I'll probably ditch the game if that's going to be the case. I liked Bolt Action cause matches were smaller than 40k. Between this and the introduction of cover saves it's looking like they're turning the game into 40k-lite, and i'm not into it.
Yeah in a way, the way they graphically structured the flowchart reminded me of 8th or 9th edition of some game XD I'm guessing theyre going to scale it up a bit towards 1500 standard or also mode for small scout/platoon battles
Similar to your remarks, i really doubt Warlord would have Engineer platoons to allow you to have 7 flamethrowers. That would be ridiculous. No, my suspicion is more that theyll strip the flamethrower option from the current Engineer squads, and with the Engineer rule previewed in the new 2-player starter box, engineer squads will be become more dedicated assault troops, perhaps getting more weapon options for that role. Perhaps they'll get AT grenades by default as well. Which means that each Engineer Platoon would only allow access to 3 flamethrowers, if my assumptions are correct. Also, the changes to shooting will probably help to balance out the changes to army composition, so maybe flamethrowers are getting nerfed as well. Best just to wait and see for September when the rulebook comes out. I will admit that I do like the change on an aesthetic level at least.
With such extreme builds looks like instead of a balancedish game at the moment it's going rock paper scissors. A lot of games will be predestined before they are play. If you open up to structure too much players will abuse it.
I agree totally about the rock paper scissors thing. They have tried to make make it more like 40k to lure more defectors over but have missed the point that the thing people like about bolt action is that it's different to that. I can see a lot of people sticking to 2nd ed rules. God I never thought I'd become one of the old edition grognards...
Safe travels Bo! I don't think mixed bag forces will be completely gone, I think we will end up with a mixed bag list having a very distinct look and feel because it will force you to balance points across the board. I do agree that lists seems to take a more 'pointed' direction to achieve one or two things really well. and that isn't a bad thing as it looks like you'll have to compromise somewhat. Of course there is a lot yet to find out!
Hello everybody. I tried to make a 1000p late war german list with the unit cost of version 2. It concluded to have 1 platoon of veteran infantry (2 squads + hq + A-T team and sniper+ 1transport) and a Armoured platoon (a tank and an armoured command vehicle).I think is v3 makes you choose more specific what kind of support do you want and makes the list more historical accurate.
I disagree, the Rifle Platoon allowing two light mortars is a very British thing that the Americans, Germans and Russians didn’t do. The old Generic Platoon allowed you to be very historically accurate per T/O if you wanted to, but it didn’t force you to either. That’s what I liked about it.
@@jonathanbirkeland1085 I could see Warlord, in the "Armies of" books, tinkering with the numbers within each platoon to be more accurate, with the ones they previewed being just the standard template. This new army composition gives them the freedom to chop and change where necessary. I could definitely see not all factions getting access to many of these platoon types. For example, the Dutch don't have any dedicated engineer squad in the game, so access to that platoon would be wasted on them.
@jonathanbirkeland1085 good point. I thought the basic US Infantry platoon had a mortar squad. The light mortars part of the weapons platoon. However, the US Parachute Infantry Platoon and the Armored Infantry Platoon had an organic light mortar.
@@jonathanbirkeland1085 Or rather, a Soviet Rifle Platoon includes light mortars, but only until about the end of 1942 (whereupon they're swapped out for medium mortars at company level). The Germans do something similar: there are grenatenwerfers in their TO&E, but they're phased out as the war progresses. In *practice*, these company-level assets were often shared out among the infantry platoons anyway, which makes the artificial distinction of a Rifle Platoon from a Heavy Weapons Platoon a bit jarring to me.
@@CS-zn6pp we have no info on flamethrowers yet or if they can even be taken in engineer units, but yeah 7 per ingeneer platoon would be bad if nothing changes
I think you're right about more specific army builds coming into their own with the new system (which I think is good: it reflects order of battle more effectively, and it will create a bit more skew that will likely make some units more or less effective based on what you're against), but being able to build a force that has a lot of flamers and a dakka tank is less likely with this system. We'll probably see people focus on the 1-2 things they really want to do, and Greatest Hits style armies will be less likely.
Soo Whats the "cap" then? Do we have to choose certain amount platoons? or can we now mix but with certain dedicated platoon types? Also 'order dice' it used to be 12 standard , how about points.. Whats it going to be now? Yeah i'm curious about the standard tournament/play rules. And as with certain other games im a bit frustrated cuz now I have to change my standard builds and have to buy new stuffs
@@FargoFinal we have some guestimates for some of those questions: A. You need as many rifleplatoons as you have of any other single platoon type. B. You can mix and match, never exceeding the number of rifleplatoons for any other platoon type. C.oD were never really any thing 'standard', that depended on your Meta. D. Points have been playtested at WG for 1250 so maybe that will become the new standard points? E. Yeah that sucks, I also have to go buy new models
