"Bolt Action special rules. Historically grounded?" Topic

Played my second game of BA and noticed that there were some interesting special rules for each army.

Brits could fire their bolt action rifles more quickly than others

Gurkhas are devastating in hand to hand combat.

I assume that there are examples of Soviets (or any other nationality) being equally as brutal in close assaults, so my questions are

1. What is the historical rationale for making Gurkhas brutal in HTH (besides the cool knife)

2. Why then assign this special rule only to the Brits?

I can speak to the British rifles…. i have recently been collecting and going out of my way to try the various bolt action weapons of the first half of the 20th century…. and the Lee Enfield bolt action has a greater magazine capacity (meaning fewer pauses to reload) and smoother/quicker bolt slide than all of the rifles of the era i have tried (including the mauser, mosin nagant, and m1 garand).

Your observations and several others are exactly why I went back to Iron Ivan's Disposable Heroes! It's obvious the authors have a background in Fantasy gaming. I think the rules are rife with gimmicks in order to appeal to the masses. It's a marketing ploy to entice players not normally attracted to historical periods. A good idea from a marketing standpoint, but not for me! I'll stick with DH and enjoy the history lesson and leave BA for the 40Kers!

does the M1 garand have a bolt action?

In game terms 3 Brits with Lee enfields have more fire power than a LMG. It seems to me that in Bolt Action some things are abstracted out of existence while others are given far too much attention in game.

BA is a fun game with historical chrome, probably best just to think of it in those terms and not kick the tires too hard…

I wasn't trying to kick them too hard :) I know that they can't stand up to a good kicking.

I am wondering why the Gurkhas are diabolical supermen when it comes to close combat. What is the kernel of historical truth that has been inflated to allow them to butcher any and all comers in close combat in the BA rules. A specific battle or is it just the knives that makes people assume they are so good?

If asked to justify the bonus historically, I might point at a reputation deliberately fostered by the Ghurkas, as well as a proven track record. The British didi emphasise rifle accuracy, at least pre-war. I'm sure a quick trawl of the internet could come up with a few examples. But you are right; they were not unique in that way.

Some rules go with national characteristics, others don't. Againt the idea, it tends towards stereo-types and can be difficult to balance. In favour, it's a shorthand way of distinguishing between forces of different nationalities, and (having been built into an offiical list) have presumably been play-tested for balance. And you know what you are facing if you have read the official lists.

The alternative would be to have characteristics that any force could buy ('Feared', 'Rapid Fire' as examples) in the way that, for example, Maurice does in another scale and period. But that is perhaps more prone to ahistorical applications ('My conscript Russian infantry are all sharp-shooters') , while balancing all the possible combinations would be difficult.

If asked to justify the bonus historically, I might point at a reputation deliberately fostered by the Ghurkas, as well as a proven track record.

I am interested in their track record. Any hints to find more info out about them? Just got done reading Ortona link
and it seems like the Canadians did their fair share of mixing it up at close quarters, and were pretty successful.

I would imagine I would find similar examples of success at anything deemed a "national rule" for any army during the course of WW2. which makes me think your idea of allowing any unit to purchase the specail rule seems better.

But from a marketing stand point limiting cool special rules to a particular set of models sells a lot more figures. . .

> I know that they can't stand up to a good kicking.

But you are! (read that with a smile) Even asking what historical kernal of truth is more then BA can handle. For the Ghurkas – they were historically noted as good in CC, hence BA gives them a bonus, even though at BA's abstraction level any such bonus would almost certainly be overkill.

The Ghurkas have long had a ferocious reputation for chopping people up in hand-hand combat, they also win disproportionate numbers of medals.

They still train to chop people up.

link

The Ghurkas have long had a ferocious reputation for chopping people up in hand-hand combat, they also win disproportionate numbers of medals.

all armed services train their soldiers to "chop people up" whether it be sticking a bayonet in their ribs or delivering a judo chop. If it is by medals shouldn't the Nisei regiment or German pioneer battalions be given the same chance for ferociousness since they have a higher penchant for earning medals?

To me BA special rules seem arbitrary and based on stereo-types. Making these rules specific to a certain army list seems more of a marketing ploy than an attempt at historically based wargame.

People enjoy playing a certain type of army. For example I already have Germans, but I want to really play a close combat army, but to get those special rules I need to collect an entirely different army to use them, bad for me, good for the model maker (who happens to produce the rules)

From wikipedia, on the kukri (there is a reference):
' Its acclaim was demonstrated in North Africa by one unit's situation report. It reads: "Enemy losses: ten killed, ours nil. Ammunition expenditure nil." '

This page is an acocunt of a close combat with the Jpaanses: link

And here, a more modern comparison:
link

:)

Thanks for the link Advocate. Checking them out now.

The last one reminds me of hurricane DITKA!

YouTube link

No!

And the fact you have army list books rather than being directed to proper manuals and historic documents to do your own research suggests it is 40k inspired (as in it is a cash cow that can be milked over and over)

- same as FOW – in many respects.

I prefer IABSM – From TFL.

I rather like BA as a fun abstraction of WW2 low level combat. I don't really buy the idea that fun and realism are mutually exclusive but with BA it does err on the fun side. Its non the worse for all that, you just accept it or not according to your tastes.

I actually doubt there is very much difference between soldiers fighting desperately in hand to hand combat, its not even something I would like to dwell on, but the Ghurkas were and are still renowned as fearsome fighters in close combat Not allowing some recognition of this would be rather perverse.

The use of the Kukri as an every day tool Gurkhas grow up with should not be ignored.

Think of it as a comfort level of putting that knife into flesh in an agricultural environment. By comparison US soldiers that grow up hunting may adapt to sniper training of stalking, hides and basically hunting men than more industrialised recruits that do not have that background.

David

Bolt Action special rules are designed to provide "period flavor" in much the same way Napoleonic British shoot better, French columns maneuver better, etc.

I think much if it is more what players expect than scientific reality.

Without the special rules tho, every army would be the same.

The use of the Kukri as an every day tool Gurkhas grow up with should not be ignored.

Think of it as a comfort level of putting that knife into flesh in an agricultural environment. By comparison US soldiers that grow up hunting may adapt to sniper training of stalking, hides and basically hunting men than more industrialised recruits that do not have that background.

Every nation has its fair share of hunters that would make better snipers. Every nation has a rationale to be tough fighter in close combat (Grain fed American being a head taller than everyone else) In a game that abstracts so much (MG's, armor values, weapon ranges) it seems odd that they make these specific and quite game changing abilities to specific nationalities.

Bolt Action special rules are designed to provide "period flavor" in much the same way Napoleonic British shoot better, French columns maneuver better, etc.

I believe good Napoleonic rules reflect specific realities of the period (AH's Napoleon's battles comes to mind) and has specific rationales for each unit.

Without the special rules tho, every army would be the same.

strongly disagree DH has almost exactly the same stat line for every unit but a single pip up or down does a good job of adding a good deal of difference into the game. Add in platoon sizes and weapon options (which is abstracted by B.A.) leads to armies with vastly different play styles, without resorting to these artificial and arbitrary rules.

At the very least BA should have a pool of rules that all units have a chance to access (Tough Fighting for Germans & Soviets from the Stalingrad campaign for example)

I haven't played either rulest you mention so I cannot comment on how the abstraction impacts the game.
Training and mentality certainly play their part in fighting formations.
I would agree with your Stalingrad example in that the forces fighting each other showed equal determination with no real differentiator. They pretty much evolved in the same environment.

David

You're correct the M1 Garand is not a bolt action rifle… but it is still limited to a 5 round load, which is why i pointed out the difference in load sizes (reloading time) AND the smoothness of the bolt pull.

Oh, and most armies in BA DO have veteran, green, average varieties available. It sounds more like its a case of every game having its abstractions, and you having a strong preference to how DH handles it to how BA does.

M1 Garands have 8 round clips the last time I checked.

It sounds more like its a case of every game having its abstractions, and you having a strong preference to how DH handles it to how BA does.

I do have a strong preference for how DH handles the game vs. BA.

I am trying to wrap my head around the reasons behind national rules and at the same time educate myself about the Gurkhas. As it stands there is no strong reason to allot these special rules to one army list and exclude them from others. The only reason I see is marketing, which puts me off the game even more.. .

8 round capacity fed by 2 four round clips…. twice the reloading time. ;)

Wait my mistake… it is an 8 round clip….

Q., it sounds like your mind was made up before you ever started this thread, and you are continuing to slag the game for the way it has been written as if that will change anything, or anybody else's mind. Might I suggest trying a different system that doesn't offend your sensibilities so much? Bolt Action is a game to use to play WW II that is very fun for many, and on top of that sells miniatures for Warlord. Let's not say that as if it's a bad thing. Any company that has both rules and miniatures is using the former to market the latter and I for one am glad they are doing it and doing it successfully, whether I like their game or not. More good stuff to buy!!

For the record I have played BA and have had a good time, but my WW II games of choice are Fireball Forward, the Battlegroup series, and Disposable Heroes depending on the size and scope of the game I wish to play.

I acknowledge that the Lee-Enfield could theorhetcially fire faster than the Mauser, however I think the whole Brit bolt action rate of fire is pretty silly for several reasons:

Soldiers carrying bolt action rifles were not in a contest to see who could fire the fastest. The amount of time actually spent putting rounds down range is minimal. Speed is fine. Accuracy is final.

It took two five round stripper clips to top off an Enfield, so it took twice as long to reload.

The rimmed .303 case certainly does not aide in a speedy reload.

Are we keeping track of all of this ammo we are burning off as soon as we work the bolt and squeeze the trigger? Didn't think so.

Bolt Action (Big B and Big A) abstracts a significant amount of data in their rules in order to keep them simple but, for some reason, they feel compelled to make a big deal out of the shorter stroke of the Enfield action. For the typical WWII soldier in the typical WWI battle, a bolt action is a bolt action. The British semi-auto bolt actions are just a gaming gimmick akin to FOW special rules.

Nazrat---Agreed. If it is not your cup of tea, go ahead and pass. Warlord is making some great stuff in 25mm (including things I thought would never be made), so, even if you don't like the rules, we do need to recognize the very positive things they are doing for 25mm WWII gaming.

I guess they are not; I strongly recommend, computer based simulations to reflect more unbiased results; the outcome would take every possible real-life factor into account because computer analysis of variables (if properly captured and researched)tend to give more "realistic" and "probable" results than games.
I can just say "realistic" and "probable" because only carefull repetition of the intended action or actions meant to be duplicated, proved or disproved, in a preferable controlled environment can give a real definitive outcome.

I think the Lee-Enfield advantage is based on British infantry prewar being trained to do what was called a mad minute when a large volume of fire was needed. Thus in early war such a rule might be appropriate. But as the war progress this training was decreased. I would expect that was due to the limited ammunition an infantryman could carry

Did the mad minute make it to WWII? I figured it died with the BEF in 1914.

Ultimately I prefer DH, but there are aspects to BA that I like. I think the army special rules are a little cheesy in places. The army books are a decent alternative to Ospreys. Ultimately it is an infantry game and it gets weak with armor

In BA Russians get extra infantry platoon to show "quality of quantity."

Flames of War does these sort of special rules too – Kommissars are a good thing, Nissei are supermen, Tank Destroyers appear from nowhere, Japanese get bonuses for swords and Polish cavalry get bonuses for lances.

I think it's part of making the game appeal to people who aren't that into history or who are from a 40K background or even video gaming background (I think I saw a King Tiger in Stalingrad in one of the Call of Duties/Medal of Honour games).

Frankly I'm not a big fan of "flavour" special rules and it's been driving me away from Flames of War to a degree.

I can understand a special rule to reflect something historically proven – e.g. faster ROF of an MG42 plus belt fed = some sort of special rule to reflect this.

But then a stat mod does the job a lot better (e.g. improved ROF over a Bren).

But not special rules for sake of "flavour differentiation."

Unless you are into tournaments, you can play it however you like.

Laying side by side on a range shooting paper targets, and Enfield cannot keep up with a Gerand. But the Enfield rifleman does not risk M-1 thumb either.

But, so what? Unless you are being attacked by the evil plywoodians, the higher rate of fire only comes into play once in a while.

And even if they do get the chance to crank out that much an Enfield can only do it for four minutes or so. Might have to look that up again but I believe by WWII the standard issue was sixty rounds. A gerand carried more, but not a huge amount more.

If that seems to little remember in Vietnam with teeny tiny bullets, a US infantryman only carried 210 roundsa, and he could burn through those in only a few minutes as well if he so chose. Less if he went to hose a matic.

Controled fire on target is a much better option.

Owen

Q., it sounds like your mind was made up before you ever started this thread, and you are continuing to slag the game for the way it has been written as if that will change anything, or anybody else's mind. Might I suggest trying a different system that doesn't offend your sensibilities so much?

Wasn't trying to slag the rules. Interested in where the idea for the rules come from. I have played it two times now and each time I am interested in their take on the rules compared to what I have learned historically. We used Brits this time and thought the national rules they were given seemed odd and I enquired here for the reason why they were given these rules. I am allowed to still do that right? If you're marketing a WW2 based game and designing rules that make one army really different from other armies, gamers have the right to ask why, and if there's no good answer said gamers can express their concerns.

Bolt Action is a game to use to play WW II that is very fun for many, and on top of that sells miniatures for Warlord. Let's not say that as if it's a bad thing

I don't think it is a bad thing, and own quite a bit of warlord figures and am excited to see what figure line they do next

Any company that has both rules and miniatures is using the former to market the latter and I for one am glad they are doing it and doing it successfully, whether I like their game or not. More good stuff to buy!!

Strongly disagree here. I have a basement full of 40K figures that I really enjoyed, but year after year of poorly written rules intentionally tweaked to force me to buy and discard models & books, & codexes was an unpleasant experience.

For the record I have played BA and have had a good time

as have I, but I left shaking my head about more things than I liked about the game.,

but my WW II games of choice are Fireball Forward, the Battlegroup series, and Disposable Heroes depending on the size and scope of the game I wish to play.

Disposable Heroes is a really solid system that is in need of a reboot.

Here is my take as to why Bolt Action has certain special rules, and addressing your specific question. Gurkhas have developed over time, in many battles, a reputation as fierce warriors in hand to hand combat. Many historians have tried to explain the how's, why's and where's to the Gurkhas hand to hand combat mastery. Many gamers have read those histories and accounts. Most of us have some preconceived notions on what the Gurkhas are capable of.

Now, design a man to man level World War Two game and do not include any "special" rule to make Gurkhas any different to any other troop in the British Forces, let alone any other nations forces.

Now, stop and think of what our collective reaction to these rules would be.

They had to make some rule to differentiate Gurkhas from other troops, or they would have been laughed of the stage for not understanding the "REAL" historical troops.

Now, the question should be, does the special rule feel correct in the context of the rule system of the game? Does it feel right given the limitation of the game design?

My personal take is simple. Army lists are so we can get a "balanced" GAME on the tabletop. War, like nearly everything else in life, is rarely balanced. And unless I'm playing in a tournament, the rules are just guidelines.

The following post from Rich of TooFatLardies sum up his take on the matter, and explain better than I could my views.
toofatlardies.co.uk/blog/?p=1742
It also explains why I have already ordered CoC. I will get DH in the future (especially if it gets a reboot) but feel no need whatsoever to get BA.

Here is my take as to why Bolt Action has certain special rules, and addressing your specific question. Gurkhas have developed over time, in many battles, a reputation as fierce warriors in hand to hand combat. Many historians have tried to explain the how's, why's and where's to the Gurkhas hand to hand combat mastery. Many gamers have read those histories and accounts. Most of us have some preconceived notions on what the Gurkhas are capable of.

this is all just generalization. You could remove the word Gurkha and insert "Waffen SS" "Cossacks" "U.S. Marines" "troops in Stalingrad" As I said before many units started with or acquired deadly close combat fighting skills during WW2.

Now, the question should be, does the special rule feel correct in the context of the rule system of the game? Does it feel right given the limitation of the game design

The BA rules for Gurkhas can be combined to make the Gurkhas twice as good as any regular unit (enemy units get half dice in close combat vs them) couple this with other British special rules and they become almost invincible in close combat. So much so that if you are playing them you want to do nothing but charge across the board and stick your Kukri into the enemy ASAP.

Does this reflect how the Gurkha actually fought? I seriously doubt it.

DH gives the Gurkhas a +1 (on a d10) to attack and also allows them to autopass the check to launch an assault. DH gives a nod to the Gurkha's close combat readiness, without inflating it into some ridiculous overpowered rule.

"We used Brits this time and thought the national rules they were given seemed odd and I enquired here for the reason why they were given these rules. I am allowed to still do that right?"

Fine and dandy, ask away all you like. But any explanation anybody has given on this thread you have sloughed off and ignored/argued against with the exact same criticisms. We get it, you don't like the special rules. So don't use them if you play the game. Simples!

"Strongly disagree here. I have a basement full of 40K figures that I really enjoyed, but year after year of poorly written rules intentionally tweaked to force me to buy and discard models & books, & codexes was an unpleasant experience."

I stopped buying GW rules for the same reason and I have shelfloads of Marines and Orks up here in my game room. And you know what? NOBODY ever "forced" me to buy one model of it. It was MY choice. It's silly to claim that a big company ever made you do anything you didn't want to do. I don't play GW games often any more but I still am glad they are releasing cool stuff-- I even buy some now and then. Free will and all that, eh wot? 8)=

"The BA rules for Gurkhas can be combined to make the Gurkhas twice as good as any regular unit (enemy units get half dice in close combat vs them) couple this with other British special rules and they become almost invincible in close combat. So much so that if you are playing them you want to do nothing but charge across the board and stick your Kukri into the enemy ASAP."

I dare say if somebody plays their Ghurkas that way (in ANY game system) they won't ever make it into hand to hand-- they'll get their butts shot off as they run willy-nilly towards the enemy.

"DH gives the Gurkhas a +1 (on a d10) to attack and also allows them to autopass the check to launch an assault. DH gives a nod to the Gurkha's close combat readiness, without inflating it into some ridiculous overpowered rule."

But you say you aren't slagging the rules? Heh. 8)=

I agree with 79PA, with one distinction, The British had no 'stripper clips', all SMLE were loaded with 'chargers'

Do carry on, ole boy.

John

Oh, I played Bolt Action's rules twice, didn't like them, but, I believe they are quite popular at my club.

Fine and dandy, ask away all you like. But any explanation anybody has given on this thread you have sloughed off and ignored/argued against with the exact same criticisms.

No has provided evidence that the Ghurka were any better at close assault than other nations in any substantive way. If you are attempting to prove a point, you need evidence, not hearsay. IMO there is still no reason to give this ability only to Ghurkas in any rules system. I am not ignoring anyones arguments because no one has laid out a real one yet. No need to portray me as the bad guy ignoring people's input.

We get it, you don't like the special rules. So don't use them if you play the game. Simples!

So just throw out one of the key components to a game? Got it.

I stopped buying GW rules for the same reason and I have shelfloads of Marines and Orks up here in my game room. And you know what? NOBODY ever "forced" me to buy one model of it. It was MY choice. It's silly to claim that a big company ever made you do anything you didn't want to do. I don't play GW games often any more but I still am glad they are releasing cool stuff-- I even buy some now and then. Free will and all that, eh wot? 8)=

This argument doesn't hold water. I was naive once and thought that games would be designed to maximize the players enjoyment. I learned my lesson the hard way. Never claimed I was forced to buy figures. I was duped, and when I caught on I bailed out quickly. Lesson learned. Warlord's rules seem to be following a similar pattern. I will only enjoy the pro's of the BA rise to power.

I dare say if somebody plays their Ghurkas that way (in ANY game system) they won't ever make it into hand to hand-- they'll get their butts shot off as they run willy-nilly towards the enemy.

Seems like the Ghurka list is definitely a force to be reckoned with. Coupled with Blood Curdling cry (which forces enemies to wet their pants and forget how to shoot as the Brtis close into assault) or Vengeance special rules. I guess it depends on terrain and opponent, but I'd feel like I had the edge with a lot of Ghurka over other lists I have seen.

But you say you aren't slagging the rules? Heh. 8)=

I do feel this rule is overpowered. maybe the word "ridiculous" was unkind. I withdraw the comment M'lud.

Here is my take as to why Bolt Action has certain special rules, and addressing your specific question. Gurkhas have developed over time, in many battles, a reputation as fierce warriors in hand to hand combat. Many historians have tried to explain the how's, why's and where's to the Gurkhas hand to hand combat mastery. Many gamers have read those histories and accounts. Most of us have some preconceived notions on what the Gurkhas are capable of.

this is all just generalization. You could remove the word Gurkha and insert "Waffen SS" "Cossacks" "U.S. Marines" "troops in Stalingrad" As I said before many units started with or acquired deadly close combat fighting skills during WW2.

Yes, exactly. This is a generalization based off anecdotal evidence that has been perpetuated in historical analysis and argued over a game table. You have to answer to yourself, what do you think these troops are capable of.

Now, the question should be, does the special rule feel correct in the context of the rule system of the game? Does it feel right given the limitation of the game design

The BA rules for Gurkhas can be combined to make the Gurkhas twice as good as any regular unit (enemy units get half dice in close combat vs them) couple this with other British special rules and they become almost invincible in close combat. So much so that if you are playing them you want to do nothing but charge across the board and stick your Kukri into the enemy ASAP.

Does this reflect how the Gurkha actually fought? I seriously doubt it.

Given your answer here, I believe you do not believe the Gurkhas are this superhuman.

Since I did not directly address your question, this time I shall

Point 1 – The designers thought that Gurkhas were much superior to other more common troops and made a rule to give them improved abilities. I assume that the designer thought their rule fit their understanding of the actual fighting prowess of the Gurkhas, play tested the rules and found them acceptable. Your mileage may vary.

Point 2 – I assume the designers assigned these rules to the British because they thought it fit their understanding of the capabilities of the British troops. I assume they didn't assign these rules to other troops because they thought it did not fit these other troops.

If you want to understand the histories and capabilities of certain armies or their troops, read historical accounts, preferably from both sides of a battle. Trying to glean true understanding from a game is counter-productive. You then are having to determine every bias the author had. Every "Build your army from a point list" game I have played seems to allow for Min-Maxing a force, so I either get used to fighting 12 King Tigers, or lose the balanced force structure.

BTW, I think Bolt Action is an average GAME. Fun to play with my mates now and then. I don't take it too seriously.

"So just throw out one of the key components to a game? Got it."

I hardly think a special rule or two for an army is a "key component" in the game. I have heard from reliable sources that the special rules are in there "only to sell miniatures" anyway… 8)=

Great discussion, by the way!

Having meet a few Ghurkas, I certainly wouldnt be hanging around if a few came running at me, waving their bits in the air!

Im not overly keen on 'national traits' as such, they can be done in several ways, some more clumsy than others, but the way they seem to have been done in BA seems to be in the same manner as the rest of the rules, presenting a more 'comic book' style of play, where the game runs along like a comic strip from Warlord or a Commando book. Cinematic over simulation if you will.

No bad thing if you like that approach.

I dont play BA, not my thing really, and to be honest I found that DH had as many 'odd' moments in it too, though I enjoyed the games that I did play till we moved to things that suited us better.

Preference of rules is a personal thing, Im not too sure I bother to delve too much into rules I dont find gel with how I want to play. Its just one of those things… Same as I like cheese dip with my Nachos over Salsa – Neither is better in the great scheme of things, I just prefer one over the other. Its a personal choice.

Warlord's rules seem to be following a similar pattern.

The big difference with GW is that you can buy and use BA figures with another rule if you don't play BA. GW figures are so expensive it made no sense to buy them to play another game (except when you can buy some second-hand).

I regularly play BA because it is what is popular at my local having attracted a fair number of FOW players (which I refuse to play) and I think the special rules do give it a rather gamey feel. To me the army lists stifle the desire to research and gives the impression to some of the less inquisitive players that the lists are historical fact. Now that I've said all that, I find that while it doesn't give as good a game as IABSM or TW&T by Too Fat Lardies or DH by Iron Ivan, it is playable and you don't have to live & die by the army lists or the special rules. I would apply the special rules to individual units based upon the scenario that you are running and can find historical evidence to back it up.

After all its just a game. :-)

Having meet a few Ghurkas, I certainly wouldnt be hanging around if a few came running at me, waving their bits in the air!

I've met a few marines and I'd hate to see them coming at me too.

and to be honest I found that DH had as many 'odd' moments in it too

I'd be interested to hear about those moments. What happened?

Nazrat says "I hardly think a special rule or two for an army is a "key component" in the game. I have heard from reliable sources that the special rules are in there "only to sell miniatures" anyway…

I do think that special rules are a fixture of bolt action, they were the spice that made 40K so amazing. They were the impetus for me to drop Dark Angels and Switch over to Blood Angels when the their codex came out. I sense the same marketing ploy here.

Bottom line though, B.A.'s national special rules for the most part are based on flimsy history (2 were brought up in this thread alone and have been borne out to be based on no solid data or fact)

Other rules that claim to represent a historical period & get it wrong are called on the carpet for their inaccuracies. Sometimes they defend their position and we learn things. B.A.'s rationale for many of their mechanics are too far off to justify and it leaves me scratching my head as to why they weren't rectified in playtesting.

Great discussion, by the way!"

I hope that you really mean that ;)

(special rules) were the spice that made 40K so amazing.

They were part of the problem that ruined 40K for me (and most of the guys at my local) and are also ruining Flames of War to a degree.

In the end I couldn't even track all the special rules for my own forces – e.g. 3.5 ed Raptors had several that I couldn't ever remember.

And special rules had different meaninings in different books – e.g. Furious Charge in one codex had a different meaning to Furious Charge in another.

Then there was the gaminess of special rules – e.g. every man and his dog used dual Assault Cannon wielding Terminators because Rending was such a powerful special rule. Prior to that no-one used Terminators.

The special rules also seem to serve as a crutch for bad game design. E.g. Leman Russ tank in one edition can move and shoot all defensive weapons. In next edition they can't, people chuck up a stink and GW gives Leman Russ special rule that it can fire all weapons.

They also caused a lot of dispute due to their violation of core rule and resulting unexpected synergies when interacting with other rules that the designers didn't consider

Flames of War is getting just as bad.

They must've sold a whole heap of Tank Destroyers when they rewrote special rules for tank destroyers that made TD's decloak out of nowhere in enemy deployment zone and made M5 3 inch guns excellent assault guns.

Special rules have their places but in most instances are used as a crutch for badly designed rules or lazy games design as well as marketing purposes.

Thomas they did ruin 40K they were the addictive spice that drew you in to collecting army after army to play those cool rules that only you could have. . .

Never went for special rules. Always went for minis and for background!

I do the same in FOW – apparently taking Su-76s over say Su-122s is a really stupid thing to do, cause Su-122 special rules make it uber while Su-76 is apparently junk. But I like Su-76s and there was only 14,000 produced as opposed to only 1,000 Su-122s so I use them instead of special rule overloaded Su-122.