|
Speaking of sprues, I need about twenty 28mm French Napoleonic heads. Anyone have any suggestions on where I might find something like that?
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
Flippycunt posted:Speaking of sprues, I need about twenty 28mm French Napoleonic heads. Anyone have any suggestions on where I might find something like that? You could buy a box of victrix plastic infantry and get a shitload, since they don't seem to sell individual sprues anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2014 05:49
|
|
|
Swagger Dagger posted:You could buy a box of victrix plastic infantry and get a shitload, since they don't seem to sell individual sprues anymore. Victrix got me into this mess to begin with. I bought some sprues of revolutionary french troops off my friend and replaced their heads with my extra heads from my Napoleonic french, but I'm about 20 heads short.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Jugula! Jugula!  I haven't had a chance to open it yet, but it is sitting at home taunting me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
No Pun Intended posted:Jugula! Jugula! How much did it wind up costing you, and where did you purchase it from?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
I buy the rules and in this case required accessories first before I commit to any minis. So for Jugula the minimum you need is the book and a deck of Jugula cards. If no one else is playing it in your area then pick up 2 decks, the game cannot be played with out them. This was the case for me so I went with the book and 2 Jugula decks. All and all it cost me 80 of my moon dollars (£40) in total including postage to get it from England to NZ. After looking around at "closer" suppliers I decided to buy it straight from Gripping Beast. Your choice of where to get it may be entirely based on where you live. No Pun Intended fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jun 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2014 22:08
|
|
|
Just read the preview of Bridge At Remagen. Unf, Volksturm and RV auto-defend King Tigers and Jagdpanthers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
No Pun Intended posted:I buy the rules and in this case required accessories first before I commit to any minis. I'm in the US, so the cost would likely be the same for me - which is unfortunate, since that's quite a bit of money on top of having to buy models. Please post a review once you get a chance to play it, as the one review I saw on BGG said it was more like a deck management game rather than a minis game...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Just read the preview of Bridge At Remagen. Unf, Volksturm and RV auto-defend King Tigers and Jagdpanthers. Looking forward to picking it up myself. One of the reasons I'm not doing tanks for this month's oath (that and I've got a ton of French to prep). The other being that I'm not sure which direction to take my army/armies. Unfortunately, we've lost/are losing two FoW players. One moved in with his grandmother to help take care of her, and now lives about an hour's drive into rural Ohio. The other graduated high school and is enlisting. That leaves us with four regular players, not including the store owner, with me being the 'senior' FoW gamer, one Axis player, and both super-newbies are our only allied players (one just bought the Blood, Guts, & Glory box, the other is primarily a Russian player running the heavy assault gun company out of Red Bear). V3 kinda destroyed our player base.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 01:36
|
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Looking forward to picking it up myself. One of the reasons I'm not doing tanks for this month's oath (that and I've got a ton of French to prep). The other being that I'm not sure which direction to take my army/armies. Unfortunately, we've lost/are losing two FoW players. One moved in with his grandmother to help take care of her, and now lives about an hour's drive into rural Ohio. The other graduated high school and is enlisting. That leaves us with four regular players, not including the store owner, with me being the 'senior' FoW gamer, one Axis player, and both super-newbies are our only allied players (one just bought the Blood, Guts, & Glory box, the other is primarily a Russian player running the heavy assault gun company out of Red Bear). Was V3 that much of a change from V2? I only started playing last year, and the vast majority of people I play against started roughly around the same time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 02:30
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Was V3 that much of a change from V2? I only started playing last year, and the vast majority of people I play against started roughly around the same time. Not really, but it gave a lot for people to bitch about in the initial months. I still don't feel like anyone really knows all the rules (just discovered two weeks ago that passengers with 'armored assault' half tracks count as Tank Escorts, so long as there is at least two teams in the vehicle.) There are little things, but I think V3 just offered the excuse some of the players were looking for to quit. Oh, no, Germans are cheese and overpowered now in V3! Oh, no, Americans are cheese and overpowered now! There's no way you can beat Russians! There's no way you can win with Russians! Hen and Chicks ruined Russian armor! ad nauseum. One player used V3 rules as an excuse, but the real problem was that he'd run the same American Armored Infantry list every week, and was losing to everyone, because we knew exactly what he was going to bring, every week - only time I ever see him is during Hero Clix tourneys. One guy, I think, was just getting tired of FoW and wanted to branch out into other historicals, but would drone on about 'codex creep' with the late war books, and lack of realism - I see him rarely, but I believe he comes in on Thursdays (FoW on Saturdays). One guy got a job as a full time teacher, so that's not really V3 related, but it coincided with the new rules, so there. One guy stopped playing in part because of V3, but also because his job started to interfere with life, and now he's quit that job so he really isn't playing much of anything (and is likely to focus on 40k if he gets back in). Brother of soon-to-be-soldier stopped playing when V3 came out and now only plays 40k or whatever random pick-up game they have on Fridays. There was that one guy that stopped playing for 'reasons' (bitched the loudest about Hen and Chicks ruining Russians) that would always instigate arguments with me about terrain, since V3 introduced 'slow going' and got rid of the random terrain charts in the basic rule book (he argued that random terrain is the most fair terrain and then proceeded to roll a table where one Elephant dominated half the board because he rolled flat, open terrain for those squares). tl;dr: V3 didn't change in game breaking ways, but grognards will be grognards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
Yeah, it sounds like it was just time for the group to move on. It's not like V2, IABSM, and Blitzkrieg Commander all stopped existing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
How long does FoW go between rules revisions anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Generally pretty long, considering. They're only on V3 after 12 years - which is about par for Warhammers. What's really noteworthy is that they've run a promotion where owning the last-version hardcover gets you the next-version softcover for free.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
I think the most common criticism I see is that "US OP, Krauts bad" or something, which interestingly correlates with Germany losing WWII.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Leo Showers posted:I think the most common criticism I see is that "US OP, Krauts bad" or something, which interestingly correlates with Germany losing WWII. Yeah, but Werhaboos do this in everything ever.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 09:51
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:Please post a review once you get a chance to play it, as the one review I saw on BGG said it was more like a deck management game rather than a minis game... Why don't I give a brief run-down on the mechanics JUGULA . The game is played on a 8x8 square board and each player has a total of 4 unique Gladiator types on the board. To manipulate the minis on the board you use your Jugula cards; you have a deck 12 Jugula cards and 12 prima Jugula cards at your disposal. Each card has 7 different actions to choose from, you can only use one action per card per turn. To activate the card you discard it and announce the ability you are using: Move (x) - Use this ability to activate (x) gladiators for the move (1 move = 1 square) value on their card Vox Populi (x) - Use this ability to increase your vox pop rating by (x). This is your popularity with the crowd, this gives you a bonus to your attack and allows you to hold more cards in your hand. Attack (x) - Use this ability to attack (x) number of times with one or more gladiators. Draw (x) - Draw (x) number of cards. A dice value (0 - 6); used as a baseline number in combat A star with a value (1-3) used to buy Prima Jugula cards (better numbers etc). And finally an ability - do what the card says You reshuffle your discard pile whenever your run out of cards. You cannot end your turn with a single card in your hand; so you are forced to play the draw ability on your last card. If you have a single card in your hand in combat, you are forced to draw off the top of your deck and use the dice number on the bottom of that card. Combat is simple compare your attack (dice value on card used + bonuses) vs the opponents defence (dice + bonuses). When the ATT exceeds DEF, the blow has been struck and it will either knock the opponent back, wound them or take them out of the game depending on how much the ATT exceeds the DEF. Gladiators come in two categories: Lights and Heavies. Each individual type of Gladiator has different ATT and DEF bonuses against light and heavy opponents. From what I have gather so far from the rules is that Jugula is very tactical - the positioning of your gladiators and the synergy between the different types is important to winning the game. Your hand does play an important role in being able to achieve this but I wouldn't necessarily say it is a deck management game. No Pun Intended fucked around with this message at 10:52 on Jun 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 10:39
|
|
|
Added to the OP.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 13:01
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Was V3 that much of a change from V2? I only started playing last year, and the vast majority of people I play against started roughly around the same time. V2 to V3 is not a big change overall, most of it was a few tweaks and clarifications here and there. The biggest change was that the Assault rules got overhauled but they needed it badly. V3 is an improvement over and better than V2 in every way. Of course there was a lot of bitching and moaning about change and unfounded predictions of doom that come with rules revisions but V3 did have some unintended consequences. When Red Bear was released BF tweaked the national rules for the Soviets (Red Bear was the last V2 book and sort of was V2.5) which made them better and raised the price slightly on some of their units (mostly the tanks). This hosed them over, though initial impressions were positive. It took a few months, but eventually people stopped playing soviet tank lists (aside from a few of the odder ones, lend lease lists mostly) because the changes in the V3 assault rules and the price increases made them nonviable. Not that you couldn't win, or that people didn't, but soviets (not just the tanks, even the infantry which were mostly unaffected) began to rapidly disappear from the major tournaments. It took some time for it to become obvious that something should be done, and while that was happening there were a lot of flame wars and trolling about it that left a lot of people with bad tastes in their mouths. They were eventually fixed, anybody complaining about soviets being bad is just a bad player. While this was going on BF released BG&G which revised the US TD rules, which broke US TD's but in the other direction. The amount of cheesy bullshit you could pull with them was so bad that BF actually fixed them fairly quickly. Now the Americans OP Germans Bad thing is actually true as well. As it stands, in LW FoW, the Germans are hosed. The Remagen book might change that but from what I've heard from the play-testers is not good (But they are not always right). Right now a small (but growing) contingent of players are pointing this out against players who haven't had it click yet (similar to what happened with soviets) screaming about RT Jadgtigers and CT King Tigers. So in a few months if things follow the pattern, BF will be forced to acknowledge this fact and fix it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Thanks for the mini-review. It seems like a pretty cool game and I would like to play it someday.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 14:19
|
|
|
Numlock posted:V2 to V3 is not a big change overall, most of it was a few tweaks and clarifications here and there. The biggest change was that the Assault rules got overhauled but they needed it badly. V3 is an improvement over and better than V2 in every way. Honestly Panthers were common enough IRL by late 1944 and early '45 (and ingame not really impressive enough) that I'd like to see a price cut for them, maybe 400 for 3 CV? Also while I'm airing bad opinions I'd like A Hero Heavy Tank Battalion for the Soviets, Quantity of Quality for tanks and a pony made of butterscotch and sunshine E: gently caress i'd settle for smoke in hero lists
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Hmm... Bolt Action or FoW... Decisions decisions...
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
DJ Dizzy posted:Hmm... Bolt Action or FoW... Decisions decisions... Sort of apples or oranges surely?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Do you like large-scale actions, or skirmishes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 16:36
|
|
|
berzerkmonkey posted:I'm in the US, so the cost would likely be the same for me - which is unfortunate, since that's quite a bit of money on top of having to buy models. Please post a review once you get a chance to play it, as the one review I saw on BGG said it was more like a deck management game rather than a minis game... You can get it in the US from ArchitectsofWar site, out of Maine I think, maybe Maryland. Free shipping over 50 bucks, should run you about 57$ for rules + 2 decks (not sure sure on that I ordered it with other stuff as well)
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Forums Terrorist posted:Honestly Panthers were common enough IRL by late 1944 and early '45 (and ingame not really impressive enough) that I'd like to see a price cut for them, maybe 400 for 3 CV? Also while I'm airing bad opinions I'd like A Hero Heavy Tank Battalion for the Soviets, Quantity of Quality for tanks and a pony made of butterscotch and sunshine Unfortunately (or fortunately?) the points cost of stuff in FoW has absolutely nothing to do with historical availability, IRL performance or in-game synergies. Its just based on whatever arbitrary formula they plug the unit's statline into.
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
Played a game of FoW with nearly fully painted armies and a pretty well-decked table: http://i.imgur.com/lV1gIiI.jpg  http://i.imgur.com/qPGUCBH.jpg
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
TheBlobThing posted:Played a game of FoW with nearly fully painted armies and a pretty well-decked table: Compared to the number of tables I see in 40K with bare plastic armies and half assed terrain; that board is breath of fresh air.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Indolent Bastard posted:Compared to the number of tables I see in 40K with bare plastic armies and half assed terrain; that board is breath of fresh air. That's the same way I feel when I play on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Love those craters! Fully painted armies + boards are always a delight to see.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 03:56
|
|
|
Numlock posted:V2 to V3 is not a big change overall, most of it was a few tweaks and clarifications here and there. The biggest change was that the Assault rules got overhauled but they needed it badly. V3 is an improvement over and better than V2 in every way. I started in V3. I feel like a lot of major complaints about the US would go away if they toned down naval gunfire and Patton.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
Cassa posted:Love those craters! Fully painted armies + boards are always a delight to see. Thanks. Didn't make them myself though, so I can't take credit. They're just GF9's FoW Craters. In fact, the only terrain I've made myself is the grassy hill, and it shows. I hate making terrain. But yes, this is pretty much the reason I play miniature wargames. Fully painted poo poo on a nice table.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 10:27
|
|
|
humannature posted:I started in V3. I feel like a lot of major complaints about the US would go away if they toned down naval gunfire and Patton. Naval gunfire only really seems to come into trouble when people forget that you can't pick the template size, that you have to always take the smallest sized template. Otherwise, there's usually an argument about what can and cannot shoot at an AOP and during what phase. I haven't played against someone running Patton (okay, only once, but they put him in front of an armored column and he died quickly), but I have played against Abrams once or twice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 13:05
|
|
|
TheBlobThing posted:Thanks. Didn't make them myself though, so I can't take credit. They're just GF9's FoW Craters. In fact, the only terrain I've made myself is the grassy hill, and it shows. I hate making terrain. WELL SOME OF US DON'T HAVE TIME, YOU JERK!  That being said, I'm almost done with my British Airborne.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
So one of our locals just started painting and playing Bolt Action, what is the general consensus on it as a system? Are the rules pretty decent? I'm thinking about picking up some sort of small force if I can afford to buy it and get it painted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
I'm planning to do a proper paint job on my new LW French and some other infantry, by attaching them to popsicle sticks to base/paint, instead of attaching to the base and going years before painting them (because I'm lazy). Do you guys just use blue tack? I've heard of people gluing them down, do you just use PVA/Elmers for that?
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:So one of our locals just started painting and playing Bolt Action, what is the general consensus on it as a system? Are the rules pretty decent? I'm thinking about picking up some sort of small force if I can afford to buy it and get it painted. It seems like a good choice for people who have a prior experience of 40K or WHFB, and want to try historicals but still feel at home. My impression is that its major goal is not to create realistic situations, and is therefor shunned by those who are more into that aspect. Fortunately, a German Panzergrenadier is a German Panzergrenadier, so there's nothing stopping you from starting out with Bolt Action, and try a system with more flavour with the same miniatures if you want to. Historicals is a smorgasbord of rules that you can try out with the same basic minis, with the small caveat that a large percentage of the dishes have been left out since last Thursday, and you seriously suspect that there's listeria in at least some of the sausages on the table. At our club we considered starting with Bolt Action, but after reading some blogs about Chain of Command, we're going with CoC instead. It's even suitable for a smaller force than Bolt Action, so it's a smaller investment in money and time to paint.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:It seems like a good choice for people who have a prior experience of 40K or WHFB, and want to try historicals but still feel at home. My impression is that its major goal is not to create realistic situations, and is therefor shunned by those who are more into that aspect. Awesome. That's pretty much where we are. Nice to know that I can reuse the models too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 20:39
|
|
|
SquadronROE posted:Awesome. That's pretty much where we are. Nice to know that I can reuse the models too. A single plastic infantry box like this should probably be enough to get started, add or give an armoured car/tank or two for flavour: https://www.perry-miniatures.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_62&products_id=2926 One thing to consider is how historical you want to get. Do you want to field two armies that actually fought against each other, or is Finns vs French something you're fine with? Do you want to play at a single front, or are you ok with Desert Rats meeting the German 6th Army? Do you have a set period of the war in mind? Those are questions that you're better off asking yourselves before everyone buy their stuff, as it sucks if you envision two completely different gaming experiences. It's easier to compromise before you've put any money down. e: for example, we've decided that we're starting out with early war, around 1941, but we're all over the place when it comes to forces: Finns, Soviet, German, and random western Allies. So we'll probably try out both some more historical set-ups (Winter War for Finns vs Soviet, Barbarossa for German vs Soviet, Battle of France for Germans vs Western Allies) and maybe even some historically based campaigns, as well as some random ahistorical games now and then. But if someone in our group was dead-set on only playing historical scenarios, that would affect what forces we try to collect for the project. lilljonas fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jun 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 23:29 |
|
|
YF19pilot posted:Naval gunfire only really seems to come into trouble when people forget that you can't pick the template size, that you have to always take the smallest sized template. Otherwise, there's usually an argument about what can and cannot shoot at an AOP and during what phase. I haven't played against someone running Patton (okay, only once, but they put him in front of an armored column and he died quickly), but I have played against Abrams once or twice. Naval Gunfire in of itself is extremely under-pointed because BF way over values the direct fire capability of artillery units. Having artillery on the board is usually (since terrain density varies, your mileage may vary) a huge liability especially when facing armored forces. So what BF thinks is a minus is actually a huge advantage. AOP's are also under-pointed. When you pair that with a faction that already has the technical and material edge over all the other factions (which for the most part lack widely available, cheap counter-measures) it just gets abusive. Properly employed, it's quite possible to see a US armored force led by Patton table any other armored force in as little as two turns depending on terrain and mission. The only times I've seen it not work is newish players making gross errors in their setup or guys running so much terrain that it is impossible for armored forces to maneuver or concentrate fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2014 01:36
|
|