-
Peter replied to the topic Flamethrowers and Buildings in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
Rule states shot at by flamethrower not hit by flamethrower. Just because troops may not be hit ,buildings and contents are still flammable.
-
Mark Prichard started the topic Flamethrowers and Buildings in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
The rules state that when a unit in a wooden building is shot at by a flamethrower, on a follow up roll of 4,5 or 6 the building is on fire. Does the flamethrower have to hit the unit in order to light the building on fire or can it light the building on fire even if it misses?
-
skh25 replied to the topic How do you handle Battalia orders and distance in the forum Pike & Shotte 4 years, 9 months ago
I may not have been clear in the question, when it discusses giving orders it says in the modifiers that it is -1 for every 12″ distance to the unit being given the order to. Under Battalia orders it says if giving a battalia order measure to the farthest unit away and apply the deduction to the SR. So if we sort of ignore the verbiage in the…[Read more]
-
ArtfulB replied to the topic Sourcing Miniatures in the forum Black Powder 4 years, 9 months ago
They lost their kilts and became light infantry during refit after Corruna : (https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/71st-highland-regiment-foot-light-infantry ).
Did they keep the pipers in a ceremonial or operational role for their second visit to Spain? Was the instrument funded by the officers mess for their private entertainment or to inspire the m…[Read more]
-
invisible officer replied to the topic Sourcing Miniatures in the forum Black Powder 4 years, 9 months ago
They still had them, paid by the officers. Horse guard paid for drummers and buglers only. Fortunately we have letters from officers as source. Not just modern oics.
-
Paul Nettle replied to the topic Pak 38 50 mm (DAK) in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
I don’t have a kit to hand, but usually the guns go together very much the same. The wheels attach to an axle, the towing ‘legs’ attach to that too, a gun either sits on the axle or there is a base that the gun sits on (which attaches to the axle). At this point I generally paint the gun then attach the painted gun shield and lower gun s…[Read more]
-
Nat replied to the topic anti-tank suicide bombers/close assault. in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
@MasterCheif – two key words there IF & Manages. The transport disembark in to combat means that you didnt get in to contact with the vehicle.
I disagree that the suicide AT rule should over ride the combat disembark rule, as that would mean the unit stays on board when every instict would be to jump out
-
JamesP replied to the topic Community Introductions in the forum General Discussion 4 years, 9 months ago
Hi All,
Just getting into BA. Currently play 40K but getting a little frustrated with the power creep. Looking to start with some Germans and Soviets – be great to find some people around Yorkshire to play at some point in the future.
James
-
Stuart Harrison replied to the topic anti-tank suicide bombers/close assault. in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
“The Kamikaze special rule should override the normal infantry assaulting transport rule, so the suicide bomber team does not fight close combat with the passengers. It should be removed immediately and the transport hit with Pen +8.”
‘Should ‘does not equal ‘does’ – the Kamikaze rule is specifically vehicles. Passengers from a loaded transport…[Read more]
-
Master Chief replied to the topic anti-tank suicide bombers/close assault. in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
Armies of Imperial Japan page 26:
Kamikaze. If a suicide anti-tank team assaults an enemy vehicle and the model manages to move into contact with the target, remove it and immediately resolve a hit against the vehicle with a Penetration value of +8 (no other penetration modifiers apply)
<p style=”text-align: center;”>The Kamikaze special rule…[Read more] -
Nat replied to the topic Bulgarian Counter-partisan Experts rule vs Forward Deployment in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
If their rule says it stops forward deployment then it’s stops all deployment using those rules.
About the outflank I’ll have to look at the rules again to say either way
-
Nat replied to the topic Discrepancies and possible errors in the rulebook in the forum Victory At Sea 4 years, 9 months ago
Hi Tobias
A long list of stat, point* and rules related problems has been submitted to Warlord (including most of what you’ve listed here) and we are waiting on the studio to release an FAQ /Errata.
However some of what appears to be stat typos is due to the stats having real world influences, such as ammunition (AP & DD) and fire control…[Read more]
-
ArtfulB replied to the topic Sourcing Miniatures in the forum Black Powder 4 years, 9 months ago
I don’t think 71 HLI of the Napoleonic era used pipers, their grandads of the 71st of Foot did in the Americas.
That rockket cart is indeed the missing item from the Warlord range. Standard gun frame with the two long boxes as per your photo
-
Tobias Reich started the topic Discrepancies and possible errors in the rulebook in the forum Victory At Sea 4 years, 9 months ago
I have found one definite error:
- Page 242: The torpedo entries for the Kuma class need to be as follows:
- Table 1 (ships as built): The torpedoes listed here are the 10×4 Type 93 launchers of the Kitakami and Ooi torpedo cruiser refits. They need to be instead 2 Port and 2 Starboard Type 6 Torpedo launchers. See Tenryuu class for stats, 2 AD…
-
Jaesen replied to the topic Bulgarian Counter-partisan Experts rule vs Forward Deployment in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
Bumping, so it doesn’t get buried… 🙂
-
Christoph Hintze replied to the topic PDF Availability Question in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
Is there any word yet as to when Warlord Games will have this PDF available on their website?
Thanks.
-
Alan Hamilton replied to the topic Looking for a Source of German Weapons in 28mm in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
The MP40s are in the post this afternoon.
-
Nat replied to the topic anti-tank suicide bombers/close assault. in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
suicide bombers can fight in close combat*, they just cant declare a charge against the unit.
However in this case its the embarked unit thats effectively counter-charging the bomber.
*they dont have the ‘unarmed’ rule… now they IIRC they can chose to use the AT mine as their weapon – aka remove both models :p or ‘boot knife’
-
Fred Brannan started the topic anti-tank suicide bombers/close assault. in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
So, this came up in a game…A Japanese suicide bomber charged a transport with passengers. The army list book says the bomber moves into contact and assaults the vehicle. Passengers in a transport (one unit, owners choice) dismount to fight the close combat. However, the suicide bomber doesn’t have the ability to assault foot troops. Do you fight…[Read more]
-
invisible officer replied to the topic Sourcing Miniatures in the forum Black Powder 4 years, 9 months ago
Or a scratch bagpipe, giving the ears of the poor English a rest. Like I did. Something different.
Rocket cars, mine was more reycling than scratch.
- Load More
