[Wilber Olive]

With the latest changes reveal regarding shooting, I still don’t see the logic behind some (or many) of the changes.

Take the small team rule for example. They said it makes MMG teams more resilient? I don’t see how… appears to do the opposite! The only thing I can think of is that perhaps they allow more men to be added to smaller teams now. This then just brings me back to my original comment about game companies making rule changes to sell more models. I suspect the removal of the small team rule is designed to encourage people to field “larger” small units, thus more miniatures, thus more $$$ for warlord games. I don’t like to be that skeptical but would be interested in some commentary from warlord that suggests otherwise and how/why all these rule changes are actually designed to improve the game instead of designed to encourage buying more models.

Take the new shooting changes as another example. It has now been “streamlined” from one to two separate dices rolls. They claim it is easier and takes the same amount of time as a single dice roll. I’m highly skeptical about this one and would much prefer a single dice roll. I never found shooting to be a problem that required further streamlining. The only thing I can think of is that it encourages more dice. With this change, it now makes more sense to have unique dice for each side so that you can both make your rolls and not get dice mixed up. Maybe warlord is planning a whole line of themed dice for this purp… wait, hold on, they already sell them! Interesting. Warehouse must be bursting with too many dice that need to be sold. LOL

Oh well, nothing stopping us sticking with V2, which we’ll probably do. Not unless we get some independent (not paid by warlord) reviews that prove the game is actually better to play with the V3 rules.

[Wilber Olive]

I do agree with Nat that this new platoon structure does make it feel more historical, which I like. Definitely not complaining at all, just pointing out some interesting things for discussion.

Yes, well maybe mounted stuff must be fielded in the Recce platoon, which would make it more useful. I’m actually hoping that the rules contain unique abilities for different platoons, like the example Aidan gives of a recce platoon being able to forward deploy or deploy behind enemy lines.

Yeah, Steve, a lone tank is an oddity. We’ve just been allowed to do it for so long and now we’re all getting our lollipops taken away like naughty children.

I see what you are saying Aidan in point 4 about bringing the bare minimum in that platoon to just get the flamers going. However, we are assuming that basic rifle squads can have a cheap Engineer rule added to them. Perhaps only certain more expensive (and higher veterancy) squads either have the Engineer rule or can add it? For me though, it would feel a bit “gamey” to do such a thing, and then have a couple of somewhat useless rifle squads I’ve been forced to pay for.

I suppose also, these selectors are probably somewhat generic for the base rulebook. So perhaps in future army and theater books we will see unique platoon choices. Like adding flame throwers to US marine platoons or ad hoc platoons for Germany’s last stand in Berlin… i.e. lone Tiger with volkssturm climbing all over it.

This also makes me wonder about other specialised squads like for example the https://us.warlordgames.com/products/waffen-ss-combat-engineers-goliath

I don’t see anywhere in these platoons that this could be fielded. I would assume it is part of the engineer platoon, but it only allows engineers (rifle?) squads and flamethrowers it would appear. I wonder if specialised units like this will not be covered in the base rule book and we will need to buy the future German army book perhaps in order to get a different engineer platoon that allows options like this.

[Wilber Olive]

I know this is just a tease, but so far, we’re not much of a fan of these new selectors and probably won’t use them in our group. To be fair though, we don’t really use the v2 selector much either as we tend to build armies based on scenarios. But here’s few oddities I’ve noticed so far. I could be wrong about any or all of these things.

1. The Recce Infantry Platoon seems like a useless Rifle Platoon. You may as well just take another rifle platoon instead (with the benefit of unlocking a 2nd duplicate platoon, see point 5 below). Sure, you have to pay for an extra rifle squad, but that is probably better than paying for a minimum of two Reece transports you might not want. Nothing stopping you adding Reece transports to a regular rifle platoon if you wanted one or more, but at least you’re not forced. I cannot see any point to anyone ever picking a recce infantry platoon, unless I’m missing something, or there is some other reveal coming in the rules that makes that platoon useful in some way.

2. They appear to have removed the option for another HQ squad. In v2, you could add a Captain/Major officer squad. This was great for representing a company level officer in the field for example. That seems to be gone now. Perhaps you could make your rifle platoon officer a captain/major, but then you miss out on having a platoon officer as well. In fact, that useless recce infantry platoon might have been better off as a HQ Platoon? Then you could field a dedicated company level (or higher) officer and attach things to it like observers, medics, artillery, etc. The way it is now, you attach an observer to just a regular rifle platoon, which is odd. Should be attached to a HQ platoon.

3. Impossible to field a lone tank now. Now you must field a minimum of two tanks (or armoured vehicles). Bolt Action is supposed to be an infantry game. Let me quote Marcus Vine from paragraph two of the article; “Bolt Action is at its core a game of infantry combat.” Vehicles were always a side show, which is why they made Achtung Panzer. Seems odd now in an infantry game you are forced to field multiple vehicles (if you want one). Anyone who owns just one vehicle for their army is now forced to go buy and paint up a second one so their first one doesn’t become an ornament on the shelf.

4. Good luck ever seeing a flamethrower on the table again. If you own a flamethrower team, you may as well make it an ornament now, unless you happen to also own enough for two HQ squads, two rifle squads and two engineer squads… and want to spend the points to field all that. People are going to be forced to buy and paint up entire boxes of engineers, just so their flamethrower doesn’t collect dust.

5. I hope Bolt Action doesn’t turn into Artillery Action. Before it was only possible to bring one gun to the table (artillery, AA, AT). Now, you can bring FOUR of them! And if you can afford a second rifle platoon, you can bring EIGHT!!! Woohoo! Maybe Warlord has a huge inventory of artillery in their warehouse they need to sell. LOL. Jokes aside, perhaps they’ve reworked the rules for guns so bringing eight of them to the table is not an attractive option?

6. This brings me to my last point. I’m always a little skeptical of game rules made by the same company that sells the miniatures. It’s akin to the doctor selling the drugs they prescribe. Warlord is in the business of selling plastic crack, so it is within their interest to design the rules in a way that maximises the sale of said plastic. i.e. you need two tanks now, you need engineers now, you need more guns now, etc… That’s why our group doesn’t pay too much attention to these selectors as they feel like they’re designed around selling plastic rather than around building plausible armies. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[Wilber Olive]

I understand what you are saying, but it doesn’t appear to be worded that way. For it to be what you are saying, it would need to worded something like this:

“If the unit is inside dense terrain, but less than 50% of the unit’s models are at the edge, the unit can see and shoot out, but their shots will be affected by the cover modifier.”

The way it is currently worded doesn’t appear to make any sense. By saying “if less than 50% of the unit’s models are inside dense terrain” that appears to imply that more than 50% of the unit’s models are outside the dense terrain. In addition, if less than 50% are not at the edge of said dense terrain, then that would imply that more than 50% are at the edge of the dense terrain. Therefore their shots would not be affected by the cover modifier.

[Wilber Olive]

I was thinking of coming up with some house rules for the hand carts to actually make them a functional part of the game. For example, allowing them to be moved by a unit with at least two models or a vehicle with the tow ability. Then any unit that has lost one or more models and ends its turn with a model within 1″ of the hand cart may use the hand cart to “resupply” allowing them to gain back lost models. Maybe just one model or maybe D3 models, not sure… would need to be play tested for balance. The hand cart could have just one use and is discarded, or maybe a few uses before it is discard, not sure. Then I’d just need to come up with a points cost for a hand cart. Kind of acts like a more powerful (stationary) version of a medic in a way. Any ideas to improve on this or what a reasonable point cost might be?

[Wilber Olive]

Thanks everyone. All makes sense.

I wonder though why they would do something like add a gun shield to the 75mm howitzer and increase its cost in the new rule book. Why not just keep it the same as the us army book for consistency. The actual model (and the weapon in real life) do not have a gun shield, so its a bit weird they would do something like that.

I’ll probably get the tank wars supplement as I just purchased 11 vehicles that I now need to build and paint…. oh joy.

[Wilber Olive]

Thanks everyone. All your replies confirmed what I already thought.

[Author]

Posts