Statistical Conversion

[Myrddraal]

Folks, neither of you have actually directly disagreed with each other, yet your responses are getting increasingly 'tight lipped' with every post.

What is it with Warhammer fans? can't we just get on? Good will to all men and whatnot?

[MangyElf]

Dude, my posts have been called a lot of things but "tight-lipped" is a first. Have you seen the average length of those puppies? :p

[Jubee]

@MangyElf

I don't know is this important but you are working with old warhammer rulebook, so some stats are wrong etc, but the core rules are about same.

In example great weapon (A two handed weapon) rules have changed a bit, it isn't as good at horseback because it is a bit cumbersome. And it won't reduce your initiative, now it you just have to strike last, unless charging.

There are also a few more rule changes, but your "conversion table" is pretty good, just some details could be changed.

[MangyElf]

Yeah, cheers for the info. I think it must be 3rd edition I have access to but I have played the next two editions, or at least 2 more editions after my copy. Can't really say if they were consecutive but I do remember some rule changes even if I don't recall which cuz it's been a while. I figure it shouldn't be too hard to change any stats that need them when, as you say, the basics have always been about the same.

That said, in the case of that 2H weapon change I'm not really sure how we'd specifically convert attacking last except on a charge so it might even be easier to use older rules; they're still reasonably balanced and not that different but I'm thinking more from a 'get your head inside the reasoning behind a stat' pov so effectively the principle should be the same - 2H weapons being slower yet easier to wound with. From a mount the 2H weapon might get the same penalty as a mounted archer, though if it were up to me I'd multiply the penalty by 10, seeing as how easy it would be to fumble such an unsuitable mounted weapon, hehe the horse's head scare tactic charge, lop! Still, it is fantasy ;)

[Jubee]

Yea, I didn't mean that 2H weapon should be in mod exactly like in WH rules, that was just an example how rules change. I'll read your posts in this topic carefully so I'll "Get inside the system" like you say :)

Summa samarium, you are doing great job. By the way, are you "officially" in modding team?

[Jubee]

No Armour: 0 armour defence
Light Armour: 4 armour defense
Heavy armour: 8 armour defense
Shield: + 4 shield defence

How about some even better armour like Empire full plate armour or Dwarven Gromril armour? 10 Defence?

[Revan-Shan]

How about some even better armour like Empire full plate armour or Dwarven Gromril armour? 10 Defence?

If this was done the Hordes of Chaos' armies would be the strongest.

Remember:
Light armour +1
Shield +1
Heavy armour +2
Plate armour (empire and 'perhaps' vampire count heroes) +3

[MangyElf]

Yea, I didn't mean that 2H weapon should be in mod exactly like in WH rules, that was just an example how rules change. I'll read your posts in this topic carefully so I'll "Get inside the system" like you say :)

Well I'm pretty convinced the logic of using this method is sound in respect of a statistical conversion because, as I said earlier, the numbers don't match in order to convert more simply. It bothers me that this does introduce an element of guesswork but I can't work out a better way, even if I can't rule out a better way ;)

Summa samarium, you are doing great job. By the way, are you "officially" in modding team?

Ok, have to ask, what's "summa smarium" mean? I though at first you were addressing someone else but since I can't find a name that matches...

If that question is for me, nope and I'm not looking to be either, certainly not for such a small and currently insignificant (given no one said they'd actually use anything I said) contribution of a few posts and a bit of reasoned thinking, the latter of which (and more) plenty of others have also suplied on this and other threads here. Now I'm trying to imagine how any such misunderstanding arose and all I can think of is I used 'we' instead of 'I' but by that I was referring to us all, the community interested in this aspect of the project, so my apologies for being unclear if that's what caused it.

How about some even better armour like Empire full plate armour or Dwarven Gromril armour? 10 Defence?

If this was done the Hordes of Chaos' armies would be the strongest.

Remember:
Light armour +1
Shield +1
Heavy armour +2
Plate armour (empire and 'perhaps' vampire count heroes) +3

Strictly speaking, in a statistical conversion the only way one thing can be more powerful than another after the process is if it was already more powerful before it. The whole idea is to translate stats, not to reinvent them. Fair enough, anomolies might arise in translation but that's true of any unit/faction. Also you must consider that stats are not the only balancing factor, just like they are not the only factor in WH when point costs, unit strength and army composition are also involved. Similarly, those factors must be considered in translation too, perhaps seperately and on certain aspects especially, like unit availability.

My only concern as far as my own figures are concerned is that I based converted values around the idea of just two armour levels from WH. I even had cause to reduce those values slightly in order to make them, IMO, a 'better fit'. If a third level of WH armour were introduced it might be that it'd be better to scale the values. Without redoing the conversion for multiple units again I can't tell. That I can't do without info on the WH items but unfortunately, it's not in my copy of the game.

[Eufarius]

I most definetly agree with Myrddraal hahaha.
LOL.

[Silly Knicket]

Sorry for being rude, but using only two different armour levels is just silly, when you have around 7 in MTW2...
WHFB is a tabletop game, and rules have to be simplified so you don´t have to spend all the time looking through charts and doing calculations.
Using six-sided dice makes it necessary to simplify things even more.
I honestly don´t think literal translations of the warhammer stats to this mod is a good idea...
If MTW2 has a great and detailed system for several things (and does all the calculations for you), why not use it? Why not look at the actual WHFB models and see if they are using leather, light mail, brigandine, half plate or plate?
Light armour and heavy armour simplifications is a necessity in a fastpaced tabletop game, but not in a computergame.

Don't get me wrong, I really like both MTW2 and WHFB (not to mention WHFRP), but lets try to take the best things from both games, instead of crippling the MTW2 engine for the wrong reasons.

[MangyElf]

[QUOTE=Banjeeboy]Sorry for being rude, but using only two different armour levels is just silly, when you have around 7 in MTW2...[QUOTE]
There are more than 7 levels of armour in M2TW, from armour value = 0 to armour value = 10+ (whatever the cap is, if there even is one).

Dunno why you thought you might be rude, unless it's to Games Workshop because this is a conversion and no one can convert what isn't there. WH only has light and heavy armour so we can only convert light and heavy armour (3 types in later versions?). Elementary my dear Banjeeboy

However, other stats will convert to armour values too, so a wider range does get used in the end. Providing no major anomolies show themselves, ie the exact conversion values ultimately decided upon are gtg, then it doesn't matter whether a supposedly unarmoured model has an +armour value because everything is treated the same way.

WHFB is a tabletop game, and rules have to be simplified so you don´t have to spend all the time looking through charts and doing calculations.
Using six-sided dice makes it necessary to simplify things even more.

Couldn't agree more, said so already.

I honestly don´t think literal translations of the warhammer stats to this mod is a good idea...

As I also said, a literal translation is impossible IMO. The numbers don't match for a literal translation. It'd make it a whole lot easier if they did because we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.

If MTW2 has a great and detailed system for several things (and does all the calculations for you), why not use it?

How could it not be used? This will be M2TW after all. The question isn't what to use to play this mod, that's a given, the question is how will the WH units be balanced in it. They could just pull numbers out of a hat or they could ask for ideas on converting the WH stats that are already there. Moot question when, if you check the sticky thread above, Bwian chose to do the latter.

Why not look at the actual WHFB models and see if they are using leather, light mail, brigandine, half plate or plate?

A) because they are not defined as those types of armour, they are defined as none, light or heavy armour.

B) even if you could distinguish, good luck spotting such detail on 25mm scale models. Not impossible but...

c) WH is not balanced by looks, it is balanced by stats.

Light armour and heavy armour simplifications is a necessity in a fastpaced tabletop game, but not in a computergame.

Why would anyone include such a simplification? My suggestion, for example, will not have just 2 values for the M2TW armour stat. Read the whole thing and you'll see for yourself. Try it out by converting a couple of WH units for yourself and it will illustrate. If you spot any inconsistencies then by all means suggest a correction or just tell us about them. That is, after all, the request I've been trying to get across to everyone since my 1st post.

[Silly Knicket]

Alright, my mistake :)
It seems like I forgot the beginning of this thread...
What I was getting at, was to get all the "in-between" stats that a 1-6 scale doesn´t allow, something that already been covered on page 1.
So... just disregard my previous post.
(even though I think using the actual models as a reference is a good idea... if possible)

[MangyElf]

I seem to have appointed myself stats advocate of something :p I really son't mean to come across as that but the topic of converting stuff between games has interested me for a long time and I meant it when I said the only reason I bought M2TW was in anticipation of this mod so naturally that's a huge part of it too.

Anyways, I think the modders here could have done just as you suggest and convert everything by eye, based on how their models looked. They certainly don't have to justify anything to us except that the proof is in the pudding as they say. If the final product is good it won't matter how stats were arrived at. However, I can see a few reasons why they wouldn't want to:

Firstly, they might risk losing a feeling of WH if arbitrary numbers are chosen, though they aren't demonstrating stupidity in any way so such guesses would be 'educated'.

Secondly, all new units must have stats for M2TW. It is inescapable so the work will be done anyway, by typing out all those numbers per unit. Inserting best guesses is much more open to mistakes if done as they go along and if they were to list all the changes first then it's no more work to base that reference material on what's actually listed in the WH rulebooks. The idea of a conversion table is that when its done you only need refer to it, you don't have to look at every single unit individually so if anything it's much less work in the end.

Thirdly, you can't infer most of the TW/WH stats from the look of the model. It tells you what armour and weapon they are using and that's it. For example, in WH terms you cannot know how strong or tough a unit is from looking at a picture of it. In TW terms you still have to determine what a weapon or armour does too, so how much skill do you assign a unit with great axe? How much for one weilding a sword and shield? What terrain stats will a race/unit have? You could base these assessments wholly on vanilla TW units, it ought to be balanced but is it WH? Certainly there are no dwarves, orcs or skaven etc in vanilla TW so why risk it.

Last but by no means least, I think the mod team have shown particular attention to detail so far so why stop now? It'd be a shame if this, dare I say, 'lovingly' crafted bit of work were let down in any way when it's all too simple to fish for ideas. Of course I can't speak for any involved but it seems more than plausible to me that this would be a good reason to see if something can be worked out, to make this mod as WH-like as possible. Like I pointed out, IMO they don't need to justify how values were reached but how much better is it to have a conversion table to pick apart, muse over and hopefully be able to say, "see, it really is based on the original WH stats". If for no other reason, such a thing laid bare (even to just the modders themselves) means adjustments can be made more easily if needed too. If a reference fits together logically then it is far easier to bring someone up to speed (eg if anyone bows out and gets replaced or even just refreshing yourself on how you thought last year and without having to reinvent your midset when you pulled numbers out of a hat) and any tweaking can be done methodically, instead of arbitrarily, making such updates less time consuming.

[Jubee]

Ok, have to ask, what's "summa smarium" mean? I though at first you were addressing someone else but since I can't find a name that matches...

That spell check machine accidentally twisted it. It supposed to be "Summa Summarum" which is latin and means "In the end", "Eventually" and that kind of words. My bad.

[Silly Knicket]

I think the stats/conversion stuff on the first page is really good, the "model reference" was only about armour. There is no reason at all not to use the huge amount of rules and army books of WHFB when it comes to putting stats to the units... its only "heavy and light armour" that is a bit too simplified for my taste.
Toughness and wounds have to be converted anyway, we don´t want trolls and ogres going down faster than snotlings in heavy armour :)

[MangyElf]

I think the stats/conversion stuff on the first page is really good, the "model reference" was only about armour.

Jargon's original hard work is certainly a great start but I wouldn't have furthered the discussion if I didn't believe I could see a couple of holes in it. That's not a critisism when it's the whole point of such a discussion and I would hope others point out any holes they see in my own suggestion.

That in mind, a little compare and contrast would be cool, if you have the time, to elaborate on exactly what you like about the original and don't like (by implication) about my ideas. If there are holes then show them up please because, and I mean no offense, simply expressing a preference doesn't really take the discussion anywhere.

its only "heavy and light armour" that is a bit too simplified for my taste

I'll run with that comment then, see if I can explain this better and in the hope that given your interest/preference, you can spot any flaws...

A fuller range of armour values than just "two types" does become apparent after the suggested conversion. That's mainly because toughness also needs to be accounted for, not necessarily with the numbers I suggest (they're suggestions ;) ) but the best conversion of toughness is, IMO, to assign it an armour value. WH toughness acts, as far as I can tell, most like TW's armour. If you disagree then what would you suggest and why? This means armour would not soley represent the bits of leather, cloth or metal worn by the unit but also it's inherent resilience too. Then there are the other two pri_armour stats to consider, defence and shield, which will add to overall defence variety as well.

I suggested values of 3 for light and 6 for heavy because I didn't want to inflate defence values too much, not when shields and defence, not forgetting toughness, also need to be considered. As Bwian stated, as long as values are consistently scaled relative to each other then the actual numbers don't matter so much for the theory side of things. Attack skills seemed to convert adequately in proportion too but if not I reckon there is some leeway in vanilla TW stats for making armour compartively stronger vs attack skill, in order to prolong a fight to some degree. Other mods use 'ratios' favouring armour over attack so there is some precedent on the tried and tested front to draw from and I have seen the preference for longer vs shorter fights expressed around here somewhere too.

I suggested +/-3 armour per point of toughness above/below T3 because the WH scale bears out that it's statistically as good as an armour save point (everything is d6). It was as good a starting point as any but yes, there will be some linearity and lack of variety by doing this, though not as much as you seem to think with armour values of 0, 3, 6 and 9 (plus values of 2, 5, 8 and 11 if mounted on a barded horse). That covers most numbers I've seen vanilla TW use for armour but yes, you will lose some potential variety with this method. And yes, it only varies units that have different armour and toughness but that's the point - if it doesn't have the attributes before conversion then to vary them after conversion means you aren't actually converting, you're making it up.

In any event, does the variety in 1/3 of the defensive stats really matter in isolation? The numbers are just numbers when all is said and done, assigned a prosaic description (leather, plate, chain etc) that the engine doesn't care about at all. You could call armour 9 "fred" or "light leather" and it wouldn't matter, just like you can call it "heavy amour + T4". Also consider the worth of 1 point of armour in TW and how in practice you never see every value of armour (from 0 to whatever) in your faction, probably not even across vanilla factions. The fact is that while there are several possible varieties, actual variety is less.

[Silly Knicket]

Alright, read over things a bit more careful this time :) (but this might still have been mentioned
Even though the basis of the conversion should be stat numbers, and some good formulas, we need to look at how those stats really work out in the tabletop game.
As it works out in the tabletop, having better toughness is far superior to wearing light armour, as an example.
Further on, a unit with toughness 5, wearing no armour at all, has a 50% better survivability rate (versus "standard" S3 units) compared to a T3 unit, wearing heavy armour and a shield.
Mounted charges, twohanded weapons, and elite units makes a big difference here, but I think this already has been covered. (and it already has support in the MTW2 engine)

An example:
36 hits by a S3 unit:

T3, no armour
-18 saved by toughness.
0 saved by armour
=18 kills

T3, light armour
-18 saved by toughness
-3 saved by armour
=15 kills

T3, heavy armour
-18 saved by toughness
-6 saved by armour
=12 kills

T3, heavy armour+shield
-18 saved by toughness
-9 saved by armour
=9 kills

T4, no armour
-24 saved by toughness
0 saved by armour
=12 kills

T4, light armour
-24 saved by toughness
-2 saved by armour
=10 kills

T4, heavy armour
-24 saved by toughness
-4 saved by armour
=8 kills

T4, heavy armour+shield
-24 saved by toughness
-6 saved by armour
=6 kills

T5, no armour
-30 saved by toughness
0 saved by armour
=6 kills

T5, light armour
-30 saved by toughness
-1 saved by armour
=5 kills

T5, heavy armour
-30 saved by toughness
-2 saved by armour
=4 kills

T5, heavy armour+shield
-30 saved by toughness
-3 saved by armour
=3 kills

What we can see here is that T4 is comparable to wearing heavy armour, and that T5 increases the survivability rate even further from that.

There are of course attacks that are both higher strength, and armour piercing... but the S3 attack is the "normal" attack, if there is such a one.
(humans, orcs, dwarves, skaven, elves etc regular units, using regular weapons or bows).

I didn't see this comparison being made earlier in the thread, pardon me if it already has been covered.

[MangyElf]

Good work and something we can definately move the discussion along with. Unfortunately there's a major flaw with this approach, which I'll get to after I correct your figures to what the tables in my WH reference show me they should be, just to make sure we're on the same page first.

Same unit, S3 and 36 strong but also accounting for WS3 on attacker and defender, then BS3, for completeness sake:

T3
Melee (M) WS vs WS (5 needed or 1 in 3) = 12 hits
S vs T (4 needed or 1 in 2) = 6 hits

Ranged (R) (4 needed or 1 in 2) = 18 hits
S vs T (4 needed or 1 in 2) = 9 hits

No Armour
Save = 0
M = 6 wounds
R = 9 wounds

Light Armour
Save (6 needed or 1 in 6) = M1 & R1 1/2
M = 5 wounds
R = 7 1/2 wounds

Heavy Armour
Save (5 needed or 1 in 3) = M2 & R3
M = 4 wounds
R = 6 wounds

Heavy Armour + Shield
Save (4 needed or 1 in 2) = M3 & R4 1/2
M = 3 wounds
R = 4 1/2 wounds
--------------------------------------------
T4
Melee (M) WS vs WS (5 needed or 1 in 3) = 12 hits
S vs T (5 needed or 1 in 3) = 4 hits

Ranged (R) (4 needed or 1 in 2) = 18 hits
S vs T (5 needed or 1 in 3) = 6 hits

No Armour
Save = 0
M = 4 wounds
R = 6 wounds

Light Armour
Save (6 needed or 1 in 6) = M2/3 & R1
M = 3 1/3 wounds
R = 5 wounds

Heavy Armour
Save (5 needed or 1 in 3) = M1 1/3 & R2
M = 2 2/3 wounds
R = 4 wounds

Heavy Armour + Shield
Save (4 needed or 1 in 2) = M2 & R3
M = 2 wounds
R = 3 wounds
--------------------------------------------
T5
Melee (M) WS vs WS (5 needed or 1 in 3) = 12 hits
S vs T (6 needed or 1 in 6) = 2 hits

Ranged (R) (4 needed or 1 in 2) = 18 hits
S vs T (6 needed or 1 in 6) = 3 hits

No Armour
Save = 0
M = 2 wounds
R = 3 wounds

Light Armour
Save (6 needed or 1 in 6) = M1/3 & R1/2
M = 1 2/3 wounds
R = 2 1/2 wounds

Heavy Armour
Save (5 needed or 1 in 3) = M2/3 & R1
M = 1 1/3 wounds
R = 2 wounds

Heavy Armour + Shield
Save (4 needed or 1 in 2) = M1 & R1 1/2
M = 1 wounds
R = 1 1/2 wounds
--------------------------------------------
Now on to the most important bit, which works the same whether we use your calculations or mine, the mathematical flaw in this approach...

WH orders the combat sequence as to hit roll first, then to wound and finally armour saves. Therefore, change any variable (S, T, WS, BS, #of combatants) and it will seem at first glance that the value of armour is changing. It isn't, it is always worth exactly the same - 1 in 6 wounds saved per 'level' of armour. Similarly, the worth of T4 compared to T3 and T5 compared to T4 is also 1 in 6 wounds saved. The results of armour saves are simply being scaled to fit the number of wounds that get past earlier stages in the process, in this case an increase in toughness. More toughness = less wounds armour needs to save against but it still removes exactly 1/6th of the wounds per 'level', on average, regardless of how many it needs to save against. Similarly, if we alter the number of combatants or the values for WS or BS, the worth of T will also appear to change but it is always constant, the number of hits it needs to defend against is what changes.

T4 compared to T3 is the equivalent of light armour. T5 compared to T3 is the equivalent of heavy armour. My suggested values reflect this with 3 for light, 6 for heavy and +3 per point of toughness above 3.

Definately good work though. Thinking about this at all is as important as getting it right and it's undecided if any of us is even in the ball park yet so I hope my disagreement and pointing out the mistake doesn't discourage you from looking into this further.

[Silly Knicket]

Alright, 1T gives a 1/6 better chance of surviving, so does 1 point of armour... which should make them equal in value, statistically speaking.
But... it doesn´t really work out that way in-game.

Lets assume 1T=1 point, and 1 armour save= 1 point

Target #1 T:1, save 2+ (6 points)

Target #2 T:2, save 3+ (6 points)

Target #3 T:3, save 4+ (6 points)

Target #4 T:4, save 5+ (6 points)

Target #5 T:5, save 6+ (6 points)

Target #6 T:6, no save (6 points)

72 Generic soldiers with S3 and a handweapon attack each one of those above:
36 attacks hit. (WS3 against WS3)

#1) (T1, save 2+)suffers 5 wounds(30 wounds, 25 armour saves)2+ to wound, save 2+
#2) (T2, save 3+)suffers 8 wounds (24 wounds, 16 armour saves)3+ to wound, save 3+
#3) (T3, save 4+)suffers 9 wounds (18 wounds, 9 armour saves)4+ to wound, save 4+
#4) (T4, save 5+)suffers 8 wounds (12 wounds, 4 armour saves)5+ to wound, save 5+

#5) (T5, save 6+)suffers 5 wounds (6 wounds, 1 armour save)6 to wound, save on 6

#6) (T6, no save)suffers 6 wounds (6 wounds, 0 saves)6 to wound, no save

72 Generic soldiers with S4 and a handweapon attack each one of them:
(-1 save because of S4)
36 attacks hit. (WS3 against WS3)

#1) (T1, save 2+)suffers 10 wounds (30 wounds, 20 armour saves)2+ to wound, 3+ save
#2) (T2, save 3+)suffers 15 wounds (30 wounds, 15 armour saves)2+ to wound, 4+ save
#3) (T3, save 4+)suffers 16 wounds (24 wounds, 8 armour saves)3+ to wound, 5+ save
#4) (T4, save 5+)suffers 15 wounds (18 wounds, 3 armour saves)4+ to wound, save on 6
#5) (T5, save 6+)suffers 12 wounds (12 wounds, no armour saves)5+ to wound, no save
#6) (T6, no save)suffers 6 wounds (6 wounds, no armour saves)6 to wound, no save

72 Generic soldiers with twohanded weapons (+2S, correct me if I'm wrong) attack each one of them: (-2 save because of 5S)
36 attacks hit. (WS3 against WS3)

#1) (T1, save 2+)suffers 15 wounds (30 wounds, 15 armour saves)2+ to wound, 4+ save
#2) (T2, save 3+)suffers 20 wounds (30 wounds, 10 armour saves)2+ to wound, 5+ save
#3) (T3, save 4+)suffers 25 wounds (30 wounds, 5 armour saves)2+ to wound, save on 6
#4) (T4, save 5+)suffers 24 wounds (24 wounds, no armour saves)3+ to wound, no save
#5) (T5, save 6+)suffers 18 wounds (18 wounds, no armour saves)4+ to wound, no save
#6) (T6, no save)suffers 12 wounds (12 wounds, no armour saves)5+ to wound, no save

Attacks usually don´t get much higher than S5. (except for elite cavalry charges, elite troops with twohanded weapons, artillery, heroes and such)
So... even though 1 point in armour, and 1 point in toughness should be comparable... it still doesn´t seem that way to me.
Armour reduction because of high strength is one reason.
The bias towards toughness is quite obvious, I think, although much less than I stated before.
It is also better to focus on one of the stats (armour or toughness) rather than having decent stats in both.
If I had the choice when choosing troops, I would definitely go for toughness.
Another things to take into consideration is that their tables are based on playability as much as mathematics. 3S vs 7T should be a 6, followed by a 3-6 if it was logical... but a 6 is enough, because of playability reasons.
WHFB is a great game, with a quick, easy and balanced system, but it certainly has it flaws.
Perhaps using 1T for 1 armour save is a good way to go in WH:TW, and perhaps it was GW's intention when making the rules, even though it doesn´t really work out like that in the tabletop.

Don´t know what to make out of this.


On a sidenote:
IIRC, you only need a 4 to hit in melee in the 7th edition WHFB though (not a big deal), and shields do not protect against ranged attacks, a rule I certainly hope we do not implement in this mod.

(Edit: clarifications in italics, corrections in bold)

[MangyElf]

I'm not sure I follow all your figures but the worth of one point in toughness or armour (at least in the range of Toughness = 3 to 5) is the same, 1 in 6. It is on a scale of 1 to 6 so the only way to change their worth is to alter this scale. The sides on the dice do not change so the value per point on the dice is a constant.

Or look at it this way, changing toughness is no different to changing any variable in an equation, ie the result will differ. There is a starting point followed by three seperate equations in WH's combat system, meaning the results of the preceding calculation always affect the results of the next, so: change the number of combatants and you change the number of hits that need to be calculated; change the amount of WS or BS and the number of wounds calculated will change; change the toughness or strength and the number of armour saves needed will change. The fact that increasing T3 to T4 provides 1 in 6 less wounds stays the same, while changing armour from light to heavy always has the exact same effect, reducing wounds by 1 in 6.

All that changes is 1/6th of *what* so if 12 potential wounds are caused then 2 will be saved against yet when 24 wounds are inflicted, 4 will be saved against. Similarly, if 12 hits take place then improving T3 to T4 means 2 less wounds will occur while if 24 hits take place then 4 less wounds are inflicted. In both cases the value of 1/6th is a constant, what changes is the variable result of the preceding equation.

As for changing the value of the armour save by using a weapon that gives a -ve modifier to target armour saves then obviously armour saves will be lessened or negated entirely. This is the WH equivalent of AP and is a whole other issue, one that never affects the relative worth of armour, merely the relative worth of the weapon that gives this modifier. We again need to look at the reasoning behind the way in which WH calculates AP in order to translate it to TW, for the simple reason that the mechanism of the same name in TW, AP, is already taken up with something entirely different - afaik there are no means to reduce armour as they do in WH, when in TW it's either halved (attacker has AP attribute) or it stays the same (attack doesn't have AP attribute).

A -ve modifier to WH armour is a different mechanism to reducing T or increasing S because it can ignore certain armour and reduce the effectiveness of the rest. It is a means to an end so if we could invent a weapon attribute that reduced armour by x instead of dividing it by 2 then we could translate it directly to TW. Without that we need another means to achieve similar/acceptable results. What we can't do is assign armour and toughness different values (when clearly they don't have different values) just because in WH such weapons exist - it throws off the conversion for every other type of weapon, which is most of them. It is the weapon modifier that changes, not the armour value. Therefore such an AP effect needs to be converted in another way, ignored completely or rendered directly, using the TW mechanism which already exists and ignoring how it works in WH. My preference is to compromise and just improve attack skill because it is specific to the attacker, not the defender, just like the -ve armour save modifier in WH.

[Silly Knicket]

Even though the logic behind 1T=1 armour seems fine, I can´t seem to get exactly that result from trying it out statistically...
The WHFB combat system isn´t 100% logical. Its very much based on a stat value of 3 when it comes to S and T as an example. Always failing rolls on a 1 messes things up further.
If you look at my post above, the figures aren´t completely logical, but they are the actual results you would see on the tabletop.
I would like to see a mathematical formula that takes into account WHFB playability, speed and ease of play. (and don´t forget appeal for 12-year olds)
Another logical discrepancy:
Armour works out when someone with a S value around 3 knocks someone on the head, but if two people with S and T values around 7-8 were slugging it out, armour would be nullified. (because of the -4 save modifier because of 7S)
I'll add some clarification to the figures in the post above, I think T has bigger impact than armour because of being earlier than armour in "the formula". (sorry for being such a mathematical amateur :P, don´t really know the english words for this either)

However, I think that valuing T and armour equally in the mod is a good thing
to do, it will work out, and it will certainly be much less of a hassle than trying to implement the exact (illogical) formulas from the tabletop game.

[MangyElf]

In my version of the rules, large and powerful creatures get an AP modifier seperate from S but yeah, still loosely based on it. Whatever newer rules state I think high S is anomolous enough to either ignore or simply give any that exist in the mod TW's AP attribute and/or adjustments to attack skill. Similarly, high toughness, when/if it occurs in the mod, could make do with higher armour I think. For example, I don't think it is possible to make high toughness units wholly immune to low strength attacks in TW so we might not be able to convert that far anyway. Although, having said that, I did get some complete misses on the ranged attack volleys I tested so maybe if attack skill is sufficiently low vs defence it can be simulated to some extent. The problem there is that it might require using defence that the TW engine can't have or attacks skills so low on most units as to provide less than desirable variety. Worth looking into maybe but only if they intend to use such units.

If it does work out anomolous when converying extremes then there's definately a case for looking at such things seperately, if used, because they will presumably be few and far between. With other checks in place, like high costs, limited production and smaller unit size, there should be some scope for suping them up sufficiently that they act more appropriately. It's less convenient for all the reasons I gave earlier but if there won't be that many then it should be doable. If we can sort the bulk of the conversion adequately, and in theory we can do that, as discussed, then it would certainly beat throwing the baby out with the bath water just because it won't duplicate the more extreme end of the WH stats. Luckily it won't be my decision but getting the bulk to work should be the priority and who knows, we may be worrying over nothing and it'll work out sufficiently well for extremes too.

(cool, I now get an edit button attached to my posts, must be a post count thing)