"Impact of GW on the WW2 Hobby?" Topic

To my knowledge, Games Workshop has never actually released a set of WW2 rules (although their Specialist Games division did do a Great War rulebook that received virtually no support and was never reprinted). Yet the company and its game design style have had a large indirect impact on the WW2 wargaming hobby. In fact, three very popular games today can trace their routes in one way or another to the GW game design studio:

Flames of War is probably the biggest example of this. Although Phil Yates never worked for GW (at least not for the studio… somehow I wouldn't be surprised if he had worked in GW retail at some point), his first foray into rules design was Warhammer Panzer Battle, a very popular (for its time) homebrew set of rules that converted the Warhammer 40k 3rd Edition system into WW2. This was rapidly followed by Phil's game Flames of War, when he decided to go big and join forces with a little New Zealand-based producer of resin tanks called Battlefront (and previously under another name, which slips my mind at the moment). In truth, Flames of War shows a lot of similarities to WPB and late 90's 40k, particularly with its system for armor penetration (at least in the early days… I haven't even glanced at a FOW rulebook since the 1st Edition). I get the sense that Phil saw he had a hit and decided to capitalize on that by making the game different enough so that GW wouldn't notice but still keeping key lessons from his game design experiences with WPB.

Then there is Blitzkrieg Commander (and its various spin offs), which was a much more direct conversion of Rick Priestley's Warmaster rules to WW2. The comparison there is so clear that it hardly needs further explanation.

Another example is the Battlegroup series of rules, written by former GW staffer Warwick Kinrade. I find these to be extremely similar to a certain era of GW rules (particularly the early 2000's), which uses d6's for everything, has similar movement and weapon ranges, cover saving throws, point value based army list construction and so on.

Are there more games that have been directly or indirectly influenced by GW? It seems strange that this part of the history of modern rulesets is rarely discussed or acknowledged.

Bolt Action? The members of the golden era of the GW studio are all over that one: Andy Chambers, Alessio, and Priestly

Ah very true, how did I forget about that?

I've felt that many of today's popular skirmish game systems have deep roots in GW "figure removal, or dice by figure systems", or rules with "hero/personality" elements injected like FOW.

Mentioned many times on the forum here where the whole language about historical gaming changed when gamers started calling their platoons an army.

FOW has used crazy tactical terms like "chickens & hen" nonsense, that I've never run across in any serious WW2 histories or tactical manuals, but then many of these rules want players just to buy in to the "world"…..and you don't need anything more then than their books, codexes, points build numbers (oh, and authorized models to engage in official tournament play that is).

Of course, when the bible changes (often enough because of the "need" for a new market- driven version to come out), the "world" has to conform. Meaning – it isn't staid history that has changed in the meantime, but the gamer's dependence on the rule system and community around it the market dictates – (very/all GW).

Also recently mentioned "Old Skool" WW2 gaming on the forum here, and realize this is more a personal desire to get back to a basic approach to wargaming, without all the bells and whistles that came into vogue these past 20 years…….another thing, have you seen the battlefield clutter that ends up as "player aids" on so many tabletops currently (maybe an unrelated beef, but hey, where's the miniatures under that pile).

Remember an author responding on the forum to a query I was asserting about his need to include a points build system in his recent rules work – he mentioned that players expected it……Houston, we have a problem. :)))

To my knowledge, Games Workshop has never actually released a set of WW2 rules

Actually, they have: in 2011, Warhammer Historical Wargames put out a a set of rules called Kampfgruppe Normandy, penned by certain Warwick Kinrade. If you search TMP forums by the name of the game, you will find a bunch of posts about it from 2011 and 2012. Apparently his later Battlegroup rules were an evolution of this rules set.

As for GW-inspired WWII rules from other manufacturers, I would like to nominate Rules of Engagement from Great Escape Games. Many of the basic rules mechanisms in this set look like they have been inspired by WH40K 2nd edition (or in some cases 3rd edition).

Actually, they have: in 2011, Warhammer Historical Wargames put out a a set of rules called Kampfgruppe Normandy, penned by certain Warwick Kinrade. If you search TMP forums by the name of the game, you will find a bunch of posts about it from 2011 and 2012. Apparently his later Battlegroup rules were an evolution of this rules set.

Color me surprised! I didn't realize this either, thanks for the information.

All good observations in the thread so far. The note about the changing language of wargaming (i.e. an "army" regardless of game scale) is interesting… I was watching reviews of Warwick's Battlegroup and I noticed several of the reviewers referred to the various WW2 theaters covered by the supplements as the "settings" of the game. A setting is of course a term borrowed from the fiction genre of literature… it sounded very awkward to my ear to describe WW2 history as "settings" but since so many different reviewers used the phrase, I must be in the minority these days (an increasingly frequent experience in my life as I get older).

I of course don't mean this thread to disparage any game, but just to acknowledge that one British company has had a pretty large if indirect influence on the hobby. I find much to think about when comparing British wargaming rules in general to American ones… the American rules borrow here and there (and vice versa), but all in all there is a distinct heritage of American rules (via Avalon Hill to Guidon Games, GDW and so on) that are underpinned by different assumptions, different mechanics and different styles of play. I find myself appreciating them more and more as I get on, but it's notable that American "branch" of game design has kind of withered over the years as rulesets from overseas take root. I cannot think of many popular games that is clearly derived from the American-style wargames of the 80's and 90's (except, notably, in the hex and counter world where American game designs are still very much the norm).

There's a line from the Introduction page of the WRG Armoured & Infantry 1925-1950 rules that has always stuck with me, even to this day [my ancient copy the 1975 version] -

"We presume throughout that a player will have a general knowledge of the weapons he elects to use, and so include performance details only."

Of course, this presumption was more of a direct challenge to any player to do historical research, than a flippant assumption being made by the author.

You would expect GW's influence to be huge: after all, probably more miniature wargamers 40 and under started with WH or WH40K than with everything else put together. But it's also true that GW hasn't added a lot to the pool of ideas created by Featherstone, Young and Grant. The GW contribution--apart from vocabulary--seems to relatively small "theme" armies, heroic specialists and exotic terrain. It's a good fit with WWII skirmish, and with Bolt Action in particular.

But I think the Flames of War people have adopted the GW business model more than the GW rules.

But I think the Flames of War people have adopted the GW business model more than the GW rules.

I tend to agree, although i have to admit Bolt Action does feel more like a squad scale (1 element = 1 squad or tank) than a platoon scale set of rules so perhaps there is a game mechanic link somewhere.

Color me surprised! I didn't realize this either, thanks for the information.

Kampfgruppe Normandy is perhaps one of the less well-known products from Warhammer Historical Wargames, having been released quite late in their life cycle, before GW closed off that branch.

Speaking of Warmaster, the original fantasy version tended to have rather limited impact (getting assigned to the specialist games six months after release perhaps did not help), but it seems to have had relatively significant influence on the historical side. First there was the Warmaster Historical version from GW itself, which did moderately well for a historical game, and then there are the other later games that have been inspired by the concept, such as Blitzkrieg Commander. And if I am not mistaken, it has also inspired SF version.

seems to have had relatively significant influence on the historical side

The whole Black Powder system is an evolution of the Warmaster system. I actually like Warmaster better where you roll, move, repeat over declaring what you want to do and then rolling to see how much gets done.

A further question might be what rules influenced GW. I heard a story that their game designers were each given a copy of Featherstone's wargames book. I'm forever thinking we're reinventing the wheel with wargame rules. Or is it trying to design a better mouse trap?

I was told that Blitzkrieg Commander was influenced by Featherstone. As Blitzkrieg Commander was based on Rick Priestly's rules perhaps that influence came from that source. Most rules are based on something that came before it, standing on the shoulders of giants and all that stuff.

FOW has taken the GW business model definitely. They won't publish rules for models they don't make despite it being historical. They also seem to have doubled down on the less historical more competitive style.

I recall hearing that the head of Battlefront was a higher up in GW new Zealand. I'd believe it since they're trying to be the GW of WW2