# The Weapon Skill Chart Kinda sucks



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Hey everyone.

Have you ever taken a look at the Weapon Skill Chart .... I mean a proper look.

Jeez it sucks!!

The best you can ever hit on is a 3+, which means that even if your Weapon Skill 10 and your opponent is Weapon Skill 1, you still miss 1/3 of the time. The reason that this is such a problem IMO is that people can shoot at Ballistic Skill 5 and only need a 2+, meaning that statistically gun armies are superior than CC orientated armies. 

Also it takes away from the uniqueness of certain models i.e Lucius the Eternal is regarded as one of the finest swordsmen in the whole galaxy ... well he still gets hit on a 4+ by his fellow marines and can only hit them on a 3+, whereas 5+ defence and 2+ hit would be more in line with both his price and supposed CC prowess. He's not even the work example, what about Greater Daemons, Avatars, Swarmlords etc?

So do you think GW needs to fix this problem? Maybe with something more in line with the Ballistic Skill system?


----------



## Imperious (May 20, 2009)

I've always felt the scale needs a minor readjustment. 

Meaning if you're WS10 vs WS1 you should only miss on a 1. 

On the other hand if you're WS1 vs WS10 you should need a 6 to hit.


----------



## Khorothis (May 12, 2009)

Yeah, it kinda sucks. If you have WS5 you're golden, since the worst for you is a 4+ and the vast majority of the units you face are around WS4-5. Which makes WS10 units look like idiots. I think that it should turn into a 5+ after two steps and 6+ after four steps upwards, while 3+ and 2+ in the same way downwards. An Avatar of Khaine shouldn't have problem gutting some Space Marines, for instance. Sure they're good but we're talking about a god of war here.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

I agree with this too, I've always thought if I'm WS 8-10 I should be hitting someone who has WS of 4 or less on a 2+ where as they should be hitting me on a 6+.

If not this do what the Shooting to Hit ability does for 40k in the fact that if my WS is over 5 and I miss I will on 6 again if I'm WS 6, a 5 if I'm WS 7, 4 if I'm WS 8 and so on etc...


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I like that system more. However one should not underestimate the advantage of close combat. Unlike shooting it causes enemies to be wiped out more easily than shooting. It also allows you to move closer to more people as you defeat them.


----------



## chromedog (Oct 31, 2007)

This happened when they streamlined the rules back in 3rd to simplify things.

Once upon a time, it had a far greater range on that table, better reflecting the differences in WS, down to a 2+/6+ (you need / they need).

Things change. Deal with it or find something else to whine about.


----------



## Snozz (Nov 16, 2010)

I think it'd be nice to be able to hit enemies of a significantly lower weapon skill on a 2+. I think being able to hit enemies on a 4+ or 5+ makes a lot of sense though. In a giant swirling melee with chainswords and swords swinging around everywhere and people firing off close range pistol shots it doesn't matter how good a swordsman you are, you're going to take hits. That's why you have armour on . However I do think that maybe a 6+ is warrented to hit WS 9 and 10 models if you have much lower weapon skill than them, representing them being beyond awesome with their chosen weapon.


----------



## Blue Liger (Apr 25, 2008)

Agreed , we also have to remember WS is meant to represent more than just how well you can swing a blade, axe etc, but alos how good you are at blocking/ defending hits if you dont have great armour and to an extent dodging completly out of the way, though I believe 'I' comes more into this part though is not really represented by current rules as it would complicate things way too much for the youngens.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

Or go the way of fantasy.

In a 40k Case, If you're WS is double (or more) that of the Opponent. Say, WS7 hitting WS3, you should be granted a re-roll on a miss.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

I think the WS chart should look like the To Wound chart.


----------



## Ascendant (Dec 11, 2008)

No, I don't think 2+ belongs on that list. 

It seems unfair when you compare it to the BS list at first, because BS5 is a 2+ to hit. If my space marine captain can shoot someone on a 2+, why can't he smack a grot on a 2+?

Because Weaponskill is so much freaking better in every other way. That captain is never going to be shooting 4 strength 6 ap2 shots, so it's not like his relic blade "deserves" to hit on a 2+. Not to mention the fact that assaulting models get to strike twice as often as anything that's shooting. Since the scales are already tipped so much towards guys that rock at hand to hand combat, the 2+ is really unnecessary. 

Plus think, even in the current climate of no 2+, can any character shoot as nastily as the close combat characters out there? If you ask me, they should make more characters that can earn their points in shooting, not just being close combat monstrosities.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

yeah I always thought the WS chart is weak. If your so good at CC like Abbaddon/Kharn/Lucious/Lysander/Avatar of Khain/Keeper of Secrets/ WHATEVER with WS 6 or higher than your the bad ass that avoid pistol shots and others clumsy opponets with WS3 or 4 with ease while hacking them down with ease. In real life if I took my basic military training in aprehending and takedowns against a guy with a Orange Belt in Tae Kwon Doe and Brown Belt in Jujitsu (these fancy names) as I have recently, I get my ass kicked hands down. I was able to last seconds longer than other guys with less training but thats it. Why the WS chart dont represent this is beyond me. Reading Fluff on Kharn in the CSM Codex where Matharax and his fellow WEs get PWN without landing a blow sounds right.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

Khan does hit on a 2+ though.


----------



## Bubblematrix (Jun 4, 2009)

I think rather than making all the "to hit" charts vanilla higher WS should confer one of more of the abilities already mentioned, maybe the reroll to hit, or a CC save in the oponents turn?


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

Yeah, the CC is screwed up. It put me off my Avatar because the only reason I was gonna take him was to CC the hell out of my enemie's MCs...


----------



## Doelago (Nov 29, 2009)

Its fine as it is, and I dont see any reason to change it...


----------



## Hialmar (Feb 19, 2008)

At first look it would appear that there is a problem with it but when you consider issues such as those raised by *Ascendant* above it is clear that the close combat models already have a pretty good advantage as it is, certainly more than enough to balance out this issue. When you are shooting something the enemy can do nothing more than try and find cover. In close combatthe enemy is taking an active role in not only defending against that hit, but also swinging back and trying tohit you. This combination should make it harder to hit things in close combat and the current rule seems perfectly fine. 

Most of your close combat monsters have other rules/wargear available to them that already supplement their abilites and you could not really change this rule without simultaneously redoing all of the army lists which is never going to happen. Changing this rule would lead to significantly boosting the effectiveness some armies/units/wargear without a matching points cost increase and would seriously unbalance the game. 

I will admit that when my WS-6 Space Marine Chapter Master manages to whiff against some WS-2 or WS-3 shmucks in close combat then they pummel him with numerous 4+ to hits in return it can get frustrating but most of the game I am probably dropping several enemy soldiers each turn and can even hack down an opposing character in a turn with my available wargear, sometimes while dying in return, which is how these things probably should go. 

To make the game fun and fair, in most cases I think any model on the table should have a decent chance of hitting any other model in hand to hand (which is how it is now), and actually if anything I think every model should have that "puncher's chance" of wounding in close combat any opposing model on the table. 

I think that even the lowliest, weakest strength model should be able to wound any opposing enemy model with a weapon skill with that lucky blow. You could simply make it like Fantasy where a roll of "six" always wounds, or even make it harder and make it similar to the "rend" rule, so that if a strength 4 model hits a toughness 8 creature, he could be required to roll a 6 and then follow it up with a 5+ roll in order to successfully wound. Chances are he won't do it, and if he does an armor/invulnerable save would prevent the wound, but at least every model is placed in harms way. This could represent that lucky strike to the eye, groin or other sensitive area that is enough to get the attention of even the hardiest of foes.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

I think some of these ideas are great so far, my favourites being:

1. Double WS or more and you get to re-roll your to-hits

2. The chart should include +2 and +6 in its to hit calculations

3. A roll of 6 automatically hits due to a lucky strike in the confusion of CC


Why I think it needs changed is because of the rule for Independant Characters, I hate that they can be individually targeted by a hidden Sgt with a powerfist and get splatted, whereas they can't even guarantee that they will kill that hidden model in return, meaning he can survive combat for that turn and get another chance. 

Also defensively it should be harder to hit certain models because they can defend themselves better, a Sgt with a powerfist can hit a Swarmlord, Lucius, etc 1/2 the time, if they even changed it so that your opponent has to declare who is attacking the IC seperately and then is forced to resolve that combat seperately, that would be alot fairer i.e

3 Space Marines, including a Powerfist Sgt, declare they will be targeting Lucius this combat round, he can then resolve this combat with his profile, meaning he can use his 5 PW attacks against only those three targets, that would increase his survivability greatly IMO.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I thought that to be able to target a character he had to be in contact with the guy wishing to attack him. I position my characters away from harm.


----------



## Ascendant (Dec 11, 2008)

D-A-C said:


> Why I think it needs changed is because of the rule for Independant Characters, I hate that they can be individually targeted by a hidden Sgt with a powerfist and get splatted, whereas they can't even guarantee that they will kill that hidden model in return, meaning he can survive combat for that turn and get another chance.


While it sucks to have your cool characters take a powerfist to the jaw,
I think this is a necessary balancing factor. After all, it would be sort of obnoxious if your characters were all but guaranteed to roll through Squads that cost significantly more than the character does. 

Even still, this splatting seems like the exception more than the rule, as these powerfist sargeants have only 2 (maybe 3) attacks to hit, wound and get through an invulnerable save.

If you're still having trouble, try retinues!


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Ascendant said:


> While it sucks to have your cool characters take a powerfist to the jaw,
> I think this is a necessary balancing factor. After all, it would be sort of obnoxious if your characters were all but guaranteed to roll through Squads that cost significantly more than the character does.
> 
> Even still, this splatting seems like the exception more than the rule, as these powerfist sargeants have only 2 (maybe 3) attacks to hit, wound and get through an invulnerable save.
> ...


To be honest, I think that is somewhat true.

Watching a Keeper of Secrets or Abaddon run through your 10 man Space Marine squad like nobodies business, and little chance of getting hit in return (needing say +5 or +6) would actually make everyone cry lol.

I think then that the idea of certain higher WS units getting bonuses might work, maybe even choosing either a defensive or offensive bonus? Like re-rolls to-hit or make your opponent re-roll successful hits, removing charging attack bonuses, counter-charge ability etc?


----------



## Kinglopey (Sep 10, 2008)

D-A-C said:


> I think some of these ideas are great so far, my favourites being:
> 
> 1. Double WS or more and you get to re-roll your to-hits
> 
> ...


The only problem I see with doing something like this is Hoards... or squads with a lot of attacks. You would need to adjust Saves to balance it. Otherwise Necron Scarab Swarms and Ripper Swarms would own things, being cheap and offering multiple attacks.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Kinglopey said:


> The only problem I see with doing something like this is Hoards... or squads with a lot of attacks. You would need to adjust Saves to balance it. Otherwise Necron Scarab Swarms and Ripper Swarms would own things, being cheap and offering multiple attacks.


Well, they not only have to hit but also wound. And Scarabs, for instance have a fairly low WS.
Which is why I think the To Hit and To Wound charts should be the same.


----------



## Kinglopey (Sep 10, 2008)

I agree that Scarabs because of their Low Weapon skill shouldn’t hit often; my main argument is with the 3 Items I quoted in my previous post. If the “to Hit” was like the “to Wound” then what’s the point of making 6’s auto Hit, then it’s almost like just giving a higher weapon skill…


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Kinglopey said:


> I agree that Scarabs because of their Low Weapon skill shouldn’t hit often; my main argument is with the 3 Items I quoted in my previous post. If the “to Hit” was like the “to Wound” then what’s the point of making 6’s auto Hit, then it’s almost like just giving a higher weapon skill…


Well, high WS units are balanced by the fact that just about every army can shoot them to death; so, if/ when they get into melee, they should shine.


----------



## Kinglopey (Sep 10, 2008)

Vrykolas2k said:


> Well, high WS units are balanced by the fact that just about every army can shoot them to death; so, if/ when they get into melee, they should shine.


WS has nothing to do with you ability to get shot, other than Target Priority... besides a lot of models that have a High Weapon Skill are IC's that can hide in squads.


----------



## Iron_Freak220 (Nov 8, 2009)

You should never be able to hit on a 2+. Like Hialmar said it would seriously unbalance the armies and give huge advantages for not additional point costs. You also need to take into account the confusion of a close combat situation. It's not like shooting where you don't have to compare your BS to something like the other guys ability to dodge or whatever. 

However they should raise the spectrum a little so that if the other guy is 3 points above you then you need a 5+ and 4 or more points above you need a 6+ to hit (or however it seems most balanced). That would help balance things a little. And then the reroll missed hits if you are however many points above the other guys WS would work too, since thats kinda how it works with BS6,7,8 etc


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Kinglopey said:


> WS has nothing to do with you ability to get shot, other than Target Priority... besides a lot of models that have a High Weapon Skill are IC's that can hide in squads.


Right.
And? So they hide in squads, the squad gets shot up, wounds have to be allocated.
I'm just tired of a high WS not meaning anything.


----------



## Deathscythe4722 (Jul 18, 2010)

High WS DOES mean something. WS 9-10 models are the only ones that don't get hit on a 4+ by WS4 models. That can be a huge advantage.

Plus, if they add a 2+ to the to-hit chart, they'd have to allow Kharn the Betrayer to always hit on 1+, and I KNOW none of you want that.


----------



## D-A-C (Sep 21, 2010)

Deathscythe4722 said:


> High WS DOES mean something. WS 9-10 models are the only ones that don't get hit on a 4+ by WS4 models. That can be a huge advantage.
> 
> Plus, if they add a 2+ to the to-hit chart, they'd have to allow Kharn the Betrayer to always hit on 1+, and I KNOW none of you want that.


Hey, need I remind you Kharn already hits on a 1+ ....... admittedly he does hit the wrong people ..... but he still hits everytime  . 

I think the answer to the problem, is keep 3+ and 5+ as the minimum/maximum, but have it so that there are slightly more 5+'s and then add some benifits to higher skills, say from 7 onward, such as re-roll your own or the enemies to-hits.


----------



## EmbraCraig (Jan 19, 2009)

This has already been touched on, but just to reinforce - any changes to the hit tables in close combat need to be balanced with a few things that don't apply to shooting:

1 - you get to roll in close combat in both your turn and your opponents
2 - if your opponent doesn't run away, you get extra hits for free
3 - one model can wipe out an entire squad in close combat if it tries to run away and doesn't make it

I've never really seen specialist close combat squads struggling to get rid of things in 40k - and thanks to the above rules, tar pit units don't exist in the same way as they do in fantasy. That'd suggest to me that the rules work fairly well as they are.

(Plus all of the things mentioned here would increase the chances of wiping things out on the charge, and being left stranded in no man's land in your opponents turn...)


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

Deathscythe4722 said:


> High WS DOES mean something. WS 9-10 models are the only ones that don't get hit on a 4+ by WS4 models. That can be a huge advantage.
> 
> Plus, if they add a 2+ to the to-hit chart, they'd have to allow Kharn the Betrayer to always hit on 1+, and I KNOW none of you want that.


Wouldn't bother me (he already does), and I don't even play World Eaters.
And how many WS 9-10 models are there? As well, puissance with a cc weapon should mean more than it currently does.


----------



## Abomination (Jul 6, 2008)

It is a poor table really. There definitively needs to be some sort of change to the Weapon Skill chart. Even just a recalibration of the scale would suffice.


----------



## HiveMinder (Feb 8, 2010)

I'm going to have to agree with those in defense of the current system. While on face value the WS chart looks inferior to BS. However, as mentioned in other posts, there are a number of other factors that balance things out beyond the single roll to hit.

First, in most cases, the combat monsters in any army are blessed with 4+ attacks on their profile, while your not going to find many troops that can output as many shots in a turn.

Second, as previously stated, assaults are fought in both player turns, so that character with 4+ attacks is actually getting 8+ attacks (assuming he hasn't already slaughtered his opponents) vs. the 2-3 shots.

Third, you don't get cover saves against close combat attacks. So, while it may be easier to hit with ranged weapons, more often than not, its going to come with a built in 4+ save.

I understand that it may suck to whiff on occasion with a high WS model, and be hit in return by far less skilled combatants, its a necessary part of making a balanced and fair game. If it were made to reflect the background presented in books, no one would play anything besides Space Marines.


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

Now I may be mistaken here as I am not sure of the location of my rulebook atm, but if I remember correctly. Units with 6+ ws are allowed rerolls on a D6 roll of a 1, the higher the ws the lower the reroll hit number is. IE WS6 = reroll 6+, WS7 =reroll 5+, WS8 = reroll 4+. So in effect the only true miss in CC is to roll a 2 therefore the chart is just fine the way it is. As i said in the beginning i may be wrong here but it is what I seem to remember.


----------



## Aramoro (Oct 7, 2009)

Yeah you're wrong.


----------



## Vrykolas2k (Jun 10, 2008)

HiveMinder said:


> I'm going to have to agree with those in defense of the current system. While on face value the WS chart looks inferior to BS. However, as mentioned in other posts, there are a number of other factors that balance things out beyond the single roll to hit.
> 
> First, in most cases, the combat monsters in any army are blessed with 4+ attacks on their profile, while your not going to find many troops that can output as many shots in a turn.
> 
> ...



I would.
And...
Most people play some variety of Space Marine already.


----------



## Sethis (Jun 4, 2009)

So people are saying the table is fine because CC is more effective than shooting - which I understand.

But why not alter the WS 8 or 9 - 10 range? There's only (at best) one model per army book with a WS that high, so would making it a 6+/2+ (or both) make any difference? The best WS I've seen on a unit is what, 6? So they're unaffected, but it gives the real supposed "CC monster" characters a bit of a boost, as they tend to fall flat of expectations when you finally do get up close and personal. Nothing like having 5 attacks and missing with 3 of them because the dice were slightly out of your favour.

I also support the idea that they should make more "shooty" characters, the only ones that spring to mind are Maugen Ra, Telion and the "Tank" ones like Pask and Cronus. It can't be that hard to imagine more...


----------



## leinad-yor (Apr 14, 2008)

OK found my rule book, the reroll thing is for balistic skill not for weapon skill, but it would be nice if it was.


----------



## Lucian Kain (Jul 19, 2010)

Its all been said if you change it you'll break it even more.
I would propose a universal special rule that allowed said character to hit on plus one to the exsisting chart and force the opposition to reroll sucsessful rolls to hit,then the exact worth could be stacked on the character instead of *#%*'n the whole system.

Just to reiterate the reasons again:

1)Close combat attacks/rounds happen twice as much as shooting rounds.
For instance, in a game of 4 turns theres actually a possible 8 rounds of close-combat but only 4 rounds of shooting

2)It on average,takes two turns or more to wipe out a reasonable sized unit in shooting for that units points it has to take its worth in half the time of the game

3)Shooting is negated by cover saves

#The argument is actually that you dont like the way the rules represent your characters/MC's not that the WS charts unreasonable.


----------



## ChaosDefilerofUlthuan (Jan 25, 2011)

Orochi said:


> Or go the way of fantasy.
> 
> In a 40k Case, If you're WS is double (or more) that of the Opponent. Say, WS7 hitting WS3, you should be granted a re-roll on a miss.



Relating to this fantasy is more a 'real' battle situation like cover stopping bullets striking you instead of stopping bullets like armour & stronger weapons beating armour better, reducing effectiveness as well asweapons reducing the effectiveness of armour not onlybeing able to cancel out it entirely only at certain levels


----------



## ChaosDefilerofUlthuan (Jan 25, 2011)

EmbraCraig said:


> 1 - you get to roll in close combat in both your turn and your opponents


 I can see this is coming from a Tau point of view. This means that if a squad stays in combat it's invulnerable to your masterful shooting. Then they can finish it in your turn then assault again :so_happy:


----------



## Flash (May 11, 2011)

Yeah the weapon skill chart is fine. There's so many factors that come in to close combat like S, T, I, A, LD, Sv, abilities that already allow re rolls, wargear for re rolling wounds. Completely ignoring armour etc etc, not to mention sweeping advances annihilating whole units. Making it too easy to hit would see alot of units becoming too overpowered.


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

you realize this thread died 6 or more months ago?


----------



## SilverTabby (Jul 31, 2009)

To back up Snozz, have any of you actually _been_ in a massed combat in real life? I do large battles on a regular basis, and having seen how little skill actually counts when you have more than 5 people in a fight, I am fine with how the table works. For single combats with characters I can see your point, but for fights with multiple people in, it is more than realistic.

*Edit:* _Notices Thread Necromancy_ Whoops. Ah well, point still stands :wink:


----------



## jfvz (Oct 23, 2010)

NECRON!!!

That said i will still put in my 2 cents:
I think the weapon skill chart is basically fine the way it is, and i play mostly cc armies so im not biased against melee. The only thing i might change is that if the attacker's weapon skill is over double the targets they get to reroll failed hits, if that. I am a martial artest and from experiance once you are even fighting 2 or more people your skill matters a lot less. You would not expect a master to land with basically every hit, and you would expect inexperianced people to land their faire share of hits as well, espically in the chaos of the battle.

With shooting it is a lot harder to hit someone (this is drawing experiance from paintball so dont trust this absolutally), espically if they are in cover than to bet a hit on them in melee, but i also think this is already represented in the bonuses melee already has.


----------

