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

House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=18834		 Page 1 of 3
Author:  adam77 [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 1:35 am ]
Post subject:  House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
I had an idea for improving the reinforced armour rule ;D

I have a couple of issues with it:
1. Not keen on re-rolls.
2. It makes comparison of units' armour stats less intuitive (IMO).

My idea...
1. Replace 'non-MW attack re-roll' with a +1 to save against non-MW.

Version B (same result, different implementation)...
1. Remove 'non-MW attack re-roll' and increase all reinforced units' armour stats by 1 (e.g 4+ goes to 3+).
2. Reinforced saves against MW taken with -1 modifier (to compensate).

Rationale...
Less re-rolls
Comparison of armour stat more intuitive (esp. Version B)
Survivability approximately the same (4+/5+ RA units take a bit of a hit but not too bad)

I don't know the rules that well so this might be crazy talk, what do you recon?

(edit: i'm not against rerolls per se, just their use in this situation)
Author:  Dobbsy [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 4:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
If you're not keen on re-rolls why not just roll 2 dice at once....? ;)
Author:  adam77 [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:20 am ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
::)
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 6:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
Rerolls do take more time but do also alloW for a wider spread of probabilities than just using modifiers.
Author:  adam77 [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 7:33 am ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
Evil and Chaos wrote:
Rerolls do take more time but do also alloW for a wider spread of probabilities than just using modifiers.


That's true, but I don't believe they're being used for that reason in this case. Rather, they're being used to make units tougher, in which case +1 is a cleaner way of doing it, albeit with slightly different probabilities*.



* chance of saving, reroll vs +1...
4+ .75 vs .66
5+ .56 vs .50
6+ .31 vs .33
Author:  Moscovian [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 3:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
That isn't a small change! On the 4+ RA for example... There is a big difference between 1/4 and 1/3. Just ask any six year old when the birthday cake gets divided.
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
How about we switch to d12's instead? :)
Author:  Evil and Chaos [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
d10's please!
Author:  Morgan Vening [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
The_Real_Chris wrote:
How about we switch to d12's instead? :)

Evil and Chaos wrote:
d10's please!

I prefer d12's. It makes initial conversion a lot easier, and they tend to roll better.

Morgan Vening
Author:  The_Real_Chris [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
d10's? how dare you disrespect the babylonians!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_numerals
Author:  semajnollissor [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 5:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
Babylonians? wouldn't we need D60s then?
Author:  adam77 [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
Moscovian wrote:
That isn't a small change! On the 4+ RA for example... There is a big difference between 1/4 and 1/3. Just ask any six year old when the birthday cake gets divided.


Yup, but I don't think it would upset balance considering...
It applies to both sides.
Only affects limited number of units.
Only affects non-MW hits on said units.
Of said hits, it turns approx 1/10 save tests from a save to a fail.
(If it did unbalance there are the options of changing to a 3+RA and/or points values.)


Quote:
How about we switch to d12's instead? :)


I'm considering a small change to make the game a bit more streamlined. I don't think that fits the bill. :P

Hmm, quite surprised no-one thinks this is a good idea (in theory at least).
Author:  semajnollissor [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 9:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
I don't think it's a bad idea, necessarily, but I don't think the problem it solves is that big an issue (to me, at least).

In anycase, there are numerous ways you could change RA and MWs to acheive equivalent results, including giving each MW its own save modifier (a la SM/TL) and have RA ignore or reduce than modifier.
Author:  adam77 [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 10:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
I agree, it's pretty minor and my argument is really hypothetical. I actually like the way EA has replaced the SM2 save modifiers with the MW/RA mechanism, but I kinda get a cognitive dissonance when comparing armour stats in EA though. 'So they're both 4+ armour but this one with RA is really a 2.5+'. I'm sure I'll get used to it.
Author:  semajnollissor [ Tue Aug 03, 2010 11:14 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: House Rule Idea: Reinforced Armour
The biggest problem I have with the way RA works is the fact that the second save always has to have the same value as the base save. Having the ability to set the second save's value separate from the base save would open alot more variation in units.

For instance, instead of being 4+/4+, termies could be 3+/5+.
Page 1 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/