Doomkitten wrote:
Ginger wrote:
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.
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?
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’).
adam77 wrote:
Combinations of Base, RA and Invulnerable already give a pretty spread of survivability (at least against non MW/TK).
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.