| John the OFM ||03 Jan 2013 1:21 p.m. PST|
If you are going to "force" players who already have the V2 books to upgrade to V3, you may as well double the size.
this whiny cranky old fart give his grudging consent that it be published.
Not that *I* will be buying any of them.
Well, maybe the Normandy one. And the
|svsavory||03 Jan 2013 2:20 p.m. PST|
Since I don't own the original books I'll definitely be getting this set.
| Cardinal Hawkwood ||03 Jan 2013 2:54 p.m. PST|
|captain canada||03 Jan 2013 6:49 p.m. PST|
I see they 'balanced' the 17 pdr qf gun by removing the he ammunition. They only made 100 000 rounds in 1944. It would be unfair for the historical performance to be allowed in the game. In a microcosm this is the problem with the game – history was unfair. In reality the 17 pdr was as good as the 88. But not in the game. That would unbalance the players.
| Sparker ||03 Jan 2013 10:42 p.m. PST|
Did he say Grenadier Guards? Sold!
|Mr Elmo||04 Jan 2013 7:04 a.m. PST|
What could the design notes possible say other than "we know you were willing to buy this the first time, so we're pretty sure we can sell it to you again"
I can't help but think
But she's got a new hat.
|Bob Runnicles||04 Jan 2013 9:12 a.m. PST|
I have to say, between this compilation, the upcoming Italy compilation and the revised Normandy compilations (themselves already compilations in the first place) it beats me why anyone would buy the campaign books on their first release – I know I won't be picking up Devil's Charge or Nuts now, why bother when they will be getting their own erratacized and expanded hardcovers before too long. I think I'm done with FoW, to be honest. Time to blow the dust off my old Battlefront: WWII rules methinks!
| John the OFM ||04 Jan 2013 10:46 a.m. PST|
Devil's Charge, Nuts and the Arracourt books are already using V3 rules, so they are already usable as is. In my opinion, the compilation for them is a bit down the road. There will still be a compilation of them, no doubt about that.
The compilations of compilations coming out now are for compilations of V2 supplements.
I can see the "need" for them. I had a few V1 supplements, which are good for more detail on vehicle markings, uniforms, etc than V2 ones, curiously.
I would hope that the MW Afrika/Africa supplement puts back in it those painting and marking guides. ditto the EW ones.
They will cetainky be charging enough for them.
It's no more different than 40K rules revisions resulting in new "needed" codices. It's not unprecedented.
|captain canada||04 Jan 2013 10:56 a.m. PST|
No its not unprecedented. But it is also not the norm in histroical game. Its another good reason not to play.
|Yourbitterpill||05 Jan 2013 3:24 p.m. PST|
It's not a BF article on TMP if someone doesn't complain that a game of toy soldiers played by grown men isn't "historical" as some other ultra-sophisticated, rarely known ruleset. You guys are the hipsters of gaming.
Heaven forbid a company update their rulesets to be compatible with an updated version!
|SurfingMoose||05 Jan 2013 4:50 p.m. PST|
|Bob Runnicles||07 Jan 2013 8:39 a.m. PST|
I don't mind updates, and so far I don't see any complaints in this thread about the historicity of Flames of War, in fact I've been enjoying the game since the 1st Ed days. It's the rapidity of the re-updates that bothers me, plus the fact that you know when they publish a book that it's going to be redundant within the next year or two as soon as they do a 'compilation'. Heck I'll probably keep playing, I just will be considerably more picky when it comes to what supplements to pick up