I reckon Jordan made a valid point in suggesting including predesignated JOPs in CoC, at least for artillery like AT guns. Relatively easy to flexibly redeploy assets like standard infantry or tripod MGs, much harder to quickly relocate a cannon on a carriage.
Enjoyed the show! As for mixing the games, and solely speaking for myself, I watch for your Bolt Action battle reports and skip the CoC. I don't like mixing the two games … a lot of people watch you battle reports to learn about the game. I direct new players to watch you just for that reason. Just my 2 cents, love your terrain, miniatures and dedication to both games. Mike Bruck
i have never played chain of command (and i dont have hopes to find anyone playing it over here), but i think you treat bolt action unfairly. movement is NOT as simple as you make it out to be, since youre not allowed to pre-measure. sure you get an idea with experience, but you can never be sure. i feel like people always pre-measure their distances by habit, but once you actually strictly forbit that and make people pay for even trying, the dynamic can change a lot. i for one started bolt action not long ago and i find it very hard to get my japanese in assault range. ppl be like "oh you just attack with japan and then charge", but in reality youre 0.7 inch off and they kill your squad with defensive fire on the charge, because you lacked the 0.7 inch to be in "surprise range". most of the time people dont even remember looking at the terrain they are moving across, and i feel like this is very true for your own channel also. whenever i look at your batreps (which i totally love) i dont feel like youre looking at moving through rough terrain with your truck or whatever. so yea, maybe you dont need it more comlicated than it already is. however i see the appeal of having even more realism in a game.
Good show chaps. I think that the term "versus" rather suggest that the two games are in competition with each other. We certainly do n't see it like that. If you like Chess, you can still play Checkers and enjoy it.
Good point. We certainly play both of them and enjoy both. Probably could of called it a comparison of how each handle your typical WW2 weapons and situations, just trying to be less wordy.
Greg said you can only use one dice per activation in Bolt Action. He forgets “Snap To” where an officer can draw another dice to command another unit, the higher the officer the more units can be activated. With deployment Jordan made a good point, not enough people play the scenarios. Too many people just play Meeting Engagement. Narrative is the key as Greg said, and one of the big differences between the two games. It raises a much bigger fundamental difference, many people like and want a competitive game, I came from a “competitive” British Nationals and Warhammer tournaments gaming background and found that missing in Chain of Command which is by far narrative driven. It takes a bit of time and mental gymnastics to drop the competitive mind set. Which is better, well depends on your mind set and what you are feeling on the day. Two great games which I love to play depending on time and mood. Narrative or gung ho!
Great chat, fellas. I found CoC more in depth than BA, but seeing as I don't get too many chances to play BA is the go to game. When you only have finite time and "game day" is more of a social event, a beer and pretzel game is best. At an event like Historicon where you've got a lot of time, CoC would be best.
I like both. I probably like CoC a bit better and agree CoC has a great deployment system. I will say that as a one off game CoC feels a bit emptier to me than BA. In a one off game BA, with the turn limit, works a bit better and creates close all or nothing endings. One off CoC games to me end up a shootout to the death. When played as a campaign CoC’s morale system works far better and the games have very meaningful ending and therefore a lot more enjoyable than a one off BA to me.
Disagree entirely re CoC being a "shootout to the death". The force morale system means a platoon can break whilst only sustaining minimal/moderate losses.
@@corvusboreus2072 I guess a 'shootout to the death' of your force morale - there is no reason to concede a one-off game of CoC through reduction in force morale or casualties. Casualties can be racked up just as you can stifle forces through morale alone in both games. Regardless the amount of casualties sustained in a game was not the main point of my comment. It was that that in one-off games, for a variety of reasons (including they way morale works in CoC) that BA tends to create a better ending and spectacle in one-off games and that CoC is far more enjoyable in campaign play.
i wish i had more people NOT playing warhammer around. i cant stand warhammers ruleset and monetization anymore, especially the "flavor of the month" BS where everyone suddenly starts a new army for 600€ because its OP this month (and the next few until a new codex comes out and becomes the new flavor of the month). at this point in time i only have a solid 1 person to bolt action with, kinda sad. i guess most people spend too much money on WH to quit by now and tell themselves that its still a good game for copium im kinda jealous that you have a healthy tabletop community over in america, here everyone plays warhammer and thats basicly it... some play lord of the rings, which im not the least interested in and then you have like 1 or two ppl playing something else not WH or LotR even ppl playing warhammer cant stand warhammer anymore, because they always switch between fantasy and 40k whenever a new book comes out. they just cant admit it - IMO (and judging from the people i know from the club)
btw selling my complete Tau army, just have to figure out what i even have. should be more than 5k points i think got like 2 riptides, 2 ghostkeels, 15 or so stealth suits, probably 40 pathfnders, more than 80 firewarriors, 1 or two squads of breachers, two hammerheads, two bombers, a shitton of drones, probably 20 or more crisis, around 8 or so broadsides, 10 or so commanders, a tidewall, a bunch of cool unofficial models for heroic characters, four or six piranhas, two devilfish, a stormtide, a bunch of kroot, krootox and kroot hounds, idk what else... some of them in pristine condition, some of them in terrible condition, most of them in good condition but the majority is not painted, cause i couldnt wrap my head around painting flat surfaces, im more a builder than a painter. most of the stuff is primed in white and not a lot more, shouldnt be too hard to fix the paintscheme.
also i wtb a grymkin slaughterhouse for warmachine/hordes. since they discontinued my army, its hard to come by. the russians have a lot to offer, but for "some reason" i cant order from russia at this time.
Thanks for the chat folks! Interesting comparison between games. I like the cannonball detail, it adds character to the models.
I reckon Jordan made a valid point in suggesting including predesignated JOPs in CoC, at least for artillery like AT guns.
Relatively easy to flexibly redeploy assets like standard infantry or tripod MGs, much harder to quickly relocate a cannon on a carriage.
Exactly my thinking!
Interesting and fun chat. But yes, early morning for you guys and late afternoon / early evening for the UK would be be better for me at least.
Enjoyed the show! As for mixing the games, and solely speaking for myself, I watch for your Bolt Action battle reports and skip the CoC. I don't like mixing the two games … a lot of people watch you battle reports to learn about the game. I direct new players to watch you just for that reason. Just my 2 cents, love your terrain, miniatures and dedication to both games. Mike Bruck
Great chat Travis, there was no decision over which rule set is best!!
i have never played chain of command (and i dont have hopes to find anyone playing it over here), but i think you treat bolt action unfairly. movement is NOT as simple as you make it out to be, since youre not allowed to pre-measure. sure you get an idea with experience, but you can never be sure. i feel like people always pre-measure their distances by habit, but once you actually strictly forbit that and make people pay for even trying, the dynamic can change a lot. i for one started bolt action not long ago and i find it very hard to get my japanese in assault range. ppl be like "oh you just attack with japan and then charge", but in reality youre 0.7 inch off and they kill your squad with defensive fire on the charge, because you lacked the 0.7 inch to be in "surprise range". most of the time people dont even remember looking at the terrain they are moving across, and i feel like this is very true for your own channel also. whenever i look at your batreps (which i totally love) i dont feel like youre looking at moving through rough terrain with your truck or whatever. so yea, maybe you dont need it more comlicated than it already is. however i see the appeal of having even more realism in a game.
Good show chaps. I think that the term "versus" rather suggest that the two games are in competition with each other. We certainly do n't see it like that. If you like Chess, you can still play Checkers and enjoy it.
Good point. We certainly play both of them and enjoy both. Probably could of called it a comparison of how each handle your typical WW2 weapons and situations, just trying to be less wordy.
Greg said you can only use one dice per activation in Bolt Action. He forgets “Snap To” where an officer can draw another dice to command another unit, the higher the officer the more units can be activated. With deployment Jordan made a good point, not enough people play the scenarios. Too many people just play Meeting Engagement. Narrative is the key as Greg said, and one of the big differences between the two games. It raises a much bigger fundamental difference, many people like and want a competitive game, I came from a “competitive” British Nationals and Warhammer tournaments gaming background and found that missing in Chain of Command which is by far narrative driven. It takes a bit of time and mental gymnastics to drop the competitive mind set. Which is better, well depends on your mind set and what you are feeling on the day. Two great games which I love to play depending on time and mood. Narrative or gung ho!
Great points Ken 🍻
Great chat, fellas. I found CoC more in depth than BA, but seeing as I don't get too many chances to play BA is the go to game. When you only have finite time and "game day" is more of a social event, a beer and pretzel game is best. At an event like Historicon where you've got a lot of time, CoC would be best.
Yay Jordo!
I like both. I probably like CoC a bit better and agree CoC has a great deployment system.
I will say that as a one off game CoC feels a bit emptier to me than BA. In a one off game BA, with the turn limit, works a bit better and creates close all or nothing endings. One off CoC games to me end up a shootout to the death. When played as a campaign CoC’s morale system works far better and the games have very meaningful ending and therefore a lot more enjoyable than a one off BA to me.
Disagree entirely re CoC being a "shootout to the death".
The force morale system means a platoon can break whilst only sustaining minimal/moderate losses.
@@corvusboreus2072 I guess a 'shootout to the death' of your force morale - there is no reason to concede a one-off game of CoC through reduction in force morale or casualties. Casualties can be racked up just as you can stifle forces through morale alone in both games.
Regardless the amount of casualties sustained in a game was not the main point of my comment. It was that that in one-off games, for a variety of reasons (including they way morale works in CoC) that BA tends to create a better ending and spectacle in one-off games and that CoC is far more enjoyable in campaign play.
@@Mopar66VC clarification appreciated.
i wish i had more people NOT playing warhammer around. i cant stand warhammers ruleset and monetization anymore, especially the "flavor of the month" BS where everyone suddenly starts a new army for 600€ because its OP this month (and the next few until a new codex comes out and becomes the new flavor of the month). at this point in time i only have a solid 1 person to bolt action with, kinda sad. i guess most people spend too much money on WH to quit by now and tell themselves that its still a good game for copium
im kinda jealous that you have a healthy tabletop community over in america, here everyone plays warhammer and thats basicly it... some play lord of the rings, which im not the least interested in and then you have like 1 or two ppl playing something else not WH or LotR
even ppl playing warhammer cant stand warhammer anymore, because they always switch between fantasy and 40k whenever a new book comes out. they just cant admit it - IMO (and judging from the people i know from the club)
btw selling my complete Tau army, just have to figure out what i even have. should be more than 5k points i think
got like 2 riptides, 2 ghostkeels, 15 or so stealth suits, probably 40 pathfnders, more than 80 firewarriors, 1 or two squads of breachers, two hammerheads, two bombers, a shitton of drones, probably 20 or more crisis, around 8 or so broadsides, 10 or so commanders, a tidewall, a bunch of cool unofficial models for heroic characters, four or six piranhas, two devilfish, a stormtide, a bunch of kroot, krootox and kroot hounds, idk what else... some of them in pristine condition, some of them in terrible condition, most of them in good condition but the majority is not painted, cause i couldnt wrap my head around painting flat surfaces, im more a builder than a painter. most of the stuff is primed in white and not a lot more, shouldnt be too hard to fix the paintscheme.
also i wtb a grymkin slaughterhouse for warmachine/hordes. since they discontinued my army, its hard to come by. the russians have a lot to offer, but for "some reason" i cant order from russia at this time.