Make Weapon Skill great again!

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

We have just released T9A: Quick Starter Edition. Check it out now in the news or on the Rules page!

  • If your WS is more than twice that of your opponent, 2+ to hit. If your opponent's WS is more than three times your WS, 6+ to hit.

    That's just expanding from 5+ to hit if your opponent has more than double your WS.

    WS 3 only needs 6s against WS 10, which I reckon would be pretty good odds in reality. Someone with WS 10 should not be missing 1/3 of their attacks goblins.
  • JDAntoine wrote:

    Thing is WS works allright the way it is. While not perfect or very variable it is also part 1 of 3/4 rolls needed to kill.

    Hit
    Wound
    Armour
    Ward/Regen

    If we would scale it differently as mention certain models just wont ever die. Which removes fun from the game.
    Why are you making statements about current stats in relation to base rule change which would reevaluate all related stats of all models? And WS does not work alright if it would we wouldn't have bandaid rules like: lightning reflexes, distracting, flails adding +1 to hit and on top of that we could differentiate berserk reckless marauder (WS4) from stoic defensive elf (WS4) and moderate elite human (WS4). Only adding separate WS for defense (or reusing I for that) allows to fix all the issues
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
  • Adam wrote:

    Why are you making statements about current stats in relation to base rule change which would reevaluate all related stats of all models?
    Because the current stats are all based and balanced on core rules.

    In any game step 1 is to have Core rules, step 2 is to have Faction rules. You cannot simply change step 1 and have step 2 not altered. It doesn't work out that way because step 1 is used as the cost balancing norm for step 2.
  • Weighing it for a bit, I'm getting intrigued by the idea of splitting WS into offensive and defensive, call them e.g. Attack Skill and Defence Skill. Then, things like parrying, Dwarven shieldwalls, flails etc could be represented by modifiers to either of the two stats, rather than needing separate special rules.

    The main issue I would see is that there's a rather narrow, granular scale at which these stats could effectively be. If AS vs DS would work using the same table as Strength vs Toughness, you'd effectively be restricted to values within +/- 2 of each other, which makes every point quite significant, maybe too significant for many purposes. Also, even within that range, going from a DS of 1 more to a DS of 2 more would change the chance to hit from 5+ to 6+, a sudden drop of killing power by half. To avoid this, you could arguably stretch out the scale so that instead, to hit on 3+, you'd need an AS of 2 more than enemy DS, and to hit on 2+, an AS of 4 more. Consequently, to be hit on 5+, you'd need a DS of 2 more than enemy AS, and 4 more to be hit on 6+. That'd stretch out the scale but not really smoothen it, that'd just mean that there's no difference between having 1 more than the enemy and having 2 more in the relevant stat.
  • The thing with splitting them up is that by balancing you do not really gain a lot of ground. It boils down to the same discussion I had before with people regarding D6 systems, 2D6 systems, D10 Systems and D20 systems.

    Examples:
    - Current WS system of Ninth Age leads to the common, I need 3+ to hit or 4+ to hit.
    - Current MAT/DEF (2d6) system of Warmachine/Hordes leads to I need 1-6/7/8-12+ to hit. Because of balancing reasons you could translate that once again in 3+/4+/5+ in a 1d6 system.

    Moral remains that Theory suggest a lot of possible gained ground but realistically you don't gain much if you also want to Balance things out.
    Balancing means you will always have to work towards a statstical norm, which for a 1D6 system should revolve around 3/4's required to hit/wound.

    You can have extreme factors where you'd need 5+ to hit or even 6+ but this will lead to two things:
    1. People complain piece A or B is too powerful as statistically it's unfun to play against said model
    2. People will not play the models that might have the stats that require 5+ and 6+ hits to be common for them

    TLDR

    WS works out the way it does rather well. You can add all kinds of oddities but players like to have that 50/50 chance of hitting/missing more as 20/80's or 80/20s.
  • Splitting weaponskill solves the issue of models who hit you on a 2+ also are hit in return on a 6+, which makes the power balance a little too high.

    A similar solution would be to stagger those effects so they're less likely to happen at the same time.
    • 1 Higher weaponskill = 3+ to hit
    • 2 Higher weaponskill = hit on a 5+
    • 3 Higher weaponskill = 2+ to hit
    • 4 Higher weaponskill = hit on a 6+
    12345678910
    14+4+5+5+6+6+6+6+6+6+
    23+4+4+5+5+6+6+6+6+6+
    33+3+4+4+5+5+6+6+6+6+
    42+3+3+4+4+5+5+6+6+6+
    52+2+3+3+4+4+5+5+6+6+
    62+2+2+3+3+4+4+5+5+6+
    72+2+2+2+3+3+4+4+5+5+
    82+2+2+2+2+3+3+4+4+5+
    92+2+2+2+2+2+3+3+4+4+
    102+2+2+2+2+2+2+3+3+4+
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Splitting weaponskill solves the issue of models who hit you on a 2+ also are hit in return on a 6+, which makes the power balance a little too high.

    A similar solution would be to stagger those effects so they're less likely to happen at the same time.
    • 1 Higher weaponskill = 3+ to hit
    • 2 Higher weaponskill = hit on a 5+
    • 3 Higher weaponskill = 2+ to hit
    • 4 Higher weaponskill = hit on a 6+











    Nice model but what this would lead to is the complete destruction of WS 2/3 models (thus a lot of Core) or Parry suddenly becomming an extremely odd and great ability.
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Splitting weaponskill solves the issue of models who hit you on a 2+ also are hit in return on a 6+, which makes the power balance a little too high.

    A similar solution would be to stagger those effects so they're less likely to happen at the same time.
    • 1 Higher weaponskill = 3+ to hit
    • 2 Higher weaponskill = hit on a 5+
    • 3 Higher weaponskill = 2+ to hit
    • 4 Higher weaponskill = hit on a 6+
    12345678910
    14+4+5+5+6+6+6+6+6+6+
    23+4+4+5+5+6+6+6+6+6+
    33+3+4+4+5+5+6+6+6+6+
    42+3+3+4+4+5+5+6+6+6+
    52+2+3+3+4+4+5+5+6+6+
    62+2+2+3+3+4+4+5+5+6+
    72+2+2+2+3+3+4+4+5+5+
    82+2+2+2+2+3+3+4+4+5+
    92+2+2+2+2+2+3+3+4+4+
    102+2+2+2+2+2+2+3+3+4+

    I think I suggested exactly this in my OP, just formulated a bit differently :)
  • JDAntoine wrote:

    The thing with splitting them up is that by balancing you do not really gain a lot of ground. It boils down to the same discussion I had before with people regarding D6 systems, 2D6 systems, D10 Systems and D20 systems.

    Examples:
    - Current WS system of Ninth Age leads to the common, I need 3+ to hit or 4+ to hit.
    - Current MAT/DEF (2d6) system of Warmachine/Hordes leads to I need 1-6/7/8-12+ to hit. Because of balancing reasons you could translate that once again in 3+/4+/5+ in a 1d6 system.

    Moral remains that Theory suggest a lot of possible gained ground but realistically you don't gain much if you also want to Balance things out.
    Balancing means you will always have to work towards a statstical norm, which for a 1D6 system should revolve around 3/4's required to hit/wound.

    You can have extreme factors where you'd need 5+ to hit or even 6+ but this will lead to two things:
    1. People complain piece A or B is too powerful as statistically it's unfun to play against said model
    2. People will not play the models that might have the stats that require 5+ and 6+ hits to be common for them

    TLDR

    WS works out the way it does rather well. You can add all kinds of oddities but players like to have that 50/50 chance of hitting/missing more as 20/80's or 80/20s.
    I do not really agree with that. As if we introduce defensive WS elves can be lighter armored as they will be hit less so you can easily make them 5+/6+ to hit if heroes are unable to get more than 3+/4+ save, the same goes the other way around: zombies could be made more easy to hit but also tankier (which would be quite fluffy imho) so in the end you could play more with other stats too. With that it would be completely possible to make balanced unit with T5 provided it gets hit easily. Or balanced elite T3 6+ save elf for 40ppm as most guys would hit him on 5/6 in CC. Right now there are no such choices at all - so most models feel quite similar (apart from special rules bloat)
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
  • Adam wrote:

    If we introduce defensive WS elves can be lighter armored as they will be hit less so you can easily make them 5+/6+ to hit if heroes are unable to get more than 3+/4+ save, the same goes the other way around: zombies could be made more easy to hit but also tankier (which would be quite fluffy imho) so in the end you could play more with other stats too.
    As said, you have to re-design everything in order to make it work.

    To the point where the question doesn't become how to make it balanced but how it relates to the expected vision of the Ninth Age players.
  • Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    I think I suggested exactly this in my OP, just formulated a bit differently :)
    Great minds think alike :thumbsup:

    JDAntoine wrote:

    Nice model but what this would lead to is the complete destruction of WS 2/3 models (thus a lot of Core
    You'll have to explain what you mean by "complete destruction", since I can't see it happening.
  • JDAntoine wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    If we introduce defensive WS elves can be lighter armored as they will be hit less so you can easily make them 5+/6+ to hit if heroes are unable to get more than 3+/4+ save, the same goes the other way around: zombies could be made more easy to hit but also tankier (which would be quite fluffy imho) so in the end you could play more with other stats too.
    As said, you have to re-design everything in order to make it work.
    To the point where the question doesn't become how to make it balanced but how it relates to the expected vision of the Ninth Age players.

    Of course, but that is also the case with all other core rule changes so that is to be expected. Also you can start with all units having defensive WS equal to their offensive WS and start from there - increase defensive WS by 1 for those with distracting, increase offensive one for those with LR (and do something with GW I) and so on and so forth, so it is not that hard as you make it seem to be.
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports
  • This seems like a rebalancing attempt that is needlessly convoluted.

    Redoing the system like this necessitates a complete rebalanced of ALL units in the game, aside from a select few that are deemed the "codifiers" of a given weapon skill.

    That is a lot of time invested in something that "might" help achieve... what, exactly?

    A lot of armies have a width of 3-6, where the common RnF models stick to 3-4. So for those armies, we'd suddenly see a lot of their units get a surge in weapon skill. This is dangerous for the internal balance, as you risk making entire unit options inferior because of WS alone.

    Elven armies typically have a width that is 4-5, which generally makes they hit better, and often harder to hit. That is perfectly fine, except for the fact that some elite units are balanced around the fact that hordes should overwhelm them.

    If hordes, which are usually Ws3 or even ws2, is pitted against WS5, then they pretty much don't have a chance. Their best bet is no longer grinding, but rather just... waiting, hoping to tarpit them forever. And these types of units are unlikely to get a better WS, see rat at arms, skinks, slaves, gnoblars, etc. So what, you give the elite units meant to be weak to hordes, like Sword masters and Lion Guard, a lower WS? That would be dumb and nonsensical - but how else do you keep the balance in check?

    Secondly, it would make solo characters absurdly good. Watch me put fencer swords on a 1+/4++ Firstborn on a Cold one, and enjoy having to kill an already ludicrously tough character, but now also having to HIT HIM on a 6+ with pretty much all units. Add a limit of 5+ to hit a mounted character? Cool, now I can use him on foot by himself.

    And remember that even now, some characters only have WS4 or WS5. Not just mages and weaker support characters, either - fighting monster lords are found with WS5/6. Unless we streamline WS across all characters, we would see an insane shift in power among the characters. And if we just streamline it, then what's the point of even introducing this system in the first place?

    I just don't think the added complexity is worth it. Especially not with how unfriendly people generally regard 9th age to be for new players already. The current system is easy - are you better than them? Hit on 3+. Are you worse? 4+, unless they are MORE than double your weapon skill. Even 10 year old can figure this out pretty quickly. The proposed system seems to lack that easy way of telling what you need to roll over, and having to remember tables is just a chore, that adds another barrier to new players, and prolongs the game time. The reward just doesn't seem worth the added complexity.
  • Just so we don't go over the same old discussions again, I'd like to point people here How do we make Weaponskill a more important stat? Change the to Hit chart

    and to here Split Weapon Skill in Offense-WS and Defense-WS
    Have you ever split the spline of a dragon? It's a good feeling. Come play Ogres!

    Show off your gaming table!
    Want a peek behind the doors?
  • Im not a fan of this. It takes a ton of flavor out of the game and makes high WS a god stat. Kinda like strength.
    ....and the plan is too separate strength from AP so its not so godly.

    but i do think hitting on 5+ threshold is too wide.
    WS 3 vs 6 should be hitting on 5+, not the current 4+.

    I've tested it out with EoS infantry and it does allow the elites to be a bit more elite.


    anyway, since the first set of rolls is the to hit roll, changing this as OP suggests significantly reduces dmg output of any unit with low WS. So much to the point that the units wouldn't be worth taking even at reduced points cost.
    the only thing worth taking would be high WS units.


    so as far as design testing goes, the WS chart has been extensively tested. And its good.
    the only thing that could be changed is just that if you are 3 below your opponent then you hit on 5's. Because WS 3 vs 6 should be on 5's.
  • Swelt wrote:

    I am for making weapon skill matter more than it currently does. But changing a core mechanic of the game will be difficult, what about parry? If WS us changed then parry would need to change as well. Maybe make parry increase defensive WS by 1?
    I think a cool idea for Parry would be: -1 WS when attacking, +2 WS when defending. Would make it a clearly defensive ability.


    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    WS is already great. If you don't believe that, you should check out relative performance of units with otherwise similar stats but divergent WS; having higher WS than the enemy tips scales very hard, and unlike S there's no easy boost.
    This statement is quite ignorant towards the proposal brought forth here. It deliberately excludes the non-distinguishing of having 2 more WS than your opponent or 3 more than your opponent. If I do it vice-versa and propose a wounding chart with the same values as the to-hit chart, everybody would rightfully claim it as a stupid idea. The only reason for defending the current chart is that "it's always been like that". Why e.g. you hit somebody on 3+ with WS5 against WS3 but wound them on 2+ with S5 against T3 nobody can really explain. Also why do we not use the whole number space of the D6 on hitting? Why is it double as hard to avoid hits by boosting WS compared to avoid wounds via boosting T?

    TheNakedChef wrote:

    If your WS is more than twice that of your opponent, 2+ to hit. If your opponent's WS is more than three times your WS, 6+ to hit.
    That will solve absolutely nothing, as these cases almost never occur.


    I think the proposal is nice, because it would make WS differences more relevant and delete the necessity of a whole lot of extra rules. It would also allow for more differentiation in weapons (e.g. HW+Shiled gives defensive WS bonus). As WS counts for both hitting and being hit, it of course may not scale with every point of difference. The original post already contains a fine circumvention for that, by making it matter per step only for one thing either hitting or being hit.

    Now it is without question, that you would need to rebalance all units after that. Every argument against the original post that is based on another assumption is obviously rooted in an ignorance that the change would not need this rebalancing step. The core question is whether doing that is worth the effort. The question behind that: Do we want to keep something bad at this point, because we fear the change and the work associated with that. As T9A is only two years old, I would say 'No' but your mileage may vary.

    A spell like "Know thy Enemy" or WS values of elite characters would have to be changed as well. I always thought things like that would be trivial to understand, but it seems they aren't.
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

    #freekillerinstinct
  • I think the continious loop we see in these suggestions is that you can change it and make it more complicated but the game itself doesn't improve.

    We have Core fans who want Core units to be more awesome.
    We have Elite fans who want Elite units to be more awesome.
    We have Artillery fans who want Artillery pieces to be more awesome.
    etc.
    Having WS act as a 3+, 4+ and 5+ factor works really well because you have 66%, 50% or 33% chance of hitting. This feels 'fair'.

    You could implement a 20,40,60,80 variant (for example) but this doesn't really add much as hitting actually is step 1 of 3 or 4 to "kill".
    You allready filter a lot of hits with 66,50 or 33% chance of hitting. While Elven could be cool to hit in difficult manners it would move the GW-ish Fantasty flavour to Lord of the Rings Fantasy flavour.

    The gain is minimal, the changes are massive. Again much larger as some think they would include. I don't think it adds anything other than numbers, but numbers shouldn't make up the character of a faction, the overall design should.

    Edit:

    These topics boil down to making X or Y more relevant within the game while their cross faction relevancy isn't the same. Because of that they are cool ideas but I do not believe they add anything to the current format of Ninth Age.

    Make Weapon Skill great again! <- Relevant for factions with competative WS
    Game design philosophy - what is Core? <- Relevant for factions with competative Core units
    The all powerful Initiative <- Actually a topic about Charging, thus relevant for factions with good M who have a distinct benifit for charging


    If you want to tackle it I would first like to know what people find as an error with it. You can change a lot of things for no reason or personal reasons but I do not think a change to WS actually improves the game, nor do I think a change to Core units actually improves the game.

    The way charges are currently handled could improve the game but I secretly think that the game would improve more if we saw more comparable Inative cross factions and we see that.

    I want Ninth Age to remove around combat and death of models. If there is any rules change suggestion that basically makes combat 'softer' I'm opposed to it. This was the case in 6th edition and it quite frankly was a whole lot more boring because of how one-sided combat was upon charge with greater M as your opponent.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by JDAntoine ().

  • JDAntoine wrote:

    Having WS act as a 3+, 4+ and 5+ factor works really well because you have 66%, 50% or 33% chance of hitting. This feels 'fair'.
    Who says that? That is just your opinion. I could as easily modify your sentence with whatever numbers is in there and call "this feels 'fair'" in the end. Won't make it true either.

    And your agurmentation about "it's only numbers" is just plain wrong as well. Of course you shy away from the questions the original poster and the "pro" faction brings up.

    Using your words against you: Since 67%, 50% and 33% feel fair, the wounding table should be adjusted to reflect the hit table. Everything else is just numbers and doesn't add anything to the game. Same for armour saves and ward saves (0%, 17% and 33% are the only possible values there).

    You quickly see the wrongness of your argumentation: First it removes a lot of design space from the game. Also it creates a logical crack in the rules if it doesn't matter in fight against a WS4 opponent, whether you have WS5, 6, 7, or 8. The latest one is a supreme swordsman (WDG Combat Lord), the first one is an elite infantrist (e.g. Iron Orc) which is not common, but certainly not rare on the battlefield. It just doesn't make sense, that those two are exactly equally good at hitting and avoiding hits from e.g. a Spearelf. Converting the example to the wounding chart: Everybody would agree that is it silly to have a hit from a human wielding a great weapon (S5) treated equally on wounding as one of a cannonball (S10). Everybody would be on the barricades (and rightly so).
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

    #freekillerinstinct
  • DarkSky wrote:

    Who says that? That is just your opinion. I could as easily modify your sentence with whatever numbers is in there and call "this feels 'fair'" in the end. Won't make it true either.
    And your agurmentation about "it's only numbers" is just plain wrong as well. Of course you shy away from the questions the original poster and the "pro" faction brings up.

    Using your words against you: Since 67%, 50% and 33% feel fair, the wounding table should be adjusted to reflect the hit table. Everything else is just numbers and doesn't add anything to the game. Same for armour saves and ward saves (0%, 17% and 33% are the only possible values there).

    1 You quickly see the wrongness of your argumentation: First it removes a lot of design space from the game.
    2 Also it creates a logical crack in the rules
    3 It just doesn't make sense,
    And its just your opinion to think else.

    The thing is that I am not saying it's only numbers. Re-read the message if this is the conclusion you are drawing.

    The prime reason as to why WS is not and should not have the same factor as S and Armour is because it's as mentioned 10 times now step 1 of 3 to 4 in actually killing another model.

    As someone who has worked on several games, the ease to play or figure out what a dice roll should do NEVER removes design space, it just does exactly what is said, it makes things easier to process and game from. Hitting a model is not the same as killing a model and the way that is reflected now in Ninth Age does not pose any design problem, as there is very little 'wrong' with how armies work (actually).

    1 Opinion
    2 Opinion
    3 Opinion

    No real fact that backs up any removal of design space, cracks in rules or avoids sence.

    WFB has been working with that table over 15 years because of how much sence it makes. You can implement something else in Ninth but in no way shape or form have you argumented how it would be technically better as the old.