Bolt Action VS Chain Of Command

[jon_1066]

Put me in the 50% - the rules seemed perfectly fine to me.  I also liked the layout and illustrations - very attractive and made you want to rush out and start collecting appropriate armies.

I think there are two things at play:
1. pre-conceived ideas of what a miniature wargame does.  If you have pre-conceived notions of how wargames work then when you are presented with something that sits outside that mould it feels confusing
2. Interconnectedness of rules.  You have to compartmentalise the rules into manageable sections (eg shooting, morale, movement, etc) but a number of those sections interrelate and refer to other sections.  How you layout the rule book then becomes a subject of debate.  Do you have shooting rules before morale but shooting refers to shock which you then have to explain in the morale section.  Or do you put the shock in the shooting section?  Either way the first time reader will be presented with ideas and information that is only referenced before being explained sometimes many pages later.  Combine this with item 1 and you have a recipe for pleasing some of the people some of the time.

[fred]

I think that what also needs to be taken into account is different people have different ways of absorbing information and of learning. Some people like to read, some like to do, some like to see & listen.

We are very used to the reading method, as it is the easiest for the provider of the information. But it's not always the best, and it's certainly never the best for everyone.

I found the videos for CoC very useful, both interesting and informative. And I'm someone who is normally very happy to digest rules from writing. To me the videos help explain the shape and flow of the game, showing you the key mechanics. The written rules help with the details and the exceptions. Often in writtten rules the details and exceptions will have far more text devoted to them than the core mechanic. This is understandable but can make it hard to learn the core bit, i.e. the bit you use all the time, and need to know to play, vs getting to grips with all the details and nuances that you ultimately need to get the full depth of the game, but don't need right at the start.

[Truscott Trotter]

Just finished reading a thread on the BA website where the tactic to outwit the new Tiger Fear orders test is to hide one tank behind another then pop the tank out and fire without the -1!
Nuff said 

[Queeg]

Just finished reading a thread on the BA website where the tactic to outwit the new Tiger Fear orders test is to hide one tank behind another then pop the tank out and fire without the -1!
Nuff said  

What that's not std practice    

I think the new emphasis (meta) to use trucks with machine guns as battle units in BA2 is another little thing that doesn't teach people much.

Both systems don't particularly work for me but I'm old school and grew up on WRG 1950s, Challenger 2000 and Firefly rule sets. Both these current sets are really the offspring of Rapid Fire but with better presentation and much bigger market share. But as the gameplay systems fit in nicely with the modern boardgames that flood kickstarter all aimed at a couple of hours play and with the BA "GW" style one stop shop for rules, vehicles , troops, decals and scenery I can see why they are both so popular.  

[Rich H]

BA V2 seems to have added 80% improvements but also 20% cockups and typos.
Play testing seems to have been inadequate and by people who didn't play hard enough to break the rules (or were not empowered to make suggestions!) Really disappointing.

CofC is harder to learn especially as some things are very different to the 'GW standard' but far more rewarding. 

I'll continue to play BA as my local club play BA and there is an active and fun event scene in the UK.  Most of the regular characters play for fun not for the win.  But away from the club I play CofC when I can (or our home brew modern derivative) as its more challenging.

[jon_1066]

What that's not std practice    

I think the new emphasis (meta) to use trucks with machine guns as battle units in BA2 is another little thing that doesn't teach people much.

Both systems don't particularly work for me but I'm old school and grew up on WRG 1950s, Challenger 2000 and Firefly rule sets. Both these current sets are really the offspring of Rapid Fire but with better presentation and much bigger market share. But as the gameplay systems fit in nicely with the modern boardgames that flood kickstarter all aimed at a couple of hours play and with the BA "GW" style one stop shop for rules, vehicles , troops, decals and scenery I can see why they are both so popular.  

Chain of Command appears to have very little in common with Rapid Fire other than being set in WWII and using D6.  Bolt Action is clearly the offspring of Warhammer 40K which was the offspring of Warhammer Battle. 

Chain of Command doesn't fit into the one stop shop since it is just a ruleset.  Are you sure you are not getting mixed up with Flames of War?

[Queeg]

Nope, BA is a one stop shop and CoC is what I call a piggy back rule set as its rules only and relies on an existing troop and vehicle supply base. As for them being similar to rapid fire hmmm .... core d6's compressed solution mechanic, pretty similar in both cases to RF.

The differences are put on top of that, for flavour and to to try and be unique so they can be considered "different" enough. Both systems use the same core mechanic of command dice to achieve random unit activation. Bagged random drawn for one, rolled varied by command levels for the other. BA2 has even added the new officer rules to get closer to the command style of CoC.  Both use buckets of dice to help spread the limits of the d6 system.

Where CoC pulls away from BA is with the unique patrol/deployment zone phase, longer effective ranges and the fact units are more historically grounded, whereas BA is unashamedly fantasy war.

Anyway, just my observations. Both have a good following and provide what's advertised on the tin, good fun beer n pretzels gaming.

[Lardy Rich]

That's interesting.  When I started gaming all rule systems were stand-alone and not linked specifically to a range of figures.  If anything figures piggy-backed onto rule sets. 

Now it seems that I am a mere parasite on the back of the hobby.  Most enlightening.

Rich

[grant]

BA V2 seems to have added 80% improvements but also 20% cockups and typos.
Play testing seems to have been inadequate and by people who didn't play hard enough to break the rules (or were not empowered to make suggestions!) Really disappointing.

It was like that in v1. I made a list of changes to Il Duce's Cavatore's post once and he lost his mind. I left the forum shortly after and gave up on Dolt Action. It's just fantasy with a ww2 spin.

He controls it all. It's crap.

[Driscoles]

New rules should have a fresh feeling and should introduce something. CofC gave that feeling to me. It introduces the patrol phase for example which is a good idea and new to me.

Bolt Action has nothing new. It is really a bit like 40 k in WW2 . Which is a shame cuz when you introduce a new WW2 game there should be something special in it.... but it seems that this is not disruptive to its buyers. They sold  23000 copies.

I enjoyed the game of BA which I played with a good friend but I must admit. I am not hooked.

Most of my wargaming buddies who are connected to ww2 prefer CofC.

I also like watching the  videos. Be it either BA or CofC. I watch this videos mainly to see if that game is interesting for me or not.
So videos can be helpful.

Cheers
Björn

[Queeg]

That's interesting.  When I started gaming all rule systems were stand-alone and not linked specifically to a range of figures.  If anything figures piggy-backed onto rule sets.  

Now it seems that I am a mere parasite on the back of the hobby.  Most enlightening.

Rich

Wow "parasite" that's a bit sensitive so if you feel like it - but sorry if I offended you, that wasn't my intention. I thought I made a bunch of complimentary points to explain where the two sets are similar and where they are different (better to some) but my term "piggy-back" apparently rubbed a nerve. If it makes you feel happier probably 90% of all rule sets would fit into that category including the ones I write for myself and any other in-house rules. And yes there also are figure and vehicle manufacturers that throw up a set of rules to support what is there primary business of figure sales but most rules I and others I know own are primarily stand alone and pretty much useless (SJW terms - specialised, specific, unusable) unless the stuff to bring them alive is purchased for them.

So to explain myself, I use the term Piggy-back (not parasite or anything even close to that meaning) to describe rule sets that require independent purchases to enable them to be used, not as some form of perceived attack. Pretty much GW first followed by Flames of War/Battlefront and then BA are the leading examples of one-stop shops. By the way being a one-stop shop doesn't always mean "better" but it is one significant draw card that they use to differentiate themselves and improve uptake of all linked products. Stand alone rule sets have to rely solely on their content to generate sales, which is the goal yes?

btw the "which came first, the rules or the figures" comment would make a pretty interesting discussion on its own. Gaming figures are derived from the original toy-tin soldiers so probably figures.  

cheers
Brent

[Captain Blood]

How would Disposable Heroes compare against Bolt Action or Chain of Command? Anyone tried those rules?

I'm trying to decide on a - simple - set of WW2 platoon level skirmish rules. And I saw the upcoming kickstarter for a new edition of Disposable Heroes advertised in the mailer I received from Brigade Games today. The promo contained the magic words 'Historically accurate. Easy to learn. Fast to play'. Sounds like what I'm looking for.

Any thoughts on that set? 

[fred]

Queeg - I think your classification of one-stop shop and piggy-back are a little odd.

I think I would choose closed system and independent as the descriptors. Independent being what we started with, were rules, figures and terrain were produced by many different companies, and you were free to pick and choose what you wanted to use. Until very recently with FoW and BA this was always how historicals were.

The closed shop, where a single manufacturer produces rules and figures and paint and terrain, and tries to instill the idea in their player base that anything else is wrong, and shouldn't be used, certainly started with GW but has spread wider. This business model also seems to like to produce new rules to make new models more appealing to the potential purchaser.

To me the independent model feels much better - but the closed shop model certainly seems to generate a lot of sales for the  core companies, so a lot easier of people must like the option of having everything presented to them, even if it is at a premium price.

[Truscott Trotter]

That's interesting.  When I started gaming all rule systems were stand-alone and not linked specifically to a range of figures.  If anything figures piggy-backed onto rule sets. 

Now it seems that I am a mere parasite on the back of the hobby.  Most enlightening.

Rich

I always knew you would turn into a parasite if you kept drinking that cheap cooking larger Rich! 

[Queeg]

Queeg - I think your classification of one-stop shop and piggy-back are a little odd.

Lol, that's because I'm a little odd, we need a like button  

Yeah agree, never said my terms were universal, just my own and probably a hang over from years of marketing discussions .... Independent and Closed Systems are much nicer.

As for forcing players to use their own flogged product, certainly this is more prevalent when playing particular game systems at tournaments and LGS play than what we do in our own sheds. Which is reasonable to a point, if sponsored then someone paying the bills has a little right to have a little say in how things are run. GW is the obvious extreme example here even extending to older generation figures not being allowed in some cases, but FOW jumped in pretty hard too although I'm not sure if that's still the case. To my knowledge BA has never pushed this approach and the player community is very tolerant on suppliers and even scales. CoC has no horse in this so as an "Independent" is in an even better situation to welcome all.