|
This is amazing please post more. Dirt Worshipper fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Oct 6, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 5, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
NTRabbit posted:I'm on top of using PSC and Zvezda for the more common British 15mm tanks, and Forged in Battle for some slightly rarer ones, but I found these when I was searching for alternatives to the kinda pricey A9, A10 and A13, and the Rolls Royce, Morris and Marmon-Herrington armoured cars that Battlefront makes. Paying $5 USD a tank for things that aren't hateful metal lumps seems great, but I dunno, some of those tanks just look... wrong. Is anyone familiar with them?
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
I have a handful of those that I bought to make wrecked tank markers and terrain. The casting is all over the place and sometimes you get huge bubbles or mangled details. The UPC's that I got for my Jewish Rifle Company are actually pretty decent, better than the Shermans I also got that were plastic army man quality casts. I've been considering buying most of a Brit armored car company from him since I had such good luck before with just slapping some quick sepia wash and a little touch up paint on them to get them to TTQ. All the pictures in their gallery that were painted by "James" are from a guy who I used to play with and TBH I didn't even realize those were Gaming Models miniatures, I assumed the were Old Glory. His artillery looks pretty much the same as the OG ones, maybe a few less rivets. But the OG ones have the downside of huge piles of flash and tend to come bent into pretzel shapes and be hard to assemble. Edit: I forgot my Nebelwerfers are from them as well, they are slightly poorly sized but not as bad as the BF ones and honestly of similar quality. El Estrago Bonito fucked around with this message at 02:20 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
I'm working on a seawall for our Tarawa board. Super super cheap  
Somebody fucked around with this message at 06:54 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
sweet mother of god my tables
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Please remember to use [timg] tags when posting large images!  It looks promising though.In other news I played another game of Red Sand, Blue Sky today with my buddy. My Murmillo vs his Retiarius (our first time using one). His guy had rolled stat downs while mine got stat ups, so I thought I had this in the bag! He's weaker, and he's got no armor, one good roll and I'll waste him, surely. The initial maneuver clash, which I initiated, saw his man deftly step to one side past the shield and Jab my Murmillo right in the chest. He followed up by throwing his net and thankfully I managed to dodge that. The rest of the match was me desperately trying to press an attack and slowly burning down my Bonus Dice while he was relatively reserved with his and maintained a good recovery rate on them. After a bit of back and forth we'd both managed to land blows, his absorbed by my shield and mine injuring his leg. The match finally ended when I made one last major push, which resulted in him effortlessly winning the maneuver and delivering a crippling blow to my Murmillo's leg. I wasn't expecting just how effective that Trident can be! A +1 Reach bonus on the attack doesn't sound like much, but combined with the +1 to speed he got once he was no longer carrying the net, he was able to basically evenly match me in contests despite inferior stats and forced me to burn more dice than he was using. It was pretty cool. Granted I was rolling like poo poo though. My habit of rolling 5s and 6s is biting me in the rear end in this game where rolling low is good! 
Galaga Galaxian fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:The Churchills look a bit narrow, and the Crusaders look a bit short. Matilda IIs look way off. Valentine looks a bit lacking in detail from the pictures shown. Humber II turret is a bit wide. Other than that, not terrible. The Mk VI lights look poo poo, but Forged in Battle do them so you're sorted there. Other than that, not terrible, not great. The first thing I saw that looked wrong was the Crusader turrets, which look wrong in every direction. Fortunately PSC and FiB make some good Churchills, and Zvezda makes some dirt cheap Matilda I and IIs, and I already planned to get the FiB Mk VI lights and Honeys, but the early Cruiser tanks are hard to find. I think I might roll the dice on a couple A13s and an A9 CS... maybe. Thanks all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
Dirt Worshipper posted:This is amazing please post more. Basically the campaign manager chose a suitable action, in this case the German defensive actions at the end of September 1941, as Army Group Center rapidly moves south to support actions around Kiev. So there are plenty of maps and OOB to go from, and we have an area North-west where recon forces of the 17th Panzer division would move through to secure the left flank. The campaign manager compared the old Soviet and German army maps with current google earth maps, and concluded that very little has changed, even the fields and the houses are pretty much the same now as then. So even though we haven't found the actual WW2 maps of this little village, but we can infer from the Google Earth maps roughly how it would look, and make battle scenarios from that. The basic rules are the campaign supplement for CoC, which I could elaborate on if anyone is curious, but we have added some extra rules. One of them is that each side has 10 extra support to add, which can be used in any of the 12 battles of the campaign. The kicker is that the things you choose with these extra support points will be used up, even if they survive, if you don't pass a 5+ roll. This is to keep these 10 bonus points from becoming kamikaze troops that you throw away, since you know their casualties won't carry over. Do you really want to push this assault through, and include an extra tank, knowing that your opponent could throw in a much fiercer defence in the next game? Since you have to win 4 more games than your opponent to finish the campaign before the 12 games deadline, it doesn't help to sacrifice everything to win a single game. It seemed my poor German ally had to do a tactical withdrawal last night, after both sides suffered 9 casualties. So next game we'll be on the defence, which suits me well. Oil up the MG34's, and I'll see how costly we can make that Soviet counterattack...
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
I was at Derby World Wargames in the UK over the weekend, don't know if any britgoons were there but if you're interested I put some pictures of the various historical tables on my Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=805404719511261&id=796633433721723 There were some interesting ones, plenty of games I'd never heard off (one had a Viking group doing a beach assault then fighting zombies), a few sailing ship games, one replicating scenes from Apocalypse Now, lots of FoW, Rick Priestly was there with Warlord Games, the owner of KR Multicase was there and lots more. Tons of terrain people and a surprising number of used models too. e: also I picked up Chain of Command and the Flames of War mini-rulebook (that I was told is definitely the latest edition but I'm not really sure - it's copyright 2011...can anyone let me know?). I would have gotten Bolt Action as well but it was £25 (but is hardback and very nice-looking) but I'd already spent lots on a Dark Eldar Razorwing and Dropzone Commander set. krushgroove fucked around with this message at 12:25 on Oct 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:(one had a Viking group doing a beach assault then fighting zombies) If there were owlbears and gnomes involved as well, I might have seen this! Anyways, here's the site for WW2 maps: http://www.wwii-photos-maps.com/ It's a treasure trove if you play WW2 games and want your terrain to actually make sense. We found it to be a huge difference between making a tabletop that you "think" looks like a Ukrainian village in the 40's, and one that is based on aerial photos of a Ukrainian village in the 40's.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 12:34
|
|
|
Sorry guys I post from my phone and always forget about big imgslilljonas posted:The basic rules are the campaign supplement for CoC, which I could elaborate on if anyone is curious, Please do. I bought it and printed it but haven't read yet. Gonna adapt it for BA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
lilljonas posted:If there were owlbears and gnomes involved as well, I might have seen this! I only saw the zombies but it was a demo set-up so who knows what else they have to throw at the unwitting Scandiwegians! The Saga rulebook was on the table though, so maybe it's add-on to that? Also that link is great, I've bookmarked it for future reference!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2014 12:59
|
|
|
I whipped up some casualties markers for my Waterloo British. They're Newline Designs 20mm and are a bit too big for my Napoleon at War 18mm, but they're closer than the 15/18mm AB dead and wounded models. I'll get some better pictures when it's daylight and I've finished varnishing them. The gloss coat is curing right now. I plan on painting up 4 casualties for each batallion in the army, so I'll get the correct colour regimental facings to match.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
Let's talk more about Chain of Command campaigns. The campaign rules has a lot of the bare bones for how to flesh out your troops, and to create a narrative. To spice it up an notch you can add your own house rules and historical context. This is an example of how you can do it. First of all, Chain of Command is basically a platoon sized game. That means that you usually have three or four groups of roughly 10-12 men, each led by an NCO, and these together are led by a more senior officer. In addition to this you can normally roll for extra points to buy support options for, which means that you have 1 to 10 points to buy tanks, engineers, road blocks, minefields and all that fun stuff. For our first campaign we're playing with one company per side. That means that we have up to three players on each side, and each one is in control of a separate platoon. The campaign rules helps you to roll up the background of each squad leader, platoon leader, and the company leader that is in control of all forces on each side. So I am in charge of one platoon, led by lieutenant Erich von Düring (aristocratic blood, +1 in favour among upper leadership which means I can get granted more support if I'm lucky), made up of three squads, each one with a NCO with his own background that we've rolled up. Finally, we rolled up stats for the captain who leads our combined platoons. The campaign rules also cover your officers's rise and fall: do too badly and you get replaced, do too well and you could get promoted away from the company, and die and watch your troops morale plummet. Win battles with lots of casualties and the brass might appreciate you while the men grow to loath you. Casualties are rolled for after each battle to see if they carry over or not. Now, since we are in control of separate platoons, we can take turns to fight battles and still be involved in the same narrative. So Russian player 1 can play against German player 3, and next battle could be a tag team (Big Chain of Command) between Russian player 1 and 2 and German player 2 and 3, followed by a counterattack and so on. This means that you don't have to worry as much when it comes to scheduling games: as long as you have one player from each side, it makes sense. Now, for our campaign we chose a very simple system. Imagine the following chart: 4. Russia attacks German objective 3. Scenario A, Russian attacker 2. Scenario B, Russian attacker 1. Patrol scenario (meeting engagement) 2. Scenario B, German attacker 3. Scenario A, German attacker 4. Germany attacks Russian objective We start at 1, and depending on which sides wins we move up or down this chart. A draw means that the scenario gets fought again. The standard campaign rule would be that we fight 12 games, no matter who is involved in them, and you win by successfully attacking the opponents objective. Lesser results would be a minor win, or a draw. How does this look? Well, here's the starting map of the village we're fighting over:  Greater map with Glybochka to the left.  This was our first battle, the patrol scenario, which we fought with two platoons on each side. After a close battle with even losses, Germany bottled out first. Now, this means that the next battle was this:  In where Germany was fighting a defensive scenario against approaching Russians. This was a single platoon game, where one of the victorious Russian platoons attacked a fresh German platoon led by a player who wasn't in the first game. Germany won and the Russian withdrew, but it seems that the German side is a bit weary and are fortifying this area to recieve another Russian charge. Now this is a risky move since the Russians are currently winning the campaign, but we're hoping that we can cause enough casualties on the defense to manage a counterattack against a weakened foe. The Russians used up a lot of their bonus support (see house rules later), while the Germans have saved theirs. Now, this is a single campaign system that you can use to string along games among several gamers and still keep up a narrative. We have a facebook group where we're cheering on each other as our side's officers battle back and forth. As a bonus I think that Chain of Command plays even better when every single casualty has the potential to be permanent, and you chew your nails off when a squad comes under fire. We're also coming up with house rules for the campaign system that we'll evaluate afterwards. But here are some if you want to try it out yourself: 1. The company captain can join any game if that sides wants too. A captain on your side is a huge boost, as he is really good at commanding troops in CoC. However, this campaign is covering a single day so if he's shot, he's gone. And then you will regret it if you make it to one of the last battles: 2. The campaign ends with a Big Chain of Command battle with all surviving platoons on both sides present. This can be if your side makes it to attack the opposing objective (level 4). It can also be after 11 battles, where the winning side can opt to charge the opposing objective. The defenders gain more bonuses to support for each scenario that the attacker has to "skip" to reach level 4. In this case, the winner has pushed the opponent out of the village copletely. 3. Each side has a stash of 10 bonus support points. With an armoured car costing 4 or 5 points, that is a huge stack of points. These can be called in at any point. HOWEVER, support bought with these points are used up if the unit is destroyed or if you roll anything but a 5+ after the battle. So you can use points if you want to make a big push, but then your opponent might be in a good position for a counterattack afterwards. Watch all your players squabble over who gets to buy a free Panzer III when their platoon is getting mauled! The beautiful thing with CoC is that you don't announce what your forces are made up off before you deploy them as you play, so these free points mean that you can really surprise your opponent. The dice roll meant that both sides have 1 point of support, enough for a medic or a satchel charge? Splurge and throw a flame thrower team at him when he least expect it!
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
That sounds awesome. Its taken off in a big way at my club but Im still yet to play a game. I keep looking at the platoon packs that Peter Pig do in 15mm and thinking, hmm £14 quid for a platoon sounds pretty good to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
I'm sure it's been discussed already, but Flames of War and Chain of command use the same scale, right? Would miniatures based for FoW be suitable for Chain of Command?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
Beardless posted:I'm sure it's been discussed already, but Flames of War and Chain of command use the same scale, right? Would miniatures based for FoW be suitable for Chain of Command? Chain of commmand can work for any scale really, but it is mainly geared towards 28mm since the miniatures should be individually based and you only need 30-40 per side. A normal game of CoC is platoon level, a normal game of FoW is company level. The problem is that individual models play a much larger role in CoC and you take individual casualties, so if you were to use FoW bases you'd have to keep track of those in some way. But honestly, given the small number of troops required, I'd break up a blister of infantry (or a box of plastics for a huge game!) and paint/base a separate batch of infantry if you want to give it a go. You can use the same vehicles and support weapons, and the same terrain, so all you need to try it out is 30-40 infantrymen if you already have a FoW collection. A single infantry box from Plastic Soldier Company would be enough to cover an entire company, so two boxes would cover all troops involved on both sides of our campaign! EDIT: Here's an example of a great looking 20mm CoC army (one plutoon with 3 squads, plus support) made out of only PSC minis:  from http://fuentesdeonoro.blogspot.se/2013/08/chain-of-command-german-force.html (if you want to stick to FoW based minis and company level games but want to try out another game you should check out Blitzkrieg Commander) lilljonas fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Oct 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
While we're on the topic of scale, does anyone know if Tamiya'a 1:35 infantry models and Flames of War's pre-painted buildings would work in terms of scale and size, or would the buildings be ridiculously large?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 22:41
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:While we're on the topic of scale, does anyone know if Tamiya'a 1:35 infantry models and Flames of War's pre-painted buildings would work in terms of scale and size, or would the buildings be ridiculously large?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:The other way around. FoW is 1:100. poo poo. Does anyone know of any pre-painted terrain that would work with Tamiya's 1:35 stuff?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 22:46
|
|
|
15mm is fine for something like Chain of Command as long as you base them individually on a penny. You can use FoW minis as long as you individually base them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
These are 15mm battlefront miniatures mounted for the most part on pennies, which I believe are about 19mm, so you can also use 20mm renedra bases if you want something lighter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:15mm is fine for something like Chain of Command as long as you base them individually on a penny. You can use FoW minis as long as you individually base them. Actually the Lardies have said ground scale wise 15mm is the sweet spot. You could multi base weapon teams like mortars and MGs I guess with little problem, but multi basing normal units is going to make the game a tad clunky. As I said earlier Peter Pig do 15mm platoon packs very cheap or just use your left over FOW if you already play that game. Someone mentioned Blitzkrieg Commander as an alternative to FOW that requires multi basing, and I would support that with the caveat that it's not quite the same scale if that matters to you. You won't be playing with a supported company like in FOW but battalions. If you want a company level game that's great try another Too Fat Lardies game, I Ain't Been Shot Mum 3. It shares a lot of the core mechanics of Chain of Command but is card driven not dice driven in terms of orders/ activation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
I'd definitely play try CoC in 15mm or 20mm if I already had suitable stuff from FoW. I'm happy to play it in 28mm right now, but I think a smaller scale is a good idea given how much extra equipment and vehicles you end up wanting even if you don't need it. Right now I have ordered more Panzer III's, motorcycles, kubelwagens and engineer teams, and I still crave some StuGs and halftracks. I'm starting to realize just how much room it will take to store a reinforced panzer platoon on 1/48. Also, 15mm or 1/72 plastic tank kits are everywhere and dirt cheap, so there are plenty of advantages there. On the other hand, 1/48 scale tank kits look awesome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:15mm is fine for something like Chain of Command as long as you base them individually on a penny. You can use FoW minis as long as you individually base them. Dirt Worshipper posted:These are 15mm battlefront miniatures mounted for the most part on pennies, which I believe are about 19mm, so you can also use 20mm renedra bases if you want something lighter. Serotonin posted:Actually the Lardies have said ground scale wise 15mm is the sweet spot. Well I know what I'm going to do with any leftover men from my PSC boxes then! Also liljonas that campaign setup you have is awesome! I'm going to copy/paste it to a friend to get him even more enthusiastic about playing some historics 
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:
Thanks! Next game will probably be on Saturday, I'll try to take more photos of the actual game. One advantage of using actual real maps is that you can follow the battles over time, so when you manage to fight your way back to a certain house, it could already have a story when you place it on a table. Next step could be to make ruined vehicles to place where tanks were blown up in previous games.
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 08:27
|
|
|
That's amazing - exactly the kind of campaign I'd want to do. Having destroyed tanks, etc., as part of the map in future games is just awesome. Do you have ruined versions of buildings, bridges, etc., too? What about crater markers for artillery?
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:That's amazing - exactly the kind of campaign I'd want to do. Having destroyed tanks, etc., as part of the map in future games is just awesome. Do you have ruined versions of buildings, bridges, etc., too? What about crater markers for artillery? No, but we have a bunch of unpainted casualties that could be used as well. Ruined versions of buildings would be great as well, I Think you could get quite far by simply having burned out alternative roofs to put on the buildings. We've also thought about making removable sandbag kits to put on buildings that are entrenched. And this far we haven't started to experiment with the rules for heavy artillery, but it seems that one player is going to put together an Italian force for next campaign, and he's going to invest heavily in artillery (all artillery in CoC except for small mortars are off table, so it's also a cheap alternative for support options).
|
|
#
?
Oct 9, 2014 10:38
|
|
|
This is a pro click zone right now
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Something that just occurred to me, is the platoon command A-11 Matilda .50cal tank an eligible target for "gun tank" shots? I'm guessing yes because rules, but it has been pointed out to me that visually the two guns were indistinguishable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 10, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Something that just occurred to me, is the platoon command A-11 Matilda .50cal tank an eligible target for "gun tank" shots? I'm guessing yes because rules, but it has been pointed out to me that visually the two guns were indistinguishable. Assuming you are talking about FoW, The current semi-official word is that .50cals and AA MG's are not eligible for the gun tank rule last I bothered to check the official forums for what Phil's opinion was on the issue (which changes like the seasons on this issue). The Rule is vague and needs clarification but Phil has some sort of bug up his rear end about it and refuses to do. He has stated on multiple occasions that its "Obvious" what is gun tank-able or not if you read the rule but he's full of poo poo. Right now the only things you can use (For certain) to gun tank are the following: 1) Different Chassis (As in you can gun tank a Panzer 4 instead of Panther if they happen to be in the same platoon, NOT something like picking out a Panzer IV H vs Panzer IV G). One exception are E8's which in the FoW rules are gun tank-able (vs regular shermans). 2) Different gun 3) Different Front Armor. 4) Dozer blades, Hedge cutters, Mine rollers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Assuming you are talking about FoW, The current semi-official word is that .50cals and AA MG's are not eligible for the gun tank rule last I bothered to check the official forums for what Phil's opinion was on the issue (which changes like the seasons on this issue). The Rule is vague and needs clarification but Phil has some sort of bug up his rear end about it and refuses to do. He has stated on multiple occasions that its "Obvious" what is gun tank-able or not if you read the rule but he's full of poo poo. I'm pretty sure points 3 and 4 are inaccurate, as well as the point about being able to GT E8's. I don't have the book in front of me to check, but it's pretty explicit that only different chasis and gun types can have GT used against them-so an E8 could be picked out from an M4A1 because of the gun, but a Jumbo is indistinguishable from other 75mm Shermans, and E8s from 76mm-armed tanks. The rule is more ambiguous than it should be, though, that goes without saying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Assuming you are talking about FoW, The current semi-official word is that .50cals and AA MG's are not eligible for the gun tank rule last I bothered to check the official forums for what Phil's opinion was on the issue (which changes like the seasons on this issue). The Rule is vague and needs clarification but Phil has some sort of bug up his rear end about it and refuses to do. He has stated on multiple occasions that its "Obvious" what is gun tank-able or not if you read the rule but he's full of poo poo. Yeah, it really sucks that they won't clarify that because it would go against their British Wargaming philosophy where these games are played by Gentlemen who will just hash everything out on the fly. It wouldn't be that hard to just make a "gun tank" reference and be specific about which variants of tanks are considered identical.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 12:48
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Yeah, it really sucks that they won't clarify that because it would go against their British Wargaming philosophy where these games are played by Gentlemen who will just hash everything out on the fly. Maybe its not to do with that maybe its just a badly written/poorly thought out rule
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 14:24
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Maybe its not to do with that maybe its just a badly written/poorly thought out rule Honestly, having read over it again, it's not even that bad. It's pretty explicit that only the most obviously distinguishable examples count for the rule, and arguing stuff like Jumbos can be GT'd away from other 75mm Shermans is flat-out ignoring the text. I've honestly never had a problem with it, and I'm supprised so many people do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
Acebuckeye13 posted:Honestly, having read over it again, it's not even that bad. It's pretty explicit that only the most obviously distinguishable examples count for the rule, and arguing stuff like Jumbos can be GT'd away from other 75mm Shermans is flat-out ignoring the text. I've honestly never had a problem with it, and I'm supprised so many people do. I've never had a problem with it ether but there are guys out there who will argue it if it gets them an advantage (I've personalty not seen this) because of the "Major Fitting" clause. What is a major fitting? Only Phil apparently knows. Serotonin posted:Maybe its not to do with that maybe its just a badly written/poorly thought out rule IDK, it seems that every-time I've read through a rule-set and found it to be a mess of vague and contradicting rules I've looked at the cover and seen that it was written by somebody named "Sir Nigel Hillthrope III, Esquire. With assistance from his manservant, Togo." Numlock fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Oct 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
Numlock posted:
Sorry you don't want to be treated as an adult.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
An interesting statement considering the nature of this hobby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Assuming you are talking about FoW, The current semi-official word is that .50cals and AA MG's are not eligible for the gun tank rule last I bothered to check the official forums for what Phil's opinion was on the issue (which changes like the seasons on this issue). The Rule is vague and needs clarification but Phil has some sort of bug up his rear end about it and refuses to do. He has stated on multiple occasions that its "Obvious" what is gun tank-able or not if you read the rule but he's full of poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 03:20 |
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Therein lies the rub with the A-11 Matilda. It only has a .303 or a .50 MG. I can't reference a picture at the moment, but I would say in that case if the turret is identifiably different, then yes, but otherwise one mg type is not readably identifiable from another. But that may be something to work out with your group.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 04:00
|
|
