My Bolt Action Forces - US Army Weapons Teams 2/17/24

[MikeRC97]

Thank you all for the kind words.

How are the rules for Bolt Action? I have never played it before.
Regards,
Hitman
😎

I hadn't played it either before this week.  I've been working on getting two small forces done to try out the game but I get easily distracted by other projects so it took forever.

I've seen a lot of criticism online for the ruleset but I liked them.  The rules are simple to learn, and while for some that may be a negative, for me that was a plus.  I played with my son, we normally play 40k and Kill Team, and by the third turn of our first game (for both of us) the game started to play quickly, although we made a ton of mistakes.  We're more of the learn-as-you-play types and the relative simplicity of the ruleset lends themselves well to this approach.  I really like the way the rules incorporate pinning and order tests without slowing the game down.  Even when we were in the thick of things with multiple combats happening the game really flowed.

Coming from 40k I do see how the rules can be abused by competitive players who will min/max units to get as many order dice and assault rifles on the board as possible (historical accuracy be damned).  That wasn't an issue in our game as I modelled both forces based on historical WW2 squads (I left the German sniper at home for our learning game).  I don't know if I would enjoy the game playing with competitive players though.

I'm curious how other LAFers feel about the ruleset.  Eventually I want to try Chain of Command as well but I need another squad for each force and some more supports.

[Vanth]

It's not that they are bad rules per se, but rather that they do not really represent a WWII engagement at all. Basically it is a fantasy game using WWII figures and vehicles, but the rules actively prevent you from using real tactics such as fire and movement by teams. And of course the whole list building concept is flawed under this respect.

[MikeRC97]

It's not that they are bad rules per se, but rather that they do not really represent a WWII engagement at all. Basically it is a fantasy game using WWII figures and vehicles, but the rules actively prevent you from using real tactics such as fire and movement by teams. And of course the whole list building concept is flawed under this respect.

How do the rules actively prevent the player from using real tactics?

In the learning game I played with my son, I played as the Germans and he played as U.S.  I deployed one of my German squads near a forest, moved them into cover in turn one and from that point on they held a defensive position to take advantage of the firepower of the MG42.  By 1944 as Germany had gone on the defensive the German squads were very much based around the MG42 as the decisive element and the Bolt Action rules give an extra die for the MG42 to reflect this.

Is it that the rules prevent playing using real tactics, or is it that the game doesn't force the player to use real tactics?  It's early days for me so I can't really answer yet. 

On list building I do think this is the case - the rules don't force you to use historically accurate WWII squads and so the game does open itself up to list building abuse.  I think some of this comes from players coming from competitive 40k who don't really care about historical accuracy and who are accustomed to min/maxing and other such list building shenanigans.  But that's not to say that you can't build historically accurate forces as I attempted to do.

Please keep in mind I'm not trying to defend the rules as I realize that they are not for everyone but I'm curious about the point you made and would like a better understanding of your meaning.

[Vanth]

How do the rules actively prevent the player from using real tactics?

You have to use the squad as a whole, so fire and movement by teams is impossible due to the need 1) to remain in coherency and 2) by the fact that the squad only has a single activation. This was key to the tactics of most major powers during WWII, either on the attack or on defense: the LMG was the key element of the squad for this. Also, LMGs perform rather poorly in BA; for this reason, most players simply do not take them at all.

On list building I do think this is the case - the rules don't force you to use historically accurate WWII squads and so the game does open itself up to list building abuse.  I think some of this comes from players coming from competitive 40k who don't really care about historical accuracy and who are accustomed to min/maxing and other such list building shenanigans.  But that's not to say that you can't build historically accurate forces as I attempted to do.

That is totally correct, but this means that you either play alone (or with someone like minded) or have to accept the fact that you are going to be trounced quite often, which generally does not make for a very fun game. Another thing which is quite odd is that there are things allowed that should really not belong to an engagement the size and scale represented here, mostly artillery which should be, in a realistic reproduction, be deployed a couple of rooms away from the table. The possibility to field multiple platoons makes things even worse: I have seen a guy fielding four platoons composed of the required two five men squad of green troops so that he could take four flamethrowing tanks...

[MikeRC97]

You have to use the squad as a whole, so fire and movement by teams is impossible due to the need 1) to remain in coherency and 2) by the fact that the squad only has a single activation.

You can do it but the rules certainly don't facilitate playing this way.  Using my US force as an example I could deploy a rifle squad as two separate units (a fire element with the BAR and a maneuver element), and keep them within 6" of a First Lieutenant.  When the officer is activated he can use the "You Men, Snap to Action!" rule to issue back-to-back orders to the two rifle units.  The HQ unit can fire on the enemy unit first, the fire element can follow up with a shooting attack and the maneuver element can move and fire (without to-hit penalty per the US army special rule).  Are there other WWII rule sets that do a better job of this?  I haven't played Chain of Command yet but my guess would be that's the answer.

Personally, I don't need to play the game using historical tactics to have fun.  And I did find the game fun while it still felt like I was playing a WWII game.  There are many examples in the rule book where the author points out the historical reason for a specific rule.  For example the M4 Sherman has a "medium anti-tank gun" while the Panzer IV H has a "heavy anti-tank gun" even though both tanks have 75mm cannon.  This reflects the dual-role L/40 75mm cannon on the M4 Sherman compared to the L/48 75mm cannon on the Panzer IV H.  And we felt this in game as the Panzer had an easier time penetrating the armor of the Sherman.

But having fun with this ruleset comes with a MASSIVE caveat...

That is totally correct, but this means that you either play alone (or with someone like minded)

This.  100% this.  I think the Bolt Action rules have "fallen into the wrong hands" so to speak.  In general, the Warlord rules seem to have been written for casual games among like-minded friends (this was explicitly stated in the intro to the Black Powder rules).  I put together two historical forces and played a fun game and I came away with a very positive opinion of the rules.  But had I played against someone with a list like the one you described I doubt I would ever play the game again.

And from what I have seen in online Battle Reports, these ahistorical-min/max lists seem to be the norm.  Take as many 5 man squads as you can (to maximize order dice and therefore potential pins on your opponent's units), load them up with SMGs/LMGs/Assault rifles to the max allowed and include a truck or jeep with a HMG as a gun truck.  I suppose if both players take that same approach to the game, both could have a good time.  But that wouldn't be for me.  If I wanted to play that way I would just play 40k.

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of the hate I see online for Bolt Action feels a bit unfair.  Are the rules an accurate simulation of WWII small unit tactics?  Certainly not.  Is the game fun to play while still feeling like a WWII tabletop wargame?  I think so, but with the caveat I mentioned above.

I'll see how I feel about them after playing more games and after trying out some other rules for this scale of game (meaning platoon level, not 28mm).

[Vanth]

You can do it but the rules certainly don't facilitate playing this way.  Using my US force as an example I could deploy a rifle squad as two separate units (a fire element with the BAR and a maneuver element), and keep them within 6" of a First Lieutenant.

That is the only way, but now you are playing with two units (in game terms: squads) and this makes them easier to pin down with shock. It is a workaround, but less than ideal, IMHO.

Are there other WWII rule sets that do a better job of this?  I haven't played Chain of Command yet but my guess would be that's the answer.

I would say that CoC does a much better job: in CoC the use of leaders (not only the platoon CO but the Second in Command and the Squad leaders) is crucial and it allows you to effectively utilize real tactics.

Another thing that bothers me in BA is that the activation system, while fun and interesting, produces some twisted results: in a fight the more experienced side normally holds the tactical initiative against a more untrained/green opponent. In BA, due to the command dice mechanics, it is the opposite: a green force will always have more dice in the bag than an elite force (even without taking into account tricks like splitting squads or taking cheap units just for the dice) and will thus be easier to activate and coordinate.

Mind you, I have been onboard with BA when it first came out and have been a Sarge (demo player) for it for a while, but I feel that second edition definitely made the game worse, not addressing any of the problems that the first edition had and creating a whole host of new ones. I think that the game was mainly targeted at players used to WH40K and under this respect I understand it has been a success, but when you need to select your opponents in order to have fun with a ruleset, I think there is a problem...

[dickiegranthum]

Bolt Action is not a good representation of any action. It’s … gamey. And that’s about it.

[MikeRC97]

I’m back with some additions to my US force from the Warlord Games US Army Weapons Teams box set.

First up is a sniper team.  I really like the way the sniper figure is modeled like he’s adjusting his rifle’s sight.



This box set came out in 2023 but I know some, if not all, of the figures are old sculpts.  What is new is the material – these figures are made from Warlord’s Resin Plus material.  A quick google search informed me that this is actually a new material from Sicocast which they call SiOres HARD.

I’ve read mixed reviews of miniatures made from the original Siocast resin, so I wasn’t sure what to expect from this box set but imho this new material is quite good.  The resin is very hard, the details are sharp and there was little to no flash.  On the Warlord website it says these miniatures do not have to be primed; I did notice a powdery finish on the figures out-of-the-box.  Old habits die hard so I gave them a quick soak in dishwashing soap and primed them with my usual rattle can primer.



Next up is a flamethrower team (M2).  I’m not a fan of these two figures, the proportions are a bit wonky.  I’ve seen this team for sale online in a metal blister pack, they are not new sculpts.



On the assistant figure I decided to see how hard it is to convert a figure made from this resin by attempting a simple head swap.  It wasn’t hard at all, using a pair of sprue cutters I easily cut off the existing head which I replaced with a head from the Warlord US Infantry plastic sprue using super glue.  I had to do a little bit of sanding but there was none of the dust you get when sanding traditional resin which is a plus.  The heads on the Warlord plastic sprue are a bit larger than the heads on these resin figures but not too bad.  I tried out a head from the Perry Miniatures US Infantry plastic sprue, but it was way too small.



Here is the last addition, a light mortar team (M2).  The box set comes with individual plastic bases for the sniper and flamethrower team figures and a single 60mm plastic base for the light mortar team.  When I painted my German medium mortar team I based the figures and the weapon individually.  With these new figures, I changed how I base heavy weapons teams.



In the Bolt Action rules, a team weapon is a weapon that requires two or more men to fire at full effect.  Support team weapons, such as this mortar team, have a special rule that if the model carrying / firing the weapon is killed, the entire team is removed.  This rule is what makes snipers so powerful as the controlling player can always select which model to remove successful damage roll.

For this mortar team I glued the weapon and one of the team members to the base, this figure will count as the model firing the weapon.  The other two team members are on their own bases which allows for individual model removal when the entire team is not removed.



I liked the result so much that I decided to rebase the German medium mortar team the same way.



With these new additions I now have 700 points for both forces which is a nice size for the games I play on the dining room table.  Eventually I would like to get both forces up to 1000 points.

[CapnJim]

Those guys look good.  I've been wondering about Warlord's new resin castings - thanks for the review.