Battlefront have now caved in quoted from webby

http://www.flamesofwar.com/Default.aspx?tabid=57&art_id=3380

In all the years we have been in business we have had an open and honest policy about listening to our gamers and genuinely taking their views on board to the extent of sometimes changing our plans. We apologise for the confusion and angst our announcement has caused as it was never our intention. We did not see this change as a big problem as we were simply formalising something we already thought was existing practise, albeit informally.

In the interests of compromise and fairness to everybody’s opinion we will change the word “all” to “majority” (meaning over half) in the tournament rules for the 2013 season. 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. As is always the case, if you are unsure simply get in touch with your tournament organiser and clarify the situation but we are going to revert to the best option in all cases, common sense.

The new season rules take effect from the masters in December this year and only apply to the officially run Battlefront tournaments listed on our site. Independent tournaments are free to choose their own system, as they always have been.

One of the feedback ideas that did come back from our weekend conversations that we really liked was to also further reward people who came along with 100% Battlefront armies. This is an idea that we will definitely work on for the future.

We are committed to supporting and growing the Flames Of War hobby and want to invest more in the future, in events, the website and programs like the Rangers all of which we are happy to spend money on to provide this to you for free.

We want to thank our moderators for doing such a sterling job this weekend especially given they had no warning at all. We appreciate all the civil comments whether for or against. We feel that our compromise shows that we believed all views have merit. We hope this once again proves that we do listen.

It's that phrase 'Flames of War hobby' *SHUDDERING* 
A LOT of flamers got upset by that! How arrogently can you treat wwii!
Mad Lemmey

QuoteWe did not see this change as a big problem as we were simply formalising something we already thought was existing practise, albeit informally.

If this were actually the case, would it not have been better to mention it in the original statement and thus save a lot of grief? Looks to me like a rather transparent attempt to save red face.

Have to say I don't use FoW myself, preferring BKC and PBI,but some of their so-called intelligence briefings on the net and in WI are quite useful IMHO.

Mmmmmm, the accolade for the worst set of WW2 rules actually belongs to Rapid Fire, where a platoon of light tanks can machine gun to death an entire infantry company hiding at the bottom of trenches from 300m away 

I think I recall nuclear hand grenades as well, being on 50% chance of killing a tank!

Quote from: mad lemmey on 19 July 2012, 05:47:01 AM
It's that phrase 'Flames of War hobby' *SHUDDERING* 
A LOT of flamers got upset by that! How arrogently can you treat wwii!
Mad Lemmey

I think they probably meant "Flames of War franchise", which is what it is effectively.

Quote from: Hertsblue on 19 July 2012, 08:45:51 AM
I think they probably meant "Flames of War franchise", which is what it is effectively.

As I understand it, Battlefront was started by, and employs, a lot of ex-GW staff. So it's hardly surprising that they are following the same mind-set as GW.

According to GW, it's the GW hobby. And now Battlefront are saying the same thing.

From their point of view, if you enjoy Flames Of War, you're not enjoing the miniature WW2 wargaming hobby, you're enjoying the Flames Of War hobby.

Cheers, Martyn

Yep, set up by ex-GW employees who worked on 40K IIRC.

That's what I was told by a reliable source.

John-Paul Brisigotti (hope that's spelt right!) definitely ex-GW employee, as I remember him from WD magazine a good few years ago.

Hello All

Just to set the record straight. Battlefront was NOT started by anyone who had worked for GW. it was started by a group of New Zealand Wargamers who combined two companies to form Battlefront. They were Military Miniatures and Pendragon Games/Crusader Distributors. There was five individual partners and company called Replica Models (some of the original Military Miniatures owners). NONE of those involved were or had ever been GW employees. The first GW person to become involved was Matt Stevens, he became the Manager (never an owner) and he employed the first of the ex-GW staff. He was replaced by John-Paul, the current GM and now a part owner of Battlefront . He was the one who oversaw the largest expansion of Battlefront with new staff and new idea which Battlefront are following.

Battlefront was started with the idea of making WWII miniatures made by Evan Allen (one of the original owners) and the rules were to support that manufacturing. The rules were to be simple and quick and easy to play. The original concept was provided by Phil Yates, who is a New Zealand gamer and NEVER worked for GW.

Things have change  a lot since the first few years when it was kept going by the owners working on the weekends and holidays, providing lots of cash to keep the company going and pay for materials and did conventions funded by their full time jobs.  Only one of the founders is still involved, the other owner, John-Paul, was a late comer to Battlefront, all the others sold up or were brought out by the major shareholder. (he still is).

So PLEASE never say Battlefront was started by ex-GW staff as that would just piss me off. You can say it is now run by ex-GW staff which it is, but never started, it was started by New Zealand Gamers with good intentions.  So please be careful about reliable source.

Signed

David (one of the ex-founders of Battlefront and Proud New Zealand Gamer)  

Thanks for the update

Can I ask a question..If you dont want to answer  then thats ok

Do you like what Battlefront and Flames of War has developed  into?

I ask I was intrigued by your words it was started by New Zealand Gamers with good intentions

Or am I reading it with my TMP head on?

Cheers

Hi David,
many thanks for the background info on how they started out. Sorry for having caused any offense by my lack of background knowledge (see below) .

For all of the gamers that I know who have played FoW, they got into it with the release of the 2nd Edition rules. At the Bristol club that I used to attend it was an unknown ruleset before that. So IIRC (and apologies if I've got this wrong), John-Paul was involved at this point and that is why it was thought that it had been set up by ex-GW employees.

It certainly soon got the tag of WWII40K in our neck of the woods, for good or bad, followed by the (to me and my friends) very GW orientated marketing strategy, again for good or bad. Peter Pig certainly benefited from the interest generated by the 2nd Edition rules and the massive exposure to 15mm war gaming as it saw a large increase in their sales.

Hope the above makes clear where the errors on my part came from.

I was going to ask the same question Fenton! I would be very interested to hear your views David, what ever they may be.

There are a lot of ex-GW staff out there following a very different trading model.

Quote from: sultanbev on 19 July 2012, 08:37:33 AM
Mmmmmm, the accolade for the worst set of WW2 rules actually belongs to Rapid Fire, where a platoon of light tanks can machine gun to death an entire infantry company hiding at the bottom of trenches from 300m away 

I think I recall nuclear hand grenades as well, being on 50% chance of killing a tank!

All rules have their quirks, but FOW still beats RF hands down for the worst published set.

I'll see your Rapid Fire Light Tanks / nuclear hand grenades and raise you FOW's Universal Carriers.  Teleporting, invulnerable mega death machines.  Insane.



The real shame is that the figures are actually pretty good.  Scaling's out on some of the vehicles, and everything's overpriced, but still pretty nice for not-10mm figures.  The rules fail hard though.

In fact, that's where FOW & GW coincide...both decent models and dreadful rules...

Quote from: Squirrel on 15 July 2012, 08:32:42 PM
It's the way pretty much every other industry designs plastic mouldings, the CAD file is fed straight into the machine to cut the tool. With something like a vehicle it can be drawn more accurately quickly than sculpting.

Organic shapes, ie figures are more realistic if sculpted hence why the Perry's use 3 ups.

Cheers,

Kev

That explains why good vehicle models and good infantry models tend to come from different companies and why several make vehicles but not infantry. Thanks. This has become a short but high quality discussion.

Hello All

Sorry about my annoyed comments before, but Battlefront turned from a passon to something else, once the first ex-GW people got involved. I will not comment on the direction the company has taken as I am still friends with the principle owner (Not John-Paul) and he has a right to set the direction of the company make a profit after all the money he put in to develop it and keep it afloat over the years. They are also a very large employer for the industry and have a responsibility to provide a wage to their staff and a return to the investor. People will always try to cut down tall poppies, but Battlefront do a good job of creating a gaming world that interested people can adopt if they wish. Or not. You can buy the miniatures and don't have to buy the gaming style unless you want to. They created a world that may or not be what you like that is you as the customers choice. Don't like it don't buy into - don't buy into it don't complain. bit like voting - don't vote, don't complain about the people who get elected.

I do not play FOW or have any of the models anymore (take from that what you will) and have gone back to my first, second, third, .... passon(s), War of 1812, Franco-Prussan, SYW and rules writing. Also quite interested in AWBCW. I used to play RF and still like the rules - very modified, because they are quick and easy. They are not rules for anything other than friends playing so they can fix the issues it has, but its fun which is what I believe the hobby should be about. As you may have guessed I am not a competition gamer. I like my tea, cake, wine, lounge chair and miniatures all at the same time

I usual avoid comments about Battlefront and the business model they have adopted but seeing I have broken that by pointing out that I do not want to be assoicated with GW, I feel I might as well comment on what started this thread - that you must use Battlefront miniatures at FOW conventions. I don't see an issue. If Battlefront are running it or are sponsoring it then they have the right to dictate the terms. Its there convention, don't like it don't play. THis is the norm in most sponsorship deals, just look to the Olympic's or the last Rugby World cup. You don't give them money you brand name is nowhere. If Battlefront run or sponsor the event why should there compeditors be allowed in for free. If gamers think the rules for them are different from what is the norm with events they they are deluded. I'm not saying this is right, just the reality. If I but put a lot of money to build a company, employ staff and build a brand then why should I give free access to my competitors. They can run their own events with there own rules. This idea does not apply to any event that does not have the FOW brand on it, the event organisor can choose their own rules and if manufacture puts restriction on them they are within their rights to show them the door in a not so polite way.

Any here endth the lession

Regards

David Brasting

Thank you for your reply

In which case, Leon said it best earlier in the thread...

Quote from: LeonI can understand someone following certain aspects of the GW model, but what I don't get is why they then continue to make the same mistakes as GW.  You can't tell your customers what to do, or force them into a corner, it doesn't work that way.  GW get away with it a lot more as they're dealing with a younger market who probably aren't as financially aware.

I would suggest that the reason this kind of thing tends to extract the 'rage' from many wargamers is that 'the hobby' is at its heart amateur, and anything that smacks of corporate greed and consumer manipulation jars against that.


I wonder if we'll see Osprey start chucking out 15mm plastics for Field of Glory?

Was not the Pendraken painting competition limited to Pendraken models only? Did not hear too many complaints about that on here.