Flames of War: Soviets are Cool now edition

>>54752518
The Zvezda KTs make me kinda tempted to do one of the B@R KT lists, but then I remember I need support and that those support models are only in metal. Someone needs to make some plastic 1/100 german leftovers with panzerfausts, 2cms, and nebs.

>>54752518
The tracks have nothing on Battlefront's version which are pretty well detailed. I really like the box of three KTs each of which is a separate sculpt.

File: THD_logo.jpg (27KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 400x400px

Remember to think about VALUE before you buy PSC tanks

File: brampa.png (36KB, 132x126px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 132x126px

>>54753348
Does anybody have scans of the TANKS rulebook? I'm interested in trying it with the minis I already have.

File: psc-bren-3.jpg (75KB, 585x786px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 585x786px

>>54754073
I do, and that's why I buy.

Also holy shit I fucking love this kit. If it was the Mk I carrier I don't think I could stop myself from making an EW divisional cavalry squadron.

>>54754091
shit im a dumbass, i found them. is there a collection of the expansion cards?

File: image.jpg (82KB, 960x540px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 960x540px

>>54753348
SHOW ME YOUR BEST FOW MEMES!

File: IMG_0180.jpg (44KB, 713x250px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 713x250px

>>54754073
I was going to buy PSC tanks, but then I thought about the great customer service I get from Battlefront on their official forums. That's value PSC can't match!

>flames of war thread
>people bitch about the rules
>people bitch about the minis
>people bitch about the community
Why does this thread exist?

>>54754228
Because we contain ourselves to one thread unlike 40k which spreads itself out over the board.

>>54754228
You have to really love something to bitch about it constantly.

File: 1423981293685.png (458KB, 574x415px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 574x415px

>>54754393
Then why did my wife leave me?

>>54754228
>people bitch about the rules
Yep, standard issue edition war.
>people bitch about the minis
Not really, we're just riding the fresh memes.
>people bitch about the community
As is true of all games (with more than 5 people playing).

>>54754415
You probably just grew apart, these things happen

File: 11909794_1003926213003020_2010241840_n.jpg (17KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x282px

>>54754415

File: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.png (2MB, 873x1025px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 873x1025px

*loud patriotic screaming*

Soviets are cool "now" edition? was there ever a point they weren't?

>>54754228
>people bitch about the rules
We just had a new edition release, and there are some vocal people who highly dislike it.

And even those that do like it have to admit the complainers have some valid points.

>people bitch about the minis
Not all the minis. Just things like the T-55 massive spam tank for the Cold War game being made in overpriced resin, especially since a competitor now makes them for half the price in plastic.

Also, we love bitching about the new formula "bendy plastic" infantry that Battlefront has put out and their lack of face details.

Not that anyone ever really pays attention to the faces of 15mm infantry figures halfway across the table...

>people bitch about the community
The official forums are crap, the lead game designer is horrible at public relations, and the most civil place to discuss the game is somehow 4chan of all fucking places... so yeah, we bitch about the community.

>Why does this thread exist?
To talk about the rules, the miniatures, the idiotic official forum posts, to answer rules and army building questions, and to generally just discuss the game and the history it is based on.

>>54754393
Only a true fan knows how to **really** complain about something.

Like how Star Wars fans absolutely love to hate on the prequel movies.

File: 12420565663_f620a4fc68_o.jpg (481KB, 1400x870px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 1400x870px

>>54754073
[insert 3 paragraphs about a half remembered economics course I took for a semester 20 years ago]

>>54754770
Soviets have wavered in power levels previously. Around the time we were switching from V2 to V3 it was discovered that Soviets were actually paying a premium on Hen and Chicks tanks, making the cost more per tank to be worse at moving around. Plus Heroes didn't exist yet so you could only have CT/FT with H&C or CT/FT without Hen and Chicks.

Then we got Hero lists from Desperate Measures and Berlin, T-34s in late war dropped in price to compensate for H&C, Barbarossa was released where the Soviets proceeded to destroy the balance of the entire era, and then V4 made H&C not as bad as it used to be, allowed for hitting on a 7 and 8, and made Heroes from a "Maybe consider" for most players, to a "Strongly Consider" for a lot of players.

>>54754732
oh good you found it

File: Warren Post.jpg (179KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1280x720px

>>54755316
Holy fuck what is this dipshits issue? Warren is his name? Holy fuck how can someone be such a disinterested asshole and shit all over the history part of historical wargaimg even with Mr Skeltal there as a guest to help him.

Who the hell let this guy cover historics?

>>54754770
They've always been extremely bland and difficult to build around from a historical standpoint. The difference is that now every army is clearly intended to be like that, just like the olden days.

File: GBX21e.jpg (12KB, 300x249px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x249px

>>54755744
Warren needs to choke on his pewter werewolf cocks.

>>54755744
He is more or less the face of their YouTube channel. He's in almost everything they do.

What I find most "entertaining" for lack of a better word, is how you can see the visible frustration in the eyes of the scrawny Doctor Who look-alike they have teaching him the game. The wordless cry of "why am I even bothering" poring off of him as he tries to teach this oaf who actively despises history how to play a historical war game.

Call me evil if you must, but there is a certain schadenfreude in watching him try to get Warren to understand the game and the history.

Thankfully he's kinda stepped away from their historicals coverage, although he did seem more reigned-in during their 4th Ed launch coverage.

File: IMG_0760.jpg (9KB, 241x184px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 241x184px

>>54755744
>>>54755316 #
Holy fuck what is this dipshits issue? Soft Plastic is his name? Holy fuck how can someone be such a bendy asshole and shit all over the having-a-face part of historical miniatures even with Mr Skeltal there as a guest to help him.

Who the hell let this guy order infantries?

File: IMG_0761.jpg (245KB, 600x357px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 600x357px

>>54756330

Holy fuck what is this dipshits issue? Loader is his name? Holy fuck how can someone be such a disinterested asshole and shit all over the loading part of the Rheinmetall 120mm smoothboore even with Mr Pointy there as a guest to help him. "Oh let me shoot this pussy machine gun instead of loading commie-piercing SABOT into our massive cannon."

Who the hell let this guy into the Leopard 2?

>>54756330
>>54756442

MY SIDES ARE MOVING ON THEIR OWN

>>54756273
I watched their Kingdom Death video, he's way more tolerable in that.

File: Deus Vult motherfuckers.gif (2MB, 540x303px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 540x303px

>>54754620
HiRes pics of all the above exist, just FYI....

>>54754770
yes. queue discussion of past soviet player complaints.

>>54754949
nice pic. i like those things.

>>54755744
>>54756273
what is the chance that the Dr Who wannabee took it in the ass at some point in his life? maybe even consentedly? he seems to radiate West Essex rape victim. just saying.

>>54756717
oh, someone is meme-ing hard.
thanks for the bumps, mein ubermensch

File: Dr-Franz-Bake-01.jpg (19KB, 300x386px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 300x386px

>>54756731
>Warren masturbating to Kingdom Death
What a surprise.

File: o4KRmqm.gif (2MB, 230x175px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 230x175px

>>54757400
>image

File: IMG_0762.jpg (52KB, 690x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 690x400px

Judging by the box art, are the plastic WarPac infantry seem like they will be in hard plastic. Has anyone heard otherwise?

File: IMG_7018.jpg (43KB, 448x252px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 448x252px

>>54755744
>>54756330
>>54756442
I can never stay angry at fow with you shits around

File: 00beria1.jpg (22KB, 300x416px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 300x416px

>>54754228
> All criticism is bitching

>>54761369
I work at flgs.
I report as soon as soon as we get shipment.
the fire rises

>>54761369
They look exactly like the metal infantry. I suspect they're just using the metal models as a temp cover/images

>>54755744
> those two

I know one shouldn't judge on appearance but jesus christ one looks like he walked straight out of Belzec and the other is a fat shit.

God Beasts of War is such a terrible site and community.

>>54761535
I was mainly going off the sprue pic where it says all plastic. Looks like like the traditional hard plastic sprue. I know it's likely that means nothing.

>>54761535
>>54761603
Can confirm from the FOW forum and JP's comment: they're using pics of the old metals as they have none of the plastics (which will probably be ABS crap).

File: Comrade 3000 aestheic 2.jpg (285KB, 1360x768px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1360x768px

bamp for novaya russia

>>54757400
Okay, seriously, why are we speculating about such things?

He just seems like your stereotypical low charisma nerd to me. *shrug*

>>54756731
>Kingdom Death

The game famous for one specific creepy hentai model? Why does that not surprise me?

>>54761369
I know I'm in the minority here, but I can live with the non-existent faces as long as the weapon and uniform detail was still decent.

I'm looking at my troops from above and behind anyways, so it's not like I'm actually going to be looking at their faces during game play.

>>54761496
>All criticism is bitching

Some of it is legitimate. Even I'll admit that. And I enjoy 4th Ed.

But when it is unending and repetitive, to the point of it almost being copypasta... I think bitching can be an fair description.

>>54764823
Cool Red Alert fan art.

File: jewish communism.png (32KB, 642x591px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 642x591px

>>54754770
Soviets were never cool and never will be. They were so poor, they literally put up posters telling parents not to eat their children.

File: IMG_7101.jpg (29KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 250x250px

>>54765453

File: 1499784918772.jpg (97KB, 583x732px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 583x732px

>>54765987
post the better version

>>54765453
>>54766052

> this is what people actually believe

>>54765382
>I can live with the non-existent faces as long as the weapon and uniform detail was still decent.
>I'm looking at my troops from above and behind anyways, so it's not like I'm actually going to be looking at their faces during game play.

Well, you're not wrong. You're usually not looking at the faces of your figures while playing the game.

But it still feels like a significant dip in quality just to try out a new manufacturing technique.

>>54765382
>I know I'm in the minority here, but I can live with the non-existent faces as long as the weapon and uniform detail was still decent.
It's not, though. They look like the old, shit PSC models.

You CAN make those look good, and I suspect the same is probably true of the ABS ones, but it's a really low-quality product.

New to FoW been following the game since v1 but never had the money to buy or play until now. I am building a late war german army. I picked up Ramch's charge as a starter set to build a basic panzerkompanie with. Any tips for me?

>>54769539
But we've seen good paint jobs on PSC's stuff, in the previous thread even, although I didn't save the picture.

I'm not claiming that they're as good as BF's metals or hard plastics.

And I'm certainly not crazy about BF's Bendy Plastic.

But when I look at my 15mm infantry, from above and from several feet behind, I'm not looking at their faces.

I'm looking at the uniform and the weaponry.

That's mostly what I personally care about.

>>54771249
Remind me, Ramsch's Charge is the German box with Panzer IV Hs, StuGs, and infantry in half-tracks, right?

It's a solid starter collection, and long out of production.

Nice find!

>>54771274
Yup panzer IV Hs, StuG, and panzergrenadier with half tracks, I also have a seperate panzergrenadier Lehr division that can be fielded with this also two 8.8 CM artillery pieces

>>54771274
Also yeah it was my local game store happened to have it in stock, I was looking for Rommel's wolves but I didn't want so many Panthers

>>54771348
Yeah, Rommel's wolves overloads you on the Panthers.

It's kind of a flaw of that series of box sets. The US one overloaded you on Pershings, the Soviet one had far too many IS-2s, and the British one had too many heavy tanks as well.

>>54771319
That sounds like a solid core for your list.

Do you have an army book yet? Something like Grey Wolf would be a nice start. It covers German forces on the Eastern front in 1944.

Also, the Version 4 Rule book for Early and Late War is a must. As is the conversion guide booklet for updating Version 3 books to the Version 4 rules.

>>54771454
Didn't the British one come with a bunch of Comets?

Also - can anyone make some suggestions for transporting FoW stuff? Right now I'm using a poorly-rigged plastic tub and it's real ghetto.

>>54771454
>>54771454
Yeah so I have a V4 rule book and conversion guide, basing my company from grey wolf, forgot to add that I have some panzerspahs and pak wagons for recon

>>54771593
I second this; I need a good carrier case as well

File: IMG_8823.jpg (83KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 800x600px

>>54771593
Feldherr makes nice fow foam and carry cases.

File: IMG_8793.jpg (1MB, 3235x2211px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3235x2211px

Psc troops look just fine on the board. I think bf plastics will look fine too.
I'm more worried about the rumored elastic qualities.

>>54771454
>and the British one had too many heavy tanks as well.
>Comets
>heavy tanks
It's not 1940, Eagles. A ~30 ton tank isn't heavy.

They are overpointed and hard to use right, but they're not heavy tanks.

>>54772806
My mistake. I'm less knowledgeable about the Brits than I should be.

I remembered it was overpriced and difficult to use, and that combination usually means the unit in question is a heavy tank.

>>54772897
Yeah, they're overcosted because they're fast, yet have an SIDF that requires them to stand still to use. They pay full points for both. Front armor 7 instead of 6 is kinda nice, but mostly irrelevant against LW dedicated AT weaponry anyway. That upped the cost some more. And the AT 14 gun is decent, and has HE, but...

Well, the Challenger, at CV, is 1 less front armor, one more AT, one more ROF, no HE, and has overloaded. And it costs less points. The challenger isn't OP, but that it's so much better for actual gameplay than the comet that costs the same shows the real problem with the comet: It's fast, it's meh tough, and it does everything ok. And all those somehow add up to a points cost that is well above what it should be.

File: 1454443562117.jpg (251KB, 1024x1367px) Image search: [Google]

251KB, 1024x1367px

/NVA/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mG3BvkT6YQ

File: 585.jpg (9KB, 200x222px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 200x222px

>>54765453
I'm talking about in fow man seeming this is a fow thread. Soviets are cool as fuck in game. real life Russia was only somewhat shitty at best.

>>54755149
fair enough I guess. game was pretty new last time I playd and even then red army was just mean

>>54774348
LOL XD CHEEK BREEKI AMIRITE COMRADE? LET'S CRUSH THOSE CAPITALISTS WHILE WE DRINK OUR VODKA HAHA

>>54766988
I agree with the latter one.
Communism lives on today as a farce.

File: IMG_0763.jpg (66KB, 1028x789px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 1028x789px

Holy fuck what is this dipshits issue? Warren is his name? Holy fuck how can someone be such a disinterested asshole and shit all over the history part of historical wargaming even with Mr Skeltal there as a guest to help him.

Who the hell let this guy cover historics?

File: locust-10.jpg (156KB, 928x590px) Image search: [Google]

156KB, 928x590px

>>54774348
The tank was attached to a glider, so if that counts then so does this adorable example of British/American cooperation.

>>54753348
So how do we make America great again? (In Team Yankee)

Missile AA?
Humvees?
Bradleys?
M60s?
M1A1s?

Other suggestions?

>>54776353
Hummers with missile AA clearly.

>>54776353
M60s with pintle mounted humvees

>>54776353
Any and all of the things you mentioned would be useful.

Missile AA is something the US lacks, and the VADS is noticeably lacking when compared the Shilka and the Gepard.

Give the US access to Redeye teams like the West Germans (who do you think the Wessies purchased them from?) or perhaps even the Chaparral.

Humvees would be good as a light recon element for the US. Maybe give them a small transport capacity, a .50 cal or the option to take a missile launcher and they're golden.

The Bradley is the BMP or Marder equivalent that the US needs. A transport with a powerful cannon and missile capabilities. Not that the M113 is bad, but it's a metal box with a .50 cal.

M60 Pattons, or even M48 Pattons(a few late model up-gunned versions were still in service along side the M60 in the mid 80s) are a lighter MBT option that would give the US something that pretty much only the Warsaw Pact and West Germany have, a powerful but cheap tank.

M1s are good, but at 8 points a pop, they're expensive to take along just to knock out the thin armor of stuff like a T-55 or BMP horde.

As for the M1A1, it would be on par with, if not surpassing, the Leopard 2 in terms or armor and armaments. It would be an expensive tank to field(I'm guessing between 11 and 13 points a pop) but it would probably be a solid tank for fighting the T-64, even if it would be significant overkill against T-72s, T-55s, and BMPs.

Also, the US has no rocket artillery unit. Give them the M270 Multiple Launch Rocket System. The MLRS was in service starting in the early 80s, and images of them launching barrages were an iconic part of Operation Desert Storm in 1990. Surely they would have seen action if the Cold War went hot.

File: IMG_0742.jpg (120KB, 720x492px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 720x492px

The Behind Enemy Lines podcast page has leaked some points cost for some of the US units in Fighting First.

>Sherman 8 points per tanks. 1-2 HQ. Platoons of 3-5
>Lee same deal but 5 points per tank. The long 75mm upgrade is 1 point per tank.
>Stuart, reportedly 2 points per tank.
I am calling bullshit on this one since the British variant is 5 points for 3 and 7 points for 4.
Check out the rest here : https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-L-sNqMUYY-A/WYrIX9L5BGI/AAAAAAAAB_Y/eWvU0_5AurgW96UMQi3c0cbOb525nagtACLcBGAs/s1600/arp3.tiff

>>54778390
Fug bad link

http://bel-podcast.blogspot.co.nz/2017/08/review-fighting-first-us-forces-in.html

>>54776353
Prism Tanks
Tanya
The Chronosphere

>>54778433
Sounds too fun for the average grog.

>>54755744
>Army's

>>54778433
Don't tempt me. The original Red Alert and Red Alert 2 were some of my favorite RTS games.

/USSR/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=876tE_sgspM

>>54778398
An excellent write up. It's tempting me to collect a Mid-War US force.

>>54781894
Same. I'm just worried about it being a burger festival since the other 2 MW options are a little lacking.

>>54782004
The Germans are also appealing to me, but I worry about the British.

The US has incredibly similar tanks, plus the Sherman and the Tank Destroyers.

They also have the Armored Rifle Platoons which are just as strong as they are in Late War.

The US is spoiled for options, but the one thing I think the Brits have going for them is the better quality troops.

That 5+ "Green" rating the US has will certainly give US players a tough time with trying to use movement orders. Something that isn't as big of a problem for the Brits or the Krauts.

And the Hit on a 2+ Reckless Stuarts seem like a major disadvantage as well.

>>54785906
Nice interior, but someone needs to remind the soldiers to wipe their feet off before they walk into someone's house.

File: 1515 Trained StuG Variant.pdf (360KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

360KB, 1x1px

1515pts is apparently the tournament level this year. Based on Cannon Aircraft being the new hotness, what do people think about this list?

In my opinion, it could do with some more high AT weapons and will probably struggle against massed mediums, but I think it's broadly playable... for Trained.

>>54786567
Ditch the Pumas to add 2 more wirbelwinds or ditch the Pumas and your 2iC to add another platoon of 4 StuG Gs. Recon honestly isn't worth the points in my opinion.You need as many dice you can throw at infantry as possible, because what you have now won't cut it in an attacking scenario.

Either that or see about running some veteran StuG Gs. Stormtrooper is really friendly to StuGs in late war, and even though you may bring one less tank it will vastly improve your assault and chance of survival.

>>54787088
I am not saying recce is always useless, but Puma recce is too many points for a couple of fragile ass cars, one of which has a gun whose sole purpose is getting it into trouble. Also if you are putting recce in your list you should have something you want to aggressively spearhead forward. I don't think 10 trained StuGs are enough to spook someone in LW. They will suffer in assault, even with schurzen, and they won't be able to outshoot any anti tank guns, veteran armor, or a T-34 horde.

>>54787088
>>54787234

Unless I posted the wrong list - in which case, apologies - there shouldn't be any Pumas in that list. I can trade out the SdKfz 250s and Tank Escorts for another pair of StuGs, or for maxed flak, but getting a full strength third platoon is a stretch at 1515. I had a quick look at Veteran, but there's no mix-and-match option, and all Vets got too pricey, too fast.

Sherman's seem far too cheap in Fighting First. At 8 points they are the same cost as an uparmoured P3 and 2 points cheaper than a Long P4, but will statistically beat both of those tanks in an equal-point fight.

In a P4 v Sherman fight the Sherman's better chance of saving (only 1/3 of the hits go through, compared to 1/2 of the Sherman's return fire hits) cancels out the fact that the Sherman is easier to hit (hitting on 4s at long range vs hitting on 5s).

Given that, the cost of the two tanks should be equal (or close to), but the Sherman is 20% cheaper than the P4. Seems like any semblance of balance in V4 is out the window already.

>>54787332
I'm just stupid and can't read.

>>54789160
Shermans will probably never be doing movement orders, while the panzers have stormtrooper which is only made better by their 3+ skill. Statistics don't account for that.

>>54789160

>Given that, the cost of the two tanks should be equal (or close to), but the Sherman is 20% cheaper than the P4. Seems like any semblance of balance in V4 is out the window already.

The long barrel panzer IV was overpriced in Version 3 aswell. An unit of 4 costed around 600 points.

The Sherman always had problems against the short barrelled Panzer IV. While it has lower armor and AT, at range it is much more difficult to take down than the stats suggest. Up close their gun is dangerous to FA6. Another problem for Shermans in midwar are going to be the Marders. They are hard to take down from a concealed position at range and the AT12 fucking murders FA6 tanks. Best thing is that they are cheap.

I also don't see an american player bringing 2 platoons of shermans + HQ, thats 80 points in ten trained tanks that are bad in assaults.

File: thin your....oh god.jpg (291KB, 2048x1536px) Image search: [Google]

291KB, 2048x1536px

>reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

>>54790266
I guess this is an advantage of metal minis :D

>>54790266
Good lord... Did somebody let their 4 year old try and paint those minis?

File: IMG_3306.jpg (89KB, 690x461px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 690x461px

Plastic Priest sprue

>>54794541
So far I'm liking how the new plastics assemble. Kinda confused how we're getting great vehicles but infantry that look like Clayface.

>>54795035
Different kind of plastic.

This hard plastic requires very expensive molds, which means you need to sell lots of something to make it economical to make a mold.

The softer plastic requires much less expensive mold, much closer to the expense needed for molds for metals.
With current metal prices, this makes it a much cheaper option for products that wouldn't be sold in enough volume to justify hard plastic.

Is bolt action a dead game?

>>54796394
What does that even mean anon.

File: Sherman.jpg (49KB, 690x506px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 690x506px

>>54794541
I'm more interested in the Sherman

>>54796394

No, Bolt Action has benefited locally from the V4 dust-up: several players have switched to BA. As usual, your region may vary: some communities seem to have a significant FOW V4 following, while in others the game has taken a hit. BA I suspect is the same.

File: 08098e3c3a2d9e3ce0239f2c2d29f84b.jpg (107KB, 883x990px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 883x990px

>>54796394
hell no it's got a hige player base sadly with the new 40k being good we won't be seening any new players getting into it

File: IMG_0768.jpg (25KB, 220x218px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 220x218px

>>54794541
Nice clean kit.

>>54796482
Is that the first generation gun with the counterweight on the sprue?

>>54794541
Hm, I wonder how easily these can be remade into defrocked priests...

>>54797886
>Is that the first generation gun with the counterweight on the sprue?
I don't think so. More likely, it's a gun that can be mounted on the "full-width" mantlet.

And BF would of course keep the one piece cover, nevermind that it was rare and late war on M4A1s.

>>54798042
Yeah I see the tapering now. Thanks. The M4A3 sprue had me confused as hell when I first looked at it. This one seems a bit simpler.

>>54797961
>defrocked priests

Leave out the gun and put some plastic card to cover the gap in the front of the hull?

You'd still have the ammo crates which are part of the crew compartment, but I could deal with that since it would be a relatively quick and easy conversion.

>>54797405
>new 40k

Yeah, that's causing at lot of games to take a hit lately.

As much as Games Workshop is the two ton gorilla in the room when it comes to miniatures gaming, I was honestly surprised that people who had been burned by GW before have been saying good things about 40K 8.

>>54796482
>I'm more interested in the Sherman

The Sherman also looks good, but we've seen other plastic Sherman kits, and this doesn't look too different from the ones we've already seen.

The Priest kit however is new and different, and that's what has me pleased to see to see what the sprue looks like.

>>54796482
>>54797405

Well im new and want to get into BA. FOW is too large scale and doesnt give me the small unit tactics I thirst for. Also 40k is nice and all but i get tired of shooting zombie robots or fucking space deamons. I just want to shoot a human for once.

>>54805807
I think /hwg/ is the place to go for bolt action. We also have an other ww2 wargaming channel in the discord if you have any other Bolt Action questions.

So whats the difference between FoW and Team Yankee? Is it just a reskin or are they different games? Does anyone actually play TY?.

File: Hetzer_pic2.jpg (67KB, 1000x371px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 1000x371px

>>54801373
They fell for the trap before, so of course they'd fall for its shiny sequel too.

>>54806985
Flames of War is a World War II miniatures game. Team Yankee is a 1980s Cold War miniatures game.

Flames of War 4th Edition and Team Yankee have about 85-90% of their rules in common but they do have some differences.

And yes, Team Yankee has a pretty good player base.

>>54808072
I don't play, but I think maybe there is just a chance that GW actually got a lot of things right with this new edition. An edition change isn't easy to pull off cleanly over the entire span of a game.

Not saying everything about V4 and MW in particular is shit, but the 2 year release timeline is slow and plodding. It's really hard to get much momentum going.

>>54809382
They'll have a book and miniatures out for Mid-War North Africa probably by what, the end of the year? Mid-War Americans are out pretty soon.

After that we have updated and expanded Americans for Team Yankee.

And then after that should be the Italians for Mid-War North Africa.

I'd imagine that with the exception of any unexpected production delays, Mid-War North Africa will probably have taken roughly a year to fully roll out by the time the Italians are for sale.

Mid-War Eastern front however, is probably after that.

Although I'd imagine that could be a quick release. A lot of the German stuff has miniatures already, and the Soviets have some good plastic kits already as well.

>>54811302
>a year to fully roll out
Where's half of the British army? Where are my infantry tanks, shermans, paratroopers, and rifle companies?

>>54811302
Considering how much plastic the Germans are spoiled with in general, I hope the Soviets get SU-76s and KV tanks. This includes the added bonus of PSC doesn't do either, and Zvezda's one is not a combination kit with opening hatches.

>>54811569
>Where's half of the British army? >Where are my infantry tanks, shermans, paratroopers, and rifle companies?

My best guess... The infantry tanks are probably in the works. They've said that the British will be getting another book with the infantry tanks.

The Sherman will be in that book also, and has a nice new plastic kit now too thanks to the American release.

I'd imagine the infantry companies will be in the book with the infantry tanks.

Paratroopers for all nations are supposedly getting a single book containing the fallschirmjagers, paracadutisi, and both American and British paratroopers.

>>54812449
Considering how much plastic the Germans are spoiled with in general, I hope the Soviets get SU-76s and KV tanks.

That would be nice. Especially considering the Soviets already have some great plastic kits for stuff like the T-34s, Zis 3s, Strelkovy, and their 122 and 152mm guns.

>>54811569
>>54812877
plastic Matildas wold be the shit....

for Soviet players ahahahahahahaaaa!

>>54812973
Honestly, that could be part of it.

Leave the British infantry tanks until later since the Soviets would be using them as well.

From a production scheduling standpoint that would make a decent amount of sense.

File: IMG_7102.gif (991KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

991KB, 500x281px

Psc leo1 on preorder. Only a1/a3 and canook variants. A5 and gepard didn't fit.

Remind me, is the wg leo1 an a1 or what?

>>54816006
If you support FoW, don't buy from PSC, the Home Depot of historicals.

File: knight pudding.jpg (217KB, 957x1300px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 957x1300px

>>54816032
>he doesn't play BGK

File: IMG_0773.jpg (136KB, 568x798px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 568x798px

Shill cards.

File: IMG_0774.jpg (134KB, 564x794px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 564x794px

This one is funny, but also horribly underpriced. 1 point essentially makes your aircraft 50% more likely to come on with only a 1/12 chance they will be used against you. Most of the valuable American vehicles have decent side armor, so it doesn't seem like that big of a risk.

>>54816427
To be fair, it's single-use.

>>54816483
Ah, I missed that part. I wonder if you can have multiples.

are the Cards game breakers or are they nice game changing mechanincs?

>>54816853
Opinions seem to be split on that.

Some see them as fun thematic or cinematic elements to add to the game, while others see at least certain cards as something that upsets the balance.

The worst reactions I've seen have been from people who clearly didn't read the card well enough and instantly jumped to the worst case scenario they could think of.

One guy on Facebook a while back absolutely flipped out over a card that let your formation commander reroll a single failed save on himself.

The guy instantly started theory crafting about how that would be absolutely broken on a hypothetical Tiger formation.

But as Tigers are only supporting units, and don't have their own specific formation in Mid-War(at least not yet) he was flipping out over a straw man of his own creation.

>>54817090
>>54816853
The effects of cards are all over the place. Some are oddly limited, especially the cards only affecting the formation commander. Others seem a bit underpriced. Others give some interesting flexibility. Knackers and Sticky bombs are cool because they are one off, but aren't revealed until used. Other things like the recce tanks for the Brits are cool.

I dunno. I still think the idea of bonus cards at the expense of books is meh and the execution has been clumsy, but there are some good things. Objective cards seem like a lot of fun.

>>54817090
>reroll a single failed save on himself.
It let them auto-pass the save, even if they couldn't pass normally. Unless Phil has errata on it.

Not worth the points, but a blatantly gamist card, like most of them.

>>54816006
I am pretty sure the one in the game is the A4, so an A3 with better tech.

>>54817182
I could be misremembering. I don't actually own a set of the cards to look at and double check.

File: 1502458597-picsay.jpg (2MB, 2000x3324px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x3324px

A strafing of an A-10 flight took out a company of BMPs

>>54817618
Nice!

That's certainly what I'd call a target-rich environment for those Warthogs.

File: IMG_3307.jpg (233KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1200x800px

Pre-orders are up for The Plastic Soldier Company's 15mm Leopard 1 kit!

http://theplasticsoldiercompany.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=93_145_171&products_id=1669

>>54817936
Nice.

Now they just need to make Sextons and Archers for me to buy everything.

>>54817936
Home Depot destroyed my local hardware store.

Think about VALUE, not PRICE.

>>54817979
But Anon, a low per unit price is valuable to me.

>>54817979
Is this a meme now?

Because if it's serious, I will say that I have purchased plenty of official Battlefront miniatures. My entire US Paratrooper force, my LW Germans, my TY US (with the exception of the Paladins), and my TY Soviets (with the exception of the Carnations) are all Battlefront.

I think I've certainly supported the official company enough over the years.

Also, in this scenario it's not Mom & Pop Hardware vs Home Depot.

It's more like Home Depot vs Lowes.

File: IMG_3759.png (2MB, 750x1334px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 750x1334px

If anyone is interested here is the Rommel's Afrika Korps box set and a couple cards (Marder and tiger sold separately)

>>54818077
some sperg was shouting about the Home Depot being just like PSC on the WWPD forums. Apparently he took an economics class or something.

>>54818124
You selling this? Are you in the US?

Does anyone have a picture of the new Priest stats?

File: priest2.jpg (38KB, 400x233px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 400x233px

>>54819229
http://bel-podcast.blogspot.co.nz/2017/08/review-fighting-first-us-forces-in.html

>>54817979
But according to Battlefront quantity has a quality all its own.

>>54819884
Thanks anon

File: 1448042458057.jpg (67KB, 720x616px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 720x616px

>>54817979
> value
> price

File: IMG_0687.jpg (85KB, 758x325px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 758x325px

Valenbump

File: Hayek gesture.png (357KB, 851x593px) Image search: [Google]

357KB, 851x593px

>>54818705
yeah but did he take the entire course or just one class?

>>54817979
>remarkably cheaper
>not resin
>more models
if it's like the t-55ms then it should be better looking all arround.
>greater marginal utility
>still spending money on the rest of the BF range.
anon the value is there all it will do is force BF to either reduce the resin mbts they produce, make them in plastic or simply just let it happen.
It's also assuming.
>>54822027
Philosophically he's the equivalent of a smug anime girl isn't he?

>>54825327
bit more for >>54817979
>attempting to shield a company from competition.
>we must protect a company that cannot compete.
WEW
E E
WEW

>>54817979
>not wanting PSC to destroy battlefront

>>54827193
I want PSC to destroy battlefront after I get all the little niche guys they make. Which BF is actively killing off, so that should be soon.

>>54817936
>http://theplasticsoldiercompany.co.uk/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=93_145_171&products_id=1669

no Geppard. however, it does allow for Canadian specific as well as 2 sub-types of Leo

>>54828308
Gepard is in another kit, they said

so all hope is not lost

>>54828547
>Gepard is in another kit, they said
So's the Pz 38t with Hetzer option.

>>54828559
all hope is lost

>>54828559
Did they said that with the Pz 38t?

>>54828786
Yeah, and that was like a year ago. Don't get too hopeful.

>>54828786
Yeah, and I since caved to the resin hetzers. I still need more hetzers.

>>54828547
it's gonna be a bit....

File: BB227.jpg (102KB, 690x487px) Image search: [Google]

102KB, 690x487px

Official brand Battlefront parking lots. You know the drill.

File: IMG_0703.jpg (233KB, 959x857px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 959x857px

>>54832021
Perfect for organizing your WarPac tank Parks.

>>54832021
The roads I can understand people buying.

But parking lots?

Just use a flat board, some black and white paints, and some masking tape to make some straight lines...

>>54835718
They are cool though and many will rather pay for it than having to bother to build it.
I only build stuff I enjoy since I can split the cost of any bought terrain with my whole TY/fow group.
>also, bf sent free terrain to our flgs and they just gave it to us

>>54835718
But just think of the VALUE

File: dc45a958c71817122329413e1c8167e1.jpg (168KB, 1467x819px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 1467x819px

>>54835718
BUT what about the lazy people
Also is Value the new cheers?

>>54836368
Just as PSC is the new Home Depot mein Freund.

File: IMG_0782.jpg (86KB, 750x600px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 750x600px

>Don't worry about things just play V4
>Don't split the community up man, come on.

I like V4 okay, but this type of thinking is fucking stupid. People should play whatever version of the rules works for their groups.

File: storage.torontosun.com.jpg (24KB, 462x462px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 462x462px

>>54837781
this was the fucking thinking all throught 6th&7th rd of 40k
people knew they were bad but refused to play anything else.

I've not played V4 but i did play a small amount of v3 and really liked the small amount of i played.

if it is a bad edition then don't play play it and such action are good for battlefront.
if they see long time players leave they're game they have have to think why and how to get them back.
Market forces in action

File: stuart comparsion.jpg (187KB, 1323x688px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1323x688px

>>54817979
V A L U E
A
L
U
E

>>54837968
Technically, the PSC one is the M5.
Not the same tank.

File: UCs compared.png (575KB, 948x786px) Image search: [Google]

575KB, 948x786px

>>54837968
>>54838090
Yeah, this is a better comparison.

Much value.

>>54838090
Do we know what the PSC M3 will include?
(Yes, I could try to look it up, but I'm feeling lazy today)

>>54837968
Battlefront are designing their kits for noobs who'd shit themselves if they were given options.

File: IMG_0783.jpg (82KB, 750x705px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 750x705px

Look at the new exciting meta Red Thunder has brought to Team Yankee.

Is there a list of recommended miniature lines somewhere?

>>54837968
>can build up to 10 tanks

Not exactly. There aren't enough pieces for two turrets, and one set of tanks would have no bottom hull.

So it would be more accurate to say that they can build 5 full tanks, and 5 partial tanks.

File: stuart V jalopies flames of war plastic soldier company conversions ww2 british tank (1).jpg (148KB, 1600x771px) Image search: [Google]

148KB, 1600x771px

>>54843036
>There aren't enough pieces for two turrets
Jalopies/T8s. No turret, just a .50 on the turret ring. Can be very easily made from the spare parts and some plasticard.

>>54842770
Other than Battlefront
>Plastic
Plastic Soldier Company
Zvezda

>Resin/Metal
Forged in Battle
Old Glory/Skytrex Command Decision Line
QRF
Armies Army

That's all I know off hand.

>>54842711
I'll be buying T-64s.

Out ranging NATO MBTs with a Gun Launched Anti-Tank Guided Missile? While moving?

Yes please.

>>54842770
My personal recommendations for miniatures:

>Tanks and Vehicles:
- Battlefront's official miniatures are often great, and certainly worth considering. Especially for their plastics. They tend to be slightly more money than the competition though.

- The Plastic Soldier Company makes great stuff as well, more or less on-par with Battlefront (some a tiny bit better, some a tiny bit worse, but not by much). They're slightly cheaper, but still good quality. They don't provide decals though, so those would be an additional expense from elsewhere.

- Zvezda is a Russian company that makes push-fit plastic miniatures for one of their own wargames. This are typically the cheapest plastics you will find. Some, like their M1A1 Abrams or their Panzer II have practically zero detail, while some, like their King Tiger, are relatively well detailed. They occasionally have decals included. Glue them together though for use in FoW or TY.

>Infantry and guns:
- Battlefront makes pretty good metal minis and some good hard plastic minis. Buy avoid the new bendy plastic infantry.

- The Plastic Soldier Company has some great guns in plastic, but the infantry to go with them look a bit weak, lack some detail, and occasionally get the detail entirely wrong (Y-shaped suspenders and webbing on Americans that used an entirely different webbing set up). They're still a cheap option and can look pretty good if the paint job is good enough.

>>54843191
Nice conversion job on those!

Simple, but effective.

>>54843301
>but the infantry to go with them look a bit weak, lack some detail, and occasionally get the detail entirely wrong
Note, this seems to directly correlate with how far away the country they're depiciting is from the UK. Their British infantry and guns blend in near seamlessly with BF's offerings, and their newer germans are good as well. The russians, US, and old germans are all pretty scrawny, though.

File: 2017-05-09 16.59.57.jpg (3MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4320x2432px

>>54843339
Not mine, sadly, a pic taken from the net. But I plan on doing similar for my own jalopies. The box comes with 5 stuarts, but as a Brit I can't use more than 4 at once anyway. So my plan is to make:
4 Stuart VIs
4 Stuart VI jalopies
1 Stuark PaK (yugoslav conversion of a M3A3 Stuart to mount a captured PaK)
1 destroyed Stuart for an objective.

Only got 3 Stuarts and the PaK conversion done so far (fuck cutting that back deck to match the M3A3, by the way).

>>54843422
Ah. Ok.

Nice work on yours so far.

I like that PaK Stuart.

File: IMG_20170321_121858341_HDR.jpg (3MB, 4320x2432px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 4320x2432px

>>54846098
>I like that PaK Stuart.
Thanks. It's easily the most heavily converted model in my collection. Rebuild the back deck, convert both crewmen from some spare russians, give one a new hat, make the entire mount and shield from scratch, remake the sides of the hull to be slightly sloped, and even cut the tracks farther in to get some overhang from the hull. If there was a list for the yugoslav partisans, I'd go and make them a full army just for the amount of effort this tank took me. And I still need to properly weather it.

File: IMG_0788.jpg (230KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 960x720px

Here is your weekly TY parking lot from FB.

>>54842770
Forged In Battle for resin and metal.

>>54847159
Oh god there's like no terrain on that board.

>>54847615
The generals chose some suitable ground where they could form their gun lines.

File: IMG_0791.jpg (136KB, 1309x452px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1309x452px

Hmm...

>>54847159
This is the quickest I've ever gained and then lost interest in a game.

>>54847159
>That many clear lines of sight...

No. Just no.

At least the game will be short.

>>54848069
(Paraphrasing here)
>Play the Edition you want to play.

Solid advice. Nobody is forcing you to play something you dislike.

Although I'll admit to not wanting to encourage Edition Wars myself.

>The conversion rules are not set in stone and are being updated based on feedback.

This is both encouraging and good to hear, and discouraging and disappointing.

It's encouraging because it means that they are paying some attention to player feedback and using it to help make changes to the rules.

It's discouraging because it means that those who have called the Early/Late conversion book a "Public Beta", aren't entirely wrong.

>Bear with us, we're a tiny company that can't do everything at once.

More or less what I've always said about Battlefront. People need to remember that they're not on the same level as juggernauts like Games Workshop.

>You should see some results from this soon.

Is this a soft announcement that either Full 4th Ed Early, or Full 4th Ed Late is in the early design stages?

>>54848069
This has honestly done more to get me on BF's side than anything else they've done in the last year. Mainly because it's him acting like a reasonable human being, instead of the normal cheersmachine we're used to seeing from Phil.

File: 20170812_205937-picsay.jpg (2MB, 2880x2160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2880x2160px

>>54847159
>>54848490
Do you warried about being no terrain on board? Don't worry.
Terrains will be on the board. As soon as game begins. With remains of communist vehicles.

>>54848989
Just use the first wave as cover for the second wave! It's that easy!

>>54847159
To be fair, he said it was his first game.

>>54848989
That board is awful.

>>54848490
>Solid advice. Nobody is forcing you to play something you dislike.
So BF are still going to sell and market the third edition books and options, then?

>>54848877

That's the correct use of Cheers, you can feel the honesty and resignation. Kiwi and Australian intonation can be pretty fucking annoying when used insincerely.

I've been unforgiving of Battlefront but a proper update to Late War would be a start. The balance blown out of LW AND the new force and points for MW was a bit too much at once.

I doubt I'll stick with the game if they keep the changes in Mid, I'll at least play with the Late War band as the ship goes down.

>>54852209
No longer supporting one thing is entirely different than forcing you to play something else.

Just look at games like Blood Bowl which had sizable dedicated communities playing the classic version of the game for years before Games Workshop decided to re-release it. Same with Space Hulk.

Hell, I've been playing a 30 year old board game recently, Hero Quest, which has never been re-released over the years.

So if you want to keep playing V3, you certainly can. Even without official support from Battlefront.

File: groomin'standard.png (696KB, 769x720px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 769x720px

>>54837781
rigged captcha

>>54843191
>>54846548
nice! good work!

>>54847159
why. the fuck. are there random cards scattered everywhere.
jesus, people, put thought into your terrain. call me an autist, but
>roads that lead nowhere. rivers that make a line that doesn't off table
>roads that are on teh map, houses on teh map, roads don't go near houses
>mixed winter/dessert terrain.
>human made items out in the middle of no where
these should all be legitimate concerns of bad terrain set-up.

>>54847935
i fucking hate modern Napoleonics.

>>54848069
is Phil being REASONABLE for once?

>>54852203
at least the terrain is set-up relatively logically

>>54854012
>No longer supporting one thing is entirely different than forcing you to play something else.
Unless you liked tournaments or ever had people get into the game from seeing new releases.

>>54854690
With a large enough group of people who still want to play V3, you could potentially organize your own V3 tournaments.

But yes, that would be up to you or any T.O. who would want to do so.

But the official BF tournaments are almost certainly shifting to 4th Ed.

As for new V3 releases, what is left to do? Early War has decent, but not spectacular, coverage. Late War is fully fleshed out on the Eastern, Western, and Italian fronts. Pacific has a pretty good USMC vs Japanese book.

The only thing V3 is genuinely missing is Mid-War, and they decided to use that for the launch of 4th Ed instead.

As for books, we do have a complete Scans Database linked at the top of this thread.

And you'll always be able to find 15mm WWII miniatures. Whether from Battlefront or from almost anybody else.

File: IMG_8856.jpg (877KB, 3086x2238px) Image search: [Google]

877KB, 3086x2238px

3 euro in a flea market

>>54855319
That terrain is nice but I sometimes it runs a bit small and I like having a roof that opens so you can put men inside.

>>54855319
good find

>>54855319
I think that's a Micro Machines train station.

I used to have pretty much the same one when I was a kid.

No idea where it is now though. Possibly hidden in some box up in my grandmother's attic so that my younger cousins have toys to play with when they visit.

Hey guys, I need a bit of list advice.

Our local group is doing an odd sort of mixed Aces tournament. There are three guys playing Mechanized or Infantry Aces, and three guys playing Tank Aces. We get paired up into teams of one Tank and one mech/inf for each round, with our teammate being random with the exception that it won't be who we were paired with for the previous round. Version-wise we're using V3 with some V4 rules (tac/dash speeds, attacker allocates, arty range in/hit but not FP/AT/rerolls).

The players I know I will be fighting against are:
>US (tank) - B@R Tank Company (9th Armoured Division)
>Ace - Super Pershing, Prior Experience tree
He loves the super Pershing. Last round he used Shermans to fill it out, but he's been talking a lot about the Hellcats he just bought...

>German (infantry) - BbB Ersatz Fallschirmjager
>Ace - CiC, Weapons Upgrade tree
Last round he used a lot of HMGs and short FJ platoons, I expect he's going to add PaKs and 'fauts after his inability to squeeze in some 'fausts really hurt him last round.

>Finnish (infantry) - GW Pioneeri or something (Elite)
>Ace - CiC, Weapons Upgrade tree
The other infantry player. He's got more integrated AT, and took a bunch of HMGs as well. He had issues last round due to poor movement decisions, as he's new to infantry. As with the germans, I expect more PaKs and 'Fauts in round 2.

The players that I might be allied to or might be fighting are:
>German (tank) - DM Panzer Kampfgruppe (Trained Division)
>Ace - Panzer IV/70, Prior Experience
A guy with a fondness for assault guns. Last round his force was two IV/70 As and 4 StuGs. I strongly expect he's going to grab some Ostwinds and an extra assault gun.


>Soviet (tank) - Berlin, Hero Guards Heavy Tank Regiment (why.jpg)
>Ace - IS-2, Prior Experience (inventive lot)
No surprise, his force is made entirely of overpriced heavy tanks. He loves his IL-2, so I'd bet money it'll see combat in the second round.

Cont...

File: Nachtjager - UK Airborne armoured recce squadron.pdf (2MB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1x1px

>>54857692
My own force is PDF related
>British (mechanized) - NJ(digi) Airborne Armored Recce
>Ace - CiC White Scout Car, Ghost tree
My list for the first round was:
>CiC/Ace White Scout Car, 2iC White Scout Car - 70pts
>4x Locust tank - 160pts
>Universal Carrier and Dingo - 70pts
>4x 4.2" Mortar, Command, Observer - 170pts
As the only mechanized company, me and my teammate will be attacking in every battle. This gives me a nice bit of consistency in planning, though the missions vary a lot. My list needs to be able to help either of my potential allies against the lists they're weak to.

And now I need some advice. I have the second round ability (CiC and platoon he joins are always concealed in assault), which helps somewhat. But I need to figure out what to add to my list. My main options are:

>1: More Recce and some 6pdrs
Double the size of the UC/Dingo recce unit and add 4x 6pdrs with command. Sadly, the 6pdrs are rather static, and we're always attacking. Not necessarily the wisest choice.

>2: A full Airlanding Platoon
Gives me a nice 8 man FV infantry platoon with a PIAT, Panzerfaust, Light Mortar, and 5x TA 3 Rifle/MG teams. A good all around unit, but once again possibly too slow for good use.

>3: Two M10Cs
A pair of AT 15 vehicles is always nice, especially against all the heavily armored tanks, but they are pretty fragile themselves. It also doesn't help against the infantry.

I can basically do anything in this PDF model-wise, though, as long as it doesn't involve bikes, the armored car platoon, or or 5.5" guns.

So, does anyone have any suggestions or advice for tailoring my list to support either the IS-2s or german assault gun spam?

File: IMG_8862.jpg (599KB, 3264x1523px) Image search: [Google]

599KB, 3264x1523px

Bought a crapload of soviets from some shady guy.
They look like the guy on the right.
I need to touch them up too look more like my guys, shown on the left.
They are fully painted but without wash or highlights.

Do you think I can get away with just giving them a wash of strong tone and maaybee a rough drybrush of iraqui sand?

>>54858811
Drybrush with Iraqi sand and adds some steppe grass tufts and it should be good.

>>54858811
Looks like the V2 painting guide edition, haha!

File: 20729161_1961793223847605_2472824524522383564_n.jpg (170KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 960x720px

>>54847159
Hahah...is not of parking lot comrade: this is lot of parking.

File: 710pts.jpg (145KB, 1080x608px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1080x608px

>>54857692
>>54857719
Bumping with a pic of all my 6th AAR models (mostly unpainted atm)

>>54860843
Jesus Christ how do you even do that?

>>54860843
A literal wave of russians crashing over the NATO positions. Jesus.

File: 20728111_1961793013847626_4228184020999637508_n.jpg (140KB, 960x720px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 960x720px

>>54860843
>>54860874
>>54860888
*unpainted storm intensifies*

>>54857719
I'd personally take either the Airlanding or the M10Cs. Either would be a solid addition to your force.

The 6 Pounders are decent, but relatively static. I'd recommend them if you were on the defensive, but on the attack, you should probably skip them.

As for how to best back up the IS-2s, they're big, they're slow, they're heavy, and they have a low rate of fire.

Anything you can do to augment their abysmal RoF would be helpful.

>>54860843
>>54860936
Shouldn't you NOT be able to maneuver across wrecked vehicles like that?

File: 000000000000.png (56KB, 401x372px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 401x372px

>>54860843
the actual fuck?
>i'm checking for signs of Photoshop

ok, story time, anon!
you posted it, you figuratively asked for it.
you get to do it.

File: moggdisgust.jpg (56KB, 625x415px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 625x415px

>>54860936
disgusting

>>54861001
From FB, mega-game in Poland: not mine, I just wanted to share.

File: 20767962_1961794093847518_7807728111010802353_n.jpg (172KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 720x960px

>>54861073
And to be fair, they had a pretty nice table, but putting a river on it with one crossing was asking for trouble...

>>54861097
Did the Soviet players forget most of their vehicles are amphibs?

File: IMG_8872.jpg (351KB, 2089x1743px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 2089x1743px

China car + typhus corrosion = quick ty terrain

>>54860843
What the actual fuck. Looks like someone made some shit river crossing custom battle in total war. 3 M1 Abrams vs. 50 T-55s.

>Most of these tanks aren't up to the Corps goddamn grooming standard.
>>54854488

>>54861132
I'd imagine so.

Not many people tend to include enough water terrain on their tables, at least in my area, for that rule to come up too often.

>>54863078
Or if they do its "only a small stream".

>>54863134
Because NATOboos will whine if it's anything more than slightly wet.

>>54765453
Hey guys, I found Phil!

File: this pleases the Lemmy.jpg (17KB, 368x208px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 368x208px

>>54861073
Poland? heh, figures.

oh,

wait....

>>54861097
nice. it's good, 7.75/10

>>54861449
>Corps goddamn grooming standard.
>pic related

>>54863134
>>54863146
>pic related with laughter and snickers

File: IMG_0796.jpg (56KB, 750x244px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 750x244px

How did we miss this? From the TY Firstorm Campaign PDF.

File: 1348565297723221.png (73KB, 336x188px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 336x188px

>>54865394
Neat.

>>54865394
Where is the PDF?

>>54865394
What am I seeing?

>>54865964
The M60 Patton and the Humvee.

Both upcoming miniatures from a US expanded forces book that isn't out yet.

>>54865394
looking at the pic, i have a BAAD feeling those are resin M60's
we did get plastic verified, right?

>>54865394
Looking at the crispness of the lines, the Patton def seems plastic. The Humvee I'm not sure, it might be resin. The way the detail is on the body makes me think that.

>>54866175
The track detailing and the sharpness overall of the design suggests plastic. The Humvees might be resin because non-Games Workshop devs struggle to make plastic stuff that small.

>>54866231
>non-Games Workshop devs struggle to make plastic stuff that small

Yeah. It's unfortunate, but true.

Interesting update from Chris today, has some potentially strong implications - he was responding to the lack of 37mm guns from the Armored Rifles and the missing M3 75mm GMC:
"[I] asked Phil about the 37mm guns and he said: "in the end it came down to playability. Having a single gun in an infantry platoon introduces a pile of complexities that are just not worth it. Instead, we decided to go with the option often followed (and formalised in the 1943 TOE) of grouping the 37mm guns into a company AT Platoon. This is both simpler in play, and gives the advantage of providing enough punch in the critical place to be significant while not burdening mobile operations with cumbersome guns."
"As for the GMC this came down to miniatures range and popularity. We have been making some conscious decisions as a company about how big the supporting releases will be for each book, trying to ensure that we have a good range of options for players whilst still keeping it manageable for retailers. The Flames Of War range has grown to the point where it is too wide for the majority of retailers to stock effectively and if they cannot stock it, customers cannot easily get it.
"In the case of the GMC we looked as the sales of it over it's lifetime and the reports from play testers about how it was performing on the table relative to other options and it was decided that we would not include it in the book. Moving forward we are going to have to continue to make tough choices about what is in the books and what is not. We don't make them lightly and we (as a team) definitely have robust discussion before committing to leaving anything out a book."

>>54867361
>If you own a model that we've decided is no longer profitable enough to include in our ruleset, it's useless now.

Isn't this exactly what people were afraid of?

File: FOW V4.jpg (42KB, 600x646px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 600x646px

>>54867722
>Isn't this exactly what people were afraid of?
It was.

I understand the issue with the range being too big, but couldn't they get around that by just making some of the more obscure models online from BF only?

>>54867300
Say what you like about Games Workshop, like that they are Money Grubbing, Price Gauging, Lawsuit happy, hacks, but they can do plastic like no one's business, Most of their sprues pack about twice as much shit onto them as everyone else.

>>54863134
Yeah, we have rivers all over, they're just always shallow. Amphibious is "more of a scenario rule really", apparently.

>>54867361
I sympathise about retail at least, since it was why my FLGS hated stocking it, but it comes back to "who is this game for?". They don't seem to have a market in mind.

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

1MB, 317x237px

>>54863134
>>54863146
>>54869038

I've seen NATO players flat out refuse to play on tables with actual water features.

>>54868709
>>54869068

My FLGS never had a problem ordering the less common SKUs in for my Soviets when I ordered them. Whether they make the models or not, they need to release some digital list or PDF allowing for people to use the things they already own. They could start with infantry and infantry tanks for Desert Rats. Otherwise they are telling their old player base and people who care about history to get stuffed, and I don't think that will turn out well.

>>54869068
My shop has the main floor which is GW and other fantasy stuff, and a side area on the second floor which was nothing but historicals. The FoW section is huge and comfy, and right next to the relevant literature for the 20th century. Guess it sucks being smaller shops.

>>54869096
It's fucking ridiculous. The NATOboos here are completely fine with milan spam and similar cheese, but god forbid if there's a puddle on the table!

>>54869242
>Otherwise they are telling their old player base and people who care about history to get stuffed, and I don't think that will turn out well.
Yeah, because they give a shit about that stuff. Books and rules will continue to get trimmed down until everyone is playing either Americans, Germans, or Russians, and all the lists will look the same. This is just the beginning. Maybe Battlegroup will pick up the pieces and provide a decent option for 15mm WW2.

>>54824002
What the fuck am I looking at here? Some post WW2 soviet chassis with a pre to early WW2 turret?

>>54869939
It's a valentine mk II with some superficial modification (side skirts and rack for fuel). No slavic superengineering here, comrade.

>>54869939
>Doesn't recognize a Valentine.

Back to boot camp with you.

Alternatively the USAF would probably love you, they can't tell what they're bombing most of the time anyways.

File: valentine-tank-mk1-front.jpg (72KB, 650x430px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 650x430px

>>54869939
I get that all anyone remembers of mid war british tank design is "Hurr cruisers r bad", but come on. It's the fucking Valentine, m8.

>>54870388
It does have a bit of a boxy, clunky, bolted together look to it though.

>>54867722
Yes

>>54865709
I don't think this is the official DL but I found it here:

https://bowlivestorage.blob.core.windows.net/firestorm/2016/04/About-The-Firestorm-Campaign.pdf

Sounds kinda fun, tfw no opponent to make a batrep with.

>>54867722
I'm so butt-blasted by BF's decisions that I'm making my own wargame that includes options for all kinds of shit like Romanians. The first book if I ever finish this I'm so lazy[/spolier] should cover March 1944 to the end for the Eastern Front and be fully comprehensive. A major feature is taking a concept of pinning similar to FOW and pushing it further, like letting pins stack and having moving or extreme-range fire only contribute to pinning. I'm tricking my fiancee into playtesting it with me.

Why are the V4 army books so lackluster

>>54872917
BF's range is too large to keep it all stocked and in production. Hence, they will eliminate many options so they no longer have to make miniatures for them. It's about production and logistics... that, and trying to gain new players by simplifying the game and the way armies are built.

>>54872210
Thank you.

>>54873042
But the game is now counterintuitive and poorly suited for competitive play, which is going to mean newbies aren't flocking to it.

Who is version 4 meant to be for? It keeps coming back to that.

>>54873993

It's not worse than age of sigmar and 40k.

File: large_000000 (3).jpg (81KB, 800x791px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 800x791px

>>54870388
1. Valentine was not a cruiser.
2. Fuck you, cruisers are great.

>>54874238
but the new 40k is the easiest to play than it ever has been and everyone's flocking back to it.

Newbies don't really flock to a game for it's competitive play.

No they come to play a game that is fun.

File: Air.jpg (238KB, 1375x1072px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 1375x1072px

>>54874480
1) I know that, the point was the most people only even know the crusiers.
2) It's a meme that British cruisers were garbage among those with only surface level knowledge. They are objectively the most fun tanks, though. Cromwell best tank.

>>54873993
>counterintuitive

How so? I've had no problems understanding it.

>>54875531
If I had a penny for every time someone at the demo weekend I ran asked me why tanks can't ram buildings, I'd have like five or six pence.

File: IMG_3351.jpg (34KB, 320x320px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 320x320px

>>54876026
Okay...

Other than idiot players who want to be the Kool-Aid Man, what's so counterintuitive about Version 4?

>>54873993
I've schooled two newbies through the end of V3 and now V4. We all find V4 much much faster and more coherent.
The new way of assigning hits alone makes V4 worth it.

>>54876298
Come on Anon, do we really want to go through the list of the old tired whines and memes.

>>54876314
I think it's been pretty easy to teach, except for when teaching players with V3 ingrained into their memory. Despite my other reservations with V4, the clean movement, shooting, and assault make it an enjoyable game to play. Artillery is still a little bit annoying, but even that is simplified.

File: IMG_8866.jpg (455KB, 2448x1869px) Image search: [Google]

455KB, 2448x1869px

This is BA-64.
Say something nice about her.

>>54876756
She's cute. And a little dirty...not that there's anything wrong with that...

>>54876756
She's not german.

>>54878241
neat 80s style flats

>>54872917
Because they want to cut down on their product range AND not let you use your old BF product NOR """""competitor""""" product in their OC Donut Steel WW2 Movie Game.

>>54879352
Yeah, this.

File: Drive me Closer.jpg (51KB, 650x366px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 650x366px

>>54872400
i like your energy.

Hey Virus, Eagles,
should i get off my ass and proceed with "My Little Idea?"

File: sempai notice me.jpg (140KB, 1360x446px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 1360x446px

ok, i will stop shit posting.

however:
i have a -serious- request:
i have a Poll: a long, arduous poll.
please, oh please contribute. please, don't click an answer unless it really does resonate with you. the point is not to click and opposite: some opposites were left out on purpose. i will notice a lack of replies as well.
and, it only deals with vehicles. sorry!

thank you

http://www.strawpoll.me/13709010

>>54881568
Forgive me, I'm having some serious memory loss here. Which idea are you talking about this time?

>>54882496
I shall take a look.

>>54884125
APOCALYPSE IS READY

File: aa0e5af4cfmarkhenry.jpg (31KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 600x600px

What do i need to start playing Team Yankee? The rulebook and one of the "starter" boxes, but there doesn't seem to be specific army books unless im looking in the wrong place

File: maxresdefault (2).jpg (548KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 1280x720px

>>54878241
me likey

>>54884910
United Kingdom: Iron Maiden
West Germans: Leopard
USSR: Red Thunder
East Germans: Volksarmee
USA: Stripes(not released yet)

>>54885244
>USA: Stripes(not released yet)

They do have an army list available in the Team Yankee hardcover rule book, as did the Soviets, but Red Thunder and Stripes are meant to expand upon those with a wider variety of units. Bringing the USA and USSR up to par with the British, W. Germans, and E. Germans.

File: IMG_3353.png (20KB, 200x168px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 200x168px

>>54884125
Looks good.

But that middle tank really should be in red, with black barrels.

>>54878241
Interesting. That will certainly make it feel more like the battles are taking place in cities than villages.

>>54876298
It's something everyone knows tanks can do. It's weird to new players and it was in last game.

The minutae of shooting and weirdly limited assaults are also a thing people pick up on. Blitz took explaining too, especially since most of its rules aren't in the book.

>>54882496
I like the bail system generally, but it needs renaming to "crew stunned" or something, since that gets the concept across better.

I think ammo of a sort is a good idea, but make it like steilgranate rather than battlegroups ammo tracking. Alternative fire modes, basically

>>54888997
>[driving through a house is] something everyone knows tanks can do.

In video games and movies maybe. I don't think I've ever seen photographs or video of tanks punching through buildings in actual combat situations.

>>54889130
Yeah, Crew Stunned would be a much better name than Bailed Out. The crew isn't literally jumping out of their tanks just because they took a hit.

>>54861097
Where in Poland? Can you give me the FB link? I live in Lublin. >>54861073

>>54891006
Kurwa...can't find link now, will have dig.

File: PLTeamYankee.jpg (131KB, 724x579px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 724x579px

>>54891006
The Facebook post was of the Wydarzenie Mega-Bitwa Team Yankee "Red Tide Rising" even (pic related). Hosted as the "Sklep Bolter" shop in Wroclaw, I guess you could find more details from them: link to FB are not getting through, so you'll have to search on FB for yourself.

File: IMG_8879.jpg (791KB, 2448x2024px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 2448x2024px

>122mm worth of bump

>tfw you get a kit and it's mostly accurate, but the carriage trails are bent wrong, the gunner's seat is too small, and the magazine is straight instead of the drum used in the operation your force is built around so you have to fix all of these yourself
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

File: 1493378787101.png (396KB, 800x1000px) Image search: [Google]

396KB, 800x1000px

>>54894327
It ain't easy being grog.

File: IMG_7123.png (228KB, 640x400px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 640x400px

>>54894327
I guess the struggle IS real

>>54889303
I've seen videos of panthers, tigers and T-34s crashing through buildings and houses. It's really not that hard to find. Just because you've not seen it doesn't mean it isn't a thing.

>>54894731
Crashing through a building with a tank is very risky. Damage to the tank or even crashing down into a cellar, a tanker will avoid this unless desperate. But it looks cool. Hence why there is footage of it, most likely staged.
Tank taran on the other hand...

>>54894999
>Crashing through a building with a tank is very risky.
There's a reason it was "skill check or bog" when 95% of terrain was "don't roll a 1", yeah.

>>54894999
Surprise, doing anything other than driving in wide open plains is pretty risky too. Oh wait, so are those plains if the enemy can see you. Boy howdee, tankies got it hard.

>>54772324
Seconded, i have the huge bag that contains two boxes that contain sixteen foam trays like these each so i can carry my soviets on the back of my bicycle.

Funny how in LW that's 6500-ish points, whilst EW not counting the T34s it's 2000-ish worth of raw men and horses too big to fit in a normal deployment zone.

>>54896611
CC is a hell of a drug