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.

 adamsouza wrote:

In this thread people are comparing it to 40K, have the rules significantly changed since it's initial release, because I didn't see any resemblance to 40K at all back then ?

The rules have changed quite a bit since the initial release. IMHO they have tightened the game up and streamlined some of the more cumbersome aspects - like assault. Overall I would say 3rd Ed is a far better game than 1st.

As to it being like 40k, I don't really see it. I play both and I think they only superficially resemble each other and that resemblance is mostly because FoW and 40k both use the traditional Move-Shoot-Assault turn style.

Yes I think so too. I guess in that sense they are kind of similar, in comparison to a lot of the newer style rule mechanics that are being used these days ('reactive turns', card based play and things like that). Although I've found FoW to be a fun and tactically challenging game, to the point where I'm not actually very good at that and so tend to lose a fair number of games

Kroothawk - Yes I guess it must be an objective marker. Again though I can see how people coming from fantasy/sci-fi games might think otherwise, when you often have massive artillery pieces somehow plopping shells on units that would in realistic terms be only 1-200m away!

Those plastic PaK's are a nice addition, I'm fine with metal infantry and tanks, but AT weapons and artillery in metal are a bloody nightmare

 adamsouza wrote:
I bought FoW when it first came out. I didn't care for the tiny metal men and infantry having only a single stat. That starter set, with mini rule book and it's awesome plastic figures, looks super sexy and is givng me ideas.

In this thread people are comparing it to 40K, have the rules significantly changed since it's initial release, because I didn't see any resemblance to 40K at all back then ?

FoW is on their 3rd edition, but most 2nd edition (and maybe 1st) is still technically compatible, but you may want the newer books as they have a lot more options and such.

The rules are still based around stands of multiple infantry and individual vehicles. The WWPD podcast did a great summary of 2nd->3rd changes, but a lot of it seemed tob e 'clean up' to me.

I think it's considered 40k-ish in that it uses 'I-go-You-go' turn order and has a similar 'workflow' in that to make an attack, player A rolls to hit, Player B rolls to save. Additionally rules writing tone is somewhat similar to Warhammer works in the way things are presented. While not sharing common rules, going between FoW and a Warhammer game requires a lot less 'unlearning' than going between Warhammer and Warmachine,w here there's a very different 'workflow' for actions and vastly different systems for command and such. Which is not to insult any game mentioned, just point out that they're different.

Overall, I've heard mostly good things about the rules as long as you're cool with it being a sort of 'gritty movie version' of history, not a 100% accurate historical simulation. Some complain about unrealistic ranges (In general, excusable as otherwise range wouldn't matter unless you're playing on tables that are measured in yards; The most ridiculous example of this issue I've heard of is glider troops who couldn't shoot a pistol from wingtip to wingtip of their glider.) or tank parking lots (Tanks arranged in close formation, which is historically inaccurate. On the other hand, I've heard this can be fodder for well-placed artillery, and does make some sense in scenarios based around a patrol or column of vehicles being attacked or trying to cross a river at a chokepoint).

In general, worth looking into if you want to try a smaller-scale (in size) but larger army (in figure count) games. The historical basis is a big plus for many, too.

Thanks guys, that was informative.

Pics of cardboard terrain and lists

I see a 40 pt difference between the two forces, won't that be problematic?

 BrookM wrote:
I see a 40 pt difference between the two forces, won't that be problematic?

40 points is REALLY hard to fill in. I've made bunches of lists in 1750 usually ending up 30-50 points short with nothing to fill in that gap since there are barely any units you can take for such a low cost. But maybe I'm a terrible list writer, I dont know


Maybe you could house rule the germans getting an extra panzerschreck team, those are usually 15-20 points

Painted rocket and PaK40

This is out.... this week? Have many here ordered it or intend to pick it up? Interested to see people's feedback once it's in hand.

On the games fair "Spiel" in Germany this weekend, a lot of these new starter sets were sold. So only a matter of time, until all retailers get their ordered boxes.