Ep.82 FAQs: Changes, Clarity & Confusion | Bolt Action Podcast

Music. Welcome to Tabletop Tommies. I'm Johnny. And I'm Phil.

And it's been a while. Obviously, now we've got something to talk about. The FAQ's just dropped hot off the press. It is pretty hot in the UK at the minute for anyone who's listening abroad. So if you see us sweating, it's probably not from the excitement. Yeah, or exertion. Yeah, it's the heat. So Phil, shall we start with the big, bulky, big rulebook FAQ first?

Yes eight pages yeah let's get it's getting up there yeah yeah i mean to be fair a lot of it is errata that's what through our three pages surely that makes it worse.

I thought that was a positive thing to say but there we go uh right jumping straight in it's pink we know what the changes are this is great that was the first thing i wanted to highlight like well done for listening incredible yeah yeah if they are listening my other thought was before we get all the way into it yeah and i'm interested to hear your opinion on this but my opinion is errata is for changing rules faq is for clarification and

the answer should include a reference to a rule already in existence and uh certainly the first bit yeah errata is a change, faq is a clarification do you need a reference ideally yeah but but maybe it's not necessary maybe it's yeah i don't think like if it's a really obvious rule that is like really obviously found in the book maybe you don't need the reference itself but the ruling should be based on rules in existence not a brand new rule yeah oh yeah yeah definitely yeah i don't

think you yeah i think technically an faq shouldn't be an introduction of a new rule or a new.

Rewording because that's an errata yeah yeah perfect just i wanted to get that in agreement before we jump in because that might come up i'm about i'm already like where are you going me this one but yeah but we'll jump into the main one do you want to i assume you've already spotted some pink have you yeah yeah so page one i said flak page 117 add the following to the fifth paragraph note the vehicle mounted flak machine guns do not have their shots when fired against aircraft so that

is in the section of flak with regards to air observers i'm assuming to be honest that's just added because it is in there but it's in there under vehicle mounted machine guns which i guess is on page 134 but actually where you also want to know about it is when you're firing flak when you're resolving an airstrike so let's put it in the same page i.e page 117 yeah which is funny because actually the place where this would have been a brilliant little

note would be in the main rule book because because the whole point of adding it is because it's being missed because it's not in the place you expect it to be so it's a shame it didn't get the first run but at least you could cut this out and stick it in your book i guess yeah.

Moving on to the second page we've got key positions so replace the fourth paragraph with the following to catch an objective one of your infantry or artillery units brackets or a transport including one such unit must end this activation within three inches of the objective and there must be no enemy unit of any type within three inches of it so the change here is to confirm that an occupied transport or a tow in the case of an artillery piece can capture an

objective if it enters activation within three inches of objective blah blah blah oh interesting so it's the the change is about the transported unit yeah the change is that if you've got a transport with such a unit inside yes to go did the old one not have that condition no no no no it just said if an infantry artillery unit and then certainly yeah monitoring facebook and stuff questions were being asked about well what if

i've got a unit inside the transport because it didn't it used to be the case in v2 that transported units could take objectives yeah and then and it went this is the way we played yeah and i know certain to said no they've got to get out and so on so.

Yeah i think it was the same i think you're right i think that it was like a to specific one but everyone had come to a conclusion that it was fine yes yep page 183 company commander add the following i'm not going to read the whole paragraph basically where this has come from is when they allowed you to add horses or bicycles or motorcycles to platoon commanders which came through the faq.

Obviously they didn't at that point also say and this applies to company commanders what they've done here is just clarify in the errata not the faq that you can do it for company commanders i think it is an addition so i think it's an errata no but what i mean is the previous one wasn't i don't think it was an errata oh it was in the faq section where they had it for the platoon yeah.

But the good thing is you can now have horses all the way down, basically. Yeah, yeah, yeah. A hundred percent, yeah. So in order to do so, you need to make sure that there must be one platoon minimum that where all the compulsory units, i.e. the two infantry in the case of a rifle and a platoon, is mounted on the same thing. But yeah, I'm thinking like, you know, Polish forces, for example. I was going to say Japanese, but not Japanese because they don't get cavalry at the moment.

But yeah, yeah, or bicycles. well can the paris take welbex or your favorite or we could do hell's angels yeah yeah rec yeah reccy platoons would be a really good example and then your company commander's also on a motorbike and so on but yeah i mean it's cool i don't think it's game changing but it's it's a cool nice addition i'm a fan of that yeah and then the next one transport and tows this is about ambulances so i think this has been added because it wasn't clear where

or how you added a vehicle ambulance to a platoon so you have you have the medic within the rifle and are they in the recce platoon certainly in the rifle platoon this is basically just saying that a ambulance a trans a medical vehicle counts as a medic with regards to platoon structures and selectors yeah absolutely as long as the platoon allows transports which which is an interesting because Because it's recce and rifle platoons, or certainly rifle platoons, which allow transports.

Yeah, maybe it's future-proofing. Who knows? Are there any platoons that don't allow transports? Armoured platoons, I guess. Yes, exactly. Yeah, yeah. But you can't take a medic in an armoured platoon. Yeah, you can't take a medical transport, so the ambulance is never on the table. Actually, this is thinking out loud here. So maybe what this is saying is you can't take an armoured platoon and use a medic vehicle as one of your slots in an armoured platoon, if that makes sense?

You could use your ambulance as your platoon commander. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, yeah. Anyway, let's summarize that. Now we know how you can take a medical vehicle.

And do you know what? Having never seen anyone run an ambulance, I'm glad that's been clarified. And then the last little errata for the main rulebook adds is page 266. So this is the lend-lease bit. So there's two bits here. So they added the Soviet lend-lease vehicles in the last FAQ. What wasn't included at that point was two points. One was about gyro-stabilizers and one was about the role of the M3 white scout car. So they've now clarified that gyro-stabilizers do not apply. Don't apply.

Put my teeth back in. don't apply to soviets because it's a u.s thing rather than a soviet thing and the other one which i'm glad to see is the m3 scout car it was originally listed as an armored car it's now, correctly listed as a transport and tow although that does pose the question can you take it as an armored car but you can because there's the option within the unit to give it recce and all that sort of thing yeah yeah nice nice little clarifiers i don't really have any qualms with.

That's that's fine i mean my only complaint i guess is that it's pretty dull like there's nothing there's nothing game changing here because we always whenever there's a release we like something a little bit of excitement to come in but that isn't yes you can't really criticize a document intended for tidying for not being exciting so yeah i was going to say actually is that not a positive because it does suggest that where where an erot has been added where there has been a change to

the rules it's because previously something was missing or something was wrong actually we've only got a couple or three or four in this time that suggests i'm throwing it out there that maybe things are getting better yeah there's a couple of things i was rather hoping for which were okay i was hoping we could get away from v2 spotters and back to v3 spotters where you could spot for more than one thing at a time because i actually thought that was a brilliant rule call mechanic and

so i was hoping since we already went through three versions of it i was hoping for a fourth to go back to the version that i preferred because i think it's it's nice and then the other thing i was really hoping for is smoke giving me either scattering smoke or v2 smoke at the very least because i've played lots of games recently where smoke would have been a really fun little addition to the game yeah yeah i'm not disagreeing about the smoke i think that

i think that was something we flagged up right you know on the very first d3 episode that wouldn't it be cool to.

Do it minor detour you know chain of command 2's come out recently and and that's always one that's cited as a good example of smoke rules ignoring you know whether or not you like the game but there is there are good smoke rules within chain of command 2 and i think there's definitely tactics where dropping a smoke screen actually might be beneficial but at the moment it's still still not there 100 especially with cover saves yeah yeah spotters,

I don't have a thought currently it's too hot to have a thought on it currently.

Let me know when you spotted one yeah i will do yeah so should we go into the faq which isn't new rules it's purely questions yes so faq so we're going to page six of the document six of eight the first one in pink is about japanese heavy weapons platoon do you want to do this one because i still don't get it if i'm honest it still doesn't quite make sense so i think the person who has responded to this has a number of issues with their reading of the wording of this rule and also the

wording of their response the the rule admittedly isn't written super clearly so the original rule says you may take up to three suicide at teams as one selection in each platoon selector that includes at teams note that you can do this in addition to an at rifle team in selectors that allow you to field an anti-tank team yeah anti-tank team or anti-tank right it just says field an anti-tank team okay which again it adds a little bit of extra confusion at the end there

that they said you can take an anti-tank rifle if an anti-tank team is allowed but we'll just go over that because actually the the big question is basically so i read that my reading of that rule is for every selector i have for every. Like option to take an anti-tank i can take three bomb sticks now the faq's interpretation.

Is that only one slot per platoon yes and i can kind of see how you get that reading because it doesn't say for every slot it says you may take up to three as one selection yeah but it doesn't say and only one selection which is why i read it as.

Three counts as one is what that sentence says to me yeah and so that to me says you could if for example you could have three at teams in a platoon you could have nine bomb sticks such as a heavy weapons we've seen yeah yeah so that's the first thing that i think whereas the faq's gone the other way they say if you've got three at options one of them can be three bomb sticks and the other two can't be which currently is only going to be at rifles

because you don't have for example the there was a unit was an rv2 which wasn't an at rifle and wasn't a suicide team it was an improvised at team something like that it got added i know it got added i think in a campaign book but then the question that that then raises is can the two options that aren't math three bomb sticks be two bomb sticks. Well, not according to this, no. Well, it doesn't say they can't be.

It just says that I can't use the extra selection rule. It's saying that I can only use the extra selection rule once per platoon. No, so the final answer, in a heavy weapons platoon, you can have either 0-3 AT rifle teams or 0-2 AT rifle teams and 0-3 Suicide AT teams. But before we jump onto that, because that's actually nonsense as well, because it says, so let's read the answer from the FAQ. Just one AT team slot per platoon can be replaced by 0-3.

Suicide teams know that if you do so you can also have one additional at rifle team as stated in pit on page 272 yeah therefore in a rifle platoon you can have zero to one at rifle team and zero to three suicide at teams because you get the extra selection rule says you can have an additional anti-tank rifle yes and then when we get the heavy weapons platoon yeah you get three at choices which means which means if two of them are at rifles you take the third as your

three bomb sticks you get an extra at rifle so the faq should say by that reading zero to three at rifle teams and zero three suicide at teams see that is what i was expecting now i think where this has come from and i may have said this on the pod i've definitely said this off the pod on the pod. IRL. That wording on page 270, extra selection, you may take up to three suicide anti-tank teams with one selection in each between selector that includes anti-tank teams.

Know that you can do this in addition to an anti-tank rifle team in selectors that allow you to field an anti-tank team. That is directly lifted from effectively V1, if you go and look at the Armageddon Japan, and I think it's to do with some of the theatre selectors in the Armageddon Japan book, where some of them allowed you to have.

No anti-attack rifle teams for example others allowed you to have anti-attack rifle teams but you could also like you have nought to two for example and this was basically saying okay well one of those two can be three suicide guys i think what we've got stuck into is is a lifting of a v1 rule v1 v2 rule putting it into a v3 context the v3 context now allows you to have in a heavy weapons platoon three slots okay so can i take nine well no that's too many we now need to

backpedal a little bit and kind of work it out i'm hoping that the army of japan will just sort this out but we've got to wait until january 26 for that i think yeah the the one is three per slot so you could have nine like that's the word and it's clear the as you said i think someone has faced nine of them got a bit sad about it and decided that they don't like the rule anymore and decided to change it in an faq the flippant side of me and this is tonning cheek because i do play japanese

is that no one's doing well with Japanese at the moment, so it's kind of irrelevant, and we'll sort it out in January. But that isn't true, because people are playing Japanese and doing well with them. Yeah, because it got FAQ'd last edition, and it's been FAQ'd again, and I still don't think it's exactly not correct. That's the wrong word to use, because it's not for me to say if it's correct or not. I just don't think it's clear based on what's written and what the answer says and stuff. Yeah.

I think, what does it say? Someone just doesn't like the idea of nine bomb sticks.

And just wants it to be different. But shall we move on to the next FAQ? Yeah, so page seven. So, a couple of questions about tanks. So, do tanks need line of sight when assaulting? Yes, they do, including when assaulting a new unit after going through the initial target. Good, that's good. It tidies it up, brings it in line with troops. However, it's a new rule, because it's not in the main rulebook, that rule, so should that not be in the errata? Yeah.

In what sense is it a new rule? Because nowhere, it's not stated anywhere as a rule that they have to have line of sight, which is why this question's been asked, because the convention is that to do an assault, you need line of sight. But nowhere does it explicitly state that tanks need it. So actually, I would argue that you should make this an errata, add it to the tank combat part of the world. So I believe where it's come from, well, I don't believe I know where it's come from.

I know where it's come from. it's come from in the rule book we're talking about tank assaults it says tanks assault in the same way as infantry then it goes on to talk about something which doesn't quite follow the mechanics of infantry yeah so there's a query there about when you declare your assault as a tank are you just like infantry in which case do you need line of sight yes you do phil but where.

Does it say that oh it doesn't can we get that clarified exactly yeah and but this is why i think in the.

Same way we had that little flak note yeah this could have been a nice little note in the same way as infantry open brackets i.e you need line of sight close brackets done yeah but let's move past this let's move on to the next one still quite tanky though still tanky yeah so if a tank is assaulting an enemy while moving through rough ground does it have to move at least four and a half inches i.e half a run move because the orders are run to assault reduced

to advanced speed because that's what happens when infantry run through rough ground yes that is correct so you can assault as a tank through rough ground you still need to move half your distance which in this case is four and a half oh that is interesting actually because tanks can't run through rough ground can they well they can according to this yeah like this isn't what i mean is rules is written tanks can't run through rough ground tanks have to run to charge and so

we've changed that tanks can run through rough ground when they're charging but infantry can't run through rough ground yeah we added an exception for that in the same way we added an exception when you're assaulting so i guess by extension tanks can't run through rough ground the exception is when assaulting so it's the same it's the same thing neither can run in a better commas through rough ground but both of them can assault through rough

ground but the speed is reduced to an advanced speed not a run speed and you have to meet the minimum criteria which is to move at least half of your distance.

Yeah but again it's a new rule because now tanks can run through with ground. On this specific instance which is interesting i. Does it really matter? I guess it does a little bit. It's a little bit weird that like a really slow lumbering tank, so like going through the rough ground, the troops are terrified and can't get out of the way quick enough. But perhaps it's a bit okay. Yeah, I think we don't know about this one to be honest.

No, I think when you try and put it into like real life in the boat and commas as much as you can with bolt action, like the whole point of a tank assaulting of units is it's got momentum. It's got to move in open ground.

It's got to move nine inches minimum. them it's generated momentum it's steaming towards a bunch of people there's a huge weight coming your way you're going to go ah and run away actually this doesn't quite work when you're steaming through at a reduced rate a bunch of trees or some rubble equally though from a games mechanics perspective actually this is a positive move because otherwise you have this really peculiar instance where the tank can't push men out the way because we're

saying like it doesn't make sense to run them over when he's going so slowly but at the same time like they're not going to stand there and so it does give them that capacity to push them out the way and i guess like a more advanced rule set would give you advantages to your charge based on how fast you're going but then we're starting to get into sort of these more complex games so actually i think that's a positive change i just wish again i just wish it was an errata that

said okay tanks can't run through rough ground when charging the next one i think if you're happy to move on i I think the next one is how I've always played the game and how I've always seen everyone else play the game.

So I think it's just for new players who are getting used to it. I think it's come up a few times. I think Warlord have been asked it, and it's just confirming that. Obviously, with regards to cover saves and down, all that kind of thing, you do need to take note of when some of the unit, the target unit, is within point Black Rage, and some of it isn't, because the cover save will change.

Which goes against, I guess the confusion is, Because normally with cover states, it's like, is it 50% in or out shooters, target unit, blah, blah, blah. Yeah, but because historically, so like your V2 players, we used to have this exact situation where half your rifles would be in short range, half in long range. And so we've always had a similar situation like this occur where you're doing separate shots.

And so I guess for the new players and also the fact that this down thing's a bit weird, like I'm not particularly happy about down being ignored. But equally, because it takes away that like forcing your opponent down, which was always a big part of bolt action.

You get a point blank you force them down which allows your other squad to advance but that's a bigger conversation for perhaps a full episode in itself so i'm happy to move on if you will yeah yeah 100 yeah the next one's interesting so this is to do with hold until relieved so in hold until relieved is the objective control worked out at the end of each unit's activation or just once at the end of the game just once at the end of the game now the reason this is interesting is certainly

in all the events i've been at where we've played hold until relieved to date we've played it in the same way as key positions so you control the objective at the first point in whatever turn it is that a unit finishes its activation within three inches of it well can i just interject to read you page 167 the actual wording from the rule book on hold until relieved to see why people might be playing like that because it says and i'm just going to take snippets from this that are pertinent,

set up an objective marker, open brackets, see key positions, page 164. And then at the end of the, of the game, it's at the end of the paragraph, it says to control the objective, one of your infantry artillery must end its

activation within three inches of the objective. And so... I actually don't know how i'm playing this game now because if i'm capturing it by ending the activation but then that doesn't count until the end of the game but if the game's ended i can't activate how am i holding this objective yeah and actually also just jump back one sentence the aim is to control the strategic objective at the end of the game now we've read certainly where i've been at events we've read that and said it's at

the end of turn six or turn seven if you roll for turn seven where whoever holds it at the end of that wins but you can hold it you can capture it at any point from the first ice on turn one onwards but that's what it says because it says to control it you just have to end in activation which you can do from turn one with an infiltrator yeah but the faq is saying no you only work out the control of the objective at the end of the game yeah and this is where again if they want to do that it.

Needs to go in the errata you need to change the wording of the mission because as i think you said this for like a previous one we've just added more confusion here we haven't added clarification with this faq well no i think it is clear it's clear that in this instance so in key positions you control the objective at any point a unit holds that objective by finishing their their activation i think what this is saying with the faq is that you only need

to concern yourself with the objective control and contest at the very end of the game it doesn't matter it's like old school old school v2 key positions old school v2 holmes are relieved and if they'd added to work out who controls it at the end of the game you need a unit within three inches and no enemy within three inches i totally agree but because we still have that activation close live if you have an activated unit next to the objective at the end of the game

because we run out of time and i don't have an activated unit but i do have a unit within three inches yeah no one has it i guess i'm contesting even with a non-activated unit and then so if we yeah so let's say the game ends you've got a unit within three inches, no one else within three inches you haven't activated that unit no one holds that objective even though you're surrounding it and I'm nowhere near it. I see what you mean, yeah. Yeah, yeah.

It's gotten quite muddy, and I think it could have been really nicely tied up by just adding that additional close of to see who owns it. End of the game, three inches, three inches, done. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Again, a rather. Anyway, I mean, let's assume that is the case.

So let's assume that in Holden to Relief, it is old school V2, V1.

It might actually make Holden to Relief potentially be worth considering in a tournament whereas at the moment it's a waste of time it might oh i'm the opposite, go on i i like it with a sticky because you can do an early sticky and then you can do like a strategic sweep sideways all this and then your opponent has to worry about are you going to counter the sweep at expense of the objective and then like hope i beat the sweep and i

still have time or do i go for the objective and ignore like this big swinging force around the side, and i actually think it's better with sticky personally whereas if it's at the end i think it just results in a big punch up in the middle because you're basically just going to throw your forces in and then whoever's there at the end wins yeah on the flip side at the moment certainly where where i've played it at events whoever gets it first probably wins the game well funnily i just lost

the game exactly like that okay with rangers i took my rangers i led the way i started on the objective i ran past it yeah yes exactly that tactic i was just saying where i was going to do a big sweep and then like mop them up distract it it worked as well like you send his bloke sideways and i'm thinking this is brilliant and then i just end up getting tabled okay and so turn six he managed to just walk onto it and have it but for five and a half

turns there i was winning that game quite confidently. Should have slow played. Anyway, right, next one. Can a cavalry unit dismount at the end of an escape move? Yes, it can. Which is interesting. Yeah. You put, after your escape move, what dice are you putting next to it?

Are you putting an advanced dice next to it or a down dice next to it? Yeah, no, don't you put an advance or a run, depending on what you do in the cavalry case. I'm trying to remember, because V2, it used to be old. It used to be down, didn't it? Which was a bit tasty. It changed.

Page 150. yeah once the escape move is done turn the vehicle's dice to advance all run perfect so there we go so there's no advantage to cover for doing that yeah i guess so i guess the reason why you would do it is you know your cavalry unit gets targeted you declare an escape move you can only advance kind of on a as a cavalry you can't you can't do the run so you advance nine inches and you dismount probably because you could dismount into cover because obviously

cavalry get a minus one yeah so actually that's that's quite handy the other tasty thing actually is if someone's put an objective in a house you can now recce into that house you can escape move into a house and claim the objective yes which is quite tasty so actually like it does have a place even if you're not getting the big benefit of going down at the end yeah we'll come we'll come on to that in the moment because there's a similar question along those those lines cool the

next if you're ready to move on the next yeah yeah yeah it's like a yeah but then the wording of your answers a little bit like i feel a bit like this is a stop start the clock moment because i can remember this in v2 yeah when is a man not a man when he's an nco when is an nco not a man when he's a loader and all this kind of stuff it's like can a man or an nco pick up a weapon blah blah blah when is a man not a man.

I actually quite like it. It basically just says that if we use the word man, we mean not an NCO or an officer. Non-NCO, yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I think that's fine. I was a little bit... Now, the thing that made me question it a bit is it goes on to then specify cases where the NCO would be included, and I started to worry that we were starting to lose it a bit where it says, like, up to two models.

But then actually, I've had a look through the latest releases, and they tend to say up to two men.

And so actually i don't think they've added any confusion there which is quite nice but it's quite a long response for quite a simple question that is sort of most people have played it that way anyway yeah i so i guess where it's come from is situations potentially maybe in competitive tournament play where you've got a you've got a guy with a panzer faust or a guy with a. Or whatever yeah let's go for a panzer faust for example he gets killed can the nco in inverted of commas pick up

the panzer faust can the nco become the loader all that sort of thing because that kind of yeah that that might matter in in that context casual games you might be a bit like whatever but in you know in a competitive context it might matter yeah well back in the day you used to give stuff to your nco like you give your best game the nco because you keep him to last now there's so much morale boosting going on on the table because you're being forced to take six officers that that doesn't matter

as much plus the only thing snipers can hurt are ncos he's actually now the last man you want to give an upgrade to and so actually this faq is about a year behind when it was like pressing because people were really wanting to do that in v2 and now i think people aren't that fussed about loading their ncos out. The next one's a nice little tidy one. Does an HMG with plus one pen apply pins to an inexperienced or regular vehicle shooting at more than half range?

Yes, it does. So it's the fact that it's a heavy weapon, not the fact that its penetration modifier has gone from plus one down to zero because you've gone over half range. I like that one. That's nice and clear. Yeah, it's good. I like how crisp it is as well. Yeah. No nonsense. Next one. Does the reinforced front armor rule work against attacks like Soviet AT dogs and IJA suicide teams?

No, it doesn't, because these are, sorry, it doesn't work against either because it states shots, so it only applies against ranged attacks. So I agree with the answer, but not the justification. I don't think we need to say whether they're shots or not, because actually both of them have a clause that you take it on the base armor without modification, and the reinforced front plate is a modification.

And so actually we don't need to determine whether they're shots or not, because you're using the base armor value, which for a Panther is nine. Yeah, so I'm just reading the Suicide IJA one. So you resolve a hit against the vehicle with a penetration value of plus eight brackets, no other penetration modifiers apply. Yeah, so the modifiers being for side armor, rear armor, top armor, and so on.

Yeah, and the thing that's funny that, like, I think is the oversight is actually, we always think of the modifiers as being downwards, but actually the front plate one is a modifier. It just goes in the other direction, it goes up. And so, I mean, I think it still needs an FAQ and I'm happy that it's there. I just, I, it's one of those ones where I'm just like, I like your answer, but not your justification.

Yeah. So what I think is missing here. Well, a whole new question, isn't it? It's a whole new question, but, you know, listeners, settle down, get ready, strap yourself in for this one. This basically says that Soviet dog mines don't give cover soaps. Yep. Yep. Because it says that it's not a shot. Can I counter, though, with dog mines, colon, a dog mine is a one-shot weapon with a range of 18? Yeah.

Yeah. i mean we're using the term one shot to mean single use i think it would be the counter argument like we're using it in a non-specific way but it is funny to say that it's not it's not a shot yeah but it's a one-shot weapon so i so it's i'm actually picking up on the it only applies against ranged attacks so and i know because i was involved in this question well can i read the next part which says with a range of 18 yeah so what what the response was was things like

soviet at dog mines and suicide teams they have a special table that you follow or a special special process that you follow when you resolve the attack which isn't the standard declare your target check line of sight check range check to hit check to pen check to damage.

So basically what this is saying is that the soviet dog mines don't give cover saves because is you essentially just roll on that chart and nowhere on the chart does it say brackets apply a cover save if any intervening terrain between the dog mine and the target unit yeah but equally it doesn't say that for any weapons because that's in the core rules so i know the omission of that i think the thing that causes the thing like i think this is the broken record moment

where because it's a v1 rule counted v2 counted the v3 but it says instead of rolling to hit now in v2 we applied those cover modifiers to hit roll, which meant if you're not doing it to hit roll, you don't get cover. And so like... That convention would say you're not getting cover. But also, if we go a little bit thematic, it kind of makes sense that the dog's going to jump over the hedge or whatever. Yeah, 100%. I've always struggled in V3 with the concept of a dog mine.

You've basically been able to have a cover save against a dog mine. Either the dog runs under the vehicles and blows up, or it doesn't.

Like the fact there's a hedge in between is a is count is accounted for by the die roll of was it two or three when it doesn't even make it to the vehicle to blow it up yeah but i think the counterpoint to that for me if we're talking like thematically like what makes sense would be if there's a squad between you and the tank and there's this dog with a bomb strapped to his back running towards the men who are in front of this tank and they've all got rifles one

of them very well might take a shot at this dog or at the very least it might distract the dog if the dog's not looking aggressive they might stop and pet the dog and then the dog never gets to the tank and so there is equally the other way around the cover might make the dog get to the tank more easily because if the if the tank can't see the dog because it's behind a wall for 90 of the advance towards the tank then maybe you should

be hitting on an even better one so maybe infantry should give you a cover save but tanks give you a negative cover save right ignore that stop no no cover saves move on yeah i agree and also actually just going back to like making sense the fact that your reinforced front isn't giving you extra protection against the dog that's crawled under your tank i'm very happy with that makes sense to me and so i actually think as i said i think good rule needs needs

a better justification and we need that extra question please i'm not going to read the question because it's quite long but effectively what this one is saying is that anything that requires.

A unit to get an order dice at the end of it doing something counts as an activation so for example if a unit foo bars and it foo bars. And ends up within three inches of objective it is activated if that objective wasn't previously controlled you can now control it likewise if a unit is inside a transport vehicle the transport vehicle blows up the unit then has to disband and goes down if it goes down within three inches of an objective does account as now controlling it if it was previously.

Not controlled yes it does yeah i don't like this i think this doesn't it's bad game mechanics because the bad thing has happened and it's turned out good for the person who the bad thing happened to like my units run away and oh they've captured the objective by running away in terror from the enemy huzzah so that's annoying first of I think it's not good games mechanics, but also I think, I think if you're forced down, you haven't activated, like that's my reading of it.

Like you activate by following an order. Yeah. And, and this is where, so I often read this activation when it came up in the text as a successful activation. Yeah. But, but actually what we're saying is what this explicitly says actually, is that anytime a unit is assigned a dice, that is what we mean by activation. And what this means as well is a lot of players are playing that to do a snap to your officer has to successfully activate is the word successful in that rule.

Rule or does it just say the officer has to activate no no no no it does say successful or something it does say under snap to the officer needs to successfully be receive an order or something perfect so that hasn't been that effect so that actually isn't affected by this no no no. So i agree with you and and i've certainly had this in games where i have caused let's go back to the cavalry for example i've caused the cavalry unit to escape and it's escape moved onto an objective and then

claim the objective because it's activated because it receives the advance at the end of that you and i've had it at beachhead where you shot one of my unit my transports i dismounted onto an empty objective and we had a whole conversation about whether or not i had activated in order to to claim that objective i like that it's clear but i personally think an activation should be a positive thing when you're doing an escape move you're basically going and running away when you're

dismounting from a blown up transport you're going geez and getting getting to ground kind of thing when you fubar you're absolutely not doing that consciously in a positive way so i i would have preferred it to have said when you successfully received an order you have activated so it's a positive thing rather than just when you get a dice you've activated but it's clear at least it's clear that's yeah better than i would have changed the wording to,

I would have added an errata to the actual, like key positions rule.

And I would have just taken, cause you're absolutely right. You meant snap to action does have all the clauses you need. It says receives an order successfully other than down.

Blah blah blah and i think that is what you should have to do to take an objective because otherwise you do open the door to like the gamey tactics that we a lot of people say they don't like things like you push your transport past the objective like tempt your enemy come on have a shot at it so i can fall out and grab this which allows you to go further out of your transport than really you should have yeah because if the if the objective's like i don't know 30 inches from you you do

your 24 inch run with your transport and fall out well you only need three inches to catch it and so i i don't like it i think i want the successful version i couldn't agree more with.

Your previous statements i i did exactly that against i won't won't name names but three good men i advanced my transport beyond the objective kill points didn't matter because it was about objectives and i was basically baiting my opponent to blow up the transport so i could then fall on to objective and claim it whilst also giving myself hard cover because i've just got a piece have had a comms on my letter in this case in front of me so yeah well more on that coming

up soon in fact the very next question let's let's talk about that so what's the next question say phil yeah so i if more than 50 of the units models are out of the arc of fire of a fixed weapon or a vehicle mounted weapon and the unit is in the open does the unit get a cover save so it's a good question this one so so if you've got a 45 degree arc of fire front arc for example you've got eight guys in the unit only two of them fall within your front 45 degree arc are you getting cover.

Now, this came up at the WTC. I'm aware of this talking to players who went there. And what the answer is, is that no, cover saves only originate from intervening troops or terrain. Pause for breath there, Johnny, before you jump in. So what this is saying is that cover only comes from intervening things. So the original question is saying if i can only see two out of eight guys are those is that unit getting a cover save the answer is saying no there's nothing blocking the.

Intervening well there's nothing intervening between the shooter and the target 100 agree with that i don't see why you would get a cover save and there's actually a line isn't there in the in shooting rules that says imagine the position of models is fluid and that's why we're able to if you've got a unit that's like six guys behind the wall or behind a building out of sight and two of them you can see they get hard cover you kill five of them you can

take guys from around the corner even though you physically couldn't couldn't have a line of fire to them because it's a fluid situation i agree with all of that now i'm going to hand over to you for the problem i have lots of issues yeah i this is an occasion where we actually disagree so i'll be interested to see how heated this gets so first of all the response is bad because it says it doesn't say intervening objects.

It says cover saves only originate from intervening troops and terrain, which means that big fat Sherman, the jumbo Sherman you've parked in front of your boys, basically doesn't exist if we go by this rule. You're not getting cover from any vehicles. Yeah. Well, it's not a rule though, is it? Because it's an FAQ, so it's an explanation. I agree with you. It's going to explain the rules, though, isn't it? If it said intervening models or terrain.

Yeah, exactly. Then that's exactly it. And this is my big problem with a lot of these FAQ responses. Isn't like the questions and the answers themselves. It's like the specificity, I think is the word. Specificity of language. Like when we're writing this, we need to stop, pause and think like, is the word that I'm using here covering all of the bases? Because you're right. All we need to do is change the word troops to models, and you've covered your bases there.

It's similar to when we talked about Gerber Schager in the Armies of Germany, and it says the Gerber Schager rule says they ignore, or they treat difficult ground as open ground. There's no such thing as difficult ground in the bolt action rule book. It's rough ground. I think there was a third edition 40k though. Okay. Well, unfortunately, we're a third edition bolt action.

We all understand the meaning as Gerber Schager. You ignore the fieldcraft rule, you ignore rough ground, you shoot it as open ground. But the fact that it specifically says difficult ground, it's like, this is a technical term. Yeah, this is a universal special rule, if you like. Anyway, back to you. I do like that having a turret is more useful. Like, because as you're saying, the fluid situation, I'm not imagining they're like fluidly 12 inches from where they are.

They're like an inch left or right, you know what I mean? or you caught them as they were moving and i have to imagine like if you are on the machine gun on the front of the bren it's going to be a lot easier to hit someone if the full squad is in front of the bren yes than if like one man is in front because he sort of whipped round from the combat that he did on the squad inside and so i actually think i i think if it was yes you do get cover that's

in line with the rules and it gives turrets a little perk that actually you're paying points for anyway so it's not like it's a free perk yeah no i can see that i do agree with that i however i think at the moment currently it might be the heat i just want clarity and i've got and i've got a clear answer yeah that you know whether or not it makes sense at least i don't have to have that back and forth with my opponent or if i'm toing with

two players and trying to explain to them no this is what we're doing get on with it kind of thing yeah and i mean this goes back to v2 when i first started playing fins i think we had this exact story with the calm somalettes where you engulfed one and then there was the question do you get cover and so it's nice as you say that we do finally have some clarity even though it's not might not be the way we all want it yeah and then the last one can i ignore bits

of decoration yes you can yeah it's a bit of a nothing burger i think i quite like how at the end it says like agree with your opponent yeah because ultimately that's the main rule isn't it like any terrain you put on that table agree what. It is at the moment it goes down don't wait until like turn five when you're. Crouching behind a tree and you're thinking you're getting cover dude at the start.

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure if you listen way, way back in the midst of time over the last two and a half years, if you listen to our episode about going to tournaments, I think we're pretty sure that we talk about agreeing the terrain with your opponent beforehand so you don't get those gotcha moments. You know, ruins. Is the ruin the base or is it the wall in the ruin? All that kind of stuff. Like how are you working on pagodas on buildings? You know my least favorite?

Those stone walls with a little bit of like patched up like planks to patch up the hole in the stone wall is it soft is it hard and then sometimes like halfway through a game it's like oh well you stood behind the fenced bit rather than the wall bit and then oh but how many of your models are behind the fact like with stuff like that i always just just rule the entire thing is either soft or hard and don't you're getting into too much minutia for a representation of real life yeah okay so

we've now got what you like we've now split the core faq and errata or the core rules if you like from the army's odd books so we've now got armies of germany and armies of us interesting that you like it i'm i'm kind of on the fence about it i quite like to have a single document because the problem is we're going to get to a point once all the army books are released i'm going to have to have this big like an archive

of pdfs in order to keep on top of every army's little whereas previously it was just one FAQ, so actually I'm still on the fence about it a bit, but I guess it stops us having a 60-page document for an FAQ. Should we do Germany? Yeah, I think so. I think first to be discussed. Okay, so first German errata, any instances of the stage we fire in platform, this vehicle may not fire if given an advance order. Sure. Yeah, no issues there.

Officers change the third option as follows. Up to one model may replace their rifle with an assault rifle for plus six points. So I think it's previously any model. So stops you kitting out a six-man, five-man officer-teaming rifle? I actually looked and it was always one model. What's interesting, and this is why I want to do the FAQ first, is in the original wording, it's up to one man, which by that latest FAQ would mean the officer couldn't have it.

And so actually, I quite like that they've tied those two thoughts together that actually will change the wording from man so that it's clear the officer can have the assault rifle.

But the thing that actually surprises me a lot which i hadn't noticed the first time probably because assault rifles are so expensive now that i wasn't really that bothered but i actually don't see a huge problem with people paying for every man to have an assault rifle because they're so expensive and combat's not that good anymore and also like i'm sure there probably were officers who had like the logistical strength to grab enough assault rifles to kit out like full

squads with assault rifles even if not the full platoon just like yeah at least their squad it was certainly late war they didn't know the yeah folks folks when it is oh yeah yeah prime example exactly yeah so like if you're doing an officer in that it's a shame that all of you men have the assault rifles but the officer i guess he's too inexperienced isn't he's just too inexperienced he couldn't find the assault rifle cash.

I like this one this dish is just a historical tidy up yeah so basically the previous wording was that you could add a pintle mounted forward-facing mmg which allowed you to fire two separate shots and therefore put two pins out this is just clarified it's not a separate pintle mounted forward-facing mmg it's a coaxial mmg well that's a bit of a shame i like the old, I mean the good news is you've saved points the bad news is you're doing less pins yeah yeah

but I think it's I think it's correct in terms of how the MMG worked on a stunmill yeah it does make me wonder if it's worth taking now though because but but then I was thinking about that and I was thinking actually light howiters aren't very good anymore because they're doing so few pins yeah half the time you just might as well shot a rifle so few hits and you're getting cover from than when you shoot them direct.

Like, they go down in cover. You're getting one hit with a 2 plus save against it. And so actually, in that case, the MG might be better. Yeah. Maybe. Yeah. Next one is the 8 rad, the 231 Heavy Armacar. It's just sorted out the costs of an inexperienced one. Yeah, funnily, this was just omitted. It's not that it was wrong. For some reason, it must have just got dropped from the original document when it was sent for print.

Because I think it was just absent. like it just said inexperienced then the points cost for regular and the points for veteran.

And the next one which i am very happy to see the 254 is not a transport vehicle anymore it never was it never was in v2 it was added in the right from v2 it was added as an anti-aircraft vehicle that sat in the tank slot in the main rule book and in arms germany it was an upgrade and you didn't lose your 251 transport capacity this has now sorted it out so you can't take a load of 254s with two mmgs, Because where were the guys sitting with all the ammo and double MGs?

Yeah, I like it. It's a good tidy up in terms of making the game more accurate. Will we still see them, do you reckon, Phil? I was going to say, in the same way that comms from a let's are now up on eBay at one penny each kind of thing, there's probably going to be a load of 254s appearing, or people are going to be ripping out the double MGs. We still see them. They're a cheap anti-aircraft vehicle.

So if so if you know or if you know if if forward air observers are a thing depending on where you live in the meta and so on if you know you're going to come up against you know u.s guys with double shot air observers there are cheaper options the this motorbike sidecar is a is a flak anti-aircraft option but this is a pretty cheap anti-aircraft option so if you didn't want to spend money on a pintle or you know onto your panzer 3 or whatever i don't know if you know if

take one or not but if you didn't want to spend money on making one of your main vehicles into an anti-aircraft this is a cheap way of doing it will you see them maybe not have lots of people gone out and bought the kit yes they have or they 3d printed it are they going to be upset now quite possibly yes yeah i i think we most of the people who were buying into them knew it was a short-lived thing because most people were buying them played v2 they knew that i didn't have transport capacity then

they thought eventually like fate's going to catch up with me here so I'll just enjoy it while it lasts. Yeah. I think jumping onto like, is it worth it? It's 65 points. It's two machine guns. As you said, it is very effective against aircraft. So if you're seeing FAOs, it's a good purchase.

And I actually think if you've got your anti-tank sort of wrapped up elsewhere in your force, maybe it's in like your infantry, because you've like decided to take loads of FAUs, a little platoon of these, for under 200 points, you can have three of them. Yeah. Oh, sorry. You're going to be over because they're going to come out.

205 I think it works out as but like 200 points for three that's not bad you know because it's still armor seven open top so don't don't get too close to the enemy but not bad yeah I'm game side me up I tell you what if anyone's selling them for a pound each I'll take a few off your hand I'm sure there are a few flying around though yeah yeah it's a similar I mean I my you know the the US build I took recently it had HMGs in it that the armored the armored

platoon was hmgs effectively because my proper anti-armor was elsewhere you know be that flamethrowers or panzerfaust or bazookas or whatever so yeah i do think actually there could be a place it's quite little quite a little you know it's pretty small it's easy to hide panzer one's basically the same thing isn't it the close top so it's it's a choice between do i want the half track which can move further on the road or a panzer one blah blah blah yeah but that's a lot flack so yeah.

But it's not open-topped either. Yeah. Horses are horses. Shall we move into... So that's all the rules changes finished, Shirley. Just epic cues. Yeah, and only one. It's a good one. Do the Eintos Flamwerfer crew have pistols? And do also the Flamethrower teams have pistols?

Basically, it's only the Eintos Flamwerfer crewmen do. The relevance of this is when you run out and you replace the man, but actually you don't replace the man And if you're an Eintos Flamwerfer crew, because you've got a pistol, so you just get rid of your single shot flamethrower and he still runs around with a pistol rather than being replaced with an unarmed man.

Yeah. And this is a rules change. To be absolutely clear, this should have been added as an errata as a special rule for the Eintosers, because first of all, it actually just says both men have pistols. It doesn't say Eintos only.

Yes, correct. both men have pistols so they should have errated that at the very least but also the idea that you don't replace them with an unarmed man is different to the core rules mechanics and so i don't think we should just sort of flippantly faq this we should have just added a special rule like ein toss when when you remove them replace them with a man with a pistol and then actually if you do that you don't even have to put the pistol in the equipment part okay so you make it a special

rule for the unit yeah yeah special rule called iron tosses and then it says when the when you remove your iron toss you replace the model with a man with a pistol instead of an unarmed man and then that way in the same way army books always supersedes the rule book everything's nicely tidied up and we don't have an faq that goes directly against coal mechanics yeah it's nice it is yeah like i actually think you know i know this is an episode about the faq but i think the

iron toss flamwerfer is worth looking at how many times do you fire more than two flamethrower shots with a flamethrower team in a game it is now like a hundred percent it's it's like a demo charge because the problem with the demo charge is you got to get there then get away this allows you to drop two flamethrowers at once actually the thing that they didn't add i've just realized. Is uh does does the eintos have team weapon as a rule let's have a little look,

No, because it's not affected by not having a loader because there is no loader. Team weapon, yeah. So team weapon only applies to flam and werfer. So we don't need the loader, which is nice and clear. Defend the fatherland. Is there anything fun we could do with defend the fatherland and your Eintossers? Aren't you making Gerber Shager? Oh, that's fun. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, because it doesn't say, yeah, there can be all three. So yeah, you could have very fast tossers.

Is that all of Germany completed? Yeah, yeah, yeah. good old us of a us yeah so this is as as expected it's pretty much all or mostly uh a rata rather than faq yeah the the first one is exactly the same as the first one for the germans clearly the wording for stationary firing platform they weren't happy with and so they're just going to ratter that for those two hopefully we'll see a change for future editions like of army books land air

and sea you must be happy about this because you are you are upset about the fact that your airborne couldn't be regular when the was it the gliders could no no no it's more than that it's so the unit entry for airborne in the arms of u.s allows you to take regular stubborn paras yeah and then the by air land and sea entry in the u.s rulebook says if you take a non-para unit as airborne so an hq or a you know weapons team they must be veteran and they must be stubborn,

And I always had a problem with this because I'm like, but I can take regular stubborn power squads, but their officer has to be veteran. Their mortar has to be veteran and so on. So what this has said is basically gone. If you make them airborne, they can be regular or veteran and they must be stubborn. Which is good. Nice to have a bit of consistency. Do you know what I'd quite like to be able to make a full Ranger force? That'd be nice as well. So if we can add that to the next one.

What's our next amendment phil yeah and i'd say air land and sea if taken as veteran marines must be oh sorry maybe upgraded to stubborn for plus one point a man this is it's may not must so you can take non-stubborn veterans but they've got to be veterans marines yeah but equally you can take regular marines because you don't lose anything by not get paying the point other than you don't have stubborn like they're still marines yeah yeah yeah

it's it's basically saying if you want them to be stubborn you have to be veteran for the marines yes okay racing through the next two you can have a horse now yeah for the officers that's brilliant so that's all your hq options can be given a horse yeah the next three is just points clarification yeah the next three the.

Usmc raiders merrill's marauders and the war dog team came with tough fighter as standard were paying four points for an smg so we've knocked a point off their smg because they were already paying for the tough fire so they'll pay three points for an smg now which is nice i think war dogs with a few smgs might be fun yeah you can't they're not huge though are they i think i think maybe four four at most they're quite good fun yeah you can take so they're four yeah yeah so it would cost you what

60 points for four four war dogs and i didn't say they were cost effective to be fair they are cool because they actually know sorry this again this is an faq episode not not a how to do well with us episode but because they're an extra selection if you only want to take one rifle platoon for example but you want a lot of units if you're going for the msu style build they're quite handy because they basically just bolt they they bolt on to your nought to four also not not to four two

compulsory and two optional squads you just stick another one in So they're quite a good way of getting, you know, boots on the ground, but only having one rifle platoon to do so. I agree. The next one. I'm a bit confused by, also, I'm a bit confused why et cetera, et cetera, et cetera is in an errata as though, like, it's obvious. I don't even know why I download the PDF, lads. Like, it's obvious.

They've changed the cost of a regular 20 mil twin Mark IV AA gun from 80 points down to 65, et cetera, et cetera. But then your jump to veteran is 104 points.

You're only a nine points reduction to go inexperienced at 56 points because they haven't errated those two points costs and i do wonder if the etc etc was intended like the person who's written this put that in as a note to themselves to work out what the other two points costs should be later and it's accidentally been included in the final draft yeah i i imagine that is we just need to tidy up the points cost of this unit and it's just been

cut and pasted in from from the document etc etc rather than mental note we need to do some maths there and tidy up all three points costs yeah because i think because it's a standard 30 up and down as our usual rule so for example that one is 80 points and then 24 up and down and so i think they put that etc etc to say work out what 30 of 65 points is at a later date and just edit that so wouldn't be surprised if in the next FAQ, that becomes, well, let me just work it out for you.

So it would be 46 points in experience, 45 and a half is what you would get if you took exactly. And if you go the other way, it would be 84 and a half points.

So there you go yeah cool the next three are just little changes to the weapon loadouts all the you know upgrades so i'm really really pleased with the next one this is the m6 gmc so this so normally it's it's always been a rear-facing anti-tank light anti-tank gun on a effectively on the dodge what it's now said is that it's forward front arc or rear arc so forward or rear facing but then And also you can add, if you really want to, an HMG with a 360,

pins on mounted HMG with a 360 degree archifier for plus 25 points. Historically, they were forward and rear-facing, and there's also evidence of them being used in an AA role. I don't think I'd ever take the... But using the anti-tank gun in an A-MG? No, no, no, the actual pinball. Okay, yeah. Sorry. Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, sorry, no. So I don't think I'd ever use the HMG. I don't think I'd ever pay for the upgrade, but I do like the forward and rear-facing.

Yeah i mean it's less relevant now that we've got double pivots double pivots and like it doesn't matter as much it's but i agree like that's a big perk when i first saw this i thought that's exciting having the hmg as well for an extra guaranteed pin but then i remembered that's you don't you don't on the damage table you're just gone if you take any damage and so actually once you start to get like 90 points for a soft skin yeah i mean you're getting into greyhound terribly, aren't you?

So you're starting to think, am I making the right choice here? Yeah, I think they are worth, you know, I've talked about them before and used them before. I think they are worth it when you look at the cost of a bazooka team inside the Jeep. But when you start going, and I'm going to add 25 points to add an HMG, but it's going to die on a six on the damage table, that's when I don't think they're worth it. But yeah, I'm really pleased to see they're now forward and rear-facing.

Yeah. Can I jump onto the next one? Because I am actually a bit excited about the next one, which is... Yes. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Because as I said in that game, I was playing my Rangers, and I was not particularly excited by them because if to get anti-tank, I've either got to take a bazooka at veteran and pay an extra two points in order to run it thematically, and it's just a bit but i think this next one could fit with my ranges potentially i can probably find a nice engagement in normandy where we had like so the next one is a recce jeep can

pay 10 points to turn its pintle mmg into an hmg now and so for 55 points you've got a recce jeep with an hmg on it which is takes care of your anti-air because it's pintle mounted and it gives you a little bit of anti-tank and it actually fits that sort of like rangers leading the way.

That's supported by a little recce platoon of jeeps i think it's really cool yeah and likewise with airborne as well yeah and it used to be that in v2 you used to be able to upgrade the recce jeep to an hmg yeah no nobody did really in v2 but i actually think in v3 you yeah you are going to see it because of that ability to put pins out they're really nice and cheap yeah they're tidy little vehicles well i was doing in the end of v2 i was running hmg dodges

which is it's still a decent choice the problem for me is if i run my rangers the dodges have zero use because the moment i use them i lose lead the way so if i put the ranges in the dodge to use it as a transport it's also the thing that i discovered is i basically got no use of my special car my special rules for my nation because i took enough smgs because i was going to be point blank that i didn't get fire maneuver,

I'm obviously not going to put them in reserve to get that perk and I'm not taking an FAO and so... Like, I didn't really get any benefit at all, which was a bit of a shame to run an army and not get their national characteristics. But I digress. Shall we move on to the next one? Yeah, yeah. So the last errata jeeps, you can make them amphibious for free. Cool. This is awesome. The seeper's back. I think it's not like game changing in terms of we're going to suddenly see them.

But it was a bit of a shame because I think everyone likes a seep. Yeah. Yeah.

And then the only FAQ is with regards to when do rangers lead the way specifically in reference to prep bombardment so it's in that section it's that start of game phase basically so you do your deployment then you do your start of game phase and the first one is infiltrators the second one is any other things that happened before the start of the game and then you move on to it but prep bombardment and special moves both occur in that

section any things that happen at the start of the game so there was a question.

Is a question as to which which one takes priority in phase two of the start of turn game section, in v2 it wasn't an issue it was it was clarified in an faq that that happens before prep yeah and actually because that faq i think it was actually included in the main rule book that um it goes, as you said it goes infiltrators any special rules that happen at the start of the game and then prep i'm pretty certain in the table it says that explicitly.

Let me have a look and so this for me was actually a really nice faq because it was a rule as written and my only criticism was it'd be nice to have the page reference, because i remember when we first got v3 this was one of the things i checked for so i think somewhere buried in here there is a very specific so the only other start of game rules after all deployment has been done including infiltrators then you execute any unit special ability that is triggered at the

start of the game some units get a free move for example if both have it the winner decides which player executes all of these rules first if you jump to land grab which is the only not the only mission but one of the missions that has prep bombardment and if you read the mission the setup basically description it says prep bombardment happens after infiltrators have been deployed but it doesn't say anything about rangers lead the way so prep

bombardment happens after infiltrators have been deployed and rangers lead the way happens after infiltrators have been deployed but which one of prep bombardment and rangers lead the way happen first where does it say prep bombardment happens after infiltrators which paragraph am i looking for uh one moment caller. Age 175. We're looking in the prep bombardment section. And... It says? Oh, it does say in that section there specifically.

Because you were talking about land grab. I was looking at land grab. It says exactly as you said, after infiltrators are deployed. So, yeah, actually, so actually rules is written. It's the opposite to what the US FAQ says. But actually, US FAQ is better. Because imagine if you paid a point, a man, for a rule that doesn't give you that benefit.

I'd be pretty sad about it. What would have been nice here, and this has happened a few times recently, is just another line in terms of, actually, if the question was, when does Rangers Lead the Way occur? And if the response was, after deployment, after infiltrators, before prep bombardment, and before the first turn, when using meet and engagement deployment type.

Because there's been a you know conversations on online about do rangers lead the way when how do rangers lead the way when you've got mean engagement as a deployment type and some people are reading it that they don't lead the way because of the it's to do with the wording of when things are deployed yeah i think maybe i would have errated the prep bombardment box there to say after all phases at the start of the game like after

like list because you know how there's the phases where it's like infiltrators all the other special rules because actually i can't see a special rule where you would want it to come after prep anyway yeah yeah no yeah just before the game starts and so yeah i would change that to say prep happens immediately before turn one after all other pre-gaming has happened yeah no i i was changing the question to to not be about prep but actually to be about when does rangers

lead the way occur and rangers always lead the way whether or not you're playing prepare positions fog of war or meet an engagement. Yeah. I was just thinking from a bigger perspective, because I could totally see this is going to come up again and again with like Sparrow Tactics, if the Chinese ever return. Yeah. All these kind of like little quirky rules as we add them. Yeah. It would be great just to have it errated.

So we always have it. Prep bombardment is the first thing you do before you start term one. Something like that. Perfect. So that's the three FAQs. Yes. Fully discussed, fully questioned.

Yeah. When's an errata, not an errata. Yeah. there is one other document that was dropped today i believe it was dropped today it's the first time i've noticed it anyway which is a quick reference guide when did that go live, yeah i don't know when it went live i noticed it today as well yeah because actually i wanted to talk about that anyway but one thing the reason i thought this is a good point to bring it up partly because we're finished the ever queues but also off the back of that

idea of like how you start the game that would be nice to be in here just a flow chart you could print it double-sided with the missions on and a flow chart of setting up because effectively you could print this on, I mean, I probably want to print it on A3, depending on your eyesight, but you could print it on A4 and you could have the other side be your how to set up the game thing with your, as you say, a flow chart and the six missions with the victory conditions.

And then it is literally like one page rules at that point. I think I'm pretty sure it comes from the Battle at the Bulge starter set. When you bought the starter sets, you used to get in the card inlay, you used to get a quick reference play sheet. Pretty sure it's just that. Yeah, people have been making these for a long time in the community, so it's actually quite nice to have an official PDF version rather than just an unofficial PDF.

So yeah, well done, Warlord. I'm actually, I quite like that.

So there we have it, the latest FAQ. Hopefully that was useful. Hopefully that's been able to explain a bit of the context as well. Let us know what you think in the comments, or drop us a message, drop us an email.

Quite a bit coming up we have got in no particular order we've got an episode of conflict 47 i was recently at the uk games expo got a chance to see a lot of the the new stuff that's been released had a long chat with some of the warlord staff so look out for that we've also got the armies of great britain happening in oh within two weeks we'll be able to talk about that and we've also got some guests coming up so quite a lot going on over the next you

know couple of months or so then later on in the year we've got a lot of tournaments to talk about including the english open if you haven't bought your ticket already do please get onto it there is literally a handful left we sold the 40 in less than a week we had extra ones added they've nearly all gone once these have gone there are no more so if you're still on the fence please do grab a ticket they are going quickly yeah and if you have bought a ticket

thank you for supporting us i think it'll be a brilliant one this year because people are embedded in the v3 and so i think we're going to start to see some really fun thematic armies at warfare but ta-ta for now ta-ta for now.