Stacking/combining Toughness and Armour into one stat/roll

  • @Konrad von Richtmark
    Nice analysis about what a shield should grant.
    IMO the shield should have a completely different benefit in close combat and against shooting.
    Against shooting it works like an additional layer of armour as you hold the shield directly towards the incoming arrows etc.
    In close combat you mostly use it completely different. You dont hold it straight but use it as a defensive weapon to parry attacks.

    That's why in my equipment homebrew ruleset, a shield grants a specific parry save. This comes on top of any ward saves.

    I totally agree the using a shield should not grant what currently is defined as ward save. This doesnt make sense.

    Rules Support

    SE Community Support

    Local Moderator


  • Xingu79 wrote:

    how about instead of modifying the toughness attribute, we look at armor reducing strength to a minimum of 1 compared to toughness of the model wearing the armor.

    Just a thought, I rather like the current system. As right now both players are rolling dice and staying involved in the combat and game.
    could you explain? I didn't understand your proposal.

    Rules Support

    SE Community Support

    Local Moderator


  • Xingu79 wrote:

    how about instead of modifying the toughness attribute, we look at armor reducing strength to a minimum of 1 compared to toughness of the model wearing the armor.

    Just a thought, I rather like the current system. As right now both players are rolling dice and staying involved in the combat and game.
    I don't see how that would produce a different outcome from the suggestion I make in the OP. The way the to-wound table currently used by the game works, decreasing strength by 1 point and increasing toughness by 1 point has exactly the same effect.
  • New

    I think the most interesting part of this suggestion would lead to the question if players want armour saves to stay or not.
    There are certainly pros and cons. Toughness in many miniature games is also represented in armour or sometimes armour is represented in a stat by itself. For some interesting comparisons we could look at other popular games:

    - 40K, Armour is standard (little to no ways to increase it through equipment), in most cases only 1 save can be made.
    - WarmaHordes, DEF and ARM are seperate stats from MAT and STR, the game does have many more multi-wound models as T9A has but like T9A not all models actually preform much worse under multiple wounds, Warjacks for example do, Warbeasts much less, Warcasters and Warlocks function as normally wether they have 1 wound or 19.
    - Malifaux, Df and Wp, one is used for physical damage, the other most often for magical. This is also an interesting system that brings a lot of multiwound models aswell and does not have armour saves. It does have armour that reduces damage instead.

    What I think would be really cool is to keep the armour saves but increase their functionality somehwat. Toughness being increased by armour can also be done but as mentioned, I think I'd miss the interaction. The suggestion reminds me of what I used to play with Lord of the Rings and Warmachine/Hordes but this really makes a turn lack the interaction I like. A dice off is rather cool and I think armour saves promote that better as toughness.

    However without doubt a Toughness path like Lord of the Rings and WarmaHordes would speed up combat significantly, which can certainly be an advantage if game design intends for even larger armies to be around.
    Likewise, things that increase character importance (such as having high WS being able to hit a Core model on a 2+ and only be hit back on a 6) can also reduce playing time as you then for competative design steer the game into that corner.

    The real question remains where designers want T9A to go. Make it completely their own content or keep a lot of that WFB system.
  • New

    I think the interaction 'issue' can easily be solved by turning over the to wound roll to the opponent. Would that feel weird? Initially, yes. But in the end, who rolls for whatever reason doesn't necessarily matter, as long as the end result remains the same.

    Just imagine how cool it would be to be actually happy for having rolled a 1 :P Complete mind****.

    Edit: And besides: Close combat does involve both parties hitting and wounding, so removing armour save during combat (where it is most present) would probably change very little when it comes to YGIG. After all, there's still ward saves and hopefully a return of parry save of some sort :)

    Generally speaking, I don't think we need to worry about the possible impact of our changes as long as we're willing to change.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Sambazorcopter ().

  • New

    Sambazorcopter wrote:

    My idea is that it COULD be interesting to ditch the armour save roll entirely, and include it in the to wound roll as a possibly quite impactful modifier-fest. Obviously this is just theorycrafting from behind a screen, so this is not a fully thought out proposal.

    I would decouple AP from strength, but give some level of interaction with armour to certain basic weapons. The example from a few posts back, with spears and plate armour was a nice indication of why that could be a valid design perspective. This is partially done by the design team by making spears have lethal strike against cavalry. I would change that to lethal strike against plate armour (just an example). Slashing weapons (swords, axes,... could have a standard ap value or nothing at all, depending on how much armour would matter, and blunt weapons such as clubs, maces or hammers could have another interaction (S-based, or ignoring armour on to hit rolls of 6,...)

    With this set of ideas in mind, I would then propose (as you did) to rework a S vs T chart, for the sake of the argument fixed on a 3+ on equal values. Having armour could then increase that value (or as you said, increase your T, depends on how the chart is worked out and if there is a meaningful difference between the two), while your weapon would allow you to counteract specific armour types, increasing that value again.

    An example: A S3 T3 human with light armour and spear fighting another S3 T3 human with light armour and sword.
    Spearguy needs 3+ standard, but has no direct interaction with light armour (lethal strike would need to be moved to 'to hit' I just realized, let's assume that's how it is), so the light armour on its opponent makes it a 4+ to wound (unless 6 is rolled when hitting, then his armour is pierced for that attack and becomes null, meaning 3+ is required to wound.)
    Swordguy strikes back, needs 3+ standard, light armour makes it 4+, but sword has, say, standard AP 1 vs armour (very arbitrary rule :P ) rendering the light armour null, still requiring 3+ to wound.

    While this is a very 'basic' example (still took me 5+ minutes to put it correctly), I can imagine my 'system' breaking at some point, with chaos warriors becoming nearly indestructible - which is not that different from what they are now from my experience :P . I have no answer to that issue yet.

    But, essentially, we're talking about the same sort of changes and largely the same approach. I also wouldn't mind to make the to wound roll a 'defensive roll' made by the opponent, so long as the stats interact properly :)

    *edit* coupling AP to the weapon you're using and or the kind of armour you're bringing adds huge design space :)
    I think I understand what you mean, but there are as far as I see it a few issues with it. First of all, if we're just talking about armour, there are only 3 levels of it - light, heavy and plate. Unless we create some way of introducing intermediate levels, there aren't that many possible outcomes. Light armour is 1 point, so either you benefit from it in full or not at all. Heavy armour is 2 points, so there's one possible level (1) between full (2) and none (0). Plate armour is 3 points, making possible two intermediate levels at 1 or 2. This scarcity of possible levels is why I thought the only really meaningful levels of AP are total negation, or reduction of heavy and plate down to 1.

    As for specific weapons reducing specific armours, the issue there is that light, heavy and plate armour aren't really meant to represent different TYPES of armour, but instead, incremental LEVELS of armour.

    Just going by the range of common 28mm fantasy models available out there, light armour could be the munitions-grade steel helmet and breastplate of this Empire guy by GW:


    Or it could be a less protective but more widely covering gambeson, like on these other guys by GW:



    Or it could be whatever these KoW elven spearmen from Mantic Games are supposed to be wearing, apparently some kind of semi-rigid, full-body leather armour:


    The physics of penetrating or otherwise negating the effects of those three kinds of armour would be quite different. That's before even starting to consider Innate Defence, which is a catch-all for just about any natural armour.

    More examples could be made, also for heavy and plate armour, but these should suffice to make the point.

    Having rules for different weapons having different capabilities against different kinds of armour would require the armour of units to be specified not only in terms of grade, but also type (e.g. heavy padded, light rigid plate, heavy scaled, etc). Which would add a whole extra layer of complexity for just situationally modifying effective armour level one point in one direction or the other. As well as put a whole new level of strain on people's efforts to procure suitable models to play the game with, something that is difficult enough as it is. Currently, what you need is models that are armed with weapons matching those in the army book, and with a roughly correct overall level of armouredness.

    Strain would also be put on the weapon side of the system. There, too, you run into the issue of there only being a few, highly granular levels of strength and useful penetrating power. A regular hand weapon hits at your unmodified strength, a great weapon at +2, that's a whole three levels.

    Just to give an example. Realistically, a two-handed hammer would be better against a heavily armoured target than a two-handed sword, while the two-handed sword would be better at cutting the exposed flesh of a poorly armoured target. How would you represent this with just the few levels at your disposal? Have the greatsword give a plain +2 strength, while the great hammer has just +1 strength and some ability at ignoring armour? What ability? If it's just a flat -1, the greatsword is strictly better. If it's -2, the great hammer is almost strictly better as it effectively counts as strength +3 against heavy and plate, while being worse only against the unarmoured target, plus, it completely negates the effect of heavy armour, which doesn't seem right either, it should be the best possible weapon against it, but far from negate it completely, yet it needs to do so to be better against it than the greatsword, with the scarcity of strength and armour levels. If the great hammer instead counted as what I described as "partial AP", i.e. making both heavy and plate count as light while leaving light unaffected, that'd make the greatsword and the great hammer equally good against heavy armour, while the greatsword is better against light or no armour, and the great hammer better against plate armour. Only that, as it happens, only a few armies have access to plate armour, so the unit running around with great hammers would have a weapon that's a specific counter against certain armies. Also, how about a great axe? Realistically, it should be somewhere in between a greatsword and a great hammer in terms of both killing power and armour negation. The scarcity of strength and armour levels already limits the extent to which you can differentiate a greatsword and a great hammer, but even one more weapon in between them?

    What you suggest would encounter feasibility issues because of a lack of design space in the scale of toughness and armour currently in use. To make something like that work, you'd at the very least need a much finer scale of stats, which would effectively necessitate a switch to the D10 (or higher) rather than the D6.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Konrad von Richtmark ().

  • New

    I've been wrecking my brain on the matter for a few nights now, and I've come to the same conclusion. I really thought I would be able to find an elegant solution, but alas. I even went as far as to look up the evolution of armour through history to get a better grasp at things. Funnily enough, weapons are invented to render armour almost useless every time something better comes up, and so the ball gets rolling. I'm really disappointed.

    I also looked into the idea of 'partial' armour pen. Great idea, but it stops working as soon as you realize that an arrow that is able to pierce plate armour almost certainly will pierce the chain mail/leather worn underneath it, making it ridiculously hard to balance game-wise. Multiple layers of armour, weapons that can only pierce certain armours,... is a level of realism the game in its current state can't (and needn't) handle. Saddening but true.

    On the other hand, this makes me feel much less aversed to the current S-based armour pen system. Perhaps a slight modification to the current values is needed to tone things down a bit (I feel that armour and AP too often DECIDE the outcome of a battle, instead of influencing it). However this is again a very personal opinion and could be ill-conceived.

    Adding armour to the to wound roll could be done. I think your proposal is great, but in my opinion it goes a bit too deep into the chart by including to wound rolls of 7 (think 6+,4+) or even 0 (1+,3+). That is the main issue I have with it, and it pains me that I haven't found anything constructive to add to your proposal. I'm suffering from a writer's block, i think. :)
  • New

    Sambazorcopter wrote:

    I've been wrecking my brain on the matter for a few nights now, and I've come to the same conclusion. I really thought I would be able to find an elegant solution, but alas. I even went as far as to look up the evolution of armour through history to get a better grasp at things. Funnily enough, weapons are invented to render armour almost useless every time something better comes up, and so the ball gets rolling. I'm really disappointed.

    ...

    Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    ...

    Just to give an example. Realistically, a two-handed hammer would be better against a heavily armoured target than a two-handed sword, while the two-handed sword would be better at cutting the exposed flesh of a poorly armoured target. How would you represent this with just the few levels at your disposal? Have the greatsword give a plain +2 strength, while the great hammer has just +1 strength and some ability at ignoring armour? What ability? If it's just a flat -1, the greatsword is strictly better. If it's -2, the great hammer is almost strictly better as it effectively counts as strength +3 against heavy and plate, while being worse only against the unarmoured target, plus, it completely negates the effect of heavy armour, which doesn't seem right either, it should be the best possible weapon against it, but far from negate it completely, yet it needs to do so to be better against it than the greatsword, with the scarcity of strength and armour levels. If the great hammer instead counted as what I described as "partial AP", i.e. making both heavy and plate count as light while leaving light unaffected, that'd make the greatsword and the great hammer equally good against heavy armour, while the greatsword is better against light or no armour, and the great hammer better against plate armour. Only that, as it happens, only a few armies have access to plate armour, so the unit running around with great hammers would have a weapon that's a specific counter against certain armies. Also, how about a great axe? Realistically, it should be somewhere in between a greatsword and a great hammer in terms of both killing power and armour negation. The scarcity of strength and armour levels already limits the extent to which you can differentiate a greatsword and a great hammer, but even one more weapon in between them?

    ...
    I've been wrecking my brain on the matter not for a few nights but for a few MONTHS to find an IMO appropriate ruleset for weapons and armour. ;)
    Maybe my homebrew ruleset can inspire you and show the problem or even solutions.
    Mundane Equipment - Weapons and Armour

    @Konrad von Richtmark I found a solution for your described comparison about the two-handed sword and the two-handed hammer, which is really close to your explanation.

    Let's note that this ruleset is something like the maximum of complexity that you can create for a still playable game.
    And as it is IMO the maximum, it is too much for a standard ruleset...but why not for an advanced add-on?!
    Complexity IMO is always a neutral characteristic. Some like it some not. Complexity creates options and depth (if it's done correctly) and on the other hand increases the scope/length of rules which if the rules are not comprehensible (logically understandable) will increase the play time because you have to look up rules to often which as result decreases the fun.

    Rules Support

    SE Community Support

    Local Moderator


  • New

    Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    As for specific weapons reducing specific armours, the issue there is that light, heavy and plate armour aren't really meant to represent different TYPES of armour, but instead, incremental LEVELS of armour.
    that's right.

    although wearing a breastplate, the EoS infantry currently still counts as having light armour, because one part (breast) is heavily armoured while the rest of the body is light or even non armoured.

    I see potential in having a medium armour and increasing the AS of heavy armour and plate armour by +1.
    Why shouldn't the average close combat infantry have 4+ AS if equipped with medium armour and shield?
    Imagining a close combat I would think that this combination would realistically protect against non-AS-reducing hits.

    Some players call for reducing the armour modifier.
    Why not increase the average armour save instead...especially for non-mounted units?
    We could then either keep the current armour modifier or if necessary slightly reduce it.

    Rules Support

    SE Community Support

    Local Moderator


  • New

    @DJWoodelf, that's indeed an interesting weapons and armour system you have there. Maybe indeed complex and detailed to the extent that it'd be more suitable for a skirmish variant of the game.

    Letting swords increase the Parry save instead of giving an AP modifier would be a relevant difference, as would letting hammers reduce all armour above medium down to medium (which your rules effectively do) while axes make a flat reduction of -1 to armour, that'd indeed work.

    Two questions though. Is there a particular reason why shields should both increase the armour save AND give a Parry save? Also, how does Parry work? Presumably each +1 modifier reduces the minimum you need to roll to succeed by one (i.e. 6+ becomes 5+, etc), but what's the base level? 6+ if you have 1 level of parry, 5+ if you have two, 4+ if you have three, and so on?

    Your system still has the issue that AP makes low levels of armour of little relevance due to being so often completely negated by the AP on serious attacks, an issue that would be the case in any system where AP causes a constant reduction of armour save. Still, the addition of another level of armour through medium armour does mitigate the issue.
  • New

    DJWoodelf wrote:

    that's right.
    although wearing a breastplate, the EoS infantry currently still counts as having light armour, because one part (breast) is heavily armoured while the rest of the body is light or even non armoured.
    True that, which further goes to demonstrate the semi-abstract nature of the armour levels. Granted, if my understanding of Early Modern armaments is correct, that breastplate would be munitions-grade armour, so both thinner and of lower quality than, say, a knight's breastplate. Still, your general point is entirely correct, having "light armour" in the game could either mean having a low level of armour everywhere on the body, or a high level of armour only in the most vital (or easy to hit) areas. A difference that realistically would significantly matter for the relative usefulness of different weapons. Against low-AP weapons, having a low (but sufficient) level of armour everywhere would probably be preferable, while against high-AP weapons, having sufficient armour in some places would be preferable to having some but insufficient armour everywhere.
  • New

    Sambazorcopter wrote:

    Adding armour to the to wound roll could be done. I think your proposal is great, but in my opinion it goes a bit too deep into the chart by including to wound rolls of 7 (think 6+,4+) or even 0 (1+,3+). That is the main issue I have with it, and it pains me that I haven't found anything constructive to add to your proposal. I'm suffering from a writer's block, i think. :)
    Well, if we remove the shield from the armour calculation, the range of different armour-modified toughness values decreases by 1. That makes it more feasible to stay within the 2+ to 6+ range. Updated proposal incoming!
  • New

    Heya guys sorry it took me so long to get back in to clarify my thoughts on why I ws thinking S instead of T, mostly for the concept that we reach a level of 1 so much quicker instead of adding T from a base stat of 3 or 4 there is a long way to go to get to the max of 10 where if we take away from S it goes rather quickly from a base stat of 3 down to 1.

    Just trying to make the math work a little easier.
  • New

    Konrad von Richtmark wrote:

    @DJWoodelf, that's indeed an interesting weapons and armour system you have there. Maybe indeed complex and detailed to the extent that it'd be more suitable for a skirmish variant of the game.
    Either a skirmish variant or (as I wrote) something for players who want to play an extended weapons and armour version...either because they want to play more close to a simulation or they reduce complexity on another level (e.g. just play without magic or whatever). Or imagine, you would play 9th Age just with historical medieval armies...then it could be even necessary to add more depth to the game as there are no other races with different characteristics...just humans and some animals.


    Letting swords increase the Parry save instead of giving an AP modifier would be a relevant difference, as would letting hammers reduce all armour above medium down to medium (which your rules effectively do) while axes make a flat reduction of -1 to armour, that'd indeed work.
    Various sources I read/saw show that swords are the best weapons at parrying attacks. In fact the cross-guard in German is even called "Parierstange = parry bar".


    Two questions though. Is there a particular reason why shields should both increase the armour save AND give a Parry save? Also, how does Parry work? Presumably each +1 modifier reduces the minimum you need to roll to succeed by one (i.e. 6+ becomes 5+, etc), but what's the base level? 6+ if you have 1 level of parry, 5+ if you have two, 4+ if you have three, and so on?
    Parrying with a shield actually means using a shield to deflect hits. You act with the shield.
    Increasing armour means that it also creates an additional layer of armour, e.g. if you just hold the shield straight in front of your body, the strike of the enemy has to penetrate the shield + the armour.
    Yes, you see right. In my homerules, a (straight) swords grants 6+/+1 parry, no matter if it's a one-handed or two-handed weapon.
    Additionally, round/long/tower shields grant 6+/+1 parry and a buckler grants 5+/+2 parry.
    So using a (straight) sword and a buckler grants a 4+ parry save....the best possible parry save.
    I thought, that in this system it's best to create a seprate save. All other ideas don't work that well.
    I will rework the whole system
    into something, where there is no parry save, but instead Weapon Skill is split into Offensive and Defensive Skill. I this meta, swords and shields would just increase the Defensive Skill.

    Your system still has the issue that AP makes low levels of armour of little relevance due to being so often completely negated by the AP on serious attacks, an issue that would be the case in any system where AP causes a constant reduction of armour save. Still, the addition of another level of armour through medium armour does mitigate the issue.
    Please note that
    a) I halved the Armour Modifier by Strength (while of course increasing the Armour Modifier by Weapon)
    b) I introduced medium armour as an additional step making the maximum armour for infantry 2+ (3+ plate armour, +1 shield). A lot of infantry units that currently just have light armour would have access to medium armour.
    c) there is an interesting proposal, that a model should always keep at least a 6+ AS unless the enemy has the special rule Armour Piercing (either as unit special rule or weapon special rule). E.g. even with S5, a model with a (straight) sword can not negate the whole AS.

    Rules Support

    SE Community Support

    Local Moderator


  • New

    So yeah, considering a few points raised in this discussion so far, I hereby put forth a new trial proposal, based on the same fundamental principles and trying to solve the same issues as the original, but differing in implementation.

    TOUGHNESS & ARMOUR

    What is currently known as the to-wound and the armour save roll are both replaced by a single saving roll. A model that takes a hit makes a saving roll, failure means a wound is inflicted on it. The base score that must be rolled to succeed depends on armour as follows:

    No armour: 5+
    Light armour: 4+
    Heavy armour: 3+
    Plate armour: 2+

    The roll is modified by the difference between the Strength of the hit and the Toughness of the model. A higher Strength worsens the save by an amount equal to the difference, a higher Toughness correspondingly improves it. A save roll of 1 is always a failure, a save roll of 6 always a success.

    (Intermediate comment: This actually produces the same probabilities as the original idea, only that the shield has been removed, and the player on the receiving end of the hit makes the roll.)

    MOUNTS AND BARDING

    Being mounted does not directly modify armour. However, a mount without barding (or equivalent innate natural barding) caps the saving roll at a particular value, 4+ for a regular horse. Barding removes this cap.

    ARMOUR PIERCING

    Armour Piercing rules on weapons are removed. Instead, there are two degrees of AP: Partial AP and Full AP. Partial AP treats heavy and plate armour as light armour. Full AP treats everything as no armour.

    SHIELDS

    Shields are taken entirely out of the armour system. Having a shield gives a special save, the Shield save. This is by default a 5+ save, which is modified as follows:

    +1 for fighting on foot with hand weapon + shield against close combat hits from the front
    -1 for being hit from the flank or rear
    -1 for a hit with a Strength of at least 3 more than the shield-user
    -3 for a hit with Full AP

    Shields are a special save taken after regular saves, just like ward saves, regeneration, etc.

    Examples to follow.
  • New

    So to create a few examples on what my second trial proposal does.

    Consider the common S3 attack, a good starting point, since that attack is supposed to be something of a baseline.

    T3 units suffering S3 hits would use the unmodified table then. Thus, the most armoured T3 units, i.e. Empire Knights and Imperial Guard, would save on 2+, so they'd stay within the chart.
    T4 units suffering S3 hits would improve their save by 1 point, so a T4 model with heavy armour would be equally resilient as a T3 model with plate armour. Sounds entirely reasonable. Things like heavy-armoured dwarfs and black orcs would, thus, save on 2+.
    To actually go off the chart and reach 1+ against a S3 attack, a model would need to have both T4 and plate armour. Currently, only dwarf elite infantry and wasteland warriors get that. So the most heavily armoured troops in the game would save on 2+ against S3 as well as S4, which doesn't sound too extreme.

    On the upper end of the chart, consider the S5 attack, i.e. what a common S3 soldier armed with a great weapon would do, and what currently, many of the killier units in T9A are throwing out.

    Against a T3 unit with no armour suffering that hit, the saving roll would be modified to 7+, i.e. go off the chart at the other end. That just means that against unarmoured T3, S5 is redundant since a 6 is always a successful save. Against a common T3 close combat infantryman with light armour, S5 would be just enough to reduce the save to 6+.

    A tough target, such as T4 heavy armour or T3 plate armour, would save on 4+ by the S5 attack. The super-tough targets with both T4 and plate armour would save on 3+, which is still pretty good, but lets through double the damage that the S3 or S4 attacks would. So, S5 (which most armies can readily muster if they choose to) will serve in a decent can-opener capacity even against these super-tough targets.

    Thus, we see that using this system, the great majority of situations appearing in the game would fit in the 2+ to 6+ save range without going off it and defaulting to "1 always fails anyway" or "6 always succeeds anyway".

    A final comparison between the current system used in T9A and my second trial proposal.

    Two typical targets. A T3 target with light armour, spear and shield. A T4 target with heavy armour, spear and shield. Three hits, S3, S4 and S5. Here are the final probabilities that the hits will inflict a wound in both systems.

    T3, LIGHT ARMOUR, SPEAR AND SHIELD

    STRP(CURRENT)P(PROPOSAL)
    333.33%33.33%
    455.56%44.44%
    583.33%55.55%


    T4, HEAVY ARMOUR, SPEAR AND SHIELD

    STRP(CURRENT)P(PROPOSAL)
    316.67%11.11%
    433.33%22.22%
    555.55%33.33%

    The spear was just added to make the Shield save be 5+ under the proposed system.

    As you can see, the proposed system produces a smoother progression from low to high strength, in terms of probability of inflicting a wound. It even grows the chance in constant increments. Whereas under the current system, high strength makes all the difference due to the multiple simultaneous effects of improving to-wound chance, reducing armour and the shield with it.

    Note also, however, that the proposed system also makes high strength relatively more important against tough targets. Against the weak T3 lightly armoured target, S5 "only" increased the chance to inflict a wound by two thirds. Whereas against the tough T4 heavy armoured target, S5 triples the chance to inflict a wound compared to S3.
  • New

    Xingu79 wrote:

    Heya guys sorry it took me so long to get back in to clarify my thoughts on why I ws thinking S instead of T, mostly for the concept that we reach a level of 1 so much quicker instead of adding T from a base stat of 3 or 4 there is a long way to go to get to the max of 10 where if we take away from S it goes rather quickly from a base stat of 3 down to 1.

    Just trying to make the math work a little easier.
    Okay, I understand. What that does is to set a cap on how much armour and and superior (as in, higher than attack strength) toughness matters. It would pretty much have the same effect as my second proposal, due to ditching the off-chart values like 1+ and 7+.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by Konrad von Richtmark ().

  • New

    @Konrad von Richtmark

    Seeing those numbers laid out, I feel like the hitting power gets toned down quite drastically on all levels. The result of a change like this could be that people will feel obliged to take all the high strength they can muster. This would result in for example dwarves (who have access to high T and high AS, as well as great weapons) outperforming other core 24/7. But the issue here lies in the efficiency of armour, not your chart (here I go again :P )

    I forgot if you applied S-based AP in your examples. Did you?