[Aaron]

Hello,
Madison, WI

Areas of interest for BP

FIW
AWI
ACW
AZW

Local shop is Nobel Knight Games here in Madison.

Usually Frequent Adepticon and Little Wars in the Spring and RockCon and Game Hole Con in the fall.

[Aaron]

Pete,

Kudos! Finally recieved my copy. After a quick scan and reading a few sections it looks superb. I can only hope future supplements use this and Rebellion as a benchmark.

Look forward to getting my troops on the table and testing a few of the scenarios.

[Aaron]

First thing, Bolt Action is a historical themed game at best or as I like to call it advanced rock, paper scissors.

It does not matter if a unit is in a transport or not. Every unit requires an order die to activate.

The exception is snap to. So you draw a die and move the transport. Next die is pulled and you can disembark.

Tank wars is no different just allows different platoon selectors and everything in that platoon must be mounted. I do not believe a command vehicle can use snap to though like an officer unit.

I am a 29 year career army officer still serving. Bolt action in its basic form resembles nothing like historical formations unless you go out of your way to make it so.

Either way it is a fun “game” as long as you do not try to apply to much logic.

There are other rule sets out that that you can use your same models that are closer to a simulation.

Hope that helps.

[Aaron]

This announcement really has me motivated to get going on FIW again.

Looked through my lead pile and I had a couple more boxes of troops than I remembered 😉

Really excited for the recently announced Warlord Black Powder Supplement "A Dark and Bloody Ground" which deals with…

Posted by The Northern Front Podcast on Monday, 22 April 2019

[Aaron]

Pete,

Thanks for sharing, sounds very encouraging. I can only hope all future supplements use Rebellion as a benchmark.

[Aaron]

Agree with Mike’s assessment. For AZW need to do a bit more work developing the scenarios to make them playable.

Unfortunately the Zulu supplement is my least favorite for this reason. Beautiful pictures, but completely lacking in the details to actually play many of the scenarios.

Had the author spent more time detailing OoB, set up and command ratings and less time discussing the beverages they had in the AAR it might be useful. Honestly question if some of the scenarios were even play tested more than once.

One of the potential problems when you out source.

That said the AWI supplement Rebellion is top notch and a great resource even if you do not play BP. Hoping the new FIW one will be similar.

[Aaron]

One of the many exceptions that is BA I guess. So if you have any part of a unit in terrain and not at the edge they suffer the penalty.

Not the way we have been playing it, but despite playing from the beginning I seem to learn something new at every tournament or listening to a podcast. 😉

[Aaron]

This is for the section on Shooting from Cover. Not cover for the unit receiving fire. The rule book says that a unit with less than half of the unit in dense terrain, and not touching the edge, their shots will be affected by the cover modifier.

So it is just very poorly worded. Bottom line if the unit firing is in cover and not touching the edge it will take the minus when firing. In other words because you are firing through the Terrain the target unit has cover.

HTH

[Aaron]

Related question then, could it be argued that units that appear in the Campaign books are not ‘legal’ in games /tournaments that dont allow Campaign lists? Especially as the FAQ states that the Campaign books wont be Errated/FAQd

That would be 100% up to the TO or your group which is why I am asking for the clarification.

In one event I played in campaign lists were fine, but another only the Army of books and specific list to allow Chinese for instance.

IMO, with this issue 2pts makes more sense, but until that is changed in errata I need to plan for 5pts. Event I am building for is not until next year.

[Aaron]

I read it and have heard it interpreted that If your unit is not touching the edge and with at least 50% within the rest 1″ of the edge of terrain the entire unit suffers the penalty.

A diagram in the book would be helpful. So if your 5 man squad is in woods and 3 men are touching the edge and the other 2 directly behind suffer the -1 penalty.

If it were reverse and only 2 touching then your target would have cover.

HTH

[Aaron]

In the Soviet army book Cavalry squads pay 2 points for their horses, so I was thinking its 2 for squads & 5 for Officers.

Yeah, certain things tend to vary. While much is consistent throughout I am not sure if some items get missed in editing due to various authors or it is intentional

In this case Battle of France definitely states 2pts while FAQ/errata is 5pts.

My issue is not all events recognize campaign books while FAQ/errata is accepted

[Aaron]

If you look at the Japanes army book, its 5 points for the officer to be mounted on a horse and gain the cavalry rule.

Therefore I’d say you pay 5 points and gain the cavalry rule as its more consistent*.

*One thing I like about this system is that you pay the same points for the same upgrade irrespective of Nation ie all regular infantry are 10, vets are 13, lmgs in squads are 20 etc etc

While I mostly agree with you there are two many inconsistencies (Panzerfausts, tough fighter etc. etc.) in BA that I feel it deserves a FAQ/Errata.

Horses for French Cavalry are 2pts (Regular infantry are 10pts regular cavalry are 12pts). Battle of France page 165 specifically states 2pts per Officer to put them on a horse.

The FAQ is from Jan 2018 and states 5pts along with the earlier IJA entries you mention.

I am trying to do a historically themed Cavalry force for May 1940 failed invasion of Belgium with all Cavalry squads, AMC 35 tank, Schneider Armor car, Horse drawn limber for Arty etc. Would like to mount all my HQ units, not just the officer.

The event will be doubles next year at Adepticon with a 1940 theme, so an official clarification would be desirable vs. a friendly agreement with the T.O. so I account the correct points. 15pts for 3 models vs. 6pts is a sizable difference.

[Aaron]

You should not forget that “cavalry” in 1940 campaign in France was Transport by horse, not classical charge.

The German cavalry had abandoned the sword (and Lance) at all apart from officers and NCO for parades. The French kept the trooper sword but many units left it in depot or with train.

They normally fought on foot.

(For German horse the 1941 – 45 Cossack sword was Special)

Historically I 100% agree! Then this is Bolt Action which is historically flavored at best. I commonly refer to it as WWII flavored advanced Rock, Paper, Scissors.

Unfortunately, unless you are trying to lay a specific historical scenario in Bolt Action the history ends when the models hit the table. I would also argue if you are serious about playing a historical scenario there are much better systems to do that with where you can use your same models. 😉

Case in point during U.S. Nationals my Early War French faced American, IJA, Soviets, Late War Germans and Brits. My Cavalry were mostly get there fast and occupy, but I did have 3 opportunities to charge and did so as they had the advantage and the “game” allows for it.

[Aaron]

My apologies if this has been asked and answered. Looking at building up my French Cavalry force.

I would like to put my HQ on horses for the theme.

FAQ page 7 allows this for 5pts per model (horse for regular cavalry typically is 2pts per model) and bestows cavalry special rule.

Battle of France Page 165 under new units specifies “officers” can be given horses for 2 pts per model, but makes no mention of cavalry special rule.

In both case you must have at least 2 cavalry sections.

Common sense would tell me any HQ unit could be mounted on horses at 2 pts per model gaining the cavalry special rules.

Has this been clarified anywhere?

[Author]

Posts