41:48, You have to battle the units in close combat as the rules say: " If the ground you take during the Overrun puts you adjacent to an enemy unit, this second battle must once again be a Close Assault Combat."
Anyone reading this and think about trying out Tom's variant of having two separate Command Card decks, do NOT do it! Memoir 44 is designed as a mirror-deck game and giving two sides their own complete decks will simply mean that the game flow has a tendency to be out of balance. Why? Imagine if you have a lot of left flank cards. This means that the opponent is more likely to have (or draw) right flank cards (which from your perspective are also left flank cards). If you split decks, there's none of that, which simply means that the odds of one flank getting a lot of action from one player and the other being unable to do anything about it are notably higher. Stick to the rules as written, share a deck. It's designed this way. Thinking that some cards are better is actually an illusion. Cards that allow a strong action are great, but this game is about positioning tactics and most important cards are cards that just move units. And there's plenty of them.
There are quite a few mistakes here, which is very strange because this is supposed to be in Sam's top 3 games of all time, and one he most plays... for example: at 28.17 Sam used three tanks instead of two: rulebook page 16 "When a unit does not benefit from any protection for its terrain, the sandbags reduce the number of Battle dice rolled by 1 when attacked by Infantry or Armor" at 42.44 after Armor overrun Sam entered a Forrest and attacked again with the tank (because of Armor overrun), rulebook page 11 "Terrain movement and battle restrictions still apply when units take ground" and rulebook page 13 (Forrest tiles) "A unit may not battle the turn it moves onto a Forest hex". So entering a forrest means a unit cannot attack for the entirety of the turn, with Taking Ground still having these battle restrictions applied...
Honest question here: Are the books that detail the history in any way patriotically loaded for any side? I'm a german, so this is always sensible thing to ask, because we all know the nazis did terrible things. War is hell on both sides though. I would really like to get into the history through this game but I would like to have an air of neutrality to it. Did i get my point across? I sure hope so :) Thanks for the vs Internet play, very cool idea with the flanks!
+Kajotex Honestly, I can't recall any of the scenario's historical backgrounds that were written from an overly patriotic standpoint. It sticks mainly to the contextual settings surrounding the battle/skirmish (units involved, possibly leader's names, why it was an important battle, etc.) more than anything else. While I haven't read ALL the scenario's historical backgrounds, I'm pretty sure that this will be the case for most, if not all, of them.
At 28:17 Sam rolls three dice against an infantry unit behind a sandbag, even though he is in an adjacent hill hex. Sandbags reduce the number of Battle dice rolled by 1 when attacking by Infantry or Armor. Shouldn't he have rolled just two dice?
+Nichik Unless, of course, your infantry are planning on using them as cover so they don't get torn to shreds on the advance...jus'sayin'...tanks can take hits much better than infantry.
+Sam Healey Yes, but if you lose some infantry steps, you just march them back to deny the point, and use some other infantry. While when you lose tanks, usually there isn't much replacement (and they have fewer steps). In this very game, if the viewers would have played that close assault card with two of your tanks adjacent... Was fun to watch though.
Hey guys... something doesn't ring true here... the rules are a bit arbitrary... the back and forth seems a little stilted... like the enemy doesn't see you coming and won't dig in... yeah! That's realistic... here's one way of squaring this problem... allow the enemy to put their units on "over watch"... which means they get to roll one dice while the enemy advances. Also... why not allow the enemy to "dig in" and reduce the attackers die count... using an action point??? Combat is a lot more complex than the game makes it out to be... maybe a little more realism would make it a bit better. Love the game, love the mini's... really would like to tighten the game up a little.
+Jim Smith They have a game (actually many) like that...they're called "traditional wargames'. Memoir '44 isn't really meant as a simulation, like most other wargames. It's more of a reenactment of sorts. The extra rules and "tightening up" that you're looking for can be found in games like the Advanced Squad Leader Starter Kit series, Combat Commander, and a whole slew of others.
+Sam Healey Sam... Trust me I understand why you are not drawn to games that are "rule heavy"... your term. Just to settle a point "Squad Leader" and especially "Advanced Squad leader" are BEARS for rules that even I am not always open to test... do I really need nearly a whole page on how to free POW's from a basement? NO! Here's what puzzles me... I own TI3 with all the expansions... I understand why you love this game! What confuses me is that you can put down 8 hours of rules and negotiations and yet leave Memoir 44 basically so open to sheer "dice luck", and it's not really about adding tons of rules. I'm seeking balance and just a touch of common sense... most enemy troops don't just sit there playing cards when an ocean of enemy tanks come rumbling up the hill. All I'm saying is that a player can use their action points to do something logical... "overwatch", retreat before combat, or use their turn to dig in. Having seen the video... what kind of worked against it was that you just rolled up, tossed the dice, and took the entire fight out of an SS infantry unit... not rational, even IF we throw out the historical references. I think (hope) we both want more of a challenge than simply the call of the dice... perhaps a few more options. I mean... hell, in the end, it really doesn't matter... I'm just saying... anybody can "house rule" what they feel makes the game "unbalanced" or "unplayable" and bring it up to their standards. At the end of the day... who cares, right? You are my favorite of the three reviewers and I think we both are attracted to and appreciate the same sort of games. Guess I like to think, create, innovate and do it with geomorphic pieces and plastic mini's. Trust me I have plastic dividers for my Panzer Blitz and Panzer leader games, an army of specialized units... but I LOVE to have a more 3D take on the war gaming experience. I used to teach English Lit and History in high schools. Have been into board gaming for over 50 years. Keep up the good work... love your reviews on Memoir 44 and its expansions and components... they give me lots of ideas and help me work new strategies, based on what all the different badges, and components can do. Looking forward to your next videos... it's OK to "think outside the box" even IF Richard Borg conceived of the game...
+drmesh86 **SPOILERS** We did take Hill 112, though, and held it until the end...this was that part right before the Yanks show up. We had Gerry on his heels...the center was destroyed, and the flanks crumbling. "In reality", that is to say, "had this not been a game-centered simulation", I believe the Commonwealth Forces won the day...but I am a bit biased, I think.
+Sam Healey I like your "reality" Sam! :D Unfortunately, I couldn't catch the whole thing live as I was at work, but shall be watching it through with a nice cuppa about now! :D
41:48, You have to battle the units in close combat as the rules say: " If the ground you take during the
Overrun puts you adjacent to an enemy unit, this second battle must once
again be a Close Assault Combat."
This was great. I think this is the most fun I've seen Sam have in a live play.
Anyone reading this and think about trying out Tom's variant of having two separate Command Card decks, do NOT do it! Memoir 44 is designed as a mirror-deck game and giving two sides their own complete decks will simply mean that the game flow has a tendency to be out of balance. Why? Imagine if you have a lot of left flank cards. This means that the opponent is more likely to have (or draw) right flank cards (which from your perspective are also left flank cards).
If you split decks, there's none of that, which simply means that the odds of one flank getting a lot of action from one player and the other being unable to do anything about it are notably higher.
Stick to the rules as written, share a deck. It's designed this way. Thinking that some cards are better is actually an illusion. Cards that allow a strong action are great, but this game is about positioning tactics and most important cards are cards that just move units. And there's plenty of them.
There are quite a few mistakes here, which is very strange because this is supposed to be in Sam's top 3 games of all time, and one he most plays... for example:
at 28.17 Sam used three tanks instead of two: rulebook page 16 "When a unit does not benefit from any protection for its terrain, the sandbags reduce the number of Battle dice rolled by 1 when attacked by Infantry or Armor"
at 42.44 after Armor overrun Sam entered a Forrest and attacked again with the tank (because of Armor overrun), rulebook page 11 "Terrain movement and battle restrictions still apply
when units take ground" and rulebook page 13 (Forrest tiles) "A unit may not battle the turn it moves onto a Forest hex". So entering a forrest means a unit cannot attack for the entirety of the turn, with Taking Ground still having these battle restrictions applied...
Extended edition of Jason's VLOG? :)
Definitely have to get this game. :-) I wish they would reprint that campaign book and not just provide it as a PDF.
Do you still have to purchase the PDF? I only found a PDF with the rules, but not the actual scenarios
What blocks are used to lift the terrain?
That is one awesome dice tower. Could you tell me where you got it or who made it?
Do units block line of sight
After successfully healing his tanks ~1:12:30, Sam was entitled to issue that group an order.
Honest question here: Are the books that detail the history in any way patriotically loaded for any side? I'm a german, so this is always sensible thing to ask, because we all know the nazis did terrible things. War is hell on both sides though. I would really like to get into the history through this game but I would like to have an air of neutrality to it. Did i get my point across? I sure hope so :)
Thanks for the vs Internet play, very cool idea with the flanks!
+Kajotex Honestly, I can't recall any of the scenario's historical backgrounds that were written from an overly patriotic standpoint. It sticks mainly to the contextual settings surrounding the battle/skirmish (units involved, possibly leader's names, why it was an important battle, etc.) more than anything else. While I haven't read ALL the scenario's historical backgrounds, I'm pretty sure that this will be the case for most, if not all, of them.
+Sam Healey Thanks for the answer :) I'll look into getting me a copy of Memoir if i can.
take the middle tanks out using the barrage card 2nd from right.
At 28:17 Sam rolls three dice against an infantry unit behind a sandbag, even though he is in an adjacent hill hex. Sandbags reduce the number of Battle dice rolled by 1 when attacking by Infantry or Armor. Shouldn't he have rolled just two dice?
British tank are crusader not churchill
duh...I knew that...sorry!
Never move your tanks adjacent to the infantry in a city/forest!
+Nichik Unless, of course, your infantry are planning on using them as cover so they don't get torn to shreds on the advance...jus'sayin'...tanks can take hits much better than infantry.
+Sam Healey Yes, but if you lose some infantry steps, you just march them back to deny the point, and use some other infantry. While when you lose tanks, usually there isn't much replacement (and they have fewer steps).
In this very game, if the viewers would have played that close assault card with two of your tanks adjacent...
Was fun to watch though.
I'm sorry for people who don't own the Campaign Book 1, I own a copy and don't even have the game :(
Hey guys... something doesn't ring true here... the rules are a bit arbitrary... the back and forth seems a little stilted... like the enemy doesn't see you coming and won't dig in... yeah! That's realistic... here's one way of squaring this problem... allow the enemy to put their units on "over watch"... which means they get to roll one dice while the enemy advances. Also... why not allow the enemy to "dig in" and reduce the attackers die count... using an action point??? Combat is a lot more complex than the game makes it out to be... maybe a little more realism would make it a bit better. Love the game, love the mini's... really would like to tighten the game up a little.
+Jim Smith They have a game (actually many) like that...they're called "traditional wargames'. Memoir '44 isn't really meant as a simulation, like most other wargames. It's more of a reenactment of sorts. The extra rules and "tightening up" that you're looking for can be found in games like the Advanced Squad Leader Starter Kit series, Combat Commander, and a whole slew of others.
+Sam Healey Sam... Trust me I understand why you are not drawn to games that are "rule heavy"... your term. Just to settle a point "Squad Leader" and especially "Advanced Squad leader" are BEARS for rules that even I am not always open to test... do I really need nearly a whole page on how to free POW's from a basement? NO! Here's what puzzles me... I own TI3 with all the expansions... I understand why you love this game! What confuses me is that you can put down 8 hours of rules and negotiations and yet leave Memoir 44 basically so open to sheer "dice luck", and it's not really about adding tons of rules. I'm seeking balance and just a touch of common sense... most enemy troops don't just sit there playing cards when an ocean of enemy tanks come rumbling up the hill. All I'm saying is that a player can use their action points to do something logical... "overwatch", retreat before combat, or use their turn to dig in. Having seen the video... what kind of worked against it was that you just rolled up, tossed the dice, and took the entire fight out of an SS infantry unit... not rational, even IF we throw out the historical references. I think (hope) we both want more of a challenge than simply the call of the dice... perhaps a few more options. I mean... hell, in the end, it really doesn't matter... I'm just saying... anybody can "house rule" what they feel makes the game "unbalanced" or "unplayable" and bring it up to their standards. At the end of the day... who cares, right? You are my favorite of the three reviewers and I think we both are attracted to and appreciate the same sort of games. Guess I like to think, create, innovate and do it with geomorphic pieces and plastic mini's. Trust me I have plastic dividers for my Panzer Blitz and Panzer leader games, an army of specialized units... but I LOVE to have a more 3D take on the war gaming experience. I used to teach English Lit and History in high schools. Have been into board gaming for over 50 years. Keep up the good work... love your reviews on Memoir 44 and its expansions and components... they give me lots of ideas and help me work new strategies, based on what all the different badges, and components can do. Looking forward to your next videos... it's OK to "think outside the box" even IF Richard Borg conceived of the game...
Maybe give Tide of Iron a look, then...and Combat Commander isn't really that rules heavy, either...but considerably more so than Memoir.
I got center
The shrill "YEEES!" from Tom is so grating.
For god's sake, man. Reign it in a little.
Noooo! Us Brits lost! :( lol
+drmesh86 **SPOILERS**
We did take Hill 112, though, and held it until the end...this was that part right before the Yanks show up. We had Gerry on his heels...the center was destroyed, and the flanks crumbling. "In reality", that is to say, "had this not been a game-centered simulation", I believe the Commonwealth Forces won the day...but I am a bit biased, I think.
+Sam Healey
I like your "reality" Sam! :D
Unfortunately, I couldn't catch the whole thing live as I was at work, but shall be watching it through with a nice cuppa about now! :D
+Sam Healey
Just watched it through... so close!!! Go Brits! God Save Our Gracious Queen!