Flames of War General: So it's come to this again edition

So, anyone know when the new US book for Team Yankee is gonna drop?

>>52434482
Soon.

Cheers.

>>52434609
lol

>>52434482
The rumors say some time over the summer.

>>52434865
Seconding this.

The Version 4 Mid War releases stretch out until June, so shortly after that we'll probably be seeing the next big release. Probably more for Team Yankee.

>>52436760
Russians are first I think. And I'm not sure they're gonna do both USSR and USA at the same time.

Finally tried V4 and I'm hooked.
>Fast gameplay
>Some dirt cheap smoke launcher can't screw over my expensive heavy tanks every turn of the game
>Artillery actually capable of killing infantry/dug in vets not immortal
>Flexible lists
Finally gave Mid-War some love

>>52437003
It's USA and Italy next.

Now here's the kicker: will italians get a bunch of plastic instead of plastic T-55s? If so, you lucky spaghetti monsters.

Reading the V4 desert rats book I notice machinegun barrages now have FP 6, allowing them to kill dug-in platoons. Is it just me or is it hilarious that they're going to be better at bombarding than shooting direct on guns?

>>52437744
>>Artillery actually capable of killing infantry/dug in vets not immortal
I feel like we're not playing the same game, since veteran infantry are so much worse to get rid of than they were before.

>>52437744
>Artillery actually capable of killing infantry/dug in vets not immortal
Considering you will never remove GTG, you get one observer period, the hit allocation rules regarding said observer, and the gimping of assault I have to disagree. Only played one game though.

File: i wait for enemy.jpg (159KB, 850x580px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 850x580px

>>52439686
i am gonna miss removal of GTG

>>52439686
No, this is how I feel after a couple of games. It's really easy to deflect assaults (especially since you get smoke once, so you've usually got one chance to make it count) and they're anemic when they do get in, and guns will win shootouts with tanks 9/10 times, so artillery's really the sole thing that's doing much killing of infantry, and even if it is, 4-6 "shots" isn't going to kill enough of an army to make a difference. The only time I've seen someone make headway was when the guy forgot to leave his CO overseeing the PaK platoon and got really unlucky with unpins for several turns.

How to fix V4/TY:
Conscript is hit on 1+
Trained is hit on 2+
Vet is hit on 3+
Need 8 hits normally to stop assault
Need 14 hits with 8+ teams in platoon
There, now things actually fucking HAPPEN with infantry, and Vet is not must-have like it is now.

Or they could have kept V3 recce so it doesn't turn into "dug in GtG infantry can only be dealt with by arty", but Vet is too good anyway so fuck it.

>>52440680
No offensive meant but that's fuckin' 'tarded mate.

>>52440879
So's vets atm. Impossible to kill unless they let you.

File: IMG_2255.jpg (42KB, 480x355px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 480x355px

>>52440680

On a completely different topic, has anyone considered playing with a self-imposed rule of keeping all vehicles half an inch away from each other?

>>52443842
I try to do that anyway because it looks better.

File: panzer-park.jpg (140KB, 951x432px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 951x432px

>>52443887
Ah, so I'm not the only one, then.

>>52440680
>Conscript is hit on 1+
>a Japanese officer is fiddling with his nambu, which due to its shoddy design accidentally discharges a round
>a Russian conscript appears from nowhere and heroically dives underneath his barrel, taking the round in the chest

>>52445602
>Phil approves.

Cheers!

>>52439838
I agree on arty having killing power. It is really worth to put 300 points for artillery in 1750 points game if you want to play offensive.
For same points, artillery have really killing power against dug in guns and infantry when it is compared with tanks or infantry.
Vet artillery ranges on 3+(4+ if your target is within wood), and once ranged in teams under template are hit on their rating regardless of gtg or concealed.
I will take 6 tubes of medium mortars in every game If briefing permits, they are really good investment for its point.

>>52443842
Literally impossible if you're playing soviets.

>>52445801
>Vet artillery ranges on 3+(4+ if your target is within wood), and once ranged in teams under template are hit on their rating regardless of gtg or concealed.
Check the rules again; you roll at +1 if the template covers terrain, even if it's not trying to hit anything there. At least on our boards, that reads as "Artillery is always at +1 to hit".

I'd agree that going super heavy on artillery is basically the way to go, but I'm not convinced this is actually a good thing. Far from making arty spam less of a thing, it now seems even worse.

>>52439686
The nerf to breakthrough and bunker buster seems like a big deal too. Going from 5+ to hit to 6s, and from no save to 3+ rerolling successes is like 3/4 reduction in lethality off some napkin maths (half as many hits; 5/9 chance to fail save vs 9/9 chance

>>52446181
Same kinda deal with flammenwerfers. The change in effectiveness of cannons is juts enormous, too. For some reason they've made it so artillery is the only thing which has any real effectiveness against infantry.

>>52446081
Not really, as long as you play a decent list on a decent table. Sure, you won't be able to hide all 10 tanks behind the same little bit of forest, but it just looks so stupid when 10 tanks clump together behind three trees...

Hilariously it's also not going to make infantry move more, either, because you get 0.222 kills per hit if they're dug-in (assuming a 4+ gun, 0.296 on a 3+), vs a straight 0.333 kills per hit on something which isn't dug-in. Even if you are being barraged it's best to sit and take it.

>>52446325
So your rule is "Soviets shouldn't get concealment"? That's retarded.

TFW people are only now beginning to understand that Artillery in V4 is even more OP than in V3, just against Inf & Guns rather than tanks...

>>52446364
Which is exactly what the developers said they were trying to do.

Why does this seem like such a surprise to everyone?

>>52446364
Who needs artillery to be good against tanks when you have three Pak38 platoons with 3+ saves and AT 9

>>52446342
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying 10 tanks (whether soviet or any other nation) shouldn't hide behind 3 trees.
i.e. split them up or, here's a miracle solution: make bigger forests.

File: 1462102916574.jpg (129KB, 800x525px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 800x525px

/NVA/

>>52446425
You do realize that those three trees don't literally represent ONLY three trees, right?

You can have an area of woods with a fairly large footprint, but only a few trees so that you can actually place models inside of the woods.

>>52446425
>. I'm saying 10 tanks (whether soviet or any other nation) shouldn't hide behind 3 trees.
All those other nations that get ten-tank platoons?

>i.e. split them up or, here's a miracle solution: make bigger forests.
You can't split them up in v4 and the boards people have are the boards people have, nobody's going to make a 12" woodland just to satisfy your autism.

>>52446520
>Calling someone autistic for having a preference different to yours.
I wasn't imposing my opinion on anyone, simply stating it. But fuck you, anyway.

Not being able to split platoons up anymore really sucks, though. I wasn't aware of that...

>>52446481
I know what they represent, I was talking about what it looks like. Mechanically we could play the game without any trees at all, in the end.

Also, it's not just soviets who tend to clump everything tightly together. Almost everyone does so, whether with one platoon or two or even three, all hiding behind the same tiny forest or couple of houses.

In fact, with arty less deadly to tanks and only a single observer now I have a feeling this will happen even more often.

Can panzerfausts shoot when pinned in V4 Reading the rules suggests no.

I'm tempted top start being THAT GUY and come on this thread each day with something to the effect of

>Daily reminder that v4 is great and you should apologise to Phil

It runs faster while having more depth, there are fewer annoyances in the special rules, assault doesn't take weeks to resolve and everybody gets the chance to do cool stuff with their tanks

Most importantly the infantry>tanks>artillery>infantry, which is historical and shit, has been made key to the game, really encouraging a combined arms style of play!

The designer(s) have really thought about this version hard and how to get the feel of actual wwii tactics in a game that can be finished in a couple of hours

My army lists have gone from 6 or 4 platoons, with even numbers of tanks, always including the cheapest possible recon platoon... to something resembling a real wwii taskforce.

More importantly its fun! I bloody love v4

>>52447193
>which is historical and shit
Daily reminder that infantry took 1/10th the casualties when in defensive positions instead of in the open. V4 would have you believe it's 5/6ths normal casualties.

Fake history get out.

File: 1483897918234.jpg (47KB, 344x406px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 344x406px

>>52446432
Volksarmee best Armee!

... wouldn't you happen to be the guy who's been posting NVA stuff in the Schwarzesmarken threads on /a/ for ages? If that's it, you must be the most regular poster I've seen of 4chan kek.

File: 1481140577913.png (1MB, 1059x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1059x1500px

>>52446739
>Not being able to split platoons up anymore really sucks, though. I wasn't aware of that...

Kinda; you're out of coherency if you're outside of a 6" bubble around the leader (8" for large infantry platoons). In short you can't have the thing where you've daisy-chained across a 2-4" gap between buildings, anymore; most likely the things behind the second bit of cover (or whatever) are out of command.

>In fact, with arty less deadly to tanks and only a single observer now I have a feeling this will happen even more often.
It does. You're much better off moving artillery up to direct fire, now, if you're facing all or mostly tanks.

>>52447332
>Schwarzesmarken
Hot commie waifu in TY when

>>52447193
>It runs faster while having more depth
"Spam tanks, have one arty platoon for infantry, and one infantry platoon for it you have to defend" is more depth?
>there are fewer annoyances in the special rules
At the cost of some being so utterly neutered that there's no point in including them at all. Oh, but the points don't change at all, because who gives a flying fuck about balance?
>assault doesn't take weeks to resolve
Because it's rarely worth it with a tiny ass number of teams going in and then getting ripped up by defensive fire over the three separate assaults the assault now takes.
>do cool stuff with their tanks
And nothing else. Welcome to V2 of TANKS, where there's an arty tax in case people want to use non-tank stuff.

>Most importantly the infantry>tanks>artillery>infantry, which is historical and shit, has been made key to the game, really encouraging a combined arms style of play!
So long as you don't care about flamethrowers (useless now), recce formations (even worse than they were in V3), Pioneers being pioneers, or really using anything but plain ass tanks, infantry, and arty. Of which only two (Tanks and arty) are utterly required now.

>The designer(s) have really thought about this version hard and how to get the feel of actual Hollywood tactics in a game that can be finished in a couple of hours
FIFY

>More importantly its fun! I bloody love v4
That's your opinion and you're allowed it, but my experiences with it have been the opposite. It's a very binary game, if infantry have to attack (50% of the time) they lose, if they get to defend they send some scouts to kill the enemy arty and then they win (or the scouts fail and the arty kills everything while the tanks sit there looking important and missing). It works fine for tank v tank with support, but nothing else. I'll be sticking with V3.

>>52447282
First counter-example I can think of: artillery is now good at doing something it was used extensively for, that's clearing fixed anti-tank gun emplacements.

Almost conversely anti-tank guns, especially dig-in ones are now buffed vs tanks.

While I'll agree its not perfect, the narrative is right.

Hell even computer mil-sims high on the autism spectrum like the Combat Mission series only attempt to replicate the tactics, rather than fully simulate them... and that thin churns numbers at a level of autism I rarely experience.

For a wargame on my kitchen table to even partially succeed at replicating historical applications, in under 2 hrs is great. Especially if I have fun while doing it

>>52447193
>It runs faster while having more depth,

Faster, yes. Deeper, not really.

>there are fewer annoyances in the special rules,
Replaced with annoyances in the tactics section.

>assault doesn't take weeks to resolve
Because it's useless (also seriously how were you taking weeks to resolve assault before? It's basically the same just way fewer stands get to join in the attack and you get fewer swings against the same amount of defensive fire and counterattack).

>everybody gets the chance to do cool stuff with their tanks
Before they're blapped out of existence by everyone's immortal AT-gun platoons.

>Most importantly the infantry>tanks>artillery>infantry, which is historical and shit, has been made key to the game, really encouraging a combined arms style of play!

The emerging style of play is "as few infantry as possible with the most AT guns and artillery as possible". Tanks get annihilated by pakfronts and artillery is there to deal with infantry or as backup AT guns in case the other guy didn't get the memo about tanks.

>More importantly its fun! I bloody love v4
"It's fun" is always a bad benchmark for quality. If you just want to have fun with friends beer exists and is cheaper.

>>52447478
I'm admittedly not seeing how you've gotten "tanks are dominant". As I said, my experience is you want as many AT guns and artillery platoons as possible.

>>52447582
Mostly because the locals don't have many AT guns (2 PaKs and 3 57mms between the 7 of them), and you need something to grab objectives. People have taken to spamming combat and weapons platoons to avoid formations leaving good spirits, so you tend to still need something to grab an objective. I'm sure if we actually had even a reasonable number of AT guns that we'd quickly end up where you are.

File: IMG_2262.png (10KB, 280x336px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 280x336px

>stop liking what I don't like!

>>52447698
Yeah, 4rries and 3aboos both need to learn that the other side can in fact have fun with their ruleset, and that neither edition is the one true edition.

Oddly, I feel like I've made this exact same statement about a decade ago...

>>52447698
>the other side can in fact have fun with their ruleset
Nobody denied this. You can also have fun with a copy of Manos the Hands of Fate, but nobody says it's a good film.

>>52447746
This edition wars stuff is so 40K, we need to heat this up

>FoW sucks, we should all shift to "I Ain't Been Shot Mum"

>>52447659
We're finding UCs/Sdkfz 10s are filling this role; in both cases they tend to sit out of the way most of the game until the shooting war's been won then dash forward. The 10/4s have some effectiveness opening up on artillery but they're only FP 5+ and very fragile, so even then it tends to be later game.

We're seeing 4-5 gun teams per game, usually, plus one or two artillery. Going full retard and bringing all 12 guns of the british arty park might change things, but we also don't have anyone with that.

>>52447852
This is just correct though?

>>52447746
It's been about 6 years since the last FoW edition change.

Unless you're referring to D&D.

As for "The One True Edition", whether people like it or not, the official Battlefront-supported edition is V4.

You don't have to like it, and you don't have to play it, but all the future releases will be for V4.

At least until the release V5 in another 6 years or so.

>>52447783
Manos Hands of Fate is quite possibly the best episode of MST3K.

>>52447852
What's the Plastic Soldier Company's rule set, Battlefield Kursk or something like that?

>>52446342
The Asiatic hordes never made much use of cover. Their fearsome Commissars would have executed them for cowardice.

>>52447940
Cheers

>>52447929
>What's the Plastic Soldier Company's rule set, Battlefield Kursk or something like that?
Battlegroup * (where * = Kursk, Tobruk, Overlord, and whatever else they're covering). I think the ruleset is the same throughout, just different lists (which shouldn't be a problem for FoW players, though I'm not certain how compatible the different "eras" are).

I'm honestly considering giving it a try at least.

>>52447852
You're mistaking 40K and Fantasy.

Although thank god FoW V4 isn't anywhere near as much of a clusterfuck as Age of Sigmar.

What is the Flames of War equivalent of The 9th Age or Kings of War anyway?

>>52447979
None at the moment, though I expect we'll see one soon. I know our isolated group of locals is making a v3.5, taking some streamlining from 4 but also keeping bits as in 3.

>>52447955
What's more is LW Russians will get half the number of shots per base as one guy has the gun and one has the ammo.

But on the plus side you can use infantry platoons to clear mines!

>>52448053
You misunderstand me.

I'm not looking for an alternative to V4.

I'm just making a bad joke about alternatives to AoS that don't really have the same name recognition or playerbase.

Although the analogy kinda falls apart because AoS will always be popular because it's GW, even if the rules are complete crap.

>>52448148
>Although the analogy kinda falls apart because AoS will always be popular because it's GW, even if the rules are complete crap.
I'm not seeing a difference here.
>As for "The One True Edition", whether people like it or not, the official Battlefront-supported edition is V4.
>You don't have to like it, and you don't have to play it, but all the future releases will be for V4.
Official = must be done and is the only good, to some people. This is especially obvious with most of the bloggers, who mention not one problem with V4 while praising it like they got paid to review it (which desu many of them were).

>>52448207
>I'm not seeing a difference here.

Right. Because you are determined not to like Version 4.

Those of us that do like it are overjoyed about the changes that make for a faster playing and easier to teach to other people.

Version 3 was difficult as hell to try to teach to new players.

>praising it like they got paid to review it

Advanced copy of the rules, free review copies of stuff, etc.

It's not quite being paid, but nobody with any brains will risk their freebies and perks by biting the hand that feeds them.

>>52448588
>Those of us that do like it are overjoyed about the changes that make for a faster playing and easier to teach to other people.
Games are a real slog now. It's infantry arty park vs infantry arty park all over again. Maybe it's easier to teach but I personally don't feel like there's much in it. Hit allocation is simpler, maybe? I can't think of anything else.

File: overlord-british-airlanding_15.pdf (21KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1x1px

>>52447881
>Going full retard and bringing all 12 guns of the british arty park might change things, but we also don't have anyone with that.
I've just realized I might be able to actually do that soon. Bit short on combat/weapons platoons, but when you just HAVE to put 24 gun teams on the field...

>>52448588
>Right. Because you are determined not to like Version 4.
I'm pointing out that people will always like the next edition BF puts out even if it's complete crap because it's official. That's true of most games, because brand loyalty is a thing.

>>52448699
To be clear we've been playing MW Desert, where there's only 12. We're well aware the V4 conversion's really wonky, so we're trying to make V4 work where it's been designed for it.

>>52448730
Honestly this might be why your games are become gunspam, I don't think other lists even let you have that many guns in EW/LW.

>>52448730
Fair, MW points are at least semi-balanced in the new edition. LW, 6pdrs are now a "grab as many as you can, all the time, forever" weapon. A flat 3+ save all the time and having three AT 11 shots is amazing when you're paying just 40 points for a FV one.

>>52448786
On the other hand, many EW/LW guns have higher RoF than the flat RoF 2 of MW guns. You need 12 guns to match 8 in other periods, which is much easier to get.

>>52439686
>you get one observer period

Even if people have multiple batteries?

>>52448845
Yep. In V4 all armies have exactly one observer, period.

Unless you're Americans, in which case every platoon leader is an observer, completely ruining any attempt of this observer choking to balance the US arty party that was complained about in V3...

>>52448869
Doesn't this screw with EW and LW points values, since those are factored in to price?

Its something I'd house rule.

>>52448908
Points for everything are fucked anyway if you use the V4 conversion. Look at stuff like 75mm/3" artillery vs mortars, now.

>>52448908
>Doesn't this screw with EW and LW points values, since those are factored in to price?
So does the changes to arty stats, the complete revamp of how recce works, the change in gun team durability, the neutering of Light Tanks, Smooth Ride, Cavalry, and Detroit's Finest, the killing of Mission tactics, and a lot of other shifts in V4.

Sadly, there's just too many books for BF to issue points errata for all of them. I can't blame them for not putting one out, the resulting document would be twice as big as the V3 rulebook. But because of just how MUCH things change, I personally go with V4 for MW, but stick with V3 for LW and EW.

>>52448803
>>52448787
Ahaha christ, you're right, I didn't think of that. I can't imagine how BTFO tank lists get coming up against 6pdr spam now.

>>52449029
>Sadly, there's just too many books for BF to issue points errata for all of them. I can't blame them for not putting one out, the resulting document would be twice as big as the V3 rulebook.
Oh, sure, I don't blame them for not recosting everything either.

I just wish they hadn't put it out as the official handover guide and gone with the "everything's still balanced" official line because it's really obviously not and morons keep insisting that it is.

Battlefront Squatted EW/LW

>>52449349
Hardly.

There are some balance shifts to figure out and adjust to.

But it's not like BF is having a race of Aliens knock-offs devour everything, and then act like EW and LW never existed in the first place.

Reading Afrikakorps Stukas are AT4; misprint?

File: _20170330_191132.jpg (222KB, 1080x794px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 1080x794px

The best thing about online shopping is it feels like you're getting a present.

File: LW and EW don't need balance.png (11KB, 474x92px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 474x92px

>>52449774
Apparently not, they just decided that LW and EW didn't need proper balance.

File: IMG_2263.jpg (111KB, 515x370px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 515x370px

>>52449837
Why is /pol/ tweeting about FoW?

>>52449977
I've seen a fair few shops in my time, that looks like an edit captain.

So with V4 morale, how does a unit like the recce patrol in >>52448699 work for morale? All tanks when mounted, but two infantry and a tank when the bikes are dismounted?

>>52450221
>zoom in and enhance

Ok, I see what you mean. It does seem like there is another picture the plastic KTs were shopped over.

I guess I just assumed it was some actual Nazi wannabe posting about our game.

Thankfully I've only ever ran into one in person, and he was quickly asked to never come back.

>>52449856
>Apparently not, they just decided that LW and EW didn't need proper balance.
Christ what the fuck?

>>52450496
A gross exaggeration from an upset troll.

File: 920x920.jpg (66KB, 864x920px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 864x920px

>>52450403
Here's the original, "This is the future liberals want" edits has become a bit of a meme.

Anyway, I've got seven KTs now and I'm excited to run some garbage rating lists.

>>52449856
NB this guy is the Ranger for Scotland but he doesn't directly work for BF or anything.

>>52450622
Said the pot about the kettle

>>52450709
Living in southern england if the liberals want a future where people can actually sit down on trains I'm game.

>>52450732
I thought the Ranger program was abandoned a while ago...

>>52450709
>7 KTs

Even at Reluctant Trained, that still has to be about 200+ points per tank.

How do you fit in any support options for a 1500 point list?

>>52450709
>a woman(?) "manspreading"

TRIGGERED

>>52450905
Right? Like that's the joke that the twitter account user got totally triggered by people sitting on a train

>>52450940
Well, I already own one but had lost the turret so got six more to be able to run six. I then found the turret, of course, but it's only like £3.50. At RT it's 1290 for 6 or 1505 for 7, which still leaves some points at 1750 (what I'm expecting to play) for support. Bigger issue might be working out reserves, at 1750 you can have at most 4 RT King Tigers on the board.

But, yeah, six King Tigers is less about serious list building and more about being cheap enough to build a stupid army.

>>52451215
I won't lie, 6 RT KTs, especially using relatively cheap Zvezda models, is something I'm curious to try even if it is a bit of a dumb list.

File: Statements.png (13KB, 461x147px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 461x147px

>>52449856
I can finally post this.

File: 20150524_145616.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

Looks like a good time to dump my collection and say fuck it. Anyone need American armor?

>>52450940
>I thought the Ranger program was abandoned a while ago...
http://www.breakthroughassault.co.uk/total-war-gaming-with-multiple-companies/
This references the Ranger Program, so if it's gone then it's gone in the last few months.

>>52451458
I was thinking a few years, not a few months.

Although I certainly could be wrong.

>>52451449
>maximum Pershings
dam son. Looks nicely painted as well.

>>52450732
Yeah, but he's still a shilling muppet...

>>52450940

He's "the last Ranger..." his words, not mine, in the UK at least. Who knew Rangers would be such shills?

>>52451336
Conscript troops are some of the best in the game.

Cheers.

>>52451449
Why? All of that stuff is still valid.

File: 20150524_145743.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>52451578
I've spent more hours painting FoW over the years than I'd care to admit.

>>52451715
I have to see how it all plays out for V4 in the end, or hope there's enough around to just keep playing V3.

Or make some kind of homebrew 3.5 taking some of the better changes.

>>52451449
Don't be hasty in selling Anon, you'll regret it. Trust me.

>>52451791
>3.5
Literally already exists for EW and LW though

>>52451791
Easy Eights and Jumbos might be a little less worth it than they used to be, but the rest of the collection seems like it should still work well enough in V4.

>>52451852
The EW and LW rules ARE V4, even if the lists are kind of 3.5ish at the moment.

>>52451824
I'm definitely selling all my italian stuff. I never even finished making it and it's all coming out in plastic again anyway.

>>52451873
E8s are the main losers of value. Jumbos now absorb a hit on a 3+ instead of it being automatic, which is still pretty good. Detroit's Finest is less good, but since it was kinda OP in the first place all it means is that Uparmored tanks are serious options now. Overall, they're still good, and doing better than some country's tank forces are.

>>52451964
The 76mm gun is still worth it though.

Maybe just run the E8s as M4A3 76mm.

>>52452056
This, pretty much: Smooth Rides was always gamey BS anyway. Plus, Easy 8s are still sexy.

Can the Unit zleader of a US Air Support Unit (not an AOP) spot for artillery using the Under Command special rule?

File: DSC_0059.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

Side by side of Zvezda vs BF Tiger II. They're very close in size, far less difference than eg PSC StuG vs BF StuG

>>52446138
The +1 for terrain is to range in only, not to hit.

>>52447477
>Muv-Luv
My niggas.

>>52452641
That looks unexpectedly close, compared to the PSC Panther vs Zvezda Panther bumfuck...
>>52451852
Quite obvious he means cherry-picking between v3 and some v4 changes.
>>52451791
I'll echo the other anon saying DON'T sell your lovingly painted stuff. Worst case scenario your group will just switch to a different system.
>>52450709
Bridge at Remagen 510. Scwhere Panzerkompanie represent! I grabbed half a dozne Zvezda KTs too and been wracking my brains on how to make a decent, workable list with them.
So far my best idea is full company HQ, 2x 2 KTs, 1x full Volksturm, 1x full volksgrenadier platoon (R/V), small volks nebelwerfer platoon and 4x luftwaffe 88s totalling 1655; no idea how I could shave 5 points off (already downgraded a volksturm team to MMG for -5 points)...

>>52453166
>The +1 for terrain is to range in only, not to hit.
Yeah, but OP said "ranges in on 3+(4+ if the target is within a wood". The target could be 6" out in the middle of an empty field, but if there's a wood under the template you get the penalty.

On our boards at least, there's very few places you can put an artillery template without covering some kind of terrain.

>>52452641
Oh damn, that looks pretty fucking good.

>>52452641
There are some gaps to fill, but other than that it looks pretty good.

File: King Tigers and Volkssturm oh my.pdf (359KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 1x1px

>There are Schweinhunds who doubt the glory of the Six KT List.
>Hans
>Get the Luger.

File: 01_.jpg (286KB, 1200x1675px) Image search: [Google]

286KB, 1200x1675px

>>52453738
>I'll echo the other anon saying DON'T sell your lovingly painted stuff. Worst case scenario your group will just switch to a different system.
What if your group's happy with v4 and you're not?

>>52453166
Enjoy, anon.

File: Patton.jpg (2MB, 1169x1700px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1169x1700px

>>52454022
>What if your group's happy with v4 and you're not?

My fear

>>52453738
>I'll echo the other anon saying DON'T sell your lovingly painted stuff. Worst case scenario your group will just switch to a different system.

The two pictures are just a small sample of what I have. I have another 15 drawers like that full of more US stuff, Germans, Soviets, and Romanians.

Worst comes to worst, I'd net about $5,000 in the fire sale for the hundreds of hours of painting.

I now realize I've spent many more hours painting than actually gaming FoW.

>>52453888
>>52453837
Yeah, I didn't get a perfect build but I'm just gonna liquid GS the gaps, and it's the sort of model where imperfections work anyway. It's a really nice kit for the price though, but it does take a fair bit of build time given the complexity of it. I'd take it over the BF one at the same price, and £3.50 vs £14.50 is an absolute no brainer.

>>52453973
This list feels a little awkward at 1625 because you have only 975pts on the board which is 4 KTs, the two Volksturm units and then 115pts to spare. On that note, might be worthwhile splitting the KTs into 2+1+1 rather than 2+2. I assume the list was written for V3 though.

>>52454462
Volks count as 0 points for reserves, so he has 40% of 1425 that has to be kept off the table

File: Screenshot_20170331-075253-picsay.png (266KB, 624x803px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 624x803px

>>52451269
With zvezda cheapest war machines such dumb lists might worth a try.

>>52454583
Volksturm units count as 0 points, correct, but the rule is "You may not have more than 60% of the agreed points value on the table". So at a 1625 game he gets 975pts from KTs / Nebs / AAA and always gets the Volksturm.

>>52454689
Reading the book it sounds like they just don't count at all towards it.

"All Volkssturm Units are counted as having a value of 0 points when determining how many Units are to be held On Table and held in Reserves in your force."

I guess because they only look at the percentage on table and not at percentage in reserves they're now free platoons.

>>52454631
That's a neat list and a cool use of the Formations rules. Not sure it's massively better than just taking one or the other though? That second formation seems vulnerable to Formation Last Stand, for example.

>>52454787
The 60% rule for reserves doesn't care how many points you have in your list, just what the agreed points for the game was. You could bring a 1200pt list to a 2k game and stick everything on the table, for example.

Just got my version 4 books today in the mail. How much will I rage when reading it?

>>52454124

>tfw love all sorts of tabletop miniature games
>tfw collect miniatures from many different miniature games
>tfw you haven't actually played any of these games since nobody around you plays
>tfw you make lists and strats and read up on rules so you can pretend to be part of the hobby

Sometimes I don't know why I'm in the hobby.

File: King Tigers new edition.pdf (354KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 1x1px

>>52454462
Anyway it's not 2+2, it's actually 2+2+2 KTs. Which is slightly unmanageable in points limits below 1500, so generally at that points limit I tend to go for Five KTs rather than Six. Dropping a KT nets you 215 points back, so you have 90 points left to jigger with the list.
So you can either upgrade the Artillery battery to have six rockets that are trained, or change it out for a Veteran Gun Battery.

What this allows you to deploy is three of your KTs and all of your support. It used to be tricky before they changed the Volkssturm's rule that you had to balance even platoons, but now it's a great rule change for me.

>>52454921
>but now it's a great rule change for me.
So is much of V4

>>52454921
I meant split up the non-HQ KTs, so that you have 2+2+1+1 for three full combat platoons. Same with that list, if you're going for 5 KTs is there any reason to not go for three platoons of 1 than a 2 and a 1?

Totally agreed that removing the incentives for even platoon numbers makes Volksturm better.

Can I use Sherman Vs to model as Sherman I/II/IIIs or is someone gonna get assblasted

Or rather, has anyone ever witness someone get assblasted by such a thing?

>>52454882
The KT formation is weak for its last Stand, but IMO adding a KT formation would better than using those KTs as support units.

>>52455065
People care about the main gun (75, 76, or 105, 17pdr), and the Jumbo and Easy Eight upgrades The engine differences between the various different marks is mostly irrelevant, and I've never met anyone who cares whether his opponent used cast hull vs welded hull which is the only noticeable difference I can think of from the M4A1 / Sherman II vs the other models. Likewise, if I remember right the M4A4 / Sherman V is slightly longer than the others but nobody will care. Some people will care about the difference between 47 and 56 degree hulls as its the difference between FA6 and FA7 but given that you're talking about Brits that's not an issue anyway.

The biggest deal I've found with these sorts of things is that people care about what models they personally use and care far, far less about what others use. So, there are plenty of people who'd never use a Sherman V as an M4A1 personally but who would also have no problems with you doing so against them.

>>52454987
Taking a single tank bailed out in my two tank strong platoons used to mean a moderate inconvenience in V3, the tank would just sit there Bailed out for a while. Now it means test on 5+ or die.

>>52455023
Because as the 510, Schwere Panzerdivision you only have two platoon choices for tanks that only come with two tanks each. So you have to have six in three units.

>>52455284
Oh, I missed that the third platoon was 506. only, my bad.

File: Screenshot_20170331-083147-picsay.png (183KB, 624x615px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 624x615px

>>52455284
No, I'd run 6 KTs in 6 units, using duplicated formation.

I'm going to play this one today, my plan is combat attach 2iC KT to panzer4 platoon so they get benefits of tiger ace too.
I didn't put any AA, because my opponent will play an US list, P-47s are no longer threat for armor.

Both the Special Rules and Warriors book and the EW/LW book have a section on redundant teams. Both of these refer to Gun Units and Heavy Weapon (MPG) units no longer fielding command Infantry teams or Staff teams. Neither mentions Tank based platoons as far as I can see, so does this mean that e.g. an Armored Field Battery still gets a Command Rifle and Staff team alongside the Priests?

I've also noticed that the changes to Combat Attachments means that you can't attach out all three PIAT / Panzerschreck / Bazooka / whatever teams into the same platoon any more, which is unfortunate.

>>52455354
I dig that Kampfgruppe Peiper List. I might nick it myself one of these days to try because it looks rad, but the issue is that for a reasonably standard points limit of 1500 points, you're never going to fit six KTs and support comfortably.

Personally my hope is that whenever the 'Fall of Germany' book drops that it'll let me team up with the Berlin Kampfgruppe, at which point I'll start laughing and never stop laughing thanks to my massive blob platoon of Volkssturm, Volkssturm Mortars, Volkssturm Machine Guns, and Volkssturm Infantry Guns.

>>52455442
Go with RAI, ignore the Command Team and the Staff team.

>>52455519
Are they going to do any future LW V3 books? I would have assumed this is it until they switch over to MW style points.

>>52455623
Compilation book is apparently in the works for the end of the war, set for the end of this year after more Mid War releases and more TY releases.

I'm moving past the rage and bargaining and into depression, now. I'm just looking at my v3 library and all the armies I'm never going to be making. Maybe at some point I'm going to be looking at this like I looked at AoS and being glad it gave me a chance to play other games, but for now, I miss v3.

>>52455802
Why? Did Phil come along and burn your V3 books or something?

>>52455871
I really hate this autistic "Well TECHNICALLY you have the old edition!" thing everyone comes out with when an edition changes. Yeah, the rulebooks exist, but it's a dead edition and it'll wither over time like every other dead game and wargames are all about having a decent community. How many people are playing warhammer 5e, or 1st edition warmahordes? How good are your odds of showing up to a random club wherever you live and finding someone who plays that edition, or getting someone new to the game to play that instead of the edition that's supported?

>>52455949
>autistic
what

You've got V3 books and forces. You've got friends who also have books and forces for V3. You both like playing V3. What's the problem?

The chance of getting a game of V3 is virtually the same as getting a game of V4; I speak to one of my friends who plays FoW, arrange a game some night and we go play.

>>52455949
>How many people are playing warhammer 5e
I dunno about 5e, but I see more people playing 8e than AoS.

>>52455997
V4's not finished initial releases, yet. I mean, flip it around; how many people do you know still playing 2e?

>>52456044
>I dunno about 5e, but I see more people playing 8e than AoS.
That only recently happened and AoS was/is amazingly shit on a scale edition changes aren't while also dumping most of the lore. There was almost literally nothing to keep playing. I don't think it's comparable to 3e/4e splits.

>>52455997
>You've got V3 books and forces. You've got friends who also have books and forces for V3. You both like playing V3. What's the problem?
I'd personally always be wary of heavily investing in dead games.

>>52456136
>investing
What are you investing though? There aren't any models I can think of that are exclusively V3 FoW and would be useless for V4 or for any of the other platoon/company level WWII games. Like, even if V3 FoW is a dead ruleset people are presumably gonna be playing some WWII wargame ruleset that works at 15mm.

>>52456219
Depends, you don't need 20 T-34s for most games, even at 15mm.

File: fuck pc.jpg (396KB, 766x1362px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 766x1362px

>>52449977
>Why is /pol/ tweeting about FoW?

While not pretty (pic related) triggers SJW/Special snowflakes while i'm playing FOW at shop i game at. i've been called a natzi and racist just because of this in my german army. i swear one day one of these retards is going to lose it.

File: grandfather and family.jpg (355KB, 1031x1465px) Image search: [Google]

355KB, 1031x1465px

>>52451449
>Looks like a good time to dump my collection and say fuck it. Anyone need American armor?

don't tempt me i need to build the unit my grandfather was in during WWII. (2nd armored division) (pic related it's him with his brother after the war stationed in germany germany, far right both pics.)

i want to build a list and put it up on the mantle next to the case that has his flag/shells from his funeral.

>>52457620
Until a Chosin supplement comes out I can't play my grandpa. Although his father-in-law did serve in Berlin because he naively thought he was too old to be in the army. That was a really scary 5 minutes for him.

File: 65_Inf_Rgt_COA.png (420KB, 800x1523px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 800x1523px

>>52457819
my grandfather either was crazy or had cast iron balls of steel. he was there in the d-day invasion all the way through. (trying to find where he was while in the 2nd armored division) then he got out after the war was over. he married my grandmother and ended up re-joining and going into korea. (65th infantry regiment). Retired from the army after that mess.

File: Kitty kat.gif (2MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 480x270px

Anybody want some krauts? Doing some spring cleaning and really need to make some space in the old closet. Would like them to go to a good home.

Not selling out of the game just yet, just don't see a need for 3 armies when nobody within a 2 hour drive of me seems interested in playing anymore.

Mostly Tigers, Panthers, PaK 40's, and a shit ton of infantry. I used to run SturmKompanie and was working on a Desperate Measures tank list.

Also is battlefront still doing the free trade in for V4 rules? I haven't seen them yet and didn't know if that offer was still good. Been pretty busy.

Did Soviets get buffed? Is my SU 152 magical realm list with KV8s's still a joke? Are assault pancakes still good?

>>52458557
KV-8s are kind of okay, SU-152s are moving ROF 0 so goodbye any chances of moving them, Breakthrough gun is now brutal, so Assault Pancakes aren't as great as they used to be.

>>52458557
>Did Soviets get buffed?
QoQ is gone and the replacement universal rule requires you get 12 teams within the 4" assault distance, in order to be driven off by 8 hits instead of 5. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about what this means for soviet infantry.

>Is my SU 152 magical realm list with KV8s's still a joke?
Bunker busters were nerfed again. Yes, they were already bad. Breakthrough also got nerfed, but orders are helping the IS-2s deal with some of their issues.

>Are assault pancakes still good?
The inability to remove GtG and the Bunker Buster nerf mean they kill infantry and guns about 1/4th as well as they used to. Still usable because of how underpointed they were, but now they're "meh" instead of amazing.

>>52458645
>>52458734
Wonderful, so the lists that I loved running have been pretty heavily nerfed from the sound of it. I need to get a copy of this new set of rules I guess, but I'm not holding my breath.

If I need to buy a bunch of stuff to update I'm just going to sell most of my stuff and wait it out as much as I hate to say it. Locals really like Bolt Action and I have enough stuff to get several people playing at once, so it sounds like I'll be using that as my historical fix for a while.

>>52458857
>I need to get a copy of this new set of rules I guess, but I'm not holding my breath.
There should be a copy in the mediafire at the top of the thread. I think BF is still doing their rules deal, and you should be able to send them a pic of your V3 book and they'll send you the V4 EW/LW book and the warriors/special rules book.

>>52458557
>Did Soviets get buffed?
Heroes are now actually not shit because of the orders system, most of which are skill based, and Fast Tank now being actually usable and good rather than two pointless words. The hero IS-2s are a net wash, breakthrough got nerfed to be the same as TY's Brutal (re-roll saves), and the heavier stuff with Bunker Busters also got hit with that AND with not being able to fire at all if they move (though now you can hit on 7s and 8s, so RoF 1 doesn't mean your shots are utterly impossible at times). Large platoons have some issues with the new coherency rules, but also basically ignore platoon morale checks now (as you take platoon morale when you drop to 1 tank/gun or 2 infantry stands). Limited Vision and Cupolas are gone, so there goes some bookkeeping. Your heavy and medium guns can do orders, while most nations can't. Hen and chicks is now slightly nicer, as any tank moving is now +1 to hit for the whole platoon instead of +1 to hit for the whole platoon AND everyone counts as moving. QoQ is dead and the replacement is easy to use at range but nearly impossible to use in assault because of the short assault distance.

>>52459272
>orders

What

Holy shit they've changed a lot more than I thought I guess. What is this, orders like what IG gets in 40k that buff shooting or allow regrouping?

>>52459459
They're extra things you can do if you succeed on a die roll and meet the necessary conditions.

For example, Shoot and Scoot let's you roll a die to attempt to move after you have fired, but ONLY if you did not move during the Movement Phase.

Other Orders include things like moving 4 inches while counting as having remained stationary, crossing difficult terrain better if your platoon leader made a successful cross check first, or digging defensive positions which make infantry or gun teams more difficult to kill.

>>52459725
ah ok, those sound fun.

Also, has anyone else noticed this?

>INZHENERNO-SAPERNIY COMPANY
Each Assault Sapper Platoon of a Inzhenerno-Saperniy
Company operates as a separate Unit. The HQ Section is
not fielded, but the Pioneer Supply Truck may be taken with
one of the Assault Sapper Platoons.

>The replacement of Teams works as written on
page 70 of Red Bear

So essentially now I must field my assault engineers in smaller 7 stand platoons? Did they do this with other lists or is this just a weird exception to the rule?

Not really sure how I feel about that. Having insanely large units of FT infantry with pioneer weapons, SMGs, and body armor was pretty sweet, but on the other hand being able to actually have more than 4-6 units in my army would be nice for reserves I guess.

File: Orders.png (2MB, 1675x630px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1675x630px

>>52459816
Only them, oddly enough.

As for the orders, here's all 5. Dig in is the classic everyone knows. Shoot and Scoot is old Stormtrooper and Follow Me is old Avante. Cross Here is a new one to help with cross checks (bogging diwb has been replaced with a check to see if you cross the terrain, which leaves you on the entering side but operational if you fail). Blitz lets you move 4" without counting as moving, BUT if you fail you take a +1 penalty to hit.

Most of the various national rules give a -1 to perform the given thing they used to have, but Stormtrooper instead allows you to make a second, different move order if you've already done one and passed the check.

File: Capture.png (57KB, 899x527px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 899x527px

This is my ideal V4 LW List as of now...

Also crocs can be replaced with an infantry platoon if required

>>52459816
QoQ is nerfed, so do not worry about reduced numbers of stand in an unit. You may not make ridiculous charge anymore.

>>52455023
510. SPK may only have two King Tiger platoons, unfortunately. Only 506. can get 3, and they're R/V (and thus 300 points/ tank).
>>52454022
Adapt and find new lists you'll enjoy playing, I guess.
Or you could always move... :/

>>52458645
Breakthrough gun is worse than before though. Instead not getting any save you re-roll successful ones.

>>52460876
Brutal, as in the rule from Team Yankee you twit.

>>52460869
It's still Six KTs. It's a lot of shit for other players to deal with. Or you could use formations of 510. SPK to stack KTs.

>>52460907
I've never played TY so how should I have known that?

>>52460231
>Stormtrooper instead allows you to make a second, different move order if you've already done one and passed the check.
So can germans do Blitz + Shoot'N'Scoot? Or does shoot'n'scoot not allow this?

>>52461034
If you successfully Blitz move, you didn't count as moving anyway. So yes you can Shoot and Scoot after Blitz Moving.

So, ARP is still facerape?

File: 04_.jpg (310KB, 1200x1642px) Image search: [Google]

310KB, 1200x1642px

>>52460293
They're a lot more vulnerable to morale rules than massive blobs are still.

>>52460869
>Adapt and find new lists you'll enjoy playing, I guess.
If you do that you're not going to miss your models, though.

File: 1st Airborne Division.png (61KB, 623x620px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 623x620px

with FV infantry (specifically British Paratroopers) should I go for the full three platoons or only two? They are very expensive.

File: 1490968114979.jpg (423KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

423KB, 900x600px

>magical realm

>>52463227
Boys over toys was my motto for V3, but with V4 it seems like you'lol want some mobile element as well.

>>52463481
Losing Night Attack and the changes to attackers means that you'll find yourself needing things to help you attack more often, yeah.

>>52463227
I'd say probably not. You'd generally get more value out of adding more gun teams and the like than a third infantry platoon

File: 1459742559874.png (215KB, 735x633px) Image search: [Google]

215KB, 735x633px

>>52463394
Don't talk shit about Chariot ever again

>>52463394
Hm, might be interesting to try and copy.

What would be other cool terrain pieces as references to fictional media?

>>52459816

The Italians were fucked like that as well.

>>52459816
Meanwhile, you get super cheap unarmed sappers that can all spot for artillery because they're Formation HQ teams.

>>52467279
Aren't they all forced to combat attach?

>>52467360
Not any more.

HG Panzergrenadier can take three Panzerschreck teams in a truck as an HQ upgrade, but with the new combat attachment rules it's not actually possible to attach these out ever in V4.

How do people feel about taking an HQ Unit with multiple anti tank options (Germans with 3 Panzerschreck and 2 Panzerfaust would be best) and just not attaching them out and keeping it as a tank busting unit?

I guess you could always go that with Kampfgruppe before?

File: Pak40.jpg (260KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

260KB, 1920x1080px

How many PaK 40s is too many?

>>52469227
There are multiple lists that can get two platoons of 3-4 so eight is fine.

File: ld118p108canonpak4075mmay2.jpg (47KB, 512x340px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 512x340px

>>52469227
I don't understand the question.

had a game of team yankee but shit i forgot things die quickly.

>>52469227

My record was 13 - sorta. Using the Sturmkompanie list, I had 8 real PaK40s, 4 Marders, and 1 Hs129B.

8 actual gun teams should do you.

Katyushas will be worth using now!

>>52470931
They still have the issue of being really vulnerable to stuff shooting at them. But, you're right, they might get some kills at 4+ and reroll saves is nice. Though they always should've had a time-on-target type rule IMO.

File: DSC_0061.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>52449837
Halfway done.

Have I mentioned that the Zvezda Sturmtiger and Elefant are great too? I'm loving all these heavy tanks.

>>52470931
>>52471625

The Germans could see the smoke trails and take cover before the barrage.

Cheers

>>52454921
why is the Volksturm counting as x% of force and not fucking zero?

>>52472263
Because they didn't program it to do that? You should know your own special rules anyway.

>>52455871
>>52455802

dude, i still make lists out of Afrika.

fuck edition slaving. i own the book, i play what i want

>>52463394
>>52464813

fuck yeah! hello and welcome!

File: SS Camo Zeltbahn.jpg (239KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 640x480px

Was the Zeltbahn ever produced in SS camo, or did the SS use splinter ponchos?

Pic related was the only Google image of one that wasn't obviously a re-enactor.

>>52472263
Battlefront fucked up.

>>52472795
They've done that a lot recently.

>>52472263
They forgot about the exception to the normal rules that they didn't program the conversion tool to take into account.

I'm sure it can be implemented with some new code, but the question is how long it will take.

As for figuring out percentages, it's easy enough to do providing you have a smartphone with a built in calculator program.

(Suck it, teachers who always said "you'll never carry a calculator around everywhere you go"!)

You simply decide the smaller number by the larger number, and then multiply by 100.

So something that is 345 points out of 1500 would be:

345 / 1500 = 0.23

0.23 X 100 = 23%

>>52477155
>decide

Divide.

Not sure what the fuck happened with the autocorrect there...

Do how useful/goof are British airmobile platoons in TY? I feel like the Lynx is sorta frail, and the transport version has no means to defend itself from enemy fire(seriously; not even a guy leaning out with a machinegun all action movie style?).

I love the idea behind it, but overall I feel like Lynxs with TOW missiles just seem more useful in the long run.

>>52477155
The obvious implementation is just to have it display as 0%, right?

>>52477197
Maybe you hit the nearby "C" key instead of the "V" key, and autocorrect thought that, both being equally close to "dicide," "decide" was the more common word you might be misspelling.

>>52477356
For 11 points you could have 8 Milans. 4 Lynx with TOWs are 12 points. So double the shots and more surviveability at the cost of 12" of range. Seems like a no brainer to me. I think NATO helis are overly expensive for their limited ROF. Unless you are playing Blue on Blue, it's not worth it.

Of course you need to buy the other airlabding platoona, but you get even more Milans and infantry. Basically you plop your airlanding boys on a hill or in a field off to the side, using the Mechanized infantry to screen the airlanding boys, so the opponent can't just bum rush them. The only downside to airlanding is that they have no Carl Gustavs to shoot tanks when they get close.

>>52478130
Right but that would require someone with the proper coding skills to write the code in such a way that whatever code is being used to calculate the percentages would know to ignore the Volks stuff when calculating percentages.

It's not an impossible task, but it's not quite as easy as you seem to think it would be.

>>52480597
You don't ignore the volksturm when calculating percentages though, it just counts as zero for what's on the board. If you've got the following 1000pt list:
Two HQ tanks 200
Combat platoon three tanks 300
Combat platoon three tanks 300
Volksturm 100
Volksturm 100

then for reserves the volksturm are 0%, the HQ is 20% and each of the two combat platoons are 30%. All you'd need to is have it so that it displayed Volksturm as 0% rather than its actual cost/points total. That's not necessarily as simple as it sounds (you'd need some way to have the percentage output bit check if they were Volksturm or something?) but it doesn't affect anything else .

>>52479076
>I think NATO helis are overly expensive for their limited ROF. Unless you are playing Blue on Blue, it's not worth it.
They used to be amazing before errata changed them so they lost GTG/concealment if stuff flanked them.

>>52480812
My issue with them is cost effectiveness vs. Milans. You pay a lot more points for less missiles down range. It would also be nice for the helo AT missiles to have FP 2+. Nothing is worse than bailing a T-72 with your AT23 missile. Once you fire you lose GTG, which still leaves you at 5+ to hit, but with a bad aircraft save and the inability to relocate without giving up a round of shooting, you really have no choice but to sit at the back of the table and hope enemy missile AA doesn't strike you down.

I am not going to completely shelve my PAHs, but right now I am putting the points toward Tornados.

Reminder that since Aircraft are normal units in V4 with Unit Leaders you can use US planes to spot for artillery using the Under Command rule.

>>52481326
Any unit leader or just infantry?

>>52481326
Problem there is that you must be stationary to spot and most aircraft can't be stationary.

>>52481621
"A US Unit Leader can be a Spotting Team for an Artillery Bombardment"

Sounds like any unit leader to me.

>>52481733
They'll be stationary when they run into my Wirbelwinds.

>>52481217
Milans are pretty much game-breaking right now. They're astonishingly cheap for AT 21 so the spam is just insane. Certainly for soviets it makes tank lists non-competitive and I assume the expense of NATO tanks give them similar calculus.

>>52479076
And say I don't want to be the asshole spamming Milans? Are regular airmobile worth it?

>>52481813
Read the artillery spotting rules.

>>52482639

Even the normal air mobile seem like a fine value. 4 MG teams, 3 milans, and a mortar for 7 points is pretty good even if the integrated AT is only AT 13.

Though if I weren't getting the milan section, I would just go with the 9pt. mechanized infantry platoon, which is the best infantry available in game. Someone at Battlefront has a huge Brit boner, because they are leagues above every other list, including BMP spam and Panzertruppen.

>>52482565
You have to either smoke them, pin them, or get within 8". The problem with the British is that the Carl Gustav poses a big threat to any tank that doesn't have Chobham. The Gustav can bail the T-72 from the front, and kill the T-72M and T-55 from the front, so WARPAC is screwed attacking them. Also good luck trying to push them off the objective with counterattack 3+

>>52483364
I'm not the guy saying it can spot, just quoting that it says any team leader can be the spotting team. Spotting teams still can't move, so planes can't unless there's some rule letting them land that I missed. Presumably they remembered to include an exception for AOPs.

>>52481733
>>52481813
>>52483364
Blitz them on from a table edge. Baddabing baddaboom.

>>52483478
>You have to either smoke them, pin them, or get within 8". The problem with the British is that the Carl Gustav poses a big threat to any tank that doesn't have Chobham. The Gustav can bail the T-72 from the front, and kill the T-72M and T-55 from the front, so WARPAC is screwed attacking them. Also good luck trying to push them off the objective with counterattack 3+
That's a point. Leo/Abrams are also going 14" so getting in 8" is much easier.

>>52483478
>You have to either smoke them, pin them, or get within 8". The problem with the British is that the Carl Gustav poses a big threat to any tank that doesn't have Chobham. The Gustav can bail the T-72 from the front, and kill the T-72M and T-55 from the front, so WARPAC is screwed attacking them. Also good luck trying to push them off the objective with counterattack 3+
You also don't really want to in assaults against Pfaust44s, either.

Also sensible people will put infantry at the front with their 2" standoff distance and anti-dash bubble closer to you to make getting in 8" hard/impossible.

>>52485870
Which begs the question: with no special rules for artillery, no flamethrowers, conscript assault ratings (WARPAC)/poor numbers (West Germans)/bad morale (Americans), and minimally effective brutal guns, how do you even begin to dislodge dug in British infantry. Unlike when you fight Soviets, AA guns will get torn to pieces by the Milans at long range, so you can't just throw dice at them until they die.

Where's our tactical nuke support Battlefront?

>>52487054

>Tac nukes
>Implying WARPAC won't be all the way to Spain by the time NATO representatives agree to use them.

I've never understood why the US put some much stock in battlefield nuclear weapons when their allies would almost unilaterally disallow their use on friendly ground. Sure you can vaporize the entire WARPAC front line, but the West Germans will never go for that, and the alliance will absolutely collapse if you nuke them without permission. And on top of that, most of your strategies call for the use of the nukes that you aren't allowed to launch.

Frankly I think NATO lucked out in not actually having to fight WW3.

>>52487054
You can build anti-brit lists but they're very specialised; lots of artillery, mostly.

>>52483364
Airplanes can already spot for their own bombardments of rockets or bombs. Therefore, planes can spot for bombardments. Full stop, unless there is a special rule that contradicts this.

Hey guys, does this game let you play captured tank companies?

So when the fuck am going to be able to field t-80's, T-62's, BMD's for my soviets? m60's, bradleys, and HUMVEES for my americans? Also Challies for the brits when?

>>52488333
Yes. Any team from a unit that can bombard can spot for THEIR OWN unit.

That's not what we're talking about here.

Someone up-thread is trying to argue that a unit leader from a unit of US strike aircraft can be used to spot for the bombardment from a unit of mortars or artillery on the ground.

Which would be cheesy as fuck if that is actually the case.

But the rules for artillery spotting state that the team doing the spotting has to be stationary, something that is quite literally impossible for strike aircraft.

So no, a US strike aircraft unit leader can not be used as a spotter for an artillery unit on the ground.

>>52488418
There are a few.

Atlantik Wall has a Beutepanzer Company and a Beute Stug Batterie. The Beutepanzers are known for being hillariously bad for LW, but fun to see on the table.

Finns use stolen Russian tanks in most of their lists.

There are other Looted Tank/Decoy tank slots in lists for books like Desperate Measures and Barbarossa.

>>52488595
>But the rules for artillery spotting state that the team doing the spotting has to be stationary, something that is quite literally impossible for strike aircraft.
Blitz in from the table edge.

>>52489008
If you wanted to get more gamey, aircraft don't move; they're "placed anywhere in the movement step". It isn't actually described as unlimited movement like it is in TY.

>>52488708
Do they have any of the soviet captured tank companies?

File: defenders of Polan.jpg (69KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 960x720px

POLSKAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>52489143

If you mean soviets using captured tanks, there's one platoon you can take, but it takes your recon slot and isn't very good.
If you mean others using captured soviet tanks, there are some german lists that can get a platoon or 2 or captured T-34s.
There's also a Mid-War SS list that has captured T-34s as its HQ and combat platoons.

That's about it.

>>52489143
>>52489736
Check Red Bear if you want Soviets in German tanks.

Check Grey Wolf or Rising Sun if you want Finns in Soviet tanks. Desperate Measures and Barbarossa have options for the Germans to bring captured soviet tanks. Eastern front has some stuff too, but MW is currently being revamped so it's not guaranteed to be in the next version.

>>52438491
is it too much to hope that americans get:

1. Chapparels
2. stingers
3. f16's (or f4's or thunderchiefs, or f4 phantoms or hell even skyhawks .. 20 ponits for a 50/50 no show is really rough)
4. Bradleys (something to equal or counter the bmp spam) maybe even some kind of new force or unit?
5. flying OBS (kiowa?)
6. air cav (aka 101st airborne mounted on hueys (blackhawks would probably be too late to fit in)

>>52491460
1: Probably
2: Probably
3: No confirmation of new Aircraft.
4: Confirmed
5: No idea
6: Black Hawks were actually in service at this time. So Black Hawks probably. Some kind of Air Cav was confirmed IIRC.

>>52488506
Do you really want a T-62 after Phil's done with it? There was no excuse for fucking the T-55, imagine what he'd do with a (Warsaw Pact) tank that had real problems.

>>52492848

Anon... oh who the fuck am I kidding you're right. He's gonna butcher my soviets even more.

>>52491524
Maybe M1A1s as well, since the M1 sprues have the parts for the M1A1. A man can dream.

>maybe F16s
>maybe Humvees
>maybe Kiowa
>maybe blackhawk

>confirmed bradleys
>confirmed air cav

anon, I can only get so erect

>

>>52493781

I hope you enjoy blue on blue.

>>52487054
Just wait until they get Buratinos

File: 1484106190408.jpg (36KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 600x600px

>>52438491
>Italy

File: 1479271368124.jpg (146KB, 609x397px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 609x397px

>>52494302
>Being excited for the Macaronis

>>52492848
>in order to model the reliability problems present in the T-62, we have decided that you must make a cross check before they are brought onto the table
>any T-62s that fail this check are unable to make it to the battle and count as lost
CHEERS
H
E
E
R
S

File: 1478051019703.jpg (97KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 800x600px

>>52494416
>not being excited for the Lasagnas

>>52493781
Same anon here. I have both Americans and West Germans, and honestly, as long as the US get enough cool toys to be on par with everyone else, I can live with blue on blue. Had to do it before.

Plastic Humvees and rules for OH-6 were confirmed by Pete S. Blackhawks will have to wait for Desert Storm.

File: NATO General Sees River.gif (1MB, 317x237px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 317x237px

>>52494522
>Being revved up for the Rigatoni

File: IMG_0289.jpg (82KB, 500x772px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 500x772px

>>52495068
Getting so spun up over the Spaghettis

File: P.26.40 - 2.jpg (54KB, 720x400px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 720x400px

>>52495281
I'm talking about those Tortellinis

Think they'll actually give the Italians the P.26 this time around?

>>52495329
P.40 barely saw service except really with the Germans.

>>52492848
It'll probably either get moving rof 0 or something like the british sneak-and-peek rule (can only fire main gun up to 6").

File: Semovente 105-25 M42L 2.jpg (21KB, 357x250px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 357x250px

>>52495355

I'd be fine with Germans using them too; I was kind of annoyed that V3 had the turret for bunkers and nothing else. Both it and pic related could use better exposure.

>>52489008
Additionally, if the rule "that a spotting team must remain stationary" prohibits US CAS Unit Leaders from spotting for other ground arty, theb it must also prevent them from spotting for themselves. Therefore, if you are right, it is impossible for bombs and rockets to ever be used.

Ultimately, ruled as written, US air MUST be able to spot for ground arty.

>>52495494
This doesn't necessarily follow; CAS specifically notes that ground teams can't spot for it.

Now, as I said, "place the aircraft" is gamey. It's likely RAI that that's "movement", especially since artillery excuses planes from the restrictions on moving and firing.

There's a credible argument you're meant to be able to blitz aircraft, though, since aircraft have an otherwise-useless skill rating of veteran that's explicitly noted and separate from their to-hit number and that's how it works in the sister game.

All of this comes back down to "Battlefront can't write decent rules anymore" with a side of "they ignore all their playtesters".

RAW vs RAI

I hope every sensible person can see that RAI is the way to go?

>>52495796
The way to go is battlefront actually putting the effort in to make a ruleset worth paying £10-20 for.

But, seriously; RAI is probably that aircraft placement is movement (but we don't know this, we're divining intent from rules), but are you intended to be able to blitz move planes? There's no other reason for planes to have skill ratings, since they can't dig in and if they're always moving shoot-and-scoot is otherwise useless for them. Movement orders do explicitly dis-include guns, which they don't for planes. Rules as "intended" seems to suggest the only possible reason for that is to allow them to blitz, and the only possible reason you'd want to blitz in V4 is to spot for US artillery since there's no landers or ATGMs. But I am quite sure someone will say that's ridiculous and the obvious, sensible interpretation is the opposite, that planes are always moving regardless, and will cite realism and ignore the mechanical suggestions. We don't really know, and that we can lay at BF's feet.

>>52495537
Dont get me wrong, this is stupid and unrealistic and should not happen in game. But it isnt against the rules.

Battlefront really droppes the ball with v4. Thetr was no need for a complete rewrite. V4 feels like it wasnt even proofread let alone playtested.

Known issues with v4:
1. What happens to German HT passengers when the HT is bailed in assault?
2. RAW fausts cant fire if pinned.
3. Single team units can Follow Me every turn with no penalty to failure.
4. German units are now 10pct overcosted.
5. RAW snipers are alway
s concealed g2g and in bulletprood cover eveb if they shoot or move through the open.
6. The rule for minefields is unclear if the breaching team needs to be within 2 inches of the minefield or in the minefield.
7. Tank escorts can no longer assault infantry in buildings.
8. US air support can spot for arty RAW
9. Rules unclear if tanks can break off from assault through infantry.
10. Cavalry cannot break off from assault as it lacks the sufficient tactical movement to get far enough away.

And thats just what I remember off the top of my head. These are more than growing pains... it is a clear indication of a lack of editorial proofreading let alone the robust community playtest required.

>>52495846
>9. Rules unclear if tanks can break off from assault through infantry.
This isn't a rule anymore, so far as I can see.

>>52495846
> RAW fausts cant fire if pinned
That's wrong though. When pinned they use their moving ROF of 1 with a +1 penalty, and they have a special rule that they can't shoot if they moved in the movement phase.

>>52496131
"Shoots using it's moving RoF, whether it moved or not". Rule seems clear to me and it makes all-faust platoons less autowin against tank lists.

>>52496156
>>52496131

And lo! The basic issue with "RAI": We have no idea what was intended except from the rules written.

>>52458557

How much is everything, and what'd you be asking for price-wise? I have a few poor(ish) players at my store, and this'd really help them round out (or even start) a German force.

You can only apply the stuff from Open Fire and a box of 155's so many ways...but, they're young and fun to play with.

>>52495494
The aircraft rules specifically state that they can spot for THEIR OWN rockets and bombs.

>>52496156
Panzerfausts have a moving rate of fire though, what's stopping them from firing when pinned?

The bigger ridiculous one is that Infantry FTs fire at full ROF in Defensive fire when pinned down.

>>52496230
Fausts do not havr a moving rate of fire. They xannot fire if they move. They have moving RoF of 0.

>>52496225
The rules also specifically state that they cannot move and spot. Therefore they cannot spot for themselves if the placement of the aircraft stand counts as movement.

>>52496307
>Fausts do not havr a moving rate of fire.
Cite?
>They cannot fire if they move
That's different from having no moving ROF. The rules state they can't fire if they've moved in the movement step, it doesn't say that they have no moving ROF, a distinction that's important because of pinning.

>>52496369
"A pinned down unit fires using its moving RoF whether it moves or not"

So, we must treat the team as if they moved, and their RoF is 0.

This is obviously dumb but this is the strict and correct interpretation of the untested and halfbaked piece of shit that is v4. I could have written better and clearer rules.

File: IMG_2307.png (438KB, 720x528px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 720x528px

>>52496329
The aircraft rules specifically make an exception for them being able to spot for themselves.

>>52496369
Furthermore, read awkward layout as a prexedent. thisrule used to mean cannot fire and moce. now it means to strictly treat moving rof as 0. I assume that bf intends thr same xonversaion to take place for fausts.

>>52496433
I disagree. Specific rule trumps general rule. In this case the specific rule is that you cant spot and move.

If you take apotting and moving as the general rule than theother trumping specific rule is that US Air can spot.

The systen is absurd no matter how you spin it.

>>52496465
How the fuck are you not fucking getting this?

Aircraft can spot for themselves and only themselves.

There is a specific rule for aircraft that lets them spot for their own bombardment.

Not a mortar bombardment. Not an artillery bombardment. Their own bombardment.

The only aircraft that can act as an artillery observer is the AOP which has its own set of rules.

File: IMG_0193.jpg (70KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1280x720px

>>52496538
>>52496465

>>52496436
I don't have my book handy, but if awkward layout is worded differently from Panzerfausts that would imply they function differently.

>>52496538
>>52496465
Welcome to shitty unclear rule writing.

rule #1 states if you move you can't spot

No where in the rules does it state aircraft can break this rule.

look at the exact wording of every scentence involved. Yes it's rules lawyerish but ti's the way the rule is written.

Why is battlefront so shit about writing clear concice rules?

>>52496538
Battlefront has left so many holes in v4 that it is nonsensical if you take it as written.

>>52496683
It seems pretty clear to me.

Spotting for Aircraft (p.g. 66)
An Artillery Bombardment from an Aircraft Unit can only be Spotted by one of the Aircraft in the Unit. Aircraft can spot for their own Bombardment while moving.

>>52496709
This is the point of all of this. No one genuinely thinks that US CAS should be able to spot for mortars. But the rules allow them to.

The point is to higlight how shitty and unclear v4 is.

>>52496746
Page 66? I am reading thr LW and EW conversion. In the conversion this is on page 44 and omits any mention of moving.

Can Med mortars with a direct fire capability fire over friendly teams like light mortars can?

>>52496779
In the softback MW book. Looks like it's p.g. 45 for EW/LW.

>>52496797
Related: the DAK single 8cm mortar team inside their platoon, does that fire a bombardment? Statline kind of suggests it does

>>52496817
Hmm... looks like thats right.

>>52496538
>Aircraft can spot for themselves and only themselves.
Unless they're a US leader and have blitzed on from the table edge which doesn't count as movement if they move no further. Why would they have a skill check number if they couldn't do any movement orders?

>>52496671
Awkward Layout is a different rule, yes, but it's also specific to vehicles. It starts with "A Tank Team". So even if fausts (and faustnikas) were Awkward Layout it'd be unclear.

>>52496797
Of course not, that would be ridiculous.

>>52496851
Yeah, but it's going to be really reliant on joining batteries and you lose any other guns in the platoon for that turn and GTG status so it seems like an awful idea.

>>52496919
In fact, checking the PDF, it can only fire bombardments and doesn't have smoke so it seems like a trap option.

>>52496883
Because bombardments range in based on your skill.

That's why they have a skill rating.

>>52496883
Why is it ridicukous for med mortars to direct fire over friendly teams?

They could in v3. light mortars still can. it seems like an unintentional omission.

>>52496986
The guy's a troll.

See the entire discussion about strike aircraft spotting for artillery.

He's just trying to twist the rules because he feels they're poorly written.

>>52496953
Ah, true. Still, I think it's reasonably obvious they can use movement orders; they excluded gun teams explicitly but not aircraft.

>>52496986
I was being sarcastic about what a mess this edition is.

>>52497039
Lol! The edition is such a mess which is why your sarcasm is plausible lol.

>>52497019
I'm a different guy; I don't think strike aircraft can, in general, spot for artillery (they're can spot for their own bombardments, which would imply they can't spot for other bombardments), but US planes have a team leader that, if stationary, can spot for artillery. Either way it's poorly written.

Anyone know if there's any plans to get a T-34 based list in Team Yankee?

>>52496943
Yeah.. it's plus 2 points for the team...

I think 3-4 pz4s with short barrels are a really amazing counter to arty parks though, so they might be enough by themselves.

Has anyone tried them in a counter arty role?

Lorraines seem potentially nice too.

>>52497064
But planes are never stationary.

They're not fucking helicopters.

>>52497305
Stuff that's blitz moved isn't stationary either, it's just not moved for rules purposes. Think of it as doing a slow flyover on special request. Put it this way: There's a list of stuff that can and can't do movement orders at the movement chapter and planes aren't in it.

>>52497305
IRL helicopters are never actually stationary either, if we're being pedantic.

>>52497510
Nor, for that matter, are artillery observers.

>>52494515
"And did we mention it'll have a cross value of 6+?"

>>52494302
Right?

My wish list of models for MW Italians:

1) Plastic M14/41 box
2) Plastic AB41 box
3) Plastic 100/17 battery
4) Plastic Fokkers
5) Plastic Semoventes(all of them)
6) Plastic 90/53 guns

If I'm lucky we'll see maybe 2 of those.

>>52498714
I'm hoping to get some nice new Bersaglieri sculpts.

>>52498875
That'd be nice, too. I'm not too worried about new infantry as I have plenty of regulars, but some decent black feathers would be nice.

File: Road to Rome - ITA Compagnia Bersaglieri.pdf (3MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1x1px

>>52498875
I'd like them, so that then I could go with the army of three nations (Italian, Polish, and French) and crush nazis with Italian, British, and American technology.

I mean, objectively the list will suck balls, but it'd be fun to make and play with.

>>52499686
I'm still trying to figure out what core tank platoon this chart is saying is in support, from the main books. Getting a couple fireflies in those lists will markedly improve its usefulness.

Uh... New thread?

>>52499878
I don't think it's one of the core tank platoons in RtR. If it was, it'd be a mashup of the Polish Pancerny Platoon and the standard Armoured Platoon.

>>52500257
It's currently entirely unspecific about how you decide what is in the greater formation atm. They're literally the same historical units as the book it's just they're too lazy to update/ clarify in this case.

For sure you could argue for the polish tank formation. As for the british, it's either the specific british tank subformation or that entire company.

>>52499903
New Thread Here:

>>52500841