Until it's time to count dice and figure your odds... Then again, padding with an officer and two infantry per tank (2E rules) means you have 12 dice and 3 Heavies. ...somehow I went full circle and proved your point.
@@ijsbeermeneer9952basically a 20% reduction in price, funiky enough the amount I awarded players in pur club's BA league last year, it was well received.....
I've got my copy of 3rd ed BA past weekend, and it gave me an idea of trying out using it on Konflikt 47 game's general rules, army setups, and only using given new specific rules and point values of new units. xD
I fled from FofW when it became a Tank Game. I was very disapppointed to think that this would become a Tank game, but in my short time playing; I've used nothing but Infantfy Squads, so far. I've found that the Armoured Vehicles still can't OP a good Infantry Squad, or ensemble of such w/ different weapons. Infantry are more maneuverable, and less hindered by cover points on the board whereas Tanks...Well, they need to compromise tactics w/ terrain and will often find themselves in the LOS of multiple squads making them more vulnerable than threatening.
I don’t think this will begone an armour dominated game. That’s what Achtung! Panzer! Is for. The nerf to VMMGs and the changes in how vehicles dish out and receive damage should make that fairly clear. Infantry will be able to Mobility Kill vehicles and that’s a pretty big deal. That and HMGs can pin out most vehicles if they survive long enough to focus fire is another pretty big deal. I’m excited to see people focus more on the Dalmer and 222 or any of the Luchs German Vehicles over actual tanks. Waffen-⚡️⚡️ players will be having a hayday with this and their Panzershrecks as well as the 222. And British players are going to be dominating with the Dalmer and PIATs but I can really see the Matilda, Bishop and Priest as being much more popular. Hopefully this really is going to just provide more flexibility in each player’s forces/collection.
Actually crew stunned on a roll of 1 on the full damage table actually kinda makes sense. I mean it's an "over" penetration, there are plenty of stories in ww2 about rounds going through vehicles and no real damage other then the crew being like WTF, plus a roll of 1 has always been a whomp whomp roll it's like a failure but you're still getting something out of it.
Everyone used to take trucks because they were cheap. Maybe, the change was done so people would buy more half tracks. Tanks should have 2 order dice, or at least increase the possibility to hit. Nothing was more frustrating than to expend all those points and not hit…anything!
Anything with RECCE and an autocannon is going to be the best choice for tanks IMO. We will see what happens but I think Mobile Artillery and Armoured Cars will be more valuable than many tanks
his week's update makes vehicles a lot more interesting.... if you fail an order check, you MUST reverse straight back...... no pivots unless immovable object is in the way...... if you touch the table edge, you are out of the game.... so there will be a lot of attention given to vehicles in the first turn.
3rd edition is where im finally gonna take the plunge and get into the game. Im torn between wanting to take units that will do decent on the board, or collecting and building a historical list from a combat engineer batallion. So many choices to make! I cant wait to start playing
I collect historical lists, I paint them historically and I don’t care if people get buthurt because there are certain symbols (you’d be surprised how upset some people get when you paint Canadians to be a specific regiment they know nothing about until they finally read “The Guns of Normandy” or if I’m losing games because it’s not the meta. I’ve bought Canadians, Polish Early war Germsn heer and late war Waffen-⚡️⚡️ but I don’t build them to take advantage of Meta. I build them to be historically accurate and to enjoy a game of miniatures dice, bier and pretzels!
Really enjoying the BA content. Looks like there are going to be some some updates to Konflikt 47. Hope to see some videos here. Personally, I'd prefer that they not go all the way to 1500 pts as the new standard. 1250 seems about right to me.
we tend to ignore points in our club. its a sweeter victory when you beat a bigger force. we tend to put the limit on dice in bag, rather than points. were adults, causal players, all gen-X, so no tourney minded competition play here, just beer and pretzel games ( outrageously imbalanced, like i bet one squad of werhmacht heavy infantry can beat 3 squads of nacht jagers), or our campaign play betwixt our perspective tiny nations in the ashes of ww2... konflict '55. we had to advance the time line after the greys came looking for their missing Roswell saucer in '49. large games are capped at 24 dice per side. actually, we use poker chips, red or blue. we also have a game master so we can have double blind deployment and movements, snipers, and a third color chip, the white ones, a random amount inserted each turns, thats for the Gm to dole out random snipe attacks, IED, booby traps, contact with NPCs...ie militia, etc. winters are long in alaska, so campaign play needs house rules.
@@TheKenthor the official models are as / more expensive than 40k figs, so home rules allows for bringing in proxies. thats the actual reason why we started deviating away from the standard rules. then so we could campaign. its fun if you have a small agreeable group. we dont do pick up games, sometimes someone will bring a friend, but thats it. house rules works best among non competitive friends.
Yeah, I can see vehicles become far more prevalent, the half tracks sitting on my shelf (7 of them) have been used only twice in my 3 years of playing as they just didn't seem worth it, and with Gerries getting no free units etc there just wasn't the room to get the units in to compensate for that, nevermind them being not that effective. I hope they rewrite the transport rules too for Panzergrenadiers and transports with transported troops generally. At least if nothing else that a transport can move 'after' its been mounted/ boarded. It will be nice to roll my 2 Cromwells on to the table too like a mini platoon. Only had a couple of games like that, hope to have many more too. I think Warlord are doing the changes to upsize the game, make it a bit more accesible for everyone and increase sales. As sceptical and wanting as I am for the new rules to be a certain way that I want, this all makes sense form a commercial, gaming and on-going hobby POV.
Great video, I saw your German army starter set recommendation video a few weeks ago. I'm starting out new to bolt action, would you recommend the Waffen-ss army box as a great starter for 3rd edition?
What about halftracks that are specialised like tank hunters, mortar carriers and the Hanomag s are used as fighting vehicles with front and rear mmg's.
I know a Bren Carrier isn't a soft skin, but there is, according to Lindybeige, a recorded incident of a Pzkpfw. IV hitting a Carrier with its main gun to no real effect, other than probably scaring the daylights out of the crew.
The more they reveal of the 3rd edition rules, the more apparent it is that they're taking the game in a direction that doesn't line up with the type of game I want to play. The way tank's main guns were modelled in 2nd ed was always the weakest part of Bolt Action, IMO. Only rolling a single d6 to hit in a game with only 6 turns made tanks feel very underwhelming. I was hoping to see more of a change for 3rd ed. I do like the more detailed damage modelling but the fundamental weakness of placing all your hopes on a single d6 hit roll is still far too swingy, IMO. I think I'll go full in on Chain of Command instead of buying into 3rd ed BA.
Turret jam in 2e wasn't that weird... I think people just play it wrong (if they employ the rule at all). In fact the same goes for how turrets work in general. 2e: You roll for turret jam anytime you roll on the table unless the vehicle is destroyed as a result. There's a 50% chance of it happening. Regarding it jamming and turning around... that was already in 2e: "If the damage is caused by an assault, the turret is jammed in the arc that the majority of the assaulting models have come from. If the direction of the attack cannot be determined (like a direct hit from an artillery barrage), the turret will be jammed in the direction of the closest visible enemy unit, or facing forward if no units are visible." -BA 2nd Edition Rule Book p109 The main difference in 3e is that 1 - it only happens on the superficial table, so turret jams are bound to be MUCH less common 2 - instead of being stuck at the direction the damaging hit came from, the turret is always stuck in the direction of the closest visible unit I absolutely get your point regarding the second difference but in a way that already existed, it just may not have come up much as direct hits would've caused the turret to be stuck from that direction. But any mortar, artillery or air strike hit causing a damage table roll could've caused that result.* The other thing I feel people get wrong or houserule is that turrets aren't traditional arc weapons but actually use vehicle arcs. "The special rules that apply to infantry-operated fixed weapons are also ignored when firing vehicle-mounted weapons (see page 66). The following rules apply to vehicle-mounted weapons instead." -BA 2nd Edition Rule Book p104 "Weapons mounted on turrets can usually fire all around (i.e. into any arc)." -BA 2nd Edition Rule Book p104 The first quote means that you can forget about weapon arcs completely (though the examples shown there are still relevant for cover). The strictest reading of "id est" means that turrets don't actually have permanent and finely adjustable 360° coverage (in fact I haven't found a single instance in the rules saying that turrets have a 360° arc) but can merely select any vehicle arc to fire into, as long as they aren't jammed. Given that we're talking about a turn based game it is understandable why a lot of players would use 360° firing arc and free choice of vehicle arc synonymously, however it is not the same (and there is also no real "current position" of the turret). It means that infantry approaching a tank should do so along the angle of an arcs border, which as weird as it sounds could make a five man squad be in cover, if only one of them is not in LoS (say behind a wall) and the other four divided equally between both arcs. From a common sense point of view the unit does not benefit from cover as 4 out of 5 models are in clear view but from a RAW perspective 3 out of 5 models can't be fired at unless the vehicle moves or turns in such a way that more than half of the models are covered in a single vehicle arc, meaning they are actually in cover. *In any case, if I'm right about turret arcs being identical to vehicle arcs, then depending on positioning, in many cases the turret is going to get stuck in a very manageable fashion. That is unless this was clarified in an FAQ or Errata. It's possible that I'm completely wrong about all of this but the wording is quite curious. If turrets had a 360° arc and used weapon arcs they could've communicated that in a very straightforward manner. It has bothered me in the past and I'd actually prefer a weapon arc approach. I'm looking forward to what 3e is going to do with it.
Why have they put so much effort into the superficial table if it's just for equaling the target's armour? Are there other ways of initiating that table?
I thought Warlord had already stated that a standard game is 1250 points? 1500 points would be interesting, especially if everything is cheaper as well.
To be fair, the problem with Soft Skins in v2 was that the rulebook never made it explicit that you didn't roll on the damage chart. All it said was "all vehicles" and never in the 8-9 years of v2 did they ever FAQ it to make it explicitly clear that they shouldn't be. So, if there was confusion, it was entirely Warlords fault. They had nearly a decade to clarify it and they never did. So, rules as written, everyone playing it that you roll on the damage chart was playing it correctly because soft skins are vehicles.
In 2nd edition you were supposed to roll on the vehicle damage chart for soft skinned vehicles. Having them be immediately destroyed when damaged on a roll of a “6” is a change. It was commonly played wrong, but this is a change.
The Age of the Type 95 Ha Go is now old man......
There has always been a tank meta but everyone has been two cowardly to see how amazing 3 heavy tanks are
Just curious but how many points for a Tiger, 2 Panthers and say a HQ squad and mortar?
@@Damnedlegion40kYou'll need 2 rifle squads as well.
@@Damnedlegion40kwe cant tell yet. WG said that vehicle points willbe changed (latest intel showed a tiger 2 with 130+ pt reduction)
Until it's time to count dice and figure your odds...
Then again, padding with an officer and two infantry per tank (2E rules) means you have 12 dice and 3 Heavies.
...somehow I went full circle and proved your point.
@@ijsbeermeneer9952basically a 20% reduction in price, funiky enough the amount I awarded players in pur club's BA league last year, it was well received.....
I've got my copy of 3rd ed BA past weekend, and it gave me an idea of trying out using it on Konflikt 47 game's general rules, army setups, and only using given new specific rules and point values of new units. xD
I fled from FofW when it became a Tank Game. I was very disapppointed to think that this would become a Tank game, but in my short time playing; I've used nothing but Infantfy Squads, so far.
I've found that the Armoured Vehicles still can't OP a good Infantry Squad, or ensemble of such w/ different weapons. Infantry are more maneuverable, and less hindered by cover points on the board whereas Tanks...Well, they need to compromise tactics w/ terrain and will often find themselves in the LOS of multiple squads making them more vulnerable than threatening.
I don’t think this will begone an armour dominated game. That’s what Achtung! Panzer! Is for.
The nerf to VMMGs and the changes in how vehicles dish out and receive damage should make that fairly clear. Infantry will be able to Mobility Kill vehicles and that’s a pretty big deal. That and HMGs can pin out most vehicles if they survive long enough to focus fire is another pretty big deal.
I’m excited to see people focus more on the Dalmer and 222 or any of the Luchs German Vehicles over actual tanks. Waffen-⚡️⚡️ players will be having a hayday with this and their Panzershrecks as well as the 222.
And British players are going to be dominating with the Dalmer and PIATs but I can really see the Matilda, Bishop and Priest as being much more popular.
Hopefully this really is going to just provide more flexibility in each player’s forces/collection.
1250 as the new “standard” game size was confirmed about two weeks ago in an interview on the Juggernaught podcast by Alessio Cavatore.
Wirbelwind battery line boys, lets go!
Actually crew stunned on a roll of 1 on the full damage table actually kinda makes sense. I mean it's an "over" penetration, there are plenty of stories in ww2 about rounds going through vehicles and no real damage other then the crew being like WTF, plus a roll of 1 has always been a whomp whomp roll it's like a failure but you're still getting something out of it.
Agreed.
Everyone used to take trucks because they were cheap. Maybe, the change was done so people would buy more half tracks. Tanks should have 2 order dice, or at least increase the possibility to hit. Nothing was more frustrating than to expend all those points and not hit…anything!
26:25 they could just add a tag to larger guns and at emplacements that they get a plus one on the full pen table
I think tanks will be more common but I also feel like inf will actually be the most powerful units in the game..
Anything with RECCE and an autocannon is going to be the best choice for tanks IMO. We will see what happens but I think Mobile Artillery and Armoured Cars will be more valuable than many tanks
I look forward to the day my one true love, the Jagdtiger, will no longer be a shelf queen or a meme list marquessa.
Meme list Marquessa 😂 That has amused me greatly!
I view the 1 on the full damage chart represents the shot going clean through the target and somehow not hit anything vital.
I was thinking exactly this when he was saying it because there’s no way a 105mm HE would det on a Kublewagen’s canvassing.
his week's update makes vehicles a lot more interesting.... if you fail an order check, you MUST reverse straight back...... no pivots unless immovable object is in the way...... if you touch the table edge, you are out of the game.... so there will be a lot of attention given to vehicles in the first turn.
3rd edition is where im finally gonna take the plunge and get into the game. Im torn between wanting to take units that will do decent on the board, or collecting and building a historical list from a combat engineer batallion. So many choices to make! I cant wait to start playing
Rule of cool my friend. You know what to do.
I collect historical lists, I paint them historically and I don’t care if people get buthurt because there are certain symbols (you’d be surprised how upset some people get when you paint Canadians to be a specific regiment they know nothing about until they finally read “The Guns of Normandy” or if I’m losing games because it’s not the meta. I’ve bought Canadians, Polish Early war Germsn heer and late war Waffen-⚡️⚡️ but I don’t build them to take advantage of Meta. I build them to be historically accurate and to enjoy a game of miniatures dice, bier and pretzels!
Really enjoying the BA content.
Looks like there are going to be some some updates to Konflikt 47.
Hope to see some videos here.
Personally, I'd prefer that they not go all the way to 1500 pts as the new standard. 1250 seems about right to me.
we tend to ignore points in our club. its a sweeter victory when you beat a bigger force. we tend to put the limit on dice in bag, rather than points.
were adults, causal players, all gen-X, so no tourney minded competition play here, just beer and pretzel games ( outrageously imbalanced, like i bet one squad of werhmacht heavy infantry can beat 3 squads of nacht jagers), or our campaign play betwixt our perspective tiny nations in the ashes of ww2... konflict '55. we had to advance the time line after the greys came looking for their missing Roswell saucer in '49. large games are capped at 24 dice per side. actually, we use poker chips, red or blue. we also have a game master so we can have double blind deployment and movements, snipers, and a third color chip, the white ones, a random amount inserted each turns, thats for the Gm to dole out random snipe attacks, IED, booby traps, contact with NPCs...ie militia, etc. winters are long in alaska, so campaign play needs house rules.
@@h.s.lafever3277 Sounds fun. We haven't gotten that far into K47 yet, but my group is definitely gearing up for it.
@@TheKenthor
the official models are as / more expensive than 40k figs, so home rules allows for bringing in proxies.
thats the actual reason why we started deviating away from the standard rules. then so we could campaign.
its fun if you have a small agreeable group. we dont do pick up games, sometimes someone will bring a friend, but thats it. house rules works best among non competitive friends.
Yeah, I can see vehicles become far more prevalent, the half tracks sitting on my shelf (7 of them) have been used only twice in my 3 years of playing as they just didn't seem worth it, and with Gerries getting no free units etc there just wasn't the room to get the units in to compensate for that, nevermind them being not that effective. I hope they rewrite the transport rules too for Panzergrenadiers and transports with transported troops generally. At least if nothing else that a transport can move 'after' its been mounted/ boarded.
It will be nice to roll my 2 Cromwells on to the table too like a mini platoon. Only had a couple of games like that, hope to have many more too.
I think Warlord are doing the changes to upsize the game, make it a bit more accesible for everyone and increase sales. As sceptical and wanting as I am for the new rules to be a certain way that I want, this all makes sense form a commercial, gaming and on-going hobby POV.
You may actually have a company sized force.
Wrong on penetration table 1s. Worked fine in old wh40. Gave game a swing where miracles happen.
Single Colour Tonks are now meta.........
Gone are the days of camouflage and hiding, now we can charge straight into the next Edition.
I like painting vehicles but I hate assembling them.
Yeah, we’re definitely house ruling the turret jam in the current position.
Great video, I saw your German army starter set recommendation video a few weeks ago. I'm starting out new to bolt action, would you recommend the Waffen-ss army box as a great starter for 3rd edition?
What about halftracks that are specialised like tank hunters, mortar carriers and the Hanomag s are used as fighting vehicles with front and rear mmg's.
I know a Bren Carrier isn't a soft skin, but there is, according to Lindybeige, a recorded incident of a Pzkpfw. IV hitting a Carrier with its main gun to no real effect, other than probably scaring the daylights out of the crew.
Games rules should never be written for the rare exception, but for the commonality.
@@Sirilere Totally agree, but it is funny that it's technically possible to only scare a Carrier with 75mm gun
It will now be possible to take bigger AT guns like the 17 pdr....
The more they reveal of the 3rd edition rules, the more apparent it is that they're taking the game in a direction that doesn't line up with the type of game I want to play. The way tank's main guns were modelled in 2nd ed was always the weakest part of Bolt Action, IMO. Only rolling a single d6 to hit in a game with only 6 turns made tanks feel very underwhelming. I was hoping to see more of a change for 3rd ed. I do like the more detailed damage modelling but the fundamental weakness of placing all your hopes on a single d6 hit roll is still far too swingy, IMO.
I think I'll go full in on Chain of Command instead of buying into 3rd ed BA.
Turret jam in 2e wasn't that weird... I think people just play it wrong (if they employ the rule at all). In fact the same goes for how turrets work in general.
2e: You roll for turret jam anytime you roll on the table unless the vehicle is destroyed as a result. There's a 50% chance of it happening. Regarding it jamming and turning around... that was already in 2e:
"If the damage is caused by an assault, the turret is jammed in the arc that the majority of the assaulting models have come from. If the direction of the attack cannot be determined (like a direct hit from an artillery barrage), the turret will be jammed in the direction of the closest visible enemy unit, or facing forward if no units are visible." -BA 2nd Edition Rule Book p109
The main difference in 3e is that
1 - it only happens on the superficial table, so turret jams are bound to be MUCH less common
2 - instead of being stuck at the direction the damaging hit came from, the turret is always stuck in the direction of the closest visible unit
I absolutely get your point regarding the second difference but in a way that already existed, it just may not have come up much as direct hits would've caused the turret to be stuck from that direction. But any mortar, artillery or air strike hit causing a damage table roll could've caused that result.*
The other thing I feel people get wrong or houserule is that turrets aren't traditional arc weapons but actually use vehicle arcs.
"The special rules that apply to infantry-operated fixed weapons are also ignored when firing vehicle-mounted weapons (see page 66). The following rules apply to vehicle-mounted weapons instead." -BA 2nd Edition Rule Book p104
"Weapons mounted on turrets can usually fire all around (i.e. into any arc)." -BA 2nd Edition Rule Book p104
The first quote means that you can forget about weapon arcs completely (though the examples shown there are still relevant for cover). The strictest reading of "id est" means that turrets don't actually have permanent and finely adjustable 360° coverage (in fact I haven't found a single instance in the rules saying that turrets have a 360° arc) but can merely select any vehicle arc to fire into, as long as they aren't jammed.
Given that we're talking about a turn based game it is understandable why a lot of players would use 360° firing arc and free choice of vehicle arc synonymously, however it is not the same (and there is also no real "current position" of the turret). It means that infantry approaching a tank should do so along the angle of an arcs border, which as weird as it sounds could make a five man squad be in cover, if only one of them is not in LoS (say behind a wall) and the other four divided equally between both arcs.
From a common sense point of view the unit does not benefit from cover as 4 out of 5 models are in clear view but from a RAW perspective 3 out of 5 models can't be fired at unless the vehicle moves or turns in such a way that more than half of the models are covered in a single vehicle arc, meaning they are actually in cover.
*In any case, if I'm right about turret arcs being identical to vehicle arcs, then depending on positioning, in many cases the turret is going to get stuck in a very manageable fashion.
That is unless this was clarified in an FAQ or Errata.
It's possible that I'm completely wrong about all of this but the wording is quite curious. If turrets had a 360° arc and used weapon arcs they could've communicated that in a very straightforward manner. It has bothered me in the past and I'd actually prefer a weapon arc approach. I'm looking forward to what 3e is going to do with it.
Where can one find you for a fun little game of Bolt Action Mordian? My Italians need some exercise. :D
Why have they put so much effort into the superficial table if it's just for equaling the target's armour? Are there other ways of initiating that table?
The M18 hellcat with recce just got more op
First Flames of war went tank Happy, now Bolt action is going the same route. Guess the profit margin is higher on plastic vehicles.
I hope i does cuz want more vehicules been use insted of full frontal assualt
I thought Warlord had already stated that a standard game is 1250 points? 1500 points would be interesting, especially if everything is cheaper as well.
Yay tanks!
I don't even play this game. But any Mordian video titled "Tank Meta Incoming" gives me a stiffy.
Then what was that whole tank wars thing about
Need more shermans
Hopefully engineers can fix vehicles in V3 and actually BE engineers, that would be amazing.
Japanese cheap Tanks OP ❤
NOT WITHOUT INFANTRY SUPPORT THEY'RE NOT
Noobs
French engineers, circa 1917
To be fair, the problem with Soft Skins in v2 was that the rulebook never made it explicit that you didn't roll on the damage chart. All it said was "all vehicles" and never in the 8-9 years of v2 did they ever FAQ it to make it explicitly clear that they shouldn't be. So, if there was confusion, it was entirely Warlords fault. They had nearly a decade to clarify it and they never did. So, rules as written, everyone playing it that you roll on the damage chart was playing it correctly because soft skins are vehicles.
The whole turret jammed rule is BS.
second here in the comments
In 2nd edition you were supposed to roll on the vehicle damage chart for soft skinned vehicles. Having them be immediately destroyed when damaged on a roll of a “6” is a change. It was commonly played wrong, but this is a change.
Please do not ever make a thumbnail with a grant tank that has been mirrored ever again.
It is deformed.
Darn, I was hoping you wouldn’t notice! I appreciate the feedback and will try something else next time :)