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.

 Manchu wrote:
The errata/FAQ is now up to 18 pages! But to put that in perspective, that covers approximately 1100 pages of material.

Actually, it's only 3 pages for errata to the actual rulebook, and an entire page is taken up with the revised tank pinning rules. (and half of a page with fixes to the "freebie/get-you-by army lists" and another half to the giant header on the front page).

The rest of it is clarifications or amendments to the various army books and campaign books and new rules for things like Last Levy.

 frozenwastes wrote:
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.

The brilliant thing is, you can easily play Bolt Action in 15mm if you really want to play FOW. Bolt Action does not preclude 'group' bases. All you have to do is have a way to keep track of casualties (tokens, markers, small dice, other) and off you go. You don't even have to base everything individually with a modified formation base to put everything on for FOW (which is what I opted for to let me play Bolt Action and Blitzkrieg Commander with my 15mm Marines).

 Maniac_nmt wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
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.

The brilliant thing is, you can easily play Bolt Action in 15mm if you really want to play FOW. Bolt Action does not preclude 'group' bases. All you have to do is have a way to keep track of casualties (tokens, markers, small dice, other) and off you go. You don't even have to base everything individually with a modified formation base to put everything on for FOW (which is what I opted for to let me play Bolt Action and Blitzkrieg Commander with my 15mm Marines).

Good call.

I actually do play BA in 15mm. I do individually base my miniatures though. I do 12.5mm washers for regular soldiers (I tend to use PSC and BF plastics so the weight means they won't tip even though they're small) and 19mm pennies for squad leaders, special weapons, etc.,. I've played against some locals who use FOW bases and it works fine.

Going that way also means you don't have to pick. You can play BA when you want a reinforced platoon and FoW when you want larger forces.

 frozenwastes wrote:
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.

Er, no.

BA doesn't reach its full potential till 2000pts and playing with 1 unit box each is a very dismal situation because the rules are so simplified.

 sing your life wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
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.

Er, no.

BA doesn't reach its full potential till 2000pts and playing with 1 unit box each is a very dismal situation because the rules are so simplified.

I dunno about 2k, but 1k reinforced infantry platoons are certainly very fun for a dynamic and short game. 2k for tank platoons, certainly

 sing your life wrote:

 frozenwastes wrote:
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.

Er, no.

BA doesn't reach its full potential till 2000pts and playing with 1 unit box each is a very dismal situation because the rules are so simplified.

Er, yes.

1000 points is a normal game and a box of infantry usually has a significant portion of that. More than enough to try the game out and figure out where you want to go from there.

 judgedoug wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The errata/FAQ is now up to 18 pages! But to put that in perspective, that covers approximately 1100 pages of material.

Actually, it's only 3 pages for errata to the actual rulebook, and an entire page is taken up with the revised tank pinning rules. (and half of a page with fixes to the "freebie/get-you-by army lists" and another half to the giant header on the front page).

The rest of it is clarifications or amendments to the various army books and campaign books and new rules for things like Last Levy.

He's referencing my statement. I was using errata in the colloquial sense rather than the technical (and rather disingenuous sense that GW do) and I assume he's mirroring my terminology. 18 pages is a lot, almost a small supplement in itself and there are more issues that the writers refuse to fix. They have a very GW like approach to their rules and errata, their writing is often un-technical and vague which is the problem I was referring to when I mentioned that I was wary of the game due to its ex-GW writers.

 sing your life wrote:
Er, no.

 frozenwastes wrote:
Er, yes.

There is no point arguing over an undefined term ("full potential"). IME, BA can sure be a lot of fun at 1000 points, and that goes for both standard (infantry-centric) BA and Tank War.

 George Spiggott wrote:
their writing is often un-technical and vague which is the problem I was referring to

Very little of the 18 pages I cited arises from fuzzy rule writing. OTOH, I don't know your frame of reference. BA is certainly not written with the precision of Magic, for example. Nor is that required or (IMO) desirable.

 Manchu wrote:
Very little of the 18 pages I cited arises from fuzzy rule writing. OTOH, I don't know your frame of reference. BA is certainly not written with the precision of Magic, for example. Nor is that required or (IMO) desirable.

Then what have they filled 18 pages of an errata document with? I know there are rules changes, that suggests to me that the game was under play tested and needed fixing. This sounds a lot like 3rd edition 40k's problems.

We'll see what happens when a second edition rolls around, I'm not totally adverse to playing it at some stage.

After the first three pages, the errata mostly covers detailed changes to certain units or theater-based force selectors. The balance of the 18 pages is FAQ.

The notion of "underplaytested" is misleading for reasons I already discussed.

 Manchu wrote:
After the first three pages, the errata mostly covers detailed changes to certain units or theater-based force selectors. The balance of the 18 pages is FAQ.

FAQ? people frequently asking how the not vague rules work?

The notion of "underplaytested" is misleading for reasons I already discussed.

No you haven't, you've picked a weird interpretation of under playtested. I mean under playtested before release. While I was looking for that I did spot that Battlegroup my be being redone for Sci-fi, that could be interesting. I gave up on Tomorrow's war and I'm looking for something else, I was going to try Grunts.

"FAQ" is a euphemism rather than a literal method of quantifying rules clarity, as if "clarity" itself was somehow objective. For example, one FAQ asks in which theatre selectors Legendary Crew (historical personalities) can be used. To me, there should be no confusion about this issue: historical personalities should be available in the theatres in which they served. The official answer, however, is quite telling in terms of whom they envision asking the question: you can use them in any theatre where their base vehicle is available. This sort of stuff is quite cultural.

I realize that you are referring to pre-release tinkering when you say "play test." I am deliberately undermining that usage, however, because it is a fairly useless concept in the context of this discussion. The game was entirely playable before any errata or FAQ appeared. It has only improved since, thanks to the large amount of people playing it and the healthy dialog between the designer/publisher and the player base. One could only insist on seeing that as a drawback against the grain of reason.

So should one view the idea that 3 pages of errata and then several pages of FAQs (many are situational clarifications) is a good or a bad thing?

Alessio has an online presence and engages in the community and has changed his mind on certain things due to said community interaction (for instance, VFT reduction in range). Would it be preferable to not have said community interaction?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 George Spiggott wrote:
and there are more issues that the writers refuse to fix

So your position is that there should be an errata and clarifications

Depends.

Some may feel a game that requires its player base to develop and correct things through playing as under tested.

Personally im not so sure.

No game system will ever survive first contact regardless of playtesting. Someone will do something or find something never encountered in testing.

The marker is if such issues can be easily solved with errata or an FAQ rather than a substantial rewrite.

Seems to me BA has largely managed to develop and thrive with no real issues as far as mechanics go, some historical issues notwithstanding.

I think player input, if considered and discussed, can have a very positive influence on a game, but can also generate its own issues if not kept in check. They seem to have done ok with BA.

Was certainly tested well, I know some of the playtesters and supplement writers.

...like Warwick Kinrade?

Good point, Big P. When we were playing BG the weekend before last, judgedoug reminded a couple of the players who were eager to change X or Y during our game that they probably hadn't played enough yet to already be houseruling it. IME, gamers are often too quick to declare there are issues with a game (not excluding myself here, either). Designers and publishers are likely more keenly aware of this than anyone else.

 Manchu wrote:
Good point, Big P. When we were playing BG the weekend before last, judgedoug reminded a couple of the players who were eager to change X or Y during our game that they probably hadn't played enough yet to already be houseruling it. IME, gamers are often too quick to declare there are issues with a game (not excluding myself here, either). Designers and publishers are likely more keenly aware of this than anyone else.

One of the "we should houserule this!" had much to do with the scenario that was being played. The game was hosted by a mutual friend and had set up a scenario where British were attacking a defended German position across the full 8 feet of an 8x4 table. It seemed to me that BG, based on the 'table size' recommendations and such, assume the normal gaming standard of playing with the long sides facing each other (across the 4' of a 6x4 or the 6' of an 8x6). Therefore the lack of mobility when going lengthwise down 8' with only 4' of width - restricting any flanking efforts, etc, was causing frustration to the British players. Instead of houseruling, on what was perhaps the sixth game of BG played by the players over the last two years, it would make more sense to perhaps play the way the designers intended the ruleset to work.

On the realism and design-intention front, here's an anecdote: Manchu and I played two games of BA Tank War back to back across a mostly open field to see if the rules somewhat reflected reality; once down the 8' with Germans v Soviets (Panthers and a Tiger versus a pile of T-34's and SU-76). Of course, the extended range of the German guns meant that it made quick work of the Soviets. We then played across 4' (with the 8' wide as setup) and the Sovs wrecked the Germans as their super heavy anti tank guns range advantage was nullified. In the first case, it can be seen as a narrow slice of a long range engagement where the German armor historically dominated; the second, perhaps the first wave of Sovs had already been wrecked and now the second wave was within close range, where our game begins, and the superior numerical advantage of Soviet armor meant that, while they did have trouble penetrating the Tiger and Panther frontal armor, they caused enough pins loaded on them to allow the maneouvering to get the crucial side shots and blew threw the Panthers. Both games seemed to fit the common perception and I had loads of fun pushing around tanks and rolling dice


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I would like to add that it was my second game of Battlegroup that I had played, and the rules are starting to grow on me. I believe that I had just two encounters with mediocre scenario design and rules misinterpretations. As Big P had previously pointed out on my first game that I posted about, there weren't enough orders being rolled for (and the German player wanted to field "cool stuff" instead of things that made sense, so the Germans were quickly overwhelmed since there were huge point sinks like an Elephant and a Tiger in the list), and the second game was a shooting gallery for the Germans against the British due to the massive wide and narrow frontage the host designed the scenario as. (My suggestion was to alter his scenario so it was corner vs corner, so there wouldn't be a full 8' the British would have to cross and it would allow for more flanking maneouvering)

One bystander who objected to our down the table game commented that BA should take into account that T-34/85s had better speed than Panthers and Tigers. When we got to playing across the table, I commented to him -- playing this way simulates the speed advantage. One might also say, the slice of time (to use judgedoug's expression) represented by the first game were those moments when the Soviet formation was just beginning to pour into the Germans. If we had it, it would have been cool to use some wrecked T-34 scenery in the second game.

 Manchu wrote:
One bystander who objected to our down the table game commented that BA should take into account that T-34/85s had better speed than Panthers and Tigers. When we got to playing across the table, I commented to him -- playing this way simulates the speed advantage. One might also say, the slice of time (to use judgedoug's expression) represented by the first game were those moments when the Soviet formation was just beginning to pour into the Germans. If we had it, it would have been cool to use some wrecked T-34 scenery in the second game.

One day, post-lottery-win, I'd like to buy a couple dozen plastic tanks and build them specifically as wrecks, so a Kursk style scenario using burning tanks as cover would be possible

As to our "shooting gallery" game of BG, I was on the German side there and appreciated the chance to sit back as it were and soak up the rules. If I had been on the British side in that scenario, I would have been too frustrated with the tactical situation to properly think on the rules. The other great thing about that game, flawed as it was, is that it showcased the power of attached artillery as that is who did most of the fighting.

 Manchu wrote:
As to our "shooting gallery" game of BG, I was on the German side there and appreciated the chance to sit back as it were and soak up the rules. If I had been on the British side in that scenario, I would have been too frustrated with the tactical situation to properly think on the rules. The other great thing about that game, flawed as it was, is that it showcased the power of attached artillery as that is who did most of the fighting.

... and how deadly MG42's are to the poor British infantry running across open fields

Always play as written for about 50 games with any game system.

Then you will be reaching where we were after basic playtesting before our secondary playtest teams started up. They played a key role in development. And saved our sanity.

Wargamers love to tinker after one game, but games have many subtleties that may not be apparent at casual glance.

Change one rule and you can cause issues and it snowballs.

We tested the initial BG rules for 18 months before release and thats was after five years development with KGN. We tried so many things. Using D8s at one point, and experience I never wish to repeat!

Rules at the end of the day are only a designers take on things. Some will like them, others wont. Just the way it is.

Though I am amused when people tell me they don't like the game without ever playing it!

My group has issues with the clarity of BA rules. It seems most every game something will come up and we need to go looking around in the FAQ or online to try and figure it out.

There are also a bunch of issues I have with the points cost or balance of various weapons like LMG, MMG, recce, vehicle flame thrower, big HE etc. However these issues are spread out across every army rather than being a problem with one country so as long as your group is on the same page you can manage these problems.

The game is still my favourite despite these problems and I look forward to a improved 2nd edition.

Big P wrote:

Wargamers love to tinker after one game, but games have many subtleties that may not be apparent at casual glance.

Change one rule and you can cause issues and it snowballs.

My point exactly, to the players calling for houseruling.

Big P wrote:

Though I am amused when people tell me they don't like the game without ever playing it!

I didn't like my first game of BG but I'm giving it more tries - I hope the next one won't be a poorly designed scenario again

Big P wrote:
Though I am amused when people tell me they don't like the game without ever playing it!

I firmly believe that someone can say with certainty whether they want to play a game or not without ever having played it. The stunning thing is when I hear someone say they don't want to give BA (or whatever) a try because it's no good.

durecellrabbit wrote:
There are also a bunch of issues I have with the points cost or balance

I wonder how points costs are generated in any game that uses them. I would love it if more rule sets were transparent on this kind of issue.

 Manchu wrote:
I wonder how points costs are generated in any game that uses them. I would love it if more rule sets were transparent on this kind of issue.

Andy Chambers had a big writeup about the reason for points values in SST about a decade ago. It was based on a formula and then extensive playtesting to adjust the numbers.
(which then in supplements, Mongoose messed with the points values and fudged the balance, which was annoying)

 Manchu wrote:
"FAQ" is a euphemism rather than a literal method of quantifying rules clarity, as if "clarity" itself was somehow objective.

Either it needed answering or it didn't.

I realize that you are referring to pre-release tinkering when you say "play test." I am deliberately undermining that usage, however, because it is a fairly useless concept in the context of this discussion.

Speaking of being subjective eh? They sell a product it's entirely relevant.

@ judgedoug: Read my first post in this thread.

 George Spiggott wrote:
a few over powered units

 George Spiggott wrote:
rules can be very vague in places

 George Spiggott wrote:
I don't play so this is all second hand

Automatically Appended Next Post:
But I'm still not certain on your position.

Is it good or bad to have rules changes after a wide release and playtesting now enters the tens of thousands of battles, or not?

 judgedoug wrote:
But I'm still not certain on your position.

Here you go.

If they ever sort this out I'll probably start a Goum army for it.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Either it needed answering or it didn't.

I've just shown why that is an oversimplification.

I'm also not sure what needs to be "sorted out." The game will get better as more people play it and come up with questions and interact with the designer. But it is already playable and fun at that.

You've shown one cherry picked example. I remain unconvinced. By your own admission there's more work to be done, I'll wait until that process isn't part of an 18+ page document.

You don't seem to understand the example so maybe we should move on. The larger point is, any game that is played by enough people will generate questions. Publishers and designers who care about the game will publish FAQs to address them. Furthermore: something that is a question for one [type of] player will be clear to others, even if the official answer ends up being different from theirs.

This dichotomy between unfinished game and finished game that you appear to insist upon only exists in your mind. It's one thing to say you don't want to play BA, at this point or any point. It's another thing to misleadingly post on a public forum about a game with which you are quite clearly unfamiliar.

 Manchu wrote:
You don't seem to understand the example so maybe we should move on. The larger point is, any game that is played by enough people will generate questions. Publishers and designers who care about the game will publish FAQs to address them. Furthermore: something that is a question for one [type of] player will be clear to others, even if the official answer ends up being different from theirs.

That applies to all questions. The designers clearly thought that question required explanation.

This dichotomy between unfinished game and finished game that you appear to insist upon only exists in your mind. It's one thing to say you don't want to play BA, at this point or any point. It's another thing to misleadingly post on a public forum about a game with which you are quite clearly unfamiliar.

No it only exists in your post. I require 'more finished' than it currently is. Suggesting that I've posted misleadingly is risible at best.

Well, even that post is misleading. Or perhaps presumptuous is a better word. To wit:

 George Spiggott wrote:
The designers clearly thought that question required explanation.

Uh yes clearly but the issue is to whom? The existence of a topic in a FAQ document does not mean that topic was inadequately covered by the rules any more than its absence proves it was covered adequately. I thought about the very first question in the FAQ, for example, when I first read the rules so I re-read the rules and answered it ("correctly" as it turns out) for myself.

To cut to the chase, I guess, the length of a FAQ document doesn't necessarily mean anything about how "finished" a game is. It probably does, however, correlate to how engaged the designers are with the players.

The only time I'd say a game isn't finished is when the faq results in a modified version of the rules getting printed as a result. Like Dystopian Wars 1.1. That didn't happen with Bolt Action.

The game works and you can give it a try with a book purchase and a few squads a side and see if you like it. It's very accessible as the army lists in the original book work fine and while some people might think the game works best at twice the normal army size, it also works fine at smaller points.

Re Errata:
There are 3 pages of Errata in the PDF. 1/2 page of that is typo corrections.
The next 4 pages are Army book specific clarifications.
(Do all 4 barrels fire on my Wirblewind?)
The next 11 pages are FAQs.

Not too shabby.

I really like the game and as a German player I can't wait to put a Tiger or two on the table and let them rip. But so far I haven't because I'm playing with some folks who are just starting to get their armies painted. The games we have played so far have been small infantry only fights, some less than 1000 points. So I just take infantry squads and MMGs, and wait and watch as they learn the rules. I even supplemented their force with a light tank to keep me on my toes.

The game works extremely well and is very fun to play. It delivers a satisfying game with excellent results and one that rarely results in any rules queries that cannot quickly be resolved.

What it would benefit from is an index in the main book, or a link to an index to quickly find the rules.

The reason the FAQ is 18 pages long in my eyes owes a lot to a 'certain type of gamer' who will take rules and try to bend / exploit / break them to the point of destruction to fit with a very tournament/WAAC philosophy. That works for them, but its important to understand that BA is a 'beer and curry' game designed to provide narrative fun games over a social evening and not necessarily a WM/H type of tournament game which provides answers to every questions in the rules.

Personally I think its one of the best rules sets I've ever played in 25 years and scratches my WW2 / 2nd edition 40K itch nicely. Its definitely finished, its definitely immensely playable and its also very well supported by the authors who are having to deal with a playerbase community who in many cases have tried to play lists that are more about WAAC than they are about wargaming in its historical sense.

Give it a go - whats the worst that can happen? I'm told Rick Priestly has stopped sacrificing those who fail to enjoy his games on the altar of broken dice...

 George Spiggott wrote:
Here you go.

If they ever sort this out I'll probably start a Goum army for it.

Ah, gotcha! So you'll be starting a Goum army? As far as I can tell your position was that you did not play and were concerned about possible errors or unclear rules. However, this thread has demonstrably shown that the designers of the game have produced a short errata and a faq for the playerbase to clarify unclear rules and to fix the few errors.

They didnt fix LMGs though...

Big P wrote:
They didnt fix LMGs though...

I'm not personally sure that LMG's need fixing versus AR's need to cost 2 points more.

 judgedoug wrote:

Big P wrote:
They didnt fix LMGs though...

I'm not personally sure that LMG's need fixing versus AR's need to cost 2 points more.

I think they're too expensive. Take a regular army with no national rules that give bonus dice for either LMGs or rifles:

Gunner + loader + LMG = 4 rifleman in points. With LMGs you're losing one shot and 2 bodies for some extra range. Now there are some things that make them better like full squads, veterans or the German special rule but I personally don't think they're worth it in most cases.

For me its the fact that in WW2 the LMG was the basis of the squad and able to produce large volumes of fire, especially when belt fed.

To me they are the weapon of pinning and their treatment in BA dont really seem to work to the historical precedent of them.

Its not an issue for everyone but was for my group, but they have a distinct view of how they see WW2 small unit actions, and it didnt work for them.

How do you mean? LMGs have 4 shots in BA. That's a pretty good chance of pinning. I think the issue people have is with points cost.

LMG's have 3 shots. Germans ones do have 4 shots.

Nice catch! But let me ask, is the difference between BA properly simulating LMGs and not doing so one shot? Or is it a matter of points cost?

 Manchu wrote:
Nice catch! But let me ask, is the difference between BA properly simulating LMGs and not doing so one shot? Or is it a matter of points cost?

For me it's definitely a points cost issue.

And is the points cost issue more a matter of historical simulation or balanced game design?

 Manchu wrote:
And is the points cost issue more a matter of historical simulation or balanced game design?

Both I guess. I think the LMG are overcosted as a option but also as a common squad weapon you'd want players to pick the weapon.

I'd like to note that despite my dissatisfaction with LMG point costs my group still take the weapons for their historic value and based on army lists I see online other groups do as well. If everyone is paying LMG tax then it being overpriced is not such a big deal. Certainly I don't think it's enough of a issue to not play the game over. Just something that would be nice to change in a 2nd edition or in the case of the BA.net format change the costs yourselves.

We do the same thing, duracellrabbit.

 Manchu wrote:
How do you mean? LMGs have 4 shots in BA. That's a pretty good chance of pinning. I think the issue people have is with points cost.

How many shots does a bolt action rifle get?

How many shots would a LMG need to feel right to you?

Big P wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
How do you mean? LMGs have 4 shots in BA. That's a pretty good chance of pinning. I think the issue people have is with points cost.

How many shots does a bolt action rifle get?

One, iirc.

Dunno, just wondered what a rifle got by comparison to a MG42.

Never understand why BA players get so defensive. Only asking.

1 to 4 dont seem too bad of an abstracted split to differentiate ROF.

I thought that was a rhetorical question (thought you were more familiar with BA) and so I just asked my next question. I mean, I know how BG splits suppressive fire from firing for effect but given BA doesnt make that distinction (because it apparently assumes the squad is doing the appropriate thing at any given moment) how many shots would a LMG need to feel right in terms of its pinning function? It is not a defense of BA, just a question.

I dunno, not experienced enough with system to know, hence my query, so not played enough to know how much a variable increasing a single stat would make overall.

But it didnt feel like the weapon was powerful enough to warrant bothering with in the game, which felt odd given WW2 section tactics developed around the employment of the squad LMG. So its a little odd for me, maybe not others, to see a WW2 game where some people don't use what was a key element of section firepower and a fundamental part of WW2 combat, and the one weapon kept going over all others.

I agree about LMG-less squads seeming weird. But that is why I take them regardless of the points crunching. I have never looked at an opponent's LMG during a game and thought "meh."

 Manchu wrote:
To cut to the chase, I guess, the length of a FAQ document doesn't necessarily mean anything about how "finished" a game is. It probably does, however, correlate to how engaged the designers are with the players.

Maybe even a bit of both.

 judgedoug wrote:
Ah, gotcha! So you'll be starting a Goum army? As far as I can tell your position was that you did not play and were concerned about possible errors or unclear rules. However, this thread has demonstrably shown that the designers of the game have produced a short errata and a faq for the playerbase to clarify unclear rules and to fix the few errors.

All this aside I'm equally as likely to pick up a WWI, Spanish Civil War or VBCW force in 28mm this year.

I have Yorkist (i.e., 1914 British Army) and BUF armies from (the company f.k.a.) Musketeer to paint up for VBCW -- all thanks to BA actually as well as this fine chap. Now to find someone to play! VBCW is none too well known here in the States.

::cue Jeeves and Wooster theme tune::

My group uses the 'A World Aflame' Osprey rules for VBCW (with the order dice system from Bolt Action). I would have thought War Plan Red would be the perfect counterpart to VBCW in North America.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red

By Yorkist do you mean the York and Lancaster Regiment?

I have the World Aflame book but I was a bit sad the VBCW section was so tiny/uninspired. SC&M's books are flawed in many ways but at least convey tremendous enthusiasm.

There was a KS, although I believe the creators pulled it, for a Stateside version of VBCW with the Silver Shirts and all that. My impression is that the US is still quite a bit behind the UK when it comes to miniatures gaming generally and historicals specifically.

By "Yorkist" I mean the Albertine forces. In the background, Edward VIII and Sir Oswald Mosley rule without Parliament. Defiant PMs set up the so-called Parliament of Winchester, which eventually invites Prince Albert (who was in informal, voluntary exile in Canada with the rest of the Royal Family) to return to Britain as Lord Protector, a figurehead for disparate forces arrayed against the King.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ah, here you are - 1933: A Nation Divided

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1926752146/1933-a-nation-divided

Ah right, I thought you meant they were for WWI.

Oh, I suppose they were meant for WW1 by Musketeer. But they are for that very reason perfect for 1930s British soldiers.

These chappies:

http://footsoreminiatures.co.uk/collections/28mm-ww1-early-war-british

Nice. I love the Battalion command figures. A local company (EMP games) makes Australian Light Horse models. I'll probably end up doing Czech Legion, likely in French uniforms.

Yorks and Lancs are the local regiment, thus my interest.

Well the Albertines do (conveniently) hail prominently from the relative calmness of York. The Albertine book explicitly points out that Sheffield is controlled by militant reds.

The people's republic of South Yorkshire, art reflecting life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Republic_of_South_Yorkshire

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

That looks like an M2.

I didn't think they served in WWII Europe.

MB

BeAfraid wrote:

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

That looks like an M2.

I didn't think they served in WWII Europe.

MB

It's an M3 Light Tank - aka the original version of the Stuart. The pronounced copula was removed on the M3A1.

The M5 Stuart was the standard light tank by the time of Normandy, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were still a handful of M3s scattered here and there in the ranks.

Yes and its about the worst model of a Stuart you can get too.
Do NOT buy anything from Hobby Armor Depot in Florida.
You'll be glad you didn't.
(Plus their scale is 1/48, not 1/56)

I intend to replace this thing with a better one when someone makes one in plastic.

I have been warned about them as well. Pity, as I really like their SU-122.

Their kits are "modified" (by adding jerry cans and tarps) castings of old Bandai and others kits. The casting is frequently sloppy and filled with bubbles and flash.

Then again, if you simply don't care what your tanks look like, they are just about the cheapest thing out there.

"modified" is one word for it...


I can think of another.

Yes. They were thrown out of HMGS for doing it too.

jim30 wrote:

What it would benefit from is an index in the main book, or a link to an index to quickly find the rules.

Here you go: http://www.bruggies.com.au/Wargaming/BoltActionIndex.pdf.

I didn't write it and I can't remember who did, but if anyone knows, let me know so I can give credit where credit is due.

 snurl wrote:
Their kits are "modified" (by adding jerry cans and tarps) castings of old Bandai and others kits. The casting is frequently sloppy and filled with bubbles and flash.

Then again, if you simply don't care what your tanks look like, they are just about the cheapest thing out there.

They're straight up recasts.

Made the mistake of buying some of their technicals a while back; they were recast die cast Toyota trucks from Wal-Mart's $2.99 cheapo cars and trucks range, with a piece of coat hanger for an MG mount and a near featureless blob of resin that was supposed to be some sort of machine gun.

Their modern vehicles like LAV and BTR's are recasts of the Kitech/Zhengdefu motorized 1/48 kits...

Yep, you said the secret word.
Back when they were allowed at Historicon a few years ago, I saw their display and foolishly bought a few tanks and halftracks, they were the first 28mm (so they said)(they are indeed mostly 1/48) that were cheap. The comparable metal and resin models at the time were 2x to 3x as expensive and a bitch to build, and were also close to 1/48 scale. When they were banned I asked around and found out why, they were indeed pirated castings. This was back when they were called "All Fronts Armor Depot".
I thought they went out of business until I saw some complaints on another forum about Hobby Armor Depot, and sure enough, its the same people doing their thing again.

I'm sorta stuck with the ones I bought, I don't want to resell them due to their pirated origin, but I will be retiring them as proper plastic kits are released over the next few years to replace them.

Moral: When something seems too good to be true, it probably is.