And yet it needs literally zero additional play testing. It MIGHT get additional testing, if people WANT to test, but as it stands the proposal is only to open up the future prospect of different RA values for future development which would have to occur and be tested anyway.

As Jimmy said, that's not the actual problem at all. The problem appears to be one of will and belief of remit among the ERC. That's a tremendous shame.

If you’re not going to use the change, why make it? If all the old units stay the same and all the new ones get the new shiny, how does that affect balance?

Put another way: What units currently need this change? What new units want it? How many lists would this affect? Would making these changes negatively impact the overall approval process in a significant manner?

_________________
SG

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

that was actually the main purpose of starting the thread, to discuss where unit RA changes were desired so that the likely effect could be assessed.

I know some people have named units previously or on other threads but thought it might be worth discussing this further in one place, whilst acknowledging that it is not actually going to happen.

e.g. for me thousand sons marines going to RA 5+ came to mind.

Best case, improves it. Worst case, literally no difference. It's quite literally a no-loss change. It doesn't damage balance, it it only opens up finer tuning for future list endeavors, whatever form they take. If people don't use the change, that's on them, but it's a terrible excuse to deny it for future. And if people do use them to improve balance in current lists then how is that ever viewed as a bad thing?

It might not happen officially, but I think I'm going to use this change. If others don't like it, oh well, it's worth it to me.

nothing wrong with using it in your own games. I do. Feels rather tempest in the teacup issue here.

ANYONE and I really mean that, can update the EA rulebook and advocate for it to be used wider. NetEA isn't in the rules business and never has been. That's not apathy, that's them sticking to their mission statement.

This thread actually got NetEpic and I motivated to finish up the clean-room rulebook based on teh EA mechanics in fact so yay

_________________
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!

While this is definitely outside the mission statement of NetEA, Epic-UK and other communities, I would argue that it is exactly within that of the Epic Rules Committee (ERC); the clue is in the title.

Now I am not sure who the committee members are (any clues Dave, Jimmy?), but if this is to be done ‘officially‘ (as opposed to a house rule alluded to by Jimmy) this change would need to be made to the core texts that are linked to within TacComs and elsewhere. And we would need to ensure it is clear that where used, the RA (re-roll) value is equal or less than the standard value. (We probably ought to keep the existing definition of RA as well to avoid the effort of extensive changes to existing lists.)

Once that is done (and that is a no-Impact change), we could then start reviewing units and lists - where there would be some minor level of impact, though some of this would merely be editing text.

Would this be worth the effort?? Probably, as there should be minimal effort with some gains both now and in the future.
To my mind “variable armour” adds a little more graduation to armour values, facilitating the distinction between units. This also allows us to reclaim IS for the purposes it was originally intended; a number of more recent units would merely change IS to be RA(6+), keeping the same costs with no impact at all. Those units where the RA is being slightly nerfed probably won’t need significant testing. Indeed “Testing” these minor changes IMO becomes increasingly subjective to the point where one might as well suck it and see. But I also take Kyuss’ point that getting any “testing” done is difficult at best, and this might add slightly to the effort involved.

I also understand Kyrt’s point that ‘hoary veterans’ might have to learn new stats and remember to dice accordingly, though I am not sure there would be that many. And as others have said, it would be up to the respective AC to make use of this ‘revised’ rule in the first place.

So how about it folks, can we get the ERC to change the wording of the RA rule???

In my mind there are all sorts of "no-impact" changes you could theoretically make to the rules to add granularity e.g. variable inv save (4+,5+,6+), variable fearless (weaker variants where you get a save from hackdowns etc), variable ignore cover (weaker versions that modify rather than deny cover saves) variable slow and steady spaceships (turn 2 rather than 3) or just add in a bag of extra universal rules ("totem", "heavy barrage") that don't currently exist.

Each comes with the cost of adding rules and granularity in a game aimed at abstract. Lots of people seem to be saying it would be great if we could change RA but with hardly any actual concrete examples. Just vague comments about "future lists" whatever they are or reclaiming inv saves (from which units?). the rules committe should rightfully ask what unit changes are actually wanted before just making such a rule change. Otherwise how does RA differ from any other rule change suggested above?

The last time to my memory that the Epic Rules Committee was an actual thing, it consisted of Onyx, Dave, dptdexys, Matt_A and myself....

My understanding of this was not to change the rules in any way, but to attempt to provide clarifications and consensus for FAQs where possible, and as far as I'm aware, this was done under the umbrella of NetEA (hence the rules chair on the NetEA committee heading up the ERC)

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

that is the crux of it for me, in a game of abstraction, there are always going to be things existing that fall into the cracks

Should Wraithguard be a little less resilient than they currently are? - probably
Would they be too weak at 5+RA? - probably
Does it break the game that they are a little more resilient than their 40k implementation would suggest? - absolutely not

Right now, the Epic Tau list is basically a fabrication, it has been artificially altered from how they play in 40k to elicit a certain playstyle; to keep them from stepping on the toes of the Eldar, to focus them on shooting and combined arms and shift them away from being the firefight monsters you would expect them to be from their 40k incarnation.... And yet we very rarely get any outcry from even the fluffiest of fluff nerds that the list is wrong and broken, even though it is *hugely abstracted* to fulfill a certain playstyle and role.... just like wraithguard, or rubric marines, or land raider achilles or any of the other dozen edge cases we could all name

anyway, I've said more than I intended to on this discussion....

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

I think it could be that the core issue is the gulf between a naked 4+ (or 5+RA which is simlar) which is moderate armour and 4+RA which is hard as nails.

Adam77's graph suggests there are steps spanning that gulf but a naked 3+ is often perceived as a problem due to the all or nothing nature of MW on it. Also the perception that inv saves should be reserved for characters and daemons.

If this is the key problem area then an alternative way of solving it (which doesnt touch the rule book) is an army special rule (applied only to relevant armies) called e.g. "heavy armour" - units with this rule that fail their armour save (or are denied it by a MW) are permitted to roll a dice and will survive on a 5+ (TK weapons are unaffected and auto kill as usual). Applying this rule to units with a naked 4+ creates something in the gulf.

However I get the feeling this is not a solution people want and instead it the power and freedom of unfettered variability that appeals

okay, last post....

Adam77's graph is a great resource and shows that granularity already exists quite well

I think we should drop the perception of invulnerable saves being for characters or daemons, it works *really* well in most cases to represent those freak moments when a chaplain staggers out of the crater where a deathstrike missile just exploded... "wow, the emperor really DOES protect huh?"

I was resistant to adding INV save to the Land Raider achilles in the IF list, but it has had barely any issues in my experience, it gives them that slim chance of survival and makes them a wee tad more resilient than a regular land raider.... the majority of times you're rolling the save is against AT fire or CC/FF attacks anyway so while the occasional volcano cannon shot splashes off them, generally it means they take an extra hit or two to destroy and are consequently a little bit tougher than equivalent units elsewhere.... granularity achieved

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator

In 40k didn't they ditch saving throw modifiers in 3rd edition only to bring them back in 8th edition? I think there's a lot to be said for one saving throw with weapon specific modifiers (i.e. like back in 2nd edition epic) versus the all or nothing approach of MW/TK and frequent double and occasional triple saving rolls permitted by NetEA. Maybe GW would have considered that for future versions of epic if they'd not ditched it.

So in summary,

• Everyone, on this and the earlier thread, thinks that Variable Armour is a good idea.
• This approach would be tidier than using Invulnerable Save.
• IS probably ought to be reserved for characters and ‘special’ instances.
  
  
  However,
• IS does fulfill a similar function and this use is gaining acceptance.
• The ERC no longer exists, and their role was merely to clarify rather than change.
  Consequently there is no central authority who can push this change through.
• There seems to be less desire to actually do this for various reasons.

Is that fair?

Also,

the instance we adopt variable RA save, everyone's going to have an opinion on what unit they want to swing a bat at (already happened here on Land Raiders) and then everyone that doesn't agree will retort and then we'll endless bicker and nothing will happen.

Do I have this about right? Kyuss?

_________________
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!

How development goes on Taccomms, a visual guide

The discussion


The subsequent "action"

_________________
Just some guy

My hobby/painting threads

Army Forge List Co-ordinator