Thread 96350169

>Previous thread:
>>96295345

>What is /awg/?
A thread to talk about minis and games which fall between the cracks, or peoples' homebrew wargames.
The >>>/tg/hwg thread doesn't entertain fantasy (for good reason) and the other threads are locked to more specific games.
This thread isn't tied to a game, a publisher, or a genre, let's just talk about fun wargames. Any scale, any company, any miniatures.

>Examples of games that qualify.
A Song of Ice and Fire, Argatoria, Batman Miniature Game, Carnevale, Conquest: The Last Argument of Kings,
Deadzone, Dropfleet and Dropzone Commander, Freebooter's Fate, Frostgrave, Gaslands, Judge Dredd, HeroClix,
Kings of War, Maelstrom's Edge, Malifaux, Marvel Crisis Protocol, Masters of the Universe: Battleground, Moonstone,
Oathmark, OnePageRules, RelicBlade, Rumbleslam, Stargrave, Sludge, Urban War, Void, Warcaster, Warmachine, Xenotactics...
...and anything else that doesn't necessarily have a dedicated thread.

>Examples of companies providing rules and/or miniatures for alternative wargames.
Archon Studio, Atomic Mass Games, Black Site Studios, CMON, Mantic, North Star Military Figures,
OnePageRules, Osprey, Para Bellum, Seb Games, Spellcrow, TTCombat, Victrix, Wargames Atlantic, Warlord Games...
...and many other publishers.

>Places to get minis; Updates to the minis list are welcome.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D2DbNJ2mYAUxh5P9Pq9NZqS5tXHGn0i2JhZchEwbA2I/edit
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/373197.page

>Novice Troves, meant to serve as a sampler of available systems. Check out the Share Thread for up-to-date troves.
https://pastebin.com/MjtsC8AX
https://mega.nz/#F!zSYW0I4a!vXh8-UPi_tWXpJES_-p4zg

>TQ
What do you consider when creating /yourguys/? How do you setting on theme, colour, emblems, etc.

Warcrow undead faction when?

>>96348314
Oathmark is playable with a single box of infantry, which is roughly 500pts. It's the recommended size for learning the game. I've seen games go to 4000pts with no issue. It is a mass battle system but it's designed more on the early dark ages rather than the later middle ages, and unit formations weren't a drilled corp of guys but small warbands of dudes following their chief or a hero/champion. It is a mass battle system but representing a less refined warfare that you'd expect from, say, the migration period. So you can go from a hand full of guys (30ish minimum usually, the single box of infantry I mentioned earlier), or more along the lines of what we'd consider an actual army even if it doesn't function like what we'd expect of an actual army.

have any of you guys messed around with perry miniatures? I was thinking about kit bashing some, possibly with frostgrave miniatures.

>>96350229
They're slightly less kitbash friendly than other minis, due having heads sculpted onto the bodies and them being closer to true scale than heroic scale. But if you plan to cut their heads off and kitbash that and their arms with parts from other kits, it shouldn't be a major issue. You will probably need some greenstuff to blend the bits together on occasion.

I recently pulled out my old mage knights, and played a game. Atlantis v Draconium, 400 point armies. I forgot how much I appreciate the simple fun of it, compared to other table top wargames.

I'm also considering some new house rules to make things a bit smoother and more interesting. I'm also toying with the idea of printing out dial reference sheets(basically a codex) for every army. Just because so many of these 1st gen clix sculpts are so damn poorly designed for the clix gimmick. But that feels like way too much effort for a dead game no one cares about. I'm just going to have fun with these guys

Is asymmetric warfare under the scope of this thread? It's not historical (as it's modern) and it's not mainstream

>>96350169 (OP)
>What do you consider when creating /yourguys/? How do you setting on theme, colour, emblems, etc.
Usually whatever comes to mind at any given time. Whether from Manga, TV, or AI story bullshit I'm doing.

>>96350402
sounds like alternative wargaming to me

>>96350402
Technically the base game is historical (moderns and ultramoderns count). They've put out a bunch of /awg/ stuff like the zombie and Predator supplements for SPECTRE 2, however, which are still compatible with AssWar. You can do silly shit with the vehicle construction rules to make mecha and powered armor, which is also possible in Fist Full of ToWs. The /awg/ content for SPECTRE should still be up in newvola check the share thread documents if that means nothing to you
Practically-speaking? We overlap a lot with historicals, and they with us. Ultramoderns are always just as much speculation and light sci-fi as they are hard facts. Same goes for most moderns until there's an actual war to start testing all the theorycrafting people have been doing the 20 years before it. Hell, don't tell the button-counters this, but most Ancients and naval wargames are also based a shitload of guesswork with a smattering of pure fantasy, a little post-dated fiction, and/or a stupid gimmick one asshole tried once the author made into a core game mechanic.
Ahistorical things like 5-minutes-in-the-future games and the more sedate alt-history (think Very British Civil War, aeronef, or AK-47 Republic) are also very popular with the historical crowd.

TL:DR yeah, it's cool.

>>96350169 (OP)
>What do you consider when creating /yourguys/? How do you setting on theme, colour, emblems, etc.

It all happens as I go along in practise but I keep a hobby diary with notes and sketches and printed out research. If I die you guys need to butn this scrapbook.

>>96350636
>but most Ancients and naval wargames are also based a shitload of guesswork

We do have a lot of primary sources if people can be bothered to read them, it's interpreting them and implementing them in games that is hard. A good game isn't always a good simulation, and vice versa but a good historical game should be winnable with *some* use of the tactics of the time.

I can't think of a game that does that "Roman legions changing lines" thing at all let alone well. That might be a Holy Grail for one of you guys to solve...

>>96350217
Things I want from Oathmark II:
>need a good giant or dragon killing unit...they should still be powerful but the only current thing to do is take a giant or a dragon or pin said monster with a large unit
>the formation rules like skirmish, shieldwall and phalanx need to be integrated into the main game, similarly all troop types
>it would be great if each army had another couple of unique units, and maybe even restrict those to an army composed of more than 50% of that army type... there needs to be some asymmetry
>while I wouldn't change the low fantasy setting, I'm for more creatures in general and if they incorporated something outside that low tech Dark Ages feel like say gunpowder weapons or plate I'd like it to be reflected in the rules rather than adjust the math of everything relstive to it, ie give gunpowder weapons the same strength and effect as bows broadly but force a morale test because of the noise and smoke, restrict their shooting to alternate turns
>more characters akin to rpg classes

My 2c. Boats and sieges should at lesst be backwards compatible with 1, if they put it all into one big book I'm very happy.

>>96350217
yeah I get that it's meant to be more like dark ages with simple warfare, but that's precisely why I'm not sure the mechanics fit for mass battles in that style. The alternating activations to me make it a way more fluid style of warfare with lots of minute manoevring possible across a battle line.

Here is a diagram of the sort of situation I fear would come up constantly in this game if played as two dark age battle lines meeting:
>it's the red side's activation.
>unit B has a commander present, and so activates units A and C alongside him.
>Unit A charges into unit 1, unit B into 2, unit C into 3
>each fight their battles individually, with unit A losing and being pushed back, units B and C winning and pushing back their respective opponents
>it's now the blue side's activation
>unit 4 wheels then charges into the flank on unit C
>unit 4 wins and pushes unit C back, which causes unit B to make way

The example scenario ends with both sides in a rather complex muddle - no doubt unit D is going to flank charge unit 4 in turn and drive it back, but at that point you're left with a situation that is deteriorating into nothing more than individual units scrapping it out. Since units suffer in combat if they have already activated, I don't see why the red side if given the opportunity in the next turn wouldn't just charge wildly at whomever each individual unit can reach, since trying to redress the ranks would provide no benefit at that stage.

Hence, I'm sceptical that Oathmark would be best played in these types of mass battle scenarios. However, I may be missing something.

>>96350938
>The example scenario ends with both sides in a rather complex muddle
>but at that point you're left with a situation that is deteriorating into nothing more than individual units scrapping it out
Yeah. Battles can be messy?

Mass combat doesn't mean everyone is iron discipline and follows clearly organized rules of war to the letter. Formations shift and budge, they can breakdown into unorganized melees even with the most discipline army. Mass combat means massive amounts of combat. I don't see how this isn't the case with your example?

>no doubt unit D is going to flank charge unit 4 in turn
Well that depends on whether it passes it's activation roll, something you've ignored the entire hypothetical/are presuming everyone passes. Another thing you've forgotten is the presence of flanking units, there to literally stop this kind of thing happening without heavy cost, or terrain too.

>>96350938
>>96351054
Also, another thing I forgot to mention, you don't have to push back enemy units 6". You can push them back 1" if you want. Something you can do to avoid turning the main line of combat into a pile of spaghetti.

>>96351054
I don't dispute that battles should get messy, and again I haven't played it yet so in practice the game could work differently to my expectations from reading the rules. I think the thing that I have the single biggest problem with for a mass battle system is the combination of alternating activations with the ease of flanking attacks. It seems so easy to start in front of a unit, wheel into their flank, and charge them in one activation before a reserve unit can intervene.

Anyway, I don't know how I would adjust the rules. Maybe I would scrap wheeling entirely and only have pivots, and change facings so the front of a unit extends in a straight line across its front rank, rather than a 45 degree angle. That way you couldn't pivot and charge the flank from the front, the centre of the charging unit would have to be behind the front line of the receiving unit. That way, it would take time to move up, pivot, and then wait for the next turn to exploit - if the other player has a unit kept in reserve, this can respond before the flanking attack. But then idk, that would cause issues in other ways where it would seem unfair to deny a unit a flank charge just because they're marginally in front of another unit but nonetheless would naturally seem to end up in the flank.

Anyway, there are certainly elements of the rules I think are really neat. I like the sleakness of the d10 system with a modified target number, rather than buckets of dice with more buckets of dice and re-rolls for special rules.

I like to fiddle with rules, so once I've played a few times following the rules I'll try changing things if I'm still not happy about the ease of flanking. I also want to try out some other little tweaks, such as allowing units with the phalanx special rule to have a maximum of 5 ranks instead of 4, and allowing javelin storm to be defensive as well as offensive. It'd be cool if the game had an easily discernable points formula for tweaking things.

>>96350636
>The /awg/ content for SPECTRE should still be up in newvola
I checked that just yesterday, actually, and couldn't find anything. The Asymmetric Warfare can be found online with a simple duck duck go search, however

>>96350938
>>96351054
>>96351351
>>96351351
I said it last thread: Please. Read the goddamned rules.
Specifically, page 58 (commanders) and page 167, "Special abilities"
Command (X)
> A unit containing a figure with the special ability Command allows its player to roll 3 dice for activation rolls and morale tests – for that unit and for any unit within 6” of that unit.
> Additionally, if the unit containing the figure with Command activates, the player can attempt to activate X additional units at the same time.
(procedures are on page 58, the units activate sequentially in whatever order the Attacker wants, which means he can open up a charge lane for his commander's unit among other things)

You can absolutely launch a coordinated attack, and even if one of the units fails its activation check it can still maneuver into a blocking position. The main downside being, units that have already activated that turn have penalties if they're counter-attacked, so pushing too much of your force at once effectively leaves most of your troops fatigued. Of course, fighting back in close combat also counts as an activation; an early coordinated advance can pin large sections of the enemy force if they don't want to bulge or expose their own flanks, but the interpenetration can be worth it.
It means armies with large, cheap units benefit from strong commanders getting more controlled activations at the beginning of the turn. Groups of highly-disciplined, good-quality troops with more distributed command can quickly and reliably exploit gaps and bulges in the enemy line, as long as they aren't pinned. Undisiplined hordes with poor leaders are less likely to coordinate at all but will almost always have fresh troops somewhere near the larger fights to get stuck in once the enemy's blown their wad. Provided you can whip them into attacking, anyway. Losing a King or Prince is extremely bad for your army, of course.

>>96351486
"Spectre 2-0 website materials", it's a zip file.

>>96350169 (OP)
Ok, it's a shot in the dark but you guys are basically my only hope:
Years ago, I've seen a collection of miniatures which looked like kids dressed in insect-themed armours or onesies, kinda like the Lost Boys in Disney's Peter Pan, but insects instead of animals.
Pic related is just a way to give the general vibe, not the exact record of one of them.
For the life of me, I can't find them anymore.
Anyone has any idea what these were?

>>96351535
yeah I know about command, but you're typically only getting to activate two additional units, and some point of the line is going to become exposed to easy flanking attacks. My issue I suppose is that it's arbitrary and a result of it being a game rather than reflecting anything realistic - rather than a whole battle line moving up all together, there has to be a cut off to activation where a gap is artificially created by the rules. Anyway, like I said, I'll play a few games and see if it causes issues for me.

>>96351351
>>96350938
>That way you couldn't pivot and charge the flank from the front, the centre of the charging unit would have to be behind the front line of the receiving unit.
This is an actual rule - see https://www.ospreypublishing.com/media/epkpvpl3/oathmark-errata-faq.pdf
>If the attacking unit is charging, and would impact (or overlap) a corner, check which facing of the target unit the officer of the charging unit is in before the charge. This is the side where the charge lands. Then centre the officer of the charging unit in the centre of that side. Basically, this means that to hit a unit in the flank or rear, the officer must be in the unit’s flank or rear before the charge.

Surma for Oathmark

Funny, I was reading the rulebook the other day and wondered what model you could use for a six legged lizard

>>96350402
Modern history is history.
But I don't think people here will freak out.
Someone posted their Russian and Ukrainian dudes here.

>>96351575
Have you looked other mass battle games?
What are you generally looking for?

>>96351872
Essentially any Basilisk mini you could track down for D&D.
Or something from John Carter. Lotsa hexapods on Barsoom.

>>96351574
Took me a second to remember, but those are from Zenith.
https://shop.zenitminiatures.es/en/33-orphans

>>96350402
Asymmetric Warfare is my primary game. Spectre Operations v2 supplements are all compatible with AW because it's essentially the same game, AW is just the more updated version

>>96352610
>https://shop.zenitminiatures.es/en/33-orphans
HOLY SHIT THAT'S IT, THAT'S RIGHT! These are the guys!
Thank you so much Anon!

>>96350705
Things I want with Oathmark 2:
>just play a better game

>>96354082
This. Niggas on /tg/ spend so much time trying to turn shit to gold instead of just trying something else

Aw man, looks like the stargrave girls don't take some parts from the frostgrave girls too well unlike vice-versa. And I also missed several spots to clean.

>>96354082
What's a better game that hits more or less the same itch as Oathmark? I've never played Oathmark in my life, by the way, but was considering it for its low fantasy feel

>>96354082
>just play a better game
>doesn't recommend the better game
Tell us you're a nogames without telling us you're a nogames.

>>96354733
>nogames
I appreciate the compliment

>>96354683
There's other low fantasy mass battle/skirmish games but no other game intergrates kingdom RP with the battles. Oathmark is far from a perfect game but I enjoy it.
>>96354082
>>96354208
Keep the shitposting to minimum you spergs.

>>96350229
These are perry bodies with bolt action and oathmark bits, you should be ok. I also but a colossal wrath of kings dumper on a perry knight but that was too much carving.

>>96354082
>>96354208
What's the golden standard for fantasy rank and flank, then?
asking this because I'm interested
particularly, I would be interested in one which could be used to play in the Hyborian age

>>96354683
>the same itch
It depends, what exactly is the itch that you think Oathmark scratches?

>low fantasy
What makes a System low fantasy?
Isn't that almost entirely based on what models and painting style you use?

It's not like rolling fewer dice equals lower fantasy.

are there any generic/toolboxy sci-fi rules for fighting battles, as opposed to small skirmishes? I like using Northstar's Frostgrave/Oathmark sets for fantasy battles, and would like to pick up their sci-fi stargrave stuff, but I have nothing to play them with since I don't play skirmish games.

>>96355234
Special rules, amgic and such, can very well represent how "low fantasy" the setting of the game is.
If you get wizards shitting out a dozen spells every turn, its hardly low fantasy

>>96355234
magic = power of words and inimitable craftsmanship

>>96354811
Another fine Forge of Ice enjoyer, I see

>>96354683
The unique things Oathmark's doing are
>Iron Age/first War of the Ring Middle Earth setting
>Low-overhead gameplay
>Uses abstractions and simple gameplay to free up headspace and keep more complex elements like reinforcements and command friction in the game
>Adding a meta-resource system (kingdom-building) that also helps ground your army
>Simple campaign system that doesn't require a game-master to work
Nothing else does quite the same things, especially any kind of campaign system more involved than "uh, do a map or ladder campaign I guess?".
By contrast what >>96350705 wants is a high medieval knockoff of Warhammer. Not that I don't agree about arty and dragons needing a points bump or a tone-down in low-points games. Many of the basic scenarios are also biased towards the defenders, which can lead to long stalemates in a campaign unless someone gets lucky or stupid. Accurate but maybe not the best-feeling thing in the world.
Meanwhile, all that >>96354082 wants is an argument that slides the thread.

>>96354917
There really isn't one.
KoW is optimized for speed and tournament play. The maneuver shenanigans are arguably weirder and worse than even the edge cases in Oathmark
T9A is for the handful of battered-wife Warhammer refugees that missed the 8th edition tournament scene for some godforsaken reason
Saga and Horde of the Things are both gimmicky and simplify things even more than Oathmark. They're fun and work, but don't stroke the maneuver 'tism and they're shit for campaigns.
Warmaster is just Warmaster, and it's okay.
Backporting new and more universal fantasy rules onto Warhammer Historicals is fucking retarded, not that it stops someone from trying it periodically anyway. Same goes for DBA in general, really.
After that, what's left?

>>96354917
Billhooks: Fantasia. It's the definition of low fantasy. It's infantry focused and spells take several turns to cast, none are game breaking.
>inb4 that one Oathmark sperg has another meltdown

>>96355379
>KoW is optimized for speed and tournament play. The maneuver shenanigans are arguably weirder and worse than even the edge cases in Oathmark
>This is what oathmonkeys actually believe.

>>96355445
The funniest part is how he dismissed Oathmarks retarded and illogical movement as "edge cases"

>>96354683
Midgard with Oathmark miniatures

The barons war fantasy: the wizard war.

>>96355424
>>inb4 that one Oathmark sperg has another meltdown
Implying you are not actually trying to bait him into replying to you.

>>96355473
This is /awg/. Playing games is an edge case.
>>96355522
This. I think to this day I didn't know anything about billhooks except:
"It's fun"

>>96355566
>>>96355566
>I think to this day I didn't know anything about billhooks except:"It's fun"
To be honest, is there any thing you actually need to know? That's the only important quality in a tabletop wargame

>>96355599
>what are the mechanics
>what are the dimensions of play
>what is the logistic necessary to engage in said game(figure size and number, terrain density, and permutations therein in engagements)
>does it exist to sell supplements like Black Powder

>>96355627
>spoon-feed me because I'm too lazy to read a rulebook

>>96355627
It's a £5 rule book and the only supplement is the £5 fantasy supplement, id hardly compare that to Black Powder, also you could just Google it if you actually cared

>>96355615
Why are you obsessed with these lads?

>>96355677
>card-driven
Oh boy. Guess it's back to digging random oop rulebooks online.

>>96355637
>Read this book you may or may not be interested in
Why?

>>96355876
Perhaps this hobby isn't for you mate

>>96355876
Reading is fundamental.

>>96355822
The deck is just a device to randomly assign activation order, exact same purpose as order dice in bolt action. You don't have to use cards if that rustled your jimmies, you can use chite, dice, cards, whatever lmfao

>>96350339
you never got the lever which keys into the L and allows you to click the old style bases without grabbing the mini?

>>96355424
deluxe and matchlocks imo are far better foundations than fantasia for a fantasy game. playing fantasia after those felt like a waste of time and money

>>96354208
imo its that they have tried a bunch of systems, and it's the one which resonated most deeply which entices tinkering

>>96356105
for all the shit ygo players get, joining a facebook wargaming group and seeing the questions made me realize how many people in general don't read

>>96356511
If you ever want free nightmare fuel, look up the stats on declining literacy rates, the nosediving rate at which parents are reading to their kids, etc. Yeah, this is just /tg/, but the wider issue of people who either can't read or who refuse to is completely out of control.

>>96356388
nope. Didn't even realize something like that already existed, but I was considering designing and 3d printing something to do just that, lol. But even with something like that the really old bases can often just not work very well any more

>>96356406
Lmao... Fantasia is just a supplement that plays on top of Deluxe, you can't play Fantasia without it

>>96355297
I don't get it, what are you asking? Larger scale sci-fi games? Xenos Rampant maybe?

>>96356724
>the really old bases can often just not work very well any more
ive really only had 1.0 bases consistently sticking with unlimited, but generally issues seem to come from either the width of the internal base being too wide or click bumps on the external/bottom base being too large. both can be fixed by filing them down. what was going wrong with yours?
>>96356741
ah, willful misunderstanding

>>96356058
>>96356105
Ain't nobody got time for that.
I'm not going to burn hobby time reading a system that I have no reason to think I'll enjoy.

>>96356258
>randomly assign activation order,
Sounds like a game that's not for me.

>>96357030
As long as you read at least one book this week, I guess that's all I can ask for.

>>96357040
Congrats

>>96355795
He's a deeply closeted gay man lashing out because others have the happiness and freedom that he so desperately wants.

>>96356870
not sure. I'll need to sit down and go through them all. Some of them might just need to be sanded down like you said. I know I have others where the dial stickers are the problem. either misaligned, come loose and rattling around, or just smudged and illegible. I know that's all fixable, But I just figured it would be easier to print out the dial stats, and use damage counters. The modern clix games all use stat cards anyway. No reason why it wouldn't work with MKs

>>96354082
>>96354208
>still crying this much that people don't agree with you over Oathmark
Here, you GooGoo GaaGaa's dropped this.

>>96351872
>>96352561
You could use a Reaper Mini's basilisk. It's got more legs but that's just extra value.

>>96357030
really? i still skim rules with no intention of playing to harvest modules and just keeping abreast the design space.
>>96357538
clixro?. everything i have from sinister and before still looks fine, but that set was also when weisman went on record saying he couldn't believe people would pay so much for toys. minions onward definitely suffered
there was a custom dial template on the old realmworx resource thread, but it probably is far less labor to just print cards. might even be able to extract dial data from the old army builder for a quick nandeck build

>>96356258
It's less the random activation, more necessary bespoke proprietary things. Kinda how a lot of Lardy games do need their decks of cards to work, or how Legions has stupid dice and sticks.

>>96356058
>>96356105
The issue isn't "Reading bad", but "Why read that specifically?" There are plenty of shitty free games I could waste my time reading, and no hints as to why that one might be any different.

>>96358483
In the time it took you to repeatedly post this shit you could have skimread the rules
I don't care if you don't read these rules in particular but don't waste all this time and don't beg to be spoonfed you lazy entitled zoomer shitsack

Tempted to pick up Gripping Beast Goth cavalry to make a Rohan cavalry force that blends in with the Oathmark range. I think the proportions, particularly the faces, would fit in with the Oathmark sculpts.

Does anyone here already own some GB plastics and Oathmark kits who could say if they mix well in terms of scale?

Also, any other recommendations from GB or other historical companies for kits that blend in well with the Oathmark range?

>there's been female clone/stormtrooper look alikes in plastic
>for several years

>>96358581
Asking someone to actually discuss a game they like is hardly asking to be spoonfed. Why even bring it up if there's nothing to say?

>>96358876
ive seen people recommend frostgrave, gripping beast, fireworks games, and wargames atlantic minis from their own first hand experience in a single post, so that may indicate compatability

>>96352849
>Capture d'écran
North or South? I'm in the South-West myself.

>>96352617
off topic, but from what's in frame that wooden desk looks beautiful

>>96359220
This. We're in a thread to talk about alternative war games

Refusing to discuss a game you claim to like is clearly trolling.

>>96355424
Yawn. He's been nice to (you) countless times and obviously plays over systems. Meanwhile you're always an obsessed absolute cunt and only post about a game you clearly rarely play, or about it's supplement you actually never played and everyone dismiss as a low effort money grab.

>>96355379
There's also Fanstasy Rules! by Chipco and Fantastic Battles by Irregular War.

>>96352849
Wow these are some really cool, soulful minis.
I can't imagine ever using them, but they're fun.

>>96350705
>Things I want from Oathmark II

I want Northstar to make a second round of kits for greater variety. Give me generic dark age fantasy humans in chainmail, for one.

>>96359591
Don't ask them to start a second round of kits when they won't even have finished the current round of kits by the time Oathmark II even comes out.

>>96359591
Yeah. The game isn't for me, but the kits are nice.

>>96359624
this
and also this >>96359616

Australian anon from a thread or two back, thanks for the tips mate

>>96359591

Isn't that niche already pretty flooded? Victrix alone has Saxons, late Romans, vikings and rus in both armoured and unarmoured versions. Carolingians are also on their way. Granted, victrix has been criticised for their models having poses that make them rank up poorly.

>>96359801
Nope.

>>96358483
>There are plenty of shitty free games I could waste my time reading
He says, wasting his time posting here.

>>96359832

So what exactly is missing from that range?

>>96359837
its just disposition. when i ask for recommendations of x genre, mechanic, or theme, i just go read the material if i can find it or watch a review as a last resort, and see any overviews accompanying the suggestions by anons as a bonus. guy clearly wants more and is going to keep posting as long as people reply

>>96359801
I wouldn't consider Victrix and Oathmark kits to be compatible

>>96355637
Why is the thought discussing a game anathema to you?

I'm going to try out both Fantastic Battles and Midgard for 28mm low-ish fantasy mass battles, intending to settle on a ruleset first so I can better plan my project out. Are there any other fantasy rules of note using multibases rather than individual casualty removal that I should look into as well? Possibly Sword and Spear?

>>96359591
Anon, no. Listen: tribals 2.

>>96352617
Ukraine war anon is also Perry nigger??

How long is mantic’s kings of war edition cycle generally?

>>96360721
Does it surprise you? He will shill his Spectre ruleset for a while, and then find the next "big thing" that everyone on /tg/ should know about.

>>96360765
It's varied. They haven't announced a new Clash of Kings update book for this year, so it's likely that there will be a new edition at the end of this year or the beginning of next.

>>96360265
I don't know if Dragon Rampant 2.0 is out yet or not even officialy announced, but if it exist then there's definitely a multibasing option for it.

>>96361004
No Ophidia no buy.

>5 leagues
>find battered warhammer and war spear
>enough cash to repair one of these and give someone armor and shield but not both
Indecisiveness will be my undoing.

I never truly appreciated how good /awg/ was until I poked my head back into /40kg/. Holy fuck, I missed you lads here.

>>96360773
Spectre Operations is actually a great game though

>>96361965
Might be. Sadly it looks super generic and boring to me.

>>96361978
The latest edition is certainly generic. The new author tried to attract the 40k audience, they should have stuck with the hyper realistic simulationist vibe from the previous editions.

>>96361753
Go back

>>96361048

October 2025 is the release date.

>>96362045
Nah. I've been here since the general was first formed and have no reason to leave. I just want to enjoy wargaming of all sorts.

>>96362109
40k isn't a wargame

>>96362259
Warhammer as a whole might be just a social experiment at this point.
Let's see how femmarines still don't harm GW as people still give them their money anyways.

>>96362259
I play plenty of other games, even if modern 40k is more akin to a deckbuilder instead of a proper wargame. I was just morbidly curious to see what changed since I quit in 2018 and did not realize just how bad things truly were.

>>96362259
Kek this. Does pic related look like it's simulating war on the tabletop? I didn't think so.

>>96362369
I don't get it, KoW is literally designed for tournaments and the tables look like this.

>>96362405
People who play Warhammer competitively are souless and LGS owners know this. They put the bare minimum effort into anything because those souless husks will show up and play no matter how bad the tables look.

>>96362405
Did I make a bad decision in deciding to get into KoW?

>>96362445
Not really, it just means the rules are lean and concise.

>>96362405
Why would anyone ever form a battle line with a hill directly in front of their army like that ?

>>96362534
To take the hill?

>>96362546
Read a book

>>96362534
>>96362546
Is there any games that have scurrers or scouts that can affect the battlefield before deployment?
Sounds like a cool idea that I've never seen used

>>96362405
This. It's the same with Infinity. The tables are always super detailed and nice even at the serious tournaments where people try to qualify for the big tournament in Spain. 40K has degenerated to Warmachine levels sadly.

>>96362634
Ironic given Warmachine, with Mk4, been focusing on having dense and unique looking terrain while also having an example of what terrain should look like with very much heavy emphasis on lots of terrain (and being 3D). They even hire a guy to print a completely new field for every major event. Like a full Cryx tables, full Ios tables, the Bliterghast table, the Cephalyx table, and the Cygnar train-minetown table.
Too bad the dragon model never got publicaly released for printing.

>>96362405
>>96362634
The problem really is Warhammer and the type of people it attracts. It really is a shame because they are the face of the hobby and make the rest of us look bad. Most wargamers are normal dudes (pic related) but Warhammer faggots make us all look like fat pigs and autistic unwashed incels

>>96362735
They should throw it up on the digital subscription. Would be a big draw, like how the full Cadre was.

The Cankerworm grew up.

>>96362583
Are you implying that deploying troops before a hill has never happened before?

>>96362405
honestly though that table is typical Warhammer cancer, just of the older variety.

make a game about movement rather than a representation of a believable pitched battle and you get units trying to manoevre around all this crap on the table instead of fighting a pitched battle on an open plain like 90% of historical battles. One side maybe elevated on a hill, perhaps some woods to one flank, but that's it.

>>96363069
>pitched battle on an open plain like 90% of historical battles
Kek historylet detected... 99% of battlefield strategy and tactics throughout history has been working the terrain to put yourself in an advantageous position and your enemy in a disadvantageous position, and then baiting them into attacking first

>>96363098
ah yes truly we should be praising the general who manipulated his opponent into deploying before a mutually disruptive battlefield of randomly scattered terrain. Truly, on a par with Hannibal's ambush of the Romans at Lake Trasimene, or the feigned flight of the Normans at Hastings to bait the English off their hill.

>>96363193
Interested strawman. What is your point, exactly?

>>96362426
slophammer has gone full comptard you’re not even allowed to have tables that look different from the slop layout

>>96362745
one day I wanna get a table like that

>>96362745
>but Warhammer faggots make us all look like fat pigs and autistic unwashed incels
Literally me.
>t. Trying to leave the warhammer woods

>>96363233
thats a fuckin awesome table m8

>>96362852
Ah shit that's cool.

Has anyone ever done a LOGH wargame

>>96363816
if you're fine with a bg, maybe retheme gmt's plantagenet. if you want minis maybe epic armageddon. the former actually has some nonmilitary dimensions which would better reflect the setting

>>96362405
I don't understand just leaving them grey. I totally get that some people can't get into painting, but we always enforced "board game piece that you painted standard."

This usually just meant that our erstwhile non painter would rattlecan his models a sensible colour, put a wash on them and paint the base.

Eventually we convinced him to block in the weapons on the front rank and the face, hands and shield of his leaders which felt like a coup and we all sat there and helped him, he sprayed the lot with gloss varnish which probably would look a bit dated now.

>just colour prime, wash and varnish the damn things
>if you paint weapons and bases, it instantly becomes more immersive

Even painters can use that standard as a "save point." Do that to say 10% of your pile of grey and see how you feel. They are gaming pieces and you can come back to them. Space Marines sprayed silver with a blue wash and a painted base and satin coat looks great m8

>>96363069
It's not supposed to be realistic, it's supposed to be fun. Terrain is fun. It's one thing to prefer games with less terrain, but this is like claiming fighting on final destination is better because it's more realistic, like MMA.

>>96364124
It's so sad and pathetic that "tabletop standard" is a thing, like you literally have to force Warhammer players to have minimum standards

>>96364239
Well, I would just play a strategy board game rather than leave them grey.

>>96363233
Teddy Bear fur terrain is definitely on my to do list

Finished my GY for an upcoming Frostgrave game.

>>96364663
Your graveyard is so good I'd finger an overweight Goth chick in it while drunk on $3 passionfruit flavoured champagne and playing the Cure on my boombox. Well done

>>96364670
Your words paint a beautiful picture.

>>96364654
I love this stuff

>>96364867
Me too. It smells tasty.

>>96364670
You're not that guy, pal

>>96364988
How do you know I'm not a 28mm tall mall goth playa? You don't know me at all, fucker

>>96364412
How do you even do that? Buy teddy bear fur, shave down a path or two, apply acrylic and comb it?

Are Warmachine Mk. 4's rules only available via this app or is there a PDF somewhere I'm missing?

>>96359432
I'm Parisian

>>96359587
>I can't imagine ever using them, but they're fun.
I think I'm tempted to build a whole "War in Wonderland" game around them.
Damn, comes to think of it: Pirates, vs Indians, vs Feys, vs Lost Boys sounds fun as hell

>>96360565
>tribals 2.
This guy knows what's up.
TRIBAL 2 WHEN, NORTHSTAR

>>96363069
>could you imagine a pitched battle like that? With both, hills, a river AND A FULL FARM ESTATE? Ridiculous

>>96365449
yeah, no one is representing Austerlitz with ancient/medieval/fantasy rules, buddy.

Cite me an ancient or medieval battle where two armies mutually lined up for battle across highly broken ground as opposed to electing to fight on an open plain. Fighting up/down an open hill, or fighting at a river crossing do not count as highly broken ground. I'm talking about fighting on your typical Warhammertard table where armies are clashing around a fucking wizard's tower and shit.

>>96365341
Sorry mate. At least you have a guaranteed wargaming scene.

Oh fuck these are sick

>>96365531
The entire Jugurtine war.

>>96365554
You're either disingenuous or fucking retarded. The Jugurthine War was an example of largely irregular warfare where the Numidians mostly attempted to defeat Romans in ambushes and skirmishes. The few actual PITCHED BATTLES, which is what we're talking about here, where, as I said, two armies mutually line up for battle, were rare, but took place on open ground. Even something like the second battle of Cirta was initially an attempt to fall upon the Romans unawares. Numidians did not intend to fight pitched battles. So, if you want to wargame battles like that, then do so by all means. Have an irregular force attack an unsuspecting regular force in rough, broken ground so as to catch them when they're most vulnerable. But don't try and claim that two armies would ever LINE UP for a PITCHED BATTLE with highly broken ground between them which would hinder their ability to form up.

The only examples you find of regular armies organised in any way whatsoever to fight in broken terrain are the Republican Romans during their manipular era, and Sengoku Japanese whose infantry who fought in looser formation than their European equivalents. Why? Because Romans had to fight a lot of IRREGULAR hill tribes in Italy. Nevertheless, they would never choose to fight in broken ground, it was a protective measure against being caught out. Likewise, Japan has very few open plains, with a lot of broken hill country. Once again, however, they would nevertheless find the most open terrain they could to fight.

But the important thing is that we're not talking about irregular warfare, we're talking about two regular, close order armies mutually lining up to fight. No one ever chose to do that over broken ground, because it throws your army into chaos.

>>96365663
>No one ever chose to do that over broken ground, because it throws your army into chaos.
Romans did. How they beat the Macedonians.

>>96365553
Nah, there's a lot of painting and lighting efforts to hide some shields thickness. I'll be ashame to release this lit as is, honestly.

>>96365995
You mean the Roman manipular legions defeated the Macedonians at Pydna specifically. The armies did not array in rough ground - the Romans were beaten back by the Macedonians so badly that they ended up being pushed back into the hills, at which point the maniples gained the advantage. Neither side intended to initially fight on rough ground, and had the Romans deployed up in the broken terrain, the Macedonians would not have given battle. In other battles, such as with Pyrrhus in Italy or the Seleucids, the Romans fought the phalanx on open terrain.

>>96366150
Yes, the French were fools to underestimate how muddy and impassible the field was that day. That is not to say that they consciously chose to fight in broken ground, they thought that it would not break up/slow their close order cavalry, at least not enough to be beaten by an inferior enemy. A flat muddy field is also a far cry away from a tabletop filled with random buildings that you have to wheel around.

>>96366285
Your a fucking retard. Agincourt is hilly, it's not flat. The battle was also flanked by two villages. You keep moving goalposts because you are wrong.

>>96366321
they didn't fucking fight in the villages, did they? My whole fucking point this whole time is incredibly simple, and yet you're too retarded to grasp it: TWO armies in formed, close order would not MUTUALLY decide to array and fight a pitched battle with all kinds of crap like buildings, rocky outcrops etc. blocking their battle lines. I have already stated earlier that fighting up and down a hill does NOT in itself represent broken ground. Nor does fighting across a ford. What NEVER happened is the kind of crap you see on a Warhammer/Kings of War slop table where a wizard's tower, a cemetary, and a fucking ring of sacred stones are intermittently placed across the entire length of the battlefield, requiring armies to break apart and wheel themselves around these obstacles. These only exist in those games because they're games about autistically manoevring blocks better than your opponent so you can get the magical game winning charge off before your opponent can. It bears no resemblence to ancient or medieval warfare.

>>96366344
You've moved the goal post from
>no battle has ever happened with terrain in the way
To
>show me an ancient "pitched" battle that two sides mutually chose with broken ground.
You did this because you are a worm with very little intellectual honesty.

>>96365174
"Sorry, no game tonight, my table is at the stylist."

>>96366344
Additionally agincourt blows you out of the water because the hills and trees completely impede the French and they still chose to fight it there.
Also here's a battle with a large building in it to further blow your asshole up.

>>96366365
>no battle has ever happened with terrain in the way

Never said that. No doubt you're thriving in a successful career with that level of reading comprehension.

>>96366398
>here's an early modern battle to disprove your statements about ancient and medieval warfare.

If you knew anything you'd know that warfare completely changes with the introduction of massed gunpowder weaponry. Moreover, once again your'e so retarded that you cannot fathom the difference between randomly scattered impeding/disrupting terrain and deliberate use of buildings and embankments to create a defensible position.

>>96366433
>never said that
>make a game about movement rather than a representation of a believable pitched battle and you get units trying to manoevre around all this crap on the table instead of fighting a pitched battle on an open plain like 90% of historical battles. One side maybe elevated on a hill, perhaps some woods to one flank, but that's it.
Yeah huh. You then later goalpost move to ancient battles because and added special caveats like "mutually chosen ground" to shore up your bad argument. Again agincourt blows your booty up because the French chose to fight in the bad terrain. It fits all your special caveats.
>umm early modern
Blah blah blah I dont care about your goalpost moving faggot.

>>96364663
>>96364670
>>96364752
She's waiting, Anon...

>>96366463
Your claim is that I've said "no battle has ever happened with terrain in the way". Then you quote me as saying "One side maybe elevated on a hill, perhaps some woods to one flank, but that's it". So which is it? Some terrain, as in some woods, a hill, or is it no terrain? I can tell you're a bit slow, but some terrain does not equal zero terrain.

My entire point, as clearly stated from the very beginning, is not that any terrain is a problem, but the complete saturation of terrain that you see on Warhammer/Kings of War tables, as seen here >>96362405

I'm still waiting for you to provide an example of an ancient or medieval battlefield (so analogous to the type of warfare Warhammer or Kings of War is at least superficially emulating) that looks remotely like the above quoted picture - the above quoted picture which is the quintessential Warhammer table, not some outlier. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not trying to say Agincourt looks anything like that table? Let's say, incredibly, that you find some outlier example, some freak battle, that actually looks like that mess of a battlefield - would you claim that that table represents the overwhelming majority of ancient and medieval battlefields?

>>96366568
>>pitched battle on an open plain like 90% of historical battles
Yawn. This is what you claimed originally.
Show me where 90% of historical battles happened in a flat plains. Prove your point.
I'm not going to chase your goalposts.

>>96366599
You want me to cite thousands of battles? Go search for any fucking battle from 3000BC - 1500 AD. The vast majority took place on open ground. Just to take a slice, though, let's use Hannibal's battles as an example.

Battle of the Trebia - flat, open ground, with a river crossing
Battle of Lake Trasimene - a massive ambush, so not what we're discussing.
Battle of Canae - flat open plain, with a river on one flank
Battle of Zama - flat open plain

>>96366658
No no no anon. Don't use your 2nd goal post use your first please. Also don't use your caveat of "mutually chosen ground".
Thx.

>>96366726
Don't get flustered. Now, as I've said, my argument is that the typical Warhammer table does not reflect typical ancient or medieval battles. I've invited you to provide an example of a battle which does look like this >>96362405

Will you please either provide an example which disproves my argument, or concede that you are wrong.

>>96366742
Agincourt already does. Hills, trees, and mud impeding the battle. Mutually chosen ground to boot.
Now please stick to your original goalpost which is
>pitched battle on an open plain like 90% of historical battles

>>96366760
Wow so you actually think Agincourt looks like that table. Incredible. So, Agincourt was a battle of equally sized forces taking place in utterly broken rough ground, with neither side deployed to take advantage of it in a defensive position, but rather simply deciding to charge ahead into an equally strong foe? My god

>>96366778
>can't prove his original point and falls into absurdity as he grasps for an angle to latch onto.
Thanks for playing tard.

>>96366778
>>96366760
Could you two fuck off to /hwg/ if you want to discuss history?

>>96354917
>>96354917
>>96354917
If you're ok with shipping from Poland, there's Argatoria. I wouldn't say it's the golden standard of rank n' flank but it does have your Hyborian age theming

>>96366778
Not the anon you're arguing with, but the English intentionally staged at Agincourt because they were flanked by two forested hills where they placed companies ofr archers with stakes, completely preventing their infantry from being flanked by the heavy French cavalry. The French were at a massive positional disadvantage and only charged due to French hubris. The English didn't WANT to fight and had been avoiding the French army for weeks until they found a massively superior position

>>96365553
>>96365561
I was not planning on buying anything after maybe a Mantic Mega Dwarf army but damn those are cool.

>>96367737
These aren't 28mm so they wouldn't go along with that anyway

can the /hwg/ autists fuck off back to their containment thread?

>>96368515
Historical games are by definition alternative wargames, and /hwg/ and /awg/ have a massive crossover between posters. If your sci-fi or fantasy game isn't grounded in history, it's a dogshit game

>>96368540
Cope and seethe, boomer.

Historicals will be dead and buried in 20 years when the last of you finally die.

>>96368540
Just because there is a crossover in posters, there should not be a crossover in topics. Historical topics belong to /hwg/, simple as that.
Or would it be okay for me to go over there and start arguing about some topics about fallout or gaslands?

>>96368540
>massive crossover
which is why you dorks got a whole containment general to be boring in.

>>96368563
>>96368567
>>96368568
Why do you bother playing WARgames if you're afraid of talking about battle tactics lmfao, just go play board games or Warhammer 40k if you're scared of wargaming

>>96368501
I know, I just like the little lads.

>>96368643
Move back to your WARgaming thread then and let people in here discuss games.

My friends build gunpla.
I'm amazed at how they come together with some kits if not all of them not requiring glue.

Are there some /awg/ miniature companies where the assembly quality is as intuitive as gunpla?
I know Warhammer's miniatures aren't near as good as gunpla when it comes to assembly.

>>96368664
Cope and seethe, manchild. The adults are talking

>>96368643
>just go play board games

I do that. I actually play games unlike you.

>>96368540
/awg/ is explicitly for games that "fall through the cracks", ie don't have other threads. That necessarily excludes historical games which have their own thread.

>>96368686
Go talk in your adult thread then you retard. This one here is for all sorts of childish games too.

>>96368685
No. No wargaming company even attempts it because it's a completely different hobby for a completely different audience. We like simple miniatures, some even like them to single piece metal.

>>96368813
That's all understandable. I was just very impressed by gunpla's assembly, but given some thoughts it might be decades before we get something like that for miniatures because the mechas are action figure sized, and not miniatures.
>some even like them to single piece metal
The memory of that never crossed my mind when I was making that post, my bad.

>>96368783
"and anything else," meaning including everything else, not exclusively everything else. Work on your reading comprehension, ESL anon

>>96368685
>assembly quality
? Most minatures are a single piece.

>>96368563
Lmao there's people younger than me playing pillage and I'm 30.

>>96368864
I don't think it will ever become a thing. Action figures, no matter the size, do not really add anything to a tabletop game. The way a gunpla robot can be posed is impressive but it's simply not desired on a gaming table. Even bandai with their Gundam Assemble wargame use static models for it.

>>96368868
So discussing Warhammer in here is ok with you then?

>>96368869
I've been working with Oathmark skeletons for too long to remember that then.
>>96368895
>Even bandai with their Gundam Assemble wargame use static models for it.
I guess the tech isn't there yet then. Would be cool if it was.

>>96368931
You could check archon studios newer kits. Like some of their big monsters, or their pirate ship. Far away from what Bandai does, and obviously static models, but it's probably the best /awg/ plastics you can find. I have high hopes for anything big they will release for their coming StarCraft game, like a siege tank, carrier or ultralisk. Those will be pure joy to assemble, even if they don't end up becoming action figures.

>>96368643
Keep typing, nogames.

Plastic

>>96368868
aight, fuck it, this is now the new WH40K general, since anything goes.

How do we feel about this king?

>>96368905
apparently.
You see that new Cathay storm dragon model?

>>96369195
I hate it. The sky is falling. I invested big bucks in the hobby(TM) but now all I'm left with is a bunch of plastic that won't pay for my house. I'll keep buying.

What are you autists seething about again?

>>96369240
I know that's right. Reverse mortgaged my shit to buy more plastic crack

>>96368905
>>96369184
"Alternative" specifically means "alternative to Warhammer" you imbecile

>>96368931
>2 arms
>1 head
>1 shield or quiver
Really its not that much that it needs gunpla assembly autism.

>>96369252
where does it say that in the OP?

>>96369169
>nogames
Considering tabletop games are generally associated with fat hogs and autistic incels, calling someone a nogames isn't the insult you think it is pal. I appreciate the compliment

>>96369262
It's implied, but you have to have an IQ above 100 to fully get abstract concepts like implication, sp I can understand how you missed it

>>96369278
so, the OP doesn't actually say it anywhere at all? kekw

>>96368864
>it might be decades before we get something like that for miniatures
there are 1/400 gundam models which require assembly. at that scale they are basically miniatures

>>96369298
If you didn't eat breakfast this morning, how would you feel?

>>96367475
visual design wise this shit looks A+

Is LOTR alt enough?

>>96369306
I would feel like telling slack jawed historical players to go back to their containment bread

What do we think this might be?
Pretty crazy looking, right?

>>96369306
fasting can be helpful. its relaxing to occasionally go 24hrs without eating

>>96369195
>>96369315
>>96369342
Absolutely seething

>>96369348
as if a historical playing fat fuck would know anything about putting down a fork.

>>96369315
middle earth strategy battle? pretty sure thats in the gw specialist games thread

>>96369357
Really?
Is there a thread for historical games too?

>>96369177
ive actually been selling and trading off most of my plastic minis. the weight and durability of metal has become increasingly seductive. wish I could take a casting course in spain.
what do you like about plastic?

can you fags stop spreging out

>>96369393
yessir

>>96369393
He's having an absolute meltdown, I love it

>>96369482
I know that's right

>>96368931
Gundam Artefact is like 2 inches tall. The tech is there. Just different approaches to a model kit vs a gaming piece. Joints get really fragile at scale.

>>96368931
There are some snap-fit models, but it limits poses and complexity. I have this model from a warpaints starter set since I'm slowly amassing hags, and she's a single piece while the cauldron is three (two halves and a topper) and it all just snaps together with tightly fitting pegs.

Can a tech litterate anon teach me how to filter Dementianon? The last spergout was awfully dull, long and dense.

>>96369387
Metal is supreme. Plastic is for the masses

>>96369387
I too prefer metal for most models, but large top heavy models on flight sticks like space ships are an expection.

>>96369387
>>96370294
Skeletons work better in plastic.

>>96370294
These are kino

>>96368685
Obsidian Protocol I guess, but the models aren't as high quality as Bandai's going off of reviews.

Plastic is for zoomers, pewter for boomers. Love me some metal. Fuck the babbies.

>>96369567
>>96368931
>like 2 inches tall
that's also about the same size as Diaclone power suits, which are generally very high quality for a toy. Price is probably even worse than warhammer tho, from scalpers. But there are some cheaper knock offs, and other brands doing miniature giant robots in that size. So there are definitely options if you wanted to home brew something

I was not expecting 5 leagues to be as enjoyable as its been. It really is like my own shitty fantasy anime.

Thoughts on Song of Fire and Ice Miniatures Game? Not sure about the game but I like the look of the figures.

>>96371422
Monopose/preassembled minis ruin it for me.

>>96371422
The minis are shit and the game is "competitive" shit designed to appeal to 40kiddies

>>96370411
And big monsters. And tanks. And artillery.

>>96350169 (OP)
You guys like Heroclix? I used to play that when I was a kid

>>96371422
One of my favorite games, and pretty easy to get people into it since it's set up like a board game.

Long while ago I talked of using oathmark skeletons on 20mm square bases.
I was luckily lied to when they would seem only usable on multi basing.
If you trim their puddle bases they will fit on the 20mm square bases just fine. Even the mantic ones with the lower circle side facing up as those bases have a little bevel.

>>96371451
>>96371506
Boo hoo

>>96371808
I asked a question and appreciate the responses. Why are you bitching at them about an opinion that was asked for?

>>96371816
He's trying to bait ans argument to derail the thread.

anyone know of something like 5 Parsecs (or Leagues) but in a 'modern', ie early 1900s to near future setting/tech level? ideally with fictional nations. I'd really prefer something more tailor-made rather than hacking it myself.

>>96371019
>>96370108
>>96369567
Be careful what the fuck you wish for.

>>96371422
Has some bad minis, and others are extremely cool and good looking. All are monopose sadly.
With CMON struggling, it's not clear how long the game has left. If you like some minis from it, better buy them now than finding out in a year that everything is oop. Gameplay is fun, generally speaking.

>>96371952
I had almost forgotten about that shit show, thank you. And the VF sprues are worse than the Battroids. Still hilarious about Kevin Siembieda flushing 1.4 million dollars of Robotech down the toilet. Puts Battletech porch scandals to shame.

How long after the double set comes out are we likely to see the new Warmachine stuff available separately. A don't play the game but I love skeletons.

>>96372468
Its going to be a good few months. I think the other kits took 5~ months before they started selling them separate.

>>96372512
Damn, thanks for the info. Though I checked the prices for the previous ones and I'd only be saving $25 or so. Might just bite the bullet and up with some spare elves.

>>96350229
This tv series made me want to paint some Perry Minis Franco Prussian war Bavarians in my own ImagiNation livery for a Pulp Game. Pink and black for licorice maybe...just a sprue...

https://youtu.be/qrt0_uGD-QY?feature=shared

Excited I finally found my warhams rulebook in a box (though I don't play it cus fuck GW and doing what everyone else does) so I can casually read it while also rereading old warzone rulebooks so I can finally try first edition ruleset, which I never tried cus it were messy compared to second. Looking forward to overequipped heroes in small unit battles.

>>96372468
Tbh if you told me these were AoS Nagash stuff I would 100% believe you.

>>96372468
Comes out in November.

I need a plastic kit that has A LOT of cloaks to put on other minis

Rattle me bones!

>>96374098
>plastic
Why?

>>96374098
Fireforge Templars/Teutonic Knights.
But you are probably better off by either getting some cloaks printed, or by sculpting them yourself with greenstuff to make sure they fit to the minis you have

>>96374098
Victrix has a fantasy knight conversion set that has horned helmets and cloaks in it.

>>96374717

New victrix KINO was just released for preorder.

>>96375374

Excellent selection of polearms too!

>>96375386
These bit frames are great. Like with the Spanish soldiers and chivalry range out of WGA, so much potential.

>>96375374
I might by this just to get the sword arms for Perry infantry.

>>96374138
Those are yours? How did you do the spears swords and shields? The bones? And what's your basing recipe? I love them.

>>96371117
been hearing about 5 xy often, I might give them a try one of these days

>>96375374
>>96375519
>Victrix
>Perry
You can't buy either in the US right now kek

>>96375787

Not a burger, not my circus OR monkeys.

>>96376001
What a polish thing to say.

>>96369533
Nice, but how do they control the dinos?

>>96369177

Not a fan of the retconning the old ships out of existence, especailly since, as always, the older stuff looked better. Although I do like the Old Battleships in terms of looks. Statwise they're basically just Resistance Battlecruisers with worse Kinetics, which is bad because of how they absolutely ramped up the Scourge last week in the update.
Statwise, it all looks fine. The new ships are just Grand Battleships with bigassed Vent Cannons. The Musashi and the Lexington are probably a smidge overcosted, but the Iowa and Vanguard are probably about where they should be. They do want to be in a position where they can overcharge weapons free their vent cannons into things as always.

What is an objectively FUN game to play with my teenage sons?

Pic unrelated

>>96376869
I'm not even sure the old models are retconned out of existence, they're more like new ships fresh from the lineup (or cobbled together in the case of Resistance). Scourge one even mentions they're newly built battleships when the old ships were ancient in fluff.

>>96376895
Gaslands.

>>96350339
I love mage knight. I regret selling my old metal storm golem.

>>96376901
I meant to preface my post that I'm not interested in gaslands, but I forgot to write it.

>>96376896

I didn't mean in general, I meant specific to the new Resistance stuff they put out today. All mention of the Amazon in it's replacement is non-existent and they're claiming this design was the first to have a gun of it's type. For example. I would have preferred them to just pretend that this is what the Mymidon et all always looked like it's Gundam Wing EW.

I expect they're still going to sell the old kits at Cons as usual. But it's kind of silly, since Resistance don't really have any way of just... coming up with new designs. The Old Battleship concept works because they REALLY are shitty Battleships. It wouldn't be surprising that only the Resistance would want to use them. Honestly, what they should have done is claimed they were Resistance made kitbashes from the Old Battleship designs and acknowledged the pre-existing designs rather than what they did. Like, the current new Grand Battleship lineup are things some crazed engineer with two Musashi's and in need of a Triton managed to do. It would have worked better.
I mean, hell of a lot better with the Amazon, since that was really just the mad fever dream of an insane Corporate Trillionaire Owner for Space-Boeing. So, somebody going "Yeah! Let's try to make more of those!" and just slapping a pair of stripped out Old Battleship engine cores to power the thing would make a hell of a lot more sense than the fluff they went with.

>>96376853
The dinos feed the little niggers to each other's mouths like little kisses

>>96362534
Read a book. Defending the reverse of a slope was a popular tactic - it stopped the enemy seeing your troop deployment and strength as well as protecting your troops from direct cannon fire. Wellington did it at Waterloo.

>>96377066
Wellington was famously useless at Waterloo, which is why is was the Prussians under Blücher than tipped the scale against the French at Waterloo.

>>96376923
Bangarang in the Gutterlands

>>96350229
I have both frostgrave and perry minis. Frostgrave are a good deal more cartoony and perry a good deal more realistic proportioned. But they look decently close when on mass. Id say some parts are swappable, some parts arent.

Heres a comparison pic. I put out frostgrave models for some reason instead of oathmark, but they are the same scale and I believe same publisher (I checked and the oathmark human spearmen are the same proportions to the frostgrave knights)

>>96377066
yeah...something tells me that's not what's going on in that pic

>>96376895
Tonks
Dungeon Tonks
HeroQuest (original)
X-wing whatever edition
>>96377110
Space Hulk
Full Spectrum Dominance
Rangers of Shadow Deep

Sort of in order of hobby power level and complexity.

>>96377152
That's a sick comparison shot. They look good together.
I really need to get some perry stuff.

>>96375714
Prime black. Bones are Vallejo beige stippled on, washed in brown oil and cleaned with mineral spirits. Weapons are Vallejo German grey, dry brush London grey, then washed with a custom concoction of brown and bright orange for a rust effect. Bases are sand, rhinox hide, dry brush karak stone and tufted with army painter grass and some random tufts. Thanks!

>>96350229
I have great fun kitbashing Perry minis. These are the Agincourt knights and US GI kits mixed up. They aren't the best quality, but they're good for the price and you get loads in a box

>>96377152
>Frostborm

>>96372624
I will probably crosspost this in advance...because of space and price considerations, and the fact that across the few settings I do, generic fantasy and sci fi, dark ages and late 19th century and Napoleonic, I am close to having more or less what I need to play platoon sized games...

What are the 15mm manufacturers you like? 12mm and 18mm are ok if a decent matchup is available. So far I have bought Demonworld, Alternative Armies, Brigade Models, Peter Pig, Essex Miniatures and Blue Moon. The only ones I thought were too flashy, primitive if characterful were Irregular.

The leap to 15mm should help with games of over 100 figures and maximise my 4 by 4 gaming area

>>96378567
Those are fun, good job.

>>96378696
>4x4 play area
Damn, do you live in an RV?

>>96378234
Thanks! I like my perrys.
>>96378567
Sick conversion. lovely beakies. especially like the poleaxe head gun on the left.

>>96376951
Yeah, I hadn't noticed they didn't include the old profiles in the new kit. Still, I think there's "close enough" profile for most models so it's not a huge problem.

>>96371451
>>96371506
>>96371669
>>96372010
Cheers lads. Happy gaming.

>>96378762
possibly europe

>>96379899

Oh the stats are the same. Well, after the "update" last week anyway. It's just the fluff that's been changed in ways I'm complaining about.
Statwise they're still as bustedly undercosted as they've always been, because TTCombat remain staunchly commited to not actually playing their own games. So they assume that 24 hull points for 50pts less than a UCM 20 hull super-battleship with less potential damage output will be balanced because it's speed is shit...
In a faction where EVERY. SINGLE. STRIKE CARRIER. WILL. **WILL**. HAVE. DETECTOR.
It's also the faction that has a warcrimes Battlecruiser that can turn Close Action weapons into normal weapons vs any target within 12" of him.

The Nelson (Formerly the Triton, I think?) has a potential damage output of 34 plus the torpedo, and can do this without going weapons free. 24 of that damage is on a 2+ lock weapon with Penetrator and Critical 1.
Compared to the UCM Babylon which is 70pts more expensive for EXACTLY The same potential damage output except without the Penetrator, 10 of it stuck on a FN burnthrough laser, 4 less health and the only thing it has going for it is 3 heavy bombers or 4 normal ones.

At least at 340 the Yu-Sin (the old Olympus) is more accurately costed given that its damage output max is SIXTY PLUS THE TORPEDO. Which it can now fire as well when it goes weapons free to do this. But, again, look at how aneamic the UCM Battleships damage output is for less health and similar price tags.

Deliberating over how I want my Northstar Dwarf army to be structured. I'm leaning towards a mid-Republican Roman manipular style right now, because for one thing the Northstar Human shields I put on them look vaguely Roman and suit more individualistic combat rather than a shieldwall. That and the super heavy armour. Albeit that's more EIR rather than the style of warfare I'm thinking of from the mid-Republic. Secondly, the manipular system was implemented to be flexible in Italian hill country, which suits the military requirements of Dwarves - they would want a system that prevents them from getting caught out in an inflexible formation by a Goblin hill tribe ambush. Thirdly, the super heavy armoured Dwarves with double handed axes would make a great equivalent to the Triarii. While all the young Freshbeards fight as unarmoured skirmishers and the frontline chainmail-clad infantry to earn their reputation, and the mature Dwarves with their heavy armour and shields make up the second rank, the Greybeards make up the last line of reserve. Whenever my Dwarf lines are breached and all looks perilous, I can autistically declare out loud, "so, it's come down to the Greybeards" to the exasperated cringes of my opponents.

>>96359503
>Fantastic Battles by Irregular War
Hey, this one sounds really neat. https://youtu.be/WBUFJSrPrKc
>Can design your own factions
>Manages moral
>Manages fog of war, with the possibility to have more captains to relay your orders if you have an army that's less disciplined
>Can group companies into larger formations, but they have more inertia and are more vulnerable to being attacked from the side

>>96380205
>While all the young Freshbeards fight as unarmoured skirmishers and the frontline chainmail-clad infantry
Goblin/human/whatever auxilia sounds cooler to me.

>>96381860
I've played it a bit at 10mm and it's really good at that scale, and think as a toolbox it's brilliant, but I think it struggles at 28mm. You need the company base size to accommodate everything, which makes it difficult when you want to include monsters of various sizes. It also expects your entire army's depth to be one base deep, which works fine at 10mm, but at 28mm it looks weird, and doesn't feel right that reserve units behind the front line don't have any supporting effect, or that the battle line doesn't move back and forth as both sides push the other back, since I guess it's meant to be quite zoomed out.

>>96381860
I found a review.
https://wilgut.blogspot.com/2021/03/fantastic-battles-review.html
The randomized activation is a yellow flag for me.
The command friction seems intense to the point I'd only want to play a silly goblin army or something high disciplined so I could ignore a big chunk of the ruleset.
Seems like it might be fun and I'd be down to try it.

>>96382115
>doesn't feel right that reserve units behind the front line don't have any supporting effect, or that the battle line doesn't move back and forth as both sides push the other back
Is there a rank and flank game which handles that?

>>96378696
I recommend Splintered Light for 15mm, they've always done me right.

>>96382625
Midgard does, so do most historical sets like Hail Caesar etc.

Finally got the bloodborne board game. not really for the game itself, but I love the models. Think im going to add these guys to both my warband for mordheim and my oathmark army. Having a detachment of massive religious werewolves seems rad.

>>96383015
I'm a sucker for ameritrash games with loads of plastic too.
Zombicide, Cthulhu Wars, Skull Tales, Reich busters, Incursion, Mars Attacks, probably a few more I've forgotten.

>>96383329
I will try the game out too at some point, since I have the models. I already had the player models and painted them since I got the expansion beforehand, so here's a pick of what I think the warband will be all together.

>>96383329
>I'm a sucker for ameritrash games with loads of plastic too.
>Zombicide, Cthulhu Wars, Skull Tales, Reich busters, Incursion, Mars Attacks, probably a few more I've forgotten.
Descent: Journeys In The Dark is probably one of the kings of this, especially if you have a bunch of the supplements like I do, need to figure out roughly what scale they fit in best with though if I want to use them for wargaming purposes though...

Hey all so I'm about to buy some minis from an eBay seller in merry old England. He said he'd combine the shipping for me after I pay for all the minis first, but my concern is whether there will also be extra charges from the Trump tariffs in shipping to the states. Anyone got better info before I pull the trigger and hand this fella way more money than I should??

>>96383755
pretty sure shipping accounts for tariffs.

what getting?

>>96383769
Well that's my concern, that when he goes to the post office to get an estimate of combined shipping, there will also be a fat extra tariff charge added on to it. He basically won't tell me beforehand bc he hasn't put them all together yet.

And it's celtos coomer minis.

>>96383789
nice.

if you picked the "seller pays the shipping fee" option, the seller pays the shipping fee.

>>96383890
That's not an option see. Each mini has 13 GBP listed as shipping, which adds up significantly. He's saying pay it all when I buy, then he sends me back what he didn't use for shipping afterwards. So I'm already a bit suspicious and concerned.

>>96384690
It's not a fair request from the seller so I don't know why you expect him to be honest and do the right thing. Ebay won't support you in this case since you paid what was was due and the rest is a deal between you and him, so you're placing yourself into his sole hands.

>>96382625
Unironically Oathmark (you can move units from the rear to reinforce, the way combat works lets you force the line back and disrupt other units if you don't properly stagger things, reserves can cover flanks). There are also some support spells that let the reserves do more work.

>>96384690
I've had a lot of guys genuinely pay it all back, but I've never risked it on a large order. There should be an option for him to just combine shipping on eBay's end. Or use a postal calculator.

>>96384843
Yeah, no, fuck that guy, thanks. I just found celtos shit direct from brigade models at a cheaper price too and they list the tiny tariff charge too. I've had ebay shippers ignore my combined shipping requests before too so.

>>96384899
>>There should be an option for him to just combine shipping on eBay's end.

That's what's weird, I assumed he should have been able to send me a corrected combined shipping invoice before I paid.