Hey look people have options on how they perceive a card to go, I get that we are all different. But to say a couple of decks to fix team stuff ups (144 cards) that is overstating it I bevieve 95% of the cards I am proud of
I ask the question in Dec 2012 is the P-38 over cost;
Many of our old and new friends spoke their minds; none ever knocked the team or the card as i'm reading here.
Almost everyone and I'm talking players we all know and have put a lot of input into this Forum agreed its basically a pt. to high.
Except for Andy and i don't think he ever in in the Forum said it was to high at 9
This was his reasoning;;
The P-40 is a 5.5 point plane with the cost rounded down.
Yes, it matches the AA7 and yes, it has escort. It has a different role than the P-38 though.
The P-38 is a not a 'bigger better more expensive' P-40; that is not what it is optimized for.
Going from 5.5 points to 9 - better armor - better vital - better interceptor ability - excellent endurance (this alone is worth almost 2 points, if you do the math)
The P-38 is better in a late war/advanced fighter environment. Between excellent endurance and the higher vital it will average over one more turn of combat per game than the P-40.
The P-40 is a poor strafer so has reduced value when no enemy aircraft (or fighters only) are encountered; the P-38 is a very good strafer and is a viable threat to destroyers and light cruisers.
There is good synergy with the Forward Airstrip. 2 FAS allows 3 P-38s to function EVERY turn, and two 5-dice strafing attacks on 5/7/1 aircraft is a threat.
The key point is that you can't think of the P-38 as a P-40 replacement. The P-40 is the best land based escort in the game. The P-38 should only be used in that role in emergencies; it is better as a late air deployment option, able to pick off lone bombers, strafe destroyer sectors, or supplement air defense sectors.
Needless to say some reputed his logic.
As some had said in the thread we have to respect what was already done new or original;
Can't argue that this is an earlier model and a Fighter Bomber at that;; but there is going to be a lot of questions if we sway to far.
I think there is sufficient differentiation as an earlier fighter-bomber version. They couldn't carry drop tanks and bombs at the same time, so the key differentiation is a standard range bomber version versus the longer range interceptor.
The P-38G should have been 8 points. But costing isn't as easy as it looks, and the scale is very compressed at the bottom for aircraft, small ships and subs. The more cards we do and the more SAs we create leads to more possible interactions to account for. Not even extensive play testing will catch them all. On the other end of the spectrum the complexity of many potential interactions can lead to attaching too much value to them. They may be powerful, but if they only work when the moon is full on the third Tuesday of the month and the die rolls a 6 then it is very easy to over cost the perceived threat.
The IJN Carrier Liberation Force - "Because We Care" Join the IJNCVLF. Service Guarantees Citizenship!
Back on topic - do we want to do anything else with this, or is the fighter-bomber ability sufficient? I think Bomb 9 is a pretty good attack value. It can ding a BB, but potentially vital a carrier or cruiser and is deadly on DDs.
Land Fighter-Bomber - This unit can't be based on a Carrier, and it can't benefit from the Expert Dogfighter or Expert Dive Bomber bonuses
Fighter-Bomber - When you place this unit during the Air Mission phase, declare whether this unit's type will be Fighter or Dive Bomber this turn. It can make Bomb attacks only while it's a Dive Bomber. While a Dive Bomber, reduce its Armor and Vital Armor each by 1.