spotter and holding objectives

[Steeljackal]

Medic and chaplain rulebook says that can’t fire, assault and that they are non-combatant units, and can’t hold objective.

Spotter? Rules say that can’t fire or assault, but don’t say nothing about hold objective. By similarity to medics and chaplain I think spotter can’t hold objective.

What your opinion?

[Master Chief]

For me I will play according to what is written in the rules. As it is not mentioned in the rules, I would say a spotter is allowed to control objectives. And if it is attacked in close quarters it should be allowed to defend.

[Steeljackal]

Sure, spotter can defend in close quarter, like medics and chaplain.

Spotter can’t fire and assault, but only defend in close quarter (in close quarter, can’t receive fire order to fire an enemy is coming), exactly like medic and chaplain, he only defend himself if assaulted. But maybe spotter remain a combat unit (he direct mortar/arty fire), and then it consider that can defend objective in close quarter during an assault, he not only defend himself but defend objective too.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Steeljackal.

[Steeljackal]

I have a quick answer from Warlord:

“No spotters can not take an objective, only infantry units or artillery units with 3 crewmen can hold an objective.”
As usual, the rulebook is poorly written, and the spotter for the fact of not being able to FIRE and assault is on a par with the doctor or chaplain.

The “3 crewmen” for arty I don’t know where it comes, I don’t remeber to saw it in rulebook or FAQ.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Steeljackal.

[Master Chief]

Hmm so they disallow 2-man teams  e.g. sniper, flamethrower, bazooka, and piat teams from controlling objectives.

[Stuart Harrison]

That reply isn’t supported by anything in the rulebook and sounds like a house rule – Warlord customer support answers should be taken with a grain of salt and only used as “private use” guidance.

Alessio’s own words on them –

”

Let me elaborate a little on this ’email answer’ situation:

When a customer asks a difficult rule question, like the one about flamethrowers vs stubborn, the customer service guys at Warlord normally ask me (face to face, email, etc…).

The safest answer we can then give the customer who asked the question would be: “thanks for bringing that up, we’ll consider it for an Errata/FAQ.”

However, that is a bit of a disappointing answer to receive, so we tend to give the answer to the question and add “this will be added to a future errata” or something along those lines… The intent is that the answer is for personal use, friendly games etc. until it gets published in the next Errata and FAQ, when it becomes ‘official’.

This is specifically to avoid the kind of situation highlighted by this post – where some customer knows about a coming rule change and others don’t… not ideal…

We’ll try to be clearer about this when we answer questions, but I thought I “said it aloud” here too…

OK?”

[Steeljackal]

Master Chief

Participant

Hmm so they disallow 2-man teams  e.g. sniper, flamethrower, bazooka, and piat teams from controlling objectives.

No: sniper, flamethrower, bazooka, are infantry, not artillery. Infantry (one man stand too) or artillery with 3 crew alive.

I ask greater clarity, and says to me that need 3 man alive at end of game. So a 4 team artillery with 2 dead man can’t hold objective… I don’t know where is this rule.

🤔😅

For me Bolt Action is a beautiful wargame rules, but is write very bad that in Warlord don’t know what they want to say or what they has wrote in rules😅

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Steeljackal.
• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Steeljackal.

[Master Chief]

Hmm so they disallow 2-man teams  e.g. sniper, flamethrower, bazooka, and piat teams from controlling objectives.

[Master Chief]

No: sniper, flamethrower, bazooka, are infantry, not artillery. Infantry (one man stand too) or artillery with 3 crew alive.

I ask greater clarity, and says to me that need 3 man alive at end of game. So a 4 team artillery with 2 dead man can’t hold objective… I don’t know where is this rule.

🤔😅

For me Bolt Action is a beautiful wargame rules, but is write very bad that in Warlord don’t know what they want to say or what they has wrote in rules😅

[Nat]

Personally I’d have said no… because a spotter is an upgrade to a unit not a unit him (or her)self.. in that they dont provide an order die (they merly use the mortar /howitzers*)  & unless the FAQ says otherwise that’ll be the way I’ll play it

This means we can ignore the artillery unit with 3+ men…. (unless it was caviatied to say except for teams that start off with 3 or fewer crew)

 

*dont forget the spotter runs away when their gun/mortar dies /runs…..

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Nat.

[Master Chief]

I think it depends on the wording of the scenario’s objective. For example the wording of scenario 3 in the 2nd Edtion:

To hold an objective there must be a model from one of your infantry or artillery units (or a transport including one such unit) within 3” of the objective at the end of the game, and there must be no enemy unit of any type within 3” of it.

In this case I think a spotter would qualify.

 

In contrast, scenario 9 of the Battle of the Bulge book:

Players score one victory point for each enemy unit destroyed, and five victory points for each objective controlled. To control an objective there must be one of your units and no enemy units in it at the end of the final turn.

In this case the spotter will not qualify as it is not a separate unit, but 2-man teams will qualify.

[Steeljackal]

I agree with Nat and with Warlord answer, spotter can’t hold objective (also as Nat says if the mortar team is eliminated the spotter disappears, routes).

I still don’t understand where the 3 crews rule comes from 😅 🍻🍸

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by Steeljackal.

[Stuart Harrison]

“Personally I’d have said no… because a spotter is an upgrade to a unit not a unit him (or her)self.. in that they dont provide an order die (they merly use the mortar /howitzers*)  & unless the FAQ says otherwise that’ll be the way I’ll play it”

The problem with this interpretation is that the spotter rules specifically tell you they are “… treated entirely separately in other respects – as if they were two units – …”.

As objectives are not mentioned, they come under ‘other respects’, so treated as two units.  It would take an exclusion in the scenario objectives/victory conditions to prevent the spotter counting as a unit, or addition of a clause in the spotter rules to address interaction with objectives.

[Kar98k]

Rule books are hard pressed to cover every little rule and every little possible situation that can come up in tabletop miniature gaming. A lot of times players just have to apply the rule’s intentions or simply use common sense.

I too would have to say no to spotters taking objectives. For an added point cost, a spotter is just a simple add-on to a unit. It doesn’t make sense that an individual spotter would be allowed to hold objectives. The spotter’s main purpose is to extend the LOS of the unit, and not to attack the enemy or take objectives. Also, when the spotter’s unit is eliminated, the spotter is also removed from the game table. Further more, spotters don’t get their own order dice.

[SteveT]

I’m with Master Chief on this. The rules do not say anything about Spotters not being able to take stuff. The fact the rules do specifically single out medics as being unable to capture suggests they are the only notable exception.

ALSO:

From rules: “The spotter is part of the mortar or artillery team”

So if the mortar crew can capture stuff why not another (lone) member of the same team (the spotter).  For a more extreme example, consider the mortar team after being reduce to a single crewman; why wouldn’t he be equally effective (or ineffective) at capturing as his spotter friend?

And even if a spotter did cap something, it’s a risky move, as easy to wipe out. You don’t even need to target the spotter to shift him too. You could wipe out the rest of his team and he will run off. From rules: “should his associated weapons team or artillery piece be destroyed then the spotter is also removed as a casualty – he abandons his post and makes his way back to his own lines without taking any further part in the battle.”

And one more thing. Some objectives are stuff like documents or intel. I would think a trooper trained & equipped for observation— a spotter — would make even more sense for capturing stuff!

 

[Jacob Carter]

I lean more towards the middle of the road.  Since a spotter is a part of a combat unit and is also the cost of a standard rifleman, they should be able to take objectives.  But, to prevent spotters dug into hard cover from breaking the game, I’d say they shouldn’t be able to contest objectives from enemy units.  A single man hiding in ruins isn’t really going to prevent a squad from securing a crossroads.

[Kar98k]

“The rules do not say anything about Spotters not being able to take stuff.”

Just because it’s not in the rule book doesn’t automatically mean it can be performed. Take for example the weapons of a vehicle a unit is being transported in. The rules do not say anything about Spotters not being able to fire the vehicle’s weapons. However, we know a Spotter cannot use the weapons of a vehicle it is being transported in. Like I said above, rule books are hard pressed to cover every little thing, and a  lot of times players have to apply the rule’s intentions or simply use common sense.

That being said,  how often does the situation above come up in the first place?

[Author]

Posts