"Flames of Bolt Action War" Topic

Yeah, the title is on purpose, precisely because the flamethrowers are turned on whenever someone dares to criticize a game.

I played BA for the first time, tonight. Two rounds, one as as attacker and the other as defender. Got out of playing FOW because the group had a big game on Saturday the three of us who showed tonight wanted to do something different.

I've not read the rules. The umpire did and he ran the game with player input. So, we may have gotten a few things wrong, but I wouldn't know for sure.

What I liked:

A) skirmish sized battle of a few squads and attached MGs.
B) Played each round in about an hour or slightly more (even while looking up rules).
C) that my opponent and I could come up with changes to the rules or with our own interpretation of the rules on the fly and go with it.
D) unit activation. I may prefer the IABSM method of random activation of specific units, but BA has random activation of ANY element per side. I liked this much better than IGOUGO, but it can still be exploited and I certainly did.

What grated:
1) the initial set up. We played the first scenario twice, switching as attacker/defender. I wasn't keen on the defender setting up, gettting hit by pre-battle artillery, and then the attacker deploying after reviewing the damage I took. Knowing too much made it easy to game the system and winning the second round as the attacker was too eady, in spite of what the defender could do.

2) grenades abstracted to the level in 40k. For a complany level game, this is understandable, but with a platoon or less on the table, no.

3) pinning has no affect in close combat, aside from hindering unit activation. Having a unit receive several turns of fire, having 3 pin markers, suddenly lose them because it chose to assault (and fight at full effect), smells fishy. Pin markers on defenders are also ignored.

3b) the all or nothing approach to close combat. Win by 1 casualty and the losing unit is removed from the table. Combats are fully resolved the activation they occur, so once stuck in, it dies or eliminates its opponent, no other result possible.

4) "hidden" units are visible on the table and can be shot at. Yes, with significant modifiers, but then is such a unit really hidden.

5) supressing or suppressive fire, in the form of a pin marker, only works if you hit the target. Okay, sounds right to some, but maybe not so much to others. See below.

6) missing smoke grenades. We read up on smoke after the games and I came away with the thought that smoke grenades are out, but smoke rounds from mortars ans artillery are in. Opponent needed smoke grenades because my MMG covered 3/4 of the table within its arc of fire. (I placed it well)

7) army lists built around points.

Now, we spent about an hour after the games discussing the game and making comparisons between it , FOW, and IABSM. Also, the umpire and my opponent both said they wish 40k used the BA rules.

What we came up with:

A1) we want to use blinds for set up as the attacker, at least in scenario one, has a distinct advantage at setup. Attacker should designate, on paper, where his forces will enter the table, then defender sets up, artillery effects diced for, then attacker places troops/enters table at pr-designated locations.

I also felt that if blinds are used for the defender, the defender should get dummy blinds too. Then the attacker would declare which blinds would receive the artillery fire, up to the number of elements the enemy had in his force. (Thus, 6 squads, plus 2 dummys, attacker designates 6 blinds as targets of the artillery).

A2) HE rules, using D2 attacks, should be used for HE grenades (1 per squad). Which could then either be used as D2 addtional dice is close combat OR a D2 shooting attack that ignores cover, including the normal shooting the squad would do).

A3) we did not come up with a satisfactory house rule for this, for the attackers. But for the defenders, a defender with pin markers should take an immediate morale check, modified by number of pin markers. If passed, pin markers are removed. If failed, defenders are removed.

A3b) we did not resolve this.

4) we did not resolve this, aside from suggesting blinds be used, for hidden defenders, plus dummy blinds.

A5) we felt that suppressive fire (pin marker) should affect an element that has received fire that could have hit it on a 7 or less on a d6 (Needing a 6 then another 6), regardless of whether or not the attack actually hit.

A6) smoke grenades would be 1 per squad and be resolved similarly to mortar rounds, with a 6 inch range from any squad member.

A7) i am not a fan of points base games, my opponent is fine with them, and the umpire was neutral. However, forces we chosen for tonight's games base on similarity and not points. My force has one more figure, but his has one more die of firepower. Both forces were of equal quality and morale. We are going to look at using NUTS! for determining opposing forces and escape the min/max trap that points based army lists encourage.

When I say "resolved" this is because each of us felt something didn't feel right with the way the official rules dealt with certain aspects of the game. And since BA encourages house rules, we decided to take Warlord and Osprey at their word.

There were other things we went over in the rules that we did not use and so we did not go over those in order to address any issues we had.

I won't be buying the rules, but I may collect a 28mm force ( as I can use them in other games too ), eventually.

Now, before the haters H8, I am posting this for the benefit of those who have not played BA or who aren't happy with the same rules we found a bit grating. If you like the game, play the hell out of it. If you don't like the game, then play what you do like…I am not trying to convince anyone to do either.

As to whether or not I like them. Well, some aspects of the rules are interesting mechanics and other aspects cause me to remember what I never liked about 40k.

Did the game give a reasonable feel of what a WWII game should feel like? Not to me. It felt more like a rules lawyer's dream, meaning that every rule that you can exploit to your benefit assists in achieving a victory, regardless of combat results. So, I was playing the rules, not the period.

Where the title of the thread comes into play is that the game gave me a lot of ideas for house rules for FOW, since anyone familiar with my recent thread on that game will know I am not a huge fan of it. But, if I modify FOW with many house rules in order to enjoy it, am I really playing FOW?

I feel, that as far as mechanics goes, FOW does a better job with vehicle weapon penetration vs vehicle armor, than BA.

I have been reading several views on the system while trying to decide whether to buy (in the meantime I have just bought Operation Squad – including the vehicle module, and will explore that) though BA does interest me as it allows a few extra squdas on the table.

The overall impression that I have had so far is that BA is very nicely presented, gives a fun game and the design goes for fun gaming over strict simulation (something that appeals to me). It strikes me that just recognising that will guide potential buyers towards or away from the rules.

It does seem an easy system to tinker with, suggesting that in design / structure terms it is fundamentally solid.

Interesting thoughts on PIN. I'm not likely to get too hung up on the word itself, effecting activation seems a good way to use that kind of mechanic and when I think of pinning, I think of keeping an enemy down while you manoeuvre closer – once you actually get to the close in stuff and people are fighting for their lives, I can understand why the PIN effect gives way.

I think my main buying concern with the rules is the potential effect of being drawn into buying other modules for various armies, I really prefer everything to be in one rulebook I don't really like the 'codex' idea. How 'complete' are the lists in the basic rules? can you buy the basic set and feel happy to stick with it. Are the additional army books simply great support or essential for the average player?

Yes, I do like the plug n' play feel to the rules. Obviously, this would not work well for most any tournament game, but friendly games or club games will benefit from it.

The three of us did discuss the game as being viable for 12+ player club games that we put on monthly. Whereas playing such a huge game with FOW is, well, not optimal in our view.

BA is a small scale infantry skirmish set. FoW is an insane points-driven wall of armour set of madness.

Apples and oranges.

I'm not sure who you are trying to convince or otherwise with your post.

I find your thoughts all over the place. On the one hand you talk about larger scale tactical issues and then fuss over individual figures throwing smoke grenades!

Jaz
6sided.net

Apples and oranges.

While that is true, yet both are fruity

Look at the similarities:
1) Glossy and pretty rulebook
2) Points Driving gaming
3) Tournament suitability
4) "Hollywood" WWII (aka 40K with WWII models)

@6Sided

The game played and discussed is Bolt Action. I did not directly compare it to FOW in this thread, but I did mention that the three of us involved in last night's game did compare several games, including FOW, BA, IABSM, 40k, and Nuts!

At the end of my original post, I summarized what others in another thread suggested about FOW, to use house rules. I mentioned it solely because BA encourages house rules in its play. I posed a question as to at what point of using house rules can the game no longer be considered as such, since it has been so modified.

In this case, as BA encourages house rules to a large extent, does it become somethng else or remain BA? Normsmith picked up on this and commented.

My final comment in my OP is a throwaway line, that in thinking about BA, I feel FOW does a better job. Thus, my mates and I may have to tinker with house rules in this regard too, while we did not play them and only discussed them and reviewed the Pen and Armor "charts."

I am not trying to convince anyone to like or dislike the BA rules, as explicitely stated in OP. However, if someone has played the rules and found issues in the same areas as I did, then I expressed what some of the issues were and how we were able to resolve (or not) them. Maybe this will inspire others in creating their own house rules.

If someone else who has played BA has come up with their own answers to the same issues, the hint is for them to post those in response.

Fwiw, I did not "fuss" over individuals throwing smoke grenades. i stated that our house rule for SQUADs not having smoke grenades was to give them one. In this case, for the squad to use the grenade, they can measure up to six inches away from any individual model within the squad. This distinction matters in BA as individual models can be grouped up or strung out 1" apart; Up to 10 models on 1" bases at 1" apart is a lot of tabletop. We wanted to not overpower squads with smoke grenades, but not force the squads to cluster up.This house rule gives all infantry games (also meaning no mortars and no arty) the ability to obscure clear lines of fire for a short time, allowing troops a chance to move up in the face of a MMG or HMG in ambush.

@ Mr. Elmo,

They do have production quality similarities, yes.

While I don't agree with many of your house rules, Justin, the fact that you can easily add them, and I can do the same, is testement to the solid foundation that the rules present. As I never agree with every rule in any set I always have to make changes and the more complex the rules then the more difficult it is to do without spoiling the whole balance of the game.
So, I would recommend these rules to anyone who likes a skirmish game that you can tinker with all you want.

As I have said elsewhere on this forum, both these rulesets have drawn the ire of the 'coulda/woulda/shouda' brigade of embittered wargaming hasbeens because of their actual, or percieved commercial success – clearly they aren't anything like as good as the rules these fine chaps were 'just about' to release, and by the way they pinched all their ideas – like using dice to introduce an element of chance perhaps…

You know the sort of people I mean – they hang around the fringes of the mega games you break your back trying to organise, scoffing at one small element of the rules, stating categorically that thet would never,ever of happened, anywhere, 'cos they redditt ina book once…"Actually, no Tigers were ever used much, operationally, they were always breaking down, actually, using Tigers is the mark of immaturity and a need to over compensate for something…"

Yeah, sure, cheers, now please go away and have a wash…..

@Sparker

While what you write may be true for other people in other threads, how does it apply to my original post?

For myself, I post my thoughts on these matters for exactly the reasons I have given, with nothing ulterior beyond them.

@StormforceX

Would you mind sharing what house rules of mine (not solely my own, these were agreed upon the three of us who played, only) you do agree with?

Also, I am very interested in your own house rules for BA, would you post them, please?

"While I don't agree with many of your house rules, Justin, the fact that you can easily add them, and I can do the same, is testement to the solid foundation that the rules present."

To me there being a lot of things that some player think need to be fixed with house rules doesn't provide a "… testament to the solid foundation that the rules present." but more to that fact of problems with the system.

@jdginaz

I think what he meant was that as we all know a given set of rules cannot possibly cover every single aspect of a conflict, the ruleset being wide open to players making up house rules to add on top, make for a solid system.

While we can disagree as to whether or not any particular rule system is ideal, going into a game with a mindset that house rules are a bad thing (even tournament specific house rules) when compared to a rule set that is inclusive of what the players (or tournament organizers) agree upon.

Normsmith – The rules book as it comes, includes full sets of army lists for USA, Russia, Brits, German from June 1944 to 1945

If you are interested in that period then you could happily play without bothering with the extra modules.

The modules cover a nation throughout the entire war. So Germany will cover 1939 until 1945. Whilst it may add one or two little bits for 1944 the 1944 lists are basically complete.

However if you want to do the fall of france, barbarossa, the pacific, etc then you will need the relevant books. Well need is too strong a word, you could improvise the points and classification system is pretty simple.

Andy

The question about house rules is a valid one. There are groups who will gladly come up with some and others who will eschew them.

If you are someone who wants to just grab "x" points of whoever and throw down a random game with someone outside of your group, then house rules become a bit iffy. Thats neither good nor bad, it just is.

If you have a "regular" group who like to tinker (and thats half the fun IMO), you could rapidly create a hybrid that would make the "ujelly bro?" fanboiz begin to mass with torches and pitchforks at your door.

I haven't been able to actually play BA yet, but from my reading of it combined with my exposure to both FoW and 40K, it sounds like another "darn, so close" set of rules, but I'll find out for sure when I get a few games in.

And for the record – No, Im not jelly, bro.

@Sparker

While what you write may be true for other people in other threads, how does it apply to my original post?

I was trying to support you in your statement that:

Yeah, the title is on purpose, precisely because the flamethrowers are turned on whenever someone dares to criticize a game.

because of their actual, or percieved commercial success

We good now?

@Sparker

I just don't want readers getting the wrong idea…

@Hacksaw

If you are someone who wants to just grab "x" points of whoever and throw down a random game with someone outside of your group…

This is a part of what bothers me about points bases army lists and why I generally eschew rules that use them. Why do we, as wargamers, view points lists as somehow "better" than choosing an infantry company and two supports? IABSM does the latter and for me it is more appealing.

It may revolve around our individual desires to "win", allowing that this does not apply 100% to everyone all the time. No player really enjoys getting their army badly beaten in a game, but we do cheer on the underdog in the hope that they might win or force the victor to accept a pyrrhic victory. I mean, do we watch the film Zulu to see the Zulus get thrashed or do we watch it because the small British force, surrounded and vastly outnumbered, defies the odds and survives with a win?

True, players can agree that one side has 1/3 the points as the other side, but since both forces are "balanced" by a point system, is this more acceptable than each side having an infantry company and mortar section, then one side having medium tanks and the other side an HMG? What if we switch the HMG team for an AT gun or two?

This is where, for me, the army selection of IABSM is more attractive than either BA or FOW or many other games. I was informed, last night, that NUTS has a force generator for playing solo games, which might very well be something to build upon, as a house rule, for creating armies for BA…and if my FOW friends will go for it, that game too.

Ho Hum, the search for the perfect rules set continues….

Justin,

Perhaps Bolt Action needs to prove its staying power and broad impact before it's put under the same microscope that Flames of War gets. Sure there's a lot of hype about BA right now because it's new, but it's not clear that it will have any significant impact in the long term, especially if mixed reviews like this one predominate. Sorry to hear that there is yet another WWII rules set that does not "do it" for you.

You go on quite a bit about wanting to have unbalanced forces and more random aspects to force compositions. I've got to say that a significant portion of the games I've played in FoW include just that and I'm talking even in FoW standard missions. It's called reserves. It's not uncommon that in many of the standard FoW missions that the forces are not equal for significant portions of the game. You'll find that even though a player's total force may be equal in points to his opponent's, that's simply "on paper." What plays out in the actual game often uses reduced forces and adjusted victory conditions to generate very different experiences than simply lining up my "x points" against your "x points."

Even when you set up your "1/3" size force fighting a "full" size enemy example above your still going to have to address victory conditions in terms of expected outcomes relative to combat strength of the sides in order to evaluate force/player performance. You're going to have to quantify the combat value of a force to even figure out what you think might be close 1/3 the combat power of another force. Points may be of some assistance there or you can just take a swag at it and hope your fellow players concur with your assessments.

Having watched your thread here and the FoW forum for a few days it's kind of becoming apparent that you're simply not going to be happy until you get your mates to play IABSM with you on a regular basis. I am beginning to feel that the efforts of myself and others to offer different perspectives on FoW, the main game that your mates are happily playing, in order to try to help you get more enjoyment out of them yourself have been a waste of effort. Good luck getting your local WWII community to "go your way."

Cheers,

VB

@VonBurge

I do appreciate your time and thoughts spent in framing a response. I would not say that any such effort by you or others have been a waste, but rather they helped me see more clearly the things that simply cannot be fully resolved for me vis a vis the game rules.

For clarity's sake, I am not saying BA is a bad game, it's just that I am not emersed within the WWII setting due to it being even more a version of 40k than FOW.

I am very familiar with the way reserves are handled in FOW and see the point you are making, yet the game still devolves to a "1500 point" (or whatever it is) game.

I blame WRG for this, tbh, as they codified points "balancing" on a broad scale those many years ago. They partially redeemed themselves with the army lists for DBA (assuming one can handle that level of abstraction).

I think a large part of my rejection of points based army lists is the inherent tendency on the part of players (not all, but a very large majority) to min/max their armies based on the experiences of those focused on tournament games.

Apart from that, I am to play BA and IABSM next week, with the same two gents whom I played with this week, test our house rules for BA and to see how that compares to IABSM.

Justin – IABSM is my favourite WW2 set. I agree that it is better a game uses historical forces, but I like points as a guide when designing a scenario. I know all the arguements and the maths (so please no one beat me with them), but sometimes getting a reasonable balance is problematic.

I had this problem with an Eastern front game I did for my boys. The Soviets attacked with 6 platoons of poor regular. How do I work out a reasonable German veteran (ie starting of 4 dice) defending force. An MMG has the same fire power as a rifle section, but better range vs more fragility due to smaller number of men.

@Last Hussar

I have definately had more fun with IABSM, it hits nearly all my buttons, so to speak.

In your case, running games for your boys, you are in a design process for a scenario, not at the finished and "best balanced" result. The questions that come to mind in balancing the scenario, without using a point list, are:

1) what is thee time/turn limit?
2) is the table large enough to allow movements to the flanks or is it so small the attackers are incoming on a narrow front?
3) how many Big Men and of what quality in each force?
4) is there a pre-game "stonk" of artillery, if so, how many?
5) is there any off-map artillery or air support?

There are more, but you get the idea. When dealing with points, they do not translate well between game systems, at least ones with disimilar weapon stats, ranges, movement, armoir values, etc.

In BA, a German MMG is rated at 5 dice, but a British MMG is 4 dice and Bren Guns are 3 dice each. Should the pair of brens be 1/3 more in points than the Brit MMG, which should be 20% less than the German MMG? It doesn't matter to me what BA actually points them out to as this merely illustrates the wide number of variables that can never fully be taken into account by points based lists.

On the other hand, we do know that attackers are generally expected to be successful if they outnumber defended 3 to 1. Using that as a benchmark, we can then playtest any particular rule set and see how often the attackers win. In the example you gave, I'd have started with 3 german platoons and then if it became a cakewalk for one side, I'd add reinforcements to whichever side needed them.

I think we gamers, as a group, look at points lists as adequate game balancers because that is what we have been conditioned to accept over the years of having the large majority of games subscribe to that mechanic.

We have even gotten to the point that many refuse to play a competative game if a point list does not exist for it. I can think of a particular Napoleonic rule set which suffered from complaints in that regard. All of this goes back to my point that, for me. IABSM breaks with the past tradition in such a way that it had appeal to a good number of follks. This does not make it a perfect game, nor does it take away from FOW or BA as their own systems, but it does draw my attention and consideration more than the other two.

Again, points lists are only a part of what causes me to not enjoy FOW like I think I should and I hope others do not become biased against IABSM because of my fairly unpopular position stated on these boards.

House rules, to my thinking, are rules that cover areas not explicitly covered in the main rule set but follow the 'spirit' and style of the rules. Adding smoke grenades for instance does not change any of the mechanics, just adds another (possibly overlooked) option. Changing the modifier slightly for various weapons or armor would also be another example.
Changing how initiative, morale, spotting, moving, shooting work strikes me as a major surgery that will alter the function and look of the original set beyond what was inteneded (and playtested). A Frankenstein set that lacks a cohesive theme. I do think the designers notes become very important here.

@brucks

All very good points, thank you for adding them.

The problem with points is that yhe reflect what the game designer had in mind and – if you are lucky – playtester experience. But that can't reflect how you play, your skill level, what rules exploits you come up with, what your table looks like, etc. It gives the illusion that there is balance. Of course, visit any FOW or 40K or WarmaHordes forum and read post after post discussing how unbalanced these assigned values really are out on real tables. Yet we continue to feel they are required, even though theyfail to live up to our expectations

This is not meant to attack you for not loving the game but here are my thoughts on your initial points on what grated you and your house rule ideas.
#1 I haven't played any scenario like that so I can't say.
#2 I personally like this because I feel adding grenades would unnecessarily lengthen the game for not much gain in the way of fun.
#3 Pins can have a large effect on melee in that the defender's defensive fire can be changed from deadly to almost no chance of hitting the assaulting squad if the defender has a lot of pins on it and a squad that chooses to assault, if it has pins on it, might entirely refuse to assault in the first place. Once in melee the pins no longer matter but I guess my perception of pins is more about keeping your head down from incoming fire.
#3b I think this is again done as a time saver. I suppose you could fight multiple rounds of combat but does that make it more enjoyable? If a unit is in that kind of close combat and lost it seems like you would either be gunned down as you ran or taken prisoner so all or nothing seems reasonable to me.
#4 Completely agree. Are they hidden or not?
#5 I think pins are too big of a deal to get one just for being shot at and should only happen if relatively effective fire was put on them and so pins only for getting hit I think is OK. It would annoy me if I had a unit hunkered down in a stone building and I got pinned into uselessness because running troops, firing at long range, shot at me in my hard cover.
#6 I don't like the idea of everyone having concealment/the ability to block line of sight on demand. I think shooting would possibly become to ineffective.
#7 I have never understood why people have a problem with a game offering points to people who choose to use them. I have never used the point system because I prefer to play historically based scenarios but if someone else wants them because they don't have the time or inclination to create a balanced scenario and playtest it I don't see it as affecting how good or bad a set of rules is.
My ideas on your house rules
#A2 If you like the idea of un-abstracting (is that a word?) grenades I think this is a pretty good house rule for the shooting aspect and I kind of like it. In melee, since both sides would have this, I don't see what this adds to the combat procedure other than more dice and a little bit of a random element that could help outnumbered combatants win the melee.
#A3 Not unreasonable at all and if you want pins to have more effect in melee I think this would work.
#A3b I suppose you could fight more rounds of combat. After losing a combat the loser would have to make a command check or surrender instead of automatically being destroyed; is passed the combat continues and more rounds are fought till one side surrenders or is destroyed.
#A4 Blinds and dummy blinds or writing down unit location on a map before the game begins seem to be a pretty standard way of covering this. You'd probably then need to add some kind of spotting rules.
#A5 I'm curious how much this affects the players from being able to use their units effectively if both sides end up with tons of pin markers, spending a great deal of the game being unable to act.
#A7 If your playing a game among friends use what ever method you like or have the umpire set it up. I think points are meant for two people (possibly complete strangers) being able to quickly setup a game in just a few minutes and play a game on something approaching equal terms.

@Legatecorbulo

Thank you for adding your thoughts. I am in quite a rush this week, but I wanted to address one of you responses.

#A5 HMGs and MMGs, when set up well, tend to dominate their lans of fire over open ground. So far, so good. But with how shooting and unit activation works, a squad may find it extremely difficult to even attempt to suppress the enemy MG team and for smaller games, at least, this is detrimental to game balance.

As we played last week, my opponent's choices were rather limited to 1) advance in the open to get to within range (i outranged him by 6"), withdraw and reposition (with a turn limit this effectively removes a squad for 1/3 to 1/2 the length of the game), go to ground (and do nothing all game), and ambush (hoping I will advance a squad within his range and LOS).

Combined with the deployment rules and scenario victory conditions, I deployed my MMG team just to the right of the center of the table, amd my other four units to the left of the center. This caused half his force to be badly out of position for my attack.

The MMG team dominated its fire lane, especially as each of his squads , as it advanced, would have crossed that deadly space consecutively and not concurrently.

My suggestion for this would allow that option to approach my MMG team in the open by one of his squads to bear temporary fruit as it would have traded severe losses for getting one, perhaps two pin markers on my team, reducing its effectiveness in interdicting ite lane of fire, before being eliminated.