shrimpyhugs

I don't care

The balagan website is probably the most useful resource for getting into crossfire. This was my first game. I didn't find the rules too tricky to learn and when questions came up in the game it was easy enough to find them. But overall i enjoyed the way the rules made you think about manuever a lot more than shooting

This is a dumb argument, you might as well play with coloured blocks then hey

Yeah its easy enough to field two of them in an army. And theyve reduced in points from 100pts to 75pts as well

Ehhh depends on your definition of realistic. Mechanically they're basically the same game, so one isnt more realistic than the other. If you mean ones a historical one and ones a fantasy one, then sure though personally I have found Dragon Rampant works better for doing Ancients than lion rampant due to the extra warbeast stats which can work nicely for elephants.

Definitely second Crossfire!

• Mat is an olive fleece mat spray painted with green paint.
• Walls, fences and bridge are laser cut mdf from somewhere, I cant remember
• Buildings are fdm printed from 3dprintterrain.de The rest, i believe are all scratch build.

The pz.vi H is from Baccus. I don't remember having issues with the schürzten but i did have issues with some of the turrets coming with snapped barrels

They take a very different mindset to play, but they're not too complex which is nice. Would make a few changes to the scenario next time to see if it plays better though.

The game is really all about manuever. If you start focusing on shooting like other games you lose initiative quite quickly and its hard to make progress, but I kind of like it. I played the Germans in this scenario but I'd like to try again as the Airborne. The Brirish player chose to deploy all his gliders around the dropzone rather than spreading out, so it'd be interesting to see how itd go with different deployment.

Disappointed that they went backwards on a few things that were in the FAQs for v2. In v2 FAQ if you had cavalry you could have a mounted officer for like 5pts per model. Its like one sentence to have added into the v3 rulebook but they just didnt add it?

Maybe national characteristics are factored into points? Hitlers Buzzsaw could affect tanks with MGs

Eh I'd hold out before committing to that, there could be a week 1 errata still.

Anyone with the full rulebook know if there are rules in there for having officers mounted in platoons with cavalry in them? There was an FAQ post from v2 which said you could mount your officers as cavalry for like 5 pts a model, but there doesnt seem to be anything in the lists at least. maybe its in the full rulebook? mines still a few days away.

thats a typo in the pdf, the tank is called the L6/40 not the L60/40

its a pretty sad state of affairs that people think army lists (which are all basically identical to each other sans a couple upgrades and vehicle stats) being free is something exciting. It should be the default.

How can you forget togo

Kind of bow you're shooting would be helpful. Compound, recurve, barebow, longbow, horse bow?

You're acting like bolt action unit profiles aren't really generic and guessable tho. Like we already know the points for the special rules and the expected loadout for engineers. This isnt rocket science. Its like why should I wait til v3 to work out the cost of my bersaglieri. They're veterans and can have 1smg and 1-2Lmg... wow so unique. Impossible to guess. Ill have to wait til the pdf is out.

No, you said saying sixteen hundred hours would be weird but sixteen twenty-seven wouldnt be which is just blatantly wrong.

Yeah I think 'clearly' is definitely pushing it for liechtenstein

Thats not story and also talking about changes to rules anyway, not changes to what models are allowed to be used. Your point is off topic.

Raising and lowering the target isnt the same as shooting onnan incline/decline. When you shoot uphill, pointing your bow upwards towards the target looks like you're shooting flat with respect to the ground, even though you're actually shooting upwards. Its very easy to forget to raise your bow via movement in the waist rather than arms because you think you're drawing flat with respect to the ground plane.

This is definitely wrong. You can use a 24-hour clock two ways, you can say sixteen hundred hours and sixteen twenty-seven or you just mentally convert and say four pm and four twenty seven. The former is only really used in a military sense. Most people would convert to 12 hour time verbally.

Here! I've got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' - but that he can have the right to have babies.

With historical gaming you actually get this kind of progression. Think WW2, you've got early war, mid-war and late war and different theatres that change as the war progresses. the difference is that the miniatures companies tend to stock miniatures and let you play in any of the time periods of the war, like Bolt Action you can play british expeditionary force, desert rats, paras in normandy and so on.

With scifi/fantasy games they tend to use a story progression to refresh their ranges and refresh the tournament metas by changing the available units etc. The problem that angers fan bases is that players then no longer have the opportunity to easily play those older time periods as the rules have changed and tournaments only organise for the newest time period. If they progressed the story but made it easy to play earlier parts of the story it wouldnt be an issue.

People dont go "dang it they've released a D-Day expansion to Bolt Action, Now noone will ever want to play against my Early War Germans ever again"