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.

Bolt action is not really a reenactors game anyway, some I'm not necessarily against them not being fully historical, although the more they are, the better that would be.

Well, if you look in this forum, you will see a big surprise. Andy Chambers is going to lead K'47 development for Warlord Games. I'll let you all read it and discuss in that thread, but pretty cool that it comes just after we have been discussing it here a bit.
Thanks,
Duncan

Added new Pre-Order data and info and two new minis sets

Kind of a shame they put that same old ruined farmhouse in the starter box instead of something new.

New german winter models? It's like all the model companies are trying to distract me on purpose.

Also, does anyone know if Warlord has confirmed/mentioned if the current (if you can even call it that) Soviet Armybook will be compatible for 3rd?

 bullisariuscowl wrote:
New german winter models? It's like all the model companies are trying to distract me on purpose.

Also, does anyone know if Warlord has confirmed/mentioned if the current (if you can even call it that) Soviet Armybook will be compatible for 3rd?

If it’s an Armies of book, I think it’s superseded by the new edition.

“What about my rulebooks?
The Bolt Action: Third Edition rulebook will immediately supersede the Bolt Action: Second Edition rulebook, and all existing Armies of… books. Contained within the main rulebook will be five ‘starter’ army lists allowing you to construct forces for Great Britain, the USA, the USSR, Germany, and Imperial Japan, while other nations will have similar lists available as PDF downloads. These will allow you to start playing right away, and will be familiar to Second Edition players, but each will be replaced by a regular, ongoing series of releases of Third Edition Armies of… books.”

https://warlord-community.warlordgames.com/bolt-action-third-edition-september-2024/

It's not a very good starter set, in my opinion. I'm put off by the imbalance and the return of that farmhouse. Also, only making the new models available in 3 box bundles is a bit sleazy, 90 infantry is generally way too many for a Bolt Action army

I too am a bit disappointed that they are not releasing boxes for just a platoon of each of the new sets. Not that I want to make winter anything, but it would be nice to have an easier option.

https://warlord-community.warlordgames.com/bolt-action-third-edition-army-composition/

News on army composition, is it just me or does it feel like the game is shifting from more of a platoon size to a company size? I'm not sure I like what i'm seeing if i'm being honest. I liked Bolt Action because the games were larger than skirmisih, but still not as overwhelming as 40k.

I think it's just opening it up so that the basic level of play allows people to align more closely with historical forces rather than relying on a force org from a campaign book.

I look forward to the new organization. It will be interesting to see if officers get a points cut as that will make addding platoons more expensive. But I do like focusing your army rather that everyone pretty much having the same generic reinforced platoon. I can’t wait to try a field arty battery.

I think that looks good to me, unless they heavily drop the points for everything, the game isn't going to get larger as much as it is going to get more diverse with what people field.

Not certain I welcome that change either, with bolt action being at heart more of a competitive skirmish game, the old platoon streamlined the armies in a way that ensured org chart abuse was not truly an option.

Now, this open the door to platoons being way more powerful than others and ending up with weird lists, I fear.

But that's mostly an a priori impression there, we have yet to see how this actually transfers to the gameplay and balance, maybe they got it right!

 Maréchal des Logis Walter wrote:
Not certain I welcome that change either, with bolt action being at heart more of a competitive skirmish game, the old platoon streamlined the armies in a way that ensured org chart abuse was not truly an option.

Now, this open the door to platoons being way more powerful than others and ending up with weird lists, I fear.

But that's mostly an a priori impression there, we have yet to see how this actually transfers to the gameplay and balance, maybe they got it right!

They also specifically mentioned that they have another article coming about tournament packets, and Bolt Action tournament rules... so really hard to say org charts can NOW be abused when they could previously as well.

There wasn't a limit on how many platoons you could make in the last edition as long as you also filled out the requirements from what I recall, so this doesn't change anything for the casual gamer unless I am mistaken, unless somebody's group had agreed to restrictions on how many platoons can be taken.

Without seeing what their intentions are for the "competitive" scene, I really don't see anything to worry about.

Let's say that I'm somewhat skeptical, but as you say, clearly no reason to alarm oneself as of yet.

if the box had the proper full size rulebook I'd be considering it - I already have some winter SS & Americans they could work with

however the mini sized one and older eyes mean no, may look at the individual book though

So the biigg MMG change is......one more shot.

Oh and small teams and exceptional damage are gone, so they cant be one shot by a snipers anymore and aren't outshined by two man teams in terms of tankyness. Vehicle mounted MMGs fire half shots (so 3).

These changes are good imo. But as far as MMGs go, one more shot doesn't really make them seem that much better. We had been running a house-rule for our games where MMG (teams only!) always cause a Pin marker on a unit they fire at, regardless if they hit or not. These are primarily suppressive weapon systems and are designed to keep the enemy pinned down while infantry moves in. It worked out nicely, as taking shots at targets you otherwise wouldn't due to a number of negative modifiers was suddenly viable, even if damage wasn't to be expected. It allowed MMG teams to harass units that just sit in a building and snipe or call arty down. Personally I wish they added this.

I will try and update the first post with the new information.

I also wish they had done more with pins. But I think what we have here is good.

I used to run an mmg with my rifle platoon. Looking at the new org charts, I’m not sure how I could do that in the new edition.

 privateer4hire wrote:
I used to run an mmg with my rifle platoon. Looking at the new org charts, I’m not sure how I could do that in the new edition.

Basically you would have a basic rifle platoon with 2 infantry squads and an Lt. min then add another Lt. and two MMG or mortar squads in a Heavy Weapons platoon. So the minimum investment is generally two of things now with some extra HQ units. But if you run 1 MMG and 1 medium mortar it is basically the same as the old reinforced platoon but with an extra LT. and the ability to add 3 more MMGor mortars.

I suspect point changes will be very interesting and impact this all as well. They ash keep saying HQ unit, not Lt, so maybe other HQ units like Sargent will show up to as options?

To be fair, this change when applied to the old reinforced platoon's single MMG team wouldn't be too great. But now that you can take a heavy weapons platoon with up to 5 MMGs, maybe free Pin markers would be way too much lol. That is a lot of firepower.

 vadersson wrote:

 privateer4hire wrote:
I used to run an mmg with my rifle platoon. Looking at the new org charts, I’m not sure how I could do that in the new edition.

Basically you would have a basic rifle platoon with 2 infantry squads and an Lt. min then add another Lt. and two MMG or mortar squads in a Heavy Weapons platoon. So the minimum investment is generally two of things now with some extra HQ units. But if you run 1 MMG and 1 medium mortar it is basically the same as the old reinforced platoon but with an extra LT. and the ability to add 3 more MMGor mortars.

I suspect point changes will be very interesting and impact this all as well. They ash keep saying HQ unit, not Lt, so maybe other HQ units like Sargent will show up to as options?

Thanks. That’s what I was thinking (having to buy weapons platoon with another officer). Not really digging that but looks like that is the way it works.

does make running the current "starter army" boxes interesting

MMG & Mortar into a heavy weapons platoon
Anti tank gun into an artillery one
Tank into another

you don't get three rifle platoons though

overall I think its a good way to move though, expect to see more infantry, could perhaps be worth one "any unit" option so a single slot is there for "anything" without requiring the rifle platoon

expect the army lists when they arrive to have more flexibility in limited ways though

looking forward to trying this

I have been trying pretty hard to plan out an army for the game, but without knowing a bit more about potential force specific platoons it has been a bit hard to figure out what I need for a Fallschirmjager army besides the obvious Rifle Platoon and I guess a Heavy Weapons Platoon.

Was thinking of picking up some LG40 recoilless guns, but not really sure I want a full Artillery Platoon, or to end up having to do two Rifle Platoons, a Heavy Weapons Platoon, AND and Artillery Platoon.

this is where the system Chain of Command uses is superior, you have the base platoon - exactly as stated, though there are several to look through

then add support once you know the table, mission and opponents base force

leopard wrote:
this is where the system Chain of Command uses is superior, you have the base platoon - exactly as stated, though there are several to look through

then add support once you know the table, mission and opponents base force

It's only superior if you have all the models for the support options though.

 Dawnbringer wrote:

leopard wrote:
this is where the system Chain of Command uses is superior, you have the base platoon - exactly as stated, though there are several to look through

then add support once you know the table, mission and opponents base force

It's only superior if you have all the models for the support options though.

One would assume that if you've chosen to play a game that works like that that you'd invest in the needed models....

 Dawnbringer wrote:

leopard wrote:
this is where the system Chain of Command uses is superior, you have the base platoon - exactly as stated, though there are several to look through

then add support once you know the table, mission and opponents base force

It's only superior if you have all the models for the support options though.

this is true, same with any game you are somewhat limited by what you actually have - though given you usually don't have a vast amount of support stuff its less of an issue than it could be.

its more or less the same as in Bolt Action picking your faction and announcing it, then setting up a table, rolling a mission and only then actually building your force - means less chance of bringing stuff you outright can't use (or can't use sensibly) - e.g. a mission where you need to say go off the other side of the table and immobile static guns springs to mind, or only the defending player bringing static defences. you still don't know exactly what you will face, just that say you are tasked with capturing a small settlement as Americans from the Germans or whatever

that system however also ensures you have one, and only one, core platoon, usually three squads and command plus a few baked in bits. support is limited only by points, though they are few enough in number you tend not to be able to spam anything and it is very much stuff you will need to support the core force - if you have the points bringing several MMG is possible, its unlikely you are spamming tanks

 Dawnbringer wrote:

leopard wrote:
this is where the system Chain of Command uses is superior, you have the base platoon - exactly as stated, though there are several to look through

then add support once you know the table, mission and opponents base force

It's only superior if you have all the models for the support options though.

Isn't one of the advantages of a historical game that the minis are affordable enough that you can have a wide variety of options. Even moreso for a relatively small game like Bolt Action or Chain of Command.

Makes sense too whether your aim is playing GW style list-building games against a variety of enemies and/or to have the ability to play out a variety of more realistic historical scenarios.

Key I think for a good game with a historical setting is that it has to support historical matchups as well as more tournament focussed without either breaking the game