"Flames of War - worth getting?" Topic

Good grief, I have posted my ideas three times and I have not seen it pop up on here. Hmmmmm, conspiracy , maybe? ;)

" I'll stop now…"

Yes Allen, please do stop as it is becoming painful for me. ;)

Both sides of the debate have their valid points. Most of the folks here backed up their opinion with some kind of reasoning. I cannot take a one sentence comment without any explanation seriously. HINT: If you want to be taken seriously, explain your opinion. A one sentence comment with no reasoning does not contribute to the discussion.

Is FOW the ultimate rules set for WW2? No. Some would swear by CD, Rapid Fire, OO or Spearhead as being the rules set of choice.

Does FOW deliver a relatively quick game with a WW2 flavor? I think so. Could it be tweaked to make some cool improvements on mechanics? Sure. I enjoy playing it and I am curious about CD4 (Oh I mean CD:TOB). There can be no denying that FOW has helped WW2 miniatures gaming. Credit must be given where it is due.

Typos and other oopsies: It happens. We are all human and make mistakes (unless there is someone in TMP land who can claim perfection). However, I do not appreciate multiple typos and glaring inaccuracies that have to be fixed after I pay thirty, forty or fifty dollars (US) for a publication. That makes me feel like I have bought an inferior product.

The above post came after 6 tries and a slight reduction in the number of words.

If you want a fast fun game somewhere in feel between a good Sgt. Rock comic book and a decent coffee-table WW2 book, FoW is ideal. Indeed, in their designer notes they don't claim to be aiming for Chess, but rather Checkers.

It's a great game for introducing new blood into historical minis, a side of the hobby that I've seen suffer from chronic anemia for far too long.

It has several unconventional ways of doing things that could be off-putting to the ASL-bred crowd, but that, Big Picture, produce realistic planning. In the Real Life Army they drummed into us that you always have to keep a reserve and practice security, but none of the "realistic" highly-detailed games I tried later made this a game-winning prospect. Then along comes goofy cartoony FoW with its highly-unrealistic way of springing ambushes, and voila, suddenly I'm watching my rear when I advance into enemy territory.

I take issue with those who say it's nothing but sitting there rolling mountains of dice. Yes, you could play it that way and I'm sure some do, but you wouldn't be playing it well. Over the last year I have learned ways to coordinate my various arms (not unrealistic ways either) that will have them rolling over someone who depends on luck.

(Actually, the more dice rolls you have in a game, the less luck, as you are more likely to approach a bell curve with 1000 rolls than with 10 or 100. Then it starts coming down to plans and tactics.)

Finally, there is (so far) not nearly as much of a "gamey trick rules loopholes" culture in the game as made, say, WRG 6th or 7th such a chore at times.

Perfect? No. Fun? Very.

BamaCaesar,

The ambush rule works out surprisingly well in game play. In real life, there are many cases where enemy forces were bypassed and missed or moved into an area after friendly forces passed through. This is one of the rules that "FOW-bashers" criticise without knowing what they are talking about since they havent played or have only played a game or two. (I dont understand why people who dont play the game waste so much time bashing it…. jealousy of success???)

Even appearing 16" away in the open (probably the worst way you can spring your ambush) is feasible, for example in the Stalingrad movie when the Germans ambush the flank of the Soviet tanks with the AT gun they are in the open and at close range in FOW terms.

As far as the dice, that is something I stated many times, it evens out the luck. Rolling 1 die creates more extreme results, I think.

They see FOW players rolling tons of dice and somehow they think that only dice rolling is important.

If you fire 50 dice of MG/small arms fire at dug in/gone to ground infantry you will PIN them and have about a 50% chance of killing 1 stand. Therefore if you are facing dug in infantry you will need to use the appropriate tactics to take care of them. Rolling 100 dice wont help you.

Fire the same 50 dice at infantry on the move and you will kill 8+ stands, probably wiping out the platoon.

However in other more realistic games, dug in infantry are a lot more fragile. This is one thing I like about Fow is that if used properly, infantry arent just garnish to decorate the table while the tanks fight. If you run them around in the open, they will die.

Polecat--

I actually like the FoW Ambush rules. In exchange for any unusual abstraction, they produce good "realistic" behavior in the attacker. That = good to me.

I might have misled you by my choice of words. Like I said, the game works on the level it was designed to work at, and I enjoy it.

No I think I must have used a poor choice of words, I meant to agree and elaborate on what you said

Thats the problem with FOW.

You fire at a conscript platoon with a MG, you'll wipe it out, or break it.

As a basic concept, thats just untrue.

In real life,Take a platoon and assault a MG squad , 2 or 3 mg's and the platoon would be wiped out. If it was mad enough to take more than 15% casulties without going to ground…(Oh cr4p, I just used gamer termanoligy to equate to real events).

FOW is a game. Like domino's, like monopoly. It's no closer to war than Twister using pictures of Girbshirmjager instead of dots.

Gamers who like gaming rather than realistic simulation. Warhammer, FOW and to a lesser degree Avalon Hills "Up Front" is ideal.

As a tactical mind expander? Play tiddlywinks instead.

I like the Twister idea, with the proper opposing players (I'm thinking Nordic Fantasy Babes, *not* Real Life Female SS types) but-- what the heck is a Girbschirmjager? I am afraid that term is outside my limited WW2 knowledge.

FoW is fun, and – more importantly – is available. You can find people to play against.
It is a good entry level game, and is basically an LCD (lowest common denominator) system.
The biggest drawbacks are
1) the limited number of published scenarios – and balance issues that arise from them, and from scenario special rules.
2) Tournament emphasis in a game system that takes too long per game to run an effective one day tournament.
3) Use of handfulls of D6 instead of handfulls of D10 to reslove combat – having twice the options would make things a lot more flexible.

The package can be handed to someone with no historical background whatsoever and they will have something to run with after the first read. Great for kids and converting SF players.

After they are up and running with FOW, thet may be more likely to read a history book.

Or not. FOW is also a fine "War Movie" game.

Im not sure what you are saying about assaulting 2-3 MGs, if you do that without pinning them first, your platoon will be pinned and probably wiped out. If you pin the MGs first, maybe use smoke and assault, then you will take them out. Whats the problem?

I make these comments as an avid WW2 wargamer and history geek for over 30 years, the core mechanics of FoW are 40K by any other name as the writer has clearly admitted. As a result of plagiarising a rule system instead of creating something entirely new and innovative they have ended up with a rule set that is cumbersome and clunky.

The core is…. roll to hit roll to do damage roll to save; It is impossible to blend that mechanism seamlessly into the other required and important features needed for a WW2 wargame, such as troop class and efficiency, command and control, movement, firing/combat results meshing in with morale. These things get nailed onto shoot/damage/save mechanic and consequently the whole is lumpy and unrefined.

Because the core rules are so crude; they have to tack on dozens of riders to the normal rules, special rules just to cover very basic actions, vehicles and troop classes. So the game rules become dominated by hunting for rules sprinkled throughout several supplements to cover the incident on the table top. The use of buckets of d6's makes the game appear to be completely driven by the dice; the shear volume of dice that need to be rolled to achieve even basic results overshadows the game.

Once again it is a rule set where weapons and vehicle type dominate the proceedings and morale is calculated on casualty numbers, it's repetitive, completely unrealistic and unnecessary. Don't get me wrong, it's clever, very clever because of the presentation and advertising. If you were to type the whole rule set onto plain paper with no pictures or gloss, you wouldn't sell the mechanics to wargamers for 50p a copy. It's the colour and presentation that sells it and that is smart; but the content is bland and awkward as a rule system and after all it's the rules that should lead, but they amazingly don't. Good luck to them, smart lads.

Roy

hammerwargames.co.uk

Polecat, Tommi refers to a game where I doubletimed my Soviet (ie Conscript) infantry into 4 HMG's – 48 shots (6 per HMG, doubled for my double move!). I was hit 45 times and lost 15 stands. So part of this is my APPALING die rolling (I worked it out that using averages I should have recieved 32 hits (which would pin me) and I would lose about 11 stands. So a 2 platoon Russian company would have taken less than 50% losses (if they have HMG's and Light mortars) and would be pinned but not be needing morale checks etc.
Tommi, Im not sure what point you are making ? Maybe get somone to proofread your posts ?
LAWL

Stand up straight and run right into 4 HMG and not get badly shot up would be a poor system.

FOW has some problems, but you cant blame poor choice of tactics on any system.

I agree Badger – boy did I learn from that.
One thing that I do find odd with FoW is the vast number of MG sub types there are, each with a different rule (AAMG, Passenger, Co-ax, Hull etc etc). Seems very detailed when the rest of the game is a bit more abstract.

Hammerwargames

"The core is…. roll to hit roll to do damage roll to save"

Right from the start you have posted an incorrect assumption about the game. How many times/how often did you actually play FoW?

As far as the rest of the criticisms (esp "weapons and vehicle type dominate the proceedings and morale is calculated on casualty numbers"), they could be made about many many historical games.

Oh, never mind, I see that you are selling your own WWII rules.

Junkenstein.

Is it realistic to allow soviets to advance, take incredible casualties, get pinned, not break, then rally and try it again? I have a book about the Eastern front where company after company of Soviet infantry were fed into a German defensive line. The soviets did not "break" they were wiped out. The Germans shot until ammo ran low then fell back to the next position.

Your move wasnt a wise choice but I dont know if it was unrealistic ;)

Polecat….. It is not an incorrect assumption Roll 2 dice to hit modified by class/range/terrain – Roll a save AT rating vs Armour rating- Roll for bail out or fire power to destroy… roll to hit, roll to destroy/kill, roll to save, the order is immaterial. Secondly I have played the game numerous times as I was very interested and very hopeful that they would be not only accurate to my perceptions of WW2, but innovative and sleek to play, they are not. I own a rule book that is less than 12 months old and is not only completely out of date it doesn't contain all the rules needed to play. That is dreadful to be honest, a rules book less than 12 months old and it's worthless.

It's also nothing to do with ones own rules; I stated clearly at the beginning of my post that it was a view from a wargamer of 30 years. If your silly assumption was the case then as soon as you engaged in any wargaming enterprise it denudes you of the right of comment on anything else, how ridiculous. What it shows, as you have brought the subject up, is that I have actually done something positive with regards to rule systems and they are there to be enjoyed or vilified as is the owning players want, not just criticize or glorify others offerings.

I don't criticise for the sake of it or for some loony commercial reason, I did it as an opinion in a forum that is discussing the subject. What I do understand is that a rule book is basically a maths exercise in that all the various components in the mechanics are reduced to a mathematical probability, its how you get from the question to the answer that interests me. FoW take a route that I consider cumbersome and unnecessary when there are far neater and elegant ways of reaching the same answer. But most of all I don't like that fact they sell you half a rule book and you need to splash out on overly expensive and gimmicky supplements to be able to play the various theatres in the war. Its a typical GW stunt, if they put it all into one huge book and said the price was £120.00 GBP ($240) then they wouldn't sell many.

So Roy, did you get you free mini rulebook or take advantage of the free updated PDFs for exsisting supplyments??? Or ,as usual, you wait for something FOW related here and pounce. Sorry Roy but your constant rants are very boring and are getting old.

No game rules are ever worthless. I still have games that are 30 years old, and still play them. And you apperently are against anybody bringing out a new addition, because that will always invalidate the old one. No matter how old the game is.

I certainly have not seen many other systems that had a free download to update the book you have. If you do not take advantage of that, it is your fault, not the companys.

As for the multiple dice throws, they are no more cumbersome than looking up 3 different table before you make one die roll. I think the many dice thing is faster.

Now if you want to complain about the lack of op fire, I am with you. Or if they just made it shoot, move, assualt. That would change it from such an offensive dynamic.

I have yet to find a perfect rule set. For any period, not just WWII. And you will definatly find many you dont like.

" the core mechanics of FoW are 40K by any other name as the writer has clearly admitted."

where was that exactly?

The author of FoW originally designed "Warhammer Panzer Battles" which was a WWII version of Warhammer 40k.

However to say that FoW is like that is saying that most historical games are like that. How many games have a "to hit" roll, and how many have a roll to see what the effect is on the target? You can roll those into a chart or whatever, but most games have those.

IMO the way infantry is handled in FoW… as far as their survivability…. is good, and different from most WWII games I have the rules for. In most games it seems to be too easy to take out dug in infantry. FoW is the first one I have seen where you couldnt just roll up with a bunch of tanks and wipe them out. At least you are are forced to use indirect fire, infantry assault, etc to take them out, even if its a way not approved by old bearded fat guys who play other games.

Hey! Some of us old fat bearded guys play lots of other games *and* FoW! :)

I counted it up the other day and figured out I'd played at least 8 WW2 systems the last decade. Not as many as some, but I still fell… dirty.

Dug-in hard-to-see infantry in cover and concealment are something FoW does very well. When I played lots of CD2 and CD3 my main beef with those otherwise entertaining rules was that you could roll up to a trench line or block of stone buildings, tap tap tap with light MG's and small arms for a turn or two, and actually kill a lot of them, as in, dead, not just suppressed. It was just wrong based on any account of clearing towns or trenches.

In FoW you need big HE to blast something out of cover, all rifle fire will do is suppress with the occasional lucky kill, but blazing away with MG's at a city block won't clear out the defender, as matches up with Real Life and is different from, say, CD3.

Anyway I'm always a little surprised to hear people's venom toward the system-- dice rolls are just a different tool from charts for getting the same job done, and elegance is subjective-- I find a dreary pile of charts very depressing and ugly as they stack up all over the table next to the minis. But I won't come to your house and make you play my game if you don't come force me to play yours, deal?

Bama, I was just using a roundabout way of saying Grognards, no offense intended to fat bearded gamers in general

No offense taken, Polecat. If it wasn't for all us fat bearded gamers, those two skinny kids over there by the coke machine wouldn't have role models and might grow up to play golf or something else degenerate…

The King
So Roy, did you get you free mini rulebook or take advantage of the free updated PDFs for exsisting supplyments??? Or ,as usual, you wait for something FOW related here and pounce. Sorry Roy but your constant rants are very boring and are getting old.

Well The King…. Have you ever considered adding a thought provoking point one way or the other to this debate rather than a silly pointless remark? Go on have a go its what forums and debates are there for.

Hammer, you say the rules are less than a year old and are now worthless – well, if I go out and buy a copy of DBA (or whatever) and the next day the new set comes out then Ive got a set of rules which is a day old and are now "worthless" maybe you should have waited for th enew rules ? Anyway, BF offered anyone with the old rules a free mini rulebook – that is what I call excellent customer service.

Junken a rule set that needs so many amendments that it requires a complete rewrite and when they do the rewrite it still doesnt include all the rules needed to play all the theatres of combat to me is shadey.

I can only go by the comments I have read on here in previous threads (as I havnt the new rule book) but the new edition appears to still had lots of errors and problems. Now if people think thats value and good, fine, ok… im certainly not criticizing,

Likewise if you like buying a pricey rule book for basic games then have to buy a 20 odd quid supplement to get the rules to play N Africa and another to play Russia and another to play D-Day and so on, that again is up to you and good on ya. But surely im entitled when looking at the method of rule selling to make the comment that I think its poor value for what you get.

There is no reason at all why the complete rule system couldnt have gone into one proper WW2 rule book, its just milking the cow GW style. Its like when I buy a car…. I dont expect to have to buy the wheels and seats at a later date.

The OSTFRONT and FESTUNG EUROPA supplements contain company level OOBs for all major powers and some minor,The rulebook contains a lot of scenarios plus rules on fortifications, etc. Its a LOT of info and if they put it all into one complete book, it would be very expensive anyway, plus players would have been waiting longer to get the new rules/lists etc instead of getting them a bit at a time.

Typos, mistakes, and downright poor editing is a problem INDUSTRY WIDE.

I also own Battlefront: WWII by Fire and Fury, and you have to buy an additional card set/OOB for the British and Soviet armies ….. would you level the same criticism towards Fire and Fury for "milking the cow"?

BTW the books are expensive but not much more (if they are more) expensive than a typical hardback book of any type, and they are selling to a smaller market. The production value is pretty good by industry standards. I prefer a book bound more like Blitzkrieg Commander (I dont know the technical term for that type of binding/paper), its nice looking and durable, but its also fairly expensive for the size of the book.

About their books-- if you find that you like their game, it's more like *getting* to buy their books, rather than *having* to buy their books. (If you don't like it I hope you realized you could stop buying them and have e-bayed what you already had.)

They put out a book on average every few months. I buy them because I like to read them, even if I will never build the armies in them. It's a vice that costs me about $5- $10 USD a month. I used to spend that much a month on comic books, and we're talking 1977 dollars!

So for me it's nowhere near a financial burden, just a couple less pints of beer per month. Maybe BF should quadruple their book releases, and I'd finally lose this gut.

would you level the same criticism towards Fire and Fury for "milking the cow"?

Not on the same level because they dont contain additional rules, fire and Fury (best inovative ACW rules for me) sell a complete rule book you dont need the Western or Eastern senario books they dont have core rules in them. I prefer their Napoleonic rules to any others too.

But why is the GW model ("Milking the Cow") so wrong ? After all, they are doing pretty well aren't they.

I think, as Polecat said, it would be almost impossible to put all the rules, lists etc into one book. And it IS nice to get a new book (as it is with GW). I have no interst in paras etc, so wont buy "D-1", but will probably get the Normandy stuff.

Hammer, your "shady" is other peoples "depth and research and flavour" I guess.
As a company / producer, I think staggering the releases
1) makes the workload bearable on all concerend and
2) maintains some anticipation in the customers. Imagine if over 1 weekend all the models were released and then…nothing.

Panzer Marche's laminated army lists were a example.

99p each for lists such as "German: Whermacht: July-August-1944 North-North-West Greece"

Then spend another 99p for "German: Waffen SS: July-August-1944 North-North-West Greece"

You get the idea.

I do apologise there Roy, I realiased I haven't posted anything in relation to the first posters question so…

Flames of War is a great game it has it's flaws but what wargame doesn't the rules are easy enough to follow and no it's not just a tournament game you can play it almost anywhere, having played it for 3+ years now I find very enjoyable and have made new friends playing the game it has also inspired me to read up on history (yes Roy real books). I've also had the oppurtunity to speak to nearly all the Battlefront staff in person and they are a great bunch of guys. So now I leave the choice to you if you want to play pop down to you FLGS and see if someones having a play see if you like it but hey if you don't there's lots of other WW2 based games out there, but FOW is the one I like the most.
Hugs and cuddles for everyone – The King.

HammerWargames

"Not on the same level because they dont contain additional rules, fire and Fury (best inovative ACW rules for me) sell a complete rule book you dont need the Western or Eastern senario books they dont have core rules in them. I prefer their Napoleonic rules to any others too."

Once again you continue with the misinformation. The special rules were consolidated into the main rulebook in the new edition. Each army has special rules listed in the main rulebook. The terrain charts previously in the seperate army books were moved into the main book as well. The OSTFRONT, etc only have the army lists now, some historical background info, plus rules for points costs of veteran forces etc. This has led to some complaints such as the "Hens and Chicks" rule applying to late war soviets. I just got out my FESTUNG EUROPE book and looked through it. THere are NO, that is ZERO (0) new special rules. It is all army lists. THe only exception is the rules for upgrading to Guards, Veterans, etc.

I dont care if people dont like FoW, but whatr I dont like is when people post a bunch of criticisms based on false information.

It alway amuses me to see the complaint about FOW introducing special rules in their supplements.

You have never had to buy a supplement just to get the new special rules.

They have always made the special rules available as a free download on their website.

"I just got out my FESTUNG EUROPE book and looked through it. THere are NO, that is ZERO (0) new special rules. It is all army lists. THe only exception is the rules for upgrading to Guards, Veterans, etc."

Except for the ones on pages 72 ("Fairbairn-Sykes", "No British Bulldog", and "You Are Not Alone"; 78 ("Bagpipes" and "Fighting Irish"); 79 ("Unflappable"); 80 ("Assault Troops"); 81 ("Haka"); 82 ("Khukuri" and "War Cry"); 103 ("I Shall Never Fail My Comrades"); 133 ("Shtraf Company"), 134 ("Centralized Control" not applying to a Scout Platoon), and 141 ("Loading Crews"), that is an accurate statement. Now these may appear in the hardcover rules; I do not know. I do remember that the v.2 mini-rulebook was billed as having everything required to play the new rules. It does not contain these special rules.

>>> I dont care if people dont like FoW, but whatr I dont like is when people post a bunch of criticisms based on false information.

As you say.

Allen

Those rules apply directly to the army lists in the book. An example of a special rule appearing in a supplement that applied to every list was the AT gun rules…. in one of the 1st ed british books, I think. Otherwise I guess you GOT me, I didnt specify those rules in my comments. Feel free to NOT let my posts interfere with anyone's Battlefront hate fest.

" the core mechanics of FoW are 40K by any other name as the writer has clearly admitted."

HammerWargames

you have yet to point out where Phil Yates has "clearly admitted" this.

Hammer:"Its a typical GW stunt, if they put it all into one huge book and said the price was £120.00 GBP GBP ($240) then they wouldn't sell many."

I agree with Hammer. When I buy a set of rules , I want it to play out of the box. I dont want 2 pages of actual rules tacked into a expensive supplement for a very specific period and pages and pages of "painting guides" and Pretty photo's.

Of course we are all individuals and i know personally several people who get excited about a new release coming out and what it contains. I know that they get enjoyment out of making armies within the points limit and trying to make a Uber Force. Personally as I say, that dosnt float my landing craft, but if it gives people pleasure to shell out for it and people are willing, then more power to them.

FOW is certainly not a game for wargamers who like realism. But if you want to play a game thats near to what you know (warhammer 40K)and you like all that dice rolling stuff then it's a good start.

I'm sure that this generation of FOW players will in a few years move onto other systems that challenge them more and FOW will still be introducing people into "Historical" wargaming.

So that means that Wargaming will carry on for many years. And thats Good.

Where are all the "realistic" systems? I am still looking for one. So far I havent found one thats very close to the real thing.

It was very interesting and informative to read the last few exchanges. Some of the posters made very good and well argumented points.

I like what you say Polecat, very passionate about the rules. Fow was a refreshing way to treat WWII that I enjoyed for its novelty.

Having played the game enough, a number of mechanisms started not to feel like what I was looking for in a WWII game. And in all honesty, I couldn't follow the pace of all the supplements, special rules.

This is speaking strictly talking about the game. The fact that the company doesn't "brush" me (myself, I) in the right direction didn't help. There are many other themes/scale out there to satisfy anyone's interest.

If people are happy playing FoW, I can perfectly understand. If people are not happy or don't care all that much about Fow, I understand perfectly as well.

I am not sure what is meant by a more challengeing game?? Something like Tractics, or maybe Chef de Batalione that almost take a course to figure out how to play.

Chess is very simple, and yet many seem to find it a challenge to master.

As for realism, no wargame is all that realistic. None of them convey the essences of close combat. They can however, reward good tactics.

FOW falls down due to lack of op-fire, and the reduced RoF for movement does not make up for that. However, thier ambsh rules actualy make you use recon units like no other game I have played.

So there it is a toss-up. Lose in one place, gain in another. Rolling lots of dice is not realistic, but then neither is looking at charts.

Its a matter of what important to the individual looking at the game. Unfortunetly, it is fashonable to bash FoW as unrealistic, while ignoreing what it has done well.

Helmet,

Good post.

Its not so much that I am passionate about the rules, but it gets old to see all the FoW haters come out of the woodwork on every thread.

I think its the marketing and success of Battlefront that generates this level of hatred. (and I say hatred because individuals who dont like the game seek out threads about it to post comments)

I personally like several systems including BKC, Battlefront WWII, The Face of Battle, and I own others such as CD3 and Spearhead. (Plus ASL and other board games) Every game I listed has its unrealistic parts, allows ahistorical matchups, and allows stupid situations.

The things I like most about FoW is that its fun, you control about a company of troops, and there is a low amount of prep time to play. Whereas before I could only play a WWII once in a blue moon, we now have a small group playing and the others are learning the history as well.

What I dont understand is the level of hatred towards the game, and why people like Hammerwargames post misinformation on threads when the OP was asking about the game. Basically his posts boil down to he doesnt like the game mechanics (which is fine) and he bought the old rulebook just before the new edition came out (so he feels ripped off and doesnt really know what hes talking about when posting about the current edition)

Polecat "So far I havent found one thats very close to the real thing."

Dunno – I've never been shot at, but from reading I think BFWW2 (which incidentally you DONT need a Soviet suppliment to play, as the basic rules include the army lists and stats for the US, Germans and Russians for the Mid-Late war) play well and are an excellent set of rules.

What they are not, is fast, or competition freindly.

I think I can comment on FoW as I have played regularly.
FOW are an excellent set of rules – within the confines of their design criteria. As a fully paid up member of the fat bearded wargames fraternity, I would not choose to play them as a "historical" or "realistic" set of rules, but I will play them for an evening game and enjoy them.

Undoubtable they encourage historical miss matches, which until now I have never seen in WW2, although obviously in ancients this is the rule rather than the norm. I agree with Roy (Hammer) that they are clunky, not very innovative, quality control \ proof reading is poor and they are VERY expensive. (I think the last two points are most annoying, simply because they seem to have spent a lot on layout and gloss, but not bothered to check the content.) As for the size ofthe rules, well if they cut down on the "fluff" they could easily get the rules and the army lists into a single volume, but then again this is not the chosen design and business model. Rules such as ambush and the lack of opp fire are a direct result of the design criteria, and they dont really hold up to close scrutiny in any other light, and the need to deploy arty on table in what is supposedly a Company level game is obviously a ploy to sell more model guns, again the design constraints and business model kicking in.

The best way I can describe them to UK based players is that they are the "Pot Noodle" of the WW2 gaming world – quick, easy, sometimes satisfying, but you know at heart they are not very good for you long term.

All in all though, the most surprising thing about FoW is the amount of venom they stir up in the detractors, and the equally vociferous defenders of the faith. Don't we have something better to do?

Ken

Heh! Forum posters with better things to do! Thats a oxymoron!

"Don't we have something better to do?"

NO

"All in all though, the most surprising thing about FoW is the amount of venom they stir up in the detractors, and the equally vociferous defenders of the faith. Don't we have something better to do?"

Joking aside, I dont see how they are the same, since the "defenders of the faith", as you call them, most likely play FoW and therefore have some interest in a thread with that as the subject. I dont like Spearhead that much, but I dont seek out Spearhead threads or forums to go on and on about how unrealistic it is and how incomplete the rulebook is and how X or Y is more realistic. (no offense to Spearhead fans, I am only using it as an example)