Check Out New Infantry Cards For Flames Of War Team Yankee
September 29, 2015 by brennon
Team Yankee, the new semi-modern warfare setting for Flames Of War by Battlefront, gets another preview this week from Breakthrough Assault. This time they're showing off the Infantry Cards for both the Soviets and the US. We'll kick things off with the boys in red...
Soviet Infantry
Much like with the tanks that we saw last week this new set of previews take a look at the changes to the way the statistics and special rules for units are lain out. The front of each card carries the business end of things while the rear has special rules.
We've got a look at more than one unit this time as well but if you want to check out some of the additional cards for both of these armies they have a few more over on the Breakthrough Assault blog.
Everything that looks important has been packed onto these cards and it should cut down on the amount of rulebook flicking that you have to do.
American Might
The Americans are not going to be left out when it comes to the Team Yankee adventure and we got a look at their M113 Mech Combat Team which will no doubt be facing off against the Rifle Company above.
The other preview we got was a more focused one on the M113 Transport option that is open to the Americans in Team Yankee.
This is looking like it's going to be a really great step in the right direction for Battlefront in making their game that little bit more accessible. Team Yankee could also show a leaning towards exploring the idea of modern warfare right now.
What do you think?
"The front of each card carries the business end of things while the rear has special rules..."
I still find ‘FoW’ rules too much. If TY is going to be like FoW in terms of the amount of stuff and special rules then I will get some of the models, they look fantastic, but not the game.
…a minus one! Nice to see opinions are popular.
Upvoted you back to zero. I personally think FoW rules are ok, but I see your point of having too much special special rules. I usually play FoW scenario driven so that whoever comes up with the scenario sets the table and chooses both forces.
…thanks, I was just being bitchy!
Totally agree with comment above Uncle Jimmy
Definitely agree with all above. Just from watching demo games, the laws of physics seem to change in FoW depending on what color uniform you have on or what edition of the rules you’re reading. Too many “top down” crutch rules that allow players to substitute rules for tactics. Of course, this means TONS of rules. People in the thread below are saying that Team Yankee will simplify some of this, which sounds great and I earnestly hope is right. 🙂 I guess they’d have to, in order to make “complexity room” for things like guided weapons, helos, artillery-delivered smart… Read more »
I’ll most likely pick up some of the miniatures but wait for the Battlegroup Cold War rules (due out next year hopefully) for any games.
I’m not sure why the M113 would get an amphibious special rule whilst the BMP doesn’t. Soviet doctrine emphasised river crossing capabilities in most of their vehicles, whether on the surface or using snorkels in the case of MBT’s….
What game would you recommend @unclejimmy? I’m looking for a platoon/combat team scrum, either modern or WWII. Cold War… been there, done that :-).
Force-onForce all the way. A great level of abstraction for all the nonsense that gets in the way, very little book-keeping and after a couple of games you won’t ever need the rule book! A massive plus. No stats – it’s all based on the training and confidence of the combatants, which you will appreciate makes the difference. Pressed insurgents are D6 for combat ability, but could be D10 for morale. Top tier spec4’s might be D10 or, very rarely, D12 for combat ability! It makes a huge difference when rolling a 4+ to succeed. I’ll do a battle report… Read more »
Thanks for the info @unclejimmy . Appreciate it. I’m all about the bigger games, and they can get bogged down if the rules set is too complex.
FoF is not really designed for ‘bigger games’, but there is nothing stopping you from trying. It is a reactive game – anything done by the initiative side can be countered by the opposition so it could get bogged down. Two or three vehicles might be my limit, but I have never tried a bigger game.
Might be worth having a go one day. Have a look at this guys blog – it might suit you and @oriskany
http://bigfof.blogspot.co.uk/
I think they are trying to significantly simplify things in TY.
I love Flames but it’s hard to argue against the complexity of the rules. I know veteran players who still have to regularly check the book. I think even Battlefront know this, just look at the ‘Question of the Week’ on their own website.
Some pretty interesting stuff here, especially since we also get the stats for a bunch of ATGMs. It’s looking like even Abrams drivers will need to be pretty careful if the Soviets bring along a bunch of BMP-2s since the missiles they carry are more than capable of knocking them out from the front, even at ranges greater than that of the Abrams’s main gun. Also, Soviets get a fair bit of integrated AA, quite unlike the US. I’m afraid that might be needed against the A-10 option which will likely be rather popular. This is certainly confirming my plans… Read more »
I’ll be going Soviet if I jump into TY and then see how the NATO armies develop. A BAOR set up would be welcome.
It’s interesting to see more of these unit cards.
when is the release date on this
not a fan of the FOW rules at all..way too complicated for what they accomplish…but stealing cards from DUST is a pretty smart move 😉
M113s with thermal imaging?
…there is always one!
Not often you see “might” and “M113” mentioned in the same thread lol. OK for their day (I’ll even admit to breaking one or two of them). They certainly weren’t mighty, and burned like a bastard when they got hit (according to footage I’ve seen. Never had the pleasure). Understandable, given what they were made of.
Yer… burned like a bitch in Nam as one gent once eloquently told me.
After spending the Weekend in Armored Warfares open stresstest I can’t wait to get my hand on some of these toys.
I like the models but I think I will wait for Iron fists (battlegroup) publishing cold war rules
…that’s what I like to hear! If the cold-war stuff is like Kursk then it will be fantastic: fast, fluid, dynamic and easy to follow! (send the cheque to the usual address)
@unclejimmy has seconded the motion by @armourygames – allow me to “third” the motion. 😀
Funnily was looking at the latest playtest draft today…
…and? Don’t keep a lady waiting!
I have played a lot of FoW. I wish that these cards had been done from the beginning! I sincerely hope that they go back and print these for their existing ranges. Having recently been exposed to the battlegroup rules I have to admit that I like them. I will say that as I am not a tournament player I have no problem moding rules getting rid of the fiddly bits. I will more than likely pick this up. One thing that is for sure FoW miniatures are great. If battlegroup ever gets around to a modern set of rules… Read more »
Never been in an Amtrac, but I had lunch in the back of a Stryker once! So clean and it even smelled nice.
@bloodmoonorc
The BMP data card isn’t shown just the battalion cards so it may well have the amphibious ability as it probably should
The BMP datacards are actually in the article linked here; not all of them were copied into this news post.
Both BMP-1 and BMP-2 do indeed have the Amphibious rule.
Having been a gamer since Squad Leader came out may skew my perceptions, but I could take or leave these cards. They look good and would certainly be convenient in some circumstances, but I don’t see them as a huge advantage to having my forces sheet printed out. Then again, I don’t have a problem throwing a buck at the online system to get access to the list I want to use whereas not everybody wants to do so.