It's official: Allied planes gain an additional die!

[boersma8]

I'm sure more people must've noticed this, but I'm surprised no one's posted anything about this yet. Well, I guess I'll be the first to do so, then........

With the addition of Rangers to the game that have the spotter ability, all allied planes will " automatically" gain an extra attack die as long as you have a Ranger in play and position. The spotting jeep is utterly useless, as are all the other (Allied) spotters for that matter due to their high cost and low survivability. Both these issues are " solved" with the appearance of the Rangers in " Reserves". They won't add anything as far as the 81 mm mortar is concerned, but they will greatly increase the power of aircraft!

Positive: Allied aircraft become more playable ( in competitive and tournament play)

Negative: Will the Axis also get a similar unit to make THEIR aircraft more playable too???? I hope so. In this set I can only think of the fallschirmjaeger getting this ability, but I wonder how historical this would actually be............

[Cruizin2000]

The Allies already have the best airplanes in this game.

Could you just imagine if Wizards produced the war material for the Allies in WWII??? There's no way the Axis could've won!!! Hell, after Poland, Germany AND Russia would've surrendered!!! :rolleyes:


Amerika uber alles!!! ;)


C2000

[mdescalzo]

Queue the Tin-foil Hat Brigade...

[Cruizin2000]

Don't forget the trombones!!

C2000

[Muenchausen]

Wasn't Russia an ally? Why would they surrender? Could it be the meer thought of Patton coming with all his uber men and armorment.

[Richter von Manthofen]

Russia was allied with Germany when they both occupied Poland :D

@ +1 for spotter: true if Spotter designation is the same as Spotter SA - and if yes then why should it bother - its part of the game (within 4 Hexes in LOS... the target must be near the Ranger - no problem with that)

[Cruizin2000]

And the "Allies" told Hitler to do what he wanted - just go EAST.

C2000

[boersma8]

The "problem" AFAIC is that the Axis don't have a comparable piece to make THEIR aircraft stronger too. I actually like the fact that it'll make planes more playable and competitive as long as it applies to both sides......The Allies ( read US) already have a huge advantage with their 81 mm mortar over the axis because of IMPROVED indirect fire, and now they'll have it too with their aircraft! As someone justly pointed out: The Allies already have the best aircraft ( so far). I wonder what the Me 262 will bring......Then again, the Gloucester meteor will also make its appearance.......

[FSSF]

Rangers won't boost airplanes because they don't have the Spotter SA.
They do have the "Spotter" sub-type of Soldier.
But only the Spotter SA gives:
"If this unit is within four hexes of an enemy unit and have line of sight to it, friendly Aircraft roll one extra attack die when attacking that unit."

Which means that Rangers will be able to coordinate with USA units with the Indirect Fire. Since the M1 81mm Mortar has the super SA Improved Indirect Fire, the only US unit that will benefit of the Rangers Spotter sub-type will be the M7 105 Priest.

Unless there is new ruling I haven't seen yet.

[polish_horsy]

what does "it's official" mean? did you get that in a Q&A answer?

[Richter von Manthofen]

I believe with OS Pt1 they announced a new ruling on spotters.

[boersma8]

what does "it's official" mean? did you get that in a Q&A answer?

It was just meant to illicite ( hope I spelled that correctly.......) more responses and reads.......... :D

[boersma8]

I believe with OS Pt1 they announced a new ruling on spotters.

The way I understood that part ( I may be wrong!) is that the " separate" spotter SA will no longer appear as such ( = as a special ability), but rather as a unit subtype.........If this is true it would also benefit aircraft!

[Sean-Khan]

Wow - if that's true, this guy should cost at least 8 points! Maybe he was made to make us stop whining about low cost of SSPG

"the Rangers have a subtype of Spotter, allowing them to function as spotters for your indirect fire units. "

No mention about planes - so it might not be true.

Maybe Mortar will be rephrased so they would need Rangers or other 'spotter' type unit to work? I hope so. They will be a deadly combination even that way.

[FSSF]

I'd like to know where this new Spotter rule was announced.
All I can read on Opening Salvo pt.1 is:
"Keeping with the theme of versatility and mobility, the Rangers have a subtype of Spotter, allowing them to function as spotters for your indirect fire units. Not only can the Ranger unit quickly close with the enemy across difficult terrain, but it can call in it's own indirect fire support. Use the Rangers to fix and hold your enemy while you pound them from afar with your other units."
Indirect Fire is okay as I understood.
Nowhere does it says that they also influence airplanes as per Spotter SA.

[Richter von Manthofen]

FSSF you are probably right, I had it wrong in my memory.

[boersma8]

Be it as it may, it sure is unnecessarily confusing and ambiguous again to have a " spotter SA" and a " Spotter-subtype" meaning two different things potentially. Didn't Steve mention somewhere that he thought that the SPOTTER SA would probably no longer appear as off set V, but rather become a subtype designation? I'm almost positive I read something along those lines somewhere........This at least IMPLIES that the subtype " Spotter" will " REPLACE" the spotter " SA" ..........Again, I may be wrong, but this is how I understood it..........

[CaptainHans]

I sure hope units with sub-type spotter have chatter on the radio tied in with them. That would sure upset those Americans having their precious rangers moving only one hex a turn. :D

[cannonfodder]

Oooo. Cpt Hans, nice idea. Spot or move, your choice. This idea has been run up the flagpole before and a lot of us saluted it.

[Predator666]

I'm believe FSSF is right. I just think it is so indirect fire units can open fire on something the ranger can see in range. The spotter ability on a card is to benefit planes, not indirect fire units. They have their own abilities that help them out. If thats confusing its cuz I'm tired.

[tragicmishap]

From my Ranger Review (http://www.decktech.net/wars/articles/articles.php?id=6410&view=2):

"Spotter subtype:
At first this seems like a really great deal. I’ve heard people on the boards blurt out, “An elite infantry unit that also acts as a spotter? Power Creep!” Not so fast. Every spotter unit has the Spotter subtype as well as the Spotter SA. The Spotter subtype allows Indirect Fire to go through this unit. The Spotter SA increases the attack dice of planes. The Ranger has the Spotter subtype, but not the Spotter SA. Basically, the Ranger can now spot for the Russian mortar and the Priest. Yes, in the entire game those are the only two things the Spotter subtype will do for this unit. The Priest is nice but it’s too expensive when you can get two mortars plus change for the same price. Bombardment is not worth having an extra shot, and in general it’s a bad idea to sink so many points into such an expensive unit. The only mortar worth having, the M1 81mm, only needed a US unit as a Spotter anyway. If you’re not a nation nitpicker, than you can field the Russian heavy mortar instead of the US one for one less point and not have to spend 8 points on a Spotter as you would have before. If you just want your basic infantry to spot for the heavies, you can save one point and use the Russian heavy. Big deal. You sacrifice the real power of the US mortar, that is to hit units that can avoid everything else by using a highly mobile spotter, to save one or two points in a build. Basically what we have here is WotC wanting to find a subtype for the Ranger that made it interesting and unique but didn’t make it more powerful, which is exactly what it does."

[Malaky]

Amen to that :)

[tragicmishap]

I realized after I posted this that this sentence made no sense: "Bombardment is not worth having an extra shot, and in general it’s a bad idea to sink so many points into such an expensive unit."

I think I meant to say "vulnerable unit".