Centurio Prime | 18 Dec 2006 7:21 p.m. PST |
OK my last post disappeared (wonder where it will turn up?). "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?" I dont see how they are the same, since "defenders of the faith" as you call them, have an interest in FoW and therefore a thread with that title. I dont like Spearhead that much but I dont find Spearhead threads and forums and go on and on about how the game is unrealistic, the rules are incomplete, etc. (no offense to Spearhead fans, I am only using it as an example) |
Warwick Castle | 18 Dec 2006 7:30 p.m. PST |
Polecat I think you get a bit too defensive of your first love, 'FoW haters come out of the woodwork' indeed
. I think that we wargame in different ways, I never need or in fact like produced army lists like GF turn out, and I certainly dont need or ever use senarios( I only play games within a campaign framework rarely if ever one off games). So I must admit a big chunk of what they put in their books is so much fluff and pointless to my needs. I much prefer more literary informed history aimed purely at telling how it was and not angled and aimed at provoking the 'buy me' hunger. But I can understand why others like there stuff. To me half the point of wargaming is finding out for myself, looking for original accurrate information and reading the subject and making decisions on what should be needed in a force and what not, I prefer making my own choices. The other half is creating the table top encounters, so that they are as close to what I have read as I can make them. So the spoon feed method of someone giving me information that suits his game im affraid falls on very stoney ground. But if you need and like that sort of spur then each to his own. But that looks like the simple reason why we disagree. Thats why I guess you wouldnt like the rule package I have created because they have no lists (a precise points system for those that like such things), no senarios (only a mission creater in the modern) and certainly no attempt at historical comment (I leave that to historians and authorative history books), they are complete rule books, nothing more and nothing less and certainly not all in a box. But each to his own in a more gentile way I hope
. Roy |
Centurio Prime | 18 Dec 2006 7:49 p.m. PST |
Then you would be wrong because I also researched my own lists , read my own history, and made scenarios from those readings. In fact I bought the majority of my stuff based around the OOBs of Operation Market Garden before Battlefront came out with FoW. I enjoy FoW but I also enjoy some of the games that you intelligent grown ups play. And if you got on a forum posting something I felt to be inaccurate about them I would refute those posts as well. |
Tommiatkins | 18 Dec 2006 8:29 p.m. PST |
Theres technically nothing stopping FOW players just grabbing a few historicaly accurate forces and using FOW to fight a Historical battle. FOW by it's lineage is not going to equal some other rules in producing historical results,but people can still have fun with it. |
The GM | 18 Dec 2006 8:34 p.m. PST |
Polecat, I think you are getting a little defensive. I go seek out FoW threads and post in them. Quite often (though certainly not always) negatively. No rule set is perfect, and I play the game, why shouldn't I have an opinion and share it? If it can be improved upon (it can), only allowing happy-happy posts isn't going to help BF do so, so I say what I have to say either way, and move on. Don. |
helmet101 | 18 Dec 2006 8:54 p.m. PST |
Tommi, I have to disagree a bit with your last post. While I haven't played all the latest supplements and special rules, I thought that FoW somehow approached rather ok "historical" outcomes (I play mostly historical scenarios). I do agree that sometimes the path to achieve these outcomes is a bit "different" and doesn't feel quite right in comparrison to what I am used to, but on the whole I didn't find any blatant discrepancies with the outcome of other so-called more serious games. FoW is sweet and not a bad game IMHO. The type of depth it provides doesn't fit to my views on gaming WWII. Actually, I was nicely surprised that it plays fast for an ok outcome. Now if you have something that plays as fast, with a better feel, I will be happy to give it a try. (helmet, impatiently waiting for its pre-ordered Combat Commander: Europe :-) ) |
BamaCaesar | 18 Dec 2006 8:55 p.m. PST |
"Theres technically nothing stopping FOW players just grabbing a few historicaly accurate forces and using FOW to fight a Historical battle." This is done by lots of clubs, it's a common approach in some Texas groups. Polecat has a point that the game pulls the detractors out of the closet to froth and frazzle. Who cares? Some of us have done all sorts of things you don't know about, so talking down to us from your perceived lofty perch is presumptuous. But it does make the day pass by. |
The GM | 18 Dec 2006 9:07 p.m. PST |
Helmet, I think you're pretty dead-on. I play it, I enjoy it, but it's different. I play less of it these days, but when we play it's still a fun game. Honestly, the detractors aren't nearly as annoying to me as those who can't stand to see someone criticize the game. It's a game. Like all games, it's neither perfect nor right for everyone. Get over it. Or go hang out at the FoW forums so you don't have to hear any criticism, constructive or otherwise. Don. |
BamaCaesar | 18 Dec 2006 9:17 p.m. PST |
I have no beef with someone who hates FoW, Shiner Bock beer, or Twangly Country Songs About Killing People. I like those things, they don't. I realize those are all matters of taste. I do get impatient with people who make whopping assumptions about the people who like any game, beer, or music and then go on to proclaim their wisdom against their Straw Man du Jour. See the difference? Hate the game, good for you. Denigrate the players, not sporting. |
Centurio Prime | 18 Dec 2006 9:36 p.m. PST |
I dont care if people criticise the game, as did several people in earlier posts which I did not comment on since they were fair enough. I refer you to my first post on page 2 for my feelings on FoW. The thread started with someone asking about the game, and feeding them misleading information is not helpful in answering their question. Maybe we can make an anti-battlefront forum so as to cater to that crowd and they wont have to hear anyone refute inaccurate postings. I dont think I am being defensive so much as persistant. Some days the pompous ones just rub me the wrong way. In the end it is just a game, much like Metal Storm, CD3, BF:WWII, etc, each with their own strengths and weaknesses and you get out of them what you put into them. |
Centurio Prime | 18 Dec 2006 9:43 p.m. PST |
Bama "I do get impatient with people who make whopping assumptions about the people who like any game, beer, or music and then go on to proclaim their wisdom against their Straw Man du Jour." You hit the nail on the head. Hey Bama, I had a lovely 2 week vacation at the lovely Ft McClellan over the summer, close to your place, huh?. My first visit to Alabama. It would have been nice under ordinary circumstances (without carrying a pack and a SAW all day every day) |
BamaCaesar | 18 Dec 2006 9:55 p.m. PST |
Polecat, I used to spend lots of time in and near McClellan, beautiful country, even if you're getting chigger-bit and sleeping in ditches. Were you out at Pelham Range, west of the actual post? I used to have that place memorized. I remember sitting on top of Brook OP as we adjusted mortar fire, and no matter what we said, they kept dropping it closer and closer to us. |
The GM | 18 Dec 2006 10:01 p.m. PST |
Sounds like we're all in violent agreement then ;-). It IS just a game, and I have no problems talking about its strengths and weaknesses. I prefer a dialog about the game, it helps inform people. Problem is fingering exactly WHY it feels different. I have friends who just plain won't play over it. They can't articulate why. Except my wife who firmly blames their forums, but that's not a game criticism, it's her choice about type of player/attitude of those (who post regularly) on the forum. Don. |
Centurio Prime | 18 Dec 2006 10:02 p.m. PST |
I was on FT McClellan, we did exercises on Pelham Range. |
Centurio Prime | 18 Dec 2006 10:03 p.m. PST |
OH YEAH, the chiggers! I had a solid line of chiggers around my beltline!!! #$%#$%!!!! |
Centurio Prime | 18 Dec 2006 10:06 p.m. PST |
Don, I also dont agree with the dominant clique on the FoW forum. |
wwiiogre | 18 Dec 2006 10:25 p.m. PST |
The Fanboyz on the Forum are not dominant, they just appear to be allowed to say and do things others are not allowed to. Yet, when you add them up, they are a tiny minority on the BF FoW forum. That was evident during the Qualifiers Debacle. Yet, BF changed Qualifiers despite the best efforst of the Tournament Only FanBoyz. It was a watershed moment for me. During that whole debacle I resigned my position as volunteer proofreader on FE. The reason I took a leave, was that it is not right for even a volunteer worker to criticize their boss. Since Peter and JP decided to change their Qualifiers and allow even the small market areas to qualify for Origins with only 12 players needed for a tournament. I helped work on D-1 and will work on Normandy in the future if they need me. I spent six months looking at WWII rules sets. I settled on FoW because it met my needs. two years ago the Forum was a bit friendlier to new players. Yet, I stirred the pot even then and I am mostly to blame for the rule switch from the old H&C to its new version. Since the old one actually did not accomplish the supposed intent. I play FoW because I can find a game every week if I want. More if I am able. I can play a game in 2-3 hours. I can play historical scenarios, use house rules, weather, op planes and even opfire and initiative decks if I choose to. Yet, I can meet a stranger and play the basic game with that person without a hiccup since the basics are very easy to learn and fast to play. Besides, I am a dice nut and have always collected dice. So the more dice in a game the better the chance that the results will be closer to the mean than the extreme as 'Caesar' pointed out earlier. People crying that there are to many dice, are really just throwing out a red herring. I would argue that FoW should have some different ranges other than 16", 24", 32" and 40" for their cannons and mg's. Since this leads to some baffling things. HMG's and 37mm with the same range? Rifle/MG with the same range as a M2 .50? They need to add intermediate ranges of 20" and 28". This would help differentiate some weapons systems. I would also move the system to d10's but not reduce the amount of die rolling. The greater spread in numbers will give better results in my untrained opinion. I love the game, its simple mechanics and its fast play plus its mostly historical results. Remember, it takes Genius to make something simple and Keep it Simple, Stupid! Chris |
Tommiatkins | 18 Dec 2006 10:27 p.m. PST |
My issues with the historical accuracy is with the mechanics. The rolling to hit to damage to kill and to save, as well as being long winded & awkward, randomises the results too much for me. The Stats for a lot of vehicals and weapons seem to favor balance over historical preformance, and whilst this will make for a more equal game, thats not my style of play. Theres a lot in FOW I agree with, such as Targeting conscripts being easier & the difficulty of Armour in digging out well prepared infantry. Theres other things that just seem broken. British for example, firing twice when stationary. Now theres no doubt that the British were best on the defensive, and better defensively than most other nations, that I havnt a problem with. It seems that one night down the pub, two of the designers discussed how to represent that, and one of em said "ahh hell, It's been a long day, Brits fire twice if they dont move". SPACE MARINES fire twice if they dont move, not British.They did it to characterise armys so that British were different from other combatants, Fine, but theres no subtelty in it at all. No rules are perfect, but theres some areas that FOW rulings are way out of kilter. I'll continue to play FOW cos it's what my regular opponents play, but I hope that it develops into a more accurate set. |
BamaCaesar | 18 Dec 2006 10:57 p.m. PST |
"It seems that one night down the pub, two of the designers discussed how to represent that, and one of em said "ahh hell, It's been a long day, Brits fire twice if they dont move". SPACE MARINES fire twice if they dont move, not British.They did it to characterise armys so that British were different from other combatants, Fine, but theres no subtelty in it at all." Huh? Ther's no special rule about British firing twice as much as anybody else when stationary. Are you talking about some other game? In FoW there are teams (from all armies) that can fire more when stationary, in fact that's pretty much everything except stands equipped with SMG's and self-loading rifles. @Polecat: Swallow a paper matchhead once a day for a week before you next go out in the field, and keep it up while you're there. You'll reek to high heaven from the sulfur, but it works. I spent a couple weeks in a Ft. Bragg swamp and came back with one (1) bug bite. |
Tommiatkins | 18 Dec 2006 11:36 p.m. PST |
Reroll misses :/ :) Its 5 AM in the morning
Meh. |
badger22 | 18 Dec 2006 11:47 p.m. PST |
Lots of garlic works as well. Of course if you dont like garlic
.. |
Centurio Prime | 18 Dec 2006 11:58 p.m. PST |
BamaCaesar, I know that trick but I couldnt bring myself to try it. In the desert I ate garlic on everything, it works pretty well. |
BamaCaesar | 19 Dec 2006 12:14 a.m. PST |
"Reroll misses :/" Ah, I've got you-- that's that weird long-range British tank rule that is supposed to reflect some sort of hefty ammo supply. It begs the question of why the US doesn't get it, but one weakness of FoW is that if you run some sort of British force, every man and his dog get a special rule. |
Junkenstein | 19 Dec 2006 4:03 a.m. PST |
Changing tack slightly, one good thing about FoW is it's noob friendly (both as a complete games virgin, or for someone looking for a change from GW). If I were a noob, browsing my FLGS for something new many rulesets would immediately alienate me due to: 1) low production standards 2) Lack of "fluff" 3) Lack of painting guides Now, one thing FoW and GW do well, is this. It's really inviting. I dabble with Ancients, and even tryed DBA/M a bit, but the rules are NOT inviting and the army list are pretty unappealing too. Im not saying they are wrong, but hey just dont "get" me. |
Fergal | 19 Dec 2006 5:46 a.m. PST |
@PilGrim, i love the pot noodle analogy! @junkenstein, i agree with the lack of painting guides, i've got a few of the books and it appears as far as the painting guides, they have been cut and pasted from book to book, and then given a color guide with a few photos of the new force. Great if you are a complete newb, but more and more useless as you get more books. |
Junkenstein | 19 Dec 2006 6:11 a.m. PST |
Dugal, true what you say. But as a noob, they are useful – it also means armies will (hopefully) be painted in "proper" colours. Mind, having seen some of the 5h1t that the kids at our local GW produce Im not convinced. |
Crankcase | 20 Dec 2006 11:41 a.m. PST |
Love the game, and accept its flaws. Started playing FOW cause it wasn't 40k and went into the game knowing that it probably wasn't going to be spot on historical. If I wanted that I would start playing napoleonics. FOW dispite its flaws, is a good way to get people into the historical wargaming world. Right now I am thinking about going into some ACW or even finding another WWII system that is a little more historical. But for now, I stick with FOW. And like Ogre stated, you can adjust the rules for your groups house play and go back quite easily to playing a stranger. |
Brushbeast | 21 Dec 2006 5:32 p.m. PST |
If you have spare cash
..Yes
.. you get Eye candy. less cash ($£)
spend money on figs and get just a much fun elseware. you dont need flashy graphics to ennjoy ww2. Just an Imagiation. Spend money on you kit and any rules will transport you there. |
Goofaholix | 21 Dec 2006 6:37 p.m. PST |
I lost interest in WWII when I was 11 (30 years ago) and started playing Napoleonics and Ancients. Over the years I got the impression that WWII enthusiasts were very technical oriented and could probably tell you what size washer a was used on the gizmo of a Sherman Vc.101.b November 1944. It put me off getting into WWII. I can understand why this sort of WWII enthusiast would not like FOW, in fact could be annoyed with it encroaching on their territory. FOW gave me a good entry level to get into WWII gaming, if it didn't I'd still be playing DBM exclusively. As a result I'm learning more about the period and equipment, and enjoying my gaming. |
Tommiatkins | 21 Dec 2006 10:03 p.m. PST |
Goofy "Over the years I got the impression that WWII enthusiasts were very technical oriented and could probably tell you what size washer a was used on the gizmo of a Sherman Vc.101.b November 1944. It put me off getting into WWII." A 2.56mm Semi locking split washer, produced by the Ezekial Springs & fittings Company Kansas. It had Red facings to its buttonholes. Kthx |
Sturmgrenadier | 21 Dec 2006 10:56 p.m. PST |
Ah yes, the regular FOW thread. Got to admit this one has been much more polite than many I've read over time. :-) FOW is WWII the movie. Waves of Soviets, elite German stormtroopers, immovable Brits, random Italians, etc. It's also a game, not a simulation. With that in mind, it does a very good job of getting an accurate result, even if the system it used doesn't appear accurate. Ambushes and Recon for example. "Semi-indirect fire" (the brit re-roll misses rule) encourages the player to use similar tactics to the historical ones. By the time the Lend lease armour had arrived in force (El Alemain), the brits had finally realised that a cavalry charge in tanks against dug in AT guns was a good way to lose all your tanks. So they started to sit back and use the new long range guns, and the fact that they had huge supplies of ammo, and just shoot. Many of the special rules have come in to encourage historical tactics to be used. BamaCaesar, the US get tons of special rules (Time on Target, Stabilisers, etc), as does every army in FOW. It's just that historically they never sat back at long range and pounded away, to the point that they had trucks (and carriers) of ammo drive up to tanks and reload as they fired. They tended to keep mobile, which stabilisers encourages you to do. The fact that the British & Commonwealth forces were so varied in reality, means that of course they have a wide variety of rules, since they all used very similar equipment. Some people have mentioned the lack of accuracy with stats, etc. However when you're using a D6 (which is the most common sort of dice in the western world, and iirc, a big part of the reason it was chosen) and range bands you do get a problem with stats. With a 16% factor, a few extra mm of armour or penetration can't be shown, so you end up with very similar stats there.It's part of the inevitable graininess of a D6 system. And since there isn't a fixed ground scale, a small effective range difference can't be shown. But overall, the game represents the stereotypes most people think of about WW2, gives a fairly historical result, and doesn't take all day to finish a game. |
Junkenstein | 22 Dec 2006 10:27 a.m. PST |
goof, thats tghe exact reason I hate Napoleonics – the people who criticize the facings being Ameranth not yellow, the buckles being the pre-1812 revision etc – I guess theres a message here about generalizing lol |
GeoffQRF | 22 Dec 2006 1:29 p.m. PST |
2.56mm?? The US were using the metric system? |
Tommiatkins | 22 Dec 2006 3:09 p.m. PST |
The owner of the firm was French. |
Centurio Prime | 22 Dec 2006 4:05 p.m. PST |
"But overall, the game represents the stereotypes most people think of about WW2, gives a fairly historical result, and doesn't take all day to finish a game." I agree 100% with your post Sturmgrenadier |
Goofaholix | 22 Dec 2006 9:48 p.m. PST |
Junkenstein, the point is FOW has made WWII accessible for people like me. It would be great if someone did the same with Napoleonics too, sure the Ameranth facing people won't like it but it's better than pockets of people all playing different rules. |
BamaCaesar | 22 Dec 2006 10:47 p.m. PST |
The problem with Napoleonics is that it attracts the kind of man who knows way more about buttons, facings, and ribbons than any man who doesn't work in a clothing store should know. If you can sell a man like that on a fast-play rules set that focuses on big picture instead of minutiae, then I am interested in learning your sales technique, because I will use it to sell snow to Eskimos and retire within the year. Not saying it can't be done, just saying in advance that I'll be really impressed. |
Tommiatkins | 23 Dec 2006 3:20 a.m. PST |
link Tahh DAHHH!! Be Impressed! |
Warwick Castle | 23 Dec 2006 4:47 a.m. PST |
From reading quite a few comments on Napoleonic and 'the types who play it'; and how you have to put up with flimsy rules to get any sort of game worth playing in WW2, the new era of wargamers appear to be the only ones that have discovered wargaming! Its a bit like our kids, they hit a certain age 14 or so
and suddenly know the answer everything
mine did. The supposition, that you have a stark black and white choice, either you have to have fast but grainy lots of dice rules OR loads of charts and slow, slow mechanisms indicates a very surface view of the hobby. That rule/supplement books must give you all the organisational lists (fudged to suit the rule set of course) a potted history (again cherry picked to illustrate the latest models) , painting guides (because its just so damned difficult to find out what colour panzers were primed for the desert) etc, etc, so the often quoted 'newbie' doesn't even have to get out of his chair to wargame. It's a jolly good excuse though. You tend to get subtle inconsistencies in the debates, a gamer in one breath says that the rules have to have full organisational details to use, yet say they read all about the period? There must be scenarios to use, I can only presume, because organising s game without a published scenario is just too damned complicated. That a particular rule just adds a +1 on a d6 which is really grainy, yet will debate long and hard and in minute detail the difference in support machineguns which can never be reflected in any rules non of which is consistent. Then there are the ones that play a rule set for Korea and say
these work really well, I like the system, I wonder if they would be ok for Ancients and Napoleonic! :-0 Wargaming does appear to be very slowly drifting into the supermarkets answer to life, pre-prepared, heat in a microwave sumptuous gastronomic adventure food, yet the picture on packet never seems to quite reflect what comes out of the microwave plastic preformed container. As for any criticism, it's like being a heretic in 1645. I could fully understand the writer getting arsey over criticism of his offerings, but I have never witnessed buyer/users defend products produced by others like they do in wargaming, it's as if their homes have been desecrated by a Hun horde. I couldn't imagine any venom in postings defending and attacking say
Marks and Spencer's shirt collar sizes in the new range of summer wear; very strange. All part of the fun I suppose. Merry Christmas to all Roy |
badger22 | 23 Dec 2006 10:40 a.m. PST |
For most of my almost 40 years of gaming, finding other players has always been a problem. There have always been other gamers about, but finding someone who liked what I liked did not happen that often. You try each others favs fopr a game or two and then dont seem to find the time anymore. Part of my problem has been that for a majority of those years, I was in the army, and had to move every few years. So I was always starting over. Because of that, I spent more time with RPGs than real wargaming. Price I paid not to sit at home and paint by myself. Not FOW haas brought in a huge influx of new gamers. It is played in a lot of places, and by a lot of different people. It is simple enough that you dont have many different interpretations by every group that plays it. Its not perfect, not a great simulation. It does cost a bit. And it does come prepackaged. With the net, it is much easier to find MTOEs, but I still remeber the frustration of not finding any, unless you spent a fortune with a mailorder comnpany that took six months to diliver, and never actualy had what I wanted. So yes I defend the system as it has opened up gaming a lot. If you think that is something limited to FOW, walk into any bar in Dallas, and talk crap about the Cowboys. Or Greenbay, and any of a dozen others. For our brothers across the pond, I understand you want to be careful where you are when you crack on teams in certain pubs. Never been in any of those pubs in england, but I sure did see a few gassthauses torn up in Germany. The fact is that people get passionate about something they really love. New converts are often the worst. You come in and whack thier forst real wargame, and they react. Should be no more surpriseing than whacking your friends favorite dog, when the kids are there. |
Tommiatkins | 04 Jan 2007 11:25 p.m. PST |
Who let this thread Die! It had so much to give! |
kevanG | 06 Jan 2007 7:31 p.m. PST |
I would say the main reason there is such an adverse reaction from 'old skool' ww2 players to FOW is that most of them see them as a slightly poorer than average set of rules, but done glossy and have people who display GWesque enthusiasm for them. I also must be missing something because I don't know anyone who has bought the rules who actually plays them! I could go to my club for 10 years and never get a game of FOW, even bringing both forces and I can fully understand why, it's because they arent very good. That isnt coming out the woodwork, thats what happens at an 80 members strong club |
Shakespear | 06 Jan 2007 7:47 p.m. PST |
I think it is succesful because the rules are easy plus the same company sells the minis. Games like command decision, have yards of charts,and you have to puchase your minis from other companies. If you are intersted in historicals its easy to use this game as an entry point. I would like Blitzkrieg Commander but I HATE the fact that to assemble the army I want I need to goto 3 different vendors for minis. PLus the basing is vauge. |
kevanG | 06 Jan 2007 8:32 p.m. PST |
3 different venders?, You aint even trying! I couldnt play Fow without going to at least 5 or 6! QRF hungarian vehicles, Arms in miniature aircraft, Legions east Infantry, True North cavalry, battlefront guns. Peter pig staff & hq equipment And after all that, couldn't get an opponent anyway
|
Shakespear | 06 Jan 2007 8:51 p.m. PST |
They havent made the figs for those "odd" army lists, but they are getting there. The main, US, Britain, Germany, Russia, are all well supported. Even so its still a young game. Besides, no other WW2 system gave me a free copy of the second edition of their rulebook. |
badger22 | 06 Jan 2007 9:04 p.m. PST |
As a counteer point against the oldskool guys not likeing FOW, I DO like it, and I have been playing historicals for over 35 years. Long enough I dont exactly remeber the year I started. I like the way it is bringing in lots of new blood. I like that for the first time in years, I can go to my FLGS and not have to move the dust off of the minis for WWII only to find they havent gotten any new ones in since I last checked 2 years ago. And I really like that some of that new blod is starting to question if FOW is really the best there is after all, and starting to check out other games. I think we are much better off with FOW thanif it had never came out. |
Derek H | 07 Jan 2007 2:49 a.m. PST |
PLus the basing is vauge. The basing's not vague, it's flexible. Anything you like as long as it's consistent. I use the basing system for PBI, You could just use FoW basing if you wanted. |
Derek H | 07 Jan 2007 2:52 a.m. PST |
The main, US, Britain, Germany, Russia, are all well supported. Even so its still a young game. Only for mid-war (TM). Late war support is not particularly good (yet) and early war support is non-existent. Don't even mention the Pacific theatre. |
Bujinman | 07 Jan 2007 4:02 a.m. PST |
It's a game
it's a good game, play it in 10mm so the ground scale looks better (keep everything the same) play it with people who know about WW2 and aren't playing it like 40k with different figures and most people will enjoy it. |
Brushbeast | 07 Jan 2007 5:01 a.m. PST |
Just could not resist being 200 poster on a very well covered topic. FOW OK if you can afford it, as much fun can be had at 1/4 the price but not as many flashy pics. |