We all vary a lot in how we see and play the game so I think its natural to see variations in stats of a hypathetical unit. I think its good to post all the variations giving players lots of choice to what stats suits any particular gaming group. Only WotC knows the forumula for creating stats and sadly its never been shared with us however, making these threads are great resources.

I love being able to discuss points like this with people that I respect and that have informed opinions.

So...how many angels can you fit on the head of a pin? LOL

Waaaait! WotC has a formula??? I don't believe you!

Sharpe had all the AAM stats figured, but often seems to get the points off. RAIVSKI is incredible since he can give you a WAS card for a unit with points by just hearing it's guns, AA, displacemnt ect.

Sharpe has a formula for AAM stats but he doesn't always follow AAM precedent. It's a decision a card maker has to make. My personal methodology is to follow precedent whenever possible, even if I feel the AAM stats are a bit off. Sometime in the future I'd like to put up the 40 or "cards" I've done. I say cards loosely because I'm no artist! I'm just a stats guy. The more stuff for people to look at the more there is to help them create their own stats.

I'm ready to jump back into the card-making biz after a short break. Send me some, and I'll work the magic.

As far as the rest of these go... When a general consensus is formed on a card, post the stats in bold or put ready to create in bold and I'll make it up, when I can. I still have some to do for Loco and likely will have a couple to do when the results of the army build are posted, but after that I'll scan through here and see which are ready to move to the production phase.

I like the ability to discuss the stats and work out a good representation for the units that are not available to the game yet. This opens a door to adding new units and expanding the game we like so much.

Please keep up the good work.

Unfortunately Sharpe has been out of touch for about a year now. Last I knew he was dealing with some health issues (not sure if it was him or a family member). I would like to get a copy of the Sharpedia, but unless he authorizes someone to publish it, it may disappear into history

I'm still on hold for mine...

Hope he does come back soon!

So after this discussion here's a draft revised card I'd like to submit for interrogation. As has been discussed before this is a really weird unit. On the one hand it is extremely over armored for the early war era but on the other its armament is extremely weak for the early war era. This is probably why after Dunkirk, they were used for training only.

Matilda I (??) points
1940 Vehicle - Tank
Spd: 2
Def: 5/4
AS: 8/7/5
AV: 3/3/2
SA
Prone to Breakdown
Slow 3
Trench Crossing

Gunnery: The A11 had a .303 Vickers (same gun as Vickers MG Team) as it's only armament in the turret. As is typical with single vehicle mounted MGs it does not have Double Shot. To simulate the limitations of firing an MG from a turret I took -1/-1/-1 off normal Vickers MG stats. Anti-vehicle stats reflect the Vickers MG norm.

Spd: This is a slow mo-fo. I've thought about this and reviewed what others have said. Interesting enough WAS provided the inspiration for a compromise. Why not give it the Slow X ability? For argument: let's try Slow 3 with the added detriment of no road bonus.

Slow 3 - At the beginning of your Movement phase, roll a die. On a 3 or less, this unit gets –1 speed this turn. This unit never receives a movement bonus from road hexes.

I'll note I prefer using existing SAs whenever possible. Finally I think Trench Crossing would be appropriate as these early tanks were built with that feature in mind.

Def: The armor on this guy is ridiculous. 65mm to the front 60mm to the side. Compare this to the Valentine I at 60mm front and side.
Using that rubric this guy ought to be 5/5. It did have a weakness in the exposed tracks. -1 armor for that and add Prone to Breakdown the AAM all purpose mechanical unreliability SA.

Cost is tricky with the odd dichotomy this unit presents. On the one hand it's nigh invincible to contemporary AT weapons at range (which is actually fairly accurate). On the other, it's severely limited in the damage it can do and the enemy can run circles around it. So what would you pay for it?

Cost -
Vehicle comparison: the Matilda II at 13pts and the Pz II at 8
Machine gun comparison: Vickers at 8pts

I think 10 points is fair...I may be talked down to 9 because all the negative SA's.

BTW, Slow 3 is a great SA that captures a lot of the previous discussion!