GW goes WW2...

[GuitarheroAndy]

..See page 4 of the new Wargames Illustrated mag. Set for a 2010 release 'hopefully early on' to quote the mag. Aimed at 20mm apparently...

Core rulebook plus supplements including army lists and more theatres of war seems to be the way it's going.

Do we REALLY need another set of WW2 rules? Perhaps we do..I don't game the period so I suppose I shouldn't comment on that...

[Axebreaker]

As to needing another set of WWII rules I would say no.There are several very nice systems out there in both small and larger scales.With that said,it never hurts to add another set of rules if they are good. When they try this,then I'd advise them to not bring their standard prices with them or they will crash and burn.

Cheers
Christopher

[aecurtis]

Kinda ballsy to run that in Battlefront's new mag...

Allen

[James Woodward]

BF and GW deserve each other

[Axebreaker]

BF and GW deserve each other

In my opinion BF hasn't committed near as many "crimes" as GW has.

-They still have the same rules and not coming out with a new set before you've even master the previous edition
-They don't keep updating the same supplement every 2 years or so making the last one you had obsolete
-They do publish quite few free downloads on army lists
-The standard army is 1750pts. for Late War(the most popular period) and you can get a complete army for 100 euro's and less. Try this with a GW 2000pts. standard army.

Cheers
Christopher

[col]

Mate of mine works for GW (area manager) and when i told him that GW were thinking of releasing a ww2 game he told me I was talking rubbish and that they would never even consider doing that kind of thing.



Looks like GW doesn't know their arse from their elbow!

[francis]

I cant see GW going forward with any degree of urgency on WWII. There are already loads of very good rulesets with established followings, so unless they can attract people away from their preferred ruleset they will start with a very small core of players to harvest money from. To me this means it is not a good commercial prospect.

Nobody has ever accused GW of not being aware of the financial aspect of the hobby.

No easy profit equals no rules.

francis

[Tommy]

This was shown at the last GW Historical game and is being designed internally, I have no doubt it will be published.

[rassilon]

20mm !?

[James Woodward]

BF and GW deserve each other

In my opinion BF hasn't committed near as many "crimes" as GW has.

-They still have the same rules and not coming out with a new set before you've even master the previous edition
-They don't keep updating the same supplement every 2 years or so making the last one you had obsolete
-They do publish quite few free downloads on army lists
-The standard army is 1750pts. for Late War(the most popular period) and you can get a complete army for 100 euro's and less. Try this with a GW 2000pts. standard army.

Cheers
Christopher

I turned off FoW with the release of LW, the power creep and the neverending books [remind you of something]

Now they're tidying MW for the umpteenth time.

i'd dump my FJ/Russian Guards/Tankovy for a decent Nap French army. And if they want all the armies it better be 28mm and lots of it

[Axebreaker]

I turned off FoW with the release of LW, the power creep and the neverending books [remind you of something]

Actually that's good as their supplements are not replacements,but just opening up new campaigns and armies.

I appreciate your view, but " power creeps" happen in virtually all non simulation war games and this can be controlled by the players/and or organizers themselves.FOW has standard supplements like Fortress Europe etc. that can be played and for the most part,they forgo the fancy rules.Most of the "power creep" comes from the specialized campaign supplements.

In my opinion power creep isn't a hit on FOW as it's controllable unlike GW and the constant change of editions and price gauging that make you gag!

Cheers
Christopher

[Justin]

-They don't keep updating the same supplement every 2 years or so making the last one you had obsolete

Well thats odd, cos they nerfed the US army book I had - I think I had it 3 months when the new improved version came out. Left a sour taste in my mouth.

I don't mind new stuff coming out and of course I can choose to buy or not but when they change books for your army, you have to update or stop playing that army at tournaments. So I walked away from FoW before I got taken for too much cash.

I was told that the GW WW2 rules are going to be a skirmish game - not my cup of tea.

[bluewillow]

well if it has pretty pictures I will probaly buy it as I cannot resist figure porn

cheers
matt

[aecurtis]

Well thats odd, cos they nerfed the US army book I had - I think I had it 3 months when the new improved version came out.

When "Afrika" was published, providing lists and data consistent with the second edition rules, "Old Ironsides" and "Stars and Stripes" (the two mid-war US supplements published for the first edition rules; "Stars and Stripes" included all the lists previously published in "Old Ironsides", and added more) were still fully usable. Battlefront provided PDF updates on the Flames of War Web site to bring them in line with the second edition rules. Although a new, slightly revised "North Africa" has recently been published, it does not supersede "Afrika"; the earlier lists are all still valid. You can play with any list from the original supplements, or from either compilation volume, or from any of the mod-war PDFs published on the Web site.

The updates to the first edition supplements are *still* available online:

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx ... _cat_id=23

In the same way, when "Fortress Europe" was published, it did not invalidate the late war US lists previously published in "Festung Europa". You can still use any of the late war lists from either volume, from any of the late war campaign supplements, or from any of the PDFs for specific units published on line. Not a single one is prohibited for "official" play.

Any nerfing was completely self-inflicted.

Allen

[Justin]

(the two mid-war US supplements published for the first edition rules; "Stars and Stripes" included all the lists previously published in "Old Ironsides", and added more)

Thanks for that Allen, yes I bought Old Ironsides only to see it superseded by Stars and Stripes, and that was the last Battlefront ever saw of my money.

[lowtardog]

Mate of mine works for GW (area manager) and when i told him that GW were thinking of releasing a ww2 game he told me I was talking rubbish and that they would never even consider doing that kind of thing.



Looks like GW doesn't know their arse from their elbow!

It is no surprise realy and re-enforces the image that Historical is not a core product. I had a chat with one of the managers and he dfidnt know about LOTOW or LOTHS whihc have been on the market for a couple of years!

I am a bit surprised about the WW2 though suppose I shouldn`t be be interesting to see which way they went with it e.g WAB , LOTR or W40K, They could even have gone down the epic route perhaps!!!!!!

[pbeccas]

It will have to be good to beat Disposable Heroes but I like looking at pretty pictures so I will end up buying it.

Is this an actual GW release, or a Warhammer Historical release? I'm confused.

[lowtardog]

It will have to be good to beat Disposable Heroes but I like looking at pretty pictures so I will end up buying it.

Is this an actual GW release, or a Warhammer Historical release? I'm confused.

I would think it would have to be Historicals Division or what ever they call themselves

[Justin]

Yep, no space marines or elves, so does not fit in with the GW figure ranges. However GW usually use one of the existing game systems and tweak it for historical games, so expect a Necromunda variant.

[Tommy]

Well thats odd, cos they nerfed the US army book I had - I think I had it 3 months when the new improved version came out.

When "Afrika" was published, providing lists and data consistent with the second edition rules, "Old Ironsides" and "Stars and Stripes" (the two mid-war US supplements published for the first edition rules; "Stars and Stripes" included all the lists previously published in "Old Ironsides", and added more) were still fully usable. Battlefront provided PDF updates on the Flames of War Web site to bring them in line with the second edition rules. Although a new, slightly revised "North Africa" has recently been published, it does not supersede "Afrika"; the earlier lists are all still valid. You can play with any list from the original supplements, or from either compilation volume, or from any of the mod-war PDFs published on the Web site.

The updates to the first edition supplements are *still* available online:

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx ... _cat_id=23

In the same way, when "Fortress Europe" was published, it did not invalidate the late war US lists previously published in "Festung Europa". You can still use any of the late war lists from either volume, from any of the late war campaign supplements, or from any of the PDFs for specific units published on line. Not a single one is prohibited for "official" play.

Any nerfing was completely self-inflicted.

Allen

Whilst true you can still use the old Africa book the new version actually provides cheaper units, on average allowing most nations to field an extra full platoon and the Italians are now a dangerous hordes.

So in all fairness, it replaces the Old Africa after 2 years and costs £30 and its hardback.