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

Reinforced Armour
http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=33823		 Page 2 of 4
Author:  jimmyzimms [ Sun Jan 20, 2019 9:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
you don't even bother doing that. The nomenclature of just RA equals RA(n) where n= Armor. No redaction required.
In fact has additional benefit as the eye will notice the specified value easier.
Author:  ffoley [ Sun Jan 20, 2019 11:10 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
yes all you have to do is just add the two sentences in green in the OP to the RA rule and its done. The fundamental issue is who has authority to do such a thing.

however, as stated in the OP i was curious how people would use this power were it granted. e.g. land raiders becoming 3+/4+
Author:  fruitbat [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
Which save does Macro negate? Because that's surely going to be a factor when they're not the same..
Author:  Spectrar Ghost [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
I’d have to say they take the RA save, not the standard one. I also think it would be a reasonable convention that the RA save can’t be better than the standard save.
Author:  fruitbat [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 3:38 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
That sounds perfectly sensible on both counts.
Author:  ffoley [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:04 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
Spectrar Ghost wrote:
I’d have to say they take the RA save, not the standard one. I also think it would be a reasonable convention that the RA save can’t be better than the standard save.


Based on existing (GW?) wording you cannot reroll failed save against MW therefore you would get your normal armour save rather than the RA(x) save. You would need to change the GW wording somehow to if you wanted to get just the RA(x) save.
Author:  fruitbat [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 10:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
Well, that would probably reduce potential balance issues if you have say, a 4+ RA5+. The original macro effect is not changed, and you don't have to faff about trying to balance/recost the lower RA save..
Author:  ffoley [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
I think intuitively it feels more appropriate to have the RA(x) as the save available for MW. Thats because it feels like that is the "saving" throw you get when your armour is defeated by the MW.

As written its a bit of an issue because you cannot give e.g. a 4+ unit a little bit more survivability against both normal and MW by adding a RA(6+) save because it will be actually be a big boost vs MW (a 4+ save where before it had none)
Author:  Spectrar Ghost [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 11:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
If the change is made we would need to rewrite the relevant section anyway, so I’m not sure it’s a giant deal that it contradicts the RAW.

“Some units have a Reinforced Armor save that can be taken if they fail their normal save. This save is equal to their normal save unless otherwise specified (e.g. a unit with a 4+ save and Reinforced Armor can reroll is save, while a unit with a 4+ save and RA(5+) would get an additional 5+ save if the first is failed). A Reinforced Armor save can even be taken against Macro Weapons.”

Something like that. I’d need to look at the current wording again to try to match it.
Author:  kyussinchains [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 12:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
While I'm a fan of the idea, my point of view is that re-writing the rules is outside the remit of NetEA or EpicUK, and as Adam77 points out, we already have quite a granular spread of armour saves as-is

Right now we have dozens of armylists sat unapproved, with very little testing taking place, I think it's very easy to suggest grand ideas like this one, but we already can't get new lists tested, so the suggestion that this will be easy as pie to just slot right in retrospectively, to me, with my experience of trying to get folks to test anything seems quite naive....
Author:  Doomkitten [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 1:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
kyussinchains wrote:
so the suggestion that this will be easy as pie to just slot right in retrospectively, to me, with my experience of trying to get folks to test anything seems quite naive....



Or is it more that people want to test things that they -want-, rather than testing something that they're not all that interested in having?

If only there was some clean-room version of E:A that was amenable to such changes and adaptions without some holy grail text preventing us from gaining any chance to change things positively. Hey, JimmyZimms, you know things - any ideas?
Author:  jimmyzimms [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
Doomkitten wrote:
If only there was some clean-room version of E:A that was amenable to such changes and adaptions without some holy grail text preventing us from gaining any chance to change things positively. Hey, JimmyZimms, you know things - any ideas?

http://taccmd.tacticalwargames.net/view ... 76&t=25034
[cough cough]

I should add that Tom's Large Scale Gaming rules were to be republished under Creative Commons as well. I should follow up with him to accomplish this for the community.
Author:  jimmyzimms [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 2:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
kyussinchains wrote:
While I'm a fan of the idea, my point of view is that re-writing the rules is outside the remit of NetEA or EpicUK, and as Adam77 points out, we already have quite a granular spread of armour saves as-is

Right now we have dozens of armylists sat unapproved, with very little testing taking place, I think it's very easy to suggest grand ideas like this one, but we already can't get new lists tested, so the suggestion that this will be easy as pie to just slot right in retrospectively, to me, with my experience of trying to get folks to test anything seems quite naive....


Well NONE of the lists would be change without tests. This is 100% limited to the rule text and nomenclature of the RA ability. All existing units/lists would remain the same until an AC decided to trial and modify and test and then submit to the ERC. So it's kinda a bagatelle to claim this would affect anything. That being said, the ERC has been pretty clear they're not in the business of changing the rulebook so this is all academic.
Author:  kyussinchains [ Mon Jan 21, 2019 6:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
jimmyzimms wrote:
Well NONE of the lists would be change without tests. This is 100% limited to the rule text and nomenclature of the RA ability. All existing units/lists would remain the same until an AC decided to trial and modify and test and then submit to the ERC. So it's kinda a bagatelle to claim this would affect anything. That being said, the ERC has been pretty clear they're not in the business of changing the rulebook so this is all academic.


But that is my entire point, we already can't get enough people playing test games as it is, I don't want to split the playtestig even further, and the last thing I want to happen is for everyone to start tinkering with their fave existing approved list or pressuring ACs to change other lists 'just because'

Then you have the arguments about what the changes should actually be in the first instance.... we've already had two AC resignations this year over the lack of testing and progress, this surely is just going to add another point of splitting into the process

And yes, this is outside the purview of the ERC so really if folks want to do this in their own games.... Fair enough
Author:  Spectrar Ghost [ Tue Jan 22, 2019 12:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Reinforced Armour
This is my biggest concern as well. As good an idea as it may be, I don’t think we have a critical mass of play testers to actually implement it. Five years ago, maybe.
Page 2 of 4 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/