Possible Hero Errata coming from WotC

[shadowhooch]

This post by Mons, WotC staff R&D guy, was buried in another thread. I thought it might help to bring it to the forefront. Here's what he said:

"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)"

So, unless they've already decided on a course of action, maybe we can give them some fine (and civil) suggestions to correct the issue. And hopefully they will consider them. Please post suggestions in this thread so they can access them easily.

Here's my suggestion as some others have suggested:
Have Heroes 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, get up! 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 (but maybe better than no change at all).

That's my take if you read this Mons.

[Cruizin2000]

This post by Mons, WotC staff R&D guy, was buried in another thread. I thought it might help to bring it to the forefront. Here's what he said:

"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)"

So, unless they've already decided on a course of action, maybe we can give them some fine (and civil) suggestions to correct the issue. And hopefully they will consider them. Please post suggestions in this thread so they can access them easily.

Here's my suggestion as some others have suggested:
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, get up! 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 (but better than no change at all).

That's my take if you read this Mons.


What he said, Mons. Except, do not use Disrupted units as they were demoralized, shaken, hitting the dirt, and "generally unhappy".

See what this valuable non-paid no free stuff receiving forum has given you? Come to us for answers as we're the troops in the field.

C2000

[johnnyonthespot]

Have Heroes REPLACE any same-nationality soldier before your movement phase begins.

Simple, yet very good idea. I really don't like heroes, but this is a much more reasonable rule than having them "spawn" or pop out of another soldier. As the rules stand right now, multiple heroes just make me think about a fungus spreading across the gameboard! Here's one man - and another grows out of him!

[EricM 2404]

I give this my full support, this thread should act as a poll for people to vote for this Idea.

[357FTG]

This is basically the same thing I proposed yesterday, though allot better layed out.

It prevents the BMW from driving around to the rear of the other army and then spawning a large force.

[J.L.Robert]

How about, in addition to unit substitution for bringing Heroes into play, adding:

"Heroes must consist of no more than 50% of your points spent on Soldiers."

So, you HAVE to have supporting characters, and they will not dominate the battlefield. The absolute worst abuse would be German snipers morphing into Grizzled Veterans after taking their Headshot roll.

[Stojakovic]

No more SSPG and Hero chain gang armies... awwwwwww :)

[EricM 2404]

How about, in addition to unit substitution for bringing Heroes into play, adding:

"Heroes must consist of no more than 50% of your points spent on Soldiers."

So, you HAVE to have supporting characters, and they will not dominate the battlefield. The absolute worst abuse would be German snipers morphing into Grizzled Veterans after taking their Headshot roll.


if you want to spend 19 points on a hero, be my guest.

[118th_MPCo_abn]

My wife thinks I am a hero ... hero haters, please don't hate me :(

[J.L.Robert]

if you want to spend 19 points on a hero, be my guest.

EXACTLY. The idea, it seems to me, is to reign in Heroes. My suggestion would help do that.

[Stojakovic]

My wife thinks I am a hero ... hero haters, please don't hate me :(

You are my hero! http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/7609/bowdownba7.gif

Nah! on second thought you are not... My idea of a hero is pathetic :)

[J.L.Robert]

You are my hero! http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/7609/bowdownba7.gif

Nah! on second thought you are not... My idea of a hero is pathetic :)

"A hero ain't nothing but a sandwich."

[Stojakovic]

"A hero ain't nothing but a sandwich."

Or a hot chick.

[horacus]

Or a hot chick.

Exactly. ;)

[Kaufschtick]

So, unless they've already decided on a course of action, maybe we can give them some fine (and civil) suggestions to correct the issue. And hopefully they will consider them. Please post suggestions in this thread so they can access them easily.


I believe we've already begun to drift off topic... :D

[shadowhooch]

Let's think this through. If a limit rule was in place, then obviously Hero use would diminish to the allowed limit. But every army would still have them up to the limit because it's almost silly not to.

If the replacement rule actually happened instead, how would army builds look? I think some builds would include Heros and others wouldn't. It would all depend on your style of play. I really don't see people flat out replacing a healthy infantry unit during gameplay very often. It simply isn't that cost effective. More often, I think Hero's would be used to replace one of your disrupted soldiers so you can keep pressing the attack instead of being bogged down with disruption. (Hmmm....that sounds like the definition of a Hero to me). Let's look at each nation's hero and how it might be used if the replacement rule were to take effect:


German Hero: I think you would see A LOT fewer German Heros used. Using German Heros would all depend on your own personal preference and strategy. If you use SSPGs, you probably won't use German Heros much as the SSPG is a great unit. It would essentially cost 13 to replace SSPGs with a Hero (not so cost effective). Also the SS Haup is a pretty cost effective means of removing multiple disruptions from your friendly soldiers. Really, you would use German Heros in conjuction with a heavy Mauser build. Then you might see 1 or 2 Heros in the German build. They most likely be used instead of an SS Haup for a means to keep pressing the attack if a Mauser was disrupted.

Japanese Hero: The cheapest of all heros. Used in conjuction with an Arisaka, it would cost 10. A great use would be to use mass Arisakas to approach the enemy and whip out 1 or 2 Heros in a crutial situation. It would be used either to press the attack (replacing a disrupted Arisaka), or to get to the objective if there is a lot of cover on the map. It would also be used if you were in a good position to CA a vehicle as the Japanese Hero is a huge upgrade over other Japanese infantry.

Soviet Hero: This Hero would probably be used more than any other if you are playing with Soviets. Mosins are cheap but tough to play with as they are dependent for movement. You are likely to keep a couple of Heros in your back pocket if your commander is killed so you can keep moving.

US Hero: For people who play with US infantry, you'd might see 1 hero in their build. I believe the cheapest US infantry cost is 4 for the Garand. Thus making the Hero essentially cost 12. Most often it would be to replace one of your disrupted Garand's in a key situation. But it also could be used to replace a healthy Garand that is next to a disrupted vehicle. Thus, you could use your Improv SA if it looked like a favorable situation.

UK Hero: Well, it already has made the inspiring Lt obsolete. But if it replaces, then you might think twice. You could replace an SMLE for a total cost of 3+9=12. For two more points you get a better Lt (probably worth it). I doubt you'd see more than 1 per build though. It'd be used 1st turn to get your troops moving.

I doubt you'd see more that 1 or 2 in a build because what is better (cost is same): 3 Arisakas or 1 *** Hero; 3 Mausers or 1 German Hero; 3 Garands or 1 US Hero; 3 Mosins or 1 Russian Hero; 4 SMLEs or 1 UK Hero? I'd rather have 3 instead of 1 most of the time. All in all, the Replacement rule would cause Heros to be used mainly as a means to help disrupted troops and keep pressing the attack.

[cannonfodder]

A question, if I may. How would this proposed rule not be as easy to abuse as the non-rule that we have now? What is to prevent a player from using those "one shot" SAs like headshot and then switching the unit for a hero? If you did this at close range you could headshot tanks to freeze them in place then switch to Grizzled Vets and CA them to death. Once the sniper has headshotted it's pretty much a wasted piece anyway. It's just too easy to avoid. Alternately, if you are playing the Axis what would stop you from turning cheap infantry into HBHs, complete with "hard to spot" as soon as the tide of battle turned against you -as it will if you are playing the Japanese. Arisakas are great on offense but they are no comparison to HBH for defense.
To my mind, while costing a few more points, your proposed rule is also open to abuse. I think the idea is good, I just think it might need to be worked on.
Also, even at 10 to 13 points, Heros are still dramatically better units than say a Oberltnt. that also costs 13 points so why would I slow down my use of them?

[EricM 2404]

The WEsniper costs 11 points, german hero costs 8 points you swap out your sniper for the hero,you just lost 11 points. So that trick you mentioned costs 19 points if someone is parking their tank next to your sniper.

A Half-track and regular Panzergrenadier is bettter than that.

Besides, what is stopping you from doing that much right now with the rules as they are?

[J.L.Robert]

The WEsniper costs 11 points, german hero costs 8 points you swap out your sniper for the hero,you just lost 11 points. So that trick you mentioned costs 19 points if someone is parking their tank next to your sniper.

A Half-track and regular Panzergrenadier is bettter than that.

Besides, what is stopping you from doing that much right now with the rules as they are?

19 points for a unit that won't be a victim to that same vehicle being attacked (those defense 2 halftracks are not intimidating).

In the current game, the sniper can immobilize a opponent's heavy tank, then continue to be a ground unit to potentially hold the objective while the GV galavants around the mapboard.

[CommanderlessMosinNagant]

The substitution rule is how I had always thought the hero should work and it does allow for combo play...all of which is good.

As for the comment about 1-se SA's and substitution, I liken it to owning stocks. It's only worth what its market value is at the moment. Even after the use of his headshot, the sniper is still probably a 3-point unit, given its ability to damage at long range and it remaining SA's. 8 points is a probably the real cost to using up headshot.

IMHO, the additional limit on the amount of points spent on heroes is unnecessary. The substitution aspect already upped the cost considerably.

One other thought...as the hero unit is the only one that requires people to play units from the same country, what do people think that "penalty" is worth?

[J.L.Robert]

One other thought...as the hero unit is the only one that requires people to play units from the same country, what do people think that "penalty" is worth?

Irrelevant, since 4 out of the 5 major nations have soldiers available at 3 points or less. On that point, there is already a pretty level playing field.

[shadowhooch]

A question, if I may. How would this proposed rule not be as easy to abuse as the non-rule that we have now? What is to prevent a player from using those "one shot" SAs like headshot and then switching the unit for a hero? If you did this at close range you could headshot tanks to freeze them in place then switch to Grizzled Vets and CA them to death. Once the sniper has headshotted it's pretty much a wasted piece anyway. It's just too easy to avoid. Alternately, if you are playing the Axis what would stop you from turning cheap infantry into HBHs, complete with "hard to spot" as soon as the tide of battle turned against you -as it will if you are playing the Japanese. Arisakas are great on offense but they are no comparison to HBH for defense.
To my mind, while costing a few more points, your proposed rule is also open to abuse. I think the idea is good, I just think it might need to be worked on.
Also, even at 10 to 13 points, Heros are still dramatically better units than say a Oberltnt. that also costs 13 points so why would I slow down my use of them?

Could someone employ those strategies? Yes. Are they SUPERIOR strategies? I'm not so sure.
What army would win?
10 Arisakas or 3 HBHs? The cost would essentially be the same. I think it might be a closer match than you think. HBHs allow for more versatility. But 10 Arisakas carry a lot of raw firepower that just might overwhelm the enemy or HBHs if heads up. There is power in numbers.

Like I said, using Heros would become more of a personal preference based on what style you like to play. Some people would go heavy with Heros; others would not. Heros would still be a good unit and strategy to use; but they would not dominate every build as some people would rather have more instead of better infantry.

[shadowhooch]

The substitution rule is how I had always thought the hero should work and it does allow for combo play...all of which is good.


Yep, I agree. "Replacement" would add a ton of new strategy to the game. The sniper/hero combo is one great example. But keep in mind that your opponent also KNOWS you have a hero in waiting. So is he gonna park his vehicle next to your sniper? Probably not. But just look at the fun mindgames we've just created.

There are many more great combo and strategy possibilities if Hero's "replaced". As the rules stand now, Heros are just uber units to be placed on the board and to be feared/avoided. The only strategy added to the game is the individual SAs that each Hero employs.
The Replacement rule would add a lot more to the game in my opinion.

[Avoll]

heres a thought
just limit 1 hero per 100 points of army

[Colonel_Panic]

heres a thought
just limit 1 hero per 100 points of army

Or do as we do, you need to get 10+ on initiative to be able to place a hero, makes the heroplacing much more fun.

You have the perfect plan, and oops, roll initivative of 3, and you cannot spawn.

[EricM 2404]

19 points for a unit that won't be a victim to that same vehicle being attacked (those defense 2 halftracks are not intimidating).

In the current game, the sniper can immobilize a opponent's heavy tank, then continue to be a ground unit to potentially hold the objective while the GV galavants around the mapboard.


no, but close assault 8 that can be dropped off at any four hexes near said vehicle can be. giving said vehicle the option of shooting either the half-track or Panzergrenadier and suffering an eventual close assault, or running away and being chased by the half-track panzergren combo.

not to mention that it could be cheaper at 13 for the combo

[CommanderlessMosinNagant]

Irrelevant, since 4 out of the 5 major nations have soldiers available at 3 points or less. On that point, there is already a pretty level playing field.

True, but you're forgetting that neither the Germans nor the Russians have paratroopers, which could affect the way heroes are deployed. Of course, using paratroopers isn't exactly cheap, but I could imagine people doing it. Then, there are the Communist partisans.... Given this, I don't think the question of nations is irrelevant. Just imagine deploying a Grizzled Veteran by using a SNLF paratrooper!

[Qmark]

Replacement is definitely the best "fix", apart from doing nothing. The idea of 'unique' uncommons is just goofy.

[Kaufschtick]

heres a thought
just limit 1 hero per 100 points of army

I believe this is what's coming. Just considering the way the scenarios have been limiting the Heros.

[tragicmishap]

Agreed Kaufschtick. They might go with two or three though. Probably not four. Who knows?

Besides the replacement idea, some other non-arbitrary limits on Heroes could be:

Certain subtypes cannot spawn Heroes (Artillery, Heroes, Commanders, Motorcycles, Snipers, etc.)

Only one Hero spawned per Soldier. This would require you to bring as many normal infantry units as you do Heroes.

[Kaufschtick]

Agreed Kaufschtick. They might go with two or three though. Probably not four. Who knows?

Besides the replacement idea, some other non-arbitrary limits on Heroes could be:

Certain subtypes cannot spawn Heroes (Artillery, Heroes, Commanders, Motorcycles, Snipers, etc.)

Only one Hero spawned per Soldier. This would require you to bring as many normal infantry units as you do Heroes.

All good ideas, although I really don't care how they go with it, as long as there is one uniform set of rules and everyone isn't off playing their own house rule version.

That way, someone like myself who plays more "history" oriented games might actually be able to try a tourney sometime. They always seem like fun to me, but the style of play between tourneys and casual, "history- oriented/scenario" type play is so different. I really do think a limit on Heros will drastically lessen the gap between the two styles of play. It might make it a little easier for folks like me who might like to play the game in both these two styles.

[Arontje]

One hero per leader



Now let the chinese get some kind of hero :D

[Colonel_Coo]

One hero per leader



Now let the chinese get some kind of hero :D
The Chinese hero would have:
I've brought rice! All adjacent infantry lose Lack of Determination
All adjacent soldiers gain
They just keep coming! When ever this unit is detroyed place it at your starting side 1 hex from the edge instead of removing it from the map.

[tragicmishap]

^ LOL!!! That actually sounds pretty sweet...and hilarious.

Kaufschtick: Sounds fine with me. Like I said, either way I don't care too much. Obviously there are a lot of people who do care, so I have no problem with a rule change. If it makes competitive play bigger, that might catch the attention of the WotC folks a bit and get them to pay more attention to this game. I'm just fine with that.

[polish_horsy]

A chinese heo could just be a free french guy... heck anything with close assault. Even a PIAT might look pretty heroic to the Koumintang.

[118th_MPCo_abn]

Would a Polish hero carry a lance?

[GijoeNumberOne]

A chinese heo could just be a free french guy... heck anything with close assault. Even a PIAT might look pretty heroic to the Koumintang.
I recently played a 150 pt Chinese army vs. a Japanese one (no unit limit.) My force was more then twice his number, and I never stood a chance. 2 Fanatics and a Sergeant mopped up 7 of my fearless Kuomintang Riflemen and an awe-inspiring T-26. It was downhill from there. Playing the Chinese is great, so long as you are not interested in winning the game.

[boersma8]

As for the Wehrmacht Sniper and Grizzled Vet. Combo: First of all, at this moment this is ALREADY possible. What's even worse is that it wouldn't even cause you to lose the sniper; you'd be able to still have BOTH of the units. Furthermore, as said before, if anyone wants to spend 19 points on a German hero ( 8+11) that's fine by me!

Although, 1 hero per army/ 100 points would be the simplest solution, I tend to favour the replacement rule. Don't make it overly complicated by restricting the units that a hero can replace or spawn from ( if they choose to keep on going with that rule...) It'd have to be playtested well before, though. Maybe we're overlooking something. Many believe that the heroes are to cheap for what they do (I think so too...). If they replace another friendly soldier, you'd raise the cost by at least 3 AND it'd be the most HISTORICAL solution.That's two birds with one stone....The way things are now you suddenly get from a " host unit" a better Unit ( hero) AND the host unit retains it's normal attack values etc and remains on the board TOO. I can understand how a unit might suddenly be infected by the " hero virus" , I cannot understand how it might all of a sudden both gain the her stats and reatain its own. Or do the heroes pop up like the paratroopers???

[Richter von Manthofen]

yes popping spawns heros ;)

Or is it herospawn - no other game...

Back to the topic: the easiest and most historical way to solve the problem would be to limit heros to one per x-points (x>=100). They were quite uncommon on the battlefield, so should be uncommon too. and one would certainly not unbalance the game.

I could accept the span logic as assuming that the hero is a single soldier that splits from a squad.

Another solution would be a "trigger - event" necessary for the hero to appear - Hosting unit rolls 3+ 6s for example, Hosting unit is destrtoyed by double the sucesses necessary...

[boersma8]

How can a single soldier have more firepower than an entire squad? Tha's yet another thing I don't get about heroes the way they are. If you go with the replacement rule, it'd mean that at least several members of the squad have become heroic which would explain the INCREASED firepower. How can the original unit RETAIN its normal fire and STILL spawn a hero ( someone that split from the group) with an even higher firepower than the entire group in the first plave? Hence, replacement............

[Sturmgrenadier]

Back to the topic: the easiest and most historical way to solve the problem would be to limit heros to one per x-points (x>=100). They were quite uncommon on the battlefield, so should be uncommon too. and one would certainly not unbalance the game.
I agree. We dont need to complicate heros "fix" and this is simple and good idea. We have alredy enough wierd rules.

[boersma8]

This is what we've been playing all along, since we're all more history oriented in our regular gaming group. However, since a change seems to be coming up anyway, best to do it as well as possible. Therefore I'm in favour of the replacement option. The reasons for this I've expressed in the thread " limitations on heroes poll". I have nothing against BOTH the replacement mechanism AND the 1 hero per 100 points/ army limit. Just to keep the more " gamey" oriented people among us happy, however, I think unlimited heroes COMBINED WITH the replacement mechanism will keep them in check ( i.e. keep them from being overused) while at the same time at least still ALLOWING multiple heroes for those who want to use them......just my 2 cents......