I mean if Japan stole 25 British planes and deceided to fly them into a US carrier they likely would get through.
Kamikaze is certainly interesting. I would have thought maybe it would be immune to air attacks or something. I mean if Japan stole 25 British planes and deceided to fly them into a US carrier they likely would get through.
You don't know when exactly it's going to come out, but barring bad rolls it should be there around turn 3.
Which makes it strategically useless.
"Oooo! I've got eight of these on my airstrip!!
Oh darn, they all come online randomly, at random times."
If it was possible to hammer a ship with four of these at the same time, at will, at the start, I'd consider using them. As is, no. Not even close.
The rule just says remove the counter, you don't have to play the thing the same turn this is accomplished, I'm thinking not a really big deal.
In the matter of asthetics, both card's art looks to be a literal interpretation of the miniature (most notably with the aircraft). I guess its so that players could more easily match the two, but it is pretty unattractive, as compared to the base set's art.
I think there should be a scaling up of the number of overstacked kamikaze's for 200 pt, 300 pt, and 500 pt games just like there is for aircraft.
Wouldn't it make sense to assume each 100 point increment includes an additional airstrip instead of merely a bigger one?
As for Uniquely tough... the fact that it's flat out immune to being sunk by bombs is silly. I know for house rules we'll just be making that a D6 roll (5+ or some such). Of course they can still simply be straffed by gunnery attacks from Zeroes (non-kamikaze of course) ships, or even torpedoes.
The Heavy AA is what helps break this unit; not only do the US/Allies already have the Atlanta now you can have adjacent Laffeys to rip apart enemy aircraft; they still have high ASW (5; only the Samuel B Roberts has more) and gunnery attacks (for a destroyer 5/5/4 is as high as it gets). Additionally it has range 2 torpedoes, unlike all other current US units.
In the end though it's only a destroyer, so even if your bombs bounce off its force field your ships should be able to rip it apart.
Hmm, I sold my WAS collection half a year ago or so. I didn't have enough money to invest heavily in both AAM and WAS, so I had to make a choice. I have to admit I wasn't even going to start collecting WAS but the nice looking miniatures from the previews convinced me to do so anyway. However, after having played a few games I was quite disappointed with the game. It still seemed broken at that point ( despite the lessons learned (???) by AAM ; e.g. unsinkable heavy battleships), although I hear things have changed somehwat now.
It's sad to see WoTC still haven't learned their lesson as far as silly SA's are concerned: Uniquely togh, C'mon you've got to be kidding me! More difficult to sink? Sure, but IMPOSSIBLE? Also- and I suppose this is no coincidence- it once more happens to be an AMERICAN unit with such an SA....
I'm glad I stopped buying WAS. AAM - with the houserules we use- is my all time favourite game, despite its flaws. I'm still hopeful the most blatant of these will be solved by the upcoming rules revision, but once again, it's SOOOOOOOOO sad to see they still haven't learned their lesson from past mistakes....
This part gets me... Unique on a ship that is a Common.
AFAIG more than 50 were made of the Sumners... they were NOT unique, so common is OK...
I know I would be right ****** if I brought a build of, i dunno a Richelieu and five Laffeys, and my opponent insisted my boats don't 'really' do what the card clearly says they do and the latest 'clarifications' PDFs don't mention anything of the sort.
The game was getting stale after 17 months without new units. It needed new units and the main way to add diversity to game play is to come up with creative SA's. I don't need another generic destroyer with the same old SA's.
It is impossible to come out with more miniatures in these types of games and have them all be 'perfect.' I have never seen perfection in any of these types of games. If Richard goes too conservative on units and SA's the game will be criticized for being 'more of the same' and boring. If he get's too creative everyone screams it is crazy. I prefer to let his team get creative. There are bound to be a few units or stats that get off-track a bit. If that turns out to be case after some game play they can be adjusted with house rules. But I am not even close to being convinced there is anything wrong with the Laffey at this point from a game play perspective. It adds new dimensions to strategy for playing with it and against it. That is what new units are supposed to do in a game like this. Upset the apple cart and force everyone to come up with new strategies.
Keep an open mind. I think we have just been stuck with the original 64 units for too long.
...As I have said before, I am not prepared to declare the Laffey 'broken' until 1) I have had a chance to play it and most important 2) the rest of Set II is released so we can see what the Axis get in return.
It's a game and you know it!
Oh, wait... damn.
Broken? In it's own sense...maybe not in a game sense. ...
Frankly, the "bomb immunity" thing bugs me. They've introduced an absolute that doesn't make sense. It takes away an element of choice that was possible in reality. Now yes, before all the angry voices come out, it's a game and I know it. But if WoTC makes a destroyer that cannot be sunk by bombs (when a BB can), then anything goes. That's a game...but it isn't WWII naval battle (outside of fantasy).
A friend of mine explained that the AA would drive planes away, thus the bombs. This doesn't make sense because the bombs can cripple the vessel...and after that they meet the impregnable hull. Keep in mind that a crippled ship shoots its AA worse than an undamaged vessel.
Nope. The Laffey won't kill a win for any opponent on its own...just the historical sensibility of the unit itself.
So my plead - Keep the laffey, but do not put mnore cheese into the sandwich than this :D