Although initially viewed as another face in the late-'90s crowd of teen pop acts, Pink (professionally known as P!nk) quickly transcended and outgrew that label with her combination of pop songcraft and powerhouse, rock-influenced vocals. Born Alecia Moore on September 8, 1979, in Doylestown, Pennsylvania, P!nk received her nickname as a child, years before she dyed her hair accordingly. She grew up in a musical family and was a regular on the Philadelphia club scene by the age of 13, first as a dancer and then as a backing vocalist for the local hip-hop group Schoolz of Thought.

At 14, she began writing her own songs; the same year, a local DJ at Club Fever began inviting her on-stage to sing a song every Friday. P!nk was spotted one night by an executive for MCA Records, who asked her to audition for an R&B group called Basic Instinct.

Although P!nk's strong vocals landed her the gig, the group imploded not long after. She was quickly recruited for a female R&B trio called Choice, who signed to L.A. Reid and Babyface's LaFace label on the strength of their demo; however, they too disbanded due to differences over musical direction.

May 25, 2015 And I would love to see how many of those losses were a direct cause of tank-on-tank combat. M4A3 (105) HVSS - 2539.

During Choice's brief studio time, producer Daryl Simmons asked P!nk to write a bridge section for the song 'Just to Be Loving You.' Impressed with the results, P!nk rediscovered her songwriting muse, and an equally impressed L.A.

Reid soon gave her a solo deal with LaFace. P!nk recorded her solo debut, Can't Take Me Home, with a variety of songwriting partners and dance-pop and R&B producers. Released in 2000, the album was a double-platinum hit; it spun off three Top Ten singles in 'There U Go,' 'Most Girls,' and 'You Make Me Sick.'

She toured that summer as the opening act for *N Sync, but soon found herself tired of being pigeonholed as strictly a teen act despite her sassy, forthright persona. As she set about working on her follow-up album, P!nk took part in the remake of Patti LaBelle's 'Lady Marmalade' featured on the Moulin Rouge soundtrack, which also featured powerhouse divas Christina Aguilera, Mya, and Lil' Kim. The song was a massive hit, topping the charts in both the U.S. While expanding P!nk's own audience.

Toward the end of the year, P!nk released her next single, 'Get the Party Started,' which climbed into the Top Five and became the singer's most inescapable hit to date. Her accompanying sophomore album, M!ssundaztood, quickly went double platinum; it boasted a more personal voice and an eclectic sound, plus heavy contributions from ex-4 Non Blondes singer Linda Perry, who helped bring some more rock muscle to P!nk's sound (as did guest appearances by Steven Tyler and Richie Sambora).

M!ssundaztood attracted positive critical notices as well, and its second single, 'Don't Let Me Get Me,' became another fast-rising Top Ten hit. P!nk next issued Try This in November 2003. The album continued her progression toward more rock-oriented material, due in part to the songwriting collaboration of Rancid frontman Tim Armstrong on eight of the album's tracks. Try This' lead single, 'Trouble,' cracked the upper regions of Billboard's Top 40 and earned P!nk a Grammy Award for Best Female Rock Vocal Performance. On the home front, P!nk wed motocross racer Carey Hart -- whom she had initially met at 2001's X-Games -- on January 7, 2006, in Costa Rica. Her next album, I'm Not Dead, appeared that April; its first single, 'Stupid Girls,' quickly became a hit, while 'Who Knew' and 'U + Ur Hand' both cracked the Top Ten. I'm Not Dead reached platinum status in several countries and helped ramp up anticipation for P!nk's follow-up, Funhouse, which arrived in October 2008.

'So What,' the album's leadoff single, became her first number one hit since 'Lady Marmalade.' Another hit, 'Please Don't Leave Me,' followed in 2009 and all her hits were collected on the 2010 release Greatest Hits.So Far!!!, which was preceded by the single 'Raise Your Glass.' Around the time of the release of Greatest Hits.So Far!!!, P!nk announced that she and her husband were expecting their first child. In September 2012, P!nk released her sixth studio album, The Truth About Love. With production from Greg Kurstin, Butch Walker, Max Martin, Dan Wilson, and others, it became her first number one album in America and earned platinum status in half a dozen countries.

The singles 'Blow Me (One Last Kiss),' 'Try,' and 'Just Give Me a Reason' all hit the Top Ten in the U.S., and the last became her fourth number one hit in America. P!nk mounted a yearlong tour -- the third best-selling in 2013, according to Billboard -- through Australia, Europe, and North America, and at the end of 2013 she was named Woman of the Year by Billboard. Taking a break from her solo work, P!nk teamed up with City and Colour vocalist Dallas Green for a collaborative acoustic effort called You+Me. They released their first album, Rose Ave., in October 2014.

Debuted atop the Billboard folk chart and cracked the Billboard Top Five. The following year, P!nk wrote a new theme song for The Ellen Degeneres Show titled 'Today's the Day.' She also contributed 'Just Like Fire,' a new song, for the 2016 movie Alice Through the Looking Glass. P!nk returned in August 2017 with the socially charged song 'What About Us,' the first single from her album Beautiful Trauma, which arrived in October. Upon release, the LP topped the Billboard 200, her second consecutive number one. ~ Steve Huey • ORIGIN Doylestown, PA • BORN 08 September 1979.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. By filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: • No adverts like this in the forums anymore. • Times and dates in your local timezone. • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.

• Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to. Just getting into the playing, I'm afraid I can't help on the first question. Currently, I'm running a German Heer/Panzergrenadier army (some 60 infantry total [usually 30 on the field], medium mortar, 3 SDK/251's, 6 assorted mid/late war tanks available to me [using only one at a time]) Personally, I despise the Warlord infantry models and prefer DreamForge/Wargames Factory's infantry miniatures: Germans- Americans - Russians- I'm not very historically minded, but the three above kits will fill out a generic infantry squad.

Warlord would be the better bet for specialist units like mortars, machine gun nests and other specialist unit/weapons such as bazookas, spotters, flamethrowers or specific military divisions (such as Airborne, Rangers, etc.) Also, I prefer Rubicon's vehicles - to Warlord's (Warlord's plastics are passable, their resin models are cringe-worthy). Interestingly, I disagree fairly thoroughly with Stormonu. The WGF ww2 models are in fairly stiff and awkwardly posed. Sometimes they go on sale for 75% off, which is about the maximum price I would pay for them. I much prefer Warlord's plastics, especially the newer kits - such as US Marines and Japanese and Grenadiers, Fallschirmjager, Blitzkrieg Germans, and the new US Airborne. And of course the Perry plastics - Afrika Korps and British 8th Army - are pretty much the best out of all three.

(there's also Plastic Soldier Company's 28mm Russians but those are also not very good) Also, Warlord resin used to be pretty crap, but in the last 18 months or so they got new pressure casting equipment and their newer resin kits are pretty great. The last 10+ resin kits I've gotten from Warlord have been pretty fantastic. As for plastic vehicles, between the two companies, Rubicon tends to be more expensive and often have inaccuracies (they are retooling several kits like the Panzer III because of how bad they are).

But honestly for 1/56 vehicles, we are now spoiled for choice and there are more 1/56 kits now than 1/48. Other than Rubicon's first wave of releases, the rest have been good, and the lines complement each other fairly well. For example, Warlord makes a plastic M18 Hellcat but Rubicon doesn't, Rubicon makes a plastic SU-85/122 kit, Warlord doesn't. Back to your original question, yeah, the different infantry types do play rather differently. Regular Grenadiers are just gonna be your normal dudes, only benefiting from Germany's special rules.

The main difference between early-war Heer and late-war Grenadiers are the access to assault rifles and panzerfausts. That being said, there's nothing wrong with them, and they are cheaper than Fallschirmjager and Waffen- SS so you can have more. Fallschirmjager have different squad loadouts, of course, but are also paratroopers, so they are Stubborn. Being able to make a morale check on your full, unmodified morale, have saved some of my FJ units from being wiped. Waffen- SS can be Fanatics, which is phenomenal if you are going to be assaulting. They will fight until the last man - so do not surrender in close quarters if they are defeated - they keep fighting.

All the infantry types are covered in the Armies of Germany (second edition) army book. It also includes: Kriegsmarine, Volkssturm, Volksgrenadiers, and more.

There's three different retail packaged 'Starter Army' sets for Germans: Blitzkrieg! Starter army, Grenadiers starter army, and Fallschirmjager starter army.

The Blitzkrieg starter army set is appropriate for late 1939 to 1941 or so and is a nice 1000 point army with lots of infantry, plus a 251/1 half track transport and a Panzer IV D. You'd need to buy more teams/etc if you wanted to switch up the configuration. The Grenadiers starter army set is good for 1942 to 1945 and has about 1250 points in the box. The force is very well rounded, with lots of infantry, MG team, mortar team, anti-tank gun, and the ubiquitous StuG and a Puma. The Fallschirmjager starter army is an even better deal, points wise, and represents FJ from 19. It has about 1500 points of dudes - tons of infantry, plus tons of support teams too - mortar, panzershreck, flamethrower, sniper, antitank gun; plus a StuG III and a 251/1 half track transport.

I think the Fallschirmjager starter army is the best deal but it does mean you'll be playing a Veteran army and will usually be outnumbered. The Grenadiers starter army might be best overall, as you get a good mix of troops and support teams and vehicles and you can play them as Regular infantry or Veteran Grenadiers if you so choose. Thats good to hear their quality is getting better, Im assuming most of the pictures they have of the sets are the older models then, they look kinda clumsy and goofy. The Fallshirmjager have been my top choice so far, The bundle I found for the starter army looks dope. Plus the stubborn rule really ties into their badass reputation, the Green Devils were tenacious fighters.

Do people generally keep everything uniform? Or would it matter if you took Fallshirmjager then took some volks grenadiers or pioneers for a higher body count?

Thats good to hear their quality is getting better, Im assuming most of the pictures they have of the sets are the older models then, they look kinda clumsy and goofy. The Fallshirmjager have been my top choice so far, The bundle I found for the starter army looks dope. Plus the stubborn rule really ties into their badass reputation, the Green Devils were tenacious fighters.

Do people generally keep everything uniform? Or would it matter if you took Fallshirmjager then took some volks grenadiers or pioneers for a higher body count? It's true, when Warlord started, they bulked up their product offering by buying several companies' molds. Some of the older kits are definitely. It's up to preference!

Some people like to make a 'pure' army, including units at maximum paper strength. Others like to make more rag-tag, 'been in the thick of it' units, with squads from different branches, thrown together in a battle. Both are very historically accurate, as a force made up of random stuff is easily represented as a Kampfgruppe. (this happened on all sides, too, US Infantry being thrown in with US Airborne - during the bulge, the US 75th was attached to a British unit!) I highly highly recommend the Fallschirmjager Starter Army set just because you'll have so many fun units to play with. Also it looks like they give you 36 plastics but only 'use' 33 of them in the army list, giving you some options to play with. The only thing I would say to add would be a MG42 mmg team. 6 dice can really hurt someone's day The Fallschirmjager HQ metal pack is also really cool if you'd like some metal guys to lead your plastics instead - they are characterful yet understated headquarters models.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/12/28 14:35:19. Warlord's plastics are really, really 'goofy'. Not Games Workshop bad, but up there. Wargames Factory's Germans are much better, though yes some of the poses aren't amazing - but are still miles ahead of Warlord's.

There's also a ton of stuff out there in metal - which are probably the better option than Warlord's plastics quality wise (Warlord do metal paras themselves, though IIRC Artizan and others have them). As for plastic kits. If you have the option between Rubicon and Warlord go for Rubicon's first. They have far more options available and plenty of spares (if you're willing to do the legwork with scratch building the extra track bits, etc can be turned into whole vehicles too).

I'd mention Blitzkrieg Miniatures, JTFM Enterprises and Perry Miniatures for those vehicles which Warlord don't cover in resin. Depending on the period of the war force structure became less concise near the end. The Fallschirmjager were used as infantry after Crete, so yes presumably would have sawn use alongside the Heer. Though you could easily use the para models with other unit's profiles to represent them using different kit. On a similar note the Luftwaffe used its own vehicles as well to an extent (a lot of it never saw production however), which may be a concern, but you could get away with regular Heer stuff as well. I assume that you're going for historical accuracy?

The Germans had so much kit which never saw the light of day that there's always the temptation to throw some of it together. Claymore's Alternative History thread on the Beyond the Sprues forum has a few Luftwaffe inspired vehicles in it if you're interest (none of them would take too much effort to slap together either). This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/12/28 14:48:04. Whew, we'll have to agree to disagree. WGF Germans are worth about 75% off, but not much more.

If you're a fan of details 'melting' into the model - especially those ammo belts - then go right ahead. I like the dynamism of Warlord's figs and I dislike the 'melting stiff wax soldier' look of the WGF dudes.

So they are good to use as wax statues in a 28mm diorama of a wax museum? So to me, Warlord's plastics are much, much better than WGF's.

But that's up to each person, and if OP likes Warlord's Fallschirmjager, go right ahead. I still strongly caution just buying a kit out of the blue. There are many, many instances of Warlord's kit being superior to Rubicons - the Panzer III and Panzer IV kits are the most notable examples, by far. Warlord's StuG is better as well, in my opinion. I ended up going Fallschirmjager box and after putting a bunch of them together they look pretty sick, I love the look of the FG-42, I hope it works out in the game with them.

I ended up finding it for less than $100 on amazon. I expected a lesser quality but I only see it in the bases they provide you. Got a digital version of the german army book and yes theyre just treated as veteran infantry like the SS so you cant take them as inexperienced or regulars. So you have a more elite fighting force with less bodies on the table.

Ive seen lots of ugly, and sarcastic debates about historical inaccuracies while researching bolt action online and I definitely dont want to be like that, especially if I field my germans and I have to fight the Japanese or something, what's the point. Either way the game looks really fun. Theres a theatre selector which appears to be a force organization guide and there is a few selections where I could field the paratroops as well as pioneers or SS and it would be somewhat 'historically accurate.' But I think ill just make a standard reinforced platoon and have fun.

The MG-42 MMG does sound like the perfect addition to the force. This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/02 21:32:03. Install Cwm Xperia X8. Ive seen lots of ugly, and sarcastic debates about historical inaccuracies while researching bolt action online and I definitely dont want to be like that, especially if I field my germans and I have to fight the Japanese or something, what's the point. I personally have never understood this attitude - there's a segment of the gaming community that despises Bolt Action simply because BA gives you the ability to play ahistorically! There's nothing stopping you from fighting points-free historical scenarios (which I have done many many times), or just playing a 1000 point game with your pal (which I have done many many times). The versatility of the system to do both is one of the things I love about it.

So I've always found it weird that some people detest the game because it allows you to do it. I ended up going Fallschirmjager box and after putting a bunch of them together they look pretty sick, I love the look of the FG-42, I hope it works out in the game with them. I ended up finding it for less than $100 on amazon. I expected a lesser quality but I only see it in the bases they provide you. Got a digital version of the german army book and yes theyre just treated as veteran infantry like the SS so you cant take them as inexperienced or regulars. So you have a more elite fighting force with less bodies on the table.

Ive seen lots of ugly, and sarcastic debates about historical inaccuracies while researching bolt action online and I definitely dont want to be like that, especially if I field my germans and I have to fight the Japanese or something, what's the point. Either way the game looks really fun.

Theres a theatre selector which appears to be a force organization guide and there is a few selections where I could field the paratroops as well as pioneers or SS and it would be somewhat 'historically accurate.' But I think ill just make a standard reinforced platoon and have fun. The MG-42 MMG does sound like the perfect addition to the force. A small amount of reading will keep you pretty on point with accuracy, if you're really worried pick up a couple Osprey books and you'll be set. Usually even the most new or inexperienced of players can even pick up on 'huh, that seems weird, maybe that doesn't make sense.'

With Fallschirmjaeger it'll be even easier for you, as they have a lot of specialized gear that they specifically used, so you'll be able to tell a lot of your 'historical' options just by glancing at the German army book. Big thing would be not mixing branches at a small scale level (aka 1,000pts) It'd be very odd to see one squad of SS serving with a platoon of regular Heer for example. Other thing would be not wildly mixing ratings unless you're playing something like Volksturm, where it makes sense that the LT might be a vet with the majority of your units being Inexperienced/regular.

This goes out the window at the very end of the war though, where it actually makes sense to have morale and rating all over the place as the German army was all over the place by 1945. The new plastics (fallschirmjaeger being one of them) are excellent new kits, I love the Grenadiers, USMC, and Japanese especially as they're all excellent. Older kits are pretty rough though, like the US GI and original German kit.

I don't know why the WGF kits would be considered superior, they have some questionable choices in kit that make them hard to kit out accurately, have terrible poses, and are very limited in options. I should know, I used to own about 40 of them.

Also, their weapons are horrendously fragile, they break with even minor handling. I would not use them unless you are really trying to build an army on a budget. Also, something most people don't mention, is that the WGF models will be out of scale with anything else you use to bolster your army.

Good luck finding MG 42 teams, Panzershrecks, pak 40 crew, etc, that match their build, because I've yet to see any. There are many, many instances of Warlord's kit being superior to Rubicons - the Panzer III and Panzer IV kits are the most notable examples, by far. Warlord's StuG is better as well, in my opinion. Thats a very broad sweeping statement, which I think is unfair to Rubicon. It's true that a few of Rubicon's kits have some serious accuracy and detail issues - their Panzer III is very poor (and will be discontinued soon), and their Sherman had a mis-shaped 76mm turret.

But several Warlord kits have issues as well - especially their scaled-up PSC kits. I agree that Rubicon's StuG III is inferior to Warlord's - the Warlord/Italeri version is one of the best in their range, along with their Panzer III. I also like Warlord/Italeri's Panther and Tiger I.

But Warlord's scaled-up PSC Panzer IV is rather poor; Rubicon's Panzer IV is a bit basic, but more accurate. More recent Rubicon kits, like their T-34/85, M8/M20, SdKfz 251 and M3A1 half-track are far better detailed, better designed and more accurate than the Warlord versions. Rubicon's JagdPanzer 38t and Crusader are amongst the best 1/56 scale AFV kits available, with a great range of options and superb detail. Other Rubicon kits, like the M5A1/M8, Tiger I and M10/M36, have some very minor accuracy issues but are excellent wargaming models with a huge range of options. One issue with Warlord AFVs is the tracks; while some people dislike the lack of detail on Rubicon's one-piece tracks, Warlord tracks can be difficult to align and tend to have very obvious gaps. Rubicon are getting consistently better - their latest kits are upgrade sets for their German half-tracks, which include quite good figures, and they've just released a lovely Neu version of the SdKfz 250.

Meanwhile, Warlord's releases are erratic; their M10 isn't bad (although the crew figures are horrible), their Sherman V and Firefly are crude up-scalings of PSC kits, and their plastic SdKfz 251 variants are pretty mediocre. Their latest plastic kit, the M3/M3A1 Stuart, builds a very nice and accurate British M3 (and includes some excellent figures), but doesn't build an accurate M3A1 - and the tracks are quite fiddly (especially when it comes to filling the joins in the middle of the track pads). Rubicon's next AFV kit will be an M4A3(76mm) Sherman, with a choice of tracks with extended end connectors or HVSS suspension - it will easily surpass Warlord's plastic Sherman kits. Finally, Rubicon are producing a growing range of soft-skins in plastic. While they're not as glamorous as tanks, they're important vehicles, and the models are designed to be robust and easy to assemble. There are already trucks available for the German, US and Soviet armies, and there's a British truck in the works as well as useful variants like the Opel Maultier.

I hope that redresses the balance a bit. Warlord kits are not up-scaled PSC kits - not sure where you're getting this information, but it's wholly inaccurate. Most are Italeri engineered, the rest are manufactured by the same plastics tooling company that Warlord own a share in (they invested in a plastics tooling company in ~2012/2013 when they moved away from Renedra) Just last night I assembled the M18 Hellcat and it was actually the most model-ish of the traditionally 'easy to assemble' wargaming vehicles - as in, a part count in the 70's. It also had crap crew models, but the kit itself is probably the best 1/56 plastic kit I have ever assembled - the detail is simply phenomenal. I would venture to say it's not only probably the best 1/56 but also in the top tier of Italeri kits in general. I also prefer Warlord and Italeri's tracks, I'm definitely not a fan of the Rubicon undetailed toy-tracks, but I understand the reasoning - fast build kits - and it takes up a lot less sprue real-estate, so they can include more bits and options. But this is less of an issue for vehicles whose tracks are not exposed (such as halftracks).

The aforementioned Hellcat has 4 track pieces per side and fit together quite well. I'm not sure which 'balance' you needed to 'redress' as I also had previously stated:. 'But honestly for 1/56 vehicles, we are now spoiled for choice and there are more 1/56 kits now than 1/48. Other than Rubicon's first wave of releases, the rest have been good, and the lines complement each other fairly well.' I'm not taking sides between Warlord and Rubicon, as I am wholly excited to get my 250/3 Greif shortly from Rubicon for my DAK army.

There's literally no reason to 'take sides', we are living in a golden age of 1/56 models. Though we should probably stop hijacking this Fallschirmjager thread. Warlord kits are not up-scaled PSC kits - not sure where you're getting this information, but it's wholly inaccurate. Some of them do use the PSC CAD designs. As anyone who's built the recent Sherman V would know. In the case of that kit, what was a great 15mm kit becomes a decidedly chunky looking 1/56 scale model which doesn't look right next to their properly scaled Italeri-designed kits. The commander figure is very obviously an upscaled 15mm figure.

Warlord's crew figures are all over the place as well - few of them are consistent with the Warlord plastic infantry, which kind of negates the point of including them. Judgedoug - I was responding to the comment that I quoted, which was, I felt, one-sided. I acknowledge that the different approaches to track design tend to divide people; personally, I'm prepared to forgive the 'toylike' look of Rubicon's tracks for the sake of not having to line up track segments. Warlord's approach also means solid roadwheels (very obvious on vehicles without sideskirts), which seems to undermine the whole point of having detail on the tracks. That said, on a large tank like the Tiger the lack of track detail is quite noticeable.

I'm glad the Hellcat is a good kit - I haven't build one. The terrible figures in the Warlord M10 kit put me off (it was the inclusion of crew which was the only advantage it had over Rubicon's M10/M6). Ultimately, you're right that this is a good time for 1/56 scale. Just as well for me, as I find 15mm too small for my declining eyesight, and even 20mm is pushing it. This message was edited 2 times.

Last update was at 2017/01/09 04:57:35. Well currently having bought a Warlord Panzer IV following the Rubicon one being out of stock at the flgs I'm kind of startled by how inferior it is. The overall detail is crisper than the Rubicon kit, but also much more shallow (as though they forgot they were making a scale kit where every should be exaggerated).

I also notice certain elements are missing entirely, or vary with Rubicon's interpretation of them. The whole underside of the vehicle for one is blank (which I suppose was justified by it being a Wargaming kit and people not caring.Well Rubicon cared with their's.) Besides that the inferior nature of the actual production process is evident.

OK, inferior may be a bit blunt, but if anything the Warlord kit comes across a hell of a lot more like a toy. I shouldn't expect to be seeing solid roadwheels on a scale kit of this size, nor should their interior side by entirely hollow.

Talking about the tracks, again the extra detail is moot considering how shallow it is and that its covered up by any dirt you apply (a layer of two of paint would cover up those links). That's without mentioning that they're a third thinner than Rubicon's, coming out at the same size as an early Panzer III's oddly (III/ IVs came out as 360-400 and 380-400 respectively. Its like they accidentally stuck early war tracks on the later war variant).

Honourable mention goes to their Hummel kit's tracks being even shorter somehow. I don't know how old Warlord's kit is, but its by far a worse kit. The same goes comparing their Panther with Rubicon's. Perhaps due to Rubicon 3D printing their molds instead of using the traditional methods Warlord used. Special note goes to Rubicon who're currently re-releasing their Panzer IV because they didn't think it had enough details. Not to speak of all the extra parts Rubicon include in the box so you can make variants of the vehicle (which meanwhile Warlord do not, and who sell those variants as separate kits, or only make them in resin.

I had enough parts left over from their Hetzer kit to make another vehicle.). So yes, not to start gak throwing match, but I just don't see how Warlord's are considered anywhere near as good as Rubicon's. Not to slate Warlord, they're a great company, but well, their plastics have a very 'Games Workshop' / 80s' chunkiness vibe to them which I think is just awful.:/ And well, if the argument of how accurate Warlord are to the real designs (and not rather mashing up various sizes and details due to the nature of making 28mm models) then well, exhibit A. Which yes, I recall the gakfest the release of those bikes had on the internet (and the conclusion that you'd need to rebuild the whole thing, not just upsize it, as the scaling was all over the place. Though that Warlord did it intentionally because their humans themselves were so ridiculously out proportioned). The nature of miniature manufacturing.

(though I'm one of those weirdos who wants everything realistically scaled, even if that makes them 'spindly'.An aversion to this gives us Leman Russ with bores you can fit a dozen Panther barrels inside). Warlord kits are not up-scaled PSC kits - not sure where you're getting this information, but it's wholly inaccurate. Some of them do use the PSC CAD designs.

Gosh, I stand corrected. I was comparing the Sherman V and Firefly to PSC and the sprues and pieces are very different. I would guess that Warlord licenses the designs from PSC but with the more recent ones, they have re-engineered some of the designs? Because yeah, the Universal Carrier is nowhere near as good as the Firefly. Automatically Appended Next Post. I'm glad the Hellcat is a good kit - I haven't build one.

The terrible figures in the Warlord M10 kit put me off (it was the inclusion of crew which was the only advantage it had over Rubicon's M10/M6). I assembled my M10 over the weekend and it was a much easier kit than the Hellcat, but you are correct, the crew are pretty bleh. Other than that, it was an enjoyable build. This is why I am excited about Rubicon doing some plastic infantry & crew. The Warlord 251/1 ausf D crew are a loottt better than the Italeri crew. This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/09 15:52:57.

Well currently having bought a Warlord Panzer IV following the Rubicon one being out of stock at the flgs I'm kind of startled by how inferior it is. The overall detail is crisper than the Rubicon kit, but also much more shallow (as though they forgot they were making a scale kit where every should be exaggerated). I also notice certain elements are missing entirely, or vary with Rubicon's interpretation of them.

The whole underside of the vehicle for one is blank (which I suppose was justified by it being a Wargaming kit and people not caring.Well Rubicon cared with their's.) Besides that the inferior nature of the actual production process is evident. OK, inferior may be a bit blunt, but if anything the Warlord kit comes across a hell of a lot more like a toy. I shouldn't expect to be seeing solid roadwheels on a scale kit of this size, nor should their interior side by entirely hollow.

Talking about the tracks, again the extra detail is moot considering how shallow it is and that its covered up by any dirt you apply (a layer of two of paint would cover up those links). That's without mentioning that they're a third thinner than Rubicon's, coming out at the same size as an early Panzer III's oddly (III/ IVs came out as 360-400 and 380-400 respectively. Its like they accidentally stuck early war tracks on the later war variant). Honourable mention goes to their Hummel kit's tracks being even shorter somehow. I don't know how old Warlord's kit is, but its by far a worse kit.

The same goes comparing their Panther with Rubicon's. Perhaps due to Rubicon 3D printing their molds instead of using the traditional methods Warlord used. Special note goes to Rubicon who're currently re-releasing their Panzer IV because they didn't think it had enough details.

Not to speak of all the extra parts Rubicon include in the box so you can make variants of the vehicle (which meanwhile Warlord do not, and who sell those variants as separate kits, or only make them in resin. I had enough parts left over from their Hetzer kit to make another vehicle.).

So yes, not to start gak throwing match, but I just don't see how Warlord's are considered anywhere near as good as Rubicon's. Not to slate Warlord, they're a great company, but well, their plastics have a very 'Games Workshop' / 80s' chunkiness vibe to them which I think is just awful.:/ And well, if the argument of how accurate Warlord are to the real designs (and not rather mashing up various sizes and details due to the nature of making 28mm models) then well, exhibit A. Which yes, I recall the gakfest the release of those bikes had on the internet (and the conclusion that you'd need to rebuild the whole thing, not just upsize it, as the scaling was all over the place. Though that Warlord did it intentionally because their humans themselves were so ridiculously out proportioned). The nature of miniature manufacturing. (though I'm one of those weirdos who wants everything realistically scaled, even if that makes them 'spindly'.An aversion to this gives us Leman Russ with bores you can fit a dozen Panther barrels inside).

While I will not argue against the scale issues Warlord has with it's heroic scale infantry (because that's a fact, that's the point of heroic scale) the main problem is honestly that they insist the infantry are 1;56, and then place what are really quite true scale vehicles next to them, at least comparatively. If you hold up warlord infantry next to 1:48 scale kits, they look much better.

I have several German vehicles in 1:48 and I vastly prefer how it looks on the table compared to 1:56 vehicles. The most glaring part however is that because 1:56 vehicles are so small, the crew are smaller too. Viewing a T34/85 crew member next to the russian tank riders on the same tank (at least if you use the plastic crew in the box) it looks like the tank is being commanded by a 13 year old. With that said, I still prefer heroic scale models for wargaming purposes, which is what Warlord's models are intended for. These are not diorama pieces, these are meant to be handled quite a bit and take a beating. True scale 1:56 infantry will not stand up to the wear and tear of playing, I know this for a fact after trying to use Wargames Factory Germans, which are pretty spot on scale wise but with such thin rifles require very delicate handling.

If Warlord had instead gone for 1:48 vehicles to match their infantry, the exaggerations of the heroic style would be a lot less noticeable and glaring. As much as I understand some people hate how 'chunky' heroic scale is, you have to realize that these exaggerations are necessary when you're standing 4-6 feet away and need to be able to tell what a squad is using at a glance, as well as survive being picked up, dropped, accidentally having things dropped on them, etc.

That is simply the nature of the beast with miniature wargaming, and you will note that almost all wargaming ranges use some sort of trick to make their models thicker, even ranges lauded for being more 'truescale' like infinity, which simply gets around the issue by making it's guns thicker and making the models out of metal. For plastic historical infantry, Warlord is still one of the best options out there.

Their poses are more dynamic, they're built much more sturdily so they can be handled without worry, and the details are pronounced enough to stand out at tabletop distance. Would they be my first choice for a diorama?

Probably not, but then again I'm not making a diorama. Right tool for the right job, etc. If you are looking for properly scaled infantry, I would highly reccommend checking out Tamiya and other diorama minded companies. I've built several crew men for my German vehicles made by them and they not only look great but have nice detailing. I will warn you though that they will most certainly not stand up to the kind of use required to play games with them.

That's a great point, I havent considered what 'heroic' scale is. It really hit me when I put together the Hanomag that came in the Fallshirmjager box, It looks like a pick up truck next to the troops. It also didnt come with a crewman for the MG42, I considered converting one of the guys like I would in 40K, but it would look pretty odd considering the size of the half track. Overall I guess I wouldnt mind it though, cause either way if my opponent has vehicles, odds are is his are gonna be the warlord ones anyway. It would look even more strange to have different scale vehicles on the table. The one thing though is that looking through the book, there are several vehicles that warlord does not produce, and its hard to find a 1:56 scale version, like the 'flak track' sdkfz 17. Which im really into cause I love using it in COH2.

As well as the ostwind, which while it was minimally produced during the war, its still in the rule book. Kinda like rough riders.. I assembled my M10 over the weekend and it was a much easier kit than the Hellcat, but you are correct, the crew are pretty bleh. Other than that, it was an enjoyable build. This is why I am excited about Rubicon doing some plastic infantry & crew. The Warlord 251/1 ausf D crew are a loottt better than the Italeri crew. The Warlord/italeri M10 also has a weird idler wheel and the same inaccurate track sag as their M4.

It's quite distracting. By contrast, Rubicon's M10/M36 kit is only let down by the lack of a proper Ford exhaust for the M36 version, and builds an especially impressive Achilles. It has the 'toy' tracks, of course. This message was edited 1 time.

Last update was at 2017/01/10 14:54:59. To tell you the truth I wouldn't mind having a whole load of accurate 1/56th scale models if that'd make the vehicles look less titchy. What I have right now are a bunch of kitbashed Wargames Factory models (which themselves are out proportioned, just not as bad as Warlord) and some guys made from other slimmer kits. The end result though is a load of 1/48th scale guys. Even the ones I sculpt myself are still 1/50th. Real 1/56th and even 1/48th models are far skinnier than anything any wargames manufacturer makes right now (well, till you hit 30mm and proportions begin to get better oddly). I'd imagine the choice of 1/56th for 28mm was arbitrary and in no small part down to the existing scale model lines, plus it being cheaper on the raw materials.

Its just weird that all the vehicles and terrain are 'realistically' (which itself is kind of objective considering 1/56th is a fake scale) sized, meanwhile the humans all look like gorillas with toy guns. As for the stuff Warlord (and other manufacturers like Blitzkrieg, Die Waffenkammer, Heer46, Mad Bob, Perry, Sloppy Jalopy, etc) don't produce well. They do make a hell of a lot of stuff, but not everything. I mean who makes an AEC Armoured Command Vehicle? I was looking at a Luftwaffe Sd.Kfz 7 as a possible use for a cannibalized 251 I have, and barring arsing about with the shape of the glacis, its only the opening and closing mechanism which'd be the issue. I mostly stick to paper panzers though (which have the extra leeway with the details in that they never made it to the front, so you can just say everything's the ausf.b / c/ whatever so the details aren't all the same); which on occasion Warlord oddly have the rules for (even though 'officially' none saw service.

Looking at you Kugelblitz). And well, speaking of scale. I know one player who uses a lot of corgi diecasts, which are nice, but a bit gigantic on occasion compared to Warlord's stuff. Their M3 Lee is the size of a Leman Russ.:(.

While I will not argue against the scale issues Warlord has with it's heroic scale infantry (because that's a fact, that's the point of heroic scale) the main problem is honestly that they insist the infantry are 1;56, and then place what are really quite true scale vehicles next to them, at least comparatively. If you hold up warlord infantry next to 1:48 scale kits, they look much better. I have several German vehicles in 1:48 and I vastly prefer how it looks on the table compared to 1:56 vehicles. The most glaring part however is that because 1:56 vehicles are so small, the crew are smaller too. Viewing a T34/85 crew member next to the russian tank riders on the same tank (at least if you use the plastic crew in the box) it looks like the tank is being commanded by a 13 year old. I cannot stand 1/48 tanks on the battlefield. No matter how 'chunky' heroic 28mm models are, they are the correct height.

WW2 tanks are tiny, and 1/48 tanks next to 28mm looks like 40k garbage. I absolutely do not understand the desire to have these giant oversized 1/48 monstrosities when your infantry are the correct height.

Our 28mm infantry are fatter, by far, than real people (thanks 1985-era Foundry for establishing this!) but going by width of models rather than height to establish scale is just wrong. It's especially amusing when it's Perry truescale WW2 infantry standing around 1/48 kits.

It's like the DAK was populated with children Automatically Appended Next Post. That's a great point, I havent considered what 'heroic' scale is. It really hit me when I put together the Hanomag that came in the Fallshirmjager box, It looks like a pick up truck next to the troops. It also didnt come with a crewman for the MG42, I considered converting one of the guys like I would in 40K, but it would look pretty odd considering the size of the half track. Overall I guess I wouldnt mind it though, cause either way if my opponent has vehicles, odds are is his are gonna be the warlord ones anyway.

It would look even more strange to have different scale vehicles on the table. The one thing though is that looking through the book, there are several vehicles that warlord does not produce, and its hard to find a 1:56 scale version, like the 'flak track' sdkfz 17.

Which im really into cause I love using it in COH2. As well as the ostwind, which while it was minimally produced during the war, its still in the rule book.

Kinda like rough riders.. Oh, don't worry, the 251/1 is really that small in real life. I've had the (mis) fortune of stuffing my 6' frame into a variety of WW2 vehicles and they are absolutely tiny. Hell, I am almost as tall as a Panzer IV, and I could barely fit into the machine gunner position in the T-34/85 I drove around in (and the giant road wheel spring bouncing up and down a few inches to the right of me meant that if I made a wrong move with my hand, my fingers would be sliced right off) Here's some alternate gunners With so many nations producing so many variants of so many things, it's hard for one manufacturer to make everything. But Warlord has like quadrupled the vehicle kits it offers since 2012. Eventually they'll have models for everything. Tiny 251/1 Here's me (dressed in my Aliens USCM gear) standing next to a Panzer IV.

Automatically Appended Next Post. The Warlord/italeri M10 also has a weird idler wheel and the same inaccurate track sag as their M4.

It's quite distracting. By contrast, Rubicon's M10/M36 kit is only let down by the lack of a proper Ford exhaust for the M36 version, and builds an especially impressive Achilles. It has the 'toy' tracks, of course. We had this discussion a few years back and I provided a bunch of pics of tanks with track sag in action - I actually thought of you when I assembled the M10 Those tracks really get me, though.

Rubicon does a great job of making stuff super accurate, but then the tracks look like ass. This message was edited 4 times.

Last update was at 2017/01/11 14:47:14. Judgedoug: plenty of tanks had pronounced track sag, but not Shermans. The upper track run was flat. With their combined knowledge and experience, Warlord/Italeri shouldn't be getting that kind of thing wrong. I agree with what you say about mixing 1/48 scale vehicles with 28mm figures.

Most 28mm figures have (like many 20mm figures) oversized hands and heads (and correspondingly over-scale helmets and weapons), but this is to give them more personality and visual impact. Psysalia Psysalis Psyche Rar. The trick is to have slightly over-scale machine guns and stowage on the vehicles, so they look like the figures can use them. I also agree with your observations about the relatively small size of WW2 tanks.

However, It's worth remembering that a modern American is taller (and bulkier) than the average soldier in WW2. Reenactors tend to look a bit too well-nourished. This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/11 16:38:25. @Judgedoug I absolutely understand the 1/56 tanks are the correct height if we go verbatim, believe me, but I still prefer tanks where it looks my men could actually fit inside the hatch.

Check out Warlord's M5 Stuart for example, your average warlord infantry man wouldn't be able to stick his head through it. Meanwhile, the 1/48 tanks are too tall (slightly) but they look much better comparison wise, and their details stick out more at tabletop. Essentially, I've accepted a long time ago that models will never be perfectly in scale. Now, I will intentionally mix scales to a degree just to make what looks best at tabletop height.

I've essentially just given up and embraced it. I didn't like how Warlord infantry looked next to 1/56, so I simply switched to 1/48 and it solved my problem. Besides, if you had a warlord figure standing up at his full height (which is actually more in the 30-33 mm range depending on type) they actually would look the correct height of the vehicle as well because you need to account for the extra height gained from the base (especially if you base before putting the model on). I also have a lot of infantry and gun teams raised up a few mm's because of using 40k/mdf bases, metal base tabs, etc., so that also actually makes the height of 1/48 line up better than 1/56 as well. This is a big reason why 40k tanks look even tinier for their infantry, because each model is gaining several mm's of height just from their base, while the vehicle has nothing to put it on even height.

So while yes, my infantry man would look too short compared to the tank if they were on the same level, in reality the elevation from their bases cancels it out. The alternative of course would be to base your vehicles as well, but that doesn't solve the issue I have with hatches. As always, opinions are opinions and I am not going to blame someone one bit for preferring something that is different. This is one of the most detail oriented and borderline obsessive hobbies out there, I'm not going to judge anyone. That was my preferred solution and works best for me at a tabletop distance for gameplay purposes. Also that USMC costume is sweet. Also I completely derailed this thread I'm so sorry OP.

@Judgedoug I absolutely understand the 1/56 tanks are the correct height if we go verbatim, believe me, but I still prefer tanks where it looks my men could actually fit inside the hatch. Check out Warlord's M5 Stuart for example, your average warlord infantry man wouldn't be able to stick his head through it.

Meanwhile, the 1/48 tanks are too tall (slightly) but they look much better comparison wise, and their details stick out more at tabletop. Well this would all be solved if the Perry's would just sculpt every nation in every time period! Then we could all be using awesome Perry models. Heh, if some of you think 1:48 is bad then perhaps I should not mention one of the 8th Army players at my local store whom uses two 1:35th scale M3 Stuarts! Watching a Light Tank the size of a Leman Russ wander up the battlefield is a site to behold.

To those complaining about the Sherman's track sag: All tanks get sag in their tracks. The only way to avoid this is to have a solid bar in the place of your return rollers, and even then there will be sag between the Idler/Sprocket and the bar. OP, Fallschirmjager are a good force to run, and that stubborn rule will save you a lot of the time but watch out for your small model count. As veterans Fallschirmjager take up a lot of points, and a fully tooled up unit can come in at just short of 200 points - or nearly 20% of your average 1000 point game! Smaller 8 man units are a good way to get around this, as is watching your upgrade count. Only give a few models SMG's/Assault Rifles, and remember that the LMG loader cannot fire his weapon when the LMG fires. Panzerfaust are a must, but always purchase at least two as a single Panzerfaust is a waste.

Three is a better number. Always have at least one LMG per squad, and bring at least one MMG team. LMG's and MMG's are one of the German strengths, use it. A Panzer IV is a good choice for armoured support - the H comes with the 'Tiger Fear' special rule, and with its Heavy AT gun it can fill many of your AT needs. Transports are really useful for getting your units around, but halftracks can be very expensive.

A truck can serve the purpose just as well, and be a lot cheaper to boot. On a final note, be wary about playing SS. Bringing SS to the table can incite some nastiness from the more ignorant/extremists in a group, and if you have ever been on the Facebook group(s) you will most likely have seen the passive aggressive posts that some members have been making against SS and even vanilla German players. Guilt tripping is not uncommon. Have fun, and keep us posted.