Is official errata diesired or not?

[Frogslayer]

This is a burning question in many games, since designers always WILL make bad calls and misjudge stat/cost in any game, and thus unbalancing the it. For example, sherman "kills" the Hellcat and T-34 in the allied army and makes all light axis tanks unplayable because they will be "eaten" by the 2+ sherman tanks that WILL be in every (good) allied army. There are several means so "solve" this when it occurs. Which is the most preferable in A&A miniatures?

1. Do nothing.
Pros: you wont mess with the game, which most people hate.
Cons: The game will be unbalanced, and thus not as fun as it has the potential to be. Diversity suffers, and games repeat themselves.

2. Make up fore the unbalanced unit with more unbalanced units.
Pros: this "rebalances" the game somewhat, without messing with errata.
Cons: stat inflation, units becoming better and better each time a bad call is made. This may kill the game, since old units become useless and players do not like that. Also, the original balance may suffer greatly, and it will become harder and harder to make balanced units.

3. Restrict/ban certain units, making them illegal or restrict them to 1/army.
Pros: banning definitely kills an unit and thus compleatly restores the balance. Restrictions restore most, but not all of the balance.
Cons: Banning makes units that people paid for worthless. Everyone hates that. Restricting does that to a smaller extent. Restriction may also get "ugly" after a couple of expansions, people may build armies of only restricted units, thus bypassing the entire restriction idea.

4. Errata, changing the stats (in A&Am, probably raising/lowering the cost).
Pros: Compleatly restores balance without making the units you own usless, as with banning.
Cons: You are messing with the game, and many does not like this. Furthermore, whoe does not hate to own stat cards that are no longer correct?

Which soloution do you prefer?

PS. if I was the "Errata King", i´d set the top 7 unbalnced units IMHO to sherman: 24, Rhino: 29 (it´s better than T-34),sdkfz 251: 8, Easy Eight: 44, Jagdpanther: 47, Royal engineer: 4, Lee: 26.

[XAos]

My preference is usually (2). But with a slight change in emphasis.
Unbalenced units are usually ones which are too cheap in points for their effectiveness in the game. A unit which is higher on the cost-effectiveness curve than all the rest, unbalences the game. You re-balence the game by bringing out new units which enhance the less cost-effective units (e.g. commanders) or with new opposing units that are the same cost-effectiveness as the "broken" unit.
Only rarely will you get a unit which is brokenly strong by the qualitative affect it has. Then you probably have to use option (3b) i.e. ban it. The Headshot ability may turn out to be in this category.???
Option (3a) restricting a unit. Is only a temporary palitive, eventually you end up with so many restricted units. that players can build forces entirly of resticted units and then your back to a broken game balence. And in the mean time, the very fact that you restricted it tells everyone that it is indeed broken. So it gets played in every squad.

[Old Fart]

In many ways I hate to say this but ... #1 Do Nothing. For those who play in
sanctioned tournaments, or have no internet connection, it's far and away easier to
do nothing. Getting errata in everbodys hands can be difficult.

If, on the other hand, you play this game only with a small group of friends who can
rationally discuss the problem units, then create your own errata. Playtest it until
you are satisfied with the results. Even if AH issued errata, can you be sure that
you'll be satisfied with it? Everyone's perception is different and what one person
may feel is fixed ... another may feel that it is still broken.

The house rules section of the community boards allows us to discuss/debate/explain
rules and unit modifications. There we may find answers to many of the problems
that we are experiencing. I am often fond of saying that " I have never met a
perfect wargame " and it still holds true with this one.


To me there is nothing wrong with the M4A1. I really think the heart of the points
system is 3 X M4A1 = 1 X Tiger. If you proceed from this starting point, the AH design staff misplaced ( got the points wrong ) on other units. I find the Pz lV to
overpriced by 3 or 4 points. The Jagdpanther should be somewhere around 48 points.
I agree with you that the SK 251 should be about 8 points. The Easy 8 is an
abomination ... I think Danyel's modification is perfect. I think the M3 Lee is about
right; with potentially 2 shots and strike and fade, this tank can be a nightmare to
your opponent if used correctly ( and it is rather hard to use correctly ). I find that
the T 34 is better than the Rhino; The Rhino is more susceptible to being shaken and
damaged from a single opponent. I also feel that the Royal Engineers, while hard to use correctly, are priced correctly. So what we really come down to is ... what is
really broken and in need of fixing?

Old ( windbag ) Fart

PS If you check out the house rules section, you will notice that I have a yahoo
group where I have modified many stat cards.

[Der Leiter]

With one set out I'd say it's a little early to be errating everything.. wait for the next set to be released and see how they interact.

#4 is what I would prefer, but what I don't see happening. As in DDM with the Drider they simply banned it. However I don't see any uber powerful pieces yet; the Sherman isn't quite there.

#1 I'm quite happy with leaving the rules as they are. I don't generally play in tournements just casual games. If a unit is overpowered then we just don't play it in a normal game.

Not #3 I hope nothing is ever restricted (excluding any uniques they might make) or banned.

Not #2 Because this just rapidly degenerates the game into a WhizKids clone of whoever has the power pieces wins and all armies look the same.

[Sinister]

My choice would be to do nothing until all sets have been released then re-issue the game in 6-10 years changing what is felt to be "broken" and selling new stat cards to those that don't want to buy the new models.

[Autarch]

1. Do nothing: I actually prefer this. Awhile back, another game was released and it seemed there were almost daily (un)official suggestions for improving game play but nothing ever definitive that was officially playtested. It was almost as if the product was kicked out the door unfinished so development assets could be directed elsewhere.

2. Release more unbalanced units: It's inevitable that units with super SA combos are going to come out. The best hope is that they are costed appropriately. I think that is the main complaint for the Rhino, it's costed too low for it's SA's.

3. Restrict/banning: I agree, this is the worst. If a unit is so badly out of whack, then it should have the stats changed to make it playable. In this day and age, it shouldn't take more than a few minutes for a staffer to pull up the appropriate program, make some edits and post the new stat card online for download/printing. No doubt corporate considerations prevent this since they don't want to spend time and resources revisiting and correcting a playability issue. It's just easier to ban it and be done with it.

4. Errata: see above. New stat cards could be posted online, or errata slips inserted into boosters so players could alter their own cards if they so desired.

I vote for

5. Do nothing except for sanctioned play, then ban/restrict/alter stats if needed.

One thing to keep in mind is that the light axis tanks are early war vehicles, and not really intended to go up against mid or late war tanks like the Sherman.

The other problem with this game is not due to stats/cost but the maps. Almost all the German vehicles that look overcosted are due to a rarely usable SA: extended range.

I'm not sure how you'd errata the maps, unless some new maps are posted on the website.

[Comassion]

I firmly believe that if it isn't broken, don't fix it. If a unit seems too good, it's got to really prove that it's too good not to use or be countered, and win 80-90% of the games it participates in. Otherwise, leave the game as-is.

If it is broken, however, and we have a decidedly unfair unit, I suggest official errata, done in the following way:

1. AH / WOTC prints different cards for the units that fix them or make them more realistic. If they take this route, they might as well fix the Easy-Eight while they re-cost the Rhino.

2. Offer up these stat cards for free (mail request, or printable sheet), or include them with a new set.

[Bastion]

Where feasible, introduce units that will enhance 'weaker' units (eg a British leader that enhances only British infantry...so they are not eternally inferior to their french equivalents).

Better yet, create combos that would enhance the weaker units or weaken the stronger units.

Do not intentionally create more unbalanced units... this cheapens the game. I would definitely sooner see retrictions and banning (in that order) than a continous degradation (relative) of the other units.

And frankly, in a point based game, the only errata that need occurr is a change in the point value. Simple.

[crash beedo]

There are a few units that seem a little overpriced; these can be rectified in future sets by printing 'corrected' versions. Maybe the jagdpanther will be worth its points on bigger maps?

Of course, this leads to hurt feelings as the inevitable 'power creep' has older pieces losing ground to newer pieces... which is kind of weird in a historical game unless it's always done through things like 'veteran crew' or other special abilities.

As for the Rhino, we'll need to evaluate it in light of the whole Set 2. It sure is strong, but let's see the whole thing.

Based on playing M:TG and SW Minis, WOTC balances figures really well for competitive play. Here is one thing I see as an added piece of complexity - they may balance pieces well for tournament play, but they may not seem balanced than in terms of historical accuracy or simulations... definitely a wait and see.

[Commissar]

I suppose if WOTC were interested, they could release a set of "Advanced Cards" which incorporate some of the changes that have been proposed around here: cheaper Jagdpanther, toned-down Easy 8, Croc as Churchill VII, etc. You'd get all the cards in one package, and they would have different borders to distinguish them from the basic set, but of course you'd still need the actual minis to make use of them.

I'd be interested in something like that.

[DocD]

That sounds like a great idea Commissar and something I too would be interested in seeing. It's something that should interest the designers also, because it is something that wouldn't cost a lot of money to implement.

I personally think a Errata is always needed. As the game grows and more questionable things come up, an errata can take care of them.