"Bolt Action - Oops, no area terrain" Topic

So Elmo plays a game of Bolt Action yesterday. The game was about what I expected but I have two observations:

1) There are no rules for area terrain (aka Woods). Yes, they give cover but only trees block LOS since this is a model's eye view game. Now, "a tree is a tree" might work for Firefight Normandy; but, BA needs area terrain rules. We typically use felt and trees on them that move like the march of the Ents when figures are placed. Also, a tank can shoot through 3 or 4 copses of trees and the target only gets "cover."

I've been told Alessio had the same type of woods rules in his version of Warhammer 40K and it caused no end of problems.

I will need some sort of house rule for woods. I generally use "can shoot into but not through" and then the only question how far into woods you can see.

2) This is a game of pinning as units very quickly start failing order tests. I'm thinking 6 units of 5 man "fire teams" might have an advantage over 3 units of 10 man squads. The 6 units would double the number of order dice you get AND be able to cause more pins on the larger squads.

I didn't mind the generic nature of vehicles. Some have complained, but does it REALLY matter if a Pz IV had 80mm of armor while the Sherman had 76mm? They're both "medium tanks" to me

Here's my take on our game yesterday, to correspond with Elmo's.

1.) There's not enough qualitative difference between troop qualities to make up for the difference in quantity obtainable by the "lesser" troops.

Example: In our game yesterday the forces were as follows.

German 1 LT with Runner
1 Medic with assistant
1 squad with 1LMG and 2 Panzerfaust (total 8 men)
1 squad with 2LMG and 1 Panzerfaust (total 8 men)
1 Medium mortar

Russian 1 LT
1 squad with 1 LMG (9 men)
1 squad with 1 LMG (9 men)
1 squad (green freebie) (11 men)
1 SU 85

So, the Germans were outnumbered 2 to one and the Russians were able to afford armor support. The Germans had exactly three shots (4+ to hit 3+ to affect) to kill the SU. Nothing else in the force could touch it.

The scenario allowed the Russians a preliminary bombardment which had little chance to kill, but a 1/3 chance to cause 2 pin markers. These pin markers come off at the rate of 1 per turn IF you roll well enough to actually activate. Activations are done on a 40K style roll 2d6 get less than LD (vets are 10, regulars are 9). However, for each pin marker you lose 1 LD.

Here's where my problem came in. With the pins I started with, and since I had 2 units to defend 3 objectives (leaving the officer, medic, and mortar on the center one) I never activated for the first two turns. This allowed the Russians to move up to firing range and put MORE pin markers on my forces.

By game's end I had actually managed in 5 1/2 turns to move twice and fire about 3-4 times out of my five units. THe Russians walked up and blew me off the objectives with little effort after my two panzerfausts failed to kill the SU.

Late in the game and afterwards I began to wonder if this was due to bad rolling (certainly part of it when about 1/3 of my order rolls were 11 or 12) or if there was a disparity. My conclusion I think, led to Elmo's musings above. In looking at the army list afterward, I hit on the idea of more and smaller units, but with Russians still having a 2:1 advantage in numbers and only one point less leadership. With the smaller number of pins coming from my fewer troops, this meant the activation rolls for our two sides were equal simply because of Elmo's volume of fire (I typically had -2 to my rolls while he frequently had -1 at worst).

I think you can all see where that leads. The outnumbered force usually has at least one unit completely unpinned and free to maneuver, while the small, veteran force spend the game doing little to nothing.

2.) There doesn't need to be vast differences between a Panzer IV and a Sherman, but there does need to be differences in ammo types.

Example: in putting together a list of my own post game, I was looking for something that could serve a dual purpose in the AT/HE role. Sadly, tanks only get AT or HE rounds. Apparently the Bolt Action writers feel that would be too much fiddly detail to include. The result is that a STUG G which most rules sets I've seen rate as an average vehicle in both roles, has only AT rounds in the standard version, and only HE rounds for the StuH version. I don't care for that.

The end result is that I'd give Bolt action another play or two just in case many of the problems were scenario or die roll based, but it seems to me a typical Allessio rules set, simplified to unrealistic levels, imbalanced, but pretty on the table top.

I'm sure that's why Elmo likes it since I'm more of a rivet counter than he is, and he's a painter/gamer while I am a gamer/painter. If you like games that are pretty, and on the playing with toy soldiers/Hollywood end of gaming then Bolt Action is for you. If you want a little more realism keep looking.

Just my $.02 USD (or maybe it's about $.50 USD as long winded as I got)

Dan

I have played Bolt Action with a couple of different gaming groups, and many of the same comments have come up. True LOS vs area terrain was something one group discussed… I don't mind the line of sight rules as written, but we may try an area terrain house rule for our next game. We found small fire teams to be too fragile against big squads. The issue of small veteran forces vs regular or inexperienced troops varies by scenario. If you need to make rolls for outflanking units, you'll want veterans. As for tanks, I don't mind the broad brush approach, but I am a bit concerned about how easily a tank can accumulate pins from HE shots. You'd rather hit a King Tiger with a 105… It won't die, but it will get so many pins that it will be useless.
Anyway, it's a game that will be easy to apply house rules if you want to, and I find far more things to like than to dislike about it.

I bought the rules and played several games but for me the area terrain issues and the close combat rules (or lack of) have put me completely off these rules.

I also have issues with the lack of effect pinning has on assault. I charged a regular unit which had 8 pins (9 and it would be taken off the table) – whilst this meant it's closing fire was ineffective, they beat my fresh section in close combat. Now I can understand the arguement about "once they get into combat the adrenaline starts flowing and so they will fight as normal" but surely there should be a test to see if a unit as shakey as this would stand at all and not run?

I'm not a rivet counter and am not looking for a detailed simulation but to me these rules are all style with no substance.

Is it any worse in its abstraction than … say.. Rapid Fire rules ?

Rapid Fire is Battalion level not Platoon level.

Also I don't get how some things such as grenades or close combat are abstracted to the extreme on one hand but on the other you have to take account of the positioning of individual trees in a wood when looking at visibility of a target.

Rapid Fire is Battalion level not Platoon level.

In theory, yes. It actually plays much more like Platoon Level than Battalion.

1) There are no rules for area terrain (aka Woods). Yes, they give cover but only trees block LOS since this is a model's eye view game. Now, "a tree is a tree" might work for Firefight Normandy; but, BA needs area terrain rules.

We play our 28mm games using area terrain as well and have not had a problem with BA. See "Cover" in the BA rules (sorry I can't tell you what page as I have a pre-production Word version of the rules):

Majority of targets within terrain. A scattering of tree models… and such like, is assumed to stand for a fairly dense tangle of woodland… which is impractical to represent literally on the battlefield. It is enough that we know a wood is a wood, and we can easily imagine the tangle of undergrowth and closely packed tree trunks.

For practical purposes we assume that a unit is always in cover if the majority of its models are INSIDE A WOOD OR COMPARABLE AREA OF TERRAIN. IT IS CONVENIENT TO ASSUME THAT ALL MODELS WHOSE BASES TOUCH THE WOOD… ARE WITHIN IT. [emphasis added]

Sounds to me like this contemplates "area terrain"… you don't have to measure LOS over individual trees as they are merely "representative".

Similarly, the next section speaks of shooting from the edge of a wood, that models are "at the edge" when they are "positioned touching its boundary". Sounds like area terrain, eh?

The only problem, as you note, is that LOS/LOF can presumably be drawn across/through multiple areas of terrain from shooter to target, with the target only counting as "in cover". We house rule that to say that no LOS exists when drawn through a wood, i.e. models in the woods are eligible targets to shooters outside the woods, but if models are in the open and an area of woods is between themselves and a shooter, they are not an eligible target.

Cheers,

w.

Dan,
I think you may be mistaken about the tanks having only AT capacity. The AT weapons listed on page 45 also have a HE option and this also applies when they are carried on a tank/AFV. If you check the Sherman info, you'll see it actually has a special rule improving the HE capacity of its Medium AT gun from D2 to D3, as its 75mm gun fired a more effective HE shell – something I didn't know! I hope that sorts out at least some of your concerns.

We have also tackled area terrain by allowing units to be seen and fire/be fired upon within 2" of the edge or enemy within the terrain. We also allow 'speculative' fire into such terrain at an additional -1 to hit but the chances of success has so far proved unattractive in our games and nobody's bothered!

Only played a few games so I can't really comment on the effectiveness of squad sizes but it will be interesting to try out.

The result is that a STUG G which most rules sets

I think this was properly noted after the game. the StuG "Heavy AT" gun is +6 pen but also HE d3. Against infantry, you obviously apply the latter.

The StuH "Medium Howitzer" is +3 Pen but HE 2d6

There may be only 1 stat line, but I think different ammo is considered in the single entry.

Other than that, it looks like there needs to be an area terrain house rule answering how far you can see into/through. I also would love to hear if anyone tried a 6x5 vs 3x10 game and how it turned out.

Rapid Fire 2 has woods and forests. Am having a battle today involving one

There is a rule for AT guns with HE capacity – you have to state BEFORE firing if you are using AP or HE, if you don't state HE then AP is assumed with negligable effect.

Here's the solutions I came up with for the very same LOS issues with my own WWII set of rules;

1. Wooded area terrain – you can shoot into it but not through. For ease there was no depth restriction such as 2" or anything as most wooded terrain was no more than 3"-6" wide. So a model on the opposite back edge of some woods that is 4" in was hit the same as a model just inside the woode on the edge nearest to the attacker. Targets on the other side of the woods couldn't be targeted at all until they stuck their toe in.

Linear terrain – for each piece of linear terrain a model shoots across (hedge, wall etc) a -1 cumulative modifier is imposed. So shooting at a squad with a hedge inbetween would be at -1 to hit. Shooting over two would be -2, then -3 and so on. My game has unlimited range so this compensates for that I believe but the main mechanic of a depreciating chance the more 'things you shoot over/through/past would solve many of the issues you are facing .

So to combine the two, unit A is fring at unit B in some woods but can 'see' them through a hedge line and over another intermediate wall. The normal 3+ to hit is changed to 4+ for the woods, then -2 (-1 for both the hedge and the wall). Unit B in the woods could simply move out of the woods to the opposite side placing the wood between them and unit A and providing blocked LOS to them.

Hope that helps. Cheers,

Ark

Oh, And with regards to the differences between tank types, yes the MkIV and Sherman are medium tanks, and so initially should be identical in the BA rules due to the generic classification. The big difference is when the Mk.IV was first; upgunned to the long barrell 75mm giving it +30% more penetrative power than the Sherman 75mm, then the addition of the +30mm of additional fro tal armour bringing the armour up to 80mm.

This extra armour (maybe) but definitely the greater punch for the Kwk. L48 should bump the Mk.IV up one grade compared to the Sherman.

However the same bump should be the case for an upgunned Sherman armed with a 76mm with it's superior AP ability.

Dont have the book(s) here so couldn't confirm if that's what they've done either way,

Ark

sherman is medim tank with medium AT gun
sherman 76 and panzer IV are both medium tank with heavy AT gun.

75mm sherman has a very useful special rule increasing it's HE effectiveness. As such 75mm sherman is an infantry and artillery killer with limited AT ability. 76mm Sherman has improved AT ability but reduced anti inf and artillery ability.

That seems a pretty fair way of simulating the differences in the real tanks.