Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi,

In the past, I've seen plenty of Flames of War threads. Now I'm seeing new ones regarding Bolt Action.

What are the differences between the two. I'm guessing model scale is the same. Is one "better" than the other.

Going to the BA site, I see Rick Priestly's name popping up there.

Though I've been slowly gathering up a FoW collection, I've also been considering GHQ miniatures, as they also seem to have everything. I'm wondering of the smaller scale of their models might give a better "scale" representation to things.

ZF-

The short answer is that fow is a company level game while bolt action is based around a reinforced platoon. In my opinion flames of war is a bit more complicated and tends to be very tank heavy, while bolt action ( written as you mentioned by priestly) is a rather simplified ruleset that many on here will liken to previous versions of 40k.

Warlord games sells models for bolt action in 28, but my friends and I had absolutely no problem using our 15mm flamesofwar war models instead.

I would advise starting with bolt action. It's easy to pick up and start playing, even easier and cheaper if you can convince a buddy to do it in 15mm.

Once you've got bolt action down, it will be possible for you to take your next step toward full gaming enlightenment and pick up some Battlegroup rules!

Anyways good luck and hope you find some good guys to game with.

As much as people compare it to 40k, Bolt Action shares no similar mechanics (other than you roll dice)

Well it has points based lists, which can be cheesed up and 'codexs'... I guess thats why some compare it. Not sure I see much similarity other than those constructs really.

I suspect 40k would have been a better game if had been more like BA.

 judgedoug wrote:
As much as people compare it to 40k, Bolt Action shares no similar mechanics (other than you roll dice)

I never played anything before 4th edition so I just assumed the comparison was true because it had Priestly's name on it. Now that I think about it you are right, BA really shares nothing with 40k other than a few minor exceptions that will be common to all TT games.

My misconception was probably helped along with Warlord's "Bolt Action for 40k Players" article as well as the many 40k guys that migrated to BA.

I'm happy to have a good gateway game out there that is getting people enthusiastic about historicals.

As to the difference between Bolt Action and Battlegroup -- based on my initial impressions of Battlegroup, I think the main difference lies in the activation mechanics. Bolt Action has randomly alternating activation. Each player has a pool of order dice equal to the number of units in his army. Both players' dice are put into a bag and drawn one at a time at random. The player whose die is drawn may activate one of his units. In Battlegroup, each player rolls for how many orders he has to activate the units in his army. That means, although you can only activate your units on your turn (generally), you may not have enough orders to activate all of them.

There are a lot of other differences between BA and BG, of course, but that strikes me as the core one.

Big P wrote:
I suspect 40k would have been a better game if had been more like BA.

Exactly what I was going to say. It would have also been a better game if it was more like Battlegroup. This is not only because BA and BG are great games but also because ... well, 40k is not such a good game in many ways.

There was nothing simplified for early 40k. It was a very complex game, but then it was a skirmish game not an army game so it could afford to be complex. They ruined that in later editions(3+).

Like said, BA does have simple rules but complex tactics. Its based on individual units and individuals. Tanks aren't rare but in a normal game you wont see more than several vehicles as each platoon is typically, and I do not know any examples off hand, only allotted 0-1 Armored cars, 0-1 Tanks and self propelled guns, and as many transport death traps as you have squads. Tanks and vehicles are a liability as they are large point investments. A Tiger 2 veteran tank is going to run you 650+. It does have a nice weapon and heavy armor, the gun can easily take out any other tank in the game, but in 1k points you are barely going to squeeze in your mandatory officer and troop squad and another squad. Meanwhile you opponent will ignore the tank and simply kill your squads and then worry about the tank. One infantry guy can make a difference. I love the randomness of the orders.

FoW on the otherhand is all about the tanks. Yeah it has infantry stands but in the few games I have played, a platoon cant really do a whole lot. Meanwhile you have multiple squadrons of tanks zooming around the battlefield. Its also very expensive. I could buy two Bolt action armies easily in 28mm for what a single FoW army costs.

Both games have secondary manufacturers aplenty at their respective scales which can bring the cost down tremendously. I hear BA in 15mm works well, I definitely see it as a way to get in massive games of BA cheaply. My 1500 point FoW army is easily 10k for a BA 15mm not that I could have a force selector that allowed me to use it. A vet Panzer 4 platoon in BA would be 1100+ points by itself. However if tank battles are what you are after then they do now have BA Tank Wars I think that's all about the tanks.

We played BA in 20mm without altering the distances and it worked fine.

One note with Bolt Action -

If you've read up on the history, then be prepared to fiddle, tinker, or otherwise mess with the official published lists. There are some odd gaps, discrepencies, and just plain wrong information in the army books. The FAQ has a number of corrections, but a lot of stuff hasn't been fixed yet.

It's not a serious issue if your group is willing to accommodate the needed changes as necessary, but it is something to be aware of.

The LMG issue is the main one.


Manchu...

A sci-fi version of Battlegroup you say...

Big P wrote:
A sci-fi version of Battlegroup you say...

Fascinating ...

Bolt Action is fun to play. Here my Germans are about to get hammered by a light tank.

Big P wrote:
The LMG issue is the main one.

Actually, what I was referring to were things like the "Hull-mounted MG" on the R35 (it was mounted alongside the main gun in the turret, and thus co-axial), or the Soviet lists that allowed the purchase of panzerfausts earlier on the timeline than the German lists did.


Col. Dash -

I have to disagree about the uselessness of non-tank armies in Flames of War. My very first infantry list was an SS infantry list built using the book River of Heroes (the list is in Grey Wolf now) that was equally at home absorbing attacks from enemy armor, and assaulting enemy infantry. Smoking, assaulting, and destroying enemy armored platoons that got careless around my infantry was always a fun wake-up call for an opponent.

 Manchu wrote:

Big P wrote:
A sci-fi version of Battlegroup you say...

Fascinating ...

Yer... Looking at that, some testing underway (Battlegroup Galatica as we jokingly refer to it!), and working on a Crusades set of rules that might form the basis for us to develop into a fantasy mass battle set...

Thanks guys. I'll hold off on Bolt Action, as it seems to be more of a "game kit" than something fully fleshed out.

I've been lucky buying FoW stuff. A shop in Bismarck ND was selling them half price. Another in Florida had an after Christmas "buy one, get two free" sale.

I couldn't help myself...

ZF-

 Zad Fnark wrote:
I'll hold off on Bolt Action, as it seems to be more of a "game kit" than something fully fleshed out.

I'm not sure how we have given that impression but it is totally false.

Yes... I dont play BA, but I would have to agree with Manchu, regardless of some issues (and all games have those!) its certainly not one that cannot be played or requires a player to invest time in working it out.

It seems to play fine from what I have seen.

One of Bolt Action's finest qualities is a pretty simple and intuitive ruleset that allows you to become very familiar with the rules within a few turns. I prefer those kinds of rulesets as it allows me to think more about maneuvering and tactical decisions versus remembering special abilities rules.

@Zad

I am not totally sure what you mean by "game kit." Do you mean you don't think there are enough rules to cover WW2 armies? That is totally incorrect. There are currently army books covering:

- UK & Commonwealth
- Soviet Union
- Germany
- USA
- Japan
- France and other Allies
- Italy and other Axis countries

The only glaring omission, IMO, is for Chinese armies -- but apparently there will be Chinese lists (I am hoping for at least Nationalist and Communist ones) in the Pacific theater sourcebook coming out later this year (see below).

In addition to those, there are also scenario-oriented books:

- Tank War (inverting the normal focus on infantry)
- Battleground Europe: D-Day to Germany
- Ostfront: Barbarossa to Berlin
- Germany Strikes: Early War in Europe
- Empires in Flames: The Pacific and the Far East

Similarly, there are some great books for Battlegroup, packed with army lists and scenarios:

- Kursk (currently OOP)
- Overlord
- Barbarossa
- Fall of the Reich
- Blitzkrieg

And according to Big P, two books on the North Africa/Western Desert campaigns are in the works.

Big P wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

Big P wrote:
A sci-fi version of Battlegroup you say...

Fascinating ...

Yer... Looking at that, some testing underway (Battlegroup Galatica as we jokingly refer to it!), and working on a Crusades set of rules that might form the basis for us to develop into a fantasy mass battle set...

BG for old 40k models is pretty close in the line of things my group is getting around to. We would be all over an official ruleset.

I'm probably gonna bug you about this regularly now.

Good... I will need playtesters...

Bolt Action has a few over powered units that it's easy to take advantage of and the rules can be very vague in places. If they ever sort this out I'll probably start a Goum army for it

 George Spiggott wrote:
a few over powered units

 George Spiggott wrote:
rules can be very vague in places

George, can you give some examples?

 Manchu wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:
a few over powered units

 George Spiggott wrote:
rules can be very vague in places

George, can you give some examples?

I don't play so this is all second hand from people who play at my club but 150mm on table artillery and pretty much anything with a flame-thrower seem to rate highly in this department. It all seems very top heavy for a platoon level game.

The players at my club always seem to be arguing the toss over how a rule works and the rulebook has a 14 page (IIRC) errata document. It's also written by ex GW rules writers so if you're coming straight from 40k this will all be par for the course for you. It's not something that inspires me with confidence personally.

I've spent time off and on at the official BA forums, and it's pretty much agreed that the only overpowered units are flame tanks. Everything else is fine, though some thought in new tactics for dealing with - say, a man-packed flamethrower - might be required. And LMGs are very underwhelming.

Most if the errata is taken up by fixes to the lists. I don't know why, but as I mentioned above, the BA lists tend to have problems that should have been caught before the books went to the printer. Most of it appears to be typos. But there are what appear to be some basic research errors (the R35 issue I mentioned above is a rather interesting example of this) as well that have not been corrected as of yet.

The errata/FAQ is now up to 18 pages! But to put that in perspective, that covers approximately 1100 pages of material. And to be fair a lot of rulesets never receive the errata and FAQ attention they need because they simply aren't played frequently enough by a wide enough group of players and/or the publisher/designers are indifferent. Not the case for BA!

As for shying away from games by former GW employees, it's a shame to tar everyone who worked for GW with the GW brush. Alessio Cavatore and Rick Priestly are some of the better respected ex-GW employees ... but of course opinions vary! And BA obviously won't be to everyone's taste.

On to flamethrowers ...

BA is not just about destroying your opponent's units but also, and probably more importantly, about pinning them. A unit takes -1 per pin marker to its morale. A unit with any pin markers must pass an order test (roll current morale or under on 2d6) or it cannot be given an order, going down instead. Any unit that loses half or more of its men must pass a morale test (same as order test) or be removed as destroyed. (Pin markers also negatively impact a unit's shooting.)

In normal terms, flamethrowers are scary because they automatically hit (D6 hits, actually) and therefore automatically put one pin marker on their target plus D3 further pin markers to simulate the target unit's terror. That alone could put one of your units out of action for a turn or more. But flamethrowers are even scarier because they trigger a morale test regardless of whether they actually damage the target unit (i.e., foregoing the "lose half or more" rule) after the D3 +1 pin markers are automatically applied.

That said, flamethrowers have significant downsides. A man-portable flamethrower is usually found in a three-man team. They are not only vulnerable to morale checks but especially to assault, which is flat out deadly in BA. Both issues are exacerbated by the very short range of man-portable flamethrowers (six inches). That hurts considering that flamethrowers are on the expensive end of weapons teams, points wise. But the worst drawback to flamethrowers is their unpredictability: every time a flamethrower fires you must pass a 3+ test or the who team is destroyed. If the team was part of larger unit, only the figure carrying the flamethrower is removed; the other guys become riflemen. If a vehicle-mounted flamethrower fails this test, the flamethrower just becomes useless for the rest of the game.

I will concede that vehicle-based flamethrowers were more problematic. Not only do they automatically score 2d6 hits but also originally had an eighteen inch range! That has been amended down to twelve inches, which is to say, within range of PIATs and panzerfausts as well as within short range of bazookas and panzerschrecks. Given BA's random activation mechanic, you can imagine this creates a nice amount of tension! As a sidenote, I think this is really an issue because BA focuses on infantry, and therefore the meta emphasizes anti-infantry tactics and weapons rather than AT. Flametanks are just the kind of obstacle that drives list writers (a.k.a., forum posters) nuts.

As for on-table heavy howitzers: yes they can be devastating but there is nothing especially crazy about them and they have exactly the sort of limitations and vulnerabilities you would imagine.

It does create an excitement when you don't know who is going to get the next dice out of the bag, to activate one of their units.
Does the Flamethrower strike? Or does it get shot to pieces?

and

Taking lots of small squads, to maximize one's dice count can make several fragile units which have to test much sooner after taking a few casualties. Taking bigger squads means they can take some damage before they evaporate.

This game is a list tinkerer's dream, trying to get it balanced just right yet ready for anything that may come from the other side.

Yes, there are some players who take Flamethrower heavy/ Heavy Howitzer lists, just like any other game they try to minmax for the win. Fortunately I left most of them at the WHFB club, the folks I play with now are more about the scenario than the WAAC motivation.

Our last game saw 4 dice per side, (a small game), with 2 American squads, a sniper and an M3A1 Stuart Tank vs. 2 German squads, a sniper, and an MMG team. The Germann squads had 1 Panzerfaust each. The action seesawed back and forth through a wooded area for 7 turns, both sides had casualties but each side lost only 1 complete unit, The German MMG and the US tank, which the Germans assaulted out of sheer desperation. Fun? You bet.

A few weeks ago, I drove an inexperienced SU-76 across a bridge defended by a regular and a veteran Pz IV and managed to immobilize the regular. He dueled the defiant Suchka until I came around the opposing German flank with a T-34/85. Although neither managed a hit (at close range, in light cover), it made for a few tense turns of "who will get the first order die?" as we got sucked into this bizarre David and Goliath sideshow. The Suchka certainly earned her points (all of zero points!) in that game as a thorn in Fritz's side.

 Manchu wrote:
A few weeks ago, I drove an inexperienced SU-76 across a bridge defended by a regular and a veteran Pz IV and managed to immobilize the regular. He dueled the defiant Suchka until I came around the opposing German flank with a T-34/85. Although neither managed a hit (at close range, in light cover), it made for a few tense turns of "who will get the first order die?" as we got sucked into this bizarre David and Goliath sideshow. The Suchka certainly earned her points (all of zero points!) in that game as a thorn in Fritz's side.

You know what I'm talkin about.
Haven't had that kind of "drama" in a GW game since Mordheim.

I would recommend someone start Bolt Action over Flames of War. You can get the book easily through game stores or through book stores like amazone or whatever. Then just get a box of troops for two different armies and use the lists in the book. If you want to get the forces books later, go for it.