Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 101 to 150 of 312

Thread: Blood Red Skies

  1. #101

    Default

    Good call. I had not thought about the potential for added play value. A future BRS starter or scenario box might be a possibility for me also.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  2. #102

    Default

    The triangular hole in the underside may make it easy to glue in a WGS peg.

  3. #103

    Default

    Hi Gents

    The current position on Blood Red Skies is (disclaimer - this is not official just based on some messages on Facebook and general chat) is that they have put release back til
    April. That's something of a curates egg in that we wont get it but it gives them time to make some tweaks.

    I'm not certain what the problem was but suspect "China" may be involved.

    I did get to see not only the resin pre production models but also the some of the first plastic "test shots", and both were OK - see the earlier posts about the detail issues, but if you don't get too hung up on those they were perfectly good and serviceable models. I have every intention of following up with some in depth blog stuff "soon" just as soon as I sort my work and other real life priorities out. Either pop across to http://twtrb.blogspot.co.uk to keep an eye on musings or - assuming the mods here don't mind. I will post updates here.

    On the more positive front I know they are looking at a second wave of model releases in plastic plus some bombers in resin. The plastic will help fill gaps - no confirmation but I'm expecting a 190 and P47 at least, plus hopefully something to match up with the Zero out in PTO.

  4. #104

    Default

    My mate is a retailer - he was told the same about the delay at least a month ago, I thought it was a published delay, obviously not. He's not best pleased as they have his investment and nothing to show for it.

    "He is wise who watches"

  5. #105

    Default

    Ares could potentially have a preemptive release of planes if BRS really doesn't come out until April.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    My mate is a retailer - he was told the same about the delay at least a month ago, I thought it was a published delay, obviously not. He's not best pleased as they have his investment and nothing to show for it.
    Yes it was announced and published - they put it on their Facebook page and in their Newsletter - the bit about not being official related to the stuff about future releases etc

  7. #107

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tokhuah View Post
    Ares could potentially have a preemptive release of planes if BRS really doesn't come out until April.
    Possibly - Warlord \ BRS are not trying to steal a march on Ares - their target markets are very different. I can't see players buying Wings of Glory models for BRS because you need flights of 4-6. There is no reason you couldn't but the financial side means it is unlikely. The reverse is not true - you may be tempted to buy BRS models to play Wings, however you would still need to have the decks and bases

  8. #108

    Default

    I do not believe there is a conscious offensive on either side. Fate has just created some interesting timing!

    I agree with you that Wings players will get the benefit of cheaply filling in a squadron while BRS players are not going to want to spend the money to have 6 of each Ares plane. Though I do have six of Ares Mustangs and six Nexus Zeros so I could be ready to go right now!

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  9. #109

    Default

    Interesting - theyre offering a Defiant as a bonus for pre orders Click image for larger version. 

Name:	defiant.jpg 
Views:	159 
Size:	34.4 KB 
ID:	238075

  10. #110

    Default

    OK, that sweetens the pot enough for me to go in. I do feel a bit of sadness though because I budgeted a nice amount to support the Tripods campaign but couldn't justify it given what was offered (don't worry, I will not go down that rabbit hole again). I feel guilty about transferring my little pocket of wealth from Ares to Warlord, but at least they are not Games Workshop, right?

    OK, now looking at the offer I am a bit torn about what package to go for. I am thinking of one of the $120 level and have narrowed that down to Yak, P-51, or Zero. I have the least Yaks (2) so this would forever end my need to track down more with the downside being my lower interest in Eastern Front air combat. The Zero bundle would provide me with the planes to flesh out a larger flying force that I am building up to, but then any Ares revisit to PTO will drastically lose its glimmer. P-51's are the fan favorite for me in this equation but what am I going to do with all those Mustangs except take pretty pictures? Of course the wildcard is that having the rules and at least 6 Wings of Glory planes at my disposal means more mileage out of my flyers for both games. Tough call here...

    Are there any other pilots that are planning to dive bomb into a pre-order? I am for sure, just not certain which one...

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  11. #111

    Default

    I am not... though I will look forward to reading your thoughts once Warlord delivers.

  12. #112

    Default

    I've ordered the base set but not stretching to any add ons yet. I'm a bit puzzled about why they are offering such big bundles. I've read the rules and played the game and like it a lot, but I struggle to understand why I need twelve models of each plane unless I'm buying for a game group. Each to their own but it seems like a lot.

  13. #113

    Default

    For me I mainly want the rules including special pilots for either the US or Japan (yes, I have narrowed it down). Either way I will get the planes I did not pre-order from my FLGS because they are going to carry and support the game knowing there will be a consistent release schedule.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  14. #114

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PilGrim View Post
    ...but I struggle to understand why I need twelve models of each plane unless I'm buying for a game group. Each to their own but it seems like a lot.
    Does the system easily support that many? Can 1 player control even 6 planes easily?

  15. #115

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    Does the system easily support that many? Can 1 player control even 6 planes easily?
    Yes, one player can control six planes (reasonably) easily. The rules only track a couple of factors from turn to turn, advantage, which is indicated by the models stand, and morale which is the only thing tracked off table. The most important marker is the one that says each plane has been activated in a turn. This is critical because individual aircraft status changes as the turn progresses and initiative is governed by status so without the marker you can (ok mentally challenging people like me can) lose track of which has activated.

    Having said that I would say more than eight per player would start to overload. Just because there is no pre ordering doesn't mean there is no planning. In some ways this is even more important because wing men and positioning are crucial.

    That's why I'm only planning to buy a starter set to begin with. In truth you need the rules and counters etcetera anyway and I'm planning to play initially in a Battle of Britain scenario, so that works for me. I'm also planning to add squadrons of Hurricanes and 110s from AIM so I won't really need more. My concern with the pre order bundles is outside the Battle of Britain they don't make great match ups and the pre order discount isn't that great either, so unless you want the 28mm Ace Pilot figures I'm happy to start on just six planes a side.
    Last edited by PilGrim; 12-21-2017 at 02:02.

  16. #116

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PilGrim View Post
    Yes, one player can control six planes (reasonably) easily. The rules only track a couple of factors from turn to turn, advantage, which is indicated by the models stand, and morale which is the only thing tracked off table. The most important marker is the one that says each plane has been activated in a turn. This is critical because individual aircraft status changes as the turn progresses and initiative is governed by status so without the marker you can (ok mentally challenging people like me can) lose track of which has activated.

    Having said that I would say more than eight per player would start to overload. Just because there is no pre ordering doesn't mean there is no planning. In some ways this is even more important because wing men and positioning are crucial.

    That's why I'm only planning to buy a starter set to begin with. In truth you need the rules and counters etcetera anyway and I'm planning to play initially in a Battle of Britain scenario, so that works for me. I'm also planning to add squadrons of Hurricanes and 110s from AIM so I won't really need more. My concern with the pre order bundles is outside the Battle of Britain they don't make great match ups and the pre order discount isn't that great either, so unless you want the 28mm Ace Pilot figures I'm happy to start on just six planes a side.
    Solid rationale, and a thorough answer. Thank you!

  17. #117

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    Solid rationale, and a thorough answer. Thank you!
    Thank you - I'm aware I sometimes tend to brevity at the cost of clarity

  18. #118

    Default

    This does not look as easy to play as our game plus the aircraft are unpainted.

  19. #119

    Default

    I read the free downloadable rulebook from the Warlord website and did a bit of proxy playtesting of the system. Disclaimer: the following comments are based on first impressions from an incomplete play experience so misunderstood or yet to be final rules may negate some of this:

    The use of advantage was perhaps the most interesting difference from Wings. It seems like BRS abstracts some components of damage, horizontal positioning, and elevation into an advantage system. Since we basically play Advanced rules sans elevation here the BRS system does seem to convey the feeling of the non tactical elements of air battle better than WGS.

    The airplane movement seems far less fine tuned than WGS. It did not seem like there was any nuance to turning ratios. Remember the alternative move cards someone came up with for the less armored early war Zero? This level of fine tuning would be lost with the BRS system.

    BRS appears to be built around squadron interactions rather than individual plane confrontation. There are plane on plane actions and damage, but the feeling is closer to dealing with concepts akin to pinning and routing given that victory is gained by number of hits (boom markers). BRS is part of the Bolt Action universe so the idea of sky platoons fighting it out is not surprising.

    Based on a limited view of the plane offering but with full knowledge of Bolt Action I think BRS is less of an historic game as it is a game based around history. In other words game>history. With Bolt Action I mainly experience battles that are thematic around specific conflicts but I have also seen pick-up games between Soviets in Winter Gear vs Marines in short sleeves. At the end of the day Bolt Action seeks to be internally balanced so any army from any era of WWII can compete with any other. I believe BRS is going for the same thing. For us WGS players Mustangs and Zeros may be an odd choice but I am betting that Warlord will offer a game where it all plays well together so you can pick up the starter and any of the other boxes and play Spits vs Zekes if you want. This may not be to everyone's taste here, but it fits into a strategy that supports everyone being able to play with everyone else regardless of which models they have. Also, Warlord has mentioned that they are already working on expansion models so there will be a flow of product in stores, which is a good thing to "help" people impulse buy a new squadron of Yaks or Macchi C.202's.

    I may have missed the mark on some details but the general feel of the game has me interested enough to buy in.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  20. #120

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tokhuah View Post
    I read the free downloadable rulebook from the Warlord website and did a bit of proxy playtesting of the system. Disclaimer: the following comments are based on first impressions from an incomplete play experience so misunderstood or yet to be final rules may negate some of this:

    The use of advantage was perhaps the most interesting difference from Wings. It seems like BRS abstracts some components of damage, horizontal positioning, and elevation into an advantage system. Since we basically play Advanced rules sans elevation here the BRS system does seem to convey the feeling of the non tactical elements of air battle better than WGS.

    The airplane movement seems far less fine tuned than WGS. It did not seem like there was any nuance to turning ratios. Remember the alternative move cards someone came up with for the less armored early war Zero? This level of fine tuning would be lost with the BRS system.

    BRS appears to be built around squadron interactions rather than individual plane confrontation. There are plane on plane actions and damage, but the feeling is closer to dealing with concepts akin to pinning and routing given that victory is gained by number of hits (boom markers). BRS is part of the Bolt Action universe so the idea of sky platoons fighting it out is not surprising.

    Based on a limited view of the plane offering but with full knowledge of Bolt Action I think BRS is less of an historic game as it is a game based around history. In other words game>history. With Bolt Action I mainly experience battles that are thematic around specific conflicts but I have also seen pick-up games between Soviets in Winter Gear vs Marines in short sleeves. At the end of the day Bolt Action seeks to be internally balanced so any army from any era of WWII can compete with any other. I believe BRS is going for the same thing. For us WGS players Mustangs and Zeros may be an odd choice but I am betting that Warlord will offer a game where it all plays well together so you can pick up the starter and any of the other boxes and play Spits vs Zekes if you want. This may not be to everyone's taste here, but it fits into a strategy that supports everyone being able to play with everyone else regardless of which models they have. Also, Warlord has mentioned that they are already working on expansion models so there will be a flow of product in stores, which is a good thing to "help" people impulse buy a new squadron of Yaks or Macchi C.202's.

    I may have missed the mark on some details but the general feel of the game has me interested enough to buy in.
    I'd not agree with everything here but it is pretty much in the right ball park imho. I'll go into details later, as its almost 8am here on my last working day before Christmas and the "to do" list is already quite long.

  21. #121

    Default

    The sales pitch put to the retailers my mate attended clearly put it across that Andy Chambers wanted to create a game that involved squadrons of air craft rather than the 1 on 1 dogfight type skirmish normally seen - hence the gameplay and larger numbers of machines available.

    "He is wise who watches"

  22. #122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    The sales pitch put to the retailers my mate attended clearly put it across that Andy Chambers wanted to create a game that involved squadrons of air craft rather than the 1 on 1 dogfight type skirmish normally seen - hence the gameplay and larger numbers of machines available.
    This wouldn't be a terrible thing... as it might scratch a somewhat different itch. That it's in the same scale as WGS is also a good thing... opportunity for more models, as well as the ability to Wings aircraft within both systems.

  23. #123

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fast.git View Post
    This wouldn't be a terrible thing... as it might scratch a somewhat different itch. That it's in the same scale as WGS is also a good thing... opportunity for more models, as well as the ability to Wings aircraft within both systems.
    I quite agree - that's what we said when he pitched it to us - if we don't like the system at least we can use the models !

    "He is wise who watches"

  24. #124

    Default

    phew - hung work up now for Christmas - or at least hope nothing explodes (famous last words) so I will give this a quick (and badly thought through no doubt) attempt to explain BRS and why it is what and where it is at the moment.

    I spoke to Andy Chambers about this a month or so ago when I met him at the Warlord birthday bash. I will try and explain in my words what he said or at least what I think he was getting at. To paraphrase he was brought up on war stories and his dad was ex RAF so there was a lot of interest in the air war, the pilots memoirs and stories, and it has always been a particular favourite of his. He also played a lot of multi player ww2 dogfight simulations on pc and they helped reinforce his beliefs that the ways wargamers try to represent air combat is just too stale and planned. Games systems we have don't really represent the split second decision making nature of the real thing (or even the simulations). We fixate on the specifications and try and represent height, turn rates etc too slavishly without realising the function of those factors in combat. We also forget just how variable those factors really are. Andy was trying to represent this and his solution was to recognise that height (for instance) by itself is almost immaterial - the critical thing is how you use it to your advantage. Pilot skill is the main deciding factor, not that one plane has a theoretical top speed higher than the other. He also wanted to make the tactics particularly the use of wing men, pairs and the whole multiple aircraft thing relevant. The rules set that is now Blood Red Skies has existed in one form or another since about 2010 but had never managed to move beyond Andy's pet project. Recently he entered into discussion with Warlord who had been looking at another game, so they got together and BRS is the result.

    There are some elements in there that have been suggested by Warlord - they want to sell us toys, and I suspect the cards are one of their bright ideas, as is the pre coloured plastic. That is clearly an attempt to get an "open the box and play" style tournament game (as an aside these constant attempts to emulate X-Wing are starting to get annoying). My impression is Andy has gone along with that to get the game into production, but the rules are written to be scenario driven. This is him doing it for the love of the subject matter rather than the suits watching sales and deciding a WW2 dogfight set is needed.

    I think he has a point about the design of games. We simplify very complicated things and enforce a faux framework at the same time. I've tried not to use Wings as an example because I didn't want to cause a hostile debate, but just to illustrate, in reality the turn rates of the planes we represent don't really correspond to the cards and there are more than 2 throttle settings on a Spitfire. We do this because it would be unplayable to actually have the level of detail required - or rather we would have to switch to playing on a computer, or better yet buy ourselves real planes. Yes BRS has abstracted a lot of that, but concentrates on what I think the real life stories tell us - pilot skill and making best use of your position and circumstances and working together as a team is what wins. Usually.

    BRS has some problems. The initial release choices suggests Warlord have the whip hand and are trying to promote it as a tournament game. This is causing some confusion as to exactly what style of game BRS is - and there is some of that in the comments here, particularly about historical match ups, or lack of them. It doesn't really matter because there may only be 5 models in release 1 but there is a pdf with five pages of stats for just about everything that flew will be availavble as a pdf. Warlord know they cant just limit the game to their expansions and have recognised that from the start.

    I also appreciate there only being a few stats per plane seems to suggest beer and pretzels but you need to see the advanced rules and particularly the trait and theatre cards to see just how they all inter-mesh to give a rather good and detailed representation of the way these aircraft fought. Andy kindly sent me a pre release set of these so I have a far batter (and more positive view) Again this initial impression is totally understandable based on the main rulebook that has been released ahead of the game . However this does not include the advanced rules or campaign sets also in the box, or how cards really work. The point Tokhuah makes about the Zero is a case in point - looking at the raw stats of an A6M2 (it turns well and has unremarkable firepower) is a bit "so what" - in fact the two stats for Agility and Firepower (3-1) are identical to the Spitfire II with the Spit being marginally faster. However when you add in the traits - Tight turn, Deep Pockets and Vulnerable, and then you include the Japanese Doctrine cards Aggressive Tactics and Seasoned Pilots and the PTO early war Theatre cards Numbers and Poorly Trained Opponents and the two are now totally different. All those cards are in the starter set and there is a matrix that covers 9 Theatres \ Periods and the doctrines of 5 Air Forces split into early and late war. You dont need to play with these cards of course, but they do add a very interesting extra layer of details but at the same time still keeps the game playable.

  25. #125

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by flash View Post
    I quite agree - that's what we said when he pitched it to us - if we don't like the system at least we can use the models !
    Yes - very much the case

  26. #126

    Default

    Thank you for the details Ken and for alleviating my biggest concern. I guess we could look at the downloadable PDF rules like the WGS Basic rules. Bolt action also has some major differences when you construct a platoon from the specific nation's army book vs the more basic choices included with the main rulebook. Anyway, just happy to hear that manuevering is more fleshed out in the advanced game.

    I have no problem with abstracting certain elements of a game as long as the overall experience makes me feel like I am in a cockpit. Trying to be too literal with realism by capturing every mechanical aspect can also create a fiddly experience. This part you mentioned makes me especially interested in trying out the entire fleshed out game (emphasis in bold is mine):

    He also played a lot of multi player ww2 dogfight simulations on pc and they helped reinforce his beliefs that the ways wargamers try to represent air combat is just too stale and planned. Games systems we have don't really represent the split second decision making nature of the real thing (or even the simulations). We fixate on the specifications and try and represent height, turn rates etc too slavishly without realizing the function of those factors in combat. We also forget just how variable those factors really are. Andy was trying to represent this and his solution was to recognize that height (for instance) by itself is almost immaterial - the critical thing is how you use it to your advantage. Pilot skill is the main deciding factor, not that one plane has a theoretical top speed higher than the other. He also wanted to make the tactics particularly the use of wing men, pairs and the whole multiple aircraft thing relevant.
    EDIT: Does Andy have a social media presence anywhere that he is allowed to discuss BRS (without violating NDA of course)? Since it seems that the release has been delayed a bit it would be great to hear more about his design in anticipation of getting the physical game.
    Last edited by Tokhuah; 12-22-2017 at 11:58.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  27. #127

    Default

    More thoughts on this game. I have watched a full game here

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTkK6VmKcT4

    It looks a bit complicated for me (but I like simple)> If you ordered the big set for $300 you would get 47 aircraft that could easily be painted if you have that talent and used in WGS games as well.

  28. #128

    Default

    Those who have played it, any idea how it would do as a solo game? I have no IRL friends :P

  29. #129

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalnaren View Post
    Those who have played it, any idea how it would do as a solo game? I have no IRL friends :P
    I'm a fan of BRS (no, really) but I'd be pushed to see how it would work well, or at all, as a solo game, fighters v fighters. On the other hand if you were playing against unescorted bombers it would probably work. There's some back scenes discussion about an 8th AF expansion down the line.

  30. #130

    Default

    Watching a couple of demo games made me wonder if it could be adapted to WWI as well.

  31. #131

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Baxter View Post
    Watching a couple of demo games made me wonder if it could be adapted to WWI as well.
    No reason why it couldn't, but for me BRS is more designed for more "organised" warfare of WW2 where there is radio communications and more formal pairs etc. WGF does WW1 well imho. You would have to mess about with the speed brackets and re-categorise firepower, but as I said there is no reason why it wouldnt work

  32. #132

    Default

    I am very interested in finding out if the BRS flight pegs are compatible with the Litko Flight Peg Toppers.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  33. #133

    Default

    Interesting thread...not looked into it much yet as I have my hands full with WoG but wondering how long it will be before BRS players start grabbing WoG planes because they are painted and WoG players get box sets for squadrons of planes they can paint up for WoG. Then there are the online stats I was reading about for unprinted BRS planes that WoG have models for. It could trash our stock of WWII aircraft as they buy em up in groups of 6 for BRS.

  34. #134

    Default

    They'd need really deep pockets to make that viable - I can see WoG players buying BRS models but not the other way round so much.

    "He is wise who watches"

  35. #135

    Default

    They lost me with the choice to represent "advantaged" planes as being nose-high and "disadvantaged" planes as being nose-low.

    Visually, an aircraft that's nose-up at such an angle is at low energy, and disadvantaged if anything. The opposite for nose-low... which is the literal visual representation of dive bombing, strafing, boom-and-zooming, and basically every other instance of an aircraft being at high energy and high advantage.

    The models also look extremely pedestrian.

    I say this as a Warlord fan and owner of a couple of Bolt Action armies. Not a hater, just not impressed in the least by BRS so far.

  36. #136

    Default

    Hi Surfimp, bearing in mind that the game hinges around planes that are Advantaged, Neutral or Disadvantaged, what system would you have used to represent these 3 states? Pegs to alter altitude? Telescopic pegs?

  37. #137

    Default

    If they'd reversed the visual language such that nose-down was advantaged and nose-up was disadvantaged, it would at least make sense (to me)

  38. #138

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    If they'd reversed the visual language such that nose-down was advantaged and nose-up was disadvantaged, it would at least make sense (to me)
    So play it that way? This seems like a pretty pedantic and very easily houseruled thing to completely write off a game for.

  39. #139

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kalnaren View Post
    So play it that way? This seems like a pretty pedantic and very easily houseruled thing to completely write off a game for.
    Fair enough, but when it comes to spending my hard-earned, I can be as pedantic as I like, can't I?

    Really, my comments about this particular mechanic and the choices made about how to represent these game states are just shorthand for my much larger lack of interest in the game, which was the direct result of watching a good few of their promotional YouTube videos, reviewing the product website, and so forth (in other words, I "gave it a chance").

    BRS just leaves me cold - I can't see it beating out WoG for my time and interest.

  40. #140

    Default

    WGS is a rarely played game for me and I failed finger painting so I doubt that I will buy into BRS but it just seems to me that so many 1/200 unpainted planes at such a cheap price overall is a tremendous bargain for those who love their WGS. It also helps keep our history alive albeit not in the ARES way. If they had a WWI version I would get out my paint by numbers and have a go.

  41. #141

    Default

    The main pull for me is that there will be MANY more play opportunities locally due to Warlord/Bolt Action bandwidth. Also, I have been collecting favorite WGS planes in groups of 6 to play around with squadron battles, thus my comment regarding the Litko peg toppers. In fact, I have 6 Mustangs and Spits as well as 8 Zeros from Nexus/Ares so already set up for opening day, just need some peg modifications. I have also painted 8,000 points of Necrons as well as other stuff, including a corrected Ares Dauntless, so painting is not a deal killer. This is not about choosing between games but about more opportunities to fly... and who knows, maybe people will see the WGS miniatures and it will spark some interest in the light side of the force.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  42. #142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by surfimp View Post
    Really, my comments about this particular mechanic and the choices made about how to represent these game states are just shorthand for my much larger lack of interest in the game, which was the direct result of watching a good few of their promotional YouTube videos
    I'm with you on both - makes more sense to have the advantaged diving and the disadvantaged climbing.
    I watched a few rather lengthy demos and felt I was watching paint dry. It was like nothing happened ...


    P.S. I also don't like those fiddly little chits that indicate a plane has already played its turn. To each his own, I guess. WGS for me.

  43. #143

    Default

    Each to their own of course but having played both WGS and BRS I think BRS is both a better miniatures game and a better simulation within the design constraints. I would agree that the bases can be counter intuitive but as has already been pointed out, that's an easy fix locally.

    The models are ok, some are good, some are less so. I'd be pushed to say any are great but it isn't hard to find fault with any 1:200 model out there. Personally I'll be happy enough with them but have already invested in a half dozen Me110s from Dave Schmid to give me some variety and hand on heart Dave's are very good.

    One very positive point is Warlord has a good record of supporting and expanding their games systems. I don't have details but I understand they are already planning on a second wave of plastic models giving each nationality a couple of new options. That can only be good for everyone

  44. #144

    Default

    I haven't been able to tell... Are the minis for BRS painted or unpainted?

    I can't find any pictures of what the actual out-of-box minis look like (not the production samples earlier in this thread).

    As someone who also failed finger painting that would be a deal breaker.

    EDIT: OK found some pictures on the Facebook page I think they're just coloured plastic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stumptonian View Post

    P.S. I also don't like those fiddly little chits that indicate a plane has already played its turn. To each his own, I guess. WGS for me.
    Star Wars Armada handles this exceptionally well. They should have copied that game for this mechanic.
    Last edited by kalnaren; 01-18-2018 at 07:38.

  45. #145

    Default

    Looking at this youtube 'HERE' it appears that the planes are minimally colored? Sadly there is no close up of any of the planes but when he picks up the 109 (at 2:35) it definitely looks like the sides are much lighter and the wings look to be two toned.

  46. #146

    Default

    There are more recent pictures on the BRS Facebook page that show them as a single color by country of origin. This will allow people to play out of the box with board game quality miniature representation.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  47. #147

    Default

    That's disappointing.

  48. #148

    Default

    I think "board game quality" is a bit unfair - they're not that bad at all. I have the plastic pre production models and they're pretty good. I would not rate them as crisp as say AIM but they are not too far short. The main difference is they have went for some exaggeration of details - panel lines and canopy frames mainly, which they may have overdone, but we certainly are not talking about board game pieces. Given a half decent paint job and they will look very nice indeed.

    There is zero chance of getting the X-Wing quality pre paints without paying X-Wing quality prices (or WGS for that matter) and that's not the target price or market for BRS

    EDIT
    One point to make is the plastic BRS planes are rather durable - I dropped the Yak and then managed to run the casters of my chair (with me still on it) over the model as I pushed the chair back to pick the Yak up. It was very "bent" as a result but straightened up with a bit of hot water and prayer. There is not a lot sticking up \ out so the broken propeller blades and radio aerials so common in WGS models wont happen.
    Last edited by PilGrim; 01-18-2018 at 11:02.

  49. #149

    Default

    To clarify: my reference to board game quality has nothing to do with the quality of the miniature sculps but the level of painting/finish. Board games tend to be monochromatic even when produced at high end like Cool Minis or Not. Also, Wings is technically a board game if you go by Litko definition.

    If we should have to fight, we should be prepared to do so from the neck up instead of from the neck down. -Jimmy Doolittle

  50. #150

    Default

    More that I just have zero skill in painting anything myself. Prepaints are a big plus for me.

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast


Similar Missions

  1. Wings of War and Glory - Chapter 1: First Blood
    By Blackronin in forum Campaign Discussions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-23-2016, 09:16
  2. AAR: First blood over Rabia
    By PonchoLatour in forum After Action Reports
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-10-2013, 05:52
  3. Blood in the Air
    By PunkReaper in forum UK Wing
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 06-21-2013, 09:18
  4. WGFF: Across the Blood Red Skies
    By Flying Officer Kyte in forum Book Reviews
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-29-2012, 09:43
  5. To cut down on the blood bath
    By CappyTom in forum House Rules
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: 11-29-2010, 16:43

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •