Is it just me - or did the Panzer IV just get a clone with the errata to Normandy?

Hefsgaard said:

Yes, it did. As long as the rules do not model tanks without turrets, the StuG G is essentially identical to the Panzer IV in game terms.

Yeah there was some debate on this over at BGG actually. FFG may have made the wrong pick here to reduce the STuG from 5 to 4.

5 makes sense for the following reasons:

• 80mm armor later in the war. Since the Normandy expansion is really late war 44+ then it wouldn't be out of the question to model this armor thickness.
• Low Profile. The STuG III had a very low profile compared to its counterparts and was fully enclosed adding extra protection for its crew.
• Impressive kill rate. STuG III's had a relatively high kill rate with 20,000 kills by Spring 1944 so the armor value also suggests some durability to get in that kill shot.

Considerthe 4 rating for the M10, which had 55mm armor and an open top with a much taller profile. Easier to hit, exposed crew, etc.

Given this I'm not entirely sure why a rule errata was generated. There was plenty of historical and comparative data to support the 5.

The only thing I can think of would be if the STuG III at a 5 unbalanced it in game terms from scenario deployments and frequency. Given the lack of balance in other scenarios I'd be a little surprised at this.

Thes best proposal I've seen is to keep the 5 armour value but not allow assault guns to take the move and shoot action due to their lack of a turret.

Sounds pretty balanced to me.

TeufelHund said:

Ohhhh..... I REALLY like that actually. I wonder if there's a way to "officially" propose that because that definitely makes the most sense in both game terms and in reality without having to add some kind of bizarre special rule that'd feel tacked on.