Argument for Strength and Toughness in Age of Sigmar

[Enoby]

This is a long post, there is a conclusion and tl;dr at the bottom; I would recommend at least reading the titles to get the jist of my argument. 

While the addition of any 40k like rule into AoS is often met with pushback (see the initial announcement of command points in second edition), I believe there are still things to learn from 40k's ruleset. One of the more controversial additions, which I will be arguing in favour of, is strength and toughness.

For those who don't know, strength and toughness are the equivalent of AoS's 'to wound'. Every model has a strength (S) score, which is often modified by a weapon, and every model has a toughness (T) score, which is very rarely modified. You use these two values to find the 'to wound' value; to do this, you compare the S & T to one another. If the S is half the T, you wound on 6s, if the S is less than T, you wound on 5s, if the S is equal to T, you wound on 4s, if the S is greater than T you wound on 3s, if the S is double the T you wound on 2s. 

The idea behind S and T is to create a difference between 'strong' (e.g. a greater daemon) and 'weak' (e.g. a grot) models so that they fight on an unequal playing ground, better representing their points cost. In theory, it stops a horde of 60 weak models taking down a very strong model in one turn (and helps that strong model beat the horde). 

I am not arguing that 40k’s implementation is totally balanced, but rather a well done implementation in AoS could help the game a lot. 

In this piece, I will discuss how it could be implemented in AoS, why it would be good for AoS, and countering some of the common arguments against the introduction of S & T. 

How it would be implemented

Generally, the implementation would be similar to 40k (e.g. how you compare S & T), but with some key differences. 

• The strength would not be the model's strength, but would be attached to the weapon. This is for simplicity's sake. For example, a bullgor's great axe may have S6, their small axe have S5, and their horns have S4.
• Toughness would only ever go up to 8. It very rarely goes over in 40k anyway, but this is to ensure we keep with workable numbers

Note, I am not proposing we have a weapons bloat like 40k, wherein every profile has loads of weapons attached that each modify S in a different way, nor am I suggesting weapons should be costed differently. In my proposition, the variety of S values would be akin to the variety of 'to wound' values found on weapons on the same warscroll.

Why would strength and toughness help AoS?

One of, if not the, most important question is why would this make AoS a better game? It's all fine adding strength and toughness, but if it doesn't help at all then it's a waste of time at best and game breaking at worst. 

I've summarised a few reasons that I believe S and T would help the game:

Add an extra tool of list consideration
More tweakable stats increases the number of ways a model can be created, and thus played. This does not mean they will be better balanced, but rather having more numbers means the rules writers have more control in how a model works and so more interesting considerations for players to make while building their list. For example, AoS could do away with wound rolls all together, but that would mean that the ‘to hit’ value would become much more valued and weapons could not be diversified on having a good ‘to hit’ and a poor ‘to wound’, so the players have less engaging decisions to make

With S and T, if the average T was 3, a weapon with S4 may seem very tempting compared to an alternative with S3 (e.g. if a hand weapon had S3 vs a great weapon with S4, but the hand weapon lets you have a shield) as you’ll wound more things on a 3+ rather than a 4+. However, against a T5 enemy, both the hand weapon and great weapon are wounding on 5s, so the hand weapon is always better in this case (as it comes with a shield). These extra considerations mean a more engaging list building stage, and not much more complex than the current rules. 

Breathing new life into disappointing warscrolls
Judging by the recent ‘most disappointing units’ thread, a common theme is disappointment in elite units. For example, chaos warriors and knights are often outclassed by marauders; a chaos warrior has 2 attacks at 3/3/-/1 with their hand weapon, and a marauder (in a full or larger unit) has 2 attacks at 3/4/-1/1. As you get far more models in a marauder units point for point, marauders end up being far more lethal than their more elite allies. 

If S and T was in AoS, a chaos warrior may have S4 and T4, compared to a marauder’s S3 and T3. This doesn’t just mean that warriors would remain better at wounding, but would also be much more resilient (with a better save and most enemies having a harder time wounding them). To compare 10 warriors (rerolling saves) vs 20 marauders (horde bonuses) now, the marauders do 6 damage against the warriors and the warriors do about 6 against them. To compare them when using strength and toughness, the marauders do about 4 damage (and the chaos warriors do 6). This means a unit of chaos warriors would likely beat a unit of similarly costed marauders with ease, which they should do lore wise. However, in other situations (e.g. against a T3 unit with a 4+ save) the marauders would do more damage so would still have a place in the army.

Basically, S and T allow elite units to have better stats than weaker horde units, allowing them to have better ‘to wound’ values and defences against chaff, without skewing the game from horde units to elite units as there will still be areas where hordes are better. 

Bring monsters back into AoS
It’s no secret that non-hero monsters aren’t considered fantastic in AoS. Monsters such as the ghorgon, aleguzzler, and jabberslythe (among others) are considered very weak; not just in a competitive sense, but also in a narrative sense - you see a towering monstrosity of bovine fury ready to tear the enemy limb from limb, before it’s taken down by a bunch of goblins wounding on 2s. It doesn’t feel great no matter how you play the game. Unfortunately, weight of decent attacks from hordes and a poor save for most monsters mean they don’t find a place in lists no matter the style of play.

There are other issues with monsters, but S and T would at least give them a few advantages. Not only would monsters be able to more easily cleave through the average horde (assuming S6 vs T3), but they would be able to weather measly attacks from the standard solder (assuming S3 vs T6). For example, a unit of 20 marauders do 11 wounds against a ghorgon, and a ghorgon does about 6-7 damage against the marauders. With the suggested S and T, the unit of marauders would do 3 damage, and the ghorgon would do about 8 damage.

This gives the ghorgon more of a fighting chance, being much more defensive against enemies that reach their ankles. This helps make up for the fact that a ghorgon can’t hold a point on its own, and still has a low save when considering it fighting other monsters.

S and T empowers monsters, but does not make them overpowering as they still suffer from a degrading profile, small board presence, no objective capture power, and generally weak saves. Instead, it gives them a battlefield roll of being able to take on small hordes. 

Help with the 'feel bad' moments of the double turn
I’m sure no one here is a stranger to having your army crippled by a double turn, losing key pieces due to a huge weight of attacks. Thankfully, S and T have a place here too - shields around key models can be created using models with high T to help ensure that they don’t get wiped away, exposing the key models for the double turn. Monsters and heroes may have a higher chance of surviving mass weak shooting that would normally clear them from the board. 

It would allow the combats to be more predictable (not to the point of boredom, mind) so you could better plan for the double turn. If you know what parts of the opponent’s army can charge or shoot you first turn, you can look at their strength, and try to plan around them with favourable T matchups. This also makes reactive deployment more important. 

Diversify lists
Unfortunately, AoS lists often have a high weight towards one type of unit in competitive play - eels in Idoneth Deepkin are found in abundance, with thralls and leviadons often not finding a place. With S and T, models can be tailored towards certain rolls so the best lists usually have a bit of everything - a horde unit can’t take the place of a monster, and a monster can’t take the place of a horde unit. 

For example, if I brought a Slaves to Darkness list with hundreds of marauders and some lords and sorcerers to buff them, currently I wouldn’t do too badly as they have a high damage output against nearly every unit. Under S and T, I would be wounding any monsters my opponent brings on a 6 - I would struggle to do enough damage, and I’d need to consider bringing my own monsters or elites. But if I just brought monsters or elites, I’d lose objectives to hordes and ultimately lose the game.  

If a list is mixed, each unit has a role they can fulfil, and the player has to make engaging choices when list building and when playing. They must ask themselves if it’s worth bringing two monsters or just one - two gives more ways to use them, but less overall board presence. In the game, they have to decide whether it’s worth putting the monster into the horde to tie it up, or to go into the other monster to deal with it. 

The strategy isn’t more complex (as in, a new player isn’t expected to do hard maths to do anything), but is more engaging and will allow players to employ more strategic manoeuvres.

Create more narrative heroes
Age of Sigmar tells stories of heroes and villains carving their stories through the mortal realms - chaos lords cleaving through foot soldiers, lord celestants smiting unworthy bloodreavers, megabosses krumping skeletons, and vampire lords dispatching grots with contempt. 

Unfortunately, in the game these on foot heroes are best leading from the back. Aside from supporting their troops with a safe joint charge, they’ll likely never see combat - and certainly not combat befitting of the title ‘Mighty Lord of Khorne’. The narrative and rules just don’t jive here. S and T allow these combat heroes a fighting chance - if combat heroes like vampire and chaos lords have T5, and combat giant heroes like Mighty Lords of Khorne and Megabosses have S6, they have a larger defence against the unwashed masses they shouldn’t fear, but still have to be careful about challenging monsters to 1v1 combat. 

Not every hero needs a high S and T, certainly I wouldn’t argue for Lord Kroak becoming harder to kill, but this is specifically for combat heroes. 

Finally, god models like Archaon, Nagash, and Allarielle would be some of the few to have T8 (other big models could still have S8 weapons) - meaning that only the most powerful attacks could reach them - no more cowering in fear from a horde of daemonettes. Many of these god models are already very powerful, no arguments there, but it feels very strange to have them taken down by a bunch of mortal bowmen. They may need a points boost to compensate, but overall I think god models feeling as such would help the narrative of the game. 

Arguments against Strength and Toughness
While I believe that there are strong arguments for S and T in AoS, there are certainly potential issues. I will try to address these issues. 

It’s great for monsters and elites, but not for hordes
A lot of what I have spoken about talks about how this will help heroes, monsters, and elites - but I’ve said very little on how this will benefit hordes. And in a way, it doesn’t (though some hordes may have points reductions in response to this change). I would argue that hordes as a whole don’t need a buff - generally they are the strongest type of unit in AoS. With a higher volume of strong attacks, benefiting the most from buffs (due to their higher number of attacks), suffering the least (besides heroes) from battleshock, having the most wounds per point, and being able capture objectives easily, hordes are often the star of an army. All adding S and T would do is partially take away some of the punch power and staying power from hordes, but not the other advantages they have. 

In addition to this, if we assume that hordes (generally 1 wound models) tend to have T&S3, elites (generally 2 wound models) tend to have T&S4, and super elites (generally 3+ wounds) tend to have T&S5, then hordes would be better than elites against super elites (considering the other advantages of hordes), but not as good against monsters - they would still have a role and some good damage behind them.

It’s too complicated - AoS is meant to be a simple game
It’s true, S and T would be more complicated than a simple ‘to wound’ value. But I would argue that it’s not that much more complicated - certainly not the hardest rule in the game. All it involves is the ability to divide by 2, and confirming S&T with your opponent, and I think the vast majority of players can do that. 

Without the massive selection of weapons of 40k, and how they interact with a model’s strength, I doubt this would confuse many players. Only one number would be added to the warscroll (toughness), and strength would replace a weapon’s wound characteristic. I believe this slight bump in complexity would help the game overall. 

We already have something similar - to wound, rend, save, and wounds

At the moment, these four values do seem to be the equivalent to S&T. The wound value is most equivalent to strength, and rend vs save is like strength vs toughness, and the wound value is just toughness.

However, I would argue that the lack of interactivity between wounding and the target model means you get odd scenarios where grots can stab the ankles of Archaon with a higher ‘to wound’ than Slayer of Kings. This flat ‘to wound’ value means hordes are very killy.

The rend vs save is more of an interaction, but as we can see with many monsters, they have a 5 or 6+ save; being tough doesn’t equate to a good save, and being weak doesn’t mean they have poor rend. The wounds are a different story - tougher models do generally have a higher number of wounds (e.g. Ghorgons have a whopping 14). However, as we’ve seen, these models lose these wounds very quickly; a ghorgon takes 11 wounds from a unit of 20 marauders, and while a full wound ghorgon will kill about 6-7 marauders, there are more marauders dead than ghorgons, but the ghorgon has taken more damage - and it will be in a rough state with the damage table decreasing. If the marauders were buffed, they would probably kill the ghorgon in a single combat activation. Basically, wounds are not enough to make a model tough. 

It would require too many changes, and would be a massive amount of work on GW’s behalf
Adding S&T would take a lot of time - no arguments there. It is a change large enough to come from a new edition; yes, every warscroll would need an edit, but the same happened in 40k 8th edition and I think 9th. An index, free erratas on the website, and an updated app would ensure everyone would get up to speed, and if GW pumped out battletomes like they’re meant to be doing with the new 40k codexes, everyone would be up to date soon. 

Not every army has the tools to create a varied list
While I have said that there is a big advantage that more varied lists can be created, that only works if every army has the ability to take these varied models. 

Looking through the armies, there is only one army I can see without a monster (though it does have elites) and that’s Nighthaunt - but even then, they have the black coach and a mortarch. I don’t believe it would be too hard for GW to rejig Nighthaunt so they had an answer for monsters. All armies have elites (including cavalry) of some kind, though not all armies have one wound hordes (however, this is fine as not having one wound hordes doesn’t matter if S and T are added)

Conclusion
Overall, there is difficulty when introducing Strength and Toughness in Age of Sigmar. However, I believe there are strong reasons to push pass those difficulties and make the change which would have positive effects for the balance, narrative, and list building of AoS. 

I look forward to hearing the views of others on this topic  

TL;DR
I believe that strength and toughness have the ability to revitalise certain warscrolls - especially elites and monsters, add more tactical depth, join the narrative and gameplay more, and diversify lists.

While there could be issues, none of them are severe enough to offset the positive consequences. 

I would recommend reading the titles at least for the fors and againsts - while the entire post is a lot to read, the headings will give you more of an idea.  
 

[Kramer]

I like the way you presented everything. And mostly good ideas imo. But... when I read the why, you present advantages. But no ‘need’. 
I get that it’s A solution. But nothing here says it’s THE or even the best solution. 
If you argue it creates more narrative heroes. You are presenting one in a myriad of ways to improve the narrative of a warscroll. From simple abilities like Neave blacktalon+1 damage vs heroes to bespoke special items like archaons double six auto kill sword. 
if you argue more diverse lists. Then I’d say take a look at books like mawtribes. Pretty big rosters and I see close to everything played. So GW can do it. Big question is why they can make it happen there, but not idoneth?   I’d argue whatever the problem is, it’s more likely to still happen with S/T than it solving the Eel focus. 
I have a different issue with the double turn mechanic, so I won’t get into that and derail the conversation at the first response 😂

all in all, I don’t mind S/T. But, as with any big change, I’d like to see the need not just hurdles that can be jumped easier in different ways. 

* you wrote a lot more valid argument but for the sake of space and my thumbs not falling of by typing this much on my phone I’ll leave it at the few I randomly scrolled to. 

[Kadeton]

The change from Strength and Toughness (in Warhammer Fantasy) to To-Hit and To-Wound (in AoS) was a big shakeup, and a lot of these same points were made at the time. A lot of that sentiment was fundamentally linked to backlash against the death of the Old World, so it's interesting to see the argument resurface as "adopting mechanics from 40K".

Strength and Toughness make a kind of intuitive sense - they map approximately to measurable factors in the real-world, and thus produce a more satisfying "simulation". The main advantage of the Hit-Wound system is that it saves a considerable amount of time (lots of small comparison operations add up over the course of a game).

What's important to remember is that ultimately whatever set of stats and mechanics you put in place, it's just a statistical model that produces outcomes which are bounded and weighted by those parameters. The process of "balancing" different units doesn't happen when you're defining the mechanics, it happens by adjusting the expected outcomes - tweaking the numbers that plug into those mechanics. For any desired outcome in one model (e.g. a Strength-Toughness mechanic), you could work within a different model (e.g. Hit-Wound) and adjust the numbers to get broadly similar results. Yes, there will be subtle differences in specific comparisons, and the two models will never exactly match. but that's a matter of tolerances.

As a practical example, you talk about grots attacking with a 2+ To Wound. In a Strength-Toughness system, that would presumably be equivalent to boosting those grots to Strength 14 or so (depending on prevalent Toughness values). Ridiculous? Of course, but so is boosting them to 2+ To Wound.

I think there's definitely a strong argument to be made that the Strength-Toughness abstraction makes those "ridiculous" situations easier to spot. Players are more likely to balk at the idea of a grot that's literally stronger than a mega-gargant than the next-level abstraction of being ineffably "extremely good at wounding," whatever that might mean. But in the end, it doesn't matter, because the designers are still working in the same mathematical space of expected outcomes - if it's necessary for their purposes that grots can wound Archaon on a 2+, then they will find ways to twist the Strength-Toughness system until that's the case. At the same time, moving away from an abstraction that's rooted in measurable characteristics allows the designers much more freedom to play with the maths - if they want the outcomes generated by 2+ To Wound they can simply do that, and the players can argue all day about what that stat actually "means".

Basically, the Hit-Wound model already has all the tools necessary to achieve the outcomes you want - tipping the balance in favour of elite units, heroes and monsters and away from hordes, for instance, would be easy (trivial, even - just wipe out all the mechanics which boost units based on the number of models in that unit). Conversely, moving to a Strength-Toughness model wouldn't inherently change the balance between hordes and monsters, for example - that would still be up to the designers to determine by pulling the various levers available to them.

If AoS were to adopt anything from 40K, I would like to see the "Maximum +1/-1 modifier" rule brought across. That was an excellent change to 40K's mechanics.

[OkayestDM]

You made some very good and compelling points for how Strength and Toughness could improve AoS, and if the game ever did move in that direction, I'd be ok with it.

That said, I'd have to agree with Kramer.  While it could be a good change, it isn't a change that we need. Additionally, I'm concerned that introducing a new fundamental mechanic into the game would throw off the balance even further than it already is. Sure, the game isn't perfect as it is, but it certainly isn't broken. In fact, there's a lot of people who believe that it's in a really good place right now. There's always room for improvement, but the danger of adding more complexity to anything is tht it creates as much room to get things wrong as it does to get things right.

Ultimately, it's not a bad system or a bad idea. I just don't have faith the GW would incorporate it well, and would rather deal with the devil I know than the devil I don't.

Edited October 5, 2020 by OkayestDM

[Pombar]

I mostly would prefer SvsT over To Wound because right now it just feels repetitive - the To Wound roll is identical in the way it functions to the To Hit roll. It’s just lowering the chance of success by making you roll a second To Hit style roll. 
 

This seemingly “adds nothing” repetition makes the “just make Hit and Wound a single roll” argument come up a lot more, IMO. 
 

I prefer it when each roll has its own dynamic and feel to it. Putting aside modifiers (including Rend) as any roll can have those, To Hit is a roll based on the attacker’s stats, SvsT is a roll based on a comparison between attacker and defender’s stats, and Save is a roll based on the defender’s stats. There’s a satisfying symmetry to that and no roll feels the same or feels redundant.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Pombar

[SleeperAgent]

The reason I dislike 40k is solely Strength and Toughness.

I don't mind if my opponent makes a ton of saves because they have a 3+. What I hate is when all my dice miss because they are wounding on 5's and 6's. Maybe it's because my friend plays Imperial Knights, but it's just an un-fun experience. I actually had hoped 9th edition would've brought the removal of S&T. Whenever we show people warhammer we show them both, and every single person thinks S&T is just complicated for the sake of being complicated.

There is no need for S&T. A good save value (and aftersave in the form of wound/mortal wound protection) shows how tough a model is. If Knights (or anything with insanely high toughness) just had a 3 up save and 5 up after save (like stonehorns) it's much more fun than saying "you only wound my stonehorn on 5 ups." Especially for newer players who see these gatekeeper armies from the get go. 

I don't know if you play it, but I use MTG as my example. You are trying to teach someone mtg, you give them a precon deck, and you are playing Modern/Legacy level control. Your opponent just cant do anything and it's a negative experience.

I have Necrons, I love the models, but I don't play the game. If AoS goes to S&T I'm out.

[Maddpainting]

Don't need it at all honestly. If you want a few units to be super tough well we already have that as an answer, more wounds, after saves/saves vs MW's, and better armor save, also un rendable armor save.

Now if that is not good enough, you could add another rule that says "this unit is - to be wounded" or "This unit can never be wounded with a 1 or a 2 (or a 3)"

EDIT: Granted I quickly read what you said and did skip some of it so you might have addressed some of this, but this is how I feel and I don't think we need to rework the system.

I feel the system is fine b.c the game "fun" to me and point of the game is not to be tactical in what priorities based off of "Strength vs Toughness" like 40k is but instead in movement and timing. There still is XYZ is good vs X and bad vs Y, but in a completely different way than 40k. Which I like.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Maddpainting

[JackStreicher]

2 hours ago, Pombar said:

This seemingly “adds nothing” repetition makes the “just make Hit and Wound a single roll” argument come up a lot more, IMO. 

+1

[Beliman]

I don't have any problem with fixed "to wound" rolls (main issues that people talk about can be solved with tweaking numbers like some fellows already said) and at the same time, I don't have any problem with "S vs T" rolls too.

But I always thought that removing "to wound" roll was a normal step in wargaming (Conquest, Asoiaf, Malifaux, etc..). Maybe not completely removing the concept of thougness and strength, but just merging it with normal "save" rolls.

Basically a confronted roll (I hit, you save):
"To hit rolls" versus "Save", and save rolls being the new (S) vs (T) with some modifers (positive: Shields and negative: Rend).

[Beastmaster]

I’m all for simplicity whenever possible. The less time spent with looking at tables, the more time you can spend with looking at THE table.

However, I wonder if a general S/T mechanic for everyone wouldn’t, at the end, be simpler and more fair/balanced than the current save, aftersave, rend, unrendable etc. mechanic, which some get and some don’t. 

[plavski]

This game doesn't need to be more complicated or time consuming to play. We already have -1 to hit or -1 to wound auras to represent extremely tough opponents, so I don't think we need it from a narrative standpoint either. If anything, I'd have no problem moving to a Warcry combined system, it would speed up games dramatically.

[JPjr]

I get the point (of the original 12 volume essay) but it does seem to go against one of the main, though already pretty strained, concepts behind AoS of making it more streamlined.

I guess  if the issue is making behemoth type models more survivable but without totally wrecking the balance, I'd just give most of them one of those 'only x number of wounds can be allocated to this model in 1 turn' abilities, that a few models like Morathi have.

Just set x to a half, a third or a quarter of their total wounds depending on how long you'd like that model to be able to stay around. at the very least it would stop big models just being deleted before you get a chance to do anything with them.

 

Edited October 5, 2020 by JPjr

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

5 hours ago, Pombar said:

I mostly would prefer SvsT over To Wound because right now it just feels repetitive - the To Wound roll is identical in the way it functions to the To Hit roll. It’s just lowering the chance of success by making you roll a second To Hit style roll.

That seems to be the exact purpose of the roll to me: Lowering the average wounds before saves a model puts out. Since AoS uses d6s only, two rolls are necessary to give enough granularity in damage output to accomodate both huge blobs of weak stuff and single, strong models.

Personally I would go in the other direction with the wound roll if it was at all possible though. Instead of making it more involved, I'd try to remove it alltogether. I agree that the wound roll is unsatisfying from a simulationist standpoint. To hit simulates your attack succeeding, saves and wards simulate whether you deal damage. What does to wound simulate exactly? Apparently the strength of the model, but a success on the wound roll does not actually mean that you wound the opponent.

Instead, it would be nicer if there was just an attack roll, instead of hit and wound. And I think if AoS used a d20 or something similarly fine grained as the basic die, there probably would not be a wound roll. It would probably all just be one roll.

Personally, I prefer giving speed and simplicity of play priority over simulation. Between hit, wound, save, ward and wound pass off rolls, single attacks are already a bit unwieldy sometimes. I'd prefer not making things even more complicated by having people look at and compare statistics in the middle of it.

[Pombar]

I kinda feel like the “you have to stop to compare stats!” point is overblown. The attacker already had to look at their To Hit, and the defender already has to look at their Save - SvT just means both look at once rather than only switching who’s looking later. 
 

Also not convinced by the simulation vagueness argument. The hit roll is obviously accuracy, the wound roll is about force vs resilience/physical toughness, and the save roll is about piercing vs armour.  My issue is more that the wound roll’s job is very overlappy with the job of damage/wounds. Maybe the number of wounds is meant to represent size and bulk, rather than toughness or resilience, but they’re pretty close. 
 

As for using a different die like a D20, that would reduce the number of rolls but make the game massively less accessible - and GW isn’t streamlining for no reason, the ultimate priority is accessibility. Everyone has or can easily get a D6, and understands it well enough. A D20 is a barrier for casual and new players, both in terms of “they won’t have one and may not know where to buy one” (and GW pushing D20s is going to look like they only used D20 to take more money from them) and in terms of intimidation and unfamiliarity. 

Edited October 5, 2020 by Pombar

[Greybeard86]

8 hours ago, Kadeton said:

 For any desired outcome in one model (e.g. a Strength-Toughness mechanic), you could work within a different model (e.g. Hit-Wound) and adjust the numbers to get broadly similar results. Yes, there will be subtle differences in specific comparisons, and the two models will never exactly match. but that's a matter of tolerances. Basically, the Hit-Wound model already has all the tools necessary to achieve the outcomes you want - tipping the balance in favour of elite units, heroes and monsters and away from hordes, for instance, would be easy (trivial, even - just wipe out all the mechanics which boost units based on the number of models in that unit). Conversely, moving to a Strength-Toughness model wouldn't inherently change the balance between hordes and monsters, for example - that would still be up to the designers to determine by pulling the various levers available to them.

Is this true, though?

 S-T mechanics allow for completely new way (but very old :P) to differentiate units, adding depth. There is no way you can achieve the same result with the universal to-hit and to-wound.

The typical examples are goblins fighting dragons, or fighting other goblins. Under universal to hits and to wound rolls, goblins are equally likely to hit and wound either unit, when clearly from a simulation standpoint this seems unlikely. Same as agility / initiative did, and WS vs WD. If you now want to restore part of that complexity you can add ad hoc rules, e.g. scaly skin for the dragon, but that gets difficult to handle over iterations of the game and results in special rule bloat. Whereas knowing that a dragon has high toughness is intuitive and ultimately more streamlined. Adding more wounds to a unit clearly does not solve that, as others have pointed out already. You cannot effectively replace a dimension in this way.

GW eliminated T-S and other checks to streamline the game, with the ultimate goal to add complexity through force multipliers and combos instead of through simulation layers. At least that's my reading of it.

Edited October 5, 2020 by Greybeard86

[Greybeard86]

33 minutes ago, Pombar said:

 The hit roll is obviously accuracy, the wound roll is about force vs resilience/physical toughness, and the save roll is about piercing vs armour.  My issue is more that the wound roll’s job is very overlappy with the job of damage/wounds. Maybe the number of wounds is meant to represent size and bulk, rather than toughness or resilience, but they’re pretty close.

It is the same thing we have in RTS were small arms damage tanks vs needing specialized AT.

Do you want the game to have that layer of simulation, or not? Do you want to have tiny knives bringing down a dragon, or do you want to require dedicated anti monster units?

[Beliman]

On 10/5/2020 at 11:48 AM, Pombar said:

The hit roll is obviously accuracy, the wound roll is about force vs resilience/physical toughness, and the save roll is about piercing vs armour.

As you said, I think that the  resilience/physical  toughness of the "to wound" is a bit blurred between other stats: harder "to wound" units seems to have better "save", more wounds, maybe another ability to ignore wounds, rend or whatever, etc...

At the same time, "saves" are not just piercing armor, because "scales, armor, dense fur, etc..." could be part of the "physical thougness" that you mentioned in the "to wound" roll too, and you need to "pierce" them.

 

Edited October 6, 2020 by Beliman

[Pombar]

Obviously this is all down to personal preference - though for me a big part of Warhammer is the narrative immersion, so I do like mechanics to more faithfully recreate what the minis seem to be doing. 
 

If a wound roll with a range of S and T values is too much busywork, I’d be fine with a simpler mechanic that represents the same - make a roll or universal modifier based on each unit’s Infantry, Monster, Hero, etc keyword perhaps (infantry wound each other fine but find it harder to wound monsters, etc). 

[Dankboss]

Realistically, I would choose Strength and Toughness, and I somewhat like them as concepts, however, AoS avoids many of the problems of 40k by preventing instances of a hopeless fight. Everything can kill anything in AoS, which from a fun perspective, if far more enjoyable than watching my Kroot beat on a Bloodthirster hopelessly.

Now I really didn't play much of 8th Edition 40k, so most of my experience is from 4th through 7th, and in those older versions, if you didn't have the tool for the job, you couldn't win a fight. It also had a real issue with 'Deathstars' which AoS avoids completely, and that could be compounded by being impossible to kill.

Personally, as far as AoS is concerned, I would just increase the wounds on monsters significantly, and with the appropriate balancing, especially with Hero monsters. I could also see tougher units have a -1 to wound them. So for example, if I was designing the Mega-Gargants, I'd give them a -1 to wound for attacks against them that have 1 damage.

On another note, many units in AoS do far more damage proportional to the target's durability than they really should be doing. Most units sit on a 4+ or 5+ save as their only defense, while that unit of Witchelves is about to nuke you three times over. On the flipside, you end up with units with 4+ DPRs.

[Greybeard86]

You can add more wounds to a monster, but that won't change the relative effectiveness of different units against it. That is what S/T does, it no longer is about "damage", but rather damage against what targets (same idea with rend). Unless I am missing something, does someone have an example at hand?

[Kramer]

4 hours ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

Lowering the average wounds before saves a model puts out. Since AoS uses d6s only

That's a very good point. I wouldn't be against switching to D10's. But that ship has probably sailed when AoS launched. 

 

[Doko]

I agree that monsters need a buff,but a decrease in points is enough.

 

I hope this s vs t never get to aos, i hate play a 40k game and asking 999999 times per games and answer the"what toughness have that model* 

 

Its is so stupid and tiring,i really really hope that aos never get it and be 40k who get replaced that system for the aos

[TheCovenLord]

I want to weigh in on this. I am firmly in the camp of a S & T, or similar system, would definitely help flesh out the fantasy and make the simulation more fulfilling (this is opinion as is everyone else opinion in this thread it is not objective fact). I don't mind hopeless fights. Chaff already exists in AoS and basically represent hopeless fights. Its just against a buffstar rather than a big dragon.  Warscrolls being poorly designed or buff stacking units to crazy levels  also leads to hopeless fights and were knee deep in that now. I DO think they could avoid the need for S/T if they figure out how to reduce special rules bloat and buff stacking. But it seems more like they went all in on it with the 2.0 tomes so I feel it is a lost cause for the moment. Basically every faction has a way to buff stack a murder blob at this point. How effective they are varies based on faction rules (which I think sub-factions should be point costed but that's a discussion for another thread).

 

I find asking for a toughness to be no different than "what's the rend on that" or "what is their save value" before I allocate or my opponent allocates attacks which I already do. 

 

As many have mentioned non-hero monsters and elite units (which really the only reason hero monsters are effective is because of their command abilities) are pathetic. Poo-pooing the problem away by saying "just add more wounds" with the current system would be ridiculous. Monsters would need baseline 3+ saves an invuln of some sort and 30+ wounds to realistically survive long enough to represent the fantasy due to the damage output of hordes at the moment. The fact that the khorne dragon sporting 30 wounds can die or be degraded to uselessness in a single round of combat to some naked aelves (just using them as an example they aren't even cream of the crop anymore statshammer shows ~47 damage after saves with their usual buffs and ~25 damage if only half the unit makes contact) should really ram that home . GW seems reluctant to dump out better than a 4++ save on anything (usually only heroes, or tied to artifacts), have taken away ward save stacking (I personally like this change and hope it spurs a change in hero design) and other methods of representing a "tough" unit. Really when I think of "tough" all that comes to mind are hearthguard beserkers (a horde with a good invuln save) and gotrek & Morathi  (special abilities). Not even mortrek anymore (RIP petrifax)

 

Reduce points? It becomes a race to the bottom. How many more points can you knock off a Cygor before someone will actually run it? I can tell you just based on  its scroll and my friends mediocre performance from it I wouldn't even run it for 80 points. If they went any lower I would take them just as extremely cheap chaff as they have become bargain basement level ridiculous in their own way. Not because they are effective on the table. Just effective cost wise.

 

Only solution I can see for monsters without some sort of Toughness rule or S&T is to bump the damage output of elites and monsters to naturally compete with buffed hordes without needing their own cheerleaders. The way I see it. Hordes are basically 20+ wound monsters (usually higher depending on the model count) with huge numbers of attacks that can be amplified in a compound manner (ex: adding one attack per model x 20 vs 1 attack for a single profile on a monster) and a profile that doesn't really degrade until more than half the unit is dead (once you start having to pull models from base to base). When you compare them in this manner to ACTUAL monster warscrolls it becomes hilariously obvious why they will never be popular as combat units in AoS without some sort of change. 

 

Everything in AoS dies. They die quickly and die generally as soon as a unit swings in AoS they die. In a way its satisfying and prevents annoying tarpits for the most part but its also a real fantasy killer for me in certain situations (which I think a simple S/T system OR special rule similar to morathi which could embody the "tankiness" of the monster). Seeing a friends bloodthirster charge plague rats kill 8 and die instantly is pathetic. Seeing a ghorgon/Cygor hit the table just makes me laugh at this point. They aren't monsters. They aren't tanky or tough or scary. They don't really do damage. Can't effectively hold objectives. They're pathetic pieces that fail miserably to live up to the fantasy in the face of buffed stacked hordes of goblins/witch elves/ mortrek/saurus/beserkers etc.  its at the point where people I know have left the game because of the miserable performances of their favorite centerpiece.

Edited October 5, 2020 by TheCovenLord

[Kadeton]

4 hours ago, Greybeard86 said:

S-T mechanics allow for completely new way (but very old :P) to differentiate units, adding depth. There is no way you can achieve the same result with the universal to-hit and to-wound.

Not by only adjusting To Hit and To Wound, no. But there are a lot of other factors in that statistical model that you can tweak instead - for instance, using conditional modifiers. You'll never get the probability distribution to be exactly the same in all cases as a Strength-Toughness model, but that's not the point. The extreme outliers, where any differences will be most apparent, are generally not where the design focus is aimed (and even in those cases, you can compensate in other ways, like adjusting Wounds, Saves, damage resistance, special rules, and points).

Adding more factors to the model will always produce greater opportunities for subtle differentiation, it's true. But that has rapidly diminishing returns - past a certain point, the subtleties don't really matter. I imagine, as others in the thread have suggested, that you could do away with the "roll to wound" step altogether, and still produce a perfectly satisfactory set of outcomes.

[Greybeard86]

45 minutes ago, Kadeton said:

I imagine, as others in the thread have suggested, that you could do away with the "roll to wound" step altogether, and still produce a perfectly satisfactory set of outcomes.

You make a sacrifice: you say a rifle can hurt a tank.

If that is acceptable to you, with all that it entails, then all is good.

Quote

and even in those cases, you can compensate in other ways, like adjusting Wounds, Saves, damage resistance, special rules, and points

That bring back the idea of units that are so tough that need special counters. Giving tanks a crapton of health does not take away the fact that you can use rifles against them.

Taking out "toughness" checks means you remove a layer of differentiation between units. GW chose to simplify this and then add more force multipliers, buffs, and so on instead.