WOTC BOB...were the Hero units playtested???...

[Major Adler]

since there is so much belly aching about the hero units...it seems to me those people doing so should be all over AH with regards to their playtesting system...

the Heros are just fine the way they are...get over it...

[Colonel_Coo]

You post is insightful and enjoyable.

I particularily like where you share you view point on the quailty of the unit how effective it is in combat.

I had never really thought about the use of the US Hero in conjunction with the British one and how very effective that would be in the game.

The counter point of how to beat the Hero Army is awesome.

Your posts here add so much to my personal pleasure of reading these forums.

Thank you and I hope to read more of your words of wisdom in the future.

Again, thank you so much for posting such fantastic comments: I never really heard anyone ever put "belly aching" and "get over it" so closely together in a post.

Wow! Awesome! Wilco!

[Cruizin2000]

I agree. The Heros are just fine the way they are. Screw the rest of the available infantry pieces. You don't need them. Get yourself a ton of Heros and go play in tournaments. Hero vs. Hero - the Battle of the Titans.

We know about their playtesting system - "fun". And we know about how they come up with unit cost. Since this game is going thru the "power creep" evolution it makes me wonder what piece will be bigger and better than the Hero. There has to be one coming out in the next set, that's just how it's done.

C2000

[Major Adler]

get over it...

[horacus]

Well, I don't like heroes. They make the game unbalanced. Here, well, in Mexico City we haven't tournaments so, the only hero we play around here is the japanese one, because it is the only Japanese figure with a good close assault to deal with sherman rinos for example. But, the other heroes around here are not played.

[WinterWarCaptain]

Man I'm having a blast reading these posts! That's as good as critique can be. :)

[Cruizin2000]

"Heros are just fine they way they are...get over it..."

Excellent words. I'm going to put that on the blackboard so that the rest of my classes can read these words of wisdom. I'll put it next to Spicolli's, "I don't know".

C2000

[Colonel_Coo]

get over it...
Gracious,
and I thought Confucious was smart.

[UnionMan]

When somebody says that "heros aren't broken" it's kind of like saying "I don't believe in evolution." You just lost all credibility.

[TheJudge]

Jeez....another hero thread, as if there weren't enough already?

Snore

[Cruizin2000]

It looks like a Playtesting question thread to me. Anyone else? Bueller? Bueller?

C2000

[TheJudge]

Bueller here sir! There are like 4 or 5 posts discussing Heroes....not to mention the god knows how many Hero threads from when they came out.

Stop beating a dead horse.

Need an answer? Yes, they were playtested. Did WOTC listen to them when they said these are over powered? No.

Move on, stop clogging up the boards with this whiney garbage thats been discussed 75 times already.

Save Ferris

[Muenchausen]

since there is so much belly aching about the hero units...it seems to me those people doing so should be all over AH with regards to their playtesting system...

the Heros are just fine the way they are...get over it...

Thanks Maj, your words of wisdom has helped me get over it. I feel so much better now. Anybody want to play my 200 point soviet army. Come on. Get over it. Soviets are challanging any faction. It'll be a lot of fun.

199 points
4 = Comm. Partisans
10 = Heroes
1 = Cos. Capt.
1 = KV-1
6 = 82mm Mortars

[polish_horsy]

hey get over it. Lets have a good game. Oh... here is what you will face.

Jeep x3 = 12
US Para x2 = 18
US Mortar x10 = 120
Chinese Rifle x12 (too occupy edge hexes near my mortars) = 24
P-38 = 17
Bazooka x2 = 8
barb wire x2 = 1

[TheJudge]

Chinese Rifle x12? OMG

It's easy. 200 points?

10 Soviet Heroes= 80
11 Commie Partisans =33
5 American Heavy Mortars= 60
3 Bofors= 27 (ya know, protects the Mortars from planes and stuff)

200 points of cheese on a stick.

lol

[dracos42]

Horsy, or do you perfer Polish?,

From the looks of your's and Muenchausen's armies, it looks like an early Korean War battle. The P-38 could be a F-82, the Chinese Rifles are survivors of a battered South Korean unit...

Ferris Bueller, great movie, but what this list needs is the Mother Superior from The Blues Brothers.

Mike L.


hey get over it. Lets have a good game. Oh... here is what you will face.

Jeep x3 = 12
US Para x2 = 18
US Mortar x10 = 120
Chinese Rifle x12 (too occupy edge hexes near my mortars) = 24
P-38 = 17
Bazooka x2 = 8
barb wire x2 = 1

[polish_horsy]

Chinese Rifle x12? OMG

It's easy. 200 points?

10 Soviet Heroes= 80
11 Commie Partisans =33
5 American Heavy Mortars= 60
3 Bofors= 27 (ya know, protects the Mortars from planes and stuff)

200 points of cheese on a stick.

lol

the mortars would not be that great on this team. Your only US spotters are the othr mortars.

[Mons]

It looks like a Playtesting question thread to me. Anyone else? Bueller? Bueller?

C2000

Short answer, yes.

with all the bashing of the new hero units...those doing so must be of the opinion that AH did not play test them properly...so for their sake...perhaps some input from WOTC might be in order on this subject...

I think the hero units are just fine the way they are...and with no limit...

What happened to the old "Adler, Out." line? I kinda liked that.

We did playtest the heroes and intentionally made them very powerful. Compared to aircraft, we felt with aircraft that they should only show up occasionally, particularly as a foil to certain units (i.e. Stuka vs armor), after all this is basically a land based game. We decided heroes should be powerful enough to field most of the time.

I was reasonably happy with the variety of armies in GenCon events, there were tank builds, heavy infantry builds, anti-infantry builds, obstacle themed, etc. However, we feel that the amount of heroes in the event was more than is healthy for the game and are contemplating action(s) to change this. The decision we make and the reasons for said decision will be posted on our web site (probably via another fine article by Justin)

[RBloom0566]

Tomorrow is Friday. May we expect another article from Justin tomorrow, as was his manner? If not, when may we expect his article and some sort of ruling?

Thanks

[357FTG]

I was reasonably happy with the variety of armies in GenCon events, there were tank builds, heavy infantry builds, anti-infantry builds, obstacle themed, etc. However, we feel that the amount of heroes in the event was more than is healthy for the game and are contemplating action(s) to change this. The decision we make and the reasons for said decision will be posted on our web site (probably via another fine article by Justin)


I do believe this vendicates my point on the single army.

[357FTG]

Instead of sponing a hero, a unit should be converted into a hero. The BMW (or other sponning unit) must be removed from the board and the hero replaces it.

[Autarch]

I agree. The Heros are just fine the way they are. Screw the rest of the available infantry pieces. You don't need them. Get yourself a ton of Heros and go play in tournaments. Hero vs. Hero - the Battle of the Titans.

I suspect this is the only reason Heroes will be reigned back in: they render too many regular infantry units worthless. Hardly anyone will buy boosters, except resellers. Competitive players will just buy single slices of cheese, which will hurt the bottom line. :)

We know about their playtesting system - "fun". And we know about how they come up with unit cost. Since this game is going thru the "power creep" evolution it makes me wonder what piece will be bigger and better than the Hero. There has to be one coming out in the next set, that's just how it's done.

C2000

I'd put my bet on Special Air Services, Army Rangers, Shock Troops and Fallschirmjagers to kick Heroes to the curb.

Short answer, yes.

What happened to the old "Adler, Out." line? I kinda liked that.

I like the sense of finality to his sig. It's like starting a thread and then discouraging any discussion with a harsh admonishment in the initial post. :)

We did playtest the heroes and intentionally made them very powerful. Compared to aircraft, we felt with aircraft that they should only show up occasionally, particularly as a foil to certain units (i.e. Stuka vs armor), after all this is basically a land based game. We decided heroes should be powerful enough to field most of the time.

And en masse to boot! Just for fun, toward the end of playtesting, you might have a dci style tourney for the testors with a large cash prize for the winner. This should inspire more "real world" builds and hopefully reveal just how "powerful" certain units are.

I was reasonably happy with the variety of armies in GenCon events, there were tank builds, heavy infantry builds, anti-infantry builds, obstacle themed, etc.

I'm glad to hear about the variety. I was curious as to how the standard builds fared vs the vet Tiger/Hero builds. I started a thread to encourage participants to share their experiences and army builds but no takers. I guess the sting of being crushed by Tragicmishap's juggernaut is still too fresh...lol

However, we feel that the amount of heroes in the event was more than is healthy for the game and are contemplating action(s) to change this. The decision we make and the reasons for said decision will be posted on our web site (probably via another fine article by Justin)

I'm glad to see you folks are finally on the same page with (most of?) the rest of us, but the effect of heroes on the game isn't anything that wasn't already predicted in the forums. I guess witnessing disaster unfold is more of an impetus to action than intellectual analysis and speculative discussion to prevent it. :)

Thanks Mons for letting us know the good news. I'm looking forward to the return of Justin's articles.

[J.L.Robert]

I was reasonably happy with the variety of armies in GenCon events, there were tank builds, heavy infantry builds, anti-infantry builds, obstacle themed, etc. However, we feel that the amount of heroes in the event was more than is healthy for the game and are contemplating action(s) to change this. The decision we make and the reasons for said decision will be posted on our web site (probably via another fine article by Justin)

But, nothing wrong happened. This was all by design. No mistakes were made.

The Computer is your friend.

Fnord.

The Emperor has no clothes.

[Kaufschtick]

Thanks Mons for letting us know the good news. I'm looking forward to the return of Justin's articles.

I believe I'm looking forward to a limit on Heros, the current DF clarification has tipped the scale for me.

[boersma8]

However, we feel that the amount of heroes in the event was more than is healthy for the game and are contemplating action(s) to change this. The decision we make and the reasons for said decision will be posted on our web site (probably via another fine article by Justin)

That's what we've been telling you all along,but hey better late than never and it takes a man to admit when he's wrong and all that, so in short I'm very happy about this excellent decision.

[Cruizin2000]

Good job, Mons. There needs to be some help for this piece as well as breathing some life back into the other "backbone" infantry pieces. Just pay more attention to us and our "in the field" playtesting - although it's after the fact. There's more of us here than there is at Wizards - and we're "cost effective".

C2000

[Major Adler]

this game already has major problems...I hate to see "back designing" start...

so what is it going to be...1 hero per 50pts.?...

[polish_horsy]

I expect 1 per 100 points. Though 1 per army would be enough for me.

[grillcookr2]

You have to figure heroes would appear in combat situations. Audie Murphy jumped on the back of that damaged tank. Captain Winters at Brecourt Manor. Or John Basilone or Mitchell Paige on Guadalcanal. They would have an effect on how a battle goes. They should be limited because you didn't see whole regiments of heroes popping up in battle. It was one or two guys that inspired and led the rest.

Limit the number of em don't make units that specifically kill em.

[Surfer_Sam]

I can barly tell what sarcasism and whats not in this thread! :D

[Cruizin2000]

I'm all for having a limit of 1 per army. Someone else mentioned that when you spawn a Hero that you should have the Hero trade places with the original infantry piece. I really like that idea!! That would make the Hero cost his normal price +3 for the Mauser if you're using the Grizzled Vet. Or, with that, just go with unlimited Heros as long as you trade them out - that would make them cost more to use and people would be less likely to use a ton of'em. It's like you're paying for that trooper to get some balls to go after whatever is threatening him.

C2000

[polish_horsy]

mild mannered Hans Jurgel the fortress defender decides to stop polishing his rifle in his bunker. he spins around in the bathroom and comes out with his cape on and becomes... ta da ta da! A superhero!

just kidding. it is certainly better than spawning.

[Cruizin2000]

Uberman!!

C2000

[warspite]

More like the secret Shao Lin monks in "Kung Fu Hustle". They've been living near each other for years, but keep their abilities secret, so as not to cause trouble, and don't even know who each other are. But, when trouble finally comes, they break out the whuppin' sticks! :)

[shadowhooch]

Short answer, yes.
However, we feel that the amount of heroes in the event was more than is healthy for the game and are contemplating action(s) to change this. The decision we make and the reasons for said decision will be posted on our web site (probably via another fine article by Justin)

I agree with some of the others.
I think the easiest fix would be for Heroes to REPLACE any same-nationality soldier before your movement phase begins.
1)This would create a great strategic tactic to replace one of your disrupted infantrymen allowing you to press the attack. It's like someone stepped up in the squad and said "Cmon boys, we got some butts to kick!"
2)Plus, like many have said earlier, this would essentially cause the Hero to cost more because it replaces another. So that would cause it to be used less.
3)Also, it would cause the soldiers that cost 3 to be used more often which is always great for game variety. It would lead to more "combos" and battle techniques for people to explore.
So that erratta/rule would have a lot of pluses in my opinion.

As much as I don't like Heros the way they are currently, I personally don't like the restrictive 1 per 100 points kinda rule. It doesn't add to building or game strategy; it's just a restriction.

That's my take if you read this Mons.

[Cruizin2000]

I agree with some of the others.
I think the easiest fix would be for Heroes to REPLACE any same-nationality soldier before your movement phase begins. This would create a great strategic tactic to replace one of your disrupted infantrymen allowing you to press the attack. It's like someone stepped up in the squad and said "Cmon boys, we got some butts to kick!" Plus, like many have said earlier, this would essentially cause the Hero to cost more because it replaces another. So that would cause it to be used less.

As much as I don't like Heros the way they are currently, I personally don't like the restrictive 1 per 100 points kinda rule. It doesn't add to building or game strategy; it's just a restriction.

That's my opinion if you read this Mons.


I think that the soldier that would be replaced by a Hero should NOT be disrupted. Just a thought...

C2000

[shadowhooch]

I think that the soldier that would be replaced by a Hero should NOT be disrupted. Just a thought...

C2000
I don't know. I think it would be okay to allow it to replace both disrupted or nondisrupted. It would add to the "fun".......uh oh, I just said the "f" word! :eek:

Anyway, the fact that it replaces along with it costing around 8 points would be "restrictive" enough to see it used in a reasonable manner in future games.

[Cruizin2000]

I don't know. I think it would be okay to allow it to replace either disrupted or nondisrupted. It would add to the "fun".......uh oh, I just said the "f" word! :eek:

Anyway, the fact that it replaces along with it costing around 8 points would be "restrictive" enough to see it used in a reasonable manner in future games.


Usually when troops that were disrupted and got up and ran ran the other way. I'm thinking more like they say, "screw this, I'm gettin' up and hurtin' someone".

C2000

[mlund]

You know, I think the replacement rule would do the trick perfectly.

Never play more Heros than you have regular infantry in that faction, or you just won't get them into play. If you want to take advantage of placing them later in the game, you better be able to afford the casualties.

I like the mechanical implementation too - it shows a Heroic Leader emerging in the unit and taking into the fray. It also deals with the pesky issue of hero-spawns-hero where you have 1 man standing somewhere and suddenly they replicate into 2 people.

- Marty Lund

[tragicmishap]

The replacement rule will never happen. It's too much of a change. There will be a Hero limit of some sort, but all the mechanics, stats and SAs will stay the same.

[Kaufschtick]

The replacement rule will never happen. It's too much of a change. There will be a Hero limit of some sort, but all the mechanics, stats and SAs will stay the same.

I'm with Tragic, a limit of some sort is coming.

[Usurper]

I'm with Tragic, a limit of some sort is coming.

Agreed. A limit would not necessitate a change to the SA's.

There will be a whole lot less Heroes in play. Back to the good ol' SSPGs

[Kaufschtick]

Agreed. A limit would not necessitate a change to the SA's.

There will be a whole lot less Heroes in play. Back to the good ol' SSPGs :)

Which in turn, will return attention and discussion to the "SSPG Masher" (U.S. 81mm mortar :D )!

That I can be happy about! :)

[tragicmishap]

Me too :). SS-PGs are my favorite piece. It's nice to have an Allied piece that is a decent challenge to them.

[shadowhooch]

The replacement rule will never happen. It's too much of a change. There will be a Hero limit of some sort, but all the mechanics, stats and SAs will stay the same.

You really think so? You may be right as WotC is picky about changing certain things. But in all honesty, I think the Replacement fix would be just as easy as the Limit fix. Just add 3 words to the SA: "At the beginning of any of your movement phases, you may deploy this unit in any hex that contains a friendly ___ Soldier and replace it.

I'm sure there's a better way to say it as I'm not the grammar guru that WotC is.

As far as changing SA's, they did add an unprinted SA to the Engineers to help them. So it's not completely unheard of to tinker with SAs. Here's hoping.........

[EricM 2404]

It works in Wotc favor to have a replacement rule.

If there was a limit of one hero only, then that would be one less unit that people will buy booster's or singles for.

unit substitution is way more "fun" anyway

[Cruizin2000]

Substitution is where it's at. Think of it like Popeye bustin' out that can of spinach, slammin' it, and then going postal on someone's butt.

C2000