Activity
-
Nat replied to the topic Light Howitzer against Greyhound in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 8 months ago
@Nigel – the greyhound has the ability to rece away if it hasnt already activated… speed a unit is moving at is considered in the base to hit (ie not an extra modifier) for shooting – it’s speed does alter the to hit needed in assault.
@Stuart – indirect fire (the only way to hit top armour) has a +1 on the damage table as well.
@Stiener -…[Read more]
-
Nat replied to the topic Some Rule Question in the forum Victory At Sea 4 years, 8 months ago
Hi,
i’ve put some player aids in the thread ‘news from the wardroom’ which you may find helpful…
but to answer your questions:
1)you always need a 4 or more after D6 + modifiers, so yes if you have more than 3 negative modifiers over positive its an auto miss
2) yep, 30″ max range against moving targets – 1″ is ~ 1K yards… so the 30″ range…[Read more] -
Nat replied to the topic Sniper in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 8 months ago
touche good sir! :p
-
Nat replied to the topic Sniper in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 8 months ago
Hence the ‘upgrade’ being in inverted commas :p
but the unit is still called a sniper :p
-
Nat replied to the topic Sniper in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 8 months ago
There is also the japanese lone sniper…however if he ‘upgrades’ to an LMG he goes back to taking a team weapon without a crew so suffers the -1.
-
Nat replied to the topic Chelmsford Bunker – Napoleons wars in the forum Black Powder 4 years, 8 months ago
Good shout.. will need to go back over the rules.
-
Nat replied to the topic Continued delay of Regia Marina models! in the forum Victory At Sea 4 years, 8 months ago
Well as of wednesday, the RM should be shipping this weekend.
-
Nat replied to the topic Reward Medals – what on earth are they in the forum General Discussion 4 years, 8 months ago
Going off memory, you get some for signing up & some more for following warlord on instargram & facebook..
If you go to the store and sign in then you can look at your medals and see why they where awarded.
-
Nat replied to the topic SPQR 2.0 ? in the forum SPQR 4 years, 9 months ago
So the new rulebook has started shipping! (got my shipping confirmation yesterday),
-
Nat replied to the topic Is there part of a rule missing in shieldwall supplement in the forum Hail Caesar 4 years, 9 months ago
Oh so background mixed in the rules paraghraphs again…..
-
Nat replied to the topic Questions from After My First Test Battle in the forum Black Powder 4 years, 9 months ago
Just to add
4) building are hard to bring down with canon balls… not the sort of thing that could be done in a short space of time (even a couple of hours). Look at some of the building still standing that where under fire during that time period.
Also buildings are abstract, its very hard to find a single building big enough for 700+ men to f…[Read more] -
Nat replied to the topic Napoleonic Wars – Getting Started in the forum Black Powder 4 years, 9 months ago
Yes there are no points in the rule book, however points and stats are still in the supplements
-
Nat replied to the topic Napoleonic Wars – Getting Started in the forum Black Powder 4 years, 9 months ago
Hi Nigel,
re frontage yes in line they would have the same frontage, ie small unit of 8 models of Cav take up the same foot print at 16 infantry. when in line.
For whats easier, depends who you are planning on playing. As IO said, ask potential opponents, you may be able to combine orders and get cheaper delivery OR they already have a force…[Read more]
-
Nat replied to the topic Ships Used as Scouts in the forum Victory At Sea 4 years, 9 months ago
A) target is to get 5 or more… so a 4 will give you the scouting point. So if you get 1-3 re-roll the dice… if you get 1-3 again hard luck no SP for that ship.
B &C)A ship is scouting, so not available for the start of the battle, irrespective of if it gives you a scouting point or not. The only way to return it to your fleet is with e…[Read more]
-
Nat replied to the topic News from the Wardroom! in the forum Victory At Sea 4 years, 9 months ago
So just a general update here. The studio team are defiantly looking at the questions I’ve submitted so i’m guessing /hoping we’ll have an FAQ /Errata in a couple of weeks.
-
Nat replied to the topic anti-tank suicide bombers/close assault. in the forum Bolt Action 4 years, 9 months ago
@Mike, how do you get in contact with the vehicle except by assault? in game terms Assault is a type of Run Command that allows a model to by-pass the 1″ gap rule. So (Rules here) you cant get in contact with the vehicle unless you declear an assault.
So you now follow the assault rules, which include passangers bailing out in the way of th…[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
-
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]
-
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’
- Load More
