Reply To: There is no place for (armoured) vehicles and fliers in a 28mm skirmish game?

[jamescutts 6925xp 0]

I think to be fair to warlord the Jagdtiger is actually an Italeri Kit probably with Warlords input, so its not just Warlord pushing a piece of plastic, I think they made it before in resin, in which case having a plastic version is going to be much more cost efficient once the moulds are produced. Equally I don’t think bolt action has ever been you must only use Warlord minis even in tournaments? Plenty of alternatives such as Rubicon etc. so I don’t really think this is a case of companies wanting to sell more and bigger stuff as much as have a complete range where possible in plastic.

As for “Skirmish” games I think the term is used a bit generically these days, and basically seems to be anything not rank and file. @sundancer makes some good points above.

Narratively I don’t have a problem with a Jagdtiger in a game of Bolt Action, units get split up, lost, break down, get overrun, or mixed up in the general chaos of warfare. Given the speed of allied advances late war and the reliability of complex German engineering in the same period it could quite simply have broken down, become split up from its unit and then get overrun as part of an allied advance before it could withdraw. Equally while theoretically these types of vehicles would prefer to have large engagement ranges, there’s plenty of examples especially in some of the brutal street to street fighting in German cities late war where this wasn’t the case.

I think the biggest point made here is that most rules systems don’t properly expose the vulnerability of vehicles to infantry in close quarters which is absolutely true, however you could say that this is some cases might be beneficial, though I lean on the side of the rules should be better.  You can make the rules more complex but you risk reducing you market by putting off a chunk of casual gamers, chain of command i think is a good example, compared to bolt action its rules are a typical lardy, a bit woolly in places and complex in others, though far more historically focused, that’s fantastic for a certain group of players but less so for those with less experience or exposure to wargaming.

I don’t think bolt action does a great job with vehicles, though I think the points above about activations and points costs go a way to balancing the game out, while not historically accurate I think the activation systems works well in this regard, sink all your points into expensive elite units you risk being tactically limited as such a more balanced approach is needed, which falls into that tournament style of gameplay. Equally spending all your points of a bit metal box of death in its self reduces you tactically regardless of activation systems, you simply have to counter it and contain it, e.g. using anti tank guns to control where the vehicle can operate by posing a threat in certain areas of the board. I think to a large extent this applies to most games that are point based.

I’d agree that fun in most games is down to your opponent having the same interpretation of the rules as you, that can also mean not sticking to points, and creating narratives rather than slugging matches, does it really matter that ever game has to be balanced?

 

Back on the initial question, I think there is a place for vehicles in 28mm skirmish games.

1.      It depends of the size of the skirmish game and the size of the board, but this is most down to making something that’s effective with rulesets.

2.      It depends on how much you wan to be historically accurate, vs having a narrative vs balancing a points system

3.      Fun, if it makes a game fun then why not (this is subjective), most people think vehicles are cool.

4.      At the very least they make interesting terrain