort of movement restrictions and disallowed shooting into and while in combat I think I may have actually enjoyed the game.

Comrade Penguin
22-03-2016, 19:52
I think it is a huge thematic problem. Why would a goblin have the same chance of wounding a dragon as a peasant? It makes zero sense and completely takes me out of the game.

What GW should have done to simplify the rules is straight up copy the Kings of War damage system. Every model has a To hit roll, which it is required to roll in order to hit their target. Then you look at the target's defense roll, which the attacker must roll to wound them.

So for example a zombie attacking a vampire -> Zombie needs to roll a 5+ to hit. If it hits you roll the vampire's defense of a 6+
Zombie attacking a goblin ->Zombie hits on a 5+. Goblin has a defense of 3+

It is so simple and effective, it is frankly amazing that GW went the route they did instead of this.

veterannoob
22-03-2016, 20:00
The removal of the weapon skill and to wound table is for me the biggest issue with AoS.
Is it for you because of the to hit and would roll numbers being so close?

Turgol
22-03-2016, 20:19
I think it is a huge thematic problem. Why would a goblin have the same chance of wounding a dragon as a peasant? It makes zero sense and completely takes me out of the game.

What GW should have done to simplify the rules is straight up copy the Kings of War damage system. Every model has a To hit roll, which it is required to roll in order to hit their target. Then you look at the target's defense roll, which the attacker must roll to wound them.

So for example a zombie attacking a vampire -> Zombie needs to roll a 5+ to hit. If it hits you roll the vampire's defense of a 6+
Zombie attacking a goblin ->Zombie hits on a 5+. Goblin has a defense of 3+

It is so simple and effective, it is frankly amazing that GW went the route they did instead of this.
But the complaint is the same, isn't it? "Why would my dragon be wounded with 5+ by a peasant with a fork and also by an ogre with a devastating weapon?"

I think both systems assume that it is not so much the process, but the likelihood Of getting killed, which expresses the defensive skills of a model. So yeah, a Starkdrake is super skillful and tough and shouldnt be really wounded by a single peasant, but this is expressed by it having a good save and mostly lots of wounds.

Pojko
22-03-2016, 20:21
Because quality no longer matters in the terms of the narrative, which I've heard is an important thing in AoS.

If a Swordmaster of Hoeth, elite bladesmen who have trained for hundreds of years, are about as equally matched as a peasant, goblin or any other kind of rabble, what makes the elf special? Furthermore if such a skilled master stands just as good of a chance as downing a dragon with his greatsword as a zombie armed with a rusty knife, again, where's the justice in that?

I get it. It's simple and easy to learn. As it was said in another thread about getting AoS, even a 5 year old can learn the game. But I think it's fair to expect more from this hobby than something on par with Battleship or Checkers.

Vazalaar
22-03-2016, 20:26
Is it for you because of the to hit and would roll numbers being so close?

Immersion. The fixed to hit and to wound rolls are for me immersion killers.

Mikosan
22-03-2016, 20:45
I'm with you Veterannoob, I think this mechanic does wonders for parity in the game. Everything can and will die in AoS if you or opponent want it bad enough. I don't know about anyone else but I don't miss unkillable daemon princes and +1 rerollable disc lords or vampire lords that can't be killed. I don't think the old way was bad by any means but after armour and wards were factored in it was just...boring to have characters that could roll entire armies without getting touched. Now that character will get pulled down by a horde of goblins, that daemon prince can't just steamroll unit after unit unscathed. The fact that even uber characters can succumb to massed attacks is IMHO one of the best things about AoS.

Skargit Crookfang
22-03-2016, 20:48
I'm with you Veterannoob, I think this mechanic does wonders for parity in the game. Everything can and will die in AoS if you or opponent want it bad enough. I don't know about anyone else but I don't miss unkillable daemon princes and +1 rerollable disc lords or vampire lords that can't be killed. I don't think the old way was bad by any means but after armour and wards were factored in it was just...boring to have characters that could roll entire armies without getting touched. Now that character will get pulled down by a horde of goblins, that daemon prince can't just steamroll unit after unit unscathed. The fact that even uber characters can succumb to massed attacks is IMHO one of the best things about AoS.

We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Were DPs brutal back in 8th? Hell yes!
Unkillable? Not by a long shot... and many opponents put far too much faith in their terrifying wonder.

When you're laying down 25%+ of your points on a single model, it had better darned well be powerful.

Teurastaja
22-03-2016, 21:17
Fixed to-hit & to-wound break my immersion. I don't feel any kind of interaction between my units and their enemies. They could be fighting against dragons as well as rocks and trees. I see no difference. AoS is too simple for my taste and because of that - boring.


had they kept old stat lines, had some sort of balancing system for pickup games, created some sort of movement restrictions and disallowed shooting into and while in combat I think I may have actually enjoyed the game.

Same here.

Erloas
22-03-2016, 21:19
Granted I was mostly out of the scene quite a while before AOS hit so I don't know how things changed near the end, but I never noticed anything as impossible to kill. There were some things that were hard to kill, and that you had to put the right resources to it to have a chance, but that is how it should be. And of course with things like stubborn and steadfast, fleeing, and redirecting, it wasn't too hard to keep many deathstar units from being nearly as effective as they appeared on paper.
You had to beat them tactically, rather than statistically. Which I could see being an issue for a number of players, that never really grasped the entirety of the options at their disposal.

Like a bad player with a goblin themed army might go in saying "there is no possible way for my goblins to kill X" (short of a lot of really good luck stacked on other good luck), but a good player with another goblin themed army could easily say "I see they have X, I don't have much of a chance of killing it, but I can easily keep it from dictating the game and earning its points."


I always hated the binary armor system used in 40k, and this is even simpler than that. When you stop having to worry about what is attacking what (as is the case here, your to-hit and to-wound rolls are the same no matter what you're facing, and your enemies will hit and wound your guys on the same number no matter what you have facing them) then the strategy and tactics get a lot less diverse.

That doesn't mean you can't have a fixed to-hit style roll system, you just have to change other parts of the system to make it work, but GW never did that.

It is kind of like GW took ideas from other game systems, ideas they used to speed up the game, or simplify rolls, and put all of those pieces together without figuring out why and how they worked in those systems.

Tyranno1
22-03-2016, 21:22
We'll have to agree to disagree there.

Were DPs brutal back in 8th? Hell yes!
Unkillable? Not by a long shot... and many opponents put far too much faith in their terrifying wonder.

When you're laying down 25%+ of your points on a single model, it had better darned well be powerful.

Here here!

Also, you could kill some of those with combat resolution and running them down anyway. Throwing the "+1 rereollable disc Lord" into combat with a large unit is suicide, combat resolution would see it running home with his staff between his legs in no time at all.

Comrade Penguin
22-03-2016, 21:29
But the complaint is the same, isn't it? "Why would my dragon be wounded with 5+ by a peasant with a fork and also by an ogre with a devastating weapon?"


It is definitely simplified and I like that there is no charts involved, but it is not the same.

Your example:
Peasant: 5+ to hit, wounds dragon on a 6+. He is very unlikely to wound the dragon.
Ogre: 3+ to hit, 6+ to wound the dragon but with +1 to the roll due to crushing strength.

You are taking both the attacker's martial ability as well as the defender's defenses (skill, armor, toughness) when performing an attack. Yeah its simplified from normal WFB, but it is a heck of a lot faster than using charts.

Pojko
22-03-2016, 21:44
It is definitely simplified and I like that there is no charts involved, but it is not the same.

Your example:
Peasant: 5+ to hit, wounds dragon on a 6+. He is very unlikely to wound the dragon.
Ogre: 3+ to hit, 6+ to wound the dragon but with +1 to the roll due to crushing strength.

You are taking both the attacker's martial ability as well as the defender's defenses (skill, armor, toughness) when performing an attack. Yeah its simplified from normal WFB, but it is a heck of a lot faster than using charts.

I don't get the idea that using a chart system is like rocket science. It's really not hard or complicated. It takes all of two seconds to look at a chart and find what you're looking for. And beyond that, it's not even hard to memorize things. Most of the time it's just simple logic. I memorized things when I was 12 years old learning 40K 3rd edition. Wounding for example. S4 on T4 is a 4+. S4 on T3 is 3+. S3 on T3 is 4+. S3 on T4 is 5+. And so on. Honestly it is so simple that a child can easily learn it, as I did.

But in AoS you just get extra thing tacked on. Sometimes you get to reroll 1s. There are plenty of exceptions and bonuses that make the hit and wound system just as complex, if not moreso than a simple chart. But I guess the only difference is that you have to look at each individual warscroll to see what bonus or modifier you get, rather than using a single chart.

de Selby
22-03-2016, 22:24
The fixed hit and wound rolls are one of the least bothersome things about AoS to me, but I still prefer the mantic system described above.

Spiney Norman
22-03-2016, 22:28
But the complaint is the same, isn't it? "Why would my dragon be wounded with 5+ by a peasant with a fork and also by an ogre with a devastating weapon?"

I think both systems assume that it is not so much the process, but the likelihood Of getting killed, which expresses the defensive skills of a model. So yeah, a Starkdrake is super skillful and tough and shouldnt be really wounded by a single peasant, but this is expressed by it having a good save and mostly lots of wounds.

For my part I actually like the simplification, IMO it even makes more sense than previously. In warhammer you had the toughness stat, your armour save, potentially a ward save and/or regeneration and wound stat which, when mashed together somehow presented how difficult it was to kill a model.

You had awkward rules like scaly skin (which really should have been represented by a boosted Toughness stat but for some reason was mashed into the save mechanic).

In AoS the compartmentalisation works much more logically, to hit/to wound is about the opposing models skill at fighting and the damage his weapon can kick out, your save represents how good your skin/scales/armour/magical wards are at withstanding that damage and your wounds represent how much damage you can take before keeling over.

A dragon is much harder to kill than a goblin, not because the game mechanics skew a dice roll to make wounding it incredibly unlikely, but because it has 14 times as many wounds before it drops.

Vazalaar
22-03-2016, 22:32
Fixed to-hit & to-wound break my immersion. I don't feel any kind of interaction between my units and their enemies. They could be fighting against dragons as well as rocks and trees. I see no difference. AoS is too simple for my taste and because of that - boring.

Exactly!


The fixed hit and wound rolls are one of the least bothersome things about AoS to me, but I still prefer the mantic system described above.

The AoS system and the Mantic system are for me immersion breakers. This is also the number 1 reason I don't play KoW.

For some reason I always liked the Warhammer to hit and to wound tables. I am so used to it that I can't enjoy a wargame that has another system. I never found the use of those tables cumbersome, it was very easy to memorize and I know that the to hit table was quite limited, but still it added a lot of immersion. That I just don't feel with AoS or with KoW stats.

Buddy Bear
22-03-2016, 22:40
But the complaint is the same, isn't it? "Why would my dragon be wounded with 5+ by a peasant with a fork and also by an ogre with a devastating weapon?"

That's not how it works, though. In Kings of War, units potentially have bonuses to their damage roll. So a Vampire might have a Defense of 6+. The peasant would get no bonuses, so he'd have to roll 6+ to do damage. A standard Ogre, however, has Crushing Strength (1), which gives him +1 to his roll, so he'd need 5+ to wound the Vampire, while an Ogre with a two-handed weapon would need a 4+, and so on. The defense is dependent on the model being attacked, and not the attacker, but the attacker can benefit from various modifiers which can make it easier for them to get past their opponents defenses. That's far better than a situation where a goblin has an equal chance of wounding a snotling as a Steam Tank.

Spiney Norman
23-03-2016, 00:41
That's not how it works, though. In Kings of War, units potentially have bonuses to their damage roll. So a Vampire might have a Defense of 6+. The peasant would get no bonuses, so he'd have to roll 6+ to do damage. A standard Ogre, however, has Crushing Strength (1), which gives him +1 to his roll, so he'd need 5+ to wound the Vampire, while an Ogre with a two-handed weapon would need a 4+, and so on. The defense is dependent on the model being attacked, and not the attacker, but the attacker can benefit from various modifiers which can make it easier for them to get past their opponents defenses. That's far better than a situation where a goblin has an equal chance of wounding a snotling as a Steam Tank.

I think part of the problem is that too many folks look at AoS from a 'wfb' point of view, a wound is worth a lot less on large creatures in AoS because they have many more of them, dragons, for example, have 14 wounds instead of the 5-6 they used to have. In addition your average character in AoS has 5+ wounds whereas in wfb the same character would have had 2-3 wounds.

It's still far harder to destroy a steam tank than it is to kill a snotling, which is exactly as it should be. Gone are the days where you could take something like a steam tank and be fairly confident that, if you kept it away from everything except the opponents strongest monsters and managed to avoid enemy cannon balls, it would survive the game relatively unharmed.

Fewer models that require your opponent to commit 3/4 of his army to deal with is a good thing in my book.

veterannoob
23-03-2016, 00:50
I understand the arguments against AoS fixed rolls and it may seem weird for 8th or older warhammer editions players to grasp but after playing practically and as mates have reported or did online batreps or podcasts, it actually works itself to be like older version, in my case IMO world's more "realistic" after all, it is fantasy:) by heroes having more wounds than they did in WFB and monsters starting so high but getting weaker as they die is great and such a rich element to the game. There's already lots of tactics but the cinematic play I've seen doesn't really ever encounter these problems in play since they don't play as one might read.

Have all you guys switched your AoS groups, clubs, pick up games, or events to replace with another hitting chart as a house rule? Curious to know.

theunwantedbeing
23-03-2016, 01:32
I can see two issues with fixed rolls.

The first is the obvious why does my goblin hurt your dragon as easily as he hurts a human?
It breaks the suspension of disbelief for some.

The second is that you aren't engaging the other player in your dice rolls in any way.
You roll to hit based on your to hit rule.
You roll to wound based on your to wound rule.
He rolls his save based on his save rule.


Fixed rolls have their benefits of course.
The game runs more smoothly.
Monsters got large numbers of wounds finally.
No more to-hit/wound tables that some found confusing.
You can reasonably expect to make the enemy take some saves in most situations.

Noserenda
23-03-2016, 02:56
Simple, its immersion breaking and removes interaction between players which are both important.

Its not even actually simple itself due to all the exceptions and such on scrolls.

Chikout
23-03-2016, 03:28
I think the problem here is a little about semantics. Imagine a scenario where a swordmaster is facing two goblins. The swordmaster has 2 attacks so he can fight both goblins simultaneously. Already we have a little hint of the power of the swordmaster. The goblin is rolling 5 to hit and 5 to 'wound' so it is pretty difficult to hit anything. The swordmaster knows that a hit from a goblin is unlikely to hurt him so he takes the feeble goblin blows onto his armour, knowing that it will do its job. In return the swordmaster's execptional skill lets him reroll ones in his roll to hit. His rend characteristic also means the goblin doesnt get a roll to save at all.

Hitting a monster should also be easy. Some of them are rather larger than a barn door. Thinking of the 'hits' as always being powerful attacks is perhaps the problem. A hit on a vampire could be the sword brushing ineffectually through his cloak. A 'wound'is not a wound until saves are applied and this is effected by the attackers power or skill (rend). A thundershields save is so powerful that the stormcast may encourage enemies to hit as they may be killed by their own strikes.
Neferata has a special ability that literally makes her
and her minions more difficult to hit. It really is in the interplay between the warscrolls that Aos gets its depth. Don't send your stardrake against Archaon as he has a chance of killing it instantly. Against big mobs of infantry though it is extremely powerful. That said the system IS simple so it will naturally lack depth. The whole army buildind aspect is a much bigger problem for me.

Coldhatred
23-03-2016, 03:32
I think part of the problem is that too many folks look at AoS from a 'wfb' point of view, a wound is worth a lot less on large creatures in AoS because they have many more of them, dragons, for example, have 14 wounds instead of the 5-6 they used to have. In addition your average character in AoS has 5+ wounds whereas in wfb the same character would have had 2-3 wounds.

It's still far harder to destroy a steam tank than it is to kill a snotling, which is exactly as it should be. Gone are the days where you could take something like a steam tank and be fairly confident that, if you kept it away from everything except the opponents strongest monsters and managed to avoid enemy cannon balls, it would survive the game relatively unharmed.

Fewer models that require your opponent to commit 3/4 of his army to deal with is a good thing in my book.

I agree with all of your post. Basically what I was going to say. +1

Sheena Easton
23-03-2016, 04:17
I wouldn't have a problem with it if thete weren't so many different types of stupidly named weapons and shields that do completely different things. Why is a sword of dramatic posing better than a sword of fincing prowess? Why does a shield of cotton wool give a better save when a shield of wet blanket gives rerolls? Why tell me my wizards staff has a knob on the end when it does exactly the same as the rod of exciting enlargement?

They swapped a simple, easy to understand system that lack of play testing allowed a few blatant misuses of for one that looks simple until you start adding on all the special rules for special rules sake rules.

SuperHappyTime
23-03-2016, 05:12
There are different arguments for each system and how they are trying to simulate combat.

The need for variance in To Hit rolls in 8th Edition are drastically overstated, as it was +3, +4, and +5 (Check the chart in the Rulebook). In AoS, your crappy Peasants and Goblins still hit on 5+ anyway, while more elite units hit on 3+.
Likewise, Armour saves aren't missing either. Replace the Boosts to Strength with the Rend values and you're pretty much there.
There is the perceived value of toughness. Which outside of a few oddballs, like Treemen, flesh is flesh is flesh is flesh. An axe is likely to cause a serious wound if it connects, no matter how "tough" you are. Where toughness comes in is a few other things, like a hammer blow which still ruptures organs. For 8th, that's where the strength reducing armour saves came in. For AoS, it's still there, hidden among the stat.
Ward Saves, which are reflected as other saves now. 8th also had parry as a built in ward save, that needs a rule to state it in AoS.

The biggest plus for 8th over AoS is Initiative, where true speed can be represented on the battlefield. AoS has done away with it, everything moves at the same pace. There isn't even a "First Strike" Phase, where the super fast troops (likely all elves) get to strike first.
The other is that static values, especially for AoS' To Hit and To Wound could be summarized as One Value, To Wound. AoS tries to counter this by having lots of abilities that effect To Hit or To Wound separately. However without a "1s always fail" this becomes a game of "Count the Attacks".

My Two Cents anyways.

de Selby
23-03-2016, 05:22
Habe all you guys switched your AoS groups, clubs, pick up games, or events to replace with another hitting chart as a house rule? Curious to know.

I actually viewed the 4 pages of rules as a good opportunity to make major modifications, but everyone where I am has given up on AoS now so the project never went anywhere. Even when I was re-writing the rules (see sig) I didn't bother to reintroduce the tables.

1+ Ward
23-03-2016, 06:49
For me, it's the immersion-breaking, too. My High Elf spearman has the same chance of hitting a witless zombie as he does a Chaos Lord. That just doesn't sit right with me.

Andnore
23-03-2016, 09:00
For me, it's the immersion-breaking, too. My High Elf spearman has the same chance of hitting a witless zombie as he does a Chaos Lord. That just doesn't sit right with me.

To be fair to that example, you might not hit either of those in the vitals (the CL because of his skill, the zombie because it doesn't have any), but I understand the sentiment. Nailing an ogre should be fa easier than hitting, say, a wardancer. And conversely, the ogre should probably be capable of shrugging off, or at least surviving, a blow that'd kill a wardancer outright.

The latter's present in the rules through Wounds and Saves, but the former isn't.

Spiney Norman
23-03-2016, 09:38
But the complaint is the same, isn't it? "Why would my dragon be wounded with 5+ by a peasant with a fork and also by an ogre with a devastating weapon?"

Because you're only looking at part of the picture, damage caused is not only about the to-wound roll, it is also about the rend modifier and the damage caused per successful wound, for example the peasants fork has no rend value and only does 1 damage per successful wound, the irongut's great weapon does 3 damage per wound with a -1 rend (the irongut also has 3 times as many attacks).

Tyelacoirii
23-03-2016, 10:39
Its one of the least concerning things to me. You cant toughness/armour skew to render S3 attacks basically worthless. I dont see this as bad.
The whole peasant vs ogre is an issue of not having points.

jtrowell
23-03-2016, 11:16
It is definitely simplified and I like that there is no charts involved, but it is not the same.

Your example:
Peasant: 5+ to hit, wounds dragon on a 6+. He is very unlikely to wound the dragon.
Ogre: 3+ to hit, 6+ to wound the dragon but with +1 to the roll due to crushing strength.

You are taking both the attacker's martial ability as well as the defender's defenses (skill, armor, toughness) when performing an attack. Yeah its simplified from normal WFB, but it is a heck of a lot faster than using charts.

You described the Kings of War system, not AoS. :D

Yowzo
23-03-2016, 13:31
Immersion. The fixed to hit and to wound rolls are for me immersion killers.

It happens to me that they're also the immersion killer for KoW.

Herzlos
23-03-2016, 13:35
Fixed rolls are simple to learn but totally immersion breaking, coupled with a clunky hit>wound>save mechanic, none of which is really affected by anything, you get something that's both clunky and counterintuitive.

I like the opposed roll mechanic; you have an attack score, your enemy has a defend score. You both roll a D-whatever and add it to your score. If attack > defend, you do damage. You can either roll for damage or you can use the point difference. Mega simple, easy to look up, quick, immersive for both players, and allows as much scope as possible.

Sword master with attack 6 against Zombie defend 4, zombie needs to get +2 over attack to save.
Grot with attack 2 against Zombie with defend 4, Grot needs to get +3 over zombie to damage.

It does mean that something like a Grot probably couldn't hurt a Dragon, unless you were using something like a D20.

theJ
23-03-2016, 13:41
*ahem*

A point not really brought up so far: The old system was easier to remember.
Sure, like most things old school, there were a few things you simply had to learn. I.E. it's +1 to hit if you've got more WS than your opponent, and -1 if they double your WS, to wound is 4+, minus one for every point of toughness, and +1 for every point of strength, every creature had a number of stats, and every weapon added to those stats...
...but once you had picked up on those things, you were done, and would NEVER have to even glance at the rules again; you KNEW that an Elven Swordmaster had a strength of 3(because he was an elf and elves have strength values of 3), and you KNEW he got +2 strength from his greatsword(because that's what greatweapons did). As such you KNEW he'd wound the Dwarf Warrior on a 3+(because Dwarfs have a toughness value of 4), and that he'd get no save, since the strength value of the Swordmaster is just enough to negate the heavy armour, and the Dwarf didn't bother to bring a shield.
Done.

In AoS, no such "rules" exist - every model has a unique, custom set of to-hit, to-wound and to-save rolls, which needs to be checked TWICE every single time two models clash(once for to-hit and to-wound, and once for saves and wounds). Sure, I can guess that my Aelf Swordcaresser is gonna have some decent attacking stats, and the Duardin Beardadin is gonna have some decent defenses, but I still have to look the exact numbers up EVERY SINGLE TIME, because there simply exists no underlying logical reason for why the models have the specific statistics that they do.

so... simple to learn? Sure.
Simple and convenient to play? Heck no.

On top of this, there is also the tactical aspect.
While not as well used in Warhammer as it ought to be, different statistics still give different models different prefered and disliked targets; great weapon troopers like hitting monsters because their great weapons can nullify the high toughness, but they're more hesitant about attacking spearmen, because the spearmen simply have WAY more attacks. Those same spearmen however would offer very little resistance to the monster, since their innumerable attacks simply bounce harmlessly off the toughness of said monster.

If the AoS system wishes to do the same... it's stuck loading the models up with YET MORE BLOODY SPECIAL RULES. Those necessitating even moar constantly looking things up rather than just playing the damn game, and well as moar forgetting what the various models do, because there's far too many things to remember about each individual piece - most of which have questionable fluff-explanation(sticks make you better against ranged attacks? 'kay).

Funnily enough AoS actually DOES have the potential for this last point to work out, due to its multi-wound rule.
Only problem is that multi-wound is broken by its ability to spread its wounds around(because hitting character A hard enough to also kill characters B and C makes perfect sense, right?), thus making it equally effective versus everything, rather than a means of tackling tough monsters and high-end characters.

le sigh

Dosiere
23-03-2016, 14:08
They should have gone to a d8,10, 12 whatever and just combined the two values. When I played I would often just average the two anyway and use a single value on a d6. It's unnecessary to have both.

Skargit Crookfang
23-03-2016, 14:18
@theJ - Yeah, that was the thing- it was really, really easy!

To Wound- T v. S. Equal = 4+. 1T above, 5+, 2T above 6s. 1T below, 3+, 2 below 2+. 1s always fail, 6s always succeed.
To Hit. 4+ base. Better WS? 3+. WS of opponent double+1? 5+.

Done.

Armour modifier? S4 is -1, S5 is -2 etc.

Done.

Rend values being different not just on every unit/model, but every different WEAPON they have is just...really?

I've played 4 games of 9th Age over the last week and a bit, and had the rulebook on my phone- it had to be checked...once. The stats of your units aren't that hard to remember after a few games and I certainly don't have to remember all the bizarre +s/-s, rends, weapon options (many of the new ones have a paragraph of special rules), which of the 20+ kinds of shields my guys have, what happens as my monster/big thing gets weaker, etc etc.

The book keeping in AoS is not simpler than 8th or 9th Age- in fact, it's far more varied unit to unit, including the odd rules around basic weaponry, armour and bloody shields.

Chikout
23-03-2016, 14:19
A tiny thing but lightsabers can block laser bolts while spinning glaives cannot block arrows? A second thought. There are those who think all the special rules make the game needlessly complicated. Surely all the magic items from warhammer also have this problem. One point in all of this that I definitely agree with, is the interaction between the players that Aos lacks. I wonder how that kind of mechanism could be introduced without making the game more complicated. I, for one, am hopeful that we see a second edition with a few tweaks.

veterannoob
23-03-2016, 14:26
Thanks guys! This is quite interesting. As many of you said the AoS fixed role breaks the immersion for you and this has never happened for me, meaning I never even thought of that so it's excellent to know what problems we could address in a larger AoS event to keep it narrative but fun:)

I myself do like KoW's mechanics but I guess the AoS games I've seen and played both had large epic combats where a herd of beastmen or 20 vulkite berzerkers or two units of Wood Elf cav take on larger monsters or heroes where the rate of saves and repostes have kept me immersed--they don't go down as easily as it looks on paper. Looking forward to hearing more insight from the rest of youss guyss (I'm feeling a bit Baltimore homesick today).:cool:

Bloodknight
23-03-2016, 14:52
The second is that you aren't engaging the other player in your dice rolls in any way.

Compared to the old system it's pretty much the same, I think. I don't really see how I'm more involved in the other guy's dice roll because my Vampire is T5 vs his S4. I still only get to roll the save, and in AoS the Vampire just has a boatload of wounds and a good save to make up for what used to be his combined passive WS, T and Sv stats.

Skargit Crookfang
23-03-2016, 15:11
Compared to the old system it's pretty much the same, I think. I don't really see how I'm more involved in the other guy's dice roll because my Vampire is T5 vs his S4. I still only get to roll the save, and in AoS the Vampire just has a boatload of wounds and a good save to make up for what used to be his combined passive WS, T and Sv stats.

Which also leads to less customization for your characters, really hurting the "your dudes" vibe WHFB had once upon a time.

theunwantedbeing
23-03-2016, 15:42
Compared to the old system it's pretty much the same, I think. I don't really see how I'm more involved in the other guy's dice roll because my Vampire is T5 vs his S4. I still only get to roll the save, and in AoS the Vampire just has a boatload of wounds and a good save to make up for what used to be his combined passive WS, T and Sv stats.

The point is that both players had a part in each dice roll.

Before you had a part to play in the enemy hitting you, even though you weren't the one making the dice rolls.
Before you had a part to play in the enemy wounding you, even though you weren't the one making the dice rolls.
Before the enemy had a part to play in your save, even though they weren't the one making the dice rolls.

Now it's a separate process with just one player being in complete control of each dice roll.

Comrade Penguin
23-03-2016, 16:28
For us vets the charts were easy and made a lot of sense, but they really are a relic of older wargames. Most modern wargames avoid charts as an unnecessary complication.

I started playing 40k in 3rd as a kid, so the charts did seem natural to me. That was until I tried to get potential players into the game. Their eyes would glass over once I told them to start comparing numbers on this chart or that chart. Fixed numbers are far more intuitive and streamline the play.

However AOS fails at this since it does not factor in the the target's skill, speed, or toughness. It also introduces a mountain of special rules that affect these numbers and introduce needless complications. KOW's system is far better.

Skargit Crookfang
23-03-2016, 16:36
For us vets the charts were easy and made a lot of sense, but they really are a relic of older wargames. Most modern wargames avoid charts as an unnecessary complication.

I started playing 40k in 3rd as a kid, so the charts did seem natural to me. That was until I tried to get potential players into the game. Their eyes would glass over once I told them to start comparing numbers on this chart or that chart. Fixed numbers are far more intuitive and streamline the play.

However AOS fails at this since that it does not factor in the the target's skill, speed, or toughness. It also introduces a mountain of special rules that affect these numbers and introduce needless complications. KOW's system is far better.

I don't entirely agree, but my evidence would only be anecdotal.

That said, KoW and even WM to some extent, certainly have an interesting "new wave" version of an older system this way, without descending into a fairly confusing and bloated set of Warscrolls. So I also kind of agree with you ;)?

Herzlos
23-03-2016, 17:09
The chart was overly complex in that it covered a huge amount of permutations but had pretty few values. We tended to ignore it (but then we only really played Guard Vs Marines), so everything was easy to remember or guess at.

It should boil down to:

roll = 4 - (attack - defend). 6's always hit, 1's always fail.

So you get:

A4, D2: 2+
A4, D3: 3+
A4, D4: 4+
A4, D5; 5+

Though there's probably a more user-friendly way to word it.

SuperHappyTime
23-03-2016, 23:39
The point is that both players had a part in each dice roll.

Before you had a part to play in the enemy hitting you, even though you weren't the one making the dice rolls.
Before you had a part to play in the enemy wounding you, even though you weren't the one making the dice rolls.
Before the enemy had a part to play in your save, even though they weren't the one making the dice rolls.

Now it's a separate process with just one player being in complete control of each dice roll.

This was kind of a game-killer for us noobs and was usually the game-elongater, checking the rulebook for the previously un-memorized statline. IMO it's one of the reasons 30K got popular, lots of 4+/4+s. It wasn't the tables and formulas, it's the slow bumbler on the other end of the table.

Charistoph
24-03-2016, 00:57
Of course, it could be set up with rules like Monsters have non-Monster models Wounding Roll apply a -1 modifier, too. Swordmasters have a Parry function that could do the same feature. Things like that.

I know it's more "special rule on top of special rules", but let's face it, so long as it easily accessible, people will play it. It's been working well for Privateer Press so far. Very few things in that game do not have at least one special rule of one kind or another. But you have them on a quickly readable card and you can just show to your opponent. Any such thing is a bit more complicated out of the box for AoS.

Malagor
24-03-2016, 02:31
I prefer the chart or dynamic system ala Warmahordes.
Mainly since as others have stated, it's alot more immersive and since it offers a more varied gameplay.
Now granted for the most part it was the same, for most armies you would hit on 4s and wound on 4s but then you do have the variable with a goblin hitting a longbeard on 5s and wounding on 5s and on like that.
To me that keeps it more fresh.
Same with Warmahordes with you having 2 dices(sometimes 3 or 4) to use your MAT,RAT and power of the weapon to get equal or above the opponents DEF and ARM.
A simple system that adds alot to the game and to the units.
I only played a few games of AoS and it was already starting to get dull, any more games and I would have hated it.

Now yes, the chart for me at the beginning was confusing but it was a good sense of accomplishment the day that I no longer needed to look up that chart, almost like defeating a boss in Dark Souls(even tho learning the chart was alot easier).

Herzlos
24-03-2016, 11:33
Of course, it could be set up with rules like Monsters have non-Monster models Wounding Roll apply a -1 modifier, too. Swordmasters have a Parry function that could do the same feature. Things like that.

I know it's more "special rule on top of special rules", but let's face it, so long as it easily accessible, people will play it. It's been working well for Privateer Press so far. Very few things in that game do not have at least one special rule of one kind or another. But you have them on a quickly readable card and you can just show to your opponent. Any such thing is a bit more complicated out of the box for AoS.

PP's systems run on a lot of universal special rules though? I.e. a shield is a shield, and has the same effect everywhere. Malifaux is the same; lots of special rules and keywords, but the rule only has a single meaning no matter where it's used, and the same rule is used for everything with the same effect.

GW tries that and fails miserably in the attempt of adding flavour, by creating about 30 special rules for shields, that do entirely different things depending on who has them and it's an incomprehensible mess.

theJ
24-03-2016, 11:44
I'll be honest, I don't think I've ever even used the charts - I took one glance at them when first reading through the rulebook, realised how they had been designed, and never bothered with them again - it's just quicker to work through the numbers in your head;
My strength is one point higher than your toughness. Thus I wound on one point better than the 50% average. 50% is a 4+. I wound on a 3+. Done.

To anyone who's had trouble with said charts, I would recommend doing the same - never look at the charts, just learn how they work, and you'll be far happier for it.

Charistoph
25-03-2016, 09:25
PP's systems run on a lot of universal special rules though? I.e. a shield is a shield, and has the same effect everywhere. Malifaux is the same; lots of special rules and keywords, but the rule only has a single meaning no matter where it's used, and the same rule is used for everything with the same effect.

GW tries that and fails miserably in the attempt of adding flavour, by creating about 30 special rules for shields, that do entirely different things depending on who has them and it's an incomprehensible mess.

Actually no, not all shields are the same in WarmaHordes. They are the same for Warjacks/Warbeasts, where they add Armor from one angle and can be used as a weapon, but for solos and units, that is an entirely different story.

Some units with shields have access to an Action which allow them to increase their Armour by being base to base with each other, while others will not. In some cases, where one can identify it by two similar unit types, all the difference is an increase in armor with in the stat line, and sometimes not even there. And there are even some extra skills for some Warbeasts and Warjacks as well, like just intercepting the hit.

Geep
25-03-2016, 10:08
I don't think there's anything wrong with fixed rolls- two of my favourite GW games- Epic and Warmaster- work on fixed rolls. There are circumstantial modifiers though, which are important- and which AoS lacks.

Having both a fixed to-hit and fixed to-wound is unnecessary. If you want more variation, switch to a different dice. Rolling dice, picking some out, and rolling them again just wastes time. (when not fixed, like in Warhammer, it was more relevant).

I agree with TheJ that it was very easy to see how the Warhammer charts worked- though I do remember some people just couldn't get it. I played in a tournament once against 30+ year old veterans, and they still referred to the tables every time they had to roll. That was infuriating.

Leogun_91
29-03-2016, 00:57
It is certainly not what I strongly dislike about the system. Had that been the lone change and AoS been basically 8th with a changed wound system I would play it. Would have felt weird a while but managable. For me the change to skirmish broke the game part for me.

Spiney Norman
29-03-2016, 09:07
I don't think there's anything wrong with fixed rolls- two of my favourite GW games- Epic and Warmaster- work on fixed rolls. There are circumstantial modifiers though, which are important- and which AoS lacks.

Having both a fixed to-hit and fixed to-wound is unnecessary. If you want more variation, switch to a different dice. Rolling dice, picking some out, and rolling them again just wastes time. (when not fixed, like in Warhammer, it was more relevant).

I agree with TheJ that it was very easy to see how the Warhammer charts worked- though I do remember some people just couldn't get it. I played in a tournament once against 30+ year old veterans, and they still referred to the tables every time they had to roll. That was infuriating.

In fairness there is something to be said for a D6 system, most gamers already have a large supply of D6 dice and they're easier to store in those cube-shaped boxes that GW sells. I'm not sure the community reaction would have been favourable if they new game had required them all to go out and purchase 30+ D10/D12s for example

There's also a kind of affinity among gamers for dice system you use, I suspect that changing dice would have been one of the more comtroversial changes to the game if they had done it, right up there with dropping pts values.

GrandmasterWang
29-03-2016, 11:08
In fairness there is something to be said for a D6 system, most gamers already have a large supply of D6 dice and they're easier to store in those cube-shaped boxes that GW sells. I'm not sure the community reaction would have been favourable if they new game had required them all to go out and purchase 30+ D10/D12s for example

There's also a kind of affinity among gamers for dice system you use, I suspect that changing dice would have been one of the more comtroversial changes to the game if they had done it, right up there with dropping pts values.
I agree. I personally would have been very against a move from the trusty D6 to something else.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Haravikk
29-03-2016, 13:55
I never really liked the to-Hit and to-Wound tables, personally I prefer systems that let me roll attack dice while my opponent rolls defence and vice versa, as it feels like you're both doing something. The current AoS system has the same problem as the old one in that you're just waiting for your opponent to determine how many saves you need to make, except that this time round they've cut out the need to remember the tables (or more specifically, how they're determined) and your enemy's stats, you just roll what your own sheet tells you.

With an attack/defence system you just determine how many dice are being rolled, both roll and pair off the successes until you know what got through. If the goal was simplification this would be better, especially since the separate to-Hit and to-Wound rolls are essentially redundant with nothing to compete against (3+ to-Hit and 4+ to-Wound is an identical chance to 4+/3+), requiring rules targeting one or the other to make any difference, but even then they could have just as easily targeted attack/defence for the same end result.

Charistoph
30-03-2016, 06:14
In fairness there is something to be said for a D6 system, most gamers already have a large supply of D6 dice and they're easier to store in those cube-shaped boxes that GW sells. I'm not sure the community reaction would have been favourable if they new game had required them all to go out and purchase 30+ D10/D12s for example

There's also a kind of affinity among gamers for dice system you use, I suspect that changing dice would have been one of the more comtroversial changes to the game if they had done it, right up there with dropping pts values.

True. And even then, a single D6 is required for the scale WHFB/AoS is meant to operate at.

For those who have played WarmaHordes, could you imagine running a game like that at the same number of models the average WHFB 2250 army carries? Not the monster/MI-heavy ones, but the ones that are in the middle. It is the equivalent of running Apocalypse.

But, WarmaHordes is meant to be a smaller scale game, so things like taking each model's actions in to account and applying them one at a time is available to them. Along with that is a base system of using 2D6 for hitting and damage, which then modifies +/-D6 as appropriate to handle bonuses.

AoS and WHFB are more focused on unit actions, and so single dice are what you are expected to use. In addition, because of the numbers Spiney is mentioning, 1D6 for resolution is the only practical solution because people usually have several from even regular board games like Monopoly and such.

Greyshadow
02-04-2016, 06:42
Had my very first proper Age of Sigmar game yesterday. Really interesting. I was really loving the first third of the game, then it got grindy. Overall, the fixed hit rolls didn't bother me that much. What I most disliked is that if you want to charge someone, first you had to move, then charge, then pile in. I had to measure 30 times for one 10 man unit. Just got tedious after awhile. Not helped by having models on squares as they tended to tip over more readily. I was impressed that I could create an army, learn the rules from scratch and play an enjoyable enough game in about three hours.

theunwantedbeing
02-04-2016, 11:27
I had to measure 30 times for one 10 man unit. Just got tedious after awhile.
You need more units on the board to break it up so you aren't measuring for the same unit so much.


Not helped by having models on squares as they tended to tip over more readily.
Centre your models on the base.

veterannoob
02-04-2016, 13:23
Had my very first proper Age of Sigmar game yesterday. Really interesting. I was really loving the first third of the game, then it got grindy. Overall, the fixed hit rolls didn't bother me that much. What I most disliked is that if you want to charge someone, first you had to move, then charge, then pile in. I had to measure 30 times for one 10 man unit. Just got tedious after awhile. Not helped by having models on squares as they tended to tip over more readily. I was impressed that I could create an army, learn the rules from scratch and play an enjoyable enough game in about three hours.

Not sure how you have your 10 man unit modeled beyond squares but perhaps move the first few by measuring then move the rest of the unit up to match just how it was before, eyeballing. But if it's moving through terrain may require some more fineglihg . Played two games yesterday with much younger players. First moved his SE take a narrow balcony on ruined terrain piece so I could only fit two bases max to fight him, with a reach of one the lower level couldn't reach flails up for whatever reason they have such low range.

And these were both on a realm of battle table, so we could move larger and small units quick with a smooth slide, even over the ubiquitous skulls in the ground;) Game two had 2 larger units over 20 and even with the hills I the center he would just put a line of where their move will be and move the line. Personally, I would move my models on a thin tray rather them prodding them forward in one motion with the red measuring sticks. ;) But it works for him. To keep things going we also decided to, rather than keep the models in the slang of the hill and some sliding of, we managed to use a flame template to block the far side and it worked beautifully. The front was two wide for wrapping around but while the unit was still this big, it helped keep moving and probably shared a couple minutes total.

just out of curiosity, since it came up my games yesterday, for moving and or shooting up or down levels how did you measure distances?

Greyshadow
02-04-2016, 13:24
Cheers for the advice!

I kind of had a mob of two units doing exactly the same thing, charging a weak unit. In a larger game I can see you would get more dynamic play. The models I used were posed for 8th edition to rank up, this meant many were off quite a bit off centre. I think rounds would be good for stability. Might just glue some weights underneath em to reduce the tipping over business.

Greyshadow
02-04-2016, 13:31
Just out of curiosity, since it came up my games yesterday, for moving and or shooting up or down levels how did you measure distances?

It didn't come up in the game but as we used SCGT comp we would have used the measure to volume - i.e. consider models as cylinders as tall as the model and measure the distance between these shapes. We were using the measure to the base method.

(Yeah, there was a bit of moving by eyeballing the distance to be fair - just measured more than I probably needed to as I didn't want to give myself an unfair advantage by moving too far by accident.)

veterannoob
02-04-2016, 13:37
Nice, I hear the volume system works well. Thx

krush
04-04-2016, 20:02
Serious question here. Please don't kill each other and get blood on the nice new Dracothian rug.

So, I'm curious as to the reasoning behind the AoS players who don't like the fixed to-hit and to-wound. I actually love the leveling if the playing field somewhat so I and my opponents can bring models they like rather than the optimal choice. I think understand the reasoning as a dragon vs. a snotling in prowess should be vastly different, so instead of hitting on a low of 3 and high of 5 hitting is common on 4s or crappier units forming over 10 or 20 models get a bonus sometime to represent the horde factor.

I genuinely don't know the reasoning behind the dislike but it's good to understand more of the likes and dislikes of my fellow gamers. Just please don't attack each other for disagreements. So, OK, let 'er rip!

when I play Warhammer FB vbefore taking a break for some years I always said "to hit" is to make the weapon touch the target and to wound is to hurt the target. Goblins are easier to hit and an ork is harder to hurt by a swordman. But why are they the same if hit by a vampire, the golbin still should be a bit easier to hit and hurt, right? The old system wasn't perfect ether.

In Sigmar, the "to hit" and "to hurt" rolls are as if in the old game you were fighting a medium skill, medium tough guy, and its all offensive power, defensive power comes in your "to save" roll and wounds. Then you have your unice rules that make you do more damage or survive more or be extra weady and weak. There is "less" interaction between the models at every step of the combat process, but its still interaction just as their own parts of the process-

Niall78
06-04-2016, 11:17
when I play Warhammer FB vbefore taking a break for some years I always said "to hit" is to make the weapon touch the target and to wound is to hurt the target. Goblins are easier to hit and an ork is harder to hurt by a swordman. But why are they the same if hit by a vampire, the golbin still should be a bit easier to hit and hurt, right? The old system wasn't perfect ether.

In Sigmar, the "to hit" and "to hurt" rolls are as if in the old game you were fighting a medium skill, medium tough guy, and its all offensive power, defensive power comes in your "to save" roll and wounds. Then you have your unice rules that make you do more damage or survive more or be extra weady and weak. There is "less" interaction between the models at every step of the combat process, but its still interaction just as their own parts of the process-

The basic D6 mechanics in both WFB/AoS and 40k are ancient and more suited to a small skirmish or board game with limited protagonists than mass battle systems with hundreds of different units over a dozen or so races and factions. There simply isn't the granularity within the systems as they stand to make the units stand apart from each other. This gets even worse as more super-heavy units, monsters and characters are added to each game.

Haravikk
06-04-2016, 19:22
The basic D6 mechanics in both WFB/AoS and 40k are ancient and more suited to a small skirmish or board game with limited protagonists than mass battle systems with hundreds of different units over a dozen or so races and factions. There simply isn't the granularity within the systems as they stand to make the units stand apart from each other. This gets even worse as more super-heavy units, monsters and characters are added to each game.
Actually I'd say the opposite is true; D6's are ideal for larger games as, aside from being easier to store in bulk, the actual quantity of models is a factor in their strength (if you can take more, weak models then that has an impact if they face off against less numerous stronger models). If anything it's the skirmish end of things which is where D6's aren't quite as good, which is probably why Inquisitor used D100 as that gives just about as much granularity as you could ever need to distinguish different characters.

That said the problem IMO isn't the range of values, six is plenty, it's how they interact. For example, with two D6 rolls to attack you essentially make your chances to deal Wounds some fraction of 36, but you could achieve the same result by instead using a D6 Attack roll against a D6 Defence roll, plus a D6 save for things that get through, basically you shift the granularity onto defence. But personally I'd prefer that system as both players can roll the same number of Attack and Defence dice at the same time and just pair off the successes to leave the number of saving throws required (if any), so it feels more like you're both involved, until saves are taken, at which point it's out of the attacker's hands. You could even do some fun things with such a system, like have excess successes rolled for Defence turn into bonus Attack dice to represent skilled elites parrying against unskilled mass attackers.
This is actually kind of how Dreadfleet works, and it's a good system, but in the case of Dreadfleet it's actually not as good of a fit thanks to the tiny number of models involved, which is the opposite problem.

Skargit Crookfang
07-04-2016, 15:45
Just bought a copy of Dragon Rampant- what a nice interactive system for determining damage at the skirmish level, and really leaves it up to the imagination (is that Elite foot unit comprised of 6/12 hardcore warriors...or just one monster of a fighter).

aprilmanha
07-04-2016, 17:26
Actually I'd say the opposite is true; D6's are ideal for larger games as, aside from being easier to sto - Snip

I believe they meant the Scale and variety of the models in the game rather then the number of figures in the game.

A scale of 1-6 does not do much to vary the prowess between the different combatants, with a Dwarf,Elf,Human,Orc etc often needing the same values to do the same thing as the others even though their supposed skill levels are so very different.

A scale of 1-20 gives you a lot more scope to say "An orc (10) is a bit better then a Human(9) at fighting but not as good as an Elf(12) While in D6 land its usually either a 3 or a 4...

Of course when you are playing a game with 200 models the volume of dice is an issue then...

I'd quite like to see the game that uses a D8 or a D12 as the main dice, it would help make the powerful stuff feel powerful and the weak stuff feel more weak, without the need to add compounding rules to powerful stuff to make the tougher (like roll to wound, roll to save, roll for special save, roll to douge. blaggggh)

Haravikk
07-04-2016, 19:18
A scale of 1-6 does not do much to vary the prowess between the different combatants, with a Dwarf,Elf,Human,Orc etc often needing the same values to do the same thing as the others even though their supposed skill levels are so very different.
Ah, well while I do kind of agree with that, I don't think that it matters so much as the values can represent different things. For example, an Elf may have the same Weapon Skill as a Dwarf but they may represent slightly different things, such as the Elf being naturally more dextrous and fighting with finesse, while the Dwarf balances this with sheer determination and endurance. Orcs and humans might be equivalent because humans are generally more disciplined fighters while Orcs are wild and ferocious, but it balances. I'd say there doesn't really need to be a difference on specific stats so long as others differ, because in WHFB you had the whole stat-line. With AoS you have less stats but the same rule applies; it doesn't really matter if units have the same chances to hit, so long as they differ in other ways.

The problem though is that the to-Hit and to-Wound values feel somewhat redundant now, and don't represent what they should, which is why I'd have preferred the added granularity to be on defence since it gives you the better pairing of Attack (skill + strength) vs Defence (skill + toughness) followed by the save (armour/athleticism). Currently to-Hit doesn't represent skill because it doesn't square off against anything, and to-Wound doesn't really represent ability to inflict damage for the same reason, leaving all the counter abilities to be bundled into the save.

Charistoph
07-04-2016, 19:48
I believe they meant the Scale and variety of the models in the game rather then the number of figures in the game.

A scale of 1-6 does not do much to vary the prowess between the different combatants, with a Dwarf,Elf,Human,Orc etc often needing the same values to do the same thing as the others even though their supposed skill levels are so very different.

A scale of 1-20 gives you a lot more scope to say "An orc (10) is a bit better then a Human(9) at fighting but not as good as an Elf(12) While in D6 land its usually either a 3 or a 4...

Of course when you are playing a game with 200 models the volume of dice is an issue then...

I'd quite like to see the game that uses a D8 or a D12 as the main dice, it would help make the powerful stuff feel powerful and the weak stuff feel more weak, without the need to add compounding rules to powerful stuff to make the tougher (like roll to wound, roll to save, roll for special save, roll to douge. blaggggh)

Of course, there's WarmaHordes method of just beating the target number, too. But they also use 2D6 (base) for most of these interactions, too.

Niall78
07-04-2016, 19:56
I believe they meant the Scale and variety of the models in the game rather then the number of figures in the game.

A scale of 1-6 does not do much to vary the prowess between the different combatants, with a Dwarf,Elf,Human,Orc etc often needing the same values to do the same thing as the others even though their supposed skill levels are so very different.

A scale of 1-20 gives you a lot more scope to say "An orc (10) is a bit better then a Human(9) at fighting but not as good as an Elf(12) While in D6 land its usually either a 3 or a 4...

Of course when you are playing a game with 200 models the volume of dice is an issue then...

I'd quite like to see the game that uses a D8 or a D12 as the main dice, it would help make the powerful stuff feel powerful and the weak stuff feel more weak, without the need to add compounding rules to powerful stuff to make the tougher (like roll to wound, roll to save, roll for special save, roll to douge. blaggggh)

That was exactly my point. There can be very little been granularity between units with a D6 system. For small scale games this isn't a major issue. For games portraying a massive array of units at diverse power level - like 40K and WFB - it becomes a major problem.

theunwantedbeing
07-04-2016, 20:21
That was exactly my point. There can be very little been granularity between units with a D6 system. For small scale games this isn't a major issue. For games portraying a massive array of units at diverse power level - like 40K and WFB - it becomes a major problem.

1 D6 roll gives 6 unit options.
Give them attacks between 1-5 and wounds of 1-5 and you've now got 150 unique options, 125 if we ignore the 1+ ones.

2 D6 rolls (hit and wound) gives 36 options.
Give them attacks between 1-5 and wounds of 1-5 and you've now got 900 unique options, 875 if we ignore the 1+/1+ stuff. 625 if we're completely ignoring all 1+ rolls.

So having lots of unique options isn't an issue at all.
Unless you're heavily cutting down those D6 rolls.

With rolls to hit, wound, saves and a variety of wound and attack amounts you can have thousands of unique units.
And this is before you bother with any interaction between units so that a tougher unit is harder to wound than a weaker one.

Spiney Norman
12-04-2016, 06:57
That was exactly my point. There can be very little been granularity between units with a D6 system. For small scale games this isn't a major issue. For games portraying a massive array of units at diverse power level - like 40K and WFB - it becomes a major problem.

I'm not sure that's true, I think the stat line has enough scope for varying the number of attacks/wounds/to hit/to/wound/save values to make the game interesting, esp when you consider modifiers to some or all of those stats, and besides I think for a game on the scale of AoS or 40k D6 is the only sensible option, I can't really envisage charging in with a unit of ten blood warriors supported by a bloodsecrator and wrath mongers and rolling forty D10s for my attacks for example. That just doesn't seem practical.

Dosiere
12-04-2016, 11:40
I'm not sure that's true, I think the stat line has enough scope for varying the number of attacks/wounds/to hit/to/wound/save values to make the game interesting, esp when you consider modifiers to some or all of those stats, and besides I think for a game on the scale of AoS or 40k D6 is the only sensible option, I can't really envisage charging in with a unit of ten blood warriors supported by a bloodsecrator and wrath mongers and rolling forty D10s for my attacks for example. That just doesn't seem practical.

I agree, when you're rolling buckets of dice using d10s, 12s, 20s, etc... is not ideal. I think if using those dice those could help lead to a system where you're rolling less dice to begin with it would be worth looking at. I know that fans of GW games in particular though enjoy the bucket of dice approach; it's part of the fun.

Spiney Norman
12-04-2016, 21:19
I agree, when you're rolling buckets of dice using d10s, 12s, 20s, etc... is not ideal. I think if using those dice those could help lead to a system where you're rolling less dice to begin with it would be worth looking at. I know that fans of GW games in particular though enjoy the bucket of dice approach; it's part of the fun.


One of the things I like about GWs games as opposed to KoW for example is that every model actually represents something rather than units being singular entities that don't take casualties. I like that I can run ten men into combat and nine of them will get to fight because the last one doesn't have enough space to get in on the action, it just feels more realistic than units being bricks that slide around the table bumping into one another, never shrinking in size. That's not to say I dislike ranked-unit based combat entirely, I thought wfb operated a very good way of doing that with casualty removal and giving different benefits for different formations

Skargit Crookfang
13-04-2016, 20:43
One of the things I like about GWs games as opposed to KoW for example is that every model actually represents something rather than units being singular entities that don't take casualties. I like that I can run ten men into combat and nine of them will get to fight because the last one doesn't have enough space to get in on the action, it just feels more realistic than units being bricks that slide around the table bumping into one another, never shrinking in size. That's not to say I dislike ranked-unit based combat entirely, I thought wfb operated a very good way of doing that with casualty removal and giving different benefits for different formations


Question for you Spiney, and there is literally no agenda behind this- I've just read many of your posts over my time here and was wondering if you had tried Dragon Rampant yet?
I feel like it'd either be something you really enjoyed, or really didn't enjoy- and am just kind of wondering what your take on it was.

Spiney Norman
14-04-2016, 22:29
Question for you Spiney, and there is literally no agenda behind this- I've just read many of your posts over my time here and was wondering if you had tried Dragon Rampant yet?
I feel like it'd either be something you really enjoyed, or really didn't enjoy- and am just kind of wondering what your take on it was.

No I haven't had the pleasure, I've heard the name mentioned a few times, usually positively, but I don't know anyone who plays it and getting a new game off the ground cold at my club is something of an uphill struggle. Of course if the armies are structured to easily allow WFB armies/miniatures to sub in for their own models (at least initially on a proxy basis) then if the rules are easy to pick up it should be doable.