Make Weapon Skill great again!

  • SilverFaith wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    It is nigh-impossible to argue against "change!". Proponents of change will always go "well we will fix that". Still, this proposed system only works if we narrow the bands of WS (reducing how varied units can be), and it requires stripping away mechanics and special rules from many places. This reduces options for differentiation twice over. Bad rules.
    Indeed.
    I am also chuckling at the proposal, when we then get to dwarves and Chaos Warriors examples, and suddenly see a massive drop in defensive weapon skill.

    Because at least I see them more defending themselves with armor than dodging (also if you actually read what I wrote you would see that it requires changing how S and AP are tied now)


    It just goes a very long way to show, that this is a wish from elves only. Dwarves have always been hard to hit - not just damage. If you want to arbitrarily reduce their defensive weapon skill for "balancing reason", remember that they are currently alright with WS5 on their elites.


    Sure as I play VC mostly now, I also own EoS and HBE armies so what is your point here?

    If you want to come with a proposal, make it a proposal that isn't just strictly "I want elves to become better", because that it what it currently feels like. Dwarves equal elves in weapon skill - that is the Base assumption. Make a table that takes that into account.


    Especially that it makes elves suffer more from shooting, and your "base assumption" exists only because GW never invented a system in which you could hit with your axe well but dodge poorly.
    Answers inlined. My whole point is that with current system you have only two ways of providing defense to a unit which gives very little room for differentiating units. And defensively chaos warrior is exact copy of dwarf and human elite T4 4+ save. Even though it would be more interesting if they differed.
  • JDAntoine wrote:

    Fun sidenote, if you cats want to see the 4 WS grids WFB ever saw just give a tag.

    4th edition was a massive upgrade over the previous ones because it had reduced Herohammer properties.

    You want to know what gets you Herohammer? Heroes with WS 6-7 where WS 3-2 has to roll sixes or sevens against.

    Thanks but no thanks.
    As opposed to present day, when heroes regularly suffer scratches from the rusty weapons of WS2 rabble, get tetanus and die? WS 2 or 3 troops have never been particularly good at killing heroes. The reason being that currently, heroes tend to be loaded with armour and wards. Every army can get a 2+ armour save and a 4+ ward save on heroes, several can get even better ones. Options that have been made widely available precisely because it's the only way to reliably make heroes hard to kill nowadays, the WS table being what it is. Mostly, WS 2 or WS3 troops don't even try to kill heroes, they rather focusing on killing the hero's little friends so that the hero's unit will break, or the hero be left alone to be overwhelmed by a pile of static combat score.

    Heroes currently have the WS values they have because of the current table. If e.g. the table I proposed were to be used, perhaps with the change of only going from 2+ to 5+, heroes should be given WS values on par or one point above the elite rank and file models of their army.

    Do please show the grids, I only know of the current one and that of 3e.
  • JDAntoine wrote:

    Adam wrote:

    @JDAntoine to keep constantly proving that you do not understand that rework changes stats of the units too, it is undeniable that ws table change will give a lot of extra design space, the only question is how to use it.
    You are proving that you have no knowledge of the depth of WFB and how the WS grid came to be.
    In addition you are unwilling to understand that balanced design rarely leads to devoids of 50/50 or 60/40/60 chances.

    There is no suggestion your change improves it. Thus far there has only be a very sketchy suggestion to the return of HeroHammer, your 'suggestion' included.
    I know you're replying to Adam, who's proposing changes that I don't (split offensive-defensive WS, current I being used as the latter), but I thought I'd reply anyway.

    As long as you're stuck with using one D6, all chances you can get are multiples of 1/6. If you further add the constraint that you must always be able to miss, you're left with five chances, 1/6 to 5/6. That's five chances worth of design space. The current system only uses 3 of those, with one of those three being rare enough to be a waste of design space. The most efficient use of design space would be to use the entire range, and to use them to differentiate between the most usual situations that appear that one deems *should* be different.

    Currently, there's no difference between having 1 point more WS or 2 points more WS than your opponent (unless we're talking about the rare case of WS 3 vs 1). When fighting against an untrained WS2 human, it makes no difference whether you're a regular human (WS3) or an elite human (WS4). Two cases that should reasonably be different aren't, because both cases are crammed into the same design space slot, while design space is elsewhere being wasted on producing a unique outcome for a much less common case (hitting on 5+ against more than double your WS).

    The most efficient use of design space would, I think, be to allow the WS difference to produce all hit chances from 2+ to 5+. That's 4 different chances, which enables a unique hit chance for every WS difference from 0 to 3. It would also be compatible with an outside, circumstantial -1 to-hit penalty without ever going off the range, and with a +1 to-hit bonus while only going so in the rarest of cases of already hitting on a 2+ (and I don't see it as a particularly bad issue if those already hitting on 2+ can't go higher).
  • Adam wrote:

    SilverFaith wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    It is nigh-impossible to argue against "change!". Proponents of change will always go "well we will fix that". Still, this proposed system only works if we narrow the bands of WS (reducing how varied units can be), and it requires stripping away mechanics and special rules from many places. This reduces options for differentiation twice over. Bad rules.
    Indeed.I am also chuckling at the proposal, when we then get to dwarves and Chaos Warriors examples, and suddenly see a massive drop in defensive weapon skill.

    Because at least I see them more defending themselves with armor than dodging (also if you actually read what I wrote you would see that it requires changing how S and AP are tied now)
    Changing S and AP has absolute 0 effect on the weapon skill of units. It might have an effect on the overall balance, but that is not my point - Dwarves have always been just as good as elves at weapon skill. If you are arbitrarily changing dwarves so elves can enjoy the new weapon skill table, you need to rethink how to make the weapon skill table, or you are butchering the fluff for no good reason.

    It just goes a very long way to show, that this is a wish from elves only. Dwarves have always been hard to hit - not just damage. If you want to arbitrarily reduce their defensive weapon skill for "balancing reason", remember that they are currently alright with WS5 on their elites.


    Sure as I play VC mostly now, I also own EoS and HBE armies so what is your point here?

    If you want to come with a proposal, make it a proposal that isn't just strictly "I want elves to become better", because that it what it currently feels like. Dwarves equal elves in weapon skill - that is the Base assumption. Make a table that takes that into account.


    Especially that it makes elves suffer more from shooting, and your "base assumption" exists only because GW never invented a system in which you could hit with your axe well but dodge poorly.
    Answers inlined. My whole point is that with current system you have only two ways of providing defense to a unit which gives very little room for differentiating units. And defensively chaos warrior is exact copy of dwarf and human elite T4 4+ save. Even though it would be more interesting if they differed.
    They DO differ. Elves have the same weapon skill as dwarves, but strike first, while dwarves are tougher to soak the hits. That works well for tje current balance. Arbitrarily making dwarves worse at defending themselves, has nothing to do with GW having a poor system to represent it, it has something to do with you having a wrong idea of how good dwarves are in combat. They are amazing on the defense because they are innately tough, have thick armour, and are masters at deflecting the incoming blows.

    I hate playing dwarves because of how good they are on the defense. They are boring to play against in my opinion, and they feel like a chore to kill. But I would much rather keep them like they are, than letting everyone and their old grandmother hit them on 2+, because someone thinks they are bad at defending themselves. You do know why they had a 5+ parry in 8th, right?

    And remember: before you talk about "being stuck in GWs mindset", remember that this goes both ways. Sure, you could make dwarves bad at defending themselves. Just as well as you could make elves bad at hitting enemies in close combat.But I don't think you'll convince anybody to throw out the old fluff entirely, just to fit your new weapon skill system.
  • I have to concur with SilverFaith here. A dwarf may be easy to "hit" in close combat, if you include uselessly hitting the dwarf's shield or his interposed weapon in your definition of hitting. The game doesn't, though, as WS is meant to also represent swordplay, parrying and blocking, and a hit an effective hit that actually bypasses enemy defences.

    Dwarfs should be on par with elves in weapon skill (with perhaps the sole exception of the WS6 Sword Masters), and harder to effectively injure due to superior toughness and armour. Dwarfs should win in a straight grinding match. Elves move faster, which they can, and should have to, use to outmaneuver the little gits.

    The highly skilled but squishy elf is useful to consider for thought experiments, since it's a prime example of how you simply can't use fighting skill to effectively stay alive under the current core WS rules. That doesn't mean he should be made king.
  • New

    I am not outlining every possible scenario.
    this is exactly what Im talking about when ai say you guys need to "visualize" when doing game design.

    you need to be able to auto-incorporate a bunch of scenarios. And your fellow game designer that you are brainstorming with has to be able to do it too.

    In tge below example Im assuming you've played the game before, I'm assuming you know how autobreak works, how stead fast works and how difficult it os to keep steadfast when taking massive casualties.
    Im assuming you can instantly change the values I've posted to visualize other scenarios such as special rules.

    all lead to the same outcome, the low WS troops will never be taken. And armies that Must take significant numbers of them will just not be played in favour of armies with high WS.

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    to help those who are newer to game design or have spent their years contributing to society instead of thinking about game design(lol, a joke).

    when you want to institute a change, obviously you think of the cool parts - "ooo my elf elite at WS 6 can only be hit on 6's!!!! Ya awesome!"
    ya it is awesome. But now you have to visualize that you have the WS 3 guys and going against enemy WS 6. You roll 20 dice and get 2, maybe 3 hits. Maybe 1 wound goes through.
    Ws3 needs a 6+ to hit Ws6?
    now your opponent swinfs back with 10 dice. Needs 2+. Hits with everything, needs 2's to wound, you peel of 9 guys auto break from combat.
    How come you auto-break?

    .....will you ever take those WS 3 unit again?. No. If its not WS 5 you dont even consider it.
    Steadfast?
    Tougher troops?
    Better armoured troops?
    You've neglected cost as a factor as well

    While I agree with the sentiment, I don't particularly agree with the execution of illustrating the idea.
  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:

    In tge below example Im assuming you've played the game before, I'm assuming you know how autobreak works, how stead fast works and how difficult it os to keep steadfast when taking massive casualties.

    Yes, but you didn't bother to mention any of these things or really give much detail in your example.


    Im assuming you can instantly change the values I've posted to visualize other scenarios such as special rules.
    Yes, but really it's up to the person making the example to pick valid numbers and to provide enough detail so that everyone can follow along and see how you got to that conclusion.

    all lead to the same outcome, the low WS troops will never be taken. And armies that Must take significant numbers of them will just not be played in favour of armies with high WS.
    Or low weaponskill troops will just be a lot cheaper than high weaponskill troops, and be allowed in far greater numbers and will generally be deployed in a manner that allows them to stay steadfast as long as possible
    You didn't give enough details.

    In the given example, what does that ws3 need to hit against ws5 or ws4?
    How many models are in the unit on each side and what formation are they in?
    What sort of price would be reasonable to balance the situation and what would the negative or positive side effects of such a change be?
    What about ws3 models who aren't wounded on a 2+, are they also terrible and if so, how come?
  • New

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Peacemaker wrote:

    all lead to the same outcome, the low WS troops will never be taken. And armies that Must take significant numbers of them will just not be played in favour of armies with high WS.

    Or low weaponskill troops will just be a lot cheaper than high weaponskill troops, and be allowed in far greater numbers and will generally be deployed in a manner that allows them to stay steadfast as long as possible

    Okay, I am apparently playing a different game than you are.

    If weak ws2 t3 no armour units are hit in 2+, then you will take a million casualties in the first round of combat. This is already a problem now, this was on skill chart would make it even worse.

    Losing combat by this much, means you auto break. If you are not aware of this, then why are you participating in the discussion?

    "But steadfast!" - Irrelevant, as most units can't go above 40, so at best you'll stick around for the second close combat phase, and then immediately auto-break once you are no longer able to claim steadfast.

    And remember an important fact here: a lot of the high WS units are INTENDED to be weak against hordes. As I said before, a unit like slaves won't be getting better WS, so the ws5 units will run over them without any issues. This applies to units like Sword masters and Lion Guard from HBE, who you are supposed to be able to overwhelm with large numbers of troops.

    "Price them accordingly" - Okay, how does 2 ppm sound? And double the unit cap, obviously, so they have the models to take the casualties. Because losing models = extremely bad, as it ruins your chance of winning combat, ever. What about flanking with a combat unit? Great, now you have MORE models that can lose combat together. How wonderful. Because that slave unit will bleed combat res like a severed limb, and no unit can hope to overcome that.

    This is also why most of us are fully aware of why armies like HBE can't become a horde army. Because quality IS better than quantity, when low quality + high quantity will make you lose combat in 110% of the combats you engage in. Reducing costs does nothing to help them win combat. It makes then tarpit better, and that is all it does.
  • New

    SilverFaith wrote:

    Okay, I am apparently playing a different game than you are.
    If weak ws2 t3 no armour units are hit in 2+
    At this point I don't know what the problem is.

    Crap unit worth very few points/model is crap in combat and haemorrhages wounds, what's the issue?
    It's a crap unit, that's exactly what you expect it to do.

    You've got two options with a unit that terrible.
    1. Take a massive unit that stays steadfast for as long as possible
    2. Use it as throwaway units to screen your stuff and generally just get in the way of the enemy
    Maybe you'll be able to find something they can take on, like an exposed war machine where their combat res lets them win, or they can through sheer weight of attacks bring the enemy down despite being inferior but that's not their main role.
  • New

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    SilverFaith wrote:

    Okay, I am apparently playing a different game than you are.
    If weak ws2 t3 no armour units are hit in 2+
    At this point I don't know what the problem is.
    Are you purposely being dense?

    These are unit that actually worked previously. They could be used, and could actually do damage, and act as a counter to certain units. They ARE the counter to the elite - killer units that T9A has.

    This proposal to make ws2 a "why do you even bother" level of WS, will make those models completely useless outside of roadbumps that dies in 2 turn at most, whole doing absolutely 0 damage to anything. You would not only invalidate these units entirely, you'll also remove the only real counter the Elite Killer units had.

    You are looking to break certain units just because you want WS5 to be awesome. Damn the consequences?

    Even if you want to rework every unit, we all know that slaves and similar crap units would have to remain at ws2. And the current setup makes them useable - the proposed change might as well include deleting them from the books entirely. Or do you want to go full GW and make us buy more models for our 100 model units of no-damage tarpits?

    This has been said multiple times, so I am not sure why this needs to be repeated.
  • New

    @silverproud I'm not sure why do you assume that they will still have WS2 and the same S/T/I as they currently have. I think that one of the reasons undead are not as resilient as they are shown in multiple fantasy series is that with current WS table even at ws2 S4T4 skeletons would simply be OP. With the new one not really, and what's more they would be more fluffy representing animated, not feeling pain, bodies.

    I think that you are making the same mistake as some of the guys in this topic thinking that such massive rework as the one proposed would be done in void, but if T9A truly wants to drop WFB legacy they probably should rework WS, weaponry and the way S and AP are related - as these are, in my opinion, the source of the most issues, design wise, that touch most units in most armies.

    Just ask yourself how would you differentiate not only units across armies but even inside of one army if for example HBE have 3 elite infantry units in heavy armors - the only choice becomes adding a sprinkle of special rules to them since the differences cannot be expressed via their statline. If that was possible without special rules it would make learning the game much easier experience, while at the same time no mechanics would be lost so some cool stuff could be added elsewhere.
  • New

    SilverFaith wrote:

    These are unit that actually worked previously. They could be used, and could actually do damage, and act as a counter to certain units. They ARE the counter to the elite - killer units that T9A has.


    So, Skaven slaves are the counter to.....what, Chosen warriors? ?(
    I've posted an alternate table I like for weaponskill earlier in the thread on page 2.
    Feel free to pick it apart and provide examples of how it doesn't work with the current rules.
    It's always good to have the opinion of somebody who clearly has a vastly different viewpoint.
  • New

    Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    1. WS 2 or 3 troops have never been particularly good at killing heroes.
    2. Heroes currently have the WS values they have because of the current table. If e.g. the table I proposed were to be used, perhaps with the change of only going from 2+ to 5+, heroes should be given WS values on par or one point above the elite rank and file models of their army.

    3. Do please show the grids, I only know of the current one and that of 3e.
    1. I agree :)

    2. The high WS does not come from the table, instead see blow.

    3. No worries, as always here to inform.

    1st Edition (1983)
    Warhammer first edition was build during the time where Dungeon's and Dragons entered it's golden status and was the hype around every nerd. While most certainly less commonly accepted and played today we do see that players gather in the same way as that Magic the Gathering decided to make a focus for their DnD game in cardgame form and we see the first models appear of what later came to be Games Workshop. Models intended to use in a 'larger scale battle' as was ideally possible with DnD.

    The most basic concepts we still see today are what makes Warhammer first edition. Abilities like moving blocks of models, reforming units, hatred, fear and terror appear. In addition, perhaps the most interesting part what neither MtG or DnD ever addapted is that morale was introduced, models did not always fight until the bitter death. They choose life over undoubted demise.

    Shooting and Combat where the next things that made Warhammer interesting because they where essentially abilities that scaled to each other, giving very different results depending per opponent. The basic statline was introduced and combat very much went like it does today.
    1. check Inative, 2. throw hit, 3. wound, 4. armour save, 5. remove wounds.

    This was the basic principle for the WS chart:

    This basic principle still holds water in Ninth Age. By large WS 3 and 4 where the norm.

    What looked very different however was the WS to hit chart:



    What is very important to realize here is that the whole chart and plan had no foundation and lead to a game that was later called 'HeroHammer' aswell. Because indeed, hitting Hero's was close to impossible for the regular WS.

    Interestingly enough, Toughness and Strenght very much didn't change (ever). S4 was set as the norm as the -1 armour modifier etc. Unlike today there where more Iniative and Strenght modifiers. This isn't the subject of today, but this is also where my suggestion in regards to Parry comes from. Adding +1 WS might not directly lead to the wished result the balancing team has in their mind but it could very well lead to something interesting. By large because it increases offensive output from all sides and from my perspective this is what makes Fantasy Army Battles cool.

    It's also important to note that the Warhammer game itself was still relatively skirmish like. It just introduced the option to form blocks of units. The first the world had ever seen :D

    2nd Edition (1984)

    The following edition tried to re-invent itself and "drastically improve" as some really like to claim here. It's very interesting and fun to see but also the prime reason as to why I say, D10, D20 and all D's are a medium used, balance leads to 50/50 situations and the end of that ordeal is that a D10 and D20 don't follow any other pattern. A WS 3-4 can be the average for D6, A WS/MAT 6-7 is the average for 2D6 systems etc.

    Second go at to hit:



    By now a lot of players had metioned and figured out that Heroes indeed still where terribly difficult to hit and because of that the most competative route to go. The intent of second edition Warhammer was to migate that, they succeeded, partially:



    At the end of it, 2nd edition was a significant improvement over the first but due to how the modifiers worked it still was largely good for a skirmish game. We we're entering the 90's, even nerds had cash so the aim was to grow and allow for 'real' armies!

    3rd Edition (1991)

    This is where Games Workshop became a legit booming business. We see this trend continue far for everybody. At this point not only has DnD became a massive hyped game, Wizards of the Coast grew into 'the best cardgame compagny' and Games Workshop grew into 'the best miniatures compagny'.

    The WS chart was largely replicated from 2nd and significantly eased up in to hit modifiers. Army games became a real thing and obviously this is also where Games Workshop could benifit. For now they whern't selling models by the handful but simply said by the dozens.

    Third go at to hit:




    True army games became legit, there was only one thing left:

    This chart was not that easy to remember and really forced players to have obstacles, terrain and charging was still the most key element of the game. Like Warmachine and Hordes second edition, the true masters where those who where capable of guessing the best and the only hope the defender had was to hope for bad opposing rolls.

    4th-8th Edtion and Ninth Age (1992-2015 and 2016+)

    You know it, you are molded by it, the WS that removed all WS to hit bonus modifiers and is by far the easiest WS chart to remember of all edtions:




    There are 5 massive advantages of this system:

    1. WS 2 to 10 is possible to use, ARMIES are possible to use, HEROES are not capable of stopping whole blocks of units by themselves because 1 in 6 is only hitting them.
    2. WS is very easy to remember, WS = 4+ unless you are WS higher, which makes it 3+ and if your opponents WS is MORE as double your WS it's 5+.
    3. WS stats is basically subdivided into 4-5 groups, meaning it's much easier to do everything you want to with to hit.
    4. Not hitting is 'unfun', not wounding or killing is at least still hitting.
    5. Massed low WS is more important as single high WS, this is important because the aim is to play with ARMIES thus blocks and not soley HEROES.

    Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    Currently, there's no difference between having 1 point more WS or 2 points more WS than your opponent (unless we're talking about the rare case of WS 3 vs 1). When fighting against an untrained WS2 human, it makes no difference whether you're a regular human (WS3) or an elite human (WS4). Two cases that should reasonably be different aren't, because both cases are crammed into the same design space slot, while design space is elsewhere being wasted on producing a unique outcome for a much less common case (hitting on 5+ against more than double your WS).

    The most efficient use of design space would, I think, be to allow the WS difference to produce all hit chances from 2+ to 5+. That's 4 different chances, which enables a unique hit chance for every WS difference from 0 to 3. It would also be compatible with an outside, circumstantial -1 to-hit penalty without ever going off the range, and with a +1 to-hit bonus while only going so in the rarest of cases of already hitting on a 2+ (and I don't see it as a particularly bad issue if those already hitting on 2+ can't go higher).
    What you and others suggest "Increasing WS importance" leads to the re-creation of Hero-Hammer. Hero-Hammer can be a ton of fun but also leads to smaller armies, more skirmish vibes and more imporantly puts you a step back into Skimirsh zone and less Full Scale Army Battle zone. Warhammer Fantasy Battles 1,2 and 3 where very much Hero-Hammer.

    - The prime reasons as to why we solely use D6 is because it's easier to keep track of results, easier than any other blend of dice games. Because the top of the dice is very clear and does not also presents 'sides' such as D8 to D20 do.
    - The prime reason as to why WS is changed like this is because it is a filter system that is step 1 of 4-5.
    - The prime reason as to why I like WS the way it is now is because it has led us to Army games and not Skirmish games.

    Hope it was helpful.

    Kind regards,

    JD
  • New

    i think he is purposely being dense because i already told him why we do not need to explain and elaborate on every example when talking about game design - we expect a person to fill in the gaps.

    @Adam differentiating through special rules is what most of us want.
    if you simplify the game too much, then it becomes too generic like kings of war or age of sigmar.
    ....and even AoS is adding tons of special rules to keep players interested.

    but I think everyone agrees that the current WS gap is too high.
  • New

    This conversation is running in circles at this point. How about those who are in favor of a WS change give us an example of what a new Stat line might look like for say an Elf, Dwarf, WoTG Warrior, and KoE peasant? Include your vision of a new WS table and we can further discuss it's viability (or as some see it, lack thereof). Right now all that's being said is: "that wouldn't work with how things are," which is countered with "well things would look different." Give me some examples and it would be easier for me wrap my head around these proposed changes.
  • New

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    SilverFaith wrote:

    These are unit that actually worked previously. They could be used, and could actually do damage, and act as a counter to certain units. They ARE the counter to the elite - killer units that T9A has.


    So, Skaven slaves are the counter to.....what, Chosen warriors? ?(
    I've posted an alternate table I like for weaponskill earlier in the thread on page 2.Feel free to pick it apart and provide examples of how it doesn't work with the current rules.
    It's always good to have the opinion of somebody who clearly has a vastly different viewpoint.
    Skaven slaves, gnoblars, even skinks to an extent (at least pre-gutting) are a counter to high Strength, high initiative units in general, that hits very hard with a few attacks. Units that will typically cause almost 10 wounds to any kind of unit they hit, baring the rare ward saves. Having a hw+S for parry is currently best, but a lot of cheap bodies work too.
    Since these units are often only 15-20 models, having a 40 man unit makes it possible to keep them in a lock down for a long time, and since these elite killers are often balanced around being relatively squishy (bad armour, T4, or average armour T3), even a mass amount of S3 WILL cause casualties. Even losing 2 models per combat phase is a big deal for these units.

    If you suddenly make them hit on 6's, you'll average 0 wounds. No seriously: 10 attacks at 6's is 1,66 hits, against T3 is 0,83, against heavy armour (5+ is stock standard for these kinds of units) that's 0,55 wounds.

    Before, even WS 4 let you do: 5 hits, 2,5 wounds, 1,65, which is enough to do actual damage. Against ws5, they still did 1,1 wound on average.

    You are cutting the effectiveness in half, while also making them considerably more squishy. They lose both durability AND damage output.

    Your table is unreadable on a phone, but from the text :


    [*]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+
    [*]
    [*]Ws2 now auto loses against anything ws4. Similarly, the ws3 armies (SA, OK, VS etc) are now at a massive disadvantage.
    [*]
    [*]And the "rework" argument is pointless - either give us proper examples, or stop telling us "it will be fixed". Because as I see it, the current ws3 armies are either boned, or all armies get streamlined into a blob of sameness, where CC units have WS4, non CC/"tarpit" bad units has ws3. Any larger difference will create power units (elven sword masters at WS5), and greater differences will create Herohammer (Heroes at +4 WS = I will solo your combat blocks forever.)
    [*]
    [*]I like the thought of making weapon skill more impactful, but you will VERY quickly run into a very undesirable balance issue.
    [*]
    [*]Having a flat amount is also not good, because it creates a difference between units where a is twice as good as the other. The difference should be the same - If you are twice as good as the opponent, you can hit on 3+ and be hit on 4+, or hit on 3+ and be hit on 5+, or hit on 2+ and be hit on 5+....
    [*]
    [*]The current system is simple to remember, easy to model around, and allows a lot of fun special rules to offer meaningful impacts on the game. It could maybe benefit from only requiring double the WS, rather than double +1, but any more than that, and you are risking a revival of hero hammer. That was killed for a reason, because heroes should not be able to solo entire armies by themselves.
  • New

    Peacemaker wrote:



    If you simplify the game too much, then it becomes too generic like kings of war or age of sigmar.
    ....and even AoS is adding tons of special rules to keep players interested.

    but I think everyone agrees that the current WS gap is too high.
    That's the key point. You can simplify the game more but it loses it's WFB character once you do. AoS is adding a ton of special rules because special rules add character.

    Is there a WS gap? Seriously here, I don't see the gap, what I see is a filter system 1 of 4 to 5. Filter 1 should not stop everything, it's boring.

    Games where filter 1 does stop everything either have no Toughness involved or Armour saves. Do players want this?
  • New

    SilverFaith wrote:

    Skaven slaves, gnoblars, even skinks to an extent (at least pre-gutting) are a counter to high Strength, high initiative units in general, that hits very hard with a few attacks. Units that will typically cause almost 10 wounds to any kind of unit they hit, baring the rare ward saves. Having a hw+S for parry is currently best, but a lot of cheap bodies work too.Since these units are often only 15-20 models, having a 40 man unit makes it possible to keep them in a lock down for a long time, and since these elite killers are often balanced around being relatively squishy (bad armour, T4, or average armour T3), even a mass amount of S3 WILL cause casualties. Even losing 2 models per combat phase is a big deal for these units.
    I've never seen that tactic of not supporting your weak tarpits work.
    You always need to support them somehow, or use them as a sacrificial way to get positioning on an enemy unit.

    Anywho as for the specific effect of the change.....

    Damage Suffered
    Going from a 3+ to hit to a 2+ is a 25% increase in hits.
    If you're losing 10 models a turn normally, they're now losing 12.5 models a turn, so in 4 rounds they suffer the same damage as they would have done in 5 rounds (50 wounds), which isn't all that huge a change when your unit is 40-60 models, since you'll be losing steadfast and breaking from combat at roughly the same sort of time.

    Damage Dealt
    You go from your quoted 2 wounds a turn, to just 1 a turn, since you hit half as often going from a 5+ to a 6+ to hit.
    Which means over that previous 5 round fight you'll deal 8-10 wounds, depending on when the enemy destroys you, earlier than that with smaller units, perhaps only surviving 2-3 rounds which is just 4-6 wounds tops.
    So we halve that and knock a round off and we get 3-4 wounds dealt, a maximum change of 6 wounds of damage, or with the smaller unit it's more like a couple of wounds missing out on maybe 3 wounds dealt. It's a big percentage swing of 50-60% less damage but in the number of wounds dealt it's not a massive amount even against an opponent who you're not supporting and isn't bothering to get support of its own.

    Against especially squishy stuff, sure a horde of even really crap troops can kill 5 of those a round, which drops to just 2.5 if we make them hit half as often with a weaponskill change, but that same horde could be dropping you at a rate of over 25 models a turn right now, even a full block of 60 doesn't live through that long enough to expect double figure damage totals, boosting damage by 25% doesn't change that outcome by any notable degree.