• The forum software have been upgraded to the latest version.

    If you notice anything that looks off, or does not work, please let us know.

    For more information, click here.

8th Ed. The BEST close combat units in all of Warhammer.

Lizards of Renown said:
How?
Click to expand...
It always bugged me that the tournament treated a ld7+ stubborn unit as essentially unbreakable. Some units got a consistent unfair advantage from that setup. Currently, we treated any leadership test with a chance of of 50%+ as a success. The problem was that this approach was applied to each round of combat in isolation. I think a fairer approach would have been to apply the 50% threshold across all rounds of combat, and once the accrued chance of passing the test fell below 50% the unit would be treated as broken and destroyed.

Under the current system:
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 1: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 2: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 3: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
...
and so on at infinitum

Under the new "accrued system:
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 1: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 2: 5/6 * 5/6 = 69.44% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 3: 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 57.87% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 4: 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 48.23% = failure = assumed broken and destroyed

So the question is reframed from what are the odds of passing this rounds break test, to what are the odds of passing all the break test you've had to make?

It's more realistic and would have shortened some of those really long and drawn out matchups. I think some of the results would have shifted.


An elegant system, for a more civilized age.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
It always bugged me that the tournament treated a ld7+ stubborn unit as essentially unbreakable. Some units got a consistent unfair advantage from that setup. Currently, we treated any leadership test with a chance of of 50%+ as a success. The problem was that this approach was applied to each round of combat in isolation. I think a fairer approach would have been to apply the 50% threshold across all rounds of combat, and once the accrued chance of passing the test fell below 50% the unit would be treated as broken and destroyed.

Under the current system:
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 1: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 2: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 3: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
...
and so on at infinitum

Under the new "accrued system:
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 1: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 2: 5/6 * 5/6 = 69.44% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 3: 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 57.87% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 4: 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 48.23% = failure = assumed broken and destroyed

So the question is reframed from what are the odds of passing this rounds break test, to what are the odds of passing all the break test you've had to make?

It's more realistic and would have shortened some of those really long and drawn out matchups. I think some of the results would have shifted.


An elegant system, for a more civilized age.
Click to expand...
@Lizards of Renown @Killer Angel @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl @Imrahil
Any thoughts on the "improved" system?
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
It always bugged me that the tournament treated a ld7+ stubborn unit as essentially unbreakable. Some units got a consistent unfair advantage from that setup. Currently, we treated any leadership test with a chance of of 50%+ as a success. The problem was that this approach was applied to each round of combat in isolation. I think a fairer approach would have been to apply the 50% threshold across all rounds of combat, and once the accrued chance of passing the test fell below 50% the unit would be treated as broken and destroyed.

Under the current system:
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 1: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 2: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 3: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
...
and so on at infinitum

Under the new "accrued system:
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 1: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 2: 5/6 * 5/6 = 69.44% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 3: 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 57.87% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 4: 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 48.23% = failure = assumed broken and destroyed

So the question is reframed from what are the odds of passing this rounds break test, to what are the odds of passing all the break test you've had to make?

It's more realistic and would have shortened some of those really long and drawn out matchups. I think some of the results would have shifted.


An elegant system, for a more civilized age.
Click to expand...

NIGHTBRINGER said:
@Lizards of Renown @Killer Angel @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl @Imrahil
Any thoughts on the "improved" system?
Click to expand...

I do agree that is a system that makes better use of the laws of mathematics, because it's true, the probability of that Stubborn 9 unit staying in combat would decrease every turn it remains in the melee because the owning player would have to attempt the same Leadership test again and again, and sooner or later they will fail, as opposed to the current system where any unit with Stubborn 7 or above is essentially treated in the same way as an Unbreakable unit (and indeed has an advantage over Unbreakable units that also have Unstable).

Fortunately the only unit in my Monstrous Infantry contest that will need to heed this is the Maneaters, and they currently haven't lost a combat, so I won't need to ream through my progress so far and change anything. However, I must certainly make a mental note to introduce this rule if they ever do.
 
Last edited:
NIGHTBRINGER said:
It always bugged me that the tournament treated a ld7+ stubborn unit as essentially unbreakable. Some units got a consistent unfair advantage from that setup. Currently, we treated any leadership test with a chance of of 50%+ as a success. The problem was that this approach was applied to each round of combat in isolation. I think a fairer approach would have been to apply the 50% threshold across all rounds of combat, and once the accrued chance of passing the test fell below 50% the unit would be treated as broken and destroyed.

Under the current system:
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 1: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 2: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 3: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
...
and so on at infinitum

Under the new "accrued system:
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 1: 5/6 chance to pass break test = 83.33% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 2: 5/6 * 5/6 = 69.44% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 3: 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 57.87% = pass
ld9 stubborn unit loses combat in round 4: 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 * 5/6 = 48.23% = failure = assumed broken and destroyed

So the question is reframed from what are the odds of passing this rounds break test, to what are the odds of passing all the break test you've had to make?

It's more realistic and would have shortened some of those really long and drawn out matchups. I think some of the results would have shifted.


An elegant system, for a more civilized age.
Click to expand...

I agree with the new system, it is mathematicaly closer to reality.
To make it a bit more clear for me: leadership test is the roll of 1 d6, combined with the ld stat to exceed a certain value?

Grrr, Imrahil
 
Imrahil said:
I agree with the new system, it is mathematicaly closer to reality.
To make it a bit more clear for me: leadership test is the roll of 1 d6, combined with the ld stat to exceed a certain value?

Grrr, Imrahil
Click to expand...

Leadership ranges from 1 to 10 and you take the test on 2D6. You want to get equal to or lower than the Leadership score.

In Close Combat, you add up the unsaved wounds caused by either side (plus other bonuses, like who has a Standard Bearer, who has ranks of troops, etc.). Whoever has the highest score wins. You then take a leadership test with the modifier being the difference in your scores. For example, if you got 12 and your opponent got 9, then you won by 3 points. Your opponent then takes a Leadership test on 2D6 with -3 to his Leadership.

Other rules can affect this. Stubborn, for instance, means that you never have to take a minus modifier on your Leadership test, to represent the troops being hardened and able to mostly ignore pressure from losses.
 
Lizards of Renown said:
Leadership ranges from 1 to 10 and you take the test on 2D6. You want to get equal to or lower than the Leadership score.

In Close Combat, you add up the unsaved wounds caused by either side (plus other bonuses, like who has a Standard Bearer, who has ranks of troops, etc.). Whoever has the highest score wins. You then take a leadership test with the modifier being the difference in your scores. For example, if you got 12 and your opponent got 9, then you won by 3 points. Your opponent then takes a Leadership test on 2D6 with -3 to his Leadership.

Other rules can affect this. Stubborn, for instance, means that you never have to take a minus modifier on your Leadership test, to represent the troops being hardened and able to mostly ignore pressure from losses.
Click to expand...

Thanks for clarifying!

One question though, is the reduced ld due to unsaved wounds permanently or just for that round of combat?

So for the mathematician in me: if a ld9 unit lost by 2 the 5/6 will become a 7/12.
If in the next round no unsaved wounds occure will it then be 7/12*5/6 or 7/12*7/12?

Grrr, Imrahil
 
Imrahil said:
Thanks for clarifying!

One question though, is the reduced ld due to unsaved wounds permanently or just for that round of combat?

So for the mathematician in me: if a ld9 unit lost by 2 the 5/6 will become a 7/12.
If in the next round no unsaved wounds occure will it then be 7/12*5/6 or 7/12*7/12?

Grrr, Imrahil
Click to expand...

You calculate it after each round. It's not permanent. Your next round could be getting hammered by your opponent and then needing to do a Leadership test on -4 yourself.
 
Imrahil said:
If in the next round no unsaved wounds
Click to expand...
The combat result (and the resulting modified leadership) is determined by combat resolution. Unsaved wounds make up only one part of the combat resolution, which is determined by:
  • +1 for each unsaved wound inflicted
  • +1 for charging
  • +1 for each extra rank of at least 5 models (3 models for monstrous units) up to a maximum of +3
  • +1 standard bearer
  • +1 flank attack
  • +2 rear attack
  • +1 for charging from the high ground (insert Obi-Wan joke here), this is in addition to the normal +1 for simply charging
  • +1 battle standard bearer
  • +1 for overkill wounds in a challenge, up to a maximum of 5+

You add up all of these for each side and the difference between the two totals determines the winner of the combat (and how much the subsequent break test is modified by). Note, it is possible to inflict less wounds than your opponent and still win combat.
 
NIGHTBRINGER said:
Okay, we have the following:
  • Skullcrushers of Khorne [Ensorcelled weapons]
  • K'daai Destroyer
  • White Lions of Chrace [Banner of the World Dragon]
  • Chaos Warriors [MoN, Halberds]
  • Arachnarok Spider
  • Demigryph Knights
  • Mournfang Cavalry [GW, Heavy Armour]
  • Black Guard of Naggarond
  • Witch Elves
  • Har Ganeth Executioners
  • Hell Pit Abomination
  • Beasts of Nurgle
  • Savage Orc Big'Uns [AHW]
  • Chaos Trolls
  • Soul Grinder [MoN, Daemonebone Claw]

Are we missing anyone else? Is there any selection above that somebody vehemently objects to?
Click to expand...
Just noticed you guys didn't add dwarf iron breakers
We 5 st5 charge and st4 normally
3up save and a 5up parry
Cheap ish troops and ld 10
In a block with Bob and oath stone makes them a great anvil
 
Alan said:
Just noticed you guys didn't add dwarf iron breakers
We 5 st5 charge and st4 normally
3up save and a 5up parry
Cheap ish troops and ld 10
In a block with Bob and oath stone makes them a great anvil
Click to expand...
Being a super solid defensive infantry block (a unit which really wasn't represented among our field of competitors), they would have been an interesting competitor. As the list of entrants was getting rather large (and with a large number of time consuming mathematical matchups), they got left off. @Lord Agragax of Lunaxoatl , our resident Dwarf general, decided to go with Hammerers instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top