hello, Fix the 5/5 Soldiers! Or don't: A poll to decide

[Colonel_Coo]

While not part of the new expert rules put forward by WoTC, many a thread has revolved around them. Here is poll to judge our feelings

[shadowhooch]

I'm not sure this is up for debate with WotC but....

I voted for 4/4 SR2 (either including Sandbagged MG or not).

I'm fine if the MG kept it's 5/5 since it is immobile.
An alternative would be to make it 4/4 with cover (no matter what hex you put it in). The sandbaggs are cover and they could provide cover to any unit that goes in that hex. Isn't that what sandbags really are anyway?

Either way, cool with me. But don't hold your breath.

[Cavalry_Charge]

I've read multiple threads on this topic. Sounds like play testing supports going to 4/4 SR2

A simple, yet effective solution...I vote for that option.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yes, I think this is important enough to the REST of the changes that might be coming to resolve before going down those paths.

[maciej12]

Gimme the 4/4 Steelie!!!

[Grenzewolf]

This poll could stand to be a bit more intuitive. 3 of the possible choices say leave it alone only for different reasons but the result is still the same. Also are we concidering Hero's? Those have already been limited so I think those are fine. The big issue that resolves the problem is cost but you only offered a biased opinion that WOTC won't change priceing. True or not you channel the response which is not in good keeping with a poll when the purpose is to solicit opinions.

In short I voted price adjust but disagree with any forgone conclusion resulting in my vote saying "Leave it Alone"

[polish_horsy]

why wouldn't Wotc change their cost? I mean your defense 4 and SR 2 solution is a change to the card after all.

[Major Adler]

if after 2 years of debate on this subject...WOTC/AH does not take this opportunity to fix the 5/5 infantry problem...they may as well not even continue with the rest of the Expert Rules initiative...

[Uncle_Joe]

why wouldn't Wotc change their cost? I mean your defense 4 and SR 2 solution is a change to the card after all.

I dont know if they ever would or would not change the price, but the 4/4 SR:2 is a blanket rule that can be implemented for 'Expert Play'

Changing even one point cost opens the door to a LOT of other price changes. In WotC's position, I can see why they dont want that door opened. After the changes to the Elites, then will come the calls for plenty of other cost changes.

The rules change is compartmentalized.

[Colonel_Coo]

I dont know if they ever would or would not change the price, but the 4/4 SR:2 is a blanket rule that can be implemented for 'Expert Play'

Changing even one point cost opens the door to a LOT of other price changes. In WotC's position, I can see why they dont want that door opened. After the changes to the Elites, then will come the calls for plenty of other cost changes.

The rules change is compartmentalized.


Bingo! God you got to love "compartmentalized" as a word!

[Cpt. John Miller]

I voted for limits, but I could live with 4/4 SR as well.
Seems like that is the favorite solution.

[Vikingwarrior]

This poll could stand to be a bit more intuitive. 3 of the possible choices say leave it alone only for different reasons but the result is still the same. Also are we concidering Hero's? Those have already been limited so I think those are fine. The big issue that resolves the problem is cost but you only offered a biased opinion that WOTC won't change priceing. True or not you channel the response which is not in good keeping with a poll when the purpose is to solicit opinions.

In short I voted price adjust but disagree with any forgone conclusion resulting in my vote saying "Leave it Alone"


I agree with Grenzewolf on this one. Why wouldn't they change the price but they would change the stats?? Both need card changes however changing the points could be a small sticker over the card. Changing the stats would have to be a whole new card. IMHO

[Uncle_Joe]

Why wouldn't they change the price but they would change the stats?? Both need card changes however changing the points could be a small sticker over the card. Changing the stats would have to be a whole new card. IMHO

Reposted from above:

I dont know if they ever would or would not change the price, but the 4/4 SR:2 is a blanket rule that can be implemented for 'Expert Play'

Changing even one point cost opens the door to a LOT of other price changes. In WotC's position, I can see why they dont want that door opened. After the changes to the Elites, then will come the calls for plenty of other cost changes.

The rules change is compartmentalized.

[Kaufschtick]

Joe, I like your 4/4 SR2 idea. But I think Tragic is on to something when he states that once these cards are out they are virtually set in stone. I would love to see all 5/5 soldiers go 4/4 SR2, it would be great for the game.

Unfortunately, my feeling is that WotC is leaning more toward the elite infantry limit...:(

[Uncle_Joe]

I dont believe they are 'set in stone'. There is already plenty of precendent for errata. But no, I dont expect that they would make an 'official' change to the base game units.

However if playing with the 'Expert Rules', I could very easily see it being added as a 'suggestion' at the very least. Without fixing it in some form, a lot of their other changes are going to be out of whack as well (ie, things like grazing fire is either going to be pointless or its going to positively murder non-elites, virtually guaranteeing their extinction which goes directly against their desire to see more playable units).

And from a marketing/sales point a view, a limit is never a good thing. Better to have people desperately trying to get those 8-10 Fallshirmjager for their build etc. They didnt even want to limit heroes until they were completely and totally abused in the 'national spotlight'.

But yeah, if all else fails, I'd take a limit over the current situation ANY DAY.

[Kaufschtick]

Making all 5/5 soldiers 4/4 SR2 is the best option IMHO, for company and customer alike.:)

It's better than a limit and much more simple than recosting.

[shadowhooch]

I HATE limits. Limits are just an arbitrary fix for the real problem - game imbalance.

I agree with Tragic. Limits are bad for the game and a GOOD WELL-MADE game should dictate itself. However, Heros ARE broken and Elites are a SIGNIFICANT NUISANCE. WotC just needs to swallow their pride; admit they didn't playtest as much as WE the gamers have; and make some wholesale stat or cost changes.

4/4 SSR2 would be the best solution so far. That would alleviate Elite dominance (not fix, but alleviate). But would it allow the limit on Heros to be lifted? I don't think so. Hero's are STILL too broken due to their IGNORE disruptions and cheap deployment options - even with 4/4 SR2.

So to fix Heros, the deployment mechanic needs to be re-examined or they need to be costed higher. Personally, I would like Heros to only come from your disrupted soldiers - then you'd be risky to rely on too many Heros, but you could if you wanted to.

[Kaufschtick]

I always thought the real Heros were the regular PBI. WotCs decision to introduce "Heros" into this game was a bad move from the start, IMHO. I'd just as soon see the "Heros" done away with.

I'd trade all of my Hero pieces for straight gun barrels anyday!:eek: :D

[mattertoenergy]

I feel that the 4/4 SR2 overall is a good option. For some units though with some "bonus" SA already (SE Para's, SNLF Fanatic), they can just drop directly to 4/4 as the SA makes up for not having SR2. This does make a blanket rule change more complex, but not too much.

[boersma8]

I miss two options:

1.) A new officer type who grants ( attack) bonusses to none-elite riflemen ( making them on par with elite troops as far as attack dice are concerned, but weaker, BUT you can afford more of them!). No need for any " fixes" whatsover! ( big plus IMO, 'cause you can leave all the existing cards alone!)

2.) Steely resolve 3 ( fairly immune to single attacks from one unit, but not to multiple ones and/or MG's!)

[Uncle_Joe]

1.) A new officer type who grants ( attack) bonusses to none-elite riflemen ( making them on par with elite troops as far as attack dice are concerned, but weaker, BUT you can afford more of them!). No need for any " fixes" whatsover! ( big plus IMO, 'cause you can leave all the existing cards alone!)

That would help, but it doesnt really solve all the problems. Elites could still largely ignore MG fire as well as AFVs that arent custom-built infantry killers like the Brummbar or M4(105) etc. The biggest problem with the elites is the way they distort play. The obsolescence of standard infantry is a side effect of that distortion, but it certainly isnt the only problem with elites at 5/5.

[Marquis]

Who wrote this poll? It's so partisan that I can't even vote for a choice.

[boersma8]

That would help, but it doesnt really solve all the problems. Elites could still largely ignore MG fire as well as AFVs that arent custom-built infantry killers like the Brummbar or M4(105) etc. The biggest problem with the elites is the way they distort play. The obsolescence of standard infantry is a side effect of that distortion, but it certainly isnt the only problem with elites at 5/5.

Yes, I'm afraid you're right!

So 4/4 steely resolve 2 it is as far as I'm concerned....

I do think it's an interesting option to keep open if WoTC don't want to change the values on the cards....It may not solve ALL problems, it WILL solve many!

Of course they could also reserve some slots in future sets for " Veteran MG teams" etc., but then the older ones will become unplayable again....

Yes, I could really live with 4/4 steely resolve 2!

[Colonel_Coo]

Who wrote this poll? It's so partisan that I can't even vote for a choice.

I wrote this poll. I tried to list all the ideas that I've read on these pages.

4/4 SR 2 comes in two flavors.
Leaving them 5/5 comes in four flavors.

I am trying to guage the general feeling. By far some sort of 4/4 SR 2 is the dominate choice.

[fifleche]

4/4 SR 2 is the best option, by far.

[DocD]

I'm for recosting, and I'm against changing the 5/5's to 4/4 SR:2.

Nobody is prepared it seems, to face the fact that a few more sets are slated to come.

I feel that something is in the pipeline that will more effectively deal with the 5/5 dilemma. Remember when all the talk was about stopping the Sherman swarm? The Sherman swarm has now gone the way of the cassette player, not totally obsolete, but no CD player either.

Who's to say what the future holds.

[Uncle_Joe]

Nobody is prepared it seems, to face the fact that a few more sets are slated to come.

I feel that something is in the pipeline that will more effectively deal with the 5/5 dilemma. Remember when all the talk was about stopping the Sherman swarm? The Sherman swarm has now gone the way of the cassette player, not totally obsolete, but no CD player either.

Who's to say what the future holds.

So you like the idea that they have to release even more broken units in order to 'counter' the mistakes that have already been made? Why not correct the mistakes rather than compound them.

Besides, if the goal (as stated) is to make more units playable, then waiting for future sets to release the 'balance' isnt the way to approach the problem IMO.

[DocD]

So you like the idea that they have to release even more broken units in order to 'counter' the mistakes that have already been made? Why not correct the mistakes rather than compound them. I guess I'm not convinced the SS-PG is broken. Wrong cost? sure, broken?, I'm just not there yet. Is the Veteran Tiger broken? Depends on who you ask. Nobody talks about the Vet Tiger that much though.....why? One word--PRICE. The one word that is, can be, and should be used as a balancing force for "elite units". If the SS-PG was priced at say 7 or even 8, we wouldn't even be having this talk Joe.

As far as producing more broken units to counter the 5/5's.....I think it is safe to say, broken is in the eye of the beholder.
I would be willing to see future SA's that increase the effectiveness of present units. Those new SA's don't need to be "broken" to get the job done.
Now, I again go back to my whimpy analogy of the Sherman swarm. During sets I and II, it was a monster. Cheap, fast, tough, decent AI and hard as heck to counter......now, three more sets later, where's the chatter? Have we gotten 3 more sets of broken units since....I would say NO.

Besides, if the goal (as stated) is to make more units playable, then waiting for future sets to release the 'balance' isnt the way to approach the problem IMO.
It's not only the best way to approach the problem, but prehaps in the mind of WotC, the only way to tackle the problem.

[polish_horsy]

I agree that if the cost was 7 for SS-PG and Ranger units they would be tough but there would be other infantry that would be cost-competitve. Nobody complains about the SNLF Fanatic that much... it is a very tough unit in close but there is a big difference between facing a swarm consisting of 5 SNLF Fanatic or a swarm of 7 SS-PG at the same price. Push 'em to 7 and you could get the 5 Rangers or 9 M1 Garands for only 1 point more. That is a descision... 7 Rangers is a no-brainer.

[tragicmishap]

Theoretically (because recosting will never happen) I think that the SS-PGs and Rangers should be 6. We have 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 pt infantry. I count the SE Para as a 7 pointer with the 2 point paratrooper SA. For 2 points we have KMTs and Volksturrm type infantry. For 3 and 4 we have lots of choices. The PPSh and basic Mauser/MAS at 3. Garand, BAR Gunner, etc at 4. Wermacht Vet Inf. and Vet. SMLE at 5. Then there is the SS-ST and SNLF Fanatic at 7.

The SS-ST and SS-PG/Ranger might be more equal, but I think the ability to remove disrupted counters by itself makes the SNLF Fanatic obviously better than the Ranger/SS-PG. That is the main reason Heroes are so powerful, but I do not think the Fanatics are overcosted for what you get. And the SS-ST has a CA of 8 plus Ruthless, which makes it a lot more dangerous to tanks than the SS-PG, which I believe justifies the higher cost. It also has the highest close range AI value for a soldier in the entire game, meaning it doesn't need to ignore defensive fire and enter an enemy unit's hex to land a knock-out blow. Obviously the SS-PGs/Rangers are better than the 5 pointers. I therefore think that the Ranger/SS-PG should be recosted to 6. 7 is an overreaction. Of course, this will never happen, it's just my thoughts on it.

[polish_horsy]

Theoretically (because recosting will never happen) I think that the SS-PGs and Rangers should be 6. We have 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 pt infantry. I count the SE Para as a 7 pointer with the 2 point paratrooper SA. For 2 points we have KMTs and Volksturrm type infantry. For 3 and 4 we have lots of choices. The PPSh and basic Mauser/MAS at 3. Garand, BAR Gunner, etc at 4. Wermacht Vet Inf. and Vet. SMLE at 5. Then there is the SS-ST and SNLF Fanatic at 7.

The SS-ST and SS-PG/Ranger might be more equal, but I think the ability to remove disrupted counters by itself makes the SNLF Fanatic obviously better than the Ranger/SS-PG. That is the main reason Heroes are so powerful, but I do not think the Fanatics are overcosted for what you get. And the SS-ST has a CA of 8 plus Ruthless, which makes it a lot more dangerous to tanks than the SS-PG, which I believe justifies the higher cost. It also has the highest close range AI value for a soldier in the entire game, meaning it doesn't need to ignore defensive fire and enter an enemy unit's hex to land a knock-out blow. Obviously the SS-PGs/Rangers are better than the 5 pointers. I therefore think that the Ranger/SS-PG should be recosted to 6. 7 is an overreaction. Of course, this will never happen, it's just my thoughts on it.


Of course your opinion here is worth a lot. It just seems to me that even at 7 the SS-PG or Ranger is prefered over the SNLF Fanatic in some map setups. In close combat... yeah the SNLF Fanatic is a killer. But his 6 dice at medium range are nothing compared to the 8 that a Ranger or SS-PG can throw. So 7 does not feel like an overreaction me. We have used 7 for a long time in our group. And they get used plenty.

Personally I'd put the SE para at 8+2 all things considered. That unit is in a class by itself for it's capabilities.

[Grenzewolf]

I'm pretty solid with re-pricing of the 5/5 guys. Ive fought with and against rangers and SSPG's so I am not biased. If they were historically hard to kill and tuff as nails then let them remain so. SR 2 is perfect for the VET Wehr. Keep the variety. Do we really want to see the Russian Fanatic Sniper remove the SSPG from play all together? He does a great job at it right now.

7pts I say!! Simple,,,, Simple mistake on pricing just needs a simple fix.

Nirvana is just a Label maker away for cryin out loud.:rolleyes:

Where's that damn "Easy Button"?

Adding new obscure and convoluted rules, open to interpretation is the greatest threat to breaking the game.

[boersma8]

I'm pretty solid with re-pricing of the 5/5 guys. Ive fought with and against rangers and SSPG's so I am not biased. If they were historically hard to kill and tuff as nails then let them remain so. SR 2 is perfect for the VET Wehr. Keep the variety. Do we really want to see the Russian Fanatic Sniper remove the SSPG from play all together? He does a great job at it right now.

7pts I say!! Simple,,,, Simple mistake on pricing just needs a simple fix.

Nirvana is just a Label maker away for cryin out loud.:rolleyes:

Where's that damn "Easy Button"?

Adding new obscure and convoluted rules, open to interpretation is the greatest threat to breaking the game.

at 4/4 SR 2 a Russian sniper would still need to roll 6 successes to score a kill, so the same s now! If you also have a Hauptsturmfuehrer, the disruption would be removed again. I.e. you'll need more than one sniper to kill the SS troopers. As they are more expensive ( the snipers, that is...) I don't think what you're saying is going to happen.....Actually, I know from playtesting that it doesn't !

[Richter von Manthofen]

I thought I would be minority when I voted that I like them as they are (which is not completely true, but the other options are less desireable for me). But while not being the mayority its an option taken quite often.


I dont like the Steely resolve option - just my personal feeling.

Recosting makes only sens if ALL units are costed correctly (or almost correctly)

A limit only makes sense if other units are limited too (certain Elite tanks,...)

One of you had the idea to pair certain unoits with some other units... That moight be a good idea. For example the SSPG: One could argue that the SSPG is a mechanized unit and you might only include it if you also buy a Sd Kfz 251 for each SSPG. Bringing the cost of both to 19 points (thats about how it should be for the pair IMO)

Paratrooper: You must buy a transport plane (don't know how to represent that one)

SS-Stormies, SNLF Fanatics - no idea how to balance them - the latter maybe by demanding to buy a naval transport for them...

Rangers ???

Heros are no problem IMHO as the limit of 1 seems ok as you can expect to meeet them from time to time, but not hordes of them.

[Grenzewolf]

at 4/4 SR 2 a Russian sniper would still need to roll 6 successes to score a kill, so the same s now! If you also have a Hauptsturmfuehrer, the disruption would be removed again. I.e. you'll need more than one sniper to kill the SS troopers. As they are more expensive ( the snipers, that is...) I don't think what you're saying is going to happen.....Actually, I know from playtesting that it doesn't !

No, SR 2 is not the same, Soviet fanatic rolls 5 dice +2 as an SS Hunter. 7 Dice with "crack shot" against a 4/4 will not be the same. Your chance of disruption just went through the roof. Not to mention any follow on shot only needs 4 to kill. Next round he cowers and waits to die. I realy dont want to see the 5/5 troops castrated. But as elite troops they shouldnt be so easily aquired.

The 5/5 guys really add character to the game. They are tuff to disrupt, and that simulates an elite unit well. 4/4 SR+2 does a fine job at representing a VET who knows when to duck. 5/5 represents a troop that isnt going to be easily detered but return lead and drive on with the mission.

Both Rangers and SSPG's were highly trained at the squad level and were encouraged to take initiative on the battle field. They did not need an officer to hold their hand as they advanced. The Hampsterfury rocks but he shouldnt have to escort the SSPG's accross the Battlefield to get the job done.

It took alot of money and time in real life to train those troops and not every soldier was up to the task or as dedicated. They just need to be Priced accordingly.

[boersma8]

No, SR 2 is not the same, Soviet fanatic rolls 5 dice +2 as an SS Hunter. 7 Dice with "crack shot" against a 4/4 will not be the same. Your chance of disruption just went through the roof. Not to mention any follow on shot only needs 4 to kill. Next round he cowers and waits to die. I realy dont want to see the 5/5 troops castrated. But as elite troops they shouldnt be so easily aquired.

The 5/5 guys really add character to the game. They are tuff to disrupt, and that simulates an elite unit well. 4/4 SR+2 does a fine job at representing a VET who knows when to duck. 5/5 represents a troop that isnt going to be easily detered but return lead and drive on with the mission.

Both Rangers and SSPG's were highly trained at the squad level and were encouraged to take initiative on the battle field. They did not need an officer to hold their hand as they advanced. The Hampsterfury rocks but he shouldnt have to escort the SSPG's accross the Battlefield to get the job done.

It took alot of money and time in real life to train those troops and not every soldier was up to the task or as dedicated. They just need to be Priced accordingly.

Proper costing would've gone a long way, but I agree with what someone else said that it's still better at the moment to buy the maximum amount of 5/5 infantry, even if correctly priced, because currently regular infantry ( and even machine guns! especially at medium and longe range can fire at it as often as they will, but will rarely achieve anything!) Of course those were elite units! No disagreement there! It's just that those hords of 5/5 kill the game and the fun! The builds become much too predictable and like WoTC discovered themselves: 80% of the pieces or so, if not more, just lie in the tackle box and stay there! That's not only not good for them moneywise, most of us also seem to think that's boring and a shame at that!

As for that Russian Sniper: Yes he'll have a very good chance of disrupting that SS trooper, you're right. Then again, if you have a H-sturmfuehrer adjacent that'll be removed BEFORE your opponent's next assault phase, so you'll need to hit him again DURING that same assault phase ( the current one!). So yes, that's become easier, but it'll still be difficult to get in two hits, because you'll need multiple units to score hits. Especially the SS troopers were not only known for their bravoury but also for their recklesness. Casualty rates were a lot higher than among the Wehrmacht. You do have to be a little careful not to expose yourself to multiple units, and that's a good thing I'd say! I fully understand why they gave certain units 5/5 though, it just doesn't work gamewise......

[boersma8]

No, SR 2 is not the same, Soviet fanatic rolls 5 dice +2 as an SS Hunter. 7 Dice with "crack shot" against a 4/4 will not be the same. Your chance of disruption just went through the roof. Not to mention any follow on shot only needs 4 to kill. Next round he cowers and waits to die. I realy dont want to see the 5/5 troops castrated. But as elite troops they shouldnt be so easily aquired.

The 5/5 guys really add character to the game. They are tuff to disrupt, and that simulates an elite unit well. 4/4 SR+2 does a fine job at representing a VET who knows when to duck. 5/5 represents a troop that isnt going to be easily detered but return lead and drive on with the mission.

Both Rangers and SSPG's were highly trained at the squad level and were encouraged to take initiative on the battle field. They did not need an officer to hold their hand as they advanced. The Hampsterfury rocks but he shouldnt have to escort the SSPG's accross the Battlefield to get the job done.

It took alot of money and time in real life to train those troops and not every soldier was up to the task or as dedicated. They just need to be Priced accordingly.

Just to clarify: That sniper you mention will still need to score 6 hits for a kill initially ( yes, you're right, 4 for a disruption instead of 5, but like i said, try not to expose yourself to multiple enemy units!)

[jlutin]

Kill the officer first (or at least disrupt him), then kill the troops.

If the enemy has maneuvered so that the officer is in cover and the troops can attack then you must congratulate your opponent for good tactical positioning.

[Colonel_Coo]

Kill the officer first (or at least disrupt him), then kill the troops.

If the enemy has maneuvered so that the officer is in cover and the troops can attack then you must congratulate your opponent for good tactical positioning.

Hmm,
1 Officer
12 SS PG
1 German hero
75 points and 14 units

5/5 are SO cheap that you'll never get that Sniper to matter.

[Uncle_Joe]

And you cant disrupt the 'officer' anyways. The SS-Haupt is quite immune to disruption.

[Uncle_Joe]

I thought I would be minority when I voted that I like them as they are (which is not completely true, but the other options are less desireable for me). But while not being the mayority its an option taken quite often.


I dont like the Steely resolve option - just my personal feeling.

Recosting makes only sens if ALL units are costed correctly (or almost correctly)

A limit only makes sense if other units are limited too (certain Elite tanks,...)

So you wouldnt want an 'imperfect' solution and prefer the current (abusive) situation? That doesnt make a lot of sense to me. No solution short of redesigning key parts of the game is going to be 'perfect'. That doesnt mean they dont make the game better.

[Uncle_Joe]

Just to clarify: That sniper you mention will still need to score 6 hits for a kill initially ( yes, you're right, 4 for a disruption instead of 5, but like i said, try not to expose yourself to multiple enemy units

Oh, come on. That might require actual tactics or something. Its so much easier when these guys can walk into a hail of fire and not be bothered. :rolleyes:

[boersma8]

Hmm,
1 Officer
12 SS PG
1 German hero
75 points and 14 units

5/5 are SO cheap that you'll never get that Sniper to matter.

Right on! You even have 25 points left for a nice tank! ( elite panzer 4, drop an SS panzergrenadier and you can buy yourself an even nicer tank!or 2 pAK 40's!)

[jlutin]

And you cant disrupt the 'officer' anyways. The SS-Haupt is quite immune to disruption.

Oops you are right. He ignores disruption. But at 4/4 he is killable by a sniper and many other units.

[Vikingwarrior]

And you cant disrupt the 'officer' anyways. The SS-Haupt is quite immune to disruption.

He IGNORES disruption. It still only takes two hits to kill him. The disruption marker is not removed in the movement faze like adjacent units.

[Uncle_Joe]

He IGNORES disruption. It still only takes two hits to kill him. The disruption marker is not removed in the movement faze like adjacent units.

Definately. But the implication from the prior post was that disrupting him was sufficient to keep him from using his Exert Will ability and that is not correct.

[Colonel_Coo]

Right on! You even have 25 points left for a nice tank! ( elite panzer 4, drop an SS panzergrenadier and you can buy yourself an even nicer tank!or 2 pAK 40's!)

I like:
SS HF 7
German Hero 8
WirbelWind 19
Sniper 11
SS PG x11

Super duper German force

[polish_horsy]

Ultimate Infantry Army

SS HF 7
German Hero 8
Sniper x3 = 33
SS PG x8 = 40
BMW = 5
SS ST = 7

what a pain in the ass! and not a single vehicle to shoot at. anybody brings a lot of AV stats to the table loses against this one. Headshot-BMW-Hero combo is deadly. deadly stupid cheesy but deadly.

[Uncle_Joe]

And gee, dont those 'super armies' look familiar...kind of like EVERY OTHER competitive German build these days. And I'm sure if you look at the Allied 'competitive' build its probably heavy on Rangers and 81mm mortars.

I cant see how anyone can look at that (particularly after seeing the tournament results last year) and decide 'yeah, the 5/5s are fine now'. No, they dont dominate play at all, right? Utter nonsense IMO.

My guess is that the majority of the people who voted to leave 5/5s alone either:

1) Are the powergamings and thus dont want their handicap removed

2) Have access to limited collections and thus dont tend to see mass hordes of elites

3) Already play either scenario type play or else have some sort of 'gentlemens agreements' as to how many will be played.

4) Play with 200+ points where there is more room for larger numbers of vehicles and support troops regardless of how inefficient they are.

what a pain in the ass! and not a single vehicle to shoot at. anybody brings a lot of AV stats to the table loses against this one.

This is, unfortunately, almost always going be part of any open build system. There is a huge reward for going with an 'extreme' build. You simply negate a portion of your opponent's force by denying them the targets for their counters.

That is precisely why the US dual threat was so powerful for so long...they could come at you with either a Para-bomb or a Sherman swarm (with the cheese-filled Rhinos). Neither army unto itself is really that unstoppable. But the counter to one will likely be squashed by the other. Nowadays, Axis players know that all they have to do is mass enough SS-Pgr and with the Hero and other units listed above, they can likely beat either mix (hence the tournament results).

At any rate, this is a 'solved' system as is. Does anything seriously think that there is going to be some magical build that can beat the hordes of 5/5s? So why perpetuate that through a new rules set?

[warspite]

It seems to me that the 5-def infantry are "undercosted" for a 100pt scenario, since the best counters to them are too expensive for only 100pts, other than each other. I don't think anyone would consider them undercosted if you played a 150pt/20-unit or 200pt/25-30 unit scenario. Adding time to the game would help, too, since the main problem is the difficulty killing them in only 7-10 turns. They will continue to dominate the 100pt/15unit/7-10turn scenario, because they are ideal for that circumstance.

Simplest fix, requiring NO reprints, is to change constraints on the standard scenario. No 5-def in the 100pt scenario is already a popular house rule. Increase the scenario parameters, and see how devastating they remain. Some other cheese army may rear it's head, but at least we'll have a few months before someone locks it down. :)

[polish_horsy]

I don't think anyone would consider them undercosted if you played a 150pt/20-unit or 200pt/25-30 unit scenario.

I would.

200 points with 30 units? Just take the army I listed above x2. Maybe convert the 8 points from the extra hero into another SS_Haupt. I mean 16 SS-PG in 200 pt. games are just as deadly as 8 in 100-point games.

I see absolutley no difference between 100 and 200 point games.

[Uncle_Joe]

Yes, they are equally broken in a larger point game unless you dont increase the unit max. But there all you are doing is absolutely sealing the fates of the non-elites (and many other cheap units).

Just because people might choose not to abuse them in large battles because people would prefer to play with the big tanks or whatever does not mean that arent still 'broken' in that environment.

[polish_horsy]

well I suppose if you make it a 200 point game the other guy will likely run out of SS-PG or Rangers. :)

I don't think that means they aren't broke. Heck if you make it a 1,000 point game I'd have to throw my Jagdpanther on the battlefield. Its still a pig but I don't have 100 SS-PGs now do I.

[warspite]

I would.

200 points with 30 units? Just take the army I listed above x2. Maybe convert the 8 points from the extra hero into another SS_Haupt. I mean 16 SS-PG in 200 pt. games are just as deadly as 8 in 100-point games.

I see absolutley no difference between 100 and 200 point games.

I do. Economy of scale. Certain units aren't affordable in only 100 pts, but would be practical or even preferable at 200, like Priests with spotters. Concealed observer in a pillbox spotting for a battery of 3 Priests will wreak havoc on SSPG's. Throw in a P-38 and some 81mm mortars, and things start getting dicey for the SSPG army, especially if the Haupsturmfuhrers get crunched. None of this is at all practical below 120 pts, but starts becoming affordable at higher totals. This is still only ~130 pts so far, and there are plenty left over for Rangers and such. Even a Sherman 105 supporting 10 Rangers makes for a long day trying to stop the Priests from having spotters.

On the flip side, in a smaller game, with less firepower, it's harder to kill the SSPGs, and so they can scramble about with some immunity. Their own firepower is concentrated, and so they are potent individually, but collectively, in a larger game, they start to become redundant. The stacking limit is still the same, so they can't all hide in the same amount of cover. If they spread out, they can't concentrate fire as efficiently as before, either. Sure, they have durability, and the numbers insure there will be more later into the game, but will they be in position, or caught in the open?

[DocD]

You make good points spite.

I'm not a powergamer or tournament player, yet I still say the 5/5 elites should not be changed. As someone pointed out, these troops are very highly trained and motivated and equipped.

Change the cost.

[Qmark]

yet I still say the 5/5 elites should not be changed.

...

Change the cost.Uh... what?

[DocD]

Uh... what?

Sorry qmark....I meant don't change them EXCEPT for the cost. :)

[fifleche]

Warspite, while your assessment of changing the parameters would indeed make the 5/5 dealable, we are still left with the sour aftertaste of missing 4/4's on the board.

Barring those with small collections, who would field mausers? Or even just plain SMLE's, when you can have Garands, and even Rangers?

No one.

Reduce the Ubermensh 5/5's to realistic levels, thus suddenly german vehicles can expect to hit something once in a while with those TWO mg-34's... Regular infantry become playable too! No need for overspecialised anti-infantry mega-builds in 200 pts format.

[warspite]

I did say that banning 5-def soldier's in 100pt scenarios is already a popular house rule, and so making it an official rule would leave no alternative BUT to use Mausers, and the like. My point wasn't that 5-def soldiers were fine as is, but rather they are dominating the 100pt game, not because they cost too little, but because the counters for them cost too much. Raising their cost won't change the fact that they remain difficult to kill with only 100pts total.

One suggestion I made elsewhere for a simple fix to rebalance the game and restoring some realism was to give MG's and vehicles +1 to each die roll versus soldiers in the open. This should discourage a bum's rush of vehicles that can occur, esp. with the 5-def soldiers, and without a cover roll, they are easier to finish off. Assault guns will still be called upon to flush them out from cover (no +1) and combined arms can resume.

[warspite]

Barring those with small collections, who would field mausers? Or even just plain SMLE's, when you can have Garands, and even Rangers?

I guess part of the point of the standard 100pt scenario is to field a MAXIMAL force, which would be every commander's dream, and pit them against each other. Given a choice between elite forces and ordinary conscripts, a commander would pick the elites, and all the best weapons and equipment. Unless the scenario invokes some kind of realistic restrictions about availability, we're probably talking about engagements during the Battle of the Bulge, with Waffen SS Panzergrenadiers versus Rangers and American Airborne in a battle royale. Not much variety, but what would be requested if they were available.

To make the other units a practical option, the scenario should be adjusted away from elites, and towards regular troops. Most forces were begging for experienced replacements, or any replacements at all much of the time, making do with what they could get, and that isn't reflected at all. It would make for a much more interesting force composition, but would, in turn, make elites less desirable to collect, as they are banned by "law", like the heros have become (or at least restricted).

Not sure how to make everyone happy here. It's almost as if there's two different games, one dominated by elites, and one without them at all. Each makes some pieces unplayable. Perhaps, rather than fielding an identical force throughout a tournament, one gets a larger pool, with limited numbers of elite units, and as they are killed, are replaced by non-elites. It would force one to budget their resources, as was historically required, while not throwing them away recklessly in suicidal but victorious assaults (win the battle, lose the war). Some point total based upon number of rounds could be determined, to keep a balance over the long haul.

Just a thought... :)

[Grenzewolf]

Singling out a portion of a solution to build an argument against is weak if one cannot counter the solution on the whole.

If 5/5s are proportionally costed then the mean result is one SSPG VS two or three 4/4's. Now really, if you have played this game at all the spread is fairly covered. Quantity VS Quality take your pick.

Moreover the bigger issue is that Tanks have no bite. Thus we have infantry battles. And the answer now is to have cookie cutter infantry. Give tanks their ********* back and you would have to counter with all the other available pieces other than a freaking Napoleonic Strategy and number crunching. Stronger anti-infantry for tanks means the other pieces will have their niche and you wouldn't have 90% of your points to dump into elite infantry. Suddenly cheap infantry is viable again and in many cases preferred.

[Uncle_Joe]

Moreover the bigger issue is that Tanks have no bite. Thus we have infantry battles. And the answer now is to have cookie cutter infantry. Give tanks their ********* back and you would have to counter with all the other available pieces other than a freaking Napoleonic Strategy and number crunching. Stronger anti-infantry for tanks means the other pieces will have their niche and you wouldn't have 90% of your points to dump into elite infantry.

Making elite infantry easier to kill accomplishes the exact same thing. It also helps out other units like the MGs and non-German Snipers. So rather than making tanks better vs infantry, you can accomplish the same thing (and more) by making infantry more vulnerable to tanks. In turn, as you said other pieces would start to have their nitch.

[Richter von Manthofen]

So you wouldnt want an 'imperfect' solution and prefer the current (abusive) situation? That doesnt make a lot of sense to me. No solution short of redesigning key parts of the game is going to be 'perfect'. That doesnt mean they dont make the game better.

Nope!

I like the Def 5/5 units as they are - the only problem that they are all undercosted to a degree.

[Yankee_Dynasty]

Nothing wrong with them, bring a 81mm mortar or the German one of equal value

[Uncle_Joe]

Nothing wrong with them, bring a 81mm mortar or the German one of equal value

You know, that is the EXACT problem in a nutshell.

[DocD]

Quality vs. Quanity?.....that is indeed the question. Right now it's a no brainer because the elites are so cheap.

But if a player was truly forced to decide btwn fielding a few of the best units in the game at top dollar prices, or fielding a swarm of mediocre ones for much less I believe the chants for changing the 5/5's would cease.

If the SS-PG was priced right, each one that went down fighting would decrease his side's firepower and combat capability that much more. They would cease to be these hyped-up-supermen everybody is afraid of and become what they should be, very expensive targets.

Higher cost would solve the issue in my mind, and inject a dose of historical accurateness and reality at the same time. Less we armchair commanders forget, ELITE units have always been very expensive to field, too few in number for any Leader, and quite unnerving to face on the battlefield.

[Yankee_Dynasty]

You know, that is the EXACT problem in a nutshell.

Huh? I'm sorry im a tad slow,what do you mean by that?

[Uncle_Joe]

Quality vs. Quanity?.....that is indeed the question. Right now it's a no brainer because the elites are so cheap.

But if a player was truly forced to decide btwn fielding a few of the best units in the game at top dollar prices, or fielding a swarm of mediocre ones for much less I believe the chants for changing the 5/5's would cease.

If the SS-PG was priced right, each one that went down fighting would decrease his side's firepower and combat capability that much more. They would cease to be these hyped-up-supermen everybody is afraid of and become what they should be, very expensive targets.

Higher cost would solve the issue in my mind, and inject a dose of historical accurateness and reality at the same time. Less we armchair commanders forget, ELITE units have always been very expensive to field, too few in number for any Leader, and quite unnerving to face on the battlefield.

If the cost were high enough, then sure, that would do it. After all, no one really complains about the Fallshirmjager or the Brit Red Devils. Reason: they are probably about balanced between cost and capability.

The problem here IMO is one of practicality. How much do they increase the cost and where do they stop? IMO, 7 would be good for an SS-Pgr. It is currently, by far, the singularly best unit in the game for its price. Then what about the Ranger? Put him at 7 too? Even though is obviously not as good? What about the SE Paras that were the bane of everyone's existance for so long? Increase them too? How much?

Then we get to the bigger problem (from a designer's point of view). They would have opened Pandora's Box. Next will come calls to increase the Sherman. And the 81mm Mortar. And the Heroes. And the P51. And the WE Sniper. And whatever units beats player 'x' that week. Then come the calls to reprice the PzrIV. And the Easy Eight. And the Nashorn. And the Pnzgrens. And the US Sniper. And the King Tiger. And the US Spotter Jeep. And the Lee. And whatever else people will debatably see as overpriced.

Where do they stop? Once they start repricing, it sets a bad precedent unless they intend to actually go in and re-price in total. I personally think that would probably end up being the best thing for the game. But the chances of that happening at this point? My guess...about nil.

It also doesnt address the concerns of many that ANY soldiers (elite or otherwise) shouldn't be able to blithely walk into MG fire or stroll up to armor and throttle it with minimal risk.

As has been said before, changing the capabilities of the elites rather than the price keeps the change compartmentalized. It addresses balance, replayability, and realism.

That said, I would welcome a fairly steep price increase on elites (they should not be the norm...they are elite). But I think *at this point* it is easier to change the capabilities than to start mucking around with prices.

[Kaufschtick]

The "Elite soldiers" die just as easily from a bullet as do your "regular Joe's". The 5/5 defense makes no sense to me. What, are SSPGs and Rangers wearing body armor? Are the SNLF Fanatics dodging bullets like in the movies now?

Their "elite" status should be represented by SAs as opposed to a higher defense. The 4/4 SR2 is the best route on this issue, IMO.

A German Tiger I (the original) has a 7/7/6 AI, which is a common rating among German AFVs. Versus the Amis Ranger, the Ranger can pretty much move about with little fear of the 7/7/6 AI. In fact, I would venture to say the Ranger might even be bold enough to just come straight at the Tiger I and chase it down! I played a game a long time back in which I had SNLF Fanatics in a game against four Crusaders, and the SNLF Fanatics, had they wanted to, could have just begun to chase the Crusaders (5/5/4 AI stats)around the board!:eek: As it was, the SNLF's just ignored the Crusaders as if they didn't exist.

Tell me again how 5/5 soldiers are just fine the way they are...;)

[Grenzewolf]

If the cost were high enough, then sure, that would do it. After all, no one really complains about the Fallshirmjager or the Brit Red Devils. Reason: they are probably about balanced between cost and capability.

That said, I would welcome a fairly steep price increase on elites (they should not be the norm...they are elite). But I think *at this point* it is easier to change the capabilities than to start mucking around with prices.

Seems to me that a simple sticker with "7" on it is the easiest way unlike scrapping a card and mucking SA's.

As to your assertion that it is "Obvious" the Ranger is not as good as the SSPG that is an opinion, many have argued pro Ranger. You also assert that repricing will demand all other items be repriced. Well, being as 5/5's dominate the pricing controversy and have more threads than any other issue,,,,, Lets just plug this leak and see what hits next. If people scream loud enough maybe more stickers with numbers will follow but just this one adjustment would real help the game.

[Uncle_Joe]

Seems to me that a simple sticker with "7" on it is the easiest way unlike scrapping a card and mucking SA's.

I can almost GUARANTEE that if they simply repriced the SS-Pgr and the Ranger to 7, that there would be unholy amounts of whining and gnashing of teeth next about the SE Para. And in many ways they would be correct. What currently make the SE Para 'balanced' (as much as any of the elites can be) is that the SS-Pgr is about half the cost. If they were no longer half the cost, then the SE Para would clearly be better. He undisrupts for free and has that handy deployment option.

At the very least they would have to address all of the elites in some way IMO.

And as I said, it does nothing to change the super-human capabilities that these troops possess. Would a cost change balance the game? Yes, I think it could if it was severe enough.

Would it make it any more 'realistic' or 'historical'? No, not at all. It would likely just amount to 1-2 less elites on the field rather than some change to the game's dynamics.

Would it make more units playable? Not really IMO. High AI AFVs and units would still be the way to go and units with 7/7/6 or worse would still languish in the tacklebox. Because its not a question of more or less elites on the field, its a question of many units being utterly ineffective vs them whether there are 3 of them or 10 of them.

Would it help? Sure, but its not enough to really encourage people to change their build strategies IMO. Instead of 10 elites plus support, it would be 7-8 elites plus support. An improvement to be sure, but no change in how the best builds would be made.

[Kaufschtick]

Seems to me that a simple sticker with "7" on it is the easiest way unlike scrapping a card and mucking SA's.

I like this option a lot too. 7 points should be the bare bones minimum for any 5/5 soldier. The SSPGs SA: Ruthless is a huge SA, IMO. Enough so to put them at the head of the class, in front of Rangers, again IMO.

[Uncle_Joe]

The SSPGs SA: Ruthless is a huge SA, IMO. Enough so to put them at the head of the class, in front of Rangers, again IMO.

Yup, its that SA that makes them so incredibly effective vs armor. Any disrupted/damaged armor is deadmeat vs the SS-Pgr.

The Ranger has a one higher CA by virtue of his SA, but that is not enough to catch the Ruthless SA, especially when the latter can also multiply his AI dice as well.

[warspite]

Would it help? Sure, but its not enough to really encourage people to change their build strategies IMO. Instead of 10 elites plus support, it would be 7-8 elites plus support. An improvement to be sure, but no change in how the best builds would be made.

Another thing: there is still the 15 unit limit. Despite any consideration of how 5 Mausers compare to 3 SSPG's, you can't make up the difference unit-wise, because 10 SSPG's would equal 15 Mausers, and that's still not 100 pts. Playing more Mausers might make a couple more heavy units affordable, but at the possible cost of making them ALL more vulnerable.

For the cost in both points and units towards the total, SSPG's and Rangers are the best, followed (perhaps) by Garands.

[Kaufschtick]

It also doesnt address the concerns of many that ANY soldiers (elite or otherwise) shouldn't be able to blithely walk into MG fire or stroll up to armor and throttle it with minimal risk.

Exactly, 5/5 soldiers (not sandbagged MGs) are just too powerful defense-wise in this game. Under no circumstances should soldiers be able to "ignore" tanks or MGs, period. 5/5 soldiers wind up being able to do just that at times.

At this point, an elite limit, a recost or a downgrade to 4/4 SR2 would be an improvement.

[DocD]

And as I said, it does nothing to change the super-human capabilities that these troops possess. Would a cost change balance the game? Yes, I think it could if it was severe enough.

Joe, there is so much I disagree with your posts.....let's see.

I think first things first. The SS-PGs is by far the most UNDERcosted unit in the entire game......hands down. It has been that way since the very first SS-PG was placed in a box. Recost the SS-PG and let every one take a breath, then revisit other recosting issues (if any) at a later date. I don't think every elite needs a recost.

And I just don't agree that single 5/5's are "superhuman". Difficult? Hard? Tough as Heck to deal with? Absolutely! But singularly they can be dealt with. It's when a "swarm" of them take to the battlefield that makes effective options extremely tough. I would be for aggressive price increases if that's what it took for folks at tournaments to think about fielding them.

As far as increasing gameplay for other units, I again disagree. Many unplayed units won't see the day of light regardless, and rightfully so. Some units are too specific (or crappy) to see any play except with strict historical scenarios or such. The goal of recosting the SS-PG is not to get players to blow off the dust on their PTRDs.

And as always, who's to say what future units (correctly priced) are on there way to give us more options for dealing with elites. Let's not neuter the 5/5's for fear of what the future may hold I say.

[Uncle_Joe]

Recost the SS-PG and let every one take a breath, then revisit other recosting issues (if any) at a later date. I don't think every elite needs a recost.

You must not be following the same forums I do here. I'm not saying that re-pricing the SS-Pgr to 7 is a bad idea. Not at all. I'm saying that it would generate a LOT of negative response UNLESS other units are changed as well. There is already a 'poor persecuted Germans' sentiment that runs fairly rampant around here. Any form of price increase to their best unit would undoubtedly set off a um...storm... unless other 'power pieces' were similarly addressed.

And I just don't agree that single 5/5's are "superhuman". Difficult? Hard? Tough as Heck to deal with? Absolutely! But singularly they can be dealt with. It's when a "swarm" of them take to the battlefield that makes effective options extremely tough. I would be for aggressive price increases if that's what it took for folks at tournaments to think about fielding them.

And you think increasing their price to 6 or 7 would prevent that swarm? I REALLY doubt it. I could be wrong on that, but I would wager quite heavily that the next tournament builds would still be very heavy on SS-Pgr/Rangers/SE Paras etc.

One thing to consider is that the SS-Pgr abuse builds not only won, but were undefeated! Some of that you can chalk up to Tragicmishap's skill at the game, but you would think that in the number of games he played at two different tournaments that he would at least screwed by LUCK if nothing else. Didnt happen. That too me speaks volumes. So, if these units are THAT good, do you really think that increasing their cost by a point or two is going to do much to break their stranglehold on the game? I just dont see it.

As far as increasing gameplay for other units, I again disagree. Many unplayed units won't see the day of light regardless, and rightfully so. Some units are too specific (or crappy) to see any play except with strict historical scenarios or such. The goal of recosting the SS-PG is not to get players to blow off the dust on their PTRDs.

I'm only going by what appear to be some of the stated goals of these Expert Rules. And while I dont think PTRDs will be played regardless of the change made, I totally disagree that changing Elites to 4/4 SR:2 rather than increasing their cost by a point or two wouldnt have the desired effect. Currently, too many units just CANNOT REASONABLY HURT the 5/5s. That is going to be the same whether there are 10 on the table or just 7. So, that means that those still will not be playable at all due the possibility of running into even a half a dozen 5/5s. So, while it might help balance game play a bit, it does nothing to make less played units more palatable.

On the the other hand reducing their defense a bit DOES increase the usefulness of other units. Anything with 7/7/6 AI suddenly becomes viable to at least whittling down infantry unlike before. And MGs become more important, so from there units that can DEFEAT MGs become more important (ie, armor).

And as always, who's to say what future units (correctly priced) are on there way to give us more options for dealing with elites.

Which is the worst of all possible worlds IMO. That type of 'balancing' is what got us to where we are now.

[Qmark]

That type of 'balancing' is what got us to where we are now.The lack of that type of 'balancing' is why we have five sets of tacklebox filler instead of just one or two.
If this game miraculously does survive past Set 7, it seems a "Revised Edition" (aka "everything sucks now!") is all but inevitable.

Ending the unit limit would work wonders for "balancing" 3-point basic infantry.

[Kaufschtick]

Ending the unit limit would work wonders for "balancing" 3-point basic infantry.

I'm not saying this would definately happen, but the way I see it, if you drop the unit limit, most of the tanks will go into the "tackle box". This from the point of view of a 100 point game. The unit limit now is the only thing keeping tanks in play in 100 point games.

Balancing the 3 point infantry in this fashion would result in killing the AFVs, IMHO.

A huge problem with the 5/5 soldiers is that any tank sporting a 7/7/6 AI is not going to be too threatening. Out of 7 shots, a tank can only miss on two of those shots, and that just to get a disrupt. To actually get a kill, the tank can only afford one miss out of 7 dice thrown! I don't know exactly what kind of odds that translates to, but it's pretty poor odds, if you ask me. Then you look at long range, and the odds just get worse.

For Germany, 18 out her 23 tank units are rated at 7/7/6 or worse. Granted, two of those 18 have crack shot which makes them effective. Of the five tanks with better stats, you have the Brummbar, the Wirbelwind, the Flamingo, the Sig and the Stug III. IMHO, only the Stug III, the Brummbar, the Vet. Tiger and the Elite Panzer IV are the only really playable tanks against 5/5 soldiers. That's four out of 23. You've got three more with better than 7/7/6, but otherwise very weak. So at very best, the Germans have 7 effective tanks out of 23! That's less than 1/3rd!

There is something very, very wrong with that. That something is the 5/5 rating on the soldier.

Jack up the price of these 5/5 soldiers, and it doesn't change a thing with the German tank situation. You can limit them to 2 per 100 points (which to me admits they are broken; otherwise, why would you have ever created pieces that now need to be limited, yet produced them as common pieces? "Here, we'll sell you these as commons and then make a rule saying you can't play more than two per 100 points." WTF!?!:eek: I would prefer it to be more like this: "WotC will limit these to 2 per 100 points and I won't buy more than two, because more than that is a waste.") or you can downgrade them to 4/4 SR2. The downgrade to 4/4 SR2 will keep these "common" pieces from being a waste in having more than 2 to begin with.

For the Russians, 6 of their 12 tanks have 7/7/6 or worse. Of the 6 tanks with better than 7/7/6, 4 of these came with set V! This says that they are already trying to fix the 5/5 problem with higher AI stats on tanks, which in turn only serves to make the tanks released previously obsolete.

[Grenzewolf]

For Germany, 18 out her 23 tank units are rated at 7/7/6 or worse. Granted, two of those 18 have crack shot which makes them effective. Of the five tanks with better stats, you have the Brummbar, the Wirbelwind, the Flamingo, the Sig and the Stug III. IMHO, only the Stug III, the Brummbar, the Vet. Tiger and the Elite Panzer IV are the only really playable tanks against 5/5 soldiers. That's four out of 23. You've got three more with better than 7/7/6, but otherwise very weak. So at very best, the Germans have 7 effective tanks out of 23! That's less than 1/3rd!

There is something very, very wrong with that. That something is the 5/5 rating on the soldier.

e.

Do keep in mind we are playing a Historicaly based game and not Battle Tech, Star Wars, Magic or some other "Fantasy Game". You didnt see many Grants, PZII's III's or T26's on the Battle field later in the war as they were "Obsolete". I totaly disagree with tweeking units for the sole sake of playability in 100pt Tournaments. There is a lobby for a Japanese uber tank that makes me want to wretch. Of Course, there is always Games Workshop that simply releases uber units and new rules just to drive up revenue every couple of months,,,,, I wont be caught up in that scam again.

Again I'm on the same sheet as DocD. I just do not find that 5/5's are so insurmoutable. Two weeks ago I slaughtered a mess of them with Cheep Cossacks, a couple snipers and an 82mm mortar. Hey their tuff but I'll trade 4pt troops for 5pts all day long.

[Uncle_Joe]

Kaufschtick hit it right on the head. There is more to these elites being balance problems than simply cost alone. They distort gameplay in a major way.

I wasnt quite aware of the sheer number of vehicles I wasnt playing until he posted it out in those numbers. Primarily as Germany I almost always play with some the ones he listed (Brummbar, StuG, EP4...the others are too specialized or vulnerable). For the Amis, I tend to only play the Sherman and the Sherman 105.

With infantry at 4/4, I could see myself easily playing the new Pz(38t), an occasional MkIII (Smokescreen can be a huge factor in a game with limited turns), the SS MkIV (nice abilities, useless vs elites), the Puma (can win vs or negate almost all non-heavy armor if played correctly, but again, worthless vs elites), and the Hetzer (I almost use it now, but totally useless vs elites).

For the Russians, those new armored cars and lt tanks are nice, but again, useless vs the inevitable elites. Same goes for the SU-76. Nice vehicle for cost...rarely makes it into a build. I actually prefer the speed of the T-34 to the bulk of the KV. Its not the armor difference or the Hulking Mass that relegates my T-34s to the box, its the fact that they are useless vs SS-Pgr.

For the Brits, I only play the Croc and the Stuart...again, the ones than can kill the 5/5s. Cromwells and Firelflies and the like...not worth it.

The common theme here is that all of the 'playable' AFVs can affect 5/5s with at least a 50/50. All of the unplayables cannot. Remove that sticking point and an AWFUL lot more AFVs become valuable.

The more I look at it, the less I think cost alone can really do much to encourage more diverse builds (without recosting an awful lot more than just the elites).

[Uncle_Joe]

Do keep in mind we are playing a Historicaly based game and not Battle Tech, Star Wars, Magic or some other "Fantasy Game".

Err, the game feels an awful lot more like Magic or Fantasy when infantry can ignore MGs and tank fire. And not much really says 'Jedi Knight' more than a group of Japanese SNLF Fanatics. Not only do they appear to carry Lightsabers, but they perform like they do to!

[Grenzewolf]

Err, the game feels an awful lot more like Magic or Fantasy when infantry can ignore MGs and tank fire. And not much really says 'Jedi Knight' more than a group of Japanese SNLF Fanatics. Not only do they appear to carry Lightsabers, but they perform like they do to!

No argument there. Alas though, the Jedi was sylized after the samurai so that would not be a discrediting statement.

The answere in the case of the SNLF fanatic is simply to gun him down. In fairness; I have never faced a swarm of them. I do like the idea that a unit can survive hand to hand combat. The trick is not letting them get that close.

[Kaufschtick]

Err, the game feels an awful lot more like Magic or Fantasy when infantry can ignore MGs and tank fire. And not much really says 'Jedi Knight' more than a group of Japanese SNLF Fanatics. Not only do they appear to carry Lightsabers, but they perform like they do to!

That's definately right!:D

I had a game a long time back against C2K. He took 2 Stuarts, 4 Crusaders, an Inspiring Lt. and 4 Vet SMLE Aussies. I had a Japanese force of 8 SNLFs, a sniper and 4 Ha-Gos. I thought my goose was cooked at first. I lost all four of my Ha-Gos in exchange for his two Stuarts. I didn't even know it, but the game was already over. His Crusaders were 5/5/4 AI, absolutely useless against the SNLFs. The rest of the game then was 8 SNLFs vs 1 Inspiring Lt. and 4 Vet SMLE Aussies. Not much of a game to say the least. I had no idea the game would work out that way, and it was one of the worst games I've ever played of AAM.:(

At one point, there were 2 Crusaders facing 1 SNLF. I moved the SNLF in the direction of the Crusaders, and they in turn had to back off!?! I even thought of chasing the 2 tanks, but decided to just ignore the whole bunch of them instead! Terrible game.:mad:

[Kaufschtick]

In fairness; I have never faced a swarm of them.

It doesn't make for a fun game if you're not prepared to face 5/5 infantry.

[Uncle_Joe]

Ive faced them numerous times (and used them). They certainly are beatable. Thats not the problem.

They CAN be 'gunned down', but only buy the same select few units that are required in every build to combat the 5/5s. That is the problem. Their existance at 5/5 precludes many units ever making onto the field.

But it sure doesnt feel like island combat Banzais. The Japanese were cut down in droves. Here, they dont tend to lose men at all if they are fielding massed Jedi. They walk across the open and close with the enemy with near impunity. Not WW2 in any capacity IMO.

It doesn't make for a fun game.

Anytime you are facing mass elites, its rarely a 'fun game'. Its generally a grueling dice-off. Can you roll well enough with your few units that can actually affect them to kill them in time? Its much less a tactical exercise than playing with non-elites (or playing elites at 4/4 SR:2).

[Kaufschtick]

I guess even 4/4 SR2 wouldn't make much difference on the old SNLF, seeing as how they ignore disruptions.

Oh, I guess two seperate shots scoring 4 successes would do them in providing they fail cover. Yeah, I guess that would be much better.:)

[Lotus]

Ive faced them numerous times (and used them). They certainly are beatable. Thats not the problem.

They CAN be 'gunned down', but only buy the same select few units that are required in every build to combat the 5/5s. That is the problem. Their existance at 5/5 precludes many units ever making onto the field....

Well...I can think of something even worse. I managed to kill the Russian hero once with a fortress defender...that's right. Put 2 x's on the man's eyes. and declare a winner...Then, Lo and Behold, the son of God placed his hand on the hero's head and said "Arise!" and the Hero arose...promptly killing the fortress defender.

5/5s I have dealt with, even with lowly mauser kars and the like. I'm really not bothered by them that much per se. They die to concentration of fire like everything else. It's the silly SAs that get me. Make them tough to sim elites...solid by me. Give them godlike fantasy abilities and things not so solid. (sorry...Firefly reference irresistable)

Now I will say that SSPGs, SEs, and Fanatics are nigh heroes. There could easily be talk in these 5/5 threads regarding 5/5 Def and libraries of SAs underneath the combat values. I don't look to change them now, I just hope that in the future, any 5/5 def infantry that might yet be given birth to keeps to reasonable SAs. Frankly, I'll take vanillla. Gimme Defiant Paras or Fallschirmjagers anyday. The rest can rot or not.

[Arontje]

I guess even 4/4 SR2 wouldn't make much difference on the old SNLF, seeing as how they ignore disruptions.

Oh, I guess two seperate shots scoring 4 successes would do them in providing they fail cover. Yeah, I guess that would be much better.:)

Well, many times I score 4 hits with mutliple units... if I do that twice the SNLF will be killed. With defense 5 however it wont. SR2 only is for being killed with one shot, still possible as it was with defense 5 but disrupting (or getting 1 hit) is easier wich makes sense to me.

With defense 4 SR2... those units arent worse... just less superb. All other infantry arent better but less worse
:)

[Richter von Manthofen]

Sure it wont be done with recosting the SSPG (Ranger Screaming Eagle), but it would be a good start.

If you ask me which units have to be recosted, there is a quick and simple way to decide.

Take comparable units (e.g. 81mm Mortars) and recost those that fall out of the line - in this case the US.

Then there are a few famous friends : the Sherman family. As most of them are based on the 21 point M4A1 (being in perfect balance with this one) simple cost them at around 2-3 points more. Then even the Firefly, which is NOW too costly is priced right. Lower the cost on certain heavy tanks a bit (like the Comet and Centurion, the Tiger I - Veteran is about OK, but here I could see +5 points, Pershing, IS-2, possibly IS3...)

Raise the cost on Elite

Lower the cost on Halftracks, Jagdpanther

Lower the German 23 point armored car


OH HOLY S..T! That whole game is miscosted :D

But! Def 5/5 infantry has its place in the game SR-2 is not the same and is a good thing if used as a middle thing between def 4 and def 5 inf.

Maybe a limit would be the thing to do - not because of historic reasons, but for game balance. It worked for heros, why not here?

Your example with Crusader is nice, but to us "Historic" buffs its a good example of how they did it right ;) - Why?. Crusaders are cruiser tanks not meant to fight toe to toe with the enemy, but to move fast and create mayhem behind enemys lines (disrupting support, cutting supply lines, attacking other vehicles) and this the Crusader does quite efficiently.

If your opponent brings Crusaders its HIS fault not to think about bringing units that can deal with infantry (OK he did bring, but too less) And exchanging Stuarts (8/8/6) for Ha-Gos and not using Crusaders for this job - its the generals fault, not the fault of the game...

[boersma8]

Nothing wrong with them, bring a 81mm mortar or the German one of equal value

1.) US mortar: anyone can spot; cost 12

2.) German mortar: only German spotter can spot, will most likely die on turn 1 or 2 at the latest. Afterwards you're left with a nearly useless mortar. You could fire it one more time, but you'd need LOS. That's 3 shots at most if you're lucky for 20 pints. The US mortar costs 12 and you'll be able touse it throughout the game with a little luck

3.) The US mortar is a MUST in any US build that wants to counter SS troopers. That's exactly the problem. One is much too restricted in one's builds!!!!

[boersma8]

And as I said, it does nothing to change the super-human capabilities that these troops possess. Would a cost change balance the game? Yes, I think it could if it was severe enough.

Would it make it any more 'realistic' or 'historical'? No, not at all. It would likely just amount to 1-2 less elites on the field rather than some change to the game's dynamics.

Would it make more units playable? Not really IMO. High AI AFVs and units would still be the way to go and units with 7/7/6 or worse would still languish in the tacklebox. Because its not a question of more or less elites on the field, its a question of many units being utterly ineffective vs them whether there are 3 of them or 10 of them.

Would it help? Sure, but its not enough to really encourage people to change their build strategies IMO. Instead of 10 elites plus support, it would be 7-8 elites plus support. An improvement to be sure, but no change in how the best builds would be made.

This is exactly the problem. I don't mean to offend anyone, but I don't see how it's possible NOT to see that! Yes, you'd have fewer elites to kill, but if you CAN'T kill them with most of the units, unless you get an extremely lucky shot, this doesn't do anything towards making more units playable, nor does it change building tactics! 4/4 SR 2 would! Magically, the current 5/5's are then all of a sudden correctly priced! ( OK, SNLF fanatic would be a little overpriced, that's true....)Then again, so many more units would start seeing play again, that sacrificing one that currently sees a lot of play to make many others playable is acceptable IMO....

[boersma8]

I'm only going by what appear to be some of the stated goals of these Expert Rules. And while I dont think PTRDs will be played regardless of the change made, I totally disagree that changing Elites to 4/4 SR:2 rather than increasing their cost by a point or two wouldnt have the desired effect. Currently, too many units just CANNOT REASONABLY HURT the 5/5s. That is going to be the same whether there are 10 on the table or just 7. So, that means that those still will not be playable at all due the possibility of running into even a half a dozen 5/5s. So, while it might help balance game play a bit, it does nothing to make less played units more palatable.

On the the other hand reducing their defense a bit DOES increase the usefulness of other units. Anything with 7/7/6 AI suddenly becomes viable to at least whittling down infantry unlike before. And MGs become more important, so from there units that can DEFEAT MGs become more important (ie, armor).



Which is the worst of all possible worlds IMO. That type of 'balancing' is what got us to where we are now.

Again, I agree completely with Uncle Joe! Yes, CERTAIN units still wouldn't see any play unless in historical scenarios. However, regular infantry, MG's, tanks, tank-destroyers and Anti-tank guns, suddenly would be playable again. That's a whole lot of units! At least dozens, I'd say!

[boersma8]

I'm not saying this would definately happen, but the way I see it, if you drop the unit limit, most of the tanks will go into the "tackle box". This from the point of view of a 100 point game. The unit limit now is the only thing keeping tanks in play in 100 point games.

Balancing the 3 point infantry in this fashion would result in killing the AFVs, IMHO.

A huge problem with the 5/5 soldiers is that any tank sporting a 7/7/6 AI is not going to be too threatening. Out of 7 shots, a tank can only miss on two of those shots, and that just to get a disrupt. To actually get a kill, the tank can only afford one miss out of 7 dice thrown! I don't know exactly what kind of odds that translates to, but it's pretty poor odds, if you ask me. Then you look at long range, and the odds just get worse.

For Germany, 18 out her 23 tank units are rated at 7/7/6 or worse. Granted, two of those 18 have crack shot which makes them effective. Of the five tanks with better stats, you have the Brummbar, the Wirbelwind, the Flamingo, the Sig and the Stug III. IMHO, only the Stug III, the Brummbar, the Vet. Tiger and the Elite Panzer IV are the only really playable tanks against 5/5 soldiers. That's four out of 23. You've got three more with better than 7/7/6, but otherwise very weak. So at very best, the Germans have 7 effective tanks out of 23! That's less than 1/3rd!

There is something very, very wrong with that. That something is the 5/5 rating on the soldier.

Jack up the price of these 5/5 soldiers, and it doesn't change a thing with the German tank situation. You can limit them to 2 per 100 points (which to me admits they are broken; otherwise, why would you have ever created pieces that now need to be limited, yet produced them as common pieces? "Here, we'll sell you these as commons and then make a rule saying you can't play more than two per 100 points." WTF!?!:eek: I would prefer it to be more like this: "WotC will limit these to 2 per 100 points and I won't buy more than two, because more than that is a waste.") or you can downgrade them to 4/4 SR2. The downgrade to 4/4 SR2 will keep these "common" pieces from being a waste in having more than 2 to begin with.

For the Russians, 6 of their 12 tanks have 7/7/6 or worse. Of the 6 tanks with better than 7/7/6, 4 of these came with set V! This says that they are already trying to fix the 5/5 problem with higher AI stats on tanks, which in turn only serves to make the tanks released previously obsolete.

I wholeheartedly agree! And as Uncle Joe also pointed out, so far WoTC's way of " fixing" things has been to release new units that CAN be a threat to 5/5's. However, this also creates very weird imbalances: the Panhard being a million times better than the Sdkfz 222, the SU 152, although being good at killing infantry, perhaps getting a few AI dice too many ;) , the need for mortars to take them out, ammo depots that at least akllow you to reroll your ones again and thereby increasing the odd that a 7/7/6 tank might indeed kill a 5/5 soldier. Then again, you'll only likely have it for one round and it also creates the need to insert paras, planes and partisans into your build. Suddenly you can just about guess the whole build of your opponent!Of course you can build sth completely different, but not if you actually want to win!!!

[boersma8]

Err, the game feels an awful lot more like Magic or Fantasy when infantry can ignore MGs and tank fire. And not much really says 'Jedi Knight' more than a group of Japanese SNLF Fanatics. Not only do they appear to carry Lightsabers, but they perform like they do to!

Exactly. The reason those tanks someone mentioned became obsolete is that OTHER tanks, anti-tank guns and portable anti-tank weapons beat them! Not becaue they couldn't shoot down (elite) soldiers anymore all of a sudden!

[boersma8]

That's definately right!:D

I had a game a long time back against C2K. He took 2 Stuarts, 4 Crusaders, an Inspiring Lt. and 4 Vet SMLE Aussies. I had a Japanese force of 8 SNLFs, a sniper and 4 Ha-Gos. I thought my goose was cooked at first. I lost all four of my Ha-Gos in exchange for his two Stuarts. I didn't even know it, but the game was already over. His Crusaders were 5/5/4 AI, absolutely useless against the SNLFs. The rest of the game then was 8 SNLFs vs 1 Inspiring Lt. and 4 Vet SMLE Aussies. Not much of a game to say the least. I had no idea the game would work out that way, and it was one of the worst games I've ever played of AAM.:(

At one point, there were 2 Crusaders facing 1 SNLF. I moved the SNLF in the direction of the Crusaders, and they in turn had to back off!?! I even thought of chasing the 2 tanks, but decided to just ignore the whole bunch of them instead! Terrible game.:mad:

Exactly, I had sth similar happen to me! Same with the US mortars also. You don't need any skill to play them under the curent rules, which is the biggest killjoy in the game! ( I mean, when no skill is required to play....)

[boersma8]

I guess even 4/4 SR2 wouldn't make much difference on the old SNLF, seeing as how they ignore disruptions.

Oh, I guess two seperate shots scoring 4 successes would do them in providing they fail cover. Yeah, I guess that would be much better.:)

Of course it is! That's what we've been trying to say all along! :D ;)

[polish_horsy]

there's a joke in there somewhere... how many crusaders does it take to kill 1 light saber carrying Japanese guy? In reality I'd say a 99 point all-crusader team has even odds to try and kill 1 single SNLF Fanatic in a 7 turn game.

[Qmark]

I'm not saying this would definately happen, but the way I see it, if you drop the unit limit, most of the tanks will go into the "tackle box". This from the point of view of a 100 point game. The unit limit now is the only thing keeping tanks in play in 100 point games.Point of order: Damn near all tanks are already in the tacklebox. Dropping the unit limit won't make M4 Sherm, Rhino, Croc, Stuart, EPz4, or Vet Tiger any less "the only playable tanks" than they already are.

[Colonel_Coo]

Wow! 34 for some form of 4/4. 32 for some form of 5/5.
41 for changes listed in some form. 25 for either leave them alone or just recost them properly, but leave them 5/5.

[Qmark]

The real cause of the alleged "problem" is very simple: Wizards/AH designed the game exclusively for 'Limited' play, which never really materialized.
Getting a single 5 defense guy out of two boosters of crap is insignifcant (and the Limited-focus is why there's way too much crap). Buying a case and building a constructed army out of 10-15 5/5 guys means you're likely to stomp all over the other guy's army unless he does the same.

[Vikingwarrior]

You must look at the whole picture to fix the 5/5 infantry problem.
First make AA the only thing that can take out planes. This makes 5/5 infantry vulnerable to planes which they are not now. It also means you better have AA or planes in your build thereby limiting the amount of 5/5 infantry you can field.
Second, have spotter for all mortars necessary but they can see 8 hexes and have +1 cover. This will make mortars very effective against infantry without the worry of having your spotter taken out immediately. This forces the opponent to have something in his build to combat this. 5/5 infantry won't cut it.
Third, recost 5/5 infantry up to 6 or 7. Yes they will still be fielded which is fine. But because you need to field AA, Mortars, spotters, planes ect., if you field them you risk having far less units on the battlefield then your opponent.

Basicly use HHR rules and cards in FULL and 90% of the problems are fixed. WoTc probably won't do this but they aren't going to change SA's on existing either IMHO. So I say adopt HHR rules and go back to having fun with the game. It does not solve the problems for tournaments but the other 99% of the time you play the game you will enjoy it.

[SunningTurtle]

Basicly use HHR rules and cards in FULL and 90% of the problems are fixed. WoTc probably won't do this but they aren't going to change SA's on existing either IMHO. So I say adopt HHR rules and go back to having fun with the game. It does not solve the problems for tournaments but the other 99% of the time you play the game you will enjoy it.


Amen! I couldn't agree w/ you more!

[polar]

Add an last option:

Take the ranger and SS-pansergrenadier out of the game.

[Colonel_Coo]

Add an last option:

Take the ranger and SS-pansergrenadier out of the game.

Doesn't stop para-bombs. Doesn't stop Jagerbombs. Doesn't stop Fanatic rush.

[Lotus]

Maybe WoTC can just sell each of us a lighter. Melts plastic...burns cards.

Will that fix everything?

There is a risk to building random armies. Without some form of agreement before the builds get made, you might just get an all SSPG army vs Lebel Grenadiers...hey, that would be kind of funny. But I digress.

Maybe it's not the weapons that are the problem but the rules of engagement.
I seem to remember reading something a friend showed me about a sabre that came out a couple hundred years ago...I think a Prussian one, that the French protested because it was deemed too inhumane for war. Imagine that. We joke that the Germans immediately adopted it as their standard issue weapon (the even funnier part is that Prussians were Germans I think...but whatever)
So even in war people bicker over what screws up balance. It didn't stop the swords from being used and so someone had the burden of coming up with a counter to it, or matching it. That's war.

This, I know, is just a game. I'd still rather find counters than ban, whenever prudent. Heroes fell into the "prudently limit" category IMO, others may rightfully disagree. 5/5s have their issues. I just keep thinking that there's something better than banning or limiting all but anything on the horde level.

[DocD]

Joe, we meet again ole friend.I'm not saying that re-pricing the SS-Pgr to 7 is a bad idea. I'm saying that it would generate a LOT of negative response UNLESS other units are changed as well. Any form of price increase to their best unit would undoubtedly set off a um...storm... unless other 'power pieces' were similarly addressed. Let's start with the SS-PG and see what happens. If the natives get restless, so whatelse is new, besides....Nothing is ever going to disperse "Negative Responses" around here.....you should know that Joe.

And you think increasing their price to 6 or 7 would prevent that swarm? I REALLY doubt it. I could be wrong on that, but I would wager quite heavily that the next tournament builds would still be very heavy on SS-Pgr/Rangers/SE Paras etc.

So, if these units are THAT good, do you really think that increasing their cost by a point or two is going to do much to break their stranglehold on the game? I just dont see it.
I would wager quite heavily that increasing the cost would help. I'm not even talking one point either. Two maybe three, hell...maybe more! Why shouldn't soldiers that can "walk up to MGs" (so you say) not cost 9 pts each.


Currently, too many units just CANNOT REASONABLY HURT the 5/5s. That is going to be the same whether there are 10 on the table or just 7. So, that means that those still will not be playable at all due the possibility of running into even a half a dozen 5/5s. So, while it might help balance game play a bit, it does nothing to make less played units more palatable.Here you have a point. A couple of units will see more usage, true, but the game as far as I'm concerned, isn't about placing 10 SS-PGs on the board and marching forward. I could care less what the powergamers do or need to counter other powergamers.
The 5/5 unit should represent a hard as heck unit to kill....and guesswhat....it does....it's the King Tiger of infantry. Let's find other ways of dealing with the 5/5 unit instead of taking it out of the game. A Higher cost is what should be used for a balance. And isn't that the same thing that keeps the King Tigers from dominating the game.

Anyway, thanks for the debate Joe. I'm obviously not going to change your mind on this so let's just agree to disagree.....until the next debate....ole friend.

[Cpt. John Miller]

The 5/5 unit should represent a hard as heck unit to kill....and guesswhat....it does....it's the King Tiger of infantry. Let's find other ways of dealing with the 5/5 unit instead of taking it out of the game.

This has been WotC's solution thus far.
SSPGs Dominate, enter M1 81mm Mortar, Rangers, SEPTs.
SEPTs Dominate, enter Falshirmjager.
And on and on................
Is the game better for it? No.
Why are limits bad? I can't believe that so many people have such a problem with changing the makeup of the battlefield. You all must love facing 8 or more 5/5s all the damn time. I for sure don't.
If you make SSPGs 4/4 SR2 people still play with 10 of them. They drop more dice than any similarly priced unit in the game, plus ruthless. If you make them 7 points do you think anyone will bat an eye? No. They will still stack those suckers as high as they can afford. 10 points is maybe fair for SSPGs.
BUT, if you put a limit on ALL 5/5s then all of a sudden Parabomb stops being a option, Ranger swarm is out, SSPGs are manageable in small amounts and every powergamer now has to come up with a new strategy other than flooding the field with these things. I wanna see some new interesting tournament builds. That is my motivation for endorsing limits. I know a lot of you hate limits, but not as much as I hate throngs of SSPGs. ;)

[Uncle_Joe]

If you make SSPGs 4/4 SR2 people still play with 10 of them.

The difference here is that they will likely lose if they do. Yes, the have more firepower, but you are paying 66% more for them. What 'breaks' them is not the firepower, but the 5/5 defense.

4/4 SR:2 means that they can no longer be used in such unrealistic and cavalier manner. Even a 6 die Mauser or SMLE has a decent chance of an effect. A simple horde of elites with 4/4 SR:2 would not be a good force IMO. They would need support unlike now, where their toughness prevents them from being killed off by most opponents.

FWIW, I'd take a limit over nothing though. But at this point, I just wish someone from WotC would step in and make a decision ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. If they have no intentions of doing anything about the singularly most unbalanced part of the game, then at least many of us will know that and we can just go back to playing with House Rules rather than wasting time debating things that they have already made a decision on.

I think these Expert Rules are a great idea and I hope they work. But without SOME sort of direct fix for the 5/5s (limit, defense change, or cost increase), the game will still be horribly flawed between competitive players.

[Lotus]

....But at this point, I just wish someone from WotC would step in and make a decision ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.....

If wishes were fishes, Bro.

WoTC is nothing if not expert at making us wait.

[boersma8]

This has been WotC's solution thus far.
SSPGs Dominate, enter M1 81mm Mortar, Rangers, SEPTs.
SEPTs Dominate, enter Falshirmjager.
And on and on................
Is the game better for it? No.
Why are limits bad? I can't believe that so many people have such a problem with changing the makeup of the battlefield. You all must love facing 8 or more 5/5s all the damn time. I for sure don't.
If you make SSPGs 4/4 SR2 people still play with 10 of them. They drop more dice than any similarly priced unit in the game, plus ruthless. If you make them 7 points do you think anyone will bat an eye? No. They will still stack those suckers as high as they can afford. 10 points is maybe fair for SSPGs.
BUT, if you put a limit on ALL 5/5s then all of a sudden Parabomb stops being a option, Ranger swarm is out, SSPGs are manageable in small amounts and every powergamer now has to come up with a new strategy other than flooding the field with these things. I wanna see some new interesting tournament builds. That is my motivation for endorsing limits. I know a lot of you hate limits, but not as much as I hate throngs of SSPGs. ;)

You make some good points. You're certainly right about the game not having improved with the US mortars and the like. Even the opposite, I find it safe to say!

Still I don't like limiting these guys ( 5/5's, just as has been done to the heroes, rightly so in this case...). One for historical reasons and two beacuse I think it would be nice to see, if indeed they all did become 4/4 SR 2, how Mausers would fare against a swarm of Rangers. Now, since Mons's post we all know that this is not going to happen officially in all likelihood. I'm pretty sure ten Mausers might win against 6 Rangers under such circumstances, though! ( You'd have to be extremely careful not to draw multiple fire with your Rangers; one Mauser you can still easily handle, but probably 3 or 4 of them WILL kill you, unlike now....). I also think, unlike the previous " solutions" :rolleyes: introduced by WoTC, that an officer exclusively granting bonusses to non-elite riflemen, actually will help in making those units more playable! They'd have roughly the same firepower now, but at a cheaper cost! I've already playtested this and it actually works! ( + 2 attack dice at all ranges when adjacent to the officer!). Of course it takes some skill to keep the officer alive and I also think that the US mortar really needs some revision, because otherwise not even this might work! At least make those units that do the spotting be "spotting on the radio....." But I digress again....

I do agree with you that a limit should also work towards making more units viable again, Personally I'd prefer another solution as I've explained above....

[NorthernRommel]

I think these Expert Rules are a great idea and I hope they work. But without SOME sort of direct fix for the 5/5s (limit, defense change, or cost increase), the game will still be horribly flawed between competitive players.

I am gonna add my voice to that too. The time for 5/5 infantry to become 4 SR2 is now. Having playtested with that same kind of rule I think it works much better.

[polish_horsy]

Well Mons says they can only correct imbalanced units by creating more imbalanced units or rule change... he hates errata.

So is 5/5 to 4/4 SR 2 a rule change or errata? I'm guessing they won't touch the 2 most obviously screweed up pieces. So we can look forward to new screwed up pieces to create a new balance... one which makes 90% of our existing units only playable with some hokey platoon combinations.

[polish_horsy]

You make some good points. You're certainly right about the game not having improved with the US mortars and the like. Even the opposite, I find it safe to say!

Still I don't like limiting these guys ( 5/5's, just as has been done to the heroes, rightly so in this case...). One for historical reasons and two beacuse I think it would be nice to see, if indeed they all did become 4/4 SR 2, how Mausers would fare against a swarm of Rangers. Now, since Mons's post we all know that this is not going to happen officially in all likelihood. I'm pretty sure ten Mausers might win against 6 Rangers under such circumstances, though! ( You'd have to be extremely careful not to draw multiple fire with your Rangers; one Mauser you can still easily handle, but probably 3 or 4 of them WILL kill you, unlike now....). I also think, unlike the previous " solutions" :rolleyes: introduced by WoTC, that an officer exclusively granting bonusses to non-elite riflemen, actually will help in making those units more playable! They'd have roughly the same firepower now, but at a cheaper cost! I've already playtested this and it actually works! ( + 2 attack dice at all ranges when adjacent to the officer!). Of course it takes some skill to keep the officer alive and I also think that the US mortar really needs some revision, because otherwise not even this might work! At least make those units that do the spotting be "spotting on the radio....." But I digress again....

I do agree with you that a limit should also work towards making more units viable again, Personally I'd prefer another solution as I've explained above....


2 extra dice for standing within 100 meters of an officer? My Tommy gun suddenly can spray more dice at 200 meters than a Brummbar? This is my biggest complaint about Wotc's idea that you can only fix something by breaking more things. The game turns into a sham.

[boersma8]

2 extra dice for standing within 100 meters of an officer? My Tommy gun suddenly can spray more dice at 200 meters than a Brummbar? This is my biggest complaint about Wotc's idea that you can only fix something by breaking more things. The game turns into a sham.

A tommy gun IS NOT a regular rifleman! ;) ( for the US, only garands ( but already have this benefit, of course it would not stack!), marine riflemen and Buffalo soldiers would benefit from it at this point in time.....

Of course I do agree with you that 4/4 SR 2 would be a much better solution, but it seems like that' not going to happen......

BTW, one extra die might be more appropriate, but I wonder if that's going to accomplish what we want: making mausers and the like an alternative for the elites......

[boersma8]

Well Mons says they can only correct imbalanced units by creating more imbalanced units or rule change... he hates errata.

So is 5/5 to 4/4 SR 2 a rule change or errata? I'm guessing they won't touch the 2 most obviously screweed up pieces. So we can look forward to new screwed up pieces to create a new balance... one which makes 90% of our existing units only playable with some hokey platoon combinations.

Yes, so far it hasn't really worked with those counter-units...usually it's either only made things worse ( US mortar to counter SS panzergrenadiers) or a unit ends up with completely rediculous SA's ( Greyhound to counter the German sniper's headshot). Though I can really see this new officer type giving attack bonusses to non-elite RIFLEMEN as a step in the right direction, it's not the most obvious one ( 4/4 SR 2). There's also still a lot of room for error...( if they apply it to ALL non-elite troops e.g.)

[Qmark]

Though I can really see this new officer type giving attack bonusses to non-elite RIFLEMEN as a step in the right direction,How would that even be worded, to work exactly "correctly" as you're intending?

[boersma8]

How would that even be worded, to work exactly "correctly" as you're intending?

Surprise me....BTW, Don't we all know what riflemen are??? ( I see what you mean, but how else would you phrase it?)

[boersma8]

How would that even be worded, to work exactly "correctly" as you're intending?

Of course another option is to actually write down the units it affects on the statcard. Of course you may have a problem then with future releases.....

Example:( British)

When adjacent to this officer the following units throw 1 (2?) extra attack dice: SMLE, Gurkha riflemen, ( I'd say not the veteran SMLE, but that's exactly your point, I know!)

[boersma8]

How would that even be worded, to work exactly "correctly" as you're intending?

Of course another option is to actually write down the units it affects on the statcard. Of course you may have a problem then with future releases.....

Example ( British officer)

When adjacent to this officer the following units throw 1 (2?) extra attack dice: SMLE, Gurkha riflemen, ( I'd say not the veteran SMLE, but that's exactly your point, I know!). I'd also make them NATION specific, so you won't have to wonder if the cnadians also benefit etc.....Anyway that's my take...

Mind you, I'd prefer 4/4 SR 2, but that's not going to happen it seems. Just trying to come up with alternatives.....

[Qmark]

Believe it not, I wasn't intending to be a jaded ass. I just can't think of any concievable way to functionally word it to affect only the desired units without also affecting the desirable units.

[DocD]

I thought I was out, but I did want to respond to the CPT. Why are limits bad? I can't believe that so many people have such a problem with changing the makeup of the battlefield. You all must love facing 8 or more 5/5s all the damn time. I for sure don't. Personally, I don't like facing 8 or more of anything, so technically, we are in agreement here.

If you make them 7 points do you think anyone will bat an eye? No. They will still stack those suckers as high as they can afford. 10 points is maybe fair for SSPGs.
That is my motivation for endorsing limits. I know a lot of you hate limits, but not as much as I hate throngs of SSPGs. ;)
I think a price increase in itself is a way of limiting SS-PGs. Right now, everyone knows it's a no brainer to purchase this unit at 5 points. But what if it was 9 or 10 pts?? Now, it's 10 SS-PGs and that's your ENTIRE 100 pt Army.
Who NOW will knock the game board over and cry "it's too hard to kill 10 SS-PGs!!" If you have 100 pts to spend and your opponent only has 10 SS-PGs in his entire force and you still don't think you can win, maybe you are playing the wrong game.

That's the type of point increase I'm talking about. Make these "suckers" so expensive that every and anyone will take notice. Then take a breath, assess, then do more "price upgrades" as needed.

Bottom line guys, I'm not for neutering the 5/5 units right now, maybe never. Now, who has another topic to debate.