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.

 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.