[Felix]

I feel you bud.

unfortunately new campaign books are not reviewed and streamlined (or balanced). So they will use different powerlevels and wording all day long. Some will be very specific as to what units will be allowed in general play, some will be vague at best, others will not say anything to that end at all.

The typical tournament setup reads something like this:
1000 points
up to two generic reinforced selector (armies of x books only)
no named characters
no experimental units (planes etc)
no tank platoons
no theatre selectors

Of course this is a well intended statement, but one that glosses over all the myriad of units that were published in other books and are specifically allowed to be taken in generic reinforced selectors.
Are they legal or are they not as they are not from the ‘armies of X’ books.
Further what to make of all the units that do not detail when they may be taken and when not. like inteligence officers.
Or those that state something odd like ‘may be taken as an infantry option in a reinforced platoon from the BA rulebook’ – which in fact is not allowed if your army has gotten a ‘armies of book’. So what does that mean? its only legal in the theatre its published in, and for those few who really do play with the lists provided from the rulebooks? or did the author make a ‘small’ error in calling the ‘armies of X’ books the ‘rulebooks’? nobody knows 😀

I think to be sure you should write the list of the questionable units you’re thinking of bringing and sending them to the TO’s for review. They have the ultimate say anyhow.
I did that to see if some of my conversions and 48th scale vehicles were legal tender at big tournaments. easy peasy, but again, the organized competitve me feels your pain.
I wish it was more clear in competitive setting whats green lit and what isnt.

[Felix]

is there a way to delete answered / old topics? would be good if we could at least declutter our own posts.

and what people say about rule questions is very valid. broken up into its own kinda forum with each topic being a thread.

[Felix]

Michael, I mean no offense, but the marder III does not compare to the ferdinand and its struggle. Actually I would argue that the Marder 3 is the single best point/power ratio heavy gun in the german book right now – in no way struggeling like the big tanks or the big tankhunters moreover (as Seb Brady pointed out).

It packs a heavy AT on a mobile tracked platform and the usual config says to buy the +5pts MMG to have the MMG pintle mounted instead of hullmounted for good 360 spraying at 170pts.
The marder III can take on ALL enemy tanks in normal and competitve play, even the 1 in 100 churchill or panther you barely come across are no big issue, whilst costing the bare bone minimum points for this class of vehicle.

To detail out this comparison, and why i keep ranting on enclosed TD’s I listed all vehicles in the class and rated them (my opinion):

#1 Marder 3: 165pts, 1fw mmg, +5pt pintle mmg
basic heavy gun, but gets mmg for 5points more, can make it pintled and may fire both weapons every turn.
#2 RSO/P49: 145pts, NO mmg, SLOW
slow is a downside, but these guys dont move much and are ime kept in reserve as counters to enemy armor. it is an absolute bare bone mobile tank-counter. great for that, but nothing else. great points.
#3 Marder 2: 160pts, MMG fires OR maingun
basic AT tank, better than the others because it has a free optional MMG packed for tight situations
#4 SdKfz8Pak18: 160pts, NO mmg, ‘turret’, halftracked
basic TD (160, heavy gun on 7+), lacks all mmgs, but with halftracked and a NOT-fixed gun is much more mobile, better than #5, imo, because of the ‘turreted gun’
#5 Sdkfz251/22pak: 160pts, +15pt REAR mmg, halftracked
again basic TD, with option for rear mounted mmg. which is basically useless.
#6 Hetzer: 210pts, medium, enclosed, 360deg mmg, soft sides
probably the best of the enclosed TD’s from all books imo, but still to expensive for what it does. Argument could be made for it being a semi-battletank, but the soft sides keep it in your backyard to avoid flanking. low silhouette gets you decent cover as opposed to the other tanks of this list, but since all these thingies here aim to fight enemy tanks 99% of the time it is more of a surprise counter attack. again. point could be made that this guy is so small and has good enough armor to start the game deployed and deny his arcs of fire from enemy tank movement. but id go with something cheaper to do the same job (eg reserved mobile AT like the excellent marder 3)
#7 75mmPak40: 110pts, infantry gun
As you can tell, for me dedicated AT is meant to counter tanks. so coming from reserve is a HUGE thing for me. the infantry gun struggles when having to move (cant shoot) and moreover even suffers when turning. only upsides are the low point costs and easy access to hard cover. However, youd be better off with a medium/heavy howitzer for the same points with much more flexibility and stopping power
#8 StugIII: 230pts, medium, enclosed, 360deg mmg
just an overall terrible option. +5 points buys you a panzer 4 with same armor and gun, but an additional mmg, turret and the all imposing tigerfear. they really did a number on the stug.
#9 JAgdpzIV: 270pts, medium, hvy front, 1fw mmg
just bad. too expensive and immobile, has to turn to target, then exposing its flanks half the time which negates the cool ‘heavy front’ rule. whats the point of this. May as well look at the IV(L70) for the super heavy gun to really 1shot enemy armor, but then again, like the marder and the ferdinand, you may as well spend the +5 points to get the full battletank of the same tier (in this case panther, which again has turret, extra mmg and tigerfear)
# 10 Ferdinand(for shits in giggles, obviously not the same tier, but since its the same role on the table can be compared here): 500pts, +heavy on +heavy, NO mmg (wait what?), slow, unreliable
overgunned and overarmored for normal play. pointcost beyond making sense. AT rifles put 2 pins on it half the time they hit, which is insane and negate the super heavy armor. slow makes this thing unable to escape ranging in artillery etc (has to leave position by 2″, being what, like 6″ long you would finish your move still touching where you came from, so range in still in efffect), the upgrade MMG cost +10pts, instead like earlier for marder 3 only +5. why? we dont know! probably to not have this terrible terrible tank in any way look good.
Get this thing, or a Kingtiger for +50 points with a turret, no slow, no unreliable, +2 mmgs (12shots). no brainer – non option

• This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by Felix.

[Felix]

not sure what you mean. i was told the good man who runs easy army checks with warlord if and which units are legal in the generic reinforced selectors, before including them.

correct me if im wrong – i have actually always wondered this too.

(of course there are some issues, as a lot of units may be available, but if you check their campaign book entry they may have other restrictions that are not reflected in EA. This could for example be a unit of X that may be only fielded if you also have Y – something that easy army generally will not reflect. In this case you’d be building an illegal list that someone in the know may call out and cause some issues at a tourney for you)

• This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by Felix.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 10 months ago by Felix.

[Felix]

Thank you, yeah i might just bring both lists to the tourney and see what everyone else brought and chose the more ample list. or have the TO tell me what he thinks be more adequate.
_________________

I know, the 7th actually didnt have any pz3 in france at all, the idea is more to play a gamey game and show off all kinds of different vehicles. hence the lightshow of early war machinery. having 5 of the pz38t would be way more accurate, but both more boring to play and to see for the casual/less historical bulk of the group here. I appreciate your input and of course you’re right, mixed platoons wouldnt happen except i think some units mixing pz1 and 2’s!

[Felix]

Maybe also look around the forum. you will find and see that nearly all factions are somewhere proclaimed as being overpowered (or under-powered). You are not alone with your perception.

except the Greek & Norwegians though, they really got the short end of the stick 😀

It seems to me that you might be struggling a bit with using the mechanics of the game in your favor, i wrote a thing about how to play a while back that may give you an idea or insight on a few actions to take (or avoid) while playing against Russians, or anyone really.

Tips & Tricks to lose less at BA

hope it helps and best of luck beating the red horde

[Felix]

Thank you Stuart!

I was lazy and didnt pull up the rules, thank you for clarifying that. what you say makes sense and rings a bell.

and im pretty sure my second part question is nonsense too. i would argue the ranging in starts when the gun fires, and cant happen posthumously after someone else spotted the target. so you miss – you remain at 6 for next turn. your buddy spots first and you miss – you go down to 5.

[Felix]

yeah tank costs are a real bummer. I and many others can feel the pain 😀

i find most frustrating (as dozens before me and dozens after me will say) the point cost difference between same slot vehicles for enclosed SPG’s (ferdinand being one, technically). For example on of my favs, the Stug 3 the arguably overall most effective, most produced and iconic german fighting vehicle. would be so cool to have it as a viable choice when building a competitive list. but for 5 points more you get a Pz4 with same armor, same gun, but turret and extra MMG… oh yeah and that small thing called tigerfear glued to its fender. this is true for pretty much all enclosed SPGs across all nations and books. Warlord repeatedly explained itself saying the pointcost actually vary by more than that but the rounding often brings it so close together. this, to me, is respectfully a quite poor excuse, something that could easily be fixed. Essentially ignoring the abilities and versatility of a turret and extra weapons on said turret when allocating pointcost seem not very well thought-through. 5-10pt difference for massive drawbacks on the SPG compared to turret counterpart should warrant either special rules in regards to setup, ambush, cover etc or cut the pointcost down by probably 20-30%.

my favorite tank, the jagdpanther (WOT/WT), will hardly ever see the light of day for its abstruse pointcost for 1, but moreover for its stats when measuring up to a tiger. this is like a 1% point difference here.

[Felix]

haha, i saw this fly by on facebook. i would welcome a soft reboot. I wouldnt want BA to change to much, it is such an excellent game. ‘But maybe, since we’re on topic… ;)’:

– get rid of templates. they complicate the game.
– revisit national traits. They often don’t scale well nor are balanced.
– revisit multi-launchers. overpowered point/power ratio.
– get rid of Pz4 “Tigerfear”. overpowered point/power ratio.
– revisit

enclosed

SPG’s/Tank destroyers point costs. (Way!) Under-powered when compared to their turreted counterparts.
– revisit inexperienced infantry. not worth their points compared to regulars and veterans in most cases.
– revisit infantry MMG teams. under-powered point/power ratio.
– revisit the Stuart 23MGshot + light AT + Recce + X<200point.
– have pins impact indirect shooting units.
– revisit vehicle cover rules. way to much discussion.
– allow generic trucks etc across nations to transport and tow the same generic assets.

HARD TO DO, BUT SO FUN:
– revisit tank-platoon rules to make them eligible in competitive play along infantry platoons.
– revisit named characters, planes, special terrain etc to balance for competitive play.
– I’d love to see some form of ‘strategy cards’ on a sidedeck that allow for special gimmicks of whatever form. EG: ‘this turn one infantry unit may re-roll all to-hit rolls when firing its weapons. one use only’. Maybe drawn at random from a shared deck so to avoid cheating etc. i know this is tough, but i know its great fun and adds surprising depth to strategy games.

MAYBES:
– revisit Flamethrowers to misfire more easily or reduce damage to make them less frown upon/less frustrating.
– revisit vehicle flamethrowers to only 6″ range.
– get rid of inexperienced multi-launchers, medium & heavy mortars, anything else firing exclusively(!) indirectly. unbalanced with current range-in rules IMHO.
– revisit the light AT’s range. not worth its points compared to med AT, light howitzer or heavy auto canon. 36″ short would fix IMHO.
– get rid of ‘hidden’ rules. i get the idea, cool fluff, but effectively only achieves one thing: slow down first 2 turns of game to a drag.
– implement water-vehicles in everyday gameplay. has to stay off field but maybe enable transported unit to come from rear eg.
– implement more tank movement options, allowing for side scraping, digging in (western desert eg) in everyday play.

[Felix]

@ JohnHotson:
hmm, i may be mistaken, but for 2) i thought when shooting an indirect weapon at a hidden unit you never range in or spot them. I understood that even if your indirect round hit them, you dont actually ‘know’ you hit something and will next turn again try to hit on unmodified 6+.

interesting question.

A followup that came to mind: your first activation was shooting at a hidden unit, missing. then your friendly unit X runs into range and spots the target during the same turn. Does the indirect that fired at a no-longer-hidden unit this turn now count as ranging in or only next turn?

[Felix]

Yipp, nothing wrong with historical’esque game-styles. never said anything to that end neither. But akaean makes a very fair point:

If you disagree with my assessment, but don’t play with points to begin with, you in fact have no horse in this discussion. Do I have a problem with infantry being called schuetzen? nope, I even think that would’ve been a more accurate description for german pre-42 infantry period – but again – not the point.

it all boils down to a new boxed set & book being published, alongside overpowered unit rules.
hence the Warhammer reference.
And they may be from a campaign book, but since those generally are legal in events and these units are NOT locked to certain theatre selectors (which are NOT legal) they are fair game for competitive-whatever-you-want-play.

So back to what akaean said: if you don’t play competitive or with points in fact, this thread is 100% irrelevant to you. you can play regular infantry and just give them 2 LMGs, 3 or 10 if you feel the scenario would allow that. also call them whatever you want, right? Also not saying anything bout second tier players, not at all – to each their own, but this is clearly marked as criticism from a gamer pov looking at game mechanics.
I too don’t see how historical background has any weight in this particular discussion.

Call them unit A and unit B and strip history from the models, now they are game pieces:

you can take 6 pieces rolling 5 dice to achieve X
OR
you can take 6 pieces rolling 10 dice to achieve X

speak in chess, you can take a regular tower, or you can take a tower that moves like a queen. up to you, no difference, but picking the handicap is your decision. well, and you kinda got to buy the new box just published…

not sure how or what were all talking about anymore tbh.

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)

[Felix]

ok, lol, maybe lets take about 2000 steps back here, if we may.

Bolt Action, for me, is a fiction game with a WW2 backdrop. And that is totally cool. There is plenty of other games (CoC eg) that have much more focus on realism – BA is an action game, not a realism simulator.

This thread, again, is and only ever really was about game mechanics. not history.
My concern is from this kind of rule-writing that the NON-campaign/historical scene may be heading for unit/book of the month.

As IO and others have stated, yes, the France book, RB, German book and DAK books were not written by the same people. That is a fact but not an explanation (imo) for power-creep. I feel the authors of new rules should consider the Meta – not just a bit, but very carefully, as to not make several other similar/identical entries redundant in the process and ‘fluffy’ entries at best.

And this seems to have become a somewhat heated discussion about who is more right in historical details – totally deluding the actual content of this post. I posted this to offer up some (hopefully productive/constructive) criticism and fan feedback about newly introduced additions to a game I care about.

Again: if motorbikes actually shot on the move or didn’t, or whether you can shoot a KAR89 or an MP40 while running backwards in diving flippers doesn’t matter.

What matters, in this post, is that there is two entries for the same unit(s), which describe the very same unit, but one is for no apparent reason far better than the other.

[Felix]

this was never meant as feedback on historic background. when I said ‘I think they should all be able to shoot from sidecars’ – that’s just my personal opinion finding the idea cool of bikes riding around and blasting from the sides.
The historical background of Schuetzen however does bug me for mentioned reasons.

The point is being missed I fear:

Its all about two units filling the same description and game-roll, yet one, being the newer one, is clearly the better choice. Not an alternative, but straight up the better/wiser choice. That’s the criticism/feedback I went for here.

/// Also I don’t mean to attack the author for his work, obviously, I have the book at home and like the scenarios, the history and most of the units – its just that I don’t want unit-development to head down the wrong path.
Not to see next introduced:
US “Normandie Veterans”
4 Veteran Para’s with an NCO 65pt
add up to 7 more Normandie Veterans for 13pts each
add up to 4 BARs for 5 points each
add up to 3 looted Panzerfaust for 5 points each
The whole unit may add tough fighter for 1 point each
special rules: Stubborn, Fanatics

Oh, and here is a brand new boxed set for Normandie Paratroopers, 3 models for $55.

This is way exaggerated and only meant as a bad example of sorts, lol. Cool that people still check this out, happy to see someone cared to read lol

[Felix]

@ Matt Sheffield

that is a good point, not to speak for Eric, but it might very well be that he is not a developer but a moderator and admin. I’m not so much saying that his every word is ‘true’, but my point about his authority is the same. We can assume that he is in close contact (way closer than me anyway) with HQ and functions as their (literally hired) ‘voice’ to some degree and has the ‘authority’ to respond to rule-questions on their behalf.

and no worries about mammoth posts, I myself am a mammoth poster as well ;). I appreciate the civil-ness of this discussion btw, I noticed a somewhat rise of toxic and patronizing interaction in seemingly unimportant and casual chat. Thank you for that

[Felix]

I need to get my hands on the Battle of France book. it seems not to be on easy army and I like some of the options I hear about it. (I’ve been using the armies of Germany generic reinforced selector and the Fall Gelb selector therein – guess I’m missing out, lol)

and yeah, my feedback is just that.
To me at least those two units are poorly designed (where others from the same book are great, balanced options). This also may not affect everyone, as many don’t play regular infantry or are interested in Kradschuetzen for their not-exactly-stellar point-power ratio – but to me this is something of a slap to the face. Now fielding my underpowered Krads and Schuetzen versus the somehow more powerful & mighty, thirsty, starving, ill-prepared, overstretched and exhausted make-shift-counterparts of the DAK…

And while I totally understand that they might not be the same people writing, to me, in continuous (supplemental) rule writing it is paramount to be 100% aware of the meta and previous existing rules & (pt-)values to avoid exactly these kind of scenarios. – anything else looks like a sales-push to me.

[Author]

Posts