Make Weapon Skill great again!

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

  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    I really dislike the idea of inflating everyone's stats just to fill up the numbers 1-10.
    It's not really inflating it, because simultaneously, the significance of the numbers changes so that the effect you'd previously get with a 1-point difference in WS now happens on a 2-point difference.

    What this latest proposal of mine essentially does is to allow "intermediate" levels of WS, such as 2.5 and 3.5 and 4.5, where currently the game just has integer numbers and a significant step from one to the next. Only that using decimal numbers is awkward, so it'd be neater to just roughly multiply everything by 2.
  • Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    What this latest proposal of mine essentially does is to allow "intermediate" levels of WS, such as 2.5 and 3.5 and 4.5, where currently the game just has integer numbers and a significant step from one to the next. Only that using decimal numbers is awkward, so it'd be neater to just roughly multiply everything by 2.
    Well to be frank all you have really done is put 1-2, 3-4, 5-6,7-8 and 9-10 closer together, which I do not dislike. The current grid promotes a higher attack quantity to be more relevant by large and in additon the WS 9-10 get a neat bonus (but are allready very rare).

    The only real issue this grid presents is that it makes it more difficult to remember as the current grid, which is why the current grid was implemented in the first place around 5th edition because people where a little bit tired of having charges, flanks and whatnot effect WS so much.

    Oddly or likely on purpose, your WS grid actually promotes lower WS to be better as higher WS, which is also an interesting thake on how to make Core better. Though as mentioned before, the imporance of making Fear tests skyrockets with this grid. Great for Fear causing characters (mounts) with WS 7+.

    Cheers,
  • JDAntoine wrote:

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    I really dislike the idea of inflating everyone's stats just to fill up the numbers 1-10.
    I largely agree, but this is what raising the importance of WS does. You cannot inflate WS importance and not inflate WS use without more context.
    Currently WS doesn't mean much, so inflating it's importance doesn't require changing those numbers at all.
    If it's higher you hit on a 3+, if it's not you hit on 4+ and if the enemy has a really really high weaponskill then maybe you'll need a 5+ if your own weaponskill is especially bad.

    Weaponskill 1-2 = fodder to crap troops
    Weaponskill 3-4 = average to decent troops
    Weaponskill 5-6 = elite to superb troops

    Weaponskill 1-2 hits ws 1-2 on a 4+, 3-4 on a 5+ and 5-6 on a 6+
    Weaponskill 3-4 hits ws 1-2 on a 3+, 3-4 on a 4+ and 5-6 on a 5+
    Weaponskill 5-6 hits ws 1-2 on a 2+, 3-4 on a 3+ and 5-6 on a 4+

    Nice and linear, very easy to understand and troops fit into 3 neat categories.
    We use all the available D6 scores and we don't need to inflate any stats since they're all currently distributed between ws1-6

    We can solve issues that relate to weaponskill through special rules like Fear, Parry and Lightning Reflexes later on.
    Although some easy solutions could be as follows:

    Fear
    -1 leadership to enemies in base contact, if they fail their fear test they suffer a -1 to hit modifier.
    *EDIT* the leadership test and modifier could also be removed entirely
    No more auto-ws1 problem and hitting on a 6+ in those rare cases when you do actually fail a fear test somehow.

    Parry
    Enemies must re-roll 6's to hit you
    *EDIT* another option could be a +1 WS instead
    Now everyone benefits and the most skilled benefit the most

    Lightning Reflexes
    Re-roll 1's to hit
    *EDIT* to make this clear, this isn't intended as a change for the rules Elves currently have, the intention would be for them to lose the rule and the rule to then be changed
    Again, everyone benefits and the most skilled benefit the most, the interaction with Great weapons is removed to become a different rule, since not everyone who can use a great weapon as effectively as a regular weapon would also have reflexes like an elf

    Obviously the new parry has a knock on effect on diminishing the usefulness of Poison.
    So we could alter that rule to go from auto-wounding on a 6 to hit to something more reasonable like "always wounds on a 5+" which still means poisoned stuff is viable against high toughness opponents but we avoid situations where every single hit auto-wounds in the current situation when you need a 6 to hit with poison, plus it solves the problem of needing more than a 6 to hit with shooting weapons that stops poison from working at all, this could be changed whether parry is changed to a re-roll or not.
    This also means that units that re-roll to hit aren't being given an unfairly better chance poison than those that do not.

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

  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    JDAntoine wrote:

    theunwantedbeing wrote:

    I really dislike the idea of inflating everyone's stats just to fill up the numbers 1-10.
    I largely agree, but this is what raising the importance of WS does. You cannot inflate WS importance and not inflate WS use without more context.Currently WS doesn't mean much, so inflating it's importance doesn't require changing those numbers at all.
    If it's higher you hit on a 3+, if it's not you hit on 4+ and if the enemy has a really really high weaponskill then maybe you'll need a 5+ if your own weaponskill is especially bad.

    Weaponskill 1-2 = fodder to crap troopsWeaponskill 3-4 = average to decent troops
    Weaponskill 5-6 = elite to superb troops

    Weaponskill 1-2 hits ws 1-2 on a 4+, 3-4 on a 5+ and 5-6 on a 6+
    Weaponskill 3-4 hits ws 1-2 on a 3+, 3-4 on a 4+ and 5-6 on a 5+
    Weaponskill 5-6 hits ws 1-2 on a 2+, 3-4 on a 3+ and 5-6 on a 4+

    Nice and linear, very easy to understand and troops fit into 3 neat categories.
    We use all the available D6 scores and we don't need to inflate any stats since they're all currently distributed between ws1-6

    We can solve issues that relate to weaponskill through special rules like Fear, Parry and Lightning Reflexes later on.
    Although some easy solutions could be as follows:

    Fear
    -1 leadership to enemies in base contact, if they fail their fear test they suffer a -1 to hit modifier
    No more auto-ws1 problem and hitting on a 6+ in those rare cases when you do actually fail a fear test somehow

    Parry
    Enemies must re-roll 6's to hit you
    Now everyone benefits and the most skilled benefit the most

    Lightning Reflexes
    Re-roll 1's to hit
    Again, everyone benefits and the most skilled benefit the most, the interaction with Great weapons is removed to become a different rule, since not everyone who can use a great weapon as effectively as a regular weapon would also have reflexes like an elf

    Obviously the new parry has a knock on effect on diminishing the usefulness of Poison.
    So we could alter that rule to go from auto-wounding on a 6 to hit to something more reasonable like "always wounds on a 5+" which still means poisoned stuff is viable against high toughness opponents but we avoid situations where every single hit auto-wounds in the current situation when you need a 6 to hit with poison, plus it solves the problem of needing more than a 6 to hit with shooting weapons that stops poison from working at all.
    This also means that units that re-roll to hit aren't being given an unfairly better chance poison than those that do not.
    Most of the Parry and Lightning reflex changes really push the elite metagame. Elite units would be MUCH better than normal chumps.
    I like the change to Fear, I would support it being that right now.
    Parry would probably be too good on units like Deep Watch, especially if combined with the Distracting Battle Rune. All enemies would hit them on 5+ (parry on 4+ and -1 for 5+) and then reroll 6's to hit.
    Streamlining weaponskill like this could be interesting but it would mostly nerf low WS armies. How are Ogre units going to beat elf elites when they hit on 5+?
    Hall of Heroes :
    8/2014 : Grandmaster slays a Chaos Lord in single combat
    ?/2016 : Imperial Captain slaugters a High Elf combat Lord in single combat
    Who's next?
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Weaponskill 1-2 = fodder to crap troopsWeaponskill 3-4 = average to decent troops
    Weaponskill 5-6 = elite to superb troops

    Weaponskill 1-2 hits ws 1-2 on a 4+, 3-4 on a 5+ and 5-6 on a 6+
    Weaponskill 3-4 hits ws 1-2 on a 3+, 3-4 on a 4+ and 5-6 on a 5+
    Weaponskill 5-6 hits ws 1-2 on a 2+, 3-4 on a 3+ and 5-6 on a 4+

    Nice and linear, very easy to understand and troops fit into 3 neat categories.
    We use all the available D6 scores and we don't need to inflate any stats since they're all currently distributed between ws1-6

    We can solve issues that relate to weaponskill through special rules like Fear, Parry and Lightning Reflexes later on.
    Although some easy solutions could be as follows:

    Fear
    -1 leadership to enemies in base contact, if they fail their fear test they suffer a -1 to hit modifier
    No more auto-ws1 problem and hitting on a 6+ in those rare cases when you do actually fail a fear test somehow

    Parry
    Enemies must re-roll 6's to hit you
    Now everyone benefits and the most skilled benefit the most

    Lightning Reflexes
    Re-roll 1's to hit
    Again, everyone benefits and the most skilled benefit the most, the interaction with Great weapons is removed to become a different rule, since not everyone who can use a great weapon as effectively as a regular weapon would also have reflexes like an elf

    Obviously the new parry has a knock on effect on diminishing the usefulness of Poison.
    So we could alter that rule to go from auto-wounding on a 6 to hit to something more reasonable like "always wounds on a 5+" which still means poisoned stuff is viable against high toughness opponents but we avoid situations where every single hit auto-wounds in the current situation when you need a 6 to hit with poison, plus it solves the problem of needing more than a 6 to hit with shooting weapons that stops poison from working at all.
    This also means that units that re-roll to hit aren't being given an unfairly better chance poison than those that do not.
    Yes, again it's filter one, filter one doesn't stop much because of the increased importance of following filters. S vs T, where a 2+ is allowed and also S vs Armour, which is drastically influenced, S4 means you functionally do not want to have Heavy Armour alone, S5 means your unlikely to have a relevant save unless you are mounted aswell or have heavy armour. S6+ is practically the same as bypassing armour altogether.

    I certainly dont dissagree on your WS distribution, it's closer to a D6, which keeps the chart smaller and more relevant for sure.

    Fear test suggestion is nice, altough again further promotes the use of WS7 characters causing Fear, what do you do if you need to hit 7+ (suddenly)?

    To me Parry is still the most functional if it grands +1 WS, as Parry is both a defensive manouvre that leads to more offensive options. In addition it means that it's cheap and functional for everybody. Re-rolling the highest number possible on a dice just feels very strange to me.

    A re-roll of 1's is cool, granted I believe that Lightning Reflexes being removed is one of the driving points behind this new WS grid, and if it isn't, what's the point of adding some form of re-roll as a alternative instead? That's not really streamlining WS, that's just trading one rule effect for another rule effect.

    Cheers,
  • Jomppexx wrote:

    Most of the Parry and Lightning reflex changes really push the elite metagame. Elite units would be MUCH better than normal chumps.I like the change to Fear, I would support it being that right now.
    Parry would probably be too good on units like Deep Watch, especially if combined with the Distracting Battle Rune. All enemies would hit them on 5+ (parry on 4+ and -1 for 5+) and then reroll 6's to hit.
    Streamlining weaponskill like this could be interesting but it would mostly nerf low WS armies. How are Ogre units going to beat elf elites when they hit on 5+?
    The chance to hit when re-rolling 6's on a 4+ to hit is 42%, compared with 50% for a standard 4+
    The chance to hit when re-rolling 6's on a 5+ to hit is 22%, compared with 33% for a standard 5+
    The chance to hit when re-rolling 6's on a 6+ to hit is 3%, compared with 17% for a standard 6+

    Ogres with 3 attacks each and Stomp aren't going to be too adversely affected by this change since they're rarely going to need a 6+ to hit.
    Plus they are currently getting 3 attacks each plus a stomp vs infantry.

    Considering they hit on a 4+ right now against those elf elites, it's not that huge a change.

    JDAntoine wrote:

    Fear test suggestion is nice, altough again further promotes the use of WS7 characters causing Fear, what do you do if you need to hit 7+ (suddenly)?
    Hitting with weaponskill is still capped at a 6+
    Since fear tests can be re-rolled with a bsb nearby, the chance of a fail is so low you could make the unit auto-die on a failed test and it would have little real effect on the game.

    JDAntoine wrote:

    To me Parry is still the most functional if it grands +1 WS, as Parry is both a defensive manouvre that leads to more offensive options. In addition it means that it's cheap and functional for everybody. Re-rolling the highest number possible on a dice just feels very strange to me.
    A weaponskill buff would also work though, and avoids the issue of high weaponskill characters being almost impossible to hit when they have Parry.

    JDAntoine wrote:

    A re-roll of 1's is cool, granted I believe that Lightning Reflexes being removed is one of the driving points behind this new WS grid, and if it isn't, what's the point of adding some form of re-roll as a alternative instead? That's not really streamlining WS, that's just trading one rule effect for another rule effect.
    The rule itself can still exist just not as an armywide rule for all elves, it was just a suggestion of how to change it to something that isn't a +1 modifier/don't go last with a great weapon combo rule.
  • JDAntoine wrote:

    Oddly or likely on purpose, your WS grid actually promotes lower WS to be better as higher WS, which is also an interesting thake on how to make Core better. Though as mentioned before, the imporance of making Fear tests skyrockets with this grid. Great for Fear causing characters (mounts) with WS 7+.
    I'm not sure it actually does that. It's largely just my OP proposal, but with the range extended, and with every 2 points of WS difference mattering, rather than every point. It would make hitting on 5+ more common than currently I think, and it would make it possible, if very uncommon, to hit on 2+ or (very rarely) on 6+. So I'm not sure how this would help core.

    About changing the effect of Strength to make the humble S3 attacks more relevant, I certainly agree that that should be done, and think that *that* is where the focus on helping core should be. I myself started recently actually leaning toward the radical solution of making toughness and armour stack, rather than keep them as separate rolls that are both affected by strength. I opened up a thread on the topic, and would like to hear your thoughts on it.
  • Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    I'm not sure it actually does that. It's largely just my OP proposal, but with the range extended, and with every 2 points of WS difference mattering, rather than every point. It would make hitting on 5+ more common than currently I think, and it would make it possible, if very uncommon, to hit on 2+ or (very rarely) on 6+. So I'm not sure how this would help core.
    About changing the effect of Strength to make the humble S3 attacks more relevant, I certainly agree that that should be done, and think that *that* is where the focus on helping core should be. I myself started recently actually leaning toward the radical solution of making toughness and armour stack, rather than keep them as separate rolls that are both affected by strength. I opened up a thread on the topic, and would like to hear your thoughts on it.
    Well, as soon as your in brackets that often allow you to hit on a 4+ on the average WS scale your suddenly capable of pretty much fighting every Core with Core (WS 1 to 4 hits each other most often on a 4+) and Special (often 'good' when running around with WS 5-6) does not have the significant bonusses it used to have. As for WS 7 and Fear, this is really where the chart goes into danger town because WS 7 is a standard for quite some characters and if Fear still throws you down to WS 1 hitting on 2+'s will cause some real heavy damage to sling in because most of the time that same character is also wounding on 2+'s. It's not unreasonable then to have 5 attaks hit, wound and likely kill (unless Strenght modifies differently).

    Toughness and Armour stacking is cool, the downside of it and same for Strenght effect reduction is that Static Combat Resolution becomes more important on the other side of the blade, for if you can make more saves, less wounds are going to be caused. However I do feel it's an intresting thing. The downside to more rolls (such as armour) remains that the game playing time increases, quite drastically by current comparison. Will come back to the topic linked in that topic.

    Cheers,
  • Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    About changing the effect of Strength to make the humble S3 attacks more relevant
    A lofty goal. I'd like that as well, but the best I can come up with would be to replace D6 with D10 to introduce smaller climbs. Currently it's basically not possible differentiate Rats, Humans, Goblins or Elves in the stats Strength or Toughness as any change is already too big.

    For Weapon Skill: I still think every point should make a difference until you reached the outer parts of the chart.

    This would also combine nicely with the D10 idea above, as you could have very meaningful Zombies: WS1, S4, T5 → clumsy in combat hit close to nothing, but if they hit, you are going to feel it. At the same time they are ridiculously easy to hit, but very hard to chop them down. Sounds right to me. (Certainly a lot more fluffy than: It's equally hard for a Blademaster to hit a shambling Zombie and a highly skilled lightning reflexed Forest Ranger)
    My blog with battle reports and painting gallery: bleaklegion.wordpress.com/

    #freekillerinstinct
  • Just throwing this thought here... More or less I've read all pages, but I'm a bit lost between so many charts.

    Since we want to make any point matters, we are just looking up in the chart, but not down. Currently when you are just one point at WS better than your enemy you hit on 3's, but on the other side, when you got less WS than your enemy, it doesn't matter most of time, not unless he has more than double your WS.

    I feel this is something odd at least.

    Will it be a terrible to hit on 4+ when you got just 1 point more of WS than your enemy (WS4 vs WS3)? I haven't done the maths, but this way I feel like you make every point matter a little bit more without the need of changing the chart or WS values a lot.

    Jist an idea, but I feel it is worth giving it a thought by someone with more knowlege than me.
  • Its certainly not a terrible idea, but it depends on context a lot, which is why I still lack too many examples of what else will also need to be changed.

    The balancing principle most like to see is that Cost is in and cross facion allows for example for 200 points of infantry to compete with 200 points cavalry or 200 characters. While this currently isnt the case, its not thanks to WS, because the avantage of an essential 3/4/5 to hit system is that all WS matters and because of that it doesnt matter too much in terms of statistical balance, WS 1 trough 10 can technically be applied to the game without issue. The functional options for WS to hit rolls are 3 and therefore dont deviate too much.

    S/T is a whole different ballpark. We have a 2/3/4/5/6 to wound system, the disadvantage of this currently is two-fold, on one side its almost impossible to belance S6+ without significant disadvantage left and right and because of that the functional S floats from 3 to 5, extremes are balancing headaches.

    With this in mind a WS system that essentially rewards Core or better put 1 WS higher is still 4+ to hit leads to an interesting thake however the turnside of this is when you try to implement 2+ and 6+ to the current WS set up simply because the system doesbt allow models to walk around with almost technical auto hits or misses. D6, D8, D10 or D20 dont add anything to this because of the balance that is also another ideal of many players and designers.

    HeroHammer isnt a poor game, there are many games who more heavily relove around characters as T9A does and work out fantastically, WarmaHordes is such an example, Wyrds upcomming The Other Side is also such a format.
    What is key difference between that and T9A currently however is that in T9A you pay for those characters and as mentioned it seems like the community 1. likes this and 2. Wants everything to be roughly as good as each other. In both WarmaHordes and The Other Side the loss of characters also impacts their game much more significantly, T9A could also do this and then WS grids can really 'grow' but like WarmaHordes the game then becomes more character centered.

    So in conclusion to WS, you can have it matter more and extend the statistic values. Upon doing so something else has to give, though as mentioned before reduction of S effect could be a fair gain.

    What I hope the design team can comment upon is how much they want T9A to be their own game or a spiritual succesor or WFB. Currently its unclear to me where this game will go :) So for WS, increased importance should decrease importance elsewhere to balance things out. A simple (vacume) grid change actually leads to less army build competative variance in this case.