What is YOUR opinion of defensive Fire?

[Kaufschtick]

Considering Heros, the SS Panther, SS Pnzr IV and the Rhino and their ability to be immune to defensive fire and the unintended interpretation of the first edition rules which suggested that even these units would be forced to stop movement if hit by a successful defensive fire...(takes a deep breath :) )...what is your opinion of the rules clarification as offered by the second edition rules which confirms all these units as being largely immune to defensive fire?

Note: This is simply an opinion poll, not a flame and bait thread nor an "overthrow the official rules" thread, opinions welcome. :)

[Halcyon]

I still like it. It still prevents every other of the units not named from waltzing past you. Since most games I play are Total Annihilation ones, the dancing around the objective thing doesn't really bother me too much.

[Kaufschtick]

I just read in another thread that there may be an upcoming official rules change regarding Heros. If Heros are limited sufficiently in games, the current DF rules then become just fine by me, and probably for everyone else too.

[Zeus[BTY]]

I would have preferred the unintended way, although if heroes are restricted it matters less.

The funny thing, Kaufschtick, is that the hero in your sig didn't seem to be stopped by succesful DF either :) !

[Timmon]

Making succussful defensive fire _always_ stop movement, regardless of other consequences or any abilities, would be a great step forward for AAM.

In my opinion, it would enhance both historical/realism aspect and playability of the game.

Im really hoping for an official ruling along these lines.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I "always played that the "immune to Disruption" units are NOT stopped by defensive fire (SSHSF SS-Panzers, Rhino, now Heros). Maybe I played it wrong by the old rules, but I thought that the special ability took precedence over the general def fire rule...

But I would be in favour of a rule that the 1. def fire hit can be shrugged of by these units, but a second hit from another unit (the same unit if that can fire twice or more) would stop the moving unit. Actually I also think of a house rule that the player that uses defensive fire may move the unit getting defensive fire to an adjacent hex that contains no enemy unit for every hit after the first.

[Autarch]

Not to overthrow the rules, but I don't think any of the units in question should be immune to defensive fire. Maybe get a bonus to a cover roll or a bonus cover roll in any terrain instead.

[boersma8]

I can live with the official ruling ( that's how we've been playing all along when using the official rules....) I guess sometimes you can make a very big fuss about what is actually said in a piece of text or you can just play it the way it was obviously intended, whether you agree with it or not. When playing with friends this shouldn't be a problem.I understand that in tournaments this is different. However, this being said, I would like German ( and / or other Axis nations) to get a (infantry ) unit with the flamethrower ability and sth similar to the Bars and Brens ( Covering fire) ( Schmeisser, or that sub-machine gun often used by German oaratroopers and Waffen SS troops) ( Sorry, don't recall the name....). The way it is now the Allies have sth that works against German and Japanese heroes but nothing vice versa.......

[richyj1]

While I voted for the first, I've actually been mulling a new idea: what does it mean to be immune to defensive fire? If we consider the situation historically, most units when they come under fire would drop into cover (thus, stopping movement). Units that 'pressed-on' in the face of fire (due to leadership, training, or just personal courage) are certainly easy to envision, but it seems to me that said units would then be in danger of destruction...

So, I wonder if units such as these should ignore single-hit rolls, but rolls that score two or more hits would cause damage/destruction? While this is a higher cost than what one normally faces in defensive fire, it makes sense given the situation (yes, we've caused you to charge that machine gun, but we can't make you immune...)

[polish_horsy]

If we consider the situation historically, most units when they come under fire would drop into cover (thus, stopping movement). Units that 'pressed-on' in the face of fire (due to leadership, training, or just personal courage) are certainly easy to envision, but it seems to me that said units would then be in danger of destruction...



This is why heroes should have had defense 4. They were not "sandbagged", "dug-in", or otherwise better protected. On the contrary. They put themselves in greater danger. There were many heroes in WWII... only the lucky ones lived to tell the tale. The popping out of nowhere I can't help Wotc with but defense 4 would have been better.

[richyj1]

I honestly don't mind the def 5; to my way of thinking, def 5 represent 'toughness', that battle-hardness that pushes soldiers to do more even if injured. SS and Paratroopers did tend to be 'tougher' in combat that regular soldiers, it is fitting that this is represented in the game. Giving heroes this same consideration does not bother me overmuch.

To think of it another way, consider the def value to be a combination of a physical characteristic and a morale component - in a more advanced wargame, these soldiers would have the same physical resistance to fire but would have a higher morale value; in this game we represent this with a higher def and/or SA's.
There were many heroes in WWII... only the lucky ones lived to tell the tale.
Too true.

[RBloom0566]

I prefer to use it as misunderstood.
Scoring a number of successes equal to/greater than the units defense stops the unit in it's tracks and awards a face up Disrupted Counter.
Let the SS Determination, etc. come into play on the face up Disrupted Counter ONLY. They still stop as a result of being shot at while moving in the open, close to the enemy.
Oh, and this is my opinion regardless of whether they re-tool the Hero.

[cannonfodder]

I think if we play the unintentional first rules way then these units do not actually have the SA as written. If all they intended was to have them ignore face up disrupted counters then they would have given them the SA Fanatic like the Hampsterfury. As I've always played them the units mentioned are still disrupted -they still suffer some penalties- but they can still move and attack. I've played it the clarified way since before it needed "clarification" and I will continue to do so.
As far as the Hero goes I have a question. Would it seem easier to pin down a squad of 6 to 8 soldiers, who move and don't move as a unit, or to pin down one maniac who doesn't care if he's hit or not? To pin down a squad you have only to pin down one member of that squad and the rest won't move until they've saved their own. To pin down and disrupt a hero you have to kill him or (luckily) hit his kit somewhere so as to render him ineffective (I shot you in the rifle, what now hero boy.) So for me a defense 5 makes sense. So does ignoring disrupted counters. Same with SAs. When you no longer care for your personal safety you can do things that normal (read scared spitless) infantry can't do.
As far as multiple heros in one army I've always assumed the Generals figured out the right chemical to use to inspire fearlessness. Several govt groups have worked on this throughout history. In this game, they seem to have found it.

[RBloom0566]

I think if we play the unintentional first rules way then these units do not actually have the SA as written. If all they intended was to have them ignore face up disrupted counters then they would have given them the SA Fanatic like the Hampsterfury. As I've always played them the units mentioned are still disrupted -they still suffer some penalties- but they can still move and attack. I've played it the clarified way since before it needed "clarification" and I will continue to do so.
As far as the Hero goes I have a question. Would it seem easier to pin down a squad of 6 to 8 soldiers, who move and don't move as a unit, or to pin down one maniac who doesn't care if he's hit or not? To pin down a squad you have only to pin down one member of that squad and the rest won't move until they've saved their own. To pin down and disrupt a hero you have to kill him or (luckily) hit his kit somewhere so as to render him ineffective (I shot you in the rifle, what now hero boy.) So for me a defense 5 makes sense. So does ignoring disrupted counters. Same with SAs. When you no longer care for your personal safety you can do things that normal (read scared spitless) infantry can't do.
As far as multiple heros in one army I've always assumed the Generals figured out the right chemical to use to inspire fearlessness. Several govt groups have worked on this throughout history. In this game, they seem to have found it.

Oh, you mean the Captain America "Super Soldier" formula?
Well, that line of thought would go towards explaining a lot of the cheese.
It's not A&AMinis anymore, it's WWII Marvel Super Heroes!
So I guess the unit we'll see that renders the Grizzled Vet obsolete will be the appearance of the Red Skull in Set V! Coming Soon: Captain America & a VS Version of Wonder Woman!

[bresh]

I would wanna limit heroes ignore faceup disruption. to reducing immune to a roll instead say : Disrupt on roll (1-3), ignore disrupt on roll (4-5) and ignore disrupt but stop movement on roll (6).

Though also some heroes i would change costs to and/or, limit number of heroes.

I would had prefered there had been implemented veteran units, such as able to fire when disrupted ability.