Ай бұрын
2 ай бұрын
5 ай бұрын
6 ай бұрын
Пікірлер
@maxbarashenkov3562 2 күн бұрын
Can the commander morale bonus increase a units morale to more than their base morale number? For example, can a regular unit with base morale of 9 have morale of 11 from a platoon commanders bonus, or will it never exceed 9?
@TabletopTommies Күн бұрын
Yes, a unit can have its base morale increased by officer modifiers up to a maximum of 11 (a 12 is always a fail)
@James-de2hp Күн бұрын
@TabletopTommies is this a change from 2nd Edition? 11s used to always fail didn't they, as morale was capped at 10?
@maxbarashenkov3562 Күн бұрын
@@TabletopTommies is that in the rule book somewhere? Or am I just being blind?
@TabletopTommies 22 сағат бұрын
@James-de2hp yes, it's on p.71 and is a change from v2
@maxbarashenkov3562 21 сағат бұрын
@@TabletopTommies is this stated somewhere clearly in the rulebook? We had a huge argument about this at the last game session haha
@Drunkbritishguy 3 күн бұрын
Tbh I think something that was intresting was that all the winners of the groups on day 2 were all in the same group day 1 Spain USA Lions Wales 2
@TabletopTommies 2 күн бұрын
It was certainly a tough group and credit to all 4 teams for their day two performances.
@einrauser6103 3 күн бұрын
Bolt Action would be a riot in Teams
@thestoicsteve 3 күн бұрын
Thanks for the video guys. God to hear what went on!
@Anyway99973 12 күн бұрын
Quick question about morale : how do you calculate morale with all the modifier? Do you calculate bonus before and pin after? Or All at the same time and cap at 2 or 11?
@marc83l-j2j 11 күн бұрын
Same here, Because it is not written anywhere in the book. We had a debate over the interpretation….
@TabletopTommies 7 күн бұрын
All at the same time, so 3 pins would be -3 but if there is a Platoon Commander in range that's offset by the +2 modifier, for a net modifier of -1. 2 is always a pass and 12 always a fail, irrespective of modifiers.
@Flamethrower1942 15 күн бұрын
Are the m6 not 26mm bases ? Only 1 mm difference but im.sure the M5 are 25mm
@TabletopTommies 14 күн бұрын
They are probably available as both, so you could check the spec on the ones you buy. 1inch is actually 25.4mm not 25mm so actually sits directly between the two anyway. My basing material would add that 0.4mm anyway i'd imagine. Equally ive never really heard anyone complain about base sizes, because there's pros and cons to bigger and smaller than intended bases.
@xr8rgreat 19 күн бұрын
For me once an army is up and running, Every event I go to with said army i try to use a unit that is unpainted to get me a time limit to set each thing painted
@TabletopTommies 14 күн бұрын
Great plan!
@xblue_kennyx4519 26 күн бұрын
This is exactly what I've been looking for 🎉🎉🎉🎉
@TabletopTommies 25 күн бұрын
Glad it's useful for you!
@MrBegc 26 күн бұрын
Great video Phil - very helpful!
@TabletopTommies 25 күн бұрын
Glad it's useful for you!
@cobruh836 28 күн бұрын
to be fair BARs+F&M in v2 was way too overpowered. a BAR was 5pts for two shots +assault and you could easily cram 3 of them into a squad (if you played marines) for less cost than other nations pay for an lmg, which has less shots than 3 BARs, no assault and needs a loader...
@jeffnorris3913 28 күн бұрын
Tio's could always make a rule about smoke. Perhaps a deviation d6, 2d6, ect. The smoke attack you described would really be cinematic and a joy to play
@Keithslawinski 9 күн бұрын
Agreed. Easy fix is to make it an auto spawn on the first attempt, but with 2D6 (opponent directed) scatter unless at least one of those die is a 6. OR, if you want honing, let the player opt to roll 2D6 to hone, and pick the highest die to determine if it hits. If it does hit, the opponent gets to scatter x inches equal to the other die. I could come up with like 5 more variations of this, but I'll stop with these. If smoke spam is a concern, just set a limit, like you may fire1 successful smoke shell per mortar/artillery you field (or just straight up a 2-3 shell limit per heavy/artillery platoon taken). For a mechanic that was already so underutilized, and a BA edition so dependent on cover, I am surprised smoke mechanics were as neglected as they were.
@h.s.lafever3277 29 күн бұрын
Our club house rules and uses a game master. GM makes it possible to have double blind deployment, and hidden snipers, etc...
@richardtyrer9470 Ай бұрын
Just a comment on V3 and Bo’s position that assault is nerfed. Most videos are comparing how V3 compares to V2. My suggestion is treat V3 as a new game and change the paradigm. This way assault and the various other aspects form part of a new approach. Bo also mentions the incentive is to stand back and shoot. To my point above, there is very little incentive to stand back and shoot given the mission restructure. You need to get up close and personal if you want to win in most missions. My emerging thoughts are armoured transports armed with teams of vets and assault weapons, supported by heavy firepower. We will see. Thanks for the great discussion
@DukeExeter Ай бұрын
18:25 yes this is true, but also just read the next paragraph about measuring distance. You always measure to/from the gun breech and ignore the barrel and the crew. This is very clear if I am shooting at an artillery unit I shoot at the breech of the gun model, so I don't care if someone tries to hide all their models behind a building anyways, I dont measure or aim at the crew models.
@TheNetterRiese Ай бұрын
As someone who has listened to all your podcasts I have to say I had no clue what that title of the vid meant. If you wanna catch new watchers on youtube you gotta up that title and frankly that thumbnail game as well. I want you guys to get the viewership you deserve so keep at it. The typical way to write an engaging title is to ask an open question with a bit of mystery
@DeadendSatellite Ай бұрын
They should make competitive Reading comprehension competitions then some some of the tournament players might read the rulebook properly.
@ijsbeermeneer9952 Ай бұрын
Rofl
@PaixEtDemocratie 27 күн бұрын
😂
@einrauser6103 Ай бұрын
This has been a very helpful video for me. A recent V3 Launch Party has started a chain reaction in my local area with several mates looking to jump into BA for the first time. Hearing the older starter boxes are still viable is great news.
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
Glad it helped! Thanks for watching!
@Mittens_Gaming Ай бұрын
Great explanation. I have kinda been building my armies like this anyway, since I like to go with historical armies.
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it! Being able to tailor lists more easily to particular engagements is definitely a benefit of v3 in my view. Phil
@haraldsamson1869 Ай бұрын
Very interesting point and backed by maths, I love it !
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
Glad you liked it, thanks! Let me know what other units you'd like to see a video on!
@DeadendSatellite Ай бұрын
Being really only allowed to use them to shoot only NCOs or commanders makes they not vey useful anymore.
@dariostabletopminatures Ай бұрын
Great Video! Thank you! On the Hunt for Officers and Spotters! I will try that!
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
Good luck!
@dariostabletopbastelecke4846 Ай бұрын
Great Video! Thank you!
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
You are welcome! Thanks for watching!
@TheNetterRiese Ай бұрын
I'm happy that they are more authentic now, however I think there was no need to take away the snipers ability to freely choose the targeted model. IMO snipers where never really that powerful in V2 so the nerf wasn't really needed, even with all the system changes.
@jonathanbirkeland1085 Ай бұрын
Knocking off enemy spotters and forward observation officers is still a good role for them since Air Observers are much better now with the change to “Rookie Pilot”, so we can expect to see more of them. Likewise, a counter sniper will always be useful if you yourself want to have lots of forward observers in your own company.
@timthedean Ай бұрын
Plus, your opponent may have an entire battery of mortars or howitzers depending on a single spotter for LoS. Taking him out can force your opponent to lose a couple of turns repositioning their indirect fire units.
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
If I were to run lots of indirect my takeaway would be to take more spotters rather than a sniper though, cheaper and gives even better LoS coverage of the table. Jonny
@Wargoat6 Ай бұрын
It looks like they will "soft kill" units, ie, cause more failures of order checks, thus taking them out the game
@jasonrobert8098 Ай бұрын
One of my big complaints is that you can only take one unless you take multiple rifle platoons. How much is one sniper team actually going to do what limited job it has when you can only take one and hope it doesn’t die in the process.
@Wargoat6 Ай бұрын
That game balance tho
@thestoicsteve Ай бұрын
Super analysis. Sucessfully sniping an enemy Company commander has a big impact but yes snipers are a nerfed unit in v3.
@alanlatour624 Ай бұрын
Yeah. I think it would be better if you could take more than one sniper per rifle platoon. You can take multiple of every other team choice. Seems silly now that I think about it
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
I agree with you both. I really hope we see more sniper team options, such as embedded in squads with the army books proper. Jonny
@ODST6262 Ай бұрын
For 1250 points please chose a US Army 1944 armored infantry platoon with its half-tracks with 2xM2HB, 3xM1919A4 MMG, and one with two side mount MMG (the MMG squad track which is one of the two with the M2HB HMG). There should be five bazooka teams as each half-track carries one. BAR weren't authorized but American troops tended to 'find' them.
@ODST6262 Ай бұрын
and one 60mm light mortar in the mortar squad.
@jasonrobert8098 Ай бұрын
Thank you. I haven’t had my first game of V3 yet, but reading the rules I honestly am trying to think of situations where you’d assault over just shooting in V3. I like your suggestion of getting the unit down first.
@craigcameron3378 Ай бұрын
Another great video for new players. Especially useful before my rulebook arrives (it's 8 stops away according to Yodel...)
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
Thank you, pleased to hear you've found it useful!
@chueco9940 Ай бұрын
Thanks man. I'm just getting into Bolt Action and these videos are really helpful.
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
Great to hear, cheers 👍
@SHARK-yq5pr Ай бұрын
Greetings! Phil, you have a great program! This particular tutorial video for V3 Bolt Action is fantastic, and very helpful! Your diction and cadence are really excellent for listening to you actually explain the process and follow along. Oh, and sir! Your SOUNDTRACK???? Glen Miller, Hello? Just outstanding! Keep that soundtrack, sir! Damn fine music! I have a German Wehrmacht army, a US Marine army, Imperial Japanese army, and a Soviet Red Army. I am chewing on jumping in with building a weird British Commonwealth Army, say, composed of some hard British troops, some Ghurkas, and especially featuring some Indian SIKH troops, with the beards and turbans. Maybe a few Australians or Chinese units to add to it. I'm thinking of making it some kind of thrown-together force used in the dark years of fighting against the Japanese at the gates of India and Burma. Any thoughts or recommendations on such a project? Of course, I am also looking forward to building a US Army in Europe force. Some US Rangers, naturally, for D-Day fighting at Normandy and later. I'm also definitely looking to put together an armoured, mechanized force favoured by General George Patton's US Third Army. Keep up the good work, Phil! Semper Fidelis, SHARK
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
Glad to hear you enjoyed the video! If you drop us a message on Facebook I can give you some suggestions of what to look at for Burma. Phil
@MrGunnar177 Ай бұрын
Historical is the only way to go. It’s my biggest gripe with BA is the lack of enforcement of historical periods, equipment and platoon structure
@Mktjoan Ай бұрын
A very good and informative video. I have a question. A command vehicle can only use its +1 command bonus on vehicles. However, Cana platoon or company commander use its bonus and Snap to on vehicles?
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it! Platoon and Company Commanders may snap to any friendly units within their range, with Command Vehicles counting as PCs for the purpose of being snapped etc (p.113 and p.149).
@Keithslawinski Ай бұрын
Nice commentary. Agree with you on the v3 down retaining order its a bit too powerful. Would have been better if it was a D3-D6+1 pin removal instead. I like most of the rule changes, but there are a few things in 3e I feel were missed opportunities. 1) Smoke rework: With cover being so important in 3e I was hoping smoke launchers would be easier to deploy onto the field vs 2e where they were largely useless. Bummed that doesn't seem to have changed too much. 2) LMG/MMG: While buffed due to easier pinning and the extra shot, the removal of long/short range makes LMG's still feels more like a side-grade to rifles, and not terribly better than 2e. WL should have given MG weapons an added mechanic to differentiate themselves from rifles. Whether that be D2 pins, or the ability to arc fire over friendly troops when firing at an enemy 24+" away, or even some Warhammer cheese like 6's to-hit being at pen +1, I don't care, JUST SOMETHING to make them feel more oppressive and distinct. Add in rapid fire rules I would argue its a downgrade to pay 15pts for the same number of effective shots. 3) Making engineers cooler: They were hyped up so much in the preview, but the "engineer" rule is pretty vanilla unless playing with fortifications which players need to agree to. I would have love to see something if each Engineer platoon received x1 50pt fortification placed for free (barbed wire, mines, booby traps, trecnh/gun-pit). The options, or their placement might be limited depending on the scenario, but thematically I really wanted engineers to actually engineer some stuff as a CORE part of their ruleset.
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
I completely agree with 1 and 2. But actually I don't like fortifications really. I think the only reason they have added a rule to engineers is to justify the 1 point increase, to make flamethrowers worse on top of the 10pts increase. If we are going this route I wouldn't mind them getting +1 cover, if they did not move last turn (to represent them digging in) or the ability to blow roads up to make them impassable or at least slower for wheeled vehicles (with bridges as an optional demo rule). Jonny
@Keithslawinski Ай бұрын
@@TabletopTommies " I wouldn't mind them getting +1 cover, if they did not move last turn (to represent them digging in) or the ability to blow roads up to make them impassable or at least slower for wheeled vehicles" Honestly any of this would have been great to see. Also, I completely understand the trepidations behind managing physical terrain features as a core tabletop mechanic. I just wish engineers got to lean into "engineering" themes a bit more in core play, and not just in specific scenarios where all parties involved pre-emptively agree. Engineers get really cool when you start adding in mine sweeping, Bangaloring, wire cutting, trench digging, but without these terrain features the engineer platoon feels mostly like a tax for flamethrowers. Engineers remind me of old 40k Catachan armies that got improved cover saves, deep striking, and movement/shooting bonus's... but only on woodland terrain features. So in woods they were OP, but outside that, they were awful. The result was the Catachan player always wanted to play on jungle terrain, and their opponents refused, and both sides would fight over a "fair" map terrain. Thematically the rules were cool, but it struggled in practice. I feel this is similar when you have 1 team with a kited engineer platoon with mine sweepers wanting to play with fortifications, while the other player without engineers goes "no how about we just keep it simple". It's a bit deflating. I personally still feel "minefields" and "digging in" could be represented with simple tokens/chits, but as mentioned above, most people who haven't pre-built armies for an optional feature, rarely want to utilize them. Thx for the dialogue.
@maxxon99 Ай бұрын
Actually, I think it's a good rule to model the increased firepower of Garands and M1 carbines. No one else had every soldier equipped with a semi-automatic weapon. But that said, I'm a bit sad it discourages moving because standstill firefights are boring...
@matthewtorkington6117 Ай бұрын
I’m happy with that! Thanks gents for compiling this and congratulations to everyone on the list
@danmorgan3685 Ай бұрын
When I played Bolt Action it was better to not have an LMG in your squads. That, right there, killed the game for me. It's so ahistorical - and frankly rather stupid - that it lead me to look for better rules. It turns out most skirmish WWII rules were better than Bolt Action.
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
That's a shame to hear. In v3 now, LMGs are actually quite good in squads, expect to see a lot more of them!
@jasonrobert8098 Ай бұрын
Totally baffling that they called in Fire and Maneuver. They should have at least called it “Overwhelming Firepower” or something that better reflects what the rules represent. As you said I hope the armies of books make these armies better, because I feel like Warlord dropped the ball on these “out of the book/pdf” lists to start v3
@mountainboardwales Ай бұрын
Oddly enough I think this rule is more thematic than the old one. if you look at American fire and manoeuvre doctrine one squad or half squad would lay down fire while the other ran forward and then they would switch leapfroging each other until they were closed enough to assault with grenades. That doctrine was never about shooting on the move and I wasn't a massive fan of the old role because it never made sense to stand still. However not including BARs and to a lesser extent SMGs in the new role is a big flavour miss, I think the perfect rule would be one extra shot for every three men what ever they're armed with.
@filipbonek8629 Ай бұрын
I think fire and maneuver is a misnomer because it isn't about firing on the move its about suppressing with fire superiority and maneuvering to flank and finish. I could see how people unfamiliar/unknowledgeable about WW2 American Infantry doctrine would think otherwise. I agree the disincentive to take BARs is a flavor fail.
@denisdaly5200 Ай бұрын
Very good explanation of the new configuration. I had feared the rules for army composition would be overly convoluted like the Detachment rules for 7th Ed WH40K. These new rules look like they can create an army that are both still strong, and can be themed. I also worried that making my current army compatible I'd have to purchase a number of heavy weapons like mortars and MMG's, plus new office models. But that last section is fairly well explained in the video. Instead of buying new models I will just designate some of the more leader-posed miniatures as platoon commanders... Promotions abound....
@vincnetjones3037 Ай бұрын
Can the US have 5 x 3 = 15 MMGs and the Soviets 3 x 3 = 9 Anti-tank Rifles??
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
Yes, the Extra Selection rule still applies, same with the Japanese AT team
@vincnetjones3037 Ай бұрын
@@TabletopTommies Okay.... seems surreal...
@h.s.lafever3277 29 күн бұрын
@@vincnetjones3037 seems like a hoot of fun.
@deniskosta1080 Ай бұрын
Barbarossa lists - you wouldn't have many Sd Kfz 250s or 251s. Most Panzer Divisions might have a company of half track equipped infantry.
@hippyhippyshakespear Ай бұрын
Thanks! Very helpful [Noticed extra man for brit reg forward observer is 11pts so you're list is an even 1250]
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
Thanks for catching that, good spot!
@thestoicsteve Ай бұрын
I received my v3 book today and am enjoying reading it. Good quality book, and it looks like it will create interesting games.
@benjaminandrews5772 Ай бұрын
Great video, the standard has been set for V3 tutorial videos!
@panenka7656 Ай бұрын
Haven't got my starter box yet but this was a very clear, and concise overview. Thank you
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
You're welcome, glad you enjoyed it!
@TroyTempest777 Ай бұрын
Great vid,and fills me with even more enthusiasm for v3 and what armies to build !
@TabletopTommies Ай бұрын
Glad you enjoyed it and have fun building your lists!
@WhataboutTRUTH Ай бұрын
Sadly warlord games have chosen to follow in the GW, past and over charge for there miniatures.
@griffinkees9772 Ай бұрын
To play devils advocate here: doesn’t it actually make sense though to get more hits if you’re stationary? I get that we’ve lost some of the flavor with the new version, and I am right there with you on that part. But I think comparing the numbers and saying that it doesn’t make sense to get more hits if you’re stationary is a little silly, like ofc you should get more hits if you don’t move?? It’s just a flavor fail, and the name of the rule suggests it should have to do something with MOVEMENT, not how many rifles are in the squad. Hopefully the “Armies of” book fixes this and makes it more interesting, even if they gotta tone it down a bit from the V2 incarnation of the rule.
@deccabw Ай бұрын
Is there a document so you can work out vehicle costs, as a minor power player it would be useful as the PDfs won’t have any new unit content and the army books will not be released until 2026/27