Make Weapon Skill great again!

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

  • New

    JDAntoine wrote:


    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.
    Are you seriously suggesting that Games Workshop's game design decisions constitute evidence of what is or isn't a good game mechanic?

    As people have been saying time and again in this thread, and largely been ignored, the evidence that the table isn't working at properly handling what it's meant to represent has piled up higher and deeper over those 15 years. Every single rule that uses anything else to represent skill at arms and effective ability to hit the enemy and avoid being hit, whether it's re-rolls in this or that situation, additional +1/-1 modifiers to hit on top of what the table yields, ward saves to represent shieldwalling or doing a little dance to avoid being hit, you name it.

    Having a robust and versatile core game design that can handle all kinds of situations is preferable to piling special rule upon special rule on a core system that by itself is inadequate at what it's supposed to do. It makes for a much more streamlined game and creates much less oddball stuff.
  • New

    Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    Are you seriously suggesting that Games Workshop's game design decisions constitute evidence of what is or isn't a good game mechanic?
    As people have been saying time and again in this thread, and largely been ignored, the evidence that the table isn't working at properly handling what it's meant to represent has piled up higher and deeper over those 15 years. Every single rule that uses anything else to represent skill at arms and effective ability to hit the enemy and avoid being hit, whether it's re-rolls in this or that situation, additional +1/-1 modifiers to hit on top of what the table yields, ward saves to represent shieldwalling or doing a little dance to avoid being hit, you name it.

    Having a robust and versatile core game design that can handle all kinds of situations is preferable to piling special rule upon special rule on a core system that by itself is inadequate at what it's supposed to do. It makes for a much more streamlined game and creates much less oddball stuff.
    Are you seriously suggesting removing a fundamental part of the game? Better put it's foundation.
    You get largely ignored because there isn't an evidence that the game functions badly with the current WS system, none, nothing.

    Removal of special rules can be done, which leads to removal of character. What is one of the key strenghts of Ninth Age is that every faction plays differently but this is the case because of the large quantity of special rules they have.

    You can create a more streamlined game, the point is that oddball stuff = character and difference of factions. It is what brings players here.
  • New

    JDAntoine wrote:

    Are you seriously suggesting removing a fundamental part of the game? Better put it's foundation.You get largely ignored because there isn't an evidence that the game functions badly with the current WS system, none, nothing.

    Removal of special rules can be done, which leads to removal of character. What is one of the key strenghts of Ninth Age is that every faction plays differently but this is the case because of the large quantity of special rules they have.

    You can create a more streamlined game, the point is that oddball stuff = character and difference of factions. It is what brings players here.
    As for "evidence that the game functions badly with the current WS system", you speak as if how well the game functions is not only a matter of objective fact but also something that is objectively quantifiable. If it is, what is the metric of it? What kind of hypothetical evidence, if it were to appear, would prove you wrong and me right, or viceversa? I'm perfectly willing to maintain that questions like these ultimately come down to subjective preference. To me, there's something inherently wrong about it if it makes no difference for the outcome whether a fight is WS4 vs WS3 or WS4 vs WS2. You may disagree, and I can agree to disagree with you, but if you maintain that your position is somehow more objectively factual than mine, you better start answering the questions I just asked.

    If special rules are what currently adds character and differentiation to factions, it's largely because they are currently needed to do so. If the core rules were more robust and versatile, that wouldn't necessarily be the case. I'm not ideologically opposed to the use of special rules, I just think it's bad game design to use them when a better core system would do the same job.

    As for what brings players here, I think you overestimate the prevalence of your own preferences, like people are inherently prone to do. Maybe I do too, but I don't pretend to speak for the silent majority (even though it's rhetorically convenient to, it seldom speaks up and objects to having words put in its mouth) or imply that my position should be taken more seriously because I allegedly do.
  • New

    JDAntoine wrote:


    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.
    There is actually a lot of evidence that WS table is plain bad:
    1. The existence of special rules to bandaid WS problems:
      1. lightning reflexes
      2. distracting
      3. parry
      4. shield wall
    2. Logical issues:
      1. WS 10 hero (the best swordsman that is possible) hits a braindead zombie with WS1 (the worst fighter ever) 2 out of three times. The same zombie hits him 1 out of three times - so two zombies put on the same amount of hits back on the best fencer in the world, while in reality even moderate fighter would rarely ever even scratch professional fighter, let alone the best one ever.
    3. Identity issues:
      1. you cannot differentiate reckless fighters from methodical defensive ones like ws4 elf from ws4 barbarian. If the stat was split elf would be something like: offence 3 defence 5 while barbarian would be the other way around.

  • New

    Adam wrote:

    There is actually a lot of evidence that WS table is plain bad:
    1. The existence of special rules to bandaid WS problems:
      1. lightning reflexes
      2. distracting
      3. parry
      4. shield wall
    2. Logical issues:
      1. WS 10 hero (the best swordsman that is possible) hits a braindead zombie with WS1 (the worst fighter ever) 2 out of three times. The same zombie hits him 1 out of three times - so two zombies put on the same amount of hits back on the best fencer in the world, while in reality even moderate fighter would rarely ever even scratch professional fighter, let alone the best one ever.
    3. Identity issues:
      1. you cannot differentiate reckless fighters from methodical defensive ones like ws4 elf from ws4 barbarian. If the stat was split elf would be something like: offence 3 defence 5 while barbarian would be the other way around.

    1. You list 4 characterful abilities as bad. What is the gain in removing these? Do you also remove Fear, Poison, Lethal Blow for the sake of wounding is wounding?

    2. Hitting and scratching is most certainly not the same. It isn't too difficult to imagne enough Zombies (outnumbering 5 to 1) hitting something that is actually very fast. This game does not revolve around those type of duals. Quantity matters and it shows, 1 will indeed likely miss the Elf, 1 in 3 don't.

    3. What on earth makes you think a Barbarian lore-wise is a reckless fighter and an Elf isn't? Lord of the Rings?

    I have yet to see a single example of where it would actually improve the game. If you find one, feel free to tag me.
  • New

    Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    1. As for "evidence that the game functions badly with the current WS system", you speak as if how well the game functions is not only a matter of objective fact but also something that is objectively quantifiable. If it is, what is the metric of it? What kind of hypothetical evidence, if it were to appear, would prove you wrong and me right, or viceversa?

    If special rules are what currently adds character and differentiation to factions, it's largely because they are currently needed to do so.


    As for what brings players here, I think you overestimate the prevalence of your own preferences, like people are inherently prone to do.
    1. 15 + years of happy WFB gaming and happy Ninth Age gaming is the evidence that the game works well with current WS. The quantity of players here learned and (hopefully) played the game with the current WS system. Leading to system that is rather good.

    2. Exact. However what you fail to suggest is this "better" core system.

    3. Not really. The prime reason again being that there is very little to nothing wrong with the WS system. It's filter 1 out of 4, the filter gets more and more narrow.
  • New

    DarkSky wrote:

    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.
    Almost never occurring and never occurring are VERY different.
    -Zombies are ws 1, lots of things are ws 3+.
    -Goblins are ws 2, lots of things are ws 5+.
    -LOTS of core troops are ws 3, lots of characters are ws 7+.

    @DarkSky you really should try and sound more respectful in your posts, you're part of the team and from your posts in this thread my opinion of you is not that high. You're throwing people under the bus, and whether or not you agree with someone should not change how you phrase your response. It's easy to be respectful, a person just needs to choose to do it.
  • New

    @JDAntoine
    1. these skills add nothing to the game (and certainly not character) these are bandaids to something that could be expressed with stats for the same effect without the need of extra abilities - there is no gain from creating needless rules if the same effect can be expressed in a simple manner.
    2. if you manage to land a single blow on a pro lightweight boxer in time he lands 100 it would be amazing, there is no way in hell that zombies are just 2 times worse at hitting than the best fighter in a fantasy world.
    3. So swap barbarian to orc that was for the sake of example
    There are a lot of examples but you just choose to ignore them. The discussion with you became pointless so I'll refrain.
  • New

    the game works with the current to hit table but is not good at all.

    A good table won't need lighting reflex parry etc.
    These are bandaids to help certain units because the table is so bad.
    They are clearly not characterful or flavourful...


    A good table is flavour in itself.

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
    Benjamin Franklin


  • New

    Adam wrote:

    @JDAntoine
    1. these skills add nothing to the game (and certainly not character) these are bandaids to something that could be expressed with stats for the same effect without the need of extra abilities - there is no gain from creating needless rules if the same effect can be expressed in a simple manner.
    2. if you manage to land a single blow on a pro lightweight boxer in time he lands 100 it would be amazing, there is no way in hell that zombies are just 2 times worse at hitting than the best fighter in a fantasy world.
    3. So swap barbarian to orc that was for the sake of example
    There are a lot of examples but you just choose to ignore them. The discussion with you became pointless so I'll refrain.
    You mentioned nothing of an example, you continue to mention loose rules. This game isn't played like that.

    1. If you incorporate special abilities into a new WS system you move the difficult part from A to B. You do not remove it. You gain nothing.

    2. Again, your perspective is incredibly flawed of massed combat. We do not play boxer here, we play rank and flank, good luck trying to dodge 10 guys with spears. As a boxer myself I can assure you you will not dodge 10 strikes from 10 guys.

    3. There is no real sake of example. If you want to have something get Lightning Reflexes, you give it Lightning Reflexes.

    Understand that core rules should cover the most commonly used rules. Special rules are all faction specific. It adds to the character of weapon, model, hero, you name it.
  • New

    Klexe wrote:

    These are bandaids to help certain units because the table is so bad.
    They are clearly not characterful or flavourful...
    Not really. They add character because they arn't that commonly seen.
    A lot of you seem to focus on the theoretical side, focus on the game side. Play it, test it.

    See that Parry, while being good, is not the default choice of units that can actually Parry.
    Understand that Lightning Relfexes is not a common rule.
  • New

    Adam wrote:

    JDAntoine wrote:

    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.
    There is actually a lot of evidence that WS table is plain bad:
    1. The existence of special rules to bandaid WS problems:
      1. lightning reflexes
      2. distracting
      3. parry
      4. shield wall
    2. Logical issues:
      1. WS 10 hero (the best swordsman that is possible) hits a braindead zombie with WS1 (the worst fighter ever) 2 out of three times. The same zombie hits him 1 out of three times - so two zombies put on the same amount of hits back on the best fencer in the world, while in reality even moderate fighter would rarely ever even scratch professional fighter, let alone the best one ever.
    3. Identity issues:
      1. you cannot differentiate reckless fighters from methodical defensive ones like ws4 elf from ws4 barbarian. If the stat was split elf would be something like: offence 3 defence 5 while barbarian would be the other way around.

    1)

    These are not band-aids for WS.

    *Shield Wall is there to make Shields better for Dwarves so that they see play. If it was replaced with something non-shield-specific (e.g. pure WS based defense) then Dwarves would not want to field units with Shields, and the units with Shields would be bad.

    *Parry is not something that can be replaced with a WS-based system; it is there to make shields better, because HW/Shield for NON-Dwarves is pretty terrible and yet many units have it. e.g. EoS infantry with HW/Sh; if you remove Parry, such armament becomes essentially completely pointless compared to spears, if you then nerf spears, spears become essentially a complete waste of time and they move on to halberds... none of this has to do with making WS relevant.

    Both of those two are there because Sword-and-Board is one of the most successful armaments of all history and thus it needs something to let it keep up with the Great Weapons of the world (Great Weapons should not be +2 S, but apparently that ship has sailed)

    *Distracting isn't even something most high WS units can get, because that's a brutal combination! It's a special rule used for spells, the Zombie Dragon cloud of flies and similar abilities - it is there for units that are harder to hit for reasons OTHER than their fighting skill. This is good to distinguish! Fantasy Game!

    *Lightning Reflexes gets used a *lot*. It's a well-balanced +to-hit rule because not working with Great Weapons is a good balancing factor. Elves have it and are highly skilled, but it gets handed out to undead troops (who are not highly skilled, and even with a decent-sized bump to WS, would STILL not be highly skilled) by the Cadaver Wagon, to Vermin Swarm troops as a possibility for Dark Shard Brew (iirc), etc.

    Just making WS better might work for Elven use of LR, but everywhere else it's used to elevate poor troops to mediocrity, and your changes would likely ruin it for them.


    2) Logic: Err no, that's not how it works. Fantastic skill runs into problems as soon as you hit mass combat, because no matter how good you are, you only have two hands and two eyes; badass guys can and do die when attacked by a bunch of semi-skilled guys. (Also, characters have multiple wounds and attacks, solely from skill, so unless you want to power up WS even more and give all characters A1 W1 - or whatever infantry in their army get...)


    3) We're looking at how things actually work? There's no such think as a reckless fighter who is actually skilled. Offense and defense flow fluidly, because there is no defense possible without the willingness to hurt the other guy (well, you can try to disarm them or grapple them rather than hurt them - but those are still offensive actions), and there is no offense possible if your brains are impaled on their weapon.

    Could you go into greater detail? Yes, you can - but a mass battle game doesn't need all the detail T9A has, let alone more.
  • New

    well it clearly seems like you have a different opinion and this whole talk is nonsense.

    From my point of view as ex playtester and player with and against many many RT/balancing board/ army construction team member I know these rules are band aids to help poor weak units.

    Especially parry like you mentioned. The whole reason behind it why it exist in 9 th age was:
    Reduction of dice to roll = no wardsave and buffing of cheap crap units and buffing of sword and board.

    Also that I am online since the start here and spending way to much time I can assure you that I read it all.

    Talking about parry and the to hit table is nothing new and is one of the major headaches.

    The only reason why it didn't change up to now expect small extra rules like reflex and parry is only because it would be a huuuuuuuuge task and could do more harm then help because literally every unit in every book would have been rewritten.


    The idea about an offensive and defensive Ws stat sounds good for me.

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
    Benjamin Franklin


  • New

    Adam wrote:

    @JDAntoine
    1. these skills add nothing to the game (and certainly not character) these are bandaids to something that could be expressed with stats for the same effect without the need of extra abilities - there is no gain from creating needless rules if the same effect can be expressed in a simple manner.
    2. if you manage to land a single blow on a pro lightweight boxer in time he lands 100 it would be amazing, there is no way in hell that zombies are just 2 times worse at hitting than the best fighter in a fantasy world.
    3. So swap barbarian to orc that was for the sake of example
    There are a lot of examples but you just choose to ignore them. The discussion with you became pointless so I'll refrain.

    As I just said, no, not band-aids, no, they cannot be replaced with stats without having really complicated stats.


    On to 2: This is not boxing. This is armed mass combat. Weapons make a heck of a difference, and having buddies around make even more. And also, the A4 on a KoE lord is still his skill (he's not an ogre or a dragon), so actually that's 8 times worse right there.

    3. Orcs have lower WS, because reckless fighters are bad fighters.
  • New

    well it clearly seems like you have a different opinion and this whole talk is nonsense.

    From my point of view as ex playtester and player with and against many many RT/balancing board/ army construction team member I know these rules are band aids to help poor weak units.

    Especially parry like you mentioned. The whole reason behind it why it exist in 9 th age was:
    Reduction of dice to roll = no wardsave and buffing of cheap crap units and buffing of sword and board.

    Also that I am online since the start here and spending way to much time I can assure you that I read it all.

    Talking about parry and the to hit table is nothing new and is one of the major headaches.

    The only reason why it didn't change up to now expect small extra rules like reflex and parry is only because it would be a huuuuuuuuge task and could do more harm then help because literally every unit in every book would have been rewritten.


    The idea about an offensive and defensive Ws stat sounds good for me.

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
    Benjamin Franklin


  • New

    Klexe wrote:

    well it clearly seems like you have a different opinion and this whole talk is nonsense.

    From my point of view as ex playtester and player with and against many many RT/balancing board/ army construction team member I know these rules are band aids to help poor weak units.

    Especially parry like you mentioned. The whole reason behind it why it exist in 9 th age was:
    Reduction of dice to roll = no wardsave and buffing of cheap crap units and buffing of sword and board.

    Also that I am online since the start here and spending way to much time I can assure you that I read it all.

    Talking about parry and the to hit table is nothing new and is one of the major headaches.

    The only reason why it didn't change up to now expect small extra rules like reflex and parry is only because it would be a huuuuuuuuge task and could do more harm then help because literally every unit in every book would have been rewritten.


    The idea about an offensive and defensive Ws stat sounds good for me.
    It isn't nonsence. There just is a significant lack of a concrete improved idea.
    What this topic thus far echo's is the suggestion of improving the WS tables without giving an actual example.

    Then Parry and Lightning Reflexes are mentioned who arn't on the mayority of pieces. WS 2-3-4 severly outweighs the numbers of models that have acces to Parry and Lightning Reflexes.

    The point of making rules to help out "poor weak units" is how these rules came to be. Those units arn't "poor weak units" anymore.

    --

    Parry could change but that's a whole different topic again. Do you want to discuss the WS table or actually want to discuss Parry? They are not the same.

    As mentioned earlier this topic, Parry has several options to go. I still do not think +1 WS would be a bad way to go. With the current WS table. It increases to hit options for all sides, more killing is what I objectively see as the best part of this game because it adds excitement.
  • New

    like what?



    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    1)
    These are not band-aids for WS.

    *Shield Wall is there to make Shields better for Dwarves so that they see play
    This is the perfect defenition of a bandaid...lol

    the current rules with sword and board were not working ergo we needed a new rule because with the current to hit table there was no option to make s+b playable

    “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”
    Benjamin Franklin


  • New

    JDAntoine wrote:

    1. If you incorporate special abilities into a new WS system you move the difficult part from A to B. You do not remove it. You gain nothing.
    I'll just comment on that: Right now we have elves with WS4 and lightning reflexes and distracting from divination. New player has to look in 3 places in BRB to get how that works.

    With my solution you would have WS5 elves (because LR would be represented as increasing ws profile by 1) and the divination spell would state +1 to defensive WS so new player would just have to know WS table instead of WS table and 2 special rules.

    The same goes to parry which instead of special rule could be just in profile of shield +1 to defensive WS.

    So actually it reduces complexity significantly while retaining the same or nearly the same in game mechanic.
  • New

    Klexe wrote:

    like what?



    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    1)These are not band-aids for WS.

    *Shield Wall is there to make Shields better for Dwarves so that they see play
    This is the perfect defenition of a bandaid...lol
    the current rules with sword and board were not working ergo we needed a new rule because with the current to hit table there was no option to make s+b playable

    No amount of messing with the to-hit chart is going to make Sword and Board viable, because it's competing with Great Weapons as an optional upgrade (i.e. their initiative won't change) on initiative TWO troops.

    It may be a band-aid (although, frankly, I think it makes everything work perfectly well), but if it is, it is a band-aid for Great Weapons being ludicrously overpowered - THAT is the problem Shield Wall was created to work around. Not because WS4-5 dwarves are "too easy" to hit, but because Great Weapon dwarves are just as hard to hit and yet dwarf units should want to use Shields (but Armour is a mugs game).