[Mike]

So, if a structure is labeled a ruin, it is not a “building” it is presumed to have a single story for movement and elevation purposes and operates like dense terrain (thus model positioning is important, and range is measured to the models) and the units cannot fire through the terrain only into it.  If it is presumed to be a damaged building it operates as a building.  In both cases, you cannot fire through the terrain.  If the “rubble” takes the shape of long narrow piece of terrain, it can be defined as an obstacle and function like a wall, but if becomes too thick, it can be determined to be rough ground or impenetrable terrain.  It just looks a bit weird when you have a ruin that is 18″ by 12″, and a unit barely enters the far side of the building where the opposite side’s wall is largely intact for a unit five inches away from the building be able to shoot all the way through it to the units on the far side of it.  But I guess that is because of how the model “appears”.

[Mike]

I wish there were a way to import units from other army lists for various reasons including the reason you noted.  Perhaps in the future that could happen with a simple note that the list does not conform to the “approved” lists.  This would help in a variety of cases, not just the one you are dealing with.

[Mike]

The Warlord supporter list builder allows you to purchase spotters for inexperienced mortars, but I think the cost is the same as for regular and veteran unit spotters.   So, I guess if you wanted to cover the map and reduce the risk of losing all your spotters as well as several other advantages the come from having spare spotters, you could load up on a few extra spotters for your regular and veteran units.

PAGE 102. Spotters
First paragraph, ADD the following:
Spotters have the Infiltrators special rule (see page 120).
Second paragraph, CHANGE the first sentence as follows:
[…] the crew are assumed to be able to also see whatever
any spotter (or forward observer) in your force can see.
Note, however, that a spotter/observer can only spot for a
single Indirect Fire weapon per game turn.
If the firing unit switches to a different spotter in a
following turn, this resets the ranging-in process, just as if
the unit had moved. This can potentially […

[Mike]

Perhaps a different perspective from someone who has been gaming and painting miniatures for over 50 years.  When I started gaming, figures were 1:72 scale (around 20mm tall and skinny), which is a bit short, since it translates to a human being under 5 ft tall.  Later, models bulked up to 25mm and this scale dominated in the 70s and 80s.  Then 28mm came along followed by 3o-32 mm.  Along the way, 6mm, 10mm, 12mm, 15mm, and 18mm also made appearances and most of them still exist.  Some gamers have moved to 54mm scale.  So, what does it really come down to?

For me bigger and bulkier miniatures are more fun to paint.  So, I gravitate to as big a scale as I can and still deploy a reasonable number of miniatures on the table.  Many of my newer painting techniques from dry brushing to inks to shading, and lining are simply easier when the miniature is bigger, bulkier, with more definition.  I game around 4-8 hours a month, but I paint around 30 hours a month.  So, for me, it is about painting more than gaming.

I used to prefer metal over plastic or resin, but the new plastics are fun because you can generate far more poses than you typically can buy with precast metal castings and gluing metal is a pain compared to plastic.  Now 3D printing is changing the hobby again.  Things keep changing, but for now I see 3D printing capturing a major share of the market.  Plastic models will need to find a way to compete with them.  I think metal will eventually disappear.

[Mike]

Interesting.  I am not sure the “indirect” fire really works. Are spotters really calling in fire to Piat teams?

Instead, it seems like you just want to fire at targets over 12″ range up to 30″ range and treat it as a HE (1″) indirect fire shot when it comes to damage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mike]

I don’t think Bolt Action is a “fantasy” game or a historic simulation.  Some authors imagine they are creating a game that is “historically” accurate, the truth is none of them are.  Historical wargaming is gaming and it is about a fun game with some “historical flavor”.   How they balance “fun” with “historical flavor” often becomes the subject of discussion with players arguing for or against a rule.

Eventually, I have come to realize that as long as the game is fun, it is better not to sweat the details.  However, for people that like a rule set except some particular mechanic, you can always test your own “house rules”.  So, if you think the bazooka or panzerfaust rules should have been written differently, they write them differently.  There is no rule against changing the rules.  If over time your thoughts align with others they often show up in future editions.  I have noticed that is especially true with Black Powder and its supplements.

[Mike]

Does the new special miniature, Josef “Sepp” Allerberger come with any special rules?  It would be “cool” to design special “hero” profiles for every special casting with their own point cost just for fun.  Players could agree to use them or not.  Any easy option is to allow you to buy a “single model” sniper unit at a reduced cost.

[Mike]

There are two kinds of games… competitive gaming and uncompetitive gaming.  My experience is that competitive gaming while it may offer some enjoyment produces all sorts of “gamey” actions.  Uncompetitive gaming tries to be philosophical about the situation.  Ideally, the idea of “controlling” objectives infers some sort of strategic value represented by the objective.  For competitive gaming, the rules are the rules.  Strict interpretation of them is the only way to play.  I prefer uncompetitive gaming.  You don’t need a defined winner or loser, but simply an “outcome”.  Ideally, when a game ends, you assess how each side did relative to the “context” of the engagement, less so, on the absolute technical points.  So, while points can help influence the decision of the outcome, more importantly is the situation on the board relative to the “back story”.

[Mike]

Generally speaking, I find that control of objectives brings out the worse with respect to “gamey” behaviors.  Often a game will be going along just fine and then on the last move crazy *!@#! starts to occur.  Perhaps a rule that the player with the most points within 3″ of an objective at the end of the game “owns” the objective.  It would prevent the last second dash of a 2-man unit to contest an objective with 15 model “veteran” and armed to the teeth unit already holding it.  Alternatively, all units contesting an objective at the end of a game conduct repeated assaults until only one side is left.  Armor units which fail to destroy the opponent will back away 6″.

[Mike]

I did not take your comment as “attacking” me, simply misunderstanding me.  So, no worries, I took no offense.  I was simply noting that I don’t find tanks as intimidating as they were before.  Many players thought the new rules would lead to many armor platoons and moving the game away from being infantry based.  While we are seeing some armor platoons show up in our games, they are far less “commanding” than we first thought they would be.

[Mike]

I did not say, I do not like V3 or that I did not agree with the changes to tank MMG fire (I do for the reasons you mentioned), just that they are less intimidating.  In V2, tanks could control a part of the battlefield as no one wanted to contest ground against a tank with 2 or more MMGs.  Now, a large infantry unit can seize an objective an absorb the tank fire for two or more turns.  I am looking forward to playing a game in more open terrain (we have been gaming the Pacific as part of our Fall campaign).  I do not play in tournaments, so my observation was purely one of comparing V2 to V3 in how the game plays.  I do wish they had preserved the “reinforced platoon” as an option, especially for smaller point games. Regarding assaults, we feel that if the defender fires at an assaulting unit prior to the assault, then combat should be simultaneous even if the defending unit is in cover, but we play the rules as written.

[Mike]

The one thing that has been noticeable is that assaults are not as good of an idea as they once were.  Unless you need to gamble on a decisive result, advancing to point blank range and using shooting is more efficient.  The negative benefit of assaulting is compounded when the defender is in cover.  Still some armies like the Japanese with big squads and “fanatic” can still pull off the assault.  In our recent, games my 15-man Japanese squads assaulting my opponents 10-man squads continue to crush them though the Japanese squad can be pretty wrecked afterwards.  Also, you tend to see more heavy weapon and artillery platoons, tanks are a bit “nerfed” with their reduced machine gun fire. Anyway, these are our impressions.

[Mike]

A major and oft repeated criticism of Warlord I hear from gamers is that the rules should be either included in the rulebook or available as updated PDFs from the website.

Unit profiles ultimately end up in the army builder software packages that almost everyone I know uses, so there is no reason to buy a book for a unit profile.  The problem is units that don’t have profiles.

I would rather see army books focus on the armies themselves rather than unit profiles. How the army changed, when certain units became available (without the profiles) simply showing when they showed up and where.

Campaign books focused on the campaigns with scenarios to simulate features of the campaign and discuss any special rules that apply to the army because of unique aspects of the campaign.

Instead, I tend to shy away from buying many of the books because of how they are done.

I think Warlord leaves a lot of money on the table.  I do think their new subscription army builder software will be “home run” and at some point, incorporating more “value” into the software will be more important, than trying to extract some marginal revenue from selling a few books.

[Mike]

Try browsing BoardGameGeek Edition Quick Reference Sheet Bolt Action dated Oct 7, 2024

[Mike]

It would be useful if Bolt Action produced a software program where players could introduce their own stats for a unit’s profile, and it would generate a cost.  So, if you wanted to use some of the V2 books like Case Blue for the Italians, you could simply run their profile through the program to get the “cost” for the unit.

[Author]

Posts