Jump to content

RayGuns

Members
  • Content Count

    101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RayGuns

  1. The original worked pretty good, so I wouldn't change that much. Sure, one can make it a little bit more user friendly, but gamers are smart, they can figure things out. So I wouldn't make a lot of changes.
  2. Cipheron said: i just checked out boardgamegeek.com and noticed that a new pic was uploadaded to the "fury of the bear"-section of toi (sorry, i could`t link it). you get a very first impression of the winter boards (which look sweet) and the new figs for the russians. no new german armor so far. seems to me like the phantom of the bear menace, hehe.... Crap... they're winter boards? Contrary to popular belief, most battles and smaller actions on the Russian Front did not take place on snow covered ground. Snow made things difficult going and it was cold. This is why almost every major offensive took place when there was no snow, like Kursk for example, which was one of the biggest tank battle of World War 2. But not all is lost, because when you think about it, the snow boards give you more visual options for playing "Tide of Iron". Heck, you can even use the snow boards to create a Battle of the Bulge scenario (hint, hint). If you wanted to have a Russian Front action over nice green fields, I guess that is where the other boards come in as well as the Extra Map Pack. In short, snow boarding is good... LOL You will find this comment on BGG as well. I posted it there first before I ready this thread.
  3. Aussie_Digger said: Its funny how the brits only have 8 tanks in total when the US and Germans have lots (well the Germans do US still have enough for a good tank battle. I would have thought more tanks would be given to the Brits in the days of the fox to make for some massive tanks battles, and i also would have thought with the Normandy expasion we might have seen the sherman firefly, cromwell or ever the churchill, anyway thats just what i was thinking so I thought i would post it. What do all you guys think? I was surprised that there were no Churchill tanks with the Normandy expansion. Churchill tanks were also used in the desert, but saw action later. As for the Firefly, well, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. A Sherman substitute works just fine for me. After all, there very similar. If someone wanted to convert one of their Shermans (like what the British did) into a Firefly, then its would be easy peasy. All a longer gun barrel, attach that box to the back of the turret, and remove both the hull MG and turret mounted AAHMG. See, easy peasy. Finding the right color plastic to makethe box and longer barrel is a little harder, but look at the sprue you get from 1:72 scale plastic figures from the various manufactures. And if you paint the figures, then it doesn't matter what color or material you use to make the mods. Its all painted anyway.
  4. air show said: pirateclem said: I just purchased the highlands and was disappointed to find that the board in my box had a "value added feature" apparently it came pre torn. When I folded it out there are tears at both edges on one of the edges (the middle folding piece to the left) and the board paper is coming up off of the cardboard in that spot. . I had the same problem, the shop owner will give me a new copy until saturday. But I'm been waiting from 10 days. My post on FFg forum about that: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=49&efcid=1&efidt=338426 I'm not alone! My board also had come pre-torn. But my tears were only about 11mm on one side and 8mm on the other. I just fixed it. You can see were it was pealed back as some of the printing came off, but it still looks good. However, my set was missing a couple of Adventure cards and some of the Spell and Adventure cards are horribly off-set. I just sent an email to FFG. I'm told they have great service.
  5. RayGuns

    SU-122

    Bazookajoe said: Ray, I think the vehicle included might actually be the JSU-122, which was an AT platform. BJaffe01 can confirm this? Yes, there is a difference between the SU-122 and the JSU-122 (AKA ISU-122). Also, didn't the JSU-122 have either a 122mm howitzer or a 122mm AT gun? I know the JSU-152 had that big howitzer, but now I have to look up the JSU-122 as I recall there were a couple of different guns installed on this tank. Also, if I recall correctly, only a few JSU-122 were available by late 1943, and it wasn't until 1944 that they had more of these heavy support tanks. When I get home tonight, I'll have a look-see
  6. Bazookajoe said: RayGuns said: I will agree that the T34 and KV1 should have the over-run ability, but the SU122 should not as it has not machineguns! Yep, you heard me right, the SU122 has no MG (hull or otherwise). So it should not be allowed to overrun. Because if the SU122 can, so could the Elephant and that would just not make any sense. Most of the Elephants were knocked out by infantry because they were easy pray for infantry attacks because the first models did not have any MG. Had one heck of a tank killing gun (88mm/71). As a result to being so vulnerable to infantry, later models had hull MGs as well as some other stuff for the crew to repulse infantry. So I strongly suggest to the FFG team to make sure the SU122 does not have the over-run ability. In fact, German infantry had an easy time taking out SU122 (as well as SU85's and SU100's) because they were easy pickings because they had no defensive MGs. They had to rely on supporting infantry to protect them from enemy anti-tank squads. Ray, Several places list the following heavy MG for the JSU-122: MG 12.7 mm MG, 12.7 mm DShK-38 MG AA, 12.7 mm DSchK 38/43 AA # Russian Tanks and Armored Vehicles 1917-1945, by Wolfgang Fleischer, 1999 # The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, Chris Bishop, 1998 # Tank Data 2, Aberdeen Proving Grounds Series, E. J. Hoffschmidt and W. H. Tantum IV, 1969 This was mounted on the commander's cuppola. I agree that there weren't hull mounted MGs. That 12.7mm MG you speak of was an AA-HMG. If it was mounted on these tanks, it must have been very rare indeed because I don't recall seeing any contemporary WW2 photographs or WW2 combat footage showing these tanks with such MGs mounted on top. I have several good books specifically on Russian tanks in WW2 (including the "Armor at War Series" by Concord Publishing) and I'll see if I can find more information.
  7. RayGuns

    SU-122

    Being a turret-less vehicle, like the Stug, I hope that Bill can get them to include that that rule where the SU-122 cannot perform a Fire and Move; like the Stug and Jagepanzer is supposed to have in the Normandy expansion. Also, I sure hope it does not get the over-run ability! The SU-122 does not have any MGs! In fact, the whole series - the SU-85, SU-100, SU-122 all based off the T-34 hull - did not have any MGs because it wasn't meant to be used to over-run infantry, instead they were purposely designed to destroy tanks. The SU-122 was armed with a 122mmm M-1938 howitzer though, and not a 122mm AT gun. So it was used against bunkers and such, but when needed it can fire at tanks. The SU-85 and SU-100 were the Tank Destroyer with the higher velocity guns. The SU-100 being a little better, though its ROF was slower. It needs to be noted that the SU-122 was being replaced by the more versitile SU-85 in late 1943., and the SU-100 replacing the SU-85 in early 1945. The SU-85 (and SU-100) prove to be an effective support tank when deployed in conjunction with the T-34. When SU-85's were employed as individual units, they fell pray to German anti-tank teams and guns.
  8. Meta Baston said: Regarding SU-122 vs SU-85 or SU-100, as far as I remember, the former was designed as a mobile artillery unit and the latter as a mobile AT. Different purposes vehicules. Will this difference show up in FoB? We'll see! You are correct. I hope this difference will show up. But considering how they dropped the ball on the M10, I don't have high hopes, but we'll see.
  9. Ubercat said: I dearly hope that they're Russian khaki colored, rather than red. I wouldn't be surprised that they will be the same red-brown (or something close) that the Axis & Allies Russian playing pieces are. That doesn't bother me. And for those who paint their figures, who cares what color they are, right? But from a game design perspective, a distinctive color would be a good choice. Shades of green might be to close to US game pieces. Shades of tan might be to close to British, but the one color that is distinct and will stand out from the other playing pieces will be the red-brown color.
  10. Bazookajoe said: That looks about right. There will be a difference between the two T34 variants. I think the T34/76 will have less range and FP. Also, I agree with KlausFritsch that the T34/85 will be one hex slower due to the heavier main armament. I think you're right on WRT the KV-1. I think the SU-122 might look something like this: Armor 5, Move 4 (road speed 25 mph) FP v. Infantry 5/6 FP v. Vehicle 8/10 Slow ROF!!!!! (might reduce FP) Definitely cannot move and fire. Concussion/Overrun. I will agree that the T34 and KV1 should have the over-run ability, but the SU122 should not as it has not machineguns! Yep, you heard me right, the SU122 has no MG (hull or otherwise). So it should not be allowed to overrun. Because if the SU122 can, so could the Elephant and that would just not make any sense. Most of the Elephants were knocked out by infantry because they were easy pray for infantry attacks because the first models did not have any MG. Had one heck of a tank killing gun (88mm/71). As a result to being so vulnerable to infantry, later models had hull MGs as well as some other stuff for the crew to repulse infantry. So I strongly suggest to the FFG team to make sure the SU122 does not have the over-run ability. In fact, German infantry had an easy time taking out SU122 (as well as SU85's and SU100's) because they were easy pickings because they had no defensive MGs. They had to rely on supporting infantry to protect them from enemy anti-tank squads.
  11. I would rather see them take there time and get it right than rush through it and spoil what could be a great expansion. Please let FFG fully test play the new expansion before they release it. Let them (main folks designing the expansion) all agree on what it will be and not have what happened when the Normandy expansion was released. Like I said, I rather see them take there time and get it right the first time.
  12. Grandmikus said: Hi I just bought the game yesterday and since then I've been curiously reading the rules preparing for the game. As I studied the units and scenarios I came to realise that I should have bought an expansion with the game in the first place. Can you share some experiance and thoughts about the two expansions that the game has(and if you can the Fury of the bear). Im really confused so if you can please give some advice on which expansion a new player like me should buy first. It wouldn't hurt to have both the Fox and Norm expansions, but if you could only pick one and only one at this time, I would recommend the "Days of the Fox" expansion first. You get the British for one, but also opens up another theater of operations... North Africa.
  13. I did read your post fully and I do understand what you are saying. "I was just cutting to the chase", as they say.
  14. McQueen said: 3/2 = 1.5, round up = 2 Yes, two (2) and not three (3) as stated earlier. Also see page 35 "Calculating Modifiers" and page 40 "Halving firepower".
  15. Hefsgaard said: Unfortunatly that excelent document is not Official, and thus can not be consideret as part of the rules. If the designers want the rules to match their intent they should amend the rules or at least issue offical errata. Not following the rules is usualy considered cheating, Even if you are the designer ;-) But it is an excelent piece of work. Well worth reading through for anyone having troubles with the rules. Contains a lot of good variant rules from the designers of the game as well. Actually, some of the answers in the RCD are official (most are noted), but yes, the RCD is unofficial. Someday it is hoped that it will be labeled "Official" once the designer gives it a look-see and an "okay". Overall, the RCD is true to the game and should be very helpful.
  16. No, the damage is not temporary. It stays until the end of the game or repaired by engineers (special cards). See page 28 of the TOI rules. The "Vehicle Damage" box is pretty clear about all this.
  17. Lebatron said: Ray it just struck me that perhaps you should be adding in these extra rules into the RCD you made. Since the TD's lack of fire and movement comes strait from one of the scenario designers and people seems to like my idea of just making hedgerow cutting cost +3 to move perhaps these two items could be added as "suggested optional" rules. There are a lot of other more extreme optionals proposed but they probably do not belong in the RCD, but I feel perhaps these two suggestions do. That's actually a good idea. Maybe add a section to the RCD called "Popular House Rules" or something like this. Or even create a whole new complete document just about some of the more popular house rules TOI groups use. I never really thought of it, I guess it's because the group I play with tend to play TOI without any modifications (no house rules). I guess that way everyone is on the same page sort of speak.
  18. Kingtiger said: Since they seem to be doing errata anyway, I hope they'll also consider having another look at hedgerow terrain: A tank with brushcutters ( a card) can -in one move- cut several such hexes LENGTHWISE and possibly still fire as well. An additional result is that all of a sudden the hex is considered clear terrain (?!) and no more cover is granted. Wouldn't the following make a lot more sense? When a tank with the brushcutters ability cuts through a hedgerow, it must immediately end its movement. Cover in such a hex is reduced by one (place one of those breech counters, as normal). I mean, they did go to the trouble to distinguish between ballistc fire (mortars) and regular fire. Against the former there's no cover. Makes perfect sense. So why don't the rest of the hedgerow/brush rules at the moment? I agree, there should have been more to the hedgerows. I know TOI is supposed to be simple, but it can still be simple but have more depth without going overboard. Lebatron and Hefsgaard have some good ideas. Unrelated, but Kingtiger said Ballistic fire... I know it is because the TOI rules book uses this term, but it still cracks me up. The proper military term is "Indirect Fire". But fantasy gamers tend to use "Ballistic Fire"... maybe the green figures were supposed to be Orcs, and the gray figures Night Elves Sorry if that offended anyone.
  19. Grand Stone said: Using PC in a boardgame just feels so totaly wrong, atleast for me I don't know about totally wrong, but I agree, playing a boardgame or miniatures game on computer only when you can play the actual game in person seems a bit off to me too.
  20. diseased said: Hey! I am currently playing the Normandy expansion and found out that after the errata the StuGIII and the Panzer IV have the exactly same attributes? So whats the deal? Just different Models to have some variety for the eye? I got an easy answer for you I've been working on the new RCD file, and as a result, I had a chance to chat with Bill Jaffe who designed a lot of the scenarios in the expansion. Here is what he said about the Stug: Q1: Sometime ago a few of us TOI players had tried to petition FFG to officially change the stats for the Stug and Jagdpanzer so that these tanks were not permitted to perform a "Fire and Movement" action. In fact, we had suggested that all tanks without turrets should not be allowed to perform a "Fire and Movement" action (makes perfect sense considering there is not facing in TOI). However, another member on BGG had mention he had talked to you, and you had originally used this rule of no Fire and Movement for the Stug and Jagdpanzer. Is it supposed to be that the Stugs and Jadgepanzers are not allowed to perform a "Fire and Movement" action? Also, what do you think of the armor rating for the Stug and Jadgepanzer? Should it be 4 or 5? (Also see added information #1 at the end of the document.) A1: Yes, the Stug III G and the Jadgepanzer IV/70 should have an armor of 5. Also they should not be allowed to perform a “Fire and Movement” action, and I did play them this way. In this case, lack of turret hinders the sight lines. (Official answer from Bill Jaffe.) The above, of course, was added to the new RCD along with some other clarifications. The new file will be uploaded to BGG soon; D-Day is June 6th, so look for it then. However, I'm not sure how long it will take for the admins to clear it. They get very busy because they do a great job at keeping the site going.
  21. It would be great if FFG would produce a reference sheet that includes all the units from the base game and all the expansions to date. I'm hoping that the new upcoming expansion will do just that. That is, have a reference sheet with all the units from the base game and all previous expansions. I know there are some user made ref sheets out there, but the last one I have seen had only included units from the base game and Days of the Fox, no Normandy, but I'm sure there is one out there by now. I've even played with the idea of making a real simple one for myself and gaming group with very little graphics, but I'm going to wait and see what the Bear brings to the table
  22. Movement cost is 1MP when moving along a hill, and 2MP (1MP + 1MP) if moving up a hill. So, if your bunker is up hill from your squad - that is, your squad has to move uphill to get to it, it will cost you 3MP total. +1MP for moving up hill and 2MP for the bunker (squads only, vehicles cannot enter). If your squad is moving into a bunker that is at the same level as your squad (or down hill), then it will cost 2MP.
  23. I don't believe so because a friend just picked up Tide of Iron and his new copy looks just like mine. But yes, the British infantry figures are much easier to put on and pull off the bases. But if you examine the figs and bases, you will notice a difference between them and the German and American infantry. Peg design and holes are not the same. One note though, as you use your Tide of Iron game more and more, the German and American infantry get a little easier to work with. And if you were one of the few that drilled out the holes, they probably just fall out.
  24. jcikal said: Outside of the user scenarios listed in FFG's website, is there another place to get more? Also, don't forget about the five official scenarios on FFG's website
  25. Lebatron said: I believe it says in the rules you can't place concealed squads on an objective during setup. And an unofficial faq supports this too. Over on BBG this was discussed recently. To be more exact, the rules state, "If a concealed squad moves into an objective hex (one containing a command objective, victory point marker, or any other specific hex mentioned in the scenario), it is immediately revealed." The key part of the sentence is “moves into an objective hex” so, technically a concealed squad can be setup or become concealed (using the Go to Ground strategy card) once it is on an objective hex, but the overall opinion is that a squad can never be concealed in objective hexes. There is another thread on BGG about this: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/192518 Has anyone addressed this question to the designer? What was his official answer?
×
×
  • Create New...