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.

Good day guys.
So a few months ago, I was watching some FOW videos on how to play and the model showcasing, and I like what I saw. Then last week, I found Bolt Action, which I also liked alot. There are certain aspects of each that I like, and I have come to notice some big difference between the two game systems, like the scale, the model, and specific gameplay mechanics.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but would any of you say Bolt Action is more infantry oriented than FOW? I haven't seen any major tank battles in BA, and from what I understand, you're only able to take one armored vehicle per list? (Again, totally new to this and I haven't found many informative sites besides the official ones.)
While I like the FOW balance of infantry and tanks, I do seem to favor BA's wound system of one wound per model and not the entire squad that FOW has (though I can see why that would make sense in FOW.)
So my question to you chaps out there more familiar with these games is how would you compare the two and which would you favor? Or is there something I'm missing here, like the stuff I mentioned above. I could have checked with the official websites and asked them or looked for the info myself, but I like to have open discussions with the community of Dakka Dakka because it seems to be more educative at times. Thank you all and have a good discussion!

Yes, BA is heavily infantry oriented compared to FoW. That's because FoW is dealing with Company versus Company, while BA deals with smaller engagements.

I tend to see FoW as having a slightly more realistic wound system once you think about it a bit. The fire-team acts like a cohesive unit in real life, and if they take casualties the rest of the team stops to take care of the wounded (effectively eliminating the whole team which is what FoW represents. It was a common tactic to wound a soldier because then you know 2 others have to come help him so you get 2 more kills on top of the 1 you already wounded).

Personally though, I think FoW makes infantry a little too resilient with the 3+ all the time, on top of how easy it is to get other saves. Veteran infantry on the defense can be pretty much impossible to move without the proper weapons. Of course Infantry are harder to hit, but when I shoot an entire tank platoon's guns at a unit of FV Paratroopers, plus the fire from my own infantry platoon, I should get more than a stand dead.

Not too familiar with BA's rules though, so I can't compare them too much

Yes, Bolt Action is more of an infantry based game then FoW but I know that some people interchange the rules. I'm going to an event in September that is using all tank lists for Bolt Action, so you can use more hen one tank but I don't know if its a legal army until I get my rule book I can't say for sure how it works.

I'm actually getting rid of a lot of my warhammer and 40k stuff in favor of Bolt Action.

Bolt action has an armored platoon PDF that allows you to take a platoon consisting mostly of AFV's. It's not intended for regular pick up games though, and is certainly something you agree to before hand.

I've played FoW since it came out and just got into BA recently...

The games are on different operational scales. In FoW you have a company, in BA you have a platoon. FoW has you moving platoons around, BA you move squads and individual vehicles.

BA is VERY infantry centric. To the point where the vehicles rules seam a bit too under developed and generalized. Most of the BA player community has come to the conclusion that the heaver the tank: the mover over costed and waste of points it is. So if tanks are your thing, stick to FoW. Also you are correct in that you are basically limited to one "tank" type vehicle per army. Basically, most armies let you take a bunch of squads which forms your platoon fore and you get a few teams of infantry support weapons. You get one "big gun", which is usually an AT weapon, artillery piece, or AA piece. You then usually get one armored car or light vehicle choice, army depending. You then get one "tank" choice but basically anything with tracks and armor is lumped into this category, so if you want to take a Quad .50cal half-track you have to give up your Sherman. I am not kidding.

The upside to either is there are now a lot of manufacturers on the market in both of these scales. Also, both scales are popular so you can find many other rule sets if the chosen one looses it's appeal.

FoW is more widespread and entrenched, while BA is gaining steam. It's a tough call really.

Game play wise, both are close to being beer & pretzel rule sets. There's nothing overly complicated. Currently there's a serious balance issue with the LW period of FoW. This is just the V1 of the BA rules and they lack polish, though the company has a split focus and does not have a lot of WWII knowledge like the guys at Battlefront. They don't play the same either and units in FoW have a very different "feel" to them in BA, both for good and bad. In either case, you need to play the game not the history.

 Swordbreaker wrote:
In either case, you need to play the game not the history.

This is important to remember. Both BA and FoW are World War 2 Themed games, but not historical games. I've seen plenty of people quit because they don't like some of the ahistorical things happening.

They are both fairly simple rule sets, and good for a fun casual game. Don't expect in depth armor penetration rules or simulation like aspects out of either of them.

Agreed. The point isn't historical content and accuracy, but more of the time you spend enjoying your miniatures and the game. That would just come to annoy me if I met someone difficult to deal with who would want to prove me wrong.
Kinda reminds me of a time I was playing a 40k game with my Blood Angels, and the guy I was going up against had Dark Angels, and he wouldn't play until we came up with a comprehensive reason and background to why both armies were fighting each other, and he proceeded about with a lengthy explanation that his army believed that my army was harboring one of the Fallen, and that I had to designate one model to fulfill such roll.
I can't tell you how much that took the fun out of the game. I then told him I didn't want to play if it meant making it as accurately as possible. Eventually he gave up and played the game normally, but he didn't seem to enjoy it very much. I haven't played with the player since.

My friends and I dont even use the army lists for our BA games.
We like the easy rule set and use modern figs for our A-Team games.
We like The Assault Group for modern figs...we use 1/48 scale toys for our vehicles..they scale up perfectly!!

 BattleCapIronblood wrote:
Agreed. The point isn't historical content and accuracy, but more of the time you spend enjoying your miniatures and the game. That would just come to annoy me if I met someone difficult to deal with who would want to prove me wrong.
Kinda reminds me of a time I was playing a 40k game with my Blood Angels, and the guy I was going up against had Dark Angels, and he wouldn't play until we came up with a comprehensive reason and background to why both armies were fighting each other, and he proceeded about with a lengthy explanation that his army believed that my army was harboring one of the Fallen, and that I had to designate one model to fulfill such roll.
I can't tell you how much that took the fun out of the game. I then told him I didn't want to play if it meant making it as accurately as possible. Eventually he gave up and played the game normally, but he didn't seem to enjoy it very much. I haven't played with the player since.

Wargames or training exercise IMO is how you approach this.

I play both with my 15mm WW2 stuff and find they give completely different game experiences. I've done a lot of house ruling of the vehicles of BA to make them suit my tastes, but generally speaking, they work as is.

I don't know if either of them isolates variables well enough to be considered a training simulation. They are both definitely games first.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just wanted to add that Bolt Action can work with more vehicles, but you need to plan the game out rather than making a vehicle heavy list and hoping it'll make for a fine game against someone who took a more typical supported infantry platoon.

 washout77 wrote:

 Swordbreaker wrote:
In either case, you need to play the game not the history.

This is important to remember. Both BA and FoW are World War 2 Themed games, but not historical games. I've seen plenty of people quit because they don't like some of the ahistorical things happening.

They are both fairly simple rule sets, and good for a fun casual game. Don't expect in depth armor penetration rules or simulation like aspects out of either of them.

To preface this, let me say that I've been playing historicals for several years now. I've played or am familiar with the rules of a lot of different historical wargames in a lot of different periods, so I'm not coming at this subject as a n00b to the historical scene.

I really don't get this weird split concept that a lot of people on Dakka seem to have about what a historical game is, and how all these games aren't "historical games" but rather have a "historical theme." That just seems like such a meaningless distinction, like having six of one and a half-dozen of another. FOW and BA are both historical games. They aren't simulations (which aren't that common or popular anyway). They are more abstract than some historical games, and less abstract then others. All historical wargames are going to have some varying level of abstraction, and ahistorical situations and match ups are possible in basically ever historical game ever. No game gets absolutely everything right. If Bolt Action and FOW aren't historical games, then that's because there is no such thing as a historical game.

If Bolt Action and FOW aren't historical games, I would like to see some examples of games that are, and reasons why. If the reason is that BA and FOW have more abstraction than games like Command Decision, I would say that's because CD leans more in the direction of historical simulation/game rather than historical game. If it's because it's possible to make an ahistorical match up or army list in FOW and BA, I would say that you can do the exact same thing in CD if you want to. Does that mean CD is no longer a historical game? So really, somebody tell me what a historical game is! I want to know!

I'd like to add that "BA was intended to be a complement to FOW much in the same was Epic is to 40K", as retailer selling games I asked warlord if their intent was to compete with battlefront and that was their answer this was very helpful and allowed me to look at the two games with "new eyes".
Reminding me of some of the amazing joint games we played in the past of Battlefield Gothic space battles that ran along side 40k games with the out come of both effecting the overall battle at the end of the day...some serious fun there my friends!

excercise in pointlelssness.....what are you going to compare next
cheese burgers v HD televisions....
FOW vs AIBSM would have been more worthwhile

licclerich wrote:
excercise in pointlelssness.....what are you going to compare next
cheese burgers v HD televisions....
FOW vs AIBSM would have been more worthwhile

Fine example of why this site often is a drag to visit, rude comments for no reason

Much like life, you'll find all sorts everywhere.

No need to tar everyone with that particular brush.

If you see something that you feel breaks the rules of the site, please report it to a Moderator.

Rule #1 is there at the top for a reason!

licclerich wrote:
excercise in pointlelssness.....what are you going to compare next
cheese burgers v HD televisions....
FOW vs AIBSM would have been more worthwhile

Not called for, mate.

 Saint Anuman wrote:
I'd like to add that "BA was intended to be a complement to FOW much in the same was Epic is to 40K", as retailer selling games I asked warlord if their intent was to compete with battlefront and that was their answer this was very helpful and allowed me to look at the two games with "new eyes".
Reminding me of some of the amazing joint games we played in the past of Battlefield Gothic space battles that ran along side 40k games with the out come of both effecting the overall battle at the end of the day...some serious fun there my friends!

I'm confused by this, how is Bolt Action a compliment of FoW? I've never had anyone from warlord mention a thing about FoW, because there in the same time period?

I would assume going from coy to pl level armies is what he means by the above statement.

I play both however, and I find they each have unique game mechanics, with no real comparison to each others rules at all.

While Flames of War is a more traditional style move, shoot assault, Bolt Action gives you the ability to do either of three to which ever unit is activated by the player. I find Bolt Action actually makes me pay attention more to what could possible happen with regards to how I postion/ assault/ shoot with my units, as the random unit activation is, well, random.