"Will the new edition kill FOW" Topic

First I want to say two things 1) I do not want this to turn into a flame Battlefront post and two I have been a supporter and player of FOW since the first edition and have thousands of dollars and tons of hours into the game. As I have played each new edition I have appreciated the rational and the needs for some of the changes in past editions. Now with the latest edition I just through my hands in the air. No matter how I try to justify the changes I think most stink. To me they have not made a better game and after talking to the four other regular FOW players I play with they agree. All of us are real dissatisfied with what Battle Front has done. Can i get and honest feeling from long time players to see how they feel?

It seems clear to me the new edition aims to do three things:

1) Reduce the apparent length of the rules.
2) Reduce playing time to make tournaments playable in 1-2 days with multiple rounds
3) Make tank-only armies more viable for those who want to get the painting done as quickly as possible.

Since I only play scenarios with my friends, and I tweak the hell out of the rules in the first place, it won't affect me, I'll be sticking with 3rd edition.

BattleFront has a very good track record of knowing what their customers like. They are, by a wide margin, the largest and most successful historical miniatures company ever. I wouldn't bet against them.

I wouldn't bet against them either. I will have no part of this new craziness though. Call me old fashioned but a wargame to me can and should be playable with a…rulebook.
I am also not a competition gamer though, so don't need to "get with the program" if I want to continue to game.

I don't play tournaments. I play campaigns and scenarios.
I look at what Battlefront has done to make 4.0. I look at what they have bragged about, putting best foot forward and am not enthusiastic about it.

As said above, it emphasizes tank on tank action. Yet, the main killers of tanks were not tanks. From what my friends are saying, the main tank killers have been neutered.
Then, all historicity has been thrown under the bus. No Shermans at Alamein? But they get 17pdrs?

I like the intense restrictions on period availability in the 3.0 books. I have bought many dollars worth of books. Now it looks like these have all been tossed in favor of hot tank on tank action.

I am reminded of way back when, when I first got into Warhammer Fantasy, and bought a ton of Forest Goblins. Puny stats, but a lot of fun to paint. Then GW changed editions and Forest Goblins were gone.
Flames of War will now be generic Germans vs generic British. As I said in another thread, it will be like a WRG Seleucid list spanning 250 years.

3) Make tank-only armies more viable for those who want to get the painting done as quickly as possible.

That's an interesting perspective, given how much wailing from veteran FoW players I've read on other forums about how much V4 is doing to screw tank armies due to the increased durability of ATGs and heavy cannon armed aircraft changes in the rules. I've also seen a lot of wailing from "Infantry Players" on how they are screwed by the changes to artillery.

From what I can tell the game is moving more to a combined arms approach. Tanks have a harder time getting past infantry backed up by ATGs, infantry and ATGs are now more vulnerable to artillery bombardments, artillery is vulnerable to tanks. Some will decry that as simple "Rock, scissors, paper" but that really is the essence of combined arms.

I won't say that BF has "got it right" in V4 or that it will be as successful as previous versions, but I'm pretty sure the new edition is not about driving players to play tank-only armies. The rules seem to make overreliance on one arm risky.

I played at least one V3 game a few weeks ago. Not bad. My Finns got clipped,but I got in a few good licks against my German opponent.

So far I am hearing about what I expected the more seasoned historic, non tournament players are sticking to version 3. I think a big part of it is still lack of historic accuracy and the few options that are now available. I built huge armies with every option that I had the chance to use. Now they will just sit on the shelf. That has to have some effect on long time players. You infested financial resources and time buildings those armies do you not feel a little betrayed by a company you once stood up for. Thanks for the comments so far please I would like all sides so please continue.

You really can't blame Battlefront for giving the gaming public what they want since after all they are a business and need to run a profitable operation. Look around gaming stores across the planet and see what's being played, i.e.; lots of skirmish games, Star Wars Armada, tons of Euro type war-games(light games), etc. If they think gamers want to be able to walk into a store who know little about WW2, drop $75 USD on a boxed set, paint it up quickly, then play a 90 minute game and feel happy about it, then that's what they're going to sell. Very similar to the GW model, so if gamers walk away they simply move on to a new generation or try to attract others to their products.

No

Don't know if this will sound the death knell for FOW, but V4 seems to be based on TY which has been a big success for BF.

All rule revisions shed players, and sometimes a lot of players, but it looks to me as though once they build up a sufficient base of players, they're unkillable. At worst, people just ignore an edition they don't like, and come back later.

I'd say 4th edition has revived enthusiasm about the game. We've only done one or two games but reviewing the rules and talking about it everyone seems favorably disposed. By and large we are a "pick-up game" group though I play tournaments. We'll see where it goes, but we're optimistic for now.

I bought a company worth of DAK infantry a few weeks ago and now find out that all of my command stands are no longer necessary. Thanks a lot.

Don't fret….they'll probably be back for 5th Edition.

You still need most of your command stands.

The infantry small base command teams are still used as Formation Commanders and special heroes. In Early War and Late War, unit (platoon) leaders still use the small base command teams. In Mid War unit (platoon) leaders will come packed with medium base for the command team, but you can still opt to use a small base as a means to distinguish them.

What's "officially" gone are the artillery/gun small based command teams (and staff teams). One of the gun teams itself is now the command gun team and you mark it somehow to distinguish it from the non-command guns.

I plan to mark mine by placing the old small base command team adjacent to the command gun base as a "marker." So I'll still have my old small base artillery/gun command teams the table, even if they are not actually a game piece and are now just an elaborate maker to denote command.

It does sound like a never ending circle of dog- chasing-tail. As to rock, paper,scissors with artillery being vulnerable to tanks that made me smile. Tanks are really dangerous to artillery that should be many kilometres behind the front lines then? It is the crazy and bizarre ranges of weapons- particularly artillery that makes me ignore FOW altogether regardless of edition. They are going to have to make it look credible to get my interest.

I'm happy with what I see so far. I didn't care for Third Edition so I stayed away. I love Team Yankee so I got excited when I heard that Fourth Edition was going to use many of the changes TY brought in. I have my books and have been studying them and yeah, I like what I see. I'll actually play this version of the game.

Don't fret….they'll probably be back for 5th Edition.

So exactly how many games out there that are decades old (If FOW was a kid he would be asking about the keys to the car!) are still in their original form? Squad Leader? Nope… it's ASL Second Edition. Fist Full of TOWs? Nope, third edition now. Star Grunt? Nope, it went second edition before I had ever even heard of it. Command Decision? …

The list goes on.

In Mid War unit (platoon) leaders will come packed with medium base for the command team, but you can still opt to use a small base as a means to distinguish them.

They should still use small bases.

To answer the question, I do not think v4 will kill Flames of War. I think it has a chance to make it even more popular.

For me, personally, I was drawn to the v3 rules and find nothing I want in the v4 rules so will just stick to what I have. Since I did it in 1/72 scale anyway, Battlefront has lost me completely as a customer but I guarantee my small pittance in book buying is very much off-set by those who like the v4 rules and are now buying whole forces.

The one that comes with a stake and garlic.

Interesting, we are getting some mixed opinions. It still seems like there are not really any long time FOW gamers that have many good things to say about 4th edition. If I was just starting out gaming I might find it very interesting and give it a shot. I know that GW has all but completely redone their fantasy game and allot of people left but it drew in others. I just can not see where Battlefront is going to gain more then they loose on this one. I also know I am not the expert and I will continue to play third edition so they have not completely lost me. Maybe that is their plan overall keep the old Grognards(sp) playing third and give the young pups a knew improved simplified game to play..

Interesting, we are getting some mixed opinions. It still seems like there are not really any long time FOW gamers that have many good things to say about 4th edition.

I agree that there are some mixed opinions, but they are not necessarily along the lines of new/old players. There are "veteran" FoW players who are fine with V4. I'm one and most my core group is OK with them. Though there are always aspects here and there we won't like, there are some very positive changes as well in V4.

I think most dissatisfaction we see from coming veteran players centers on tournament balance, "meta" and all that jazz. Not so much an issue there for more historical scenario players.

I think many folks missed the comments Phil made shortly after V3 was released. He hinted at many of the changes he had wanted to make for V3, but was talked out of them by some of the BF Staff, and the play testers of V3. The Unit Cards were one of the changes he wanted to bring forth in V3, but the numerous delays in getting that version to market killed off the hope of that idea. Once V3 was finally released he stated all the changes he had in mind, and many others would be in the forth coming V4, which he was already working on by the time V3 hit the shelves!

The group here seems to like v4 and abandoned v3. We're not into tournament games though, and prefer scenarios.

Wow my group is just the opposite. we do very little tournament play. We do almost all historic and find that is where we have the most problems with V4. The inability to represent actual boots on the ground, like we were able to in V3, is a problem for us. V4 is getting more abstract and less historic witch is are other problem. It may play great as a game but it is continuing to lose its ties to WWII.

Plan to stay with Ver3.0. I game in 1/72 and the new assault and command radius rules basically prevent tabletop play with the slightly larger bases, vehicle size in 1/72. Started with FOW in 2004, have all the printed books since then, so that places me in the veteran camp. Never played in tournaments. Generally play historical scenarios and match up.

As for killing FOW. I doubt. But the game will have two camps of gamers. Ver3.0 and Ver4.0. New players will see the veteran Ver3.0 crowd playing on their dressed up tables and with excellent painted collections, with command stands etc… then try to learn a game were the rule book is only on Ebay. Unfortunately, Ver3.0 will have no official rulings by BF or support hereon out, except for maybe Berlin compilation book. Mid War will remain the same. But "veteran players" will have no problem converting new FOW books and scenarios over to Ver3.0 rules. Tournaments will maybe have two groups… 3 and 4. But I doubt many Version 3 after 12 months which means the attendance will drop.

Another note. When they went digital a few years ago, they lost a group of veteran games too. Offering digital only lists or half a published book… that's a good way to offend a section or group of players who refuse to go digital. Most haven't changed over to any form of digital lists or briefing within my group and region. With V4… digital will become the way of new briefings and scenarios. With cards…. the writing is on the wall. Priced to rent too….

With these things for every person who hates the new version there will be someone who loves the new version.

Taking GW as an example I loved Warhammer fantasy battle in several of its old guises the Age of Sigmar setting lost me completely but plenty of others on here swear its the best thing GW ever did.

The good thing is unless you are a fanatical competition player you can use what ever version of the rules you like with no major issue.

Well, I've been playing flames of war since 2005, and I think that makes me a long time supporter. I have more armies painted up than any rational person should. My group we're play testers for third edition when that came out, and played the heck out of the game. I'd say we were balanced between tournament gamers and just playing in our basement. Over the last few years though, our intensity and interests started to drift, and I think that is normal. We were al ready for something new, something to shake the meta, and rekindle our excitement. A couple of us dove into team Yankee last year and have really enjoyed it.

Overall, we are looking forward to version four, and like most of the changes. I think we also appreciate that Battlefront is a business and needs to be financially successful.

One more thing… I've been just starting to kick fourth edition around with my nine year old son, and he loves it. I think that is a good sign for the future of fourth.

VonBurge beat me to it.

Version 5 is probably being prepped as I type this, if it isn't already complete.

V4 is reviving local interest here. I've only played a handful of 1st and 2nd ed games, maybe 10 of 3rd and am totally liking both Team Yankee and 4th edition FoW.

There are some silly things in every edition of the game, but so far the V4 games at local gaming club days and one small con were all well attended.

I really like the tactical and dash movement breakdown. And the movement orders. The unit cards are an excellent presentation of the needed rules.

I don't really like everyone forcing the artillery save rerolls, nor do I like the smoke being once a game thing.

And of course, I don't like the overall IGO UGO turn structure, but I don't play large enough games for it to really bug me.

I also don't play matched play games with two equal points value armies. It's always scenarios.

Flames of War is a WW2 action movie game and 4th edition might actually be even better at meeting that goal than any previous edition.

80% will move on, 20% will quit and another 20% will pick it up again …

I'll give it a chance,though.

It won't die, its a transition that happens every 5 years. They're fine. In fact if they DIDN'T do this every 5 years t revitalize it, I'd bet money they'd be more in trouble.

I kind of felt that V3 was WAY too complicated. V4 is perhaps a step in the right direction, IMO. BUT…I haven't actually played V4 yet either.

Some of the changes to V4 are really nice, like the unit cards and pre-registered arty targets.

But I'm not sure about some of the rules tweaks, need to get a game or three in first.

And I'm still trying to get my guys to play with off-table arty and counterbattery fire (at the costs for naval gunfire support and air and naval support in the Gung Ho book).

Off tables and counter battery fire would be an excellent addition to most games of FoW. It changes surprisingly little. Instead of on table artillery being really vulnerable to fast moving attackers, they become vulnerable to other artillery and you just measure from a point on the table edge for the ranges or declare the entire table in range of all off table arty.

BF managed to kill my interest in getting back into FoW with the extremely limited mid-war release and their apparent return to GW-style "race" specific books instead of campaign books. They also seem to be hinting that there will be period/front specific rules books instead of a master rules book. All in all it's very Old Games Workshop style and I rapidly lost interest despite having been obsessing about the new releases for weeks.

Ironically enough I ended up getting into GWs new line of boxed games as New GW actually seems like a decent company again.

Been two weeks since the FOW grand release weekend and I still haven't seen any Ver4.0 played or gone to collect my free books. Just not worth the gas I think.

Reading the FOW official forum…. there is lots of "mistakes and buggy rules" been written about.

Flamethrowers now are nerf'd and seem best with "defensive fire". Yes defensive fire with FT.
Airplane all over the place with changed capabilities.
Artillery nerf'd for the larger cannon…. properly a good thing. Always should have a save roll I think too.
NGFS is what now??
Infantry racing past slow tanks.
Play capture the tank rules, surround and you get a fresh tiger since it cannot retire out of range or through any vehicle (from failed morale test). American h/t box in the tiger and prevent retreat….. how gamey can that get. Interesting long thread on FOW forum about that.
Rolls and rolls for movement.
Flame tanks like Croc cannot hit infantry with to hit roll, terrain cover and gtg rules applied….. then infantry gets a save 3+ to boot.
Limit period books…. changes to movement rates and ROF in some cases.
Gun platoons now have no "character" to them….. no staff, no cmd team, now nice "based extras" to make the scene unless you use on tabletop as fluffy scenery.

Reading the FOW forum…. the veteran players are ripping apart the books and finding questionable situations…. so much for making the new game simple and complete.

And we all know once mid war is done they will rewrite all the EW and LW into their own period rule books…. sounding and now looking like GW.

The free books are great and I have always thanked BF for that effort in the previous version changeovers…. but they always seem to miss things out giving need to buy the actual new version MRB, which every time I have (all three on the bookshelf).

In time this will be all ironed out….. I hope. Still in the Version 3.0 camp.

P.S. I do like the unit cards concept…. I have my own version of "platoon cards" created years ago.

1. I enjoyed Versions 1, 2 and 3.

2. I play mostly infantry based scenario games on terrain heavy boards (eg, Stalingrad, Normandy bocage) so it is never worth anyone's time taking more than a platoon of AFV's.

3. I've only just started reading V4, but am interested in the changes to artillery as in theory, they accord with the infantry memoirs I've read from WW2.

In the end though, I'll either switch to V4, or continue to play V3. Really not all that worried about it, so simply can't see the V4 being the death of FoW.

My group likes most of the new changes on paper. However, we still need to run a few games. So, the jury is still out.

Actually, now that I look at the online store for FoW, I am a little concerned that there are lots of tanks and guns up for pre-order, but both the 8th Army and Afrika Korps only have infantry platoons (not companies) shown.

Possibly because many people will be expected to have armies already I guess, but as someone who plays almost exclusively infantry games with minimal armor (I like the mid war but am more focussed on Sicily / Italy and Stalingrad than the desert) this does make me wonder if there is a push to armor heavy armies.

In which case I'd be sticking with V3.

I think that might be conflating how they are rolling out new kits with something to do with the rules or nature of the game. The Desert Rats book has a infantry company as a central formation to choose. They just didn't open up selling a full company box set and instead opted to make a box of 3 crusaders, 5 grants and some guns be their starting army. Tanks are cool, after all.

The reason to stick with V3 in your case is definitely that you're interested in mid war but not Africa, so Battlefront has nothing for you in terms of rules, those nice new cards or even new kits. I saw an interview with Phil and it's pretty much all desert for at least the next year with Americans and Italians following the completion of the British and German desert releases.

So everyone who does mid war anywhere else doesn't have a conversion book nor can they buy the rules for their armies. They're left figuring it out on their own based on how the conversion of early and late war stuff is done and deciding what to do about any special rules based on how the special rules document handles things for other theatres and years.

Thanks Nathaniel. I am used to FoW selling plastic infantry in either company or battalion (Soviets) strength. The only plastic infantry platoons I could think of were for armored infantry and included the half tracks, so I was sort of startled to see plastic infantry on offer as platoons on their own.

This sunday , we have event for launch of 4th ed. Half of players was new to game, we played for 55pnt just starters with little additions. Veterans prepared tables,and was kind with rules, all went easy and without problems.
New FoW is very good starting point for hobby, starter + one book,you can slowly build up your forces with monthly releases.
Personally I prefer Battlegroup for my company+ WWII gaming but I'm very happy to see many new players starting with FoW 4th.

I think they are selling platoons individually so people can just buy them and use the included card for attaching them as support. The morale rule changes and how formations are made basically mean the self contained box set with rules approach will work well for selling them. V4 definitely seems more casual focused.

I know I haven't really looked at the formation in the book much and am just taking troops that make up squadrons in a real world armoured brigade and not worrying about the army building rules.

our group in EL Paso TX. is going to v 4.

But the member that has 3 dining tables of troops and been doing it sine 2005 feels betrayed.

I have game it for a year manly American Inf. I could apply tatics and get good results.

Heavy arty hard to buy and most games not that useful.
When it gets used it can change to game.

A 155 battery will have a 43% chance to effect tanks under fire. heavy tanks 32%, Getting more than one at a time do to command dispersion is the trick.
they have reduced it in V4 to half that. (by the way v3 numbers are numbers used in artillery literature in general. Tanks move and you always know when you are observation. 105 v3 are half that number so are useless in v4. So SGT Murphy facing tanks and calls in 105 the tanks just keep coming.

The cards good ideal used by many games panzer 44?

they need to wait a year and roll out more books at once as most of use feel that our investment in game is not respected.

LORDGHEE wrote: by the way v3 numbers are numbers used in artillery literature in general.

What "artillery literature" are you referring to? I'm very wary of any claim about any FoW edition matching history. I've always seen it as a WW2 action movie game rather than a WW2 game.

The last time Battlefront published a Mid War book? January, 2010 for Eastern Front and North Africa and the Mediterranean was fall 2009.

As an outsider with only a relatively recent interest in Flames of War, I can't really think of anything reasonable to justify blaming battlefront for not instantly updating something they published more than 7 (!) years ago.

feels betrayed … our investment in game is not respected.

Whether it's 40k or Flames of War or Warmachine or anything else, you can always rely on gamers to have strong feelings about edition changes.

The question is, will a portion of previous customers having such strong feelings actually matter for the game going forward? To get back to the title of the thread, will it kill the game or will new and returning players more than make up for it?

I heard in a recent interview that Battlefront believes 70% of Team Yankee sales were to completely new customers who had never bought from them before. Maybe this Team Yankee/V4 approach to the rules, presentation, army books, cards and so on simply works better as a product in terms of reaching new customers?

Many interesting comments thank you all. I really do believe that FOW will see significantly less play at least in my area. It also sounds like it is doing better in other parts of the world. I know here Team Yankee never took off so that might be why FOW V4 is not doing all that well. I wish Battle front well they have given me hundreds of hours of enjoyable gaming but I will stick with V3.

From an article on Flamesofwar.com a bit ago:

With less than three weeks to go until 4th Edition officially launches, I would like to thank all of you for giving us something we have never managed to achieve before today. Our entire first wave of stock for 4th Edition is 100% sold out.

Stores around the world have been placing orders ahead of time and in record numbers, meaning we've already sold everything we have made for the month of the launch. This amount of stock would typically last us for 60 days upon release, however, it proved to be a conservative number despite being based on projections exceeding those of Team Yankee.

And a more recent article:

We had to improvise to complete the full run due to the extra demand, and this was a much better outcome than not shipping all the orders.

The ended up having to cobble together extra dice from old stock to get all the orders filled.

I think the answer to the question of the thread is probably "No. Not at all."