Demotox
|
Aggressive 1941 200 Point Soviet BuildOk, the 1941 thing is in there just to rub it in that i'm not using any units from later than that. This build is hyper aggressive. I haven't modified it for expanded rules army point increase for soviet.
T-34/76 Commander x2
T-34/76 x3
Maxim 1910 MG x3
ZIS-5 3 Ton x1
Mosin-Nagant 1891/30 x5
Maxims on T-34/76s. Set up as such: 2 Mosin on ZIS-5 3 Ton, rest slogging around during assault phase on flanks. In center place as such: T-34/76, T-34/76 Commander, T-34/76, T-34/76 Commander, T-34/76. This will provide all T-34s the commander ability as well as allowing the Maxims to move up if needed during movement phase what with the T-34/76 Commanders being ... Commanders. The ZIS goes wherever it is needed. React to contact with this thing. This army should blitz as fast as possible to the objective and hold. Excellent anti infantry. Very very very very very good anti tank for the year. During later years this build will still be very strong it'll just have a little more of a challenge. GG.
|
Field Marshal PF
|
Brute force, nothing fancy. it'll get the job done, the only problem I see is having 2 tank commanders, not sure bout that.
|
Duck Crusader
|
He needs them for his MGs and Infantry. I'm not sure about using tanks for foot commanders, you waste their mobility or abandon the infantry if you have to move them.
|
Sharpe
|
| Duck Crusader wrote: | | He needs them for his MGs and Infantry. I'm not sure about using tanks for foot commanders, you waste their mobility or abandon the infantry if you have to move them. |
Tank commanders don't count for COMMAND DEPENDENT, if that's what you mean.
|
Demotox
|
| Sharpe wrote: | | Duck Crusader wrote: | | He needs them for his MGs and Infantry. I'm not sure about using tanks for foot commanders, you waste their mobility or abandon the infantry if you have to move them. |
Tank commanders don't count for COMMAND DEPENDENT, if that's what you mean. |
Um... Yes they do.
|
Duck Crusader
|
Zuh? Why not?
|
Sharpe
|
Cuz WOTC sez so. The answer man ruled on it a few weeks ago.
|
Demotox
|
| Sharpe wrote: | | Cuz WOTC sez so. The answer man ruled on it a few weeks ago. |
Place a link. Otherwise it does because that's a commander on the card and you seem to be the only one that knows about this ruling..
|
Sharpe
|
| Demotox wrote: | | Sharpe wrote: | | Cuz WOTC sez so. The answer man ruled on it a few weeks ago. |
Place a link. Otherwise it does because that's a commander on the card and you seem to be the only one that knows about this ruling.. |
It's a "Tank Commander," and that's a different creature. Everybody I know has heard about it.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1011456
WOTC also announced that the only future rules clarifications will be on their website. No more rules in the boxes.
|
Duck Crusader
|
Hmm, wonder if that means the new rules they said were coming out with Task Force will be a PDF?
|
Akela152
|
well... i guess we still need to bring the KV1 with the cossack captain on it in that case...
|
Sharpe
|
| Duck Crusader wrote: | | Hmm, wonder if that means the new rules they said were coming out with Task Force will be a PDF? |
I meant for real AAM, not the wet stuff. There won't be any more rules inside the checklist the way it was in the good old days. Now, don't be snarky.
|
Duck Crusader
|
Did we forget who we were talking to?
|
Demotox
|
The only person to ever last this long against me in an online staring contest...
|
Sharpe
|
| Duck Crusader wrote: | Did we forget who we were talking to?  |
Absolutely not.
|
Demotox
|
Well, even if they don't affect command dependent units, they still provide their ability to the other tanks which is important.
|
Duck Crusader
|
| Sharpe wrote: | | Duck Crusader wrote: | Did we forget who we were talking to?  |
Absolutely not.  |
|