Goofy rules that need changing

Home Forums Historical Bolt Action Goofy rules that need changing

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #171021
    Mike
    Participant

    Having played quite a few games I have issues that fellow players and I have noticed.
    1. Weapons teams. Absolutely ridiculous that if you shoot the gunner, one of the loaders cant take the gun over. This is anti-real life. The rules are working against real life here. Every member of the platoon, not just the team knows how to use a heavy machine gun, at least in the US and Britain and likely Germany and it isnt rocket science for others. The Japanese use a magazine fed gun, I have one and have never fired it but I know how to load it and make it go bang bang just by looking at it. For one it would make snipers less OP and auto-include. Secondly it would allow use of other weapons teams that are “less” optimal. Sure give them a pin and the -1 for a member of the team being dead but to pull the whole model is dumb. At a minimum allow a 2+ roll for someone to take the gun over like the Germans do for Sgts and assume the 1 is a hit to the gun. Hell, even then. My grandfather took a Japanese position at Guadal Canal, hit the gun and engaged in close combat with the NCO and assistant gunner while the gunner tried to figure out why it didnt work anymore. So even losing the gun, the team still has a rifleman and an NCO with whatever weapons he has. Teams dont just walk away when their main weapon goes down.

    2. Indirect fire. There needs to be a token placed for the target with measurements based on the center of the token. That way there is no ambiguity when shooter walks the round 2″ elsewhere if the unit that was the original target was destroyed.

    3. Transports. Why exactly is a powerful armored carrier with a machine gun crewed by the co driver worried about having enemy troops closer than its own? I know when I was in we had infiltrators and our first sergeant’s non-armored HUMVEE driver popped open the turret and opened up with his 50 cal. Vehicle crew dont just give up and surrender, especially armored vehicle crew. Despite the above example, fine make it so soft skins or unarmed vehicles for some reason surrender because … reasons. But regular and veteran armored and heavily armed half tracks? No… just No. I paid 70+ points for them, they dont go away because some Japanese villager with a bamboo stick is closer to them then my own guys.

    #171027
    Nat
    Participant

    1, agree with mg & mortar teams…artillery are immune to the exceptional damage rule and other teams are 2 man teams

    2, issue with that is why are you then able to put the template anywhere in the unit, but measure how far you can walk the shot from the marker?..remember it’s a game of Hollywood films not a historical simulator

    3, again it’s game balance plus keeping the rule count down…if you start going this type of transport has this rule but this type doesn’t you are increasing the page count for no real benefit to the gameplay.

    • This reply was modified 3 years, 3 months ago by Nat.
    #171029
    Greg S
    Participant

    I have to say, I’m not bothered about teams getting taken out by EXCEPTIONAL damage. Of course snipers hitting and killing a team in one shot is pretty rare for us. Maybe your snipers are luckier than ours 🙂

    One of my regular opponents is concerned about the difference in movement rates between tanks and trucks. He thinks trucks should be slower on grass than tanks. And that tanks should be able to make more turns because of their tracked drive.

    Personally I dislike Tiger fear (on Panzer IVs especially) and the German motorcycle and sidecar combi that is an armored car and not a motorcycle.

    Having templates without scatter is a nonsense. Altering the rate of scatter for Vets/Regular/inexperienced troops would have been a great fix for the inexperience mortar issue.

    And then there’s the building teleporter.

    #171031
    invisible officer
    Participant

    1) The idea was that the others would not jump into the position that had just proved to be deadly. No ideal way of ruling but easy.

    3)The rule was written that way to keep the gamers away from using Transport vehicles as assault weapons. The WW II APC was not used that way. It was a troop carrier intended to reduce losses.

    German loaded SPW mixed with tanks in assault but the moment the Panzergrenadier dismounted it stayed behind the footsloggers, giving support fire.

    The open top WW II APC was an easy target for a handgrenade, a weapon missing at all in BA. So they simple make them surrender.

    #171035
    richard zamudio
    Participant

    Not a rule problem, as such, but I dislike the use of empty transports as mobile mg units. Yes, I realize that transports had weapons, but they were more often than not designed as AA weapons. In many instances, the transports are not even near the units they transported in the first place. Of course, SPWs were used in an anti personnel role, but trucks with a mg? Don’t even get me started on the tank/infantry hunting flamethrower teams!

    #171037
    Mike
    Participant

    Game I played yesterday, sniper took out an HMG team, ranger sgt and LMG, and came close twice to killing another HMG team. Snipers are deadly to teams. The rule should be if the gunner is taken out, on a 2+ a loader takes over and the team now suffers the pin and a -1 for missing a team member.

    I understand the need to prevent the half tracks from being mobile MMG boxes, but not all of us play hyper competitively and we shouldnt be punished for the actions of a few. They are already open topped giving an auto pin if hit and a 6+ for even non penetrating weapons to do damage and kill on a 3+. So they are incredibly easy to kill or reduce efficiency to the point of uselessness. Having a squad arbitrarily be closer auto-killing them is too much of an additional penalty to people who want to field a mech list. Or give them a bonus for suppressing units that threaten their infantry squad but now we are turning them into 40k tau.

    #171053
    Darin
    Participant

    We have been playing lately that snipers do not do exceptional damage automatically on a successful wound roll to weapon teams they need a 6. But we also decided that any unit being hit by a sniper takes 2 pins.

    We had the same problem with “Armored Transports” just being eliminated by being closer. So we made it a morale check to remain.

    #171070
    Richard
    Participant

    1) How about exceptional damage forces a morale check on team weapons? So a sniper hit causes a pin and if it damages then it also causes a morale check? Fits in with the reluctance to assume the position of a snipered gunner.

    #171149
    Greg S
    Participant

    Guns on empty transports in 1st edition were as useful as a chocolate teapot. The rule changed for second edition, so that empty transports can shoot. This was considered realist, because transports usually have more crew than just on driver.

    But actually using them is considered unrealistic and competitive. You can’t win ’em all. 🙂 🙂

    #171982
    Bazooka Joe
    Participant

    Cavalry Charges
    I wish they had been more agessive in making changes to this. It is a horrible idea, and was rarely done for a reason.

    Multiple MG carriers
    Those terrible Italian tankettes, but also AA guns used as anti-infantry weapons. Not sure what could be done, fewer dice or ammo check like flamethrowers?

    Hidden Units
    Just pretend I am not here! Better now that flamethrowers don’t auto hit. Still, terrible rule.

    #171984
    Paul Nettle
    Participant

    We have a club rule that snipers can only kill people – no exceptional damamage to teams.

    MMGs have taken a real hit with LMGs now having the same range. I think they need a boost to reflect their higher rate of fire, such as +1 shot. This is for MMG teams only, not vehicles!

    #172179
    Lee Brennan
    Participant

    I would like to see snipers do a forced morale check on team weapons instead of an insta-wipe. 🙂

    #172759
    Jan Doernte
    Participant

    Here’s a wonky rule that needs fixing- A mortar or arty can “range in” (-1 to hit) but a Tank gunner cannot?

    Two stationary tanks fire at each other. Maybe you’re rolling a 5 or 6 for long range- light cover. Let’s say they both miss.

    Turn 2- nobody moves- both fire at each other. At least an even chance that both (still) miss.

    This is so off from reality.

    If a tank commander gave an fire order to his gunner- and that gunner missed a stationary target 2x- I’m sure that commander would push his gunner out of the tank and take the shot himself!

    If a firing gun does not move- and the target does not move- Everything should have a -1 to hit.

    #172761
    Nat
    Participant

    I’d make it – If the vehicle doesn’t have a advance or run order then the firing unit applies a +1 to the hit roll

    Reason it shouldnt apply to infantry as the would be digging shell scrapes so getting harder to hit. Then doing it off the order die makes it easier to keep track of and keeps it in line with other rules

    #188501
    Crzapy
    Participant

    Let’s establish a baseline.
    1. MMGs are too nerfed and not worth 50 points. For the same amount I can get 5 regular rifleman that are more mobile and don’t die to a single sniper.
    2. Human wave attacks (cough, Spearman, cough, cough!) tend to be very overwhelming in bolt action.
    Historically and realistically we learned in ww1 massed wave attacks in the open are easily cut down by fixed machine gun emplacement.

    So here are some proposals to balance both of these aspects:

    A. The medium machine gun either gets a reduced point value, extra shots, or both.

    B. The medium machine gun gets to roll for extra pins. Historically this makes sense as the machine gun was often used for suppression of troops.

    C. The medium machine gets a hit bonus against troops in the open. So 10 regular Spearman without cover are running in the open, mmg now gets a +1 to hit.

    Honestly, I’d like to see B and C happen as it would balance the game better, make MMGs worthwhile, and add Historical accuracy.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.