Flames of War: Changing of the Guard edition.

I need v4 scans. now!

>>52138438
Just wait until they're up on the app and someone will post them.

File: IMG_2029.jpg (94KB, 475x547px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 475x547px

>>52138401
>V4 is here and it is weird and different....

You must unlearn what you have learned.

>>52138438
>I need v4 scans. now!

For fuck sake, it literally just came out yesterday.

Have **some** patience.

Played a demo game yesterday at my FLGS and watched two other players use the store's preview copies to put together a full game. It looks fun, to be honest, and not TOO different. I'm just wishing I had more Mid-War models...

File: gragh.jpg (7KB, 210x200px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 210x200px

>want to get into flames of war in 2013
>buy open fire starter set
>bring it down to club
>nobody wants to play
>finally find some willing to try
>starts off fine but he starts his turn
>begins his movement
>he's reversing the shermans towards me
>can't believe what i'm seeing
>give up on flames of war

so is now a good jump on point to get back into starting flames of war

>>52138850
Mid War is getting completely redone. If you stick to that, yes. Only Brits/Krauts right now.

>>52138850
A new edition won't fix idiots, anon.

File: Thumbnail.jpg (42KB, 690x400px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 690x400px

I wonder why they decided to keep making these in resin and metal instead of going ahead and doing them in plastic? Surely they're going to be used a lot more once they get around to early war.

Oh well, Zvezda makes 'em cheap.

Man, these bunker changes are weird in V4. I mean, V3 they were one of those unusual "very specific exception" type things, but the fact that they're just slightly more resilient gun teams that need concealment and BPC now is odd to me. Like, seems that they can quite easily be knocked out by tanks or whatever, and the fact that your opponent can start with his artillery ranged in on them makes them seem a little pointless even in scenario games.

>>52139520
Also it seems like you can dig in pillboxes to give them BPC which is just strange.

>>52139698
They, like all teams, start in BPC.
So they have a 2+ or 3+ save and if they fail em ya gotta pass a firepower test re-rolling successes to kill it.

BPC?

>>52139840
Oh, even in Meeting Engagements, which is a change I'd not noticed. Makes PSVs worse, I think?


>>52140060
Bulletproof cover.

File: 2017-03-12 16.46.20.jpg (3MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4032x3024px

Painted the Lee out of the El Alamein box. How did I do?

>>52139023
and it can't fix the lack of players wanting to try new games that aren't 40k or infinity

>>52141105
Up the shading/highlight contrast. Some postshading and detail wash.

>>52141105
Could do with a bit more edge highlighting, probably.

Maybe also add some more definition to the tracks?

Went by my LGS to try and get my V4 stuff and they're all out of the free books for damn near two weeks.

Shit sucks.

Although they did have the hardcover and I was pleased to see Italy and Japan get mentions in the nations section.

File: IMG_2038.jpg (121KB, 500x297px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 500x297px

>>52141432
>Battlefront massively underestimated demand for a new product launch?

>painting a bunch of drab brown vehicles and people dressed in drab brown uniforms
Is this fun?

File: sturmgeschutziii-12.jpg (17KB, 523x255px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 523x255px

>>52141555
There's more than just Brown, plus if you're always bored, there's always Snow Uniforms.

File: 3936370990_b37d697f06.jpg (154KB, 500x300px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 500x300px

>>52141555
If that doesn't work for you, try this.

>>52141105
Great work. I like it.

>>52141555
You'd prefer brightly colored blue and gold?

>>52141796
I actually do play Ultramarines. Good guess.

>>52142012
I was just riffing on the "You'd prefer yellow spandex?" line from the original X-Men movie.

>>52141555
Yes - a lot of the time is.

File: UK M3 Grant.jpg (2MB, 1664x1152px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1664x1152px

>>52141105
Good start. Now drybrush all the dust onto it.

File: Honey01.jpg (81KB, 760x570px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 760x570px

>>52141555
The Soviets and Americans had the least variety - they did occasionally use camo, but usually just ran green or olive drab, respectively.

Here's British "Caunter" camo from the desert war.

>>52138850
this event 'so totally happened'.
signed, /tg/

>>52141432
wait, GAJO is out now?
>time, Sunday Afternoon

Dear /fowtg/ Anons and Namefags,

Some Anon cares for you, remember that and be kind to others... Anons or anybody else.

Cheers

FoW V4 MW Rulebook:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ddeo2nkd1qh457i/Flames_of_War_V4_MW.pdf

Desert Rats:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/rjegnpbchl0xgng/Desert_Rats.pdf

Afrika Korps:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/72v1be01bzk0url/Afrika_Korps.pdf

FoW V4 EW/LW Rulebook:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/qdle47a7m8u9lne/Flames_of_War_V4_EWLW.pdf

Special Rules and Warriors
http://www.mediafire.com/file/i2ho0j4qshfuli4/Special_Rules_%26_Warriors.pdf

>>52143698
You the real MVP anon.

>>52143698
Thank you kind sir

>>52143698
Thank you sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar.

>>52143698
The conquering heroes of italia solute you.

ps.. notice and difference from the leaked versions?

>>52143698

mien graci, avamptour.

i think Eagles-chan should archive the lot of these....

>>52144519
I'll get to it.

I'm out for my brother's 30th birthday at the moment.

>>52143698
Truly the Unknown Hero.

>>52143669
That's what the dude behins the counter told me.

>>52145025
what a fag.

>nvmd, i know it's BF being all behind and shit

>>52143698

God bless you, anon.

>>52139363
Zvezda one is Pz2C, and BF resin one is Pz2F. Retards such as me care about it.

>>52143698
>no changes to 8 Million Bayonets
Either they don't think it needs to be updated, or they just don't feel like doing it.

>People on Facebook trying to figure out what the "new" points are for EW and LW.

>Not understanding that there is NO change to EW or LW points.

Jesus titty-fucking Christ... How do people not understand such a simple concept?

>>52147544
Took me a moment to realize that only mid war was getting redone.

File: 5194226065_9dec020218.jpg (176KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

176KB, 500x333px

>>52141555
>imbliging

I went down to my LGS today and demo'd a game with the El Alamein starter set. I really enjoyed it.

Guy at the store said the game is on a new edition, is this a good time to get started in Flames of War?

The game I played felt similar to a HoR 40k Killteam.

>>52148018
You wouldn't happen to have been at Brookhurst Hobbies, were you?

>>52148313
No, but I know that store. Good place.

>>52148018
If you like what you saw with the El Alamein game, yeah, now's a great time to get started. The desert war (Mid-war period) is getting rebooted, and a lot of previously expensive resin and metal stuff is now available in cheaper and better plastic. While there may be some slight historical accuracy issues that grogs like myself would love to complain about, Mid-war seems quite balanced from a gameplay perspective. It's a safer place to start than Late War or Early War which are being shook up quite a lot by the new edition. Mid-war right now is the perfect place to dive into the game.

>>52148448
Does the game feel the same when played with larger forces? I really like the idea of a small tank skirmish fighting over a town/area.

Does this hold up as the points go up or not so much?

>>52148491
I've only got much experience with v3, and with some of the changes V4's made I can't really state things with confidence. V4 seems much more fluid than V3 was. For tank on tank games, it should remain decently fluid and feeling like a small skirmish up to higher points. A few units of infantry or artillery mixed in shouldn't change the feel too much. If you run into a mostly or entirely infantry player, the game WILL change in feel, but I've seen some groups (such as my own) where infantry are nearly unknown.

>>52148491
As games get bigger the start to feel slightly less skirmish style and more like a larger combined-forces battle.

You'll have platoons of tanks, infantry, anti-tank guns, etc battling it out to defend or capture objectives.

So is it just me or do the Brits in TY not have great AA? Like their ROF is way lower than US and Soviets.

>>52148579
Perhaps I'm asking too much, but how does Infantry work in the game? I assume artillery and other stuff like that are relatively self explanatory, but Infantry sounds like it's an entirely different game.

>>52148772
That also sounds appealing, hmm I will definitely check this game out more.

>>52148814
different dude here

if 40k is a platoon/skirmish game, then the average Flames game is company level. Each stand of infantry at this scale is four dudes (a fireteam), and an average infantry platoon is 6 stands. Soviets can get around a dozen or so with a corresponding change in quality.

>>52148814
If tanks move 10 inches, infantry moves 8 (I think, new edition blues). They typically have 3+ armor and can dig in terrain for negative modifiers to hit (a 3+ to hit becomes a 4+, etc).

Infantry can be extremely diverse, being able to mix in machineguns and anti-tank guns - or just being an unwashed horde of bodies to deal with.

>>52148873
Are infantry in the game for securing objectives and providing some fire support? I'd imagine even a relatively weak tank could still wreck infantry.

>>52148814
It's mainly that infantry play differently. Infantry want to get to an objective, then dig in and hold on like ticks. They're very hard to shift once in place, but horribly vulnerable while moving around. They're naturally inclined to defend, while armor is obviously naturally inclined towards some form of attacking. Mixing some in with armor units allows you to easily hold an objective behind your lines while you push forward aggressively with your tanks, or to serve as an anchor the enemy has to deal with before they can effectively flank you (especially with AT guns backing the infantry up). A pure infantry army relies a lot upon initial unit placement, but can be very difficult to shift.

>>52148917
the answer is 'it depends'. in flames, there's different veterancy levels - means that some are harder to hit than others, which is only improved by cover and the like.

and infantry can provide fire support, although it's really dependent on what book you're using, and what nationality you have. a weak tank can wreck things, yeah - in assault, there are no armor saves. pass a skill check, something dies. combat continues until one side is dead, or someone runs - there's no such thing as 'stuck in combat'.

but, if you have enough bodies...maybe with AT grenades, and a tank knocked out? sure, infantry could wreak havoc on tanks. only takes a roll of a 1 to bail out a tank.

>>52148910
>>52148940
>>52148995
Ah, that sounds cool, like Guardsman in 40k with Infantry and tanks working together, holding objectives and providing fire support.

Are there transports and the like for Infantry or do they have to slog their way up in a game?

There was an anon earlier that said how some older models were being replaced with cheaper plastic, but for now, would a couple of those El Alamein boxes be a good way for me and a friend to get started? Any suggestions?

>>52148791
Brit missile AA in Team Yankee has been very effective against my Soviet Hinds.

>>52148814
Infantry are great for holding objectives. They are durable enough to survive a lot of punishment, especially if they dig foxholes.

They can also make a great force for assulting enemy infantry.

But there are other things like pinning down the enemy with mortar or machine gun fire, which are needed to help you pull off a successful assault.

Gameplay tends to be somewhat Rock-Paper-Scissors in that even situation has something that can counter it.

>>52149077
Kind of. You'll get a Panzer 3 and 4 for the Germans, and two Crusaders with a Grant.

I'd buy a box each and trade the tanks in one for the other. Same routine as with Black Reach etc. Gives each of you 6 dice and a mini rulebook. After that, the Afrika Korps and Desert Rats books should be available. Check out what armies they'll have and work from there. If you need to buy something, a platoon of infantry for either side will do the trick.

It's not the best advice, but with the new edition dropping literally 48 hours ago there's a bit of flex room to everything.

>>52149077
Some formations (think codex for a specific Military unit) are classified as Mechanized Infantry. These units will have trucks, halftracks, etc that can transport them across the battlefield.

Other infantry units aren't mechanized, and that means they're hoofing it across the battlefield on foot.

If you're serious about starting up, see if you store has, or will be getting, the Afrika Korps and Desert Rats army boxes.

Afrika Korps will give you a selection of German units that fought in North Africa, while Desert Rats will give you a selection of the British forces that fought against them.

>>52149177
>>52149204

I think i'll play it safe and start with just the El Alamein set, but so far I am sold for this game.

If my friend agrees we'll probably end up splitting the two armies and buying those other boxes as upgrades.

You guys have been great help, thanks!

File: K-2373.png (152KB, 789x734px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 789x734px

I want to be a Japanese army(late war), is it strong? Crazy rules and human bullets look so nice.

>>52138438
they are up on the app now

get your free shit from the supplier

Is it me, or the flame tanks, especially Soviet ones, look OP as fuck in V$...

>no reroll of FP when u hit them, the remount is up by 1 only
>not losing ROF while moving
> they hit with AT2, FP1+,Brutal

And only Soviet ones can assault... Imagine those T-26 variants in EW or KV-8 in LW...

V4 bump...

>>52151097
They took a big hit in effectivness against infantry, now they allow for saves, even if they have brutal that's still a save (and 3+/3+ is still good), you could argue that they can shoot more than once a game now but this means that infantry has a chance to react before getting set afire a second time. And also they are now totally useless on tanks (not that they were much better before but still, 0.0001 is still better thean 0).

Playing my first v4 Late War game tonight, we're both going with stripped down lists so we can just limit the number of special rules.

I for one am excited; the rules seem to remove needless complexity without removing depth... my thoughts anyway. Will have to wait till tonight, but the assault rules are a particular favourite of mine, assault in v3 always drove me mad with how messy it was.

>>52152215
There's a lot of stripped out deadweight in V4, but there's a large amount of tactical complexity suddenly interjected. It's interesting, but I know for sure, I really, really, really like V4 now after finally having played a game of it.

>>52151097
They don't hit on their skill anymore, so they're basically fancy MGs.

>>52152215
>>52152246
I disagree with both of you, but you're allowed to have wrong opinions

>>52152712
You can't really have a wrong opinion on something that is purely subjective.

>I like Chocolate ice cream!
>Rocky Road is the best!
>Mint Chocolate Chip!

There is no correct answer in that situation.

It all depends on what you personally like.

Version 3 was a great game, if a bit over complicated.

4th Edition is more in the mold of Team Yankee. Tactically complex without being a complicated rule set to learn.

That was always my biggest problem with Version 3, it was difficult to teach to new players because it was so dense and complicated.

It all made sense once you knew what was going on, but to get to that point you had a bit of a steep learning curve.

>>52152881
>You can't really have a wrong opinion on something that is purely subjective.
that'sthejoke.jpg

File: 0313170939.jpg (1MB, 2304x1296px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2304x1296px

Fuck V 4

File: 0313170943.jpg (891KB, 2304x1296px) Image search: [Google]

891KB, 2304x1296px

>>52152973
Improved image

>>52152973
It's statistically identical to Gun Tank. Or are you wanting to perfectly snipe out enemy tanks because they're unfortunate enough to have mixed units?

>>52152989
>>52152973
Fuck my phone too

File: do it again harry.jpg (57KB, 498x498px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 498x498px

>>52152973
don't see a problem?

>>52153030
do it again bomber harris

File: tumblr_inline_ntgslfKWCu1sysrze_400.jpg (23KB, 385x385px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 385x385px

>>52138401
> poor Soviets
Poor french they lost their central fire control rules and the heavy artillery rules

So in V4 the only ones that didn't got buttfucked are the US and in some lower level the germans?

>>52153359
Yeah pretty much oh the birts keep most of their rules

Nobody got buttfucked.

People just grousing about shit changing.

>>52153470
>>52153443
Tell that to my Typhoons, Cromwells, 25pdrs, and night attacking infantry. All overpriced shit now.

>>52153558
25 pdrs and Crommies were pretty overpriced to begin with but as a fellow brit player i know your pain, brother.

Can I play any nationality, other than brits and germs, in MW? Or do I have to wait for new books?

>>52153905
Wait for new books.

>>52153905
US is slated for September. Italians shortly after that. Next up will probably be the Eastern Front in 2018

Would anyone be interested in making a 3.5 rule book?

>>52153443
Didn't Brits lose out on artillery a lot by virtue of everyone getting MT or something?

>>52154042
You mean like the one they released this weekend for EW and LW?

>>52154042
Yes. In fact, our local group is planning on doing exactly that.

What we've considered so far that's likely to get in:
6+ bombardment FP is upgraded to 5+, all others remain the same.
At the Double now gives the enemy -1 to hit you (hit on 3s instead of 4s) rather than double ROF.
Artillery ranges in on their skill and hits on target skill (exact mods to be determined). Smoke unlimited but much reduced in coverage with bonus smoke if going with the wind.
You are concealed but able to see/be seen at any distance if you're within 1" of the edge if area terrain.

Less likely but has been suggested:
Attacker allocates hits, platoon leaders auto-pass Mistaken Target checks (done as TY/V4).
Bombs, Rockets, and artillery suffer +1 to hit armored tank teams under the template as direct hits are needed.
DFS only one ball, not two, and smoke does not give gtg at 8" or less.

>>52154452
No, we mean a good one.

>>52154042
>>52154781
so a project like 9th age except not crap

Generally speaking, what are the most popular armies?

Guessing German > American > Soviet > Brit?

>>52156759
Depends on your local area, for starters.

>>52154805
Yeah pretty much

>>52156802
Ok, what if his local area is the planet earth?

Any guesses for that?

>>52154042
Knock yourselves out if you're really that determined to do it, but I'd personally be worried about intentionally fracturing the player base with needless Edition Wars.

>>52157406
If the old /fowg/ poll was any indication, German>USSR>US>snarky assholes>UK>minor nations

>>52157623
Battlefront did that themselves. Our group hates V4, so we might as well fix up V3 like V4 should have.

>>52157658
Did you play it and hate it, or do you just refuse to even play it?

I can understand disliking it after you've tried it.

What I can't understand is outright refusal to even give it a shot.

>>52158018
It's been out for two days so i doubt they have played it enough to make a decision.

>>52158018
I am assuming they have looked through the special rule changes, decided their favorite army is ruined, and decided to hate V4 without playing a game.

>>52158078
We've had 95% of the rules leaked for months.

>>52158018
Tried it, didn't like it. We only play LW at our shop, and the changes to artillery, recce, and planes left a lot of us with units that have massively reduced effectiveness for no points change. Things were tending straight towards "here's my of armor, here's my light mortars, and here's my AT guns" before we decided to stick with V3.

>>52158181
We've had the incomplete and often incorrect ramblings of Battlefront's Pet Podcasters for the past several months, and a leak of a beta test rule set that barely resembles the final rules.

That's hardly the same thing as having The Rules for months.

>>52158406
It was accurate enough, none of the big things we had issues with changed with the full release. Sorry that we don't have the same opinion as you.

>>52158406
>Battlefront's Pet Podcasters

Ha! Pulling no punches, are we Eagles?

>We've had the incomplete and often incorrect ramblings

"So, if it uses the artillery template for it's attacks, does that mean that planes are now artillery?"

And these are the guys Battlefront trusts to explain their brand new rules to the general public...

>>52158614
>"So, if it uses the artillery template for it's attacks, does that mean that planes are now artillery?"
Well, they do act like arty in v4, down to being their own spotters and rolling to range in when using rockets/bombs. If that was a broken clock or a hint, I can't tell.

>>52158705
and the AT limitations sadly, so in that respect, the joke is on us.

>>52158565
>Sorry that we don't have the same opinion as you.

I never said you have to. I'm no dictator. I'm no authority here, no matter how people treat me like I'm some fucking expert. I'm just some dumb schmuck from Long Island who posts about Flames of War on /tg/ and podcasts about it with some other /tg/ namefags.

I personally don't see the need for a Version 3.5.

But I'm just one schmuck on 4chan. You have absolutely no reason to actually listen to me.

If you want to create a Version 3.5 I'd love to see what you've got.

But as one of the guys who for better or worse is a face of the official thread here on /tg/, I'm going to be helping people out with getting started on the officially supported 4th Edition of the game that just came out.

But, that's just me.

>>52158614
>Ha! Pulling no punches, are we Eagles?

Not here. Not on /tg/. This is home base. This is where we can be 100% honest in our opinions.

Out on NormieBook, I have to be a bit more polite and measured, but not here.

>And these are the guys Battlefront trusts to explain their brand new rules to the general public...

That had me screaming at them out loud in my car when I heard that episode.

But at least it isn't Warren and his NachtWulfen SS Mystical Artifact Hunters Brigade...

>>52158705
>>52158748
RIP planes, you were too pure for this game.

Did I read special rules correctly - USA lost Jumbo leads the way? So no Mistaken target on 2+ as WWPD podcast said?

>>52158986
Yep. Smooth ride is -1 to cross, so E8s cross on a 1+ (still fail on a 1, but can take a +1 penalty without issue).

I created pdf version of Early/Late Rulebook. you can find it here with official special rulesbook pdf.
https://www.mediafire.com/folder/j1n3rhysd2y6y/alevli_malevli

>>52158705
Actually, no more auto pin down by a hit from plane unless it using bombs or rockets, which is an artillery attack. It is literally flying artillery in game term now.

>>52143698
Thank you. For all of those.

You sir, are awesome.

The following files have been added to the Scans Database:

Flames of War - 4th Ed MW Rule Book
Flames of War - 4th Ed EW & LW Rule Book
Flames of War - 4th Ed Special Rules & Warriors
Afrika Korps
Desert Rats

http://www.mediafire.com/?8ciamhs8husms

>>52158844
> That had me screaming at them out loud in my car when I heard that episode.

You were not alone...

>>52160115
Just doing my part for the /fowtg/

Cheers

>>52160030
>>52158614

>"So, if it uses the artillery template for it's attacks, does that mean that planes are now artillery?"

> It is literally flying artillery in game term now.

Don't know should I Cry or laugh (and then cry)...

File: 20170313_224022-picsay.jpg (743KB, 2141x1380px) Image search: [Google]

743KB, 2141x1380px

Painted zvezda panzer IIc for Africa korps. I know it should be F variant, but I do not have a fetish of expensive, heavy and fragile resin.

>>52160432
Excellent work. I love the chipped and worn paint.

File: Battlefront.png (2KB, 486x88px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 486x88px

Sans my name, address and email, battlefront is sending me a book. I was the one asking if they took the open fire rulebook yest, they sure do!

Big thanks to them, cause it was a 100 mile drive to go to a store that was participating in the festivities near me.

>>52154042
Hello it's me again now that things have calmed down a bit. Are we are really going to do a fanbased v 3.5 book? If we are sweet it will be the first /tg/ group work in a while. If any of you are interested here is my email
[email protected]
I look forward to working with you guys.

File: Screenshot_20170314-081952-picsay.png (202KB, 617x706px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 617x706px

Will this list fit well in V4?
I think IL-2 works well, and 4+ bombardment firepower of zis-3 too. Roaming halftracks with .50 cals without passengers as well.
I am not sure about 3 su-100s between 5 t-34s. Allowance of 7+ to hit makes cat killer more useful, while wide track and fast speed of t-34 is attractive too.

With the changes to MW, what will the average point size be? 100? 150?

Same anon that asked about getting started yesterday evening, I just did a quick skim through the PDFs posted above and I have a few questions, mostly pertaining unit make up.

So if i'm getting it correctly, you need to field a formation of Tanks/Infantry at the minimum, and that Formation is made up of several models of tanks/infantry respectively.

Within those specific formations, I'll just use the Grant Armored Squadron in my example, I would need 1 HQ Grant, 2 other Grants, 1 Cruiser Tank, and 1 Honey Tank, Yes or No?

The grey stuff at the bottom of the chart is all optional from there?

>>52161495
Probably 75-100, 100's actually pretty on the large side with British cruisers as cheap as they are.

>>52161553
1 Grant HQ (2-3 tanks), and 2 Grant units (each of 3 tanks), OR 1 Grant HQ, 1 Grant unit, and EITHER 1 unit of Crusaders (3 tanks) OR a unit of Honey tanks (3 tanks).

>>52161553
Close, but a bit off. You'd need one HQ platoon (next page, 2-3 Grants), at least one Grant troop (page 21, 3 Grants), and then you have one slot for any of the following three: a Grant platoon, a Crusader platoon, or a Honey platoon.

So the minimum for that would be 5 Grants and then 3 Grants/Crusaders/Honeys, your choice. Note that in casual games to get started you can ignore the formations and just use forces that come to the same points total.

>>52161697
>>52161765
Okay I see how that works now.

I had read it as needing to field one of each type of tank per black box, so for the second choice where it said Grant/Crusader/Honey, I thought it had meant 1 unit of each for that second slot.

I probably shouldn't be concerned with this yet, but should I be taking all of the same type of tanks in a formation, or is it better to mix and match, or is i just player prerogative?

>>52153558
25pdrs are now Firepower 4+. So they're actually improved by this edition. Plus all of the movement orders improve some British staple unit. Mistaken Target also protects Fireflies more than Guntank ever did.

>>52161972
Different guy, but I feel like German Arty is better, now. The 10.5 gets 3+ firepower for the same points. Am I missing something?

Also, am I way out of line thinking the German mortars make the unit too static? Was thinking of doing primarily infantry.

What's peoples opinions on the V4 British?

Surely a Grant company are the main one will be too weak? I think Crusaders with a Grant support troop will fair better in the numbers game.

>>52161972
>25pdrs are now Firepower 4+. So they're actually improved by this edition.
That is so selective it's deceptive.

25pdrs gained:
>1 point of FP in bombardments
>4+ base save

25pdrs lost:
>re-roll first attempt to range in
>1 point of AT in bombardments
>ability to use smoke bombardment more than once

25 pdrs are no longer unique sources for:
>working with AOPs
>Repeating bombardments
>Re-roll saves on repeat bombardments

3" mortars:
>are 2/3rds the points of 25pdrs
>have DFS with the same range as the 25s
>bombard the same as the 25s
>work with the AOP as well as the 25s
>are more mobile than the 25s
>have better saves than the 25s.
The only thing you lose is the AT 9 direct fire, which I've seen used three times in the 30+ games I've used them in. If you have access to 3" mortars, there is very little reason to take 25pdrs unless you're dying to max out your single spotter's spotting attempts.

>>52162052
In Mid War, the 10.5 also has forwards facing and one less shot as a direct fire gun. 25pdrs also have a better motivation. So it's debatable.
In Late War, a 10.5 battery is twenty more points than a 25pdr battery,

>>52161488
The IL-2Ms are actually worth a shit now, so are the Katys. If they're T-34/85s I'd take them over SU-100s in that case, otherwise go with the SU-100s. They're still not great.

>>52162090
The Grant seems like a good tank to me. Hit on 4+, has two guns (even if one is dinky and has +1 to hit), and a better gun than most the British stuff. I would be more tempted to have a core of Grants in the center with some supporting Crusaders to flank.

>BF specifies that those 12-gun arty batteries split and act separately
>say jack shit about the 12-gun mortar batteries in Cossacks
I'm going to split them anyway but I'm amazed at how sloppy the new rules can be.

>>52162421

I wouldn't say they're sloppy but this weird halfway house we're at is going to throw up a lot of questions.

And we could be in this situation for a few years since they'll only finish mid-war in 2018.

>>52162090
Grant is great for its points. Harder to hit than other Brit tanks. Extra attack over every other tank. Best non-Tiger side armor. Only FP3+ tank the brits get.

>>52153470
Literally all artillery is imbalanced now, at the very least. More stuff will come out because it hardly can't when you change the rules and don't change points on basically everything.

>If a US Artillery Unit with a Staff Team in their unit diagram successfully Ranges In (page 47on the first attempt, all Infantry and Gun Teams under the Template must Re-roll successful Saves.
They need to clarify this, it currently reads like they only get it when there's a Staff team on the board when Staff teams are dead, when presumably the intention is to keep the bigger guns with their ToT.

Also, US keeps ToT and "every unit commander is a spotting team" while everyone else goes to 1 OP and loses their special rules (or gives them to everyone). Half the reason for the artillery changes was US arty spam. Good to see they didn't care to do a good job.

>>52162670
I dunno, I read it as intended. Is the staff team on the the diagram? Doesn't matter if they're dead or alive, they're still on the diagram. Still gives them ToT.

>>52162670
Staff Teams don't go on the board at all. Gun batteries are now just the Guns themselves. Guns are also less effective against tanks which makes tanks a pretty good counter to US arty spam.

>>52162421
That's because they didn't split. Soviet fire control was pretty lacking in WWII, they didn't have enough radios and field telephones to assign out, which is why Soviet artillery and mortars in FoW tend to operate as a larger group than with other nations. A Western battery gets its own OP and can fire on its own, but for the Soviets it's the entire battalion firing as one. In v3, OPs weren't even a given for most artillery, it was an option you had to pay for, furthering signifying how uncommon it was. The typical way Soviet artillery fired was in pre-planned bombardments at the beginning of a battle, and at set times afterwards, rather than the Western approach of being able to ask for it on-the-fly as the tactical situation demanded.

>>52162859
For the curious, some more reading on the subject of how nation X did their artillery

http://www.poeland.com/tanks/artillery/doctrine.html

Looking into getting into team yankee and have been watching some videos.

Why does it look the game boils down to
>line tanks up
>move them to cover
>proceed to sit them down and start shooting fest with no maneuver warfare going on.

So far does not seem like the dynamic combat I was hoping for in a cold war tabletop game.

>>52162324
>>52162489

Alright you've convinced me. I'm going Grant company.

>>52162990
you're most likely watching shit player play without objectives

>>52163050
Remember to use other stuff. Giving up a set of Grants can give you a couple other tank troops.

>>52156759
this is 4chan

Soviet > German > Hungarian/Finnish > Brit > Americans

I'm personally planning on having two Grant HQ's, three Grants and a platoon of Crusader II/IIIs. From there it's in the air.

>>52160432
fokkin noice, m8!

>>52162990
Seems like a classic case of 100 points on an 6'x4' table. We play 80 points, and in many of my games at least some of my units travel clear across the board.

>>52162859
I'm aware of all that. My confusion stems from the fact that any justification for splitting the tubes applies equally to splitting the mortars.

>>52163556
British Artillery Batteries were already semi-separate units. Now they've just said 'They're separate units' to clarify how they work under the new rules. Soviet Artillery is just a big ass battery.

>>52163556
Also, IRL the number of mortars in a fire plan could get silly--a Soviet rifle regiment would frequently take all 33 mortars of various calibers under their control and group them into one super-battery. They were not physically placed together, but were expected to shell the ever-living fuck out of any German mortar dumb enough to target their dudes--almost 200 rounds in 20 seconds on a single point. Wait, someone responded--
>>52163582
>Soviet Artillery is just a big ass battery.
That's not the case at all--the new steel wall version is very clear that each battery in a Soviet arty battalion is a separate unit. Romanians have the same rule as well. As far as I can tell every unit that can get more than 6 arty stands without being rockets is now split up....except Cossack mortars.

File: Virus_stop_talking_out_your_ass.png (87KB, 379x153px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 379x153px

>>52163582
>Soviet Artillery is just a big ass battery.
uh...

>>52163710
>>52163695
Oh Well then I'm wrong. I'm not usually one for playing Soviets unless it's just a mass of tanks. Then it's probably just a flub. Battlefront will probably release an errata soon enough.

>>52153030
do it again bomber harris

>>52163556
Ah, my apologies, haven't looked through all of the v4 stuff yet.

>>52163165

As a rough sketch, I'm thinking a Grant company with 2 troops, Honey or Crusader to flank. 2 25 pdrs and an infantry platoon with carrier recce.

So, if I'm reading this right, you can take any compulsory combat unit from a Formation as a support unit for another Formation.

Since the Formation HQ is a compulsory combat unit, I'm guessing there's nothing stopping you from taking just the HQ on its own? Seems silly, I would've thought HQs would be exempt from that guideline.

>>52138401

Anyone know where a good place to buy a few M24 Chaffee tanks? Cheap as possible preferably.

>>52164602
It says "you must field your Formation HQ and one combat Unit from each black box", which implies the non-HQ units are Combat Units. But it's not explicit, so I fully expect this to be another thing for the FAQ.

>>52164664
Ah, I see the implication there.
In my mind that makes sense, but I agree that its confusing enough that it needs clarification.

Do we have V4 scans yet? Digital editions are available.

>>52165176
Yes, in the links at the top

>>52165190

Oh right, thanks.

I think we maybe need a clean up and some files creating.

>>52153030
do it again Bomber Harris

File: 50.jpg (21KB, 450x252px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 450x252px

>>52153030

File: British Troops Advancing.jpg (61KB, 900x629px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 900x629px

Coming over from Team Yankee. What do people think?

Grant Armoured Squadron

3x Grant HQ - 18

3x Grant Troop - 18

3x Grant Troop - 18

1x Crusader II
2x Crusader III - 7

Motor Company

Motor Company HQ - 2

Large Motor Platoon - 8

4x 6 Pounder Guns - 12

Universal Carrier Patrol - 2

Support Units

2x 25 Pounder Guns - 7

2x 17 Pounder Anti-Tank Guns - 8

Total: 100

I wouldn't mind trying to squeeze in some 3 inch mortars somewhere.

>>52166150
You won't achieve much with a 2 gun battery, it might be wise to shave off a few points to up them to 4. Otherwise they're re-rolling hits on bombardments.

>>52166358

I could drop 2 of the 6 pounders and a crusader III to save 7 points?

>>52166385
That could work.

Alternatively you could eliminate the 6 pounders altogether and spend the extra 5 points left over on the 3" Mortars and 2 MMGs, or on a Crusader II troop.

>>52166507

I think I need at least 2x 6 pounders to meet the requirements of the Motor Company.

File: USAB07-02.jpg (499KB, 690x520px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 690x520px

How do you guys recommend I build the contents of my Patton's eagle box?

Got it for christmas from a friend who got it on sale super cheaper. (He knows I like minitures and girls und panzer lol)

Neither of us play flames of war but I may give it a shot as I used to play 40k and WHFB

>>52166572
Oh, yes, you're right. In that case, you're first plan is the best.

>>52166656
The halftracks and infantry will be straightforward, just follow the unit diagram in the book to see how many infantry to place on each stand (two men on a small base for the bazookas, three on a small for the command rifle, everyone else in the number of people shown on medium bases).

For the tanks, I'd recommend making two normal Pershings and one Super pershing, since you rarely want more than two pershings at a time anyway (they're good, but expensive and can only kill so fast). If you do ever end up fielding all three, 95% of people will be fine with you proxying the Super Pershing as a normal Pershing.

For the Shermans, you should have two turrets you can make per tank, so you can freely swap between the cheaper 75s and the more expensive (but better against tanks) 76s.

>>52166864
There was a sheet in the box that mentioned something about command tanks. What was that about?

>>52166988
They're the same as any other tank in the platoon. Though to signify which one the platoon commander is riding in, players typically use the open hatch with the commander sticking out. You don't have to, but it will visually stand out and be easier to keep track of.

>>52166864

How ridiculous was the Super Persh's gun. I'm surprised it didn't unbalance it.

The Second Crusade
3x Crusader HQ - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader HQ - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader HQ - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader HQ - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
3x Crusader Troop - 5
Total: 100

8 Crusader CS, 52 Crusader II. Logic? Sense? Fuck that, Crusader time.

Originality? What the fuck is that?

Anybody got an idea when TY is getting more content? Really hoping to see say the poles and the french. Really wanted to see say t-80's and m60's and such as well.

In V4,
If the BM-31(5+crew) bombardement five weapon , is that Devastating template and reroll to hit ?

by the katyusha special rule(Devastating Bombardment) nine weapon, become Devastating Bombardment.

and If the Artillery Unit has five or more weapons firing, re-roll failed rolls To Hit.


In V3, seven katyusha(5+crew) do Devastate-reroll hit. , but in V4, five can do.

Is that right?

File: IMG_20170313_195956.jpg (4MB, 3024x4032px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3024x4032px

Played my first v4 game last night... Bloody loved it. Aside from the bits which are just there to tidy/speed up the rules, I think they've made a really fundamental improvement.

Basically the scissors paper stone is now much stronger. Infantry with anti tank weapons are much stronger Vs tanks. Artillery is much stronger against infantry. Tanks are tanks and kinda complete the circle, while doing other stuff.

And the speed of the game, not just the time it takes, but just how fast units now are. The rules are better laid out...

I was falling out of love with v3 and had been playing more IABSM, even though that's harder to find opponents for, this while not that is much cooler!

Sure it's no historical SIM, but it gets the fundamentals down without needless faff.

I'm sure some changes will frustrate me later, list specific things, but i love the bones.

File: DSCF1037.jpg (2MB, 3488x2616px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3488x2616px

>>52167731
I think may but it's going to be upgrades to the Russians and Yanks to get them on par with the brits and westen krauts

>>52167949
>Basically the scissors paper stone is now much stronger. Infantry with anti tank weapons are much stronger Vs tanks. Artillery is much stronger against infantry. Tanks are tanks and kinda complete the circle, while doing other stuff.

So it's WW2 flavored Advance Wars?

>>52169614
I don't know what that means, never played "advance wars".

I'd argue that its historical, given that tanks were developed to deal with no-mans-land and that artillery was the biggest killer of infantry in both world wars.

More glowing compliments; the "movement orders" give each and every unit more to do, so with one hand Battlefront have removed loads of faff, and with the other gone "here have some special moves to play with". The "orders" also give your infantry this larger potential threat bubble and your opponents tanks suddenly find themselves wondering if you'll get lucky and jump 16 inches at you, into assault

Also they gave me a free rules book so I'm inclined to glow about the game. Free shit makes me happy.

>>52169614
>So it's WW2 flavored Advance Wars?
Not a bad thing

File: brit-clone-3.jpg (168KB, 938x681px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 938x681px

Anyone seen this? British plans to build their own T-34s,

http://tankarchives.blogspotdotcodotuk/2013/04/bovington-t-34-and-kv-1-impressions.html

>>52170207
Those turrets, would be so fucking cramped as to make the King Tiger 10.5cm with the Gun Breech that kills the second loader with each shot look like a Tiger IE's comfy spacious turret.

File: a34 comet.jpg (50KB, 410x293px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 410x293px

>>52170207
not as handsome as the a34 comet

>>52170572
Exceedingly few things are.

>>52170207
>hey we got this tank with shit ergonomics, not sure how it could get worse in fact
>hold my drink

Volksarmee was a mistake

>>52170207
The KV-1 with howitzer might have worked, IF they had used a much smaller one like the US 105mm or their own 3.7". The Soviets had planned out a regular KV-1 turret being able to handle their own 122mm howitzer, and in my mind that's the absolute upper limit that turret could take and still have 2 crew members inside.

While I can see the appeal of the T-34, the KV-1 was a dead-end chassis by that point in the war, and the British would've achieved the same - or even better - results by mounting a howitzer on the Churchill chassis. The Churchill's turret had more room, maybe not enough for a 6" howitzer but it would certainly have a better chance of pulling it off.

File: Guards_CS_Gren.jpg (101KB, 800x765px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 800x765px

>>52171147
>results by mounting a howitzer on the Churchill chassis
Like the Mk V and VIII, with the OQF 95mm?

File: 24645641280.jpg (91KB, 769x648px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 769x648px

>>52171137
Could have been cool. But Phil.

>>52172988
T-64s with the next book which is Russian GSFG.

you'll never see the t-80

>>52173134
Hey now, you don't know that. We might see it in the future as a stupidly overpriced resin tank made for spamming because "lol warpac."

Got my free books today, unfortunately because of job related travelling wont be able to play any games before April. If anyone plays EW/LW please post your thoughts and opinions...

>>52171147
I mean the T-34/85 turret might've worked better for the British.

Now excuse me while I dream of my British T-34 army - the only ahistorical force I might ever wish to run.

>>52174431
>>52171147
>>52170207
I just wish they had made the Cromwell with welded, sloped armor, and maybe a stabilized 6pdr. That would have been great.

>>52167731

Yanks getting M60's is guaranteed later this year I think. Soviets will be getting more stuff as well. They're said France will come eventually. Only Poland is up in the air, they weren't sure if they were different enough to warrant a whole section for them.

>>52170519
>>52170809

Well this is probably why it didn't get beyond the design phase.

>>52170591

Maybe the Centurion, fingers crossed we get a Korean War expansion.

>>52175433

Hopefully the U.S. gets Bradleys and M60's.

>>52175582
M60 Pattons are likely, especially if the Stripes books is more of a US Army Reserves and US National Guard book.

M2/M3 Bradleys? They are briefly mentioned in the novel Team Yankee which the setting of the game is loosely based on, so they could get added in as well.

Here's a question. Did the Italians ever face the 17 pounder in North Africa?

>>52175979
abit overkill for their tanks

>>52176121

Haha, true. I was thinking of skipping the Germans and going for Italy mid-war, whenever BF get round to them. I just wondered what the state of the Italian army was in 1943.

>>52176121
>>52176300

Apparently they did in Tunisia and the Battle of the Mareth Line if anyone is interested.

>>52176300
There was an army?

>>52176300

50+ M41 list is going to be hilarious vs 50+ Crusader list.

>>52178129

They were lovers not fighters.

To be fair, the Italians were the only ones with enough guts to lynch their dictator.

File: 1409764534690.gif (1014KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

1014KB, 500x281px

>>52167667

>the 15th Crusade

>>52171137

you were a mistake

you shoulda ran down the crack of your momma's ass and made a stain on the mattress!

File: 1414356950645.jpg (323KB, 936x817px) Image search: [Google]

323KB, 936x817px

Reminder again:
You can post your questions to be answered on Panzerfunk at this following link
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeOBxEJbNzS_Ec7I76zQmCU9P7o0C5bAgcXriKQ4bOWBp4QkA/viewform

>>52181374
>all this autism in favour of resin spam hordes

File: best possible german swarm.jpg (44KB, 388x370px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 388x370px

>>52167667

>>52182083
You have 120 points there. 10+10+20+20+20+20+20 = 120.

File: IMG_0235.jpg (72KB, 355x531px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 355x531px

>>52171137
>>52172886

Cheers

>>52173011
T-72 with +1 front armor and a AT missile. Still RoF 1. Still hit on 3+.

Cheers

>>52182171
No wonder it's so good at 100 pts.

>>52181678
when are you all doing another podcast? the schedule seems sporadic at best

>>52182512
Our next episode is being edited, right now.

>>52182512
That is unfortunately an accurate description.

I'm just about finished editing the next episode.

And we'll be recording in the near future to discuss 4th Edition.

>>52182621
As for what is taking so long...

Coordinating schedules of half a dozen people in half a dozen time zones to set up a date and time to record is complicated as all hell.

Then, after recording, I have to find time in the middle of a 45+ hour work week to actually sit down and edit this thing.

And editing takes approximately 4 minutes per every minute of audio.

And the recordings are typically between 2 1/2 hours and 3 hours before I edit them down to their final length.

You do the math on what that means for how long it takes me to edit an episode.

In my spare time.

For free.

And yet I do it anyway because I love the game, love chatting with the other Funkmeisters, and for some odd reason you all seem to keep listening to us.

So we must be doing something right.

>>52182927
wasn't trying to be salty, just wondering if more episodes were in the works due to V4 or not

>>52184133
We were caught in an awkward position by the release of V4. Until the beginning of this week we had nothing but "Stuff our Mate Jeff said" "Stuff that was said on other Podcasts" and "Leaked stuff that might not represent the final product.". Plus we were all busy over the Christmas period etc.

We're planning to do a V4 episode proper, but this one is about other stuff simply because we couldn't manage a series of coherent opinions with the information we had to us at the time.

>>52178990
Oh Jesus. Why would you do that to yourself?

So I take it this means the V4 rulebook never specified number of formations? How long before BF steps up and says "yeah, that's not how that works"?

>>52184133
A also apologize if I came across as short tempered.

I've been more short tempered than usual lately for some reason.

3 hours of snow shoveling today probably didn't help.

>>52181217
I was visiting my grandpa in italy a couple of years back and he was telling me about all the shit the fascists fucked up, and I said "was there any part of Italy that did well in WW2?"

He said, "Oh, yes. The resistance."

>>52184275
>How long before BF steps up and says "yeah, that's not how that works"?
Forever, as they stepped up and said "yeah, that's fine, but nobody's going to do it because who would buy 60 tanks?"

They really do not understand wargamers.

>>52184700
Seruously? They just want "spam: the game" don't they?

>>52184700
>yeah, that's fine, but nobody's going to do it because who would buy 60 tanks?

Assholes do that. That's who BF.

>>52184700
I've already seen images on Facebook, more than likely photoshoped, of 60 Stuarts.

>They really do not understand wargamers.

It's only some gamers. Those seeking out some advantage that isn't expressly forbidden by the rules even if it does go against common sense.

But something tells me that the 60 Stuart list isn't Mid-War's equivalent of the BMP swarm.

>>52184700
Oh sweet naive BF, you are too pure for this world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hvzw7MOFhQo&ab_channel=TheOnion

>>52185219
>Those seeking out some advantage that isn't expressly forbidden by the rules even if it does go against common sense.
Also those with lots of money that just want to put down a shitload of models and roll a shitload of dice for funzies. AKA: Tyranid Players.

>>52185353
>AKA: Tyranid Players.
Or Orks.

Or people who, for one reason or another, want to field a Stuart Battalion (that's "only" 45 of the buggers, but still)

>>52185610
>>52185353
>>52185219
I'm pretty sure based on my experience against a Soviet T-26 Regiment, that any proper balanced force will blow these massive forces of monotype tanks away. 25pdr batteries would be particularly nasty at this, 6pdr batteries more so.

>>52187088
THe answer is of course to go with 45 little buggers, and then add stuff to counter your rock. Perhaps 25pdrs of your own? Some infantry maybe. IDK, I'm at work and don't have access to the book right now.

>>52185219
I play at 6mm and the BMP swarm is financially viable, what do I need in order to run it?

>Because Tank Teams only stop moving if they fail a Cross test, Recovery Vehicles no longer serve any purpose in the game. Do not field Recovery Vehicles in your force.
It sucks to lose the Bergepanther, especially when I never used it for recovery and just treated it as a cheap and resilient MG.

>You may choose any non-Transport Team from the HQ Unit as their Commander at the start of the game.
So I can have a Crusader AA or a mortar team or whatever as my Formation Commander now?

>>52187401
BMP-2s and infantry. Maybe some token AA to shoot down Tornados and Harriers.

So if read this correctly, you can take say, Soviet platoon of 10 tanks, hide commander and 1 more tank somwhere and roam with the rest of unit around, with only +1 penalty for shooting, no orders and cannot dash (I mean you can but only towards commander). You can assault freely.

So you can lose those 8 tanks and still the unit would be on table, still in good spirits...

Tell me I got this wrong, cause if i'm not, this is going to cause so many abuses that FAQ can't come soon enough.

>>52188145
Well the sure fire way to counter that is to snipe one of the two tanks he left behind and try to force th entire unit to take a last stand. Soviet tanks would be near useless until they get in assault if the commander tried this because gen and Chicks stacks on. Still needs to be addressed. Units not in command should not be allowed to assault.

>>52188355
Agree, on the other hand Matilda spam just got even more deadlier against infantry, unless you have some AT weapon nearby infantry is going to get pulverized...

>>52185219
>Those seeking out some advantage that isn't expressly forbidden by the rules even if it does go against common sense.
This is a dumb attitude. If the game's broken you blame the person who literally gets paid to write rules, not someone who's competitive. If I wanted to play someone who didn't want to win I'd play singleplayer games on PC.

>>52189019
My point, which you seem to be missing, is that every rule set has things which can be exploited, and there is a specific kind of gamer that looks for those and then bases their entire play style around exploiting those oversights in the rules.

And while blaming the rules is partially correct, there will never be a rule set that is 100% perfect and unexploitable.

There will always be something that can be found and used by people determined to gain an advantage without actually technically breaking any of the rules.

Some weird rule interactions I've found so far in V4:
Lack of Always Attacks means that British infantry can declare a Night Attack and end up defending. Hell, if you're using either of the alternatives to straight up rolling for attacker you've got a better than average chance to force the enemy to attack you at night. Not sure how much tactical benefit it has (maybe they're low on arty with lots of planes and long range direct fire or something?) but it's kinda dumb to think about.

CSM Stan Hollis gives his unit 3+ Motivation, but 51HD have Cautious Not Stupid which states they rally on a 4+. Having a specific rally rating overrules your motivation, so he's now much less effective at leading 51HD since their special rule now hurts them.

>>52189578
> but it's kinda dumb to think about.
Nonsense, it simply means the British kindly informed their foes that they were planning to perform a night attack ahead of time, but prior to the battle they called the toss wrong in no man's land and got stuck defending in the first innings. The enemy, being sporting chaps themselves aren't just going to sit back and wait until morning when everyone's come out expecting to a have a right dust up over supper.

>>52189578
>>52189640
Wouldn't the Night Attack only be declared if they actually are the Attacker?

That's how I would read it anyway.

>>52189691
The Night Attack rule says the British may use it in certain missions, with no restrictions as to whether you're attacking or defending. By comparison, the Special Rules book specifically states that German Night Attack forces (those with IR equipment, for example) have to be the attacker to make it night time.

>>52189487
When your argument is "it would be too expensive (assuming you buy our expensive as fuck resin tanks, and not the cheap plastics quickly put out by our competition)"... yeah, the problem isn't with the players.

And the work-around in V4 would be so mindblowingly simple (limited numbers of each company) that I wonder if they bothered to playtest at all, or if all the playtesters were half asleep and/or high.

British Parachute Company, Overlord
HQ with 3 PIAT 120
Full size Para platoon 230
Full size Para platoon 230

Rifle Company Formation (15 Scots)
HQ with pipes, 2 full size Rifle platoons 315

Rifle Company (same as above) 315

Rifle Company (same as above) 315

That's 1525 points so enough space for some toys in most games. Plan is to stick the HQ all together with one Para platoon to get 12 teams, then have three pipers within 6" so that the enemy needs 11 hits in Defensive fire to push you back.

It's impractical and doesn't do much, but it's kinda hilarious too.

>>52189487
>My point, which you seem to be missing, is that every rule set has things which can be exploited, and there is a specific kind of gamer that looks for those and then bases their entire play style around exploiting those oversights in the rules.
>And while blaming the rules is partially correct, there will never be a rule set that is 100% perfect and unexploitable.
This is what I mean, because there are games where you have "strong strategies". If your game allows "exploits" the person writing the rules fucked up and they need to FAQ it and do better. This is GW-tier excusing of the parent company.

>>52189827
Essentially:

If your game allows builds that're hard to deal with, you've met someone who's good at the game and has built a list accordingly. Your job, at least if you want to play a competitive wargame (not everyone does, but FoW has never really been a history simulator), is then to use things from your toolbox to come up with a plan that beats it.

If you're short, and the other guy will roll all over you no matter what you do (barring ridiculous luck), then the fuckup is with the designer and you need to houserule or play a better game.

>>52189740
In Team Yankee at least, there are limitations on how many of each formation you can take. So your argument there doesn't really hold water.

And the T-55 is kind of a crappy tank anyway, even compared to the Leopard 1. I'm not sure why people would want to massively spam them.

As for 4th Edition, im surprised they didn't put limits on the numbers of each formation you can take. It would have been quite simple to do so.

The rules could certainly be written in such a way to limit some of this nonsense.

But this nonsense only exists because of people who want to look for any advantage that they can without technically breaking any of the rules.

It's a mentality that the game designers don't have. It's one that I'd assume most casual players don't have.

And even the tournament players I know will openly call bullshit on something being overpowered even as they stomp your face in with it.

It's a specific type of person who will willingly exploit such an advantage to its fullest and most cheesy conclusion, all while defend himself by saying it's not cheesy at all and completely within the rules.

>>52189578
>>52189640
>>52189691
>>52189739
Yeah, the new Night Attack rules are dumb as fuck. The germans with it can only use it when attacking, but can use it for any mission. The British can use it attacking or defending, but for some reason only when the opponents have mines. The Brits also can't move any platoons not in the formation with night attack outside of their deployment zone untill dawn breaks, because shutup.

>>52189936
V4 just seems like a rush job in general desu.

>>52189892
>In Team Yankee at least, there are limitations on how many of each formation you can take. So your argument there doesn't really hold water.
He's talking V4, where the designers gave the excuse about it being too expensive to field in response to questions about formation limits.

But you're a battlefront cock sucker so fuck you anyway.

FoW v4 is really good AND fun

Just bored of reading people moan about it on the internet. Everybody who I've spoken to about it in real life likes it

No doubt there are a few bits that'll need FAQ's errata and the like after the player base test it to destruction, but come on guys, just admit. The basic rules are a real improvement

>>52189966
Only if you buy me dinner first.

>>52190094
Ok, John's Pizza at 8?

>>52190057
I'm still reading through the new rules myself, but it does seem like an improvement for the most part.

But I full expect there to be some teething problems as the player base works to find out what the new balance will look like in Early War and Late War in 4th Ed.

>>52189807
More seriously, the 12 team rule seems pretty important to consider? Infantry are more likely to end up on attack in V4, and most lists can manage 12 with HQ and attachments. Most US infantry and armored infantry can be 10-11 teams, plenty of Germans get 10, standard Brits are 9, etc. As long as you've got your HQ teams and maybe some [bazookas] or even Higher Command you can reach 12 before casualties.

>>52189936
>reason only when the opponents have mines.
Does this mean it can be used if the opponent has a pioneer supply truck?

>>52190219
>and most lists can manage 12 with HQ and attachments
Brits get like no attachment options, so unlikely there. Only nation unable to attach out HMGs and/or light mortars. You have 0-3 PIATs from the command at best (exact cap varies on list) and that's about it.

>>52190273
9 infantry teams from the platoon, 2 HQ, 1-3 PIAT is 12-14, maybe a Higher Command too.

Mortars and HMGs don't help because it only counts assaulting teams. Attaching out gun teams would help for pining in the shooting phase I guess, whereas Warriors and HQ don't.

>>52190122
What kind of name is John's for a pizzaria?

Alfredo's, Lombardi's, or Gino's. Those are the kind of names you look for in a good pizzaria.

>>52190219
What is this 12 team rule? I haven't come across that yet.

>>52189892
>But this nonsense only exists because of people who want to look for any advantage that they can without technically breaking any of the rules.
You're implying that there's some other rule they're breaking that they're trying to work around; there isn't. There's only the rules in the book. If the rules in the book are shit, blame the designer. If you don't want to play those rules, that's fine, there's houseruling and/or other games for that, but you need to discuss that. You can't keep going "it violates the spirit of the game"; it's a competitive WW2 game, the idea is to try and win the board in front of you and the game's good if it does that in a fun way. If you can't actually play the game as it's written in a fun way, the game's shit.

>>52190465
John's of Times Square. Not a fake name, real place in NY. Very good pizza.

>>52190509
Eagles kinda has a point.

You shouldn't have to literally put "don't be a douche bag" into the rules to ensure that people don't become complete and total jackasses.

Competition is all well and good, but there is also sportsmanship.

And winning by any means necessary is not sportsmanlike behavior.

>>52190592
This assumes spam armies are a good idea, when they all have no HE. +1 to hit when the opponent can stay GtG with their infantry indefinitely while their Tiger and gun teams kill with impunity. They have a 5+ morale and three tank units with garbage armor that are hit at trained. They're not some super unit.

>>52190219
>Based off of a single game
Trying to keep an entire US rifles platoon, with combat attachments, all in that command bubble, even the expanded one was tricky. It was just asking for an artillery strike and I had to start deliberately leaving units back or out of coherency

I wonder how that'll work out in the wash. Will US armoured rifles just be gittish?

>>52190465
If your platoon contains 12 or more assaulting teams it takes 8 hits rather than 5 to push them back in assault. Same with trying to pin a platoon that started shooting with 12 or more teams .

I believe it used to be a Soviet special rule but now it's universal, and since infantry companies often try and stack up 10-12 teams anyway in V3 it looks like it could be worth specifically aiming for.

>>52190465
>What kind of name is John's for a pizzaria?
>>52190539
>John's of Times Square.

I have yet to go there myself, but I don't get into Manhattan that often.

I've heard good things though.

Then again any corner pizzaria in NYC is a good place to find a good slice.

>>52190662
Exactly. Stuarts are no super unit. Although pure weight of numbers could still be a factor to consider.

>>52190662
Maybe it has been tested; the game seems to be pushing towards combined arms with the new rules.

So you show up with your waves of tanks; infantry laughs at you. You show up with waves of infantry, artillery laughs at you. You show up with gunline artillery, tanks close their hatches and drive at you laughing.

That's the theory anyway; no doubt somebody will figure out an exploit and it'll become meta... or get squatted

>>52189892
> it's not cheesy at all and completely within the rules.
Thing is, it can be cheesy and broken as all hell AND be within the rules. Then it's a problem with the rules.

>>52190592
>You shouldn't have to literally put "don't be a douche bag" into the rules to ensure that people don't become complete and total jackasses.
It really should be. Because people tend to be a bit douche-isch, especialy in competitions. And between perfect gentlemen, you don't really need any advanced rules. As the gentleman-ness of the player decreases, the need for rules increase.

As to the shit-ton of stuarts, I'm quite certain several local players will be tempted to do it. Not because it's good (jury's out on that), or because they're douches (they're most assuredly not), but because they love how the stuart looks and feels in the game. I would be one of them, where it not for the fact that I've had other bugs to scratch first and never really gotten the opportunity. Might change, now that we're getting plastic stuarts.

>>52190818
>Although pure weight of numbers could still be a factor to consider.

I think this is a factor that tends to be overlooked when people dismiss swarms.

Sure, individually they may suck. But when you have several dozen of the fucking things on the table, how much does that really matter? Good luck killing them all.

>>52190592
>Competition is all well and good, but there is also sportsmanship.
Right; not being a dick to your opponent. I'm arguing for being competitive and taking the game seriously, not for being an asshole.

Take rugby; abusing steroids, or bribing the referee, or something like that would be abuse of the rules. Having better players or a team that works better together isn't, even if it's going to mean you win a lot more.

This is every game; your job, within the rules of the game, is to win, and to stop the other guy from doing so. Within the rules of the game, there; being an asshole to put someone off isn't part of that. But if the game rules allow for a legally valid list that, despite all best efforts, can't be (or is very unlikely to be; random dice rolls and all) beaten by someone also playing seriously, the game's broken. This has nothing to do with player behaviour, which is a pre-requisite for any social activity.

>>52193269
But this is toy soldiers. The whole point is to have fun. It's not fun when your opponent starts plopping 30+ matildas on the table and takes 30 minutes for each individual turn. There are many other hobbies and other things in life to measure dicks about, but I'd prefer not to have to fight more Matildas in LW than the entire Soviet army had by 1944 just because he thinks its competitive. Hell even if you win with that, it's hardly clever.

>>52194280

Yep, this is where historic war-gaming and the mainstream are going to clash.

Historics have always been chill and as they grow more popular you start attracting the autists.

War-gaming should be thematic and about spectacle, if you want a highly competitive environment then play chess, people might actually respect you then, once your good at it.

>>52194280
>tfw the historicals crowd quit FOW because two different people separately came up with 30+ Matilda lists
>tfw they were the best painted armies I've ever seen
Any game where spam that shit is a viable option is not a game I want to play.

>>52194829
It depends on your definition of viable.

There are things like the Matilda spam that were unexpected the first few times that they saw the table, and people weren't prepared to counter them using the stuff that is normally seen in a tournament list designed to be versatile against multiple kinds of opponents.

Every now and then someone builds a list that bucks the expected tournament scene trends and does well with it. And people copy it.

But there are usually counters to stuff like that, but typically only if you're prepared for it in the first place.

>>52194280
>But this is toy soldiers.
A game of toy soldiers, yes. Chess is a game of plastic horses, rugby is a game of grown men grabbing balls, games are all ridiculous at their core.

>The whole point is to have fun.
That's your objective, as a person. The vector you've chosen to have fun with is a competitive wargame. If you don't find a competitive wargame fun, you need to houserule it, play a different game, or something of that nature.

>It's not fun when your opponent starts plopping 30+ matildas on the table and takes 30 minutes for each individual turn.
I agree; here, the game's failed by making a competitive strategy a slog to play. Give this criticism to the designer. They're the ones who made a game where that's viable and sometimes even a good idea.

>There are many other hobbies and other things in life to measure dicks about, but I'd prefer not to have to fight more Matildas in LW than the entire Soviet army had by 1944 just because he thinks its competitive.
Is it competitive? Is he winning? If it is, the game has a design problem. If it isn't, you'd assume it'd sort itself out.

>Hell even if you win with that, it's hardly clever.
At this point, are you just insulting people who beat you?

As I say, I completely understand not wanting a competitive game experience, and a lot of historicals are in this camp, many with strong narrative elements that build to historical scenarios. I play a lot of chain of command myself, which is hardly fair. There's even non-historical games that fit this mould. But FoW is indisputably a competitive game; it's WW2 themed, rather than a simulation.

Likewise, do I think a lot of lists are bullshit? Yes, I do. Patton was bullshit, and a lot of spam lists are tedious to play competitively. But these are issues to lay with the designer; if it's a problem in your group (as it was in ours with T-26 spam), raise this with your group and either make a ban list, or, as I prefer, add things like turn clocks.

>>52194280
>>more Matildas in LW than the entire Soviet army had by 1944

If a historical game allows you to make lists as ahistorical as that then that's absolutely a problem with the game and the design team rather than the player making the list.

Why dont you understand pleasure of having lost literally 5 hundred men to push back 50 men and claiming it is victory because we have the position?

File: 2017-03-15-19-23-18.png (219KB, 494x879px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 494x879px

French tank spam?
French tank spam

File: Screenshot_2017-03-15-19-23-26.png (137KB, 540x960px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 540x960px

>>52197598
Other part

>>52196979
>52197617
isn't every miniature game just find the most min/maxed unit and spam it.

File: _chp-a10-lg.jpg (56KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1280x720px

>>52197794
>every miniature game
>spam

what dreary shithole do you live in? really?

i have had players just go with whatever, players who build to historical specs (popular choice) players who build their own/father's unit, players who intentionally buy a little of everything, players who work 'the golden triad', players who build to copy scenes from a WWII movie/show, and weirdos like me who try to find the most ostentatious unit and play that .

games are not about spam. have you even played Flames? it's literally the game where the best advice you get is "bring only 3 of that as support, have some artillery and have some recon".....and it's been a golden standard for 2 editions. fuck, people only play spam lists if they want to, but in this game, they don't guarantee a win.
in fact, people constantly advise "drop the extra spam for combined arms" in one way of phrasing or another.

so, please play the game first before trolling. this is FoW country, son.

>>52198826
northwest of england shithole where every player thinks they're high tier tournament player.
I got ino miniature wargaming with the idea of playing scenerio based games.

Yo not trolling just what i've found playing mutiple system sadly i don't gt to play much ty or fow

>>52197794
And that mentality is why I find myself being drawn more towards skirmish games theae days.

But yeah; there's always those assholes who think "just bring 20 of unit A" makes them super strategists.

Hi anons. Walked into my LGS on the day v4 released not knowing anything about Flames of War and bought a strelkovy company box. Am currently painting it and trying to set up an early war soviet army.

Any advice? Anything I oughta know? How fucked am I?

>>52199129

Git gud.

>>52199201
Barbarossa is your book... but even a company box probably only gives you half of the stands you need to run a list.

If you like painting loads and loads of 15mm dudes you are in luck. The good news is you can basically use them for any point in the war. If you have any more questions feel free to hop on the discord (link in the OP).

>>52199201
Buy Mortars, and really consider Sturmoviks.

Get another box of Strelk, that'll do you two of your core choices, and then consider tanks, anti-tank guns etc to taste.

>>52149077
Infantryfag here. Some infantry will have access to transport and some won't, depending on whether they are mech infantry or foot sloggers.

In general transports will either be armored, functioning like tanks with very low armor values, or unarmored, functioning like death traps.

>>52199303
I hate that I can only get sporadic IL-2.

So i plan on getting basically some of everything... but tanks. Mortars, 122mm howitzers and anti tank guns to support the infantry but since im running a militia battalion im avoiding tanks proper.

>>52199414
Yeah, in general if you want to actually use transport it needs to be lightly armoured halftracks just so they don't immediately die when shot at by rifles.

>>52199303
>Sturmoviks
You can't get the IL-2 in EW, but fortunately the Chaika is dirt cheap and a nice early-game fuck-you to tank lists.

>>52199677
Excuse you, the IL-2 is in Barbarossa.

>>52199660
Although apparently v4 made unarmored more viable. Now if an unarmored transport is destroyed, all teams in it get their normal save. So no more wiping platoons with one sniper shot.

Jaaaanitoooooors

>>52199959
Thank god- unarmored used to be absolutely useless.

>>52199959
Are you daring say something positive about V4?!

>>52202299
Not everybody hates it.

We just seem to have some vocal haters here on tg.

>>52202585
And everywhere else.

>>52202695

>>52202585
I know, I'm just being a smart ass.

I'm hopeful because TY really streamlined a lot of stuff that was clunky and unintuative.

I'm just worried my Italians may get a hard fucking.