Activity
-
Nat replied to the topic First Impressions in the forum Combined Arms 4 years ago
well… its official…. you only get 1 blue card …
so yeah if you want to play VaS or CS in your campaign your iniative card deck gets bigger :
& either VaS or CS was a later addition and someone forgot to alter the number of cards in the rulebook on the number of iniative cards you get …. -
Nat replied to the topic Line ahead, formations and orders – am I missing something? in the forum Victory At Sea 4 years ago
Its an optional rule for large games… I’ll just add that if you put them line astern unless both ships are destroyers you can be touching base and be over 4″ away!!! … so you’ll find a house rule is if ships are touching base then they are at point blank range / in proximity irrespective of actual measurement.
ps if you look in the ‘news…[Read more]
-
SteveT replied to the topic Indirect Fire – "Ranging In" in the forum Bolt Action 4 years ago
Right, pin markers have no effect on To Hit modifiers for indirect fire.
In the INDIRECT FIRE section of the rulebook.
“When firing HE shells using indirect fire, a 6 is required to hit, regardless of any modifier.” Then 5+, 4+ or until you get a hit and are then “ranged in”.
Other than that, as you said, they do affect order tests.
-
Nat replied to the topic First Impressions in the forum Combined Arms 4 years ago
When you flip the token over to be concealled you take the plastic model off… you auto generate a scout (blank) token so your army will be in one of two places at the end of the move.
Totally agree with the 80% written, I feel its missed the mark on the campagin side as if you have more than 2 players (so pretty much every gaming group /club!)…[Read more]
-
Nat replied to the topic First Impressions in the forum Combined Arms 4 years ago
So I have a question….how many of each type of iniative cards are you supposed to have?
-
Nat started the topic First Impressions in the forum Combined Arms 4 years ago
Ok, received it yesterday… but I was at the club so not had a look at the rulebook – thats tonights mission :p
But first impression is it looks good and robust, but limited to 2 players without some House Rules… will see if thats true or not!
-
Admin replied to the topic Combined Arms? in the forum General Discussion 4 years ago
Thankyou for your post.
A Combined Arms forum has now been created.
-
Nat started the topic Combined Arms? in the forum General Discussion 4 years ago
Is there any plans to have a Historical Sub-forum setup for Combined Arms?
As its being delivered to direct customers if not today then this week….
-
SteveT replied to the topic Struggling with play/stratagems in the forum Bolt Action 4 years ago
Exactly, Nat, exactly.
-
Nat replied to the topic Struggling with play/stratagems in the forum Bolt Action 4 years ago
@SteveT – I always have a bone of contention when people come in to a game specific group /page/ forum and then say play a different game instead…
I mean I’m here because I play/ want to play X game so lets talk about X instead of telling me the Y is better!
-
Nat replied to the topic Models to move to SkyTrex in the forum Cruel Seas 4 years ago
I have no idea….todays news letter says that skytrex has the official control of the ‘cruel seas’ brand….
Hmmm…..
-
SteveT replied to the topic Struggling with play/stratagems in the forum Bolt Action 4 years ago
(1) Play to the strengths of the army you are using. What are the Russians good at? How can you make the most of the edges only they get? As others have said the Russians have everything you need, from really heavy stuff to cheap convicts. You can expand them to give yourself more optionsI play Japanese a lot , for example, and don’t usually…[Read more]
-
SteveT replied to the topic Indirect Fire Arcs in the forum Bolt Action 4 years ago
Right.
-
SteveT replied to the topic Indirect Fire Arcs in the forum Bolt Action 4 years ago
Then if a howitzer is facing South and the spotter is somewhere North facing North, and he spots on behalf of that howitzer, the howitzer is then lobbing a shell to its own rear, which doesn’t make sense to me.
-
SteveT replied to the topic Indirect Fire Arcs in the forum Bolt Action 4 years ago
Thanks Stuart. So, I think the intended way to do indirect fire for a howitzer or Fixed Mortar is to rotate the base so the target is in its firing arc. i.e. issue an Advance order.
There is another curious little question that is then raised. If a spotter is doing the targeting, the spotter could be anywhere. Does the howitzer still rotate…[Read more]
-
SteveT replied to the topic Indirect Fire Arcs in the forum Bolt Action 4 years ago
It is a particularly strange thing when you have a howitzer who must use its forward arc for direct fire, but can fire behind itself if using indirect fire…
-
SteveT started the topic Indirect Fire Arcs in the forum Bolt Action 4 years ago
Must’ve played this game 100 times by now and it still throws up sudden questions.
We are assuming Indirect Fire weapons do not have firing arcs as such, after all their spotter could be anywhere. Perhaps they should be rotated to face the target anyway. A howitzer firing behind itself would otherwise be odd. But if they do have to rotate, c…[Read more]
-
Garry Wills replied to the topic Cavalry formations in the forum Black Powder 4 years ago
I don’t have Epic, I can only assume they are referring to deep formation from Clash of Eagles. A column formation other than march column is clearly a valid option. One of the things with Warlord stuff is they are not great at being consistent from one publication to another.
-
Garry Wills replied to the topic Cavalry formations in the forum Black Powder 4 years ago
Not under the standard rules but they are allowed ‘deep formation’ in the Clash of Eagles supplement (p.96), which gives them some benefits in movement and combat resolution but greater vulnerability to artillery and reduced combat dice.
-
Garry Wills replied to the topic Main BP2 rulebook v Epic Battle rulebook in the forum Black Powder 4 years ago
1. Well that is a bit unfair, the break tests are integral to the close combat results section.
2. No the victorious units excess casualties are removed after all the ‘necessary break tests’ have been done. This is a case of the rules not being explicit as the victorious units don’t need to take break tests. However it is implied by how the rules…[Read more]
- Load More
