To-Hit Chart Broken?

[BullBuchanan]

I sure happen to think so. I think its a bit unrealistic when a skink,goblin or similar low level creature can hit my mightiest of all dwarf lords on a 50-50 shot. It makes me cringe every time it happens too. needless to say I'm not a huge fan of the double+1 rule in order to get to a 5+ to hit. I really think it needs to be brought back into perspective a bit more. Since most strength and toughness values are 3,4,5 most wounds are dealt on 3's 4's or 5'6 I see that as somewhat normal as if you hit something with an axe or sword etc you should have a pretty good shot at inflicting some damage as long as his armor doesnt protect him with the blow. However, to say that you have a 50-50 shot at hitting someone who as twice as skilled as their weapon as you, is not something I can seem to process. This bothers me especially because it isnt reflected the same way on the opposite end of the chart, if you are ever so slightly more skilled than your opponent is then you get a dramatic increase in hitting potential from a 4+ to a 3+ this may not seem like alot, but comparatively to how the chart flows the other way it is. This is just something that really bothers me, and I'm wondering if anyone else has any thoughts on it.

[Bubble Ghost]

*checks "To Hit Chart complaint" box on Thread I-Spy*

25 points! Now I just need a High Elf moan thread and a discussion on the nature of Chaos and I've got half my booklet done!

For one thing, goblins can't hit a Dwarf lord on a 4+. But I digress. Warhammer represents massed combat - a shoving match, not a kung fu tournament. Doesn't matter how many super special moves you know if you're grinding face to face with an enemy unit with 25 of your mates shoving you from behind and people either side of you - you haven't got space to demonstrate you ninja powerz to full effect. Then you've got the balance issue - the old chestnut about changing the 5+ to hit requirement from "more than double" to "double or more" is often thrown around, but would only really affect goblins and people fighting Swordmasters of Hoeth, neither of which need any further hindrance or assistance respectively. The to hit chart is fine.

[Drabant]

I agree that the chart is "broken". However, the points costs etc. is balanced according to how this chart works, so it's not just an issue of changing the chart.

[BullBuchanan]

I agree that the chart is "broken". However, the points costs etc. is balanced according to how this chart works, so it's not just an issue of changing the chart.

Oh I understand that completely, and realize what it would take to do such a thing, however I still think its an issue, regardless of whether or not it can, or is likely to be fixed.

[maxwell123]

OMG. Not another thread campaigning for a change to the weapon skill chart.

There is no need at all for the weapon skill chart to be changed. It works perfectly fine as is.

[BullBuchanan]

*checks "To Hit Chart complaint" box on Thread I-Spy*

25 points! Now I just need a High Elf moan thread and a discussion on the nature of Chaos and I've got half my booklet done!

For one thing, goblins can't hit a Dwarf lord on a 4+. But I digress. Warhammer represents massed combat - a shoving match, not a kung fu tournament. Doesn't matter how many super special moves you know if you're grinding face to face with an enemy unit with 25 of your mates shoving you from behind and people either side of you - you haven't got space to demonstrate you ninja powerz to full effect. Then you've got the balance issue - the old chestnut about changing the 5+ to hit requirement from "more than double" to "double or more" is often thrown around, but would only really affect goblins and people fighting Swordmasters of Hoeth, neither of which need any further hindrance or assistance respectively. The to hit chart is fine.

I think double or more would be a decent short term-solution to the issue, but again i was just tossing things around. As far as the goblin mention, i dont know their statline, I was generalizing. I don't care what kind of fight you're in the odds of a rank and file trooper hitting a hero or lord should at least be 5 up without question.

In the same respect the to-hit chart which you claim is not broken, gives the same odds of hitting your opponent when you are twice his skill, as it does when you are ten times his skill which is still about 2/3 chance.

So let me get this straight. You say that it seems reasonable for someone to be able to hit an opponent twice his skill 3 out of every 6 times, but you also have no problem that a person with double his opponents skill has the same chance to hit as someone ten times the opponents skill? it just seems too geared torwards a bell curve. Granted it wouldnt be much fun to have a Lord with a WS 10 running around killing everything on a 2+, but this is more just for conversation than anything. There is no way that this issue could be fixed by a simple chart alignment, unless they just slightly altered it to double or more. Otherwise all the units in the game would have to be rebalanced, and who could say if it would even make the game more enjoyable.

A good purpose of mine for this post is that I think GW puts too tight of constraints on parts of its rules. You can only do so much when your entire system is based off of numbers 1-10 and your dice are entirely made up of D6's. because obviously very few troops will ever have any characteristics of 1 or 2, and the same goes for 9 and ten. That gives you the numbers 3-8 to distinguish between a lowly foot soldier to the most mighty of combatants. Seems a little tough to pull off doesnt it?

I really have no intent on changing anything by bringing this up, but I just thought it would be a nice piece of discussion for those that feel like they'd like to throw a log on the fire and chat for a bit.

[Bubble Ghost]

I just thought it would be a nice piece of discussion for those that feel like they'd like to throw a log on the fire and chat for a bit.

Isn't that what I was doing..?

The problem is, you're arguing about how realistic a complete abstraction is. You're onto a loser from the start there. A percentage chance to hit or miss with nothing in between, and in fact the whole concept of a digital "attack", is unrealistic in itself; it's a useless starting point for talking about relative ability represented by an equally abstract numerical representation of said ability. In short...

So let me get this straight. You say that it seems reasonable for someone to be able to hit an opponent twice his skill 3 out of every 6 times, but you also have no problem that a person with double his opponents skill has the same chance to hit as someone ten times the opponents skill?

...yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Oh look, you made me die now. That water spout machine thing is a pain in the ass. Damn you Dr. Robotnik...

[Avian]

I sure happen to think so. I think its a bit unrealistic when a skink,goblin or similar low level creature can hit my mightiest of all dwarf lords on a 50-50 shot.

Disregarding the factual error: if your Dwarf Lord regularly gets killed by skinks or goblins send me a PM - I may have some tips for you.

[BoosterX]

Disregarding the factual error: if your Dwarf Lord regularly gets killed by skinks or goblins send me a PM - I may have some tips for you.

Why do you waste your time posting snarky smart @ss comments followed by a -> ???

Nobody cares.

[Delicious Soy]

Hey Bubbleghost, check another one off your list .

Topic: Others have said but I'll put my own spin on it. You could argue that the to hit chart is realistic. Most swordplay lasts all of 30 seconds and a lot of randomness can still be involved, and thats only two opponents in a duel, never mind several guys clashing with another group of guys. A Dwarf Lord could be hit by a goblin simply because he maybe distracted by the other seven hes chopping to pieces. Silly stuff like that can happen on the field.

[lord_blackfang]

That chart's been around since forever and is the same for all D6-based GW games. Change it? Un-bloody-likely.

[Major Defense]

In the same respect the to-hit chart which you claim is not broken, gives the same odds of hitting your opponent when you are twice his skill, as it does when you are ten times his skill which is still about 2/3 chance.

So let me get this straight. You say that it seems reasonable for someone to be able to hit an opponent twice his skill 3 out of every 6 times, but you also have no problem that a person with double his opponents skill has the same chance to hit as someone ten times the opponents skill?

I'm going to go ahead and venture a guess that you've never killed anyone with a hand weapon? Maybe witnessed an actual life-and-death sword battle first hand? No? So on what basis would someone uneducated in the art of armed combat make such claims about the level of "skill" effecting the chances of someone hitting an opponent? Do you not see the sarcastic point being made by my litany of rhetorical questions?

There is also the factor that characters with higher weapon skills generally have more attacks. This does not mean that they move and fight that many times faster than a foot soldier with one attack. It instead shows that their higher ability to use their weapon efficiently or, in some cases, to use more weapons and therefore be more efficient in attacking.

[BoosterX]

I'm going to go ahead and venture a guess that you've never killed anyone with a hand weapon? Maybe witnessed an actual life-and-death sword battle first hand? No? So on what basis would someone uneducated in the art of armed combat make such claims about the level of "skill" effecting the chances of someone hitting an opponent? Do you not see the sarcastic point being made by my litany of rhetorical questions?

That's funny. But it isn't like GW has any of what you said under their belt either...


On the realistic side...

IT'S A GAME PEOPLE... Not a simulation !

[Selsaral]

Well the chart certainly reduces the impact WS has on the game compared to other versions of warhammer. I find toughness to be a more influencial statistic than WS in 6th ed. It appears to have been intentional, to tone-down the dominance of characters. Although I am sympathetic to the suggestion that WS have a larger impact on the game, I think it would break more than it would fix all other things considered. It would certainly tweak-out the impact of characters again, so you'd have to change a bunch of other stuff to compensate for that. The game is feeling is pretty damn balanced to me right now.

And as MD points out, WS isn't the sole indicator of your melee abilities. Number of attacks, strength, toughness, and initiative also play an important role.

[Lord Lucifer]

Jaysus, long thread, it's late, I need to be up in a few hours for Games Club, forgive me for not reading this whole thread and possibly doubling up on posts, but here goes.

Evidently, your To Hit chart is broken.
The one in my rulebook indicates Skinks, Goblins, snotlings etc. can't even hit LongBeards on a 4+, let alone WS7 Dwarf Lords (whom even humans need a 5+ to hit)

Unless your Dwarf army book mysteriously has Dwarf Lords listed as WS4...


Anyway, the chart's been in use for well over ten years now.
I've had no problems with it


It prevents polarising of unit effectiveness too severely, especially in relation to Characters.

Strength bonuses are essentially capped at +1 (Empire characters, Elf characters, Dwarf characters, Orc/Black Orc characters etc. all get a base +1 over their standard racial profile)
WS doesn't cap, as the chart isn't so severe.

You can boost your strength with weapons to compensate for low strength/high toughness. The only weapon that does anything to WS to my knowledge is the Cathayan Longswords that Ogre Maneaters can take


The WS chart works brilliantly.
The only people that complain tend to be those offended by the thought that it's possible to actually hit their character, despite the chances of doing so are still rather slim, let alone living long enough to try

[Avian]

Why do you waste your time posting snarky smart @ss comments followed by a -> ???

Because the comparison of goblins and dwarf lords are pointless. It doesn't matter that the goblin can hit the dwarf half as often as the dwarf can hit the goblin - with each attack. Goblins don't kill Dwarf Lords. Ergo the abstraction gives a satisfactory result in this case and the thread becomes a pointless complaint (and one we have seen before) instead of a valid argument.

I would personally say that the problem is not that weedy troops kill too few expensive models, since quite frankly they struggle to kill other weedy models, but that the expensive models (particularly expensive infantry) kill too few weedy models.
Thus adjusting the to-hit chart so that the weedy troops kill very, very few models, instead of very few models is not only dull (if you ask me, having few models die is dull), but the wrong way of doing it.

You could instead say that having +2 WS compared to the enemy gives you some further bonus, it doesn't have to be hitting on 2+, it could be something else.

BUT then you also run into the problem of making heroes more powerful and at this point in the discussion people tend to run out of good ideas.

[Avian]

Well the chart certainly reduces the impact WS has on the game compared to other versions of warhammer. I find toughness to be a more influencial statistic than WS in 6th ed.

Statwise, in 6th edition we have seen that some models go up in WS (eg. Witch Elves, Swordmasters) and some go down (Chaos Warriors), while pretty much nobody has gone up in Strength (Inner Circle knights being one) and quite a few have gone down (Stormvermin). The to-hit and to-wound charts are the same.

I would say that the greatest stat is strength, because a single point of strength negates both one point of toughness and one point of armour save. Why the Sword of Might is so cheap I don't know.

[Selsaral]

Statwise, in 6th edition we have seen that some models go up in WS (eg. Witch Elves, Swordmasters) and some go down (Chaos Warriors), while pretty much nobody has gone up in Strength (Inner Circle knights being one) and quite a few have gone down (Stormvermin). The to-hit and to-wound charts are the same.

I would say that the greatest stat is strength, because a single point of strength negates both one point of toughness and one point of armour save. Why the Sword of Might is so cheap I don't know.

You're probably right, and that explains why I keep getting the Sword of Might for my main characters. (I never intended to comment on the greatest single stat).

[BullBuchanan]

I would personally say that the problem is not that weedy troops kill too few expensive models, since quite frankly they struggle to kill other weedy models, but that the expensive models (particularly expensive infantry) kill too few weedy models.
Thus adjusting the to-hit chart so that the weedy troops kill very, very few models, instead of very few models is not only dull (if you ask me, having few models die is dull), but the wrong way of doing it.

You could instead say that having +2 WS compared to the enemy gives you some further bonus, it doesn't have to be hitting on 2+, it could be something else.

BUT then you also run into the problem of making heroes more powerful and at this point in the discussion people tend to run out of good ideas.

This is pretty much my point, and i used the Goblin/Lord comparison as a quick example. It seems some people can't handle that however, and everyone went running to their closets and grabbed all their army books and rulleboks, and then went to work proving a non-important part of my post wrong. In doing so they made it the headline.

I just threw the example in so people didn't get all confused over the numbers, but since that can't be handled I'll just use numbers.

btw, I think I'll stay away from the general section. You guys are way to sensitive over here.

[BullBuchanan]

I would say that the greatest stat is strength, because a single point of strength negates both one point of toughness and one point of armour save. Why the Sword of Might is so cheap I don't know.

I would agree here as well, but instead of fighting on both fronts I picked my battle. The weapon skill chart as it stands is not really a problem, and neither is the strength chart, but when put together It allows for some entirely random events to occur, and that before you even add in the factor that you are using dice. There are no bonuses or magic items in the game that affect toughness(to my knowledge) but yet i can throw strength bonuses on any troop in my army.