"Flames of War: Impact" Topic

Just for you Derek…
<snip quote from FoW forums>
That was posted by John-Paul here link

Do pay attention. I linked to that quote from JP some 30 odd posts earlier.

Bob, I have to say I love the fact that you are posting all your thoughtful, well reasoned replies to Superranter (thanks, Fitterpete!) It saves me all that time of having to compose posts that would say pretty much exactly the same thing! Although I must say you have MUCH more patience than I with arseclowns. I would have given up arguing with him long ago.

If you are ever in Charlotte, NC, look me up and I'll be glad to host a game for you. And buy you a beer! I'm originally from South Natick, by the way…

Derek H wrote:

[…] Do pay attention. I linked to that quote from JP some 30 odd posts earlier.

Yes, but he did this. :)

(Here's the cultural reference: YouTube link

- Bob

Nazrat,

Don't go getting yourself Dawghoused! Be nice! Where in NC do you play? I'll add it to my Bucket List map as well.

There was a guy that used to troll the FoW groups on Yahoo back in 2005-2006 that would get very agitated about Battlefront and/or FoW. He started out asking innocuous questions, but would always raise increasingly bizarre objections. I found it interesting to dig down to what was really troubling him. Turned out, the "perfect game" was something he had only played solo, and hadn't actually played in years. He seemed upset that something had become more popular.

I'm honestly interested and happy to discuss the shortcomings of the game. It's not perfect. But BF isn't the devil, and not every FoW player is poisoned and rendered incapable of reasoned thought.

I am encouraged by the fact that Battlefront does seem to generally be doing the right thing by their customers, despite some outward parallels to GW. I think that their efforts will look better in a few years' time, after they've had time to complete more of what they mean to. It's been frustrating waiting for them to finally cover some periods and units, but once they do, I've been pleased. If they ever accomplish their big plans for early war and such, I'm sure it will be great stuff. Since I can't seem to get a unit of 10 tanks painted up lately, I'm not about to fault them for being behind on entire product lines.

- Bob

Insane ranting my arse. There as difference between war themed and a war game. Transplanting Space marines with US marines under the warhammer system and that's all this is, is NOT a wargame.

Still trying to understand why Fow = GW.

I cant understand how anybody thats not a Fanatic Fan boy cant see how they are the same.

Nothing but has posted is well reasoned in anyway. I think its simply evident that the fanatic fans will attack anybody not involved with the cult. Talk of my posts being a rant are simply invalid nonsense. This Bob guy as been a abrasive flame warrior over GW for years I . Ive dealt with him before on wargamer.com. I really have no respect for these attacks or the supporters of them. The last thing any of them are is well reasoned.

Certainly none of the silliness and RANTING over Grumpy people, the rude remarks and the babbling about the trolls are far beyond well reasons and in no way convince a level head of anything but a a highly negative game expeirencnce and a detriment to the Hobby in General.

If its grumpy not to want to deal with flippant children and fanatic attitudes shown here. Chalk me up as grumpy then. In the real world its simply not wanting to deal with crap.

I don't think they're the same. Though there are strong similarities.

And I'm certainly not a Fanboy.

Supergrover6868:

Nothing but has posted is well reasoned in anyway.

I can't disagree with that… whatever it means. :)

[…] This Bob guy as been a abrasive flame warrior over GW for years I . Ive dealt with him before on wargamer.com.

News to me! It looks like a PC game site… which is puzzling, given your disdain for PC games. (Hmm. Who's trolling?)

But I am now dying to know if you've ever joined a FoW list and started pushing Close and Destroy. This particular style of online train wreck sure seems familiar…

- Bob

What Derek H said.
AND WILL YOU PLEASE TELL US WHAT A "REAL WARGAME" IS?

I do believe I've been stifled.Huh Bob argues with him for 30 post and all I do is mention insanity and I get stifled.Must have hit pretty close to the mark.

Hey, I got one too! My first, mind you.

- Bob

My second actually, have no idea what the first one was about.I hate the stifle feature myself.Total cowards way out.Like sticking your fingers in your ears and and singing ,and he never did answer my qeustion.

Same Caricatures of Troops. Revised Rules for the sake of re-sale. Codex like Books, White dwarf Like periodical. Need for multiple manuals to play. Rules similar. The Guys at Battlefront are from GW. The use the GW model. ITs marketing ploys. The same obnoxious Fanatic players. I see allot more similarities.

No White Dwarf (yet?) but I'll agree with most of the rest. Rules and supplements seemed designed more for marketing purposes than for game considerations.

But Battlefront have lots more useful free stuff online than GW. They're better at providing errata and did give away new rulebooks to people with old editions (OK it was a cut down version).

They seem slightly better at listening and responding to their fans than GW.

Similar, but not the same.

Supergrover6868 wrote:

Same Caricatures of Troops.

The fluff can be silly, no doubt. I don't think that's particularly unique to GW, nor BF in any case. The mechanics do what they're meant to do, though. At least that fluff provides some, albeit sometimes silly, rationale.

Revised Rules for the sake of re-sale.

I'm not aware of any arbitrary revisions. The last big change was from v1 to v2, for which they provided a free book for those who already owned v1. While it definitely is cut down compared to the v2 book, I do believe it contained more material than the v1 book they'd actually purchased.

I see two sides to this:

1. BF has not gone back an arbitrarily neutered units, nor have they given new units any sort of super powers. While new equipment does provide an advantage in specific circumstances (as it did in life), nothing is unstoppable.

2. They are doing some annoying things with the heroes. Most people I play don't bother fielding heroes, so it's mostly a non-issue for me. And the heroes usually cost more point-wise than they're worth. But the idea does grate on me.

Codex like Books

Only one of which is required to play. I mostly buy them to support my local shop, and see what's new, but I've gone months playing against forces listed in a new book and not really noticed the difference. That has as much to do with my opponents as the rules. The gentlemen among them will at least bring anything new to my attention.

Here again, I see two sides to this:

1. BF is clearly hoping a lot of players will jump on each new book, and do their utmost to encourage this. Hardly surprising, but yes, I do tire of it. Especially when it's not a book about something I care about!

2. Each book does provide a depth of focus on specific units and actions that I typically don't see in other rule sets. At least other rule sets that don't also provide campaign-specific books of their own. The painting guides for these units are much appreciated and praised.

White dwarf Like periodical.

I'm hearing good things about the sole issue that's out so far. While GW also has a magazine, I hardly see that as a negative.

Need for multiple manuals to play.

You need a rulebook and a (possibly free) Intel guide for the force you intend to play. Two. I've got a dozen other rule sets on my shelf that do exactly the same. That is not unique to BF, although yes, GW does the same. They also print their rules on paper and sell stuff in stores.

Rules similar.

There are some similarities, yes. But again, I see a lot of similarities (if not outright lifting) between rule sets. They are modeling some similar things, after all.

The Guys at Battlefront are from GW.

I believe there is a connection, yes. Then again, several guys locally also worked for GW at one time. I put that in the "so what?" category. More than one of us has been engaged in a business venture that wasn't all we hoped for, and moved on.

The use the GW model. ITs marketing ploys.

Which is based on the same principles taught in "Marketing 101", yes. Of course they do.

The same obnoxious Fanatic players. I see allot more similarities.

So any company that:

1. Employs anybody with GW in their past.
2. Markets their products.
3. Publishes a magazine.
4. Publishes rules using mechanisms, fluff, color, photographs and/or two-sided printing.
5. Publishes supplements.

Is incapable of producing a "true" wargame?

Well, at least we have a checklist for the witch hunters to use now.

- Bob

I wonder what he considers a "true wargame"?Oh thats right I can't ask him.What a tool.

Now wait a minute, we may be on to something. If Battlefront, it's rules and their players are bad because Battlefront is like Games Workshop, perhaps Peter Pig, Too Fat Lardies and others are ALSO bad because they share so many common characteristics with Battlefront! You see, if the objections aren't about the RULES, they must relate to all those other factors that have NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the rules!

This really makes critiquing products a lot easier. You don't even need to look at the rules now. Just draw up a list of company characteristics and render your judgment based on that! Genius, really.

OK, all in fun guys. But seriously: I know there are objections to the actual RULES, and I know I share some of those with some of you, though probably to a lesser degree. I do think we've seen here a classic example of how disdain for the company often blends into generalizations about the rules and even players. Discussion of the rules is interesting, at least to me. But I do like to separate that from opinions about the company, the players or any other sort of extraneous factors that have nothing whatsoever to do with actual game play

- Bob.

Well they bought a Periodical, Im sure its only a matter of time till that becomes their version of White Dwarf. When it doed whatever free errata they give now will be pulled and become part of the magazine. That would be the strictly profit motive move. They can still give the illusion of free by putting errata in the magazine. By including further revisions in the mag only they ensure subscriptions will be high.

I likened the Rules book thing to getting an upgrade of Windows 98 from 95. Yuck.

If they treat their customers better, Good, points for them. But given the abuse GW has inflicted on many saying BF is better, isn't that great testament to me. I have not heard as many complaints from retailers about BF as I have from GW. But again that's not a rousing endorsement as I have seen retailers so legitimately angry at GW that I would recommend GW employees get a security force. I am not exaggerating. I saw dudes scream such they turned different shades of color. Not to mention the arrogance that two particular guys showed at the same meeting. They stated basically they would continue to balance on the near side of illegal with the copyright issues like those of the Alien/Genestealer episode with Ridley Scott. Deplorable.

So they are better with Errata? I saw previously you brought up that it wasn't there and people were complaining. First edition rules when I looked at the site, there was only peeks and it was evident I needed to buy all supplements to my forces and my opponents to play because of the holes. it was Just like with 40K. Anyway if they aren't charging for minor updates then that's a positive step. IMO it would behoove them to distance themselves from any likeness to GW.

Even still,these and most players of GW and FoW are but some reason its such a abomination for me and many others. I find the criticism it and GW has gotten ,richly deserved. If it was just bad rules it wouldn't be such a big deal. There's lots of those out there.

For me though even if BF rectified what I felt wrong with it id never play the game. Players like the Fan boy fanatics here(Doesn't matter what their age is) squelch any possibly of it being a positive experience no matter what, even if the rules were brilliant.

Supergrover6868

From reading your posts it seems to me that you have made your mind up about Battlefront and it will not be changed.

What I have not yet managed to glean from all of your posts is a simple explanation of what you think a real wargame is.

At my local club we currently have a bit of a problem, our problem is that we are starting to run out of space in the club room! Between Flames of War (which you can play with miniatures from any number of companies BTW) and Field of Glory the club has gained about 1 new member a month for the past 18 months.

As the title of this thread is "impact of FoW" I would say that in my sphere of wargaming the impact of FoW has generally been a good one unless of course I want to be a grumpy old gamer and bemoan the possibility that if I get to the club late I might not find space for a table.

Bob, I won't get DHed because arseclown is allowed here as it is considered a haddockism. It's in the FAQ. I try to avoid that sort of talk, but when somebody is as incoherent and angry as this guy I like to call it as I see it. Apologies to anybody bothered by it apart from the object of my disdain…

As to the whole "fanboy" thing, since it looks like Superranter stifled me as well so he will never know that although I own some FoW stuff, I rarely play the game. If I am going to game in a company sized WW II game I far prefer PBI. I most often play skirmish with Src of Fire, though. But if some of my buddies or local acquaintances at the game store want to run some FoW I am certainly not averse to it. I am FAR from a fanboy but I'm sure that when one is having a tantrum it's easiest to label anybody that disagrees with you with a convenient and supposedly insulting term.

Supergrover8686 wrote:

Well they bought a Periodical, Im sure its only a matter of time till that becomes their version of White Dwarf. When it doed whatever free errata they give now will be pulled and become part of the magazine. That would be the strictly profit motive move. They can still give the illusion of free by putting errata in the magazine. By including further revisions in the mag only they ensure subscriptions will be high.

Those are all things that could happen, but certainly haven't yet. I'm not going to condemn a company over what might happen, particularly if they haven't indicated a tendency to do those things.

I likened the Rules book thing to getting an upgrade of Windows 98 from 95. Yuck.

That was a pretty worthwhile upgrade, actually. Particularly if you used a notebook computer! XP to Vista, now that was a loss. :)

If they treat their customers better, Good, points for them. But given the abuse GW has inflicted on many saying BF is better, isn't that great testament to me.

Where are you seeing anybody writing that BF is better than anybody else? I'm seeing people saying FoW has had a positive impact, but that's about it.

I have not heard as many complaints from retailers about BF as I have from GW. But again that's not a rousing endorsement as I have seen retailers so legitimately angry at GW that I would recommend GW employees get a security force.

But… they are not the same company. BF does not have a line of stores, and does not screw small retailers by opening up shops that essentially destroy those that built up the market each area. And that tactic seems to have backfired on GW rather badly, from the bit that I've read about it.

I am not exaggerating. I saw dudes scream such they turned different shades of color. Not to mention the arrogance that two particular guys showed at the same meeting. They stated basically they would continue to balance on the near side of illegal with the copyright issues like those of the Alien/Genestealer episode with Ridley Scott. Deplorable.

Again, though: NOT THE SAME COMPANY. I know a guy that owned a shop and went through exactly the same thing… with GAMES WORKSHOP. Not BATTLEFRONT.

So they are better with Errata? I saw previously you brought up that it wasn't there and people were complaining.

They provide a lot of free updates and expansions, yes. I'm sure people complain. That's human nature.

First edition rules when I looked at the site, there was only peeks and it was evident I needed to buy all supplements to my forces and my opponents to play because of the holes.

That may have been your impression, but that certainly is not correct. You need only obtain, whether by purchasing or (if you're lucky) downloading freely, an Intel briefing that summarizes your list. Each is self-contained, and lists all of the options available for each type of unit. There are presently three large-scale books of this sort that describe a variety of infantry, mechanized and armored forces (Ostfront, Afrika and Fortress Europe). There are many smaller supplements that focus on specific units associated with specific campaigns. These progressed through the Normandy landings, and are now up to Bagration. More are coming, but again, are not required if you've found what you want in an existing book.

It is certainly nice to own every book if you want to know any variation you might run up against, but it certainly is not required. The master index provides references to the special rules associated with each new book (although it is currently behind one book).

it was Just like with 40K.

I do not play 40K, but I did play WHFB a few years ago. GW's practice seemed to be to go back every few years and re-work an old book to make a race all-powerful, and difficult to beat. I went through this for a few years, and much to the chagrin of my dwarf-playing son, we bailed when they re-worked the dwarfs so that half his models were no longer useful, and he needed to replace most of his units. That can't really happen with a WW2 historical game! Everybody (myself included) would just laugh. And since the miniatures themselves are based on history, assuming Battlefront were so stupid, we'd all just hop on to the next quality set of WW2 rules. There is no shortage. Because producing a Sherman isn't subject to BF copyright, they don't have any sort of control in the way that GW does over Space Marines. GW can go after anybody who puts out rules that are too much like Space Marines, but the same is most decidedly not true for a Sherman tank!

Anyway if they aren't charging for minor updates then that's a positive step.

They have NEVER charged for minor updates, and even provided free updates when making a rather MAJOR set of revisions. I'm not certain if they officially host the v1-v2 upgrade PDFs anymore, but they certainly provided them for years, and they're not hunting down anybody hosting the files.

IMO it would behoove them to distance themselves from any likeness to GW.

Will you admit that's a pretty vague set of criteria?

Even still,these and most players of GW and FoW are but some reason its such a abomination for me and many others. I find the criticism it and GW has gotten ,richly deserved.

Even if not actually warranted? Again, BF is not GW and has not actually done the things you seem to be worried about.

If it was just bad rules it wouldn't be such a big deal. There's lots of those out there.

Ah, so something concrete to discuss. What specifically don't you like about the rules?

For me though even if BF rectified what I felt wrong with it id never play the game. Players like the Fan boy fanatics here(Doesn't matter what their age is) squelch any possibly of it being a positive experience no matter what, even if the rules were brilliant.

I've been turned off by fans of a system before, but I'm not so far out of it to recognize that they don't represent any particular slice of humanity as a whole. While the game of FoW is pretty much the same wherever I've encountered it, the players vary quite a bit, and mostly in a good way.

- Bob

Nazrat wrote:

Bob, I won't get DHed because arseclown is allowed here as it is considered a haddockism. It's in the FAQ.

Ah, glad to hear it. I've peeked at the Dawghouse list today, and it doesn't seem to take much sometimes. :)

I try to avoid that sort of talk, but when somebody is as incoherent and angry as this guy I like to call it as I see it. Apologies to anybody bothered by it apart from the object of my disdain…

No objections here! This thread has taken a rather surreal turn, rather like watching an episode of Cops that concludes with some guy without a shirt screaming at the fringes of the spotlight.

As to the whole "fanboy" thing, since it looks like Superranter stifled me as well…

I'm not sure if he stifled me or not at this point. I'm taking this as a sleuthing challenge at this point. :)

so he will never know that although I own some FoW stuff, I rarely play the game. If I am going to game in a company sized WW II game I far prefer PBI.

Well, there you go. Back to the point of this thread, there's an example of a positive impact that FoW has had on me personally. Thanks largely in part to criticisms of FoW that I read by posters to this very thread, I have purchased PBI, and have quite enjoyed reading through it. I haven't played a game yet, but I am intrigued by some of the mechanics, and fully intend to steal them outright for some skirmish rules I play (Nuts WW2). The same goes for IABSM/TW&T, CD4, Crossfire and a dozen others. Productive discussion of the relative strengths and weaknesses of each, despite the assertions of "some", actually motivates me to go check out the other products. (It doesn't necessarily convince me that you guys are right, though, so don't go getting all cocky.)

I most often play skirmish with Src of Fire, though. But if some of my buddies or local acquaintances at the game store want to run some FoW I am certainly not averse to it.

Ah, another set I've picked up but have yet to play. I've read through Arc of Fire a few times.

I am FAR from a fanboy but I'm sure that when one is having a tantrum it's easiest to label anybody that disagrees with you with a convenient and supposedly insulting term.

When you see "fanboy" or "grognard" used disparagingly, it's usually a sign someone's run out of ideas. When both start appearing in the same exchange, things are going downhill fast!

It's always amusing when someone honestly thinks they can tell anything significant about another human being or their motivations based on a fragment of information they glean from a thread like this. When the "All <X> are <Y>" rants start, it all gets a bit silly. I can't say that there's anybody I've had even the most heated exchange with online that I really think is a lousy human being. They may be wrong without being (necessarily) bad. :)

- Bob

The master index provides references to the special rules associated with each new book (although it is currently behind one book).

The master index is a very limited resource indeed.

It is not produced by (or even hosted by) Battlefront themselves and it only tells you which of the published (read paid for) supplements the special rule is in.

It doesn't link to the special rules published in the free pdfs that the FoW fans constantly bang on about.

Derek H wrote:

The master index is a very limited resource indeed.

Indeed. However, I am finding it much more useful than the non-existent or fragmentary indices provided with many other rule sets. Are you aware of anybody that provides one better?

It is not produced by (or even hosted by) Battlefront themselves

It is, however, being produced by an active community that makes extensive use of resources provided free of charge by Battlefront. I did point that out in my previous post, above. The sticky status of that thread indicates some sort of quasi-official recognition. I give them partial credit for fostering the growth of such efforts and not trying to squash such initiative.

and it only tells you which of the published (read paid for) supplements the special rule is in.

As I wrote before, yes. It tells you which supplement. Please review my previous message to that effect in this thread. Now as to paid for, it's a reasonable expectation that the individual fielding the force from any particular book should have a copy. That hardly means every player has to have a copy of each. Again, unless you're playing the cut-throat win-at-all-costs tourney circuit, this isn't be a problem. With the index, you can easily tell what special rules apply to that list.

Battlefront has indicated a desire to eventually provide that comprehensive summary of all the rules at some point, as has been pointed out. Personally, I don't care whether paid Battlefront staff produce it, or some community members pull it together and BF just hosts it. The fact that it becomes available speaks well of the company's intentions.

It doesn't link to the special rules published in the free pdfs that the FoW fans constantly bang on about.

I think that there are some in free PDFs that are also in the printed books, so they are (understandably) linked to the books. I suppose someone could link them to the PDFs as well at some point. In any case, that's a lot more than I typically see from a games outfit.

Surely the problem isn't that paid BF staff didn't create these resources with their own hands? Isn't providing a world-wide resource accessible to players (and non-players) free of charge a positive thing?

- Bob

WEll a wargame isn't Fow. Fow is war themed. a Caricature of a wargame. Changing Space marines to American Soldiers isn't a wargame. These fanatics could debate any point endlessly. Regardless the GW system which FoW is regardless of slight difference is not a wargame. Memoir 44 and Axis Allies are other games that would fit war themed.

No mater who plays it it aint helping. Those anecdotes don't change how FoW Flames of War and Memoir 44 all Draw away from Wargaming. And the stupid babbling about grumpy doesn't mean jack. So your all grumpy cause you dont play my game? That's just childishness.

"Indeed. However, I am finding it much more useful than the non-existent or fragmentary indices provided with many other rule sets. Are you aware of anybody that provides one better?"

Any clue on the name of these accused ww2 rulesets or was it rulesets with special rules?

The best sets would be sets that don't need as many updates as windows XP has Hotfixes. May not be as profitable but a truly good set would provide all that's needed in one concise rulebook. Some of the best rules I ever used were done long ago on Typewriters and Dot Matrix printers. Pamphlets that had everything needed. Sure they weren't pretty with color photos but, we weren't paying for art we paying for a game. The art was on the Table.

It still is.

Still not getting any examples of a "true wargame" or "traditional wargame" are we? Just that FOW and GW isn't a wargame.Like showing me a bannana,a apple,and a peach and telling me they aren't vegetables but never showing me a vegetable.

KevanG wrote:

[…] Any clue on the name of these accused ww2 rulesets or was it rulesets with special rules?

Yes. To both points.

Let's see. Ghurkhas in PBI have some advantage when facing Japanese. Where was it? Look in the index and… there isn't one. Hmm… My buddy swears they get it, and sure enough, it's under the Brit Special Rules. I have to memorize the special rules for every nationality? Guess so.

My buddy has finally convinced me to play a game of eastern front IABSM. I don't usually play that theater, but I know the IABSM core rules. Partway through the game, he tells me his Russian infantry teams all get some Tank Killer special rule. Look up Tank Killer in the main rulebook index and… there isn't one. ToC… Tank Killers… Nothing in there about every team getting it. Oh, it's in Gotterdamerung he says as he tosses me his copy. Look in the index and… there isn't one. No problem, ToC… Soviets… page 40. Nope, no mention. Next day, flipping through the copy of Gotterdamerung (that apparently I am required to buy to play that theater) and… Special Rule E5 on page 8. Tank Killers. That's OK. I'll get even next week when we play a Pacific game and my Japanese get a magic flag rule that's provided in the Rising Sun supplement.

I'd give you an example using CD4 and Crossfire Hit the Dirt special terrain rules, but I don't own the supplements yet. :) [Edit: Where do I find the rules for Turns and Moving Clock in Crossfire?] I'm sure I could find more, but these were low-hanging fruit.

The point, and it's meant humorously, being that BF is NOT the only company that doesn't provide a comprehensive index, nor the only one that neglects to mention special rules only provided in extra, for-cost supplements.

Also underscoring that the Comprehensive Index, regardless of whose fingers actually typed it, is a real asset. One that encompasses the supplements as well as the main rule book doubly so. At the risk of becoming "too BF-like" (and by extension, "too GW-like"), other companies probably encourage similar community contributions, damn them.

- Bob

Supergrover6868 wrote:

The best sets would be sets that don't need as many updates as windows XP has Hotfixes.

Supplements are not hotfixes. BF has issued roughly one errata per book in recent years. By the way, fixing errors is generally considered a positive thing. You seem to be mixing those corrections up with expansions and enhancements.

May not be as profitable but a truly good set would provide all that's needed in one concise rulebook.

Ah, OK. *scribble scribble* must… not… provide… supplements or… errata. So IABSM, Crossfire and Command Decision aren't "truly good" sets? The list of "true" wargames seems to be getting pretty short now.

Some of the best rules I ever used were done long ago on Typewriters and Dot Matrix printers. Pamphlets that had everything needed.

Cool. What were they? I'm interested on old-school rules, and own several myself. Which were the most complete?

Sure they weren't pretty with color photos but, we weren't paying for art we paying for a game. The art was on the Table.

This wasn't Close and Destroy, was it?

And do remember that definition of "true wargame" you owe us. And just what is "Your game"? C&D?

- Bob

He won't answer-- he's too busy being hunched over with his fingers in his ears yelling, "La la la la la la!" so he can ignore us.

Thank god!

He seems to hear me. Why do I feel like Bruce Willis in Sixth Sense? (And what was the name of that stupid movie I watched this year with the same premise?)

My God, Nazrat! We're DEAD! Does that mean we can sleep in?

- Bob

No I can hear you guys.Wait a minute I'm dead too!

No sleeping in for you! You're just our medium.

- Bob

Maybe we should all three go to historicon and play a weird WW2 game(we can be the zombies) with FOW rules in honor of superranter.

This thread has become one of the most surreal items I've ever seen on TMP! Apparently many of us are not even wargamers at all…….

Bobstro wrote:

Are you aware of anybody that provides one better?

I am not aware of any any other historical system with over 100 special rules spread out over ten supplements and umpteeen pdfs.

Personally, I don't care whether paid Battlefront staff produce it, or some community members pull it together and BF just hosts it. The fact that it becomes available speaks well of the company's intentions.

But Battlefront don't even host it though, do they?

I give them partial credit for fostering the growth of such efforts and not trying to squash such initiative.

How very good of them.

Derek H wrote:

[…] I am not aware of any any other historical system with over 100 special rules spread out over ten supplements and umpteeen pdfs.

Ah, so it's the number of special rules in supplements that must be purchased, is it? I thought you meant that you objected to the fact that there were special rules that only appeared in supplements that must be purchased separately from the main book. Apparently, that's not what you meant then, is it?

Well, I only own two of the (I think) four IABSM supplements, but Gotterdamerung seems to have 26 special rules, and Rising Sun 23. Got to give it to them: You sure get a lot of special rules in every supplement! I guess that counts as "more value" for them then? (Actually, I'm quite happy with my IABSM supplements.)

But Battlefront don't even host it though, do they?

They host a global forum which provides a stickied page with a link to that and numerous other resources, along with the resources supporting the collaboration, sparing the community from those costs. For a hobbyist without deep pockets, the fact that someone picks up the tab for the volume of traffic that crosses their site is a huge benefit. Does it really matter where the resources reside? Or to count as a "good thing", it must have now been created by staff and also be hosted directly on their servers?

BF also hosts the PDFs, many of which start out as community-contributed efforts. A guy in a local group started out doing a project he was interested in, and is now a contributor to some of the current books.

How very good of them.

Which has sort of been the point all along.

- Bob

But Battlefront don't even host it though, do they? To cheap to pay for the bandwidth? Many PC companies allow fanatic fan boys to run the support for there games. Relic is a example. So you get no support at all.

Such imitative LMAO. making excuses for not supporting the product by mentioning those who are dumb enough to do the company's work for them. What a cult they have these fanatics backing their unpaid labor force. Not like GW huh? BA!!

Supergrover6868 wrote:

But Battlefront don't even host it though, do they? To cheap to pay for the bandwidth?

They do pay for the forum site, bandwidth and the hosting of "official" materials. Since they're not responsible for the content of non-official materials, they no doubt don't want to incur the liability of hosting it, nor granting anyone else the rights to put materials up on their site for download until materials are frozen. That's hardly uncommon. Those items that do move up to "official" status are hosted on BF's site you'll notice.

From the community perspective, BF provides the bandwidth and disk space, not to mention maintenance for a global forum with a rather large user base which contributes to these efforts. So it's a no-cost win for the customer. That is what web presence is all about.

Many PC companies allow fanatic fan boys to run the support for there games. Relic is a example. So you get no support at all.

Good lord. Where are the grammar police when you need them? That's quite a contradictory statement: Companies allow community contributions to add to support…. yet you get no support at all?

Such imitative LMAO.

Uh…

making excuses for not supporting the product by mentioning those who are dumb enough to do the company's work for them. What a cult they have these fanatics backing their unpaid labor force. Not like GW huh? BA!!

A damned sight more constructive than spending one's time criticizing such efforts, don't you think? Not to mention participating in a discussion without actually reading half the posts?

You'll notice that more publishers are moving this direction, and that BF is far, far, far from the first. Oh but wait… GW does it too. ALL those companies must be evil too!

You're really going to have to define what you think a "real" wargame and a "good" company are at some point, or people really are going to start thinking you don't have a point with all of this.

- Bob

Bob, I must feel you are being a bit over-embellishing, but I can understand it since BF do seem to have been given a bad press over this. It isnt that they produce special rules et al, just that they produce so many unnecessary ones and that the majority of them are based around selling a miniature.

you should also try to distinguish between special rules which are supplement driven and rules which are not 'specials' and are list driven.

IABSM special rules are for the supplements. If you are introducing them into your general play, then you should have the decency to tell your opponent and he should tell you and that seems most appropriate to all game systems. I am positive most FOW players do that. In fact I'm pretty sure most GW players do that too. I suspect that your knock about game was just forgetfullness about what was in and what wasnt in the game.

The PBI rule for ghurkas is in the british section in the book. It isnt a special rule….unless saying 11th armoured in FOW are reluctant veteran is a special rule……You do not have to work out a different set of effects for reluctant veterans on a playsheet.

Its the ghurka rule in the army list that can use Ghurkas…..like the panzerfaust rules are in the german list and the russian/japanese rules are in their lists. It isnt in the main part of the rules so that you dont have French Ghurkas or banzai Germans…….and If you buy PBI, you have all the rules there in print for you to read the effects. There are no supplements for PBI and none of these rules are there to sell anything.

I like that BF do specials rules because they produce different miniatures to support it. eg. The Upham set is very good.

hpwever, you must surely acknowledge that the main reason that BF are producing the majority of these special rules is to sell product?

I suspect that supergrovers definition of a "real" wargame is an authentic wargame trying to model ww2 combat and what he sees is a non-authentic marketing wargame designed to sell product.

Fow's impact has been beneficial to all the other 15mm manufacturer's and players, but it does stand accused being mildly exploitative in its marketing.

What is more interesting is asking the questions " would it actually have had more or less success in game popularity terms and product sales if it had declined the marketing driven design decisions? the answer is probably no.

What if they had kept Battlefront ww2 as the "flames of war" design set rather than adopt a GW influenced design skeleton? Again, the answer is no.

What if they had a skeleton and adapted it to model combat authentically The Answer is very probably Yes to the point it would have been compensated for the previous 2 No's.

Derek H said "Do pay attention. I linked to that quote from JP some 30 odd posts earlier."

Terribly sorry that I didn't click on some thing marked "Link" and have to wait for another tab to open.

Pasting the appropriate quote got the point across far quicker IMO. :P

KevanG said " It isnt that they produce special rules et al, just that they produce so many unnecessary ones and that the majority of them are based around selling a miniature.

you should also try to distinguish between special rules which are supplement driven and rules which are not 'specials' and are list driven."

Of all the special rules I've seen since V2 came out, the only ones I would consider to seriously be dedicated to selling models are the Veteran Tank Hunter rules from Hammer & Sickle and the various Warrior rules.

All the others are an attempt to get the historical 'feel' of the units covered, often at a great level of detail.
Now some people don't agree with the fact that Battlefront have decided with Late war to focus in at a fairly close level of detail with each book, being a division or two on each side, with historical limitations on equipment availability.
Yes, concentrating on specific divisions, usually with something interesting about them to model (different TO&E, different tactics, unique vehicles, etc) does allow BF to produce a wide variety of models to sell, but that is business, with a generous serve of historical detail on the side.

"Fow's impact has been beneficial to all the other 15mm manufacturer's and players, but it does stand accused being mildly exploitative in its marketing."

I'm curious by what you mean by "mildly exploitative" here.

"What if they had a skeleton and adapted it to model combat authentically"

But what is "authentically modelled combat" that doesn't involve real bullets or at least Lasers & Umpires?

Would that "authentically modelled combat" be any more enjoyable to play if it didn't use the fairly simple "I go you go" system and the rather common D6?
I've played other systems apart from FOW and while they have been more closely modelled on the statistics of warfare, they didn't encourage actual historical tactics.

For me, FOW is a nice balance between being able to resolve a game in a few hours, while using fairly historical tactics to achieve a fairly historical result.
It takes some liberties along the way, and you might have to do some gamey things at times, but after all, it is a game and makes no pretences as to anything else.

Sturgrenadier wrote:

Terribly sorry that I didn't click on some thing marked "Link" and have to wait for another tab to open.

Fair enough. But you obviously didn't read the bit right before the link either.

To their credit Battlefront are responding to this issue and John-Paul is promising that they will produce a consolidated list of German special rules "fairly soon" and that others will follow "soon after" that. Middle of the page at link

KevanG said " It isnt that they produce special rules et al, just that they produce so many unnecessary ones and that the majority of them are based around selling a miniature.

you should also try to distinguish between special rules which are supplement driven and rules which are not 'specials' and are list driven."

Of all the special rules I've seen since V2 came out, the only ones I would consider to seriously be dedicated to selling models are the Veteran Tank Hunter rules from Hammer & Sickle and the various Warrior rules.

I would agree with most of this but RSO PaK 40 carriers apart there is nothing using special rules that you can't actually field without resorting to buying BF models.

I have regularly seen people play tournaments with warriors but not use the actual 'official' figure. I suspect the same cannot be said for GW comps. That is where the difference lies.

RSO's pak40's are available from Skytrex…..actually in a deployed option and covered in transit option.

Mildly exploitative. For sturmgrenadier

I use this term because I see it having a fair bit of complicity and actually desire by the customer. I do not really see a victim.

Well, the RSO pak40's are a perfect example. A rule that makes a particular weapon particularly good in the game which encourages people to buy them. The mildly exploitative / non-authentic / marketing part comes from the fact that it was in reality…

a) an intermediate weapon solution to solve an immediate shortage of a suitable SPG mount for pak40's on an interim basis.

b) a complete and abject failure in its intended role due to exposed crew vulnerability and relatively high profile and was withdrawn from service as soon as they could find any other mount to bolt the Pak40 to. Some units actually reverted the kit back to a tow and a gun as soon as they could after trying it out.

So you either admire the fact BF created a market where none should exist
or
you consider it mildly exploitive of their customers slight lack of knowledge and their willingness to adopt the party line dealt to them.

Sometimes you can do both! I know I do.

in some respects, I am glad they exploit their customers. I wouldnt have as many italian options for the desert if they didnt and I get the benefit without the exploitation. It isnt just the "specials" rules this happens with.
The FOW Italian range wouldnt exist in the same format without the million bayonets rule, so you can see huge swaths of product they sell that has had a market created and then built up on steroids. That is FOWS biggest Legacy..long may it continue.

The only time people really feel any real detriment is when they pack in playing Fow and move onto other games and wonder what to do with 8 25pdrs for the desert and another 8 for western europe. Thank heavens for E bay and club members selling stuff off. I have got huge amounts of fow stuff for pennies.

Supergrover – could you please explain why FoW isn't a wargame, but a characterture of a wargame?

I'm assuming part of your ire comes from their simplicity.

And yet the original Featherstone rules were very simple indeed.

Are you saying Donald Featherstone wasn't a wargamer because his rules were simple?

What do you play?

I repeat – FoW has got the teens of an unremarkable Welsh town playing historical wargames and is helping to support a FLGS in a town with a population of around 15,000. As nothing else has worked, I suggest FoW is a massive boon for the hobby.

Can't see how people playing WW2 games with model figures are 'a loss to the wargaming hobby'.

Alas Supergrove appears not to be interesting in discussion.

I think he subscribes to the "Rave on, it's a crazy feelin'" style of internet discussion. Derek and Kev both dislike FoW a lot, but they do bring up a lot of valid points, consider other people's opinions (at least a little), talk about the games they DO like and play (a lot of which I like as well), and on top of all that they can express themselves, spell, and use grammar like adults. It goes a long way towards having a conversation with them about wargaming, rather than being screamed at by somebody who doesn't care what anyone else thinks.

Sorry guys, got stuck on a plane today…

KevanG wrote:

Bob, I must feel you are being a bit over-embellishing

Oh, ABSOLUTELY I am! By going to the extreme on non-BF rules, I hope to point out just how pedantic and frivolous some of the complaints about BF faults are.

but I can understand it since BF do seem to have been given a bad press over this.

The only thing that really gets me going (and thus, writing) is when the "all X are Y" comments start, as if having played a rule set someone binds one's soul to it forever. Everything else is just opinion, and everyone's entitled to one. No matter how wrong they may be.

It isnt that they produce special rules et al, just that they produce so many unnecessary ones and that the majority of them are based around selling a miniature.

I don't fully agree, but then I also don't see a distinction between writing a special rule to sell a miniature, and one to sell a supplement. BF sells stuff. I buy some of it. I don't find some stuff more or less evil than other stuff.

you should also try to distinguish between special rules which are supplement driven and rules which are not 'specials' and are list driven.

Well, I'm parodying, so no, I don't need to. I think it's interesting that we've moved from "BF's special rules" being a unique problem, to now refining the term (if not outright moving the goalpost.)

IABSM special rules are for the supplements. If you are introducing them into your general play, then you should have the decency to tell your opponent and he should tell you and that seems most appropriate to all game systems. I am positive most FOW players do that. In fact I'm pretty sure most GW players do that too.

Yes, much as many of BF's are (e.g. Bocage for Normandy.) I see no difference!

I suspect that your knock about game was just forgetfullness about what was in and what wasnt in the game.

Ah, apologies if I misled. Those were hypotheticals, and my lame attempt to apply the same drama used to describe FoW deficiencies by critics to other rule sets. It was only meant as a bit of putting the shoe on the other foot, as it were.

The PBI rule for ghurkas is in the british section in the book. It isnt a special rule….unless saying 11th armoured in FOW are reluctant veteran is a special rule……You do not have to work out a different set of effects for reluctant veterans on a playsheet.

I see no net difference between PBI's Ghurkha rule, IABSM's Japanese magic flag rule and FoW's Hakka Dance rule in game terms. One has a somewhat silly, but nonetheless mnemonic name. All modify a core game mechanic based on "traits" unique to that list (if not national or racial stereotype).

Its the ghurka rule in the army list that can use Ghurkas…..like the panzerfaust rules are in the german list and the russian/japanese rules are in their lists. It isnt in the main part of the rules so that you dont have French Ghurkas or banzai Germans…….

Yes. Just like Hakka Dance, Pipers, and the rest of the oft-criticized as unique-to-BF national rules. (I am mindful of criticism read elsewhere that the idea of "national traits" is absurd and unrealistic, but also do not agree with that point.)

and If you buy PBI, you have all the rules there in print for you to read the effects. There are no supplements for PBI and none of these rules are there to sell anything.

They ARE there to sell product. The rules themselves! Every company that we're mentioning is out pimping what they sell. It's the fine line that is somehow drawn (and often hastily wiped away and re-drawn) to cast BF as somehow less-than-honorable in doing so that baffles me. Hell, they try to up-sell me on my popcorn at the theater, and I think nothing less of them for it. I do, however, take extra napkins in retaliation.

I like that BF do specials rules because they produce different miniatures to support it. eg. The Upham set is very good.

Ah… now I consider the HERO rules yet another class altogether. :) Not evil, but not my thing.

hpwever, you must surely acknowledge that the main reason that BF are producing the majority of these special rules is to sell product?

ABSOLUTELY. BF, Peter Pig and Too Fat Lardies are selling product. And I honestly hope they each sell boatloads of it so they can keep their yachts and corporate jets smelling daisy-fresh! It's just the line between "good" selling and "bad" selling that I'd like to explore. (Annoying selling is another matter. No BF Sham-Wow commercials yet, at least. [seriously: if you don't know what Sham Wow is, go search YouTube.])

I suspect that supergrovers definition of a "real" wargame is an authentic wargame trying to model ww2 combat and what he sees is a non-authentic marketing wargame designed to sell product.

I am nearly certain I know exactly what his preferred rules are: Close and Destroy. I searched through some archives and found a string of messages dating back to December 2005 where somebody posting under a different name subscribed to a FoW list and started asking innocuous questions about FoW. As we attempted to answer and clarify, he became increasingly strident, eventually blurting out that he preferred a set of rules that he had only played solo, and then only years prior. As things spiraled downwards, he began urging subscribers to jump onto his really cool forums on his web site where he was pushing various products. The final spectacular self-immolation followed in early January of 2006. Following links to the profile, I found that the user's name had been "Grover123", as well as several other interesting similarities in style, spelling and manner. It was in researching Close and Destroy that I first started paying attention to TMP and thus wound up here in the first place. Small world if it is him! Who knows? The fact that he's not reading this is particularly amusing. :)

Meanwhile, to your point: A few months ago, I tried to explain to a critic that FoW presented the battlefield perspective from roughly a company-through-battalion commander's level. His retort was that the game perspective was nothing like that of an actual combatant. I replied asking him if he felt that my uncle's view of the war from the tail gunner's position in a B-17 was also not valid. (No response there.) I can understand that someone doesn't LIKE the presentation of the game. I'm no fan of grand-tactical games. That doesn't mean the games aren't "real" wargames, or that there's anything wrong with the players who prefer that level of game.

Fow's impact has been beneficial to all the other 15mm manufacturer's and players, but it does stand accused being mildly exploitative in its marketing.

Can we agree that all commercial sales are exploitative in some way? It's not so much a matter of black and white as shades of gray? I'm not sure what Karl Marx would think of BF, but I'm fairly certain I don't really care!

What is more interesting is asking the questions " would it actually have had more or less success in game popularity terms and product sales if it had declined the marketing driven design decisions? the answer is probably no.

An interesting thought, but given the high volatility and number of variables of today's global economy, I don't think we could attribute failure to any one thing so specific.

What if they had kept Battlefront ww2 as the "flames of war" design set rather than adopt a GW influenced design skeleton? Again, the answer is no.

Do you mean "no difference", or "no success"? Also, what exactly is different between the "GW sales model" and just about any other mainstream product sold today? The fact that previous game publishers haven't done it probably has as much to do with financial inability, or mis-judging the market's desire for such things as any code of honor. Or to put it another way: "What is the honorable code of sales that GW is guilty of violating?" I honestly expect we're going to see more slick packaging and not less in the future.

What if they had a skeleton and adapted it to model combat authentically The Answer is very probably Yes to the point it would have been compensated for the previous 2 No's.

Kevan, I need to point out here that I consider the entire assertion of any degree of "modeling combat authentically" absurd. In my opinion, every rule set provides a set of abstractions to provide entertainment that gives the outward appearance of warfare, but that it it. Some model particular things particularly well, but here again, I fall back to my "perspective" question. Was Montgomery's view of the war any more or less valid than that of an infantryman hitting the beaches on Iwo Jima? They're different. Both are valid.

I am no more put off by FoW's abstractions and limitations than I am of IABSM's blinds exploding into groups of men, or PBI's abstracting measurements down to grids, or Crossfire's "no limits" movement. These are all just abstractions and mechanics in a game. Until players have their guts ripped out for making a bad move, I'm not about to be so presumptuous as to claim that any of these games reflect what combat was like to those that experienced it. It may provide results that, based on an individual participant's personal experiences and perspective, seem "accurate". But by the same token, I recall that combat recollections and actual events vary considerably depending on who's doing the telling. I also respect and admire the opinion of any combat vet who tells me I'm full of crap. Others however… not so much.

I do want to emphasize one thing: I've been having some fun applying the logic and arguments hurled at BF, FoW and players of their rules to other game systems. I own Crossfire, IABSM and PBI and dozens of other sets, and see tremendous things about each of them. I make a point of reading through each set, and at least highlighting the rules I intend to steal and plagiarize for my own games, even if I never get to play a proper game against an opponent. This opinion is based solely on what is between the covers, and not the look of the cover, the store display or the guy holding a copy at the gaming table (shudder).

Now where'd Grover get off to? It's over 100 degrees F here today, and just hearing the word FANboy makes it seem a bit cooler.

- Bob