Kamikaze are a defensive weapon, which are resolved at the beginning of the combat phase, so the attacking air units have already launched from their carriers are not in danger (unless they are “guest” air units). As such, they will participate in combat even if their carrier is hit, and will have the remainder of their movement to land as normal afterwards.
Larry's new tank rules for Global 1940 Alpha Beta
-
Extra choices might be interesting.
What other choices you want?
-
Yup, IL, I have to say mantlefan has a point here. You’re trying to make him look ridiculous, with the 4/3 tank. On a topic in which YOU BOTH AGREE ON SOMETHING, it looks suspicious.
Whatever, here is what I was trying to say earlier before the thread got closed…
-
There is 3-2-2-5 with a def boost to 3 as well.
OK i will add it and others.
Other choices are not ridiculous. Some people might even like them.
Also, you can change votes.
-
Tanks are for aggressive players and people who just want to have fun and roll some dice.
1 inf 2 artillery attack at 6 like 2 tanks, offer cannon fodder better than 2 tanks and is 1 ipc cheaper.
Something is wrong with that picture and larry harris wants to make it worse :|. At least in Classic I bought tanks before a major attack (not buy artillery and infantry move it up then attack). tank buys are entirely circumstantial now… They are only bought before an attack on the next round or round after. Which is exactly like classic.
~I voted for 3/2/2/5. I think people don’t buy tanks for the purpose of defending anyway and I want to roll some dice and not have a stare down.
-
I didn’t delete the above post.
You violate no rules with it.
-
Fellow Axis and Allies aficionados:
A call goes out to all WWII history buffs, armchair generals, and in-general board game freaks: Larry has decided that current Armor units are Somewhat Overpowered with a 3 Defense Value, even when the cost was revised upwards to 6 IPCs for the AA1940 game. He has decreed that Armor Units will Now Roll with a 2 on Defense Without an Accompanying Infantry Unit. THIS MUST NOT STAND. This insults everyone here, and our intelligence, our dignity, nay, our very LIVELIHOODS, as WWII board game enthusiasts, is at stake.
Who here does NOT enjoy playing the new Alpha +.2 with the newly reinvigorated Axis powers? Who does NOT enjoy the thrill of attempting and winning Sealion attacks against all odds, or rolling armies of new Panzer divisions into Russia a year ahead of schedule? Well, the pride and joy of the German Wehrmacht, emerging from the legendary genius of General Heinz Guderian, the revolutionary new military equipment that changed the face of modern warfare forever, yes, OUR BELOVED PANZER DIVISIONS, are at stake. We are talking about introducing changes that will forevermore change the face of the WWII boardgame, for YEARS to come, wherein armor will NOT be built by Germany, since it will be “considered a sub-optimal buy”, in the wake of waves of infantry supported by artillery, with massive stacks of planes behind the front lines. SAY IT WILL NOT BE SO! WE SHALL NOT GIVE UP OUR 3/3/2 6 IPC ARMOR UNITS WITHOUT A FIGHT!
SAY NO TO THESE PROPOSED CHANGES BY LARRY HARRIS. He is essentially turning his back on the glory of the armored unit in its heyday, wherein the world saw more combat involving these behemoths than in any war thereafter, wherein anti-tank guns and planes were specially developed for defeating them in combat! WE SHALL FIGHT THESE CHANGES, AND WE SHALL WIN. WHO IS WITH ME?
-
Dammit, IL, you are diluting the significance of this armor change with that ridiculous poll. This thread is just going to get derailed, and probably already has with all the bickering.
-
What is wrong with it?
It contains all the various incarnations plus a few choices.
Also, complaining is also a derailment of a thread, so don’t
-
IL, can I start another thread with another, more clearly delinated poll, with better options? People will read this and wonder WHAT the hell is going on.
-
If you read the vote can be changed. that corrects your mistake.
-
IL,
You may as well lock this thread. Larry has already backed down from this proposed rule. See this quote from his web site:
Wow… and I thought I had problems.:roll: But, like I said, there is no need for polls. Logic and good argument is far more effective when it comes to me. Democracy/numbers, from which polls draw their substance is a farce, that’s why the greatest country in human history is a republic.
If anyone has noticed, there has been no changes to the page 1 Alpha+2 rules as relates to this issue. This idea went up the flag pole and no one saluted it. Let’s bring it down. Sorry for all the stress I caused. You guys are the best!
LH-i
That “LH-i” at the end is Larry Harris. This one is done.
-
Yes that is best. I am glad Larry rescinded that idea.
Whew.
-
I didn’t think it was too bad. I’m not going to criticized what I haven’t tried yet. However, if they are still tweaking the rules, they need to seriously consider bringing back National Advantages. They add much more depth to the game. At least make some official optional ones we can use, because my group only plays with official rules, so it would be nice if Larry gave us something we could use :-D
-
Well the rule was not adopted, however i would agree that NA’s were great. I prefer them to even tech since the tech ideas are mostly contrived ideas out of thin air.
-
As long as national advantages are fair then cool. But they definitely weren’t with revised. The allies had 6 more and theirs were just as good. Russia could dominate Germany with lend lease.
-
@Imperious:
What garbage reasons are they giving for the armor’s defense value to be reduced to 2??? “Tanks are only better offensively used in combat?” What tank DIDN’T take part in local counteroffensives during the war, for chr*st’s sake? Are stacks of tanks moved into recently conquered territories during NCM just too OP right now? You even increased the cost of tanks to 6 in the first place to compensate, too! What was so wrong about them being 3/3/2 5 IPCs in AA50? “We’ve only just now realized that having a land unit with a defense value of 3 is just too powerful…” Right…
OH MY GOD, this is ANOTHER balancing issue, right? You’re taking away Germany’s main ability to defend its piles of infantry in Russia by adding this stupid change, and making it easier for Russia to counterattack, right!?! WHAT A SCAM. What a half-assed fix! I look forward to the historical accuracy of this game when I take Moscow with 23 FIG 15 TAC and 35 MECH, all sacrificed in the name of “game balance”.
For once i totally agree with you!
Indeed. Making tanks 3/3 was a great decision. It shouldn’t be changed back. Tanks are just as needed on the defensive as on the offensive. If the German armored division had been moved to the Normandy beaches in time the allies would likely have been repulsed, to name but one example. One could argue that’s an “attack”, but in game terms the Germans would be the defenders then…
Also, as the above poster points out: How are the Germans supposed to hold territory in Russia if their tanks are reduced to 2 defense?
Finally, I’d like to add another option: cost 6, defense 3, attack 3, move 2, ATTACK 4 WHEN PAIRED WITH A TACTICAL BOMBER (OR FIGHTER). Always did find it strange that the PLANE gets better when supported by tanks, wehereas it should really be the other way around…
-
what was wrong with them at a cost of 6 attack/defense of 3?
Absolutely nothing. Also, the new rule breaks the KISS philosophy that prevented Larry to bring much more needed exilied capital rules
I don’t like how is this developing. Crappy turn order and now this extrange tank rule :?
-
I originally thought this was a cool rule because I like special abilities for units, but it definitely sounds like it is good this one got shut down.
-
Why would you buy them if they defend at a 2. I am keeping 3attack 3 defense. Listen to the soldiers who tried to attack a well positioned tiger. I think they defended at a 5.
-
I’m happy he backed away from this one. The armour is fine the way it is. If anything, the mech should be improved.
Suggested Topics
