Flames of War SCANS database ...Now updated with Great War and Team Yankee!:
http://www.mediafire.com/?8ciamhs8husms
---Includes our Late War Leviathan rules!
Official Flames of War Free Briefings:
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=108
Current /tg/ fan projects - Noob Guide &FAQ, and a Podcast
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1eD3nkA51ddl3nmltKg0zsnfrOUhlWgcc4h5aqz-RFqw
Quick Guide on all present FOW Books:
http://www.wargames-romania.ro/wordpress/wargames/flames-of-war/flames-of-war-starting-player-guide-the-books/
Archive of all known Panzer Tracts PDFs: http://www.mediafire.com/folder/nyvobnlg12hoz/Panzer_Tracts
WWII Osprey's, Other Wargames, and Reference Books
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/z8a13ampzzs88/World_War_Two
and, for Vietnam.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/z8i8t83bysdwz/Vietnam_War
--Guybrarian Notes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eD3nkA51ddl3nmltKg0zsnfrOUhlWgcc4h5aqz-RFqw/edit?usp=sharing
http://www.400gb.com/u/1883935
Panzerfunk, the /fowg/ podcast.
http://panzerfunk.podbean.com/
https://vimeo.com/128373915
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Briefings/CariusNarva.pdf
http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=1949 the Azul Division: no longer linkable off the main page
Which army do you play the most?
http://strawpoll.me/4631475
what actual country are you from?
http://strawpoll.me/4896764
Team Yankee - Americans and the rule books are currently in stores. The Soviets have been reported arriving is some stores as well.
is it plausible to build a half-decent USSR Mechanised Infantry force for Team Yankee? I really like the idea of swarms of soldiers spilling from BMPs
>>44358060
Yeah, you certainly can build a list based around BMPs.
Although you'd probably want to include some T-72s in your army as well.
I'm sure one of the Soviet players could give you some more useful advice.
I'm still trying to figure out the Yankees myself.
>>44358167
Soviet players can't tell anyone shit because we still don't have boxes.
Meanwhile, the USA is getting it's transports and tank-hunters after christmas.
>>44358355
Soviet boxes are arriving in stores.
I saw them with my own eyes at my FLGS yesterday.
Besides, how long have you guys had my Team Yankee rule book scan to dissect?
As for my own thoughts on the BMPs, they'll struggle against M1s due to the fact that only their missile can hurt the M1, and the missiles can only be fired from Halted.
>>44358060
No. That option's only in the book as a joke.
Of course it's decent, you dense motherfucker. It's one of the primary lists. Did you think they'd make a quarter of the lists unviable?
>>44358446
>inB4 "It's Battlefront and Soviets, what do you think?"
Yeah, you'll need to support the Bumps correctly with some heavier hitting firepower, but it's certainly a viable list.
Hell, I've see talk of BMP spam lists.
But like Eagles said, their missiles need to be fired from a stationary position, and their main guns are only good against the various M113 hulls.
>>44358728
>>44358167
appreciated, thank you
>>44358410
With longer range than the abrams and blitz move that could still be pretty nasty. You're going to outnumber them like 3-4 to 1, as well. I don't know if it'd be Hilarious Soviet Faceroll time like was being argued a few threads back, but they look competitive.
How does this sound for a 100 point yank mech force?
HQ
3 full strength mech platoons with extra Dragons
2 VADS
4 Abrams
2 ITVs
2 ITVs
3 M109s, with Minelets and Laser Guided Shots
1 FIST
4 A-10s
2 Cobras
Lots of platoons, lots of missiles, some mobility, and plenty of ability to point to a spot and fuck it up.
Is it enough?
>>44358832
If anything, I'd say see if you can find the points to bump the VADS platoon up to 4 strong.
Maybe go 2 Mech platoons, full VADS, and add 2 more ITVs.
>>44359506
That's another 3 points. I could drop the special rounds from the arty, and drop a single dragon from one of the mech platoons, and pick up another 2 VADS.
Are you that worried about the effect of Frogfoots? The A-10s and the Cobras should mulch any helicopters that get within range.
>>44359598
I forget about using Cobras and Warthogs in an AA role.
It could work.
I'm still trying to figure out TY myself, but skimping on dedicated AA feels like a mistake to me.
*shrug*
How can I make the Open Fire Shermans not look dreadful? Add copious foliage?
>>44360211
A decent coat of paint covers a multitude of sins. Paint them right and you'll hardly notice.
>>44360301
The issue isn't a paint issue.
The Shermans from Open Fire have significant gap issues.
There used to be a blog spot link for assembling Open Fire Shermans.
From my own experience, plastic glue and rubber bands to hold everything together really tightly.
>>44360211
Whats wrong with the open fire shermans?
>>44360377
They don't fit together well, though I can use filler. And the detail is indistinct and irregular, like the cruder resin models. Their newer plastic kits are crisp and symmetrical looking, a huge improvement.
>>44360499
Even their first plastic kit after Open Fire, the plastic T-34s, were a significant improvement over the OF Shermans.
Even the OF StuGs were significantly better than the OF Shermans.
How well do US tanks do in MW? Shermans seem really expensive.
>>44358446
>>44358728
to be honest, Team Yankee is the game where Soviets get their due. the strongest list i've seen played (proxy/3rd party) IS the USSR Mechanized, while the weakest list that has lost the most games is oddly, the M1 Abrams list.
the M1 costs so much that if you bring lesser numbers, you get scared off the table. it's almost a mono list, where 3x 4xM1 is the way to build.
>>44360377
the new open fire shermans are the same as the kits, check the box to be sure you get the new box, not the old box.
>>44360713
uhm, they fuckign rock. topped only by the Churchills.
T-34's and M4's rule mid-war, let no one tell you otherwise.
>unless they play AT gun heavy lists....
>>44360713
Stuart's in midwar are decent.
Shermans in midwar are slightly over priced, but can handle most threats. Unless you come up against some midwar Tigers or Panthers. But those are even more expensive.
>>44358355
What the fuck are you talking about? ITVs, VADs, M113s, BMPs and the Soviet starter box all released last weekend.
>>44358832
I don't know that I'd go as high as 3 Mech platoons and I don't think I'd go below 3 ITV platoons in a mech list.
>>44360713
Stuarts, Shermans and Lees are all cool options worth considering IME.
>>44361053
Mech platoons seemed incredibly cheap for what they gave you, and another pair of ITV's didn't seem like something I'd give up VADS or arty for. In the meantime, their role is soley to plink at tanks, and most of the army can do that well. That, and I always try to have 3 infantry platoons in FoW. Lets you garrison all 3 objectives, or both of them with something in the middle. And in TY, they're also capable of 4 anti armour shots.
>>44361149
Oh, sure. I certainly don't disagree with your reasoning here, but I'd start at 3 ITV platoons and then have to justify reducing them, if that makes sense? I was interested in seeing your justification more than in arguing with you, if that makes sense.
I'm thinking US Mech will be my primary force. With two ITV boxes and 3 M113 boxes I'll start with two mech platoons and 3 ITVs (plus 4 VADS, CiC, FIST) but could experiment with one ITV platoon and three of Mech (transport and ITV M113s are easy to swap between) or maybe short mech platoons or something.
>>44358355
Your FLGS needs to git gud
from last thread...
i though of a good 1000pt list, for 'all tank beating'
Kg Swoboda, 995
HQ:-----------------------------------25
-4x 88 w/ROF 3------------------220
-3x 37cm w cars-----------------70
-4x 88 w/ROF 3------------------220
-4x 2cm w cars-------------------70
-2x Hummel Tigers-------------290
-1 min Erz.Pz.Grn. ------------100
use the 3.7cm, 2cm, and EPzGrn as reserve fodder
start with 10 88's on the table at 1000 pts.
with aa, turntable, and some armor 9, defending
Merry Christmas ya' Filthy Animals.
>>44361989
Someone in distribution fucked up in the Netherlands, since my FLGS got their BMP, M113/M106 and VADS/ITV boxes now, but still didn't receive any of the Soviet army boxes.
I've assembled four of my five BMPs so far, with both upper hulls and turrets for each; they seem to be easily swappable, although I might need to file a bit after painting.
The BMP-1/2 is an excellent kit; all the detail is there and it goes together like a dream.
>>44362417
DAKKADAKKADAKKADAKKA
>>44361925
Yeah, 3 ITV platoons were my first thought as well. They seem like good value. But there's a lot of neat stuff that's hard to fit in, and I'm satisfied that 27 points of Warthogs and Cobras should make up for it. I find the sheer mass of infantry reassuring. They'll be a pig to dig up whatever guns they have. Gives everything else time to shoot, and they'll give me the weight of fire to resist massed BMPs. Although the always GTG when concealed thing with ITV's seems like they could be real nasty.
>>44362420
Merry Christmas ya' lovable Kiwi.
And Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to everyone here on FoWtg!
>>44362580
>They'll be a pig to dig up whatever guns they have
On paper T-72 should be able to just roll over them but it remains to be seen how that plays out. I suppose with Abrams around for defensive fire an infantry platoon deployed forward of an objective (such that they're still contesting it but right at the edge) to do the whole "Take an assault, lose a couple stands then choose to fall back onto the objective to keep contesting" thing it could work well enough.
>>44363004
>On paper T-72 should be able to just roll over them
They'd be hitting on 6s. With the ROF of T-72s, that's an expensive platoon of T-72s to deal with a pair of ITVs.
>>44363049
Roll over them as in assault them. Dragons do nothing in assault and LAWs have too little an effect to really stand much chance of winning.
>>44363304
Speaking of which, seeing as T-72s have side armour 13 against HEAT weapons, and Dragons have a minimum range of 8 inches, does that mean that a mech platoon is incapable of effective defensive fire against T-72s? AT 12 on the LAWS is too low to penetrate, and the Dragons are too close.
>>44363575
Also, Dragons don't have Heavy Weapon. Does that mean they have AT 18 against side armour?
>>44363615
The problem with the Dragon is their 8"/20cm minimum range.
That means they can't be used in defensive fire (which is only within that range) and most certainly not in assault.
>>44362417
It can beat all tank (especially T-34 based who can't touch the Tigers) but will suffer against infantry, unless your opponent walks in front of your guns.
My original point was to disprove the guy who said soviets suck when playing lower points than 1500. I would say the contrary that, they get much better.
KG Swoboda is one of my least favorite armies to play against because it encourages LOS arguing. Since the guns can't move, it pays off incredibly to argue to get shots off. Has anyone else felt the same thing?
I come bearing gifts!
A brand new episode of Panzerfunk for all the good little wargamers of FoWtg.
http://panzerfunk.podbean.com/e/panzerfunk-episode-11-team-yankee-launch-special/
Merry Christmas FoWtg!
>>44365284
FUCK YAER!
I'm still trying to figure out this list building. If you have a good all comers list, why would you want to get more models? And why the fuck are 5 German Super Tigers 3000 points?
>>44366156
>I'm still trying to figure out this list building. If you have a good all comers list, why would you want to get more models?
Because this isn't a game where you can mathematically figure out the ideal army list against all comers at a specific points value.
You'll want to try different things in different circumstances and against different opponents.
You'll also likely play at different points values as well, requiring you to choose different units than you would at another point level.
>And why the fuck are 5 German Super Tigers 3000 points?
Something tells me that point value is pure hyperbole. They're expensive sure, but that seems exaggerated.
But as to why King Tigers are expensive points-wise, it's because they have very thick armor, a very powerful gun, very long range, and good skill and motivation values as well as good special rules like Tiger Ace Skills. All of that leads to a high points cost for the Big German Kitty Cats.
>>44367095
>Something tells me that point value is pure hyperbole
It is. CV king tigers are 345 points a pop. A list with 5 of them is 1730 points.
>>44366156
Because people like to play different lists, there's 3 periods, every year the tornament points values change, and there's a near infinite variation of good all comers lists.
>>44367176
i've defeated that lst with Cromwells and Challengers...
>>44364964
agreed. i didn't say Swoboda beat everyone, and if you get the wrong opponent there will be bitching.
keep in mind, VS. infantry, you can trade the 88's on the table to start for the AA lites, and then deal w a 4" drop range once the heavies come on the board.
1000pts is a hell of a drug. even RT panthers are out at that level: they are 1030 minimum
>>44366156
Because lets say you build a balanced Tiger list with a few tigers, some infantry, some AAA, and some rocket mortar support.
Next thing you know, you're thinking "hey, I only need a few more infantry stands and I can take an infantry company!" and then it's "Oh hey, these tank destroyers I had as support can make a company too!"
And then you find Desperate Measures and buy all the fucking tanks because it lets you make panzerkampfgruppes of whatever you want.
>>44368917
i still want to make a diverse-as-possible DM list of German what-ever-the-fuck
>>44369598
I'm still pissed i cant take a company of tiger ace hetzers.
>>44369847
Unless you were say, Completely Fucking Insane, and played Total War, and then fielded a Support Company made up solely of Tiger Ace Hetzers.
>>44369999
I played a full Abteilung of 16 Maus once. That was fun.
Also nice Quads.
>>44369999
the Total War Support Companies do the craziest shit
>Tiger Ace Hetzers
>Scrapyard Companies
>Waffentrager Companies
>203mm Track Howitzer companies
>StuH 42 companies
>10.5cm FlaK Train Companies
>Lorraine Schlepper Companies
they are the creative insanity of this game....
http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5089
this raises some questions:
30 minutes? what?
>>44370254
>http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5089
>$25
>EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO PLAY
>AND IT COMES WITH TONKS
I am intrigued. Do they have a gameplay demo to check it out with?
>>44370384
>>44370254
Initial scuttlebutt is "Battlefront wants some of that delicious X-Wing Money."
>>44370384
>>44370401
Movement arrows do say X-wing
however, 3 tanks for 25$ seems too good.
will they expand, and price those up??
>>44360749
How do you tell the difference between them?
>>44370254
My body is ready! Although i would have preferred an eastern front starter...
>>44358167
BMPs, yes. Absolutely. The Soviet mech force is the best TY Soviet force you could run.
T-72s exist just to be shitty bullet catchers for M1s. Don't fucking bother with them. Stick to choppers, BMP swarms, artillery, and anythinf but T-72s.
>>44370254
>http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5089
Ain't exactly news is it? Says at the bottom it was last updated on january 1st, 0001. Fucking thing has been in development for over 2000 years
>>44370384
>>Do they have a gameplay demo to check it out with?
Yeah, it's called X-wing / STAW / DnD attack wing / wings of glory / etc
>>44371350
I'd disagree with the T-72 quality. I've played both armoured and mech list in TY, partly using proxies. The T-72 can do excellent work if used well.
Like the Abrams, they need to be used as a mobile alpha strike force capable of utterly savaging an enemy unit with their post-movement shots. They have enough armour that they have a decent chance of surviving any (hopefully limited) return fire.
In TY, MBTs need to be used like a scalpel to justify their high points costs.
Strike isolated positions, use terrain effectively to protect yourself and threaten key enemy units (like Abrams) to keep them away from certain areas.
If you do that well, they are certainly worth it. If you fail, you are indeed throwing those piles of points away.
In fact, locally, US players are having more trouble at the lower points values we're starting off with. Their small Abrams units are just so vulnerable to morale, or even just a few good hits from Soviet heavy AT assets.
>>44371350
Care to explain your reasoning behind this?
It's not that I think you're wrong, I just think that I'm missing something.
Because when I look at the BMPs, I don't see "All-Star must-spam Soviet unit". And I don't see "shitty expensive fire-magnet" when I look at the T-72s either.
But like I said, I'm not a Soviet player, and I'm probably missing something.
>>44370254
Hey, look! Another X-wing clone!
Part of me wants this to be good. The other part realizes that none of the other games that use the X-wing system have been as good as X-wing.
So once I get all my christmas purchases assembled, this is what I'm going to have built:
Compulsory Armoured Recce Squadron HQ (11th Armoured Division) (p.113) - CinC Cromwell IV, 2iC Cromwell IV (145 pts)
- Cromwell IV ARV (10 pts)
Compulsory Armoured Recce Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.114) - Command Cromwell IV, 2x Cromwell IV, Challenger A30 (335 pts)
Compulsory Armoured Recce Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.114) - Command Cromwell IV, Cromwell IV, Challenger A30 (260 pts)
Armoured Recce Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.114) - Command Cromwell IV, 2x Cromwell IV (220 pts)
Armoured Recce Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.114) - Command Cromwell IV, 2x Cromwell IV (220 pts)
Scout Car Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.114) - Command Daimler Dingo, 3x Daimler Dingo (90 pts)
Luttrells Close Support Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.111) - Warrior Walter Luttrell in Cromwell VI CS, Cromwell VI CS (110 pts)
Lorried Rifle Platoon (11th Armoured Division) (p.123) - Command Rifle/MG, PIAT, Light Mortar, 6x Rifle/MG (180 pts)
Field Battery, Royal Artillery (p.138) - Command Rifle, Staff, Command Rifle, Observer Rifle, OP Carrier, 4x OQF 25 pdr gun (185 pts)
Air Observation Post (p.141) - Auster AOP (25 pts)
What do you guys think I should get next for my 11th Armored Recce?
Perhaps more appropriate for /hwg/, I thought this would be funny to share.
Merry Christmas FoWtg!
>>44374981
Fow 1776 when
>>44374225
Yeah. BMPs are good enough against most everything. And infantry has always been solid in FOW. The fact Soviet infantry comes with a swiss-army knife of options, a cheap transport, and are fairly inexpensive and durable where morale is concerned, means you can get a lot of them without needing to spend a ton of points. Leave the AT to air and chopper support.
T-72s are expensive (relatively), aren't particularly great against anything innparticular, are a bit slower than M1s, have half the ROF of an M1, are easier to hit, and lacking in skill. Every 2 T-70s is worth approximately 1 M1, and aren't likely to win an engagement against such a ratio. So 1 unit of T-70s is going to be pretty lackluster in a force, even if spammed. And a tank list will need 18 or more of the damned things to be remotely efficient.
And without rerolls, and Brutal being a downgrade for Heavy Breakthrough, you're effectively looking at the IS-2 of modern warfare.
Scrap the T-70s. Go for BMPs and infantry. Load up on choppers and other ways of dealing with tanks, because the T-70 is not going to do well in that role.
>>44375546
Have you actually played any games with them yet, or are you theorycrafting?
Because this sounds an awful lot like theorycrafting without actually having played the game.
Also, it's the T-72. If you're fielding T-70s in 1985, you're obviously gonna have a problem.
>>44375105
You want /hwg/ not /fwg/ if you want anything before 1900 mate. Also napoleonic best era, american revolution a shit.
>>44375697
I'm a fan of the Viking ages myself when I'm not playing games set in World War II or the Cold War.
>>44375581
It's just theory craft right now as the just hasn't been enough time for enough games to make a conclusion.
Personally I don't agree with the "spam bmp, t72 a shit" theory. The little I have played the m1 vs t72 matchup has been an even one.
As far as bmp vs m1 I don't see it ether. In the straight up match the bmps numerical superiority is completely undermined by it inability to move and fire it's atgm. Because of this by my back of napkin theory rafting an m1 should be able to kill 3-4 bmps without much trouble.
In any case it remains to be seen.
>>44377396
I've actually played a bunch of 50-point games of both Soviet mech and Soviet armoured forces vs US armour, partly using proxies.
The BMPs can kill an Abrams fine, but the problem with relying on them for your main AT is twofold:
>They can be killed in direct fire by pretty much any unit in the game.
>They can't move and shoot, which means they're not very useful if the opponent has concentrated their forces on the other flank and you'd much rather use the firepower there.
The T-72, on the other hand, is immune to a good number of weapons and gets a save versus most dedicated AT weapons.
Its direct firepower is also quite effective against any ground target in the game.
So far, in my experience, the T-72 is an excellent but expensive tool in the Soviet commander's toolbox. If you don't bring any, you'd better bring Hinds or SU-25s to get some actual mobile firepower, since you -will- need that with the amount of tactical mobility this game presents.
>Because of this by my back of napkin theory rafting an m1 should be able to kill 3-4 bmps without much trouble.
The odds are certainly in its favour, as long as it can engage the BMPs piecemeal. Which is what you should be doing with your amazing mobile firepower.
The only reasons for an Abrams not moving are, IMO:
>You want to make a shoot and scoot to end up out of LoS.
>You don't want to risk Cross checks and are in a good firing position already.
A while back I remember reading about a list builder for FoW that let the user input a unit, and would then find every list in which that unit was a legal choice. Does that still exist? I have some Semoventes for a German list that I'm hoping have some use outside of Fortress Italy.
>>44378402
Forces of war exists for the older lists but check them as there are many inaccuracies, also FoW's website has this but it costs money.
>>44370968
the old plastic is kinda....milk jug like, where the new stuff is crisp and hard.
also, it has bumps in the side panels that will need scraping off.
>>44374225
>to this reply: >>44370254
...what idiots who designed DnD AW and this tanks don't get is that template movement works fine for Air and Water, where physics restrict your movement, and momentum is a thing.
tanks (and helicopters, oddly) have the odd ability to run 0.5 seconds in a semicircle, run in an opposite semi-circle for 1 second, reverse a track to spin 45', then reverse engines 3 meters back into cover. i forgot the vid that showed this, but it was a Sherman of some kind
---try that with a motherfucking template!
also, templates, under no fucking circumstance, are the proper movement choice for infantry.
>>44378402
that is easy army...
and, do you have a pre-exsisting account?
>>44378781
Yes, I do have an account from before BF's paid service went live.
>>44378995
great! its...in there somewhere. you won't have access to the list if you didn't pay for it before hand, but it does have where you can find it, and i think, the name of the platoon type.
>>44368917
You - I love you. I think you are me.
>>44368137
>>44367095
Thank you both - I may be a bit dense - just trying to see how I can make this fill the hole the death of WHFB in my life.
>>44379592
Apparently Kings of War is a good replacement for what used to be WFB.
But if you're looking to play either regular Flames of War, or Team Yankee we can answer any questions you might have.
>>44379681
>kings of war
>good replacement
you might as well play Age of Sigmar...
>very simple rules system
>mandatory unit sizes
>mandatory unit shape.
>morale and wounds are the same...
>no complexity/diversity to magic
only real difference is one is pointless.
so, yeah, welcome to Flames of War. we have beer.
>>44380928
Hey, compared to Rage of Sigmar, I've heard more positive things about Kings of War.
Then again I have no hands-on experience with WHFB, AoS, or KoW.
I just am going by what I hear from former WHFB players about which game they prefer.
KOW is simpler than fantasy but IMO that's a good thing; it replicates the "Huge blocks of infantry wheel and manuever in formation for positioning advantage" thing fantasy had. Magic is a little bland, though, yeah.
>>44380994
But yes. Welcome to Flames of War. And our thread on /tg/.
We don't bite. And we tend to be fairly knowledgeable about the game.
Anyone have any advice for expanding this list?
>>44374884
>>44381396
What book is that out of? And what points level are you trying to build it up to?
>>44382296
Market Garden, 11th Armored Division Armored Recce Squadron. Aiming for 2000 points and looking for things to swap in and out at lower points.
>>44382725
another challenger or two
another stack of infantry
tiffies.
that list is pretty solid, IMHO.
>the shit lists get all the attention
>>44382725
2000 points is a bit high. The highest I've even seen as a commonly played points value is typically 1900. And even then 1500, 1750, or even 1850 are more common.
I'm not overly familiar with British forces, but it seems like a solid list.
>>44383389
Another Challenger, a priority Typhoon, and another platoon of lorried rifles takes me to exactly 2250 total with my slightly modified list (3 platoons of 3 cromwells+challenger, and the CS platoon with 4 Cromwell CS). Given the lack of AA around here, I'm rather liking the Typhoon suggestion. Thanks for the tips.
>>44384021
Local group likes to play 1500, 1750, and 2000, hence my aiming for 2k.
>>44380994
>Then again I have no hands-on experience with WHFB, AoS, or KoW.
why are you even discussing them then?
>>44380928
>>44379681
Kings of war IS the replacement for WHFB.
Most of the fantasy players I know now play KOW. Its mass maneuver tactics with big block of infantry and cavalry, pivoting matters, movement is the most important phase, etc.
Age of Sigmar is a medium skirmish game. Kings of War is a mass block tactics game, just like WHFB.
KOW is much more generic than WHFB, no endless special rules and items, just generic abilities and items that are common to all factions. The factions are excellently balanced (something GW has never been good at - codex creep and new army-driven-profits certainly don't help), and the generic rules actually help you understand the list you're up against easily.
So you're at a tournament, if you were playing WHFB, your opponent would have some special rule nestled beneath a special rule udner an item that would be his "no one expects this!" move, which he would keep quiet about until that unit actually makes that mega attack or does its overpowered move.
If you were playing KOW, you'd immediately know the rough strength of each of your opponents units just by looking at his army list, there (usually) aren't any surprise cluster moves your opponent can make, although you can still screw with peoples expectations of certain units like beast riders compared to regular cavalry (they can move through forests and have 3 times the attacks of normal cavalry)
I dont play WHFB any more, but I played for 6 years or so, doing pretty well at tournaments with my Tomb kings and Lizardmen armies. I've played a few KOW games, and seen quite a few played. The rules are excellent and very nicely done.
>>44384949
>replacement for WHFB
You could just keep playing WHFB.
>>44358832
>6 aircraft models, 2 of them helicopters
Please tell me that costs at least as much as the rest of the list.
>>44386298
Do you play FoW 1e often?
>>44386298
Playing old editions of discontinued games is one thing, people still play stuff like Starship Troopers because its a fucking good ruleset.
But why on earth would you play a shittily balanced, discontinued, expensive to collect game when literally the only positive feature it has is its made by GW and gets all that lore (and really that aint much of a plus anymore)
What sane person would possibly keep playing old WHFB when they have KOW now? I've watched both played and KOW seems so much better it aint even funny.
>>44386680
I have never played FoW 1E, so that's a terrible example in this case. Also, there isn't a community for FoW 1E as far as I'm aware whereas most WHFB players are (in my experience of my local clubs) still playing WHFB.
>>44386738
There's, like, three dozen little nitpicks that people use to justify sticking with WHFB over going to KoW. The weirdest ones to me are about the things that KoW blatantly improved like "It's too balanced and that's not fun" or "There isn't casualty removal".
>>44386816
I have my FoW 1e Rulebook. It's an illuminating read. No set base size for one.
>>44386836
0 inch command range for conscripts. Russian players must have loved V2.
>>44384949
>why are you even discussing them then?
Because during the Age of Sigmar rage-fest I was attempting to learn about both rule sets to see exactly what was causing all the rage here on /tg/ and elsewhere on the Internet.
I'll admit to never having played any of those 3 games, but from reading the rules for AoS and KoW, it seemed to me like a lot more time and effort has been put into developing the KoW rules, and to me at least it seemed like it would be more fun to play.
Then again, having never played WHFB, and having given up on 40K long ago, it could just be anti-GW bias. But AoS seemed like GW didn't even try to make that rule set.
>>44386738
>people still play stuff like Starship Troopers because its a fucking good ruleset.
I was always tempted to try that out. The movie has long been a guilty pleasure of mine, and the CGI cartoon was quite good.
>>44386680
>Do you play FoW 1e often?
A bit of a false comparison since there is no new edition of WHFB to be playing instead.
But I get your point. A better comparison would be the D&D "Edition Wars". I know people who refuse to play certain editions of Dungeons and Dragons.
>>44386547
>>6 aircraft models, 2 of them helicopters
>Please tell me that costs at least as much as the rest of the list.
Probably not. The 2 helicopters come in the US starter box, and the A-10s are probably 2 per box for the same price as the other platoon boxes.
Looking at the Typhoon, I'm trying to figure out when you would ever use the cannons.
>Cannons:
3+ to hit, AT 8 vs side, FP 5+
>Rockets:
3+ to hit, AT 6 vs top, FP 3+
The only situation I can see is against stuff with side armor 0 or 1, where you don't care if it's bailed or destroyed. Otherwise the bombs seem to be strictly better.
>>44391879
Cannons on planes pretty much are for use against light vehicles or infantry.
Rockets are for use against harder targets like medium and heavy tanks.
>>44393017
But why? Even if their side armour is low the firepower is 5+. For infantry you don't care about AT at all, even, so you only care about the 3-up FP.
>>44391879
It has cannon because the aircraft itself had cannon, simple as that.
>>44381282
FoW n00b with what I think is causing me the most cognitive dissonance:
I understand there are certain restrictions on what can be run, and that's why you can't cherry pick units; also, I understand the three divisions of WWII are different, with different stats for units.
But if I am building my list from Grey Wolf 2nd Revised, and the dude I am playing is building from NUTS, then why are we restricted by our books for the list? Why is there not one big list for each Power, for each period of the war, and the supplement books used for themed or narrative play?
I sincerely apologize for not understanding, and I am certain it's not anything new for the veterans of the game to have to explain this.
Today I asked some of my friends who play these questions, and even though they know I am sincere about wanting to put some models on the table and blow stuff up, I frustrate them with my lack of understanding.
:( I don't want to be a difficult player.
>>44394048
I know why it has one, and why historically it had one, I'm just trying to figure out under what situations it's actually a good idea to use the cannons in the game. I'm not debating the right of the cannons to exist on the statline.
>>44394204
Take Nuts for Example.
Nuts is the book for US Paratroopers and other units in and around Bastogne during the Batte of the Bulge. It also covers the German forces that were attacking them. Your army will be built from units that participated in that battle.
Grey Wolf in the other hand is a slightly more generic book about German Forces on the Eastern Front during roughly the same time period.
Both are Late War lists and are OK to play against each other. One is just a bit more focused on a specific battle than the other one is.
As for why there isn't just one "Codex Germans" or "Codex Soviets" for lack of a better word, there would be just too much to cover. Too many specific forces that fought in specific battles with specific equipment.
Even something like US Paratroopers changes drastically in equipment and organization from D-Day to Market-Garden, to Bastogne, and that's over the course of maybe 6 months in 1944.
And you can choose to play themed lists against each other. I've participated in events where the lists could only be from the D-Day books for example.
Basically, if you want to play a specific force from Late War(or Mid, or Early) then collect that force. And play it against anybody who has a force from that same time period.
>>44394204
What Eagles says here: >>44394403
Also, the various briefings restrict forces to the support units they had historically, which helps to prevent werid combos.
And most minis you can get can be used in several briefings, except for those very rare units that only saw very sporadic service.
Some things, like basic infantry from various nations and the more common tanks, can be used in dozens of different briefings with very distinct options for support and different motivation and skill ratings.
>>44394204
If you look at Grey Wolf though you'll see that within that book there are dozens of different lists. There's no way to incorporate any sort of master list without getting rid of all that content; it's not just "restricted to that book" it's "Restricted to that one list within that book".
If you allowed people to just take whatever they wanted then it'd just be total chaos - the restrictions are good for the health of the game imo. You'd pretty quickly get people working out the mathematical best lists and whatever, and there'd be no interesting tension. No way to build the "Tank > Mech > Infantry > Fortified" paradigm for who attacks. You'd lose the tension that exists where different lists have different strengths and weaknesses, something that comes to an extreme with things like Kampfgruppe Graebner getting tons of speed and special spearheading rules but zero anti tank, or KG Swodoba who get tons of 88s and plenty of defensive capability but nothing with mobility. With a generic list you either a) wouldn't have the option of building such narrowly focused lists or b) could easily cover the gaps in such lists which makes them far less interesting a choice. The game becomes less effective as a teaching tool as you no longer would learn about various formations and what they had.
>>44394342
Even for the sake of example I can't come up with a realistic scenario where one would use the cannon. You'd either need higher top armour than side armour and/or some situation where bails count for close to as much as kills but a) very, very few vehicles have that armour setup and b) that's almost never true because the chances of getting back in are high enough and you can't co-ordinate aircraft with assaults very easily. (JOE's controller who makes the wave-off 12" means you could hypothetically hit a team that is currently just on 12" from a friendly team and will be within 8" of said friendly team once you assault)
>>44394204
Counter question: Why would you want the one big list for each power? What can't you do right now that you feel you should be able to do? Or, how do you feel the current situation is hindering you more than your hypothetical example?
As I feel I've explained here >>44394489 that change would make a total mess of the balance and enjoyment of the game as it is for me, and I really don't see what the benefit would be.
>>44394518
>>44394489
>>44394468
>>44394403
Thanks for all the replies, and for the reasons a One Size Fits All Roster won't work.
I guess the best thing is to buy one book, and play lists from it, until I want something new, or find another battle or time period more interesting.
Thanks for letting me be stupid with minimal consequences.
>>44395488
To be fair, these weren't stupid questions.
List selection and force building in general is probably the most confusing part of FoW for new players.
Still, the complicated structure is kind of a necessity with the level of detail and the broad spectrum the game goes into.
>>44394204
>Why is there not one big list for each Power, for each period of the war, and the supplement books used for themed or narrative play?
That is a good question. Here is my idea. Because it would get us Bolt Action where unless players make silent agreements, the end result is armies put on tables that look like nothing that took part in WW2. Outside of the British Gentlemanly Gamer mentality, people don't give a fuck about the forging a narrative and go straight for the point effective units. A game that claims to represent company level WW2 combat, will need some restrictions on what can actually be put on the table.
The company organisation in Flames of War isn't perfect and some armies are pure fantasy, but when organizers limit company selection from two books, things can really get thematic. The FoW system increases the chances for an organizer to have a competative event where armies look and feel like WW2 companies, without making a lot of "house rules" which takes a lot of time and most people hate.
>>44394204
Sounds like you came from a GW or similar background, where army building is very simple. You have hq, troop, elite, fast attack, and heavy slots, and between all of those, you maybe have 30 units total to choose from.
If you took an army like LW Germans for example, you'd easily have 30 different unit options available just for your "troops" slot alone, and honestly I'm probably low balling that number quite a bit if you want to count different versions of the same company type (there's like 5 different grenadier companies alone). This is also ignoring mechanized and armored formations that have their "troops" consist entirely of tanks or armored cars, and the fact that what is a "troop" for one list will be support in about 10x more. You also need to account for ratings as well.
But ultimately, you also don't really need a "one size fits all" list because there's so many companies for the big 4 that if you want to run something that's even remotely plausible, odds are there's a list that already exists for it. For example, Desperate Measures lets you run almost any combination of late war tanks you could want aside from jagdtigers and sturmtigers, and the Berlin kampfgruppe allows for an insane amount of infantry combinations
>>44396103
Well they're working on that at least. The army books and new campaign books have theagre specific lists which helps mitigate the "play whatever you want" factor a bit.
Are chafees any good? I love the idea of go fast and flank hard, but I'm new and have no real experience with how to play tanks, especially against stuff like king tigers. Also, where are the mid war books I can't find them on the online store.
>>44397013
>Chaffees
Haven't played or encountered them myself, but they seem pretty solid. Use your excellent mobility and decent gun to be a huge pain in the ass to medium tanks and lighter vehicles.
If you add in a squad of TDs (maybe Hellcats for more gofast), you should be able to handle the super-heafy stuff, like KTs, as well.
>Mid War books
Those are currently out of print. We do have scans in our database, though.
BF have announced that they're working on a revised digital release on Forces, but that hasn't materialized yet as far as I know.
>Battlefronts new(ish) plastic infantry are so crisp and nice its actually good fun to paint them instead of a fucking blag like it usually is
This shit is crazy, are all the new infantry like this? Has anyone tried both BF plastics and PSCs later sculpts to see how they compare?
>>44397013
>Are chafees any good?
Yes. They're fast and maneuverable. They have a gun that can reliably take on most Medium tanks, but might struggle against heavier tanks.
They also have really thin armor.
>I love the idea of go fast and flank hard, but I'm new and have no real experience with how to play tanks, especially against stuff like king tigers.
Go fast and flank hard is certainly the play style of Chaffees. You can probably take on many Light and Medium tanks from the front, but you'll have a better chance against Medium and Heavy tanks if you flank them and shoot at their side armor.
Against the German Cats, you might want to bring some heavier hitting support units. Either Tank Destroyers or maybe air support.
>Also, where are the mid war books I can't find them on the online store.
Out of print. They are due for an update.
But you can find them in our scans database in the OP.
i like the metals fine, then again, i have craft skills
>>44364964
Soviets always suck though
>>44396103
>forging a narrative
Games Workshop plz go
>>44398382
I've got a psc British infantry company and while the poses are a little stiff, they're crisp. Haven't tried the new BF infantry but if they're like the tank commanders I got with my StuGs and Comets they beat even PSC. Both are damn good now honestly, psc just a little less soo for a bit cheaper
So now that Battlefront is branching into fictional wars, is there anything people would like to see them maybe do next?
I'd love to see them team up with Dreampod 9 and do a FoW Gear Krieg supplement. the FoW rules with walking tanks and rocket troops and shit. Would be pretty dope if you ask me.
Also; for EW Finns do you guys prefer the Lahti or Boys AT Rifle? The Lahti has that glorious RoF 3, but the Boys has Tank Assault 5.
>>44400501
Tank Assault 3. Not 5. Motherfucker, I WISH it was 5.
Basically, I tend to prefer the Lahti. That tank assault and AT on the boys isn't stopping much, and the 16 inch range and ROF3 is a big help, even if you do need to keep them bunkered down so the gun save doesn't kill them.
Although adding in another pair of teams isn't a bad idea. Boys are a slight help close up. But you can inflict some serious damage with the Lahtis on lighter stuff like BTs, T-26s, halftracks. Even infantry and volley firing guns if you're lucky. Finns need every stand off shot they can get. Just a pair of guns, or a single platoon of tanks doesn't get much done, but focusing fire might just let you survive the coming assault, and Lahti's help more with that than another lacklustre attack. Plus that pair ROF3, in a seperate platoon, acts like an ersatz HMG for your infantry. That's actually made the difference against Japs last EW GT.
>>44401095
Oops, my bad with that typo.
Yeah; I'm leaning more towards Lahti's. I tend to play a more shooting oriented game anyway, so having a platoon which can easily move from palce to place and pump out 6 AT5 shots seems rather handy when most tanks are sporting armor values of 1 and 2.
Of course all my plans for EW stuff entirely hinges on anybody here playing EW. The meta here is so heavy on LW that it drives me crazy sometimes. Especially since the only army I have right now in MW Italians.
>>44401411
Man, that must suck. With Cancon coming up down here it's a real pig's breakfast of periods.
None of the Russian or British players want to play EW? Germans still get neat things, and there's cool armies like French and Japanese.
>>44396514
Yeah, but most of those 30 troop combinations are more or less the same. Particularly before LLW. Bolt Action encountered the same thing, and other than base rating, there's very little difference.
>>44400501
Yeah, just because Battlefront went into a war that almost happened, and all the equipment was real, and specifically intended for use against the other side, who also had specific, real, equipment designed for combat use.
Lets do giant walking steampunk robots.
That's reasonable.
Where's FoW: Fantasy Psychic Soldier Battles? Or FoW: Lovecraft Magical Girl Submarine Combat? That's reasonable, right. I mean, they did a supplement which was slightly unrealistic in the political premise.
>>44403188
To be fair I wouldn't mind seeing battlefront's sci-fi or fantasy offerings.
>>44403569
Would love to see BF doing Gates of Antaeres rather than Warlord.
>>44403569
And why the fuck must everything be fantasy or sci-fi. Let Battlefront keep it historical (or near-historical)
I wanted to toy a little with Comets lists:
Cic Comet
4x Comets
3x Comets
3x SAS Jeeps
3x SAS Jeeps
Lorried Rifle platoon(full) w/ 2x 3ton Lorry
2x 25pdr
Typhoon Limited
1780 pts, 6 platoons
What do you think /fowg/?
>>44404084
I think planes and Light Tanks don't mix very well. Replace with another Comet.
>>44404109
I played a lot of british armored lists and i never found any problems while using the plane, the thing is brit tanks with SIF like a lot to play in a static position at long range so they make full use of their ability so the plane can do what he wants without much of an hassle
>>44404030
Honestly, if FoW was a sci-fi game I'd be buried neck-deep in people looking to play the game.
Interest at my FLGS only spiked with the release of Team Yankee. And a lot of that has to do with standard FoW being "another boring Nazi game".
People in my area want their Space Knights and Steampunk Robots.
But at least this semi-plausible Soviet invasion of Western Europe is finding some interested players.
What's the best book to start someone on Late War for Germany? Grey Wolf?
>>44406276
What are they interrested in? Generally, I would say whatever hard cover book covers their front of interrest (Atlantik Wall for Normandy, Grey Wolf for the Eastern Front, Fortress Italy for, you guessed it, Italy, Bridge by Bridge for Market Garden and the fighting Belgium/Netherlands).
>>44406352
He's leaning toward the Russian/German dynamic, so I guess it's Grey Wolf for him!
Thank you.
>>44403188
Wow dude, chill the fuck out. I was simply tossing it out there. GK is at least still WW2, just with stompy deiselpunk walkers.
Sorry for daring to suggest something I think would be a neat little supplement.
>>44403188
>FoW: Lovecraft Magical Girl Combat?
I need this to be a thing. I didn't know this was what I needed for my life.
>>44403153
>Yeah, but most of those 30 troop combinations are more or less the same
That's not remotely true though? For the major nations at very least you have infantry, mech infantry, armoured cars, light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, etc with variations within each of those categories across the 9 stat ratings and various special rules. FV Tiger Aces are very different from RT Rifle infantry are very different from FT half track Panzergrenadiers are very different from CV Pumas.
>Bolt Action encountered the same thing, and other than base rating, there's very little difference.
Bolt Action has three ratings to FoWs 9, is infantry only (barring Tank Wars which functions like a different game for the most part) and relies on a smattering of special rules and two or three weapon choices (LMGs functionally don't exist they're so bad but you've got some combination of rifles, SMGs, ARs, BARs, flamethrowers, etc) to make different squad types feel different. I think that even within infantry for FoW they manage to feel different - FV paratroopers function more aggressively than CV Pioneers which in turn function differently from CT (or lower) hordes.
>>44400501
you know DP9 discontinued Gear Krieg?
>>44405813
this is what happens when you live in NYC with a bunch of liberal noggs. they can't handle reality.
>>44406276
Desperate Measures or Fortress Italy have more powerfull lists.
...though Grey Wolf is a key book. great stuff there, including the Cairus addition.
>>44406764
>>/d/ or /h/
>>44407295
Yeah, but it would be cool to see the moulds put into production again.
>>44407341
>must be NYC liberals
Literally exactly the same in all three cities I've lived in andI live in the UK
>>44407191
>infantry, mech infantry, armoured cars, light tanks, medium tanks, heavy tanks, etc
Ah. Thought when you said Troops you meant it in the 40k sense, given the context. So, infantry.
>Bolt Action
Yeah, but it has a bunch of special rules that deal with exactly that sort of variation, and it still boils down to a very homogeneous sort of experience.
As for Flames of War, it still struggles to really make a given book list feel different from another. Most lists tend to be differentiated by small stuff rather than serious stuff, at least on the FOC page. You vary significantly more on your selections than on the book you draw them from. Particularly with how loose FoW is with army matchups beyond the period thing, LW basically might as well be in one huge book.
>>44407877
>monoculture will ruin all other culture
>humanity looses all taste in history or warfare.
i'm done, i'm so done....
>>44407341
Technically I live outside of New York City, on Long Island.
As for your commentary about New York politics... You won't hear any disagreement from me...
>>44408231
>implying nuliberals don't love war so much they are subconsciously trying to start civil wars in America and across Europe with their bullshit
I just got done assembling a resin T-72 for my FLGS's demo kit.
It took a little bit of extra work compared to the plastic kits, but it wasn't anywhere near as difficult as I was fearing it would be.
>>44408231
>>44408817
It's not liberals, is what I'm saying. Tories, labour, UKIP, etc all play warmahordes, X-Wing, or Infinity here. Mmmmaybe 40k but people stopped playing that after AOS.
Side note: Anyone got any idea how the cannon hatch over the shilka's quad-guns is meant to attach on Zvezda's model?
Just need some BMPs and Gvodzikas and I'm sorted for my list.
Are Zvezda's Gvodzika's any good?
>>44370254
>http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5089
looks like it might be good for girls und panzer games.
cold, isn't it.
>>44411646
Most Zvezda stuff tends to be quite good.
I have no experience with their Gvodzikas, but their T-72s are supremely well detailed.
The only fluke is their M1A1. There is ZERO detail on thei Zvezda Abrams.
>>44410057
Whaaat? We don't get plastic tanks?
>>44417606
we do.
the plastic T-72's were fucked up, so the demo kit got resin while plastic was delayed....
>>44417606
The product for sale is plastic.
The demo kit had resin because the plastic kits weren't finished yet.
I've been building the demo kit for my FLGS which included 3 resin T-72s. The first one I built went together nicely. The second one was a bit of a pain, and the third still needs to be assembled.
Why I'm only working on the demo kit after the release date and the late arrival of the delayed Soviet plastics is a question for my FLGS owner, but considering we won't really be playing game until people have assembled their stuff, having a late demo kit will still help me show off the game while people are building their armies.
>>44417931
Are there going to be resin T72's available after release, or are these a "limited edition" of sorts just as a stopgap?
>>44418517
Limited Edition Stop Gap. As explained in threads previously, Battlefront couldn't get their Plastic kits together in time for various demos and for the Demo kits.
>>44418744
wonder if those'll be "collectible" someday
>>44418517
Perhaps I'm not explaining the situation correctly.
Game stores received Team Yankee demonstration kits.
These kits were supposed to be in stores and assembled before the launch date.
Because the stores were supposed to be getting the demonstration kits early, and because of the production snafu with the plastic T-72s, the T-72s in the demonstration kits were made of resin.
The T-72s that will be for sale are the plastic T-72s now that the production snafu has been fixed.
The resin T-72s were a stop-gap measure only meant for the demonstration kits.
Bad months progress from me.
Really haven't felt it this month, and with summer temps going over 40 for about a third of the days the weather certainly hasn't helped matters. Still, got to test out a new printed by making some flags to add a bit of spice to certain vehicles.
The panthers in the olivgrun camo are a repaint from an earlier scheme, my Hungarian Panther company is nearing completion. The M13/40 is a test, being both the first Italian tank I have painted since getting my airbrush a few months ago and also the first to be painted Green Ochre as opposed to Yellow Ochre. Thought that I had gone a bit overboard on the weathering, but it would seem that the Italian paint did come off fast, and if the tanks were along the coast and avoided sandstorms for a short time the quality metals quickly corroded.
>>44419077
>40 degrees celcius where he's at right now
>I'm lucky to see 4 degrees Fahrenheit here
goddammit.
The great patriotic bump
>the feel when your Bolt action core book keeps staring at you and you've got no one to play with these days.
fuck country life sucks sometimes.
>>44419077
Hey, better than me, christmas knocked me the fuck out. I've got jack all to show.
>>44423725
>having painted in the last year
Must be nice
>>44424217
>painting
>>44423086
living in the country is only a thing for wargamers if you A: can afford constant 50mile transport or B: you live in a place (england) where wargaming is very common.
in the USA, nerds tend to be basement collectors. the city is where you find actuall games
>>44405813
>People in my area want their Space Knights and Steampunk Robots.
Historicals are the second largest group here after the inevitable warmahordes. Actually now that I think about it that and x-wing are the only non-historical games I see being played at all. All GW-related stuff crashed on the release of AOS. It's funny how local metas vary.
Also it's worth stressing that FOW is equally hard for me to find games of here. Everyone quit years ago. Team Yankee is the first time I've gotten in a game of something related to BF in a long ass time.
>>44427251
It really is pretty amazing how totally AoS cratered interest in GW. Not only did they screw up fantasy but they scared about half the players playing 40k off too.
>>44427948
Yeah. Been into GW's stuff for nearly two decades now. AoS destroyed all illusions I might have had about the company.
I feel better now. As if a really shitty divorce had finally ended.
>>44430388
The amazing bit to me was the club coming in post-sigmar and deflecting with "Well you've not tried it, it might be great", then next week they were all playing something else.
I have seen some of them bring their figures in since but only as KoW or warmahordes proxies.
Would these Open Fire! forces lists be reasonably balanced?
BRITS
Rifle company confident trained
Company HQ 25pts
2 2-squad rifle platoons 220
Parachute Rifle support
2-squad parachute rifle platoon 205pts, command team wields SMGs
Carrier platoon, two wasps and one piat 125
2x 2 shermans and 1 firefly 530
Priority typhoon support
total 1225pts
GERMANS
Grenadierkompanie confident veteran heer
2x cmd panzerfaust team, panzershreck team. 90pts
1x 2 squad grenadier platoons with panzerfausts. 120
1x 3-squad grenadier platoon with panzerfausts 165
3x StuG G 285pts
Limited 87D air support 135pts
2x Tiger I E 430pts
total 1225pts
>>44406463
FWIW my friends and I home brewed a GK supplement for FoW 1e back in the day. It was fun.
>>44431262
Personally I'd advise against using minimum sized platoons, but at that point level it shouldn't make that big of a difference.
Thought: TY aircraft/helis are just vehicles with unlimited movement, right? Does this mean they can make assaults?
>>44434844
Aircraft can not assault. It's part of their rules.
>>44436661
Even the transport helicopters can't assault. They have to be landed and immobile to deploy their troops.
Because I saw him mentioned here a few times, I thought I'd share the sad news.
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35192060
>>44438251
He was known to n these theeads for being a collector of WWII equipment.
Here's a picture of him posing with a Hetzer wearing parts of a German uniform.
>>44438251
good night sweet prince, you will be missed
>>44439074
>http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-35192060
i have a banner of Lemmy somewhere....it must be the next thread post image...
>>44439191
I have the banner, if the thread drops I can do it as well. It also should be in the mediafire somewhere I believe.
>>44439271
good man.
btw we have an ISIL thread on /tg/ right now made of fucking gold. sorry if i've been away.
>>44439821
what the hell is an ISIL thread?
>>44440097
You may call it ISIS, or IS, or 'Those Dudes fucking up the Middle East right now'.
>>44441069
Or Daesh if you're sassy and hate them.
>>44439821
>>44440097
>>44441069
>>44441573
What does any of this have to do with miniatures wargaming?
Don't get me wrong, those fuckers deserve to die, but that's a discussion for /pol/.
Getting us back on topic, does anyone have some assembly-in-progress or painting-in-progress pictures to share?
I'll have some assembled Team Yankee stuff of my own to share by tonight hopefully.
>>44442117
I'll take some pics of my assembled BMPs (with both hull tops for each) if the light allows it.
So far, I've only painted one of them, with only the BMP-1 hull top and turret.
Nicely, you can still swap out the upper hull after painting and it stays attached pretty well without glue as well.
>>44442117
Ive been painting grenadiers.
I have learned that metallics a shit, 8B pencil is king of gunmetal, and that metallic christmas sharpies are good for colouring in boolits.
I really like how the grenadiers have turned out, but im not looking forward to the next stage as my basing is pretty meh.
>>44442117
ISIL vs. X is a wargames topic...
current events helps understand the creation of a state from a world-building standpoint.
on FoW, did anyone catch there will be a state of the union address on FoW.com this thursday morning? they will discuss their company and 2016....
>>44442638
They did that for 2015 as well.
I'm curious to see what they have to say. Especially about things that haven't materialized yet that was in their 2015 report. Such as the Berlin buildings.
>>44442638
Other than more Team Yankee units, and Pacific theater, what are we expecting for 2016 from Battlefront?
>>44445006
V4 and/or new MidWar books.
>>44445006
Battle of the Bulge compilations.
>>44445408
>>44445043
>new midwar books
>veteran undercosted americans mcfucking everywhere
Please Allah, JHV, GOD don't let those idiots ruin mid war.
>>44446073
Well, aint you mister optimistic.
MW IS in need of an update, no matter what you say. RIght now, it's just a stale mess.
>>44442378
Those are the new psc sculpts right? Goddamn psc has really upped their game
>>44446264
Those are Battlefront plastic Germans I think.
Looking good British!
Finally, FINALLY, have my Bears box. No complaints generally; everything looks nice and crisp, no damage. Only thing I can complain about is the fact the blast template is cardboard and I thought it was meant to be acrylic. Still, I got my 10 tanks, so it actually seemed like a reasonable deal.
>>44447566
Yeah the cardboard template was a bit of a disappointment for the US Box as well, but at leas that had a resin objective marker, 6 tanks, and 2 helicopters.
>>44448477
>resin objective marker
Aww man, we just got tanks and helis. Crashed abrams or something, I assume?
>>44448499
Some kind of Mobile Command Center variant of the M113 with a tent attached to the back.
>>44448829
M577.
>>44446781
>>44446264
Thanks breh
They are indeed Battlefronts new plastic grenadiers, really great but the poses are understandably a bit limited.
I might give PSCs EW infantry a try at some point, but the detail doesnt look quite as pronounced as battlefronts.
Man, there's not even any magnets for these turrets.
Also how the fuck do you put the back end together without fucking it all up? The fuel tanks seem to balance really precariously and I can't get the big pole on the back to fit the guides properly.
>>44451458
The T-72s?
I've only assembled the demo kit ones myself, but they seemed to fit together without too much difficulty.
>>44451930
Yeah, T-72s, the rear end bits with the external fuel and the bar across the rear are super fiddly.
How the fuck do these magnets work jesus christ.
Thinking of doing a Cold War or WW2 themed card game. One mechanic I was entertaining was having each deck represent a brigade sized force and discard cards of the right kind (mech inf, armor, etc) so that they can be replaced with larger and more capable versions (eg "discard an infantry company and replace with a battalion from your hand").
So, the ground forces as well as persistent presences like helicopters would be represented by permanent cards and things like long range SAMs and air strikes represented by "sorceries/instants." However, I have a few questions that I was hoping you all might answer:
>What would be some good national special rules for, for example, Soviets vs Americans in the Cold War?
>How do I keep infantry relevant with all the firepower thrown around and without the objectives of a traditional wargame?
>What are some mechanics, factional or otherwise, that you might like to see?
>>44445006
Tanks.
their X-wing game, as virus says.
>>44454175
>Tanks.
>their X-wing game, as virus says.
Not just Virus. It's obviously an attempt to get in on the fast-play low model-count X-wing style action.
That being said, no X-wing imitators have ever been as good as X-wing.
Also, technically Tanks is a Gale Force Nine game.
>>44457135
...
I think you posted in the wrong thread m8y
>>44457135
Except this article exists that blasts people for having 'Nazi' armies, accuses Gamers of being Far Right for no reason, implies that we're all sexist for no reason and attempts to censor and shame those who use Nazi Aesthetics in their modelling choices.
>https://archive.is/EdX5t
In short, Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, your mother is disappointed in your life choices, and your father wishes sincerely that he'd had anal that night instead. Go back to your hug box.
>>44457282
You DENSE motherfucker. It's copypasta. How have you not seen it by now?
>>44457282
>Virus ever not taking the bait
Virus seriously man, gotta relax about this shit.
And duh, there's always people conspiring against everything these days.
But it's not a noticeable amount, seriously. It aint like we're video games or movies or comic books that people actually care about. We paint and play with fucking toy soldiers. Nobody gives a shit either way. Hell, most people don't even know this hobby exists.
>>44457482
>>44457469
Yes I mad, because I see this shit as the coming of a new wave of Fascism.
Back on topic.
>Volkssturm versus Hitlerjugend.
Which is better?
People I respect in Meatspace say Hitler Youth, but I disagree.
I obviously just missed something.
Did we just all get accused of being some kind of Neo-Nazis or something?Sieg Heil!
>>44457640
Hitlerjugend can actually move and shoot panzerfausts but I fear with conscript that the only times you'd have even a remote chance of using them would be on urban boards.
Plus volksturm gets that great fact that they don't count against reserves and can start dug in.
>>44457698
Oddly, with Conscript, they only have a 33% chance of popping out, then finding cover
>>44461284
Oooh; like that dark green scheme. Might try that on mine.
only 24 hrs until the 2016 announcement...
Holy shitting christfuck how are you meant to put the Hind together and subsequently bring it anywhere? It's full of fiddly bullshit that's going to be impossible to transport. I've already had the blade supports at the top break.
>>44463267
I'm going to have the rotor detachable. As for transport, I'll blue tac it to the bottom of a large ice cream container and fill it with toilet paper.
It's only going to be transported to my flgs where it will reside forever because fuck transporting Hinds
>>44463532
Yeah, I've got top rotor detachable too but there's still the tail rotor which is fragile as fuck and the wings and shit jutting out which A: exposes all the stuff on pylons and B: means there's no good axis to set it down on.
>>44463567
Oh
I realize I didn't think this was a problem because I assembled mine with the wheels down.
Superglued a magnet onto a turret wrong way up; what's the best method of breaking the superglue bond?
>>44465508
Personally, I just use a knife to cut the pieces loose, if the location allows that.
>>44465539
This.
Or you can use acetone depending on the location and material.
>>44457640
I think they do different things. Hitler Youth is a great anti tank ambush unit that either pops in from ambushes or from behind terrain. They pop out, fire a shit ton of panzerfausts and then move into close combat and "collect" any bailed tanks. In this way they can take out entire tank platoons and with fearless, tank terror won't be much of a problem. Now of course if your opponent can muster more than four shots in defensive fire then it won't work. After this, they will probably be shot to pieces but try to place them touching the wrecks to get some bulletproof cover.
The volksturm are a bit different, their job is to sit on an objective/choke, delay tanks from taking said objective it and they do that pretty well. But they can't do anything else and it is even more important to build a list around them. You need to somehow work into advantage of their "doesn't count for reserves and they start on the table rule" special rule. In an grenadier company, it can be a good way of having 9 platoons and putting 5 of them on the table.
Both of these units will disintegrate to infantry assaults, so you need to make sure either you have room to pull back or enough support in defensive fire to stop it from happening. When they get pinned, they will only stop infantry assaults from other conscripts. Don't be fooled by the Fearless on the Hitler Youth, they are way to few to survive long enough to do damage. My rule of thumb from playing Conscript Soviets is you need about 10 conscript infantry teams in swinging range to kill 3 veteran teams in assault.
The challenge of conscript infantry in small numbers is they aren't durable and the game rewards players for destroying platoons. They will not have a good time if they leave the foxholes and one shouldn't expect them to dig new ones during regular game time.
>>44465750
Location doesn't allow; I was trying clean spirit but I guess that's pretty useless.
