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.

  • Needing to roll lower to pass feels wrong, since characteristic tests are so rare in most instances, the only common one is a Leadership/Discipline test and that's not part of the rolling for damage part of the game.
    • Rolling to hit
      Offensive vs Defensive
      Higher Roll = Better
    • Rolling to wound
      Strength vs Defence
      Higher Roll = Better
    • Rolling to Save
      Armour vs Armour Piercing
      Higher Roll = Better
    • Special Saves
      Higher roll = Better

    It would be weird to have Rolling to Save function as Lower = Better when everything else is Higher = Better.

    Turning Armour vs Armour Piercing into a Characteristic style test would keep things functioning the same for everything though, then we just have Special Saves as the exception but since they're called Special Saves that's fine because they're Special.

    We can re-link Armour Piercing and Strength.
    1 vs 1 = 4+
    You can't have that for Ap1 vs a minimum save

    2 vs 1 = 5+
    3 vs 1 = 6+
    4 vs 1 = 7+

    And there we have the Ap value that negates a minimum save, and it's Ap4.
    Which is where Strength Started to Modify Armour for GW rules for ages and ages, almost as if this is where the entire idea came from?

    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    1
    4+
    5+
    6+
    7+
    8+
    9+
    10+
    11+
    12+
    13+
    2
    3+
    4+
    5+
    6+
    7+
    8+
    9+
    10+
    11+
    12+
    3
    2+
    3+
    4+
    5+
    6+
    7+
    8+
    9+
    10+
    11+
    4
    1+
    2+
    3+
    4+
    5+
    6+
    7+
    8+
    9+
    10+
    5
    0+
    1+
    2+
    3+
    4+
    5+
    6+
    7+
    8+
    9+
    6
    -1+
    0+
    1+
    2+
    3+
    4+
    5+
    6+
    7+
    8+
    7
    -2+
    -1+
    0+
    1+
    2+
    3+
    4+
    5+
    6+
    7+
    8
    -3+
    -2+
    -1+
    0+
    1+
    2+
    3+
    4+
    5+
    6+
    9
    -4+
    -3+
    -2+
    -1+
    0+
    1+
    2+
    3+
    4+
    5+
    10
    -5+
    -4+
    -3+
    -2+
    -1+
    0+
    1+
    2+
    3+
    4+



    A roll of a 1 always Fails
    A roll of a 6 always Succeeds

    If the normal minimum Armour Piercing value = 4
    The having Armour Values ranging as we currently have from 1 being a 6+ save all the way to 7 being a 1+ save.
    We convert that to a chart like we currently have for the others and there we go, now Armour is a Characteristic, as is Armour Piercing and as can modify them like we do the other stats and everything functions.


    That would work fine, right?
  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    Needing to roll lower to pass feels wrong, since characteristic tests are so rare in most instances, the only common one is a Leadership/Discipline test and that's not part of the rolling for damage part of the game.
    • Rolling to hit
      Offensive vs Defensive
      Higher Roll = Better
    • Rolling to wound
      Strength vs Defence
      Higher Roll = Better
    • Rolling to Save
      Armour vs Armour Piercing
      Higher Roll = Better
    • Special Saves
      Higher roll = Better

    It would be weird to have Rolling to Save function as Lower = Better when everything else is Higher = Better.
    It's weird because it changes a habit. I said it in my proposal. The logic could be different: "attack rolls"=higher (rolling to hit, to wound, to shoot, to cast a spell) and "defensive rolls"=lower (saves, characteristics and discipline tests).
  • yes - it's just a habit thing. also, @theunwantedbeing, keep in mind that
    Special saves would work the same way (the old Ward Save 4+ becomes Aegis 3), so it wouldn't be an isolated thing.
    you already try and roll low to save yourself from ugly stuff with Discipline all the time,
    and with Resilience or Strength or Agility for some spells or weapons.
    we just suggest to do the same with saves (Armour and Special).

    this is good design - shorter rules, fewer calculations, greater intuitiveness.
    plus, if we consider asking players to rebase their warmachines,
    i don't see why we couldn't suggest using characteristic tests for Arm.
    i really don't think this is the straw that'll break the camel's back... ; )
  • piteglio wrote:

    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:
    The only thing I dislike about this is that you haven't added barding back in.

    As there is no fluff, it really isn't clear which horsies should have barding and which shouldn't . I understand that there is the interaction on movement stats, which can be handled in the barding entry in the rulebook.

    Barding: +1 Arm. [i]Barding also reduces the Advance and March statistics of the model but this will already have been accounted for in the model's characteristics.

    In favour of save rolls becoming as you describe though.

    @theunwantedbeing It actually keeps the logic the same. Currently it works as follows:
    Rolling to hit
    Offensive vs Defensive
    Higher Roll = Better for attacker

    [b]Rolling to wound[/b]
    Strength vs Defence
    Higher Roll = Better for attacker

    Rolling to Save
    Armour vs Armour Piercing
    Higher Roll = Better for Defender

    Special Saves
    Higher roll = Better for Defender

    Switch this so higher rolls are better for one side all the way through actually makes more sense.

    EDIT: It also potentially prevents cheating as loaded dice wouldn't be quite so useful as you'll end up failing armour & ward saves if you have loaded 6's....

    And before you complain that the rules shouldn't be taking this into account, the precedent has been set - "invisible" unit upgrades were removed because it allowed cheating (deliberate or accidental).

    Theoretically I could "accidently" use loaded dice, just like someone could "accidently" not mark which unit is which...
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

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

  • greetings, Sir Sully

    yeah, i was a bit puzzled at the barding thing too, when i first read it was removed.
    still, after some rereading it makes sense to me that mounts which used to have a barding are now Armour +2,
    and the ones without it are Arm +1, but possibly with a higher Advance or March characteristic.

    but all in all, irrespective of our own feelings, this point is orthogonal to whether have X+ or X- saves,
    so i think we're lucky enough to spare ourselvers the extra complexity of dealing with it!

    cheers,
    f
  • oh, i hadn't seen your edit.
    well, the cheating aspect is what it is, but i think it's not crucial to our discussion here.
    as for the proposed mechanics (X-or-less Armour save),
    the rulemakers said they considered it, but dismissed it as too much novelty for too little gain.
    now they're open to reconsider it if we suggest we see things otherwise.
    i'd focus on doing just that! ; )




    still, since the cheating issue is interesting anyway, my thought on it are here:
    Display Spoiler
    the way i see it, you'd use one set of dices for each initiative step by same models.
    note that in the following i'm putting Armour saves between to hit and to wound, but that's just me.
    let's go.
    it's my turn to attack, i take my 20 dices, and try and roll 3+ to hit.
    i remove the 6 failed to hits, you take the 14 successful rolls, and roll your 4- armour test.
    you remove the 7 succesful armour saves, i take the 7 failed rolls, and roll my 5+ to wound.
    i remove the 4 failed to wound, you take the remaining 3, and roll your 6+ aegis.
    you remove the 1 succesful aegis roll, show me the remaining failed 2, and remove 2 wounds from your unit.
    in this way we both use my dices for this round of attacks.
    then we do the same (with your dices) when it's your turn to attack.
  • I was being a bit facetious with the cheating bit. :) It always was a stupid reason to remove options.

    As you point out it's easy to not cheat with dice; you just use the same ones - although your order is slightly out (not that it matters mathematically). Just like it was easy to not cheat before by putting a sticky note on the movement tray or under the base or by just not being a nasty person.

    But we're going off topic.

    I don't have any issue with Armour becoming roll low to succeed. It makes more sense based on how the Arm stat is calculated which is essentially similar to a Discipline test. Nobody has any issues with Discipline tests....
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • ehe, alright, Sir! : D

    then, specifically to the point of the order of the tests, i was actually using DJWoodelf's suggestion, which i like very much.
    i would like to know what @fjugin, @Eisenheinrich (rules), @slivek (balance), @SirMC2015 (playtesting) think about it:

    the current order of to Hit roll -> to Wound roll -> Armour save -> Special save is counterintuitive.
    all new players i've met expect to Hit roll -> Armour save -> to Wound roll -> Special save.
    - how difficult would it be to implement it to the gold 2.0 rules, and
    - how difficult would it be to balance out its implications (price of armour rerolls, multiple wounds,...)?

    cheers,
    f
  • piteglio wrote:

    the current order of to Hit roll -> to Wound roll -> Armour save -> Special save is counterintuitive.
    all new players i've met expect to Hit roll -> Armour save -> to Wound roll -> Special save.
    I agree. It is much more intuitive and I wouldn't have any issues with changing the order.

    The only argument I can see against this is that it would slow the game down as you have to hand over the dice for each roll. This only takes a small amount of time, granted. Think about how often we go through this process in a game.

    This process is used for almost all damage and adding additional dice handovers will slow these rolls down and it's already a lengthy process. If a dice hand over takes lets say 5 seconds and you are adding 2 extra ones so that's 10 seconds for each set of attacks. Which gives a minimum of 20 seconds for a combat phase - 30 seconds if there is a character and 40 seconds if there are 2 characters, etc.

    Have a complex combat, say 3 units and 3 characters - that's an extra minute. And you're doing this for every single set of shots and every single combat in every phase. I estimate that it'd extend the game by 10-15 minutes.

    I'm not saying that I don't agree with you - I just can't see the team putting intuition above the time loss. They're eradicating intuition in favour of data - minutes are measurable, intuition is not. I completely agree that that is a daft point of view, but welcome to T9A....

    piteglio wrote:

    - how difficult would it be to balance out its implications (price of armour rerolls, multiple wounds,...)?
    Mathematically nothing has changed - it doesn't matter which order you put the items in you get the same results - mathematically. Of course probability isn't actually mathematically defined but it's generally accepted that it doesn't need to be.

    In people's heads there is a difference but mathematically there is not. So Armour rerolls wouldn't change price and neither would multiple wounds.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • From the top of my head I have to be honest that I don't see how it would be different balance wise regarding re-rolls or multiple wounds. I might be missing something horribly though ;)
    There are surely changes regarding Lethal Strike and other rules which trigger during to wound or armour save rolls. Those changes would have to be redesigned and rebalanced afterwards.
  • @theunwantedbeing: i keep re-reading your proposal, i disagree with the main bulk of it, but some of the other aspects are fascinating!

    @Sir_Sully: naaah, cmon, you're being negative : D
    i know for a fact that the Quick Starter team is really trying to keep simplicity in mind. we are putting great effort in minimising rules which are different between QS and BRB, so new players can "upgrade" more easily, and old players can "teach" the easier version with less confusion.

    but wasted time is also important. the thing, however, is that i don't think that in this way you'd lose more time... on the contrary! the attacker throws the dices, takes away the misses, and while he's doing that the opponent collects the hits, so he can roll saves with them. if anything, this would go even faster!

    @slivek: so, essentially, you're saying it's doable, right? ; )
  • It would take a good amount of time (at least for us in RC, and by extension Lectoring) : you have to change the rules for order, then go through all ABs, BRB and path to check what needs small change (like Multiple Wounds are applied after to wound rolls). That looks simple, but takes time.
    Then you have to write new rule for Lethal Strike (and subsequently, check for all units that have Lethal if the new rule change something or not). I think it's the only rule that need a rework?

    After that comes Playtesting to find the mistakes we made, and finally blt will need to reprice Lethal, as well as stuff like Lucky Charm. Takes time, but I don't see why it wouldn't be doable. But then, are we sure it's not just change for the sake of it? That directly affect all current 9th age players far more than the new Armour display...


    For the initial proposal : I'm not a fan for one reason : sometimes you will have option to upgrade a Light Armour to Heavy, so you will have "Heavy Armour (+1Arm)", while other times it will not be an upgrade, and thus you will have "Heavy Armour (+2Arm)".
    And you can't delete Armour entry anyway. You can simplify it, but you still need to explain a little what it does.
  • Alzam wrote:

    For the initial proposal : I'm not a fan for one reason : sometimes you will have option to upgrade a Light Armour to Heavy, so you will have "Heavy Armour (+1Arm)", while other times it will not be an upgrade, and thus you will have "Heavy Armour (+2Arm)".


    And you can't delete Armour entry anyway. You can simplify it, but you still need to explain a little what it does.
    1) Could you give me an example for a (+2Arm)? I can't recall a single one but may be wrong. Not that I would have a problem with the different values. Ranged weapons have different to-hits too for the same weapon and arguably Light Armour and Heavy Armour encompass LOTs of different armours.

    2) What would you need to explain? How to roll an AS isn't explained in the Armour rules. All you'd need is a rule for shields w two handers.
  • thanks guys, this is very useful.

    so it'd be possible to work on it, especially if we collect enough evidence that this would be good for the game, and not perceived as change for the sake of change. just brainstorming a bit: we'd like to have Hit (X+) > Armour (x-) > Wound (X+) > Special (x-)

    1) the "Armour X- test" is easier to calculate, and requires no arbitrary "7" starting point (which we also removed from Aim)
    2) the Armour and Special X- tests are harmonised with other "defensive" rolls (like Dis) which succeed on "equal or less"
    3) rolling Armour saves before Wounds is more realistic and (more importantly) intuitive for the new player
    4) alternating between attack rolls and defense rolls makes dice rolling actually faster


    would these reasons alone be good enough to justify the amount of work you anticipate?
    i appreciate how little resources we have (e.g. your time), let's use them only for the ideas we truly like!
  • Diablo_DF wrote:

    Alzam wrote:

    For the initial proposal : I'm not a fan for one reason : sometimes you will have option to upgrade a Light Armour to Heavy, so you will have "Heavy Armour (+1Arm)", while other times it will not be an upgrade, and thus you will have "Heavy Armour (+2Arm)".


    And you can't delete Armour entry anyway. You can simplify it, but you still need to explain a little what it does.
    1) Could you give me an example for a (+2Arm)? I can't recall a single one but may be wrong. Not that I would have a problem with the different values. Ranged weapons have different to-hits too for the same weapon and arguably Light Armour and Heavy Armour encompass LOTs of different armours.
    2) What would you need to explain? How to roll an AS isn't explained in the Armour rules. All you'd need is a rule for shields w two handers.
    1) Mmmh, not sure, maybe I'm wrong? I think the wdg sorcerer starts with light and can go uo to pkate? A big name in OK give you access to plate while you start with light? I don't really have a big problem with it, just find it a bit "ugly".

    2) Same as flaming attack, we explain nothing in the rule other than "hey, it may have interaction with things" (in this case, armour enchantments), but it still needs to be there. ;)


    @piteglio Just a precision to be sure: I'm just helping with rules, but I'm not in the deciding process at all. You have to wait RT's answer for that ^^
    Oh, and personnal opinion, I would rather not want to take Armour tests at X-, it' s just an habit to take for new players and I'm not a fan of tge "rolling low" concept in general.

    The post was edited 2 times, last by Alzam ().

  • piteglio wrote:

    i would like to know what @fjugin, @Eisenheinrich (rules), @slivek (balance), @SirMC2015 (playtesting) think about it:

    the current order of to Hit roll -> to Wound roll -> Armour save -> Special save is counterintuitive.
    all new players i've met expect to Hit roll -> Armour save -> to Wound roll -> Special save.
    - how difficult would it be to implement it to the gold 2.0 rules, and
    - how difficult would it be to balance out its implications (price of armour rerolls, multiple wounds,...)?
    Personal opinion: I'm all for 'plausible' rules, so I'd like changing the order as proposed.

    RC point of view: First off, the entire subject is probably more RT than RC territory. Imo the time factor has to be considered (I don't agree that it would speed things up), and also the fact that some players will consider this a change for the sake of change.
    If the change were purely cosmetic, I'd probably be tempted to go for it anyway, as imo the benefits (more intuitive, different from WH, etc.) outweigh the downsides.
    Unfortunately it isn't though. Lethal Strike (a rule that is pretty frequent) would have to be redesigned, playtested, priced, etc., and I'm convinced that this isn't the only rule that would be affected.
    For me, this tips the balance distinctly towards the downsides, which is why, I'm afraid, I'm not in favour of this change at this point.
  • aw, man, that's a hard blow!
    jokes apart, thanks for the insights, Eisenheinrich.

    so it seems you would be ok with the X- rolls (idea and implementation), and that you'd also like the idea of the new order, but that you are worried about its implementation (lethal strike and so on)

    so, for the rulemakers, do you think that it'd be easier for you to take decisions if we
    (1) collect ideas on the other rules which are possibly affected by the change, and
    (2) draft a new take on lethal strike?

    i wouldn't want to (ask help to) do the two things above, if you think from the beginning that it won't be doable, or not worth it.
  • The only issues I see you guys discussing are the different army book specific listings about how Light armour troops with Heavy Armour upgrades, vs no armor troops with Heavy Armour upgrades could be implemented into the BRB.
    Why not just take the armor saves chart from the BRB and simply add a rule that states when a unit purchases better armoir you just add the (+x) value beside the unit entry for that armour. Someone already suggested it in this thread. Very simple.

    Lethal Strike could simply work on Natural To-Hit rolls instead? The only issues I see with this would be Poisoned Attacks and Lethal getting jumbled.
    You could also make Lethal work like so: Failed armor saves of 6 by the opponent wound automatically. (If we are to change from x+ to x-). That way the only problem would be to cost Lethal appropriately and make sure it matches up with other rules without hiccup.
    And Poisoned Attacks could simply auto wound the same way as Lethal. (Or just make them a single rule). The only issues with that would be Poisoned Attacks working on 6's or 5's and the enemy has a 1-5 save, making your poison less effective since they save on the 5's that would normally wound.

    I personally like the Hit - Armor - Wound - Save idea. Have see it work MUCH better in a lot of games, it speeds up dice rolls, makes sense fluff and realistically, and sounds like a great way to move us away from old GW rules that a lot of players are not very attached to.

    All in all, I would love to see this implemented at least in a RT Poll to see how many people would appreciate the change? And if RT and BLT would have a go at it! :saint: :saint: