Flames of War v4 coming in March...

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Ghaz**

... according to the Why We Fight podcast on WWPD special guest Peter Simunovich of Battlefront confirms that v4 will be launched next year in tandem with the updated Mid-War books.

**George Spiggott**

Let the baseless speculation begin.

Off the top of my head. Fingers crossed for hitting on a 7+, 50 cal to 2cm weapons rounding up RoF on the move, SMGs being RoF 2 when pinned and not screwing up the Soviet national rules this time.

Also a plastic Semovente and Puma got a mention.

**Ghaz**

We already knew about the Puma (see HERE). Personally I'm hoping for a plastic M14/41 kit.

EDIT: From the Flames of War forum, regarding the release date for the Puma:

Posted By Chris at Battlefront on 16 Oct 2016 04:14 PM
Due for release end of the year before Christmas - yes Christmas 2016.

Chris

**Ghaz**

Here's a summary of the podcast from Hasty Attack:

After listening to the excellent “Why we fight, episode 7: Tanks, Tracks, Bang, Yeah with Peter Simunovich” podcast from the WWPD guys (http://www.wwpd.ne/2016/10/why-we-fight-ep-7-tanks-tracks-bang.html?m=1). I thought I would try and summarise and give some of my thoughts.

First off, there was a ton of information shared in a very short period of time. Hopefully I do it justice. I strongly recommend downloading the WWPD podcast and listening to it yourself. Both the Why we fight and News from the Front podcasts are terrific and have always been great at sharing new information often via interviews with key stakeholders at BF.

So, here are the points I picked up.

1. Battlefront (BF) are looking to bring out a new Team Yankee (TY) style hardcover book for Vietnam and Fate of a Nation. I.E a new rule set based on the TY ruleset.

2. Peter is personally keen on a Bush War/Angola list. We might see this in the future.

3. BF are committed to finishing off Berlin. We should expect a compilation in March 2017.

4. The big news – There will be a version 4 of the rules. This will be in two ways. Firstly there will be new rule book for EW and LW. This will allow all of the current EW and LW books to be used with the current points values, including the new Berlin compilation that is about to come out. 95% of these books will be compliant with the new V4 rules

5. For MW, there will not only be a new rule book but it will be accompanied by new dessert lists. Initially these will be for Brits and DAK. Other dessert forces and then Eastern Front lists to follow. These will be a new 100 point style system. There will be cards.

I think this will be great. MW is my favourite period and is currently a bit stale. It seems the perfect place to start again for BF. I cannot wait to dive into this period again with new rules and lists.

6. The new V4 rules will be inspired by TY. However Peter went out of his way to say they will not be the same. To paraphrase him, WW2 is a much richer historical period than the Cold War, with more forces and troops and vehicles. The rules will need to match.

7. There will be a new V4 rulebook. How this will work exactly was not detailed. This is awesome news. I got a free V3 rulebook when that book came out and that really kept me excited about the new rules. Hopefully this will do the same for V4.

8. The rules will be more streamlined and won’t cover every possible point like the current 300 odd page V3. Instead there will be a new Letters from the Front type document with a cooler name that will serve as a living document to accompany the rules. I see this aimed more at the tournament gamer than the Friday night garage gamer.

9. The new rules will retain the current morale and motivation settings. Peter used the example that Fearless Veteran will remain. This to me is good news. This is one of the charming aspects of FOW and something that isn’t really in TY.

10. Even though cards were announced, Peter did say that players don’t need to use them. The current TY doesn’t NEED the cards. This might be how older gamers with big collections can get by without the cards.

11. BF are still working on how to distribute cards. Selling packs was raised as an option. However it sounds like nothing is yet set in stone. BF is looking for feedback on this.

12. Forces will remain. Peter did say there is a big effort involved in updating forces but he sees it as critical to the game. I for one love forces and easy army before it and would struggle without this excellent tool. If you haven’t tried it, it can be found at forces.flamesofwar.com

13. BF are trying to be cautious with the new rules. In summary it seems there are still discussions and heated agreements over aspects of the rules in the playtest group. Peter was careful to point out that this game is precious to BF and they are not treating the new version and the potential fallout lightly. They are calling for reasoned feedback as his team are working very hard on the release and contents. I am personally pleased to hear this. Like many, I have invested lots of money and time in this game and want to hear that it is being cared for and hopefully will be just as good or better in version 4.

14. The distribution timing and exact method is still being nutted out by Battlefront. However it seems likely that the new V4 and MW releases will be timed together.

15. One of the most interesting points of the conversation was around why. Peter said that BF need to change, FOW is slowly reducing in popularity. A 300 page rule book is a barrier to entry and that modern games sellers need to change to be more acceptable in the modern, internet-based marked. This will attract new players and keep the game viable.

I can see this everywhere. I personally think this is the right thing for BF to do. Lead the market with innovation. The alternative is a slow and painful decline.

16. There will be new plastics for MW. YES!!!

17. We should look out for a new Aussie TY list. YES again!!

18. Peter personally committed to return to answer questions at a later date. He asked for feedback via WWPD. There is a thread on the excellent WWPD forum at http://forum.wwpd.net/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20227

We that’s it. In summary I am excited not only about the product but with the care and attention that V4 is being shown. I look forward to the release.

**Avatar 720**

Nothing about whether or not there'll be a mini V4 rulebook and whether or not it'll shed all its pages after thumbing through it a few times.

**George Spiggott**

I got mine for free and spiral bound mine for less than a fiver. I never worried about that, I didn't even request the free blister.

I'm quietly optimistic although getting the rules format right will be critical with Bolt Action breathing down their neck.

**Eumerin**

George Spiggott wrote:
I got mine for free and spiral bound mine for less than a fiver. I never worried about that, I didn't even request the free blister.

I'm quietly optimistic although getting the rules format right will be critical with Bolt Action breathing down their neck.

It sounds like they're having some constructive arguments from testing the new rules. This is a good thing. While I like Team Yankee, there have definitely been some parts of it that didn't feel like they got proper play-testing.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

I like FOW, but every man and his dog seems to be Fearless Veteran. I hope they address that in the new edition, and reserve it for the fighting formations that actually deserve it.

**mdauben**

4. The big news – There will be a version 4 of the rules. This will be in two ways. Firstly there will be new rule book for EW and LW. This will allow all of the current EW and LW books to be used with the current points values, including the new Berlin compilation that is about to come out. 95% of these books will be compliant with the new V4 rules

5. For MW, there will not only be a new rule book but it will be accompanied by new dessert lists. Initially these will be for Brits and DAK. Other dessert forces and then Eastern Front lists to follow. These will be a new 100 point style system. There will be cards.

So there will be two different rules systems for FOW? That sounds like a disaster, trying to keep track of how each rules element (movement, shooting, assault) work in LW/EW v4, MW v4 and TY v1. I also don't like the idea of using the sort of point system from TY for FOW. The current lists have way too many 5-10 pt options that would get lost with such a coarse point system.

6. The new V4 rules will be inspired by TY. However Peter went out of his way to say they will not be the same. To paraphrase him, WW2 is a much richer historical period than the Cold War, with more forces and troops and vehicles. The rules will need to match.

I'd love to see FOW simplified or streamlined a bit. Some of the rules are IMO over-complicated. I like some aspects of TY, too. Not sure how well they would mix and work in this hypothetical FOW/TY mash-up for MW.

8. The rules will be more streamlined and won’t cover every possible point like the current 300 odd page V3. Instead there will be a new Letters from the Front type document with a cooler name that will serve as a living document to accompany the rules. I see this aimed more at the tournament gamer than the Friday night garage gamer.

Given Battlefront's rather abysmal record on updating rules and LFTF, this does not fill me with confidence.

16. There will be new plastics for MW. YES!!!

This does get my unqualified support. When they first started releasing plastics I was reluctant to embrace them but now that I've been exposed to some of their plastics (both vehicles and infantry) I'd love to see redo all the major MW miniatures in plastic.

I hate to sound so pessimistic. I am excited about Battlefront returning to MW (I actually prefer MW to LW). I'm excited about the idea of a v4 rules set. I'm just worried about how it will happen.

**chaos0xomega**

Yeah hoping something was lost in translation because having a diff ruleset for MW from EW and LW makes 0 sense.

Also, what about The Great War?

Still dont understand why they dont aim for increased compatability between the different systems. Splitting your playerbase across what is effectively 7 different games (WW1, EW, MW, LW, AIW, Vietnam, TY) that are otherwise very similar is not a very bright idea. You absolutely can figure out a common points system through which a WW1 player could field a force against a TY player. Yeah, it would be less than ideal and the WW1 player would need like 5x as many points, but at least people would be able to get some games in. Even if you dont want to alllw such a massive swing, at least consolidate it into 3 games - WW1, WW2, and Cold War. No real reason a Vietnam and AIW cant be compatible (they happen during the same timeframe ffs), and those forces are the equivalent of "mid war" to Team Yankees "late war".

**Eumerin**

chaos0xomega wrote:
Yeah hoping something was lost in translation because having a diff ruleset for MW from EW and LW makes 0 sense.

Also, what about The Great War?

Still dont understand why they dont aim for increased compatability between the different systems. Splitting your playerbase across what is effectively 7 different games (WW1, EW, MW, LW, AIW, Vietnam, TY) that are otherwise very similar is not a very bright idea. You absolutely can figure out a common points system through which a WW1 player could field a force against a TY player. Yeah, it would be less than ideal and the WW1 player would need like 5x as many points, but at least people would be able to get some games in. Even if you dont want to alllw such a massive swing, at least consolidate it into 3 games - WW1, WW2, and Cold War. No real reason a Vietnam and AIW cant be compatible (they happen during the same timeframe ffs), and those forces are the equivalent of "mid war" to Team Yankees "late war".

No, you can't. And the reason is the interaction between armored vehicles and infantry.

A French S-35 is almost as effective against infantry as a German Panther. But the S-35 is utterly and completely useless against a Panther (I think it can bail the Panther at close range, but that's it). If you build a points system that is based around armor values for Late War (which has three earlier eras, and three later eras), then you end up with lists that have hordes of Early War tanks that completely overrun infantry lists. Meanwhile, that same Early War list will get curb-stomped when it runs into a late war armor list. Having 50 tanks doesn't do you any good if those 50 tanks can't scratch the enemy's 10 tanks.

You can see this to a certain extent with light tank lists - for instance, a Panzer 38(t) company in Mid-War. These lists tend to have an absurd number of tanks, and as a result they maul infantry pretty badly. There are too many tanks, and the infantry generally can't hurt enough of them to matter. But they die very quickly when they run into a regular tank list because they're not able to effectively fight back, which is why they don't get used all that much (outside of historical reasons).

**chaos0xomega**

You can, actually. Its a game, and not one which is particularly historically accurate to begin with. A MkV might not be able to harm an abrams in real life, but that doesnt really matter. A WW1 v WW1 battle will still be accurate, and a Abrams v Abrams battle will still be accurate, when youre looking at an MkV v Abrams battle, what youre seeing is two players who, either by choice or by necessity, have opted to play a game where they dont care about historical accuracy and just want to have a good time.

Its poor business to sell someone a game which they will, in all probability, never have an opportunity to play because everyone locally has decided theyd rather play a different variant of the rules.

**Eumerin**

chaos0xomega wrote:
You can, actually. Its a game, and not one which is particularly historically accurate to begin with. A MkV might not be able to harm an abrams in real life, but that doesnt really matter. A WW1 v WW1 battle will still be accurate, and a Abrams v Abrams battle will still be accurate, when youre looking at an MkV v Abrams battle, what youre seeing is two players who, either by choice or by necessity, have opted to play a game where they dont care about historical accuracy and just want to have a good time.

Its poor business to sell someone a game which they will, in all probability, never have an opportunity to play because everyone locally has decided theyd rather play a different variant of the rules.

You're not paying any attention to what I'm saying. The problem isn't just Mark V versus Abrams. The problem is *also* Mark V horde versus hapless infantry company, where the Mark V tanks are the cheapest things on the table. Infantry is more or less pointed the same across all time periods (with adjustments for things like AT weapons and rate of fire). It's armor and anti-tank that dramatically changes points costs in each time period. And the end result is that even in the existing set up with seven different eras, there are already situations in which the hapless infantry get sandbagged by hordes of tanks that are too numerous for an infantry company to deal with effectively. That's why I mentioned the Panzer-38(t) company in Mid-War.

In short, if infantry is points-costed in such a way that 500 points of infantry are roughly equivalent to 500 points of M4 Sherman tanks, then a WWI tank will probably cost fewer points than an infantry stand. And that's a very bad thing.

**chaos0xomega**

Actually, no. If you acknowledge that its a game and it doesn't need to be realistic, and you stat up and cost each unit relative to its own period, ignoring the increase in capability from 1914 to 1985, then what you end up with is a Mark V tank that has comparable stats to an Abrams (okay, maybe more like a Patton or a T-55), is costed appropriately relative to it, and with infantry in both periods that is similarly capable and costed appropriately relative to both.

The idea isn't to design a game with the *intent* that a World War 1 force be played against a Team Yankee force, its to design a game with the *capability* for players to do so if they so choose. The design goal is to create a balanced game based on historically plausible scenarios, where a World War 1 force fights a World War 1 force, and a Team Yankee force fights a Team Yankee force, *BUT* if one guy has a World War 1 force and the other a Team Yankee force, they can still play a balanced game, despite the fact that its unrealistic and not historically plausible.

**Eumerin**

Except that it DOES NOT WORK.

I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating this. There are issues with EXISTING lists. Case in point is the MW Panzer-38(t) list that I have already mentioned twice now. It will devastate an infantry list because it puts too many tanks on the table for the infantry to successfully deal with. But a bog-standard T-34 list will crush it in turn.

THAT is why Battlefront instituted the era system. There's a reason why the T-34, which is dirt cheap in Late War, is insanely expensive in Early War. The only way that your idea might even be remotely workable is to flatline the costs for tanks by changing the stats so that a front line tank in 1985 is roughly equivalent to a frontline tank in 1918. But that ignores the fact that there are tanks (like the T-34) that are represented across multiple eras. A T-34 in 1941 is a well-nigh invulnerable thing, whereas a T-34 in 1945 is only around because no one's managed to hit it yet. And yet, as far as logic is concerned, their in-game stats should be more or less identical (since the tanks themselves are more or less identical). The era system allows you to do that.

And that's just the stuff related to points costs. It doesn't even touch on things like World War I troops not having any way at all to deal with helicopters or strike aircraft.

**col. krazy kenny**

The only i have done with the timeline is use nam epuipment and stats for team yankee or proxy team yankee models for nam games.
Example my TAliban army that use the NVA rules.

**Ghaz**

From the Flames of War forum when asked if they would have a dedicated forum to talk about v4:

Posted By John-Paul on 26 Oct 2016 10:23 AM
We will tackle this shortly so hang in there. Pete's news and the first glimpse of the models this weekend was the teaser and we have lots of detail to share with everybody in about a months time on the plan for 2017 and what it all means.

So keep an eye out for more info around Black Friday or so...

**George Spiggott**

col. krazy kenny wrote:
The only i have done with the timeline is use nam epuipment and stats for team yankee or proxy team yankee models for nam games.
Example my TAliban army that use the NVA rules.

If Team Yankee (early) incorporates everything from Vietnam and FoaN in one period I can see the NVA list getting lots of use for proxy armies of 'Soviet backed [insert location] ' forces. Peter Pig (and others) already make lots of suitable miniatures.

http://www.peterpig.co.uk/ak47.html

**JohnHwangDD**

I walked away from the 300-page rulebook in favor of just playing Quickstart. I like the idea of a streamlined FoW v4, something no larger than the original rulebook; if it's significantly richer than my FoW v3 Quickstart, but only slightly more complex, I'll be OK with that. If not, no big deal.

**leopard**

V2 was ok, V3 was better, V4 sounds like I'll wait and see what its like as opposed to pre-ordering it.

If its good I'll get it, I love FoW, if its rubbish I'll move to IABSM or other systems, beauty of WW2, if the rules are rubbish drop them, if they are good play them.

TY is ok, its different but its ok, FoW could do with a tidy up, but the idea of going to a 100 point base from the current 1,500 base is a concern, I'd prefer to go to 15,000 base than 100 to be honest.

TY has some good points, like the ability to give everything its own movement rates in its stat line, that would solve some of the issues in FoW by allowing differential move rates, and across different terrain types as well. Not a fan of how its air system works though, nor the morale rules.

meh, will wait and see, BF have a very good little game here, hoping they don't drop the ball and wreak it

**BrookM**

Pardon my ignorance, but isn't V3 two or three years old at this stage? It seems like they're releasing a new edition at quite a rapid rate.

**George Spiggott**

My copy of the v3 rule book is dated 2011.

**Krinsath**

Wikipedia says (here's your complimentary grain of salt) March 10, 2012. Doesn't invalidate a 2011 copyright though since things are usually printed well in advance.

The initial edition came out in 2002, second edition in 2006 (4 years for those playing the home version) and obviously ~6 years for the 3rd edition. Since this is coming in March, it will neatly be 5 years which is right in-between the previous two intervals. Whether a 4-6 year interval is "long enough" is obviously subjective.

**JohnHwangDD**

A new edition every 5-ish years is not unreasonable. Particularly if you look at 40k... How long did 40k 6E last?

**Stormonu**

Damn, have I had the books that long? I picked the rulebook (and Festung Europa) up back in 2007, it appears (I got them shortly after A&A War at Sea came out - used the USS Missouri to represent a naval bombardment for a demo game I played in. Picked up the FoW rules a few months later).

Did the initial Open Fire set have the v2 or v3 rules? I did pick that set up, but not sure what version rules came with it.

**JohnHwangDD**

There are THREE (3) Open Fire sets!
- 1st was 2 (crappy) Shermans & 3 (crappy) StuG
- 2nd was 8? (crappy) Shermans & 3 (crappy) StuG & lots of infantry & objectives, mini rulebook
- 3rd de-crapified the Tanks & StuGs, updated the quickstart rules.

I'm just sad that we got the 2nd version of the OF set with so many misfit tanks. So awful to build.

**BrookM**

Thanks for the swift replies gents, I thought it was a shorter lifespan!

Also, the resins from the first Open Fire! set are anything but crappy IMHO, but then again, I bought the second edition and ended up binning all those gakky plastics, bloody disgrace they are!

**George Spiggott**

I still have my Open Fire resin Stugs. They needed a bit of work with some Peter Pig parts and a bit of dremmeling but they came out ok in the end.

Of course now the market is awash with nice plastic Stug options.

**Jancoran**

Flames of War has been my favorite game outside of Warhammer 40,000.

Despite the fact that I play a ton of Warhammer 40,000, flames of War is a game i have done ridiculously well with and although I play it a lot less, it's not for lack of trying.

I hope good things are coming. it's a fantastic game.

**privateer4hire**

Hopefully it will revive the market for trade/selling on FoW stuff. Right now it seems like getting a 1/3 of MSRP is asking too high a price.