The "right" value for a SHVY?

[Belle Sorciere]

It seems to me the SHVY isn't going to go anywhere. It's been part of the game since the 1980s. So...not having it in the game isn't an option.

[selenite]

Originally Posted by Buzzardo

Exactly. As far as I'm concerned, it's a unit that busts the system and should never have been introduced.

The D4 SHVY wasn't a system-breaker. It just wasn't cost effective to use except in limited situations. Just like the other 2 AU units (HWTZR and MHWZ).

Giving the D4 SHVY 2 AP and the movement advantages would have made it a specialist rough-terrain unit. It could go through water unlike HVYs and the APs would let it survive infantry trying to pick on it.

But given the number of D5 counters out there now this is water under the bridge.

[ColBosch]

I've decided to stick with 2 AU, and if I find myself having trouble with problem players, then I'll institute the 25% house rule.

I think we all have different needs here, so having a "one-size-fits-all" rule just isn't going to work out.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by ColBosch

I've decided to stick with 2 AU, and if I find myself having trouble with problem players, then I'll institute the 25% house rule.

I think we all have different needs here, so having a "one-size-fits-all" rule just isn't going to work out.

Ultimately, without concrete proof that the rules as written are fundamentally broken, nothing is going to change (and shouldn't, for that matter). The whole point of this thread is to determine whether or not that proof exists.

[Belle Sorciere]

Well, Cobb's formula says there's an imbalance.

Of course that gets down to the "in theory" and "in practice" contrast.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by Belle Sorciere

Well, Cobb's formula says there's an imbalance.

Of course that gets down to the "in theory" and "in practice" contrast.

You know what they say:

In theory, Theory and Practice are the same; in practice, they are different.

[ianargent]

Originally Posted by Belle Sorciere

Well, Cobb's formula says there's an imbalance.

Of course that gets down to the "in theory" and "in practice" contrast.

Especially since the Cobb Formula is a backformation from the "rule-of-thumb" balancing of units; the units weren't designed or balanced using the Cobb Formula specifically...

[Belle Sorciere]

Originally Posted by ianargent

Especially since the Cobb Formula is a backformation from the "rule-of-thumb" balancing of units; the units weren't designed or balanced using the Cobb Formula specifically...

Right. I didn't try to imply otherwise.

[ianargent]

Well, someone might wander in here not having read The Ogre Book (or the same info elsewhere).

[Belle Sorciere]

Originally Posted by ianargent

Well, someone might wander in here not having read The Ogre Book (or the same info elsewhere).

Fair point. I'm sorry. I was a bit snappish when I replied earlier, I see now you weren't implying that I was implying anything.