View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:10 am




Reply to topic  [ 261 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
BOLT ACTION: Rules Questions, Clarifications and Errata. 
Author Message
Private

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 1:38 pm
Posts: 24
UberGruber wrote:
No it would not.

Otherwise they would either always destroy a vehicle or the assault would never end.

Note that the Fanatic rule kicks in when the unit is defeated in close combat. You cannot be defeated in close combat when assaulting a vehicle, merely fail to damage it.


Thank you UberFruber and bmdnut. Sorry for the duplicate post.


Sun Apr 05, 2015 11:43 am
Profile
Private

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 1:38 pm
Posts: 24
Heavy weapons and penetration against infantry

I have just played a few more games and have some questions.

This was presented to me, but does not quite make sense to me. If it is I will need to reevaluate some of my opinions of effectiveness of weapons. I have looked for the question it in the rule book, tank wars, and errata unless I missed it.

When an infantry unit is hit with an HE or any heavy weapon does the penetration value of the weapon factor into the skill rating of the infantry unit being hit to determine wounds?

Example:
A light AT gun fires into a unit of veterans and scores 1 hit. When rolling for damage the shooter would need a 5 for veterans, but because the light AT gun has a pen of +4 would the shooter get to reduce the amount needed on the roll to wound a rifleman? (Doesn't make complete sense to me
as I cannot find anything to support it)

Similarly. If an Medium howitzer scored 4 hits at a +3 pen would each hit get to subtract 3 from the veteran score of 5 needed to wound bringing it down to only needing a 2+ for each wound roll?


Sorry if this seems elementary.

Thanks,

Tepabal


Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:06 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:42 pm
Posts: 2499
Images: 0
Location: Wallia Marchie
Yes, Pen is added to the damage roll against any target.

_________________
Themed Selectors:

Fallen in die Hölle - German Airborne on Crete
Tatou! Tatou! - Maori Bn in Greece and Crete, Ka Mate! Ka Mate! -Maori Bn in North Africa
Ritterlich im Krieg - 1942 Afrika Korps


Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:48 pm
Profile
Private

Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 1:38 pm
Posts: 24
Thanks again UberGruber. Going to review the SPGs and howitzers all over again. Definitely underestimated their effectiveness against infantry.


Sun Apr 05, 2015 6:57 pm
Profile
Private First Class

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:00 am
Posts: 66
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
Quick question, the S2 rules for MMG's, does that count for my vehicle mounted MMGs or ONLY infantry?


Tue Jun 09, 2015 3:46 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:42 pm
Posts: 2499
Images: 0
Location: Wallia Marchie
only infantry. Vehicle mounted mgs are fine as is

_________________
Themed Selectors:

Fallen in die Hölle - German Airborne on Crete
Tatou! Tatou! - Maori Bn in Greece and Crete, Ka Mate! Ka Mate! -Maori Bn in North Africa
Ritterlich im Krieg - 1942 Afrika Korps


Tue Jun 09, 2015 4:13 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:16 pm
Posts: 337
Question about indirect fire and ranging in. If I fire a howitzer turn one, then in turn two it fails it's order test and goes down, then turn three it fires again. Assuming me and the target have both still not moved do I need a 5 or 6 to hit on the second shot?

In summary does ranging in get cancelled by going down even though nothing is moving?


Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:43 pm
Profile
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 2:34 pm
Posts: 260
Location: Swartz Creek, MI
Hey guys, I have a question on how building assaults work. We had this on our board over the weekend:

Image

Image

We considered the three different apartments (one is one floor - a shed) as three different buildings.

The issue we had - my opponent had models in C (the shed) and I had models in A (the rightmost apartment). Both on the ground floors. Can he assault from C into A? Does he have to be able to see the door or window he's assaulting through, or just a piece of the building I'm in? His dudes could crane their necks out of the window he has and see the apartment I was in. Any suggestions or information I can use?

_________________
Image


Mon Aug 31, 2015 9:05 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:21 pm
Posts: 298
The rules allow you to assault up or down one floor, or into an adjacent section on the same level (ie, into B from either A or C, but not directly from A to C. P104, assaulting buildings, second para.

As they couldn't see from A to C to declare the assault, and it's not covered by the first para, I would say no - they would have to either go from A to B, then B to C the next turn, or out into the street and assault C the next turn. If it was an "L" shaped building and you could see C from A I wouldn't see a problem - they would however have to meet the normal requirements of assaulting a building (all reach section C and at least one within 1" of an opening).


Tue Sep 01, 2015 3:27 am
Profile
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 05, 2014 2:34 pm
Posts: 260
Location: Swartz Creek, MI
bmdnut wrote:
The rules allow you to assault up or down one floor, or into an adjacent section on the same level (ie, into B from either A or C, but not directly from A to C. P104, assaulting buildings, second para.

As they couldn't see from A to C to declare the assault, and it's not covered by the first para, I would say no - they would have to either go from A to B, then B to C the next turn, or out into the street and assault C the next turn. If it was an "L" shaped building and you could see C from A I wouldn't see a problem - they would however have to meet the normal requirements of assaulting a building (all reach section C and at least one within 1" of an opening).

Thanks! That makes a lot of sense.

_________________
Image


Tue Sep 01, 2015 1:41 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:16 pm
Posts: 337
Bumping this since it got missed in all hte hubbaloo with Muggins fancy pics of buildlings ;P

Question about indirect fire and ranging in. If I fire a howitzer turn one, then in turn two it fails it's order test and goes down, then turn three it fires again. Assuming me and the target have both still not moved do I need a 5 or 6 to hit on the second shot?

In summary does ranging in get cancelled by going down even though nothing is moving?


Tue Sep 08, 2015 7:27 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:42 pm
Posts: 2499
Images: 0
Location: Wallia Marchie
you only lose the ranging in if one or both of target/firer move

_________________
Themed Selectors:

Fallen in die Hölle - German Airborne on Crete
Tatou! Tatou! - Maori Bn in Greece and Crete, Ka Mate! Ka Mate! -Maori Bn in North Africa
Ritterlich im Krieg - 1942 Afrika Korps


Wed Sep 09, 2015 4:08 am
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:16 pm
Posts: 337
Thanks UG.

We played again last night. Had a two part unique situation arise.

Part 1 A Tiger I wanted to tank assault a unit of infantry. They were approx. 11 inches away in the rubble of a building. We were treating the rubble as difficult ground and not a building. Can a tank assault over difficult ground? I was inclined towards no because you cannot run through difficult ground but the Tiger being a heavy tank is allowed to attempt to drive over regular buildings so if it can drive over regular buildings it also seems silly that it could not tank assault into difficult ground. In the end we diced for it and it was able to assault.

Part 2 there was a unit of infantry nearby with AT grenades. Given that the tank had a run order they were unable to assault because it was moving too fast. When a tank assaults a buildling it gets pinned and goes down afterwards. In this case it got to continue at a run rate.

Anyone have any ideas on all of this? It was late and we didn't feel like digging through rules as there was 4000 points total on a 6x4 table and it took all night.

Thanks


Thu Sep 10, 2015 6:39 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:21 pm
Posts: 298
FAQ and Errata, P1, amendment to p58 would cover your situation I believe.

A unit can assault over rough ground even if it suffers a "no run" movement restriction but the assaulting unit is restricted to it's basic movement rate. As there is no specific exception or different mechanic mentioned for vehicles, this would need to be applied to your tank assault over rough ground situation as well. Yes he could do it but he was a couple of inches too far away to get there...

Part 2 with the subsequent assault - it wasn't a building and couldn't collapse (defined terrain as rough ground instead) so there was nothing to stop it moving. You could house rule allowing the assault with modifiers as if the vehicle advanced instead of ran to reflect the slower movement mentioned above...


Fri Sep 11, 2015 1:31 am
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:16 pm
Posts: 337
OK yet another rules question. Under hidden it states that "hidden units can never be chosen as targets for air strikes or artillery barrages from forward observers". The arty observer by mechanic does not target a unit but instead a point on the map. Does this mean that if the arty comes in it does not affect hidden units? I am unclear on how hidden affects arty observers. Can anyone clarify this?


Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:08 pm
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:42 pm
Posts: 2499
Images: 0
Location: Wallia Marchie
Oh. that's a corker. I'd say that was a clear case of the writer (who I suspect was not Alessio in this case as I think the observer rules smack of a late addition) not realising that air and arty had different mechanisms . . .

Technically arty observers'd work in the same way as multiple launchers though, I think and so hidden units would be affected. But it's not cut and dried by any means.

Keep repeating the old mantra 'simple game . . .simple game . . .'

_________________
Themed Selectors:

Fallen in die Hölle - German Airborne on Crete
Tatou! Tatou! - Maori Bn in Greece and Crete, Ka Mate! Ka Mate! -Maori Bn in North Africa
Ritterlich im Krieg - 1942 Afrika Korps


Wed Sep 23, 2015 7:45 pm
Profile
Private

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 5:09 pm
Posts: 5
Just a thought as I listen to the recent ghost army podcast and get around to looking at all these potential rules changes ,
With all this work into the basic game , why not play something different
There are plenty of 28mm type skirmish games out here. Even 20mm based games like the Battlegroup series are so much better .
Don't get me wrong, we love bolt action here, butt all this work changing things seems odd
Just my thoughts
No offense intended or to take anything away from your hard work
Take care
Steve


Fri Dec 25, 2015 2:29 pm
Profile
Staff Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 12:11 pm
Posts: 470
Location: Dorset, UK
sgusky wrote:
Just a thought as I listen to the recent ghost army podcast and get around to looking at all these potential rules changes ,
With all this work into the basic game , why not play something different
There are plenty of 28mm type skirmish games out here. Even 20mm based games like the Battlegroup series are so much better .
Don't get me wrong, we love bolt action here, butt all this work changing things seems odd
Just my thoughts
No offense intended or to take anything away from your hard work
Take care
Steve

This really isn't the right thread, you need the Season 3 feedback thread

You seem to have confused the 10 page 'Rules Questions, Clarifications and Errata' thread, with the 2 page Dot Net Format.

Short answer: the basics of the bolt action game are much better than many of these other games. The only issue is the very minor issues on the top layer of the game system. Many of those minor issues can be fixed in a 2 page PDF.

_________________
Image


Sun Dec 27, 2015 1:27 am
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:39 am
Posts: 203
Vehicle question. Transports.

Universal Carrier (but this applies to Jeeps, etc) is under "Transports and Tows". You can drop "Transport" and add an MMG or a mortar. The FAQ states (page 13) you lose transport AND tow capabilities, but (example with Jeep):

"The jeep is still selected in the platoon as a transport for an
infantry unit, but then loses its transport capacity. That
infantry unit cannot then select another transport – effectively
its ‘transport slot’ has been taken by the ‘MG jeep’."

This is saying instead of moving the Universal Carrier MMG/Mortar to the "Tanks & Self-propelled Gun" slot, it remains in the Transport slot? So you can effectively get 16 Universal Carriers with medium mortars or MMG's - one for each infantry unit in the X and Y Force Squad, in addition to a Sherman tank? (you would of course have to buy the 16 infantry units also)

I'm just looking for confirmation that I should be adding the MMG and Mortar carriers to the Transport slots.


Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:21 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:21 pm
Posts: 298
The MMG and Mortar Carrier versions of the Universal Carrier are not upgrades of the transport version, they are separate entries already in the SP Artillery section of the list. Transport is p57, AoGB, the other two are p51.

There is no benefit from the Jeep FAQ/Errata in this case.


Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:33 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:39 am
Posts: 203
bmdnut wrote:
The MMG and Mortar Carrier versions of the Universal Carrier are not upgrades of the transport version, they are separate entries already in the SP Artillery section of the list. Transport is p57, AoGB, the other two are p51.

There is no benefit from the Jeep FAQ/Errata in this case.


- From reading the whole Transport Vehicles section of the FAQ, the Jeep is an example vehicle - the FAQ appears to relate to ALL Transport vehicles.

- I am referring to the Universal Carrier in Empire in Flames (Chinese) book, not the one in the AoGB book (the EiF book only has it in the Transport section). However, it is more a general question of "Transports" and how the "remove transport capability" and the FAQ together effect the lists.


Sun Feb 07, 2016 2:45 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:39 am
Posts: 203
EasyArmy.com wrote:
bmdnut wrote:
The MMG and Mortar Carrier versions of the Universal Carrier are not upgrades of the transport version, they are separate entries already in the SP Artillery section of the list. Transport is p57, AoGB, the other two are p51.

There is no benefit from the Jeep FAQ/Errata in this case.


- From reading the whole Transport Vehicles section of the FAQ, the Jeep is an example vehicle - the FAQ appears to relate to ALL Transport vehicles.

- I am referring to the Universal Carrier in Empire in Flames (Chinese) book, not the one in the AoGB book (the EiF book only has it in the Transport section). However, it is more a general question of "Transports" and how the "remove transport capability" and the FAQ together effect the lists.


I suppose most of the other transports already have MMG's (and the Germans get a light anti-tank gun), so I guess it doesn't make a lot of difference. Just seems strange to have a mortar and no transport capability but it remains in the transport slot.


Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:10 pm
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 11:21 pm
Posts: 298
EasyArmy.com wrote:
bmdnut wrote:
The MMG and Mortar Carrier versions of the Universal Carrier are not upgrades of the transport version, they are separate entries already in the SP Artillery section of the list. Transport is p57, AoGB, the other two are p51.

There is no benefit from the Jeep FAQ/Errata in this case.


- From reading the whole Transport Vehicles section of the FAQ, the Jeep is an example vehicle - the FAQ appears to relate to ALL Transport vehicles.

- I am referring to the Universal Carrier in Empire in Flames (Chinese) book, not the one in the AoGB book (the EiF book only has it in the Transport section). However, it is more a general question of "Transports" and how the "remove transport capability" and the FAQ together effect the lists.


Only transport vehicles which specifically lose their transport capacity when taking an option from their listing. If they don't lose their transport capacity, the FAQ changes nothing for them.

I don't have Empire in flames - how is the option to upgrade to MMG carrier or Mortar carrier worded?


Mon Feb 08, 2016 4:16 am
Profile
Sergeant

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:39 am
Posts: 203
bmdnut wrote:
Only transport vehicles which specifically lose their transport capacity when taking an option from their listing. If they don't lose their transport capacity, the FAQ changes nothing for them.

I don't have Empire in flames - how is the option to upgrade to MMG carrier or Mortar carrier worded?


It's listed under "Transports and Tows" and says "Remove transport and add one forward facing medium mortar for +40pts"


Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:59 am
Profile
First Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2012 7:42 pm
Posts: 2499
Images: 0
Location: Wallia Marchie
It becomes one of the silly taken-as-transport-but-not-subject-to-transport-rules units then. All that grief just so US jeeps can fire MGS without passengers . . . Ludicrous. More so because a perfectly good alternative of listing it as SPA exists.

_________________
Themed Selectors:

Fallen in die Hölle - German Airborne on Crete
Tatou! Tatou! - Maori Bn in Greece and Crete, Ka Mate! Ka Mate! -Maori Bn in North Africa
Ritterlich im Krieg - 1942 Afrika Korps


Tue Feb 09, 2016 5:27 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 261 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

37,647,839 Views Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.
Karma functions powered by Karma MOD © 2007, 2009 m157y