4th Edition Rules - comment now or forever shut yer trap!

[Matt W]

I am very uncomfortable with the large number of suggestions relating to improving the performance of armor vs. nonarmor assets in the game. At the same time I understand the desire to use the armor to its greatest effect.

At this point we have almost 1,800 scenarios in print, most of which would experience severe balance issues (even with the ones that are already precariously balanced!) if armor suddenly became substantially more effective. I think the damage to the existing product of such changes would be substantial (having played enough of it to get a feel for the whole span of the system).

Others have raised the fact that the current rules, with certain exceptions, adequately support historical decision-making vis a vis armor management. Indeed, for the most part, armor was a support weapon and attempts to use armor independent of combined arms typically failed abysmally.

Of course, I hate it when a Panther/Tiger or Stalin blows up because some dweeb of an INF gets a "6" roll on the 9 column. I fuss and fume when my carefully planned assault goes haywire because the armor fails its "M" check in first fire and I lose the combined arms bonus and the firepower. But that is sewn into the fabric of the game and it reflects what really happened.

My response on such an issue for Modern would be substantially different as armor came to be used in a very different fashion.