V3 NEW platoon composition! Edit: and discussion apparently

[Aidan]

Yeah probably. It’ll be interesting to see how they change it.

[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.

[Nat]

So small teams is gone – theres no getting round that (like exceptional damage) WL have come out and said its gone completely, not changed or re-named, gone!

People have done the maths on FB & Discord and turns out its a bit of a wash (no real difference) on lethality between the changes in shooting with modifiers and cover.

The streamlined thing …..theres a lot less calculations to do (not that there was a lot or it was difficult), and a lot less 7+ to hit results.  How much time this saves or costs isnt really going to anything worth calculating in my view  -as  again it balances out… instead of having to roll half a dozen dice again to see if you hit, its now giving your opponent a few dice to roll to see if their guys go splat!  So from an interaction point of view its a plus, time saved its nil.

this is of course just my view on the bases of the teases we’ve had… full judgement is waiting till I get the rulebook and a couple of games in.

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

[SteveT]

Yes, I am with Wilber on this latest batch of  ‘doublespeak’:  MMGs being more survivable as no small man rule (??!) , and the ‘simplification’ of 1 roll into 2. Read like a bad attempts at persuasion.

Of course, their primary aim must be always to sell more figures and books, as without sales the Bolt Action we like withers and dies. But neither of those rules I think are particularly about getting people to buy stuff.  The only thing needed for that was to change unit compositions to allow more of X and Y, which we know has been done.  And there are already theatre selectors permitting large numbers (and that is without multiple platoons). I had to field 7 MMGs yesterday.

My concern is these latest changes sound like dumbing down.  And why? An attempt to bring in the masses? I hope not at the expense of being a wargame to become just another tabletop ‘fun’ game. I am old school and am always cogniscent of what we are really representing on the table. When the word ‘fun’ gets overly mentioned, I cringe.

 

 

[Aidan]

Wilber,

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

Yeah or even take the best of both and combine them into a V2.5…

I’m also skeptical, what I like about Bolt Action is that it has depth but also flows smoothly at it’s core and you don’t have to roll millions of dice. A concern with the new cover saves is getting roll to damage/cover saves modifiers mixed in your head…(which will totally happen to me)

I’m with Nat here, there’s still an 80+ page rulebook that the public has not seen yet, so until the rules officially drop I’m trying to hold my criticism, but I find all this discussion fascinating.

 

[Aidan]

Nat,

probably just better range, to hit, an extra pin & +1 PEN against infantry

That would totally make sense. It’s always irked me that snipers need a 6 to wound Soviet engineers with body armor. Like, headshots exist. Maybe it will be the opposite, snipers in V3 miss more often but have a high chance of wounding when they hit unlike V2 where snipers hit often but have a lower chance of wounding when they hit.

[coljacksimpson57]

Our group fights with a base company formation (usually infantry and using historical TO&E).  We set the scenario rules so that the base company eats many of your points and only allows one or two supporting platoons (only one of which could be tanks).  We never fielded the lone tank.

[Ghettotech]

Just want to admit that rolling for cover gives a better “feeling” for the defender. You can “defend” and not just get shoot at. Other setting for the mind 😉

[sunny rothfusz]

Hi ,
Rather then starting a new newbie topic i spotted your response by searching for “recce transport”
So am I understanding it right that Recce platoons can use normal transports and not special recce ones?
For example if I want to make a Recce platoon for my DAK can i use a 251/1 (aka vanilla han) because when i looked in my 2nd edition codex I saw the /1 doesn’t have the recce keyword.
And the /23 recce has no transport option.

[Stuart Harrison]

“All these transport vehicles MUST have the Recce special rule, or must be given the Recce special rule at +10 points per vehicle, even if their entry does not normally allow this option.”

No wriggle room, but that last bit covers your 251/1.

[sunny rothfusz]

thank you, for 10 pts they can function.
good to know.

[Author]

Posts