What's up with ARM ?

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

The latest issue of the 9th Scroll is here! You can read all about it in the news.

  • What's up with ARM ?

    Why did you change the armour characteristic to the model's basic save? This just adds alot of calculating and complexity back into the game. This is NOT newbie friendly.

    My suggestion:

    1) Go back to to how armour values where displayed before the hotfix. The total armour value the model comes with w/o any upgrades is shown.

    2) If the model has upgrades that change armour values show the changes in brackets behind the upgrade option similar to how AIM is shown atm (or monsters/mounts for that matter).

    3) Delete all armour rules in the BRB. The armour in the unit entries now only has the purpose of a) descibing the models and b) interacting with enchantments in the case of characters.

    And yes, I know. Shields. Shields are the only armour that would warrant a Main Rule Book entry. a) for Parry, b) for the -1 Armour, - Shield enchants when used with weapons that require both hands.

    If you think an armour section with one entry is silly, move the shield rules to the weapons they interact with > 2handed = no shield bonus; hand weapon > parry.

    I mean, am I overlooking something here? ?( ?( ?(

    Example:

  • well done, Diablo and Nekhro!

    i came here with some bias, since i liked the new Arm system. i was ready to "defend" the way things are after the hotfix. but after reading your proposals more closely, i have to say - i'm won! the suggestion by Nekhro in particular strikes me as very interesting. here is how i read it:

    Arm is a profile characteristic. Charateristic tests are passed if the dice roll is equal or lower. so we should indeed
    - start from the profile value
    - add the armour bonuses
    - subtract armour penetration
    and you get the number you should roll (equal or lower) to pass the test.

    for example:
    Highborn Elves Commander on foot with heavy armour and shield, hit by an attack with Armour penetration 2
    - start from profile Arm value -> 0
    - add +2 for heavy armour and +1 for shield -> 3
    - subtract -2 for AP -> 1
    you save the wound on a roll of 1, which is a one in six chance, which is the same as the old 6+.

    another one:
    Empire of Sonnstahl Marshal on horse with plate armour and shield, hit by an attack with Armour penetration 1
    - start from profile Arm value -> 2 (this is in the Horse entry)
    - add +3 for heavy armour and +1 for shield -> 6
    - subtract -1 for AP -> 5
    you save the wound on a roll of 1-2-3-4-5, which is a five in six chance, which is the same as the old 2+.

    then you can make adjustments as necessary. for example, to have things stay the same:
    - specify that max Armour = 6, before applying Armour penetration modifiers
    - specify that a natural 6 always fails.

    special saves (aegis and regeneration) would work in a very similar way, as .
    this introduces a neat separation between:
    - offense (hit and wound) works on a X+ basis,
    - defense (armour and special) works on a X- basis, just like other Str or Res tests.
    i don't see any drawbacks to this, except the fact that old players will have to change their habits.
    but it'd be very easy to understand for new players. so:

    @fjugin, @DJWoodelf, @kisanis, i think this would work great for the QS.
    and since we don't want major rule differences with the BRB (@'Pellegrim', we're with you),
    maybe we should really consider implementing this in the main rules!
    just my opinion.

    cheers,
    f
  • If we would have went the full streamlining way, we would have Armour and Armour Penetration as value from 0 to 10 and would compare them like OS/DS and ST/RE.
    Then, theoretically, the active player could roll if he penetrates the armour.....and the roll could be done BEFORE rolling to wound because it's logical 1. Hitting 2. Penetrating Armour 3. Wounding.
    I don't know if something like that is already on the lists for potentially implementing with V3.0....so in 10 years. ;)

    I personally like that the higher the Armour value the more protected the model is.
    But it leads to the same problem that BS had...which by the way was simplified to the Aim Score.

    I think it would be no problem to implement the above suggestion to make the Armour Save a characteristic test which means 1 is best 6 is worst.

    @piteglio: as much as I like QS to be as simple as possible: we need to stick to the BRB mechanics...because totally rethinking concerning the Armour Save when switching from QS to BRB doesnt fit.

    Quick Starter Team

    Playtester


  • of course i don't want the QS to be different. i meant that it is indeed very easy to implement the use of an X- or characteristics-like test for Armour, so we should do that for the BRB and thus for the QS. it's as simple as

    7 - Arm + AP = X+ becomes Arm - AP = X-




    and your suggestion of moving Armour saves before To-Wound rolls is almost just as easy to implement!
    we could call them "Penetration rolls", so it's clear they should be done by the attacking player.
    or we can stick to "Armour saves", and let the defensive player roll them (they're X- rolls after all).
    in any case, it just means reshuffling a couple of paragraphs (and possibly balancing cost of Armour rerolls?).
    if we were serious about that, we could implement that for 2.0 as well.
    it'd be yet another (and most welcome) nail in our non-WHFB identity coffin!
    also, the whole Hit/Wound/Armour/Special rolls is *the one thing* new players struggle with.
    we should definitely take this chance to rethink it.

    @DJWoodelf, still i don't get your reference to Aim-like problems, can you please elaborate?

    cheers,
    f
  • piteglio wrote:

    of course i don't want the QS to be different. i meant that it is indeed very easy to implement the use of an X- or characteristics-like test for Armour, so we should do that for the BRB and thus for the QS. it's as simple as

    7 - Arm + AP = X+ becomes Arm - AP = X-




    and your suggestion of moving Armour saves before To-Wound rolls is almost just as easy to implement!
    we could call them "Penetration rolls", so it's clear they should be done by the attacking player.
    or we can stick to "Armour saves", and let the defensive player roll them (they're X- rolls after all).
    in any case, it just means reshuffling a couple of paragraphs (and possibly balancing cost of Armour rerolls?).
    if we were serious about that, we could implement that for 2.0 as well.
    it'd be yet another (and most welcome) nail in our non-WHFB identity coffin!
    also, the whole Hit/Wound/Armour/Special rolls is *the one thing* new players struggle with.
    we should definitely take this chance to rethink it.

    @DJWoodelf, still i don't get your reference to Aim-like problems, can you please elaborate?

    cheers,
    f
    I mean that the new way the Armour Value works is quite exactly like the old BS Value worked.
    So the Aim Score has been introduced to prevent those 7-x thinking while at the same time the Armour mechanism has been changed to something more complicated.

    So of course the proposal Arm - AP = X- would be the easiest solution.

    Quick Starter Team

    Playtester


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

  • i think it'd be nice if we spared the decision-makers some work and some worry, and went on to formulate things in a way that could be esily implemented in the rulebook. currently we have (version 202, page 61, section 14.D):

    "If one or more wounds are inflicted, the player whose unit is being wounded now has a chance to save the wound(s) if it has any Armour. To make an Armour Save Roll, roll a D6 for each wound. The following formula determines the needed roll to successfully discard the wound:

    7 - (Armour of the defender) + (Armour Penetration of the attack)

    A natural roll of ‘1’ will always fail. See Table 7 below for the different possible results of the formula.

    Armour - AP
    Needed roll to disregard the wound
    0 er less
    No save possible
    1
    6+
    2
    5+
    3
    4+
    4
    3+
    5 or more
    2+


    Table 7: Armour Save Rolls.

    If the Armour Save is passed the wound is disregarded.
    "



    which might become



    "If one or more wounds are inflicted, the player whose unit is being wounded now has a chance to save the wound(s) if it has any Armour. To
    make an Armour Save Roll, roll a D6 for each wound. The roll is succesful if the result is equal or less than the Armour of the defender minus the Armour Penetration of the attack.

    A natural roll of ‘6’ will always fail.

    If the Armour Save is passed the wound is disregarded.
    "

    thoughts? suggestions?
    cheers,
    f
  • piteglio wrote:





    "If one or more wounds are inflicted, the player whose unit is being wounded now has a chance to save the wound(s) if it has any Armour. To
    make an Armour Save Roll, roll a D6 for each wound. The roll is succesful if the result is equal or less than the Armour of the defender minus the Armour Penetration of the attack.

    A natural roll of ‘6’ will always fail.

    If the Armour Save is passed the wound is disregarded.
    "

    thoughts? suggestions?
    cheers,
    f

    There was talk of doing this essentially.

    lets face it, armour saves being a 2+, 4+ etc... is a counter-intuitive legacy that we have.
    From a beginner perspective this would have been a better way to go, but we decided against it iirc (i was watching, not voting) because of how many of our gamers would have to shift their thinking to line up this way.

    @fjugin @Eisenheinrich Thoughts here?

    Head of Lectors

    Quick Starter Team

    "...take a step back and remember that we are playing a game where we roll dice and move little people around the board."

    - Grouchy Badger

  • My issue is that i need to calculate every time i do armour saves.

    Someone said something about Aim is working the same way, based on problems with BS, i dont see it, a shooting weapon now shows what is needed to hit, arm you still have to run the numbers.
    I think its logic as aim works, with a line of numbers counting up, 1 2 3 4 5 6, if you have aim 4+ and have moved, you count up on the scale..
    When i calculate armour saves, i have to count, arm 2 + i have a shield, thats 5 - 1, for a 4+ save, and then up if AP, so i count down to hit my as value and then count up, to get actual save.

    Luckily i use quartermaster and can keep the old as version, where armour save is there as a default, and if i make changes, shield heavy, i can manage easier than i can now
  • AoS does maybe 5 things really well, but just putting the AS values on the profile is one of them.

    Make it like Aim. Models start with (say) Armour (6+) if they have that from something, and options to buy them things like Plate Armour (3+) just have the new number next to them in brackets.

    (And then don't have characters get an AS bonus from horsies, because Characters are special customizable snowflakes and just baking that +2AS into their profile or even their armour options would be so very useful for making infantry characters good.

    Note that this doesn't touch cavalry units, whose AS is just going to be, you know, on their profile for quick reference, rather than needing to be worked out)


    (Or just note that the horsie for a character gives +2 AS the same way the core rulebook Death Cheater gives +1 AS.)

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    AoS does maybe 5 things really well, but just putting the AS values on the profile is one of them.

    Make it like Aim. Models start with (say) Armour (6+) if they have that from something, and options to buy them things like Plate Armour (3+) just have the new number next to them in brackets.

    (And then don't have characters get an AS bonus from horsies, because Characters are special customizable snowflakes and just baking that +2AS into their profile or even their armour options would be so very useful for making infantry characters good.

    Note that this doesn't touch cavalry units, whose AS is just going to be, you know, on their profile for quick reference, rather than needing to be worked out)


    (Or just note that the horsie for a character gives +2 AS the same way the core rulebook Death Cheater gives +1 AS.)
    i wouldn't be shocked if this makes it in before the Gold update.

    Head of Lectors

    Quick Starter Team

    "...take a step back and remember that we are playing a game where we roll dice and move little people around the board."

    - Grouchy Badger

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    AoS does maybe 5 things really well, but just putting the AS values on the profile is one of them.

    Make it like Aim. Models start with (say) Armour (6+) if they have that from something, and options to buy them things like Plate Armour (3+) just have the new number next to them in brackets.
    That is interesting. For some reason I assumed AoS didn't have equippment options or they were part of separate warscrolls.

    I'm not against changing how the AS works, f.e. having it work like a profile test, where higher roll = worse. I just didn't include it into the opening post because

    1) I know players have very strong feelings about what they are used too even if it makes little sense to keep it and

    2) the main issue that I currently have is ARM not living up to it's full potential by not including all possible ARM modifiers straight into the profile.

    Maybe I'll edit a few more pages of rulebook and army book as a proof of concept later. For now: Work. :(
  • kisanis wrote:

    lets face it, armour saves being a 2+, 4+ etc... is a counter-intuitive legacy that we have.
    From a beginner perspective this would have been a better way to go, but we decided against it iirc (i was watching, not voting) because of how many of our gamers would have to shift their thinking to line up this way.

    @fjugin @Eisenheinrich Thoughts here?
    Personally I wouldn't be opposed to treating Arm like any other characteristic in terms of characteristic tests.
    There may be issues with that approach that I'm not aware of off the top of my head, I'll discuss it with the rest of the team.
  • Making armour saves into normal characteristic rolls was discussed extensively by rules team during development of 2.0 rulebook. Almost a year ago now I think. Back then we ultimately deemed this to be a too large change in mindset for the player base. Everyone would have to relearn how to roll armour saves. It can be view as a "change for the sake of change". Something most players would dislike.

    As rules writer/designer, I am all for more elegant rules mechanics. But I have to also factor in if our players would actually want this change or not. My guess is that the majority of T9A players would see this is pointless and annoying.


    Do you think this assumption was wrong?
    - Head of Rules Team -
    - Assistant Head of Rules Clarity Team-
  • fjugin wrote:

    As rules writer/designer, I am all for more elegant rules mechanics. But I have to also factor in if our players would actually want this change or not. My guess is that the majority of T9A players would see this is pointless and annoying.


    Do you think this assumption was wrong?
    What about the original suggestion of this thread? I'm afraid it has been derailed from my original intend.
  • @Diablo_DF: sorry for the perceived derailing - it seemed like your proposal has generated a debate which created quite some consensus in other users, that's why we're exploring those other options. sorry about that, but we have to jump on good ideas when we find them! : D

    @fjugin: i'd say most of the people here agree it's such a small change that players won't be too upset about it. after all, it is a different way of doing things, but it's also simpler and more reasonable. also, if you consider the advantage for new players, together with the fact that old players will surely have other more essential things to be unhappy about, i'd say let's do it.
    the way i see it, it's not change for the sake of change: it's getting rid of old GW thinking, and moving to something that will make more sense for the legions of new players to come. also, once it's in the BRB, we can put it in the QS, where it'll really shine!
    more importantly, a year ago the rulewriters might have been a bit over-preoccupied with displeasing players with "procedure changes" like this one. the forum activity in the recent weeks shows that players tend to be really upset by other types of changes.

    i'd also like to implement the reshuffling of rolls mentioned by @DJWoodelf, so Hit -> Armour -> Wound -> Special, but this change strikes me as a bit more complex, so i'd settle the Armour rolls issue first, and then see what we can do.