Flames of War SCANS database:
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/
[Vimeo] The Fallen of World War II
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
Previous thread
>>47137959
oy vey
Anyone have much experience with the Hit the Beach mission? My club is doing a D-day event in Mid-June, and I've no idea how to build a list, for either side.
For the allies, it looks like I'd want to mainly max infantry platoons, with a little bit of armour (I like the look of Breaching Groups); for the Axis I just don't know, especially as I'd only have 1400 points to build with. Do I put lots in reserve to avoid the bombardment? Or do I put everything in my Fortified Platoons?
>>47278244
I'm away from home at the moment, and I'll post my list later, but the latter is what I'm doing. 1400 pts really isn't much, especially when the mandatory minefields take 200 of that.
Anyone having digital Nachtjagger list? Are the British para any good?
>>47277548
>No edition name
>no edition pic
Has anyone ever tried to adapt the ww1 rules for 19th century warfare?
Some parts were pretty much identical.
>>47280724
I don't have Fearless Veteran. I was conscripted to make this thread.
>>47281023
Why bother, when there's already many perfectly good systems for that around?
>>47281023
I don't think many people even play Great War.
I know The War Store was practically giving it away free with any Battlefront order for a while.
>>47281039
For future reference, the scans database does have a folder full of thread banners.
>>47280257
They're decent: you can get Command Panzerfaust teams, Veteran Guards Churchills, FV Cromwells and CV M10C Achilles in support, etc. Airlanding can also get Shermans as well, and you can field British Paras or Canadian Paras... but stuff is obviously expensive points-wise as it's all CV or FV.
Market-Garden is probably more "competitive", but I like the NJ Digital briefings as they allow you to build quite different lists from Normandy or Market-Garden with some cool equipment (Airborne Recce with Carriers and Dingos!).
Emergency BMP
>>47278244
>>47279707
Right, back. My list for beach defence is attached. Two strong-ish fortified platoons, rockets, and... er... that's it. 1400 points just doesn't go that far. I would have loved to have brought a trio of Marders or something, for a bit of mobility (and also AT), but couldn't really find anything I was comfortable cutting.
>>47284580
To be fair, for a beach assault, you shouldn't be seeing too much armour. You've got three AT10 guns and an AT9 (no matter what Forces says, the AT7 is a typo; Atlantik Wall over-rides that).
AVREs are FA8, SA7, which is tough; but Shermans are only 6/4, so you have a good chance against those.
>>47281773
Great War's main problem(s) is limited right now to trench warfare, and 4 nations. French and Americans only recently were released, and the US are (once again) better than they have any right to be.
I'm holding out for the more cavalry focused middle east and eastern front.
Guys I have my first IS2 mostly painted. Pretty pleased with the results
>>47286232
It came out well. A few unit markings and perhaps a touch of weathering and it'll be a lovely command tank.
Can someone who owns Normandy Battles crack it open and see if there's any major differences in running the Airborne Missions between it and D Minus One?
Bump for German Late War Lists of 1420 points
>>47292323
A bit more spare points than I generally like, but there's nothing to fill them with.
Advantages:
You have 13 medium tanks with Schurzen, 3 recce psudo-tanks, and one decent-sized mechanized infantry unit that all get a spearhead or recon move, and you Always Attack. Only the cheap smokers don't get a free move. You have enough decent AT, combined with your free move, to fight it out with medium armor or flank and disable/kill heavy armor (or just smoke them). Schurzen and the mounted infantry give you ways to assault opponents off objectives. You've got Recce and Smoke. Lots of tanks, so easy to build and paint.
Disadvantages: Your troops are trained, not veteran, so expect them to be hit more. You HAVE to hit hard, hit fast, and hope you've already won by turn 4 or so. Your tanks are even more vulnerable to flanking actions than normal, thanks to that slow traverse. If your enemy DOES spam heavy tanks, a bunch of infantry with full-on AT guns, you are going to have issues dealing with them effectively.
Options: You could swap out the little bit of smoke for a pair of Ostwinds, but either is going to have relatively limited impact. The smoke will buy you a turn if you use it right, which is probably the better option with this list. You can also swap out one of the Panzer platoons for another Panzergrenadier platoon, and use the spare points to upgrade to a battery of 10.5cm howitzers that can provide more smoke and more effective conventional bombardments.
>>47290927
Does anybody here even own Normandy Battles?
I don't even think we have it in the database.
1500 ot LW FV Hohei Chutai. Judge me!
1 Hohei Hq w/ standard 125pts
3 Hohei pltns w/ 2 sqds ea. w/banners 765pts
1 Hohei MG plan w/ 4 guns 160pts
1 Hohei Bttln Gun pltn w/observer 80pts
1 Hohei Rpd-Fire Gun pltn (type94) 45pts
1 Hohei Rgmntl Gun pltn w/observer 150pts
1 Naval Gunfire Support (destroyer) 150pts
1 Naval Air/Sea Support (destroyer) 25pts
I literally own 1 more HMG platoon and 6 Nikuhaku teams.
>>47295261
I think it is better to play 2 full platoons instead of 3 small ones. And since you are playing that much infantry, a regimental standard would probably be a good pick.
>>47295740
Always bring the Regimental Standard. Auto-passing Morale and always being able to Auto-Warrior save the banner is amazing.
>>47295740
I split them to 3 platoons for versatility. It gives 6 platoons for games and each still has 9 FV teams minimum not counting hq, hmg, and observer teams attached. My reasoning could be flawed of course.
>>47295740
>>47295767
My list does have the standard. It's too good not to take!
>>47290927
The Normandy Battles book has this version of the mission: http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Scenarios/Airborne-Assaults.pdf
I'm not familiar with the version from D Minus One, I'm afraid.
Also, while I'm at it, the current version of Hit The Beach from Normandy is also online here: http://www.flamesofwar.com/Portals/0/Documents/Scenarios/Amphibious-Assaults.pdf
Finally finished painting and putting my Canadian infantry on bases. Not the prettiest paint job ever, but I'm just happy to be done with it. I'm not going to be painting anymore infantry for a while.
Bump on the road...
>>47296344
They look pretty good.
All they need is some nice basing, and you'll have a really nice looking force.
>>47296189
>The Normandy Battles book has this version of the mission:
I'm fairly certain that's the same airborne assault rules that we've had since Version 1.
I don't think it's ever actually been updated.
In people's experience, how big a thing in this game is exploiting friendly model positions and hit allocation to kill targets you want?
>>47302696
Can't say, since 90% of my games are against Germans, who field homogeneous units and against whom picking out the platoon commander is pointless.
>>47302696
most units are homogeneous, as the guy above said, (aside from some tank platoons where the gun tanks rule minimizes position exploitation) so not a big thing, except for command teams.
I've been mostly building up my late war Russians, but the KV-2 looks so good in this scale I got a couple along with a KV-1 and a KV-3!
So umm, what book do I get for mid war Russians?
>>47304299
Get Eastern Front.
Although the KV-3 is in Mid War Monsters, and never went into production (or battle).
>>47302696
If it's possible, I've seen people do it to snipe off platoon commanders, particularly when playing against Soviet tanks. Even had it happen to me before I learned how to bury my commanders within the formation. It almost seems like a right of passage for newb Soviet players.
>>47304749
Thank you for the recommendation, there seem to be so many supplements it's hard to know what to get. The KV-3 is a novelty, I can see purists not wanting it though!
>>47302696
There are rules for hit allocation that try to limit the ability to snipe out specific things.
That being said, poor placement of the stands in a platoon can cause important things like platoon commanders or bazookas to wind up as valid targets.
>>47302947
>>47304198
>>47304803
I was watching a US/Ger game, saw someone positioning things to pick off the 76mms. It looked really game-y to me and not very sporting.
Are there any plans for adding China?
Failing that, what's the most incompetent army list that is Reluctant/Conscript and has the worst equipment?
>>47308662
Italians have a chance to be Reluctant Conscript, Romanians do as well, but they've got pretty good equipment shockingly.
>>47308662
China has been an eternal bugbear.
It might get in now that not all the printing is in china, but previously there were problems since the chinese crack a fit at any depiction of china not being ALL GLORIOUS RED.
At least one game was put into dire straits because it depicted formosa/taiwan as under japanese control... In the 1920s.
>>47308662
Usually you don't find Relucrant and Conscipt together.
You'll usually see Reluctant Trained, Reluctant Veteran, Confident Conscipt, or Fearless Conscript.
Polish Home Guard might work, it's all conscript level and low level german stuff which Nationalist China imported. I think
You obviously shouldn't take any Panthers and the like. I believe China imported some halftracks and Sdkfz so you could use those.
>>47311501
That I think completely denigrates the broad spectrum of Chinese troops that existed. You've got the Communists, and the Nationalist, presumably in different trainings, levels of experience. Captured Japanese tanks, weapons, the mix of equipment from different nations.
>>47305262
I don't think it's necessarily about being a purist, but rather more that many players (*cough* German) don't particularly like seeing an opposing Panther show up with Firepower 2+ in MW, even if it does have ROF 1.
Although if you really want to watch someone squeal, bring the unkillable monster that is the KV-5. Sure it's still got a crappy ROF 1 Panther gun (at Firepower 2+), but not even a real Panther's getting through that front armor.
Thoughts on this 2k list for a one-off game tomorrow?
B Squadron, 15th/19th Hussars from Nachtjager (CV) - 1995 points
>Headquarters
Command Platoon - CiC Cromwell IV, 2iC Cromwell VI CS, Cromwell VI CS, Sherman ARV - 245 points
>Combat Platoons
Challenger Platoon - Command Challenger, Challenger - 285 points
Cromwell Platoon - Command Cromwell IV, 3x Cromwell IV - 380 points
Cromwell Platoon - Command Cromwell IV, 3x Cromwell IV - 380 points
>Weapons Platoons
15th/19th Hussars Recce Patrol - Command Daimler Dingo, 3x Daimler Dingo - 120 points
>Brigade Support Platoons
Lorried Rifle Platoon - Command Rifle/MG, PIAT, Light Mortar, 6x Rifle/MG - 180 points
>Support Platoons
Field Battery, Royal Artillery - 2x Command rifle, Staff, Observer rifle, OP carrier, 4x OQF 25 pdr - 185 points
Field Battery, Royal Artillery - 2x Command rifle, Staff, Observer rifle, OP carrier, 4x OQF 25 pdr - 185 points
AOP - 25 points
Unless I've miscounted, I have 8 platoons for deployment and such (2iC platoon, 3 combat, 1 weapons, 1 brigade, 2 support). Mainly limited by the models I have. Models owned and not used: 2 Cromwell IVs, 2 Cromwell VI CS. I realize I can save 65 points by using one field battery with two troops instead of two seperate troops, but I don't really have any other options for filling that points gap and having one staff team per troop has proven to be pretty useful with the AOP.
My store is doing the Firestorm: Overlord campaign on June 5th and I'm trying to put together a 1500 pt list for it. How's this look?
British Assault
Infantry Company, 3rd Canadian Division, from Overlord, page 60
Compulsory Assault Company HQ (p.61) - CinC Rifle, 2iC Rifle (25 pts)
Compulsory Assault Platoon (p.61) - Command Rifle/MG, PIAT, Light Mortar, 6x Rifle/MG (150 pts)
Compulsory Assault Platoon (p.61) - Command Rifle/MG, PIAT, Light Mortar, 6x Rifle/MG (150 pts)
Assault Carrier Platoon (p.62) - Command Universal Carrier, 2x Universal Carrier (80 pts)
- Equip with PIAT (5 pts)
- Equip with additional hull mounted MG (5 pts)
- Equip with additional hull mounted MG (5 pts)
Assault Mortar Platoon (p.63) - Command Rifle, 3x Observer Rifle, 6x ML 3” Mk II mortar (145 pts)
Assault Anti-tank Platoon (p.64) - Command Rifle, 2x OQF 6 pdr gun (late) (65 pts)
Assault Machine-gun Platoon (p.65) - Command Rifle, 4x Vickers HMG (120 pts)
Desert Rats Armoured Platoon (p.81) - Command Cromwell IV, 2x Cromwell IV, Firefly VC (360 pts)
Independent Armoured Platoon (2nd Canadian Armoured Brigade) (p.130) - Command Sherman I, II or III, 2x Sherman I, II or III (195 pts)
Commando Company (p.46) - Command Rifle/MG, 6x Rifle/MG (195 pts)
1500 Points, 9 Platoons
>>47313723
I'm personally not a fan of the 3" mortars, I much prefer 25pdrs. Also, those 6pdrs could do with a boost, you want at least 4.
>>47312443
I posted a few threads ago about one of my friends bringing a KV-5 into a game. It was the only time a model has been thrown against the wall.
>>47317239
>mfw I bought 3 of them
>>47317667
So one 1/4 of the entire production run?
>>47317738
That's not unusual for some of the stuff BF makes.
"There was only ever 3 of these made? It MUST be included in the game and people MUST be able to field all 3!"
How useful are HMG carriers compared to the HMGs by themselves?
>>47317930
They're fantastic. Bullet proof, mobile HMGs. What's not to like?
>>47317775
Better than yet another list with all the usual boring stuff. Hell, considering the average infantry company had something like a single ATG assigned to it, on average, FoW does horrible things to the procurement and presentation. Of course, that means very little because those sorts of weird weapons are often desperately needed to break up the monotony.
Finnish armour, for instance, would be even more dull if they didn't let you field the ISU, or both KV-1s, or any of the other things they allow you to field basically all of.
A modern mounted assault by fearless conscripts?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=10&v=aM3ElTvF52I
>>47319283
God Dammit Abu Hajaar.
>he tried his best
>>47319283
why are they rolling along, is this ArmA?
>>47317775
To be fair, the KV-5 is Soviet. So it's NOT an option unless you're opening up Mid War Monsters. Ditto to the T-43, even though a brigade of them supposedly saw combat. There's also the T-50s which saw combat, and one was even captured and used by the Fins. And of course the SU-100Y which was used at Moscow, and survived.
Oh, but the only Super Pershing ever made is available any lists from Remagen, and let's not forget how Barbarossa just HAD to have both Sturer Emil ever produced.
>>47321497
Also the Turan was issued to combat units early in 1943. I don't know if they saw combat that year, but I'm not sure if ANYONE knows.
>>47321497
>SU-100Y
Literally 1. The prototype, at that. And then the design was seen no more.
>T-43
Finished tested, but was never used in combat as the design was considered obsolete.
>Super Pershing
Of course it is, it's a great novelty. Like an Allied KT.
>Barbarossa
Given the increased likelihood of running into T-34s, KVs and suchlike, giving the Germans them gives them some choice. They're quite unlike the other options, visually and tactically. And of course, otherwise Barbarossa would be quite a bland offering, German armour wise. The Soviets get those ghetto Zis-30 things, and they were an ad hoc, short run design as well.
>T-50s
Great, another tank almost identical to the T-60 and 70, and not that different to the other lightly armoured death boxes the EW Soviets used. Rare, like a lot of other stuff, tactically uninteresting, and not particularly special in it's development or use. No need to include.
Hey guys I'm thinking of making a new Marine rifle platoon since i come from a kine of US marines and since I'm too fat to enlist this is the next best thing. How's my list?
Bumpan for great glorious Fatherland
West German preview is on the official site now.
>>47327227
I'm not seeing anything.
>>47327491
Well seeing how that Anon couldn't be bothered to direct link
>http://www.team-yankee.com/Default.aspx?tabid=867&art_id=5205
>>47327227>
>West German preview is on the official site now.
>>47327526
>http://www.team-yankee.com/Default.aspx?tabid=867&art_id=5205
Sweet!
>Coming in July
So, given BF's usual delays it'll be out just in time for Christmas. :-P
>>47327723
>So, given BF's usual delays it'll be out just in time for Christmas. :-P
The book will be out, but I'd expect the product release dates to probably stretch that far, considering most of the summer is already dedicated to the Pacific Theater.
>>47321497
T-43s didn't make it into combat but the germans were aware T-43s were being designed and assumed the T-34-85 was the -43 when it first appeared, so there's erroneous reports of them.
The T-44 /did/ see combat, albiet on a trial basis, so there's an argument for having three of them in one guards tankovy unit, maybe. Some units were fully re-equipped with them but never reached the front before the end of the war in Europe.
>>47321921
>it's important germany gets even more neat toys but soviets can keep playing with T-34s
If Germany can have both Dicker Maxes the Soviets can have their SU-100Y.
>>47327526
>Leopard II
So it's an Abrams with a boxier turret?
The Panzeraufklärungs might be interesting, at least, but I'm anticipating a lot of very samey western tanks...
>>47332933
The armor stats look similar enough to the M1. F: 18, S: 7, T: 2 instead of 18, 8, 2.
The gun is the 120mm of the M1A1, so expect an AT boost of probably 1 or 2 over the M1's gun. So probably AT 21 or 22 for the Leo 2.
And we haven't seen enough to comment on stuff like mobility, special armor rules, training and motivation, etc.
And the images are too small to clearly read the points value next to the HQ Leo.
Hopefully the stats are different enough to make the Germans not feel like an exact copy of the Americans.
I'd be excited for more Warsaw Pact nations too, particularly East Germany and Czechoslovakia. But they used a lot of Soviet equipment, so I don't know how different their playstyle could possible be.
>>47333542
maybe older soviet equipment/vehicles, like t-34s or t-55s
>>47333542
Warsaw Pact nations are going to have a mix of newer and older Soviet equipment though a few nations did use their own native designs here and there (mostly stuff like IFV's). East Germans and the Polish had T-72's but still employed a lot of T-55's.
BF will need to put out kits for a few soviet APC's (presumably the BTR-60/70) and T-55 before we see other PACT forces. I have no info on this but I would guess we won't see this until after Brits are out.
Not sure about the East Germans but the Poles did use a different doctrine than the soviets did, supposedly one closer to what you would have expected a NATO nation to use. So there are few players in my group interested in seeing how different the Poles will be from the Soviets.
>>47321921
>SU-100Y
>Literally 1. The prototype, at that. And then the design was seen no more.
Yes. 1.
>T-43
>Finished tested, but was never used in combat as the design was considered obsolete.
At least get your facts straight. Kursk showed that the existing T-34 was fine, and that the gun was what needed improving. So the T-43 turret was used and modified to hold a bigger gun, which saved them from having to retrofit their factories. It wasn't "obsolete", just not what they really needed.
>Super Pershing
>Of course it is, it's a great novelty. Like an Allied KT.
Literally 1. And it wasn't even a prototype, at that.
>Barbarossa Sturer Emil
Given the increased likelihood of running into T-34s, KVs and suchlike...
...They're quite unlike the other options, visually and tactically. And of course, otherwise Barbarossa would be quite a bland offering, German armour wise.
Bland like the entirety of LW Soviets? Not even minor nations get that bad.
>The Soviets get those ghetto Zis-30 things, and they were an ad hoc, short run design as well.
100 Zis-30s were made, shitty as they were. Which is more than the Jagdtigers. Woohoo, 1 limited run vehicle in makes an appearance for Soviets.
>T-50s
>Great, another tank almost identical to the T-60 and 70, and not that different to the other lightly armoured death boxes the EW Soviets used. No need to include.
By that argument, there's no need to include the miriad of different panzer marks, or excedingly rare German equipment either (Sturmtiger).
Aside from your biased opinions, the T-50 actually would be quite different from a T-70. It had a higher top speed, and a high hp/weight ratio. Armor, meh. Gun is the BT-7s.
Regardless of your hair splitting, it is fucked that single model or prototypes get used for German/US, but we're supposed to just pretend that they were the only ones who did that. Ditto to the looted tanks.
>>47334771
>T-43
IIRC the weight was also an issue. Either way, the design wasn't appropriate for contemporary conditions. Cannibalise and start again with something else.
>Pershing
Like I said, it's an excuse to give the Americans a heavy tank, and for some novelty. It's also a cool story.
>Barbarossa
We're not talking about LW, and there's not much that can be done about that in any case. The Soviets have everything they fielded that wasn't a LWL case.
>Zis-30s
Yeah, but both are interesting enough, and tactically relevant enough to be included. And the Jtiger is right at home with generally shitty German LW production levels. The Zis-30 is an easily justified SPG style vehicle for the Soviets, that breaks things up a bit. It's unlike other things they have.
>T-50s
The Sturmtiger's weird enough to warrant inclusion, even if nobody uses it.
As for the Panzer marks, there's at least 2 or 3 major changes that demands the difference. CrapArmour/Crapgun, then BetteArmour/CrapGun, and then BetterArmour/Bettergun. And in EW and MW, those differences can be fairly noticeable, and game-changing, within the scope of likely armour, and the critical nature of the North African/Barbarossa based arms race.
>T-50 quite different to the T-70
Not by much. At best, it's something like the Bt-7. Now the AA version might be cool, but the Soviets are already saturated with variations on the same mostly crappy EW light tank.
>Looted tanks
Soviets get looted tanks, though. They get just about everything they actually fielded, same as everyone else.
>>47333398
You can see near the top it says Chobham, and it's 11 points for the HQ. Can't read the stat block though.
The main difference between most NATO nations, I expect, is going to be in their infantry and, if included, support vehicles (Hesitant to suggest this since the Americans didn't get a ton of support kit, but hey). The fact there's a luchs outline in the army list makes me hopeful for the latter at least.
>>47335301
>>Pershing
The Pershing was already a heavy tank, though. It didn't get redesignated to Medium until after the war when tanks were designated by gun caliber instead of weight.
>>T-50 quite different to the T-70
The T-50 as a T-70 with Light Tank, weaker gun and lower front armour would be meaningfully different, and it'd also give the soviets an actual Light Tank option that's not the stuart. Particularly since the soviets somehow ended up in a universe where none of the BTs or T-tens ended up counting as Light Tanks.
They also lack T-80s late war, which should be part of artillery regiments.
>>Looted tanks
Soviet looted tanks are pretty awful, eating a recce slot despite not being recce and being a mandatory placement. Also, for some inane reason they're RoF 1, probably because soviets need to be forced into having a move-and-shoot penalty regardless of if it makes sense.
If I have an entire platoon retreat off the field (such as a platoon of Wasps after they have fired all their flamethrowers), do they count as destroyed, or are they just ignored for company platoon totals?
>>47335988
If the group was routed they're destroyed, if they went to the rear for whatever reason like the wasps you mention they're ignored.
So how much does Italy suck? Looking at their special rules and unreliable morale, they seem pretty damn bad. You'd think you'd at least get to find out the skills of your troops (which seem pretty biased towards "you suck" results) before deploying them, and Avanti/Unknown Hero both seem pretty bad. I mean, if they can make Japan competitive with the crazy night attack and infantry in Banzi, why do the Italians get shit?
>>47335472
>The Pershing was already a heavy tank, though.
Yeah, but it's in the same ballpark as the Panther.
>T-50
If they didn't give the BT light, I doubt the T-50 would get it. Either way, they're not very different to either the great mix of light tanks and armoured cars, and I doubt anyone would give them a second glance at the moment. They're something to check off the list in terms of 100%ing WW2, but beyond that...
>T-50
More of them same. Very similar to the rest of the crap by FoW standards. A BT-7, maybe with a nod to recce duties, perhaps. Which is what most of the BA-XYZ's are, more or less.
>T-80s
Which were slightly fiddled with T-70s, and were quickly phased out in any case. Irrelevant enough not to be included, although I'm sure one of these days they'll be there as a list-stuffer. Not exactly much of a priority, though, by any standard.
>Looted tanks
And yet included they are, with the typical issues looted tanks tend to have.
>ROF1
Lack of experience, lack of ammo, getting used for decoy rather than medium tank stuff. Which fits, because the Soviets made bugger all use of captured tanks in a serious combat capacity. No surprises why, why bother when you have more than enough tanks of your own of comparable performance, and you never captured too many of the mostly either smashed or unreliable German tanks. They're there as decoy tanks, and that's a pretty elegant excuse for including them.
>>47336363
They don't. Git Gud, or even better, actually play them. Paul Collins plays them all the time, and he's one of the best players of the game.
>You suck
Very cheap, but still with lots of guns, you mean. You get huge numbers, lots of dakka, and enough quality to get you through things.
>Avanti
It gives you an extra 4 inches on your charge distance, anon. That's awesome. Unknown hero's a great little rule as well, considering how cheap the average platoon is. Having a reluctant or confident platoon go to 2+ is a great advantage.
I take it you only play LW?
>>47336573
Yes, and I'm admittedly pretty new to the game as a whole (only been playing a few months). Was looking into early/mid and the random ratings just seem horrible to deal with. Might be after too much experience with Orks in Battlefleet Gothic, which also have random mechanics everywhere.
>>47336532
>Yeah, but it's in the same ballpark as the Panther.
So? Most heavy tanks are in the ballpark of the panther. If you're judging heavy tanks by King Tigers you're going to be disappointed.
>>T-50
>If they didn't give the BT light, I doubt the T-50 would get it.
You're right but this is just another thing Battlefront fucked up. It's crazy none of the soviet light tanks are actually light tanks yet stuff like the Challenger is.
>More of them same.
I don't understand this post, please clarify.
>Which were slightly fiddled with T-70s, and were quickly phased out in any case. Irrelevant enough not to be included
Yet Germany gets every variant of armoured car and Pz II observer/recce.
>And yet included they are, with the typical issues looted tanks tend to have.
No, the soviets get pretty uniquely screwed on that. German captured tanks are never RoF 1 and never have punishing rules like "Must deploy", and they rarely take up vital slots with no other replacement. Hell, they get captured tank lists. Likewise other eastern front countries often have captured tanks without the problems soviet captured tanks have.
>Lack of experience, lack of ammo, getting used for decoy rather than medium tank stuff.
Or the more important rule that everything soviet absolutely must have a RoF 1 movement penalty...
>Which fits, because the Soviets made bugger all use of captured tanks in a serious combat capacity. No surprises why, why bother when you have more than enough tanks of your own of comparable performance, and you never captured too many of the mostly either smashed or unreliable German tanks.
This suggests pretty significant ignorance of use of captured tanks. Later on, yes, the soviets have an adequate supply of tanks, but early and mid war there should be copious captured tank lists, including captured tank conversions like the Su-76i.
>>47337721
>Most heavy tanks are in the ballpark of the panther
Yeah, but the US only gets the Pershing. Now it has the Pershing and the Super Pershing.
>Light tanks
Controllability, reliability, and suspension. Top speed isn't a reliable indicator of how agile they were.
>more of the same
The T-50 wouldn't really have a niche. It's too close to the million other Soviet things that are very similar to it.
>Germany
They get a tank OP, you mean? That's not rare. Scout car wise, They mostly get the 8 rads and the 222s. A few novelty types because they look cool and BF likes to trick people into running AC companies.
>Soviets
Yeah, because the Germans grabbed them with both hands and used them as MBTs, even staging raids and operations specifically to get more ammo for them. Particularly at Barbarossa when they were desperate for decent tanks.
>ROF1 Movement
Paranoia and hyperbole.
>captured tanks
>Copious
At best, that's hyperbole. What's more likely is that you frantically wiki'ed the article trying to find evidence of it actually happening. Which considering the example, you probably did. Either way, another SU-76 equivalent, in MW, is not on anyone's give a fuck radar.
>>47336882
The Random ratings are a pain, but they do tend to cluster around certain results, as you can see.
And these aren't random like Orks. These are uncertain, but they're certainly not whacky and plan destroying like the lulrandom GW Orks. When you deploy the unit, you roll rating. You can work around unfortunate results, and sometimes it means a very cheap platoon gets a pretty decent rating. Remember you pay for what you get, so the Italian platoons aren't really changing their value that much one way or another because their probably/possible low ratings is reflected in the cost.
>>47327526
Are we getting East Germany too?
>>47338203
Not yet. Brit supplement first, IIRC, and more Russian stuff.
>>47337888
>Now it has the Pershing and the Super Pershing.
What, everything needs a mini-tiger or it's not competitive? Most nations don't: The soviets have a panther-like, and the UK only gets the churchill VII. Ultimately it's not an issue; it did appear in the war. But it's yet another example that the game should be fine with rare one-off vehicles.
>Controllability, reliability, and suspension.
Unreliabile vehicles get "unreliable", which soviet vehicles of the BT period have. Vehicles with overloaded suspension have "overloaded", which wasn't the case with the BT (it was a classic christie). There's no real compelling reason for the only fast tank in the line to be the M3 stuart.
>The T-50 wouldn't really have a niche. It's too close to the million other Soviet things that are very similar to it.
If it was a Light Tank it would.
>>Germany
>They mostly get the 8 rads and the 222s. A few novelty types because they look cool and BF likes to trick people into running AC companies.
Again it is another case where the game permits everything under the sun.
>>Soviets
>Yeah, because the Germans grabbed them with both hands and used them as MBTs, even staging raids and operations specifically to get more ammo for them. Particularly at Barbarossa when they were desperate for decent tanks.
The soviets also lost a shitload of tanks, and had to use captured vehicles where possible.
>Paranoia and hyperbole.
It's almost like the soviets are the only army in the game with a special rule that gives everything ROF 1 movement...
>you frantically wiki'ed the article... Either way, another SU-76 equivalent, in MW, is not on anyone's give a fuck radar.
Are you trolling me or really dense? The SU-76i is in game already, check Eastern Front. It's another example of a place where limited and "weird" vehicles are in game.
There is no compelling reason to not to give the soviets the SU-100Y in Barbarossa.
>>47338207
They already make T-55s, so you'd think it'd be an easy sell.
I mean, TY is going to need more opfors than it has; the soviets aren't full of wehraboo appeal like the germans are in vanilla flames, so maintaining a faction balance is going to be important and the warsaw pact gives them a route to that.
>>47338498
I think part of the problem is the resin kits for stuff like the T-55.
Look at the release pattern for Team Yankee so far.
Americans - Plastic Tank, Plastic Transport, Plastic Helicopter
Soviets - Plastic Tank, Plastic Transport, Plastic Helicopter
West Germans - Plastic Tank, Plastic Transport(?, I'm not entirely certain what the Marder is), Plastic Helicopter
So it looks like they're trotting to stick to that pattern for future Team Yankee releases.
Maybe this means we'll see plastic T-55s or plastic M60s at some point.
>>47338693
>trotting
**Trying.**
Not sure where the hell my autocorrect got the other word from.
But yes, more factions are always good. As is an effort to keep things balanced between WARPAC and NATO forces.
I do remember seeing the main TY book had a map of troop deployments for several nations on both sides, so hopefully those forces will be expanded upon in the future.
>>47339131
Expect to see as future waves then, French, East Germans and Polish.
>>47339212
Possibly also first-line Soviet forces with newer tanks and possibly ERA.
>>47338434
>What, everything needs a mini-tiger or it's not competitive?
Of course they don't, but it's nice to have some variety, and the fact that it was an interesting bit of WW2 trivial adds to it.
>fine with rare
Depends on how else it could be covered. BF tends to be pretty permissive the majority of the time.
>unreliable
Vehicles that shat themselves mid combat get unreliable. Vehicles that were fast, but buggy, get fast tank and unreliable. That's the BT and the T-50.
>Game Permits
Hardly everything, hence MWM.
>Soviets
Yeah, but they were producing much better ones. Germany mostly cleared out their back stock.
>Soviets are the only army
Everyone gets ROF1 on the move. Other than Tally Ho, of course.
>SU76i
Yeah, over a thousand of them.
>SU-100
Probably the fact that there's only 1, and it's not novel at all compared to the SU-100 and the ISU varieties, and it only saw combat because Soviet RnD at the time happened on the frontline. Same reason you don't get Conventors, or Sentinels, or Maus.
>>47338693
The Marder's an IFV, kind of like a german bradley. Or indeed BMP.
I would kill for plastic T-55s/M60s, though. If only we could get some plastic Centurions and Leopard Is as well, you could have a proper go of a 1960s cold war gone hot.
>>47340244
>Everyone gets ROF1 on the move. Other than Tally Ho, of course.
Yeah, but the soviets are uniformly ROF 1 or Hen and Chicks. The one exception is KV-85s; otherwise, if you're a soviet vehicle, you fire on the move as if you had ROF 1.
>Probably the fact that there's only 1, and it's not novel at all compared to the SU-100 and the ISU varieties, and it only saw combat because Soviet RnD at the time happened on the frontline. Same reason you don't get Conventors, or Sentinels, or Maus.
But you do get Waffentragers. It'd be a good centerpiece model, and it actually fought. Hell; it survived.
>>47340710
What kind of stats would we be looking for for east germany?
Tank wise the T-55 is 12/8/2, with the 100mm at 32", RoF 1 (and probably slow loading?), AT 16, FP 2+. Possibly Brutal and Accurate? The guns would have to be all Stabilised by the 80s.
In terms of stats I can't imagine east german quality being better than 3+ to hit and 5+ skill like soviets, but morale is probably also worse...
Points would probably be crazy, probably something like a point per tank at that rate.
>>47340710
>The Marder's an IFV, kind of like a german bradley.
Ah. Ok. Cool.
So I'd assume it has a light cannon, and maybe a guided missile?
>>47343420
Marder carries a 20mm autocannon and a Milan ATGM, so it's basically going to be like a BMP in terms of weapon load-out. Depending on version, it will probably be heavier armored than the M113 AND the BMP, so they'll probably be pretty pricey.
>>47344286
>>47343420
Carry capacity is one less than the BMP (3 crew + 6 dismounts). Typical German Panzergrenadier platoon is three squads of six, each carrying disposable AT, a bunch of G3 rifles, an MG3 and a grenade launcher. Most of them had Panzerfaust 44s, which was about the same (or better) than the RPG-7V.
I imagine they'll split it into one AR/MG team and an AT team like they do for the Soviets.
>>47344490
ONE MORE post, sorry.
Some platoons also had a Milan launcher attached, so I imagine we'll see that as an option.
>>47339930
BF's got to expand into more wars/periods if they want to keep making money so I'd fully expect that at some point we are going to see just about every major conflict in the 20th century get a FoW or Team Yankee treatment at some point.
A plastic T-55 and M48/60 kit is going to be a no brainier.
Also French for Team Yankee.
Why the hell are people sperging out over the plastic RSO's PSC is making? Why the fuck do they care if the windows on the cab exist or not? is this a typical model maker thing they like to bitch about or something? I hate open cabbed minis, looks really weird.
True Story Bump
>>47346369
Window-painting phobia?
>>47346369
Where have people been bitching about this? We certainly haven't seen any of that here.
And besides, most truck minis already come with a closed cab.
I don't get it. *shrug*
>>47350416
>>47346369
Rivet counters are just as easily triggered as Tumblrites.
Hint: If the site design looks like it was last updated in 1997 you can more than likely ignore their opinion.
I just noticed that the CT Panther list in Bridge by Bridge can take 1-2 Stuka zu Fuss as part of their mortar platoons.
Are they worth it?
>>47350508
>If the site design looks like it was last updated in 1997 you can more than likely ignore their opinion.
Now, now. Grumpy old grognards have their place in the community too...
>>47354726
Still waiting for Britain or Poland.
>>47354758
I think Brits are supposed to be next after the Krauts.
>>47354928
Any idea if we're getting Challenger or Chieftain?
I can see arguments for both, honestly. Chieftains would be a mix-up from all the other copy-paste MBTs, at least, but everyone else is getting their top-line stuff. I know Challenger now has the reputation for being a tougher-but-slower abrams; would that translate to 1985? Also, was the Swingfire still in service?
>>47355958
I honestly don't know the 80's British equipment well enough to even guess.
I guess it depends on what was in the front-line units in 1985.
For example, West Germany had probably 1000 to 1500 Leopard 2s in their front-line units in 1985, which is why we're getting the Leo2 instead of the Leo1.
>>47354928
I thought Brits were supposed to be before West Germans...
>>47356424
They were both hinted at around the same time. Back in December or January.
It looks like the Germans are coming first, with the British at some point in the near future.
>>47356967
But what will the british book be called?
>>47350416
The psc Facebook has guys bitching about it every post PSC makes of the models.
And not just "gee that's not what I would've wanted, but whatever" but "YOUVE RUINED THE MODEL" type of sperging. It's like the panzer IV idler wheel guy all over
>>47357676
How the hell would I know?
Team Yankee was named after the Book the entire setting is based on.
Leopard is presumably named after the tank, unless there is a Cold War novel named Leopard as well.
The British book could be named after a book, a national slogan, a tank, almost anything.
>>47356086
Well, chally I was serving from 1983, but there was still a mix of challengers and chieftains. But then, the same's true of the abrams and the M60, and there weren't any M60s to be seen...
>>47356424
>>47356967
Poles, Czechs and East Germans when?!
>>47357676
"A bunch of cunts"
>>47358539
M60's will come out at some point in the future, I don't know why people seem to assume that if it didn't appear in the rulebook that it will never come out...
>>47359048
Never.
>>47360162
god I love the Leopard
>>47361379
I only like the later Models with the pointy arrow head turrets. The Cold War version's not doing a whole lot for me.
What's the best LW japanese way to take down say a King Tiger or some other armored monster?
>>47364141
Same way as in Early War. Hit it with Nikuhaku teams. Four shots of Improvised Tank Assault Five.
Age of Stailn
>>47365478
>>47365478
>>47365510
Holy shit. That beats our 16 feet of T-34s.
>>47362605
Same. Brits or more Warpac I'm down for, same for Leo 1 Germans or maybe even french, but a german abrams with an uglier turret? Nah.
>>47357676
There's a cold war novel called "Chieftains", but it's not related to TY. So, maybe Challengers or something similar.
>>47365851
"Chieftains" was very good, much better than TY and the "we always win, we're always lucky" theme. Chieftains shows far better how brutal CWGH would really have been.
>>47364501
Seems about right!
>>47365510
First time I've ever seen an Egyptian army that wasn't at least 50% proxies and the rest being WWII stuff standing in for their cold war versions.
>>47357676
BAOR or Iron Lady's Army
>>47368960
Adding Thatcher to it seems unnecessarily political; I doubt that'll be there. BAOR or, if they're using them, Challengers seems likely.
>>47371630
Stolen from the unofficial Team Yankee Facebook group.
This is supposedly the "Leopards" release sheet:
Early July LEOPARD Releases
FW906 Leopard 48 Page Hardback
TGRAB1 Kampfgruppe Müller
TYP292 NATO Green Spray
TYP192 Team Yankee German Paint Set (7 paints)
Late July LEOPARD Relaeses
TGBX02 Marder Zug (x5) (Plastic)
TGBX07 Gepard Flak Batterie (x2)
TGR702 Panzergrenadier Zug
TGR708 Fliegerfaust Gruppe
TAT003 Team Yankee Template West German Edition
TTK03 Team Yankee West German Token Set
BB204 European Farm
Early August LEOPARD Releases
TGBX12 PAH Anti-Tank Helicopter flight (x2) (Plastic)
TGBX03 Leopard 1 Panzer Zug (x3)
TGBX05 Luchs Späh Trupp (x4)
TGBX06 Fuchs Transport (x3)
TGBX04 Jaguar Jagdpanzer Zug (x3)
TGBX09 M113 Panzermörser Batterie (x3)
Late August LEOPARD Releases
TGBX01 Leopard 2 Panzer Zug (x5) (Plastic)
TGBX08 Roland Flak Batterie (x2)
TGBX11 LARS Raketenwerfer Batterie (x4)
TGBX10 M109G Artillerie Batterie (x3)
TGBX13 Tornado Strike Flight (x2)
BB207 Fast Food Restaurant
How many points is the average Vietnam game, I'm possibly looking into Brown Water Navy.
>>47372375
Well, shit, Leopard Is.
The trend of making the group box the only way to get tanks for two months is very annoying, I have to say.
Also I really hope this is going to be a cheap book, if it's a £15-20 48 page book that's just going to take the piss.
>>47366390
TY didn't exactly shy away from it. TY's decimated in every battle, they just manage to survive. The novel starts with the smashed remnants of the forward divisions limping back through the line packets at a time, because the entire front's been smashed.
>>47368960
"The Empire Strikes Back"?
>>47375664
>"The Empire Strikes Back"?
Also known as "George Lucas Gonna Sue Somebody!"
Eastern Front digital version
http://www.mediafire.com/download/8tcn3d38ac4k61l/Eastern_Front.pdf
North Africa digital version
http://www.mediafire.com/download/o9cloz9e1mgc4t7/North_Africa.pdf
more is on the way...
>>47376204
*Disney
>>47376339
Awesome, much appreciated.
>>47376346
>*Disney
Well, now, yes.
But the line from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is "George Lucas gonna sue somebody!"
>>47376339
You are are a true hero.
Hello everyone. I've just finished painting my bersaglieri for Italy mid war. I've had these since I was around 10, and only got into flames just recently. I have the old models, the old box set of bersaglieri. I was wondering the best way to base them and put them onto bases, as all guides I've seen have been for the new models. I don't know what products to use for the bases as they need to be raised slightly to accommodate the hightend feet of the soldiers.
Also, along with that is a predicament. Everyone in my group plays late war, with only three playing mid war, and that's pushing it. I need a viable list to use for Italy in the late war.
>>47376339
The P-39 Kobra is back? I thought there was conclusive proof that the P-39 was never used for the ground attack role? I thought there was an entire massive deal on the forum about it?
Are there any 15mm female Soviet miniatures out there?
>>47372424
Someone plz help
>>47377347
PSC's infantry box has some
On a side note I ordered some PSC stuff on th 8th and nothing's arrived, anyone else experienced troubles with them recently. I've ordered fine from them before.
>>47372424
>>47377649
To be honest, I don't think Brown Water Navy ever really gained much of a following.
At least I've never really seen it discussed here.
>>47377649
>>47372424
Brown Water Navy is on FOW Lists
>>47377092
The V3 digital lists did not change any points or options in any list, except that one or two Axis lists can now buy Cossack support. I'm not totally sure why they bothered with it honestly.
v4 When, /tg/?
Also, what sweet models!
>>47365510
>>47365478
>>47377076
Road to Rome has LW Axis Italians in it. There are digital Rome to Rome lists featuring Allied Italians.
>>47381399
RSI are painted differently and i believe they're put together differently, and use more German equipment. Also the bersaglieri designation was really only nominal would they rate differently on the 8 million bayonets scale?
>>47380988
Kind of wary about v4, if TY is indicative. Lots of stuff I'd love to see, but some bits I wouldn't.
>>47376515
>>47376836
>>47377092
No problem, this community was (and still is) always helpful with scans and comments and ideas about lists, so I'd tought I give something back. Stay classy /fowtg
>>47377092
There are also funny things in North Africa - the PDF update they made for British is not completely integrated so you have old and new stuff combined... in book, North Africa British rifle company had three infantry platoons to be taken mandatory, but in PDF you had to take only two. Now it's the same... except British Infantry comp. from Tunis and Italy MUST take three platoons... -.-
I've not played in some number of months (I guess back at Team Yankee launch) and I picked up Gung-ho because the theatre has interested me for a while.
Why the fuck are LVT(4)s not amphibious?
>>47385175
I think you've got the wrong thread, mate. Nobody here cares, so long as we can keep committing our warcrimes.
>>47385252
It's pasta, you silly
Does anyone here have any experience with 3d printed stuff?
>>47385545
low quality, low detail, high price (in general). Wouldn't bother with them.
>>47319283
Confident Conscripts more like
>that part at the end where they bail out and slowly roll away from their transport
>>47385545
People I know who own them have made some impressive stuff, but none of it has been as tiny as FoW stuff.
>>47377076
>I've had these since I was around 10, and only got into flames just recently
Underag-
>Flames of war V1 was released in 2002
Holy shit, it's been that long?
I was thinking of buying a heap of SS, in glad I didn't as I think the painting would drive me mad. Try as I might, I just can't get anything like to look on the website painting guide, hopefully once all the rifles, equipment and skin are painted they'll look ok.
What's the best way to get a bunch of bulk infantry bases? Battlefront's seem a bit too pricy for me.
Do you guys prefer highly detailed broards where the entire field has flock and grass that looks pretty, or modular boards where you can pick up and rearrange things.
>>47389481
Modular - unless I am playing the same army in the same geographic location, I want variety.
>>47377670
>>47377347
hot babe alert
>>47389405
MDF? (e.g. Warbases. I think Litko also do?)
>>47388251
The play-test V0.x rules (they were available as a PDF way back in the day) were around for a bit longer...
we have our tourney warm up this weekend. Kinda nervous as I am still green on the rules - is there a better version of the cheat sheet at the end of the book?
>>47392349
I haven't seen one. But that tends to be a pretty good cheat sheet most of the time.
>>47393617
Thanks.
>>47393617
i can't even find a FAQ for Third Edition on the Flames of War Page ....
>>47389919
>tfw still no hot loli models
So i am going to start an EW FJager company some time in the near future but this time (this will be my second army) i want my minis to actually look good.
I followed an army painter guide and the results for my Japanese army looked good but i feel like the step where you "dip" your minis into AP strong tone makes them come out too dark. I also tried just applying it by brush and the same thing happened. i switched to Citadel agrax earthshade, and it still makes no difference. Do i just need to bite the bullet and accept that there is no easy way to get shadows into recces and i just need to git gud? i don't want my paras coming out looking almost Romanian brown like my Japanese did, but i find painting without it makes the colours too flat for my liking
Any advice?
>>47394121
Do a search for Lessons From The Front. That's their FAQ/Errata document.
>>47395240
Perhaps a lighter shade or wash is what you need.
>>47395240
What about a black wash? If need be, just use a very light coat, and just on the recesses. Works as well as a brown one, as it darkens the colours.
>>47395240
You could try a drybrush of the uniform after the dip. It'll help brighten it up a bit again.
>>47395240
Hey man,
>>47397272
This guy knows what's up. It's as simple as drybrushing the original color after wash. Simple, effective. Chicks will literally be clinging to you after seeing your drybrushing work.
Anyone have experience with Battlefront's customer service? I got a miscast piece in my British Mortar Platoon and I'm wondering if they'll replace it.
>>47399963
Why not just make a tiny little roll of green stuff to fill that gap?
>>47400000
I don't have any green stuff and when I pay $24 for tiny metal men with mortars from a reputable company then I expect a certain level of quality control.
>>47400117
I think you have a very odd expectation of certain things in this hobby.
Nevertheless, Battlefront customer service is excellent and will be quite happy to take a loss satisfying your little non-problem.
>>47400117
Battlefront can't examine every little piece that goes through, but they will replace it for no cost. It's one of their most bankable features.
>>47395241
well - I had no idea! Thanks, Anon!
What colour should I paint my Matilda IIs for north africa, would British tank spray do?
>>47403321
Desert camo was heavily improvised and changed a lot. You've got everything from the tan/blue tricolour to the tan and brown leopard-spot thing, or the green/brown streaks. There's a bewildering array of variety given how small the conflict was there.
>>47403482
Don't forget "Desert Sunset Pink"
>>47403482
Caunter as it was called is misrepresented thanks to the Imperial War Museum, it's not a blue, it's a darker grey.
>>47403500
Tanks weren't painted in those colours. Only vehicles like the LRDG
>>47403321
The base colour for British armour in the desert was Dark Sand, matched by VMC 847 Dark Sand or VMC 976 Buff: a matching spray would work too obviously, and the colour would fade to a less-yellow version.
Tanks could be camouflaged, though Matildas were mostly either in Caunter Scheme (1941) or in plain sand colour. You can add marking like the red/white/red flashes for colour and identification.
>>47403009
Not a problem. Glad I could help.
So uh, is Team Yankee going to suffer the same fate as every other standalone they make? i.e. really cool concept but only one book and almost no other models?
>>47408583
West German stuff has been announced (with model pics, including multiple plastic kits) for this summer, with the Brits arriving later this year.
>>47408583
From what I've seen, Team Yankee is proving to be highly popular, possibly even more so than the main game.
West Germans are coming in a few months, and the British will probably come out near the end of the year.
No announcements yet on what other nations are in the works after the Brits, but hopefully they'll give some attention to one or two Warpac nations. Maybe East Germans and Polish.
>>47395240
High lighting is always an option. Or using a lighter base colour or shade.
>>47409225
At the very least I massively prefer the rules in TY.
>>47404963
This is a good base but do look it up, as >>47403482 said there's a lot there to look at, even if they were only used in one battle.
