Community

Qmark wrote:

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.

I do wonder, though, why a kamikaze shouldn't benefit from fighter escort. Perhaps that is a rule clarification to come, it would certainly be nice, especially considering the hellcat's rumoured prowess.

AH_swarbs wrote:

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.

They can stay there and wait for the rest to go online, yes. However, when will that be?

I should bail on this game (AANM) anyway. All the "clarifications" document accomplished was making the game about a dozen times more complicated, crippling sub strategy, and making pretty much all aggressive aircraft operations suicidal.
The entire thing should have just said "Play boats, dammit!" and nothing else.

SmurfBitten wrote:

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.

Would be much better if the illustrator was the one of AAM North Africa.

Qmark wrote:

Wouldn't it make sense to assume each 100 point increment includes an additional airstrip instead of merely a bigger one?

I am just following the "Major Engagement Scenario" rules on page 35 of the 'Advanced Rules.'

"The capacity of your land base increases to 7, 9, or 13 aircraft units for a 200, 300, or 500 pt game."

So scaling the same way for kamikazes would allow 4, 5, or 7 kamikazes on the land base for a 200, 300, or 500 pt game.

Hey Richard! What do you think?

Der Leiter wrote:

[b]
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....