 Editor in Chief Bill   | 19 Apr 2018 5:19 p.m. PST |
According to a recent poll, a lot of you are using Force on Force for your modern gaming. Why do you prefer this set of rules? |
| Leadjunky | 19 Apr 2018 5:30 p.m. PST |
|
 The Nigerian Lead Minister  | 19 Apr 2018 5:40 p.m. PST |
I don't. The dice mechanic turned me off. |
| robert piepenbrink | 19 Apr 2018 5:55 p.m. PST |
First, I'd have to know what it was. |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 19 Apr 2018 5:56 p.m. PST |
Bill why do you like it? I don't even own a copy. |
| Irish Marine | 19 Apr 2018 5:56 p.m. PST |
It's easy to pick up, the troop types make it easy to establish forces. The dice part for shooting and defense is logical and easy to follow, everything can usually shoot if fired upon, armor combat is quick and simple, all around good set of rules. |
| Tgunner | 19 Apr 2018 6:10 p.m. PST |
I like the flow and the tactical challenge. You actually have to use some real world tactics to maneuver your forces or else you get creamed with overwatch/reaction fires. Plus it uses small forces that don't break the bank but you still get a great, rip snorting, wargame. Can't beat that!
Easily a nice sized army for Force on Force. |
| Private Matter | 19 Apr 2018 6:30 p.m. PST |
I enjoy for a reason that was stated previously; it requires the use of real world tactics. It gives a good game that is quick to pick up. I haven't found a set of modern skirmish rules that even come close when it comes to rewarding the use of proper infantry tactics. |
| Dances with Clydesdales | 19 Apr 2018 6:56 p.m. PST |
I like the way it plays. It flows pretty well. I like the dice system. I can use very small numbers of troops. I don't need to use vehicles, but I can add them in including helicopters if needed. Troop quality matters a great deal. It has a large selection of supplements, including sci-fi (Tomorrows War). It can be run at conventions with out difficulty. I have run both Force on Force and Tomorrows War at conventions. |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 19 Apr 2018 7:05 p.m. PST |
I don't even own a copy. Errr…. I was confusing FoF with another ruleset! Yes, I own FoF, have read it, haven't played it yet, though I did play the precursor Ambush Alley at a convention once. |
| saltflats1929 | 19 Apr 2018 7:32 p.m. PST |
I like it because i own it, and don't want to think i wasted my money. |
| Colonel Bogey | 20 Apr 2018 2:45 a.m. PST |
Sadly out of print currently, it seems, though? |
| panzerCDR | 20 Apr 2018 5:01 a.m. PST |
"I like it because i own it, and don't want to think i wasted my money." – saltflats1929 Brilliant! |
| pzivh43 | 20 Apr 2018 7:20 a.m. PST |
+1 Dances with Clydesdales |
| Leadjunky | 20 Apr 2018 11:39 a.m. PST |
I have a copy. Read through it several times, but need to really just play some games to know if I like it. Seems very interesting though. |
| Joe Legan | 23 Apr 2018 2:02 p.m. PST |
I like it for the reasons everyone has said plus…
1. it plays rapidly but logically ( ie it flows)
2. it is solo friendly. The armor rules are a little too forgiving but I like that. If I only have 1 or 2 vehicles on the board I would like them to stick around for a couple of turns.
There is no scatter for artillery so I had to make a house rule. Joe |
| piketopike | 14 Jul 2018 2:35 p.m. PST |
The only problem with the rules is that it is badly laid out and a pain to find the different sections if you have to look 1 up. Someone though has produced a QRS which has the section and page number at the start of the sub sections which is very useful. |
