"The Top Ten Things I don't Like About FOW" Topic

1) Cost of the Vehicles
2) Some of the books, briefings fell apart with little or no use(seems to be corrected in newer books.
3) Rules inconsistent in a few places.

Thats all I can think of that bug me so you will have to help me out with the other seven.

This is meant to be constructive criticism by the way not just ranting.

4) Infantry sculpts from Battlefront have been slipping in quality compared to the earlier days. Of course, you can play FoW with other figures.

Ken

Didn't we do this just recently?

IT'S JUST A DAMN GAME!!!!!!!!

For crying out loud, People. Get a life and play what you like. If it ain't this one, then play something else!!!!

Good thing these aren't crossposted to the Flames of War board, or someone might notice them.

"Didn't we do this just recently?"

Your point being?

1) Cost of the Vehicles
2) Some of the books, briefings fell apart with little or no use(seems to be corrected in newer books.
3) Rules inconsistent in a few places.
4) Infantry sculpts from Battlefront have been slipping in quality

They seem to have a lot more flash and bits to clean up as well. Most vehicles I have seen have pretty good crisp detail and a minimum of flash.

5) Lack of articles/briefings/books for the Americans (better ones also).

1) The fan boys.
2) It's nothing more than 40K with WW II miniatures.
3) Buckets o' dice.
4) It's designed as a tournament ruleset.
5) The fanboyz.
6) Too abstract in terms of differences between different types of tank guns, etc. being subsumed for the twin gods of "playability" and "simplicity".
7) Saving throws.
8) Doesn't look right – figure scale/ground scale is out of whack.
9) Uber units and superhero characters. Might as well be a pulp game.
10) The insistence that the only reason I don't like it is because I haven't played it. Utter nonsense of course – I HAVE played it and THAT'S why I don't like it.
11) Tournament rules which encourage the tournament mindset – historical tactics and formations be damned! (Yes, I HAVE seen the "shieldwall o' tanks". More than once.)
12) Silly nonsense such as putting the Divisional artillery on the table (i.e. within shouting distance of the attacking units.)
13) Too simplified (the god of "playability" (whatever that's supposed to mean) meets the short attention span.)
14) The fan boys.

Now there's a proper list for you.

Before the hate from the fanboyz starts, please note that I DID NOT post on the "Like" thread. But if a question like this is asked (seemingly just another opportunity for a group hug about why it's really The Best Ever) then contrary views should be expected.

The tournament mindset that developed around the game and the accompanying overzealous fans that grew into the FoW community. Really, FoW is a beer and pretzels game but with tournament focus it's truly treated like sirius bizness and even defended on the intarwebs as such. Keeping in mind passionate discussion on the intarwebs is as close to assured mutual destruction as you can digitally get.

Despite the fine point arguing that has taken place since FoW's rise to popularity it still felt very much like Achtung! 40K in its design philosophy and marketing. That was what I was trying to get away from when I went on the 'long dark walk into midnight' looking for new sets of rules after getting tired of the 40K community. Even if I could find a game at every store, they weren't games I was enjoying playing generally.

I think the game was just too hotly debated and argued for me to find the enjoyable niche I look for in wargaming. Any time a wargame is treated like more of a war than a game I usually know that particular ruleset just isn't for me.

15) No one near me plays.

I am disappointed by the recent Early War French infantry releases and the German armour.

I am disappointed by the recent Early War French infantry releases and the German armour.

In what respect? Quality of the castings or rules that support them?

1) The fan boys.
2) It's nothing more than 40K with WW II miniatures.
3) Buckets o' dice.
4) It's designed as a tournament ruleset.
5) The fanboyz.
6) Too abstract in terms of differences between different types of tank guns, etc. being subsumed for the twin gods of "playability" and "simplicity".
7) Saving throws.
8) Doesn't look right – figure scale/ground scale is out of whack.
9) Uber units and superhero characters. Might as well be a pulp game.
10) The insistence that the only reason I don't like it is because I haven't played it. Utter nonsense of course – I HAVE played it and THAT'S why I don't like it.
11) Tournament rules which encourage the tournament mindset – historical tactics and formations be damned! (Yes, I HAVE seen the "shieldwall o' tanks". More than once.)
12) Silly nonsense such as putting the Divisional artillery on the table (i.e. within shouting distance of the attacking units.)
13) Too simplified (the god of "playability" (whatever that's supposed to mean) meets the short attention span.)
14) The fan boys.

Most of your points seem to be personal preferences which is fine as we arent all going to like the same thing but:

9) Dont you think they provide good historical references to the characters they add to the game. Some people (like Whitman for example) do seem to be able to get more out of a piece of equipment, unit or army (like Patton) than others. I kind of like the flavor it adds.

8) I know what you mean as it does get kind of congested sometimes but I think they are trying to find a balance between the detail available on 15mm figures and a reasonable table size.

I wonder what it would be like playing it in 1:285 scale.

11) Isnt that what the Soviets, among others, did? Even the vaunted Germans had bad days and made mass attacks that got slaughtered.

1) Cost of the Vehicles
2) Some of the books, briefings fell apart with little or no use(seems to be corrected in newer books.
3) Rules inconsistent in a few places.
4) Infantry sculpts from Battlefront have been slipping in quality.
5) Lack of articles/briefings/books for the Americans (better ones also).
6) Too abstract. Too simplified.
7) Saving throws.
8) Doesn't look right – figure scale/ground scale is out of whack.
9) Uber units and superhero characters.
10) It's designed as a tournament ruleset.
11) Tournament rules which encourage the tournament mindset.
12) Buckets o' dice.
13) It's nothing more than 40K with WW II miniatures.

Some of these are things I like about the game. Like saving throws, but thats just me. Also I was wondering what you meant by tournament mindset? The people that have to win at all cost?

The cost of the vehicles is irrelevant, since I buy mostly Old Glory anyway.
Ditto the sculpts.

Except for the Fallschirmjaeger Necromancer, we play with hardly any of the Superheros.

Buckets O'Dice/Saving Throws/ 40K don't bother me at all. It's just a games mechanism, stretching farther back in pre-history than 40K.

It's scale and level of complexity is exactly right for me. I'm happy with it. You don't have to be.

You know, I can understand not liking a game. I don't particularly care for Piquet or DBX. It happens. What I cannot understand is the rage, the spittle spray over the monitor hatred for the game. Sheesh.

I pretty much agree with highlandcatfrog's list, though buckets of dice and saving throws aren't so much a big deal for me.

I have to admit that the fanboy thing has gotten to be a pain in the stuff. I can't look at the figs at the local shop without being blitzed by an enthusiast that eventually gets hateful, when he learns that I don't like or play the rules. I guess the rage sort of balances out in some sad way.

I think some of that may have to do with how successful they are. That seems to bring out a lot of animosity in anything. And some of the things I like about it are some of the things other people dont like. C'est la vie. I am just curious as to whether a lot of people have these same likes/dislikes or just a vocal few.

"I think some of that may have to do with how successful they are." Really?!? Their level of marketing success (which is pretty darn impressive and more power to 'em) has nothing to do with the fact that the rules are ABYSMAL. Just try and use historical tactics and see how far that gets you… The mark of a good game is whether it rewards the use of good, historical tactics and punishes silly, gamey tactics (ie, the infamous 'shieldwall of tanks'). You might as well paint your Tigers pink, your Shermans purple and your infantry in polka dots to match the historical "accuracy" of the rules….

I was just about to ask where you had seen "the rage, the spittle spray over the monitor hatred", John.

Allen

Here.

Not really.

1) The Haters
2) The Hater Haters
3) ummmmm
4) These threads.

Pat

Ho hum.

Well, vehicles are expensive, no doubt about that.

I just do not like these rules and every-time I say that I get a firm push in the back.

However, I do really like the books, the painting and terrain guides and to some extent, the TO&E (usually for vehicles).

But as a war game, it does not feel like one to me, it feels like a fantasy game.

My 3 cents.

LHMGKodiak:

1) The fan boys.
2) It's nothing more than 40K with WW II miniatures.
3) Buckets o' dice.
4) It's designed as a tournament ruleset.
5) The fanboyz.
6) Too abstract in terms of differences between different types of tank guns, etc. being subsumed for the twin gods of "playability" and "simplicity".
7) Saving throws.
8) Doesn't look right – figure scale/ground scale is out of whack.
9) Uber units and superhero characters. Might as well be a pulp game.
10) The insistence that the only reason I don't like it is because I haven't played it. Utter nonsense of course – I HAVE played it and THAT'S why I don't like it.
11) Tournament rules which encourage the tournament mindset – historical tactics and formations be damned! (Yes, I HAVE seen the "shieldwall o' tanks". More than once.)
12) Silly nonsense such as putting the Divisional artillery on the table (i.e. within shouting distance of the attacking units.)
13) Too simplified (the god of "playability" (whatever that's supposed to mean) meets the short attention span.)
14) The fan boys.

Most of your points seem to be personal preferences which is fine as we arent all going to like the same thing but:

Absolutely. Personal preference is what a poll of this sort is after, at least on the surface.

9) Dont you think they provide good historical references to the characters they add to the game. Some people (like Whitman for example) do seem to be able to get more out of a piece of equipment, unit or army (like Patton) than others. I kind of like the flavor it adds.

This is a personal preference thing. It's o.k. that you like it; it should be o.k. that others (myself included) don't.

8) I know what you mean as it does get kind of congested sometimes but I think they are trying to find a balance between the detail available on 15mm figures and a reasonable table size.

I wonder what it would be like playing it in 1:285 scale.

Understood. 1/285 would fix the "look" IMO, but obviously nothing else.

11) Isnt that what the Soviets, among others, did? Even the vaunted Germans had bad days and made mass attacks that got slaughtered.

Tanks lined up so close their sides are touching (what I call the "shieldwall o' tanks)? Umm, no.

1) Cost of the Vehicles
2) Some of the books, briefings fell apart with little or no use(seems to be corrected in newer books.
3) Rules inconsistent in a few places.
4) Infantry sculpts from Battlefront have been slipping in quality.
5) Lack of articles/briefings/books for the Americans (better ones also).
6) Too abstract. Too simplified.
7) Saving throws.
8) Doesn't look right – figure scale/ground scale is out of whack.
9) Uber units and superhero characters.
10) It's designed as a tournament ruleset.
11) Tournament rules which encourage the tournament mindset.
12) Buckets o' dice.
13) It's nothing more than 40K with WW II miniatures.

You've left off the fan boys, which is one of the major problems to myself and some others who have responded on this topic.

Some of these are things I like about the game. Like saving throws, but thats just me.

And those personal preferences are o.k., just as it should be o.k. to not like those things.

Also I was wondering what you meant by tournament mindset? The people that have to win at all cost?

Yup, which leads to things like min/maxing (all Tigers, all the time), rules lawyering, arguing the most trivial things in order to get some minimal perceived advantage, forgetting that it's supposed to be fun and not a death match, etc. Again, it's o.k. that some folks like these things and think they're fun; it should be o.k. that other folks don't.

I think some of that may have to do with how successful they are. That seems to bring out a lot of animosity in anything.

coastal2 answered this well. Let me add that the success (or not) or popularity (or not) of any given set of rules, game, genre, figure line, etc. has nothing to do with whether I like them or not. There are successful rules I like, there are unsuccessful rules I like. It all comes down to personal preference.

John the OFM:

Buckets O'Dice/Saving Throws/ 40K don't bother me at all. It's just a games mechanism,

My personal upper limit on buckets o' dice is Check Your 6. It's also the only game I play with saving throws. They're just mechanisms that I don't care for.

You know, I can understand not liking a game. What I cannot understand is the rage, the spittle spray over the monitor hatred for the game. Sheesh.

What I cannot understand is the assumption of rage and spittle spray just because I or someone else doesn't like FOW.

I've said it many times before, but I'll say it again: I am not harmed at all because someone likes, plays, and enjoys FOW. I congratulate those folks who have found something enjoyable in FOW, and wish them continued enjoyment for many years. I simply do not care that others like something that I don't, be it FOW or anything else. I've got the FOW board turned off, I don't chime in with my dislikes on every FOW thread (let me repeat again that I haven't posted on the "Like" thread) and I ignore it as much as possible. If FOW stayed on the FOW board and wasn't continuously cross-posted everywhere else, and if there wasn't an unending stream of FOW poll suggestions I'd never see or comment on anything about FOW.

From where I sit the rage and spittle spray is all coming from the other direction: from the fan boys incensed that I dare to not love and worship their Precious. The continued insistence from the fan boys (no, I'm not accusing you of this) that I MUST love FOW and that I MUST play FOW because it is the Most Perfect, Greatest Thing Ever is a huge negative, and the rage caused by my not loving The Precious is not going to change my mind.

Fan boys: I have played FOW and I don't like it. This does NOT make me a hater, so get over it and get on with enjoying a game that you like. Grow up a little and realize that you are not harmed by my not liking The Precious, as I am not harmed by your liking it.

Now can we all please go back to some playing with toy soldiers?

They're the sort of thing you won't like if you don't like that sort of thing.

Allen

Actually I had hoped for something better than I dont like FOW because a lot of people do and other things like I havent really played the game but I dont really like it.

I had hoped for a discussion of more relative points like a discussion of a 10 point die system instead of the 6 point. Or the armor values not being consistent or the penetration values being inconsistent. Not just I dont like it because it is popular and succesful and like 40K (which I am told by people who know and play both is only superficial.

Oh well silly me.

Or how about a mature discussion (not a rant) about the benefits of 1:285 over 15mm or visa versa.

Because for us that don't like the system, it's so far broken that nothing short of a total rewrite and tossing the entire current system would fix it.

I've played both warhammer and FoW. They both feel the same to me. Both give me a headache.

We did this recently – TMP link – so let's wait a while on this one…

I like Flames of War and frankly most of the complaints here seem fair and honest.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I play FoW in two different store groups way far apart, and have had none of the competitive issues mentioned. matter of fact, there's a consistent leakage from GW games to FoW b/c of the fact that it's actually a fun game to play, and the people who play are actually having fun.

Comparisons to the design of the game making it play like 40K are just plain ignorant. So many of the mechanics are different, that it doesn't bear any resemblance in play mechanics. The part that has been successfully imitated, is that you buy armies off of lists, and then fight agreed missions.

Far as history goes, a player doesn't have to use historical tactics, but the smart ones do, and they usually win. Personally, I've benefitted by reading historical usage, trying to understand where it fits into the game, and then playing that way. Others might benefit from that as well. For example, the "shield wall of tanks" is really just a template attraction device, and no one uses them here that I've ever seen.

Bottom line, none of the other WWII games out there are able to compete, and not a single one of them was remotely popular, even among crazy WWII fans. FoW has single-handedly put WWII on the gamers map, and it successfully competes against GW games in our region. That alone makes it ONE OF THE GREATEST THINGS TO EVER HAPPEN TO HISTORICAL GAMING.

The hilarious thing would be for the complainers to start getting rapturous over the set of rules they like. Since nearly all of them are unplayable technical garbage masquerading as a game, it's be fun to start a thread about theirs. But they don't dare…

What I dislike most about Flames of War:

1. Grumpy old farts that complain about it being an unrealistic game in regards to historical accuracy.
2. Cheap, grumpy old farts that complain about the models being too expensive
3. Rivet counting old farts that claim EVERY game should be an uber realistic detailed, 12 hour snore-fest to play.
4. Grumpy old farts that complain about a tournament mind-set when only a fraction of players are tournament players. Most of us play to have fun with models we like to play with and paint.
5. Grumpy old farts that marginalize the complexity of the game and it's strategies in order to make themselves look/feel like an expert. No one cares what the actual armor penetrating capabilities of a specific gun at certain ranges are. We just want to have fun for 3 or 4 hours on a Saturday and then go home to our families.

If you are looking for a more detailed, realistic game in another scale that more "accurately" represents battle conditions of World War 2, then PLAY ANOTHER GAME.

Regarding #2: If you think the models are too expensive, (a) PLAY ANOTHER GAME, or (b) find a better job.

Regarding #2: If you think the models are too expensive, (a) PLAY ANOTHER GAME, or (b) find a better job.

Note the author's assumption: if one finds FoW models too expensive then play another game or get a better job.

He doesn't even consider the possibility of USING LESS EXPENSIVE NON-BATTLEFRONT MINIATURES!

8-O

I really enjoyed FoW. I can still remember playing some of the first demo games Phil ran at an HMGS convention. It was on a very small table with a very small number of troops on each side. There were about 3 players per side and I had a couple of stands of PzGrens and a halftrack, that's it! Essentially we played at squad level with 2-4 teams per player.

But as the hobby grew truly fanatical views such as that expressed above came to dominate "The Hobby". And those of us who merely wanted to play a fun WWII game instead of adopting AAA…Neeeww…Waaayy…oooff…Liiiffe were forced to move on.

At this point playing FoW just for fun feels like trying to be a "casual" member of a cult. You're either in or out.

:-)

9) 'Uber units and superhero characters'…some units WERE better than others or were the Italians on Sicily the same caliber as the Herman Goering? or some of the British or American units?.
Love it or hate it, it has done wonders for wargaming, i can only speak from my experience but i buy BF models as i like them but i also buy from quite a few other manufactorers too thanks too FOW.

1)Does not understand loving or hating its a game for FUN.
2)Saying a 'Game' is inaccurate or accurate is laughable and preposterous.
3)Just enjoy the hobby ^^.

"shield wall of tanks"

Someone's opponents are not using enough artillery. You only see a Panther platoon mauled by 105mm guns *once* to break that habit, but 155s or naval guns are more entertaining.

I have done the math, 1st ID and 29th ID had enough 105mm artillery batteries to have one supporting each company, plus the 4.2" mortars and 155mm guns.

I'll be honest, I have never seen a shieldwall of tanks. Maybe it's because the players tend to run 1500 point games on a 4x6 table, or 3k on a 6x8, or maybe because we bring artillery and air support.

My two biggest complaints about Flames of War are the fanbois and the sticks-in-the-mud. The fanbois haven't learned that there are other games out there, and the sticks-in-the-mud don't want to see non-historical minis. They've both forgotten that the point of playing is to *have fun*.

The rising complaint is that BF's quality control seems to be slipping severely. Good thing that FoW doesn't require you to buy their stuff to play in tournaments!

I for one bow to our new gods Playability and Simplicity.

Cost!
15mm.

Buy other brands then there are many acceptable ones out now in terma of quality and price and once you have the BF rules and a couple of army books what more do you need?

Comrade Trotter, one can NEVER have enough troops for the glorious Peasant & Workers Army. A true Russian player takes casualties without flinching or becoming defeatist on the tabletop battlefield.

TT, you are correct as there are other brands out there (OG cough cough).

"I for one bow to our new gods Playability and Simplicity."

I would agree to the idea of Playability and Simplicity. The wall to wall tanks standing at attention does bug me though because how often does/did this happen? It screams "artillery needed here."

THIS

I play FoW in two different store groups way far apart, and have had none of the competitive issues mentioned. matter of fact, there's a consistent leakage from GW games to FoW b/c of the fact that it's actually a fun game to play, and the people who play are actually having fun.

Comparisons to the design of the game making it play like 40K are just plain ignorant. So many of the mechanics are different, that it doesn't bear any resemblance in play mechanics. The part that has been successfully imitated, is that you buy armies off of lists, and then fight agreed missions.

Far as history goes, a player doesn't have to use historical tactics, but the smart ones do, and they usually win. Personally, I've benefitted by reading historical usage, trying to understand where it fits into the game, and then playing that way. Others might benefit from that as well. For example, the "shield wall of tanks" is really just a template attraction device, and no one uses them here that I've ever seen.

Bottom line, none of the other WWII games out there are able to compete, and not a single one of them was remotely popular, even among crazy WWII fans. FoW has single-handedly put WWII on the gamers map, and it successfully competes against GW games in our region. That alone makes it ONE OF THE GREATEST THINGS TO EVER HAPPEN TO HISTORICAL GAMING.

The hilarious thing would be for the complainers to start getting rapturous over the set of rules they like. Since nearly all of them are unplayable technical garbage masquerading as a game, it's be fun to start a thread about theirs. But they don't dare…
comradetexas 16 May 2011 11:01 a.m. PST

What I dislike most about Flames of War:

1. Grumpy old farts that complain about it being an unrealistic game in regards to historical accuracy.
2. Cheap, grumpy old farts that complain about the models being too expensive
3. Rivet counting old farts that claim EVERY game should be an uber realistic detailed, 12 hour snore-fest to play.
4. Grumpy old farts that complain about a tournament mind-set when only a fraction of players are tournament players. Most of us play to have fun with models we like to play with and paint.
5. Grumpy old farts that marginalize the complexity of the game and it's strategies in order to make themselves look/feel like an expert. No one cares what the actual armor penetrating capabilities of a specific gun at certain ranges are. We just want to have fun for 3 or 4 hours on a Saturday and then go home to our families.

If you are looking for a more detailed, realistic game in another scale that more "accurately" represents battle conditions of World War 2, then PLAY ANOTHER GAME.

Regarding #2: If you think the models are too expensive, (a) PLAY ANOTHER GAME, or (b) find a better job.

Flames of War is the Battlefield 1942 of Miniature Wargames. It's fun to play, has basic combat, looks right, but totally isn't a historically accurate representation of the real events. It's a fun beer and pretzel game which I can't understand why people hate so much.

As long as the Company doesn't do much more Army list creep(D-Day books – Which they actually add more to gameplay than it takes away), and prices don't go up every year(Give or take economic situation) the game is fun and accessible. It's like the gateway drug to miniature wargames.

FOW is not 40K. FOW uses semi-historical Army Organization and Army Lists for use in semi-historical balanced games. Miniature can be bought by any manufacturer you fancy, because Battlefront understands they can't make every model available for WW2 and they even allow non-Battlefront minis in their tournaments. The only stipulation is that you can't use them in the higher eschelon Battlefront supported tournaments.
Any model bought for Flames of War is still a viable model when new books come out. It's not like 40K where from one codex to the next your army is forced to changed to meet a new structure. Every new FOW book keep 90% or more of the continuity of the previous books but with better changes to the usefulness of that unit.

It's the Feel that the game puts out that feels right. I hate the Tank Parking Lot, but thats the limitations of the board size and the TO & E(Russians or Tank Horde), but mainly it's poor tactics.

I'd like to see someone give an alternate ruleset that can be played in a couple of hours and can have the draw as good as FOW. There isn't one.

I've played a couple 15mm world war 2 Rivet counting games that were so convoluted with rules and so confusing with armor penetration ratings and individual characteristics for every tank gun that it was a chart fest. Game drove me crazy. Played with a bunch of grey bearded gamers who couldn't stop arguing about what they could and couldn't do to actually enjoy the game.

Grognard gaming conversation:

"So what was the Armor Penetration for the L/46?"
"Uh, let me check chart. Oh it's 132mm at 500m."
"Oh… how much armor does this Sherman V have?"
"Lets check the chart. Oh, looks like 63mm front armor."
"Roll, an accuracy check, then we'll check to see if you hit on the Hit Chart."

ZZzzzzzzzzzzzzz……..

FOW conversation:
"Whats the AT of the Panzer IV?"
"11."
"Oh.. Whats the Front armor of a Sherman?"
"7."
"Oh.. guess I need to roll at least a 4 or higher or im screwed."

It's simple, it's fun, and if you don't like it go scrounge to find players who don't play it.

Wargaming isn't exactly a younger mans hobby, but FOW makes accessible rules and miniatures to a younger crowd who eventually may try to branch out and explore other games. A lot of miniature conventions including HMGS East have had a big influx of Flames of War games, and it's games like FOW that will help keep the other less popular games afloat. Not saying it single handedly is helping keep wargaming afloat, but it is definately helping drive the hobby.

Even if you hate the game you have to give it some credit for the way it has driven young blood into the wargaming community.

I seriously don't understand why people continuously bash Flames of War. It's a fun GAME. It's like saying Risk or Axis and Allies are poor games, when what's most enjoyable is the simplicity and enjoyment factor.

If you're bashing the game based on the poor people you typically find to play than it's not the game's fault. I'd say 100% off the fun of playing a miniature game is the fun you have with the people you play with. The rest of the fun with miniature gaming is the building, painting, researching and the hobby in general.

The Original Posters post was "The Top Ten Things I dont Like About FOW" Which he then goes on to only post 3 things.

2 of the things he posts are that the Miniatures cost too much and then that the Books fall apart. Which he then states has recently been resolved with the publishing of newer books.

So one of those two problems he already stated was resolved which leaves the cost of miniatures. We'll a Resin/metal Hybrid minitature is going to cost a little more than your plastic Axis and Allies Collectible Miniature. For the cost of $12.50 USD you get 1 tank… Yep that seems sort of steep… but how much is a platoon box of 5 tanks? $58 USD for 5 Sherman Tanks.. Ouch that is steep… How much is Call of Duty: Black Ops for the Playstation 3 or Xbox 360 $59.99… what…? It's a hobby. Hobbies aren't cheap. You spend money to invest in a social experience. It's an emotional investment out of the love of the hobby. Huge upside is Miniatures actually have a good deal of resale value compared to things like Video Games.

Well now on to the last "Hated" item which is "Rules inconsistent in a few places." – ? Every ruleset you get is going to be inconsisten in a few places. No rulebook could possibly have every single situation you can imagine published in it. The rules are guidelines to be used to play the game which having fun being the main rule. To chastise the vagueness of some is to dig too deep into the game. Discuss with your opponent and come to a rational solution for the problem and then check to see how other gamers have solved the issue and make sure something wasn't overlooked for the next game you play.

I will say right now Battlefront could really use more Official Errata which is a big gripe with a lot of FOW gamers. There are documents out there that help gamers resolve issues and input from the rules designers. Battlefront atleast is interactive with the community at most times. The forums a filled with rules questions and discussions.

There's fan boys for any game you play, you either learn to live with them or refuse to interact with them. To look down on a game because it doesn't meet high standards for individual self interpretted "Authenticity" and "Accuracy" is asinine. It's a game and lots of players love to play it.

Haters gonna hate…

-Whiskey.

My #1 complaint about FoW is everyone complaining about FoW. Yeesh.

You mean there is anything wrong about FoW? I'm confused.

You mean there is anything wrong about FoW? I'm confused.
------------------------------------------------------------

For what it is…I agree.

The rest of you can continue to try and find one other person who wants to count rivets with you, and give a toss on your slide rule.

1. Grumpy old farts that complain about it being an unrealistic game in regards to historical accuracy.
2. Cheap, grumpy old farts that complain about the models being too expensive
3. Rivet counting old farts that claim EVERY game should be an uber realistic detailed, 12 hour snore-fest to play.

We've played a couple 15mm world war 2 Rivet counting games that were so convoluted with rules and so confusing with armor penetration ratings and individual characteristics for every tank gun that it was a chart fest.

The arrogance and unfair assumptions dripping from these two quotes are excellent examples of that which gives the FoW "hobby" such a bad name.

Just because a gamer feels that FoW is less than historically or tactically accurate does NOT mean he wants a boring hyper detailed simulation. That straw man has been dragged around by hardcore FoW fanatics so much I'm surprised it has any stuffing left!

:-)

Many us want simple and yet historically and tactically representative games which are quick and fun. And they do exist.

FORCE ON FORCE AND PBI: SIMPLE AND REALISTIC
Excellent examples include Peter Pig's Poor Bloody Infantry and Ambush Alley's Force on Force. Unlike Flames of War both of those games focus on realistically proportioned force structures and encourage game tactics driven by historical tactics. And they achieve this while remaining great fun too!

Meanwhile FoW features force structures that are completely insane, even in light of the telescoping ground scale which I enjoy, and tactics that, if implemented on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, would get our soldiers killed.

In fact, FoW tactics have been implemented in those wars…by untrained insurgents who don't understand how foolish it is to wander into kill zones! Unlike FoW forces real world troops tend to slaughter enemies waltzing into a kill zone. In FoW it's the opposite: the soldiers moving into LOS of an enemy get the first shot.

FOW POPULARITY: VERY FORGIVING GAME TACTICS
But there is a reason FoW is so popular. Just like FoF and PBI the FoW rules are simple. So simplicity alone does NOT explain it's popularity. It's popularity stems from the fact that the FoW games TACTICS are very simple and very forgiving too.

The FoW turn sequence and lack of overwatch tactics allows troops to move into enemy LOS and get the first shot. It's the opposite of real world tactics which demand careful preparation and execution during the attack.

FOW = COD/HALO
There's a perfect parallel in video gaming. FoW is like Call of Duty and Halo. Those games feature low damage models which not allow but also encourage players to move into enemy LOS and blaze away. It's exciting, intense, and encourages lots of movement. It just doesn't require much thought bring focused on twitch skills.

PBI and FoF are like Ghost Recon and Operation Flashpoint. They require careful planning and a razor sharp approach since a single mistake is instantly lethal. The margin for error is tiny in these games. Their attraction stems from the tension which arises as one probes an enemy position and strives to find, fix, and flank them. It requires a lot of thought and patience to play well.

Heck, comparing FoW to COD and Halo might be an insult to COD and Halo. At least in those shooters a "camper" will usually get first shot at an attacker. In FoW the attacker is guaranteed first shot!

KUDOS TO AA/FOF!
I say Kudos to AA and FoF for making such a difficult gaming situation so fast, fun, and easy to learn IN SPITE of its tactical realism. Meanwhile FoW eschews historical and tactical accuracy for purely action oriented fun.

FoW is simple, fast, and fun, and popular precisely because it doesn't represent historical tactics. FoF and PBI are simple, fast, and fun, but perhaps less popular precisely because they represent historical tactics well (however, FoF is definitely giving FoW a run for its money…it's one of the few miniatures games to have truly gone "mass market" in terms of a publishing and distribution deal! Well done!)

BURN THAT STRAW MAN!
To the FoW community: please put the "If You Feel FoW isn't Realistic You Must Love Tractics" straw men on a bonfire and light 'er up! It's not true and it's insulting to the many fine designers who have managed to build games that are fun AND representative of historical tactics.

And please, none of that "no game can be totally realistic therefore all games are equally unrealistic". If you really believe that, stop playing miniatures and go play yahtzee.

:-)

I learned long ago that if we're not talking about a game I [we, you, whomever] play then it must be crap.

Sorta like if it ain't Scottish it's crap.

Cheers,

The Bandit

Chess is a fun game too. As is Mousetrap.

Derek,

Mousetrap is the most accurate representation of pest control in boardgame form I have ever played and will not have anyone say any different.