|
Colonial Air Force posted:The article in WI said even the soft rulebook that was free from the V2 to V3 campaign counts. Great. One guy in our group is still pretty invested in FoW, so I hope he gets one of the free books at least.
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2017 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Did any of you pick up any of the Blood and Plunder starters? I got to play a little at gencon and just got mine in the mail today.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Warboot posted:Did any of you pick up any of the Blood and Plunder starters? I got to play a little at gencon and just got mine in the mail today. YEP I pledged afterward. The models are pretty good, the rules look amazing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
muggins posted:YEP I didn't get a chance to try out the ship rules, but I really enjoyed the infantry combat. Hopefully I can scrounge some interest in the area up so they're not shelf warmers.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
Their demo board at GenCon was loving inspirational.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 06:37
|
|
|
CHAIN OF COMMAND - Mogadishu Blog fully updated and relaunched 25/2/2017. http://taskforceranger.blogspot.com.au/2016/09/welcome.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 08:27
|
|
|
Looks like Sam Mustafa is coming out with a WW2 ruleset in the same vein as his others called Rommel. I am wicked interested.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 13:07
|
|
|
Initial tests are showing me that my camera doesn't have a wide enough angle and I really, really don't have enough good lighting to pull off a decent video report - I'm trying, but even with three lamps and an overheard light it's not enough 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:Initial tests are showing me that my camera doesn't have a wide enough angle and I really, really don't have enough good lighting to pull off a decent video report - I'm trying, but even with three lamps and an overheard light it's not enough You really need some super intense lighting. On top of that you want to diffuse it so it's not all harsh shadows.  https://www.amazon.com/LimoStudio-Photography-Lighting-Equipment-AGG814/dp/B00E4YS2XU/
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
You can also do that on the cheap with one of those work lights from home depot, some 3/4 pvc pipe, and a white sheet. If your camera is hires enough you can just take footage from a distance, though you at not have room for that..
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
The first FoW V4 article in WI is about many of the changes coming, I definitely see it as an improvement, but I also see how it's basically going to mean tank wars all day every day.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 14:38
|
|
|
Welp, that saves me money
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:The first FoW V4 article in WI is about many of the changes coming, I definitely see it as an improvement, but I also see how it's basically going to mean tank wars all day every day. Ugh. Good thing my group is playing CoC these days
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 15:43
|
|
|
Basically, what stuck out to me, was that artillery is now stronger against infantry but weaker against tanks, and assaulting tanks with infantry is no longer "the thing to do." You could probably just buy Tanks! and have as much fun. E: Also, the starter box, El Alamein, doesn't have a single infantry unit in it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 15:49
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Basically, what stuck out to me, was that artillery is now stronger against infantry but weaker against tanks, and assaulting tanks with infantry is no longer "the thing to do." Everyone knows Tanks won every major conflict since WW1. Duh. We don't need no infantry.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 17:48
|
|
|
Fistful of TOWs looks like a sweet system in 6mm. Anyone have experience? The whole activation thing in Cold War Commander puts me off from it. And the scale and range of Team Yankee ends up looking weird to me, despite the sweet models. Dandywalken fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Basically, what stuck out to me, was that artillery is now stronger against infantry but weaker against tanks, and assaulting tanks with infantry is no longer "the thing to do." Wait what? What's the logic with this? EDIT: The infantry thing particularly. spectralent fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Feb 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 19:14
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Wait what? What's the logic with this? The FoW people have always wanted to make a tank game and now they're taking another step closer
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
spectralent posted:Wait what? What's the logic with this? Easy, tanks are more profitable.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 19:34
|
|
|
First Parachute rifle platoon ready second Parachute rifle platoon ready  one of their MGs went missing over the dropzone And a very kind friend made a duck pond for me! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 19:53
|
|
|
Yes, but infantry has less in the way of materials cost. If they were GW, they'd make infantry unstoppable but super expensive in terms of $$$. That way they could charge you more for less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Yeah but, I want to hear the rationale for why infantry shouldn't be assaulting tanks, because as far as I know infantry who got too close to unescorted tanks went to town on them. And from a gameplay perspective they took out tank terror so it's even more of a sure shot.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:18
|
|
|
When I get home, I'll transcribe that piece of the article.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
CrosspostingGrey Hunter posted:Oath Complete!
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 21:22
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:When I get home, I'll transcribe that piece of the article. Typing this out I'm starting to think maybe it isn't as bad as I thought on my first read-through. At least before I got to the artillery piece. "Unsurprisingly since the most complicated part of any game to get right is the assault rules, the first issue was the interaction between infantry and tanks. As the game had developed, the best way for infantry to deal with tanks was to assault them with overpowered anti-tank grenades. Since, in reality, these went out of fashion as fast as weapons like the bazooka could be developed, clearly there was something out of whack. "The problem was that anti-tank guns weren't pulling thei weight in the game, forcing infantry to use other measures. To correct this, we gave anti-tank guns 3+ save, giving them a better chance of surviving and winning against tanks, protecting the infantry as they are supposed to. "At the same time, we removed a tool that players had been using to render anti-tank guns ineffective, the old Eyes and Ears rule...." "These two changes had the desired effect of giving infantry the resilience they deserved, while getting rid of the suicidal assaults on tanks, but risked tipping the balance too far the other way [...]. [A]rtillery was rather ineffective against infantry, while being seriously overpowered against tanks. It would take many turns of bombardment to inflict significant casualties on infantry or anti-tank guns, dragging the pace of the game down." "We corrected this by significantly improving the firepower of light artillery (mortars go from needing a 6 to kil dug-in infantry to need a 4+), while dropping the anti-tank ratings of heavy artillery. [W]e added a rukle making infantry and guns caught by repeated artillery bombardment re-roll successful saves...."
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 22:47
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Crossposting Nice! I like pikes in 6mm, you really get that feel of a wall of pointy sticks. Meanwhile, I'm staring at 100+ horses in 28mm and I'm more and more positive towards using an airbrush to get the bulk of the paint on them. Anyone here tried airbrushing horses in that scale?
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 22:49
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Typing this out I'm starting to think maybe it isn't as bad as I thought on my first read-through. At least before I got to the artillery piece. I'm not sure I entirely follow their logic; at least in the preview I've seen, infantry AT is still AT 2 FP 1+, and still a concern, accordingly, for most tanks, plus Tank Terror's gone so they don't even need to check to pop out and molotov something. And again, unescorted tanks should be frightened of getting swarmed by infantry. Tanks never liked that. It definitely reads like they want to make the game more tank-focused, at least.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
It's similar to GW's dream of an all Marine game, like Horus Heresy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
Pendraken announced a Salute release for Blitzkrieg Commander 3. Looking forward to that as a fan of the last version.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 08:45
|
|
|
Getting ever-closer with CoC - those lights look relatively affordable, so I will do some tests outside just to make sure my camera is up to par and then think about pulling the trigger. I did another silly demo game with myself, so just so I've not made silly mistakes - I'm going to work under the assumption that wheatfields will block LoS more than 4" from the edge (but otherwise provide light cover) (Section 8.1 points 2 & 3, Rulebook p31) - if there's LOS from the table edge to an enemy section, a tank (for ex. T34/85) can deploy then fire 17-odd dice, most of which reduce cover by 1? - Damage from an Ambush which would cause the tank to move in the 'enemy' phase (i.e. reverse d6 inches) wouldn't stop it from firing at full effect in its own phase - With regard to shock can I just confirm my understanding: --- Teams accrue shock individually and have their movement/firing reduced individually. They are pinned at X shock (where X is the number of troops in the team) and rout on 2X shock - you'll role on the 'team breaks, team wiped out' lines in the force morale results chart. --- If both teams of a section are within 4" then the shock and kills targeted towards them are split to be allocated individually, --- If both teams of a section are within 4" then they are pinned and routed as a whole, i.e. Y/2Y shock (where Y is the number of troops in the section). --- If both teams of a section are within 4" then it is not possible for one team to remain while the other routs/is pinned, therefore you'll role on the 'section breaks, section wiped out' lines in the force morale results chart. EDIT: also gently caress, maybe I should have gone 28mm - I can't argue with a couple of evenings to paint up both forces but on the table they may as well be chits =/ Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 12:37 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
-Wheat fields rule sounds fine -Only the tank's main gun reduces cover - the hull-mount and co-ax are both "internally mounted" and just roll 6 dice each at no reduction in cover. This reflects the limited LOS of the firer. -Yeah, forced movement as a result of Ambush in the enemy phase doesn't affect your next activation of that vehicle. -You're close on Shock - it's actually Y+1/2Y. Just remember that you allocate hits to the teams affected before rolling for effect (shock/kills). The rest is correct in terms of when to apply rolls on the BTH test.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 12:47
|
|
|
Ilor posted:wisdom Thanks, that's cleared it up really nicely. I explained some of the rules (as I know them) to my regular opponent and he seemed a bit taken aback by the learning curve, I did have to reassure him that realistically it's all upfront and then there's not much else to the game other than playing it - force morale, jump off points, command dice all need to be up-to-speed kind of immediately.. EDIT: macro photography of 15mm dudes makes me very sad, but here's what I've got:   
Southern Heel fucked around with this message at 14:13 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 13:50
|
|
|
If the teams from a section are close enough to be treated as a section they will only be pinned or routed if they accrue enough shock for the whole section. It might be my reading comprehension but I want to clarify that staying together makes you little mans more resistant to shock not less.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 14:34
|
|
|
zokie posted:If the teams from a section are close enough to be treated as a section they will only be pinned or routed if they accrue enough shock for the whole section. It might be my reading comprehension but I want to clarify that staying together makes you little mans more resistant to shock not less. This would make your teams super resilient, since each could accrue 10/20 shock (assuming no casualties) before pinning/routing. That seems a little high?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
^^^ drat those are some good looking 15mm dudes. I'll totally have to borrow the bottlecap idea for JOPs.Dandywalken posted:Fistful of TOWs looks like a sweet system in 6mm. Anyone have experience? I'm working on some forces for this right now. The book is intimidating at first glance, but of the 450+ pages of it only like 40 are the nuts and bolts of the game. The rest is army lists and poo poo like nuclear strikes and chemical weapons that are neat additions to have but will probably never see use in a game. The rules themselves are deceptively easy to get to grips with, and the artillery system especially is refreshing in it's effectiveness and ease of use.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
On the other hand, army building and 1:1 conversion can jump in the sea. Who wants to make a battlescribe file for FFoT? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:12
|
|
|
Southern Heel posted:This would make your teams super resilient, since each could accrue 10/20 shock (assuming no casualties) before pinning/routing. That seems a little high? Teams gain shock individually but pin and rout as a section. Just looking at the number of shock for a full section is useless because they are going to lose men to shooting, not only gain shock. And shock can be rallied of... There is actually one time were staying together might be worse, because even if only one team is shooting they still get penalties for the whole sections shock.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
JcDent posted:On the other hand, army building and 1:1 conversion can jump in the sea. Yeah I gave up on 1:1, but at 6mm it seemed pointless unless you want to get really spergy about scale but gently caress that noise. Army building is pretty painless once you absorb the abstractions of force quality, and the "stand inventory" at the end of each unit entry really helped. I guessed using the percentages he listed when drafting my '84 BMP regiment, but because Soviets are Soviets it still ended up being like 7300 points worth of stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:28
|
|
|
1:1 or GTFO! Or, put a more historical way: "One-one or fight!"
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 10:43 |
|
|
Yeah, I love 1:1 but the system looks hard even without the added layer of conversion. Could be  thing about being more on the social sciences side than STEM.Maybe I'll try that one day and someone can shout at me for being wrong. Or you I can do what tiny tanks did. If a stand is a tank platoon, then a stand will have enough tanks for a platoon! Thought FFoT has a bit of an Asiatic Hordes going for it, with NATO companies vs. PACT regiments IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:27
|
|