3486
Post by: Shotgun
http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=53&art_id=3379
Battlefront only at BF events. Guess if I go to one it will be Germans or Finns only.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Oh come the feth on, Battlefront! What the hell is this gak?!
You know, I was going to make a big purchase for my Germans, all BF stuff, to support the minis I had just gotten from PSC.
I think I'll put a hold on that, and work on my CoE Romans and British.
45599
Post by: RatBot
If you want to play at our events and support the FOW hobby
FOW hobby
FOW hobby
On the one hand, I can understand them wanting people to use only their miniatures at their official events... on the other hand, from what I've heard, they've been becoming very GWish over the years... and then there's the above quote.
Perhaps I should remove this game from my List Of Games To Check Out At Some Point. Or at the very least only buy 3rd party minis if/when I do get around to trying it.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Ugh... good (and horribly, horribly bad) spot there, Ratbot. RatBot wrote:
Perhaps I should remove this game from my List Of Games To Check Out At Some Point. Or at the very least only buy 3rd party minis if/when I do get around to trying it.
I suppose the thing here is to remember that, if you never play at their events, and never intend to (I did want to get out to some, eventually) it's not as big a deal... yet. It's a small step down the slippery slope to the FoW HHHobby, though.
45599
Post by: RatBot
Indeed, and it's sad... Also, it looks like they're taking loads of cues from GW... glancing at the FoW army builder files and the kits on their site, it looks like a 1500 to 2000 point FoW army costs about as much as a 1500 to 2000 point WHFB/WH40K army, which seems madness to me; surely, surely there are loads and loads of manufacturers who produce more reasonably priced 15mm (or whatever scale FoW is) WW2 miniatures?
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Dozens upon dozens!
Peter Pig, Forged In Battle, Plastic Soldier Company (which my Panzer Lehr relies heavily on), Old Glory, Quick Reaction Force, Essex Miniatures, Gaming Models (which, ok, ain't exactly pretty, but they're dirt cheap!), and plenty more.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
RatBot wrote:Indeed, and it's sad... Also, it looks like they're taking loads of cues from GW... glancing at the FoW army builder files and the kits on their site, it looks like a 1500 to 2000 point FoW army costs about as much as a 1500 to 2000 point WHFB/WH40K army, which seems madness to me; surely, surely there are loads and loads of manufacturers who produce more reasonably priced 15mm (or whatever scale FoW is) WW2 miniatures?
Battlefront are comprised of former GW employees and to be honest they have been following the GW model since they started, the FoW 'hobby' is a term that BF have been using for a while.
This is almost certainly a reaction to PSC who a probably doing a lot of damage to BF's tank sales. It won't change my behaviour at all though given that I don't play in tournaments.
10414
Post by: Big P
Are you really surprised?
Given the losses they must be taking due to PSC and FiB, this is there only way to try and control a historical market that reacts against attempts at 'domination' like this.
Bad move. They should try and challenge the lower cost producers on price, instead they tread the GW route...
Given what I hear of their tactics on the trade seen, seems par for the course.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
I suppose the best hope comes from the FoW forums - the move is being universally criticized by the community.
Again, ugh. Gonna make a blog post to refine all the thoughts I've got on this. It's a sad day for the FoW community.
10414
Post by: Big P
Good.
I hope FOW players dont allow themselves to be bullied into such a move.
45599
Post by: RatBot
What I don't understand is how Battlefront got away with charging these prices for so long.
I mean, I can understand how GW and PP can have super pricy models; their models are based on their own IP, and there aren't boatloads of alternative models for them, but WW2 Models? There's gakloads and gakloads of them from zillions of manufacturers.
EDIT because HURR HURR THERE THEIR
37231
Post by: d-usa
RatBot wrote:What I don't understand is how Battlefront got away with charging these prices for so long.
I mean, I can understand how GW and PP can have super pricy models; their models are based on their own IP, and their aren't boatloads of alternative models for them, but WW2 Models? There's gakloads and gakloads of them from zillions of manufacturers.
I think their only real justification is that the models you get come packaged to comply with their army lists. When you buy a platoon of infantry you get the exact amount of models you need, all the weapon options you need, all the bases you need, etc.. So buying Battlefront could be "easier" than putting together stuff from 3rd party folks. And all your infantry will match up pretty nicely. But other than that I don't really have a good answer. Anywho, glad I only invested $150 in the game so far, will have to reconsider if I really want to start playing GWW2.
10414
Post by: Big P
But thats the whole point of historical gaming...
You are not restricted to one company like GW.
There are loads of different options for vehicles, figures and rules in a variety of scales.
Attempting a 'its my ball and you cant play with it attitude' would seem to be a very silly way of building support and encouragement for Battlefront products.
Still its their decision.
I doubt their competition will go away very soon, and I cant see this doing much other than shooting themselves in the foot.
Of course... It may make people look at other rules, ones that are less prescriptive of what toys you use... Like Battlegroup Kursk from PSC for example...
53527
Post by: Cwen
Big P wrote:
Attempting a 'its my ball and you cant play with it attitude' would seem to be a very silly way of building support and encouragement for Battlefront products.
This is exactly the reason myself and plenty of my friends decided to stop collecting GW stuff.
Based on the reaction on the forums this seems to be a shared feeling.
Hopefully they will realise the mistake.
But I doubt it. Like they say, it is a business after all.
26225
Post by: General Seric
Though this does not affect me (as I don't play in tournaments), it still makes me sad to see them make such a GW like move.
I am not going to stop playing FoW though, as I still like the rules and it is the most played in my area. Beyond their terrible policies, GW drove me away with their bland and weak rule set, but I greatly enjoy the rules for FoW (and I doubt many other 15mm rule sets have Italians in them).
d-usa wrote:RatBot wrote:What I don't understand is how Battlefront got away with charging these prices for so long.
I mean, I can understand how GW and PP can have super pricy models; their models are based on their own IP, and their aren't boatloads of alternative models for them, but WW2 Models? There's gakloads and gakloads of them from zillions of manufacturers.
I think their only real justification is that the models you get come packaged to comply with their army lists. When you buy a platoon of infantry you get the exact amount of models you need, all the weapon options you need, all the bases you need, etc..
So buying Battlefront could be "easier" than putting together stuff from 3rd party folks. And all your infantry will match up pretty nicely. But other than that I don't really have a good answer.
Anywho, glad I only invested $150 in the game so far, will have to reconsider if I really want to start playing GWW2.
It is also harder to find other ranges than FoW miniatures in hobby stores, so many of the sales can also come from their availability in game stores.
There are also some factions that many other manufacturers don't make complete ranges for, like Italians (Old Glory has a range of Italians, but they are quite hideous). Some of the equipment for Italy is only available from BF.
Some of the rarer units are also harder to find from other manufacturers, like anti-aircraft vehicles and odd things like Lancia da 90/53s.
43331
Post by: chaos45
Wow....this is a bad choice....I know most of my Armies are a heavy mix of both Battlefront and non-battlefront stuff.
This is extremely disappointing.....
17509
Post by: orkboy232
As disappointed as I am with this move by battlefront, in reality it doesn't overly affect me. I've yet to see an official battlefront tournament anywhere near me, and even if there was chances are I wouldn't be going. That said though it really does seem like a stupid move
33033
Post by: kenshin620
And people already complain that FoW is the 40k of historicals...
Though thankfully FoW doesnt have their own stores or anything. Friendly games will still be friendly. Tournaments on the other hand....do you think TO's can set their own rules?
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
This doesn’t really affect me as I’m not really a tournament player, nevertheless this really does strike me as a rather mean spirited move on BF’s behalf.
I guess the main motivator is the fact that the competition isn’t just a minor factor any more. 2 years ago the only other companies that produced significant lines of WW2 stuff in 15mm where Skytrex/Old Glory and Peter Pig. Now new companies are popping up that are seriously giving BF a run for their money in terms of both quality and price.
Forged in Battle for example produce superior infantry to BF (IMHO) which require far less cleanup work and are only about ¾ of the price. PSC are obviously far cheaper than BF in terms of their vehicles you can't tell the difference until you pick them up.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
The responses from the Battlefront guys sort of feel... insulting.
94
Post by: combat engineer
And that reply woud be?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
While I do not play in the tournament scene, and get my BF models a bit cheaper from WS, I understand the anger from other FoW players. I am not surprised by the move from the company, as I'm sure they're loosing cash hand over fist to other 15mm WWII model makers. This, in my opinion, is not the way to accomplish anything except drive dedicated fans away from the game and seeing FoW tournaments die off. Sad day...
21966
Post by: col. krazy kenny
Well, this does not surprise any.Since i do not and will not play in any tournaments.I prefer the friendly Garage games were i can eat,drink,and cuss.With no children around sorry...
As for my collection i prefer the Battlefront infantry which are not that badly priced if you get them for a discount or buy second from Ebay.As for the PSC stuff.i do own a few of the sets but i do buy the BAttlefront Command vehicles and the occasional single to bring the kits up to squad strength.
But i do understand the stance that they are making too.especially if they are losing alot of money and the other tourney players are complaing about the 3rd party models.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, this does not surprise any.Since i do not and will not play in any tournaments.I prefer the friendly Garage games were i can eat,drink,and cuss.With no children around sorry...
As for my collection i prefer the Battlefront infantry which are not that badly priced if you get them for a discount or buy second from Ebay.As for the PSC stuff.i do own a few of the sets but i do buy the BAttlefront Command vehicles and the occasional single to bring the kits up to squad strength.
But i do understand the stance that they are making too.especially if they are losing alot of money and the other tourney players are complaing about the 3rd party models.
43331
Post by: chaos45
I have been to alot of tournaments including attending after events like dinner with attendees an such. I have not once heard a fellow player complain about non-BF minis.
Ive heard people mention unpainted/silver surfer issues but never complaints about who made the minis.
I think this is something BF invented to sound good.
30265
Post by: SoloFalcon1138
So, when will the FOW players rage-quit over this and defect to another system?
33033
Post by: kenshin620
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, when will the FOW players rage-quit over this and defect to another system?
Well that depends on how many of them are tourny goers. Casual players probably wont even pick up on this news in my mind.
Though PSC's new system came in such a timely manner 
33495
Post by: infinite_array
SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So, when will the FOW players rage-quit over this and defect to another system?
Who knows? At the moment, I'll be adding to my Panzer Lehr by using Forged in Battle and PSC. Since it's already an illegal force in Battlefront-events, there's no reason not to just keep going. If we start seeing more measures like this being taken - like the new Rangers program which people are suspecting will help to push to 'Battlefront only' mindset beyond their tournaments - well, it's an open playing field. In most cases, I wouldn't have to do anything beyond spending $25-$45 to buy a new ruleset. kenshin620 wrote:
Well that depends on how many of them are tourny goers. Casual players probably wont even pick up on this news in my mind.
Over on the FoW forum, there are plenty of people saying 'Well, I don't play in tournaments, but I definitely don't like the direction decisions like this are taking Battlefront'. The main problem is this:  That's one of the head guys of Battlefront promising that what has just happened will never happen.
47953
Post by: Stoupe
infinite_array wrote:The responses from the Battlefront guys sort of feel... insulting.
Just starting this game... Reading the responses from John-Paul. I actually found it insanely respectful and has me wanting to buy my second army bf only so that it could do the official tournaments. I think they are having amazing customer service right now.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Well if I ever went to official BF tournaments I would be forced to stop now. Stupid and short sighted BF.
Re: John-Paul's post. If BF went ahead and made a better T-34 kit that was better value than the PSC one then that would be a very good thing.
47953
Post by: Stoupe
combat engineer wrote:And that reply woud be?
Posted By John-Paul on 12 Jul 2012 10:04 PM
If I was a child and wanted to hold my breath I would not be letting people run around on our forum spouting such utter nonsense but deleting their posts and banning their accounts but that would be childish and serve no real purpose as I prefer to read what is said and then comment when I feel the need.
If Flames Of War is not creating our own IP I dont know what is and I know that Pete, Phil, Wayne, Evan and the guys would disagree as they have spent the last ten years of their lives dedicated to creating a hobby that is the heart of our business and completely unique. FOW is what drives the WWII 15mm gaming community and has done for many years and despite other manufacturers of models it was never any more than just another historical scale before FOW came along. If supporting your hobby involves you changing sides every time a business decision upsets you I would ask anybody who enjoyed their free copy of 3rd edition to speak up and say that we behaved like GW. Stand up and tell me that we are like any other company and I will give you five exmaples where we have proven time and again we are not. We are simply making a choice for our own events and even if you disagree you should respect us for the right to do so as just like giving away the rules free to over 50,000 people this year the same people made that choice so we cant be as bad as some of you would make out.
The problem is that the vocal few with more opinion than understanding would make it sound like this effects the entire hobby. You are wrong. Competitive gaming is a part of our hobby and we support it becasue we want to help that part grow but 90+% of all gamers are casual players who play in stores and at friends houses and never particpate in a tournament. These are the core of our business and despite some posters in this thread claiming to "know" this is a small issue effecting a gorup of players who however vocal are not the only gamers in the hobby.
Despite it being unwise to comment on this thread it is hard to read personal attacks on yourself and your team without feeling a little hurt and whilst I should not defend our choice more as it will just give some of you more fuel to bleat I stand by what I say. Try and look at the big picture, remember who we are, what we have done and how FOW got here and then just decide if that is your hobby or not as you shoud want to support your hobby and if this or any other decison we make has you changing your mind then we wish you all the best and thank you for your business but we will still be here doing our best and behaving the way we always have.
Bf forums regarding this decision.
2559
Post by: ancientsociety
Insulting puts it mildly.
The fact that the article and JP's reply (buried around pg 8 of the FOW forum discussion) specifically state "the FOW Hobby" is a MASSIVE insult to the entire historical gaming industry and community who's support has made FOW such a success. BF seems to have forgotten that, early on, their "competitors" were produced lots of minis they were unable or unwilling to produce.
As far as JP's assertion that they have created "their own IP", that's nonsense. This isn't the universe GW created for WFB/40K; you can't assert IP over real-life history.
I won't be quitting FOW, but I am going to stop buying their products until this hare-brained decision is reversed.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
I think that this is probably one of the worst examples of wargaming snobbishness that I have seen for a while.
I will state that personally i am absolutely in the camp of i hate facing other miniatures for both tourney systems i play! and the smugness i get from players saying yes these only cost me x as though that is something to be proud of. ( this is not a battlefront point but mine.)
That was posted by John Paul (halfway down page 9).
I have already scaled back my BF purchases after the Maelstrom debacle and after this I will only buy critical rulebooks and anything that I can't satisfactoraily buy from other manufacturers. Its a short sighted move that will do them no good what so ever.
10414
Post by: Big P
If Flames Of War is not creating our own IP I dont know what is
Ferdinand Porsche may have something to say about that.
Unbeliveable...
47953
Post by: Stoupe
Maybe it's the gamer in me... Or maybe it's the fact that "historical" gaming has not appealed to me until FOW. But I disagree. They created a ruleset. The rules are thier IP. They can say in thier rules you have to use their miniatures in official tournaments. Cause they're paying for it (or atleast investing a portion into it). Was it a bad business decision? Maybe. Will attendance go down? Definately.
I don't know any company that does official tournaments like this that doesn't do this. If I walked up to a wmhd tourney with a demon prince converted to work like ethagrosh, I'd be laughed at.
They're not banning use from local tourneys and events. Even "GTs" could be run without them. Just if they're putting money into the GT expect this.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Damn right. FoW is a ruleset, a very expansive one and one that I like very much. But it's noting more than that.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
If Flames Of War is not creating our own IP I dont know what is
The only thing I can think of is they created their rulesets etc based around the 15mm scale WWII, and so made 15mm scale WWII "what it is today" using their IP (the rules).
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Palindrome wrote:I think that this is probably one of the worst examples of wargaming snobbishness that I have seen for a while.
I will state that personally i am absolutely in the camp of i hate facing other miniatures for both tourney systems i play! and the smugness i get from players saying yes these only cost me x as though that is something to be proud of. ( this is not a battlefront point but mine.)
That was posted by John Paul (halfway down page 9).
I have already scaled back my BF purchases after the Maelstrom debacle and after this I will only buy critical rulebooks and anything that I can't satisfactoraily buy from other manufacturers. Its a short sighted move that will do them no good what so ever.
Actually, that was posted by some other guy - 'JM' - and is on page 13.
The rest, I agree. I certainly wouldn't want to play a game with this guy,
53595
Post by: Palindrome
infinite_array wrote:
Actually, that was posted by some other guy - 'JM' - and is on page 13.
The rest, I agree. I certainly wouldn't want to play a game with this guy,
So it was, still a staff member though and it is page 9 with my settings 
Apparently 'JM' is the CEO.
10414
Post by: Big P
Stoupe wrote: The rules are thier IP.
Actually rules mechanics are not generally covered by IP.
27156
Post by: Aldramelech
I've been warning about BF's pretensions to be the next GW here for some time and got shouted down quite loudly too 
I've seen this coming from a long way off.
The thing I find most annoying about this is "The FOW Hobby". There is no such bloody thing! There is WW2 Wargaming, there is the Hobby of Wargaming but BF do not own WW2 gaming in any way shape or form. WW2 Gaming was here when they were crapping on their hands and wiping it on their faces and will be here long after they've gone.
934
Post by: Mezmaron
I can understand why they did this. Won't affect me at all, since I play at home and have no plans to play in a sanctioned tournament.
BF has a problem. WW2 is public domain. BF is very different from GW - you will never see a 3rd party Tervigon for 40K (ok, so that's may be a bad example, but you get my overall point).
BF's problem is this - as a new player (I started in April with 3rd Edition) I've spent over $600 on FOW already (and have only played one test game). However, that $600 is split in these ways:
Crescent Root - $250 (Buildings)
Games Workshop - $35 (Gaming Mat)
Woodland Scenics - $75 (Trees)
PSC - $85 (Tanks)
Point of Contact - $50 (Tanks)
Wargames Factory - $25 (Infantry)
Wizards of the Coast - $20 (Planes)
Battlefront - $60 (Rulebooks)
I've only spent $60 (10%) of the entire FOW "hobby" with BF....
However, the fact that there are cheap, 3rd party models is the only way I could get my friends into the game. Because my friends were willing to get into the game, I bought the FOW rulebooks. So in a way, the cheap models gave them $60.
Mez
53527
Post by: Cwen
Now that I've had a chance to read through the comments on the forums I'm not as annoyed now. The decision is not going to affect me in the way it would a tournament goer as I don't play I tournaments. Therefore I'm going to continue to buy their models as I think for what they produce they do a good job.
The thing I worry about is that I gave up GW stuff because of the way they did their business. They had a monopoly on the market, their models are very distinct and they have tried to copy write and protect absolutely everything. Their latest paint changes are just an example of this. They neglected a lot of the factions (Tau haven't had a new codex in years) and their policy of increasing prices every year is infuriating. I also read the bullying tactics they used against independent retailers and I hated the sales tactics employed by GW store staff.
Everything they did put me off wanting to contribute money to them.
I found Flames of War just before V3 came out. The first purchase I made was a Panzer IV H and it came with the free V3 softback rulebook. After building the Pz IV I wasnt too happy with the model itself so I decided to try Plastic Soldier Company. I loved their models as they were so crisp and clean which is what I wanted for my new army. However I have still ploughed loads more money into buying BF stuff as I liked their models and wanted to support them as a business with a good attitude to its clients.
With this move I feel uneasy and suspicious that they will turn into the nasty bully that GW has become. I would be punished if I wanted to play an official tournament because I have a model that I thought was superior quality (If a lot cheaper). If they end up becoming the new GW I would have to stop supporting them, which is something I dont want.
I'm sure I'm not the only person who sees it this way
**Sorry for the rant, but thats just my take on the whole thing.
10414
Post by: Big P
Seems a rational point of view mate.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Couldnt resist posting this... A mate of mine who plays FOW sent me this;
It followed this post;
John Matthews the lead guy at BF USA HQ wrote:
The latest PR triumph for BF –
I'm going to refute some statements here but I'm sure that i will be told how wrong I am and how this is the end etc etc.
1. This is NOT a GW move! What would be a GW moved would be to cancel all GW run tournaments and the write 2 sets of rules that are very tournament/competitive unfriendly, close the official forum and bury my head in the sand. oh wait that's exactly what they did do! or you could try the other competitive system Privateer , good luck with using other models there at any and all events!
2. It's at our tournaments. if a TO wants his own regulations then choose them we will still offer support and prizes if asked. ( though to all you TO'S I'm going to run a quick scenario by you. At your tournament can i pay my mate Dave 60% and you 0% of the entry fee to come play at your event? i bet the answer is no and for exactly the same reason as we would like you to use our stuff you have bills to pay and what does Dave do for you with running this event)
3. This point I'm sure will be disbelieved by the vehement, we get quite a lot of people saying they don't enjoy playing against non battlefront miniatures and would love a way to mark opponents down for having them but feel they would be ridiculed, marked down themselves, called unsporting, labelled FANBOY so they keep quite just put up with it. However the players who are using other minis are making someone else's hobby less enjoyable, there are 2 sides always.
4. models we don't produce. i don't know yet. as for JU 88'S is there a list where you actually pay the points for these?
5. My last bit would be to say no one has yet given the reasons why we should allow other miniatures. some have given vague its helps get people into the hobby but nothing real ( i hate the idea is not going to cut it here) I suppose i would like conclude here by asking you to take a deep breath and ask yourself "if you owned a game company where your sole income came from, and people started doing to you what some of you are doing what would you do?"
sadly i expect i wont be surprised by the response's to my post
JM
Apologies to any offended FOW players.
53527
Post by: Cwen
I've read all of his posts so far. He is not doing himself, or FoW any favours.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Is it just me or did the bit about TO's just not make sense?
And if people were picking other model companies over my own, I would look at why, rather than carrying on as normal other than to ban people from using those other models in 'official' tournaments.
And people get upset if the person they are playing against has a slightly different 15mm scale version of exactly the same tank that BF make? Really? Pretty sure you would not be able to tell the majority of the time unless it was pointed out...
59899
Post by: Cleal Baros
Alongside this I have it on good authority that Battlefront have aggressively approached a number of internet traders this week promising them access to new releases two weeks early so long as they stop stocking PSC.
I for one thought Battlefront better than this behavior and am quite disappointed in their conduct. Surely a far better approach would have been to knock on the PSC's door and ask the guy if he's ever thought about moving to New Zealand.
10414
Post by: Big P
Oh yes, thats been happening.
Heard it from a few traders... Which led me to spend my day job looking up EU regulations on protectionism. Bad for traders and consumers that sort of behaviour.
As I know Will from PSC (spent last weekend with him at Bovington) I can safely say that he wouldnt be interested in moving to New Zealand. I also dont think there is any love lost seeing as John-Paul stated in a WWPD interview that PSC models were 'toys made in China' despite them being a totally UK designed and made product.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Which one? Was that the one where he also suggested other kits are difficult to put together? Clearly John-Paul has never put together a Battlefront Panzer IV.
Where are Battlefront's kits manufactured? IIRC it's not in New Zealand.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
George Spiggott wrote: IIRC it's not in New Zealand.
Malaysia, I believe.
94
Post by: combat engineer
Waiting for the die hards to throw their BF stuff on Bartertown for sale or trade.
Mat
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Nah. A 15mm WWII army is an investment for life. No matter who makes the minis there will always be a rule system.
Right now BF make my rules and some of my minis.
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
Cleal Baros wrote:Alongside this I have it on good authority that Battlefront have aggressively approached a number of internet traders this week promising them access to new releases two weeks early so long as they stop stocking PSC.
What nasty bullying behavior. I hope non of my regular traders will colaborate.
15mm WW2 gaming is my primary gaming hobby today and must I admit that my choice of scale is most defiantly as a result of Flames of War, but recently I’m loathe to hand over money to Battlefront where an alternative exists. Plastic Soldier Company and Forged in Battle are getting most of my cash of late.
It’s also noticeable that neither Plastic Soldier Company or Forged in Battle are getting any coverage in Wargames Illustrated at all. WW2 in non 15mm scales seems to be getting featured but WI is just pretending that PSC and FIB don’t exist.
To be honest I only play FOW at my local club becuase thats the best way to get a game. Outside of that environement I prefer other rulesets that don't require umpteen suplements.
Automatically Appended Next Post: George Spiggott wrote:Nah. A 15mm WWII army is an investment for life. No matter who makes the minis there will always be a rule system.
Right now BF make my rules and some of my minis.
Exactly. Even if they where to abandon BF completely there are other rules out there that they can use their old armies with.
Rapid Fire, Blitzkrieg Commander, I aint been shot yet mum, Kampfgroup Kursk, Battlefront WW2, Spearhead.......
No need to be straightjackected by BF.
45587
Post by: Makarov
http://www.wwpd.net/2012/07/on-non-battlefront-models-in.html
I don't think it's a huge stretch to assume there are, of course, other motives at work here. Recouping some lost revenues as the competition has increased dramatically in the last years. Though this is speculation, I'd say there's pretty strong evidence of it.
Of course none of us truly know what kind of analysis was done before this, but I feel confident that the folks up top at Battlefront are competent. And that means they expected this push-back, crunched the numbers, and decided it was best for their business. As much as we may disagree with it, we aren't running the 2nd largest miniatures company in the world.
...
What can we do as a community? The most important thing anyone can do is to make their opinion heard by the right people. I don't mean go angrily rant on their forum. Angry forum rants are received the way they're posted- without much consideration. Tell your LGS. Vote with your dollar. Write reasoned, polite, and articulate e-mails.
Please don't take out your frustration on Battlefront employees at events. I'm sure a majority of them were not involved in this decision. They at least understand your frustrations. I don't envy Joe Krone, Jordan, and the rest of the crew at the upcoming Historicon. Please don't take out your anger on them!
4543
Post by: Phydox
I can't help feeling irritated by this, even though it probably will never affect me.
After spending all those years playing GW stuff, and suffering through the Hate, it was actually refreshing when I went to FoW. I hope these GW like decisions don't add more GW like hate threads in this section.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Just wanted to point out, BKCII is on sale on pdf now for 12 pounds. I picked it up, and made up 2 2000 point army lists so I can experiment with 1944 Normandy Brits vs. Fallschirmjagers.
10414
Post by: Big P
BKC II is an ace game.
Played it for years.
45587
Post by: Makarov
I am kind of with BF on this. Though I do have some reservations. While the current change doesn't bother me that much, and BF is a LONG way from being GW (for example Easyarmy.com is allowed to exist, not suing PSC, etc.)I still be buy/enjoying their products, but I will be keeping my eyes open.
10414
Post by: Big P
Makarov wrote:, not suing PSC, etc.
Wanna enlighten us on what exactly they can sue PSC for?
Cos I can tell you the answer now - Nothing.
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
I'm sure I've mentioned this before somewhere, but I'm always slightly saddened when official responses from high-up employees in large companies managed to fail so badly at basic punctuation and grammar. It seems...slightly unprofessional.
As for 'don't enjoy playing opposite non-BF miniatures'.. just LOL.
45587
Post by: Makarov
Big P wrote:Makarov wrote:, not suing PSC, etc.
Wanna enlighten us on what exactly they can sue PSC for? Cos I can tell you the answer now - Nothing.
Fair enough. But, my other point still stands. I will in fact add to it List of things that BF does/did that GW doesn't do or wouldn't do -Allow 3rd party manufactures to exist (I admit WW 2 is public domain, but I still argue this point) -Allow people to use their name/logos/etc. -Allow Army builder to use represent their product -Release stickers for their source book in response to fan criticism (ie Blitzkrieg) -Allow easyarmy.com to exist -Come up with free force lists and give them out on their website -Allow older force lists to still be legal -Gives away free main rulebooks -Gave a way free blisters if you got your rulebook spiral bound and emailed them a picture of the receipt and a explication
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Makarov wrote:
Fair enough. But, my other point still stands. I will in fact add to it
List of things that BF does/did that GW doesn't do or wouldn't do
-Allow 3rd party manufactures to exist (I admit WW 2 is public domain, but I still argue this point)
-Allow people to use their name/logos/etc.
-Allow Army builder to use represent their product
-Allow easyarmy.com to exist
-Come up with free force lists and give them out on their website
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
-Gives away free main rulebooks
-Gave a way free blisters if you got your rulebook spiral bound and emailed them a picture of the receipt and a explication
1. There is quite literally nothing that BF could do to stop other manufactuers making WWII miniatures. Nothing.
2. OK, although alot of their logos are public domain as well.
3. OK, but so do GW.
4. I wonder for how much longer?
5. OK
6. Older BF lists, while still usable, are significantly under powerered compared to newer lists. Are old GW codices actually illegal?
7. My 'free' rulebook fell apart before I had even read it once.
8. I didn't know about that.
BF have always been the GW of historicals; initially that was a good thing but over the last couple of years they have started to emulate GW's bad points as well.
94
Post by: combat engineer
About #3., GW and armybuilder are not best friends now at the moment.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Well GW and a website that hosted AB files aren't the best of friends, AB itself is still going.
Army builder isn't very good anyway
45587
Post by: Makarov
Palindrome wrote:Makarov wrote:
Fair enough. But, my other point still stands. I will in fact add to it
List of things that BF does/did that GW doesn't do or wouldn't do
-Allow 3rd party manufactures to exist (I admit WW 2 is public domain, but I still argue this point)
-Allow people to use their name/logos/etc.
-Allow Army builder/battlescribe to use represent their product
-Allow easyarmy.com to exist
-Come up with free force lists and give them out on their website
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
-Gives away free main rulebooks
-Gave a way free blisters if you got your rulebook spiral bound and emailed them a picture of the receipt and a explication
1. There is quite literally nothing that BF could do to stop other manufactuers making WWII miniatures. Nothing. They still exist and you can buy from them. Last time I checked I can't say the same for my IG. Also at the end of the day if you get really pissed at their policies and decide to stop buying from them, you could just by 3rd party minis and still play the game casually. 2. OK, although alot of their logos are public domain as well. GW has a habit of suing people for using the term 40k. For example they sent a cease and desist order to 40k Radio for using their name 3. OK, but so do GW. GW is currently suing army builder. 4. I wonder for how much longer? They still exist and are allowed to exit. 5. OK 6. Older BF lists, while still usable, are significantly under powerered compared to newer lists. Are old GW codices actually illegal? Yes they are. 7. My 'free' rulebook fell apart before I had even read it once.[color=red]Have you receive a free physical rulebook from GW/ PP/any other company[color] 8. I didn't know about that. BF have always been the GW of historicals; initially that was a good thing but over the last couple of years they have started to emulate GW's bad points as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Palindrome wrote:Well GW and a website that hosted AB files aren't the best of friends, AB itself is still going.
Army builder isn't very good anyway
Don't forget battlescribe as well
10414
Post by: Big P
LMAO.
"Allow 3rd party manufactures to exist"
Sorry, but I cant believe you made that point.
You do know people made WW2 figures before Battlefront came along...?
You can argue all you like that WW2 isnt public domain, but unfortunately, you would be talking b0ll0cks.
I suspect the only man able to sue, would be Ferdinand Porsche...
45587
Post by: Makarov
Big P wrote:LMAO. "Allow 3rd party manufactures to exist" Sorry, but I cant believe you made that point. You do know people made WW2 figures before Battlefront came along...?
You can argue all you like that WW2 isnt public domain, but unfortunately, you would be talking b0ll0cks. I suspect the only man able to sue, would be Ferdinand Porsche...
I never said they owned it, I said very clearly at the top in relation to GW, and seeing as how in GW doesn't allow 3rd party manufacturer to exist. Also what about all the other points?
10414
Post by: Big P
No idea about the rest, I dont play FOW or GW games.
The point is they cannot do anything about other makers as they did not 'create' WW2 like GW created their background.
45587
Post by: Makarov
Like I posted for the third time BF doesn't own ww2. I have stated that as well. But, you can still buy 3rd party minis, last time I checked PP/GW/Mantic/etc. don't let that happen.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Makarov wrote:Like I posted for the third time BF doesn't own ww2. I have stated that as well. But, you can still buy 3rd party minis, last time I checked PP/GW/Mantic/etc. don't let that happen.
They're not really 3rd party minatures, they are just minatures from other companies. They'd be 3rd party if they were models made by other companies based on the IP of BF to be used expressly in their games. They are not, they are 15mm WWII models which happens to be the same scale used by FOW.
45587
Post by: Makarov
SilverMK2 wrote:Makarov wrote:Like I posted for the third time BF doesn't own ww2. I have stated that as well. But, you can still buy 3rd party minis, last time I checked PP/GW/Mantic/etc. don't let that happen.
They're not really 3rd party minatures, they are just minatures from other companies. They'd be 3rd party if they were models made by other companies based on the IP of BF to be used expressly in their games. They are not, they are 15mm WWII models which happens to be the same scale used by FOW.
Look we are impasse ok, I am not going to convert you nor you me on this point.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Makarov wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:Makarov wrote:Like I posted for the third time BF doesn't own ww2. I have stated that as well. But, you can still buy 3rd party minis, last time I checked PP/GW/Mantic/etc. don't let that happen.
They're not really 3rd party minatures, they are just minatures from other companies. They'd be 3rd party if they were models made by other companies based on the IP of BF to be used expressly in their games. They are not, they are 15mm WWII models which happens to be the same scale used by FOW.
Look we are impasse ok, I am not going to convert you nor you me on this point.
You can still be at an impasse and be wrong.
45587
Post by: Makarov
infinite_array wrote:Makarov wrote:SilverMK2 wrote:Makarov wrote:Like I posted for the third time BF doesn't own ww2. I have stated that as well. But, you can still buy 3rd party minis, last time I checked PP/GW/Mantic/etc. don't let that happen.
They're not really 3rd party minatures, they are just minatures from other companies. They'd be 3rd party if they were models made by other companies based on the IP of BF to be used expressly in their games. They are not, they are 15mm WWII models which happens to be the same scale used by FOW.
Look we are impasse ok, I am not going to convert you nor you me on this point.
You can still be at an impasse and be wrong.
Fine I'm wrong, what about the 8 other points?
10414
Post by: Big P
But your point is utterly flawed.
You seem to think that someone making 15mm WW2 figures is encroaching on BF's trademark when that is utterly impossible.
WW2 is not BF's design, thus people making 15mm WW2 figures are not 3rd party manufacturers, but simply manufacturers who in several cases pre-date BF.
45587
Post by: Makarov
Big P wrote:But your point is utterly flawed.
You seem to think that someone making 15mm WW2 figures is encroaching on BF's trademark when that is utterly impossible.
WW2 is not BF's design, thus people making 15mm WW2 figures are not 3rd party manufacturers, but simply manufacturers who in several cases pre-date BF.
I never said it was, and I said several times that they don't own it since it is public domain. Also that we're at an impasse ,and maybe focus on the other 8 points.
10414
Post by: Big P
The other points are irrelevant to me.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Makarov wrote:
Fine I'm wrong, what about the 8 other points?
7 other points, let's look at them:
-Allow people to use their name/logos/etc.
What names and logos? You mean the names and logos of the friggin actual units that fought in WWII? It's not like Battlefront made them up for gaks and giggles, you know.
-Allow Army builder/battlescribe to use represent their product
Ok. But so do plenty of other miniatures companies.
-Allow easyarmy.com to exist
Alright, I'll give you that.
-Come up with free force lists and give them out on their website
Again, a good point.
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
And makes their newer ones better.
-Gives away free main rulebooks
For a limited time. Other companies give out free rules, downloadable as PDF files. We'll put this in the neutral bin.
-Gave a way free blisters if you got your rulebook spiral bound and emailed them a picture of the receipt and a explication
Never, ever saw either an example or even a murmur of this. I remember them sending you something if you complained that your rulebook fell apart and you then had to pay to get it spiral bound in order to use it.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
People have already commented on the other points. The one people have problems with is the one they are continuing to comment on. The one that I'm not exactly sure how you can consider to still be a point in your argument (such that it is), given it is utterly ludicrous.
45587
Post by: Makarov
infinite_array wrote:Makarov wrote:
Fine I'm wrong, what about the 8 other points?
7 other points, let's look at them:
-Allow people to use their name/logos/etc.
What names and logos? You mean the names and logos of the friggin actual units that fought in WWII? It's not like Battlefront made them up for gaks and giggles, you know.
Several groups as 40K radio have been sued for mentioning/talking about 40k. WWPD.net has for mentioning them and their game
-Allow Army builder/battlescribe to use represent their product
Ok. But so do plenty of other miniatures companies.
No GW is currently issued a cease and desist order to AB them,and is trying to get them closed down. As for battlescribe they also received one a few years back, any list that they have for 40k is "technically" not allowed
-Allow easyarmy.com to exist
Alright, I'll give you that.
-Come up with free force lists and give them out on their website
Again, a good point.
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
And makes their newer ones better.
In other games most of the older lists are rendered illegal once a newer one comes out.
-Gives away free main rulebooks
For a limited time. Other companies give out free rules, downloadable as PDF files. We'll put this in the neutral bin.
Yes several companies such as mantic have downloadable rules. But not full free physical rule books that they printed at a loss.
-Gave a way free blisters if you got your rulebook spiral bound and emailed them a picture of the receipt and a explication
Never, ever saw either an example or even a murmur of this. I remember them sending you something if you complained that your rulebook fell apart and you then had to pay to get it spiral bound in order to use it.
I also should mention that they edited their old books when there was fan complaint i.e. blitzkrieg sticker.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote:People have already commented on the other points. The one people have problems with is the one they are continuing to comment on. The one that I'm not exactly sure how you can consider to still be a point in your argument (such that it is), given it is utterly ludicrous.
Fine, I'm wrong about it.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Doesn't easyarmy.com pay a licensing fee to BF?
45587
Post by: Makarov
d-usa wrote:Doesn't easyarmy.com pay a licensing fee to BF?
I never thought they did. But, to be fair I don't know.
37231
Post by: d-usa
Makarov wrote:d-usa wrote:Doesn't easyarmy.com pay a licensing fee to BF?
I never thought they did. But, to be fair I don't know.
If they do it does lessen the "goodwill" of BF "allowing" them to exist.
Not saying it is a bad decision, but licensing something out is different then letting people just do it.
I am happy BF does license it though.
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
It took a while, but I waded through 42 pages of BF Forum, and I think I can safely say they have well and truly proper dicked this one up. Mostly with the 'FOW Hobby' comment, and that arse who apparently works for them. I seem to recall that my main bugbear with the FOW/Maelstrom argument was not that the decision was right or wrong, but that the FOW man had sent a massively rude and unprofessional email that made him and his parent company look like dicks. It seems that BF have failed to rein in the people they hire from saying bloody stupid things in the light of that. I might just go and order a bucket-load of PSC entirely because these Corporate types have irked me with their silliness. When is this 'Kursk' book out exactly?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I just clocked that 'We aren't going to lock the thread' became 'Thread Locked'.
Are BF related to the Coalition Government?
37231
Post by: d-usa
I am surprised it stayed open as long as it did.
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
Not just that one. They've binned anything remotely related to the subject as well.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Yeesh! That's quite the lockdown.
45587
Post by: Makarov
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Not just that one. They've binned anything remotely related to the subject as well.
Even they even shutdown the support BF thread too. I'm guessing we are going to here an update another about all of this, this Thursday.
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
Be interesting to see if they can generate a climb-down, or a compromise. Maybe they'll put out a sticker?
37231
Post by: d-usa
I think even a "75% of models have to be BF" would have been a lot better received that this.
4412
Post by: George Spiggott
Releasing models to compete with Plastic Soldier would have been best.
46071
Post by: ZatGuy
You know, looking at that tournament/events list I don't think this matters outside the USA (& maybe England).
In the USA they seem to have fairly good coverage of states but elsewhere such as in Canada they have but one event.
I have looked at Flames of War as some friends play it, but the FoW event listed for Canada is Thousands of kilometers away from me on the other side of the country. It would have zero impact on me if I started playing the game.
2559
Post by: ancientsociety
Trolls gonna troll.
Makarov wrote:Like I posted for the third time BF doesn't own ww2. I have stated that as well. But, you can still buy 3rd party minis, last time I checked PP/GW/Mantic/etc. don't let that happen.
LOL. Love how you include Mantic in that. You are aware of their history right? Like the reason they became so successful was by producing good quality, cheaper units that could port easily into WFB/ 40K and by heavily marketing to the GW crowd. As a tournie organizer for games like Necromunda, I've seen it firsthand - I don't get prize support from GW, I get it from Mantic.
Makarov wrote:infinite_array wrote:
Fine I'm wrong, what about the 8 other points?
7 other points, let's look at them:
-Allow people to use their name/logos/etc.
What names and logos? You mean the names and logos of the friggin actual units that fought in WWII? It's not like Battlefront made them up for gaks and giggles, you know.
Several groups as 40K radio have been sued for mentioning/talking about 40k. WWPD.net has for mentioning them and their game
40K Radio has never been sued by GW.
-Allow easyarmy.com to exist
Alright, I'll give you that.
-Come up with free force lists and give them out on their website
Again, a good point.
And easy army pays royalties to BF. This is why there are only a select few "book lists" that are free.
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
And makes their newer ones better.
In other games most of the older lists are rendered illegal once a newer one comes out.
Older lists are only "legal" in the sense that you can still use them in casual games when opposed by a similar "old list" or with opponent's consent. They are not tournament legal.
-Gives away free main rulebooks
For a limited time. Other companies give out free rules, downloadable as PDF files. We'll put this in the neutral bin.
Yes several companies such as mantic have downloadable rules. But not full free physical rule books that they printed at a loss.
DP9 is currently offering the PDFs of their Heavy Gear ruleset for free. Several other companies have also offered free rulebooks in the past as well.
Let's also not forget that, technically according to BF, to be eligible to receive the v3 rulebook, you already had to own a copy of v2 (though many retailers disregarded this).
-Gave a way free blisters if you got your rulebook spiral bound and emailed them a picture of the receipt and a explication
Never, ever saw either an example or even a murmur of this. I remember them sending you something if you complained that your rulebook fell apart and you then had to pay to get it spiral bound in order to use it.
Nope, nope, nope. This was pure internet conjecture.
I also should mention that they edited their old books when there was fan complaint i.e. blitzkrieg sticker.
Because they had gakked up the BAR rules so badly? Plenty of other companies do this as well (including GW).
As for your silly idea that BF "allows" other WW2 producers to exist, you need to understand that many of those "3rd party vendors" have been around decades longer than BF and were doing just fine financially before FOW was even an idea (and will most likely still be going strong long after BF is gone). For BF to call itself "the FOW hobby" and JP to state that they are "making an IP" (of WW2) is a huge slap in the face to the 15mm gaming industry as a whole since, when BF was just starting out, those competitors were already producing good quality minis that BF was unable or unwilling to produce itself. Heck, in many respects, they are still making minis that BF isn't.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
WW2 was a popular genre in 1/72 and in 6mm decades before Flames of War was thought of.
Battlefront's clever idea was to make a game similar to 40K, which helped 40K players to move into it, and to make their own models in 15mm. This was a new scale for WW2 at the time. People used to use 1/72 scale and 20mm models for WW2.
This 15mm scale established the BF models as the "official" ones but, as noted above, it's impossible to prevent competing companies from making 15mm models.
7950
Post by: marielle
@ Infinite Array
To answer your question from the other thread...
I agree entirely that it is not common in historical gaming, but as I pointed out the traditional model was not for the rules to be tied in tightly with the manufacturer. This is changing, for instance it makes no sense that Force on Force have an official figure range, other than to direct new players towards those figures.
In the case of Warlord I was thinking about the Bolt Action range and the new set of Preistley/Cavatore rules they are bringing out.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
Makarov wrote:
GW is currently suing army builder.
No they aren't. GW have asked that all GW related files be removed from a AB data file hosting site, they have been and all the files were simply moved to a different site. AB itself hasn't been contacted by GW and since the GW specific data files are all made by private individuals (not Lone Wolf) that just happen to be used with Amry Builder software there really isn't anything that GW could realistically do to AB anyway.
As the Chapterhouse Studios lawsuit has turned out to be not quite as easy (to say the least) as GW originally hoped they are not likely to be so quick to use the lawyer card in the future.
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
'Pete, John Mathews and I have been discussing the issue these past few hours and realise that making a rushed decision today will not benefit anyone. We have consensus from all three of us, the BF board, that we will change our stance on this issue but will not be able to finalise exactly what that means today as it is already 4.30pm here and 12.30am on the east coast.
We will convene again first thing in the morning to put in writing our formal reply and will post it on the website. We do appreciate the constructive feedback and have definitely listened to what is being said. We have proved in the past many times that we can accept feedback and change our plans as only a fool does not listen to their supporters so thank you and enjoy the rest of the weekend. I am off to get an aspirin and a cup of tea.' JP at BF, Credit where credit is due, they have taken note and are acting...but what action?
45599
Post by: RatBot
If Flames Of War is not creating our own IP I dont know what is
Well, that second part is true; he definitely doesn't know what "creating your own IP" is.
Unless FoW has its own unique fictional characters that they created, then maybe it qualifies, but I'm pretty sure it does not.
53595
Post by: Palindrome
RatBot wrote:
Unless FoW has its own unique fictional characters that they created, then maybe it qualifies, but I'm pretty sure it does not.
It does, at least one of its 'warriors' are fictional (the 6pdr gunner). Not that makes any difference at all though
40132
Post by: ArbeitsSchu
Given their elastic attitude to historical accuracy, maybe they are going to claim that what they are actually producing is a 'Slightly-Off Weird War 2' game?
'In OUR IP, the British never invented any ammunition to penetrate german armour, and every single kampfgruppe was made up entirely of Panthers. Thus we claim copyright on our wrongness.'
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I've got no argument with a rules writer also making models that are the "official" models for his rules.
If the genre is an historical one, only n00bs would be taken in.
I think that's what Battle Front are relying on.
91
Post by: Hordini
ancientsociety wrote:makarov wrote:
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
And makes their newer ones better.
In other games most of the older lists are rendered illegal once a newer one comes out.
Older lists are only "legal" in the sense that you can still use them in casual games when opposed by a similar "old list" or with opponent's consent. They are not tournament legal.
This is false. All of the lists in the older books are completely tournament legal. As has been said, they might not be very effective due to points adjustments in the newer books (although that often depends on the list), they are all still completely valid for tournaments and do not require your opponent's consent.
27156
Post by: Aldramelech
I'd like to point out that I was playing 15mm WW2 YEARS before BF existed, anybody remember Crossfire, Squad Leader etc.
As to the point about free PDF lists on they're site, have you noticed that they disappear just before a book comes out?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Two new things from Mr. Foot in mouth up on the site:
Wow obviously trying to actually respond to this and have even five mins to think about any kind of response is just not possible.
I have 43 more abuse emails and have just read that some people who know some people are accusing sales staff of doing bad things, we are negotiating deals heard from somebody else who knows somebody and a great deal of english correction going on.
I have now locked seven threads so that I can respond and not just keep watching more and more people be rude to each other over an issue that is ours to resolve. In the modern world web animosity is a killer disease and has made people brave and rude when in person they would not have the courage to even speak up.
I will post a repsonse on a new thread later today.
So its "Say that to my face!" time now?
And this:
Pete, John Mathews and I have been discussing the issue these past few hours and realise that making a rushed decision today will not benefit anyone. We have consensus from all three of us, the BF board, that we will change our stance on this issue but will not be able to finalise exactly what that means today as it is already 4.30pm here and 12.30am on the east coast.
We will convene again first thing in the morning to put in writing our formal reply and will post it on the website. We do appreciate the constructive feedback and have definitely listened to what is being said. We have proved in the past many times that we can accept feedback and change our plans as only a fool does not listen to their supporters so thank you and enjoy the rest of the weekend. I am off to get an aspirin and a cup of tea
So a climb down of some sorts incoming, I'm going to bet its not a complete climbdown though..................
2559
Post by: ancientsociety
Hordini wrote:ancientsociety wrote:makarov wrote:
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
And makes their newer ones better.
In other games most of the older lists are rendered illegal once a newer one comes out.
Older lists are only "legal" in the sense that you can still use them in casual games when opposed by a similar "old list" or with opponent's consent. They are not tournament legal.
This is false. All of the lists in the older books are completely tournament legal. As has been said, they might not be very effective due to points adjustments in the newer books (although that often depends on the list), they are all still completely valid for tournaments and do not require your opponent's consent.
Not from what I've been told by local tourny organizers. I've never run a FOW tourny myself though, so I'm more than willing to concede the point.
26225
Post by: General Seric
ArbeitsSchu wrote:Given their elastic attitude to historical accuracy, maybe they are going to claim that what they are actually producing is a 'Slightly-Off Weird War 2' game?
'In OUR IP, the British never invented any ammunition to penetrate german armour, and every single kampfgruppe was made up entirely of Panthers. Thus we claim copyright on our wrongness.'
Well, it seems that they are coming out with an Operation Sea Lion book, so, though it is based on historical plans, they could say that any "history" they write about the fictional invasion is their own IP.
27156
Post by: Aldramelech
Nah all been done before, dozens of what if books out there on that subject.
26225
Post by: General Seric
Aldramelech wrote:Nah all been done before, dozens of what if books out there on that subject.
I mean they could try to claim IP over the specific events and characters in their "what if" book.
10414
Post by: Big P
Operation Sea Lion book?
So no German landing craft, Rhine barges sinking in the English Channel and the Luftwaffe shot to bits while the Royal Navy sinks everything... Not too mention the lack of Fallschirmjager due to losses in men and aircraft.
Oh and if they do get ashore, dont forget the flame projectors and mustard gas...
Oh and throw in a complete lack of German amphibious landing experience and doctrine... Look at the disaster in Norway.
There was a reason the Germans cancelled it... Cos it would never work. They knew that from the start.
I may buy that book just to have a good giggle at it.
26225
Post by: General Seric
Big P wrote:Operation Sea Lion book?
So no German landing craft, Rhine barges sinking in the English Channel and the Luftwaffe shot to bits while the Royal Navy sinks everything... Not too mention the lack of Fallschirmjager due to losses in men and aircraft.
Oh and if they do get ashore, dont forget the flame projectors and mustard gas...
Oh and throw in a complete lack of German amphibious landing experience and doctrine... Look at the disaster in Norway.
There was a reason the Germans cancelled it... Cos it would never work. They knew that from the start.
I may buy that book just to have a good giggle at it.
I think that this book comes from the success of the WWPD Operation Sea Lion Campaign. They will probably play around with past historic events to make it seems a little more plausible, like having the Battle of Britain have gone in Germany's favor in this alternate history or something.
27156
Post by: Aldramelech
I see what your saying but I don't see how they would be able to claim IP when there are dozens of fictional books and what if semi history books on the subject, they would have to go seriously out of step with history to achieve that..........Wait this is BF, WTF was I thinking?
10414
Post by: Big P
Needs a bit more than losing BoB mate...
There is a thing called the English Channel in the way, patrolled by a Navy that would happily sacrifice itself to defend GB.
And to that a complete lack of German amphibious doctrine and its not playing around with past historical events, its utterly changing them to a degree that it is utterly implassible.
the you have the weather and sea currents to call into effect! Not too mention german logistics!
All the Sandhurst wargames of Sealion ended in German disaster. it just couldnt work during the 1940 window of opportunity.
7950
Post by: marielle
Big P wrote:Operation Sea Lion book?
So no German landing craft, Rhine barges sinking in the English Channel and the Luftwaffe shot to bits while the Royal Navy sinks everything... Not too mention the lack of Fallschirmjager due to losses in men and aircraft.
Oh and if they do get ashore, dont forget the flame projectors and mustard gas...
Oh and throw in a complete lack of German amphibious landing experience and doctrine... Look at the disaster in Norway.
There was a reason the Germans cancelled it... Cos it would never work. They knew that from the start.
I may buy that book just to have a good giggle at it.
Perhaps it will be set in the narrow period of time immediately following Dunkirk when the British were depleted of ammo, were seriously short of anti tank guns, and had not set about building fortifications.
And the Germans had no means of crossing the channel. Automatically Appended Next Post: Aldramelech wrote:I see what your saying but I don't see how they would be able to claim IP when there are dozens of fictional books and what if semi history books on the subject, they would have to go seriously out of step with history to achieve that..........Wait this is BF, WTF was I thinking?
There's always Bedknobs and Broomsticks...
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
General Seric wrote:ArbeitsSchu wrote:Given their elastic attitude to historical accuracy, maybe they are going to claim that what they are actually producing is a 'Slightly-Off Weird War 2' game?
'In OUR IP, the British never invented any ammunition to penetrate german armour, and every single kampfgruppe was made up entirely of Panthers. Thus we claim copyright on our wrongness.'
Well, it seems that they are coming out with an Operation Sea Lion book, so, though it is based on historical plans, they could say that any "history" they write about the fictional invasion is their own IP.
It would be a derivative work.
27156
Post by: Aldramelech
Just saw this on their site
Our bother,
Who art in New Zealand,
Hallowed be thy game.
Thy fan boys come,
Thy will be done,
On forum as it is in Devon.
Give us this day our daily read
And forgive us our trolling,
As we forgive those who troll against us.
And lead us not into others' figures,
But deliver us to sanctioned lists.
For thine is the website, the power and the decision
For ever and ever.
Amen
53527
Post by: Cwen
Aldramelech wrote:Just saw this on their site
Our bother,
Who art in New Zealand,
Hallowed be thy game.
Thy fan boys come,
Thy will be done,
On forum as it is in Devon.
Give us this day our daily read
And forgive us our trolling,
As we forgive those who troll against us.
And lead us not into others' figures,
But deliver us to sanctioned lists.
For thine is the website, the power and the decision
For ever and ever.
Amen
To Quote Dara O'Briain: "Wait a minute. The Protestants are still going?"
45587
Post by: Makarov
Aldramelech wrote:I'd like to point out that I was playing 15mm WW2 YEARS before BF existed, anybody remember Crossfire, Squad Leader etc.
As to the point about free PDF lists on they're site, have you noticed that they disappear just before a book comes out?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Two new things from Mr. Foot in mouth up on the site:
Wow obviously trying to actually respond to this and have even five mins to think about any kind of response is just not possible.
I have 43 more abuse emails and have just read that some people who know some people are accusing sales staff of doing bad things, we are negotiating deals heard from somebody else who knows somebody and a great deal of english correction going on.
I have now locked seven threads so that I can respond and not just keep watching more and more people be rude to each other over an issue that is ours to resolve. In the modern world web animosity is a killer disease and has made people brave and rude when in person they would not have the courage to even speak up.
I will post a repsonse on a new thread later today.
So its "Say that to my face!" time now?
And this:
Pete, John Mathews and I have been discussing the issue these past few hours and realise that making a rushed decision today will not benefit anyone. We have consensus from all three of us, the BF board, that we will change our stance on this issue but will not be able to finalise exactly what that means today as it is already 4.30pm here and 12.30am on the east coast.
We will convene again first thing in the morning to put in writing our formal reply and will post it on the website. We do appreciate the constructive feedback and have definitely listened to what is being said. We have proved in the past many times that we can accept feedback and change our plans as only a fool does not listen to their supporters so thank you and enjoy the rest of the weekend. I am off to get an aspirin and a cup of tea
So a climb down of some sorts incoming, I'm going to bet its not a complete climbdown though..................
Just got this email from BF "Battlefront Official Events Update In all the years we have been in business we have had an open and honest policy about listening to our gamers and genuinely taking their views on board to the extent of sometimes changing our plans. We apologise for the confusion and angst our announcement has caused as it was never our intention. We did not see this change as a big problem as we were simply formalising something we already thought was existing practise, albeit informally. In the interests of compromise and fairness to everybody’s opinion we will change the word “all” to “majority” (meaning over half) in the tournament rules for the 2013 season. Although we were not clear enough about this last week we did not consider die cast planes, scratch built models or objectives (assuming they are the right size), terrain or models we do not currently make to be covered by this. As is always the case, if you are unsure simply get in touch with your tournament organiser and clarify the situation but we are going to revert to the best option in all cases, common sense. The new season rules take effect from the masters in December this year and only apply to the officially run Battlefront tournaments listed on our site. Independent tournaments are free to choose their own system, as they always have been. One of the feedback ideas that did come back from our weekend conversations that we really liked was to also further reward people who came along with 100% Battlefront armies. This is an idea that we will definitely work on for the future. We are committed to supporting and growing the Flames Of War hobby and want to invest more in the future, in events, the website and programs like the Rangers all of which we are happy to spend money on to provide this to you for free. We want to thank our moderators for doing such a sterling job this weekend especially given they had no warning at all. We appreciate all the civil comments whether for or against. We feel that our compromise shows that we believed all views have merit. We hope this once again proves that we do listen." ~ Pete, John & John-Paul.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Compromise = good deal.
The fact that they can listen to their community and respond in kind = great!
Their reactions during the debacle, and the fact that this came up at all = an overshadowing problem that's only broken the trust formed between BF/FoW customers and BF.
26225
Post by: General Seric
This compromise is reasonable, but this whole thing was a huge PR blunder for them.
56721
Post by: Dawnbringer
That response is most reasonable, it's just unfortunate that so much nastiness had to come out of the whole event. It's better than GW's 'Hear no criticism, see no critisisim, speak not of criticism' approach at any rate.
55076
Post by: Poppabear
The whole thing is just a joke.
There just protecting their financial assets.
27156
Post by: Aldramelech
Poppabear wrote:The whole thing is just a joke.
There just protecting their financial assets.
Really? From who?
As to the half an army thing I'd love to see how they work that out
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
So, is that half your army overall, half your army discounting things that BF don't make, or half your army including the buildings and hedges etc on the table you play on?
55568
Post by: CainTheHunter
Wow, I did not notice that they referred to terrain as well. Now, that's really dumb - even GW does not care what You place on the table.
91
Post by: Hordini
ancientsociety wrote:Hordini wrote:ancientsociety wrote:makarov wrote:
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
And makes their newer ones better.
In other games most of the older lists are rendered illegal once a newer one comes out.
Older lists are only "legal" in the sense that you can still use them in casual games when opposed by a similar "old list" or with opponent's consent. They are not tournament legal.
This is false. All of the lists in the older books are completely tournament legal. As has been said, they might not be very effective due to points adjustments in the newer books (although that often depends on the list), they are all still completely valid for tournaments and do not require your opponent's consent.
Not from what I've been told by local tourny organizers. I've never run a FOW tourny myself though, so I'm more than willing to concede the point.
It's certainly possible that local tourney organizers could have their own policies regarding this, but as far as I know, Battlefront have never invalidated the older army books. In fact, when they made the switch to second edition they posted PDFs of how to update all the first edition army books to 2nd edition, and all the second edition books are still tournament legal. They've always been pretty big about not invalidating older army lists. Of course, the other thing is, a lot of the old lists really aren't all that different, aside from a bit of points reworking (which usually isn't in your favor if you're using an older book anyway). So I could make an Afrika Korps list from Desert Fox for example and it really wouldn't be much different from a list from Afrika or North Africa, except that it might be a bit smaller but even then, it would depend on the list.
This whole mess with the use of official Battlefront miniatures was a huge blunder on their part, and it's definitely harmed a lot of the good will that they've developed in the past few years, but I am glad that at the end of the day, they seem to still be willing to listen to the community and try to come to some sort of reasonable compromise. I really don't like them throwing around the " FoW Hobby" term though, I could definitely do without that.
CainTheHunter wrote:Wow, I did not notice that they referred to terrain as well. Now, that's really dumb - even GW does not care what You place on the table.
Battlefront doesn't care what terrain you use, that was the point. They were saying that they were never intending to limit terrain from other manufacturers. I'm guessing that someone raised that question on their forums, and they were just trying to be as clear as possible when they posted the update.
47953
Post by: Stoupe
CainTheHunter wrote:Wow, I did not notice that they referred to terrain as well. Now, that's really dumb - even GW does not care what You place on the table.
Half the insults thrown at them on thier websites asked "whats next? Battlefield in a box only terrain at your tournaments?" so of course they referenced it to calm fears.
33495
Post by: infinite_array
Hordini wrote:ancientsociety wrote:Hordini wrote:ancientsociety wrote:makarov wrote:
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
And makes their newer ones better.
In other games most of the older lists are rendered illegal once a newer one comes out.
Older lists are only "legal" in the sense that you can still use them in casual games when opposed by a similar "old list" or with opponent's consent. They are not tournament legal.
This is false. All of the lists in the older books are completely tournament legal. As has been said, they might not be very effective due to points adjustments in the newer books (although that often depends on the list), they are all still completely valid for tournaments and do not require your opponent's consent.
Not from what I've been told by local tourny organizers. I've never run a FOW tourny myself though, so I'm more than willing to concede the point.
It's certainly possible that local tourney organizers could have their own policies regarding this, but as far as I know, Battlefront have never invalidated the older army books. In fact, when they made the switch to second edition they posted PDFs of how to update all the first edition army books to 2nd edition, and all the second edition books are still tournament legal. They've always been pretty big about not invalidating older army lists.
Actually wirh the new Know Your Enemy booklet, several of the late war eastern front books are now illegal for 'official' tournament use.
91
Post by: Hordini
infinite_array wrote:Hordini wrote:ancientsociety wrote:Hordini wrote:ancientsociety wrote:makarov wrote:
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
And makes their newer ones better.
In other games most of the older lists are rendered illegal once a newer one comes out.
Older lists are only "legal" in the sense that you can still use them in casual games when opposed by a similar "old list" or with opponent's consent. They are not tournament legal.
This is false. All of the lists in the older books are completely tournament legal. As has been said, they might not be very effective due to points adjustments in the newer books (although that often depends on the list), they are all still completely valid for tournaments and do not require your opponent's consent.
Not from what I've been told by local tourny organizers. I've never run a FOW tourny myself though, so I'm more than willing to concede the point.
It's certainly possible that local tourney organizers could have their own policies regarding this, but as far as I know, Battlefront have never invalidated the older army books. In fact, when they made the switch to second edition they posted PDFs of how to update all the first edition army books to 2nd edition, and all the second edition books are still tournament legal. They've always been pretty big about not invalidating older army lists.
Actually wirh the new Know Your Enemy booklet, several of the late war eastern front books are now illegal for 'official' tournament use.
Really? Does it say in the book that they are now illegal for tournament use? I haven't seen that booklet so I don't know.
2559
Post by: ancientsociety
I'm OK with it but what's really galling about this is the following:
Although we were not clear enough about this last week we did not consider die cast planes, scratch built models or objectives (assuming they are the right size), terrain or models we do not currently make to be covered by this.
How would anyone in a position of authority at a gaming company implement a blanket ban on non-brand models and then claim that they are "surprised" that players didn't magically know that "certain kinds" of non-brand models would be allowed? The mind boggles, since their precise wording was:
The final change we are making is that from the new season all the events we run with will be only allowing Battlefront miniatures to be used... although it seems childish to draw a line in the sand and say, “If you want to play at our events and support the FOW hobby, you should not be bringing other people’s models along,” it is absolutely that simple.
Now, unless one is psychic, the casual reader of that quote shouldn't be faulted in their belief that only BF models are allowed at BF-sponsored events - since that is precisely what the above quote implies.
91
Post by: Hordini
ancientsociety wrote:I'm OK with it but what's really galling about this is the following:
Although we were not clear enough about this last week we did not consider die cast planes, scratch built models or objectives (assuming they are the right size), terrain or models we do not currently make to be covered by this.
How would anyone in a position of authority at a gaming company implement a blanket ban on non-brand models and then claim that they are "surprised" that players didn't magically know that "certain kinds" of non-brand models would be allowed? The mind boggles, since their precise wording was:
The final change we are making is that from the new season all the events we run with will be only allowing Battlefront miniatures to be used... although it seems childish to draw a line in the sand and say, “If you want to play at our events and support the FOW hobby, you should not be bringing other people’s models along,” it is absolutely that simple.
Now, unless one is psychic, the casual reader of that quote shouldn't be faulted in their belief that only BF models are allowed at BF-sponsored events - since that is precisely what the above quote implies.
Well, to be fair, they did say in the same sentence that they hadn't been clear enough, so I think they were just trying to clarify the updated policy a bit further. Which is good, because like you said, judging from what they had previously posted, the casual reader would have believed that only BF models would be allowed at BF-sponsored events.
27156
Post by: Aldramelech
Hordini wrote:ancientsociety wrote:Hordini wrote:ancientsociety wrote:makarov wrote:
-Allow older force lists to still be legal
And makes their newer ones better.
In other games most of the older lists are rendered illegal once a newer one comes out.
Older lists are only "legal" in the sense that you can still use them in casual games when opposed by a similar "old list" or with opponent's consent. They are not tournament legal.
This is false. All of the lists in the older books are completely tournament legal. As has been said, they might not be very effective due to points adjustments in the newer books (although that often depends on the list), they are all still completely valid for tournaments and do not require your opponent's consent.
Not from what I've been told by local tourny organizers. I've never run a FOW tourny myself though, so I'm more than willing to concede the point.
It's certainly possible that local tourney organizers could have their own policies regarding this, but as far as I know, Battlefront have never invalidated the older army books. In fact, when they made the switch to second edition they posted PDFs of how to update all the first edition army books to 2nd edition, and all the second edition books are still tournament legal. They've always been pretty big about not invalidating older army lists. Of course, the other thing is, a lot of the old lists really aren't all that different, aside from a bit of points reworking (which usually isn't in your favor if you're using an older book anyway). So I could make an Afrika Korps list from Desert Fox for example and it really wouldn't be much different from a list from Afrika or North Africa, except that it might be a bit smaller but even then, it would depend on the list.
This whole mess with the use of official Battlefront miniatures was a huge blunder on their part, and it's definitely harmed a lot of the good will that they've developed in the past few years, but I am glad that at the end of the day, they seem to still be willing to listen to the community and try to come to some sort of reasonable compromise. I really don't like them throwing around the " FoW Hobby" term though, I could definitely do without that.
CainTheHunter wrote:Wow, I did not notice that they referred to terrain as well. Now, that's really dumb - even GW does not care what You place on the table.
Battlefront doesn't care what terrain you use, that was the point. They were saying that they were never intending to limit terrain from other manufacturers. I'm guessing that someone raised that question on their forums, and they were just trying to be as clear as possible when they posted the update.
I'm with you on the " FOW Hobby" thing, in fact that was the part of it that piss*d me off the most.
10414
Post by: Big P
Hordini wrote:
Well, to be fair, they did say in the same sentence that they hadn't been clear enough, so I think they were just trying to clarify the updated policy a bit further.
...and if you believe that I have a bridge in London for sale...
91
Post by: Hordini
Big P wrote:Hordini wrote:
Well, to be fair, they did say in the same sentence that they hadn't been clear enough, so I think they were just trying to clarify the updated policy a bit further.
...and if you believe that I have a bridge in London for sale...
What? I shouldn't believe that they hadn't been clear enough and that they were trying to be more clear with their intentions when they updated the policy? All that they were saying was that they weren't originally including planes, terrain, and a few other things in their first " BF miniatures at BF events only" post, and hadn't mentioned it. Why shouldn't we believe that? And they've changed the policy and clarified it within the space of a few days, so does it really make a difference either way?
35148
Post by: Dagstyrr
Oi vey. I recall quite fondly getting my hands on the V1 rule book which seems so long ago. Those were the days. I was also quite active in play testing for BF, and was really considering getting back into competitive play.
I'll be honest though, other scales and periods have really pulled me away (just look at those Perry naps and 28mm moderns out there!) I've been wary of potential codex creep as well, which is a shame.
Perhaps I'll hold off on throwing together a Volksgrenadier army till the dust settles.
27156
Post by: Aldramelech
Hordini wrote:Big P wrote:Hordini wrote:
Well, to be fair, they did say in the same sentence that they hadn't been clear enough, so I think they were just trying to clarify the updated policy a bit further.
...and if you believe that I have a bridge in London for sale...
What? I shouldn't believe that they hadn't been clear enough and that they were trying to be more clear with their intentions when they updated the policy? All that they were saying was that they weren't originally including planes, terrain, and a few other things in their first " BF miniatures at BF events only" post, and hadn't mentioned it. Why shouldn't we believe that? And they've changed the policy and clarified it within the space of a few days, so does it really make a difference either way?
Well a cynical person might think.................... I wonder if this is the old political trick of announcing an outrageous policy that causes an outcry. Coming up with a compromise policy (which is the version you wanted in the first place) and announcing this as proof that you listen to
the public, whereas you have really just stiffed them (again)....................... Are BF capable of this? Unfortunatley after the whole Maelstrom thing and what is being claimed about them trying to get people to drop the competition from web stores, I'd have to say yes.
Now this bridge me and P have..............
10414
Post by: Big P
...its a nice bridge...
Free Blackpool Tower with it...
10312
Post by: LuciusAR
Kilkrazy wrote:
Battlefront's clever idea was to make a game similar to 40K, which helped 40K players to move into it, and to make their own models in 15mm. This was a new scale for WW2 at the time. People used to use 1/72 scale and 20mm models for WW2.
To be fair Peter Pig and Skytrex/Old Glory where in the business of making 15mm WW2 long before BF. Admittedly it was in a minority compared to 1/72 and 1/300, but it existed.
Yes BF where certainly to ones to credit for the explosion in popularity of 15mm, and I doubt the FIB or PSC would have gone for 15mm without them, but they don't own it. Automatically Appended Next Post: Big P wrote:Needs a bit more than losing BoB mate...
There is a thing called the English Channel in the way, patrolled by a Navy that would happily sacrifice itself to defend GB.
And to that a complete lack of German amphibious doctrine and its not playing around with past historical events, its utterly changing them to a degree that it is utterly implassible.
the you have the weather and sea currents to call into effect! Not too mention german logistics!
All the Sandhurst wargames of Sealion ended in German disaster. it just couldnt work during the 1940 window of opportunity.
Yeah its implausible, but let’s be honest these sort of ‘what ifs’ have been always been a big part of the wargaming hobby and Sealion has always been one of the most popular ones. It would be silly for BF not cover it.
10414
Post by: Big P
People used to use 20mm?
No... Alot of us still do.
I have gamed Sealion myself, the point is that it requires so much change that it is best regarded as fantasy, not historical.
I have also gamed Operation Green, the German plan for invading Ireland. Again, played as planned it was largely a disaster for the Germans!
My issue is how they do it.
If you present a huge fictional setting, but try and portray some of it as reality, then this causes issues for those unfamiliar with the subject. I have no bones about people gaming it, as long as they are atleast given the reality to judge from.
My worry is people will see it and think that Sea Lion was a possiblity, not an impossibility. I guess as a miserable old git, who used to lecture on WW2, I like to think that the reality, along with the counterfactual history, should be presented.
Just a chapter at the start saying... "this could not have happened due to X, Y and Z, but know you know that, here is a fun fantasy setting for some WW2 games".
I just would hate for it to be portrayed as reality. Its hard enough to get people to learn about WW2 without fiction presented as fact.
27156
Post by: Aldramelech
Before BF 15mm WW2 gaming was quite popular, I'll admit not as popular as it is today but still very much on the scene.
I remember being very into "Crossfire" before FOW were a twinkle in someone's eye. Crossfire are sadly out of print atm but they were well ahead of their time and I think if they were re-released now they'd find a very receptive audience.
I sold my set many years ago when I gave up gaming completely and boy do I regret that now.
91
Post by: Hordini
Aldramelech wrote:Before BF 15mm WW2 gaming was quite popular, I'll admit not as popular as it is today but still very much on the scene.
I remember being very into "Crossfire" before FOW were a twinkle in someone's eye. Crossfire are sadly out of print atm but they were well ahead of their time and I think if they were re-released now they'd find a very receptive audience.
I sold my set many years ago when I gave up gaming completely and boy do I regret that now.
Yeah, it's not like 15mm wasn't being used before FOW. Command Decision has been around since like 1986, and lots of people play it in 15mm.
18045
Post by: Snord
I'm going out on a limb - this is both a predictable move and an understandable one. I think the hate directed at GW for this decision was misplaced as well. The margins in this industry are narrow. If you make your money out of selling models for your ruleset, then you're going to need to limit the use of competitors' models at any venue that you control. It's just business, it's not personal, and there's nothing they can do about how you play their game outside their tournaments - tournaments get way too much attention anyway, whether it's WH40k or whatever. Where BF have gone into 'bad' GW territory is in the way they've justified it i.e. by claiming they 'are' 15mm gaming, and appropriating 'the hobby'. And I don't recall GW disparaging their competitors the way BF have apparently disparaged PSC.
10414
Post by: Big P
I think tahts the problem, more than the thing about tournaments.
Thats a sound marketing tool, but arrogantly claiming they built WW2 and that their players 'owe them' is what annoys.
As for the remarks he made about PSC, well they are just blatant lies... Silly really... That sort of thing can get you in trouble.
44749
Post by: Skriker
Big P wrote:My worry is people will see it and think that Sea Lion was a possiblity, not an impossibility. I guess as a miserable old git, who used to lecture on WW2, I like to think that the reality, along with the counterfactual history, should be presented.
Just a chapter at the start saying... "this could not have happened due to X, Y and Z, but know you know that, here is a fun fantasy setting for some WW2 games".
I just would hate for it to be portrayed as reality. Its hard enough to get people to learn about WW2 without fiction presented as fact.
But P a gaming rulebook is *not* a history lesson. It is a gaming rulebook. Why does it need a disclaimer? What is the point of that? Anyone who is using FoW rulebooks as historical reference books has some issues. I expect that most people can easily separate the two and more lay people are likely to get their history from "historical dramas" and the likes in movie theaters and novels than in FoW rulebooks.
I have a What If? book in my library about operation sea lion. It is quite an interesting read, and it clearly does say that this is a fictional "what if?" account if the invasion had actually happened as it should.
Skriker
10414
Post by: Big P
So the book has a disclaimer then...
But another book doesnt need one?
Oh ok...
I think its worth presenting the historical facts before the counterfactual fantasy. It gives context and provides the correct historical viewpoint, which is the respectable thing to do with a war that cost alot of lives.
You may feel differently.
Any history book that present SeaLion as it 'should have happened' must be very short then.
Just a chapter on German corpses floating in the English Channel...
27156
Post by: Aldramelech
Skriker wrote:Big P wrote:My worry is people will see it and think that Sea Lion was a possiblity, not an impossibility. I guess as a miserable old git, who used to lecture on WW2, I like to think that the reality, along with the counterfactual history, should be presented.
Just a chapter at the start saying... "this could not have happened due to X, Y and Z, but know you know that, here is a fun fantasy setting for some WW2 games".
I just would hate for it to be portrayed as reality. Its hard enough to get people to learn about WW2 without fiction presented as fact.
But P a gaming rulebook is *not* a history lesson. It is a gaming rulebook. Why does it need a disclaimer? What is the point of that? Anyone who is using FoW rulebooks as historical reference books has some issues. I expect that most people can easily separate the two and more lay people are likely to get their history from "historical dramas" and the likes in movie theaters and novels than in FoW rulebooks.
I have a What If? book in my library about operation sea lion. It is quite an interesting read, and it clearly does say that this is a fictional "what if?" account if the invasion had actually happened as it should.
Skriker
I disagree.
There seems to be an awful lot of "Kids" out there, fresh out of the GW academy, who are infesting the internet with "facts" that they learned from Battlefront.
This is an historical period and BF have for far too long twisted history to suit their own marketing purposes, made SS symbols acceptable and "cool" and generally upset a large portion of the historical gaming community.
You say that BF rulebooks are not a history lesson, yet this is exactly what BF present them as and if your going to "educate" people then you have a responsibility to be correct and factual.
10414
Post by: Big P
I dunno dude...
I can name a few historians who could do with a few tips on being 'correct and factual'...
Calling Mr. Ambrose, taxi for Mr. Ambrose... You can share with Gordon Williamson... after all, who lets the truth get in the way of a good story.
May as well bung Hans von Luck in there too... For his 'factual' account of his war.
As for BF... I dont know the books to comment, but I have seen the brown and grey panzers!
27156
Post by: Aldramelech
Did you just refer to Stephan Ambrose as an Historian?
Ummm I'm telling! 
10414
Post by: Big P
Sorry, I meant 'historian'.
Hey... His books are... readable.
Then again, Max Hastings, theres another one...
Look at me... Someone will be along to call me an upstart Revisionist in a minute...
Though if you want a good laugh, Micheal Simpson's "Wittmann - A Life Story" is fooking hilarious... Apparently its a factual account of his life... and amazingly he managed to detail conversations between a tank crew just before they all died... Worse propaganda than Goebbels.
7950
Post by: marielle
Aldramelech wrote:Well a cynical person might think.................... I wonder if this is the old political trick of announcing an outrageous policy that causes an outcry. Coming up with a compromise policy (which is the version you wanted in the first place) and announcing this as proof that you listen to
the public, whereas you have really just stiffed them (again)....................... Are BF capable of this? Unfortunatley after the whole Maelstrom thing and what is being claimed about them trying to get people to drop the competition from web stores, I'd have to say yes.
Now this bridge me and P have..............
Indeed but to be fair, BF, and all figure manufacturers, are in a difficult position. Once you have bought the figures from them, it is perfectly possible that you will never spend a penny (pardon the double entendre) with them again - because you will have everything you need to play the game. Obviously one way around this is to issue new versions of the rules - which BF gave away free ( which got them good PR, but lost them money) - new codexs, and then there is the ancillary stuff like bags, dice, etc.Obviously BF are in a slightly different situation given the owner's background but the economics of the business remains the same. Which means ultimately that they have to defend their profits and if that means cutting suppliers out of the loop when they don't adhere to their pricing structure then so be it.
Also wWhen they talk about the FoW hobby, they are talking about things like tournaments for which they are offering support.
Which is not to say that you don't have a right to be cynical, but we all know what Oscar Wilde said about cynicism.
10414
Post by: Big P
Rulebooks dont make money... Its associated figure sales that do.
With regards retail, one point you have to remember, is that protectionism (fixing the retail market to protect a single product) is illegal in some jurisdictions.
The issue for BF is in trying to apply a GW style model, to a historical market. It may be acceptable to the ex-GW players and the 'fanboys' but not to the more traditional Historical gamer, where the singleminded fixation to one maker is often an anathema.
|
|
