Thanks for this. I'm not a FoW player but I am interested to check out how the rules work, and this is the kind of video that helps me. I did start feeling a bit airsick as the camera flew around the table though!
You can't split fire, with main guns and MGs. In version 4 you shoot one or the other. Now you can shoot 2 main guns at one target, and let's say 2 other main guns at some other target. Still Love the battle reports. Keep them coming.
Where in the rules is that? I could be missing something, but it is a per team basis. As long as you declare your targets beforehand, there isn’t anything against teams in the platoon using different weapons, albeit only one type. If you think about it too, it wouldn’t be logical to have an out of command tank forced to use MGs because his platoon is using their MGs way across the board. Another example is mixed recon where some only have MGs and others main cannons (BA64 with MGs mixed with PTRD “main” guns)
@@Leap3D17 i believe its on page 50 in the beginning of shooting, a tank or aircraft team may either fire, all of its MGs or one other weapon. i thing you my have misunderstood what i was saying, there was a point in the video where the halftracks fired there main gun and there MGs at the same unit. that you cant do. that's what i meant.
Great bat rep. Thanks for posting. Infantry heavy battles tend to be a bit boring, but that is just me. Did the Americans have 60 points on the board? They looked thin on the ground. Forgetting your ambush dooms the defender, although it is something I have done in the past. The Shermans that arrived at the end should only have had 3 shots as they are moving. You can't blitz move onto the board. Have to be careful of "danger close" with bombardments and assaults. A couple looked potentially questionable to me. Smoke close is fine, of course.
I want to like FOW but the ranges of the weapons are too short, its just silly. I wish it could be played on a 20 ft long table maybe to make the ranges more real
Since its made to play on a 6x4 table I'd say the range is reasonable. How are they to short and how would playing on a larger table fix it? Could perhaps play on a table that's three times the size and have the weapons fire three times as long but then speed have to be three times as far too for balance and it sort of ruins the hole point.
I played on a massive 20x11 board it was meh as you drove into combat one thing is thought your vehicles speed mattered a lot also flanking was really easy to do and a tactic employed a lot
@@MAlgol I agree. I hear a lot of people state that artillery would never be that close, etc. I think that's when we need to remove the realism aspect and appreciate what the table top gives us. I enjoy seeing those artillery pieces on the table.
@@clanorangechicken6648 True and Battlefront knows that but FoW table isn't to scale. You are not fighting over 180m*120m field. I don't think a larger table would add much other then make a game last longer. As I said, if the table is larger then ranges and speed have to be longer too for balance and that would sort of remove the point. It would look great and epic but I think it would be harder to play.
So different from 40k where everything "hits on 3's resolving 1's". I like it!
Very different! This game rewards your tactics versus how much money you sink into the new meta.
Thanks for this. I'm not a FoW player but I am interested to check out how the rules work, and this is the kind of video that helps me. I did start feeling a bit airsick as the camera flew around the table though!
This one was tough as I was trying to keep up with people playing. Thanks for watching!
Nice to see the Assault company getting some action. And really like the look of that German list.
Yeah that German list was ideal for what they played. Thanks for watching 🙂
@@MiniatureGameMontage I might try using a similar list but modified to 120 points
Loved watching this battle. well done to all!
Well narrated BR, armies and board looking great too.
Awesome game, great looking board and armies.
Great report! 👍
Great BR!👍
Amazing Br favorite style of br's
Great report. You guys ever thought of taking up dystopian wars?. Think you'd do a great job.
Never really looked into that one. Don't tempt me with a good time. lol (opens google)
@@MiniatureGameMontage you should. 😁
You can't split fire, with main guns and MGs. In version 4 you shoot one or the other. Now you can shoot 2 main guns at one target, and let's say 2 other main guns at some other target. Still Love the battle reports. Keep them coming.
Where in the rules is that? I could be missing something, but it is a per team basis. As long as you declare your targets beforehand, there isn’t anything against teams in the platoon using different weapons, albeit only one type. If you think about it too, it wouldn’t be logical to have an out of command tank forced to use MGs because his platoon is using their MGs way across the board. Another example is mixed recon where some only have MGs and others main cannons (BA64 with MGs mixed with PTRD “main” guns)
@@Leap3D17 i believe its on page 50 in the beginning of shooting, a tank or aircraft team may either fire, all of its MGs or one other weapon. i thing you my have misunderstood what i was saying, there was a point in the video where the halftracks fired there main gun and there MGs at the same unit. that you cant do. that's what i meant.
Great bat rep. Thanks for posting. Infantry heavy battles tend to be a bit boring, but that is just me. Did the Americans have 60 points on the board? They looked thin on the ground. Forgetting your ambush dooms the defender, although it is something I have done in the past. The Shermans that arrived at the end should only have had 3 shots as they are moving. You can't blitz move onto the board. Have to be careful of "danger close" with bombardments and assaults. A couple looked potentially questionable to me. Smoke close is fine, of course.
Right only 60 points on the board. Actually less as the ambush was missed. I may have mis-narrated some of it. They were moving pretty fast.
Sherman's have the stabilizer rule which let's them shoot two shots while moving with a +1 penalty to hit.
nice report. as for most games, I feel there is too much units on the table. it feel like an old Napoleonic game. No place to manover.
I want to like FOW but the ranges of the weapons are too short, its just silly. I wish it could be played on a 20 ft long table maybe to make the ranges more real
Since its made to play on a 6x4 table I'd say the range is reasonable. How are they to short and how would playing on a larger table fix it? Could perhaps play on a table that's three times the size and have the weapons fire three times as long but then speed have to be three times as far too for balance and it sort of ruins the hole point.
I played on a massive 20x11 board it was meh as you drove into combat one thing is thought your vehicles speed mattered a lot also flanking was really easy to do and a tactic employed a lot
@@MAlgol I agree. I hear a lot of people state that artillery would never be that close, etc. I think that's when we need to remove the realism aspect and appreciate what the table top gives us. I enjoy seeing those artillery pieces on the table.
@@MAlgol i was thinking realistic ranges like in WW2 tank battles started at 700 yards away.
@@clanorangechicken6648 True and Battlefront knows that but FoW table isn't to scale. You are not fighting over 180m*120m field. I don't think a larger table would add much other then make a game last longer. As I said, if the table is larger then ranges and speed have to be longer too for balance and that would sort of remove the point. It would look great and epic but I think it would be harder to play.