Q about FAQ

Home Forums Historical Bolt Action Q about FAQ

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
  • #184235

    New FAQ today has this about Stalingrad campaign. We had the same question, But the FAQ answer didn’t help.

    The special rule “Off-Map Battery” (on pages 137 & 138 of “Campaign: Stalingrad”) states, “Soviet players are not allowed to take artillery units”. This in turn is seemingly contradicted in the (“NOT A STEP BACK!” REINFORCED PLATOON (SEPTEMBER 1942) and the “NO LAND BEYOND THE VOLGA” REINFORCED PLATOON (SEPTEMBER– NOVEMBER 1942) selectors by the Artillery section in both stating “0–1 Gun from:”. Which one is right?

    The special rule overrules the force selection in this case.”


    The question basically says why does the selector say “No artillery” and yet has the option of 0-1 gun. The FAQ says the special rules overrides but this  is illogical since the rule is PART of the selector.

    The only explanation I can find is that the FAQ answer is wrong.   OR……   The definition of Artillery means light/med/hvy “howitzer types” , rather than anything appearing in ARTILLERY sections of Army Lists.  Which means the Theater selector DOES allow an anti-tank gun.

    Anyone? Cheers

    • This topic was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by SteveT.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by SteveT.
    • This topic was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by SteveT.
    Aaron Jahns

    From what I understand, it comes down to AA and AT are not considered “Artillery” in the sense that howitzers are. I think that Warlord has made this unnecessarily convoluted. The last FAQ answered the same question

    “There are a few Soviet selectors that have the special rule “OffMap Battery” that states that Soviet players are not allowed to take artillery units. However, the selector still allows anti-tank and antiaircraft options which are Artillery units in Bolt Action. Are Soviet players allowed to use AT and AA guns in theatre selectors with the Off-Map Battery rule?”

    “Yes, you may take AT and AA units in theatre selectors with the Off-Map Battery rule. Any unit listed within a theatre selector will always be a legal choice. In this case the Off-Map Battery rule refers to field howitzers being unavailable – not Artillery as a Bolt Action unit type.”


    While the most recent FAQ that you posted above seems to refute this, I think it is still in the vein of AT and AA are not “field howitzers.” I don’t see why they answered the question a second time in a way that seems contradictory. Usually if they do so, they remove the previous entry or state “the entry will be changed as follows.” It is really glaring as the entries are exactly side by side.

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Aaron Jahns.
    Master Chief

    It is really glaring as the entries are exactly side by side.

    This was also the case with the previous FAQ which contained 2 contradicting answers on targeting empty buildings with a multiple launcher. That was only rectified in this latest one. Maybe this (the no artillery issue) will be rectified in the next version.


    Warlord rules writers & proof readers make mistake and over complicate simple rules…. in other new water is still wet!

    This is the main issue with warlord rules, whilst they write some of the easiest to read rule books there ability to describe the rules, and refer to what they’ve already written is some times a bit lacking (I point to equipment having different rules in different books, other books have entire sections cut and pasted where they have no relevance (rules for ice in a desert book?), or my favourite, v1 rules printed in a brand new (2020) v2 book!)

    invisible officer

    I can’t see any problem. The special rules tell the historic situation and most users will see that only the technically / tactical  non artillery AT and AA guns are for use on western bank.


    No artillery units  on western bank here just means indirect firing true artillery that was served by the forward observer.


    On p. 136 and other Warlord lists you find under Artillery  the entry Artillery gun light medium or heavy  set  apart from AT and AA.  It should be obvious that Artillery heading is just used as a roof for all cannons and howitzers. And below in the list artillery gun is used for true artillery.


    The writers just expect that most readers will know that AT and AA are no “artillery guns.” For the writer it’s so obvious that they will never think about writing that extra. Or using  seperate AA/AT header.



    The issue comes from the wording warlord uses… IF they said no artillery guns instead of no artillery units then there wouldn’t be as much of a problem.  Due to how warlord write the theater lists….

    I say it’ll still be a problem because Artillery Units is a rules term for any large weapons team, and includes rules such as immune to exceptional damage from small arms etc.  and covers all AA guns & AT guns.  Artillery Guns are actually listed in the armies of book as Field Artillery and its this phrase that should have been in the theater lists & FAQ saying not to be allowed.

    invisible officer

    Well, for IO, the son of a WW II artillery officer the wording is 100 % clear.


    I think that there had been a change in gamers, today old common knowledge is lost. In the rules we used in the 70’s nobody expected a wording that explain basics. The  Stalingrad page 135 tells everything you need for that scenario under Off-Map Battery  You can have true artillery guns on Eastern bank and use them with the optional forward Artillery Observer and get a second strike.  That that does not include the AT / AA guns mentioned in the list on top for Western bank is so obvious for old farts like me that we  would not notice a problem.


    That basic loss, I see that often with other publications, crime novels and news. “Young” authors writing fuss like   .38 revolvers to have a 38 mm barrel. A stupid error but worse, many readers don’t notice it. Because it is there black on white.  That shows a change in society.


    Well  common sense isnt common :p … what makes sense to me (due to my time in the army) might not make sense to my brother who’s never served, so who do you write the rules for me or him?

    Saying i’m all right Jake (as you just did, saying you dont have an issue understanding it) IS part of the problem (in making games accessible to all**)..  I read it when I got the Stalingrad book and went..’eh?? that doesnt make sense’ stopped looked at the special rule, then back to whats allowed and went ‘ah, ok thats what they mean…’.  However I do see why people would get confused, Wargamming is becoming more acceptable as a hobby and the number of people who have served or are children of those who have is getting less (the company where I work less than 15% would fall in to either category)

    So personally I’d have re-written the ‘off map battery’ rule to read something along the lines of ‘As only AA & AT guns are included in this Theater List any Art. Obs can call in a 2nd artillery strike once the first one has been resolved’

    Warlord (and other rules writers) need to stop putting history/background in to the rules instructions.  Keep the background and the rules separate!*  Also when you start using terms in a rules sense you need to keep those terms purely for that usage.  Its to stop the confusion of every one who plays.


    *means you dont get the Cruel Seas issue of the Bronkreaters turret rule in the middle of the Soviet Background section pages away from any other rule!

    ** although no where near as bad as the napoleonics forums where people start arguing about shades of colour for tunics or getting aggressive at people for incorrect uniforms…

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Nat.
    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Nat.
    Master Chief

    A look at the 2nd edition Armies of Germany book (see attached) lists several types as an artillery unit. And definitely we cannot write a book with the assumption that every reader knows what the author knows. Otherwise at the start of every book Warlord needs to insert the following caveat “Readers must have served or have relatives who have served in an armed forces before.”

    Personally I think it is ok to make “mistakes” as no one is perfect. Just don’t try to explain it away by saying “it is obvious to me” or “everyone should know”.

    invisible officer

    Well Master Chief, that screenshot shows where to find the entry for a type. It does not say that all under one header are the same. Like the vehicles in that table that can be very different like tank and tow.


    Nat, you write: ”   I read it when I got the Stalingrad book and went..’eh?? that doesnt make sense’ stopped looked at the special rule, then back to whats allowed and went ‘ah, ok thats what they mean…’.  “

    So if on reads the full page one understands.


    These Campaign books are for special occasions, not a one rule fits all like in the basic rule book. That the Scenario has background and the rules together is an advantage not a problem. Because you see at a glance: Why.     So it is repeated on next page in next Scenario. The alternative would be to have notes like : See page xx for Background. And I’m sure then we get critics saying why it is not on Scenario page, saving time.


    Alexander Smith wrote a very clear Scenario. All you have to do is read the full page.



    Well  you don’t need to have served, , my “she S. ” has no WW II gaming interest, she’s more in the shades of colours of pre 1918 uniforms. I showed her the page and she understood it at first glimpse.


    If there is a writer’s mistake it is Alexander’s expectation that a person that  decides to buy a WWII rule campaign addition  set has the same abilities his wife Quinn has.



    No its not clear, if its clear then there wouldnt be these questions…

    plus where are you getting 1 page scenario from?… we are looking at theater lists… now my wife (who doesnt do anything with wargamming or that much about history unless its about art)  just had a look and agreed that the rule says no artillery units and then said if AA guns arent artillery and can be taken why are they under a heading that says artillery?…. oh she also asked why is the first few sentences history – isnt that covered else where in the book?

    As said before the demographic of gamers is changing, but the rules writers arent altering how they are putting things together.

    invisible officer

    Isn’t it about page 137 and 138?    Selecor Special rules off map Battery?

    Top right on 137 you have “artillery” allowed on western bank = the play area.  Someone not into WWII gaming and the rules will not even notice the missing of Artillery gun light, medium or heavy like in other scenarios , for example on p.136.  Only gamers.

    If one reads down one comes to the off-Map Battery entry that tells why no divisional artillery is allowed there. But on eastern.

    So my “she”understood.

    And you Nat too. 😉   “ok thats what they mean…’.


    No its not clear, if its clear then there wouldnt be these questions… .   Well, Alexander wrote the scenario, expecting the gamers to read the full page. Is it really asked to much from a gamer?  I’m arrogant and think that there will be ever peoples that do not understand, not being stupid but a bit lazy. Not reading all like you and I did.

    The FAQ wording The special rule overrules the force selection in this case  may not be ideal. It does not overrule, it explains the missing of light, medium and heavy on western bank artillery list.



    Today we have a tendency to think that peoples expect everything to be explained extremely clear. And some makers follow that. Causing some products that make me shudder.   Some time ago I saw a 2 page explanation with diagrams and texts for a game.   I guess we all know these toddler games with a holed plate and plugs that have to be inserted in the fitting hole. The writer thought it necessary to explain to the parents that the square is not to fitting to the round and so on. Showing every form of plug and the fitting hole!



    Rules to me must are like technical laws, they must are clear, for me a regulation must be written as a technical rule, not ambiguous, not doubly interpretable, if you define something with a word it must be like this from start to finish, not verbose but synthetic and schematic, the player only has to find the rule that fits the specific case.

    If this is not the case then the regulation is poorly written as would a poorly technical law. Furthermore the rules must be well highlighted and apart from the historical references, from all the  bla bla and all the motivations behind the rules

    • This reply was modified 1 year, 6 months ago by Steeljackal.

    @steeljackal – well put guv!

    invisible officer

    If page 137 is not clear nothing will.


    All you have to know for that scenario is there.  On top right the types allowed and below why there is no light, medium and heavy.   100 % clear for anybody willing and able to read more than a single sentence. Absolutely nothing interpretable.

    Only if you bring other page / books  info into the dicussion you can confuse. Sometimes you can know too much, because it’s wrong in that moment.





    And the other thing, why do you buy a special Stalingrad campaign book if you want no historical blabla?

    To blame the writer Alexander for the special Stalingrad flavour book is absurd. He was asked to write exactly that.  May be that a  few get confused on first glimpse that not all artillery is divisional or corps artillery but more will have no profund historical knowledge about the battle and why no 203mm was on western bank.


    Are you really trying to tell that you are not able to use rule and historical informations from a single page without problems? For me thats like the old deck chair TV jokes. I never believed that anybody could  have problems with them.






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