[Kar98k]

We recently tried a BA3E game with some simple home-brew house rules for allowing infantry and tanks to create smoke, and even though smoke was very useful, we both agreed that easy access to smoke would alter the play-ability and/or balance of certain scenarios.

[Kar98k]

Jim, I just checked my plastic Jagdtiger kit (Warlord/Italeri), and the hull machinegun is still on the sprue.

Now here is the question. Why did I pick up a Jagdtiger kit?

[Kar98k]

From the picture, it looks like it might have broken off. Maybe when it was pulled.

Anyway, I have experienced this, but not all that common. That is, certain plastic parts being broken or almost broken. Maybe from packaging or maybe when pulled from the machine. Either way, I’ve notice some bits are more prone to this than others.

It happens to all plastic model kits. For me rare, but it has happened.

I remember a time when one of my props (of a three-prop hub) for a 1:72 Spitfire was broken off. For some reason though, the broken off prop was still in the parts bag (boxed kit), but just not attached to the part like the other two props. I can even remember getting a plastic kit (1:144 Boeing B-17) and seeing a part (engine cowling) was missing (broken off) from the sprue. The parts bag was still unopened, but the part itself was not in the bag, so it must have been left behind at the factory. Regardless, Academy Models was nice enough to send me a new part.

• This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by Kar98k.

[Kar98k]

Not a typo, just a silly cut and paste mistake from page 76, SD.KFZ 251 STUKA ZU FUSS. They have not added it to the errata yet. Yes, it will confuse some players.

Overall, there are a few good things about the third edition, but the rules team 1) should had been less haphazard with their “Cut and Paste” from older documents, 2) should had carefully read the FAQ and Errata from second edition, and 3) should had double checked certain details.

As a whole, at least 60 percent (or more) of the issues could had been avoided if the team taken more care at what they were doing because writing rules is not an easy thing to do, and certainly something that should have had more focus.

[Kar98k]

Before the release of Third Edition, there was talk about having this +1 to stand alone AT-guns and not include those mounted on vehicles. I was one of those in favor of this as this made more sense, but there were good arguments for weapon platforms such as the Marder III, Nashorn and such. To keep things simple, “…including those mounted on vehicles.” was the result.

But how hard would it have been to simply add a bit more details like, “All anti-tank guns mounted on gun trail carriages from light to super-heavy, and including those mounted on dedicated tank destroyer vehicles such as the Marder III and M10.” Okay, that might confuse some people, so maybe just simply adding in the army lists “+1 AT bonus” to those weapon systems.

Off topic, I know.

[Kar98k]

Another idea is to use second edition building rules, or a combination of third and second edition. They were not all that careful when they went with third edition, and I think that’s why the building rules got the way they are.

Overall, there are a few good things about the third edition, but the rules team 1) should had carefully read the FAQ and Errata from second edition, 2) should had been less haphazard with their “Cut and Paste” from older documents, and 3) should had double checked certain details.

As a whole, at least 60 percent (or more) of the issues could had been avoided if the team taken more care at what they were doing because writing rules is not an easy thing to do, and certainly something that should have had more focus.

• This reply was modified 1 month ago by Kar98k.

[Kar98k]

I have played in a tournament where we had 2 order dice of another color added to the dice bag and when both dice were drawn the round ends no matter how many activations are left.

I agree, because “some setups or custom scenarios might not react well to any sort of random ending.” However, this is why I think the other idea works better – using only one die, but having a predetermined number of pulls.

Regardless, it is good for most games because “it takes care of that cheeky attempt to hold back a unit or playing that silly going ‘Down’ dice game.”

[Kar98k]

Don’t read to much into this. Keep it simple. Otherwise you will find another thousand little things that can mix.

1. Page 147 Dismounting from transports – not allowed to use this move to make an assault. Not even for Banzai, so page23 really means that a unit must, if possible, attempt to engage the closest visible enemy unit. Since it cannot, it does not.

2. You have to resolve each Banzai order in turn. Finishing each unit’s action before going on to the next. However, in any sequence you prefer.

[Kar98k]

Main question
When Massive Damage causes two results (in this case double Immobilised → Knocked Out), do the passengers dismount after the first Immobilised result, or only after all Massive Damage results are fully resolved?

For massive damage, we don’t see a lot of doubles of 1, 2, or 3, but I remember clearly a day when we rolled double 3. Since the rules say, “Roll both damage results and apply them in order of decreasing severity” and we both agreed that a double 3 is of equal severity, but should still be applied in order and not at the same time. That is to say, apply the first roll of 3 and resolve its result, then apply the second roll of 3. In our case, the crew failed the test for the first roll of 3, so end of story, but we both agree had the crew passed, then we would have just done it again with the second roll of 3.

So in a case of double 2, we would have preceded to do the same and apply the first roll of 2 and resolve its result, then apply the second roll of 2. That is to say, with the first roll of 2 the passengers immediately dismount because the vehicle is immobilised – see page 147, Effects of Damage on Passengers – then the second roll of 2 is applied, which turns the transport into an obstacle blocking a road or maybe provide hard cover. Note that “it is considered knocked out”, but not yet a burning piece of twisted metal. For campaign games, it is considered recoverable, but during the game it is tagged as a wreck (see page 141) and considered destroyed for victory points.

In your case, you can simply imagine the Firefly’s shot passing through a part of the half-track without doing much more than destroying its wheels and/or tracks.

[Kar98k]

I second what Stuart just said, but I really want to add that I strongly agree that smoke needs to be examined.

[Kar98k]

And the pictures from their site…

[Kar98k]

This also might help…

[Kar98k]

If you do a Google search for “MG34 medium machine gun” you will get lots and lots of hits, and if you select the images option, lots of pictures.

• This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by Kar98k.
• This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by Kar98k.

[Kar98k]

I don’t have any of the new plastic Japanese infantry (not yet), but I have seen the pictures that Warlord Games posted. At first glance, you can quickly see how much more “Heroic Scaling” (puffy-beefy) these newer figures are compared to the original set of plastic Japanese infantry. Which means the arms, bodies, and other bits are probably not going to be interchangeable.

[Kar98k]

Doesn’t Barrage Miniatures make some?

https://www.barrageminiatures.com/boats/211-flossacke-34-crew-pack-1-156-28mm.html?search_query=inflatable+boat&results=6

https://www.barrageminiatures.com/boats/31-second-world-war-german-flossacke-34-assault-pontoon-inflatable-boat-156-28mm.html?search_query=inflatable+boat&results=6

They also have these…

https://www.barrageminiatures.com/boats/67-second-world-war-german-leichtes-sturmboot-39-156-28mm.html

[Author]

Posts