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.

I'm surprised that this hasn't reached here yet.

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=126&aff=3&aft=576194&afv=topic

Peltast wrote:8:1 scoring

Reserves need to be 40% of points

TY style morale test when 2 tanks or 3 inf / guns remain

Art nerf aginst armour + 1 to FP - 1 to AT

All batteries dont need to range in again next turn and inf / guns will need to re roll saves

recon "simplified" a lot - don't know what this means though

air turns up on a 4+

3 new missions

Rooboay wrote:Simplified means dumbed down.

Only get two planes and if shot down they don't return.

Good luck forcing strelk from the field with the stupid decision to intoduce TY style morale rules.

And speaking of TY morale rules, how are single tank platoons (such as a Tiger) going to be handled or will they be now banned?

Also, according to Peter S, such 'minor' national rules as Kampfgruppe will no longer be available.

Some other rules will be removed from late war books, didn't mention which ones.

Also, fantasy lists will now abound in MW. There will be no restriction on what you can put in an army list, though 'apparently' BF will have some sort of guide for those of the historical persuasion.

The rule book will be, give or take, about 110 pages.

BF will allow people to download the V4 rules for free.

MW will still have books with the first combatants being the Brits and the Germans. US and Italians etc, will come later.

There will be card packs for MW Pacific. With that decision, you can't tell me that BF didn't already have plans to do MW TY style before TY was released. Hence the Pacific books having only Pacific/EW points and LW points.

It seems from Peter S' comments that the planned release of digital lists for the Pacific has been canned. Typical!! And if the commonweath forces will ever be released, they will be only in a little booklet, similar to Panzertruppen.

It is a pity from my perspective, that the WWPD presenters didn't challenge Peter S about some of the major changes that are coming and tell him what a big mistake some of them will be. Not a peep about that minor German national rule being removed, Kampfgruppe. Only was a major doctrine of the Heer, nothing really substantial.

I've been following this on the FOW forum and elsewhere. The responses to that interview of WWPD seem to be overwhelmingly negative. I think Battlefront need to do some damage control, quickly. People are already talking about sticking with the old rules, or jumping ship entirely to a different rules set.

I'd agree that BF could do with some damage control because there's a lot of misleading information going around at the moment.

How reliable are the two quotes?

The relaxation of army lists is disappointing to hear, it was one of the big draws of FoW for me.

I don't mind much about the other rumours like cards. I've already started making cards for other games. They help speed up play when compared with constantly looking up the book.

Face - Desk.

Hopefully BF will back off a bit on this, FoW 'works' yes there are a lot of special rules - they are what allow the core rules to be pretty simple, it doesn't really need a lot of changes, they have most of the war covered, keeping the same basic rules - minor tweaks, fold the FAQ etc in then launch V4 with an expanded MW period would work.

What they appear to be proposing is something I can't see playing, there are other rules that my armies can use - I Ain't Been Shot Mum springs to mind. They could very easily kill the golden goose here if they are not careful changing things for the sake of changing things.

I'm a big fan of Flames of War - it has been my one go-to game for a few years. But I'll stick with V3 if this is the future of the game. I have all the LW Compilations, and although some of the rules are fiddly, we tend to suffer through them alright.

4th Edition just needs to fix a few minor things needing tweaks. No need to redo army lists, special rules, etc. This seems more like the GW after 5th Edition 40K - it just needed very minor tweaks, but instead they went and introduced flyers, etc. Worse game.

I'm starting TY, and am fine with the rules for that. But keep them separate.

I'm not rebasing my commands sprues to medium bases. First, I use superglue and sand to cement the figures to the base - so not possible. And second, I have so much unfinished new stuff, I'm not going to spend any preciious hobby time on stuff that is already finished.

Nic

Its.. interesting..

I have and play Team Yankee, its not a bad 'v1' game, however it has the advantage of a very limited number of units which were likely worked out in advance (or the bulk of them at least) so the game is focused on an balanced round them.

Trying to port that to FoW's WW2 setting with gork alone knows how many different units, then trying to do it without invalidating all the EW and LW books, and without killing EW & LW sales with them... umm yeah.

Some bits of TY would work in FoW, thinking say the way LoS works for aircraft for one and smoke bombardments for another. Maybe the platoon leader order system to give the leader a bit more to do and perhaps the unit coherency rules so stuff can move out of command and operate - just not very effectively unless they are veteran troops.

Stuff that as written won't work includes the morale rules - introduce that to my 40+ team Strelk, they will love it, who they face.. less so (and I play mobile so the need to have a good few teams within command range of the leader bothers me a lot less than if I was dug in), even the Soviet armoured units will cause problems with stuff not being as easy to kill as in TY.

(seriously TY is not quite 1 hit = 1 kill, but for battle tanks its not far off, compare to FoW...)


That said, BF have shown they will listen and change things, they are also no doubt aware of other WW2 systems nipping at their heals that a FoW player could easily switch to - so if they do drop the ball expect to see it corrected pretty quickly with V5 if V4 is a turkey.


That said also, rules complexity has never been an issue here, the game is not hard to teach people to play and most of the basics make sense. the issue is needing a decent number of models to play it, which would be manageable if you could actually get hold of the flipping models the supply situation makes you think there are U-boats between them and us, I mean seriously? they can;t keep up with what they have never mind anything new or a new wave of players - that frustration alone will put people off.

I'm ignoring the rumors. At this point, they're just that - rumors.

Posts from Battlefront people on the forums have indicated that there will be an official post by Battlefront about v4 before Christmas this year. So until then, I'm not really getting worked up. I've got more important things to worry about.

 durecellrabbit wrote:
How reliable are the two quotes?

The relaxation of army lists is disappointing to hear, it was one of the big draws of FoW for me.

Without listening to the long, painful podcast all over again I can't provide the exact wording, but IIRC Pete was talking about v4 giving players more freedom to field what they want. Everyone seems to have taken that to mean that the new army lists (only MW for now) will relax historical restrictions.

I don't mind much about the other rumours like cards. I've already started making cards for other games. They help speed up play when compared with constantly looking up the book.

Cards don't both me, as they are optional, use them is you like, or don't if you want. All the stats will be in the books. Personally, my preference is for printed out army lists like are produced by Battlefront's online Forces of War list creator. Unfortunately, as the new TY style army lists are going to be so different from the current army lists, Pete said that there will be no support on Forces of War for the new MW lists, at least for now.

V4 officially announced, http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5411

Looks like free updates for Early/Late war with a v3 rulebook. Lots of changes inbound for mid-war.

Some quick notes -

- Unit stats that compile special rules directly into the unit stats. So, similar to how Team Yankee already incorporates things like Protected Ammo into its remount numbers. The explicit example used was British Bulldog and Morale vs Counter-attack.
- It sounds like Team Yankee's target selection system will be used.
- 100 point Mid-War lists confirmed.
- At the Double is replaced by Team Yankee's Dash. There are indications that Battlefront wants the game to become more mobile.
- Artillery will be better at digging out infantry. Anti-tank guns will be more protected from tanks, but more vulnerable to infantry. Combined Arms will be more heavily emphasized.
- Recon gets Team Yankee's Spearhead. I'm guessing that it will be losing Eyes and Ears (there was talk about this all the way back at the start of the year).
- You can bring multiple companies to the table in your force, and keep fighting until all of your companies withdraw.


The list sounds interesting, but we'll see how it all works out. In particular, the Russian Strelkovy Horde could be a problem if they want a more mobile game. Since that's one of the basic Mid-War lists (which is where v4 is starting), they'd better have a way of dealing with it from the get-go.

I moved away from FoW a couple of years ago and these rumours are not enticing me back...

I am in no hurry for it, i havent played a regular game of FOW in over a year. Been playing alot of cold war and in my garage ATM it is literally a Cold WAr,

leopard wrote:
Hopefully BF will back off a bit on this,

With an announced release date of March 2017, I think its probably too late to change the v4 rules. The book is probably in final lay out by now, if not off to the printer already.

I will admit that the latest podcast today from WWPD where they actually go through a draft copy of the v4 rules section by section and discuss the new rules and how they will change the game, has done a lot to ease my concerns over the changes. Sure, there are still a few issues I have, but I think most people would have at least a few issues, no matter what BF did to the rules.

 mdauben wrote:

leopard wrote:
Hopefully BF will back off a bit on this,

With an announced release date of March 2017, I think its probably too late to change the v4 rules. The book is probably in final lay out by now, if not off to the printer already.

I will admit that the latest podcast today from WWPD where they actually go through a draft copy of the v4 rules section by section and discuss the new rules and how they will change the game, has done a lot to ease my concerns over the changes. Sure, there are still a few issues I have, but I think most people would have at least a few issues, no matter what BF did to the rules.

Will wait and see here, I could see most of the TY rules working, but it would need a lot of other changes to port whats essentially a tank game with other units to whats essentially an infantry game with vehicles.

Have to see how it actually plays but what BF have put up isn't overly inspiring confidence, they could do better with a roadmap of some sort to explain where they are going with this.

e.g. will 'open fire' be kept as is, or will it get the v4 rules and become a proper starter set again? Whats the time frame for EW and LW to be brought fully into V4 with revised books, cards etc? Whats happening with GW, Vietnam and the other era? Doesn't have to be exact, just a rough idea of whats in the pipeline and approximate time scales.

leopard wrote:
Whats the time frame for EW and LW to be brought fully into V4 with revised books, cards etc?

According to Phil on the FOW forum, 2017 will be North Africa and 2018 will be Eastern Front. So, I would not expect them to start revising the LW or EW books until 2019.

If anyone is jumping ship...Battlegroup is phenomenal.

 mdauben wrote:

leopard wrote:
Whats the time frame for EW and LW to be brought fully into V4 with revised books, cards etc?

According to Phil on the FOW forum, 2017 will be North Africa and 2018 will be Eastern Front. So, I would not expect them to start revising the LW or EW books until 2019.

Or in other words, your V3 compilation books will still be good until at least 2019.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
New Product List for V4 -

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5434

Note that the page only has the Mid-War stuff. The books that "adjust" the other periods aren't shown.

Currently on the page are two Africa books - Desert Rats and Afrika Korps. The book covers explicitly state that they are for the British and German forces respectively. That implies Africa only (i.e. no Husky, etc...), and no US, Italians, etc... I suppose Free French forces are up in the air, though, as they were equipped by the British prior to Torch.

Also shown are two starter armies and a battle box. The battle box includes a mini-rulebook, one Panzer IV, one Panzer III, a Grant, and two Crusaders. The starter armies include five tanks of one variety, three tanks of another variety, and two large caliber anti-tank guns. (Grants, Crusaders, and 17/25 pounders versus Panzer IIIs, Panzer IVs, and FlaK36 guns)


Edit -

In response to a post noting that the 17/25 pdr was more appropriate for the Tunisian campaign than for El Alamein, Evan at Battlefront stated the following -

The frame has all three options for the 17/25pdr, plain 25pdr & 25 Pdr with muzzlebrake.

cheers,

Evan

So the EW and LW books are good until 2019...

However they have point values and organisations for V3, V4 will be somewhat different, V2 books struggled in V3 as the various rules changed, and this is apparently now going to be ongoing for a year or two.

There is an obvious suggestion, maintain V3 for EW/LW (and GW/Arab-Isreal/Vietnam etc) for now, then gradually bring out the books in a revised format to handle V4.


Will see how it goes though, but when evolution is needed BF appear to have gone for revolution to bring in new players, when the rules 'complexity' wasn't the issue.

Dare say they have seen Warlord with Bolt Action grabbing 40k players and decided they want some of that, they need new players not just current players buying a few bits here and there - a decent starter set (not the current half way garbage) and actually being able to buy the stuff would probably go further to bringing new players in.

Also very noticeable they are starting with the desert, leaving MW in the east hanging utterly, little choice but to stay with V3 there really, DAK v the British in the desert isn't likely to be too game breaking... Its how they handle the Soviet hordes that will matter.

From the sound of it winning by breaking the enemy is no longer a thing, at least not a viable strategy - will make defeating some of the German heavies interesting as you can no longer break the army around them - the 40% of points in reserve changes these lists slightly perhaps. Also a defender no longer wins by default if the attacker doesn't get on with it - so it sounds a lot easier to force a draw if it looks like you're facing defeat.

I dare say there are new mechanics to replace the stuff thats gone, at least I hope there is...

Command teams going from all but infantry? So no more platoon commander on a hill with the guns hidden, also no more platoon commander with a panzerfaust to protect the guns. Separate observers - so ignoring the physical wire link in many cases in favour of assuming universal and reliable radios.. will see how that goes..

Everything sounds like a push towards this being a tank game where infantry are a support element..

Cards....

You either get very bland generic units, or a heck of a lot of cards (which will always be out of stock) - It would work very well with a PDF of blanks to print and write on using the books, plus forces of war adapted to print the specific cards you need - that could work very well.


Will wait and see.. but Flames of Yankee sounds a bit meh.


How does battlegroup play with FoW based models?

Eumerin wrote:
New Product List for V4 -

http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5434

Note that the page only has the Mid-War stuff. The books that "adjust" the other periods aren't shown.

The LW/EW books are here: http://www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5410

Currently on the page are two Africa books - Desert Rats and Afrika Korps. The book covers explicitly state that they are for the British and German forces respectively. That implies Africa only (i.e. no Husky, etc...), and no US, Italians, etc... I suppose Free French forces are up in the air, though, as they were equipped by the British prior to Torch.

Italian and US releases have been discussed in various places and will be following the DAK and Brits.

leopard wrote:
Will see how it goes though, but when evolution is needed BF appear to have gone for revolution to bring in new players, when the rules 'complexity' wasn't the issue.

Have to disagree here. I've seen more arguments break out over the targeting priority rules (i.e. hit allocation distribution) even before gun tanking was brought up... In contrast, the Team Yankee rules on the subject are quite simple.

ts how they handle the Soviet hordes that will matter.

I've already seen bits and pieces mentioned about this. We won't have any solid information until they actually put it in print. But it sounds as if Battlefront is aware of the possible problems Soviet hordes will cause, and are trying to avoid problems.

From the sound of it winning by breaking the enemy is no longer a thing, at least not a viable strategy - will make defeating some of the German heavies interesting as you can no longer break the army around them - the 40% of points in reserve changes these lists slightly perhaps.

The impression that I'm getting isn't that breaking the enemy isn't a viable option. It's that destroying all the itty-bitty (and extremely fragile) support units won't break the enemy. Even before Team Yankee, we already saw something similar with the rules for large battles that were first printed in Firestorm. The reason for the reserve rule should be pretty self-explanatory.

Also a defender no longer wins by default if the attacker doesn't get on with it - so it sounds a lot easier to force a draw if it looks like you're facing defeat.

Someone (probably Evan or Phil - can't remember which one) explicitly stated on the FoW forums the other day that most scenarios in v4 would use the "There Are No Draws" rule from Team Yankee.

The old targeting priority thing was just annoying. How does it work in TY/presumably V4?

In Team Yankee, the shooter picks a target. Then he rolls to determine the number of hits. Hits are then distributed to any team of the same type and same unit within 6" of the target, starting with the target itself. Each team can only get one hit until all eligible teams have received a hit. If there are still hits left over, then repeat the process again until all hits are distributed.

Once this is completed, the targeted player picks two teams that are eligible targets. The player rolls a die, and on a 3+, the player swaps allocated hits between the two teams. The player can continue attempting to swap hits until he either chooses to stop, or fails to roll 3+ while attempting to swap hits.

Once this is done, roll saves as normal.

Eumerin wrote:

leopard wrote:
Will see how it goes though, but when evolution is needed BF appear to have gone for revolution to bring in new players, when the rules 'complexity' wasn't the issue.

Have to disagree here. I've seen more arguments break out over the targeting priority rules (i.e. hit allocation distribution) even before gun tanking was brought up... In contrast, the Team Yankee rules on the subject are quite simple.

Never found them that hard to be honest, but its not a bad point, the TY ones are certainly simpler, anything important is hit first, plebs hit last, then you muck about with dice changing it. Will get used to it, but it does reduce significantly the value of combat attachments - assuming these are even still a thing of course

ts how they handle the Soviet hordes that will matter.

I've already seen bits and pieces mentioned about this. We won't have any solid information until they actually put it in print. But it sounds as if Battlefront is aware of the possible problems Soviet hordes will cause, and are trying to avoid problems.

Glad they are aware of it and hope they sort something, favoured solution is to use the new force structure system and simply by Soviets platoon by platoon - but have the platoons without commanders and the company commanders able to issue orders to any/all of their platoons in command range, will solve a lot of the problems to be honest and avoids making the Soviets 'special'

From the sound of it winning by breaking the enemy is no longer a thing, at least not a viable strategy - will make defeating some of the German heavies interesting as you can no longer break the army around them - the 40% of points in reserve changes these lists slightly perhaps.

The impression that I'm getting isn't that breaking the enemy isn't a viable option. It's that destroying all the itty-bitty (and extremely fragile) support units won't break the enemy. Even before Team Yankee, we already saw something similar with the rules for large battles that were first printed in Firestorm. The reason for the reserve rule should be pretty self-explanatory.

Never seen firestorm, agree on the percentage in reserve as well as platoon count though and yes self explanatory as to why its there - would not have been hard to bring into FoW directly. Ditto using the 'Total war' rules to allow multiple companies that break based on combat and weapons platoons only.

Also a defender no longer wins by default if the attacker doesn't get on with it - so it sounds a lot easier to force a draw if it looks like you're facing defeat.

Someone (probably Evan or Phil - can't remember which one) explicitly stated on the FoW forums the other day that most scenarios in v4 would use the "There Are No Draws" rule from Team Yankee.