Warfare show 2016

On Saturday I visited the Warfare show in Reading for a couple of hours. This show is the final show of my year and represents an opportunity to make purchases to cover my Christmas break. Warfare always feels like an old fashioned show; there are a lot of competition games going on, the demo games are fine but not major eye-candy, the retailers are packed into a sports hall, and the B&B is large. I travelled by train this year, so did not have the usual car parking problems. The B&B was disappointing, there was not as much on offer this year and I did not make any buys. I bumped in to many wargaming friends which is always nice, and saw my mate, Graham, who was taking part in the FoW competition. The demo game which stood out for me was the attack on Foy, set during the WW2 Battle of the Bulge, using CoC rules. The winter setting and figures were beautiful!


The trade hall is the main attraction for me, and I quickly set about purchasing my 20mm USMC and Japanese WW2 forces I had planned for Bolt Action. The core of each force was battlepacks from Lancaster Games, supplemented by additional figures from Britannia Miniatures. I also stopped to look at other 20mm manufacturers; Sgt's Mess and SHQ, and made some extra purchases from them. Once these acquisitions were safely in my bag, I toured the traders making small purchases here and there! A few MDF bases, a pot or two of paint, a pack of dice and some markers, another Western building etc I dithered about getting the 'Pike & Shotte' rules from Warlord, but resisted because I'm undecided about the whole Black Powder system - it all looks very pretty but it doesn't grab me. There appears to be a revival of Ancients rules at the moment, and certainly the demo games featured a few new products, of which To The Strongest seem to be popular. I think I will resist and wait for time to sort the wheat from the chaff. I currently happy using Impetus and Sword & Spear.


After a couple of hours I had reached the point where I needed to leave. If I stay beyond this moment I find from past experience that I make foolish buys. So, another year of shows has passed, roll on 2017!

Boardgame session: 12Nov2016

Val and Chris came over and we decided to give ‘Galaxy Trucker’ its first outing (I bought this second hand at Salute in September). I was not sure that this would be a game Elaine would enjoy; the whole SciFi scene is generally not her cup of tea. After quickly running through the rules, especially on constructing a spaceship, we set off. The building phase seemed more manic than I had anticipated, the parts you want just don’t seem to come up, keeping track of parts discarded by others is more difficult than expected, and areas of construction become blocked off. Once the first player completes and the final timer is turned, the action really hots up. Surprisingly we all were good at building ‘legal’ vessels, and only rarely did they fall apart on examination. The convoy section of each round does not require much in the way of decision making – things (mainly bad) just happen. There was considerable humour as you watch other players spaceships fall apart. In the first round Val’s ship was totally KO’d, and Elaine’s ship went the same way in the second round. Both Chris and I survived the whole game, but Chris was clearly the winner. Val had a good final voyage and took second place, whilst I came third. Elaine’s chances were scuppered by her failure in the middle round.

The post game discussion clearly showed that we all enjoyed the game, and Chris revealed that he had played the online game previously, which I’m sure contributed to his success. The focus of the game is the ship construction phase and we all enjoyed the pressure applied by the turning of the timer. Interestingly none of us looked at the upcoming adventure cards; I certainly planned to but the drive to add to your construction wiped this intention from my thoughts. The voyage phase is mainly chance and players need to be relaxed about the outcomes. If your ship falls apart, all you can do is laugh with the others! You never seem to have enough of certain parts, I never seemed to get enough engines and I think coming in first during a convoy is important for winning. Anyway, I feel that Galaxy Trucker will get many future outings, and I’m glad I picked it up cheap!

Next we played a game of ‘Barking Up the Wrong Tree’, a card game where you utilise different dog breds to garner different tree species. Essentially this is a bidding game played over 5 rounds, and its main attraction lies in the nice graphic design. The key decision is when to put a cat into a tree, which can unleash a bidding war between players. The other under-appreciated aspect is the need to keep an eye on what other players have, and therefore want, to inform your bidding strategy. This game was new to us as a group and therefore it was only in the final rounds that players began to understand the underlying tactics required. I think the game flow will improve in future outings.

Off the Painting Table (Nov 2016)

As discussed previously I am considering buying a matched pair of 20mm USMC/Japanese forces for Bolt Action. Obviously amphibious landings are a significant factor in this theatre. I happened to visit Hobbycraft (looking for storage boxes) and spotted the old Airfix kits. I have not put an Airfix kit together for over 30 years, and all my childhood memories came flooding back! Before I knew it I had purchased a DUWK, Buffalo LVT and a Churchill tank. I spent a happy few days assembling and painting the models whilst wallowing in nostalgia. Blimey, they certainly liked to model suspension systems in great detail – so many small, fiddly bogeys!

Now I need the figures, I did consider using Airfix again, but quickly reject this idea. I think I will base my forces on some Battlepacks from Lancashire Games (nice and cheap) which I plan to buy at Warfare in a couple of weeks, supplemented by extras from Brittania Miniatures. Does anyone know whether these figures are compatible, and have suggestions about other manufacturers?

Boardgame session: 29Oct2016

We visited my sister for the w/e, and I received my belated birthday prezzie – the boardgame ‘Sheriff of Nottingham’. Elaine and I had previously played this at this years’ Games Expo event and really enjoyed it. So, I immediately punched out the counters and set up a game (shuffling the ~150 cards is quite a task!).

The game rules are simple and all players quickly got into the swing of things – a good combination of honesty and lying by all. This is very much a game of bluff, with a nice mix of bribery added. I think all players could improve their bribes, we tended to stick to simple cash offers rather than use goods or promises. Somehow no-one ever seems to believe Elaine, so her bag was nearly always searched! I don’t think lying comes naturally to her, and I feel she could exploit this trait to force the sheriff to pay out for legal shipments. As I originally surmised when I first encountered this game; Erin would be a good player. When the final points were tallied, Erin won with a 20 point lead over myself. Gill was third and Elaine trailed, but not by much. Having a lead in chickens, together with a few high value smuggled goods, seemed to be the key to Erin’s success. All players enjoyed the game and predicted that it would get many more plays.

Review of Bolt Action version 2 Rules

I finally decided to purchase a copy of the latest Bolt Action version 2 rules by Alessio Cavatore & Rick Priestley (Warlord Games/Osprey, 2016) a few weeks ago. I should stress that I have no significant previous experience of the first version, and therefore cannot comment about changes made. I have also never played 40K, so cannot say whether Bolt Action are similar or not. Since they arrived I have played approximately a dozen solo 1,000 point games using a diverse range of army lists, all late war European games. Some games involved standard infantry-heavy forces, whereas others had various tank add-ons, or infantry in APC’s etc. Most games used regular units but I did try inexperienced units, and veteran units. All games used the supplied scenarios and I have now played most of the 12 scenarios listed.

The publication is a beautifully illustrated, A5 sized, hardback. The use of Osprey as the publisher means that many of their excellent pictures are included, and these are augmented by a scattering of photos showing various nicely painted miniatures. There is surprisingly little ‘fluff’, which is personal bug-bear of mine, and a brief timeline of WW2 is solely there as an intro. The rules revolve around a re-enforced infantry platoon structure with tanks/armour playing an ancillary role. This is exactly the size of 20/28mm game I wish to play, which is great. As a consequence the rules are infantry focussed, with the section on vehicles, artillery/air supports and urban fighting added after the main rule structure has been explained. Next there are 12 different scenarios, all briefly explained and providing alternatives to the simple meeting engagement. Finally there are basic army lists for the 5 major late war protagonists: Germany, USA, UK, USSR and Japan. These lists are not exhaustive but do provide enough information to allow representative forces to be generated. Bolt Action do sell additional books on each army and/or theatre giving greater detail and expansion opportunities, but I’m personally not sure I will go down this potential financial sink-hole! I hope to peruse friends copies to garner the small amounts of additional information I may require. It is interesting that the lists in the main rule book do miss a few ‘obvious’ entries: no German Panzerschreck teams, no US Marine flamethrowers, no British 2” mortars, no Russian tank-riders. Maybe this is to encourage players to buy the supplements?

The rules themselves are well written and have numerous clear illustrations to highlight the mechanics. When I needed to check an issue in a game I was able to quickly find the relevant section in the book. All the rules use the standard 6-sided dice (no fancy dice required).

The assignment of orders by the random drawing of custom order dice from a bag works well (the authors do discuss cheaper alternatives to these dice), and the range of orders available are consistent with those found in many other rules. The random nature of the turn order allows for uncertainty, reflecting the ‘fog of war’, and makes the rules very suitable for solo play. Officers, especially higher ranks, can be useful for co-ordinated moves, particularly early in the game, by drawing additional dice. The non-active player can choose to order a targeted unit ‘Down’ to significantly reduce the effects of incoming fire, but this burns a valuable turn for that unit.

Movement is simple, both for infantry and vehicles; either an ‘Advance’, which allows firing or crossing difficult terrain, or the double speed ‘Run’ order. Bolt Action scenario games tend to only last 6-8 turns, so there is little time to carefully manoeuvre or set–up an attack, instead forces tend to get in fast. There is no subtlety in the infantry tactics; you cannot use your MG34 to provide covering fire as the riflemen of the same squad dash across the street, the whole section moves or not. Combat can occur in the very first turn of a game!

Firing is also simple with a basic 3+ to hit (plus a few modifiers), followed by a quick ‘to kill’ dice roll (adjusted by the target quality). Bolt Action games are bloody, but hits also inflict ‘Pins’ even if no kills result, which can be as significant as actual kills. Units with multiple ‘Pins’ can just sit around with their heads down, and often require rallying (which is surprisingly easy but does negate a valuable turn). Additionally, weakened units can suddenly evaporate leaving alarming holes in your lines at the most inopportune times! Anti-tank fire is simple, requiring a penetration dice roll and damage effect if successful. Bolt Action is not a set of rules for ‘tankie’ gamers; there are only 4 levels of gun and 4 levels of armour. So, if your thing revolves around variation between a PzKfw IV model F2 compared to the H model, then these are not the rules for you! I soon learnt that the German player should take plenty of cheap Panzerfausts. Firing HE rounds again uses similar mechanisms and employs circular templates of different diameters to determine the number of potential hits. From previous gaming experience this can cause issues in opposed games; is the figure just in, or out, of the blast zone? The irritating situation I commonly found using the rules, concerned Snipers. They seemed to be far too deadly, picking of key team members at will, and the best counter was to use your own sniper to take out the opposing sniper.

In Bolt Action close combat is more frequent compared to other rules I have played, and it is devastating and decisive. The loser is KO’d and removed from the game. The defender’s best defence is to employ an ‘Ambush’ order to fire as the attacker comes in. But the question is whether to maintain this order at the turn end and not fire at all (because you were not assaulted), or try to convert it into a ‘Fire’ order and cause some damage to enemy units? You can find opposing units both quietly sitting waiting for the other to blink, resulting in an uneasy truce!

Off-table artillery strikes and close air support rules are interesting because you are not certain about what will arrive, or when. In addition to damage inflicted, they can cause widespread disruption by placing multiple ‘Pins’ on units close to the target zone. The British ‘free’ FAO team is a powerful bonus, and the US FAC team with a second strike capability can also be deadly. I’m not sure the Russian Katyusha elements should be an on-table support option. I also liked random nature of air strikes and the panic they cause to both sides, plus the possibility of friendly A/A fire occurring.

So, what do I think of Bolt Action version 2? How do they compare with my other WW2 favourite, Chain of Command? Bolt Action gives a very fast, action packed game that is fun to play. The simplicity of the rules means there is little referring back to the main book and QRS covers most situations (in fact, most actions don’t even require the QRS). They work very well for solo play, and I look forward to playing opposed games in the near future. I would summarise by saying Bolt Action gives a good ww2-GAME, compared to Chain of Command which gives a good WW2-game. I think I will continue to use Chain of Command for opposed games against experienced players, but Bolt Action will now be used for my solo play and those quick, pick-up club games against non-WW2 gamers. I think it interesting that both sets of rules focus on the same command level i.e. the re-enforced infantry platoon. If I wanted to play using a higher command level with more troops, especially tanks, I would probably opt to use the Battlegroup Kursk/Overlord rules.

Readers thoughts, comments, criticisms, disagreements are always welcome. Finally, Bolt Action has encouraged me to play more WW2 games and I’m now seriously considering buying a matching pair of Japanese and US Marine forces.

AAR; ACW (Longstreet rules) 16 Oct 2016

We managed to fit in another Longstreet ACW battle (late 1864) of the mini-campaign. This time we played the ‘Railway Embankment’ scenario, and I again won the scouting phase and choose to be the defender. Additional terrain was added, with Ian placing some woods just forward of my deployment area, whilst I placed areas of swamp across his lines of approach. Ian placed the objective marker as far to my right as possible. I chose to leave my new 10-base US Coloured unit (E/R) as my off-table reserve (arriving on turn 6). I forgot my camera (again!), so no photo’s. Ian did take a couple on his phone and I may add these to this report at a later time.

In the opening turns I advanced my battleline forward to give me some breathing room. The central wooded area Ian placed actually helped me because I deployed my 2 sharpshooter units in them. It soon became clear that Ian’s attack would fall upon my centre, and especially on my right flank. I deployed a battery of Napoleons (37^th Pa) and a unit of men armed with repeaters (8^th Maine) on the gentle hill to block this. I was also able to redeploy my other 4-base Coloured unit (E/R) and a battery of light rifles to act as a reserve, and cover the objective.

For some reason, Ian did not press his attack in the centre and seemed to be content to remain just outside 6” engagement range. His main focus was on my right flank, but again he initially concentrated on fire combat rather than coming straight in. This gave me time to bring on my strong reserve formation and at this point I was confident of victory. Ian finally KO’d my artillery battery and charged the 8^th Maine, who were totally destroyed, but of course his troops were now vulnerable to my counter-attack. The large and eager US Coloured units duly obliged and were successful. The Union was now very much in the ascendency and began an advance in all areas. The Rebel loses mounted as they were forced back and finally victory was achieved.

In the Campaign phase, I rolled well, lost few bases and none of my units lost any Elan. I did not successfully roll for promotion, but achieved the coveted 4 Eagle rank by drawing a promotion Campaign card. My revised force for the 9^th and final battle of the campaign is shown below:

Commander	Personality				Rank		EP’s
“Art” Rooney	Indian Wars Veteran (Scout: 2D6 & keep higher)				4 Eagles (2/64)		30
Unit	Type	Elan	Exp.	Strength		Notes
37th (Prov) Pa Infantry	INF	Season	Veteran	6
13th\14th Pa (Prov) Inf.	INF	Season	Veteran	4		Sharpshooters (5,6 Skirm Fire)
16th\45th Ohio (Prov) Inf.	INF	Caut.	Veteran	4		Sharpshooters (5,6 Skirm Fire)
26th NJ Artillery	ART	-	-	3		3x Lt Rifle
29th NJ Artillery	ART	-	-	3		2x Lt Rifle, 1x Hvy Rifle
7th US (Coloured) Inf.	INF	Eager	Recruit	4
8th Maine	INF	Season	Veteran	4		Repeaters
10th Vermont	INF	Season	Veteran	4
11th US (Coloured) Inf.	INF	Eager	Recruit	9		Sharpshooters (5,6 Skirm Fire)
1st NH Artillery NEW	ART	-	-	2		2x Lt Rifle
3rd NH Infantry NEW	INF	Season	Recruit	7
				50 bases
Sabotage: enemy removes an extra 4 cards when first re-shuffles.

Notes: The units are listed in order of campaign appearance. The Pa units are from my original force. The 9^th Pa Artillery (the only original unit left) was destroyed.

At the end of this game I have amassed an unassailable EP points lead (with 6 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss). In all our games, apart from the draw, the attacker has lost. Because of my Indian Wars characteristic, Ian’s Rebels have generally been forced to attack. He is understandably beginning to get a bit ‘peeved’ about this, so for the final game I have agreed to take on the role of attacker. We will be playing the ‘Walled Farm’ scenario, which leaves the ‘River Crossing’ scenario as the only one we have not tried out. This is some relief to me because I think the ‘River Crossing’ is heavily weighted in favour of the defender!

Review of Battlegroup Kursk rules

In an earlier blog post about whether to get the new Bolt Action WW2 rules, I mentioned some other rules I had tried, and I considered revisiting Chain of Command (CoC). When I went to my rules shelf I noticed a rules bundle I had purchased at a B&B stall (I can’t remember where or when) and I had never untied, or looked at them, once I had got home. These were the hardback books Battlegroup Kursk (BGK), the Battlegroup Overlord supplement and an A5 softback version of the rules (all together costing me only £20 compared to a RRP of £70!). So, rather than play CoC again, I decided to give BGK a go. I have managed to play a few solo games all using Eastern front 20mm forces on a 6’x4’ table and 250 points (i.e. Squad level game).

The ‘Orders’ section of rules is straightforward; all the standard, obvious options are available and include reactive orders, allowing covering fire etc. The reactive movement (rather than the reactive fire) order is a bit strange, and I never used this in my games. The turn order is IGO-UGO and number of orders available to a player results from a single D6 roll plus the number of officers in the force, which can give widely fluctuating results. Larger games use multiple D6’s and give a more standard range of results. Some things were not clear: German infantry sections have 2 teams (rifle and LMG) and I was not sure whether this needed a single order (in which case, why have separate teams listed), or individual orders (in which case, the German player will struggle with the number of orders required)? Reading the Overlord supplement, I found a rule for separating Bren teams from their sections in the British listing, and I decided to use this for the German sections/teams in my games (I’m still not sure if this is correct). I also was not clear about man-portable heavy weapon teams (HMG, mortars etc.), because there did not appear a requirement to set them up; could they simply move and fire like normal infantry teams, or should they be considered as Very Light weapons teams and need an ‘unlimber’ phase before firing?

The ‘Movement’ section is again nice and simple, but maybe too simple? There is no deduction for infantry movement in rough/difficult terrain. OK I can live with this, but I instinctively feel that marshes, woods, hedgerows etc. would have an impact. What do you class man-portable heavy weapons as? I think lugging a heavy base-plate for a mortar would significantly slow you down. Tracked armoured vehicles can weave about with no apparent deduction; I had a T-34 move down a road in a village, take a sharp 90 degree turn, then make another 90 degree turn around the side of a house, and then another sharp turn to face the enemy, all with no speed reduction.

The ‘Direct Fire’ mechanisms are again streamlined, all basically following the same procedure: observation, hit, save/penetration. I quite liked the fact you may not necessarily see the target and therefore not fire; and also liked the differentiation between firing for effect and pinning/covering fire. Pinning is pretty much as valuable as killing targets, due to morale effects discussed later. I had no major quibbles about weapon ratings etc., except possibly the German MG34/42 is over-rated? A rule that I used frequently was when a squad was trying to close assault; if multiple casualties are inflicted, you can instead take a single loss, retreat back to cover and become pinned. The vehicle listing seems to indicate that players should record the number of rounds fired. Really? I ignored this in my games – Life is too short for such nonsense!

The ‘Indirect Fire’ section follows a similar process but does raise some issues. I liked the ‘Communications’ aspect for calling higher command support, but this does burn a players order count. The accuracy dice roll again seems a bit random, and you can cancel the fire order if the ranging round falls short. There is no ability to ‘walk-in’ the artillery in subsequent turns, and the danger zone is standardised and not related to the calibre and number of weapons firing. The biggest omission is the lack of smoke rules, which is very strange indeed!

The ‘Morale’ section can be split into two. At a unit level, a casualty or non-penetrating hit results in a simple D6 dice roll, Veteran/Elite troops can re-roll, but this seemed to me to be too simplistic. Troops that are already ‘Pinned’ and fail, rout off. If a player rolls a straight 6, then the unit has a chance to take an immediate counter-action. At the battlegroup level, each force has a numeric strength and morale effects result in the random drawing of ‘Chits’ that reduce this value. I really like the uncertainty this mechanism introduces, particularly because it can result in occasional side effects e.g. mine strike, air strike etc. Reduction of battlegroup morale to zero results in defeat. Strangely, rallying unit/units from Pinning requires the drawing of a chit to rally D6 units. It would seem that waiting for the number of Pinned units to rise before rallying would be sensible, but this is often not practical. Units that tend to be pinned are those at the focal point of your plans, so you cannot wait to get them active again, and therefore you have to rally even if only a single unit needs such treatment. I have found games to be frequently lost simply by the effects of pinning opposing units, and obliging an opponent to rally. Maybe my game play and/or tactics are at fault, and I would be interested to hear what other gamers think?

Before I discuss the non-rules aspects of the BGK publications, I will comment about the type of game they give. I like the speed of play, the mechanisms are clean and simple, and the use of chits to determine victory is good. The order system is fine but rather random when using ‘Squad’ level games. Combat is clear and does not require constant double checking in the main rules. The main weakness lie in the unit morale system (too simple) and rallying. The lack of smoke rules is bizarre! Overall, I cannot see BGK becoming my go-to WW2 rules. I will stick to CoC, which I think gives a better game, and I also still intend to try the new version of Bolt Action.

The A5 paperback rules are excellent (only £10). Regarding the hardback publications (£25-30 each), I would be very disappointed if I had purchased them at the normal price. Why do authors think they have to provide pages and pages of potted history in such publications? If a reader wants historical background then there are a wealth of sources, online or published, that can be easily accessed and  provides for all needs, in greater detail and accuracy than provided in these rule publications. They then add in a simple painting guide as well. Do they think a person buys BGK as their sole source on a period, especially ones as well documented as Kursk or Overlord? I’m sorry to say that I find this ‘fluff’ annoying, especially because it’s inclusion bulks up the book and results in increased cost for little benefit. The majority of both hardback books centre on army lists. I generally enjoy a good army list. I find they inspire me to investigate/get new units, and I like the way they constrain players to field forces that feature the common elements used historically. There are poor army lists out there, which some players can exploit to generate ‘super’ armies but, on the whole, I like an army list. The lists provided in Battle Group Kursk/Overlord are bad! Not because they are inaccurate, unhistorical, or unbalanced, but because they are extremely repetitious and tedious. For example BGK has only 4 lists: German Panzer & Infantry, Russian Tank & Infantry. This is fine, but each list repeats the information in the previous list. They share the same elements on the whole; a German infantry platoon/squad is the same in both German listings, as are the tank units, support units, recce units etc. etc. I’m sure there must be a few variations between lists, but 90%+ of each list is repeated information. The format of the army lists is again poor; each list takes a dozen sides of A4, when a better format could easily reduce this to a couple of pages! With a bit of thought and editing the authors could reduce the entire rules to the A5 rules booklet and separate, smaller, slimmer, A5 army listings. Even better would be to publish the army lists online as free pdf files! Such a decision would make BGK an attractive purchase, but in the present form I would not recommend these rules to another gamer! What is even more astounding is the authors are producing further campaign dedicated hardback books! Rather than finish on a negative note, I do like the inclusion of minor, often neglected, support elements e.g. combat medics, signallers, repair mechanics etc.