I was browsing again this thread http://www.taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=32500 wondering whether there were any rule changes where there appeared to be consensus that it is a problem and consensus in what the solution should be. The only item that I thought might qualify was the desire to change the reinforced armour rules. The natural solution would appear to be the addition below.

Reinforced Armour
Units with reinforced armour are protected by armour many times thicker than that found on most armoured vehicles and have extremely robust internal construction too. Because of this they still take their saving throw when hit by macro-weapons (see 2.2.6). In addition, they may re-roll a failed save against any non-macro-weapon hit, including those inflicted during an assault. Units with reinforced armour will sometimes have an armour value noted in brackets next to the words "reinforced armour" on their data sheet e.g. reinforced armour (5+). If so the unit must roll equal or greater than the number in brackets rather than their armour value to avoid being destroyed when re-rolling a failed armour or cover save..

As intended, this would then open the door for certain units to be given a specific reinforced armour save. For me the obvious first victim should be thousand sons marines who could be nerfed down to RA(5+). Any views on this and other units that might deserve similar treatment?

I agree the RA reroll should be variable (similarly I'd like the IS save roll to be a variable listed or denoted the same way). The presence of just RA being logical shorthand for RA(+{unit armor value}) thus not requiring any redactions

I don't see the rules ever being redacted to include this however.

_________________
He's a lawyer and a super-villian. That's like having a shark with a bazooka!

-I HAVE NO POINT
-Penal Legion-Fan list
-Help me make Whitescars not suck!

I agree that 'Reinforced armour (x)' would have been a much better rule (especially with the Tau heavy battlesuits) but I think we're well and truly stuck with the existing variant (it does also make dice rolling a bit quicker)

If we remember that Epic is a game of abstraction, Reinforced Armour functions just about well enough, even though there are edge cases where it maybe makes things tougher than they should really be

_________________
NetEA Space Marine, Imperial Fists and Blood Angels Army Champion

NetEA Red Corsairs Army Champion

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I have long campaigned for “variable RA” to no avail. This would allow far better distinctions between different units as well as graduating their armour values better. For example; If it is felt that Terminators should not be as tough as Land Raiders, this could be achieved; Eldar tanks could be given RA(6+) making them match better people’s expectations and other stats, while the Wave Serpents could be nerfed to be the same; ditto for Ork Battlefortresses etc.

Reducing RA values would also have reduced the ‘need’ for stronger weapons to defeat it, reducing ‘power creep’ in newer army lists.

Unfortunately, the effort involved in agreeing the values and then implementing them across numerous army lists together with the attendent discussions over ‘changing’ rules and the desire to retain known stats etc. makes this great idea highly unlikely at best.

For my part I even suggested at some point that not only reinforced armour, but Invulnerable Save should also be RA (x) and Inv (x), albeit in this latter case in a lot less units, so I'd have no problem with that.

The values stay as they would be without the variation rule in place until reviewed. Problem solved, no?

There is literally no reason besides a shocking apathy to overcoming inertia for this not to be implemented. And if inertia is what keeps us from doing anything here, then what the hell is the reason we're making up new lists or adding new units?

Combinations of Base, RA and Invulnerable already give a pretty spread of survivability (at least against non MW/TK).

_________________
Uti possidetis, ita possideatis.
May your beer be laid under an enchantment of surpassing excellence for seven years!
An online epic force creator: Armyforge

Amen

Well it would require retesting and recosting a lot of armies and units.

Is one solution to perhaps modify the RA rule so that it takes into account the RA(x+) wording but write it so that unless specified the RA reroll is the same as the armour save? Then take some time to test some of the more egregious cases?

The bit you didn't quote said almost exactly that - everything defaults to re-rolls on the same value, and then people doing army lists can decide whether they want to make changes in future versions.

_________________
The Wargaming Trader
NetEA Death Guard Army Champion

I totally agree with these sentiments. But I am not in a position to implement them, nor able to influence those who can.
Step #1 needs to be to gain acceptance for this approach,
Step #2 would be to adopt the proposed gradual changes to existing lists as well as to new lists (otherwise the new lists will be considered ‘underpowered’).

Using IS like this is already happening to some extent for exactly the reasons you present. This causes several problems

• Invulnerable Save is really intended for special cases, typically leaders. If used like this, some lists will not get the benefit of Invulnerable leaders (since a unit may not use a special ability twice).
• RA (5+) is not catered for through the use of IS. This means that we would not be able to distinguish Terminators from Land Raiders (if deemed appropriate) by making them armour 4+ RA(5+).
• IS makes a unit slightly overpowered by making it Invulnerable to TK weapons. Generally this is less important given the relative lack of TK weapons, so more an issue over principle.
• While the chart shows how one might adjust armour to match desired statistics, it doesn’t really allow for the intended weaknesses against MW weapons. Armour 5+ IS is considerably better than armour 4+, even though they are equivalent statistically.

And to be fair, this is the point; because of the inertia and resistance to these kind of changes, people have already adopted the ‘fudge’ of using IS to achieve a similar effect. It does work to an extent but distorts things as well, and has started to add an ‘inertia’ of its own.

Point of order: while against MW 5+ IS is better than 4+, against standard weapons 4+ has .500 chance to save while 5+ IS has 1/3+(2/3x1/6)= .444 chance to save, and is therefore 12% less effective.

I think variable Ra is a great idea, but is the sort of thing that could have been implemented when GW handed us the reigns. Stats and balance are baked in for the vast majority of units right now, and using varRA for new units runs has downsides because of that. On the one hand, it is inertia, on the other hand I’m not sure there’s enough activity here to implement and approve broad changes right now.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

some really good points. like ginger said, for me inv should be reserved mainly for characters, daemons etc. and stay at 6+
And thats because otherwise i fear we'll get "marines characters deserve inv 5+ because they're the best" leading to "eldar are the most advanced so of course farseers need to be inv 4+“ etc etc.

varRA would just help solve some of the problem units. but then theres the danger that similar thinking would take over. e.g. every underused AV starts getting a varRA and it snowballs.

Whilst creating new precedent in deviating from the official rules is a significant reason this has never happened, to be fair it is not the only one.

As alluded to earlier, it would slow the game down. Having to remember a whole new set of stats etc makes the game slightly less accessible. I don't relish the thought of armour 6+ RA(4+) IS(5+) units. You also will have to take more care over the effects of MW, i.e. which of the two saves it negates.

But yeah, on balance I wouldn't mind that to be honest, and it'd be easy enough to implement gradually. The biggest problem though will be it will kill list development, as all of a sudden the armour stat of every unit with armour 5+ or better will be opened for endless debate.

_________________
Kyrt's Battle Result Tracker (forum post is here)
Kyrt's trade list

So far, a moderately positive response from all. Surprising.

Dave, how easy would it be to edit the current NetEA lists to change all entries for “RA” to read “RA (x)”, where “x” is the current armour value?
- So Land Raiders and Terminators would now have notes that read RA(4)

Steve(s), same question with respect to Epic-UK...