Just show'm your VISA card ...they perk right up !

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

How do you think the complexity compares to various forms of Epic?

Space Marine 2 had simple basic rules, complexities came in special rules.

Epic 40K (my favorite so far) was pretty abstract, and only had rules complexities in odd stuff like how assaults worked out.

Epic A seemed (to me) to reduce or increase detail in odd ways (I thought titans got reduced some, individual vehicles (landspeeders) got increased in detail).

I've played a bit of Warmaster, but imagine the detail goes above that a bit.

How does FWC compare?

thanks
andy

More detail than Warmaster in that there are shields, different unit sizes and weapon attributes (basically AT and AP) but less than Epic:A.

The added level of detail comes from the rules. Not that the rules are specifically more complex but that there are a lot more options to the game and this means that the game has an added tactical complexity.

_________________
Guns don't break formations. Blast Markers break formations.

I think overall the 'Commander' series of games (Blitz, Cold and Future) offers a more realistic view of the battlefield in terms of how your strategy is inacted.
E:A gives you the platoon/squadron eye view of the units,in that you exercise their response to your command. In the commander series you are better able to reflect how your overall battle plan is working in regard to the enemy you face and the terrain.

If you cam get the right command rolls you can roll up the flank without the enemy having a chance to respond, personally that is much more reflective of a realistic combat than the Igo-yougo format.

If it works there is nothing more satisfying than seeing your units pile through the enemy on your command, I think E:A is more reflective of the unit, not the command.

More interesting intell Boyz, thanks ! I think we ran across a similar paradigm when we experimented with using Epic Armies and Dirtside rules. Epic is a reflection of G/W's plethora of 40K infantry models. So hence, to try and stay with G/W's Fluff there had to be a lot special unit types and rules ... Dirtside really didn't have the infantry rules to compliment all of the G/W units ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

So if c&c is there for generals now when will recon be needed and god like views removed?

_________________
If using E-Bay use this link to support Tac Com!
'Abolish red trousers?! Never! Red trousers are France!' – Eugene Etienne, War Minister, 1913
"Gentlemen, we may not make history tomorrow, but we shall certainly change the geography."
General Plumer, 191x

Well got my copy of FWC today ... so I'm still digesting the rules, pics charts, etc. ... But I agree with Fred4050 and some others here. FWC is more of a realistic take on Sci-fi warfare. And Chaos didn't make the cut !      You could use the FWC MC(SM) and Red Grd(IG) stats for some of the Chaos units ... Deamons could use 7429 stats too.  I noticed that FWC takes into account Titan size targets, ie. Massive Units in the open are easier to hit ... Go figure ... who would have thought (obviously not G/W !!!) !! I also downloaded the Suggested Minis lists - well done !   So now feel DRM's SoW and FWC ARE superior to E:A, IMO ...  

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

I had a game last night with orks and marines - 2000 pts.

I think the rules are really good - but not really for Epic. Our game took 3 hours and the marines only had 20 stands! The orks had about 40 units. It didn't really give me the "epic" feel. On the other hand it felt really cool with the command and control aspect.

Epic Armageddon could easily handle 100 ork gunwagons in a major tank battle.. in FWC it would take forever to play I think.  

Be gentle - this is after just 1 game of play.  

_________________
If you suddenly find that I make any sense.... look out of your window for armageddon!

Now that is a good insight, KbD ...  If you play any more FWC games fill us in. For massive battles SM2/NetEpic is probably the best(and the SM2 is the ineration I liked the least!). But I think I'd still prefer, DRM SoW or FWC ...

_________________
Legion 4 "Cry Havoc, and let slip the Dogs of War !" ... "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

I've written a little bit about the game here: http://therandomencounter.blogspot.com/2008....ng.html

Shameless plug linking Inc.

_________________
If you suddenly find that I make any sense.... look out of your window for armageddon!

We've played about 8 FWC games now, and several observations have come out of it.
  If you can get 3 or 4 command passes in shooting range, it's pretty much 'game over'. Even the light stuff can take out heavy tanks with 4 shooting rounds while the enemy stands there with their hands in their pockets(or 1 Op fire).
  FWC is much more Igo-Ugo than E:A.
  Off board artillery is very powerful by comparison to other weapons. This is probably accurate, but makes for a less enjoyable game,
  Infantry are too slow to keep up unless in vehicles, which are often deathtraps with no passenger saves. No double moves like in E:A.
  I like the FWC points system & feel equal points armies in FWC are more "equal" than in E:A. Using any miniatures will certainly make recruiting new members easier in FWC.
  The bottom line for me I suppose is that the 2 systems are equal, but different. I'd like to play E:A with (more limited) Command rolls, a straight points value, command blunders, and FWC's detail or FWC with fixed units, 1 actvation, blast markers, and Epics different types of orders. I guess I'm just hard to please. Both are great games.