The Loose Association of Wargamers

Recently I picked up a starter set for Maelstrom's Edge because some of the figures looked useful. I'm really glad I didn't plan to play it.

Unit coherence, all squad members need to be within 3" of the leader or they can't do anything except reform. Really, far into the future where humans can terra form planets and operate drones but Cpl Kowalski still has to shout at his troops! We're rapidly getting past that stage now.

Range is calculated by measuring between the two closest figures. Fair enough, lots of rules do that but these use that distance even if neither figure is within LOS of the enemy.

I'll have a look at the scenarios to see if there's anything that I can use but if not the book is going in the recycling bin.

Unit coherence rules that prevent you from employing historical tactics...

Want to brass up the enemy position with your Bren Group while the Cpl flanks with the rifle group...? Nope, you can't, as the section has to stay as one lump, even though the game is advertised as a '1:1 small-unit' tactical game...

Sounds just really annoying. I'm annoyed just reading these comments about it, and I don't usually get annoyed. Makes you wonder if the rules writers had any idea of reality.

RM that is pathetic. Perhaps better for WWI.

Buff, I always have this problem with sci fi wargaming that I cannot envisage warfare in an age where we can terraform planets. It always seems to gravitate back to WWII with blasters and auto blasters.

grizzlymc wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:38 pm RM that is pathetic. Perhaps better for WWI.

Yeah. Sadly it was Bolt Action.... I only played it that one time.

Actually, not even suitable for WW1 as that conflict saw the origins of WW2 and beyond section/squad/team tactics.

RMD wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:16 am

grizzlymc wrote: ↑Wed Dec 16, 2020 11:38 pm RM that is pathetic. Perhaps better for WWI.

Yeah. Sadly it was Bolt Action.... I only played it that one time.

But Bolt Action does not appear to be alone in that. From the YouTube videos of Chain of Command I have watched, many of them involving Richard Clarke, with the exception of two scouts, squads and sections have to manouver as close order lumps. Which means in the scenario Clarke presented in MW a couple of years back (based on British Infantry Field Manuals) An infantry platoon could not operate as he was describing using the CoC rules.

No, in CoC, squads/sections are usually split into teams - certainly once they get into action. In the British/Commonwealth case, an LMG (Bren) team, and a fire/movement (rifles/bayonets) team.

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:16 pm No, in CoC, squads/sections are usually split into teams - certainly once they get into action. In the British/Commonwealth case, an LMG (Bren) team, and a fire/movement (rifles/bayonets) team.

If you say so. That did not come over very well in the sample games they showed. Mind you I'm biased and think that Lard rules are very much "Emperor's New Clothes" anyway.

Tim Hall wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:35 pm

BaronVonWreckedoften wrote: ↑Thu Dec 17, 2020 10:16 pm No, in CoC, squads/sections are usually split into teams - certainly once they get into action. In the British/Commonwealth case, an LMG (Bren) team, and a fire/movement (rifles/bayonets) team.

If you say so. That did not come over very well in the sample games they showed. Mind you I'm biased and think that Lard rules are very much "Emperor's New Clothes" anyway.

I'm with you there... If anyone wants my copy of 'Bag The Hun' you can have it for nowt, though you'll need your own shovel and access to our local landfill...

In fact, now you come to mention it, I'm sure there must have been some examples in those rules, but my memory is just a solid wall of "WTF?!" and the details are lost... Suffice to say that it bore no relationship whatsoever to aviation or aerial combat that I recognise, though a mate of mine did turn it into an excellent set of Samurai mounted combat rules...