DL's Expert Rules Game & Comments

[Der Leiter]

I managed to squeeze in a game using the expert rules. 100 Points US vs GE, using at least one platoon in your army. We decided one force (his) would not include any AA/Aircraft, while the other one had to.

Opponent's Force:
1x GE Platoon (1x SS-HSF, 1x MG42, 3x Mauser)
1x StuG III D
1x Panther D
1x Expert Sniper
1x Wehrmacht Veteran Infantrymen
1x Sd Kfz 251 (Veteran Inf loaded)
2x Barbed Wire
-----

My Force:
1x M4A3 (105) Sherman
1x M4A1 Sherman
2x Rangers
1x F4U Corsair
1x Flamethrower
1x Jeep (Flamethrower loaded)
1x US Platoon (RDC, BAR, Bazooka, 2x Garand)

Map: High Ground.

Turn #1
Germans win initiative and move into position, my infantry are caught out in the open, but I use my tanks to support them. His Veteran dismounts on the hill in front of my non-ranger infantry. My flamethrower is dropped off beside the Panther.
Air Phase: My Corsair only disrupts a mauser. My opponent has two mausers beside it, but facing the wrong way. Given the choice of 8 dice at 6+ (since the Corsair was easily placed facing away from them) or moving into position he does the latter.
Fearing the flamethrower, his armour pulls back, leaving the veteran alone on the hill; it manages to kill my BAR; my infantry kill him in retribution. The objective is contested.

Turn #2
The Corsair strikes again with impunity, but once more only disrupts a Mauser. The M4A1 and Panther exchange fire; the Panther is disrupted but the M4A1 is damaged. My flamethrower gets taken out by a Mauser, but slays his killer as well.
Still no infantry are anywhere near in position to use Enfilade; though my flamethrower would have been next turn if it had survived.
The MG42 hasn't had a target yet, nevermind used grazing fire.

Turn #3
I chortle as my opponent's headshot roll against my M4A3(105) comes up with three 1's. However I get the same luck; my point blank Bazooka completely missing the Panther and is shot down by a half-track.
Both sides are losing infantry, but I have damaged his StuG and re-disrupted his Panther. I should have used the Corsair on it this turn... I will next

Turn #4
The Panther blows up from the Corsair's bomb. Again my opponent doesn't even bother firing at it and I don't blame him.
His SS-HSF charges my infantry, seemingly ludicrous.... but this allows him to set up an enfilade with a nearby mauser, and a half-track that pulls up nearby. By the end of the turn everyone in the original platoon is dead except for the RDC. However the SS-HSF is also eliminated (Not the best of exchanges).
It looks like my luck is turning against me even more as the damaged StuG manages to hit my M4A3(105); it of course misses the StuG in return.
My opponent finally (technically) has an opportunity to use grazing fire against an adjacent Ranger and Jeep. Of course it would be silly to do so, but I suggest it anyways... for the sake of trying out the rules. Unfortunately he declines, but misses twice anyway.

Turn #5
My opponent is down to a Sniper, Mauser, disrupted MG42 and damaged/disrupted StuG. I still have my untouched (untouchable?) Corsair, one Ranger, Jeep, damaged M4A1, and disrupted M4A3(105).
On the movement phase my RDC runs out into the open, adjacent to my opponent's infantry. My M4A3 is in position, and my M4A1 lines up (both rear of the infantry). My opponent can't do much of anything except bring the half-track over to fire on my RDC.
My Corsair deploys and strafes the adjacent sniper, facing away like every time before; the sniper takes two hits and fails cover.
The M4A1 kills the Mauser, the Ranger kills the MG42, and the M4A3 re-disrupts the StuG. After the enfilade the RDC just continues moseying along into the hills apparently having plenty of time to do so after pinning down the mausers.
The dying and frustrated sniper fires upon the Corsar, not even coming close.

With only a damaged/disrupted StuG left against an M4A1 (Damaged), M4A3, Ranger, Corsair, and Jeep (heh) my opponent conceeds.

[Der Leiter]

Special Units
The first one is easy. I’m tired of seeing Screaming Eagles dominate. It would also help make assault scenarios viable again, since before your opponent could simply load up on partisans and paratroopers to overwhelm the objective on turn 1. However it doesn’t address the problem of the Ranger and SS-PG, although some of the other rules attempt to.
Defensive-Fire
The changes in the rule did prevent me from attempt to drive my Jeep passed some infantry. Where before I could simply jump the Ranger out if the Jeep was hit, now I would risk losing both. Other than that it had no real impact by itself. However, when combined with other rules changes it becomes a problem (details under the various rules).

The biggest problem my group has ever had with defensive-fire is not with the ability itself, but with units that simply ignore it; specifically those that can keep moving. Having the ability suddenly able to destroy units makes no sense to me; there’s no need for that at all. The ability is fine and playable with one simple and easy correction: “If a unit receives a face-down disrupted counter from a defensive-fire attack, it stops.” Done. Easy and simply to remember, and what most people not only though it should be but have wanted it to be from the very beginning.

Overwatch
Neither side in our battle used Overwatch. I know I felt that it was simply too limiting; it only activates when my opponent enters a hex, not when he leaves it. (If it were both, or at least the second I would have used it). It’s simply too easy to get around, and acts a lot like extended range; making your opponent avoid the area. It’s useful to be sure, but perhaps not enough to give up a regular attack for.

However that was only taking vehicles into account; neither of us took anti-tank guns. I’ll have to try them out before making any sort of proper judgment. I have a feeling though they will make ATGs much more useful, since their giving up the movement phase is a bit of a no-brainer.

I don’t like that it currently excludes the 88mm, and the Quad 50 could have some odd interactions with aircraft. It would have been nice if ATGs had their own subtype, but alas it’s too late for that.

On it’s own, the ability seems fine for vehicles; sometimes it will be worth using, sometimes it won’t. However with the changes in defencive-fire (no limit/counts as hits) it could really slow the game down. Although I haven’t done enough testing to come to any firm conclusion, I’d say there’s nothing wrong with this rule and would keep it IF defencive-fire is left alone. (Also it’s kind of odd is specifics a ‘defencive-fire’ as they would be effectively no difference in a regular attack; unless of course DF was left alone).

Grazing Fire
To put it simply, this rule was useless. The entire game it would have been, at best, a poor form of double shot. This isn’t because the idea is bad in itself, but simply because no opponent is going to give you free shots like that if they can help it. Not too many players will give a unit with double shot multiple targets to attack if they can help it; usually they only do so if they’re desperate. They’re definitely not going to give you a whole ROW of infantry to chew up. The only situation in which this ability would come into play for a standard game is possible near the end game IF your opponent still has enough infantry left to even use it on (ie some sort of massed charge at your MG holding the objective). While it could happen, I see it as unlikely.

Now in scenarios it might have some use, especially for D-Day where it would be downright ugly. Maybe every now and then you can be sneaky if your opponent forgets that (the way it’s worded right now) it can target vehicles or planes. You might get away with that once or twice before they catch on.

I know this ability is to help MGs, which sorely need it, but I'm not sure it does the job. Like Enfilade Fire and Aircraft, it forces your opponent to spread out, and like Extended Range it’s more a deterrent than something you’ll use. I will try it out some more, but as it stands now I would suggest not keeping the rule, and simply add MGs to platoons; giving them a discount should give them a decent boost. Another suggestion might be to give them the overwatch ability as well.

Platoons
Obviously I’m all in favour of platoons, having used them for quite some time now. When making my army I noted that the US Platoon was a bonus; It included all the units I’d normally take but at a discount. This let me take two Rangers for effectively only 3 points. Quite the bargain. Most of them seem alright, except the Russians. The Russian platoon seems rather lacklustre; all the other platoons are getting 7+ points off and have decent units in them. The Russians are stuck with a free commissar and 4 nagants. To be fair they didn’t cost that much in the first place though, but an Maxim (KMT) MG would have been nice.

I think I'll just keep using my URR Formations, but I like that at least there's some though about using premade units. I do wonder if they will affect tournaments much (assuming they'd even be used) by allowing more than 100 points in a 100 point game. I somehow doubt even then it would have an impact, but you never know, and we’ve only seen the first five.

Firing at Aircraft
In our game my opponent had no AA, so my Corsair was basically immune to his weapons fire. The best he could have done is a 33% chance with the sniper (assuming it somehow managed to get the same facing). Not bad, except I never let him have that chance. I probably could have been much more aggressive with the Corsair than I was too. Now the Corsair is nice, but I could just imagine something worse; like a Me 262 or Stuka flying around unimpeded.

The main problem is the restrictions of firing at the aircraft aren’t balanced; my units have to be directly along its flight path to not get the penalty, but the plane can easily fire in any direction. It is extremely difficult under the current expert rules to line up a shot on a plane.

On one hand I do think this better represents aircraft, but on the other I don’t like the impact on playability. My solution is the following: Aircraft can only attack non-aircraft units along their hex row. It’s a simply way to keep aircraft harder to shoot down, but not impossible; keeping it somewhat historical but also somewhat balanced. At least the aircraft’s target can shoot back with only the normal penalty.

Enfilade Fire
I really don’t like this rule.

In our game the kamikaze SS-HSF ran out at my troops, suddenly making his other units crack shots. It’s not hard to get at a units rear at all, since it’s nearly 180 degrees. Going first with units like BMWs or cavalry allows you to set up for an Enfilade, possibly encircling your opponent so he can’t even leave or risk destruction by defencive-fire. Then on the assault phase your other units can fire, allowing your BMW/Cavalry to beat a retreat and avoid being attacked. Set up properly you will decimate your opponent while not taking any losses. Add in some covering fire and your opponent might as well give up those infantry. (It also makes me wonder which way a unit faces if its in the same hex as another… or does it?).

It also didn’t seem to have the intended affect of making units like the Mauser better. The Enfilades were difficult to set up earlier on, which gave the more powerful Rangers time to simply pick them off. Without the Enfilade fire the Mausers were useless, and it would have taken a lot more of them to have it work. My Rangers, on the other hand, were made much more effective; going from a decent chance of eliminating the Mausers and MG42, to an almost certainty (barring cover rolls). But even worse is when you have units like my M4A3(105) taking advantage of it. Not too many soldiers are going to survive 11/11/9 with crackshot and bombardment. Then there are the inaccurate units such as the Mortars. +/- 1 on a D6 has a huge impact. Not only do units like the Nebelwerfer and Katyusha suddenly become accurate, but they can also use it with their rocket salvoes to an even more devastating effect. Now I realize things might have been a bit different if my opponent used a BMW, but then again they might not have; my Rangers might have been able to simply move away.

One way to ‘fix’ this ability is to limit enfilade fire so that only adjacent units can do it. This prevents a lot of the silliness with it. But it doesn’t get rid of it entirely. Additionally, I begin to wonder about the theory behind this. Is it assumed the defending units will always take up that position instead of say, spreading out? Digging into foxholes, etc? Do I not even get a choice in this (well no, it would complicate things even more). Also, crack shot is also seen as entirely undesirable by many players, myself included. I have two solutions for this:

I agree with WotC’s discussion, that you want to limit it to just adjacent units to keep it from getting too complex (always an issue in big games). Enfilade exposes the infantry to fire, making the entire unit relatively easy to hit. While an increase in dice could be appropriate, perhaps the penalty to the cover save, as suggested by another poster, would be more appropriate. “Two non-adjacent friendly soldiers that are both adjacent to an enemy soldier, give that enemy soldier -1 to its cover rolls.” Wording that has proven to be difficult, but I want to have it precise.


What I would prefer even more though, and what I believe was suggested before, was something more along the lines of what SWM has with its combined fire.

[Der Leiter]

Something along the lines of

Combined Fire
At the beginning of the assault phase you may designate fire teams of up to four units that will combine fire.
Each of these units must have LOS and LOF to the target and each units' attack value must be equal to or greater than the target's defence. (This prevents a group of Garands ganging up at range one and destroying a Panzer, etc).
Select one unit as the primary attacker; each other unit adds +1 attack die to the primary attacker's roll.
Each unit involved counts as if it had attacked.

[Cpt. John Miller]

Der Leiter
Do you think a more graceful answer to some of the new rules could be to extend defensive fire to medium range for AA(new aircraft rule), ATG(overwatch), and MGs(grazing fire)?
With no change to defensive fire damage rules.
They might be able to kill 3 birds with one stone.

[Der Leiter]

Der Leiter
Do you think a more graceful answer to some of the new rules could be to extend to medium range defensive fire for AA(new aircraft rule), ATG(overwatch), and MGs(grazing fire)?
With no change to defensive fire damage rules.
They might be able to kill 3 birds with one stone.

I really don't like extended defencive-fire ranges. I've tried it and it always makes everything messy; cluttering up the battlefield and slowing things down. The solution may be to borrow rules from WAS, specifically the breaking down of attacks into phases. You can take their air phases and add it to AAM. In fact you could even apply the phases to other attacks like anti-tank guns; maybe they get an attack phase after the air phases but before the assault phase. Something like this maybe:

(Everything I'm saying is in the Quickstart Rules (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/aam/ah20061122c), sorry ;))

AIRCRAFT STEPS

1. Air Mission Phase
Players alternate placing aircraft on the map.
In standard games this might not make a difference, as at most each player will probably only have one aircraft anyway.
However in larger games it can make a HUGE difference. Right now whoever places first is in a bad position, because Player 2 can then place all his planes to take advantage of your placement; many times player (or team) 1 won't place aircraft. Placing them just one at a time prevents this from occuring.

2. Air Defence Phase
Non-aircraft units with the antiair ability may attack aircraft, but any that do cannot attack or move during the assault phase (Note this is a slightly different than WAS, since weapons work a little differently in WAS; I don't want AAM planes or AA guns firing twice a turn.).
Resolve the attacks after the last player has taken his Air Defence Phase; disrupted planes are removed from the map.

3. Air Attack Phase
Any aircraft remaining on the map may now attack.
Resolve their attacks at the end of the last player's Air Attack Phase

Some changes might be to not have the air attacks resolve right away, giving the ground units a chance to respond.
This would also make it so that unless an aircraft is destroyed it's available every turn. While this may seem to make a huge difference, it really doesn't; instead of the aircraft not getting to attack next round, it doesn't attack this round.

4. Artillery Phase
ATGs firing before the assault phase could be a bit nasty, but then this might make them actually useable. However, defining anti-tank guns is difficult, as it's not a unit type. Artillery covers a lot of units such as mortars or the nebelwerfer you might not included. Relocate 2 leaves out the 88, and again adds heavy mortars and the nebelwerfer. The best solution I can think of is "units with 'Antitank Gun' in their name". It only includes ATGs, but unfortunately leaves out the ZIS-2 and 88. Not great, but perhaps somewhat better than the previous one.

I'm not sure if I'd recommend this or not. It could be worth trying out.

[madwill]

classifing ATGs- any artillery with a vehicle attack higher than it's infantry attack may be classifed as an ATG.

overwatch- i've been trying to keep it simple becaue i like the "simultanious fire" mechanic. having said that here is my idea for overwatch on ATG.

all ATGs have overwatch (vehicle) when firing at overwatch (type) all damage against that unit type is applied immediately instead of the damage phase.

[NorthernRommel]

Something along the lines of

Combined Fire
At the beginning of the assault phase you may designate fire teams of up to four units that will combine fire.
Each of these units must have LOS and LOF to the target and each units' attack value must be equal to or greater than the target's defence. (This prevents a group of Garands ganging up at range one and destroying a Panzer, etc).
Select one unit as the primary attacker; each other unit adds +1 attack die to the primary attacker's roll.
Each unit involved counts as if it had attacked.

Thats what I use as well with a slight variation on it. It works far better then the way WOTCs Enfilade fire will work.

[Latro]

Thats what I use as well with a slight variation on it. It works far better then the way WOTCs Enfilade fire will work.

It might work, but I'm sure I like what type of play it promotes: simply ganging-up on a unit with a horde instead of promoting movement, out-flanking the enemy (and guarding against that).

A much "shallower" style of play if you ask me.


I'll take enfilade anyday over that, provided:

- defensive fire gets a boost
- restrict the benefit to adjacent units

optional: give scout cars and transports with fighting platform (and infantry on board) the ability to "trigger" an enfilade.


On the other points:

- Specials restricted: I'm all for it. Puts the lid on extreme gimmick-builds ... and if you want to try those anyway, just inform your opponent.

- Defensive fire: beef it up! A minimal effect of running straight into a hail of lead should be a stop to all movement and if enough hits are caused, a face-up and a face-down disruption ... no reason why risky moves while going last in the assault-phase should be without consequenses.

- Overwatch: finally! But also dependend on the fact if defensive fire gets a real bite or not. Crossing open terrain while an AT-gun is keeping watch on it should be very risky ...

- Grazing fire: indiferent. It won't break anything, it also won't be used that much. Don't count on it to fix any problems with units like MG's ... just a rule that might show up once every four games or so.

- Platoons: the potential to offer great options (mechanized infantry!), but also very likely to create more problems (= new power combinations). I like trying mechanized infantry ... but why do I have to use Panzergrenadiers and a PAK 38 for example?

- Aircraft: undecided. I can't imagine WotC writing the rule in such a way that allows aircraft to "fly backwards" to their target ... so that shouldn't be a problem. Still, I'm not really convinced aircraft actually need that boost ... you just have to use them with care.


:cool:

[NorthernRommel]

It might work, but I'm sure I like what type of play it promotes: simply ganging-up on a unit with a horde instead of promoting movement, out-flanking the enemy (and guarding against that).

A much "shallower" style of play if you ask me.

I'll take enfilade anyday over that, provided:

:cool:

It works much better then Enfilade as AAM presents it. There is also the fact that it is very simple to use.

From a tactical point of view it
1) permits using units to tie up advances of the little "hordes" you speak of
2) Permits little hordes to force their way though defensive lines (historic)
3) to make some attacks effective you have to use it.
4) Allows inclusion of higher defense ranges that come from other modifiers
(Entrenching, Defense Works, etc).

...and it works........

But dont take my word for it. Go playtest it. We did - and it works well as a simple balancing rule.

[Rick]

Der Leiter, thanks for this post. It makes for a great read. I've been following the postings for the proposed 'Expert Rules' with great interest. Your posting your experiences, and you own thoughts on the changes raises the level of everyone's play. Ultimatly, that's the purpose of this site.

Thank you.

[Latro]

It works much better then Enfilade as AAM presents it. There is also the fact that it is very simple to use.

From a tactical point of view it
1) permits using units to tie up advances of the little "hordes" you speak of
2) Permits little hordes to force their way though defensive lines (historic)
3) to make some attacks effective you have to use it.
4) Allows inclusion of higher defense ranges that come from other modifiers
(Entrenching, Defense Works, etc).

...and it works........

But dont take my word for it. Go playtest it. We did - and it works well as a simple balancing rule.

I guess I should have been more clear on that: I do believe it will work and I do believe it's very simple to use. That's exactly the problem for me:

This simple version promotes using concentrated groups of units going straight towards the other concentrated group of enemy units and then slug it out.

The original enfilade version promotes using lines of units supporting eachother with defensive fire while trying to outflank the enemy ... a much more interesting tactic to use if you ask me.


:cool:

[NorthernRommel]

I guess I should have been more clear on that: I do believe it will work and I do believe it's very simple to use. That's exactly the problem for me:

This simple version promotes using concentrated groups of units going straight towards the other concentrated group of enemy units and then slug it out.

The original enfilade version promotes using lines of units supporting eachother with defensive fire while trying to outflank the enemy ... a much more interesting tactic to use if you ask me.


:cool:

The way the simple version tends to work is not exactly as how you depicted it. Mob on Mob is generally a wasted use of the tactic. Smart players will however learn that a smaller and lesser group can be used to either support the main attack force, or hold up the enemies main attack force even if it has to sacrifice itself yet buy time.

From my playtesting experience the simple version promotes tactical play in the following way.

1) You will have lesser units in the game that can support better units through the use of supporting firepower.

2) This rule allows lesser units to deal with an almighty 5 DEF or 6 DEF unit (or higher with terrain bonus) kind of target. That means a SSPG or Ranger cannot usually run into a squad of half dozen Mauser fireteams and ignore them. Higher defense units have to be a little more careful, or in turn bring their own supporting fire units with them (aka. promotes use of lesser units).

The Defender can also use lesser units in Entrenched works to "strongpoint" so that the attacker is forced to devote resources to things like punching a hole in a line. Mind you we usually play with more realistic 2:1 or 3:1 attacker ratios as well -- meaning as a defender you really have to learn maximize all of your tactical advantages.

3) It promotes better tactical placement of MG teams that can support different groups of friendly attacking infantry at a greater distance (making better use of the MG team assets). Mind you there are a few other differences in my maps from AAMs that make this more sensible a tactic. Like being in a higher elevation church tower or on a hill, you can't use Supporting Fire through Smoke or when enemy, same hex, etc. But it will work in AAM too if you can get the MG in the middle and send the troops up the sides while a core group of lesser units duke it out with the defender head on.

I already use flanking in my game, and it also works in a simple way (albeit different way). However I am reluctant to mention it here cause I am kinda sick of giving up ideas to WOTC before the final version of my own rules are ready.

There are also other changes and options that should be included to maximize the use of this rule mechanic (keep in mind we also can use tactical cards and abilities not used by troops in AAM). But still the underlying mechanic and the benefits of it are the same.