We might return to our campaign soon that paused for unrelated reasons.
I have not played version v3, so I can only compare the current version (v4) to v2.
Why would a combat character put their advances into anything but weapon skill?
In earlier times, we had weapon skill, attacks, strength and toughness to influence combat. Those stats largely still exist and do the same, but at least strength and toughness are mechanically dwarfed by weapon skill. Since being more successful on the opposed WS test will result in more damage (or more mitigation if defending), +10 WS will do the same as +10 S and +10 T combined and more.
For obvious min/max reasons, our fighter now has a ridiculously high WS and still their starting 30S/30T. Combats are faster (as the system design aimed to do), but also a lot more boring, since nothing short of a miracle dice roll can touch him.
I can feel no difference between a nimble elf and a tough nurgle beast, toughness of 2 or 5 does not really make a difference when damage is something like 1d6+12, mostly from superior WS.
I have tried a few houserules, because the players agreed that WS is too overpowered compared to the other stats. For example capping extra damage from WS at Strength-modifier. But none of those really worked too well. WS still rules.
So my questions are:
Did we do something wrong? Did we miss a constraint other than advancing the same characteristic costing progressively more XP? Is there a rule stopping someone from pouring all their XP into WS?
If not, do I miss something as a GM that would make the other characteristics stronger? There is only so many doors they need to force with strength and only so many diseases to avert with toughness. Even armor, why go for it when you could just opt to not get hit in the first place?
If you have the same problem, how did you solve it?