14th Brooklyn | 29 Oct 2012 3:36 a.m. PST |
Does anyone know of an independant review (= by someone who does not play just play Warlord Games rulesets / sorry to put it ts way, but I have at times glowing reviews of WG rules before WG even released them in the grounds that anythink from WG must be good ) of the Bolt Action rules. Most intesting for me would be the question if the rules reward historic tactics, if the weapons and tanks are represented accurately and if the outcome of a historic engagement would be historically correct if players used contemporary tactics? Thanks, Burkhard |
Nick B | 29 Oct 2012 5:34 a.m. PST |
I have the rules and have played a number of games. I was excited about these rules but, personally, was disappointed. In my view they give a good "game" which is fast and furious but fail on the history side. I like the activation system and the pinning system, however there are a few things which for me don't work:- 1. There is no mechanism for splitting a squad effectively into e.g. a gun group (LMG) and rifle/assault group. The whole squad has to perform the same action and so you cannot do fire and movement. You can get around this by buying 2 small squads and giving an LMG to one. However, moralewise etc they remain a distinct unit so if one of the two 1/2 squads is pinned or eliminated it has no effect of the other "1/2". 2. Tripod MMG's e.g. MG34/42 get 4 dice (5 if German) where as a squad of 10 riflemen would get 10 dice. There is no difference in pinning – fire from either would give only 1 pin marker. So essentially they are significantly ineffective – the same could be said of LMG's. 3. The ability to field you entire platoon devoid of any LMGs goes against tactical doctrine and historical Orbats. 4. The inclusion of single artillery pieces (25 pdr, 105mm etc) to be fielded on the table to fire over open sights. other dislikes for me:- 1. Close combat – no "factors" to take into account and especially the losing section/squad dies entirely regardless of actual casualties e.g. 2 x 10 man section in close combat. Side A causes 1 casualty side B none. Side B section removed from table. 2. True line of sight – so you can see through any wood as long as at eye level you can see the opponents figure. No "area terrain" and as it is virtually impossible to model a playable wood which accurately represents dips, ground cover etc (and in which players don't move trees to facilitate movement)this doesn't sit weel with me. Many of these things could be fixed by house rules but I don't buy a set of rules to then carry sheets of house rules. These are my thoughts – everyone is entitled to their own opinions and I am sure that the rules will appeal to many but, for me, they did not give the feel of s small infantry action or penalise/encourage use of historical tactics. |
Tin Soldier Man | 29 Oct 2012 5:36 a.m. PST |
Emperor's new clothes. Style over substance. Historically unrepresentative (laughably so in places). A vehicle for selling models. Just look at the points and uber-list obsessed posts on TMP and you'll get a feel for the market they are targeting. That'll get me a few stifles, but our group was distinctly unimpressed. More suited to kindergarten level. |
45thdiv | 29 Oct 2012 5:38 a.m. PST |
I have been reading these rules over the week end. There are some intrtesting ideas in the rules. The first real world tactic that I saw and liked, was the supression fire (pinning) a unit down. Pinned units do not function very well. The more pin markers, the more likly the unit will hunker down and do nothing. I am a Battleground and Force on Force player. I have yet to play the rules, but I have liked the way the rules are laid out. As I said at the start, I have found some of the concepts to be intetesting. I will try to play these rules soon. Matthew |
Jlundberg | 29 Oct 2012 5:43 a.m. PST |
We have played several games of Germans vs Americans. We only did one of the official scenarios and it worked fine. We have not worried about points, just set up what seemed like a reasonable matchup. When I did a quick review of the points, no game was more than 5% off for either side. A German squad is most effective setting up a firing position and laying out firepower. The Americans do not suffer negative modifiers for moving and shooting. Infantry close assaults on armored vehicles seem a little too difficult – or I just suck at it. The supporting troops seem about right. A 75mm Infantry gun is quite brutal. Medium Machineguns can ruin a squad's day, but cannot take much return firepower. Medium and light mortars are effective. The biggest armored vehicle we have used is a Stuart. On the German side I have a SDFZ 222. Like any dice game, the dice can yield odd results. Overall, those things that should work usually seem to, those things that are bad ideas don't seem to work. Edited to cover some of the above comments that showed up WHile I was typing. I have found MMG teams effective. They seem best used at a distance, since the MMG outranges the Rifles and a squad will come into close range. On trees we have used trees as blocking line of sight and having limited visibility into them. The larger artillery is given stats but the book says something along the lines of they should not be on the table unless driven by the scenario. I am fond of Disposable Heroes. I think DH has more granularity – more details, more range for modifiers etc. I really like the activation mmethod for Bolt Action and I like the simplicity. Games have been in the 2 hour max region for time. I am trying to use pretty authentic structures to drive my forces. What weapons does the company have in the weapons platoon as the first choice for attachments, then what would be in the battalion. |
45thdiv | 29 Oct 2012 5:46 a.m. PST |
Wow, having read the two posts above mine, I wonder. I have not gotten to the hand to hand page yet. And did not notice the macinegun issus. I would think the a heavy mg would be worth at least 8 dice to maybe 12 for a tripod pounted mg42. |
Cardinal Ximenez | 29 Oct 2012 5:49 a.m. PST |
>>>There is no mechanism for splitting a squad effectively into e.g. a gun group (LMG) and rifle/assault group We've considered a house rule to this effect similar to the way it's handled in Disposable Heroes.
DM |
45thdiv | 29 Oct 2012 5:57 a.m. PST |
Don, what would that house rule be? For those of us without the rule set you mentioned. Matthew |
Cardinal Ximenez | 29 Oct 2012 6:41 a.m. PST |
Split the squad in half and allow them to operate as separate units so you can have both a fire and a maneuver element. DM |
peterx | 29 Oct 2012 6:43 a.m. PST |
14th Brooklyn, I bought the rules and read them over. I haven't played them yet, but have been disappointed by the rules. In my opinion, these rules seem very generic, not very accurate tank combat, the gun's ranging seem short, the infantry and movement is OK, but the tank movement seems clunky. The rules seem like an entry level WWII game with excellent graphics, photos and production values. The rule writers are ex-GW employees and you can see some similarities with 40K. I agree with the other TMPer comments in regard to the game. If you want a more detailed, accurate and relatively quick (2-4 hour) game I recommend Disposable Heroes rules or Nuts! (without much armor). Cheers, Peter |
thosmoss | 29 Oct 2012 7:39 a.m. PST |
Played only once, but was deeply disappointed that my squad could have been more effectively managed if they had been stacked up on a massive movement tray, and the terrain had been designed to accommodate it. Didn't capture the skirmish atmosphere I'd hoped for. I fear I'm now the proud owner of a pretty book. |
14th Brooklyn | 29 Oct 2012 8:04 a.m. PST |
Thank you for the input guys. We already have a set we like for WWII, but with all the hype this set will generate, I was wondering if it was worth buying into to attract a larger player base at conventions. But our main aim is always historical realism and it sounds like BA does not really fit that bill. THX, Burkhard |
Mr Elmo | 29 Oct 2012 8:59 a.m. PST |
Split the squad in half and allow them to operate as separate units so you can have both a fire and a maneuver element. There is the issue of dice. I would suggest that you are allowed to create a fire element which then gets the AMBUSH die. Any time the parent gets a die, the fire element can reset to AMBUSH. That would prevent the fire element from having independent operation. |
6sided | 29 Oct 2012 9:11 a.m. PST |
Having played a game or two with the Warlord guys, I can tell you that their philosphy was for a good game, not to target people who think a game with dice and toy soldiers should be realistic, which is of course hugely subjective. Rule of thumb: if you enjoy a fast moving ww2 game try it, if you worry about whether your figures have the right number of buttons, don't. Jaz 6sided.net |
MajorB | 29 Oct 2012 9:27 a.m. PST |
Not having seen these rules yet, am I correct in assuming that, like other games from Warlord (Hail Caesar, Black Powder), there are "special" or "useful" rules and that the writers say add or modify these to taste? |
Ken Portner | 29 Oct 2012 10:03 a.m. PST |
2. True line of sight – so you can see through any wood as long as at eye level you can see the opponents figure. No "area terrain" and as it is virtually impossible to model a playable wood which accurately represents dips, ground cover etc (and in which players don't move trees to facilitate movement)this doesn't sit weel with me. I think you've got this wrong. I don't blame you since we made the same mistake first time we played. If you look on page 39 under the heading "Majority of Targets in Terrain" you'll see that they are in effect saying to treat a group of model trees as area terrain. The one thing that struck me about the rules is how heavy the casualties are. Due to the way they require morale checks, it's much more likely for a unit to be wiped out than it is for it to run away. It's my impression that this was very rare. I know a lot of rules justify this by saying that the casualties don't all represent men killed or wounded (i.e. some have run away) but in a game where one model equals one man his abstraction doesn't really have a place. |
Tin Soldier Man | 29 Oct 2012 10:05 a.m. PST |
Surely the whole purpose of a Wargame is that it should have some resemblance to war? It can't be a "ww2 game" if it bears no resemblance to ww2! Bolt Action is just Space Marines with WWII figures. A 24 inch rifle range with 28mm figures sums it up. A rehash of some pretty tired rules with some clever marketing to get you to buy dice you don't need and figures from Warlord. |
Ken Portner | 29 Oct 2012 10:31 a.m. PST |
A 24 inch rifle range with 28mm figures sums it up. While you may be right, this is a criticism that can be levelled at almost any set of WW2 rules. The only rules I'm aware of that say that weapon ranges are the entire table is Force on Force. |
CPBelt | 29 Oct 2012 10:34 a.m. PST |
So Bolt Action is to WWII as Monopoly is to business/economics? That's a selling point, you're telling me? Cripes, who do they think is their demographic? Total boobs? (or children/40k players?) |
peterx | 29 Oct 2012 10:53 a.m. PST |
|
Nick B | 29 Oct 2012 11:27 a.m. PST |
Bede19025 – Regarding majority in cover- that's true but not relevent to what I was saying. In effect you can have a wood 20" wide with a figure on either side (say 1" away from the wood. As this is true line of site as it says in the rules – if you can lean down and see the figure from yours between the trees you can shoot at him with a rifle or better. At best you would get a -1 for soft cover. So even though the wood is as nearly as wide as a rifles effective range you can see through it – Why – because you cannot model a wood on the table with enough trees, brush, rolling ground etc to be realistic enough to merit True line of sight and still be playable. Not only would you have to model it but everything must be fixed or you're into the lottery of where the last person positioned the trees if they moved figures aside to put them in it. Thus a stationary figure on one side of a wood could suddenly become visible to a unit on the other side if some one happens to move the wrong tree. In my view woods should be area terrain with a visibility range into it of say 4" max. |
Who asked this joker | 29 Oct 2012 11:31 a.m. PST |
So Bolt Action is to WWII as Monopoly is to business/economics? That's a selling point, you're telling me? Cripes, who do they think is their demographic? Total boobs? (or children/40k players?) We play complicated games and we think we are playing a real simulation because it is complicated. We play simple games and get the same result as a complicated game but since it is simple, it is just a game. |
Tin Soldier Man | 29 Oct 2012 11:46 a.m. PST |
There is a big difference between simple and simplistic. Some simple games can give good historical representations. Complexity is not linked in any way to a good simulation. |
Stosstruppen | 29 Oct 2012 12:22 p.m. PST |
The only rules I'm aware of that say that weapon ranges are the entire table is Force on Force Crossfire as well. So Bolt Action is to WWII as Monopoly is to business/economics? That's a selling point, you're telling me? Cripes, who do they think is their demographic? Total boobs? (or children/40k players?) Played BA at a con last weekend and had a great time with it. I bought the rules because of that. I have yet to delve into them but I see it as being a fun, quick game. I would not put myself into your sample demographic
. |
aegiscg47 | 29 Oct 2012 12:30 p.m. PST |
Arc of Fire I believe has the range of an M-16 at something like 300 inches! There is a price, however, for more detail and that is using less figs and far more rules/charts. If you want to run lots of figs and vehicles then you need to choose something like Bolt Action or IABSM3, which are much more simplified. There's always trade offs in selecting gaming rules. |
Last Hussar | 29 Oct 2012 12:34 p.m. PST |
you can see some similarities with 40K The minute I saw There is no mechanism for splitting a squad effectively into e.g. a gun group (LMG) and rifle/assault group. The whole squad has to perform the same action and so you cannot do fire and movement. I thought that The only rules I'm aware of that say that weapon ranges are the entire table is Force on Force.
I Aint Been Shot Mum (0-9, 9-18, 18+) The point is that you can have a simple game that 'recreates' history. Given the resources we have a true simulation is not possible. However if a tactic which is historical can't be performed, or worse, a GOOD tactic is actually penalised by the rules, then it is failing as a wargame. If movement and combat isn't a reflection of history, you might as well play chess with painted figures |
wehrmacht | 29 Oct 2012 1:01 p.m. PST |
Our group has played BA several times and enjoyed it: link link
I ran a game at a local convention and the participants seemed to have a good time: link
Yes, it is not a super-detailed "simulation" game but it has some innovative elements. It's not perfect – no game is – but for our group the fun of gaming is getting together with some well-painted models on nice terrain, having a beer and enjoying a game. YMMV and if it's "Empire WWII" with pages and pages of charts you want, yes, you should try something else :-) Cheers w. |
StormforceX | 29 Oct 2012 1:08 p.m. PST |
Lot of negative posts here, more game than WW2 sim, simplistic, unrealistic seems to be the theme. Well, that is just the sort of rules I like, simple, quick and more time to think of tactics than dice modifiers or "Sargeant Bold" personal modifier. Oh, and I'm not quite a beginner, played wargames since the 1940s (yes, some of us are that old). So it's all down to personal choice, if the OP want's a complex, detailed game written in Lawyerspeak this ain't it but I find it a good way to pass an evening. |
Rudysnelson | 29 Oct 2012 1:12 p.m. PST |
Bolt Action is encouraging gaming WW2 at the skirmish level. It has been awhile since such a surge took place in WW2 skirmish
lst one around the releasing of 'Saving Private Ryan'. I have sold a number of copies and currently only have 7 left in stock for my next convention show. I have also bought more Bolt Action WW2, Wargamers Foundry and battleHonors WW2 castings for my clients. So I have a lot on the shelves now. :) |
nazrat | 29 Oct 2012 1:39 p.m. PST |
We played a game about two weeks ago and everybody had a great time. We didn't find it nearly as bloody as Disposable Heroes (which I still like, especially for the Pacific) and the few non-historical aspects of the rules such as how squads are represented niggled a bit, but did not ruin our good time in any way. Typical of certain elements here to start throwing insults about the "type of players" that the game is supposedly being marketed to, especially when they haven't played or even read the rules. But I expect no less from these guys. Bottom line-- it's a fun game with some really nice mechanisms and I'm glad I bought it but it will never replace other systems I like better (Kampfgruppe Normandy, Arc of Fire, Disposable Heroes). Jerry |
nazrat | 29 Oct 2012 1:45 p.m. PST |
"Arc of Fire I believe has the range of an M-16 at something like 300 inches!" It is, in fact, only 80 inches for an assault rifle in the 28mm charts, and at that range they can't do much more than a Morale Check at -1. On a regular table it might as well be 300, though! 8)= |
Sparker | 29 Oct 2012 1:51 p.m. PST |
The bias also works the other way as well – notoriously, a mate of mine comprehensively trashed them, on another forum, before they were even published! |
john lacour | 29 Oct 2012 3:14 p.m. PST |
i wanted to like the game. really. but i think my old copy of BATTLEGROUND WW2 is much better. |
Ken Portner | 29 Oct 2012 3:16 p.m. PST |
So even though the wood is as nearly as wide as a rifles effective range you can see through it – Why – because you cannot model a wood on the table with enough trees, brush, rolling ground etc to be realistic enough to merit True line of sight and still be playable. Nick, I assumed the rules on page 39 talking about woods should be applied to LOS too. |
Nick B | 29 Oct 2012 3:44 p.m. PST |
Hi Bede19025 – no – That section talks about weather or not you get the cover factor. So if you have a 10 man section with 6 men in the wood and 4 outside, then you get the soft cover bonus despite some being in the open. What it does not deal with is actually seeing the figures to fire at – weather in cover or not. As I said the rules clearly state True Line of Sight so if you can see a figure you can shoot at it – then applying cover factors. |
MajorB | 29 Oct 2012 4:22 p.m. PST |
That section talks about weather Interesting. So there are rules for weather in Bolt Action? |
Caesar | 29 Oct 2012 4:37 p.m. PST |
"Rule of thumb: if you enjoy a fast moving ww2 game try it, if you worry about whether your figures have the right number of buttons, don't." There is a happy medium between these two that manages to satisfactorily be fun to play and give historical feel. |
pessa00 | 29 Oct 2012 5:44 p.m. PST |
"However if a tactic which is historical can't be performed, or worse, a GOOD tactic is actually penalised by the rules, then it is failing as a wargame. If movement and combat isn't a reflection of history, you might as well play chess with painted figures" Well put, Last Hussar. This sums it up nicely. |
Sparker | 29 Oct 2012 6:49 p.m. PST |
who do they think is their demographic? Total boobs? (or children/40k players?) Don't like 'em, don't play 'em! Whos the boob here? Certainly theres no need to insult those who like them. I've bought them, played them, and enjoy them. Just because they are exciting to play and fast moving, down't mean that its devotees are idiots. Could the real problem be that they are likely to be a commercial success? |
dsfrank | 29 Oct 2012 9:11 p.m. PST |
The book is pretty As for splititng squads – I suspect that there will be rules addressing in the the splitting of squads in the particular army book for those armies that can break into teams like Americans and Germans – I can see why it is frustrating that it isn't in the core rules but can see why it was left out if not all armies – like Russians and Italians can split squads As a 40k player I don't have quite the heartburn with the rules as many here – I understand it is a game not a simulation and some abstractions need to be made as for Disposable Heros – I own it and have played several games it has never 'sung to me' & it isn't my cup of tea then again I was a fan of the Battlefield Evolution rules |
kabrank | 30 Oct 2012 7:40 a.m. PST |
First two games played well. Encountered the wood LOS problem and as we define areas as wooded [rather than count actual trees] we will in future define the wood edges as the start of the trees and hence block LOS if figures are actually in the woods behind the edge [tree line]. We will also define a number of inches as visibility with in woods. Pinning worked well and limited some "Holywood heroes" style of play. Rules also punished some non historical use of vehicles. We will see how subsequent games proceed. I will also be looking to adapt the set for modern use [rules design make this quite easy]. No need for special dice at all. Just my 2d |
Last Hussar | 30 Oct 2012 12:46 p.m. PST |
I suspect that there will be rules addressing in the the splitting of squads in the particular army book for those armies that can break into teams like Americans and Germans And the British (and by extension of these three, all troops engaged on the west late war). "Shooting in" by the LMG is a fundemental tactic of infantry assault. The "wait for the army book" is the sort of sales tactic people complain with GW. Something as basic as this should be in the rule book. Correctly functionally armies are basic to the concept of 'a wargame'. I don't have the rules, so I can't tell how accurate the criticism is, but the points the rules defenders are saying are "ok" and defending are the sort of things that put me off rules. (I am occassionally dragooned into 40k by the kids, and I hate it- the fact a Heavy Weapon firing prevents the whold squad from re-arranging itself to face a threat.) |
pessa00 | 30 Oct 2012 4:48 p.m. PST |
"Could the real problem be that they are likely to be a commercial success?" Sparker, why on earth would anyone have a problem with this? Just asking
|
wehrmacht | 30 Oct 2012 8:27 p.m. PST |
I don't have the rules, so I can't tell how accurate the criticism is, but the points the rules defenders are saying are "ok" and defending are the sort of things that put me off rules. (I am occassionally dragooned into 40k by the kids, and I hate it- the fact a Heavy Weapon firing prevents the whold squad from re-arranging itself to face a threat.)
Not to dragoon the topic, but you obviously haven't played WH40k 6th. Heavy weapons can move and "snap fire" now. Even the venerable 40k rules can improve :-) |
GrumpyOldWargamer | 01 Nov 2012 5:35 a.m. PST |
Sorry posted on wrong thread! |
nazrat | 01 Nov 2012 6:38 a.m. PST |
"Sparker, why on earth would anyone have a problem with this?" It's been talked about a lot over the years here on TMP-- since wargaming has always been a hobby that has had a lot of Mom-and-Pop stores and garage-type businesses involved in it when somebody gets big they seem to some gamers to be the antithesis of everything they have dealt with in the hobby. Combine that with the widespread misanthropic attitude of some gamers and you have a recipe for hatred of the successful companies. It doesn't help that once companies get to be a certain size and are making a lot more dough they start acting a lot more like, well
businesses. And there are generally more business practices going on that are kind of distasteful to consumers. There's also the simple fact that some people tend to dislike things that become hugely popular. I call it the Alternative Band Syndrome(tm). I've known bunches of fans that loved a band while nobody else did, but when the band got some airplay those same fans would scream "Sell out!" and drop them. The same might apply here. All of this is just conjecture, and I am in no way saying it is The Truth. But it's fun to consider and I think it's what Sparker was alluding to
|
Shootmenow | 01 Nov 2012 8:40 a.m. PST |
All I will say is that there are now 5 people in my local club playing WWII using the Bolt Action rules who never played WWII before. That's good news for the hobby as we've all spent out on new forces and we've all enjoyed our games. I wouldn't expect the rules to suit everyone – such a situation has never and will never exist – and that's fine with us. |
Caesar | 01 Nov 2012 9:26 a.m. PST |
I agree that people playing and having a good time is the most important thing. |
Ark3nubis | 01 Nov 2012 11:43 a.m. PST |
@ Last Hussar, The typical breakup of infantry squads/sections in the armies in the west were typically; USA 12 man squads were intended to be split thus
7 Man 'Assault' group with squad leader with SMG, the rest rifles 5 man 'Fire' group with the man armed with BAR Brits 10 man section were intended to be split thus
7 man Assault group with Section leader with rifle and increasingly SMG for leader 3 Man Bren 'Fire' team German Heer 10 Man infantry Section (pre 1943) 7 man 'Assault' group 3 man MG34 'Fire' group Post 1943 'Grenadier' designation, 9 man section
7 man 'Assault' group, leader with SMG, possibly another with SMG 2 Man 'Fire' group with MG34/42, loader armed with a rifle instead of a pistol Initially the German section size was 13 men but was found to be too cumbersome to control. Would make for an interesting very early war game though with larger squad sizes, all Vets! (I think I've got all that right
) You would more or less be sticking to the the overall squad sizes within the BA rule book, but pushing the limits one way or the other. @NickB – You could use the above Squad/section sizes and start them on the table in their separated form. How to handle pinning and panic tests?; if the two groups of the same squad are within command distance during the game (6") of each other then count them as being coherent (ie within 1" of each other) even though they are not. And totally agree, the main aim should be to have fun and a great game, but then I suppose that's the whole point, what do you want in your game to make it great
Anyhoo, hope that helps
Ark |
Last Hussar | 01 Nov 2012 12:46 p.m. PST |
Ark, I thanks, but you seem to have misunderstood where I was going. I knew that, though the use of the B.A.R. is an argument waiting to happen! My point was that the break down between Gun and Rifle group was so fundemental on the west that if (and I only know what has been posted on TMP) it is 40K like in its approach- the support stops that suppress and assault tactic which you can find described on contemporary (British at least) accounts. There is a good article, from about 3 years ago, on the Lard Island Blog. This is also interesting read because it disabuses the idea of how junior officers are often portrayed, in that in British units it was the Lieutenant who was the leader of the assault, rather than the posh guy bimbling around relying on his sergeant (who actually tended to be incharge of the 3 or 4 collected Brens). |