The 5 Defense Soldier Dilema....

[Kaufschtick]

Here's the poll that was supposed to go with my original thread. Sorry, my browser crashed.

I was saying that this has got to be the #1 item on any advanced rules set.

Do you limit them, making alot of "common" pieces unplayable?

To change the stats means the stat cards are now wrong. That plus what do you do about the other pieces already in the game designed to counter the original 5 defense? Such as the U.S. 81/82mm mortar?

It seems to me that a re-costing represents the best fix with the least amount of difficulty or change to the game and stat cards. That plus you could "fix" pieces like the Nashorn.

What do you think? Public poll, BTW.

[boersma8]

Oh, now there IS a poll...

Well, the best way of course is reissuing the cards nd correct them. Then again, then you'd also have to do it for the Jagdpanther, Sherman, US mortar etc. However, I'm afraid this is not going to happen, sadly enough...

The second best option for me is steely resolve 2 or 3

Personally, I don't feel positively towards limiting them ( unlike heroes...)

[fifleche]

4/4 SR 2 would be best, IMO, as it would be the simplest to implement; I mean, it's not like we change the whole stats, and errata already DID modify some SA's, so it's no more complicated than that. No need to hold a contest to see how to recost them. I can see the arguing going back and forth for the rest of eternity on that one :rolleyes:

Same thing for some units that function in a bizarre way; instead of recosting, errata an SA one way or another. Improved indirect fire for example, could be called from any spotter OR any officer and VOILA! it is better than the other mortars without being broken. Certainly warrants a 1-pt difference...

[Uncle_Joe]

OMG! I agree almost word for word with fifleche on something! The end is near....repent now sinners! ;)

I like the 'errata' for Imp Indirect Fire. It keeps the spirit without the cheese. It also give the Rangers something to actually call (and if they were 4/4 SR:2, they wouldnt feel like cheese either :) ).

[oddfellow]

Okay, so you recost the SSPG's at 7... then what? Everyone still going to build up to the max with SSPG's. Instead of seeing 10 of them you'll face 7. This improves the odds, but even at 7 points they are still going to dominate play and be near impossible to kill. Basic infantry, no matter what your numerical superiority due to cost, will continue to be worthless against them and you still are not going to see a healthy diversity in builds that this game so sorely needs, so really how does this make the game better to play? Its still going to be ALL 5/5 infantry SSPG and Screaming Eagle builds all the freakin' time! With some sort of cap (either set number, percentage of build, or something like 1 elite for every 4 regular infantry) at least we'll see much more diverse, interesting builds that are closer to history.

[bresh]

You do know you lack the option of leaving them as they are ?

Regards
Bresh

[boersma8]

Okay, so you recost the SSPG's at 7... then what? Everyone still going to build up to the max with SSPG's. Instead of seeing 10 of them you'll face 7. This improves the odds, but even at 7 points they are still going to dominate play and be near impossible to kill. Basic infantry, no matter what your numerical superiority due to cost, will continue to be worthless against them and you still are not going to see a healthy diversity in builds that this game so sorely needs, so really how does this make the game better to play? Its still going to be ALL 5/5 infantry SSPG and Screaming Eagle builds all the freakin' time! With some sort of cap (either set number, percentage of build, or something like 1 elite for every 4 regular infantry) at least we'll see much more diverse, interesting builds that are closer to history.

Agreed. But that could be "solved" again by introducing a (costly) new officer type which would give an attack bonus to non -elite infantry only ( you might even consider going as far as restricting it to Mausers, SMLE riflemen, Mosin Nagants etc. only....( so no mortars, panzerfausts etc.). Making it possible to take out def. 5 infantry and having many 4/4 infantry left. ( here I assume we'd be keeping the defensive values as they are...)

An errata to make them all 4/4 with steely resolve 2 or 3 would also be really great. Then the 5 point cost wouldn't be bad at all anymore for an SS panzergrenadier, because multiple SMLE or Mosin Nagant attacks WILL be able to take it out!

I don't want them to be limited, really. Suppose you're playing the battle for Caen or Kharkov. I mean, those were SS divisions invloved there, so there's nothing wrong with playing mainly SS panzergrenadiers in such cases.....

[Marquis]

Alright I'll beat this drum one more time:

I agree with Oddfellow that by creating a percentage limit you still leave the option of making interesting Army build. I don't want to change the 5/5 infantry at all - I just want some kind of reason to use other units in building an army. So for that I once again propose:

Any 5/5 infantry or Elite/Vetran tank is limited to 20% of your total points.

So if you have 100 points you can use 20 points to purchase 5/5 infantry or Elite/Vetran tanks. This means that a German player would have to choose between 4 SSPGs, or 1 hero and 2 SSPGs, or two Paratroopers, or a combination of such units or forgo the infantry and buy an Elitle PZIV.

Personally I hate the 4/4 plus steely resovle idea. I've already got two of those units, Aussies and Vertran Infantry. Ever played with them? You would if your 5/5s were limited to 20% of your build.

[Tom_Weasle]

SR 2 is what they should have been in the first place or have a higher cost value. But as the game stands they are 5/5 and I think the rules of the game are, the rules of the game. However, it would seem that this is disrupting the fun aspect of the game, so I would say that if this is such a big thing, then introduce a rule that can help counter this rather than remolding the unit itself. So, with that in mind, I voted for limiting the amount per build.

Though I don't personally have a problem with the 5/5 units but I do agree with Marquis, "I just want some kind of reason to use other units in building an army."

[polish_horsy]

I would suggest a poll could also include:

4. leave them as they are.
5. make a rule that all units besides SS-PG and Rangers get 1 extra dice when attacking SS-PG and Ranger units.

while there is something bad about all options the only advantage of 5. is that the costs can stay the same and in fact that no new cards of any kind would be needed. you just have to remember the extra dice rule.

[beagle1]

. I've already got two of those units, Aussies and Vertran Infantry. Ever played with them?.

I play with them all the time.
My most played force is infact build around the Aussies.
6 of them with 2 bren's, 2 6pounders, 2 Crusaders and 2 Insp.Lt's.
And my German Vet's see plenty action aswell[and yes I do have 4 SS-grenadiers who do hit the table if a suitable scenario is played.
Cheers B1

[boersma8]

SR 2 is what they should have been in the first place or have a higher cost value. But as the game stands they are 5/5 and I think the rules of the game are, the rules of the game. However, it would seem that this is disrupting the fun aspect of the game, so I would say that if this is such a big thing, then introduce a rule that can help counter this rather than remolding the unit itself. So, with that in mind, I voted for limiting the amount per build.

Though I don't personally have a problem with the 5/5 units but I do agree with Marquis, "I just want some kind of reason to use other units in building an army."

I said it before and it's also how they've been "fixing" balancing issues so far: introduce a new officer type that gives attack bonusses to non elite infantry ( like the RD captain does for the Garands. You can leave all the cards alone and make it an option to chose MORE lower defense infantry but WITH roughly the same attack values as the elite infantry, under certain conditions, but now also for the other nations.....)

[Qmark]

The single biggest "problem" with 5-defense guy is that Wizards/AH continued issuing crappy units with eight close-range AI dice after Set 2.

[jlutin]

Perhaps a "free" officer/Sergeant when you take over 5 basic troopers (4/4) (call it, "Lead and Follow")? If you take more than 2 elites (5/5) they will ignore officer bonuses (call it "Experienced and In Charge")?

This represents a general never sending a large group of normal troopers without a leader and the fact that highly experienced troops will use thier experience in a tough fight and will be sent without a leader because of their experience.

Tie specific officers to troop types. IE Red Devil with M1's. Inspiring Lt's with SMLE 4's.

[polish_horsy]

The single biggest "problem" with 5-defense guy is that Wizards/AH continued issuing crappy units with eight close-range AI dice after Set 2.

gotta disagree with you on that one. I mean should a basic rifleman be as dangerous at close range as a sub-machinegun?

[bresh]

Alright I'll beat this drum one more time:

Any 5/5 infantry or Elite/Vetran tank is limited to 20% of your total points.


I honestly hope no % limits ever. If you want limit them, limit shermans, stuarts, armored cars, bofors, kv1s, mortars etc to, cause they be your next problem.


Regards
Bresh

[boersma8]

The single biggest "problem" with 5-defense guy is that Wizards/AH continued issuing crappy units with eight close-range AI dice after Set 2.

Wouldn't it be weird to have a Volksturm guy throwing as many dice as an SS stormtrooper? I'm glad they kept this "historical". What they should've done however, is issue certain good units in later sets, thereby getting "naturally" better unitsas you go. Now they're having to come up with weird fixes....

[Marquis]

I honestly hope no % limits ever. If you want limit them, limit shermans, stuarts, armored cars, bofors, kv1s, mortars etc to, cause they be your next problem.
Regards
Bresh


Honestly we've been using the 20% rule in our weekly campaign game now for almost a year. The rule has been throughly tested and even without it bofors, KV1's and Shermans are a problem for infantry but it's a good problem not a bad one. An all SSPG army is a bad problem, an all paratrooper army is a bad problem - Shermans, Kv1's I can deal with.

[Zar]

How about just leave them alone.

[shadowhooch]

Perhaps a "free" officer/Sergeant when you take over 5 basic troopers (4/4) (call it, "Lead and Follow")? If you take more than 2 elites (5/5) they will ignore officer bonuses (call it "Experienced and In Charge")?

This represents a leader never sending a large group of normal troopers sent without a leader and the fact that highly experienced troops will use thier experience in a tough fight and will be sent without a leader because of their experience.

Tie specific officers to troop types. IE Red Devil with M1's. Inspiring Lt's with SMLE 4's.

Actually, I kind of like this idea. I'd just apply it to 5/5 infantry accross the board:

Stormtroopers, SSPG, Grizzled Vets, and Fallshirmjagers would lose the effects of Exert Will and Angriff
Fanatics and Japanese Hero would lose Banzai and Pinpointer
Rangers wouldn't get Pinpointer bonus and SEParas can only benefit from a Para Commander
UK Paras wouldn't get Tally Ho (not that they needed it)


That rule encourages 4/4 infantry builds to utilize commander abilities. It takes some of the teeth away from the Elites - especially the Axis Elites - as now only 2 Elite units can remove disruption on their own (Paras and Fanatics). And, it's really easy to implement. Very cool.:cool:

[maciej12]

I really think that a limit is the easiest way to handle this. It dosen't need any new cards to be distributed, it dosent require that you remamber any different stats, it is simple math. If you can't figure it out in your head your calculator can give you an answer. This solves the problem in the quickest way and makes for easier to understand rules. 20%, 30% whatever, but don't start changing stats.

Think about some new person to the game, they look at thier stat card and see a 5/5 def. and then you tell them oh yea, that was changed to a 4/4 ith steely resolve 2.

Or, tell them that the point cost on the card is now 3-4 points higher, so they have to remember this.

Or, you tell them that those units can only be _% of your build because of the power of the unit.

Just seems to me that the third explanation makes the most sense to a new (or existing) player.

[Uncle_Joe]

Think about some new person to the game, they look at thier stat card and see a 5/5 def. and then you tell them oh yea, that was changed to a 4/4 ith steely resolve 2.

To be fair, a 'new person' shouldn't be bothering with 'Expert Rules' and if they do, they should be prepared for some brain work.

[Vikingwarrior]

Recost the units. And I think I finally came up with how WoTc can do it inexpensively and promote the game and the local game store at the same time. WoTc could issue small square stickers that could be applied to the existing cards with the new numbers on them. They could supply these stickers to the local game store for free, as a service. The benefit to WoTc is to promote the game, sell more boosters, and make existing gamers happy which will in turn promote the game even more. The benefit to the local game store is it creates traffic and buzz for the game. Couple this with Combat Zone gaming and more boosters should be sold as well which should increase sales for the game store. The benefit to the gamers is obvious.
Since HHR has done the lions share of the work WoTc can use their costs but only recost units that are aggregiously out of wack. I think this is a VERY doable and low cost way of promoting the game.

[maciej12]

To be fair, a 'new person' shouldn't be bothering with 'Expert Rules' and if they do, they should be prepared for some brain work.

My reply to you on this--not to be a jerk here-- but how long did you play the basic rules before you moved on to the advanced rules? If they would publish a new ruleset for expert do you think that someone new would just ignore them until they were "able" to play them.

From WoTC standpoint what sense would it make to change stats on a unit? How does that make the company look? Form a business standpoint I can tell you that you are not going to see any printed stat cards with different stats here, and if the object is to make a standardized printable set of rules--they are going to do it with minimal cost--which means not publishing new cards to satisfy them.

[Uncle_Joe]

It depends on how serious they are about trying to increase the number of 'playable' units.

And in an optional set of rules dubbed 'Expert' that likely have to be downloaded from a web site rather than included in the box, I think they should have near carte blanche to change things as necessary. I dont believe they should be playing to the least common denominator here.

Honestly, if people cant grasp that 5/5 is treated as 4/4 SR:2, then they will likely not be able to handle Grazing Fire or Enfilade or half of the other concepts.

I totally agree that they aren't going to re-issue cards or print new cards for old units etc. But that doesn't mean that they cant issue what amounts to an errata or rules change. There is PLENTY of precedent for doing so with the current Errata and changes to rules like Transport (which are considerably different than the originally printed rules).

[Major Adler]

Kaufschtick...since the you have said that the 5/5 Infantry dilema is the major problem (and I agree with you)...why did you skew your poll with option #3...

[CommanderlessMosinNagant]

Recost the units.

For the record, I do not believe that recosting defense 5/5 infantry (or for that matter limiting their number) is a true solution. The very presence of defense 5/5 infantry makes a large number of units much less playable (in some cases, outright unplayable). The problem arises from the fact that an AI value of 7 is insufficient to deal with defense 5/5 infantry. When you look at the number of units which have a max AI value of 7, you'll find a large group of units that would be nice to be more frequently used in the game. For example, there's most of the non-anti-infantry tanks (except for KV-1's and Shermans) and low cost infantry. Making defense 5/5 infantry easier to affect would make those units much more viable. (The one exception is the sandbagged MG teams...which would be nice to maintain as the only true defense 5/5 unit.)

I had proposed the using of Attack/Defense Tables (or Combat Resolution Tables) in another thread to solve this problem and not "change" the text on the cards, but that was not greeted with any enthusiasm. But it is one way to accommodate the issue of not reprinting anything and falling in line with the concept of "expert" rules.

[Cpt. John Miller]

I don't want them to be limited, really. Suppose you're playing the battle for Caen or Kharkov. I mean, those were SS divisions invloved there, so there's nothing wrong with playing mainly SS panzergrenadiers in such cases.....

You can always remove limits for Scenarios like these. The problem is that everyone plays the max SSPGs they can in every build. This will not change without a Cap. Even if you change them to 4/4 SR2 people will still play with 10 plus because of their sick Dice and Ruthless. If you recost them to 7 or more people will still stack them as high as they can afford. The only solution to this issue is an ELITE CAP. You can have your 2 SSPGs/SEPTs and then you have to go elsewhere for your Cheese. There is no other solution that will change the landscape of the battlefield and force you to use the other stuff in your box.
And I'm tired of the complaint:
"That's not historical enough" this game is frought with historical innacuracy, let's not let that stop us from fixing the problems. I for one do not care about historical accuracy when the only viable german army is all SS. How historical is that?

[Kaufschtick]

Kaufschtick...since the you have said that the 5/5 Infantry dilema is the major problem (and I agree with you)...why did you skew your poll with option #3...

Because I had a few too many beers by then!:eek: :D

Actually, I really like the SR 2 solution, but then you have pieces like the Nashorn. Recosting would bring alot more units back into play. Sorry about the wording, it's simply the way I was leaning at the time and because I was checking out a Great Lakes Beer Sampler 12 pack at the time! First time I've tried that beer, and man o' man is it good stuff!:D

I should've included a fourth option.

4.) Drink enough beer and who really cares! Just be glad to be playing a good game and enjoy hanging out with good friends!:D

[tragicmishap]

There is a much simpler way to deal with this problem: Eliminate the 15 unit limit.

Doing that would allow players to take full advantage of the ONLY advantage cheaper 4/4 soldier units have over more expensive ones, namely that they are cheaper.

[Qmark]

There is a much simpler way to deal with this problem: Eliminate the 15 unit limit.It's so obvious that nobody's figured it out yet, huh?
As near as I can guess, the only people who would dislike the idea would be the crybabies afraid of seeing twenty SSPG's.

[DocD]

Look's like this one is all over the place. A third of the voters going for each choice.
This just confirms there is no agreement among players as how to fix the 5 defense soldiers. great.

[fifleche]

General comments on other options:

-The 20% rule: That way, you cannot field an Airborne division dropping behind enemy lines, nor an SS-Panzergrenadier Division.

-Repricing the 5/5 upward: Those units would STILL be able to walk up to an enemy MG nest unscathed. This is NOT WWII, IMHO, but more "Sci-Fi-ish".

In short, both options would limit my ability to field a realistic WWII-force that BEHAVES like a WWII-force.

[fifleche]

The single biggest "problem" with 5-defense guy is that Wizards/AH continued issuing crappy units with eight close-range AI dice after Set 2.Well, IMHO, 8 dices is both BALANCED and REALISTIC within the confines of a light-tactical-WWII wargame against 4/4 targets. Heck, even 7 dices is still balanced.

So? Re-issue, re-stat ALL previous units under 9 AI dices instead of lowering a handful of unit's defense, so that we don't have to errata those ten, we'll throw 90% of the collection in a permanent place in the tacklebox?

[Qmark]

So? Re-issue, re-stat ALL previous units under 9 AI dices instead of lowering a handful of unit's defense, so that we don't have to errata those ten, we'll throw 90% of the collection in a permanent place in the tacklebox?This a collectible game. Piles and piles of crap is what moves massive amounts of the product, under the guise of chasing down the "good stuff".

[fifleche]

Yes, Qmark, this is where you and I diverge.

Look at our "titles", below our user names.

Qmark-Rules Lawyer: You want to use the confines of the rules to build the best army and win. That's why you are against recosting / restatting / banning / putting a cap. An unlimited field for your deck-building skills.

Fifleche-Grognard wannabe: I want to re-create battles. Even playing scenarios where you have actually NO CHANCES at winning. I want to out-do my enemy in strategy on the field with what I have present, not beat him through my better "deck-building" techniques or because I happen to have a better collection.

My advice to you: keep to the basic & advanced rulebook, play tournaments, have fun.

My advice to me: Try to push so that the Expert rules be more realistic while still within the "light wargame" style. Failing that, houserule or HHR exclusively.

[CommanderlessMosinNagant]

There is a much simpler way to deal with this problem: Eliminate the 15 unit limit.

Doing that would allow players to take full advantage of the ONLY advantage cheaper 4/4 soldier units have over more expensive ones, namely that they are cheaper.

All cheer tragicmishap! I've been waiting to play that Nationalist Chinese horde for a while.... This is the rule that I should have been pushing for. Imagine it, 45 riflemen and an ammo dump.

[Sharpe]

Why is this a concern to anybody? The WOTC tournament rules allow the organizer to restrict available units or expand the unit count. Therefore, you could prohibit or restrict 5/5 infantry any way you want, as we do in about 75% of our tournaments.

As for casual play, unless your buddy has anger management issues, do whatever you want.

My solution would be to leave the issue alone and do want you want in the privacy of your home or FLGS. A ruling from WOTC would really only affect GENCON and other mega-tournaments. You already have the power to create a solution to this problem in your own lives. Don't cry out for intervention from a higher authority, it might not work out the way you want.

[Cpt. John Miller]

....................changed my mind

[beagle1]

There is a much simpler way to deal with this problem: Eliminate the 15 unit limit.

Doing that would allow players to take full advantage of the ONLY advantage cheaper 4/4 soldier units have over more expensive ones, namely that they are cheaper.

All I can say to this is; Amen.
It's the best way.
Also makes minor nations actually playable as a side effect, 100pts Polish yes please, currently my force has 23pieces.
Cheers B1

[Tom_Weasle]

Yes, Qmark, this is where you and I diverge.

Look at our "titles", below our user names.

Qmark-Rules Lawyer: You want to use the confines of the rules to build the best army and win. That's why you are against recosting / restatting / banning / putting a cap. An unlimited field for your deck-building skills.

Fifleche-Grognard wannabe: I want to re-create battles. Even playing scenarios where you have actually NO CHANCES at winning. I want to out-do my enemy in strategy on the field with what I have present, not beat him through my better "deck-building" techniques or because I happen to have a better collection.

My advice to you: keep to the basic & advanced rulebook, play tournaments, have fun.

My advice to me: Try to push so that the Expert rules be more realistic while still within the "light wargame" style. Failing that, houserule or HHR exclusively.

You probably just hit the nail on the head. There are two styles of players in this 5/5 argument.

1) Those who want to play within the confines of the current game rules (like myself) and
2) Those looking for a realistically simulated, historical WWII game.

I don't think A&A minis will be able to satisfy both parties and I don't think making Expert rules will appease both sides. If the Historical guys want a Historical game, a whole new set of rules should be written...with new stat cards. The Expert rules just ad more interest to the game in its current form and settle minor arguments for players of the existing rules.

[Marquis]

There is a much simpler way to deal with this problem: Eliminate the 15 unit limit.

Doing that would allow players to take full advantage of the ONLY advantage cheaper 4/4 soldier units have over more expensive ones, namely that they are cheaper.


You know, we did this. In our games there is no unit limit and we still use the 20% rule. This makes for interesting builds and it does make the Chinese a challenge to the Japanese.

[polish_horsy]

There is a much simpler way to deal with this problem: Eliminate the 15 unit limit.

Doing that would allow players to take full advantage of the ONLY advantage cheaper 4/4 soldier units have over more expensive ones, namely that they are cheaper.


1x US Para
62x barbed wire
60x tank obstacle

7 turns of ugly hell.

[Lotus]

1x US Para
62x barbed wire
60x tank obstacle

7 turns of ugly hell.

Reasonable obstacle limits?

[jlutin]

1x US Para
62x barbed wire
60x tank obstacle

7 turns of ugly hell.

Couple engineers?

[polish_horsy]

yes... I forgot about all those times people made builds with 2 engineers in it.

:)

[Uncle_Joe]

Limits are necessary to prevent complete guessing games. The same force that can oppose 20 Rangers is likely not going have much success against 4 AVRE's (unless its 20 SS-Pgr, I suppose)

[Kaufschtick]

I don't know about no unit limits. Seems to me like that would be the end of most tanks in 100 point games.

[Kaufschtick]

All cheer tragicmishap! I've been waiting to play that Nationalist Chinese horde for a while.... This is the rule that I should have been pushing for. Imagine it, 45 riflemen and an ammo dump.

I can see it now, 45 Chinese vs 30 Arisakas with an ammo dump on each side in seven turns...bring on the tactical nukes SA...;)

[Lotus]

I don't know about no unit limits. Seems to me like that would be the end of most tanks in 100 point games.

Well, just picture 500-3000 pt games, like some of us have. You'd need a dedicated game room, table, closed door (because of cats), and weeks to play...and then the force with the tanks would still lose.

Yikes.

[Kaufschtick]

yes... I forgot about all those times people made builds with 2 engineers in it.

:)

LOL!!! :D :D As long as you are playing as the British anyway.

[Kaufschtick]

Well, just picture 500-3000 pt games, like some of us have. You'd need a dedicated game room, table, closed door (because of cats), and weeks to play...and then the force with the tanks would still lose.

Yikes.

Yes, I think too much of the already existing game is based on the fact that there are unit limits. I don't think it's a disposable part of the design. Now it might be possible to bump it up a little, to like 20 per 100 points, but I don't see that as being a help at this point.

[Lotus]

Yes, I think too much of the already existing game is based on the fact that there are unit limits. I don't think it's a disposable part of the design. Now it might be possible to bump it up a little, to like 20 per 100 points, but I don't see that as being a help at this point.

I hardly ever play tournies, so I look at it this way. If you field a build that is ridiculously no fun for the other player(s), that's the last time you'll play it until you have another sucker. More than likely word will get around and you'll be playing by yourself or not at all.

In other words, limits don't have to be set in stone, but freedom from them demands common sense and consideration for others...or at very least consequences.

Haven't had a problem w/ it w/ our group. Don't expect to.

And if any of us make it to Origins in August...don't expect extreme silliness in my builds. I can win w/o all that crap. :D

[Uncle_Joe]

I hardly ever play tournies, so I look at it this way. If you field a build that is ridiculously no fun for the other player(s), that's the last time you'll play it until you have another sucker. More than likely word will get around and you'll be playing by yourself or not at all.

The occasional debates on what is 'cheese' have shown that is hard to get two people to agree on what is 'ridiculously no fun for the other player'. I happen to find grind matches between hordes of SS-Pgr and SE Paras (or now Rangers) pretty darned 'un-fun'. But others see that as the natural order of the game.

Sure, we can all pick up our toys and go home if someone brings a build we dont like, but I'd prefer to have some solid rules that channel the game towards more interesting battles even at the expense of limiting what people can do at the design table. Obviously everyone's opinion on that is going to vary greatly...

[Kaufschtick]

WoTc could issue small square stickers that could be applied to the existing cards with the new numbers on them

I've often though of just doing that myself with a P-Touch or something. I agree that it would be easy enough to change the original costs with stickers or what not, but I firmly believe that Tragic is correct in stating that once the cards are printed, they're as good as being set in stone, as far as WotC is concerned. That leaves WotC the challange of coming up with some solution that does not involve changing the existing cards. The elite infantry limit would do this, and I think it is the only solution so far that WotC would consider, but you never know...

[EricM 2404]

I hardly ever play tournies, so I look at it this way. If you field a build that is ridiculously no fun for the other player(s), that's the last time you'll play it until you have another sucker. More than likely word will get around and you'll be playing by yourself or not at all.

In other words, limits don't have to be set in stone, but freedom from them demands common sense and consideration for others...or at very least consequences.

Haven't had a problem w/ it w/ our group. Don't expect to.

And if any of us make it to Origins in August...don't expect extreme silliness in my builds. I can win w/o all that crap. :D

Origins huh, if you do go I'll be there with all my terrain

[Lotus]

Origins huh, if you do go I'll be there with all my terrain

That would definitely be cool! :)

[Kaufschtick]

Origins huh, if you do go I'll be there with all my terrain

I plan on bringing my terrain too, hope to see you there.:) I'm working on palm trees at the moment. Drinking beer and making palm trees...with a statement like that, I just realized that it's amazing I'm married.:eek: :D

I'd love to make it to GenCon also, but I'm pretty locked in on Origins for the 7th and 8th.

[Lotus]

The occasional debates on what is 'cheese' have shown that is hard to get two people to agree on what is 'ridiculously no fun for the other player'. I happen to find grind matches between hordes of SS-Pgr and SE Paras (or now Rangers) pretty darned 'un-fun'. But others see that as the natural order of the game.

Sure, we can all pick up our toys and go home if someone brings a build we dont like, but I'd prefer to have some solid rules that channel the game towards more interesting battles even at the expense of limiting what people can do at the design table. Obviously everyone's opinion on that is going to vary greatly...

I agree on your main point.
What I refer to is more along the line that Polish Horsey took. I'm not anti 5 Def at all, so I see where you're coming from. But like real life, there are extreme cases only an idiot would disagree on, like murder, theft, rape, and 123 units in a 100 pt game, especially if acted out in that order. ;)

[Kaufschtick]

I'd prefer to have some solid rules that channel the game towards more interesting battles even at the expense of limiting what people can do at the design table. Obviously everyone's opinion on that is going to vary greatly...

I'm very much in favor of a basic, common core of rules that will keep the players, as closely as possible, all playing the same common game. Otherwise, the game would become so fractured as to not have any consistency from one group of players to the next. Obviously, this is going to occur anyway to some degree, but a good, solid core of rules that are playable and can be used in tourney situations and in cases of conventions when players who have never met get together, IMHO, is very important.

[shadowhooch]

Just throwing something out there as it appears from the poll that there is no single good solution to fix 5/5 infantry.

Keep in mind now, I wave the "balance" flag more than my "historical" flag, so here it goes:

How about all 5/5 defense infantry CANNOT get cover rolls.

Here's some contrived logical reasoning to help support this rule: This is due to the fact that almost all 5/5 infantry attack values are better than everyone elses. So they aren't poking their head out from behind some trees. They are boldly aiming and firing with less regard and are concentrating more offensively than their common brethren. The reason to justify that they are 5/5 and harder to hit is because they've got their bullets flying in your face due to their bold agressive styles.

Anyway, would that balance things? Would you be less prone to stockpile 5/5 guys. Maybe you would use your 5/5 guys to lead your front line assaults while using your more common 4/4 infantry to hold the ground. Call them "front line" infantry instead of "elite". Seems somewhat plausible eh?

[Lotus]

I'm very much in favor of a basic, common core of rules that will keep the players, as closely as possible, all playing the same common game. Otherwise, the game would become so fractured as to not have any consistency from one group of players to the next. Obviously, this is going to occur anyway to some degree, but a good, solid core of rules that are playable and can be used in tourney situations and in cases of conventions when players who have never met get together, IMHO, is very important.

I'd actually like to second this, and propose that the advanced rules, when they become 'set in stone', be instituted as optional rules...and not hundreds of them (sarcasm).

The exchange of ideas right now is great, but this pipe will need a spigot at some point.

[Kaufschtick]

I'm not working on my palm trees, I'm jabbering on the computer.:D I need another beer anyway, gotta go and put some time in on terrain.:)

[Kaufschtick]

I'd actually like to second this, and propose that the advanced rules, when they become 'set in stone', be instituted as optional rules...and not hundreds of them (sarcasm).

The exchange of ideas right now is great, but this pipe will need a spigot at some point.


That pretty much sums up my take on this whole advanced rules expedition as well.:)

[Lotus]

Just throwing something out there as it appears from the poll that there is no single good solution to fix 5/5 infantry.

Keep in mind now, I wave the "balance" flag more than my "historical" flag, so here it goes:

How about all 5/5 defense infantry CANNOT get cover rolls.

Here's some contrived logical reasoning to help support this rule: This is due to the fact that almost all 5/5 infantry attack values are better than everyone elses. So they aren't poking their head out from behind some trees. They are boldly aiming and firing with less regard and are concentrating more offensively than their common brethren. The reason to justify that they are 5/5 and harder to hit is because they've got their bullets flying in your face due to their bold agressive styles.

Anyway, would that balance things? Would you be less prone to stockpile 5/5 guys. Maybe you would use your 5/5 guys to lead your front line assaults while using your more common 4/4 infantry to hold the ground. Call them "front line" infantry instead of "elite". Seems somewhat plausible eh?

'fraid I'm going to have to pass on this one. the "elite' feel of them is just too strong in my thinking...and I'm just enough of a historical player (though not to the extreme) to have a hard time seeing bullets flying in the face of an opposing armored vehicle as enough of a threat to matter. ;) Infantry I could see, but...

[oddfellow]

I'd like to go on record in support of the proposed WOTC version of enfilade fire (+1 to dice) rather than have it effect cover rolls. I guess I'd be okay with a CHOICE of either that has been mentioned. Without the +1 the 5/5 elites will still dominate and that is the most broken aspect of the game IMHO. The reason I got very excited when I first read the new expert rules was that enfilade would give the Mausers and Garands a way to take down the elites: flank them and put some fire on them. This game would (which I think is excellent) would be Soooooo much better without any 5 defense infantry, but now that we have them they are here to stay so there needs to be a mechanic to deal with them. I think enfilade can be such a mechanic if it stays at +1 to die rolls.

[Lotus]

Here's an idea that WoTC could chew on for awhile:

Advanced costing.

No card reissues, just a new Advanced Options Rulebook that reflects all recosts plus any erratta.

That way people can play Basic (as is) or Advanced (evolved).

[Cpt. John Miller]

Limits are necessary to prevent complete guessing games. The same force that can oppose 20 Rangers is likely not going have much success against 4 AVRE's (unless its 20 SS-Pgr, I suppose)

Why are you so smart? Uncle joe should be the only one allowed to talk around here. Keep hitting that nail on the head Uncle Joe!

[Cpt. John Miller]

It seems to me that most of the proposed rule changes all stem from the fact that 5/5s a running rampant in the game.
They make aircraft too easy to shoot down.(ie new aircraft rules)
They make machine guns worthless. (grazing fire)
They make Platoons necessary. (to make you at least think about playing something other than all 5/5s)

What did they do when Heros were running rampant?
Restat the Heros to make them less dominant?
Change the prices to make them more expensive?
No. They put a limit on Heros and that was the end of it.
Same story here, limit the 5/5s for tournament play.
Simple. Easy. Solved.

[jlutin]

yes... I forgot about all those times people made builds with 2 engineers in it.

:)


Start fielding that many fixed fortifications and you will see more of them.

[Kaufschtick]

Start fielding that many fixed fortifications and you will see more of them.

Yeah, but like I said earlier, only the British have any.:)

[Yankee_Dynasty]

I don't know i havent played with them so much but i think its fine just disrupt and then kill em, introduce them to the Sig 33. I really dont likethe idea of changing card values.

[boersma8]

I'd like to go on record in support of the proposed WOTC version of enfilade fire (+1 to dice) rather than have it effect cover rolls. I guess I'd be okay with a CHOICE of either that has been mentioned. Without the +1 the 5/5 elites will still dominate and that is the most broken aspect of the game IMHO. The reason I got very excited when I first read the new expert rules was that enfilade would give the Mausers and Garands a way to take down the elites: flank them and put some fire on them. This game would (which I think is excellent) would be Soooooo much better without any 5 defense infantry, but now that we have them they are here to stay so there needs to be a mechanic to deal with them. I think enfilade can be such a mechanic if it stays at +1 to die rolls.

I agree. Since you'll always be able to buy more 3 point soldiers than 5 point ones, outflanking them should theoretically, always work!

[boersma8]

Since I don't think Wotc are likely going to change the crads themselves, I think the enfilade fire mechanic + a new officer type that'll only grant bonusses ( +1 or +2 dice )to friendly RIFLEMEN ( mausers, SMLE's, Mosin-Nagants etc.) should be enough to make them playable again!

[oddfellow]

Yes. I like the idea of a new officer unit to "buff" the regular joes. The Red Devil Capt. along with the Garands is a very fun and effective combo. More officers like that, or SA's like "Stars & Stripes" on regular units would be a very good thing.

Hell, why don't they do that: I propose that all non-elite units get an extra die when adjacent to a commander.

[tragicmishap]

1x US Para
62x barbed wire
60x tank obstacle

7 turns of ugly hell.

And then it would lose.

[tragicmishap]

You know, we did this. In our games there is no unit limit and we still use the 20% rule. This makes for interesting builds and it does make the Chinese a challenge to the Japanese.

Yeah, me and my friend actually tried 60 KMT riflemen against an 80 pt German army in a std. assault scenario. Needless to say, the Germans destroyed them. Stacking limits were a big problem and bogged down the Chinese force considerably. I think stacking limits alone would keep excessively huge forces from doing very well.

[tragicmishap]

I don't know about no unit limits. Seems to me like that would be the end of most tanks in 100 point games.

And that is the reason we have the unit limit in the first place. Even more vehicles become unplayable. So I guess we're caught between a rock and a hard place huh?

I still say do away with all the arbitrary limits, including the Hero limit, and let the game decide. I do not believe that a large number of Heroes in an army is unbeatable. Difficult yes, but then the Hero limit didn't eliminate other armies that are difficult to beat did it?

[Kaufschtick]

And that is the reason we have the unit limit in the first place. Even more vehicles become unplayable. So I guess we're caught between a rock and a hard place huh?

I still say do away with all the arbitrary limits, including the Hero limit, and let the game decide. I do not believe that a large number of Heroes in an army is unbeatable. Difficult yes, but then the Hero limit didn't eliminate other armies that are difficult to beat did it?

I'd have to say it's a little too late to consider a rule change that would make even more tanks and vehicles unplayable. I don't know about anyone else, but after dropping $1300.00+ dollars on pieces, of which a great many are tanks and vehicles, if unit limits were dropped and in fact more vehicles and tanks became unplayable, I would then become an un-customer of this company in a most complete, total and final way.;)

Once again, I don't know about anyone else, but I don't particulary like the idea that I'm already spending my hard earned money now on a certain number of pieces that are intended to be unplayable to begin with. In fact, I'm looking for just the opposite. I want to see more of the pieces I have purchased become playable, not the other way around.

As far as the Heros are concerned, had they not limited them, then I'd have to guess that about 60-70% of the rest of the game pieces would have been a waste of money for anyone who had bought them. For someone like me with $1300.00+ invested in the game, you can easily see how much money 60-70% useless pieces translates into money wasted. If you're in business, the money is in keeping the customers coming back, not in making them want to sue you because you ripped them off.

[boersma8]

Yes. I like the idea of a new officer unit to "buff" the regular joes. The Red Devil Capt. along with the Garands is a very fun and effective combo. More officers like that, or SA's like "Stars & Stripes" on regular units would be a very good thing.

Hell, why don't they do that: I propose that all non-elite units get an extra die when adjacent to a commander.

Yes, the " stars and stripes" is on the garands' card, but I don't see a problem with giving a future commander type the abilty and putting it on HIS card! ( I wouldn't change it to also include the existing commanders. They're good at what they do, just make a new one and leave the existing cards alone as much as possible!)This way you can just leave all existing cards alone and 3 point riflemen WILL be able to take out 5/5 infantry now! I'm even afraid if you ALSO introduce defilade fire that no one will even be picking 5/5 infantry in their armies anymore! ;)

[polish_horsy]

If you put it on the commander card the Garand would stack. Then If you put an EE NCO and this other commander next to Garands... the Garands get 9 dice at range 6.

[boersma8]

If you put it on the commander card the Garand would stack. Then If you put an EE NCO and this other commander next to Garands... the Garands get 9 dice at range 6.

Relatively simple to fix...Also call the ability ( for the American commander at least ;) " stars and stripes" ) Then the abilities aren't cummulative, because SA's of the same name don't stack. For the other nations invent a different name.....( Banzai charge and angriff are also the same thing!)

You could go as far as limiting the bonus to soldiers from your own nation only ( just like the heroes!) then you would exclude the Canadian NCO from offering any bonusses ( I assume their also next to said new commander ;) )