Stat the Mi-8: Both Transport and fire support versions.
Go
Easton Garcia
How will the Italian randomness rule (which will apparently appear in MW again) be implemented in V4 when there are like 7 different ratings to keep track of?
William Diaz
it's supposedly a dice off for 1 of 2 ratings....
Charles Hernandez
this happened in the old thread
Aiden Jones
oh nice, I must have missed it.
OP you should include a link to the old thread in your OP
Jose Baker
So when in Jan do you reckon we'll see the Vietnam stuff released?
Luke Garcia
Seems they got the fire support version, but they should do a much cheaper version without any weapons (perhaps some side mounted PKs, but not necessary).
The idea should be to provide a cheap transport heli for soviets. Its not there to kill anything, just get airborne assault infantry in place. They should be expendable and easy to purchase, in fact they should almost come free with airborne assault infantry...
Henry Martinez
A grand New Years to everyone, from the rockies!
Nathan Morales
Hey, same user from last thread that statted the Mi-8 attack variant, I'll re-post what I think and do the transport-only version as well.
I work from the Soviet Mi-24 as a reference so without looking at the books people can understand what would be different between the two.
Mi-8 (assault) -Same speed b/c chopper -Same training and to-hit values b/c soviet -Degraded aircraft save of 5+ (from 4+) since not as armoured. -Replace 12.7mm chingun with a nose-mounted 7.62mm PKT (like on all soviet vehicles) or 12.7mm KVT (like on all soviet tanks) although neither will retain the anti-helicopter or anti-aircraft rules. -Keep the 57mm rockets the same -Replace the AT-6 ATGMs with AT-2 ATGM (AT18?) or more 57m rockets -If given more 57mm rockets change the statline for the 57mm to count as two of the same weapon (allowing two one-shot attacks to be combined or fired in different turns) or remove the one-shot rule and have as one weapon (spam some rockets every turn it is still airbourne) -Transport 2 becomes Transport 4 -Price them the same or just less than Hinds (2x Mi-8 for 5-6 pt, 4x Mi-8 for 10-12 pt)
-Optionally replace all rockets with 80mm rockets which would be the same as the single one-shot 57mm but with FP 5+ instead of 6
Mi-8 (Transport) -same stats as hind in movement, training, and to-hit -degraded save of 5+ -remove all weapons, replace with 3x 7.62mm or 12.7mm MGs mounted on the nose, front-left, and back-right of the Mi-8. -Perhaps pay a point to replace all the 7.62mm with 12.7mm in the unit? -Cost as 2x Mi-8 for 2 pts, 4x Mi-8 for 5 pts
Brayden Scott
Some reasoning since I hit character-limit.
The Mi-8 was capable of 3 pylons per side of rockets and an over-the-pylon rail mounting for missiles, so both the AT-2 and extra rockets could be mounted at once, but I think game-wise I would rather give it the option and more interesting rockets. The nose-guns are completely man-operated (someone sits and swivels the thing around to shoot) and has a limited fire-arc, so no (easy) shooting other aircraft as you zip past one another. Lastly price is the same as Hind due to increased transport capability and rocket spam (also it is hard to figure point costs in TY).
For the transport-only version, from my understanding there are 4 MG mounts on the Mi-8, and I excluded the front-right for no particular reason besides keeping the things to include on the stats and modeled on the chopper lower. Idea though is that it would have 360 degree MG coverage with the door-gun rule (which I forget what it does exactly but it seems appropriate).
Another pure-assualt version of the Mi-8 (and Mi-24) could also be made, removing the transport ability and one-shot rules for weapons (the helos were designed so they could carry reloads of all their weapons instead of troops). Perhaps also upping the firepower (but not necessary) to include things like 30mm cannon of the Mi-24(P?), AGS-17 gunpods for Mi-8s, and 80mm rockets for everyone.
Grayson Walker
Looks good, someone submit this to BF or some forum somewhere so people can use them.
I Don't personally play TY, but I think every cold war Soviet force should have Mi-8s as an integral part of the airborne assault forces. We play a lot of Hind & Seek and using Mi-8s to drop infantry behind the enemy is great fun - provided they don't get shot down first...
Ryder Sullivan
Hind n' Seek..is that a separate game? 6mm bychance?
Mason Ward
Check the /hwg/ file dump in the modern games section, you can grab H&S there.
It is intended for 6mm, reinforced platoon ~ under-strength company scale, set in the Soviet-Afghan war with asymetric fighting between Mujahadin and Soviet+Government forces, it includes things like hidden deployment/ambushes, civilians, and other fun things in a guerilla war. It's focus is on campaign games where your actions in one battle (ie shelling the dushman hiding in a village) affecting you down the line (ie the civilians from that village giving more support to the insurgents).
Leo Nguyen
...
Christian Butler
One of two ratings? Well that's not as fun. Granted I think the old Scan to chart has like three options for regular guys so not a huge change.
I may have to print out some of those for my stuff.
Jeremiah Powell
I have to ask. Why are the sides camouflaged, but not the tops?
Jeremiah Cox
NATO assumed they'd have complete air superiority, thus no need to hide from aircraft.
Mason Evans
Funny if true.
Owen Nelson
Yeah a stand alone game for 6mm or any smaller scale, up to about 15mm. Lots of fun
Zachary Watson
Admittedly, given the performance records of nato aircraft vs warpac aircraft of the same vintage, not unfounded to assume there's going to be a lack of ground attack aircraft in the skies.
Carson Cox
Camo also does nothing against modern aircraft radars in air-ground mode.
Carson Carter
>Iraqi piloted and maintained export MiGs are representative of the Soviet Air Force.
Gabriel Bell
Iraqi, totally-not russian viet migs, iran vs iraq still going to nato jets...
Face it, wapac had the ground game but their air to air record is fucking abysmal.
Isaac Nguyen
I think Soviet numbers combined with tons of AA assets would leave both sides with few planes left after the first week. NATO, specifically the US assuming they'd be able to bomb where they wanted, when they wanted with impunity and building their plans around it is the height of folly.
Nathan Sanchez
Oh, yeah, building around being able to launch their own attacks with impunity is dumb as hell. Building around the enemy being unable to, quite reasonable.
Levi Moore
Anybody have a link of how capturing an objective is changed? I thought there was a thread on BF website but I can't find it anymore.
Lincoln Butler
...
Evan Nguyen
It's in here with the rest of the updated missions iirc.
William Morris
...
James Taylor
DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME
Elijah James
>repeating something 6 dozen times makes it true
Whatever you say sweetheart...
Brandon Ward
>DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME
Evan Myers
Twelve dozen? That's gross...
Caleb Brown
DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME DEAD GAME
Logan Bell
Considering the Iraqi air force was almost literally impotent, even if the Soviets were ten times as competent, it doesn't paint a good picture for them.
Joshua Murphy
Normal vanilla FoW is really dead in my area. MW sucks (2,5 Afrika only lists while people have ostfront armies). LW is unbalanced bullshit with tons of errata. EW only is live a bit because of ETC & balanced lists. So, no newfags in FoW at all, no tournaments and shit. Only TY is ok - setting and models are fresh, support from BF is good, bringing new players into,the community
Leo Reed
...
Benjamin Taylor
...
Henry Johnson
kek, good ol' Wargame
Matthew Garcia
TY isn’t really balanced either. Makes V4 look good in comparison. Milans are essentially unkillable deathcannons with no hard counters.
Camden Jackson
I play the RTS games Company of Heroes and Company of Heroes 2 with a few friends of mine and last time we played one of them mentioned playing Flames of War. I looked at the models and am interested. Where should I start? Thinking German cause that's the army I play in CoH and CoH2.
Angel Murphy
Note: I play Warhammer 40,000 and Battletech, so I'm not new to tabletop games or games of Flames of War's scale.
Buy dis. Man I like that the new Starter boxes don't suck and that I can just point to something.
You'll want the V4 Upgrade book at some point too, but that's in the scan data base and I think free too, that's if you want to play with forces other than those from Armies of Late War.
Samuel Young
How does the Stug III E or Stug III G fair in FoW? They're my go to tanks in CoH 2.
Chase Gomez
They've got one more armour than Panzer IVs at the loss of a machine gun die and a turret. FA: 7 means that you're saving against AT10 on a 4+ and Bailing on a 3+ which is better odds than FA:6.
This still doesn't protect you from getting slapped by big guns though that infest Late War like 17pdrs, 7.5cm Kwk40, 85mm soviet etc.
The nice thing about StuGs is that they fit into basically every late war book in a variety of training and options like tank riders etc.
Luke Mitchell
Sounds good. Now I just need to find out if there's a play group here in Pueblo, Colorado.
Charles Myers
DEAD GAME
Lincoln Cooper
StuGs are everywhere in late war, and give good service with their front armor 7 and AT 11 (for reference, a basic Sherman is front 6, AT 10). They're great at frontal fights against most medium armor. They do have issues against higher AT enemies (like all tanks) and flankers. Their side armor is only 3, nearly anything will penetrate. And if the enemy gets in your side you have to move to bring your gun on target. Very much "this end towards enemy"
if you could swap out the 2 Tigers for more PanzerIV's i'd say it'd be great. StuGs instead of PzIV's would be ideal, but hey....
the new starter boxes are better than the older recent ones, but some still lack.
*ahem* you childish Golliwog.
this game? it's having it's rough spot. it's not dead yet. some of us are at least trying....
If you really feel the need: let us like something you hate, in this tiny little thread. and you, please go back to playing Age of Sigmar or YuGiOh or Flame Princess or Tales of Equestria or whatever smeg your lame sub-millenial ass loves.
full stop.
Andrew Mitchell
thank you, btw!
Connor Young
So exactly as they are in Company of Heroes 2. There's a chance the tactics I use in CoH 2 MAY help me learn how to use StuGs in FoW.
Jack Nelson
doesn't hurt to read up on StuG action in some Osprey series as well, the combined insight will help a ton.
>i don't know which Osprey Books covered StuG force battles.
Kayden Powell
Front towards Enemy, use other assets to force them into your field of fire or to deny their advance on that Axis.
Dominic Russell
Start by getting Bolt Action instead. It's loads cheaper and way more fun. Also it doesn't shit out new editions every 3 years that completely nullify every previous $40-100 book you just collected.
Isaac Campbell
Oh fuck off you assmad little turd. You want Invalidation? Go play 40k or Warhammer fantasy, at least battlefront didn't kill all of the briefings at once.
Austin Lewis
M8 I'm still playing V3 over V4 and even I think you're just being a lying little shit. Fuck off.
Adrian Nguyen
Iraqi pilots actually had more combat experience than the US when the Gulf War started. The Iraqi's had been engaging in air combat with Iran for 8 years from 1980 - 1988 in the Iran-Iraq war.
Sure, their aircraft were export models, and they mostly got whipped by Iranian F-14s during the 80s, but those who survived were very experienced.
The main reason the U.S. and coalition forces completely annihilated the Iraqis aircraft and won air superiority in the first week was numbers and AWACS. They had aircraft from 8+ different countries, outnumbering the Iraqi air force by orders of magnitude. They hit the Iraqi early warning radars first, so the Iraqi's had no idea where to send aircraft or when attacks were coming. This kind of information is vital for fighting an air war.
Yes the F-15 and F-16 are better than the MiG-29 and MiG-23 respectively, especially fitted with export radars/avionics, but without AWACS and SEAD support the aircraft themselves can only do so much.
An F-15 could be shot down by a MiG-21 if the MiG-21 had AWACS or EW coverage and could get into a good position behind the F-15 (Without it noticing) and get close enough for a gun kill or ripple fire of IR missiles at short range.
The Iraqi's weren't that stupid, they kept their aircraft on the ground or flew them to Iran to avoid losses, knowing air superiority against such an overwhelming force was impossible. This didn't always work and many IQAF aircraft were destroyed in their bunkers or en-route to Iran.
Also it wasn't all about MiGs, the Mirage F-1 was one of the most advanced aircraft the IQAF operated, with a radar just as good as the MiG-29 and some very nice R.530 missiles which even Iranian F-14 pilots respected.
Jaxon Hernandez
As we all know Iraq lost purely due to American imgenuity and our superior technology.
Those other countries were just there for show.
'Murica, fuck yeah!
Jace Ross
>imgenuity How does this happen? Veeky Forums has a built-in spell check. You know that the red line under a word means its misspelled right?
David Jenkins
It happens because I suck.
Also I don't think the mobile site has that. I've never seen it.
Also amazed my phone didn't fix it. Stupid thing.
Robert Garcia
Nothing got fucking squatted.
Not a single thing.
Everything from V3 can be played in V4.
The only missing stuff is MW Eastern Front, and that hasn’t been updated since V2.
Brandon White
It’s still not as bad as the infamous “Fames of War”.
Nicholas Cruz
Just letting a new WW2 gamer know there are options out there that don't include having to shelve half your army because a new version came out as soon as the primer dried on the first starter set.
Chase Campbell
Continue to fuck off, and then preferably insert something cumbersome into your least wholesome Orifice.
Speaking as a man who's played since Second Edition, this is the best edition by far. All we need is breakthrough assaults back and the Assault Phase made more lethal and it'll be the best edition.
Ryder Fisher
>it's having it's rough spot. If a rough spot lasts this long, it's not a 'spot'. >it's not dead yet. >yet Your words, not mine. >some of us are at least trying.... That's my point - you're wasting time. There are plenty of WW2 games out there in 15mm and this skeleton crew, for reasons I can't understand, won't let go of this one particular ruleset. The rules aren't anything special, arguably worse with V4, and ever since TY the entire BF community has been flooded by armchair general dads and vets who sat at the Fulda Gap in a barracks their entire career - all of them arguing about unit performance in a conflict that never even fucking happened. It's a pile of shit and the odds of it getting better are statistically small enough that we'd all be better off if everyone just played a different WW2 game. It's the same scale, the same conflict. Your minis work fine. Your armies work fine. They're still your dudes and all the history is the same.
Luis Allen
Alright, assuming 15mm scale (so I can keep using my toys), what do you recommend that covers a similar (reinforced company) scale? I tried Battlegroup but found the activations by individual tank/infantry fireteam to be overly cumbersome.
I'm definitely open to trying new games, but haven't yet found one which, for me, comes close.
Not in any particular order. I like Battlegroup, I like Crossfire, I like BKC. I've heard good things about PBI, Ain't Been Shot, and Chain of Command but haven't played those. I did not like the Chain of Command games. There's probably more but this is just what I know of.
WW2 gaming isn't about Flames of War. It's about WW2. The set of rules you're using is just a framework.
There is also Ostfront, which would easily slot into a FoW payer's table, being able to use the same bases and aimed at the same kind of scale. As far as I know it covers all the FoW units and more. boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/207779/ostfront-combined-arms-ww2-game
Brody Walker
flames of war is dead in my town. V4 killed it. The friction of v4 caused thr community to split and it no longer had the mass to continue.
People have moved baxk to 40k and battletech. It looks like BFronts lucky run is over.
I am still angry at thdm because I do not think that v4 was necessary or a useful addition to gaming.
Daed Gaem.
John Reed
What is with anons coming into /fowg/ and trying to redirect anyone getting into FoW towards BA? Does the WH40K: WW2 community have a serious lack of players right now?
You can go make a BA thread if you want to talk about it. Then you can watch it go straight past page 10 with all of 3 replies.
If you are indeed trying to give a newcomer options, why did you only give them one and use 'ours is better' as a description?
>WW2 gaming isn't about Flames of War. It's about WW2. The set of rules you're using is just a framework.
This is very true, but the reason people getting into WW2 tabletop go to FoW is the same reason people who were getting into Sci-fi have always tended to end up with WH40K (or X-Wing/Armada for spaceships). They are popular games with players all over and your FLGS is more likely to have it in stock than any alternative. They are well established. This doesn't mean that they are the best games, just that they are the easiest to get into (in terms of getting the models, a group to help you start out and play, etc). Try finding a group that plays Team Yankee at a FLGS, compared to any other modern game. What game are you more likely to end up playing (aka get players for)?
Nothing is wrong with there being an 'entry-level' game for your era/genre. The fact people are not entering into your preferred game first does not mean they won't enter into it eventually. In particular, if Bolt Action is the better game it will eventually end up as the more popular 'entry' game. So please stop trying to sell BA to every newcomer who is looking for a game they can easily play. Conversion to alternative games is (and should be) done on a FLGS-by-FLGS basis where you try to convince the people you play with to invest hundreds of dollars into a game that no one else plays yet, by putting on a good demo of your preferred game to convince them.
Dominic Carter
FoW is still pretty liv here; we lost 1 of the local grogs with the V4 transitions, but that was the same guy who also whined through the V2-V3 change and from what I've heard also through several DBM changes.
On the other hand, we've got a bunch of new players as well, attracted by the smoother V4 rules.
Thomas Barnes
Blitzkrieg Commander is shit literally hit points and armor class in WWII
/done
Austin Thompson
I'm not sure you're thinking of the same game? youtube.com/watch?v=mpLM6WpYWUc BKC uses armor/cover saves/suppression/etc. in a similar manner to what you'd expect from a wargame.
Matthew Murphy
>shelve half your army
What are you no longer using?
Commanders and staff teams for gun platoons?
That’s really the only thing that is no longer used.
Everything else, every single other thing, is still valid and in the game.
So take your hurt feelings and go.
Christian Peterson
FOW actually died in my area from the Bulge books. People were unhappy and confused by the sheer amount of granular special rules shown in the Sherman for example, the lack of balance (most famously with Patton) and all around it was the opposite of what they wanted from a WW2 game. MW survived for a bit because it was both extremely broad and shallow, but when it was rebooted people lost interest because only 1 or 2 people owned even partial lists compatible with the two base books. Now they use a homebrew system they adapted from a random pdf they found online years ago.
Joseph Morris
>Now they use a homebrew system they adapted from a random pdf they found online years ago. Brilliant
Michael Cooper
Patton *was* broken. No arguments there.
But the Shermans were fine. There were a wide variety of them with significant differences from each other in terms of armor, armament, and mobility.
And the US was using all of them at the same time.
Gavin Diaz
Personally, I think they should have skipped the M4A3 (early) (well, made it equivalent to the M4A1), and remove Detroits Finest. Possibly nerf Smooth Ride as well (it was very good). Other than that, the mix in BG&G was pretty close to what I wanted (and fielded).
Hunter Wood
Diana, Panzerjager I, Wespe, Hummel, Bison, Grille, 8cm mortar halftrack, flammpanzer and 251 flamm, quad 2cm AA trucks, actual captured tanks, Panzer IV G+H, all StuGs. That's just going through the German armor that was in North Africa but is missing from Afrika Corps, not touching the gun teams, missing infantry types, or the other nations.
Andrew Murphy
Again, that was a V2 to V4 jump.
None of that stuff was ever in V3.
Ayden Cooper
You’re talking about stuff from TWO Editions back. Things that never had rules in 3rd Edition.
So of course if you are jumping ahead TWO editions between rules updates for that theater you’re going to get a few things that don’t make the transition.
Personally I’d say be glad that something that was ignored for years, with no official rules for 3rd Edition, is finally getting rules. Finally the focus of the company for the first time since what, the early 2000s?
So what said is technically correct.
Nothing from V3 is missing from V4.
Just a few things from V2.
Luke Wilson
Something that was supported by V3 is now gone, but that's not on V4's head because of pedantry.
Also, by the logic that they didn't have V3 rules, then all of EW and most of LW has no V4 rules.
Thomas Nguyen
>Something that was supported by V3 is now gone
Except it wasn’t supported by V3. There was no official update for Mid-War to V3 for the Desert or the Eastern Front.
For the V3 to V4 switch over, Battlefront actually took the time to make an official guide for converting the massive backlog of V3 content to the V4 rules.
So yes, there is official stuff for V3 to V4.
Something that V2 to V3 never had.
Anthony Sullivan
Because unlike V4 there wasn't a massive change in rules that required that. The biggest difference was where slow tank and stuff were listed, and that never impeded understanding of the rules. V2-V3 was a polishing of the game system rather than a revamp. V2 stuff was supported by the core ruleset. Hell, there's even V3 errata for those V2 books, so acting like they were completely unsupported so you can boast V4 squatted nothing is dishonest as hell.
Hudson Bennett
How am I being dishonest?
Everything that was specifically created for Version 3 has made the transition to Version 4.
Mid-War was created for Version 2. It never got an update for Version 3. And it was completely re-done for Version 4.
So Version 4 has a completely new Mid-War, and has a way for all of the Version 3 Early and Late War content to be updated to Version 4.
Nothing that was a part of V3 has been dropped from the game for V4.
Call me dishonest if you want, but everything I’ve said has been factual.
Nolan Walker
The first limiting it to V3 happened in Which also says >The only missing stuff is MW Eastern Front, and that hasn’t been updated since V2. The other comment, Says >Everything else, every single other thing, is still valid and in the game. Both of these statements are factually untrue. The V3 books only goalpost moving started with the responses to And then the pedantic word definition game comes out so you can avoid being wrong.
You're as much a liar as the everything squatted guy. Fuck off.
Jack Parker
How is it pedantic?
Everything that was specifically created for Version 3 is still in Version 4.
The things that is complaining about were all from Version 2.
So be as salty as you want about things from *two* editions back not being brought forward when they redid MidWar.
But everything from Version 3 is in Version 4.
Hunter Young
You have moved the goalposts from the original statements that list was a reply to, and are considering stuff that was supported by and played in V3 as being V2 only by your absurdly specific definitions so that you can keep you claim everything in V3 is now in V4.
I reiterate: fuck off
Thomas Cooper
MidWar was not supported by Version 3. Stop deluding yourself. The books for both North Africa and the Eastern Front were completely unavailable and out of print for the entirety of Version 3.
So no. MidWar wasn’t supported at all during Version 3.
I reiterate: Go be salty about missing V2 content in V4 somewhere else.
Julian Ward
So judging from Fighting First how many list options should we expect for Italians in Avanti?
Also, do the unit card packs add cards for all the stuff not getting fancy new boxes?
From what I've heard, the Italians age getting 3 formations: Regular infantry Bersaglieri elite (and stylin) infantry Armoured company that can mix tanks and Semovente assautl guns
Decent spread of support options too, including heavy AT, AA and air.
Not sure about the card packs.
Lucas Powell
Anything that is in the book be getting repackaged with the new V4 boxes and unit cards.
As for list options... I’d imagine it would be a relatively standard spread of 3 or 4 core lists. Although I don’t know enough about the Italian military during WWII to guess what those lists might be.
Maybe: - Infantry Company - M14/41 Company - Smovente Company - ???
Joshua Moore
I’d imagine they’d have a tankette company option as well.
Asher Wilson
That sounds fairly reasonable. Just as long as my 75's are usable still. I do like my arty. Although if I can grab the new starter for a top of price I'll also have me a battery of 100/17's which'll be nice.
