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.

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