Alot of people complain about piercing strike being no risk for goblins but Dwarves take all the risk. The reason for this is because the Wound chart does not go to "2"s like other wound charts (therefore the roll to wound doesnt change no matter how low your defense is).

It is my belief that the wound chart never included 2 because no models had armor saves and the designers wanted to keep models alive longer since you had so few models. However the game is evolved to become more fast paced now and seeing models die more often is normal...

Therefore to fix the problem with Peircing strike and the annoyance that a Balrog could fail to kill a hobbit on a 2...

I would like to ask what people think about adding 2 to the wound chart? The 2's would be placed where the Strength of a model is FOUR higher or more than a model's defense (ie: strength 6 would wound Defense of 2 on a 2.

that would make it easier to kill for sure
it takes a weird note when models re-roll 1's to wound

_________________
http://grungehog.blogspot.co.uk/

Well, what's weirder is that some models with two handed weapons or something like that wouldn't have to roll a dice for wounding at all. If the strenght/defence comparisson is right, off course.

_________________
You... will get... Coal!!!!!

that is already the case when you look at the best case scenario of prowlers, 2h axe, piercing a trapped model D4 or lower

_________________
http://grungehog.blogspot.co.uk/

Its almost a shame that the defense value isn't the target number one needs to roll to wound. I guess that is the argument behind using a d10, right?

Then again if that was the case we wouldnt need the str value. We would only have atk and def.

Not sure why the 2s would not follow the same distribution as other numbers in the table. If S4 wounds D2 on a 2, when would something be wounded on a 3s? If anything, that should be S6 wounding D2 on a 2.
Even so, any S4 model with a two-handed axe could then autowound a D3 model. (Piercing strike, becoming S7 1/3 of the time). Strength values have already increased over time (more S4 troops or S5 heroes) and this may well make piercing striking even better, as you may sometimes lose more (but hey, who cares about goblins anyway) but also have more to gain if you can even reach a 2+ to wound rather than the capped 3+ as currently is the case.

Why would you want it to be as easy/difficult for Smaug to wound a model as it would be for a Hobbit Militia? That would be weird. d12 is the magic die here. Rather than having S3 and S4 both wounding D5 on a 5, you can have a continuous sequence with all the little steps in between (as if needing a 4, 4.5 and 5), while retaining the same basic odds of wounding.

You are correct! I meant to say the difference has to be Four higher! I corrected this in my original post


Also, in your example about autowounding if you are strength 4 using a two handed weapon and piercing strike on a defense 3 model....wouldnt this sort of make sense to autowound? You are getting a -1 to win a fight, -3 defense if you lose, all to generate enough power to kill a unarmored man....I expect that nothing would save that person, so it should be an autowound at that point (keep in mind that it took the +1 on the wound roll to do this. Any other strength 7 model would still fail on 1)

^This.

Good point. Tuche.

use a d12 wound chart.

11+=6+
9+=5+
7+=4+
5+=3+

replace the duplicate number to the left with the next lowest number.

ex: str 4 hits def 5 on 8+

you could even use 4+ (2.5+ on d6 wound chart) in the chart for high str vs low def rolls.