Greetings! Great program, gentlemen! I enjoyed the extensive discussion, and the back and forth about potential rule mechanics and their implications for game-play in Bolt Action. Your music soundtrack bangs as well! Your program was excellent! I have also subscribed, and *Liked*. I am a trained Historian, so I always favour a more historically-based game. I also agree, the Tournament wankers can get a bit outlandish. Trying to "Min-Max" the point mechanics does not inspire me at all, even though I very much can appreciate a competitive spirit. I think it is far more challenging to build a historical based force, and set yourself about seeking to win a game based upon more or less real historical dynamics. Keep up the good work! Semper Fidelis, SHARK
@@yellowbellytabletop Good Morning! Yes, Yellowbellytabletop, your program is fun! Thank you for the kind welcome. Yeah, as for input. Arrgghhh. *Laughing* I love Bolt Action, but there are some elements that really annoy me. Before studying history, I served as a machine gunner in the US Marine Corps. So, yes, I am biased. But damn, machine guns are *brutal* Historically, entire companies were paralyzed by just one machine-gun team or two. Machine gunners inflicted enormous casualties in many battles, and inspired great fear amongst any kind of troops. So, that's one thing I chew on. Another, is this weird dynamic where--you were chewing on this precisely too!--the idea of in Tournaments they take some jerky stupid unit and somehow, through mechanics, point costs, and restrictions, manages to be this weirdly uber-effective unit. Bamboo Spearmen, Horse Cavalry, baby Light Tanks, geesus, you know? Even the feared Banzai Charges. Initially they were feared--but most of the time, the Banzai Charges were ruthlessly mowed down with horrific casualties. Cavalry? Mowed down. Baby Light Tanks? They better bring some heavy back up, or overwhelming artillery support--or the Baby Light Tanks get stomped, and stomped hard. That is why everyone knew to get anything done--you needed some real tanks. Sherman, Panzer IV, Matilda, T-34, KV, and so on. Not saying that Baby Light Tanks don't have their place, but this idea that Medium Tanks or Heavy Tanks are inferior and something to laugh at--that is just wrong in my book, you know? So, yes. I will have more to say in the future for sure! Semper Fidelis, SHARK
Great video. I loved it.
Glad to hear it. Thanks for the compliment.
@@yellowbellytabletop keep up the incredible work
Public service announcement : warlords teasers were as clear as mud but me and Paul will be talking about this next week
*Laughing* Ahhh!!! Yeah! Greetings, friend! "CLEAR AS MUD!" So true! That made me choke from laughing!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Greetings!
Great program, gentlemen! I enjoyed the extensive discussion, and the back and forth about potential rule mechanics and their implications for game-play in Bolt Action. Your music soundtrack bangs as well! Your program was excellent! I have also subscribed, and *Liked*. I am a trained Historian, so I always favour a more historically-based game. I also agree, the Tournament wankers can get a bit outlandish. Trying to "Min-Max" the point mechanics does not inspire me at all, even though I very much can appreciate a competitive spirit. I think it is far more challenging to build a historical based force, and set yourself about seeking to win a game based upon more or less real historical dynamics. Keep up the good work!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Thanks for the feedback shark, glad to see you've joined the gang and hope to see you around again
So glad you enjoyed the show SHARK and I really look forward to your future input in chat or here in the comments. Our channel is about you guys.
@@Cookiesk8r Thank you for the kind welcome!
@@yellowbellytabletop Good Morning! Yes, Yellowbellytabletop, your program is fun! Thank you for the kind welcome. Yeah, as for input. Arrgghhh. *Laughing* I love Bolt Action, but there are some elements that really annoy me. Before studying history, I served as a machine gunner in the US Marine Corps. So, yes, I am biased. But damn, machine guns are *brutal* Historically, entire companies were paralyzed by just one machine-gun team or two. Machine gunners inflicted enormous casualties in many battles, and inspired great fear amongst any kind of troops. So, that's one thing I chew on. Another, is this weird dynamic where--you were chewing on this precisely too!--the idea of in Tournaments they take some jerky stupid unit and somehow, through mechanics, point costs, and restrictions, manages to be this weirdly uber-effective unit. Bamboo Spearmen, Horse Cavalry, baby Light Tanks, geesus, you know? Even the feared Banzai Charges. Initially they were feared--but most of the time, the Banzai Charges were ruthlessly mowed down with horrific casualties. Cavalry? Mowed down. Baby Light Tanks? They better bring some heavy back up, or overwhelming artillery support--or the Baby Light Tanks get stomped, and stomped hard. That is why everyone knew to get anything done--you needed some real tanks. Sherman, Panzer IV, Matilda, T-34, KV, and so on. Not saying that Baby Light Tanks don't have their place, but this idea that Medium Tanks or Heavy Tanks are inferior and something to laugh at--that is just wrong in my book, you know? So, yes. I will have more to say in the future for sure!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Some great thoughts. Do you do the 'make believe' side of wargaming too? (Fantasy, sci-fi etc)