|
krushgroove posted:Britgoons! Lidl have just this week gotten stock of artificial grass mats that are about 1m x 2m, so 2 mats are perfect for a 4x6 table. Total cost: a tenner (£5 per roll). I went and got 2 today, and may get another tomorrow to cut up for Blood Bowl or something. The surface isn't like static grass or felt, it's more like a tightly woven artificial wool with medium and dark green fibers. I'm planning to airbrush on some dark and light brown areas for dirt patches just for variation, and when I eventually do woodland type scatter terrain I want to match the green just so there's a bit of coherency to the table. Should be great for Saga and historicals if I ever get around to finally, actually playing those. Ooooh. How deep is the fabric? I assume it's relatively level?
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:51 |
|
|
It's about 3-4mm thick or so, the little nubs underneath are meant to grip on grass, wood or concrete but for our purposes add another 2mm or so to the thickness. I think the end effect will make the mat similar to one of those mousemat type gaming mats when you roll dice and move models around. And yeah it's pretty level. It remains to be seen how easily it rolls out, but for the price I can put up with a lot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
I'm having a tough time tracking down Saga. My usual sites are all sold out of it. How does Osprey's Dux Bellorum compare? Any other similar style games I could try?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
Where are you located?
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:11
|
|
|
US, Far North Michigan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
Yooper posted:I'm having a tough time tracking down Saga. My usual sites are all sold out of it.  or whatever it costs you since it'll give you more options for the same mans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Dux Bellorum is nothing like Saga apart from being set in the same period. It's basically a slightly fancied up version of DBA with a more open army construction system and rules that emphasise heroic badassery over doing sensible things like "not dying". You can likely play it just fine with whatever basing scheme you decide to use for Saga, so you may as well pay the Excellent! I figured the price of entry was low enough. There's so many varieties floating about that to a new dude it's kind of overwhelming. Saga stuck out because of the unique mechanics and the fact that I don't need a thousand dudes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Yooper posted:I figured the price of entry was low enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 17:41
|
|
|
I'm binging on finding as much info on Sharp Practice 2 as I can. It sounds amazing. Going to bust out my 28mm ACW minis and also start Napoleonics in 15mm. Peninsular campaign for sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
same, I pulled out my french yesterday to take stock of what I have. going to start on some Prussians this week.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
I though that SAGA and DBx is really loving different, so how is Dux similar to SAGA? If it's DBx based, it's shrinking army level to skirmish!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I though that SAGA and DBx is really loving different, so how is Dux similar to SAGA? If it's DBx based, it's shrinking army level to skirmish!
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
JcDent posted:I though that SAGA and DBx is really loving different, so how is Dux similar to SAGA? If it's DBx based, it's shrinking army level to skirmish! I've played both and they aren't similar at all other than they both cover same era. Saga is small skirmish forces of about 24-50 men and Dux is multiple units a side. It's not masses of troops but it's still closer to a mass battle system than Saga is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 21:22
|
|
|
Headed to Salute in a couple of weekends so I'm finally going to get my second force for Saga, to go with the grass mats I posted earlier and a bunch of dark age buildings I printed onto cardstock. Going for Anglo-Danish to face the Vikings I got previously. I guess I'll need to make some terrain soon! Other than small bunches of trees and bushes, should I think about crop areas or anything like that? I'd like to make something like livestock pens (got the livestock set from Gripping Beast a couple of weeks ago) and fish drying racks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
Nice. I will be there myself getting some 15mm Napoleonics and maybe some French Indian Wars bits for Sharp Practise 2
|
|
#
?
Apr 2, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
I saw someone with a Flames of War Japanese cavalry force where the horses and tanks were painted up like my little pony.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Proving once and for all that Flames of War is World Warhammer II
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 12:52
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:Headed to Salute in a couple of weekends so I'm finally going to get my second force for Saga, to go with the grass mats I posted earlier and a bunch of dark age buildings I printed onto cardstock. Going for Anglo-Danish to face the Vikings I got previously. I guess I'll need to make some terrain soon! Other than small bunches of trees and bushes, should I think about crop areas or anything like that? I'd like to make something like livestock pens (got the livestock set from Gripping Beast a couple of weeks ago) and fish drying racks. Renedra make some lovely plastic wattle fences, perfect for Saga and very cheap. Heres some I painted up very quickly 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Renedra make some lovely plastic wattle fences, perfect for Saga and very cheap. Heres some I painted up very quickly I made some of these type of fences by hand this weekend with toothpicks and wire, and can report that it was one ofnmy worst modelling experiences. Totally worth getting them premade.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Proving once and for all that Flames of War is World Warhammer II
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 03:25
|
|
|
Thought I'd share some pics from SAGA grand melee doubles at AdeptiCon . So much fun. Will post BA tomorrow. The cav were my opponent the Vikings mine   
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
Do you know where that D6 in the lower left came from? It's magnificent.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Serotonin posted:Renedra make some lovely plastic wattle fences, perfect for Saga and very cheap. Heres some I painted up very quickly lilljonas posted:I made some of these type of fences by hand this weekend with toothpicks and wire, and can report that it was one ofnmy worst modelling experiences. Totally worth getting them premade. Ah, sweet, I need to look at the Renedra full range, I have a couple of their ruined wall sets for Frostgrave but haven't looked at their other stuff at all. I'm guessing Gripping Beast or some other shop at the show will have all this. And I did think about making my own and casting it up but yeah screw that! Colonial Air Force posted:Proving once and for all that Flames of War is World Warhammer II (the bonus of this is that while we're a 40K-heavy group I have the Beyond the Gates of Antares starter set which is supposed to be even better than normal Bolt Action, so I'm hoping to wean my group a little off 40K and onto more varied & balanced games)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Naw, I think BA is more about squads than individuals, really. For individuals you'll want CoC, Five Guys In Normandy, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Naw, I think BA is more about squads than individuals, really. For individuals you'll want CoC, Five Guys In Normandy, etc. The smallest unit you'll realistically use in CoC is the team though, so if you're doing it in 15mm and you're ok with using "killed" counters, I think you'll do fine as long as you have your MG teams on separate bases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
moths posted:Do you know where that D6 in the lower left came from? It's magnificent. Sorry I'm not sure
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Proving once and for all that Flames of War is World Warhammer II Maybe if Warhammer was a good game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
I mean, I don't think Flames is mindblowing, it's really longwinded and has a billion fiddly exceptions and there's definitely "lists that win tournaments and lists that don't", and a couple of lists that're total dreck, but generally it's playable and inoffensive, unlike 40k. It's a solid 3 star game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I mean, I don't think Flames is mindblowing, it's really longwinded and has a billion fiddly exceptions and there's definitely "lists that win tournaments and lists that don't", and a couple of lists that're total dreck, but generally it's playable and inoffensive, unlike 40k. It's a solid 3 star game. I really like Flames, but my biggest complaint against it is actually some of the players. And the anti-Russian bias and "game based off the movie based off the war" handwaving. Regarding players, historical players playing Flames are awesome, because many of those lists that are "total dreck" are some of the odd-ball units that are fun to give a go at least once or twice, and historical players are willing to give it a whirl with maybe another odd-ball unit, or set up a scenario. Loosing is no biggie, as it's the getting there that's fun, and you'll have some really interesting stories. Problem is if you run against people who have a 40k mindset, every game is a competition, every list must be min-maxed. There are a few units I would love to put a list together for and set on a table, but I was never able to at my LGS back in the states because of the competitive attitude in the group (generally egged on by the owner). I'm not complaining about "WAAC try-hards" just that if you go into a game with a different mindset than your opponent, things won't be as fun as if both of you are operating on the same page.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 15:29
|
|
|
muggins posted:Sorry I'm not sure Chessex Marble Ivory w/Black 16mm Don't bother searching them out on the official site, it hasn't been updated in 4 or 5 years, but they do exist, trust me. El Estrago Bonito fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Apr 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
spectralent posted:I mean, I don't think Flames is mindblowing, it's really longwinded and has a billion fiddly exceptions and there's definitely "lists that win tournaments and lists that don't", and a couple of lists that're total dreck, but generally it's playable and inoffensive, unlike 40k. It's a solid 3 star game. I was being hyperbolic. Still, FoW is a great game to transition Hams into Grogs, precisely because of the similarities (at least back in 5th Ed. when I stopped playing).
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
El Estrago Bonito posted:Chessex Marble Ivory w/Black 16mm Thank you, I'll be looking for those!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
JcDent posted:Naw, I think BA is more about squads than individuals, really. For individuals you'll want CoC, Five Guys In Normandy, etc. lilljonas posted:The smallest unit you'll realistically use in CoC is the team though, so if you're doing it in 15mm and you're ok with using "killed" counters, I think you'll do fine as long as you have your MG teams on separate bases. Ah right, I had it backwards then - so I can safely use my PSC models that are on FoW bases in BA (as long as it's clear what is what)
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
I jumped from ham into grog with nary a game in either system. Neither havr I played historicals, but I hope to sit down and slap some paint on my 6mm soviets today. The only trouble with 6mm FoW are the turret rules.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
krushgroove posted:Ah right, I had it backwards then - so I can safely use my PSC models that are on FoW bases in BA (as long as it's clear what is what) some fa/tg/yu posted:I'd say check Battlegroup Kursk/Overlord/Whatever. From what I've read, it's a much better and historically satisfying system that lacks the gamey-ness of FoW. Tho you can use the same minis for both games, with the same basing, so you can switch whenever. in related matters: non-linear ground scaling pig disgusting
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 18:43
|
|
|
Hmm, there's a store nearish me that has the various Battlegroup books on sale, and I've been thinking of picking one up. Does anyone here have any experience with that ruleset?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
It's always odd to me to see people's complaints about Flames of War, because in most cases they are the exact reasons I like the game. I want a company-scale wargame that uses historical units and such, but that worries about being a fun game first rather than historically accurate. I like the game-y special rules that lead to interesting combos that would never happen in history. I even like the countries becoming caricatures of themselves (soviet hordes! super elite but impractical germans!) because that makes for a really fun, instantly recognizable game. If you went with history, everyone would be much more similar, and then it's just a question of if you want tan and green or green and tan camo on your tanks that more or less all function the same. I do wish the balance was a bit better, but it's leaps and bounds ahead of Warhammer so I'm at least content. Same for the rules, it would be better if they simplified or streamlined it a bit, but it's well within my "fun game" zone. Team Yankee looks like it might be better in that regard, but I cannot bring myself to care about its setting and so haven't tried it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
I have the rulebook but I've never played it. I have played the previous GW Historical "Kampfgruppe" version of the game which had major problems. Several of those problems were addressed in Battlegroup, but the guys who I would normally play single man WWII games with just prefer Bolt Action to it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
I like FoW for what it is, and I'd still play it if I lived near anyone else with an army. I think it actually gets too bogged down with lots of rules and games take too long because of that. It doesn't help that I prefer skirmishes by far, which is why I've been dabbling with BA! instead.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 02:51 |
|
|
Kaza42 posted:It's always odd to me to see people's complaints about Flames of War, because in most cases they are the exact reasons I like the game. I want a company-scale wargame that uses historical units and such, but that worries about being a fun game first rather than historically accurate. I like the game-y special rules that lead to interesting combos that would never happen in history. I even like the countries becoming caricatures of themselves (soviet hordes! super elite but impractical germans!) because that makes for a really fun, instantly recognizable game. If you went with history, everyone would be much more similar, and then it's just a question of if you want tan and green or green and tan camo on your tanks that more or less all function the same. My biggest problem with Flames (And I say this as someone who actively plays it) is that it's selectively historical-German, American, and to a lesser extent British units are all lavished with unit-specific briefings and historical supplements, but god forbid you want to play non-generic or veteran Soviets. The game certainly has lots of good things going for it, but it could really use some major rules revisions-and at this point, I don't trust Battlefront to not make things worse.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2016 19:51
|
|