This patch is going to completely screw the USMC.

[DeuZerre]

Was mobility changed? Nope.

Now, use the LVPT-7 for armour.

This nerf only serves to discourage smarter gameplay

Waaaait, IF I'm not mistaken, the LAVs are fast glass canons, right? How does making them slightly more fragile discourage smarter gameplay? Now, no more rushing in the open against tanks because one hit kills you. That is smarter gameplay.

and leaves one less viable deck.

If the deck was viable due to the abuse of a single unit, something must be wrong, not necessarily on the game's end.

The risk of losing 55 points easily to very weak guns is now too great. Coupled with the US Army buffs it gives little reason for players who want to enjoy the game to choose USMC over Army. You mock me when you haven't even bothered to click the links to the information you lack, how little integrity have you, shame. Your half-assed logic doesn't justify squat.

And your logic is: OH GAWD, THEY NERFED THE UNIT I USED AND ABUSED, THE UNIT I DID EVERYTHING WITH! OH NOOOOOO.

Thematic decks are for fun, not competitiveness

[REDDQ]

LMAO... is LAV now taking 4x for damage taken?

[stug41]

LMAO... is LAV now taking 4x for damage taken?

Any hit to 1 or 0 armor is a 4* penalty.

[stug41]

Was mobility changed? Nope.

Now, use the LVPT-7 for armour.

This nerf only serves to discourage smarter gameplay

Waaaait, IF I'm not mistaken, the LAVs are fast glass canons, right? How does making them slightly more fragile discourage smarter gameplay? Now, no more rushing in the open against tanks because one hit kills you. That is smarter gameplay.

and leaves one less viable deck.

If the deck was viable due to the abuse of a single unit, something must be wrong, not necessarily on the game's end.

The risk of losing 55 points easily to very weak guns is now too great. Coupled with the US Army buffs it gives little reason for players who want to enjoy the game to choose USMC over Army. You mock me when you haven't even bothered to click the links to the information you lack, how little integrity have you, shame. Your half-assed logic doesn't justify squat.

And your logic is: OH GAWD, THEY NERFED THE UNIT I USED AND ABUSED, THE UNIT I DID EVERYTHING WITH! OH NOOOOOO.

Thematic decks are for fun, not competitiveness

You assume too much and know too little. I'm amazed they allow such condescending behavior from a marshal.

Why do you assume I abuse a unit that I may only call a handful in of during an entire game? Why do you assume that I EVER contemplated wasting IFVs in frontal attacks? Are you dense? Take your fallacies and drivel elsewhere.

[stug41]

Actually I did, bitching about the LAV's frontal armor if I recall and how this makes the USMC deck less viable. The USMC is the most viable marine deck in the game BY FAR it is better than certain nations altogether and the reduction of frontal armor by one is not going to change that.

All of the marine decks but this one are poor due to so few units available to them; saying the USMC one is the best is like saying one piece of garbage is the least dirty.

[DeuZerre]

Why do you assume I abuse a unit that I may only call a handful in of during an entire game? Why do you assume that I EVER contemplated wasting IFVs in frontal attacks? Are you dense? Take your fallacies and drivel elsewhere.

And I'm the one that condescending? You've been plain insulting for the ones that don't agree.

I still don't see how reducing the armour reduces "smart play".
(There's only ONE thing I don't like with that change: It didn't go with a price decrease).

[stug41]

Why do you assume I abuse a unit that I may only call a handful in of during an entire game? Why do you assume that I EVER contemplated wasting IFVs in frontal attacks? Are you dense? Take your fallacies and drivel elsewhere.

And I'm the one that condescending? You've been plain insulting for the ones that don't agree.

I still don't see how reducing the armour reduces "smart play".
(There's only ONE thing I don't like with that change: It didn't go with a price decrease).

I provided all the relevent information of where I stand, you pull out a strawman to parody me, if that isn't fallacious and insulting then I guess I don't know what is.
As stated in one of the linked posts; if the LAV is to be nerfed it needs a price decrease. It is now going to be too expensive an asset to risk in a greater number of situations. Risking assets is one of the main factors in why the average player here resorts to the less risky and more predictable attritional warfare. Nerfing units that are not designed for attritional warfare discourages taking risks and thus contributes to one of the biggest problems so many are complaining about.
As already stated this nerf doesn't even address the problem which is overuse, or 'abuse', of the LAV is still possible. My solution solved that problem.

[DeuZerre]

Let's leave it at that; I have no will to keep this up after this message:

Bomber: You haven't tried it. Try it before saying it's ridiculous. More bombs would be cool, but they won't add loadouts where you end up with "wing-bending" weight.

LAV: -1 armour hurts it if it gets shot at, thus promotes smart use of them. If you need IFVs that can take damage, take the LVPT that are great transports, often underrated. They're NATO's BMP-1D, with a coat of armour. LAV getting a slight price decrease would be good, but that suggestion seems to have been lost in the way.

[stug41]

I'm glad all the small-bomb bombers will be useful now. They were nowhere near "wing bending" weight though, the A-6 not even half typical load, stop exxagurating.

If this unjustified nerf is to remain there must be a price decrease, especially when one looks at the armor of other vehicles that shouldn't be any better.

Yet the problem of the 'abuse' remains inexplicably avoided.

[chrisnz]

so those new t-72m1ms eh 18ap from east germany