V3 NEW platoon composition! Edit: and discussion apparently

Home Forums Historical Bolt Action V3 NEW platoon composition! Edit: and discussion apparently

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 31 total)
  • Author
  • #190254

    This looks somewhat more historical than v2, as artillery and tanks were typically in their own platoons/sections that assisted a rifle platoon, and usually there wasn’t a lone tank thrown in an infantry platoon’s structure.

    My only concern with the new composition is artillery spam. I haven’t played a major game against someone, but I’ve heard people talk about howitzer spam, and I could totally see someone bringing 5 howitzers (250 points) in a 500 point game. Unless they increase the points cost for howitzers or something. All we know about V3 at this point is that the points and units rules are getting a large redesign.

    And we can bring tank platoons lets goooooo!

    • This topic was modified 1 week ago by Aidan.
    • This topic was modified 3 days, 19 hours ago by Aidan.

    Edit 13/07/2024: fixed typos in the post.

    • This reply was modified 1 week ago by Aidan.

    well this is only part of the equation… the rest is still in the dark!

    we dont know what rules are changing
    we dont know HOW the costs are changing
    we dont know how unit composition is changing … it could be that compulsory choices must be taken at full strength.
    etc etc

    all in all it looks like a good change for gaming groups.  The question about how it will impact pickup (strangers / club /LGS) & tournament gaming is TBC

    But so far i’m liking what i’m seeing

    John Prymuszewski

    From what I am reading, my gaming group is conflicted, it’s One Rifle Platoon for Each Support Platoon. Am I correct?


    one other restriction – you can only have as many multiples of any Platoon type as you have Rifle Platoons. For example, if you want to field two Armoured Platoons, you’ll need two Rifle Platoons, and so on. Other than that – the choice is yours! [/quote]

    now without the writen rules – this is just Marcus’ chat about it… it reads that if you have 2 rifle pltns then you unlock the other 5 pltns twice

    So at the moment it looks like you can take 1 rifle, 1 armd & 1 rece as a legal force.  If it was 2 rifle for 1 armd & 1 rece then I feel the example would have been if I wanted to field 1 armed * 1 rece not 2 armd pltns.

    However I stress this is a teaser not a rules article.


    Ok warlords FB account has confirmed that it’s 1 rifle Platoon unlocks 1 each of the other 5 at the same time



    Yeah that does make sense. I guess we will have to wait for the official rules to drop before we know anything for sure.

    But I’m liking what I see right now. 

    Also, it seems like an odd choice to have “1 rifle platoon unlocks 1 of EACHother” rather then “one rifle platoon unlocks 1 other”. But then again, who would bring 2 rifle platoons so they could bring 2 tank platoons.


    I’m curious as to how this will affect the tournament scene. If there is limited numbers of platoons allowed in a tournament, then competitive players will have to weigh the options of what platoons would be most beneficial to run now that you can’t use flamethrowers, tanks, and artillery in the same platoon.

    At this point we don’t know much, just some thoughts I had.


    Well WL are doing a Tournament recommendations …. but you’ll find that the TO will decide once they have the rules in their hands… they may bin the official platoons and say use the v2 ones <shrugs> who knows

    Wilber Olive

    I know this is just a tease, but so far, we’re not much of a fan of these new selectors and probably won’t use them in our group. To be fair though, we don’t really use the v2 selector much either as we tend to build armies based on scenarios. But here’s few oddities I’ve noticed so far. I could be wrong about any or all of these things.

    1. The Recce Infantry Platoon seems like a useless Rifle Platoon. You may as well just take another rifle platoon instead (with the benefit of unlocking a 2nd duplicate platoon, see point 5 below). Sure, you have to pay for an extra rifle squad, but that is probably better than paying for a minimum of two Reece transports you might not want. Nothing stopping you adding Reece transports to a regular rifle platoon if you wanted one or more, but at least you’re not forced. I cannot see any point to anyone ever picking a recce infantry platoon, unless I’m missing something, or there is some other reveal coming in the rules that makes that platoon useful in some way.

    2. They appear to have removed the option for another HQ squad. In v2, you could add a Captain/Major officer squad. This was great for representing a company level officer in the field for example. That seems to be gone now. Perhaps you could make your rifle platoon officer a captain/major, but then you miss out on having a platoon officer as well. In fact, that useless recce infantry platoon might have been better off as a HQ Platoon? Then you could field a dedicated company level (or higher) officer and attach things to it like observers, medics, artillery, etc. The way it is now, you attach an observer to just a regular rifle platoon, which is odd. Should be attached to a HQ platoon.

    3. Impossible to field a lone tank now. Now you must field a minimum of two tanks (or armoured vehicles). Bolt Action is supposed to be an infantry game. Let me quote Marcus Vine from paragraph two of the article; “Bolt Action is at its core a game of infantry combat.” Vehicles were always a side show, which is why they made Achtung Panzer. Seems odd now in an infantry game you are forced to field multiple vehicles (if you want one). Anyone who owns just one vehicle for their army is now forced to go buy and paint up a second one so their first one doesn’t become an ornament on the shelf.

    4. Good luck ever seeing a flamethrower on the table again. If you own a flamethrower team, you may as well make it an ornament now, unless you happen to also own enough for two HQ squads, two rifle squads and two engineer squads… and want to spend the points to field all that. People are going to be forced to buy and paint up entire boxes of engineers, just so their flamethrower doesn’t collect dust.

    5. I hope Bolt Action doesn’t turn into Artillery Action. Before it was only possible to bring one gun to the table (artillery, AA, AT). Now, you can bring FOUR of them! And if you can afford a second rifle platoon, you can bring EIGHT!!! Woohoo! Maybe Warlord has a huge inventory of artillery in their warehouse they need to sell. LOL. Jokes aside, perhaps they’ve reworked the rules for guns so bringing eight of them to the table is not an attractive option?

    6. This brings me to my last point. I’m always a little skeptical of game rules made by the same company that sells the miniatures. It’s akin to the doctor selling the drugs they prescribe. Warlord is in the business of selling plastic crack, so it is within their interest to design the rules in a way that maximises the sale of said plastic. i.e. you need two tanks now, you need engineers now, you need more guns now, etc… That’s why our group doesn’t pay too much attention to these selectors as they feel like they’re designed around selling plastic rather than around building plausible armies. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.


    Well the new generic platoon structure (outside of FAOs) is more historical.  Now one size fits all doesnt work but most of the time /for most nations this works

    MMGs & HMGs were in a weapons platoon along with the heavier mortars, only the LMGs and light mortars were in platoons.  Tanks and artillery were not attached singularly to infantry but as tank troops or battery’s.  So the new structure allows us to field more historical armies – in a historical game…. although only the ARVs require 2+, you can still field a single gun (just need an officer with it now)… and on the ARV side of life.. most people have an armoured car & a tank so can get by without buying a new model to field an existing one. (ps I’m one of the ones without 2 ARVs… a single japanese tank :p)

    Yes some unit (like the british airborne & US Rangers or most US units in the pacific) had flamethrowers… but again most nations it was the engineers who had them… like snipers – Soviets had them at platoon, Britain & German at company.

    On rece platoons, its a nice place for all the players with mounted HQs, mounted cavalry & bike squads etc – who knows it may be that being mounted stops you being infantry – to run their units.  Also again for the historical minded people who want specific formations.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 2 days ago by Nat.


    1. Reece platoon – look like a cheap infantry platoon ( 1 infantry unit minimum size as opposed to the normal 2). The  Recce ability being purchasable for all their transports might make it worth it

    2- yeah, they do all say Platoon Commander so you can pay what you want I suppose.  There are going to be loads of officers anyway, so I don’t think it’s a problem losing the independent high ranking officer – he will still be there just “officially” attached to a platoon. But unless they have changed the rules that makes no practical difference anyway, and can run and command where he pleases.

    3 lone tank. Yes, I wondered that, but a lone tank is something of an odd thing, right? So maybe this is slightly more authentic. If you want armour, it’s a significant investment. I am ok with this one.

    4 Flamethrowers. I think you will be seeing more…not fewer.

    5 Artillery Action. ha.  I wondered this too. Fielding 6 nebelwerfers will be easy… perhaps the new scenario generator will need more mobility?

    6. I don’t think you are being skeptical at all. Warlord are a figure manufacture who happen to produce rules occasionally. You can see already how these new platoons will tempt people into buying multiples of stuff. And why not, if it keeps the game going. I think they are a good bunch, and if anyone deserver my wargames cash, I think they do.

    As with you, I have no use at all for generic platoons (which is what these are albeit in modular form). I had personally hoped they had ditched the idea, and just had Theatres.






    Thank you guys for weighing in your opinions on this matter, it’s really been informative to hear all the different opinions. I can see both sides of the argument,-on one hand the new composition is more true to history. Take for example the standard German rifle platoon in 1941; it was 49 men strong with 4 squads of 10 men each with 6 riflemen, a NCO w/SMG, a 2 man LMG team, and a LMG ammo bearer w/rifle. Additionally a 3 man light mortar team, a stretcher bearer, a 4 man HQ, and a platoon leader rounded out the force. Notice the lack of Nebelwerfers, single tanks or armored cars, flamethrower teams, or inexperienced heavy mortars. In fact, the biggest thing they have for firepower here is a light mortar and a few LMGs. That’s because artillery, tanks, engineer squads, heavy mortars, or scout cars all have their own support platoons. If the infantry needed to tackle a tough objective, they would be assigned a panzer platoon or heavy weapons platoon for support, the company leader was never like “aw, lets give them an armored car and a howitzer and throw em at the enemy.” additionally this new composition makes for some more diverse gameplay, before you new that your opponent probably cherry picked the best of each support unit and threw them into a min-max list. Now you have to consider your options. “do I bring an artillery platoon in case he brought tanks, or an engineer platoon in case he doubled up on infantry?”


    On the other hand, I can see how some people would prefer the old composition. being able to just bring the one tank that they had in their collection definitely worked better, and getting to bring artillery and flamethrowers without extra officers (AKA the infamous “list tax”) was nice. Additionally, if you are playing out a battle for Berlin scenario or whatnot where the Heer was throwing everything plus the kitchen sink at the Soviets, a hodgepodge list with a lone tank and Flak 36 is more thematic. BUT, the new theater selectors may allow lone tanks like before, who knows.

    Excuse the essay, I just find this discussion fascinating. Cheers,




    1. Yeah at first I thought that the recce platoon doesn’t look worth it. But maybe it will have some sort of special rule, like being able to outflank without penalty, spot hidden units easier, forward deployment etc. If not, then it definitely is the weakest of the bunch.

    2. Yeah that is strange.  Although I have never heard of someone running a Captain or Major before. Maybe they were thinking that with all the officers required no one would bring an extra one.

    3. Iv’e heard a lot of people talk about the lone tank thing. In my opinion, unless if the scenario calls for it, (see above) a single tank on the battlefield is very rare. If you see one tank, there’s usually more around somewhere. And it forces people to commit, they have to choose whether or not dropping the multi launcher and howitzers is worth it to bring 2 or more dakka Stuarts. And of course, people could work around it by bringing an inexperienced motorcycle with sidecar or horse drawn wagon with MMG as their “””””command vehicle”””””” and just bring one tank. So either way it works out. What I am most perturbed by is that the new starter set comes with one Greyhound. Unless there’s something that we missed, you can’t use it legally. So this circles back to the “plastic crack dealer” point, maybe Warlord is getting dirty and baiting new players into buying a starter set that they can’t use so they will go out and buy more stuff to make it usable.

    4. I kindly disagree with this point. Take an infantry model, sharpie “2nd LT” on the base, there’s your HQ. Take 2 ordinary minimum-size squads of riflemen, give them the engineers rules but don’t add flamethrowers, there’s your engineer squad requirement. Take your flamethrower team. It’s possible to field just a flamethrower team this way, although I do get your point. Maybe the US Marines will have a selector allowing flamers in ordinary squads or something?

    5. I 100% agree, Artillery Action lol. When I first saw the new structure, my first thought was “well, the table will become a killzone with all the artillery allowed.” Bringing 4 artillery seems absurd with how powerful 1 is right now. BUT, when you consider it the new platoons are (roughly) like rock-paper-scissors. Engineers kill rifle platoons, heavy weapons kill both, tanks kill heavy weapons, artillery kills tanks. But out of the four others, nothing has a good chance of killing artillery. So maybe, just maybe, the new useless recce platoon has some unannounced ability (see my comment above) that makes it a menace to artillery. Artillery is typically fixed in place in the rear lines, so a platoon of infantry that can emerge from out of nowhere and annihilate artillery in close-quarters would be the perfect counter. (and very satisfying)  Just my speculations…

    6. Yep you hit the nail on the head. Warlord doesn’t make rules as a charity event, they are in it for money…  Atchung Panzer! and v3 coming out that lets you take tanks galore, at the same time that they release new tank models…




    Wilber Olive

    I do agree with Nat that this new platoon structure does make it feel more historical, which I like. Definitely not complaining at all, just pointing out some interesting things for discussion.

    Yes, well maybe mounted stuff must be fielded in the Recce platoon, which would make it more useful. I’m actually hoping that the rules contain unique abilities for different platoons, like the example Aidan gives of a recce platoon being able to forward deploy or deploy behind enemy lines.

    Yeah, Steve, a lone tank is an oddity. We’ve just been allowed to do it for so long and now we’re all getting our lollipops taken away like naughty children.

    I see what you are saying Aidan in point 4 about bringing the bare minimum in that platoon to just get the flamers going. However, we are assuming that basic rifle squads can have a cheap Engineer rule added to them. Perhaps only certain more expensive (and higher veterancy) squads either have the Engineer rule or can add it? For me though, it would feel a bit “gamey” to do such a thing, and then have a couple of somewhat useless rifle squads I’ve been forced to pay for.

    I suppose also, these selectors are probably somewhat generic for the base rulebook. So perhaps in future army and theater books we will see unique platoon choices. Like adding flame throwers to US marine platoons or ad hoc platoons for Germany’s last stand in Berlin… i.e. lone Tiger with volkssturm climbing all over it.

    This also makes me wonder about other specialised squads like for example the https://us.warlordgames.com/products/waffen-ss-combat-engineers-goliath

    I don’t see anywhere in these platoons that this could be fielded. I would assume it is part of the engineer platoon, but it only allows engineers (rifle?) squads and flamethrowers it would appear. I wonder if specialised units like this will not be covered in the base rule book and we will need to buy the future German army book perhaps in order to get a different engineer platoon that allows options like this.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 31 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.