PDA

View Full Version : Should the HW/SH Bonus be tied to WS?



Nurglitch
24-08-2005, 18:12
Drakemaster (http://www.warseer.net/forums/showthread.php?p=183846#post183846)had a cool suggestion on another thread about whether to keep the 'parry' bonus from using a hand-weapon and a shield.

Basically a model gets +1 to its armour save when using a hand weapon and shield if a hit is scored against it and that hit is made by a model with equal or lower weapon skill.

If the hit is made by a model with a higher weapon skill, then the model gets no additional bonus for having a hand weapon and a shield.

Yes or no? Why?

Pan
24-08-2005, 18:15
Bad idea, good WS already makes it easier to hit.

Commissar von Toussaint
24-08-2005, 18:17
Excellent idea, as I said on the other thread.

It reduces the save given to "horde" armies while preserving the gist of the rule that a clear majority of Warseers like.

Adlan
24-08-2005, 18:18
Good idea, should balance Hw&S combo, making spears and halberds more relativly effective.
May need playtesting to iron out any cracks that may appear. And may need adjustment in pts values (though i can't think of any i would require)

Cenyu
24-08-2005, 18:19
Its not like you couldve edited the new poll options in your previous thread, eh? :eyebrows:


Anyhow, Iīd say yes, either abolish the parry bonus for units with a WS lower than 4 or perhaps for units with lower WS than their enemy in the actual combat (first option preferred).

Nurglitch
24-08-2005, 18:20
Points-wise it might actually work better than otherwise to make the additional points paid for higher WS worth it.

Cenyu
24-08-2005, 18:21
Bad idea, good WS already makes it easier to hit.

Gobbo player, of course. :D

Pan
24-08-2005, 18:27
Empire... :chrome:

Hebron
24-08-2005, 18:32
It seems to me this will only make units like Chaos Warriors / Iron-Breakers etc., even more effective...

Nurglitch
24-08-2005, 19:13
That's bad?

Lord Anathir
24-08-2005, 19:43
yes...high elf player. WS is complete garbage....WS 6 hardly makes a difference from WS 4. The WS 6 guys still get hit on 4s...and only hit on 3s. Whats the point? It doenst make a difference whether the WS6 guys are getting hit on 3s or 4s cuz their toughness and armor lets them down anyways. The WS chart should be the same as the T/S chart.

Cenyu
24-08-2005, 19:44
WS2 unable to hit WS6? :rolleyes:

Commissar von Toussaint
24-08-2005, 19:58
The WS chart is fine. This is a great idea that fixes two issues at once: it makes WS count for more AND puts a check on HW/S.

WraithKnight
24-08-2005, 20:26
Hmm, I personally think WS counts enough already, remember it IS the first round of rolls and therefore the most significant. Also, this wouldn't act so much as a boon for high WS units/races as much as it would be a malus to most horde armies & undead, (though not so much to O&G) which don't, as far as balance is concerned, need the staying power of their basic troopers reduced.
My solution to the parry bonus "problem" is to have the parry bonus apply only when the spear bonus applies (unit hasn't moved that turn). After all, I can't really imagine doing a lot of parrying on a charge.

Nurglitch
24-08-2005, 21:29
Hmm, sort of like the opposite of a choppa.

Katastrophe
24-08-2005, 21:34
Hmm, I personally think WS counts enough already, remember it IS the first round of rolls and therefore the most significant. Also, this wouldn't act so much as a boon for high WS units/races as much as it would be a malus to most horde armies & undead, (though not so much to O&G) which don't, as far as balance is concerned, need the staying power of their basic troopers reduced.
My solution to the parry bonus "problem" is to have the parry bonus apply only when the spear bonus applies (unit hasn't moved that turn). After all, I can't really imagine doing a lot of parrying on a charge.

Clearly you didnt take math 101. there is no such thing as 1st round of rolls being most significant.

Anyway, as I stated on the other thread, ws3 being the benchmark would be good because it would disallow cheap throwaway troops from the bonus and preserve it for trained troops.

maxwell123
24-08-2005, 21:41
Clearly you didnt take math 101. there is no such thing as 1st round of rolls being most significant.

Anyway, as I stated on the other thread, ws3 being the benchmark would be good because it would disallow cheap throwaway troops from the bonus and preserve it for trained troops.

Ah, Kat. Seems like we disagree again already. Just like old times. ;)

Rolling to hit IS more significant than rolling to Wound, for the simple fact that if you fail your roll to hit, you don't even get to attempt to wound the opponent, therefore the first round of rolls IS the most significant.

Katastrophe
24-08-2005, 21:51
Ah, Kat. Seems like we disagree again already. Just like old times. ;)

Rolling to hit IS more significant than rolling to Wound, for the simple fact that if you fail your roll to hit, you don't even get to attempt to wound the opponent, therefore the first round of rolls IS the most significant.
do the math Max, it works out the same over time, even in a small sample. sure, failing to hit does eliminate the ability to wound but you are generally only talking about the difference of 1 in each 6 die rolls. not significant in most combats.

BloodiedSword
24-08-2005, 22:50
I'd be happy to go with the "higher WS negates HW/Sh bonus" (hardly surprising as I play HE though).

Although the To Hit chart should definitely NOT be like the S/T chart, I wouldn't mind if the rolls went to 2+ and 6+. Currently, you are 3+ to hit anyone with lower WS - how about 2+ to hit anyone with less than half your WS? You are 5+ to hit anyone with more than double your WS - how about 6+ for anyone with more than treble?

Doesn't change anything drastically, but gives really high WS a little more kick and really low WS less of a "who cares".

Also, it makes no difference whether you roll to hit or wound first. The number of wounds caused is (no attacks) * (% to hit) * (% to wound). You can see just from that that it makes no difference what order you do them in, but as an example:

Say you hit on a 3+ and wound on a 4+ - on average, out of 12 attacks, 8 will hit and 4 will wound.

If you rolled to wound first, 6 will wound and 4 of those will hit.

scatterlaser
24-08-2005, 23:27
Not really a fan. If HW/shield is too good compared to halberds and spears, I'd rather improve halberds and spears than weaken HW/shield.

Grand Warlord
25-08-2005, 00:05
Yeah ... since everything has a better WS than me, well a majtority of what I play against. I would have to give up Empire really, or atleast take all spearman or something.

Personally I dont think it is that nasty... again I am empire fighting mostly chaos and bretonnians...

Trunks
25-08-2005, 00:08
Ah, Kat. Seems like we disagree again already. Just like old times. ;)

Rolling to hit IS more significant than rolling to Wound, for the simple fact that if you fail your roll to hit, you don't even get to attempt to wound the opponent, therefore the first round of rolls IS the most significant.

Lets say that you have a 3/6 chance of hitting and a 4/6 chance of wounding and a 1/6 chance of the opponent failing their armor save.

This gives you: (3/6) * (4/6) * (1/6) = 12/18 chance of successful wound taken away from opponent. By the laws of multiplication, you can switch the order of any of those three numbers and the result is going to be the same.

You could play in the following way:
My 6 orcs have 12 attacks.
My opponent immediately takes 12 armor saves. He fails 7.
I pick up seven dice and see how many of those 7 attacks that got by his armor actually hit. Finally after seeing which attacks got past the armor and actually hit, I roll to see which attacks actually wound and that many wounds are lost.

The order that the three rolls occur in is not imporant at all other than as a conventional standard.

Nurglitch
25-08-2005, 00:17
Yup, after all, there's not point in scoring a hit unless a wound is caused, and there's no point in causing a wound if it's saved. It's basically one roll stretched across three to make it look like there's a difference between troop types.

WraithKnight
25-08-2005, 01:01
:rolleyes:
Ahh, crud. I knew that. I guess this is what happens after not doing math for 2 months...
But still! WS counts for enough already, after all, as we've just seen proven numerous times, it's just as important as strength. I know that it is a little different, because you need a far higher WS than the enemy to get 3+ to hit as opposed to needing a Str. of just one more than the enemy's T to wound on 3+, but remember (this time I think I'm right ;) ) that WS is like Str and To rolled into one for purposes of rolling to hit as opposed to rolling to wound: high WS is like having both high "to hit strength" and high "to hit toughness"

Balancing WS on every troop type if it had a chart like the Wound chart would be extremely difficult for GW to balance, I'm guessing, so they probably decided to only make it relevant at the extremes.
And like I said in my first post, having higher WS negate the enemy's parry bonus would be an unnecessary nerf to the horde armies, whose balance problems, if they have any, do not reside in their basic infantry's longevity.

Sarevok
25-08-2005, 01:13
S affects saves as well, in practise it's far better than WS.

shadowprince
25-08-2005, 01:54
The thing is fluff wise that Weoponskil should make a larger difference, a hihly trained swordmaster should be almost impossible to hit fluff wise. I know we can't do that game wise as that would be horrible unfaire. But playing high elfs High Woponskill is almost worthless compared to High str or Toughness becuase very few u nites have a weoponskill of two so almost every unit in the game will hit on a 4+, but with the elvs they will hit on threes so your hiting but against toughness four units that are cheaper like orcs we are wounding on 5+ same against dwarfs. Weopinskill needs to make some sort of difference.

Galonthar
25-08-2005, 07:26
I like the idea,...

this will wil lenable only more "elite" warriors becoming more so,
its also more realistic,... for it seems quite hard to use it in real life

I LARP myself, so I`ve seen some swordsplay over time. most of the time you dodge blows in combat, instead of parrying them,... it`ll take a higher WS to be able to become good at parrying

..... but this will make the game quite more complex though......

Sanjuro
25-08-2005, 07:54
It seems to me this will only make units like Chaos Warriors / Iron-Breakers etc., even more effective...

And this is bad how?

Elite infantry has suffered enormously in this edition. This suggestion (the best I've seen in a long while) would go some way to amend that.

Scactha
25-08-2005, 08:03
Simple and effective. Hits the ones who have to much advantage, the hordes. Good idéa.

Snoozer
25-08-2005, 08:10
I like it, and I play O&G, so it's not like I would be gaining anything from this (or loosing much either).

But what I would like was a little change in the 'to hit' table, now it is if the other one has MORE than twice your ws then you hit with 5+, but couldn't it be if the other one just hade twice your ws you hit with 5+ (i.e. ws2 vs. ws4, ws3 vs. ws6 etc. you need 5+ 'to hit')

:D

Yanos
25-08-2005, 08:54
...good WS already makes it easier to hit...

It does?? Tell that to the Dark Elf Assassin who misses every third Goblin :D. I think having the bonus dependent on your opponent's WS is a great idea, it'll make combats a lot more personal. And as Nurglitch said back on p.1, it'll make the points paid for a high WS that much more well spent.

Drakemaster
25-08-2005, 09:10
Well obviously I've voted that its a good idea... :)

Its encouraging to see that many people seem to like it, anyway. It isn't perfect, but I do think its a nice simple solution that helps make elite infantry a bit more cost effective, without adding a whole bunch of additional complexity to the rules or rewriting the army books and changing points values. I definitely prefer it as a solution to limiting it to WS 4 and above troops, anyway. After all, if your WS 3 troops are fighting WS 2 or 3 opponents, why should they be any less able to use their shield to parry than WS 4 against WS 3 or 4 opponents? I think that elite infantry have lost alot of effectiveness in this addition... the wide availability of cheap blocks of 4+ save troops that players merely use as static CR, combined with the reduced damage dealing capability of elites against infantry, means that elite infantry have become a far less popular choice. It would be nice to see them regain their ability to rout cheap horde infantry by causing casualties. As for horde infantry, I do feel they are too cost effective in this edition, and the change wouldn't nerf them that severely... they are still likely to outnumber more expensive infantry and keep their full rank bonus throughout the combat.

The main problem that I can see is that it would make heavy cavalry (pretty much all of whom are WS 4 or above) slightly more effective, which I'm sure many people would be unhappy about. I'm not sure how I feel about this... after all, it would only really come into play after the first round of combat (what with the vast majority of heavy cavalry striking at at least S5 with a -2 save modifier in the first round when they charge) and most troops would still get the bonus against the WS 3 horses. I'm inclined to think it wouldn't make much of a difference on the whole... the cavalry would still be in serious trouble if they fail to break on the charge, and it wouldn't make horde infantry that much more vulnerable in the first round.

Anyway, I do think its a nice simple way to give WS more importance without changing the to hit chart, seeing as a high WS seems to be priced at the same level as a high S, whereas S is far more useful.

Falcon
25-08-2005, 11:19
I like the idea, but would suggest that the +1AS is lost when the atacker's weapons skill is more than one point higher than the defender. It would help my Saurus (WS3)from hacked to bits by WS4 knights, but it will not stop my WS5 eternal guard from hacking up the Saurus.

Yanos
25-08-2005, 11:28
Possibly. It would of course preclude your Saurus (and all other WS3 troops) from taking advantage of this new bonus as well though :(.

Avian
25-08-2005, 11:39
All the expensive infantry with mediocre to okay WS would take a hit, most of the time needlessly.

Are Saurus Warriors too good? Is that why you so rarely see them in competitive armies?

Strength effects armour saves, I don't see why WS should do so as well.

Zilverug
25-08-2005, 12:46
I voted no mainly because it would be extra bookkeeping: we're already comparing enough stats as the game is.

Yanos
25-08-2005, 13:11
I've thought of another reason why this is a stunning idea (sorry if some other soul has brought it up already)...

It will serve to better reflect the expertise of higher-WS troops, in that (say) WS3 Empire Spearmen gain no benefit from pulling out swords unless they're fighting WS2 Gobbos. They are actively encouraged to stick to the advantage offered by their Spears.

However, your Dark Elf Spearman or Dwarf Two-handed-axeman (both of whom have the option of shields) both enjoy increased versatility in that they can opt to fight HW&S if they wish, according to the situation. I like the idea that more able troops (relative to their opponents) should be able to capitalise on something other than S or T.

It also means that Empire have an increased incentive to take Swordsmen, who I believe clock in at WS4, putting them more on a par with elite races and affording them a more justly-deserved armour save against those races.

I hope that made some kinda sense! :rolleyes:

Avian
25-08-2005, 13:29
But spears don't offer much of an advantage, what this means is that the spearmen have more chances of not having the right tools for the job. It's not as if taking away their HW+SH bonus makes them any better in any sense.

And Swordsmen seem to be the most popular Empire unit as it is. It's not they who need to be more popular.

Commissar von Toussaint
25-08-2005, 13:40
Yanos makes a great point.

Empire spears would benefit because they would actually negate goblin and skeleton shield bonuses.

Hell, Empire halberds would also do better. I don't know how anyone can paint that as anything but a bonus.

Empire swordsmen wouldn't be affected that much becasue of the WS 4 mentioned above.

As for dwarves and elves, this is great for them - especially their elites. Those WS 5 units finally will be worth their point cost.

One of the problems people have pointed out is how halberds aren't all that useful. This gives that that usefulness and does so in a realistic way: skilled halberdiers will be able to negate shields AND hit with higher S. I think that's most excellent.

Finally, spears and halberds won't suffer because against higher WS troops they wouldn't have gotten a save bonus anyway.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. Consider the Phoenix Guard - a unit widely disparaged for its expense and ineffectiveness.

With WS 5, they negate the shield bonus of every core troop and many of the elites in the game. It's effectively adding armor piercing but doing so where it really matters - elite infantry.

As for "added complexity," I don't get it. :eyebrows: You already compare WS to see who hits on what. Negating a bit of armor is a no-brainer.

Avian
25-08-2005, 13:47
Oh, come on!
A few other people getting worse does not make you any better. :rolleyes:

Why would you ever want to take skeletons with hand weapons and shields (apart from the cost), in practically every case a spear would be better.
Result: less choice, no more weighing of options.

Yanos
25-08-2005, 13:53
Where I can see this being VASTLY unpopular is with the TK and VC players out there, who in the past have relied on a 4+ AS in combat to provide a static combat res from their Skeleton blocks. With the exceptions of Goblins, Skinks, other Undead and Halflings (any more WS2 troops out there?), they're now left with a 5+ AS at best.

What it might mean is that troops of all types may have to be more selective in picking their fights! Ironbreakers will only get a 5+ save against Swordmasters, and Grave Guard & Tomb Guard will be looking at merely 4+ most of the time.

EDIT: Ah, I see Avian was making much the same point, though from the other direction! :D

Commissar von Toussaint
25-08-2005, 15:22
Oh, come on!
A few other people getting worse does not make you any better.

:wtf:

It absolutely does. It makes you better relative to them. And that's all that matters. I'm sorry, there is no golden yardstick out there we can measure against.

Everything in WHFB is based on alternative choices.


Why would you ever want to take skeletons with hand weapons and shields (apart from the cost),

It's a point-based game. Cost matters. Cheaper, less capable troops have their place (see, goblins).

There are ways to achieve balance without adding extras all the time.


in practically every case a spear would be better.
Result: less choice, no more weighing of options.

Except for the little matter of points cost. :rolleyes:

With the change, there would be an additional consideration in army selection and in tactical decision-making.

"Hmmm, my swordsmen won't do so well against those elites. Maybe they should go after that other unit."

The funny thing is that the negative effects will only be felt around the margins. Orcs don't get the bonus and most WS is in a fairly tight range band.

If there's a ton of negative feedback from playtesting, one could always suggest that the differential be 2 rather than 1.

Either way, it would give a boost to high WS units.

One final point: I fail to see the distinction between adding armor piercing to halberds and increasing the effectiveness of high WS.

Both drop armor saves - thus they "take away" something. Both do it by enhancing other abilities - one enhances the hitting power of halberds, the other the effectiveness of WS.

So your argument that I'm just "making something worse" is false. I'm making WS better; your halberd proposal just as easily makes all armor worse.

Drakemaster
25-08-2005, 15:54
Why would you ever want to take skeletons with hand weapons and shields (apart from the cost), in practically every case a spear would be better.
That's pretty much the point. It would return HW+S to being the default (free) option, wheras making the equipment you pay for as an upgrade actually function as an upgrade. And even WS2 troops (and as Yanos points out, there aren't that many WS2 units around) would receive the bonus against certain other troops... goblins, gnoblars, other undead. For your skeleton unit you use as an example, it would still include weighing of options... do you stay with the cheapest possible setup, or pay the extra points for the second rank fighting? Is it better to get more WS2 attacks, or increase the size of the unit?

Katastrophe
25-08-2005, 16:31
I agree with the last post by CVT. Something that rarely happens. hw/s is far too useful as is. you effectively get a 2 point advantage for 1 point (the cost of the shield) That seems a bit out of place, particularly for those troops Avian points to (skellies) now they would be limited to LA/S for a 5+ rather than a 4+ which many troops can't achieve because they have a 'special weapon' or no shield and HA option. 4+ saves in HTH are dificult to get around and even lower saves for Chaos and Dwarfs. Think of it from the aspect of the armies that dont have a plethora of S4/S5 troops and it makes sense to get rid of the 'free bonus'

koven_lexter
25-08-2005, 19:12
But still! WS counts for enough already, after all, as we've just seen proven numerous times, it's just as important as strength. I know that it is a little different, because you need a far higher WS than the enemy to get 3+ to hit as opposed to needing a Str. of just one more than the enemy's T to wound on 3+, but remember (this time I think I'm right ;) ) that WS is like Str and To rolled into one for purposes of rolling to hit as opposed to rolling to wound: high WS is like having both high "to hit strength" and high "to hit toughness"
Wrong again I'm afraid ;) 1 point of WS is strictly worse than 1 point S and is also worse than 1 point of T, and it's a lot worse than 1 point of S and 1 point of T. Starting from a (example) baseline of WS 3 S 3 T 3, an upgrade to WS 4 is strictly not as good as an upgrade to S 4 nor as good as an upgrade to T 4, and it's definitely not as good as an upgrade to S 4 and T 4. In some circumstances a point of WS works like a point of S (but not quite as good), in other circumstances it works like a point of T, and in yet other circumstances it doesn't have the benefits of either a point of S or a point of T, and it never works like a point of S and a point of T at the same time. Let me explain ...

First of all remember what others have already pointed out in this thread, that the specific order of the dice rolls is statistically of no importance. To-hit followed by to-wound followed by armour followed by wards is the current order, but changing this order would have no affect (excepting special rules like poison and killing blow, but even these could be done correctly in a different order if care was taken).

In combats where having an extra point of WS on my troops would mean my guys get an easier to-hit roll, an extra point of S would give a similar effect, but would also help get through the armour. S wins there. Note that in this case the extra point of WS does not make it harder for my opponents to hit my troops, and so the extra point of WS gives no direct defensive benefit in this combat.

In combats where having an extra point of WS on my troops would mean my opponents get a harder to-hit roll, an extra point of T would give a similar effect. On the other hand the extra point of WS offers no defensive benefit against shooting or magic attacks (or impact hits, etc.), whereas an extra point of T does help against these kind of attacks. T wins there. Note that in the above combat the extra point of WS does not make it easier for my troops to hit their opponents, and so the extra point of WS gives no direct offensive benefit in this combat.

Having 2 points more WS than your opponent is no different from having 1 point more WS than your opponent. On the other hand all of the following give extra bonuses in a close combat:

- having 2 points more S than your opponent's T instead of just 1 point more S than your opponent's T
- having 2 points more T than your opponent's S instead of just 1 point more T than your opponent's S
- having 1 point more S than your opponent's T and 1 point more than T then your opponent's S, rather than ... :eek: you get the picture

Commissar von Toussaint
25-08-2005, 21:05
WS is definately weaker than S or T. This is indisputable.

I rather prefer it that way as the alternative would make certain creatures all but invulnerable, or result in a very tight WS band that would make a mockery of the 10-point scale system.

That being said, I like this rule because it redresses some of that imbalance and does so in an easy way.

When you increase strength, there absolutely is a cascade effect in terms of armor negation.

To me it is really incomprehensible how someone can pitch adding armor-piercing to a weapon and describe it as positive and in the same breath describe adding the exact same ability to WS as negative.

Both enhance an existing feature of the game; the WS bonus is simply a broader-based and ultimately much more needed change.

The thing is, it would also help solve the halberd problem since these are usually confined to high WS troops anyway.

WraithKnight
25-08-2005, 21:24
:rolleyes:
Ahh, crud. I knew that. I guess this is what happens after not doing math for 2 months...
But still! WS counts for enough already, after all, as we've just seen proven numerous times, it's just as important as strength. I know that it is a little different, because you need a far higher WS than the enemy to get 3+ to hit as opposed to needing a Str. of just one more than the enemy's T to wound on 3+, but remember (this time I think I'm right ;) ) that WS is like Str and To rolled into one for purposes of rolling to hit as opposed to rolling to wound: high WS is like having both high "to hit strength" and high "to hit toughness"

Balancing WS on every troop type if it had a chart like the Wound chart would be extremely difficult for GW to balance, I'm guessing, so they probably decided to only make it relevant at the extremes.
And like I said in my first post, having higher WS negate the enemy's parry bonus would be an unnecessary nerf to the horde armies, whose balance problems, if they have any, do not reside in their basic infantry's longevity.Whoa! When I quote my post, there are two halves instead of one half! ...But maybe that has something to do with time zones or different computer types... huh.
Because if you'd been able to read the second half of my message, you might've figured out that I wasn't saying one point of WS is as good as +1S and +1T, or even +1 to one of those stats. In fact, I implied just the opposite--that one point of WS is strictly worse than a point of Strength or Toughness. See there, when I say, "Balancing WS on every troop type if it had a chart like the Wound chart would be extremely difficult for GW to balance, I'm guessing, so they probably decided to only make it relevant at the extremes." More explicitly, I suspect GW didn't want the headache of balancing a stat that carried both offensive and defensive power and was as effective (per point) as Strength or Toughness. Sooo, they decreased the value of a point of WS so that it is only relevant at extremes--which means, if your troops have higher WS than your opponent then they'll hit more often. Sure, the degree doesn't change as your WS gets even higher, but that's what I mean with extremes: it's much easier to balance a stat in which all that matters is that the stat is higher than the enemy's, the same or lower, or waay lower (<1/2 to be precise). By having a high weapon skill, you can be confident that against most enemies, you will be hitting 2/3 of the time, while the best they can do is 50/50, even less if it's a troop like skeletons or goblins (which, as I've said twice already, take enough casualties as is--I mean come on! WS2, S3, T3 and you want to weaken them MORE?).

There are two types of defensive infantry blocks in WHFB: Fighting units that either want or expect to be charged, and tarpit units that don't really care about damage, but are just meant to absorb and hold a charge. For the former, spears are obviously the weapon of choice, and far superior to the HW/S combo, if they can use them. Spears, despite being a defensive weapon, give an offensive bonus in combat--they increase a regiment's ability to do damage. On the other hand, tarpit units generally aren't interested in damage, so they'll never shell out the points for spears. Instead, they get the defensive parry bonus--which is exactly what they want. Not only is it cheaper, allowing them to increase their unit size, but the increased durability (along with this high US) makes the tarpit unit better able to take a charge, exactly as they were designed to do. You have to respect the players who field this kind of unit as much as the High Elf players who want WS to be more important because most (all?) of their army has WS of 5+ (6+?).
If you want to change the parry rule to make your elite, high-WS units better, guess what? In just about every case where this change would be relevant, it wouldn't actually change much. Elites (if they deserve that title) are still going to kill large numbers of skeletons and goblins, just like they always have, Ironbreakers are still going to be tough, Elves are still going to be fragile, even if they kill one more model per six wounds, and heavy cavalry are still going to kill as many light infantry as they cause wounds. But there would be one significant shift. Units like gobbos & skeletons would lose effectiveness as "tarpit" units no matter who they were facing. So it's not a buff to elite units (not one of significance, anyways) so much as a nerf of cheap, expendable units... And although it appears I'm in a minority when I say this, I have yet to think something like "man, skeletons with HW/S are way too good--if only they didn't get the parry bonus."

Gazak Blacktoof
25-08-2005, 22:06
:wtf:

It absolutely does. It makes you better relative to them. And that's all that matters. I'm sorry, there is no golden yardstick out there we can measure against.

/snip/

One final point: I fail to see the distinction between adding armor piercing to halberds and increasing the effectiveness of high WS.

Both drop armor saves - thus they "take away" something. Both do it by enhancing other abilities - one enhances the hitting power of halberds, the other the effectiveness of WS.

So your argument that I'm just "making something worse" is false. I'm making WS better; your halberd proposal just as easily makes all armor worse.


You are just making something worse though. Because the Hw+S combo is infantry only you are making poor/ average and in some cases elite troops worse against monsters, ranked monsters, flyers and cavalry. Simply because you can compare infantry units to a wider range of troops than this rule will affect i.e. other infantry, you are actualy decreasing the potency of some units where infact you should be increasing the potency of others.

Elite infantry need to be better not cheap troops made worse.

So there, you can take your :wtf: right back ;) .

You only need to look at the proposed rule to realise that you are maing some units worse and not as you seem to believe- others better. If the game included only infantry you'd be spot on with your comparative analysis but they aren't, so you're not... :p

Commissar von Toussaint
26-08-2005, 14:59
You are just making something worse though.

No, I'm making high WS better, just as giving halberds armor piercing makes them better.

Any time you give a special ability to something you are, in effect, making everything worse relative to it.

So it's really a circular argument.


Because the Hw+S combo is infantry only you are making poor/ average and in some cases elite troops worse against monsters, ranked monsters, flyers and cavalry. Simply because you can compare infantry units to a wider range of troops than this rule will affect i.e. other infantry, you are actualy decreasing the potency of some units where infact you should be increasing the potency of others.

I'm not doing that at all. I'm making higher WS troops better against low WS troops who rely on a free ability to artificially raise their armor save.

Low WS troops will not suffer ANY disadvantage against monsters, ranked mosnters, flying and cavalry UNLESS they choose HW/S - which is currently undercosted.

This is because the HW/S is a free bonus and for horde troops, this adds up.

Halberds and spears cost extra. If you buy a shield, it costs the same whether you use a spear or a halberd (or even a great weapon).

But if you don't buy any of those and just go with a hand weapon *PRESTO!*, you get a +1 armor save in hth.

It's a free bonus.

With low WS troops this adds up.

If I take two blocks of 40 goblins, I'm effectively getting spotted 80 points.

That's what paying for the special ability of the spears would have cost me.

Instead, I get an additional +1 save in hth for free.

Small units of high WS troops are already expensive and if they go with HW/S, they often are giving up something else. HE spears that choose HW/S are giving up three ranks of attacks. Empire halberdiers are forfeiting the point they paid for the halberd.

Orcs don't get it anyway, so it's a wash with them.

So it's really horde troops that would be adjusted and they are the ones where the HW/S bonus is out of whack.


Elite infantry need to be better not cheap troops made worse.

Fine, let's give them all +1 to hit. Oh gosh! We just made cheap troops worse vs them!

You're locked in a circular argument. How many times have people pointed out that longbows are worse than handguns because handguns are armor piercing, S4 and can shoot every turn.

It used to be handguns could only fire every other turn, but GW speeded up their rate of fire.

And oh how the people lamented. "GW just made bows suck!" they cried. No, they made handguns better which is the same damn thing.

We can go back and forth on this but suffice to say that your objection is irrelevant.

The only troops that will "be made worse" are the ones who get an ability they don't pay for anyway. Serves them right.

gorenut
26-08-2005, 17:00
I think it's a good idea, except 2 choices come to mind that might need a pt adjustment. Saurus Warriors and Grave Guards with HW/Shield. Basically expensive troops that use HW/Shield, but have low WS. Particularly Saurus Warriors who seem to have paid for the ability to have 2 attacks and still get their HW/Shield bonus (one of their key features). Other than that, I think this is a good idea.

Gazak Blacktoof
26-08-2005, 18:16
No, I'm making high WS better, just as giving halberds armor piercing makes them better.


No I'm affriad you are wrong again, you simply don't understand what I was saying...

Making halberds better will make halberd equipped troops better against non halberd equipped troops, this is all fine and good, objective acheived, halberd armed troops are now better, full stop. However adjusting the HW+S bonus as sugested will make low ws troops worse in combats that don't even involve elite infantry using HW+S. Elite infantry won't actualy receive any benefit against monsters/ cavalry etc. So as I and Avian have pointed out you'll be making cheap troops weaker rather than elite troops better. Its true that in a fight involving elite infantry and cheap infantry you will have acheived your aim but you will also alter other combats which don't need any adjusting.




I'm not doing that at all. I'm making higher WS troops better against low WS troops who rely on a free ability to artificially raise their armor save.



This was the intent of the rule pressumably- it allows all troops which have hand weapons and shields the option of a good save in combat.



It used to be handguns could only fire every other turn, but GW speeded up their rate of fire.

And oh how the people lamented. "GW just made bows suck!" they cried. No, they made handguns better which is the same damn thing.



1. Compared to other ranged fire the handgun got better, not the bow worse. Comparing one to the other there was obviously an increase in the potency of the handgun and relative decrease in the power of the bow. This is obvious and people complain about that. People rarely just say bows "suck" they say that bows are rubbish when compared to handguns...

2. Ranged fire took a slight hit in this edition because units became larger in order to make use of the outnumbering bonuses and because characters weren't sucking up huge chunks of points. This made panic tests more difficult to cause, this was felt less by handguns as they received a boost in power relative to other ranged fire, whilst bows took a similar hit to other weaponry. Unit speeds also increased having a similar effect.

3. Bows are the worst missile weapon (the basic missile weapon) and are therefore going to receive a large number of negative comments particularly as handguns were made better.



Fine, let's give them all +1 to hit. Oh gosh! We just made cheap troops worse vs them!


Yes you did, exactly what you were after and you didn't also screw up cheap troops versus a plethora of other unit types.

As to your comments on cheap troops and their use of the HW+S rule; I fail to see large swathes of people bemoaning the fact that goblins run down their chosen knights or lance formations.

Katastrophe
26-08-2005, 19:26
I think it's a good idea, except 2 choices come to mind that might need a pt adjustment. Saurus Warriors and Grave Guards with HW/Shield. Basically expensive troops that use HW/Shield, but have low WS. Particularly Saurus Warriors who seem to have paid for the ability to have 2 attacks and still get their HW/Shield bonus (one of their key features). Other than that, I think this is a good idea.
saurus warriors have an option for a special weapon. they dont have to use the hw/s. grave guard are the same. they dont need an adjustment, particularly since they have the ws as standard troops that do not have the advantage of having a base S/T 4.

Katastrophe
26-08-2005, 19:35
No I'm affriad you are wrong again, you simply don't understand what I was saying...

Making halberds better will make halberd equipped troops better against non halberd equipped troops, this is all fine and good, objective acheived, halberd armed troops are now better, full stop. However adjusting the HW+S bonus as sugested will make low ws troops worse in combats that don't even involve elite infantry using HW+S. Elite infantry won't actualy receive any benefit against monsters/ cavalry etc. So as I and Avian have pointed out you'll be making cheap troops weaker rather than elite troops better. Its true that in a fight involving elite infantry and cheap infantry you will have acheived your aim but you will also alter other combats which don't need any adjusting.

but arent cheap troops too good as is because of the rule that gives them an ability for free. that goes to the nature of the problem. elite infantry and monsters should be running through them but for the weight of their numbers (outnumber and ranks) not the fact that they actually get a save versus the attacks. Cheap troops are not supposed to survive the combats they are in but are supposed to be able to withstand losses. as it stands with the hw/s rule being applied to them they can outnumber better troops, and survive attacks from better troops. isn't that the problem that people are seeking to fix.


This was the intent of the rule pressumably- it allows all troops which have hand weapons and shields the option of a good save in combat. no the intent was to give people an incentive to use hw/s, without actually giving thought to how it would effect actual combat. We are all aware that GW doesn't always think about how something will actually play out.

sparks
26-08-2005, 19:46
personally, i don't like the idea, it works in a fluff sense but we could be moaning forever until everything was scarily fluff-accurate. if this is a points game and the importance of choice becomes the major issue, why not try this method- units that can buy shields either buy a) bucklers- 1pt, +1 A. save, b)shields- 2pts, +1 A. save, HW/Shield bonus rule. that would certainly enforce the choice issue, hmm, do i make my goblins 3 points or 4 :P

Commissar von Toussaint
26-08-2005, 20:35
Making halberds better will make halberd equipped troops better against non halberd equipped troops, this is all fine and good, objective acheived, halberd armed troops are now better, full stop.

And this "better" can also be said to make everyone else "worse." Just to be clear.


However adjusting the HW+S bonus as sugested will make low ws troops worse in combats that don't even involve elite infantry using HW+S.

Really, how does that work? How does adjusting HW/S make goblin spearmen worse against dragons? Explain that to me.

How much do goblins pay for their armor save bonus?

That would be nothing.

So if it is taken away in certain conditions, they stand to lose nothing.

See, if I add Armor Piercing to a halberd, the enhancement lowers the armor save of everything else. The one point I may have paid for light armor is now negated by the Armor Piercing special power.

Other weapons to the same. The extra points you pay for a lance or great weapon negate the points one pays for heavy armor.

That's how the game works.

But with HW/S, you pay nothing, zero points - and yet you get a bonus armor save.


As to your comments on cheap troops and their use of the HW+S rule; I fail to see large swathes of people bemoaning the fact that goblins run down their chosen knights or lance formations.

I love it when people bring up irrelevancies.

Heavy cavalry often negates the armor altogether. So there would be little, if any, change. I'm sure you know this.

The HW/S has as its chief victims units that have decent WS but only average strength.

So despite your remarks, this hits exactly the target it aims at.

Now you may object to the fact that WS 3 troops will see a benefit against the hordes. That's also part of the idea.

Empire spearmen and halberds are often unfavorably compared to swordsmen. No longer. Both the spears and the halberds will improve against horde troops - making them better choices.

Empire swordsmen will retain their own value because with WS 4, they will still get their enhanced save even against better troops - but other elites will gain a significant edge.

Against High Elves with halberds and WS 5, Empire swordsmen will really suffer, dropping from a 5+ to a 6+ save. Given the points disparity, this is as it should be.

As Kat points out, low WS troops with T4 and S4 enjoy a significant advantage against high WS troops with S3 and T3. We all know this to be true.

This rule redresses some of that imbalance as well.

Basically, this adds more realism to the game without added complexity. It increases both the actual and percieved value of high WS troops and it makes spears and halberds more viable options.

This last point is key. Since the WS differential can cut against even decent troops, players will have to think hard about going with the default HW/S combination.

On the one hand, it is cheap, and in many cases will offer good protection. But against a superior foe, it collapses.

Players will no longer be able to go with the default option, buy a big brick of troops and rely on a 4+ save and numbers to stop the enemy.

I call that a good thing.

maxwell123
26-08-2005, 21:19
Well said CvT. I totally agree.

WraithKnight
26-08-2005, 23:05
As far as I can tell, if halberds were slightly better and a few elf infantry units had there points cost reduced slightly, this thread wouldn't even exist. Hmmm, those changes seem easier and a lot more to-the-point than trying to balance an across-the-board rule that will almost definitely have unneeded splash effects.

Ok. I agree that the parry rule is "free" (or at least tied into the cost) if you have a shield.
....
GET OVER IT.
It's not as good as having spears...
It's not as good as great weapons...
or EHW's...
etc...
Perhaps it IS better on elite units than having halberds, but then why don't we just fix halberds? By improving their stats to match their cost.
But I don't want to spend a long time arguing about this, because we have a basic desagreement about the "benefits" of this change:
Players will no longer be able to go with the default option, buy a big brick of troops and rely on a 4+ save and numbers to stop the enemy.

I call that a good thing. I don't. I call it a strategy. These units don't kill much, and if you're charging them with a unit that can't or probably won't break them, you're probably just being outplayed.

Katastrophe
27-08-2005, 14:41
I call it a strategy. These units don't kill much, and if you're charging them with a unit that can't or probably won't break them, you're probably just being outplayed.
If i knew you personally i'd probably call you an idiot, but since i dont, i wont. nevertheless, why do you think that people with, say, skaven slaves opt for hw/s rather than spears. if spears are the better choice then youd expect spears to be taken. THEY NEVER ARE. not they are taken sometimes but not enough, THEY NEVER ARE. the reason being that hw/s is better than spears, particularly for trash troops. it makes them more survivable than they should be and its FREE. gobbos as a prime example. they idea is that they are supposed to die in droves but you are supposed to have weight of numbers to remain in combat. if those gobbos are attacked by elite empire swordsman(more than twice the cost by the way), the gobbos tie the combat on average rolls by both, because of the save. thats not a matter of tactics, thats a stupid application of the rules.

6 swordman attacks yields 6*(2/3)*(1/2)*(1/2) = 1 wound
5 gobbo attacks yields 5*(1/2)*(1/2)*(1/2) = .6 wounds
equal ranks, standard, gobbos outnumber - the combats a draw if you give 0 wounds to the gobbos, they win if you give them 1 wound. I suppose this makes sense to you as a fair application of the rules :rolleyes:

I hope you are just arguing to be arguing and that you really dont believe that skaven slaves, gobbos, skellies, free sylvanian undead (come with LA, hw/s) should be running around with 4+saves against standard troops.

WraithKnight
27-08-2005, 15:39
Did you even read my previous post? The one on page 5? I don't think you did.

When I said spears, GW, etc were better than HW/S I was talking about units that want to do damage. Goblin blocks with HW/S don't win battles by themselves, unless the dice gods are heavily favoring them or the opposing general is a little thick.

Katastrophe
27-08-2005, 17:27
u seem to miss the point. that's ok though. it cant be explained any clearer.

maxwell123
27-08-2005, 19:46
When I said spears, GW, etc were better than HW/S I was talking about units that want to do damage. Goblin blocks with HW/S don't win battles by themselves, unless the dice gods are heavily favoring them or the opposing general is a little thick.

You are ignoring the fact that most infantry is not used in order to cause wounds. It is there to provide a standard, solid rank bonus and hopefully outnumbering.

This is part of the reason expensive infantry is arguably the worst troop type in the game. Short of Chosen Chaos Warriors, expensive infantry generally can't cause wounds on the scale of heavy cavalry and pay a LOT more than horde infantry to provide that rank bonus and outnumbering.

This is why spears and halberds are such a terrible option currently for cheap infantry. Firstly, they increase their cost meaning you won't be able to get as many of them (i.e. less chance for outnumbering) and don't improve their chances of causing damage much either seeing as cheap infantry has poor stats anyway. Spears and halberds don't allow the extra protection. In fact, halberds are detrimental to survival for cheap troops as they can't even use a shield in close combat with them.
The HW/S bonus gives cheap troops some good protection for free, enabling them to maintain their rank bonus and outnumbering advantage as long as possible. Why would they take anything else??

Commissar von Toussaint
28-08-2005, 13:40
I hate to pile on, but the arguments here are so specious...


As far as I can tell, if halberds were slightly better and a few elf infantry units had there points cost reduced slightly, this thread wouldn't even exist. Hmmm, those changes seem easier and a lot more to-the-point than trying to balance an across-the-board rule that will almost definitely have unneeded splash effects.

You know what had unneeded splash effects? The HW/S rule.

Since you brought it up, I began leafing through my army books to see who would win and who would lose.

Here's the list so far.

Orcs and Goblins: Obviously, the goblins are major violators here. I'm sorry but anyone who thinks 3-point troops should have a 4+ save - or who think that without them they cease to be viable - shouldn't be playing the game.

I hate to be blunt, but there it is. I play orcs and use big fat blocks of goblins and this bothers my not at all. Why?

Because goblins are so damn cheap. This makes spears a better choice and it also helps out the orcs.

This is because orcs lose nothing (thanks to the choppa) and they gain against other low WS troops. Orc elites also get a nice bonus.

Empire: I've written many times about how Empire will benefit. Read back if you want.

High Elves/Dark Elves: Obviously, these guys get a big break on this, as they should. Elven elite units pay a lot for high WS and they get jack in return. This finally makes the base line stats of elves worth it and does a lot to redress the high point costs of their elites.

Hey, how about that worthless WS 6 unit? Now it looks like it might actually DO something.

Dwarves: I saw some concern that dwarves would suffer, but it's groundless. With WS 4, only elites will hurt dwarven rank and file, and even then "hurt" is a relative term. With heavy armor and shield, toughness 4 and the option of great weapons for core troops, any costs will be offset by gains. Dwarves will negate WS 3 bonuses and there aren't a lot of WS 5 troops out there.

I should mention that the dwarven elites (Ironbreakers) get an even better deal. The list of WS 6 units is pretty short and if they run into a unit with it, that bonus is pretty much deserved.

Vampire Counts/Tomb Kings: Lots of whinging here for no reason. Firstly we know the old dodge on skellie construction: buy smaller units of expensive ones then grow them during the game.

Grave Guard/Tomb Guard were pointed out as big losers but I don't see it. They have the Killing Blow and the option for halberds, which becomes more viable.

Lizardmen: Again, much angst for no reason. Saurus are bricks, period. If you need a 4+ save AND two S4 attacks, T4 and awesome leadership to win, I pity you.

Skaven: Does anyone give slaves spears? Just asking.

Bretonnia: They do well, but not amazingly so. The units that would theoretically gain the most because of high WS already negated 4+ saves from the get-go. Bretonnian infantry get a boost because they pay for a halberd or spear no one wants to use. Now they just might.

Chaos: Ah, here is the deal-breaker. Or is it?

Marauders are the same cost and stats as Empire swordsmen. Their other weapon options get better, but so do everyone else's.

While some may whine that chaos hits even harder, it is important to point out that other high WS armies will hit chaos harder. Chaos already packed quite a wallop, now at least they get some pushback from the highest point cost units in the game.

That's all the books I own. If anyone wants to add more go ahead.

Now back to the massacre.


Ok. I agree that the parry rule is "free" (or at least tied into the cost) if you have a shield.

At least that's a start.


....
GET OVER IT.
It's not as good as having spears...
It's not as good as great weapons...
or EHW's...
etc...

Actually it's better than spears as well.


Perhaps it IS better on elite units than having halberds, but then why don't we just fix halberds? By improving their stats to match their cost.

Because we also need to fix spears. This does both AND fixes the WS problem as well. It's a Warhammer improvement trifecta! :)


But I don't want to spend a long time arguing about this,

Because your position is weak? Oh, sorry :p


because we have a basic desagreement about the "benefits" of this change: I don't. I call it a strategy. These units don't kill much, and if you're charging them with a unit that can't or probably won't break them, you're probably just being outplayed.

Fascinating thought: If you charge a cheap line unit, you should expect not to break it, regardless of how many turns you fight. :eyebrows:

Er, what is the point of better stat lines, then?

If, as you say, cheap units ought to get 4+ saves as a matter of course, why would anyone ever bother with higher WS armies? Hmmm, I think we know the answer. :rolleyes:

samw
28-08-2005, 16:05
I think CvT has converted me. That a goblin can parry a swordmaster is a little off. I didn't like the "HW&S bonus only for WS4 and above" idea, but this actually seems fair. Eh, maybe it's just because it wont hurt my armies (Brets and upcoming WE) but I quite like this now. Anything which allows troops to be more than a +5 combat res magic item for a powerful character can only be good. On a side note, how can anyone object to Chaos Warriors getting a boost, when in the army list section anything other than a small unit of chosen is universally condemned? Come on people, make up your minds.

Nurglitch
28-08-2005, 17:11
Hmmm, you mean CvT's tactic of brow-beating people works? At least he's working for good this time....;)

Gazak Blacktoof
28-08-2005, 20:59
And this "better" can also be said to make everyone else "worse." Just to be clear.



If you're still thinking that then you are either have a failing in basic logic or are just playing silly buggers. I suggest you re-read what I've already posted if you still can't grasp the not so subtle difference then you have a problem.



Really, how does that work? How does adjusting HW/S make goblin spearmen worse against dragons? Explain that to me.


It makes no difference against dragons (as I'm sure you are aware) because they are strength 6 but it makes a difference against charging cavalry, ogres, minotaurs, horses :wtf: and a range of other models.



Players will no longer be able to go with the default option, buy a big brick of troops and rely on a 4+ save and numbers to stop the enemy.


Is this not the point of these troops? They blunt an attack through numbers and being difficult to kill until a counter charge can be made. If they no longer serve this purpose then what? We've already established they can't kill things and now they will die very easily, that would be fine if they could guarantee a stable battle line or overwhelming supporting fire to maximise their hoarde bonuses but they can't.



The problem, in my mind, still still lies with elite infantry, they still wont get the benefits they should against cavalry, nor will spearmen. Halberdiers will still fail to put a dent in the armour of most cavalry when they should be tearing them to pieces. I just think you're coming at this from the wrong angle. There will still be a number of problems inherent to elites, halberds and spears that you aren't dealing with. I don't think this is the magic bullet you've been looking for...





Vampire Counts/Tomb Kings: Lots of whinging here for no reason. Firstly we know the old dodge on skellie construction: buy smaller units of expensive ones then grow them during the game.

Grave Guard/Tomb Guard were pointed out as big losers but I don't see it. They have the Killing Blow and the option for halberds, which becomes more viable.



What you have written here applies only to vampire counts, tomb kings can't raise additional skeletons nor do they have any weapon options on the tomb guard. Tomb kings aren't an overpowered list and will simply loose out with this rule. They aren't a hoarde army either but still get lumped in with goblins/ skaven etc.

maxwell123
28-08-2005, 21:26
The problem, in my mind, still still lies with elite infantry, they still wont get the benefits they should against cavalry, nor will spearmen. Halberdiers will still fail to put a dent in the armour of most cavalry when they should be tearing them to pieces.

Why should halberdiers be tearing cavalry to pieces?? They didn't historically and in gaming terms, allowing halberdiers to tear cavalry to shreds would be ridiculous. A lot of halberdiers are like 6pts or so. No way in hell should they be killing cavalry easily.

Wickerman71
28-08-2005, 23:08
High Elves/Dark Elves: Obviously, these guys get a big break on this, as they should. Elven elite units pay a lot for high WS and they get jack in return. This finally makes the base line stats of elves worth it and does a lot to redress the high point costs of their elites.

Yes pretty much across the board elves would be better. combined with their above average movement rate they should be able to pick their fights. Though Dark & High elves may need some fine tuning they are far from being complete crap. IMHO this would make Elves too good, yes the units that are not popular get a power boost but so do all the rest. Sword Masters & Silver Helms that are already great units get even better.




Vampire Counts/Tomb Kings: Lots of whinging here for no reason. Firstly we know the old dodge on skellie construction: buy smaller units of expensive ones then grow them during the game.

Grave Guard/Tomb Guard were pointed out as big losers but I don't see it. They have the Killing Blow and the option for halberds, which becomes more viable.

Taking away the HW&S combo from Skelletons (which is what your doing when they are WS 2) makes the unit a poor choice when compared to the Zombie. VC generals as a whole don't want spears it's just extra points spent that lead to nothing. Our vampires get the kills the Skellies are just there for static CR. I fail to see how this rule would entice me to get spears on my skellies rather than have me drop Skellies for Zombies. TK would be the bigger losers because not one thing you've pointed out would apply to them.

So you make the Grave & Tomb Guard worse pretty much across the board & you feel this is ok. Face it the only reason you think it's ok is because you do not play them. As for putting Halberds on the Grave Guard screw that I'll just get more Black Knights. Your are limiting choices not creating new ones as far as undead goes.



Skaven: Does anyone give slaves spears? Just asking.

No, but i don't give slaves shields either in fact I do not give them any thing. The big loser would be the clan rat & you know that. The only thing that would happen to Skaven if this rule was in place, would be to just further encourage SAD Armies.



Chaos: Ah, here is the deal-breaker. Or is it?

Marauders are the same cost and stats as Empire swordsmen. Their other weapon options get better, but so do everyone else's.

While some may whine that chaos hits even harder, it is important to point out that other high WS armies will hit chaos harder. Chaos already packed quite a wallop, now at least they get some pushback from the highest point cost units in the game.

What???, the only armies they are not going to be better against is Elves & Elves already give Chaos a hard time.

.....I would be more in favor of the Base WS having to be double in order to cancel out HW&S combo bonus. Just beating it by one blows out the whole balance of certain armies.

Just my 2 cents...

WraithKnight
29-08-2005, 00:57
I am officially really sick of this thread. It has proved to be a complete waste of my time. So, this will be my last post in it.
Regarding Kat's brilliant expose on how a S3 T3 troop can charge an outnumbering, equally armed S3 T3 troop and, despite costing more pts, not always win: Even if this were a problem, taking away the parry bonus of the goblins would change the swordsmen damage to 1.333 kills instead of 1... wheee...
When I said "unneeded splash effects," I wasn't talking about shifts in each of the different armies, I was talking about shifts in unit type balance. Under this rule, any heavy cav (+ some fast cav such as Wild Riders) that charges on S5 would be gaining. And we all know calvary need some kind of boost against the standard rank and file infantry regiments out there, right? errr...

Alright, I iz done.
No! I iz not! I have one more thing to say: The problems this rule would supposedly solve are fixable in other ways. This rule is too wide-ranging to cope with them as efficiently and effectively as multiple specific fixes would.

P.S.- Ignore CvT. Arguing with him is a waste of time and effort. If you're not on his side, just argue with those who agree with him.

Commissar von Toussaint
29-08-2005, 13:53
If you're still thinking that then you are either have a failing in basic logic or are just playing silly buggers. I suggest you re-read what I've already posted if you still can't grasp the not so subtle difference then you have a problem.

It’s all relative. I can’t spell it out any simpler. You’re sitting here splitting hairs for no purpose.

Coming up with the whole HW/S option necessarily made everyone worse. It’s a half-full/half-empty kind of thing.


It makes no difference against dragons (as I'm sure you are aware) because they are strength 6 but it makes a difference against charging cavalry, ogres, minotaurs, horses :wtf: and a range of other models.

Only if you use HW/S and have a low weapon skill. Let’s be sure we qualify this, okay?

Orcs won’t be affected. Anyone using spears or halberds won’t be affected. In fact, most units won’t be affected, and those that are deserve to be as they are not paying any points for their bonus.


Is this not the point of these troops? They blunt an attack through numbers and being difficult to kill until a counter charge can be made. If they no longer serve this purpose then what? We've already established they can't kill things and now they will die very easily, that would be fine if they could guarantee a stable battle line or overwhelming supporting fire to maximise their hoarde bonuses but they can't.

The point of horde troops is to drown the enemy in their own blood. Always has been.

What you are saying is that if they don’t get a free bonus armor save, they are worthless.

Indeed, the only point of taking them is their free army save, yes?

Goblins with spears? No point.

Skeletons with spears? Nope, nothing there, either.


The problem, in my mind, still still lies with elite infantry, they still wont get the benefits they should against cavalry, nor will spearmen. Halberdiers will still fail to put a dent in the armour of most cavalry when they should be tearing them to pieces. I just think you're coming at this from the wrong angle. There will still be a number of problems inherent to elites, halberds and spears that you aren't dealing with. I don't think this is the magic bullet you've been looking for...

Sure it is, because I have no problem with how cavalry works. I think it may be too prevalent in some armies, but that this is best fixed by requiring core cavalry choices to pair up with an infantry unit.

WHFB is set during the high middle ages. Cavalry should rule the battlefield. If you want infantry to dominate, play Napoleonics.


What you have written here applies only to vampire counts, tomb kings can't raise additional skeletons nor do they have any weapon options on the tomb guard. Tomb kings aren't an overpowered list and will simply loose out with this rule. They aren't a hoarde army either but still get lumped in with goblins/ skaven etc.

I freely admit I haven’t played against TK. I’ve played against VC quite a bit and they are a tough army.

They don’t need a shield wall to win, either.

Skeletons for VC are a great deal. You buy a small tooled-up unit and grow it during the game. It’s pretty much the first thing you learn about playing VC.


I am officially really sick of this thread. It has proved to be a complete waste of my time. So, this will be my last post in it.

Shoulda stopped there.


Regarding Kat's brilliant expose on how a S3 T3 troop can charge an outnumbering, equally armed S3 T3 troop and, despite costing more pts, not always win: Even if this were a problem, taking away the parry bonus of the goblins would change the swordsmen damage to 1.333 kills instead of 1... wheee...

Study the concept of expected value and get back to us. A modest shift in percentages translates into far larger numbers in practice.


When I said "unneeded splash effects," I wasn't talking about shifts in each of the different armies, I was talking about shifts in unit type balance. Under this rule, any heavy cav (+ some fast cav such as Wild Riders) that charges on S5 would be gaining. And we all know calvary need some kind of boost against the standard rank and file infantry regiments out there, right? errr...

Gaining against whom, though?

Dwarves? Elves? Chaos? Orcs? Nope.

Only the horde troops using HW/S are really affected by this. Halberds and spears aren’t. Great weapons aren’t.

Heavy cavalry in fact would be gaining against troops that cost 1/5 to 1/6 their price, right? (Actually, in some cases we’re looking at 1/8 or even 1/12.)

Cry me a river. These troops are paying nothing for that bonus save. It’s free. That being the case, how can taking it away totally undermine game balance?


Alright, I iz done.
No! I iz not! I have one more thing to say: The problems this rule would supposedly solve are fixable in other ways. This rule is too wide-ranging to cope with them as efficiently and effectively as multiple specific fixes would.

Yes, I know: We can create endless add-ons that boost all other weapons to the point that HW/S once again cry that they need something extra.


P.S.- Ignore CvT. Arguing with him is a waste of time and effort. If you're not on his side, just argue with those who agree with him.

Heh. :) If my arguments lacked merit, folks wouldn’t be agreeing with them and you wouldn’t be responding to them.

Yanos
30-08-2005, 12:53
Whoo, how did you guys manage to cover so much ground over one weekend?? Took me ages to get through all that...

For the record, I'm planting my flag behind CvT, along with maxwell123 and samw. I take on board that Elite Infantry will not improve versus Cavalry and other high WS troops, but surely we can all agree that something needs to be done about the immovable object that is the 4+ AS horde unit? Which is why this thread got started. I agree that TK will get hit by this, but there's a lot more to TK armies than Skeleton blocks, likewise VC armies.

On a side note, I shall now try to use such words as "specious" and "trifecta" in more of my posts :D!

Avian
30-08-2005, 13:08
but surely we can all agree that something needs to be done about the immovable object that is the 4+ AS horde unit?
Why do we need to do anything about them?
When you get blasted by Warp Lightning, stomped by Gork's Warpath or you're having raised Zombies dansing into your rear, do you usually think:
"Gee, it's the extra +1 armour save of those units over there that's really making the difference."
???

Yanos
30-08-2005, 13:13
:confused:

No, because it has nothing to do with any of those situations.

:confused:

Drakemaster
30-08-2005, 14:12
Well, my suggestion does seem to have generated a fair bit of discussion anyway! I'm encouraged to see that a majority (even if a far from overwhelming one) seem to be in favour. There certainly seems to be far more support for this option than getting rid of the HW/S bonus altogether. And despite reading through a good number of arguments against it, I still feel it would be a good change. It's not perfect, and yes a more effective way to assure game balance might be to return to the army books/point costs, and the weapon rules in general. But from the 7th ed. rumours that have surfaced so far, its looking like minor changes to the core rules and army books remaining valid. As such, I think this change would be a good simple rules change that would help the units I feel need the most help (elite infantry) and penalise uunits that I feel (and I realise this is not everyone's view) are too effective for their bargin points cost. The main sufferers would be WS2 troops that use the HW/S combo, and there really aren't that many of them.

Avian
30-08-2005, 14:17
The main sufferers would be WS2 troops that use the HW/S combo, and there really aren't that many of them.
And you don't have any of them, do you?

Could the reason that slightly more people are in favour of this suggestion perhaps be connected to the fact that most people would not suffer from it?

Commissar von Toussaint
30-08-2005, 14:21
Why do we need to do anything about them?
When you get blasted by Warp Lightning, stomped by Gork's Warpath or you're having raised Zombies dansing into your rear, do you usually think:
"Gee, it's the extra +1 armour save of those units over there that's really making the difference."
???

My Empire and High Elf armies will be sure to use those tactics against hordes in the future. :rolleyes:

Yesterday I rechecked some of the army books in light of the criticism I recieved.

As I mentioned before, most of the horde armies have alternative weapons that they never use.

Goblins with spears? Skeletons with spears? Skaven slaves with spears?

Does anyone use these?

If HW/S became conditional, they might. And if people begain making noises that they were less than optimal, we could look at it again.

But I think everyone can agree that the shield bonus shouldn't be free. There has to be a limit to it.

This is probably the best option out there because it allows low WS troops to get it at least some of the time. Setting WS 4 or higher would take out a huge chunk of several armies.

This way it is relative. Saurus would get it vs most line infantry. Skellies and goblins would get it against each other.

Grave Guard also would get it against most line infantry, or they would use halberds which, with a base S4, and Killing Blow, are pretty nasty. I have to admit that the VC player I game against always gives his Grave Guard this weapons combination and it is quite vicious.

I see somewhat where Avian is coming from, but I think he's missing the point. One shouldn't have to use magic or artillery against horde troops. Superior line infantry should be enough to at least shove them back a little.

Elite infantry should wade through them.

If one looks at most elite infantry (particularly S3), they don't do that. If you take away the bonus save, they start to.

Horde units aren't about protection, they are about numbers. They can take twice as many casualties and still function.

Does this hurt some units? Yes, but I think I made it clear that just about every list will also make a gain because their elites will negate other rank and file HW/S bonuses.

And, not to belabor the point, it also makes alternative weapon options more attractive - particularly for elite troops.

Now some folks have suggested things like improving Halberds to Armor Piercing or giving spears some power against the charge, but it seems to me that all of these are a roundabout way of taking down the free power of HW/S.

There is always a tacit acknowledgement that because HW/S is such a great bargain, we have to offer more to compensate for the points one pays for other powers.

My solution to this is pretty simple: rather than create new rules that need to be balanced across a dozen army lists and countless units, why not address the core issue: HW/S.

Spears have always fought in ranks. Halberds have always done +1 strength.

Those are venerable and proven game mechanics. They are simple to understand and fit nicely in the game context.

HW/S is the odd man out; it's the new rule that has to prove its worth and it isn't doing all that great.

My goal is to get people to get past thinking out their specific army will do and look at the game as a whole.

If you play undead, yes, there is a downside. There is also an upside though, because other weapon choices become more viable.

Skeletons with spears will usually hit on 4s and wound on 4s or 5s. They are expensive, but you can make more during the game, so your potential savings are actually greater.

The shield bonus isn't going away utterly; your troops still get a 5+ save against missile fire so the point you pay is worth it.

As for goblins and other hordes, c'mon. How much staying power should 3 points a model really give you?

If you need that to win, I honestly feel sorry for you. I play Orcs and use lots of goblins and it bothers me not at all.

When I used to play 5th edition, I found the power of characters, magic and magic items overpowering. Infantry blocks really didn't stand a chance.

So my friends and I got together and we came up with some house rules to make the game better.

We limited characters, cut down on magic items, and decided that filling-in ranks could swing back in hth. This allowed greatswords to actually swing and made big infantry blocks more useful.

None was more pleased than I when GW came out with their 6th edition changes. They didn't do everything they way we did, but it worked out well enough.

I look at this is a similar situation. I doubt GW will adopt our proposal whole cloth, but I think it works.

My only regret is that I didn't think of it myself, but at least I can appreciate a great idea when I see it.

I have one final question: How many of you who voted "no" have since changed your position? I think support for this is now greater than it was at first.

Drakemaster
30-08-2005, 14:30
And you don't have any of them, do you?

Actually, I do. I have Orc and Goblin and Skaven armies. OK, I also have dwarf and High Elf armies. But still, I didn't suggest this change because it helps some of my armies, I suggested it because it would help elite infantry, which I strongly believe needs a bit of a boost.

Avian
30-08-2005, 14:37
As I mentioned before, most of the horde armies have alternative weapons that they never use.

Goblins with spears? Skeletons with spears? Skaven slaves with spears?

Does anyone use these?

If HW/S became conditional, they might. And if people begain making noises that they were less than optimal, we could look at it again.
What you are not getting is that horde units don't win combats by kills and so you NEVER want to spend points on weapon upgrades. You never fight well enough to make it worth the cost.
Who in their right mind would increase a unit's cost by 50% to get 5 additional WS2 S3 attacks?
The problem is not just (as some people apparently think) that for example spears on skeletons are not worth it compared to hw+sh, they're not worth it compared to anything.
That is the crux and the thing people who don't play horde armies get wrong.

What would happen is that a lot of infantry units get worse a lot of the time.
People would still take the same unit, with the same options, or - if shields are optional - without shields. You are not going to suddenly start paying for a weapon option that does you no good and costs a lot of point for a unit whose purpose is to provide a lot of static CR. If you wanted to spend points on it, you'd make it bigger instead.

So, largely speaking:
Same unit, only worse.

Is ranked infantry too good? No, it ain't.

Commissar von Toussaint
30-08-2005, 17:50
What you are not getting is that horde units don't win combats by kills and so you NEVER want to spend points on weapon upgrades.

What you're suggesting is that they shouldn't lose them by kills, either. :rolleyes:


You never fight well enough to make it worth the cost.
Who in their right mind would increase a unit's cost by 50% to get 5 additional WS2 S3 attacks?

I don't know about that. My goblins with spears do well enough. Against most rank and file units they are just like human spears: hit on 4s, wound on 4s.

For the really tough guys, I send in the Big Uns and Black Orcs.

If you don't get a 4+ save, the other options start to have merit. Spears aren't that awful and doubling your attacks means you might get something accomplished.

But I concede that the present deal is so unbalanced that it renders other options unattractive.


The problem is not just (as some people apparently think) that for example spears on skeletons are not worth it compared to hw+sh, they're not worth it compared to anything.

Again, you're arguing with a guy who has a lot of goblin spears, so I obviously disagree.

Why do I have them? Because they come in the LOTR boxes and because unlike many other players, I put aethetics and flavor before winning.

That doesn't mean I wouldn't like a more balanced game. Just as high elf players know that all cav or the Seer Council is the way to win but still like to take infantry.


That is the crux and the thing people who don't play horde armies get wrong.

Ah, but I do play a horde army. I use no magic or war machines, just 36 inches of orcs and goblins ranked six to eight inches deep. :eek:

And I think it's stupid that my crap goblins can give elite elven troops such a hassle.


What would happen is that a lot of infantry units get worse a lot of the time.

Er, no. The units that would get worse are few. At least twice that many would get better.

The rest would vary and that itself I find interesting.

I think it would add a whole new level to the game tactically. Instead of just looking at armor saves, S and T, now people would also be looking at whether the default choice of shield would work or not.

I think that's really neat. I also think it would be neat to have people factoring WS into which units charge where, knowing that HW/S can be negated.

As it stands, people think nothing of cannoning their fodder into elite troops, hoping to bog them down.

With this in place, people might actually try to match like with like, or maneuver to bring their most skilled warriors on the enemy's.

WS 5 elites suddenly look a lot more interesting. People might be more motivated to use them because their high WS would act as armor piercing against even decent line troops.

By the same token, players with low to moderate WS may want to reconsider their choices and deployment knowing that decent halberd-armed elites effectively apply a -2 save to their blocking units.

Whereas you see it taking away, I see as it adding a whole new level of tactics to the game.



People would still take the same unit, with the same options, or - if shields are optional - without shields. You are not going to suddenly start paying for a weapon option that does you no good and costs a lot of point for a unit whose purpose is to provide a lot of static CR. If you wanted to spend points on it, you'd make it bigger instead.

I don't disagree that the min-maxers will be upset if this becomes the rule, and I honestly don't care.

Actually, I do care: I will derive a certain amount of pleasure from their unhappiness, just as I'd find the howling of protests about the Steam Tank being toned down amusing. :evilgrin:


So, largely speaking:
Same unit, only worse.

Against some armies, yes, against others, no.

That's the way the game works. Flagellants got worse, greatswords got better. Most high elf stuff got worse but people still play some of it.


Is ranked infantry too good? No, it ain't.

Whoa, we're not talking about ranked infantry, we're talking about horde infantry.

I know, you'll counter by pointing out that 3-point troops can no longer get a save against 24+ point cavalry. Boo freaking hoo.

Hordes are there to suck up hideous losses and bog people down, not to have a higher survival rate than High Elf elites.

A broad front of horde troops with lots of spears (who need shields?) is a rather pokey thing to charge into. Yeah, hit on 4s, wound on 4s, but you can't kill them all and some can get lucky.

A while back Kat noted that one of the biggest problems with HW/S - particularly for hordes - was that it was an unthinking choice.

He was right. A unit that is dirt cheap and durable? No contest.

Here is my question for you or anyone else who hates this: If choosing units in WHFB is about tradeoffs, what do horde players give up for that 4+ save? What price in points or selection do they pay for something many elites can't even get?

Bloodknight
31-08-2005, 00:50
As a TK player I donīt like it. The TK skeleton seems overpriced as is (I use spears and shields, because I like the look of ranked skeletons with the same weapons and I couldnīt get enough Khemrian Khepesh swords to make a block of 25) at 10 points per model and the blocks not being able to be enlarged by magic, meaning 275 pt for 25 with full command.

Also TK priests can revive them but normally you have to do other things with your mediocre magic.10 P - Thatīs per model one point less than a DE Executioner for a WS 2 S3 T3 troop. OK, skeletons cause fear, but when the profile of a skeleton is compared to a goblin fear costs 6 points.

Their style of fighting is not to get killed in the first round (remember crumbling, normally you lose the amount of kills again) so the good units get to fight. If that +1 gets removed you have to buy more to get the same survivability and such cutting into the budget for the guys who can actually fight ( the blocks will cost over 300 pts then).

These actually donīt include Tomb Guard which cost marginally less than chaos warriors and normally get one kill per round and a KB every 2nd round. Also they have no weapon options and canīt get heavy armour like Grave Guard. Also they canīt be pushed offensively as much (no Banner of the barrows).

Dunno if people get my point, but I donīt see how skeletons are too good. Also even Goblins need the survivability. Being more doesnīt help so much, not getting killed is their job. In the "no parry-scenario" you still donīt get mileage out of spears as most of them get killed normally before they get to swing. Theyīll just run more easiliy, being even more unreliable. I fear that ranked normal Infantry would get hurt too much.
Also thereīd be one offender: in the WS4 can parry-scenario the Empire swordsman will be too good for his points when compared to empire spearmen, halberdiers, all WS 3 and worse troops. Empire players already seem to take only swordsmen with handgunner and free company detachments, this shouldnīt be pushed even more.


If people are interested: I play TK, DoW (wouldnīt either lose or benefit as shields arenīt really used in this army except on knights, which donīt use that rule, and norse berserkers which normally donīt use shields in CC but flails or GW) and dwarfs (might get better, but thereīs a new book coming).

Nurglitch
31-08-2005, 04:54
Question: Are you saying that tying the parry rule to WS4 and above troops is bad, or are you saying that tying the parry rule to WS at all is bad?

I think the proposal here is to discuss whether it is a good idea to tie the parry rule to WS so that models can only parry against other models when they have equal or greater weapon skill.

Commissar von Toussaint
31-08-2005, 05:40
As I said, I prefer this to a threshold of WS 4 because it offers more flexibility and more troops will still get the bonus. I see no reason why WS 3 troops shouldn't get it when fighting other WS 3 troops.

Tomb Kings I'm not an authority on. Just my opinion, but they always struck me as an add-on army (which they are) and when the book came out, lots of folks said that they were inferior to VC in a lot of ways.

That being said, I have to admit I'm a bit confused. If you take spears, you can resurrect them to keep them up to strength for free. How difficult this is varies by your opponent's countermagic, but it's there.

Also, you can use magic to get extra attacks as well. With spears this means you can get the second rank to fight during the main phase, than a bonus attack later.

Again, I haven't played against them at all, but I don't see this as crippling an otherwise potent and balanced army.

Wickerman71
31-08-2005, 05:52
If HW/S became conditional, they might. And if people begain making noises that they were less than optimal, we could look at it again.

But I think everyone can agree that the shield bonus shouldn't be free. There has to be a limit to it.

Peeing on my Corn Flakes does not make me want to eat the toast you already did a #2 on. Spears don't become any more attractive because of Limiting HW&S at least to me.

The bonus is as FREE on Elite infantry as it is for Hordes. your burning the candle at both ends with Elves the big victors over Undead being big losers. How is this balancing the game??


This way it is relative. Saurus would get it vs most line infantry. Skellies and goblins would get it against each other.

Wow, Lizardmen player must be relieved that Sauras can go toe to toe with guys 1/3rd to a 1/2 there point cost. I'm so relieved that my skellies stand up to guys 1/4 their point cost.


Grave Guard also would get it against most line infantry, or they would use halberds which, with a base S4, and Killing Blow, are pretty nasty. I have to admit that the VC player I game against always gives his Grave Guard this weapons combination and it is quite vicious.

Good Lord, you don't take Grave Guard to wipe the floor with base line infantry. those suckers cost 13pts a piece with shields. Killing Blow is meant to take out bigger stuff than a block of Miltia. Grave Guard are Elite Infantry as well they may not have high WS to show for it (but it's not to sabby for Undead).


I see somewhat where Avian is coming from, but I think he's missing the point. One shouldn't have to use magic or artillery against horde troops. Superior line infantry should be enough to at least shove them back a little.

Elite infantry should wade through them.

So a Horde Army should never win against a Regular or Elite Army. Any point you raised about this being balanced or fair you just shot in the behind with your above statment.

Drakemaster
31-08-2005, 09:12
So a Horde Army should never win against a Regular or Elite Army. Any point you raised about this being balanced or fair you just shot in the behind with your above statment.
While I understand your other points, this is hardly fair. What CvT is saying is that barring other factors (magical casualties, flanking units etc) is that a unit of horde infantry should loose against an equally sized unit of elite infantry. Surely you can't disagree with this?

Commissar von Toussaint
31-08-2005, 12:47
Peeing on my Corn Flakes does not make me want to eat the toast you already did a #2 on. Spears don't become any more attractive because of Limiting HW&S at least to me.

Then don't use them.


The bonus is as FREE on Elite infantry as it is for Hordes. your burning the candle at both ends with Elves the big victors over Undead being big losers. How is this balancing the game??[/qutoe]

If they are already paying for halberds or spears, it isn't exactly free, is it? :rolleyes:

[quote]Wow, Lizardmen player must be relieved that Sauras can go toe to toe with guys 1/3rd to a 1/2 there point cost. I'm so relieved that my skellies stand up to guys 1/4 their point cost.

When you say "stand up to," are you imply that without a 4+ save they can't? That's pretty sad.


Good Lord, you don't take Grave Guard to wipe the floor with base line infantry. those suckers cost 13pts a piece with shields. Killing Blow is meant to take out bigger stuff than a block of Miltia. Grave Guard are Elite Infantry as well they may not have high WS to show for it (but it's not to sabby for Undead).

Indeed, and when you give them halberds they become pretty damn hard. S5 and Killing Blow is nothing to laugh at.

I don't think they lose all their value if you take away the HW/S bonus. Obviously you do.


So a Horde Army should never win against a Regular or Elite Army. Any point you raised about this being balanced or fair you just shot in the behind with your above statment.

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm saying. :rolleyes:

Given that I play a horde army, that's a pretty unlikely position for me to take, isn't it?

I have to wonder if people are so blinded by love for their chosen army that they can't even - just for a moment - examine how it balances with other forces.

Can you look for a nanosecond at the other implications of this change? Higher WS orc units get a nice bonus - and most aren't affected.

I also have to laugh about your whinging about skeletons being on a level footing with models that cost 1/4 their cost - gosh, how much more than goblins do all the elite infantry cost? Five times? Six?

And yet if goblins don't get a 4+ save against them why it's time to pack up and go home, no point in playing the game, can't possibly win. :cries:

Here's my proposal: Try it.

Play a game with the new rule. I intend to as soon as I can game again (which unfortunately may be a while :cries: ).

Pick your army with it in mind and see what happens. Proxy if you have to, but try to see if the negation matters and where it matters. In a lot of cases it won't. In some cases it will and that can be good or bad.

Someone earlier stated that they would react by not giving their horde troops any upgrades, even shields.

I think that's fair enough.

The problem isn't that horde armies shouldn't be able to win. I play a horde army and I like to win.

The problem isn't that 4+ saves are unfair. They are fair, if you pay for them.

The problem is that this is a freebie given to units that don't need it - and that hurts everyone else.

Hordes are supposed to be just that: hordes. They come in so fast you can't kill them all.

They aren't supposed to be hard to kill. This puts hordes where they belong and adds a nice new tactical element for everyone else.

Wickerman71
31-08-2005, 14:24
Is that a unit of horde infantry should loose against an equally sized unit of elite infantry. Surely you can't disagree with this?

They don't already??? Get off the Blow dude!!!



Indeed, and when you give them halberds they become pretty damn hard. S5 and Killing Blow is nothing to laugh at.

I would take +2 AS for one point EVERY TIME over +1S for 2 points



I also have to laugh about your whinging about skeletons being on a level footing with models that cost 1/4 their cost - gosh, how much more than goblins do all the elite infantry cost? Five times? Six?

They aren't supposed to be hard to kill. This puts hordes where they belong and adds a nice new tactical element for everyone else.

First off I don't give a crap about this rule affecting 2 pt models. Skaven slaves & goblins die any way though the casalties are up 1 or 2 on average is needless. Because these units are not the one betting you. I've never heard any comlianing before regarding these units except on this post. the 2pt model units already get mowed though no more tuning is needed. I fail to see how this suggested rule balances any thing I DON'T SEE IT.

Commissar von Toussaint
31-08-2005, 14:33
They don't already??? Get off the Blow dude!!!

If your position is so strong, why make the personal attack? :eyebrows:


I would take +2 AS for one point EVERY TIME over +1S for 2 points

Obviously - you pick the free bonus because it is cheaper.

Perhaps I was wrong in assuming you'd read any of this thread. I apologize.

To review: HW/S is artificially low. This has been demonstrated many, many times.

So yes, it is entirely understandable that you would gravitate to it.

If that discount were removed, you would have one of two options:

1. Use the halberd for enhanced capability
2. Have models that reflect their true cost in terms of effectiveness.

Either way, game balance is improved.


First off I don't give a crap about this rule affecting 2 pt models.

Then why did you write on it at such great length? :confused:


Skaven slaves & goblins die any way though the casalties are up 1 or 2 on average is needless.

It isn't needless. Elite infantry are not very effective against horde infantry with HW/S. This redresses that.


Because these units are not the one betting you. I've never heard any comlianing before regarding these units except on this post.

Then you haven't read much on Warseer or Portent. This is a recurring theme.

It did not begin with this thread and it likely will not end here.


the 2pt model units already get mowed though no more tuning is needed.

Again, this contradicts the experience of others, including my own observations. Goblins with HW/S tend to be quite durable, even against troops that are several times their point cost. I don't think this is right.


I fail to see how this suggested rule balances any thing I DON'T SEE IT.

We get the picture. Try a game and see what happens. If nothing else, it shakes up the normal interplay of the armies and makes HW/S less of a default choice.

I am very interested in trying it out.

Wickerman71
31-08-2005, 19:42
Facts don't support what your saying

Baltimore GT top 10 finishers:
VC x 3 (Undead); O&G (Horde); Chaos BM x 2 (Mid); DE (Elite); LM x 3 (Mid)

Chicago GT top 10 finishers:
VC x 3 (Undead); LM (Mid); Chaos x 2 (Elite); Skaven (Horde); Chaos BM(Mid); Brets (Elite); O&G (Horde)

Seattle GT top 10 finishers:
LM (Mid); Chaos Deamon (Elite); Dwarves (Elite); VC (Sylvania) (Undead); DE (Elite); Brets (Elite); Chaos (Elite); WE (Elite); Skaven (Horde) Cult of Slanesh (Elite)

Are Horde armies dominant No, the only thing I see is VC show up too offten (why not because of HW&S combo but rather flying circus armies) face facts your just a small number of whiners with nothing better to cry about.

GranFarfar
31-08-2005, 20:08
My thought about this rule where at first very positive. But have during the course of this discussion changed my mind.

I still like the rule from a... "fluff" point of view. But I donīt think it would solve any game-balance problems.

The way I see it, introducing this rule would Indeed make Elite infantry better against the great hordes. Which I also agree they in alot of cases need to be.
But on the other hand, it would also make horde infantry worse against heavy cav. This is the opposite of whats need too be done.
My experience (as a Bret player) is that heavy cav is way too effective.

The conclusion I make is that, the game woulndīt be more balanced - the balance would just shift slightly.
If Elite infantry isnīt good enough against Horde - improve the Elite against such foes. This will(hopefully) increase there role against such units,and will(again, hopefully) without setting a damp on the horde infantrys effectiveness against heavy cav.

I am all to aware of the fact that HW/S is the most popular and in most cases also the best weapon choice for the grunts - which indeed is a shame. Personally I think that all weapon should be equally attractive. A dream to never come true.

The problem with fixing the weapon (in)balance is a rather tricky thing to do. The result is usually that another weapon becomes the automatic choice.

Sorry if I floted of the subject a bit... or alot there. I tend to do that.

Sir Charles
31-08-2005, 20:38
Couldn't you just say that they still get this parry against calvary, at least on the charge, seeing as how the calvary is to busy charging in to do any fancy manuvering to get past the soilders guard, the fact that they don't realy have to get past the guard probably already being inclded in the charge strength bonus.

Nurglitch
31-08-2005, 21:18
Charging cavalry is doing a fancy enough maneuvre to get past the guard of a man armed with a sword and shield. It's called riding straight at them atop an 700lbs+ steed. Not to mention that a well-trained horseman should be able to slide the tip of his weapon past the guard of any active target.

Commissar von Toussaint
31-08-2005, 21:40
Facts don't support what your saying

They don't support you either because they are inconclusive.

There are tens of thousands of warhammer players. One cannot extrapolate army balance based on a handful of tournaments where army list selection may be far from typical.

Moreover, you didn't provide the army lists in question. So it is impossible to tell if the "dominant armies" used HW/S or not. You've offered a single and ambiguous data point as if it is a crushing argument all by itself.

Sorry, it isn't.


My experience (as a Bret player) is that heavy cav is way too effective.

Your cavalry or all cavalry? Just curious.


The conclusion I make is that, the game woulndīt be more balanced - the balance would just shift slightly.
If Elite infantry isnīt good enough against Horde - improve the Elite against such foes. This will(hopefully) increase there role against such units,and will(again, hopefully) without setting a damp on the horde infantrys effectiveness against heavy cav.

Any change that makes WS more important will have a similar effect.

Knights tend to have high WS so it's a very difficult call.

Heavy cav negates most armor saves anyway. Questing and Errant knights cancel it outright, as do IC Empire.


I am all to aware of the fact that HW/S is the most popular and in most cases also the best weapon choice for the grunts - which indeed is a shame. Personally I think that all weapon should be equally attractive. A dream to never come true.

This does more than most suggestions out there, though.


The problem with fixing the weapon (in)balance is a rather tricky thing to do. The result is usually that another weapon becomes the automatic choice.

I don't think so. I think weapons choices will become more specific.

Against certain types of enemies, certain weapons will predominate.

HW/S will still be popular because it is cheap and gives good missile fire protection. And a 5+ save isn't insignificant.

Some will drop the shield altogether and go with more grunts, which is fine.

But others will give other options a second look in light of the new balance.

As for cavalry concerns, I suppose one could modify the rule by stating that the HW/S bonus can be negated by models with a higher WS on foot.

I have seen the issue raised repeatedly.

Would that remove the objections to this?

Sir Charles
31-08-2005, 23:10
Charging cavalry is doing a fancy enough maneuvre to get past the guard of a man armed with a sword and shield. It's called riding straight at them atop an 700lbs+ steed. Not to mention that a well-trained horseman should be able to slide the tip of his weapon past the guard of any active target.

Yes that was what I was refering two when I mentioned my assumption in regard to the +2sb.

Edit:CvT you seem to have the wrong name in the quote you disected, that was the post before mine that suggested that, all I did was suggest the samething in regards to calvary that you did.

Wickerman71
01-09-2005, 00:04
There are tens of thousands of warhammer players. One cannot extrapolate army balance based on a handful of tournaments where army list selection may be far from typical.

Though the lists tend to be optimal & selection will favor majority situations (they tend to be better lists than that you run across in your game club). They offer a perspective on armies outside of your own little group. By all means go & view all GT results, you'll find your view of horde armies being domant a myth.

Chaos are the best showings & they use knights & warriors (Elites). Out of the horde armies Skaven have the best showing, though I would believe it due to Rat Guns & Engineers than 3pt slaves with shields.

Yes Elite Infantry took a hit in 6th from 5th edtion; they needed to. Was it to big a hit perhaps, does limiting HW&S bonus correct this I think not. Is this rule going to make Black Guard more of an option I don't see it.

Just to show where I'm coming from I play the following

Vampire Counts (nothing gained here & lose 2 effective units )
Skaven (Clan Rats weakened a bit)
Ogre Kingdoms (Minor gains; I never take Ironfists)
Wood Elves (Large Gains; but do I need them)

I'm not hit very hard by this, nothing I can not over come though selection.

Now lets take a look at an army I don't collect TK. They lose their only 2 ranking line units HW&S combo to all but the worst of units. Incantation of Summoning is no where near as strong as VC's. Tomb Kings unit sizes are fixed with army selection they can't raise above starting troops or make new Units. Is TK an over powered army with HW&S no, are they so great of an army that they can afford to lose it no.

While I never intended bring up the GT results as convesation stopper, though that is how you may have taken it. I was only trying to show that your view on cheap troops with HW&S being over powering is just that; your view.

Commissar von Toussaint
01-09-2005, 01:38
Though the lists tend to be optimal & selection will favor majority situations (they tend to be better lists than that you run across in your game club). They offer a perspective on armies outside of your own little group. By all means go & view all GT results, you'll find your view of horde armies being domant a myth.

Actually, that's not necessarily true.

GT armies are evaluated on a variety of characteristics that are supposed to mitigate or prevent min-maxing. At least, that's what they tell everyone.

Furthermore, one of the problems I have with GW is its emphasis on a tournament environment. There is more to Warhammer than the GT standings. I have never and most likely never will play in one. I have no desire to.

So your "evidence" is immaterial.


While I never intended bring up the GT results as convesation stopper, though that is how you may have taken it. I was only trying to show that your view on cheap troops with HW&S being over powering is just that; your view.

Sure you did. You cited them as proof that certain armies are better or more advantageous than others.

But your evidence doesn't prove that. For starters, your sample size is unrepresentative in several ways.

It excludes anyone is can't or won't spend a lot pf money on a tournament. Also excluded are those who use non-GW figures.

Your sample doesn't take the individual taste of the players themselves into account even in your own sample. Many players own multiple armies and they rotate them based on a variety of factors. Based on posts I saw on Portent, I know that many choose GT armies not on what will win, but what will look good and reflect well on them as a player/painter/general.

In such circumstances the "easy armies" are often shunned as beneath the best of the best.

Basically, GT winner lists tell you only one thing: who won that GT.

I don't care about GTs one way or the other. If they vanished into the Warp tomorrow I wouldn't notice.

Game balance I notice and I think this will enhance it. I will grant you that Tomb Kings may not do so well, but I haven't run across a lot of people saying they're a great list anyway.

Right after it came out the consensus was they were a disappointment. They were better than the RH list, but that wasn't saying much: that thing was unplayable.

In short, I think TK are a bad example of an otherwise strong army that gets weaker with this rule.

Yanos
01-09-2005, 10:23
I think it's possible that, were this rule to be brought in (and I still think it should), some troop types might need to take a minor points reduction to reflect it. I'm thinking mainly of TK Skeleton Warriors here, and possible Tomb Guard (not sure there). This is really to ensure that they can still capitalise on the features they need, which in this case is numbers.

With the 7th Ed Army Book revisions starting, it might be the time to slip such changes in ahead of the next BRB overhaul?

Anyone else think we should Sticky this thread? It's been batted back and forth for a week now :D!

Commissar von Toussaint
01-09-2005, 12:44
What I'm curious to know is how many people think this should only apply to models on foot?

Do people want to see this become uniform across the board or only and infantry thing?

Yanos
01-09-2005, 12:57
I think it would be hard to justify not applying this to cavalry, if it were to be introduced. The idea of parrying a charging lance seems downright silly, and it's already been pointed out that cavalry were supposed to be the zenith of warfare during the "Warhammer period", for want of a better term.

I could perhaps envisage those of WS6 or higher being able to parry under those circumstances, but they're invariably either characters, or not armed with HW&S (Swordmasters, Wardancers).

The other thing that leaps to mind is that cavalry are generally hitting from above at HW&S troops, making it even harder to justify an additional save for the poor blighters :(. Not sure where that leaves us, but that's my take.

Sir Charles
01-09-2005, 13:28
Its not that hard to justify just say that their ability to get past parries is already included in the strength bonus.

Yanos
01-09-2005, 13:41
This is true, but it still leaves us with the scenario of a WS2 S3 Goblin/Skeleton/Skavenslave being able to enhance their save by parrying a charging lance :cries:. In general, it would mean that infantry get a better save against cavalry than they do against their fellow footsloggers :D!

I don't think we could limit it in that way, it would have to be all or nothing, so I reckon.

Commissar von Toussaint
01-09-2005, 13:42
I'm just looking to build consensus here; reality wise I'm indifferent.

As a practical matter, heavy cavalry negates all or most of infantry armor saves anyway. I offer it in the spirit of compromise [translation: as a sop to people whining about changing the rule :p ]

Yanos
01-09-2005, 14:23
Proposition: allow HW&S infantry their full, current save against cavalry charging them, to represent (a) the infantry trying to put as much as possible between them and the high-speed steel as possible, and (b) the cavalry relying more on S and momentum than WS during the charge. In the 2nd and subsequent rounds of combat, both sides revert to the WS-dependent HW&S rules we've been discussing here, as skill becomes more of an issue after the initial charge.

Feel free to shoot this down, not 100% on it yet :eyebrows:.

Commissar von Toussaint
01-09-2005, 15:00
I like simplicity.

I therefore prefer the original "one size fits all" parry.

However, since the rule itself only applies to models on foot, I'm comfortable with limiting its negation to models on foot.

More than that and we're getting too complex.

What I want to know is how many people who have a problem with it for that reason would change their position if cavalry was different?

GranFarfar
01-09-2005, 18:18
Your cavalry or all cavalry? Just curious.


To me, all cavalry. Indeed Brets are the best(worse) out there. But this also applies to most cavalry units out there. As already mentioned here on Warseer this problem usually just occurs when multiple unit of knights takes the field.



Any change that makes WS more important will have a similar effect.

Knights tend to have high WS so it's a very difficult call.

Heavy cav negates most armor saves anyway. Questing and Errant knights cancel it outright, as do IC Empire.


Yes - Knights usually have higher WS, and therein lies the problem. True enough some knights will already cancel out the save completely on the charge( something I must admit I didnīt thought of and also that it is a very good point)

But there is still alot of knights with a meare S5 charge. Which is enough for me to justify keeping the HW/S for the poor infantrymen, since cavalry is in no need of strenght increase.




I don't think so. I think weapons choices will become more specific.

Against certain types of enemies, certain weapons will predominate.

HW/S will still be popular because it is cheap and gives good missile fire protection. And a 5+ save isn't insignificant.

Some will drop the shield altogether and go with more grunts, which is fine.

But others will give other options a second look in light of the new balance.


Sure, but you still get the same save with a spear, so in alot of cases spear would be an automatic choice over the hand weapon. Which wouldnīt solve the problem with HW/S being to automatic, just move it to spears(or perheps some other weapon). I would rather see an attempt to specify or increase the spears and haleberds.
Put perheps that is not the issue here(although there is a very popular issue otherwise)
IF the issue is to make elites better against horde infantry, you might get the result you want.



As for cavalry concerns, I suppose one could modify the rule by stating that the HW/S bonus can be negated by models with a higher WS on foot.

I have seen the issue raised repeatedly.

Would that remove the objections to this?

Sure - that sounds resonable enough. What I like about this solution is itīs simplisity. Easy to apply and to learn.

A more complicated and difficult way would be to try increas power of elite infantry, and decreas the power of heavy cav(or actually, in most cases just limit them - in Brets case, a slight power decrease)
I would actually prefer this way, but realise that it is a bit far fetch - and totally irrelivent to this discussion - and for that I appologise.

On a side note. Including this in the system would also make characters better, especially against elite infantry(agreed, not all of the, since alot of the elites donīt have more than 4+ or even 5+ in armour save)
This just struck me, and I havnīt had enough time to specualte in just how much more powerfull.
Just pointing it out, since I donīt think that characters should get any stronger - if anything they should get weaker. I rather have the troops, then the characters rule the field of battle.

Rioghan Murchadha
01-09-2005, 19:24
2 points.. don't feel like wading through all 11 pages for quotes, but..

GW has already made a mockery of the 10 point scale system they employ. How many things have you seen with weapon skill 1.. or 10 for that matter. Blood Dragon Lord, and Bloodthirster are the only 2 that come immediately to mind. That, and what the hell is the point of using a D6, when you can never hit more than 2/3 of the time? Why not use a D3?

Other point. How do Ironbreakers go from a 2+ save in CC to a 4 or 5+ against troops with better WS using this idea? They would only lose the +1 for parry, not the other +1 for carrying a shield in the first place, making them 3+ saves in CC.

R

Commissar von Toussaint
01-09-2005, 19:55
Other point. How do Ironbreakers go from a 2+ save in CC to a 4 or 5+ against troops with better WS using this idea? They would only lose the +1 for parry, not the other +1 for carrying a shield in the first place, making them 3+ saves in CC.

R

Not sure where that idea came from.

I pointed out a few pages ago that the only thing that could drop the Ironbreakers' save would have to be WS 6 - not exactly a common thing.

Rioghan Murchadha
01-09-2005, 23:48
Someone posted a few pages back how ironbreakers would have either a 4 or 5+ save with this idea, and would then suck.. too lazy to go find the post =)

R

Yanos
02-09-2005, 09:39
Ah, guilty here! I was referring to WS6 Swordmasters, one of the few units that would cancel the Ironbreakers' HW&S save bonus. So seeing as the SM are S5 all the time, that's a -2 modifier on a 3+ CC save, taking the IB to 5+. I didn't say they'd suck mind, just that they'd have something new to think about (and only against SM, Wardancers and Characters).

I'm in full agreement with Rioghan Murchadha (intriguing name!) regarding the WS chart, it is a bit of a travesty :cries:.

Commissar von Toussaint
02-09-2005, 13:41
Yes, the Swordmasters are tough. That's why they cost so much and you only get one unit.

Rioghan Murchadha
03-09-2005, 01:00
Heh.. the name is the Irish gaelic translation of my not so interesting mundane name (Ryan Murphy).

As far as the whole WS fiasco goes.. the main thing I find wrong with the whole picture is that even numbered weapon skills are largely useless. WS4? wow.. you hit WS 3 and lower on 3s. WS5? All of a sudden WS 2 models need 5s to hit you back. Likewise with 6 and 7, 8 and 9 etc. Balance aside, it IS sad that a bloodthirster, chosen Daemon of the blood god, living incarnation of battle, still misses a goblin 1/3 of the time.

The HW/S is only really a problem because everyone gets a HW for free, and shields are either free, or 1pt for a +2 AS in combat. make shields 2 pts, and don't give em as standard equipment on anything super cheap, all of a sudden you have to think twice about taking a shield on 1 gobbo, or a whole nother gobbo.

IMHO it's too complicated and knotty an issue to fix the entire rule within the context of this edition. But then.. that's just me.. and I'm self-admittedly lazy as indicated in the above few posts =)

Oh.. and as far as elves go, HE CAN be done as infantry.. My typical build was a 97 model all infantry no magic HE army, and though it was fairly character heavy (only way to pack a bit of punch into it), I ended up with a win record of over 75%. AND I used white lions =)

R

GranFarfar
03-09-2005, 08:30
The problem if you just up the cost one point for shileds, is that spearmen with shield will suffer also. Paying for a bonus they wonīt be using.
Sure they still CAN use the HW/S bonus - but that is not your intent if you are fielding spearmen. So cheaper troopers without the spears would in my eyes still be the prefered chioce.

Althougt this is not about HE infantry forces I canīt resist speeking my oppinion.
HE infantry is not a competative force.
If you had an 75% win ratio with yourīs Ryan I appluade you. But I think this has more to do with you probably being a supperior player too you opponent than the strenght of the HE infantry. (This is of course just an oppinion, not the ultimate and final answear - so donīt be offended by it)

Hasmed
03-09-2005, 11:01
I very much like the idea of the parry save beiing negated by higher WS.
However I think that the "only one point difference and negate bonus" is alittle harsh.
Maybe if it were 2 points higher?
That way WS2 troops would not get their save by WS4 attackers,WS3 troops would suffer against elite WS5 troops and finally WS4 would be at disadvantage against legendary level WS6(for troops this is...)

I also think that cavalry should not benefit from this rule as they have already many advantages over infantry.This is not about realism on the most part but about balance at least as I see it.

Also to those claiming that there will be no reason NOT to take spears/halberds remember that a unit will still remain cheaper...

Rioghan Murchadha
03-09-2005, 15:31
The problem if you just up the cost one point for shileds, is that spearmen with shield will suffer also. Paying for a bonus they wonīt be using.
Sure they still CAN use the HW/S bonus - but that is not your intent if you are fielding spearmen. So cheaper troopers without the spears would in my eyes still be the prefered chioce.

Althougt this is not about HE infantry forces I canīt resist speeking my oppinion.
HE infantry is not a competative force.
If you had an 75% win ratio with yourīs Ryan I appluade you. But I think this has more to do with you probably being a supperior player too you opponent than the strenght of the HE infantry. (This is of course just an oppinion, not the ultimate and final answear - so donīt be offended by it)

That's actually why I suggested only not making shields free on cheap ass throw away units. Spearmen get them as standard equipment, that wouldn't change. particularly elf spearmen =). But certainly making a shield 2 pts for any model under say, 7 pts if I were to pull a number out of my butt, and it becomes a real issue to think about during army construction. Sure, you could have a unit of 20 gobbos with a 5+ save, or you could have a unit of 40 with no save.

But then again, I don't honestly think this would fix the problem. As I pointed out, it's a little too hard to fix with a band-aid.

As for the HE infantry thing. The main reason I ran that army was for a challenge, and because it's not all that effective. But I'd been playing High Elves for nigh on 13 years, so experience will tell =). Finally gave em up for Woodies, as I really really dislike the feel of the high elves this edition.

R

TeddyC
03-09-2005, 17:11
For what its worth i dont think it should be tied to WS at all.

Otherwise you would have to tie combat more to WS.... i.e. WS3 vs 3 needing 4+, WS3 vs 4 needing 5+ and vs WS5 or more needing 6s....

The reason why it probably doesnt negate the bonus at the moment is even a gobbo could instictivley put a shield in the way of a blow at the mast moment.

Nurglitch
03-09-2005, 17:44
Why would tying the HW/S bonus to WS necessitate changing the To Hit chart?

Also, parrying is much more difficult than you might think and you can tell when someone is better than you when they can get through your fence and avoid your parries.

So the reason that even a goblin or other WS2 (aka untrained) model will instinctively parry is contradicted by the point that a more skilled warrior will be able to neutralize less skilled parries.

Lordmonkey
03-09-2005, 18:58
No. Silly idea with no grounds in realism or balance, IMO.

This would basically make high ws armies like elves and chaos more difficult to beat, without just cause. Some armies literally can't field troops with WS as high as these even on elite terms (undead? skaven?) and so they would literally be the superior force. You may aswell write special rules next to them saying "X armies get no hw/shield save in combat vs these guys". And I don't even see why the rule causes such a problem. So the enemy outnumber you 5 to 1 with inferior troops with good armour saves. So play a refused flank and remember that you have good armour saves too. Either that, or take high strength troops to get through it. Remember heavy cavalry? Noone seems to use them anymore barring chaos, because rank bonuses and the hw/shield combo seem so much more attractive. Why not combine a heavy charge with a a rnf unit?

Fair enough, some inferior troops can be ridiculous with their armour saves, but IMO, this just calls for a little bit of strategy in the form of combat resolution, flanking, etc...

Rioghan Murchadha
03-09-2005, 22:57
Ah, but LordMonkey, they problem is, you don't always get your own good armour saves. Certainly not on the cheap anyway. Let's use everyone's favorite example again.. HE Spearmen.

Deconstructing the cost of an elf spearman, you come out to roughly 3 points for a spear useable in an extra rank. Why, oh why on earth would you pay 3 pts per model, and then throw that rule, and 300% more attacks out the window, for a +1 save modifier? The only time I could even see considering it, is if your unit gets charged by something that puts out a bucket of S3 attacks. But then wait.. spears work best when you get charged anyway as you lose a rank of attacks if you move.

See.. it's much easier to rationalize using HW/S on a 2-3 pt unit than one that pays so much for its weapons. what people are complaining about is that it's the cheap units that benefit so much, and for free.

Skaven don't NEED slaves with 5+ armour saves. and really.. do you think that a slave, being worked in the warpstone pits, and malnourished and all that, would even have the strength to parry the swing of say, a halbard, or greatsword? Not bloody likely.

Realism aside.. it's pretty ***** sad when your 200+ pt high elf spear regiment with their 'superior equipment and training' bounces off an 80 pt gobbo unit with the SAME armour save that they have.

R

Commissar von Toussaint
04-09-2005, 02:53
Rioghan pretty much nails it.

Low WS infantry are getting something for nothing, which is where the imbalance comes in. Spear and halberds are paying extra for their special rules, but HW/S pays zip.

Add in the low cost of the troops in question and that's where the problem lies.

I take the point about skeletons and the VC having a tough time of it. However, I think this is hugely exaggerated.

I also think that if you are relying on simply parking your skeletons next to someone and not doing any real damage, something is wrong. WS 2 means they hit on 4s most of the time - the same as most other armies against equal opponents. Skeletons also get to replace their losses.

Basically, I don't see the disaster in waiting that you describe.

My goal is to playtest it ASAP, particularly against undead.

Panic King
04-09-2005, 03:43
Superb idea. I'm also of the persuasion of the super high WS being wasted when you look at the point cost of those models which bear it. I learned this fairly early on, as I took a bunch of elite high WS units against a mob of orcs. I tended to kill more of them per round, but not nearly fast enough, considering I had about a third as many models on the board (and that's a conservative estimate). Those high WS units deserve something like this; they are paying ungodly amounts of points for something that doesn't help them an ungodly amount.

Nurglitch
04-09-2005, 04:35
CvT: How do you plan to test this so that you can make meaningful inferences about your results?

User Name
04-09-2005, 07:02
it dose balance the low cost of horde troops eith a 4+ save, but it sshould only be if the unit/model striking the blow has a higher ws even should get to keep the save as that would unbalance the rule towards ws3 troops. but makes spears and haliberds very nice choices for ws2 skellies and men at arms

Commissar von Toussaint
04-09-2005, 13:48
CvT: How do you plan to test this so that you can make meaningful inferences about your results?

I intend to play a lot of games. That's really the only way one can playtest.

Trying to set up convoluted or "scientific" trials only muddies the issue and I have a sense that this is what happened with the weaker books.

As anyone with a stat class will tell you, there's no substitute for a large sample.

I'll also limit the variables under consideration. In other words, I'll refrain from using the RH high elf list because that's a seperate issue.

The rule I will use will read thusly (append to the main rule):

However, this ability can be negated by warriors of superior skill. Therefore, models may not recieve this bonus against opposing models on foot with a higher weapon skill. Models with a lower weaponskill will still recieve this bonus against cavalry, mounted models, chariots, monsters, etc.

So what this does is narrow the focus to exclude dragons, knights and so forth.

I think that is what people wanted to see and I'm cool with it. Charging cavalry already hits hard enough and while I believe that sword and shield are vastly overrated vs the lance, the +2 strength bonus plus the horse are good enough to negate most if not all of it.

If other people are interested, I'd naturally like them to try it as well. Don't change up your armies, just see how existing lists work. Later, try some variants and see what happens.

Having thought the matter of the skeletons over, I'm still not sure that this is the unmitigated disaster that some folks make it out to be.

Skellies are pretty cheap for what you get and have some nasty tricks up their sleeves.

For one thing, WS 2 doesn't mean they always miss; it means that against elites, they miss most of the time.

But VC in particular can negate this by using Hellish Vigor, a spell they can use standard or as a bound item (or both :eek: ).

Just as high elf archers aren't so bad when you use the Curse of Arrow Attraction, so skellie spearmen are pretty scary when they get to go first and re-roll misses.

I can't help but wonder if people have gotten locked into a rut by their own min-maxing mentality.

As for grave guard, well, the guy who plays VC around here always gives them halberds. His logic is simple:

1. Since they can't be replaced, grave guard are priority targets anyway and usually get pasted with cannonballs, bolt throwers and other nastiness that negates shields anyway.

2. Halberds give them S5, which is pretty scary. Add in killing blow and they're one of the hardest-hitting infantry units in the game.

3. Hellish Vigor makes them a meat grinder. And if the opponent spends all his time trying to shut this spell down, he's likely to get zombies charging him from behind.

As Kat posted some pages back, I see this as eliminating the unthinking decision to just go with the free 4+ save for low WS armies. It's a crutch, pure and simple. I really don't like the notion that "tactics" consists of parking a large unit with a 4+ save next to elites to tie them down for the rest of the game.

I'll still take goblins with shields because that's what my models have and a 5+ save is still pretty good. But I also will feel my decision to take goblin spears has more validity and it will.

Gazak Blacktoof
04-09-2005, 15:16
I'm prepared to give this a go now that my prior concerns about cav etc have been adressed. I think this rule might actually be of benefit to my orcs and goblins given that I use black orcs and big'uns. I always pay for spears for my gobbos because I can't be arsed with any conversions for the blighters. It'll muck up my skeletons with sword and shield but that just means I might be forced to go back to the ones with spears (nothing for free).


I think I could comfortably live with this rule and it might stop our elf and dwarf players sulking. I'll let you know how it goes...


EDIT: If you're planning on testing this properly how do you want results presented? Do you want army lists and small battle reports or just notable highlights of how we think the rule influenced the games. If you want lots of people testing this you might want to make a new thread.

Commissar von Toussaint
04-09-2005, 18:11
Both can work, actually.

Battle reports are always good to read, but if you don't have time, just tack it on to this thread. That way everything is still gathered in one place.

Gazak Blacktoof
04-09-2005, 18:21
Will do. I'm bound to get a couple of games in later this week or at the weekend. Any particular armies that you'd like people to look at with regards to balance? Hoarde vs Elite pressumably.

We have everything but wood elves I think and if I get a book it wouldn't take much effort to proxy some.

Nurglitch
04-09-2005, 21:39
CvT: Obviously you're going to play many games to playtest this.

What I want to know is how you will play these games such that you can judge whether the proposed rule will have a positive effect.

I'd suggest trying each game twice - same armies, players, set-up, etc, but with different rules for HW/SH bonus (the current one and the proposed one) so that you have a control game to compare to the experimental game.

A large sample is nice but on its own is provides no basis for accurate inferences. Unless you have a context, a control, to provide a point of reference then your conclusions will be meaningless and largely pointless (and entirely pointless if you don't enjoy the test games).

Commissar von Toussaint
04-09-2005, 22:05
Nurglitch: The control is basically every previous game.

It isn't much fun and makes little sense for people to play as if they have an armor save that they don't and observe the results.

What we have to gauge is how the system as a whole reacts. That includes army list decisions.

The proof will be found in the results of the game and the flow of the battle. As I said above, it is altogether likely that new unit combinations will emerge that hitherto were overlooked by the min-maxers. Players will also (sensibly) use different strategies that capitalize on the new rules.

A while back my group started using free measurement. A lot of people predicted this would completely change the dynamic of the game. It didn't. It speeded things up a lot, led to less disputes over measurement and eliminated "accidental sniping."

It also changed the focus from guessing on who is the first one to enter charge range to how to deal with the known ranges and their consequences.

Veteran players pretty much skip that anyway, and what this did was put novices in the same category.

My point is that the before/after comparison was easy to make. I think a similar dynamic will be at work here.

Gazak showed how it will work. Some people will take the same old list and hope that the loss of the HW/S isn't too severe.

But others will opt for another weapon choice.

This, too, is part of the experiment.

Players may find that their old HW/S armies aren't as weak as they thought they'd be.

They may also find that spear and halberds aren't as bad choices as they thought and that goblins/skaven/skeletons with spears can actually do things they didn't think they could.

Niibl
04-09-2005, 22:14
Well, normally it would make sense.
Still I allways see the elites (with higher WS) do most of the killing anyway.
At least in my opinion those would not get any advantage.
Better boost up the other weaponoptions for low WS troops so that there is more competition between them.
I would really like a more distance guessing+stone-paper-scissors system.
Sure, at the moment the HW+SH option is far to widely used but I don't think it is too powerful.

Nurglitch
05-09-2005, 00:32
CvT: Unless you're working with a ceteris paribus situation then any conclusions drawn from your playtesting will be inaccurate.

Where all else is supposed equal and is in fact not equal, then your results will be misleading.

In order to gauge how a single change will affect other components of the game you will need to have all other variables held equal.

Unless, of course, you have some method of accounting for every other active variable that you will take into account.

Which I doubt because that will involve a level of book-keeping that will not replicate the normal conditions of play - the same reason many laboratory experiments produce false conclusions about results in the field.

Your supposition that a simple before-and-after comparison is possible is therefore flawed.

My proposition accomplishes the same tests of army composition by extending testing over any number of games, and better tracks the changes made by the proposition by providing an accurate control for whichever other set of variables are chosen to be tested.

Honestly, if you're going to do this, you might as well do it right.

Commissar von Toussaint
05-09-2005, 03:52
Nurglitch, you're making too much out of it.

One word: Dice.

We roll dice. Lots of 'em. We can crunch numbers and get the expected value but there's simply too much variation.

How about another word: Skill.

Players aren't identical clones who play each game the same.

As the dice do their work, tactics change as well. Players may be forced to deviate from their plans unexpectedly.

Rather than come up with some strange setup, I'm doing the only thing that can be done: play the game.

Play it a lot with different armies. Do certain units dominate? Does this work as intended?

The more people who playtest, the more these variables cancel out and the better we do.

More eyes mean more people see loopholes, combinations we haven't considered and new tactics.

Playtesting isn't conducted by narrow-faced men in white lab coats with electrodes wired to the foreheads of the gamers.

It's an ongoing process where people are urged to take what they want, take something different and basically to try to break the system. If it holds - Eureka! Success.

Most balance issues are pretty obvious. It doesn't take a huge amount of math to figure out that High Elves can't run a strong and efficient infantry-based army.

What I'm asking is that people give it a try again. See how it works. Doe Phoenix Guard accomplish more? What about White Lions?

And do the hordes really suffer as people think they will?

If all the people who voted here play just a couple of games, we'll have a huge sample to work from. That will give us a much better idea than me and my buddies sitting down with slide rules and formulae.

Sorry to go on, but it's a game and the way to see if it works is to play it.

Nurglitch
05-09-2005, 04:43
CvT: Did you even read my post?

Playing out one scenario, and then playing it again using a single deviation from the rules is how you are going to be able to draw meaningful conclusions from your playtesting.

Do you understand?

Set-up two armies, choose a scenario for them to fight, and play it twice. The first time you play with the regular rules. The second time you play with the proposed rule change.

You are not testing a process, but one variable in a set of conditions.

It's not complicated.

No lab-coat, no complex data analysis, no "strange setup".

But unless you do this, the results of your play-testing will be inaccurate.

The only way that play will test whether the proposed rule change works is if the control game set-up matches the experimental game set-up as closely as possible.

Otherwise you will just be pulling your conclusions about this proposed rule out of your transverse colon.

Yanos
05-09-2005, 10:39
@ CvT: Don't get me wrong, I love the idea and think it should be tested out, but Nurglitch makes a good point. From a scientific point of view, you have to have a control experiment to see how your changes make differences to the game. You're damn right that no two games will run the same, experimental rules or no, but if you can cut down as many other variables as possible then you have a much more valid basis for conjecture on your results :).

@ Nurglitch: No lab coats? Aw! I like my lab coat, I don't feel like I'm running an experiment if I've not got it :D.

Rioghan Murchadha
05-09-2005, 15:10
You know.. I have a friend who is an engineer, and insists similar things. He also attempts to use probability based calculations to determine what he should do in a game of Warhammer. I'll give you 1 guess as to what happens.

That's right. Not what the math says will happen. Having a 1 in 6 chance of rolling a 6 on a d6 is absolutely meaningless. Try it out. Roll a d6 6 times and record your results. It's perfectly possible that a certain number will fail to come up while another will come up multiple times.

Perhaps in a perfect world, where your dice are all exact, flawless cubes, your table is completely flat with absolutely no blemishes etc. Science would have more impact on the game. But as it is.. unless you know the results of every roll in every game of Warhammer in the world, your sample size is too small for probability to accurately predict what's going to happen.

I've seen (indeed, have had) a unit of ogres bounce off of, and be destroyed by skavenslaves. Probability dictates that this will never happen. CvT is correct in that playtesting using normal games is the only way to accurately test this idea. Attempting to play two games with nearly identical conditions is inherently flawed. What if I know I made a tactical error in the first game? Am I supposed to replicate that in the second one? How does my blunder have any bearing on whether or not the rules change is effective?

The only way to see if it works, is if using it, people take options other than HW/S, and/or if HW/S causes the cheap horde units to perform concordant with their points cost.

I'm afraid this isn't rocket science. It's Warhammer. Take your math textbook and go home..

(I've also seen, multiple times in my local GW, a d6 land on the table on one of its corners. How the hell do you account for that in your calculations?) Or the guy that DoGs a Falcon with a krak grenade in 40k, rolls a 6 to glance, then rolls double 6s to blow it up through its holofield.

Statistical anomalies occur constantly in this game. Deal.

R

Avian
05-09-2005, 15:13
I've seen (indeed, have had) a unit of ogres bounce off of, and be destroyed by skavenslaves. Probability dictates that this will never happen.
If you think this is true, you are not very good at maths. Probability tells you that the chance of this happening is very slim, not that it will never happen.

Nurglitch
05-09-2005, 15:20
Rioghan:

It's been pointed out that we're testing initial conditions, rather than statistical regularity of dice rolls, or particular sets of tactics. So your objection is a straw man.

So long as the set-up in the experimental game matches the set-up in the control game, but for the rule change being tested, then the games being played out differently out is not a problem.

Indeed, how the games will play out differently will tell us how the rule change affects the game.

Gazak Blacktoof
05-09-2005, 19:52
I think what might actually work is firstly playing using whatever lists you currently use, without and then with the rules change. From that see if you think a list could benefit from change. If from the games you think more elite infantry/ infantry with options other than HW+S will work then the rule is headed in the right direction. If after several games with a new list you still aren't fielding elite infantry/ different weapon options then the rule has failed- simple as that. Perhaps that shouldn't be failed, but doesn't go far enough. We then comeback argue/ discuss a bit more until we get a new propsal, rinse and repeat.


Playteting isn't about statistical samples- you can get a gist from a game of what should or shouldn't have worked. Often after a game its possible to see how a rule could have influenced a game- if you're proposing a new rule you could discuss with your opponent how things might have gone differently had the dice gods not been so cruel. You might even like to jot down a setup mid game and go back and replay the scenario from there with tweaked results for the combat/ shooting phase etc.

Commissar von Toussaint
06-09-2005, 01:04
Nurglitch, that isn't how playtesting works.

You don't run several games with the variant lists and see which one performs better.

You play the game and see how it goes.

You forget that the object is to win. So players will try to do that. If you play the same scenario, same terrain, same list twice even with the same rules, you will get a different result.

That's because luck is fickle and players often make poor decisions.

The second game won't be like the first anyway because both sides will change things up. It isn't like pouring chemicals into a beaker; the sequence will change as a result of the previous experiment.

Bubba may have second thoughts about making that opening charge because last game it cost him two banners and his general. He's unlikely to do it again "for science."

Bubba's also unlikely to send troops in that he knows will get mulched just to see how mulched they'll get. If he does, that isn't a test of the new rule, it's tactical stupidity.

A reasonable player will use knowledge of the rules to formulate his strategy. The fact that 4+ save goblins could bog down Phoenix Guard with sheer numbers in game 1 doesn't mean that the goblin player is crazy enough to try it with his save now reduced to 5+. He knows that more of his troops are going to get whacked and if he has any intellect, will adjust accordingly.

The scenarios we'll be playing are the same ones we always use: pitched battle.

My group tends to use a fairly stable set of lists. We gravitate toward favorite units and there isn't much change from game to game. Terrain-wise, we keep things open to facilitate more killing.

So the games pretty much will be identical - two armies on open ground slugging it out for keeps.

The point that you don't seem to get is that army selection is also a part of this process.

And knowledge of the rules will also influence player behavior.

In our group we don't necessarily tool up against specific armies, but we do keep the likely opponent in mind. It makes sense: if you live in the eastern Empire, you aren't likely worried about Dark Elves or Lizardmen. Your main enemies would be orcs and VC, so your army would adapt to fight them.

So as my group discusses upcoming games, we put together the scenario (back story is always important) and figure out whose playing what.

With the new HW/S rule, that now takes on greater import. If I'm playing orcs against VC, I can be reasonably confident goblins will get the shield bonus. This will figure into my army creation and overall strategy.

By the same token, if I'm using Lizardmen against High Elves, I may decide to give spears more emphasis since shields won't do as well.

Point totals also will be a factor ("hmmm, gotta shave 20 points off - no spears for them...")

What I'm saying in so many words is that there is more to the rule than the effect on the battlefield, there is also the pre-battle army generation and the way the lists interact.

Before, after and during the game, we will talk about the rule and its implications. When we fight the combats, we'll discuss what would be different without the WS negation and how that influences our moves.

We used the same process when we got rid of range guessing and while we didn't do it "scientifically," we were able to isolate the differences quite easily.

The sad thing is I'm unlikely to play any time soon. I was hoping to have a game behind me by now, but it may be weeks before that happens.

So other folks need to step up and let us know how it works. If you like it or hate it, give it a try to see why it's good/awful.

Nurglitch
06-09-2005, 03:11
I'll have to address this point by point... :rolleyes:

You don't run several games with the variant lists and see which one performs better.

You play the game and see how it goes.

You forget that the object is to win. So players will try to do that. If you play the same scenario, same terrain, same list twice even with the same rules, you will get a different result. Yes, that's the general idea. You will get a different result and because everything else you can keep equal is equal it will be easy to see what effect the rule change makes to that result.


That's because luck is fickle and players often make poor decisions.

The second game won't be like the first anyway because both sides will change things up. It isn't like pouring chemicals into a beaker; the sequence will change as a result of the previous experiment. You're right, this isn't chemistry. This is something even simpler. The fact that players will use their experience in the control game to their advantage in the test game is perfectly acceptable. This will be a good thing, as it will help factor out sloppy generalship.


Bubba may have second thoughts about making that opening charge because last game it cost him two banners and his general. He's unlikely to do it again "for science."

Bubba's also unlikely to send troops in that he knows will get mulched just to see how mulched they'll get. If he does, that isn't a test of the new rule, it's tactical stupidity.

A reasonable player will use knowledge of the rules to formulate his strategy. The fact that 4+ save goblins could bog down Phoenix Guard with sheer numbers in game 1 doesn't mean that the goblin player is crazy enough to try it with his save now reduced to 5+. He knows that more of his troops are going to get whacked and if he has any intellect, will adjust accordingly. That's why I'm not asking that the test game be played in the same way as the control game, just that it share the same set-up.


The scenarios we'll be playing are the same ones we always use: pitched battle.

My group tends to use a fairly stable set of lists. We gravitate toward favorite units and there isn't much change from game to game. Terrain-wise, we keep things open to facilitate more killing.

So the games pretty much will be identical - two armies on open ground slugging it out for keeps.

The point that you don't seem to get is that army selection is also a part of this process. No, I've taken that to account. Players choose their armies and play two games - a control and a test. That's why two games are played, so that each particular combination of selected armies may be accurately tested.


And knowledge of the rules will also influence player behavior.

[quote=CvT]In our group we don't necessarily tool up against specific armies, but we do keep the likely opponent in mind. It makes sense: if you live in the eastern Empire, you aren't likely worried about Dark Elves or Lizardmen. Your main enemies would be orcs and VC, so your army would adapt to fight them.

So as my group discusses upcoming games, we put together the scenario (back story is always important) and figure out whose playing what.

With the new HW/S rule, that now takes on greater import. If I'm playing orcs against VC, I can be reasonably confident goblins will get the shield bonus. This will figure into my army creation and overall strategy. Also taken into account by playing a control game and a test game with every two particular armies.


What I'm saying in so many words is that there is more to the rule than the effect on the battlefield, there is also the pre-battle army generation and the way the lists interact. Yup, this was accounted for when I pointed out that accurate inferences about the effect of the rule change require a test game and a control game with the same set-up.


Before, after and during the game, we will talk about the rule and its implications. When we fight the combats, we'll discuss what would be different without the WS negation and how that influences our moves.

We used the same process when we got rid of range guessing and while we didn't do it "scientifically," we were able to isolate the differences quite easily. Who's asking you to do it "scientifically"? I'm simply pointing out that if you want to play-test a rule change that you should do it accurately. If you think this is scientific, then I honestly don't know what to say except: :wtf:

By all means just play random games and make up your conclusions about the change by talking about these games. At least then you get to play a game as well as exercise your imagination.

Quetzl
06-09-2005, 16:10
I think it would be interesting to test, or at least try it out.

Gazak Blacktoof
06-09-2005, 19:51
By all means just play random games and make up your conclusions about the change by talking about these games. At least then you get to play a game as well as exercise your imagination.


I sense a slightly mocking tone behind those innocent key strokes...

Commissar von Toussaint
07-09-2005, 00:58
Nurglitch, if that's the way you want to try it out - you can do that.

Really, it's okay with me.

I don't have the time to run two identical games. In fact, I don't have time to run one.

So when I get a chance to play, I'll use the new rule and see what happens.

I leave the "proper" evaluation to you. :)

Rioghan Murchadha
07-09-2005, 04:03
CvT, you can't argue with people who want to play Math-hammer. Either they don't want to play a 'game'. and take it for what it is, or something horrible happened to them in their childhood that made them like math.. (shudder).

It's amazing that math professors aren't the best WH players in the world isn't it?

Nurglitch
07-09-2005, 04:16
CvT: That's cool. I don't actually play Warhammer Fantasy any more. I'm just pointing out what peope who play will need to do in order to accurately test the rule change. Have fun doing whatever you want to do. I'm just offering advice...

Rioghan: If math professors are anything like the math grads I hang with, they're too busy at the Casino making a couple extra bucks to afford that new home theatre system. Mind you, if you think that sort of testing takes a math professor, maybe you should work on your arithmetic.

I'm just sayin'... ;)

Rioghan Murchadha
08-09-2005, 03:26
Nurglitch, it's almost amusing how you assume, because I'm not the raving statistic fanboi that you are, that I must obviously be horrible at math. Before I realized that not everything in the world revolved around it, and when I was still in school, I actually used to place in the top percentiles in math competitions. But that's all water under the bridge. Currently I find no enjoyment in mathematics whatsoever, and no need to engage in the practice to procure a comfortable living.

The ironic thing is, I work with quite a few people who have no post secondary education, and regularly bring home a 'couple extra bucks' without having wasted money and years on a math degree, so what's your point exactly?

From the condescention that fairly drips from each and every post you make, I was going to peg you as a university student. Since your forum bio confirms this to be true, I'll cut you some slack. Eventually you'll learn that there is more to life than what's in a textbook.

R

GodHead
08-09-2005, 05:08
Once again, another proposed change designed with the best intentions which would screw Tomb Kings utterly. It's hard enough to win with Tomb Kings as it is, and with likely changes to Fear, people proposing changes to chariots to make them rubbish, proposed/rumored changes to Cavalry, and now these changes proposed to Hand Weapon and Shield bonus, WTF units are Tomb Kings players supposed to use?

These changes would wreck an already difficult to use army.

When people make these suggestions they have to remember there is an army with ridiculously awful, fragile troops that are expensive. Horde stats, Elite price. Don't suggest anything that will make them 100% unplayable.

Nurglitch
08-09-2005, 06:18
Rioghan: Flamewar! Wheeeee! ;)

Isn't it wonderful that you think this has anything to do with math, and not with testing the effect of a proposed rule change on a wargame . And isn't it nice that you know smart people who have somehow gotten through life without having a degree in mathematics.

Goodness know how anyone could survive in this harsh pragmatic world without a degree in mathematics :rolleyes:

And isn't it wonderful that I can't wrap my poor little over-educated head around around the idea that there's something out there beyond the hermetically sealed shoe-box that each student is interned in upon registration.

Look. You guys want to test the effect that this rule has on the game right?

And you want this rule to be a genuine improvement, right?

I'm just supposing that you're want to test this rule. And that you want to test this rule so that you can really tell whether it is a good rule and won't turn out to be really stupid in a couple of years time when the next edition comes.

So because I think this rule is a good idea, and will work, I'm trying to suggest that you should conduct your playtesting in a very convincing way.

All you do is play two games with the same army and nearly the same set-up except for a single change in the rules.

You don't need to do any book-keeping, and you don't need to do any difficult arithmetic.

Just play the games and tell us how it went.

Such a direct comparison will make your evaluation accurate. I'd go so far as to suggest that it will make the conclusion of your evaluation very convincing.

Or not. As I said I don't play WFB anymore, so it's pretty academic.

Happy gaming :D

Commissar von Toussaint
08-09-2005, 10:52
Nurglitch: Anyone who wants to do that is welcome to. As I said, I don't have time to play "test" games any more.

The reason I am leery of the approach is that I've found from my own playtesting experience that whenever we've tried to take a short cut to evaluating things, it always ends up worse.

On the face of it, what you say makes perfect sense. The fewer variables the better, right?

Same lists, same players, same terrain. Why the only thing that's changed is the rule.

The problem is that after Game One, the dynamic of the first three changes - often dramatically.

I wasn't being clear at getting this across before. For lack of a better term, I'll call it the "rematch syndrome."

Because everything's mapped out, the game gets more and more weird. The strategy each player would intrinsically try has already been done. Basically you get a feedback loop - each player tries to ancipate the other's actions with the actual strategy of the thing become farther removed from what a "real" game looks like.

What you're really talking about is playing it solitaire.

That allows you to set up and run with even less variables.

It's a great way to test out a system - usually the first step.

Given the age of WHFB, I think we're beyond that.

I have to say that underlying my thoughts on this has been the notion that the kind of playtesting you speak of seems to be responsible for the High Elf/Dark Elf debacle.

It looks as if they tested those armies using very limited lists against limited opponents, tailored them to fit and then said "Done!"

I'm looking for a more open-ended test, that's all.

Both have their validity, though.

As for Godhead's complaints...

Sorry for ya, dude. I said several times that TK are a weak list. They need to be made stronger. As bad as they are now, RH made them unplayable at any speed.

If you want my advice, try the rule but drop the point costs on your skellies. Problem solved.

Chaos and Evil
08-09-2005, 10:59
This would neuter Saurus warriors. Noone would take them ever again.

Adlan
08-09-2005, 14:44
How would it neuter saurus warriors? I speak as a Lizard man player?
S4 T4 sv 5+ and cold blooded?
I think I'm fine against opponents with higher ws.
Against Elites I would expect to out number them, and against hordes i have the 4+ sv in Colsecombat.
whats the problem?

gorenut
08-09-2005, 17:20
How would it neuter saurus warriors? I speak as a Lizard man player?
S4 T4 sv 5+ and cold blooded?
I think I'm fine against opponents with higher ws.
Against Elites I would expect to out number them, and against hordes i have the 4+ sv in Colsecombat.
whats the problem?


Because I think Saurus warriors are one of the troops where GW actually took into consideration of their HW+S bonus when factoring the points, unlike the other cheap screening units. Also.. Saurus warriors aren't exactly cheap... they won't outnumber many elites.

Adlan
08-09-2005, 17:36
Well, against elites I'm willing to give it a go.
I see to many people take 16 saurus and leave it at that.
I feel that saurus should be taken in larger units (at least 20, I take 24) with a Hero usually.
otherwise you will be outnumber by everything.
and follow sun tuz rules, If you are weak attack don't where he is strong. Don't face those elite infantry with an equal amount of saurus, face them with swarms or skinks, or whittle them down with poision.
And Saurus are as I said still pretty dam hardcore, and i think I can go toe to toe with most infantry except tooled up chaos chosen.
But it will mean slightly more tactical thinking, Saurus users can no longer march forward and recive or give charges then plow straight though.

Nurglitch
08-09-2005, 19:05
CvT: No, actually I'm not talking about playing solitaire. Or about testing army lists. I'm talking about testing a change to the core rules. In fact you are testing a slight modification to the Warhammer system.

What I'm proposing is more like playing a game once, and then switching sides and playing again. And I hope you know what that is good for testing.

This is obviously not how the Dark Elf or High Elf lists were written because the test explores an alteration in the core rules rather than alterations to army lists.

This test may be carried out with any two armies that have HW/SH models in them.

It is quite open-ended.

Commissar von Toussaint
09-09-2005, 01:55
Because I think Saurus warriors are one of the troops where GW actually took into consideration of their HW+S bonus when factoring the points, unlike the other cheap screening units. Also.. Saurus warriors aren't exactly cheap... they won't outnumber many elites.

Saurus are WS 3. That means the list of armies who will negate their bonus isn't all that huge.

Elves
Chaos
Dwarves

The other armies have to pull out elite troops to get above WS 3 and in that situation you're pitting elites against rank and file - advantage should go to elites.

Though with 2 attacks, S4, T4 and cold blooded, I don't think it will.

Saurus are bricks. When I've fought them, they didn't need a 4+ save to be scary. Spears aren't a bad option for them and this makes them a little better, which is fine for me.

This is the part of the playtesting that takes place off of the board, btw: army list creation.

People who look at WS and say "without a 4+ save I am DOOMED" will react differently than those who take a more measured and mature view.

The real test is to play it, which hopefully I will do next week.

Until then, those of you with weekend games coming up, give it a shot and tell us what happens.

BloodiedSword
09-09-2005, 09:08
OK, I've read the first 10 pages of this thread and don't have the energy to read the last 6..

One thing I'd like to throw in though -

Almost any unit that has HW&S has other weapons options. And yet, when faced with HW&S becoming worse, people are behaving as if the unit is getting raped and has no other weapons options.

Whether this is because HW&S is so much better than everything else, or because everything else is so bad compared to HW&S, either way to me this looks like conclusive evidence that there is something wrong, somewhere, with HW&S compared to all other weapons options.

After all, when something is cheaper and more effective, you can hardly expect players to take anything else. Suggesting that whole units get points decreases just because one of their weapons outfits is slightly less effective certainly indicates major problems with that outfit.

EDIT: Personally, after reading this thread I realised that what I wanted to happen was just for the Parry bonus to disappear completely. That way, the starting weapons of a unit, HW&S, would be the cheapest and the weakest, which is IMO the way it should be, not the cheapest and the strongest as it currently is.

Sir_Turalyon
09-09-2005, 09:58
The idea would require option to swap hand weapon for spear/halebard instead of adding it for Goblins and remove hand weapon for Bretonnian men-at-arms. Otherwise, these units would pay extra points for completly useless equipment.

It's good, but requires army list tweaking... which is not good.

Avian
09-09-2005, 10:01
Whether this is because HW&S is so much better than everything else, or because everything else is so bad compared to HW&S, either way to me this looks like conclusive evidence that there is something wrong, somewhere, with HW&S compared to all other weapons options.
And what people who think like that forget is that the problem is not just that the other weapons are not worth the cost compared to HW+SH, they are not worth the cost at all.

The units people here complain about are horde units, bg units of cheap infantry who win by having a large static CR. Guess what? These units don't want to pay for upgraded weaponry anyway.

I'll try to illustrate what I mean:
At the coffee shop up here at the unit I can buy a cup of tea for Nkr 7, which is rather more than I'm willing to pay for it. However, they will also give you hot water for free, so if you bring your own tea bags you get a cup of tea for about Nkr 1. That's what I do.
Now, if you think that denying me free hot water will mean that I'll buy Nkr 7 cups of tea on any regular basis, you are wrong.
It's not just that it's 7 times more expensive than bringing your own, it's too expensive for what you get to begin with.


It's the same problem with a lot of weapon upgrades. Taking away the free upgrade does not make them worthwhile, because they are quite crappy to begin with.

Taking away that option just makes the game more dull.

To take a further example:
My block of goblin spearmen charge an enemy unit. I now have the option of either letting the unit use their hand weapons and shields, for a 5+ save, or their spears, for a 6+ save, but more attacks in the next turn. I have a tactical choice to make, where I have to weigh the immediate benefits against the chance of the combat lasting more than 1 round.
Take away the HW+SH bonus and there is no choice and ergo a less challenging game.

Lordmonkey
09-09-2005, 10:39
Ah, but LordMonkey, they problem is, you don't always get your own good armour saves. Certainly not on the cheap anyway. Let's use everyone's favorite example again.. HE Spearmen.

Deconstructing the cost of an elf spearman, you come out to roughly 3 points for a spear useable in an extra rank. Why, oh why on earth would you pay 3 pts per model, and then throw that rule, and 300% more attacks out the window, for a +1 save modifier? The only time I could even see considering it, is if your unit gets charged by something that puts out a bucket of S3 attacks. But then wait.. spears work best when you get charged anyway as you lose a rank of attacks if you move.

See.. it's much easier to rationalize using HW/S on a 2-3 pt unit than one that pays so much for its weapons. what people are complaining about is that it's the cheap units that benefit so much, and for free.

Skaven don't NEED slaves with 5+ armour saves. and really.. do you think that a slave, being worked in the warpstone pits, and malnourished and all that, would even have the strength to parry the swing of say, a halbard, or greatsword? Not bloody likely.

Realism aside.. it's pretty ***** sad when your 200+ pt high elf spear regiment with their 'superior equipment and training' bounces off an 80 pt gobbo unit with the SAME armour save that they have.

R

So high elf infantry are expensive and (indeed!) paying about 3pts for the spear, and they are utterly, utterly fragile wimpy elves that bounce of most enemies... but, this is because they aren't built to charge in the front - they receive charges from lesser enemies, and the rest of the high elf army draws away tougher opponents by distracting them, flanking them with cavalry, or simply softens them up before they get to the spearmen. You also have to remember that you still have the option to have your higher armour save and forgoeing attacks - this is know as versatility. They can either receive the charge from the goblins, take maybe 1 or 2 casualties, and then return about 17 attacks and shred those goblins to peices. You can't just focus on what these elves can't do, but rather what they can do.

Also, with regards to the question at hand, I think it's fair all round simply because a higher ws means you are hitting a lesser enemy more often than he is hitting you. Combine this with (typically) high intiative, and you have a troop that often hits first and hits better - getting through that armour save isn't improtant when you have the same one, your hitting first, better, and the enemy will therefore (usually) return less attacks. So there are hordes of goblin players out there with high, cheap armour saves. big deal. Send some flyers out there and draw the fanatics out early - deny the armour saves. Skaven slaves? They have ld2. Use an item such as the rod of flaming death (vc) to panic them, or ignore them altogether and hold them up with a swarm or something. Or, if there arent many, panic them with shooting!

I don't think it's fair to say that the armour save is too much for such cheap unit, since these units are fairly useless in a brawl anyway. Remember, combat res wins combats, not kills, and your going to be making far more kills than they are in a straight fight anyway!

Sir Charles
09-09-2005, 14:41
The idea would require option to swap hand weapon for spear/halebard instead of adding it for Goblins and remove hand weapon for Bretonnian men-at-arms. Otherwise, these units would pay extra points for completly useless equipment.

It's good, but requires army list tweaking... which is not good.

Bret. M@A come with spear/polearms standered why would they need their price ajusted and a goblin with a spear is still only 3 points, so why they would need to be a alowed spears as a free exchange for hw is beyond me.

Commissar von Toussaint
12-09-2005, 03:13
I had to read this a couple of times to sort it out. At first I thought Avian was being sarcastic, but I think he's actually serious.


And what people who think like that forget is that the problem is not just that the other weapons are not worth the cost compared to HW+SH, they are not worth the cost at all.

The units people here complain about are horde units, bg units of cheap infantry who win by having a large static CR. Guess what? These units don't want to pay for upgraded weaponry anyway.

Then don't play those armies.

Really this is getting silly.

If goblins are so crappy that they can't win without free upgrades, the list is clearly broken.


I'll try to illustrate what I mean:
At the coffee shop up here at the unit I can buy a cup of tea for Nkr 7, which is rather more than I'm willing to pay for it. However, they will also give you hot water for free, so if you bring your own tea bags you get a cup of tea for about Nkr 1. That's what I do.
Now, if you think that denying me free hot water will mean that I'll buy Nkr 7 cups of tea on any regular basis, you are wrong.
It's not just that it's 7 times more expensive than bringing your own, it's too expensive for what you get to begin with.

But what if I don't like tea?!

:rolleyes:


It's the same problem with a lot of weapon upgrades. Taking away the free upgrade does not make them worthwhile, because they are quite crappy to begin with.

Taking away that option just makes the game more dull.

:wtf:

So an exciting game is where people miss each other more? Higher armor saves lead to greater thrills on the tabletop?

Seriously, I'm trying to figure out where you're going here.

What you seem to be saying is that all weapon options other than HW/S are ineffective and pointless, which to me is an excellent argument for not playing the game at all.

Before you accuse me of distorting your position, I'd like to point out that many people dislike the engine that WHFB uses. It's unrealistic and utterly ahistorical.

But for those limitations, it actually achieves fairly realistic results most of the time.

Halberds hit a bit harder than plain old clubs and swords; spears benefit from fighting in depth.

The only real outlier on this continuum is HW/S and that's because it's free. With expensive troops you don't notice it as much, but when the base figure value is so low, it really adds up.


To take a further example:
My block of goblin spearmen charge an enemy unit.

Let's stop right there for a moment. Why are they charging? If they stand firm, they get to fight in ranks. Spears are a profoundly defensive weapon for that reason.

So your example from the get-go is skewed. You might as well complain that handguns suck in hth. They do, but that's because their not designed to be used that way.


I now have the option of either letting the unit use their hand weapons and shields, for a 5+ save, or their spears, for a 6+ save, but more attacks in the next turn.

Or you could buy light armor and give your shields the same save.


I have a tactical choice to make, where I have to weigh the immediate benefits against the chance of the combat lasting more than 1 round.

Indeed, your spears will likely stick on their charge round, allowing you to send an additional unit in the flank.

Or you can wait to recieve the attack. There are lots of options.


Take away the HW+SH bonus and there is no choice and ergo a less challenging game.

Actually the opposite is true.

As it stands the ONLY choice is to go with a 4+ save, park next to the enemy and count on CR to win the battle for you.

No worry about whether to charge or not; it's utterly academic.

As it stands there is zero choice - HW/S is the only cost-effective option, which is why it is so popular with horde (and even non-horde) troops.

What this change would do is solve that problem by forcing choice onto players.

Now they will have to decide if they want attacks, additional strength, or cheapness.

It's an either-or proposition. Currently they get cheapness AND durability, making everything else lousy by comparison.

Lest this turn into another pointless discussion of "positive" vs "negative" rules changes, I'd like to make something clear.

The base line of WHFB is the hand weapon.

That is the default option. It is what the models Strength profile and WS represent.

Additional weapons modify that stat. Armor increases the survivability.

What HW/S did was alter the base line without shifting everything else.

When people talk about making halberds/spears better, they are really saying that the whole game needs to be recalibrated. From a complexity standpoint, hand weapon then ceases to be what it used to be: the default.

What I have suggested is that we try to adhere to the base line as much as possible, otherwise we're simply creating new and superfluous rules for no reason. Such a move is neither positive nor negative, it is simply adding complexity to an already complex game.

Limiting HW/S to superior WS is different in that it leaves the base line intact.

Instead it alters how models of different WS interact with the default option.

That is why it is such a good idea (and why I wish I'd thought of it). :D

Avian
12-09-2005, 07:59
Let's stop right there for a moment. Why are they charging? If they stand firm, they get to fight in ranks. Spears are a profoundly defensive weapon for that reason.
Are you kidding? :wtf:
They are charging because even on the defensive, the spear is a rather lousy weapon, especially in the hands of units that don't fight well. That's the problem right there. You'd think that a spear-block is a good defensive unit - it isn't. With goblins, allowing the enemy to strike first pretty much removes any benefit the spears give me.

Spears should be a decent defensive weapon.


Heck, the option to use HW+SH is one of the things that make a goblin spear-block okay. Take away that option and the spear-gobbos become worse.

Katastrophe
12-09-2005, 19:35
but by your logic keeping hw/s makes them better on offense and defense because they have the better save on either account. the point behind spears is that they will get to attack even if they suffer casualties. hw/s is a all around better option for cheap troops because it is the ultimate something for nothing. with the halberd, flail and dhw you have to sacrifice defense to get better offense (lower save, harder hitting weapons, in the case of the dhw you actually get to go last), with spears you get a mediocre save but an increase in attack volume on the defense, with ehw you get lower save but increased attack volume on defense and offense. as it stands, hw/s gets a better save than you could achieve with either of the other weapon options as well as your average attack on offense and defense. the problem being that all those options, except hw/s actually costs points. do you suggest also that all other weapon options should be interchangeable with the hw/s so that none of them represent a free upgrade.

Avian
13-09-2005, 10:15
To take the gobbos as an example, the problems are these:
1) A basic gobbo with a shield in 5th edtion cost 3 pts. It now costs 2 pts
2) The basic gobbo is now better, due to the HW+SH rule, and the Outnumbering rule (linked to #1).

As a consequence of 1 & 2, you wanted and could afford bigger units of gobbos

3) The spear has gotten worse in this edition (only giving extra ranks to the front)
4) Goblins now pay more for spears. In 5th edition they were 0.5 pts (raising the cost by 17%), now they are 1 pt (raising the cost by a staggering 50%).
5) It is now, due to the regiment sets, easier to convert a goblin to carry a hand weapon instead of a spear.

As a result of 3, 4 & 5, it is not a lot more interesting to NOT buy a spear for the gobbos (whether or not armour is cost effective or not is debatable), doubly so due to the combination of 1 & 2.

The end result is that while the optimum unit in 5th edition was often felt to be a unit of 25 with spears, the general feeling now seems to be that 30 with hand weapons, light armour and shield.
This unit will typically achieve a combat result 2 points better than the 5th edition incarnation (outnumbering and one less dead gobbo), while costing pretty much the same.

Some people, most notably those who feel that they benefit less from the 5th to 6th edition transition, feel that this is too good, while those who benefited equally mostly seem not to mind.

Many people have attempted to level the field by suggesting alterations. Mostly they fail, because they don't look at the big picture. A common suggestion seems to be to make horde infantry worse, with the theory being that people will then take more expensive infantry (who generally did not get much more effective) and not other units that have gotten more effective, such as cavalry, magic, war machines and handgunners.

My suggestion is that when most unit types are okay, you do not make some worse to match others who are not effective, you take a look at the units that are under-performing and make them better, since there are generally fewer of them.

Commissar von Toussaint
15-09-2005, 02:18
Many people have attempted to level the field by suggesting alterations. Mostly they fail, because they don't look at the big picture. A common suggestion seems to be to make horde infantry worse, with the theory being that people will then take more expensive infantry (who generally did not get much more effective) and not other units that have gotten more effective, such as cavalry, magic, war machines and handgunners.

There are a couple of glaring fallacies in that statement.

I'll start from the back end. Magic got a LOT worse. In Herohammer, you won the game with magic. The cards were so important that one of my friends dubbed it "The collectible miniatures card game."

War machines are likewise more muted because you don't rely on them to offset magic so much.

Basically, the new edition placed a stronger emphasis on COMBAT, not CHARACTERS.

We all know this.

Now where you played the goblin units may have had 25 models in them. Could well be.

But for the most part, people went with a lot less because
1) it was cheaper
2) extra models didn't do jack.

When the hero on the huge ancient dragon showed up, it was game over for the little guys.

Chaos Knights didn't even need to ROLL armor saves against S3 opponents. Why pack them in there if they can't hit?

Now, that having been said, I would like to reiterate that this isn't about horde armies.

It's about all HW/S troops.

I've written that I don't know how many times.

This rule does two things

1. It makes players think twice about the default option because it won't always work
2. It gives high WS troops an additional advantage against less expensive troops.

I mean that's the idea, isn't it? The most expensive need something to make them better. This makes them better.


My suggestion is that when most unit types are okay, you do not make some worse to match others who are not effective, you take a look at the units that are under-performing and make them better, since there are generally fewer of them.

More hogwash.

If I give halberds Armor Piercing, I'm making all other units worse. I'm taking away their armor save.

This proposal doesn't take anything away, it give elite troops a special new power.

It is exactly the kind of targeted fix people have talked about.

If you make spears better across the board, horde troops - who you admit aren't broke - will get better.

Elites will be unchanged.

This fix therefore is a much better fit than anything out there.

If GW ran with it, it would also raise the possibility of creating truly elite swordsmen with high WS and heavy armor who basically would never get it negated.

WS 5 high/dark elves with HW/S and heavy armor would add a new dimension to the game - and be quite effective methinks.

GW could make a mint selling the models, too.

Avian
15-09-2005, 11:19
2. It gives high WS troops an additional advantage against less expensive troops.
This is also a major fault of people who suggest alterations like this - they equate high WS with elite status and assume that such units are more expensive.

Nonsense.

Dark Elf Spearmen are, at 8 pts, a common sight in Dark Elf armies and do not need to become better against 12 pt seldom-seen Saurus Warriors.

This is what I mean by the "bigger picture" - often the people who suggest such alterations are those who only play a very narrow selection of armies and extrapolate consequences from how their alterations would affect their army.

The problem is NOT high WS troops compared to low WS troops and any alteration here is not going to rectify anything.
The problem is infantry units who are paying too much for stats, special abilities and/or weapons they rarely use. Assuming that all of these units have high WS and/or are 'elite' is where people often go wrong and why their suggestions fail.

Rune of Death
15-09-2005, 19:27
i understand what you would be trying to do with this rule, but i think it would be one more thing to slow the game down.

Nurglitch
15-09-2005, 19:37
Avian: So if the problem is infantry units who are paying too much for stats, doesn't enhancing the effect of these stats do something to combat the problem? It strikes me that troops with high (4+) WS pay too much for stats that do very little compared to stats like S and T.

Rune of Death: How tying the HW/S bonus to the model's WS slow the game down?

mageith
16-09-2005, 02:20
Avian: So if the problem is infantry units who are paying too much for stats, doesn't enhancing the effect of these stats do something to combat the problem?

All models have stats. Increasing the effectiveness of stats increases the effectiveness of all units. What is needed is something different than stats that increases the effectives of expensive infantry.





It strikes me that troops with high (4+) WS pay too much for stats that do very little compared to stats like S and T.

Models in the back ranks pay for the stats they don't use. Models in fighting ranks pay for and use the stats. Heavy Cav,for example, are efficient when used with one rank but expensive infantry is not.

You are espousing the very thing that got is into this mess-costing and rules by MODELS. We should be looking to unit rules (or more radically rewriting the rules so that stats are used from the back ranks such as in the suggestion that bows shoot from two or more ranks).

A dual of models is reasonably fair. By that I mean a model that costs three times more than another model will probably win 3/4 of the combats. It's when those models get into units that the cheaper models add up to value that is greater than the sum of it's parts.
By the same token, expensive models, when ranked up have reduced efficiency. Consider ranks of heavy cav as an example (except Brets).

Mage Ith

Ith

Nurglitch
16-09-2005, 20:47
mageith: Regiments are costed by models in WFB. I'm not espousing this method of costing regiments by the model instead of by the unit. It's just how it's done in WFB.

In the game I've written (DM) units are costed by the unit, rather than the model. But we aren't talking about my game. We're taking about GW's game.

Regardless of whether regiments are costed by models, as they are now in WFB, making stats more points-efficient would seem to deal with the problem of points inefficient stats.

As you may have noticed the fact that regiments are costed by models is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion of whether the HW/S bonus should be tied to WS.

Commissar von Toussaint
17-09-2005, 05:22
All models have stats. Increasing the effectiveness of stats increases the effectiveness of all units. What is needed is something different than stats that increases the effectives of expensive infantry.

I'd just like to point out that this isn't a stat and that it would benefit elite infantry.


Models in the back ranks pay for the stats they don't use. Models in fighting ranks pay for and use the stats. Heavy Cav,for example, are efficient when used with one rank but expensive infantry is not.

Actually they get what they pay for in most cases because casualties are not drawn from an amorphous, mythically cheaper pool.

When you buy more models you get CR but also staying power.

The fact that heavy cavalry doesn't benefit well from deep formations may be a sign to you that it is "costed poorly," but to me (and most people) it reflects a historical reality: cavary did not fight in deep columns.

Cavalry's strengths were mobility, protection and impact. All of these factors are well-represented.

So opining that the first 26 points for a knight are used but the second and third ranks aren't is somewhat irrelevant. Depth of column is supposed to provide diminishing returns. The 5th rank should add less to the combat than the 4th. The reason one takes it is for greater momentum and staying power - not because everying in that rank is going to swing a sword.

Regarding Avian's complaints, I'm sorry, I don't think an S4 T4 cold-blooded Saurus with 2 attacks is now hopelessly inferior to a dark elf warrior.

The dark elf is more prone to being shot and killed and less prone to kill than the saurus. In this instance the effect of the revision is minimal.

Furthermore, I find your insistence that all other weapon options are inferior increasingly rediculous. This game system is 25+ years old. The way you are carrying on, it wasn't fun or playable until four years ago.

I, and thousands of Warhammer players have to disagree.

The HW/S rule is not the lynchpin on which this game hinges. We can argue its merits without slipping into overwrought hyperbole.

You may be interested to note that I did a game two nights ago between high elves and lizardmen to test this particular rule.

The result was a decisive high elf victory, but the rule had nothing to do with it.

Nurglitch will be interested to know that our method of evaluation was to fight the combats both ways - with and without the HW/S bonus. The luck of the dice being what they were, there was no change.

Of course largely that was because there was only one encounter between a HW/S unit and a unit with higher weapon skill. The result was skewed because the lizzies were charged in the flank and front - breaking after only one round.

I hope to play again this weekend, this time with orcs vs bretonnians. We'll see if it pans out, though.

mageith
17-09-2005, 15:24
I'd just like to point out that this isn't a stat and that it would benefit elite infantry.

WS not a stat? Whatever you want to call it, it's wasted in the back ranks.




Actually they get what they pay for in most cases because casualties are not drawn from an amorphous, mythically cheaper pool.

Apparently I'm not clear on explaining to you the difference between a model and a unit.



When you buy more models you get CR but also staying power.

True. The staying power of cheaper units is better. That's really the point. Another method is needed to bring expensive units (expensive staying power units, if you will) back into the game.



The fact that heavy cavalry doesn't benefit well from deep formations may be a sign to you that it is "costed poorly," but to me (and most people) it reflects a historical reality: cavary did not fight in deep columns.

???? One of the main complaints of heavy cav is that they are too cheap, but not too cheap that they can have multiple ranks but too cheap that their front rank does enough so that they don't need to.

I won't get into any historical arguments on this.




Depth of column is supposed to provide diminishing returns.

:) Egads man, we are playing a game, not war. The points are supposed allow us to bring balanced armies to table.

If your statement is true, which it's not, Depth of Column doesn't do this very good. For cheap infantry ranks bring increasing returns. If it wasn't artifically shut off at 3, cheap infantry would have more ranks. Most run with more ranks anyway.

With expensive infantry (and heavy cav), the ranks don't return any of their investment. Imagine if the 10 model minimum was extended to cavalry. The Heavy cav solution is to run w/o ranks because of their mobility and hard hitting advantages. The expensive infantry UNIT solution is to not use them because they don't do anything better than any other unit in the game (with some rare exceptions mostly to do with stubborn or unbreakable.)



The 5th rank should add less to the combat than the 4th.
The reason one takes it is for greater momentum and staying power - not because everying in that rank is going to swing a sword.

In game terms, the reason is CR (combat results). This is exactly my point.

Commissar von Toussaint
18-09-2005, 01:47
WS not a stat? Whatever you want to call it, it's wasted in the back ranks.

The HW/S rule is not a stat. Higher WS negating it would be a special ability, not a stat - just as "fights in two ranks" isn't a stat.


True. The staying power of cheaper units is better. That's really the point. Another method is needed to bring expensive units (expensive staying power units, if you will) back into the game.

Wrong. Cheap units have variable staying power, depending on what they encounter. They tend to have brittle leadership, be vulnerable to a variety of attacks and die in heaps when fully engaged.


???? One of the main complaints of heavy cav is that they are too cheap, but not too cheap that they can have multiple ranks but too cheap that their front rank does enough so that they don't need to.

I won't get into any historical arguments on this.

This is wise, because you will lose.

If people think cavalry is too powerful, allow me to direct them to Napoleonics. This game takes place in the High Middle Ages, when fully armored knights were the ne plus ultra of warfare.

If you want infantry to dominate, play something else.


Egads man, we are playing a game, not war. The points are supposed allow us to bring balanced armies to table.

I'm not the ones saying they aren't balanced. By and large, they are. I'm merely supporting a few minor adjustments here and there.

Unlike Avian, for example, I don't believe that without the keystone of HW/S bonus, the entire edifice will collapse.


If your statement is true, which it's not, Depth of Column doesn't do this very good. For cheap infantry ranks bring increasing returns. If it wasn't artifically shut off at 3, cheap infantry would have more ranks. Most run with more ranks anyway.

Read what you just wrote. It's cut off at three ranks. Get it?

If you pack too many troops into one unit and give them too many ranks, they just sit there and the points paid for them are in fact wasted.

Of course, you've ruled out real-world examples, so I guess there's no convincing you of this. :rolleyes:


With expensive infantry (and heavy cav), the ranks don't return any of their investment. Imagine if the 10 model minimum was extended to cavalry. The Heavy cav solution is to run w/o ranks because of their mobility and hard hitting advantages.

This reflects historical reality.


The expensive infantry UNIT solution is to not use them because they don't do anything better than any other unit in the game (with some rare exceptions mostly to do with stubborn or unbreakable.)

Depends on the infantry and what you consider "expensive."

And the special rules are integral to the point costs involved. Stubborn and unbreakable units are more expensive than hordes. Not coincidentally, these are also the ones with better stat lines.

If you want to argue for standardized units and much more restricted army selection, go ahead. I'm a fan of it myself simply because I think it's unrealisted for a commander to pick the exact numbers of troops available for action on the day of the battle.

Using standardized formations of 5, 10, 20 etc. models suits me just fine.

But that's not because it's "more accurate" point wise. It's a wash either way. If you standardize the costs, there's still going to be a "per model" calculation and people will compare this between units.

If you act as though rear ranks don't fight and their abilities are lost, you will completely unbalance the game.

Trunks
18-09-2005, 02:54
Rune of Death: How tying the HW/S bonus to the model's WS slow the game down?

<sarcasm>Because you have to compare WS values and that adds another step to the fighting, and it is something you certainly don't have to ever do when in close combat now . . .</sarcasm>

:evilgrin:

Avian
19-09-2005, 12:40
Unlike Avian, for example, I don't believe that without the keystone of HW/S bonus, the entire edifice will collapse.
Oh, good grief. Grow up.
:rolleyes:

Commissar von Toussaint
20-09-2005, 02:33
Let's review.


And what people who think like that forget is that the problem is not just that the other weapons are not worth the cost compared to HW+SH, they are not worth the cost at all.

Summary: HW/S is only viable option.


It's the same problem with a lot of weapon upgrades. Taking away the free upgrade does not make them worthwhile, because they are quite crappy to begin with.

Summary: HW/S is only viable option.


Taking away that option just makes the game more dull.

Summary: HW/S is only viable option.


Take away the HW+SH bonus and there is no choice and ergo a less challenging game.

Please demonstrate where my summary of your position is wrong.

And try to do it without getting personal. :rolleyes:

Given that the game existed for a quarter century using almost identical weapon rules as those we see today, I think the game will survive a revision to HW/S.

Nurglitch
20-09-2005, 02:36
CvT: I think you need to work on translating and summarizing other people's arguments. Try again.

Wickerman71
20-09-2005, 03:35
I still feel that the bonus for negating the extra save kicks in to early for me to consider it balanced WS 4 canceling WS 3 HW&S bonus just seems to good to me. Where as if you had it be double I think it would be great. WS 4 would cancel out WS 2 & WS6 cancels out WS 3 or less. This would give the Elites a nice bonus but Rank & File would have to get stuck in it.

Voss
20-09-2005, 04:49
This just seems a flat-out bad idea.

a) I don't like idea of whole armies negating equipment that I paid points for (whether extra points, or points built into the basic unit). (and lets face it, this boils down to affecting whole armies. Either undead army , goblins, skaven, most of empire would suffer vs. elves, dwarves or chaos.) It isn't a simple matter of elites vs. rank & file troops, since a large chunk of the warhammer armies are either elite armies or rank & file armies.

b) it sets a bad precedent. Next you'll have missile weapons reduced in range/strength/armor save modifier if they fire against units with a high Initiative value. Or any number of things you could do to two-handed weapons, halberds, spears, etc to make them worthless against a class of foe. A change like this could have a lot of consequences that people aren't looking at.

c) look, nothing needs to give heroes a boost against basic troops again. Herohammer leads to bad things, and obviously this will benefit heroes (as well as elite troops).

Avian
20-09-2005, 09:54
Avian: So if the problem is infantry units who are paying too much for stats, doesn't enhancing the effect of these stats do something to combat the problem? It strikes me that troops with high (4+) WS pay too much for stats that do very little compared to stats like S and T.
As MageIth said, enhancing the effects of stats changes a lot more than just the "ineffective units vs. over-effective units" balance.

You can perfectly well be an ineffective unit with low WS or an over-effective unit with high WS.

What I suggest is that people take a look at the ineffective units and look at what they have in common. I have done so, and spotted a few trends:
- no infantry unit equipped with spears is better than "okay"
- nobody at all equipped with a halberd is better than "okay"
- no ranked unit equipped with a bow-type or crossbow-type weapon is better than "okay"


When it comes to units that can or will fight with HW+SH, there is no trend. On some units it's a great option, while others avoid it (some by not buying a shield, others by using other equipment combos, even if they could have used a HW+SH).
Thus I think it's the wrong place to start.

Commissar von Toussaint
20-09-2005, 10:58
Nurglitch: Avian has said (and he's now reiterating) that he doesn't think spears and halberds do enough.

Now he can explain what he thinks they should do, I suppose, but essentially he's saying that the only viable weapons choice is a new one, created five years ago.

Apparently the first 25 years of WHFB were a waste of everyone's time.

Failing a change like that, I support altering points values to reflect the actual value of unit upgrades.

However I'm not sure how you do that in this case, other than to make the upgrades free - in which case I'm sure Avian will still argue that they aren't worth it.

Maybe he thinks you should get points back for taking spears/halberds, I don't know.


This just seems a flat-out bad idea.

a) I don't like idea of whole armies negating equipment that I paid points for (whether extra points, or points built into the basic unit). (and lets face it, this boils down to affecting whole armies. Either undead army , goblins, skaven, most of empire would suffer vs. elves, dwarves or chaos.) It isn't a simple matter of elites vs. rank & file troops, since a large chunk of the warhammer armies are either elite armies or rank & file armies.

But you don't pay points for it. The points you pay are ZERO. We covered that a dozen pages ago.

This ability is free.

That's part of the problem.


b) it sets a bad precedent. Next you'll have missile weapons reduced in range/strength/armor save modifier if they fire against units with a high Initiative value. Or any number of things you could do to two-handed weapons, halberds, spears, etc to make them worthless against a class of foe. A change like this could have a lot of consequences that people aren't looking at.

:wtf:

The "slippery slope" argument is an odd one to bring up in this case, particularly given the side you're on.

Avian for example seems to want more special powers from spears and halberds. Basically he's pushing for weapon inflation - which is far worse than limiting a special ability.

I want to make that clear - this is an add-on for 6th edition. This rule limits its applicability, that's all.

As for unintended consequences, we've found them: all other weapon choices aren't worth it now.

GW has ignited an arms race: by shifting the base line upward, it now has to add more special rules for every other weapon.

The end result will be more special rules, more balance issues without any appreciable benefit.

This rule won't "ruin" my orcs, or my Empire. Only one Empire unit has HW/S and they have good WS - only elites will negate it. Frankly, WS 5 should be that good.



c) look, nothing needs to give heroes a boost against basic troops again. Herohammer leads to bad things, and obviously this will benefit heroes (as well as elite troops).

Herohammer was a function of unlimited character and magic item choices, not negating shields.

I'd also point out that most heroes use great weapons - which negate 4+ saves anyway.

Niibl
20-09-2005, 11:48
Avian for example seems to want more special powers from spears and halberds. Basically he's pushing for weapon inflation - which is far worse than limiting a special ability.

Not as long as they are rather specific in their effect.
This would increase the demand of tactical skills to get the appropriate troops into an effective position.

On the other hand, if Weapons were changed I don't think that troops armed with HW, Shield and an other weapon should be able to use the bonus, as having the choice to change between these "styles" would be an option you didn't pay for.
(Imagine fencing with a greatsword strapped to your back :D )

Has anyone mentioned the return of the old WS-table yet?
Higher WS would mean more hits and more armour saves which have to be made.

Boomstar
20-09-2005, 12:10
I haven't read every single comment so sorry if this was brought up already.

But if this rule was put into effect wouldn't it simply make taking troops with higher then average WS and giving them anything else then HW/Shields, or Great Weapons a complete waste?And certainly at the other end of the spectrum units with low WS would never want to take an HW and shield, you could argue but they would be cheaper but not all troops with WS 3 and below are cheap fodder troops anyway.

Ogres would be hit pretty hard by this rule as well, what would be the point of ever taking an ironfist (I don't play orges so not sureif thats the right name) with there WS 3?It would just make taking Ironguts with there great weapons even more popular.

No, I liked this idea at first, but its spears and halberds that are the problem here there simply not worth it.They need improvement to make them a more viable option.


This rule won't "ruin" my orcs, or my Empire. Only one Empire unit has HW/S and they have good WS - only elites will negate it. Frankly, WS 5 should be that good.

I play dwarfs and orcs which is why I like this proposal at first as well, but you really need to look at all the other armies.

Avian
20-09-2005, 12:29
No, I liked this idea at first but really its spears and halberds that are the problem here there simply not worth it.They need improvement to make them a more viable option.
The real problem with spears and halberds is that while the basic cost of models went down in this edition, the cost of weapons did not. In fact, it often went up, either relative to the cost of the model*, or it just plain went up. Orcs now pay 2 pts for spears, instead of 1 pt like in 5th edition, and the basic orc is better and cheaper.

Some weapons also got worse (spear), while others suffer from a larger minimum size for the unit (missile weapons).

To take the Goblin example again - it now costs MORE to give a CHEAPER and BETTER Goblin a WORSE spear.
That does not encourage a lot of spear-carrying goblin units.
Thus you choose the default option, and if you think that making the default option worse is going to make people buy the spears, I think you will find yourself mistaken.


My suggested solutions to this:
1) make the problematic weapons better
2) make weapon costs be per unit instead of per model. For example it could cost +25 pts to equip ALL orcs in a unit with a spear each, in the same manner that it costs +X pts to give all models in a chaos unit the same Mark.


* ie. you are usually more hesitant to give a 5 pt model a 2 pt weapon than you are to give a 10 pt model the same 2 pt weapon


On a related note, if the +1 CR bonus for having a wide enough formation to have unengaged models in the front rank turns out to be true, I'm considering a unit of 45 gobbos with HW+SH, deployed 8 wide.

Commissar von Toussaint
21-09-2005, 02:51
Avian, those changes do nothing to settle the issue of weapon skill, though.

What makes this rule so intriguing is that it fixes two things at once: it reinforces the elite nature of high WS armies AND it eliminates an unintended consequence of giving troops a free bonus armor save.

I suppose I'm getting a little too peeved at this whole "spears/halberds are worthless" argument since I use them extensively in my Empire and Orc armies.

Indeed, spears are a mainstay - I have big units of orcs w/spears, goblins with spears and humans with spears.

All have done very well for me. Maybe I'm channeling a little of Kat on this but it really is starting to seem as though the free 4+ save is a bit of a crutch. When one speaks of it being the "only" choice, it sure sounds that way.

Your armies will still be able to fight, you'll just need a little more thought in selecting/using them.

Yes, they won't be as effective as if we equipped them with Maxim guns.

I'm clear on that by now.

Then agian, HW/S is after all supposed to be the worst choice in the game. That's why it's the cheapest, you know.

mageith
21-09-2005, 03:57
Then agian, HW/S is after all supposed to be the worst choice in the game. That's why it's the cheapest, you know.

Based on what is HW/S SUPPOSED to be the worst choice in the game? Cheapest is one thing, but cost effectiveness is quite another.

My understanding of why the HW/S rule was instituted in the first place was to provide another reasonable choice for models. It's now become far and away the best choice for most infantry. At the time the decision was made, heavy cav wasn't core and omnipresent and perhaps the outnumber bonus hadn't yet been born or at least not adequately playtested.

I wish it had never been instituted and I wish cavalry hadn't be cut by 25% in cost w/o playtesting and I wish heavy cav hadn't been made core and I wish great weapons didn't strike first on the charge when mounted, but all this came about despite my wishing.

Removing the HW/S or even weakening it without modifying some other rules will cause lots of infantry to disappear from the game, IMO.

At this point the greatest combat need is to strengthen Expensive infantry and the weapons they use. This will make them more viable against cheap infantry and more importantly vs their more prevalent enemies, namely heavy cav.

It's impressive that you can make halberds work in your Empire army, but I think you are part of a small minority.

Mage Ith

Illumina
21-09-2005, 06:30
Bad, bad, baaaad idea.

Avian
21-09-2005, 11:24
I suppose I'm getting a little too peeved at this whole "spears/halberds are worthless" argument since I use them extensively in my Empire and Orc armies.
And in my three armies I have a whupping ONE unit that solely uses HW+SH, with a somewhat greater number that can elect to use it, if they want.

I can understand that people want elite units to be more elite, but I don't think tinkering with WS is the way to go, because a lot of under-effective units have average (or worse) WS and and change would hurt them more than it benefits the high WS troops.

And similarly don't believe that all (or even the majority of) high WS units need improvement.

I think people should sit down and make a list of which units need improvement and see what they have in common that other units don't have.



Removing the HW/S or even weakening it without modifying some other rules will cause lots of infantry to disappear from the game, IMO.
I agree with this.

Commissar von Toussaint
21-09-2005, 22:31
Based on what is HW/S SUPPOSED to be the worst choice in the game?

Reality.

Point cost.

What else is there?

I also disagree that if HW/S is modified, the units that use it will "disappear."

Once again the whole "If you tinker with this rule, the whole game will collapse" argument.

No, it won't.

Avian, if you examine the units that need the most improvements you notice two defining features:

1. They tend to have high WS.
2. They tend to use spears and halberds.

That is why I like this proposal.

If there is a low WS troop that needs dramatic point reductions/increased power I'd like to hear about it. I haven't played against every army out there so it's altogether probable that I missed it. Please, enlighten me.

Avian
22-09-2005, 09:56
If there is a low WS troop that needs dramatic point reductions/increased power I'd like to hear about it. I haven't played against every army out there so it's altogether probable that I missed it. Please, enlighten me.
This discussion is not about improving low WS units, is it? What you want to do it to make them worse.

Your request should really be:
"If there is a low WS troop that desperately does not need decreased power I'd like to hear about it."

and the opposite:
"If there is a high WS troop that doesn't need dramatic point reductions/increased power I'd like to hear about it."

There are plenty of those, far more than the high WS troops that desperately need improvement.



I don't think WS is a problematic stat. My ogres have generally low WS and that is a real disadvantage. They would gladly have higher WS. My greenskins have a good variety of weapon skills and all types of units are used.
My High Elves, on the other hand, all have good to high WS and I can imagine that if you only played elves you wouldn't know how to appreciate it.

I think the problem with the pricing of units mainly stem from two areas:
1) Movement. Having high Movement is a huge benefit, as it allows you to use your other stats to their best advantage. Take Dwarf Lords, for example. They might be badass in combat, but have a high chance of never striking a blow, because of their Movement of 3. My Ogre General in the local campaign is vastly more effective than than my orc general last season, because of his boosted Movement.
That assumes that you want to move. Units that rarely move should not pay as much for their Movement as units that often move (this is part of why Dwarf Crossbowmen tend to be more effective than High Elf Archers).

2) Psychology (including Ld and factors such as Stupidity, Animosity and so on). This is a very difficult area to value, because a lot depends on how you use the unit (and how a unit is used depends on how their rules end up). Place a Skavenslave unit within 12" of a Warlord and they are as reliable as Dwarf Warriors under the gaze of their General, despite that the Ld stat of a slave is 7(!) pts lower than the dwarf's.
Happily it seems to me that they are getting better at valuing this, and giving elite units some sort of psychological advantage.


I'd like to praise the Wood Elf army book for getting the elite elf units just about right.

Katastrophe
22-09-2005, 22:26
Avian, Mageith and all others that seem to not want the rule changed, you all seem to accept that it is ok for already cheap, low ws troops (particulaly gobbos, skaven slaves) to get something for nothing. they get a FREE advantage that has no disadvantage and that other more expensive troops actually pay for (its built into the cost of the other weapon option that they MUST buy in most cases).

The nature of this change goes to fixing that as well as making WS (a stat that currently has far less value than S,T) a stat that does actually confer some benefit. It still would not be on par with S/T but it would go a long way in making high WS troops attractive over low WS troops.

right now the default hw/s is better than other options that cost points and that is not the way that it should be in a point based game.

samw
22-09-2005, 23:33
Just to throw an idea out there, perhaps a limiting of 'hand weapons'?

Think about it, what if you counted saurus, marauders, dwarfs etc as having 'hand weapons', and counted say, cheap horde units such as skavenslaves and goblins as having essentially nothing (sticks, clubs, dead friends etc ;) )

You could hence reduce the power of horde troops, while leaving low WS elites (Grave guard, tomb guard saurus etc) well alone. This could be changed as the new books came around on a unit by unit basis, ensuring that it was balanced within the army itself.

Thoughts?

Boomstar
23-09-2005, 00:34
right now the default hw/s is better than other options that cost points and that is not the way that it should be in a point based game.

And no one takes great weapons right?I have feeling modifying the hw/s rule would just make cav armies even more prevalent.

mageith
23-09-2005, 02:07
Avian, Mageith and all others that seem to not want the rule changed, you all seem to accept that it is ok for already cheap, low ws troops (particulaly gobbos, skaven slaves) to get something for nothing. they get a FREE advantage that has no disadvantage and that other more expensive troops actually pay for (its built into the cost of the other weapon option that they MUST buy in most cases).

:) Just a simple response. It's certainly not because HW/S is a "FREE advantage that has no disadvantage" that I defend it. Because not matter what the cost it's reasonably balanced to most of the other unit types in the game. Charging for it or reducing its effectiveness would then make out of balance.



The nature of this change goes to fixing that as well as making WS (a stat that currently has far less value than S,T) a stat that does actually confer some benefit. It still would not be on par with S/T but it would go a long way in making high WS troops attractive over low WS troops.

I don't see it. It would go a short way in making some expensive infantry more attractive vs. low WS troops, but low WS troops are not the main competition here.


right now the default hw/s is better than other options that cost points
I certainly agree here.



and that is not the way that it should be in a point based game.
No, in a point based game the choices should be pretty much the same and the unit types that are out of balance are in order of misbalance: 1) Expensive Infantry (very weak); 2) Bows (weak) and 3) Most heavy cavalry (slightly strong) and certain skirmishers (slightly strong).

Other units types are reasonably balanced to each other: monsters, most skirmishers, horde infantry; fast cav; most other shooting; most war machines; chariots and most ogre sized units.

Of course that is merely my opinion, but I can't see why one would want to make something that is balanced to most other stuff weaker?

If you really think cheap infantry is too strong vs. the majority of unit types, then of course it should be weaker. But I just don't think it is.

Speaking of free stuff, I propose to give expensive infantry free stuff (either free bonus CR or free upgrades to non hw/shield weapons) as well as bows free stuff (shoot in ranks). But not because it's free but because those unit types need a boost.

Mage Ith

Avian
23-09-2005, 10:34
Avian, Mageith and all others that seem to not want the rule changed, you all seem to accept that it is ok for already cheap, low ws troops (particulaly gobbos, skaven slaves) to get something for nothing.
You might not be aware of it, but Skavenslaves do not come with shields and most skaven players do not buy shields for them, because with horde infantry you want the unit as cheap as possible and any upgrades have to be very cost effective before you want to take them.
Thus we have a situation where HW+SH is not attractive for a horde unit.

And it's not true that I don't want the rule changed, I want to broaden it to cover magical hand weapons and magical shields as well. :p




Think about it, what if you counted saurus, marauders, dwarfs etc as having 'hand weapons', and counted say, cheap horde units such as skavenslaves and goblins as having essentially nothing (sticks, clubs, dead friends etc ;) )
As I mentioned, Skavenslaves are not usually issued shields as it is, so for them this change would just mean that they never use shields.
My goal is to make upgrades that are currently not worth it more effective, and this is exactly the opposite.

Apart from that, I have indeed considered this suggestion some time ago, but the problem is that nowadays units are often explicitly listed as being equipped with hand weapons, making any such rule nearly impossible to introduce unless you redo all the army books at once.

I have also considered only allowing units with only HW+SH to use the bonus (ie. there is no practical way of stashing a halberd out of the way), but that only weakened units with upgraded weaponry, which is the opposite of what I want to achieve.

Niibl
23-09-2005, 15:53
but that only weakened units with upgraded weaponry
This would only be the case with the current weaponabilities.
If you assume that the weaponabilities are adjusted in their fightingvalue
according to their pointcost, the loss of this ability would not matter much.
Keep in mind that the ability to switch fightingstyles should also be worth some points.
Hw+shield without savebonus would still be an alternative for weapons which use
both hands or would strike last in combat.

Katastrophe
23-09-2005, 17:45
And no one takes great weapons right?I have feeling modifying the hw/s rule would just make cav armies even more prevalent.
yea they do, on characters. generally not on standard troops. but you already knew that and asked the question in order to be pithy. shame.

Boomstar
24-09-2005, 06:17
Hmm hm, thats why no one takes great weaponse with dwarf warriors and why ironguts are so popular, and why usually black orcs are genreally used with extra hand weapons :rolleyes: .

Commissar von Toussaint
25-09-2005, 02:12
I think it is generally agreed that great weapons are fine and need no further modification.

Bringing them up is pretty pointless.

Boomstar
25-09-2005, 19:31
I'm bringing it up to show that HW/S isn't the only viable option.Great weapons give a substantial benefit over HW/S if spears and halberds gave a benefit that was on par with great weapons there wouldn't be a problem.

Katastrophe
27-09-2005, 17:19
last i checked, those werent low cost low weaponskill troops which if you read the rest of the posts you will find is the problem that most of us would like addressed. also, i see more hw/s dwarfs than i have ever seen gw dwarfs. but that is an aside.