Goonhammer Historicals: Rating Every Change in Bolt Action 3rd Edition – Volume I

Today Alex & Zuul, veteran Bolt Action players, give us their hot takes on the brand new 3rd edition of Bolt Action. With nearly a decade of regular Bolt Action play, they of course have ~strong opinions~ about the rules, in particular, how 3rd edition should address the shortcomings of the venerable 2nd edition. The goal in series of articles is to go page-by-page finding every change from 2nd to 3rd edition, discuss the impact the change will have on the game, and rate it. 

Yes, this article is going to be very inside baseball.

The Rating System

Each change will be rated on the following scale:

• Much Better – The rule change is excellent and significantly improves this particular rule, or adds to the game as a whole.
• Better – This changed rule is better than 2nd edition, but might not have addressed a problem rule as thoroughly as it could have, or there are slight downsides to the new rule.
• Meh – The change is neither here nor there. This could be a completely unexciting rule change, or one that will have little or no impact on the enjoyment of the game. It also covers rules that are changed, but not necessarily better than the 2nd edition version.
• Worse – This is a rule change that seems unnecessary, and/or will not improve the game experience.
• Much Worse – These rule changes will significantly detract from playing the game.

These, of course, are just our personal opinions and should be taken with a grain of salt. We’re just bags of water and electricity like anyone else. 

Orders

Rally

Previously, the Rally order would allow a unit to remove D6+1 pins, and this has been updated in 3rd edition to remove all pins.

Alex: I think this is a big improvement. Units only get 6-7 actions a game, and rallying uses one of those up. It should feel worth it. Taking a turn to rally and still being left with a bunch of pins was a real “feel bad” moment in BAv2. Rating: Much Better

Zuul: I’m not a huge fan of this change. Being able to just remove all pins on an infantry unit doesn’t seem very realistic to me – I liked removing D6+1 pins because I think it reflected momentary courage to get up and move, or having a commander yell at troops to get their asses up and in the fight – even if that’s only to the next piece of cover. I think from a gaming perspective as well, it left space for controlling the board a little more. You might not necessarily kill guys, but you could hamper their efforts by throwing a ton of shots their way. While I agree that rallying and being left with a bunch of pins if you rolled snake eyes certainly felt bad, I think removing all pins is too strong. Instead, I would have maybe increased the amount of pins removed by the presence of an officer – maybe D6+3 for a 2nd Lieutenant or D6+6 for a 1st Lieutenant or higher. This change concerns me that morale is going to be a slight inconvenience now. Rating: Better

Down

This order has had two major changes in 3rd edition. First, rather than a -2 penalty to enemies shooting at you, it now provides a 5+ cover save when in the open, or +2 to your cover save if already in cover (more on this in the shooting section). Secondly, if you retain your Down order at the end of the turn, you remove all pins. 

Alex: I have mixed feelings on this one. The cover save bit we’ll get into more when we cover the shooting phase, but I feel like removing all pins is kind of encroaching on what Rally is supposed to be for. True, you do end up having to stay Down for two turns, but Down also gets you the cover saves, halves hits from HE, and doesn’t require an order test. If you stay Down turn after turn you’re essentially immune to most shooting and being pinned out, which seems like the way to go if your unit is on an objective. Rating: Meh

Zuul: I agree with your rating on this. I liked v2 down just giving troops the benefit of being harder to hit, I don’t think it needed to have removing pins added to it. Rating: Meh

FUBAR

There have been a couple changes to FUBAR. First, the table has been changed so that Friendly Fire and Panic are now equally likely, except if you can’t shoot a friendly unit, you end up panicking instead. Panicking can now sends units running to the closest table edge, and destroying them if they run off.

Alex: I’m not sure I like this change. First, it disadvantages certain deployment types, such as coming in from a table edge, which lots of the scenarios in the campaign books use. It’s also a bit silly logically – the models haven’t plummeted off the edge of the earth. Even if they did run away, surely they could get back in the fight once they’d sorted themselves out. I think a more interesting rule would have been units that run off the table are placed in reserve and then the player will have to roll to try and get them back on the table as usual for reserves. Rating: Worse

Zuul: I really love the change of units running off the table edge being destroyed, specifically because of the scenario you mentioned above. A couple years ago I played a game of my Germans against a friend’s Finnish, and their Sisi came in from the short edge, right next to a bunch of my units. I turned and focused fire on them and pinned them to hell, when the Finnish player rolled a FUBAR. They retreated to the edge but then just stopped. It was a bit annoying to have to actually finish them off. To me, this touches on my previous points in the Rally and Down sections – I like it when morale matters. It feels impactful and makes pinning a relevant strategy. Rating: Much Better

Shooting

Roll to Hit/Hit Modifiers

The default roll to hit has been changed from 3+ to 4+, balanced by the fact that penalties for long range and targeting small teams have been removed. Furthermore, any amount of pins now max out at a penalty of 1 to hit, while point blank has been posted to provide a +2 bonus. Finally, bonuses from cover and going Down have been moved to the new Cover Save system.

Alex: Overall, I like almost all of these changes. The long range modifier meant a lot of checking exact distances with measuring tapes, which hugely slowed the game down. Small teams made tiny units frustratingly hard to hit, and having more than a couple pins made shooting completely pointless. With these changes, needing more than a 6 to hit is exceedingly rare, but not impossible. Honestly, I’m not sure why they didn’t just make a 6 an automatic hit, and get rid of Nigh Impossible Shot (requiring a 6 followed by another 6) altogether. Point Blank moving up to +2 I’m less sure about. I’m worried it might be a little too powerful, but I’ll have to do more playtesting to know for sure. 

Overall, the changes to Rolling to Hit make it much more likely that units will hit and place a pin on the enemy unit. It also means that units that do multiple pins (like HE) can really rack up pins on an enemy unit quickly. I think this makes way more sense than the previous version where a unit Down in cover was practically unpinnable. Heck, even Inexperienced troops now will have a chance at hitting something once in a while and won’t be relegated entirely to close combat duty. Rating: Better

Zuul: I largely agree with your take above. For Long Range, while I agree that it slowed down the game, I don’t think it did it excessively and I liked the difference between long range/not long range because it forced units to move closer to get better shots. By removing long range and it just being 4+ all the time now, I’m concerned units won’t really try to get close since there’s no benefit to doing so, other than point blank but that still remains 6”. Point blank moving to +2 does feel extremely powerful, but as we’ve all seen in that scene in Saving Private Ryan when Paul Giamatti knocks down the wall of a building to reveal a unit of Germans, shooting at close range is extremely powerful. I think that especially goes for 6” representing grenade range.

For the nigh impossible shots,  I’m okay with “7’s” needed for hitting those. I think the worry with making it “6’s always hit” is that RAW that can relay to things it isn’t intended for, like vehicles or units in hard cover. I think the nigh impossible shots also help reward players who are tactical in their movement and stick to cover instead of just moving everything up blindly. 

Lastly, as someone who once spent 4 turns of a game firing at a bazooka team in a ruin and never once hitting them, I couldn’t agree more to how frustrating it was to try to shoot a small team. I’m glad the changes will help mitigate this frustration. Overall, I like some of the changes and I’m cautious about others. Rating: Better

Cover Saves

This is a new addition to Bolt Action. Before, cover was factored into hitting, now it is its own separate roll. Soft cover grants a 5+ cover save, hard cover 4+, and going down 5+, or a +2 bonus if already in cover. This is rolled by the target of the shooting attack after rolling for damage.

Alex: Some people will say this is Warlord going all GW, but honestly, I’m fine with this change. BA uses a D6 dice system, and there were just too many modifiers in the To Hit section – breaking them up makes perfect sense. My initial 3rd edition games have confirmed that this has dramatically sped up the shooting phase and is easy for even new players to remember. Rating: Much Better

Zuul: I’m a huge fan of this simply because it means I have to remember less modifiers. I think it also puts the onus back on the defending player instead of everything being up to the shooting player. Rating: Much Better

Exceptional Damage

3rd edition has completely removed Exceptional Damage. In 2nd edition, this rule would let a 6 when rolling to damage be rerolled, on another 6, the shooting player could select which model to remove, and in the case of a team weapon, would remove the entire team.

Alex: Good riddance to exceptional damage. Aside from slowing the game down, it also led to insane outcomes like snipers deleting entire mortar teams with a single shot. Rating: Much Better

Zuul: I know logically this is an excellent rule change and much needed, but in my heart I’m gong to miss exceptional damage. That rule led to some of my most memorable gaming moments in Bolt Action – specifically the game we played with your Germans against my U.S. Airborne. You had a Nebelwerfer that hit almost my entire army, but my AT gun happened to have a direct line of sight on it and I blew it the hell up in response. One in a million shot, and it still makes me chuckle today. However, I agree that losing entire teams to a single shot sucks and snipers were OP. So long, exceptional damage. Rating: Much Better

Weapons

Pistols

Always a niche weapon choice, pistols are one of the cheapest weapons in the game at 1 point; however they have been significantly weakened by losing the Assault rule, meaning they no longer can move and shoot without penalty and no longer grant Tough Fighter in close combat.

Alex: I guess they were worried pistols would be too powerful in 3rd edition, but honestly, I can’t see any reason to take them as they are now unless you have no other choice. I believe this is also a stealth nerf for cavalry, whose carbines operate as pistols while mounted. Even if this change was necessary for balance purposes, I feel like some solution could have been worked out to make them somewhat worthwhile. Rating: Worse

Zuul: This change sucks and it was a mistake. This definitely hampers my French Cavalry, which I loved to take in every single French list I played. Also again, have you never seen Saving Private Ryan? Captain Miller squaring off against a German tank with a Colt M1911 rules. Remember that scene in Band of Brothers when the 101st is assaulting Carentan and they blow a hole in a wall with a Bazooka where the Germans are set up in, and the dude comes stumbling out only to meet his demise from a point blank Colt M1911? Pistols fuckin’ rock, especially American pistols, and it’s a crime to weaken them. Rating: Much Worse

SMGs

While the stats remain the same, the cost was raised from +3pts to +4pts.

Alex: Submachines are pretty good, and I think a lot of people will still buy them at this price, especially with Point Blank now giving +2 to hit. I suspect part of the price raised is due to the new Tough Fighter rule being stronger, but I don’t think that is going to see much use due to the other changes in close combat (more on that later). Overall, I’m fine with this. Rating: Meh

Zuul: The point change is fine to me, honestly. 1 point isn’t a huge deal, I’ll be happy to pay the extra point to take some SMGs, especially since Pistols lost Assault & Tough Fighter. I think there may be fewer instances at using full squads of SMGs (like the German Heer Pioniers) since I think units will tend to stay farther apart, but this is a fine rule change to me. Rating: Meh

Automatic Rifles

The weapon category inhabited pretty much solely by the BAR, these also saw their price rise from +5pts to +6pts.

Alex: I can’t really understand this change. With the change of Fire & Maneuver in the US rules, BARs no longer provide any bonuses for US players, and I don’t think they were particularly overpowered at +5pts, so it’s hard to see why they needed to become more expensive. I suspect many US players are going to be dropping BARs from their squads, which is unfortunate considering how iconic of a weapon they are. Rating: Worse

Zuul: I mean, I guess 1 extra point to get an extra shot isn’t a huge deal. I agree that with the US losing Fire & Maneuver, I really don’t see the point of taking BARs other than for aesthetics. Rating: Meh

Assault Rifles

These also saw their price rise from +5pts to +6pts, otherwise keeping their usual profile.

Alex: This change I’m more on board with. Two shots at 18” range with assault is pretty good, especially with the boost to point blank and the removal of the long range modifier. Rating: Better

Zuul: 1 point changes really don’t impact all that much, I feel like. Assault Rifles have always been good; long range is now gone so Assault Rifles are even better than before and getting assault is great. A great weapon all around, for 1 additional point? Sure. I think these could have seen an increase of a couple of points and it would have been fine. Rating: Better

LMG

Light machine guns are now cheaper, dropping from +20pts to +15pts.

Alex: The competitive scene has long claimed that LMGs were not worth it for their cost. 40 points could either get you two men with an LMG, or four men with rifles, both of which get four shots. Now, with the price reduced, it seems more worth it. I’ve always used LMGs for historical accuracy, so I’m on board with this change. Rating: Much Better

Zuul: Finally we’re getting to the good stuff. I LOVE machine guns in all their forms, so LMGs going down a point is great, especially for Heer Grenadier Squads which can take two of them. That means a 10 man unit with 2 LMGs and only rifles will be able to spew out 14 shots. I took 2 even when they were 20 points, so a point reduction is something I’m very happy with. Rating: Much Better

MMG

Medium machine guns have gained an extra shot, going from 5 shots to 6. 

Alex: With the change to hitting, this should make them a pinning machine. I think I would have preferred them to do D2 pins instead of having more shots, making them more of a suppressive weapon, but overall I think it’s an improvement. Rating: Better

Zuul: Now everyone gets to feel what it’s like to play as Germany in v2. Getting  extra shots rules. In an ideal world, now that everyone gets an extra shot the German variants would deal D2 pins. Rating: Much Better 

HMG

One of the biggest changes to weapons are heavy machine guns. They went from 3 to 6 shots, and have had their range extended to 48”. 

Alex: With soft skin vehicles becoming much more fragile, and tanks easier to pin, I can see HMGs being an absolute beast at messing up small vehicles and infantry alike. Very cool. Rating: Much Better

Zuul: It’s going to be hilarious watching all sorts of vehicles get blown up by HMGs. Going from the least amount of shots to six shots is very funny. I feel like no one ever took HMGs in v2, because their 3 shots felt lackluster, but now that they get 6 they can perform as well as MMGs and also take out vehicles. Great change, I hope more folks model and field them. Rating: Much Better

AT Rifle

The humble anti-tank rifle has gotten a bit of a boost, with a range extension from 36” to 48”. 

Alex: I have a soft spot for weird transitional equipment that had a short moment in the spotlight before it was made obsolete, and the AT rifle is definitely that. I play a lot of early war armies, so I like this change. Rating: Better

Zuul: For the rating system, this is strictly better than before. They can shoot farther now. Aside from that, I think it’s a missed opportunity. I would have liked to see AT rifles have their own weapon damage profiles against vehicles to reflect how they tried to disable them. Maybe something like reducing movement or reducing range of shots when hit for a turn or two. But strictly speaking, this is better than v2. Rating: Meh

Panzerfaust

These saw their cost triple, from +5pts each, to +15pts.

Alex: Wow, um, okay. I mean, to be fair, panzerfausts are pretty effective, but I’m not sure they needed this much of a price increase. I feel like +10pts might have been more appropriate. On the other hand, they now get the shaped charge HE rule (which we’ll go over later in the article), so maybe they are more powerful than ever. Rating: Meh

Zuul: In no scenario will I ever be paying 15 points for a single shot weapon that misses half the time. This is an egregious point increase. I don’t know how this ever made it out of playtesting. Rating: Much Worse

Flamethrower

Lots of changes for flamethrowers. First, their pen value was reduced from +3 to +2. They now take a pin whenever they fire, and their chance of running out of fuel is doubled to 33%. Lastly, running out of fuel no longer removes the team, but replaces the operator with an unarmed model.

Alex: Look, I love flamethrowers as much as the next person, but I think we can all acknowledge that they were a little overpowered in 2nd edition. I’m ok with them being nerfed, but I feel like this was a missed opportunity to kill two birds with one stone and clean up their clunky rules at the same time. By my reckoning, firing a flamethrower in BA 3rd edition is a seven step process involving up to six dice rolls (roll to hit, roll D6 to see how many hits it turns into, roll for damage, roll for pins on the target, place a pin on the flamethrower unit, target takes a morale check, flamethrower unit rolls to check for fuel). Surely there must be a cleaner way to go about this?  Rating: Meh

Zuul: Flamethrowers went from being cumbersome to use but powerful in v2 to cumbersome to use, powerful and punitive in v3. Inflicting a pin on yourself after firing doesn’t seem very fun. I’m persuaded against taking them at all now because I just don’t want to have to pin myself. Rating: Worse

Light Mortars

These have had their range extended from 12-24” to 12-36”. Furthermore, it seems like light mortars within squads (such as VB launchers and knee mortars) have been reduced in price from +25pts to +20pts

Alex: I like light mortars, so I’m happy with these changes. They make them easier to use and more affordable. Rating: Better

Zuul: I’m a huge fan of mortars in Bolt Action, whether it’s 4 man heavy mortars all the way down to VB Launchers inside infantry squads. If you’ve read my Early War French article you know how much I love VB launchers. This change for light mortars is great –  you’re increasing the range and reducing the price? I feel like I’m being wined and dined. Rating: Much Better

Howitzers

All three types of howitzers (light, medium, heavy) have had their minimum range for indirect fire raised by 6”. This means a heavy howitzer has a whopping minimum range of 42” – practically the width of most gaming tables. 

Alex: My guess is this was an attempt to keep howitzers from being too powerful, but man, what a weird way to go about doing it. We’ll go into why indirect fire is so potent later in the article, but I don’t think making howitzers a pain in the ass to use is a good way to balance them. Rating: Worse

Zuul: Almost there. The reality is that howitzers have such extreme ranges that they actually wouldn’t be on the board at this scale. Unless you’re going to abstract them (via something like the Soviet Massed Batteries rule), then I agree that making their minimum range 42” is pretty lame. It means that more than ever, when I take artillery I’m going to park it in a far, back corner so that I can hit stuff on the table. Rating: Worse

Rifle Grenades/VB Launchers

Rifle grenades still don’t make an appearance in the Bolt Action master weapon list, however, several countries get access to VB Launchers, which are basically rifle grenades. They allow a unit to fire either as a rifle or as a light mortar, but with a 6-18″ range for +20pts.

Alex: Rifle grenades not being included except for a couple minor nations is baffling for a couple reasons – first, rules for them already exist in 2nd edition campaign books. Second, many armies used them. Third, the promo figure for 3rd edition is a US soldier equipped with a rifle grenade! With the changes to close combat, infantry need every tool at their disposal to deal with enemies ensconced in cover, and rifle grenades would be a perfect tool for dealing with that. Why do they keep ignoring this fairly common infantry weapon?

I’m glad at least France and a few minors got their VB Launchers, but why are they the same price as light mortars, but worse? Rating: Meh

Zuul: hon hon hon, my French once again remain superior with their VB launchers. But really, it sucks that rifle grenades are not in the game. They were very prevalent during the war, they’re iconic and fun. Please, please add these for everyone, Warlord.

While VB Launchers and Light Mortars are both 20 points where the Light Mortar has a range of 12-36 vs the VB Launcher being 6-18 – I think the fact that you can stick VB Launchers in a 10 man squad helps to keep them alive longer, even if they can’t reach out and touch enemies as easier. Rating: Meh

Weapon Special Rules

Anti-Tank Guns

AT guns now receive a +1 bonus to hit against vehicles using the Fire or Ambush orders. This applies to both vehicle-mounted and ground AT guns. 

Alex: AT guns as an artillery choice was fairly rare in 2nd edition, although my Japanese light AT gun racked up a pretty respectable list of kills. It seems like this is designed to help vehicle combat become more decisive. I don’t really have a problem with it. Rating: Better

Zuul: Man, this change is awesome. I love the idea of AT guns specifically getting a bonus for firing at what they’re designed to fire at. I especially love them getting the +1 while executing an Ambush order against a vehicle. Really plays into how these were used historically, by ambushing columns from a treeline or other concealed position. Rating: Much Better

High Explosive

HE continues to use templates, however, the amount of pins put out by HE have been reduced with 1-2” templates putting out D2 pins, and 3-4” templates D3 pins. 

Alex: My thought is this pin reduction is because of how easy it would be to hit an enemy with HE using direct fire now. With the reduction of hit modifiers, most artillery will be hitting on a 4+ with direct fire, which are pretty good odds, and with pins being distributed before rolling for damage or cover saves, that could quickly pin units out if you could still dish out D6 pins like in the old system. So, not exciting, but probably necessary. Rating: Meh

Zuul: Man, I really dislike the change to pins. Overall, it feels like pinning is going to be less powerful in this version, which is a shame because I’ve always found it a way to help balance lists, especially for armies that don’t have access to the heavier tanks of the later years. I agree it’s probably necessary to prevent just blasting units off the table with morale. Rating: Meh

Indirect Fire

The main addition to indirect fire in 3rd edition is that it ignores cover saves, making it one of the primary tools for dealing with enemies in cover.

Alex: I think this makes sense. In 2nd edition, indirect weapons ignored all to hit modifiers, so this was necessary to keep them at the same level of usefulness. Rating: Better

Zuul: If all of my writing about Bolt Action has taught you anything about my style of playing, you know I love indirect fire. It helps that I seem to roll sixes like my dice are loaded (they aren’t). This is a great change, I plan on punishing Class Warcraft mercilessly with an ungodly amount of indirect fire. Rating: Much Better

Spotters

The big change for spotters is that they can now spot for all Regular and Veteran indirect weapons, not just their own. This also includes weapons that normally are not allowed to take them such as vehicles and light mortars, (but not multi-launchers).

Alex: Very nice change here. Having to keep track of which spotter went with which gun was a huge pain. This is a huge game-changer for lots of weapons that normally could not utilize a spotter. It’s now possible to have a self-propelled gun park behind cover and launch indirect fire on the enemy. Awesome.

One question though: if spotters are no longer tied to a specific gun, why keep the incredibly awkward gun/spotter sharing a dice mechanic though? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just be able to buy a couple spotters as part of an artillery platoon and have them essentially function as the artillery observers do? Raise the cost and let them take a couple buddies as assistants – they’d still be worth it if they can spot for multiple guns. Rating: Better

Zuul: I can’t tell you the amount of times we have said during our games that we wish spotters could just spot for all indirect fire on the board. Very big fan of this change and happy to see it made in v3. Rating: Much Better

Shaped Charges

The changes for these weapons are actually located in the building section, but I think they make sense to discuss here as well. When firing shaped charges at buildings, they now can act as a 2” HE shot. 

Alex: I think in theory this makes sense. Bazookas were often used to dig enemies out of bunkers and buildings. I recently played a game with a newbie to BA and he was surprised to learn that his Panzershrek didn’t really have any use for attacking buildings other than potentially killing a single infantryman. I’m not sure a 2” template is the most appropriate, I probably would have gone with the 1” template instead, but overall still a good addition, in my opinion. Rating: Better

Zuul: I mentioned it up above in the pistol section, but yeah, blowing a hole in the wall of a building to clear it out was a tried and true tactic, so I’m happy to see this reflected in the game now. I don’t mind it being a 2” template, I’m a fan of blowing stuff up. Rating: Better

Outro

Final tally:

• Much Better = 15
• Better = 13
• Meh = 12
• Worse = 6
• Much Worse = 2

Overall, a very positive set of changes in the first half of the book. Next time we’ll return to cover the next section of the rulebook, including: Close Combat, HQ, Unit Special Rules, Artillery, and Vehicles!

Have any questions or feedback? Drop us a note in the comments below or email us at contact@goonhammer.com. Want articles like this linked in your inbox every Monday morning? Sign up for our newsletter. And don’t forget that you can support us on Patreon for backer rewards like early video content, Administratum access, an ad-free experience on our website and more.