More Official Info On Heros And Limits Requested...

[Kaufschtick]

In another poll I did, an overwelming number of respondants voted that they played this game with limits on Heros. In yet another thread (sorry,I can't remember which one I saw it in), a Mod or a WotC representative made comments to the effect of the limit question had been left open to better allow players to restrict these units themselves. I don't do tournaments, but if not limiting Heros is bad for tournament play, then I'm of the mind that it's not good for any other play either.

Considering the limits put on these pieces in the two official scenarios offered on these very boards, I am curious as to what the general opinion is regarding whether or not people would like to hear more "official" dialog regarding limits on Heros to better clarify the subject. I know I would.

A couple of notes:

This is not a flame and bait thread, nor an attempt at revolution against WotC and the official rules, opinions welcomed. :)

This thread is meant as an attempt to gather a little more "official" information/insight on a topic that appears to be somewhat controversial at present.

[Qmark]

There is no "official" hero limit yet. There probably will be one soon, or more likely right as Set 5 ships.

[Kaufschtick]

I guess a little clarification should be made on the poll choices. On the Undecided choices, the first one would be for people who feel the rules should be very clearly one way or the other, no if-ands-or-butts. The second Undecided choice would be for those who like to decide for themselves regardless of how others are playing the game, as we have it now.

Maybe I should have just left it to the first two options! :D Ah heck, it's just a game thread after all, not a poll on the economy or anything super important! :D

[Sean]

I never cared for heroes, but I have been reluctant to limit them in my house. At this point we don't use any house rules. Even though I don't like them, I'm not sure it would be good for the game to limit them.

As frustrating as they are I don't want to give in. I rarely play them and my roomates play them a lot. I would rather deal with them than limit them. The problem is I deal with Vet Tigers better than I deal with heroes :confused:

As soon as I perfect my anti-hero strategy WotC will officially change the ruling :( . It's best to play what works for your situation.
I should probably mention that heroes ended a six month win streak I had going against my roomates. These days our games are a lot less lopsided :rolleyes:

[Kommandant]

i choose option #2
even though in my group we limit it to one per army
i would like to see it made official

[Qmark]

The rules Seriously need to be clarified for everything. Trying to cobble together a rules argument out of two rulesbooks, two FAQ's, and two errata sheets is frustrating - especially since the FAQ's have not been updated to fix the stuff contradicted by later errata (seriously - the Set 3 errata specifically says Calvary can't board a transport, yet the Set 2 FAQ still specifically says they can).

A rules lawyer's worst nightmare is ambiguous rules. We need a clear, concise, and absolute Comprehensive Rules Document very much like the one Wizards does for Magic. It's almost as if they just don't care.

[Kaufschtick]

I'm just not a real big fan on the "figure it out for yourselves" theory I saw mentioned in another thread. I've not been able to play often enough lately to have made my mind up on this one way or the other yet.

I just think the game should be very clear on limits or no limits, that's one of the reasons I'm paying for this product. The limits in the scenarios I've seen on here tend to make me a little unsure as to what the official company position really is. That and the poll I did asking what limit people were using, if any. It was heavy in favor of one per 100 points or per army. If that's the way people feel, and official scenarios are calling for limits, then what's the deal?

I'm not claiming it's broke one way or the other, I just see things as not being very clear and consistant. I really do not like the "figure it out for yourself" reasoning I read in another thread. That leads to everyone playing a different version of the game, a sign of a not very good game, IMHO.

[cannonfodder]

I like it just the way it is. We always have said that we would limit heros to 1 per 100 points but we've also all played (after agreeing with each other that it's okay) 4 or 5 in a 250 point army.
What we've found is that heros really play as elite infantry with unique SAs. Since the focus is now on elite infantry, at the expense of 4/4 defense infantry, I'm becoming more convinced that no limits at all on heros, other than you must have units to spawn them from, are necessary.
Familiarity, in this case, didn't breed contempt, it bred comfort. I've changed my mind. I don't think there should be limits, but I also think that it should be up to each of us to decide whether we want limits or not.

[Qmark]

That leads to everyone playing a different version of the game, a sign of a not very good game, IMHO.Seconded. A million different groups playing with ten million different house rules is just going to cause disaster when any two of those groups begin to overlap in any way.
Somebody could lose an an easy tourney win because of scrubbish mental blocks instilled by cheesey house-rules. Someone could pitch a holy tirade of a "that's now my group plays!" fit because an opponent who's playing-by-the-book (or even worse, by some other group's obscure houserules) does something seemingly insiginifcant.

One game. One ruleset. Period.

If WotC/AH/Hasbro wants to officially clamp down a hero limit, that's fine. Until then, don't expect me to listen to you whine when I deploy nothing but an Arisaka and a SNLF Cappy while holding 13 heroes.

[PatrickWR]

In another poll I did, an overwelming number of respondants voted that they played this game with limits on Heros. In yet another thread (sorry,I can't remember which one I saw it in), a Mod or a WotC representative made comments to the effect of the limit question had been left open to better allow players to restrict these units themselves. I don't do tournaments, but if not limiting Heros is bad for tournament play, then I'm of the mind that it's not good for any other play either.


The thing is, this will only warrant a rule revision if it adversely impacts tournament play. DCI sanctioned events are what keep this game palatable to the rabid "killer kombo" kids. Their willingness to participate in sealed GenCon events (for example) or booster drafts keeps the game moving off the shelf after each expansion hits. So if heroes ruin that style of play, they'll be errata-ed. Otherwise, I doubt it.

[cannonfodder]

I'm reminded that I've seen this somewhere before. People have wanted all sorts of things errata'd since this game came out. Most of those errata were never offiically produced, and yet the game, IMO, is still very playable.
When I see something like Sherman swarms, SSPG hordes, or now Wall to Wall heros my first hought is "that's got to go" but then I think "How do I beat that?" I've figured out ways to fight effectively against all of them now. Shermans die hard on the end of a Vet Tiger, PAK 40s are also great Sherman killers. SSPG problem? mortars are the answer, or at least one of them. Heros by the handful? Send a wall of your own heros to stop them.
Other than "flamethrowers can't shoot down airplanes" I prefer that units not get errata'd.
One other point, these pieces were playtested and someone found out how to beat them or they would have fixed the stats. Now it's up to us to find ways to do what the folks at WoTC playtesting already have figured out. If that means it takes 3 to 5 heros per 100 point army to be competitive in tourney play then so be it. You are still free to house rule limits if you choose to do so in your own private games.

[shermanM4A1]

I think heroes should seriously be limited. My friends and I have played with heroes a few times and each time, it seem that we would be able to kill everything but the heroes. The 5/5 defense makes the heroes even stronger than a tank. IMHO, it was easier to destroy a Sherman tank than a Resourceful Hero.

[RBloom0566]

What we want is irrelevant.
What we have is what we get.
Expectations beyond are pipe-dreams.

Sorry for the pessimistic viewpoint.

[Hiro]

The only country I think does not need a hero limit is Japan, becasue the Honor bound hero is the best anti-tank infantry they have. But I think maybe 2 per 100 points would be resonable enough.

[Allxmen]

Maybe 2-3 heroes on one 100 pt army

[warspite]

In the end, it still comes down to dice. Good rolls = win, bad rolls = lose. Two inf. w/ 13 heroes, begs for a plane to kill the infantry, and then no spawn for the heroes (still can't overstack them). So, if you're worried about hero-spawn, take a plane, or something with blast/bombardment. Hell, I'll even sacrifice a Flamingo to kill a hero! Maybe the Japanese will rule the world, having a bunch of Hand to Hand 12 sally forth with Banzai charges, and mortars to soften up the heroes. Or, a wall of BAR/Bren's to paralyze the heroes, while arty/MG/flamethrowers sweep through.

There are always debates about which force is "best". SS-PG's don't seem quite as scary now. What do want to bet the next set has a hero-killing unit, so that you have to go out and buy lots of that set, to deal with the last "broken" unit?

There's a mouse in your room, you say? For $25, I'll rent you a cat to get rid of him.
The cat's scratching up your clothes, now? For $50, I'll rent you a dog to chase him away.
The dog's sleeping on the bed? For $100, I'll send up a lion to get rid of the dog.
The lion's threatening you? For $250, I'll send up an elephant to stomp on the lion.
Can't get into your room because the elephant's filling the space. For $500, I'll get rid of the elephant for you! (Sends mouse up to scare away elephant.)

Anyone who doesn't see this coming is causing marketting twits worldwide to salivate. :)

[118th_MPCo_abn]

You have spoken well ... heir to Socrates

[warspite]

You have spoken well ... heir to Socrates

:) *bows appreciatively*

[polish_horsy]

Better than 10:1 want a limit on heroes compared to those who want no limit. That is some astounding consensus.

Here is why I doubt it'll ever happen... the units are uncommon. They want you to buy a lot of stuff. What would you ever do with 4 Grizzled Vets if you couldn't team them with 3 honor bound heros and an Imperial Seargent?

[ArmyVet]

IMO, one hero per 100 pts would do just fine. I don't worry about the Hero's because my Croc will cook them! ;)

[Domhnall101]

I'm reminded that I've seen this somewhere before. People have wanted all sorts of things errata'd since this game came out. Most of those errata were never offiically produced, and yet the game, IMO, is still very playable.
When I see something like Sherman swarms, SSPG hordes, or now Wall to Wall heros my first hought is "that's got to go" but then I think "How do I beat that?" I've figured out ways to fight effectively against all of them now. Shermans die hard on the end of a Vet Tiger, PAK 40s are also great Sherman killers. SSPG problem? mortars are the answer, or at least one of them. Heros by the handful? Send a wall of your own heros to stop them.
Other than "flamethrowers can't shoot down airplanes" I prefer that units not get errata'd.
One other point, these pieces were playtested and someone found out how to beat them or they would have fixed the stats. Now it's up to us to find ways to do what the folks at WoTC playtesting already have figured out. If that means it takes 3 to 5 heros per 100 point army to be competitive in tourney play then so be it. You are still free to house rule limits if you choose to do so in your own private games.
I have to say I completely agree with you on this. My group plays standard tourney, HHR, URR and other rule variations as the whim takes us or scenario suits. Hero's will de dealt with. there are many clever people on this forum and one of them is going to find a practical solution to the challange. I love new sets. Wotc have a strong basic unit builder system which has produced a generally balanced set of units and I think (the 'skewing of units aside) that it is relatively unlikely we will see anything like the artillery in Mechwarriors in this game. ie. a game killer unit.

The house rules that people have put foirward are mostly chrome and add a certain flavour but it more ( to my mind) a change of flavour rather than the addition of flavour where there is none. The basic game is fun balanced and easy to scale up and down to suit ones needs.

[Cruizin2000]

I think that there should be a limit to the Heros - 1-2 per 100 points. They can be abused. C'mon, this is a simulated 7-10 minute fight. Where are all of these soldiers getting the balls to run out into fire anyways? I think that if you field alot of Heros in the game that you probably suck at it and should practice the rules more and use the other pieces to get more familiar with their uses. Same with the Vet Tiger I. If you're looking for an easy win and to waste your opponents time, by all means use an a**load of heros and the Vet Tiger I. Otherwise, practice and get better at the game.

C2000

[Colonel_Coo]

Herrrrooooosss are FFFFFUUUUNNNNNNNN!!!!!!

Just ask anyone!

Everyone loves the overuse of HEROES!

Hero, hero, heroheroheroherohero.

Total crap!

[mlund]

I enjoy the Hero units a lot more than I expected to. Everyone was screaming bloody murder over the Resourceful Hero and honestly he's been the lowest-impact of the bunch.

That said, I enjoy seeing them in limited quantities - not an entire Army of Hero of the Soviet Union spawning out of the treeline of Communist Partisans on turn 1.

I think the limit should be 1 hero as a base + 1 hero for each full 100 points of the battle. So the limit is 2 in 100 points, 3 in 200 points, etc.

- Marty Lund

[Kaufschtick]

I enjoy the Hero units a lot more than I expected to. Everyone was screaming bloody murder over the Resourceful Hero and honestly he's been the lowest-impact of the bunch.

- Marty Lund

Agreed. Right at present that's where I'm at too. I'm kinda taking Heros game by game at the moment, but so far so good.

[Kaufschtick]

Just a bump for our good friend the The Judge.

[Sean]

As soon as I perfect my anti-hero strategy WotC will officially change the ruling

And it happened just like I thought it would. I started using heroes to fight heroes(which is what I was trying to avoid). I won with them. Then WotC made the change. I'm glad I wasn't still struggling with heroes when the rule was changed. All was well in my house. We were ready for the ruling.

Just in time for the new starter maps - able & baker 3&4. The new starter kits finally came in. No one plays AAM in my town, so I had to wait forever for the new starters. Of course I bought the first one.

Man, is it humid here

[dacramps]

I think wizards should not change the rules. If you want to run a broke army I'm sure your friends will tell you that its wrong or if you have any morals and were raised right you will make your army balance out. In comparison in dnd you could run a whole party of rogues and everytime you flank an opponet you would get your sneak attack, on the other hand your dm could make all the bad guys rogues. So I don't know if heroes equal out in axis/allies and if not I'm sure wizards will equal them out so if your playing an axis army with 5 heroes than your opponet could run an allies army with his/her 5 heroes so it evens out. The only disadvantage I can see is playing tourneys or with people you don't know, but hopefully the shop owner would try and discourage people from bringing broke armies to make the game enjoyable not so that one person can wipe out the other.

[Autarch]

Just a bump for our good friend the The Judge.

Then the Mods won't be too far behind. lol

[RBloom0566]

The entire forum voted at a ratio of 5:1 in favor of Hero limitation.
I think that says it all.