Leader spotting

[Starman]

Is a Leader automatically eligible to spot. Under spotter it only states "the activated Formation’s HQ."

Considering all officer training would include calling in artillery (and air support) although some would take advanced training , it would seem reasonable to add Leaders assigned to a unit of the activated formation.

In the original rules "Leaders may call artillery fire missions as if they were a HQ"

 

[Keith Tracton]

Is a Leader automatically eligible to spot. Under spotter it only states "the activated Formation’s HQ."

Considering all officer training would include calling in artillery (and air support) although some would take advanced training , it would seem reasonable to add Leaders assigned to a unit of the activated formation.

In the original rules "Leaders may call artillery fire missions as if they were a HQ"

Leaders do not have that direct capability in this game. However the unit to which they are assigned can make a Spotter check for on board indirect fire using the Leader's morale/training value (typically higher than the assigned units formation m/t value).

 

[Starman]

Leaders do not have that direct capability in this game. However the unit to which they are assigned can make a Spotter check for on board indirect fire using the Leader's morale/training value (typically higher than the assigned units formation m/t value).

Thanks can you say why this was changed from the original as it's not in theme training or communications wise.

Are many units eligible to spot? As the game is still in transit and I have no idea what the nationality tables look like , not even one for the sample game in the rulebook , I can't make a comment other than to me this is an oversight.

Can Anyone who has the game chip in on unit spread by nationality have spotter eligibility?

Like non pulled formations it does seem robust defence of the rules rather than general discussion on why these design changes were made or that they were an oversight.
As they are the main differences rules wise , it's been a decade since The Untold Stories was published during which WaW has remained a popular game so it wasn't broken and was sort after and hence the KS success (obviously the upgraded art , content , presentation and new Lnl publishing attitude/engagement contributed to that)

I am genuinely interested in the reasons for these changes.

 

[David Heath]

I am sure you are genuinely interested but I doubt we are going to be able to remember all the reasons over the last three years for some of the changes. Keith and his team took the time they needed to consider people's requests and many issues with the old series. I think you should wait with some of the questions until you have the game and review what is in the game. This will make for a much more balanced discussion.

David

 

[Starman]

My questions above were in reply to Keith's answer and a previous reply by Jeff, yes I can wait and see for myself but when I posted this thread I didn't know the games had arrived at SCG.

I am sorry if I have misunderstood the purpose of these forums and happy to raise these issues elsewhere if you would prefer , which was the way we did it before and why there was such a wealth of WaW fan developed material including mamy suggestions now incorporated in WaW85.

David I have seen plenty of reviews on the content and now know both sets of rules very well , there are very few rules changes the vast majority are unit value and ability changes and of course counter formats which was undoubtedly a vast undertaking to consolidate many factors into a more coherent system and remove the need for exceptions that served no purpose by incorporating them into units.

Functionally the systems are largely same but so is a 2000 Xmodel Car vs its 2020 equivalent. I am sure from what I have seen Waw85 will be easier to play across all combinations of units, formations and terrain and will be a more enjoyable gaming experience and that's saying a lot because WaW was already a great game system.

I know from my development experience even a single change can make a vast difference and the work behind that can be enormous even if not always appreciated by those benefiting from it and I am talking about both games , engineering and software.

In addition recently Keith emailed me and clearly stated he appreciated my contributions in the past for WaW and currently for WaW85 , this is the second time he had contacted me directly, the first was to submit errata issues on here rather than BGag which I did and he acted on.

You produced for download a 61 point list of the changes which are in the main streamlining , clarification of the original rules consolidated from EG to TUS , of Jeff's, Jim's et al from the Compendium and Gamers Guide, it was reasonable to suppose that the team would know what was the reasoning for these two changes, as they were not in that list specifically, although non HQ units may spot was and I wondered if they were oversights in the streamlining and consolidation process.

 

[David Heath]

Hi Starman,

I was not in any way saying don't ask your questions, I just was suggesting to wait until you have the game since that may answer a few of them. The second part of my reply about remembering all of them was a little more of an inside joke that Keith and I had reviewing something. So carry on and I can't wait for your game to get to you.

David

 

[Starman]

Ok thanks.
The Leaders were a late addition to the original and helped drive a narrative even if they are generally a side show to a game, so it's not a big issue just seemed strange.