"Question on Original Fire and Fury vs 2nd Ed" Topic

Recent discussion on scenario building got me thinking

Basic Fact – Love Fire and Fury System – both the original Brigade and the Later Regimental. I haven't transitioned the the 2nd edition Brigade version – simply because I like the original weapons charts for guns and artillery at the Brigade level.

For me – Regimental games give me the opportunity to delve into which artillery unit to bring forward or how much punishment can a unit inflict versus another – focusing on smaller civil war battles. More Tactical

Original Brigade version with a few house rules gives me the opportunity to focus at a more strategic level by knowing artillery or musket fire in general causes… More Strategic

Question – while I know it is a matter of preference – is there something I am missing

IMHO the changes are for the better. The graphic layout is better and the charts use the same logic.

I need to play more

I agree with Saber 6 in that the new version has several small, but very good rules improvements. The graphic presentation, especially all of the examples are very good and the addition of unit labels for the scenarios certainly helps as well.

I only recently got around to trying F&F 2nd ed. In play it didn't feel all that much changed from 1st ed., and it doesn't play any slower (like RF&F did the first bunch of games). I found the most notable changes to be some new modifiers, new terrain categories (lifted from RF&F), an increase in recognized weapon types/categories, and morale has been separated into Experience and Effectiveness ratings (also lifted straight from RF&F). I'm certain there are other changes I haven't run into yet, but overall it's pretty much the same game with some changes to add variation and detail without increasing complexity.

The increased complexity of morale ratings and new weapon categories do address some traditional complaints about how generic F&F can feel, but many traditional complaints still apply: brigades are still the smallest unit and the atom of maneuver and combat; units still bounce in and out of contact and grind down until they halt; generals still have a command radius; luck is still a major factor influencing tactics; etc.

Strictly speaking, you don't need to switch to 2nd ed., but so far I think it's a good idea, especially if (like me) you like to add house rules or scenario rules to create special conditions that made a particular battle or situation unique. The extra rules added to 2nd edition obviate quite a few house rules, and even better, they've been well-written, edited, playtested, and might even have a diagram. The new edition is definitely up to Rich Hasenauer's usual high standards of publishing.

- Ix

A side note: I'm actually disappointed that the 2nd ed. maneuver roll is still made per brigade. I was under the impression that BF&F would borrow the RF&F technique of rolling once for a general (presumably divisional generals in BF&F) and applying separate modifiers to each subordinate unit. If that was tried, I'm sure it was rejected for good reasons, but I don't have any inside knowledge about the design and playtesting process.

- Ix

You are not missing anything if you are happy with house rules to make Original F&F less generic.

For me, the new weapon categories, morale etc. make it easier to convert scenarios written for regimental-level rules (Guns at Gettysburg, JRIII) to F&F with the knowledge that I am not losing the historicity of the original scenario.

I live Fire and Fury.

I've played RFF for years now and enjoy it every time.
I'm gonna play BFF for the first time this weekend.

unfortunately I can't compare 2ed with the 1ed because I don't remember playing 1st ed. I came late to the scene to the ACW.