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.

  • getting ready to play several QuickStarter games in UniversalBattle at a big convention (30.000 visitors) in italy this weekend.

    I will play with Arm - AP = X-

    I will also use Aegis (X-), for example old Aegis (5+) now becomes Aegis (2).

    will let you know how many *new* players have a problem with it.

    if I don't post a report in the next 7 days, please send me a reminder!
  • X- test are already present in the game (and in warhammer) through characteristic test. Here T9A deleted characteristic test from the main rulebook but still remain here and there (like on greywatcher or for the discipline test).
    It will be enough logical to have all the roll to prevent something wrong to a model/unit to be X-, so all saves and discipline going in the same way.

    And there are already some games that use two sort of roll depending it's an attack or a defense (thinking of Infinity with all attacks/tests are Characteristic - but armour are a roll you need a +, and it's not shocking).

    The beta were the good time to test this change and collect reaction, it's not too late.
    Armies : DE, UD - Co-organise : Nain Gros-Gnon
  • Minidudul wrote:

    X- test are already present in the game (and in warhammer) through characteristic test. Here T9A deleted characteristic test from the main rulebook but still remain here and there (like on greywatcher or for the discipline test).
    It will be enough logical to have all the roll to prevent something wrong to a model/unit to be X-, so all saves and discipline going in the same way.

    And there are already some games that use two sort of roll depending it's an attack or a defense (thinking of Infinity with all attacks/tests are Characteristic - but armour are a roll you need a +, and it's not shocking).

    The beta were the good time to test this change and collect reaction, it's not too late.
    Characteristic tests are still in the game, we just don't use them a lot - but they intentionally left the design room there.

    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:

    Rolling a 6 and feeling bad about it is dissonant.
    We've play Discipline tests (and Command tests for Battle) like that without feeling bad. There is no truth for one or another solution. It's just a choice.


    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Discipline and Miscasts should probably also be changed to roll low bad roll high good.
    How would you do that easily ? For the Discipline, you have the value and roll under it. It couldn't be more simple. If you want to have a X+, you must introduce a table like Dis 10=3+, Dis2=12+, etc (I'm not sure if my X+ are good ^^ ). So you have an additionnal step that you don't have with a X-. It complexify the roll.
    Or you must change to "the lower value is a better Discipline". But it's not intuitive too because all the others characteristics would not work like that.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    2d6+Discipline vs. a target number would be the simplest way to change it.
    But you add a step (the sum) and the target number is not intuitive. It's the same as the '7' of the Armour Save. It does'nt represent anything.


    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    (To keep things exactly the same, the target number would be 14)(And an advantage would be that you could vary the target number! "Make a difficulty 12 Discipline Test" f'rex)
    Now, it's the same as 'take a Displine Test with -X'. Is it very different?
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    2d6+Discipline vs. a target number would be the simplest way to change it.

    To keep things exactly the same, the target number would be 14
    And an advantage would be that you could vary the target number! "Make a difficulty 12 Discipline Test" f'rex
    That's an interesting idea.

    Probably needs a thread of its own to properly discuss.
  • Nekhro wrote:

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    2d6+Discipline vs. a target number would be the simplest way to change it.
    But you add a step (the sum) and the target number is not intuitive. It's the same as the '7' of the Armour Save. It does'nt represent anything.

    WhammeWhamme wrote:

    (To keep things exactly the same, the target number would be 14)(And an advantage would be that you could vary the target number! "Make a difficulty 12 Discipline Test" f'rex)
    Now, it's the same as 'take a Displine Test with -X'. Is it very different?

    Actually a diff 12 test would be one at +2. Which sure, you can do anyway, but it's easier to tweak a TN.

    And having high be good and low be bad everywhere adds a useful consistency.

    *shrug*

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    2d6+Discipline vs. a target number would be the simplest way to change it.


    (To keep things exactly the same, the target number would be 14)
    (And an advantage would be that you could vary the target number! "Make a difficulty 12 Discipline Test" f'rex)


    No table required.
    @fjugin

    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

  • So, I tested the Arm - AP = X- this week-end.

    The change was seamless, it is much more intuitive and easy to execute.

    I don't care if I need to roll low instead of high, numbers are meaningless, only the result counts:
    I have 2 arm, I roll my dice, all 1 and 2 are saved, easy, simple.

    We have a new player in the group, and he didn't have any issue with this system.

    I will continue to use this way to roll for saves from now one.

    The post was edited 1 time, last by joel127 ().

  • hi there guys!
    yesterday was the last day of the Modena Play convention, and i got the chance to play quite some games with old and new players using the new QuickStarter rules and my custom armies in Universal Battle. i had a blast! : D
    but more importantly to our topic, i got the chance to finally test (in a quite extensive way) the Armour rolls. i kept in mind everything (i remembered) i saw in this discussion, and kept an open mind. the end result is quite different from my original thoughts on the matter. here's what i've found works best with new players (including 9-year-old kids!):

    Attacker rolls to Hit -> Off - Def -> see Hit table

    Attacker rolls to Wound -> Str - Res -> see Wound table

    Attacker rolls to Penetrate or Pierce -> Arm - AP -> roll higher: the wound is inflicted

    Defender rolls Aegis / Regen -> as characteristics test -> roll equal or lower: the wound is discarded


    this has the advantage of keeping intuitiveness:
    - higher values are better: Arm 5 is better than Arm 2, Aegis 3 (old 4+) is better than Aegis 1 (old 6+). by the way, note that 6+ means absolutely nothing to a new player - it's only a source of confusion - how do you roll higher than 6? sure, you count modifiers -> that's not the way a newbie thinks.
    - modifiers are simple to interpret: a spell that gives you Arm -1 is bad, a weapon that gives you AP +1 is good; an artefact granting an Aegis modifiers (+1) makes much more sense now
    - combats are faster: the attacker rolls until a wound is dealt using the "normal" profile info, and dices are only transferred to the defender if there is a special save (Aegis and Regen)
    - no rebalancing required: we discussed moving Armour saves before to Wound. this has implication on rules such as Lethal Strike, and that's bad: more work and more time riequired. so none of that here.

    here's an actual example of how things would work - actually, of how things worked these last few days:
    combat between Warriors (Dark Gods) charging Realms (Equitaine). in the QuickStarter they look like this:
    Warriors: Off 5, Def 6, Str 4, Res 4, Arm 4 (old 3+), AP 1, Aeg 0
    Realms: Off 4, Def 4, Str 4, Res 3, Arm 5 (old 2+), AP 1, Aeg 1 (old 6+)
    Warriors Hit -> Off - Def then table -> 5 - 4 = 1 -> 3+ to Hit
    Warriors Wound -> Str - Res then table -> 4 - 3 = 1 -> 3+ to Wound
    Warriors Pierce the armour -> Arm - AP then higher -> 5 - 1 = 4 -> 5+ to Pierce
    (note that this means 5 or 6 are a wound -> 33% chance -> same as the old "save with 3+")
    Realms roll Aegis -> characteristic tests -> save with natural '1' only (same as the old "save with 6+")

    we keep saying that we need new players. simple and intuitive rules attract new players. if you are an old player, please accept useful change. i know you're used to do things differently, but please don't be selfish.

    tagging @fjugin because it'd be nice to hear if the central teams are taking this seriously, and also @VisconteDimezzato, @Bubonicus, @Thorsen, @IoRi78, @relevart, @Fassa, @Manacerace, @relive, @Harlequinn as some of the people i might have discussed this at the Play convention
  • This way to handle armor is nice, but I think it's not good for players.
    In this situation only attacker roll dice, and defender don't do anything unless having aegis/regen, in a player turn the reactive is already a lot passive, so the armor save let him have a little moment to "play/interact/have a control on the game" (sorry I don't find the rights words). The result will be the same, but letting the defender do some save (whatever the formula) is better in a psychologic side, even if it's slighly slowing the game.
    Armies : DE, UD - Co-organise : Nain Gros-Gnon
  • yes, minidudul, we discussed this too.

    but this only applies to ranged attacks.
    in close combat the reactive player does roll dice too.
    everybody who played games with us seemed to have no concern about this at all.

    i suggest you test it in a game with your friends first, and then come back here to
    tell us if your game experience as reactive player is lessened in any way!
  • piteglio wrote:

    Attacker rolls to Hit -> Off - Def -> see Hit table

    Attacker rolls to Wound -> Str - Res -> see Wound table

    Attacker rolls to Penetrate or Pierce -> Arm - AP -> roll higher: the wound is inflicted

    Defender rolls Aegis / Regen -> as characteristics test -> roll equal or lower: the wound is discarded
    Why should an Aegis save be done by the defender but not armour saves? Aegis is a magical defence so surely it should be done by the attacking player, just like an armour save. Regen would be done by the defensive player because it is their model re-growing wounds.

    Personally, I think the reason that armour rolls are done by the defender is mainly to keep them involved. Many more units have an armour save compared to Aegis / Regen saves so in many cases you completely remove the defending player. I'd prefer to keep Armour saves as a roll by defender, simply because it keeps both players involved.
    Never argue with Idiots. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.
  • that's just your habit. you have a Armour Penetration value, so you roll to Penetrate the armour, just like you roll to hit and wound.

    but as i say i hear the "let's keep reactive players engaged in the Shooting phase".
    i don't think this is priority (i actually like looking at the battlefield and anticipate my next move while the opponent mows down my elves), but if you think this is crucial, we do have an alternative:

    the Defender rolls a characteristics test using Arm - AP.
    equal or lower means saving, for both Armour and Aegis.
    Attackers try to roll high (Hit and Wound), Defenders try to roll low (Armour and Aegis).

    do you guys like this one better?
  • Henri Poincaré (I think) wrote:

    a well-posed problem is already half solved
    What is exactly the problem with save ?
    1- Copyright issue : ok, You have to change the system. Don't base anymore on the old one ("inverted" roll compared to other rolls) J
    2- No copyright issue. don't change anything...
  • Mirdhynn wrote:

    Henri Poincaré (I think) wrote:

    a well-posed problem is already half solved
    What is exactly the problem with save ?1- Copyright issue : ok, You have to change the system. Don't base anymore on the old one ("inverted" roll compared to other rolls) J
    2- No copyright issue. don't change anything...
    There are two issues:
    1. We've got two ways to work out armour saves when we only need one.
      1. A Formula of 7 - Armour + Armour Piercing = X+ roll
      2. A table where you have to do Armour - Armour Piercing and then check the value on the table, like we have with rolling to hit in combat or rolling to wound in general.
    2. The Armour Characteristic isn't the clearest thing to understand from the way profiles are laid out.
      For some models you've got to work out the Armour Value from their equipment options
      For some models you've got an Armour Value and only need to add armour upgrades
      For some models you've got both an Armour Value and equipment options to add to it to figure out the armour value
    It's a bit confusing right now.
    So some players have jumped on making rolling the save be as simple as possible (which is armour - ap = X- roll) as the solution.

    Currently we could make Armour easier to deal with if we did the following:
    • Drop the 7-Armour+Ap formula from the rules as we have a table that works just as well without confusing people
    • Make it completely clear how we're supposed to work out a models armour and be consistent across all units