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.

  • piteglio wrote:

    Mirdhynn,
    you'll find your answer in the many posts that precede yours.

    7-Arm+AP -> X+ is needlessly convoluted.
    Arm-AP -> X- is crystal clear.

    if you care about attracting new players, you'll accept seeing things differently.
    cheers,
    f
    I dont understand something.
    We simplify the shooting phase now i get unit with bow(4+)
    When i shoot i should make bow number + all shooting modificator.

    I like that, its simple.
    So why armor is in the statline and not in the equipment like a bow ?

    Why cant we just make the same for amor. No change for old player, and seems simple for new player too no ?

    Get unit with plate armor(4+) for exemple

    And armor roll would simply be a succes if the roll is egal or higher to Armor + AP
    if i write like you:

    Arm-AP -> X- do not seems more simple than:
    Arm+AP -> X+
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.

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

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    I might remind people that D+D removed ThAC0 in the move to 3e because ThAC0 was unintuitive. Making armor count up will be super useful for new players.

    For those who don't know what I'm talking about... well, be glad.
    3.0 came out just as I got into DnD (As in literally, that month)
    Baldurs gate got me on THAC0 though...

    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

  • Squirrelloid wrote:

    I might remind people that D+D removed ThAC0 in the move to 3e because ThAC0 was unintuitive. Making armor count up will be super useful for new players.

    For those who don't know what I'm talking about... well, be glad.

    Yerp. Actually, that gives me an idea.

    Crazy idea.

    Make armour saves be about rolling a d6, plus your ARM, and trying to roll higher than their AP.


    So if you have ARM5 (currently a 2+ armour save) against AP 9 (currently AP2), you need to roll a 4 or higher.

    So if you have ARM2 (currently a 5+ armour save) against AP 9 (currently AP2), you need to roll a 7 or higher (i.e. impossible).

    Background Team

  • theunwantedbeing wrote:

    piteglio wrote:

    uhm, are you looking at the 2.0 WIP version or at the old one?
    The new one Slim versions 2.0 (0.203.0)

    And the QS version is this one
    QuickStarter version 1.2.1

    My comments about the QS rules apply to the old rules as well since they're the same in those sections
    Normal Rules version 1.3.5

    So how are you confusing people when it comes to Armour Save rolls?
    well, to make it clearer: QS 2.0 will use same thing as BRB 2.0. so here we're talking abount rewriting rules for BRB.
    not sure why you inserted QS into the equation.
    QS 1.3 can only bring confusion.

    regarding me confusing people, dear friend,
    i really suggest you grab a dude from the street and play a game with him.
    "a little less conversation, a little more action", as that famous guy used to sing.
    there's no dialogue if i play a hundred games, give you my opinion,
    and then you spend X minutes thinking about it, and give me yours
    (excuse the hyperbole, but it's to get the point across)




    @Casp: i wouldn't object to adding Arm modifiers to armour entries! i wouldn't do it (after all, it's only Light 1, Heavy 2, Plate 3!), but if many of you think this is important, then why not!




    @WhammeWhamme: yes! that line of thinking was in the background of my mind.
    the approach looks even better when used for "Pierce rolls", i.e. when it's the Attacker rolling for armour:
    D6 + AP > Arm means that the wound goes through. if done by the Defender, you have to add that ghost 7 again (your penetration values now range from 7 to 17...)
  • The 7 is no longer ghosted in my latest suggestion. It's there, but it's in the stats.

    Yes, the numbers end up bigger - but you get the defender to roll and want to roll high while both sides want high stats.

    That's better than

    a) getting the attacker to do all the rolling (it's psychologically better to be potentially doing something when they're attacking you, even if it's just rolling some dice. plus this way biased dice that roll high don't guaranteee anything)

    b) making saves roll-low (because rolling low being good is unintuitive)

    Background Team

  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    Yerp. Actually, that gives me an idea.

    Crazy idea.
    I have a very crazy idea ;)

    Maybe the main problem is the X+, whatever it is.
    The Characteristics are "low=bad, high=good". It works easily when you roll under it (like a Characteristic test). But it's more complicated with a X+ roll (like the old BS: 3=4+, 5=2+ for example).

    A solution could be to have only X- rolls. In this case, you don't have some rolls which are X+ and some others whixh are X-. Everything works the same way. For the Close Combat to-Hit Table and the Wounding Table, you just change the result (6+ becomes 1-, 5+ becomes 2-...). It's very easy to change. For the Aim of the shooting equipments, you have a simple value in the brackets and roll under it (as we proposed for Special saves).

    The only exception I see is for casting a spell which must the same as now because you can cast a spell with a different number of dice and can influence the Miscast result.


    It's a (very very) different "philosophy" for the rolls. But it's maybe more consistent if you want clearer rules.


    You don't like X- rolls, I give you more :D
  • Thordar Greybeard wrote:

    ...Absolutely no reason I can think of to change this except “change for the sake of change”.


    it is crucial that this notion is dispelled NOW.

    as a researcher working on autism, i know a thing or two on mentalising skills (or lack thereof).
    if you can't think of a reason to change this, it's because you haven't put yourself in the shoes of a total noob.
    do that, please. and if you're still having trouble seeing the reason, play a game with a total noob.
    then come back with a slightly more experienced point of view.
    i am sorry if this comes across as snarky, but if after 7 pages you stills see "absolutely no reason",
    it's not because we haven't tried hard enough to explain ourselves: it's on you.


    if you want high rolls to feel good, then let the Attacker roll for piercing.
    if you want Reactive players to do something, then use a X- roll.
    we have two options that help us win new players to the game.
    if you don't care about winning new players to the game,
    this discussion probably is going to be only a source of frustration to you.
    by wilfully missing the point of this rework, you surely act as a source of frustration yourself.
  • piteglio wrote:

    if you want high rolls to feel good, then let the Attacker roll for piercing.
    if you want Reactive players to do something, then use a X- roll.
    we have two options that help us win new players to the game.
    But dont you think the only issue is that armor is become a statline instead of an equipment ?

    No doubt, i think reactive player should throw dice. It more fun.
    And i also think that each time its possible High result = good result should be used.

    And i dont see any trouble with noob to explain that:

    " I make a wound to your model,
    Your model get the equipment "Heavy armor (5+)"
    So if you want to save his life, you should throw a dice and make 5 or more.
    But the guy who wounded your model get an AP value of 1
    So you should add it to you armor value, so 5 + 1 = 6, conclusion you have to roll 6 or more to save his life."

    What is confusing or complex here ?

    If you want make some change to simplify, just remove all reference to 7, soustraction, armor value like a statline into the rules. Old player would be satisfy, it exactly what they already done instinctivly, will be really easy to learn for new player. And New and old player would play and talk about the same things.
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.
  • well, Casp, on paper it works, yes. that's why it has been like this for years.

    but i'm suggesting that if you go out and teach the game to someone new,
    you will see that our proposals (Attacker D6 > Arm-AP or Reactive D6 <= Arm-AP) work waaay better.
    keep in mind this is NOT the only thing you're teaching in a first game.
    there's LOADS of stuff to process for the learner.

    if you don't go out and play introductory games, you can't really be a fair judge on this issue.
    your view will be biased by your long-term player experience.
    it's hard to see with someone else's eyes, i know.

    but we can't constantly repeat "how do we get new people into the hobby?"
    and then miss on simplification/redesign chances like this.
  • WhammeWhamme wrote:

    If you think new players enjoy sitting there while being told their guys are dying, you may want to rethink.

    i have spent the whole weekend with new players - it's not really a matter of rethinking, more of remembering. and the truth is that
    the problem is nonexistant for the Charge and Movement phase (DT tests are not really a thing),
    the problem is nonexistant for the Close Combat phase (both players get to attack).
    the problem is nonexistant for the Magic phase (the noob focuses on whether to dispel, and with how many dice).
    the problem might be there for the Shooting phase, but noobs usually absorb the Aim concept there.
    there has been lots of thinking, there has been lots of playing.




    WhammeWhamme wrote:


    If you think rolling low being good is intuitive for new players, you may want to rethink.

    you're right, that's why Discipline tests are so annoying to them.
    by putting together Discipline, Armour, Aegis, Characteristics tests, at least we create a pattern of
    "damage me with high rolls and save yourself with low rolls".





    if you like D6 + Arm vs. 7 + current AP, i have no problem with that.
    i'm only saying we have to do something about Armour.
    it is NOT change for the sake of change.
  • piteglio wrote:

    well, Casp, on paper it works, yes. that's why it has been like this for years.

    but i'm suggesting that if you go out and teach the game to someone new,
    you will see that our proposals (Attacker D6 > Arm-AP or Reactive D6 <= Arm-AP) work waaay better.
    keep in mind this is NOT the only thing you're teaching in a first game.
    there's LOADS of stuff to process for the learner.

    if you don't go out and play introductory games, you can't really be a fair judge on this issue.
    your view will be biased by your long-term player experience.
    it's hard to see with someone else's eyes, i know.

    but we can't constantly repeat "how do we get new people into the hobby?"
    and then miss on simplification/redesign chances like this.

    But precisely, wouldnt be simple to get the same mecanism for all equipment ?

    Or if you choose to simplify D6 <= Arm-AP
    Then shooting should be modify in the same way dont you think ?

    Lot of option could be explain easily to new player, you just have to find the good word to explain.

    But what is complex is to get different mecanism and remember them.
    So the most important things, is to unify mecansim at maximum.
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.
  • i agree with that! that's why i see
    Defender takes a Armour characteristic tests modified by Penetration
    as a good way out. it patterns (= same mechanism) with Discipline and Str- or Res- tests.

    by the way, regarding your idea of writing Heavy Armour (5+), i have nothing against it.
    but how does this work with cumulative Armour bonuses and Armour enchantment?
    concretely, how would a KoE Duke look like, if he has
    - Heavy Armour
    - Shield
    - Barded Horse
    - Crusader's Salvation (HA enchantment: +1 Arm, reroll AS)?

    in my book he'd have
    natural Arm (in the profile) of 2,
    then HA and Sh in the Defensive rules,
    and CS in the Special rules,
    so you actually have rerollable Arm 6.
    do you have a neat way of representing this?
  • If i get

    an heavy armor (5+)
    a shield (6+)

    Well the rules could simply say:

    When a model get different part of equipment that give to him armor value, then stack them all together (and addition the number of chance of succes) to get the final armor value.
    Exemple:
    A model with a heavy armor (5+), (2 chance of succes: 5 or 6 / D6)
    and a shield (6+), (1 chance of succes: 6 / D6)
    will get a total armor (4+), (
    1+2=3 chance of succes: 4,5 or 6 / D6)

    And then Armor penetration would simply be;

    The armor penetration value reduce the chance of succes of the wounded model armo, of an equivalent number.
    Exemple:
    A Model with a total armor value (4+) (3 chance of succes) wounded by a model with Armor penetration 2, get his chance of succes reduce to 3-2 = 1, wich means his final amor value will be (6+)


    I dont think new player will get trouble with this notion.
    And old player could stay in their habits, and help new player.
    To get the right wording, we just have to add the chance of succes notion into the rules, and then we could easily, using anywhere the notation rules (X+)
    cas-p.net / graphic & web designer.
    SE - VS - O&G - EoS / 9th age player.

    The post was edited 6 times, last by Casp ().

  • Casp wrote:

    If i get

    an heavy armor (5+)
    a shield (6+)
    and a magic armor (5+)

    Well he rules could simply say:

    When a model get different part of equipment that give to him armor value, then stack them all together (and addition the number of chance of succes) to get the final armor value.

    Exemple:
    A model with a heavy armor (5+), 2 chance of succes (5 & 6) on a D6.
    and a shield (6+), 1 chance of succes on 1D6)
    will get a total armor value (4+),
    1+2=3 chance of succes (4,5 & 6) on 1D6)
    That's really not clear to most people, even if you cleaned up the language with precise wording. "Add up the number of results that give you success" is exactly the same as the current system (add up your armor), except even more confusingly worded, and you still have the implicit 7 factor in there just like the current system. That transformation from "1+2=3" to "success (4,5,6)" is non-trivial and entirely the problem.
    Just because I'm on the Legal Team doesn't mean I know anything about rules or background in development, and if/when I do, I won't be posting about it. All opinions and speculation are my own - treat them as such.

    Legal

    Playtester

    Chariot Command HQ

  • Another option would be to pick a more abstract amount for armour and armour piercing values so there's less crossover of the numbers involved which can cause confusion that way.
    eg. 3 = none, 4 = one point of armour/armour piercing, 5 = two points, etc etc

    Same Table as we have right now though.
    To Hit
    To Wound
    Offensive Skill - Defensive Skill
    Roll required
    Strength - Resilience
    Roll Required
    Armour - Armour Piercing
    Roll required
    4 or more
    2+
    2 or more
    2+
    5 or more
    2+
    1 to 3
    3+
    1
    3+
    4
    3+
    0 to -3
    4+
    0
    4+
    3
    4+
    -4 to -7
    5+
    -1
    5+
    2
    5+
    -8 or less
    6+
    -2 or less
    6+
    1
    6+
    0 or less
    Can't pass



    All the tables line up fairly well if we do it like that.
  • TUB, i like the "2+ to 6" tables:
    they create consistency between hitting, wounding and saving.

    i still think that we shouldn't use a table if we can avoid it,
    especially since you easily glimpse the logic behind it, so i'd still stick with
    Defender rolls <= Arm-AP to save the wound or
    Attacker rolls > Arm-AP to inflict the wound.

    but between your solution and the status quo,
    i'd definitely go with your solution!



    i think we have quite some options available now:
    characteristic test (Nekhro and WROK),
    piercing rolls (piteglio),
    extended tables (TUB),
    chances of success (Casp),
    AP values between 7 and 17 (Whamme2),
    or the swamp (meaning "no change").
    i guess we're ready for some polling action, are we not? : )
  • I can see why you are on the Layout team, that is as straight forward as it gets I think. The fact is that veteran players are still going to be thinking of X+ armor saves (counting down), and that is fine, it will not change the actual outcome.

    If I had a nickle for every time someone used a legacy name/rule for a T9A rule, I would have many more models.