"WWPD BOLT ACTION - Second Impressions" Topic

Dano talked first impressions a month ago, and with some games under his belt, updates his initial thoughts with some second impressions.

link

I get the impression that these rules are going to suit a very specific sort of gamer.

This comment applies to Bolt Action and any other skirmish level rules…the one element that most gamers miss is terrain…unless you're playing on the Russian steppe, playing a skirmish level game on a completely flat table with a couple of isolated buildings and a few trees really skewes the impacts of everything from movement to sighting to firing. When I run a skirmish game I have two small boxes for the figures/vehicles and most of SUV is filled with boxes of trees, buildings, hedges, fences…all the stuff you'd encounter in Western or Cental Europe.

db

I agree. In any game, and especially skirmish games, terrain should be appropriate to the theater of war. I do a lot of OstFront, and have a lot of Urban terrain like this:

If the BA rules bring more 28mm gamers into WW2, I'm happy!

Take this for what it is, an opinion based on reading others' thoughts on the game.

I was hoping this would turn out to be better than it did. I find Priestley to be a top game designer who has a real respect for history, so this should have been a good game. I was expecting fast and fun, a bit light but still historical.
It seems too light and a-historical for me.

There is a game out that would really appeal to the same demographic that Bolt Action is shooting for: Rules of Engagement. Bolt Action seems to take a lot of cues from RoE, but RoE is a game that is approachable and yet isn't too light, plus it respects the history it represents.

I guess I'm just disappointed in how this appears to have turned out.

I would agree with you Caesar. I'll probably lean more to RoE than BA in the long run.

…I'm a NUTS! player most of the time myself, but these BA rules seem to be bringing some new blood into 28mm WW2 in my gaming area, so I'll be more than happy to have more players to push lead around with. I think of it as a "gateway drug" to more 28mm WW2 players!

Agree again!

Count me as a BA enthusiast still. I've had the rules about a month now and I think the core rules are good and quite enjoyable. I haven't played any "points" games nor any of the book scenarios. I just go with scenarios of my own design and use reasonable forces. No need to worry about point cost versus effectiveness.

Also, if particular rules don't seem right to me, I will just tweak 'em until I'm happy. No need to give up on the whole rules set when a few minor adjustments will do. A couple areas that I think could stand some "editing" are the morale rules and the close quarters rules.

I want to see more morale failures rather than units fighting to the last man, so I'm considering instituting morale checks upon reaching half starting strength and for every casualty thereafter. For Close Quarters fighting, I feel that it's too easy for the attacker to close so I'm considering adding a morale test before an attacker can do so. In addition, letting the attacker roll first in most cases seems to give too much of an advantage to the attacker. So I may switch it to defender first or just go with simultaneous rolls like when the defender is at an obstacle.

Craig

I've had the rules since Historicon and my first take is that the sighting process is too simplistic and the vehicle fighting rules not complex enough. The firing ranges seem too short but I do like the morale rules, in theory. I'm running my first game in a couple of weeks and then a game at our local convention in mid October…I'll run them straight up according to the rules and see how the system works and then decide on possible tweaks.

db