(WAW) Possible Typo

[rvrratt]

I am currently putting togther an army list (planning the demise of my German foe: Greg B.) and noticed a possible error. I just finished my M10 Wolverine Tank Destroyers and am ready to field them when I noticed the rear target and rear kill scores are the same (both 7+). I would think the kill score should be different from the kill score and at least 8+....the same as the sides.

I also noticed the M18 Hellcat suffers the same problem.


Not to mention, could you also tell me why I would take the M10 over the M4A3 Sherman? For 30 more points the armor on the Sherman is much better, has a coaxial machine gun, and has Multifire 2. The downside on the Sherman is you lose an inch of speed.

Could I get a verification either way oh wise sensei?

 

[Laffe]

I agree on the armour -- some of the vehicles have strange stats indeed.

As for the difference to the M4A3, the M10 has a better gun -- longer range, one more damage, and the piercing/1 trait.

 

[Agis]

It is not a typo - however: According to my sources the armour was indeed more or less the same on the sides and the rear.

IIRC many people on this forum argued for better stats on the side to encourage players to move their units on the table.

If you do not like, raise the points by 5 and give it Kill 8+ on the rear.

 

[hithero]

I think the problem though Agis that you can't have the same value for Target and Kill on a location and not that side and rear protection being the same.

 

[rvrratt]

I agree on the armour -- some of the vehicles have strange stats indeed.

As for the difference to the M4A3, the M10 has a better gun -- longer range, one more damage, and the piercing/1 trait.

True, the gun is better, and justifies points! Thank you, I missed that!.

 

[rvrratt]

I think the problem though Agis that you can't have the same value for Target and Kill on a location and not that side and rear protection being the same.

Yes, I have no problem with the the stats other than the rear target and kill score are the same. Shouldn't the kill score be higher?

 

[Mr Evil]

or atleast hit score lower...

definatly hit and kill should be different... other wise the sytem looses its feel.

 

[Agis]

Agreed guys, and that's why I said raise the point by 5 and give it Kill 8.

 

[Mr Evil]

surly in playtesting this would have been noticed..

will this be an official thing ie an errata , reason i ask is one reason i play MGP games is the tourney games... be nice to know we all play by same rules. might be better to keep points the same or your effectivly crush some forces in tournies who are not as upto date on stuff as others.

 

[Agis]

surly in playtesting this would have been noticed...

As constructive as always... :wink: :wink: :wink:
Please read my first answer again, it was designed this way (a game desgn decision to reward players that get into the rear arc) so nothing to spot!
In retrospect I also did not like it that much. All is said...
8)

will this be an official thing ie an errata ...

If one at all it would be an update!

I have already commited my opinion, now it is Matts decision...

 

[Mr Evil]

but you have to agree under no curcumstances should a kill and hit number be the same....

as for playtesting the strenght of playtesting shows in how long it takes for somthing like this to appear.. such a simple error.. it gives the taste of a game that had been rushed and possably used a points sytem calculator rather than a playtest calculator to issue values to units... wich is a bit 1980's... lets hope we dont go back to such misscalculated points values...

as for an excuse its to give a bonus to some one getting around to the rear.. still doesnt exsplain why hit and kill value should be the same,,, maybe 1 piont differance atleast...

i feel its such a simple mistake that could of been avoided to be honest, as for being constructive,, i think i have been i have suggested keep the points the same to aid tourney play and do a simple errata so every one is on the same page, but keeping points values the same would allow people without net access to use thier force at a tourney but be able to gain the stat change to allow units to operate as they should upon the battle feild... if you said increas the kill rating by 1 as a typo every body would of just said ok.. and got on with it... or evan reduce the hit rating by 1 again.. not going to make a world of difference in points value but avoids the hit and kill rating being the same but still allow the original idea to be the same. over all using the tank well or bad can effects its points value by 50 points in theory, as a good player would make better use of the machine than a bad player... so charging an extra few point for a slight stat change seems petty and pointless.... after all points should have been worked out through playtesting not a points calculator...

 

[Agis]

Where is this points calculator you own?
:wink: :wink: :wink:

 

[Mr Evil]

Where is this points calculator you own?
:wink: :wink: :wink:

i didnt say i owned one ? ????? i said it looks at times as though a points calculator was used instead of playtesting...to asign points value...

the strenght for me of BF-evo and SST was it was a consise set of rules we could use at tourneys from day one... an excuse is an excuse, and as my boss used to say if you get it right your never need an excuse.

dont get me wrong im pro WAW brand, i just feel its been rushed abit and lacks some of the proffesionalism that was in the original bf-evo product and SST... and def seems to lack the playtesting the other prevouse products recieved.....
all im asking is why not set things right and ensure that the stats are right on stuff and if it means an errat dont increase any points values otherwise you run a risk of spoiling some ones day at a tourney who's not a net junky.

 

[Agis]

The raise it by 5 points was a fast "out of the hip" answer to solve the topic, no more.
And after writing the stats for all the units in WaW I have a reasonable good feeling what points are OK as a starting point. :wink:

But again, I do not see any reason for an excuse here. :roll:
As said it was a deliberate decision by the design team and not an oversight in playtesting or a typo or whatever...