The "right" value for a SHVY?

[pzmcgwire]

At some point we may want counters that have printed unique identifiers for Superheavies so we can track more easily against record sheets for partial damage.

We can now mark up our counters and paint our minis, but might be something to consider in a future printing.

In non-Ogre scenarios, where Super Heavies have immunity against single units with attack factors < 3 seems a bit over-powered. Right now 2 GEVs will always lose against a Superheavy if the Superheavy gets off the first shot.

Situations where "always occurs" takes the joy out of the game. I think considering bringing back a 1-3 column were 6 is a D result might help balancing the Superheavy against other units. It'll also help lone infantry squads in desperate attacks against heavy tanks.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by Mack_JB

I'll drop this here.

I just noticed that in the Battle Box Rules (Page 26, on both PDF and printed versions), on the SHVY record sheet, the text says 2 AP, yet the artwork shows four check boxes.

drop that in the errata/FAQ thread :-(

[Mack_JB]

Will do! Going there now.

[offsides]

Originally Posted by pzmcgwire

Situations where "always occurs" takes the joy out of the game. I think considering bringing back a 1-3 column were 6 is a D result might help balancing the Superheavy against other units. It'll also help lone infantry squads in desperate attacks against heavy tanks.

I have mixed feelings about the 1-3 column. It does make a lot of sense that a D on a 6 vs armor (or 3/1 INF, or INF in terrain, etc) should be an option for a 1-3 desperation attack. OTOH, it adds another column to a CRT that hasn't changed in nearly 4 decades, and that column is 100% irrelevant when attacking Ogres or other things that are immune to D results (not to mention spillover fire). Which is probably why it went away in the first place.

I have a feeling that this is one of those things that may become a "standard" house-rule, but never quite make it into the official rules, if only because adding it yields a lot of situations where it becomes an edge-case/exception. Although I suppose it's no worse than the fact that a 3-1 or better is an auto-kill for single INF and disabled armor due to having no NE results. I think I'm gonna have to think on this more, and probably do some playtesting with it in real-world situations. I honestly cant tell how much of my ambivalence is simply inertia over changing the CRT vs. actual KISS issues...

[pzmcgwire]

Originally Posted by offsides

Which is probably why it went away in the first place.

The original CRT pre-dated Superheavies and everything that came after the original Ogre/GEV games.

A 1-3 column would give even a lone infantry squad or light GEV (if that light GEV lets itself be caught!) a chance when being overrun by a Superheavy.

As a 4 decade old design, there's opportunity to make some changes if it improves game play and interest.

The addition of dire roll modifiers (DRMs) for the Ninja and Ranger Battlesuits also could mean extending the CRT results ranges from 1-6 to lower and higher numbers (e.g. 0- and 7+) so maybe that lone Ranger squad in the open can have a chance of surviving an attack at 3-1?

Again these may not be KISS-able , but could make game play more interesting.

[selenite]

Originally Posted by offsides

Which makes me think that the best solution really is to bump the cost to 2.5AU/15VP and otherwise leave it alone. The original D4 SHVY can be a house-ruled or scenario-specific variant unit.

2.5 AU as the price for a D5 SHVY feels right to me too . . . but I'd like to see it playtested.

Pity we can't pick scenarios in the videogame, doing some test Ceasefire Collapse games with a few units held out to simulate the higher cost would be a decent check on the value.

[offsides]

Originally Posted by selenite

2.5 AU as the price for a D5 SHVY feels right to me too . . . but I'd like to see it playtested.

Pity we can't pick scenarios in the videogame, doing some test Ceasefire Collapse games with a few units held out to simulate the higher cost would be a decent check on the value.

Well. you probably could if you just bought an LT with each SHVY and then kept them in a back corner out of the way and didn't use them. It's not quite the same, but close enough :)

[selenite]

Putting tanks in the back corner is easy. That's how I make it a fair fight against the AI.

The hard part is waiting for a matchup hoping to get Ceasefire Collapse against an experienced player. The videogame randomly selects the scenario and players are first come first served.

[GranitePenguin]

Originally Posted by selenite

Putting tanks in the back corner is easy. That's how I make it a fair fight against the AI.

The hard part is waiting for a matchup hoping to get Ceasefire Collapse against an experienced player. The videogame randomly selects the scenario and players are first come first served.

You just need to set a skirmish game up with your friend instead of doing the matchmaking; then you can pick whatever you want. There's nothing that's forcing you to only play ranked matchmaker games.

[dwalend]

Originally Posted by selenite

2.5 AU as the price for a D5 SHVY feels right to me too . . . but I'd like to see it playtested.

15 VP (2.5 AU) has been the value at my table for a decade or so. I'm convinced.