40K Online
Main => General 40k => Topic started by: Brutoni on August 8, 2011, 11:56:49 AM
-
This is something that has bothered me for quite some time. Before I go into detail about it in any other thread or post though I do want to ask the community here a question;
Does anyone else think the "to hit" table for 40K (and warhammer for that matter) is completely rediculous? Needing x2 + 1 to be hit on a 5+ and with no hitting on a 2+ or being hit on a 6+ being possible.
Despite this models with high WS and I seem to cost as much as models with high T and S. Despite the fact high T and S favours you in many more ways (High T affecting multiple phases... High S being worth more than High WS or I).
Or is this just me?
-
the only thing I can say is think about it, if you needed 6s to his something, then 5s to wound, that would be almost no attacks getting through, and visca versa. If you needed 2s to hit and say 3s to wounds, almost all your attacks will go through. It just seems to me to add alittle more random factor. Playing DE it sucks when your uber Archon misses with most of his attacks by rolling alota 1s and 2s, but it happens, and adds just a tad bit more randomness...
-
I share Brutonis view here. Depending on how the chart would be altered, there would not be many situations in which the 2s and 6s come into effect as the vast majority of models has a WS between 3 and 5.
But i agree, especially for the glory of Characters and Uberbeings like the Avatar or the Greater Demons, it would be nice to have 2s and 6s. Like a WS10 Avatar should always hit a WS3 at 2+.
-
It always bugged me from 3ed onwards seeing players throwing their cannon-fodder units against the Avatar and routinely succeed in pummelling him to death. Even a combined platoon of Guardsman should be no match for Khaine or a daemon prince and armies should be punished for such recklessness. Such monstrous warriors should be shot to death and if that doesn't work, send in a hero. It's what they exist for, not butchering some hapless mortar squad.
Randomness is good; but expensive, less-than-reliable HQ units aren't. They can't all have two sets of scything talons.
-
I also tend to agree that the 40k To-Hit system is a little... whack. I much rather the Fantasy version, it actually offers something of a benefit to high WS and I characters.
-
It is wack!
Thus we house ruled it.
We use the to wound chart also for to hit.
The only N's in the chart is for WS 1 & 2
WS1 against WS 9 & 10 and WS 2 against WS 10.
It's also more realistic for WS 3 vs 4 to have a higher to hit number.
-
iirc at one points 2s and 6s were on the 40k hit chart (RT 1.0 era) but equal WSs hit each other on 5s... (Or I may just be thinking of 3rd ed' WFB)
Then the big switch came with WS+highest attack dice roll came (RT 1.1) which stayed into 2nd ed'.
When they reverted back to the hit table they removed the 2s and 6s but threw in a lot more 4s, basicly to speed up the game as more hits from basic troops means more dead stuff and we all like dead stuff. :)
-
I also tend to agree that the 40k To-Hit system is a little... whack. I much rather the Fantasy version, it actually offers something of a benefit to high WS and I characters.
The Fantasy table is exactly the same:
Less than your Ws = 3+
Equal to or up to double = 4+
More than double = 5+
Initiative also does exactly the same thing in both systems unless you also have the Always Strikes First rule.
The reason it goes from 3-5 rather than 2-6 like the wound table is that assaults from high quality troops are much more conclusive than shooting so the table balances assaults with ranged attacks without making it impossible for troops that are outclassed to defend - no matter how good you are, you still miss a third of the time but no matter how bad you are, you still hit a third of the time. That way combat is more of a risk for the high quality troops.
-
The Fantasy table is exactly the same:
Less than your Ws = 3+
Equal to or up to double = 4+
More than double = 5+
Yeah, Thats my bad. As High Elves, i tend to forget not everyone gets the benefits of Always Strike First, ie that reroll for high I.
Anywho, i think if the goal was to ballance out combat with shooting, they failed misserably at it. Assault is the prefered method of killing in 40k by far, and armies who rely on shooting tend to be heavily penalised because of that.
Still, the fact that the scaling on WS seems to be completely different than the scaling on other stats seems to indicate there are inherent problems with the current design. Couldn't for the life of me come up with a better system, but someone like a Succubus or an Avatar should be untouchable to all but highly trained fighters.
-
Well, there are twice as many rounds of combat as there are shooting phases in a game. Makes sense, but the addition of 2s and 6s, starting maybe at 'twice the WS+/-1" or something would be cool. 6th Edition rumors say that the combat phase and the shooting phase will switch places in the turn structure, plus new 'to hit' tables, which might fundamentally change things anyways.
-
Still, the fact that the scaling on WS seems to be completely different than the scaling on other stats seems to indicate there are inherent problems with the current design. Couldn't for the life of me come up with a better system, but someone like a Succubus or an Avatar should be untouchable to all but highly trained fighters.
Or that there was an inherent problem with the old design and so it was changed to the current version.
Worth keeping in mind that the current editions of 40k are meant to be less 'hero' based than the older editions, you can argue if that's the case or not but that was the intention GW put forward, to move away from the uber killy characters and focus more on the squads.
With 2s and 6s back on the table it would turn some characters from being good to amazing... Lelith vs a guard squad? Over 10 attacks hitting on 2s with almost no chance of any guardsmen that survived being able to touch her.
Great if you like your Herohammer (And I'm not saying that's a bad thing) but not so great for a game that over the years has put more and more emphasis on basic troops.
-
Despite this models with high WS and I seem to cost as much as models with high T and S. Despite the fact high T and S favours you in many more ways (High T affecting multiple phases... High S being worth more than High WS or I).
I meant to address this in the earlier post but I forgot. No, Ws and I are not costed at the same level as T and S. Back when there was a formula (late RT, early 2nd ed), the most expensive stats were Attacks, Wounds, Strength and Toughness. Everything else was worth a fraction per point of those stats. When we did 3rd ed, the old formula hadn't been in use for a while (because it wasn't actually very useful in determining how much something should cost) and things were priced based on what they could do rather than what their stats were. So yes the thing with a high Ws might be expensive but it won't be purely because of that stat. It will be because his rules and abilities combined with the high Ws make him worth that cost. There's nothing off the top of my head that I can think of that just has a high Ws; they all have a lot of attacks as well or a high strength or a suite of special rules that give them other advantages in what - as Lachdonin noted - is often the most effective part of the game. I guarantee you that the stats aren't added up to reach a points cost and that adding Ws to a model does not massively add to its cost.
-
It always bugged me from 3ed onwards seeing players throwing their cannon-fodder units against the Avatar and routinely succeed in pummelling him to death. Even a combined platoon of Guardsman should be no match for Khaine or a daemon prince and armies should be punished for such recklessness. Such monstrous warriors should be shot to death and if that doesn't work, send in a hero. It's what they exist for, not butchering some hapless mortar squad.
someone like a Succubus or an Avatar should be untouchable to all but highly trained fighters.
No no no! This is all wrong, the whole point is that you can bring down a heroic creature by weight of numbers!
Don't be fooled by cartoons, it's not that hard to land a blow on someone. Even in Kung Fu movies (where things are highly stylized) most of the fighting involves blocking blows rather than dodging them outright. The 40k to-hit chart reflects this, even against a DE Wych Succubus, when there are ten of you and you're leaping out from behind rocks and bushes, you're going to land some blows; even if they could dodge all of someone's punches, with that many someones, there's nowhere to dodge to. Or in the case of the Avatar, yes it possesses the martial skill of a god, but it's a giant metal statue! Do you really think a full platoon of guardsmen would be unable to land more than a handful of blows? Ridiculous!
Also, don't forget that close combat takes into account more than just fists. There are grenades, point-blank shooting, and a whole gamut of things that skills in hand-to-hand combat would not protect you against.
Plus, the other stats involved in CC cover a lot of the issues and occurrences that the detractors in this thread are thinking about. Yes, a wych would be able to dodge many of her opponent's blows... and look, she has a 4++ save that represents what? Oh yeah! Likewise, an Avatar probably could walk through a full platoon of IG (as long as they didn't have a bunch of JOs with fists ;)) because even though the crush of bodies would mean that the Guardsmen could land some blows, they still have, what, like a 5% chance to wound after to-wounds and saves?
Khaine and IanC covered it pretty well, I think. The current system is fine unless you want the game to be based mostly around incredibly powerful hero units. Which I certainly don't, they're already powerful enough, if you ask me. If you think it's not "realistic" enough, then it's more likely that you're just not being imaginative enough about what's actually happening in CC than that there's a flaw in the basic mechanic.
-
It always bugged me from 3ed onwards seeing players throwing their cannon-fodder units against the Avatar and routinely succeed in pummelling him to death. Even a combined platoon of Guardsman should be no match for Khaine or a daemon prince and armies should be punished for such recklessness. Such monstrous warriors should be shot to death and if that doesn't work, send in a hero. It's what they exist for, not butchering some hapless mortar squad.
someone like a Succubus or an Avatar should be untouchable to all but highly trained fighters.
No no no! This is all wrong, the whole point is that you can bring down a heroic creature by weight of numbers!
Which brings me back to the problem with scaling. S3 is above normal. S4 is super human. S5 is alien monstrosity. Once you get up to 8+ your talking about things that could rip open blast doors like tinfoil. However, the dfferances between WS3 and WS5 are like going from somewhat competant bar fighter to seasoned martial artist. WS 10 is, at best, a champion martial artist. The whole scaling system just doesn't match up.
As for the Heroes thing, no, the game should not be dominated by all powerful heroes, but they should have more of an impact. As it stands, unless you take some of the mindnumbingly over powered special characters, your 'Heroes', which lets face it are the focal point of almost any naritive, go out with little more than a whimper. I don't mind when my living god is ripped appart by dozens of Gaunts, or a horde of Orks, but when 10 guardsmen can win in combat against an Avatar, its kind of off putting.
-
I agree with the above posters that things are fine as they are. If you were to make the hitting table in Close Combat more sharp then it would fundamentally alter game balance towards assaulting armies, since there are two rounds of Assault Combat for every one round of shooting that takes place and that the 'Locking' rules for Close Combat are so debilitating to shooting in their current form.
Using the previous example of the Avatar of Khaine versus a Guardsman Blob, if you want to be hitting on 2s and me hitting on 5s or 6s then models that aren't engaged in combat (ie locked but not able to contribute attacks) should be able to fire their weapons at him since he is point blank and they are under little threat from him 'bashing them with a rock' so to speak.
-
Which brings me back to the problem with scaling. S3 is above normal. S4 is super human. S5 is alien monstrosity. Once you get up to 8+ your talking about things that could rip open blast doors like tinfoil. However, the dfferances between WS3 and WS5 are like going from somewhat competant bar fighter to seasoned martial artist. WS 10 is, at best, a champion martial artist. The whole scaling system just doesn't match up.
That's because different stats don't have to be on the same scale. Ws 3 is someone who's trained for combat. Ws4 is someone who's trained a whole lot for combat but that level of training is still within reach of an unaugmented Human. Ws5 is possible for an unaugmented Human of heroic ability (Lord Commissars). Ws8 is possible for augmented Humans who have trained all of their lives in very specific ways of killing (Imperial Assassins). The range for stats is not always the same even if the baseline for humans happens to fall at the same point.
-
I meant to address this in the earlier post but I forgot. No, Ws and I are not costed at the same level as T and S. Back when there was a formula (late RT, early 2nd ed), the most expensive stats were Attacks, Wounds, Strength and Toughness. Everything else was worth a fraction per point of those stats. When we did 3rd ed, the old formula hadn't been in use for a while (because it wasn't actually very useful in determining how much something should cost) and things were priced based on what they could do rather than what their stats were. So yes the thing with a high Ws might be expensive but it won't be purely because of that stat. It will be because his rules and abilities combined with the high Ws make him worth that cost. There's nothing off the top of my head that I can think of that just has a high Ws; they all have a lot of attacks as well or a high strength or a suite of special rules that give them other advantages in what - as Lachdonin noted - is often the most effective part of the game. I guarantee you that the stats aren't added up to reach a points cost and that adding Ws to a model does not massively add to its cost.
The problem I have here is that you are assuming that GW operates now the way it did when you worked for them, which is how many years ago now? Based on how the last couple of years have gone it looks abundantly clear to me that GW don't work the way they used to when you were with them.
-
The problem I have here is that you are assuming that GW operates now the way it did when you worked for them, which is how many years ago now? Based on how the last couple of years have gone it looks abundantly clear to me that GW don't work the way they used to when you were with them.
This is true however the current points structure is still very much based on the work we did for 3rd ed. Things have grown organically from that baseline which was a complete reset of the points system. It's true that I haven't been involved in any of the products since then but, from friends who still work in the Studio and the way that points values for most things have remained relatively steady throughout the intervening editions I can see that the base assumptions that we worked under then are still - for the most part - valid. Not exactly the same of course because the rules have changed after all but they haven't changed in such a way to turn everything on its head.
-
If the table was changed to make it harder to hit high WS characters with scores between 3-6 rather than 3-5, I'd be happy. It's middle ground that won't necessarily break the game considering a lot of people think some characters aren't worth the points we're expected to pay for them.
I'm not so sure comparisons with reality should be the principle argument against a change since there're no such thing as daemons and space marines. It's a fantasy game not historical/modern, so its goals are slightly different; like watching an action film rather than a war documentary.
I'd imagine Lelith gracefully somersaulting over a burning Chimera through a storm of laser fire to landing perfectly amongst a squad of confused Guardsman should end in a stylishly choreographed moment of one-sided slaughter. Having her shiv a couple of Guardsmen before getting a rifle butt in the kidneys and then getting kicked and stomped on by a circle of angry soldiers may be more realistic but that's not what 40k heroes are for.
-
I want to bring up this video, old it may be, but it gives a good representation of the WS chart when you think about it:
Blades of War (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgNtOMOxP0o#)
Avatar with its 10 vs a warlock with 4. The warlock is still quite capable at combat, and so it might be easier for the avatar to hit him, but that warlock is doing his damnedest not to die.
-
I'm not so sure comparisons with reality should be the principle argument against a change since there're no such thing as daemons and space marines. It's a fantasy game not historical/modern, so its goals are slightly different; like watching an action film rather than a war documentary.
I'd imagine Lelith gracefully somersaulting over a burning Chimera through a storm of laser fire to landing perfectly amongst a squad of confused Guardsman should end in a stylishly choreographed moment of one-sided slaughter. Having her shiv a couple of Guardsmen before getting a rifle butt in the kidneys and then getting kicked and stomped on by a circle of angry soldiers may be more realistic but that's not what 40k heroes are for.
That's certainly one way of looking at it, but it's not the only one, and really, that's the perspective that is looking for powerful heroes to, perhaps not totally dominate, but to strongly influence the game.
On the other hand, other players would like the scenario that you just described quite a bit. A powerful fighter is, despite their own prowess, cornered and outnumbered and after killing many of their own number, is brought down by a horde of enemy troops. (Heck, it's practically the entire idea behind the tyranids!) It's still heroic, but it doesn't feel ridiculous. Lelith herself killing a several guardsmen at once is one thing, her killing off a whole platoon another.
Now on the other hand, if Lelith somersaults over that burning wreck and slices apart the guardsmen, the rest of whom are occupied by her bodyguard of wyches, that's pretty reasonable. Background-wise she wouldn't be stupid enough to be running around a battlefield by herself, the tabletop reflects this. She very probably would be the dramatic focus of the conflict, with other wyches perhaps merely preventing some uncultured swine from shooting her in the back rather than stealing her prey, but they would be there, preventing harm.
The rules reflect this as well, characters are harder to surround and bring down when they are with some sort of bodyguard, there are fewer models swinging at them. The relative 'ease' that you see models with lower WS hitting higher WS models with accounts for the fact that, most of the time, there are many more low WS models. (After all, when do you see the avatar lose to just three or four space marines, even if they can hit him a third of the time?)
-
Wow, away for a day and this gets 20 replies.... Didn't quite expect that. Now before I reply with a more measured response I do feel the need to reply to one post in particular.
No no no! This is all wrong, the whole point is that you can bring down a heroic creature by weight of numbers!
Don't be fooled by cartoons, it's not that hard to land a blow on someone. Even in Kung Fu movies (where things are highly stylized) most of the fighting involves blocking blows rather than dodging them outright. The 40k to-hit chart reflects this, even against a DE Wych Succubus, when there are ten of you and you're leaping out from behind rocks and bushes, you're going to land some blows; even if they could dodge all of someone's punches, with that many someones, there's nowhere to dodge to. Or in the case of the Avatar, yes it possesses the martial skill of a god, but it's a giant metal statue! Do you really think a full platoon of guardsmen would be unable to land more than a handful of blows? Ridiculous!
Also, don't forget that close combat takes into account more than just fists. There are grenades, point-blank shooting, and a whole gamut of things that skills in hand-to-hand combat would not protect you against.
Plus, the other stats involved in CC cover a lot of the issues and occurrences that the detractors in this thread are thinking about. Yes, a wych would be able to dodge many of her opponent's blows... and look, she has a 4++ save that represents what? Oh yeah! Likewise, an Avatar probably could walk through a full platoon of IG (as long as they didn't have a bunch of JOs with fists ;)) because even though the crush of bodies would mean that the Guardsmen could land some blows, they still have, what, like a 5% chance to wound after to-wounds and saves?
Khaine and IanC covered it pretty well, I think. The current system is fine unless you want the game to be based mostly around incredibly powerful hero units. Which I certainly don't, they're already powerful enough, if you ask me. If you think it's not "realistic" enough, then it's more likely that you're just not being imaginative enough about what's actually happening in CC than that there's a flaw in the basic mechanic.
Have you studied kung fu? Or boxing? Maybe Aikedo or Karate? Even something like fencing would highlight the point I am about to make.
In real life the hardest possible thing is to land a solid "hit" on a person. Blocking, dodging, redirecting a blow is always easier than taking a hit and moving on...
I say this with extensive experience of 2 decades studying karate. As well as years practicing many other sports like fencing, shooting, boxing, aikedo, kendo and bo-jitsue (Though not all at once I hasten to add :o).
Yes in a fight you will "eventually" be hit, but a drunken fool isn't going to hit me with 1 out of every 2 strikes... or even 1 out of every 3.... He will miss with most of his attacks because contray to your opinion moving away from an oponent is the most EFFICIENT and effective way to counter an attack. You waste no energy, they waste striking energy. You can resposition yourself, you don't have to rely on matching your strength against their strength... If you err on the side of caution it also means a misjudgement doesn't end up with a fist plowed into your face.
Anyways... I didn't consider real life because 40K was a game. What I considered was the math. Primarily what bothers me isn't not being able to hit on a 2+ BUT not being able to have a high enough WS to force people hitting you on a 6+.
THe current system actually makes combat MORE brutal because it always comes down to weight of numbers... Incubi, Paladin and such units can ALL be countered by an equal number of points. I mean a unit of Paladins costing 500 points has every chance of losing to 100 Guardsmen. Or an equal amount of orks... Because they are being hit on 4+ despite having a good increase in WS.
Instead then the current system encourages blindly charging forwards to get into combat to, as another poster here said, "Kill things because thats the fun part". When you speak to GW about any of this you get an uninterested response even if you are being polite and genuinely engaging... All they say is "It makes the game epic".
How does 2 armies running forward pell mell into combat where numbers and dice are more telling than any quality troop make the game in anyway "epic"? It just means everything is off the silly small tables they play on by turn 4. (which again favours CC and making the game as short as humanly possible).
Finally to represent High Elves, or Wyches, or other Highly skilled Assault troops they then have to give them ward saves, or special rules... Which makes the game more complicated and so harder to balance... In effect that proves me point... The WS table is broken.
EDIT:
The WS table wouldn't have to work like the to wound table... Really it's quite simple.
Same WS: hitting on 4's.
1 Higher WS: Hitting on 4's, being hit on 5's
2 Higher WS: Hitting on 3's, being hit on 5's
3 Higher WS: Hitting on 3's, being hit on 6's
4 Higher WS: Hitting on 2's, being hit on 6's
Not being funny that would mean even a WS3 trooper would need to be attacked by models with WS7... Of which there are precious few around.
However units like Incubi, Paladins etc would finally have a little bit more of a chance. Note you could easily reverse the table forumla so you started to hit quicker instead of being harder to hit... However that would make combats shorter and thus keep the game favouring assault.
Thats another note... Assault really should be done like in LotR with only 1 phase due to both sides striking.
-
Yes in a fight you will "eventually" be hit, but a drunken fool isn't going to hit me with 1 out of every 2 strikes... or even 1 out of every 3.... He will miss with most of his attacks because contray to your opinion moving away from an oponent is the most EFFICIENT and effective way to counter an attack. You waste no energy, they waste striking energy. You can resposition yourself, you don't have to rely on matching your strength against their strength... If you err on the side of caution it also means a misjudgement doesn't end up with a fist plowed into your face.
And if there was 10 drunken fools sorrounding you and attacking you at the same time, would you still not be touched by any attacks?
If you see it logically and in real life, very few would ever be so good in combat that they would survive forever. You have examples of extraordinary men and women through history who have been great warriors/fighter, but most of them has been defeated in some fight sooner or later (Usually later as they got known for their combat prowess).
If we go all the way into the scifi and fantasy which we actually play in this game, you see that they have implemented part of that logic (Getting hits). The skill in close combat is represented in more ways than just the WS. It's initiative... being able to take out your enemies before they even get to strike you, it's WS for hitting (And being harder to hit if you truly excel in combat), it's Strength and it's Toughness, then you have the saves and special rules like dodge, removing attacks and different kinds of weapons. That the WS skill isn't that important as toughness and strength, doesn't mean it's broken in my opinion. It should be easier to hit someone, even though they are elites in combat, than to actually damage a creature that has a carapace close to the hardness of a tank.
As for Khaine, I think he should be "easy" to hit... he is a big guy after all. I think he should have more special rules and a higher point cost... something that makes it even harder to kill... maybe make him closer to a wraithlord and you can laugh those puny guardsmen in the face while you slaughter them :P
-
Yes in a fight you will "eventually" be hit, but a drunken fool isn't going to hit me with 1 out of every 2 strikes... or even 1 out of every 3.... He will miss with most of his attacks because contray to your opinion moving away from an oponent is the most EFFICIENT and effective way to counter an attack. You waste no energy, they waste striking energy. You can resposition yourself, you don't have to rely on matching your strength against their strength... If you err on the side of caution it also means a misjudgement doesn't end up with a fist plowed into your face.
It's an abstraction. The Imperial Guardsman isn't actually winding up one punch to land on the nose of the Carnifex that's just romped through his squad. He has a bunch of opportunities for attacks and multiple blows that are abstracted into a single roll to hit - all of that ducking and weaving and running about boils down to a 3+/4+/5+ dice roll. It doesn't literally mean that one out of every three punches the Guardsman throws against a Bloodthirster land, it means that amongst all the to-ing and fro-ing he has about a one in three chance to land something that might cause damage.
As an FYI, there used to be rules that accounted for additional attackers in hand to hand by giving stacking bonuses to later attackers. They were removed because they were hugely exploitable and didn't add a lot to the game.
THe current system actually makes combat MORE brutal because it always comes down to weight of numbers... Incubi, Paladin and such units can ALL be countered by an equal number of points. I mean a unit of Paladins costing 500 points has every chance of losing to 100 Guardsmen. Or an equal amount of orks... Because they are being hit on 4+ despite having a good increase in WS.
This is how it should be. Otherwise assault elites become crazily overpowered if they can charge into combat and be largely immune to return damage. As I've said, the hit chart attempts to balance the brutal nature of assaults by making them riskier even for higher quality troops.
The rest of your post is simply ranting about how you don't like the way that 40k appears to be played in your area. I don't see games like that where I play because I play on large tables against varied opponents. Anecdotal evidence is not proof that anything is broken.
-
Anyone who played 2nd edition Herohammer remembers the insanity of WS as the primary melee statistic.
Close combat in 2011 is a lot, lot better than it was back in 1995. I hope we never go back to that.
-
Anyone who played 2nd edition Herohammer remembers the insanity of WS as the primary melee statistic.
Close combat in 2011 is a lot, lot better than it was back in 1995. I hope we never go back to that.
Yeah, I remember those days as well. I had to use all my army to take down abaddon those days, and couldn't manage it... partl because he was overpowered, part because my opponent cheated.
Anyways, with the stats as I remember it (although I don't remember the exact rules for the Avatar, just baseline), a single guardsman has a 2.75% of inflicting one wound on the Avatar (With save for Avatar), so I wouldn't exactly say that the Avatar has much to fear, except huge numbers of them.
-
THe current system actually makes combat MORE brutal because it always comes down to weight of numbers... Incubi, Paladin and such units can ALL be countered by an equal number of points. I mean a unit of Paladins costing 500 points has every chance of losing to 100 Guardsmen. Or an equal amount of orks...
Hang on... You're saying that an equal amount of points can take on an equal amount of points and saying that's bad games design?
He will miss with most of his attacks because contray to your opinion moving away from an oponent is the most EFFICIENT and effective way to counter an attack.
True in a most day to day situations, best defence is not to be there and in unarmed combat space (Or the control of space) is your best friend. But when the other guy is trying to club you with his pistol moving away and creating space will probably get you shot.
Don't forget we're not just talking about punching people in the face, as somebody covered a few posts back it's also pistols, rocks and any number of dirty tricks. Sure 1 on 1 the higher WS guy would take out the lower WS guy with no problems, but when Mr Low WSs mate is sneaking up behind Mr High WS with a monkey wrench...
-
@IanC... I'm aware it was an abstraction. It was a previous poster who commented about real life and how it's easier to "hit someone" than to "hurt someone"... Which is simply not true. As for comments about fighting 10 people instead of just 1 of you. That can indeed be problematic and no doubt your average person would have trouble...
But then again I can find numerous examples of more skilled persons in life easily capable of pulling off crazy feats... In fact at the battle of the Nile (or it may be trafalgar) I believe a young British Lieutenant ended up jumping the gap between a Spanish ship even as his ship drifted apart... The stranded officer proceeded to fight his way through the ship killing huge numbers of men before diving off the quarter deck...
Anyway. This is all stepping outside of the point. As we are all aware the game is not real and I should not have responded to any comments about real life.
That said I do not believe you are correct. As it is elite assault troops can be largely pointless as is WS and I. No where is this made more clear than with Dark Eldar, Eldar or other supposedly "skilled" units.
They end up needing help via special rules instead of just being able to find solice in the basic rules.
Finally my other parts are not "ranting" about how it's played in my area. The standard GW board in their shops are 4" by 4"... Which is pitifully small. A Lascannon can pretty much cover the entire board without having to ever move. And it's very very easy to get a turn 1 assault. The rulebook even suggests playing on such sized boards or at most a 6" by 4" board... Which is still not really good enough.
That's what I was actually getting at. Due to the size of the boards, the ability for combat to be resolved in multiple phases AND the way combat favours the many over the few it is much simpler to take a large army that can run forward, take casualties and then club everything to death.
My actual games are usually played at home, with objectives to ensure that it's not mindless killing and on a board that is closer to 6.5" by 6.5" so that how you deploy, move and react becomes so much more important.
Khaine, I'm not saying that an equal amount of points taking on an equal amount of points is a bad thing however I'm pretty sure the guardsmen could probably win a shooting match as well as they will kill off a Paladin every turn... Return fire from the Paladins will kill off about 10-12 a turn...
Admitedly I think I used a bad example because Imperial Gaurdsmen are some of the best value units in the game point for point IMHO.
:P Your image of a space marine being taken down by a monkey wrench is an amusing one... May have to make a conversion about that.
-
I think part of the main problem is associated with the all- encompassing nature of WS, in which it represents both attack and defence. In my case I'm talking about how S and T control a fight compared to how WS does.
Splitting S and T was a great move by Games Workshop, as it allowed for the idea of very strong, but very weak units (not that we see any... :P). Logically, it still makes sense; a creature is still roughly the same S and T, because that's simple. But it also offers the opportunity to change that via equipment, like a bike, representing the possibility of the bike taking the shot meant for the rider.
The best example of altering S is probably the USR Furious Charge, which gives +1 to S and I when charging. On the Eldar forums, there is an ongoing debate associated with this rule, mostly with regards to Howling Banshees. Banshees are designed to take out heavily armored targets, with the Space Marines being the de facto examples. However, all Eldar have S3, which leaves the Banshees with an awkward prospect of trying to wound the juggernauts of T4. Many people say that giving the Banshees Furious Charge would allow them to be more effective at their job, while not generalising them into a 'kill-all' unit. But many point out that a Banshee, especially backed up with the Farseer's support, is more than a match for the Space Marines.
What did this somewhat pointless monologue mean? If I had a say at GW Headquarters, I would move for a split of WS into Defence and Offence, possibly with a reversion to S and T tables. Doing so would allow the Eldar, for example to be represented much better. In the current world they are seen as too fragile, while I believe that this would allow the Eldar to shine as Supreme warriors, peerless in skill, but somewhat impotent versus the fury and taciturn fortitude of a Space Marine. With separate skills, it would also be capable of showing the Tyranids as somewhat more uncaring about defence, preferring instead to simply drwon the enemy in bodies...
However, this would make the game significantly more complex, and I don't think I've thought it out perfectly. Perhaps a bonus for outnumbering? The main objective would be to facilitate the idea of a warrior moving through a melee, allowing the enemies numbers to hinder him.
-
That said I do not believe you are correct. As it is elite assault troops can be largely pointless as is WS and I. No where is this made more clear than with Dark Eldar, Eldar or other supposedly "skilled" units.
They end up needing help via special rules instead of just being able to find solice in the basic rules.
Then this conversation is not going to have a happy ending for you. Nobody else seems to agree that the assault phase is too weak or that specialised assault troops have trouble with their role. My experience, and the impression from the others in this thread is that an assault is an extremely effective way to kill the enemy and the better your troops, the more reliably they will do just that. What you are asking for is that powerful assault troops should be all but invulnerable and that's simply not good design for a wargame.
-
That said I do not believe you are correct. As it is elite assault troops can be largely pointless as is WS and I. No where is this made more clear than with Dark Eldar, Eldar or other supposedly "skilled" units.
They end up needing help via special rules instead of just being able to find solice in the basic rules.
Then this conversation is not going to have a happy ending for you. Nobody else seems to agree that the assault phase is too weak or that specialised assault troops have trouble with their role. My experience, and the impression from the others in this thread is that an assault is an extremely effective way to kill the enemy and the better your troops, the more reliably they will do just that. What you are asking for is that powerful assault troops should be all but invulnerable and that's simply not good design for a wargame.
No I'm not..... No where have I said Assault is not powerful enough. In fact in many ways assault is too powerful due to being split over 2 phases.
However powerful assault troops should be capable in assault. As it is many of them will die horribly to shooting. (Paladins are an expensive squad when a devastator lascannon is turned on them, or melta guns, or fire dragons, or lances... or even plasma weapons. The same is true of many other elite assault troops).
Yet despite that many will lose and/or not push through other troops like they are meant to do. My example of guardsmen there was a good one.
In fact contray to your opinion I believe the assault phase is TOO brutal, made worse by small boards... And thus favours hoards of weaker units rather than smaller more elite units.
A hit chart that at least made it harder to hit makes sense in my mind... Though I agree hitting on a 2+ may be too much due to making certain units very brutal it is quite reasonable I think to change how quickly units are hit on a 5+.
IN effect I think you are the one who is defending a more brutal assault phase due to wanting to keeping units hitting other units on a 4+.
Do I make more sense where my opinion stands? I understand your one however I find the assault phase deeply flawed in 40K due to the ease with which hoards of units can damage elite units AND the ease with which hoards of units can make it across a small board that gives up huge numbers of terrain saves to make it into shooting safely.
I will possibly conceed that the fix is not in the WS table. However at no point have I asked for "powerful assault troops to be invulnerable".
Furthermore I don't understand what you mean by this not having a happy ending? With all due respect the worst you or others can possibly do is disagree with me to the point where we agree to disagree.
-
I think the to hit chart change doesn't nessecarily for offense and defense. Now amount of skill can prevent you from being hit when outnumbered 10-1 at a single moment. If lelith were fighting a platoon of guardsmen, 1 or 2 at a time she would win. Not all at once. I think that what would help super elite infantry would be a better chance to hit. Perhaps then if you double or more an opponents WS you roll a 2+ to hit. But your opponent is still just as likely to hit back. This will only be the case when a leader or superior fighter is fighting a less skilled mob of opponents. If an avatar is swarmed by 20 guardsmen swinging his blade as a golf club should be all that's necessary to make hits.
-
A hit chart that at least made it harder to hit makes sense in my mind... Though I agree hitting on a 2+ may be too much due to making certain units very brutal it is quite reasonable I think to change how quickly units are hit on a 5+.
IN effect I think you are the one who is defending a more brutal assault phase due to wanting to keeping units hitting other units on a 4+.
Do I make more sense where my opinion stands? I understand your one however I find the assault phase deeply flawed in 40K due to the ease with which hoards of units can damage elite units AND the ease with which hoards of units can make it across a small board that gives up huge numbers of terrain saves to make it into shooting safely.
You were advocating a to hit table that went to 6. That change along with moving the 5+ to hit further down the chart - even if the table bottomed out at 3+ - would make elite troops almost untouchable in combat. Once in an assault they would be at almost no risk from enemies weaker than them. Currently assaults are usually decisive but can be costly, you'd remove the risk without changing the scale of the reward.
Hordes of troops have their own disadvantages, the fact that weight of numbers can, in some circumstances overwhelm better troops is a feature not a bug.
-
IanC shall we agree to disagree then? I understand your comments I just happen to disagree with them.
It's not too much of a problem. Pie plating, avoiding, misdirection and other methods work just fine against hordes as you have said :P.
The original post was to get what other people thought about the situation and I will accept you feel this is the case.
Oh on a final note... I may not be able to take on 10 people at once, but after 2 decades of training I know, and have been in the unfortunate position to prove it, that I can take on 4 people at once.
Some of the greatest human fighters have been seen to take on more than 4 people at once. Remember that while you go on about abstraction, it is an abstraction that a model is located in position x to fight a certain amount of opponents.
That is in this case, in 40K you have Space Marines who are super human... You also have Eldar who are so fast and agile they appear to "glide" across the ground and have reflexes faster than a space marines... I'm pretty sure Lelith would have no problem avoiding 10 guardsmen in a real fight... Being able to move faster than the fastest space marine would make it difficult to stop her killing you to be frank. Especially when she has all the strength and toughness that a human does.
-
You very well may have fought off four people at once, but have you ever fought off four people who are trained as soldiers to work together, all have guns and knives, and are literally fighting to kill you at the cost of their own lives? No, you have not. It's the same for Lelith. She could slice them and dice them before they know what's going on, but they're not hanging around drinking beers and watching the game. They're on high alert, weapons at the ready. She might bring down six people in the space of a few seconds, but they know she has to be next to someone to kill them, so already they have a decent idea of her likely positions/locations, and they have fully automatic weapons. The rest is fairly straightforward.
Also, I don't understand why you think models should excel in what they do without special rules. You said yourself, a Wych has equivalent strength and toughness to a human, so why should the base stats be different? The special rules are just that: they make the models special! Yes, it would be easier to have better balance with simpler and fewer rules, but that's never been 40k. Before we had as many types of models as we do now, we had far more comlex rules for the fewer models we had.
-
I think I may have found a soloution to the to hit chart whilst sipping on a nice non alchoholic drink earlier. Use the same system that applies for BS, Ie WS4 VS WS4: 4+, WS5 VS WS4: 3+, WS6 VS WS4, 3+, WS7 Vs WS4: 3+, if miss, re roll 6+ will hit, WS8 VS WS4: 3+, if miss then 5+ will hit. Etc
For decending WS4 VS WS5 : 4+, WS4 VS WS6: 4+, WS4 VS WS7: 5+, WS4 VS WS9+: 6+
So essentially friendly has greater ws: 2X WS-1 gets a re roll a la BS, and decending 2X WS+1 is 6+ to hit.
Sound fairer, works in my mind, its ages before the enemy gets penalized badly, yet if you WS is a bit higher than it becomes a bit easier to hit
-
I disagree with the idea about WS not being strong enough because there are so many other factors in close combat (as mentioned before). In my blabbering at the first post I had in this thread, I forgot to mention one important stat: Attacks
I see the number of attacks to be even more important than WS when determining whether a unit excels in close combat or not... I don't see why the WS should be more important than what it is, and if it did get improved there has to be some reaction... Higher point cost, less attacks or some other things that makes them balance.
And that last word there is the most important of them all. The game needs to be balanced. If guardsmen (Or any of the Imperial Guard as most have sucky WS compared to many other races) can barely hit elite close combat specialists , they need to get more chances to shoot their enemies down... shooting in both turns? More shots in their turn? Or should the close combat units get -1 attack each?
I say, keep the balance. The Avatar isn't immortal, neither is Lelith, and both are extremely hard for guardsmen to put down. Represented good enough for me at least.
-
It's a tough call. Getting too realistic can ruin things as this is a game of fantasy, epic battles, and heroes/villains. People can easily get locked into the visually static nature of the game (I go-you go, models standing in place, inches etc.) when it is actually very abstract. Everything is technically happening at once. A squad of 10 guys aren't just standing there swinging knives at Lysander, Kharn, Yriel, Avatar, Hive tyrants etc. They're moving, shooting pistols etc. But big heroes are epic in a game of fantasy space orks and elves. A big hero should be able to handle a squad of normal troops, but have a tough time against a squad of specialists. This is where the dice come in. Against weaker things a lone character should do fine. Against something tougher, they shouldn't feel safe. This is why there are dice and randomness to the game. Throw Yriel at a squad of just tactical marines. He will usually do quite a few wounds and really beat up the squad in assault. Make that "Epicily heroic" flip and dive through the battle field and strike the squad of tactical marines. If you roll poorly, you basically just showed that not all epic ideals can pan out.
Also consider Heroes have a lot more going for them than just their hitting. You also have to consider initiative, armor saves, toughness, strength, wounds, etc. Some heroes have a high initiative letting them attack first, killing stuff, and taking less attacks back. They have multiple wounds for those random hits that do get through (epic heroes can take some hits can keep fighting!). Avatars are tough and can be hard to wound (Come on they're big MCs, they aren't hard to miss!) and have a decent armor save. All this has to be taken into account for their combat prowess.
All in all, I think it's pretty fine as is. Heroes shouldn't slay bulks of armies on their own, but they should be competent tacticians. Most are, some aren't so much. This is more of a flaw with the character in question more than the mechanics of the game.
-
I think hitting on 2s and 6s in CC is a good thing, I would also suggest that models with BS6 or higher gain an extra shot with their weapon rather than re-rolling to hit.
So a model with BS7 and a bolter can fire 3 shots with rapid fire 2 of them hitting on 2+ and the third hitting on 5+.
The to hit table provided earlier looks good but I'd rather it looked like:
WS1 hit on 6+
WS2 hit on 5+
WS3 hit on 4+
WS4 hit on 3+
WS5 hit on 2+
WS6 hit on 2+ and reduces opponent hit chance by 1 or may make an additional hit on 6+.
WS7 hit on 2+ and reduces opponent hit chance by 2 or may make an additional hit on 5+.
WS8 hit on 2+ and reduces opponent hit chance by 3 or may make an additional hit on 4+.
WS9 hit on 2+ and reduces opponent hit chance by 4 or may make an additional hit on 3+.
WS10hit on 2+ and may block 1 attack or gain one attack.
To make the CC carnage a bit less I think GW should reintroduce the movement stat, usually the same as initiative to make the gaming board seem larger. A normal space marine would have M4 and a guardsman M3.
-
Don't forget we're not just talking about punching people in the face, as somebody covered a few posts back it's also pistols, rocks and any number of dirty tricks. Sure 1 on 1 the higher WS guy would take out the lower WS guy with no problems, but when Mr Low WSs mate is sneaking up behind Mr High WS with a monkey wrench...
I know your not saying this but we have to take into account physicality and equipment. Fighter X might be more skilled in fighting then Fighter Y but Y has trained harder and thus is fitter (Represented by higher strength, iniative). Or two swordsmen square of, one incredibly skilled but wearing just plain clothes and weilding a wodden sword, the other using a steel blade and encased in full plate armour.
The point is that skill isn't everything in a fight and I feel 40k can quite accurately represent this.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
(https://www.40konline.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1188.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz405%2FGreatBigTree%2FIndianaandSwordmaster.png&hash=282e1975a2051318ee01d5694d31c39595062851)
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...
(https://www.40konline.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1188.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz405%2FGreatBigTree%2FIndy2.png&hash=61ddc5dc170f4f1f695a88863a88bc79948532f8)
We suddenly realize why he's unmoved, when he pulls a superior piece of equipment from his holster, and shoots the Swordmaster...
(https://www.40konline.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1188.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz405%2FGreatBigTree%2FIndy3.png&hash=e4e0225a3f14e8daabdf475646ea02362ee6d853)
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...
(https://www.40konline.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs1188.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fz405%2FGreatBigTree%2FIndy4.png&hash=f90ed2bff66efc362244dd34077a5ffa15ace0cf)
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.
-
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?
-
Hve to say I am not sold.
The belief the points are balanced is flawed. Mainly because many specialist CC troops that cost the same amount as marines are in fact less effective than marines due to the S and T of marines combined with AS making them hard to kill in close combat due to the statistical difference in WS and S. For instance I'd rather be WS3 S4 I3 than WS4 S3 I4... I'll hit on 3's but wound on 5's.... 22% chance of a kill.. WS3 S4 I3 will hit on 4's wound on 3's... 33% chance to kill.
He goes first true... so out of 100 times he kill the opponent 22 times before the opponent can react.
Opponent therefore only has 78 times... he will still kill higher WS and I 26 times...
This disparity is shown clearly in many of the High WS and I troops.
EDITED:
Edited out due to being rather tangental.
[gmod]Oh hai! Please don't edit your post after you've been nudged about something. It's rather rude and disrupts the flow. For instance, now my comment made to your comment doesn't make any sense. So next time, if you'd be so kind, just take the nudge rather than hiding the evidence. K![/gmod]
-
[gmod] Not too difficult at all considering the entire F-22 fleet has been grounded the past few months. ;)
Please get back to the topic at hand rather than this very narrow dark alley way the thread has wandered down innocently at first but now fully knowing they're on the wrong side of the tracks and the sun has gone down. [/gmod]
-
Hve to say I am not sold.
The belief the points are balanced is flawed. Mainly because many specialist CC troops that cost the same amount as marines are in fact less effective than marines due to the S and T of marines combined with AS making them hard to kill in close combat due to the statistical difference in WS and S. For instance I'd rather be WS3 S4 I3 than WS4 S3 I4... I'll hit on 3's but wound on 5's.... 22% chance of a kill.. WS3 S4 I3 will hit on 4's wound on 3's... 33% chance to kill.
He goes first true... so out of 100 times he kill the opponent 22 times before the opponent can react.
Opponent therefore only has 78 times... he will still kill higher WS and I 26 times...
This disparity is shown clearly in many of the High WS and I troops.
Since you're obviously thinking of a particular unit of "specialist CC troops", please stop beating around the bush and tell us what you're comparing to space marines. This will allow us to have a more focused and productive discussion.
Because honestly? I have no idea what you're talking about. There are several specialist close combat troops priced similarly to marines that I can think of, and of those there are a few that would not fare well against them. But what you're ignoring is that those choices usually are quite good indeed at killing something else. You seem to be falling into that most common of traps: Comparing everything to Space Marines because that's what you see all the time. The choices you're thinking of may not be points effective against tactical marines, but this does not necessarily mean that they are miscosted, it just means that they shouldn't be attacking tactical marines. This is pretty obvious, so without more information about your particular gripe, you aren't going to be able to demonstrate that your argument makes sense.
So, again, what unit are you thinking of that, for its points cost, stats, special rules, and equipment, should be good against Tactical Marines but isn't? Remembering that Tactical Marines are specifically designed to be effective and resilient against all opponents, where most other units are not. I am skeptical that WS is a main factor in the cost of whatever unit you are thinking of and very skeptical that their cost would be much diminished whilst their effectiveness remains mostly unaffected if their WS was lower.
Your statement about how you would rather swap a point of WS for a point of S is also not making sense to me, because there are certain guidelines to what S and T can be that have nothing to do with effectiveness. For example, it doesn't matter how much more effective a WS 2 T4 Eldar Storm Guardian would be than a WS3 T3 one, because there are no T4 Eldar.
-
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 concept behind what I was trying to do with my chart was to bring back the 2-6 range which I had always felt was a fair range but to follow the balancing concept I feel exists within the chart in current usage, I feel that the first step to go from a 4+ to a 5+ at a difference of 2 and then from a 5+ to a 6+ at a difference of on average 5. from a 4+ to a 3+ at the 1 that exists not and from a 3+ to a 2+ at roughly a difference of 4-5. Does that help you understand what I was thinking?
-
The belief the points are balanced is flawed. Mainly because many specialist CC troops that cost the same amount as marines are in fact less effective than marines due to the S and T of marines combined with AS making them hard to kill in close combat due to the statistical difference in WS and S.
Well, we could turn it around, terminators against incubis... Most would know the result of such a matchup. I see the point you are making, that WS is just much less important than most other stats, and I think it might be the least important stat of them all. I still think that you have to look at the whole picture of things though, and I definitly don't think of Marines as a big unbalanced problem with my Dark Eldar CC units. Sure, they are tougher to kill, but my wyches manages to take them down well enough, even against the CC marines, the vanguard. In that last example, you see again that you have to look at the combinations of stats for close combat, just not at one stat, and if you increase the importance of WS by new rules that makes it even more powerful, you have to adjust the other stats or abilities of all races with higher or lower WS than the standard 3-4