GW goes WW2...

[Tommy]

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.

From what was said by the author, this will be a Warhammer Historical release, one of the many to be produced by GW staff.

[Guy]

I saw the set. It reminded me of one of the first wargames I saw, Sandskreig by John Sandars (circa 1974). In fact the mechanisms were pretty similar (exchange coloured 'risk chips' for numbered tokens and they'd be very similar).

There is an inherent danger in rushing out all sorts of games without proper playtesting but I'll guess they'll find that out in due time.

Guy

[lowtardog]

I saw the set. It reminded me of one of the first wargames I saw, Sandskreig by John Sandars (circa 1974). In fact the mechanisms were pretty similar (exchange coloured 'risk chips' for numbered tokens and they'd be very similar).

There is an inherent danger in rushing out all sorts of games without proper playtesting but I'll guess they'll find that out in due time.

Guy

Is it a bit like the Wargames FOudnry Napoleon rules whihc seems from first glance all counters and tokens?

[Guy]

I have an inherent dislike of counters on the table, the minimum amount is the way forward.

Anyone interested in Sandskreig should look here:

http://www.battlegames.co.uk/oldschool/ ... rules.html

I remember getting John Sandars book, an Introduction to Wargaming, from WH Smiths in a sale circa 1980. If you think of yellow = 1, blue = 2 and red = 3, you'll be along the right track...

Guy

[lowtardog]

I have an inherent dislike of counters on the table, the minimum amount is the way forward.

Anyone interested in Sandskreig should look here:

http://www.battlegames.co.uk/oldschool/ ... rules.html

I remember getting John Sandars book, an Introduction to Wargaming, from WH Smiths in a sale circa 1980. If you think of yellow = 1, blue = 2 and red = 3, you'll be along the right track...

Guy

Bugger that you are right its like time travel wargames

[armchairviking]

No doubt there are lots of good WW2 rules out there but a set that uses 40K/WAB rule mechanics in the same way TGW does would be appealing as I don't have the head space for too many rule systems.

[Bishop Lord]

WW2 not really my bag but when I do play the period its Blitzkrieg Commander for me .....Warmaster with tanks
So if and when it comes out...its not for me.

Jason

[argh]

From what I saw It didn't use any mechanics from other Warhammer systems!
However all the usual mechanics found in lots of WWII games are there.

20mm seems (to me anyhow) an odd scale, apparently it's kinda based on what we all grew up on 'Airfix' and HO-OO scale toys.
But I can see the sense, you can get more minatures on the board in 20mm, and of course the game is flexible enough to allow the other scales (15mm 28mm)
The part I was attracted to was the deliberate inclusion of vehicles into the 'skirmish' feel of the game. When I play WWII I really need to have tanks as well as infantry on the table. Of course I could play FoW in 28mm with the ammount of stuff I now own!

The game is designed to be played in three 'sizes'
250pts
500pts
750pts
This uses a 6X4, two 6X4's or three 6X4's accordingly. The 250pt games best suited to tournament play.

Of course as an event organiser, this would be a welcome addition to the Warhammer Historical range, as it would allow us to fight WWII games at Warhammer World during our campaign weekends!

I'm just glad to see development work going into 'historical' gaming.

Fingers crossed eh!

[Axebreaker]

GW and FOW are not the same company and do not exhibit the same habits.The only thing they have in similarity is they are both prolific in the areas the choose to dominate.

Cheers
Christopher

P.S.I'm a big fan of FOW and Disposable Heroes and so I don't think I be shifted easily.However,I'll try anything out,but I'll keep my eyes open for price jacks.

[Tommy]

GW and FOW are not the same company and do not exhibit the same habits.The only thing they have in similarity is they are both prolific in the areas the choose to dominate.

Cheers
Christopher

P.S.I'm a big fan of FOW and Disposable Heroes and so I don't think I be shifted easily.However,I'll try anything out,but I'll keep my eyes open for price jacks.

Battlefront have emulated GW in almost every detail, it would be silly for them not to follow a business model that works.

[Justin]

I am in total agreement with Tommy.

They have an up-hill battle in an historical market but they do their best to win (their very best).

The good bit is with GW launching a set of rules, you will be able to play WW2 at GW Nottingham again.

[Axebreaker]

GW and FOW are not the same company and do not exhibit the same habits.The only thing they have in similarity is they are both prolific in the areas the choose to dominate.

Cheers
Christopher

P.S.I'm a big fan of FOW and Disposable Heroes and so I don't think I be shifted easily.However,I'll try anything out,but I'll keep my eyes open for price jacks.

Battlefront have emulated GW in almost every detail, it would be silly for them not to follow a business model that works.

I don't agree.When it breaks my bank to build an army then ok,but as it stands I can build armies at a reasonable cost with FOW.

Cheers
Christopher

[Guy]

P.S.I'm a big fan of FOW and Disposable Heroes and so I don't think I be shifted easily.However,I'll try anything out,but I'll keep my eyes open for price jacks.

I don't think its that sort of game. FOW, BKC and DH have nothing to worry about. Its more like Rapid Fire (but then why not use Rapid fire?).

Guy

[Tommy]

GW and FOW are not the same company and do not exhibit the same habits.The only thing they have in similarity is they are both prolific in the areas the choose to dominate.

Cheers
Christopher

P.S.I'm a big fan of FOW and Disposable Heroes and so I don't think I be shifted easily.However,I'll try anything out,but I'll keep my eyes open for price jacks.

Battlefront have emulated GW in almost every detail, it would be silly for them not to follow a business model that works.

I don't agree.When it breaks my bank to build an army then ok,but as it stands I can build armies at a reasonable cost with FOW.

Cheers
Christopher

Not quite sure how a platoon of 3 Shermans for £19.50 isnt comparable to a GW boxset. I'll not argue the point though, each to their own.

[Axebreaker]

@Tommy
I did make my price comparison on standard army sizes which is in FOW 1500 to 1750pts. depending on when your fighting the war and Gw's 2000pts. armies and the difference in cost is a very large gap.
I prefer the late period and all I really need is the rulebook,fortress Europe and a standard army(1750pts.) which would roughly cost me 150 euro's or less(much less if I do a German Heavy Tank Company ) and compare that to needing the Rulebook,army book and 2000pts. GW army and you won't get it anywhere near 150 euro's.I'm talking store purchased.
Of course I have much more FOW material then the minimum,as I was only using this as a point of reference.
Also, I'm making a my comparison with GW's Fantasy/40k stuff and not their historical books which really cannot be compared.I assume you understood this and I'm only saying it out of a sense of completeness.


@Guy

I don't think its that sort of game. FOW, BKC and DH have nothing to worry about. Its more like Rapid Fire (but then why not use Rapid fire?).

Good question.I'm just puzzled by the whole idea in the first place as the market is well stocked with nice rules and mini's.We shall see,maybe it will surprise us and turn out to be a very fun system,but..........

Cheers
Christopher

[aecurtis]

Item: paying £6.50 for a Battlefront Sherman is simply throwing away money:

http://www.maelstromgames.co.uk/index.p ... =cat#tanks

Item: GW won't let you play in a GW-sponsored event with Space Marines or Orcs from Skytrex. But you can field a platoon of three Skytrex Shermans in an official FoW event; you'll be paying six quid per for the privilege, mind.

Item: If Old Glory UK had a discount program like their American cousins, you could get a bag of three of those same Skytrex Shermans for $22.00 (at today's exchange, 13 pounds 25p).

Item: If a member of the Must Buy British party, you can field those three Shermans from Peter Pig for 18 quid, or the same as Skytrex; still not as good as Battlefront from a very reliable retailer.

So in what way does any of that compare to GW boxed set pricing?

Allen

[Tommy]

Item: paying £6.50 for a Battlefront Sherman is simply throwing away money:

http://www.maelstromgames.co.uk/index.p ... =cat#tanks

Item: GW won't let you play in a GW-sponsored event with Space Marines or Orcs from Skytrex. But you can field a platoon of three Skytrex Shermans in an official FoW event; you'll be paying six quid per for the privilege, mind.

Item: If Old Glory UK had a discount program like their American cousins, you could get a bag of three of those same Skytrex Shermans for $22.00 (at today's exchange, 13 pounds 25p).

Item: If a member of the Must Buy British party, you can field those three Shermans from Peter Pig for 18 quid, or the same as Skytrex; still not as good as Battlefront from a very reliable retailer.

So in what way does any of that compare to GW boxed set pricing?

Allen

Your right Allen, in no way does any of that compare to GW, but then I was not comparing Skytrex or Peter Pig, I was comparing Battlefront.

[aecurtis]

Which would be... oh, yes: cheaper.

Makes sense.

Just as much as Justin's earlier example. Battlefront released a supplement for US armored and armored infantry forces. Then they released a supplement for other US infantry forces, and (probably to reduce the publications SKUs by one), included the lists from the previous supplement. It did not change the lists or in any way invalide those in the previous supplement which one might have purchased. It in no way reduced or in any other way altered the value of the first supplement for those who had bought it. All it did was give extra value for those who had not bought it the first time, and were now buying the combined supplement. Yet Justin apparently felt hard done by, and says he tipped his FoW pram over as a result.

In your case, the proposal seemed to be that Battlefront's vehicles are extravagantly priced in the manner of GW boxed sets. Apart from most of Battlefront's *own* boxed sets providing a minor savings over purchasing the vehicles individually (as they usually come with stowage and transfers: yep, minor), I demonstrated that on any given day, you can get Battlefront tanks *cheaper* than the primary competition in the UK. Peter Pig rarely has sales (certainly not recently), and I've never seen Skytrex on sale, either through the Web site or at shows. Over here in the US, we're fortunate with the Old Glory Army and Old Glory 15s' near-continuous sale of Quality Castings. So neener, neener. But in the UK, there's no reason to suggest that Battlefront's toys are overpriced. They're not.

There are many things about Battlefront and the Flames of War rules that do not give me ecstatic joy: poor production control, poor customer service, some very dodgy figures now and then (more now than then, which is a disturbing trend). Folk can argue endlessly over the rules: whether IGOUGO is good or eeeevil, whether the absence of specific "opportunity" or reaction for is a fault, the variable ground scale. Those don't matter: virtually every rules issue that one critic will foam over can be found in some other WWII rules. For me, they do not give horribly unrealistic results when played by someone with a little military knowledge and knowledge of the period. Generally, I prefer IABSM. (For which, I might point out, a Peter Pig Sherman is still six quid, while a Battlefront one is five pounds, 85p...)

And there are aspects of the GW business model which Battlefront has adopted: not surprisingly, and quite successfully (which seems to be the root cause of much criticism). But these blanket statements that Battlefront is just a GW clone are way off the mark.

Allen

[Axebreaker]

@aecurtis

That about sums it up in my opinion with a particular emphasis on your last sentence.

Cheers
Christopher

[aecurtis]

People are going to think I'm a FoW fanboy now...

Allen