Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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..............

...its a nice bridge...

Free Blackpool Tower with it...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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...

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.

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!

Did you just refer to Stephan Ambrose as an Historian?

Ummm I'm telling!

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.

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.

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.