-
schulein started the topic Error in Bolt Action App 3.0 special rules export in the forum Bolt Action 1 year, 2 months ago
I am not sure if this is the right forum group. But if you make a BA 3 list in the new app and export a PDF, the special rules are added for each unit that have them. IE if you have 4 squads with panzerfaust the identical special rules about that are added 4 times to the PDF, making the PDF extremely large and unwieldly.
-
Fabrizio Anastasio started the topic Case Blue Army Special Rules in 3rd Edition in the forum Bolt Action 1 year, 2 months ago
Hi all,
I have just had a chance to read the new list for the Royal Italian Army. I was wondering if it was still possible to use the army special rules of Case Blue or if it creates rules/balancing problems. I sincerely hope it is still possible, as they make the Italians significantly more competitive.
-
Donald Linn replied to the topic Fast Tanks in V3 in the forum Bolt Action 1 year, 2 months ago
At least it’s not just me not spotting them. Nothing to stop us adding fast to appropriate vehicles, I suppose!
-
Merca84's profile was updated 1 year, 2 months ago
-
Nat replied to the topic Fast Tanks in V3 in the forum Bolt Action 1 year, 2 months ago
M18 in the RB – yes, but no…. its an downgrade (armour) to the M10 with the option to take recce
Has fast – Nope
-
Merca84 changed their profile picture 1 year, 2 months ago
-
SteveT replied to the topic Fast Tanks in V3 in the forum Bolt Action 1 year, 2 months ago
Is the M18 Hellcat in the basic book? That’s just about the fastest WW2 tank, so if that doesn’t have FAST, then I don’t know what would.
-
Stuart Harrison replied to the topic Fast Tanks in V3 in the forum Bolt Action 1 year, 2 months ago
Looks like they’ve left allocation ‘fast’ to the upcoming Armies of books.
-
Donald Linn started the topic Fast Tanks in V3 in the forum Bolt Action 1 year, 2 months ago
Hi Everyone.
Has anyone found any tanks with the “Fast” characteristic yet? I’ve been scouring the lists since yesterday, and I can’t see and I can’t see any. I had expected that Crusaders, M18s , BT7s and the like would have been designated fast.
-
Nat replied to the topic News from the Wardroom! in the forum Victory At Sea 1 year, 2 months ago
Some play testing is being conducted on a proposed change to flights.
Then it needs to be submitted to WL for a green light, so until we hear from them it might not go ahead.
-
Andrew Harding replied to the topic V3 Clarification Needed Pinned Vehicles in the forum Bolt Action 1 year, 2 months ago
Thank you Stuart 🙂
-
Stuart Harrison replied to the topic V3 Clarification Needed Pinned Vehicles in the forum Bolt Action 1 year, 2 months ago
4.5″ unless it’s recce – nothing in the pinning rules suggests any increase over the normal reverse speed. If it’s recce, since it has to move as fast as possible it would have to reverse at full advance speed, or run speed if it has dual direction steering (or a similar rule). You can also confirm in the recce rule, p150 – para starting “When r…[Read more]
-
Andrew Harding started the topic V3 Clarification Needed Pinned Vehicles in the forum Bolt Action 1 year, 3 months ago
Ok so picked my rule book up yesterday at the open day which was great but i need clarification on the subject above. On page 132 “Effects of Pinning on Vehicles” The book states a pinned vehicle that fails an order test must reverse. And on page 133 we have “Reverse moves” for clarification does the reverse from pinning a tracked vehicle reverse…[Read more]
-
Gerard replied to the topic News from the Wardroom! in the forum Victory At Sea 1 year, 3 months ago
Thanks for the update Nat.
Any news on the planned expansion mentioned above please?
-
Nat replied to the topic Mines and Minelayer in the forum Victory At Sea 1 year, 3 months ago
Ok… rabbit hole time… Rules (even house rules) have to be playable or be the difficulty setting of a scenario. Also VaS is at its core a historical system so any rules need a grounding in historical fact.
Now forget Hollywoods visuals of minelaying.. its a LOT more complicated than just chucking a mine off the back of a moving ship. It b…[Read more]
-
AndreE replied to the topic Mines and Minelayer in the forum Victory At Sea 1 year, 3 months ago
I think one could go a bit further than that (since it is a house-rule atm anyway).
In terms of Combat I can imagine 3 working scenarios within this game system:
– Offensive Minelaying – Block enemy shipping routes (Use the available Vessels/Aircraft to deploy mines in enemy waters and retreat[lay 4 mine marker in the enemy half of the…[Read more]
-
Nat replied to the topic Mines and Minelayer in the forum Victory At Sea 1 year, 3 months ago
So….
A) – VaS is a simple game not a simulation .. therefore I’d go like Depth Charges, a single profile for all mines.Now a startings of a nice easy approach..
laying mines in combat isnt something you’d do… its too risky! you cant anchor them well enough and they become a risk to you… so to that end.Ships that carried mines get a new…[Read more]
-
AndreE replied to the topic Mines and Minelayer in the forum Victory At Sea 1 year, 3 months ago
After sorting my ideas a bit, I have compiled a list of all Aspects that might interact with existing rules.
A) Equipment – (Shipclasses with Mines/ Number of Mines/ Type of mines/ Points for equipping)
B) Scenario Goals and Descriptions/ Victory-conditions
C) Mechanics for Shipdeployment
D) Mechanics for Minelaying
E) Mechanics for…[Read more]
-
Nat replied to the topic News from the Wardroom! in the forum Victory At Sea 1 year, 3 months ago
So checked and updated the SHIPS 1.5 costs, this meant double checking a lot of the Rulebook entries – so another Wardroom Errata
As before, nothing about flights or carriers,
Noting about scenario ships (Dutch ships from the battle of Java Sea) or the expanded RNN or VMF lists – they’ll be done at a later time.
-
Nat replied to the topic Mines and Minelayer in the forum Victory At Sea 1 year, 3 months ago
Indeed, they were written to add jeopardy to the SS Ohio but not make it impossible for the Allied player to win the scenario.
- Load More
