How is bolt action third edition looking?
Bad. Real bad.
>>94373220Warlord really are just wannabe games workshop what’s with the water in Nottingham?
>>94373220I like all the new airborne preorders, except these damn pathfinders. I'm baffled by how boring they are, they look like they're just mozying around.
>>94373418The nu box art looks soulless too
>>94373232How bad?
>>94373418Jesus they need a better painter.
>>94377239Sold all my BA stuff and am now focusing on Mordheim and Munda bad.
>>94377239Just an example, literally one of the best things you can do against artillery guns now is running them over with tankettes.Because yes, a Te-ke or a CV-33 will crush a heavy At gun or Howitzer under its mighty tracks.
>>94382078"A tank’s assault is worked out differently from close quarterscombat between infantry units. The main difference is thatassaulted units do not fight back in the assault. Instead,follow the procedure below.As soon as the tank is moved into contact, take a moralecheck for the target infantry or artillery unit. If the checkis failed, the assaulted unit surrenders or scatters and isconsidered destroyed (including units of fanatics)." Rules as written. The heavy AT gun, with soft squishy people manning it, surrender to the armored vehicle regardless of it's mass and girth. One could extrapolate that the crew, lacking any adequate anti-armor weapons and unable to bring their artillery piece or AT gun to bear in time, surrender or run away from the metal box with a machine gun in it instead of getting machine-gunned. You are disingenuous in your explanation.
>>94373239Capitalism. If you don't like what GW and Warlord are doing to control the market, then you're a fucking commie and you need to get in the helicopter.
>>94373239Did you know that businesses exist to turn a profit?
>>94377377No they don't, the minis are actually even worse than they look painted.
>>94384346This, but unironically. Be a force in the market if you don't like some trends, instead of whining about them.
>>94384353Profit is immoral.
>>94384309Then tell me why the rules explicitly state that nothing else, not even a heavy howitzer hit or a air attack, can -destroy- the gun, but only affect the crew, but a tiny tankette can totally maim the gun? You really say it would be unrealistic that a group of infantry kills the gun crew and then destroy the gun by, lets say, blowing up the barrel with a grenade?
>>94373239How so?
>>94385548>>94373239>Army books for third are dragged out releases for example Japan wont get a book till 2026 >Warlord has gotten very "no model = no rules" anymore>Warlords entire website and blogs are now structured like Warhammer community >FOMO miniatures >Even had their own price raises
>>94387064To top it all off there's their new vanguard game that nobody asked for, 'inspired' by bolt action rules. I don't understand why they're dividing even more attention away so soon after 3rd ed launched
>>94373220It's a beer and pretzels game meant for 28-50 year old dudes with jobs, families, and other hobbies. If you expect an accurate WWII simulation or something with the variety and competitive scene that 40K has, you're probably going to be disappointed. >>94384309And realistically, how offten is this going to happen? If you have tanks rampaging around your backline units the match is probably ending anyways. I don't think you need 50 codicils on every rule to handle niche situations anyways.
>>94387064I knew I wasnt going crazy when Warlord sent emails with the exact style and layout like a Warhammer Community blog
>>94385450>tiny tankette can totally maim the gunI don't know how small and light you think tankettes are, the L3/33 weighs just under 3 tons, and the Type 97 Te-Ke weighs just under 5 tons. A mass of that size coming into collision with a static artillery piece is going to destroy the artillery piece. Either by crushing part of the carriage or damaging it's wheels, or knocking the gun loose from it's carriage, or upsetting the gun laying gearing, or etc. So yes, a tankette would destroy a "super heavy AT gun" though, I personally believe it would run the risk of getting caught up on the wreckage or risk throwing a track. >be unrealistic that a group of infantry kills the gun crew and then destroy the gun by, lets say, blowing up the barrel with a grenade?>blowing up the barrel with a grenade?This is completely impossible. Are you being serious or just shit posting? A Thermite grenade, yes that's what they were purpose build for, a standard issue fragmentation or concussion grenade? Fuck no. less than 2 oz of explosives inside a steel tube designed and manufactured to channel much higher explosive pressures out the end of it? No. Wouldn't happen. The grenade would go pop and shower out the muzzle of the gun. Do you understand how pressure works? Pure hollywood and videogames. Infantry would be more likely to capture the weapon, unless ordered and furthermore equipped to go out and destroy them.
Okay, so is the hate all just about what Warlord's been doing rather than the game itself? Cause that's fair, but I'm curious what about the game could be bothering people that much cause I can't see it. And no, I'm not buying that tanks ramming artillery is a genuine problem with the ruleset.
>>94390177Alright so, I believe that there are several notable issues with v3 that make it a downgrade from v2. These issues can be broken into two categories. Core rules, and units. As far as core rules are concerned WG fixed a few major issues and player complaints from v2 such as making lmgs actually reasonable, but in doing so turned around and fucked up a whole lot of other things and overly nerfed or changed many of the rules for the worse. Funnily enough one example being making howitzers nearly worthless to take because of their new minimum ranges. (heavy howitzers minimum range being 42 inches meaning it can't hit anything under that with indirect fire) but besides that making flame throwers bad, making snipers bad, making at rifles bad, making smgs worse, making pistols terrible, making cavalry useless, gutting the down order, changing close combat and raping the defensive positions rule, giving tanks cover saves for some reason, multi-launchers are turbo gay and broken and by using some shenanigans can legally RaW get a 20" wide blast area. Now this is just the bad, mind you they did change many other rules for the better. The issue is that does the better out weigh the bad? Many people thing... no. And then there's the units. This is short and to the point. The wh40k style index are short and to the point. The unit rosters have been absolutely gutted. And who cares that books are coming drip feed style, what they've shoveled out to play with now is just bad. A fragment of a fragment of a fragment of v2. With that all the nations national rules are also all bad, some only minor, some completely fucked. Finally tack onto that WG seemingly axing all minor nations that they didn't make models for... Things don't look good. I used to play 2 frequently enough, and now my japanese army has gone from fluffy and fun built around the 1932 invasion of Manchuria theater selector, to being flavorless and bland, and my Chinese army doesn't exist anymore.
>>94381574nta but all that is is a good example of how retarded gw refugees areit's one thing to dump your models from a range that would require you to have an imagination to use it with another game, this shit can be used for literally any WWII skirmish game
>>94373418>£26grim. it wasnt that long ago boxes like that were £12
>>94390177They also forced you to rebuy shit and made games slightly bigger as many I know are going to 1250 If you run tank you need to bring another vehicle and people usually ran 1 tank. Platoons also force more miniature buys
>>94373220Bad. Play chain of command instead. GW and Warlord will never release any good mainline rulesets ever again
>>94373220Me and the lads at my flgs are retooling our WWII collections to play something else. We had a few games of third and collective decided it just wasn't worth playing. The lists are gutted and hollow, the rules balances are more bad than good. The platoon selector is the only thing we agree on that we like about the new edition. But it's not enough to keep us playing it. I'm going to demo chain of command this weekend.
>>94393142Catastrophic british economy, please understand.
>>94390592>multi-launchers are turbo gay and brokenHow is this new? And idk, the pretty much day-one errata makes them take d3 pins after firing, so they're certainly not better than they were in 2nd.>flame throwers badDon't know about bad, and they definitely needed a serious nerf in any case>making snipers badSame as above, but I agree it was dumb to take away their ability to pick specific models>making at rifles badHow? They got a straight upgrade even before considering how they changed pins to fully enclosed vehicles. >making smgs worseI might be with you there, but it seems largely unchanged assigned from cost. >making pistols terribleThey should be bad but yeah, I don't think there was any good reason to take assault away from them.Maybe I'm just looking past the flaws cause I'm such a fan of the new platoon system, but I find it hard to believe that the system itself is that much of a downgrade.I get the issue with the units, but that really isn't anything unique to Bolt Action. For all the complaining about the stuff that's missing right now, it's not exactly difficult to port older stuff forward.It mostly sounds to me like typical grog shit and this board not liking Bolt Action to start with more than any problem with the game itself.
The second edition killed my interest in the game but only because the people at my LGS bent the game so far out of shape that it stopped being fun.
Shoo shoo /hwg/, go back to your containment and especially back to your discord.
>>94399692/hwg/ actually hates bolt action and doesnt talk about it they hate anything thats not tiny blobs or obscure little wars
>>94399751>t. the reason why BA is not and will never be a hwg
It's good. I'm waiting for the national books to drop and flesh the game out a little more.
>>94389422Actually i read some records of troops destroying guns by either wedging a stone in the muzzle of the gun or shove a hand grenade / shell with the tip inwards into the barrel and then firing the gun (from distance by a rope or something of course). Happened when they were retreating and couldn't take the gun with them for example.So, yes, you can absolutely wreck a gun without special equipment.
>>94397354>Don't know about bad, and they definitely needed a serious nerf in any caseBut you can actually field more of them now, how is that a nerf?
>>94402620[Citation needed]
>>94402842Easy Company destroying the guns at the Manor after D Day. Take a grenade, activate it, drop it down the barrel. Game over.
>>94403016>Easy Company destroying the guns at the Manor after D Dayyou forgot where they packed TNT down the barrel first and used the grenades to set off the TNT because they had lost the fuses for it. Thus meaning that they were specifically equipped to go out and destroy these guns and again proving my point. So no, again, you absolute retard, a hand grenade by itself won't destroy an artillery piece.
>>94403050Yes it wouldStick a grenade down the barrel of any big gun and you'll ruin it.
>>94404183>source: vidya
>>94399692>discord le discord discord DISCORDWhat discord? We couldn't get a decent steam group going when the thread was more active and that has a real purpose, not some brandname IRC that braindead zoomers try to use as a forumWhat's supposed to be LE DISCORD anyway, the posts or the thread itself? People with detailed critiques of the new edition are clearly BA players. If it offends you that this thread exists full stop then I hope you have a moment of clarity and either seek help or kill yourself>>94399751Two popular shitpost topics for nogames. Scaleniggers are boring and unfulfilled by games, and hipster retards seemingly too cool for popular eras don't appreciate that popular eras get the most attention from rules writers also don't play. If you can't filter the background noise of regular shitposters out of the rest of the general than you're either retarded, or you've got an axe to grind with the thread.
>>94404416He just wants to herd you back into a general to be able to control the flow of discussion. Post at your leisure, anon. Make TG Great Again.
>>94404183[Citation needed]
>>94404202>>94406037If you stick your finger down the barrel to "clog" it, like in bugs bunny it'll blow-up the gun.
>>94404183if that was the case why did easy company even bother stuffing TNT down the tube in the first place you absolute dip
>>94373239>>94387064>>94387211>>94388777Warlord made the mistake of expanding really rapidly in the 2010's and not really having a diverse enough of a portfolio to be "GW: but not shit"..Their attempts at a fantasy game kind of sputtered out;Perry Bros. are probably the better ones.now if only Wargames-Atlantic wasn't taking it's pricing cue's from Warlord or there was a way to take advantage of a weak-pound.
>>94410498I miss when you could order to the US using their british side of the site. Used to be able to get things at a great price, especially when the pound was low. Now it's overpriced us dollar dogshit only, made it to where I haven't ordered from their site directly in many years
>>94373239Because it's Ex-GW guys that wanted WW2Hammer. It turns out, there's a pretty big market for WW2Hammer, where you can set up point-based pickup games.
>>94409636[Citation needed]
>>94409636Bigger boom boom
>>94412911>Ambrose, Stephen E. (2001). Band of Brothers. Gardners Books. ISBN 0-7434-2990-7.>Winters, Dick (2005). Beyond Band of Brothers. Berkley Caliber. ISBN 0-4252-0813-3.
Seething anti/pro boltacksun tards upset that BA isn't realistic enough by citing a lack of mythological and disproven hollywood tropes and videogame mechanics while dismissing 5 ton fully tracked vehicles squishing equipment as being unrealistic. I can't tell whose serious and whose shit posting anymore.
