[akaean]

Snipers are possibly the most overrated unit in all of Bolt Action. They are really scary, and can do great things with a bit of luck, but overall they just aren’t worth the points against the units you’d want them to be great against.

Keep in mind that at the end of the day its a single shot, that still has to roll to hit and wound. 2/3 to hit, and then 1/2 v regs and 1/3 v vets. This translates to a 33% kill rate vs regular and a 22% kill rate vs vet.

This is pretty unreliable overall, so they make up for that with their auto precision being able to eliminate teams. Snipers are effective against Officers, Machine Gun teams, Mortars and other Snipers. Against everything else they are exceptionally lackluster.

Machine Gun teams in generally are in a bad place rules wise, since Warlord decided they should cost the same amount as 5 infantry. Except 5 infantry can move and shoot at the same time. Mortars and Snipers tend to trade pretty evenly as they are natural counters to each other, except Mortars can leverage a spotter to deploy out of sight of sniper teams. Its also not usually too hard to hide your LT from a sniper. Sniper v Sniper is always fun and exciting… seeing who can hit that 22% first!

Recently I’ve started dropping my Sniper from lists, and I’ve been better off because of it. In practice, the Sniper is only really good against targets that are bad or duel evenly against the Sniper. Sniper doesn’t help vs Howitzers. Sniper doesn’t help vs Veteran Infantry squads advancing onto an objective. Sniper doesn’t help against transports with deadly contents. Sniper certainly doesn’t help vs tanks or armored cars. Sniper doesn’t help against the things that win games.

The problem with the sniper is it creates feels bad moments when he gets a lucky shot and aces one or two units in a game. But you have to put it into perspective. The odds of a Sniper acing your MMG team aren’t actually that much better than a Mortar Team acing them with a lucky 6 (or 5)- except the Mortar team can actually threaten other things too. Snipers *feel* overpowered, but they are not.

[akaean]

The building rules in Bolt Action are relatively poor. Especially the targeting one, this is one of the more frequently house ruled aspects of Bolt Action.

By the rules, when you target a unit in a building with HE, you ignore cover modifiers, but Small Teams and Down! (and obviously range / moving) still apply. When a building is empty you can target the building with only range / moving penalties.

Where this creates feel bad moments, is when you realize how many modifiers Down! and Small Teams actually are. A Heavy Howitzer that wants to destroy a church bell tower? If the bell tower was empty you would hit it on a 3. If the bell tower has a sniper team that goes down? Hit it on a 6.

A common house rule is to let HE always target the building itself and ignore small teams / down. It makes going into buildings a far more dangerous proposition for snipers and similar units when big guns capable of destroying those buildings are on the table.

[akaean]

If you want to win more consistently, the single most important thing to keep in mind is what the objective is. Most games of Bolt Action are played around an objective. Either getting a squad somewhere, or claiming objective markers. You win the game by completing those objectives more efficiently than your opponent did.

Every decision you make in the game should put you a step closer to accomplishing those objectives. Its really easy to get drawn into firefights, and trying to outmaneuver your opponent for the sake of outmaneuvering him. But all of that is for naught if you don’t end up claiming the objectives.

If your objective is to get squads off the table. Get squads off the table ASAP. If your objective is to claim objective markers. Try to get to them before your opponent and force him to dig you out. If your opponent has control of an objective marker focus on getting assault squads, flamers, HE and other assets into position to dig him out.

On the same token, if one of your flanks is collapsing, but that flank is not relevant to your plan to win the game… let it collapse and do not divert squads that can potentially score you victory points.

Finally, when something unexpected happens and your opponent flukes a crucial kill on your lines that puts you on the back foot. Don’t give up. Many players give up mentally when things start going wrong and as a result they lose winnable games. Take a deep breath, look at the table, and come up with an alternate plan to score victory points. Never forget the mission objective, and make sure you are working on accomplishing it from the word go. Many player’s biggest mistake is not even thinking about the objectives until halfway through the game.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 6 months ago by akaean.

[akaean]

Well, with anything, you are definitely going to have to play test points with your friends to make sure you have an accurate depiction of how much something is worth . Bolt Action is a game at the end of the day, which means-unlike real war- it needs to be “fair” and “fun”.

As you noted one of the things that devalues tanks in Bolt Action is access to Anti Tank Assets. Where there are fewer AT assets, tanks must be more expensive because their armor becomes more reliable. Only way to know for sure is play testing. I would play a few games, with the Vehicle Design System points. If the tanks feel overpowered, hike up the price, test again, and try again until the tank hits a sweet spot in terms of points.

[akaean]

There was an unofficial pdf called
“Bolt Action Vehicle Design System”

Floating about, it does a pretty good job of covering how to cost vehicles. And you can follow that guide to come up with costs for WWI vehicles pretty easily, provided you have an idea of the armor thickness, speed and gun loadout.

If you can find that PDF I would recommend giving it a read as its a pretty good way to figure out how to price Great War vehicles.

[akaean]

That is interesting, although in practice, recce vehicles will likely move out of charge range of any infantry. Dog Mines have a bit more flexibility so might be able to reach out and touch em. Doesn’t make any sense from a narrative perspective but more answers to recce the better!

I do think it is rather amusing that both the Tank Hunter Teams, and the Ampulomet teams are far more efficient against infantry than they are against tanks, despite being in the soviet anti tank sections.

Also Tank Hunters have “Tough Tank Hunters” which does double their attacks against vehicles. So 4 of em charging will cause 8 attacks which should translate to an s4 hit. That said… they are far far better running around hunting enemy small teams with smgs and assaults.

[akaean]

Paying 2 points per figure to give squads AT grenades is overlooked.

I think AT grenades are a bit too pricey for what they are worth honestly. I have played a lot with my Soviets, including the free AT grenades on my Green Rifle Squad, and since I like Tank Hunters for their infiltration and panzerfaust, I have used their AT Grenades and “tough tank hunters” somewhat frequently as well.

Despite this, very very seldom do I feel that my AT grenades do much of anything really. The reasons for this are roughly 3 fold.
1) they are only effective against enclosed vehicles. Many vehicles in BA are open topped. Including a large number of armored cars, etc. Open topped units do not cause tank fear tests when declaring a charge against them, and they are destroyed by any result on the damage table. So against an open topped vehicle, any glance will kill it. They are even less necessary vs transports, since transports die automatically if they are the closest target or their contents must disembark to engage in CC if they are charged. So you don’t need any specific AT gear to engage with transports, including through charging.

2) They are pretty inconsistent at what they do. Melee vs vehicles in Bolt Action is pretty rough, all told. The hit modifiers are absolutely brutal. 4+ vs a stationary target, if it advances you are on 6+, and if it runs it is impossible to hit. This roughly translates to 1 hit per two guys. Ten infantry, charging with anti tank grenades against a stationary tank, should expect to generate a single strength 5 hit. This doesn’t sound too bad until you consider a few things. That is twenty points of war gear for those models. It requires the vehicle to be stationary, as if the vehicle advances those ten guys should expect to translate into roughly a strength 1 or 2 hit. It is applied against front armour. So the heavier the tank, the less reliable charging against it will be. Finally, charging is far higher risk than just shooting the tank with AT assets. charging a vehicle will frequently cause your infantry to become over extended and left in the open after the maneuver, this is a big problem when the odds of those infantry actually wrecking the tank aren’t particularly high, in perfect conditions they can do what a medium AT gun can do from across the board. Finally, remember those points you are spending are almost totally unneeded against any open topped or transport vehicles you would wish to engage. Making those points spent highly circumstantial.

3) Finally, AT grenades are effectively limited to the size of the squad. Ten guys with AT grenades charging may be able to do something, 4 guys with AT grenades will not be a threat to any tank. AT Grenades need to be purchased for the whole squad, but they are a piece of wargear that effectively gets turned off as the squad takes casualties throughout the game. Compared to a Panzerfaust, which is just as effective no matter how many other casualties the squad has taken throughout the game.

More often then not. Anti Tank Grenades and vehicle assaults are some of the rules that should probably be rewritten if BA gets a third edition at some point. The risk is too high, the reward is too low, and the cost is too high for a piece of kit that you never intend to use. Perhaps the most glaring issue is that AT grenades don’t do anything to help the most common vehicles that you would actually *want* to assault with infantry- namely enemy transports, softskins, or AV 7+ open topped vehicles. Not having to take the tank fear test is strong, but its a rule that doesn’t come up frequently, and its not worth the extra 20+ points per squad you need to pay to make them effective. And for most people running 7 man veteran squads they are even more of a questionable purchase, as 7 guys normally will translate to an average strength 3.5 hit against a stationary tank under perfect conditions. That won’t help you deal with a T34 or PzIV, especially considering you need to get your infantry squad in charge range of a vehicle faster then they are, without taking any casualties.

[akaean]

No unit from outside of the Armies of books seems to have a book & page reference.

So there are a few things.
Units in the main army books are usually provided with a page reference in Easy Army. Those are easy to check.

Units that don’t have page numbers often include things that are on the “Additional Units PDF” which contains legal units that you can draw on. That PDF is still good rules wise, so check there to find something on Easy Army that has your attention. The British Armadillo for instance is on the PDF and Easy Army lists no page number.

That said, the biggest area people get into trouble with Easy Army is whether new units introduced in theater and campaign books are able to be included in a generic reinforced platoon. The unit entry in question must specifically say that they are available to be taken in a generic reinforced platoon. If the unit does not say anything about whether it can be taken in a reinforced platoon, then it is limited to the specific theater selectors that it is listed in. Just because you see something in Easy Army doesn’t mean it is available in a generic reinforced platoon, and it doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have restrictions placed on it that they army list needs to comply with to be legal.

The best way to go about auditing a generic reinforced platoon is to make sure you have the appropriate book for all of the units you want to use, including reviewing the additional units PDF. Make sure that any units not included in the “Armies of X” main book states that it is available for selection in a generic reinforced platoon.

Also as others have said, Easy Army is not affiliated with Warlord, and it is maintained by a private person who does this out of the kindness of his heart and love for the game. He is pretty good about updating new books, and I’m sure Fortress:Budapest will get added in due time.

[akaean]

I don’t run the dog mines for personal reasons. They didn’t work so well historically and I feel bad about exploding puppies.

I do have a pair of Ampulomets and I really enjoy those. Like dog mines they are only historically accurate for very early war- but something about a spud gun firing a glass globule of fire and death is adorable to me. In terms of gameplay, think of them as cheap light howitzers with a short range and no indirect fire. They aren’t great for moving up the field but they can do some mean area denial.

I also have a soft spot for Tank Hunter Teams. I run them as 4 veteran smgs with a faust. Forward deploy let’s em start in aggressive positions and they can apply a lot of pressure to slow or halt an enemy advance to let your forces take better positions. If they are ignored they can run amok and assassinate enemy small teams like officers and snipers. They aren’t great vehicle killers, but they have enough teeth to make most tanks weary of coming within their faust range. I lovingly call them wetwork teams.

[akaean]

Stuart Harrison is correct,
Easy Army is an exceptional tool, and I am grateful for its existence. Its a quick and intuitive way to build lists, and experiment with different compositions before committing to a purchase.

But there are issues with Easy Army. Its not 100% accurate, and you should always audit your army list with the rulebook prior to attending an event. Easy Army has some issues with unit selections. As certain options are available in the general reinforced platoon that are only actually available in certain theater selectors (Schutzen or US Bazooka Jeep). Always double check with the rulebook to make sure everything is accurate for the theater selector you are using.

At the end of the day, I see too many people accepting Easy Army as gospel. If its on Easy Army, they say, it must be legal. Remember that Easy Army isn’t affiliated with Warlord in anyway. It is helpful and useful and you definitely should use it, but keep in mind that it has no official weight when determining the rules of the game. In any inconsistency between the rules and faqs and easy army, the rules / faqs always win.

[akaean]

Yea, points are an awkward thing. In most game systems, “list building” is a critically important skill, and players with an in depth knowledge of what units are cost effective, and what units work well together, can get a stronger army on the table for the same points as an opponent. Depending on the game, list building can be more important than battlefield tactics as a deciding outcome of the game. Although this is one of the reasons I actually have largely moved away from the Warhammer 40K community.

I still think points are useful, and they do an effective job of setting parameters for game size, and generally facilitating a pick up game. I can go to a Bolt Action event, meet an entirely new community, and everybody understands what a 1K point game looks like. Points are best if they are more balanced of course, but even in Bolt Action list building is important.

Also, fan made point systems are usually pretty balanced, as fans have a tendency to want the game to be as balanced as possible. Although be warned that fan based systems often lack extensive resources for play testing points values, and different systems carry different weights depending on what the locals are doing. As long as everybody agrees on an overlying system, it can definitely help.

Anyway, for more historical games, I think part of the draw is in recreating battles, or trying alternate scenarios. Setting up terrain and armies in line with Scipio and Hannibal’s confrontation and playing out the Battle of Zama. Or using those force organizations and trying different tactics to see if you can change the outcome of the battle. Sure, you won’t have the thousands and thousands of models on each side, but under the assumption that each individual model actually represents far more, recreating Hannibal’s formation in miniature form wouldn’t be that difficult. Games that rely on lined infantry formations are much easier to extrapolate that each block/model actually represents hundreds or thousands of individual soldiers.

[akaean]

@Aaron has better information than I do. I was at Adepticon and played in the doubles, but I didn’t play in the Nationals event.

Anyway, here is a link to his blog recapping the entire event. I actually played against Aaron and you can see a squad of my Foreign Legionnaires in one of the pictures from the Bolt Action Doubles section (although they are pretty far away and taking cover in some palm trees, we lost fair and square, our softskin mounted light howizters were no match for the German LMG fire!)

http://rallyroundtheflag.blogspot.com/2019/04/adepticon-2019-bolt-action-good-bad-and.html?m=0

Anyway, my understanding was there was one panzerfaust in the German player’s list, but when crunch time came he suddenly had 6 in the right locations, and he fired 4 of them. There was some prize support, which might have contributed to some of the moral transgressions that occurred. I also think it was limited to one person, who likely has a black mark next to his name for future events.

Anyway. WYSIWYG is what separates us from the animals. Well that and good dental hygiene.

[akaean]

@Nat
And after the PZF cheating fiasco on the last day of the Adepticon nationals tournament… I expect that rule to be more strictly enforced going forwards…

[akaean]

@Felix

PS: maybe in the future just tie up OP units in specific theatre selectors, which are generally prohibited in events anyhow. there is many options here, I pre-ordered the new France and Normandy books, will check them out and see if the those units were one-offs or if this is continued in newer publishings (crossing fingers)

I’m not sure where you play primarily, but at least Stateside, I have already noticed the competitive community starting to heavily house rule Bolt Action. This includes various rules modifications, and restrictions placed on list building.

Adepticon 2019 in Chicago for instance, the Nationals tournament rules were as follows:
1000 points, Max two reinforced platoons, no tank platoons, no special characters, max 18 order dice, no planes, no theater selectors

Origins GT 2019 in Columbus Ohio;
1000 points, infantry platoons, no theater lists, no vehicle flame throwers, 14 dice max.

I am not sure if this is an increasing trend across the globe, but on the whole, I have noticed that the United States competitive community is moving away from Theater Selectors in their largest events. With a sharp move away from theater selectors after Western Desert was released. I have a suspicion that people were already getting fed up with overpowered theater selectors thanks to Soviet players abusing the Stalingrad selector, and Shuetzen were the straw that broke the camels back so to speak.

That said there are still “narrative” tournaments, that provide bonus points for building an army to a certain time period. And those generally seem to allow “pre-approved” theater selectors from the time period they are representing.

The only thing that bothers me is that its relatively few theater selectors that are broken, but those have ruined it for the rest of us. I have been working on a Free French Western Desert army, which is generally fine for the most part. And I just need to accept that it will be competitively illegal in the vast majority of tournaments I can attend in the US.

Anyway, has anybody else noticed an uptick of competitive house rules and restrictions recently?

[akaean]

last night we played a large 4000 point game per side Brit infantry and paras vs above forces with 3 panthers and a stug, needless to say although a great game the brits had little chance with Sherman’s and Cromwell’s against such enemy armour

I know we have been talking about regular sized games for the most part here. But I did want to point a few things out. While it depends on your selector, Brits generally are able to keep up with Germans in a heavy armor arms race. The noticeable choices that you should be looking towards are the
– Cruiser Tank Comet: 9+ tank, up armored front to 10+, and a super heavy anti tank gun. Under the rules, the Comet is basically a Panther.
– Sherman Firefly: 9+ tank with a Super Heavy Anti Tank Gun. Solid anti vehicle.
– Wasps are always a good choice, as vehicle flamethrowers are capable of killing elite infantry and medium tanks like Panthers with frightening efficiency if they close in.

At 4000 points, you probably will see some heavy tanks on the board. Brits definitely have good answers to them. Arguably better answers than the Russians do.

Big games are harder to account for, as the Game Balance starts breaking down as the dice bag gets more and more bloated. Also note that armies like Germany, which center around unit buffs like Buzzsaw and Tiger Fear get stronger in larger and larger point games, and free unit armies like Soviets and to a lesser extent Brits, tend to get weaker as points increase and their free unit has less of an impact. Now, that isn’t a perfect metaphor, as both Soviets and Brits have very strong passive rules as well.

If you get really desperate you can also sell your soul. Gurkha Rush with Brits, or shamelessly abuse the Stalingrad selector with Soviets. If your German players are min maxing, then min max right back at them.

[Author]

Posts