AH design staff ... could we have an errata for the Pz lV G ... please ???

[Old Fart]

It is intuitively obvious even to a casual observer that there has been
a dreadful error in the costing of the Pz lV G from Set l. Given that the
new Pz lV F2 from Set ll is costed at 32 points and includes battlefield
awareness and ss determination for only an additional 2 points seems
very/highly/extremely/undoubtedly unusual. I may be mistaken, maybe
the F2 was supposed to be around 36 or 37 points, thereby justifying
the 30 points of the G model ??? Although at 36 or 37 points I doubt
that anyone would ever use it.

Since most of us have several/many/alot/numerous G models ( it was
an uncommon afterall ) that are unlikely to see any playing time at all
since for an extra 2 points you get all those extra goodies ... do you
think that maybe you could errata the G model ??? Personally. I
think 26 points seems about right, but I could live with 25 or even 27.

Maybe/possibly/hopefully you could post a revised card on this site
so that everyone could download it ??? And maybe/possibly/hopefully
you could print a new card and include it in Set lll ???

Old Fart

[Lynx7725]

Since you raised this point up..

I'm not against the idea. The appeal of a cheaper Panzer IV Ausf. G is there. It's just that well...

On what basis does AH playtest? I mean, given the way the rules and maps included within the base set, the Panzer IV G is a bit overcosted. You don't get to use the ER, with 3 Rear Def it's not the greatest of units. Speed 3 just drives a deeper nail in the coffin.

And then you get the infamous BAR Gunner. :D

But if I plonk the Panzer IV G down on the Russian steppes, with miles of open terrain (without a single tree in sight!), with the attendent difficulty in flanking a unit (because of the distances involved), you get a unit which is able to hit from far and hit more often, with strong frontal armour facing the enemy.

In this kind of situation, the SS Panzer Ausf. F2 is priced correctly; Battlefield Awareness is not a very useful SA because the ranges are so extended, Battlefield Awareness simply doesn't get used too often.

The more units that are released.. Nashorn, PAK40, King Tiger (to a lesser extend) all seems to point towards an intention to expand the terrain set to include very open terrain. And to increase the size of play area used.

In a similar vein, the relative low cost of units with very short ranges also compliments this view. A BAR gunner in such an environment would be worth 4 points, because it simply can't get anywhere near the enemy fast enough!

So, the question I want to ask is -- is it the intention of WotC/ AH to expand on the play area, terrain density and army sizes such that units such as Panzer IV Gs become more tactically appropriate for their point costs? Will Set II or Set III recommend an increase in map size? If so, will it be appropriate for us to ask for a recosting of the Panzer IV G?

[XAos]

So, the question I want to ask is -- is it the intention of WotC/ AH to expand on the play area, terrain density and army sizes such that units such as Panzer IV Gs become more tactically appropriate for their point costs? Will Set II or Set III recommend an increase in map size? If so, will it be appropriate for us to ask for a recosting of the Panzer IV G?

IMO the Pzkw-IVg would still be overpriced on a larger map;

SS-Determination is not weakened by a larger map. And may infact be improved because a disrupted tank will have room to back out of range.
Battlefield awareness has it's most effective use on turn:7. To prevent the enemy moving adjascent to the objective hex. That should apply on any size of map. And if A/H changes the game to not use objective hexes, I'd think every unit in existance would need to be re-costed. Purlely tactical uses of Battlefield Awareness are more marginal, since the defense:5 of the pzkw-IV makes it easy to kill if it's adjascent to an enemy unit.

[Dr.Cornelius]

Guys- I hate to break the news but based on over two years experience closely following D&D Minis, WotC has a strong policy not to errata minis. Their solution is to release lower costed equivalent units like the SS-Panzer IVF2. In my experience it is frustrating and unproductive to petition WotC regarding balance of individual minis or even entire factions.

Also note that due to long production lead times, the WotC staff is at least 2 sets ahead of the players at all times. WotC's stock answer to play balance issues is always "just wait- the game gets better in the next set."

I am not trying to be negative, just realistic. AAM is not the historically based, light tactical wargame that many of us thought we were buying based on Set 1. AAM is a special abilities driven "fantasy" game more along the lines of Star Wars or D&D Minis than Squad Leader or Flames of War.

That being said, AAM is still a fundamentally sound and playable game. I for one am working hard to accept and enjoy the game for what it is. My playgroup has a friendly style and I anticipate that we will develop informal house rules to not play with the most over-the-top units from Set II just as we did not play the Croc in friendly games in Set I.

We can also hope that WotC R&D and Brand Management will respond to the high level of grognard interest and develop expert rules which tone down special abilities and make AAM more of a wargame than a "kiddie" game.

[Jumpmaster G]

That being said, AAM is still a fundamentally sound and playable game. I for one am working hard to accept and enjoy the game for what it is.


Amen Doc, I'd sure like things perfect, but I'm having a great time playing this
game! Not unlike the real conflict, you must adapt, find a way to defeat, go around or just flat out stay away from some units! Just read Don Burgett's "Seven Roads to Hell" and you'll see that the fight is not always fair!
i.e, troopers in Noville v Tigers. Ugly stuff!

[XAos]

Guys- I hate to break the news but based on over two years experience closely following D&D Minis, WotC has a strong policy not to errata minis. Their solution is to release lower costed equivalent units like the SS-Panzer IVF2. In my experience it is frustrating and unproductive to petition WotC regarding balance of individual minis or even entire factions.

I too am aware of those effects from ddm. I just wanted to make it clear to A/H that future versions of the Pzkw-IV should be cheaper.

[NewtonCain]

BTW-the PZIV G is actualy a H. Most of the sourxe books I've seen (at least 6 of them) the G model did not roll off the assembly line w/ side skirts (Shurzen). H models did.

[crash beedo]

Yeah, it seems like we're really confronting two issues. All of the German Armor seems slightly overcosted compared to the allied armor, and doesn't function so well on some of the claustrophobic map configs in the Base Set starter.

Additionally, the second issue is the SS PZ IV makes the regular PZ IV obsolete.

I'd like to see the bigger map configs WOTC Bob has been putting up become tournament legal (we'll playing them at home, either way) as German Armor does better. There actually will be a reason to use the Nashorn, or the Jagdpanther (or Jagdtiger, when we get one). Isn't the PZ IV G right-costed on a bigger map? ER is a very strong ability if you *ever* get a chance to use it (which is, uh, pretty much never, on the base maps).

On the other issue, whether the PZ IV G should be errata'd or not - I agree with Doc, that is not the "Game Company Way". They acknowledge mistakes like that by releasing lower costed variants in the future. I've only seen errata for actual misprints.

[richyj1]

AAM is not the historically based, light tactical wargame that many of us thought we were buying based on Set 1. AAM is a special abilities driven "fantasy" game more along the lines of Star Wars or D&D Minis than Squad Leader or Flames of War.

That being said, AAM is still a fundamentally sound and playable game. I for one am working hard to accept and enjoy the game for what it is.
This seems a bit on the harsh side - yes, AAM isn't to the level of Squad Leader, but I don't see it as a fantasy game, either. Sure, certain SA's rub us the wrong way (like paratroopers), but I understand the playability concerns with other approaches (like hidden placement/reveals). Certainly German commanders did have to worry more about going into battlefields were paratroopers had previously dropped - "front lines" not being very fixed.

I concur that AAM is very sound and playable, and that it isn't as much of a pure WWII historical game, but I don't think we're dropping to the level of fantasy.

I'll stop splitting hairs now... ;)

[ops32]

Guys- I hate to break the news but based on over two years experience closely following D&D Minis, WotC has a strong policy not to errata minis. Their solution is to release lower costed equivalent units like the SS-Panzer IVF2. In my experience it is frustrating and unproductive to petition WotC regarding balance of individual minis or even entire factions.

Also note that due to long production lead times, the WotC staff is at least 2 sets ahead of the players at all times. WotC's stock answer to play balance issues is always "just wait- the game gets better in the next set."

I am not trying to be negative, just realistic. AAM is not the historically based, light tactical wargame that many of us thought we were buying based on Set 1. AAM is a special abilities driven "fantasy" game more along the lines of Star Wars or D&D Minis than Squad Leader or Flames of War.

That being said, AAM is still a fundamentally sound and playable game. I for one am working hard to accept and enjoy the game for what it is. My playgroup has a friendly style and I anticipate that we will develop informal house rules to not play with the most over-the-top units from Set II just as we did not play the Croc in friendly games in Set I.

We can also hope that WotC R&D and Brand Management will respond to the high level of grognard interest and develop expert rules which tone down special abilities and make AAM more of a wargame than a "kiddie" game.

Amen Doc! The game is a good one as-is. However...
WotC *could* come out with a totally new set of cards for the minis creating a more detailed "advanced" version of the game. It'd be a cheaper way of creating a whole new game that would appeal to the hard(er) core wargamers.

[Lynx7725]

Isn't the PZ IV G right-costed on a bigger map? ER is a very strong ability if you *ever* get a chance to use it (which is, uh, pretty much never, on the base maps).
That is a tricky problem, for which the easiest (but not necessarily the best) way to tackle is to take a pair of Panzer IV Gs vs. a trio of Shermans, on a play area that is at least 24" wide, totally bare, and each side start on the edge, and just start carry on from there taking 2" as one hex.

I won't be too surprised if the Panzers wipe two Shermans out before the survivor gets into medium range. I think, under this format, and then averaged out with the close-in maps of the base set, we will find that the Panzer IV G is more-or-less priced correctly, which makes the Panzer IV F2 cheap...

Of course, this does nothing for competitive, tournament play, which is usually going to be on Base Set maps. Which is why the future recommended play area becomes a factor.

[Richter von Manthofen]

I found out (the hard way) that it is not only the stats that define if a unit is correcty priced, but it is the environment (cover, range,...) and most importantly the supporting units. I had tried the 4 Sherman plus two Humber strategy (Yes even I played US) and got butchered by a Axis infantry build. - GACK - Lots of PG MG PAKS and HSF. Had I had some infantry that would not have happened.

And lastly sucess is in the hand of the general. Good troops and a lousy leader leed to more bloodshed than the opposite.

[KGV]

I am an avid fan of many of the AH games, several of the old box sets and have spent endless hours playing most of them. My friends and I have ran into some questions about cover, elevation adjustments, arc of fire and so on. Like many others, I am sure that those who have played games with advanced rules will adapt this games rules and perhaps some of the units costs to more realistically reflect gaming value.
Just make sure your opponents understand and agree to "house rules", it makes for a far more engaging and fun gaming experience for all participants.