"Are Bolt Action THAT Dominant?" Topic

Talking to a friend the other day, he enjoyed a different rule set, but said if he wanted a game at his local club he had to play Bolt Action. Are they that dominant at the skirmish end of wwii gaming that nothing else stands a chance?

In the same way that FOW has the squad level yes. Some clubs/groups will ONLY play BA.

No. Personally, I don't know anyone that plays it. Chain of Command seems to be the thing in my neck of the woods!

It is often true that a player should build both sides for a game then plenty of people will try it. of course he will need to spend money and resources to be able to provide both sides. Some games can use figures based for a different game though. No one wants to build an army and find he is on his own.

martin

Are the folks not open to change or trying something new?
By all means try it and say it doesn't suit my taste but if no additional layout in terms of figs and terrain are required why the reluctance to try something new?

David

BA is 'dominant' only insofar that they oversaturated the market in 28mm skirmish. Like 40K and FOW, their aggressive marketing and product placement give them an advantage over other skirmish systems.

People are lemmings insofar as they buy and play what's most readily available, and BA is what's most readily available in 28mm skirmish right now.

I don't know anyone who plays it either. Seems to be Chain of Command at the moment here or USSR or Crossfire or Panzermarsch or …

Mike

I think it depends where you are as mentioned above as to what system you would get the chance to play. Our local club play several systems including the dominant ones mentioned above also.

I think the thing the BA is that it is very clear cut in organisational limits and the rules and streamlined making it clear to everyone and appealing to many as a pick-up and play game. The marketing by Warlord is good too and thus they excel at promoting their system where many others simply do or cannot compete, thus they are very well known.

Also the result is a system that people get excited about as if they have watched Saving Private Ryan and then played the game to re-live the experience. The issue here is that many would view SPR as obviously that, a film, and therefore full of historical and military flaws whereas others would see it as just the experience they are after for an evening's entertainment. More people are familiar with the films than 'reality' and the film's portrayal seems to be quite realistic in many ways. BA is strong in the core mechanics and a great system but a chance to play another game shouldn't be sniffed at.

It all depends if you can attain the critical mass needed to play the game in terms of players. By that I mean, you would need at least 3 or more players to make the chances of having a varied opponent more likely, otherwise there will be just two of you playing and most likely with the same 2 armies against each other. Personally my money is on CoC so good luck to your friend trying to tempt them with another system.

What is the shop pushing?
How many of the local players spend the time to look at other sets, to see what else is being offered?

Don't know – personally I've never played it or read the rulebook.

I read the rules and then got Chain of command.

I would think that figures are the key-if individually mounted,you could probably play any skirmish set,and you can always play more than one if so inclined.I play BA,but would like to try CoC at some point.

I have both BA and CoC and have spent some of this week playing them both. I like them both but they are different games and my personal preference is probably CoC (especially when they get some more lists and the campaign supplement out).
This doesn't mean I'll stop playing BA but I would like them to address some problems and not just produce a 2nd ed. and upset all of us who have forked out hard earned cash for the originals.
It feels to me that BA is more like 40k (and the like) with the intention of playing pick up games at set points with an previously unknown opponent. CoC however feels (to me) that it should be used for scenarios and battles with more previous thought and planning.
Oh and I play with individually based 15mm (makes the BA table less crowded and relative ranges feel better IMO) so finding opponents is sometimes hard :)

he should change clubs, our clubs policy is we play anything, in fact we have 2 different sets of rules on 2 different 20mm ww2 games going on at present.

Never heard of it.

Are they rules???

I do know some people who play Bolt Action and at their club they seem to do FoW as a battle level game and Bolt Action as a skirmish game. None of my group play either (for WW2 we play NQM, Megablitz and PBI but keep promising ourselves we'll do a bit more Crossfire) …

Bolt Action is nothing like as popular as FoW from what I see around the place …

Phil

depends alot on where you play. If you are in the midwest US you usually play at home or at a local game store. Bolt Action is available through distributors, therefore the stores can actually stock it. If you come in fresh and want to play 28mm ww2 skirmishy game, it is on the shelf and easy to access.
Also if you play at a local shop, you may not know who you be playing against, so you bring what others have, so you can get a game in.

I own both, but am gearing up more for BA as that is what the people I game with have access to, and want to try. But I also have a gaming table at home so we can expand out if we want to (heck we will all have armies for any WW2 game readily at hand)

Nope. Chain of Command.

Local shop is pushing Bolt Action, but I'm trying to avoid rebuying WW2 in 28mm when I already have it in 15.

Some clubs have cultures where one or a very games hold sway. Dominant personalities – quicker painters – willing to teach rules/umpire etc.

Others are more anarchic/individualistic.

We play it in 15mm with no issues.

Bolt Action is very popular locally. Great to see 28mm WWII out on the tables again.

Chain of Command here

I tried for years to push Disposable Heroes with no luck. Bolt Action came in and a bunch of people jumped on board. I probably prefer Disposable Heroes but am fine with Bolt Action. I think they will have a hard time continuing the momentum because I will NOT buy into the kind of churn that GW and flames of war have gotten into

I really like Flying Lead for 20th century skirmish games.

I bought a set of BA and find it to be very gimmick laden. Very 40kesque….. I still prefer Disposable Heroes.

A couple clubs here liked it, some guys I know hated it. So it's not dominant here and sales have been just so-so for me.

A few of the gamers around here (like me) prefer Disposable Heroes, but Bolt Action (aka The Rules of Satan) are much more popular. Can't imagine why. Maybe its the pretty pictures or massive cash required.

Rules come and go, some people like to play whatever the latest thing is.

I've never seen anyone at our club play BA though.

Not played Bolt Action myself- our little club is all about Chain Of command at the moment.

However, I use Warlord's minis to play, and there's no reason that I couldn't pick up the Bolt Action rules and start playing them. Does it have to be one or the other? I don't get sniffy or superior for choosing the 'less 40K' ruleset, it just happened that Chain of command was the first one I tried and I see no reason to move on at this time, enjoying myself as I am.

Leigh

I prefer Bolt Action for my WW2 skirmish gaming, and because of Warlord's market presence, the rules, figures, and supplements are stocked in my area by a number of local hobby shops. That being said, I play the game with the 20mm figs I had already collected, and have encouraged others to play it with their 15mm FOW miniatures too.

Whatever preference people have for the rules, they're being well-supported and promoted, and there's something to said about this lending accessibility to the system. In fact, Bolt Action is one of the few rulesets that numbers of gamers in my area have picked up playing independently of one another.

IMO Nobody should be forced to play a game . Just leave the club , I would! Sometimes if you want to promote a new rules set then building both sides would be desirable. Ido like the odd Solo game so I already build both sides in most cases. It also give you an appreciation of both sides viewpoints when reading the appropriate reference material.

Our club decided to adopt BA as the standard squad skirmish games so I just left them to it :)

I play Battleground and will continue to do so. Why, because it was a good game set of rules for skirmish and I really like them. Why should I change just because new rules come along.

I bought a set of BA and find it to be very gimmick laden. Very 40kesque… I still prefer Disposable Heroes.

That's actually why a lot of the guys at the FLGS like it, they're all old 40k players and are used to that type of rules.

I'm having a hard time teaching a friend of mine Ambush Alley because he's so used to IGOUGO systems…

Play solitaire and play the rules that you want! Much less hassle from the outside world : )

Joe

Ba is simply enjoying its place in the sun for now. Yes, it does seem to be very popular. No, I don't know anyone in our club who plays it, but the sample size isn't enormous.

"… play the game with the 20mm figs I had already collected, and have encouraged others to play it with their 15mm FOW miniatures…"

Tangent = figure scale

If a ruleset specified the size of the minis to be used, what would be your reaction to them?

It's the same old mentality you find in some clubs. A group of core regulars like a particular set of rules and they just won't entertain the idea of playing another set.

Back to the OP, I wonder if your friend is a relative newcomer to that club because, from experience, I've found that being the newbie at some clubs makes it harder to convince the old guard to try another set of rules.

"A group of core regulars like a particular set of rules and they just won't entertain the idea of playing another set."

the same scenario could be explained by having very diverse numbers of rule sets being played and that BA just got left by the wayside by other new and shiny.
My clubs ( I have three current and one former) are all very diverse, playing loads of different rulesets, all four of them played bolt action at one time. One further invite group I go along to related to my former club still play them ocassionally….so 2 out of 4 play BA. 3 play CoC.
I have a monday club, a shed meet on a wednesday after family stuff and another Friday shed meet and invites to thursday nights……It's tough being a newbie…..I get weekends off and I'm my own boss!

BA is a fun game but so are the others. With individually mounted figures you can play any of them.

BA seems to have some quirky rules but the game is result driven not process driven. Many of the issues with BA concerns the army lists and point system. I see no need to use either since historical OOB's are readily available.

If a ruleset specified the size of the minis to be used, what would be your reaction to them?

Historical gaming? Unless we're talking about an explicitly non-telescoped 1:1 figure scale:ground scale game, I'd probably laugh out loud. It's gameable at 6mm, because at 1/300 groundscale, 12"=100yds.

I'm still oddly tempted by the pictures one of the guys here has posted of his 3mm Napoleonics with close to real headcounts and proper company formations/frontages. And they all fit on 40mm wide bases.

Now, if we're talking about fantasy or scifi gaming, then I will tolerate a ruleset declaring what size minis are "supposed" to be used.

One factor that is important with BA is the link to Osprey. Since it's a co-publication between Warlord and Osprey, they can recycle all the good painted art out of the Men-at-Arms and other books, and cross-promote on the Osprey website. Even without aggressive marketing, they're lined up with THE big gun in historical wargaming sourcebooks.

Historical skirmish doesn't suffer from as much "rules lock" as some other genres. Since everything is usually 1:1 and on individual bases, you can use the same figures pretty much regardless of the rules used. And the lists and gear are going to be based on real TO&Es. Heck, you could use the Flames of War unit charts as the basis for your CoC or Bolt Action games if you wanted to.

And of course, you have no copyrights on the history to worry about, just choices from what manufacturer you prefer. If I'm putting together Tau, I've pretty much got the one source of models; with late war Russians there's 3 manufacturers in 28mm plastic alone, plus many more in metal.

Oh, and I'd recommend Wargames Factory's WW2 kits. You can supplement them a bit using individual weapon sprues from Warlord. Plastic has no memory of its manufacturer :)

The above poster has probably hit the nail on the head. Apart from being 40kesque a mentioned elsewhere, the other reason its so popular is that its backed by 2 "giants" ie Warlord and Osprey and therefore the marketing and eyecandy is probably better than it rivals but not necessarily the rules themselves.

I've played both. CoC is an amazing game in my opinion which gives a very realistic feel. But having played it with a few wargaming novices I noticed they struggled quite a bit with the rules. Tried BA with the same group and they definitely took to the system more quickly; I think it gives a very entertaining game that flows quickly with a minimum of rule references.

There are a few things I tweak when I play BA but overall apart from the obvious resources provided by their two investors I can understand why it does so well. I especially think the pinning mechanic is really well thought out. But for me CoC offers a game that feels more like the real thing.

Well I think you've hit the nail on the head there Panda man, and also the reason why there is some 'snobbery' towards BA. CoC seems undoubtedly preferred by those that want more of a simulation (or feel) as you put it of WWII. BA is not favoured so much as the armies are sprinkled with 'special rules' and some questionable mechanisms for the sake of streamlining where CoC doesn't seem to do that (ie BA allows you to buy one squad/section with MG, that's it, CoC allows for the MG to be split from the squad). In addition you can power-game the army lists in BA a little bit (a bit like in 40k, although not quite as much) whereas it is generally looked down on in the spirit of the game, and CoC favours more historical TO&E forces (cue the argument for 'what was/is really historical…')

I don't like how having a competitive BA 'tournament' turn up and play German army for instance means tfat you have to have your units all packing assault rifles, but with a couple of Kar98K armed models in each unit just to soak up the inevitable few casualties so as to not waste points and optimise the list for gameplay. This is where the dissatisfaction with the system lies predominantly with those who aren't liking BA so if you can escape that and just write your own 'historical unit composition as best you can (cue the 'well that's how the game designer designed it so don't start F'ing with his lists' argument…) then the overall outcome of the effect of the rules will likely be satisfying from a gameplay vs historical outcome POV.

That said the more you get to know about WWII and the more you want to have situations expressed in a certain way as a consequence I bet ALL my money most players would start to favour CoC over BA, hence the snobbery. It all comes down to what you want from your game really. Try both, read and learn more about the war and weapons amd tactics and then make your own mind up as best you can mr OP, good luck!

Well Bolt Action provides both the rules and miniatures and is base off of 40K so easy to pick up.

I've had a lot of fun putting on Bolt Action games for guys in my area. Many of us have 40+ years wargaming (I started playing WW2 with Fast Rules, Tractics, and Angriff!), and Bolt Action has been pretty well-received by most of my "serious" gaming buddies. The game's dice ordering/activation system provides an easy to use sequencing that even gamers of less experience can quickly understand, and this is probably one reason the game is so easy to pick up, and works well for con presentations too. Btw, I don't pts. build or use the scenario formats included in the rules, but attempt to create interesting battlefield problems to try out on the tabletop (so far working fine).

I've been waiting for someone to say pretty much EXACTLY how our group feels about BA. FlyXwire nailed it. I have been gaming with minis since 1979 w/TSATF. I had Angriff!! (still do) along with many other WW2 rules thru the years. BTW, none of us have ever played a 40K game, or anything like it. I've never played a fantasy game of any kind(not that that matters). I (we) have been playing CrossFire since they came out & they are still my all-time favorite rules. That said, we have had a few new folks playing with us lately & I thought it might be a good time to try out BA. It has worked VERY well & more importantly, has given us ALL a good game & A LOT of FUN!
I won't ditch CrossFire, far from it, but there is no reason to blow off any set of rules because of preconceptions. Just my 2¢.
Peter

Glad to hear you and your group are also having fun with BA too Peter! I've never played 40K, and like you don't think that bears on the matter either. I'm at a spot in my gaming that I find myself believing in the philosophy of "rules lite – game heavy". No doubts there's rules that can simulate battles to greater degrees than the systems I like to play now, but to me they can lose on the dynamics of the actual tabletop experience, because they can take too long to play, they can take too long to learn, they can take too long to explain, or they can take too long to play w/o making mistakes. I'm at a point in my gaming life where I want the rules to get out of the player's way, so that the competition is between the gamers and their decision making skills, rather than how well they've mastered a ruleset's mechanics. Instead, I'm putting much more of my effort currently into to trying to create battlefield environments (and mission situations) that might draw players into a game scenario. So I'm very interested in seeing players make decision based on terrain problems, and reacting to their opponent actions. Bolt Action is working fine for this, and players can get past the rules quickly, and into the missions where I want their thinking to be focused anyway.