""The Top Ten Things I Like About FOW" Topic" Topic

1. Fun
2. Tables can look great on this scale
3. Quick to build large forces
4. Lots of players and sites
5. Local or tournament play
6. Easy to learn, hard to master
7. You don't spend your game referring to mountains of tables
8. Many game variations
9. Several theatres, loads of troop variations
10.You can play with your kids :)

Great minis, the rules are easy and it's fun to play!

The only downside to me is they keep doing the GW thing with releasing a new rules set every few years.

And they still don't have the Far East yet…

But, Fun, yes, quite fun.

Eric

I disagree with #7. Ever try to figure out the sequence of a close assault? Their reference sheet is two pages and still doesn't give you all the stuff you commonly need. Or at least in our games.

The only downside to me is they keep doing the GW thing with releasing a new rules set every few years.

The 6.5 years between V2 and V3 might be considered a bit more than "every few years" and not wholly unreasonable. Though some may consider getting a new edition a "downside," I have a theory that most wargamers actually want a game system to continue to evolve rather than become stagnant.

And you can play Viet Nam with it, too.

Although Korean War would be even better.

@ 21eRegt:

I disagree with #7. Ever try to figure out the sequence of a close assault? Their reference sheet is two pages and still doesn't give you all the stuff you commonly need. Or at least in our games.

Your case seems unusual given what I've experienced in the last four and half years of playing this game. I've witnessed several dozen of tournaments in that time and one of the aspects that immediately impressed me about FoW was that fact most players seem to get on extremely well with zero in-game referencing of the rule book and/or the Quick Reference Sheet.

At the US National at Historicon in 2008 I was present but not participating, so I volunteered to run some demos on the demo table while the BF staff focused on running the tournament. Since I was showing brand new players the ropes, I wanted to have a couple of the Quick Reference Sheets for them to work with. The BF team had none so I then started to work my way through the nearly 100 participants to see if I could borrow one or two. I went through almost the entire lot of them before I managed to come up with one. Just thought that was amazing to see 100 or so players not even bother to bring a QRS copy with them to such a big event.

So yes, ChrisModelDad's #7 I agree with, but it would be higher in my list. More like his #6 and #7 would be my #2 and #3.

@ epturner:

And they still don't have the Far East yet…

Stay tuned!

Is the new edition going to have reaction fire?

Is the new edition going to have reaction fire?

Same as V2…you want opportunity fire, get to a position overlooking the desired engagement area, get gone to ground, and your unit will generally come off better than any enemy unit that enters into your engagement area. That is how you get opportunity fire effects in FoW.

11. Great product support from Battlefront.
12. Luke Melia and those guys on his show.

1. The figure scale and tactics match up to each other.

Let me explain by contrasting with RF2, where each figure represents 8-10 men and a model tank represents a troop of tanks. Clearly aimed at company or battalion level command for the player, like for example BKC. But RF2 incorporates platoon and troop level concerns, such as overwatch(I think its called 'reserved fire' or somesuch), and plotting the fall of fire etc (If the player is a Battalion commander, why is he concerned with the mechanics of where the shells fall – he just wants to know the effect…. So there is an immeadiate dissonance for the player in what you are doing with those 10 figures or 3 tanks. Are you a one pipper or a Lt Col?
2. Artillery on table. Just love the aesthetics of this.

1. The figure scale and tactics match up to each other.

Let me explain by contrasting with RF2, where each figure represents 8-10 men and a model tank represents a troop of tanks. Clearly aimed at company or battalion level command for the player, like for example BKC. But RF2 incorporates platoon and troop level concerns, such as overwatch(I think its called 'reserved fire' or somesuch), and plotting the fall of fire etc (If the player is a Battalion commander, why is he concerned with the mechanics of where the shells fall – he just wants to know the effect…. So there is an immeadiate dissonance for the player in what you are doing with those 10 figures or 3 tanks. Are you a one pipper or a Lt Col?

The great thing about FOW is that it is clear what is what on the table, and what it is you are doing at each stage – platoon/troop commander, Fwd Observer, FAC, then Company Commander.

2. Artillery on table. Just love the aesthetics of this.

(Apologies for the repeat post BTW, can't seem to delete….)

13. We got the WWPD podcast thanks to FoW.

Considering that they also give you the new rules book free…. ;-)

The minis are relatively affordable.

"Relatively Affordable Minis?" Seem pretty pricey to me. I'm not saying they are not worth it, but I'm much more excited about what's coming out in plastic these days from PSC and Zvezda rather than anything BF is rolling out.

1 through 10, for me.

I think battlefront are probably looking at this pricing issue(and the market they are losing), but to their credit, as I understand it, they dont ban other companies figures from tourneys and similar. Thats one point I like.

As someone who played (and enjoyed GW) for a number of years, I've had to step away due to their churn. As an occaisional player I cant find £45.00 GBP for new rules every three years and £25.00 GBP for an army list every 2 years. And if you think BF ##### your army with a new rules/list, you should see what the GW changes do.

BF may use some of the GW sales techniques & models(dont knock GW too much, they have managed to stay in business where other havent and have brought new model techniques to a wide market) but BF have kept to the gaming spirit that probably started them off.

Thats one of their biggest pros I see and like, their attitude. Its this that moves such really good offers like free copies of the new rules.

Kadavar

That .

I think battlefront are probably looking at this pricing issue(and the market they are losing), but to their credit, as I understand it, they dont ban other companies figures from tourneys and similar. Thats one point I like.

Quite true. In fact even at the US Masters there was at least one player who had a completely non-BF force. He was using an "Old Glory" T-34/85 force.

For those who doubt BF's policy on other manufacture's miniatures in BF sponsored events here it is from the top:

It is indeed a + that they "encourage" the use of other 15mm miniatures in tournaments. They make a pretty penny out of the books too, so it would be counterproductive not to.

The minis are fine, but to me expensive. If I was only "allowed" to use BF miniatures, I would not play. So, I paint up and play with about 20% BF minis, and buy all the books that apply to me. Considering the state of my finances, that is sadly a lot of dough.

"13. We got the WWPD podcast thanks to FoW."

It's been a rough few days- thanks for the kind words, truly meant a lot!

For me the absolute BEST part of FoW is just spending time with my friends! The game itself is fine and I am quite happy with it. But most important is spending time with people in real life and not on the interwebs!

Seriously though, Battlefront is a very respectable company. I've gotten to where I consider several of their employees friends, and to a man they show nothing but passion for their trade.

It's not Angrif…

Er…..you don't have to waste your time against historical opponents, thus avoiding all those boring real war scenarios. Equal points is the way to go I always say. Could have worked for Germany come to think.

All kidding aside, some people seem to enjoy it. Having only watched it, it does seem to move along fast enough.

Nothing in FoW makes you "have" to play against non-historical opponents or at always equal points. Those are a player's choice much like about with any other miniature war game. Know what right looks like? Set it up and make it happen! Have a good historical scenario in mind, have at it!

we have convert rapid fire scenarios before with unequal points and it was awesome

I like it because it works for that level. Our gaming group has done Total war, usual based point scenarios, converted ASL/Combat Commander scenario's and small battle scenarios. We recently did a 1944 humans US, Germans, Russians) vs bugs scenario…. it wa a friggin blast.

My second choice of WWII rules is CROSSFIRE, and the 15mm miniatures work there as well.

Can't wait for 3rd edition to come out; and the Pacific.

It plays well ( fun ) and looks good. What more do you want as a wargamer ? I think the web " presence " is very good as well, always interesting stuff, and always changing.

the unerring politeness and the broadminded attitude of those who play

Am I the only person to play FOW that doesn't like them. I feel they do not give a flavour of WW2 engagements, they are too like Warhammer. I throw a handful of dice to hit, you roll a handful of dice to save and then I roll more dice to kill; everyone is also trying to build killer armies; the figures are expensive like GW, thankfully other manufacturers are providing alternatives. Finally, they keep releasing new versions of their rulebook (again like GW).

I prefer historical scenarios. Don't know if FOW would allow one KV1 to hold off a numerically superior force. I don't want to see 9 Char B's on the table either that's not how the French used them.

I think if they were a sci-fi set I could relate to them. I know I will probably be called a heretic for this.

In their favour though they have brought back interest in WW2.

As with most wargames you pretty much get out of FoW what you put into it. Not getting realistic enough games? Might be have more to do with choices a player makes in setting up games. You can play for the most part as historically or not as you choose to with any rules you may prefer.

No need to really tweak them unless you are unhappy wiht the ranges, thats abotu it.

I play historic stuff all of the time. In fact, I play historic stuff more than points off games. I really don't do tourneys, but armound my parts, most people see any time to game as a tiem to tweak their tourney lists. I still get to play historical battles. I feel they give very reliable results and lots of fun too.

Gripe. Gripe. Gripe. OP be damned!

Why do some people buy a ford and then complain that it's not a Chevy? If you want a Chevy, buy a Chevy.

My point is, if you are looking for the type of game FoW isn't, then don't buy FoW, buy that other game. And post on that game's forum. Not here.

I just posted the following on the "Why I hate" Flames of War thread. I figure, if people can complain on this thread, I should be able to get my love on at the other thread.

I love that Flames of War is:

easy to play, difficult to master

well supported with miniatures, terrain, modeling supplies, paint, etc. I love one-stop shopping.

Fun to play. So many concepts are subtlety in the game and I never get bogged down in the minutia.

Quick to play. Most games last 2-3 hours. Perfect for a week day game night.

Models are relatively cheap. Compared to all my other hobbies, FoW is by far the most affordable. Video game systems, golf clubs, guns, ammo. All cost way more.

Tons of entertainment for my dollar. Not just in gaming, but in collecting, army building, designing my own tokens/base labels, etc.

@ freewargamesrules

Am I the only person to play FOW that doesn't like them.

You play a game you don't like? I'm not sure, but that might just make you a very unique case.

I prefer historical scenarios.

Me too. I play a good bit of them with FoW. What's holding you back? Maybe if you did you'd like those FoW games you are playing more?

Don't know if FOW would allow one KV1 to hold off a numerically superior force.

I bet it's possible. Have you set up that scenario and tried it yet?

I don't want to see 9 Char B's on the table either that's not how the French used them.

EW German player eh? Just kidding…but seriously when/where did you see a "9 Char B" tank force? That's a good bit more in the point department than the standard FoW game accommodates.

BTW, I'd love to hear your views on how the French actually employed Char B's if you'd take the time to share them with us.

I think if they were a sci-fi set I could relate to them. I know I will probably be called a heretic for this.

Not by me. I certainly have a difference of opinion on many aspects, but I am quite happy to discuss the issues at hand with you further.

In their favour though they have brought back interest in WW2.

Indeed. FoW is pretty much responsible for a big surge in historical miniatures WWII gaming to say the least. Also, I expect by BF's acquisition of Wargames Illustrated that a lot of FoW players, for who FoW may have been their only historical miniatures game, are now getting introduced to many other wargame periods and even other WWII games and game companies. I think we can both easily agree that BF and its "flagship" FoW have been an overwhelming force for general good of historical wargaming world wide.

VB

The endless combination of lists and nationalities.

The BattleFront PROMPT customer service!

The rules appear to be getting tighter and streamlined for ease of play, not just re-writing the whole game.

the cinema of the battle, i want to smell the cordite and squint through the smoke. Terrain helps this a tremendous deal and is its own hobby and a joy.

Its as historical as you want it to be, something everyone is free to do.
except when following tournament directives , that is.

Seeing a shelf of primed stands evolve into finished pieces is very rewarding. I don't mind painting all my Soviets, i'm getting better at it one company at a time :)

I would really like to see the Pacific theatre open up!

-G

i bought the first ed. game book and really, really wanted to like the game. then i watched it played. and went somewhere else and watched it being played.
the tanks lineing up side by side looks quite distracting to some of us who understand TANKS DON'T OPERATE LIKE THAT! and its been pointed out to me time and again that you don't have to place them side by side, but thats the waay it always appear. its bad looking and ditto the massed infantry(yes, i know that the russians used wave attacks).
but have fun. thats what its all about. and oh, yeah, it is warhammer world war2.

Very interesting John. You watched two games being played at least over six and half years ago and can make the definitive statement "it[FoW] is warhammer world war two." Now I'm guessing here that you probably did not much play or like much if any of Warhammer either as you seem to be putting both in a disparaging light here. I suppose anyone can make whatever statement they like and are certainly welcome to have an opinion, but I've got to question how much of your statement is based on meaningful facts and how much is based on a very superficial understanding of both game systems.

The trend here appears to be that people who sound off with the "FoW is WW2 40K"…in a derogatory sense.. also seem to be folks who don't like/play either FoW or Warhammer. One would think that if FoW was that indeed that similar to Warhammer 40K that we'd see a lot of players who like and play both FoW and 40K telling us all the time how great it is that they are both so similar. Maybe we don't see a lot of "FoW is WW2 40K and it's a good thing" statements because the games are in fact different on many levels.

the tanks lineing up side by side looks quite distracting to some of us who understand TANKS DON'T OPERATE LIKE THAT!

Yet there plenty who are well versed in good tactical dispersion who understand that what it physically looks like on the table top is not necessarily what it is representing in the game. The good news though for those who do find this look so visually troubling is that V3 should give a few more incentives to spread out from what we've heard. Guess we'll see. Hell I spread out my vehicles in V2 all the time and only grudgingly ever let more than one tank get under the same template. In V3 I'll be even keener to avoid bunching up.

VB

i've played warhammer and 40k pretty much since the games came out. and what i was getting at was that both games are very much alike. and also, when i said i watched the game played, then went to another game club and watched it agsin, i watched many games being played over a period of many weeks. i watched the tourneys at hcon. again many games. still want to school me on how the game looks? i've also played battleground ww2 for years and i've never send tanks side to side.
ive played warhammer and 40k at the tornament level and liked it very much. i stopped because i got married and now have a son, so buying new armies to keep up does'nt matter anymore.
but get a bloodbowl tourney going in my area…yeah, that will make me want to compete again!

Thanks for the further clarification John. You certainly have a lot more experience with Warhammer than your initial post indicated and have seen more FoW games as well…at least tournament games anyway. Being more of an expert on Warhammer/40K than I am maybe you can then elaborate on the similarities of the FoW and 40K that you feel are such negative issues.

still want to school me on how the game looks?

I don't believe that I ever said that you were not seeing tanks side to side in the games you did observe. I did say though that in V3 you should be seeing less of it.

VB

i've also played battleground ww2 for years and i've never send tanks side to side.

A fine WWII game system no doubt. So what is it in this game system that compels players to maintain a better visual dispersion for vehicles that can be adapted in to FoW?

From what I've been able to tell in a few minutes of google search on Battleground WW2, it appears to be a very much lower skirmish level game…even played with 28mm figures if one wants. My assumption here would be that one might not be using quite as many tanks in a typical game of Battleground WW2 as one might see in an average FoW game. If so that's likely to have a big impact on tanks not getting so bunched up in Battleground WW2.

VB

@ freewargamesrules

Am I the only person to play FOW that doesn't like them.

You play a game you don't like? I'm not sure, but that might just make you a very unique case.

I too have to play a game I don't like. Seekrieg 5. I play it because others in my group like it for some unfathomable (no pun intended) reason. Who cares whether or not the cocoa store is flooded, the supply of duffle coats has been interrupted for two turns or the ship's cat has just lost a leg? My brain just glazes over as they read off the list of further damage from those irritating cards. It's certainly war, but is it a game? It should come with a warning "No Fun Included".

I have some thoughts to add in this thread.

Thoughts on Tank parking lots:

i've seen and played Battleground ww2 and have seen tanks hub to hub,

i have also played BKC and have seen tanks run hub to hub,

i have played rapid fire and have seen tanks run hub to hub,

i have played battlefield evolution world at war and seen tanks hub to hub,

i've played battlefront ww2 and seen tanks hub to hub,

i've played crossfire and seen tanks hub to hub,

I've played I aint been shot Mum and seen hub to hub

I've played fireball forward and seen hub to hub.

Should I go on?

Hub to hub not something that only happens in FoW, it is something players do in every rules system, to maximize shots in defense of or the attack of a small area when miniature wargaming. it has nothing to do with the rules. in FoW your tanks can be anywhere from four to eight inches apart from each other which is plenty of room to spread out avoid the bunching if desired, its player choice. same thing happens in others rules system even if there is no cohesion. I want to guard this road or that clump of trees so i cram three four tanks into this tiny area to max out my effectiveness. i have never seen a game system that said your tanks have to be so far apart, because that would not be "historically accurate". I have even seen this in smaller scales like 6mm and 10mm.

Also it isn't the rules but the number of figures on the table. we run into this problem at all our big group games. we will have 6-10 players over and ever one our 12 by 8 foot table you can end up with end to end figures. oh did i mention that we play more than just FoW and this can be a problem no matter that the rules, ww2 or other? play with fewer troops if you don't like a crowded game, you don't have to show off the whole collection. or play on a bigger board, just dont knock FoW like it is the only system where this happens.

Thoughts on infantry saves:

in FoW it is a mechanic that is in place to prevent infantry from getting annihilated and represents those hits only causing minor or minimal casualties to the team that was hit. ie you hit the team, but failed to make it combat ineffective. maybe you only lightly wounded a couple guys and their still fighting or only killed one private who nobody much cared for so the other members of the team keep fighting.

Other rule systems have functions in place that represent this as well. for example in BCK you remove hits at the end of your turn. world at war has saves, in battlefront ww2 you roll to see, roll to hit, roll to see what you did to the target, then the target or figure near it might roll moral. FoW, 2 rolls when shooting, BG, up to up to four rolls to shoots. most games its at least two rolls. a roll to hit and a roll to see what the hit did.

in FoW its just you have to give up control of the dice and let you opponent roll to see what the hit did. Your hit might not have been effective.

this is also a great way to keep everyone playing even when it is not your turn. there is nothing worse than a game that takes all night to play and half the night you sit there waiting for paint to dry as your opponent does all the rolling and figuring out of complex charts and tables.

thoughts on rolling a hand full of dice:

isn't this one of the core functions of gaming? rolling dice is fun and is central to all gaming, plus lots of ww2 games require you to roll a ton of dice. BKC is that way for sure, and so can others. so what if you roll lots of dice?

there are times in FoW where you might roll a higher than average number of dice or an insane number of dice, but that is the exception not the rule, most of the time it is about ten per platoon. which isn't that bad or unreasonable.

thoughts on ranges:

if the ranges were accurately proportional to figure scale most ww2 rules systems would be unplayable. you would need more table than most of us have garage or dinning room space. The game has to function on the game space that most of us have available. Which means if the ranges where accurately proportional the game wouldn't be fun because 88s could hit and kill anything on the board.

thoughts on V3 and supplements:

holy sweet lord of the admiralty, a company updated their rule system to fix problems, stream line a the rules and make them more user friendly. how dare they, we must revolt and a gripe. who do they think they are anyway?

this complaint is absolute garbage. all good games that are popular go through updates and errata because inevitably shortcomings in the rules are identified after years of play by a variety of gamers. a revision might end up being required because otherwise you will have to print 50 pages of FAQ and errata, learn it and file the loose pages with forum answers to the back your rules. I'd rather have revised rules in a nice book.
if you get the occasional revision then when you go to Historicon or move to a new town you find out that other players, or maybe you, never got the full errata and you play the game differently. or a rule isn't clear enough so you interpret they way you want because your a cheese head and want the win. pretty soon there are all these house rules because no rules aren't perfect.

this is same for supplements, as the rules have been updated or errata issued BF needs to release revised supplements to keep them current so that the game continues to work for the players. Games that don't do this bog down as you try to mesh the supplement with the errata. It ends up being a square peg in a round whole issue.

plus as the BF team researches the war they try to bring the community new books that cover new theaters, battles or campaigns. just like other rules systems due with their supplements.

BF also gives you and in depth history and new companies to run based upon their research. This research is extensively investigated, not a copy paste of wikipedia article on the topis. a lot of hard work goes into those books, from the history to the graphic design. $50 USD is not that bad of a price when you consider this. The release of new books or revised books is not some evil plan that BF hatched in a bunker 50 miles below mordor.

again…other popular game systems do similar things except their supplements are about 1/4 the length of a FoW supplement, they are all black and white or with limited color, some pictures, low quality diagrams, and little graphic design and they cost you $25 USD to buy a pdf that you gave to print yourself. so let me do the math, add 4 carry the two. so if supplement was the length of a battle front book (around 200 pages instead of 50) it would cost $100 USD, plus you would have to use a $15 USD ream of paper, $40 USD worth of ink, and a $7 USD binder. oh and it is still a black and white MSword document. sounds to me like the other supplement is the real rip off and the FoW supplement is a great value.

Plus if a game hasn't revised its rules or issued supplements in the last ten years its probably has nothing to do with it being a perfect rule system and has everything to do with it being unpopular and too cumbersome. so if the rules you play haven't been update maybe its because only a few people play them or the company doesn't exist anymore. or maybe you scared them away with all your trolling and thats why the rules have been relegated to the old tattered cardboard bust box section of your local shop.

thoughts on cost:
no one should be complaining about the book costs and the figure costs, you are not required to buy BF figures or all the books to play the game. i have never bought all the FoW book releases. I have also never bought all the supplements to other gaming systems I play. i buy the ones that interest me. you can do the same thing. no one from BF is making you buy those books or making you buy their figures.

i just shake my head when people troll and complain about the cost of BF models and then complain they don't have good sculpts. if you don't like the sculpts and your not planning on buying their figures, why are you complaining about the price?

I think most their stuff looks great and yes you will pay more for it, but you don't have too buy their figures. i can't always afford all BF figures, i have figures from a half dozen different companies and you now what, unlike 40K BF is okay with that.

does BF have perfect sculpts, no. but name a company that does.

Command Decision is cheap if you are in the OG army, but they do have some funky infantry and some of their vehicles look pancaked, but they also have some really nice stuff.

Peter Pig has some great look figures, but again some other there stuff doesn't look that good and some of the infantry can look just as cartoonish as some of the BF stuff, plus they have a limited vehicle range. Once its all said and done i pay almost as much if not sometimes as much or more than i do for BF infantry when I buy PP.

FiB has some great stuff and not so great stuff, prices are decent.

PSC great tanks and a great value, but not so great infantry.

True North great prices, limited range, and not the greatest sculpts.

BF has some great stuff and some not so great stuff, but I can't think of another company that has a range as extensive as theirs. I cold see complaining if the sculpts where junk and you ha to buy them, but again you don't. infact if you don't want to play FoW in 15mm you don't have to, play it with 10mm or 6mm if you want.

Look many of us will easily depart with $400 USD for figures in a single shot multiple times a years. so the really question is quality vs quantity. do you want more figures or better looking figures? I think some of us get greedy and don't realize how much money it takes to run a business and make figures and just expect companies to give figures to us at cost.

for those of us who can't afford that, its okay not to own $5,000 USD worth of 15mm toys, BF is not making you buy large amounts of their figures. you can play the game with a smaller collection and if you want to spend less and get more you can go to another company and no one will tell you it not allowed in a FoW game.

companies with good sculpts charge more. if BF really had bad sculpts through out their whole line then they wouldn't be in business no matter how much marketing they did. Sometimes i think the trolls only go after BF because deep down inside they really want to buy them and wish the price came down. so they complain hoping it does.

final thoughts

sometimes when i read all the negative comments about FoW i just can't help
but think for some guys it has less to do with the rules and more to do with FoW's popularity. for years you have played other ww2 systems in a different scale (6mm, 10mm, 20mm). for years you have had a hard time finding a crowd larger than the same group you always play with to collect and play the rules. now you are bitter because lots of people play FoW and it would require you to abandon the other system, possibly rebase your figures and start their ww2 collection over in 15mm.

look these negative comments about FoW are ridiculous, everything trolled about on FoW are things seen in other rule systems, those who are troll hardly ever say which rule system they play or acknowledge or critique the short comings in those rules in their posts.

My question is why are you so critical of games that others enjoy playing? why have you made it your mission to turn others the off to gaming with your negative and critical attitude? Why if you despise FoW so much do you feel the need to acknowledge its existence and start arguments online with people you don't know? Why are you wasting yours and everyone else's time? Why are you so bitter about FoW?

as far as i have seen you don't see the FoW community going onto the other ww2 forums and trashing those rule systems or the AARs or the companies, but the many sure like to come here and trash all the hard work and fun that FoW players have.

i cant image what it would be like to play with some of you. no wonder the game systems you hold dear doesn't attract newer blood. you just eat the goats as the cross they bridge.

maybe that is why FoW is popular, its easy to learn, fun to play rules with supportive positive community who encourages its fellow players, and the bonus is a supportive company that gives you a great ww2 game, great customer service and great products. if it wasn't, the game would not be in print and it would be hard to find players or miniatures for it.

remember we play games to simulate war, paint figures, learn history, and most importantly have fun with our friends and fellow gamers. if you can't have fun with your friends you have missed the point of gaming.

Great read Baxter, many valid points.

this is also a great way to keep everyone playing even when it is not your turn. there is nothing worse than a game that takes all night to play and half the night you sit there waiting for paint to dry as your opponent does all the rolling and figuring out of complex charts and tables.

Yes! Just like my last game of Seekrieg 5. I have three destroyers that spend all day trying to get close enough to shoot, whilst my fellows trade cruiser volleys and try to work out whether or not the corned beef has been hit.

not everone who posts negitive comments againsr FOW is a troll. its an opinion. we have a right to that. or do you just want the fanboys gushing about how great the game is?

i've played warhammer and 40k

----------------------
which Warhammer – Fantasy Battles, Ancient Battles, ECW – or the overall concept (not that you can play a concept). Again i know its popular with some to condemn every version as just Fantasy battles with historical troops (with the original Fantasy link being ultimately what condemns WAB and WECW) – fine if it doesn't conform to someones view of what say Ancient warfare was about – but then many people will say the same about WRG, HC etc – they all have elements that appeal to some more than others. I don't like the movement system in WAB but I do like the combat – no problem with rolling lots of dice

I too have to play a game I don't like. Seekrieg 5. I play it because others in my group like it for some unfathomable (no pun intended) reason. Who cares whether or not the cocoa store is flooded, the supply of duffle coats has been interrupted for two turns or the ship's cat has just lost a leg? My brain just glazes over as they read off the list of further damage from those irritating cards. It's certainly war, but is it a game? It should come with a warning "No Fun Included".

----------------
Your choice and your time of course , but unlike a job that one dislikes, with wargaming one doesn't have to do it – when my usual opponents started playing games I didn't enjoy (like WFB, Warmaster and now D&D) I just sought out some other opponents rather than sit there looking glum. (or i do some painting). When they play a game I like I go along. I only game once a week at the absolute most (usually less than that) so no point doing it if I don't enjoy it

i by no means am saying people aren't entitled to their opinions about FoW with my comment, but there is a none stop barrage of negative comments about FoW on this forum from individuals who seem to have nothing better to do than to got after the FoW community and their posts.

people cant post an AAR or pictures without the negativity coming out. while some of the opinions they have about FoW maybe valid points, from my point of view many of them are the same problems other rule systems face as well not just FoW. FoW is a game like any other wargame system.

there is a constant drum beating by FoW haters toward the game and its community on this forum that crosses that line from being an "opinion about a game" to just being rude, insulting and uncalled for on a regular basis. I tired of hearing that this game which many people have invested a lot of passion, time, money, and energy into is the worst game ever, and that we are all fools and second class gamers for playing it.

I too have to play a game I don't like. Seekrieg 5.
----------------
Your choice and your time of course , but unlike a job that one dislikes, with wargaming one doesn't have to do it – when my usual opponents started playing games I didn't enjoy (like WFB, Warmaster and now D&D) I just sought out some other opponents rather than sit there looking glum. (or i do some painting). When they play a game I like I go along. I only game once a week at the absolute most (usually less than that) so no point doing it if I don't enjoy it

Perhaps deephorse is just being a really good friend chugging along with that horrible game (just kidding I have no idea how good/bad Seekrieg 5 is). I could see myself on occasion playing a game I did not care for just to be sociable, but there's a limit. I'd be more inclined to throw down in others' games if it also meant they'd reciprocate at another time for games that I was more in to. Seems fair.

Similarly, I wonder how often major detractors of FoW give that a try? If one is that confident that the wargaming world is better off without FoW, then perhaps rather than just ranting away on this forum, instead jump in every once and a while on a FoW game and then invite those FoW players to come try the exact same scenario/mission with a whatever rules set that they are so confident is a better WW2 wargame than FoW. It might be in the end that nobody changes their preferred rules, but then everybody gains a better appreciation for what the "other guys" are playing and maybe we could all spend more time happily gaming instead of burning valuable hobby time either attacking or defending FoW here.