FOW? and other rules.

[nikharwood]

"FoW or BK(spit)C"

I can't believe you'll happily spit at BKC & not FoW   

[Luddite]

"FoW or BK(spit)C"

I can't believe you'll happily spit at BKC & not FoW   

Aye...we're through the looking glass here people...

Personally i think the TFL stable of games are pretty ropey...different strokes i guess.   

[nikharwood]

different strokes i guess

Blimey - now *there's* a programme...

[Last Hussar]

"FoW or BK(spit)C"

I can't believe you'll happily spit at BKC & not FoW   

Never played FoW

[Stefanpanzer]

Last Hussar: what is it about BKC etc that you do not like?
as has also been said I find the TFL sets 'ropey'; I certainly dislike card activated games.

[Martyn]

FOW has to be the worst set of WW2 rules of all time. The problem with FOW is that it does not know what it is suppose to represent so you end up with the stupid situation of an infantry company with corps and divisional assets just so the models can be put on the table. The great thing with 10mm is you can actually field a division without having to compromise. I use my own rules based on the combat system from Crossfire for infantry and Charles Grant's "Battle" for the tanks. Be bold research your subject and then come up with something that works.

[Luddite]

FOW has to be the worst set of WW2 rules of all time.

Couldn't agree more.

It simply doesn't represent WWII 'battle friction' in any way, so doesn't win on the simulationst front.  It also has poor, clunky 'crunch' (game mechanics) and a GW-style income-generator ethic to its rules that make it a poor game so loses ont he 'gamist' front also.

E.g. we used FoW for a campaign on Leros.

Defender - 1 platoon of British infantry entrenched on a rocky height (very difficult ground).
Attacker - 1 coy of germans attacking up hill into this position.

Mostly infantry on both sides.

In 3 turns the Germans vaulted up the mountain (apparently wearing jet packs) and wiped out the British without taking a single loss.



Dummys were thrown and a stunned disbeleif descended on the table. 
Everyone expected the German forces to overrun the Brits but after a hard fight and considerable loss.  Laughable.

We've not played them since and i sold all my FoW books and 15mm figures...

Rules to be avoided like the plague in my opinion.

[slinky]

I have the Troops weapons and tactics rules and like some of the ideas in them but just cant get used to using cards to activate, have been playing storming the reich rules recently and find them pretty good ( a bit like rapid fire but with more detail). All my 10mm are individually based giving me the option for fighting the odd skirmish when time allows.....

[Last Hussar]

I think the cards are one of the strengths of TW&T. It is a low level game, and the turns represent short period of time.  The irregular turn sequence feels like the confused friction of platoon level encounters- a squad rushes forward, then pauses trying to get its bearings, while another is geed into action by its corporal.

[slinky]

Will try my twit rules again as they seem to have what Im looking for, just gotta get over the card issue!

[Luddite]

Will try my twit rules again as they seem to have what Im looking for, just gotta get over the card issue!

Dunno about the card issue, its the crass name i can't get over... :

[Last Hussar]

Many people can't see past the name, though it is usually written with a & not an 'a'.  Pity, because they are a brilliant set of rules- if for some reason I was going to be restricted to playing one set of WW2 for the rest of my life, it would be these.

[Hurley]

What makes BKC so good?

Right now I like FOW cause it's easy to learn and I don't have to spend time trying to figure out what can I play with army wise. I like fun and not wasting time looking up tables or having to tack stuff like in CBT.

At this point I should put out there what I play or played.
Impetus
Warmachine
40k
Wings of war
chaos in Carpatha 
BFG
CBT

Gearing up for:
Necromunda
War hammer historical
Fantasy Imputus
Something ww2.

[Last Hussar]

What makes BKC so good?

Very little.  I really do not understand why people rave over them.  The C&C rules, which every body lauds, make little sense in a number of situations- especially when firing.  I can shoot AUTOMATICALLY on reaction, but during my turn I can't. The standard reply is "Well not a billiard table/fold in the ground etc" which I understand, but a) why automatic shooting in reaction fire- surely those folds are still there and b) why does the location of the C/O make a difference to what I can see?

Additionally if 1 mode of a tank is a platton or single vehicle (depending what you are playing) then the AT rules make little sense, especially at the 1:1 scale.  A single tank is either dead or it isn't - the chance of a (mission) kill stays relatively steady- it doen't rely on a number of vehcles shootsing, except in 'lottery terms' - the more shots the more chance of a winning line.

[Luddite]

What makes BKC so good?

Right now I like FOW cause it's easy to learn and I don't have to spend time trying to figure out what can I play with army wise. I like fun and not wasting time looking up tables or having to tack stuff like in CBT.

There aren't any tables to reference in BKC...

At this point I should put out there what I play or played.
Impetus
Warmachine
40k
Wings of war
chaos in Carpatha 
BFG
CBT

I can see why you like FoW then.  Its definately in that stable...hehe...

What makes BKC so good?

Very little. 

Couldn't disagree more.   

The C&C rules, which every body lauds, make little sense in a number of situations- especially when firing.  I can shoot AUTOMATICALLY on reaction, but during my turn I can't. The standard reply is "Well not a billiard table/fold in the ground etc" which I understand, but a) why automatic shooting in reaction fire- surely those folds are still there and b) why does the location of the C/O make a difference to what I can see?

Its all about modelling battle friction and the ebb and flow of WWII conflict engagements, which many games fail to capture, some make a good stab at and BkC captures elegantly and almost perfectly.  For years we played Crossfire precisely for its accurate modelling of this friction, but BkC does it just as well and also adds in simple, elegant mechanics to model the combined arms nature of WWII, which Crossfire has always struggled with.

Do you feel the opportunity fire should be diced for rather than automatic?  No problem, simply introduce the house rule.
Opportunity perfectly reflects the key part of WWII battle friction - that of the ability of static troops (i.e. the side who's go it isn't and therefore the side that has momentarily lost initiative) to pin down advancing enemy who are vulnerable to fire while moving.

Troops 'on their turn' are subject to their command, and are therefore more occupied with taking initiative and following orders, making it far harder to react to the enemy (therefore requiring orders to shoot).

If it helps, its best to conceptualise (as in Crossfire) that movement and shooting is occurring all the time but the stuff you're dicing for are the critical actions during that phase of inititive friction...

BkC models this absolutely vital element of WWII battles brilliantly.  Unlike FoW which is...well...the rulebooks look pretty at least.

Additionally if 1 mode of a tank is a platton or single vehicle (depending what you are playing) then the AT rules make little sense, especially at the 1:1 scale.  A single tank is either dead or it isn't - the chance of a (mission) kill stays relatively steady- it doen't rely on a number of vehcles shootsing, except in 'lottery terms' - the more shots the more chance of a winning line.

That only applies if you assume that a hit is only a mechanical 'kill'.  A hit in BkC does not solely represent a tank 'brewing up' (in fact it defaults to one tank model actually representing a formation of tanks), but it represents the morale effects of taking fire also. 
Inexperienced tank crews (expecially Americans) could be forced to withdraw simply by small arms fire hitting their tank.  Unaware of what was being fired at them, the'd withraw rather than risk being under ranging fire from say a co-axial tank MG...

We've been playing many WWII rules for years.  Crossfire was our favourite, but BkC has replaced them becuase they are just so accurate and playable.

Still, each to their own.   

[Last Hussar]

Luddite your telling me nothing that I haven't been told before, and I didn't agree then either.  I've tried, I really have- the whole club is blind to the obvious faults.  I'll stick with the Lardies- rules written for the period, not a set of converted Ancients 

[sunjester]

Luddite your telling me nothing that I haven't been told before, and I didn't agree then either.  I've tried, I really have- the whole club is blind to the obvious faults.  I'll stick with the Lardies- rules written for the period, not a set of converted Ancients 

Says the man who has spent the past few weeks desperately selling me on Black Powder as the sliced bread for 18th century to FPW!!!

Personally I really like both BKC and IABSM/TW&T, depending on the level of action i want to represent. Both certainly get played at the Tring club. If I'm playing Last Hussar I play IABSM or TW&T, if I'm playing anyone else its BKC.

[nikharwood]

Nice debate fellas 

BKC for me -*every* time... not going to write an essay as it's been so eloquently 'pimped' here by others 

[grimreaper]

Each to there own, but myself i find BKC  rules better.   no rules are perfect and some need some mods made to them but they work well for me

[Stefanpanzer]

Blitzkreig Commander for me after 50 years of wargaming.