Armor/Production item conversions

I had a question about production item conversions, most specifically for Armor tags. With the addition of higher value armor sets, and the change in cost balancing, is there any consideration in allowing armor tags to be traded up to maintain their value? If I had a 30pt suit of armor in 1.3, could I trade it up to a 40pt suit since that is the same value as the original item?

Example: in 1.3, a 30pt suit of armor had a production value of 100. In 2.0, that same 30pt suit of armor now has a value of 60.
 

Polare

Count
Alliance Rules
Moderator
Seattle Staff
Across a player's production items, the value of some items will go up (e.g. Laugh gasses turning into Enfeeble gasses) while the value of other items will go down (Armor suits, Wizard Lock scrolls).

Trying to update every item to equal its new value is asking for a lot more work when we already have a lot to get through.

-Bryan
 

Feldor

Scholar
Marshal
Would it be possible to just have an armor tag issued based off the new armor evaluation, like we do for new players? Everyone's armor is going to have to be evaluated any way. So not converting all armor tags, but just the armor tag the player is wearing for their first game in 2.0?

For context, I have 2 characters. Assuming armor eval goes as expected, one is going from 22pt -> 40pt; the other from 30pt -> 47 pt.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
You only receive a new tag for a evaluated set when you start a new character. Thats a lot of free armor given out ;)
 
Last edited:

Feldor

Scholar
Marshal
You only receive a new tag for a evaluated set when you start a new character. Thats a lot of free armor given out ;)
You could require them to turn in the old tag.
 

Bruvah M.

Newbie
You could require them to turn in the old tag.
I figured this is exactly how it would go. Turn in the old tag, then get a new 2.0 equivalent. Do this for all tags and then the character is set for 2.0.

If anything, not getting a new armor tag is weird. Since many items will be being updated to a 2.0 equivalent, I don’t see a reason for armor to be ignored when an easy solution is available. I understand a Love #9 potion won’t translate well, but surely something as simple as armor tags can be translated easily.

Additionally, it’s strange that a character’s armor is suddenly less protective for how much area it’s protecting. ( Yes, I know in the current version of the item conversion rules, the armor value remains the same.) A full steel suit of armor goes from 40 points to 62 points. But as per the conversion it would remain 40 points, despite the armor tag indicating a fully functioning set of steel plate.

Let’s say someone has a set of steel plate worth 40 points of armor in 1.3 and it has a bunch of rituals on it that will easily transfer over. They then build their character to wear their awesome armor in 2.0. If they want the rituals then they will need to stick to the 40 point value of the original suit. To benefit from the 62 armor points their suit actually qualifies for, they will need to get rid of the old suit and all the rituals that were on it.

Surely I’m missing something because this example seems absurd.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
Hey guys, I know there’s a lot of invested feelings in this, and I’ve been trying to figure out in my head if it would make sense to allow folks to trade in armor tags for new tags.

But there’s a lot of reason not to.

On the surface, it makes sense. Armor ratings are changing, so the old tags don’t represent the rep correctly, right? So exchanging makes perfect sense.

But the implication is much, much larger. Lots of things are changing. More importantly, people are going to have skills they didn’t have before, because of 2.0.

Consider that the person who’s giving up Read Magic for Create Traps. Is he going to be allowed to exchange his still-legal scrolls for trap globes? No. The Dryad who’s getting One Handed Edge isn’t going to be allowed to exchange his Blunt tag for a Longsword.

But they’d be equally justified, and the amount of work that Logistics would likely be added to their plate would be pretty crazy.

But here’s my suggestion: if you feel like this is something that is highly impactful in your local chapters, please reach out to your owners. Technically, they can make this happen if they’re willing to pay the difference between the original tag and the new tag in Treasure Policy. That might not be the solution you were hoping for, but it is a completely viable option.
 

Feldor

Scholar
Marshal
I understand what you are saying. But I think there are some aspects worth considering.
1) This is a treasure policy decrease. The 40pt suit of armor cost 140 production points. In 2.0 its only worth 100 production.
a) We are trading ritual scrolls point for point; it seems like we should at least do the same for armor.
2) There isn't infinite blacksmith resources to make the new armor. My low level character is an archer. We have 1 big blacksmith in my chapter. (My chapter runs 2 campaigns, I play a heavy armor wearer in one and an archer in the other.) I basically live event to event on the arrows I can buy. While the smith has some supply of arrows, if he has to spend the next 9 months making armor for everyone in the chapter, it will be awkward that I both can't get the suit of armor I want to wear on my main (that I've spent 2-3 levels of build in wear extra armor on) and that I can't get the arrows that lets me participate on the low level archer.
3) Unlike most other production, you can't prepare for the 2.0 change by making armor in advance. I know alchemists who have already started stocking up, so they can produce the stuff that is 2.0 only and have the staples they need. You can't make big suits of armor in advance, because they just don't exist.

Also, armor isn't like consumables. You generally have 1 suit. Especially for lower level folk, you basically live or die by your armor.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
I understand what you are saying. But I think there are some aspects worth considering.
1) This is a treasure policy decrease. The 40pt suit of armor cost 140 production points. In 2.0 its only worth 100 production.
a) We are trading ritual scrolls point for point; it seems like we should at least do the same for armor.
2) There isn't infinite blacksmith resources to make the new armor. My low level character is an archer. We have 1 big blacksmith in my chapter. (My chapter runs 2 campaigns, I play a heavy armor wearer in one and an archer in the other.) I basically live event to event on the arrows I can buy. While the smith has some supply of arrows, if he has to spend the next 9 months making armor for everyone in the chapter, it will be awkward that I both can't get the suit of armor I want to wear on my main (that I've spent 2-3 levels of build in wear extra armor on) and that I can't get the arrows that lets me participate on the low level archer.
3) Unlike most other production, you can't prepare for the 2.0 change by making armor in advance. I know alchemists who have already started stocking up, so they can produce the stuff that is 2.0 only and have the staples they need. You can't make big suits of armor in advance, because they just don't exist.

Also, armor isn't like consumables. You generally have 1 suit. Especially for lower level folk, you basically live or die by your armor.
Re:

1/1a) This is a valid point. However, I wouldn’t expect a change this close to release. I definitely wouldn’t want to strain our local Logistics team any further than they already have. I know that means that someone may take a hit, but that’s a hit that can be resolved over the course of play. Maybe it’s not fair, but it’s a bump that does have a solution.

2) That’s a local issue, not a National one. I don’t mean that to be dismissive, but it sounds like your primary concern is due to the amount of blacksmiths in your local area. Additionally, if you’re relying on a suit of armor that your chapter can’t feasibly produce IG...you might run into an issue regarding Shattered/Stolen armor anyways (barring rituals that prevent this from being a problem).

Also, might I point out you’re playing two characters that are apparently both heavily relying on the same Blacksmith? I mean, that should cause issues, to be perfectly honest.

3) That’s also a local issue and not a National one. Chapters have the right to run pre-release 2.0 games, which would mean you could have Blacksmiths rolling out 62 pt suits right now. If there is a significant concern that your chapter won’t be prepared for 2.0 when it inevitably goes live, I would definitely encourage you to talk to your owner about solutions for that.

So yeah. I’m not trying to say that you don’t have valid issues. You do. But these are concerns that can be totally solved at the local level, and I think you’ll have more success there than you will trying to propose a modification to the national rollout. Just my .02.
 

Feldor

Scholar
Marshal
re 1)
I think you are dramatically over estimating the effort to let a chapters worth of people exchange armor tags. Its literally printing a few pages and cutting them out. All the armor marshalling needs to happen any way. And they will have to generate these tags regardless. We are already having to do conversions for pretty much every other type of tag that is changing, so supporting doing so for armor is minimal extra effort.

re 2)
I mean, its one player at each event relying on the blacksmith. The fact its two characters doesn't really change the load. (I actually think the arrow problem is a problem with the current rules set that is failing to get fixed in 2.0; there is a long thread about that already that isn't worth rehashing here.)

re 3)
Just because they can, doesn't mean they are. Penalizing the players for a chapter decision seems awkward and problematic.

4)
Also, the 0.11 playtests came with the option of 500 points of production purchasable for coin as part of the transition to 2.0. Continuing this for the chapters converting later could be a way to address this issue.
 

Draven

Count
Seattle Staff
Marshal
I think we ultimately are going to just differ on the need for a national solution. I don’t think we’ll come to an agreement, but I hope you at least consider trying to discuss a local one with your owner so that if a national solution isn’t presented, you can at least possibly get a local one.

That’s all I’m really trying to recommend.
 
Top