"Reasons NOT to get into "FoW"..." Topic

*Sigh*
Okay I'll admit it…
I've been looking at FoW and 'thinking about it".

Slowly I feel the urge and it's a nasty one…
So…
This I know….
1: It's a NEW genre…which means, MORE LEAD, NEW RULES, etc…etc…etc…(which means MORE $$$$$ to be spent.

2: They are not the best WWII rules out there, but they are not the worst and they seem pretty well played and supported.

3: Plenty of players here in this area…

And plus the fact that for some strange sick masochistic reasoning, the Italians fascinate me…yes….Il Duce calls to me to lead his troops to victory…

So….can folks tell me WHY I shouldn't get into Flames of War?…
Please give good valid reasons, and nothing vague like ("The rules suck", or "I hate their website"); Please give me reasons, (solid reasons) as to "WHY" when you say something…

Thanks in advance…your reasoning may save me yet…

The best reasons in the world will depend entirely on the individual. Playing FoW won't rot your brain, nor will it preclude you from using your miniatures to play a half dozen other rule sets as well. What's more, if other rule sets are truly so much better, you might ultimately serve to convert some FoW players over.

I've never understood the stance that somehow playing any particular set of rules makes it impossible to comprehend the relative strengths (and weaknesses) of others.

If you enjoy the game, and have a good group of like-minded individuals, the only reasons I can think of might be scale, expense or lack of coverage for a preferred period.

And yes, the Italians are a fun force to play. I've faced them many times, and always had an interesting game.

- Bob

Few things I hate:

(1) Being taunted by new stuff almost weekly.

(2) Stupid company morale checks.

(3) Facing a Russian Horde and not taking my HMG platoons.

(4) (quibble) Sometimes facing non-historical forces.

(5) (quibble) Uber-power-gamers. They're everywhere. For every game system.

(6) Having my handed to me on many occasions.

(7) Being classed as a non-historical gamer because my little lead barbies are playing by FOW rules and not "insert your hard core uber-realistic non-fun WW2 ruleset here."

Uhm…

There's more I'm sure.

My biggest gripes with them:

8) the moveable ground scale. No big deal for many people, but I like to use actual terrain. From maps.

9) a company commander having control of tanks and infantry and artillery and planes and …

The ground scale

watching your mortars and HMGs in close assualts…thats just too weird for me

The rules are tournament focused. They don't give the player a feel for WWII tactics or combat. There are better sets of rules so why waste your time playing or learning a poor set of rules since you only have so much time in your life. The Bailout rule drives me nuts.

I can't stand to see a table full of miniatures – literally FULL of miniatures – just sitting there and shooting at each other. I've seen it at cons – tanks lined up tread to tread just shooting across the table at the other side's tanks, also lined up tread to tread. Yes, I remember reading about that happening often in WWII! Sheesh, that just doesn't make any sense to me. In fact, I haven't seen one single game of FoW that is much better than that. I haven't played it so it could be a great game, but not from what I've seen lined up on the tables.

One of the biggest flaws of FOW is that when people feel they have to validate themselves on a message board, they pull out the "any game that tries to feel more realistic than FOW must be totally complex and totally boring" line.

Many of the issues which critics have with the rules can be mitigated by:

- not playing competitively

- playing historical, or at least plausible, scenarios (and not necessarily equal points)

- choosing appropriate forces commensurate with the span of control of the player/commander

- using military tactics, not game tactics

- not feeling tied to the Late War Supplement of the Month, but playing the periods and theaters that interest *you*--even if that involves using unofficial army lists and stats.

It's quite possible to play the game without getting caught up in all the hype, or without making each game a parody of history. But you may find yourself a lonely player…

Allen

I am 1-10.
Reason enough for me.

Murph. Why not start a thread on why you SHOULD play it?

Let us know if you do get into it and tell us how it goes.

I tried it and found that the lack of opportunity fire/defensive fire felt wrong, and the special rules for all the units seemed gamey and inelegant. So I don't play it anymore, but it wasn't really that bad. It does give you an excuse to get more lead!

I don't see it that often Weasel. What I normally see is the exact opposite … hence the partially tongue-in-cheek #7 in my list.

I do agree with aecurtis though -- the right group can make any game fun.

I'm with Allen on this one too. My games have often felt like they were the WWII battles I've read about in books.

There have been a few games where odd stuff has happened and when certain people play each other it gets a bit odd, but I would imagine that is true of any system.

Italians, eh Murph? What year/theatre?

And does this mean the focus is off AK47?

I personally like a more skirmish style game in a larger scale. A platoon or two and a couple of tanks or AFVs, and I feel the focus is right. So Disposable Heroes and NUTS! in either 20 mm or 28 mm suits my style of play. Also, the 15 mm scale seems very expensive for what you get compared to 20 mm or even some 28 mm miniatures and tanks. Less lead for the money with 15 mm. On the plus side, 15 mm requires less storage space for armies, armor, and scenery (not much more than 20 mm though). my two cents8^D

Alright – reasons NOT to get into Flames of War.

1. Cost. The rules are expensive at $50 USD for the big book, the supplements aren't much better in terms of price. The figures they sell are good, but are they really 20 to 30% better than other manufacturers? Who knows.

2. Tournamentitis – The rules are tournament oriented – if you aren't into playing in tournaments then you would have just as much fun with other rules sets, like Nuts!, or Poor Bloody Infantry, or I ain't been shot mum, or Battleground, or . . . alright the list is virtually endless. We still play Angriff! here – and it still works. We've upgraded from Tractics II many years ago to other games and for skirmish gaming I can't say that I haven't ever had fun with Battleground.

3. Company Command Rules. The company command rules are a bit wonky. For starters, at larger point values you are larger than a company by a long margin and you can field "multiple" companies (I do it all the time) however, if you are forced to take a company morale check and fail – you lose. End of story. You may still have an entire company which isn't shot up, but is kicking butt and taking names, but because the other company command failed their command roll – game over. An easy fix if you have a good game group – but again – most are geared toward tournaments.

4. Non-historical forces. Many players, seeing there is a point system, will work very hard to cheese out the point system to essentially "break" the rules. I played in a tournament once and the "horde" tactic is extremely effective against MOST opponents. Not all, but MOST. The Soviets do the Horde the best. Germans are just to expensive – no penal units.

Now, for the reasons you SHOULD get into it:

A. Great Fun to be had! The games I've played – win, lose or draw, were a blast, perhaps not always historically accurate, but FUN, all the way through – even against the cheese mongers.

B. The figures and basing system works for a number of other rules sets. You can always use your vehicles in other rules sets, and the infantry work well in stands for Panzer Marsh!, and many others. All of which means you don't have to have several sets of troops – one for each set of rules.

C. Tournaments – yes – I know what I said above – if you DON'T like tournaments – then perhaps they aren't for you, but tournaments are fun to play in and they challenge you to build a force which can deal with virtually any other force – and that takes patience, strategy and tactics under the rules as each combination has strengths and weaknesses. The lower point level tournaments (1250 or so) are loads of fun as you know you aren't going to face a platoon of Panthers or the Guards Heavy Tank Company or a ton of Tigers or other tanks – as you can't get them under the point lists. It makes it feasible to have a four or five round tournament in a day so you get to play against five different opponents on five different tables/terrain and see if you are able to get the most out of your forces each game. Fun and challenging.

D. Easy to Find Opponents. It will be easy to find opponents to play against – something which can't be said for most other games as they aren't as wide spread. The rules are easily available to most FLGS around. Many players will actually have a painted army to play with as they are usually more about painting than the great grey horde like Warhammer or Warhammer 40K.

E. Figures are good quality and you can get all you need from virtually any manufacturer for your collection – and if you need to you can easily make up statistics for the one-off vehicles or strange vehicles without rules.

So, the real decision is yours to make. I've played other rules sets and they can be more fun – it is always about who you play against for me. Some opponents make ANY game fun, while others can make any game a total bore, waste of time, dreadful experience. So, my advice would be to paint up what you want to play.

By the way – I took an Italian Carre company in the last tournament – beefed them up with some German Panzer Grenadiers and had an absolute blast. Historically incorrect? Probably, but I purchased separate company command for the Italians and Germans – as I couldn't see them subordinating themselves to the other for any reason. Fun to play – yes. Did they win, two of three games, fun all the way round. Italians are FUN to play in this set of rules – something which isn't always the case in other sets of rules. The rules are very playable – besides Murph – If I get to go to GenCon this year – we could always do a pick up game!

Go ahead… Just take a hit… You don't have to buy it to try it… you know you want to…

I figure that i can base for FoW and still play Cd, Battlefront WW-II or Nuts. I lucked into a deal on the 1st edition rules (which have the TO&E) as well as the newer rule book. I have not played them yet, but it might work for my son and his crowd.

I don't play but one plus in its favor which I haven't seen stated, is that when it fades you'll have a bunch of nice looking minis painted and based like a bunch of other nice looking minis you can use for other ww2 gaming.

Not having played the one offputting thing is brits fighting brits. Jeez.

I think if Murphy is thinking about getting Italians, he is already over the edge.

One of my gaming buddies is into the Italians. He even did them for Sicily and Russia. At least in Africa, his tanks are as good as second rate…
I keep ribbing him that he needs to do the Savoia Dragoons. He's thinking about it.

Bottom line is that Flames of War is no more ridiculous than DBA. If it feels right, do it.

>One of the biggest flaws of FOW is that when people feel they have to validate themselves on a message board, they pull out the "any game that tries to feel more realistic than FOW must be totally complex and totally boring" line.

The other flaw is that when people feel they have to validate themselves on a message board, they pull out the "my preferred set of rules is much more realistic than that infantile and simplistic Flames of War set" line.

Having said that, remember that whatever the ruleset, we're STILL all playing with wee toy soldiers, after all ;-)

w.

Wehrmacht – yeah, it goes both ways :)

I use theme to draw folks in from the darkside(GW) and then have them try some new rules and see what they like. I based all my minis for FoW and still play my other sets.
CW

The main reason I don't play FoW is because I prefer scales 20mm or larger and 1:1 where 1 figure = 1 man for tabletop gaming. For FoW scale games I play ASL or LnL hex-and-counter games.

I've been collecting WWII armies in 28mm scale over the years and that's taking the bulk of my gaming budget.

And plus the fact that for some strange sick masochistic reasoning, the Italians fascinate me…yes….Il Duce calls to me to lead his troops to victory…

I feel your madness, Murph! Once my Poles are done I will dive headlong into il Duce's finest as well! AVANTI SAVOIA y'all!

Bruce the Texas Grognard

Build a illari (sp?) and macci company a coupla years ago. Both with all the supports. Only played a coupla' games. Kinda like the underdog, so did Italians.
The rules played OK to me with some strangenesses ? Yeah, ah've had tank crews that did nothing but bail out of and return to tanks, all game <lol> The Eyties can go bonkers, though. Ya roll morale for each PLATOON with the Italians. Can get really innerestin'
Based mine magnetically so ah can use them for other bases/games.

Paul

IMO the rules fail badly with when the heavy tanks get into the game. Otherwise they are acceptable. I play occasionally.

I don't much care for the "capture the flag" tournament stuff.

BUT you don't have to play it that way.

As mentioned before you can use the same basing for many other games. I have started to base my infantry on 5/8" washers with a rare earth magnet in the center. You can then cover the FOW base with that magnetic stuff and base 4 figs to a FOW base + pop them off when you want to play skirmish rules. Very flexible.

mjc

"I've been looking at FoW and 'thinking about it".

Slowly I feel the urge and it's a nasty one…
So…"

Nobody feels the urge to play a ruleset. We all feel the urge to buy nice miniatures of an interesting historical setting.

So the best argument to not play FoW is:

You can buy all miniatures from Battlefront and play BlitzkriegCommander.

Good things:

- You can have fun and have a lot of players nearby
- The Codexs are nice to read
- The miniatures can be used to play many other rulesets

Bad things:

- FOW Ruleset
- Some vehicles are not to the correct scale

I have only one reason why I don't play anymore. Its the only game I have played in tournament that the other players took advantage of my inexperience and deliberately told me the wrong stats for dice rolls (eg top and front armour for bombardments. I should of creamed his tanks). I consider it cheating. There are way to many munchkins in the game.

aecurtis wrote:

Many of the issues which critics have with the rules can be mitigated by:

Playing something else.

So….can folks tell me WHY I shouldn't get into Flames of War?…

AK47 and the cries of 100,000 Bongolesians wailing "NOOOOO!!!"

I can't think of any good reasons not to play a game which interests you.

It is a hobby not a job.

Way to many munchkins is probably too politely stating it, but I'll agree. Combine that with the IGUO and no ability to represent overwatch and it is just bad.

I put it right up there with folks who play paint ball and think they know everything about being in a fire fight.

it does seem to have a high tery factor among players, but show me a Tourny-lead game that does not.

The people I know who like that sort of thing find it the sort of thing they like.

Other than that – it's a game, why not do it?

Pat

I can't stand to see a table full of miniatures – literally FULL of miniatures – just sitting there and shooting at each other. I've seen it at cons – tanks lined up tread to tread just shooting across the table at the other side's tanks, also lined up tread to tread.

OK, does this hapopen often? The only actual evidence of this I've seen was a staged photo. I've never seen 'wall-to-wall tanks' in a Flames of War game. I have, however, seenit in a 20mm game using an alledgedly 'superior' set of rules at the table next to us FoW-ers. All I can say, Sundance, is stop paying attention to crappy con games.

FOW has its quirks like all rules sets, but I would not have even got started in WWII minis at all if not for FOW. The Battlefront "codex mentality" puts many gamers off, but the books are very inspiring to me, with all of their beautiful color pictures. I started out building an Italian Fucilieri force for North Africa first, and they are a lot of fun to play and can be quite competitive. I now have Brits, US, and Germans as well. The local FOW crowd does seem to have lost most of the initial interest that they had in the game, though. I now use my FOW minis mainly to play Memoir '44 on a large hex mat.

I've never seen 'wall-to-wall tanks' in a Flames of War game.

Two pictures from a report just off the front page of their website today

picture

picture

"I've never seen 'wall-to-wall tanks' in a Flames of War game"

I have, both at the club and shows. Then again I've seen plenty of other games with wall-wall tanks as well, sometimes with players who should know better and are surprised when their tightly packed armoured columns get ripped to shreds by their more nimble and dispersed opponents. I have no problem whatsoever with wall-wall tanks in games where the bases represent the footprint of the unit (platoon, company, battalion whatever) and the arrangement of the bases represents the deployment of the parent formation. This looks particularly good in 20mm, with several Panzer or Tank Corps deployed in width and depth. No game of Market Garden would be complete without an abject traffic jam of vehicles as XXX Corps grinds its way up Hells highway either. 1:1 games though, it is a bit silly. Tim Marshalls crossfire house rule helps greatly with this.

And the award for "Most Out of Context" goes to Derek H.

Dude, that shot is at the start of the game, with all of the forces at their start point. Where else should they have been? Besides, its a game, not a tactical simulation. Game stuff happens. If you don't like it, don't mess with it. Take off the hate goggles. It's Christmas…

For me, its the tournament mentality and force composition, as well as the apparent requirement to jam as many tanks as possible "hub-to-hub" on a table.

recon 35 wrote:

Dude, that shot is at the start of the game, with all of the forces at their start point.

picture

The tanks appear to be climbing on top of each other in eagerness to get at the enemy. Or perhaps they're mating.

I agree with Martin that it's not a particular problem in a game where 1 stand represents a group of tanks

But when one tank equals one tank it's silly.

Our club plays it a lot and has a lot of fun. It plays fast and the figures are easy to get locally. For family members stuck on what to get you for Xmas they would love it if I went for something that did not require mail order.

The main reason why I have not jumped in is terrain (I am a 6mm/28mm fan). WWII takes a ton of it so unless you already have enough for the theatre you want you have a lot of time and money potentially eaten up making a decent game.

In the end I decided to just to do bigger 28mm games (likely with IABSM) and play with my friends gear when they run a game. With plastic WWII looking like a real possibility this makes much more sense now.

Have to agree with Derek, I have seen a number of FOW games and they all tend to look like the picture with the five tanks assualting the field. Wouldn't they just overrun the position instead of circling it. Destroy the position with ranged fire? What kills me is that I see infantry on infantry doing the same thing with mortars and HMGs doing close assualts??? what is up with that????

If this is what you want to play thats fine. I don't and have not gamed with my group because they are playing this. My loss, maybe, but I'd rather not waste my time doing something I don't like either.

9) a company commander having control of tanks and infantry and artillery and planes and …

Hmmm….at least for the late war US, the company commander was capable of calling in/controlling any and all of the above. If you don't believe me, then Audie Murphy must have been a folk hero! he directed artillery and aircraft onto their targets and he had 2 tank destroyers at his disposal.

As for the game, as Allen puts it, play with friends and agree on ground rules. Friendly games of just about anything are far more fun to play than competition games.

John

"I have started to base my infantry on 5/8" washers with a rare earth magnet in the center. You can then cover the FOW base with that magnetic stuff and base 4 figs to a FOW base + pop them off when you want to play skirmish rules. Very flexible."

That's what I did but without the rare earth magnets Thanks for the great idea Quidveritas. I'll refit

A lot of this is subjective. For instance, some people actually think that getting a new, high production quality supplements and miniatures every few months is a GOOD thing.

FOW ain't my scale. Sold all my 15's and luv the 28's. Battleground rocks.

Dearest Murph,
Do what pleases you.

My advice, expanding your already considerable 15mm holdings into the WWII era would be a prudent and responsible investment. Not only is 15mm WWII readily available from many manufacturers but you may find quite a bit of it second-hand.

My one quibble: Why do you feel that FOW should be the focus of your Italian (and I presume OpFor) project? There are many fine rules designed for 15mm or easily converted to such. So I say buy your figures and paint them up in 1:1 ratios and you'll be set for whatever game comes your way.

If it passes that you cannot find any gamers willing to play WWII then your AK47 games just got more interesting with the introduction of a European Imperial state.

US Company commanders calling in aircraft is news to me…being supported by an air liason officer in their own vehicle under regimental or divisional control is not the same thing.