"J-P spells it out so you better shut up and pay up" Topic

Steve did you ever get my e-mail?

Wow! That's really nasty!

How it would work against an infantry company, though?

It must really suck to live your life pursuing the things you hate instead of pursuing the things you love.

Yes Dale, I rx'd your mail. I never responded as we aren't going to agree on any of this. I like all the special rules and I couldn't care less if a list is harder than most others.

The fact that some leading lights in the UK gaming world are so concerned by all these end-of-the-world developments, well, that makes me care even less!

You cannot decloak dug in you can only do that from ambush, you can decloak and not fire then claim GTG or you can decloak, dig in and fire at 1/2 normal ROF – are you sure Roger did not do the latter?

Will people ever learn the difference between "lose" and "loose" ?

DM

I would say no, they won't (dammit).

Does Gamemodels make a Hellcat ???

Yes.

Guys at WWPD have happily suspended their "Don't Be A Dick" policy to sabotage a thread on this issue by allowing spam and trolling.

Seems they don't want to get off the Battlefront gravy train and all the free stuff they get from them.

Score 1 more for Battlefront's attempt to silence community frustration on this issue.

They sent the list to some top players in the US to get the kinks out before they hit the press. They responded "yeah even our weakest member could rolfstomp everything he came near…this list is ****ing broken. It's like trying to catch air!"

BF's reponse…fire the playtesters.

I can't confirm this personally, but I've been told by various sources the person in charge for BG&G was a big big big American fan, and felt the Germans needed a good thrashing.

Nothing like that occurred that I can recall. There was a ruckus around the time of the playtesting of these lists, but it was an issue around how some PT groups in the US may have talked "out of school", and some changes were made as a result.

LW, especially end 44 to 45, the US forces started becoming far superior to their German opponents. BG&G was the first book to clearly spell that out. Both the quality of the troops and the kit they used got a heck of a lot better.
The fracas surrounding the TD company listings…and this is my personal opinion only…frankly it's a non issue. There's always the "shock of the new" with a list like those and pretty soon most will have worked out how to deal with them. Bill Wilcox in the US took them to one of the major tournaments and wiped the floor with them, but Bill Wilcox is a freak of a player who could probably win with a force made up entirely of kubelwagons. I've played against him in NZ, and he really is just one of those guys who can read a game so well.

I can think of a lot of LW lists that would give either of the TD lists a hard time – anything infantry based.

The issue is also to do with 2 ID lists combined with tank destroyers, move through cover, cheaper AT13 stuff etc.

Steve,

Still respond when you get the chance, I'd really like to keep in contact with you.

You bring up a fair point either way.

Man, where to start?
So many huidden truths and such propaganda and heritical speech…..Ok, many very valid points were addressed… and then quickly ignored…

The bane to the game has always been that it is a points based system and it is geared for tournament playing. This alone means the typical player is trying to make the best "legal" list provided… enter the cheese… hey, it happens… people play to win. Yet this is what is played.. these lists….

If you understand what I just said, then you understand the whole of the issue with BF…

Otherwise you just see new toys or books every few months and really don't see the root cause and effect….

As the war progressed, what changed was the gear gets better, but the morale and troop quality declined…
They did the training and morale well all throughout…

I think it is clear to see they intended to show this in the latest books by doing just that with the German troop qual/mor.

Is that really all there is to it though?

ABSOLUTELY NOT….

Here is the thing… players play to win… especially the tourney players….

Now, ask yourself this….
What armies do we see in tournaments that everyone is comlaining about…. ?

In reality, how often did you see those compilations on the field? That is key here…. NOT VERY OFTEN AT ALL.

Ok, so the US TD is super awesome and you can make a list that is legal… you call it broken because EVERYONE and their brother makes that list…. yet, in reality, this list really did exist and really did kick serious butt… but it was rare…. yet everyone in tournament play uses it…

Do you see where I am going? the research is there… people recognize "hey this is an awesome list"… BF provided it as it really happened, if they didn't, it would be wrong… and yet… it was rare… so since everyone and their brother jumps on it… all of a sudden everyone is crying for erratta on it….

Truth… yes, it was really that powerful. What is BF to do, ban it? They shouldn't NERF it as it really is legit….

The problem is a catch 22…. As a scenario player… you just suck it up and move on… but this list has become the norm… just like the BAR…

People quickly forget that in real life, the BAR was a real thing, but the UK failed to use it to it's fullest like players do in FoW…

The lists are not broken…. they are real… the thing is, they were rare… and in real life, you didn't see armies of TDs sneaking around…. You saw the grunt… with his rifle and usually little to no support in many areas… yet in a tournament setting… you get the TD list.

You just cannot force that mindset onto the players…. and this type of game lends itself to these lists being used and abused… they are legal… and legit… they are just so much more common in tournaments than they really were in real life.

And for that… you have to take it or leave it….
Me, I don't do the tourney scene… I find it hard to win with "historically accurate" "typical OOB" lists for troops in the field… when everyone else is running an uber list…. legal, legit…. but uber….

It doesn't make them bad people… nor does it make BF a bad company.

Another exaple is some of the other EW lists… The Germans did so well in real life, but faced against a FoW list, they can get crushed… Ask yourselves why? And you will have your answer to the BF dilemma…

@Poniatowski
No the TD type list didn't exist.

You would never find a force built around a TD unit. They are support troops to be attached to other units and didn't have their own logistical support units. They depended on either the Division they were attached to or on the Corps HQ for logistics.

TD units were attached to infantry or armored forces to provide additional support not the other way around

Also if I remember correctly they dropped the Security section from the field, and rolled it into straight up recon. Thus the TD's became more of support weapons. This was because they lacked the troops to fill the actual recon role.

If the TDC preformed like it did, I can bet they never would have been dropped as a whole from the US Army and he'd have em today.

Guys at WWPD… don't want to get off the Battlefront gravy train and all the free stuff they get from them.

Their noses are so Battlefront Brown they've lost all sense of objectivity.

It's kind of like the podcast version of White Dwarf in a way.

"Guys at WWPD… don't want to get off the Battlefront gravy train and all the free stuff they get from them…."

…they've lost all sense of objectivity"

The FIRST part of that is harsh…They tried to get the same from other manufacturers and it got a white noise response…not unsurprisingly when their objectivity is that a models goodness is measured by if it is cheaper and the closeness of a manufacturers product to the look of battlefront's offering….not the real vehicle. This attitude seems to be because they veiw the battlefront model AS the REAL vehicle…so the second part is devastatingly obvious.

Personally, I see them more as victims than perpitrators as they just assume others bought the "battlefront is best" lie on it too or well, they bought the farm on it themselves.

When oversized turrets, guns and belisha beacon lights on an armoured car make it the 'best'…you know something isnt right with objectivity. (err…..it aint the right shape….and the models by the other manufacturers that ARE the right shape aint as good?…)

I hesitated buying the PSC panzer 3's based on this review…
link

the models looked very bland and samey/identical, but the shape looked really good and I opnly need a few vehicles to flesh out some early war. But I didnt think I would be able to make them end up looking that good and wondered about how much stowage I would need to buy.

Turns out they are just superb little models and that review doesnt do them justice. Built 4 so far and all of them are individualised with stuff straight off the sprue. 3 F's and an H so far…last will be a G and another box or two is definately being purchased as these extras will become Afrika Korp.

Ah…. ok, I know you cannot build an army that way, but you can skew it to be built around the TDs being the main force.

I stand corrected. Not a problem. I am just now really getting into the Americans in FoW. I have the 82nd airborne and use the TD's as the support unit. For the most part, my whole army is parachute landing, no glider stuff, so taking the TDs seemed the logical choice. I do, however have Sherman's and Stuart's also…

I play for fun and hsitorical accuracy (please, no berrating here about FoW being accurate). I play completly historic lists and enjoy playing.

Firstly there is no need for juvinile abuse of any forum member even those that are normally negative or sarcastic let alone WWPD guys that are generally trying to be helpful

Secondly all reviews are subjective and the reader needs to take this into account and make their own judgement. It is a chance to hear and see someones opinion not a scientific treatise

Finally although there has been some interesting points on this thread it is getting a bit off topic. So to bring it back the intial post was about what is behind J-P's statement and what BF are not addressing. I for one would like BF to address clearly what they are going to do about:
.) Errata for rule and arsenal mistprints issued free and in a timely manner – electronically
2.) A living FAQ for rules that are or appear to be broken also issued free and in a timely manner – electronically
3.) Point cost consistancy – that is an identical team in different books of the same era should cost the SAME points.
4.) A commitment from BF to actually plan and implement QC improvements in an open an transparent manner to rebuild consumer confidence
5.) Instructions for all models to be avaiable – I know they are working on this but it is important for new customers

"Secondly all reviews are subjective"

they should not be….

Easy Ways to Remember Objective and Subjective

Objective : sounds like the word object. You should be objective whenever you are discussing an object, something concrete that you can hold or touch. The facts that make up your objective statement should also be concrete, solid objects.

Subjective : is just the opposite. You can't point to subjective subjects. They are all in your head and your past experiences. Subjective opinions are ephemeral and subject to any number of factors that can range from facts to emotions.

..But back on topic would be that 1-5 must surely be in their own and their customers best interests

Sorry Kevan should have said reviews contain subjective as well as objective data as in:

OB: The headlights are modelled overscale so thet are more robust, and

SUB: I personally like/dislike this characteristic.

Yes you would have thought points 1-5 were in their best interests but J-P seems to say
"Well it is too hard/expensive to change what we are doing so suck it up and keep buying the new books and if you complain about it too heatedly I will close the forum down. Afterall it is only money so why are you getting heated?"

Firstly there is no need for juvinile abuse of any forum member

WWPD is a commercial product, to claim it is a personal attack to say WW
PD is brown nosing is like saying that when White Dwarf is a house rag that is an attack on the magazine's editor. The guys do control the content of the podcast, however and could be more objective.

I understand the dilemma tho, after getting all the Battlefront freebies, nobody wants to where they eat.

"Point cost consistancy" – that is an identical team in different books of the same era should cost the SAME points.

I have to say that this is not always true… even in the same era… Look at the availability of equipment from front to front. One example is the tiger and panther pricing from mid-war…. some lists vary considerably in their costs, even in the same book. It all has to do with what equipment of manpower is available and when in each area of the front.

WWPD is a commercial product, to claim it is a personal attack to say WW
PD is brown nosing is like saying that when White Dwarf is a house rag that is an attack on the magazine's editor. The guys do control the content of the podcast, however and could be more objective.

You might need to go beyond just the podcast if you want to see more of objectivity that occurs at WWPD.

In the forums (and some reviews) there have been many critical comments about BF/FoW made by the WWPD "staff" where they have addressed their negative views on some BF model issues, lame rules, list balance, lack of errata, generally poor company decisions/statements etc.

These may not be something they harp on as much on the podcast as they might feel they've expressed their thoughts sufficiently already on the forum, but it's clear they don't give BF or FoW a "free ride" if you take more than a just a surface level look at it.

They also don't silence you out right on the forum either.

WWPD also conducts reviews of none BF products and support other manufactures and games as well. Zvezda, peter pig, PSC and game models have all got review love from WWPD in teh past. the reviews of those products and companies are no different than the ones they do for BF. They always talk about teh good and bad of each product they review.

Poniatowski, historical availability has nothing to do with BF points allocation.

Points allocation is based purely on a pointing matrix that takies into account stats and abilities assigned to a unit.

Otherwise a KV-85 in mid-war would be more expensive than a Tiger or Panther simply due to significantly lower historical availability.

The points discrepancies are due to:
1. Cut and paste errors: e.g.

5 x T-34/85 brought for a tankovy are more expensive than 5 x T-34/8 brought for a Guards tankovy despite identical abilities and availability.

8 x Zis-3 field guns are cheaper for a motostrelkovy than strelkovy again despite identical ability and availability.

2. General downwards trend in points (probably to sell more models – Games Workshop does this).

E.g.
Shermans are cheaper in newer books
Tank Destroyers are cheaper in newer books despite increased capability (AT13 over AT12)
Panzer IV's got cheaper in newer books.

Whilst reducing 5-10 points per rulebook doesn't seem like much, over many books it becomes significant.

GW did this. In 2nd edition a 10 man Space Marine squad with flamethrower, grenades, missile launcher and veteran sergeant was about 360+ points. That's come down to about 150 points by 5th edition.

As such a Space Marine army fields twice the number of models and GW makes more money. I suspect BF is doing a similar thing.

WWPD also conducts reviews of none BF products and support other manufactures and games as well. Zvezda, peter pig, PSC

I seem to recall that review as: PSC is inexpensive, hard to assemble, and not as good as Battlefront.

That last part: "not as good as Battlefront" is said often in reviews I have heard.

Anyone able to point me to a review of any non-battlefront infantry that any of the podcast crew have ever done?

As the source of "all things flames of war", One would surely expect those guys would have done at least one review of some infantry from Command Decision, Eureka, QRF, Peter pig, FIB, True North, Essex, Legions East, resident roosters or PSC.

or is it 0 out of 10?

That last part: "not as good as Battlefront" is said often in reviews I have heard.

I would heartily disagree with that. IMO the only PSC models that could apply to are the first boxes of infantry.

PSC tanks are much better models than Battlefront in my book. They take a bit of time to assemble but more often than not Battlefront models take longer to clean all the mould lines and misscasts from than it takes to assemble a PSC kit.

Anyone able to point me to a review of any non-battlefront infantry that any of the podcast crew have ever done?

They certainly have done a lot on non-BF terrain and vehicles. I don't get an impression that it's a "deliberate" attempt to keep other 15mm WWII infantry manufactures in the shadows. Just not something they have jumped into…yet.

As the source of "all things flames of war", One would surely expect those guys would have done at least one review of some infantry from Command Decision, Eureka, QRF, Peter pig, FIB, True North, Essex, Legions East, resident roosters or PSC.
or is it 0 out of 10?

A quick scan of the reviews on WWPD indicates that quite a large portion are done and sent in by individulas outside of the WWPD staff.

If you want to see more reviews on WWPD from other manufactures in specific areas like 15mm WWII non-BF figs, why not submit some yourself? I'd expect a well written article with good photos would very welcomed by the WWPD team.

I seem to recall that review as: PSC is inexpensive, hard to assemble, and not as good as Battlefront.
That last part: "not as good as Battlefront" is said often in reviews I have heard.

If you actually take the time to go over the WWPD reviews you really don't see a lot of "not as good as Battlefront" comments. You do see some comparison comments with the BF versions of the same model, but that's largely in respect to size. How well these models fit in size-wise with their existing BF collection would be important information for the average FoW player.

It really looks like PSC gets some pretty good overall ratings from the reviews on WWPD as shown below:

PSC Panzer IV F2
link

Conclusion
"This is a very good kit. I am quite happy with the end result. The assembly is an improvement over their previous offerings, and the end results speak for themselves. The price is certainly right as well. For gamers on a budget who don't mind a little assembly, you can't go wrong!"

Review: Plastic Soldier Company M4A4 Sherman and Firefly Box
link

CONCLUSION:
5 of 6 Grenades
"This box set is very nice. I like the fact that these come in groups of 5 -- get 2 boxes, and Tank Company is all set! Or, you can make 1 Firefly and switch it out in the platoon as necessary. The price point on these is very, very attractive."

Dirty Jon Goes Early War: Part 2 – Panzer III F Platoon
link

"I grabbed a box of the Plastic Soldier Company Panzer III F,G,H. These were fairly easy to put together, though not nearly as nice as the PSC Panthers – these are an older box and PSC is getting better with each new release."

Review: Plastic Soldier Company Panther Box Set
link

CONCLUSION:
8 of 10 Stars
"These are pretty hard to complain about. They did not take that long to assemble and were easy to paint. Like Steven, I am not much of a modler, so I do not really enjoy that aspect of it. I have seen some folks who enjoy this type of thing and see that as a plus. For me, if these had Zimmerit, easily a 10 of 10."

Very positive reviews overall for PSC, a BF competitor, from WWPD, an organization that many seem to be hung up on trying to label as "BF Brownnosers."

If you actually take the time to go over the WWPD reviews

I'd have to get the audio for quotes, rather than listen again, I will point the next time I hear bias.

But, since the podcast is "all things FoW" they really don't need to review other products. Flames of War is Battlefront minis only anyway.

"Anyone able to point me to a review of any non-battlefront infantry that any of the podcast crew have ever done?"

"They certainly have done a lot on non-BF terrain and vehicles."

I'll take that as a 'no' on the infantry then….

I'll take that as a 'no' on the infantry then….

For now at least that seems to be the case. Give it time. Sooner or later someone will write one and submit it. You could even be the first if it really is something you perceive to be such a monumental issue, but then that would leave you one less thing to gripe about.

I'd have to get the audio for quotes, rather than listen again, I will point the next time I hear bias.

Cool. I look forward to seeing (hearing) what you come up with.

But, since the podcast is "all things FoW" they really don't need to review other products. Flames of War is Battlefront minis only anyway.

Not in my area. Plenty of non-BF stuff in my and my friends' collections and plenty of non-BF stuff in the collections of the WWPD staff. Check out Steven's Early War French Tank and Panhard collections, featured rather prominently on the WWPD site when Early War was a big focus. Even more recently Jon started a German Panzer force that looked to have a healthy mix of PSC, Zvezda, and BF minis in it.

"Not in my area. Plenty of non-BF stuff in my and my friends' collections and plenty of non-BF stuff in the collections of the WWPD staff."

Why didnt you write a review of your non battlefront infantry?

If and when I do reviews, I wouldnt post them to a forum I (and others, including some of their own forum members) perceived to have product bias. I would look for a hype free zone.

I would look for a hype free zone.

That would be TMP! Certainly no pro-BF bias here!

Could make a decent case for a strong anti-BF bias, however.

Could make a decent case for a strong anti-BF bias, however.

And apparently from some a healthy anti-WWPD bias when it comes to objectivity despite the fact that there are numerous examples of negative comments on the WWPD site on BF products, rules, and policy, numerous examples of positive reviews of non-BF (competitor)products, and the fact that you can post your views (positive or negative) quite freely there so long as you don't violate rule #1 (don't be a d1ck).

Hell a simple check of the WWPD "FoW General Chat" forum page one includes this post by Steven, the founder of WWPD:

Help me WWPD Forum: Let's Compile "broken" rules. link

So here we have the guy that started it all at WWPD not only acknowledging there are some less than perfect rules in FoW, but here he is asking help from the WWPD community to help compile a list of them. Is that the action of a BF brownnoser, as a few here on this thread are to claim that the WWPD staff is? Anybody who wants to belittle the WWPD staff by calling them brownnosers and not give them any credit for objectivity really is not doing their homework. There are clear signs to the contrary of these opinions for anybody who bothers to really look for themselves.

I would implore any who have bothered to read this thread thus far to not take my word or the word of the naysayers here, but rather to check it out for themselves. I'm confident that your assessment would be much the same as mine in the in end assuming you're not simply pre-disposed to wanting WWPD to be as negative as some here seem to.

If and when I do reviews, I wouldnt post them to a forum I (and others, including some of their own forum members) perceived to have product bias. I would look for a hype free zone.

Total cop out! You perceive that there is a problem on WWPD because of a lack of non-BF 15mm WW2 Infantry reviews there. They clearly accept and post many reviews from outside the WWDP staff, but yet you elect not submit any. Here you have a chance to take positive action and do something about what you perceive to be an imbalance of objectivity at WWPD, but "No!" You'd rather sit on the sidelines and just b1tch about it. Weak.

"Not in my area. Plenty of non-BF stuff in my and my friends' collections and plenty of non-BF stuff in the collections of the WWPD staff."

Why didnt you write a review of your non battlefront infantry?

Perhaps I've just not got around to it yet, but then I'm not the one sitting back and complaining about a lack of non-BF infantry reviews when I have an opportunity to take positive action on it.

So let me ask you this. Suppose I or somebody else does write a positive review on a non-BF infantry option for WWPD that gets posted? What impact will that have on your perception of the objectivity there?

"Perhaps I've just not got around to it yet,"

or like me , you have never written a review of wargaming stuff…

but wait…isnt that the same total cop out? Any review I might do, i would offer to nordalia.

"So let me ask you this. Suppose I or somebody else does write a positive review on a non-BF infantry option for WWPD that gets posted? What impact will that have on your perception of the objectivity there?"

I wouldn't expect a 'positive' review..I would expect a balanced one with negatives, positives and comparatives.

Impact? Well, I would wonder why they didnt see this themselves

"Perhaps I've just not got around to it yet,"

or like me , you have never written a review of wargaming stuff…
but wait…isnt that the same total cop out?

Nope. Not the same. You have identified something that is an issue for you about WWPD and you choose not to do anything about it other than gripe whilst the door remains open for you to add your input. If you think there is something of worth to share with the WWPD community about these other non-BF infantry options, then by all means share it there.

"So let me ask you this. Suppose I or somebody else does write a positive review on a non-BF infantry option for WWPD that gets posted?

I wouldn't expect a 'positive' review..I would expect a balanced one with negatives, positives and comparatives.

By "positive" I'm referring to an overall positive review which would include a healthy mix of pros/cons. And do recall this would specifically be for a FoW/BF competitor product that get's an overall positive review on WWPD.

What impact will that have on your perception of the objectivity there?"

Impact? Well, I would wonder why they didnt see this themselves

That response does not address the question: "What impact will that have on your perception of the objectivity there i.e. at WWPD?" Wonder all you want about whatever you want, but clearly state if your assessment of the objectivity at WWPD would stay the same, improve, or drop.

"You have identified something that is an issue for you "

…and whether you like it or not, others like Elmo and members on the wwpd forum. …Dont see you hassling them to write reviews though.

"What impact will that have on your perception of the objectivity there i.e. at WWPD?"

My perception of the breadth of their reviews would improve.

objectivity? ….difficult to say having NOT READ any yet.

However , Hypothetically speaking, It could improve.

Even though I have bought a lot of stuff from Battlefront over the years I don't play FoW so I generally avoid getting sucked into the "is BF evil" debate – but I strongly object to the WWPD bashing turn this thread has taken.

I am pretty certain few people have done half as much to build the wargaming community as the guys as WWPD. To those who think WWPD is bias – when you start producing 6-10hours of podcasting a month, host active websites for 3 games, and run a global campaign I might start to take seriously your views. Until then how about we help the WWPD guys build our community rather than try and tear them down.

"You have identified something that is an issue for you "

…and whether you like it or not, others like Elmo and members on the wwpd forum. …Dont see you hassling them to write reviews though.

I've not seen Mr. Elmo and "others" cite a specific singular item that they have a issue with at WWPD that they also have the power to take action on that very same issue to help WWPD better reflect what they what to see in it. You have identified a singular specific issue that apparently has a significant impact on how you perceive objectivity at WWPD. I'm pointing out how you can do something about it. If you feel you are being singled out, I guess that's a reasonable feeling to have, but what I'm saying applies more broadly as well. If someone does not like what they are seeing appear in a system that clearly welcomes input and diversity (so long as it remains respectful) yet they fail to take action themselves, then expect me to try educate them on how they can help make their own vision more of a reality. I apologize since you feel that this is "hassling," but what I'm trying to get across is that it's better to be a man of positive action rather than negative reaction.

"What impact will that have on your perception of the objectivity there i.e. at WWPD?"

My perception of the breadth of their reviews would improve.
objectivity? ….difficult to say having NOT READ any yet.
However , Hypothetically speaking, It could improve.

Good. That's the entirely correct attitude to have. Stay tuned. Expect your opinions on WWPD to improve.

To those who think WWPD is bias – when you start producing 6-10hours of podcasting a month, host active websites for 3 games, and run a global campaign I might start to take seriously your views.

To be fair to Mr. Elmo and kevanG there is a degree of bias at WWPD, BUT certainly not to the level of "brownnosing" as they are claiming here. The WWPD team and membership base does try to stay fair and objective, but in the end the WWPD team and members are generally fans of FoW overall, even if sometimes BF products, rules, polices, etc let them down. The point is that it's clearly not a "free-ride" for BF at WWPD. The WWPD staff and forum membership are all too happy to point out shortcomings with BF/FoW when they occur while at the same time they happily sing praises for competing manufactures and products. They've done it time and again and will continue to do so. Perhaps not enough in the end for kevanG and Mr. Elmo, who seem to be demonstrating their own sense of bias here pretty well, but independent objectivity is a conscious part of the raison d'etre behind WWPD. It's not a shadow arm of BF or the FoW Forum and it's entirely open for civil input and discussion of any viewpoint (pro/con/etc) as they relate to BF/FoW/SAGA/Bolt Action and whatever WWPD branches out into in the future.

Until then how about we help the WWPD guys build our community rather than try and tear them down.

I'd say just be more about positive action rather than negative reaction whatever game system(s) you enjoy or dislike. And when it comes to an open of venue like WWPD is, don't just b1tch/gripe about it when there is plenty of opportunity to help shape that venue towards whatever vision you think it should reflect.

That being said, I'll take you up on your challenge hauscar! Since it's more of what kevanG wants to see at WWPD, but won't submit one himself, I'll write up an review on a non-BF infantry option for FoW and send it in. I have and use figures from one of the manufactures he specified that he'd like to see a review from on so I'll do that. I'll make sure to address the positives, negatives, and comparison (at least to their BF counterpart) since kevanG laid out a clear criteria for what he'd like to see in a review.

"certainly not to the level of "brownnosing" as they are claiming here"

….review that statement please…. I have never claimed that anyone's nose is any colour and i do recall saying I thought that comment was harsh!

"certainly not to the level of "brownnosing" as they are claiming here"

….review that statement please…. I have never claimed that anyone's nose is any colour and i do recall saying I thought that comment was harsh!

Apologies. You are correct. That specific comment applied only to Mr. Elmo and not you. I'd go back and edit in a correction if the time window has not expired. I do appreciate your efforts to point out "The FIRST part of that is harsh." Good on you! But following that you seemed more than eager enough to jump on the "…they've lost all sense of objectivity" bandwagon.

And that's the central part of the discussion here; recognizing WWPD actually has a healthy degree of objectivity to it, and if one does not quite agree with that assessment then there are certainly positive actions one can take to help change the dynamics there.

Just to bring things back to topic- if you read the comments on WWPD esp by Steven he is not happy with BF's attitude towards updates, errata or their model policy and has said so publicly. If WWPD were wanting to be a part of BF they would certainly not make such opinions known.

So as gamers apart from buying other models and other rulests – which a fair proportion do – is there anyway back for BF in a PR sense?
Even if they chose to would fixing the perceived problems with books, errata and quality control win back the goodwill BF seem to have lost over the last 1-2 years?