"FoW Haters" Topic

What causes people to become haters of Flames of War? Is it something in the rules, or something in their personality?

What do you mean by "haters"? Its a very emotive (and over-used) term. I know a lot of WW2 players who dislike it because they feel it is a seriously unrealistic set of rules. I wouldn't say they "hate" it though.

I mean the people who have a strong emotional negative reaction to the game.

Go over to Frothers and ask DerekH. You banned him for that.

I've always assumed it is OK to not like a set of rules because of it's tone, scale, choice of mechanism etc. … or just because it isn't as good as the alternatives.

I don't play FoW but I don't hate it and a good chunk of my WWII kit is Battlefront.

I have, of course, been called a hater on TMP (nowhere else and not on other topics): my experience is that if you don't like something, that's OK … if you attempt to explain why, however politely, you become a hater. I've ceased to be bothered to figure out why (some people just like branding people who don't like what they like as haters*)

Phil
*I also assume that the tone of the term 'hate' is less strong in American usage than it is in English usage …

For the same reason people hate GW.
It's popular, flashy and it's not the way they play it.
Haters in a hobby don't need an excuse. Go to stamp collecting, model railroads, breeding dogs etc.

if you attempt to explain why, however politely, you become a hater.

But why would you feel the need to explain, unless someone directly asks you?

FoW: not my game but I wish all adherents well. 'Nuff said.

The word 'hater' is so over-egged that it is meaningless other than a way to describe someone who doesn't agree with you.

Saying that, I don't hate Flames of War but I don't like playing it the way it is usually played. I am not a competition type gamer so three games in a day on a 4'x6' micro-board is just not my thing. I play FoW at home on occasion on a 12'x6' board (or larger) and it is a lot of fun.

The 'hate' is probably more to do with the personalities. The stories I heard from the horses mouth about Jean-Paul and his tenure at GW made interesting listening.

And of course I was personally banned by the owner of Battlefront, Peter Simonovich, because once years ago I called him Fat Pete.

link

When I think of a FoW hater, I think of the guy who can't help himself from going into a group of Flames of War gamers and telling them how much he dislikes the game and they are wrong to play it.

It is like a compulsion.

I've never seen anyone like that. If I am asked to play, I will politely decline.

I must admit I've never seen that kind of thing either.

While not my cup of anything, FOW, is a tabletop game that brings players to a table with a common like for the game. For this reason I would not hate on it as it is not to my liking. I would rather that it exist in the manner it does and draw attention to our hobby, no matter how you would classify that attention, than to not exist.

Like people that hate on episodes 1 to 3 in Star Wars for whatever reason. I am gald to have them no matter what they are when the alternative would be to not have them.

With FOW there is a younger group out there that can identify various WW2 kit from all nations. That is a great debt owed to Battlefront. Instead of dying out to the Grognards we have new blood or the old blood got an infusion.

Just my 3 Dollars 48 cents. Adjusted for inflation. Do the math.

JH

@Bravo Two Zero – well said.

I have never seen anyone insert themselves into a group of people playing FoW and tell them they are playing a crap game either.

I am just happy to see people gaming, even if they are not enjoying my particular flavoured cup of tea.

It's popular. That's all you need.

I think Winston was on the right track. Many gamers, whether they cross over to fantasy or not, know of GW's rep and all the negative aspects of how they give their customers the "business."

e.g.

Repeated additions to their codices adding more and badder bosses so that last year's army is no longer even marginally competitive, forcing more and more purchases.

The "Our" shop/tournament so "our" figs only rule. FOW tried that one once and got their posteriors handed to them.

Dumping lines after they've sucked the life out of them, leaving their customers unable to complete collections.

Pricing for figs, even plastics, that make buying from Foundry look like a trip to Walmart.

I think any company that tries to market figs and proprietary rules at the same time risks getting slathered with the same brush as GW, especially if they exhibit a similar degree of success. ( Watch out Gripping! You may be next.). Also FOW's pulling the French part of their line early on was a very GWish move.

I haven't played FOW, though I have looked through the rules. I have no strong opinion either way. I have bought some of their stuff, though my last visit to their booth at a con was occasioned by a serious bit of sticker shock, so may well be my last.

I don't know how much people hate FOW. Some may. But I suspect a lot of people are just leery that what walks like GW, and squawks like GW, and swims like GW is going to end up being like GW.

if you attempt to explain why, however politely, you become a hater.

But why would you feel the need to explain, unless someone directly asks you?

Exactly … I haven't unless asked … and on this thread, The Editor has asked … but I won't explain as I don't hate …

Phil

Hate is putting things a bit high. I'm mildly exasperated by the tank bale-out rules, occasional warped castings on resins, and the way things are announced that don't always functionally become available. *ALL* will be forgiven if the Vietnam War Brown Water Navy models eventually make it to somewhere I can buy them, however.

I used to play FoW and have a huge 15mm collection; however the constantly changing rules finally put me off of them. Now it's like learning a whole new rule set. Simply not worth the investment in time.

Loved the game when it was new. We also played scenarios and not tournaments.

I dislike

Rules churn
hub to hub tank battles
competition gaming

I define a FOW Hater as someone who posts on the FOW board what a crap game it is. Seen it happen several times on my 10 or so years on TMP (as both Sparker and my current c/s). So it does happen, fortunately not often. And no, I'm not going to spend valuable painting time trawling through 10 years worth of FOW board posts to prove it, either accept my word for it or don't!

More subjectively, I suspect many of these haters have never played the game, possibly never even read the rules, but are just jealous of the games commercial success, whilst nobody take more than a polite, passing interest in the rules they wrote, (or couda/wouda/shuda written) which of course are so much more historically correct – albeit completely unplayable. Just my opinion…

I like to think my dislike of Rapid Fire is more balanced, and more representative of the average TMPer. Whilst in rules discussions I freely mention I find its infantry casualty tables to be seriously out of wack, and have even referred to it as 'vapid fire', I don't actively seek out RF players to tell them so. And at least I've read the rules and played many (fun) games with them!

"Haters" is a childish internet term, best left for children.

Sorry Bill, your question is badly worded. Why does not liking FoW become a personality issue? Silly.

Tried it. Didn't like it. Found other WW2 games I liked better. Simples.

PS.70% of my WW2 models are Battlefront. Bought mostly 2nd hand from people getting out of FoW.

@ navy 417

Hey, Sparker! Good to see you back. You'll make appearances on the Nap boards I hope?

I met a FOW hater at a con once. He made it a point to say he would NEVER play in a game that did not have opfire and implied those who did had mental deficiencies…

I found the rules overly fiddly for a "simple" game and I have no desire to play a points based game. I have no problem with those who do.

Cold War Commander on the other hand…

I have seen people dumping on FoW because the rules are "unrealistic", because the game is wall to wall tanks, because it is overly tournament focused, because the rules are colour glossy, because they got up on the wrong side of bed…

I have yet to play FoW, but do own the rules. They are not the simplest rules I have read, but they are not the most convoluted either.

To me the emphasis seems to be on "game" and "fun" not on strict realistic, detailed simulation of WW2. If that is not what you are looking for in a set of rules, FoW may not be the best choice for you. But that is no reason to dump on people for playing and liking FoW.

Mind you, GW have their haters too, and so do DBx, and many other rules. Haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate…

Hate is a little OTT I would suggest.

I don't like FoW, but that was the rules, but I like WW2. The FoW range is extensive.

I don't like Warhammer/ Fantasy et al., but again there are some lovely figures.

People don't like some of the rule sets I like.

We all have ideas of what a rule set, game design or similar concept should give us when we play it. We all have our ideas of outcomes we expect, historical tactics we want to see represented and so on. Some of us like minutiae in rules; others consider more than 2 pages as too in depth to use.

The up shot is, all the different rules/figures get people involved in our hobby, and keep it going.

Good question Ed.

I think there are definitely haters of FoW and these people seem to feel the need to repeatedly dive into threads and complain about a game they may have never played.

Why? I actually have no firm idea.

Possible causes could be:
The corporate approach of Battlefront
The style of the game with rules in suplements
The supposed FoW only problem of hub to hub tanks
FoW being the biggest WWII game in town
FoW being a game that has lots of tournament play

Of the above the last 2 were also very true of DBM. Was DBM similarly hated? I have a feeling that it may have been.

The first two apply very much to GW too and there are definitely GW haters.

The bit about hub to hub tanks seems unique to FoW.

When you add this lot tobether then I suspect you have a lot of people who feel the need to tell prospective FoW players the wrongnes of their ways.

Interestingly having spent yesterday playing a large tournament in a public space with many members of the general public wandering around none of the above issues were raised and quite a few of the passers by expressed an interest in finding out more.

FOW/GW are a couple of companies whilst being famous and profitable ( good luck to them on that )…..it's the constant upgrading and rereleasing of items only a couple of years old that irks a lot of people.
And I suppose advertising it as "The WW2 Game" as if they invented wargames, 15mm figures and even WW2 itself :-) can turn people off too, I played it a couple of times and had to stop myself falling asleep ( same with FoG)……how much money would I need to spend to get all their items needed for a game?….or I can just drag out my original copy of Crossfire, complete with all army lists and play a quick fun game?

Different horses….if you like FOW, that's great, enjoy yourself and have fun, that's what it's all about.

And of course there's the FOW fans that think that Battlefront are gods and must be obeyed and must try to convert (or wear our resolve down) to the "One true WW2 15mm wargame"! :-)

Hate is still another form of care…
Otherwise, beeing of the historically minded gamer sub- species, I find a game of Fow only marginaly looking what Ww2 was like. Should have asked the vets I shaked hands with yesterday maybe?

link

My FoW experience involved moving inches and suffering slaughter at a railroad imbankment for hours. Then again, my tournament experience evoked shocking accusation of cheating from an opponent.I rose, pivoted, then walked away from my first and only tournament experience. FoW makes my eyes glaze over, and I feel nothing.

On poll, I asked for WWII alternatives?

The obsolescence of previous books is definitely the first step in creating "haters." This is supposed to be a hobby where you collect, model & enjoy your games for a lifetime. The GW tactic of codex creep & failing to support part of the hobby cheapens it, so that it becomes nothing more than a "game." This is best exemplified by the droves of "power gamers" who would show up with their legions of gray plastic & never even bothered to paint. It's a slap in the face when a hobby you spend so much time & effort on (painting, modeling, scenery, etc.) gets highjacked by rules lawyers with legions of gray plastic.

Although I think it is a necessary evil to expose the product, drive sales & generate interests in the stores, I think tournaments go a long way to stirring negative emotions as well. They bring out the worst in people & promote rules lawyering. Rather than using a rule set that you can be flexible with & adjust for reasonableness, you get caught in the trappings of the rules themselves, which would also generate hostility.

My brother tried to get me into it when it first came out. I was put off by the silliness of bailing tank crews & infantry digging in on a whim. At the time, I took those terms literally. After playing Spearhead for many years my close friends & I broke into FOW for historical battles last year & we have found the rules thorough and fun to play. My brother has since been brought into the fold, but after so many years of competitive tournament playing he has trouble adapting. He still struggles with armies that don't exactly match the Org charts in the books & House rules we have implemented (such as Oportunity Fire & Friendky Fire from air strikes). It's like trying to reform a crack addict. Never the less, we seem to be making progress.

A little off-topic, but decades ago, I did have an experience like the one Bill says can happen.

A small ACW gaming event was held in Austin, Texas, on a non-competitive basis. I joined some friends in playing a couple games of "Rally Round the Flag", the old ACW rules from the 70s.

Another very opinionated friend showed up to watch the games and offer criticism. This friend had made it pretty clear in the past that he didn't like RRTF. So as another friend and I played a game of RRTF, Opinionated Guy let us know what he thought of our poor choice of rules, then eventually left. He didn't ruin our game, but we didn't appreciate his intrusiveness.

A little odd that they have their own little world that seems separate from the rest of us. On the other hand, it's pulling more people into this great hobby, especially younger folks. Once they realize there is a lot more to table top wargamining, they'll branch out.

I also think other miniature manufacturers could lean a lot from the way FoW markets its product.

I find it odd to hate on FoW for coming out with new editions. How many has Command Decision had? I saw no hate or outrage there.
How about Empire?

Hating a game because it has no overwatch? Really?

Hub to hub tanks is exclusively Flamrs of War ? Really?
You can honestly say that happens in no other game? Now you are not being honest and have no credibility.

"How many has Command Decision had?"

Four, in 35 years.

Somewhat fewer than DBA.

If disliking a set of rules makes you a 'hater', then it, I'm in, there is a really, really long list of rules I 'hate' including many I wrote myself.

What an utterly pointless discussion.

My guess? Frustration. They are frustrated that their favourite set of rules is not as popular as FoW is.

I do not play FoW (just not my cup of tea) but I can't express how grateful I am to Battlefront for opening historical gaming to a generation of gamers. Some of my friends started to get interested in historicals thanks to FoW. Now, I am able to game with them other periods that wouldn't have come to their attention if FoW wouldn't have existed.

I like Dogs.
I do not like cats.

Someone just recently wanted to know what I am playing, what are these games. I had to say there are so many different types of games, sizes, periods and ways to do it. Fow is one, it does not suit many, does many others and so what? No one has to play it, no one has to do championships, nor use whichever version of the rules etc.
Freedom.

If you liked 1st or 2nd edition , what's stopping you from playing them instead of third?
Battlefront gave me a free swap for 3rd when it came out.

Legitimate Gripes: It's game-ey, it's a bit abstract, it's big on tournament play and attracts a lot of gamesmanship you wouldn't find in a more historically accurate set of rules, it attracts treadheads who are more interested in loads of tanks, it attracts a lot of gamers who don't care about the real history of WW2 and it's a money pit.

Reasons Why It's Good: It produces a good game, it's popular and can be played anywhere around the world, it liberates new players from having to flail around trying to find miniatures, painting guides and TO&E guides, it's more historically accurate than its critics say, you don't have to use the points system or the lists, it's easy to understand, the wall-to-wall tanks criticism has been proven to be bogus time and time again (all WW2 games are guilty of this), it's straightforward, it's free from a lot of bias that bedevil a lot of other WW2 rules and it's fun.

I've lost track of the amount of times I've read on TMP "I've never played FoW, but from what I've seen, I don't like it at all". Then, sirs, you cannot form a proper judgement about it.

If you liked 1st or 2nd edition , what's stopping you from playing them instead of third?

You lose the ability to play pickup games in your local club or store.

Love, Like, indifferent to, dislike, find useless (closest to hate) – whether rules, games mechanics, marketing schemes, tournament play – why get involved in imputing value judgment on other people's opinions?

Bill's very question and it's phrasing is a biased question (like, "Yes or No, have you stopped beating your wife?") and it is disappointing he posted it.

More disappointing is people defending their opinions on the game system! It's you opinion, you don't have to answer for your judgments. It might be inappropriate to inflict them on others but that is a different scenario then just having an opinion.

I find an aeroplane or artillery piece or two instantly solves the problem of hub to hub tanks (plus I base my tanks so i'm not tempted to do it myself!)

Never seen that kind of behavior. As is turns out FOW was somewhat of a fad. At least where I live. Kinda like LaSalle was a fad. FOW is design to play using points for tournament play. That was a deal killer for me. Bolt-Action is now the WWII rules du jour.

And Bolt Action is not a points driven tournament focused game system?

Giving fow an honest chance, it's really not a bad system. I don't play points nor tournaments. I guess if you cut that out and saw it for what it is. A rule system. You might like it. Of coarse some have their favorite and don't want to try it. But that's loyalty. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

And Bolt Action is not a points driven tournament focused game system?

I have no idea. I have only played it once. Never read the rules. I didn't say I played it. It is the WWII rules of choice where I live. The one time I played, it was a historical scenario and we didn't use points. I am more of a horse and musket person.

And Bolt Action is not a points driven tournament focused game system?

I have no idea. I have only played it once. Never read the rules. I didn't say I played it. It is the WWII rules of choice where I live. The one time I played, it was a historical scenario and we didn't use points.

Fair enough.

You just the need to know that at its core Bolt Action has about the same points/based, list building, tournament focus as FoW. You don't want to seem to be implying that Bolt Action might be better alternative to FoW due to the absence of this aspect, which clearly is there. At least now you have an idea.

Ironically, in my area the Bolt Action players are much more focused on points matches and tournament play, while the FoW players are very scenario and campaign focused. This just goes to show what many have noted here already; it's not so much what you think that a game was designed to do that matters, it's what you actually do with it that matters.

VB

There is nothing wrong with disliking a game. However, when you have a person who dislikes a game and deliberately seeks out threads about it… only to post how much they dislike it and disrupt the threads, you have a hater.