Tactical Command :: View topic - Variable Armour

Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/

Variable Armour http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=11782	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Ginger [ Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:02 pm ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
Guys While we "spitball" a little, what are your thoughts on variable armour? The principle is that the "reinforced" roll has a different value from the "original" armour value. So a Predator might be Armour 5+/6+ There are several benefits:- - there are more graduations in armour strengths - the increases are more linear - better control over the effect of MW - allows designers greater control over game "balance" But it would be a fundemental change to part of the rules (easily incorporated into some new rule set PG ). What do you think guys??

Author:	Crabowl [ Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:15 pm ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
I'm always open for new ideas as long as they don't take too much space on reference sheets. Just type them as Reinforced Armour (6+) so they can be written 5+RA(6+) on ref sheets and I'm ok with them And ?as I said in the other thread.. "Anyway, good luck trying to come up with anything new unless you have a private line to the holier-than-thou-jj as the fans will surely pummel you to death."

Author:	Ginger [ Tue Feb 26, 2008 5:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
Some other examples of how it could be used for control:- Something with bolt on "patches" (like a vindicator) might be 4+/6+ Something fast / agile like a Falcon might be 5+/6+ or even 6+/4+ You can differentiate better between LandRaiders and Leman Russ eg a) Landraiders at 4+/4+, Leman Russ 4+/5+ b) Landraiders at 4+/3+, Leman Russ 4+/4+ The stats for 5+/4+ are the same as 4+/5+, but the order allows us to make the target more or less susceptible to MW (as you only consider the second value)

Author:	ragnarok [ Tue Feb 26, 2008 7:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
I like it. It gives more flexability without too much writing. The reinforced armour saves could easily be written into the top statline of the unit, rather than the notrs at the bottom. so a russ would be 4+/4+ a marine would be 4+/- You could go one further and add a third column for Inv saves So a marine charcater would be 4+/-/6+

Author:	J0k3r [ Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:33 pm ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
Im afraid not convinced about this idea- unlike splitting of MW fire which addresses parts of teh rules which dont feel right, this seems like complexity for complexities sake. We should avoid introducing too much detail to E:A, its not 40k after all (Boy, im sounding like Hena now )

Author:	zombocom [ Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:39 pm ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
An interesting idea, but I'm not sure it's neccesary. It may just be an additional layer of complexity that isn't required, and will make memorising army lists that little bit harder. However for a NetEA rewrite it's something worth considering.

Author:	Nicodemus [ Fri Feb 29, 2008 7:14 am ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
Would we have units that really needs that? Would Russ be still 4/4 and Land Raider 4/4 and would there just be one or two units in whole game that really would need these?

Author:	asaura [ Fri Feb 29, 2008 8:43 am ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
This is an unnecessary change. I agree that adding detail adds detail, but it's really not needed. The game has enough distinctions between armor as it is. Besides, we can currently roll for RA by using two dice. If either succeeds, it's a save. Adding complexity makes for a slower game.

Author:	Ginger [ Fri Feb 29, 2008 11:57 am ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
Ok guys, this would not be added everywhere, and I have never suggested it would. In practice, I believe it would actually be used quite sparingly to nudge factors where needed. In the few cases where it is added, there might be an extra layer of complexity, but that already exists in various forms (eg Invulnerable save). As to dice rolling, that really won't slow the game down more than a few seconds - a fraction of the time usually played, and if you are really concerned, use different coloured dice. However, it does provide many advantages, not least that it allows the possiblitiy of improving some armour, or weakening the effect of MW as appropriate. For example improving Marine armour slightly by making Predators 5+/6+ (if desireable).

Author:	asaura [ Fri Feb 29, 2008 12:31 pm ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
(Ginger @ Feb. 29 2008,10:57) QUOTE For example improving Marine armour slightly by making Predators 5+/6+ (if desireable). I suggest you get your math right before going further with this idea... Against AT hits, a Predator with 4+ saves 50% of the time. a Predator with5+/6+ saves only 44% of the time. It's even worse when you get a Crossfire minus. Obviously, 5+/6+ is better against MW, but what's the point, really?

Author:	Ginger [ Fri Feb 29, 2008 1:26 pm ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
(asaura @ Feb. 29 2008,11:31) QUOTE (Ginger @ Feb. 29 2008,10:57) QUOTE For example improving Marine armour slightly by making Predators 5+/6+ (if desireable). I suggest you get your math right before going further with this idea... ? Against AT hits, a Predator with 4+ saves 50% of the time. a Predator with5+/6+ saves only 44% of the time. It's even worse when you get a Crossfire minus. Obviously, 5+/6+ is better against MW, but what's the point, really? The point is that (obviously) the principle permits greater flexibility and control over the game balance in general. Regarding the detail here if this principle was available, we could equally discuss giving predators 4+/6+ armour and whether that was more or less appropriate. One of the main advantages, along with the concept of redefining MW to permit "tank killer" and "Infantry killer" classifications, is that these all help refine and potentially curb the increased use of MW in general, while equally providing a little more colour to the various elements of the game And as with all things, this would need to be used wisely. For example, you don't get "sniper" on tanks - the prospect of crossfire with sniper on armour does not bear contemplation

Author:	BlackLegion [ Fri Feb 29, 2008 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
How instead of a new spacial rule for mid-sized tanks like the POredator ie alltanks which have front and/or side armour values of 13? Ablative Armour Vehicles with Ablative Armour gain an armour save of 6+ against Macro-weapons. Note that Macro-weapons negate their original armour save. So ie a Predator would hav be a singe 4+ save against all attacks, a single 6+ save against MW and no save against TK. Candidates for this would be the (Chaos) Space Marine Predator and Vindicator, the Imperial Guard Malcador and the Tau Hammerhead and Tau Skyray.

Author:	Evil and Chaos [ Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:06 pm ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
BL: Nope. I honestly think there's a lot of merit in a reformatting of the armour save stat, but it seems as if nothing short of a full re-write of Epic will see change here.

Author:	Moscovian [ Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:28 pm ]
Post subject:	Variable Armour
If you are going to do this for any rules rewrite you might as well switch to 12 sided dice and keep the values of armor/RA the same since it is easier to keep track of rolls that are the same value. As for EA I'm thinking this idea could be the exception to the rule for a very specialized list but not for across the board use.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/