Make Weapon Skill great again!

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

Wanting to catch up on all the latest army gossip as it happens? Our Army Community Support team shares glimpses of the incoming army books!

  • Make Weapon Skill great again!

    Is there any particular reason for why weapon skill uses the to-hit table it does, where you either hit on 3+ or 4+, or very rarely on 5+? As in, why not let every point of difference matter, such as when trying to hit with shooting or when rolling to wound? As far as I see it, the current game mechanic has shown its deficiency even since the day of Warhammer 7e, at which point all kinds of special rules started to be introduced to represent particular elite-ness of various troops, a clear indication imo that the usual game mechanic meant to represent close combat fighting prowess, i.e. weapon skill, wasn't working properly. As far as I'm concerned, it's always better to have a base system that's sufficiently versatile than to pile special rules upon special rules on a base system that's inadequate.

    What if, for instance, the chance to hit was based on the difference in weapon skill rather than the ratio, for instance:

    Both combatants have equal WS: You hit the enemy on 4+ and he hits you back on 4+
    You have 1 WS more: You hit on 3+ and are hit back on 4+
    You have 2 WS more: You hit on 3+ and are hit back on 5+
    You have 3 WS more: You hit on 2+ and are hit back on 5+
    You have 4+ WS more: You hit on 2+ and are hit back on 6+

    As part of a rebalancing of the game around this, all rules like lightning reflexes, re-rolls of eliteness, ward saves of dodging enemy attacks, and whatnot could be scrapped. Highly skilled but fragile troops like elven elites would actually get to use their weapon skill to parry incoming attacks, rather than have to rely on either special rules or murdering the enemy fast enough to prevent retaliation.
  • I totally approve that Ws needs a bigger impact and a big rebalancing imo.

    It should be like you said possible to give elven high WS without needing lighting reflex.

    This was talked many many times but up to now it was not possible to find a good solution.

    The main problem is that Ws only has 2-5 and in some exceptions like characters or rare units ws6.

    It is really hard to balance things in such a small window. Only 5 points to differentiate units and races.

    It would be easy if we would have a d10 dice and not d6.

    Same reason why the doubling from 2500 to 5000 points happend

    “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


  • Klexe wrote:

    The main problem is that Ws only has 2-5 and in some exceptions like characters or rare units ws6.

    It is really hard to balance things in such a small window. Only 5 points to differentiate units and races.
    Well, as long as we stick with the D6, as I showed in my original post, there's five different combinations of score you hit on and are hit on, if we operate on the premises that higher WS should both make you hit better and be harder to hit, and every single point of WS difference should matter. Thus, if WS is on a range of 2 to 6 (barring exceptional cases), the difference in WS between a pair of enemies is anything from 0 to 4. That's exactly five cases, so there's a unique combination of score you hit on and are hit on for each case.

    Not saying that the D6 should be the standard die of the game. I'd much support using D10s, D12s or something else, but that's a whole other discussion. Just meant to make the point that making WS count in ways like I suggest is entirely feasible with D6s.
  • Swelt wrote:

    Maybe make parry increase defensive WS by 1?
    Ive been in that think tank and honestly think Parry could be as simple as giving a set bonus of +1 WS (not only defensively).

    Other than that many WS suggestions are theoretically odd but in game arn't that much of a real dealbreaker. Because of this I think Parry and WS works as is.

    My prime reason as to why I like the to hit table is because it continues to make possible damage output possible. The way S3 and T4 interact is allready 'difficult enough' to have WS be a roughly 50/50 40/60 factor.
  • your current the options are just not enough if we look at all units in 9th age.

    Example peasants:
    That they hit Elfen on 5+ I can approve.
    That they hit other humans on 5+ I can't really. Especially other core.

    “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


  • Characters are the stumbling block here, since they generally have significantly higher Weaponskills and so would in most cases get hit on a 6+ and be nonsensically hard to kill, not just the really scary stuff like Vampire Lords but also other things like Human Lords.

    If characters had normal weaponskills that fell in line with the rest of the troops in their army, we could implement a new to-hit table that was either the same or similar to the to-wound table.

    It also means various weapons can also do things like boost weaponskill, which would help make the game a little more interesting..or just more RPS-like. Depends how it would get implemented.

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

  • I think the WS table kind of has to be the way it is. It can't be like the strength table, that would make the game really not fun; imagine your ws3 infantry hit a hydra on 6+, then wounded it on 6+. To do 5 wounds to a hydra you would need

    5 wounds = x attacks(0.17 x 0.17 x 0.5 x 0.5) = 692 attacks.

    At least right now it's only one third that number -_- This is just the most outrageous example I could think of, but it kind of proves a point.
  • 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.
    Who ever said otherwise? Not me. Of course WS matters. Hitting on 3+ is 33% more damage output than hitting on 4+. Where WS fails, as I tried to describe in the original post, is that it only goes so far in being able to represent the elite-ness of certain troops, as is proven by the proliferation of other rules for that such as lightning reflexes, distracting, close combat only ward saves, etc.
  • Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    Who ever said otherwise? Not me. Of course WS matters. Hitting on 3+ is 33% more damage output than hitting on 4+. Where WS fails, as I tried to describe in the original post, is that it only goes so far in being able to represent the elite-ness of certain troops, as is proven by the proliferation of other rules for that such as lightning reflexes, distracting, close combat only ward saves, etc.
    Maybe it´s me, but your maths seems wrong. Hitting on 3+ is only +16% damage output than hitting on 4+ (granted all remaining stats don´t change).
  • Nathan.a. wrote:

    I think the WS table kind of has to be the way it is. It can't be like the strength table, that would make the game really not fun; imagine your ws3 infantry hit a hydra on 6+, then wounded it on 6+. To do 5 wounds to a hydra you would need

    5 wounds = x attacks(0.17 x 0.17 x 0.5 x 0.5) = 692 attacks.

    At least right now it's only one third that number -_- This is just the most outrageous example I could think of, but it kind of proves a point.
    That is exactly why all units should be reevaluated after such change and why do you need offensive WS and defensive WS (imho I would be good here) so that monsters have low defensive WS (as they are big and easy to hit) and might have then good offensive WS to actually hit something (that is also reasonable as it is not easy feat to dodge giant club when you are ranked up in a unit). Also lords and heroes would have to be rescalled to be more close to core units with their stats (and bear in mind that it is true for T and S - differences are usually by 1 point while WS and I differ usually by 2 or 3)
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HBE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    Help for new HBE generals: HBE Beginners corner
  • Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    I thought about monsters and such too. Maybe it'd work if, say, monsters were always hit on at least 4+ (because they are large targets), and other mounted models were always hit on at least 5+ (because the horse of a cavalryman stuck in close combat offers all kinds of vulnerabilities that the skill of the rider can only go so far in mitigating).
    You do not need bandaids like that if you get stats right. For example dragon would have offensive WS 5 or 6 (so he hits his attacks generally as dragon swipes are hard to dodge) and defensive WS of 2 or 3 as he is really big and easy to hit. Normal mount could just lower your defensive ws by 1 and monstrous by 2 as you get bigger as a target (note that it would also help promote on foot chars)
    My gallery: Adam painting stuff (HBE, VC and lots of terrain)
    My battle reports: Adam Battle reports

    Help for new HBE generals: HBE Beginners corner
  • As for characters, I actually like the idea that their survivability in close combat should come from awesome fighting skills, not from wearing super massive amounts of armour. Still, current character WS scores would have to be revised under such a change, also because it'd boost their offensive prowess if hitting on 2+ would become the rule rather than the exception. Keeping characters, as a rule, to 1 point higher WS than the WS of the corresponding elite troops of the army might be good, while currently it tends to be 1 point higher for lesser characters and 2 points for greater characters.
  • Adam wrote:

    Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    I thought about monsters and such too. Maybe it'd work if, say, monsters were always hit on at least 4+ (because they are large targets), and other mounted models were always hit on at least 5+ (because the horse of a cavalryman stuck in close combat offers all kinds of vulnerabilities that the skill of the rider can only go so far in mitigating).
    You do not need bandaids like that if you get stats right. For example dragon would have offensive WS 5 or 6 (so he hits his attacks generally as dragon swipes are hard to dodge) and defensive WS of 2 or 3 as he is really big and easy to hit. Normal mount could just lower your defensive ws by 1 and monstrous by 2 as you get bigger as a target (note that it would also help promote on foot chars)
    Don't get me wrong, I'm all against the use of bandaids, I just thought that such a "bandaid" would be preferable to introducing a whole new characteristic that's only relevant for a small fraction of the models in the game.