>BMP Flames of War SCANS database: http://www.mediafire.

>>52701594

>It was a 350+ page rule book full of stuff that only ever applied once ina blue moon, but that you could never actually find when the situation popped up and you actually needed to work your way through it.

Which is better than having to print out an FAQ?

>Hit allocation was pages worth of computer programming style "if-then-else" statements.

That despite that is pretty simple; defender puts hits out, can't prioritise stuff at long range or that'd get FP checks. Optionally you can prioritise guns or try and prioritise a specific tank.

That said, I don't mind TY's rules, but in TY platoons are either infantry or largely homogenous, and everyone having mission tactics made sense. It doesn't for a period where some nations didn't even issue radios.

>Assaults were poorly explained and difficult to carry out correctly.

Also fairly simple; things within 8" are involved, move stuff closest to closest. And now we've got a trainwreck of an assault phase that means it's barely ever worth doing, so this is a strong disagreement.

>Artillery was often something I or my opponent had to double check on occasion.

Artillery is basically the same but skill and tohit swapped places, ranging in makes less sense and everyone has mike target.

>We'd constantly forget about having to do specific checks at specific times.

End phase, check to see if stuff runs away, starting step, check to unpin/remount. Now we've got TY's morale rules and a remount phase that means non-kill results are worthless, as well as dramatically reducing the vulnerability of reluctant teams since you only test once a turn.

>It was complicated. An improvement over what came before (I don't even want to think about V2 assaults), but still complicated.

Infinity is complicated. Malifaux is complicated. V3 was simple, TY was probably as simple as it could get (and was already sneaking into the territory of "too loose for playability"), and V4's

V3 was NOT simple...

I agree, it's not Challenger but Version 3 had a thing where rules could be used against you in some situations. Especially mean if one doesn't own the book about SuperSchutzenGrenadierPanzerjagerKompanie 666 that fought on the 9th of december 1944 at 6:15 until 8:23 am.

>>52703145
>V3 was simple
Really disagree with that. And I dont love V4, but I dont hate it either.

>>52703145
I'll keep playing a game and then find out I misinterpreted something big.
>you can only range in two artillery batteries with one observer
>that line in parenthensis about shooting through infantry
>attachments and points on table
>volksturm and points on table
>semi-indirect fire
>all those times I flipped to the index and spent 5 minutes looking at each page entry trying to understand how it works together
Usually it isn't this hard.

File: IMG_2527.jpg (585KB, 2314x1299px) Image search: [Google]

585KB, 2314x1299px

>>52703145
>Infinity is complicated. Malifaux is complicated.

Infinity I've always not played once, but it seemed ok. Malifaux I have zero experience with.

>V3 was simple

I disagree. As someone who was constantly trying to introduce new players to Flames of War, I always found that demo games were a bitch to run.

You had to leave out half the 2/3rds of the rules (infantry, arty, and assaults) to trim it down to something you could show new players, and even with tanks-only there were things that proved to be complicated to explain to people.

I'm not looking for Checkers-level simplicity of rules or game play. That would be boring as fuck.

What I'm looking for is a Chess-level combination of relatively simple rules, and tactically challenging game play.

And I think 4th Edition comes closer to that than Version 3 ever did.

Anyway, that's just how *I* feel about it.

What do you think?

>>52704891
>Infinity I've always not played once,

Only played once.

Not sure what happened there...

>>52704891
Not him, but personally the only big changes in simplicity are hit allocation and in the way the rules are presented.

I recently helped out CGL with a project to make a condensed version of the core Battletech rules. This involved taking Battletech's 318 page rulebook and about 40 pages from a supplement and compressing them down to 160 pages. It's amazing what clearer examples, clean wording, and removing needless fluff text does for making a ruleset approachable, and we didn't even change any rules. I credit that with V4 and TY's ease of use more than most of the rule changes (except the hit allocation, which does speed things up).

>>52704253
>>attachments and points on table
>>volksturm and points on table
Dunno about the rest but in V3 these aren't things. Volksturm are always-on and ignored, and points don't matter for reserves.

>>52705720
All those were V4 confusions I had.

>>52704891
>You had to leave out half the 2/3rds of the rules (infantry, arty, and assaults) to trim it down to something you could show new players, and even with tanks-only there were things that proved to be complicated to explain to people.
I'm struggling to see how V4's an improvement here, except the "just don't bother showing assault to people because you never want to do it anymore" thing.

Artillery's functionally the same. There's mike target for everyone now which is another rule to explain, and the weirdness with terrain, but it's basically the same. There's no smoke direction, I guess?

Infantry... I don't get that, they're just infantry. No armour saves, move slow, can dig in. What's hard about them?

Assault is the only fiddly bit, and we've lost a lot to be able to say "it's simpler", and, to be honest, it isn't hugely simpler, just less stuff takes part. "Bases touching" is "2-inch swing radius" in different words.

What the rules do do is less explanation of edge cases, and given how this worked out for TY (the same dozen questions being asked over and over again until someone puts it in the FAQ months later because there's enough holes to drive a tiger through), I'm not convinced that's a good thing.

>>52705814
Oh right.

What changed for SIF and shooting through infantry?

File: KIMG0020.jpg (3MB, 1836x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1836x3264px

>>52702887
>email battlefront that I don't know of any local stores to pick up new rules, ask if they know of one
>Nah m8 we'll mail you one
>mails on the 12th, shows up today
>MFW battlefront has 10/10 customer service but the postman is a fucking moron

File: KIMG0023.jpg (3MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x1836px

>>52706940
>tfw your spine is more fucked up than a drunk sophomore driving home on prom night

File: KIMG0025.jpg (2MB, 1836x3264px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1836x3264px

>>52706965
at least the inside is salvageable, I'll get it spiral bound at Staples and it should be fine.

Also apparently some anon wanted to buy my Germans on here. I've been real busy but c3k told me about it and I didn't know how to get in contact with you. I still have all kinds of stuff and can get a list tonight. Mostly late war stuff, think tigers, 78 sturmdivision, and panthers.

>>52703145

Coming from a Warhammer Fantasy fan, I would count your blessings.

File: IMG_0369.jpg (15KB, 164x134px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 164x134px

>>52706965

Wooooow. The mailman really did a number on your book...

>>52706965
jeezes what kind of box di they come it?
i'm reading a lot of people who have bought the new el alamein sets that their rule books are getting fucked up in the boxes
It's open fire all over again with the disintegrating rule books

>>52706998
The email from the interested buyer is still in the Panzerfunk email account.

Do you remember how to get into it?

File: KIMG0024.jpg (3MB, 1836x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1836x3264px

>>52707279
>>52707289
came in a padded envelope.

Not that it saved the poor thing

>>52707519
Not really. You guys still have my private?

>>52707591
I think so.

I just forwarded it, so let me know if you got it.

>>52708086
got it. I'll get in contact with the guy tonight once I get home

>>52708318
I'm the interested buyer, no worries man. Take your time, I'm in no rush. A list would be great, and we can work from there.

>>52710334
Sending you an email in just a bit. I'm actually pulling stuff out now.

Where you located by the way? Kind of hoping I actually have someone even remotely local to play this with.

>>52710555
Sadly I'm in Rochester, NY. Are you even remotely close?

>>52710619
Western KY, although you're probably close ish to Eagles

>>52710643
Ouch.

File: KIMG0026.jpg (4MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3264x1836px

>>52710334
email sent, brace for pics

>this isn't even all of it

Help me

>>52710619
>Rochester, NY
>>52710643
>close-ish to Eagles

Rochester is actually up near Lake Ontario, kinda far from where I am.

I'm down on Long Island.

>>52711973
define kind of far

I thought New York wasnt a very big state.

File: IMG_2560.jpg (291KB, 1242x1288px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 1242x1288px

>>52712297
Assuming no traffic, it would be approximately a 6 hour drive.

I'm on an island along the Atlantic cost.

He's significantly further north and west just south of one of the Great Lakes and the Canadian border.

>>52712430
Didn't realize how far south the city is, to be honest.

>>52712297
One of the bigger ones in the north-east.

Incidentally I'll be out in NY for a few hours. It's probably the closest Eagles and I will be to each other sans some tournament or me having to fly out for a book signing.

File: 20170415_212611-picsay.jpg (328KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

328KB, 1024x768px

>Diablo

>>52716511
Jajaja

Well if anyone wanders in the Rochester area, say so and I can likely get a game going for you all.

>>52707087
Well, right.

We hardly got Sigmared even if some of the internet hyperbole would make it seem like we did.

Although if you believe half the hyperbole out there right now, we're going down the path to becoming a Pokémon or Magic style card game, but with miniatures as well.

I mean fuck, even before the announcement of the Command Cards there was a vocal segment of the player base upset about the Team Yankee style unit cards for Mid-War.

It's like "cards" is a dirty word or something.

>>52717830
the game's magic the gathering now

>>52719872
How so? I'm genuinely curious why you think this.

I have never been a MTG player myself (Yu-Gi-Oh was the big thing with my nerd friends at the time) but the game play for Version 4 hardly seems like something out of a CCG.

>>52717830
Unit cards are shit.

They are bulky and hard to handle at worst. At best, they are less convenient than the SIMPLE ONE PAGE PRINTOUT from forcesofwar that is the current gaming standard. We are taking a step back.

Battlefront seems to want to combine the failure of Tanks with FoW v4. This isn't want the communtiy wants but Battlefront doesn't seem to care.

1. Battlefront has not corrected any glaring ambiguities of the V4 rulebook.
2. Battlefront has given no timeline on when these are going to be corrected.
3. Phil has been dismissive at attempts to get BF clarification of the rules (read the thread on blitzing and foxholes in the BF forums).
4. The 'teasers' for the Command cards look lame. "Rapid Fire" increase Tiger RoF to 3. While we don't know exactly what the deck will contain, the teaser suggests that the deck will look very similar to Tanks! cards.


Now don't get me wrong - I like V4. It cleans up some dumb rules. I especially like the change to Arty AT and the change to hit allocation. The new hit allocation rules are very nice - they are quick, clean, and easy to explain. But the rulebook has too many damn ambiguities to be playable.

>>52720165
I like the unit cards, but hate the idea of command and objective cards. Yeah, a single page printout is easy enough, but if they're free then there's literally no downside. What I abhor is paying for extra shit that improves the game. I understand it's optional, but I disagree with the idea itself. Just a money grab. I personally will not be using them, nor will I play with those using them.

>>52720265
BF isn't entirely shit.

I like the idea of the Fog of War cards. This adds an asymmetric reality to the game. In real life, you have literally no idea what your enemy's mission is. It is possible for both you and your enemy to be successful in your missions at the company level.

Here is an example during offensive operations: You are tasked with securing a fording site and your enemy is tasked with delaying you for 7 hours while preserving 30% of his force. You can both 'win', and but you are still both enemies. And that can be fun.

Unfortunately, the current objective cards look like shit. They don't look like realistic company level tasks (and FoW is a coy level game unless you're Soviet). The three spoiled cards are:

Scout the Perimeter - This is dumb. Unless you are brigade recce, you should not be 'scouting the perimeter.'

Set up Forward HQ - This is so dumb. In FoW, you ARE THE COMPANY COMMANDER. Why should I score extra points for where I decide to command? My personal location is irrelevant to bn or bde, which are the de facto consumers of my work.

Secure Major Objective: This has potential, but it would be a better objective if it included constraints for the commander (either by time or forces to preserve).

Lastly, these need to be sorted by phase of war - transitional, offensive, or defensive. It does not make sense for both me and my opponent to have offensive tasks.

If BF follows these recommendations, the Fog of War Objective Cards could be really cool and add a really great aspect to the game. Do they even need to be cards? Nah - just write them on a piece of paper for all I care.

>>52720165
You can't blitz and dig foxholes, it's also a move order now.

>>52720394
The question that was raised is that if you blitz, do you keep your foxholes? The rules state that you keep foxholes until you move, and blitzing states that you don't count as moving.

What needs to happen is that a line needs to be added to blitz to state that 'you do not count as moving for the purposes of shooting only.' BF does not seem to want to do this.

>>52720443
Yes. You keep gone to ground, too. Foxholes aren't positional anymore.

>>52720394
You can if you have stormtroopers.

>>52720533
We don't have an answer from Battlefront, but it seems weird that foxholes aren't positional. This is why everyone's so pissed off about V4 - there are huge holes and gaps, and BF doesn't give a shit.

There was fucking no playtest period. We want a good product and BF dropped the ball. The book wasn't even goddamn proofread.

The above two posts are the problem. No one can agree on what the rules 'mean'. One person says that foxholes aren't positional. Another says that you lose foxholes. A third says that you lose foxholes but you can dig in again because you have stormtrooper.

Rules are supposed to answer these questions for us...

File: 1490903003440.png (13KB, 461x147px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 461x147px

>>52720600
>There was fucking no playtest period
Or there was and BF decided to ignore results.

>>52720699
That has to be a lie. Or, the playtest was just a token circlejerk for everyone to say how awesome the new rules are.

Read the "FAQ Thread" in the official forum. If there was a playtest period, it must have been a starry eyed circle-jerk. There is no way in fucking hell that all of these ambiguities, errors, and problems got through any playtest worth its keep.

>>52720699
So it looks like V4 didnt make soviets great again?
No fucking surprise there t b h

>>52720751
From speaking to playtesters, their feedback is usually ignored except for small tweaks.

>>52720776
I was on the fence about starting a horde Soviet T34 list, but with the silence from BF over V4 clarifications or way ahead, I have put that ambition on hold. I might end up doing TY in 6mm just for shits - because TY looks stupid in 15mm.

>>52720761
Tankovy stands to benefit mainly because Hen and Chicks is less severe, fast tank is good, dashing doesn't get you rekt like at the double, low AT bombardments and bombs, and heroes can use movement orders.

>>52721477
Yeah, but soviet infantry are pretty much fucked on getting into combat now, will have to go through several rounds of defensive fire to kill a unit, will pretty much always have teams outside the absurdly small command radius, and their already poor heavy tanks are now outright unusable.

>>52721792
>their already poor heavy tanks are now outright unusable
Glad i ditched this shit when i did
Fuck Battlefront i hope Poutine or Kim nukes New Zealand first

Have you seen any games of Soviet Infantry? On one hand, they get fucked from the new assault rules (defensive fire over infantry teams, shorter (4in) assault bubble, harder to use QoQ). But they also benefit massively from the new morale rules in that they don't have to roll a morale check until they have been basically annihilated.

I'm just not sure which has more pull.

>>52721964
They lead to rather boring games where nothing happens, so personally I'd rather axe it all.

>>52720443
>What needs to happen is that a line needs to be added to blitz to state that 'you do not count as moving for the purposes of shooting only.'
So, we're just deleting Seek, Strike and Destroy then?

>>52721964
So the optimal way to play Soviet infantry now is to form a circle and stay perfectly still for the 3 hours it takes to die?

>>52723788
*while shelling stuff with artillery/sniping tanks with AT guns.

Welcome to version 4!

>>52716511
Fresh meat?
>>52717830
Cards in a miniatures game is a dirty word IMO, if you have to constantly keep checking them for your unit stats. It's not the end of the world, but at least to me (subjective here) it's a really shitty mechanic. The only time I enjoyed cards in a wargame was Warhammer's spell cards - they were only used when casting the spell and they had nice art on them too.
>>52720165
Agree completely. I will make my own 1-page summary for whatever army lists I may play when I play v4 games...
>>52720265
Agree wholeheartedly here as well.
>>52723936
That sounds like you could just play an alternative game on the side. Not good, really... :(

Meanwhile, while taking a dump and reading Loza's book today I suddenly realized my 5 tanks 510. SPA list from Remagen with 5 tanks (3 tanks in one company, 2 in a second) doesn't work, as losing a single tank from the smaller 2 tank company automatically leads to the loss of the company.

Fuck V4 morale rules! Fuck them with a baseball bat wrapped in barbed wire!

>>52724415
>as losing a single tank from the smaller 2 tank company automatically leads to the loss of the company.
The Command group forms a platoon of their own in V4, so it's not as bad as it first looks, but yeah. You have small units? V4 says fuck you.

>>52724385
Cards, papers, or books, you have to have some place that the unit stats are easy to access Mid-game.

And army lists even with Easy Army used to be 2 or 3 pages there.

>>52723788

Optimal way to play any trained infantry force in V4. Which was the same way as V3 except no breakthrough guns and AT guns have a better save, so if you focus down on the enemy artillery you are free to camp.

>>52720533
Why the fuck would you keep gone to ground and foxholes if you blitz move

Go back to 40k

>>52724595
V3 lists would fit on a single piece of paper. List composition on the first half of the page, stats for taken units on the second. You'd have to be playing a really big game to need 3 pages. Now, instead, if you have a really varied force you'll need a whole stack of those cards and sift through them constantly until you know their stats by heart.
>>52724475
Yeah, the 2 tank company means HQ King Tiger & a single platoon with a single King Tiger.

So that means 3 options: 1) play higher points games (which doesn't work for tourney-compatible play, but can be done on occasion) 2) drop the volksgrenadiers and arty for more volksturm and nebs 3) drop down to a single company of 4 tanks and put in more support units, but that means losing two tanks = game loss unless I also bring in a panzer crew platoon which is kinda shit...

>>52725396
I can see why you'd keep Gone to Ground, at least; you're moving slowly and stealthily, and if you don't shoot you're still well-hidden. Scout units do this already on a bigger scale, and it doesn't seem unbelievable to picture paratroopers or soviet scouts creeping through underbrush under cover to get in better positions.

The idea of taking foxholes with you seems silly, but we hit the issue that it's the exact same criteria for both, and one seems like a perfectly reasonable thing and the other seems ridiculous.

And don't go "Play the rules as intended!". The rules are what's in the book; if they intended something else they should've written that. This is their fuckup.

>>52721964
So soviet infantry get to stay on the table for longer doing nothing....

>>52725446
Cautious movement is as thing for representing sneaking around

The fact that Phil dismissed the question as ridiculous indicates the I'm the intended rule, it's a shame they can't write


Check out the thread about Hills and Los on the forum, seems the whole player base thought the rules said one thing when Phil meant something else

>>52725396
>If a Team Moves using Blitz Move, but does not Move any further, it is not considered to have Moved...
>Once they have dug Foxholes, Infantry and Gun Teams have Bulletproof Cover and are Concealed until they Move.
>Teams that do not Move, Shoot, or Assault are Gone to Ground...

The relevant sections of the rules. Do you see anything there that says "But they lose foxholes and gone to ground"?

>>52725519
Bet you used to daisy chain observers in v2 to bring in defensive fire from units half a table away

>>52725514
>Cautious movement is as thing for representing sneaking around
Yeah, but this is the issue with "USE COMMON SENSE DURR" type posts. What's nonsensical about veteran troops succeeding at a weaker version of the Sneaking Around rule to get in positions while hidden? It's a very easy-to-picture scene. Think of the prisoner snatch in Band of Brothers. It's just that the same logic works for foxholes and I didn't see that scene in BoB.

But this is what gutting the rulebook's lead to. The game's not simpler, it just needs a longer FAQ.

>>52725411
>You'd have to be playing a really big game to need 3 pages.

What are you smoking and where can I get some? 4/20 *is* coming up soon after all.

Every army list I printed was at least 2 pages, sometimes 3.

One page for the list itself, one page for the unit stats, and either the bottom half of the second page or a third page all together for the Special Rules.

>>52725620
I agree that they can't write and making things more concise made them more Ambiguous

Not counting as having move doesn't change the fact that it did in fact move. The team loses the foxhole as soon as it moves, the fact that at the end of that movement it gets to count as not moving changes nothing.

Same as the reason it needs to take cross checks in a blitz

There May be some argument that they keep gone to ground and concealed in the open

>>52725514
>Check out the thread about Hills and Los on the forum, seems the whole player base thought the rules said one thing when Phil meant something else
I just went to check and I did find that he's explicitly stated he's not going to errata it, so fuck him, RAW, foxholes fucking teleport because who gives a shit about writing a decent set of rules.

File: IMG_2563.jpg (25KB, 640x358px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 640x358px

>>52725446
>a picture of the M2 Portable Hole in action.

>important safety note: not to be combined with the M3 Bottomless Bag.

>>52725730
The issue is it's the same issue; both rely on "If a team moves using Blitz Move, but does not move any further, it is not considered to have moved". In V3 foxholes were a thing in the ground; now it's a unit status effect for "simplicity" that you lose when you move. Except, whoops, there's a rule that lets you make a move without it counting, leading to this, and a longer FAQ. It's the false economy of the Great Simplification.

>>52725800
Thank you!

Somebody who understands the utter fucking absurdity of a portable foxhole!

Seriously, how is it that people are so pedantic that they'll argue for the most impossible and unlikely things just because the rules don't explicitly state that it doesn't fucking work that way.

Dragging your foxholes with you is utterly ridiculous.

>>52726143
I don't think anyone wants the game to have that rule. We're just saying the game does have that rule. That's a fuckup of the people writing the rules, brought from the same team as "aircraft weapon means cannon", quality of quantity that's useless, blitz-deployment, SAMs that can't shoot transport helis, and probably a dozen more I can't be assed to think of right now.

Battlefront are the people writing the joke rules; we're just pointing out the fact they have. If they had a brain they'd listen to us, but instead we get "you'll be waiting a long time for such a ridiculous errata", because fixing mistakes they wrote into the rules is apparently beneath them, much like listening to their playtesters.

>>52725540
EVERYONE did that, at least in tournament settings. The bubble was the best part of v3.

>>52726280
>We're just saying the game does have that rule.

No it doesn't.

It doesn't specifically state anywhere that you keep your foxholes if you blitz or shoot and scoot.

The lack of a rule expressly preventing it, is NOT the same as there being a rule that explicitly allows it.

>>52726380
Blitzing (and remaining still after) doesn't count as Moving.

You lose foxholes when you Move.

Where is the ambiguity? It's open and shut; you haven't Moved, you don't lose foxholes.

You would absolutely lose foxholes if you shoot-and-scoot, because that doesn't say you don't count as Moving (and in fact describes the movement as a "Move", with capitals, again zero ambiguity).

The issue isn't that this is vague, the issue is that it's dumb, which I don't think anyone's disputing.

File: IMG_0370.gif (7MB, 450x342px) Image search: [Google]

7MB, 450x342px

>>52726462
Beep beep

>>52727028
Yeah, it's dumb. Everyone's said that. Do you have an argument that the dumb thing isn't exactly what the rules say, though? Because I can't see one. It shouldn't be in there, but it is.

You can also blit through a minefield because you dont count as moving. Minefields only activate when you "move into them." When you blitz you arent moving.

But you cant have it both ways. Either you havr teleporting foxholes or Seek Strike and destroy is useless (because you cant shoot and scoot if you have moved)

I am a complete rookie to FoW but a 40k vet. I just moved and FoW seems to be pretty popular in my new area and I have been told the most common era is far and away late war.

I'd like to start a German army of tanks backed up by some mechanized infantry and maybe some light artillery. However, with the new edition I have absolutely no idea how starting works. It's only mid war right now or something? Do I just start late war and play 3rd edition, is that even a thing anymore?

Can someone explain this a little clearer?

>>52727462
>It's only mid war right now or something?
Mid War is receiving a full reboot with new stats, point values, and rules. Late War and Early War have only received new rules, they retain (most) of their old stats and points costs. There's a free book for using EW/LW in V4, and another one that explains how to translate the special rules.

>Do I just start late war and play 3rd edition, is that even a thing anymore?
Late War is still a thing, and can be played either in V3 (since it's not illegal to use old rules) or in V4.

>>52727441
Does minefield say "Move into" or does it say "Enter"? Difficult terrain always gets rolled, for example, because that happens when you "Enter", even if you don't enter it by moving.

>>52727521

Thank you, that makes sense.

>>52727522
Minefield says (pg 78) Moves. With a capital M.

Blitz also stops you from needing to do a cross check if you start your turn in the difficult terrain... as you arent moving if you blitz.

File: bmp2nva6buga9.jpg (171KB, 800x764px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 800x764px

/NVA/

>tfw like the aesthetic and playstyle of the Nazis
>blonde haired blue eyed
>want to start an army but afraid that I'll look like a stormfag

>>52727626
You're overthinking this.

Play the army you want.

>>52727462
Early and late war will be changed eventually to the mid war style. You can start building and painting though it's unlikely any of your units will become unusable.

>>52727612
Blitz move has caused so many headaches. They should've just put "for the purposes of shooting" in there to make it clear. Or "If you pass your skill check you can fire at your stationary ROF". Has the intended effect with no weird knock-on.

>>52727626
Look look. It's very simple. If you win, your army will be defeated in a few years/months/days anyway. If you lose, then some heroic allied forces brought down some vile nazis.

Win win.

File: I wonder-wonder who behind this post.png (6KB, 252x243px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 252x243px

>>52727903
>Look look
>Win win
I wonder who could be behind this post

>>52727626
I thought the same when i started playing with germans in my first wargame, though the problem is the opposite with me since i am a filthy latino.

Stop overthinking about it, don't call them Nazis all the time, never say anything weird in front of random people you just meet and maybe if you are still thinking about it play with the regular Heer.

It is just a game dude.

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

21KB, 450x252px

>>52716511

Nice Dresden diorama.

What Red Army lists would you recommend for Early?

>>52731904
I used to recommend T-35 companies, but they're less effective due to V4. T-28 companies, BT Companies.

>>52731921
>but they're less effective due to V4
Because AT guns are better now, or?

>>52732058
Because Multiple Guns imposes a +1 to hit with secondary weapons, and now it's a choice to fire Machine Guns or main guns. So the T-35 is less of a glorious murder machine than it used to be.

>>52731904
Red Banner infantry from Barbarossa. They are FT, but you can still fit in 36+ stands with support. 45mm AT guns and mortars of all types are great. Only issue is you will be a little immobile, but I am looking to add an IL-2 and/or some tanks in case I need to attack.

>Tanks
Soviets have a lot of great gear in EW, but the main dilemma for them is you are stuck with Conscript training.

>Light tanks
If you want a cheap tank with a decent gun but hardly any armor there is the T-26. You can upgrade it with a little bit of armor or even make a slavshit jumbo with the T-26E. The BT-5 and BT-7 are essentially T-26's but fast. They are a much better option in V4 now that you actually get a use out of fast tank. The T-60 is pretty good, but due to the lower AT, I'd look into bringing only a few of them. The amphibious recon tanks are mostly meh. If you want lightly armored MGs, bring T-20 Komsomolyets to tow some AT guns.

>medium

The T-28 is an interesting tank with the dual bow machine guns and the rear MG. If you just want to assault with it, I'd suggest bringing it unmodified. The L-10 gun is a pretty expensive upgrade that only brings the AT of the gun up to that of the T-26. You can improve the gun or uparmor it if you really want. The T-34 would be better suited for that role with excellent armor, mobility, and firepower. The only problem is they are horribly expensive. Barbarossa gives you crazy options like putting a 57mm in the turret for AT 11 in MW. Think of them as Panthers in MW.

>>52732493

>Heavy
T-35s are bad, just like in real life and will likely spend the game struggling to do anything in the middle of the board. The KV-1 is ungodly expensive, but if you want a tank that is pretty much impervious to anything short of a Flak 88, that's the ticket. Just don't expect it to kill anywhere near its points. Their best use is likely as a bulldozer to push non-sapper infantry out of foxholes. You can get the KV-2 for lulz, but it's basically useless due to bunker buster rules in V4.

>Lend Lease
Both the Valentine and Matilda serve the same purpose as the KV-1 but at a discount. The Valentine lacks has a point less armor, but is 33% cheaper. The Matilda is your extra strength option with the same crappy gun. Basically use either to advance alongside infantry and neutralize enemy armor or suppress enemy infantry with MG fire. Both can try to bulldoze infantry off objectives.

So yeah, tons of options, but you will always be hampered by being Conscript and having Hen and Chicks. Just remember in V4 Hen and Chicks only adds a +1 to hit penalty when one tank moves. All static tanks get full RoF. As it stands with a lot of tanks it's best to dash up then park and shoot the next turn.

>>52720443
I thought the Age of Sigmar comparisons were overblown but I guess I hadn't seen the new joke rules designed to weed out older players.

Screwing around with the Battle of the Bulge airlanding to see if there's really anything they can do that the other airlanding forces can't, and the only thing seems to be armoured counterattack:

HQ - 2 SMG (60)
Airlanding - 6 Rifle/MG, PIAT, Light Mortar (220)
Airlanding - 6 Rifle/MG, PIAT, Light Mortar (220)
Airlanding AT - 4 6 pdr, transports (165)
Airlanding Mortar - 4 3" mortar, observer (140)

Shermans - 2 Sherman, 1 firefly with .50 (280)
Shermans - 2 Sherman, 1 firefly with .50 (280)
Motor platoon - 4 MG, PIAT, Light Mortar, 4 M5 halftrack (140)
SAS - 3 Armored SAS jeeps with extra AA MGs (135)

1650 points, 5 formation units
When defending, keep the airlanding on the field at the start and then rapidly reinforce with the armour. When attacking, use the armour as a spearhead while the infantry follow behind.

>>52727626
Do people actually play FoW and only own one force?

>>52727791
>no weird knock on
Apart from having Seek Strike and Destroy be pointless, and Stormtrooper not do much either?

>>52735671
Depends on the area. A lot of people around here have alternate forces or build for a specific theatre of war. Those just starting out may have one force. Then you have those guys who have separate minis/dice/chits for each SS unit, but don't have any allied powers.

>>52735671
Well, when starting out. Some also are crazies like myself who want to get several complete armies for a nation done before moving on to another. For example, I'm going to build all three major types of british armor (Cromwell, Churchill, and Sherman) as well as the three types of british infantry (Commando, Airborne, and Rifle) before I expand to another nation. This way I'll be able to play nearly any british list without any sort of problem, giving me more variety than, say, someone that has T-34 horde and a StuG Batterie. Though since I'm such a slow painter I expect my force will be done sometime around the launch of V5.

>>52735826
Maybe I'm weird then, I started with Open Fire so I always had two opposing forces.

>>52736415
I started in a group with 5 people with German forces, 2 with US forces, 2 with a Russian force, and one with a never-used British force (total of 6 players with only thee of them having alternate armies). Having a dedicated British force that I built from the ground up seemed entirely reasonable, especially as I fell in love with the Cromwell's mobility against all the damn StuGs and Panthers.

>>52735689
>If you do not move any further you can shoot with stationary RoF.
>A team that fired with it's stationary RoF [at your option "conducted an artillery bombardment", as well] may attempt to Shoot-And-Scoot in the assault phase...

>>52736948
So what if it didn't fire at all? Then it didn't fire with stationary RoF, and so can't do it.

Easier to just add "A platoon that does a Blitz move loses Foxholes".

>>52737008
As written you're also keeping stationary concealment/gone to ground and being able to sneak into minefields, though.

And it is SHOOT and scoot, not "sit there not doing anything and scoot". Why wouldn't you just move 4" in movement if you wanted to move and weren't going to shoot?

>>52737168
>move out of cover to get LoS on one target
>other shooting kills all the targets that the first platoon could see
>want to move back into cover

>>52736948
What page is this? Or is this suggested errata for Shoot and Scoot? Since Stabilisers allow you to fire at your halted ROF, this means US tanks are better than USTDs at move > fire > shoot and scoot?

>>52737168
Mines sounds like something that should be changed in the mine rules to "Enters" instead of "moves into". With Cautious movement gone, keeping concealment and GTG from blitzing seems ok to me. Overall it's a poorly worded mess with plenty of "what the hell" results that BF is in no hurry to fix.

>>52737980
You can't shoot and scoot if you move. Only tank destroyers can blitz, shoot, and shoot and scoot.

>>52738030
Yes, he's saying the reworded version suggested in >>52736948 would allow Stabilizers to shoot and scoot after moving.

>>52738141
Gotcha. I am on board now... though my head is starting to hurt.

>>52738141
Could fix that by giving Stabilisers moving RoF 2 and Slow Firing.

>>52738013
Why would you keep GTG? You lose it when you move. Concealment is explicitly for being stationary infantry, too. The purpose of Blitz is to let you move and shoot with RoF 0/slow firing guns, not to keep all the stationary infantry buffs while running around.

i am done guys.
leaving Flames of War. and 4chan.
you guys were awesome. BF and local crowd was not.
adios.

>>52739431
Cheers.

>>52739431
Why leave here if we've been awesome and the local guys have been shit?

>>52739431
Sorry to hear that chummer, hopefully things will get better in the future.

>>52739521
Maybe he isn't a degenerate like us and only came on for FoW content.

I'm sad you are leaving us after all: quantity has a quality of its own.

File: crylaugh.jpg (25KB, 569x569px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 569x569px

>>52741008
Not in V4

File: lolcry.gif (4MB, 243x243px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 243x243px

>>52741099

File: DSC_0116.jpg (2MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3840x2160px

Zvezda Jagdtiger product review:

Kit goes together fine, it's very similar to the King Tiger so if you've built that you'll know how it goes together easily enough. Cheap as fuck which is super important considering the model can either be used in spam lists or in a few very specific lists so price is everything.

Rating: £3.50/£3.50

>>52741243
Mmm, must get my hands on a few of those. Think 3 will suffice, though.

>>52741321
I bought four because that was the most I could reasonably fit into 1750pts and might as well get all I'll want at once.

File: Volk 100pts.pdf (104KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 1x1px

>>52702887
Thought on my list? 100pts Team Yankee NVA

What do you guys think? Would you play me with it?

>>52741321
>>52741363
MEDIOCRE.

>>52741581
I had a feeling you'd show up and grumble :P
What's the most you've managed to fit into a workable list?

>>52741440
Small unit sizes do not work for Communist forces.

You need the larger unit sizes to make sure that you aren't just removing entire units from the table each turn.

>>52742194
It's not about spamming as many T-55s as you can into an army.

That's not how you build an effective fighting force.

It's about using things complimentary with each other to boost their strengths and minimize their weaknesses.

That's how you make a not just a "workable" list, but a solid and reliable list.

>>52741440
7 is generally considered the "magic number" for WarPac units, since NATO tanks only have 6 shots at most for a platoon and so cannot kill a platoon in a turn, and any larger makes it hard for you to maneuver.

>>52742194
Five. Five is basically the max number of JTs you can fit into a list without forfeiting support. However I went off JTs very quickly in the V3 days because what you gain is countered by what you lose.

JT V KT

Pro:
JTs have Breakthrough gun, drops infantry from a 66% chance of save to a 44% chance of save.
JTs have extra point of AT, FP, and longer range.
JTs have extra point of armour

Con:
No turret. Now that Slow Traverse has been eliminated KTs can dominate areas of the board and react to flankers with violence.
Unreliable, used to be worse in V3, just slows you down in V4.
One less MG, actually pretty bad, while defensive fire from two KTs can handily suppress an assault, two JTs can only barely stop one.
Cost More.
Ultimately the extra point of AT doesn't really matter. You're still bitchslapping any allied tank and other KTs still have a chance to bounce.

>>52702887
A question I have never gotten an answer to no matter how hard I look in the V3 book.

Does a Firepower of 1+ mean I auto pass? If not, what make it different to a 2+?

>>52742435
V3, a 1+ simply means you need to roll a 1 or higher. Since that's any result on a D6, it's automatic.
V4, a 1+ from external modifiers still fails on a roll of a 1, while a 1+ base automatically passes.

>>52732568
>>52732493
>KV-1 vs Matilda

But isn't No HE much less punishing now? I'd say that picking a KV-1 over a matilda is only for people who hate winning.

>>52742508
No He says that if you target a Soft Target you're at -1 to hit.

>>52742262
Abrams companies have 8 shots. And 7 is already a pain in the ass to manuever.

Personally my feeling is that running soviet tank lists is just Doing It Wrong, they're not as competitive as BMP lists or afghansty. But, if you make a BMP list, everyone complains the game will take forever and it's "cheap".

>>52742262
Airmobile Brits get 8 shots.

>>52742602
NATO tanks. Brit airmobile is going to fuck you no matter how your tanks are organized.

>>52742582
Right, too used to West Germans and brits, forgot the Abrams can come in groups of 4.

>>52742660
>NATO tanks. Brit airmobile is going to fuck you no matter how your tanks are organized.
Which is why I feel like tanks are a sucker's game; NATO's too good at popping weakly-armoured soviet tanks lately. Conversely, ATGMs on BMP-2s are massive overkill, and Marder autocannons suffer from only being 5+ firepower with tiny platoons, so your BMPs tend to win that. They can also park up and volley ATGMs into tanks, too, and come with some cheap air defence. The only thing that's really good against them is gepard spam. I've probably said this before, but I've been playing my T-72s a lot and looking at the amount of wrecks I have turn 2 and wondering why I didn't just take more BMPs.

>>52742508
90 more points buys you +1 front and side armor, HE, +1 AT, +1 FP, and a turret rear MG, so it's not all bad. Though due to morale, I'd choose 3 Matildas over 2 KV-1s any day. Though by the same accord, I'd rather bring 1 KV-1 over 2 Matildas.

>>52742818
I feel like BMP lists still can't crack British Mechanized or Panzertruppen lists. Brits don't need any explanation, but most of Panzertruppen is either stubborn infantry with lots of Milans or cheap armored vehicles with adequate firepower to take out BMPs (Leo 1s, Luchs, Gepards). Also you can't count out the effectiveness of artillery against such condensed spam. Seems like the best a BMP Horde can do against a prepared opponent is force the game to be called due to time.

>>52743148
Yeah, but while the BMP horde is still there at time, T-72s would all be wrecks by turn 3, 4 at most. BMP's stubbornness and versatility means at least you've gotten a fight rather than just dying in a hail of ATGMs and GTG tank rounds a couple of turns in.

>>52743302
But you pretty much rule out your chances of being able to dislodge NATO infantry. At least T-72s can entertain the idea of getting within Milan range and trying to crack away at the enemy with brutal guns. It's still a long shot, but so is trying to assault with Soviet infantry. Hopefully the new book addresses this issue through the T-64 and by repricing T-72s to reflect what they actually do on the battlefield.

>>52743663
>within Milan range
Within 8" is what I mean.

>>52743682
I don't see what stops BMPs from getting within 8", and honestly, someone who's let you get within 8" of ATGMs deployed or moved them really badly, since there's really no reason to not have LAW infantry up front to be assholes if you get too close and ATGMs at the back of the bubble to shoot stuff with impunity.

Honestly, I keep hitting this thing of "Just get closer!", but you have to assault to do that and that's also a bad place for T-72s.

>>52743754
>I don't see what stops BMPs from getting within 8"

A LAW or Panzerfaust straight through the front armor will keep a BMP away.

Typically Milans need to be somewhere up front or on a hill where they have a good field of fire. I mean it's still a stretch, but sometimes it worth having some armor.

>>52743975
>A LAW or Panzerfaust straight through the front armor will keep a BMP away.
Aah, I see what you mean, yeah.

Milans don't need to be up front; for some reason everyone forgets this but you can shoot through stationary infantry at anything and everything in TY.

>>52744255
In fairness you might want to be on a hill to see more stuff, but you can keep your protective screen of infantry somewhere up front to keep tanks away.

File: IMG_0373.jpg (32KB, 625x187px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 625x187px

>>52744255
>>52744281
Yeah, I have just flat out played this rule incorrectly. Dug in infantry are such a pain in the ass to deal with in TY. The BTR-60 Motor company is looking tempting because it's the only way for Soviets to have dismounted guided AT for use against things like Gepards.

>>52744392
>Yeah, I have just flat out played this rule incorrectly.
To be fair half my club was doing it wrong until I asked "Why do you guys keep putting your ATGMs at the front where I can assault them?" a couple of weeks later.

It was pretty reasonable while NATO still had Dragons, but we've been losing soviet players since Leopards, and when someone put together a list with an airmobile detachment soviets absolutely tanked. I'm basically playing out of stubbornness, at this point, but I'm really hoping Red Thunder breathes some life back into Warpac (even though I know it won't).

>>52744392
For those wondering, this exact same rule is in V4. Enjoy assaulting those German MG platoons, or US Armored Rifles. Better make that one smoke bombardment count, if you get one.

>>52744392
I suppose you could get 6 Fagots in one SPW Bataillon for 22 points.

Anyone on here play early war? I'm thinking about picking up an early war army with some of my friends.

File: 20170417_173136-picsay.jpg (367KB, 1516x939px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1516x939px

Finished Soviet 120mm heavy mortar unit.

>>52747901
Damm, nice job. How'd you paint them?

>V4 rulebook
>Aircraft teams are ground-attack aircraft like the deadly Ju-87 Stuka dive bomber and the tank-busting Typhoon...
>Tank-busting
>Typhoon
>AT 3 rockets
No self awareness.

File: IMG_0375.jpg (262KB, 1334x750px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 1334x750px

>>52751611

>>52753211
Flavor text =/= rules.

Cheers

All this circlejerking on the forum about the Sgt.York is making me nervous.

We can't get the historical Bastion (that existed during the period but the NVA hadn't acquired yet) but we can get a cancelled vehicle that according to many didn't actually work?

How do infantry attack infantry in V4? Assaults aren't an option except in the most niche cases, artillery is much easier to blind unless they take the adamantium-clad AOP, and you will see a whole lot more infantry companies due to this. Sooner or later you will end up attacking one. What do you do? How do you silence those guns?

>>52757223
The way the Battlefront guy is defending it is certainly a little disconcerting. Makes me think they are adding it in.

I like the total ignoring of the guys going "But we've already covered we're not adding the T-80U because that didn't exist in enough numbers".

>>52758968
Meanwhile begging for Challenger and M1A1 in other threads...

If you think that's hilarious look how amazingly butthurt everyone is over the mere suggestion of a one-word FAQ entry.

>>52759064
Well, the Challenger existed in some numbers in Germany, the only question is how in hell would it be any different from the super-chieftain?

>>52759228
Context?

>>52759394
The hysterical defences of Phil's inability to write "No" for the question of "Do you get to take foxholes with you when you blitz".

Guys, there's an even better one than portable holes:

Snipers aren't listed as stationary. You can run around bulletproof and gone to ground.

What kind of play style does a US Parachute rifle company have?

>>52760901
see
>>52761433

>>52760901
Man, that's the second US para question in 24 hours. Screaming Eagles, get your butt in here.

File: IMG_2613.jpg (29KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 480x360px

>>52761621
>Screaming Eagles, get your butt in here.

You rang?

>>52760901
>What kind of play style does a US Parachute rifle company have?

It partially depends on which campaign you build your list from. (D-Day, Market-Garden, or Battle of the Bulge).

Generally speaking though, they tend to be a small, but solid infantry force that is excellent defensively, but is also quite capable offensively as well.

Fearless Veteran infantry is solid. You pay a lot of points for that, but they're worth it.

What specifically do you want to know about them?

File: Nachtjager - USA Parachute rifle company.pdf (2MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1x1px

>>52761906
>(D-Day, Market-Garden, or Battle of the Bulge).
Well, there's also the 17th in Nachtjager, but they get forgotten.

So I'm guessing Tanks is more or less dead or small?

>>52762001
>but they get forgotten.

Quite literally in my case. I always forget about them because they're a digital list, and I've never payed much attention to those.

I literally couldn't tell you the first thing about them.

>>52762460
Tanks doesn't get talked about much. Although I don't know if that's because it's a dead game, or just not worth talking about.

The rules seem pretty decent for a tank-focused X-wing knock off, but that's basically all it is. A tank-focused X-wing knock off.

File: Nachtjager - UK Airlanding company.pdf (3MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1x1px

>>52763327
>Quite literally in my case. I always forget about them because they're a digital list, and I've never payed much attention to those.
Yeah, the only reason I know about them at all is because my favorite Airlanding list (Panzerfausts, Churchills, and Locusts, oh my) is from Nachtjager, and you can get a platoon or two of misdropped US paras as support.

>>52762460
The problem is that it tried to get in on that X-wing market, but without either of the two main things that made X-wing explode in popularity:
>prepainted, preassembled minis
>Quick to learn but difficult to master gameplay that heavily rewards skillful play
Tanks is quirk to learn, but since you can reposition freely along your movement stick and have turrets you can be pretty sloppy. X-wing you only have a 90 degree arc of fire, and with the movement templates as strict as they are you have to really know what you're doing to get the most out of them. Tanks you can easily see the enemy as being just too OP. X-wing there's almost always a "Well if I had done THIS maneuver instead..." point, which makes it seem like you lost because of something you can improve on instead of the game being horribly imbalanced.

There's also that Star Wars attracts a larger crowd than WWII these days, but that's minor compared to the other two in determining the staying power of a game.

>>52763327
>I literally couldn't tell you the first thing about them.
Avante (on skill) instead of Mission Tactics, LMG/Rifle combo in base platoons instead of Rifle/MG teams (though you can "upgrade" to Rifle/MGs if you want more teams for launching assaults), have access to the M18 57mm and the M20 75mm Recoilless rifles, and get heavy British armor that doesn't count as Allies for their support.

Otherwise pretty standard.

>>52763548
Don't downplay the Star Wars aspect of X-Wing's success.

There's a reason it's still a cornerstone of popular culture 40 years later.

>>52763669
Yes, but that's a factor in the expansion of the game, not it staying strong. It stays strong because the gameplay is good. Tanks would have expanded slower but remained played if the gameplay was as good, but instead it's died off pretty quick after its launch as people realize how unfortunately shallow it is.

>>52763669
>>52763716
>>52763548
Reminder that A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back both were released closer to WWII than to the present day. Star wars is fucking old.

>>52763891
>>52763716
You're also missing the key point that X-Wing TMG was being backed by the hypemachine of a new Star Wars film coming reasonably soon and that they had proper post launch support. Rather than how it is in tanks where you get stuff from battlefront whenever they make new stuff for Flames.

>>52761906
I was curious about them in general as I'm unsure on what to get into as a first army. I think I'd prefer something that doesn't stay back too much and is able to be aggressive. Which is what I was worried about as they're infantry.

>>52741243
Is it difficult to get the roof panel on better?

>>52760824
Well, according to notable documentary Call of Duty, snipers had 100% accuracy firing unscoped during aerobatic maneuvers including a 420 degree spin.

They regularly carried MLG (Military Level Grade) Air horns to achieve a similar psychological effect to the Stuka.

Cheers!

File: IMG_0142.jpg (21KB, 194x260px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 194x260px

>>52765410
We need WW3 to build some TANKS hype.

>>52766446
Chonma-Ho vs K1 box?

>>52765446
Infantry in general tend to play more defensively, but they are still capable of playing offensively as well.

If you're looking for something that tends to play more offensively, you might want to consider either a tank list or a mechanized infantry list.

Shermans are paired with US Armored Rifles tend to be fairly aggressive wether you're playing them as a tank company with mechanized infantry support, or the other way around.

>>52727626
just play Wehr or Luftwaffe based armies, not SS or Feldhernhalle. Not everyone in germany was a nazi in WW2.

>>52735671
I technically own one force, it's all soviets of which you can field 80% in one chart and the rest in a second. I haven't branched out because i have to get everything painted and based first before i allow myself to do that. Since i'm playing Strelkovy and Cossacks, this will take some time.

>>52767625
>Not everyone in germany was a nazi in WW2.
>Luftwaffe

Mate the Luftwaffe was regarded as the second most politically reliable of all of the German Military branches, with the SS at the top, then the Wehrmacht and finally the Kriegsmarine.

>>52767656
What was it they said: "a nazi airforce, a conservative army, and a communist navy"

>>52767097
I think he's asking because infantry has a 50% chance of attacking in V4, as you roll off for attacker and defender instead of it being determined by what kind of force you have.

>>52767766
Even still, if you want to play an army that is good at attacking, you'll want something with both mobility and firepower.

That typically will still mean a tank company or a mechanized infantry company. Both of which are good choices for Americans.

Elite infantry companies like Rangers, Paratroopers, Commandos, etc can also be good on the attack, but where infantry tend to shine is in a defensive role. Especially if they have a good number of anti-infantry and anti-tank weapons like MGs and bazookas.

>>52767766
Or, a player with more infantry formation defends.
I do not want defending in v4, though.

>>52768205
No default win, having to wait for 40% of your force to show up, enemy has the initiative in gameplay, and the defender wincons are much harder to achieve than the attacker wincons. Yeah, all the defender can generally hope for is a tie.

How actually good the NVA was?

I know they had the highest number of profesional soldiers compared with the warpact armies and used the same organisation as the rest of the soviets forces, but what about tactics?

In the volksarmee book and a quick Googlefu say the NVA had a good number of heer veterans and strong prussian tradition.

Need more info

>>52768966
They were trained in the EASTERN tradition of charging over open fields in a human wave. They were a little bit more skilled, but not as skilled as their WESTERN counterparts.

Cheers

>>52768966
They were generally very good and were considered on par with the high-readiness groups in the soviet union itself. Part of this was because they expected a large amount of conscripts would piss off across the border if they could (and were probably right) so were expecting the people they could trust to be excellent.

So Bunker Busters aren't even that good at busting Bunkers anymore. Bunkers now have a 2+ save, which the Bunker Buster forces them to re-roll, making the save slightly better than a 3+. Notably, this is exactly the same as a Breakthrough gun.

Bunker busters confirmed for goddamn worthless.

Did Battlefront kill their PaK44 and Puppchen models?

>>52770417
Deep penetrating rounds for Bunker Busters will be a card for you to buy, don't worry.

>>52771677
I think they might be special order only.

>>52768966
>How actually good the NVA was?

I don't think we'll ever know because they were never committed to combat. Both NATO and WARPACT strategists of the time took them very seriously. Modern (West) German sources treat them as a bit of a comedic paper tiger but that could be cultural cringe. According to a lot of google translated youtube comments I've read NVA vets themselves seem to be pretty confident they could have won.

IMO both Grenztruppen and Stasi took their jobs very seriously, I believe the Volksarmee would too.

>but what about tactics?

I'm not sure how much Wehrmacht flavor they had in terms of execution but they were trained for the Soviet's offensive Deep Battle doctrine. The NVA divisions were to be inserted straight into the Soviet GSFG armies.

>>52772651
> NVA veteran youtube comments

Where? Any good examples?

>>52768180
That thinking is definitely solid for the previous edition of the game.

The question now is, how much of that still holds up in the new edition?

>>52774319
Look up any NVA montage video or documentary, there's plenty of old guys using their real names arguing in german.

>>52774431
are NVA veterans still paid and treated as shit?

>>52702887
So why is it that Hinds can only fire while moving?

>>52770417
Meanwhile dirt cheap medium mortars with a 4+ firepower can start the game ranged in on the bunker and wreck it.

>>52777550
3' thick Concrete roof? Easily beaten by a 80mm mortar.
Less than an inch of steel? Nearly immune to 15cm heavy artillery shells.
>V$ "logic"

>>52767766
That's a simplification

The rules also say the player with the most infantry formations defends

Players need to determine which system to use, tournament organisers need to specify.

Last thing you want to do is play tank heavy using deep reserves

>>52776668
In Afghanistan their training was to fire while "strafing" the target. You can also take it to mean there is no penalty for moving and shooting as it doesn't give you a minimum distance to move.

>>52778978
It was to start with. When effective AA showed up they moved to NOE attacks.

>>52777639
Playing Devil's Advocate, one of those targets is moving, the other is identified on a map with a grid reference.

>>52779449
Unless you're unloading an entire liberty ship's worth of mortar ammo, you ain't killing a concrete bunker with one. You'd probably hit a tank directly before that.

>It's simple a team that makes a Blitz move hasn't moved for any purpose.
>Now if you want to be as silly as to say that this allows you to drag around holes in the ground with you, be my guest. Just don't expect any player with common sense to agree with you. it's clearly a ridiculous idea, especially in ahistorical game.
>Cheers

So, for anyone expecting an answer on how the game rules work, no, you don't lose foxholes when moving. You're meant to ignore this, and presumably anything else that doesn't feel right, because battlefront are hacks that don't give a shit about their game.

File: IMG_2066.jpg (73KB, 600x567px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 600x567px

>>52780118
Enough already.

It clearly is some Roadrunner and Wile E Coyote level nonsense to argue that you can pick up a hole in the ground and bring it with you.

>>52781609
M8, he's complaining that BF is refusing to issue errata over the absurdity because rules lawyers are going to abuse it, not because he thinks it should happen. RAW, you take your holes with you. This is dumb, and only requires:
>When you perform a blitz move, do you retain your Foxholes, stationary concealment, and gone to ground status?
>No.
...to be put in an errata doc. He's complaining that BF is refusing to admit they made a mistake in wording and are refusing to patch the hole. Please learn to read and interpret things above a primary school level before posting on 4chan.

Finished reading Bob Forrest-Webbs chieftains.... Holy fucking shit what a book. Really rather dark book about a possible ww3... didn't like the abrupt way it ended but fucking A...

Anyone else read anything like it? liked Red army, red storm rising, team yankee, still need to read red effect but fuck chieftains was good.

>>52778978
If that's the case should they not have the ability to shoot stationary? because tactics seems like a thing a player should decide on not hard stats.

>>52781609
If it's Wile E Coyote nonsense why is this what the rules say?

>>52783349
I mean, fuck, why is this not only what the rules say but what the designer specifically confirmed the rules say? He's the person who writes them, he gets to decide what they say. Why do the rules he wrote say you can do a thing he says you shouldn't do?

>>52781748
BF is NZ company - much more akin to UK mindset then USA ameritrash burger munching morons.

UK = RAI
murica = RAW simple as that

I cannot fatom why would even brainless kids from trashland want to play this elegant game ...

>>52781748
>M8, he's complaining that BF is refusing to issue errata over the absurdity because rules lawyers are going to abuse it, not because he thinks it should happen.
This is an excellent point. There is this bizarre perception that rules lawyers arise from games with clear definitions and rulings, but this is the exact opposite; vague rules with opaque wording give rules lawyers space to operate. Nobody needs to rules lawyer a game where the rules can't be weaseled. Saying "it's wrong but ignore it" just opens things up for people to weasel.

>>52783452
This is stupid. I'm from the UK and even I think "The rule is definitely the opposite of what we want it to do, we're not going to errata it, but ignore it" is the height of retarded.

File: 1491239362101.gif (306KB, 277x272px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 277x272px

Fucking power gamers want to abuse the sprit of the game to allow them to have infantry in moving fox holes

Why do power gamers ruin everything?

>>52784220
Because some people are just that autistic, and really hate losing.

>>52784220
I think you meant
>People are pointing out that the rules are retardedly written.

File: 1485477524424.jpg (16KB, 200x250px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 200x250px

>>52784935
sorry i didn't know you were autistic but you can't take a hole in the ground with you

>>52785052
In glorious land of V4, anyone can take hole with them. Is naturally flowing from comrade Phil's perfect wording.

Can't we just spam the forum with T-72 moving Fox holes with "cheers" painted at the sides of the tanks?

I

>>52785052
Logically, no. However, the rules clearly state that I DO retain "Foxholes" if I do a blitz move. Perhaps the platoon constructed a little trench system when they dug in?

>>52785052
Why do the rules say that, then?

You can't dig foxholes on tarmac either but the rules let you do that. You shouldn't still have platoons with 75% losses not even considering retreat, but we have that. What's reasonable and unreasonable within the scope of the game is meant to be the responsibility of the designer, who has here abrogated it.

>>52785340
Also medium mortars killing bunkers, flamethrowers with unlimited fuel that happily fire over the heads of allies, AOPs made of adamantine, boxing tanks in with roving half-tracks, tank-busters that hardy scratch tanks, fielding 3 super pershings in a list, and many more.

>>52785121
If I ever do a soviet army, I will write 'Cheers' instead of Za Stalina on all the tanks.

>>52786100
>http://www.mediafire.com/?8ciamhs8husms

That is brilliant

Cheers in faux cyrilic

>>52785392
Right, but if you go for the 3 tank company Formations that let you field 1 Super Pershing in each, the only things in a 1500 point list will be the Super Pershing's and the Shermans.

You wouldn't have much room for anti-air, artillery, or anti-infantry forces.

Just Shermans and Super Pershing's.

And that only writes out because multiple companies (Formations) wasn't really allowed under V3 meaning that they didn't have to write a rule at the time that limited you to only the one Super Pershing, because the Force organization chart itself was the limiting factor.

>>52786503
Thank god, V4 is saved, we've fixed super pershing spam and gone back to the sensible world where pre-plotted medium mortar barrages level bunkers.

>>52786525
Aren't you just a little ray of sunshine?

>>52786902
At this point it's realism. V4's a mess that only works if you do half the work yourself.

>>52786902
Phil, stop shitposting on 4chan and get back to fucking up WarPac in TY.

>>52787126
That was me actually.

It's been damn hard to stay enthusiastic about this fucking game when every third post is somebody shitting all over it.

>>52787281
It's damn hard to stay enthusiastic about the game when Phil keeps shitting all over it

>>52787281
On the other hand, it's hard to take people seriously when they refuse to admit obvious flaws in the new editon and act like it's all sunshine and rainbows. The best job I've seen of convincing me V4 wasn't absolutely shit was a batrep where the players honestly laid out what they liked and didn't like after the game. It felt like actual people playing instead of endless shilling from people BF bribed.

>>52784220
> game is badly written
> GUYS STOP TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE RULES

You're targeting symptoms, not causes.

>>52787611
It's hardly sunshine and rainbows.

All this talk of Cartoon Physics (or D&D items, take your pick) to make Portable Holes possible is proof of that.

It's shitposting and Troll Logic, but it is what it is.

Stuff like 3 Super Pershings is silly, but an inconsistency between old and new list building rules.

Still, overall, I'd still say I like the new rules.

Not because I'm a paid shill (Lord knows I get nothing for recording and editing Panzerfunk other than the enjoyment of discussing the game with my fellow namefags), but because I actually think that 4th Edition is an easier to understand set of rules.

Even after playing V3 since the beginning there were still some things I didn't completely understand.

And as someone who is typically trying to expand my local player base, having a set of rules that is easy to explain to new players is a significant plus for me.

It has some ambiguity that rules lawyers and power gamers are pointing out and will likely try to exploit, but I still think that if you're literally trying to do something out of a Roadrunner Cartoon in a World War II game, you may just be a Troll. Badly written rules or not.

File: T H I C C arty.jpg (60KB, 747x561px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 747x561px

Race to the Reichstag event at the FLGS is tonight. Using V4 rules. Will do a batrep after. Hopefully will learn how bunker busters, building destroyers, and flamethrowers fair after getting smacked by the nerfbat.

File: PhotoFunia-1492628427.jpg (250KB, 1200x859px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 1200x859px

>>52786525
Cheers

>>52789772
I can't not hear the Moonbeam City intro when I see that, and suddenly it all makes sense to me.

>>52787957
>portable holes
I think most soldiers would be hard pressed to dig a proper foxhole in a single turn's worth of time (however long that is), but they can in the game. I was thinking of it more like expanding into tiny trenches and shit every time you blitz.

>>52787957
>All this talk of Cartoon Physics (or D&D items, take your pick) to make Portable Holes possible is proof of that.
Right, again, agreed. I've agreed with you every single time this has been brought up. It shouldn't happen; it's goofy and not the intent. Phil even confirmed that wasn't the intent.

But it's the arrogance of saying a busted rule doesn't need errata. It wasn't the intent that a Gopher had a 240" movement speed, but that got errata'd. This is from the person writing the rules; "don't exploit the rules" is irrelevant, here, because that's the person with absolute power to change any of them.

But no, the answer is "the rule is broken, but ignore that it is". Which also ignores a bunch of other issues (less ridiculous) stem off the same ambiguity.

>>52790123
A single turn's worth of time can be as long as possible since there's no timescale, so they could dig as far as they wanted to.

>>52790200
If there's as long as they want to dig in why isn't there as long as they want to move somewhere else and dig in there?

>>52787281
Well, since all the problems with it are getting you down, here's the things I (as a V4 hater) did like about it:
>Being able to hit on 7s and 8s
>Commander re-rolls not requiring he join platoons, and so being able to give them to every platoon in range
>Support for multiple formations
>* Picking support platoons from one of your base formations
>* Getting other formations based on your book and what you have in support
>* Formation morale being based off combat, weapons, and brigade/regiment support platoons
>Dash speeds instead of At the Double
>The new out of command penalties
>Classifying terrain as Short and Tall
>Passengers in a transport only making saves if the transport is destroyed
>AA being restricted at the GUN, not the team
>Self-defense AA can fire at any aircraft
>Gun teams draw Line of Sight from the base of the barrel, instead of anywhere on the base
>3/4" aka tape measure width gap
>2" within terrain can see out just fine
>Hull mounted guns can't see targets with any portion out of the front arc
>Front and side arc being determined like hull mounted guns
>Attacker allocates hits
>Mistaken Target instead of Gun Tank
>Shorter air safety distance
>Single, unified gun saves instead of 3+ when gtg and 5+ when not.
>Warrior save being a 3+ rolled by owner instead of 4+ to kill rolled by opponent
>DFS creating a single 2" wide puff
>Snipers lose the complicated pool and can just move normally
>Ranging in on your skill, hitting on theirs for artillery
>Danger close distance
>Pre-plotted targets
>Repeating bombardments without observer at penalty
>Smoke Bombardments don't follow wind
>Assault is base contact or contact with guy in base contact, rather than nebulous 2" bubble
>Leaders can give their better morale in assaults
>Flat 6" kill zone at end of assault, rather than 4" and then 2" after consolidation
>Multiple weapon tanks can target multiple units
>Seek, Strike, and Destroy is more accurate and fun than teleporting TDs

>>52790441
Cont...
>Infil as better spearhead with no downside roll
>Hen and Chicks not forcing you to count as moving
>Cleaner Night Fighting rules
>Points based reserves.
>Clean presentation of rules without fluff text.

Now I have a list of things I don't like that's about twice as long, but V4 certainly does have some improvements.

I like pre-plotted artillery, dashing, the terrain simplification, the concept of orders, hit location, and probably something else I forgot.

Likewise the list I don't like is longer (and half of those things have an "except for..." attached themselves), but there was the kernel of a big improvement there. BF just didn't totally see it through and, worse, have confirmed they don't want to see it through.

Incidentally:

>>52790441
>Snipers lose the complicated pool and can just move normally
This is almost certainly an ~exploit~ too that the forum's going to sniff at you for even though it's even more literally what the rules say than the dug-in rules.

>>52790666
Easily justified with alternate hides or something. Not that it'll ever come up, Snipers were overpriced when they could fire at dug in vets on 5s, but now that they're probably hitting on 6s and mortars are so nice there's really not any reason to buy them.

>>52790879
They're nice if you defend against infantry, which you do bizarrely often now.

>>52791469
Historically speaking, infantry weren't always used defensively.

Is the UK the most overperforming nation (RL vs in-game) in TY at present? Between the chieftain's FA 17 and cross 2, the rock 'ard lads from teeside in every platoon, and time travelling support options (not to mention unloading multiple company's worth of milans onto lone formations), I feel like some really generous liberties were taken with them.

>>52794618
>time travelling support options
?

>>52794658
I know the Spartan MCT came out in 1986 and I think one of the light tanks did too. There's possibly more; british kit's a bit of a weird mishmash.

>>52794840
So the UK gets light tanks from 86 but no Challengers that were first on the field in 84?

>>52767678
You made me wanna play Kriegsmarine....

>>52789772
now make one that says "Cheers!"

Does anyone know what the likelihood of the 82nd airborne getting to the fight would be in TY? I've done some googling and it looks like they were earmarked for asia, africa and the middle east if anything kicked off there, and definitely weren't forward based in germany or part of REFORGER.

Clarification from Phil (that's apparently not going in the FAQ since this is all so obvious):

Blitz movement resolves as movement but, after the movement is completed, no longer counts for anything that checks if a unit *has moved* later in the turn. So, you take cross checks, mine checks, etc, and lose foxholes (presumably in addition to GTG/concealment, but this won't be relevant because, to continue) then at the end of the movement step, you've gone back to not having moved, so gain stationary concealment in the open (and are eligible for GTG if you don't shoot), and are stationary for RoF or using a movement order.

In short, you're moving for rules purposes while moving, and lose the "has moved" state after.

>>52796029
>Implying TY has anything to do with reality.

>>52796029
The likelihood is based on how much you're willing to spend on that army.

Cheers

File: IMG_0385.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>52789675
FLGS drama aside we made it though the scenario.

Observations
>Flame tanks did a whole lot of nothing with their flamethrowers.

>Building destroyers and bunker busters work great on urban maps against Conscript infantry... heh. It was cool watching a 203mm howitzer level a building full of Volksturm. But damn they are slow.

>FT infantry were still able to get assaults off even with the enemy having some MG companies. Granted the urban environment did make defensive fire trickier, it's nice that assaults were still somewhat of a thing.

>Heroes really benefit from movement orders. I think I will probably start playing heroes in V4 from what I saw. Basically a 3+ for every movement order is really nice, especially for heavy gun teams in sturmovy companies.

>>52796309
Any chance you can screen cap that for us from the original thread?

File: 20170420_120928-picsay.jpg (732KB, 1987x1267px) Image search: [Google]

732KB, 1987x1267px

AGS-17s for Volkspamee.
I think only 2 of them will be used, though.

>>52796818
You, magic man. How do you do your bases, and if you're the guy that did the tanks last thread (or was it earlier this one), how did you do the treads? Your stuff looks good and I want to make mine also look good.

File: Gel-Stone-Plus-Gel-Stone-300mL.jpg (94KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 500x500px

>>52797587
I use this. It is an acrylic paint mixed with fine sand, I think you can use any similar stuff at your local.
I apply this and wait until it dries up. After it is dry, I paint Tamiya flat earth acrylic, apply Tamiya panel line accent dark brown(thinned about 5:5 with enamel thinner) at the surface, wipe excess at the edge of the base with enamel thinner and drybrush vallejo buff color. After all paint dries up I put wood glue on some spot on the base with brush and apply grass mix of noch green and woodland scenic dark yellow 5:5. This is how I paint my base.
I don't know if anyone paint tank is me, but I will tell you my way.
I paint the tread with tamiya flat earth acrylic paint, paint rubber tire(if there is any) with vallejo black grey acrylic paint. After acrylic paints dry, I apply tamiya panel line accent as same density as the base. When it is dry, I gently wipe it with wet tissue with enamel thinner.
Enamel thinner is toxic stuff, you need to put a mask with fillters of organic solvent, and I suggest not to use it in stuffy room.

>>52797951
Thank you, I've been trying to find a good way to do bases and treads since my attempts have generally fallen short, and yours look great.

Is anyone here going to Salute or know somewhere that will have coverage?

They're apparently showing off new TY Soviets.

File: Command-Card-Preview-04.png (1MB, 690x973px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 690x973px

The Facebook page is having a good old Freak out about pic related. Limited means that you can only ever have one of those cards in your force.

I mean, it's kinda shitty, for two points you can get:
>Another Panzer II
>Another AA Halftrack
>An 8-Rad patrol.
>Panzer II OP.

Or your CO can pass one save automatically once.
>Or you could be better at positioning your CO.
>Also doesn't save you from getting hit multiple times.

>>52799514
I think the idea of potentially making a previously impossible save possible is what is giving people pause.

I feel meh about it. I hope cards don't become popular around my FLGS, because I don't want Flames to turn into X-Wing. The build cards seem alright, but I fear buying into these will only encourage more of the silly cards from Battlefront.

>A unit is in Good Spirits if it does not have any teams bailed out or destroyed
>Only count teams that are in command.
>Remove all Destroyed Infantry, Gun, and Aircraft teams from the table

>teams that aren't on the table (since they've been destroyed) aren't in command therefore you ignore them for the purposes of being in Good Spirits
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=126&aff=3&aft=578094&afv=topic

I can't tell if he's joking or not

>>52799514

Won't this make Tigers nearly invincible?

>>52800805
Formation Commander only, so not until we get Tiger Companies. And you have to use it before you roll. When you need to roll 2+, I doubt you'll burn it.

>>52800271
Welcome to everything we were laughing about in the TY playtest that's somehow gone unfixed in an entire separate game edition.

>>52770417
>>52760824
>>52720165

The thing is, playtesters mention this stuff. I know our group fed back "snipers can move now; is that intentional?". The problem is, the attitude of "we don't answer stupid questions, just play the rules properly" is very much standard. It's why these stupid things keep going in the rules. Phil's responses on the forums are typical of the company's interaction with playtesters. They are simply not interested in doing a rigorous job of rule design.

>>What is so special about the British 3" Mortar that it is so much slower than other "man-packed" guns? I can't see any real life justification for their movement rate being any different to the Vickers HMG or German 81mm mortar. Note that the German 81mm mortar moves that same as all other infantry!

>Or it could simply be that having a different movement rate for one team in an infantry platoon is just not worth worrying about.

>Cheers

>>52802379
Phil's doing a better job killing V4 than the rules are. Motherfucker just can't admit when he's wrong.

>>52802586
To be fair, it kinda makes sense.

A single team in a platoon that has to move slower than the rest of the platoon would slow the entire platoon down even if the other teams did have faster movement rates. You'd purposely slow them down so that they don't massively zoom ahead of the slow poke.

>>52800271
Can't see the forum, what's the deal here?

>>52802650
It's more the 3" being half as fast for no real reason. And rather than say it was a mistake or admit it's illogical, he acts like it makes perfect sense.

>>52802676
Some guy's arguing that since destroyed teams can't be in command you ignore them for Unit Last Stand (i.e. Unit Last Stand never triggers?)

>>52803196
... Fuck, I can see how that works with RAW. So now we have ghost tanks as well as portable holes. Both will only see powegamer abuse, but damn.

File: amused nazi.png (82KB, 180x184px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 180x184px

>>52800830
at that point a Tiger Kompanie deserves it.
>this is my list
>3 tigers
>and some anemic infantrie
>oh and my Hauptmann can soak one hit.
why does anyone play big cats?

>>52803441
Because they're iconic.

When average people who know almost nothing about WWII think of the Germans in WWII, they think of SS Doom Troopers and massive Super Tanks.

For a while everyone who wanted to start Germans was asking if they could play a Tiger, Panther, or King Tiger company.

>>52803441
Because of bizarre nerfs a Tiger company in MW would be unkillable now. The only method of killing them is 17/25 pdrs, which of course lack the mobility to be where the Tigers are. Just take a cheapass unit of mortars (they did release mortars for the desert right? right?) to plink them to death and drive in a straight line at the objective.

You can't fail formation morale or saves. You win.

Hello, new to historical wargaming here.
I'd like to start playing with some tanks, preferably world war 2 ones. Is FoW the way to go or are there better more fun games out there for using tanks?

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

50KB, 410x293px

>>52803837
FoW is alright for playing with tanks or you could go with tanks! by galeforce 9
or bolt action tank war

>>52803733
You could still fail motivation tests to counterattack and end up getting captured though.

>>52803733
even more reason not to give a flying fuck about the card.
Though if we are giving the brits a fair shake, they can humber the fuck out of your mortars because you can plink them to death.
I mean you are looking at
88pts (with the 2pt upgrade.)
>(they did release mortars for the desert right? right?)
2pt upgrades for infantrie units which are at minimum 6
so you'll get one mortar and maybe something else small.
As long as the brit knows where to place his 17/25s then he should be fine. because with the 5for 3 crusiers he can encircle the support and leave the tigers to charge the 17/25 or die.
even better if you plink them do dismount death with the s9 grants and crusaders 3s but that ain't gonna happen

>>52803837
Flames of War has some pretty decent rules for tanks, and you'll likely enjoy them.

But keep in mind that there is more to the game than *only* tanks.

You'll most likely want to include infantry, artillery, anti aircraft guns, or aircraft, etc in a typical army list as well.

What are you looking to play? Each nation plays slightly differently, and different equipment is available depending on if your force is from the Early, Middle, or Late War period.

File: elefant.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

The Zvezda Elefant kit looks pretty decent painted up, it's definitely my favourite kit of theirs that I've finished so far. Still got Jagdtigers and King Tigers to do, although the latter are let down by the turret connection pin.

>>52805534
I see those PSC brits in the background there.

File: PSC brits.jpg (3MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3840x2160px

>>52805559
Yeah, I've started painting up things to fill holes and towards certain lists I'd like to try in V4 so a bunch of different things.

I also try and use as few metal or resin models as possible, I just generally prefer working with plastic. This does also shape my list choices a lot.

They're just about at the point where I just need to finish off the basing, I think. The bases look shite next to the Rural Bases I used for my Rifle platoons though.

>>52805603
>I just generally prefer working with plastic.

Seconding this. I enjoy assembling plastic kits a lot more than I enjoy assembling resin and metal kits.

>>52806182
Enormously agreed. I'm so glad for PSC.

File: IMG_20170420_223204.jpg (2MB, 4160x3120px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4160x3120px

>>52805534
What did you find wrong wih the King Turret? I just finished putting together 6 of these and the only problem I have is the lamely undetailed tracks.

Would someone care to make a new thread? Am on phone, or I would do it myself.

>>52806546
>>52806546
>>52806546