Alternative WS and Melee system

[Valkyrion]

I'm clearly not a games designer, but I don't like the current 2+/3+/4+ system for hitting things as I think it's too limiting so I was thinking of moving back to 2nd edition style with a difference.

 

In it's simplest form, In 2nd ed you rolled one dice per attack, chose the best, and added your WS to it. There were other nuances to it - fumbles, critical hits and so on - that was broadly it. Your opponent did the same and the winner scored a number of hits equal to the difference between the two scores, with initiative deciding a tie. 

Your average space marine could therefore score between 5 and 10, whilst the bloodthirster between 11 and 16 - at it's simplest. 

It was a fine system in principal, but in reality it took a long time because each combat was resolved one at a time.

 

So for the purposes of my little thought experiment I have the following profiles;

10 Guardsman - WS3, 1 wound

5 Marines - WS4, 2 wounds

1 Bloodthirster - WS10, 10 wounds, Monster

There is no Attacks characteristic!

 

G rolls 1 dice, adds its WS of 3 and adds the number of wounds in the unit. On a full strength squad this would give a number of 10+3+D6, a score of 14-19. 

M rolls 1 dice, adds its WS of 4 and the number of wounds in the unit. 10+4+D6; 15-20

BT rolls 2 dice as it is a monster and adds them together, adds its WS of 10 and the number of wounds it has remaining. 10+10+2D6; 22-32

 

Hits are resolved in an order of the owning players choosing on a 1:1 hit to model ratio. So if the marine squad scores 3 hits and has a power fist sergeant and 4 normal guys, he hits once with the power fist and twice with the normal guys. If they win by 6 then he could use his sergeant to cause 2 hits. 

Hits are resolved exactly as normal - S vs T then saves. 

 

 

This does mean that in the examples above, neither the guardsmen nor marines can beat the bloodthirster. I think this is right and proper, the BT would be 300 points against 50 points of guard for example. But a weakened bloodthirster could be taken out by the 5 marines. Again, I think possible. 

 

Multiple combats would be resolved as above, but the second onwards allied combatant rolls an extra dice and adds them together. 

So the same Bloodthirster in combat with 3 guardsmen squads would find the final guard squad rolling between 16-31 - maybe enough to take down a weakened monster. 

 

 

In a nutshell, the system is 

Wounds + Weapon Skill + D6 for infantry

Wounds + Weapon Skill + 2D6 for monsters and dreadnoughts

Wounds + Weapon Skill + 3D6 for uber super dupers (Avatar, Guilliman, Swarmlord, Gazghkull et al)

Wounds + Weapon Skill + 4D6 for titanic units.

 

Open topped vehicles would have a WS (e.g, WS4 on a land speeder) and fight like infantry, enclosed vehicles would not - if a Leman Russ has 15 wounds, say, then that is it's combat score and it's up to the opponent to beat it.

 

 

----------------

 

Forget things like locked combats, charging, morale and things like that for now - how does my system stack up? What problems can you see with it? 

[Leonaides]

Complicated.

 

Yes, the current system doesn't really allow your amazing cc unit to show how hard it should be to land a hit based purely off ws (though that's where flat to-hit rolls can be modified by a special rule) bit it's a lot simpler to use and works with the general GW design philosophy of 'rolling dice is fun, rolling MORE dice is MORE fun'.

 

But it's certainly an interesting idea - possibly more akin to a big apocalypse game system?

[Valkyrion]

Complicated.

 

Yes, the current system doesn't really allow your amazing cc unit to show how hard it should be to land a hit based purely off ws (though that's where flat to-hit rolls can be modified by a special rule) bit it's a lot simpler to use and works with the general GW design philosophy of 'rolling dice is fun, rolling MORE dice is MORE fun'.

 

But it's certainly an interesting idea - possibly more akin to a big apocalypse game system?

 

 

Thanks for replying, but why do you think it's complicated?

I thought it simpler than the current system, to be honest! 

[Dagoth Ur]

I genuinely don't see how this is easier. I tried rereading this four times now and my comprehension of the system has not improved one bit. This is just way too much math for what should be a quick roll and/or comparison of stats at most. How is this easier than either 6/7th Edition style WS matrixes or post-8th to-hit rolls? I'll agree that the post-8th system is very inelegant and simplistic to the point of being detrimental, but this just gives me a headache. Edited January 17, 2022 by The Observer

[Moonstalker]

I think I understand it, and while I can see how the system would potentially speed things up - essentially, roll one d6 for an entire squad or hero/monster, add modifiers, winner rolls to wound - I think the system has a couple flaws.

 

It's a winner-take-all-system. Consider a 10 man squad of terminators at WS4 in your system. 30 wounds, +4 for weapon skill, +1d6. A floor of 35. They will dumpster that Bloodthirster, who even with his 2d6 for being a monster cannot beat them - and consequently, cannot land even a single wound on them. Instead of a few valiant battle brothers laying down their lives to defeat the foul beast, he has zero chance of taking even a single terminator with him. If you are good in combat, you don't suffer any attrition, there's no amount of bad luck that can take you down if you're good enough.

 

It squishes quantity of attacks into Wounds and Weapon Skill, and places extra emphasis on quality of attacks. It removes the distinction between an elite melee unit that is good at fighting other elite melee units, and a unit that is good at clearing chaff but would struggle against elites. Consider Assault Intercessors vs Bladeguard. 5 AI and 3 Bladeguard are relatively close in price, but you wouldn't use Bladeguard for killing GEQ. You want the Assault Intercessors pumping out 21 D1 attacks on the charge, not Bladeguard putting out 13 D2 attacks on the charge. With the Weapons Skill/Attacks squish, these units are basically the same in melee. 10 Wounds + WS4 + 1d6 for the 5 man AI squad, 9 Wounds + WS5 + 1d6 for the Bladeguard. These two units that previously had somewhat distinct uses become functionally the same. If the Assault Intercessors have a hidden THammer and add a couple extra bodies to help their base score, then they're going to beat the Bladeguard every single time - if they win the roll-off by even 1, they get a Thunder Hammer strike in, and have a ~42% chance of killing a Bladeguard, which steeply tilts the odds in their favor next combat since it's a winner take all system.

 

As an extension to that, you will have to artificially inflate the weapon skill of glass cannon units to make them work at all. A high wound unit with a middling weapon skill (a 5 man squad of Heavy Intercessors, say) vs a low wound, high skill, glass cannon unit (10 Banshees?) would end up looking something like 15 wounds + WS 4 +1d6 vs 11 wounds + WS x + 1d6. Heavy Intercessors can't even take a hidden Pfist to pretend to be good at melee, but they're still going to beat those Banshees unless you push them up to WS 8 or higher. That's WS8 to make Banshees - a dedicated melee unit - EQUAL to a backline fire support/objective holder unit. The points costs are relatively even between the two, around 150 points, but the Heavy Intercessors can just take an extra model or two and become immune to the already max-sized Banshee squad.

Edited January 18, 2022 by kitwulfen

[Subtleknife]

Overly complicated. They should just go back to the old system of WS v WS. But instead of having to consult a table just keep the "to wound" system introduced in 8th. As an example let's say marines have a WS of 5 and guardsmen have a WS of 3. The guardsmen try to attack the marines. Since their weapon skill is less than the marines but it isn't twice as less they would hit on a 5 plus. Now let's flip the example with marines attacking. As there weapon skill is better than the guardsmen but not double they will hit on a 3 plus. If the weapon skill is even then hits are on a 4 plus and if the weapon skill is double it would be 6 plus or 2 plus depending on who had the advantage.

[Xenith]

 I like the idea of the OP to tie attacks to wounds in the unit...

 

Overly complicated. They should just go back to the old system of WS v WS. But instead of having to consult a table just keep the "to wound" system introduced in 8th. As an example let's say marines have a WS of 5 and guardsmen have a WS of 3. The guardsmen try to attack the marines. Since their weapon skill is less than the marines but it isn't twice as less they would hit on a 5 plus. Now let's flip the example with marines attacking. As there weapon skill is better than the guardsmen but not double they will hit on a 3 plus. If the weapon skill is even then hits are on a 4 plus and if the weapon skill is double it would be 6 plus or 2 plus depending on who had the advantage.

 

but this ^^ is just elegant and what should have been done from the onset og 8th.

 

Tying a monster/Vehicles Attacks to the #wounds remaining is a great idea, and eliminates the need for extra special rules. Imperial knights, 24 wounds. Currently like 4 attacks, but they have a special rule to roll 3x dice for each attack. Instead, remove that special rule and say A = W, and weaken the profile a bit. Rolling a ton of dice is more up GW's street.