News: No news is good news...

Login  |  Register

Author Topic: Warhammer 40K to hit chart  (Read 16284 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Isil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
  • Country: us
  • Beware the dark
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #40 on: August 21, 2011, 08:23:01 PM »
I have been avoiding posting here but well I would like to put my two cents in.

I personally feel that the 5th ed WS to hit chart isn't exactly balanced, sure it was designed in my opinion to give lower WS units a fair chance in melee but when you have units that have a much higher WS against ones with a lower one it is unfair for the unit with the higher skill. In my opinion it needs to be changed, Fenris had a good idea but I do not see that as a balanced method. Here is what I would purpose to the game designers if I ever had a chance.

WS equal to opponents, 4+
WS 1 greater then opponents, 3+
WS double+1 of opponents, 2+
WS 2 less then opponents, 5+
WS half -1 of opponents, 6+

This uses the 2-6 range and I personally feel it is fairly balanced, also everyone would have a fair chance to hit with this range.

Also Awfully Dandy, I feel that the swordsmen comparison you made is fairly inaccurate. Yes to the untrained eye the person wielding the steel blade wearing Plate armor is at an advantage because he has the better gear but a properly trained swordsmen can easily take down the warrior in plate because the  sear amount of weight and lack of maneuverability that the plate affords. Sure it offers a fair amount of protection but the warrior wearing it shall be worn down and fatigued long before the warrior in plain cloths, Also his movements will be sluggish and much easier to dodge then the one with the lighter equipment.

"There is a very good reason why so many of the galaxy's cultures and societies are afraid of the dark." -Inquisitor Bastalek Grimm

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #41 on: August 21, 2011, 11:00:09 PM »
Excepting, of course, that the wooden sword armed combatant must bludgeon someone to death, and that someone is wearing plate. Even if he were exhausted, the plate wearing combatant could just lie down and laugh while one of Peter Pan's Lost Boys attempts to beat him to death with a chunk of wood.

Single hit from a steel sword leads to blood loss and death. 50 hits from wooden sword, while wearing plate leads to dents that may take an armoursmith a few hours to beat out. Starting to get the picture? My eyes aren't that well trained, but I've a pretty decent understanding of physics.

The to hit chart is fine as is. Game balance. Nothing more. Does it make sense that a well trained soldier [IG] only hits once in two shots? "Rapid Fire" is two bullets? Game balance. Nothing more.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2011, 11:11:45 PM by GreatBigTree »

Offline Isil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
  • Country: us
  • Beware the dark
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #42 on: August 22, 2011, 02:28:52 AM »
GBT, the concept is simple, the warrior with the wooden sword will not waist time attacking the warrior in plate with physical blows, he will allow him to swing and over extend himself while dodging the attacks and forcing the warrior in plate to over exert his muscles, in the end all he has to do is look upon the self fallen warrior before walking away.

Yes the way they set it up is a matter of game balance but I feel personally that it isn't properly balanced to show the difference in skill and I do feel that 2 more steps should have been added, this is how I feel, does this mean that I think they should change it? no, but if they were to ask me my opinion, I would give it to them and I would present the idea that I presented in my previous post.

"There is a very good reason why so many of the galaxy's cultures and societies are afraid of the dark." -Inquisitor Bastalek Grimm

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #43 on: August 22, 2011, 05:02:13 AM »
GBT, the concept is simple, the warrior with the wooden sword will not waist time attacking the warrior in plate with physical blows

You sir, are out of your Yhwh-condemned mind. This is the real world, not DnD. An unarmoured man with a wooden sword will, in any situation where the two are not horrendously mismatched in terms of experience, be utterly minced by a dude in plate armour. Don't believe what you see on TV
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline Tamuz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 744
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #44 on: August 22, 2011, 06:26:45 AM »
The qualifier there is 'in any situation where the two are not horrendously mismatched in terms of experience'

Actually given two equal fighters and no outside interference, I think this duel would be much closer than you think. The fighter with the wooden sword would be faster, better able to react, and have greater stamina, while the fighter in plate would be better protected and only really need to land a single blow. Remember that the fighter with the wooden sword will not be mindlessly hammering away at the metal plates but rather targeting his blows to distract, weaken, and finally injure his opponent where he is vulnerable.

Given even a small advantage in terms of skill, my money would be on the more lightly armed fighter.

I have to agree with those who want a change in the WS charts, although I think the entire of the combat mechanism would have to be re-balanced to accomodate this.

It seems to me that the importance of S over WS is a stylistic one (probably based on the image of hulking marines and the mindset of masculine hero worship that goes hand in hand with marine fandom). The game is designed around the premise that Strength counts for more in a fight than Skill, and it is a premise that simply doesn't hold up.

A more skillful fighter will defeat a clumsier but stronger one 9 times out of ten, and this goes even more so when the fighters are using energy weapons and the like rather than relying soley on their own physical strength to do damage.

The argument that Skill is less useful in a fight when point blank firearms can be brought to bear, because they make dodging and blocking more difficult, is ludicrous when considering that physical Strength is supposedly more useful in this situation...

I do not really see any problem with the current rules from a gaming perspective (except perhaps in that it favours stronger units over faster more skillful ones) but more from a fluff/explanation perspective

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #45 on: August 22, 2011, 06:50:50 AM »
The qualifier there is 'in any situation where the two are not horrendously mismatched in terms of experience'

...

Given even a small advantage in terms of skill, my money would be on the more lightly armed fighter.

And since we're talking about two fighters who are equal in skill, what does that mean for your little thought-experiment?
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline Benis

  • 77 Shades Of Decay | Lazerous Penguin | Death to the Emperor with a Pulse!
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5003
  • Country: se
  • Getkilling
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #46 on: August 22, 2011, 06:58:14 AM »
And of course the reason people hammered out armour for centuries was just for amphetamine parrots and giggles.  ::)

The point is that skill isn't everything in a fight and I feel 40k can quite accurately represent this.

This pretty much sums it up, close combat is very dangerous and there are plenty of stats that come into play in that arena (basically all of them except for one), weapon skill is just one of the many attributes necessary and it is built the way it is due to the explanations already given.

Offline Tamuz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 744
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #47 on: August 22, 2011, 07:40:22 AM »
I thought the swords thing was supposed to illustrate that other factors (such as having armour and a metal sword) were more important than skill. I was contending that skill would be the deciding factor in that particular match up, rather than equipment. As I stated, given equal skill I think the outcome would be rather closer than some seem to expect, with the advantage going to the guy in plate (although the greater the levels of skill involved, the smaller this advantage will become)

Skill is not everything in a fight, however I do not feel that 40k adequately represents the dynamics of this.

It is a matter of weighting - 40k makes the assumption that Strength is more important than skill, and this does not even hold up in straight brawls between unarmoured combatants. Add in weapons and the balance should slide tharther towards skill rather than strength. Add in power weapons and close range weapons fire, and I start to wonder how much of an impact physical strength should have at all.

40k is built around the homoerotic image of big burly men clashing in feats of strength, even when this makes no sense. The american ideal of Bigger is Better. Thus in 40k skill will never be as important as strength.

Offline Benis

  • 77 Shades Of Decay | Lazerous Penguin | Death to the Emperor with a Pulse!
  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5003
  • Country: se
  • Getkilling
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #48 on: August 22, 2011, 07:54:45 AM »
I don't think you can really consider strength from a human position, as adults we are all about strength 3, having just one more point is a huge amount of extra push, something along the line of an adult against a ten year old. So yes, biggris better but it looks like you fail to really take into account just how much one point in the Strength characteristic actually means.

Offline Tamuz

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 744
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #49 on: August 22, 2011, 08:15:18 AM »
Hmmm. Looking at it from that point of view, its like a martial artist (high WS) trying to fight a grizzly bear (High S/T) so I do see your point.

I still think the technology employed in 40k should level the S playing field somewhat however considering power swords and point blank laser shots. That is a different issue to the one being discussed in this thread however.

Offline Isil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
  • Country: us
  • Beware the dark
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #50 on: August 22, 2011, 12:45:34 PM »
Chuckles, My points are not taken for DnD, TV, or any other media source but rather spars I have done against people and watched of other people while at events hosted by groups such as the SCA, it is a known fact that two fighters of equal skill in equal equipment fight at a near stalemate, but as soon as one of them is wearing armor heavier then the other he is actually at a disadvantage because his equipment reduces his access to his full skill because of the limited mobility of the armor. That is Reality.

Tamuz, I see the point you are trying to make but I would like to offer you this counter point, the system was supposedly designed so that each aspect of a fight took up a single part of the mechanisms, Skill vs Skill followed by Strength or Equipment Strength vs Toughness followed by Equipment vs Equipment with special rules filling in where they are needed. The advantage you brought up of the gun vs sword argument is only truly 100% valid outside of arms reach, within arms reach I give the advantage to the man whom is trained with the sword, outside arms reach I give it to the gunman trained or untrained.

"There is a very good reason why so many of the galaxy's cultures and societies are afraid of the dark." -Inquisitor Bastalek Grimm

Offline Chuckles, The Space Marine Clown

  • Can't Touch This; Captain; Swarmlord - Tyranid Sweatshop Operator; 40KO's Official WMD; "No American orphans, please"
  • Ancient
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13094
  • Country: gb
  • I kill, maim and torture because I care
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #51 on: August 22, 2011, 12:56:00 PM »
Chuckles, My points are not taken for DnD, TV, or any other media source but rather spars I have done against people and watched of other people while at events hosted by groups such as the SCA, it is a known fact that two fighters of equal skill in equal equipment fight at a near stalemate, but as soon as one of them is wearing armor heavier then the other he is actually at a disadvantage because his equipment reduces his access to his full skill because of the limited mobility of the armor. That is Reality.

Sigh. Sparing is not "Reality" for the purpose of this discussion. The reason someone wearing heavy armour in the scenario you describe has a more difficult time because neither competitor is trying to kill or seriously injure the other. Landing hits on someone wearing armour is indeed harder than on someone who isn't. Landing a hit that causes sufficient damage to incapacitate, with a wooden sword, on such a person is not. Again, 1000 years of military history thinks your argument is insane. Or did people insist on wearing and developing more advanced suits of full plate armour to make things more sporting for their opponents?
The forum rules are fair and just. *twitch*

Offline Isil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
  • Country: us
  • Beware the dark
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #52 on: August 22, 2011, 01:25:02 PM »
are you saying that a suit of full plate does not restrict your movement? If so then it is you whom history deems insane. Sparing is as much reality as a true fight, while the intent is not to kill but to improve skill, therefore it is fought with blunted weaponry and if you notice I did not use that post to describe the exact combat that was described earlier, I didn't give any details on exact equipment either for the reason that the exact equipment doesn't fully matter, why you ask, simple a difference in weight of equipment and granted maneuverability of equipment changes the aspect of the fight, the argument wasn't including modern or even scifi armor on that, it was brought up with lowtech. If you want to talk with scifi elements the don't talk about reality.

"There is a very good reason why so many of the galaxy's cultures and societies are afraid of the dark." -Inquisitor Bastalek Grimm

Offline Blood Hawk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Stuff
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #53 on: August 22, 2011, 04:58:28 PM »
Ok the thing with armor is there is a trade off, you do give up some maneuverability and stamina by wearing heavy armor, but you also get protection.  Some instances armor is just not practical due to the weather (wearing heavy chain mail while traveling to a battle in the middle of the desert will cause problems and all the extra weight and metal may cause heat stroke or other problems for the warrior).  Another example of this is at the Battle of Agincourt where the weather and thick mud on the battlefield made the heavy plate armor worn by french troops greatly hurt their effectiveness as they had to wade through the mud.  Armor on the other hand gives you greater protection, primary to use more "medieval" style warfare something like chain mail protected you primary from long range missile fire.  Heavy and expensive armor will often be expensive and limit movement but do a much better job at keeping its wearer alive, and any chance of knocking aside blows will effectively keep the soldier alive and fighting strength longer.

One thing to remember the most Isil though is that is something that is true in 40k as well as real life warfare, the guys who are running around with the best stuff, in this case armor are often the best trained as well.  In the wooden sword vs. plate example, to somehow assume each guy would have the same training is not really true.  On a medieval battle field the guy with cloth armor a simple blade is often not going to be nearly as trained as knight on horse back in full plate armor.  Logically it makes sense, why waste your expensive plate mail on the random peasant soldier when you can give it to a man who in many cases started as a squire at a very young age and is very experienced and better trained.  In 40k that best seen with the humans, where space marines are far better trained and experienced in warfare than guardsmen and have MUCH better gear.  Take the example a different way, would you say a two space marines who dueling each other, one is naked with nothing but a bolt pistol and the other a bolter and a full power armor would you say the second marine is at a disadvantage?  Hell no, any direct hit on the first space marine will likely cause injury, the second one as a good chance of their armor taking the brunt of damage but themselves still be at fighting strength.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2011, 05:25:14 PM by Blood Hawk »

Offline Isil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
  • Country: us
  • Beware the dark
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #54 on: August 22, 2011, 05:25:24 PM »
With the science fantasy of 40k and your last point about the space marines is quite true, and mind you I was not the first to bring up the two warriors one in plate and one not, I just went off of it with the criteria given, two swordsmen squaring off, Awefully Dandy whom brought that up mentioned that only one of them was exceptionally incredibly skilled, that was the one in the lower grade gear, the other was in greater grade gear but apparently not as skilled, and in that s/he stated because of the better equipment regardless of skill the one better equipped would win. My original comment on the subject was simply to point out that better equipment does not make a better combatant and my money would be on the better trained warrior. In a realistic setting heavier equipment does not make for a better chance of winning that is the point of what I am saying and as you have pointed out history has proven that fact. In a Scifi or Fantasy setting things can be quite different, this I never disputed.

"There is a very good reason why so many of the galaxy's cultures and societies are afraid of the dark." -Inquisitor Bastalek Grimm

Offline Blood Hawk

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • Country: us
  • Armies: Stuff
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #55 on: August 22, 2011, 05:38:46 PM »
Yea I realize it wasn't your example I corrected that in my post, but armor like a lot of things has advantages and disadvantages.  In some cases as I pointed out it works against someone but in VAST majority of cases any potential disadvantages armor gives are greatly discounted by its potential advantages.  Armies fielding heavy Calvary dominated medieval warfare for hundreds of years, the eastern Roman Empire style of Cataphracts was copied by many western European powers.

Offline Isil

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 331
  • Country: us
  • Beware the dark
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #56 on: August 22, 2011, 06:53:00 PM »
Heavy Calvary historically is a very well trained unit and were quite literally trained by the best that the kingdoms that fielded them can find, no argument on that, and as you said there are advantages and disadvantages to everything. Something we both agree on here is that while the advantage to the heavier armor is better protection, a disadvantage is lower maneuverability. That was the biggest point I was trying to make, I considered the Stamina issue a secondary disadvantage because honestly in my personal opinion just wearing the armor doesn't reduce ones stamina it merely causes one to fatigue easier while fighting in it, their stamina is a personal issue and if they have a low stamina the fatigue will get them faster. This is going to be the last I say on this because we are getting too far away from the point of the thread.

"There is a very good reason why so many of the galaxy's cultures and societies are afraid of the dark." -Inquisitor Bastalek Grimm

Offline myles

  • Lazerous Penguin
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2925
  • Country: 00
  • This is my game face
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #57 on: August 22, 2011, 08:16:54 PM »
Wow, how did this thread get so derailed? 

Anyway, Isil, I have a question about your revised to-hit chart. You have less than half WS hitting on 6+, equal WS hitting on 4+, higher WS hitting on 3+, and more than double WS hitting on 2+. This is all in line with the current system in terms of where the cutoffs are, so it makes sense. What I don't understand is how you have  the 5+ to hit range starting at two lower. This seems rather arbitrary, is there some particular reason for this?
The first problem is the creation of meaningless e-personas. Such personas are undesirable because they lead users to prejudge a post and its content based on their impressions of the author. One is predisposed to criticize a perfectly legitimate comment or praise a stupid one simply because of preconceived notions about who wrote it. Anonymous posting avoids this situation by removing identity from the post, making any praise or criticism directed solely at the content.

Offline Spectral Arbor

  • Major
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3021
  • Country: ca
  • Thanks for the help.
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #58 on: August 22, 2011, 10:55:04 PM »
For those that think that a slightly lower WS should not be allowed to hit on a 4+, I think it's worth remembering that in the 40k universe, there is no such thing as a fair fight. Combatants use every trick in the book to kill their opponents. It isn't sparring, it isn't a game [to them], it's life and death.

This whole thing got me thinking about a rather well known movie... I've made some slides up to briefly outline the scene.


To set the scene, our hero isn't a particularly well trained fighter. He's more of an academic, and he's run afoul of a trained killer...





As we can see, our hero is sorely outmatched and will surely be killed, as he's nowhere near the calibre of fighter that his opponent is. In fact, the Swordmaster is so sure of his victory that he's showing off for the crowd, taunting his victim, yet our hero seems unperturbed...





We suddenly realize why he's unmoved, when he pulls a superior piece of equipment from his holster, and shoots the Swordmaster...





Although the Swordmaster is vastly superior in skill, and in a "fair" fight he'd have minced our hero, our hero's no fool, and the Swordmaster is no match for modern technology...





So what's this got to do with anything? Glad you asked! The current system takes into account how relatively easy it is to shoot someone at less than 20 yards, or lob a grenade in front of them and wait for it to blow up. The scenarios outlined by those suggesting alterations to the existing "To Hit" chart seem to think that close combat is fought hand to hand. As a Guard player, I'll tell you that if I saw any manner of monster / alien / super human charging at me with a giant chainsaw, I wouldn't be preparing to receive the charge with a knife in my hand... I'd be laying out the firepower faster than I could think, and that's what the existing "To Hit" chart recognizes. It's really easy to shoot someone that's trying to stick you with a sharp object... and that's an observable, historical fact. Ask the Incas. Well trained warriors that were sorely lacking in Kevlar vests.

Offline Omnichron

  • Junior Member
  • **
  • Posts: 178
  • Country: no
Re: Warhammer 40K to hit chart
« Reply #59 on: August 23, 2011, 08:56:27 AM »
The reason the full plate eventually wasn't used and isn't used today is because the weapon technology rendered the platemail useless. A wooden sword against plate? That's not gonna hurt much.... why would the armored man run after the unarmored one? He could just stand his ground and wait until he was sure he could strike. Being slower in movement doesn't make him unable to strike quick enough to take down unarmored enemies.

However, this was about weaponskill. First off, in the warhammer game, shooting happens once in a game turn, while close combat happens twice. A guardsman can shoot at close range twice or strike with weapons two times (If he survives in one game round). A close combat specialist (like a wych) has more attacks (2 attacks which means 4 in a game round, whichs again means twice the possible destruction without even adding other factors and benefits).

Lelith was mentioned once before. Alone, she can eradicate 10 guardsmen in one game round with ease, and although she might get a wound, it is most unlikely they will manage to take her down. So, if you play her right and get her into close combat, I'd say you'd be unlucky if you didn't get at least two squads of 10 guardsmen down. So, is this not good enough? Do we really need to have the guardsmen hit on only 6's while she hits on 2+ as well?

Again, the game mechanics are balanced as they are now. Maybe you have more A in real life and a better I as well that makes you able to do the good spars, not just some good WS? Maybe it is actually the initiative (which represents speed and reaction) that TRULY makes you better and we should put more into that stat?

« Last Edit: August 23, 2011, 09:04:16 AM by Omnichron »

 


Powered by EzPortal